Kinglsey "Forgotten" / GD's Best New Survey

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt Ward:

Do you agree with John McMillan's comment about the race for the Heisman Trophy?

Are courses in relatively remote locations at a disadvantage?

Does Golf Digest track where new courses stand in terms of the number of ratings turned in?

Is there any formal or informal effort to encourage raters to visit promising sites that relatively few people have seen?

[Matt_Ward]

Tom Weiman:

To answer a few questions:

Courses in remote location are not in a bad position all the time because others have fared well in past GD surveys, to wit, Sand Hills, Bandon Dunes, Links of North Dakota at Red Mike Resort, Old Works, etc. But, I know it is not an easy deal all the time -- witness my previous comments on how few panelists actually saw Paa Ko Ridge until the last moment.

I know Ron Whitten has mentioned to me that a lot of the Mountain States face issues of coverage and other smaller states also crop up. Clearly, the issue is not a concern in such hotbeds as Florida and the Southwest.

Getting to remote locations, as you know, requires some effort. But, you would be surprised that in the past courses located in metro areas of varied sizes have also faced a lack of panelist visits.

The Digest does track what courses are being played, but its up to panelists to send in their reviews as soon as they finish playing them so that internal staff can update what courses need coverage. I know I've been contacted by magazine people to play extra courses within my immediate Northeast location. Whenever possible I try to schedule the time to see them.

I don't know how to answer your last question. How does one know what is a promising site? There isn't any real formula beyond what one may hear from varied sources. Clearly, there was a "buzz" in the air about Pacific Dunes and Arcadia Bluffs long before they were open. The same cannot be said for another outstanding new course I played this year -- Wolf Creek at Paradise Canyon.

Tim, you can access course information regarding sites that are being developed by visiting the Website for the National Golf Foundation (www.ngf.org). They provide info on what is opened, what is being built and what is being planned. I also reach out to various golf media people I know throughout the nation for additional information.

Shooter:

Don't lift that glass up yet partner!

I think you are being a bit tough on TKC. I concede yuor top five listing, but any of the courses listed after that becomes a matter of debate (although I have not played Franklin Hills and many say it's really a special layout).

You have to tell me what weaknesses exist with TKC? The holes balance themselves extremely well, the diversity between the nines is distinct and power hitters had best be in the right position to exploit their natural advantage of length. Let's also not forget the quality of the green sites. Anyone with Roberto Duran touch will quickly be saying "no mas" on every nervous stroke.

Still, Michigan is a very competitive state and I'm sure there will be plenty of comments on where TKC stands in that company.
I believe as time proceeds TKC will be a "must" see visit for those interested in a design that just oooozes quality golf. I also think TKC earns a position in the top ten.

That beer tastes good to me Shooter ... I'm not conceding TKC's position that easily.

[Peter Pratt]

Another Michigander's take on the best courses in Michigan:

1. Crystal Downs
2. Oakland Hills South
3. High Pointe
4. Kingsley Club
5. Arcadia Bluffs
6. The Gailes
7. Indianwood Old
8. Bay Harbor--I know, heresy, but I have found it, on three plays, better with each play and strategically inviting.
9. University of Michigan
10.Treetops Smith

I have not played Lost Dunes, Wuskowhan, Tullymore (new Jim Engh), Black Lake, or the Dunes. I have played Franklin Hills (just out of my top 10, a classic layout with 4-5 mediocre holes, especially the par 5s), Point O'Woods (the most over-rated course I have ever played--not even in my top 25 in the state), Detroit GC (just not quite enough on a flat piece of land), and CC of Detroit (ditto).

[Tim_Weiman]

Shooter/Peter Pratt:

Nice to see the Gailes course make your list of Michigan's top courses. For enjoyment and good value that is one of the best courses we seldom talk about.

Matt Ward:

Thanks.  I've found the NGF somewhat useful, but you still need the input of knowledgeable people in order to decide  when a new project is worth going out of your way to see.  That should be the kind of service this site can (informally) provide.

Going back to the Heisman Trophy question, how important is it for the course/club itself to get the word out and encourage people to visit?

[Matt_Ward]

Tim Weiman:

Courses do pass on information but I don't rely upon it as a primary source? Why? Does anyone believe you are going to get the most complete and accurate picture from the courses? I don't think so. People at the clubs are like protective parents of their kids. They have a vested interest to say what advances their own agenda.

As a general rule -- the louder the advanced publicity the lesser the quality of the golf course. Doesn't always apply but it generally works out that way from my many visits.

