[Mike Hendren]

Please provide examples.

Bogey

[David_Elvins]

Quirk stands the test of time and is still interesting 32-35 years later.  

Gimmicks are disposable or forgettable.

[Sean_A]

Bogey

Its a hazey line, but I tend to go with

1. If the feature easily leads to a lost or water ball, its a gimmick.  If when failing to execute and the ball can be played, its quirk. 

2. Generally, quirk should be attempted only on gentle or mildly rolling terrain. 

3. Using existing land forms or features will usually lend itself to enjoyable quirk - think of North Berwick.  Trying to build in rather than route in quirk is asking for grief.

4. Even good quirk can cause overload if there is too much on a course - Painswick is a good example of this.     

Ciao

[Mike_Young]

IMHO gimmicks require more luck than skill to be successful and quirk can be negotiated by a skilled player most of the time...

[Mark Bourgeois]

Kinda relating to Sean's point, the two questions for me are:
1) Is it integral to the design?
2) Was the designer constrained in his abilities to deal with / remove the thing(s)?

I think a lot of "quirk" is to be found on old courses where the designer didn't have much choice and was forced to deal with it. If integrated into the design you appreciate the designer did his best and respect the creativity. A lot of "gimmicks" appear on modern courses where the designer could have removed the thing(s) or, horrors, actually *added* it.

Examples of quirk vs gimmick on modern:
Quirk - 13th hole on Westfields has a Civil War graveyard to its right. Can come into play for slicers (also for those who want an approach angled into the hillside) and no way to move it. Designer "forced" to deal with it.
Gimmick - decrepit house in middle of 18th fairway at Whiskey Creek GC. No reason for it to be there. It's generally harmless (ie really hard to hit), ie not integral, therefore gimmicky.

Thought example:
N Berwick wall: quirk
If designer had built N Berwick wall: gimmick

[Pat Burke]

If I like it.......Quirk
If I hate it.....Gimmick

[Tom_Doak]

If it's a playing feature of the golf course ... quirk.

If it's there to make mention of in a review of the course ... gimmick.
  (Examples:  split fairways, double greens anywhere but Scotland, waterfalls, dagger-shaped bunkers, etc.)

[Greg Tallman]

If it's a playing feature of the golf course ... quirk.

If it's there to make mention of in a review of the course ... gimmick.
  (Examples:  split fairways, double greens anywhere but Scotland, waterfalls, dagger-shaped bunkers, etc.)

So your contention is there is nary a single split fairway hole with architectural merit. I mean surely anything labeled as a gimmick has no merit architecturally correct?

Is Old Mac anything more than a well conceived and executed gimmick?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Please provide examples.

Bogey,

I think you have to draw a distinction between modern and GA courses.

I tend to think that GA courses were void of "gimmick", and that the "quirk" created or discovered, was simply a by-product of budget and/or the natural terrain.

I also feel that one man's "quirk" is another man's "gimmick"

Many, many years ago, I brought a number of golfers to NGLA and Shinnecock for their first experience at both courses.
While there was almost universal approval of SHCC, some thought that NGLA was "Gimmicky"

Those feeling that way weren't used to blind shots and using the land to get the ball where you wanted it to end up.
Some of those fellows, with repeat play over the years, renounced their original perception and embraced the course.
But, others clung to their original assessment.

So, when looking at the broad spectrum of golfers, to some, anything that departs from their concept of what golf is all about, qualifies as quirk/gimmick without any distinction.

To them, there is no line of demarcation.

I would tend to think that "gimmick" is more in the domain of modern architecture.

An example of modern quirk that I really, really like is the 8th and 9th holes at Pacific Dunes.
Play # 8 left and you play # 9 low.  Play # 8 straight and you play # 9 high.

I think that's a really neat feature.

But, I'd be curious to know how participants feel about # 14, the floating movable island green at Coeur d'Alene, ID

Is it "quirk" or is it "gimmick" ?

[Brent Hutto]

If I like it.......Quirk
If I hate it.....Gimmick

That's my definition, too.

[Phil McDade]

Bogey:

A good question, and I'm in line with some others here. In general, I think those of us here on GCA might be more tolerant of quirk on classic-era courses, because we tend to like restraint in our courses, and old-fashioned quirk often results from the architect simply incorporating unconventional (by today's standards) routings or features because he didn't have the ability to negotiate them any other way (or, in NGLA's case, deliberately utilized them as an ode to features found overseas). I fully admit to this; the chocolate drops that you sometimes see on a Travis or Leeds course I view as charming, old-school quirk, yet I tend to really dislike them on modern courses (Pete Dye courses are often full of them). I am a hypocrite on these matters.

Here are some examples:

Blackhawk CC in Madison WI (Shorewood Hills, the bedroom suburb, actually), may be the quirkiest course in these parts, with three par 4s at 275 yards and under, back-to-back par 5s of the exact same length, several blind shots, and a blind, uphill, par 3 as the 18th hole. I'm incredibly tolerant of it, because it's a course with 18 holes of merit squeezed into about 100 acres on some very challenging topography. One hole -- the very narrow par 4 14th -- might be viewed as gimmicky, and you'd probably not get a strong argument from me. This is it: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,41775.0.html

Another course not far from here, just over the WI-IL border, is Macktown, with some unusual features: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,41510.0.html

The par 4 9th -- maybe along with Blackhawk's 14th the narrowest par 4 I've ever encountered -- and the par 3 17th (where the green is hidden and blind from the regular-play tees) -- might strike some as gimmicky, but I enjoyed playing them.

