Is Quirky or Controversial architecture inherently good architecture ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Think about it.

Has conventional architecture become boring.

Doesn't "quirky" architecture equate to fun golf ?

Does controversial architecture connote a radical departure from what's accepted today versus what was routinely accepted 80 years ago ?

Have golfers and the culture of golf regressed over the last 80 years ?

[cary lichtenstein]

I enjoy quirky architecture, but that does not necessarilly make it good.

There is a fine line between quirky and stupid and it takes a lot of talent to do quirky correctly.

[Sean Leary]

I agree with Cary. It seems to me that firm and fast conditions often times make something quirky that would otherwise be stupid....

[paul cowley]

....what for most is considered quirky now,..... was not considered quirky then.......but we, as designers of today, need to foresee and try to accommodate the quirks of tomorrow...cool .

[RJ_Daley]

If the quirk is a clever and playable way to meet a terrain oddity in the design and routing, I like that.  If the quirk is purposefully built in, it better be good, have some ultimate rhyme or reason (even if it takes a few times to figure it out).  To build quirk that ultimately never has playability and strategy, is goofy.

I think that when it first appeared, folks looked at Tobacco Road as quirky, designed and shaped out that way, yet began to love it because it has rhyme and reason.  It has various strategy and is not quirky just to be off the wall.  Part of the course meets quirky definitions because it was designed on some odd property in places.  But whether designed to use odd corners of the property in those places, or where they actually manufactured quirk, it works nicely, IMHO.

Probably, Des Muirhead went overboard on quirk at Stone Harbor from what I've heard... haven't actually seen it or played it in person.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

After that super wild (quirky) green Mackenzie did at Sitwell Park very early in his career can you name me something he did that could be considered quirky?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

That green is really quirky.
I wonder what CBM would think of it ?

Quickly, off the top of my head, I'd say the boomerang 9th green at ANGC with the bunker in the elbow.

The 15th followed by the 16th at CPC.
The 9th at CPC
And, perhaps the 13th at ANGC.

I"m sure there are more, but, I need a night's rest to remember them.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom P:

Crystal Downs certainly has a bit of quirk to it, and that was after Sitwell Park.

But, I agree with everyone above.  There is a very fine line between cool and silly, and young designers get on the wrong side of it all the time.  Is that more commendable than building a bunch of tried and true holes?  Probably, if they learn the difference.  But it doesn't make the silly holes good.

[Jim Sweeney]

Pat andf TEP:

One would have to include the 7th green at Crystal Downs and the 16th green at Pasatiempo.

Personaly I like quirky, especially if it forces one to hit different clubs off the tees to get to the prime approach points.

Here's a spin off question, without (please) starting the same old discussion.....

Has modern euipment made any traditional-conventional courses quirky?

For example, there is a little course in Lexington called Picadome which is really fun. In today's game many players will power the tee shot through doglegs, something that would not have happened too often in the persimmon/balata era. (Picadome was originally built in the thirties.)

Now players can hit a variety of clubs from to the sloping, angular landing areas- there are actually more options now!

Certainly there are many "Picadome"s in the world.

[Mark_F]

I would say a great many golfers have regressed over time - except when they are playing old time classics, of course.

Do something out of left field today, and people just don't want to get it.

But maybe that is the fine line we are talking about.

To wit: remember the wildfire that surrounded our Australian GCA gathering at St Andrews Beach earlier this year, the course which some may describe as seriously quirky.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

But, isn't it easier to take an overly quirky hole and subdue it, rather than take a bland hole and improve it ?

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

I'm not sure if that is true or not.  Look at what happened to the 12th at Garden City.  

A lot of quirky holes involve severe greens, and it is not at all easy (or inexpensive) to take the quirkiness out of a green -- a USGA green, anyway.

Many of the rest involve a major routing decision which is very complicated to reverse.  I guess you could take some of the sideslope out of a fairway, or some of the blindness out of a tee shot or second shot after the fact, but making it look like it belongs is much much easier the first time around.

[T_MacWood]

Pat:

After that super wild (quirky) green Mackenzie did at Sitwell Park very early in his career can you name me something he did that could be considered quirky?

#8 and #9 at Cypress Point (#18?). Jockey Club and Bayside both pretty odd designs. The 8th at ANGC and similar green planned at Ohio State. The old 7th at ANGC, which was redesigned. UMichigan had some really quirky horseshoe greens as are some of the greens at Pasatiempo. The island fairways and greens at Pebble Beach and Sharp Park. The short par-4 at Adelaide.

In fact if you look at the short par-4s at Crystal Down, ANGC, Cypress Point, etc, quirky short par-4s appear to be a speciality of MacKenzie.

[TEPaul]

Jim Sweeney:

That example of Picadome and modern equipment actually creating more options is an interesting one to consider.

Persoanally, I think options and options that really function, that are really used because they really do tempt players is the only real indication of the interest and quality of many holes and probably architecture generally.

