[Patrick_Mucci]

QUIRK ?

Have architects become reticent to introduce it ?

Have developers been reluctant to associate with it ?

Have superintendents desired to avoid maintaining it ?

St Georges in Long Island has a lot of "quirk".
It's really alot of fun to play that golf course, day in and day out.

But, why has quirk vanished from modern architecture ?

Have the tastes and demands of the retail and private golfer changed over the last 80 years ?

Did TV help eradicate it ?
On TV, everything is flattened, so quirk might not be distinguishable.
The Walker Cup at NGLA should be an interesting telecast.

Did medal play doom its existance ?

For Modern designs, those after 1980, what courses could be considered "quirky" ?

[Jay Flemma]

There's quick at Ballyhack!!

[Scott Stearns]

"quirk" died when it became possible to eliminate it with heavy equipment.  People who can afford $10 mm to build a golf course don't typically want "quirk".

only places you get this now are sites that are very difficult/too small.  Bayonne has quirk.  Bandon doesnt.  reason is largely the site.   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Scott,

I think that's a good point, but, we know from Yale, Lido and other early courses that earthmoving equipment was around from the begining.

Certainly the D-6/8 made it easier to eliminate quirk.

[Sam Morrow]

What exactly is quirk? Is it the same to everyone? I'm not sure I can define it but I know it when I see it.

[Tim Gavrich]

I view quirk as an architect allowing the unknown to influence the design of a given hole.  Most often, the facilitating feature of quirk is not built into a hole but rather was there all along.  I do think it has to do with the increase in the power of earthmoving equipment over the years.  Yes, Yale was built due to such equipment, but it is already the most expensive golf course ever built, considering the quirk-producing landforms that were not leveled.  If they had removed all such landforms, I imagine the cost of building the golf course would have gone from "high" to "prohibitive," and so the quirky stuff remains.  Nowadays, I imagine, the equipment used is able to eliminate quirk-producing landforms more easily, and the only new courses that contain true quirk are those on especially severe sites and or. those built on a shoestring budget on sites that are challenging at the least.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Sam

They do not exist in real time. Only in the minds of those who miss Nature and the natural, regards a golf course.

GCA.com is 'quirky', now that’s a thought,

Melvyn 

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Quirk" is often manufactured, and not found naturally.

Other times it is natural

[Melvyn Morrow]

Perhaps for the uninitiated, or those blinded by the concrete environmental jungle we live in, only seeing Nature through the eyes of those who believe the Natural is reflected by sights like The Castle Course outside St Andrews.
 
Now that's quirky

Melvyn

[Scott Stearns]

dunno abt a ref to Yale and Lido.  Im my opinion quirk is a ranrom feature that generates unknowable outcomes, or a hole or shot that doesnt really test something we think of as nescessary in a golf game---e.g an 80 yard par 3, esp. on a course that has true three shot par 5s.

CBM and Raynor/Banks were the only guys to manf replica holes --Tilly and Mackenzie didnt really do this (i'd say they did do replica holes where the ground called for it, but totally manf holes like the cape at Yale were not their thing)

I would argue though, that the Cape at Yale, to pick one feature, was not "quirk".  Its a straight forward challenge that is can be understood, if after several playings.

The 18 th at Yale IS quirk, IMHO.  theres no strategy to employ at that hole to gain an advantage, and the outsome (esp on the tee shot) is random.

And today, the Faz would dynamite that hill and lower it to create some strategy.--i.e. eliminate the quirk

[RJ_Daley]

I think we may still see some quirk if the golf development market improves to the extent a developer wishes to develop the most minimal and efficiently designed course possible and because of a low budget is willing to work with existing quirk.  In those cases, a wise developer may find a smart architect to design a project with enough acceptable compromise with a quirky natural feature that it adds some charm and randomness to the game, yet offers a chance not to overly spend to knock the quirky feature out.  I think we will rarely see any new courses built that have adequate budget to intentionally design a quirky concept in.  It is all about the value judgement in future circumstances of design-construction development.  If the judgement is that leaving the quirk in that was already there and can be compromise to an overall design, we will see some.  If the value judgement is to try and actually spend more to create quirk, not so much...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Scott Stearns,

The more I thought about "equipment" as the eliminator of quirk, the more I thought that equipment is nothing more than the architect's instrument, doing his bidding.

