Mike (Bogey),
A good idea to dedicate a new thread to post-gathering reactions.
I have NWA to thank for literally denying me the opportunity to get to Marquette to play Greywalls. Needless to say a big disappointment, especially in light of the rave reviews from the people who played there.
That said, the Kingsley experience (except for my putting stroke) was sublime. Kudos to Club GM, Brian Conklin and his staff for making everyone feel so welcome. The laid back, golf-as-it-should-be culture is important to the Kingsley Club, it’s implicit to their mission statement, and it comes through.
I played Kingsley four years ago and got a good solid taste of the golf course, but the two days I had to play on this trip gave me the opportunity to really plumb its depths. And by the way, I think I’ve only just scratched the surface! Like Mike Hendren, this trip to Kingsley has caused me to re-examine many of my assumptions as to what makes a golf course good or even great. Throughout your round, Mike gives you options galore, but to me, what sets Kingsley apart are the so-called controversial holes the “deflectors” - the poster child being the 9th hole, which golfers tend to love or hate. I am in the love camp and feel it is unfairly characterized as a “two or twenty” proposition. Believe me, it can be, I launched one over the pin yesterday from the west tee approach with the pin on the small right peninsula. Big trouble and I made a mess of it! But the golfer who engages his brain can think his way out of the big number. It just means hitting away from the pin. I am not yet programmed to do that. Sometimes if you fail to hit a shot that requires true precision, a bogey (or worse) is not an unjust fate.
Many of us assume that anything close to a well struck shot should result in a par. At times, Mike clearly challenges that entitlement. On some holes, if you’re super-adept with the flat stick, you can make par following a mediocre approach. But on some holes the line you choose may demand a high degree of precision. So on Kingsley’s par-3, ninth: after flying the green, if I had chipped away from the pin and then two-putt for bogey, I would have left that green with utter satisfaction. But from the tee, the pin beckoned. I took the challenging line with a 9-iron and blew it over. I had to deal with it, and an easy way back there was not! But speaking of personal responsibility, it was my choice. There were countless other ways and lines from the tee.
One of the more insightful guys with whom I played (was it Mike Whitaker?), describes those who dislike a hole that deflects a shot or otherwise drives them crazy in some “unfair” way the “pencil and scorecard” set. They could care less about golf course architecture or attempting to make any decisions regarding strategy. They just want to make a good number, as in look at the flag, take aim and fire. No thinking, please. It's soley a focus on what their score is.
So with Kingsley in mind, it is now my contention that it is absolutely appropriate to have a hole that I like to call a “little bastard,” and they come in the par-3 and par-4 variety. They beckon, they lure, they tempt, and they can often leave you broken hearted. But they force you to think and to look within yourself: can I pull this shot off? What are the potential consequences? Can I calm down in order to execute! Are there other routes? Holes like this get you juiced; you’re totally engaged! Boring golf is the result of indifference. “Aim for center of the green; two-putt, or maybe one-putt and then on to the next.” Give me the occasional hole that for health reasons my cardiologist would discourage me from making a steady diet. But I’d rather take the meds and play the exciting holes in the same way I pop a daily Lipitor to enjoy the occasional juicy burger! No sprouts, thank you.
I think Mike’s propensity to include the occasional little bastard is itself a throwback to the game when match play was more the norm than counting total strokes. But there is no law I know of that states the scoring average of a short hole must be lower than a longer one.
It was a great time, very memorable, and what fun connecting the faces to the posters. Meeting Dave Schmidt, the inimitable "Shivas." Wow!
