Quote from: Tommy_Naccarato on December 16, 2004, 03:18:15 PM

Have you been to Friar's Head and experienced it to the point where you can justify leaving it off of your list?

There is nothing minimal about Friar's Head. Whatsoever. Behold the maximalist sixteenth green. I could go on . . . Barney did this exercise a few weeks ago with Cusco.

Michael,
This is the problem I have with the understanding of the word, Minimilism in the golf architecture sense.

For me, I find the term more in line with those who are willing to do whatever they feel is neccessary, yet not to do it to the extreme to the point that the subject loses its character to the natural reality. This doesn't mean moving mountains to create in an area of sand dunes, it means things like utilizing the sand dunes for their worth--in this case, as naturally occuring as possible. If it doesn't exist, then create it!  

With Friar's Head and its lower holes, much credit is given to Coore & Crenshaw for creating something out of flat farm land. The point is that features were found on that property and they were utilized to their fullest. Others had to be created to produce the best golf for the areas where it needed to be emphasized. In some cases, it may have to be "trimed down" to make it worthy for golf.

The amazing thing about Friar's Head is that you CAN'T tell what is real and what is created.  I have never had that same feeling on many modern courses. It just doesn't happen often, and frankly, that's the beauty of the site of Friar's Head as well as the genius of Bill Coore & Ben Crenshaw.

At Rustic Canyon, a course I'm somewhat familiar with, I was fortunate to get to know the site before it was a golf course. its interesting to point out to others what is real and what is created. It's 8th hole is anything but Minimilism, yet it looks as if that portion of land that was moved-in and created, had been carved by Mother Nature for years. That's what makes a GREAT golf architect. That to me is what minimilism

The "minimalist" term gets bastardized in the PR/marketing machine of golf??

It came out of the PR/marketing machine, courtesy of Ron Whitten.  It's not like you were using it ten years ago.  The problem is, everything that is said about golf architecture can be used for marketing [and usually is].

6. Please define sycaphantical as it relates to the post.

I mis-spelled, sycophant- and as used I appreciated the post DESPITE its "sycophatical" tendencies, meaning that we as a group tend to admire more strongly one school of GCA and constantly shower this school with praise, to a certain extent the leaders of that school are people of great influence within the GCA world and thus while not blatant, I considered the original post to be a little kiss-ass.

Sycophant - "A servile self-seeker who attempts to win favor by flattering influential people."  

Ok, here I go. From reading this thread and doing a bit of pondering I am going to try to list 10 courses that may fit Mark's question.

Sand Hills: The leader in the new age of golf design. A top course in the world and the US, regardless of the period it was designed.

Shadow Creek: Pretty cool stuff for being in the desert. Totally manufactured, but they did that in the 1920's too.

Rustic Canyon: Others are more qualified to comment than I am on this course.

Wild Horse: Open landscaped. Firm and fast. Valuable public golf.

The Bandon Resort: These have to be a collection for me. They are the first truly great and "only golf" destination built in a long, long time.

Whistling Straits: Some of Pete's best work. Again, totally manufactured but as looks as if it was supposed to be there.

Friars Head: This has been a debated a bit, but most probably wouldn't argue it's merit.

The Ocean Course: I hope this one isn't hard to argue. The best meeting of "east coast" land and water.

Insert your course here: For me, I think this is Sutton Bay, even though it fairly new.

Prairie Club, Ballyneal, Dismal River Club: Very possible these could all make the list when they open.

A friend explained to me:

...we started saying that we were maximizing the site. i.e. using the routing to sucessfully weave the course around wetlands while utilizing existing features. This helps reduce the amount of dirt that needs to be moved. We moved / transplanted numerous amonts of trees. We  built bunkers into existing native grasses, while " chunking " grasses from out of play areas to create natural appearing features. The superintendent will continue to harvest ( thinout ) natives grasses and transplant throughtout the course to increase the " minimalist " look. When you think about the entire process you are actually maximizing all the natural elements from the site. Not to many courses are built doing minimal disruption to the site. Things are to random in nature to fit a great golf course. From Sand Hills to Rustic Canyon people would be surprised the amount of work that goes into making a course feel and look as if it was placed on existing ground "a la minimalism". That is were the hard work and talent becomes evident.......

This may be the greatest thing I have learned about golf course architecture since joining the discussion. Great stuff, Tommy. Thanks!!

Tommy,

Here are four "farm holes" on four courses built in the last 8 years or so where at least part of the course is on the Farmlands of The North Fork/East End of Long Island:

Gil Hanse's Tallgrass:



C&C's Friar Head



Long Island National by RTJ III



Laurel Links by Kelly Moran



So which one is the most "minimalistic" hole or course? I would say Kelly's course, and it is not my favorite. Thus, my issue with the term "Minimalism". It implies that if you don't move dirt you are part of the new wave. I like your new Maxiimizing term, because it is the reality of what I like and it seems like the reality of what many architects are trying to do today. Yes, Friars Head would be my most Maximized course.

By the way, to further complicate things, Laurel Links was financially successful for lots of reasons. However a smaller budget allows for a quicker payback.

Tommy,

I like the term naturalist -- one who maximises the natural attributes of the site with the minimal amount of earth-moving and man-made features. A naturalist creates as great a course possible on any given site, with the result appearing to be totally natural.

Does that work?

- the right amount of ...........................
-A naturalist creates as great a course possible on any given site
-That works!
- I too am going to give myself an "A+!"

(I'll put the p.s. up top here) I give myself a "C+" so far as I am still working on this one.

