Quirk?

[Don_Mahaffey]

When we talk about quirk, or a golf course being quirky, don’t we really mean…natural? Isn’t quirk a result of leaving natural features in place; features that might be questionable, but yet can work? Is quirk OK when it’s natural, and over the top when manmade?

[BVince]

I had to look it up the other day at this is the definition according to dictionary.com: strikingly uncoventional.  That probably doesn't clarify what people on here call "quirky" but its a start.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Don,

Unfortunately, I believe the answer lies in the quality of the product and not in the genesis of the product.

NGLA certainly has its share of quirk.

The enormous amount of potentially blind shots would send a lesser course to its grave, yet, at NGLA they work brilliantly.

Tommy Naccarato told me that I must get to Astoria in Oregon, as it's a "quirky" course.  Perhaps those familiar with it can chime in.

[RJ_Daley]

It seems like a series of fine lines, Don.   Why was an awkward natural feature left as a compromise to conventional golf?  If it was done for efficiency of construction, with a due amount of consideration to how much the feature would force 'unconventional golf' and the answer is somewhat, or sometimes, or if desirable golf shots are not made and a quirky penalty is levied, then I think it is OK.  

If quirk is left behind from a compromise with the golf game's conventionality, and always results in odd, unconventional, penalty sort of circumstances, or even most often yields those odd results, then I don't think it is acceptable, and the design should have been altered, or rerouted to avoid that sort of constant quirky circumstance.  

If a quirk is totally manufactured for no particular reason of necessity to compromise with the land, and only to inject novelty, or penalty, then I think it is merely mini-golf, amatuerish design.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Kelly,

Not to "split hairs", but when you say "manmade quirk" in reference to the wall at North Berwick, I think: Which was there first, the wall? Or the green?

I'm thinking the wall was there, and someone placed the green behind it. Again, I'm not trying to "split hairs", but I see a difference between someone -- over 100 years ago -- placing a green behind an existing wall and someone building a wall in front of an existing green.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Point taken, Kelly. But I see it a bit differently.

Frankly, I find the wall fronting the green at North Berwick "acceptable" simply because it was created more than 100 years ago. It's historic. I can't say I'd like it as much if the West Links there debuted today.

I suspect whoever created this hole was simply trying to make golf as interesting as possible at North Berwick, during the late 1880s (or whenever it was). It's kinda like kids laying out a course to play throughout an abandon field: "Hey, let's hit it over that wall!" The simple idea of playing an approach over the wall must have seemed fun, different and challenging. And, I think it has been for many, many golfers over the years. I sense it was as simple as this.

More simple, too, than taking down the wall I suspect!

[Tom_Doak]

Kelly:

That's one of my favorite holes in the world right there.  There was a feature, and someone figured out how to use it to great effect without it being stupid.

To each his own, I guess.

[Kalen Braley]

I personally like the look of that hole as a lover of a quirk....looks like a blast to play.

But I still find it really difficult to accept why it was OK to build something like that then, yet if built today the designer would get laughed out of town.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Good stuff. It does seem like quirk is Ok if it's old. I wonder about modern things...like the wall at North Berwick. I wonder if Kelly built the exact same hole today if it would still be among Tom Doak's favorites in the world. I'm guessing not as recreating the time, look, and feel of North Berwick is impossible.

Bryon,
I like that definition.

Pat,
Again, I wonder if NGLA passes the quirk test because it's old. Now, I know it's a great golf course, I'm not questioning that, just if I build its quirky holes today, do they have the same appeal? I think not: they're not aged.

RJ,
Leaving a natural feature that may appear unconventional may be good, or a critic may say you didn't move enough dirt. It's a tough call, but if left up to me, I think in most cases I'd be arguing to leave it alone. I don't have much faith in the published critics.

Jeff,
You ever bulldoze something that was "there before". We all have, splitting hairs or not, leave a wall like that today and you better have thick skin.

[Chip Gaskins]

Kelly:

That's one of my favorite holes in the world right there.  There was a feature, and someone figured out how to use it to great effect without it being stupid.

To each his own, I guess.

Tom-

Come on, its a decent hole with a neat feature, but one of your favorite holes in the world....that is pretty strong language.  Are you serious or just saying you like that the wall has made through the years with out being taken down?

Chip

[J. David Hart]

Seems like MacKenzie liked to throw something in the route the golfer might normally take. Quirk? Crenshaw noted as liking to do someting quirky sometimes. Its just obstacles/hazards in unusual places, that causes one to
play the hole differently than normal, or shape a shot. The imagination can run away!NBerwick wall is great as historic value, suicide in todays opinionated/uneducated market. 

[Mike_Cirba]

Count me as one loving the 13th at North Berwick.

I played the course architecturally "blind" for the first time about 20 years ago and can you imagine someone going out there without any inkling of the fame, the quirk, or anything else to expect.

I experienced multiple orgas.....er...ah...

Whatever the golf equivalent is. 

Gil Hanse built a hole where a stone wall crosses a par five horizontally about 15 yards short of the green on the par five 11th at French Creek.

I'm not a big fan of the hole, but that's really about the lengthy drive over wetlands than about the use of an existing man-made relic.

