[Ben Stephens]

John,


At short glance - it seems that Kris' job was to make it more functional from a maintenance and accessibility point of view rather than aesthetic. We live in a world that litigation is high that the old mounding seemed to be unsafe and difficult to access.

I can empathise with Kris he has a tough task with sensitive design elements. As a designer you can't please everyone and the most important person is the client who has made this decision and to employ Kris to carry out these works - he could have turned this job down though.


Cheers
Ben

[Keith Phillips]

Have read and re-read this thread.  Bottom line, Kris Spence has a strong reputation in the business and I think John should have reached out to him directly...privately...rather than aggressively critique him on a public forum.  My guess is Kris has forgotten more than John will ever know about Ross courses, and it can't be helpful to a professional's career to have someone aggressively go after them on GCA and directly to Kris's client. Bad form, or maybe I'm just old school.

[John Mayhugh]

John,


At short glance - it seems that Kris' job was to make it more functional from a maintenance and accessibility point of view rather than aesthetic. We live in a world that litigation is high that the old mounding seemed to be unsafe and difficult to access.

I can empathise with Kris he has a tough task with sensitive design elements. As a designer you can't please everyone and the most important person is the client who has made this decision and to employ Kris to carry out these works - he could have turned this job down though.


Cheers
Ben

Ben,
I would say it was a very short glance. There's no need to speculate on reasoning or motivation anymore. Kris Spence explained why he changed the mounding. You can read this on page 1:
 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.

The original features from 1927 did not agree with Mr. Spence's beliefs so he altered them.
Think about that.
Features that were several years older than Augusta National GC all of a sudden were "out of character" with the other holes.
Mounds that Ross almost certainly approved of that were built by his man were deemed "out of character" 97 years later.

This sort of alteration seems absurd to me. When you start following that approach, then what happens with the mounds that bisect the 15th fairway? Why not get rid of those? There aren't any more of them on the course so they, too, are "out of character."

The famous 7th hole has a split fairway. There are no others of those. Why not convert it back to a single fairway. After all, that's consistent with the character of the other holes and more closely matches the hole sketch and 1926 overall plan.

I don't believe that everything about an old course is sacrosanct. If you feel the need to add a few bunkers to impact people who drive the ball much further, ok. But you don't alter distinctive features because you don't like them. That's not respecting the original design. I'm sorry that we don't know why Hughes/Ross decided to build them - it would be great to know. But I think without better info, let's trust their decision making.


I know you are trying to be supportive of a fellow architect, but the health and safety rationale is laughable. I'm virtually certain there have been no serious player or staff injuries caused by those mounds. Does now being able to likely drive a triplex mower between them enhance safety in some meaningful way? Be serious.

[John Mayhugh]

Have read and re-read this thread.  Bottom line, Kris Spence has a strong reputation in the business and I think John should have reached out to him directly...privately...rather than aggressively critique him on a public forum.  My guess is Kris has forgotten more than John will ever know about Ross courses, and it can't be helpful to a professional's career to have someone aggressively go after them on GCA and directly to Kris's client. Bad form, or maybe I'm just old school.

Keith,
I'll give you more respect than you are giving me.

Please show me where I "aggressively" critiqued him on this forum. If you read my initial post, I didn't know who made the decision to alter the 15th hole bunkering and mounding. I questioned the work. This is a forum for doing that. Spence falsely accused me of trying to interfere with his relationship with McConnell Golf. That's more than I've done to him.

I do not agree that I should have contacted Spence directly. He doesn't work for me. He works for McConnell Golf. I pay dues to McConnell Golf, so I asked the company that owns/manages my club what was going on. I pointed out why I thought the work on 15 was misguided and attempted to explain my viewpoint and how it was derived.

I don't really see how showing how I arrived at my position is being aggressively critical. I could have typed that the mounding looks terrible compared to the original version and not explained anything. What would that have accomplished? What if I had contacted Spence and didn't like his answer? Am I then required by your version of manners to just STFU and accept what's going on?

I have every right to be critical of the work. Posting about this publicly is something that used to happen on Golf Club Atlas. Not sure who you are or how long you've been around, but the site was at its best when there was "frank discussion."

Again, could you please show me anything that I wrote before today that was "aggressively critical" of Spence. I cannot find it. If you're going to accuse me of something, help me learn where I went wrong.

I'm not trying to harm Kris Spence in any way. I'm trying to get the people that own Holston Hills to not make or permit misguided changes to the golf course.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I'm not trying to harm Kris Spence in any way. I'm trying to get the people that own Holston Hills to not make or permit misguided changes to the golf course.

How does posting it here — publicly — accomplish this?

Also…

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."

[Jason Thurman]

No one would describe John as "aggressive." I would describe him as "frank," which I agree is very much in the spirit of the site. If you're coming here merely to pontificate on the manners of others, get back on topic.