Hence, upon reflection, I don't think "equipment" has anything to do with eliminating quirk over time, as that option was always available.

It's got to be either the architect or developer that are the responsible parties, not the operater sitting in the cab.

So, irrespective of the ability to facilitate the elimination of quirk, why have architects shied away from "quirk" over time ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

dunno abt a ref to Yale and Lido.  Im my opinion quirk is a ranrom feature that generates unknowable outcomes, or a hole or shot that doesnt really test something we think of as nescessary in a golf game---e.g an 80 yard par 3, esp. on a course that has true three shot par 5s.

CBM and Raynor/Banks were the only guys to manf replica holes --Tilly and Mackenzie didnt really do this (i'd say they did do replica holes where the ground called for it, but totally manf holes like the cape at Yale were not their thing)

Have you played or walked Somerset Hills ?
There's plenty of manufactured quirk on that course, plenty of template holes.

I would argue though, that the Cape at Yale, to pick one feature, was not "quirk".  Its a straight forward challenge that is can be understood, if after several playings.


I'm not sure that anyone regards a "cape" hole as "quirk"


The 18 th at Yale IS quirk, IMHO.  theres no strategy to employ at that hole to gain an advantage, and the outsome (esp on the tee shot) is random.

I was supposed to play Yale on Wednesday, but, Mother Nature nixed that plan.
I'd agree that # 18 has "quirk".

And today, the Faz would dynamite that hill and lower it to create some strategy.--i.e. eliminate the quirk

Perhaps, but, the "Faz" doesn't represent the thinking of the entire body of golf course architects.

[Carl Rogers]

A lot of us, I do not think I am the only one, would kindly ask for a simple defintion of quirk and an example on a course that is widely known.

Thanks

[Patrick_Mucci]

A lot of us, I do not think I am the only one, would kindly ask for a simple defintion of quirk and an example on a course that is widely known.

Thanks

Carl, please start paying attention and read posts more carefully.

I clearly referenced St Georges
I even told you where it was.

Start paying attention, you're going to be tested on this stuff

[Scott Stearns]

Yup, have played Somerset Hills.  Have played both winged foot courses, Bethpage Black, both Baltusrol courses, quaker ridge and knollwood too.  for every bit of quirk you point out at  Somerset hills, i'll point out five non "quirky" elements at other Tilly courses.

scarsdale has plenty of quirk, but that comes from the site---and my point that at that time, people lived with what the land gave them because thay had to.  

the fact that equipment is an instrument of the architect is obvious.  my point is that tillinghast and mac kenzie shaped golf courses with people and horses.  Fazio/the joneses/Dye do it with cases of dynamite and gangs of bulldozers.  Whistling Straits is a good example of creating elevation change where there was none.  that never would have happened in the 20s.  

the Faz was not intended to illistrate the totality of golf course architects.  The use of his name was intended to illustrate that owners get what they want---and that a little explosive today would totally eliminate the quirk that CBM was forced to live with when yale was built .  

 

[Carl Rogers]

A lot of us, I do not think I am the only one, would kindly ask for a simple defintion of quirk and an example on a course that is widely known.

Thanks

Carl, please start paying attention and read posts more carefully.

I clearly referenced St Georges
I even told you where it was.

Start paying attention, you're going to be tested on this stuff

I have no clue about that course.
Does Pebble Beach have any quirky holes?

[paul cowley]

Patrick

I employ quirk on most courses I design when I can...on single holes, and also on holes designed in a series where they would not necessarily be taken as quirky individually, but when played in a series they would be considered so....a 480 par 4 followed by a 255 par 4 followed by a 260 par 3 followed by a 620 par 5 followed by a 480 par 5. Orchard Creek GC 12 years ago. Others upon request.

Quirk is tough stuff...almost as tough as designing random bunkers IMO.

No need to reply as I have found that in the past when someone brings exhibits to challenge your query, you rarely do...but yes, quirk as a part of the designers palette has not been raptured away, and still resides on terra firma.

[Bill_Yates]

In my opinion, quirk has to be found in nature.  It can't be created.  

