The Kingsley Club vs. Lost Dunes

[T_MacWood]

Geoffrey
It is little too narrow and claustraphobic for me....the major tree factor is a little out of character for the course. I suspect Ran's draw/hook might magnify the tightness and tree factor.

Also when faced by a side embankment like the one at the twelth, it is my experience that one naturally tends to drift in that direction...even if I over do it the hill will hopefully bring the ball back toward the fairway...true or not that is normally your thinking (especially when faced with thick trees or out of bonds on the opposite side.)

I wonder it there had been room, if the architect might have made an expanded left side the preferred spot by orienting the green toward that side, perhaps moving it slightly to the right. I suspect most would still favor the more visually comfortable right, but then would be faced with a more difficult approach.

[GeoffreyC]

Tom



I thought there was ample room in the landing area on #12 although I agree that removing lots of trees and creating more angles would be advantageous. However, do that and the hillside and tall fescues to the right side would seem to be the more hazardous route by far. Why reward that with a better angle from the left?  Moving the green to the right would seem to require moving a lot of earth from the hillside. Doesn't that greensite sit so naturally in the area between the hills?  The left hillside around the green as it is currently situated really affects play from the left side of the fairway or short rough.  Moving it would negate that natural hazard.

I like the hole.

[Matt_Ward]

Mr. Sturges:

I've pointed out my reasons why I like TKC THAT MUCH. You seem to take the position that I don't like Lost Dunes. That is not the case nor have I said that. I just don't have the course ahead of Kingsley. By the way -- Digest does have impact in the golf industry -- you might think otherwise but it does.

Yes, I have played a good deal of courses that I would put at the 8 level (Doak scale) and it would take no less than to crack my personal top 100. I see Lost Dunes as a 7.

At the end of the day you and I look at these two courses much differently. Nothing wrong with that -- I've explained my position -- you disagree with it. Let's move on now.

Paul:

Let's get real man. You give TKC no points on the back nine. Surley you jest!

[NAF]

This is a description of the 14th at Shinnecock:

From an elevated tee, players must launch their drives over a formidable stretch of prickly scrub to reach an island-like fairway nestled in a narrow valley. Steep-faced bunkers lurk along both sides of the landing area. The hole doglegs gently to the right beyond the landing area, climbing past a smattering of pines to a circular green, its flanking bunkers pulled well back from the putting surface. The green, like most of the greens at Shinnecock, is open in front and will accept a low, running shot. Played downwind, the usual scenario, it is not the hardest hole on the course, but neither is it the easiest. Directly into the wind or even into a crosswind, the 14th plays as a par five for most members.

Scratch the bunkers and doesnt this seem to be very similar to the 12th at the KC.

[Nick_Christopher]

NAF,

I agree with you on the 18th at Kingsley.  I don't understand why people talk of it as a let down.  The rolling fairway and approach are both great and a ton of fun.  With the pin in the back the temptation to carry the bunker on the right is tremendous, or you can play a draw in to the front part of the green and hope it slinshots it to the back near the hole.  Or just lay up and chip and putt for par.  I think there are a number of strategic options on the approach that make it a great finishing hole, especially if the match is still on the line.  

[T.J. Sturges]

To Nick,

My position on the 18th @ TKC would be that it isn't a great finishing hole.  Ran and I came to the 18th with our match on the line and one of us hit wedge and the other hit sand wedge.  With no real trouble off the tee, it's just an easier hole than I would like to see for the 18th.  I do like the green complex and I think the approach shot is fun to hit.  

To Matt,

Disagree with you on Golf Digest.  Not much in that rag of value anymore beyond the ads.  And...it seems especially weak on architecure.  Their top 100 in the US list is probably the most famous (wasn't it the first?), but it has been an embarassing list over the years.  

[Joe Hancock]

TJ,

You guys hit wedge/ sand wedge into 18 @ KC?...Y'all may want to consider a different set of tees to play from!  

Joe

[Matt_Ward]

Mr. Sturges:

My point with Golf Digest is a simple one -- the perception (that's what counts) is that the pub still is thee golf publication of record. Look, I don't doubt that the magazine has lost a bit of its fastball -- the ratings aspect is just one of my concerns -- but in the magazine business (something I am acquainted with) the notion of "perception" is often more important than the reality. The same point you raise can be applied to Sports Illustrated but it's still the magazine with the perception of being the leading sports chronicler in the USA.

The broader issue with panels is that very few of them have the kind of people necessary to bring forward the "new" courses of substance minus the obvious candidates such as Sand Hills, Pac & Bandon Dunes, etc, etc. I strongly believe The Kingsley Club was a major omission on the part of the GD ratings panel even though the chief architectural critic (Mr. Whitten) was right on target with his analysis. Where is the discussion on Ocean Hammock (Fl), Olde Kinderhook (NY), Black Mesa (NM), Paa-Ko Ridge, etc, etc.

