Maximalism

[Gary_Nelson]

Reading 6 pages of minimalism discussions got me thinking of the opposite:  Maximalism.

There was a popular thread a couple years ago titled "In praise of waterfalls" which talked about giving some golfers the excesses that some people on this site don't like.

Local economies drive golf course revenues.  People choose where to play based on what they can afford.

It's a big world of golf out there.  Maximalism might just be the preferred design for a segment of golfers out there who can afford and enjoy such excess.

What say you?

[Tony_Chapman]

Gary - I'll bet you 90% of golfers prefer maximalism -- as you call it. I prefer to it as "pretty golf".

I have a ton of friends who would rather play a "beautiful course" with tons of hardwoods, forced carries and a 1/2 mile drives between greens and tees than Wild Horse. What gives -- they may be right. Golf Digest ranked the course higher than Wild Horse. How Ron Whitten allowed that is beyond me.

Enough of my rant.

[Kenny Lee Puckett]

How about Superfluism as evidenced by Pete Dye's Whistling Straits and Colleton River?

Other examples could include:

Shadow Creek
Haig Point (Mounds got nuts, Almond Joys don't)

BTW - Cyndi Lauper used to sing a lyric:  "Money, money changes everything!"

Turn-ons include anything fescue, Lunch at NGLA before round #2 of the day, walking on CPC at Sunset...

JWK

[cary lichtenstein]

I think almost every architect practices "maximalism" to some degree. Its just a matter of semanitics.

What is wrong with maximizing the site? So long as it looks good, and plays well a little eye candy goes a long way.

Like a nose or boob job, they can bring out ;Dsome great features.

Why dig a 6 foot bunker and grow long grass above the lip? Because it looks and plays better.

[SL_Solow]

A good part of the discussion rests on our constantly shifting the definitions.  Clearly, there is no hard and fast definition for the term "minimalism" in the context of GCA.  Since Tom Doak is one of the icons of that movement (sorry for the term Tom) perhaps a review of his website and writings might be instructive.  As I understand his use of the term, a minimalist seeks to utilize the natural features of a site and to move as little dirt as possible in creating a good golf course.  Where necessary, a minimalist will move significant amounts of dirt but will strive to make the artificial features look as natural as possible.  A non-minimalist does not share the desire to avoid earth moving and often will choose to impose preconceived holes on to the land.  There is nothing about minimalism that dictates broad corridors, undulating greens or any other feature.  Nor does significant earth moving require the type of landscape architecture cum GCA that many of us disdain.  Much of what CBM, Raynor and their disciples achieved was far from minimalist.  However they did their work so well that they produced great golf courses.  Accordingly, it appears to me that the greatest advantage of the minimalist approach is cost; if you move less dirt you are likely to spend less money.  At least for this observer, the reason I look forward to works by C&C and Doak is that they have produced consistently great products.    But I also look forward to the works of others with different styles (e.g. Smyers, Mungeam) and I keep an open mind with respect to others.  In the end its the finished golf course that counts, not the manner in which it was constructed.  A final hypothetical; an architect is faced with a site which will require numerous forced carries over water which can be avoided with eathmoving that falls within his budget and which can be done in an artful manner.  Should he refrain from moving the dirt to remain true to some "minimalist code" and build a less interesting golf course?  Should he leave the project to another with different philosophical constraint?  Should he build the course by moving the dirt?  If he followas the Doak definition, he can remain a "minimalist " and move the dirt if it is necessary to create a fine golf course.  The style of the course is irrelevant to the inquiry.

[Kenny Lee Puckett]

From SL Solow:  "A final hypothetical; an architect is faced with a site which will require numerous forced carries over water which can be avoided with eathmoving that falls within his budget and which can be done in an artful manner.  Should he refrain from moving the dirt to remain true to some "minimalist code" and build a less interesting golf course?  Should he leave the project to another with different philosophical constraint?  Should he build the course by moving the dirt?  If he followas the Doak definition, he can remain a "minimalist " and move the dirt if it is necessary to create a fine golf course.  The style of the course is irrelevant to the inquiry."

Not a lot of work to be had out there right now, so not many people would be able to walk away.  I do admire the fact that Coore and Crenshaw would not sign with Ken Baskt until C&C had "Found" the routing from 15-18.

Cary, everyone loves eye candy.  The more visually spectacular candy may not be as attractive once you have had a chance to check out the materials used in construction>  ;>

JWK

[Tom_Doak]

Jim Keever:

There are about 300 courses around the world in some stage of construction, and at least that many more on the drawing boards.  I'm only going to do 2-4 per year, and Bill Coore isn't going to do even that many.  We have to "walk away" from offers all the time; the only hard part is trying to guess which projects are certain to get built.

