Quirk should be found not created

[JMEvensky]

To me, this whole thread is kind of crazy, because it revolves around words instead of around golf.  Trying to design features that are quirky is just as bad as trying to design a course that's fair!  It's better to throw out all of those concepts and just build GOLF.  Golf has room for all the adjectives you can think of, and more.

This x 1000. If this thread were a college course, the required reading would be Roget's Thesaurus, not The Confidential Guide. Here, everyone gets to be his own Potter Stewart.

[Anthony Gray]

Gib,
If I understand correctly, the manufactured "quirk" at The National which I also love, is not really quirk.

I used the word quirky to describe NGLA in the original edition of The Confidential Guide -- meant endearingly -- but several of their members were bothered by the word, and the old pro Mike Muller called me "Quirky" Doak ever after that.


To me, this whole thread is kind of crazy, because it revolves around words instead of around golf.  Trying to design features that are quirky is just as bad as trying to design a course that's fair!  It's better to throw out all of those concepts and just build GOLF.  Golf has room for all the adjectives you can think of, and more.

 Have you placed stone walls or ruins in any of your courses that where not previously there ? Do you have any courses that have those elements? Would you put them if a client asked?

[archie_struthers]

 


So here's the paradox....if you go out looking to be quirky it can blow up but if it evolves it can be such fun. I often think of Banks work at Forsgate in our area where the quirk is all over the place but it fits, it works.


So in an art (GCA) hemmed in by accepted norms that tend to be quite formulaic : based on a par  whether it be a 3,4 or 5 ,with a scoring goal that make uniformity in playing areas and hazards almost a necessity how does one build "quirk" into a design?   


Methinks those with good resumes and past successes could be more innovative  (dare I say quirky)  given that at the end of the day they have to do a job , but have more freedom to do it!

[Mike Hendren]

I disagree with the premise.


Wasn't the 6th green at Pacific Dunes found AND created?


Tom?


Bogey

[Tom_Doak]

 Have you placed stone walls or ruins in any of your courses that where not previously there ? Do you have any courses that have those elements? Would you put them if a client asked?

Yes, or kind of.  At The Renaissance Club we had to preserve a lot of stone walls that were there, but we also rebuilt a couple that were gone.  At Stonewall (North) we rebuilt several walls that were pretty much down to rubble.


I'm not a fan of the house ruins [basements] used as hazards at Devil's Paintbrush and Mammoth Dunes, though.  If there's going to be a house in play I want it to still be standing, because that gives you a vertical element you wouldn't encounter otherwise [as the stone walls do].

[Gib_Papazian]

JMEvensky,

Fabulously sly cultural reference - although the Wikipedia page might not make explain the connection to our international Treehouse dwellers. I know "quirk" when I see it, too! I guess you could assert it as a form of Golf Porn.

TD,

Mike Muller had quite a sense of humor - he thought it a practical joke to send my on my maiden voyage with Timmonds, but even 34 years later, the Little Man sits atop the center podium as my favorite caddy ever.


Forrest,

The point of this thread is to identify and explore quirk - and trying to express how much I love what you did at Peacock Gap, well, there are no words, even from me.


Not to swell your head - putting aside we are good friends - you took a marginal, unkempt, 6,000 yard muni and turned it into a spiritual cousin of Prestwick or Lahinch.


Neal and I were lucky to be there on a less crowded day because we spent so much time studying things like that bathtub green on the par-5 - and we actually got moved along by the Marshall on #10, just having fun hitting putts from all over the green.


Even the watered-down version of what you did is still well worth a look, but that was a rare instance when we both ran from green to tee, dying to see what came next.


We went to introduce ourselves to the Head Pro and let him know how much we loved the golf course - only to find a smug, humorless, British prig who launched into a dissertation about all the changes he would be insisting on because "the architect went completely over-the-top."


I instantly hated him - one of those tight-ass, limey twats that John Cleese and Eddie Izzard use for target practice. It seemed his entire objective was to erase the most interesting, creative and FUN features, because anything dullards like him cannot understand, they seek to destroy.


Luckily, new management did not have the funds to turn the entire silk purse into Arnold Ziffel's ear. Not to belabor the point, but if you take the mirrors out of a Funhouse, it is just another house.


BTW, love what you did at my cousin's joint at Mira Vista - and before I blew up my back again, found myself running down to Baylands once a month with my homies. Lots of clever quirk there . . . . but Peacock was in a class by itself.   


 


           

[JMEvensky]

Gib, I'm kvelling.

