Is this "Quirk" ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

[Adam Clayman]

Wouldn't that depend on the rest of the GC features? If the remainder looks nothing like this, then yes, it's quirk.

I'm more inclined to consider quirk as something unique and even better if natural. Nothing beats natural quirk. i.e. The cove intersecting the line of instinct, on the 8th at Pebble.

[Jim_Kennedy]

You are talking about the clubhouse, right?

[John Kirk]

Let me ask a question.  Let's say I started my approach shot at the left edge of the roof.  Will the ball roll down onto the green?  Sometimes?  Every time?

[Bill_McBride]

Paging Dr. Arble.......

[Jason Topp]

Let me ask a question.  Let's say I started my approach shot at the left edge of the roof.  Will the ball roll down onto the green?  Sometimes?  Every time?

I hit one that stayed left of the green.  I can't remember where I started it - I suspect it was left of the clubhouse.  The shot from the left was really fun.

[Sean_A]

Let me ask a question.  Let's say I started my approach shot at the left edge of the roof.  Will the ball roll down onto the green?  Sometimes?  Every time?

The ball will usually roll down, but not nearly always to the green - way too many factors involved for that sort of guarantee.  

Pat - yes, I do think this hole is quirky for golf in general, but not so much at Kington.  That said, Kington as a whole is quirky.  The unique thing about the design is that the humps n' hollows act as deflectors and gatherers.  Take the 18th for instance, if there are no humps the ball would not stop rolling down the hill.  This sort of thing is quite common at Kington.  I think this short, sharp mounding is a brilliant way to use the hill effectively without having to spend a ton on shaping.  You can clearly see in many cases holes were dug and the soil just tipped over.  Its a very different concept.  I would love to have been around when Hutchison was tossing ideas around for the design of Kington.  Its a truly remarkable design which along with Huntercombe I think all archies should see.

I can see many on this site are not convinced by the odd looking Kington and I don't blame y'all.

Ciao    

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wouldn't that depend on the rest of the GC features?

Not at all.
The determinate of whether a feature is quirky or not doesn't depend on other features, rather the particular feature.

St George's is loaded with "quirk"
Just because the 4th hole green complex is quirky, doesn't disqualify the "tube" fairway on another hole from being quirky.

If the remainder looks nothing like this, then yes, it's quirk.

So, according to you, a golf course is limited to but one quirky feature ?
If there's more than one, or if quirk is found throughout the golf course, then no one feature is "quirky" ? And "quirk" no longer exists ?

I'm more inclined to consider quirk as something unique and even better if natural.
Nothing beats natural quirk. i.e. The cove intersecting the line of instinct, on the 8th at Pebble.

Yikes, I've never heard anyone refer to that feature as quirk, especially when similar coves affect play on other holes at PB

[jeffwarne]

The mere fact that we ask/consider whether this is quirk shows how one dimensional and unimaginative the golf world in general has become.
It seems a perfect use of the hazards available for them to build and the features of the land
No doubt the hole would be embraced if it were alllowed to build bunkers right and left with just the right bunker edges and the clubhouse had a more "Pottery Barn "look to it

Not saying folks don't like it, just saying it should jump out as strategic, interesting FUN and solid and that we need to see enough of it that so that bunker seem quirky 
I love the look of the clubhouse as well though.......

[Michael Whitaker]

I'm sorry I didn't join the group Buda group at Kington. Looks like my kind of place!

[Ally Mcintosh]

So... I imagine this hole is merely an example of an early construction style to set a green in to a side slope.... Just so happens Hutchinson (or whoever) had enough creativity to shape some mounding in at the same time (as opposed to just cutting and filling with straight lines)... Nowadays architects and constructors would generally tie in to a much larger area to soften the side slope effect, both above the green (left) and below the green (right)... It's not quirk: It's rudimentary construction with a bit of artistic flair...

[Adam Clayman]

Yikes, I've never heard anyone refer to that feature as quirk, especially when similar coves affect play on other holes at PB[/b][/size][/color]

Double Yikes! You must have that cove confused with ...WHAT other coves cut directly in front of the line of instinct, in the DZ, and, have a steep drop to an ocean shore?

[Mark Pearce]

Yes, I think most people would consider Kington to be quirky and the 18th green to be an example of that quirk.  Since I haven't met anyone who as played Kington and not loved it, though, I'm confidant this is good quirk.  Kington's architecture is, in many ways, minimalistic but also highly artificial.  The excellence of the course is as much evidence as could be needed that naturalistic architecture is not the only way to achieve a wonderful golf course.