[Don_Mahaffey]

What about another type of quirk.
Let’s say you build a green that has a small raised area, just large enough to cut a hole...somewhat fairly...say 3 steps to fall offs in every direction. And lets say that if your ball falls off to the left, it rolls into a bunker, and if it falls off to the front it may roll into a water hazard that is sometimes playable and sometimes not. Ample room to miss right and long and not all that hard to 2-putt, but practically impossible, unless lucky, to hit your approach close. Is that quirk? Must every pin placement on every green be built so that a well executed shot can be hit close? Is it quirky to build greens that have some areas that are fair to putt, but almost impossible to get close to from the fwy? And I’m not describing your basic sucker pin…a bit more difficult than that.

[Mike Nuzzo]

I'm going to keep talking about the 13th at North Berwick.
I thought the hole was great.
Kelly - maybe you didn't get a good enough picture:



But then again, I didn't have to play over the wall, I played around it....

[Mike_Cirba]

Kelly,

If you built the green on the dune behind it, which is a pretty intriguing idea, would you have still retained the wall?

[Norbert P]

I can't remember who penned it but a saying about "The Pit" goes something like . . . "Don't complain about the wall, it's been here longer than you have."

Mike N. Nice hat and I commend your courageous tack.

Even the NB website calls The Pit "quirky".

I never thought I'd ever see the day that somebody would actually say they'd change that hole. 

**************

To the original question . . .  Is quirk OK when it’s natural, and over the top when manmade?

If manmade looks manmade, it's over the top. If manmade fits well and attracts interest WITHOUT being garishly distracting, it's quirky.

[Peter Pallotta]

That's a nice post, Slag.

Don - here's a different take, but maybe I'm misunderstanding your question: I think 'quirky' is a function of our own increasingly formulated and fixed ideas about what golf holes ARE, and about how they test (or SHOULD test) golf shots.  If a golf hole doesn't immediately fit those preconceived ideas, we call it quirky, and then debate whether one kind of quirk (man-made and modern) is worse than another (natural and/or historical).     

In other words, as we've gotten more 'sophisticated' in our understanding of the principles of golf course architecture (and as golf course architecture has increasingly become big and expensive business), we've started asking questions about 'quirky' holes that probably would've never occurred to architects and players 100 years ago, especially in the UK.  In that humbler and simpler time, a golfer was more used to 'playing it as it lies', i.e. to conforming HIMSELF to the golf hole instead of expecting the golf hole to conform to HIM, or to his expectations.   

In short, it's WE who create the quirk, not the golf hole. The golf hole just IS, and since a golf hole could in fact come in just about any shape and size it wanted, IT can't be quirky or unfair or anything else.  But golfers want what they want, and what they want it seems is what they've seen a thousand times before and understand...and so we've created a word/concept like 'quirk' to try to get a handle on and debate what's strange to us. 

I say 'more sophisticated' but I could've used the terms 'less playful' or 'less open-minded' or 'more corporate'.  But maybe the fairest term to use is 'more self-conscious' about our golf course architecture and thus 'more demanding'....for both better and worse.

Just thinking out loud

Peter

[Sean_A]

I am 100% with those that say placing the 13th green behind the wall was a stroke of brilliance.  Its a fantastic use of a feature that is as good as natural in its attractiveness and permanence (it probably couldn't be pulled down anyway) and fits right in step with the golf at NB.  Besides, I am not sure a green could have been put on that dune 100 or whatever years ago without expecting it to be damaged by storms and possibly erosion. 

Ciao

[Rich Goodale]

I have a dictionary that is older than the "Pit" (no, I didn't get it as a high school graduation present... ), and it's definition of "quirk" starts out:

"1.  A sudden turn; a start(l)ing from the point or line; hence an artful evasion or subterfuge; a shift; a quibble...."

All of these work for me.......

[Melvyn Morrow]

Don

"Quirks" Have you been reading Ian's
Caddy Shack latest post?

[Don_Mahaffey]

Don

"Quirks" Have you been reading Ian's
Caddy Shack latest post?

No, I haven't been to Ian's blog recently. You've lost me...

...I think 'quirky' is a function of our own increasingly formulated and fixed ideas about what golf holes ARE, and about how they test (or SHOULD test) golf shots.  If a golf hole doesn't immediately fit those preconceived ideas, we call it quirky...

Peter

I think you're dead on here. To build something quirky today is to take a chance.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Don

Ian's latest and very interesting article on "The Future of
Golf In Canada - Part 3" on his Caddy Shack, makes the comment 'accepting some of the quirks as part of the design'.

Though you may have been refering to this in your post.

If you had I was going to ask you for your comments.

[Joe Bausch]

I would classify the use of the sunken road on the 13th at Inniscrone by Hanse to be quirky:

[Mark Pearce]

Hanse is a name coming up a lot on this thread.  His Craighead course at Crail has two shots over walls, one a drive on the short par 4  11th and the other on the par 5 16th. 

[Stan Dodd]

Slag,
The quoote is in teh Stroke Saver
"Don't argue with the wall it is older than you" and it actually is in refrence to the 3rd hole.
But I agree it is a quirky hole and great fun.  If you challenge the fairway bunkers on the left  the wall is not really in play.