[JDoyle]

I played Bulls Bay in Charleston, SC this weekend.  It's a Mike Strantz course that I found to be creative, inspiring and very fun to play.  Strantz and his crew obviously moved an enormous amount of earth to create both the water hazards and a 75 foot hill, on which sits the brand new clubhouse.

The course opened last year and clearly it needs some time to smooth out some distracting features like excessive sand use where natural grasses would be better and too many dirt card paths (I don't mean pave them, just less would be more).  

Bulls Bay is the only Strantz course I have played, however, from what I have seen and read his other courses (Caledonia, Stonehouse, Royal New Kent, Tobacco Road) all look different, creative and (per Matt Ward's thread) quirky.

Why isn't Strantz mentioned more often on the list of best current course architects?  Even on GCA his name seems to come up rarely.  Yet in his GCA interview he discusses his passion for Mackenzie and courses like RCD, Ballybunion, Crystal Downs, PV, SH and CP.  Usually that indicates that someone "gets it".

Also, for those who have played Bulls Bay....has anyone else noticed the strong similarity to Shinnecock.  The clubhouse is a stucco version of the Stanford White original.  The view of the course from clubhouse is similar.  And especially the 9th hole, which is a dog-leg left with an elevated green with the clubhouse on the right.

[Tim Weiman]

JDoyle:

I've heard favorable reports about Bulls Bay and would like to add it to the other Strantz's courses I've played.

You have asked an interesting question. I look forward to seeing other's responses.

For my part, I have no strong feelings on the matter, except to say I wonder if people feel Strantz tries a little too hard to deviate from the standard of playability. Clearly, he is a student of architecture, spends a lot of time on site and wants to build fun, interesting courses.

I did once speak to someone in a position to hire Strantz and he basically said the following "I like Mike's work, but I'd like him to tone things down just a little. If he did that his work would be even better and good enough that he would get the job."

[Michael Dugger]

I'm firmly seated on your bandwagon here, my friend.  I've been a long time Strantz supporter.  I asked this question myself a few months ago and about two people responded.  One of them, Tim Weiman, opined that we golf course archtitecture gurus and junkies like Strantz stuff but he isn't very mainstream, mostly because of his quirkiness.  

I've never played a course of his so I should probably retire at this point, but Strantz's courses look fantastic in photos.  

From what I've heard....Tobacco Row has too many difficult shots that the average player cannot handle.  From looking at the pictures on Ran's write-up, you can see that some of his stuff looks like it is right out of Peter Jacobsen's Golden Tee video game.  I mean a Dell is one thing, but the two mounds you have to shoot through on the first, I think it's the first, is sort of ridiculous.  

I absolutely love Mr. Strantz's bunkers.  Aside from the standard 'rugged-look' bunkers guys that we constantly gloss around here (C & C, Doak, Hanse, Devries) I find Strantz stuff to be highly desirable.  

Just yesterday someone commented on Royal New Kent.  I guess it is in a poor location and is under-funded.  That's too bad in my opinion because this place looks as good as it gets.  Rolling hills, native grasses, artistic bunkers.  Stonehouse also looks great, highly natural and a wild ride.

I have a picture of a hole at Caledonia that is a replica, in the sense NGLA has replicas, of #3 at Pine Valley.  

IMHO, Strantz is very talented and under-appreciated.  Some of his stuff is a little over the top and surely must lead to a lot of unplayable lies, but they guy is good.  I'm ok with it remaining that way.  The sooner he starts to get a bunch of run is the day all his courses become ridiculously expensive and only available to those who probably will fail to appreciate what he's done.

[JDoyle]

mdugger,

Thanks for the positive comments.

I love the fact that Strantz leaves hazards in the middle of his holes and asks that the player negotiate the obstacle, rather than push all trouble to the sides.  As I recall, one of the major reason golf course design was in lull in the 60s and 70s was that architects lost the courage to make such bold decisions.  Their flawed thinking was that if architects in the golden age had had modern equipment they would have eliminated such hazards.  Well, it has taken decades for people to wake-up and realize that these hazards need to be front and center because they make the course fun, improve strategy and make the experience memorable.

