[Ally Mcintosh]

I am very much against homogenisation and codification. Most on here should also know how much I rally against change for changes sake on our links courses.


However, more and more (particularly in the new photo instant world), rankers / GCA nerds / people who care, seem to hang on to visual features, quirk and touch points in the way they talk and think about golf courses. This in turn seems to be driving GCA’s to build in more features than previous generations might have done.


All well and good. Visual features are an exciting part of the game. But I find there is a bit of a balance. Old school routing would have used ground features from the raw site. If there were none, few would be created. New school routing tends to build features for fun just to get noticed. Even on some good to excellent modern courses, it can start to feel just a little contrived.


If these features are genuinely adding variety to the way the hole is played, I can live with that contrived element more often than not. But we’re getting a little too much of the quirk = variety = good, even when there is no inherent playing variety.


Variety does not have to be obvious. And “quirk” often has very little to do with the way a hole is played.


Has the balance tipped a little too much in the perception of what makes “good” golf? Is everyone just being a little obvious?


(It’s a wide world with a place for all types of golf, I know, I know… it just seems no one will ever build a “simple but excellent” golf course ever again…)

[Ira Fishman]

Ally,


To respond to your final point about building simple but excellent courses, I think that we will continue to receive elegant and excellent courses so long as Doak and C&C are designing courses.


I do take your point that where architects choose/need to move a lot of earth, we can end up with unnatural quirk and/or dramatic visuals for the sake of drama.


Ira

[Tom_Doak]

Ally:


I generally agree with your comments but I do not think it's a new process; though it might be accelerating in the Instagram Era.


Back when there were 200+ courses being built in the USA each year, Ron Whitten used to send his panelists a brief description of each course up for the Best New honors so panelists could decide whether to visit.  He never failed to mention quirky features such as split fairways, double greens, bunkers built in the basement of an old house, or whatever.  When I asked him one time if he didn't think he was promoting those things as good ideas and signaling to his panelists what to prioritize, he got a bit defensive.


And that was 30-40 years ago!


I am interested to know, though, where you draw the line between "built" features and "found" ones.  Where does a bunker in the basement of an old house fall [besides stupid IMNSHO] ?  And as far as contouring goes, if the work is done well, are you sure you can tell ? 

[Charlie Goerges]

There might be too much emphasis on quirk and features (especially built ones), but it feels a bit like a nice problem to have. I'd rather the designers err on the side of making the courses too quirky than not enough. Obviously that comes from my personal perspective where most of the courses I play are too ho-hum.

[Tim_Weiman]

I am very much against homogenisation and codification. Most on here should also know how much I rally against change for changes sake on our links courses.


However, more and more (particularly in the new photo instant world), rankers / GCA nerds / people who care, seem to hang on to visual features, quirk and touch points in the way they talk and think about golf courses. This in turn seems to be driving GCA’s to build in more features than previous generations might have done.


All well and good. Visual features are an exciting part of the game. But I find there is a bit of a balance. Old school routing would have used ground features from the raw site. If there were none, few would be created. New school routing tends to build features for fun just to get noticed. Even on some good to excellent modern courses, it can start to feel just a little contrived.


If these features are genuinely adding variety to the way the hole is played, I can live with that contrived element more often than not. But we’re getting a little too much of the quirk = variety = good, even when there is no inherent playing variety.


Variety does not have to be obvious. And “quirk” often has very little to do with the way a hole is played.


Has the balance tipped a little too much in the perception of what makes “good” golf? Is everyone just being a little obvious?


(It’s a wide world with a place for all types of golf, I know, I know… it just seems no one will ever build a “simple but excellent” golf course ever again…)

Ally,


So where does the work of Seth Raynor fit in? Was it just a little (too) contrived?


Tim

[Sean_A]

As one who doesn’t mind obviously built quirk I too would like to know the line between built and found quirk. Much also depends on what is quirk. Imo the template concept has an element quirk ala the Biaritz. I fear that much like the angst over wide fairways and tree removal, it’s small beer…nothing to worry about. That said, I would welcome simple and elegant designs. I am not sure I have seen a newish example that is top notch. Might The Loop qualify?

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ally:


I generally agree with your comments but I do not think it's a new process; though it might be accelerating in the Instagram Era.


Back when there were 200+ courses being built in the USA each year, Ron Whitten used to send his panelists a brief description of each course up for the Best New honors so panelists could decide whether to visit.  He never failed to mention quirky features such as split fairways, double greens, bunkers built in the basement of an old house, or whatever.  When I asked him one time if he didn't think he was promoting those things as good ideas and signaling to his panelists what to prioritize, he got a bit defensive.


And that was 30-40 years ago!


I am interested to know, though, where you draw the line between "built" features and "found" ones.  Where does a bunker in the basement of an old house fall [besides stupid IMNSHO] ?  And as far as contouring goes, if the work is done well, are you sure you can tell ?

