Holston Hills "improvements" - I'm not so sure of that

[Will Thrasher]

John, it was great to meet you this past weekend. Thoroughly enjoyed reading this thread. I agree with you that while sketches may be informative, classic courses like HH have much documented history of what was actually built - I would hate to see a classic Ross like this lose a bit of its character.

[John Mayhugh]

 When I started this thread, my intent was to draw attention to what I thought was a poorly conceived changed to the 15^th hole at HH. I did this for one simple reason – to hopefully forestall additional changes.
 
In response to my initial post, I got some criticism for manners and some convoluted justification of the work. In one sense, I guess I should be appreciative of the relentless braying of Erik J. Barzeski, as he has helped keep the topic in a prominent position on the discussion board. My fundamental problem with Barzeski’s contribution, though, is that he makes arguments based on misinformation.
 
For those that have time, I would encourage you to go back and re-read my original post. It explains my motivations in starting this thread and provides examples of the work. Kris Spence, in reply #21, explains why he changed the mounding on 15:

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.
 

Simply put, he made the changes for aesthetic reasons. Spence never says that the mounds caused or created drainage issues.
 
Later on in the same thread, Spence writes:
“Yes, we modified the mounding between the bunkers, a bit too much at the start and reinstated what I thought was appropriate.”
 
Judge for yourselves what version of mounding looks the best:
 
The version prior to Spence’s arrival
2021 8 Aug 15th by john mayhugh, on Flickr
 
 
Spence’s original alteration. This is what he was happy with. (Sorry I don't have a pic from the fairway).

hh 15 first attempt at bunkers by john mayhugh, on Flickr
 
 
The current version that resulted from some pushback from the club.
IMG_7872 by john mayhugh, on Flickr
 
 
The original alteration is what prompted my post and the concerns I expressed to the club’s owners.
 
 
 
Subsequent discussion about the validity of the 1926 plan involves assumptions. I think this is important because the 1926 plan is something that Spence refers back to when he wants to invalidate a feature on the course. He implies that Lawrence Hughes did work that Ross either didn’t know about or wouldn’t have approved of. See below my comment and Spence’s reply.
 

 I cannot understand why Spence believes the 1937 aerial isn't a valid representation of the design that Ross approved of. This opinion provides an excuse to make changes since the 1937 aerial and current course do not match the "plan" in many areas.
 
 I don't think I said it isn't valid, I do think absent of evidence that Ross directed and approved the changes there is a possibility Lawrence was taking some liberties, some were very good in my opinion and definitely strengthened the course over the original plans.  There certainly more forced aerial shots added.  Others seem to be not in line with what I am used to seeing Ross do such as placing bunkers in a manner where substantial water is steered through the bunker.  This could have very well come after the fact, It is hard to determine from the aerials.
 
 

Perhaps Lawrence was “taking some liberties.” But we know for a fact that one substantial change – the split fairway on the 7^th – was communicated with Ross and Ross’ office. How else did the drawing of the 7^th make it into George Thomas’ book? Was this DJR’s idea or Hughes’? No way of knowing. How much sense does it make, though, that Hughes spent extra time and money to add features that Ross didn't want?

 
People can believe what they want. But if Lawrence Hughes worked for Ross on multiple projects, it’s reasonable to think that Ross trusted his judgement. It’s also reasonable to believe that Ross knew about more than just that single deviation from the 1926 plan. This area is very important because Spence uses the plan to justify the changes he wants to make. In doing so, he asserts that he has a better idea of what Ross intended than the guy that built Holston Hills (and other courses) for Ross. That is nonsensical to me.
 
John Stiles has been a member at Holston for 40 years and knows the history better than anyone. His post #75 is worth re-reading if you want to understand what helps inform my opinions.
 
 
Two final areas of comment.
 
I’ve seen posts that talk about restoration. The remit at Holston seemingly was to renovate the bunkers and to address “changes in the game where it makes sense to do so.” Any alterations to hole features are not IMO a restoration of anything that was originally built.
                                                                                                                     
Lastly, drainage is not binary. Improving drainage is a very valid goal, but I think we have to be careful not to dumb down a course – either aesthetically or functionally – and use improved drainage as an unassailable justification. We have to look at how much improvement there is and compare that to what is lost. Sometimes a little more labor or inconvenience to players is worth it. Keep golf courses unique.

[Richard Hetzel]

John,


I still have a few pics of that green (most of it anyway) from when you hosted me years ago. I'll post them up this evening.

[Rob Marshall]

John,
I’m missing something in your pictures. They look like completely different angles. Doesn’t even appear to me to be the same hole. What am I missing?

