[Michael Dugger]

In light on the most recent post by Tom Doak regarding waterfalls, I think it might be a good time to address some of the important issues surrounding golf architecture and ‘minimalism’

Those who have read the ‘Confidential Guide’ know that Tom gives nice, if not spectacular, marks to Shadow Creek.  He also mentions that with an unlimited budget he hopes that he could match, if not exceed, what Fazio did there.  

Those who have read Mackenzie know that one of the tenets he based his golf course design philosophy on was ‘to make man made creations that are indistinguishable from nature herself’ (more or less)

Are we not sometimes a little too idealistic when it comes to a minimalist design?   Do we wish that Pete Dye had used the existing terrain and material to sculpt Whistling Straits?  Not every course that is going to be built in the future is going to be built over land like Sand Hills is laid upon.  As the ‘inventor’, or sort of ‘reinventor’, of minimalism in golf course architecture, are we expecting too much from Tom Doak?  Do we hold him (and all minimalists for that matter) up to unrealistic expectations??

Is there something anti minimalist about building a course in the desert?

[TEPaul]

Don't know if using the phrase "minimalism" is all that apropos if some of us just think a "minimalist" is an architect who doesn't move much earth!

If a good architect who is truly interested in adhering to MacKenzie's tenet--"to make man-made creations that are indistinguishable from nature herself" is really interested in doing just that he may have to move a considerable amount of earth.

In fact that's about the only way to make some architecture look like it blends into what really is nature or what it really looks like. Some of the very old guys who could probably be considered "minimalists", in that definition, didn't move much earth--mostly because they couldn't, I'm sure. But what they did architecturally often didn't blend very well with nature nor did it make those archtiectural creations look much like nature herself!

[Michael Dugger]

All minimalist talk aside, do you think it is possible to make a golf course appear to "blend" with a desert landscape?  Is it even appropriate to discuss minimalism and desert golf in the same breath?  I venture to say no.

[mgm]

"Blending" with nature is not the same as being "indistinguisable" from nature.  Sometimes nature has elements that stand out from the general landscape and look totally "natural". MacKenzie's bunkers around the 13th at Cypress Point, c.1930, do not blend at all, but are heroic "eye catchers", and yet, appear natural to the landscape. Therein lies a hint of the genius to be found in a "Master." I would venture to say that blending is to be avoided, if "nature in its variety", is to be preserved.

[mgm]

"Blending" with nature is not the same as being "indistinguisable" from nature.  Sometimes nature has elements that stand out from the general landscape and look totally "natural". MacKenzie's bunkers around the 13th at Cypress Point, c.1930, do not blend at all, but are heroic "eye catchers", and yet, appear natural to the landscape. Therein lies a hint of the genius to be found in a "Master." I would venture to say that blending is to be avoided, if "nature in its variety", is to be preserved.

[Lou_Duran]

TEP,

That last paragraph of yours is near heresy.  While Tom Doak gets a lot of mileage out of the minimalist label, there were many practioners of that style in the past and a number of them today, primarily because of budgetary constraints.  I tend to believe that if the old guys had the money and the equipment, they would have moved a lot more dirt and eliminated some of the quirk that we find so endearing on this site.  I can't imagine what Dr. MacKenzie would have done with a generous budget and unlimited time at Cypress Point, but I suspect that holes 15 - 18 would have been done quite differently.

After moving over 1mm cy of dirt, installing a wall-to-wall irrigation system with nearly 2,000 heads, and building circuitous concrete cart paths on a budget of $8mm+, can TD still be considered a "Minimalist"?  BTW, having seen the course under constructgion, I predict that it will be a resounding success.  It will certainly look more "natural" than anything out there in that part of Texas.  

[Lou_Duran]

BTW, TD's course that I was referring to above, is Red Raider for Texas Tech U. in Lubbock.

[George Pazin]

What in the wide wide world of sports would anyone who has ever walked on this earth do differently with CP 15-17 if given a little more money? Or even a lot more money?

[mgm]

George - They would mess them up.

[TEPaul]

Lou:

I can't tell in your post if you're being serious or not.

mgm:

I guess everything is certainly in the eye of the beholder. You said; "MacKenzie's bunkers around #13 at Cypress Point, circa 1930, do not blend (with nature--tp) at all..."

