[Thomas Dai]

........boring and tedious etc and you'd want to move to membership at another nearby club/course instead?


We have photo-tours and postings herein about some wonderful quirky courses, many of which have numerous admirable architectural features.


Painswick and Cruit Island would be just a couple of examples, and many more have been highlighted herein over the years in various locations throughout the world.


Taking location, terrain, weather etc into consideration how often - say times per week - could you play as a club member the SAME quirky course before it would become boring, tedious etc and you'd want to move to membership at another nearby club/course instead?


Atb

[PCCraig]

Thomas,


I play my golf at what almost everyone would call a quirky golf course. I like quirk, so it fits my eye. I think blind shots, uneven lies, etc. makes playing the same golf course over and over much more interesting. Playing a straightforward golf course would get boring much quicker I would have to believe.

[Tim Gallant]

........boring and tedious etc and you'd want to move to membership at another nearby club/course instead?


We have photo-tours and postings herein about some wonderful quirky courses, many of which have numerous admirable architectural features.


Painswick and Cruit Island would be just a couple of examples, and many more have been highlighted herein over the years in various locations throughout the world.


Taking location, terrain, weather etc into consideration how often - say times per week - could you play as a club member the SAME quirky course before it would become boring, tedious etc and you'd want to move to membership at another nearby club/course instead?


Atb

Thomas,


I love quirky courses, could play them daily, and often do play them on a regular basis. That said, it depends on how much stroke play you wanted to play. Normally, I either play for fun with side bets with buddies, or am playing match play. In these scenarios, a bad bounce or two brings a smile to my face, and I immediately look forward to playing the next shot.


However, when I play in the monthly stroke-play medal, it is a different story. I recently got what I considered to be a bad break when my wedge flew probably 3 inches further than it needed to, and I ended up dead. 8 on the scorecard, and my medal was done. I liked the quirk of that particular green a lot less on that day...


Thankfully, I don't play much stroke play, so I am happy to play quirky courses on a regular basis, and I feel it adds to the intrigue, but I could see how some wanting to challenge for a lower handicap / PB would want a 'less-quirky' course.

[Joe Zucker]

Thomas,

I play my golf at what almost everyone would call a quirky golf course. I like quirk, so it fits my eye. I think blind shots, uneven lies, etc. makes playing the same golf course over and over much more interesting. Playing a straightforward golf course would get boring much quicker I would have to believe.

Pat, do you think playing a quirky course so often has made you enjoy quirk even more?  Or did you have a strong taste for it even before you started play T&CC regularly? 

I play quirky courses sparingly, so when I do I am usually pretty excited for it.  I'm not sure if playing one regularly would make me love it even more or push me to crave a more traditional experience more often.

[Tommy Williamsen]

That's an interesting question. For years I belonged to a course that pretty much everyone would attribute it attributes as quirky. I also belonged to a pretty traditional parland course. Both were equally as good. I found that I craved the more traditional course if I played the other many times in a row. There is something good to be said about more traditional courses that still challenge and require good shotmaking.

[Jason Thurman]

When I saw the thread title, I hoped Pat would respond.


My feeling after one play at Town and Country is that I could happily play it as an everyday home club. The simplest definition of quirk is that it's a peculiarity. In golf, it's usually something unusual that a player might not have seen before. The difference between good quirk and bad quirk is in the amount of variety that it creates. Bad quirk is something unusual that becomes mundane within a play or two - it's something you haven't seen before, and you realize within a few plays that you're glad it's unusual because you also don't have much interest in seeing it again.


But good quirk is something that's unusual just as bad quirk is, but that also creates unusual outcomes. Town and Country reflects this in spades. The first time playing a hole like 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, or 16, you may have the thought at some point that "I've never really seen a hole like this before." But what's cool about those holes is that it's easy to see how someone playing the course for the 50th time could face a shot unlike any that they've played before based on the outcomes created by the oddities of how they're constructed. In that sense, I'm not sure a course could be "too quirky" for me to play every day. But some quirky courses could certainly be too stupid and boring, while others only become more interesting with more plays.