[David Davis]

I find myself wondering why this is quirky? Just because of the artificial shapes? Surely there are literally thousands of courses where the shapers either by mistake or by choice put in artificial looking shapes. Perhaps most of you guys have a different meaning to quirk than I do. Cruden Bay to me has quirky holes, #2 and it's oddly shapes and places plateau green, #10 and it's huge and unexpected elevation change, #14 and it's bathtub like green, #15 blind dog-leg par 3 or perhaps even #17 and having to chose which side of the large mound to play to on your drive?

Perhaps some of you could help me with the GCA definition of quirk?

[Adam Clayman]

It's akin to something Ran once eluded to... If Jim Engh built those features people would raise all hell. Of course he didn't use Engh, but, the point is the same.

This all boils down to how one defines quirk. 

[Ally Mcintosh]

Yes, I think most people would consider Kington to be quirky and the 18th green to be an example of that quirk.  Since I haven't met anyone who as played Kington and not loved it, though, I'm confidant this is good quirk.  Kington's architecture is, in many ways, minimalistic but also highly artificial.  The excellence of the course is as much evidence as could be needed that naturalistic architecture is not the only way to achieve a wonderful golf course.

I'm in a mood to quash all idealism today so I apologise in advance.... I believe this is indeed an example of minimalism.... But only because the architect / constructors didn't have the foresight or budget to make it look more natural... I believe that contrary to what you say above, this is in fact an attempt to look as naturalistic as possible and building something artificial looking was not the objective by any means... Architects today (with any budget) don't build this kind of feature because they know how to tie in to the land better.... All of that is not to say that this is not a cool feature or that it doesn't play well or even look good...

[David Davis]

So Ally you are saying this hole is kind of like a really bad, cheap film that becomes a cult classic?

Maybe "Showgirls" with those artificial shapes?

[Ronald Montesano]

Quirk would be sighting the hole and flagstick on the practice green beyond~

[Sean_A]

Yes, I think most people would consider Kington to be quirky and the 18th green to be an example of that quirk.  Since I haven't met anyone who as played Kington and not loved it, though, I'm confidant this is good quirk.  Kington's architecture is, in many ways, minimalistic but also highly artificial.  The excellence of the course is as much evidence as could be needed that naturalistic architecture is not the only way to achieve a wonderful golf course.

I'm in a mood to quash all idealism today so I apologise in advance.... I believe this is indeed an example of minimalism.... But only because the architect / constructors didn't have the foresight or budget to make it look more natural... I believe that contrary to what you say above, this is in fact an attempt to look as naturalistic as possible and building something artificial looking was not the objective by any means... Architects today (with any budget) don't build this kind of feature because they know how to tie in to the land better.... All of that is not to say that this is not a cool feature or that it doesn't play well or even look good...

Ally

Hutchison was a seasoned and well known figure in golf and architecture.  Kington came well after the initial heathland push - being founded in 1925.  I am confident he knew about shaping and naturalism afterall it was al the rage among the crowd Hutchison ran in.  Kington is something quite original for Hutchison's resume which I suspect was a budget driven solution to tackle the hilly site.  I wonder if there were any cues taken from Fowler's work at Yelverton - another quite distinctive course flying in the face of naturalism. 

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

So Ally you are saying this hole is kind of like a really bad, cheap film that becomes a cult classic?

Maybe "Showgirls" with those artificial shapes?

Maybe more like a really good "B" film?.... I actually think it looks quite good because it's individual... And I'm sure strategically it plays really well with that sweeping hill and firm ground meaning a run in from left works.... But I don't believe it was built like that for any other reason than neccessity... Maybe I'm being unfair. After all, that big mound on the right didn't have to be constructed like that and seems to work well...

[Ally Mcintosh]

Yes, I think most people would consider Kington to be quirky and the 18th green to be an example of that quirk.  Since I haven't met anyone who as played Kington and not loved it, though, I'm confidant this is good quirk.  Kington's architecture is, in many ways, minimalistic but also highly artificial.  The excellence of the course is as much evidence as could be needed that naturalistic architecture is not the only way to achieve a wonderful golf course.

I'm in a mood to quash all idealism today so I apologise in advance.... I believe this is indeed an example of minimalism.... But only because the architect / constructors didn't have the foresight or budget to make it look more natural... I believe that contrary to what you say above, this is in fact an attempt to look as naturalistic as possible and building something artificial looking was not the objective by any means... Architects today (with any budget) don't build this kind of feature because they know how to tie in to the land better.... All of that is not to say that this is not a cool feature or that it doesn't play well or even look good...

