[A.G._Crockett]

I took a solo road trip up into VA this week to see these two courses for the first time, but after reading volumes about their closing, purchases, and reopenings.  Primarily, as an unabashed Mike Strantz fan, I just wanted to see them.

Stonehouse was perhaps in better shape tee to green than I expected, but the greens were spotty, especially for Bermuda in July.  I assume this is a money thing; I don't think many supers with a decent budget and staff would struggle to grow Bermuda in eastern VA.  It's too bad, really; the layout itself is really good, and would strike most as a good bit more straightforward than other Strantz courses.  I'm not sure what the remedy for this is; on a beautiful day, I saw one other group.  Stonehouse is probably far enough from both Richmond and Williamsburg to not be a top option for golfers in either city.

But I'd play Stonehouse again, without question, even with the current condition of the greens.  What can I say?  I love his golf courses.

Royal New Kent was wonderful, thrilling, crazy, vintage Strantz.  Excellent condition, including the greens that were just recovering from mid-summer aeration.   All the cool stuff you get on a Strantz course; visually intimidating tee shots that have mostly hidden landing area that is 50+ yds wide, a par 3 green that is shaped like a curved dumbbell and is 70 yds deep (you can't even see all of it when you are ON it!), and a par 4 that has a completely hidden green with a pole on the dune in front of it as an aiming point.

RNK didn't exactly call to mind any of the other Strantz courses, though I've heard comparisons with Tobacco Road.  There are similar elements to ALL of the Strantz courses, but RNK is its own place, and in no way comes across as derivative.  Actually , if anything, it reminded me most of Streamsong; unexpected elevation changes for where you are, and great use of the terrain, though I would rate the greens at RNK as quite a bit easier than any of the Streamsong courses.

[Ira Fishman]

A.G.


You are clearly a better player than I am. I played Stonehouse 20 years ago in its hey day on the way back to DC from Williamsburg. We quit after 9 holes which may be the only time I have done so. Besides it being extremely difficult, it took nearly 3 hours (perhaps those two facts are related).


Ira

[Ronald Montesano]

RNK has new ownership (two-three years now) that has pumped $$$$ and energy into the course. They have spectacular social media and their efforts apparently show. Stonehouse needs that sort of revitalization and rejuvenation.

[Chris Mavros]

Stonehouse is also under new ownership and they are doing what they can to resuscitate the course.  I played it a couple years ago at the start of the transition and enjoyed it, even though the routing makes it impossible to walk in ways similar to RNK.  For those partial to Strantz, it is certainly worth a look. 

[Frank M]

Just returned from playing Stonehouse. I am a big Mike Strantz fan, but I did not find the golf course to have any redeeming qualities and I just don't think this should have ever been a golf course.


The routing is horrific. Nearly every hole is separated by a 5 minute drive. You go through a tunnel at least 3 times in a single round and cross a road twice if I remember correctly. Drives between holes are absurd.


The architectural features make this place a nightmare to maintain. Despite the poor conditions, the golf course itself is just not good as a cohesive unit.


I get loving Strantz, but I think a spade is a spade is a spade. And this golf course, which has some individually interesting features, suffers mightily when viewed from macro level. It was so bad to me that I cancelled my round at Royal New Kent as I was so soured by the Strantz experience here and didn't want to have a possible horrible back-to-back Strantz experience. I will save my first RNK round for another trip and wish I had played it first honestly.

[Robin_Hiseman]

I do worry about Stonehouse. When I played it in November 2015, it was on a fast slide to oblivion, which duly arrived with a full closure. I was delighted to hear it had been resurrected and improved, but having watched the following YouTube vlog, have fresh concerns that all is not well.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApLWW3c9xmA.
This is Part One of Three. If you're interested, you will find the other two parts.


The encroachment of jungle is rapid and although it remains far better than when I saw it, the fresh encroachment of housing is going to ruin the par 5 4th hole.


Stonehouse 2024 by romisena, on Flickr


It is an exaggeration to say nearly every hole is separated by a 5 minute drive, but there are certainly more than one would like. But when it is developed as a cart course and the property is deeply subdivided by roads, ravines and housing plots, cart rides come with the territory. I was "the only" person to walk it in 2015, according to the pro. I had a terrifying experience with a cart for my second loop (I'm not stupid), when the cart couldn't make it up the steep, mossy cart path between the 15th and 16th holes (I think) and started to slide back down the hill. I had to abandon the cart before it tumbled into a ravine. Fortunately it stopped on a grassy ledge, but i had to find another way to the next hole.