I loved reading the Friar's Head post and the thread on the par three 10th hole with the huge mound.  However, IMHO, Strantz has been creating similar holes with comparatively little said.

[George Pazin]

Do some digging through the GCA archives & you'll find plenty of stuff on Bulls Bay & Tobacco Road, with a broad spectrum of comments, with most being positive.

[A.G._Crockett]

MDugger,
I don't think that Strantz really has shots that ARE too difficult for the average golfer, but I think he has a tremendous number of shots that LOOK too difficult.  He is a master, I think, of making the player pick a line to a landing area that appears small (but is actually quite generous).  As long as the player commits and then makes a reasonable swing, the shot is alway playable.

This website is somewhat skewed toward northeastern courses because that's where the heaviest volume of contributions come from;  my feeling is that this is why Strantz gets less attention than some other current architects.

[Michael Dugger]

JDoyle,

Undoubtedly, the location of hazards makes or breaks the strategy of a course.  Bunkers in middle--strategic.  Bunkers to the side--penal.  

However, Strantz is not the only guy doing this.

I like what Tim Weiman had to say about Strantz.  He's a little to crazy.  While most of his bunkers look very rugged and natural, some of his other 'features' look very unnatural and artificially created.  Whenever I look at a course and it begins to remind me, even in the most MINUTE way, of Des Muirhead's Stone Harbor, I start running in the opposite direction.  Once in a while, Strantz's work invokes this gag reflex.

And then I move on to a new photo and think, wow, this is great!  This is the same thing Mr. Weiman was alluding to.  If he toned it down a little and stuck to emulating the features that made the classic holes of links golf so great, he would, or should, be considered one of the best out there.  IMHO.

Too many heroic par three's over water.  Too many crazy internal green contours.  Too many rocks near the playing grounds.  (Tot Hill)  Too many for my taste      

[Matt_Ward]

I've heard plenty of good things well and hope to play the course sometime in the late spring.

Can someone post the total yardage from different tees plsu the course rating and slope info if possible?

Thanks!

[jim_lewis]

mdugger:

Thanks for you assesment of Mike Strantz's work. Get back to us when you have actually seen one of his 7 courses.

Bull's Bay is the second best of his courses I have played (behind Caledonia), and has lots of merit. To me the artificial hill is way too contrived.  It seems to have been built to provide a great site for the club house, but, in my view, at the expense of the course.  The 9th and 18th greens are both cut into the hill below the club house. Too predictable and at least one too many. Comparing Bull's Bay to Shinnecock is much like comparing Strantz to MacKenzie, which is like comparing my guitar picking to Chet Atkins.

[JDoyle]

Maverick (black) - 7,014, 137/74.6

Skull (blue) - 6,561, 130/71.8

Bull (white) - 6,024, 123/68.1

Bay (red) - 5,331, 120/72.3

[JDoyle]

Jim,

My point was not to compare Bulls Bay to Shinnecock in terms of quality.  No one will be putting those two courses back to back anytime soon.  But rather just to point out some obvious similarities I noticed and hopefully foster a discussion as to why it was designed that way.

[Scott_Burroughs]

I've certainly said my piece in the past on Strantz, and I am a fan of his work.  Tobacco Road is just pure fun.  I've also said that it was a search for bio info on Strantz that I discovered this site.

I say fun is a good descriptor of Strantz' work, often appearing more difficult than it really is.  If you're not on your game, you'll struggle though.

One thing can be said is his work is never boring.

He's known for moving a lot of dirt (not as much as you might think at Tobacco Road), but he has his biggest challenge to date, IMO, going on right now with his current project.  Strantz is the architect responsible for the redo at Monterey Peninsula CC's Shore course, where a number of holes will be completely rerouted.  His "handcuff", so to speak, is that he is only allowed to move a very small amount of dirt (this is Monterey, CA, king of environmental restrctions).  I've seen renderings of the holes to be done, and I think they will be quite good.  A number of "at grade" sandy areas will be incorporated.  Chechessee Creek is what came to mind when I saw the renderings, very low profile.


Matt,

Here is Bulls Bay's web site, but I couldn't find CR/slope info on there.  EDIT, crossed paths in cypberspace with Mr. Doyle above.

http://www.bullsbaygolf.com/

[GeoffreyC]

I admire bold courses with hazards that are to be feared and Mike Stranz is perhaps the King of this domain. However, I am not a great fan of Tobacco Road and it is his only design that I have currently played.  I played it shortly after it opened and before the clubhouse burned down.

I would in general agree with the statement that visual intimidation at TR is USUALLY accompanied by lots of room to play, however I disagree with A.G._Crockett who states that "As long as the player commits and then makes a reasonable swing, the shot is alway playable."  There are/were several places on the course that under modest conditions are/were virtually unplayable.  The pitches into 13 and 15 are two examples. Maybe these greensites have been modified over the years but 15 was impossible from any angle under the wind conditions I faced and 13 required way too precise a distance control with the result a lost ball on a blind shot if you are off by a few yards.

I admire his style but a dose of valium along with his whiskey could really result in a better product (IMHO).

[Scott_Burroughs]

Geoff,

I love the #13 green site.  Course knowledge helps a lot here, but short is better than long in terms of finding your ball.  The hill in front is much more open than it used to be, with the trees taken out.

As for #15, this hole has been changed the most since it opened.  The entire left 2/3 of the area fronting the green has been lowered, so you can see at least the flag.  The hole is short (I hit 4-iron, short pitch into it 9 days ago, though down wind), so a lofted club is your approach.  The best approach for the right pin placement (where it's been every time I've played) is to land short and have it bounce on, which, if I'm not mistaken, is a part of the game many here like.

[Bob_Huntley]

Mike Strantz, with his able assistant, Forrest Fezler, is currently working on  our new Shore Course. The setting is spectacular, the concept is first class and I believe that only about 20,000 cu.yds. of dirt are to me moved. I have not played his other courses and I had heard of the degree of difficulty of Tobacco Road. The  committee had some input into the playability of the course for our members, the majority of whom have never played to single figures. However, from the back markers it will be a fine test.

If hard work and attention to detail are the requisites for success, then we are in for a treat. I pop out to the holes under construction and shapes take place in front of me and vistas open up that I had no idea existed.

[GeoffreyC]

Scott

I'm glad to hear that the owners are making modifications to TR.

You know how narrow and wide the 13th green is. The area short of #13 was a jungle where hitting a blind 70 yard pitch literally 65 yards could result in losing your ball. Long was as you said even worse with less margin for error in distance control.

I guess downwind on 15 is the prevailing condition but when I played there was absolutely no area to land short and the only option was whether you wanted your 3rd from short scrub or long scrub.  This with a lob wedge was not appropriate.

While I'm at it, I also was not a fan of the approach to 18 which is almost alway blind (that's OK as I love a good dose of this - as found at my home course) but the very severe 3 tier green from that approach was a bit over the top for my tastes for that type of shot.

[Scott_Burroughs]

The approach to #15 (right side of green) is more precision than it is distance, as left is fronting bunker and right is scrubby area.  Interestingsly enough, either a high pitch that flies to the green or a low, straight, runner are needed.  Right of green over scrub is open and is place to miss on high shot.

On 18, if tee shot is long enough or far enough right (longer approach in), then you can see the flag and the back 1/3 of the green.  Shorter drive or farther left on non-huge drive makes for blindness to pin/green.

On #13, even though the green is shallow, each side of the green funnels to most pin positions, making for rewards to good, precise approaches.

I don't think that was the prevailing wind last week, but it added a new challenge to the course, as it was a strong wind from an approaching front.

As you can surmise, course knowledge is huge at TR.

And yes, I loved the blindness at Yale as well!

[Craig Van Egmond]

Mike Stranz is one of those names that pops up on GCA from time to time and his courses seem to be loved or hated.

I have only played Tobacco Road, which I enjoyed, I noticed that he seems to have a firm grasp on the look hard play easier facet of architecture. Very visual and makes you think.

Having played the MPCC Shore course, I am looking forward to seeing what art Stranz can do on that canvas.

