Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Ted Sturges on July 18, 2013, 11:21:23 AM
-
The work of Mike Strantz is very interesting to me. Take Tobacco Road for example. As many people hate it as love it. I played his first course (Caledonia) and really liked it. Since then, I have played True Blue, have seen but not played Bulls Bay, played Tobacco Road, Stonehouse, Royal New Kent, and the Shore Course at MPCC. I honestly like a great deal of what he has built, but there are holes on many of his courses that turn me off.
His designs were bold, artistic, "wide" (he definitely used width as a design feature to a degree few of his peers have), yet his designs were sometimes over the top. For example, after really enjoying a lot of what I saw at Royal New Kent, I was dumbfounded to get to the 18th hole and see a waterfall feature, which didn't match the rest of the course at all (perhaps that was forced upon him by the owners?).
What do you all think of the work of Mr. Strantz? Is his work revered here, or not? What are your thoughts on the courses of Mike Strantz?
TS
-
He's the Brussel Sprouts of GCA: you either love him or hate him. Personally I'm not a huge fan.
-
I sat opposite two architects in Stockholm recently (both posters on here in their time) and listened to both of them - rather emotionally (drink was had) - give me an hour long lesson in how and why they revered Mike Strantz above all other architects, alive or dead.
I haven't seen any of his work in person but would certainly like to some day.
-
His courses are 'must sees' for architecture students.
I, personally, don't enjoy his courses that much. But some of his individual golf holes are beyond epic and very good. But regardless, I truly believe people need to see his courses and holes, as I think his style and art is truly unique in the world of golf course architecture.
-
I think I have been lucky to have played his courses that are more highly regarded and missed the ones not as well thought of - although I am sure there are many who really like Royal New Kent, Stonehouse, and the one with all the rocks near Pinehurst.
I have played Caledonia, True Blue, Tobacco Road and Monterey Peninsula's Shore course.
Each of those has been a work of art as well as great fun to play. I've seen his sketches for MPCC, each is a beautiful rendition of his vision of each hole, and more importantly, the final result looks just like those visionary sketches.
I think the underlying common thread with his courses is that they look much more difficult than they play. He was a genius at disguising the width of a fairway with a berm or a bunker lip or a ridge line.
It's such a shame that he died so early, as he was truly a genius.
With regard to Tobacco Road and Stranz's influence on design, it's interesting to note that in the recent Top 100 courses as ranked by golf architects for golf Architecture magazine, Robin Hiseman made a bold statement by picking Tobacco Road at #1! I believe this was out of respect for the impact Mike's designs had on Robin rather than disrespect of the eventual top 10.
-
Nicely stated, Bill.
There are just some folks that have the artistic and technical know-how and talent combined with a bold spirit that move the needle. I think Strantz was that sort of man.
I just missed the chance to actually meet him and hear his thoughts directly when he was scheduled to speak to one of our earliest GCA get-togethers back in late 90s-2000 at Tobacco Rd., but personal business prevented him from driving up from Mt Pleasant. Our loss in deed.
But, having played what many identify as his most controversial, both before it was open for official play with first iterations of controversial mound pre green at 16 and some other subsequent tweaks, along with a few plays after work was done, I feel that Strantz was not only bold and creative, but humble enough to alter his work after some observation that one of his 'out there' creations may be over-the-top.
His work at New Caledonia was a demonstration of ability to work a bit different approach to almost parkland terrain. And right across the road at True Blue, another change-up. The engineering plan and work at Bulls Bay is once again bold, shows great talent to create and plan a property from essentially nothing to a sprawling big time course with the creation and routing scheme off the central mini-mount they constructed. I only saw the photos of MPCC, but what has been posted in photos, along with a few of his artistic painting hole concepts shows the flair and creativity that burned in Strantz. Then... when you consider the physical struggle he endured with his mouth and throat cancer, yet pressing on through what must have been agonizing days and months during the project, was a measure of passion we must give great reverence to such commitment. And, I have never heard a bad word as to the outcome of that project.
One can't overlook a great partnership with Forrest Fezler that Mike had enjoyed. They made a great team, IMHO.
I reckon that the partnership did come up with a few clinker holes in the process. But, it seems to me that the risk of the bold efforts was always worth the progress and success of the majority of the efforts, which is what matters, I believe.
I wonder about the nature of the clients that turned Mike loose on these projects. I had met one of the Stewart's at TR and they were always behind Mike's work and let's face it, it takes a great client to take the risk with a controversial designer. So, having clients that saw the talent and hired Mike is also a big factor, IMO.
Yes, Mike Strantz moved the golf course design and architectural needle with artistic boldness and passion for the profession.
-
No architect's work could be described as "courageous" any more aptly than that of Mike Strantz, IMHO.
-
Ted,
I have played several of Mike's courses and agree the sentiment others have expressed.
As for the 18th at Royal New Kent, I didn't like it either, especially when playing the approach shot into a bright sun.
-
Have played TB, Caledonia, RNK, TR & Stonehouse. and liked them a lot, but ..........
I might rain on this parade a bit.
I think there is a lot of showmanship, one ups man ship and marketing to Strantz. I do not really mind it because it was so, in general, well done (exception being 17 & 18 at RNK). (the routing of the whole back nine at RNK is rather forced, IMO).
Caledonia is interesting because it has a very compact routing, in contrast with the other courses. Caledonia is walkable ... just do it in October. I think the Caledonia property is a bit too small, 2 super short par threes and no range, but a super cool short game practice area. It is a departure from the other courses.
TB has the feel of TR but on much flatter ground with a lot more water.
If you are going to be successful, you need to separate yourself from the field and he did that.
-
I haven't seen any of his work in person but would certainly like to some day.
Me as well. From photos I've seen of some of his courses they look pretty unique and very interesting.
ATB
-
Playing the Shore is like walking through a weird amalgamated landscape of a Dali painting and a Zen garden. I LOVED IT.
F.
-
If not for Cypress Point, Tobacco Road just may be the finest 17 holes ever routed. Mike's great artistry often overshadowed his poor engineering. But then again, I can only recall playing Tobacco Road.
-
The thing that surprised me so much about playing Tobacco Road was that, despite playing so badly that day, I still enjoyed the experience. That hardly, if ever, is the case.
-
In the interests of full disclosure both Tobacco Rd and Caledonia are high on my list for return visits.
When I played T Rd the conditioning was excellent. I seemed to hit every club in the bag, there was a drivable par 4, par 5s with a canyon to carry, greens in pits... golf is meant to FUN then for me and this is the course for me.
Caledonia I think is fun too, but not quite in your face.
True Blue was almost too big and seemed to overly ambitious.
For me Strantz's work is at least to be appreciated if not adored.
Any serious GCA'er must play Tobacco Rd....!
-
Stranz's work at MPCC is indeed breathtaking, the combination of the setting and the bold contours of the greens and bunkers really work well together.
I played Tobacco Road for the first time last week, again I enjoyed the golfing portraits that you get when standing on each tee. There is a real artistry to be admired in the earthmoving that was done there.
With that said I was left with the impression that Tobacco Road was up there with the most extravagant golf courses I have ever seen (Trump Florida included). TR is not a walking golf course but worth seeing at least once I suppose.
Are any Stranz courses walker friendly?
-
JoKa, which hole at Tobacco Road doesn't make your "finest 17 holes ever routed" list?