Hi Tom,


This is not really just about built vs found. It’s as much about the desire to have easily identifiable “features” as if that in itself creates variety and good golf. In turn, that is driving more feature to be built.


I feel the overriding “shallow thinking” approach to GCA is now that Features = Quirk = Variety = Great Golf.


Often that equation holds. But it isn’t a given and the idea that it is both affects ranking / perception on existing courses and drives new courses to supercharged solutions. 

[Ally Mcintosh]

I am very much against homogenisation and codification. Most on here should also know how much I rally against change for changes sake on our links courses.


However, more and more (particularly in the new photo instant world), rankers / GCA nerds / people who care, seem to hang on to visual features, quirk and touch points in the way they talk and think about golf courses. This in turn seems to be driving GCA’s to build in more features than previous generations might have done.


All well and good. Visual features are an exciting part of the game. But I find there is a bit of a balance. Old school routing would have used ground features from the raw site. If there were none, few would be created. New school routing tends to build features for fun just to get noticed. Even on some good to excellent modern courses, it can start to feel just a little contrived.


If these features are genuinely adding variety to the way the hole is played, I can live with that contrived element more often than not. But we’re getting a little too much of the quirk = variety = good, even when there is no inherent playing variety.


Variety does not have to be obvious. And “quirk” often has very little to do with the way a hole is played.


Has the balance tipped a little too much in the perception of what makes “good” golf? Is everyone just being a little obvious?


(It’s a wide world with a place for all types of golf, I know, I know… it just seems no one will ever build a “simple but excellent” golf course ever again…)

Ally,


So where does the work of Seth Raynor fit in? Was it just a little (too) contrived?


Tim

Tim,


The work of Raynor was original. It took the playing characteristics of found (or at least old) holes to create variety in a very attractive and very engineered manner.


It is the features on modern courses that clearly copy Raynor that can be contrived, often designed in so some GCA head can say “I loved the Biarritz Green” rather than because it was the best playing solution at any given part of a course / site.

[Ben Sims]

I feel the overriding “shallow thinking” approach to GCA is now that Features = Quirk = Variety = Great Golf.

Sure, I’ll wear that t-shirt relatively proudly. I’m not a very good golfer. Average according to handicap. But due to clubhead speed and a willingness to suck, I hit a lot more extraordinary shots than most of my 4-8 handicap friends. Sure I want to improve but I’m willing to accept an over abundance of double bogeys in search of the sublime. I don’t do this to make money, know what I mean?


And I feel much the same way about golf holes, features, and quirk.  I’m in search of the sublime. And often I find the thing that separates a hole from the homogenous is a unique shape I’ve never seen before. Is quirk good design? Perhaps it isn’t. Neither is always going for the majestic shot being a good/smart golfer. But it’s fun.

[Thomas Dai]

Built quirk vrs natural quirk vrs natural quirk tweaked a bit to make it playable.
Can quirk also be the opposite of noticeable features, ie can quirk actually be dead flat, featureless, near no contour at all?

Atb

[Ally Mcintosh]

I feel the overriding “shallow thinking” approach to GCA is now that Features = Quirk = Variety = Great Golf.

And often I find the thing that separates a hole from the homogenous is a unique shape I’ve never seen before.

That’s a fair point, Ben. And often it is - I don’t disagree.


Just not always. Sometimes unique shapes are there for no reason other than to make you remember them. Sometimes good golf holes don’t need to deliberately shout at you.

[Ben Sims]

I feel the overriding “shallow thinking” approach to GCA is now that Features = Quirk = Variety = Great Golf.

And often I find the thing that separates a hole from the homogenous is a unique shape I’ve never seen before.

That’s a fair point, Ben. And often it is - I don’t disagree.


Just not always. Sometimes unique shapes are there for no reason other than to make you remember them. Sometimes good golf holes don’t need to deliberately shout at you.

If I had a quote at the bottom of my posts, that last sentence might be a good one. I am working on an idea for a thread about seemingly benign or less flashy holes on great courses. The kind of holes that hold the course together and add to the whole, but aren’t really talked about much. The ones that don’t shout at you, in your words. A few examples I like are 13 at Machrihanish and 14 at Ballyneal. In both examples (and others) it seems the features that dictate play are almost always built. The natural quirk holes are all-world in many cases. The built quirk is holding the course together and providing interest when sometimes there isn’t any.

[Matt Schoolfield]

I'm just going to come out an say it: I think going for quirk is a virtue in an architect. That doesn't mean all quirk is good, it just means the architect is actually taking a big swing. It might not connect well, or could even end up being a whiff, but at least they tried something big.

