Holston Hills "improvements" - I'm not so sure of that

[Erik J. Barzeski]

It's a fairly obvious answer to the first question is it not? Why do pressure groups exist?

I disagree that this was the way to go about it. It's a member club, and I'm not a member, so what am I going to do to "pressure" anyone into doing anything. John could have brought this to members. To Kris directly.


I've played Holston Hills, but complaining about it and bagging on an architect (without first having talked to the architect directly) accomplishes little, IMO.

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

You're mocking, slightly, with "Think about that".

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

That's not the part I quoted.

[John Mayhugh]

It's a fairly obvious answer to the first question is it not? Why do pressure groups exist?

I disagree that this was the way to go about it. It's a member club, and I'm not a member, so what am I going to do to "pressure" anyone into doing anything. John could have brought this to members. To Kris directly.


I've played Holston Hills, but complaining about it and bagging on an architect (without first having talked to the architect directly) accomplishes little, IMO.

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

You're mocking, slightly, with "Think about that".

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

That's not the part I quoted.

Erik J

Clearly you think I'm wrong here, but you keep using inaccuracies to criticize me.
You call Holston Hills a "member club." I'm not sure what you mean by that term. The club has members, but it's owned by an outside company and managed by that company. There is no board, no green committee, etc.
You said I could have brought my concerns to members. What members? I am a member! You'll have to explain how the process of me complaining to other members is supposed to work.

As I've tried to explain multiple times, I do not believe I should have contacted Spence. First off, I did not know initially that he chose to make the changes to the 15th hole. I thought it was more likely directed by corporate owners - who he works for - so that's who I contacted.


Now you say I'm "bagging on an architect." You'll need to explain that to me. It a website for the frank discussion of golf course architecture. If I cannot say that I disagree with a decision to change the course, then what is the purpose of this discussion board?

Finally, is it "aggressively critiquing" or "mocking, slightly" when I paraphrase what the architect wrote?
If you mean that saying "think about that" in response to Ben Stephens was "mocking, slightly" or "aggressively critiquing," then I really don't know how you function day to day. I do think altering a nearly 100 year old feature because it doesn't look good to you warrants thought. I'm not mocking. If having a different opinion is "aggressively critiquing," well someone needs to.

[David Kelly]

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.

Where does it say that most members didn't like the mounds?

[Ben Stephens]

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.

Where does it say that most members didn't like the mounds?

[size=0px]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[/size][/color]
[/size][/color]
Misread this and will rephrase that 'I assume that most members don't like the 'chocolate drop' mounds' - if they did they would have been left untouched 

[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.

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?

We are in a woke'ism' world which is crazy - here in the UK there is more protection for bats than children which is bonkers.


Insurance companies are king and they jump on any particular incidents which lack common sense at times which is sad. We designers are having to do more additional work to cover our backs rather than design!


There are now so many consultants involved which is a requirement in the UK.

[Joe Sponcia]

Jason


On the flip side, many of us who travel to courses without unlimited budgets, but see the potential to restore a classic when asked on a visit can always refer to an architect that has done respectful work.  I go on 10-12 golf trips per year (3 days or more) and quite a few 2-day trips in-between and often speak to the Head Golf Professional or an influential member and ask about ‘their last course work’. 


John’s opinion and backing data wasn’t a knee-jerk reaction, obviously…given the time it undoubtedly took to put this together. 


Like most of us in the discussion group, we see changing distinctive features that have survived for nearly 100 years, by one of the greatest architects to ever live, as asinine and unnecessary. 


I would encourage more members to *care* in exactly this manner so the next architect in 25 years isn’t having to pour through pictures to restore something that should have never been taken away or my grandson isn’t left wondering why I didn’t voice my opinion when one of the most iconic features on the course is a suddenly deemed a trip hazard.


With all of that said, I have seen Kris’s restorations at at least 8 clubs off the top of my head and believe his past work to be accurate to what I personally know and have studied regarding Ross’s work. 

[Niall C]

It's a fairly obvious answer to the first question is it not? Why do pressure groups exist?

I disagree that this was the way to go about it. It's a member club, and I'm not a member, so what am I going to do to "pressure" anyone into doing anything. John could have brought this to members. To Kris directly.


I've played Holston Hills, but complaining about it and bagging on an architect (without first having talked to the architect directly) accomplishes little, IMO.

Erik


I'm much nearer the end of my working life than I am the start and for most of that life I have worked as an agent/consultant. Let me suggest therefore that there are no right and wrong ways of doing it but IMO and in my experience going to the consultant (ie. Kris Spence) to argue the case is very unlikely to lead to a positive result. For one thing, he's already reported and agreed a course of action with the client, so is he really going to the client and say, hang on, I think I got that wrong ! For another, we don't really know what his brief was and whether what was agreed was the architects preferred option. And neither is he really in a position to discuss those aspects of it without the clients consent.


For various reasons therefore an approach to the client/owner, who let us remember John has a contractual relationship with, was the obvious thing to do. Despite John's reasoned arguments the owner appears intent on going forward with their plans and appear to have politely dismissed his argument. How much consideration they gave to it, and whether they discussed with the architect, is not clear. But let me suggest that they may reconsider if John is able to gather support not only from fellow members but also obtain support from the likes of this discussion board.


Niall

[mike_malone]

 Good to see a discussion based on research and appreciate Kris’ response.

[Charlie Goerges]

So regardless of whether you think John went about this the right way (I think he did), I have a question about this type of thing generally.


Is what was put in the ground less important or more important than what was put on paper beforehand?

[Stewart Abramson]

Is what was put in the ground less important or more important than what was put on paper beforehand?

IMO, if what was put in the ground is a good/great, well respected course, that is more important than the paper that preceded the course

[David Kelly]

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.

Where does it say that most members didn't like the mounds?

[size=0px]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[/size][/color]

Misread this and will rephrase that 'I assume that most members don't like the 'chocolate drop' mounds' - if they did they would have been left untouched 

So Spence said that he "did feel" that the mounds were out of character and decided to remove them.  He also specifically said, "It was my decision and was not in anyway requested by anyone at MG."


John Mayhugh, a long-time member,  mentions that he has never heard of complaints or criticisms of the mounds on #15 from a member.


At least two other people who have played Holston Hills (count me as a third) have chimed in on this board to say that they liked the mounds on #15.


When the mounds were removed, there was enough of an outcry that Spence said, "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. "


And from that, you intuit that "most members don't like the chocolate-drop mounds"?

[Ben Stephens]

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.

Where does it say that most members didn't like the mounds?

[size=0px]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[/size][/color]

Misread this and will rephrase that 'I assume that most members don't like the 'chocolate drop' mounds' - if they did they would have been left untouched 

So Spence said that he "did feel" that the mounds were out of character and decided to remove them.  He also specifically said, "It was my decision and was not in anyway requested by anyone at MG."


John Mayhugh, a long-time member,  mentions that he has never heard of complaints or criticisms of the mounds on #15 from a member.


At least two other people who have played Holston Hills (count me as a third) have chimed in on this board to say that they liked the mounds on #15.


When the mounds were removed, there was enough of an outcry that Spence said, "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. "


And from that, you intuit that "most members don't like the chocolate-drop mounds"?

I wasn't aware that John was a full member of HH thought he lived in Kentucky not Tennessee and a regular visitor to the course.
[/size]
[/size]A friend of mine played at HH regularly when he was at UoT
[/size]
My comments were based on assumption - if you or John didn't like it then I apologise for it.

Not sure how clubs deal with course changes in the USA do they give the Golf Course Architect more of a free rein?.

If it was the UK from our experience it is likely to be the majority to agree to get rid of elements or keep them in place. The members do have a lot of say - one golf course architect once told me you are working for 1000 clients not one at a members club its getting the majority of them on your side. 

[John Mayhugh]

My comments were based on assumption - if you or John didn't like it then I apologise for it.

Not sure how clubs deal with course changes in the USA do they give the Golf Course Architect more of a free rein?.

If it was the UK from our experience it is likely to be the majority to agree to get rid of elements or keep them in place. The members do have a lot of say - one golf course architect once told me you are working for 1000 clients not one at a members club its getting the majority of them on your side. 

It's frustrating reading your posts because you make assumptions despite there being facts presented to the contrary that you just ignore.

Holston Hills is NOT a member's club. There are people like me that pay dues there and are called members, but these types of members do not have any ownership of the club or input into operational decisions. Those are made by the owner, McConnell Golf. Holston Hills members are more akin to customers than they are club members at the types of clubs you describe.

Your UK experience is not relevant to what has happened in Knoxville Tennessee in the US. The situations are completely different.
The role of the golf architect and the scope of what they are allowed to do depends on the agreement that they have with whomever hired them. McConnell Golf decides how much freedom to give to the people that they hire. In the case of Holston Hills, they appear to have agreed that it's ok for the architect to change 97 year old features because he doesn't think they look in character with the rest of the holes. No input from the dues paying members/customers was considered as far as I know. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Clearly you think I'm wrong here, but you keep using inaccuracies to criticize me.

I'm not using "inaccuracies."

You call Holston Hills a "member club." I'm not sure what you mean by that term. The club has members, but it's owned by an outside company and managed by that company.

It's not a public course, but you're writing to the public.

Holston Hills is NOT a member's club. There are people like me that pay dues there and are called members, but these types of members do not have any ownership of the club or input into operational decisions.

It's a private course with members. Nobody's said "member owned."

You said I could have brought my concerns to members. What members? I am a member! You'll have to explain how the process of me complaining to other members is supposed to work.

Talk to them. You see them every time you play, right? This is a public message board. Very few Holston Hills members here. Much fewer than you see looking out over the course from the hill above 1/9/10/18.

As I've tried to explain multiple times, I do not believe I should have contacted Spence. First off, I did not know initially that he chose to make the changes to the 15th hole. I thought it was more likely directed by corporate owners - who he works for - so that's who I contacted.

He says you could have contacted him directly. I'm not seeing any inaccuracies here.

It a website for the frank discussion of golf course architecture. If I cannot say that I disagree with a decision to change the course, then what is the purpose of this discussion board?

You're doing more than that.

Finally, is it "aggressively critiquing" or "mocking, slightly" when I paraphrase what the architect wrote?

Again, I quoted the one of the things I thought was over the line (mildly), and then you quoted something different. And then say I'm using "inaccuracies." 

If you mean that saying "think about that" in response to Ben Stephens was "mocking, slightly" or "aggressively critiquing," then I really don't know how you function day to day.

Ha ha. Okay man, tapping out.


You took something you could have handled in a better way between interested parties, but came here publicly to (mildly) bag on an architect without even talking to the architect first, or even (it seems) many other members at your club.


Cool.

I'm much nearer the end of my working life than I am the start and for most of that life I have worked as an agent/consultant. Let me suggest therefore that there are no right and wrong ways of doing it but IMO and in my experience going to the consultant (ie. Kris Spence) to argue the case is very unlikely to lead to a positive result.

I think it's more likely to work than posting here.

[Ben Stephens]

My comments were based on assumption - if you or John didn't like it then I apologise for it.

Not sure how clubs deal with course changes in the USA do they give the Golf Course Architect more of a free rein?.

If it was the UK from our experience it is likely to be the majority to agree to get rid of elements or keep them in place. The members do have a lot of say - one golf course architect once told me you are working for 1000 clients not one at a members club its getting the majority of them on your side. 

It's frustrating reading your posts because you make assumptions despite there being facts presented to the contrary that you just ignore.

