Kinglsey "Forgotten" / GD's Best New Survey

[John_McMillan]

Another fact of the Kingsley Club that has not been discussed is that it is the home course for the Kingsley HS golf team.  I'm not certain of the details of the arrangement, but it is unusual - and to the course's commendation - that it is making this sort of investment in the game.  

[Nick_Christopher]

John,
Similarly, Crystal Downs used to be the home course of the Frankfort HS golf team.  Unbelievably, the relationship was ended by the high school about 6-7 years ago, and I'm not sure if it has been reinstated or not.

[SPDB]

Matt -

Does this mean that Carnegie Abbey was included in the top 10?

[John Lyon]

I would be very interested to hear Tom Doak's perspective on the Kinsley Club course in relation to other new courses including Pacific Dunes.    It does seem strange that Tom has been unusually quiet regarding KC; as THE local architect (hero) that has played the course and as a member of the course that inspired KC (Crystal Downs) one would think that he would have an opinion and could shed light on this very interesting situation.  The old adage that “if you have nothing good to say……”, clearly does not apply to Tom.  

[Tim_Weiman]

John Lyon:

In fairness, I would not read anything into the fact that Tom Doak has not offered comments on the Kingsley Club.  Wouldn't you say this is also true of most courses opened in the past several years?  

Tom isn't looking to do another Confidential Guide.  He is looking to do a few more PAcific Dunes.  Don't you think?

[John Lyon]

Agreed that Doak's focus should be spent on his new courses.  He has on ocasion provided great insight into our home state courses.  I could not imagine that he would purposely ignore an upstart designer in his own back yard.

[ed_getka]

Tom and Mike used to work together but from what I've read of Tom's writings I don't think he would hold back an opinion on that basis.

[Tom_Doak]

Okay, Mr. Lyon, you've drawn me out of the closet.  [Actually I just got back from New Zealand, where I was too busy looking at property to lurk on Golf Club Atlas.]

I am guilty of not posting on The Kingsley Club, because I had nothing to gain by doing so.  If I like it, then I'm boosting someone who is taking work away from me in my own backyard and forcing me to go to New Zealand to find better property.  If I don't like it, I'll be accused of sour grapes.

However, Mike DeVries will now get used to the fact that if you're not a name designer, your work can be overlooked by GOLF DIGEST ... as High Pointe and Stonewall were similarly overlooked.  In ten years, if he's still designing good courses, they'll get their due.  That's the nature of the signature design business.

As for The Kingsley Club, I've only played it once, with Mike.  I liked it much better when I played than the previous time when I had just walked it ... but there are still too many semi-blind shots on the front nine for my tastes, and I know that will cost him points with some GOLF DIGEST types, too.

In general, too, I can say that while there were several holes which I really really liked, Mike as most other young designers tends to miss on the severe side when he misses with a hole.  I'd say the same thing about a lot of other designers of my generation ... including Mike Strantz, Steve Smyers, and Dana Fry, and even myself 5 or 10 years ago.  They do some great stuff, but they always "go for it" on every shot of every hole, like Phil Mickelson ... and we know how many majors he's won that way.

Pacific Dunes is no boring golf course, but it is slightly restrained, and all the better for it.  I'll be disappointed if it doesn't make GOLF DIGEST's Best New Top Ten, but not shocked ... they've missed others, too.

[Brad Klein]

Not having yet seen The Kingsley Club -I'll get there next spring, finally - I'd like to respond to several general points on the ratings.

1. The ratings issue draws a lot of attention among knowledgeable, well-traveled golfers. That doesn't translate into big newstand sales. It does mean a few extra ads that wouldn't normally come in, but these are not usually major accounts and are thus not the reason for the lists, either. The real value of such issues is that they help promote the credibility and importance of the publication. So there's good reason to take them seriously and for editors to try to get them right. It helps the publication to be taken seriously.

