[Thomas Dai]

Does it follow that minimalist design means minimalist maintenance?
Or, in order to ensure that a minimalist design remains minimalist on the ground, is significantly more than just minimalist maintenance actually necessary?
Thoughts?
Atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

Others can probably answer better than I, but I doubt it, or at least see no correlation.  There are still 18 tees, greens, and fairways to apply cultural practices to, no matter what the design.


Basically, you can ease maintenance by:


Reducing acres of turf (minimalists seem to be into expanding fairways to huge proportions, although the do reduce the number of different cuts at the same time)


Reducing size and complexity of bunker maintenance, but I think the jagged edge probably takes a lot of time to keep right.


Make the fewest number of steep slopes (i.e., mounds) to keep mowing production high, and I think most minimalist designs would shine here.  Less steep slopes might reduce water consumption, too, perhaps saving cost if they pay for water.


IF they eliminated cart paths, there might be more labor roping, re-sodding, etc.  (Might)


Overall, it is probably a wash, but each case would be different.  We have often tried to quantify savings, but so often, the budget ends up the same as it was, but with emphasis on different areas with the same amount of funds.

[Joe Hancock]

Interesting question. I think some definitions would help the answers;

What is minimalist design?
- Small quantities of earth moved?
- Simple design? Few, if any bunkers, simple shapes of features, etc.?
- Compact....utilization of a small parcel?

What is minimalist maintenance?
- Ease of mowing by virtue of non-abrupt shaping?
- Few mowing heights and/ or lack of complicated mowing?
- Grass selections that don't require daily mowing and/or inputs such as fertilizer, water and pesticides?
-A budget number?

There's probably more....

[Tom_Doak]

It often follows, but minimalist maintenance is mostly a choice ... and some courses will opt to spend much more because of their economics.  I don't think heathland courses are more expensive to maintain, but because most of them are around London, I bet they spend much more on average than the links in the north of Scotland.


Most of the old UK links are minimalist by design, and are also minimalist by maintenance, apart from having to rebuild their revetted bunkers.  I suppose the most rugged terrain ought to be more expensive to maintain, but I can't think of an example where I've seen that ... in the UK the most rugged courses seem to be the rural ones, and they are maintained more ragged.


Jeff's equating of a "jagged edge" bunker with minimalism is off the mark ... bunker styling has zero to do with minimalism.  Also, it's not minimalism that requires roping of courses, but the decision to introduce cart paths in the first place, which thankfully many of my clients have eschewed. 


Wide fairways DO cost more to maintain, but I'm not sure they are required for a minimalist design ... they are just favored by many of us who build that kind of course.

[Joe Hancock]

In my mind, minimalism is a philosophical position that permeates beyond just one or two things in a golf course operation. It's a frugality to do things well with the bare minimum of effort or resources. Minimalism, or frugality, doesn't equate to cheap. It refers to the most efficient utilization of resources, and I think that is the essence of minimalism as it pertains to golf course design and maintenance.

[Peter Pallotta]

In my mind, minimalism is a philosophical position that permeates beyond just one or two things in a golf course operation. It's a frugality to do things well with the bare minimum of effort or resources. Minimalism, or frugality, doesn't equate to cheap. It refers to the most efficient utilization of resources, and I think that is the essence of minimalism as it pertains to golf course design and maintenance.

This is good, and it reminds me of something I'd been thinking of i.e. the subjective vs objective in any art-craft. I think it must be deeply satisfying (subjectively) for an architect to 'find' features and green sites and golf holes and routings. If that architect is a good one and the site inherently well-suited as a field of play, then the resulting course will also be very satisfying for the golfer (objectively) -- providing all that the game of golf is meant to provide along with the emotionally and visually pleasing sense that one is in a natural setting that seems undisturbed for a hundred years.  In a case like this, a (subjectively) admired creative philosophy serves an (objective) purpose. But what happens when the (subjective) good feelings that an architect has about his successfully minimalist approach is met and/or has to deal with the (objective) realities of high maintenance costs and water and nutrients use and expensive membership/green fees?  I think this is what we are in the midst of now and will be ever-more so in the future: a subjective good (adherence to a fine ideal and philosophy on the architect's part) dramatically at odds with an objective good (less use of resources of all kinds).

Peter 

[Thomas Dai]

Thank you for your thoughts.


To move on at perhaps a slight tangent, what about when say longterm water usage causes additional grass/scrub areas to develop. Cut such growth back on an ongoing/regular basis to where things were designed to be? Or say the wind over time changes the location of natural bunkers or sandy areas? Leave alone or regularly return to as designed?


Atb

[JC Urbina]

Joe,


I always try to describe to greens committees and potential clients  the fine line between "Kept" and "Unkept"


What is the tolerance of most members or retail golfers to perceived maintenance practices?


Augusta is a prime example of my term, "Kept"  When I visited the last time, not a blade of grass was out of place, not one visible defect in the presentation.   It was really spectacular to look at.


Do you really want to be the guy who has an "Unkept" golf course.  Balancing that fine line between natural and unnatural.

Kept or Unkept, I wonder what the straw pole numbers would be???

[Mike_Young]

In my mind minimalism just means that most of the course was already there and minimum was needed to get it ready for play.  Like finding it instead of creating it....  But that has zero to do with maintenance....a good example of good but minimal maintenance to me is Belvedere and I mean that as a compliment before someone says I'm slamming the maintenance there...  AND I would consider Belvedere a minimalist course also...

