Kingsley Club's Ranking

[Matthew Schulte]

Having never been there I am unqualified to comment, however after drooling over their website I am not only surprised that it is absent from GD's Top 100, but more shocked that it was ranked #22 in Michigan!  Did anyone actually go there?

[Matt_Ward]

M Schulte:

The Kingsley Club has plenty of character to be included among the five best courses in Michigan IMHO. For it to fall to 22nd is an absolute J-O-K-E and a testament to what panelists missed. Incidentally, Ron Whitten, in his own observation, in his posted review on golfdigest.com absolutely loved the course!

From my personal experiences I would have TKC among my personal 100 best courses I've played in the USA.

How it misses out is beyond words and argument.

[THuckaby2]

So Matt, since the panelists obviously screwed the pooch on this, would your answer be for the editors to just use what Ron said, and go in and use a, God forbid, "fudge factor" to get it "right"?

Or just that the entire GD process sucks and should be scrapped, because it made such a glaring "error"?

Or maybe, just maybe, that people can disagree with you, and Ron, and not like TKC as much as you guys?

Please remember there are no right and wrong answers in any of this.  It might be a joke to you - hell, from everything I've heard it seems way off to me - but reasonable minds can and do differ.

TH

ps - I'm gonna give up on all this pretty soon, I promise.  

[Matt_Ward]

Tom --

In my mind -- Ron clearly understands architecture. I may, as well as others, disagree with him from time to time but I know the man does his homework and doesn't have to be chained in with inane ratings categories that defy reason when determining what constitutes the greatest among America's best golf courses.

Heck, I'd be more happy to see Ron do the ratings by himself given the batting average of the panel most recently.

Tom, I don't doubt one has to have the time to do this right. But simply adding more and more people doesn't ensure at all that your output will improve. Like I said before on another thread I can look until the cows come home at certain antique pieces and still think they're junk but my wife can look at the same thing and know what really stand for something.

The Kingsley Club is a superb Mike DeVries design. It is well crafted and for it not to finish among the ten best private for 2002 is so laughable ... then the course finishes 22nd in MI. Help me contain more laughter.

P.S. If someone really doesn't like TKC I would be most interested in their thoughts -- you see Tom -- us peasants in NJ have a right to know how royalty thinks.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Huckaby:

Do you know the actual story on Kingsley? Did GD panelists review the course and come to a different assessment than what Matt Ward has shared?

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt Ward:

I think you've touched on a key point and one of the shortcomings of the ratings business.

Kingsley comes in a #22 in Michigan. I won't take a position on this one way or the other. But, what I will say is that just seeing #22 or #7 or whatever, doesn't do much for me. It doesn't tell me whether the course is worth a special trip and, if so, why?

That's why I believe GCA is ultimately more valuable than the magazine ratings. We have Ran's thoughtful course descriptions. We have the opportunity to share why we feel one way or another about a particular course. We have the opportunity to form friendships with people who share common taste.

That's far better than a #22.

[THuckaby2]

Great stuff, Matt.  Touche right back at me.

And Tim, no, I remain a simple peon and I have no idea what other GD raters thought of TKC, and I have yet to play a round of golf in the great home state of Dave Wigler.  Hell, everyone I've ever talked to loved TKC though.. but that's mainly GW raters and other participants in this discussion group!

I just also do know a whole world of people who love Pelican Hill and think Pacific Dunes needs carts and more importantly cart girls.  Are they necessarily "wrong"?

It is a big beautiful world of golf, without a doubt.

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Tim W:

There's plenty of insightful info on TKC -- from Ran's description to Ron Whitten's to a host of others -- including myself. The issue is do people who rate really understand what they're looking at? When TKC finishes 22nd in the state and not in the top ten for "best new private" I'd say someone fumbled the ball big time.

P.S. Tim, I do agree that some type of explanation is most helpful because just listing courses can be so uninformative. An explanation delves into the qualities of what makes a particular course so unique and worthy of a visit. We do that with the publication I edit in Jersey and would be glad to send you a copy if you can provide either a home or business address. If interested just send me a message offline.

