[GeoffreyC]

After recently opening for play Hidden Creek made a spectacular leap to #72 in GOLF's USA rankings, and a position in the WORLD Top 100 list fighting past some very tough company. Meanwhile The Kinsley Club gets left off of both lists. Thus, there must  be a fair difference of opinion regarding the quality of the two courses. Can someone help explain Hidden Creek’s attributes over Kinsley Club? Or perhaps it is Kingsley’s weaknesses that I don't appreciate?

Kingsley Club is built on sandy soil with great undulations and movement in the property reminiscent of Yale, NGLA and even Myopia Hunt in places.  Hidden Creek is also built on sandy soil but it offers little elevation changes uneven lies and stances and the ball will not bounce and react wildly as it can at Kingsley Club.  Surely then the hazards that must come into play in reaction to a ball along the ground at Hidden Creek must exert consequences and put fear into the golfer if it is to be able to compete with courses built on superior landforms. Case in point is the simple 4th at KC with a blind drive over a hillside to a fairway that works exactly like the punchbowl 16th at NGLA!  Deep bouwls left and right collect balls not hit to a very small region of the right center of the fairway. The approach to the largest green on the course requires depth perception and precision made difficult if you are in one of those bowls. This kind of landform is hard to beat.  VERDICT- Kingsley Club 1 UP

Here's what I glean in comparing the two:

One shotters:  Kingsley Club has the world class short #2 (Ran’s quote-“Perhaps the finest short one-shotter built since World War II” and the bold punchbowl 220 yard 5th  that carry the day over any of the one shotters at Hidden Creek. VERDICT:  Kingsley Club 2 UP

Shorter two shotters:  The wild 13th at the Kingsley Club is a unique golf hole.  It presents options off the tee and a crazy greensite with the only green I know of with more elevation change then the 9th at Yale!  The 8th at Hidden Creek is a nice hole but it is no match for the 13th at KC. VERDICT: Kingsley Club  3 up

Longer two shotters:  No single long par 4 at Hidden Creek can match the great 15th at Kingsley.  It’s the smallest green on the course at the end of the longest par 4.  In addition, it is devilishly perched on a built up hillside where the player can easily putt off the green or chip from side to side given some pin locations.  Still, Hidden Creek has a fine set of long 4’s that’s a testament to its great variety.  The fine 10th, excellent 12th and 16th make for a strong back nine.  Each of these holes represents a different challenge. VERDICT: tie

Three shotters:  The best of the bunch is probably the 3rd at Hidden Creek.  It’s a superior par 5 with one of the few REALLY challenging hazards on the course and a nice green complex.  Still, I found the 9th (especially) and 17th to be fairly weak.  The opening hole at Kingsley sets the stage for the rest of the front 9 with its scale and bold features.  The choice to challenge the central hazard offers a REAL difference for the next shot. The fine 7th offers risk reward again made extremely interesting due to the topography and placement of the drive for the best view of the next shot.  VERDICT: Kingsley Club 4 UP


Intangibles:  Hidden Creek is a fairly unique course given its heathland makeup.  It looks and plays very well in this vein provided that the firm and fast conditions are maintained as I think they will.  Kingsley is a really bold course where the front 9 is routed over ideal land for a golf course and the back 9 is well paced through more tree covered land and then back out for the 18th green complex. Both are golf clubs in the best sense of the word without distractions from housing, pools and tennis courts. VERDICT: Tie


Thus, if Hidden Creek makes the world Top 100 list and #72 in the USA, seems to me Kingslley Club should be world top 100 as well. What am I missing?

Cheers  

[THuckaby2]

GC - just as we discussed when GD was ripped for the ommission of TKC, isn't it possible that not enough GM raters saw the course?  It is rather remote, isn't it?

I've never played either, obviously.

TH

[Jim Franklin]

My guess - A name architect .

[NAF]

Geoff,

I've made my love of the KC well known here many times and I've never seen anybody write anything negative about the course.  The only critiques I've seen are:

The 9th green with its slope and humpy contours doesnt work. Which I don't 100% agree with because you have a short iron in your hand.  I can see the point as valid though.

The 10th hole is dull.. I disagree, it is the most indifferent hole on the course but still fine in my opinion.  The green is still a challenge to putt on.

The 18th hole is not a great end.  I wholeheartedly disagree as the fairway has good movement to it and I love the greenside bunkering.

Perhaps I have a bias for the KC due to all my travels as Geoff says there are elements of NGLA, Yale and in my friend Jim Reilly's view Shinnecock (the way the 12th sits in its valley sort of like Thom's Elbow at Shinny).  There are also elements of White Bear Yacht club with its heaving nature as well.

