[john_stiles]

I am a member and agree with John and a few others above.

The byword from McConnell Golf was basically “don’t change anything, just address water issues”, and in essence reduce the total amount of sand maintained and probably add a few bunkers to make it better for the ephemeral Korn.

So my opinion like a few others is the left bunker complex at 15 is now mundane, average, and will be less challenging. The complex should have remained as found, in character with hole 15 and a few other mounds here and there. Apparently, others (not posting) had a similar opinion. The minimal repairs quickly made at hole 15 with minimal dirt moved, mounded, and then quickly sodded were a great disappointment.

I will take the side of old aerials and the vastly experienced Ross foreman.

As Brad Becken said in his recent book 'The Golf Architecture of Donald Ross' …..“ Sadly, like Ross’ rough irregular mounds, hollows or depressions on his greens have been materially softened over time or no longer exists at all.” 

Ross chooses Lawrence Hughes to construct the course. His father had worked for Ross, and Hughes worked on the Broadmoor in Denver. He later worked on Northland and White Bear Yacht Club and a number of others. In '25 he went to Chattanooga and constructed Brainerd, and also helped complete Tate Springs (NLE) just northeast of Knoxville for the famous, wealthy, golf family of Atlanta, the Adairs.  Hughes would go on after the depression and WW2 to design and build a good number of new 18 hole courses in the southwest desert and Mexico.

Anyway Ross had known him for a while, Hughes knew Ross for some time, Ross paid Lawrence,  and he was working on two courses in East Tennessee immediately prior or during the time of Holston, etc.  I don't think Ross handed the preliminary (my word) field sketches to Lawrence and said see you later, don't call me, I'll call you, and bye.

And I am going to take a wild guess and say that Ross and Hughes talked on phone, or communicated through telegrams or letters. The original '26 golf course plan, reflecting basically a similar bunkering as the sketches, would only be as expected. The sketches are likely all Irving Johnson had to work with.

Though somehow the new idea for 7 (explained in previous posts) reached Hughes as the hole was completed much as the revised sketch. A newspaper article quotes Mr. Ross about the sketch for 7 being in GC Thomas’ seminal book.

So if you use the field sketches you could rip out the fairway cross bunkers on hole 5 and hole 13. And absent the special sketch for hole 7, you would remove the fairway bunkering there. You could revise the green for hole 15 to whatever form fit a 'Ross' green. With only about 70 bunkers in the field sketches so you could remove 30 bunkers.  You could make many more changes to fit the Ross sketches. A split fairway is not typical for Ross, yet there it is for hole 7.
With an experienced Ross superintendent, and not another contractor, my opinion is that the old photos from 1927 and old aerials represent Ross' ideas and thoughts and Hughes’ fine construction work for each hole.

Having said that, the work is progressing, the new drainage and sand and bunker face work look fine. I don't like (but can't do anything) about bunkers shrinking or returning to grass but owner wants to maintain less bunker sand. I understand that.  I am pretty sure hosting any tour event, even a Korn, is another mark on the bedpost. Ugh. Never thought that was a mark of a great course. It seems more a mark of providing a suitable venue at a GREAT price.  Some say Tour desires can maybe be pooh pooed or an event even turned away. It is a bedpost thing, and you make money. It’s two, two mints in one. I get it.

I am more on the side of the guy that spoke with and knew Ross and the old photographs.

“ Sadly, like Ross’ rough irregular mounds, hollows or depressions on his greens have been materially softened over time or no longer exists at all.” 

John
 
 As a tangential wormhole, I will add:

One leader of the Holston Realty group,  that bought the farm to develop into residential use,  was a friend of Richard Tufts, a long time visitor to Pinehurst, a Tin Whistle, won tennis and golf tournaments, Yale swim team, Oxford, member at Merion, played a Pinehurst match with W Hagen as his partner, yada yada and he moved to Knoxville in ’24 and he knew Ross.

He got Ross to visit and other firms as well to propose a plan and routing for the course as part of the money making real estate development. One design firm liked using some of the higher timbered ground just to the north with lots flanking each fairway side on four holes. Two other firms may have proposed a course but those plans have not been found.  Ross liked only the lower flatter ground, the current location.  Though the Ross plan took away many nice residential opportunities shown in the other known plan,  the Group selected Ross' plan.

And if anyone could get into a Ross design, imagine what would Ross do,  channel Ross, or think like Ross,  it was Lawrence Hughes.    I think credit should be given to Lawrence Hughes as constructing this Ross course then a modern interpretation that the existing is somehow out of character in many circumstances, or not like Ross.

There were not any substantive changes to the course after opening.  No money. An early scorecard from USGA archives and another card from 1960 reflect the yardages for every hole were exactly the same to the last digit. One bunker added behind 16 to catch balls going down a steep hill, OB and lost.  The difficulty of the hole 9 cross bunker shown at the green in the early photos  was lessened but restored in mid 1990s.  The club was feeding cheery news to the newspapers (of course!) but the club was not doing well after the first wave of members. Lot sales were low, membership was low, club salaries were being cut. The depression arrived very shortly after.  Somehow members bought the course at bankruptcy on court house steps.  The depression deepened followed by WW2.

I have been a member since '84.   And I re-found, as I like to say,  the Ross sketches in Tufts Archives about 30 years ago now and before that the ’26 course plan by Ross in the clubhouse walls.

Subsequently, I re-found a number of old aerials and other photographs from the opening and early days in newspaper archives, TVA archives, historical society, etc. I had all of those framed and displayed in the clubhouse. A few excellent panoramics were found by member David Dooley and Ryan Blair about 10 years ago.

[Keith Williams]

John,


Good to hear from you, I was wondering if you were hanging around and willing to provide us your valued insight.  Thanks for posting this, I believe your words reflect the feelings held by many of us who love Holston Hills.


-Keith

[John Mayhugh]

As Brad Becken said in his recent book 'The Golf Architecture of Donald Ross' …..“ Sadly, like Ross’ rough irregular mounds, hollows or depressions on his greens have been materially softened over time or no longer exists at all.” 


There were not any substantive changes to the course after opening.  No money. An early scorecard from USGA archives and another card from 1960 reflect the yardages for every hole were exactly the same to the last digit. One bunker added behind 16 to catch balls going down a steep hill, OB and lost.  The difficulty of the hole 9 cross bunker shown at the green in the early photos  was lessened but restored in mid 1990s.  The club was feeding cheery news to the newspapers (of course!) but the club was not doing well after the first wave of members. Lot sales were low, membership was low, club salaries were being cut. The depression arrived very shortly after.  Somehow members bought the course at bankruptcy on court house steps.  The depression deepened followed by WW2.

John

Thanks for your thoughts. I didn't realize you had been a member for that many years! That, along with all of your historical research, would have made you a good resource to talk with prior to altering the course.
Two things especially stood out from your post:

The Brad Becken quote about mounds being softened or disappearing - having no money over the years probably prevented that from happening, at least up until now in what we would like to think of as more enlightened times.


In his post #21, Kris Spence made a few comments that make it seem as if he doesn't believe Ross knew about and approved at least some of the bunkers shown in the 1937 aerial.

• 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 do not profess to know what DJR would do if he were to return.  He might say who put these bunkers here and there, he might say whomever added these bunkers did a great job.
  
• I do value the plans a great deal as I should, they are the clear directives by DJR.  I have not gone through the course eliminating the added bunkering.

The three statements above indicate a belief that bunkers were added between the time the plans were drawn and the course was opened. That's hardly surprising, as we have both noted field sketch and plan discrepancies for #7 and other holes. But Spence seems to go further with his comments about "whomever added these bunkers" and "I have not gone through the course eliminating the added bunkering."

When could bunkers have been added that Ross or Hughes wouldn't have been involved with and approved? Only after opening, and Hughes was gone, it seems. Yet you point out the unlikeliness of that by discussing the depression. Have you ever seen anything in old club minutes to suggest paying for changes at that time? It's not as if the course is built on sand and you just add a bunker at relatively no cost.

I think it's almost a certainty that the course was not substantively altered between opening in 1927 and the aerial photo from 1937. I'm not sure how anyone could reach any other conclusion absent evidence of spending money. The other near certainty is that whatever the course looked like at opening, Ross would have approved of - even though this did not match the 1926 "plan." The hole 7 sketch with fairway bunkering and split fairway was provided for Thomas' 1926 book - the same year as the 1926 "plan."

[Lynn_Shackelford]

Thank you thank you John Stiles for that comprehensive account of HH.  I did not equate that Lawrence Hughes to the architect who designed many courses in the Southwest desert and Mexico.


1.  In the Cornish Whitten book, ARCHITECTS OF GOLF, the bio on Lawrence Hughes states, "After his discharge from the army following World War I, Hughes returned to work for Ross building a number of courses for him before settling down upon completion of Houston Hills CC in Knoxville, Tennessee, to serve as its manager and greenskeeper."

2.  Lawrence Hughes designed Santa Barbara Community GC in California, opened in either 1955, according to Cornish/Whitten, or 1958 according to the local newspaper.  The point is that Santa Barbara has one of the best public course greens in SoCal.  It is a maiden green and just sticks out as pretty as it is fun to play.


3.  Lawrence Hughes was pretty prolific in the desert, Thunderbird CC in Palm Springs, the old Stardust in San Diego and Desert Inn in Los Vegas to name a few.


4.  In 1971 he did some redesign work at Guadalajara CC in Mexico, fine tuning the brilliant work of the bare footed, mathematician, track sprinter John Bredemus.


5.  Ephemeral, perfect description of having a pro tour event on your course.

[A.G._Crockett]

This has been a fascinating thread to read; thanks to all that have participated.  The question of original drawings vs as built alone is a great example of the very best this site has to offer.  There may not be a good answer to this, especially when talking about Ross courses from the ‘20’s, simply because of the volume of his work in that period.


I’m especially grateful to John Mayhugh for the time a trouble that he went to in starting the thread.  I’ve found his words and thoughts throughout to be measured and remarkably well documented.  I was also VERY interested to read John Stiles’s take on this; I know how long he’s been a member, both of GCA.com and Holston, and how much he reveres the golf course. (I think that many years ago in another Ross discussion he actually invited me to come play Holston Hills with him if I could?)


But I also have tremendous confidence in, as well as respect for, John McConnell and Kris Spence.  I’ve gotten to play a number of McConnell Golf properties over the years, both before and after they became part of McConnell Golf, and I’ve always come away impressed with what he’s been able to accomplish.  Literally, McConnell Golf was born out of John McConnell valuing the work of Donald Ross.  And I’d be shocked if John McConnell was doing anything to Holston Hills only because of a Korn Ferry event; simply put, I think the Korn Ferry folks need guys like John McConnell a LOT more than he needs them.


Likewise with Kris Spence’s work on Ross restorations; I’ve played several “before and after”, and I have to say that I love his restoration work, even when it has gone beyond the scope of what’s been discussed here.  Spence’s work at Hope Valley was a pretty pure restoration that undid a lot of tinkering by others, while Cape Fear involved more “interpretive” work, including building a new 18th hole, and Mooresville was a near-complete rebuild.  In every case, I left feeling like Spence had gotten it right.


One other thing that occurred to me as I read was the issue of drainage.  Bill Bergin told me once that the first thing he does in a proposal to a club for renovation work is to study drainage; he said that you can build the best hole in the world, but if it doesn’t drain well, it’ll be a constant problem for both golfers and the maintenance crew. And I especially have a sensitivity to this when it comes to bunkering; my son is an assistant superintendent, and the hours that crews spend dealing with bad bunker drainage is crippling to both the maintenance budget and the crew’s ability to get other essential stuff done.


None of that is an answer to any of this.  The thread has provided a LOT of food for thought, and I’m always grateful for that. It’s been like the good old days of GCA.com!

[John Mayhugh]

Thank you thank you John Stiles for that comprehensive account of HH.  I did not equate that Lawrence Hughes to the architect who designed many courses in the Southwest desert and Mexico.


1.  In the Cornish Whitten book, ARCHITECTS OF GOLF, the bio on Lawrence Hughes states, "After his discharge from the army following World War I, Hughes returned to work for Ross building a number of courses for him before settling down upon completion of Houston Hills CC in Knoxville, Tennessee, to serve as its manager and greenskeeper."

2.  Lawrence Hughes designed Santa Barbara Community GC in California, opened in either 1955, according to Cornish/Whitten, or 1958 according to the local newspaper.  The point is that Santa Barbara has one of the best public course greens in SoCal.  It is a maiden green and just sticks out as pretty as it is fun to play.


3.  Lawrence Hughes was pretty prolific in the desert, Thunderbird CC in Palm Springs, the old Stardust in San Diego and Desert Inn in Los Vegas to name a few.


4.  In 1971 he did some redesign work at Guadalajara CC in Mexico, fine tuning the brilliant work of the bare footed, mathematician, track sprinter John Bredemus.


5.  Ephemeral, perfect description of having a pro tour event on your course.

Lynn,
Thanks for sharing that additional info about Hughes. Seems like a pretty good guy to have in charge locally when building and starting up a new club.


AG,
I appreciate your comments about McConnell Golf and Spence's work elsewhere. I think an interpretive approach can be valuable when solving a particular problem or collection of problems. Changes to the 15th (that happened) and rumored ones (2nd, 5th, 9th) are seemingly to make the course more suitable to a cohort that has not been named - not as solutions to known problems.

[John Mayhugh]

Lynn,


John, I going to make this as short as I can as I have been dealing with a serious family/friend situation the past week and I'm not really interested in a long debate with you.  You obviously spent a great deal of time putting together the document you sent to McConnell Golf which was shared with me, you posted portions of it here.  You make your points and I agree with some but not all of them.  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.

I would suggest all of you to go and take a look at the work we have done before piling on , it is very much respectful of Mr. Ross architecture both abroad and at Holston Hills.  IF you dont like it after that fine, fire your comments away at me, my email is kspdesign@aol.com I've been around awhile and am not thinned skinned.

I personally have done very little research. One can simply look at the field sketches compared to photos of the course in the early years and see the inadequacy of using those(I find them a valuable source of information, they were drawn by DJR). The most famous hole is completely different from the sketch and the 15th doesn’t even have a green complex! (the general plan includes the green sketch for 15) A course plan drawn after construction doesn’t match what the course looked like in photos either - probably because this was drawn in an office by someone who hadn’t seen the holes as built. Perhaps Spence had access to materials that have been hidden away, but there remains a mismatch with what was opened for play. (I did not)


I’ve never seen anything about Ross coming back after opening and making changes (key point), so again - use the photos (your opinion rightfully so, however, we are not discounting the photos, we find them very important just as we do the DJR drawings) . Like many architects that work on classic courses, I’ve seen comments where Spence implies he is just interpreting the work that Ross might have done in modern times. I’m always skeptical of this approach. ( for the record, I tried to follow what I feel is the philisophic approach to the way Ross placed bunkers, the reason behind his decision, the site he chose and the manner in which he directed the construction the methods used at the time) I do not profess to know what DJR would do if he were to return.  He might say who put these bunkers here and there, he might say whomever added these bunkers did a great job.  He might also say the balls are traveling so far these days we should consider adding or moving a few bunkers to better challenge the current game?  I dont have those answers but I do try to do what I think is respectful to his work.


Did Spence & the McConnell team find materials that Doak didn’t have access to? I doubt it and Im not sure exactly what Doak had at his disposal 20? years ago. He made what he thought was the right decision, I respect that but that does not mean the course should never change ever because Doak made that decision.  Donald Ross adapted his course as his career progressed and he adapted to the changes in the game.  Not making a case, just stating facts.


McConnell Golf isn’t a management company. John McConnell owns the course and quite a few others. I shared my concerns with the GM & superintendent at Holston, and then with McConnell’s COO, VP of Operations, & VP of Agronomy. The VP of Agronomy, Michael Shoun, did reply to me. He said that he and John McConnell had visited HH to look at the work and that it “meets our expectations of what the Ross plan shows without major changes to the previous bunkering.” If what they did at 15 isn’t major, I would hate to see what that looks like. Shoun, like Spence, seems to overvalue the plans. (Addressed above, I do value the plans a great deal as I should, they are the clear directives by DJR.  I have not gone through the course eliminating the added bunkering.)


I haven’t tried to rally the membership as I’m not local and feel like it would have no impact. Hopefully feedback from knowledgeable outside of the club might. ( You have rallied the troops John, I have no problem with your efforts, I am aware of yours and others comments and concerns,  I will address them where I and MG representatives feel appropriate.  You may not like all of our decisions which is certainly your right John but the Owner would like to address the changes in the game where it makes sense to do so.  I am trying to do that in the most respectful what possible.)


I have not attempted to contact Spence as I think that’s unfair to him. (John, you can contact me anytime, will be glad to talk with you.  Some of your comments in the document you sent MG clearly took a shot at my credentials and experience, I understand you were upset but you are trying to impact or alter my working relationship with a client I have a signed agreement with.  Probably was not your intentions.) and He doesn’t work for me & I have no standing in his relationship with McConnell. I think Roaring Gap looked terrific, but as is well documented - a very knowledgeable and dedicated member was involved throughout the project. He was a fantastic resource. In this case, Spence’s boss works in Raleigh……
(John, you seem to be implying that the only reason Roaring Gap turned out so well is because Dunlop White was involved?  Dunlop and I worked closely together and have for many years slowly bring that course back closer to the one we see on the Ross drawings, ground level photos and aerial photographs.  Dunlop was a huge help, we had our battles I can assure you and we both learned a great deal in the process.  Believe what you want John, you are off base with that comment, again your right to feel that way.)


The course superintendent, Ryan Blair, sometimes posts on GCA. He is deeply interested in the history of the course and, I think, committed to doing what is right for the course. He does a very good job taking care of the course with what seems to be a small staff - I don’t know the numbers. However, his boss at McConnell thinks the work looks good, so not sure what he could say. I wouldn’t put him on the spot to ask.


Ryan and I have had many conversation about the history of the course, he is indeed very passionate about the place and it shows.  We have not agreed on everything, there was a healthy give and take between us and he has been very helpful .  He is the key to helping us modify the drainage issues with the old bunkers which is important when investing this kind of money in the course.  He had nothing to do with the changes at 15, the amount of water being steered into those bunkers was obvious and cutting 2' deep ruts through the sand and bunker bottom.  I was influenced by what I saw and made the changes I thought necessary.  The hole looks absolutely fantastic, go have a look folks.  I can assure you we did not destroy the 15th at Holston as some would have you believe.  Yes we modified the mounding between the bunkers, a bit too much at the start and reinstated what I thought was appropriate.  If push comes to shove, we can put them all the way back, we have photos.

Please forgive typos and grammatical errors, I dont have more time to spend on this.

Back on July 25, Kris Spence responded to me and said that he didn't have time to engage in a discussion over the work due to some personal/family issues, and I respected that. I only clarified one issue. However, I don't want to leave the impression that I agreed with what he posted. So I am commenting on the areas of disagreement. It's fine if he chooses not to reply. His entire response is above. I won't intentionally take anything out of context.
 
 
SPENCE:  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.
 
This is a primary point of disagreement for me and, I think, John Stiles. The field sketches did not even include a green for the 15th hole and the 7th only had a single fairway. The 1926 plan was largely based on the field sketches and it, too, did not correctly represent the 7th hole. I guess that Spence accepts the hole drawing from Ross that Thomas used in Golf Architecture in America as proof Ross sanctioned that deviation from the "plan." I just don't understand the logic that thinks such a drastic deviation was the only change that ever occurred.
 
 
Stiles did a good job explaining the history of the course. The man that built the course for Ross had build other courses for him. It seems very logical that he would have communicated design decisions with Ross. Since, as Stiles pointed out, the club didn't have money and the Depression followed the opening of the course, it seems very unlikely to me that someone made substantive changes prior to the 1937 aerial.
 
 
Tom Doak seems to agree with me, as he valued the photographic evidence when he worked on the course. Tom once wrote on GCA: "it is pretty easy to determine what was on the ground originally. It's all there in black and white (photos) and sometimes just underneath the grass."
 
 
 
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.
 
 
 
 
SPENCE: 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.
 
 
So what? Kris Spence is not Donald Ross. The original version of the 15th hole seemingly worked for 97 years. Donald Ross may have made changes, but if you use the Spence logic, any change he wants to make is fair game since Ross might have changed something. That's fine if someone wants the best Spence course they can have, but what's wrong with a Ross original?
 
 
SPENCE: I would suggest all of you to go and take a look at the work we have done before piling on, it is very much respectful of Mr. Ross architecture both abroad and at Holston Hills.
 
I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Respectful, how? You took a feature that Ross approved of and dumbed it down for your own aesthetic reasons. How is this respectful?
 
 
 
SPENCE: The general plan includes the green sketch for 15
 
Does this refer to the 1926 plan that is displayed in the clubhouse or do you have something else? That plan doesn’t include the split fairway on 7, so I don’t understand why it’s so trusted.
 
 
 
SPENCE: I tried to follow what I feel is the philosophic approach to the way Ross placed bunkers, the reason behind his decision, the site he chose, and the manner in which he directed the construction the methods used at the time.
 
A few weeks ago on a GCA thread Original Intent: A Debate for 2024, Tom Doak wrote: “My feelings on this topic are pretty well known: you can restore a course to what was built originally, or you can change it, but don’t move bunkers around and say you are restoring the original intents, because nobody really knows that that is.”  I think you should do what you want if you’re building your own course, but a well-preserved Ross course isn’t a place for experimentation or improvement.
 
 
 
SPENCE: I have not gone through the course eliminating the added bunkering.
 
I assume this refers to bunkering that was in the 1937 aerial but not the 1926 plan. Sort of like the added alternate fairway on 7. And bunkers on 7. This approach of trusting the plan at times and the aerial at others makes no sense.
 
 
 
SPENCE: Some of your comments in the document you sent MG clearly took a shot at my credentials and experience, I understand you were upset but you are trying to impact or alter my working relationship with a client I have a signed agreement with.  Probably was not your intentions.
 
 
I did address this previously, but again – I did no such thing. I have no interest in impacting your working relationship with McConnell Golf – I want to impact the results of that relationship. All I did was to express concerns about specific actions you are undertaking or may be considering. That is criticism of the work – not the person. PLEASE show where I “took a shot at my (your) credentials and experience.” That did not happen.
 
 
SPENCE: The owner of the course would like to address the changes in the game where it makes sense to do so.
 
The silliest excuse for altering a classic course. And we can see how well it has worked out over the years at other venues. McConnell actually thinks people care about scoring in a Korn-Ferry event? Byron Nelson shot 12 under in 1945 at basically the same distance as today. Ok, the winner was 19 under this year, but 14 under last year. This event will be a memory in a few years. Hopefully there will be adequate documentation so someday this nonsense can be reversed.
 
 
SPENCE: you seem to be implying that the only reason Roaring Gap turned out so well is because Dunlop White was involved?
 
That’s not what I meant. In order for work on a nearly 100 year old course to turn out well, there needs to be someone who values the original design and can guide the work in that direction. The change you made to 15 shows that there was not such a person at Holston Hills. That’s my point.
 
 

[herrstein]

This thread is breaking my heart. I love Holston Hills and have played many memorable rounds there- including some I thought pretty good until the Golliher brothers posted theirs.

[john_stiles]

Lynn,
Thank you very much for providing additional pertinent information about Lawrence Hughes.

John M,
Your post about the relevancy of the current and past scoring was a good review. Those are valid points about the folly of making changes for a professional event.

As to the thread,  I am still puzzled how someone could interpret the Ross field sketches as the final idea for completing course. It is well known how Ross' idea for hole 7 evolved. Absent this special sketch just for the seventh for George Thomas' book, I guess Holston would have been left with a 'classic' <insert a wink> Ross tee shot up and over the crest of a hill.

And now today, someone can provide what Ross would have done based on the preliminary hole sketches?  Ross himself demonstrated the field sketches were preliminary, not final.

There was a very experienced Ross superintendent who built the course. There are the early photographs and aerials of the final form constructed by a man who knew Ross very well.

Are the early photographs just a reminder of that built by a man who didn't know Ross?  Much of Ross’ final ideas will be lost using the preliminary sketches.

The iconic bunkering and mounding left of the 15 green will be lost, not due to the logic of using early photographs or illogical use of preliminary sketches, but by being certain 'today' that someone who knew and worked for 10 years on many courses for Ross screwed up.

The loss of the iconic Ross feature is baffling.

[Kris Spence]

Lynn,

Back on July 25, Kris Spence responded to me and said that he didn't have time to engage in a discussion over the work due to some personal/family issues, and I respected that. I only clarified one issue. However, I don't want to leave the impression that I agreed with what he posted. So I am commenting on the areas of disagreement. It's fine if he chooses not to reply. His entire response is above. I won't intentionally take anything out of context.

 John , you have obviously spent a great deal of time on this and your mind is made up, we will just have to agree to disagree on some of these issues.
 
SPENCE:  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.
 
This is a primary point of disagreement for me and, I think, John Stiles. The field sketches did not even include a green for the 15th hole and the 7th only had a single fairway. The 1926 plan was largely based on the field sketches and it, too, did not correctly represent the 7th hole. I guess that Spence accepts (not on face value, it may be a drawing that was requested for the book and depicts what was build by Lawrence?  It that possible?) the hole drawing from Ross that Thomas used in Golf Architecture in America as proof Ross sanctioned that deviation from the "plan." I just don't understand the logic that thinks such a drastic deviation was the only change that ever occurred.

Ross included with his field sketches and notes instructions on a single 8.5 x 11 page to his office pertaining to a green that was not drawn, he instructed his office to complete the green on the General plan using 80 x 80' and he mentions in other notes about its design, he does not indicate if it was for 15 only that it wasnt drawn.  He also instructs his office, most likely WIJ to develop and provide 3 copies of the 18 hole General Plan and 2 sets of Working Plans to be sent to Knoxville.  Working Plans are generally used for construction, maybe Im wrong on this but in construction, the Working Plans are what are used in the field.  I only say this in that at that point in time, Ross clearly wanted the course built to his plans.  After that, we dont have evidence to suggest his participation in the changes and additional bunkering.
 
 
Stiles did a good job explaining the history of the course ( i agree). The man that built the course for Ross had build other courses for him. It seems very logical that he would have communicated design decisions with Ross. Since, as Stiles pointed out, the club didn't have money and the Depression followed the opening of the course, it seems very unlikely to me that someone made substantive changes prior to the 1937 aerial.

I think the changes were made during the original construction, as to whether Ross oversaw them I'm I can confirm, I certainly hope so.  The major thing that concerns me with the changes is the number of bunkers in that group that were placed in a manner where surface drainage enters them from the outside.  Ross typically didn't do that and at times added notes to make sure water was steered around them.  Its possible, Lawrence and Ross built them and the water was later steered into them, I dont know.  Anyway, one of my priorities to prevent substantial amounts of surface drainage from entering the bunkers from the outside and this played a critical role in the revisions to 15.
 
 
Tom Doak seems to agree with me (Why the speculation, he said it was "SAD" what I was doing, he's entitled), as he valued the photographic evidence (so do I) when he worked on the course. Tom once wrote on GCA: "it is pretty easy to determine what was on the ground originally. It's all there in black and white (photos) and sometimes just underneath the grass."
 
 
 
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.
 
 
 
 
SPENCE: 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.
 
 
So what? Kris Spence is not Donald Ross ( I dont claim to be and neither was Lawrernce Hughes for that matter). The original version of the 15th hole seemingly worked for 97 years. Donald Ross may have made changes, but if you use the Spence logic, any change he wants to make is fair game since Ross might have changed something. That's fine if someone wants the best Spence course they can have, but what's wrong with a Ross original?

John, I can assure you its not going to be a Spence course and certainly don't believe any change I want to make is fair game, I work very hard to follow Ross' philosophic approach to design, you don't have to believe that which is your prerogative.  I love Ross originals and have had the pleasure of working on quite a few of them, none of them play exactly to the yardage or in the manner he probably envisioned as the modern game has left many of his features a mute point. 
 
 
SPENCE: I would suggest all of you to go and take a look at the work we have done before piling on, it is very much respectful of Mr. Ross architecture both abroad and at Holston Hills.
 
I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Respectful, how? You took a feature that Ross approved of and dumbed it down for your own aesthetic reasons. How is this respectful?

John, you are entitled to your opinion no matter how misguided it might be, there is a lot of work out there to enjoy and appreciate, if the reduction in the mound on 15 spoils is all for you then there's not much more to talk about.  You've taken me to task I get it.  You seem to be saying there is nothing good about what is being done because of the 15th, my point is, let people make up their own mind. 
 
 
 
SPENCE: The general plan includes the green sketch for 15
 
Does this refer to the 1926 plan that is displayed in the clubhouse or do you have something else? That plan doesn’t include the split fairway on 7, so I don’t understand why it’s so trusted. 

I value it because Donald J. Ross drew it and included his detailed notes with the sketches.  As to #7 I like the hole very much and will actually be taking it much closer to that drawing by reinstating the front left pot bunker, mounding and the split fairway bunkers on the crest of the hill between the fairways. 
 
 
 
SPENCE: I tried to follow what I feel is the philosophic approach to the way Ross placed bunkers, the reason behind his decision, the site he chose, and the manner in which he directed the construction the methods used at the time.
 
A few weeks ago on a GCA thread Original Intent: A Debate for 2024, Tom Doak wrote: “My feelings on this topic are pretty well known: you can restore a course to what was built originally, or you can change it, but don’t move bunkers around and say you are restoring the original intents, because nobody really knows that that is.”  I think you should do what you want if you’re building your own course, but a well-preserved Ross course isn’t a place for experimentation or improvement.

Toms opinion is acknowledged and I certainly respect it.  Ross improved his courses when necessary before he died, the need to make improvements didn't go to the grave with him and I dont say that to suggest that all things are on the table either. 

I can assure you I'm not experimenting LOL
 
 
 
SPENCE: I have not gone through the course eliminating the added bunkering.
 
I assume this refers to bunkering that was in the 1937 aerial but not the 1926 plan. Sort of like the added alternate fairway on 7. And bunkers on 7. This approach of trusting the plan at times and the aerial at others makes no sense.

It refers to the work done thus far, why do you keep bringing up #7, you seem fixated on it?
 
 
SPENCE: Some of your comments in the document you sent MG clearly took a shot at my credentials and experience, I understand you were upset but you are trying to impact or alter my working relationship with a client I have a signed agreement with.  Probably was not your intentions.
 
 
I did address this previously, but again – I did no such thing. I have no interest in impacting your working relationship with McConnell Golf – I want to impact the results of that relationship. All I did was to express concerns about specific actions you are undertaking or may be considering. That is criticism of the work – not the person. PLEASE show where I “took a shot at my (your) credentials and experience.” That did not happen.

I had multiple people look at it and read it, they all said that's the way they perceived it.  Probably wasn't your intention, I will take it as that and leave it there.
 
 
SPENCE: The owner of the course would like to address the changes in the game where it makes sense to do so.
 
The silliest excuse for altering a classic course. And we can see how well it has worked out over the years at other venues. McConnell actually thinks people care about scoring in a Korn-Ferry event? Byron Nelson shot 12 under in 1945 at basically the same distance as today. Ok, the winner was 19 under this year, but 14 under last year. This event will be a memory in a few years. Hopefully there will be adequate documentation so someday this nonsense can be reversed.

Your opinion, taken.  Ross made alterations to address the changes to the game, if we can do so while respecting his design philosophy, I think it can be worthwhile.
 
 
SPENCE: you seem to be implying that the only reason Roaring Gap turned out so well is because Dunlop White was involved?
 
That’s not what I meant. In order for work on a nearly 100 year old course to turn out well, there needs to be someone who values the original design and can guide the work in that direction. The change you made to 15 shows that there was not such a person at Holston Hills. That’s my point.  Point taken

John, I'm done ,  hopefully I answered some of his John Stiles questions as well below. 

Good day to all of you

[Kris Spence]

Following is a quick bullet point summary of the bunker work to date on the back 9 holes.  I hope this will help everyone understand the project a little better and provide some context to this thread.


#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


#11 - Lowered the top edge of the cross bunker about 12 inches, steered water around it closer to the top edge, restored depth to 4'6" per the Ross plan


Adjusted collar pitch above greenside bunkers and reset steepness of faces, they had sloughed off and were undercut.


