The Kingsley Club vs. Crystal Downs - A Matchplay Event

[Jason Thurman]

Round 5

I'm having a hard time coming up with the correct boxing comparison for the fifth at Crystal Downs. The closest I can come is Roy Jones. It's a little undersized, but technically flawless and with plenty of showmanship to boot. The problem with the comparison is that in this battle, it's the fifth at Kingsley that feels like it's moved up a weight class or three in this round. Roy could do that with surprising success. The fifth at Kingsley makes a valiant effort, but comes up well short.

It's a good par 3. As Tim mentions, it's fun to watch a ball disappear over the hill and then release across the green. There are some pretty cool recovery shots available from around the green as balls can funnel to a few sections of the green. It's a good hole.

Of course, it's matched up with a transcendent one. The fifth at Crystal Downs is a referendum in how golf architecture should work. It has width, in the form of multiple lines of play and options off the tee. Then again, it has enough of a premium on well thought out shots that a poorly thought out or poorly struck tee shot can easily end up in an awful position. It has blindness, but the three sisters give an artful aiming aid. It's short enough to be playable for all, and yet the green somehow is more accommodating to a longer, lower running shot from the right side of the fairway than it is for a high wedge from the line taken by a longer hitter making the bolder play. From my limited perspective, it's a technically flawless hole with unquestionable appeal.

It's a knockdown. The fifth at Crystal dominates this round.

1st round: CD wins 10 - 9
2nd round: KC wins 10 - 9
3rd round: KC wins 10 - 9
4th round: CD wins 10 - 9
5th round: CD wins 10 - 8

Running Total: CD 48, KC 46

[DMoriarty]

Jud, I'm fond of the 6th at PD as well.  But let me clarify that i am not looking for easy ups and downs.  I'd just like to keep golfing my ball.  As Don said, three may be out of play, but how about a chance at a five?  On a windy day, I don't think the hole makes sense.  Does the wind never blow at Kingsley?  That isn't my recollection of my brief time there, but maybe I am mistaken.  And maybe if I played it 10 or 20 times my view would change.  I doubt it though because I really didn't like what seemed to me to be contrived green shaping, and that usually sticks with me. I am absolutely sure that defensive complaints about how I am "whining" won't change my view.  

Same goes for some of the rest of the comments. If you guys didn't want disparate opinions maybe you should keep the discussions to your locker room.  Or at the very least you shouldn't have asked for opinions.

Nos. 2 and 9 are controversial for a reason. Some love them, some don't. (I like one more than other.) That doesn't mean they are objectively bad holes.  Some (like MacKenzie) might argue that this a good sign for a newer hole.   The comments are not personal.   All this defensiveness and posturing probably isn't going to change anyone's opinion.

[Jason Thurman]

I doubt it though because I really didn't like what seemed to me to be contrived green shaping, and that usually sticks with me. I am absolutely sure that defensive complaints about how I am "whining" won't change my view.  

This comment is interesting to me. My understanding is that very little of Kingsley's green contours were shaped. And yet, I also felt at times like they didn't sit as easily on the land as might have been expected. The result was a few putts or pitches in every round that seemed too severe. There's a fine line between requiring skill and creating hit-and-hope, and Kingsley might have more hit-and-hope putts than any course I've played.

Maybe there's something to be learned from some of those greens about the importance of shaping the right amount of dirt within a minimalistic philosophy. Granted, some will disagree and think the severity is part of what makes the course great. Others will no doubt think that Crystal Downs is more severe around the greens than Kingsley. But personally, I didn't find that to be the case. The greens at Crystal Downs felt more nuanced to me, and probably harder to read. But the greens at Kingsley seemed more difficult.

[John Kirk]

The 5th hole at Crystal Downs is as hard a fairway wood, sand wedge hole I have played.  So weird and awkward.   If you've got 100 yards left from the right rough, you're grateful.  The green slopes away.  The vibe is very good.

The 5th hole at Kingsley is a great variant of the Punchbowl design.  Only a good shot ends up in the bowl.  Holding the high left side for a left pin takes a very good shot, usually a drawn long iron.  The vibe here is also great, as all players on the course tend to quiet themselves to allow players to putt out on #1 and #5.