[Tom_Doak]

In my mind minimalism just means that most of the course was already there and minimum was needed to get it ready for play.  Like finding it instead of creating it....  But that has zero to do with maintenance....a good example of good but minimal maintenance to me is Belvedere and I mean that as a compliment before someone says I'm slamming the maintenance there...  AND I would consider Belvedere a minimalist course also...

My "gut check" for minimalism is how much an architect did to the fairways and roughs to create the course.  Contouring greens and building bunkers is a given for almost any site, but on a good piece of land, you ought to be able to lay fairways on the ground.  To borrow from Ali, if it's too plain to drain or too steep to keep, then minimalism is probably not going to work out on that site.


And, yes, I'd call Belvedere a minimalist design ... as were most courses built in the 1920's. 

[Mike Nuzzo]

One of minimalism's key consequences for maintenance is the minimal disruption to the native soils (why Tom specifies the fairways - because there is so much area of disturbance).
Thereby having much better agronomy and natural drainage as compared to a significant construction project.
(this I've learned best from Don & Tom)

[Steve Lang]

   Note, at times there can be some soggy low land areas on the front 9 of Belvedere... both east and west sides from the creek which acts as discharge point for area groundwater.  Not perfect, and not really complaining for our annual play.  I assume someone there has been dealing with it over the years...

[BCowan]

In my mind minimalism just means that most of the course was already there and minimum was needed to get it ready for play.  Like finding it instead of creating it....  But that has zero to do with maintenance....a good example of good but minimal maintenance to me is Belvedere and I mean that as a compliment before someone says I'm slamming the maintenance there...  AND I would consider Belvedere a minimalist course also...

Mike,

  But Belvedere has bent fairways, it can't be truly minimalist.

Minimalist course means one has to have a large maximum size fuel tank vehicle to get to the track and if it's a diesel all the better..   I'm on my 4th diesel.. 

[Thomas Dai]

When will we, maybe we already have in some cases, see so described minimalist courses built over the last 2-3 decades being renovated and is the need for such renovation a criticism of maintenance practices/course management/original intentions?
Atb

[Anthony_Nysse]

Joe,


I always try to describe to greens committees and potential clients  the fine line between "Kept" and "Unkept"


What is the tolerance of most members or retail golfers to perceived maintenance practices?


Augusta is a prime example of my term, "Kept"  When I visited the last time, not a blade of grass was out of place, not one visible defect in the presentation.   It was really spectacular to look at.


Do you really want to be the guy who has an "Unkept" golf course.  Balancing that fine line between natural and unnatural.

Kept or Unkept, I wonder what the straw pole numbers would be???

I think the US Opens in 2014 and 2015 didn't win over the majority of American golfers because of the "unkept" look. They did nothing to inspire new golfers or excite the general public. I think it will be interesting to see Erin Hills and it's more of manicured, unkept look with rugged bunkers and native areas.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tony,


I agree.  I see little public enthusiasm for that much brown.  I have seen some turfgrass presentations, including Jim Moore of the USGA favoring "50 Shades of Green" over "Brown/Yellow is the new Green."  I think educating retail golfers that vibrant green doesn't equal better golf is probably a more practical way to go.

[Tom_Doak]

Tony,


I agree.  I see little public enthusiasm for that much brown.  I have seen some turfgrass presentations, including Jim Moore of the USGA favoring "50 Shades of Green" over "Brown/Yellow is the new Green."  I think educating retail golfers that vibrant green doesn't equal better golf is probably a more practical way to go.

It would make more sense if we stopped talking about color ENTIRELY and just extolled the virtues of a good, firm playing surface, lots of roll-out on the tee shot, and no big fat divots.

[Jim_Kennedy]

It would make more sense if we stopped talking about color ENTIRELY and just extolled the virtues of a good, firm playing surface, lots of roll-out on the tee shot, and no big fat divots.

Wouldn't that be a joyous day.

[Sean_A]

Does it follow that minimalist design means minimalist maintenance?
Or, in order to ensure that a minimalist design remains minimalist on the ground, is significantly more than just minimalist maintenance actually necessary?
Thoughts?
Atb

ATB


I guess I disagree.  For me, true minimalist design would incorporate the opportunity for minimalist maintenance.  I see a lot of what I would call more naturalist design which looks great, but great care and and lots of money is used to create the illusion when the course is playing well beyond "rough n ready".  By minimalist maintenance I mean the seasons, climate and weather are borne out in how the course plays daily. There would be no such goal of trying to achieve consistent presentation regardless of the factors I mentioned...a presentation style I very much equate with the 80s and 90s.


Ciao

[SL_Solow]

Jim and Sean identify the main problem that faces Supers and Greens Chairs at most courses regardless of their status, private, public or muni.  As some of you know, I have served as a Greens Chair and work with Supers and Greens Chairs throughout our region.  No matter what we think, the allure of Augusta in the spring exerts tremendous influence on most golfers.  As Jim notes and as those of us who have been fortunate enough to attend the Masters know, it is a marvelous place.  But the conditions are a result of a confluence of perfect timing, an amazing infrastructure (subair anyone?), a spectacular property and a nearly unlimited budget.  So even if we want to duplicate those conditions, it is almost impossible, particularly for an extended period.  By the same token, it sets a standard which most members ask the professional to try and obtain.  We can talk all we want about educating members, but it is a long process.  Even those who want firm and fast want firm, fast and green.  I don't believe that the form of architectural style can solve this problem.  So all we can do is determine an appropriate budget, educate our members and produce the best product that we can.  Understanding where the money is spent and reducing unnecessary grooming can help to minimize maintenance costs.  But so long as we want ultra fast greens, manicured bunkers, several cuts of rough etc, the architecture will be an afterthought.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()