2. It is not easy getting people to some areas and some new courses. Location is an issue. The resources any one publication can devote to tracking projects and cajoling raters are limited. Big names architects draw raters; lesser-known names and out-of-the way areas take an incredibly greater amount of work. The Kingsley Club was also probably handicapped a little by a limited playing season. Any course that opens in a calendar year before July 1 is only eligible for inclusion on the Golf Digest list that year; it would help courses if they delayed their official opening until July 2 and thereby accumulated more time for press reviews, word of mouth and raters so that they would be eligible for inclusion the next year. I do know Whitten makes an effort to get raters out. We don't suffer the deadline pressure at Golfweek because we don't do a Best New course. Certain styles of classical shot-making course do not do well when it comes to making a first impression and thus Best New is a category that promotes (and is susceptible) to razzmazz insrtead of shotmaking substance. Golfweek doens't do a Best New because it is way too likely to be hijacked by layouts with impressive settings, ambiance or service.

3. MTWilkinson wonders what qualifies certain people to be experts and others not. I often hear a from people that "gee, I wish I had your job." My response is always "there's nothing stopping you." But I can assure you that it's not simply a matter of seeing a lot of courses - though I have been seeing courses steadily for 30 years. I know Galyean, Whitten, Doak and Shackelford well enough to know that seeing loads of courses is part of it, but also reading extensively, spending time in the field with architects, builders, superintendents is also indispensable. You also have to be entrepreneurial, have to be able to write tolerably well and on time, and have to keep track of lots of notes, receipts, photographs and other things (inc. your golf game) while traveling 120 days a year or more. Lots of people qualify that way. You're welcome to it as well as anyone.

[John Lyon]

Tom, Thanks for the insight.  I really value your opinions and your work.  As a TC local I loved High Pointe when it first opened.  It took me a year or two to understand why I could not hold the 7 iron into the first green.  As for truth in advertising, I am a member at Kingsley.  I see your point regarding some of the semi-blind shots but I can tell you from lots of experience that they are exciting like the one shot 5 where you can see your ball disappear onto the green for a second or two then reappear at the back of the green as it slowly arcs back to the center of the green and disappears again.  As for the other semi blind shots there are always full view alternatives.  

[Will E]

Tom-
I agree with your post, almost. I would much rather play a round with a player with Phil Mickelson's game than I would with someone with Loren Robert's game. (Loren is a great guy by the way.) Also, for the same reasons I'd much rather play a Tom Doak style course than one designed by Art Hills.
I think that taking risk in architecture should be encourgaed. Don't you think a lot of risk were taken at Crystal Downs that might be viewed as turning out too severe by today's standards? We could mention many more courses that you've give 8s or more too as well.
Yes, Mike IMHO has gone overboard on a couple of occasions at KC, I know he is concerned though and open to discussion. This will only make him better, as in the long run will be the case with Phil too.

Brad- I find it sad that keeping receipts and being entrepreneurial are needed qualities of golf course critics, it actually explains many issues I've had trouble with.

[Tom_Doak]

Shooter:  Yes, Crystal Downs has a lot of "go for it" architecture, as I'm sure Mike D. would be quick to point out.  But how far to push the envelope is a matter of taste.  MacKenzie didn't put bunkers all over the 16th or 18th fairways -- would the course be even better if he did?

Other designers are welcome to take as many risks as they want in their designs; vive la difference!  They just shouldn't be surprised  if they don't always come out first in the standings at the end of the day.  And no one should say they were cheated...

PS to Matt Ward:  Are you implying that some of your fellow GOLF DIGEST panelists are not as perceptive as you are?

[Matt_Ward]

Tom Doak:

I do not make any claim about my being more perceptive than other GD raters. All I do know is that I was advised by a fellow GD rater, who I respect immensely, that TKC was a course that I should visit. I'm glad I heeded his advice because TKC is a real treat and was one of the finest new courses I saw this year.

My initial point is that sometimes people on GCA have a tendency to link all GD raters in the same boat. That is clearly not the case in this particular case.

Given the fact that only 43 private courses were even nominated I am completely flabbergasted and puzzled that TKC did not finish in the top ten. I would feel the same way Tom if your efforts at Pacific Dunes faced the same situation. Incidentally, I believe Pacific Dunes was the best upscale course I saw this year with Wolf Creek at Paradise Canyon finishing second and Arcadia Bluffs right behind in third.

I've stated my points on GD raters and the related process that's involved with voting so I won't repeat the same positions again.

TKC is a superb Mike DeVries design and I can only wonder what other GD raters were thinking when they visited the course and why they assigned such low numbers. A real quality layout has been done a major disservice, in my opinion.

[Tags:]

Tags: