[Richard_Mandell]

Archie,


Absolutely agree 100% as I believe every other architect who has chimed in here does as well. 


For me, its just a matter of what is classified as Quirky or not.  My book is all about trying to quantify many of the terms used in our profession and Quirk is used a bit too freely for what is actually a Quirk versus something that is just simply a cool feature.  On your next project you may or may not find something that is quirky, but you will definitely do something that is cool enough that it is worth tossing the term "fair" out the window (where it belongs).  I've got a chapter called the Principle of Fairness that discusses just that.  Anyone who designs for fairness won't get very far in terms of inspirational design but they may have steady renovation work from management groups, though!

[Garland Bayley]

...
Anyone who designs for fairness won't get very far in terms of inspirational design
...

If you want to design for fairness, perhaps you should be designing for shuffleboard.

In my experience, the people who complain about fairness are confusing it with difficulty. For the high handicapper, practically everything is difficult, so typically the high handicapper won't complain about fairness.

[Kalen Braley]

Its interesting,

I don't know if any architect has consistently built more quirky holes than Jim Engh in the last 20-30 years, but seems to get crucified a bit here.  And the quirkiest features often are already there, like the huge boulders on 14 at Redlands Mesa, or the rocky cliffs on the back 9 at Black Rock, or the giant wash on 18 at Lakota Canyon.

Perhaps its a bit like being a prophet.  The ones from old times seems to be fully accepted and are allegedly the gold standard, but anyone who claims that stuff now?  Its looney bin time.....

[Garland Bayley]

Its interesting,
...
Perhaps its a bit like being a prophet.  The ones from old times seems to be fully accepted and are allegedly the gold standard, but anyone who claims that stuff now?  Its looney bin time.....

The one course I have played of his (his first) was no quirk, but definitely built looney. Came away wondering how he ever got another job.

[Anthony Gray]

...
Anyone who designs for fairness won't get very far in terms of inspirational design
...

If you want to design for fairness, perhaps you should be designing for shuffleboard.

In my experience, the people who complain about fairness are confusing it with difficulty. For the high handicapper, practically everything is difficult, so typically the high handicapper won't complain about fairness.

 I’ve always thought the low handicappers did not like quirk as much because there is more rub associated with it. And a good shot may be punished which they considered unfair.

[Anthony Gray]

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."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.

 Very nice insights Richard. If it is already there it is quirk but if you place it there it is a gimmick. I can see that with stone walls and chimneys but does that apply to mounding and volcano bunkers?

[Sean_A]

I remain confused by Richard's quirk definition because everything in design is a choice. Hell, to build a course on a site is choice. With that said, pertaining to modern quirk, the Covesea designer made a choice to create 5 and 7. I think these are highly quirky holes. The 7th in the more traditional sense of hitting blindly over a sea stack. However, the dramatic green sets it apart even moreso. The blind uphill 5th is a bit different, especially with its long narrow green. There are a few other tid bits which add to the overall sense of a quirky course. All I am saying is the modern archie chose to design this modern quirky course and it works. Ok, if Richard thinks quirk is the wrong word, I don't mind funky. I use funky to describe oddball golf anyway.

Ciao

[Mark_Fine]

I think Richard’s definition has merit but seriously, how many terms/concepts do we all agree on - Very very few. 


I still think a pond and a creek are hazards.  But now we define them as penalty areas.  What does the word best mean? What determines a good site vs a bad site? Are offsite views part of the design or not?  What is a links course?  When is a course over bunkered?  Does width matter?  Is original design intent important or even possible to understand? What does restoration mean? 


How are we ever going to agree on what is or isn’t quirky?  I am anxious to see what Richard’s definition is for silly?  And can sometimes silly be the same as quirky or does that depend on who is looking at it 

[Richard_Mandell]

Sean,  [size=78%]Funky is a great word to use when Quirky doesn't fit the bill.  You are right that everything is a choice.  A chosen site is a choice consciously made.  But specific decisions made within that site may be choices or a result of a quirky situation.[/size]


Mark,  the reason we all can't agree on what these definitions are is because golf architecture is subjective, not objective. By the way, I don't have a chapter in my book about the Principle of Silly.  It would be silly to do that.


Garland, you are correct that there is a big difference between Difficult and Fair (and I do have separate chapters on those concepts).


Anthony, I would not consider mounds or volcano bunkers as Quirks as they are specific features that are built in response to a specific situation and their form is a subjective decision.  Existing features that cause "funky" features to be built are what is Quirky.