Good comparison.

[Tim Bert]

David - We don't really have a locker room so this is the best place to have the conversations.

My goal isn't to change anyone's opinion. That's very difficult when it comes to golf course architecture as it is a very personal matter.  But I think the severity comments are overplayed and frequently come from limited plays. Just as I expect Tom to put me in my place when I try to enunciate why 10 and 11 at Crystal Downs are impossibly severe I am not going to sit back and leave the holes undefended. I am not trying to win an argument; I just feel that 2 and 9 get a bad reputation from limited plays as both are subject to blowups but are also very manageable when one attempts to limit the damage as opposed to trying to get the hole back in one shot after a misplay.

[DMoriarty]

Jason, I agree with your overall impressions about the greens at Kingsley.  I've often heard about how little dirt was moved at Kingsley and I don't doubt it, but green shaping isn't really about hauling dirt.  IMO some of the greens seemed manipulated in a way that didn't fit my eye.   Crystal Downs might have an issue with green speeds matching the greens, but aside from that the green shaping at CD is far preferable to my eye.

Tim, Out of respect for the thread, I'm done talking about the 9th at least until we get there.

[JC Jones]

Great, make a few comments about 2 & 9 and now it is whining and somehow that is turned into saying that Kingsley is more severe then CD.

I love Kingsley, have said so many times, and while I don't have 10 rounds in (5-6 I believe) I know what I think and I tried to lay it out in a reasoned way, but obviously I've touched a nerve by having the gall to have an opinion.

Carry on Kingsley members, you should close out CD by the 15th.

Oh come on, Don, don't run to being flippant and dismissive because you got a little push back.  Especially since the two people who addressed your posts directly are not Kingsley members.

Your comments on difficulty are interesting and warranted.  I dont think the "whining" comment was directed at you so much as one of the great GCA.com hypocrisies known as the "sacred cow hypocrisy". I mean, OMG, isnt Yale so cool with its bold features, lack of walkability and 200+ yard carries even for high handicappers !!!

This thread was started and has been commented on by people who are not members of either course and who love them both.  I don't think it is necessary to paint this thread like others have as by, of and for Kingsley members as if the fact that the courses are being compared is, in and of itself, insulting to the learned's intelligence.

Moriarty,

I too love Crystal's greens.  Maxwell was a master at creating interesting greens, even if I've played ping pong on a few of them a time or two.

[Jud_T]

David and Don,

Your opinions are encouraged.  Yes there are severe spots at Kingsley.  The only one that really pushes the envelope IMO is the East side of #9.  Certainly the look of that hole is a bit jarring, but there's no point at which you can't golf your ball, it just may not be toward the pin (so by definition David, you therefore think 17 at Sawgrass is the worst par 3 ever designed?)  As mentioned much of the consternation of these holes comes from lack of familiarity and an assumption of a certain innate right to attain the par on the card.  I expect similar grumbling about 15.  Kingsley may be a course that's taken me the longest to get comfortable with and figure out.  In fact I'm still learning things 100+ rounds in.  Only 3 weeks ago I learned how to putt back down to a front pin on 17 from above the hole. Isn't that a good thing for a member's club?  I had similar feelings about 14 at Bandon Trails the first time I played it when I came into the hole with a career round going and walked off with an X.  One could argue that type of hole makes less sense at a daily fee course like BT that many only get to play once or twice.  I have a funny feeling that it might eventually be my favorite hole there, that is if they don't soften the green into oblivion before I get enough rounds in.

P.S.  Speaking of severity, how about #11 at CD to a front pin with the green running 11+?  I hit what I thought was a great tee shot that ended up slightly above the hole on the right fringe.  Needless to say I ended up picking up on the hole.

[Mark Bourgeois]

I dont think the "whining" comment was directed at you so much as one of the great GCA.com hypocrisies known as the "sacred cow hypocrisy". I mean, OMG, isnt Yale so cool with its bold features, lack of walkability and 200+ yard carries even for high handicappers !!!

JC,

It sounds like you're implying Kingsley isn't the GCA.com sacred cow in this discussion.  

