[John Mayhugh]

 In reply #4 on this GCA thread, Keith Williams asked:
https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?topic=73092.0
 
From a classic perspective, I don't know; but I won't underestimate the ability of clubs, owners and architects to think up work.  I recently read on social media that Kris Spence is doing a major bunker resto/reno at Holston Hills.  I always thought Holston was considered very well preserved and that Tom Doak had done what little work was necessary years ago, so who knows?
 
 
Great question. I had been considering posting on this, and decided I should. As a national member at Holston since 2008, I’m very interested in any changes made to the golf course. The Kris Spence team did not get off to a good start. Here’s what their initial bunker work on the 15^th hole looked like (top image), with the original version below.
 
First shaping by Spence team
hh 15 first attempt at bunkers by john mayhugh, on Flickr
 
 
Unaltered version from 2021
2021 8 Aug 15th by john mayhugh, on Flickr
 
 
Clearly, this was a huge change. The prominent mounding was all but eliminated and the shapes of the bunkers had been altered significantly. Several of us reach out to club leadership to express concern, and were informed that club staff had noticed the problem and were working with the architect to fix it. The final version is better than the initial disaster, but still represents a big change to the hole as originally built.
 
The primary explanation for changes was the need to improve drainage, but the resulting version of the hole seemed heavy-handed to me. I tried to explain why I thought this to the McConnell leadership and local leadership at Holston. Might as well share that with people here.
 
 
Prior to the start of the bunker project, here’s what membership was told:
First and foremost, the project will focus on preserving our Ross Design as we are working closely with old aerial photos, course maps, and original Ross drawings. Our main goals are to:
1.     Make the bunkers more playable and operational through improved bunker design
2.     Improve drainage throughout the course
3.     Addition of new bunker sand

From a design standpoint, you will not see a lot of major changes to our current bunkers. Our main focus on the design is to make sure we direct water away from bunkers to prevent washout and standing water in bunkers. The number one problem with the current bunkers is the amount of water that pours into the bunkers during heavy rain events.
 
 
Seems reasonable. Nothing to be worried about. Then a couple of uh-ohs:
Also, on the design side of the project, we are trying to reduce the amount of sand we currently maintain by reducing the size of a few bunkers and eliminating a few bunkers. If a bunker is eliminated, it will be converted to a grass bunker or grass collection area and not just erased.
 
and
Throughout the design phase, we are looking at a few locations where new bunkers can be added or bunkers can be moved. In doing so, we are trying to capture Ross’ intent of the hole when originally built.

 
On Instagram, architect Kris Spence introduced real worry with this statement:
The course features around 104 bunkers, some of which were added during the early construction, presumably by the construction superintendent and greenkeeper hired by the club and Ross to build the course. The final product will include the majority of Ross’ bunkering as instructed on this notes, a few removals and or conversions to grass depressions/landforms, repositioning of a few bunkers further from the tees into natural landforms to better address modern distances and reinstate lost strategy. Every adjustment we make is with Mr. Ross’ philosophic approach to bunker placement, construction, and intent in mind.
 
spence instagram description of work by john mayhugh, on Flickr
 
 
 
Mr. Spence and I have a fundamental difference in our understandings of how Holston Hills was designed and built. Ross created field sketches and left construction in the hands of Lawrence Hughes, who had worked for Ross for 10 years, helping build courses like Broadmoor (Colorado) and two others in Tennessee. Hughes’ father also worked for Ross on the build of Broadmoor.
 
The hole sketches were guidance to Hughes for construction. Presumably, Hughes stayed in contact with Ross on the work that he was doing and Ross blessed this. He wasn’t just some rogue agent that built what he felt like. The Spence statement about bunkers that “some of which were added during the early construction presumably by the construction superintendent and greenkeeper hired by the club and Ross to build the course” is misleading. It implies that these features were less legitimately “Ross” than others. But they were part of the final design that Ross approved of. I’ll show you why I think that.
 
 
hh bunker rebuilt slide by john mayhugh, on Flickr
 
 
Note that Doak mentions a preference towards restoration work based on what was built.
When Doak worked at Holston, he seemingly followed that approach.
 