I wonder what Strantz would have done during the downturn. Would he have resorted to restorations and would we have come to appreciate his vision even more? Would he have faded into the sunset?
During a time when golf courses were popping up everywhere, every day, Michael Strantz only left us 7 or 8 courses as a legacy.
I missed out on Caledonia my last trip to Myrtle. Hope to not miss out on it again. I played TB before I understood GCA, but I really enjoyed the tour. I consider it to be Tobacco Road Light. I liked Tot Hill Farm, but not as much as Tobacco Road. I liked Royal New Kent better than Stonehouse, and neither as much as True Blue.
The elephant in the room is Silver Creek Valley in California. What's the story there? http://www.mikestrantzdesign.com/scvphoto1.html
The Maverick made gca better. It is appropriate that Tobacco Road is located so close to Pinehurst. Hopefully those that seek the roots of the game in the USA will always be able to see TR.
-
As John said/implied, he was a better artist than golf course architect.
-
I have played Caledonia, True Blue, Tobacco Road and Monterey Peninsula's Shore course.
Perhaps the fact that I've played the same list of Strantz courses as Bill biases my opinion. But he's my favorite architect and I think his work (the courses I've seen) is absolutely brilliant.
-
Are any Stranz courses walker friendly?
Jeffrey...I haven't found that to be the case. Of course, they are all technically walkable*, but I don't get the feeling that he routes his courses for the walking golfer first and foremost. Rather I get the feeling he strives for the picturesque holes and then pieces them together. At least, that is how I feel when I've been playing his courses.
*For the record, I've played Tobacco Road, Royal New Kent, Stonehouse, Caledonia, and True Blue.
-
I have only this to say about his work, wonderful, bold, exciting. Thrilling!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Have only played The Shore but I thought it was dazzling. The piece of property with which he had to work obviously didn't hurt, but he was certainly creative and the course would have been a blast to play even in a lesser setting.
-
Stranz's work at MPCC is indeed breathtaking, the combination of the setting and the bold contours of the greens and bunkers really work well together.
I played Tobacco Road for the first time last week, again I enjoyed the golfing portraits that you get when standing on each tee. There is a real artistry to be admired in the earthmoving that was done there.
With that said I was left with the impression that Tobacco Road was up there with the most extravagant golf courses I have ever seen (Trump Florida included). TR is not a walking golf course but worth seeing at least once I suppose.
Are any Stranz courses walker friendly?
I walked the front, rode the back at the Road. Walked Caledonia, True Blue and the Shore, no problems. I've heard the opposite is true at the Virginia courses.
-
There really aren't other architects who are judged here exclusively by the first six or seven courses they ever designed.
I wish Mike Strantz were still with us. I believe he would have continued to evolve his work and style and that his courses, especially Royal New Kent and Stonehouse, would have been better protected and kept up.
He would have added to the GCA conversation in ways that no one else does.
WW
-
Mike's certainly polarizing, as evidenced by the twenty something responses in this young thread. But then, aren't most unique and cutting edge guys/things usually controversial?
I think what this group finds mostly objectionable is the walkability thing..oddly enough, his most famous work is actually one of his more manageable walks- aside from a long green to tee trek on 14 to 15, TR is not a bad walk.
Contrasted with my favorite Strantz- RNK- where there are some serious strolls between holes. Ditto for Stonehouse.
The 2 Virginia front nines are simply outstanding.
I bet he would have been a contributor here.
GCA could use another MS or two..
-
I only played two Strantz courses; The Road several times and Bull Bay. Both have the good, the bad and the ugly. For me, both fall just short of great and as Mac mentions, it may be the walking element which is the decisive factor. That said, I would play either again and both are 1* in my book. The Road is especially cool and on the modern side of things, probably right there in spirit with places like North Berwick and Cruden Bay.
Ciao
-
My experience with Strantz's courses is first play "wow, that is really cool and cutting edge" as many of the posts have indicated. The second time the "wow" factor is still high. After several plays, the "wow" factor has worn off and the whole experience becomes tedious. In other words it's great in moderation but not what I want day in day out.
-
There really aren't other architects who are judged here exclusively by the first six or seven courses they ever designed.
I wish Mike Strantz were still with us. I believe he would have continued to evolve his work and style and that his courses, especially Royal New Kent and Stonehouse, would have been better protected and kept up.
He would have added to the GCA conversation in ways that no one else does.
WW
This is exactly what I was going to say. I wish we had more of his work to assess.
I have not seen all of his work, but the best (for me) were his first course (Caledonia) and his last (MPCC). I saw the properties for both of them before he was hired, and I was amazed by the results.
-
I have played every Strantz except Tot Hill and MPCC.
IMO I think it's all about visual intimidation. There is usually fairway out there, or green. You just cant see it.
He was the master at putting negative thoughts in the golfers head.
-
Each fall I travel to Myrtle Beach with friends and we always play True Blue and Caledonia back-to-back (always TB first as it has a driving range). I'm always struck by the difference in the courses and I cannot imagine that the average person would know that they were designed by the same person. For courses that sit only a couple of hundred yards apart, they may as well be on different coasts. Only a couple of the par 3's and the 18th on each course (carries over water with very little bail out + a porch full of spectators above the green) seem to share any design thoughts. Haven't played any of the others, but if they are as diverse as TB and Caledonia I imagine they would be wonderful tracks.
-
JoKa, which hole at Tobacco Road doesn't make your "finest 17 holes ever routed" list?
First of all, I am a dedicated cartballer but had zero issues walking Tobacco Road with the help of a caddie. I am shocked that anyone who has ever played the course sees the logic in the routing of the 17th. Any hole that must be fully backtracked from green to tee to play the next hole is inexcusable. Unless of course your name is Macdonald and made the effort to work in St. Louis.
Clarification. I never questioned Stranz's talent as an architect. I found the engineering of Tobacco Road to be lacking. That may not have even been in his scope of work. Many great architects are poor engineers.
-
The only Strantz course I have played is at my old MPCC. A brilliant design and a joy to play. Even today as an old codger I believe I could walk all eighteen holes without a problem, the only uphill feature is the poorest hole on the course, the eighteenth.
I remember talking to Mike shortly before his departure and thanked him for his brilliant work, he was unable to reply. I am sure there any number of golfers could find a blemish on the Shore,but when I remember his dedication to the building of the course it is a tribute to his vision.
Bob
-
Today I played my 6th Stranz course, Stonehouse, I was not disappointed. I think that the pucker factor from the tees is probably higher here than at any of his other courses. Stranz does not take the pressure off there. Forced carries to many greens and only partial views can also.create anxiety. He gives back funneling wayward tee shots back to the fairway and providing very large greens that are not severe. Still not a venue for the high handicapper.
The course was in generally very good condition. I am looking forward to playing Royal New Kent tomorrow.
-
Today I played my 6th Stranz course, Stonehouse, I was not disappointed. I think that the pucker factor from the tees is probably higher here than at any of his other courses. Stranz does not take the pressure off there. Forced carries to many greens and only partial views can also.create anxiety. He gives back funneling wayward tee shots back to the fairway and providing very large greens that are not severe. Still not a venue for the high handicapper.
The course was in generally very good condition. I am looking forward to playing Royal New Kent tomorrow.