[John Mayhugh]

I don’t happen to have pics from all angles. Never thought I would need “before” ones.


Original pic is from 16 fwy as you would walk past and look back. First alteration pic was from 16 tee looking back towards 15 fwy. Current version was from 15 fwy looking towards green.


I get that the angles are not the same but to me, at least, it’s pretty easy to see how the mounds go from bold to flattened to bland. John Stiles is likely to have pics from a common angle if that is needed.

[Kalen Braley]

There are two pics of 15 in the course review from the Courses by Country section.

[Stewart Abramson]

There are two pics of 15 in the course review from the Courses by Country section.

Kalen, Thanks for posting the above photo. It is helpful in understanding the subject of the hole that is the focus of this thread. I wish I had thought of checking out the "Courses by Country Section.


I have zero expertise on Donald Ross, having played less than a dozen Donald Ross courses (and not knowing how much Ross remained in those courses). The minefield of four or five bunkers front/left of the green shown in this photo do not remind me of any hole I've seen on the Ross courses I've played.  Can those of you who have expertise/experience with Ross courses identify holes on other courses where he included a bunker complex near a green that looks like this?

[Richard Hetzel]

These were taken several years ago.

[David Kelly]

There are two pics of 15 in the course review from the Courses by Country section.

Kalen, Thanks for posting the above photo. It is helpful in understanding the subject of the hole that is the focus of this thread. I wish I had thought of checking out the "Courses by Country Section.


I have zero expertise on Donald Ross, having played less than a dozen Donald Ross courses (and not knowing how much Ross remained in those courses). The minefield of four or five bunkers front/left of the green shown in this photo do not remind me of any hole I've seen on the Ross courses I've played.  Can those of you who have expertise/experience with Ross courses identify holes on other courses where he included a bunker complex near a green that looks like this?

Reminds me of specific holes like Plainfield #2 and Aronimink #3 and generally of those two courses as well.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

My fundamental problem with Barzeski’s contribution, though, is that he makes arguments based on misinformation.

Still going with that? You've yet to point out any misinformation.

Simply put, he made the changes for aesthetic reasons. Spence never says that the mounds caused or created drainage issues.

Are you willing to bet that the changes to the bunker complex on 15 were entirely about esthetics and not about drainage/maintenance?

He implies that Lawrence Hughes did work that Ross either didn’t know about or wouldn’t have approved of.

And you've yet to show that it wasn't exactly that: that another architect, in the 1920s when we didn't have email and iMessage and so on, communicate with Ross about every detail when building the course.

I don't think I said it isn't valid, I do think absent of evidence that Ross directed and approved the changes there is a possibility Lawrence was taking some liberties, some were very good in my opinion and definitely strengthened the course over the original plans.

Seems fine to me.

Perhaps Lawrence was “taking some liberties.” But we know for a fact that one substantial change – the split fairway on the 7th – was communicated with Ross and Ross’ office. How else did the drawing of the 7th make it into George Thomas’ book?

You don't know that it was communicated while it was being built, and that Ross approved of it. You only know that he was aware of it when he was asked for a drawing for inclusion in a list.

Was this DJR’s idea or Hughes’? No way of knowing. How much sense does it make, though, that Hughes spent extra time and money to add features that Ross didn't want?

Hughes was an architect, too.

People can believe what they want.

If you had any actual evidence, John, people wouldn't have to "believe" or speculate: they'd be able to base the way they lean on that evidence. Instead, you assume. You guess. You speculate.

This is one of your straw men. The 7th hole hasn't been changed. Spence hasn't reverted it to the as-drawn 1926 plans, has he? But you throw this out there as "proof" when it doesn't rise to that level at all, then say that others are spreading misinformation? Ha.

But if Lawrence Hughes worked for Ross on multiple projects, it’s reasonable to think that Ross trusted his judgement.

Big difference between "DJR: Here's what I see, roughly, in these plans good friend. Do your thing, I trust your judgment if you want to make a call in the field." and "LH: Hey, DJR, I have 34 changes ranging from small to pretty big. Can we talk so you can approve them all?"

It’s also reasonable to believe that Ross knew about more than just that single deviation from the 1926 plan.

I do not think it's reasonable that in 1926 nearly every change was communicated to and approved by DJR. I think it's more reasonable to conclude that a trusted builder and an architect in his own right implemented some changes in the field without communicating or seeking approval from DJR.

This area is very important because Spence uses the plan to justify the changes he wants to make.

John, except for the bunkers on 15, which I still think you'll lose the bet on re: drainage/maintenance, where has Spence "used the plans to justify a change" back to the 1926 plans instead of the 1937 build? He hasn't touched the 7th. He hasn't touched the cross mounding on 15. He hasn't touched the cross bunker short of the 9th green. All straw men (thus far) you've thrown out there.

