[Andy Hughes]

I had the pleasure of playing several rounds last week on both Stonehouse and Royal New Kent.

I felt Royal New Kent was outstanding, a step up from Stonehouse.
I am having a hard time putting my finger on it, but Stonehouse felt disappointing to me somehow in comparison.
It was not the housing that suddenly showed up on the back nine--while it might be nicer to never see a house I am not bothered by it.
I do know some of the holes felt contrived or awkward to me, such as #1, 5, 9 and 14. But maybe it is harder to create on such a site with abrupt drops.
Both courses offer much of interest however, with some stunning holes, some oversize features (this is Strantz after all), some beautiful holes like 4 at RNK and some terrific greensites.
As always, there are good places on the green to hit to, and there are very bad places to hit to, and you must pay attention.

[JESII]

Andy,

I read your post early in the day and am surprised by the lack of responses. I can say that something close to this topic has been covered a few times in the past year or so, perhaps the troops are Royal New Kented out, but I'm with you on that particular course. I played there for three consecutive years in a four round tournament plus a practice round or two so that's 15+ rounds. I never did play Stonehouse so I cannot compare or even comment.

When I first saw Royal New Kent I thought I was playing golf on the moon, in the very best way imaginable. I was literally blown away. Keep in mind that RNK is the only Strantz course I have played, but who else has the guts to build the 8th hole there. So many of the holes are great in that they ask good players to decide on an approach to the hole and execute to it or they'll be left with substantial work to make a par. 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11 and 16 are great examples of that. He seemed to figure out how to do it with angles and consequences (for missing the spot), without overly penalizing the majority of players. I'm not suggesting he built a course that finds that perfect balance of great challenge to the tournament player, both physically and intellectually but also interesting and fun for the non-tournament player but he came as close as I've seen.

My only critique would be the conditioning (which for me is important), I do not wish for it to be green, but rather more firm. I only played during the summer months (typically late June or early July) and the course was pretty soft and thin. I do not hold that against the place. If I had five courses to play Royal New Kent would very possibly be in that group and because of that I will seek out Mike Strantz courses at every opportunity and I make sure to read each thread on here pertaining to him or his courses.

[Jason Blasberg]

When I first saw Royal New Kent I thought I was playing golf on the moon, in the very best way imaginable. I was literally blown away.

Wait 'til you play Tobacco Road, it's sensory overload.  Literally, I was visually exhausted by the 12 or 13th hole and then I was physically exhausted by the walk from 14 to 15 (my only real criticism is that it's a tough walk and I definitely limped in b/c of it).  I can't wait to get back down to see TR again.  

I played RNK about 8 or 9 years ago and loved it but it's been quite a while so I've got to get down to Williamsburg to visit a good friend and get out there again.  I played Stonehouse too and my recollection was that out of 10 rounds I'd pick 7 RNK and 3 Stonehouse (but then again I'm biased against trees, they tend to get in the way of my ball ).

   

 

[Jesse Jones]

Jason,
For me, out of 10 rounds between RNK and Stonehouse it would be..

RNK 10
Stonehouse 0

RNK does such a good job of providing a challenge on a large scale with excellent green complexes and terrific routing.
There are some traditional holes..but the majority have the magnificent Strantz touch..

Stonehouse is my least favorite Strantz Course..

[Jonathan Cummings]

I think I've now played all the Strantz courses.  I won't include MPCC (which I've also played) as it's a redo.

RNK - 1
Bull's Bay - 3
Caledonia - 3
TR - 3
Rest - skip

JC

[Eric Olsen]

I have played both, several times when they first opened, but now I would only play RNK.  Stonehouse is a bit too severe, and the houses frankly ruin the experience, in my opinion.  RNK is mindblowing everytime you play it, but I would agree that the conditioning is too soft, and I don't think they have the revenues necessary to maintain the course in peak condition, given the size and scope of the course and its terrain.  It is still a great course for a great bargain...

[Tim Taylor]

I love RNK too but can't help feeling that 17 and 18 don't fit with the rest of the holes from both an aesthetic perspective.

Still, a totally fun course to play. It seems that on most holes birdie is possible but so is double or triple.

