The one shotters at Kingsley generate strong opinions. My brother thinks the 2nd is one of the best par threes built in sixty years. I am more partial to the 16th and think that it is a SUPERB hole in any and all respects. Some love the 5th the best with its green in the dell. The 9th has both its defenders and detractors based on which set of tees are played (and probably what they scored on it as well ).

However, most everyone seems to gloss over the 11th, paying it little attention. Perhaps they are just in a hurry for the great stretch from 12-16.

In studying the very well done Kingsley calendar today, October's photograph is of the 11th hole as seen in the fall. And it is a lovely autumnal picture which got me thinking: in the two times I have played the hole, I remember thinking it had very good golfing qualities. The green is full of character and there are a ton of neat hole locations with the back plateau being especially testing.

So why don't more people think highly of this sleeper? In looking at the photo, and in thinking that the prior 10 green complexes are essentially out in the open, the 11th is in great contrast with its green complex in an amphitheatre of hard wood trees (it is the only green complex on the course where that is the case).

Thus, I was wondering if a) the 11th should be appreciated for being different or b) what if the trees were cut down behind the green, thus exposing the 12th tee/playing corridor to a certain extent - would doing so make the 11th seem like it better 'fits' in with the rest of the course (and perhaps it would more readily grab people's attention)?

What do you think? I guess this is an aesthetics question as much as anything - I think the hole itself plays very, very well.

Cheers,

Ran,

For those of us that haven't seen or played Kingsley, and since there are no pictures of #11 in your course review, can you post any pictures of #11?

I agree the hole would benefit with a chainsaw appointment ...I have played the course a couple of times and couldn't for the life of me remember the hole of the top of my head,while the rest of the holes still remain fresh.

I had to go back to their website (great site by the way) to refresh my memory...While the pics quickly jogged my memory (I remember the green being tough), the reason it lacked immediate recognition relative to the rest of the holes on the course was the fact that you could find a similar type of 'feel' that the hole provides i.e. 'par 3 carved out of the woods' on practically every 'Up North' course in Michigan...while most of the other holes on the course are unique and different from the standard 'Up North' fare (Particularly the front 9)

An additional benefit of removing some trees  would be making club selection more tricky due to wind playing a bigger factor...

In Kingsley's neck of the wood, I think the 14th at Crystal Downs (a hole of similar length) benefited by the clearing on the trees behind the green a few years back.  Not only did it open up a great vista, but it also made the hole tougher due the additional wind being brought into play plus that lack of backdrop to assist in judging distances...

RPM

Trees have been removed in the past for better agronomic conditioning and Dan and I will continue to evaluate that this coming spring.

As for the different look of the hole from the others, it has a more "typical northern Michigan look" with the tree backdrop and secluded setting.  If we remove a few more trees for agronomics, it may lead us to take even more, so we don't have sticks behind it and therefore it will blend openly from 10 through 12 and give a visual of the 13th green.  

I think the hole is strategically very strong, with a very difficult back plateau, a severe right side to the green complex, and a fun approach that leads down into the front of the green (allowing a deft cut-runner of a shot to bleed onto the front surface).  Often overlooked, but in play as golfers avoid the right side, is the worn down left side under the trees where golfers walk -- this area leads away from the green and leaves many a player with a poor lie and difficult chip.

Please ask any other questions and I will get back to you.

Ran points out what I see a lot when first timers get to #10 and #11 at Kingsley. After the visual intimidation of the front 9 you go to #10 tee and get a more traditional look. Then you go to #11 tee and you can watch people visibly relax, thinking "Finally something I've seen before, I know what to do here." Then they touch it off and you can watch their faces change again when the ball hits the ground and starts bouncing around. This, from the back tees is a VERY good golf hole. The trees that were taken down behind the green will make the wind a bigger factor, but maybe also easier to judge. In the past it has been one of the tougher holes to judge the wind on.

The green is also a change of pace. With the exception of the back plateau (one of the toughest pins to get close to on the course), the rest of the green is deceptively flat looking with a lot of subtle little breaks in it. One of the toughest reads on the course.

I must concur with most other posts that the 11th lacks acknowledgement only because the other one shoters are so strong.

The first time I played Kingsley, the trees behind the green were still very dense.  The last couple of times the tree removal was completed.  It certainly gives the hole a different look but what I like most about the hole is trying to figure the proper yardage.  Visually, it just seems the hole looks shorter but the green looks smaller.

The pictures from the site are great but like most of the holes at Kingsley, pictures don't do it justice!

I also agree with the above statements:  Kingsley has the best set of par 3's I've seen in a long time.  The 11th is a diabolical green site, and I'll look forward to seeing it without as many trees.  
The variety  of holes and greensites of the par 4's and 5's is truly outstanding, and it is an underrated course that deserves more accolades.

The notion that no one should offer an opinion about the architecture of a golf course from photos is proven to be bunk by those photos of Kingsley!

Coore sometimes says that the thing to look for on raw land is if and how the small, medium and large natural "lines" twist and turn against each other. That can extend all the way from a little square foot bump to the distance horizon line, be that the tops of distant trees or the horizon line of distance land and include every other "line" in between. Those are the things to look for in raw sites for architecture and what's not there or doesn't work well for golf needs to be created, amended, altered or enhanced somehow so it does and then those made "lines" need to tie in and twist and turn naturally with those other raw natural lines as they all twist and turn together in an overall natural look.

I haven't seen much of anything architecturally in photos that represents that philosophy so well as those photos of De Vries's Kingsley. If there's anything remotely artificial looking out there in the context man-made "lines" as they relate and tie in to the natural "lines" of that particular site I sure can't see it in any of those shots!

Steve,

I would not agree with you that #9 is a better closing hole than #18.  Where does this modern conception of the finishing hole needing to be a brutally tough hole come from -- is it Pete Dye's 465 yard, water along one side on
#9 and #18?  The Old Course's 18th isn't wicked hard and everyone loves it -- at least I don't hear people lamenting its structure.

The front nine is spectacular in its own way, finishing up with an easy/hard hole in the 9th.  Then, there is a bit of a shift in the flow from the totally open landscape to one with some trees more in play.  This may be somewhat abrupt in some opinions, but the rhythm and flow of the holes is not totally different from the front and there are portions of the back that are more similar to the front and portions that are less.  That is okay and I think important -- you can't one-up each previous hole and have a good feeling at the end; a great course possesses an ebb and flow that is similar to good theatre.  At Kingsley, the change of pace at 10-11, then switching to the more open woodland of 12-16, pinched at 17 by woods, and then #18's emergence from the woods back into the open grassland at the green -- a complete circle back to the beginning of the course, is a wonderful completion of the round.

Some notes on the back nine, where critics say it doesn't stand up to the front, except for the run from 12-16.  Hole 10 has a tee locations at 420 yards (on the right edge of the practice tee, low and to the left of the current elevated tee) and another location near the entrance road at 465 if it is so desired to add that someday.  I don't think they are necessary, especially for the membership, but might have a use for a tournament someday.  11, as some have noted above, is sometimes overlooked as the least exciting par 3 in a fine collection of short holes.  #17 is a fun short three-shotter, with lots of variety.  And #18 has a wonderfully wild fairway, with approach shots that typically require an ackward stance and difficult winds to a well-protected, diagonal punchbowl green that will reward well-struck shots and punish poor ones.  In match play, where 18 holes are not always completed, Kingsley's back nine offers a very difficult long par 4 in the 15th, followed by three holes with opportunities for birdies or bogies, depending on how you are playing and where you are in the match -- that is a wonderful aspect of the course.  I do not favor a course that just kills you at the end -- golfers do that to themselves! -- but instead gives you an opportunity to take some chances and catch your opponent if you pull through.

Mike

Mike Devries

Great and I believe highly accurate summation of the back nine at TKC.

I really enjoyed the 18th hole with its return to the open terrain at the greensite.

I would not change a thing.

PS- We have had discussions of the 12th hole before. Noel Freeman likens it to the 14th at Shinnecock while Ran feels that you would have extended the fairway to the left if the land were available (and thinks it needs a bailout of sorts to that side that would make for a more difficult 2nd). I'm with Noel. Could you comment? Thanks

"TEP,
Perhaps someone who's wrong 98% of the time, can't distinguish vanishing points and the lines to them from photos and 2% of the time when they can, its of no real significance."

Steve:

Clearly you're referring to Pat Mucci!  


 
 
 

Ed,
I showed you how to play #9. Pencil in your 7 and go the tenth tee.

Joe

#11 is an underrated hole, it only suffers in comparison to two world class holes--#2 & #16 (not to mention the love/hate 9th and superb 5th). There are few courses with the number of 1st class short holes. It makes me wonder why more courses don't go with five par-3s.