[Erik J. Barzeski]

Mr. Barzeski seems to read just what he wants to.

Nope, read the whole topic.

The changes to 15 went beyond fixing drainage issues. Spence himself said that he thought the mounding was "out of character" with the other holes so he opted to alter it. After complaints from numerous people, they went back and did a mediocre job of replacing the mounding that was there.

They gave a few reasons for changing it, the first of which was to improve the drainage. They also took feedback and increased the mounding without fully reverting to the "poorly draining" version.

You ignored the fact that the strategy of the hole doesn't really change since the location and size of the area is pretty much the same: the bunkers weren't moved to the other side of the fairway, moved 30 yards closer to the tee, or eliminated altogether.

Talking about the mounds across the fairway is not a "straw man."

Have they been removed? No? Then it's a straw man. It hasn't happened, they haven't been modified (or removed).

As to the other "straw man," I mentioned the 7th to illustrate the folly of assuming the "plan"

Has the seventh been changed, or is it going to change to remove the fairway to the right? No? Then it's a straw man.

·       There was no split fairway on 7 and there was no green drawn at all on 15.

Again, Spence has spoken to this and says that the 15th green is on another drawing from Ross. And you say it's me who read what I wanted to read?

·       The man that built the course worked for Ross on other projects, so he had some sort of established relationship. I choose to assume that means that he communicated about on the ground decisions.

Yes, we can all see that you "chose" to make some really big assumptions.

For me, the logical assumption is that whatever Holston looked like when it opened in 1927, Ross approved of it.

You're basing a lot on an assumption and have provided zero supporting evidence that Ross both knew and approved of all of the changes.

I think that's a stretch. I think it's more likely that Ross drew up some plans and left them in the hands of Hughes, and then Hughes put in the ground what he thought was appropriate largely based on the Ross sketches, but with some Hughes touches as he was not just a builder, but an architect in his own right.

And even if we assume that EVERYTHING done with the course after Ross left was all Ross approved… that doesn't mean there aren't still drainage issues, that players don't hit it farther now than they did in the past, that it's completely inappropriate to change a thing. Has the course ever added tees? Did you object to any of those?

When Tom Doak redid the bunkering in the late 90s, he seemed to trust the aerials.

Cool. That doesn't speak to anything I really said. You like Tom Doak. So do I. But the 90s were 30 years ago.

When Tom Doak redid the bunkering in the late 90s, he didn't decide to get rid of mounding on 15 because he didn't like it.
Both of those are enough to convince me that I'm not being irrational.

He also didn't alleviate the drainage concerns, or maybe they weren't as bad then, but have become so.

Whether you're convinced of something appears to be a low bar, as you're also seemingly convinced despite a near complete lack of evidence that Ross knew of and approved of every change from his drawings.

With respect to drainage, sure, I could have asked Ryan Blair how much of changes on 15 were needed to fix drainage. But I didn't.

Go figure.

I like Ryan a lot, and I know how much he cares about Holston Hills and its history. I'm not going to ask him if he agrees with anything that was done, because it's not fair to put him in that position.

"So, those bunkers on 15 presented a heck of a drainage issue, eh?" "Yeah, it was getting pretty bad. We kinda felt like we had to do something."

Boy, that's hard.</s>

------

Again, this whole topic almost breaks down to:

• You don't like the work done to the bunkers, esthetically, on 15. Heck, I don't either compared to the first run at it (I haven't seen the updated version), but that's only looking at them esthetically. There's more to it than that.
• You make big assumptions about what Ross knew of and/or approved. And most of the time, it's a pointless worry anyway, as Spence isn't using the drawings exclusively, as I've seen no plans to "revert" the 7th to a single fairway, to remove the cross bunker on the 9th, or other things that aren't in the original plans.
• You build a bunch of other straw men about what Spence "might" do but hasn't done. Do you think it bolsters your case?
• You ignore that drainage, maintenance cost/ease, maybe safety are the primary reason(s) for doing any of this work, while simultaneously saying you "know next to nothing about drainage." There's more to golf than esthetics.

[Niall C]

Erik


It seems to me that you're the one that's introducing straw men into the discussion, such as below. The whole essence of John's argument is that the changes aren't in keeping with what Ross signed off on.


Niall




Quote from: John Mayhugh on Yesterday at 06:45:42 PM[size=0px]When Tom Doak redid the bunkering in the late 90s, he seemed to trust the aerials.[/size]

[/color]Cool. That doesn't speak to anything I really said. You like Tom Doak. So do I. But the 90s were 30 years ago.[/size][/size]

[Niall C]

Also Erik, when is drainage not architecture ? Surely dealing with how you move water on and off a course is basic to the design ?