[NAF]

Matt,

I'll be visiting the KC with 2 well known (on this site) raters in 5 weeks and hopefully they will find it as wonderful as I do.  In all of my travels the KC is definitely in my personal top 50 and I reckon it deserves Golf Mag Top 100 in the World status.  I think it is that good, a solid 8 or 9 on the Doak scale.  Calling it #22 in Michigan is tantamount to calling PVGC just a good members course.  In fact I wonder if we could magically transport DeVries' masterpiece to our state in New Jersey whether it would be #2 in the state. As much as I love Plainfield I think the KC is superior..

[John Foley]

I just also do know a whole world of people who love Pelican Hill and think Pacific Dunes needs carts and more importantly cart girls.  Are they necessarily "wrong"?

It is a big beautiful world of golf, without a doubt.

TH

Tom,

Great Quote!!

Also, absolutlety 100% true and nothing wrong with that statement. And, No, they are not wrong. It's just their preference.

The ratings are great because of the conversations they bring out. They are not absolute, they are a conglomeration of a group's opinons. If we don't like that's fine, it's what the first amendment gives us the right to do!

This world needs Pelican Hills just as much as it needs TKC's. If it was all great, when would we know how special some of these places truly are?

In the other discussion about Scottsdale someone was quoted in saying how great Scottsdale's golf was, not for the challenge & strategy, but for the look & feel and experiance it gave the consumer. Today after a  weekend ice storm and 6 inches of snow to look forward to tonite, Scottsdale golf would be THE best experience in the world bar none!!
Many times look & feel are just as, if not more, imporant to your consumer and not strategy & challenge.

Just my opinion (or bias if you would).

[THuckaby2]

John - my whole point was we tend to makes these assumptions in here that the whole golf world wants minimalism, etc.  My experience in the world of public golf is so wholly different...

So right on, my friend!  

TH

[Mike Nuzzo]

Pacific Dunes needs carts and more importantly cart girls.  Are they necessarily "wrong"?

YES!

Pacific doesn't need carts, they do.

Cheerio

[David Wigler]

Tom,

I am seeing Kingsley one week from today.  Kingsley, as best I can tell, was the course that garnered the biggest difference between GW and GD.  GW had it #56th among modern courses.  Given the fact that classical courses score slightly higher, that would mean that GW had it approx. 125th in the country.  GD had it 22nd in Michigan (Behind a "Mailed it in" effort by Art Hills called Shepards Hollow and an average RTJ offering at Treetops).  Again using simple math and assuming that Michigan's courses rate higher given that GD gives Michigan 25, this means that GD rated it about 700th in the country.  These two rankings certainly seem incongruous.  This goes beyond the we have 11th you have to 31st, "You are wrong" banter that GD and GW normally have between the ranking staff's.  Without passing judgment (As I said, I have not yet seen the course) clearly one ranking panel does not get what Kingsley presents.  I wonder if Kingsley is the litmus test for the difference between the two panels?

[THuckaby2]

Dave - TKC could be the litmus test, or it also could have been seen by very few GD panelists, a significant number of which don't like the kinda thing presented there, have a bad day, are in a bad mood, whatever.

I've been told a course has to be seen by 15 raters to be eligible to be "ranked" (I don't know this to be true, this is just what I've heard).  Say only 15 GD raters saw TKC (not that unbelievable given where it is geographically, the fact it's a private club, and that it's not listed as welcoming raters in our nominated list).  Given the numbers, say what you will about "bonus tradition points", in this case all it would take is 3-4 relatively "bad" ratings and TKC falls precipitously.

I'd say this is way more likely than TKC being any litmus test between what 844 diverse GD raters and the 200 or so (is that right?) GW raters favor.  I doubt such a generalization can be made.

