[Kirk Gill]

If we Americans use the word quirk to describe the features that we find on the great British courses we play, then it seems to me that there's a very simple reason for that. For many many years, basically from the end of WWII on into perhaps even the 80's, it seems like many of the courses built in the U.S. had all potential quirk that might have existed onsite designed out of them. Sure, there might be a lot of private golf courses that were loaded with the kind of features we now call quirky, but speaking as a guy who grew up playing the local muni, there wasn't a lot of quirk to be found on the public offerings that many of us grew up playing, nor on the tour courses we grew up watching the pros play, outside of the major championships. That was, for me, always one of the demarcations between the regular tour event and the major - that the courses themselves just tended to feel so different from what I was getting to play, and watching on tv the rest of the time.

Melvyn's really correct in saying that many Americans perceive the natural features of natural courses as quirky and outside of the norm. We've just been sold a fairly stolid and predictable norm, and we've gotten pretty used to it, by and large. Melvyn grew up playing, and he continues to play, courses that have those natural features, so of course to think of them as quirky rubs him the wrong way, as the word is sometimes used to diminish a hole, rather than extoll it.

[Bill_McBride]

I'm with Kirk.  "Quirky" is neither derogatory nor pejorative, it is an affectionate term.  As Kirk says, modern golf design in the US minimizes quirk, renovation of older courses sometimes removes it.

So we quirk junkies have to go where we can find it, mostly in the UK. 

[Garland Bayley]

...I live in an area where golf is taken just as seriously, and probably even more seriously than in your home country. ...

Given the statistics that show the vast number of "golfers" that ride carts to play, this appears to be a rather outlandish claim. Couple that with the perversion of the average American player has for immaculately green courses, it is seriosly out of line.

[Anthony Gray]

  Quirk is in the eye of the beholder.

[Kyle Harris]

Melvyn,

Here's how I meant it:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Obtuse

No disrespect to your upbringing, family or relative intelligence was intended.

However, I do feel that a number of your posts regarding American golf select the portion that does not fit the ideal, and tend to ignore the other half. I would feel much better if you were to merely select cart golf, et. al., and leave out the term American.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Kyle

Here's how it reads from The Collins Dictionary.



I ask again who introduced carts to the world.  Which country did they start in and I would also ask the same about No Walking Courses? Is it England, Wales, Scotland Northern or Southern Ireland? Is it from that place somewhere over the Atlantic below Canada, Please tell me where. I would be most interested.

[Joe Hancock]

....looking up the definition of "injured bulldog".....

....flip, flip......

[Melvyn Morrow]

Joe

I presume you are referring to the English Bulldog, perhaps it would be more appropriate if you had said Scottish Terrier. Expect you can’t tell the difference because you may think that we all look alike here in GB. 

[Bill_McBride]

Kyle

Here's how it reads from The Collins Dictionary.



I ask again who introduced carts to the world.  Which country did they start in and I would also ask the same about No Walking Courses? Is it England, Wales, Scotland Northern or Southern Ireland? Is it from that place somewhere over the Atlantic below Canada, Please tell me where. I would be most interested.

Melvyn, on a sad note there appear to be a growing number of power carts in the UK.  I was horrified to see a couple of young (under 30) Scots riding in one on the Balcomie Links at Crail.     I understand some of the non-Links Trust courses at St Andrews also feature carts. 

I would be able to see this if all the riders were disabled to the extent that the only way they could play was in a cart, but I fear the economic model may be of interest.

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle

Here's how it reads from The Collins Dictionary.



I ask again who introduced carts to the world.  Which country did they start in and I would also ask the same about No Walking Courses? Is it England, Wales, Scotland Northern or Southern Ireland? Is it from that place somewhere over the Atlantic below Canada, Please tell me where. I would be most interested.

Melvyn,

This is fallacious. Your statement seems to indicate that carts would not be introduced to the game if not for America. Furthermore, you cannot hold the nation accountable because of an invention. Then again, I guess we can blame the Holocaust on England because it was, after all, the English who introduced the Concentration Camp to the world during the Boer War.

Face it, carts introduce a whole new group of people to the game. Get them swinging and involved, then politely introduce them to the wonders of walking. Blaming them for being American sure isn't going to turn anyone on to walking the golf course, especially if they have to spend four hours hearing about it. 

