Is American "quirk" held to a different standard ?

[Matt_Ward]

I often wonder when people gush about UK and Ireland "quirk" but when you get examples in the States (e.g. Wolf Creek in Mesquite, NV / Tobacco Road in NC) you get people who will moan that such layouts are so out of touch with what they consider appropriate design.

I've played my fair share of courses across the pond and relish the sheer imagination needed for a range of shots on any number of such "quirk" holes / layouts.

I just wonder whether American style "quirk" is simply thought of as nothing more than goofy golf when in reality there are a number of good situations that I would relish playing time after time.

Be curious to the thoughts of others ...

[Tommy Williamsen]

Matt, I think the standard is most different for folks who have not been to GB&I or don't know some of the template holes. 

[Steve Kline]

Is there also a bias towards feeling that American quirk is intentionally designed while GB&I quirk just happened? I'm not saying this is true but I could see people thinking that.

[Tom_Doak]

What Steve says is a factor, I think ... brand-new courses are generally held to different standards as far as quirk, green contours, "fairness", and other modern standards, while in Great Britain & Ireland you know those courses were done in a different era.

But, I also think American quirk doesn't know when to quit.  Tobacco Road doesn't just have a couple of quirks here and there, it has 18 holes of it.  But, at least it's not 7000 yards long, like Royal New Kent and Wolf Creek (I think I've heard it's that long, though I haven't been there) and many other American designs.  A little bump next to the green on a par-4 could be quirky and fun when you're hitting a 9-iron past it, but taken quite differently if it's in the same proximity on a 4-iron approach.

[John Moore II]

I can agree that Tobacco Road is quirky, I have said that many times before on this site. But in that same way, might courses such at Pac Dunes, Sand Hills and other 'minimalist/naturalist' courses be looked at the same way possibly? Not saying they should be, but it is possible since those courses were somewhat allowed to just flow with the land. But I think often quirky can be quite fun, at least in small doses. Most people I talk to at my club say good things about Tobacco Road and Tot Hill Farm, each of which can be called quirky. Its just that they wouldn't want to play them every day.

-Another way to look at it--if the courses in GB&I weren't seen as great, would the little quirks that are good in them still be good as far as the masses of golfers are concerned?

[Peter Pallotta]

Good question, Matt.  And I may be one of those people who do that.

I think that when the hand of man is evident (as in newer American courses) it calls forth a different reaction and standard than when it isn't.  

Maybe the old British architects could better hide their hands, or maybe most modern American architect's aren't interested in hiding their hands in the same way (no criticism intended, it's a different time and place and business).

But if modern architects are more prone to showing us what they've got, it's not surprising that they've opened themselves up to more praise...and more blame.

Peter

[Phil McDade]

Matt:

Good question. I think Steve is on to something here. Particularly in Scotland, it seems every little community has a golf course, and it seems the folks who designed and built them simply took the land that was available, and fashioned what they could out of it. Stonehaven, Cullen, Shiskine at Blackwaterfoot, Glencruitten, and Dunaverty all have tons of quirk, but little of it appears outwardly deliberate. Rather, the course was routed around the land available, and took advantage of the land forms and features available to create lots of quirk (blind uphill par 3s, a true Dell hole at Cullen, numerous blind drives and even approaches, odd-length holes, hidden punchbowl greens). In short, it'd be hard to duplicate the quirk of Shiskine, for instance, at a site like Stonehaven. Both courses are uniquely quirky in their own way because of their sites.

The truly quirky holes I've played over here in the U.S. that don't appear manufactured are almost always on older courses, such as the well-known (in these parts) 2nd hole at Eagle Springs in semi-suburban Milwaukee, which uses a glacial landform to create a novel, volcano-like par 3.

[Mike Bowline]

Quirky, when manufactured, just does not feel right. For example, #14 at Redlands Mesa (Engh) has created controvery in CO for Engh. A perfect drive leaves a blind 60-80 yard pitch over a giant rock that hides the punchbowl green. The rock could have been moved, the green could have been located somewhere else.

Quirky, when existing in a natural way, feels right IMHO. For example, the Dell hole at Lahinch fits right in with the other blind shots at the course.

