Is the future of GCA moving toward "minimalism"?

[Adam_F_Collins]

...and a more "golden age" interest in strategy, options, etc?

Or are things just becoming more varied from one project to another. Reading in GOLF magazine, about how Jack credited the his approach to green complex design at The Concession to working with Tom Doak, I wondered what you guys think.

Is all of the interest in the 'old ways of the Force' beginning to catch on again?

A

[Mike_Young]

Adam,
I don't think so.  while much canbe said for minimalism.....most sites that are used for golf do not lend themselves to it.....IMHO.....now it may be that the site can be shaped to look minimal but it isn't in many cases.....so you could say the "minimalist" look is in.....

[ed_getka]

Adam,
   I don't think so. Fortunately there are some great golf courses being built that minimalists will love, but most courses have lots of bells and whistles (waterfalls and blinding white sand) that appeal to the majority of golfers out there.
   As Mike Young points out there just aren't a lot of sites that lend themselves to a minimalist approach, at least not around population centers.
    In the end, it is how the course plays that counts, not whether spoonfuls of dirt were moved.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Maybe, but not because it works great on great sites, but not as well elsewhere.

Rather, because budgets and water become issues.  If you define non-minimalism as a lot of fairway mounds, everyone is going to eliminate them primarily because of

Cost - they cost money to build and maintain-they take too long to mow.

Water - Hills use more water than flatter ground.

In short, excessive grading beyond what is necessary to build fill pads, and create vision and drainage are not efficient design solutions given current conditions.

BTW, if you define minimalism (as some do) as raggy bunker edges, I say no for similar reasons.  They are difficult to maintain well in many soils and climates.  And, if the Golden Age bunkers were smoothed over, over time, for reasons of maintenance costs and fairness, I have no reason to believe that the vast majority of rugged bunkers built today won't face the same fate someday.  I think golfers want even more fairness now than they did in 1932.

[Tom_Doak]

Adam:

First off, I think you've mangled the "quote" from Nicklaus.  If you are referring to the GOLF DIGEST Best New rankings (because I don't think GOLF Magazine has done anything on The Concession, a private course), you will see that the "quote" is not in quotation marks.  

Jack said somewhere else that he got the idea of using inside rolls in greens from me at Sebonack [actually he got it from the very first green we built, #6, which Jim Urbina shaped the first day he was there].  Ron Whitten remembered that and referred to it in his article about The Concession ... probably as a nice way to give me a small mention in his story, because he knows Ballyneal got jobbed by the ranking process.  I was never on hand at The Concession for any of the walk-throughs or press conferences but I would be shocked if Jack mentioned my name at any of them, and if you read closely, the article does not say he did.

As for minimalism catching on, I don't know.  I think there is more pressure on architects now to pay attention to their sites, because that's all you read about in the press releases, and as Jeff said, because certain features are now seen [rightfully so] as wasteful.  I agree with Jeff that more people equate minimalism with a certain look and bunker style, even though to me that's not what it's about at all.  But just before that, Jeff referred to not moving more than what was necessary to "build fill pads, and create vision and drainage", and I'm certainly a conscientious objector to the first of those things and sometimes even the second and third.

So, perhaps the answer to your question is that many architects are moving that way a bit, but we all have our different interpretations of what it means to a style of design, and clearly you can't take the same approach to every project, so there is still a lot of variety out there.

[Adam_F_Collins]

Adam:

First off, I think you've mangled the "quote" from Nicklaus.  If you are referring to the GOLF DIGEST Best New rankings (because I don't think GOLF Magazine has done anything on The Concession, a private course), you will see that the "quote" is not in quotation marks.  

True enough, Tom. My apologies for the error. It is the January 2007 issue Golf Digest, in which Ron Whitten writes:

"...Nicklaus developed The Concession's greens with contours that originate from within the putting surfaces and ripple outward, leaving most collars relatively flat. It's a technique he says he learned while teaming with Tom Doak on Sebonack Golf Club in New York. Which proves you can teach a top dog new tricks."

pp 109-110

Again I apologize for the error. I forget that this is a very public forum, and not a private conversation.

[Tom_Doak]

Adam:

No need to apologize; a lot of people have pointed out that "quote" to me in the last couple of weeks, not realizing they were making the same mistake.  So I thought it should be corrected publicly.

