I think what we are witnessing is someone trying to come to terms with a philosophy they expounded several years ago. What minimalism meant to them back then has evolved, possibly become irrelevant, or restrictive, because they have outgrown the term. Possibly either he wants to shed the stigma, or redefine it in order to make their career appear consistent with their initial foray into the business. Every creative person has the right to mature, evolve, and try their darnest to define themselves as opposed to letting others do that. And, every creative person does not want to appear to have abdicated their responsibility to a movement they helped foster if it still is meaningful to them. Many here are more than willing to let him do that because of hero worship. Or many here struggle with the definition of the term and are willingly to allow the leader of the movement to define what the movement means. Or many here for some God forsaken reason like a guy that uses the term weenie!
A definition of the term might need to start with the historical use of the term in the art and architecture world, for which others on this site are much more qualified to render. This definition when applied to golf architecture may have some important links, but it seems one issue separates golf architecture from the other disciplines in that golf architecture has much to do with the playing of a sport, whereas the other disciplines do not have that element and that seems to be an element that makes golf architecture and its relationship to minimalism profoundly different from other disciplines relationships to the minimalism philosophy. For one, rarely do you see the golf architecture minimalism term “weenie” used in art or architecture, except maybe in the case of a Maplethorpe exhibit, but I am not certain if he was considered a minimalist.