[Adam_F_Collins]

Usually, when we refer to "minimalism" or "minimalist design" in golf architecture within the realm of this forum, we seem to be referring to minimal movement of earth; minimal alteration to a site and the attempt to let the land dictate the design of the holes as much as possible.

But what about minimalism in a more complete sense?

What examples do we have of designs which, not only honored our usual use of the term, but actually allowed the concept to apply to the designer's use of other elements - for instance:

• Using as few bunkers as possible to achieve a desired goal.
• Minimal usage of groomed turf, or "shortgrass".
• Allowing single elements - such as a hill or hollow to become the focus of a hole, which might have vanished from importance in a design which utilized more elements

In short, designers who clearly and visibly strive to get the absolute most from the absolute least.

Do the architects to which we presently apply the term of "minimalist", generally carry minimalism to this level?

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Western Gailes comes as close to what you are talking about as any other course I know.
All of the bunkers, although having railroad tyes, look like theyhave been there for eternity, and the use of the terrain to dictate the routing is as good as it gets.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Adam,

Excellent description of a worthy architectural approach except I believe the concept of minimalism extended to minimizing amount of groomed turf would be a detriment to an otherwise worthy set of ideas you have outlined.  I do not think it is the amount of groomed turf that should be limited, in fact the opposite it should be maximized as much as possible as long as it contributes to many lines of charm off the tee and ground game options into the greens, rather I think the minimialists approach would be better directed toward trying to create the conditions so that the groomed turf requires as little inputs as possible such as chemicals, fertilizers etc.

[Kyle Harris]

I would tend to agree with Kelly, minimizing groomed turf can be misconstrued as narrowing fairways and allowing fescue and other high grasses to grow in areas where they shouldn't.

For one, I don't feel that high rough should equate to an OB penalty simply because you can't find your ball!

These may also by misconstrued as smaller greens, which for some courses work... but for most don't.

Personally, I prefer larger greens with interesting contours

[Adam_F_Collins]

Kelly,

Sure, that sounds fine to me. I'm not so much attempting to project a philosophy as I am asking if we can site examples of it.

Maybe minimalism in that way is undesirable - maybe not. Are there ways to create holes with maximum playable options and minimum turf, which requires more specific care and maintenance?

There is always going to be a balance between what one wishes, and what one uses to accomplish those goals. How much can be accomplished with how little?

Your observation on maximum turf makes plenty of sense, and I've often thought the same thing myself. The more playable turf, the more possibilities for viable routes to the green - or "lines of charm".

But there is always going to be a limit - and how restrictive can we be - and still get an exciting experience? Maybe we could minimize in TOTAL turf, but maximize on say, four holes - carefully chosen, this could add very much to the total experience of the round and the feeling of options and variety, yet at the same time cut costs.

I'm just trying to get a conversation going along these lines, and think of examples of architects taking minimalism to this level/

[Adam_F_Collins]

... minimizing groomed turf can be misconstrued as narrowing fairways and allowing fescue and other high grasses to grow in areas where they shouldn't.

These may also by misconstrued as smaller greens, which for some courses work... but for most don't.

True enough, so let's not misconstrue.

Minimal is an approach which tries to find the perfect balance between what is essential and what is superfluous. This means that "too narrow" or "too little" is not at all the goal - the goal is "exactly right". Any more is becoming unnecessary.

Minimalism in golf may be difficult to locate and put our finger on sometimes. But sometimes it may be more obvious.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

I agree Adam, but I do not think you have to think in terms of compromise when talking about maximizing turf.  At one course where there is 42 acres of bent fairway the chemical budget one year was $30,000 and the maintence budget was held close to $650,000.  Same year, similar climate there was a course loaded with trees and poa and half the acreage of fairway and the chemical budget was $120,000.  That is what I mean by creating the conditions by which the groomed turf can thrive and the large amount of groomed turf becomes less an issue and you do not feel the need to compromise the "lines of charm" philosophy".  Once the course is built you have committed to a strategic design that probably will not be modified for a very long time, so to compromise the play area because of maintenance concerns is just as dangerous, probably more dangerous a path than the path of maximizing the amount of groomed area.