 
Spence’s writings seem to favor design sketches over what was built.
spence restoration and design website by john mayhugh, on Flickr
 
 
Why is this important, here’s a great example. The 7^th at Holston is the course’s most famous hole architecturally. George Thomas included it in his terrific 1926 Golf Architecture in America. For it to be included, Ross had to create a new, more detailed hole drawing. His sketch of the hole wouldn’t work. As you can see from the below, the original sketch didn’t include a split fairway or any fairway bunkering.
 
Yet Ross CLEARLY blessed this version of the hole. He provided a drawing for the book based on the as-built hole, not his initial field sketch. It seems very likely that the man building the course was communicating with Ross during the process.
 
hh 7 as built slide by john mayhugh, on Flickr
 
 
 
Isolated example? Not at all. The 15^th hole sketch did not even include a green.
 
hh 15 as built slide by john mayhugh, on Flickr
 
 
 
Over-reliance on sketches seems, to me, to provide the opportunity to make changes that neither restore nor enhance the original design. Here’s another example from the past where a poorly conceived change was made after the course opened. No documentation as to why. But the change eroded the design intent and Doak fixed that.
 
hh 9 as built slide by john mayhugh, on Flickr
 
 
 
There are a wealth of photos available for Holston from the early years. I fell in love with the course because it’s been little changed since it opened. With corporate ownership and the hosting of a Korn-Ferry event, my fear is that there is now either money or impetus to make changes that don’t improve the course.
 
hh accuracy by john mayhugh, on Flickr
 
 
 
The final version of the 15^th shows that something went wrong in the process. The character of the hole has been changed. Bunker shapes are less interesting and the hillocks are smaller and less eye catching. Note the elegance of the restoration work that Doak did compared to the version that is on the ground now.
hh 15 excess change slide by john mayhugh, on Flickr
 
 
I will freely admit that I know next to nothing about drainage. I’ve never been at Holston during huge downpours, so I have not seen personally the issues on the 15^th hole. I understand that the capillary drainage system is supposed to help out in general on every bunker. Are there special needs that necessitated changing the bunkers at 15 and reducing the hillocks? Maybe, but somehow the prior version had been usable for 97 years. I wonder if the way water drains has somehow changed since Hughes built the course in the 20s and Doak redid the bunkers in the 90s? More likely the only change is to expectations.
 
hh 15 excess change slide by john mayhugh, on Flickr
 
 
I’ve heard rumors of potential changes to holes 5 & 9. Here are two of them and why I think such changes would be ill-advised.
 
hh 5 dont slide by john mayhugh, on Flickr
 
 
hh 9 dont slide by john mayhugh, on Flickr
 
note: original post modified to correct above photo link - no change to any other content
 
I sincerely hope that Holston Hills remains one of the best-preserved Ross courses, but it’s seemingly getting a bit less that way. This saddens me.
 

[Charlie Goerges]

A good and thorough post. Thanks for putting it up.


If there are answers for John's concerns, maybe Spence or someone else can make them plain here. But this is a well-reasoned and fair post.

[Tom_Doak]

I sincerely hope that Holston Hills remains one of the best-preserved Ross courses, but it’s seemingly getting a bit less that way. This saddens me.

As Donald Trump would say: "Sad."


The best part about what I did at Holston Hills was that we didn't do very much.  Your word "preserved" is well taken.


Unfortunately, there is no money in preservation, so architects rarely practice it.  The mind-boggling part is, the more they spend to put a course back together, the more it's celebrated.

[Keith Williams]

John,


Thanks for this very detailed account.  I'm not a member and don't have any affiliation with Holston Hills, but the course is very near and dear to me from my time attending UT.  That was back in the infancy of golfclubatlas and it was a unique circumstance to have an obscure, well preserved and excellent Ross right in my backyard.  The club was amazingly gracious to a young golf course nerd who just wanted to repeatedly visit and walk around the course at sunset to see each hole from every angle.


I don't know enough about the situation to react or overreact, but when I first saw a post about it on Instagram, I immediately got a bad feeling.


I genuinely hope this story ends up with a happy ending.


Thanks again for getting some information out to the treehouse.


-Keith

[John Mayhugh]

I sincerely hope that Holston Hills remains one of the best-preserved Ross courses, but it’s seemingly getting a bit less that way. This saddens me.