[Jon Wiggett]

I don't think that as many people in GB&I are as hung up on so called 'fairness' as in the USA. Also, as TD says it may also be to do with the amount of quirk in a layout and what sort of a challenge it makes. BUT, don't think for a minute that nobody over here moans about quirk, some do but they are not as loud about it

[Sean_A]

I don't know.  I think some Yanqui Funk is not only acceptable, but cherished.  Remember, there are plenty of courses in The States that have loads of funky greens compared to many in the UK, but so many great courses were created so quickly that it may be overlooked and seen as not terribly funky. 

For me, part of the problem may be as Tom D pointed out - things may get a little out of hand because usually its an archie creating the funk and they may be heavy handed.  Secondly, funk is often associated with charming courses.  One of the funkiest courses I know is The Road, but I couldn't call the course charming simply because of the walk involved.  It isn't intimate enough and this may cause people to reject much of the funk. 

Ciao

[James Boon]

As Jon Wiggett says, I don't think we are hung up on golf being fair on this side of the pond, well I'm not anyway.

Life isn't always fair so why should golf be? Maybe its easy to have that attitude as every little known course I played as a kid had blind shots and quirky holes all over the place. Then you start playing some better known courses and they have it as well...

I don't think of some of the features we get that maybe some American's would call quirky as anything of the sort. Its just good, fun and challening golf!

[jeffwarne]

Quirky, when manufactured, just does not feel right. For example, #14 at Redlands Mesa (Engh) has created controvery in CO for Engh. A perfect drive leaves a blind 60-80 yard pitch over a giant rock that hides the punchbowl green. The rock could have been moved, the green could have been located somewhere else.

Quirky, when existing in a natural way, feels right IMHO. For example, the Dell hole at Lahinch fits right in with the other blind shots at the course.

So Mike,
If Engh had more blind holes on his course it would be more acceptable?
Surely, it would be as easy to lower the dune(or move the green slightly) at Lahinch then remove a giant rock in CO.
You certainly answered Matt's question.

[Andy Troeger]

Mike,
Of all Engh's holes I don't see the one at Redlands as being manufactured. I was assuming the rocks were there previously and the hole was built around them. Its an unusual hole, but I liked it. The 9th at Tullymore is a similar themed short par four around a large hillside. I liked that one better personally but both were good.

Quirk on courses in the US seems to polarize opinions. Certainly a great deal of folks love courses like Tobacco Road and the like. The two best I've played with substantial quirk are The Kingsley Club and Black Mesa. Both have strong supporters, but other people don't care for them at all. I haven't been across the pond, so I have to enjoy what quirk we do have here for now!

[Rick_Noyes]

Could one reason possibly be in the way we appraoch the game verses how players in the UK view it?  IMO, we have always had a problem with "rub of the green".  Do we feel that a course or hole is "quirky" because we hit a drive right down the middle only to find an uneven lie?  Our expectations are high once we feel we've hit the "perfect" shot only to be dissappointed when we arrive at the ball.  That, I believe leads us down the "this hole is quirky" or "unfair" road.

[Mike Bowline]

Quirky, when existing in a natural way, feels right IMHO. For example, the Dell hole at Lahinch fits right in with the other blind shots at the course.

So Mike,
If Engh had more blind holes on his course it would be more acceptable?
[/quote]
Jeff, good point. Even as the only blind shot on the course, the blind second at #14 at Redlands Mesa could have been avoided by blasting the rock to smithereens and still it could have been a testing hole. Quirky still? Yes, but I just don't understand the "blind shot over a huge rock" shot values. Besides, it requires a drive of 330 yards to see the green. Even at 4,000 feet elevation I can't hit it 330. I therefore am doomed to hit a blind second shot.

I guess my issue with #14 is that the blind shot is a short pitch. I do not have an issue with blind drives, or even blind second shots occasionally, but a blind short shot where feel and visualization are important doesn't work with me. On a short shot, a player needs to know where on the green the hole is located so he can take advantage of being close to the green in the first place. To take it to the extreme: imagine a blind putt. You would almost never hole the putt.

PLus, that hole is often backed up as players rountinely walk to a vantage point to see a) where the heck the green is even located, and b) where the hole is cut. That really slows down play.