If modern equipment happens to uncover some options on some holes that were never used before because they were never possible due to equipment in the past then we obviously need to recognize that fact and condone it.

This gets into something I was thinking about earlier and that is how a club could make their holes as variety-laden as possible simply by setting them up for vastly different lengths, some generally shorter. Clearly one way is to be able to sort of mix up tee locations but in a real way the rating and handicap posting system kind of limits that.

I think I'll call the USGA to discuss what could be done to alleviate that problem and create much greater ability to really mix up tee locations on holes and still be able to post a legitimate score for handicapping purposes.

I've been watching the pro tournament at Pebble Beach for decades now and I think it would be impossible to deny that the added length of today's tour pros has most certainly made PB's #18 a whole lot more interesting than it ever has been before now that so many of them are tempted to go at that dangerous 18th green in two. About five or more years ago virtually no one was tempted to do that because there was no way they could get there anyway.

[TEPaul]

"#8 and #9 at Cypress Point (#18?). Jockey Club and Bayside both pretty odd designs. The 8th at ANGC and similar green planned at Ohio State. The old 7th at ANGC, which was redesigned. UMichigan had some really quirky horseshoe greens. The short par-4 at Adelaide.

In fact if you look at the short par-4s at Crystal Down, ANGC, Cypress Point, etc, quirky short par-4s appear to be a speciality of MacKenzie."

Tom MacWood:

Those are some good examples even though I'm not sure I would call them quirky---probably just highly unusual holes. However, one of the common themes on almost all of them is the landforms he used for those holes are all remarkably natural, in other words he did precious little to all of them to use them as golf holes. The ultimate of them all that way is clearly CPC's #9. The before and after photos of that hole clearly show all MacKenzie really did there is clear away some brush and just seed a natural fairway site and a totally natural green site. Basically all the sand area was left as is with the exception of one small bunker he installed down the right side which he certainly didn't have to do.

Perhaps the quirkiest hole at Crystal Downs is the 17th. That too is basically just a natural landform left basically alone but personally I've never been all that convinced it works particularly well for golf.  

In the old days those guys had another word that was probably somewhat synonymous with what we call "quirky" today. They called some holes "fluky" which of course had somewhat more of a negative connotation than quirky does today.
 
 

[paul cowley]

For me the Leatherstocking course in Cooperstown, NY [Dev Em], is a great example of evolutionary quirk, or quirk that was not necessarily intended when it was built, but developed over time as the game began to outgrow it.
There are no holes that are jarringly quirky, just a few blind shots here and there and some somewhat funky land forms, many of which were original, with the course built over and around them.

It is one of my all time favorites and it has a hard to describe character that makes me want to smile a little when I think about it.....like something that is a little lame but you love it all the more because of it.

With all that being said, the course is probably becoming a good candidate for a parectomy sometime in its future.

[T_MacWood]

Tom MacWood:

Those are some good examples even though I'm not sure I would call them quirky---probably just highly unusual holes. However, one of the common themes on almost all of them is the landforms he used for those holes are all remarkably natural, in other words he did precious little to all of them to use them as golf holes. The ultimate of them all that way is clearly CPC's #9. The before and after photos of that hole clearly show all MacKenzie really did there is clear away some brush and just seed a natural fairway site and a totally natural green site. Basically all the sand area was left as is with the exception of one small bunker he installed down the right side which he certainly didn't have to do.

Perhaps the quirkiest hole at Crystal Downs is the 17th. That too is basically just a natural landform left basically alone but personally I've never been all that convinced it works particularly well for golf.  

In the old days those guys had another word that was probably somewhat synonymous with what we call "quirky" today. They called some holes "fluky" which of course had somewhat more of a negative connotation than quirky does today.
 

TE
I'm not sure I see a distinction between quirky and highly unusual. One man's quirk is another man's highly unusual.

The 7th and 8th green complexes at ANGC were not the result of natural landforms...they were the result of Caterpillar tractors. The same case with Bayside and Jockey. (From what I understand there were a lot earth movers rolling around Cypress Point as well). I do not believe the islands of fairway and island greens amongst the man-made dunes created at Sharp Park and Pebble Beach were natural landforms either. Likewise the unusual greens at Crystal Downs, Michigan and Pasatiempo.

What is your point regarding MacKenzie and quirk?

[PThomas]

Perhaps the quirkiest hole at Crystal Downs is the 17th. That too is basically just a natural landform left basically alone but personally I've never been all that convinced it works particularly well for golf.  

17 is my favorite hole there!

[Forrest Richardson]

I think quirky has a better chance of cutting through the clutter of mundane golf experiences. But, too much of anything is not at all good. The trick is to balance quirky with solid.

[Phil McDade]

"And, perhaps the 13th at ANGC."

By what standard is the 13th at Augusta quirky/controversial?

For me, quirk incorporates one and/or two themes explained in previous posts -- a highly unusual, man-made feature of a course (some aspects of greens design, e.g.), or the use of odd/unconventional land forms being utilized strategically in the design of a hole.