#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


Grassed in the bunker well right behind 15 green as part of sand reduction, left as a grass depression'


First left fairway bunker renovated in same location


Greenside and 2 diagonal bunkers on right renovated in place, slight adjustments along greenside edge for drainage issues.  Reduced sand footage on leading edges of diagonal bunkers by about 10% to help water pass by


#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. 


#14 - Converted the small pot bunker hidden behind the hill on the right to a grass depression, form remains.  Sand reduction


Closed in the inside right portion of the left greenside bunker and widened approach to prevent water from flowing through the bunker.


Greenside bunker right remains


#15 - Reduced the sand bottom on the leading edge of the first fairway bunker on the right, this reduced the sand footage by a third and is consistent with the Ross plan in size.


Shifted the short right approach bunker  6 feet further up and into the upslope to prevent flooding which was occurring when the low between holes 12 and 15 ponds following heavy rain events.  Recent heavy rains demonstrated the value in the subtle move.


The nest of 4 left greenside bunkers were severely eroding in multiple areas, I reduced the size of the lower bunker and bunker next to approach to provide an wider avenue to pass the surface drainage through the bunker complex.  In doing so, I shifted and reduced the large mound directly behind the first bunker.  Concerns were expressed by some members, MG representatives and I returned to the course, it was decided to strengthen the mounding behind the first bunker and the second bunker up near 16 tee.  They were not rebuilt to their original size but rather scaled to match the new bunkers and not cause the surface drainage issue to occur.  I did feel they were a bit out of character with the rest of the course and made the changes that were not accepted.




#16 - No changes to fairway bunkers, the two stepped bunkers on the right were retained.  Ross shows them as a single large bunker, I really liked them as they were constructed.  Second bunker on right in place.


Added a slight L to R face angle to the left pot bunker short of the green to help direct surface water around it, squeezed the right pot bunker slightly left closer to the right bunker.  I used the Ross drawing and sketch to guide this adjustment.   


Back bunker removed and converted  to a closely mown grass depression


#17 - Reduced the sand footage slightly on the lower leading edges, adjusted the first bunker on the left for a drainage issue but other than that, all bunkers remained intact as before.


#18 - Converted the first bunker on the right at the start of the fairway to grass as it was being flooded during rain events.  The Ross plans show a line of 4 small pot bunkers starting at the center line extending to the right edge of the fairway, his notes recommended they have 5' raised faces which likely would have helped prevent the flooding.  I would have liked to either retain this bunker and or restore the 4 pot bunkers, but due to flooding concerns we chose not to.


Restored the first bunker half way up the hill as is.


Added a new bunker 287 from the back tee into the top of the hill on the left near the large oak tree.


Recommended a bunker shown on the Ross plan be restored short and left in the 2nd landing area, a few members requested it not be installed as shown on the drawings so it was taken out of the project.


Restored the left approach bunker in its current location.  The Ross plans show it a bit closer to the green, there is a slight depression just above the current bunker in this location, It is possible the bunker was started and maybe abandoned during construction.  Just a tad bit of interesting info.


Reshaped the face and top of edge of the fronting greenside bunker to help steer the surface water from the green around the bunker.  This bunker was performing poorly due to the amount of water coming off the green.  We "stiffened" the upper edge just enough to accomplish this, stiffening is a term Ross used often to describe the slight raising along the top edge of greenside bunkers for this purpose.


Shifted the right greenside bunker forward about 10' to move it out of the path of the diversion swale water entering it from behind the green. 


I hope this helps provide a bit more context to this thread.  I greatly respect Ross' work at HH and have tried to do what I think is in the best long term interest of the course and its owner.  I do not intend in any way to put my stamp on it, as you can see we are trying to retain as much of the original work as possible with adjustments mostly for better drainage and bunker performance.  Donald Ross demonstrated throughout his career that drainage on and off greens and fairways around bunkers was a key part of his approach.

[Ira Fishman]

This has been a most educational thread because of the detailed points of view and detailed points of history. I particularly appreciate Kris Spence taking the time to walk us through his work and his rationale. Holston Hills has been on my wish list, and the thread makes me even more interested in playing it.


And I cannot wait for the thread when Hanse finishes Yale :-).

[John Mayhugh]

This is a primary point of disagreement for me and, I think, John Stiles. The field sketches did not even include a green for the 15th hole and the 7th only had a single fairway. The 1926 plan was largely based on the field sketches and it, too, did not correctly represent the 7th hole. I guess that Spence accepts (not on face value, it may be a drawing that was requested for the book and depicts what was build by Lawrence?  It that possible?) the hole drawing from Ross that Thomas used in Golf Architecture in America as proof Ross sanctioned that deviation from the "plan." I just don't understand the logic that thinks such a drastic deviation was the only change that ever occurred.

Kris,

I appreciate your reply. Fundamentally, you seem to believe that Lawrence Hughes disregarded what Ross wanted and made changes in the field without approval. I am "fixated" (your word) on the 7th hole because you seem so willing to ignore what it means. It doesn't match the sacrosanct "plan." Above, you go so far as to suggest Ross just sent along a "drawing that was requested for the book" that matches what Lawrence built, but not maybe was what Ross wanted. What possible sense does that make? Why would Ross send a drawing of a hole to George Thomas if it wasn't something he approved of? It was going in a book and he thought "yea, let me give him a drawing of something Larry did on his own."

Most of the work you have done to improve drainage seems to make sense based on what I know. I don't really understand how the mounds themselves caused so many bunker washout problems on 15, but then you've also previously mentioned aesthetic reasons. In the description of individual changes you made, some things you changed to conform to the "plan," while other deviations to the plan were allowed to remain because you approved of them. I don't see how picking and choosing based on your preferences respects either what was built or what was on the plan. That's what makes me concerned about the work on the first nine.

I'm guessing you won't be sharing what is in store until after it has happened?

[A.G._Crockett]

This has been a most educational thread because of the detailed points of view and detailed points of history. I particularly appreciate Kris Spence taking the time to walk us through his work and his rationale. Holston Hills has been on my wish list, and the thread makes me even more interested in playing it.


And I cannot wait for the thread when Hanse finishes Yale :-).

I agree, Ira; Kris Spence’s explanations make for fascinating reading.


I’ll add one thing.  Mr. Spence mentions several times the issue of bunker drainage, especially from surface water.  Because my son is an assistant superintendent, I perhaps see this a bit differently that a lot of golfers.  The amount of time spent by crews fixing bunkers with drainage issues is extreme, and not only in dollars.  It also means that the crew is unable to do other things on the golf course that need doing because they are occupied repairing bunkers.  The result of better bunker drainage is a better golf course all the way around, and that MAY mean that the area around the bunkers, as well as the bunkers themselves, need to be fixed.