[Tom_Doak]

I don't know if I could just play any course happily everyday.  But I would think a quirky course would be likely to hold my interest for longer than a more straightforward one.

[Matthew Petersen]

I don't know if I could just play any course happily everyday.  But I would think a quirky course would be likely to hold my interest for longer than a more straightforward one.

That's my feeling, as well. I prefer playing all over to playing anywhere over and over. But if a quirky course gets "boring and tedious" surely a less quirky course would feel that way even more quickly?

[Peter Pallotta]

I'm still stuck between quirky and awkward.

I played 9 holes yesterday and was mad throughout most of the round at all the awkward holes.

Then on the drive home I started feeling embarrassed:

What if those holes weren't awkward at all, but actually quirky instead?

Maybe I was being unfair: if those 9 holes were built in England 100 years ago instead of in southern Ontario 20 years ago, I'd have *known* they were quirky, and maybe would not have been so upset.

They were hard holes. Quirky-awkward confuses me, and then I get flustered.  A good player who gets flustered and confused usually still gets away with a par; but get an average golfer confused and *anything* can happen

At least I'm not mad anymore. Typing this out helped me realize that the golf course wasn't the problem, I was! 

That's why I have to start threads about moving from what should be to what is, i.e. if I don't remind myself constantly, I'm very prone to fall right back into the "should" camp in a heart beat

Peter

[Dave McCollum]

When quirky courses are discussed, I think of two locals built on fairly extreme terrain.  I liked both and embraced the quirk.  As I become more interested in GCA and traveled some to see examples of other styles of golf and quirk my subjective opinions changed about the two courses.  One I love, although more difficult; and the other irritates me.  Perhaps my negative feelings about the one began when for several years running I was drafted as a last minute sub for a pro-am and had plenty of time to look around during the 5.5 hour rounds.  Fair or not, I actually think the course I hate has one good hole, a 125 yard par three, and there is a tree virtually growing in the middle of the green.  So, I suppose it depends on the quirk you like.

[jeffwarne]

. But I would think a quirky course would be likely to hold my interest for longer than a more straightforward one.

No question a quirky course would hold one's attention better.
In the first place it would take a while to learn and enjoy the quirk.
Quirky courses can be less fun the first time around and generally do nothing but grow on one over time.

For those that cite stroke play as the reason they might not, how often and important  is it really that the occasional "perfect" shot ends up  dead. And isn't that part of the thrill? Nothing better to run up to a hill to see how a shot's going to turn out.
 I will add that a shot that's only "inches" off, that leads to an 8 sounds like quirk with which I am not familiar. (maybe a couple other poorly executed shots in there as well?)
There definitely is bad quirk also of course.

I think of my long beloved Goat Hill (currently a grassy mess) and how many times we played way more 9's than we intended. There are certain shots that depending on angle,it's simply a matter of inches and fortune, but that simply encourages bold play to a better angle, or a uncertain outcome.

It seems that's why I like so few modern courses-even the best ones seem to rules for design in an effort to not have any "weak" holes. With no weak holes, how do you counter and identify the "strong" holes?
Having the ability to move dirt seems to eliminate many creative and quirky solutions.

[Thomas Dai]

Some interesting thoughts here. Many thanks.


To highlight one aspect......quirky holes/courses usually seem to need more extreme terrain.


So to take this aspect a bit further, would playing frequently, say twice per week, on an extreme/quirky terrain course turn you off the course in question after a while irrespective of it's architectural interest?


Atb

[Sean_A]

atb


Your question highlights why there is a difference between the membership club, favourite course, best course and recommended course.  As much as I love quirk, it often comes at a high price to pay in terms of a hilly walk and exposure to bad weather. This is main reason why North Berwick is so brilliant; a virtually flat course with a fair amount of quirk...what a combo.


Ciao

[jeffwarne]

atb


Your question highlights why there is a difference between the membership club, favourite course, best course and recommended course.  As much as I love quirk, it often comes at a high price to pay in terms of a hilly walk and exposure to bad weather. This is main reason why North Berwick is so brilliant; a virtually flat course with a fair amount of quirk...what a combo.


