[Nick_Ficorelli]

Tom:
If you don't tell us what you did,what is your Pac Dunes book going to be about.....the migratory tendencies of the Puffin?

[John_McMillan]

I think that Waverly Root's description of Tuscan Italian cuisine is the best description of minimalism that I've heard -

"It is spare home cooking, hearty and healthy, subtle in its deliberate eschewing of sophistication, which is perhaps the highest sophistication of all."

[Brian Phillips]

Adam,

Tom does share his artistry but he shouldn't have to share it with the masses.  Is it not better for a golfer to walk past a dune that looks natural and think it is, instead of arguing that he can see that it is manmade.

This arguement rages on about Kingsbarns.  There are so many out in the world that do not like Kingsbarns because it looks manufactured....bollocks...the only reason people say it looks manufactured is because they know what was ther before.

It spoils the enjoyment.

My dream is to take my son and daughter to Kingsbarns one day and play it.  I will then ask them where they thought things were false and natural...they will not be able to tell me.

People just don't realise how damn good Kingsbarns is from an engineering point of view.  What that team created is just unreal.

I worked in Heavy Construction (and I mean HEAVY) for about 6-7 years before I built the first golf course and i am more impressed with Kingsbarns than any other project I have been involved with.

If you took a golfer there that did not know anything about the site they would not know it was false...that is the artistry of golf course architecture.

The normal golfer doesn't need to know and doesn't understand figures like 100 000 m3 anyway....so what is the point?

Nick,

You can talk a lot about design and construction without actually giving figures.  

Brian

[A_Clay_Man]

Brian-I never thought it was for the masses. Mostly because i don't think the masses give "it" a first thought, let alone a second. Sorry, if I missed the intro of the average golfer.

[TEPaul]

I think this has been a good thread. However, it's been just another one that a lot of diverse opinions on a subject were expressed and consequently, and as it goes on here, a lot of people seemed to disagree and seemed to get their feathers ruffled, including some architects who certainly do have a better idea of the nuts and bolts of architectural construction than most all the rest on here who haven't exactly seen that part of golf architecture and aren't familiar with it.

I do know, though, that my own definition or feeling about "minimalism" never did have to do with the actual volume of earth that was moved on any site. It certainly could mean that in some cases obviously but doesn't necessarily have to mean that. When I think of minimalism, possibly another or second definition of it that could even include a good deal of earth movement, I think of that old cliche that some of the old "Golden Agers" who were heavily into "naturalism" in golf architect used to use which was "to hide the hand of man" in golf architecture. That was a huge prerequiste to an architectural philosopher such as Max Behr and the reasons that kind of minimalism were necessary to him are totally fascinating.

I saw a new course coming on stream the other day that's clearly the complete opposite of "minimalism" in that it's completely clear to anyone where and what the manufacturing on the site is and there's a ton of it. It doesn't tie-in naturally at all to anything that was there pre-construction. But who knows, it looks as if the course may play very well despite the fact it looks wholly unnatural and the architect couldn't possibly have tried to "hide his hand" and if he did try to do that he did a remarkably poor job of it.

But I think the Doak posts on here are the most interesting of all particularly on the subject of Pacific Dunes. Nobody, even the best observers knows if he did a little earth moving there or a lot because if he did do a lot he tied in into that site and that site's natural "lines" so well no one can tell what he did. That to me would be a great example of 'minimalism" even if it turned out that he did move a large total volume of earth---again, something I hope he never makes public.

I think Pacific Dunes is a really great golf course for a lot of reasons including the fact that it's almost impossible to tell what the architect moved or didn't. When we were out there a couple of years ago with Doak there--there was one hole I looked at that I really did think didn't look naturally occuring to me--either actually or in the manner of the architect actually making it to look so. I don't think I ever talked to anyone about it, matter of fact, I'm sure I didn't.

So although I don't think Tom Doak should ever say what he did or didn't do out there I wouldn't mind if he answered me on this just to see if I do have any eye for this sort of thing.

