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.