Old Quirk vs. New Quirk

[Tim Nugent]

The following quote from my good neighbor, Terry Lavin got me thinking. 
" I guess I'm more accepting of quirk on an old golf course than a new one.  I'm not saying that is a particularly defensible position, but it's the way I feel."
Well? Is it defensible?  What say ye?

[Kalen Braley]

Tim,

I've wanted to start a thread like this multiple times on GCA.com...in hopes of someone actually offering a defensible position as to WHY old quirk = good and new quirk = bad.

The closest thing I've heard so far is...back in the old days they didn't have the equipment or otherwise to move much dirt around so they pretty much worked with what they have.  Fair enough, I can buy that....but if it was good back then, why can't a modern architect replicate this m/o and create modern quirk that's just as cool and "acceptable".

I've always felt the intrinsic value of quirk should be based on the playing characteristics of the hole and its aesthetics...not in the process of how it came to exist.

[JESII]

If it stands the test of time it's good, otherwise it wasn't good enough.

[Eric Smith]

I think it just takes a complete effort to pull it off on a modern course. Seeing some cool quirky features next to a paved path or an area where the tie in work doesn't match up hinders the intended effect, I think.

Go to Boston Golf Club. Gil Hanse and team clearly put loads of thought into all aspects of the design and it works. Place feels very cool, old school and quirky. Great golf course.

[Terry Lavin]

I object to quirk on a new course when its imposition seems forced, where the architect is purposefully not fixing a problem or is purposefully creating a problem in order to make an otherwise manageable hole regularly unmanageable with pretty good shots by the player.  I'll use Bandon Trails #14 as an example.  It is a pivotal hole on the golf course, because the routing had to get to that part of the property to visit the coast for a bit before returing to dunesland.  It is also the spot on the property that Mr. Keiser decided to purchase the land and develop the resort.  The difference in elevation from 13 green to 14 tee also created some real issues that could have been handled with some engineering (tunnel, a lift, etc.), but the real issue with the hole is that the demands placed on the player on the tee are such that he has to put the ball in the left 1/8th of the fairway in order to have a somewhat level lie and a good angle of attack on the narrow target that is the green.  If the player misses his shot, hits the center of the fairway, and is left with a shot up and to his left at the green, it's almost impossible to get the ball on the green and then the ping pong match can begin.  The quirk here could have been remedied in a number of ways, I'm guessing.  The fairway could have been regraded.  The green could have been expanded and made more receptive to shots from most of the fairway.  And so on.  The fact that it could have been made better and fairer leads me to not appreciate the quirk.  The same sort of shot on a course that was built 100 years ago wouldn't have the same effect on me.  It would have acquired a patina of respect that the newer variant wouldn't have been able to develop.

Again, not saying it's particularly defensible, but it's how I feel.

[Tim Nugent]

If it is new, does it necessarily get derided because someone may think that it was artificially constructed? While if it is old, people feel that it must be there simply befcause they would be way or desire to create it in the 1st place?

What caused Terry's quote to hit home was last week I reviewed a potential site near St. Petersburg that has many artillery shell craters and old fox holes from the siege of Stalingrad in WWII.  I found them to be facinating lan forms as the randomness was exquisite but there would be a somewhat pattern as the gunners "walked' the shell across the land.  And the craters would have a distinct horseshoe shape with the ground heaved up on all sides except from the direction the shell came from.  Being a completely sand site, these blow-outs never filled with water and are now naturalized (some with trees growing in them) from 60 years of nature.

Quirky, for sure. Man-made, definately (especially the foxholes as they are mostly retangular pits into ridgelines).  But definately not new.

[Anthony Gray]

  Get thread Tim. I think it is certainly true. Some things would not be accepted today. All the blind tee shots at TOC come to mind.

  Anthony

[Niall C]

With regards to quirk in old courses, can anyone actually say it was designed as quirk (whatever that is) ? Dell holes probably appear quirky by todays standards but back in the day they were a fairly common and rudimentary design. Same with walls and roads being incorporated into the design as hazards. As courses evolve most of these features have disappeared in redesigns. Those that are left therefore appear quirky because were not used to them and are only quirky by accident and because of changing ideas.

To start off on a new course and design quirk, how do you do that ? If any modern gca can pull that off then IMO they are one up on the old dead guys who probably never heard of the concept.

Niall 

[Michael George]

If based on good design principles, quirk becomes generally accepted over time.  That is why many of us are more accepting of quirk on old golf courses.  For instance, a golfer is excited to play 17 at St. Andrews and hit a drive over a hotel and would not think of criticizing it - because it has achieved general acceptance.  I would imagine that many of these quirky design features were criticized in their day, just as quirky design features are criticized now.  I would argue that many of the perceived quirky design features in today's great courses will be widely accepted and will be the highlight of golfer's rounds in the future.

MacKenzie believed that you could not have a great golf course without pushing the envelope.  As a result, he desired criticism of his courses when they opened because he then knew that he pushed the envelope enough.