I also think there may be two levels of quirk, a quirky hole (one that perhaps cleverly uses an unusual land form as in a dell hole, or rock outcropping, a blind green location, etc.).  Or it's the subtlety of humps and hollows that cause the player to "create" shots to greens (ie. any running shot to any green on The Old Course).

As to why there ain't no quirk no more, I offer the argument that the game is not treated like a game any more, it's more like brain surgery.  There's no tolerance for any random events.



 

[David_Madison]

Patrick,

As long as architects are placed under pressure to produce "fair" shots and holes, quirk gets suppressed. I see the element of quirk on a particular shot as introducing luck, not necessary totally random, but where a well executed correct play wins out 70-80% of the time. That 20-30% is really irksome to too many players and hence avoided. Even though over any reasonable time the better play wins out, if it doesn't win out every time then the playing field is undesirable.

It could be argued that the "luck" element of quirk is coming back, at least a little bit. Take look at Pinehurst #2. The dips and bumps and knobs, sand traps embedded in waste areas, the smattering of wiregrass and pinestraw, all point this way. Bandon (especially Old Mac) and Sand Hills require lots of imagination, of bits and pieces of odd things, and tolerance for luck both good and bad. Maybe the quirk doesn't slap you in the face, but it's there.

Wouldn't Tobacco Road be deemed quirky, almost excessively so by lots of golfers? The place reeks of it, hole after hole. There's nothing conventional about the place.

Perhaps if work like we've seen at Pinehurst #2, and the fast and firm "movement" really takes hold here in the US so that it is broadly accepted as the way the game is presented at its best, then maybe we'll see more quirk brought into the game both in new courses and also when courses are renovated.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick

I employ quirk on most courses I design when I can...on single holes, and also on holes designed in a series where they would not necessarily be taken as quirky individually, but when played in a series they would be considered so....a 480 par 4 followed by a 255 par 4 followed by a 260 par 3 followed by a 620 par 5 followed by a 480 par 5. Orchard Creek GC 12 years ago. Others upon request.
Paul, that's a different form of quirk, I was referencing feature quirk.

Quirk is tough stuff...almost as tough as designing random bunkers IMO.

One would think that random bunkers are easy to design, almost by definition default.

No need to reply as I have found that in the past when someone brings exhibits to challenge your query, you rarely do

I haven't found that to be the case, and in this instance, I haven't found any evidence that you've identified any exhibit of quirk.
You've cited a routing anomaly and confused it with quirk.
Perhaps a visit to St Georges would be helpful in having you understand the introduction of quirk

...but yes, quirk as a part of the designers palette has not been raptured away, and still resides on terra firma.

Could you provide some examples of "quirky features" introduced in the U.S. post 1980 ?

Thanks

[Steve Burrows]

Patrick,

Your usage of quotation marks around the word "quirk" shows that you cannot even accurately define it for yourself, though it is always helpful to define your terms and to state your assumptions before a meaningful discussion can occur.

Moreover, of the over 30,000 courses worldwide, you have cited only four (4) courses that possess this so-called "quirk."  You have yet to reasonably prove that "quirk" was common place in the past, or that designers regularly employed it, let alone that it has disappeared.  "Quirk," then, was simply an aberration, hardly as pervasive historically as you lead on.    

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Your usage of quotation marks around the word "quirk" shows that you cannot even accurately define it for yourself,

My use of quotation marks does NOT show that I can't accurately define it, that's strictly your inference

 though it is always helpful to define your terms and to state your assumptions before a meaningful discussion can occur.


I can define it, but I thought the "obscenity" reference clarified it for most.  I also thought that there was a certain minimum level of understanding and intelligence on the part of GCA.com'ers.  If I over-estimated you level of understanding and intelligence, I apologize[/size]

Moreover, of the over 30,000 courses worldwide, you have cited only four (4) courses that possess this so-called "quirk."  

Again, I apologize for over estimating your level of understanding and intelligence.
I didn't think it necessary to identify every course containing quirk or "quirk"


You have yet to reasonably prove that "quirk" was common place in the past,

there's no need to prove it was common, only that it existed in greater proportion then than it did post 1980

 or that designers regularly employed it, .

Again, there's no burden to prove it was used regularly.  Evidently your reading comprehension skills are also lacking[/size]

let alone that it has disappeared..