It was hole #14, mostly on the left side of it as it fell off and away to the left. It just looked either built up to me and the entire "line" of the left of that green looked man-made and not tied into the way the ground was to the left. If that "line" had tied in or flowed more gradually out to the left I may never have noticed it though. The left side looked much to abrupt to be or look natural to me.

But the one I really would like to know about is #6 green-end--a hole I think is one of the best short par 4s I've ever seen. I'd like to know if that green-end was its own natural little ridge or just somewhat so that he really enhanced. I suspect the latter somehow but couldn't say for sure.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

alot has already been said on this. I feel that minimalism is a course that stays in touch with the land it sits on and look and feel a part of it. If and when dirt is moved or thinks are changed, they are done so in a way and such a scale that it stays natual to the site. One would be hard pressed to pick out the changes without prior knowledge of the site.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

Some will take it to mean that I'm not a minimalist; for others it will spoil their innocence about what it really takes to build a golf course.

Can you guys really handle the truth?

NO, they can't, because they've been living in a fantasy world and denying the realities of design and construction.

Kelly Blake Moran,

Great post, but, I fear many will choose to ignore it because it destroys their fantasy and may end the idolatry.

As I said earlier, the definition may have depended on the name of the architect involved,

And, Brad Klein was right  

[Lou_Duran]

I believe that it was the popularly elected, but not-to-be president Algore who said something about a tiger changing his spots.  With Mr. Doak's latest entry in his resume requiring over a million c.y. of dirt moved, and some 3,000 irrigation heads on a 250+ acre site, who cares what minimalism means?  I agree with others about the course reflecting the natural surroundings, unless the site is bland such as in Lubbock and north Las Vegas.  The ultimate goal of the architect should be, in my opinion, not to minimize the amount of earth movement, but to create the most interesting course possible given the budget and the site provided to him.

Courses such as Shadow Creek and Sand Hills, probably the quintensential standards of artificial or created vs. natural or minimalistic construction, are both extremely successful, great tests of golf.  So, who does care?

[Brian Phillips]

Tom P,

So what you are saying (and tell me if I have understood you wrong) that your idea of minimalism is if the impact on the visual landscape is minimal that is minimalistic design?

Brian

[Tom_Doak]

Kelly:

I didn't understand some of what you said, but I don't agree with the premise that I am trying (or should be trying) to reconcile or justify my past definitions of minimalism with my present practice.  The definition of my design philosophy is not in what I write; it's in what I do.

I suppose my first solo design, High Pointe, is more minimalistic than Pacific Dunes, because at High Pointe I was more afraid of not being able to make alterations invisibly.  The better we've gotten at construction, the more confidence I have to make changes which I know will make the course play better / more interesting, instead of making do with exactly I'm given.

I don't want to put words in Bill Coore's mouth, but I have to believe he feels the same way.  Friars Head certainly required more creation than did Sand Hills.  But it's interesting that no one picked up on my example of the fourth green at Sand Hills, which was artificially created, and not invisibly so.  [Which, by the way, I think is one of the best holes on that course, because of the way it brings a great natural bunker into play ... even though it IS artificial.]

Tom P:  I will copy the relevant pages of my book on holes 6 & 14 at Pacific Dunes and e-mail them to you.

As for "trade secrets," I really object to that whole line of thinking.  I wouldn't be where I am today (and neither would Bill Coore) if Pete Dye and family hadn't been willing to share.  They never worried about us taking work away from them; they figured if we ever got to that point, more power to us.  I've taken the same attitude with everyone that ever worked for me ... or anyone else in the business who took the time to ask ... or any of you.  As a result, I've had more influence than just the courses I've built.