I loved the chocolate drops on 15. Maybe I still do? I don't feel like this thread has a good enough photo of the current state of the hole from approach-shot view - preferably from 200ish with the cross-drops in view.

[Niall C]

Have read and re-read this thread.  Bottom line, Kris Spence has a strong reputation in the business and I think John should have reached out to him directly...privately...rather than aggressively critique him on a public forum.  My guess is Kris has forgotten more than John will ever know about Ross courses, and it can't be helpful to a professional's career to have someone aggressively go after them on GCA and directly to Kris's client. Bad form, or maybe I'm just old school.

Keith


In a roundabout fashion John is the client in so much as he's one of the end users that pay for it all. And if we are talking old school there is an old school saying that says the customer is always right. At least in that respect John is open for debate.


In terms of John's manner, I'd suggest he's made pointed observations in a respectful manner.


Niall

[Niall C]

I'm not trying to harm Kris Spence in any way. I'm trying to get the people that own Holston Hills to not make or permit misguided changes to the golf course.

How does posting it here — publicly — accomplish this?

Also…

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."

Erik


It's a fairly obvious answer to the first question is it not ? Why do pressure groups exist ? Because highlighting a perceived wrong often leads to a change in direction by those in authority. I'm assuming that is part of John's reasoning for raising a golf architecture matter on a public forum intended for the frank discussion of golf architecture.


As to your second question, you can call it aggressive and I call it pointed but the main thing is that his arguments are reasoned. You may not like the reasoning but at least he's playing the ball and not the man as they say in football.


Niall

[John Mayhugh]

I'm not trying to harm Kris Spence in any way. I'm trying to get the people that own Holston Hills to not make or permit misguided changes to the golf course.

How does posting it here — publicly — accomplish this?

Also…

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."

Erik J
You're going to have to explain to me how paraphrasing something a person wrote would be considered aggressively critiquing.

He wrote:
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 wrote:The original features from 1927 did not agree with Mr. Spence's beliefs so he altered them.

Isn't that simply a statement of fact?


As Niall alludes to, public discussion of this topic raises awareness of the issue before work is done on other holes.
The bunker rebuild work itself looks good. The shaping work on the new 15th hole bunker complex would look fine if it were on a Kris Spence course. I prefer the Ross/Hughes version from 1927.

[Buck Wolter]

Somebody puts their b@lls on the lines and there's a bunch of hand-wringing about the appropriateness of doing it publicly -- I  remember when we used to be a proper message board.

[HarryBrinkerhoffDoyleIV_aka_Barry]

John - bravo for bringing this to light.  Major plaudits :-).


I played Holston for the first time this spring and absolutely loved it.  Question for you/Tom regarding the flashed up bunker faces found all across the property.  Were those introduced by Tom/Hepner during the last renovation?  Or were they part of the original design?  My playing partner really struggled getting up and over them on a number of occasions, and he remarked that he hoped that they would be softened as part of the renovation.  Were they original?  How are they being addressed in this renovation/restoration?


Lastly - if the below statement is true, it is truly regrettable (IMO).  Neutering originality/uniqueness out of Holston or any renovation/restoration is reprehensible.

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

[Tommy Williamsen]

I wonder what orders Spence received from McConnell Golf. What was done certainly changes the bunkering. I played HH half a dozen times when I was a member of a McConnell Golf Club. I understand John's upset.

[John Kavanaugh]

With all the great public options across the nation it is increasingly more difficult to maintain a national membership at a private club. I’ve dropped all mine. Each time I found a reason. I believe John has a reason.

[Tommy Williamsen]

With all the great public options across the nation it is increasingly more difficult to maintain a national membership at a private club. I’ve dropped all mine. Each time I found a reason. I believe John has a reason.

I dropped a couple of mine but retained one. What I find interesting, however, is the plethora of new clubs that cater to national memberships. I wonder how long that can continue.

[John Mayhugh]

With all the great public options across the nation it is increasingly more difficult to maintain a national membership at a private club. I’ve dropped all mine. Each time I found a reason. I believe John has a reason.

Being more like a customer than a member does present challenges when thinking about cost per round. But I love playing the course. So for the time being, I'm hanging in there.

[John Kavanaugh]

At the very least pull a Garden City Tommy and skip the 15th. Just walk the hole in silent reflection of what once was.

[Mark_Fine]

This is a perfect thread to point to as to how and why golf courses will always be subject to change.

Here an iconic architect (Donald Ross ) designs and builds what is believed to be a great golf course, one of the top modern architects (Tom Doak) is retained to touch up/restore what has changed on the course over the years and then years later yet another well known architect (Kris Spence) is hired to do a major restoration/renovation project when many didn’t think the design needed any improvements.  This kind of thing has happened at countless courses and will continue to happen into the future at even the top courses that have supposedly been ideally “restored” by today’s best architects.   

Like it or not this is the “circle of golf course architecture”.

[Tommy Williamsen]

At the very least pull a Garden City Tommy and skip the 15th. Just walk the hole in silent reflection of what once was.

I presume Naccarato. It is not this Tommy.

[Tommy Williamsen]

This is a perfect thread to point to as to how and why golf courses will always be subject to change.

Here an iconic architect (Donald Ross ) designs and builds what is believed to be a great golf course, one of the top modern architects (Tom Doak) is retained to touch up/restore what has changed on the course over the years and then years later yet another well known architect (Kris Spence) is hired to do a major restoration/renovation project when many didn’t think the design needed any improvements.  This kind of thing has happened at countless courses and will continue to happen into the future at even the top courses that have supposedly been ideally “restored” by today’s best architects.   

Like it or not this is the “circle of golf course architecture”.

Mark, I don't think anyone disputes this. HH, however, has remained relatively untouched over the years. Now, an architect seems to be making changes that have been intact since its inception. HH took pride in being relatively iuntouched.

[Keith Williams]

Not that it matters much, but I don't see any issues with John's position or how he communicated and expressed it.  As a member of HH, he absolutely is a stakeholder and is entitled to state his opinion.  Not to mention he backed it up with excellent supporting information.


I respect Kris and know that he has done excellent and well received work, but I cannot get on board with the concept of softening or removing unique features because they don't match the character of other holes or of what Ross typically did.  Perhaps those unique features, fortunately preserved for nearly a century, are what make HH unique amongst its counterparts?  Ross was responsible for hundreds of courses, why in the world would we effort to homogenize them?  After this many years, can we even tell what is "typical" for Ross or matches his "philosophic approach" not knowing how much of this very type of activity has been carried out on his other designs and is now accepted as normal Ross?


I simply think that Holston Hills is a very poor candidate for this type of approach, considering how intact it has remained for so long.  HH has long been considered one of the least altered Ross courses remaining.  Will anyone still be able to say this after this project is done?


-Keith

[Mark_Fine]

I don’t know how much this course had changed by the time Tom Doak was called in but he must have been called in for a good reason.  I am not clear how much or how little he did.  But what I am pretty sure of is that very few (maybe count on one hand) the courses that have been “restored” that have not been altered in some way (some dramatically).  This includes almost all the top courses that are one of “the lists”!  Someone here tell me what top courses have been resorted to just the way Tillinghast or Ross or Flynn or Mackenzie or Thomas or… designed and built them?  Maybe HH was one of them but as I said, I don’t know what Kris Spence found when he got there.  If he was dealing with a pristine Ross I doubt he would have done much if anything just to make changes. 
Many people think my home club is vintage Flynn and some of it is but it has gone through many changes and is now going through even more, some good some not so good

[Ben Stephens]

John,


At short glance - it seems that Kris' job was to make it more functional from a maintenance and accessibility point of view rather than aesthetic. We live in a world that litigation is high that the old mounding seemed to be unsafe and difficult to access.

I can empathise with Kris he has a tough task with sensitive design elements. As a designer you can't please everyone and the most important person is the client who has made this decision and to employ Kris to carry out these works - he could have turned this job down though.


Cheers
Ben

Ben,
I would say it was a very short glance. There's no need to speculate on reasoning or motivation anymore. Kris Spence explained why he changed the mounding. You can read this on page 1:
 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.

The original features from 1927 did not agree with Mr. Spence's beliefs so he altered them.
Think about that.
Features that were several years older than Augusta National GC all of a sudden were "out of character" with the other holes.
Mounds that Ross almost certainly approved of that were built by his man were deemed "out of character" 97 years later.

This sort of alteration seems absurd to me. When you start following that approach, then what happens with the mounds that bisect the 15th fairway? Why not get rid of those? There aren't any more of them on the course so they, too, are "out of character."

The famous 7th hole has a split fairway. There are no others of those. Why not convert it back to a single fairway. After all, that's consistent with the character of the other holes and more closely matches the hole sketch and 1926 overall plan.

I don't believe that everything about an old course is sacrosanct. If you feel the need to add a few bunkers to impact people who drive the ball much further, ok. But you don't alter distinctive features because you don't like them. That's not respecting the original design. I'm sorry that we don't know why Hughes/Ross decided to build them - it would be great to know. But I think without better info, let's trust their decision making.


I know you are trying to be supportive of a fellow architect, but the health and safety rationale is laughable. I'm virtually certain there have been no serious player or staff injuries caused by those mounds. Does now being able to likely drive a triplex mower between them enhance safety in some meaningful way? Be serious.

Fair dinkum on the first few paragraphs I do understand why you are trying to put in an constructive argument for the choccy drops - however it does say that most of the members didn't like those mounds so I am afraid you are in the minority whether you like that decision or not.


I am not just being protective of another golf course architect and am making you aware that most golf course architects (especially EIGCA members and as an RIBA Architect) are protected by Professional Indemnity Insurance we take health and safety (via risk assessments) rather seriously so it isn't a laughable matter otherwise the buck will end up on us if the work not carried out properly.


There was one incident at the Celtic Manor where a buggy was on a bank by the water on the 2010 course on the 11th hole I think and tipped over and unfortunately killed a young greenkeeper who drowned under the weight of the buggy. you have to protect the course from 'idiots' 


And also I have worked as an assistant greenkeeper when I was younger and we were warned not to take certain machines into certain areas so the course manager/head greenkeeper also takes H&S seriously.

[Jason Topp]

Having a real discussion about GCA is a mess because it affects lives - livelihood for architects and a beloved golf course for the rest of us.


I am interested in John's argument that Ross' sketches should not be considered the final word on design intent.  He makes some pretty compelling arguments that they should not.

[Mark_Fine]

Jason,
Most all old drawings are not “as built” drawings.  They are conceptual drawings and the designs were modified in the field.  Obviously some were more detailed than others but again they are almost always conceptual.  Also the technology did not exist back then like it does today where a course could today if they wanted map exactly what was built and prepare true “as built” drawings.  It is always fun and interesting to discover old aerials and compare to the drawings and see how things were altered or changed.  Sometimes things are very close and sometimes there are big changes. 

[John Mayhugh]

John,


At short glance - it seems that Kris' job was to make it more functional from a maintenance and accessibility point of view rather than aesthetic. We live in a world that litigation is high that the old mounding seemed to be unsafe and difficult to access.

I can empathise with Kris he has a tough task with sensitive design elements. As a designer you can't please everyone and the most important person is the client who has made this decision and to employ Kris to carry out these works - he could have turned this job down though.


Cheers
Ben

Ben,
I would say it was a very short glance. There's no need to speculate on reasoning or motivation anymore. Kris Spence explained why he changed the mounding. You can read this on page 1:
 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.

The original features from 1927 did not agree with Mr. Spence's beliefs so he altered them.
Think about that.
Features that were several years older than Augusta National GC all of a sudden were "out of character" with the other holes.
Mounds that Ross almost certainly approved of that were built by his man were deemed "out of character" 97 years later.

This sort of alteration seems absurd to me. When you start following that approach, then what happens with the mounds that bisect the 15th fairway? Why not get rid of those? There aren't any more of them on the course so they, too, are "out of character."

The famous 7th hole has a split fairway. There are no others of those. Why not convert it back to a single fairway. After all, that's consistent with the character of the other holes and more closely matches the hole sketch and 1926 overall plan.

I don't believe that everything about an old course is sacrosanct. If you feel the need to add a few bunkers to impact people who drive the ball much further, ok. But you don't alter distinctive features because you don't like them. That's not respecting the original design. I'm sorry that we don't know why Hughes/Ross decided to build them - it would be great to know. But I think without better info, let's trust their decision making.


I know you are trying to be supportive of a fellow architect, but the health and safety rationale is laughable. I'm virtually certain there have been no serious player or staff injuries caused by those mounds. Does now being able to likely drive a triplex mower between them enhance safety in some meaningful way? Be serious.

Fair dinkum on the first few paragraphs I do understand why you are trying to put in an constructive argument for the choccy drops - however it does say that most of the members didn't like those mounds so I am afraid you are in the minority whether you like that decision or not.


I am not just being protective of another golf course architect and am making you aware that most golf course architects (especially EIGCA members and as an RIBA Architect) are protected by Professional Indemnity Insurance we take health and safety (via risk assessments) rather seriously so it isn't a laughable matter otherwise the buck will end up on us if the work not carried out properly.


There was one incident at the Celtic Manor where a buggy was on a bank by the water on the 2010 course on the 11th hole I think and tipped over and unfortunately killed a young greenkeeper who drowned under the weight of the buggy. you have to protect the course from 'idiots' 


And also I have worked as an assistant greenkeeper when I was younger and we were warned not to take certain machines into certain areas so the course manager/head greenkeeper also takes H&S seriously.

Ben,


I don’t think you comprehended the highlighted quote.


Spence says that many people at Holston refer to the mounds as chocolate drops.


He says nothing to suggest that members dislike the drops. I don’t know every member, but I have never heard complaints or criticism of these features. There certainly was no member feedback survey or anything like that. So please don’t tell me how the membership feels about those features when you don’t know anything about the club and are simply misinterpreting something you have read.


The health and safety comment is strange since these have been around for  nearly 100 years. How are these mounds suddenly more dangerous? How are deep bunkers allowed?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()