I get info from different golf writers I know throughout the country, from GCA, from various friends and from just plain old digging around.

Given the speed of today's media it is very hard for someone to build a course of distinction and be completely invisible for too long.

P.S. TKC is easily in my Michigan top ten, I'd say top five for sure and as I said previously a real contender for top 100 consideration once more people really get to see it.

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt Ward:

I would not expect anyone to be influenced by statements of club officials once they have seen the course.

What I'm unclear about is the importance of efforts by a club to get the word out so enough raters will come see the place.

How important is this?

[Bogeyboy]

Matt: My previous post was not intended to be a slam at you and in rereading it the tone was unjustified.  For that I apologize.  The point being that many different views are expressed here and yet what we might agree on regarding one course we might disagree an another.

MTWilkinson: Since this thread is about the best new courses for 2001 and Kingsley Club your rant about the entire process at Golf Digest was lost in my stream of conscienceness.  I would suggest you go back and look at the almost 1000 posts regarding the Golf Digest list, process and panelists at the begining of the year and you will see that your thoughts are not original.  

[John_McMillan]

Examples of a course's "campaiging" are the Shell matches held a couple years ago at Bay Harbor and this year at the Carnegie Club.  Those events do not happen by accident, and go a long way towards elevating those new courses on some radar screens.

[John_Conley]

Hosting Shells is VERY expensive.

(de Savary has a Triple Crown of sorts... all three of his courses have been used!)

[Nick_Christopher]

Shooter,
Having not played there, and only looking at some of the online pictures, what makes Tullymore more appealing to you than Kingsley?  

[Will E]

Nick,
Tullymoore IMHO is a better examination of one's skills as compared to TKC. There are a few holes at TKC (5,7,12,15) that come to mind that bring luck into play more than I would have hoped for. This is not to say that Mike's work there is subpar. In fact, he has done a wonderful job at creating a very natural, flowing course that is a true compliment to the land. In fact it is almost impossible to tell that this is a course that was just built, it fits the land that well. If that is the type of course you like then you will love TKC. If you love #5 at Crystal Downs then you will love TKC. If you're like me and like #6 and #8 at Crystal Downs more than #5 and #7 then I'll guess you will like Jim Engh's work at Tullymoore better. Both are great works and deserve to be seen. TKC is probably more fun to play than Tullymoore in the same way that NGLA is more fun than SH. I also find SH more appealing than NGLA.

[Matt_Ward]

Tim Weiman:

GD raters have more than enough information on the facilities that are available. Those in which there is a "buzz" on the street (i.e. Pacific Dunes, Arcadia Bluffs, etc) need nothing more from the club.

Panelists just need to get off the couch and onto the course -- plain and simple.

Shooter:

Love the analogy between TKC and NGLA. They are extremely fun courses to play and I too agree that SH is the one to play for a real serious examination of one's ability.

TKC is a real contender for top five position in the Wolverine State -- although you have it just outside your top ten. Clearly, a great debate to have over any beer!!! Do you think TKC is a contender for top 100 consideration by any of the major pubs?

One last point -- Shooter, you have to get to Arcadia Bluffs because since they are near each other it would be interesting to see how you view the courses.

I think a case can be made that TKC is the better course as Nick Christopher stated in a previous reponse on this thread. Arcadia Bluffs does have a number of wonderful holes and just to get things going I'll post a match play contest in the next day or so to see how people respond.

[Mike_DeVries]

Just returned from business in Marquette and saw the post.

First of all, many thanks for the kind words and support of The Kingsley Club.

TKC opened in May this year and it is my understanding that it was up for GD's awards this year.  I had heard that 17 or 18 raters made it out to evaluate the course.  And from the letters and responses of the raters to the owners and golf shop staff, the enthuasiasm for the course was unanimously and overwhelmingly positive.  The only criticisms I have heard were about the ninth green and in regards to the difficulty of the 15th hole from a discussion started by Jeff Stettner on GCA, and that brought about support for both sides during the debate.  From the feedback TKC had been receiving, we thought we would place quite well in the "Best New" awards.  

Given the discussion the "Best New" and "Top 100" lists generate, and despite what one may feel their importance or accuracy is, it is nice to be recognized and is beneficial to an unknown architect such as myself.  Many owners would like to have a "Best New" winner or performance for publicizing their new project, whether it is public or private, and that is a nice feather in anyone's cap.

Shooter, I would enjoy playing a round with you at TKC and/or discussing your analysis / comparison with the Downs' holes #5,6, 7, and 8 -- I am quite familiar with both courses and think you will look at them differently.    Unfortunately, I do not have the energy to debate this at this hour but you can call me at 231-933-9169 sometime if you would like to do so.

