Richard Mandell's Principles of Golf Course Architecture

[Matt MacIver]

Wow. Awesome chapters haven’t seen it spelled out so simple yet so nuanced, look forward to reading.

[Richard_Mandell]

Dan,


The definition of Quirk is "Something that is strange and unexpected; A sudden twist, turn , or curve."


Most often Quirk is manufactured and that is why I say it should never be sought.  In other words, don't create something just to be quirky.  That doesn't mean that an architect shouldn't create something that may be different;  just don't call it a Quirk.  Because it isn't.


To me, a quirk is something that results from a site constraint that just can't be changed.  This is different than something that is just thought-provoking, cool-looking, or just simply different.  To illustrate, I use the 3rd hole at White Bear as an example of a quirk. Such a short and small par-three, the hole is a result of the routing of the golf course coming up against the property line, which has a high slope. 


The hole is a result of its site-constraint as opposed to the same exact hole that may appear somewhere else in a routing solely by the architect's choice.  That hole, in its same exact form, designed somewhere else without any site constraints, is equally thought-provoking, cool, and certainly different.  It just isn't quirky in that location.


One of the primary goals with this book is to truly drill down to the actual definitions of the principles that we all take for granted and tend to generalize about.   As a result, I try to make the distinction between Randomness vs, Chance; Fairness vs. Playability; Difficulty vs. Penalty vs. Challenge, etc.

[Ira Fishman]

Richard,


Thanks for engaging on the thread. A brief diversion: several of us in the RTP are curious about the Stagecoach Practice Facility. Is it built? Private facility for one person?


And understand if you cannot answer.


Thanks,


Ira

[Richard_Mandell]

Plans for a private club surrounded by 5-acre lots.  Still in the planning stages.

[Ira Fishman]

Plans for a private club surrounded by 5-acre lots.  Still in the planning stages.

Got it. Thanks.

[Sean_A]

Dan,

The definition of Quirk is "Something that is strange and unexpected; A sudden twist, turn , or curve."

Most often Quirk is manufactured and that is why I say it should never be sought.  In other words, don't create something just to be quirky.  That doesn't mean that an architect shouldn't create something that may be different;  just don't call it a Quirk.  Because it isn't.

To me, a quirk is something that results from a site constraint that just can't be changed.  This is different than something that is just thought-provoking, cool-looking, or just simply different.  To illustrate, I use the 3rd hole at White Bear as an example of a quirk. Such a short and small par-three, the hole is a result of the routing of the golf course coming up against the property line, which has a high slope. 

The hole is a result of its site-constraint as opposed to the same exact hole that may appear somewhere else in a routing solely by the architect's choice.  That hole, in its same exact form, designed somewhere else without any site constraints, is equally thought-provoking, cool, and certainly different.  It just isn't quirky in that location.

One of the primary goals with this book is to truly drill down to the actual definitions of the principles that we all take for granted and tend to generalize about.   As a result, I try to make the distinction between Randomness vs, Chance; Fairness vs. Playability; Difficulty vs. Penalty vs. Challenge, etc.

Isn't natural quirk nearly always a routing choice? The decision to include an odd landform in the design or not? For instance, North Berwick's Pit is quirky because the wall was used. The green could be well right of the wall and the hole is no longer quirky. Or the green could be just right of the wall and that would still be quirky, but far less provocative.

Ciao

[Niall C]

"Something that is strange and unexpected; A sudden twist, turn , or curve."
 
Sean


If you take quirk as being as per Richard's definition above then I tend to think the Pit isn't really quirk, or at least it didn't used to be. Back in the day placing the green behind a wall, hedge or fence was quite common and indeed standard. Those kind of holes have been designed out although there are still a few remaining with the par 3 at Killin being an example. If there is anything different about the Pit it is that the fairway now runs at a diagonal to the line of the wall where as most holes like this approached the wall head on, similar to how the Pit used to play from the Quarry green.


Niall

[Sean_A]

"Something that is strange and unexpected; A sudden twist, turn , or curve."
 
Sean


If you take quirk as being as per Richard's definition above then I tend to think the Pit isn't really quirk, or at least it didn't used to be. Back in the day placing the green behind a wall, hedge or fence was quite common and indeed standard. Those kind of holes have been designed out although there are still a few remaining with the par 3 at Killin being an example. If there is anything different about the Pit it is that the fairway now runs at a diagonal to the line of the wall where as most holes like this approached the wall head on, similar to how the Pit used to play from the Quarry green.

