Can we change Minimalism to Naturalism?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Steve,

And therein lies the quandry, doesn't it?

In past discussions here, and in general, no one seems to care what problems the architect faced if they don't like the course.  Its sort of implied you do what you have to do.

It would seem the same thing applies to the approach taken to get good results, at least to me.  How many golfers will know those trees were cut down, if they enjoy the view.  Done correctly, how many golfers will know a hill was cut for vision?  How many will really notice the tie ins Tom Doak is so concerned about?  (Of course, the old schoolteachers always said "If I reached just one student.......)

And, there is room for different styles, approaches and aesthetics.  I imagine it would take a pretty hard core minimalist fan to not appreciate Fazio's effort at Shadow Creek, for instance.  It's well done.  You know its not natural, you know its not minimalistic, its sort of a mix of imitating nature the way Disney or Vegas imitates life, a cartoon charicature, but it works.  Especially for Vegas, showing how cultural context might affect our opinions, too.

On the other side is the case of either Torrey Pines or Sand Pines.  Somehow, and particularly after Bandon, we "feel" a seaside course ought to be sort of linksy, not a standard course on a great site.  Just saying that overall approach does matter, too, in many cases.

In the end, I agree with Tom Doak.  While interesting, trying to put courses in quadrants, or neat labels is always frustrating.  In a way, I would say that if a label like minimalism emerges and sticks, it might be a pretty good label and its futile to try to change it, even if not "perfect."  Lets worry about the label for the next big style, whatever that might be.

[David Harshbarger]

How about Streamsong?  How many million CYs were moved for the mining?  Does those count if they were the canvas before the golf course started?  Are they natural?

While these exercises are interesting, this one doesn't seem to shed much light on JNs comments, "who cares"?  Until you add an axis for "fun" vs. "un-fun", what do you learn?  If there's a correlation between Quadrant III and fun, you've learned something.  If there's a negative correlation b/w Quadrant I and fun, you've learned something else.  However since there are surely courses in every Quadrant that rate highly on fun, the limits of this type of analysis become apparent.

Would GCA.com people prefer Quadrant III?  I bet if you went to a hyper-natural, hyper-minimalist course, aka a cow pasture where the only dirt moved was the dirt removed to cut a cup, it would receive few stars.  Then again, for a few here, that might be a course adored.

The quadrant analyses are interesting in another way.  Say you take a subset of course, like your favorites, the worlds Top 100, Jeff Brauer's course, what have you, and plot them out on two dimensions.  Now you can learn something, or maybe discover an insight you hadn't considered.

You might do the same on other dimensions as well.  Plot your favorite courses on fun x accessibility.  Architects renown X price.  Strategic interest X difficulty.  Maybe you'll learn something about what you, or rafters, or architects, value relative to other concerns.

[DMoriarty]

Kalen,  I haven't seen the Rawls course, but sounds like it would fit in your Quadrant IV.   The only question to me is whether it could be considered a truly great course.  As I haven't seen it, I don't know.


Similarly another attempt at such a course was the Lido, which was entirely artificial but arguably was meant to imitate what might ideally have existed in a similar setting.   CBM viewed it as his chance to play "Creator" but ultimately even CBM recognized and acknowledged that attempts to match nature fall short.

A certain architect once told me that you couldn't have a truly world class golf course without a truly world class site and I have always believed him, although a few courses have caused me to question this somewhat.

[DMoriarty]

While these exercises are interesting, this one doesn't seem to shed much light on JNs comments, "who cares"?  Until you add an axis for "fun" vs. "un-fun", what do you learn?  If there's a correlation between Quadrant III and fun, you've learned something.  If there's a negative correlation b/w Quadrant I and fun, you've learned something else.  However since there are surely courses in every Quadrant that rate highly on fun, the limits of this type of analysis become apparent.

In my opinion, the reason we should care is that nature historically has done a much better job of designing golf courses than has man.  This is the practical and non-aesthetic reason for trying to emulate nature when leaving nature alone proves impossible.  So doing makes for better golf.  Not even tie ins between nature and man are purely aesthetic.  They make for better golf.  

[Ian Andrew]

In my opinion, the reason we should care is that nature historically has done a much better job of designing golf courses than has man.  