There are few things more disheartening to a crew than spending all day fixing the bunkers after a heavy rain, often with all hands on deck, only to have another storm blow thru that night or the next day, and then having to do the whole process over again. It’s a colossal waste of their time, as well as the owner’s money.

[John Mayhugh]

I’ll add one thing.  Mr. Spence mentions several times the issue of bunker drainage, especially from surface water.  Because my son is an assistant superintendent, I perhaps see this a bit differently that a lot of golfers.  The amount of time spent by crews fixing bunkers with drainage issues is extreme, and not only in dollars.  It also means that the crew is unable to do other things on the golf course that need doing because they are occupied repairing bunkers.  The result of better bunker drainage is a better golf course all the way around, and that MAY mean that the area around the bunkers, as well as the bunkers themselves, need to be fixed.


There are few things more disheartening to a crew than spending all day fixing the bunkers after a heavy rain, often with all hands on deck, only to have another storm blow thru that night or the next day, and then having to do the whole process over again. It’s a colossal waste of their time, as well as the owner’s money.

AG
One has to marvel at the resilience shown by Holston Hills superintendents over the past 97 years as they put up with poorly designed drainage.....
And one would have to wonder how these drainage issues managed to slip past Tom Doak's team when they worked at Holston nearly 30 years ago.

[A.G._Crockett]

I’ll add one thing.  Mr. Spence mentions several times the issue of bunker drainage, especially from surface water.  Because my son is an assistant superintendent, I perhaps see this a bit differently that a lot of golfers.  The amount of time spent by crews fixing bunkers with drainage issues is extreme, and not only in dollars.  It also means that the crew is unable to do other things on the golf course that need doing because they are occupied repairing bunkers.  The result of better bunker drainage is a better golf course all the way around, and that MAY mean that the area around the bunkers, as well as the bunkers themselves, need to be fixed.


There are few things more disheartening to a crew than spending all day fixing the bunkers after a heavy rain, often with all hands on deck, only to have another storm blow thru that night or the next day, and then having to do the whole process over again. It’s a colossal waste of their time, as well as the owner’s money.

AG
One has to marvel at the resilience shown by Holston Hills superintendents over the past 97 years as they put up with poorly designed drainage.....
And one would have to wonder how these drainage issues managed to slip past Tom Doak's team when they worked at Holston nearly 30 years ago.

John,


I was very simply commenting on Kris Spence’s post.  I of course have zero knowledge of what the bunker maintenance issues at HH might have been over the years, or what Tom Doak did or didn’t do there in terms of bunker drainage.  I certainly didn’t mean to take a side on this; I was just offering a particular perspective.


I do know that golfers are all to often unaware of maintenance issues in general, and in particular with drainage and bunkers, if only because they are often not on the course when that work is being done, and perhaps not paying attention when they are on the course. Most crews try to get the bunkers done before the golfers get to each hole, lest they get plunked by a golf ball, or have golfers complain that they’re in the way. Golfers see the crew mowing and working on leaking sprinkler heads and so on; they typically don’t see much of the rain-related bunker repair work in progress.


I don’t have much trouble imagining conversations between a current superintendent, and owner, and a GCA including bunker drainage improvements.  That doesn’t mean drainage was a disaster; only that it could be better, and take less of the crew’s time and the owner’s money.  In which case the owner might say, “Ok, while you’re at it…”

[John Mayhugh]

AG,
No issue with what you wrote. My response was a bit too pithy.

I've little doubt that the changes Spence made will reduce maintenance labor and that this is welcomed by McConnell Golf. That's probably the original justification for flattening the mounds on 15. It is worth nothing that this is the same owner that "upgraded" the HH men's locker room by replacing metal lockers with wood ones that had been removed from another club they own.....

My fear is that the justification of reducing maintenance costs can be taken too far. Very often, bold and distinctive features may result in higher maintenance costs. We have to be sure that what was lost in uniqueness or challenge is worth what was gained. It's just fascinating to me that something that was manageable for 97 years no longer is.

[Chris Hughes]

What prompted Holston Hills to sell to McConnell Golf?

[John Mayhugh]

What prompted Holston Hills to sell to McConnell Golf?

Holston Hills is not on the fashionable side of Knoxville. Membership numbers were declining and club leadership tried to address that first by spending on practice facilities, which added debt (and an assessment). That really didn't have the desired effect, and many felt that a clubhouse renovation was needed. The club couldn't get funding to do that renovation. McConnell made an offer that included an upgraded clubhouse. As a national member, I didn't have the opportunity to vote or a lot of visibility on what other options were investigated, so cannot say if it was the right thing do do or not.

No course changes up until now, which was much appreciated.

[Chris Hughes]

What prompted Holston Hills to sell to McConnell Golf?

Holston Hills is not on the fashionable side of Knoxville. Membership numbers were declining and club leadership tried to address that first by spending on practice facilities, which added debt (and an assessment). That really didn't have the desired effect, and many felt that a clubhouse renovation was needed. The club couldn't get funding to do that renovation. McConnell made an offer that included an upgraded clubhouse. As a national member, I didn't have the opportunity to vote or a lot of visibility on what other options were investigated, so cannot say if it was the right thing do do or not.

No course changes up until now, which was much appreciated.

I see the purchase/change-in-control took place about 8.5 years ago -- how does the membership feel about (a) those desires/decisions, and (b) the resulting transaction with McConnell?

[Tommy Williamsen]

I am a member of one of McConnel's courses and have played all of them. Folks at my club are grateful to him for his upgrades to the clubhouse and the money he spends on maintaining the course. Folks with whom I have spoken from the other clubs seem to feel the same way.

[John Mayhugh]

What prompted Holston Hills to sell to McConnell Golf?

Holston Hills is not on the fashionable side of Knoxville. Membership numbers were declining and club leadership tried to address that first by spending on practice facilities, which added debt (and an assessment). That really didn't have the desired effect, and many felt that a clubhouse renovation was needed. The club couldn't get funding to do that renovation. McConnell made an offer that included an upgraded clubhouse. As a national member, I didn't have the opportunity to vote or a lot of visibility on what other options were investigated, so cannot say if it was the right thing do do or not.

No course changes up until now, which was much appreciated.

I see the purchase/change-in-control took place about 8.5 years ago -- how does the membership feel about (a) those desires/decisions, and (b) the resulting transaction with McConnell?

Chris,
I'm not really in a position to speak for the membership at Holston. I'm a national member and, to the best of my knowledge, there is no structure for any sort of member meetings. Prior to the sale, I was told that there would be a three member "advisory board," but I've never seen who that was or any feedback from those members. I assume that was just during the transition anyway. We are hardly alone in this (in the golf industry), but members are really just customers with recurring fees.

