[Andy Hughes]

I gather I am supposed to be a fan of it, but what exactly is minimalism?
Is it golf course architecture that moves very small amounts of earth?
Is it golf course architecture that appearsto have only moved small amounts of earth?
Or something else entirely?
And what exactly is wrong with moving huge amounts of earth to createa  course (leaving aside the cost) if the end result is a good course?
Clearly, Pacific Dunes is considered to be a minimalist course. Why?
Is Tobacco Road?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Great question Andy!

Some here look at whispy bunker edges and call that minimalism, some look at any lack of containment and call that minimalism, and others consider it moving little earth. Others might say a minimum of artifical hazards, period.

I recall Tom Doak in a 1994 Golf World article saying that he occaisionally would move a lot of earth to create a miniimalistic look (not an exact quote) so the moving earth thing can't quite be it, by most peoples standards.

I think some folks consider an attempt to replicate the Golden Age minimalism, but isn't that more "classicism?".  Perhaps a good technical definition of minimalism would be moving as little earth as possible, using every ridge and fold of ground as hazards and building as few articfical hazards as possible. Given the variety of sites, those numbers could vary, and courses could be minimalist if moving 10,000 or 500,000 yards of dirt, depending on site conditions, as long as they didn't move anymore than was necessary.

Really, in the end, I guess if the definition of minimalism is fuzzy, no one really gets hurt, so I'm not going to get a headache over any of it.  It will be interesting to see what answers you get.

[Tom_Doak]

Andy:  By now the term has been used by so many people in so many different situations that it has started to lose any meaning.

I think the central tenet of minimalism is that you are trying to find as many golf holes as possible where you don't have to do any grading other than to build greens, tees, and bunkers.  VERY few golf courses are more minimalist than that ... only Sand Hills and some of the old links were really built without re-contouring all of the greens complexes.

To me a course is more "minimalist" if there are one or two holes which have seen a lot of earthmoving, so that the others wouldn't have to be touched.

But, as Pat Mucci used to say a couple of years back before he knew everything, I could be wrong.

[Adam_F_Collins]

To me, minimalism is an effort to do no more alteration to the land than is necessary to build a good golf course.

In some cases, that might mean moving very little earth - in others, it might mean moving an awful lot.

[Mike_Young]

Tom D once mentioned the to me the idea of building from the inside of a hole out instead of building from the outside of a hole in.  It was my philosophy exactly but I had never expressed it in that manner.  To me it sums up minimalism.  In other words, you do more "finding" of holes than "creating".

[TEPaul]

"Is it golf course architecture that moves very small amounts of earth?
Is it golf course architecture that appearsto have only moved small amounts of earth?"


Andy:

In my mind it is very clearly both those things. Too many people think it's only the first one, in my opinion.

Does a golf architect have to practice minimalism successfully to make great golf courses? Of course not or Macdonald/Raynor would be nobodies and they certainly are not that nor have been.

[TEPaul]

"Is it golf course architecture that appearsto have only moved small amounts of earth?"

Andy:

On that definition of minimalism obviously an architect may need a lot of earth to "tie in" or "tie out" what he makes with surrounding natural grade and slope and contour.

There's no question that many of the great architects of the old days (teens and before) just didn't do that basically because they didn't have the equipment and the wherewithal to do it as they could later. Holes and architecture of that early type is quite identifiable as manufactured or man-made. The best way to see that in most early architecture is to simply go behind greens or man-made architectural features and look at them from the opposite direction from which the golfer comes at them. I call that "going behind the stage set".

But even when architects do use lots of earth to "tie in" or tie out" what they make they probably need to use plenty of artistry in how they do that.

Ron Forse told me an interesting cliche in that vein the other day he picked up from some old architect or somewhere. That cliche of "tying in" naturally is;

"Always remember to change the rate of change"

Obvously the reason for that is Nature itself is generally random in her "lines".

[Jeff_Brauer]

TEPaul,

Is it a TEPaul Post on GCA?  Not usually, but you did a good job of answering a question on minimalism, uh, minimally.  

[George Pazin]

In other words, you do more "finding" of holes than "creating".

This is probably the best definition I've heard yet, at least as how I've always viewed minimalism.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I don't totally agree with "finding holes" as a definition.  That seems more like routing, although using a topo feature near a green as a hazard would also qualify.  I have done many minimalist routings, only moving earth on a few fws for specific reasons, including drainage, visibility, leveling  to playable slopes and getting cut for feature construction.