David,

I have a problem with this since man or woman always decides what part of nature to keep and what part of nature he or she manipulates. Much of the places we love "appear" untouched by the hand of man or woman but the truth is even the old course has been altered more than most on this site would dare to believe.

Nature supplies more variety and much more intresting shapes than man or woman can possibly create but the designer has always played a role in what you experience.

I think many confuse looking natural with being original.
The architect is simply not getting enough credit from you.

[DMoriarty]

Andrew,  I hear what you are saying and agree that there is nothing close to a purely natural golf course. That said, on the continuum between purely natural and purely artificial the best courses and best features tend toward natural.   And where better courses are not natural, those courses tend toward a close emulation of the natural.  I don't see either of these things as coincidence. As you said, nature supplies more variety and much more interesting shapes.  Our imagination pales in comparison.

I agree that some confuse natural looking with naturally occurring. But I would posit that this is much more likely in a situation where the designer has for the most part gone with the land to the fullest extend possible, and where the designer or builder has  seamlessly "tied-in" the work into that which is actually natural.  (Or perhaps where the designer made no efforts to hide the artifice so as to distinguish it from that which is naturally occurring.)  I won't give away any trade secrets but I have seen some places where so-called "minimalists" have moved tremendous amounts of dirt to make certain things work.  It fit so well with everything there it was really is difficult to notice, and my guess is that it very much helped that the movement was limited to certain very problematic areas. 

As for whether the architect gets enough credit from me, I guess it would depend upon the architect.  I have tremendous respect for certain architects, but often it is more for their exercise of restraint rather than their efforts to play creator.

[Sean_A]

In my opinion, the reason we should care is that nature historically has done a much better job of designing golf courses than has man.  

David,

I have a problem with this since man or woman always decides what part of nature to keep and what part of nature he or she manipulates. Much of the places we love "appear" untouched by the hand of man or woman but the truth is even the old course has been altered more than most on this site would dare to believe.

Nature supplies more variety and much more intresting shapes than man or woman can possibly create but the designer has always played a role in what you experience.

I think many confuse looking natural with being original.
The architect is simply not getting enough credit from you.

Ian

I agree,  Using naturally occurring or left over man-made stuff (walls etc) is architecture if the archie decides to include it in the design.  We can debate all day about what is better, either nature or man-made, but what is important is the archie makes the decisions.  It always bugs me when folks say TOC's creator is god.  No, a lot of work went into creating what we see today and that has everything to do with people. 

Ciao

[David Harshbarger]

David,

I'm with Ian and Sean on the basic premise that man makes golf courses, not nature.  Even the most basic of the early courses wear the mark af Man, from site selection to the decision to cut a hole here, here, and here.  If you call that the extreme of both naturalism, and minimalism, you can start working out along each continuum to locate different practices and results.

I'm curious as to what makes up a result that scores high on artificial?

  Is it the presence of cart paths? 
Artificial mowing lines?
Push up greens?
Retaining walls?
Rakes?
Houses?
Waterfalls?
Flower arrangements?

Hard to think of anything more artificial than binding a course in a ribbon of concrete, but as Tom pointed out, 2 of the worlds top 30 (or 50) courses do so.

As for artificial landforms, take the recently discussed Short.  Yale's 5th is a rectangular push up green surrounded by a sand moat.  Clearly, land shaped for purpose, but widely regarded as good architecture, and quite fun for the game.

From an architects standpoint, it may be the greatest feat to build a course that maximizes both naturalism and process?  To  move a great amount of earth with the result having the appearance that none was moved is agree at testament to the architect's skill.  Assuming, of course, that the course is fun to play.

[Tom_Doak]

From an architects standpoint, it may be the greatest feat to build a course that maximizes both naturalism and process?  To  move a great amount of earth with the result having the appearance that none was moved is agree at testament to the architect's skill.  Assuming, of course, that the course is fun to play.

This is the money quote, and why I think that "minimalism" is still a good term.

At the end of the day, you either agree with that quote, or disagree with it strongly.  I disagree with it strongly; I think the greatest testament to the architect's skill is to figure out a great course without having to move a thing -- even though it can almost never be done.  And I am 100% positive that Bill Coore [and Ben Crenshaw] would agree with my vote. 

If you believe that, you're a minimalist.  How many other architects really believe it?