Niall


"To lesser players, the cross bunker in front of the green is undoubtedly something they have to weigh. To better players, it's almost always nothing. Removal architecturally will have an effect, but as they've noted, the reasons for this renovation go beyond the architectural: they go to drainage (maybe the whole green drains into the bunker) and maintenance (more sand to maintain that only really punishes the poorer golfer)."

[Mark Pearce]

The original features from 1927 did not agree with Mr. Spence's beliefs so he altered them.Think about that.

One might call that "aggressively critiquing."

The lack of self awareness in this post is really quite startling.

[Mark_Fine]

Is golf course restoration “art” or “science”?  I think it is a combination and as such if you asked a dozen architects to “restore” an old course you would get a dozen different outcomes.  Some will be similar to others but none will be the same.  There is no such thing as a perfect restoration of a course especially ones that are 80-100 or more years old.


It is hard to preserve something that is alive and constantly changing.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

It seems to me that you're the one that's introducing straw men into the discussion, such as below. The whole essence of John's argument is that the changes aren't in keeping with what Ross signed off on.

Nope. John doesn't even know what Ross was aware of and approved. He makes BIG assumptions there.

They changed the bunker complex on 15. They didn't relocate it or eliminate it, they changed it have better drainage and be easier to maintain. John uses that one thing as a jumping off point to bemoan not only that, but several other things that haven't even happened (but which he fears may happen, despite a lack of evidence supporting either their providence or the likelihood of changes being made).

We haven't even seen pictures of the current state of the 15th hole bunker complex. I agree the first stab at it was esthetically worse (we haven't seen photos of the "bumpier" second stab), but again… esthetics weren't the main driver there. Nobody said "this bunker complex is not good strategically or esthetically, let's change it for those reasons." The reasons were drainage/maintenance, and their strategic value has been maintained.

John couldn't even ask the superintendent "Hey, that bunker complex on 15, drainage was a really big issue there eh?"

Also Erik, when is drainage not architecture ? Surely dealing with how you move water on and off a course is basic to the design ?

Not sure where this comes from… I've never said it's not.

The lack of self awareness in this post is really quite startling.

I would say that not being able to spot the differences is quite startling, but given your history, not really. 

--------

Let's be clear about this. The whole topic boils down to "John doesn't like the changes made to the bunker complex on 15." but doesn't really understand why it was changed (drainage/maintenance) and uses that as a leaping off point to worry (needlessly) about a whole bunch of other things.

John goes on and on about the seventh hole… and Spence has never, AFAIK, said "Oh, I'm gonna switch that back to the initial Ross drawings and make it a single fairway." There's one of the straw men.

Let's put it this way: except for the change on 15, what other changes have been made that John finds disagreeable? Does he dislike any of the things laid out in reply #85? For example:

#10 - Lifted the inside edge of the first fairway bunker on the right to prevent fairway drainage from entering the bunker during heavy rain events.  It flooded just a week ago giving us great info for this minor adjustment, bunker remains in place.All other bunkers on 10 renovated in place

Is that a horrible thing that he's "not sure of"? How about any of the other things Spence listed in that post for the back nine?

How about this:

#12 - Shifted the directional bunker at the start of the fairway 15' right so left edge was on the center line of tee shot, per the Ross plan

No? Good?

How about:

#13 - Grassed the bottom of the Scalloped Directional Bunker off tee on right, left directional mounding in tact.  This bunker is not shown on Ross' drawings, I like its purposes of delineating the right edge of the hole much like the mounds do on the left to lead the player up and over the blind tee shot.


Widened the gap between the first two diagonal bunkers about 10' to allow the substantial surface water crossing the fairway to pass between them without eroding the bunkers.  The recent storms demonstrated the effectiveness of this work.

Also good? I mean, that last one is at least removing a bunker, not just improving the drainage in a bunker complex like on 15. Is that okay by John? Those are actual, real, planned changes, not the red herrings of the 7th fairway or seemingly the ninth hole cross bunker short of the green.

[Charlie Goerges]

Nope. John doesn't even know what Ross was aware of and approved. He makes BIG assumptions there.

He's not the only one. Everything about the process is based on assumptions. To me, his point is to give precedence to what was actually built. That's all. I agree with him on this.

[A.G._Crockett]

Is golf course restoration “art” or “science”?  I think it is a combination and as such if you asked a dozen architects to “restore” an old course you would get a dozen different outcomes.  Some will be similar to others but none will be the same.  There is no such thing as a perfect restoration of a course especially ones that are 80-100 or more years old.


It is hard to preserve something that is alive and constantly changing.

Well said, Mark. 


I’ve heard it told that at #2, Ross would go out in the late afternoons with a camp chair and some of his homemade whiskey and watch golfers play.  If he saw someone get up and down from a place that he didn’t think they should, the mules and drag pans would be out there the next day.


