[Steve Burrows]

there's no need to prove it was common, only that it existed in greater proportion then than it did post 1980[/b][/size][/color]

And neither have you proved that it existed in greater proportion in the past.  You have stated that you believe it to be true, but this is different from it actually being true.

Secondly, definitions of terms are vital.  The "I know it when I see it" doesn't necessarily hold (and it only does so it's legal context because it has become such a catch-phrase), because it allows you the undue privilege of telling others that their examples of "quirk" are not "quirk," which you have already done with Paul Cowley.  Honestly, a contemporary practicing professional tells you that "quirk"' still occurs in golf course design, yet you tell him he is somehow incorrect?  How does that help the conversation?

I (as well as the Merriam-Webster Dictionary) define "quirk" as: a) an abrupt twist or curve; b) a peculiar trait, idiosyncracy; c) accident, vagary.   On a golf course, then, quirk is those features or elements that are unexpected.  The routing that Paul Cowley describes fits this definition, because it goes against what many people might expect or find to be a standard.  Conversely, the geometric architecture that you are using as representative of quirk is potentially only that way in the modern sense.  It was much more prevalent in early designs, which means that early golfers would not have found it to be so idiosyncratic, and therefore not as quirky.  What is quirk today may not have been so back then.  Today's quirk simply takes a different physical form.

To answer your final question, yes, I believe that quirk in modern golf course design is equally as common today, in part because of what I have just explained, and in part because it is an extreme disservice to modern designers for you (or anyone else) to declare that they are not incorporating idiosyncracy into their work, or that quirk was an element of design utilized by only by the greats of the design canon, but somehow physically and/or intellectually inaccessible to the guys practicing today.  

[paul cowley]

Hey Tom

Pictures exist but unfortunately my picture posting ability probably rivals yours! I wish we could copy and paste pictures here, or have a facebook picture posting feature. I would Google Earth and search "barefoot gc course love myrtle beach sc" and "patriot gc ninety six sc".

At least you can get a look at the plan of the holes, although the feature doesn't help much with the heights of things. The Patriots fort and its cartpath make it look like I am hieroglyphically trying to signal aliens from space!

[Bill_McBride]

Paul, I'd love to see your fort holes at the Patriot. Painswick, the epitome of quirk and charm, has half a dozen holes within the ruins of an Iron Age fort. Plus crossing holes, shared fairways, completely blind short holes over the ramparts and cool shots over abandoned quarry works.

Anyone who is seriously interested in the study of quirk needs to get to Painswick soon. Even the name is quirky!

[Kalen Braley]

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

Other times it is natural

Pat I agree with you 100%.

But we know Quirk is doomed because most modern day examples get blasted even by this group...of which I would think would be the most accepting.

[Kirk Gill]

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.

There's also little tolerance for "created" quirk.

So what you're saying is that a strange series of bumps, found in nature by the architect and grassed over can be quirk, but if a designer puts in a simllar "created" element on a course then it isn't quirk, or shouldn't be allowed, or tolerated, or whatever? For the player, what is the difference if it was found or made?

[paul cowley]

Bill...if you are ever in the Greenwood/Columbia SC, let me know and I'll get you on.

It is a fun course built with a membership in mind. Hootie Johnson is or was a member and played often with his wife...that type of course.

The main fort and its four holes are accessed only by two 70' long barrel vaulted brick tunnels and surrounding battlements that average 30' in height. They make great elevated tees for the back three positions, and #10 tees of from the top as well. The hole then follows the length of a lower spur battery on its entire right side and a steep falloff. This lower battery would have guarded against an enemies approach from Lake Greenwood, and it's green is a semi punch bowl set into a smaller grass and sand filled parapet that sits next to the ruins of a round Martello tower (popular shore line defenses in Napoleon's time). You enter the green complex through a door and step out on the green!