Both courses get their points for RUSTIC looks and feel and style of their bunkering but I feel Mike's course is just more endearing and inspiring to play. I love Heathland golf as much as anyone and have been fortunate enough to play many rounds in the London suburbs.  Hidden Creek is a good cousin to these courses but it isnt a heath course. Heath only exists in the UK and parts of France/Holland.  So while the style is there, it won't measure up to its cousins across the pond.  The glacial kettle domes for which the KC is built on makes the property so much more inspiring that the flat Jersey pinelands.  I must admit C&C did so much with so little and for that they should be commmended.  Still I think Mike's course deserves to be much higher than HC and I would endorse Dr. Childs' analysis.  Like Geoff though, I will defer and say I must go play HC again.  I only wish it was closer to play for me here in NYC.

[Mike_Cirba]

Geoffrey;

While I don't have enough time at the moment to go into the distinctions and detail that you have, you are spot on in your assessment, I believe.

Perhaps you should do the same comparison between Rustic Canyon & Hidden Creek?  It might lead to similar results?  

Frankly, although I believe Hidden Creek is a very fine course and certainly a joy and lots of fun for the members, I have to concur with you, Matt, Noel, and others who find it hard to understand it's Top 100 in the US status.

You fellows have outlined most of the reasons, and I've discussed it here in detail in the past, so I'll just add my voice to yours at this juncture.  I would only add that it has perhaps the least adrenaline-inducing closing six holes on the list.  

The first 12 holes are good to great, peaking with the stretch from 10-12.  

[Ran Morrissett]

Unlike Hidden Creek, I don't think that The Kingsley Club property was particularly well suited for a golf course. What Mike DeVries did there is nothing short of STUNNING - the great 2nd, 3rd, 5th - how he found the routing for the front nine is beyond my comprehension.

However, I do think the 9th green complex is over-severe/contrived, it's a pity the property line is so tight along the 12th fairway as that hampers any affection for the hole, and I think Mike did the very best that any architect possibly could with the severe property of the 17th but it will never be a classic (the 16th is however and is one of the finest one shotters and deserves more praise/recognition).

Yes, the wild topography of The Kingsley Club has hints of Yale about it but its wild topography also seems to drive many of its members to ride in carts    Hidden Creek, ala Garden City, is a walker's paradise and that's an important point for Dr. Childs to consider.

Given its location, I would be surprised if enough GOLF panelists saw The Kingsley Club to allow for its inclusion. Hopefully, more will see it within the next two years. The architect who designed The Kingsley Club should most definitely become very well known as we will all be the direct beneficiaries.

Cheers,

[Steve Lang]

Ran,

I have to question your first premise about TKC location not being well suited.. One could make the same statement about almost any location, especially depending on your geographic reference point for natural!  

I wonder about some of your other concerns.. impacting TKC's rating or lack there-of.

I can't believe that #2 is acceptable to you and #9 is not.  On the practical side,  at least #9 isn't a lawsuit waiting to happen or potential Billy-Goat golf like #2, from someone falling into one of those surrounding traps or down the hillsides!  I felt the transition from the look of the 8th green from the fairway (at 97yd where I laid up to) was good prelude to the look at the 9th from its tees (I played the Blues).  Dead short or long at #9 is certainly a test!

I sort of agree on #12's left line.. but really, take the high road, as general guidance (from John Lyon our entre'-host) or suffer an OB or worse.. seems not so unlike "stay left" at TOC until you want more challenge.. and aren't there many famous courses with penal straight OB on a property boundary?  At least there isn't a RR line or road!

Certainly the wild topography at TKC is in direct contrast to the pics i see on HC on GCA.com..  but sitting back and reflecting, why should this be a differentiator?  Does flat = purist sentiment and is an easier walk then a better test or challenge?  There is little flat land in the Northern-Lower Peninsula of Mich, and I don't think it inspires many GCA's or golfers up there like the great natural slopes can..  We rode for timing reasons, but now that I've seen it, I'd walk it from daylight till dark!

Regards,
Steve


p.s.  Perhaps a knock on TKC should be that i could play the Blues in 43+36 =79 and almost much better on first try, were it not for a 4 putt and three 3-putts on the front!  Won't know until I get on HC!

[Nick_Christopher]

While the movement in the land may prevent some members from walking, the pluses of such a routing far outweigh the negatives.  The movment creates different stances and views from the fairway each time out, which makes the course infinitely interesting.  In my view it isn't a bad walk at all.  I have played it many times and have ridden less than 1 out of each 10 times I play (usually a function of how late I was out on Saturday night).
 
As far as the 12th is concerned, the offset teeing area makes the hole.  It forces the player to find the right line every time and trust his judgment.  There is plenty of room on the left side, unless a player aims left and hooks it.  

