Quirk should be found not created

[Anthony Gray]

 Of course no absolutes.




 A recent thread mentioned this


 How do you feel about this?


 What are some examples of quirk that was created?


 Quirk found?


 How about quirk can be “enhanced”? Any examples of quirk enhancement?


 Is there really a Viking ship buried at Cruden Bay?


 Anthony


 

[Jeff Schley]

Interesting topic.  I think a place like North Berwick by keeping the stone walls as they have is enhancing the quirk as in years past some might say, "why is there a stone wall next to the green?" Well keep the quirk is enhancing the course for sure as I really enjoyed that feature on the couple holes it comes up.

[Peter Pallotta]

Anthony, to be honest: the last time I loved quirk was "Annie Hall", and the last time I really liked it was "Barton Fink".

Which is to say: yes to 'found' not 'created', at the very least -- but better still (for me) is to 'find it' only very rarely, and to 'look' for it even less.

These days there are too many ways ways to create/find so many different and wonderful golf holes that if you end up with quirk it's because you have indeed 'created it' (and 'intended it').

Quirk-2021 isn't Quirk-1921, no matter how much we wish/pretend it to be. 

This critique of quirk, therefore, certainly does not apply to your beloved Cruden Bay.

[Anthony Gray]

Anthony, to be honest: the last time I loved quirk was "Annie Hall", and the last time I really liked it was "Barton Fink". Which is to say: yes to 'found' not 'created', at the very least -- but better still (for me) is to 'find it' only very rarely, and to 'look' for it even less. These days there are too many ways ways to create/find so many different and wonderful golf holes that if you end up with quirk it's because you have indeed 'created it' (and 'intended it'). Quirk-2021 isn't Quirk-1921, no matter how much we wish/pretend it to be. 
This critique of quirk, therefore, certainly does not apply to your beloved Cruden Bay.

 Excellent answer Peter. OMG there may be a future thread. The evolution of quirk. And how is it different 100 years ago. Great points.

[Gib_Papazian]

Most of the best quirk are usually non-sequiturs just sorta integrated where they were found - maybe to give the routing a *sens du lieu* . . . . like a stone wall at North Berwick.

They could have easily covered up that portion with dirt, creating an interesting, partially blind mound, but how much more fun to present something patently ridiculous - still sticking its' tongue out at golfers 100 years later?


One place where elements of quirk was deliberately created was at my beloved Stevinson Ranch (NLE). My dear friend John Harbottle never got the credit he deserved for the occasional tongue-in-cheek feature. We had a KP there years ago and the Alps Hole, created on a dead-flat corner of the property, was a hit with the gang.

It was really a combination Alps, Leven - with a pot bunker from Hell - but I always appreciated his nuttier ideas because the idea of choosing a feature pursuant to creating an objective test of golf over a crazy, fun carnival ride goes against my creative sensibilities.

Of course, Stone Harbor by Des Blurhead represents the epitome of over-the-top, lookatme!!!!!!! That is not (was) quirk, just an artistic experiment that went so far off the rails, it jumped the shark . . . . my limey friends would describe it as "too clever by half."

But "Holy places" like Cruden Bay, where the quirk feels organic enough to have grown out of the ground with deep roots, those are the features that endure through the test of time. So many features on British courses - strange mounds on Sunningdale Old, where Willie Park looks to have just covered up a random boulder with dirt and left it - immeasurably add to the endearing qualities of the course.

Sometimes, my favorite holes (like Harbottle's Alps) are really strange combinations of seemingly unrelated ideas. Westhampton's 3rd, a Punchbowl Par-3, is wildly, but somehow classically artificial  . . . . as only Raynor can be, but if I ever get to help redesign another golf course, somewhere, somehow, love to find a spot for something with the same flavor notes. 


P.S. Peter, because Anthony and I clearly "need the eggs."



   

[Garland Bayley]

Interesting topic.  I think a place like North Berwick by keeping the stone walls as they have is enhancing the quirk as in years past some might say, "why is there a stone wall next to the green?" Well keep the quirk is enhancing the course for sure as I really enjoyed that feature on the couple holes it comes up.

Created at Bar Run by Dan Hixson with a replica "The Pit" hole.

