The Plight of Kingsley Club in the Rankings

[Matt_Ward]

Jason:

Beg to differ -- if one has their eyes open you can see quite clearly what Kingsley provides. I don't think it takes five (5) rounds for that to happen although for you that was the case.

You say the "angles" were impossible to figure out. That's not what I derived from my first visit there.

[Jim Colton]

Andy,

  I wasn't focused on the GW ratings because Kingsley hasn't suffered there.  If it is polarizing, then most GW guys must be on one side of the coin.  If polarizing is keeping Kingsley off the GD ratings (and 13th in Michigan would suggest that it's nowhere close), then why is it not hurting Engh?  His courses do very well in the GD relative to the others.  I should probably quit talking about magazine bias before Huck bashes me over the head

Wouldn't it seem then that Kingsley polarizes the Golf Digest panel and Engh polarizes the Golf Week panel. Engh certainly polarizes this group, which seems to follow GW within reasonable proximity.

I'd chalk it up as relative bias.  I think you're missing my point.  Mr. Doak said it was the polarizing nature of Kingsley that was keeping it off of the ratings, Golf Digest being one of them.  I then asked why Engh, which I'd consider to also be polarizing and an acquired taste, could fare well in the very same ratings?  That would suggest that polarizing is not the complete answer.  

Maybe it was Tom's other point, the fact that familarity makes up for polarizing.  Maybe Tom gets away with taking some chances at Ballyneal due to the stature of his prior work, where Devries hasn't earned the benefit or the doubt yet.  Old Mac will likely be very polarizing but will the other 3 courses at Bandon and Doak's name be enough to keep it from Kingsley's plight?   Maybe Engh gets the benefit of the doubt for being bold and taking chances because the people who rate his courses are people who are familiar with his work and know what to expect.  Andy, I'd certainly lump you into the category as someone who likes Engh's work and seeks out his courses.

[Jason Topp]

Jason:

Beg to differ -- if one has their eyes open you can see quite clearly what Kingsley provides. I don't think it takes five (5) rounds for that to happen although for you that was the case.

You say the "angles" were impossible to figure out. That's not what I derived from my first visit there.

Matt - some examples - there are many more

4.  At first I tried to hit tee balls on the ridge in the middle of the fairway.  After leaving one right one round, I came to understand that as long as one was willing to accept blindness, the right side was a much easier shot, particularly in light of the challenge from the left

5.  On a first play I did not understand how strong the kick was from left of the green and that the easiest way to get to a right pin was to play left

8 - the green sloped generally back to front but on this day the hole was just over a small ridge.  From the fairway it looked like the safe play was short of the hole when in fact you were pretty much doomed to a 3 putt if you hit it there.

9 -  From the left tee it looked like a shot could be played to the elbow of the green and then it would feed down to the back right portion of the green.  After experience with the hole it became clear that the margin for error on such a shot was so small and the consequences of missing so severe that it was a sucker play - one was much better off going straight at the pin and playing a bunker shot if necessary


18 - the best way to get to a back right pin was to hit it more towards the center of the green and have it feed there.  No way I could have known that without experience.

Perhaps you can divine all of this stuff the first time around, but I cannot.  

I view that as a strength of a golf course but I think it would be difficult or impossible for a rater to evaluate such stuff with limited exposure.  For this reason, I like to plan trips to play courses multiple times to better understand what I am seeing.

[Andy Troeger]

Jim,
You're taking something that has MANY factors and trying to boil it down to some equation--you can't fit the answer to your question in a box.

The two panels are very different and the courses that polarize them aren't necessarily the same. Maybe 1/8 of the GW panel doesn't care for Engh's style and 1/8 of the GD panel doesn't care for Kingsley. That's more than enough to have a big effect on their placement.

I'm glad you've figured out that I enjoy Engh's courses--to me they are far from an acquired taste.  

[Mike Hendren]

Jason:

Beg to differ -- if one has their eyes open you can see quite clearly what Kingsley provides. I don't think it takes five (5) rounds for that to happen although for you that was the case.

