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 design2. Improve drainage throughout the course3. Addition of new bunker sandFrom 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.