Lawsonia has its unconventional mid-round routing that includes consecutive par holes of: 5-3-5-3-5-3. But I'd argue pretty strongly that, while unconventional (gimmicky?), the holes make wonderful use of the land, and Langford might have routed lesser holes if he thought he "needed" a par 4 somewhere in there.

[Thomas Dai]

If I like it.......Quirk
If I hate it.....Gimmick

That's my definition, too.

Think I'd probably go along with this as well.
atb

[Tom_Doak]

If it's a playing feature of the golf course ... quirk.

If it's there to make mention of in a review of the course ... gimmick.
  (Examples:  split fairways, double greens anywhere but Scotland, waterfalls, dagger-shaped bunkers, etc.)

So your contention is there is nary a single split fairway hole with architectural merit. I mean surely anything labeled as a gimmick has no merit architecturally correct?

Is Old Mac anything more than a well conceived and executed gimmick?

Sure, there are some very good split fairway holes.  But there have been 500 of them built in the last 20 years, and maybe 10% of them are really quality holes instead of a gimmick, some of which are better executed than others.

Old Macdonald was an idea for a golf course.  I suppose some could call it a gimmick.  In fact, you could go further and suggest that all template holes are a gimmick, if you want to start a flame war.  I'll stay out of that one. 

[Greg Tallman]

If it's a playing feature of the golf course ... quirk.

If it's there to make mention of in a review of the course ... gimmick.
  (Examples:  split fairways, double greens anywhere but Scotland, waterfalls, dagger-shaped bunkers, etc.)

So your contention is there is nary a single split fairway hole with architectural merit. I mean surely anything labeled as a gimmick has no merit architecturally correct?

Is Old Mac anything more than a well conceived and executed gimmick?

Sure, there are some very good split fairway holes.  But there have been 500 of them built in the last 20 years, and maybe 10% of them are really quality holes instead of a gimmick, some of which are better executed than others.

Old Macdonald was an idea for a golf course.  I suppose some could call it a gimmick.  In fact, you could go further and suggest that all template holes are a gimmick, if you want to start a flame war.  I'll stay out of that one. 

No flaming here, in fact where I was going with my post was quite flattering.  Gimmick in the right hands...

[Tom_Doak]

I agree with your last point.  A bunker in the middle of the green is a gimmick ... but not when George Thomas pulled it off.

[Dave Doxey]

Quirk – something out of the ordinary that was on the site and the architect was forced to deal with it.

Gimmick – something out of the ordinary that was put there by the architect.

A split fairway might fall in either category.  An artificial waterfall is a gimmick.

[Garland Bayley]

Quirk – something out of the ordinary that was on the site and the architect was forced to deal with it.

Gimmick – something out of the ordinary that was put there by the architect.

A split fairway might fall in either category.  An artificial waterfall is a gimmick.

Therefore, all artificial ponds on desert courses are gimmicks. QED! 

[Mark Pavy]

A giant soup bowl and chopsticks is certainly on the wrong side of the line!

[Greg Tallman]

A giant soup bowl and chopsticks is certainly on the wrong side of the line!

I nearly fell from my chair when Brian showed me that hole. Unabashed, deliberate gimmickry at its finest and he'll not apologize for it.


And you forgot the floating "noodles".

[Matthew Petersen]

Quirk – something out of the ordinary that was on the site and the architect was forced to deal with it.

Gimmick – something out of the ordinary that was put there by the architect.

A split fairway might fall in either category.  An artificial waterfall is a gimmick.

Therefore, all artificial ponds on desert courses are gimmicks. QED! 

Why stop at ponds on desert courses? Grass growing in the desert is a gimmick.

[David Bartman]

I agree with your last point.  A bunker in the middle of the green is a gimmick ... but not when George Thomas pulled it off.

I still think its a gimmick, its just been accepted because the rest of the course is terrific.  A poorly designed course, or even a course designed on a boring piece of property , wouldn't be able to pull off a bunker in the middle of the green.  

Red Hill and the Griffith Park Courses are a few examples of courses that wouldn't be able to pull it off, yet designed by GT.   

[Garland Bayley]

Quirk – something out of the ordinary that was on the site and the architect was forced to deal with it.

Gimmick – something out of the ordinary that was put there by the architect.

A split fairway might fall in either category.  An artificial waterfall is a gimmick.

Therefore, all artificial ponds on desert courses are gimmicks. QED! 

Why stop at ponds on desert courses? Grass growing in the desert is a gimmick.

Grass isn't out of the ordinary for golf courses.
However, I do have a friend that works in Saudi Arabia, and plays all shots but putts off of a mat in the desert.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Quirk is a natural land form used by the architect in an interesting way. Gimmick was built by the architect in an attempt to add interest or quirk to the site.

[Ryan Coles]

Quirk is a natural land form used by the architect in an interesting way. Gimmick was built by the architect in an attempt to add interest or quirk to the site.

How does that stand up when discussing green contours on the alleged modern greats?

[Ben Hollerbach]

Quirk is a natural land form used by the architect in an interesting way. Gimmick was built by the architect in an attempt to add interest or quirk to the site.

How does that stand up when discussing green contours on the alleged modern greats?

Probably not very well, but I presume the larger factor is the visual evidence of additional land work done during construction. If the feature appears natural and seems in balance with the land around it I would lean more towards quirk, but if the feature seems to stand alone and does not fit the landscape I'd say gimmick.

Of course this can't apply 100% as that would put nearly all of Macdonald and Raynor's work in the gimmick column and I wouldn't consider that accurate.

Maybe quirk and gimmick are like pornography, you know it when you see it.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()