Minimalists -- Are there differences?

[Ken_Cotner]

As an aside, re: pushing the envelope -

I have read of several modern greens that are said to be fallaway greens - i.e. slope front to back. I haven't seen anything even remotely approaching Oakmont #1, 10, or 12. I'd like to see something like this from anyone, but especially a minimalist or naturalist, when the situation fits.

The North (new) course at Forest Creek has numerous fallaway greens, with that feature enhanced by the firmness of the fairways and greens.  I've never seen Oakmont, so can't compare how much the dropoffs are.

Ken

[cary lichtenstein]

Minimialism is getting to be an overused and abused term.

I think the better question is where exactly does minimialism work best and where are its results disappointing?

Can a minimialist take a boring topography and make a worthwhile course out of it or should he just pass on the project?

Should a minimialist take on a severe topography or pass on that as well?

Isn't the real test to blindfold the CGA or any guys, fly them by helicopter to a site, remove all identifying signs on the course, and see what they think is best without telling them XYZ was the architect?

[Dan Herrmann]

cary, you're right.

There's a muni in Buffalo, NY - Delaware Park.  It's flat as a pancake with greens placed here and there.

It's about as minimalist as you can get.

And the course is absolutely horrible.  It may actually be one of the worst munis in the USA.

My point is that the minimalist school needs to do a lot of work to get a great course.  Probably more than for a '60's "let's move a ton of dirt" type routing.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Cary

You said "Can a minimialist take a boring topography and make a worthwhile course out of it or should he just pass on the project?

Should a minimialist take on a severe topography or pass on that as well?"

Let's see how C&C do at WeKoPa in AZ and Tom Doak does at Stone Eagle in Palm Desert as far as your latter question is concerned.

From my personal experience,I think C&C did a pretty good job at Talking Stick North in AZ and Hidden Creek as far as your former question is concerned and Tom Doak, from what I've seen, did a pretty good job at Rawls Course at Texas Tech.

Steve

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dave Moriarty,

What does "pushing the envelope" mean in terms of golf  course architecture ?

Surely you have some idea of what this means. . . .
No, I don't, since it means different things to different people.[/color]

Generally, I'd say 'pushing the envelope' in terms of golf course design means challenging and sometimes rejecting generally accepted contemporary conventions.   Designing outside the box, if you will.

That's a nice general, vague description, but what does it mean in the actual design of features ?[/color]  

A few examples of pushing the limit?    
-- Building greens which do [NOT] conform with USGA specifications for green design and construction.  Building California greens or even native soil greens, where conditions allow for such greens.

Dave, that's a common a practice and hardly pushing the envelope[/color]

-- Accepting quirks of native terrain when much of the rest of the industry is working the native ground extensively to hammer it into some preconceived notion of a good golf hole.

What do you consider "quirks of native terrain" ?
What or who is "the rest of the industry" ?
Do you have specific evidence where quirks of native terrain have been obliterated or ignored ?[/color]

--  Building low profile features when most of the industry is building high profile features.

Who is "most of the industry" that's building high profile features, and could you identify those features and the courses they appear on ?[/color]

Bucking the trend of narrower and longer and trying wider and shorter.

What do you mean by shorter ?
Where is there a trend toward narrower golf courses ?[/color]  

Rejecting framing when the rest of the industry is framing away.  Other than skyline greens, everybody frames a green, with either hazards or terrain.
How would you avoid framing a green, or depriving it of its surrounds ?[/color]  

Returning to a style of architecture that has long been abandoned.

What style is that ?[/color]
 

How many developers want to roll the dice with "pushing the envelope" ?

Not nearly enough.  But fortunately a few do, and you've named some of them.  

I don't think they rolled the dice at all.
I think they knew what they wanted and who could give it to them, hence they selected those fellows, for a known a distinct style.[/color]

Developers typically hire an architect because they want their  product, a recognizable product, borne of the architect's style.

Worrying about what developers "typically" do is not really pushing the envelope is it.   Did Mr. Youngscap do what developers "typically"  do?   Did Mr. Kaiser?   My impression is that these guys were willing to take a chance on a guys that were far from in the mainstream.  Who was Kidd before Bandon?  For that matter, Doak may have been known here before Pacific, but he was far from the "typical" choice.
Sure they did.
They knew what they wanted and who could give it to them.
Those developers didn't select those architects by conducting a lottery.[/color]
 
It is not typical to build an inaccessible resort in the middle of nowhere without a pool or even a sunny climate, ban the use of carts, and hope that people will show up for the golf experience alone.

Men have been doing it for decades, if not a century.
Greenbriar, The Homestead, Pebble Beach, Pinehurst, Kohler, Hilton Head and others.  The events of 9/11 also made the concept an attractive alternative to overseas travel.[/color]

It is not typical to reject the notion that there is a direct correlation between money spent and the quality of the product produced.  

Take Mr. Hansen or Mr. Bakst, for other examples.   Either one of them could have played it safe, picking up an industry magazine and going with the league leaders when it comes to return on investment for private clubs.  

That applies to housing projects, not golf "only" private clubs.
[/color]

But they had a vision which went beyond the "typical" so they went with designers who they thought would give them something unique and special.  Something with "character," (Tom Doak's word from the one word thread.)

No they didn't.
C&C were a proven commodity.
As Bill Coore stated, it would have been difficult not to build a great golf course at Sand Hills, and that anything less would have to be considered a failure.

Will Nicklaus's involvement at Sebonack result in the envelope not being pushed, whatever that means ?[/color]

Sure the architect's "style" is important.  But so is his vision and creativity.  Great courses are far more than style.

How so ?[/color]

[Scott Witter]

Dan H.

I live just north of Buffalo and I completely agree with you on Delaware Park, however, our agreement ends there.  I think you need to better define what you mean by "to do a lot of work to get a great course" when you refer to your requirement of minimalists school.  If you haven't figured it out by now, its not about moving a bunch of soil, but it is knowing what soil to move, where to move it and how to shape it as needed.  As Steve S. infers, doesn't it have much to do with the site and its overall conditions, character and inherent landscape quality.  I think Steve makes a good point and I believe Doak, C&C and many others have done well with what they are/were given to work with.

[DMoriarty]

Dave Moriarty,

What does "pushing the envelope" mean in terms of golf  course architecture ?

Surely you have some idea of what this means. . . .
No, I don't, since it means different things to different people.[/color]

What different things does it mean to different people?  Who are these people?  Where are they?  How do you know them?   Who are you to say what they think it means?  What proof have you that the phrase means different things to different people? [/b

Generally, I'd say 'pushing the envelope' in terms of golf course design means challenging and sometimes rejecting generally accepted contemporary conventions.   Designing outside the box, if you will.

That's a nice general, vague description, but what does it mean in the actual design of features ?[/color]  

Well Patrick, 'pushing the envelope is a "nice general, vague" concept, thus the "nice general, vague" description.  As for actual design of features, I dont think my posted ended with this initial comment . . . . Perhaps you should consider holding your comments until you have bothered to read a whole post through at least once? [/b

A few examples of pushing the limit?    
-- Building greens which do [NOT] conform with USGA specifications for green design and construction.  Building California greens or even native soil greens, where conditions allow for such greens.

Dave, that's a common a practice and hardly pushing the envelope[/color]

Really?  How common a practice?  In the past 25 years which architects have ignored USGA specs?  Which courses?  How have these courses been received?  Does Nicklaus ignore USGA specs?  Does Fazio?  Does Rees Jones?  Does Robert Trent Jones?  What is the proportion of USGA greens to non-USGA greens built over the past 25 years?  Name and describe every non-USGA green you have ever played, who built it, when and why?  

How about building native greens?   Is this a common contemporary practice as well?  

-- Accepting quirks of native terrain when much of the rest of the industry is working the native ground extensively to hammer it into some preconceived notion of a good golf hole.