From my personal perspective, I've been appreciative that up until 2024, the owners didn't make changes to the golf course. I'm not a big fan of the Korn Ferry event, but being non-local it hasn't really impacted me very much in terms of course access. MG has done some things I like and some that I don't. Given the club governance in place at the time and the options considered, the MG acquisition made since.

But I don't feel any particular gratitude towards MG. If they have invested money into the facilities, it's because it made sense for them financially.

[Chris Hughes]

John,


So noted.


At one time I was the membership chairman of a fine little golf club on the wrong side of town, Donald Ross track there too.


Whenever we'd get a new member prospect from a McConnell club I'd query them on the experience and other than the Old North State folks, most seemed pretty happy.  (my recollection is MG bought a couple more clubs in quick succession after Old North State and the timeline for their "improvements" got pushed out, they weren't happy about that)


Any sort of "advisory board" really is just for show, a bone thrown if you will. 


Has covid lifted the Holston boat like so many other clubs?


Debt and clubhouses can really put a golf club onto a high-up tightrope...better hope a high wind doesn't come along half way across.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I appreciate your reply. Fundamentally, you seem to believe that Lawrence Hughes disregarded what Ross wanted and made changes in the field without approval.

You've presented no evidence to support the fact that he knew about let alone approved of the changes another architect and builder put into the ground. What is known is that the drawings were Ross, so I think leaning more heavily on those while also respecting what has been played for nearly 100 years is a worthwhile tactic to take here.

John, this whole thing seems wildly overblown, and you keep bringing up straw men like the cross mounding on the 15th, the split 7th fairway, etc. that haven't even been altered… for what reason? They're straw men.

This whole thing in a nutshell: you don't like the bunker changes to the 15th, and you called them a "major" change (or something), despite the fact that the bunker complex exists in the same location, has the same effect on strategy, and was merely modified in place to accomplish the stated goals of improved drainage and/or maintenance, about which you have said you "know next to nothing."

That's almost the whole argument here: you don't like changes that were made in the name of drainage. And you've been super critical of the ownership and the architect while making a bunch of assumptions without any real supporting evidence.

One has to marvel at the resilience shown by Holston Hills superintendents over the past 97 years as they put up with poorly designed drainage.....

Is it not possible they've simply said "we've had enough, we need to fix this once and for all"?

Maybe go ask your superintendent how much trouble that complex used to cause? You make a LOT of assumptions and a lot of accusations, based on a lot of BS like "it's worked for 97 years," when you could so easily just go talk to someone, or take people at their word versus someone who, again, "knows next to nothing about drainage."

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.

None of what you then go on to talk about speaks to whether Ross "approved" of the final design and the changes instituted during construction by Hughes.

Re: the 9th, I'll mostly ignore the "an ideal tee shot is to the left, bringing fairway bunkers into play" comment. The hole was a driver, sand wedge the last time I played it. It's 417 from the black tees. The ideal line is away from any trouble on the hole.

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).

And… this may be another straw man anyway, as I haven't read anywhere that the cross bunker is even being removed.

He said that he and John McConnell had visited HH to look at the work and that it “meets our expectations of what the Ross plan shows without major changes to the previous bunkering.” If what they did at 15 isn’t major, I would hate to see what that looks like. Shoun, like Spence, seems to overvalue the plans.

They CHANGED the bunkers (likely to, as stated, improve drainage, cost, and/or safety), they didn't eliminate them. They didn't move them to the other side of the hole, or 30 yards farther from the green. What you're calling "major" was in fact a small change on one of the 18 holes. They softened some mounding and reduced the amount of sand in that area.

Stiles did a good job explaining the history of the course. The man that built the course for Ross had build other courses for him. It seems very logical that he would have communicated design decisions with Ross.

Where you say "seems very logical" I think another person could say "it seems logical that as a designer himself, Hughes put his own stamp on things after Ross left." One can stipulate that what was put in the ground in 1926 still existed in 1937 without also agreeing that Ross approved of everything put in the ground.


Also, I had typed up something MUCH longer, but in the end it's really very simple. John makes assumptions about what Ross knew or approved of, uses hyperbole and straw men, and knows "next to nothing" about drainage to slag on the work of particularly the 15th hole bunker complex; a bunker complex that was merely altered in place, not moved or removed, and was done so for drainage concerns… What a riot.

[John Mayhugh]

 Mr. Barzeski seems to read just what he wants to.
 
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.
 
Talking about the mounds across the fairway is not a "straw man." I've always thought that the greenside mounds mirrored the fairway ones. That's why I brought up. I could be wrong.
 
As to the other "straw man," I mentioned the 7th to illustrate the folly of assuming the "plan" Spence refers to was what Ross intended as the final result. I'll walk the interested through the logic flow.
·       Ross created hole drawings of all of the holes.
·       The hole drawings were not complete documentation of what was built.
·       There was no split fairway on 7 and there was no green drawn at all on 15. Plenty more examples if you want to study.
·       Spence references the 1926 plan that the club has hanging on the wall and sells merchandise with this printed on it.
·       This plan also shows only a single fairway on 7.
·       This plan was purportedly drawn in 1926.
·       Donald Ross supplied a detailed drawing of the 7th hole to George Thomas.
·       Thomas published this drawing in Golf Course Architecture in America in 1926.
·       That seems like an endorsement of the hole from Ross.
·       Holston Hills opened in 1927.
·       This means that the "Plan" from 1926 was not accurate in at least one significant way.
·       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.
 
For me, the logical assumption is that whatever Holston looked like when it opened in 1927, Ross approved of it. That may be wrong, but sure makes more sense than saying he approved of a major alternation to #7 but not anything else that doesn’t match the plan.
 
The next leap of logic is that no rogue operators spent money during the Depression to add bunkers, mounds, whatever. The 1937 aerial is, I believe, the best representation of the course when it was opened. Not the 1926 plan that has significant mismatches.
 
When Tom Doak redid the bunkering in the late 90s, he seemed to trust the aerials. 
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.
 
I've been a member there for 15+ years, even if I only make it there 8 times a year. I love the golf course. My original post was a reaction to an awful looking change. I supposed I could have waited until all of the work was finished and express concerns, but it makes more sense to me to comment earlier. It's pretty tough to impact a finished product. If there's no change to the bunker on 9 - GREAT. Those of us who don't drive it as far and sure as Mr. Barzeski get to have a more interesting hole.
 
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. 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. Just like I'm not going to ask him what's his maintenance budget and how much staff he has.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()