[Jason Blasberg]

I think my favorite thing about GW's process is the Classic/Modern distinction as it focuses on the new as much as the old.

How is it possible that only 1 original Strantz design (Caledonia) makes the top 100 modern list and at a meager 98th position?  (I know Monteray was a total redo but when you don't start from scratch it's not quite the same IMO.)

Having played Tobacco Road and Royal New Kent and having seen most of the property at Bulls Bay I can say all three deserve more recognition and likely a spot on this list.

How can Strantz' work be both widely hearalded here but not recognized on the one list that focuses on modern designs?

I don't get this one.  

Help

[wsmorrison]

The value of these lists are way overblown.  I cannot speak to the specifics regarding Strantz's original designs, but he is likely of a style that polarizes opinion more than most other architects.  

[Jason Blasberg]

Wayne, that's certainly the standard knock on his work.  This is a bit of a Socratic exercise.  

What does it mean to polarize re: gca appreciation?  Does one necessarily need to enjoy a course to see and appreciate it's merit?

There's a big difference between liking a course and appreciating it's design merit IMO and I'm afraid not enough people, including most here, understand that.

I think Engineers is the poster child of a polarizing design yet it's being recognized by those who see her now as it once was . . . a great golf course.  I don't understand how anyone can visit Tobacco Road, for instance, and not recognize within a couple of holes its genious.  The variety of playing angles off the tee and into the greens yield countless combonations that rival any game of chess one can imagine.  While I didn't ENJOY playing to the middle pin position on 15 green (because I think it's unplayable) I nevertheless saw the merit of the hole and in my analysis controlled for what I thought was is a silly pin placement.  I'm afraid most people cannot do that.  

Another example, I played Rustic Canyon last week and with greens rolling over a 10 in spots about half of the pins we played were ridiculous and while I took about 40 putts I looked past that to see the merits of the design, which are many.  Perhaps the best use of visual deception of any modern low-profile design.  

I fear that Strantz' quirk turns the first time player off when it would attract and compel the same player to return if they put in a couple more rounds.    

[Jason Blasberg]

Also, in this context does it happen too often that people equate enjoyment with scoring result?

[John Kavanaugh]

The first thing a course needs to make a Golfweek list is a rater/cheerleader who is a member.  It happens every year on the classic list.  First Lehigh, then Beverly and now Engineers.  Tobacco Road sadly had the opposite and never recovered...Is it top 100 in my book?  No on the design and yes on the historical significance...but you guys don't count that.  

[Geoffrey Childs]

Jason

MPCC Shore course is at #44.

That said, I think Wayne hit the nail on the head when he said Strantz designs (perhaps with the exception of MPCC from photos I've seen) polarize. I for one am not a fan of Tobacco Road. It didn't work for me and I think it is poorly engineered as well. I understand that there has been tweaking to some holes I objected to such as the greensites to #13 and 15.  There is a lot to be admired at TR for some of the thrilling shots and choices of shots but as a whole the things that did not work outnumbered the thrills.

I think with the Shore course Mike came into a balance between his creative and artistic imagination and workable golf. I think had he not been tragically lost to Squamous Cell Carcinoma he would have designed some of the great new golf courses of the world.  I have to see all of his other work at some point but the only one I'm drooling to see is MPCC.

[wsmorrison]

I've never been to Engineers, so I find it remarkable how often you bring it into so many disparate discussions.  The poster child of polarizing design?  How so?

As for Tobacco Road, I've only played it once, fortunately with a terrific group of GCAers.  I enjoyed playing the golf course, it was loaded with interest from a playing standpoint, but was put off by the overt man-made features and the required remedies for having them constructed.  It was meant to be big and bold, but I like courses that fit into their surroundings in a natural way.  This to me meant he was trying to do too much.  I like a different style of golf course...the use of natural features or making man-made features appear natural.  I did not like drains everywhere, even in bunkers.   There is no way that the multitude of surface drain intakes lead to a sense of naturalism.  

Bulls Bay seemed to take big architecture to a level I could not imagine.  The shot interest and artistry is definitely there, but it seemed out of place.  

[wsmorrison]

Geoff,

Thanks for expressing far better than I could just what irked me about Tobacco Road.  You nailed it for me.

Are you going to make a trip down here this Spring?  Looking forward to seeing you soon.

[Brad Klein]

Jason, if I were to do a detailed statistical analysis of the distribution curve for each architect, you'd find that Strantz leads the field in diversity of judgments on him. In other words, he tends to spread the field more than any other architect. Pete Dye is probably second. Fazio is at the opposite end of the spectrum, with a very tight distribution pattern of votes.

What I think I see with Strantz, and it's an impression that I'm not really sure I can verify given our limited information retreival on this, is that Strantz garners a good mix of 6s-7s-8s-9s but also more 4's and 5s than a lot of other big name, creative designers. Dye, tends simply to polarize, with the votes being not so much evenly distributed as more split. Fazio clusters.

In other words, Strantz's creativity is stirring and impressive, but also a bit jarring. For everyone who thinks Caledonia's little par-3 9th is a great contrast hole, there are raters who think it hokey and shoe-horned in as an afterthought. The same goes for some of his green complexes -- this as far as I can tell from a gleening of the data, as well as conversations with raters.

Personally, I find some of his work absolutely stunning (Caledonia, Monterey Peninsula-Shore, and some of it absurd (Stonehouse). And some of it all at once (Tobacco Road). But I also love playing his courses for the strong emotions they elicit.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Geoff,

Thanks for expressing far better than I could just what irked me about Tobacco Road.  You nailed it for me.

Are you going to make a trip down here this Spring?  Looking forward to seeing you soon.

Wayne -

I do want to get down your way and I think Atlantic City CC might be a good start.  It should be open soon - ??

I also thought TR to be dangerous under some circumstances where the walks down some of the artificial mounding from paths required crampons and ice picks. I could never see some of my older friends who normally walk and push those Sun Mt. carts even surviving a round at TR without need for a hip replacement.

[Jason Blasberg]

The first thing a course needs to make a Golfweek list is a rater/cheerleader who is a member.  It happens every year on the classic list.  First Lehigh, then Beverly and now Engineers.  

John:

The only accurate statement you make is that I am currently a member of Engineers.

You have no way of knowing what publication(s) I may or may not be affiliated with as I have never publicly commented on the issue and likely never will.

Second, I have not yet received my stretch pants and bull horn (nor coeds to hold above my head) so your assertion that I'm somehow a cheerleader is absurd.

Last, Engineers needs no hype and desires no hype, the Club has had a local cult following for years and will only continue to grown in that regard.  

When you see the property (you have an open invite so long as you leave the big purple suit at home) you will understand immediately why it doesn't need me or anyone else for that matter to praise its merits . . . it does that perfectly well on its own.

Cheers,

Jason

[Jason Blasberg]

I've never been to Engineers, so I find it remarkable how often you bring it into so many disparate discussions.  The poster child of polarizing design?  How so?

Wayne it's numerous blind shots and severly contoured greens ellicit strong emotion, one way or the other.  People tend to either love it or hate it . . . nobody ever leaves Engineers for the first time and has little to say . . . thus I don't bring Engineers up unless it's appropriate.  

In the Strantz-polarizing discussion it's right on point.

[Jason Blasberg]

Jason

MPCC Shore course is at #44.

I acknowleged same in my first post.

[cary lichtenstein]

I think the opinions are polarized for a number of reasons:

1. Some find scoring on it too difficult and equate that

2. Others have a set notion of what makes up a good golf course and the Salivador Dali approach to design that Strantz did just doesn't fit into that set.

3. For me, who likes well executed architecture, be it Ross or Strantz, I tend to like most of Strantz's work, Stonehouse being over the top, but Royal New Kent being wonderful.

I also see Strantz's work thru my personal golf game which can handle all the quirky lies and shots that higher handicaps have trouble with.

That does not make me correct and someone wrong, it's just my eyes, brain and game align with this type of work.

Now, I hit the ball from right to left. Put me up North on a heavily treed course where the trees on the right side of the fairway overhang the fairway, and I hate it. It is very hard for me to move the ball from left to right.

I also don't care for beat up courses, ala Oakmont. Why would I want to play a course with 5" rough and greens that stimp 17 in spots?

Each to his own, me thinks.

[David Stamm]

Jason, do you have any photo's of the original clubhouse that you could post? I was trying to exlain to someone what it looked like before it burned down. I remember it being one of the neatest looking clubhouses I've ever seen.  

[George Pazin]

While I didn't ENJOY playing to the middle pin position on 15 green (because I think it's unplayable) I nevertheless saw the merit of the hole and in my analysis controlled for what I thought was is a silly pin placement.  I'm afraid most people cannot do that.  

Another example, I played Rustic Canyon last week and with greens rolling over a 10 in spots about half of the pins we played were ridiculous and while I took about 40 putts I looked past that to see the merits of the design, which are many.  Perhaps the best use of visual deception of any modern low-profile design.

How many others do you think are capable of being so objective? Not many, imho. Wayne's right, the lists are overrated.

I enjoyed TR a great deal, though it did initially strike as goofy golf on a grand scale, in some ways. Further reflection quelled most of that, but I can see others not being so easily dissuaded.

Man, if I were inviting Barney, I'd insist on the big purple suit. I guess Cary's right, to each his own.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Jason, if I were to do a detailed statistical analysis of the distribution curve for each architect, you'd find that Strantz leads the field in diversity of judgments on him. In other words, he tends to spread the field more than any other architect. Pete Dye is probably second. Fazio is at the opposite end of the spectrum, with a very tight distribution pattern of votes.

What I think I see with Strantz, and it's an impression that I'm not really sure I can verify given our limited information retreival on this, is that Strantz garners a good mix of 6s-7s-8s-9s but also more 4's and 5s than a lot of other big name, creative designers. Dye, tends simply to polarize, with the votes being not so much evenly distributed as more split. Fazio clusters.

In other words, Strantz's creativity is stirring and impressive, but also a bit jarring. For everyone who thinks Caledonia's little par-3 9th is a great contrast hole, there are raters who think it hokey and shoe-horned in as an afterthought. The same goes for some of his green complexes -- this as far as I can tell from a gleening of the data, as well as conversations with raters.

Personally, I find some of his work absolutely stunning (Caledonia, Monterey Peninsula-Shore, and some of it absurd (Stonehouse). And some of it all at once (Tobacco Road). But I also love playing his courses for the strong emotions they elicit.

I have played all of his courses except Bulls Bay. My experience bears out Brad's point.  The Raters I know (GW and GD)  either really love him or hate him.  Many dislike the nimber of blind shots and the severity of some of his designs.  He also has a few holes that are very conroversial.  A case in point is 18 at Royal New Kent.

[Jason Blasberg]

Jason, do you have any photo's of the original clubhouse that you could post? I was trying to exlain to someone what it looked like before it burned down. I remember it being one of the neatest looking clubhouses I've ever seen.  

David I do not but one is posted in Ran's review.  I can hunt around and see what I can find.

[John Kavanaugh]

One thing you guys don't seem to understand is that the knock on Tobacco is that it is too easy.  

note:  A new low...posting at the big ten tourney.  Any illini fans in the building?  I can't pull up IM's on the phone so let me know here.

[RJ_Daley]

I also have a photo of TR's original club house, and maybe one of the inside as well.  But, I took them before I went digital, and so they are in some old shoebox around here somewhere.  If I find one later, I'll scan it and send it e-mail.  

As for Mike Strantz's course placement on lists; wherever Caledonia is and wherever Bull's Bay is on any lists, I can't see where Caledonia won't eventually slip down any particular list, whereas Bull's Bay can only go up, IMHO.  

Of the 4 Strantz courses I've played and considered their design qualities often (because they are so memorable) Bull's Bay stands significantly above the others.  I say that with some months now removed from having the pleasure of experiencing Bull's Bay.  It has the feel of a crowning achievement project, when you think in context of his tragically shortened career, and the whole legend and lore that goes with it.  

I think of the famous historically significant portrait of Dr. Alister MacKenzie sitting on the steamer trunk, in his tartan garb, and it has the same aura and evokes the same emotion as the portrait displayed at the Bull's Bay entrance galleria of Mike Strantz sitting on his horse surveying the work at Bull's Bay.  Both seem larger than life.  That Strantz portrait really goes hand and hand with and captures the aura of the golf course.  And, Bull's Bay remains in my memory as one of those courses that was on a different plain, larger and grander in scope and scale than so many others I've seen in recent years.  

Here is the portrait that I think will be a golf treasure for the ages, and evokes the stature of the golf course as well.

[Geoffrey Childs]

Jason, oh no! You ran afoul of GJ Childs in Reply #12!

"As your attorney..."

?  Mark  - what the hell are you talking about?  

PS- Jason is MY attorney

[John Kavanaugh]

With all due repect to good taste and Mike...that portrait looks like it is painted on velvet.

The only portrait I have seen that compares in lack of quality is that of Venturi in the Riviera lockeroom.  Now the painting of Tommy Bolt is museum quality...best golf portrait I have seen.

[David Stamm]

Jason, do you have any photo's of the original clubhouse that you could post? I was trying to exlain to someone what it looked like before it burned down. I remember it being one of the neatest looking clubhouses I've ever seen.  

 

David I do not but one is posted in Ran's review.  I can hunt around and see what I can find.

Thanks Jason. I had forgoteen that that was on Ran's review.

[Jason Blasberg]

Jason, oh no! You ran afoul of GJ Childs in Reply #12!

"As your attorney..."

?  Mark  - what the hell are you talking about?  

PS- Jason is MY attorney

That reminds me Dr. Childs, your late on your bill!!!!

[Brad Klein]

The new Tobacco Road clubhouse (old one burned down in 2000) is just about exactly the same as the old one. I have photos of the original interiors and will see if I can post them.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()