[Gib_Papazian]

I'm glad you are "chuffed."   ;-)

[Forrest Richardson]

Gib — That may be my all-time fav post on the Atlas   The "T" word...My God, brilliant. And, thank you for the kind words. I was always proud of what we did, not that I would have changed a few things. Thanks.

[Tom_Doak]

TD,

Mike Muller had quite a sense of humor - he thought it a practical joke to send my on my maiden voyage with Timmonds, but even 34 years later, the Little Man sits atop the center podium as my favorite caddy ever.

[size=78%]      [/size]

Was that Mike Muller or his brother Billy, the caddie master?


I played there early this spring, and on the fifth hole my caddie asked if I remembered him?  It was Robert Sheridan, who had worked on our construction crew at Riverfront in VA thirty years ago, and even lived in the site house with me and Eric and James Duncan and the golf pro, Tom McCarthy!  [He was wearing so many clothes that I wouldn't have recognized him even had he looked the same.]  That could not have been a coincidence, and kudos to Billy M. for that pairing.

[Richard_Mandell]

The definition of Quirk is a definition, no matter how you want to apply it.  It is, "Something that is strange and unexpected; A sudden twist, turn, or curve."  It isn't necessarily my definition but I do love it and think that any golf courses that have some quirk are all the better for it. 


My design preference, though (which is akin to one's philosophy, which makes every architect different, and which is the reason this site is so active for two decades now, by the way), is that Quirk should come naturally, and isn't manufactured just for creativity's sake.  To me, Quirk happens when an irresistible force runs into an immovable object. In other words, when a feature is absolutely necessary in the design process and its form is altered because of an immovable object (a road, a real building that can't be avoided, a topographic feature compromised by a property line), then it is a Quirk that wasn't expected.  In other words, the architect came up with a great design solution to a problem.


When it is not, and it is just manufactured, it just isn't a Quirk.  A feature that is completely manufactured based on an architect's creativity may be a great feature, it just may not be Quirky.  My point in all of this is that people apply the term "Quirky" a bit too loosely when funky, or innovative, or just "cool" are probably better terms, technically-speaking.  Quirk is just not a catch-all for anything that may be inspiring or thought-provoking.


Tom makes my point when he says it is crazy to design something that is Quirky.  Just let it happen.  Archie as well when he says that if one goes out intentionally seeking Quirky, it may blow up in one's face. 


Again, I do love Quirk, so I'm not dismissing it and I try to create things in my work that many here would call Quirky.  I just would rather call those features funky or innovative, or different, etc.


By the way, you are all getting sucked into needing my book when I am done because if you think this Quirk exploration is fascinating, you will definitely get riled up about the other chapters.  The one on Fairness comes to mind.

[Mark_Fine]

Richard,
Your definition or “the” definition of quick says nothing about whether it is found or manufactured.  You have added that aspect.  Any architect who is dealt a flat featureless site will beg to differ that they can’t do anything quirky in their design because there is none there to start.   


As far as fairness, that is also a very subjective definition.  I for example have NEVER seen anything that I would describe as unfair in golf.  Stupid yes, but not unfair. 

[Kalen Braley]

Richard,
Your definition or “the” definition of quick says nothing about whether it is found or manufactured.  You have added that aspect.  Any architect who is dealt a flat featureless site will beg to differ that they can’t do anything quirky in their design because there is none there to start.   


As far as fairness, that is also a very subjective definition.  I for example have NEVER seen anything that I would describe as unfair in golf.  Stupid yes, but not unfair.

Mark,

The US open had a forced carry at Bethpage a number of years back and I can't recall the hole number, but it had like a 260 yard carry from tee to fairway, and there were a few in the field who couldn't make it...that was only stupid but not unfair too? 

[Richard_Mandell]

Mark,


THE definition of Quirk mentions nothing about found or manufactured.  You are correct.  MY personal preference is that it is found, not manufactured.  I didn't add that; rather it's my own opinion.


You are right about a flat site, I'm just saying don't call it Quirky.  Call it something else:  Cool, innovative, funky, etc.  Again, my own personal preference. 


Also, don't assume my chapter on Fairness reflects an opinion that unfair is a legitimate concern.

[Mike Hendren]

Theoretically, could one not build these quirky holes anywhere:


The 12th at The Old Course
The 4th at Spyglass Hill
The 5th at Pacific Dunes
The 17th at Pebble Beach Golf Links


Just to name a few. 


Even after setting aside CB, Seth and Charles I'd reckon a high majority of quality quirk is manufactured. 