Ciao

Great point Sean
Extreme terrain induced quirk can be a dealbreaker on a steady diet.

Another example of very walkable quirk is Arrowtown

[Thomas Dai]

Getting somewhere now.


Relative severity of the terrain (and weather I suggest) is pretty much key particularly if it's your 'home' course/club where your paying annual membership fees.


So NB and Arrowtown are two examples of a fine blend of quirk and terrain.


What would be some others examples?


Huntercombe and Minch' Old? They are both pretty flat and yet are still pretty quirky.


Atb

[Dave McCollum]

Of the two courses I mentioned, the one I dislike is a hilly walk with a couple of steep climbs.  The one I like is very tough, probably unwalkable for most. 

[Josh Stevens]

I think once a month.

I have some mates in London who are members at Sunningdale, and Royal St Georges.  They all share the same view that Sunningdale is their bread and butter track, with Sandwich being once a month trip.

This is not just the issue of location and convenience, but rather they all agree that week in week out, Sandwich is just too much.

[Thomas Dai]

I think once a month.
I have some mates in London who are members at Sunningdale, and Royal St Georges.  They all share the same view that Sunningdale is their bread and butter track, with Sandwich being once a month trip.
This is not just the issue of location and convenience, but rather they all agree that week in week out, Sandwich is just too much.

Very nicely put Josh. Although some may disagree with the example clubs but the concept of "just too much" is a fine way of describing the situation.....and when you add in terrain and weather then "just too much" is spot on.


Atb

[Tim Gallant]

. But I would think a quirky course would be likely to hold my interest for longer than a more straightforward one.

For those that cite stroke play as the reason they might not, how often and important  is it really that the occasional "perfect" shot ends up  dead. And isn't that part of the thrill? Nothing better to run up to a hill to see how a shot's going to turn out.
 I will add that a shot that's only "inches" off, that leads to an 8 sounds like quirk with which I am not familiar. (maybe a couple other poorly executed shots in there as well?)
There definitely is bad quirk also of course.

Jeff,


I wish it was hyperbole! The green I am referring to is the 16th at North Berwick. I love it as a green, I love it for its quirk, and 9/10 I do get a thrill watching weather my ball will finish on the green, or whether or not I will have a crazy putt. However, on the occasion I have mentioned previously, the pin was in the back right part of the green (the toughest pin location), which meant that over the green was dead. I have played the hole enough times to know that short is the miss, but caught a flyer out of the rough and the ball missed hitting into the bank of the swale by mere inches. Instead of having a 5 foot putt, I was over the green, and left with a putt that is near impossible to get close. This is the same green that Mickelson drove pin high in 1 and took a 6. I hit a great first putt that teetered on the edge of the top of the bank before rolling back down the slope. Same for my 5th shot. The 6th made it up, but 10 feet by and I missed the come-back.


Now, how often does this happen? In 10 stroke play events, I would say that my average score on that hole is a 6.5 and I'm not alone. How important is it? I don't get a thrill out of watching my ball come back to my feet, and when I am trying to lower my handicap (a personal goal), it is so discouraging to play well for 15 holes only to be undone by one 'quirky' green. Handicaps are not everything, and I don't play enough competitive golf that I worry about it a lot, but at the same time, I do now feel reluctant to play stroke play events on the course for fear of playing well, and getting a few bad breaks. Same goes for the 13th. One of my favourite par-4s on the course, but in stroke-play, hitting the wall and ending up 40 yards right in deep rough is no fun.

[Tom_Doak]

I don't get a thrill out of watching my ball come back to my feet, and when I am trying to lower my handicap (a personal goal), it is so discouraging to play well for 15 holes only to be undone by one 'quirky' green. Handicaps are not everything, and I don't play enough competitive golf that I worry about it a lot, but at the same time, I do now feel reluctant to play stroke play events on the course for fear of playing well, and getting a few bad breaks. Same goes for the 13th. One of my favourite par-4s on the course, but in stroke-play, hitting the wall and ending up 40 yards right in deep rough is no fun.