As Donald Trump would say: "Sad."


The best part about what I did at Holston Hills was that we didn't do very much.  Your word "preserved" is well taken.


Unfortunately, there is no money in preservation, so architects rarely practice it.  The mind-boggling part is, the more they spend to put a course back together, the more it's celebrated.

Tom,
I think it would be all caps    SAD!!
But thanks for your comments. The work you did - and Ran's profile of the course - caused me to join 15+ years ago. It's tough to just sit and watch what I think are mistakes being made. I just pray that Korn-Ferry player feedback isn't encouraging some of the ideas.


Keith,
Come visit sometime.

Charlie,
Thanks. I'm trying to be reasonable.

[Ira Fishman]

John,


I am curious if it does not put you too much on the spot as to what caused the McConnell company to do the work. By all accounts, Holston Hills was one of the least altered Ross courses; therefore, it does not follow that a major restoration was necessary. As a for-profit entity, was the owner trying to find ways to reduce expenses, increase membership, or a combination of both? I completely understand if you are not in a position to share.


Thanks.


Ira

[John Mayhugh]

John,


I am curious if it does not put you too much on the spot as to what caused the McConnell company to do the work. By all accounts, Holston Hills was one of the least altered Ross courses; therefore, it does not follow that a major restoration was necessary. As a for-profit entity, was the owner trying to find ways to reduce expenses, increase membership, or a combination of both? I completely understand if you are not in a position to share.


Thanks.


Ira

Honestly, I don't know. The announcement to the members primarily mentioned improving drainage, suggesting it was mostly maintenance related. They also mentioned cost savings by eliminating some bunkers and resizing others. I'm not able to comment on how necessary the basic work was. My concern is the unknown scope of the work and it being guided by original drawings (that don't match what was built) and some assumptions about what Ross intended.

[Craig Sweet]

Sad...yes, that's how I felt after Kenny Rogers had "improvements" made on his face.

[Richard Hetzel]

And, possibly, all for just a Korn Ferry Tour event. Grow out the rough high, and speed up the greens for it. Don't alter Ross' original design.
Does the club actually make any money from the Korn Ferry Tour event?

PS: I had an awesome time playing HH with you John, it's a great course! Probably, my favorite Ross golf course!

[Paul Jones]

I played with a long-time member and he was also worried about the changes being made for the Korn Hole tournament. I am sure there is a formula that someone is using to calculate moving/adding bunkers and it will be even worst if they do not match the rest of the course.

[David Kelly]

Making real changes to the course in order to placate the Korn Ferry Tour is extremely short-sighted on the part of the Holston Hills management and it signals that they are a rinky-dink organization.  The course itself is decidedly not rinky-dink and looking at the schedule it is the best course the KFT plays all year.


BTW, the PGA will not hesitate to drop HH in a second if they think they can make a dime more somewhere else.

[Jon Sweet]

John,


Thanks for this very detailed account.  I'm not a member and don't have any affiliation with Holston Hills, but the course is very near and dear to me from my time attending UT.  That was back in the infancy of golfclubatlas and it was a unique circumstance to have an obscure, well preserved and excellent Ross right in my backyard.  The club was amazingly gracious to a young golf course nerd who just wanted to repeatedly visit and walk around the course at sunset to see each hole from every angle.


I don't know enough about the situation to react or overreact, but when I first saw a post about it on Instagram, I immediately got a bad feeling.


I genuinely hope this story ends up with a happy ending.


Thanks again for getting some information out to the treehouse.


-Keith

Tennesee grad of 2001, Holston is by far one of my favorite courses.  Played it countless times and cannot say enough good things about it.  Hope they get it right as it is a fantastic place.

[Don Mahaffey]

I don't know why the changes are being made, but I do know if a course hosts a PGA Tour managed event, reg, Sr, or KF, the course owner/management will get feedback from the Tour staff re design changes and conditioning. Anything that will make the event easier to manage, and make the course more predictable and consistent, will be what most of the suggested changes will be based on. But, the course doesn't have to do anything if they choose to ignore the recommendations, and the Tour isn't going to piss off a sponsor just because the players may not like something about the course. In the end the sponsorship $$$ will drive what happens. if the sponsor wants the changes and helps pay for them, then if the course wants to keep the event they will perform the work. 

