News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Jay Cox

  • Karma: +0/-0
What makes quirk acceptable?
« on: April 16, 2009, 01:58:31 PM »
On the Wolf Creek thread, Matt Ward wrote:

Keep this in mind there is a double-standard for quirk on GCA. If it's tied to Ireland or Scotland you can have holes with walls next to them -- or holes with castles on top of greens and holes that end abruptly with huge faces of sand, hill and the like -- and guess what -- you'll get people gushing about how great it is. Do something of a similar sort here in the States and these same "hold your nose" types will castigate Wolf Creek as goofy golf.

I think this is a very interesting comment, and I think Matt's certainly right that many of us hate some quirk while loving other facially similar quirk.  But I hope that we're not all being as arbitrary as Matt suggests. 

Here's one hypothesis:  Natural quirk is good quirk.  If a hole strikes us as ingenious in its unusual approach to an unusual setting, we like it.  Unnatural quirk is bad quirk, or at least is held to a higher standard, because it doesn't trigger the same "what a great way around this problem" reaction and it doesn't feel so unique.

One of the main charms of a quirky hole is that it feels like it must be one of a kind.  When the quirky elements feel like they were fabricated by the architect -- or even when the architect has changed the landscape around the hole so much that the player feels like anything, including the quirky feature, easily could have been changed, so that the decision to leave it standing is still very much a product of human choice and not of taking on a given site -- one no longer gets that exhilirating feeling of uniqueness.

Do you agree?  Or are we as prejudiced as Matt says?

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What makes quirk acceptable?
« Reply #1 on: April 16, 2009, 02:20:36 PM »
We are prejudiced in favor of that which has stood the test of time...unnatural quirk in Ireland is not universally loved.

We think that if the damn wall hasn't been taken down in the last 100 years it must be good, whereas this wall on a new course just may be taken down and we want to be in early with a criticism so we can be proven correct...

Sorry!

Anthony Gray

Re: What makes quirk acceptable?
« Reply #2 on: April 16, 2009, 02:37:11 PM »

  What makes quirk acceptable? A course that was built before 1900. Now that we can take away what is natural with heavy equiptment quirk is less accepted.

  Anthony


Mark_Rowlinson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What makes quirk acceptable?
« Reply #3 on: April 16, 2009, 03:00:59 PM »
I agree with Jay. Having participated in the BUDA at Painswick and observed the reactions of the rest of the company I can testify to the universal love for quirk when it is as natural as this is.

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What makes quirk acceptable?
« Reply #4 on: April 16, 2009, 03:07:12 PM »
I agree 100%, it should be natural and shouldn't include roads, fences and other structures.  Take this hole for example... quirk at its finest!!  ;D






Mark_Rowlinson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What makes quirk acceptable?
« Reply #5 on: April 16, 2009, 03:12:25 PM »
Kalen, Who allowed that ghastly carbuncle of a hotel to be built? Presumably before the railway and its sheds came the course was played the other way round. As for the road and wall, they were probably there (not metalled, I agree) when first golf was played there. No doubt Prof Goodale will enlighten us.

Kirk Gill

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What makes quirk acceptable?
« Reply #6 on: April 16, 2009, 03:36:23 PM »
So for all of you who find that natural quirk is okay, while manufactured quirk is unacceptable, what if you were to play a hole on an old course that had a quirky feature (which you enjoyed), only to find out later that some guy came in around 1950 and built that feature to add interest to what he felt was an otherwise bland  hole? Would that change your perception of that quirky feature? Do you check the bona fides of a course's quirk before you play there to make sure that you're not delighted by something manufactured? Or is good quirk like pornography - you just know it when you see it?
"After all, we're not communists."
                             -Don Barzini

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What makes quirk acceptable?
« Reply #7 on: April 16, 2009, 03:48:21 PM »
Who was it in 1950?

Jay Cox

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What makes quirk acceptable?
« Reply #8 on: April 16, 2009, 04:05:27 PM »
So for all of you who find that natural quirk is okay, while manufactured quirk is unacceptable, what if you were to play a hole on an old course that had a quirky feature (which you enjoyed), only to find out later that some guy came in around 1950 and built that feature to add interest to what he felt was an otherwise bland  hole? Would that change your perception of that quirky feature? Do you check the bona fides of a course's quirk before you play there to make sure that you're not delighted by something manufactured? Or is good quirk like pornography - you just know it when you see it?

