Royal New Kent and Stonehouse

[Greg Tallman]

I have played neither but have heard both discussed at length by some who have and the concensus was not good. For those that have played them I ask you were they simply ahead of their time or are they simply too bold.

The photo on the center line bunkering thread got me thinking as that hole looks like it could go either way in the discussion... looks awesome but how does it play? 

[Ben Carey]

Personally, I really enjoyed Royal New Kent. I know there are a lot of opinions on Strantz in general - but I do really enjoy his courses. I will say that the course was very hard to walk and there were a few holes that felt out of place. Like most of his courses, I think it plays easier than it looks. In some places it does feel gimmicky, but it did a good job of making me smile.

I haven't played Stonehouse.

[Chris DeNigris]

RNK is widely considered by some/many to be one of Mike's best, if not top course. While I haven't yet played Bulls Bay I would be in this camp. If they hadn't created the abomination of housing development on the back nine I would still consider it better than Tobacco Road. The difference between both RNK and Stonehouse (which suffers from the same housing problems on the back nine) back in the late 90s vs today is dramatic and not for the better.

There are lots of threads, esp on RNK, with a ton of good pics.

I revisited Stonehouse late last year after not being there for a few years and hearing a ton of criticism about the course. The front nine is, IMO, still remarkably strong but the back is really plagued by the encroaching housing and the crazy long treks between green and tee on several holes. Neither are walker friendly, and that causes a lot of heartburn, esp on this site.

Stonehouse also takes a hit for a goofy hole on the back nine (14, I think). Not unjustified criticism but I think the surrounding strong holes (esp the par 3s) more than make up for the one weak hole.

Many find 17 and 18 at RNK to be either out of character or bad, or both....I think 17 is a fine par 5 and I don't mind 18 as much as others.

If you're in the Williamsburg/Richmond area I think these 2 should still be must plays.

[Tim Gavrich]

I haven't played either but have played Caledonia, True Blue, Tot Hill Farm, Tobacco Road and Bulls Bay.  RNK and Stonehouse look really cool but I get the feeling, based on what I've heard and read, that since they opened (and especially the last few years) their maintenance has not been able to hold up to a certain standard established by the design, due to not-incredible financial success.  To those who have played it, is that fair to say?

I can say that Tot Hill Farm has lost a couple tee boxes and, I suspect, a handful of bunkers over the years due to the fact that some of Strantz's features, as cool and awesome as I think they are, were very hard to keep maintaining.  I think the same is true of Tobacco Road, to an extent.

[Jay Flemma]

Ahead of their time.  When I interviewed Mike, he told me a lot of ideas at RNK were inspired by NGLA, especially the 1st and 1th holes.

[mike_beene]

I found them different from each other.Neither was walkable.RNK was fun and pretty reasonable from a playability standpoint.Stonehiuse was over the top with greens in weird places.It had some real hit and hope holes,greens hidden in big holes,etc.

[Jonathan Mallard]

I play Royal New Kent fairly often (played the front 9 last Tuesday) and I think that it might have been a little ahead of its time. Still haven't played Stonehouse.

Right after it opened - I thought it was incredible. Years later after I made it to RCD, I appreciated it even more. Mike did a great job with the course - save that 17 and 18 don't fit with the other 16. Having said that, I think 17 is a truly great half shot hole.

What has happened in the interim is that they have lost some of the green areas due to fiscal pressures, and also (I think) to control the pace of play. The clientele they need to frequent the course will not come back for 6.5 hour rounds. Some courses are just not built for levels of play below single digit handicaps, and this is one them with the original design.

Some other recent changes are more pronounced collars around the greens - never in links golf, but for a 22 handicapper to make it around the course, you have to make some concessions to reality. They've also sodded much of the faces of some of the deeper bunkers. I suspect it's a concession to maintenance costs.

All that said, I think it's still a wonderful layout, and don't turn my nose up if someone wants to go over there to play.

[Will Lozier]

Personally, I really enjoyed Royal New Kent. I know there are a lot of opinions on Strantz in general - but I do really enjoy his courses. I will say that the course was very hard to walk and there were a few holes that felt out of place. Like most of his courses, I think it plays easier than it looks. In some places it does feel gimmicky, but it did a good job of making me smile.

I haven't played Stonehouse.

Listen to newbie Ben...VERY well said!  RNK is a must play for all of those reasons and it is a TOUGH walk but doable.

Cheers

[Andy Shulman]

The only two Strantz courses I've played are Tobacco Road and Stonehouse.  Tobacco Road gets a big thumbs up, but Stonehouse does not.  BTW, that one bad hole on the back nine that Chris D mentions is REALLY bad.