Bogey

[Richard_Mandell]

Bogey,


The question I would ask is if the road behind Spyglass #4 was there first or not.  Yet even if it was, the hole could have been shortened to avoid that "immovable object."  Yet it probably wouldn't have been as cool. 


Regarding seventeen at Pebble Beach, let me add this paragraph from my chapter of the book (and really tick some of you guys off):



The Principle of Gimmick takes over when certain shapes are so extreme one must literally putt off the green in order to access another part of the green.  An icon such as seventeen at Pebble Beach struggles to maintain its Quirk for this reason.  Originally much larger (and wider at the pinch point), it was built to take advantage of the ocean setting on three sides.  But as the pinch in the middle has shrunken over the years, golfers are forced to putt through the fringe in some cases placing it on the brink of Gimmick. 

[Mark_Fine]

Richard,
Given that the universal definition of quirk does not call out whether it is found or manufactured, why can’t quirk be manufactured and still fit the definition?

Is the bunker in the center of the green on #6 at Riviera quirky?  Someone who has never seen that before might think so.  Or they may call it silly or stupid or weird or gimmicky or clever or,…?   Couldn’t it be any of those including quirky?

Kalen,
I remember that at Bethpage.  It was silly and stupid in the eyes of many but others didn’t even notice.  That is just a 4I for Bryson these days


There is a 20 foot deep green side bunker at PGA West.  Many who are playing medal play would call it ridiculous or stupid, others playing match play might say, I am screwed, your hole, I am picking up while others might call it the site of their greatest recovery shot ever when they some how get up and down 😊. Just don’t call it unfair 

[Mike Hendren]

As for manufactured quirk, how could I forget my beloved 15th at Fenway.  Perhaps my favorite hole in America. 


Richard, yours is a reasonable take on Pebble's 17th.   While I'm not ticked off in the least I must confess an irrational love of the hole and might counter your position by arguing that missing far right to a left-half hole location rightly turns the affair to a  half-par proposition.  One CAN putt from one half to the other but might need to make a 12 footer for par.  Arguably, the golfer missing wide right is not "entitled" to be afforded an automatic two-putt.  Alternatively with the generous bail-out right of the green, there's not much excuse to leave the tee ball on the left half of the green, requiring the awkward putt over the neck. In that case the golfer gets what he deserves.

All the best,

Mike   

[Sean_A]

Bogey,

The question I would ask is if the road behind Spyglass #4 was there first or not.  Yet even if it was, the hole could have been shortened to avoid that "immovable object."  Yet it probably wouldn't have been as cool. 


Regarding seventeen at Pebble Beach, let me add this paragraph from my chapter of the book (and really tick some of you guys off):

The Principle of Gimmick takes over when certain shapes are so extreme one must literally putt off the green in order to access another part of the green.  An icon such as seventeen at Pebble Beach struggles to maintain its Quirk for this reason.  Originally much larger (and wider at the pinch point), it was built to take advantage of the ocean setting on three sides.  But as the pinch in the middle has shrunken over the years, golfers are forced to putt through the fringe in some cases placing it on the brink of Gimmick. 

As with practically everything in golf design, if not overused, I have no issue with dogleg putting. This happened to me twice at Tobacco Road in the same round...that's too much. 😎

Ciao

[Gib_Papazian]

The idiotic 17th at Pebble is not an original  design issue, it is deferred maintenance - and remains in this state out of pure stubbornness.


There is a difference between "shabby chic" shabby shiite.


And as long as I'm riding the heresy train, the tree to the right on #18 at Pebble - replaced at huge expense - adds nothing of value to the hole. Why am I blocked out from the right side of the fairway? Or maybe they can add wider (read: arbitrary) rough lines.


Just put a couple bunkers over there if you want to skinny up the layup shot.   



It also reminds me of that absurd bird-shit tree that adorns the right side of Olympic Lake #18. Planted right next to "Tommy Nakajima's tree" - that fell over 20-odd years ago.


To paraphrase Jerry Garcia: "Like old whores and ugly architecture, if you hang around long enough you eventually get respectable."


Same brainless solution . . . . . grow the rough into fairway right and force players to aim at the divot farm on the left. Just the way everybody wants to hit that iconic short approach, from the muddy bottom of an unreplaced panty pelt.


In this case, not to be cruder than I am normally, the rug should match the curtains. 