[John Mayhugh]

Anything that will make the event easier to manage, and make the course more predictable and consistent, will be what most of the suggested changes will be based on.

I have no idea if KF feedback is driving any of the changes to the 15th hole, but the original bunker complex was bit quirky, combining irregular bunker shapes with mounding outside of the bunkers. One could end up with unusual lies and some awkward shots. I have heard that the club asked that the bunkering be made more visible, and that sure sounds like it fits the bill for what a pro tour event would prefer.

The mounds also somewhat mirrored the distinctive mounding that bisects the fairway - note Ran's picture below. That mounding, also, was not shown on the original field sketches in that orientation. Hopefully someone won't decide that the fairway mounds are inconvenient and get rid of them too. After all, just following the Ross sketches!

HH15a by john mayhugh, on Flickr

At one time, someone working for Holston thought this was a "spectacular" bunker complex. Not in 2024, I guess.

hh 15 website description by john mayhugh, on Flickr

I don't have an aerial showing the bland "improvement," but this collection of bunkers WAS really cool.

15 bunkers aerial by john mayhugh, on Flickr

Hard to fathom how this was the approved result.


IMG_7872 by john mayhugh, on Flickr
IMG_7873 by john mayhugh, on Flickr

[Mike Hendren]

1980 graduate of Tennessee.  Back then Holston Hills was considered to be a very stern test.  I attended the PGA Cup matches there in 1982.

[Lynn_Shackelford]

Based on the pictures you posted there is ample reason for concern regarding these "improvements."  Without question this is a property worth defending and fighting for.
Has anyone done the research that you have to also suggest that the "hole by hole field notes" are not necessarily the holy grail?  Do you have, or are gathering some other members for support?  A letter to the owner about your concerns, if supported by other members, would get his attention.  Management companies and their executives dislike controversy.


Has Spence defended these changes and can attest to thorough examination of aerials from the early days of the golf course?  Surely he would agree that aerials don't lie.  He seems to have a pretty good reputation and I wouldn't think he has moved forward without being able to defend the changes.  I was impressed by his work at Roaring Gap.


But with a professional tour event and a management company involved there, the motives raises several questions doesn't it?


What is the superintendent saying?

[Eric_Terhorst]

John,


As a former national member and still great admirer of Holston Hills, I am sorry and horrified to see this news.  The 15th was one of my favorite holes, even if the greenside bunkers were out of the ordinary and occasionally a bit exasperating.  They were an important, amusing, and welcome part of the course. 


What you have documented is a shame.  It appears to be too late, but if there's a petition to sign, please let us know. 

[John Mayhugh]

Lynn,


I personally have done very little research. One can simply look at the field sketches compared to photos of the course in the early years and see the inadequacy of using those. The most famous hole is completely different from the sketch and the 15th doesn’t even have a green complex! A course plan drawn after construction doesn’t match what the course looked like in photos either - probably because this was drawn in an office by someone who hadn’t seen the holes as built. Perhaps Spence had access to materials that have been hidden away, but there remains a mismatch with what was opened for play.


I’ve never seen anything about Ross coming back after opening and making changes, so again - use the photos. Like many architects that work on classic courses, I’ve seen comments where Spence implies he is just interpreting the work that Ross might have done in modern times. I’m always skeptical of this approach.


Did Spence & the McConnell team find materials that Doak didn’t have access to?


McConnell Golf isn’t a management company. John McConnell owns the course and quite a few others. I shared my concerns with the GM & superintendent at Holston, and then with McConnell’s COO, VP of Operations, & VP of Agronomy. The VP of Agronomy, Michael Shoun, did reply to me. He said that he and John McConnell had visited HH to look at the work and that it “meets our expectations of what the Ross plan shows without major changes to the previous bunkering.” If what they did at 15 isn’t major, I would hate to see what that looks like. Shoun, like Spence, seems to overvalue the plans.


I haven’t tried to rally the membership as I’m not local and feel like it would have no impact. Hopefully feedback from knowledgeable outside of the club might.