To my mind there is hardly a better example anywhere in golf architecture of clever blending with nature than the bunkering he cut into the natural dunes surrounding #13 Cypress!

[Rick_Noyes]

I question the sentence that Tom Doak is the inventor or reinventor of minimalism in golf course architecture.  I'll overlook it however as the title of your post is Tom Doak and minimalism.  I've posted here before on the work that we (Dan Maples Design) do.  "minimalism" for the purpose of discussion here, seems to center around the amount of dirt one moves.  It all starts with the routing.  We route or at least begin the routing with the premiss that we aren't going to move any dirt at all.  How's that for minimalism?  But if we in fact do move alot of dirt (without really knowing the amount of "alot") but make it look like we didn't move any is that still minimalism?

As I have said before, a golf course is an obvious manipulation of nature.  Our philosophy is to minimalize the impact of that manipulation.  You can call that minimalism, low impact design or whatever you like.  It has worked for the Maples family for about 100 years.

[TEPaul]

Rick Noyes:

Yes, your definition certainly is a definition of "minimalism"! However, in the collective opinions on things that makes up  the dictionary of terms on GOlFCLUBATLAS that definition is probably "definition B"!

But I would say on the strength of this thread and the info on it the collective opinions just might change your definition to "definition A"!

And that's the way it should be if the collective opinions on GOLFCLUBATLAS are to think seriously and realistically about this matter!

[michael miller]

TEpaul - That is my point. "Blend" really means to "mix different characteristics into a harmonious whole".  This would  eliminate specific features. Nature is not blended but comprised of variety.  The bunkering at #13 at CP, does not blend into the landscape, is very "attention getting", but appears natural. If it blended in, would it be noticeable, or be  camoulflaged? "Indistinguishable" from nature, in my view, does not mean to be hidden in it.  It means to be so skillfully crafted, regardless of its individual characteristics, as to be undiscernable from nature itself.  Said differently, does the Grand Canyon blend into the landscape? No. It stands out distinctly from the surrounding topography. Does it appear natural? Absolutely.

[Jeff_McDowell]

Michael,

I love your thoughts on blending and such. Unfortunately, I'm not smart enough to comprehend them. Your Grand Canyon analogy helps a lot. Keep typing. Maybe I'll understand it.

On the concept of minimalism - everyone can claim every project used minimalism principles. All it means is that in their opinion they did the least amount of work to accomplish the project's goals. Yes, this includes moving obscene amounts of dirt and planting a forest in the desert to create a North Carolina setting.

Minimalism is a nice thought and a nice theory that puts modern course construction in historical perspective, but defining it or labeling courses and architects as minimalist gets tricky.

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

It is silly to judge the virtues of a course or an architect based upon how much dirt they moved.  Many architects inject into the promo article or marketing piece a comment about how little dirt they moved as if this lends credibility to their work.  Moving less dirt could mean an excellent routing plan was achieved, or the budget was tight, or the amount of dirt moved is relative (moving less dirt by Fazio might mean 600,000 CY).  But, to move less dirt and have a course devoid of strategy and excitement achieves nothing other than to have wasted another opportunity.  The dead masters probably would not move much dirt today.  I would assume that their experiences in producing outstanding routing plans, and incorporating unusual natural features into their designs would inoculate them from relying on the big machines we have today.  However, no architect should be hanged for either purposely exploring design ideas or being forced to incorporate design ideas that seem to compromise their label.  I am not certain if sticking to the same design philosophy for 100 years is any better than exploring the possibilities of one’s own creativity, even if that means abandoning some of the tenets of their label or their belief system.  Creative exploration is necessary, and much more likely to produce lively work that excites people.  It does not require abandoning your own beliefs, but it does provide the opportunity to question your beliefs, to introduce creative tension, and ultimately to come through the process with a much deeper understanding of your own beliefs.  That seems better than sleepwalking through life with someone else’s beliefs, or with hollow beliefs planted in your head.

[TEPaul]

Kelly:

There's a lot of interesting info in what you said about the vagaries of moving dirt or not on various sites.