[Mike Hamilton]

Greg,

If you make it to Richmond-Williamsburg area we will have to go give both a play.

I think most of what is written here is a pretty good summary, but my thoughts are:

Pro's (and these are mostly virtues extolled on GCA.com)

1) Features like big, wild greens that make holes play significantly different depending on hole location
2) Strategic choices, especially off the tee
3) Lots and lots of quirk and blind shots and unexpected outcomes
4) Just some neat and creative holes overall

Con's

1) Only walkable to the most avid sherpa (RNK green to tees must average 300 yards or so and SH 9 green to 10 tee is at least a mile)
2) Crazy features do appear to require too much maintenance and with revenue down the course conditions have suffered, at times pretty significantly.
3) The courses definitely feel overly manufactured
4) The housing, especially on the Back 9 of RNK is pretty intrusive.
5) The not so great routings and long green to tee distances, especially in places on both back 9s definitely disrupt the flow of the game.
6) Some holes and greens are really a bit too much.

At the end of the day, I occasionally get out and play them (about an hour each way for me), always enjoy to some extent, appreciate Strantz’s creativity, and happy they are there….but they have their warts.

[Ronald Montesano]

Why was Strantz enamored of finishing par fours over buckets of water? He did it at RNK, True Blue, Caledonia and Stonehouse. This seems so out of character to me. I know that you can essentially play two of the four along alternate routes, but it would be a pain.

I've played RNK and SH. I agree with what has been written by others. I think that the 2nd and 3rd plays are critical; you see what he wants you to do AFTER you play a hole the first time.

I presume that the bad hole at SH is the downhill par four, the one protected by unflinching gunga on the left, with an overly-humid green in the vale. It's bad because the ball doesn't kick to the green from the left. #10 is pretty bad, too, in my opinion.

I would rank Toe Road ahead of RNK, RNK ahead of True Blue, True Blue ahead of Tot Hill and Tot Hill ahead of Stonehouse, of the five Strantz I've played.

[cary lichtenstein]

I've played every Strantz course and recommend you do the same. Stonehouse is not one of his best, but still worth played RNKent is excellent

[Brad Klein]

It is an oddity of both Royal New Kent and True Blue that interesting, playably wild and stunning golf imagery devolves into watery Florida cliche at the end -- 16-18 at True Blue look like late-1980s Florida Fazio; and the last two at Royal New Kent are even worse, including (as I recall) a blind watery approach hazard fronting the 18th green. Still, they are both fascinating and worth a visit for their width, whimsy, and outrageous feature work. The same cannot be said of Stonehouse, which is overwrought and overcooked from start to end without relief or restraint.

[Dan_Callahan]

I've played both RNK and Stonehouse, along with Tobacco Road. I would rank them:

1. Tobacco Road
2. RNK




7. Stonehouse

Having said that, I've played many, many courses that are far worse than Stonehouse. In fact, if Stonehouse was the only Strantz course I had played, I would probably hold it in higher regard. The front 9 is clearly the better side of the course. Maintenance is a problem. And I wasn't a big fan of how similar many of the second shots were. Seemed like a lot of shots hitting over a hazard to a very wide but very shallow green. Not much room to miss in terms of depth. Especially because the bunkers behind the greens are rock hard, so coming out of them back toward a hazard is a nightmare. I putted out of one greenside bunker. All in all, Stonehouse is cool and different and definitely worth a look.

RNK starts off with one of the craziest opening tee shots ever. I loved it. While 17 and 18 might be a little out of character for the rest of the course, I didn't mind them at all. In fact, 17 is a really good hole with a great use of a creek to front a par 5 green. And when I played 18, the waterfall wasn't turned on. Without it, you get a nice finish right in front of the clubhouse. Again, the look of the hole is different from what came before it, but it's not a bad hole in its own right and I didn't have a problem with it.

The 18th at Tobacco Rod, however, has to be seen to be believed. If you're a 15 handicap who has trouble off the tee, I have no idea how you play that hole. I loved it. One of my favorite tee shots in golf (the tee shot on 1 at TR is pretty great as well).

[Chris DeNigris]

I agree with Dan C- Stonehouse is a very worthwhile play even if it does have flaws.

I think the conditioning problems and unwalkability cause it to get hammered a lot.

As do comments like Brad's above, "Overwrought and overcooked from start to end without relief or restraint".

Brad- Can you cite specfic examples of what you're talking about?