[Mark_Fine]

Richard,
Regarding the chapter on silly, maybe you should add one    Is a tree planted in the middle of a green silly, quirky, clever, or just plain stupid?  Who knows?  Maybe you should have a chapter on stupid 

[Gib_Papazian]

Mark,


There is difference between quirk, funky, funkadelic and funky dung.


When you find a tree - deliberately planted into the center of a putting surface - that is funky dung.


I've written this before somewhere, but still believe that golf courses (and golfers) can be roughly divided into those that seek an objective (even antiseptic) examination and a whimsical adventure.


Quirk - and its' more ornate cousin - funkadelic - are the cornerstones of what makes a certain course endearing.


The Himalayas at Prestwick (inter alia) are beyond quirk - as is Klondike at Lahinch . . . . . and a large chunk of Cruden Bay. I would suggest these are the features that bring forth the personality of the course.


It always astonishes me there are people who hate Mike Stranz' more unusual holes - but many stand bigger than life - and the entertainment value breathes life into why people like me play the game to begin with.


I would also state - putting aside the course is designed around template holes - that the manufactured quirky features at NGLA is central to the reason it remains my favorite golf course in America.


You think the Double-Plateau was just sitting there on #11, waiting to be found? Probably not, but it is manufactured, quirky as hell and huge fun. You think that rampart (lack of a better term) guarding the putting surface on the right side of the Leven Hole was just sitting there when C.B. designed it?


Along the same lines, a primary reason that Pac Dunes is so universally loved is that every single hole has some quirky feature that complicates any attempt to play a straightforward shot.


Go stand on the tee on #2 and tell me Shoe's bunker - sitting in the middle of the fairway, sticking its tongue out at you - isn't quiky and nutty . . . . . until you play the hole twice, once from each side. Now the quirky mounding around the putting surface changes the entire energy flow of the landscape.


I strongly advocate for MORE Quirk and unusual twists and turns. Why not confront golfers with a non-sequitur here and there? 


Thinking of starting a thread that asserts the need for a completely new, epochal paradigm - one that throws out most of our conventional ideas of hole numbers, par, length and what strategic elements can be blended into a new architectural matrix.


I was raised by a traditionalist, God knows, but I see the youngsters losing interest in the game for a variety of reasons - and do not believe this current avaricious money-fest the country clubs are enjoying has legs going forward.


 
 


 


 

[Kalen Braley]

Gib,

Excellent post and certainly well said!

I'm curious if you've tried much of Jim Enghs quirk and your thoughts on it if so?  Other places I've seen flashes of modern quirk done well, is Wine Valley and Sagebrush.

[Mark_Fine]

Gib,
If I understand correctly, the manufactured "quirk" at The National which I also love, is not really quirk. 

[Gib_Papazian]

Mark,


Sometimes - let's use Dan Maples' The Pit (NLE, which kills me) - as an example that quirk can be found first: "Hey, let's hide the putting surface in the cradle behind those sharp mounds we came across . . . . you know, like The Dell" . . . . . but it reaches the level of funkadelic when you "turn the volume up to 11, it gives that extra push over a cliff."


Because it is "one more than 10."


Build it up even higher! Get outrageous! The original strategic configuration (and swale depth in front of the green) on Bandon #10 is brilliant! Make it totally blind by stacking the existing mounding to the sky and let everybody taking the short route to the green get a little rectal pucker, knowing they are coming at it from a perpendicular angle - with a trough between the mounding and the dance floor.


"Found" quirk, elevated by escalation.


BTW, if you don't get the reference above, consider yourself to have flunked today's cultural literacy test and go back five squares. 
 


     

[Mark_Fine]

Gib,
I get the reference.  So how do you classify much of the surprise and unusual features at Tobacco Road (some of which were there and some of which were manufactured) who knows which is which  just like those two huge sand hills you play through/over on #1?  If the architect is clever enough to fool the golfer what was built vs what was there/natural - good for the architect 


I am playing a course on January 8th where on the first hole you tee off over a big green hedge of bushes hiding a fairly busy road to a fairway you can’t really see.  It is one of the greatest and at the same time most unusual starting tee shots in all of golf.  I think I know but honestly am not 100% sure what was there first?  Does it matter 

[Gib_Papazian]

Then if quirk is found, created out of whole cloth - or the feature is an enhancement of what was already there - it really *doesn't* matter, now does it?


David Kidd once told me - when I asked a real specific question on whether a particular feature came out of his head, out of the ground, or a little bit of both - his response was "If I am clever enough to create a feature that is indistinguishable from what was there on the ground already, only a fool would tell you how it came about!"

[Mark_Fine]

Gib,
Thumbs up !!


But just to clarify, is that hole i mentioned quirky or not, or does it depend     


What would Richard say 

[archie_struthers]

David Kidd once told me - when I asked a real specific question on whether a particular feature came out of his head, out of the ground, or a little bit of both - his response was "If I am clever enough to create a feature that is indistinguishable from what was there on the ground already, only a fool would tell you how it came about!"





Couldn't agree more

[Forrest Richardson]

I've never been afraid to "manufacture" quirk. I think the word should not be reserved for only the serendipitiousbecause that would cheat the artist from a paintbrush that is quite amazing. Gib knows what I tried to do at Peacock Gap, and it worked until an owner came along who disagreed with the notion and concept. I would say 33% of what I did at Peacock in 2005-07 was "quirk" — and it came from my mind, my soul and my paintbrush. A lot of it got erased, but it was purely manufactured — like the scripts my daughter gets to read nearly daily.

[Peter Pallotta]

A very good thread, but I see that my definition of quirk is much different than the one Gib and others seem to be using -- and so now I'm not not sure if I even understood (or agreed/disagreed with) Richard M's initial thoughts on it.
Well, so I guess my view is some combination of:
Armstrong: There's only two types of music, good and bad.
Ellington: It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing.
The aliens to Woody Allen: Make funnier movies!

[Tom_Doak]

Then if quirk is found, created out of whole cloth - or the feature is an enhancement of what was already there - it really *doesn't* matter, now does it?


David Kidd once told me - when I asked a real specific question on whether a particular feature came out of his head, out of the ground, or a little bit of both - his response was "If I am clever enough to create a feature that is indistinguishable from what was there on the ground already, only a fool would tell you how it came about!"

Which leaves open whether he was ducking the question, because he didn't want to admit the feature was natural and he's not that clever. 


I'm no fool but I happily just wrote a book to tell you where each feature at Pacific Dunes came from.

[Tom_Doak]

Gib,
If I understand correctly, the manufactured "quirk" at The National which I also love, is not really quirk.

I used the word quirky to describe NGLA in the original edition of The Confidential Guide -- meant endearingly -- but several of their members were bothered by the word, and the old pro Mike Muller called me "Quirky" Doak ever after that.


To me, this whole thread is kind of crazy, because it revolves around words instead of around golf.  Trying to design features that are quirky is just as bad as trying to design a course that's fair!  It's better to throw out all of those concepts and just build GOLF.  Golf has room for all the adjectives you can think of, and more.

[Peter Pallotta]

It's better to throw out all of those concepts and just build GOLF.  Golf has room for all the adjectives you can think of, and more.

I just had a vivid image of a parent-teacher interview some 50 years ago, with your mother sitting across from your Grade 4 teacher, as:

"Well, Mrs. Doak, there's good news and there's bad news. The good news is that your Tommy truly has a wonderful way with words. The bad news is that unfortunately he seems more interested in playing around outside in the mud, with sticks, forever cutting it away into funny shapes!"

[Tom_Doak]

It's better to throw out all of those concepts and just build GOLF.  Golf has room for all the adjectives you can think of, and more.

I just had a vivid image of a parent-teacher interview some 50 years ago, with your mother sitting across from your Grade 4 teacher, as:

"Well, Mrs. Doak, there's good news and there's bad news. The good news is that your Tommy truly has a wonderful way with words. The bad news is that unfortunately he seems more interested in playing around outside in the mud, with sticks, forever cutting it away into funny shapes!"

My mom was all in favor of me spending my life outdoors!


I just think it's kinda silly to be trying to establish *rules* for quirk, of all things.  If you're going to do quirk, just let it fly! 

[Sean_A]

It's better to throw out all of those concepts and just build GOLF.  Golf has room for all the adjectives you can think of, and more.

I just had a vivid image of a parent-teacher interview some 50 years ago, with your mother sitting across from your Grade 4 teacher, as:

"Well, Mrs. Doak, there's good news and there's bad news. The good news is that your Tommy truly has a wonderful way with words. The bad news is that unfortunately he seems more interested in playing around outside in the mud, with sticks, forever cutting it away into funny shapes!"

My mom was all in favor of me spending my life outdoors!

I just think it's kinda silly to be trying to establish *rules* for quirk, of all things.  If you're going to do quirk, just let it fly!

Exactly., I keep re-reading Richard's definition and coming up none the wiser. How the hell does anything different get built unless archies stick their necks out? As a fan of old school weirdly built features I have zero issues with a guy having a go at building something quirky. Otherwise we wouldn't have places like Kington to enjoy.

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()