[Garland Bayley]

I've seen everything I ever hoped to see and more...
I'm no longer after principals or templates or anything well studied.
I'm after the unconventional, the almost irrational, the bits that thumb there nose at convention.
I'm always on the lookout for a new idea, not one that we already know.

I like it because it represents another small lesson in make sure you consider every possibility.
It's not a crutch ... its a novel idea.

I'm with Ian.

Bogey:  screw the critics and the architects, it's the golfers that matter.  To me, a quirky feature gets them to slow down, get off auto-pilot, and really THINK about what they're doing.  All of which goes back to that line that slipped out from Mr. Dye's mouth long ago: 

"When you get those dudes thinking, they're in trouble."

I do think Pete Dye is one of the few architects who have tried to manufacture quirk, with mixed success.

And this is good?

You Betcha it's good. It doesn't mean get them to play slower. It means make them think. So when is thinking not good?

I know just simple man from West Virginia but it occurs to me that protracted thought takes time and that Tom's comments were, as always, rather clear.

So thinking is not good when it's slow?

[Greg Tallman]

I've seen everything I ever hoped to see and more...
I'm no longer after principals or templates or anything well studied.
I'm after the unconventional, the almost irrational, the bits that thumb there nose at convention.
I'm always on the lookout for a new idea, not one that we already know.

I like it because it represents another small lesson in make sure you consider every possibility.
It's not a crutch ... its a novel idea.

I'm with Ian.

Bogey:  screw the critics and the architects, it's the golfers that matter.  To me, a quirky feature gets them to slow down, get off auto-pilot, and really THINK about what they're doing.  All of which goes back to that line that slipped out from Mr. Dye's mouth long ago: 

"When you get those dudes thinking, they're in trouble."

I do think Pete Dye is one of the few architects who have tried to manufacture quirk, with mixed success.

And this is good?

You Betcha it's good. It doesn't mean get them to play slower. It means make them think. So when is thinking not good?

I know just simple man from West Virginia but it occurs to me that protracted thought takes time and that Tom's comments were, as always, rather clear.

So thinking is not good when it's slow?

Obviously depends on the circumstance doesn't it?

[Garland Bayley]

Greg,

Let's go about this another way. You wrote, "And this is good?" I think most would agree that you are suggesting it may not be good.
Please inform us why it may not be good.

[Greg Tallman]

Greg,

Let's go about this another way. You wrote, "And this is good?" I think most would agree that you are suggesting it may not be good.
Please inform us why it may not be good.

I am not sure you are being serious but I thought it was unnecessary to spell out that I was questioning a statement that says slowing a golfer down in any way is a good thing.

[Garland Bayley]

Greg,

Let's go about this another way. You wrote, "And this is good?" I think most would agree that you are suggesting it may not be good.
Please inform us why it may not be good.

I am not sure you are being serious but I thought it was unnecessary to spell out that I was questioning a statement that says slowing a golfer down in any way is a good thing.

If you have ever watched Keegan Bradley do his pre-shot dance, you might conclude brain synapse firing is inconsequential in comparison.

[SL_Solow]

I think you may be misconstruing Dye's use of the term "slowing down'.  I believe he is suggesting that it eliminates the automatic "the shot is 190 yards, therefore I hit a full 7 iron" (remember we are talking about the pros, not mere mortals).  The pre-shot routine may remain fast or slow, but the comfort level of hitting the stock shot based on yardage is removed.  Therefore the decision making process is altered or "slowed down".  The game becomes more thoughtful and less akin to target shooting.

[George Pazin]

I like quirk, perhaps too much.

While I can't fathom anyone here arguing against it, I can't help but wonder:

Do mid-to-high handicappers like quirk because it obfuscates our lack of talent?  In other words, does it provide us with a ready excuse to try something unique without being embarrased by the consequences that might follow?  Isn't it easier to hide a poor game on a quirky golf course?  

Do we like it because it is visually stimulating and photographs nicely?

Isn't quirk easier to critique?  In other words,  isn't it more "gettable?"

Doesn't its discussion enhance one's credibility on this site?

In other words, is quirk the golf architecture enthusiast's crutch?

Damn, I love quirk.

Bogey

In order:

No. No. No. No. No. Definitely no. No. And maybe.

[Thomas Dai]

Bland and predictable is boring after a while whereas quirk is thought provoking and stimulating.

Familiarity breeds contempt though, and over familiarity, even with quirkiness, can start to have a negative effect. It's a balance. How often can you play the same course, even a quirky one, before becoming bored and wanting a change? Guess that's why we like playing different courses and the planning and travelling and debating that goes into such visits and trips.

atb

[jeffwarne]

People that like quirk tend to like it in no small part because there's so little of it, and it is unique.

Years ago, people disliked quirk because there was so much of it, and eliminating blindness and bizarre features was.....unique.

Anecdotally, I'm amazed by how many Scottish and Irish players I've played with who didn't like quirky holes at all and revere modern quirlkless, fair, (often inland )courses.

Like the country song "we all want what we ain't got"

[PCCraig]

My home course is really quirky, in particular because it sits on a pretty severe site on a bluff near the Mississippi River, is bisected by an old ravine, and sits on about 90 acres in the middle of a major metropolitan area. Those responsible for routing the course(s) on the site from 1893 through the 1920's didn't have the benefit (?) or the budget to move around the land on the site.

The course has a number of blind shots, side hill lies, severely sloping greens, and a unique routing (back-to-back par-3's at holes #2 and #3 and back-to-back-back par-5's at #15-#16-#17 as well as a par-3 finishing hole). However, the course is pretty short by today's "championship" standards measuring just short of 6,500 yards from the back tees and the member's tees (where 95% of men play from) measure less than 6,200 yards.

So, if you were a good player looking at the scorecard before a tournament, you would think "there are 5 par-3's, 5 par-5's and only one long par 4 at 460 yards...I'm going to eat this place up alive." However, the different lies, bounces, and unique shots a better player sees really throws them off under a tournament round. In particular if they usually play at a more straightforward golf course. A few years ago, my home course co-hosted the State Mid-Am tournament on a couple of days where the wind was blowing a good 20mph. The average score was over 82. 

[Doug Siebert]

I can see someone who has a more scientific approach to the game disliking quirk, because oddity and eccentricity might get in the way of a "good shot" not being rewarded in the way that it "should." For those who are more out to have a good time and aren't necessarily as grimly tied to obtaining a particular score, quirk might provide some interest and fun, if one is so inclined to see it. If this is true, then perhaps the better player might be less forgiving of a course's quirks, and more interersested in something.......more.......fair?

That's a really interesting thought.  I'm definitely a feel player, and will play with my gut rather than the percentages if something looks right.  I've always been a fan of quirk, maybe if I was a mechanical player using the Pelz system and believing there is one 'right' way to play almost any shot I'd dislike quirk as it would get in the way of playing that 'right' shot.

Too bad GCA doesn't support polls, this would be a perfect question for a poll.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()