Stonehouse is the only Strantz course I didn't like. I found some parts of it to be bordering on absurd. There was one par 5 in particular that I remember on which the approach was downhill to a green that I couldn't believe. It also had the longest green to tee distances I've ever seen. I played as a solo at the crack of dawn, but I can see how 4 18 handicappers could take 6 hours there. I just think the owner tried too hard to shove a course in where one didn't fit or belong.
That said, you'll love Royal New Kent. I really enjoyed that one.
-
Stonehouse is the only Strantz course I didn't like. I found some parts of it to be bordering on absurd. There was one par 5 in particular that I remember on which the approach was downhill to a green that I couldn't believe. It also had the longest green to tee distances I've ever seen. I played as a solo at the crack of dawn, but I can see how 4 18 handicappers could take 6 hours there. I just think the owner tried too hard to shove a course in where one didn't fit or belong.
I had the same reaction to Stonehouse when I first saw it. I had really admired Mike's work at Caledonia, and Stonehouse seemed just outrageously over the top by comparison ... plus there were a couple of greens they couldn't keep grass on at all.
That it had won the GOLF DIGEST Best New award with two dirt greens was deeply disturbing to me. Honestly, I feared that the style of work I was doing was never going to get any recognition.
-
I agree about Stonehouse. My least favorite of his courses, and I've played all but MPCC. That said, there are a few really cool holes at Stonehouse. My biggest gripe was that there are too many very, very shallow greens with hazard short and trouble long (usually, the trouble is a bunker with no sand in it). I still had a good time there.
I think Tobacco Road is by far his best course. Royal New Kent, True Blue and Bulls Bay are very good. Caledonia and Tot Hill are fun in very different ways, and Stonehouse brings up the rear.
-
Have played both Caledonia and True Blue. Except for the "find any available place to put it" par 3 9th, Caledonia is a fine, enjoyable track. The she-crab soup at the turn almost makes up for the 9th. We played True Blue right after and the contrast between the two could not be more stark. True Blue is rugged, rough around the edges, and just plain tough - not for the faint of heart or anyone with a handicap over 16 ( and that is being generous). Did not know until after that both were designed by the same man. Would never have guessed it - the two are so very different in style. Would folks agree that True Blue belongs to the "penal" school of golf architecture? That being said, I do want to get to Tobacco Road and Royal New Kent and return to both Caledonia and TB.
-
I've only played Stonehouse and Royal New Kent, so I don't really have a ton of experience with his work, but from what I remember, I thought RNK was pretty solid. Very tough to play for the first time with all of the blind shots, but I thought it did a good job of trying to be a linksy type course until the 18th hole. 18 just didn't seem to fit and was a funky hole
But his courses are fun despite typically being incredibly difficult
-
Fun, brilliant, unique, creative, brilliant, out of the box, not everything works but wow, I love his courses.
-
Are any Stranz courses walker friendly?
Jeffrey...I haven't found that to be the case. Of course, they are all technically walkable*, but I don't get the feeling that he routes his courses for the walking golfer first and foremost. Rather I get the feeling he strives for the picturesque holes and then pieces them together. At least, that is how I feel when I've been playing his courses.
*For the record, I've played Tobacco Road, Royal New Kent, Stonehouse, Caledonia, and True Blue.
Caledonia is one of the most walker friendly courses I have ever played.
True Blue is very walkable (I've walked it several times)... if you know the shortcuts to take it is an easy walk.
-
There really aren't other architects who are judged here exclusively by the first six or seven courses they ever designed.
I wish Mike Strantz were still with us. I believe he would have continued to evolve his work and style and that his courses, especially Royal New Kent and Stonehouse, would have been better protected and kept up.
He would have added to the GCA conversation in ways that no one else does.
WW
This is exactly what I was going to say. I wish we had more of his work to assess.
I have not seen all of his work, but the best (for me) were his first course (Caledonia) and his last (MPCC). I saw the properties for both of them before he was hired, and I was amazed by the results.
Tom,
I am so glad to see your comments here. I know nothing about routing of a golf course, but Caledonia is genius in how the holes fit together and one never feels crowded or cramped on such a small piece of property. I've never seen a course that fits together so seamlessly.
Mike
-
My experience with Strantz's courses is first play "wow, that is really cool and cutting edge" as many of the posts have indicated. The second time the "wow" factor is still high. After several plays, the "wow" factor has worn off and the whole experience becomes tedious. In other words it's great in moderation but not what I want day in day out.
Bill,
I can see your point with the Virginia and NC courses, but I think the SC courses are very playable on an ongoing basis. The variety of holes presented and the challenges presented never seem tiring to me. There is really nothing "over the top" on ant of the SC courses.
-
Have played both Caledonia and True Blue. Except for the "find any available place to put it" par 3 9th, Caledonia is a fine, enjoyable track. The she-crab soup at the turn almost makes up for the 9th. We played True Blue right after and the contrast between the two could not be more stark. True Blue is rugged, rough around the edges, and just plain tough - not for the faint of heart or anyone with a handicap over 16 ( and that is being generous). Did not know until after that both were designed by the same man. Would never have guessed it - the two are so very different in style. Would folks agree that True Blue belongs to the "penal" school of golf architecture? That being said, I do want to get to Tobacco Road and Royal New Kent and return to both Caledonia and TB.
Would disagree that True Blue is penal; for reference, I'm an erratic 8 handicap. The width of the fairways makes it an easy driving course in my mind, especially compared to Caledonia across the street. Some of the approach shots are challenging because of the angles or hazards around the green, but I think that it's a fair golf course. That view is shared by my father, who is in his 70s and plays to about a 16 handicap or so.
-
Have played Tobacco Road 4 rounds, Royal New Kent 4 rounds, Stonehouse 1 round, Caledonia 1 round & True Blue 1 round. The common trait for me is that at first play is that they are frighteningly intimidating, difficult and penal. Repeated plays and some study has allowed me to overcome that and now find them real fun. The golfer needs to know what they can do and they can't do.
-
Uncertainty in the mind of the golfer, the struggle within, fighting emotion is one of the most controversial aspects of golf. Executing shots under duress is an aspect of the game which some either crave, or avoid. Visual deception intimidation, camouflaged hazards, "blind" shots often come under fire as "unfair". Some would rather have everything laid out in front of them, the RTJ style of golf. Cookie cutter point and shoot golf. I think many of Stranz' best designs fall under the heroic style of conquering an obstacle.
Was Mike Stranz similar to Pete Dye in these respects, but without the long legacy of work behind it? Would there have been a Mike Stranz design without Pete Dye coming before him?
-
Having my DC weekend plans cancelled I headed home from Virginia a day early and opted to stop at Tobacco Road and check out their new greens and compare with Stonehouse and Royal New Kent which I had just played.
I am a walker and wasn’t easily convinced that I couldn’t walk Stonehouse, in the end I was very glad that I opted for a cart as it seemed that the distance between holes was at least as long as the holes themselves. After the first five holes I was starting to wonder when I was going to start playing a golf course. So much is hidden from the tees that you might doubt that fairways really exist. They in fact do and are fairly generous, but forced carries from the tee and to the generous greens seemed to rule the day. It reminded me of my first experience at TR where it seemed like more of a funhouse experience, wherein you waited expectantly to see what would jump out at you around the next corner. I played alone late in the day and really didn’t have the time to take in the course as I would have liked. While I don’t like to ride, the paths through the woods were a treat unto themselves sometimes with almost the thrill of a roller coaster.