Take Bandon Dunes for instance -  I would bet that the quirk associated with #7 at Old MacDonald and #14 at Bandon Trails will someday be considered the calling cards for these golf courses and golfers, when asked how the round was, will quickly describe what they did on these holes.

[Adrian_Stiff]

The following quote from my good neighbor, Terry Lavin got me thinking. 
" I guess I'm more accepting of quirk on an old golf course than a new one.  I'm not saying that is a particularly defensible position, but it's the way I feel."
Well? Is it defensible?  What say ye?

Tim I agree with you but I cant say why.

[Anthony Gray]

  I would assume the 13th at North Berwick with the green behind the wall was always considered quirky. Agree? Could you build it today?

  Anthony

[Bill_McBride]

Gil Hanse incorporated some old walls into the design of the Craighead course at Crail.  You play over or lay up in front of a couple.  I think building something to look "old" doesn't work like incorporating something really and truly old.   

[Adam Lawrence]

There are a few stone walls on newish courses. You play over one on the second hole at Loch Lomond, and Steve Forrest did something similar on the new Tournament course at Vasatorp in Sweden. If you are building a course on farmland obviously you'll have to cross field boundaries at some point, and quite often those boundaries will be a wall. I didn't mind it on either of those courses. But I don't think a modern architect would be likely to use a wall as a hazard in the manner of the Pit!

[Michael Goldstein]

Adam: why not?

Is it that modern architects aren't courageous enough and don't subscribe to Mackenzie's belief about pushing the envelope?

[Michael George]

Michael:

I would guess that modern owners of courses are not courageous enough.  They have a lot of money invested and don't like there golf courses opening up to criticism.

[Adam Lawrence]

Adam: why not?

Is it that modern architects aren't courageous enough and don't subscribe to Mackenzie's belief about pushing the envelope?

Speaking as someone who once put himself in hospital by hitting a ball against a dry stone wall, only for it to rebound and smack into my face, about a quarter of an inch above my left eye, I think it's pretty obvious why not!

[Tim Pitner]

The difference in elevation from 13 green to 14 tee also created some real issues that could have been handled with some engineering (tunnel, a lift, etc.), but the real issue with the hole is that the demands placed on the player on the tee are such that he has to put the ball in the left 1/8th of the fairway in order to have a somewhat level lie and a good angle of attack on the narrow target that is the green.  If the player misses his shot, hits the center of the fairway, and is left with a shot up and to his left at the green, it's almost impossible to get the ball on the green and then the ping pong match can begin.  

On BT #14, if you fail to properly place your drive (the target is wider than 1/8th of the fairway, to be fair), your best play may be away from the green, specifically to the front (i.e., left of the green if you're approaching from the right fairway). 

Now, you may not like a short par 4 where it's almost impossible to hit the green from certain spots on the fairway, but I continue to be surprised that people here criticize this hole for not being receptive to a shot that really shouldn't be attempted except by highly skilled players who can stop the ball quickly on short pitches.  If you miss your drive on BT #14, there is a way to the green--find it; don't criticize the hole because you can't play the shot you'd prefer to play.

It's like criticizing the Road Hole for being too difficult and then stubbornly aiming at the pin every time, bringing into play the bunker and road.  Pros often play their second shot on the Road Hole short and right of the green.  Does that make it a bad hole?  I say no. 

[Keith OHalloran]

Tim,
That is a good point. People seem to love half par holes when they are a half shot below actual par. It seems that a short par 5 that plays as 4.5 is fine. Is it possible that the hole is too short for people to accept it as a half par hole? If so, does that mental warfare actually add to the design?

[Tim Pitner]

Is it possible that the hole is too short for people to accept it as a half par hole? If so, does that mental warfare actually add to the design?

Keith,

In my opinion, the answers are yes and yes. 

Underyling much of the criticism of BT #14 seems to be a belief that the hole is too difficult for a short par 4 and, specifically, that it is too difficult for a short par 4 on a resort course.  Regarding the latter, I view Bandon Dunes as different from an average resort so I don't think it applies.  Regarding the former, people seem to have a hard time with the concept of the hole--if you place your drive well, birdie is within reach and eagle is possible; if you don't, you have to scramble for par, taking care to not run up a big number.  People accept this all the time on holes with water or deep rough.  They don't seem to accept it on holes with wide fairways and little rough.  And, to think, we devote so much rhetoric to strategic golf . . .

[Peter Pallotta]

I wouldn't argue with what Niall wrote in post #7.

Also - I think any evidence of the hand of man is more readily accepted when that man and that hand have long since been dead and buried. Then all the works of nature and of man join/blend together under the shading umbrella of "the past", the passage of time gently refracting the differences between those elements.  

