I still feel that the idea of "minimalism" is basically somewhat misunderstood. I think there're two types of minimalism.
One, a golf course such as Sand Hills where it's a known fact that the golf holes really are basically all natural landforms that were well identified and utilized and that the quantity of earth movement there really was very minimal.
Two, a course perhaps like Shinnecock where there may have been much more earth movement but in such a way that it's almost impossible to detect. Why is that? Because the architect used probably a good deal of earth movement to cut and fill, to build up in some instances golf holes that just appear to be minimalist. How does he do that? By really studying how to TIE IN his earthmoving architecture into those natural grades, slopes, twists and turns, as if nothing had been done.
Maximalism, is something that uses massive earth-movement but it's patently obvious, certainly to a fairly studied eye not just how much has been done but what and where it was done. This kind of architecture looks created and some architects obviously think that's a good thing--perhaps something to be proud of. They obviously think it's OK to show exactly what they did move and how well it works and in some cases that is true, and their holes and courses often turn out to prove that to be true!
There's no question that both minimalisitic architecture and maximalistic architecture can play both good and bad, though, so either one is never the final story!
If you want two really great examples of minimalistic architecture I'd give you both the 14th green and the 18th green at Shinnecock, particularly #18. That green sits into its overall "situation" in an absolutely gorgeous and natural way. I have a real good idea what Flynn did with #14 green because I've read about what he did but I'd have to check the contour map of Shinnecock again to determine if he did a lot on #18 green or nothing at all! That's an example of real minimalistic architecture to me.
Here're two good examples of maximalistic architecture--#7 green and #8 green at NGLA. Not only did Macd/Raynor move a substantial amount of earth for that time on those greens given what they are--the first in flat topography and the other not but it really shows to anyone who looks at either of those greens.
But the real point is how do all those holes--Shinnecock's #14 and #18 and NGLA's #7 and #8 play despite whether they look created or not? They all play just great and time has definitely confirmed that.