The approach I liek is to line the fairway edge with the irrigation heads, allow them to be full circle (Toro now has a 360 degree adjustable head) to grow the fairway and rough then adjust the heads to irrigate the fairway only.  the roughs receive no water or fertilizer other than by nature.  This helps concentrate your resources on the groomed areas.  It is a waste of resources to have groomed roughs particularly if you have wide fairways that correspond to many options for play.  Rough should be rough.  It does not have to be heavy.  In the northeast you seed roughs at a much lighter rate than what is recommended and you will still have that wispy, rustic fescue look but it will be much thinner.  As you go farther out you seed with the warm seasons: bluestems, broomsedge, wild rye, switch grass, and you get that wonderful eastern Long Island look or midwestern prairie look, and again you then can put all your resourses toward the play areas.

[Lou_Duran]

KBM,

A bit off topic, but what would be Bob von Hagge's general observations about minimalism?  Would he be a good example of the antithesis of this architectural approach?

[Adam_F_Collins]

Kelly,

Good points and very interesting.

Now let me ask a seemingly stupid question:

Would golf on the plains of Saskatchewan; an open ocean of grass be desirable? There would be unlimited options for play, but at some point, going any further in latitude, (or perpendicular to the direct beeline between the tee and the green) is going to start to make the hole more difficult and begin to be an undesirable option - and therefore - really not an option at all.

This is why I believe that someone could be minimalist, yet still provide a generous amount of playable turf.

In your case, you would find that the essential balance lies somewhere on the side of more lines of charm.

Several holes on the Old Course have a great deal of playable turf - but is any of it superfluous?

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Well I have not spent much time with him other than by phone in 10 years but if you looked at their work up to 1995, and I did see one of their courses recently in Monterrey Mexico that is a more recent course I would say that the results indicate a philosophy other than what we have been discussing in this thread. I don't think it is intended to be anti-minimalism, but certainly the end result would not reflect the minimialist philosophy in many ways.  Just looking at the outlne in Adam's first post their desing work would not meet any of the criteria he laid out.  At the time I was there the focus was on creating beauty through earthmoving, beauty being defined by interesting sand lines and shadows created by the mounding.
 

[Adam_F_Collins]

I guess I'm saying that "minimalism" may not always be equated with "less", just not more than is required.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Kelly,

Would golf on the plains of Saskatchewan; an open ocean of grass be desirable? There would be unlimited options for play, but at some point, going any further in latitude, (or perpendicular to the direct beeline between the tee and the green) is going to start to make the hole more difficult and begin to be an undesirable option - and therefore - really not an option at all.

This is why I believe that someone could be minimalist, yet still provide a generous amount of playable turf.

In your case, you would find that the essential balance lies somewhere on the side of more lines of charm.

Several holes on the Old Course have a great deal of playable turf - but is any of it superfluous?

I would think the plains of Saskatchewan would be a fantastic landscape in which to find and uncover golf holes, although I do not have an image of it in my find having never been there, but with that name, and the presense of plains it has to be good!  Land form, native grasses and vegetation are your best assets in making a minimalist course I would think, certainly Doak is more qualified to answer, but the movement f the land, the more abrupt or dramatic features , and the diversity of vegetation would give you so much, like Sandhills I am certain the holes are there you just have to spend time finding them.  I listened to a gentleman the other day say that when he is on the land he does quick water color studies because taking the time to do that gives him so much more information than pictures and notes it forces you to study the details, and I think that is exactly where golf design should be, right there in the field finding the holes sketching and painting to get to know the land better.  We spent considerable  time talking about computers in design and it made me think, what is more forward thinking, what is the future, field work or computer aided design.  You tell me what you think.  Does there need to be balance in the approach to design maybe, but which approach do you really think is going to produce the best design if you had to go 100% one way or the other, in fact in terms of CAD vs. field there should be a severe imbalance weighted toward field work.  not everything has to be balanced in the world.  

I wish I knew TOC well enough to answer you with confidence but given that it only sits on about 92 acres, and entertains about 40,000 rounds, and given the severity of the native areas, and the broken terrain I am pretty certain the amount of playable turf is not too much on some holes.  Reducing it would not make the course better would be my answer if I had to give one today without the benefit of many more trips there to study your question more in detail.

I fully agree with your reply #10.  I think we do too much sometimes, and maybe need to be more humble in our approach, and certainly more plugged into the land where we work, more understanding of it by just being there a lot and maybe pulling out the water colors to have a conversation with it.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()