Specific Skills for Minimalists

[Peter Nomm]

I spent the last two days playing the Watson Course at the Ginn Reunion Resort in Orlando.  Honestly I really enjoyed the course, but no question it was not created by moving only a couple of shovels of dirt.  

It was evident that they did a nice job of tying in all the countours and creating interesting playing surfaces.  But a few of the holes made me think that when building a course like that, it could probably be relatively easy to invent a hole in order to complete the job.

So my question to the group, in particular to the architects, is what do you see as the main differences in the difficulty of "finding a golf course" versus "inventing" one?

[John Moore II]

I would say that true minimalism requires a great site to work with. On a poor site, some fabrication is required. I think that is the key difference. C&C a great site at Sand Hills. Doak had a great site a Pac Dunes. They simply fashioned the holes in the best order. Given a poor site, they would not have been able to do the same, see Pete Dye at Whistling Straits. I think that it is just as easy to invent a golf course as it is to find one, depending on the land that is given to the architect.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Communication - it is harder to describe instructions vs. handing over a set of plans.
Patience - it takes a lot longer to get the routing correct and for each hole to fit in its surrounds.

[Jordan Wall]

I would say that true minimalism requires a great site to work with.

I dont believe this to be true.  Great minimalist courses come from great sites.  But I am sure there are also some mediocre courses out there that are 'minimalist' as well.  Minimalist simply means that the golf course rests on the land that was there to begin with little or no work done to sculpt any part of the course.  Not every site has to be great, and even mediocre sites can result in a minimalist golf course.  I dont think there is really such thing as 'true minimalism' either.  It just is or it isn't.

On a poor site, some fabrication is required. I think that is the key difference.

Not all poor sites need to have fabrication.  A poor site can be a big, flat, and somewhat mundane, but in reality there are poor sites which a minimalist course could be built.  I just dont buy that minimalism has to happen on a great site.  I think that if the site is not great, the course cannot be great as a minimalist course, but the course itself can still be minimalist.

 C&C a great site at Sand Hills. Doak had a great site a Pac Dunes. They simply fashioned the holes in the best order.

Given a poor site, they would not have been able to do the same, see Pete Dye at Whistling Straits.

Are you saying Whistling Straits was or is a poor site?

 I think that it is just as easy to invent a golf course as it is to find one, depending on the land that is given to the architect.

Finding a course, especially on a great site, can be almost more difficult than inventing one a course on a mediocre site, simply for the reason that there should not be any weak holes on the course at all.  That would seem like a lot of pressure when designing a course.  Plus, to really 'find' a golf course, it takes a lot of searching, to find the perfect combination of 18 holes, and to make the golf course equal to the site.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I don't think minimalism has anything to do with "finding a golf course" versus "inventing" one...

...But I do think it has something to do with creating the "appearance" that it has just been found... To do that, the detail has to be just right... and to ensure that, the relationship between Designer and Contractor needs to be strong.

[Tom_Doak]

Ally:

I think it has everything to do with "finding a golf course" or at least finding a few holes where everything is already is the right places.

I do take exception to Jordan's leap of logic that a minimalist course on a less than great piece of ground will turn out "mediocre".  You would characterize Winged Foot or Plainfield or Olympic as minimalist if they were built today, and none of them are on an exceptional piece of property, but most people think they rise far above mediocrity.

I am not sure how to answer Peter's general question, though.  I really don't understand what's so hard about it.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Tom,

I think I was taking my answer to extremes and being over literal about it. I acknowledge that "finding the golf course" does present more than half the solution.

But the term in my mind refers to the finished product, not the process of how you got there.

e.g. Take that Bandon Trails green site that was discussed here last week and appeared to be a perfect natural fit... You educated all by revealing that it had been built up from 20 feet of fill...

I may be missing a trick here but that is how I would choose to use the word...

[Peter Nomm]

I am not sure how to answer Peter's general question, though.  I really don't understand what's so hard about it.

Tom - I guess the crux of my question is this - does creating a course from nothing appear to be more difficult to accomplish, where in fact "finding" one really is because the architect is limited to pretty much what he has to work with.

All these "grand" creations are recognized and given accolades for their stature when really all the architect had to do was say "build me a mountain or a valley here."  (Certainly there are skills needed, especailly I would assume from the shapers).  But the ability to use the terrain to create great golf is more of an art requiring patience, and the ability to imagine multiple scenarios and then choose the best one.