   

[Thomas Dai]

Will manicured rough, fairways lined with tall trees, bunkers surrounded by collars of rough, fountains and other things that are currently out of favour with some (me included) one day be considered as quirky (and thus kind of be acceptable)?
Atb

[Garland Bayley]

...
Regarding seventeen at Pebble Beach, let me add this paragraph from my chapter of the book (and really tick some of you guys off):



The Principle of Gimmick takes over when certain shapes are so extreme one must literally putt off the green in order to access another part of the green.  An icon such as seventeen at Pebble Beach struggles to maintain its Quirk for this reason.  Originally much larger (and wider at the pinch point), it was built to take advantage of the ocean setting on three sides.  But as the pinch in the middle has shrunken over the years, golfers are forced to putt through the fringe in some cases placing it on the brink of Gimmick. 

It seems to me that the 17th is not quirky, but unusual, and perhaps insightful. As I recall, the designer explicitly said there were two greens, an amateur one, and a professional one. For amateurs playing to their green, it seems that overclubbing and reaching the professional green would be a rare occurrence. And for professionals playing to their green it should be rare that they mishit so badly that they reach amateur green. However, even if they do, they are not forced to putt, thereby leaving a long second putt for par. This was aptly demonstrated by Gary Woodland in his US Open win.

[Gib_Papazian]

TD,


Mike's brother was there, but I only met him briefly - this was long before I was introduced to Uncle George - I think 1988?.


Flying solo this trip, I wandered into the Pro Shop on a quiet afternoon and there was this enormous man, watching Jeopardy on a B&W TV (with one of the caddies), smoking Pall Mall cigarettes, munching handfuls of Pistachio nuts.


Mike pointed to a third chair and told me to sit down - I declined the nuts or a cig - and started gently asking historical questions, which he answered between Jeopardy questions.


After the show was over, he lifted himself out of the chair, looked at the kid (whose name escapes me) and said "Let's give him Timmonds."


Of course, I had no clue who or what that meant - but I do recall the kid bursting out laughing and saying "You wanna send him out with record player?" I later learned that nickname referred to Timmonds' schtick of stories from his many years at National - but his endearing qualities had worn thin on some of the upper cut-crust, humorless tightasses.


Timmonds did not really pack anymore - and a few members had gone off the last half hour - so Mike's brother (whose name also escapes me), sent us out with a cart (I walked) to start at the Bottle Hole.


The tone was set immediately by this little man, I hit a pretty good tee shot and asked him where to aim it an how far we were. Don't miss to the right . . . . .


"Now look young fella," said the little man with three jackets and oversized shoes, "nevermind about how far, you let me worry about what club to hit and we're gonna get along just fine today."


Number of misclubs: 0


Number of putts questionably read: 0


Best score at NGLA to this day - by 4 shots.


And yes, even being a working stiff, I gave Timmonds $100 tip and a near-tearful hug.


I'm probably repeating this story, since I snuck into the Treehouse window 20-odd years ago, but by the time we putted out at the Road Hole (our 18th), it was like my first Dead Show . . . . something both confusing, yet personally epochal - as if the accumulated matrix in my mind after a lifetime of playing golf exploded into a kaleidoscopic understanding of what is possible.


Of course, it was like Moonwatcher standing hypnotized by the Monolith, unable to even contemplate the meaning of my fleeting glimpse into this 4th dimensional portal.


I stumbled back into the Pro Shop in daze, jabbering like mental patient. Mike pointed to a red bound book on the shelf he thought I might like to read:


It was "Scotland's Gift."


P.S. Six years later - having read every architecture book I could get my hands on - I was fortunate enough to have lunch (between rounds) with the Club Secretary at Mid Ocean, who popped open the cabinet and let me thumb through an original printing of C.B.'s tome. The run # was #001.


By that point, I'd gone back to newspaper and magazine golf writing (amongst other subjects) and it was like a Biblical scholar being allowed to examine the Dead Sea Scrolls.       


       






 






 


 

[Richard_Mandell]

Richard,
Given that the universal definition of quirk does not call out whether it is found or manufactured, why can’t quirk be manufactured and still fit the definition?

Is the bunker in the center of the green on #6 at Riviera quirky?  Someone who has never seen that before might think so.  Or they may call it silly or stupid or weird or gimmicky or clever or,…?   Couldn’t it be any of those including quirky?

Mark,


It absolutely can be manufactured and still fit the definition. Again, my personal preference is that it isn't manufactured.  If it is, then call it silly or stupid or weird or gimmicky or clever, etc. The big point here for me is that I don't think we should design things just for the sake of creating "quirk."

[Bob Montle]

When a local public course was built, there were five large silos scattered over the property.
All were kept.
Two protect the corner of a dogleg.
One provides a sight line for blind shots over a hill.
Another is 300 yds out in the middle of a wide fairway on a par four.
A fun case of found, modern quirkiness.