Niall

Niall

Couldn't you say the same about most of quirky holes of the past? In any case, I wonder how often holes were placed directly behind walls. Perhaps you are over stating the case to say it was common. It doesn't much matter if a hole was seen as quirky, boring or brilliant back in the day. What matters is how future generations perceive holes. Its a shame that quirky holes carried a negative connotation for so long and even today. We probably lost more very good holes than we shall ever know.

Ciao

[Niall C]

Sean


I'm not sure the average golfer has negative views on quirk, or if they even think of it at all.


As for days of old it was quite common to use walls in this manner prior to WWI, particularly with inland courses from 1880's and 1890's. The simple reason was they were more often or not built on agricultural land rather than parkland, and that the agricultural land was sub-divided into fields by means of walls or hedges. Almost always, the fields were rented either directly from the land owner or sometimes from the farmer but with the fields still used for the grazing of livestock. Not un-naturally the land owner/farmer wasn't going to let them knock the walls down for obvious reasons.


It was only when the golden age guys appeared in from the early 20th century that things began to change. Think of the Eden course at St Andrews and how Colt partially demolished and covered over a wall in front of at least one green and on one fairway. It was MacKenzie IIRC who did the same to the wall in front of the 12th (?) at Prestwick.


Niall   

[Richard_Mandell]

Sean,


Regarding Niall's comment about the original incorporation of walls,  he is spot on.  I also like his response to your thought about Quirk.


Good choice on considering the 13th at North Berwick.  I used that wall in this very chapter and consider it a Quirk:


"Many older courses originally ran into immovable stone walls that delineated property lines.  Some eventually became internal features through land acquisition.  They often determined the length and subsequent strategy of golf holes providing authenticity and design precedent. 

The waist-high wall crossing in front of thirteen green at North Berwick’s West Course is considered a Quirk because it was most likely considered an immovable object when the hole was first revealed.  Preserving such ancient walls today incorporates the Principle of Quirk.  Not because they are immovable objects but because they are strange and unexpectedly out of context with modern design."


I also discuss the Dell hole as NOT being a Quirk: 


"A purist’s perception of the Principle of Quirk requires authenticity, meaning that quirky golf course mounds evolve out of naturally quirky landforms.  Yet there is a distinction between incorporating naturally quirky golf course features rising up out of the ground versus intentionally utilizing those same landforms for design features.

An example is the Dell hole at Lahinch, a short par three hole of 154 yards.  Its narrow green is laid between a collection of large mounds.  I would venture to say the green site was intentionally chosen by Old Tom Morris based on its potential position within the existing dunes.  Being an Irish links site, few, if any, features there would be considered quirky because those features are typical of the landscape in that corner of the world.

Morris could have placed that particular green anywhere on that piece of ground.  The fact that he chose the greensite that he did – nestled in and around a trio of natural dunes - does not make it a quirky hole.  It is not a surprising or unexpected green location.  It is the opposite:  Absolutely expected as a great location for a green within the realm of great links design.  Its location is a testament to the talent of Old Tom Morris and the reputation of the Dell hole.  There are other greens in Ireland chosen by Old Tom Morris that simply aren’t as memorable.

The Dell hole is not a result of the Principle of Quirk.  Rather it is simply a result of great design.  Fast forward a few hundred years and let’s place that green in a modern setting somewhere within the interior of the United States.  Discovered in the sandhills of Nebraska, I would still not credit the Principle of Quirk because that landscape is dominated by similar natural features.

But if one came across three particular hills within a relatively flat landscape on the outskirts of Mobile, Alabama, they would be looked upon as strange and unexpected.  Being the only features of such character on the property, they serve as the setting for a green; In that case, the Principle of Quirk has as much to do with its location as anything else.  The discovery of those particular landforms is indeed a surprise that was not expected."

[Sean_A]

Sean

I'm not sure the average golfer has negative views on quirk, or if they even think of it at all.

As for days of old it was quite common to use walls in this manner prior to WWI, particularly with inland courses from 1880's and 1890's. The simple reason was they were more often or not built on agricultural land rather than parkland, and that the agricultural land was sub-divided into fields by means of walls or hedges. Almost always, the fields were rented either directly from the land owner or sometimes from the farmer but with the fields still used for the grazing of livestock. Not un-naturally the land owner/farmer wasn't going to let them knock the walls down for obvious reasons.

