No architect of recent times has polarized golfers' opinions as Mike Strantz's work has done. Indeed, a review of the Tobacco Road thread on this site's discussion group will provide views from players who love the course and those who will never play it again.

After spending much of the 1980s working with Tom Fazio, Mike Strantz took a job as a commercial artist away from golf before returning on his own with Caledonia near Myrtle Beach. That critical success was followed by two heroic (and more controversial) projects in Virginia at Royal New Kent and Stonehouse. He then returned to the Myrtle Beach area for True Blue, across the street from Caledonia. His last two projects, Tobacco Road and Tot Hill Farm, are in North Carolina.

Perhaps the two best adjectives for describing Mike's work are 'bold' and 'artistic.' A common comment heard from someone playing his first Strantz course is 'I have never seen anything like this before.' While visually-intimidating, the courses typically give the player more than ample to room to play, but the penalty for missing the playing field can be severe.

While his work has received a good amount of attention, there have been precious few interviews/quotations from Mike Strantz. For that reason GolfClubAtlas is particularly pleased to bring you this interview offering a better glimpse into the designer's mind.

1. Which three architects' (living or dead) work has influenced you the most and how?

#1a) Dr. Alister Mackenzie

Outspoken, opinionated, self-confident in the face of criticism, a master of incorporating natural features into the area of play, oh hell, just read The Spirit of St. Andrews (several times) and you’ll probably see why this guy is my all time hero. The first time I read his book, I couldn’t help but feel he was answering some of the critical barbs being thrown at my work.

I offer the following quotes from The Spirit of St. Andrews by Dr. Alister Mackenzie.

'A first class hole must have the subtleties and strategic problems which are difficult to understand, and are therefore extremely likely to be condemned at first sight even by the best of players.'

'I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that beauty means a great deal on a golf course; even a man who emphatically states that he does not care a hang for beauty is subconsciously influenced by his surroundings.'

'A good golf course is like good music or good anything else: it is not necessarily a course which appeals the first time one plays over it, but one which grows on a player the more frequently he visits it.'

'It is an important thing in golf to make holes look much more difficult than they really are. People get more pleasure out of doing a hole which looks almost impossible and yet is not so difficult as it appears.'

'It frequently happens the best holes give rise to the most bitter controversy. It is largely a question of the spirit in which the problem is approached, depending on the player. Whether he looks at it from the 'card and pencil' point of view and condemns anything that disturbs his steady series of 3’s or 4’s, or whether he approaches it in the 'spirit of adventure.'

'The difficulties that make a hole really interesting are usually those in which a great advantage can be gained in successfully accomplishing heroic carries over hazards of an impressive appearance, or in taking great risks to place a shot so as to gain a big advantage for the next. Successfully carrying or skirting a bunker of an alarming or impressive appearance is always a source of satisfaction to the golfer, and yet it is hazards of this description which so often give rise to criticism by the unsuccessful player. At first sight he looks upon it as grossly unfair that two shots within a few inches of each, the one shall be hopelessly buried in a bunker and the other should be in an ideal position.

If, however, he will give it further consideration he will realize that this is the chief consideration of all good golf holes.'

I think that Tom Doak hit the nail on the head when he described in his book The Confidential Guide Mackenzie’s 'penchant for designing holes on the borderline of par, where strokes can slip away so easily or be regained so dramatically.'

To me, that’s what golf is all about.

#1b) Pete Dye

Pete took what was becoming a trend toward cookie cutter sameness in 'modern' golf course architecture and turned it on its ear by pushing it to the very edge. To me, when Pete separated himself from the pack in the 70’s, it was like a breath of fresh air. He forced people to start looking at golf course design with a whole new perspective. He believed in what he was doing and persevered despite a firestorm of criticism and controversy.

His work was so bold and so different, that I think people failed to grasp the basic fundamentals of design philosophy it contained. I think that Pete is probably the best in the business at setting up the angles and diagonals of play. Go play any of his courses and you’ll see what I mean when you look at them in that context.

It’s not often that a person comes along and has the kind of impact that Pete had on an entire profession, and whether you love his work or hate it, there is no denying that he had that kind of impact.

#1c) Tom Fazio

Some people may criticize his work, but you would have to look pretty damn hard to find someone who dislikes Tommy as a person. He is a kind, humble, caring individual; a genuinely nice person.

I learned so much about dealing with and interacting with different people and personalities from him, more than I’m sure he realizes.

Architecturally, I think the most important thing I soaked up from Tommy was the attention to and respect for the native environment of each site, and how to maximize its effect to give each project its own identity.

2. What is the most dirt you have ever moved on a project? What is the least?

The most earth we will have ever moved for a project happens to be the one we are working on now, Bull’s Bay, outside of Charleston. We’re anticipating moving approximately a million to a million and a half cubic yards of materials.

The least is probably Caledonia Golf and Fish Club, located in Pawley’s Island, SC. We (myself, Larry and Danny Young) didn’t really keep track there, but I doubt if we got close to 100,000 cubic yards.

I do think people have a huge misconception of the amount of dirt we have moved on projects. This is especially true in the case of the Virginia courses.

There was not nearly as much dirt moved at Royal New Kent as people tend to assume. There was a fair amount of natural contour on that site and what we tended to do was to cut the low points even lower and add that material to what were already the high spots, thereby creating the illusion of twice of the relief and the false belief that we had moved millions of yards of material.

At Stonehouse, I have always been proud of the dirt we didn’t move. That was a site filled with bold, abrupt contours, steep ravines, and natural drainage basins, all of which we tried to leave alone as much as possible, weaving golf holes over, around, and through them so as to keep earth moving to a minimum.

3. Your work has been confined to Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina. Are you considering taking on projects outside the southeastern U.S.?

I almost certainly will at some point in the future. When I got back into this business in 1992, I made a promise to Heidi, my wife, and to myself that I would only take on projects relatively close to home until such a time when our two daughters, Dana and Andrea, had both graduated from high school and were not living full time at home anymore.

I do one project at a time and I give that particular site my full attention. I like to be on site at least four days a week; that’s minimum; often it’s for the entire week, so if a site is situated where Heidi and the kids or myself can’t jump in the car and either drive to the site or drive home in 3 to 4 hours, it’s just not going to work. If I can’t hop on a plane and be home in an hour or so for band concerts, football games, awards banquets, proms, etc., it’s just not going to work.

When the girls no longer depend on us living at home everyday and when I can take Heidi and we can experience all a particular site may have to offer for a week or two at a time together, I will venture out of the Southeast.

4. Your five courses to date are all daily-fee operations. When a private club commissions you to build a course for limited play, will your approach differ? If so, how?

Interestingly enough, when I first got involved with our current project, Bull’s Bay (then called Seewee Bay), it was a private, equity club situation. With the design process well underway, the ownership changed and the golf course then became public. The only adjustment we made was to switch from bent grass to bermuda grass on the putting surfaces, to accommodate the increased number of rounds in heat and humidity of the American Southeast. Details such as grass types, amount and types of cartpaths, traffic flows (both cars and golf carts), types and sizes of clubhouses, etc., I think have to be considered when comparing private versus public use, but I doubt I would ever alter my design approach based solely on that criteria.

First of all, my client, be it a group who wants to build a private club, or an individual who wants to construct a public course for profit, deserves and should expect the absolute best product that I can put on his or her particular piece of property, period.

Secondly, the golfer who is going to play that product, in my mind, deserves the ultimate in beauty, with plenty of opportunities to use the above challenges set before him and that chance to feel his spirit soar when he successfully overcomes them, regardless of where he or she happens to reside on the socio-economic ladder.

We (Forrest Fezler and myself) pride ourselves in trying to offer the public player a private club experience, to go out onto the golf course, look around, and say, 'Wow, I can’t believe I’m getting to play on a place like this.'

Think of how many more great golf courses we might have in our possession if designers didn’t approach a project with the attitude – 'Well, it’s just a daily fee course, so let’s start backing off right from the word go; we’ll save our best effort for the next private club with a big budget that we do.

Hell, the public player doesn’t deserve any less thought or effort on the part of the golf course designer than the private club member!

The client most certainly doesn’t!

Continued >>