Mark,
I think you'll see the results loud and clear of what I'm defining in the "Rate C&C's courses" thread, where the courses on the best land and/or best ambiance rose to the top while those on lesser quality land inhabiited the lower end.
Even Tom Doak agreed with someone's contention that the differentiator was largely the type of soils, landforms, etc., and not anything really in the direct control of the architect.
I said "pure" minimalist philosophy because here's what I think I mean.
It's easy to say, let's not touch much on great land. Then, it mostly becomes the task of the architect to put together a great routing to match, some interesting and challenging shots, and final details.
However, that same approach to boring or placid land is an exercise in quickly diminishing returns. It's like trying to play a poker hand holding a 2, 8, and 10 of different suits.
Garden City took the approach of having the holes be very minimalistic in terms of shaping, but then having minefields of deep bunkers influencing play...ditto Oakmont. Is that minimalist by definition??
If someone can name me a great course on blase land where either 1) a ton of bunkers haven't been brought in to create strategic interest, or 2) Greens haven't popped unnaturally out of the landscape like upside down saucers shedding slightly misplayed or miscalculated shots in every direction, or worse, having all sorts of contrived bumps, swales, and rolls when the surrounding land is dead level, or 3) a preponderance of water hazards in use, please point me in that direction.