The 9th may feel contrived, and it is severe.  Yet offers up strategy every time.  Just recently, have I seen it played long and 2 putted for par.  I have stuck it to 6 feet with the pin on the right hand side of the green, and I have made par by pitching it to the front bowl and putting around.      

[GeoffreyC]

My dear friend Ran

We walked the Kingsley Club property without a problem and this 52 year old body (51 at the time) is not in the shape it used to be. I find walking Yale to be much more taxing and it is after all one of your all time favorites.  Why the discord between the two?

The 12th hole fits so naturally into the land it seemed to be perfectly fit for a golf hole. No bunkers are necessary to make this a fine hole. The tee shot seems to stay in the air for such a long time and it makes a great sight.  The approach and greensite are equally good with the swale on the right of the green adding short game interest.



I also really liked the ninth playing each tee during our two rounds that day.  The right tee is pretty straightforward and requires an accurate shot with good distance control.  From the left it is multi-faceted where it appears that the hillside on the left can be used to bank a ball to right pin locations.

I agree that Garden City and Hidden Creek are both walkers paridises but so is Central Park.  We must play golf in between our walks and therein lies the superiority of The Kingsley Club that has thrilling shots one after the other much like Yale.

[Ran Morrissett]

Geoffrey,

Ted Sturges and I easily walked 36 at Kingsley one Saturday and we played the second 18 in under three hours. Walking is no issue and I wish Kingsley would ban carts altogether. Realizing that's not practical, I simply wish them good luck in finding more members like Nick (and your goodself) who like to walk. A man behind the counter informed us that 80%+ of the members ride but heck, maybe the topography has nothing to do with that and that's just the norm for golf in the U.S.

Re the 12th, if given the option, I am confident Mike would have blown the fairway out another 15-18 yards left. It would create the classic sucker play: give the golfer tons of inviting room to the left while the ideal angle of attack always remains from the right.

Cheers,

[Mike_Cirba]

Ran;

The Kingsley Club is eminently walkable, as you described.  That's not a differentiator, so you need to find another issue to hang your hat on!  

After all, I'm the guy who is in such great shape that I almost passed out walking Sand Hills!  Yet, I had no problem whizzing around TKC on foot.  

Let's talk about the golf holes and which course engages both the mind, as well as the nervous system!  

p.s. Don't you think the 12th at TKC is best approached after a daring drive near the boundary line on the left?  After playing it right one time and left the other, I found that a running shot from the right tends to get sucked off into the right hand swale, while an approach from the left side avoids that mess and goes up the length of the green.  I think the picture Geoffrey posted provides visual evidence of that strategic difference.  

[Matt_Ward]

"Not particulary suited for a golf course" -- a comment made about The Kingsley Club. Really?

"The 9th hole contrived" Really?

Ran, my good man, there is no comparison between HC and TKC.

TKC wins in a knockout ...

The 9th is a classic short par-3 that has a range of fully seen options. You just have to have the touch of jewel thief to pull it off.

Also, the property of TKC is simply grand. You do have some hills but nothing more than what I have encountered playing Bethpage Black for so many years.

TKC has been for too long neglected by those who should know better. It merits all the praise it gets and deserves a good bit more given the clubs I see being passed off as superior to its design IMHO.

[GeoffreyC]

Perhaps you should do the same comparison between Rustic Canyon & Hidden Creek?  It might lead to similar results?    

My very good friend Mike

Why don't YOU start that one and I'll certainly add my 2 cents to the discussion?    

[Mike_Cirba]

My even BETTER friend, Geoff;

I'm afraid with my recent career change and all that I wouldn't have enough time onsite over the next five years to debate that one with others here.  

Suffice to say that I think it would be an interesting discussion.

Let's ask Ran which he prefers!  

[Ran Morrissett]

The Kingsley Club looks and plays like a natural BECAUSE of what Mike (and the Green Keeper) did. This was no Sand Hills piece of property - give me a break!

Like Inniscrone, it is an akward site which the architect beautifully negotiated. Case in point: the 7th hole which could have been a disaster but is a delight to play thanks to Mike's work as opposed to any inherent merit of having a mountain in the middle of the front nine.

Guys: give the architect his due - this was no easy one to route/build!

Cheers,

[Mike_Cirba]

Ran;

I agree that Mike DeVries did a magnificent job of routing, solving virtually all of the problems, and fully utilizing a number of grand natural features that existed in sometimes amazingly creative ways.

However, I still think the site was definitely one of promise.

For instance, how would you compare the sites of TKC versus Crystal Downs?  

Keep in mind the land at CD between 10-11-12, the flattish stretch on the back, the controversial solutions of the long walk to the 12th tee and the 17th hole which is also a bone of contention among some of us.  