You say the "angles" were impossible to figure out. That's not what I derived from my first visit there.

Matt, you must remember that the great unwashed lack your keen architectural intellect and extensive national body of work - not to mention your legendary prodigious length off the tee and immense cyber charm (I hear you're quite the looker as well).  Like Jason, my opinion of the course was much more favorable the second go round.

Bogey

[Jim Colton]

Jim,
You're taking something that has MANY factors and trying to boil it down to some equation--you can't fit the answer to your question in a box.

The two panels are very different and the courses that polarize them aren't necessarily the same. Maybe 1/8 of the GW panel doesn't care for Engh's style and 1/8 of the GD panel doesn't care for Kingsley. That's more than enough to have a big effect on their placement.

I'm glad you've figured out that I enjoy Engh's courses--to me they are far from an acquired taste.  

Andy,

  I agree there is no one right answer, which is why I said at the outset 'diagnose potential reasons' why Kingsley is doomed in the rankings.  Mr. Doak posed an answer which seemed to make a lot of sense, I was just exploring it further.

 I think your 'taking something that has MANY factors and trying to boil it down to some equation' comment about my diagnosis can also be said about course rating in general.  Might Golf Digest's definitive categories and definitive formula for what makes a golf course great also doom something that is outside the box like Kingsley?

[Matt Dupre]

A theme in these comments is that it's tough to "get" Kingsley in one round, due to the options one faces, as well as the unique features that each hole there seems to have.  My first thought after going through the thread was "Didn't anyone take a caddie?"

I've played Kingsley twice, most recently 3 weeks ago on a rainy, wet afternoon.  My 14-year old and I were the only people on the course, and we each had a caddie. Alex's had just finished his freshman year at Michigan State, and took him under his wing.  The level of conversation - questions and answers - between those two was phenomenal.  Alex bogied 1, doubled 2 (point of pride - I've birdied 2 both times I've played it), and bogied 3.  From there he went even, with birdies on 5 and 16.  And he parred 15.  On every hole, he was given his options, asked some questions about potential next shots, and made a decision - and came away saying Kingsley was his absolute new favorite golf course (I think even ahead of Rolling Green  )  

If people, whether raters or not, don't understand the quality of Kingsley I think they're of a certain mindset that most likely couldn't be changed with dynamite.

One short anecdote - on 16, with a front pin, A.J. told Alex to hit it about 20 yards right, into the hill. His reaction was fun to watch, but he did as instructed and watched his ball bound left and roll to 2 feet below the hole.  I hit too much club, and left it on top of the hill - hello 4.  I hit a second ball with one less club, it hit the hill and rolled left to 2 feet above the hole.  What absolute fun!

[Andy Troeger]

 I think your 'taking something that has MANY factors and trying to boil it down to some equation' comment about my diagnosis can also be said about course rating in general.  Might Golf Digest's definitive categories and definitive formula for what makes a golf course great also doom something that is outside the box like Kingsley?

The categories certainly have some effect and you make a fair point about ratings. I don't know that there's any reason to believe the categories hurt a course like Kingsley, however. They certainly did not in my rating. It really boils down to some Digest raters not liking the course for whatever reason.

[Matt_Ward]

Bogey:

I'm just amazed that Digest has completely fumbled the ball in regards to The Kingsley Club.

I mean the layout has been around for quite some time and Digest and its esteemed raters are way off track given what Ron Whitten has written so positively about the place.

No doubt multiple visits can help discern things for others -- I just saw what the place offered and see it as an absolute minimum top 50 layout in the USA -- irrespective of category.

Be curious to know how many times you have played the place and what elements were missing from your initial visit that you gained from a second go round there?

Thanks ...

Jason:

Fair enough for you.

I see Kingsley as a dropdead winner and it simply started for me right at the 1st tee and what is called upob from that moment forward.

No doubt playing a course multiple times can help provide even more perspective. Sometimes ratings are too high from one visit or too low on the reverse side of things.