What do you consider "quirks of native terrain" ?
What or who is "the rest of the industry" ?
Do you have specific evidence where quirks of native terrain have been obliterated or ignored ?[/color]

I know them when I see them . . .
Those we are not currently talking about or some of them . . .
Yes, but I aint saying . . .  Plus, I have Fazio on record as saying that his is a common part of his design philosophy.  Read his book if you dont believe me.

--  Building low profile features when most of the industry is building high profile features.

Who is "most of the industry" that's building high profile features, and could you identify those features and the courses they appear on ?[/color]

The usual suspects.   I could, but to do so would be a monumental waste of time.  [/b]

Bucking the trend of narrower and longer and trying wider and shorter.

What do you mean by shorter ?
Where is there a trend toward narrower golf courses ?[/color]  

Less long.
On television next week.[/b]

Rejecting framing when the rest of the industry is framing away.  Other than skyline greens, everybody frames a green, with either hazards or terrain.
How would you avoid framing a green, or depriving it of its surrounds ?[/color]  
Just because a green is framed doesnt mean it was framed.  And who said anything about greens? [/b]


Returning to a style of architecture that has long been abandoned.

What style is that ?[/color]

Why Arts and Crafts Architecture of course!  How many modern designers are attempting to build heathland style golf courses in America these days?[/b]

 

How many developers want to roll the dice with "pushing the envelope" ?

Not nearly enough.  But fortunately a few do, and you've named some of them.  

I don't think they rolled the dice at all.
I think they knew what they wanted and who could give it to them, hence they selected those fellows, for a known a distinct style.[/color]

Easy for you to say, it wasnt your time, money, or reputation at stake.  Knowing what you want and rolling the dice are not mutually exclusive.   People who believe in themselves and others are the ones who should take chances, but still they are taking a chance.

And what style was Kidd known for, exactly?   On what was this based?  Which courses?[/b]

Developers typically hire an architect because they want their product, a recognizable product, borne of the architect's style.

Worrying about what developers "typically" do is not really pushing the envelope is it.   Did Mr. Youngscap do what developers "typically"  do?   Did Mr. Kaiser?   My impression is that these guys were willing to take a chance on a guys that were far from in the mainstream.  Who was Kidd before Bandon?  For that matter, Doak may have been known here before Pacific, but he was far from the "typical" choice.
Sure they did.
They knew what they wanted and who could give it to them.
Those developers didn't select those architects by conducting a lottery.[/color]

You already said that.  It doesnt wash this second time either.
A lottery?  You live in a weird world partick.  One can truly believe in something but still take a chance on it.   The unknown is whether the belief will pan out; whether the rest of the world will come to believe in it as well.   That's where the willingness to do some envelope pushing comes in handy. [/b]
 
It is not typical to build an inaccessible resort in the middle of nowhere without a pool or even a sunny climate, ban the use of carts, and hope that people will show up for the golf experience alone.

Men have been doing it for decades, if not a century.
Greenbriar, The Homestead, Pebble Beach, Pinehurst, Kohler, Hilton Head and others.  The events of 9/11 also made the concept an attractive alternative to overseas travel.[/color]

They may have been doing it for a century, but I am not so sure about decades.   I dont know much about Kohler, but perhaps it is another example of envelope pushing. [/b]


It is not typical to reject the notion that there is a direct correlation between money spent and the quality of the product produced.  

Take Mr. Hansen or Mr. Bakst, for other examples.   Either one of them could have played it safe, picking up an industry magazine and going with the league leaders when it comes to return on investment for private clubs.  

That applies to housing projects, not golf "only" private clubs.
[/color]

But they had a vision which went beyond the "typical" so they went with designers who they thought would give them something unique and special.  Something with "character," (Tom Doak's word from the one word thread.)

No they didn't.
C&C were a proven commodity.
As Bill Coore stated, it would have been difficult not to build a great golf course at Sand Hills, and that anything less would have to be considered a failure.

Will Nicklaus's involvement at Sebonack result in the envelope not being pushed, whatever that means ?[/color]

Yes the did.  
Bill Coore is a modest gentleman.  Who else could have done as well?