I never said it disappeared, didn't you read the part about St Georges ?
It's still there.  Just take a ride on the LIE to see it for yourself

  "Quirk," then, was simply an aberration, hardly as pervasive historically as you lead on.     .

I never stated it was historically  pervasive, that's your perverted inference.
Why don't you pay attention or have someone read the posts and replies for you

Geometric architecture, a form of quirk or "quirk" if you prefer was more than an anomaly as was the introduction of quirk.

Is it your stated position that the introduction and incorporation of quirk is as prevalent in today's designs as in designs in the early part of the 20th century ?[/size]

[paul cowley]

Patrick

I employ quirk on most courses I design when I can...on single holes, and also on holes designed in a series where they would not necessarily be taken as quirky individually, but when played in a series they would be considered so....a 480 par 4 followed by a 255 par 4 followed by a 260 par 3 followed by a 620 par 5 followed by a 480 par 5. Orchard Creek GC 12 years ago. Others upon request.
Paul, that's a different form of quirk, I was referencing feature quirk.

Quirk is tough stuff...almost as tough as designing random bunkers IMO.

One would think that random bunkers are easy to design, almost by definition default.

No need to reply as I have found that in the past when someone brings exhibits to challenge your query, you rarely do

I haven't found that to be the case, and in this instance, I haven't found any evidence that you've identified any exhibit of quirk.
You've cited a routing anomaly and confused it with quirk.
Perhaps a visit to St Georges would be helpful in having you understand the introduction of quirk

...but yes, quirk as a part of the designers palette has not been raptured away, and still resides on terra firma.

Could you provide some examples of "quirky features" introduced in the U.S. post 1980 ?

Thanks

Patrick
 
If you are referring to quirk as random natural features in the landscape the pre 1980 designers might have left in place and incorporated in their design strategies...or unusual man made features that provide a certain strategic twist to a hole...or a combination of both? Pete Dye and Mike Stranz created numerous "quirky" holes...Stranz at Tobacco Road with his back nine par five that is set in a quarry and its blind green....quirky if I guess you consider Lahinch's blind Dell hole as such. Dye has done a similar series of partially blind par 5 greens that were entirely man made. I have used blindness frequently...Ocean Creek and Ricefields both have blind punch bowl greens among many other examples....but by design, not pre existing features. Is blindness quirky?
 
Are the construction of hardscape elements quirky as part of a holes design? Or does it only count when the hardscape features pre existed the course's construction...a la North Berwick's stone walls in play on many holes, especially the par 4 with a stone wall bordering the green and entered by a gate? How about Crail (old and new), or Dunbar? All have walls and ruins in play, as does the Road Hole and it's road and wall.
Are they quirky? If the answer is yes, then I have built many holes AND the hardscape features that are incorporated as part of the holes strategies.

Barefoot Landing (Love) has a sequence of 4 holes that play in and out of the manmade (by me) antebellum ruins of a plantation mansion and its garden walls.
 
#4 is a drivable par 4 that has its green set diagonally between a man made 8' garden wall and a severe false front...you enter the green (set 3' from the wall) from a rear gate.
 
#6 is a par 4 that has its green set a top a fronting 3' wall, and has a triple tier fall away green where the back two tiers are blind from the fairway. Barefoot was voted Golf Digests  #1 course in Myrtle Beach a few years back, so these type of holes have at least some acceptance by the public.
 
The Patriot GC also has a massive man made earthwork and brick fortress (over 200,000 cu yds of dirt), that has 4 holes playing in and out of. Google Earth 'patriot gc ninety six sc)....but you know this already because I posted about it in your dry moat feature thread that ended up being more about grassed barrancas, sunken roads and grassed in bunkers than real moats. You didn't reply to my post in the thread, hence my comment in my earlier reply in this one.
 
#18 is a par 5 that has its green set inside the fort and hard up against the ruins of two brick barracks. Your shot to the green must clear a REAL dry moat (6' deep and 40' wide with grass bottom), whose back bank is 25' high with the green beyond and on top.
The course has 5 other holes that utilize similar features, but I won't go into detail. I think this course is better than Barefoot.
 
I could go on with examples from other courses and other types of "quirk", but won't.
 
Quirky Patrick? You tell me.
 

[Tom_Doak]

Paul:

Do you have a picture you could post of these quirky holes you've created?  Or can you refer us to one?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()