As I type this I want to say that as unusual all this might seem (some might even consider it quirky ), it really is very believable. The owners were once left with a letter commending them for incorporating the historical fort with the golf course and saving it for the people of South Carolina! And this was from a group of architects and professionals who toured the course.

#7, a par 3, is in a far corner of the course. This time the green is set diagonally against a 4' Victorian era brick wall that surrounds the hole as it is bordered by a street cornering on two sides. The wall is on the r/w so over it is OB, making it a fun but dicey hole! The 7th hole (I think) at Crail Old has a short par 4 that is drivable but with the same lurking OB on its right side, and was a partial design influence.

Tired of typing but there is more...just come and see for yourself! Call me.

[Greg Tallman]

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.

Is a dunesy/scrubby hazard hiding a ridge that bisects a ridge running through the middle of a green on a short 3 playing into a 25 MPH quirk?

[paul cowley]

Greg...I used to think so...at least as of yesterday morning!...not as sure anymore...........

[Greg Tallman]

Greg...I used to think so...at least as of yesterday morning!...not as sure anymore...........

Why not sure now? Did your doubt begin somehwere around 9:23?

Are you getting bullyied around in here?

[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.

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.

Is a dunesy/scrubby hazard hiding a ridge that bisects a ridge running through the middle of a green on a short 3 playing into a 25 MPH quirk?

Depends.

Are all of the holes like that ?

[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.

Is a dunesy/scrubby hazard hiding a ridge that bisects a ridge running through the middle of a green on a short 3 playing into a 25 MPH quirk?

Depends.

Are all of the holes like that ?

I think I will let Greg Tallman, my designated spokesperson answer that...he will probably start with #7 Diamante as an additional example

[Greg Tallman]

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.

Is a dunesy/scrubby hazard hiding a ridge that bisects a ridge running through the middle of a green on a short 3 playing into a 25 MPH quirk?

Depends.

Are all of the holes like that ?

Are you saying that if something quirky (in the overall scheme of golf design) is repeated on the same course it loses its quirkiness? Wouldn't that just make the course "full of quirk" albeit repetitious?

[Bill_Yates]

Kirk,
My original comment may have sounded a little too absolute.  Let me clarify.

I agree with you that quirk can be be created, and you seem to agree with me that there is little tolerance for created quirk.  However, my feeling is that created quirk must be done with a light touch to make it acceptable.  By light touch I'm not saying it can't be dramatic, it simply must look like it fits.  Any heavy-handed quirks will look out-of-place and manufactured.

I guess I'm thinking that the quirk has to fit the hole, the hole has to fit the site, and the site has to fit the general characteristics and feel of the surrounding area, in order to have it all feel "natural."

Paul,
Sounds great!  I would love to see and play your course.

[Patrick_Mucci]

there's no need to prove it was common, only that it existed in greater proportion then than it did post 1980[/b][/size][/color]

And neither have you proved that it existed in greater proportion in the past.  
You have stated that you believe it to be true, but this is different from it actually being true.

As I indicated earlier, I may have over estimated your level of understanding and intelligence.
I thought my statement was the equivalent of a geometry postulate.
Are you declaring that quirk or "quirk" has been more prevalent in designs post 1980 than in designs in the early part of the 20th Century ?

Secondly, definitions of terms are vital.  The "I know it when I see it" doesn't necessarily hold (and it only does so it's legal context because it has become such a catch-phrase), because it allows you the undue privilege of telling others that their examples of "quirk" are not "quirk," which you have already done with Paul Cowley.

Since I initiated this thread, I clearly understood the context in which quirk was intended.
If you would like to start another thread, where quirk is used in a different context, please feel free to do so

I was content with Sam Morrow's response, and I find Jusstice Potter Stewart's remark, apropos of the situation.
When a category is subjective and it's difficult to craft clearly defined parameters, the use of Justice Potter Stewart's observation regarding obscenity, seems apt.  If you have to have every word defined for you, perhaps you're on the wrong site  


Honestly, a contemporary practicing professional tells you that "quirk"' still occurs in golf course design, yet you tell him he is somehow incorrect?  How does that help the conversation?

