I'm firmly seated on your bandwagon here, my friend. I've been a long time Strantz supporter. I asked this question myself a few months ago and about two people responded. One of them, Tim Weiman, opined that we golf course archtitecture gurus and junkies like Strantz stuff but he isn't very mainstream, mostly because of his quirkiness.
I've never played a course of his so I should probably retire at this point, but Strantz's courses look fantastic in photos.
From what I've heard....Tobacco Row has too many difficult shots that the average player cannot handle. From looking at the pictures on Ran's write-up, you can see that some of his stuff looks like it is right out of Peter Jacobsen's Golden Tee video game. I mean a Dell is one thing, but the two mounds you have to shoot through on the first, I think it's the first, is sort of ridiculous.
I absolutely love Mr. Strantz's bunkers. Aside from the standard 'rugged-look' bunkers guys that we constantly gloss around here (C & C, Doak, Hanse, Devries) I find Strantz stuff to be highly desirable.
Just yesterday someone commented on Royal New Kent. I guess it is in a poor location and is under-funded. That's too bad in my opinion because this place looks as good as it gets. Rolling hills, native grasses, artistic bunkers. Stonehouse also looks great, highly natural and a wild ride.
I have a picture of a hole at Caledonia that is a replica, in the sense NGLA has replicas, of #3 at Pine Valley.
IMHO, Strantz is very talented and under-appreciated. Some of his stuff is a little over the top and surely must lead to a lot of unplayable lies, but they guy is good. I'm ok with it remaining that way. The sooner he starts to get a bunch of run is the day all his courses become ridiculously expensive and only available to those who probably will fail to appreciate what he's done.