But, I am concerned about the idea that sharing what we did will diminish it in the eyes of outsiders.  It bothers me to hear that anyone would think less of Kingsbarns on that basis, because many of the people involved were kind enough to share some of the details with me, and it really is amazing what was accomplished there [however the credit should fall between Kyle Phillips and the rest].  Kingsbarns should be celebrated as a triumph of golf course construction [I'd put it above Shadow Creek in that category].  I would never think of calling it "minimalist," though, even though it would fit the definition of many as indistinguishable from nature ... even though, Brian, there are some aspects of the design that are easy to identify as man-made, not because they look artificial, but because it is so obvious that they relate back to a certain design intent.  [I don't think you will find me quoted anywhere as calling Texas Tech's course "minimalist," either; all I've said about it is that it's not antithetical to my own philosophy.]  

The irony is, because people can't talk about what they really accomplished there, they are stuck comparing it to The Old Course or other British links, which is tough company.  I think it's a bit overrated as a golf course because it can't get proper credit as a piece of golf course design and construction.  [This might also be the case for The Rawls Course, at least as to the reviews on this board.]

Since putting The Confidential Guide to bed, I've also kept my lip zipped when other designers claim they hardly moved any earth on a project, even when I know it to be an outright lie.  I am bothered by how "minimalism" has come to be a marketing term, and how many people there are who are willing to employ the term even though they do not believe in such a thing at all.  It is the opposite of sharing your knowledge with the community.

Sounds like I've got to get back out and build something!

[Lou_Duran]

Tom Doak-

Off topic; but in retrospect, was your "Confidential Guide" a mistake?  Would you have been better off not having written it?  No agenda; just curious.

[TEPaul]

Well, now with that last post by Tom Doak I really do think this particular thread just could be one of the very best Golfclubatlas has ever had.

Why would I say that? Because this discussion has turned into a good and intelligent one that's beginning to discuss and disect some truly fundamental concepts and particularly techniques that are the basis of golf course architcture--it's actual construction, its nuts and bolts, in fact!

Because a term such as "minimalism" could be both a good one, a fundamental one but only if used and defined correctly but in the same breath it appears to be one of the most overused and also most misunderstood terms and very much by some otherwise good and knowledgeable contributors to this website.

So, some of the definitions and opinions of the contributors to this thread on this overall subject are basically beginning to get defined correctly, to really deal with many of the fundamentals and techniques of the various ways good and bad golf courses get constructed and that's extremely fundamental to a better understanding of the entire subject of golf course architecture.

After a start on this thread that was based on misperceptions about construction and the misuse of terms, everyone now should be beginning to get a better grasp on this overall subject because some architects have come on here and basically given them a good education on the nuts and bolts of this overall subject and what some of these terms mean, what they don't mean, what they should and shouldn't mean and also when things such as shopworn, overmarketed "terms" really don't matter in the broad scheme of it all.

Tom Doak;

Thanks for offering me the info on PD's holes #6 & #14 and thanks for changing my mind about architects sharing what some might consider "secrets" in how to make good architecture.

I do think the MYSTERY of what an architect made and didn't make on a golf course is at the base of most all that my personal preference and also fascination in golf architecture is about (not that I think that's all that golf architecture should be though!). It gets right to that very valuable subject those old guys used to call "hiding the hand of man". It gets right to the heart of "naturalism" in golf architecture which I certainly do believe in.

But if you're willing to share an understanding into exactly how that all important mystery is accomplished, then frankly Golfclubatlas or whomever sees it will be a ton better educated for it. That to me would be an education that'd be unbeatable--and one that most never even get the chance to learn simply because they've got to get out there and try it, do it or else observe it happening very closely and how many not in the business ever do that?

I've had to continuously go out on sites certainly both before but also during and after to even hope to figure that fascinating mystery out---and still I'm probably less than 50%of the way home.

[TEPaul]

Brian:

What do I mean by minimalism--what does it mean to me? It's probably somewhat synonymous with naturalism to me--a course, for instance, where hardly anyone could ever tell what an architect did and didn't do. If an architect can really accomplish that well how could anyone say he hadn't produced a golf course highly natural in appearance in every way? And I don't believe in a truly natural appearance in golf architecture for no reason--to me there're a number of completely fundamental reasons for it!