If people want to play serviceable golf in a beautiful landscape, I think that's cool too. The courses I love though, have holes that are personalities in themselves. Holes that I obsess over finding all the tradeoffs on how to play them, and how to recover from a bad shot. Most of our templates were quirky in their time, and blatantly manufacturing quirk might be gauche, but if the hole is fun, that perception will fade as the hole becomes a mainstay of a well-worn course, instead of the shiny new instagram course-of-the-month.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Matt - I’m ok with that too. I love quirk, I’m not against it. It more often than not adds to the enjoyment of playing a hole.


But there’s playing golf and then there’s just having “fun”. I have hosted more than one GCA’er at my club where I was quite surprised how they never finished a hole, not because they lost balls, just because they were trying shots, having fun, mucking around. That’s all well and good and I’m glad they enjoyed themselves. But golf is also there to be played as a game. I feel that the scales are tipping with some modern design to the trying shots / mucking around type of golf. When a course feels even a little like a theme-park (exaggeration), then I start to lose interest.

[Sean_A]

I'm just going to come out an say it: I think going for quirk is a virtue in an architect. That doesn't mean all quirk is good, it just means the architect is actually taking a big swing. It might not connect well, or could even end up being a whiff, but at least they tried something big.

If people want to play serviceable golf in a beautiful landscape, I think that's cool too. The courses I love though, have holes that are personalities in themselves. Holes that I obsess over finding all the tradeoffs on how to play them, and how to recover from a bad shot. Most of our templates were quirky in their time, and blatantly manufacturing quirk might be gauche, but if the hole is fun, that perception will fade as the hole becomes a mainstay of a well-worn course, instead of the shiny new instagram course-of-the-month.

I don’t think folks are talking about serviceable golf as as the gold standard of simple architecture. When I think of brilliant simple architecture often times the genius of the hole is not understood until the approach is hit. I think of a hole like 10 at Deal. Great hole, doesn’t look like greatness on the tee. Unfortunately, the club has seen fit to muck with the bunkering in recent years. I am down for that sort of architecture, but I am also down for the quirky elements of the course. It doesn’t matter to me if it looked natural or not. The proof is in how the hole plays. If it can be made to cool all the better. By cool I don’t automatically mean natural. I have a lot of time for obviously bold earthworks ala Walton Heath, Kington, Yelverton etc.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

I'm just going to come out an say it: I think going for quirk is a virtue in an architect. That doesn't mean all quirk is good, it just means the architect is actually taking a big swing. It might not connect well, or could even end up being a whiff, but at least they tried something big.

I'm just going to be a curmudgeon and disagree. 


I totally respect an architect who is willing to stick their neck out and do something different.  In today's world, that would be doing LESS instead of MORE.  It's easy to do more, and there is rather a lot of it going on right now. That's not brave at all.

[Matt Schoolfield]

Matt - I’m ok with that too. I love quirk, I’m not against it. It more often than not adds to the enjoyment of playing a hole.

But there’s playing golf and then there’s just having “fun”. I have hosted more than one GCA’er at my club where I was quite surprised how they never finished a hole, not because they lost balls, just because they were trying shots, having fun, mucking around. That’s all well and good and I’m glad they enjoyed themselves. But golf is also there to be played as a game. I feel that the scales are tipping with some modern design to the trying shots / mucking around type of golf. When a course feels even a little like a theme-park (exaggeration), then I start to lose interest.

I'm pretty adamant with myself that golf, for me, needs to be recreation, and I don't think I'll ever allow myself to place it on any pedestal higher than that. I see it as a source of fun, and more often, as a way to spend time with friends. Competition can add to that fun, but more often than not, if I find myself attaching any of my self-worth to my golf game, I try and take a break. It's one of the reasons I almost exclusively play match play, and it's one of the reasons that the winner in our games are just playing for a beer. “I keep telling y’all, this ain’t no very much is a hobby.” That doesn't mean we aren't actually playing golf, or aren't playing seriously. We are. It only means we're very serious about not taking things too seriously.

Not everyone in this community will share my views, and that's fine.

[Ally Mcintosh]

That’s fine too, Matt. A lot of people feel that way and I am not talking necessarily about true competition either… On the other hand, if one is just hitting golf shots and not really caring about the result, then that person is less qualified to judge how good a golf course is. Because they’re not interacting with the course in any meaningful way.


Anyway, I’m off on a tangent. Tom’s last post summarises my primary point.

[Matt Schoolfield]

I'm just going to come out an say it: I think going for quirk is a virtue in an architect. That doesn't mean all quirk is good, it just means the architect is actually taking a big swing. It might not connect well, or could even end up being a whiff, but at least they tried something big.

I'm just going to be a curmudgeon and disagree. 


I totally respect an architect who is willing to stick their neck out and do something different.  In today's world, that would be doing LESS instead of MORE.  It's easy to do more, and there is rather a lot of it going on right now. That's not brave at all.