[Tom_Doak]

With regards to quirk in old courses, can anyone actually say it was designed as quirk (whatever that is) ? Dell holes probably appear quirky by todays standards but back in the day they were a fairly common and rudimentary design. Same with walls and roads being incorporated into the design as hazards. As courses evolve most of these features have disappeared in redesigns. Those that are left therefore appear quirky because were not used to them and are only quirky by accident and because of changing ideas.

To start off on a new course and design quirk, how do you do that ? If any modern gca can pull that off then IMO they are one up on the old dead guys who probably never heard of the concept.

Niall 

I agree with Peter that this explains it very well.

The only quibble I'd have is over how Niall defines "quirk".  By the way I understand the term, quirk is something that will appear very unusual and almost weird to the golfer.  Certainly golfers of the 1800's did have a stronger stomach for what qualified as "quirk" -- I don't think a blind shot was the least bit uncommon then.  On the other hand, the Pit at North Berwick and the Stationmaster's Garden at St. Andrews -- that's what they called the Road hole back then, because hitting over the railway sheds was much more quirky than a silly road -- must have raised eyebrows, even back in the day.

It's hard to do "quirk" on a modern course.  Once you have started to modify the ground significantly to "design" every feature of every hole, deciding to build a stone wall [or even to just leave one alone and use it in play] is harder to justify because the entire course is manufactured.  Most features on old courses that we consider "quirky" are things that just got left, in a day and age where they didn't want to spend the money to deal with them.  Nowadays we're expected to spend the money!

Surely there are designers in practice today who still build controversial features, severe greens, etc., but I'm not sure any of them deserve the term "quirky" in the same sense as a quirky feature from 100 years ago.

[Niall C]

Tom

I think what I'm saying is that a feature that we now call quirky such as playing over a wall wasn't quirky when the original feature was built (assuming we are talking about an old course and original feature) for exactly the same reasons you cite, namely that it was quite a common feature. Also I'm just not sure that the concept of quirk was around back then. Having said that, they did like there "sporty" courses, perhaps that was quirk back then.

The case of the drive at the Road Hole is an interesting one. I don't know for certain but I would think that when that hole was first laid out, there probably would have been very few players that would have tried or been good enough to cut the corner so the tee shot possibly only became quirky over time as more and more players became capable of cutting the corner such that it became the norm on the tee shot.

Niall

[Tom_Doak]

The case of the drive at the Road Hole is an interesting one. I don't know for certain but I would think that when that hole was first laid out, there probably would have been very few players that would have tried or been good enough to cut the corner so the tee shot possibly only became quirky over time as more and more players became capable of cutting the corner such that it became the norm on the tee shot.

Niall

That's true.  What's more, when the hole was originally laid out, they were playing to the first green, not to the green that Allan Robertson built by the road.  But even when Allan built the Road green, it is probably true that only the best players tried to hit over the corner of the wall at all; most people would just play out wide left off the tee.

[Michael George]

I think a large part of this discussion is whether "novel and possibly unfair" qualifies as "quirk"?  Or are we simply talking about a hotel in between you and the hole or a stone wall separating a fairway from a green?

[RJ_Daley]

Designing and routing a course across natural terrain that has a severe and problematic nature to fit a golf hole onto that land in an efficient manner and 'copes' with the problematic terrain, yet yields a playable-if not unusually strategic and skillfully demanding hole,  in any era seems acceptable to me.  Particularly when routing and designing so yields less development or end user cos;  it is acceptable if not quaint, clever, charming, sporty, etc.  

Pounding a site into a quirky presentation on purpose, with extra costs to do so, and superfluous hazards and features for eyecandy is a pity, in any era.   In modern earthmoving equipment times, to do so, just because you can is not acceptable in my view.

While we all have many things to give praise to Pete Dye and associates design presentations, I think an example of quirk that shouldn't be acceptable in any era is something like the 13th Irish course, "Blind man's bluff".  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-zyLTy9Pfg

I've heard as much as a million cubic yards of soil was used to produce this one hole.  It has the tees with the view seen, and upper story tees off to the high right.  It can look down into the green, or seemingly up into it, backdropped by a buzzillion bunkers of no strategic importance.  If that hole were designed among sand dunes and sand bluffs at an ocean or great lakes site where that terrain would be naturally occurring and unique in nature, I'd say fine - it is wonderful design, clever and using terrain and coping with it to offer a quirky but interesting playing hole.  

But, to build it with the expense of the earthmoving and shaping and maintenance it required, is a pity, IMO.  The wink of the eye old saying they use about building WS and this Irish thing, where Kohler is said to have quipped that "he gave Pete an unlimited budget- and he exceeded it",  is not so cute in my view because it does nothing to advance the notion that I think is the heart of golf's sustainability; "people want to play more - not pay more".  -Tim Weiman, GCA circa 1999.

As for Tom Doak and Renaissance's new effort I've peeked at at Dismal, I think there will be some quirk in the presentation.  The difference is that he is coping with and laying upon the land gently and naturally, costing less, and offering more fun.  That is good quirk in any era, IMHO.