You'll have to ask Messrs. Nicklaus and Doak the second question.   My guess is there is a good chance that Mr. Nicklaus' envelope will be pushed more than a bit.[/b]

Sure the architect's "style" is important.  But so is his vision and creativity.  Great courses are far more than style.

How so ?[/color]
Read above.[/b]

Patrick, as much fun as this is, I just dont have time for it. If you'd like to have a discussion then I'm all for it, but I am not going to entertain these inane questions any longer.   Horace Hutchinson provides the guidance I need:

"Fools need not be answered according to their folly."[/i]

--Horace Hutchinson, Outing, July 1901, parapharasing Exodus 14:13.  

[DMoriarty]

I can't take you to task, Dave, I lack the portfolio of experience.

But I will say I didn't think the greens at HC evinced anything remotely resembling ramp ups leading to the green. More than all the courses I've played, save one, they were simply extensions of the fairway.

I think I said that I did not think the HC greens were as ramped as, say, those at ND.  But many of them do sit at least a few feet about their immediate surrounds, so to get that "extensions of the fairway" feel, they have to be ramped at least a little bit.  

Think of it this way, while they may be "extensions of the fairway" they arent necessarily extensions of the ground to the sides and the back.  

Dont get me wrong, this isnt necessarily a criticism, just an observation.

[George Pazin]

The North (new) course at Forest Creek has numerous fallaway greens, with that feature enhanced by the firmness of the fairways and greens.  I've never seen Oakmont, so can't compare how much the dropoffs are.

Ken

Thanks for the info, Ken, I hope to see it first hand someday. Is this the Forest Creek that is the Fazio development in North Carollina, or a different one?

The 12th green at Oakmont has to be seen to be believed. #10, as well. Simply awesome.

Re: the Buffalo muni, it sounds like it was driven by lower costs, which I'd deem appropriate for a muni. It's probably not looking to make any top 10 lists.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dave Moriarty,

How many Non-USGA greens did you play on your eastern golf trip last week ?

They're more common than you think.  It's likely that you just can't identify them.

Are the greens at Rustic Canyon USGA spec ?

Is "pushing the envelope" the same as "taking it to the next level" ?

[Michael Moore]

Nice thread.

Mr. Moriarty -

Every architect I have talked to is deeply concerned with framing.

By that I mean what the golfer sees when he is on the tee, and what he sees when he is looking at the green from the fairway.

This includes aesthetics as well as features which draw the attention of the eyes.

When I went to see Bill Coore on site he was meticulously shaving and shaping a tiny mound behind a green so that when seen from a quarter mile away it would look as if it had always been there.

[DMoriarty]

Dave Moriarty,

How many Non-USGA greens did you play on your eastern golf trip last week ?

Patrick, Of all the courses built in the past 25 years I played on my recent trip East, only one had non-USGA greens.   In fact, make it courses built in the past 80 yrs.  

They're more common than you think.  It's likely that you just can't identify them.

You are surely correct, I cannot identify them.   So I would appreciate it if you would please identify all the working architects of the past 25 years who commonly and regularly have built non USGA spec greens.  

Are the greens at Rustic Canyon USGA spec ?

They are not USGA spec.  But then Hanse, Wagner, and Shackleford arent really "USGA spec" either.

The greens at RC are "California style" or something like it.   But I believe that the designers wanted to build native soil greens, but the developer's organization would not approve that.  I think the California style was a compromise.  

Patrick, again you ignored native soil greens.   Is building native soil greens commonplace among contemporary designers?

Is "pushing the envelope" the same as "taking it to the next level" ?

It depends on the envelope . . . . and the level.

Michael Moore,

Every architect is concerned with framing as you define it.  But your definition is pretty darn broad.  

[Mark_Fine]

Michael,
Did that little mound "frame" the hole or help "define" the hole.  There is a difference.

I don't have time to read all these long threads but not all these guys mentioned are always "minimalists".   Anyone here play Boston Golf Club.  There is some great architecture there but it sure is not minimalism  
Mark

[Dan Herrmann]

Dan H.

