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.


Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Awkward Architecture: Quirk That Just Don't Work
« Reply #25 on: November 04, 2020, 02:00:41 AM »
Niall

Times change. What may have been normal 125 years ago could easily be quirky today.

If the Pit greensite is contrived then all holes are contrived. Maybe you are right, but I don't think this is the case.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Awkward Architecture: Quirk That Just Don't Work
« Reply #26 on: November 04, 2020, 08:31:57 AM »
13th at Morfontaine with a tree in the middle of the par three fairway.
Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Awkward Architecture: Quirk That Just Don't Work
« Reply #27 on: November 04, 2020, 03:15:46 PM »
Niall

Times change. What may have been normal 125 years ago could easily be quirky today.

If the Pit greensite is contrived then all holes are contrived. Maybe you are right, but I don't think this is the case.

Ciao


Sean


That was basically what I was saying. It makes you wonder what design idea that is fairly normal now, might be unusual and quirky in 100 years time.


As for what is contrived, arguably all holes are contrived since the architect decides where they start and where they finish.


Niall

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Awkward Architecture: Quirk That Just Don't Work
« Reply #28 on: November 04, 2020, 03:54:25 PM »
Golf Dunkerque. Quirk? Quirk when built? Quirk now? Quirk sometime in the future?




atb

Cal Seifert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Awkward Architecture: Quirk That Just Don't Work
« Reply #29 on: November 04, 2020, 05:51:47 PM »
13th at Morfontaine with a tree in the middle of the par three fairway.


I’ve always wondered about this hole from seeing pictures of it. Imagine if Rees did this.

Bruce Katona

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Awkward Architecture: Quirk That Just Don't Work
« Reply #30 on: November 05, 2020, 10:47:33 AM »
Quirk or Signature - The Postage Stamp, The Road Hole (who would design a hole who has a potential line of play over a building), the Green in the middle of #6 @Riviera.......


Potato or Po-tat-oh

Phil Burr

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Awkward Architecture: Quirk That Just Don't Work
« Reply #31 on: November 05, 2020, 12:59:58 PM »
Has anyone designed more 90 degree doglegs than Gary Player?  Case in point: Blackmoor.  He even threw in a 90 degree hole with a straightaway one-shot option through a narrow chute.  Only Isosceles Triangle hole I ever saw.  Was he just accepting poor sites or does he love the idea as an architectural concept?

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Awkward Architecture: Quirk That Just Don't Work
« Reply #32 on: November 05, 2020, 01:12:34 PM »
Shouldn’t quirk perhaps be viewed in the context of the clubs and balls that were being used when the feature in question was first used for golf or was first created for golf?
Atb

Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Awkward Architecture: Quirk That Just Don't Work
« Reply #33 on: November 05, 2020, 01:52:30 PM »
Shouldn’t quirk perhaps be viewed in the context of the clubs and balls that were being used when the feature in question was first used for golf or was first created for golf?
Atb


I suspect that older courses had fewer "conventional design rules" to deal with. It might not have been odd for them to use a wall in the design of a hole, or other such features they found on the land.
Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Awkward Architecture: Quirk That Just Don't Work
« Reply #34 on: November 05, 2020, 02:04:11 PM »
I suspect using a stone wall across a fw was considered great design until someone important got injured.  I can hear some old timey gca telling his apprenctice..."You'll put their eye out, kid!"


Tommy is probably right.  Every time a gca designs a course and hears the criticisms, they tend to get more conservative, making a mental note never to do "X" again.  We get conservative, like old football coaches using less trick plays than young ones, having had way more than half of them fail to meet their objective.


I'm in the has to feel natural and unavoidable camp.  There is a hole near Austin where they left a natural cave, and it works because it was just there, even if a small portion of golfers have to play out backwards when they hit down there.


For no particular reason, some built modern quirk I like is Tripp Davis Tribute in North Dallas.  He built a very rumpled fw with no level lies.  It was noticeably different than the other holes, and most other courses.  It worked in the context of being a short hole so a non level lie was part of the challenge.


Is that quirk?  I don't know.  To me it is just a good feature you don't see too often. 
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Awkward Architecture: Quirk That Just Don't Work
« Reply #35 on: November 05, 2020, 03:21:18 PM »

There’s are availability, ease of use and cost elements to consider as well especially back in the day when the game was far more rudimentary. For example, removing a wall costs money. Playing over it costs nothing. Using rough timber, used pallets, old railway sleepers was cheap and simple and could be done by men with a horse and cart. And back in the day H&S and all that goes with it wasn’t what it is today.The development and changes to the Rules of Golf may have had an effect as well. Once upon a time a ball landing on the the railway line alongside TOC had to be played, which by today’s standards would seem pretty quirky.
Atb

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Awkward Architecture: Quirk That Just Don't Work
« Reply #36 on: November 05, 2020, 04:35:19 PM »
In early golf lofting the ball took real skill and therefore that was reflected in putting obstacles in the way that had to be got over. Not only that but nearly all early courses in this country were on agricultural land; were only leased or sub-leased meaning that they couldn't remove field boundaries; and with average field sizes of 10 to 20 acres it was very hard not to have a wall or hedge to go over on the way to the hole, even if you wanted to. Incorporating walls and hedges in the design was not only logical but quite common.