# 1.   Because he made a personal wise guy remark
# 2    Because the quirk I created this thread for was not of the type he cited, which was more of a routing anomaly, rather than a
         feature/s

I (as well as the Merriam-Webster Dictionary) define "quirk" as: a) an abrupt twist or curve; b) a peculiar trait, idiosyncracy; c) accident, vagary.  

On a golf course, then, quirk is those features or elements that are unexpected.

That's your definition.
Lots of things are unexpected on a golf couse, but that doesn't automatically bestow "quirk" upon them.
I think quirk goes more toward extremes, the dramatically unusual, rather than the unexpected 

The routing that Paul Cowley describes fits this definition, because it goes against what many people might expect or find to be a standard.  


It may fit your understanding and it may have fit Paul's understanding, but, as I stated, I initiated this thread with quirk being "feature" rather than routing oriented.  I think most people understood that.
However, if you want to start a thread on routng quirk, please do so

Conversely, the geometric architecture that you are using as representative of quirk is potentially only that way in the modern sense.  It was much more prevalent in early designs, which means that early golfers would not have found it to be so idiosyncratic, and therefore not as quirky.  What is quirk today may not have been so back then.  Today's quirk simply takes a different physical form.

I didn't context this thread, or quirk, in turn of the Century terms and/or values, I was specific with respect to a time frame, post 1980

To answer your final question, yes, I believe that quirk in modern golf course design is equally as common today, in part because of what I have just explained, and in part because it is an extreme disservice to modern designers for you (or anyone else) to declare that they are not incorporating idiosyncracy into their work, or that quirk was an element of design utilized by only by the greats of the design canon, but somehow physically and/or intellectually inaccessible to the guys practicing today.

Would you provide us with ten "quirky" post 1980 golf courses and features ?

And to be clear, are you stating unequivically, that in the post 1980 period, quirk has been as prevalent as it was in the early part o fthe 20th Century ? 

[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.

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.

Is a dunesy/scrubby hazard hiding a ridge that bisects a ridge running through the middle of a green on a short 3 playing into a 25 MPH quirk?

Depends.

Are all of the holes like that ?

Are you saying that if something quirky (in the overall scheme of golf design) is repeated on the same course it loses its quirkiness? Wouldn't that just make the course "full of quirk" albeit repetitious?

According to Steve Burrows it would be.
He defined quirk on a golf course as "unexpected".
Yet, if the feature/s repeat themselves on every hole, they wouldn't be unexpected, would they.

I think you should take this up with Steve as you seem to have a difference of opinion on what constitues quirk.

[paul cowley]

Patrick states:

"Honestly, a contemporary practicing professional tells you that "quirk"' still occurs in golf course design, yet you tell him he is somehow incorrect?  How does that help the conversation?

# 1.   Because he made a personal wise guy remark
# 2    Because the quirk I created this thread for was not of the type he cited, which was more of a routing anomaly, rather than a
         feature/s"

Patrick

#1  That wasn't a personal wise guy remark, but a statement of fact. I almost didn't post in this thread because you choose to ignore my relevant post in your previous thread about moats...its more about why bother posting examples if you won't engage. In this thread I have provided numerous examples of modern quirk designed by myself and others, at your request, and you have yet to respond...and once again I'm feeling "why bother".

#2  Reread your initial thread post and tell tell me where you mention "feature quirk". You have since redefined the thread along narrower margins to better suit your arguements.

[Bill_McBride]

Patrick states:

"Honestly, a contemporary practicing professional tells you that "quirk"' still occurs in golf course design, yet you tell him he is somehow incorrect?  How does that help the conversation?

# 1.   Because he made a personal wise guy remark
# 2    Because the quirk I created this thread for was not of the type he cited, which was more of a routing anomaly, rather than a
         feature/s"

Patrick

#1  That wasn't a personal wise guy remark, but a statement of fact. I almost didn't post in this thread because you choose to ignore my relevant post in your previous thread about moats...its more about why bother posting examples if you won't engage. In this thread I have provided numerous examples of modern quirk designed by myself and others, at your request, and you have yet to respond...and once again I'm feeling "why bother".

#2  Reread your initial thread post and tell tell me where you mention "feature quirk". You have since redefined the thread along narrower margins to better suit your arguements.

Imagine that!   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick states:

"Honestly, a contemporary practicing professional tells you that "quirk"' still occurs in golf course design, yet you tell him he is somehow incorrect?  How does that help the conversation?

# 1.   Because he made a personal wise guy remark
# 2    Because the quirk I created this thread for was not of the type he cited, which was more of a routing anomaly, rather than a
         feature/s"

Patrick

#1  That wasn't a personal wise guy remark, but a statement of fact. I almost didn't post in this thread because you choose to ignore my relevant post in your previous thread about moats...


Ignored your post ?  Statement of fact ?
You posted at 5:59 Friday night the 20th, and because I didn't comment by 8:35 Sunday night the 22nd, you throw a hissy fit and make an inaccurate flippant remark about my responding to posts ?  ?

Please tell me your kidding or that it's just a bad time of month for you.

its more about why bother posting examples if you won't engage. In this thread I have provided numerous examples of modern quirk designed by myself and others, at your request, and you have yet to respond...and once again I'm feeling "why bother".

#2  Reread your initial thread post and tell tell me where you mention "feature quirk".

It's clearly implied in my opening post.

Didn't you read the comment about TV flattening features.

How about the comment about Superintendents maintaining it, didn't you read that part ?

You and Steve Burrows need to hone your reading comprehension skills


You have since redefined the thread along narrower margins to better suit your arguements.

Absolutely not.
You just didn't bother to read the opening post carefully enough.
It's clear to any third grader that the focus was on features.
When I mentioned TV flattening them, and Superintendents not wanting to maintain them, did you think I meant mistresses ?

Get with the comprehension program or get new reading glasses.

You and Steve are so anxious to nit-pick that you're deliberately overlooking typed words to suit your argument.
I couldn't have been clearer, especially to what's perceived to be a sophisticated group of participants.

Appologies will be accepted.

[paul cowley]

Sorry Patrick...buddy on much...but I'm not just parsing word games here.

I (which includes Davis and Mark Love, who are fully engaged in the courses mentioned) am trying to create something of interest for golfers on land that many times is anything but...the forts, ruins, faux ricefields etc are an attempt to design and build courses that are challenging and stimulate players strategically but also work on other levels...something that could probably be considered "new" as far as golf design has been created in the past.
 
Don't think you get it, but that's OK.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul,

I do get it.

But, do you think your work represents the preponderance of work post 1980 ?

My point was that "quirk" seems to be a forgotten step child of golf course architecture, abandoned and out of favor and style.

I haven't played every course built subsequent to 1980, but, on the ones I have, quirk seems mostly absent.

That you're willing to be ..... "bold" or innovative is a tribute to you, but, it seems that most have taken the safer, more conservative path.

[paul cowley]

Thanks.

[Mac Plumart]

I took part in a good discussion a few days back about "quirk".  I think the gist of the discussion was that "quirk" is different for different groups of people due to their experiences and what is normal to them.

For instance, while playing across the pond the other day I saw this hole and thought "Wow!  That is really neat and kind of quirky.  I think I'll take a photo of that."




But then the next day, I saw this.




And then the next day I say this,



And this on the same course,




Bottom line, this stone wall is not quirk to a Scottish golfer...but is quite quirky to a American/Georgia golfer.

Maybe this is "quirky" to a Scot...

[paul cowley]

Hope you enjoyed North Berwick....definately one of my favorites!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()