How do you feel about rivetted faces on the bunkers of The Old Course at St. Andrews?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Bill

Carts are used over here because they are available. They are used by young and healthy guys because it easy and because they – lets be honest have become lazy. Like the Black Death once it gets its teeth into the weak it spreads like wildfire. But like your country there are pockets where they are resisted. The guys I have spoken to have freely admitted that they use carts because they say they are lazy, however if the course was cart free then they would walk.

I sincerely believe it is the only way to play golf as it gives you time to experience and understand the course as you walk to your next shot. Just by walking down the fairway you observe the contours and surrounding – not really to the same extent if riding a cart on a cart track. But if available many will use them – regrettable.       

[Melvyn Morrow]

Kyle

Blame who you want for the Holocaust, but it’s got nothing to do with golf.

When I started this topic I was careful to try and stay clear of any comments that might cause any problems, but you just jump in and hide behind your flag. Well do so, do what you want, I just can’t be bothered to respond to your ranting. You started this so you can finish it in whichever way you want.

Melvyn

[Kyle Harris]

Melvyn,

Are you going to address my concerns regarding your categorization of all American golf or are you going to snub my putting holes in your rather poor logic?

I really want to discuss rivetted faced bunkers at St. Andrews because this is quirky to me. Good quirky, but quirky nonetheless. It's also unnatural. I'd like to know how it is that you can rectify the unnatural look and concept of the rivetted face as "land fit for the purpose" and write off a golf course built in a housing community as land unfit.

Am I to believe that land where the weather causes such erosion and turmoil that a bunkers needs stacked sod in order to maintain shape and character is any more or less fit than a routing that is best played by using a golf cart?

[Bill_McBride]

Kyle, are you criticizing stacked sod bunkers?  There's really no other way to maintain a vertical face, and nothing harder than to extricate one's self from such a situation.  Sometimes backward is the only play!

[Kyle Harris]

Bill,

I'm not criticizing them at all. But they sure aren't natural, and they sure aren't cheap. I've seen Bermuda 419 maintained nearly vertical with sod and sod spikes. This, too, is costly to maintain.

My point is, I don't see how or why we can accept one technological innovation (or era) over another when the very nature of golf has been the idea that man uses his wit to overcome nature. In the case of the sod wall bunker, we've determined a way to maintain the form of the bunker against the elements. However, could it not be argued that the elements are one factor of making land fit for the purpose of golf? Where do we draw the line between good technology and bad technology?

[Bill_McBride]

Well, I'm a big fan of stacked sod bunkers, particularly those that are actually part of the fairway rather than set off in the rough. 

They did, however, eat my lunch last trip to Scotland.  Made 6's on both par 3s on the Old Course following poorly aimed iron shots on #8 and #11.

Stacking the sod makes these bunkers a true threat rather than a minor inconvenience. 

"Bad technology?"   Not to me, but I'm not in the golf maintenance business.   For sure you couldn't get a Sand Pro in one. 

[paul cowley]

.

 

[Doug Siebert]

The canonical examples of quirk are things like the walls in play at North Berwick, or the Himalayas holes at Prestwick and Lahinch, that sort of thing.

If someone did a new design and built walls that blocked the fairway or routed a hole over a giant hill (or built one) leaving a completely blind shot and no easy way around it for the weakest players, it would be lambasted by the average golfer and probably hated by most here unless they justified it to themselves as an homage to the past (i.e., they'd be more accepting of it if was Doak's work, much less so if it was the product of Fazio)

While I love quirk, I have to admit that quirk is basically something that's stupid or unfair that you happen to unaccountably like, either because its been there forever or it is truly unique (but in a good way)

[Sean_A]

Anthony

Kingsbarns in my opinion blends better with the land than the Castle Course, yet I still have reservations. The point I suppose is when we strip back the land what else do we remove before re-clothing it with our modern interpretation of what a golf course actually should look like. Do these courses present a challenge to the golfer, create a little mystery whilst fulfilling the fun factor and ultimately does it blend with the natural local landscape? Without the latter I feel a compromise has been achieved, and that is never right IMHO for a golf course. Perhaps my quest is to always seek the beating heart of a course and alas it is not always there – it forms an integral part of that Spirit we sometimes talk about.

Melvyn

Melvyn

I often agree in moderation with your PoV, but to say there is no place in the world of architecture for compromise is way ott.  Building something, anything, will more often than not necessitate a series of compromises which may not lead to the best product that could be built - if there were no constraints.  The goal is to do the best one can given the circumstances.  If too much is compromised such that core principles are sacrificed, the archie should walk away from the project - assuming he can afford to.  If he can't afford it, I guess its down to the archie to figure out whats more important, principles or food.   

An excellent example of pots bunkers was mentioned.  Are they natural?  Heck no - especially how they are often presented in their just so condition and shape.  Are pot bunkers a compromise?  Heck yes, they keep the sand in place rather than on the turf which is eventually killed by drifting sand.  No turf, no golf my friend.  Pot bunkers aren't ideal as far as naturalism goes, but they are the best we can hope for given the circumstances. 

I too believe that quirk exists everywhere - including the US.  Its neither a bad or good thing, it just is.  Of course, people's opinion of quirk varies greatly and I suspect many people are dubious about manufactured quirk or at least modern manufactured quirk. 

We can always look to Tobacco Road as an example.  It successfully divides opinion like no other course I know, simply because it is quirky.  The course is loaded with quirk, some of it works well and some doesn't, but the important thing is that Strantz built the place.  It demonstrates an alternative PoV that manufactured modern quirk can be pulled off.  However, I think the success of The Road lies in the fact that Strantz used classic design concepts to generate interest and challenge and he also used quirkiness that can be found back in the UK.  For the traveled golfer, it is striking how some of the quirk can look familiar in such an unfamiliar setting.   


Ciao

[Melvyn Morrow]

Sean

Is compromise a good thing when designing a golf course or anything come to that? I say no and we should try and steer clear of doing so, but in the real world we all at times have to compromise. That’s not to say I agree with it so please excuse me if I feel you comment is a little unfair.

General observations

The Game of Golf has changed with its export to other countries. That is the choice of those playing the game in these far off lands. They are not wrong or right, but they have changed the basic character of the game. Who and why carts were introduced and by whom is in truth irrelevant, who ever introduced No Walking Course IMHO is not interested in the Game of Golf but has his/her own agenda which I presume is to squeeze out as much money from the golfer as possible – although being human I could be wrong.

Generations have grown up with carts and now the acceptance of artificial distance aids & No Walking are becoming the norm, but they bear little reflection on the original game of Golf.

Courses are built on new developments, but not as normal courses as some give you a ¾ mile journey between Greens and Tees more or less making it mandatory to use carts. On GCA.com I have read comments that many new developments put the golf course in as a second thought, fitting into the space left after the housing has been agreed, which many have not been very impressed with. That in part is what I call a site that is not fit for purpose. Perhaps money has been reasonably plentiful over the last 50 years or so allowing these questionable sites to be converted into golf courses, but I suspect with the current financial crunch, environmental concerns and the consumption of water issues many sites that might have once been considered in the past may now be regarded as not fit for purpose. 

Oddities, unusual sights are being termed as quirky, yet the blind hole, a stone wall bunkers, the natural contours of the land, all seem to qualify as being quirky. Why? Is it because these features are mainly found in GB and so described as quirky? Yet most of the course these items are found on pre date most other courses in the world, they are the original courses which helped export the game world wide. Courses like Prestwick which when constructed could only accommodate 12 holes due to land available, the old stone walls, railway tracks, natural large sand dunes all used to maximise the playing area and introduce additional interest. These original features may have been forgotten when exported, perhaps with land being more plentiful they no longer need to play a part in the modern golf courses around the world.

I don’t believe quirky is offensive nor derogatory in any sense, but here in GB they are standard features, even the old turf dykes (stand in for stone walls) can still be seen in play on various courses. These are the original features that have being part of the game for nearly a couple of centuries, to me they are not quirky but just simple natural parts of the courses I play. Quirky for me is something like a course out in the desert or high on a hill.

Sod reinforced bunkers, nothing new here,  I’m sure Bill will remembers our discussion on here some months ago when talked about North Berwick and the bunkers seen in the above photos posted by Bill yesterday. The Hell Bunker on TOC was also fitted with these sod restraints, they can be seen on the picture of Hell Bunker dated 1897 in the British Golf Links book. This crap talked about by the ill-informed sometimes confuses the issues. All courses have been constructed from TOC to the Castle Course with different methods of construction used but what for me is of paramount important is how they blend in with their surroundings and nature. 

Agree or disagree that is your right but quirky in all its forms is for me the description I would lay at the door of some of the overseas courses.   

[Andy Hughes]

This crap talked about by the ill-informed sometimes confuses the issues. All courses have been constructed from TOC to the Castle Course with different methods of construction used but what for me is of paramount important is how they blend in with their surroundings and nature. 

Melvyn, in your opinion how do the sod-faced bunkers blend in with nature?