It is not Strantz's best work, but it still has some magnificent holes. There's just no way of showcasing it well on a shoestring budget.


You should play RNK. It is better cared for.

[Robin_Hiseman]

By the way, this is the first time in ages I've uploaded a photograph to GCA. Using Flickr is as simple as can be. Expect more.

[Tom_Doak]

Just returned from playing Stonehouse. I am a big Mike Strantz fan, but I did not find the golf course to have any redeeming qualities and I just don't think this should have ever been a golf course.


The routing is horrific. Nearly every hole is separated by a 5 minute drive. You go through a tunnel at least 3 times in a single round and cross a road twice if I remember correctly. Drives between holes are absurd.


The architectural features make this place a nightmare to maintain. Despite the poor conditions, the golf course itself is just not good as a cohesive unit.


I get loving Strantz, but I think a spade is a spade is a spade. And this golf course, which has some individually interesting features, suffers mightily when viewed from macro level. It was so bad to me that I cancelled my round at Royal New Kent as I was so soured by the Strantz experience here and didn't want to have a possible horrible back-to-back Strantz experience. I will save my first RNK round for another trip and wish I had played it first honestly.

And Stonehouse WON the GOLF DIGEST Best New Course ranking in the year it opened, when all of those things were true.  There was one green where they couldn't grow any grass because of shade issues, and several huge bunker faces that were collapsing, one year in.


I liked a lot of Mike's work, but after the initial successes of Caledonia and Tobacco Road, I felt like he went completely overboard at Stonehouse and RNK . . . they were bigger, more difficult sites, and he delivered his usual wild stuff on steeper terrain and courses that were 400-500 yards longer than his previous work.  You could be as wild as you wanted to be at Caledonia, to make up for the small flat property . . . but being that wild at Stonehouse was a poor choice.  And giving him an award for it did not help his career.

[cary lichtenstein]

I played all of Stranz' courses, nothing compares to Tobacco Road, nothing

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I played all of Stranz' courses, nothing compares to Tobacco Road, nothing

But… you just said you played it once and can't even remember the greens.

Not the same "style," but I'd put Caledonia up against TR.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I played all of Stranz' courses, nothing compares to Tobacco Road, nothing

Not even Monterey Peninsula Shore? I thought it showed a maturity that was in keeping with his continued growth as an architect.

[Tim Martin]

Just returned from playing Stonehouse. I am a big Mike Strantz fan, but I did not find the golf course to have any redeeming qualities and I just don't think this should have ever been a golf course.


The routing is horrific. Nearly every hole is separated by a 5 minute drive. You go through a tunnel at least 3 times in a single round and cross a road twice if I remember correctly. Drives between holes are absurd.


The architectural features make this place a nightmare to maintain. Despite the poor conditions, the golf course itself is just not good as a cohesive unit.


I get loving Strantz, but I think a spade is a spade is a spade. And this golf course, which has some individually interesting features, suffers mightily when viewed from macro level. It was so bad to me that I cancelled my round at Royal New Kent as I was so soured by the Strantz experience here and didn't want to have a possible horrible back-to-back Strantz experience. I will save my first RNK round for another trip and wish I had played it first honestly.

And Stonehouse WON the GOLF DIGEST Best New Course ranking in the year it opened, when all of those things were true.  There was one green where they couldn't grow any grass because of shade issues, and several huge bunker faces that were collapsing, one year in.


I liked a lot of Mike's work, but after the initial successes of Caledonia and Tobacco Road, I felt like he went completely overboard at Stonehouse and RNK . . . they were bigger, more difficult sites, and he delivered his usual wild stuff on steeper terrain and courses that were 400-500 yards longer than his previous work.  You could be as wild as you wanted to be at Caledonia, to make up for the small flat property . . . but being that wild at Stonehouse was a poor choice.  And giving him an award for it did not help his career.

I agree with Tom on RNK in that the severity of the property called for something less “wild” design wise. That style worked way better at Tobacco Road.