If I can't tell that something is unnatural, I'm fine with it.  If someone tells me later that it's unnatural, I'll probably think less of the hole as a feat of design - and, at least subconciously, I'll probably enjoy it less the next time around too.

Anthony Gray

Re: What makes quirk acceptable?
« Reply #9 on: April 16, 2009, 04:09:22 PM »


  What I was trying to say is that modern courses remove natural quirk. That is why you see it less now.

  Anthony


Kirk Gill

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What makes quirk acceptable?
« Reply #10 on: April 16, 2009, 04:13:13 PM »
Who was it in 1950?

Nice !



Two scenarios - one, it was Robert Trent Jones


Two - A guy who used to lurk around the course with a wheelbarrow and a shovel made the change one night while everyone was asleep, and was subsequently never seen again !
"After all, we're not communists."
                             -Don Barzini

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What makes quirk acceptable?
« Reply #11 on: April 16, 2009, 04:18:54 PM »
If you're speaking of the explosion holes Carl Spackler left, I don't think they will be well received...unless the grow-in period goes well...

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What makes quirk acceptable?
« Reply #12 on: April 16, 2009, 05:51:16 PM »
Matt is wrong in that context. He is trying to back door his way into justifying why he likes it, while simultaneously putting down those who don't. WC is not as quirky as much as it is just plain ol' bad gca. Bad as in... it makes no sense other than to get the male organ to stand on end because you swing for the fences and reach into your bag for another ball. It has no flow, tells no story. But it does finish on a sour note.  The manufactured aspect of most of the GCA, at WC, is the reason is not quirky. The above posts would tend to agree with that premise, if they've seen it.
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Matt_Ward

Re: What makes quirk acceptable?
« Reply #13 on: April 16, 2009, 10:48:13 PM »
I always appreciate Adam's slant on things. Too many of the GCA brethern, most notably Adam,  pray at the temple of "classic school" orthodoxy. Designs that fall outside their narrow definition of greatness are frowned upon or thought to be less golf design and more of a schlock effort.

Wolf Creek was created in a hostile weather environment and on a site that required a deft imagination and resources to boot. What's so amusing is that Adam gushes about Shadow Creek which is nothing more than man's testament to his own ego to create something from nothing and then have the "wisdom" (shall it be called that) to import trees (like the desert has them?) to make it look so "natural."

I've said this before -- people fawn when quirk is found across the pond and justify it with such passages as the inclusions being "natural" so as to justify their presence. No doubt, just like the Road Hole, if it weren't for the lore and it's tie to The Old Course and if it were done here in the States people would be screaming at how inane such a hole is.

You have people on this site who rave about a place like Cassique in the low country of SC and it is MOUND HAVEN. Each of them is totally manmade and often times have a direct role in how shots / holes are played. I love the juxtaposition of how different courses can be labeled one way when certain people are making the argument.

I've said many times that if you are one of those "hold your nose" / "up in the air types" who must have a classic type of golf design -- then avoid Wolf Creek at all costs. The same people who diss Wolf Creek are the same who see anyone other than wine lovers as barbarians. It's so utterly transparent.

I don't doubt Wolf Creek won't appeal to everyone. But as many said, which Adam and others of his ilk often forget to mention, they have enjoyed what it offered -- albeit not a steady diet but the fun factor was alive and well.

There are clear holes where quirk, albeit the American desert variety, is at work there. Again, the snob appeal is that anything that can't be understood is immediately thrown under the bus. I chuckle when Adam makes the brilliant observation that the course is "manufactured." Geeze, really?

I do agree with him on the concluding hole and have opined previously that there are a few holes that are less interesting and more of a filler. No doubt for those who demand a walking course Wolf Creek is not the place to be. Carts are mandated -- but for those who want clear differences for golf design, like the aforementioned Indiana Jones movies, Wolf Creek will keep you guessing and inspire you to hit critical shots in situations that you will long remember.