[Mike Nuzzo]

At the end of the day, you either agree with that quote, or disagree with it strongly.  I disagree with it strongly; I think the greatest testament to the architect's skill is to figure out a great course without having to move a thing -- even though it can almost never be done.  And I am 100% positive that Bill Coore [and Ben Crenshaw] would agree with my vote. 

If you believe that, you're a minimalist.  How many other architects really believe it?

The architects that charge a fee based on construction documents and % of construction don't. 
In truth that would be one valuable routing.

Why isn't David's quote a subset of yours?

[Chris DeNigris]

Tom D- It would seem that much the real skill would be realizing where to draw the line and exercise restraint. I would think that any good piece of property would inherently have a bunch of great golf holes already there, ready to be discovered in the proper routing. The minimalists seem to have the talent and are willing to devote the considerable time to finding these treasured holes. The Maximalists will either not have the talent or time to do the same and will instead create their own blank canvas in which to paint.

The tricky part (again, part of skill) would seem to be to know when you've changed just enough to achieve a great golf course but not too much to cross that blurry lne in pursuit of a "greater" golf course.

Not sure if those thoughts came out clearly

[Jaeger Kovich]

If you haven't read it in a while and are following this thread there are 2 essays (among many others) on the Renaissance Golf website that are good to revisit from time to time...

The Minimalist Manifesto ... http://dev.brightbridge.net/RGD/selected_essays/play_it_as_it_lies/ and Minimalism Defined... http://dev.brightbridge.net/RGD/thoughts/minimalism_defined/

[David Harshbarger]

From the "Play it as it Lies" essay:

A variety of stances in the fairway is a key challenge of golf, and Nature is much better at providing this variety than the hand of man.

This quote epitomizes to me the money behind the money quote, in the idea that as a craftsman, if the architect has to manufacture a hole, if what is left behind is as though Nature in all her mysteries shaped the land, that is a mark of greatness. 

Tom, is that consistent with your approach at the Rawl's course, where from how they describe it on their site, the course was spun from whole cloth to transform a cotton field into plains tumbling into valleys and canyons?

Going back to Ian's question, is the result Minimalist if the result's qualities are Naturalistic, even if the process is invasive?

Chris, I agree that where this gets interesting is when you chart, a la David's Ascii-graph, Minimalist-Maximilist X Bad-Great.  If you are trying to maximize Minimalism and Greatness at the same time, that would push you towards the upper left corner of the second quadrant.  What do you do when hit that barrier that says you can't get more Great without being less Minimal?  Do you stop?  Do you, as JN suggests, maximize the Great, (why wouldn't you?)?  Or, as Tom suggests in the Minimalist Manifesto, just ignore the process question and encapsulate dirt moving in pursuit of a Minimalist outcome as Minimalist by definition?

The minimalist's objective is to route as many holes as possible whose main features already exist in the landscape, and accent their strategies without overkilling the number of hazards. Sometimes, though, the best solution for the course as a whole may require major earthmoving on a handful of holes to connect the others. That's minimalism, too.

Try this thought:

What if some crazy rich eccentric decided to build an exact, and I mean EXACT, replica of TOC out in at his desert retreat.  Laser mapping tools are brought in to capture an exact model of every wrinkle and fold.  No expense is spared to duplicate that model on site, including adding giant thermal pumps in massive lakes to create shifting winds, and massive sprayers to simulate rain. 

Is the result Minimalist?  Naturalistic?  Artificial?  Great?

Whatever it is, it would certainly seem weird to call it Great, even if the golf values were every bit the same as the golf values at the TOC.  Why?  Because the greatness is not born out of the place.  Again, from the Minimalist Manifesto:

If you want to judge whether a particular designer is really comfortable in the minimalist style, ask him what he does when a hole has no natural feature to build upon. The real minimalist will respond that he's never faced that situation -- he'll always find something, whether it's the length of the hole, or a small hump, existing vegetation, or simply the direction of the prevailing wind -- and expand upon that to create an interesting golf hole.

Replicating TOC violates the essential spirit of Minimalism, it would seem, by failing to first honor the gifts of the space, to accentuate what makes the site unique, to acknowledge the site's sense of place. 

[Tom_Doak]

From the "Play it as it Lies" essay:

A variety of stances in the fairway is a key challenge of golf, and Nature is much better at providing this variety than the hand of man.