Who is to determine "The right amount?  Consider yourself taken to task as a self-appointed arbiter.    So, no, perhaps it doesn't "work", that won't work for me, maybe you  grade yourself too easily, Tommy-man. I don't have the answer, if there is one yet. (I am certainly not, THE arbiter, either.)

I was just lying there thinking about the term "Naturalistic" as I awoke.  Naturalistic is a visual description and is inherently a bit limited by that characteristic.  It may endorse a certain judgement - right or wrong that it doesn't necessarily deliver.

Unfortunately, "Naturalistic" can be disharmonistic and dysrhythmic. Features can have a very natural-appearing character, well-intentioned but over-done (Who is to determine what is over-done?) or inappropriate to the inherent natural features.  

It's probably mathematical in theory with harmonic wavelengths of visual light (color) and mechanical components (feature shaping) of the package. (Interestingly, Ran has perhaps unintentionally removed the wavelengths of visual light from the equation with his excellent B & W photos of Friar's Head.  They appear old-timey and very appropriate to the design, but automatically create an image that deprives the viewer the full picture. (I'm not saying that that is for better or worse, just observing.))  

B & W is very powerful in this case in this forum.  It removes the seasonality from the image to a great degree, it denies the viewer the colours and focuses on the mechanical.  It automatically creates an association for the viewer that may or may not be entirely fair especially if used in comparison.  

Again considering the term "naturalistic"....As another example  and.....NOT to pick on them!....... but the best example of which I can think is when Hamilton Farm first opened (They've really changed it now), the bunkering, which is prolific, was very rough-edged and there was such a jagged-ness and there was so much of it it was almost nauseating.  It was distracting and it did not fit the site.

So in a way, Tommy, I do basically agree with your statement
"with the right amount of earth-moving and man-made features needed to make it seem as if it is in total tune with its natural environment", but it is capricious and arbitrary.  Different observers will have different thresholds and opinions of the same views whether 2-D or 3-D as they see them.

Naturalistic is a terminology, but it may not survive scrutiny any better than minimalism in a way, but it does provide a category and a descriptive term that can be useful, but again, it is not all-encompassing nor able to convey a certain "je ne sais quoi" which is what we're trying to pigeon-hole here.    Right and wrong will be vastly different for different people.

Minimalism is a marketing device and naturalistic is a visual interpretation.  Perhaps they are best described as so-called overlapping circles on a venn diagram (Interestingly enough, the three primary colour circles that overlap to form other colours are a perfect example of a venn diagram for those that don't remember spatial mathematical terms!)  The venn diagram circles will overlap more on some courses than others and those that have more harmonic circles or greater level of overlap will perhaps be the most appealing to most observers.  

So unable to describe what I am to list, I have produced no courses yet for the list.

I also wouldn't call that photo of Tallgrass the most representative of that course as it is not THAT sandy and that view of LI NAtional is not particularily offensive to me, just to complete the photo opinions .  (Laurel Links is not showing right now)


   

Mark, Tommy & Redanman

Right, the love in is over.  Please explain the main differences between classic architecture and naturalism/minimalism/maximalism architecture.  Please try to avoid the Venn diagrams.  

Ciao

Sean

A great thread, and give yourselves all "A+'s" for particpating in it. I too am going to give myself an "A+!"

Looks like grade inflation isn't solely a Harvard problem.

If I missed this in a fast skim of the 4 pages, excuse...

But, I didn't see anyone mention some of the courses of Eddie Hackett.  What more do you guys need as a guide line to defining minimal.  Building a course, including the archie fee, for a few thousand pounds or whatever they go by...  and ending with a damn beautiful walk throught the links is about as minimal as it gets!

I haven't played Notre Dames course, but for those that have, do you feel that is a good example of minimal?  I am also of the opinion that Friars Head and Cuscowilla don't qualify for minimal.  

High Point is minimalist as well as Delaware Springs, Rustic Canyon and that Gothenburg place.  

Cozad CC is pretty minimal.  Another great call Barney, and so much so that you should go there on your next trip through Nebraski.  So is Dannebrog CC in that same manner, see below...

Pat - You bring up an interesting point, or at least your post got me thinking about something.  

Might there be times where perhaps it does matter, irrespective of the final product? A manufactured finished product may be marvelous, but you can always speculate what would have been the result had the land been better utilized or less manipulated (e.g. manufactured).

Surely you can't fault Fazio for not going natural in North Las Vegas. Likewise, would Kingsbarns and Whistling Straits have turned out differently were it not for considerable manipulation of the sites?

It gets maybe to the heart of what was being debated over on the Sandpines thread. The finished product might have been a very decent course, but could it have been better given the land prior to construction? (and again, so there is no misunderstanding, this is a rhetorical question, not a position on either the land prior to construction or the course following it).

I'm sure there are some architects who agonize over the dilemma of whether or not to manipulate, and I'm sure the quality of the land deters certain architects from taking a job (where they have the luxury).  To others, I'm sure such matters are not as perplexing.

It does present an interesting challenge to an architect -
Where the architect makes the decision to move massive amounts of earth - the architect who is presented with a marvelous piece of land (acknowledging the subjectivity of that conclusion), had better produce an absolute superlative product. He has a much narrower margin of error than the architect who makes the same decision on a non-descript parcel.

As for discerning what is manufactured from what isn't - I agree that it is largely irrelevant.

RJ

I agree with your comments about Eddie Hackett.  The guy doesn't get his propers!  I can't imagine anything called Wild Horse etc etc that can compete with Carne, but as I say, I will never find out.

Ciao

Sean