[John Kavanaugh]

How different, how similar?  I've played only a few courses of either and they both seem to be looney tunes from an classic standpoint.  But hey, I had fun.

[Ben Hollerbach]

I've played one Strantz and one Engh. I'd be happy to play another Strantz and have no desire to see another Engh.

While both liked to push the visual envelope, Strantz seemed to care more about the overall playability of the hole. I think Strantz's work is more like what was being done 100 years ago but at the scale of the modern game and will age very well over time.

[Tom_Doak]

I see them as being as different as far left and far right, to the point where some people think they start to come together.

I agree that both approached golf design from the standpoint of fun ... and so do I.  They have very different ways of getting there.  One directed all the work on site [one project at a time, 3-4 days per week], while the other did everything based on drawing plans in his basement. 

For me, the difference is that Mike's work tried to create a landscape for the project and he was VERY focused on the visuals, while Jim's work is more about grading and playability and he doesn't seem to care nearly as much about the visuals and not at all about how it blends into the landscape.

[Bill_McBride]

I haven't played any of Jim Engh's courses but was put off by the catcher's mitt mounding that I saw from a road at Reynolds Plantation.

Mike Stranz's courses, of which I have played Caledonia, True Blue, Tobacco Road and MPCC Shore, seem to be more the "looks hard, plays easier" style.  The fairways are wider than they appear from the tee.  He plays a lot of visual tricks. 

I'm over The Road, but  could play The Shore every day happily.

[Andy Troeger]

Interesting how all the responses are pretty different so far. And mine will continue that...

The biggest similarity between the two is their affinity for big bold features that encourage heroic shots. This is most clear in their par fives, which usually are very creative.

The second, closely related to the first, is that both build courses with a strong intent on fun. Obviously they don't succeed with every golfer, but their styles are both unique and their "fans" strike me as being pretty devoted. I make an effort to see courses by both of them, so  fair enough to count me in!

They both take risks in terms of severity/playability on their courses, and I would argue both cross the line at times. Despite that, for better players one could argue that both design courses that look harder than they play.

For all those similarities, their courses certainly look different and are bold in different ways. I tend to disagree that Engh isn't interested in the visuals, I just don't think Engh is interested in making visuals look natural. Engh courses have a certain look to them, which seems unlikely if the visuals weren't of some importance.

I would have a hard time picking one vs the other. Black Rock and Tobacco Road succeed in being all about fun, IMO. Their lesser designs are still fun IMO, even if Red Hawk Ridge (Engh) is blander than his other work and Tot Hill Farm (Strantz) is a bit odd in places.

[Tom_Doak]

I tend to disagree that Engh isn't interested in the visuals, I just don't think Engh is interested in making visuals look natural. Engh courses have a certain look to them, which seems unlikely if the visuals weren't of some importance.

I guess that's a better way of saying what I was trying to say.  I thought that his now-trademark style actually fit the stark landscape at Redlands Mesa quite well, but he does not even try to hide the sharp edges where the grading stops, whereas on Strantz's work you are never sure if the hills are natural or 100% manufactured, or somewhere in between.  [By the same token, the look of Engh courses is a product of the style of grading he's doing ... that look of its own is because nobody else approaches the grading quite like he does, I'm not sure that it's about the look.]

One thing they do (did) have in common is that both guys built their early courses for relatively modest construction budgets, even with the earthmoving.  Jim's courses are pretty narrow (which saves on irrigation etc.), while Mike's courses benefitted from leaving many areas to native vegetation.

The other thing they have in common is that while they are aiming for golfers to have fun, both are/were very good players, so their definition of fun is still pretty rugged and challenging for the 15-handicapper.

[Sean_A]

Its hard to say Strantz was all about visuals blending in when he builds a ruddy great 80 foot hill in the Low Country.  I guess I am trying to say that even with a small body work we should be careful about pigeon-holing Strantz.  He was daring, thats for certain, but beyond that....

Ciao

[Adam Lawrence]

I tend to disagree that Engh isn't interested in the visuals, I just don't think Engh is interested in making visuals look natural. Engh courses have a certain look to them, which seems unlikely if the visuals weren't of some importance.

I guess that's a better way of saying what I was trying to say.  I thought that his now-trademark style actually fit the stark landscape at Redlands Mesa quite well, but he does not even try to hide the sharp edges where the grading stops, whereas on Strantz's work you are never sure if the hills are natural or 100% manufactured, or somewhere in between.  [By the same token, the look of Engh courses is a product of the style of grading he's doing ... that look of its own is because nobody else approaches the grading quite like he does, I'm not sure that it's about the look.]

Tom, this last parenthesis is interesting. Could you expand on what you see as Jim's particular approach to grading?