If Tom Doak, Seth Raynor and I all had the same piece of property, our routings might find the exact same hole in several cases.  However, as we built the green, each would have a different result.  

Tom might put the green at or near ground level, Raynor might build it up with steep banked bunkers and I might put it up 3 feet from ground level and give it a backing mound - both for better definition.

Tom Doaks definition would consider all three minimalist, but I suspect only Tom Doak's green would be considered minimalist by others.  So, feature design style has to be part of the equation.

[Dave_Miller]

I gather I am supposed to be a fan of it, but what exactly is minimalism?
 

Andy:
Whatever it is one can be sure it is not a debate between TE Paul and Pat Mucci. Nothing minimalist about those.

Best,
Dave

[Rick Shefchik]

It seems to me "minimalism" is more about what it isn't than what it is.

To begin with the most garish example, minimalism isn't waterfalls. It isn't split fairways, unless there's a natural feature such that it makes both strategic and aesthetic sense to offer a way around it on both sides. It isn't a pond that wasn't there before the course was routed. It isn't containment mounding. It isn't uniformly trimmed and unnaturally green rough. It isn't concrete cartpaths. It isn't island or floating greens.

That said, you could design a course with all those elements that I would find greatly enjoyable to play. But my hunch is I'd usually prefer a course with their absense.

[George Pazin]

Jeff -

I could certainly be wrong in my interpretation of Mike's remark, but when coupled with Tom's insight that he is paraphrasing, I took it to mean finding holes as in completely utilizing what nature has given, as opposed to bulldozing for the sake of creating features. Thus, one might "find" the same hole in the routing, but the resulting hole may end up much different.

[RJ_Daley]

Perhaps a good technical definition of minimalism would be moving as little earth as possible, using every ridge and fold of ground as hazards and building as few articfical hazards as possible. Given the variety of sites, those numbers could vary, and courses could be minimalist if moving 10,000 or 500,000 yards of dirt, depending on site conditions, as long as they didn't move anymore than was necessary.--  Brauer

I think the central tenet of minimalism is that you are trying to find as many golf holes as possible where you don't have to do any grading other than to build greens, tees, and bunkers.  VERY few golf courses are more minimalist than that ...

To me a course is more "minimalist" if there are one or two holes which have seen a lot of earthmoving, so that the others wouldn't have to be touched.--  Doak
...building from the inside of a hole out instead of building from the outside of a hole in.  Doak, attributed by Young

In other words, you do more "finding" of holes than "creating". -- Young

All of the above says minimalism to me.  And, it is one other thing in my view.  It is bringing in a great design with a plan to create the best golf for the least amount of expense to construct such.

And, Jeff's thoughts about the three styles of greens complexes using a stereo type Doak, Raynor, Brauer construction in his example surmising that only Doak's would be considered minimalist is fair in my view.  I would only consider the one that achieves and equal measure of interesting play with the least construction, the minimalist.

Jeff, the Raynor example to me of a manufactured platform green complex to get steep banks up from a deep bunker below is the middle road of minimalism in my view, even though it might require more earthmoving than your example - if it offered more strategy or skill in the attempt to negotiate the play onto the green.  Where you divert from the minimalist is in the statement "I might put it up 3 feet from ground level and give it a backing mound - both for better definition."  Why?  I'll concede the degree of how large or in how many pieces that backing mound entails.  But, if you are talking about the "Rees'es pieces" that we sometimes conjure in definition-backing mounds, I honestly think it departs from minimalism more than the platform Raynor due to the shot value, playability aspect.

[Marty Bonnar]

How I chuckle when this hoary old one re-appears. In my (some might say, befuddled) head, I have to place the word 'minimalism' in context. To me, it's always meant a functional, 'do least possible', machine for living, Le Corbusier-esque approach to design:



But, I'm happy to accept that in the 'Great Big World' view of design (NOT only GCA!) that maybe the over-ornate, bejewel every surface, adornment, visually-rich (or maybe over-rich?) is also an acceptable design strategy where it might be in context.



As with all design, fashions come and fashions go, but 'Good' design will always be timeless. Let Minimalism, and High Baroque over-indulgence, compete freely in the marketplace. People will always want to buy Ferraris AND Rolls-Royces...

