The Kingsley Club..A neoclassic

[NAF]

I was extremely fortunate to play what I consider a neo  classic this past weekend, The Kingsley Club.  Mike DeVries has created a great course that more people on this site should make the pilgrimage up to Traverse City to see.  He has developed a course that evokes Sand Hills, Crystal Downs and parts of Shinnecock in my estimation.  Little dirt was moved, incredible use of the natural undulations of a good piece of property combined with Maxwell like greens and wonderful bunker shaping.  The course review here pretty much sums up the course.. Some of my highlights:

1st Hole-Downwind and a lot of fun. Try over the cluster of bunkers (ala Dr. Mac's 4th at Royal Mel) and gain the run down the hill. You have a shot for it in 2 but the green which lies in a natural saddle is a tough target to go at.

2nd Hole-Downwind par 3 with a wedge..but boy is that target hard to hit. The green is much wider than it is long..Reminded me of some links hole I have played in the UK.

4th hole-what a spine of a fairway..tremendous movement..only a great tee shot will find a level lie.

6th hole..With the wind and the contours I almost drove the hole (337yd) by accident.  It tightens up near the hole and is heavily bunkered but a great fun short par 4.

12th hole- Wonderful looking hole, reminded me a bit of #14 at Shinnecock in the way that it looks so natural thru a valley.  

13th hole-280 yard par 4 with one of the most interesting green complexes I have played.

16th hole-A redanish par 3 which is great fun to play and is built naturally into the side of a hill.

17th hole..A wild par 5 where you can gain 50yds of roll if you drive the crest of the hill (270yds out)..

The head pro and the people at KC are first class.  They were incredibly nice and when the clubhouse etc are all finished this club is going to be amazing.  How it was ranked 98 on Golfweek 100 best modern is beyond me.  As more raters go I imagine this course will become top 20 and it deserves it.  I really wished I had another chance to play there.  It was great fun and would be my course if I lived near it.

[Matt_Ward]

NAF:

I can't say enough as well for TKC. Played the course last year and was absolutely enthralled in the manner in which the course ebbs and flows so well throughout the round. You simply can't wait to play the next stroke -- the next hole.

Unfortunately, too many people may trek to Arcadia Bluffs and some will only opt to see Crystal Downs when in the area. TKC is no less than a solid 8 on the Doak scale in my book and I agree completely with you Noel that for the course to finish 98th on the GolfWeek modern listing is beyond any sort of explanation.

For those who prefer their golf firm and fast and to have a plethora of options on each and every golf shot I say run, don't walk, and get to TKC. With just a wee bit more exposure you are easily talking about a golf course that should crack anyone's top 100 courses in America.

After having played 92 of the current GD listing I know I'd put the club no less than a borderline top 50 layout among my own personal 100 best. I know many who read this post will snicker and say that's saying plenty. Well, in my mind, TKC deserves such attention because you are never bored with any shot.

Kudos to Mike DeVries and a hearty thanks to the most friendly of staff you will meet in the game today. TKC is a course that will simply grow and grow in stature as more and more golfers sample the sheer qualities it brings forward time after time.

P.S. I just had to add that I rate the 15th hole at TKC as one of the most demanding long par-4's you can play -- particularly with the approach shot. I also urge the club to keep the green dimensions the same size. It's good to have a hole that makes the boys a bit uneasy when they're ready to play their approach shot from 180-200 yards away.

[Nick_Christopher]

NAF,

Agreed on the Kingsley Club.  Outstanding all around.  One question though, on #2, the green is deeper front to back than it is wide.  Where was the pin when you played it?  If its up front, it is a really narrow tongue with bowls and steep bunkers on either side.  It opens up considerably if the pin is in the back, but still can be a tough target to find.

I'm sure you're right about the raters.  As the course gains more exposure, it will certainly climb up the rankings.

[Golf Digest Rater]

At least it made the list at Golfweek, it wasn't even in our top 10 best new privates for this past year.....  

[Michael Dugger]

golf digest rater dude...

Why even come in here with that crap?

[Tim Weiman]

MDugger:

I see nothing wrong with pointing out that a course like Kingsley failed to make Golf Digest's list of Best New Private.

People could easily wonder why some rate it so high and a major publication like GD failed to include it on their list.

Perhaps Matt Ward might comment, but I seem to recall we have discussed this issue previously and that Kingsley still hasn't been seen by that many people.

Matt is exactly right.  People going up to see Arcadia and/or Crystal Downs should certainly take the time to see Kingsley. I need to go back myself having enjoyed Mike DeVries' bunker work so much I just couldn't take in the rest of the course.

So, go to Kingsley and go more than once.

[Randy Suker]

For your infomation the Kingsley Club is back on the Golf Digest list to be considered for best new private courses in 2002.