The part of your argument that isn't straw men is "he used the 1926 plans to change the bunkers on 15." And again, it's not like the 1926 plans showed the height of the mounds around those bunkers, and I don't think he really cares about the exact number or sizes of individual bunkers… so the bunker complex on 15 is still in the same place and roughly the same size, is it not? Was this bunker complex on the 1926 plans? It's not like it was absent from them and Spence has removed them despite them existing in 1937. Nor have they been moved.

The Spence quote you made wasn't talking about the bunkers on 15 as being primarily about the 1926 plans.

You just don't like that the severity was lessened.

Also, you never answered my question about the tree on #2.

[John Mayhugh]

 Erik J. Barzeski,
 
I started this thread because I was concerned about alterations to a historic golf course that I like very much. I’ve continued to post with that mindset. I don’t really understand why arguing against me is worth your time and energy, but I’ll try to clarify a few things:
 
EJB:  Are you willing to bet that the changes to the bunker complex were entirely about esthetics and not about drainage/maintenance?
 
The changes to the mounding were done for aesthetic reasons! Spence said so himself on this thread. I just assumed he was telling the truth – do you know something I don’t? I’ve never contended that the changes to the bunkering itself in the same complex were done for aesthetics. These were purportedly modified to solve drainage issues. I’ve previously posted that I lack expertise to say if those modifications were needed or not. I only pointed out that the course somehow survived for 97 years with the drainage issue. The need for the change was likely due to cost savings or player expectations, but not aesthetics. I hope this clarification will finally get through to you.
 
Spence’s willingness to alter course features for HIS OWN aesthetic reasons troubled me and continues to do so.
 
 
Discussion of the plan vs. 1937 aerial
No one from McConnell or Holston leadership has ever said that Spence has the remit to restore the course to the 1926 plan. Members were told that he was improving drainage, possibly converting some bunkers to grass, and possibly moving or adding bunkers to “capture Ross’ intent of the hole when it was originally built.” (Note: seems like this is being done on 6, though I’ve yet to see it myself.)
 
Spence has followed the 1926 plan where he agrees with it, and made some changes that are not in the 1926 plan. This inconsistency is worrying. You and Spence (and McConnell) seemingly believe that Spence is in the best position to understand what Ross would have wanted Holston to look like and play like. It’s a troubling mindset, especially when his first major alteration (removal of the mounds on 15) was so ill-conceived. I’m not saying he has repeated that error (or will do something similar), but pointed out my concerns with the hope that more respect would be paid to the course as built.
 
For me, the version of Holston Hills that needs to be the baseline is in the 1937 aerial. Did Hughes build something different from the 1926 plan and the hole sketches that informed that plan? Clearly he did. But that was the course that was built, opened, and has challenged and entertained golfers for nearly 100 years. And we know that Ross approved of the most significant change (the 7^th hole). The 1937 plan IS Holston Hills. If Spence wants to modify it (when it suits him) and use the 1926 plan as justification, shouldn’t the onus be on him to prove that Ross didn’t approve of the course that opened? There is zero evidence that Ross didn’t approve, while the 7^th is clear proof he knew of one significant change. He even liked it enough to share with George Thomas. If you’re going to make a judgement, approval is more logical than disapproval. 
 
 
The tree on 2
There is no evidence that Lawrence Hughes planted that tulip poplar as part of construction, but I also don’t have any proof that Ross told him to leave the tree. So I suppose it’s fair game!
 
Architecturally, the hole doesn’t need the tree. I actually think the hole might be improved for all levels of player if the tree was removed. However, I hope it remains. Making an individual hole better might not actually improve the course, as there’s something to be said for memorability and uniqueness. The more courses I see, the more I understand this.

[Mike Worth]

I participate in a college basketball discussion board (although not much recently). That board has a concept where moderators close a thread that has tediously run its course.  Moderators move such threads to an area called. “THREAD PENITENTIARY.”


Is it time for that with this thread? To me, the points have been made multiple times. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I started this thread because I was concerned about alterations to a historic golf course that I like very much.

I like Holston Hills (damn autocorrect always trying to get me to say Houston) very much, too. I also think A > C > B in terms of the bunker complex on 15.

EJB:  Are you willing to bet that the changes to the bunker complex were entirely about esthetics and not about drainage/maintenance?
 
The changes to the mounding were done for aesthetic reasons! Spence said so himself on this thread.

I have it on good authority that you're wrong about this. The primary reason for any of the changes, but specifically the ones to the bunker complex on 15, are drainage/maintenance.

