News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


T_MacWood

Re:Is Quirky or Controversial architecture inherently good architecture ?
« Reply #25 on: October 18, 2006, 01:28:46 PM »
TE
Please explain. Sitwell Park is quirk...12th at GCGC is quirk....the crazy mounds at Bayside, ANGC and Jockey aren't quirk....the bommerang greens at Crystal Down, Michigan, Pasatiempo and ANGC aren't quirk. Something having to do with natural landforms is your reasoning...I don't think you know what you are talking about.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Is Quirky or Controversial architecture inherently good architecture ?
« Reply #26 on: October 18, 2006, 07:05:00 PM »

Patrick:

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

Tom,

I've thought alot about that, and the more I analyzed it, the more I came to a different conclusion.

I think we could agree that the quirk in the 12th hole was centered on the three mounds within the green.

If one wanted to remove those quirky features, it would have been a simple task to peel off the grass/turf/sod, remove the dirt that formed the mounds, and then replace the grass/turf/sod, removing any excess.

This would have left the bunkers, surrounds and general putting surface intact.  But, that didn't happen.

Instead of just removing the quirk, confined to a highly limited area, the entire hole is decimated.

Someone chose to eliminate the entire hole and replace it with a totally new hole courtesy of the hot "Designer of the Times", RTJ.

My read is as follows:

The superintendent couldnt maintain the green, and not just the three mounds within the green.
The green was overwatered, and became mushy.
Without security fencing, kids from near and far came and rode their bikes on these neat mounds, just like dirt bikers do today with dirt mounds/hills, thus damaging, eroding and compromising the architectural features, making them and the rest of the green even more difficult to maintain.

The culmination of this was a superintendent who lobbied the club for the replacement of the hole.

The club, upon observing the condition of the green agreed.
But, they never considered that the fault was with the superintedent, choosing instead to focus on the object of his dilema.

Thus, the question for the club became ?  Who do we retain to fix the problem ?

The answer ?  Who's hot in architecture today, who's available, who's local ?

The answer ?   RTJ.

So, RTJ is brought in, looks at the hole, comes up with a completely different design, gives it to a contractor and Voila, the new 12th hole.


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.

Agreed, USGA greens present a special problem.

But, why remove the offset bunkering, 10 or more yards removed from the green ?

Especially when they weren't part of the alleged problem ?


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.

Have you seen quirk so pronounced, so over the top, that it demanded removal or immediate alteration ?

In what form did this occur ?  Was it in the Greens, bunkering, surrounds, etc., etc.. ?


« Last Edit: October 18, 2006, 07:07:04 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

Bill Gayne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Is Quirky or Controversial architecture inherently good architecture ?
« Reply #27 on: October 18, 2006, 07:23:48 PM »
Quirk is great when it's original and fits the land. Quirk that has been repeated or replicated is like Vin Scully's baseball cliches. It's great when Vin uses them because they're original and has his unique style. When copied by others the expressions are tired cliches.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2006, 07:24:38 PM by Bill Gayne »

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Is Quirky or Controversial architecture inherently good architecture ?
« Reply #28 on: October 18, 2006, 07:32:13 PM »
Bill Gayne,

Why wasn't that the case with CBM, SR and CB ?

Why did their quirk survive, if not thrive for over 80 years ?

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Is Quirky or Controversial architecture inherently good architecture ?
« Reply #29 on: October 18, 2006, 08:32:35 PM »
Bill — "...when it's original and fits the land."

Are you saying that a quirky feature would be bad when it is not original? What do you mean by original? There when the course was first built? If so, what does that have to do with it?
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Bill Gayne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Is Quirky or Controversial architecture inherently good architecture ?
« Reply #30 on: October 18, 2006, 09:07:51 PM »
Forrest, I wrote my comments with the thought of quirk being along the lines the of the Klondyke and Dell back to back. At Lahinch it works great because it flows with the routing and fits into the land. Now if these two holes were routinely replicated, the copies wouldn't work. In most any other setting I probably wouldn't care for the two holes.

I haven't played the course but I think of the sixth at Riviera with the bunker in the green as quirky. It works at Riviera and it was an early original. But most modern greens with bunkers in the center I think of as gimmicky.

