I started this thread because I was concerned about alterations to a historic golf course that I like very much.
I like Holston Hills (damn autocorrect always trying to get me to say Houston) very much, too. I also think A > C > B in terms of the bunker complex on 15.
EJB: Are you willing to bet that the changes to the bunker complex were entirely about esthetics and not about drainage/maintenance?
The changes to the mounding were done for aesthetic reasons! Spence said so himself on this thread.
I have it on good authority that you're wrong about this. The primary reason for any of the changes, but specifically the ones to the bunker complex on 15, are drainage/maintenance.
The quote you cited as pertaining specifically to #15 was in fact a general comment about whether, in general, he was going to rely on the 1926 drawings or the 1937 "in the ground" version of the course when he made the changes necessary to improve the drainage/maintenance.
You've completely skipped the actual reason for the change and seem to be focusing entirely on what the change looks like (and whether it's closer to 1926/1937). I don't think the owners brought Kris Spence in to change things just to change things: the over-arching reason for almost all of the work has been drainage/maintenance/etc. So if he goes in knowing he has to do some work, what's he gonna change it to? Something he knows is Ross, or something you think Ross maybe knew about? THAT is when he was faced with "1926 vs. 1937." But it's not as simple as that, either, because the bunker complex on 15 as built in 1937 and as existed in 2023 was one of the worst drainage/maintenance issues on the course.
Like I've said… I definitely like the esthetics of the original bunker complex on 15 more than the first stab (by a lot), and more than what's currently there, too. But the bunker complex still exists. It's still in the same area. It still has the same strategic value. It was updated because it was a drainage/maintenance issue.
That it's all being driven primarily by drainage/maintenance explains why the 7th fairway doesn't even seem to be a thing, why the cross bunker on 9 doesn't seem to be a thing, why the mounding short on 15 doesn't seem to be a thing.
I just assumed he was telling the truth – do you know something I don’t?
Apparently? I ask people and don't make assumptions.
These were purportedly modified to solve drainage issues. I’ve previously posted that I lack expertise to say if those modifications were needed or not. I only pointed out that the course somehow survived for 97 years with the drainage issue.
I'll be pretty blunt here, but that's a stupid way of looking at it. "Man, we've had this problem ever since I've been here, going on 30 years now. It's a real pain in the butt. We could fix it, but… if it's been crappy and taken up a lot of time and resources for 97 years (or the last 30, etc.), what's another 30 to 97 years of wasted time, money, and effort?"
"Man, I've had a screwed up knee since I got in that bike accident when I was six years old. A new, simple surgery can fix it, but hey, I've gone this long… I can just deal with it until I die."
"That door has been creaky since we bought the house. I could put some oil on it, or solve it some other way, but nah… it still closes I guess, so I guess we'll just have to live with it."
The need for the change was likely due to cost savings or player expectations, but not aesthetics. I hope this clarification will finally get through to you.
You've been arguing that it was done for esthetics!
Simply put, he made the changes for aesthetic reasons. Spence never says that the mounds caused or created drainage issues.
Spence’s willingness to alter course features for HIS OWN aesthetic reasons troubled me and continues to do so.
The changes were not done for esthetic purposes. And if you think you can magically improve drainage while not altering the actual topography of the area… then… I don't know what to tell you.
You and Spence (and McConnell) seemingly believe that Spence is in the best position to understand what Ross would have wanted Holston to look like and play like.
No, I've never really commented on that. I've only ever really said that you have no evidence to support your assumptions that Ross knew about and approved the build-out that was done by another architect/builder.
It’s a troubling mindset, especially when his first major alteration (removal of the mounds on 15) was so ill-conceived.
They were altered there for drainage/maintenance.
For me, the version of Holston Hills that needs to be the baseline is in the 1937 aerial.
Which is, outside of not being able to just magically improve drainage to certain things while keeping them exactly the same, a different discussion. You may have thought you've been having that discussion the whole time, but your issues overlook the primary reason changes are even being made.
And we know that Ross approved of the most significant change (the 7th hole).
Again, you do not "know" that he even knew about it much prior to being asked to re-draw it for the inclusion in the list.
The 1937 plan IS Holston Hills. If Spence wants to modify it (when it suits him) and use the 1926 plan as justification, shouldn’t the onus be on him to prove that Ross didn’t approve of the course that opened?
So no onus on you? Again:
- Ross obviously knew about and approved of his own drawings and writings. This is a fact.
- It's complete speculation as to whether Ross knew about let alone approved of anything another architect did that deviated from the Ross plans.
The plans are 100% Ross. The course as built… is somewhere on the spectrum from "Ross knew about nothing Hughes did after he left" to "Ross knew about and approved of everything Hughes did." You think it's way to the right, I think it's somewhere on the spectrum but won't speculate as to where. Only that you have almost no evidence it's way to the right.
There is zero evidence that Ross didn’t approve
Where's your evidence he did? Or that he even knew about more than the 7th fairway years later?
Architecturally, the hole doesn’t need the tree.
Wow. The tree played a good sized role in deciding how to play the hole from the tees I played, particularly given the slope left of the fairway down to the water. It played an even bigger role for my friend, who hits it a bit shorter than I do. Safely avoiding the tree by going left of it put him in the 255-yard carry range, and he prefers to play a draw. So, ultimately, he took less than driver IIRC and played right of it (driver would have put him through the fairway a good bit right, too, unless he really slung a big draw).
The website seems to disagree with you too:
A large tulip poplar tree dictates the direction from the tee. Take on the tree and risk the water hazard, play around the tree and face a longer approach to an angled, narrow green with a severe fall off on both sides.