The quote you cited as pertaining specifically to #15 was in fact a general comment about whether, in general, he was going to rely on the 1926 drawings or the 1937 "in the ground" version of the course when he made the changes necessary to improve the drainage/maintenance.

You've completely skipped the actual reason for the change and seem to be focusing entirely on what the change looks like (and whether it's closer to 1926/1937). I don't think the owners brought Kris Spence in to change things just to change things: the over-arching reason for almost all of the work has been drainage/maintenance/etc. So if he goes in knowing he has to do some work, what's he gonna change it to? Something he knows is Ross, or something you think Ross maybe knew about? THAT is when he was faced with "1926 vs. 1937." But it's not as simple as that, either, because the bunker complex on 15 as built in 1937 and as existed in 2023 was one of the worst drainage/maintenance issues on the course.

Like I've said… I definitely like the esthetics of the original bunker complex on 15 more than the first stab (by a lot), and more than what's currently there, too. But the bunker complex still exists. It's still in the same area. It still has the same strategic value. It was updated because it was a drainage/maintenance issue.

That it's all being driven primarily by drainage/maintenance explains why the 7th fairway doesn't even seem to be a thing, why the cross bunker on 9 doesn't seem to be a thing, why the mounding short on 15 doesn't seem to be a thing.

I just assumed he was telling the truth – do you know something I don’t?

Apparently? I ask people and don't make assumptions.

These were purportedly modified to solve drainage issues. I’ve previously posted that I lack expertise to say if those modifications were needed or not. I only pointed out that the course somehow survived for 97 years with the drainage issue.

I'll be pretty blunt here, but that's a stupid way of looking at it. "Man, we've had this problem ever since I've been here, going on 30 years now. It's a real pain in the butt. We could fix it, but… if it's been crappy and taken up a lot of time and resources for 97 years (or the last 30, etc.), what's another 30 to 97 years of wasted time, money, and effort?"

"Man, I've had a screwed up knee since I got in that bike accident when I was six years old. A new, simple surgery can fix it, but hey, I've gone this long… I can just deal with it until I die."

"That door has been creaky since we bought the house. I could put some oil on it, or solve it some other way, but nah… it still closes I guess, so I guess we'll just have to live with it."

The need for the change was likely due to cost savings or player expectations, but not aesthetics. I hope this clarification will finally get through to you.

You've been arguing that it was done for esthetics!

Simply put, he made the changes for aesthetic reasons. Spence never says that the mounds caused or created drainage issues.

Spence’s willingness to alter course features for HIS OWN aesthetic reasons troubled me and continues to do so.

The changes were not done for esthetic purposes. And if you think you can magically improve drainage while not altering the actual topography of the area… then… I don't know what to tell you.

You and Spence (and McConnell) seemingly believe that Spence is in the best position to understand what Ross would have wanted Holston to look like and play like.

No, I've never really commented on that. I've only ever really said that you have no evidence to support your assumptions that Ross knew about and approved the build-out that was done by another architect/builder.

It’s a troubling mindset, especially when his first major alteration (removal of the mounds on 15) was so ill-conceived.

They were altered there for drainage/maintenance.

For me, the version of Holston Hills that needs to be the baseline is in the 1937 aerial.

Which is, outside of not being able to just magically improve drainage to certain things while keeping them exactly the same, a different discussion. You may have thought you've been having that discussion the whole time, but your issues overlook the primary reason changes are even being made.

And we know that Ross approved of the most significant change (the 7th hole).

Again, you do not "know" that he even knew about it much prior to being asked to re-draw it for the inclusion in the list.

The 1937 plan IS Holston Hills. If Spence wants to modify it (when it suits him) and use the 1926 plan as justification, shouldn’t the onus be on him to prove that Ross didn’t approve of the course that opened?

So no onus on you? Again:

• Ross obviously knew about and approved of his own drawings and writings. This is a fact.
• It's complete speculation as to whether Ross knew about let alone approved of anything another architect did that deviated from the Ross plans.

The plans are 100% Ross. The course as built… is somewhere on the spectrum from "Ross knew about nothing Hughes did after he left" to "Ross knew about and approved of everything Hughes did." You think it's way to the right, I think it's somewhere on the spectrum but won't speculate as to where. Only that you have almost no evidence it's way to the right.

There is zero evidence that Ross didn’t approve

Where's your evidence he did? Or that he even knew about more than the 7th fairway years later?

Architecturally, the hole doesn’t need the tree.