I don't think we totally disagree with each other, but maybe we do. When I say virtue, I mean simply that. It's a heuristic for me, not a rule.

I find the best way to describe what I'm saying is to refer to films. Spielberg, Scorsese, Coppola, Cameron, McTiernan -- all undeniably amazing directors. They make amazing films, period.

I think I just like directors that take bigger swings, often making worse films, but leaving a more recognizable imprint. I'd put Kubrick (worse films), Coen Bros (better films), Verhoeven (better films), Anderson (worse films), Burton (much worse films) all on a list of "quirky" filmmakers. These directors very much aren't for everyone. They build out their niche, and aren't playing to an general audience, but they have an audience, and you know very much when you're watching their films.

I think the minimalism that many fight for here was quirk that has been subsumed into the canon. C&C's 7th at Trinity Forest is now considered a template in itself by younger generations. Having one's unique, niche style be so successful it becomes an archetype of the genre is wonderful -- I think Hitchcock is a good example of this.

Maybe I just have a different definition of quirk, but for me, it's about having an immediately recognizable style that is reflected in extremely unique, template-defining hole designs. And not just about over-the-top gimmicks.

[Brian Finn]

I'm just going to come out an say it: I think going for quirk is a virtue in an architect. That doesn't mean all quirk is good, it just means the architect is actually taking a big swing. It might not connect well, or could even end up being a whiff, but at least they tried something big.

I'm just going to be a curmudgeon and disagree. 

I totally respect an architect who is willing to stick their neck out and do something different.  In today's world, that would be doing LESS instead of MORE.  It's easy to do more, and there is rather a lot of it going on right now. That's not brave at all.

This is the essence of what I was trying to say in recent thread on new courses with "over the top" greens. Of course, I did it in a clumsy manner, but this is what I was getting at.

[Ben Sims]

I'm just going to come out an say it: I think going for quirk is a virtue in an architect. That doesn't mean all quirk is good, it just means the architect is actually taking a big swing. It might not connect well, or could even end up being a whiff, but at least they tried something big.

I'm just going to be a curmudgeon and disagree. 


I totally respect an architect who is willing to stick their neck out and do something different.  In today's world, that would be doing LESS instead of MORE.  It's easy to do more, and there is rather a lot of it going on right now. That's not brave at all.

Is someone going to garner praise and therefore get more work for building a modern Kilspindie? Perhaps a better question is what’s the project you’re working on where you’re asking the client and also your team to do less? Is the site awesome? 


IMHO, the curmudgeon outlook on quirk begs the comment, not every site is a 10. Or even a 7. There must be a point where an architect and their team decide to add interest to a golf hole. I’m not sure where that line exists.


For goodness sakes I’m not advocating going back to the days of adding interest to meh sites the way it was done in the 80’s and 90’s.


I agree with you that I see a significant amount of work via social media that looks over-cooked. But I struggle with *why* it’s not good. Unless of course we think heavily contoured greens and manufactured fairway contours are the new containment mounding. 

[Kevin_Reilly]

One example of "forced" quirk that absolutely didn't fit the course IMO was the Oakmont-style Church Pew bunkers that Weiskopf (probably mostly) and Morrish put on the 13th hole of the Ocean Course at Olympic.  One or two generations ago of that course.  It was just so obvious that they wanted some classic course feature there...for no good reason.

[Don Mahaffey]

I don’t know about too much quirk being added as I feel there is always a place for sexy functional quirk.


But features…I’ve spent a lot of days in the last decade with golf architects. Only a couple, including one on this thread, have ever recommended doing nothing to a golf hole.  The vast majority, always want to do something with adding bunkers being far and away the leading suggested edit. I’ve come to believe that the hardest thing for golf designers to do is say “when”.  And every client should insist on having some sort of process to determine when enough is enough.  I swear these things are turning into never ending make work projects and it isn’t the contractor.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Don,


You can make that “two on this thread”, even though you haven’t worked with one.


Excellent post though.

[Tim Gallant]

Ally,


I agree that there is probably too much emphasis on features that have more aesthetic purpose than functional or strategic, but can you provide some examples of where you have seen quirk come into new courses that appears to be put there for quirk sake?


If you don't want to provide specific hole / feature examples, could you at least talk about some of the types of features you're referring to? I can't think of too many new build examples that I've played where they are chasing quirk for quirk sake.


I don't mind new courses chasing instagram type love - our attention span as humans is waning and you want to grab and keep customers' attention (hence why Dumbarnie is popular with overseas visitors). I prefer my golf with a bit more sophistication and would rather a sound golf hole vs. water views, but that's just me. Where you combine the two, it's pretty spectacular Maybe I'd feel differently if we weren't in a boom right now, but it's no skin off my back if 30 homogenised Florida courses are built for high-end golfers...as long as there is one or two elsewhere that build something that might stand the test of time.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()