Did you ever think about giving yourself a little more margin for error on these shots?  Putting short and having the ball come back to you is a mental error on your part -- you should be trying to hit the putt 8-10 feet past the hole and trying to make the comebacker.  But you would rather blame your failure on "the quirk," instead of taking the one-stroke punishment for having missed the green and moving on.


P.S.  Using Phil Mickelson as an example in your defense is just too perfect. 

[Tim Gallant]

I don't get a thrill out of watching my ball come back to my feet, and when I am trying to lower my handicap (a personal goal), it is so discouraging to play well for 15 holes only to be undone by one 'quirky' green. Handicaps are not everything, and I don't play enough competitive golf that I worry about it a lot, but at the same time, I do now feel reluctant to play stroke play events on the course for fear of playing well, and getting a few bad breaks. Same goes for the 13th. One of my favourite par-4s on the course, but in stroke-play, hitting the wall and ending up 40 yards right in deep rough is no fun.

Did you ever think about giving yourself a little more margin for error on these shots?  Putting short and having the ball come back to you is a mental error on your part -- you should be trying to hit the putt 8-10 feet past the hole and trying to make the comebacker.  But you would rather blame your failure on "the quirk," instead of taking the one-stroke punishment for having missed the green and moving on.


P.S.  Using Phil Mickelson as an example in your defense is just too perfect. 

I love the Mickelson story too much!


Yes, absolutely a mental error to leave it short, but as the back part of the green runs from right to left (as you look at it from the swale), it is very easy to putt off the green on the other side. As it was stroke-play, I was trying to play the perfect shot to keep from making more than a double. My point being that for a shot that wasn't poorly struck, is an essentially two shot penalty ever justified? In match-play, you only lose the hole, so to me, the quirk is not only ok, but adds interest. Or in a bounce-game, where the variety is fun, exciting and makes the round more enjoyable.


I have argued that the simple solution to this would be to place the pin on the front-side of the green for stroke-play comps, which take away the quirkiness to a degree, but not necessarily the challenge.

[James Brown]

Is a course like Prestwick quirky? 

[Ian Galbraith]

I wish it was hyperbole! The green I am referring to is the 16th at North Berwick. I love it as a green, I love it for its quirk, and 9/10 I do get a thrill watching weather my ball will finish on the green, or whether or not I will have a crazy putt. However, on the occasion I have mentioned previously, the pin was in the back right part of the green (the toughest pin location), which meant that over the green was dead. I have played the hole enough times to know that short is the miss, but caught a flyer out of the rough and the ball missed hitting into the bank of the swale by mere inches. Instead of having a 5 foot putt, I was over the green, and left with a putt that is near impossible to get close. This is the same green that Mickelson drove pin high in 1 and took a 6. I hit a great first putt that teetered on the edge of the top of the bank before rolling back down the slope. Same for my 5th shot. The 6th made it up, but 10 feet by and I missed the come-back.

Tim, I share your pain having fallen victim to the 16th green quirk often enough myself - but is it really so different to, say, the Postage Stamp at Troon where missing the perfect spot by 2ft can also lead pretty quickly to a 6 even for the best of players. Or the Road Hole where being a little off perfect can be disastrous.


I now think surviving the 16th with a card in hand is about accepting that for me the back pin position is not accessible from 100 yards and out and instead trying to ensure one misses pin-high left. The putt up the bank from there is quite benign, getting up & down is realistic and a bogey should be the worst that happens.

Of course such tantric enlightenment is easy to spout at the keyboard and is no warranty on future shot selection. I did make par there  yesterday with the pin at the back by this method - albeit aided by a miraculous bounce out of the burn ! 

[Carl Rogers]

Played Royal New Kent last week ... and for me it is the quirkiest course I know in my limited universe of courses.  Once or twice a year at RNK is enough for me.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thinking about this:

both quirky and awkward holes play against type; they challenge or upend our expectations.

For awkward holes it ends there; they don't do any more than this, and once the expectation has changed out goes the uniqueness/challenge/fun.

Quirky holes worthy of the name keep on giving; their design allows for varied challenges and renewable interest long after our expectations have been aligned with the fact.

I haven't played many quirky holes (like at NB), but more than a few awkward ones.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()