And there's really a lot of interest, I find, in what the older architects did and didn't do regarding earth moving! Obviously we know that generally they weren't able to move massive amounts of earth with the ease it can be done today!

One of the things I feel I've been picking up on with the older architecture is that basically it was the tee and green-end where most all their earth moving was done and sometime even there so minimally that the divisions between their architecture and nature (or natural grade) really does become very defined and obvious.

Certainly we might say today that they didn't "blend" that well because of this and consequently that might show off a more manufactured look in some of their work!

On the other hand, I also find with the older work and the much older work that the overall "mid-bodies" of the golf holes (that other than the tee and green-end areas) really was natural to a degree far greater than today simply because they left those areas alone (didn't move earth there) or they tried a lot harder to use what they found with the site without changing it.

Sometimes, on some courses that might make some of their holes look a bit more bland in their mid-body sections and sometimes it might make it look more natural--there's always differences. But I think, for obvious reasons, the older architects left the "mid-bodies" of the holes alone far more than they do today.

That's the reason that things like massive amounts of earth moving along the entire sides of holes that some do so much of today I really don't like. It just doesn't seem necessary and occasionally doesn't just not look particularly natural but downright artifical and obnoxious sometimes--if one likes a natural look! I think things like that kind of massive "mid-body" earth moving very much unbalances hole after hole away from the overall flow (the overall natural "lines") of many sites.

The old guys didn't do stuff like that because they obviously couldn't (too much earth moving for them) but maybe they wouldn't have done it for those other reasons too!

[Rick_Noyes]

I'm thinking this thread is really about site specific design.  That is to say an architect designs a course or hole that can only be designed for that site.  The golf holes on the Monterrey Pennisula are what they are because of where they are.  You can't re-create that anywhere else.  Therefore, those holes are "natural" in appearance.  Regardless of the amount of dirt used to create them.

That being said, the creative exploration happens everytime you go out.  Every site is different.  Requiring different design solutions, whether they are 100 years old or you thought it up yesterday.

Yes, architects do market themselves as minimalist or low impact or whatever.  And that does catch the eye of clients under tight budgetary constraints.  And I'm sure there has been a thread on this but I'll ask anyway:  What's the difference between a $15 millon golf course and a $5 million golf course? (please refrain from saying $10 million  )

[Jim_Kennedy]

Outside of some of the obvious differences like costs associated with land, permits, materials, design fees, clubhouse, amount of earthmoving and waterfall building, etc., I suspect much is related to who the end users are.  
I wonder how many courses advertised as costing $20 mil. to build ever come close to that number.

[Lou_Duran]

TEP,

I was being facetious; too much to do, a little bit of time, and a need to procrastinate.

What I was referring to was your comment or insinuation that the "old guys" didn't move much dirt because they couldn't.  The prevailing opinion on this site appears to be that quirk was part of the genius of these guys.  Personally,  I believe that if they had the budgets and the equipment, their courses would probably look and play much differently.  I think that gone would be many of the blind shots, "intimate" but rather dangerous routings, and bland, unexciting connecting holes.  Would Macdonald with Lido or Thompson on a number of his courses be considered "minimalists"?  Certainly not when the definition is based on volume of earth moved.  I haven't seen NGLA, but does it really "blend" with the natural surroundings?  Pictures that I have seen seem to indicate otherwise.

George and MGM,

CP is my favorite course that I have played.  I like all the holes 15 - 18, but I know that MacKenzie had other concepts for at least #16 and 18, and this site's second most beloved figure doesn't much care for the last two holes.

#15 is dramatic photogenically.  If you could only elevate the tee and move it to the right (the ocean), then you would experience life what one sees in the picture.  A 9 or wedge, though possibly much more depending on the wind, the hole didn't have the same impact on me as its more famous neighbor, #16, or #7 at PB.

The Doctor's thoughts about 16 are well documented.  I am not sure that it would not be a better par 4 with the tees moved back, and the green pushed further toward the ocean on the point.  Would I change this hole?  Absolutely not.