Jack Nicklaus, for one, referred to the 13th at ANGC as one of the most natural golf holes he'd ever played -- in that the hole was laid out to take advantage of the land as it was presented, and the land itself presented numerous strategic options. A shortish (even when it was built) par 5, with a creek bordering its entire left side, and the lay of the land making the 2nd shot easier (because of the level lie, as pointed out in a previous ANGC thread) the closer you flirt with the creek, and harder if you bail out to the right. The creek then cuts across the land, making the far side of the creek an obvious and natural green site. The creek is utilized strategically again, because it runs at an angle away from the player, and somewhat parallel to the length of the green  -- the 2nd shot going for the green calls for a long fade, but creates greater risk. And should the player decide to lay up, the short approach shot is from uneven and perhaps a downhill lie.

Too obvious (but I'll say it anyway) caveat -- I've never seen or played the hole in person, only on TV and videotapes.

[TEPaul]

"TE
I'm not sure I see a distinction between quirky and highly unusual. One man's quirk is another man's highly unusual."

Tom MacWood:

Of course it is. Those are just words anyway with no real precise definition to them as they're being used on here. But even if they did have precise defiintions and we knew exactly what they were we still may look at things differently. God knows you and I certainly don't look at all things to do with golf architecture the same way. Frankly, that's the beauty of the entire subject of golf and golf architecture and the art form of golf architecture, or frankly any art form for that matter---eg few look at much about any of it in the same way. If it were otherwise it probably wouldn't be half so interesting or vibrant. Sometimes I suspect that too many on here don't undestand that and think golf architecture would be much better served if there was far more consensus of opinion in a gneral sense.

Do you really think it should be otherwise?  

[Philippe Binette]

Quote from Sean:
#2 (at Cruden Bay) Not my favorite hole because of the approach - downwind it is damn near impossible to hold the green.  The hole is at best ok, but if was in charge the hole would be changed.  Probably soften the approach a bit.

The difficulty of the approach make you want to play on the high left fairway, closer to the gorse (which is 12 yards wide or so), from there the approach is easier.

I think it's a great hole since it's short enough to make the strategy possible.

If you hit the ball down on the right and the pin is right, and you're going for it, then it's a bad decision from the player, not the architect

[Kirk Gill]

It's conversations like this that make me think about the similarities between gca and regular ol' architecture.

In both, the problem with quirk can be living with it on a day-to-day basis. Sometimes quirk is something that is best experienced either from a far or in small doses, and isn't something I want in my life every single day.

What if Frank Lloyd Wright designed a house where the space for the toilet was a bit cramped and narrow, to the point that it was uncomfortable to use? It might look incredible. It might even be considered by some to be of architectural significance. It might also be a pain for the current owner of the house to have to use every day.

It seems to me that quirky elements in golf course design that have lasted manage to pass that crucial test - that they haven't become a pain for the membership to endure, and instead provide spark and interest that can be maintained over time.

[TEPaul]

"What is your point regarding MacKenzie and quirk?"

My point is that natural landform holes like Mackenzie's CPC #9 might be considered "quirk" by some but they are different to me because he used a wholly natural landform in the case of #9. In other words, he changed that hole just about as little as it is possible to change a total golf hole. The before and after photos prove that beyond question. Furthermore, I doubt I would label CPC's 9th (or many of his others cited) as quirk. To me they are simply highly unusual holes in both look and play. Optionally they hold their strategic concepts up brilliantly.

I just don't see MacKenzie, certanly in the latter part of his career, actually constructing (physically builiding) golf features of the like of GCGC, particularly the radical green berms on GCGC's 12th hole.

I'm not saying I don't like GCGC's 12th hole, I do, it's just that to me it is a vastly different style and type of golf architecture than Mackenzie did, particularly in the latter part of his career.

The thing that fascinates me most about golf architecture is the eras and the evolution of it and both how and why such vastly different things were done at various places and times, and furthermore the fact that some (of course not all) of it managed to be both very interesting and very good for the actual playing of golf.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

What difference does it make if the quirk is visualized and constructed on a natural land form or artificially on an amended land form ?

We could certainly say that alot of the quirk at NGLA is artificial, as designed and constructed by CBM.
Does that make it any less worthy ?

If the architect can visualize and create a quirky feature or hole that integrates well with the game of golf and other holes, irrespective of a natural or manmade land form, the golfer benefits.

Isn't that one of the ultimate tasks for the architect ?

To create a field of play that's interesting, challenging and fun ?

The old 12th at GCGC would seem to fit that description.

It was challenging at 200 yards with deep fronting and backing horseshoe bunkers, interesting because of the surrounds and putting surface with those three mounds, and fun, because a golfer could have his margins of error narrowed or expanded depending upon which side of the mounds hes ball landed on.   In addition, playing back over those mounds had to be interesting, irrespective of the club of choice.

One look at the old green tells you that that hole wasn't just sitting there waiting to have the brush cleared and the ground seeded.

It was created by a visionary who saw the merits of the design as they integrated with the game of golf.