Again, many thanks for the encouragement from everyone and I hope everyone gets to TKC to give their own opinion.

[TEPaul]

I feel very sorry for the Kingsley Club and Mike DeVries. That list will come out and less the 1/10 of 1 percent of Golf Digest's  readers are ever going to know why The Kingsley Club was not on that list. Even Golf Digest raters don't seem to know! It appears that not enough raters saw the course. Does that have to do with The Kingsley Club and its architecture or does that have to do with Golf Digest's inability to rate courses either properly or at all?

But what 99.9% are probably going to think is that something is wrong with the Kingsley Club or its architecture, at least in comparison to the ones who made the list. And that is one of the many things that's  wrong with ratings like Golf Digest. It appears this has probably become more of a hinderance to The Kingsley Club than if there were no rating lists at all! Again, what does the Kingsley Club's failure to make that list have to do with its architecture?

If there are 250 new courses opening a year and Golf Digest wants to see them all they should hire 3-4 people like Ron Whitten and send them on the road to play them all (or whatever they do).

This would be more consistent and probably more understandable to the public, and who knows, the particular magazine would probably come to be known for the type of architecture it prefers (ie. Golfweek may be more classicly oriented and Golf Digest may be more at the other end of the spectrum). This might not be dissimilar to the good architectural magazine writers of yesteryear.

Again, these numbered lists which are inherently comparative (at least to the public) can do more harm than if there were no lists at all. Somehow really good golf courses were able to be recognized as such in the past before any of these "Best Lists" and they probably could be again without them! Frankly, really good architecture and good old word of mouth is going to be more accurate than panels like the ones we have today!

The irony is some really good golf courses done and coming online don't even want raters coming around and looking at their courses and if they do for some reason they don't want them trying to rank the course. Basically they don't need them anymore or at least don't think they do!

What this means to me is that some of these magazines aren't doing an adequate job of rating golf courses and their architecture.

[MTWilkinson]

TEPaul:

Thanks for your post, except that the most fundamental of premises overrides your conclusion that "(w)hat this means to me is that some of these magazines aren't doing an adequate job of rating golf courses and their architecture.

That is, of course, and you know this, the first and only goal of the various course lists isn't to an adequate job of rating golf courses, but rather to sell magazines.

GCAers spend infinitely more time caring and discussing about how the rating lists are determined than the magazine folks themselves.

Your other suggestion that GD have "3-4 people like Ron Whitten and send them on the road to play them all (or whatever they do)" as an alternative is scary, because I've never understood how or why Ron Whitten (or Gary Galyean, Brad Klein, or even Tom Doak when he ran GOLF's list) became an "expert" on architecture other than they have seen many, many golf courses.  Well, many of the raters (and non-raters) have, too.  Just because someone eats out alot doesn't make him a restaurant critic or someone who goes to the movies every weekend a film critic.  Ron's and Gary's, and Brad's and Tom's opinions are often times right on, and other times makes me scratch my head.  Their opinions aren't any more authoritative than yours or mine, or the many others on this site and elsewhere who have studied the subject, done the research, and travelled to and examined the courses.  And, I should say, being a practtitioner, i.e., an architect himself, doesn't qualify their opinions as expert.  Talk to 10 different architects about their opinions regarding the various courses and you would be shocked by some of their favorites and ones we think are good and they don't.  Limiting the number of GD raters to 3-4 would just significantly reduce the number in the sample leading to even worse results.

When the GD list was first published as the 100 greatest from the 200 toughest, Cypress Point wasn't even in the Top 50!  And, the panel at that time has 60 to 70 very recognizable national panelists.

Hopefully, over time, Kingsley and other deserving courses that have been slighted by the rating process, will be recognized beyond the irrelevant 4 corners of the various rags, in discussions among knowledgeable golfers at your club, my club, in the press rooms at tournaments, at amateur events, by some tour pros, etc. until they become part of the lexicon of great golf courses.

[John_McMillan]

Mike,

Hopefully you've gotten some rest from last night.  Can you tell us what types of promotional efforts the Kingsley Club used in its first year?  My impression - and you certainly have more inside information than me - is that they were fairly low-key in their promotional activities.  It seemed to me they were more focused on building their membership - primarily from Detroit and Chicago area summer vacationers, and that the prototypical Kingsley Club member is not necessarily the GD top courses reader.