I believe in most of what Max Behr was trying to drive at in his on-going essays regarding a striving for naturalism in golf architecture. Ultimatley he concluded that Man--the golfer--was so much more likely to react better (he called it 'less critically') to it (actual or perceived naturalism) even if subliminally! It all had to do with Behr's basic comparision of Man's fundamental relationship to Man vs Man's fundamental relationship to Nature itself.

I don't care that much about the actual volume of earth moved regarding minimalism although clearly that's all that some feel the term should mean. That's fine, I wouldn't disagree with them on that and obviously that is an actual definition of "minimalism". I'd use that one too sometimes but I happen to have another definition for it.

And I'm not even someone who thinks all golf courses should look natural--but that is my preference. I'm also fascinated by a course such as NGLA where many areas of it look anything but natural--they look highly man-made. That's a fascination too that it can be pulled off at a place like that so well. Clearly one of the reasons for it there is what they did despite looking man-made in places just works so well for golf.

I'm one of those guys who actually likes rainy days not because I just like them but because I think they make good days even better. And I think real variety is necessary in something like golf--a real spectrum of style, in fact.

I feel the same about architecture--I'm fascinated by it all and by how some styles appeal to some people and how  other styles completely at the other end of the spectrum appeal to other people--and even disgust the other group of people.

I never did mean to be facetious when I keep saying;

"Golf and its architecture is a great big thing and there really is room in it for everyone!"

[Tom_Doak]

Lou:  I wouldn't characterize "The Confidential Guide" as a mistake, not at all.

Some of it WAS an accident.  Remember, the original version was distributed only to 40 friends, and I really intended it to remain that way.  But pirate copies proliferated, and eventually most people in the business got wind of my uncensored opinions.  Some, naturally, were offended ... there were some really offensive things in the original edition, stuff I would never have "published" to a wider audience, even at my most uncouth and rebellious.

Eventually, I came to the realization that the book was going to help my career, because my opinions of all those courses I'd seen were my credentials for being an architect [the same way that playing all of them are the credentials for Nick Faldo or Jack Nicklaus].  I still hesitated to publish the book, until at least two friends advised me that most of the architects who would be offended had already heard about my comments anyway, at least second-hand.

All of the noise, though, is about whether it was the right thing for ME to write that book, considering my career goals.  I've never heard anyone actually say that there shouldn't be a book like that, where golf architecture is a subject of critique; and certainly it found an audience.  (Which leaves open the question of who else should have or could have written the book if I had kept my opinions to myself.)

The only thing I can say is that writing the book has caused me to defend my opinions more times than I would like, instead of being asked about my own design work!

[Dan Kelly]

Haven't read the thread yet. I'll be interested to see if I'm repeating someone, or not:

Minimalism means never having to say "I'm sorry."

No, wait. That's "love"! (What a crock. Love means having to say "I'm sorry" time and time again!)

To me, minimalism means: doing no more to a golf-course site than is necessary to the creation of the best possible golf course given the land and the budget. In some cases, that "minimal" amount will be, well, minimal; in others, not at all.

I'm reminded of the scene from "Amadeus" when the emperor proclaims that Mozart's new opera has "too many notes."

Mozart replies that there is not one note too many, nor one note too few.

That's minimalism.