Niall 

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Awkward Architecture: Quirk That Just Don't Work
« Reply #37 on: November 06, 2020, 01:59:04 AM »
Shouldn’t quirk perhaps be viewed in the context of the clubs and balls that were being used when the feature in question was first used for golf or was first created for golf?
Atb

Times change. We can explain the reasons why some features exist and that at the time were good solutions. But that doesn't mean these same features and ideas shouldn't or can't be considered quirky in today's golf world. I only wish more early era features survived. There is a real sense of raw immediacy about many of these features which I miss in most of modern architecture.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Ken Fry

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Awkward Architecture: Quirk That Just Don't Work
« Reply #38 on: November 06, 2020, 08:35:42 AM »
Bogey,
I'm curious of an example in your original post.  Why do you think #17 at Cape Arundel is a bad example of quirk??
Ken

Mike Bodo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Awkward Architecture: Quirk That Just Don't Work
« Reply #39 on: November 06, 2020, 08:38:31 AM »
Is the 17th at TPC Sawgrass considered bad quirky or quirk that works? I, personally, don't care for it and am annoyed when others try and duplicate it. I'm glad the design concept wasn't widely copied with new course construction, although I can imagine there was a period when many architects were pressured by course owners and clubs to design something "similar" to distinguish their course from others.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2020, 08:41:28 AM by Mike Bodo »
"90% of all putts left short are missed." - Yogi Berra

Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Awkward Architecture: Quirk That Just Don't Work
« Reply #40 on: November 06, 2020, 01:18:34 PM »
Bogey,
I'm curious of an example in your original post.  Why do you think #17 at Cape Arundel is a bad example of quirk??
Ken


Ken, yours is a good question and I hoped this selection would be challenged.


First let me share that I have Cape A in my top 10 favs, and that I have only played it once.


My sense is that all approaches regardless of how played will trundle to the shallow rear bench. Perhaps the front knob could be pinned but I didn’t spy an old cup location.


Also it could be my short hitting but I couldn’t get my tee ball the the crest of the hill to get a reasonable peek at the challenge that followed. I like blindness but not when the required shot requires that level of precision. My take is the hole would be better if 30 yards shorter, in which case you could more readily manufacture a pitch and have the fun of watching it interact with that unique green.


Does that make sense?


Mike
Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

Ken Fry

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Awkward Architecture: Quirk That Just Don't Work
« Reply #41 on: November 06, 2020, 01:44:48 PM »
Bogey,
I'm curious of an example in your original post.  Why do you think #17 at Cape Arundel is a bad example of quirk??
Ken


Ken, yours is a good question and I hoped this selection would be challenged.


First let me share that I have Cape A in my top 10 favs, and that I have only played it once.


My sense is that all approaches regardless of how played will trundle to the shallow rear bench. Perhaps the front knob could be pinned but I didn’t spy an old cup location.


Also it could be my short hitting but I couldn’t get my tee ball the the crest of the hill to get a reasonable peek at the challenge that followed. I like blindness but not when the required shot requires that level of precision. My take is the hole would be better if 30 yards shorter, in which case you could more readily manufacture a pitch and have the fun of watching it interact with that unique green.


Does that make sense?


Mike
Mike,

Makes sense to me.  I'm in the same boat as you as I hold Cape Arundel quite high despite only one play.

For me, the quirk of 17 works exceptionally well for both first time visitors and regular players.  I always enjoy seeing "something new."  A feature that has the wow factor of "I haven't really seen that before."  The approach and green on 17 provide that.

For the regular player, I'm expecting the stress to begin on the tee much more than a first time player.  The fairway is generous but the fear of missing the fairway for a regular player must increase dramatically.  The concern of not getting appropriate spin on the ball or flier lie that can vary an approach that must be precise.

I'm guessing front pin locations can only be attacked with a very high and precise short iron.  Ran's write up has photos of the front pin location.

My trip around CA was dominated by thoughts of what a round would be like with hickories!

