The 11th at Kingsley

[Ran Morrissett]

The one shotters at Kingsley generate strong opinions. My brother thinks the 2nd is one of the best par threes built in sixty years. I am more partial to the 16th and think that it is a SUPERB hole in any and all respects. Some love the 5th the best with its green in the dell. The 9th has both its defenders and detractors based on which set of tees are played (and probably what they scored on it as well ).

However, most everyone seems to gloss over the 11th, paying it little attention. Perhaps they are just in a hurry for the great stretch from 12-16.

In studying the very well done Kingsley calendar today, October's photograph is of the 11th hole as seen in the fall. And it is a lovely autumnal picture which got me thinking: in the two times I have played the hole, I remember thinking it had very good golfing qualities. The green is full of character and there are a ton of neat hole locations with the back plateau being especially testing.

So why don't more people think highly of this sleeper? In looking at the photo, and in thinking that the prior 10 green complexes are essentially out in the open, the 11th is in great contrast with its green complex in an amphitheatre of hard wood trees (it is the only green complex on the course where that is the case).

Thus, I was wondering if a) the 11th should be appreciated for being different or b) what if the trees were cut down behind the green, thus exposing the 12th tee/playing corridor to a certain extent - would doing so make the 11th seem like it better 'fits' in with the rest of the course (and perhaps it would more readily grab people's attention)?

What do you think? I guess this is an aesthetics question as much as anything - I think the hole itself plays very, very well.

Cheers,

[Jeff_Mingay]

Ran,

I haven't seen the calender yet, so I don't know when the photo was taken, but I've heard from very, very reliable sources that quite a few trees were taken down in the vicinity of the 11th green recently. (It was a matter of growing grass, I think.) Perhaps Mike D. and Dan Lucas will chime in on the matter in due course.

11 is a classic par 3, played for one high point to another over a dip in the landscape, to a very challenging putting green. In fact, one of my great golfing memories with apologies to Mike D, is of Kingsley architect in a tirade on that very green following a three putt bogey!

For the sake of discussion, off the top of my Canadian beer influenced head, I rank the par 3s at Kingsley as follows:

1. 16
2. 2
3. 11
4. 5
5. 9

That list would probably change tomorrow if I tried it again  

[Brian_Gracely]

Ran,

For those of us that haven't seen or played Kingsley, and since there are no pictures of #11 in your course review, can you post any pictures of #11?

[David Kelly]

Brian,
Go to http://www.kingsleyclub.com/ and click on Course Tour, then click on hole 11 and there is an icon that links to a photo album of the hole.

I have to admit that I overlook #11 often when thinking about or discussing TKC.  I think it is mostly because of how strong 2, 5, and 16 are and how diabolical #9 is.  

I think the hole plays well and I wonder what removing the trees behind the green would do to the wind patterns on that hole.

[Phelps Morris]

I agree the hole would benefit with a chainsaw appointment ...I have played the course a couple of times and couldn't for the life of me remember the hole of the top of my head,while the rest of the holes still remain fresh.

I had to go back to their website (great site by the way) to refresh my memory...While the pics quickly jogged my memory (I remember the green being tough), the reason it lacked immediate recognition relative to the rest of the holes on the course was the fact that you could find a similar type of 'feel' that the hole provides i.e. 'par 3 carved out of the woods' on practically every 'Up North' course in Michigan...while most of the other holes on the course are unique and different from the standard 'Up North' fare (Particularly the front 9)

An additional benefit of removing some trees  would be making club selection more tricky due to wind playing a bigger factor...

In Kingsley's neck of the wood, I think the 14th at Crystal Downs (a hole of similar length) benefited by the clearing on the trees behind the green a few years back.  Not only did it open up a great vista, but it also made the hole tougher due the additional wind being brought into play plus that lack of backdrop to assist in judging distances...

RPM

[Jlyon]

Ran, Aesthetically, the 11th has no grand vistas that each of the first 11 holes and subsequent holes display.  It is one of the few holes where the vista is not inspiring (to the west and down the 10th fairway is an uninspiring view of the parking lot).  Even during the height of the wild flower season the un-mowed rough has not filled in and is a letdown compared to 10th.  The staff must have heard your request to thin the trees, during this past winter, the grounds crew has cleared much of the trees that block the sun in an effort to correct the inconsistent growth of the rough.   While this will improve the turf, I doubt it will improve the overall setting, the hill behind the 11th green (actually the 12 tee) is too high to give much of the same appeal that the rest of the course has.    

Enough on aesthetics, this is still one tough hole that is a surprisingly difficult par (#13 Hdcp).  Any pin placed on the right is a sucker placement given the false right side of the green.  As with all of the other holes, Devries gave an excellent ground game option by playing short punch fade to the left side; the ball will run to the sweet spot on the green or leave a flat chip for an up and down.  With the trees gone, the wind will become a much more significant factor.  

