Two questions:
1) What is it about 16 and 17 at Royal New Kent that are out of character with the rest of the course?
2) How do you feel about the routing at RNK?
-knowing the most likely answer, how does that effect your opinion of Stranz's work there?
1. I don’t think 16 is that out of character. 16 is a damn hard hole IMO with a fantastic green. I can’t see how it’s any more out of character than #10. 17 sort of transitions you into 18 – it doesn’t really have any of the RNK signature bunkers, and seems to play a bit more like a parkland course. Even the green is rather dull in relation to the rest of the course.
2. The routing is hard to quantify. On one hand, each hole, individually, is very well done; but overall there’s just too much real estate between the holes. Maybe Strantz had to deal with some future housing plans – which still haven’t popped up by the way – but I would never want to play there every day for the lone fact that it’s really unwalkable. With the exception of Stonehouse – I’ve never seen longer distances between holes. It’s really a shame too, because there really is a lot going on architecturally at RNK, and sadly most everyone driving along in his or her cart misses it. It’s a great walk (tee to green), but just too much for most mortals between holes.
And I don’t really buy the whole story on why the 18th hole is the way it is. For all the money they spent on cart paths out here, why not just route the 18th hole away from the lake and clubhouse – avoid the island/waterfall finish altogether? Shoot – the golfer has already driven10 miles through the woods to get form hole to hole, what’s another 3-5 minutes after the round?