While a fan of Strantz (and living in the Richmond area fortunate to have quick access to RNK and SH and not too far from TR or THF), Tom's point regarding looking cool versus the golf is valid and maybe the best spot on critcism I've read. Some holes that come to mind are the #1 at TR as mentioned, as well as the tee shots on #1, #5, and #10 at RNK.
I think #2 at RNK compared to #11 at TR are also good examples of how maybe the golf could have been better...obviously the intent was the risk/reward of the fishhook design, but I think the distance to the green on RNK #2 make it almost too diffucult and angles and carry distances of the layup route make it no bargain either. Conversely, TR #11 seems too easy.
Nonetheless, as Kevin notes, TR is a fun play, and the visuals are still pretty cool (at least for some of us) and while I personally think that while RNK as more flaws overall (esp the housing on the back and the last few holes), the golf in stretches is better than any of his other work and it's a great course for an occasional round and to muse about what Strantz might have done...
Another note regarding Mackenzie and look hard play easy. I think most of TR and some of RNK play easier than they look (although less so at RNK which can be a beast depending on your tee choice). My only experience with Mackenzie is Pasatiempo, which I felt looks a lot easier at first glance than either TR/RNK, but plays pretty tough.
I’ve been ruminating on this issue for several days now – sorry in advance for the length.
***************
Mike –
I guess I still don’t believe there is a mutual exclusivity between “cool-looking” and “good golf” that you can use as a basis for criticizing Strantz’ work. I have no doubt that Strantz placed more emphasis on the aesthetics than most other GCAs, but I don’t think that he was willing to put that “above” the Golf Strategy (at least not intentionally). (Having said that, I think there is some validity to Tom Doak’s assessment of the inherent limitations given the scale of Mike’s designs).
Of course Strantz missed on a few holes. I agree completely with your assessment of RNK #2 – I hit a near-perfect drive just on the right edge of the fairway, and was disappointed by the options presented while there. The depth of the green was not receptive to the challenge presented, and the troubles both short and long were a bit much.
However, would I necessarily pin that mistake on Mike trying too hard to make the hole look “cool”? Or could it simply be that it was a mistake where the designer may have asked too much of the Golfer?
Put another way, I think all GCAs have probably made mistakes on certain risk/reward options over the course of their designs, even on holes where they weren’t trying to “look cool.” It seems like critics try to attribute the mistakes on Strantz’ courses to his “aesthetic emphasis,” which I think improperly furthers a notion that there is a trade-off between the two. All GCAs make occasional mistakes, but I think it is improper to attribute these to some type of “aesthetics-first” sacrifice.
In the case of RNK #2, that hole could have been done better with some slight changes, and still looked pretty cool. To some extent, I think that is what happened at Tobacco Road’s 11th. My biggest problem with RNK #2 was the severity of the punishment for coming up just short. It was essentially “lost-ball” requiring a re-load. The punishment of hitting out of a 30 foot bunker was a perfect trade-off at TR, and some other type of “non-lost ball” hazard at RNK would have improved the hole immensely.
Regarding the other tee shots you have mentioned (#1 at TR, #1,5,10 at RNK), I’m not sure what the problem is from a golf-design standpoint. At TR #1, I think the mounds have a very specific golf-design purpose beyond just “looking cool.” Playing from the appropriate tee, these mounds should not affect an average drive and are meant to “look hard, play easy,” accentuating the mental aspects of the game.
As for RNK flaws, I can’t pin the housing on Mike. I threw up in my mouth when I saw the before and after photos of the Back 9 (someone should be charged with a crime for what happened to 11-13). But I would agree that some of the holes were a bit much.
However, what I think happened between the design of RNK and Tobacco Road was a sort of evolution in design philosophy from Strantz. At his earlier designs (RNK/Stonehouse), I think the visual intimidation / aesthetics was added on top of some pretty demanding shot requirements, with some of the demands being a bit much (e.g. RNK #2 second shot or the approach on RNK #18). At later designs such as Tobacco Road and Tot Hill Farm, I think Mike utilized the visual hazards more as a primary defense and lowered the physical demands somewhat (which led to a better balance in my opinion).
I don’t think the flaws at RNK were due to his emphasis of aesthetics. Rather, they may have been attributed to an undue emphasis on difficulty and length (which MANY GCAs have succumbed to). If anything, I think his emphasis on aesthetics / blind shots as a mental obstacle at Tobacco Road (while reducing the obsession with overly demanding shots) was the innovation that should be remembered. The fact that Tobacco Road has a higher slope rating than RNK is absolutely comical to me.
I find it funny that Tobacco Road seems to be the lightning-rod of criticism for his work, because I think the improvements he made there were remarkable. When I played his Williamsburg area works, I found them unrelenting physically, with the aesthetics being a nice “door prize” while getting my ego thrashed. In the Pinehurst area, I had a great time facing the mental intimidation, but I wasn’t over-powered physically, leading to much more enjoyable experiences. In some ways, this increases the tragedy of his passing, as I can only ponder what other design evolutions may have occurred with more experience.