This quote epitomizes to me the money behind the money quote, in the idea that as a craftsman, if the architect has to manufacture a hole, if what is left behind is as though Nature in all her mysteries shaped the land, that is a mark of greatness. 

Tom, is that consistent with your approach at the Rawl's course, where from how they describe it on their site, the course was spun from whole cloth to transform a cotton field into plains tumbling into valleys and canyons?

Going back to Ian's question, is the result Minimalist if the result's qualities are Naturalistic, even if the process is invasive?

Chris, I agree that where this gets interesting is when you chart, a la David's Ascii-graph, Minimalist-Maximilist X Bad-Great.  If you are trying to maximize Minimalism and Greatness at the same time, that would push you towards the upper left corner of the second quadrant.  What do you do when hit that barrier that says you can't get more Great without being less Minimal?  Do you stop?  Do you, as JN suggests, maximize the Great, (why wouldn't you?)?  Or, as Tom suggests in the Minimalist Manifesto, just ignore the process question and encapsulate dirt moving in pursuit of a Minimalist outcome as Minimalist by definition?

The minimalist's objective is to route as many holes as possible whose main features already exist in the landscape, and accent their strategies without overkilling the number of hazards. Sometimes, though, the best solution for the course as a whole may require major earthmoving on a handful of holes to connect the others. That's minimalism, too.

Try this thought:

What if some crazy rich eccentric decided to build an exact, and I mean EXACT, replica of TOC out in at his desert retreat.  Laser mapping tools are brought in to capture an exact model of every wrinkle and fold.  No expense is spared to duplicate that model on site, including adding giant thermal pumps in massive lakes to create shifting winds, and massive sprayers to simulate rain. 

Is the result Minimalist?  Naturalistic?  Artificial?  Great?

Whatever it is, it would certainly seem weird to call it Great, even if the golf values were every bit the same as the golf values at the TOC.  Why?  Because the greatness is not born out of the place.  Again, from the Minimalist Manifesto:

If you want to judge whether a particular designer is really comfortable in the minimalist style, ask him what he does when a hole has no natural feature to build upon. The real minimalist will respond that he's never faced that situation -- he'll always find something, whether it's the length of the hole, or a small hump, existing vegetation, or simply the direction of the prevailing wind -- and expand upon that to create an interesting golf hole.

Replicating TOC violates the essential spirit of Minimalism, it would seem, by failing to first honor the gifts of the space, to accentuate what makes the site unique, to acknowledge the site's sense of place. 

David:

I would not call The Rawls Course minimalist, and I'm not sure I would call it naturalist, either.  It's simply the result of taking a minimalist architect to a dead-flat site and telling him to create something from scratch.  We did try to create a landscape for the course that included a lot of random elements, but it's impossible for me to judge how well we managed to pull that off.

As to your last example, I've argued with Ran about it on more than one occasion, but to me, a great course has to have something about it that is really unique.  Usually, that is derived from the site it inhabits, as it's difficult to keep inventing new design styles for each new project.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom D- It would seem that much the real skill would be realizing where to draw the line and exercise restraint. I would think that any good piece of property would inherently have a bunch of great golf holes already there, ready to be discovered in the proper routing. The minimalists seem to have the talent and are willing to devote the considerable time to finding these treasured holes. The Maximalists will either not have the talent or time to do the same and will instead create their own blank canvas in which to paint.

The tricky part (again, part of skill) would seem to be to know when you've changed just enough to achieve a great golf course but not too much to cross that blurry lne in pursuit of a "greater" golf course.

Not sure if those thoughts came out clearly

Chris:

That came out perfectly, to my reading.  You are pretty much always going to have to change something on the site in order to make a great golf course -- Mr. Nicklaus' question was essentially, once you've started that, why choose to stop somewhere else on minimalist grounds, if you really think you could make the course better by doing more?