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What makes quirk acceptable?
« Reply #14 on: April 16, 2009, 10:52:17 PM »
If it's fun, it's OK.
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Eric_Terhorst

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What makes quirk acceptable?
« Reply #15 on: April 17, 2009, 12:49:08 AM »
Jay Cox, I can't improve on Forrest's answer to your question, but the way you asked the question immediately made me think of Bandon Dunes 10th hole, which I re-played just a few weeks ago.  I decided during the trip that it's the only hole on the resort that I truly loathe, and it may be because it wants to be "quirky" but to me seems so contrived and artificial.  The first fairway bunker and the hillock in front of the green both look to me like they were dropped in there by a Sikorsky to jazz up some boring landscape.   

On the other hand, I looked at the Alps hole construction in progress at Old Macdonald, and that looks like it will have a high fun factor.  The hill in front of the green on the OM Alps hole is built-up, not natural, so if it's well-received, that would go against your theory of natural good, unnatural bad. 

I would bet that Alps hole will attract a lot of controversy, though.  But as soon as someone says "What's your beef, it's based on a revered hole in Scotland"  Matt will have more to complain about.


Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What makes quirk acceptable?
« Reply #16 on: April 17, 2009, 01:33:58 AM »
I don't think it matters if the 'quirk' is man made or naturally occurring, it just has to be believeable .

The stone wall in Kalen's photo is just that, but not if it was in Phoenix, AZ.
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: What makes quirk acceptable?
« Reply #17 on: April 17, 2009, 02:07:20 AM »
I would agree with Matt that there are all sorts of double standards which different people apply to quirky features.  I would disagree with him that all of those standards are based on Who built it, or When it was built.

I think distinctions can also be made about Where quirky features are attempted within the course, and on What types of holes.  I've never been to Wolf Creek, but it seems like some of the quirk there is on 250-yard par-3 holes over water, or 480-yard par-4 holes with 100 feet of elevation change and potential cart path bounces.  I would submit that there are not many holes even in Scotland or even on a Doak design where a quirky feature is accepted on holes of that length. 

An exception would be the Road hole, but the Road hole is really an evolved par-5 where most players are playing onto the green from 75 yards or less ... not the same as a similar length hole at Wolf Creek where there are multiple tees so that everyone is flailing away at the green with a long club.  But think about most of the other quirk holes that get a "free pass."   The 13th at North Berwick is a wedge approach.  The Dell at Lahinch is a 150-yard par-3, the sixth at National even shorter.  The nastiest hazards at Pacific Dunes are on two short par-4's.

And yet it is clear that some observers are inconsistent.  One of my favorite Ran Morrissett stories is from his sole visit to Lost Dunes.  The long par-4 second at Lost Dunes has a very severe hazard at the front left of the green ... a dune-grass covered mound behind which the hole can sometimes be placed.  Ran, seeing that it was such a long approach, did not like the feature and asked why I built it ... and then changed his mind and liked it when I told him the mound was there to start with and we had built around it.  Which gave me the perfect opening to ask him, if I'd been smart enough to build a feature like that and make it look natural, if he would have liked it or disliked it then?  It's one of the few times I've had him speechless.

PCCraig

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What makes quirk acceptable?
« Reply #18 on: April 17, 2009, 07:48:36 AM »
I usually welcome all sorts of quirk here in the States. Too often I feel as though every new course I play has gone through some sort of formula, and the shots you end up hitting round-to-round dictate that.

I don't think man-made features are all that bad either...in the pictures that were posted of Chambers Bay a few weeks ago, I loved how there was an active train line that runs through the course.
H.P.S.

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What makes quirk acceptable?
« Reply #19 on: April 17, 2009, 08:36:43 AM »
Classic is defined as standing the test of time. To me, that is not a narrow barometer. Designing for the whims of the day is narrow because they just don't last. BTW, I'm much more familiar with modern designs and associate the principles seen on the few older courses to the newer ones to establish a base line for quality. Conversely modern designs that leave me cold get no pass because who or when they were built. 
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What makes quirk acceptable?
« Reply #20 on: April 17, 2009, 08:55:22 AM »
Thats a good point that Tom D made about the Road Hole. I wonder how many of the quirky holes on older courses actually started out as being more conventional but through evolution of golf equipment and the hole remaining unchanged over time, turned into something quirky.