TimT

[Jesse Jones]

Tim,

You are so right about 18 at RNK..
I'd like to trade it out with the 18th at Wolf Creek in Mesquite.
It is a good hole (RNK 18), but a little strange with the bells and whistles there.
I really don't have a problem with 17..However, It looks like it would fit better at Blackwolf Run.

[Tom_Doak]

I have to say that while I have great respect for Mike Strantz's work in general, that I think Stonehouse was the worst-ever selection for the Golf Digest "Best New" awards.  There was some very cool stuff there, but there were also some awful holes, including one where they were never able to maintain grass on the green!

I haven't played or seen Bull's Bay yet, but I would second the rest of Jonathan's relativist ranking for Mike's best work.  

[A.G._Crockett]

I think I've now played all the Strantz courses.  I won't include MPCC (which I've also played) as it's a redo.

RNK - 1
Bull's Bay - 3
Caledonia - 3
TR - 3
Rest - skip

JC

Did you intentionally leave out True Blue?  If so, do you really think it is a "skip"?  Pretty tough standards for where you will play!

[Jonathan Cummings]

AG - I know others here on the panel disagree with this but I do not like True Blue.  I believe that there is a inverse correlation between Strantz course quality and acreage.  ie - Strantz did increasingly better work the less land he was given.  True Blue, Stonehouse and to some extent, RNK are simply excessive.

JC

[paul cowley]

....interesting correlation Jonathan...very interesting.

[Tim Gavrich]

Jonathan--
   What didn't you like about Tot Hill Farm?  Aside from the out-of character last two holes (which I thought were good anyway), what would put it on your 'skip' list.  I like it better than True Blue, because unlike TB, it actually has some rough.  I think the rocks strewn about the place are an interesting hazard that one does not typically find on golf courses.  The par threes, in my opinion, were very strong, with a lot of variation because of their big greens.

[rboyce]

any pics available?

[A.G._Crockett]

Jonathan and Tim,
I'm a little surprised that neither of you liked True Blue, though that love-hate reaction seems to be the nature of Strantz courses.  I liked TB a lot less than Caledonia, for instance, the first time I played them, but TB has grown in my estimation each return trip.  I liked Tot Hill as well, but nowhere close to TB.

I agree with Paul Cowley that the observation that Stantz did better work on smaller sites is interesting.  TB, however, doesn't fit that in my mind.  More than any other course that I have ever played, TB MUST be played from the correct tees, and I don't believe that those are going to be the tips for almost any golfers.  At about 6500 yds. (which is roughly the same yardage as Caledonia) TB is a blast.  At yardages longer than that, TB just isn't much fun.

However, in the case of ANY Strantz course, I can't really imagine saying "skip it" to someone interested in GCA.  They are just too beautiful, too compelling, and too unusual.

[Mike Hoak]

I'll post some pics of RNK tonight.  I have played many rounds at both courses.  I went to graduate school at William and Mary and both courses offered special twilight rates for students.

I personally like RNK better than Stonehouse.  However, I think many of the opinions expressed in this thread by folks that have played Stonehouse reflect its current state as an anchor for housing development.  I personally feel that the course was a far better experience before they started the housing project there.  Speaking of which, the development is building an entire town, unless their plans have changed.  Some of my archaeology colleagues at William and Mary had to do test plots out there before they could start development--a county requirement.

As for RNK, I think it is a perfect example of how Strantz loved to make shots (particularly tee shots) appear much more difficult than they actually are.  It gets into a player's head before they even step on the course, thanks to the views from the clubhouse.  The fairways at RNK (and at Stonehouse for that matter) are gigantic.  However, they never look that way from the tee.  The course becomes far less initimidating and more enjoyable as you play it multiple times.  I'm hoping that the housing development at Brickshire won't blight the adjacent areas of RNK.

The only knock I have on RNK is the ridiciulous walks between holes.  Also, conditioning has improved in recent years, but it's still not great.  

[Tim Gavrich]

A.G.--
Don't get me wrong; I like True Blue a lot.  I love all Mike Stantz courses (plus Heritage, for the Strantz greens) that I have played, and am always excited to play any of them.  However, I find that as a hillier course, Tot Hill Farm has a certain advantage over True Blue.  Tot Hill's greens are fast enough to use some of the sideboards and backboards to move your ball about on the greens.  The greens at TB possess some strategic undulations, but they are not fully realized because firm and fast conditions rarely prevail.  Tot Hill Farm's greens more easily use these contours.  I also like the rocks at THF a lot.  The desert/Pine Valley effect at True Blue is not quite as appealing to me, though it is still very cool.

I really would have liked to play True Blue before they softened it up a few years back.  I think that some fairways are too wide and that some greens are too easy to hit.  What specific things were changed?  Does anyone have any before/after shots?

[A.G._Crockett]

A.G.--
Don't get me wrong; I like True Blue a lot.  I love all Mike Stantz courses (plus Heritage, for the Strantz greens) that I have played, and am always excited to play any of them.  However, I find that as a hillier course, Tot Hill Farm has a certain advantage over True Blue.  Tot Hill's greens are fast enough to use some of the sideboards and backboards to move your ball about on the greens.  The greens at TB possess some strategic undulations, but they are not fully realized because firm and fast conditions rarely prevail.  Tot Hill Farm's greens more easily use these contours.  I also like the rocks at THF a lot.  The desert/Pine Valley effect at True Blue is not quite as appealing to me, though it is still very cool.

I really would have liked to play True Blue before they softened it up a few years back.  I think that some fairways are too wide and that some greens are too easy to hit.  What specific things were changed?  Does anyone have any before/after shots?

Tim,
Michael Whitaker has posted on the changes at TB before; he is a pretty good source of info on the before and after.  I think probably the course HAD to be softened, from what I have heard, in order to be playable for the clientele that they draw as a public course.

You must be a player!  I didn't find anything about TB to be too easy.

[Jay Flemma]

I've always had a soft spot for RNK...great green settings, terrific use of the land, hair raising shots that are actually easier than they look since the wide open spaces are hidden BEHIND mounds...

[Jim Franklin]

Not to thread jack, but I have another friend that played Tot Hill Farm and loved while saying he was not a fan of Tobacco Road. Most people on this site would be direct opposite.

I loved Stonehouse when I first played it and liked RNK. Now having played each several times, I love RNK and could do without Stonehouse. Go figure.

[Greg Beaulieu]

I think that to the uninitiated, Stonehouse makes a good first impression. I know it did with me in '97 when I got to play it for the one and only time. I remember seeing #17 and being intimidated, then elated when I hit the green. And then seeing #18's approach shot and just laughing, because it was so scary. But I think as much as anything it was the setting, with all those huge Virginia deciduous trees framing a lot of shots, and looking pretty spectacular to a guy from Nova Scotia.

Given the reception for RNK here, I hope someday to have the chance to play it.

[A.G._Crockett]

Not to thread jack, but I have another friend that played Tot Hill Farm and loved while saying he was not a fan of Tobacco Road. Most people on this site would be direct opposite.

I loved Stonehouse when I first played it and liked RNK. Now having played each several times, I love RNK and could do without Stonehouse. Go figure.

I think a fair number of golfers go to TR and get overwhelmed, especially if they aren't hitting it well that day.  The course rating is relatively low, but the slope is relatively high; if you get crooked off the tee, you can't play the course, though it is much more forgiving than it appears.  That's a Strantz trademark, but esp. true at the Road.  Tot Hill is less intimidating, though still visually challenging.

[Jonathan Cummings]

AG - curious, have you played Bull's Bay?

[A.G._Crockett]

AG - curious, have you played Bull's Bay?

I haven't, nor have I been to RNK or Stonehouse.  Just wishing at this point...

[cary lichtenstein]

 I have played all of Strantz courses except 3 which I will finish playing this year:

Bulls Bay
Royal New Kent
Stonehouse

As for the others, I'd rate the original designs as follows:

Tobacco Road #1
Tothill Farm
True Blue
Caldonia

All his courses are good, he pushed the envelope and made a significant ar hietural contribution

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()