Holston Hills is NOT a member's club. There are people like me that pay dues there and are called members, but these types of members do not have any ownership of the club or input into operational decisions. Those are made by the owner, McConnell Golf. Holston Hills members are more akin to customers than they are club members at the types of clubs you describe.

Your UK experience is not relevant to what has happened in Knoxville Tennessee in the US. The situations are completely different.
The role of the golf architect and the scope of what they are allowed to do depends on the agreement that they have with whomever hired them. McConnell Golf decides how much freedom to give to the people that they hire. In the case of Holston Hills, they appear to have agreed that it's ok for the architect to change 97 year old features because he doesn't think they look in character with the rest of the holes. No input from the dues paying members/customers was considered as far as I know.

John


Firstly look I put my hands up and apologised to you   


Secondly It is becoming very clear to me in this particular thread that the USA is different to the UK regarding to interpretation of members clubs/type.


It can be hard to see other people views/situations there can be two sides to a story so people can 'assume' at times why have they done this or that or who made the decision and why?. Kris Spence knows more than all of us because he is in the thick of this as he is employed by the company that owns the course who are the end decision maker they could have stopped Kris in his tracks but didn't because they trust his ability, experience to do the job however good or bad in your opinion.


There are pros and cons of this type of ownership. The decision making to get things done are quicker if the finances allow for it the other is it won't please everyone. There is no such thing as a perfect design.


My club is a proprietary club (owned by a family) with 50/50 split in regards to membership/pay as you play structure (not a public course) and the members don't have much say in the recent course changes - I have not been involved in them in recent years (have had to bite my tongue and have been frustrated knowing it could have been done a lot better). Sometimes you have to allow others to do their version and if it doesn't work revert back to what it was before even though it costs $$$$$!

[Chris Hughes]

You call Holston Hills a "member club." I'm not sure what you mean by that term. The club has members, but it's owned by an outside company and managed by that company.

It's not a public course, but you're writing to the public.

So what?


Does this obscure cranny of Al Gore's internets really constitute "the public"...?!? 


LOL ...

[John Mayhugh]

You call Holston Hills a "member club." I'm not sure what you mean by that term. The club has members, but it's owned by an outside company and managed by that company.

It's not a public course, but you're writing to the public.

So what?


Does this obscure cranny of Al Gore's internets really constitute "the public"...?!? 


LOL ...

From a quick skim, I think 33 different people have commented on the post. A few have criticized me for posting about it (however public this is), but no one has actually offered even a marginal defense of the work - other than the person that is responsible.

Ad hominem arguments don't add much to the discussion - no matter what it is. My favorite part is that the people who chastised me for not reaching out privately only did so publicly. 

Fingers crossed that the remaining bunker work is limited to refreshing and not reimagining.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

From a quick skim, I think 33 different people have commented on the post. A few have criticized me for posting about it (however public this is), but no one has actually offered even a marginal defense of the work - other than the person that is responsible.

My comment isn't about the work or not — it's about how you've handled it.

Ad hominem arguments don't add much to the discussion - no matter what it is. My favorite part is that the people who chastised me for not reaching out privately only did so publicly.

My comments aren't ad hominem. I don't know much of anything about your character nor have I commented on it: I've simply said I think you should have handled this differently.

Your club is a private club about which you chose to post in public.

Your topic here is a public thread about which my responses (and those of others) have been in kind: public. Should Kris have also replied to you privately after you aired this out publicly? No.

[John Mayhugh]

Erik,
Whatever you choose to call your efforts to police my behavior, they are not adding value to the discussion of the misguided change to the 15th hole at Holston Hills.

You seem to imply that as a member of a private club, I cannot comment on it publicly. I'm not sure why that would be the case. What if a non-member had posted the exact same original thread as I did? Would we say that they had no standing as a guest to do such a thing? Or is public criticism to be limited to those who aren't members and have not been guests - meaning you can't have actually played the course if you want to make a (perceived) critical comment?