One hole that springs to mind is the 2nd at Killermont which was laid out by Old Tom as a short par 4 with the approach shot playing uphill and with the green protected by the canopy of an old tree front left such that originally the line to pick would have been to drive to the right to get round the tree with the approach. Now the hole is a long par 3 of just over 200 yards but still plays almost like a dogleg.

Niall

Matt_Ward

Re: What makes quirk acceptable?
« Reply #21 on: April 17, 2009, 11:44:49 AM »
Tom D:

With all due respect -- certain people on this site DO give benevolent passes based SOLELY on who builds such courses and often times convey "star" status because of the time period factor involved.

Try to keep this in mind -- since you admit you are not familiar whatsoever with Wolf Creek. The site is in a hostile environment -- constructed and designed within corridors that required a good deal of imagination and determination. Not everything there works 100% -- but the "fun" factor is certainly present for those who are not locked into the "classic design orthodoxy" that is cemented into the mindset of certain people here.

Tom, before you carry on with your thesis about quirk -- let me point out that all of the holes at WC do provide tee boxes set-up to deal with the level of player who can handle such situations. How bout we mention the fact that often times you get folks who think they can handle the freight from further back and when the round concludes instead of accepting the reality that they badly elevated their own games to a point which was not practical they take the predictable cowards way out and trash the course.

The idea -- erroneously illustrated by you -- that there are 250-yd par-3 holes that all must handle is wrong. Ditto the 480-yd 100-foot drop-shot hole as well.

The quirk exists on shorter holes at WC -- like the 310-yd 7th hole (tip tee yardage mentioned here). You also can see it with the dog-leg right uphill 13th hole. The clearly different uphill par-3 3rd is also out of the ordinary in what it requires. The extremely short and unpredictable par-3 15th is another hole that comes to mind.

Often times -- people have particular preferences and tastes on what they feel is superior golf. That's fine but if these same people are so narrow in their approach -- it's likely their acceptance rate of courses outside that narrow line of thinking will be quite limited.

Peter Pallotta

Re: What makes quirk acceptable?
« Reply #22 on: April 17, 2009, 12:01:44 PM »
Jay -

Meaning* 

Historical, strategic, or aesthetic.

Peter

(* As in "I say, what is the meaning of this?")

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What makes quirk acceptable?
« Reply #23 on: April 17, 2009, 12:27:11 PM »
Jay Cox, I can't improve on Forrest's answer to your question, but the way you asked the question immediately made me think of Bandon Dunes 10th hole, which I re-played just a few weeks ago.  I decided during the trip that it's the only hole on the resort that I truly loathe, and it may be because it wants to be "quirky" but to me seems so contrived and artificial.  The first fairway bunker and the hillock in front of the green both look to me like they were dropped in there by a Sikorsky to jazz up some boring landscape.   

Eric, I don't think there's anything wrong with #10 at Bandon Dunes at all.  The hole just asks you to hit your tee ball about 30 yards left of where you instinctively want to hit it, straight at the flagstick.  From well left it's an easy short iron second.  From right in front it's a daunting pitch that's tough to get close.   

To me that's not quirk, that's strategic golf design.

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What makes quirk acceptable?
« Reply #24 on: April 17, 2009, 12:31:58 PM »
  One of my favorite Ran Morrissett stories is from his sole visit to Lost Dunes.  The long par-4 second at Lost Dunes has a very severe hazard at the front left of the green ... a dune-grass covered mound behind which the hole can sometimes be placed.  Ran, seeing that it was such a long approach, did not like the feature and asked why I built it ... and then changed his mind and liked it when I told him the mound was there to start with and we had built around it.  Which gave me the perfect opening to ask him, if I'd been smart enough to build a feature like that and make it look natural, if he would have liked it or  disliked it then?  It's one of the few times I've had him speechless.

In a similar vein -- is the huge mound front left of #10 at Friars Head a natural feature, or man made?  You could have the same reaction as Ran which Tom describes above.    Like the old Clairol ads -- "Is she or isn't she?" (A natural blonde - only her hairdresser knows for sure!)

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back