Patrick, give me an example of a specific CBM, SR, CB feature that was quirky when built, often replicated, and the copies are widely accepted as still being quirky? My general answer to your question would be that CBM, SR, CB were pioneers in this country and their work was original. Much of the quirk has evolved into standard.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2006, 09:14:52 PM by Bill Gayne »

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Is Quirky or Controversial architecture inherently good architecture ?
« Reply #31 on: October 18, 2006, 09:18:31 PM »

Patrick, give me an example of a specific CBM, SR, CB feature that was quirky when built, often replicated, and the copies are widely accepted as still being quirky?

Bill Gayne,

Every one of their "Redan" "Biarritz" and "Alps" holes.
Every "Double Plateau" hole.

You could probably throw in "Punchbowl" holes too


My general answer to your question would be that CBM, SR, CB were pioneers in this country and their work was original.

It was only original once, mostly at NGLA, after that it became a template design philosophy.


Much of the quirk has evolved into standard.

I don't think that the "Alps" "Redan", Double Plateau, Punchbowl and Biarritz have evolved into "standard".


« Last Edit: October 18, 2006, 09:19:29 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

TEPaul

Re:Is Quirky or Controversial architecture inherently good architecture ?
« Reply #32 on: October 18, 2006, 10:45:12 PM »
"Something having to do with natural landforms is your reasoning...I don't think you know what you are talking about."

Tom MacWood:

Coming from what I consider to be a total idiot on architecture like you I take that as a real compliment.

T_MacWood

Re:Is Quirky or Controversial architecture inherently good architecture ?
« Reply #33 on: October 18, 2006, 10:52:18 PM »
TE
Please explain. Sitwell Park is quirk...12th at GCGC is quirk....the crazy mounds at Bayside, ANGC and Jockey aren't quirk....the bommerang greens at Crystal Down, Michigan, Pasatiempo and ANGC aren't quirk. Something having to do with natural landforms is your reasoning...I don't think you know what you are talking about.

TE
I may be an idot, but I know the quirky landforms at Bayside, ANGC and Jockey are not natural...nor are the boomerangs at CD, UM, Pasa & ANGC. Now I know you don't what you are talking about.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2006, 06:48:51 AM by Tom MacWood »

Richard Phinney

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Is Quirky or Controversial architecture inherently good architecture ?
« Reply #34 on: October 19, 2006, 05:54:34 AM »
I think this is becoming an extraordinarily important question when it comes to links courses, and especially in Ireland where the tremendous influx in money to golf courses, has given virtually every club the wherewithal to "modernize" their links.  If quirk becomes equated with old-fashioned then many of the best links holes in the world become endangered.

It is remarkable, really, how many of my favourite links holes simply would not be designed today.

The Road Hole at St. Andrews is the classic example. A modern architect would be severely criticised for such a penal bunker, which makes it impossible, really, for anyone to get the ball close to the hole except with the most benign pin positions. The quirkiness of the 17th at St Andrews frustrates even the best professionals today, who are just not used to playing what is really a par 4-and-a-half hole, and who often refuse to play the hole sensibly.    

The Road Hole surivives, because it is at St. Andrews, and perhaps because it IS so difficult and remains one of the few holes that require no Tiger defences.  But there are countless less well known holes that are in danger of being "ironed out" with earth shaping equipment as clubs try desperately to maintain their position in, or rise up the rankings.

Shorter holes (like the Klondyke, though that is a very extreme example of what I am talking about), which are still an immense joy to play for all but the very best golfers, are most at risk.  Most are "quirky", as others have said, because they include natural formations that could not, at the time, be shifted or altered.  Also at risk are very old (and natural) green sites that haven't been shaped to meet the visual fad of the day.

To be fair to golf architects, I think they are often the first to want to preserve the truly ideosyncratic holes that make golf so enjoyable.  Mackenzie left the Dell well enough alone, Simpson did the same at the fourth at Baltray (and surely in the case of many holes in Ballybunion), the Matterhorn is still there at Portsalon, and I understand that at Dooks, Hawtree and company wanted to keep the famous saucer shaped green. "I'd get fired if I designed that hole," he apparently said. Exactly.

But when a historic course like Royal Dublin positively enthuses (this is a Harry Colt course remember) about its "magnificent programme of improvement..that has adjusted the architecture of every hole." I think things have the potential to careen out of control.

There's obviously room for disagreement on the merits of particular changes to any golf course, but I think we are in danger of losing, in a wholesale manner, some of golf's precious "genetic diversity."

T_MacWood

Re:Is Quirky or Controversial architecture inherently good architecture ?
« Reply #35 on: October 19, 2006, 06:41:16 AM »
Shouldn't there be a statute of limitations on quirk? In other words if quirk has survived a certain number of years (and survived the critical eye of a few great to very good golf architects) shouldn't it get a free lifetime pass?