It was only when the golden age guys appeared in from the early 20th century that things began to change. Think of the Eden course at St Andrews and how Colt partially demolished and covered over a wall in front of at least one green and on one fairway. It was MacKenzie IIRC who did the same to the wall in front of the 12th (?) at Prestwick.

Niall

Niall

I understand the concept, but I am not convinced walls directly in front of greens was as common as seem to suggest. Although I agree that 20th century archies systematically removed what they saw as poor architecture and what would today be considered quirky. As I wrote earlier, it doesn't really matter. What matters is what later generations did with these holes.

Richard

It's hard to believe that you wouldn't consider a modern version of Dell as quirky. Not many people would expect to see a modern hole such as this and that is likely why so few truly quirky holes are built these days. I think people have a hard time accepting them and they are seen as risky design decisions. Tobacco Rd just skirts quirky design and it has a serious marmite reputation. Shit, a lot of golfers don't really accept centre line bunkers!

Ciao

[Richard_Mandell]

Sean,


It's a damn shame many don't really accept center line bunkers. 


By definition, I just wouldn't consider the Dell hole a Quirk.  Really great and thought-provoking design but not Quirky by definition.  Tobacco Road has many near-quirks but they were mostly created, not "worked around."


Many think the two large sand piles that flank both sides of the first hole at Tobacco Road to be manufactured, but they were actually there before construction started.  Yet I would not consider them Quirks because Mike Strantz could have re-routed the hole to avoid them.  He chose not to, which is a great design decision.  Just not quirky.


The thirteenth green, though, i would consider a Quirk because of the road that sits hard to the green's back.  There was no where to go, which results in it's shape.  I can't speak to whether the dune in front was there before the green but if it was, then it adds to the quirk.  The property line there makes for Quirky design decisions.  It is an immovable object.


The Dell hole is fantastic but, again, by definition it isn't a Quirk.  Bold design, yes.  Quirk no.  Old Tom intentionally sought-out those dunes for his green site, as any great designer should.  It should be replicated more but isn't not because it is quirky but because it is blind and apparently many golfers don't like blind.  As architects, we have to answer to the clients who may be resistant to such a move.  That's why it is hard for many of us to let our design chops flow:  A client that lacks vision.  But that's a topic for another thread (that has probably been discussed countless times here).

[Steve_Lovett]

Richard, Tom,
I get that there are many hazards that only penalize the weak or thoughtless golfer. But that's not what the one line said.
It said hazards are there to challenge, not penalize. So again, if we can brush aside discussing poorly designed hazards for a moment, what makes a hazard challenging if there is no penalty associated with it? I truly do not understand the concept.


Are the hazards at The Old Course poorly designed because there is a penalty associated with them, or are we only talking about hazards that have actually penalty strokes involved like water and OB?

If you choose to take on the challenge of a hazard and fail then it makes sense to have some kind of penalty. If you conquer the challenge then you get whatever that reward is. If you choose to play away from the hazard, then you've taken another option altogether - assuming there's a way around.

[Richard_Mandell]

And the reward - if there is one - may not be as great.

[Mark_Fine]

We have all read a ton of books etc by different architects outlining their thoughts on design.  Knowing Richard I am sure his book will be a good one.  What I have always found interesting is all the different takes and opinions, no two are thinking exactly the same which is why designs are so varied.  There are no hard and fast rules in GCA, same goes for some of the definitions.  Gil Hanse for example hates the words fair and fairness and thinks those words should never be used to describe golf course architecture.  He said their is nothing unfair in GCA as the game itself is inherently unfair.  But he does think there is poor design.  I personally hate when an announcer or tour pro describes a hole or a course as fair    I look forward to the read.

[Ira Fishman]

Sean,


It's a damn shame many don't really accept center line bunkers. 


By definition, I just wouldn't consider the Dell hole a Quirk.  Really great and thought-provoking design but not Quirky by definition.  Tobacco Road has many near-quirks but they were mostly created, not "worked around."


Many think the two large sand piles that flank both sides of the first hole at Tobacco Road to be manufactured, but they were actually there before construction started.  Yet I would not consider them Quirks because Mike Strantz could have re-routed the hole to avoid them.  He chose not to, which is a great design decision.  Just not quirky.


