Mike Strantz vs Time

[James Brown]

Pete Pallotta


Thank you, the notion that the two times are different is true but I think that the term TIME is interwoven in golf course design. Was Mike ahead of his time, were his first golf courses quickly dismissed by some as too bold, as Mike evolved did his true artistry and the finer nuances of his golf courses like MPCC become more easily understood?


I appreciate your efforts in the descriptions of Greek Time,  I think they are a part of what I have been wanting to discuss further.  I just found that John K's posting was timely and that only over time the value of talking about Mikes courses seem to now resonate in GC Architecture circles.


Alister Mackenzies time line is complete.  Coore and Crenshaw's contribution to the world of design is still evolving and only time will tell what legacy they will leave on all of us.


So, it my opinion Time not only plays a role in the evolution of a single design it also plays a role in the evolution of many designs, we are now in the era of very natural looking layouts, a far departure from the 70 and 80s manufactured look.


Mammoth Dunes, Sand Valley are both wonderfully done, were Stonehouse and Royal New Kent way ahead of the times?


What will the next evolution in golf course design bring us, only TIME will tell!

Strantz was definitely ahead of his time.  Royal New Kent would not even be considered that bold today given the scale of Streamsong and Sand Valley and Old MacDonald. 

[Peter Pallotta]

From the outside looking in, combining parts of Joe's post with parts of Jeff's & Erik's offers a plausible answer to why Time might be both kind and not kind to the work:
Designed with the playability of a resort course, with penal-looking but avoidable hazards (kind); and constructed with the eye of an artist and not an engineer, and so with minimum 'outs' (not kind).
I suppose that means that the courses will likely rise and fall in step with the health (or decline) of the game/industry/economy as a whole.
P

[Will Lozier]

I believe that his courses will stand the test of time. If not for the final three holes at THF, I would love that course. It seems like someone dropped a trio of boring holes onto the end of that course. No idea how that happened. The land is certainly malleable enough to have created something unique.

I disagree thinking that the finish to Tot Hill, while tamer than the rest of the course, is a solid trio of golf holes. I like the shape of the two three shotters and love the wall on 17 that runs along that narrow angled green. I actually think it is a wonderful example of MS's ability to use simpler shapes to create interest in his greens.


I do agree that the last three greensites feel a little different, but imagine if all 18 greens were as wild as the 10th - it would feel contrived, which I think his courses can start to feel from time to time. I too love his artistic flair and fearlessness. But I also like where he used constraint, because he rarely did.


Cheers

[John Kavanaugh]

It would be a shame to discuss this topic without reading Ran's interview of 2000.


http://golfclubatlas.com/feature-interview/mike-strantz/

[John Kavanaugh]

This 2002 review of Tobacco Road hits all the notes:


https://golfweek.com/2002/02/26/take-a-wild-ride-down-tobacco-road/


Upon further reading the article is obviously not from 2002 or has been edited. My apologies.

[Bob Montle]

Until I was told, I would NOT have believed True Blue and Caledonia could have been designed by the same man.
To this old duffer, they were completely different.

True Blue  seemed more playable whereas Caledonia had more eye candy.
Playable for me, that is.  If I am over 145 yds out, I need to roll or bounce the ball onto the green.
In Scotland that is easy.  On True Blue it was possible.  (And maybe  just my memory is faulty) but it seemed that every green at Caledonia was fronted by sand or water.  Most holes there forced me to lay up and then wedge onto the green.

The scorecard and satellite views of True Blue terrified me, but the fairways had wide landing areas and the greens were approachable.  I very much enjoyed PLAYING there.

Scoring at Caledonia was a struggle for this duffer, but it was an enjoyable round nevertheless.  Beautiful photo opportunities almost everywhere.   Check out the Dixie cup discussion and count the relative number of photos for each course.

I'm still amazed that both were designed by the same man!

How I remember Caledonia approaches:

[Michael Whitaker]

Bob - your first photo is #11 at True Blue, a 125 par 3 from the forward tee. The second is #9 at Caledonia... a 80-90 yard carry par 3.

[Bob Montle]

Bob - your first photo is #11 at True Blue, a 125 par 3 from the forward tee. The second is #9 at Caledonia... a 80-90 yard carry par 3.

Ouch!
See how badly memory fails as one gets older!

[Michael Whitaker]

Bob - your first photo is #11 at True Blue, a 125 par 3 from the forward tee. The second is #9 at Caledonia... a 80-90 yard carry par 3.

Ouch!
See how badly memory fails as one gets older!

Ouch! My memory is failing, too... your first photo is #3 at Caledonia, a mid-length par 3. It does look a bit like 11 at True Blue though from the angle of your photo.

See, we all have memory failings!!!   

[Jonathan Mallard]

Pete Pallotta


Thank you, the notion that the two times are different is true but I think that the term TIME is interwoven in golf course design. Was Mike ahead of his time, were his first golf courses quickly dismissed by some as too bold, as Mike evolved did his true artistry and the finer nuances of his golf courses like MPCC become more easily understood?


I appreciate your efforts in the descriptions of Greek Time,  I think they are a part of what I have been wanting to discuss further.  I just found that John K's posting was timely and that only over time the value of talking about Mikes courses seem to now resonate in GC Architecture circles.


Alister Mackenzies time line is complete.  Coore and Crenshaw's contribution to the world of design is still evolving and only time will tell what legacy they will leave on all of us.


So, it my opinion Time not only plays a role in the evolution of a single design it also plays a role in the evolution of many designs, we are now in the era of very natural looking layouts, a far departure from the 70 and 80s manufactured look.


Mammoth Dunes, Sand Valley are both wonderfully done, were Stonehouse and Royal New Kent way ahead of the times?


What will the next evolution in golf course design bring us, only TIME will tell!

Strantz was definitely ahead of his time.  Royal New Kent would not even be considered that bold today given the scale of Streamsong and Sand Valley and Old MacDonald.

The thing is, I'm not sure RNK is the best example of bold. The 2nd and 5th at Stonehouse stand out to me as very, very different from anything I had seen in that era. RNK certainly was a grander scale than Stonehouse, but I'd posit that it was incremental from what he'd tried before.