I have not attempted to contact Spence as I think that’s unfair to him. He doesn’t work for me & I have no standing in his relationship with McConnell. I think Roaring Gap looked terrific, but as is well documented - a very knowledgeable and dedicated member was involved throughout the project. He was a fantastic resource. In this case, Spence’s boss works in Raleigh……


The course superintendent, Ryan Blair, sometimes posts on GCA. He is deeply interested in the history of the course and, I think, committed to doing what is right for the course. He does a very good job taking care of the course with what seems to be a small staff - I don’t know the numbers. However, his boss at McConnell thinks the work looks good, so not sure what he could say. I wouldn’t put him on the spot to ask.

[Mike Hendren]

I have long suspected that the more artistic Golden Age architects embellished their drawing to help sell the design or as an outlet for their artistic skills.  After all two dimension drawings can look rather pedestrian.  George C. Thomas, Jr. is the best example that comes to mind.  Perhaps Stranz more recently.  It seems plausible that what was sketched and what wound up on the ground were not identical.

[Sean_A]

I have long suspected that the more artistic Golden Age architects embellished their drawing to help sell the design or as an outlet for their artistic skills.  After all two dimension drawings can look rather pedestrian.  George C. Thomas, Jr. is the best example that comes to mind.  Perhaps Stranz more recently.  It seems plausible that what was sketched and what wound up on the ground were not identical.

You only have to look at the Simpson sketches (and Simpson generally) in the Blackwell thread to note the exaggerated aesthetic.

Ciao

[Matt MacIver]

My course is a McConnell property which was renovated by Spence in ~2017 with similar changes to HH, i.e add/remove bunkers, new capillary liners.  Today many of the bunker’s liners are exposed and there is too little sand.  Fried eggs and balls remaining in the face happen far too often.  And there are several grass islands within bunkers that make little sense.  And from a current maintenance perspective the tops of the bunkers have wild amounts of heavy Bermuda.  But as John says above, Members have almost zero ability to raise concerns or address issues.  Oh and BTW the greens aren’t great . 

[Kris Spence]

Lynn,


John, I going to make this as short as I can as I have been dealing with a serious family/friend situation the past week and I'm not really interested in a long debate with you.  You obviously spent a great deal of time putting together the document you sent to McConnell Golf which was shared with me, you posted portions of it here.  You make your points and I agree with some but not all of them.  I do consider the Ross field sketches and drawings to be the confirmed recommendations by Donald Ross for the design of the course, unless there is confirmed evidence that the changes were made with his approval and knowledge.  I also value the aerial evidence a great deal and have not made it a priority to eliminate the work shown on the aerial.  I did feel the knuckles or aggressive "chocolate drops" as many at Holston call them were out of character with the other holes and decided to lessen some of them, remove a couple and leave others.  It was my decision and was not in anyway requested by anyone at MG.  I started getting some strong messages regarding this decision and returned to the course to have a look, met with MG representation and we all decided to reinstate most of the mounding with a bit less aggressiveness to it.  The lower bunker was getting destroyed by drainage inflows so we modified the complex to improve that situation.  I can show you many Ross plans where he returned to remodel his own courses and made modifications to bunkers and greens to open lines of play or presumably address comments he received from the client. You obviously don't like my approach on 15 which is well within your right to do, not sure if you have seen the finished work but I think it looks very good.

I would suggest all of you to go and take a look at the work we have done before piling on , it is very much respectful of Mr. Ross architecture both abroad and at Holston Hills.  IF you dont like it after that fine, fire your comments away at me, my email is kspdesign@aol.com I've been around awhile and am not thinned skinned.

I personally have done very little research. One can simply look at the field sketches compared to photos of the course in the early years and see the inadequacy of using those(I find them a valuable source of information, they were drawn by DJR). The most famous hole is completely different from the sketch and the 15th doesn’t even have a green complex! (the general plan includes the green sketch for 15) A course plan drawn after construction doesn’t match what the course looked like in photos either - probably because this was drawn in an office by someone who hadn’t seen the holes as built. Perhaps Spence had access to materials that have been hidden away, but there remains a mismatch with what was opened for play. (I did not)