That feels quirky.

[Jason Topp]

Probably but I really have no way of knowing.  When I travel overseas to play I am usually playing some of the best courses in the world.  When I travel in the US, I usually am not.

Tot Hill Farm is a pretty good example for me.  It felt like an amusement park.  Perhaps if it were transported to Ireland and 100 years old I would look at it differently but the question is so hypothetical.  100 years ago they would not have constructed a bunch of fake rock walls and would not have made a large percentage of the greens hard against a water hazard constructed in a manner to accept aerial shots hit a bit long.

Nonetheless, I really had fun at Tot Hill farm and would not hesitate to go back.  I just would consider it a creative course rather than a great one.

[Andrew Summerell]

I find it funny that ‘quirk’ is almost seen as this separate entity. Do we need to have a classification for everything?

Having played quite a few courses throughout America & the British Isles (yet, originating from neither), I look at a course or a hole for what it is & whether it is ‘quirky’ or not doesn’t come into it.

[Matt_Ward]

Phil, Peter, et al:

I think the "natural" argument versus those created by man's hands is a solid contribution to the disucssion but I'm not one that feels utterly compelled to embrace the former and throw out the latter in all circumstances.

Wolf Creek was completely created on land totally unheard of for golf not so many years ago. Man clearly created the finished product there but architect Dennis Rider did a wonderful job with a stunning combination of holes that often call for a very high artform of shotmaking and creativity. One must also add in the varying weather issues tied to playing there -- handling a 30-40 mph wind in any afternoon can also add to the vexing nature in playing there.

What I would say is that modern American quirk should not be totally straightjacketed to the elusive concept of total fairness and the idea that randomness is part & parcel of the game. Too much of American design is a paint by the numbers expressions where all elements of chance have been either bulldozed to submission or breed a slavish pedestrian quality that rarely if ever ventures beyond the comfort zone for those who always seems to embrace predictability.

In regards to Jim Engh he clearly has added a number of unique and often times quirky holes -- one of his better ones is the artful mounding concept he demonstrates with the par-4 2nd at Pradera in Parker, CO.

I just get tired of hearing people wax poetic about quirk in the UK and Ireland and when clear examples exist here in the States it's thought of as goofy or counter to what "fair" golf should be. Candidly, when people travel to the UK and Ireland they will accept the standard for golf there and gush about it -- do something similar to either their home course or those they frequent in the States and the very same person(s) will argue the counterpoint. 


Tom D:

I don't think the issue of whether a course has plenty of quirk or whatever the total yardage of a course is should play a factor in determining if such quirk is entirely appropriate or necessary.

Tobacco Road can be cited by a range fo people as being either completely off base (usually from the classic school purists) or loved by those who who value the different approach it has taken with its final result.

In regards to Wolf Creek -- the total yardage is just under 7,000 yards and frankly the holes that provide "quirk" are not the long ones in most instances -- there's plenty stylish holes where the 9-iron example you mentioned with a bump here or there is certainly included. It's just that too often people AUTOMATICALLY believe quirk is the ultimate province of either courses from across the pond or those from the greater NYC metro area or the I-95 corridor.

[Steve Kline]

Quirky, when existing in a natural way, feels right IMHO. For example, the Dell hole at Lahinch fits right in with the other blind shots at the course.

So Mike,
If Engh had more blind holes on his course it would be more acceptable?

Jeff, good point. Even as the only blind shot on the course, the blind second at #14 at Redlands Mesa could have been avoided by blasting the rock to smithereens and still it could have been a testing hole. Quirky still? Yes, but I just don't understand the "blind shot over a huge rock" shot values. Besides, it requires a drive of 330 yards to see the green. Even at 4,000 feet elevation I can't hit it 330. I therefore am doomed to hit a blind second shot.

I guess my issue with #14 is that the blind shot is a short pitch. I do not have an issue with blind drives, or even blind second shots occasionally, but a blind short shot where feel and visualization are important doesn't work with me. On a short shot, a player needs to know where on the green the hole is located so he can take advantage of being close to the green in the first place. To take it to the extreme: imagine a blind putt. You would almost never hole the putt.