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

What one says or writes is often times ahead of their work.  Once the work is done it is frozen for some period yet the thoughts, ideas, words of the creator reflect a more advanced philosophy or thought because it is present tense rather than the work which is past tense, it is informed by the past work.  The act of trying so hard to make the necessary manmade impacts look natural may not be minimalism since the "economy of means" is not practiced when trying to conceal one's impact on the land.  In fact, it might be considered a deception and maybe even a waste of resources.  It seems the act of making the course play better/more interesting is the primary ingrediant rather than concealing the hand of man.  Does the golfing experience become diminished if you can see that a cut was made by trying to interpolate the grade between existing grades on either side of the hole.  Does that diminish the golf course.  I remember Finnegan defending his pleasure in Doonbeg because he took great pleasure in knowing that no or little earth was moved, but he was reconsidering this assessment because he had heard that might not be true.  Really?  If you enjoyed the play of a course, if it gave you great enjoyment and pleasure and challenge does it really matter how effective the architect was at concealing his impact on the land.  Leaving out extreme examples I would think that concealing one's hand and giving a strategic design of the highest order would be ideal, but I wonder if some courses whose architect is supreme at concealing their hand really are strategic master pieces as many claim or if the intoxicating allure of this brand of architecture actually conceals medicore strategic design.  And what appears to be a monumental effort in concealment can be far from minimalism, but as as been pointed out who cares, unless you care about truth.  I have heard interviews with Louis Kahn's son, who produced a movie about him call My Architect, which sounds fantastic, but he said his dad hated anything that covered the building like glass walls, the skyscrapers, because he wanted his buildings to show how they were built, so that you could look at his buildings and see how they are put together.  and it has me wondering if there is some application to golf architecture, again without going to extremes, but could there be pleasure in allowing some aspect of the how the hole was created to remain, maybe this does not apply to the natural world.  Back to the movie, in the interview the son said his dad basically was broke because he cared more for the quality of the buildings he created rather than the quantity, therefore he did very few projects, but apparently the one's he did were masterpieces.  I bet Tom Paul may know more about him since he was based in Philly.  The movie sounds like a real education for all designers.

[Paul_Turner]

I thought that the 4th greensite at Sand Hills was fairly obviously manufactured.  Which takes nothing from its quality; it's still a truly great hole.  I didn't however, put 2 and 2 together and realise that the bunkers was dug to build that green.

Pacific Dunes has a hand full of features (other than bunkers) that you can quite easily tell are manufacured (most obviously the mounds between 3 an 12 and the left side of 14 as TEP mentions).  But I'm sure there are plenty of features that aren't obvious at all i.e. I had no clue that the bowl for the 8th green wasn't natural.

[JNC Lyon]

Bottom Line: Minimalist approach is when the architect moves the minimum amount of earth neccessary for a high quality golf course. At a course like Shadow Creek, far more earth was moved than was needed for a high quality design. This excessive earthmoving can lead to a drastically different design.  

  However, a course like the Ocean Course also used a lot of dozers. This was needed to create a world class place for a game. Imagine if the course was dead flat like every other course around, and there were no views of the ocean.

   Thirdly, the term also refers to a style of design where the fairways are fast, greens have run up approaches, and there is high strategy involved. Essentially, the best type of golf!

   Finally, is a course which might not have used enough dozers and dynamite minimalistic? Is Yale minimalist because Raynor didn't knock the ridge which supposedly crosses #18?

[TEPaul]

Kelly:

This thread is bringing out the best in you! It's about "minimalism" and what-all that might mean but you're beginning to touch on "truths" (in designs in golf architecture and other kinds of architecture) and that's always a good and interesting thing coming from a practicing architect.

You said;

"It seems the act of making the course play better/more interesting is the primary ingrediant rather than concealing the hand of man.  Does the golfing experience become diminished if you can see that a cut was made by trying to interpolate the grade between existing grades on either side of the hole.  Does that diminish the golf course?"

I can't see how it could. The fact that a concept like minimalism or probably more accurately "hiding the hand of man" in golf architecture is important by no means means its the only thing, teh only goal, or even the most important one. You played NGLA--there's a lot of an architect's "hand" that isn't hidden there. But so many for so many years have thought the course to be so interesting anyway.