The problem with that approach is that, if left to their own devices, many architects would just keep changing the ground on every hole until their golf courses all looked about the same.  That's one reason I have an issue with golf course rankings in general -- if you try to define what "perfect" is, then you are telling everyone they should keep changing things to work toward a particular goal.  And in that respect, I would tend to agree with Mike Young's view that the ODG architects didn't really have everything down as pat as their fans today believe -- their genius was precisely that though they didn't know exactly where they were going in pursuit of greatness, they made some great choices about when to stop.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom - I think opening that door absolves the architect from having to think outside his comfort zone (i.e. the kinds of holes he tends to like and has had success with in the past.)  With writers or musicians or painters, staying within one's comfort zone may produce repetitive and boring work, but it may also produce works of greatness (since the subject/themes are completely of the artist's own choosing, and so he may one day choose particularly well and thus bring to bear his well-worn craft on a powerful theme/narrative).  In gca, on the other hand, not leaving one's comfort zone can only mean one thing -- that the resulting course can't possibly spring up from, or best utilize, the site at hand (a site which in most cases is not of the architect's choice).  Since each new site is, by definition, a brand new experience/canvas for that architect, the site actually does take the architect outside the realm of the known/familiar/comfortable -- unless, that is, he immediately chooses to open the door to radically re-shaping the site into a much more familar form.  The ODGs for the most part didn't have that choice, and rarely opened that door; and the results are that sometimes ,yes, the canvas proved too much of a challenge, too far outside their comfort zone -- but that, at many other times, they accepted and rose to the challenge and thus produced greatness.

Peter  
PS - I've read here that Mr. Nicklaus' styles/courses have evolved over time, and that even in the last few years he's been doing some work that, for him, is quite different.  I think that's a testament to the man -- for someone in his 70s who has worked in the profession for so long and with so much success to even be willing to go outside his comfort zone is admirable, and the sign of a top-flight professional.

[Sean_A]

"...but to me, a great course has to have something about it that is really unique.  Usually, that is derived from the site it inhabits, as it's difficult to keep inventing new design styles for each new project."

Tom, this to me is the money quote even if I can't quite get my head around it.  Do you really mean a great course has to be unique in some way?  Perhaps you are right and your idea of unique drills in deeper to details than I would consider.  Could you please explain this concept further?  For instance, you clearly think Muirfield is great so you must think it has unique qualities.  Use Muirfield in your explanation if possible.

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom Doak,

Not sure minimalistic process has anything to do with rankings, and of course, there were no real rankings (although there were some best of lists even back then, by esteemed golf writers) so the ODG just did what they thought was best for their golf courses, no?

I think "perfect" varies from site to site, and the potential to reach it varies from near impossible on some, to nearly attainable on others. (In other words, agreeing with the notion that you need a great site to have a great golf course. 

Chris,

Some would say a very good golf course on a very average site is the real test of an architects skill, but I agree in most cases, knowing when a bit more is too much is always a big key to great design.

As per above, there really are no perfect routings.  On most sites, there could be a dozen different good ones.  How to choose?  TD might choose on the basis of which one minimizes work.  Someone else might favor a routing with the most spectacular "signature hole" while accepting that there is more work to do on perhaps five other holes.  Someone else might choose one based on it being the safest, the longest, or the shortest to walk from green to tee.  Obviously,  most routings have most of those things, but the final choice between similar or nearly equal but different routings comes down to what the architect favors.

Once set with the routing (save perhaps minor tweaks, although from time to time you read about big changes later) the same process starts all over again in feature design, with different criteria.  I suppose the minimalistic grading work for any green site, for example includes:

1.  Grading to:
     Level (decrease or increasing the natural slope) of most of the green area to 1.5-3% (or whatever....)
     Raise or Lower for Vision
     Cut off up hill drainage from crossing the green
     Create ADA ramp for access as required by law
     Tie any surrounds back into existing grade.

From here, I suppose even Bill, Ben and Tom would agree that if you were going to do that much, you would grade to add bunkers or other hazards (mounds, banks, bumps, slopes) for strategic interest, trying to use what was there, but modifying for better golf.  Ditto for the actual green surface.  Minimalism might be creating the functional green, but why not add interesting contours while grading the sub grade and/or coring for a sand base?

The real difference, I surmise betweeen TD and JN would be what would influence the above changes or more work.  TD might be more influenced by the nature of the surrounding grade while JN might be more influenced by how the wind affects a shot, or the fact that the last approach favored a fade, and this one might need to favor a draw, etc.

So, in a way, minimalism is a state of mind, a belief in what is more important.  The question for my "theoretical example" is what makes for a better golf course?  Follow the land, or create the shots?  In many cases, shot balance can be created, and there is no such thing as "perfect shot balance" nor the need for a course to balance left and right shots, etc. (although Pete Dye always tried to do this, and most other gca's try, if not as hard)

Like I said before, minimalism MUST be the best description of the subtle differences these guys do, because it came out of someone's mouth, and it has stuck for 10 years or more.

Fascinating subject.....as usual, no clear answer.

[Ian Andrew]

Like I said before, minimalism MUST be the best description of the subtle differences these guys do, because it came out of someone's mouth, and it has stuck for 10 years or more.

Michael Jackson called "himself" The King of Pop. It was repeated after by the man who interviewed him during another interview. Others simply added the tag line to their own copy since it was what they heard. Eventually the label Jackson choose stuck. I prefer Wacko Jacko myself...
 
I would love to find out the origins of the the label.

Anyone know who coined the phrase and when?

[paul cowley]

No...I don't think you can...they are hardly synonymous. I would leave them alone and let each evolve on their own. There's room IMO.

[Tom_Doak]

Like I said before, minimalism MUST be the best description of the subtle differences these guys do, because it came out of someone's mouth, and it has stuck for 10 years or more.

Michael Jackson called "himself" The King of Pop. It was repeated after by the man who interviewed him during another interview. Others simply added the tag line to their own copy since it was what they heard. Eventually the label Jackson choose stuck. I prefer Wacko Jacko myself...
 
I would love to find out the origins of the the label.

Anyone know who coined the phrase and when?

The origin of the minimalist label?  I thought everyone knew that.  It was in a piece that Ron Whitten wrote for GOLF WORLD.  I've still got it in my office, but I'm on the road for a few days so I can't tell you the date right now; I think it was from 1994 or possibly 1995.  It was written while Coore and Crenshaw were building Sand Hills, I think.  The picture on the cover of the magazine was of Stonewall ... which gave me a good laugh, because they used a picture of the hole where I had to move the MOST dirt I'd ever moved, on the 8th hole which we'd inherited from Tom Fazio's routing. 

[Tom_Doak]

"...but to me, a great course has to have something about it that is really unique.  Usually, that is derived from the site it inhabits, as it's difficult to keep inventing new design styles for each new project."

Tom, this to me is the money quote even if I can't quite get my head around it.  Do you really mean a great course has to be unique in some way?  Perhaps you are right and your idea of unique drills in deeper to details than I would consider.  Could you please explain this concept further?  For instance, you clearly think Muirfield is great so you must think it has unique qualities.  Use Muirfield in your explanation if possible.

Ciao

Sean:

Yes, I believe that the best courses each have a character of their own.  [Uniqueness is the ideal, but that's a pretty high bar -- and if you succeed at it someone else will just immediately try to copy what you did, anyway.]  Just think about Pine Valley, Augusta, and St. Andrews ... can you think of three golf courses that are more different than those?

I think Muirfield achieves this, between the placement and quality of its bunkering, the variation of its routing in terms of direction which beats most other links hands down, and the views that you get across the Firth of Forth from the tilted plane of its site.  There isn't another links that feels much like it.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom - I think opening that door absolves the architect from having to think outside his comfort zone (i.e. the kinds of holes he tends to like and has had success with in the past.)  With writers or musicians or painters, staying within one's comfort zone may produce repetitive and boring work, but it may also produce works of greatness (since the subject/themes are completely of the artist's own choosing, and so he may one day choose particularly well and thus bring to bear his well-worn craft on a powerful theme/narrative).  In gca, on the other hand, not leaving one's comfort zone can only mean one thing -- that the resulting course can't possibly spring up from, or best utilize, the site at hand (a site which in most cases is not of the architect's choice).  Since each new site is, by definition, a brand new experience/canvas for that architect, the site actually does take the architect outside the realm of the known/familiar/comfortable -- unless, that is, he immediately chooses to open the door to radically re-shaping the site into a much more familar form.  The ODGs for the most part didn't have that choice, and rarely opened that door; and the results are that sometimes ,yes, the canvas proved too much of a challenge, too far outside their comfort zone -- but that, at many other times, they accepted and rose to the challenge and thus produced greatness.