I don't really think "inside rolls" in greens constitute minimalism.  They're a time tested principle that most architects seem to have gotten away from, probably in the move from the days of shaping greens on the ground to drawing them on a set of plans (where the rest of the course is so much more complicated and time-consuming).  MacKenzie and Ross worked much faster and yet had more time for playing details because they generally weren't distracted by mass earthwork and drainage networks and cart paths.  

Anyway, I think Jack had gotten so removed from old golf courses and so caught up in his own new ones that he hadn't seen inside rolls for a long time, and as soon as he saw them at Sebonack, it was like seeing an old friend again.  They weren't a new idea, just a reminder of something he hadn't thought of for a while, and I'm happy that we were able to provide that reminder.

Now, inside rolls may help promote a more minimalistic approach ... you don't have to build up the green so much or defend it so heavily if there are little rolls inside the green which are helping to defend it.  That's how one's style starts to evolve over time, concentrating on one thing gives you a different take on another aspect.  But Jack Nicklaus is not about to be pigeonholed as a minimalist, any more than I really want to be.

[Jeff_Brauer]

..... I agree with Jeff that more people equate minimalism with a certain look and bunker style, even though to me that's not what it's about at all.  But just before that, Jeff referred to not moving more than what was necessary to "build fill pads, and create vision and drainage", and I'm certainly a conscientious objector to the first of those things and sometimes even the second and third.

So, perhaps the answer to your question is that many architects are moving that way a bit, but we all have our different interpretations of what it means to a style of design, and clearly you can't take the same approach to every project, so there is still a lot of variety out there.

I understand that we all have different interpretations on design - including how much earth it MIGHT take in a fill pad for green, tee or bunker support.  Certainly, some need none, and others (in a floodplain for instance) need a lot.  Ditto with vision, but its hard to believe that you wouldn't move earth necessary to create drainage, if none existed naturally.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

My only reference on the drainage item was that I see some architects moving earth to capture drainage instead of just letting it surface drain off the fairway ... Pete Dye for one.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

I do remember being jarred by fw catch basins every 80 feet at TPC Sawgrass, something I had never seen.  I was working with Killian at the time, and had never dealt with a totally flat site not far above sea level.

Like you suggest, I was trained only to grade fairways when they blocked vision (Killian talking) were too cross sloped to hold a shot, or too flat to drain surface water.  Even then, he felt basins should be in the rough, not the fw, and tended to add fill, often to crown the fairway, pushing water to basins in the rough.  

He was very leary of lowering anything, knowing water goes there and could cause drainage problems, basin or not.  Unlike you, he also felt that it was "safer" to raise virtually every green, again to assure that drainage never crossed the green.  

I remember one green we cut in a hillside and put a foot or deeper swale behind the backing bunkers to catch overland water. I was there in a big rain one day, and the flow overwhelmed the little swale, washed out the bunker (and since this was during construction, the green mix) while I sat there watching from the truck.

That sort of made me agree with him that it is always better to be safe than sorry, and if in doubt, add a bit of fill and raise the green.  Oh yes, and don't underestimate the size of diversion drainage swales!  While I have lowered many greens from what he might have over the years to use cut and fill balance on site, I think when I view my work long term, I will find that the greens and green surrounds that hold up best have absolutely the best drainage, regardless of whether they were built artificially.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

I understand both of your points.  The catch basins at the TPC at Sawgrass or at Kiawah didn't really bother me so much, because the ground was flat and you had to make the water go somewhere.  But when you see those same catch basins within fairways at Whistling Straits, just before the fairway drops off 15 feet toward trouble, it takes on a much more unnatural look.  That is form stuck in a rut, rather than form following function.

I think the same is true for putting fill on greens ... it's "better safe than sorry" yielding a lack of variety.  I try VERY hard to find positions for greens that are on a saddle or guarded by a small knob so that there isn't much surface drainage heading that direction in need of diversion.  But, my method also has its repetitive weaknesses ... often I'll see Bill Coore fill up the end of a little valley for a green site, which I never would have picked on the map because of the drainage issues.  [I'd probably have carved the green site off the top of the little ridge in front of his green site, and as a result mine sits up higher than his "filled" green and it's a bit harder to see the surface from the fairway, which is one of my weaknesses.]

This is yet another example of why building a course on sand is a blessing ... the practical considerations can be weighted less, and you're likely to achieve more variety.