What minimalism means -- or who cares?

[Tom_Doak]

I was asked on the Bandon 3 thread to expound on my definition of minimalism, and where one crosses the line, in my opinion.

There are several definitions.  The strictest of the strict (newcomers to this site) want it to be about pretty much no changes at all to a site.  I guess this is possible every once in a while -- Sand Hills had a bunch of holes where they didn't have to do anything if they didn't want to, and of course a lot of the ancient links pass that test.  One piece of land I've looked at in the last year would probably fit that bill -- you could just go out and mow half a golf course there if you wanted to.

I'm not that strict.  I think it would have been a shame if Coore & Crenshaw had not tacked the fourth green at Sand Hills up on the side of that slope, to bring the left side bunker into play, instead of just building a green in the bowl to the right.  Does that make Sand Hills not a minimalist course?  If it does, then there is no such thing in modern architecture, and you might as well just stop using the word.  (And maybe that would be a good idea ... it's certainly overused today.)

I admire what Eddie Hackett did on some courses in Ireland with virtually no money ... though it is a shameful fact that he destroyed all the natural contour around the greens at Waterville when someone finally came along with some $.  But I am not a proponent of minimalism to the gnat's ass.  If you could build a better greens complex by knocking a dune out of the way, like we did on a couple of occasions at Pacific Dunes, then I believe you'd be a weenie not to do it because of your philosophy.  (It's probably more likely that you wouldn't do it because you're afraid you won't be able to put it back together well enough.)

I'm sure there are some out there who will now call me a hypocrite and try to take this argument to its other extreme -- that you might as well blow up every natural feature because you can do better everywhere if you're just creative enough.  For those people, I'll just say I think that misses the whole point of golf architecture, and end with a word my mom used to use:

Balderdash!

[Michael Moore]

Mr. Doak -

Good question. I have a rant on minimalism and literature gestating, so I will drop that here in due course.

In the meantime, Mr. Paul asked us to ask you what you had learned about architecture from touring pros. I would love to hear about that. To say (as some do here) that PGA tour players ignore architecture is ludicrous.

PS - I played Longmeadow this summer with Milton Reach III, it is a great course and he was a great tour guide.

[T_MacWood]

To me it means.....if you have a good site blessed with interesting natural features and you are strict minimalist (or semi-strict minimalist) chances are you will produce an interesting golf course....if you have a featureless site blessed with nothing and you are strict minimalist chances are you will produce nothing, only a boring golf course. I'm not crazy about the term.

[TEPaul]

The new and purer definition of "minimalism" in golf architecture inspired by some of our contributors is do not touch any natural contours on a site even if they don't work that well for golf. Do not sand-cap any fairways as that might disturb natural contours. If a question arises as to the prospect of disturbing natural contours with sand-capping in the name of better turf conditions and better playing conditions in the future the prudent and proper thing to do is to forget about turf conditions and playing conditions in the future. The absolute purest form of "minimalism" is for architects to require golfers to play into fairways of dense underbrush and dense trees so as never to disturb any natural contours or anything else on the natural site. The first and greatest anti-hero of all "minimalist" architecture and the creator of destructive man-made golf architecture was Alan Roberston when he thoughtlessly cleared back the narrow corridors of TOC to make room for wide and double fairway areas in 1848!

[james soper]

minimalist-natural

[ForkaB]

Tom

There is a very well written essay on this topic at www.doakgolf.com.

Isn't what your are getting at something like the Physician's Rule #!:

"Do no harm."

?

[A_Clay_Man]

The only place I've seen true minimalism used effectively is on a frisbee golf course. Talk about stupid trees.

[MargaretC]

I was asked on the Bandon 3 thread to expound on my definition of minimalism, and where one crosses the line, in my opinion.

There are several definitions...

I'm not that strict.  I think it would have been a shame if Coore & Crenshaw had not tacked the fourth green at Sand Hills up on the side of that slope, to bring the left side bunker into play, instead of just building a green in the bowl to the right.  Does that make Sand Hills not a minimalist course?  If it does, then there is no such thing in modern architecture, and you might as well just stop using the word.  (And maybe that would be a good idea ... it's certainly overused today.)

I admire what Eddie Hackett did on some courses in Ireland with virtually no money ... though it is a shameful fact that he destroyed all the natural contour around the greens at Waterville when someone finally came along with some $.  But I am not a proponent of minimalism to the gnat's ass.  If you could build a better greens complex by knocking a dune out of the way, like we did on a couple of occasions at Pacific Dunes, then I believe you'd be a weenie not to do it because of your philosophy.  (It's probably more likely that you wouldn't do it because you're afraid you won't be able to put it back together well enough.)

I'm sure there are some out there who will now call me a hypocrite and try to take this argument to its other extreme -- that you might as well blow up every natural feature because you can do better everywhere if you're just creative enough.  For those people, I'll just say I think that misses the whole point of golf architecture, and end with a word my mom used to use:

Balderdash!

Tom:

Very well said!  Thank you!  

I have to admit to being somewhat surprised by the "Bandon 3 Thread."  Much more "letter of the law" in defining a term than I expected -- i.e., it appeared as if less than 1 ton of earth is moved = okay; however, if 1 ton and 2 ounces are moved = bad regardless of the result.  

[Don_Mahaffey]

Minimalism is, in my opinion, a theory that is difficult, if not impossible, to define and measure. But I'll take a crack as it pertains to golf course architecture.

Minimalist golf course architecture- The art of producing a QUALITY golf course, specific to it's site, maintainable in a sustainable fashion, using a minimum of resources.

In other words, if the damn thing needs a sand cap to grow good turf then you sand cap it, if it doesn't, you don't. If you have to move some dirt, you do, but not because you own the construction company and work on a %. Golf courses are very site specific and it seems to me that a good architect must first produce a quality course, and second do so with a minimum of inputs. These actions are dependant upon each other and putting the latter before the former is a recipe for disaster, IMO

[Michael Dugger]

I'm am kind of shocked that a few of you still don't seem to be "getting" what Tom is saying.  

Minimalism does not equal natural, necessarily.

If forced to conjur a definition I would say the notion of minimalism is built on the premise that God is the best designer/architect of them all.  

In itself this is a somewhat controversial thing to say, it troubles me that some people really seem to think they can build/create better than mother nature herself.

In the end it comes down to your own personal preference, and because of this the concept of minimalism is eternally flawed because it can be undermined with the simple statement, "I think Rees Jones designs better than mother nature."  

If you truly like what Rees Jones "creates" such as at Sandpines, in Florence, OR, there is no reason to think that a golf course designer ought to strive to preserve "natural" features in their projects.  Just blow up the whole site, create YOUR interpretation of good golf, and move along to the next job.

If you buy into the notion of minimalism, however, you often time can accomplish two important objectives.  One is that you incorporate natural features into the course that would otherwise be difficult, if not impossible, to recreate.  The other is that you increase the chances that you are going to have a low construction budget because you don't have to move as much dirt as you would if you were to completely reface the landscape.

But let's not forget that in any endeavor the most important thing is a quality final product.  As someone earlier pointed out, if that means spreading a layer of sand in the fairways, then so be it.  If that means moving a bunch of dirt, a la #9 at Sand Hills, in order to return the front nine back to the clubhouse, so be it.  

It is here we ought to remember Dr. Mackenzie's immortal words.  In a nutshell, in creating artificial features the designer should strive to make them as much like nature as possible.  

Then again, this is only true provided you think God creates better than Rees, or the Faz.  In the case you are designing a Shadow Creek, most of everything that minimalism stands for gets thrown out the window.  

[Steve Lang]

 

"De minimus" is a common regulatory term used in various environmental programs, a fancy way of stating something is insignificant to the larger picture or issues at hand.  

Same could be said for the term "minimalism", by common definition its not an absolute term, but an approach to solving a problem, in the present subject, to building a golf course or in subsets like routing studies.

I don't care beyond knowing that what comes to one's mind's eye for gettin the ball into the hole is real and fits the setting.   When you get there and look back from where you started it all makes sense in hindsight.

Just think what Matt Ward would think of Florida courses if they really invoked minimalism!

[Jeff_Mingay]

Much of the modern golf architecture that has been labelled 'minimalist' is actually just really good construction work by talented people.

Take Friar's Head for example. I know a few of those (ultra) talented people who happened to do a lot of work with a bulldozer and other equipment to tie the dunes section of the course into the old potato field. The work generally has a very natural appearance, and thus the 'untrained eye' presumes Coore and Crensaw and Co. simply laid all those holes on the inherent landscape. In turn, Friar's Head is labelled 'minimalist'.

That's fine, 'cause I think Doak hit the nail on the head. Who cares. Friar's Head is a great golf course, no matter what they did to create it.

Perhaps the best example of a course falsely being labelled 'minimalist' is Rod Whitman's Wolf Creek in Alberta, Canada. Dozens of golfers have commented on Rod's excellent use of a fantastic property there, at Wolf Creek, and herald the course as true 'minimalist effort'. Rod laughs.

Remember, he came to Wolf Creek having worked with Pete Dye for some 3-4 years previous. He wasn't afraid to move some earth -- as much as it might take to 'build golf' -- and he did. So much of Wolf Creek was manufactured. You just can't tell.

And, again, who cares. The bottom line is, Wolf Creek's a fine golf course.

[tonyt]

regardless of earth moving,

Does it look like it's been there forever?

Obviously features have to be built, but if they look bedded in so that the onlooker believes that only green complexes and some softening of edges has occurred, you may have achieved minimalism.

Like Tom said, total minimalism is a crock, and discourages taking the opportunity of a great hole/green complex or whatever, just because you can't touch anything. What defines it for me is, is that great hole/green complex/landing area or whatever being begged to be built there. If mother nature is showing the opportunity to the architect, it is still minimalistic to sieze that opportunity. If an archie want to just go ahead and do something in their mind, which involves significantly changing the character of the terrain to make it fit, it isn't minimalist.