One final thing -- no doubt the analysis you provided comes from what YOUR game is capable in producing. Clearly, that can change with different people and with what they can do from a shotmaking perspective. Thanks for your take ...

[Mike Hendren]

Bogey:

Be curious to know how many times you have played the place...?

Ah yes, again you bait the reknowned Wardian trap for the unwary who have not played multiple rounds extensively throughout the United States -reflecting either a lack of means or golf course architecural acumen!

I'll bite anyway.  Two rounds there over two days.  Initially, I did not care for the fact that I hit the same club on three of the short holes, thought the 9th was gimmicky and was extremely disappointed that the 16th doesn't function as a redan.  I also found the split fairway on the 17th to be irrelevant and thought the 15th's small build-up green ruined what could have been one of the greatest par fours in modern golf course architecture.  I thought the 12th was a fantastic transition/contrasting golf hole but found the driving area a little restrictive.  

While I continue to believe some of those criticisms are legitimate, the second round allowed me to check some of my biases favoring golden age architecture at the first tee - which opened my mind to the course's strengths.  For one, I don't consider the 9th to be gimmicky at all.  I'm not sure the 12th needs a wider landing area, but I saw very tee shots leaving playable seconds.  Also, the green with the crescent drop-off on the right side is absolutely brilliant.  

Like you, I absolutely love the first hole, both visually and for the demands it places on the golfer right out of the gate.  

All that said, after one round I thought it was a good golf course.  After the second I thought it was very good - I find its ranking on the Golfweek modern (#20) list to be about right.

Also, for those that don't know, I'm teasing Matt because frankly, he deserves it.   His premise that the magazine dropped the ball in omitting Kingsley from the list is on the money.

Kindest regards,

Bogey

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

First of all I love Kingsley..have told Mike at every opportunity how much I love the course.
All the negative comments I have heard are the same...those greens are way too severe...same answer every time I get a negative feedback on the course.
Some people just dont appreciate Mackenzie like greens and as such turn a blind eye the rest of the architecture....

These same people are usually very fond of Fazio courses, which I then ask dont you find them rather similar?
"yes...that is why we like them"

what can you say to that?

[Joe Hancock]

I don't think there is that strong of a Kingsley/ MacKenzie=negative and a Fazio/ flatter greens=positive correlation.

Some who have voiced negative comments have articulated them well(Bogey, for just one good example) and had some basis for their observations/ feelings. It promotes worthy discussion and a chance to either explain or persuade or learn some of the psychological things that get to a golfer.

You can't build something like Kingsley and have it be what it is without some constructive criticism. But, you can build something that evokes almost zero emotion or criticism.

Joe

[Mike_Young]

I have played Kingsley 3 times now and enjoy the course.  I can appreciate it's architecture and at the same time see where GD raters may have issues but so what....with all due respect I would sum up my feelings of the course by using a racetrack analogy...it may be that conditions are too fast for the track sometimes...and the quirk can really frustrate some really good players ( one guy that played with me had been a tour player and was freaked)
But now after having read all fo Bob Crosby's writing on Joshua Crane.....I want to know what he would have said
Mike

[Tim Bert]

Bogey

Question for you re:15 given that I think your initial impression is probably the more popular opinion. What stands out to you about #15 that would make it one of the great modern par 4s in golf if the green were different?  Also, do you think the hole would be better with a large, receptive green and if so why?

I ask because I am one that thinks the green is just right. You can get in the general vicinity of that green in two, but you should never expect to be on.  It places the demand on the up and down to earn your par, even for strong golfers - a challenge that I don't think is issued enough.  I sure wouldn't want every long par 4 to play this way, but this one hit the mark in my book.

Doing anything to expand or make the green more receptive turns the hole into a more typical, ho-hum long par 4 in my opinion.

Your thoughtful reply is anticipated.

Tim

[Joe Hancock]

Tim,

If I may.....