I’ve never seen anything about Ross coming back after opening and making changes (key point), so again - use the photos (your opinion rightfully so, however, we are not discounting the photos, we find them very important just as we do the DJR drawings) . Like many architects that work on classic courses, I’ve seen comments where Spence implies he is just interpreting the work that Ross might have done in modern times. I’m always skeptical of this approach. ( for the record, I tried to follow what I feel is the philisophic approach to the way Ross placed bunkers, the reason behind his decision, the site he chose and the manner in which he directed the construction the methods used at the time) I do not profess to know what DJR would do if he were to return.  He might say who put these bunkers here and there, he might say whomever added these bunkers did a great job.  He might also say the balls are traveling so far these days we should consider adding or moving a few bunkers to better challenge the current game?  I dont have those answers but I do try to do what I think is respectful to his work.


Did Spence & the McConnell team find materials that Doak didn’t have access to? I doubt it and Im not sure exactly what Doak had at his disposal 20? years ago. He made what he thought was the right decision, I respect that but that does not mean the course should never change ever because Doak made that decision.  Donald Ross adapted his course as his career progressed and he adapted to the changes in the game.  Not making a case, just stating facts.


McConnell Golf isn’t a management company. John McConnell owns the course and quite a few others. I shared my concerns with the GM & superintendent at Holston, and then with McConnell’s COO, VP of Operations, & VP of Agronomy. The VP of Agronomy, Michael Shoun, did reply to me. He said that he and John McConnell had visited HH to look at the work and that it “meets our expectations of what the Ross plan shows without major changes to the previous bunkering.” If what they did at 15 isn’t major, I would hate to see what that looks like. Shoun, like Spence, seems to overvalue the plans. (Addressed above, I do value the plans a great deal as I should, they are the clear directives by DJR.  I have not gone through the course eliminating the added bunkering.)


I haven’t tried to rally the membership as I’m not local and feel like it would have no impact. Hopefully feedback from knowledgeable outside of the club might. ( You have rallied the troops John, I have no problem with your efforts, I am aware of yours and others comments and concerns,  I will address them where I and MG representatives feel appropriate.  You may not like all of our decisions which is certainly your right John but the Owner would like to address the changes in the game where it makes sense to do so.  I am trying to do that in the most respectful what possible.)


I have not attempted to contact Spence as I think that’s unfair to him. (John, you can contact me anytime, will be glad to talk with you.  Some of your comments in the document you sent MG clearly took a shot at my credentials and experience, I understand you were upset but you are trying to impact or alter my working relationship with a client I have a signed agreement with.  Probably was not your intentions.) and He doesn’t work for me & I have no standing in his relationship with McConnell. I think Roaring Gap looked terrific, but as is well documented - a very knowledgeable and dedicated member was involved throughout the project. He was a fantastic resource. In this case, Spence’s boss works in Raleigh……
(John, you seem to be implying that the only reason Roaring Gap turned out so well is because Dunlop White was involved?  Dunlop and I worked closely together and have for many years slowly bring that course back closer to the one we see on the Ross drawings, ground level photos and aerial photographs.  Dunlop was a huge help, we had our battles I can assure you and we both learned a great deal in the process.  Believe what you want John, you are off base with that comment, again your right to feel that way.)


The course superintendent, Ryan Blair, sometimes posts on GCA. He is deeply interested in the history of the course and, I think, committed to doing what is right for the course. He does a very good job taking care of the course with what seems to be a small staff - I don’t know the numbers. However, his boss at McConnell thinks the work looks good, so not sure what he could say. I wouldn’t put him on the spot to ask.


Ryan and I have had many conversation about the history of the course, he is indeed very passionate about the place and it shows.  We have not agreed on everything, there was a healthy give and take between us and he has been very helpful .  He is the key to helping us modify the drainage issues with the old bunkers which is important when investing this kind of money in the course.  He had nothing to do with the changes at 15, the amount of water being steered into those bunkers was obvious and cutting 2' deep ruts through the sand and bunker bottom.  I was influenced by what I saw and made the changes I thought necessary.  The hole looks absolutely fantastic, go have a look folks.  I can assure you we did not destroy the 15th at Holston as some would have you believe.  Yes we modified the mounding between the bunkers, a bit too much at the start and reinstated what I thought was appropriate.  If push comes to shove, we can put them all the way back, we have photos.

Please forgive typos and grammatical errors, I dont have more time to spend on this.

[Dan_Callahan]

I've never played Holston Hills, but this thread is exactly the type of dialogue that first drew me to GCA more than 20 years ago. John, I appreciate the effort you made to document your concerns with the course renovation. And Kris, I appreciate you taking the time to respond so thoughtfully. There is always going to be tension and criticism when a beloved course is altered. But also, whether it is to keep up with how the game is played today or to address drainage or other maintenance issues, sometimes changes are necessary. Kris, the fact that you heard complaints from members and went back and brought back some of the mounding speaks volumes. Hopefully, when all the work is complete, the owner, members and architect will all agree it worked out well.

[John Mayhugh]

Kris,
Thanks for your comments. I'm sorry to hear about the issue you are dealing with, and I don't want to type a lengthy response at this time as I don't want you to feel you need to reply at this time.

However, I do need to clear up one thing. This comment is a large mischaracterization of what I sent to McConnell Golf.
Some of your comments in the document you sent MG clearly took a shot at my credentials and experience, I understand you were upset but you are trying to impact or alter my working relationship with a client I have a signed agreement with.  Probably was not your intentions

I included a couple of quotes from your website in my presentation. I did not take "a shot at your credentials and experience" and made no attempt whatsover to alter your working relationship with McConnell. The entire effort I made was to bring awareness to what I feel were misguided changes to the golf course. Below is the text of the email that I sent. I could also post a link to the presentation itself if needed:
 I'm reaching out to you directly with concerns about bunker work going on at Holston Hills. I have shared this same information with Chris Dibble (who is out on vacation) and Ryan Blair. Since I am unsure of who is driving the changes to the golf course (local or corporate), I am also sharing this with you. It is unfair of me to express concerns to people who are not responsible.
   
   I have a huge interest in golf course architecture, and joined Holston for that very reason. Though I live 3.5 hours away, I've maintained my membership for around 15 years, even years where I may only visit a handful of times. I have no other ties to Knoxville, but I keep paying dues because of my fondness for the golf course.
   
  I hope you will take the time to read through my concerns in the attached document.

Michael Shoun replied to me, but I won't post what he said - not that there was anything improper about it. I just don't think it's right to share communications from others without asking. . Here is what I sent in response.


Thanks for getting back to me and explaining the work that you are overseeing.
My biggest concern is that Spence seems to be over-reliant on the Ross hole sketches. These were preliminary, and anyone that wants to spend the time can go through hole by hole and see how the as-built course does not match the hole drawings. Hole 15, which has had the most drastic changes, did not even have a green complex drawn as part of the hole sketch, and the hole 7 sketch looks nothing like the final version of the hole that Ross (and George Thomas) clearly were pleased with. The man that supervised construction for Ross had worked with him before and I think those interested in the design history have to trust that what he built was what Ross wanted. What he built is the course that Tom Doak gave a "7" to in his confidential guide. Reliance on the drawings is a clear mistake that I hope will be discouraged.
Holston was largely unspoiled due to lacking money over the years. Polishing rather than changing is the best way to take advantage of the legacy. The work on 15 did not do that at all.
I completely understand that McConnell has not recouped all investment at Holston. But I seriously doubt the organization has recouped its investment at Raleigh or other clubs, either. If the membership needs to expect austerity changes, it would be good if we understood what is driving those. That was my only point in mentioning investment dollars.
Again, thanks for replying. I'm hopeful that Spence's future work will be more respectful towards the version of HH that was constructed.


I don't think any of this is especially critical of you or suggestive that you shouldn't be doing the work. I was (and am) only saying that the work needs to rely more on what was built unless there is a good reason to discard it.

And yes, I have seen the work in person about 11 days ago.

Two final comments:
I think that Michael Shoun's response to me was polite and professional. I just don't agree with the direction.
You seem also to be well-meaning. I just don't agree with the approach you are taking in some areas.


Finally, sorry to all for the awful formatting.

[Charlie Goerges]

Agree Dan, this is what I like to see.


It brings up an interesting philosophical question. To use an analogy, Michelangelo created sketches of the David or the Sistine chapel, and then he did the work. No doubt the sketches reflect his intent, but where they differ from what was made, which is the more authentic version?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()