You said;

"If you enjoyed the play of a course, if it gave you great enjoyment and pleasure and challenge does it really matter how effective the architect was at concealing his impact on the land.  Leaving out extreme examples I would think that concealing one's hand and giving a strategic design of the highest order would be ideal,"

I'd sure agree, there, it may not really matter if one really enjoys the course, but it'd seem that the ideal would be if an architect could do both! I'm clearly using "minimalism" as a synonym for naturalism but if one can make a great course to play on and one that no one can determine what was made--how could golf and architecture get better than that?

I really do mean that as a legitimate question. We talk on here a lot about the great dream of the early "naturalist" architects but what if they were wrong? Were they? What if man--the golfer--today, would prefer to see all that man could do in variance to what Nature was and seems to be?  

I think we all know that "Man" is always striving to conquer and subdue most all around him. Maybe the most obvious man-made architecture that plays fun, interesting and challenging is really what he wants afterall!
 

[Eric Pevoto]

I think Kelly's take on economy of means is the most interesting comment yet.  

Depending on the site, tying in the edges of features may mean moving a lot of dirt.  Ironically, the angular lines of say, Raynor, and those pesky little chocolate drops of early, "crude" architecture are the product of minimalism.

To my mind, again depending on the site, minimalism and naturalism may be at the opposite ends of the spectrum.

[rgkeller]

rgkeller,

Please wait. If your fears are realised beyond opening day, well said, and well forewarned. For now, let's see what they do first.

I have no fear about the abilities of C&C to produce wonderful golf courses. IMO they are the defining architects of this time. My intent was to stick a few pins in the "minimalists" mantra and I note that minimalists have become hard to find around here.

[rgkeller]

"To me, it seems you are picking on the wrong people."

Well, everyone is entitled to an opinion.

That's really weak.   You truly are a mud slinger who doesn't care to discuss things, aren't you?

With an attitude like that why bother telling us what you think?  Nobody cares about your opinion if it's based in mularky.

We all have opinions, opinions are like...............oh screw it!

The only one slinging mud in these discussions is you and, I have noticed, not only at me.

[Tom_Doak]

One of my favorite architectural discussions of all time was with the founder of this site, Mr. Ran Morrissett himself, when we played Lost Dunes together.  

He questioned my placement of the nasty dunegrass mound at the front left of the second green.  I told him it was there when we started, and then he got all emotional about how great that was.

And then I asked him, "What difference does it really make?  If I'd been smart enough to place it there, it would have exactly the same effect."  He had painted himself into a corner, and for all I know, he is still there!

I like Kelly's comment about the "economy of means" very much.  I think I've always tried to do this, but maybe without articulating it so well.  For example, in Texas we only built up the perimeter of the course high enough to block out the bulk of the buildings; we allowed for the fact that we were going to plant trees along them which would raise their ultimate effective height.

Some architects would disagree, on the premise that a higher berm would have been cheaper than the trees.  Probably true in the short term -- we spent $1 million moving all the earth at TTU and another $1 million on the trees.  But the trees will keep growing, and we wanted the element of light and shadow and color in winter.  [And we wanted it to look different than those other architects' courses.]

[Norbert P]

 I barely feel worthy to comment except to say that this thread, if edited, could become a collective "In OUR Opinion" piece.  Regardless, it will be saved in my GCA "Best Of" file.

 I should have been taking notes and cutting and pasting quotes but there it all is before us if you want to read it.  

  Great stuff ladies and gentlemen.  I think I'll suggest a Tuscan dinner tonight to the better half.  Hmmm... If I begin cooking she won't say no. I'm afraid though that if I tell her I'm making a "Minimalistic" dinner, she'll think I'm gonna cook turkey dogs with Top Ramen noodles.  I'd better open the wine first to let my mind soar.

Tom Doak, the truth will set you free.  We can take it and it'll let you move on to further truths.
 

  "The secret of life is honesty.  If you can fake that you've got it made."  George Burns

[TEPaul]

"and we wanted the element of light and shadow and color in winter."

TomD:

You wanted WHAT??? What are you now Thomas "Hurzdan & Fry" Doak?    

What is "economy of means"? Does that create "Economy of ends"?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()