Wow. The tree played a good sized role in deciding how to play the hole from the tees I played, particularly given the slope left of the fairway down to the water. It played an even bigger role for my friend, who hits it a bit shorter than I do. Safely avoiding the tree by going left of it put him in the 255-yard carry range, and he prefers to play a draw. So, ultimately, he took less than driver IIRC and played right of it (driver would have put him through the fairway a good bit right, too, unless he really slung a big draw).

The website seems to disagree with you too:

A large tulip poplar tree dictates the direction from the tee. Take on the tree and risk the water hazard, play around the tree and face a longer approach to an angled, narrow green with a severe fall off on both sides.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Here's the summary:

The change to the bunker complex on 15 was not made for esthetic reasons. Spence had to change the bunker complex on 15 for drainage/maintenance (you can't just rebuild it and magically make the issues go away), so he changed it to be a bit more in line with what he KNEW to be a Donald Ross creation rather than the unknown (plus, again, the parenthetical). It exists in the same place and has the same strategic value, while mitigating the issues.

[John Mayhugh]

EJB:  Are you willing to bet that the changes to the bunker complex were entirely about esthetics and not about drainage/maintenance?
 
The changes to the mounding were done for aesthetic reasons! Spence said so himself on this thread.

I have it on good authority that you're wrong about this. The primary reason for any of the changes, but specifically the ones to the bunker complex on 15, are drainage/maintenance.

The quote you cited as pertaining specifically to #15 was in fact a general comment about whether, in general, he was going to rely on the 1926 drawings or the 1937 "in the ground" version of the course when he made the changes necessary to improve the drainage/maintenance.

I really appreciate your post.

Finally, I can see the pointlessness of engaging with you. Kris Spence himself said that he altered the mounds because he didn't like them. You insist that isn't the case. Spence's words are below.

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.

And we know that Ross approved of the most significant change (the 7th hole).

Again, you do not "know" that he even knew about it much prior to being asked to re-draw it for the inclusion in the list.

If that's not disqualifying enough, you talk about Ross being asked to "re-draw" the 7th hole for "the inclusion in the list." Who would have been the person to ask Ross to re-draw the 7th? Thomas? What happened - did Thomas somehow find out about the hole (from a course that hadn't opened) from someone that wasn't Ross? The guy in California knew more about Holston than the guy who designed the course? To use your word - that's stupid.




For rational people who read this, don't take my lack of further response to this person as agreement or submission. Consider the words of George Bernard Shaw - silence is the most perfect expression of scorn.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

For rational people who read this, don't take my lack of further response to this person as agreement or submission. Consider the words of George Bernard Shaw - silence is the most perfect expression of scorn.

That's a funny quote on the back of (paraphrased) "it's 'worked' for 97 years."

This is rational: the only evidence of what Ross actually did is what he drew. You have almost no proof that what was photographed 11 years later was 100% Ross and not Hughes taking liberties or putting his own ideas in play. You have little to no proof Ross ever returned to HH or was even aware of the changes except that he re-drew (with more detail) one hole after it was selected to be in a book.

This is also rational: the primary reason the bunker complex on 15 was changed was drainage/maintenance. Given the need to redesign it, Spence relied on what he knew was 100% Ross.

(And again, I'm with you that the original was better, and the first stab was way worse than what's there now, but I'll also point out again that the bunker complex remains, in the same place, with the same strategic value, but much better drainage/maintenance.)

Do you have any other areas of the course where you don't like the work that's been done? Or is this all because of a bunker complex on 15? I'm not talking about your straw men, I'm talking about actual changes. Spence even listed his plans for the back nine earlier — do you have any issues with those?

It doesn't seem that you do. You and Stiles took one thing, misunderstood the primary reasoning for the needed changes, built a bunch of straw men… and went on the offensive without asking the architect, the superintendent, etc. I only wish the ownership of HH had replied to your letter the way the Cleveland Browns did to Mr. Cox (though that wouldn't fly in today's age  ).

Given your thoughts on the tree on the second hole, I'm also very comfortable with my take on your architectural takes.

[Scott Warren]

Erik — hand on a bible, no bullshit — how many rounds have you played at Holston Hills?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Erik — hand on a bible, no bullshit — how many rounds have you played at Holston Hills?

More than zero, less than 10.

Even if the number was zero (it's not), would that change anything I've said here about the bunker complex needing to be altered for drainage/maintenance, or about John making a big assumption that everything built by another architect was not only known to DJR but approved of by him? Does it change how dumb it is to say something like "the course somehow survived for 97 years with the drainage issue"?

I'm done if everyone else is done. It's not my course, and though I preferred the original, and the first stab was really bad, it seems fine now, and I'm sure the super will like spending less time on it.