I think of it in pretty much the same way Tom, but I was seizing on the comparison that Garland was making. Clearly minimalism and pragmatism don't mean the same thing, so my original answer was no. However I can see now that Garland wasn't necessarily equating the terms, and so my answer would change somewhat. But perhaps 'pragmatic minimalism' would be a more apt name.
I do think that this thread brings up a few good questions.
How does one define a style of design?
How does a given style of design relate to the method of design?
A quasi-hypothetical example/question to elucidate what I mean (forgive me if this has been covered before):
For the sake of arguement, let's say that two courses are basically the same. They play the same (ground options, short green to tee walks etc.), look the same (rustic, hairy-edged bunkers, fescue turf etc.), cost about the same to play. These two courses are the same design style in my book.
The difference in the two is in what was done to make the land they inhabit into golf courses. Course A was routed over the many varied and interesting natural features on the property. Little earth had to be moved. Course B was a flat, degraded farm site on which interesting landforms had to be created to make the course interesting. In my book, these two courses used different design methods. Not necessarily different means, but different methods.
When we talk about what the minimalists do, I think we're usually talking about the method, not the style. I know (or think) Tom D. has done both methods described above (as well as many more probably). I'm curious what folks think about the differences above and whether it might be folly to try to come up with such categories as minimalist etc.