I think the front nine are all solid to very good holes...not perfect but no stinkers.  Plenty of width, varied contours, interesting greens. If you're not a fan of severely downhill approaches to smallish greens you probably won't like number 1, 10 and certainly 14...but those are all different holes with different requirements. The back has 6 or 7 really good holes, if one can get past the feel of the houses. Esp on 11 and 12. The par 3s on the back are fantastic.

In that area, other than RNK and Golden Horseshoe Gold, I can't think of anything public I'd rather play.

[Jay Flemma]

I walk both of them all the time, they are tough walks, but certainly not impossible.  Britt likes when we go to RNK because she can drive the huggy-buggy and I walk, but she comes and gives me my clubs!

Britt to friend - Jay's taking me to Royal New Kent!

Friend back:  That's a tough course. Are you sure this guy likes you?

I love 17 at RNK, but yes 18 is out of character. Strantz knew it and was painted into a corner by the routing, but told me he added the waterfall just to tweak all the critics' noses:)

[Ronald Montesano]

#18 at Toe Road should have a drop zone above the cliff, for the chops.

[Derek_Duncan]

I think opinion depends on the order you play them.

If Stonehouse was the first Strantz course you ever played, I think you'd find it outrageous and captivating. But if you'd already seen Tobacco Road, RNK, Caledonia, etc., it would just seem out of touch and lacking the whim and charm of his better work.

I still think it's more entertaining than almost everything else out there for the public to play. Why? Variety. Strategy. Heroism. Round-killers. Width. Narrowness. Huge, bizarre putting surfaces. And some tiny, bizarre ones too.

[Kevin Lynch]

The only two Strantz courses I've played are Tobacco Road and Stonehouse.  Tobacco Road gets a big thumbs up, but Stonehouse does not.  BTW, that one bad hole on the back nine that Chris D mentions is REALLY bad.

All I can think about now is the Ballyhack trip last fall when we discussed Stonehouse's 14th - some pretty strong opinions on that one.  The funniest part was when we pulled up the pictures of the hole, just to make sure everyone was thinking of the same hole.  As soon as it loaded, the whole room erupted with cries of anguish - "Oh God, that one!!"


Having said all that, I think I echo most of what people have said.

I played Tobacco and Tot Hill first (loved both), and then Stonehouse and RNK the next summer, and the Virginia offerings were much different.  I have a friend whose first exposure to Stranz was SH/RNK, but I assured him that he'll find TR much more enjoyable.

I agree with Chris D, in that Stonehouse has an excellent front 9 and I was enthralled until the mile drive to 10 tee, at which point the course had some warts (both conditioning and a few over-the-top holes).  Still, I think you need to see Stonehouse in your lifetime if you appreciate what Stranz does.

Royal New Kent was definitely in much better shape than Stonehouse, and is a solid course throughout (18 being the weak link).  I love the bold contours and grand scale of Stranz' work, so I would see them no matter what.

As for walking, TR is probably your best bet, but there are some immense treks at the other 3 courses.

I can easily look past the long walks and some of the conditioning issues at SH & THF (usually just very damp tees), and appreciate the architecture.

My Rankings:

1)  Tobacco

2)  Tie between RNK, THF and SH Front Nine




6)  Stonehouse Back 9

[Mike Tanner]

Stonehouse and Royal New Kent are the only Strantz courses I've played. SH was the first and RNK a couple of years ago—the housing was creeping into the picture then.

My takeaway from SH was the vast scale of the features and that marathon distance between nines. I prefer to walk, but was glad to be motorized for that trek. I loved the wildness of RNK, but was put off again by the unfriendliness of the routing for walkers. The finishing hole was a WTF? moment too.

I wouldn't want to play either one of them every day, but I think they're well worth occasional play and definitely worth experiencing at least once for their uninhibited  gca qualities.

[Wade Whitehead]

Some of Royal New Kent's boldest features seemed to have been softened on my last visit.  I think at one point they razed the mounds inside the first hole; the tee shot was pretty much blind the first time I ever visited.  The course has several fantastic holes, though development on the back nine takes away some of the round.

I do believe both RNK and Stonehouse would be different places if Mike Strantz were still alive.  After trading hands a couple of times they slipped in prestige; remember that they were Best New Publics in 1996 and 1997.  Something tells me that Mr. Strantz would have kept his finger on the pulses of both places, as they sort of gave him a jump, and that he would have had some influence on trends in change (softening) and conditioning (often wet).  They've lost some authenticity in a way because Mr. Strantz didn't continue to surface his influence on the industry.

Still, Royal New Kent is a must see.  I'd play Stonehouse on the first day of a multi-course trip in the Williamsburg area.

WW