But the archie doesn't always get a choice, and doesn't always have mother nature showing him boundless numbers of great features. Which is why when Kyle Phillips did Kingsbarns, he had to play a bit more God than Bill & Ben did in Nebraska.

[A_Clay_Man]

Great golf courses have a naturalness about them, regardless of what it took to create them.

[RJ_Daley]

I think the best person to define minimalist is the guy paying for the work.  Take the famous quote by Herb Kohler about Pete Dye's work at Whistling Straits.  "I gave Pete an unlimitted budget, and he exceeded it".  Anti-minimalist

I define minimalist as the architect that is clever enough to see everything the land gives him/her, then does only that which is needed to bring the project to a quality conclusion, in the most "de minimus" manner.  It probably isn't all that unique or amazing that a golf architect or a smart farmer can lay a golf course out "de minimus" over varied terrain.  But, it seems to be rare and that which defines the great architects when they can lay it out, make it work maintenance meld wise, route it taking full and efficient advantage of all the natural features of the land to give not just any golf course where you can bat the ball around; but one that has real enduring merit for demanding the highest qualities of the game.

[Sandy Herd]

Today it is politically correct for every designer to talk about “working with the land.” However, in their next breath, most other designers go on to dismiss minimalism as impractical, except on the most special sites. They lament that the good pieces of land are all gone, and complain about modern environmental restrictions.

For the most part, minimalism is just good common sense, a refusal to let design ideas out of thin air outweigh the realities of the site. Instead of reshaping a severe slope, try to figure out how to use it to make a golf hole interesting. If it’s just too severe,  try a sequence of holes which avoids it entirely. The bulldozer is the third and last option.

This philosophy of design doesn’t mean you can’t work with less-than-perfect properties. On the contrary, when you are dealing with a severely hilly and rocky site, or a dead flat site,   the ability to figure out how to make good golf holes while moving less earth is more important than ever.

Restraint in earthmoving sets off a chain reaction of savings in the overall project budget. Natural areas not only add local character to a golf course, they don’t have to be irrigated or seeded or maintained for the life of the course. Never create pockets which have to be artificially drained when the natural surface drainage will suffice. Every contour that can be left alone saves topsoil stripping and replacement.

 Good detail work goes a long way but move earth when the need arises, whether it’s to add interest to a flat site or to soften a steep one. In fact, you have to be really good at moving earth to conceal what you’ve done, when the surrounding landscape is untouched. Any edge of disturbance, be it a clearing line or a major earthwork, is strenuously examined and finessed until it is blurred beyond recognition. This is the key to producing a new course that looks like it’s been there for 75 years.

The greatest compliment an architect can receive is for someone to look at their work and say, “Well, they had a great site so they didn’t really have to do very much, the course was laying there already.” The truest test of ability is to make the work look easy.

[Craig Van Egmond]

Does Tom get kicked out the minimalist club for his work at Texas Tech? Or did he did the minimum amount of work necessary to make that course on that site?

I think minimalism has become yet another marketing term.

[rgkeller]

I think minimalism has become yet another marketing term.

An arrow of insight to the heart of the matter.

[RJ_Daley]

Whose straw man is Sandy Herd?

[Joe Hancock]

A couple thoughts:

1) I have a newfound respect for TD because he used the word "weenie" in a serious post.

2) Don Mahaffey may have described minimalism, or, to my thinking, described frugality. The latter may be a more appropriate term in what most people on this site believe is a better form of golf course design.

Joe

[Michael Dugger]

I think minimalism has become yet another marketing term.

An arrow of insight to the heart of the matter.

Yeah, no shit Keller, but what is your point?

Do you think every designer approaches their work in the same manner?  

[rgkeller]

"Yeah, no shit Keller, but what is your point?

Do you think every designer approaches their work in the same manner?"

No, but many sell their work as "minimalist" and more applaud their work as such.

[A_Clay_Man]

Craig E- The ten mil Doak spent at TT is minimalistic when compared to TF and others.

I'm telling you that place oozes the question why oh why hasn't it been done before by the great movers of the industry?

[Michael Dugger]

"Yeah, no shit Keller, but what is your point?

Do you think every designer approaches their work in the same manner?"

No, but many sell their work as "minimalist" and more applaud their work as such.

Are you saying there are architect's who push the "minimalist" philosophy but don't actually practice it?

If you think so I'd love to know who  

Is Renaissance Golf Design one of them?
Is C & C?

Isn't this minimalist propoganda initiated by marketers and the media, not the design firms themselves?

To me, it seems you are picking on the wrong people.

[ian]

Gentlemen I must step in with the first truly accurate definition of minimalism.

"It is the opposite of maximalism"

The architecture either appeals to you or it does not. The techniques do not matter, unless your the one paying the bill. Fighting over this term, or the word "restoration" for that matter, is a waste of time. We all know what we like and don't, the more important question is to know why.