[John Foley]

Loved the course also. I think #13 is the best hole on the course. There are not only a million ways to play the hole, but that green has about a million pin positions it self!

What about #14 and #6 as two very underated holes.

[John_McMillan]

We've discussed the Kingsley Club a couple times on this board.  I've had a chance to play it a couple times, and I think much of its praise is deserved.  One feature of the design that I don't think has come through is that Mike DeVries took a lot of chances with many of the holes - and it is a course that is in some places pretty close to the edge.  It's not a "safe" design, nor one I'd call an "instant classic."  An example is the 13'th green.  It certainly looks cool, and I'd love to play it about a dozen times - but can anyone really guarantee that it "works" in a golfing sense?  I think it's great that Mike felt the freedom to take some chances with the design - it certainly doesn't look anything like a Nicklaus/Fazio/Dye course - but one of the consequence of taking chances is that they don't always work out.  

[Jeff Mingay]

John McMillan,

You feel the 13th green looks "cool", and you'd love to play it a million times, but still you're questioning whether it "works in a golfing sense"?

Am I interpreting your comments correctly?

If so, for the sake of discussion, I'd like to know what you think doesn't work about the 13th green? Indeed, it's nothing like any other green I've ever seen. And it's by no means an easy green to approach and putt.

Having played it twice, I had a lot of fun with the 13th hole -- in large part because of the the green complex and the plethora of potential hole locations I imagined while trying to hit different tee shots based on those spots, as well as approaches and chips, pitchs and putts to those potential locations. (We were lucky to be the only group on the golf course one day I was there!)

Adventuresome golfers could spent an entire afternoon having fun with that 13th hole. Fun!

I think you could have easily taken any of the world's great courses on the day they opened and call a few features "questionable". All the great archtiects of the past took "chances" and didn't always build "safe" courses. And Mike took "chances" at Kingsley, sure, I'll buy that, particularly in light of the fact that Kingsley was his first 18-hole course from scratch. I too could point out a few things I think should be "softer" or slightly different. But still, I admire Mike for the "chances" he decided to take. All in all, I think Kingsley works quite well.  

And, john_f, I agree with you about the 14th. All the preliminary talk I've heard about the course suggests it is under-rated -- a fantastic par 5 hole, for sure.

[Matt_Ward]

Too much golf design today is geared towards following some sort of pre-packaged formula. I almost feel like I'm playing golf at McDonald's and all I have to do is ask for "value pack meal number #" and I get the same slop whether I'm in New Jersey or California.

Mike DeVries hit a home run -- pure and simple at The Kingsley Club because his design doesn't follow the same old tired formulas you see at just about all courses today. What are some of the tired formulas? How about flanking bunkers at greenside that are nearly all the same size and have the same basic boring look? How about the idiotic desire to provide for drop-shot par-3's with the tired old pond sitting squarely in front of the hole? I can mention plenty others. For those who've played the course how grand is the 9th hole? Talk about a short hole that can produce serious anxiety!

The 13th hole at TKC works because you have to be utterly precise in what you do. Too many short par-4's allow the big hitter to bomb away with impunity and you have nothing more challenging than a simple chip'n putt for a quick birdie. That doesn't happen at #13. If you want to critique the contours at #13 then one had better be consistent and say the same things for other courses such as Oakmont, Oakland Hills / South, ANGC and a host of others I can name. I played the 13th hole and the pin was ALL THE WAY in the back. I beat a driver to pin high but the place I left my tee shot required a maximum Phil / Seve effort to get it close. I found nothing wrong with that because Mike did provide other options in playing the hole. It was up to me to reconcile what options would work best given the location of the pin and the surrounding contours on the green. You know what they call that -- THINKING!!!

I can understand skepticism on GCA about new courses because there's a tendency to get way ahead of reality when applying some sort of deep analysis. However, let's not obscure the fact that TKC is a course that NEVER bores you. How many courses can you really say that about today? Stand on the 1st tee at TKC and the juices start going big time. The ebb and flow of the terrain is stunning and Mike has created a series of greens that DEMAND complete control of your iron game. There are no cookie-cutter yawn types involved. You also have a wonderful integration of the air and ground game on many holes. And, there are holes where power, when done correctly, is rewarded appropriately. As someone who hits the ball a decent ways I appreciate that as opposed to many courses today that literally take the driver out of your hands.

In my vast travels I can't say that many modern courses really have the wherewithal to crack into any serious listing of America's top 100 courses. TKC in my book makes it because Mike DeVries didn't "settle" for the obvious -- he pushed the envelope and for that deserves a great degree of credit.

[John_McMillan]

I don't know how to evaluate the 13'th hole, so I'll take a pass on that for now (which is very different than calling it a bad hole).  As an example, I'll give the 16'th hole - the Redan sloped par-3.  I had a chance to play the course last summer with Mike DeVries, Tom Doak and Jim Urbina.  On that hole, the pin was cut towards the middle back of the green, and Mike gave me the line - to the right of the green - to play the approach. (OK, so I couldn't submit the score for handicap purposes).  The ball kicked left, and ended up below the hole about 10 feet.  Jim Urbina's approach was to the right of the green, and he was left with a 15 yard chip up the spline of the green.  Doak played too far left, and his ball kicked short and left of the hole.  Urbina tried his chip several times, and could not get it to stop near the hole - long and left near Doak's ball were the common misses.  After we finished the hole, Doak suggested that the hole was pin was cut about 5 feet too far back - that too much of the slope came into play, and as a result that too many shots "collected" near where Doak's approach landed - and Mike agreed that the pin probably did bring too much slope into play.  

I take two points from the example -

(i) It IS possible to design a bad golf hole which otherwise looks really cool and has a green with lots of slope, but you only know after you've played it several times.

(ii) I'm not sure how highly to rate a hole where small errors in pin position cause large errors in playability.  It's easy to blame those who cut the pins, and hope that the course is always properly set-up - but you've also got to anticipate that someone who doesn't know a whole lot about golf is often going to be setting the pins.  

I'd argue that the Kingsley Club is the "Pet Sounds" of golf courses.  Both Mikes took a lot of chances, and I'll bet that at Kingsley a couple of them in retrospect just aren't going to work out.

[John Foley]

John,

Does that mean the hole is not a great hole because that pin location does not allow for a 220yrd tee shot to get close? I'd consider your shot to be about as good as it gets. If you miss in the wrong place up & down is possible w/ a great put, no matter how you chip. Is that such a bad thing?

Does a hole have to allow you to get the ball near the hole to be considered good/fair? I don't want to talk about severe slopes like 18 at Olympic, but a par 3 that doesn't allow any closer than 10 feet from 220 yrds seems fair to me.

[Jeff Mingay]

Thanks for your "analysis" of the 16th hole, John. Your point was well made with it.

[Tim Weiman]

John McMillan:

My feelings about #13 are based on the one visit you and Mike DeVries so kindly arranged.

I remember we tried many putts on that green and quite a few really didn't work.  So, I take your point.  Maybe Mike did push a little too far on this one.

But, I'm also inclined to think about another #13 green - Dooks in Ireland - and give the Kingsley example my approval.  If one built 5 or 6 greens like that, clearly it "wouldn't work".  Yet one very unusual green just seems to add a little spice and that is okay with me.

[Nick_Christopher]

Having played the course 20+ times now, I can't help but think that the thirteenth is one of the most fun golf holes I've played.  The far back pin position definetely make the hole much harder, but it is a fun respite, and a great change following the long and demanding 10th and 12th holes.  I think it fits in wonderfully, and possesses the type of uniqueness that makes you want to play it over and over again.  In many respects, this is a testament to how well it works in the golfing sense.

[Dan_Lucas]

John M.

I was just scanning through and saw your posts on the thirteenth and sixteenth holes at Kingsley. In response, speaking only for myself, I will say that the back left pin on thirteen is one of the toughest pin positions I have ever played. We only use that pin about once a month.That works on that green because there are about 6 or 8 other pinning areas an that green that vary in difficulty and required approach angle. Every other pin on that green works perfectly well. If you aren't in the proper place to attack the pin you better take your medicine and put it on the green in a place where you can two putt from. If you get greedy, you can put up big numbers fast. What is wrong with that on a 280 yard par four?

On sixteen the ideal line from the tee is the front right approach, if you miss it too far right, you just have to take your medicine,get it on the putting surface and try and make your putt for par. It is much easier to get up and down from the left side of the green, even from the massive left bunker than it is from high right. I think that is the definition of risk/reward.

 If the pin is back right, the only way to get close ( if that is a concern on a 220 yd. par 3) is to hit a high fade, but you can put the ball in the middle of the green and two-putt easily to any pin on that green. I think that makes it "work".

Remember, this was built as a membership golf club. The majority of people playing the course will know where to hit it and where not to hit it. Cup placement on many holes will dictate this decision making process. The key is there has to be a decision, not just aiming at the pin and letting it fly. If you end up not executing and get in the wrong place, get the ball on the green , take your bogey and go to the next hole.

In some places getting it on the green may involve executing one of the best shots of your life. There will be several options, you have to choose the one you think has the best shot at getting you where you want to go. In my opinion this makes for interesting, challenging and fun golf. If you want to be able to hit it at the pin no matter where you are on a golf hole, The Kingsley Club is not the place for you.