[Frank M]

And Stonehouse WON the GOLF DIGEST Best New Course ranking in the year it opened, when all of those things were true.  There was one green where they couldn't grow any grass because of shade issues, and several huge bunker faces that were collapsing, one year in.


I liked a lot of Mike's work, but after the initial successes of Caledonia and Tobacco Road, I felt like he went completely overboard at Stonehouse and RNK . . . they were bigger, more difficult sites, and he delivered his usual wild stuff on steeper terrain and courses that were 400-500 yards longer than his previous work.  You could be as wild as you wanted to be at Caledonia, to make up for the small flat property . . . but being that wild at Stonehouse was a poor choice.  And giving him an award for it did not help his career.

Crazy. I would guess 14 is that green, although it could also be 10. There are multiple spots that feel like they should have never existed. Apart from the bunkers, I am assuming they have severe flooding issues all over the course. It's all unfortunate, really. 

[Robin_Hiseman]

Strantz was in his 'Royal County Down' phase at RNK and Stonehouse. It shows.

[Tom_Doak]

Strantz was in his 'Royal County Down' phase at RNK and Stonehouse. It shows.

Did he go to Royal County Down before/during the project?


My own third course was Black Forest in Michigan, where I had Gil Hanse and Mike DeVries to help me.  The client told us he never wanted anyone to come in and tell him the course was too easy, and we were very confident in what we could do, and the result was over the top.  I just figured that Mike was in the same place at the same point of his career, and erred on the same side I had.

[Robin_Hiseman]

Beforehand IIRC. RNK was his tribute to RCD, exemplified by the enormous shaping on holes like the 1st, 4th, 5th and...well, all of them!

[Tommy Williamsen]

I always enjoy RNK. It shows his creative genius gene. It walks the line between inventive and over-the-top. It is always fun to figure out how best to play each hole. Number two is a prime example. In my younger days, I could hit a three or four wood to the green on my second host if I took it on the right side of the fairway. I'm not sure what he was thinking on 17&18. They are radically different from the other 16 holes.


At Stonehouse, he erred on the over-the-top side. It is built on land that shouldn't have a golf course.

[Robin_Hiseman]

In his 'Feature Interview' on this very website, Strantz describes his rationale for 18 at RNK.

8. Are you satisfied with the final version of the 18th at Royal New Kent?
Yes. I think it’s a very good golf hole; a tremendous finish. This hole takes somewhat of a beating because it doesn’t fit with the rest of the course. There were several key factors that contributed to the final version of this hole and would explain why it doesn’t look like all the other holes. First, there had to be an irrigation storage lake so that we could water the golf course. Due to about a dozen non-negotiable reasons, this was the only location. Even this location was not a big enough area, thus the section that was pulled in front of the green. Then there’s the waterfall “ the much debated and maligned waterfall. The source for filling this lake was a well some 3,000 feet form the lake. After paying to lay 8 inch pipe all the way to the lake (which wasn’t cheap), Danny Young and I decided, hell as long as we’ve brought it this far, we might as well let people enjoy seeing water fall into the lake. I always thought it showed a lot more imagination than running a pipe dead into the lake and letting it bubble up from there.

[Tommy Williamsen]

In his 'Feature Interview' on this very website, Strantz describes his rationale for 18 at RNK.

8. Are you satisfied with the final version of the 18th at Royal New Kent?
Yes. I think it’s a very good golf hole; a tremendous finish. This hole takes somewhat of a beating because it doesn’t fit with the rest of the course. There were several key factors that contributed to the final version of this hole and would explain why it doesn’t look like all the other holes. First, there had to be an irrigation storage lake so that we could water the golf course. Due to about a dozen non-negotiable reasons, this was the only location. Even this location was not a big enough area, thus the section that was pulled in front of the green. Then there’s the waterfall “ the much debated and maligned waterfall. The source for filling this lake was a well some 3,000 feet form the lake. After paying to lay 8 inch pipe all the way to the lake (which wasn’t cheap), Danny Young and I decided, hell as long as we’ve brought it this far, we might as well let people enjoy seeing water fall into the lake. I always thought it showed a lot more imagination than running a pipe dead into the lake and letting it bubble up from there.

That is really fascinating.