FBD.

[paul cowley]

 Minimalism is 18 tee markers and cups set in flat ground someplace in Kansas.

[TEPaul]

An email from Jim Wagner of Hanse Design;

Tom
 
It should actually be called MAXIMIZING. Rodney and I started using this term at Boston Golf because the term minimalism has so many meanings and has seemed to lost its' way or "jumped the shark". What you are really trying to do is maximize all aspects of the ground you have to work with. Your using the land to route the course to "minimize" the amount of earthwork necessary to create the best course possible. Some people feel that because minimal earthwork was needed then it is automatically a good golf course. Not true! Then when it comes to the construction process you need to move as much earth as needed to " tie-in" to existing features. Flynn called this "naturalness". Then comes the detail portion of the project---eg integrating all natural on-site elements into the golf course. This could mean everything from transplanting trees, building rock walls (from on-site materials) to using the native vegetation for bunker edges. Really the key is using as many of the existing site elements as possible, MAXIMIZING, when designing and constructing the course. Then matching the grass varieties with the existing site.
 
To many courses/people claim minimalism by moving small amounts of dirt then doing some monochromatic seeding and feel that this is a fine "natural and minimalism" design. What a bunch of bull-shit. This is the main reason we changed the phase. The real Art and Architecture is giving the sense that minimal work has been done when really you maximized the landscape.
 
Anyway, sorry to bore you with all this B.S., but you are one of the few who understands and appreciates some of our random thoughts. Hope all is well. Talk to you soon.
 
Jim Wagner
Hanse Golf

[Tom_Doak]

My associates have been joking for four years about when someone would start using the phrase "maximalist" golf course design!

But we figured it would be Tom Fazio or Dana Fry who said it, not Jim Wagner.

[cary lichtenstein]

I think the architects who have posted on this thread have contributed alot towards defining minimialism...I think they are saying that that it is minimialiam +, or maximizing -.

In other words, do whatever you have to do to the site to make the golf holes really good, move as much or as little dirt as need be, but keep it looking Natural.

So maybe, just maybe "naturalism" might be a better word than minimialism.

Plus I think most eveyone on this site, including myself, would be "Naturalists"

[paul cowley]

...sorry Cary, as much as I would like to join you naturalists I can't cause I have un-natural things in my closet......like ruins, forts, even walls that don't predate the course....I have even been accused of trying to put Davis' career in 'ruins'.

...no, I can't come along but I'll toast y'all from the distance...best of luck.

[Brad Klein]

no.

[DMoriarty]

I find it interesting that the contributing designers are focusing on the process of finding/building the holes and course, while in my experience the players usually tend to focus upon the final look.  

TEPaul,  I really hate to go here, but reading Jim Wagner's post I cannot help but think that it sounds positively Arts and Crafts, what with his emphasis on maximizing the site, using as many on site elements as possible, etc.  

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,  I really hate to go here, but reading Jim Wagner's post I cannot help but think that it sounds positively Arts and Crafts, what with his emphasis on maximizing the site, using as many on site elements as possible, etc."

David:

No reason at all to hate to go there. I couldn't agree more. Jim Wagner is talking, in many ways, about using as much of a site or of that which is on a site as possible and in all that is local or regional to it such as types of natural vegetation and such. I'm certain you're probably aware the extent to which Shackelford did that at Rustc Canyon with vegatation. That is certainly a form of "regionalism" which, it would seem, was one of the real hallmarks and themes of the entire "Arts and Crafts" philosophy. While it may've been perhaps the central theme of the A&C movement I surely would not say that William Morris or Rushkin, or Horace Hutchinson in golf architecture through Country Life Magazine invented the idea of "regionalism" as an architetural expression in golf architecture. But I'll be glad to ask Jim Wagner and Rodney Hine if they have been inspired by the A&C Movement, Country Life Magazine and Horace Hutchinson to do this kind of thing and to call it "maximalism" instead of "minimalism". Do you suppose Tom MacWood will suggest Jim Wagner call it "Arts and Craftism" instead?  

[Tom_Doak]

At the end of the day, it is ridiculous to attempt to boil down anyone's entire philosophy of golf and golf design into a single word, and have their work on any given site judged on the basis of that word.

[Brad Klein]

Cary, I was answering the question of the thread, minimally.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()