Is that story true or apocryphal? I don’t know, but I think we all agree that the only thing that stopped Donald Ross’s work on his masterpiece was his death. So what was originally built apparently wasn’t either perfect or permanent in his view of a golf course. 


#2 was literally in his backyard; had Holston Hills been where he lived, might he have continued to tinker with that design as well with an eye to improving it over what was originally built?


Just food for thought…

[Niall C]

It seems to me that you're the one that's introducing straw men into the discussion, such as below. The whole essence of John's argument is that the changes aren't in keeping with what Ross signed off on.

Nope. John doesn't even know what Ross was aware of and approved. He makes BIG assumptions there.

Erik


John made an argument based on the timeline of different events which he has carefully laid out and explained why he thinks he is correct in terms of what Ross wanted in terms of the final design. Kris has also explained his reasoning for why he believes what Ross wanted in terms of the final design. I don't know the course but I'm not sure that matters. If the deciding factor for undertaking the work was restoration/renovation to what the original architect wanted then I suspect most folk would agree that John's argument is more persuasive.


However I'm not sure that Kris is hanging his hat entirely on that argument. He also seems to be saying that the improvement in drainage was also a consideration. I think it reasonable to question why that has suddenly become an issue after nearly 100 years and another 30 years since another prominent architect didn't seem to think it an issue, or certainly not an issue worth dealing with.


Niall

[Erik J. Barzeski]

He's not the only one. Everything about the process is based on assumptions. To me, his point is to give precedence to what was actually built. That's all. I agree with him on this.

And I haven't seen Spence say that he reverted the bunker complex on 15 to match the drawings and not what was built for that reason alone. The bunker complex on 15, as built, led to drainage/maintence issues. That's why it was changed — it wasn't removed or relocated. Strategically it's still the same thing, geographically it's still the same thing.

The other things, like the fairway on #7 or the cross bunker on #9, haven't been changed AFAIK, and I haven't seen Spence saying they will be changed to reflect what was drawn being different than what was built).

The whole "drawings" or not is a moot point: Spence is using the drawings primarily but not exclusively, and the bunker renovation on #15 has very little to do with the drawings/built argument.

[Charlie Goerges]

#2 was literally in his backyard; had Holston Hills been where he lived, might he have continued to tinker with that design as well with an eye to improving it over what was originally built?

He might have. But he didn't. The only thing we know with any certainty is what was built. The sketches, the possible phone calls or letters overruling the sketches (or previous phone calls) are all theoretical. I think John's point to use the course as it was actually built as the starting point for a restoration still stands.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

John made an argument based on the timeline of different events which he has carefully laid out and explained why he thinks he is correct in terms of what Ross wanted in terms of the final design.

While completely ignoring the reason for renovating the bunkers on 15, and throwing out straw men like the cross bunker on #9 and the split fairway on #7.

If the deciding factor for undertaking the work was restoration/renovation to what the original architect wanted then I suspect most folk would agree that John's argument is more persuasive.

A) That's not the deciding factor for the restoration/renovation. It's been stated several times that it's drainage/maintenance.

B) It's still a major assumption that what was built was known about and approved of by Ross, particularly when another architect was the builder. The only thing that's not an assumption here is what was actually drawn by Ross.

However I'm not sure that Kris is hanging his hat entirely on that argument. He also seems to be saying that the improvement in drainage was also a consideration.

I read that as the primary reason.

I think it reasonable to question why that has suddenly become an issue after nearly 100 years and another 30 years since another prominent architect didn't seem to think it an issue, or certainly not an issue worth dealing with.

Clubs put up with problems until they can fix them all the time.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

He might have. But he didn't. The only thing we know with any certainty is what was built. The sketches, the possible phone calls or letters overruling the sketches (or previous phone calls) are all theoretical. I think John's point to use the course as it was actually built as the starting point for a restoration still stands.

The only thing we know for certain is "Donald Ross" is what he drew.

Again, the primary reason for renovating the bunkers on 15 was drainage/maintenance, not to "restore what Ross drew."

What was built didn't work. It drained poorly/was a maintenance headache. Maybe not 95 years ago, maybe not even much in the 90s, but here and now, it doesn't work and the club wanted to improve the drainage/maintenance. Since what was built didn't work, you can't just put it back… so it makes sense to me that if you have to change that bunker complex, you may as well go back to what you know is Ross's work.

[Charlie Goerges]

And the only thing we know for certain that is Donald Ross is what he drew.

What the architect wanted doesn't matter. What the architect did is what matters.


MacKenzie wanted a tee at CPC 18 that was on a rock outcropping in the ocean connected by a suspension bridge. That want has no bearing on what a restoration of CPC might look like.




Edit: I should say though that if the owners of HH want to make changes and the architect they've hired wants to make changes, that is their right, but then there is no need for the talk of restoration or doing what Ross would have done. Then it's not a restoration, it's a redesign.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

What the architect wanted doesn't matter. What the architect did is what matters.