You don't need an army of people for sufficient coverage of courses in the USA. You do need people who have an open mind and are fully capable in going to the places that are creating legitimate "buzz." I said this before -- at best 25% of any ratings panel has people of substance and an eye for detail -- the rest are simply clogging the process with uninformed opinions or narrow agendas -- some are also no more than regional raters even though they have the tag of "national" next to their name -- or worse yet they pose clear conflicts of interest IMHO.

[T.J. Sturges]

To Matt:

I think we may have just agreed on something.  It has been beat to death here previously, but any panel with more than 30 or 40 people on it is sure to include a significant amount of "know nothings".  

To JHancock:

We played the tips.  I suppose we could have teed off from 11 green, but not sure what else to do...

It may not be the prevailing wind there, but the day we played (36) the wind was out of the north.

TS

[Joe Hancock]

TJ,

A W/SW wind would be more normal during northern Michigan's golf season. You just hit #18 on a short day!

Joe

[Paul Richards]

Matt:

Sadly, I do not jest.

The back nine at TKC is SOOOOO disappointing after how AWESOME the front nine is.

If TKC had 18 holes like the front, it would be a top 10 modern course.

[Paul Richards]

sorry, I should have "Surely, I do not jest."

[NAF]

Paul,

Why do you reckon holes like #13, 14, 15 and 16 are letdowns from the front?  I'll agree the terrain is much different here than on the linkish front but the above holes all have unique features which make them fun to play with either great greens or interesting strategy.  I for one like #12 and 17,18 as well.  While I agree the front 9 is the better half, the same goes for Crystal Downs, in fact the playing characteristics of both courses are similar (open on the front, wooded on the back) and CD doesnt get downgraded for that.  Perhaps it is the Dr. Mac/Maxwell pedigree.  I was not let down at all by the routing.

[T_MacWood]

Noel
I'm not sure what the problem is with the back either...there seem to be a number of 1st class holes that would standout on most any course.

The 12th did not remind of the 14th at Shinnecock Hills. The 14th in my mind is one of the great natural holes I've run across...it fits so well into the valley. Even if you took away the bunkers, tee, green and fairway...the land would still look like a perfect golf hole...snaking through that depression.

I guess the right side of the 12th is somewhat similar...but the slope is more severe/steeper IMO and the left is more or less a wall of trees. I guess a half 14th if anything, but much more confined with those trees encroaching on the left. The greens also sits differently. Comparing any hole to 14th is tough you have to admit.

[GeoffreyC]

#14 at Shinnecock Hills

[T.J. Sturges]

Paul,

I think your comment about the front nine and back nine at TKC (and LD) is off base.  While I like several holes on the front nine @ TKC, you may need to arrange another visit to the front 9 @ LD.  As Tom MacWood noted, there's some pretty neat stuff on the front @ LD (especially the 1st 7!!).

And, I think you snub the last nine @ TKC.  I think 13 and 16 are fantastic golf holes.  What is not to like about those 2? (and 15 is a pretty neat hole as well!).

TS

[NAF]

Tom,

Where I see the similarities to my eye are as follows:

1) Both holes sit naturally in a narrow valley
2) Both holes have native grass growing on a sloped hillside on the right
3) Both holes demand a well struck tee shot that does not go too far left but yet can't flirt with the native rough in the right
4) Both look and are fun to play

I could be wrong, obviously they are not the same especially because of the bunkering but the way they sit in their respective valley's makes the look similar to moi.

I agree comparing anything to the all world 14th is tough but I think Mike DV just fit a golf hole to the land and I find that an inexplicable factor in wonderful golf holes.

[George Pazin]

Thanks for posting the photos, Geoffrey.

Great discussion everyone.

[T.J. Sturges]

Thanks for the picture of the 14th @ SHGC.  Look above at the picture of the 12th @ TKC.  It certainly presents an interesting contrast to those 2 golf holes.  (and I for one do not think the holes are at all similar).

TS

[GeoffreyC]

I think there are features of the two holes that are quite similar but especially in the natural flow through the saddle, the angled fairway and the concept if you will of the drive and approach.

I like the angle of the tee shot better at SH and the two pictures suggest to me that a new tee off to the right a bit at #12 at KC would strengthen the hole.  

I like the greensite a bit better at KC believe it or not! The little natural hillside on the left works better for me then the bunkers at SH and teh swale and falloff to the right of the green created a bit more short game interest.

[RSLivingston_III]

Taking about the 12th, did anyone notice the old routing map in the club house with the bunkers on the right hill side under the 13th green? Very interesting.....

Paul- would you help me get Rick to Kingsley? He needs to see it and I want to change your mind about the back nine. It was fun playing in Rick's Ross event at Beverly yesterday.

Ralph

[Matt_Ward]

Paul:

You need to really analyze The Kinglsey Club before saying the back nine is some sort of disappointment. I don't doubt the 10th and 11th are a bit of fall-off from the grandness you find on the front, but the quality escalates with the 12th and it's followed by a unique and sterling short par-4 in the 13th. I also think the conclusion is good -- it's not heavyweight star status I will concede, but you do have superior holes like the par-4 15th (what a green!) and the 16th and 17th are a good ying and yang type holes. The finishing hole is a bit lite on the tee shot dimension but the green is well done and appropriately defended.

Let me point it this way Paul -- when Shoreacres goes UP AND UP in the course ratings (see Golf Mag's listing as proof positive) and you don't find The Kingsley Club anywhere on that list something is certainly wrong IMHO.

As I said again -- surely you jest!

Mr. Sturges:

I'm glad we agree on something. From my travels I consult with a handful of people who I know travel quite extensively and do not have some sort of caveman agenda regarding the make-up of quality golf courses. The ratings of too many of key magazines have become Gallup and Zagat poll findings and are usually 2-3 steps behind in identifying what is indeed most special in course design today IMHO.

[Ken Fry]

Gentelmen,

This has been an interesting thread to say the least!

Both courses imho are fantastic.  Both have pros and cons that differ by the individual.  I could take a steady diet of either course, but a slight nod would go to Kingsley mostly due to the isolation.  The quiet and serenity adds to the experience of Kingsley.  Given what Doak had to work with, Lost Dunes is phenominal, especially the greens.  I must agree with the comments about Kinglsey's #7.  The drive just doesn't fit with the feel of the front nine.

A comment about the wonderful "Top ## Lists."  Obviously, any list is based on opinion and will show bias.  If I want a list of what experts are looking at, there are certain lists that will refelct their opinion.

While working at a new facility a few years ago, we had a steady stream of "panel judges" for the numerous lists out there.  If you ever wonder why the Golf Digest list is a joke, look at the folks they have doing the ratings.  Some of the raters were very gracious and had extensive golf backgrounds.  Others were next to clueless, rude and left a bad taste in our mouths.  It's no wonder the architects won't put too much stock in any of these lists.

[Spartan Golfer]

As a long-time golfer in the State, I have been fortunate to play any course that is worthwhile and usually more than a few times.  In terms of Kingsley vs. Lost Dunes, I would easily give the nod to Kingsley.  What no one has brought up is that how important the ground game is at Kingsley with its fescue fairways and fabulous green complexes.   An earlier post had it exactly right when they said it is very similar to Crystal Downs with the front nine links and the back more wooded.  Kingsley is a modern day version of Crystal and the influence makes sense considering that Mike Devries grew up at Crystal.  The routing of Kingsley is fantastic.  Both courses have fabulous greens, but if you look at Doak's earlier courses in the state -- Black Forest at Wilderness Valley and his initital course at High Pointe he designs great green sites.  In fact High Pointe has the front nine links style and the back-nine wooded.  So how and where do these courses fit in the state?  In my book, Kingsley sits easily in the Top 5 (Arcadia, Crystal, Lakewood Shores (Gailes), Oakland Hills) while Lost Dunes would go in my second 5 (Belvedere, CC of Detroit, Indianwood and Point 'O Woods).  I agree with Mr. Ward -- how in the hell can Golf Digest rate Kingsley #22 in the State???  By the way, I understand that Mike Devries has been spending a lot of time in the UP, designing the second course at Marquette CC -- I'm sure that will be worth the drive to see what he has next.  

[George Freeman]

I came across this thread while searching for threads on the Ross course @ French Lick...go figure.

I think both courses are fantastic, but would definitely give Kingsley Club the nod over Lost Dunes (and probably by a slightly larger margin than Matt Ward's 2-up victory, most likely 3 or 4 up, however I'm not a huge fan of the hole by hole matchplay). 

I'm curious about the minor changes that have taken place at KC over the past few years and how that would effect this comparison.  The changes on the back nine (mostly tree removal) were very evident from the first time I played it to the most recent (this summer).  With all the trees gone between 10 and 18, I believe the issue of the front nine melding into the back nine is much better solved.  There also seemed to be quite a bit of tree removal around 11, between 14 aproach/green and 15 tee/fairway, as well as behind and around the 17th green.  All of which I think greatly increase the asthetics of the back nine and the continuity of the two nines. 

And then there is the new work on 17.  IMO it solved the problem of the only "tight" feeling drive on the course (some might argue 7 drive is tight too) and looks like it will bring great options to the hole and give it a similar look as the rest of the course. 

All in all, I think these changes have made KC even better than it was back in 2003 when this post originated and when Ran did his profile.

Cheers,

George