Peter  
PS - I've read here that Mr. Nicklaus' styles/courses have evolved over time, and that even in the last few years he's been doing some work that, for him, is quite different.  I think that's a testament to the man -- for someone in his 70s who has worked in the profession for so long and with so much success to even be willing to go outside his comfort zone is admirable, and the sign of a top-flight professional.

Peter:

I had to think about what you wrote for a little while, but you are right.  For Jack Nicklaus, going outside his comfort zone meant doing less sometimes, and he has tried ... although I think he still struggles with it, philosophically.

For me, it was precisely the opposite.  Going out of my comfort zone meant being open to doing a bit MORE on a couple of holes, to make the whole course work out better.  I didn't really have the confidence to do that until after Pacific Dunes, and I still struggle with it philosophically on a project like The Rawls Course, where 100% of everything has to be created.  [That's just not my cup of tea, just like I can't imagine Jack would ever do a course where he moved NOTHING.]  But, gaining the confidence to do MORE when more was really beneficial, was a huge step forward for me.  The fourth hole at Tumble Creek is one example where making a big change on a single hole made six holes around it fit perfectly; the seventh at Old Macdonald is another; and there are several examples of it at Ballyneal.  Streamsong will have a couple, as well. 

These are not examples of just fighting grade to make a hole work -- they are bigger leaps of faith, to gain something larger for the course as a whole, ironically because they saved us from having to fight grade on some of the surrounding holes.

[Ben Sims]

What a great thread.  I've spent a couple days digesting it and trying to collect my opinions into a coherent idea and I haven't been able to.  I am--and have been for a couple years now--dealing with issues of reconciliation between what I consider competing ideals.  

--How can someone espouse the ideals of minimalism/naturalism and think CB Macdonald or Seth Raynor were "right" about their theories?  

--Why doesn't anyone ever talk about the gradual but highly apparent assimilation or softening of features on older golf courses?  This must be part of the reason that many golden age courses blend so well.  Right?  The ODG's get too much credit for the maturity of their golf courses.

--Why did minimalism--as it is popularly known--become pigeonholed into a particular aesthetic?  That's not what it is about at all!

--Does a man enjoy discovering something wonderful or is he more interested in experiencing something wonderful?  By the way, I'm becoming more cynical about this question and think its answer will define golf architecture's future.

--Most importantly, is the golf ball's reaction to the land more important than the manner in which the land was crafted?  Again, the answer for the vast majority of golfers scares me for the future of my idea of golf.  

I am in the process of finalizing my thesis in my masters program.  When I saw Tom write the quote below in post #43, it encapsulated what I am trying to do.  Interestingly, I can't find a single professor that is willing to commit to it as a good idea.  Even worse, I am having a very hard time being innovative enough in finding a way to quantitatively analyze the idea of minimalism.  This is the crux of minimalism's ambiguity and is why I consider it NOT in the mainstream, which is opposite to Ian's opinion that it is.  I don't think anyone has been able to elegantly and simply identify why it is better to build a golf course in the manner quoted below.  This saddens me, because in my mind, it should be self-evident that caring about the land and only being as intrusive as is necessary to build a fun golf hole is the right way to do it.  The opposite school of thought seems like hacking off an arm because you have a splinter in your index finger.  

I'm still getting to the point of really understanding the sustainable part...A lot of sustainability is just a matter of practicality, which is sorely lacking in how many modern courses are built...But that practicality has effects throughout the rest of the project, and I've always understood that.  If you don't tear up an area in the construction process, you don't have to irrigate it or re-landscape it or fertilize it -- but you've also preserved the ecology and the microorganisms in the soil, and you've saved another place from being mined, and you've saved the fuel to move the materials from A to B, and the damage that traffic would cause on your site.  It's like a domino effect, except we are winding the tape backward and setting the dominoes back up instead of knocking them over in the modern approach.

Sadly, I have yet to have a single client who really appreciates this aspect of what we do, except as how it impacts the bottom line.

[JC Urbina]

In my early years  I always assumed that the more dirt you moved on the golf course the better the outcome.

Then I read a quote in one of my favorite golf books about 20 years ago and it really changed my outlook on golf course design.

It reads something like this.


"When we build golf courses we are remodeling the face of nature, and it should be remembered that the greatest and fairest things are done by nature and the lesser by art"

Robert Hunter