As to your take on quirky---if quirky can be defined as strikingly unconventional than wouldn't a stone wall guarding a green qualify? It may date to the early days of the game, but at this time it would be considered unconventional (out of the ordinary) as it is a feature used so rarely i.e. out of the ordinary. Strictly by definition, it would qualify as 'quirky, no? 

[Kirk Gill]

...I suspect many people are dubious about manufactured quirk or at least modern manufactured quirk.

It's interesting to me that quirk found on a new course that was obviously manufactured is somehow perceived differently than quirk found on older courses, where it may not be known whether the feature you find quirky was a pre-existing natural feature of the land that was integrated into the course by the designer(s), or was completely manufactured. Bottom line - is the feature interesting, fun, different? If all you can see is how it detracts from the hole, is the feature the problem, truly, or is it your game, or your unchanging and closed mind?

And Melvyn, one comment you made in your last post supports the post I made earlier on this thread, when you said "...quirky in all its forms is for me the description I would lay at the door of some of the overseas courses."

Well of course you would ! And the reason you would  is that the features on those courses are outside the norms that you're used to. It is for that exact reason that many golfers from here in the US find quirk on the courses you play all the time......there are features on those courses that are outside of our usual norms. We're ALL subject to the same feelings as golfers, and if our minds are open to the new and the different, we can all be subject to similar enthusiasm and excitement and interest as we play on new styles of courses and enjoy and celebrate their differences.

Or we can, in a huff, take all our toys and go home to what we already know, already expect, and already enjoy.

C'est la vie, and to each his own.

[Melvyn Morrow]

I don’t have a problem with maintaining the course using natural products, should I?

Nothing was quirky in the early days. All was new, courses being built in the odd unused corners of farms and along land beside the new railways. All new, all different but not quirky. Today many may call it quirky but not me. It’s a modern expression to describe features you don’t see that much and directed in general to the old courses, I just don’t agree. Will NASA in 100 year time call the Apollo 11 a quirky space ship – I would not because it was the state of the art in the 60’s and deserves that recognition. For me the same applies to the early courses, but you have the right to your opinion whatever it maybe.

[Sean_A]

Sean

Is compromise a good thing when designing a golf course or anything come to that? I say no and we should try and steer clear of doing so, but in the real world we all at times have to compromise. That’s not to say I agree with it so please excuse me if I feel you comment is a little unfair.

Melvyn

Compromise can have good, bad or neutral results.  Though I would suggest the concept of compromise is in and of itself good.  The best sort of compromise leads to win-win situations.  It ain't healthy to always get exactly what you want.

You have to admit that even Scotland back in the day had quirky features on its courses.  Placing a green directly behind a wall has to be considered one such example of quirk because it sure wasn't a common thing to do.  This is all I think people are trying to point out.  Individual elements of quirk are rare while the genre is not.  If it is good or not is entirely in the eye of the beholder.

Kirk

I don't mind quirk no matter when it was done.  However, I don't much see the sense of building walls etc just for the sake of quirk.  If a wall (or whatever) fulfills a purpose (be it planning restrictions or structural etc) and the archie thinks he can pull it off - more power to him.  I welcome any odd ball ideas (in moderation) so long as it means archies will rely less on bunkering.  That feature has been done to death.

Ciao

[Andy Hughes]

I don’t have a problem with maintaining the course using natural products, should I?
Melvyn, was this in response to my question do the sod-faced bunkers blend in with nature

If so, then of course not, I personally don't see why you should have a problem with sod-faced bunkers. But it would lead one to wonder where exactly you draw the line--a sod-faced bunker is clearly not at all 'natural' looking and we must recall: ultimately does it blend with the natural local landscape? Without the latter I feel a compromise has been achieved, and that is never right IMHO for a golf course.
What, then, is your take on sod-faced bunkers on courses like TOC? Has the course been compromised, and if not why not?

Today many may call it quirky but not me. It’s a modern expression to describe features you don’t see that much and directed in general to the old courses, I just don’t agree. Will NASA in 100 year time call the Apollo 11 a quirky space ship – I would not because it was the state of the art in the 60’s and deserves that recognition. For me the same applies to the early courses, but you have the right to your opinion whatever it maybe.

I thank you for the right to my opinion  
Melvyn, I think you are not really using words as they are intended. 'Quirky' means what it means--the dictionary says it is strikingly unconventional. That seems a reasonable definition.  If there are only a few courses in the world that have stone walls guarding greens, then by definition that would be unconventional, wouldn't it?  A feature like that could be unconventional and at the time of its creation also state of the art, could it not?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()