TEPaul

Re:Is Quirky or Controversial architecture inherently good architecture ?
« Reply #36 on: October 19, 2006, 09:10:43 AM »
"Shouldn't there be a statute of limitations on quirk? In other words if quirk has survived a certain number of years (and survived the critical eye of a few great to very good golf architects) shouldn't it get a free lifetime pass?"

Tom MacWood:

You really don't get it do you? You really are a dreamer. Who do you think is realistically going to give old quirk a stature of limitations or a free lifetime pass?

Are you still entertaining the idea of some William Morris inspired organization for golf architecture like his SPAB for historic buildings and cathedrals and such? Do you really think enough independently owned and operated golf courses are going to pay attention to that? How much effect did Morris' SPAB have anyway?

What do you think those of us who get out and around to golf courses are talking to them about? Why don't you get off your ass and out of your Ivory Tower in Ohio and join us? You may help some of the old quirk out there if you did like we are trying to do with clubs we are able to get involved with. Yesterday I got calls from two more clubs looking to start down the road to one form of architectural or maintenance restoration. You need to get real and get involved.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2006, 09:14:45 AM by TEPaul »

T_MacWood

Re:Is Quirky or Controversial architecture inherently good architecture ?
« Reply #37 on: October 19, 2006, 12:53:52 PM »
"Shouldn't there be a statute of limitations on quirk? In other words if quirk has survived a certain number of years (and survived the critical eye of a few great to very good golf architects) shouldn't it get a free lifetime pass?"

Tom MacWood:

You really don't get it do you? You really are a dreamer. Who do you think is realistically going to give old quirk a stature of limitations or a free lifetime pass?

Are you still entertaining the idea of some William Morris inspired organization for golf architecture like his SPAB for historic buildings and cathedrals and such? Do you really think enough independently owned and operated golf courses are going to pay attention to that? How much effect did Morris' SPAB have anyway?

What do you think those of us who get out and around to golf courses are talking to them about? Why don't you get off your ass and out of your Ivory Tower in Ohio and join us? You may help some of the old quirk out there if you did like we are trying to do with clubs we are able to get involved with. Yesterday I got calls from two more clubs looking to start down the road to one form of architectural or maintenance restoration. You need to get real and get involved.

I'll take that as a no.

I'd love to join you on your road show unfortunately I've got this thing called a job, not to mention a wife and family...I know, I know excuses excuses. Keep up the good work.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Is Quirky or Controversial architecture inherently good architecture ?
« Reply #38 on: October 19, 2006, 04:07:19 PM »
Tom MacWood,

While the concept of a "Safe Harbor" for courses/holes that survive a designated time limit is an interesting theory, practically, it could never be enforced.

I think the only way to "enforce" it is through public opinion and peer pressure, and that would take a Herculian educational effort.

« Last Edit: October 19, 2006, 04:07:47 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

Phil Benedict

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Is Quirky or Controversial architecture inherently good architecture ?
« Reply #39 on: October 19, 2006, 05:27:13 PM »

The Road Hole at St. Andrews is the classic example. A modern architect would be severely criticised for such a penal bunker, which makes it impossible, really, for anyone to get the ball close to the hole except with the most benign pin positions. The quirkiness of the 17th at St Andrews frustrates even the best professionals today, who are just not used to playing what is really a par 4-and-a-half hole, and who often refuse to play the hole sensibly.    


I thought what made the Road Hole quirky is that you aim your drive at a billboard!  The Road Hole bunker is a great feature.  In fact, the one of the greatest things about links golf from what I can see is that the bunkers still serve as hazards for the best golfers, which is not the case in modern architecture.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Is Quirky or Controversial architecture inherently good architecture ?
« Reply #40 on: October 19, 2006, 10:32:39 PM »
Phil,

There's no doubt that driving over a railway shed is quirky.
But, so is the presence of a road and wall immediately behind the green.  And, the deep fronting strategic bunker might be additional evidence of quirkiness when added to the others.
And, the road hole green is very unique.

It's configuration and juxtaposition with the road and/or bunker/ing makes for incredible strategy with varying hole locations.

CBM, SR and I believe CB built a number of them.

The 7th at NGLA is my favorite, but, the 8th at Piping Rock isn't bad.