I live just north of Buffalo and I completely agree with you on Delaware Park, however, our agreement ends there.  I think you need to better define what you mean by "to do a lot of work to get a great course" when you refer to your requirement of minimalists school.  If you haven't figured it out by now, its not about moving a bunch of soil, but it is knowing what soil to move, where to move it and how to shape it as needed.  As Steve S. infers, doesn't it have much to do with the site and its overall conditions, character and inherent landscape quality.  I think Steve makes a good point and I believe Doak, C&C and many others have done well with what they are/were given to work with.

Scott,
I totally agree with what you're saying.  My point was that being a pure minimalist isn't necessarily a good thing - any architect worth his/her salt is certainly going to improve the land.  That's why I personally prefer the term 'naturalist' - making the course look like it was God's work, much like St. Andrews.

That's where Doak, C&C, Hanse, etc. excel.  If you look at their work, you can tell the original land has not been signifiantly altered, but that it has been significantly improved for the game of golf.

I think Stanley Thompson's Highlands Links is a great example of minimalism from the past, for example.

And, George - Delaware Park is an ancient course.  Folks in Buffalo like to say that it was one of the first munis in the USA.  But it does serve its purpose - beginners and folks that can't afford the "CCFAD"/club experience have a place to play, and that is a good thing  

[Michael Moore]

I would say it was on the horizon and part of the green complex.

To be more specfic, I would say that framing is the stuff on the periphery of what your eye is drawn to.

And I still maintain that every architect wants that to LOOK NICE, whether it be with bunkers that are not really in play, waterfalls, gratuitous fescue grasses (which everyone loves), cutting down lots of trees a la Hidden Creek, a giant sand dune, etc.

I suspect all architects want every aspect of the course to LOOK NICE, including the edges. Bill Coore was fascinating on the topic.

[DMoriarty]

I would say it was on the horizon and part of the green complex.

To be more specfic, I would say that framing is the stuff on the periphery of what your eye is drawn to.

And I still maintain that every architect wants that to LOOK NICE, whether it be with bunkers that are not really in play, waterfalls, gratuitous fescue grasses (which everyone loves), cutting down lots of trees a la Hidden Creek, a giant sand dune, etc.

Every designer wants the stuff around the golf hole to look nice?   I doubt you'll find much disagreement about that.  But this is so broad it renders the concept of framing to be almost meaningless.  

For a topical example of one way to look at framing, take a look at Fazio's book.  In particular . . .
. . . his comments on making tee shots and approaches look like they could be photographs in a magazine;
. . . his comments on Pinehurst, which he likes very much but notes it does not photograph well and would not be well-liked if it were built today (it doesnt photograph well;)
. . . His comments on providing "vertical frames" for tee shots and greens; if he cant find them he builds them.  

Now in my limited experience I dont really think that Gil Hanse is thinking about these same things when he is trying to get his courses to "look nice."

I think this was mentioned above, but in my limited experience it seems that C&C are more likely to place their holes in discrete corridors with little contact with other holes.  This is certainly an aspect of framing and different from what I have seen of Hanse and Doak (what little I have seen.)
______________________

"Minimalist" is definitely a limited term.  We need a better one.  I've often used "Neo-Classic," but I am not sure it makes sense to refer to the pre-WWII period as "Classic."  How about "Arts and Crafts Revivalist?"  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dave Moriarty,

"Minimalist" can be a misleading term because so much depends on the site.

I believe even natural appearing sites, like Bandon, had their fairways capped.

If you walked NGLA in reverse, starting behind the 18th green, you'd be hard pressed to call the golf course a minimalist course.

C&C moved about 40,000 cubic yards at HC, mostly at the green ends.

Bill Coore, to the shock and dismay of some, told us that almost everything at a course of his was artificial, that the site was virtually as flat as a pancake, and any and all movement in the golf course was created.  
Is that the work of a minimalist ?

I think the term is overused and may not be accurately descriptive of the work on a specific site

Or, should a new term or series of terms be used.

[T_MacWood]

"How about 'Arts and Crafts Revivalist?'"

Oh Jeezzus !

[DMoriarty]

Dave Moriarty,

"Minimalist" can be a misleading term because so much depends on the site.

I believe even natural appearing sites, like Bandon, had their fairways capped.

If you walked NGLA in reverse, starting behind the 18th green, you'd be hard pressed to call the golf course a minimalist course.

C&C moved about 40,000 cubic yards at HC, mostly at the green ends.

Bill Coore, to the shock and dismay of some, told us that almost everything at a course of his was artificial, that the site was virtually as flat as a pancake, and any and all movement in the golf course was created.  
Is that the work of a minimalist ?

I think the term is overused and may not be accurately descriptive of the work on a specific site

Or, should a new term or series of terms be used.

Patrick,

Are you sure you mean to address this post to me?  

I've never liked the term minimalist.  I am not even quite sure what it is supposed to mean.  I would not consider C and C to be minimalists in either process or result, but then I have never seen Sand Hills.  

Did you read my last post?  How about "Arts and Crafts Revivalist?"  It works for me.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Minimalist" is definitely a limited term.  We need a better one.  I've often used "Neo-Classic," but I am not sure it makes sense to refer to the pre-WWII period as "Classic."  How about "Arts and Crafts Revivalist?"

Dave, you did type this, didn't you ?
[/color]
 

[TEPaul]

""How about 'Arts and Crafts Revivalist?'"

"Oh Jeezzus!"

Uh-huh. But you've gotta have a "vivalist" before you can have a "revivalist".  

[ian]

Mike Cirba,

You brought up the point that you would like to see more variety.

Two thoughts:

1. That is harder to do than it is to suggest.

2. Pete Dye changed styles a lot and there are many who think only his original work at The Golf Club and other similar projects are worth a damn. Be careful what you wish for.

If you want to seperate the three mentioned most, break down the work far more specifically and you will find the differences. They all route a golf course differently for starters, look at the combination of holes and the ways they use landforms and you will see a marked differnce in all three. Think about reverse cants, the direction they use ravines and valleys, where the green sites tend to be situated. Angles from views through to hazards, there is a lot of individual preference to break down.

I think they are all very talented men, so much of this discussion is preference; and mine is not important.

[Tom_Doak]

Okay, I'm back home and have some time to point out some of the stylistic differences between my work and Coore & Crenshaw's.

The first thing I must say is that I'm a great admirer of their work, and I would guess that I've seen more of it than most people on the board.  I've never been to their first course at Barton Creek, nor to Hidden Creek or Austin Golf Club or that course they built in Indonesia, but I think I've seen the majority of their other work.  I've even played Rockport Country Club, which is Bill's first solo course and the one which inspired Ben to consider Bill as a partner.

The similarities between our styles are fairly simple:

a)  We all believe that the defense to low scoring is at the green end of the hole and not the tee end; Bill and Ben don't build 7,000 yard golf courses any more often than I do.

b)  We gravitate toward pieces of ground which don't require a lot of earthmoving, although we have both done projects which buck that trend.

c)  We both believe that design is a hands-on, in-the-dirt process, and that the construction talents of our associates add much to our designs.

[Tom_Doak]

The first difference between our styles is that Bill and Ben tend to favor right-to-left shots, and I tend toward left-to-right -- not all the time, of course, but favoring one side as nearly every architect does.  (Both of us give you plenty of room off the tee and a lot of challenge around the greens because that's our game, too.)  When I hear good players tell me that Bill's courses test the strong player better than mine, I conclude they must hit a draw so they're more comfortable on Ben's courses.

[T_MacWood]

"Tommy
It may be a small point to some but certainly not to Geoff Shackelford and Hanse & Co. but just look at the wild natural vegetation that "transitions" #11 tee from the fairway body of the hole! It's just beautiful in it ruggedness and also (Tom MacWood) that's the kind of "site natural" rugged blending you might be thinking about with "art's and Crafts" etc."

TE
Do you remember when you wrote this?