The next day RNK was also must ride course. But unlike Stonehouse it looked like a golf course from the start but the surprises were there still there. The ultimate risk reward hole was the 2nd, a horseshoe where there was no recovery from the great ravine that guarded the approaching fairway and green. It had for me the same almost feel as the 13th at The Dunes, however, The Dunes was beautiful and daunting this was just daunting. At Stonehouse you seemed to be hitting down to every green RNK felt like you were hitting up to most.
I like this front nine as much as any his courses that I have played. The back nine was probably also as good but I had a hard time coming to grips with the awful little uninspired little tract houses that were pushed up so close to the course. I kept recalling a conversation with Bob Toll of Toll Brothers (largest builder of “luxury” housing in the US). As we drove along a ridge overlooking the Delaware River Valley, he noted at a couple of recently built homes and said : Why would a builder build $250K houses on lots with million dollar views, don’t they know that 10% of $1,000,000 is more than 10% of $250,000? I think I object to the fact that the houses were so out of keeping with the quality of the course that they abutted. I found the Williams burg colonials at Stonehouse quite pleasant, even the condos at True Blue were unassuming.
Yesterday I got to TR and was glad to be able to strap the bag on and play a course that I was familiar with. The new Miniverde Bermuda greens were in great condition and due to their newness were still receptive. Another big change was the removal of all the trees between the 12th tee and the clubhouse. The whole feel of the 12th tee shot is transformed, I believe for the better. While TR greens are perhaps as large in square footage as Stonehouse and RNK their hourglass, boomerang and finger shapes give you much less to shoot at.
I tend to play Stranz courses at well below my handicap. I think it is because he makes me focus on my target. Even knowing that a slightly wayward shot is likely to find a generous landing area does not take away from the feeling that that little sliver of green area that he shows you is all that is there.
-
I generally have liked the Strantz courses I have played (MPCC Shore and Tobacco Road) with the exception of Tot Hill that I thought was ridiculous save a few interesting holes. At TR I thought Mike went overboard with the number of skinny greens ( his Twiggy period?), but I will generally head down for a round any time the green fee is in the $30-40 range. I generally like his par 5'a the best. I am wondering if he has any good short par 4's? The ones I have seen above the go for it option is too close to impossible and the lay up option is often too easy. The short 4's are particularly bad at TR, #5 is a good example. There is a flattish green that can't be held if a go for it driver lands on the green. Coming up short of the green there is very little chance your ball can roll up the steep 8 foot high slope fronting the green. If your ball doesn't get up the slope you have a pitching challenge that would have most mortal's nervous system twitching. On the other hand the lay up out to the right is an easy 4 iron to hybrid followed by a wedge from an angle that the green is more receptive from? #16 at TR is another example of a no chance to drive short 4, but in this case the lay up is no pushover as you have to fly over junk about 180yds, but less than 220yds or you are back in the junk. I do appreciate the challenge of the short iron approach, but hitting an approach blind uphill 2 stories to a 3 tier green seems a bit much.
Overall I like most of what I have seen and Mike was great at visual deception and intimidation and I generally love the artistry of his courses.
-
Just played Tobacco Road today. Have played Caledonia and True Blue. The difficulty for me is the fact I have exactly one round played on all three. What I would say is that visually they look much more difficult than they actually play. I loved the look of both Caledonia and Tobacco Road. The comments about his artistry are right on in my mind. The greens at Tobacco Road were terrific. There are more than a few blind shots and some of these holes have 15 foot flagsticks to help you find your way. That was too much for the guys I was playing with. All in all I would say if you are going to Pinehurst you should play TR. If you are in Myrtle Beach you should not miss Caledonia. Good looking and fun works for me.
-
I think Stonehouse and Royal New Kent were vital in helping us get past the "artificial" phase of the mid-90s and into the current phase of much more natural courses like those at Streamsong, Bandon, and Cabot. Strantz courses always seemed to have a few really holes that present a great aesthetic while also being good golf holes - and at least passing as natural. The Par Five #2 at Royal New Kent was this way.
Many if his courses also embodied a "theme" which was a pretty new concept at the time, but which has now become something we appreciate .
-
8) Played Tot Hill Farm once on way to Aberdeen/So Pines and have played Tobacco Road I think 7 times after it first opened...
Those two NC courses will always stick in my mind as counterpoints or juxta-positions to the usual Sand Hills offerings, worth the ride out to TR to spend the day and replay. Stunning synoptics and fun challenging your game, what more could you ask for?
I always liked Mike's quote:"You aren't guaranteed your best score the first journey around The Road, but you will remember the ride."
p.s. i first heard the name Mike Strantz and saw his work with the Hinkle Tree planted at Inverness in '79... great to see a Toledo boy make history in more than one way!
-
Have only played MPCC, and I'm happy to see that others seem to be as enamored of it as I am. Truly one of the most beautiful places on earth, IMHO.
-
Some of the Mike Strantz golf courses had difficulties in the recent years. Royal New Kent was one of those. I was glad to read that Royal New Kent has reopen recently. For more details: http://bit.ly/2Z2meEF (http://bit.ly/2Z2meEF). The reopening of Royal New Kent, along with the planned reopening of the Stonehouse Golf Club in Toano this year, are positive signs for Virginia's golf industry.
I admire the work of Mike Strantz, the golf course architect and artist.
-
He's the Brussel Sprouts of GCA: you either love him or hate him. Personally I'm not a huge fan.
I don't know about that. I've only seen three: True Blue, Tobacco Road, and Caledonia. I love one of those, find one solid but bland, and find the third a bit of an overdone circus (while I can still appreciate all that was done there).
So… I'm kinda in the middle. I don't love or hate him. And I'm probably not qualified to say too much more than that.
-
I've also played 3 Strantz courses -- Caledonia, True Blue, and Bulls Bay. I actually just played Bulls Bay for the second time last week.
Bulls Bay and Caledonia are both fantastic golf courses that I could happily play repeatedly. I'm not a fan of True Blue, although I've only played it once and it was at least a decade ago. My understanding is most of his work is more in the vein of True Blue than the other two, so I don't know if I'd be a huge fan of his if I'd also played Tobacco Road, Tot Hill Farm, etc.
-
He's the Brussel Sprouts of GCA: you either love him or hate him. Personally I'm not a huge fan.
I don't know about that. I've only seen three: True Blue, Tobacco Road, and Caledonia. I love one of those, find one solid but bland, and find the third a bit of an overdone circus (while I can still appreciate all that was done there).
So… I'm kinda in the middle. I don't love or hate him. And I'm probably not qualified to say too much more than that.
I can only assume that you found Caledonia bland and True Blue over the top. I've played all of his courses except Bulls Bay. Caledonia is a bit tight but full of great shot values. True Blue does seem to push the envelope a bit, but it sure is fun. The first time I played RNK was the year it opened and I thought I had been transported to some alien planet. After a few plays I though I had been just south of Heaven. My only complaint is 18. It doesn't fit with the rest of the course. Monterey Peninsula is absolutely brilliant. Stonehouse has some very odd holes but some of the par threes are brilliant. Tot Hill Farm might be his worst course. I would loved to have seen what his later work would have been. I wonder if he would have gone further away from "mainstream" or throttled back a bit.
-
Strantz body of work makes me think of what I hear some of the judges on Project Runway express while spending QT with the missus. ;D
He would have probably benefited from a good editor.