[JC Jones]

I dont think the "whining" comment was directed at you so much as one of the great GCA.com hypocrisies known as the "sacred cow hypocrisy". I mean, OMG, isnt Yale so cool with its bold features, lack of walkability and 200+ yard carries even for high handicappers !!!

JC,

It sounds like you're implying Kingsley isn't the GCA.com sacred cow in this discussion.  

I assure you, as compared to Crystal Downs, it is not.  This is now your 3rd or 4th post on this thread without any substantive discussion just implication that this comparison is not a serious one.

[Buck Wolter]

Reading the comments on No. 2 make me think that I may be misremembering the hole.  Isn't there a very steep collection area on the short right side?  Is this area still maintained as shortish grass?

I believe this area has been softened considerably using rough to keep balls from running all the way down -- still a tricky up and down especially to a front pin but much easier than a tight lie from the bottom of the collection area. I think that's been done but around 9 and 13 greens as well.

[Don_Mahaffey]

JC,
I have Kingsley in my top 25, and if I'm in N MI, I'll never pass on an opportunity to play. Come play Wolf Point and you'll see that I don't mind difficult or severe.

But I think the difficulty/recoverability quotient is easy to skew, and it is a little out of whack on a couple of holes at Kingsley.

[Mark Bourgeois]

JC,

You're accusing me of declaring the comparison not a serious one. My objection has zero to do with the comparison. Zero.

[Jud_T]

One thing about this thread.  My desire to get back out to the Downs has increased dramatically as a result.

[JC Jones]

JC,

You're accusing me of declaring the comparison not a serious one. My objection has zero to do with the comparison. Zero.

Why do you have an objection?  Why do you care?  Why post on thread just to tell people you have an objection to the thread?

[Tim Bert]

Reading the comments on No. 2 make me think that I may be misremembering the hole.  Isn't there a very steep collection area on the short right side?  Is this area still maintained as shortish grass?

I believe this area has been softened considerably using rough to keep balls from running all the way down -- still a tricky up and down especially to a front pin but much easier than a tight lie from the bottom of the collection area. I think that's been done but around 9 and 13 greens as well.

As Buck said this area used to be maintained as shorter grass for a bigger area. There is now some light rough that balls feed to but most don't run all the way past the bunker or down to the path.

[JC Jones]

JC,
I have Kingsley in my top 25, and if I'm in N MI, I'll never pass on an opportunity to play. Come play Wolf Point and you'll see that I don't mind difficult or severe.

But I think the difficulty/recoverability quotient is easy to skew, and it is a little out of whack on a couple of holes at Kingsley.

I have no doubt you love Kingsley.  This discussion, for me, has never been about love vs dislike as I dearly love both if these courses.  No course is perfect.  I never took your comments as a dislike of Kingsley, just really interesting points about the difficulty that I wanted to explore more with you.

The only comment I found out of character was your last one

[JC Jones]

One thing about this thread.  My desire to get back out to the Downs has increased dramatically as a result.

It should never have been anything less than 100%!!!!  It is one of the greatest courses on the planet.

[Joe Hancock]

If nothing else, the passion and personal involvement in this discussion proves that you are comparing two courses that are of such quality that they do evoke passion and personal involvement.

Joe

[Mark Bourgeois]

JC,

Because I have a genuine interest in understanding the relative merits of each course and especially in what ways Kingsley might be its designer's reply to CD. Just as you have employed counter-memes to blunt the impact of what you perceive to be CD's sacred cow status I employed a meme in hope of countering homerism.

I guess we want the same thing but maybe I'm asking too much of this thread. You will disagree but I interpret threads like this, where a GCA.com favorite is put up in a "competition" against a more-known opponent, not so much as discussion but as triumphalism beneath a thin veneer of "discussion"  for faux objectivity. As evidence I cite both Don's and David's apparent feelings they were being piled on.

Kingsley for me hasn't yet slipped into that place where Deal and Dismal reside, namely where absolutely nothing written about them on this board is to be trusted, but it's getting there.

I am not saying I am right, I am just trying to communicate why I feel this way about threads like this - this is not the only one.

EDIT: I will leave my words above as-is but I overstated the "absolutely nothing written" comment. I just mean I don't trust "competition"-type threads / posts where the course / club / hole / feature is put up as "the greatest," "better than," "top XX," etc. Different story when someone's writing about the details of a hole or course, the history, etc. I enjoy homerism for homerism's sake, for example reading Sean Arble on Pennard or Noel Freeman on Deal: I can't get enough of that.

[Bart Bradley]

The  "passion" on this thread is making me tired,

The fifth hole at Crystal is flat out confusing the first time around.  It is visually awkward as the best landing area is blind.  The green has as much side slope as almost any I have played (similar to 14 on my home course The Olde Farm for any who have played there).  At high green speeds, the green is too canted but the architecture itself is fabulous.

As an interlude, I think this form of comparing courses makes it much more challenging to include thoughts about how well the course maintenance as a whole compliments or detracts from the architecture.  Overall I think Kingsley's meld is much more flattering of its architecture.  This format simply allows for hole by hole comparison.

The 5th at Kingsley is fun, a real blast.  Balls rattle around within the bowl and often can be seen rolling towards the flag.  Generally the exact results are hidden until you arrive at the green.   Serendipidity plays a very large role in the results and many less than crisply struck shots will end up with excellent results.  Oddly disparate (or balancing out) the other par 3 experiences.  Kingsley 5 may be the best proof that FUN cannot be the only criteria for GREAT architecture.  

In match play, solid Crystal win.  In 10 point must, 10-8 Crystal...

Total CD 2 up, or up 3 points.

Bart

[Jud_T]

Mark,

Knowing the guys at Kingsley as I do, I have yet to see an instance of anyone shilling for the course on this thread.  If anything there's a number of very knowledgeable members who are NOT posting for fear of being accused of homerism, which is a pity.  Personally I'm quite secure with the quality of Kingsley and will happily give the match to CD if warranted.  We're only 5 holes in and I've already stated that 2 of the holes at KC are IMO overrated by many, at least on a relative basis.  As JC suggests, no one is against a detailed discussion of the pros and cons of the course but rather the flippant OTT comments of the wham-bam-thank you mam crowd.  I can only hope I don't fall into the same trap via-vis CD.  The difference is I know I need to get back out to the Downs and have a ton to still learn about the place.

[Josh Tarble]

If nothing else, the passion and personal involvement in this discussion proves that you are comparing two courses that are of such quality that they do evoke passion and personal involvement.

Joe

Joe, you are exactly right...I only started the thread because I love both courses.  I'm trying to be as unbiased as possible and the only thing I care about is perhaps being invited back to play them both.  I think I know which one is going to win, but I would not have started this thread if I didn't think it was closer than most people (or rankings) suspect.

I know people are passionate about both courses, and sometimes passion (like sarcasm) can come across poorly on the internet.

[Josh Tarble]

One thing about this thread.  My desire to get back out to the Downs has increased dramatically as a result.

Jud, I'm glad to hear that...all I want to showcase with this thread is how brilliant BOTH courses are.  I could have just done hole by hole comparisons or made a 15,000 word post, but that's boring.

[Jason Thurman]

Mark, in all fairness, I think you should withhold judgment for a few more holes. Even Tom Doak, who considers Crystal Downs one of about a dozen "10s" in the world and is a member there, believes that the courses are relatively even through four holes.

I do suspect the comparison may suffer over the next few holes, but I'd be interested to hear others' opinions that suggest otherwise. Don't fall into the trap of thinking there's anything about golf course design that isn't subjective, outside of perhaps drainage.

The Beatles arguably made 5 of the 10 best albums of all time according to raters, and yet I don't know more than one or two people whose favorite album is a Beatles album. It's a bit scary to me how much the average GCAer's preferences tend to align with published ratings and rankings. It's nice that there are cult classics floating around like Kingsley that are harder to pin down. I just hope the Kingsley fans can respond with reason when their course comes under legitimate criticism, and that their reasoning is treated with the same legitimacy as a magazine ranking or a paragraph in the Confidential Guide.

I have a great fear of how many people seem to believe that their opinions are actually correct, and a bigger fear of people who can't  discuss why.