I like #17 a lot, but if they had had the money to protect the shoreline to the right of the trees on the left, the strategy on that hole would have remained more rich.  As it is now, one would be nuts to play to the little sliver of land on the right side to get a closer, clear shot to the green.

I also like #18 though fully understand the problems cited by many who play the course.  Had the money, equipment, engineering, etc. been available, I wonder whether the Doctor would not have built a bridge or connected that point some how.

To suggest that Dr. MacKenzie would have messed-up CP had he had more money and better equipment does not speak well of the Doctor's abilities.  I would hate to think that his creativity and artistry were enhanced by a limitation of resources.

[Michael Dugger]

Some heady stuff here thus far.  The direction I initially intended for this to go was in answering whether or not we hold our 'minimalist' architects up to unrealistic standards.  Obviously the varying definitions of 'minimalism' create problems in doing this, yet there seems to be a popular opinion that says, "Yes we do, but we shouldn't."

One more question.  If the essence of minimalism is to 'minimize' the impact that a golf course has on the native landscape, are some projects doomed to failure?  What ever looks natural about a desert course???

[michael miller]

Lou - The question, I believe, is not what would MacKenzie do with more resources, but what would "anyone" do?  If you include him in "anyone", I think that misses the point submitted that "no else one is going to improve on MacKenzie, regardless of resources".  Therfore, it could only be messed up. Although "necessity is the mother of invention", and that led the "limited earth movers" to some ingenious creations, if "Mac" had everything he wanted, I do think he might have done even better. He did have plans for an "ocean setting" for the 18th tee. It involved a bridge extending some forty yards into the Pacific. #16 is really a coin flip. I think it would be sensational either way, Par 3 or a exquisedly tempting short par 4.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Lou
American Contruction, which rebuilt Pebble Beach and built CPC, had heavy equipment at their disposal (and used it). Based on that, I don't believe you can attribute the quirk of #8 and #9 (or #15 and #16) to an inablity to move dirt.

ANGC was contructed with an army of heavy machines. Banff and Yale - in the early to mid-20s - cost $1 million each to build. Is there a modern equivalent to those results?

Timber Point and Tokyo were largely man-made. The same with Lido which was completed in 1917. Ross's Oyster Harbors had a single hole that cost over $100,000 to build. Walton Heath and other heathland courses utilized heavy machinery before 1910.

They moved dirt and in some cases plenty of it. I do not believe that most of the courses of the most noted architects would appear different today. They understood Nature (minmalists or non-minimalist, whatever that is), and that Nature is much more interesting than anything man can create, then or now. Their focus was maximizing the use of interesting natural features. Do you think most modern architects have the same attitude regarding natural features?

Since you believe the older courses would look differently (if they were able to move more dirt), is it your opinion that many older courses would have been improved - any specific or general examples?

Or are you saying modern architects are cursed by modern technology? That the men of today have, more or less, the same talent, intellect, and experience of those older guys -- unfortunately they are cursed. It seems to me there is huge difference in philosophies.

[Lou_Duran]

Michael,

I understand that you were joining George in his comments about how "anyone" could improve CP if they had more  resourses.  I think that George was directing his comments at my response to TEP, i.e. that MacKenzie would have done some very different things had he had more money and equipment.  I do believe that the Golden Age architects were utilitarian more as a result of necessity than philosophically.

For the most part, they were designing within the financial and technological constraints of the time.  While I have done no research on this, it seems that those who had access to more money, and later in the era, with the proliferation of more advanced construction and golf equipment, built less "minimalist", longer courses, possibly with fewer quirks.
Of course, I could be totally wrong.  

[GeoffreyChilds]

Tom - Yale cost $425,000 (1926 exchange rate) NOT $1,000,000.  Still the most expensive course ever built up until that time.

[J_McKenzie]

Lou,

In support of your last paragraph, I would refer people to the book, "The Course Beautiful" by A.W.Tillinghast, pages 37-38.  It is an article written by Tillinghast about a course he designed over a swamp that was mostly water.  The swamp was drained flat, landforms were manufactured by building large Forms (similar to concrete forms) and pumping in river bottom to fill these forms.  Once he created an interesting landscape, he designed the course to fit naturally with it.

I would like to see a project like that get permitted in today's world.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()