That being said, his dramatic, rugged style has mass appeal. But he probably got carried away in a few places and lost track of the basic fundamentals that make for good golf.
I suspect a "toning down" at Tobacco Road, for example, probably wouldn't diminish the course one bit. It could only improve.
Think Pete Dye's 1st version of TPC Sawgrass.
When it moved west to the Stadium Course in 1982 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Tournament_Players_Championship), the story was not eventual winner Jerry Pate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Pate),[/size][10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TPC_at_Sawgrass#cite_note-stpanspl-10)[/size][11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TPC_at_Sawgrass#cite_note-sidjloi-11)[/size][12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TPC_at_Sawgrass#cite_note-presplun-12)[/size] but the complaints the players had about the new course, which had supposedly been built in their honor.[13] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TPC_at_Sawgrass#cite_note-ncstpp-13)[/size]"It's Star Wars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars)[/i] golf, designed by Darth Vader (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darth_Vader)," Ben Crenshaw (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Crenshaw) pronounced. When asked if the TPC suited his playing style, Jack Nicklaus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Nicklaus) replied, "No, I've never been very good at stopping a 5-iron on the hood of a car." J. C. Snead (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._C._Snead) called the course "90 percent horse manure and 10 percent luck."[/size][/font]
[/size]Over the following year, Dye tweaked the course, making the greens less severe and replacing several[/color][/size] [/color][/size]bunkers.[14] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TPC_at_Sawgrass#cite_note-ptwiatac-14)[/size][15] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TPC_at_Sawgrass#cite_note-mrent-15)[/size][16] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TPC_at_Sawgrass#cite_note-asgnmtbf-16)[/size][17] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TPC_at_Sawgrass#cite_note-cdfire-17)[/size][/font][/size] [/color][/size]After the changes, the course became far more playable. "Now it's a darn good golf course," Crenshaw said of the improvements.[/color] WIKI
-
It's such a shame that he died so early, as he was truly a genius. There are just some folks that have the artistic and technical know-how and talent combined with a bold spirit that move the needle. I think Strantz was that sort of man.
Citing RJ Daley, on this board, some years ago, these lines explain why Strantz was different:
"His work at New Caledonia was a demonstration of ability to work a bit different approach to almost parkland terrain. And right across the road at True Blue, another change-up. The engineering plan and work at Bulls Bay is once again bold, shows great talent to create and plan a property from essentially nothing to a sprawling big time course with the creation and routing scheme off the central mini-mount they constructed. I only saw the photos of MPCC, but what has been posted in photos, along with a few of his artistic painting hole concepts shows the flair and creativity that burned in Strantz. Then... when you consider the physical struggle he endured with his mouth and throat cancer, yet pressing on through what must have been agonizing days and months during the project, was a measure of passion we must give great reverence to such commitment. And, I have never heard a bad word as to the outcome of that project."
-
Think Pete Dye's 1st version of TPC Sawgrass.
When it moved west to the Stadium Course in 1982 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Tournament_Players_Championship), the story was not eventual winner Jerry Pate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Pate),[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TPC_at_Sawgrass#cite_note-stpanspl-10)[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TPC_at_Sawgrass#cite_note-sidjloi-11)[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TPC_at_Sawgrass#cite_note-presplun-12) but the complaints the players had about the new course, which had supposedly been built in their honor.[13] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TPC_at_Sawgrass#cite_note-ncstpp-13)"It's Star Wars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars) golf, designed by Darth Vader (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darth_Vader)," Ben Crenshaw (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Crenshaw) pronounced. When asked if the TPC suited his playing style, Jack Nicklaus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Nicklaus) replied, "No, I've never been very good at stopping a 5-iron on the hood of a car." J. C. Snead (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._C._Snead) called the course "90 percent horse manure and 10 percent luck."
Over the following year, Dye tweaked the course, making the greens less severe and replacing severalbunkers.[14] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TPC_at_Sawgrass#cite_note-ptwiatac-14)[15] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TPC_at_Sawgrass#cite_note-mrent-15)[16] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TPC_at_Sawgrass#cite_note-asgnmtbf-16)[17] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TPC_at_Sawgrass#cite_note-cdfire-17)After the changes, the course became far more playable. "Now it's a darn good golf course," Crenshaw said of the improvements. WIKI
Well, I was there before it was changed and during the time it was changed, and I would not say that all of the "tweaks" to the TPC at Sawgrass have made it much better. They have fundamentally changed what it was intended to be. Mr. Dye agreed to a lot of that, but he had to because the client - the PGA TOUR, not the Tour players - changed their minds about what they wanted. They decided they wanted to appease the players, rather than to test them.
Wikipedia is a good resource, but it is the very essence of revisionist history.
For the most part, I'm glad Mike Strantz's work has not suffered the same fate, although True Blue [which I've never seen] was neutered in three or four spots. A couple of his courses were so extreme that they may struggle to survive on green fees.
-
Think Pete Dye's 1st version of TPC Sawgrass.
When it moved west to the Stadium Course in 1982 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Tournament_Players_Championship), the story was not eventual winner Jerry Pate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Pate),[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TPC_at_Sawgrass#cite_note-stpanspl-10)[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TPC_at_Sawgrass#cite_note-sidjloi-11)[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TPC_at_Sawgrass#cite_note-presplun-12) but the complaints the players had about the new course, which had supposedly been built in their honor.[13] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TPC_at_Sawgrass#cite_note-ncstpp-13)"It's Star Wars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars) golf, designed by Darth Vader (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darth_Vader)," Ben Crenshaw (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Crenshaw) pronounced. When asked if the TPC suited his playing style, Jack Nicklaus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Nicklaus) replied, "No, I've never been very good at stopping a 5-iron on the hood of a car." J. C. Snead (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._C._Snead) called the course "90 percent horse manure and 10 percent luck."
Over the following year, Dye tweaked the course, making the greens less severe and replacing severalbunkers.[14] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TPC_at_Sawgrass#cite_note-ptwiatac-14)[15] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TPC_at_Sawgrass#cite_note-mrent-15)[16] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TPC_at_Sawgrass#cite_note-asgnmtbf-16)[17] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TPC_at_Sawgrass#cite_note-cdfire-17)After the changes, the course became far more playable. "Now it's a darn good golf course," Crenshaw said of the improvements. WIKI
Well, I was there before it was changed and during the time it was changed, and I would not say that all of the "tweaks" to the TPC at Sawgrass have made it much better. They have fundamentally changed what it was intended to be. Mr. Dye agreed to a lot of that, but he had to because the client - the PGA TOUR, not the Tour players - changed their minds about what they wanted. They decided they wanted to appease the players, rather than to test them.
Wikipedia is a good resource, but it is the very essence of revisionist history.
For the most part, I'm glad Mike Strantz's work has not suffered the same fate, although True Blue [which I've never seen] was neutered in three or four spots. A couple of his courses were so extreme that they may struggle to survive on green fees.
Certainly no argument to be made based on my lack of details of the situation, I was just looking for an excuse to include the Nicklaus quote about stopping a 5 iron on the hood of a car.
-
I can only assume that you found Caledonia bland and True Blue over the top.
TR is over the top, and I like Caledonia more than True Blue.
Caledonia is a bit tight but full of great shot values.