[Jeff_Mingay]

With the current popularity of the term "minimalist", I think a lot of people fail to realize the extent of (crafty and artistic) construction work that takes place, here and there, to make a so-called "minimalist" course work, over 18-holes.

As has been stated here before, many people would be surpirsed to learn about some of the earthwork and reshaping required to create Sand Hills and Bandon Trails for example. A recent thread discussed the large fill made to create the 13th green at Trails. This is a credit to the talents of Coore and Crenshaw, and their crew, who are able to create artificial features that sincerely appear natural.

Without specific details, I presume Tom Doak and co. did the same, here and there, at places like Pacific Dunes, Barnbougle, and Ballyneal (?), knowing what we've done as well, at places like Blackhawk and Wolf Creek and Sagebrush.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

Perhaps you yourself would be surprised about "some of the earthwork and reshaping required to create Sand Hills," for example.  Where were big things done there, exactly?  I know of a couple, but even those I would hesitate to describe as big, even by the standards of olden days.

I think you are right, most golfers don't recognize where big earthmoving happened in places like Pacific Dunes -- but for that matter, they don't recognize it on most other courses, either, unless somebody has plopped down a bunch of giant mounds a la Grand Cypress.  They have to turn minimalism into a "look" because they can't tell the difference in approach.

I'll start a separate thread about Pacific Dunes.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Tom, would you agree with this definition of minimalist architecture?:

"sort out what your highest priority architectural requirements are, and then do the least you possibly can to achieve them! That is, you should keep your architecture decision set as small as possible, while ensuring that your key system priorities are met."

I guess I may be looking at it wrongly. What I am talking about is a natural look as opposed to a minimalist approach.

[Tom_Doak]

Ally:

No, I wouldn't agree with you.  If you've got to raise the right side of a green four feet to make it work, that's not going to look natural -- but if you put a bit more dirt over there to create a small knob to hold it up, you will be more likely to fool people.  So it's not about doing "the least you possibly can".

Philosophically, though, I would say that the goal is to locate the holes so there are as many natural features as possible and so you don't have to do artificial work as often.  I'd rather make one big change than three much smaller ones -- as long as I can figure out how to make the one big change tie in, I've got more chance of pulling that off seamlessly than trying to make three separate changes.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Tom,

That is not my definition - I was just asking your opinion on it.

You seem to be saying now that creating the natural "look" in your example is minimalist architecture which appears opposite to what you said in your previous post....

I am confused as to whether you (and others) define minimalist architecture by the finished "look" or the "approach" (whilst realising that these two often go hand in hand).

I think I may refrain from using the term because everyone has a different view of it. Of course, I may be missing the point.

Ally

EDIT: I've reread your post and realise that you are talking about the approach to obtain the look

[Ryan Farrow]

Tom, say you decide to perch a bunker into that 4 ft. of fill on the right side of the green. In your experience does that make a hole look more or less manufactured than if you were to leave that slope as is. I noticed how dramatic it can make a hole look when I was working with a Photoshop montage for work on a bunker restoration plan, I'm just not sure how natural it will look. Is this something you have ever done? I remember talking to Eric about a few greens that were raised at Rock Creek like 2 and 18 and how you guys worked out the problems. I just don't remember a knob.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Jeff:

Perhaps you yourself would be surprised about "some of the earthwork and reshaping required to create Sand Hills," for example.  Where were big things done there, exactly?  I know of a couple, but even those I would hesitate to describe as big, even by the standards of olden days.

I think you are right, most golfers don't recognize where big earthmoving happened in places like Pacific Dunes -- but for that matter, they don't recognize it on most other courses, either, unless somebody has plopped down a bunch of giant mounds a la Grand Cypress.  They have to turn minimalism into a "look" because they can't tell the difference in approach.

I'll start a separate thread about Pacific Dunes.

Tom,

I didn't say anything about "big things" happening at Sand Hills. But I, too, know of some work done there that some people might find surprising in the scope of "minimalist" architecture. That's all.

[Philippe Binette]

I think the specific skill needed on minimalist courses is time and creation on site (although not exclusive to minimalist courses)

the thing is
you can built a non-minimalist (moving a lot of dirt) course with a lot of golf-creative shapers and architect spending a lot of time on site

but

you can't but a minimalist course without spending a lot of time on site, since a lot will come out of stuff that can't be seen on plans.

One question: all those minimalist course, they have to built a pond for water... if they don't include it in the scheme of the course is it minimalism...