IMHO, the real problem with 11 is that the other 4 one shot holes are just too much fun.  The suspense (or agony) of missing the 2nd green, the now you see it now you don’t roll of the ball on the 5th green, the well documented 9th needs no more description and my favorite (the 16th )  where I could stand on the tee for an hour and just hit to this fantastic green sight.  A different question, is the 12th a victim of the other par threes?

[Mike_DeVries]

Trees have been removed in the past for better agronomic conditioning and Dan and I will continue to evaluate that this coming spring.

As for the different look of the hole from the others, it has a more "typical northern Michigan look" with the tree backdrop and secluded setting.  If we remove a few more trees for agronomics, it may lead us to take even more, so we don't have sticks behind it and therefore it will blend openly from 10 through 12 and give a visual of the 13th green.  

I think the hole is strategically very strong, with a very difficult back plateau, a severe right side to the green complex, and a fun approach that leads down into the front of the green (allowing a deft cut-runner of a shot to bleed onto the front surface).  Often overlooked, but in play as golfers avoid the right side, is the worn down left side under the trees where golfers walk -- this area leads away from the green and leaves many a player with a poor lie and difficult chip.

Please ask any other questions and I will get back to you.

[GeoffreyC]

Ran

You have summarized the situation very well as usual.

I have that calendar as well and I think the photo portrays a few of the very interesting short game options when you manage to miss the green on #11. It a very solid hole on a spectacular course.

My take on the lack of respect for #11 at TKC relative to the other one shotters lies in the less then traditional nature of the other holes.  #11 is pretty standard stuff (good as it may be) that perhaps without all the nice detail work that Mike Devries adds can and is found on most all good courses.

#2 however as you have said is pretty wild stuff for a short hole.

#5 is anything but traditional with its classic punchbowl greensite

#9 is bold, unorthodox and will always gather opinions both pro and con.

#16 is a hell of a good redan where the ground game matters. It too is a rare find on a modern course.

So my take is that the others are just so good and work so well to create what Mr. Huntley refers to as a thrilling experience and a joy to play that #11 is outshined.

[Dan_Lucas]

Ran points out what I see a lot when first timers get to #10 and #11 at Kingsley. After the visual intimidation of the front 9 you go to #10 tee and get a more traditional look. Then you go to #11 tee and you can watch people visibly relax, thinking "Finally something I've seen before, I know what to do here." Then they touch it off and you can watch their faces change again when the ball hits the ground and starts bouncing around. This, from the back tees is a VERY good golf hole. The trees that were taken down behind the green will make the wind a bigger factor, but maybe also easier to judge. In the past it has been one of the tougher holes to judge the wind on.

The green is also a change of pace. With the exception of the back plateau (one of the toughest pins to get close to on the course), the rest of the green is deceptively flat looking with a lot of subtle little breaks in it. One of the toughest reads on the course.

[Jimmy Muratt]

Here are a few pics of the 11th from the Kingsley Club's website....





Here's a great shot of the right side of the green with the falloff....

[Ken Fry]

I must concur with most other posts that the 11th lacks acknowledgement only because the other one shoters are so strong.

The first time I played Kingsley, the trees behind the green were still very dense.  The last couple of times the tree removal was completed.  It certainly gives the hole a different look but what I like most about the hole is trying to figure the proper yardage.  Visually, it just seems the hole looks shorter but the green looks smaller.

The pictures from the site are great but like most of the holes at Kingsley, pictures don't do it justice!

[ed_getka]

I concur with the camp that only finds #11 to be overlooked in comparison to the other superlative 3's on the course. My favorite is #2, closely followed by #'s 5 and 16.
   I think I would prefer to have some trees around the green because it gives a different look than what has been seen up until this point in the round. I don't think clearing out trees would give as much visual deception as you find on #2 where it is so hard to commit to the shot at hand.

[Mitch Hantman]

I also agree with the above statements:  Kingsley has the best set of par 3's I've seen in a long time.  The 11th is a diabolical green site, and I'll look forward to seeing it without as many trees.  
The variety  of holes and greensites of the par 4's and 5's is truly outstanding, and it is an underrated course that deserves more accolades.

[Paul Richards]

Ran:

I'll attempt to answer your question without spending much time responding to any of the other answers posed by others.

As I have stated before, many times, on this site, the front nine at Kingsley BLEW ME AWAY!  That nine could easily make the top 10 or top 20 Modern golf courses.  

So when I made the turn and played #10, I felt a tinge of disappointment.  Not a terrible hole or anything, just not of the calibur of the front nine.  A one-hole let-down?

Teeing it up on #11, I got that same feeling - it was a pretty pedestrian three par, with an interesting green.

Taken alone, #11 is a fine hole.  However, in the context of a spectacular series of nine holes (then a dud) preceding it, it loses any luster it may otherwise have.

That's why, IMHO, playing the back nine first, then the front nine at Kingsley would make ME appreciate how awesome the one nine really is.

[TEPaul]

The notion that no one should offer an opinion about the architecture of a golf course from photos is proven to be bunk by those photos of Kingsley!

Coore sometimes says that the thing to look for on raw land is if and how the small, medium and large natural "lines" twist and turn against each other. That can extend all the way from a little square foot bump to the distance horizon line, be that the tops of distant trees or the horizon line of distance land and include every other "line" in between. Those are the things to look for in raw sites for architecture and what's not there or doesn't work well for golf needs to be created, amended, altered or enhanced somehow so it does and then those made "lines" need to tie in and twist and turn naturally with those other raw natural lines as they all twist and turn together in an overall natural look.

I haven't seen much of anything architecturally in photos that represents that philosophy so well as those photos of De Vries's Kingsley. If there's anything remotely artificial looking out there in the context man-made "lines" as they relate and tie in to the natural "lines" of that particular site I sure can't see it in any of those shots!

[Steve Lang]

 

Ran,

I don't believe you can say the 11th green is the only one surrounded or framed by trees.. they are certainlymore in play there for the errrant shot.. But the subtle change on the back 9 in the character of a handful of holes almost reminds me of Doak's High Pointe, but to a much less extent..

I wouldn't want to destroy the setting there, so I hope they leave concerns for more vistas in the no-action folder,.. while some removal to aid agronomy is certainly warranted. It is after all, lower NW Mich.. woods and sandhill pasture land, just don't destroy the natural setting.. trying to attain some "far-away-ideal"..  

I simply don't think the hole needs to grab any more attention, as it leads one up to the 12th tee.. beyond first timers, like we were, what's coming should be well known.  On that note, I heartily concur with Paul Richard's suggestion to switch the nines.. leading one from some familiar problems to the stress and uniqueness of #1-9.. and #9 is certainly a better closing hole than #18, much much more stressful, especially in a competition!

Given the location of the driving range I first wondered why #10 wasn't #1..  After playing it, I considered #10 what I call a good lunch hole, where even if the blood is running to digestive needs etc.. one can get through it without too much stress.  # 11 elevated needs for concentration and in hindsight, focus for #12-16

TEP,

Perhaps someone who's wrong 98% of the time, can't distinguish vanishing points and the lines to them from photos and 2% of the time when they can, its of no real significance.

[Mike_DeVries]

Steve,

I would not agree with you that #9 is a better closing hole than #18.  Where does this modern conception of the finishing hole needing to be a brutally tough hole come from -- is it Pete Dye's 465 yard, water along one side on
#9 and #18?  The Old Course's 18th isn't wicked hard and everyone loves it -- at least I don't hear people lamenting its structure.

The front nine is spectacular in its own way, finishing up with an easy/hard hole in the 9th.  Then, there is a bit of a shift in the flow from the totally open landscape to one with some trees more in play.  This may be somewhat abrupt in some opinions, but the rhythm and flow of the holes is not totally different from the front and there are portions of the back that are more similar to the front and portions that are less.  That is okay and I think important -- you can't one-up each previous hole and have a good feeling at the end; a great course possesses an ebb and flow that is similar to good theatre.  At Kingsley, the change of pace at 10-11, then switching to the more open woodland of 12-16, pinched at 17 by woods, and then #18's emergence from the woods back into the open grassland at the green -- a complete circle back to the beginning of the course, is a wonderful completion of the round.

Some notes on the back nine, where critics say it doesn't stand up to the front, except for the run from 12-16.  Hole 10 has a tee locations at 420 yards (on the right edge of the practice tee, low and to the left of the current elevated tee) and another location near the entrance road at 465 if it is so desired to add that someday.  I don't think they are necessary, especially for the membership, but might have a use for a tournament someday.  11, as some have noted above, is sometimes overlooked as the least exciting par 3 in a fine collection of short holes.  #17 is a fun short three-shotter, with lots of variety.  And #18 has a wonderfully wild fairway, with approach shots that typically require an ackward stance and difficult winds to a well-protected, diagonal punchbowl green that will reward well-struck shots and punish poor ones.  In match play, where 18 holes are not always completed, Kingsley's back nine offers a very difficult long par 4 in the 15th, followed by three holes with opportunities for birdies or bogies, depending on how you are playing and where you are in the match -- that is a wonderful aspect of the course.  I do not favor a course that just kills you at the end -- golfers do that to themselves! -- but instead gives you an opportunity to take some chances and catch your opponent if you pull through.

Mike

[David Kelly]

The Kingsley Club definitely doesn't need to be "fixed" in any way shape or form.    

I think sometimes with great courses we tend to nitpick and invent problems that aren't really there.  Whats wrong with a course getting in your face from the very beginning and making you play your best from the start?  If a golfer isn't ready for the challenge of TKC maybe his match won't make it until the 18th hole anyway.

I don't think courses necessarily have to build up in quality and toughness as the holes progess, especially at a course like TKC where the front nine is world class and the back nine is very good.  You are immediately excited when you face that first tee shot and just about every hole maintains that level of excitement and intensity.  Maybe a hole like 10 that is less interesting than most of the holes that came before it invites a weak minded player to let up a little and if he does he may have to pay a price.

[GeoffreyC]

Mike Devries

Great and I believe highly accurate summation of the back nine at TKC.

I really enjoyed the 18th hole with its return to the open terrain at the greensite.

I would not change a thing.

PS- We have had discussions of the 12th hole before. Noel Freeman likens it to the 14th at Shinnecock while Ran feels that you would have extended the fairway to the left if the land were available (and thinks it needs a bailout of sorts to that side that would make for a more difficult 2nd). I'm with Noel. Could you comment? Thanks

[ed_getka]

I know I will never go to upper Michigan without playing TKC. If I could convince my wife to move up there I would join the club (assuming they would have the likes of me). That says it all about the course for me. I would NEVER get bored of golfing there.
  Just imagine the fun you could have playing cross country golf on the front nine.
   There is not a bad green on the course, and the only changes I would consider if it were my course is to put something in the fairway on #10 to keep you on your toes, and something on #14 to make you think about your second shot (for shorter hitters like me).
   #9 with the two sets of tees 90 degrees apart is wicked fun. I'm still trying to figure out how to play it.

[TEPaul]

"TEP,
Perhaps someone who's wrong 98% of the time, can't distinguish vanishing points and the lines to them from photos and 2% of the time when they can, its of no real significance."

Steve:

Clearly you're referring to Pat Mucci!  


 
 
 

[Mike_DeVries]

Mike Devries

PS- We have had discussions of the 12th hole before. Noel Freeman likens it to the 14th at Shinnecock while Ran feels that you would have extended the fairway to the left if the land were available (and tinks it needs a bailout of sorts tord that side that would make for a more difficult 2nd). I'm with Noel. Could you comment? Thanks

Geoffrey,

Good question.  Noel is very generous with his comparison, but I can't say that is something that I thought about in designing the hole -- plus, it has been much too long since I was at Shinnecock; sounds like a good reason to return, SOON!!!!  I would have liked to have had more room on the left to provide more space on that side, although the further left you are, the more difficult the approach shot, so it could be a good bailout but no bargain.  As the narrowest driving hole, and only bunkerless one, on the course, but with a downhill tee shot to a valley, I really like the fact that it forces a precise drive and some severe hazards without bunkers.  So the bailout is a shorter, more controlled drive, knowing you will have a longer approach, but remember that the turf is firm and you will have options around the closely-cropped green, so I think that is quite a valid choice.

Hope that helps!

Mike

[Joe Hancock]

Ed,
I showed you how to play #9. Pencil in your 7 and go the tenth tee.

Joe

[Steve Lang]

 

Mike_D,

No knocks on TKC..  I loved playing there and the whole layout.

Did I touch a defensive nerve there re#9 vs. 18 as the closer,.. Regardless of whether # 9 is brutally hard or easy/hard as you say, and how the excellent front 9 resolves its tension and flow through the very good back 9 at 18, I see arguments for running the course both ways using some of the same logic.

I simply reflect on my initial play there, going three sub-bogey on the front while hitting and placing the ball fairly well per pre-game study and then parring the back.  Perhaps if that experience had been reversed i wouldnt' even suggest such a thing as reversing the nines.  

My simple point is this, if it's coming down to one "approach" shot at the end of a match, i'd prefer it be just that from even ground and then a chance putt or chip, this is all wonderfully captured at #9, without the randomness of a drive's landing and wild roll-out as on #18.  As you said ".. #18 has a wonderfully wild fairway, with approach shots that typically require an ackward stance and difficult winds to a well-protected, diagonal punchbowl green that will reward well-struck shots and punish poor ones."  

Now.. which is more brutal?  

Is there really any need to distinguish levels of brutality?  Perhaps not, but if one had to have a playoff, I'd rather see it at #9 than #18. Its only an opinion.

[T_MacWood]

#11 is an underrated hole, it only suffers in comparison to two world class holes--#2 & #16 (not to mention the love/hate 9th and superb 5th). There are few courses with the number of 1st class short holes. It makes me wonder why more courses don't go with five par-3s.