That's what I like about it. A very well rounded test of golf, with good decisions to make.
True Blue does seem to push the envelope a bit, but it sure is fun.
I agree it's fun. But I've also rented the Golf Boards most of the times I've played it, too. ;)
-
Wasn’t sure which thread to put this under so I just picked this one. After reading the latest article by Shipnuck he classified MS as a minimalist. After seeing TRoad and Royal New Kent I would say he is on the completely other end of that spectrum. It doesn’t exactly scream “minimal” when so much soil was moved to produce a golf course. Maybe my definitions need to be better defined? Just seems way off to me to lump him into the minimalist category.
Link to article [size=78%]https://apple.news/A6p4dbq_4TMylF1eHaObZ_g (https://apple.news/A6p4dbq_4TMylF1eHaObZ_g)[/size]
-
Bulls Bay is built around a massive mound/hill that he artificially constructed. I don't think there's any way to call him a minimalist.
Sounds like he just thinks minimalist is the description du jour for a good golf course architect.
-
Here is the quote from the article. ”Strantz moved tons of dirt but was so meticulous in his creations it is usually impossible to tell his hand from Mother Nature’s. If Strantz’s style needs a name it might be called maximum minimalism.”
[/color]I expect that TR looked like the sand quarry it was prior to its amazing golf course conversion. He actually moved less dirt that imagined. The 2 mounds on the first hole are the result of cut/fill to create an impression of mounds rising from the basin below.[/size]
-
Minimalism is a nice ideal to aspire to on a quality site, but I think much can also be said for “naturalism,” that being the skillful are of creating something on a site that appears to have occurred naturally. My impression of Strantz’s portfolio was that his industrial art/design background led to an emphasis on lines and scale. Fairways and greens might be very wide or shallow [size=78%]to create a cohesive, eye pleasing shape with an emphasis on playing angles and bunkers placed to break up the lines/transitions from turf to bordering “native areas” as frequently as they were placed for strategic impact. [/size]
-
Wasn’t sure which thread to put this under so I just picked this one. After reading the latest article by Shipnuck he classified MS as a minimalist. After seeing TRoad and Royal New Kent I would say he is on the completely other end of that spectrum. It doesn’t exactly scream “minimal” when so much soil was moved to produce a golf course. Maybe my definitions need to be better defined? Just seems way off to me to lump him into the minimalist category.
Link to article [size=78%]https://apple.news/A6p4dbq_4TMylF1eHaObZ_g (https://apple.news/A6p4dbq_4TMylF1eHaObZ_g)[/size]
I have not see Royal New Kent, though I hope to this spring. But FAR less dirt was moved at Tobacco Road that most assume, including people on this site.
That property was a sand quarry for asphalt, and a lot, if not the majority of what you see there had been done before Mike Strantz ever set foot on the property. The best example that I know of is the 13th green; as Strantz drove onto the property for the very first time, before he even had the job, he saw that quarry pit and told the owners that he'd put a green there; he the only dirt he had to move was to cut a path thru the front and the sides. The pit the #11 plays around is another prime example.
Tot Hill Farm is another good example. The boulders that you see as you play the golf course were put there eons ago as part of the Uwharrie Mts., one of the oldest mountain ranges on the planet; Strantz, for the most part, left them as he found them.
-
Brady Bunch architecture. Nothing quite compares to that family photo standing on the stairs. In all seriousness the tri-level once played an important role in the development of American culture.
-
Think Pete Dye's 1st version of TPC Sawgrass.
When it moved west to the Stadium Course in 1982 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Tournament_Players_Championship), the story was not eventual winner Jerry Pate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Pate),[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TPC_at_Sawgrass#cite_note-stpanspl-10)[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TPC_at_Sawgrass#cite_note-sidjloi-11)[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TPC_at_Sawgrass#cite_note-presplun-12) but the complaints the players had about the new course, which had supposedly been built in their honor.[13] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TPC_at_Sawgrass#cite_note-ncstpp-13)"It's Star Wars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars) golf, designed by Darth Vader (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darth_Vader)," Ben Crenshaw (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Crenshaw) pronounced. When asked if the TPC suited his playing style, Jack Nicklaus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Nicklaus) replied, "No, I've never been very good at stopping a 5-iron on the hood of a car." J. C. Snead (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._C._Snead) called the course "90 percent horse manure and 10 percent luck."
Over the following year, Dye tweaked the course, making the greens less severe and replacing severalbunkers.[14] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TPC_at_Sawgrass#cite_note-ptwiatac-14)[15] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TPC_at_Sawgrass#cite_note-mrent-15)[16] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TPC_at_Sawgrass#cite_note-asgnmtbf-16)[17] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TPC_at_Sawgrass#cite_note-cdfire-17)After the changes, the course became far more playable. "Now it's a darn good golf course," Crenshaw said of the improvements. WIKI
Well, I was there before it was changed and during the time it was changed, and I would not say that all of the "tweaks" to the TPC at Sawgrass have made it much better. They have fundamentally changed what it was intended to be. Mr. Dye agreed to a lot of that, but he had to because the client - the PGA TOUR, not the Tour players - changed their minds about what they wanted. They decided they wanted to appease the players, rather than to test them.
Wikipedia is a good resource, but it is the very essence of revisionist history.
For the most part, I'm glad Mike Strantz's work has not suffered the same fate, although True Blue [which I've never seen] was neutered in three or four spots. A couple of his courses were so extreme that they may struggle to survive on green fees.
Certainly no argument to be made based on my lack of details of the situation, I was just looking for an excuse to include the Nicklaus quote about stopping a 5 iron on the hood of a car.
I played TPC the first year it opened and then again around 1988.
I returned last year to attend the TPC.
I was shocked at how much the imaginative and testing greens/contours and surrounds had been softened, yet all of the average golfer torture inflicting ponds etc. remained.
So way less testing for the PGA Tour player-in addition to 10-15% hotter equipment-including layup driving irons and fairway woods being the clubs of choice on formerly difficult driver testing holes as well as cup faced irons and high tech grooves equally as lethal as the Ping Eye-2s they replaced.
yet as torturing as ever for the average player from a ball losing perspective.
-
Minimalism is a nice ideal to aspire to on a quality site, but I think much can also be said for “naturalism,” that being the skillful are of creating something on a site that appears to have occurred naturally. My impression of Strantz’s portfolio was that his industrial art/design background led to an emphasis on lines and scale. Fairways and greens might be very wide or shallow to create a cohesive, eye pleasing shape with an emphasis on playing angles and bunkers placed to break up the lines/transitions from turf to bordering “native areas” as frequently as they were placed for strategic impact.
I think naturalism is a good description for Strantz -- regardless of how much dirt he did or didn't move at a site like Tobacco Road, Bulls Bay is absolutely an artificial creation. It was dead flat land that now has a huge mound 75 feet high, and some of the holes work up and around that artificial mound. The course doesn't look artificial, though, which is the difference from something like Shadow Creek which is full of features that were obviously constructed by man.
-
I don't think Mike's work looks "Natural" either. If we're making up words, I would call it "Artisiticism". Its beautiful and gorgeous to look at, but I don't think many will mistake his works as mother natures creations either..
Pac Dunes = Naturalism
MPCC - Shore = Artisticism
-
I don't think Mike's work looks "Natural" either. If we're making up words, I would call it "Artisiticism". Its beautiful and gorgeous to look at, but I don't think many will mistake his works as mother natures creations either..