Ross didn't build the course. Another architect did.

The only thing we know Ross "did" is the drawings. Then he left the building to another architect, probably to spend three days drawing another of his 500 courses.     

[A.G._Crockett]

#2 was literally in his backyard; had Holston Hills been where he lived, might he have continued to tinker with that design as well with an eye to improving it over what was originally built?

He might have. But he didn't. The only thing we know with any certainty is what was built. The sketches, the possible phone calls or letters overruling the sketches (or previous phone calls) are all theoretical. I think John's point to use the course as it was actually built as the starting point for a restoration still stands.

You misunderstand what I wrote.  We KNOW that Ross continued to work on, and presumably improve, #2 until death stopped him, so he pretty clearly didn’t object to changes in what was originally built, including such things as converting sand greens to grass.


Given the remoteness of HH from where Ross lived, travel limitations of the 30’s and 40’s, the sheer number of courses tha Ross designed, and perhaps lack of money available to HH, is there some reason I’m missing to think he wouldn’t have tinkered with HH, or ANY other course he designed for that matter, had they been in his backyard?


This isn’t meant at all to take sides in the work at HH, and I love and value Ross designs as much as anyone, I think.  But the idea that relatively small changes can’t be made to improve things that Ross didn’t design anyway just really rings hollow to me, given what we know to a certainty about his work on #2.

[Niall C]

Also Erik, when is drainage not architecture ? Surely dealing with how you move water on and off a course is basic to the design ?

Not sure where this comes from… I've never said it's not.

Erik


If you go back to post 102 I've made it a bit clearer for you.


Niall

[Charlie Goerges]

What the architect wanted doesn't matter. What the architect did is what matters.

Ross didn't build the course. Another architect did.

The only thing we know Ross "did" is the drawings. Then he left the building to another architect, probably to spend three days drawing another of his 500 courses.     

I understand it's frustrating dealing with the (sometimes) weird traditions of attribution in golf course design. For me, each instance is less important than the general trend in this area. As such, I'll start another thread about the importance of drawings to restoration.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

If you go back to post 102 I've made it a bit clearer for you.

Niall, if you're confused by what I was trying to say there, then I don't know what to tell you. Spence didn't change the bunkers on #15 solely to align with Ross's architectural drawings. That wasn't the primary reason.

I understand it's frustrating dealing with the (sometimes) weird traditions of attribution in golf course design. For me, each instance is less important than the general trend in this area. As such, I'll start another thread about the importance of drawings to restoration.

Go for it if you want, but I'm not frustrated by the traditions of attribution. All I'm saying is that we don't know at all that Ross knew of let alone approved of what was actually built, and we definitely don't know that he was the one driving those changes, particularly when another architect was doing the building.

That's all beside the point, too: the bunker complex on 15 needed to be changed for drainage/maintenance issues. So, Spence went back to the drawings, I guess, as re-building what was built or photographed in 1937 would do little to alleviate the issues.

[Charlie Goerges]

#2 was literally in his backyard; had Holston Hills been where he lived, might he have continued to tinker with that design as well with an eye to improving it over what was originally built?

He might have. But he didn't. The only thing we know with any certainty is what was built. The sketches, the possible phone calls or letters overruling the sketches (or previous phone calls) are all theoretical. I think John's point to use the course as it was actually built as the starting point for a restoration still stands.

You misunderstand what I wrote.  We KNOW that Ross continued to work on, and presumably improve, #2 until death stopped him, so he pretty clearly didn’t object to changes in what was originally built, including such things as converting sand greens to grass.


Given the remoteness of HH from where Ross lived, travel limitations of the 30’s and 40’s, the sheer number of courses tha Ross designed, and perhaps lack of money available to HH, is there some reason I’m missing to think he wouldn’t have tinkered with HH, or ANY other course he designed for that matter, had they been in his backyard?


This isn’t meant at all to take sides in the work at HH, and I love and value Ross designs as much as anyone, I think.  But the idea that relatively small changes can’t be made to improve things that Ross didn’t design anyway just really rings hollow to me, given what we know to a certainty about his work on #2.

That's fair enough, no offense meant or taken.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

John, it doesn't have to do with bunkers or drainage/maintenance, but what's your take on the tree on #2?

[Ben Hollerbach]

1935 Aerial

[Niall C]

If you go back to post 102 I've made it a bit clearer for you.

Niall, if you're confused by what I was trying to say there, then I don't know what to tell you.

...so when you say drainage is beyond architecture you're not saying that drainage isn't architecture ? Yep, that's clear 


Niall

[Scott Warren]

Can we all throw in a few bucks each to buy Erik a journal and have it shipped to him?

[Daryl David]

Can we all throw in a few bucks each to buy Erik a journal and have it shipped to him?

+1000

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()