Tom Doak,
Not sure minimalistic process has anything to do with rankings, and of course, there were no real rankings (although there were some best of lists even back then, by esteemed golf writers) so the ODG just did what they thought was best for their golf courses, no?
I think "perfect" varies from site to site, and the potential to reach it varies from near impossible on some, to nearly attainable on others. (In other words, agreeing with the notion that you need a great site to have a great golf course.
Chris,
Some would say a very good golf course on a very average site is the real test of an architects skill, but I agree in most cases, knowing when a bit more is too much is always a big key to great design.
As per above, there really are no perfect routings. On most sites, there could be a dozen different good ones. How to choose? TD might choose on the basis of which one minimizes work. Someone else might favor a routing with the most spectacular "signature hole" while accepting that there is more work to do on perhaps five other holes. Someone else might choose one based on it being the safest, the longest, or the shortest to walk from green to tee. Obviously, most routings have most of those things, but the final choice between similar or nearly equal but different routings comes down to what the architect favors.
Once set with the routing (save perhaps minor tweaks, although from time to time you read about big changes later) the same process starts all over again in feature design, with different criteria. I suppose the minimalistic grading work for any green site, for example includes:
1. Grading to:
Level (decrease or increasing the natural slope) of most of the green area to 1.5-3% (or whatever....)
Raise or Lower for Vision
Cut off up hill drainage from crossing the green
Create ADA ramp for access as required by law
Tie any surrounds back into existing grade.
From here, I suppose even Bill, Ben and Tom would agree that if you were going to do that much, you would grade to add bunkers or other hazards (mounds, banks, bumps, slopes) for strategic interest, trying to use what was there, but modifying for better golf. Ditto for the actual green surface. Minimalism might be creating the functional green, but why not add interesting contours while grading the sub grade and/or coring for a sand base?
The real difference, I surmise betweeen TD and JN would be what would influence the above changes or more work. TD might be more influenced by the nature of the surrounding grade while JN might be more influenced by how the wind affects a shot, or the fact that the last approach favored a fade, and this one might need to favor a draw, etc.
So, in a way, minimalism is a state of mind, a belief in what is more important. The question for my "theoretical example" is what makes for a better golf course? Follow the land, or create the shots? In many cases, shot balance can be created, and there is no such thing as "perfect shot balance" nor the need for a course to balance left and right shots, etc. (although Pete Dye always tried to do this, and most other gca's try, if not as hard)
Like I said before, minimalism MUST be the best description of the subtle differences these guys do, because it came out of someone's mouth, and it has stuck for 10 years or more.
Fascinating subject.....as usual, no clear answer.