As for a minimalist code, there are projects that I simply wouldn't take for various reasons, but they all boil down to one of two:  either we're too busy with other stuff that appears more exciting, or I just can't imagine that we could build a course that I would enjoy on the given site and with that client.

The Rawls Course at Texas Tech was a completely flat site, but I thought it was a challenge to see how we could do on that kind of ground, and I thought it was perfect timing for us on the heels of Pacific Dunes, in that my crew needed to be reminded that not all sites are great and you shouldn't whine about it.  I think we could do better than that on a flat site, and someday I'll probably want to try again, but not while I'm working on the things we're doing now.

Stone Eagle was an extremely hilly site, but the clients seemed to be very open-minded about what we could accomplish and they had the money to make it work.  We had a blast working on it and I'm curious what everyone will make of the finished product.

Neither of those projects is "minimalist" by most definitions, but I didn't ever take an oath that I would only work on projects where I had to move less than 100,000 cubic yards.  My commitment is simply not to mess up a good site with artificial work where it wasn't necessary, and courses like St. Andrews Beach and Ballyneal are proof that we (still) don't get carried away with ourselves when we've got great holes just laying there.

As to Tony and Gary's original contention -- ABSOLUTELY, people prefer playing on a pretty golf course.  I would just argue that there are a lot of pretty golf courses which didn't require much artificial work, and that a waterfall or a lot of mounding or bunkers don't necessarily make a course prettier.

[Kenny Lee Puckett]

Tom -

Many thanks for your front-line view of the current marketplace.  Given your demonstrative success in the field as evidenced by your body of work, you do have the ability to screen/select on the creme de la creme of opportunities - an attribute that you have earned.  You are forthright on the Rawls TT course and the relishment of a good challenge.  

You and your firm have that luxury, along with a handful of others.  My question to the board was is there enough work to allow other Tom Doak's/Bill Coore's to emerge?

Maybe I came off as a little too jaded/cynical on my initial post, but my impression of "Superfluism", or "Let's throw in an extra 200 bunkers here and there because I can, and the client can pay for them," didn't seem to be necessary from either a playability or maintainance standpoint.  

I admire the fact that Mr. Dye had a virtually flat piece of property at Whistling Straits, and generally admire what he did, but to me he might have put MORE focus on the actual holes themselvers had he not added so many bunkers more than 70 yards from the centerline.  The randomness of ending up in a bunker 30-40 yards off of the fairway vs. a more punishing hack from the gnarly fescue rough further underscores that more is sometimes less.  

I don't preach to minimalism for minilmalism's sake.  Based upon your reply, you don't either:


"My commitment is simply not to mess up a good site with artificial work where it wasn't necessary, and courses like St. Andrews Beach and Ballyneal are proof that we (still) don't get carried away with ourselves when we've got great holes just laying there."

I can enjoy a course with massive amounts of construction.  What would have Yale cost to build today. (I think it was $450,000 in 1926 dollars).  I enjoy CB/Raynor the most from the old school - even though they were laying copies upon copies of the holes that they liked the best as they were best able to find the siting for that particluar hole  (Back to back par 3's, if necessary - Now where else have I enjoyed that??? ).

JWK -

BTW - They conducted the New England Publinks Championship at E. Gaynor Brennan this past weekend, and the event was a huge success as reported by the Stamford Advocate.

[Tom_Doak]

James:

I think your criticism of Whistling Straits could also be applied to The Rawls Course.  I think we did a lot better job of transforming the landscape with some different-looking features than I thought we could ... but, we did so at the expense of thinking as much about the individual holes.  I'm disappointed that we didn't create at least a couple of holes that I would be proud to suggest as the equal of the best holes at Barnbougle or High Pointe or Pacific Dunes; but we didn't.

Is there enough work to allow "other Bill Coores" to emerge?  It will be a bit harder for them, because Bill and I will get first crack on the best of sites now, and because there are already plenty of other guys (David Kidd, Gil Hanse, Kyle Phillips, Mike DeVries, Kelly Moran, and perhaps a dozen more) who are fighting for the ones we don't do.  There are also less courses being built in general.  But I still think there are plenty of projects out there with the potential of Rockport CC or High Pointe which got us going, if a young architect makes the most of them.

[Kenny Lee Puckett]

Tom -

I really liked Talking Stick North where C&C took a flat site and really dug the bunkers deep to make them 1/2 shot penalties a la Royal Troon and Westhampton (Still love the pragmatic ingenuity of piling the dirt in front of the bunker to keep one from being able to reach the green).  Not having seen the Rawls course makes me want to investigate your self-appraisal.  

I like your optimism that a young or first-timer still has the chance to make his/her mark.  The optimists will always overcome the naysayers to produce the innovative.  Are there innovations in GCA left to be found and created?  I hope so!

Jim