Cheers

Adam

[RJ_Daley]

Beyond that, IMHO he built some mighty fine golf courses that I think from proper tees, high and low handicappers can have plenty of fun.  I can't tell Sean if you are amazed and amused be Bulls Bay, or perterbed and put-off by the construction of the central high point.  I think it was near genius and bold.  And, I think the result of the idea provides a prettydarn good course, aside from it being just a tadhard of a walk.

Engh remains an unknown tome.

[Andy Troeger]

The other thing they have in common is that while they are aiming for golfers to have fun, both are/were very good players, so their definition of fun is still pretty rugged and challenging for the 15-handicapper.

Good point. I was thinking of that when typing and somehow left it out. Both definitely are thinking of "fun" from the perspective of a better player--the heroic shots are good examples of that.

[Michael Whitaker]

Strantz was, first and foremost, a visual artist and all of his designs were created as a series of pictures... maybe to the extreme at times. How a hole "looked" often seemed to be as important to him as how it "played," maybe more so sometimes. Perspective tricks and visual intimidation are a big part of his designs. His love for "art" caused him to create some beautiful (and beautifully intimidating) golf holes. But, it also caused him to create some, uh, unorthodox holes in an effort to be different and give the owner "wow" factor.

He didn't choose the moniker "Maverick Golf Design" for no reason.

[A.G._Crockett]

The other thing they have in common is that while they are aiming for golfers to have fun, both are/were very good players, so their definition of fun is still pretty rugged and challenging for the 15-handicapper.

Good point. I was thinking of that when typing and somehow left it out. Both definitely are thinking of "fun" from the perspective of a better player--the heroic shots are good examples of that.

Andy,
At the risk of quibbling over semantics, I'm not sure I agree with "heroic" as a Strantz design characteristic.  Rather, his courses feature the ILLUSION of the need to hit a heroic shot off the tee.  

He was a master of this, and his courses feature lots of tee shots that show the golfer the preferred shot with the appearance of great difficulty into seemingly small landing areas.  IF the golfer can execute the shot that is called for, he finds most of the time that the landing area is far, far bigger than it appeared, and that the tee shot was far, far easier than it appeared.  

The penalties for missing that shot, though, are often quite high, which is why Strantz courses often have relatively low course ratings accompanied by unusually high slope ratings.  Higher handicap players who get crooked off the tee tear their hair out, but there are relatively few forced carries, for instance.

(Disclaimer: I have never played a Jim Engh course, so I have no way of comparing him to Strantz or anybody else!)

[A.G._Crockett]

Strantz was, first and foremost, a visual artist and all of his designs were created as a series of pictures... maybe to the extreme at times. How a hole "looked" often seemed to be as important to him as how it "played," maybe more so sometimes. Perspective tricks and visual intimidation are a big part of his designs. His love for "art" caused him to create some beautiful (and beautifully intimidating) golf holes. But, it also caused him to create some, uh, unorthodox holes in an effort to be different and give the owner "wow" factor.

He didn't choose the moniker "Maverick Golf Design" for no reason.

Mike,
I should have contacted you just in case you were at Pawley's last week; forgive me.  We played our yearly 36 hole day at TB and Caledonia on the 23rd; it was as always, just awesome.  Hope you are well.
AGC

[Andy Troeger]

A.G.,
I think what you say is valid, but I think we're discussing slightly different aspects of his designs. When I'm thinking heroic I am mainly thinking approach shots. Good examples might be the 2nd hole at Royal New Kent or the 4th/11th at Tobacco Road. Getting in the right spot in the fairway on those holes is certainly important, but the 2nd shot is all or nothing (especially at RNK, since there is some recovery potential at TR). Most Strantz par fives give the better player a way to get home in two, but not without taking on some pretty significant risk!

[Matt MacIver]

I think of Engh rightly or wrongly as a slightly more strategic, interesting and fun, Fazio.

I think of Strantz as a slightly more abstract, less burdened by borders and conventions (and owners), MacKenzie.

I like them both better than most.

[Derek_Duncan]

I agree that both approached golf design from the standpoint of fun ... and so do I.  They have very different ways of getting there.  One directed all the work on site [one project at a time, 3-4 days per week], while the other did everything based on drawing plans in his basement. 

Tom,

When I first read this I thought I knew whom you meant in each case--Strantz in the field, Engh in the basement. But Michael Whitaker reminds us that Strantz, a wonderful artist, sketched almost every hole and was known to ask his shapers to try to recreate what he drew. So, was is Strantz in the basement?

I don't really know Engh's methodology except that he also sits down at a table and draws. Maybe more so routings and plans, but either way, both are/were highly visual thinkers and use/d ink to as a design tool.

Strantz's work, to me, is more varied in its presentation. It's always quite bold and unconventional and a little awkward, but the landscapes and bunkering seem to change from site to site. Engh, for years, seemed to stamp the same forms onto whatever property he was working on. Four Mile Ranch indicated a change in direction, but there hasn't been a lot of work since then to judge.

[Tom_Doak]

I agree that both approached golf design from the standpoint of fun ... and so do I.  They have very different ways of getting there.  One directed all the work on site [one project at a time, 3-4 days per week], while the other did everything based on drawing plans in his basement. 

Tom,

When I first read this I thought I knew whom you meant in each case--Strantz in the field, Engh in the basement. But Michael Whitaker reminds us that Strantz, a wonderful artist, sketched almost every hole and was known to ask his shapers to try to recreate what he drew. So, was is Strantz in the basement?

You had it right the first time.  I don't see Mike Strantz having spent much time in the basement.  Do they even have basements in Charleston?

[Jim Tang]

I have played 2 Strantz courses and enjoyed both of them tremendously.  They were visually striking but also very fun to play and playable.

I have played three Engh courses and while all three were visually beautiful, I felt they were not very playable.  I have no desire to see any more of his work.

[Morgan Stephenson]

Mike was certainly not the basement guy. I believe all of his drawings, at least the ones he gave to the shapers to work from, were all drawn from the perspective that you see. His main tools during construction were flags, paint guns and sketch pad. I'm sure that he had visions of what the hole would look like but didn't have the final drawings until he was on site and sketching the hole in the field. It was pretty amazing to be able to see the sketches and then the final product and not be able to tell which came first. Sure miss him.

[Bill_McBride]

Mike was certainly not the basement guy. I believe all of his drawings, at least the ones he gave to the shapers to work from, were all drawn from the perspective that you see. His main tools during construction were flags, paint guns and sketch pad. I'm sure that he had visions of what the hole would look like but didn't have the final drawings until he was on site and sketching the hole in the field. It was pretty amazing to be able to see the sketches and then the final product and not be able to tell which came first. Sure miss him.

+1.  The MPCC Shore Course has some of the most beautiful vistas I've ever seen on a golf course. 

[Tim Gavrich]

I have played a number of Strantz's courses but none by Engh (though I'd very much like to). From playing experience I would describe Strantz's work as modernist and from pictures I've seen I would describe Engh's as postmodernist. The elaborateness (to a fault, sometimes) of Strantz's work seems to work in part to make the observer/golfer get the sense that Strantz manipulated an existing environment in order to create a whole new one. Tom Doak's comments about how little Engh seems to care about blending his creations into the existing landscape indicates a more postmodern sensibility whereby rather than imitating (Art: Renaissance) or manipulating and transforming (modernism) nature, the postmodern artist's/architect's goal is to contrast with or even deconstruct it.

(FYI: I'm going off the definitions of modern and postmodern art raised in this article: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/ask-an-expert-what-is-the-difference-between-modern-and-postmodern-art-87883230/?no-ist)

[cary lichtenstein]

I have played all of Strantz's and most of Engh's. I enjoyed all of their courses, some more so than others. I think Strantz was more of an artist and his courses varied much more. My only negatives on Engh is the repetitive use of bowl greens and penal fairway traps.

[Michael Whitaker]

Mike was certainly not the basement guy. I believe all of his drawings, at least the ones he gave to the shapers to work from, were all drawn from the perspective that you see. His main tools during construction were flags, paint guns and sketch pad. I'm sure that he had visions of what the hole would look like but didn't have the final drawings until he was on site and sketching the hole in the field. It was pretty amazing to be able to see the sketches and then the final product and not be able to tell which came first. Sure miss him.

Morgan - the folks at Caledonia love to tell the story of Mike setting up a stool in a fairway clearing during construction and sketching how he wanted the hole to look from that location. A lot of those drawings still exist. I met one of the Caledonia construction crew who said he had a couple of tubes in his garage filled with those drawings!

Mike At Work

[Michael Whitaker]

From Mike's old website...Mike Strantz in his own words:

As I walk around the land, I try and let the character of the property dictate my design. First an artist and second a golfer, I hand draw each hole from many angles. My philosophy has been highly influenced by the work and words of the great Allister MacKenzie, who wrote that “It is an important thing in golf to make holes look much more difficult than they really are. People get more pleasure out of [playing] a hole which looks almost impossible and yet is not so difficult as it appears.”

[Morgan Stephenson]

Mike I had some of those drawings too but gave them to Heidi a while back. I sill have several of the drawings that the shapers used during construction. They would be folded up in the cab of dozers and excavators and I asked them to let me have them when they were done. These are priceless to me. Complete with wrinkles and dirt smudges. I remember visiting Royal New Kent with Mike and seeing him sit on his Kawasaki Mule and sketching the thirteenth hole. I was lucky enough to get a sneak peek of the sketches and then return to see the drawings had come to life. Same thing with number nine at Caledonia. Saw that hole on his drawing board when I visited and when I returned remember seeing that hole exactly the same as the sketch.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()