The first time I saw 15 was before I had spent exhaustive time w DeVries(which, as it turns out, ALL time spent with him is exhaustive). I was coming up #15 and I saw a wide corridor cut through the trees. Instead of seeing the green positioned in the middle of the corridor, as you would expect to see on almost every hole ever built, here was this tiny green squashed all the way over to the right edge of the clearing. It has since changed looks, due to some tree removal necessary for fescue health. But, man, did that ever get my attention, and make me re-think things. It also was a very clear signal as to what Mike was telling you to do(or not) with your approach to this small green.

That, I think, is one of the hallmarks of Kingsley. it turns convention on its cranium, and therefore makes the golfer use his/ hers.

Thanks for letting me butt in,

Joe

[Mike Hendren]

Tim,

Fair question.  For one thing, a low profile green at the 15th would have been a nice contrast to the elevated greens at the 17th and 18th - two other lengthy two-shotters.  What green configuration fits better in a natural punchbowl than - a punchbowl.   Maybe toss in a couple of bunkers crossing the fairway 30 yards short of the green.  Alternatively, how about the ability to work a fade off the natural slope left of the existing green around a fronting bunker (and perhaps directly over a bunker 50 yards short of the green - resulting in a hole that favors a draw off the tee and fade into the green?  Perhaps nice nader and redan short requirements back-to-back.

I thought the existing green wasted one of the best natural green sites I've seen.

Bogey

[Tim Bert]

Thanks for the counterpoint.

My feeling was that Kingsley had enough natural greens on several of the nicest, natural green sites I've seen anywhere throughout the course to allow for one that proudly stuck its middle finger up at you and said, "Hit me, I dare you."

I love the current version, though I'm sure your version would have been nice too.  If only your proposal had eliminated the lone tree on the right side of the fairway I would have been on board.

[Chris_Clouser]

Michael Wharton-Palmer,

Not all of the criticism has to deal with the greens.  Here is the paragraph where I noted the things that I thought might be criticisms of the course.  I did mention the greens on 2 and 9, but there was a lot of other stuff there. 

I personally enjoyed the course a great deal and was very thankful to play with Mike DeVries and Brad Klein on my one visit, but there were several parts of the course that I thought were not as great as others.  The stretch of 10 through 12 I think is a good stretch of holes but it is not world-class for lack of a better term.  I think the width of the fairways on some holes is almost too wide.  The options on several of the holes, like 1 and 14, are not something that benefit a person that doesn't hit the ball a long way off of the tee.  Then you throw in the controversial nature of holes like 2 and 9.  There are a lot of things there that can seperate a very good course from being a great course in the eyes of a rater.

[Chip Gaskins]

I just played it a couple of weeks ago and thought it was fantastic.  Intiality my only beef was the 15th green and having to hit a 4 iron onto that table top made #14 at Bandon Trails look easy.  However after some time to think back on, the flat area to the left of the green is ok and like someone earlier said, one hole per round that really makes you hit a perfect shot to be on in regualation is probably fine.

As for the rest of the course it was fantastic.  We had the back left pin on #9 which was really fun....hey, its only 145 yards.

Obviously several holes reminded me of Crystal Downs (#5, #12) which was the intent I realize.

Wow, how good is #2!

What does everyone think of that #13 green.  Our pin was in the bowl and with only a 20 year chip it was pretty easy.  However if they ever put the pin back left you couldn't finish the hole.

By the way, what are all those yellow pointy shrubs in the rough?  Are they native?

Long story short, fantastic place.  Minimalism don't well.

[Matt_Ward]

Bogey:

E-Z does it partner -- no "Wardian" trap meant at all. Just a simple question to find out how many times you have played the course.

You make a fair point on the club selection for the shorter holes. No doubt the pins can be stretched to certain locations ditto the tees to provide a bit more elasticity.

I really like the 15th because it forces the player to demonstrate serious ball-striking abilities -- now if the course had several of these types of holes that would be a bit on the overkill dimension.

In regards to the 12th -- it's only "restrictive" for those who need a fairway comparable to the 1st at TOC. No doubt you have softened that position somewhat with your second round there.