The fact that you can't find many of those greens and surrounds would seem to indicate that they're unique, if not quirky.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2006, 10:33:47 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

TEPaul

Re:Is Quirky or Controversial architecture inherently good architecture ?
« Reply #41 on: October 20, 2006, 07:19:08 AM »
"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?"

Pat:

This is the fundamental question. And to take that question BACK one step, the question is not just what is the differenece but IS there a difference?

These fundamental questions are at the heart of Max Behr's philosophy of what natural golf should be, and, on the other hand, what golf had become, or was in danger of becoming. Behr felt that golf had become or was in danger of becoming a "game" shot through with a series of rationale ideas that had led to man-made standardizations involving architecture. He also felt that this was simply not the way of nature.

He went further to conclude that if the golfer looked at the same exact situation on a golf hole before him and he perceived that what was before him to challenge him and perhaps trip him up was clearly the work of some other man (an artifiicility create by an architect) RATHER than the work of Nature, he would then criticize it, fight with it in his mind, and probably want to change it.

One, of course, then needs to ask, if Behr was right about that then why was he right? He contended that the golfer (Man) was simply more inherently capable of accepting something before him to challenge him and perhaps trip him up that he perceived to be the work of nature RATHER than the work of man.

Obviously he felt that man felt Nature itself both was and could be, and perhaps should be, more dominant in relation to him than some other man should be.

TEPaul

Re:Is Quirky or Controversial architecture inherently good architecture ?
« Reply #42 on: October 20, 2006, 07:25:11 AM »
By the way, Patrick, if you have not realized it or suspected it before, THE (best) answers to those fundamental questions in the post above, ARE The WAY, THE TRUTH, and THE LIGHT to natural golf and natural golf architecture.  ;)

Phil Benedict

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Is Quirky or Controversial architecture inherently good architecture ?
« Reply #43 on: October 20, 2006, 09:06:23 AM »
Phil,

There's no doubt that driving over a railway shed is quirky.
But, so is the presence of a road and wall immediately behind the green.  


The Road Hole is arguably the greatest golf hole in the world isn't it?  And its primary features are more than just quirky - they are unique.  Is there any other great hole in the world where the aiming point for your tee shot is a building that you hit over?  How often do a road and stone wall routinely come into play on a golf hole?  Do any of the CBM/SR replica road holes come close to the original?  The 4th at Yale is a great golf hole, but at the end of the day it's just a tough par 4.

T_MacWood

Re:Is Quirky or Controversial architecture inherently good architecture ?
« Reply #44 on: October 20, 2006, 09:15:39 AM »
Tom MacWood,

While the concept of a "Safe Harbor" for courses/holes that survive a designated time limit is an interesting theory, practically, it could never be enforced.

I think the only way to "enforce" it is through public opinion and peer pressure, and that would take a Herculian educational effort.


I was speaking from a philosophical point of view...I'm not advocating laws be written and penalties enforced.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2006, 09:16:09 AM by Tom MacWood »

TEPaul

Re:Is Quirky or Controversial architecture inherently good architecture ?
« Reply #45 on: October 20, 2006, 09:48:05 AM »
PhilB:

It is a never-ending mystery why a hole like TOC's Road Hole continues to be held in such high esteem while at the same time no one has ever seemed to be able to muster the guts to basically copy it just as it is.

This is one of the eternal mysteries about golf and golf architecture that even the most penetrating authors have never come up with an ideal answer.

Perhaps that's as it should be. If it were otherwise, perhaps then golf and golf architecture would have become more rational and logical than it should be.  :)

Phil Benedict

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Is Quirky or Controversial architecture inherently good architecture ?
« Reply #46 on: October 20, 2006, 10:06:13 AM »
PhilB:

It is a never-ending mystery why a hole like TOC's Road Hole continues to be held in such high esteem while at the same time no one has ever seemed to be able to muster the guts to basically copy it just as it is.

This is one of the eternal mysteries about golf and golf architecture that even the most penetrating authors have never come up with an ideal answer.

Perhaps that's as it should be. If it were otherwise, perhaps then golf and golf architecture would have become more rational and logical than it should be.  :)


I don't really know the history but my guess is that the real estate that makes the hole unique was there before the golf course, so the Road Hole was basically shaped into pre-existing man-made features whose original purpose had nothing to do with golf.  That's hard to replicate and any attempt to do so would appear contrived, whereas in its own way, the Road Hole is "natural" in that very little change was made to the surrounding land and structures to accommodate the golf hole.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Is Quirky or Controversial architecture inherently good architecture ?
« Reply #47 on: October 20, 2006, 06:53:17 PM »

"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?"