Ken

Ira Fishman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Awkward Architecture: Quirk That Just Don't Work
« Reply #42 on: November 07, 2020, 07:34:18 AM »

There’s are availability, ease of use and cost elements to consider as well especially back in the day when the game was far more rudimentary. For example, removing a wall costs money. Playing over it costs nothing. Using rough timber, used pallets, old railway sleepers was cheap and simple and could be done by men with a horse and cart. And back in the day H&S and all that goes with it wasn’t what it is today.The development and changes to the Rules of Golf may have had an effect as well. Once upon a time a ball landing on the the railway line alongside TOC had to be played, which by today’s standards would seem pretty quirky.
Atb


For me, the equipment point is an important one. If I have a reasonable degree of confidence that a bulldozer produced the quirk, I find it less appealing because it does feel contrived. The big knob at the 8th at Kingsbarns for example. Perhaps paradoxically, not using a bulldozer can have the same effect. At Whiskey Creek outside DC, there are the ruins of an old stone house in the middle of the 18th fairway. I am not aware of any preservation ordinance that required them to leave it there. It a good course but the oddity of the house is what most people remember about the course. Probably good marketing but not very good golf.


Ira

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Awkward Architecture: Quirk That Just Don't Work
« Reply #43 on: November 07, 2020, 09:21:16 AM »
In many cases, it comes down to ,,
Would you rather play over awkward/severe/blind ground..
or walk over it.
More and more, I'd rather play over it than hike it.
I have no issue with several awkward shots that get you to the best parts of the property and back
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Ben Hollerbach

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Awkward Architecture: Quirk That Just Don't Work
« Reply #44 on: November 07, 2020, 11:12:28 AM »
Adam:


I know I am in the minority on this but I think that the quirk at Sweetens Cove on almost every hole is too much for me. Its almost the line for me as what works as a quirk or what is a gimmick. As every hole has a bunch of random forced features on a relatively flat site. If Tad and Rob had dialed it back 20% I think they still would have had a really cool golf course, but in return I think it would be more playable and simpler to maintain every day.


Ben,


For the most part I agree with you, but in the case of a place like Sweetens it no longer bothers me.


The fairways are not gimmicky in the least bit, its the greens that are turned up to 11. You can navigate the ball around the course all day long an never be forced into an unfair approach shot. In many cases its really specific pins that push the gimmick factor, with the lower pin on 2 being a perfect example. You put that pin anywhere but that lower bowl and its hard to find any fault with the hole. Even on the trio of short par 4's (5, 7, & 8 ) You have plenty of options off of the tee to set up a short wedge approach into amazingly challenging greens. I think 5 and 7 are nearly perfect holes. I do believe that the green on 6 and 8 are out of balance for the holes, and would agree that if the severity of the 8th green was dialed back 20% it would make for a better hole.



My enjoyment from playing Sweetens is the chance to attempt an incredibly broad range of shots. I don't get the chance to get up there all that often, but when I do its for all day marathons, so I have the opportunities to experiment multiple times over. I don't focus on score when I'm there and because of that I'm able to get past the quirk potentially being pushed too far.



Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Awkward Architecture: Quirk That Just Don't Work
« Reply #45 on: November 07, 2020, 01:35:09 PM »
If I have a reasonable degree of confidence that a bulldozer produced the quirk, I find it less appealing because it does feel contrived.
Nicely put.
Atb

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Awkward Architecture: Quirk That Just Don't Work
« Reply #46 on: November 07, 2020, 02:47:34 PM »
In many cases, it comes down to ,,
Would you rather play over awkward/severe/blind ground..
or walk over it.
More and more, I'd rather play over it than hike it.
I have no issue with several awkward shots that get you to the best parts of the property and back

+1.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Awkward Architecture: Quirk That Just Don't Work
« Reply #47 on: November 07, 2020, 08:23:49 PM »
Found this from Jm Engh, who understood quirk.


Quirky
What is quirky? Is quirky bad? Is it good?
I see quirky as unique and interesting. A tool used to enhance an experience in order to deviate from the repetitive and the mundane.  In reference to golf course design, quirky is often considered to be an evil that in some way disrespects the heritage of the game and the designers of the past. 
Without quirky and without oddity, there can be no uniqueness and variety.  Therefore, without quirky, the golf experience would become similar to the skillful, yet uninspiring sport of bowling.
I choose to embrace the uniqueness of nature, as well as my passion to create a unique and interesting golfing experience.
Through quirky... the ultimate goal is fun.
- Jim Engh
Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

cary lichtenstein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Awkward Architecture: Quirk That Just Don't Work
« Reply #48 on: November 08, 2020, 01:01:23 AM »
I know I'm in the minority, but I love quirk, probably because I was a better player and loved the challenge. However for the 16 handicap, quirk seems stupid sometimes
Live Jupiter, Fl, was  4 handicap, played top 100 US, top 75 World. Great memories, no longer play, 4 back surgeries. I don't miss a lot of things about golf, life is simpler with out it. I miss my 60 degree wedge shots, don't miss nasty weather, icing, back spasms. Last course I played was Augusta