Ally

Hutchison was a seasoned and well known figure in golf and architecture.  Kington came well after the initial heathland push - being founded in 1925.  I am confident he knew about shaping and naturalism afterall it was al the rage among the crowd Hutchison ran in.  Kington is something quite original for Hutchison's resume which I suspect was a budget driven solution to tackle the hilly site.  I wonder if there were any cues taken from Fowler's work at Yelverton - another quite distinctive course flying in the face of naturalism. 

Ciao

  I'm sure it was a budget driven solution Sean... But one aimed to look as natural as possible, not deliberately artificial...
I can see similarities with early Fowler work as well... Basically dig out a bunker and use the cut to create the fronting mound in quite a sharp fashion... Looks like loads of fun anyway... Not quirky though...

[Mark Pearce]

Ally,

We're going to have to disagree.  Firstly, I suspect that Hutchison cared far more for how it played than how it looked.  Second, it wouldn't have taken much to smooth the edges and he chose not to.  Either way, Kingtonplays brilliantly and I doubt it would playas well if it looked more natural.

[John Chilver-Stainer]

The steep slopes around the green are man-made quirk (because it steep and varied) and the accidental surface of the fairway is quirky (because it’s accidental).

But if the apron and green surface are flat - then it’s dinky. 

[Sean_A]

Yes, I think most people would consider Kington to be quirky and the 18th green to be an example of that quirk.  Since I haven't met anyone who as played Kington and not loved it, though, I'm confidant this is good quirk.  Kington's architecture is, in many ways, minimalistic but also highly artificial.  The excellence of the course is as much evidence as could be needed that naturalistic architecture is not the only way to achieve a wonderful golf course.

I'm in a mood to quash all idealism today so I apologise in advance.... I believe this is indeed an example of minimalism.... But only because the architect / constructors didn't have the foresight or budget to make it look more natural... I believe that contrary to what you say above, this is in fact an attempt to look as naturalistic as possible and building something artificial looking was not the objective by any means... Architects today (with any budget) don't build this kind of feature because they know how to tie in to the land better.... All of that is not to say that this is not a cool feature or that it doesn't play well or even look good...

Ally

Hutchison was a seasoned and well known figure in golf and architecture.  Kington came well after the initial heathland push - being founded in 1925.  I am confident he knew about shaping and naturalism afterall it was al the rage among the crowd Hutchison ran in.  Kington is something quite original for Hutchison's resume which I suspect was a budget driven solution to tackle the hilly site.  I wonder if there were any cues taken from Fowler's work at Yelverton - another quite distinctive course flying in the face of naturalism.  

Ciao

 I'm sure it was a budget driven solution Sean... But one aimed to look as natural as possible, not deliberately artificial...
I can see similarities with early Fowler work as well... Basically dig out a bunker and use the cut to create the fronting mound in quite a sharp fashion... Looks like loads of fun anyway... Not quirky though...

Ally

Can't agree.  There is no way Hutchison thought the mounding looked as natural possible.  Once a choice was made not to shape out the surrounds I think he was shooting more for as interesting looking as possible given the budget and playability considerations - nature had couldn't have had much bearing in the final decision-making.  The shaping of Kington is so starkly unnatural that its impossible for me to be believe anybody could think it plausible for it to exist on that site.  

Here is another pic of #18 to drive home the point of how in your face Kington's shaping is.


Pay attention to the mounding and hollows in the above pic.  Its very clever how the recovery penalty for going past the hole is heightened by sharp mounding and a hollow.  Further up the green where balls need to kick in from has no hollows.  I am certain Hutchison took great care in making Kington a very strategic course that is harder to make out because of the lack of bunkers.  There is in question in my mind that Kington is a very high quality design on a tough site - a design archies could learn from.   

Ciao

[Neil White]

I'm sure there are many who would consider Kington to be quirk in this day and age - but it was possibly considered the norm when it was originally constructed.

We have become so used to soft edges that anything with a less than naturalistic appearance is considered to be quirk.

I would also go as far to suggest that - judging from Sean's most recent photo of the green looking back up the fairway - that there could have possibly been sand in one or both of the depressions shown in the photo.  I was under the impression that due to its position on the top of a hill that they found it nigh on impossible to keep sand in the bunkers.

Would we consider the mounding quirk if what we see were still bunkers?

I will ask the question when I go to Kington next month.

Neil.