Pat:

This is the fundamental question. And to take that question BACK one step, the question is not just what is the differenece but IS there a difference?

These fundamental questions are at the heart of Max Behr's philosophy of what natural golf should be, and, on the other hand, what golf had become, or was in danger of becoming. Behr felt that golf had become or was in danger of becoming a "game" shot through with a series of rationale ideas that had led to man-made standardizations involving architecture. He also felt that this was simply not the way of nature.

He went further to conclude that if the golfer looked at the same exact situation on a golf hole before him and he perceived that what was before him to challenge him and perhaps trip him up was clearly the work of some other man (an artifiicility create by an architect) RATHER than the work of Nature, he would then criticize it, fight with it in his mind, and probably want to change it.

One, of course, then needs to ask, if Behr was right about that then why was he right? He contended that the golfer (Man) was simply more inherently capable of accepting something before him to challenge him and perhaps trip him up that he perceived to be the work of nature RATHER than the work of man.

Obviously he felt that man felt Nature itself both was and could be, and perhaps should be, more dominant in relation to him than some other man should be.


TEPaul,

My tendency, on a given issue, is NOT to take the word of one individual as The Gospel, including Behr's.

How many times did Behr play NGLA or other courses that were the work of CBM, SR & CB ?

Certainly, to the keen observer, one cannot ignore the hand of man in crafting the challenge confronting the golfer at NGLA.

I don't think that a golfer with keen powers of observation finds that the challenge is diminished or any less appealilng due to man's hand, heavy or light.

Tom Doak declared that Shadow Creek was a golf course of merit, architecturally and from the aspect of playability.

Has anyone approached the first tee at SC thinking that nature had crafted the golf course ?  Has anyone walked off the 18th green thinking the same ?  Yet, the golf course is meritorious.

Perhaps Behr was really expressing his preference for continuity and harmony in the context of the golf course and the site.

Don't forget, Behr was involved with architecture long before the DEP.  He was involved at a time when man could employ whatever techniques he desired in order to craft a golf course.

Today, that luxury doesn't exist.

When you play the 8th hole at Hidden Creek, do you feel it's a hole left there by nature, just waiting for C&C to clear brush and seed, or, is the hand of man heavy in its application of construction techniques, resulting in a golf hole that's challenging, sporty, and fun, but, clearly....... unnatural.

Does that make it any less acceptable or challenging ?

I don't think so.

Again, perhaps Behr was refering to continuity of design, the harmony between the holes, and/or style.

The next time I speak with him, I'll ask the question for you.

TEPaul

Re:Is Quirky or Controversial architecture inherently good architecture ?
« Reply #48 on: October 20, 2006, 09:32:58 PM »
"How many times did Behr play NGLA or other courses that were the work of CBM, SR & CB"

Pat:

Max Behr certainly played NGLA more than I have and probably more than you have. Behr also knew Macdonald, something neither of us can say. It's OK to say you don't take the word of one person but I think you should think twice about placing your opinions or understanding of the architecture of that time in any way ahead of Max Behr's. I sure do know I feel that way.

It's a supreme irony that Behr's writing style was as old fashioned, odd or grandiloquent as it was because it really does take some time to understand precisely what he was saying and getting at. But if one takes the time I think they will find he looked more perspicaciouly into not just golf architecture but golf itself and even the psyche of the golfer more than any man ever has.

For either of us to think we are capable, at this point, of putting ourselves on the plane of understanding he had would be perfectly ludicrous.  ;)

TEPaul

Re:Is Quirky or Controversial architecture inherently good architecture ?
« Reply #49 on: October 20, 2006, 09:44:13 PM »
Patrick:

I guess you haven't read much of what I've said on here over the years about what Max Behr maintained about the golfer being inherently critical of architecture he perceived as artificial (man-made).

Behr assumed Man, the golfer, would be inherently criticial of artificial appearing architecture as opposed to what he perceived to be natural.

We have some benefit of observation in this vein compared to Behr because we are aware of how this played out years after Behr observed it or wrote what he did about that subject.

It appears that time has proven Behr wrong about that. It seems that Man, the golfer, really didn't care, or nowhere near the extent Behr thought he would or should.

However, Pat, times do change and so to perceptions. It would appear that these days Man, the golfer, just may care more than he has in the last 50-75 years. If it were not so, this website alone, probably wouldn't even exist today.  ;) :)

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back