[Brian Walshe]

Interesting topic.  I'm curious as to people's definition of what "quirk" is, something that everyone seems to have ignored thus far.  Quirk is an extremely subjective topic where a whole lot of factors conspire to influence people's thoughts.  There are holes I've played that I've loved to death because I see them as quirky and fun yet others hate and despise.  Likewise there are holes people put up as "quirky" that I think are basically average design where the term quirk is used to excuse their architectural shortcomings.

So gentlemen - what is quirk exactly and where does quirk finish and poor design begin?

[Mark_F]

Brian,

Could you please inform me which quirky, fun holes you have loved to death in order to ascertain what your definition of quirk is?  

Quirk would rarely be poor design if used properly - it is simply something unexpected designed to remove golfers from their comfort zone and think for once. Poor design is poor design whether quirk is involved or not.

The 12th at Macrihanish might be considered quirky by some.  
It is a 500 yard par five played to a vast green that slopes sharply from front to back, protected by a dip and bunkers in front.

If the pin is at the very front of the green it requires something extraordinary to get near, whether it is the second or third shot.

Going for it in two and missing isn't the best idea, yet it is easily reachable for players of your calibre. And with your short game, missing in two would be diabolical.  

[Brian Walshe]

Mark,

That's the point isn't it; "what your definition of quirk is".   Everyone probably has a different definition with some or significant overlap with others.  

I'm curious at what point in removing golfers from their comfort zone does the quirk swap to poor design.  Is a tree in the middle of the fairway short of a par 3 quirk or poor design?  It would certainly remove people from their comfort zone.

[Mark_F]

Brian,

Your example would never be classified as quirk, because it is simply stupid.  No architect of any note would do it.

If it were a rough covered hummock that partially obscured the putting surface that would be okay.

North Berwick's 13th, the pit hole, may be the epitome of quirk. That's the one with a stone wall in front of the green.  You must have seen a photograph of it.

Your opinion?

[James_Livingston]

So gentlemen - what is quirk exactly and where does quirk finish and poor design begin?

Thats easy these days.  If it is done by Tom Doak it is quirk and if it is done by anyone else it is crap.

Tom Doak and James Bennett provided a perfectly succinct response to your concerns in another thread which you have chosen to ignore.

How are you going with those quotes?

[Mark_F]

So gentlemen - what is quirk exactly and where does quirk finish and poor design begin?

Thats easy these days.  If it is done by Tom Doak it is quirk and if it is done by anyone else it is crap.

Wow.

Such an insightful post.  Please, can you post more often here James?  Shane's responses are far too one dimensional.

Tom Doak and James Bennett provided a perfectly succinct response to your concerns in another thread which you have chosen to ignore.

How are you going with those quotes?

If you missed them the first time, then I am not going to waste my time putting them up again for you ignore them again.

[Brian Walshe]

Mark,

Here's the thing.  I'm guessing that the majority of people on this board would say 13 at North Berwick is indeed quirky.  Now the 3rd at Sandhurst has a stone wall running down the left side and behind it.  I'm guessing most here would say that it's isn't quirky but in fact pretty stupid.

One reason might be that when Noth Berwick was first played the wall was already there, it wasn't added later so as to make a "signature" hole.

Back to the tree example.  Why is it poor design and not quirk?  You can hook around it, fade around it and even go over it. It removes the player from their comfort zone so surely if like North Berwick 13 the obstacle, in this case a tree, was there before the course then some people might consider it quirky.

The tree meets your definition so is it indeed quirky?

[Sean Walsh]

Brian,

Quirk as defined above seems to be:

If it's unusual and Mark likes it it is indeed Quirk.

If it's unusual and Mark doesn't like it then it is stupid and shouldn't even be discussed here.

Move on you've been told.  

[Mark_F]

Gee Brian, maybe because golf is a ground game? Because of their inequitable nature?

What are the options if it continues growing? Does the fade become a slice? Does the draw become a snap hook?  The high one a hole only Matt could play?

What will become of the hole when the tree dies?  Granted, if it was at The National, it's cashed-up membership would undoubtedly just buy a fully grown specimen from Chris and Marie's, but what about other clubs that don't have so much money to waste? What would we do at St Andrews Beach, for example? Beg Westpac for a couple of bucks to buy a seedling from Bunnings?

As for the North Berwick/Sandhurst comparison, the Pit hole at North Berwick only has a wall running along the front of it.  Never having seen Sandhurst I can't comment on where it is, but it sounds like two sides.

What's the point of the second length of wall?