The thirteenth green, though, i would consider a Quirk because of the road that sits hard to the green's back.  There was no where to go, which results in it's shape.  I can't speak to whether the dune in front was there before the green but if it was, then it adds to the quirk.  The property line there makes for Quirky design decisions.  It is an immovable object.


The Dell hole is fantastic but, again, by definition it isn't a Quirk.  Bold design, yes.  Quirk no.  Old Tom intentionally sought-out those dunes for his green site, as any great designer should.  It should be replicated more but isn't not because it is quirky but because it is blind and apparently many golfers don't like blind.  As architects, we have to answer to the clients who may be resistant to such a move.  That's why it is hard for many of us to let our design chops flow:  A client that lacks vision.  But that's a topic for another thread (that has probably been discussed countless times here).

Richard,


Fascinating. I always have viewed the Dell as quirky. I guess I have to reconsider. But I am curious how you would characterize the 3rd and 4th holes at Lahinch.


Ira

[Mark Mammel]

Thanks Rick. My take on the hazard comment is that the hazard that is a non-factor for the better player- it is short, it is not strategically considered for the shot, but instead captures shots from lesser players and penalizes them severely- is badly designed. And as a player with both an increasing handicap and an age well higher than the loft on Phil Mickelson's sand wedge, I know those hazards.

[Richard_Mandell]

Ira,


I would classify the third at Lahinch as purely a design decision and not quirky.  Again, a great hole but just not Quirky because alternate deign decisions could have been made.  The fourth, on the other hand, could be a Quirk depending upon if the road behind the green was there before the hole.

[Ira Fishman]

Ira,


I would classify the third at Lahinch as purely a design decision and not quirky.  Again, a great hole but just not Quirky because alternate deign decisions could have been made.  The fourth, on the other hand, could be a Quirk depending upon if the road behind the green was there before the hole.

Richard,


So in your definition, quirk is not a conscious design choice to use interesting land forms but rather a decision forced because there is no alternative?


What about a hole like the 1st at Elie?


Thanks,


Ira

[Richard_Mandell]

Ira,


The first at Elie is not quirky at all.  it is just links golf.  Even the road behind it was added after the course was built.

[Richard_Mandell]

To me, Quirk is revealed when an irresistible force runs into an immovable object.  That can't be manufactured.

[Ira Fishman]

Richard,


I am struggling with your definition. Other than an interior wall, are there any examples of Quirk as you define it that do not involve the boundary of a course?


Thanks again.


Ira

[Richard_Mandell]

Ira,


Going back to the discussion about the Dell hole, let me include the following paragraphs from the book to help explain why I think the Dell is not a Quirk but the exact same feature found elsewhere certainly is:



The Dell hole is not a result of the Principle of Quirk.  Rather it is simply a result of great design.  Fast forward a few hundred years and let’s place that green in a modern setting somewhere within the interior of the United States.  Discovered in the sandhills of Nebraska, I would still not credit the Principle of Quirk because that landscape is dominated by similar natural features.

But if one came across three particular hills within a relatively flat landscape on the outskirts of Mobile, Alabama, they would be looked upon as strange and unexpected.  Being the only features of such character on the property, they serve as the setting for a green; In that case, the Principle of Quirk has as much to do with its location as anything else.  The discovery of those particular landforms is indeed a surprise that was not expected.

Granted, there is no immovable object situation here but it certainly exhibits something that is strange and unexpected.  Here is another example from the book:


A fully blind green as a result of the inability to move dirt is the embodiment of the Principle of Quirk yet blindness is not the only requisite for a Quirky green.  Odd-shaped greens that seem gimmicky at first may be a response to the ground through the Principle of Quirk.  A basic example is a putting surface that is wider than it is deep.  Any putting surface which is forced into its location based on the immovable character of a particular site can be classified as a Quirk. 

[Ira Fishman]

Richard,


Probing further on the above. Does the criterion of the landforms not being expected make 14 and 15 at Nairn quirky?


Thanks,


Ira

[Mark_Fine]

Richard,
Is the island green at #17 TPC Sawgrass quirky or not?  Or is only the first island green (wherever that is) considered quirky (assuming it was natural and not man made)?


If #17 is somehow considered quirky what if there were three island greens on the course?  Would each one be quirky or only the first one you came across?