[Michael Whitaker]

I am a HUGH fan of  Mike Strantz' courses. They are all unique, extremely fun to play, and make you think your way around the course. If you like standing on the tee and seeing a ribbon of fairway in front on you with bunkers to the side and straightforward "line of slight" shots to the green you will probably not like most of Mike's work.

If, however, you enjoy designs that incorporate deception and visual intimidation then you will LOVE Strantz' courses. His courses are the only one's I have played that incorporate the type of features that one often finds on the great links courses in Scotland and Ireland. If some of his courses were located overseas they would never get the kind of criticism they receive here. I can't imagine someone from this site bad mouthing some of the bizarre shots that are required to play Lahinch, Ballybunion, Cruden Bay, North Berwick, Prestwick, etc. But, when they find a similar feature on one of Strantz' courses they cry foul and call them "unnatural." Well, I don't care if they are unnatural or not... I have more fun playing his courses than most I encounter. They are some of the most imaginative work I have ever seen. He is truly an artist.

mdugger - Of course the hill at Bull's Bay is contrived... it's on the Carolina coast. We don't have hills like that on our coast. But, that's the whole point. Mike created something that makes the entire course unique and provides a viewing area of almost every hole. The dirt that formed that hill came from the excavations for the ponds. It could have been hauled away I guess, but instead Mike made a bold decision and incorporated it into the design. I think it's brilliant. And, like I said above, I don't care that it is not "natural." It works for me, it's bold, and it is something you will not find anywhere else on our coast.

I encourage everyone who has an interest in Mike Strantz' courses to read his interview on this site. It really explains his design philosophy and answers some of the questions people have about some of his courses. For example, the long distance between some of the holes at RNK. You'll also be surprised at how little dirt he actually moves.

[Tim Weiman]

Micheal Whitaker:

You made clear your affection for Strantz's work, but I'm still wondering if you have any thoughts on JDoyle's original question.

Why isn't Mike Strantz mentioned more frequently on the list of the best current architects?

Is something missing? Do his courses appeal to only a limited audience?

[Bob_Huntley]

Tim.

Could it be that he has been confined to a small region?

[Matt_Ward]

Quick question on Bulls Bay -- does the amount of earthwork jive well with the actual finished product? I've seen some pictures and wondered from those who've played the course?

Thanks!

[Michael Dugger]

Now that I've been reprimended for commenting on something I haven't seen.....let me comment some more.

I truly wish there was a Strantz course in the NW.  I'd be there in a second.  I can't wait to go to Monterey to play his redesign.

Mr. Whitaker:
My comment about "un-natural" was not in reference to the hill at Bulls Bay.  I have no problem with Bulls Bay.  But, then again, I haven't played it.

If I may, might Mr. Strantz lack of popularity be a result of his unique style?  Definately not going to be mixing up his work with that of Rees Jones and Jack N.  

Then again, we know of his work here.  Just last week someone started a thread regarding the most notable names in golf course architecture.  Aside from Arnie, Jack, the Jones family and maybe Fazio, what golfer really knows who Tom Doak, Mike Devries or Coore and Crenshaw is??  May as well include Strantz in that group in my opinion.

[guest]

And especially the 9th hole, which is a dog-leg left with an elevated green with the clubhouse on the right.

Southampton or South Carolina ?

[Michael Whitaker]

Tim - 1) I think his courses are in a limited area. 2) His best known course is in Myrtle Beach which doesn't get him much respect. 3) They are mostly resort or daily-fee courses, Bull's Bay is his first private course. 4) He is so different from the norm that a lot of people just don't get what he is trying to do.

When I talk with someone who absolutely hates one of Mike's courses it reminds me of people I have talked with who think The Old Course in St Andrews is a "goat track." They just don't get it. And to be honest, they don't want to get it. It takes a lot of effort to think your way around that kind of a course and most people are not looking to invest that much effort. They just want a walk (or ride) in the park. That's why Tom Fazio's courses are so popular with the general public. They are straightforward, and traditional, and pretty, and green. What you see is what you get. With Mike Strantz what you see is not always what you get, and a lot of people just don't like that style.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()