And it would be nice if you could come up with your list of quirky holes that you loved to death. I'm guessing your idea of the epitome of quirk is the third at RMW because the green slopes from front to back.


Sean:

Come back here immediately.  You are needed at the Comedy Festival with Shane and Justin for a triple header.

Your hilarious brown nosing comments only make me wish I had bought bladder control pads when I went shopping yesterday.

Fantastic, fantastic stuff.  You are a genius and you don't even realise it.

[Sean Walsh]

Mark,

If golf is solely a ground game how do you explain the Klondyke at Lahinch, The Alps at Tain and the 11th at Muirfield to name just three "quirky" holes.

Why couldn't it work on the right hole, with the right tree, in the right environment?

Oh that's right, because it's stupid.  Discussion should thus cease.

[Mark_F]

Sean,

I haven't seen Muirfield so I can't comment.

Did you not take note of my above responses?  

The Alps at Tain is hardly inequitable. The dune isn't going to grow any larger.  The dune isn't going to die and affect the playing characteristics of the hole.

The 14th at Ganton is a terrific hole where a tree comes into play IF you push your tee shot.  There is plenty or room to avoid it. Name me one great hole that has the exact scenario Brian describes.

"Trees are a fluky and obnoxious hazard".  A quote from a famous golf course architect.  But then I guess you and Brian know better.

[Sean Walsh]

I did take note of your responses and the ground seems to be shifting. So it's not because golf is a ground game it's because trees are a fluky and obnoxious hazard.  

I can think of some trees that in the right circumstances could perform the same duty as the alps at Tain.  As an added extras the trees I'm thinking of won't get any larger and will last a few decades. I've even seen one (although not a par 3) hat I don't mind in the Melbourne area.

Also it appears unless it is quirk that has been done before it's not quirk it's stupidity.  No room for originality for a practicing Golf Course Architect they're restricted to copying what has gone before them. What a shame.

[Mark_F]

Sean,

No, the ground isn't shifting.  All of my responses were there in the first place.  Look carefully at my second sentence. "Because of their inequitable nature."

So your trees will last a few decades.  And then what?
What are "the right circumstances" that could perform the same duty as the Alps at Tain? Could you please address how the inequity that is ever present with trees is replicated by the dune at the Alps?

There is plenty of room for originality by practicing golf course architects, or at least the gifted ones who think and care about their craft.  The rest I imagine copy everything in varying degrees.

Given that golf courses have been around for a couple of hundred years or more and no one has designed a great hole with that particular feature, I would venture to say it is because it wouldn't work, although you clearly know better.

And I notice you neatly avoided naming the said hole in the Melbourne area that you "don't mind".  I don't mind a lot of holes.  But that doesn't mean they fascinate me enough to want to go back and play them again.

[Sean Walsh]

A couple of hundred years of golf design is there?  Name anyone who had any influence on golf design before 1840.  So 166 years max. and that's being generous.

Re inequitable I thought that was a big word you'd tacked on just to make your argument appear solid.  sorry.  I'm sure a golfer that can't get the ball more than 10feet off the ground would be at least tempted to call The Alps unfair/inequitable, the same golfer would definitely have better chance in a match on Brian's par3 than the aforementioned hole.  Are trees in all their guises inherently unfair?  

You say there is room for originality but only within parmeters you design.  Otherwise it is stupid.  I'm glad Leonardo De Vinci and countless others haven't taken this approach to their art and other pursuits.

I would consider a tree in the centre of a fairway, albeit a par 4, quirk. The examples I'm thinking of where this works are Growling Frog and The Ocean at The National.  I also know of a hedge in front of a famous opening hole that could be considered quirk too.  Some people like it, a lot of people don't but it is definitely quirky and was designed by arguably the most revered in the field.  If it can work on a par 4 or 5 why can't one of these talented, all knowing, all seeing, super dooper Golf Course Architects (because god knows your select few are the only ones qualified to do anything of any merit) develop the same concept into a par 3.  

Can you please provide a list of rules for all these talentless hacks to follow so their attempts at originality don't instantly get branded as stupid.  We can put them up alongside Mr Mckenzie's rules for a perfect golf course (that are often broken even on the best courses).

I'd say 99 times out of a hundred a tree in the middle of a par 3 wouldn't work.  I'd also say that at least 99 times out of a hundred a design along the lines of the dell would be considered poor design as well, but it has worked at least once.

What is quirk if it isn't breaking the accepted norms?

Funny how whenever your opinion gets questioned you quickly degenerate into name calling.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()