Pac Dunes = Naturalism
MPCC - Shore = Artisticism
That's a good point. I was thinking of Bulls Bay alone when making that comment -- it doesn't have the big bold features of courses like Tobacco Road and definitely looks more natural. But even a course like Caledonia, which also lacks those big bold features, doesn't really look natural.
-
By the playing it.
-
By the playing it.
Kyle,
How Profound! :o
Seriously, Ship might have swept too broad a stroke, yet Strantz's work is a different form of minimalism. I rather like Kaylen's term: "artisticism."
Examine, for a second, all the earth-moving work one sees from Rees Jones or Tom Fazio. Neither uses their bulldozers to create something that looks like it's been there for decades. Strantz didn't always either, but some of his better courses, create that illusion.
-
I don't get the impression that Strantz focused on making his work look natural. He wanted to create work which was at the same time thought provoking, fun and pleasing to the eye.
Ciao
-
Not sure if the analogy directly works here, but its a bit like the Golden Gate Bridge.
Obviously not natural, obviously man-made. But when you're sitting on Baker beach in the twilight hour and the sun is hitting it, and you see that giant burnt orange structure stretch across the mouth of the bay, its nothing short of mesmerizing and magical. Imagining that same view 100 years ago, sans bridge, almost seems incomplete.
-
Artistic !
I feel the need to comment on his work especially after seeing his work at MPCC several times now. The article penned by Alan Shipnuck was wonderfuly written and captures the life and works of a underappreciated golf course designer. His flare for the visual aspects of the design were at full throttel at MPCC. One could compare his work to any of the golden age designers including the team of Mackenzie and Hunter.
He turned an ordinary golf course into an exceptional one by changing the routing and the visual and strategic placement of bunkers, tees and greens. I may have commented on this before on this website but his green sites and the elevations he set them at were truly impressive. They were varied depending on locations but I thought his green sites headed southwest were the most impressive. Most may never see the creativity in these elevations but next time your there take a close look, you will be impressed.
Mike Strantz may never get his full due but I have often said Golf is played on 3 dimensional Art and he was at the height of his mastery when he completed MPCC!!!
-
Seems to me that you have to assess the work on *his* terms, not on our own.
That is: it seems that Mike made sure you knew that there was an artist behind the art. He wasn't hiding, and didn't want to hide.
Like Joyce with 'Ulysses", the celebration and appreciation was (as intended) for both the *worker* and the *work*.
Every thread I've ever read about Mike and his work seems to confirm this, the 'stamp' that is a Mike Strantz golf course is always front and centre, leaving us to judge/assess not only the art-craft of the architecture itself but also the architect's own *intentions*.
Assessing the work of Mike Strantz entails, to a greater degree than with any other architect I can think of, what Mike himself was *doing* with the work.
-
I love Strantz courses. However, that is mostly because I love the artistry and admire it.
It doesn't get much press anymore, but there was an old concept of good gca being a balance of aesthetics, playability, and maintainability. Obviously, it is not always a balanced triangle, with public courses, for example, typically tilting the triangle to maintainability factors. Mike's work shows what can be incredibly created when tilting towards aesthetics.
Have told the story before, but I took the Quarry reps to Tobacco Road and Fazio's World Woods to give an idea of what I was planning at the Quarry. Got a yes to WW and a "nice look, but tone it down" to TR, which I think we did and Quarry seems well received. As you can tell, my take is that I would love to take some of his artistry, but would probably tone it down when considering other factors as a better balance overall.
We used to have that debate in LA school about reality often intruding on "pure design" whatever that is. And, gca and la aren't pure art, which is only to be looked at, but design, which needs to serve some practical function well in addition to looking good. I think that is the reason Mike's works get downgraded a bit in many eyes. As to Peter's "assess it on his terms" comment, most people have trouble assessing anything in terms of anything other than "how does it affect me?" LOL, but not sure any of us should get a pass on that.
Another architect who gets that rep was Von Hagge, who openly admitted that he designed his courses for shadows, often from surrounding real estate as much as for the golfer, and he didn't care if it played all that well or not.
-
Seems to me that you have to assess the work on *his* terms, not on our own.
Assessing the work of Mike Strantz entails, to a greater degree than with any other architect I can think of, what Mike himself was *doing* with the work.
If you really want to do that, then maybe it would be best to read what he thought about his own work. Luckily, there is an excellent interview with him right here on this site, which this thread caused me to go back and read:
https://golfclubatlas.com/feature-interview/mike-strantz/ (https://golfclubatlas.com/feature-interview/mike-strantz/)
Interestingly, he spoke mostly about providing width and options as the keys to his work, rather than about his artwork and how that shaped his courses.
Certainly, it's true that how one communicates with contractors and shapers has a big impact on the finished product. Mike was able to do this graphically, instead of through grading plans, or through verbal instructions, or by letting them work out the shaping solutions themselves. As a result, Mike's courses reflect Mike's own visualization more completely than mine do, or than most other architects, I would imagine. But little of that impacts directly on the playing qualities of the golf course, which he himself identified as the most important aspect of his work.
-
Seems to me that you have to assess the work on *his* terms, not on our own.
Assessing the work of Mike Strantz entails, to a greater degree than with any other architect I can think of, what Mike himself was *doing* with the work.
If you really want to do that, then maybe it would be best to read what he thought about his own work. Luckily, there is an excellent interview with him right here on this site, which this thread caused me to go back and read:
https://golfclubatlas.com/feature-interview/mike-strantz/ (https://golfclubatlas.com/feature-interview/mike-strantz/)
Interestingly, he spoke mostly about providing width and options as the keys to his work, rather than about his artwork and how that shaped his courses.
Certainly, it's true that how one communicates with contractors and shapers has a big impact on the finished product. Mike was able to do this graphically, instead of through grading plans, or through verbal instructions, or by letting them work out the shaping solutions themselves. As a result, Mike's courses reflect Mike's own visualization more completely than mine do, or than most other architects, I would imagine. But little of that impacts directly on the playing qualities of the golf course, which he himself identified as the most important aspect of his work.
Thanks, T
That aligns pretty well with everything I've ever read here from other posters - pro and con re the work. Playable despite/in tune with the strong visuals.
Didn't think of the interview when I posted, but to your main point my only 'proviso' is that I don't think I've read about any architect who *didn't* make/say 'playability' was their main focus.
-
I've played four of Strantz's courses, including TR which I've played at least 20 times. While I wouldn't want to play TR or any Strantz course all the time, as an occasional treat it's a pure joy. Golf is a game, games are supposed to be fun, and the courses that promote enduring fun for the greatest number of golfers are the best in my view. TR is the best match-play course I've ever played. It has more with half-par and birdie/bogey+ holes I've ever seen, and it engages my mind in evaluating risk/reward more actively than pretty much anything I've seen. Absent North Berwick or some other quirky Scottish links, it's about as fun a place as any I'll play.
If I had to come up with an analogy in the art world, the work of Leroy Neimann will never be included among "the greats" but I've gotten tremendous enjoyment from the two big serigraphs I have of his, much more than I would some "great" work that belongs in a museum.
-
Golf has survived Dye, I doubt it could have Strantz.
-
Jeff,
As we all know beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But I thought Strantz successfully created a masterpiece that almost everyone could enjoy. Shadow Creek is another course that exemplifies the beauty that can be blended with strategy and variety.
"Pure Design" as you speak of would not interest me. In order to create that level of design it seems like the "Fun Factor"as well as other factors would be washed away. I had a concept while working for the Dye's that took into account the yardage on a golf course. I labeled it "Perfect Yardage"
It supposed that a yardage that I had came up with would require you to use every club in your bag. The design required features be created that would function with the yardage. But I am now convinced that this concept could have eliminated most of the artistry of the design.
I plan to go see the Quarry in Minnesota when I am up there consulting, I have been curious how the experience will balance between beauty and function.
-
Jim,
I think the landscape architecture students were thinking in terms of pure artwork, without regard to budget, basic factors like circulation, etc. I would classify "pure design" as more artistry, as opposed to "perfect design" which in golf would have to do with playability. I think we probably think along the same lines in that regard.
Tom D and others have discussed that idea of "using every club in the bag" as it relates to hole length. I think everyone understands that with wind and elevation change, not to mention carry and roll (and driver loft and spin rates, etc.) that 440 yards doesn't necessarily play 440 in every location. I do try some "math" to figure out what the effective driving distance might be on that hole, even knowing how variable wind and turf firmness are. I could probably never go all the way to "just put bunkers where they look good and someone will find them interesting."
I guess that I think I design the golf aspects first, and believe I can usually apply the artistry on top. Some of Strantz work showed me there are some limitations in that regard. And, obviously, we have to think of multiple things at some level at all times, but things that Fazio does well, like placing holes in (sometimes built) valleys and bringing long ridges 2/3 across the fw, and at varying angles, don't always affect play, they are mostly artistic, as an example.
As always, just MHO, and of course, it's more complicated than can be easily described in one post. And yet, I try......
-
I am now convinced that this concept could have eliminated most of the artistry of the design.
That year and a half at Sebonack probably should have cemented your thoughts on trying to combine artistry with a paint-by-numbers approach.
-
I love Strantz courses. However, that is mostly because I love the artistry...
Another architect who gets that rep was Von Hagge, who openly admitted that he designed his courses for shadows, often from surrounding real estate as much as for the golfer, and he didn't care if it played all that well or not.
Equal parts shock and intrigue about Von Hagge. I have never heard an architect say he designed golf courses solely for their LA values. That makes Von Hagge a designer I want to know more about. I once thought it was the flowing capes that made Von Hagge an iconoclast. Turns out it went much deeper.
Bob
-
Both kinds of art-craft making are valid, whether in gca or writing or painting or music, and both approaches have produced acclaimed and stellar work that I've much enjoyed. But with each passing year, I appreciate more and more the kind where the artist-craftsman is 'hidden behind' the work, and I appreciate less and less the kind where the artist-craftsman is obvious and ever present. As I say, the preference is mostly a matter of personal taste and temperament; but I have to admit that part of me believes that a novella like "The Dead" is simply *better* than a novel like 'Ulysses". The outward 'flash' isn't there but (because of that) the 'emotional resonances' are deeper; if I'm not paying so much attention to the artist's talent, I can pay more attention to my own experience.
-
I love the courses.
I like the fact that they compel me to take far bigger risks.
And I find them fun because I'm not a scorekeeper, I just go and play what's put in front of me.
His course are a blast to play in match play.
I find all of his courses contain holes that I really wished I designed and a few that I'm glad I didn't.
I like that about his work, there's so much architectural reach and risk.
I love the things that work and respect the choices I understood less.
One is worth the other, because its always interesting to see and play.
He had sense of adventure and an artistic flair that still moves the needle for me.
-
8)
I'm interested in those who worked with him as to what his favorite things about golf were. His favorite shots , his favorite greens , the reasons for the width. Like Tom, read his interview and its quite good but as we know interviews can be guarded. Hope to get some info on these questions !
-
8)
I'm interested in those who worked with him as to what his favorite things about golf were. His favorite shots , his favorite greens , the reasons for the width. Like Tom, read his interview and its quite good but as we know interviews can be guarded. Hope to get some info on these questions !
Mike was a HUGE fan of Long Cove Club; I still remember how animated he got while talking about how much he LOVED playing there.
-
Played Bulls Bay today on a beautiful Charleston fall day. First Strantz course I’ve ever played. Really great looking course. Elevation changes were amazing considering it’s the “low country”. The greens had some nice movement and were very fast. Really enjoyed it. Fun place to play.
-
;) Extraordinary on top of other things said before... great artist, gone too soon, support the art
http://www.mikestrantzdesign.com/golfgallery.html (http://www.mikestrantzdesign.com/golfgallery.html)
-
This is a fellow who left us at age 50. His photos will never show grey hair, and he'll always have that handlebar moustache. He was the Maverick, as his eponymous design company proclaimed.
I dream awake some days what he might have done in the intervening 17 years. I'm certain he would have gone back to True Blue and Tot Hill Farm, to tweak them a bit. Almost too much tweaking to do at Stonehouse.
I'm glad that the Royal New Kent is now in the hands of ownership that appreciates what it has. I say this from a social-media perspective, as they are featuring his work on a regular basis.
I also dream awake some of the properties that he might have worked. Could his style have ever meshed with a Dream Golf or Cabot property? Perhaps. Would he have collaborated with one of our darlings on a Sebonack-esque build? Intriguing.
I'd play any of his courses, even Stonehouse, if given the opportunity. I've only missed Bulls Bay and MP-Shore.
-
Those are the only two courses I haven't played as well. I'm not qualified to rate architects. I will say that Mike is the only GCA whose courses I have made special trips to play simply because he designed them.
-
I played True Blue today, and it was, as always, exhilarating. We’re at Caledonia the next two days, and I can’t wait. I can’t count how many times I’ve played each, and I just look forward to it every time.
-
Tot Hill Farm was sold this week.
https://randolphrecord.com/original-ownership-group-sells-tot-hill-farm-golf-club/ (https://randolphrecord.com/original-ownership-group-sells-tot-hill-farm-golf-club/)
-
To me Mike Strantz is one person who is worth talking about. As his Company titled suggested "Maverick". he truly took the spirit of what Pete Dye was trying to do with the Design- Build moniker.
He had ideas, he conveyed to others what he was trying to do with artistic drawings and then built his idea.
Pete never sketched or drew as artistic as Mike, but his sand/ soil models in the dirt sculpting with his hands were as famous as Mike's paper sketches. Each needed to explain their ideas to others, one did it in the dirt and one did it via pencil and paper but both were trying to convey ideas burning around in the back of the brain. Thousands of ideas with only a limited number of holes to implement them on.
How I wish I could have talked to Mike Strantz more, Dana Fry raves about what he learned workin with Mike and the work I have seen to date only solidifies his genius with both the pencil and the shaping equipment.
-
Thanks, Jim. Your words echo and matter.
-
Ronald and Dan,
So then you've both played Silver Creek Valley, Strantz' other re-do in CA....what did you think of it?
-
I have not played Silver Creek and really don't know much about it. Is it a total redo they way it sounds like MPCC is?
-
No, SCV is more of a renovation (althought the Strantz web site calls both that...we know MPCC is nowhere near the same course)
Here's SCV stuff from his website:
http://www.mikestrantzdesign.com/scvphoto1.html (http://www.mikestrantzdesign.com/scvphoto1.html)