[RJ_Daley]

The more I think about this, the more I wonder why the magazines haven't abandoned their rating systems all together and ripped off Ran and John's idea here on GCA.  With a couple of hundred courses coming on line each year, it has become somewhat of a matter of picking fly dung from pepper.  Each magazine has their parameters of rating methodology that they still "adjust" by the senior magazine editorial staff anyway.  They don't have room in the magazine issue to honestly deal with their rationale of why a course has made it to one of their lists.  Usually they only have one or two pictures and about a 500 word composition to describe new featured courses.

If I were running those magazines, I would use and default to the internet to compile a list of courses in categories such as new public high end, affordable, private, and traditional, and historic or legendary and use the archive system to first post a serious article describing the course written by one of the senior established writers, then have a comments list like we have here on GCA, held to 50 words or less, to agree, disagree or bring out aspects the lead article missed.  They could be really ethical about it and not sell advertising on the sidebars related to the considered courses, resorts etc.  Just stick to equipment and non-related to course enterprises.

It is just too simple and superficial in the magazine formats to put a numerical rating on a course by the multitude of raters, and then separate courses based on that data base to form a top 10 list.  With the numbers of courses being dealt with and the minute numerical separation,  one really doesn't get enough information such as one can receive in this GCA format.

Ran, can you copywrite or patent this format to protect it?

[TEPaul]

MTWilkinson:

I'm sure there're plenty of supporting premises for the fact that the magazines don't do a particularly adequate job of rating golf courses. Of course that's just my opinion and someone else may feel they do a great job.

Certainly they're primarily interested in selling magazines and how interested they are in really good architectural analysis, I have no idea.

Certainly, the fact of their interest in primarily selling magazines is so fundamental and has been mentioned so much on here that I saw no real reason to mention it again. So, far from overriding my conclusion that they don't do a particularly good job of rating golf courses (or architecture), it supports my conclusion, as far as I can see.

Frankly, I'm one of probably only a handful on this website who thinks that any rating  when done in the form of numerical ranking is particularly detrimental and counterproductive to many golf courses and possibly even the future of archtitecture itself.

I would much prefer specific architectural analysis of various golf courses for their inherent architecture or even architectural analysis of various styles. If a magazine writer wants to do that great. I would assume he would concern himself with explaining what's good and bad about that particular golf course and its architecture, and better yet, if he's going to get into that he could certain go on to explain what he thinks would need to be done to that particular golf course and its architecture to make it better.

The general result of the numerical ranking method seems to have been to encourage golf clubs to do things to their courses and architecture that are the wrong things for them to do. Simply looking at what some course high on the rankings is doing and trying to copy or emulate it is as detrimental as anything since that other course may be of an entirely different age, style, purpose, agronomic conditions, whatever. But most of the people who do those things simply don't understand that.

And I certainly don't agree with you when you say a Ron Whitten or a Tom Doak would be really a scary prospect for anaylyzing architecture. You seem to imply that they have no basis to claim they are more "expert" in golf architecture than anyone else.

Really? How does an art critic or a movie critic or a food critic become a recognized critic then? If you assume that anyone has a much right to claim they are as valid a golf architecture critic as a Bernard Darwin, Herbet Wind or Tom Doak then I suppose you're saying noone should claim to be a critic.

Lastly, I couldn't agree with you more that good old "word of mouth" and general unpublicized architectural evaluation and opinion is probably just as good as anything. The recognition of good golf courses and good architecture by no means started with the publication of the "best" of anything lists from these golf publications.

Defenders of the magazine ranking lists say the lists encourage architectural discussion and that's a good thing. I'm not sure that it is since not having magazine rankings lists is certainly not going to stifle architectural discussion and evaluation, in my opinion. Most of the time the architectural discussion isn't even about architecture, it's about the criteria used to evaluate architecture by these magazines including the number of raters who have to see a course.

And unfortunately 99% of the reading public actually takes all this stuff as gospel even though they have no idea how it works, and detrimental things can happen to some quality courses because of that.

I also recognize that there are plenty of very knowledgeable contributors to this website who are fascinated by comparing golf architecture. I guess I'm not one of them and I don't see why I ever would be. I actually think you can have a very productive and valid discussion about golf course architecture and I don't even think you have to get comparative about it!

But the magazine ranking lists do sell golf magazines, I'm sure.

[MTWilkinson]

TEPaul:

Appreciate your post and I'm in agreement with you that we can have a a terrific discussion and analysis of golf course architecture without being comparative.

Perhaps somebody from the magazines can answer this question (and maybe they won't because of confidentiality reasons), but I would love to know whether the Top 100 issue or Best New issues are bigger sellers than other issues (or maybe, the Masters preview and/or US Open "double issues", or the Annual sell better at the newsstand).  I.e., does comparative architecture articles (the "best of" this and "the best of" that) sell more magazines vs. instruction, etc.  Perhaps its impossible to quantify.

The enduring comment on the ratings game comes from Tom Doak who said that The Old Course wouldn't make the "top 10 best new public courses" if it were newly opened as rated in today's magazines.  

[TEPaul]

MTWilkinson:

Thanks, and I was wondering if you'd tell me exactly what you think Tom Doak's remark about TOC not making the top 10 modern course rankings means? In other words what Doak was really trying to say.

[MTWilkinson]

TEPaul:

The way I interpreted it is if TOC were newly opened in 2001 and a candidate for GD's Best New Public Course, the raters wouldn't give it high enough marks by catagory (e.g., aesthetics, conditioning, memorability, and whatever other GD catagories there are) for it to be included in the Top 10 for the year.

[bill_steele]

I, for one, enjoy reading "criticism" of any nature. What has to be remembered is that every critic, be it theater, dining, movies or golf course architecture, comes at the subject with a certain philosophy that pervades his analysis. Visitors to this sight are much more sophisticated (and articulate) than most who post reviews of golf courses on sites such as Golfcourse.com. While I disagree with Tom Doak on some of his analysis, I applaud him for laying out the most detailed paradigm of golf course rating that I know (the "Doak" scale). Ron Whitten is a golf course critic because he has the title. Once you read a few of his reviews, you sort of understand where he is coming from (albeit, at times, you do wonder). However, in a Whitten post earlier this year on the Golf Digest site, he listed The Kingsley Club as one of the new courses receiving the highest amount of "buzz"  this year. Thus, one has to wonder about the GD editors or raters, as well as the integrity of the process. I have wondered about this for some time. If you check out a feature such as Golf Magazine's "Top 100 You Can Play", note the proliferation of courses built in the last 15 years that invade the list. The new course raters seem to be dazzled by name architects or by dramatic departures from the norm (Mike Strantz's back to back wins in the Upscale Public category for Legends of Stonehouse and Royal New Kent). Personally, I take most golf course criticism with a grain of salt. I rely more on the opinions of people I trust who have played the course...even then there is room for some healthy disagreement. One item I use as a geographical reference and nothing more is Golf Digest's Places To Play. Has anyone noticed how inflated the ratings in that source has become? The 3rd edition (1998) is the last one that seemed to have any sense of reality. The 4th edition ratings seem to be more inflated than the grades at a state university. Now I see that the latest Robert Trent Jones Trail course (Capitol Hill-"The Judge"), received a 5 star rating. According to the ratings index, this means "Golf at its absolute best. Pay any price to play at least once in your life." Somehow, I find that hard to believe about a Trail course (enjoyable, difficult but not particularly memorable). That's what happens when the ratings are thrown open to the randomness of everyone being a critic. However, seeing what happened The Kingsley Club, maybe that's not so different from being a Golf Digest rater (apologies to Matt Ward).

[Mike_DeVries]

John McMillan,

You are correct in that they are very low-key about the whole thing, and that is something that I think will endure the club in the long run.  The Kingsley Club is not about the biggest clubhouse, most marble, or 15 service people to wait on you hand and foot, it is about golf and the pure enjoyment of the game.  

They have not overly publicized the club through magazines, etc. and have approached it more through word-of-mouth and networks from members.  The club is not expensive by national standards and that cash flow will affect how they promote the club.  Whether that is the best method depends on how you look at it, I suppose.  

This is not "my department" but that is how I have seen it happen.

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt Ward:

My understanding is that Golf Digest provides a fair amount of documentation to clubs which have been rated (e.g., raters comments, scores, etc.)

Will the folks at Kingsley receive the same documentation that clubs who make the Best New lists do?

[Nick_Christopher]

Shooter,

Interesting analogy, but I would suggest that #8 at CD has a large degree of luck associated with it, particularly when you consider the landing area for the drive.  I would say more so than #12 at KC.  I would also argue that #5 at Kingsley offers a number of strategic options, and isn't merely a shot of luck.  The player can hit a low bouncing shot or a high fade that forces the player to deal with the strong wind (as the course matures and the turf firms up the low runner will be in play more readily).  Tullymore defintely sounds like it is worth checking out however and I'll have to add it to my list for 2002.  But your comments about appreciating a natural course was dead on, and it is one reason why I do love Kingsley.

[Tags:]

Tags: