Is "minimalism" a myth ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Recently I played some old courses built in the 20's.

I noticed, over and over again, built up fairway footpads, along with built up green footpads.

The notion that these fellows didn't move any dirt seems to be contradicted by these raised footpads.

I've also noticed drainange channels, clearly constructed, for the purpose of redirecting and removing surface water.

Have we underestimated the amount of dirt they moved ?

[John Kirk]

Perhaps modern minimalists are more minimalistic that old dead minimalists.  I'm just saying.

[Matt Kardash]

My response is: So what? People should focus less on how much, or little earth was moved and just play the course for what it is.

[Adam Clayman]

Perhaps your understanding of minimalism is off? It's not about moving less dirt, it's about making it look natural, like it belongs and has been there ever since whatever forces that formed the ground movement.

Max Behr didn't write about the wrong road because there weren't poor examples available to him in the 1920's.

[paul cowley]

Yeah.

[Jim Nugent]

Did they also move a lot of dirt at courses like TOC, RCD, Portrush, Ballybunion, etc.?  I thought those were the type of courses that helped inspire modern minimalism. 

[Tom_Doak]

Jim Nugent:

You will have to define "a lot of dirt" now.  Building up a green say, five feet is a matter of 1,000 cubic yards of fill.  Until recently, modern courses were moving an average of 300,000 cubic yards over 18 holes.  There was hardly any part of the site that WASN'T graded.  I don't think that's what you are seeing at The Old Course, Royal County Down, or Portrush.

On my own so-called minimalist courses we generally move 25,000 or 50,000 cubic yards.  That's far from zero, as some people must think I mean, or as Sand Hills and Askernish could lay claim.  But there are large parts of most courses where we left things alone and did not re-shape the world.


Patrick:

Yes, you've probably underestimated the amount of dirt the old architects moved.  But again, it was an order of magnitude [or three!] lower than what happens at many modern courses.  By the mid-1920's they did have the technology to move earth on a large scale -- see Lido or Banff or Yale -- but most architects eschewed that opportunity.

[Ally Mcintosh]

It's my guess that most people on here completely underestimate what is done on even the most minimalist of golf courses....

But I disagree with Adam... I don't think it is about "naturalism"... If that were the case, a group like Renaissance with a hugely experienced bunch of shapers, could move 300,000 m3 and have the course look more natural than a less experienced guy who has moved 50,000 m3...

It's about doing as little as possible to get the best result... Or not doing more than is absolutely neccesary.... It's difficult to measure that in numbers though as every site yields a different challenge...

 

[Adam Clayman]

Ally, You disagree that making it look natural, or blend in, is the goal? At Ballyneal, Almost every inch was moved, or at least cajoled.

[Anthony Gray]

Perhaps your understanding of minimalism is off? It's not about moving less dirt, it's about making it look natural, like it belongs and has been there ever since whatever forces that formed the ground movement.

Max Behr didn't write about the wrong road because there weren't poor examples available to him in the 1920's.

  Its not about moving less dirt? Wow have I been drinking the Kool Aid.

  Anthony

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ally, You disagree that making it look natural, or blend in, is the goal? At Ballyneal, Almost every inch was moved, or at least cajoled.

Adam, I don't disagree. I think that making a course look natural is a goal but the best way to do that is to actually leave the land natural....

I have never been to Ballyneal but if what you describe is true then perhaps it is not as "minimalistic" as people believe.... Hence Paul Cowley's intial response to the question asked....

[Adam Clayman]

Let's face it, Paul's contributions have been the definition of minimalist since he joined the Tartan Clad Clan.

My impression is that the term minimalism has been misunderstood, or that it's open to interpretation. Not a myth.

The first iteration of Dismal River, showed me that moving less dirt, was not the ideal. It could easily be argued that Chris Cochran chose the wrong ground for which to build his holes. Choosing the more dramatic, while leaving ground that could've worked better, with the small amounts of dirt he did move. I do agree that the result of a minimalist attempt should use what's there as much as possible, to control costs. Making the design process more efficient as long as the final product isn't compromised in quality. But then you have sites like Streamsong and Victoria Nat'l where the ground was altered before the golf was contemplated. So there in lies the dichotomy of moving less dirt versus making it look likes it been there for ions.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Following the PV thread, I will call minimalism an "enhanced legend."

If moving earth everywhere with a desire to make it look natural is the definition, then Fazio is a minimalist, no?

Minimalism is a great marketing name, but a little harder to pin down in acutal fact.

[Chris Johnston]

For me, minimalism is taking the land "as it it" rather than "building or altering" much that is there.  Also same in terms of routing - holes must connect naturally.  I really appreciate this fit the land methodology and am a fan of good Sandhills golf.  Jack/Chris did a very nice job with fit and variety and, as many who have made the trek point out, the end product is fun, challenging and very unique.  

Minimalism also means "you must play with your eyes and really be engaged".

Edited... Adam - interesting post.  Can you cite specific places where you believe Jack/Chris got it wrong?  Now that we have her under irrigation control, most who come out absolutely love Jack's work and the experience.  What holes are too dramatic and what wrong with dramatic?  I find Jacks course a shot, two or three easier than Sand Hills and Sand Hills, too, is dramatic. Just look at SH 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15 and 18.   Given location, I find the courses are very similar, yet one is revered and the other is not so much.  The course conditions here are among the best I have seen and you have proved a master at playing with your eyes and the bumps.  No challenging you, just curious.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Cash.

It cost several 10s of millions of dollars to build a course like Lake of Isles in Ct.

What did it cost to build Sand Hills, under 3 mil?

[Peter Pallotta]

Patrick - like all good and devoted students who have learned from and wish to honour their old masters, today's architects take the legends more seriously than the legends took themselves.  Also, it seems clear to me that 80+ years of additional urbanization and industrialization since the frst golden age has magnified ten-fold our desire for (and valuing of) naturalism, which is not to be confused with minimalism in any event.

Peter

[Chris Johnston]

What did it cost to build Sand Hills, under 3 mil?

Jim - Reportedly, course itself - less than $1 million and the design fee was very low.

[Eric Smith]

Hey Chris - I think you've gotten Ally and Adam's posts criss crossed? Or maybe I'm reading this wrong - it's still early.

 yet one is revered and the other is not.

Remember, Seinfeld was almost cancelled and shopped to Fox (who declined to pick it up) after it's debut.

Time, along with a greater sampling of visits to Dismal, will take care of a lot of past issues.

[Mike Hendren]

Yes.  Do you think someone simply discovered the 11 existing greens at The Old Course and from there merely connected the dots?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Chris,
That's even better!

I don't see how the term minimalism can be used to describe any golf course that was built on land that was originally, as Melyvn always says, unfit for the purpose.  

Naturalism, as PP just mentioned, is a more realistic term for the overall concept with actual minimalism being the 'highest' ideal to strive for within that framework.

[Jeff_Brauer]

For perspective, I would say that in 99% of new or major renovations, the gca is forced to be a minimalist by budget.  And yet most of this discussion is focused on the 1% of courses where by budget or reputation, the designer made a conscious choice to be a minimalist.

[Ally Mcintosh]

For me, minimalism is taking the land "as it it" rather than "building or altering" much that is there.  Also same in terms of routing - holes must connect naturally.  I really appreciate this fit the land methodology and am a fan of good Sandhills golf.  Jack/Chris did a very nice job with fit and variety and, as many who have made the trek point out, the end product is fun, challenging and very unique.  

Minimalism also means "you must play with your eyes and really be engaged".

Ally - interesting post.  Can you cite specific places where you believe Jack/Chris got it wrong?  Now that we have her under irrigation control, most who come out absolutely love Jack's work and the experience.   When was the last time you were out here? What do you find wrong with dramatic?  I find our existing course a shot, two or three easier than Sand Hills and Sand Hills, too, is dramatic.  Given location, the courses are very similar, yet one is revered and the other is not.  The course conditions here are among the best I have seen.  No challenging you, just curious.

Chris, you're looking for Adam Clayman there, not me.... Personally, I would never presume the above without being intimate with the entire project...

[Chris Johnston]

Ally - apologies.  My readers (and mind) aren't working today. Must have been the Guinness.

[mike_malone]

 I believe Flynn said "Be natural or look natural".

[Chris Johnston]

Chris,
That's even better!

I don't see how the term minimalism can be used to describe any golf course that was built on land that was originally, as Melyvn always says, unfit for the purpose.  

Naturalism, as PP just mentioned, is a more realistic term for the overall concept with actual minimalism being the 'highest' ideal to strive for within that framework.

Jim - they also irrigate from a diesel generator and have for 17 years.  That is really minimalist but not very green, I suppose.  Wonder how that has added up over the years versus the cost to bring in electric?  In a true sense, should minimalist need be efficient on all fronts, including the land?