PLus, that hole is often backed up as players rountinely walk to a vantage point to see a) where the heck the green is even located, and b) where the hole is cut. That really slows down play.

That feels quirky.
[/quote]

I guess you haven't played or don't like Cruden Bay. I can think of at least three holes there where you can have a blind feel shot after hitting the fairway.

[Jason Topp]

Matt:

We have debated Wolf Creek many times in the past.  My problem with the course is not that it is quirky - it has less quirk than Tobacco Road or many others that I like.

Instead I think it is a course that was built without taking into account the weather and location.  It should have been built to accomodate high winds and extreme topography.  Instead the desert is considered environmentally sensitive areas that you are not allowed to hit recovery shots from.  Therefore you are playing the equivilant of a mountain course in links conditions with water hazards lining both sides of the fairways.  Not my cup of tea on the side of a mountain with a 25 mile per hour afternoon wind.

[Matt_Ward]

Jason:

I hear what you say but I've played the course numerous times under varied weather situations. I see what Rider did there as being quite controversial no doubt -- Wolf Creek may be one of those courses best suited for match play dynamics and those enamored with stroke play totals may not like the course one iota. Ditto the classic school purists who I would advise to seek their golf pleasure along the narrow band of courses they prefer.

In terms of quirk -- check out the 2nd hole, the uphill 3rd with its elevated target green (granted not everyone's cup of tea), the short par-4 13th, the angled and narrow short par-3 15th, to name just a few examples.

In regards to the desert areas you mentioned - one needs to really spray the ball to reach many of those areas. There's enough of a transition on any number of holes for people to play recovery type shots when called upon. However, if people are spraying shots the full width of Kansas then that's quite another thing don't you think -- it's more about the inadequacy of the player than the course.

Let me point out that water hazards do not line both sides of fairways at Wolf Creek -- there are water hazards in play but you do have an alternate line of attack to choose from when playing shots there.

Jason, put the same course in Ireland and Scotland and you'd get a fair share of people who would rave about the unique way the holes wind up and down throught he canyon setting. When I see a holes like Klondyke and Dell getting people gushing to the point of school girls meeting their heart throb singing sensation then I know much of the quirk debate is really about setting and locale than anything else.

Wolf Creek will never be everyone's cup of tea and for that reason I think it provides a rather quirky connection to golf for those who prefer more than simple meat and potato design styles.

[John Mayhugh]

Matt:

We have debated Wolf Creek many times in the past.  My problem with the course is not that it is quirky - it has less quirk than Tobacco Road or many others that I like.

Instead I think it is a course that was built without taking into account the weather and location.  It should have been built to accomodate high winds and extreme topography.  Instead the desert is considered environmentally sensitive areas that you are not allowed to hit recovery shots from.  Therefore you are playing the equivilant of a mountain course in links conditions with water hazards lining both sides of the fairways.  Not my cup of tea on the side of a mountain with a 25 mile per hour afternoon wind.

Having the desert play as an environmentally sensitive hazard area is the big flaw at Wolf Creek.  Otherwise I think the course is some fun quirk.

[Jason Topp]

Jason, put the same course in Ireland and Scotland and you'd get a fair share of people who would rave about the unique way the holes wind up and down throught he canyon setting. When I see a holes like Klondyke and Dell getting people gushing to the point of school girls meeting their heart throb singing sensation then I know much of the quirk debate is really about setting and locale than anything else.

Matt - you may be right but I doubt it.  The key difference is that Klondyke and Dell allow for interesting recovery opportunities.  Indeed the Dell provides some of the most interesting recovery shots in the world.  At Wolf Creek you take a drop.

[Michael Whitaker]

Matt - I think American courses are definitely held to a different standard. Most Americans EXPECT UK courses to be quirky because they are old, "natural," and play along the ground. Most expect US courses to be smoothed out, "fair," and devoid of the crumpled ground & seemingly random quirk found on most UK courses.

By the way, "quirk" does not have to be big & bold to be successful (like a good bit of what you find at Tobacco Road). As Tom Doak says, it can be a little bump in front of a green. When refering to "quirk" too many limit their thoughts to the overly bold and expressive stuff.

[Mike_Cirba]

Isn't the difference about being able to find and play one's crooked shots?