TH

[ed_getka]

David,
 I look forward to hearing back from you and the others that will be playing there soon. I am going back in Aug. and I'm looking forward to Kingsley as much as Crystal Downs. Kingsley has a few weaker holes, but is such FUN to play. Enjoy your trip. Wait 'til you see the "driveway" and the sign at the "gate". It just adds to the experience in my book.

[THuckaby2]

Wait 'til you see the "driveway" and the sign at the "gate". It just adds to the experience in my book.

Ed - SHHHHHH!  Matt Ward's gonna label you a know-nothing with talk like that...  

TH

[David Wigler]

Tom,

This speaks to my lack of understanding on GD's process.  I thought that after the top 100 was completed, the best of state was based strictly on the rankings of the GD raters.  It would seem unweildy for Ron to assign tradition points to the 2,000 or so courses that GD evaluates.  If Kingsley does fall under the tradition umbrella, then it ranking against the 40 year old RTJ at Treetops makes sense (Although still not the Art Hills course).

My guess is that Kingsley was seen by the same number of GD guys as GW guys.  It is in a fairly remote part of northern michigan.  The interesting part is that I am not sure which magazinew got it right yet.  The only thing I am certain about is that if I had seen the best of state list before my suggestion to castrate you, then Shepards Hollow finishing above my beloved Plum Hollow (And my want to hold you accountable for it) would have wanted a far worse fate then castration.  If the best in state does get tradition points, then how could my home course with a Ryder Cup, A PGA Championship, a  Western Open, an Alison design pedigree, Jimmy Demaret and Craig Wood among our 6 head pro's in 80 years, etc. still finish behind Shepards Hollow - Oh, never mind.

[THuckaby2]

Dave:

Your guess is as good as mine as to how GD does best in state.  I really don't know.  I thought it was an extension of the overall list, and that would mean tradition points are added (or not)... but that does seem unwieldly.  Who knows.

One way or the other, my point is it wouldn't take many negative reviews to skew it downward, and god knows we all have our own opinions.  Assuming ANY course was just assessed "wrong" is never a fair assumption.

And dammit, a fate worse than castration is warranted without a doubt if Plum Hollow unfairly did not get its just due.  I stand ready for judgment.  

TH

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Huckaby:

I'm just trying to understand the GD assessment of Kingsley. As I said, a number doesn't tell me a lot. I'm more interested in hearing why the Golf Digest raters thought less of it than most who participate on this board.

If you don't know, that's fine. I'm asking because I don't either.

Matt Ward:

You probably know far more people who rate than I do. My exposure to such folks is limited and purely anecdotal, so I really can't say what they know or don't know.

As for Kingsley, I enjoyed the tour Mike DeVries gave us while the course was under construction and would enjoy going back to play it. It was great to see the effort Mike put into the bunkers - far too many courses are built without that kind of attention to details.

Kingsley strikes me as having many shots that would be fun to play day in, day out. It also makes a bold statement on #1 - drama with options.

Finally, Kingsley will always be special because of Dick Daley's question to Mike about the 18th fairway.

"What the hell were you thinking?", Dick asked Mike who maintained his composure while the rest of the group broke out laughing.

I like holes with a story. Dick Daley came up with one I'll never forget.

[David Wigler]

OK Tom here is my punishment.

Jesus was clearly great but he needed a marketing director to get his message out.  That is where the Apostles came in.  In my opinion, GD's rating staff needs just such a man.  You are hereby sentenced to get your butt on a plane and get to Michigan.  You can play Kingsley, Barton Hills, CCD, Plum Hollow and several others of our underrated classic designs that would be lock top 100's if they were on Long Island.  You can also play 72 holes a day of Art Hills for the rest of the week, while staying with 100 miles of my house.  At the end of the week, you will be sent back out into the world to spread the message to the remainder of GD's staff that Plum Hollow is a top 100, Kingsley is a top 100, Barton Hills and CCD are underrated and Art Hills should be shipped to France as the US ambassador of Golf (He can spend the rest of his life showing the French what golf design is all about -- I never plan on going to France, so I couldn't care less what their golf courses are like).

Punishment accepted?

[THuckaby2]

Tom Huckaby:

I'm just trying to understand the GD assessment of Kingsley. As I said, a number doesn't tell me a lot. I'm more interested in hearing why the Golf Digest raters thought less of it than most who participate on this board.

If you don't know, that's fine. I'm asking because I don't either.

I don't have the faintest clue.  I'm just giving examples of what could cause it to get a rating "lower" than people on here expect.  It wouldn't take much.

TH

[Paul Richards]

I have already posted my humble opinion on the Kingsley Club, but here goes again.

The front nine is absolutely spectacular!  After playing the front, I was all grooved because I felt like I had just come from Crystal Downs.  I'm thinking, this is a top 10 course for sure!

Then I got to the backside.  The back-nine is nice, but NOWHERE near as spectacular as the front.  The holes through the woods are good, but not great.  That is until you get back to the links-style 18th green complex.

As I said, the front-nine is a spectacular 9, while the back-nine could be any of a hundred other Michigan courses.  So, IMHO, Kingsley should be on the Top 100 Modern list, but closer to the 80's or 90's than its current #56.

That's my two cents worth.  Let the arrows fly!

[THuckaby2]

That is a difficult punishment but I deserve it, Mr. Wigler.  I can only hope to carry it out faithfully before I get too old and grey.  

TH

[Matt_Ward]

When people say there is some difference between the two panels -- GW and GD -- I have to ask how one panel can be so completely out to lunch? Ron Whitten nailed it with his detailed commentary on TKC with his review on golfdigest.com. How the esteemed panel at GD missed it is truly mind boggling. Makes you wonder what else they may have missed. What makes it even more amazing is that TKC didn't even make the TOP TEN BEST NEW PRIVATE -- this is no less an insult the course being tagged as #22 in MI.

Paul R:

I don't doubt the back side at TKC is not as impressive as the front, but let's keep in mind the front grabs your attention so quickly and thoroughly from the minute you stand on the elevated tee at #1.

Let's also not forget that the green contours are solid throughout the course. Some people have chimed in about how the 13th hole is a bit unfair -- ditto the small size of the long par-4 15th. I don't see it that way. You have to REALLY think about how you will approach the hole as soon as you stand on the tee.

For golfers who enjoy chess matches on the course you will find a grandmaster with TKC.

Noel Freeman:

I hear what you say about Plainfield but I think you're pushing TKC just a teeeeeensie bit too far. Nonetheless, it does demonstrate the qualities of the course for someone like yourself to say that.

Tim W:

I can't give you a comparable golf story to the one you mentioned but I will say this. TKC gives you a first ebb and flow of holes and situations. In my mind -- quality architecture gives you the fullest range of situations and asks the golfer to find the right choice for what he / she wishes to attain when playing.

Not every hole at TKC is perfect by any means -- the issues raised by Paul are valid to a point but the course has been grossly overlooked. If anyone else beyond Paul can point out how the course is deficient I'd be happy to hear it. I have not played a bulk of courses in MI but I would say at the minimum you could have a good old fashioned 19th hole discussion on whether TKC is better than Arcadia Bluffs.  

[Nick_Christopher]

Paul Richards,

I am surprised by your assessment of the back 9 at TKC.  I have never seen another hole like #13, let alone in northern Michgian (with particular uniqueness ascribed to the green complex).  Similarly, #15 is an experience all its own.  Overall, I would say that I probalby prefer the front nine, but think that the back is outstanding as well.  There was a conscious decision to leave the trees on the back, and I think it blends in beautifully with the front.  The fairways are wide and forgiving, and the number of different shots required on the back 9 make it an outstanding grouping albeit with a more wooded feel than the front.  

I might add that the back 9 at Crystal Downs goes through a similar transition with #10 taking you into the trees and #18 taking you out with plenty to see in between.