I'm not sure how a message board supposedly devoted to frank discussion of golf course architecture can function if any criticisms or comments must first be vetted by a club's leadership or an architect, or some other person of responsibility. In your world, if after reaching out to the persons responsible with concerns, the critic still disagrees - then what?

One thing that you could do that would be immensely helpful - how about adding me to your little signature list of people you ignore?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Whatever you choose to call your efforts to police my behavior

I choose not to mislabel it as you did, I can tell you that. Add that to the list of "inaccuracies" you seem to be accruing, despite making that allegation against me. 

they are not adding value to the discussion of the misguided change to the 15th hole at Holston Hills.

Hmmmm, is that your attempt at policing my behavior?

You seem to imply that as a member of a private club, I cannot comment on it publicly.

No, of course you can. But in this case, I think you should have exhausted your other options. Posting publicly to mildly rip on an architect is, again, IMO in poor form, particularly before you'd done other things.

What if a non-member had posted the exact same original thread as I did?

It would be less bad, as they don't have the resources and contacts and standing within some of those groups as you do. They'd have had fewer options to explore first than you.

One thing that you could do that would be immensely helpful - how about adding me to your little signature list of people you ignore?

You replied to me just now, so, you first. 

[Charlie Goerges]

This is a disappointing discussion. We should be focusing on the architectural points. There's a specific discussion to be had about Holston Hills and a general one about this type of work more generally. I'd really like to get back to that.


My generalized question would be:


What role should the preliminary documents/sketches play in the restoration of a course? Especially one that is/was as well-preserved as Holston Hills.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Maybe it is time to let this thread die of natural causes. The discussion has gone astray.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

My generalized question would be:

What role should the preliminary documents/sketches play in the restoration of a course? Especially one that is/was as well-preserved as Holston Hills.

That's a good question. Does it get into whether you're doing a "renovation" or a "restoration" (a topic that's been discussed at length elsewhere here)?

And of course there are other things to consider even if going more the "restoration" route: cost of maintenance, safety (golf carts didn't really exist when Donald Ross was around), etc.

[John Kavanaugh]

I asked ChatGTP “Is frank discussion taboo?”


Frank discussion is not inherently taboo, but it can sometimes be seen as inappropriate or uncomfortable depending on the context and the topic being discussed. Some people may feel uncomfortable with frank discussions about sensitive or personal topics, while others may appreciate open and honest communication. It is important to consider the feelings and boundaries of others when engaging in frank discussions and to approach the conversation with sensitivity and respect.

[Jason Thurman]

This is a disappointing discussion. We should be focusing on the architectural points. There's a specific discussion to be had about Holston Hills and a general one about this type of work more generally. I'd really like to get back to that.


My generalized question would be:


What role should the preliminary documents/sketches play in the restoration of a course? Especially one that is/was as well-preserved as Holston Hills.

It's the right question. I don't think it has a clear cut answer.


John's argument in the Holston Hills case has me thinking:

• Early drawings were incomplete, compared with what was built on the ground.
• The feature in question here is a utilitarian one - someone in the past few pages already made the point that "chocolate drops" were often used to "dispose" of boulders or other spoils in the field. It's the kind of thing an architect may not have planned to do in advance of digging, but would use as an elegant solution when necessitated.
• The mounds infused character to the hole - it's probably been 10 years since I played it (good to see you again, Joe Sponcia!) and I remember the approach to 15 vividly.

At the end of the day, it's just a better and more interesting hole with them in place.


I can think of other courses where the opposite is true - what was built on the ground wasn't quite as interesting as what was outlined on the plans. Clovernook is a good example - as far as I can tell, it's still a pretty faithful representation of what was originally built (albeit with the addition of a whole lot of trees). And it's a very good golf course in its current state. But if someone wanted to restore it consistent with the original plans drawn instead, thus adding quite a few features, I'd be pretty excited about it.