I thought the 12th was a fantastic transition/contrasting golf hole but found the driving area a little restrictive. 

We agree on the 1st -- superb opening hole that ooozes strategic implications with each shot.

The rating from Golfweek are good but the course could be a bit higher with a few of the ones above it lowered (see the likes of Bandon Trails, Whistling Straits, to name just two).

Chris:

Spot on with the thumbs down on #10 thru #12. Good holes but not certainly equal to what has been played or what follows. Clearly takes the course down a bit.

[Andy Troeger]

Interestingly I really liked #12. Its perhaps not the most strategic hole on the course but I loved the way it tumbled down the hill. I liked the green site as well.

[JC Jones]

Tim,

Fair question.  For one thing, a low profile green at the 15th would have been a nice contrast to the elevated greens at the 17th and 18th - two other lengthy two-shotters.  What green configuration fits better in a natural punchbowl than - a punchbowl.   Maybe toss in a couple of bunkers crossing the fairway 30 yards short of the green.  Alternatively, how about the ability to work a fade off the natural slope left of the existing green around a fronting bunker (and perhaps directly over a bunker 50 yards short of the green - resulting in a hole that favors a draw off the tee and fade into the green?  Perhaps nice nader and redan short requirements back-to-back.

I thought the existing green wasted one of the best natural green sites I've seen.

Bogey

Bogey,

First of all, I dont think you've signed up for the Dixie cup yet and I think that is BS.

Now, on to the GCA:

Regarding 15, I think the present design does, in fact, require a draw off the tee and a fade into the green.  I think the draw is necessary to get max distance, which you need, and I think a fade is the best/only way to get at and hold that green.

With respect to the punch bowl with the cross bunkers 30-50 yards short of the green.  I think that is predictable and obvious at best.  Two things Kingsley is not.  Also, the bunkers would eliminate any chance for the shorter hitter to run a shot up to chipping range with a fairway metal and also require them to hit a 30-50 yard bunker shot in stead of a chip shot.  For the long hitter, the bunkers would be a non-factor and the punch bowl would allow for errant 4-6 iron shots to be rewarded as they'd all funnel down to the green/pin.

While I agree that it was a great natural punch bowl site, having the restraint to not do the obvious is the genius that is Mike DeVries.  (as an aside, I'm willing to pay him that compliment b/c I dont think he'll read this thread.  In the off chance he does, I think Mike DeVries is a buffoon ).

Anyways, thats my opinion, back to you.

[Mike Hendren]

JC, well stated.  I know the cognoscenti crave the unconventional - in the case of the 15th a long hole with a smallish green requiring all carry on the approach.  That said, when the Good Lord gives an archie a natural punchbowl, both He and I have expectations that it will be used!  Imagine the existing bunker clusters in the driving area of either 1 or 17.  Not put a similar cluster smack dab in the middle of the fairway at the 15th about 50 yards out and think of the thrill every level of player has in attempting a direct carry over it with absolutely no idea where the ball has finished on the green.  I don't think this would change the half-par nature of the hole at all.  

My image of the hole and its functioning as revised is as vivid as my computer screen.

I should add that the hole is brilliantly routed and I am particularly fond of a hole that transitions from a broad expanse into a narrow shute.  The 14th at Cypress Point Club also comes to mind.  

BTW, I can't make the Dixie Cup this year.  It remains a little known fact that I coined the term, however.

Bogey

I'm a member of a country club.
Country music is what I love.
I drive an old Ford pickup truck.
I do my drinking from a Dixie Cup.
-Travis Tritt

[Tim Bert]

That said, when the Good Lord gives an archie a natural punchbowl, both He and I have expectations that it will be used!

Mike - He used it.  You can only have so much punch in one afternoon.

[Paul_Turner]

Hey Bogey Hendren

You hit one of the lowest balls I can remember, I'm mean knee high on a midget...Kingsley looks tough for that kind of shot, always bouncing off hills and careening off into the fescue?  Is it more undulating than SHGC?