[John Emerson]

What's insane to me is how RNK's new marketing tag line, that they drill home, is something like "Scotland golf in Virginia". There's not 1 single thing at RNK (imo) comparable to the Isles. Not 1.

[Jerry Kluger]

If you are a Strantz fan you should definitely see Tot Hill Farm.  New ownership took over and did some great work to the course which primarily was the removal of an enormous number of trees which dramatically opened up the playing corridors.  It is visually stunning with some incredible rock outcroppings and it has some really cool holes.  I would suggest that should you play the course consider playing it at a shorter length than you usually do as it can be really demanding where a short tee shot can make it play extremely difficult.

[Tommy Williamsen]

What's insane to me is how RNK's new marketing tag line, that they drill home, is something like "Scotland golf in Virginia". There's not 1 single thing at RNK (imo) comparable to the Isles. Not 1.

I agree; RNK is its own thing.

[Peter Sayegh]

If you are a Strantz fan you should definitely see Tot Hill Farm.  New ownership took over and did some great work to the course which primarily was the removal of an enormous number of trees which dramatically opened up the playing corridors.  It is visually stunning with some incredible rock outcroppings and it has some really cool holes.  I would suggest that should you play the course consider playing it at a shorter length than you usually do as it can be really demanding where a short tee shot can make it play extremely difficult.

Even if you're not a Strantz fan, it's a phenomenal course (despite the fourth hole). The restoration/renewal work has made it even more special.

It may be sacrilegious to some, but I recommend visiting THF over than TR these days.

[Tim Gavrich]

Just returned from playing Stonehouse. I am a big Mike Strantz fan, but I did not find the golf course to have any redeeming qualities and I just don't think this should have ever been a golf course.


The routing is horrific. Nearly every hole is separated by a 5 minute drive. You go through a tunnel at least 3 times in a single round and cross a road twice if I remember correctly. Drives between holes are absurd.


The architectural features make this place a nightmare to maintain. Despite the poor conditions, the golf course itself is just not good as a cohesive unit.


I get loving Strantz, but I think a spade is a spade is a spade. And this golf course, which has some individually interesting features, suffers mightily when viewed from macro level. It was so bad to me that I cancelled my round at Royal New Kent as I was so soured by the Strantz experience here and didn't want to have a possible horrible back-to-back Strantz experience. I will save my first RNK round for another trip and wish I had played it first honestly.

I'll grant that Stonehouse is at the back of the Strantz pack, but when I played it last year I came away very glad that it still exists, warts and all, and I particularly liked the par 3s. The tough-to-maintain features are a legitimate criticism although at a certain level, Strantz was building them for a client.


No redeeming qualities? So bad you declined to play a completely different (and flawed but superior) golf course as a result? That doesn't sound like the behavior of a "big Mike Strantz fan," to be honest.


I'd also be interested to know which cart-mandatory golf course routings you like a lot. Or are you just singling Stonehouse out for a flaw that it and thousands of other courses share?

[Frank M]

I'll grant that Stonehouse is at the back of the Strantz pack, but when I played it last year I came away very glad that it still exists, warts and all, and I particularly liked the par 3s. The tough-to-maintain features are a legitimate criticism although at a certain level, Strantz was building them for a client.


No redeeming qualities? So bad you declined to play a completely different (and flawed but superior) golf course as a result? That doesn't sound like the behavior of a "big Mike Strantz fan," to be honest.


I'd also be interested to know which cart-mandatory golf course routings you like a lot. Or are you just singling Stonehouse out for a flaw that it and thousands of other courses share?

Tim, I'm not one to be negatively effected by a golf course and always enjoy my time playing/experiencing each golf course I visit. I have never had a course I truly regret playing -- Stonehouse is the first. Maybe that's because of how big a fan of Strantz I truly am. TR, Tot Hill, Caledonia, True Blue, Bulls Bay, MPCC are all good to great in my mind, but I was so disappointed by Stonehouse that I couldn't take a potential second dose of it at RNK.

Your question: It's not about which cart-mandatory golf course routings "I like a lot," but the number of golf courses that are still good despite it...and there are many. I played Golden Horseshoe Green the day after, which is not the most walkable layout either, and it was night/day better than Stonehouse, IMO. There are many mountain golf courses that are also very good with cart-mandatory situations. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()