[Tommy Williamsen]

So what we do with a course like Bayonne? It is entirely manufactured but has plenty of quirky holes that look pretty natural until you look around. I agree that it is nice to find quirky things like a stone fence and include it on the course but on most sites the designer has to build it into the design.

[Ronald Montesano]

This thread threatens to devolve into wafting arrogance, unless a sullen knight on a dirty nag stumbles through the corral gate and mutters loudly. I am that knight.


If there is a difference between quirk 1.0 and quirk 2.0, what is it precisely?


There's a train car in Lawsonia that might have a thing or two to say on this matter, if we can unearth it.


Quirk and Quarry both begin with "Q."


I'll post and pore.

[Garland Bayley]

How about found and created. At The Home Course, there was a dynamite bunker found in the middle of a planned fairway. Having a dynamite bunker in the landing zone of a fairway would be quite quirky. However, the trade off to have a quirky hole with a blind drive was created by burying the bunker with a hill off dirt.

[Anthony Gray]

This thread threatens to devolve into wafting arrogance, unless a sullen knight on a dirty nag stumbles through the corral gate and mutters loudly. I am that knight.


If there is a difference between quirk 1.0 and quirk 2.0, what is it precisely?


There's a train car in Lawsonia that might have a thing or two to say on this matter, if we can unearth it.


Quirk and Quarry both begin with "Q."


I'll post and pore.

 And here it is. Square greens surrounded by mounds meant to retain golf balls appear too quirky to me but are so beloved by MacRaynor fans. Add all sorts of geometrical shaped bunkers. Now that’s quirk.


 Quirk 1.0 (MacRaynor) may be more beloved and acceptable Quirk 2.0 (Stranz) ?

[Wade Whitehead]

So what we do with a course like Bayonne? It is entirely manufactured but has plenty of quirky holes that look pretty natural until you look around. I agree that it is nice to find quirky things like a stone fence and include it on the course but on most sites the designer has to build it into the design.

When Royal New Kent opened, there were a couple of stacked stone walls on the dunes around the first fairway.  One of them was pretty far to the right, pretty much out of play.  They really added to my first impression of the golf course.  I guessed that they were already on-site but they weren't.  It was "created" quirk that was done so well that it seemed found.

WW

[Garland Bayley]

And of course, Hanse found modern quirk at Crail Craighead, and left the wall in place crossing 3 holes as I remember.

[Kevin_Reilly]

Quirk at Orinda CC (near San Francisco) starts and ends on the first hole, where you hit your drive to a wide open LZ (hard to miss the short grass), but then have a completely blind* second shot.  Cue that it is a different sort of hole...superintendent Josh Smith made a cool little wooden model of the green with the day's pin position that is mounted next to the tee.  Hit and hope for your second shot...made easier/tolerable because there are no bunkers/hazards by the green.  Just our typical Orinda mounding.


At one point about 10+ years ago, an architect proposed grading the downslope in front of the green so the second shot was visible...thankfully we didn't go with that plan, and years later followed Todd Eckenrode and Josh Smith (and George Waters, Brett Hochstein) and embraced the super unusual line of play on the first hole.


*Excellent players can grip and rip, and attempt to hit it over the hill and get close to the green.  Example, Matt Cohn: 


https://youtu.be/XaSruVNfp7U

[Anthony Gray]

Quirk at Orinda CC (near San Francisco) starts and ends on the first hole, where you hit your drive to a wide open LZ (hard to miss the short grass), but then have a completely blind* second shot.  Cue that it is a different sort of hole...superintendent Josh Smith made a cool little wooden model of the green with the day's pin position that is mounted next to the tee.  Hit and hope for your second shot...made easier/tolerable because there are no bunkers/hazards by the green.  Just our typical Orinda mounding.


At one point about 10+ years ago, an architect proposed grading the downslope in front of the green so the second shot was visible...thankfully we didn't go with that plan, and years later followed Todd Eckenrode and Josh Smith (and George Waters, Brett Hochstein) and embraced the super unusual line of play on the first hole.


*Excellent players can grip and rip, and attempt to hit it over the hill and get close to the green.  Example, Matt Cohn: 


https://youtu.be/XaSruVNfp7U

 Sounds a little like the holes early in the round at NGLA. Kept asking the caddy is that good.

[Tim Martin]

This thread threatens to devolve into wafting arrogance, unless a sullen knight on a dirty nag stumbles through the corral gate and mutters loudly. I am that knight.


If there is a difference between quirk 1.0 and quirk 2.0, what is it precisely?


There's a train car in Lawsonia that might have a thing or two to say on this matter, if we can unearth it.


Quirk and Quarry both begin with "Q."


I'll post and pore.

 And here it is. Square greens surrounded by mounds meant to retain golf balls appear too quirky to me but are so beloved by MacRaynor fans. Add all sorts of geometrical shaped bunkers. Now that’s quirk.


 Quirk 1.0 (MacRaynor) may be more beloved and acceptable Quirk 2.0 (Stranz) ?

Anthony-I agree with the premise that quirk should be found. That said all green shapes are created regardless of how natural their site is and I like the squared off Raynor versions. One of my favorite quirky courses is George Thomas’s Marion Golf Club which is a nine holer replete with stone walls in front of greens and a ninety degree dogleg par four. Some believe that there was a steeplechase course that preceded the golf which makes sense with the rock walls and wild routing.

[Sean_A]

I am not precious about quirk. Good quirk is good quirk if it was built or found in 1891 or 2021. The only way we can really tell if new quirk is cool or not is for a succeeding generation 100 years after the fact to decide. We may have a lot more cool features and holes if golfers were a bit more open minded. Part of the problem with the staid architecture of the 50s thru 80s was because golfers wore blinders. I say roll the dice and go bold here and there. If a course is without controversy the archie didn't do the job properly.

Ciao

[Anthony Gray]

I am not precious about quirk. Good quirk is good quirk if it was built or found in 1891 or 2021. The only way we can really tell if new quirk is cool or not is for a succeeding generation 100 years after the fact to decide. We may have a lot more cool features and holes if golfers were a bit more open minded. Part of the problem with the staid architecture of the 50s thru 80s was because golfers wore blinders. I say roll the dice and go bold here and there. If a course is without controversy the archie didn't do the job properly.

Ciao

 It does seem to be more acceptable with the older courses. Could North Berwick be built today? Good point it may take 100 years to decide. Tobacco Road a an example. How will,it be viewed 80’years from now? I am a quirk junkie. Love Cruden Bay, North Berwick, and Prestwick but the modern stuff stretches me. Really enjoyed Diamante. Had the perfect amount but Tobacco Road really stretched me.

[archie_struthers]

 


Anthony I'm a little puzzled by the query.  If someone was talented enough to create some quirk that was fun and added to the experience, wouldn't that be more of an architectural feat than discovering it?

[Anthony Gray]

Anthony I'm a little puzzled by the query.  If someone was talented enough to create some quirk that was fun and added to the experience, wouldn't that be more of an architectural feat than discovering it?

 I’m for it. I find Donald Ross to be a little boring. Make each hole memorable.

[Peter Pallotta]

Gib - you might need the eggs, but I'd need to be a much better golfer to appreciate quirk. A 'straight ahead' style of golf course architecture already gives me all the physical and intellectual challenges I can handle, and all the aesthetic and emotional pleasures I need. Asking me to use more club for my 2nd shot than I did off the tee, or to bounce my chip shot off the faux-remnants of a fake 19th century stone wall so as to have a more make-able putt, is, as they say, gilding the lily. In my opinion, I mean. It's not some matter of principle, just a matter of personal taste. For me, there is no 'good' quirk, only 'old' quirk. If it has been around for a hundred years, it's historic (and maybe even historically necessary); if it came about in the last ten years, it's only an unnecessary affectation. Plus, it tends to confuse me, and so I play worse!

[JJShanley]

Talking about burying things on golf courses, an old friend told me this summer that Braid Hills in Edinburgh has one or more tram cars buried on the north east part of the property.

[Richard_Mandell]

Since some posters here may not have seen some of the comments that inspired this thread on my Principles book thread, let me throw some of my thoughts out here again straight from the book (by the way, I do love Quirk):


The definition of Quirk is "Something that is strange and unexpected; A sudden twist, turn , or curve."[/size]Most often Quirk is manufactured and that is why I say it should never be sought.  In other words, don't create something just to be quirky.  That doesn't mean that an architect shouldn't create something that may be different;  just don't call it a Quirk.  Because it isn't.To me, a quirk is something that results from a site constraint that just can't be changed.  This is different than something that is just thought-provoking, cool-looking, or just simply different.  To illustrate, I use the 3rd hole at White Bear as an example of a quirk. Such a short and small par-three, the hole is a result of the routing of the golf course coming up against the property line, which has a high slope. The hole is a result of its site-constraint as opposed to the same exact hole that may appear somewhere else in a routing solely by the architect's choice.  That hole, in its same exact form, designed somewhere else without any site constraints, is equally thought-provoking, cool, and certainly different.  It just isn't quirky in that location.


***



Although one may strive to manufacture Quirk in golf architecture, genuine Quirk is revealed when an irresistible force runs into an immovable object.  When a golf hole (the irresistible force) must be routed around a topographical feature (immovable object) because that topographical feature can’t be altered, the form the hole takes (adjusted for the immovable object), becomes quirky.  Quirky golf course features are simply anomalies of the landscape that can’t be avoided.


***



Quirk only works if it is actually appreciated, making it a subjective ambition.  Designers who set out to deliberately create “quirky” golf course features often cross the line toward poor design.    When Quirk is done poorly, and lacks appreciation from the end user, pleasant surprise is replaced by disdain, exposing the Principle of Gimmick.By definition, Gimmick is “a trick or device intended to attract attention, publicity, or business.”  The Principle of Gimmick is expected to garner a surprise from the golfer just like the Principle of Quirk.  But the result is fleeting at best, especially once surprise subsides and the reality of an impossible shot stares the golfer down.  When Quirk fails, one is left with Gimmicks running the gamut from artificial rock formations to angular features to manufacturing building ruins as strategic challenges.  Randomly dropping a stone wall into a hole is pure Gimmick.  Replicating holes which are more famous for their built environment than their architectural quality falls into the Gimmick category as well.

[/size]

[Mark_Fine]

I have NEVER spoken to an architect that tried to design Quirk.  But I have spoken to many architects that have tried to design something different or unexpected or unusual.  I doubt any architect cares what they call it (as long as they don't call it crap  ) as it is all relative.  No different than someone saying, "that green is really undulating".  Undulating compared to what 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Generally, I agree, including the caveat of "no absolutes".  Would add that the crimes against design these built quirks might cause tend to be all across the spectrum, not absolutely bad or okay.  Some examples would be built quirk in a market of semi-design atrocities (by this board's standards) like Myrtle Beach of LV, where there is some pressure to outdo other courses, even it is to outdo them in a bad direction. 


I have tried to build quirk, or more accurately, as Mark Fine just said, something interesting, usually when there was no interest to be had naturally, or to replicate older quirky holes using modern earthmoving tech.  Again, not because they had quirk, but only because it was an inspiration to do something different than seen on other courses around their region and among competitors.


  I notice the artificiality which quickly made me stop doing it, and I believe all or most golfers would, too, thus diminishing the wow effect it might otherwise generate.  I am thinking of my three built "Mae West" greens......with the second two attempts really just an effort to prove to myself that it wasn't a great idea, or that the first attempts actually could have been made better with a bit better detailing, LOL.


For that matter, to the degree originality is desired and revered, such copycats probably start out behind the 8 ball anyway.  And then, building two mounds on otherwise flat ground where they wouldn't occur is probably the end of the line for believability.  Of course, like bunkers in the other thread, one of the reasons I might have chosen to try Mae, or Dolly, mounds, was that the land was devoid of any features that would more naturally give the hole interest.  And, in so doing, figuring the average public or resort golfer may or may not have been against artificiality back before 2000, when that was the overall design trend anyway, and why pick on just one example?

[archie_struthers]

 


As someone who built a golf course that I'm proud of but wish it was a little more "quirky" gotta love this topic. It's pretty easy to homogenize a design in the quest for fairness, but more and more I think this is a mistake. Fun is  really good , interesting is good , different can be good but "fair" isn't , at least for me here in 2021 a guiding principle if ever I build some more holes.


Certainly some of the great courses I've been privileged to visit had more than a little flair that might be construed as quirk by a lot of us. However we might be restrained by the "emperor has no clothes" effect of being there.


I'm all for a little quirk in design even if you err on the side of too much.....change of mindset since my younger days