[GeoffreyC]

Ran

I thought what MikeC, Noel, Matt and I all were doing was giving Mike Devries the highest compliment possible. He did an absolutely stunning job to make the Kingsley Club such a great success. I thought that was obvious.

We played in the morning with Mike and he was a great guide.  When he showed us what the property looked like before building as we drove into the course it was obvious why he is the architect and we are the amateur architecture scholars. He also told us that the original location of the 13th green was beyond the present one but clearing the land uncovered the natural and unique present green. His talent recognized that as did his involvement at the site.

However, to equate the site of the Kingsley Club with Inniscrone's site is absurd and frankkly an insult to Gil Hanse who really maximized that piece of land and in addition had environmental issues never seen at KC.  Inniscrone as good as it is never had a chance of reaching the same level as KC.

I don't see the potential disaster of the 7th hole  



The tee shot on #6 is maybe my favorite on the course.  It reminded me a bit of Prairie Dunes or even a mirror image of #9 at Bethpage.  Then the approach to the green uses the other side of the ridge seen in right side of the photo above.  That ridge and the one beyond give interest to the tee shot on #7 (3 shotter) and 2nd while the green sits up on the hillside.



I thought Mike did a great job with it and the whole course. Do you think KC looks natural because Mike moved mountains like Rayor did at Yale? Give me a break.  This was a minimalist effort and Mike's great eye for detail and on site attention recognized the features in the land.  Those bowls in the 4th fairway like the 16th at NGLA weren't constructed they were identified and utilized ideally.

Ran- I don't get your point here.

[brad_miller]

We should all be so lucky to have topics like this to talk about for many years to come. Good to see Ran back at the computer.

[Mike_Cirba]

Brad;

GREAT to see you back at the keyboard, as well!!  

How the hell are you, mi amigo??

Speaking of the excellent discussion topic at hand, having played both courses, I'd love to hear your thoughts and opinions here, as well.  

I know you're a fan of both courses, but as someone who's never been shy to divvy into the details, let's have at it!  

[T.J. Sturges]

Guys,

Just seeing this post.  Interesting discussion.  I must side with Ran in saying that I don't think this was "great" property for a golf course.  Unless one planned to move a bunch of earth (which Mike doesn't like to do) you were bound to end up with some severe holes.  I think there are some really outstanding holes out there.  I particularly enjoyed the stretch of 3-4-5, and I really liked 13 and especially 16.  That being said, I think the 9th is very severe and the much praised 2nd was perplexing to me.  The day we played it (including our group going at the 2nd hole twice that day) I saw 12 attempts at hitting the 2nd green with 11 being unsuccessful.  This on a day with very little wind.  More than half the shots that missed were also not able to get their second shots on the green.  Maybe I caught it on an unusual day, but I wasn't sure that hole played as good as it looked (it looks really cool!).

Matt Ward et al seem to overstate Kingsley's case.  With #2 being a question mark in my mind, and #9 being a problem IMHO, and a less than inspiring finish, I really like TKC and would give it a 6 or 7 on the Doak scale.  I think the course has 5 or 6 really good holes.  This just isn't enough to put it in the Doak 8 category (which is what is necessary it seems to break into the US or World Top 100).

TS

[Matt_Ward]

T.L. Sturges:

What's being overstated about TKC? For God's sake man you only have a 9-iron or wedge to hit the hole. If you can't control a short iron with precision then go back to the practice range and freshen up a bit. I've seen other "classic" short par-3's where a similar margin of error is in play and nobody bitches about them.

The front nine is simply grand stuff. I did say before -- and I'll say it again in case you missed it -- too much focus on GCA goes to the "stars" in the architectural world and not enough attention is paid to the folks who don't get top billing on the marquee. Mike Devries hit a big time home run with his design IMHO.

For all the magazines -- exception being GolfWeek -- to leave out TKC makes me wonder what people are thinking about. There is no way TKC should have not made GD's top ten best private and for it to come in 22nd in Michigan is a hilarious omission of the highest kind.

Here you have a course that isn't long by today's standards but it keeps your attention throughout the round. I don't doubt that holes #10 and #11 are a bit of a letdown but when you're talking Sinantra and Springsteen type stuff for the first nine holes I can live with two that drop a bit in overall quality. However, the course snaps right back to attention with the delicious 12th and 13th holes!

I'm not a big fan of TKC's 18th hole but it still has enough juice to seal the deal.

If you put TKC in the Hamptons you'd have guys coming in their pants to play it. Location hurts the course and unfortunately there are those who seem to believe Crystal Downs and Aracdia Bluffs are miles ahead of it. I don't believe that and would recommend all three for any person visiting the area. You can be sure the 19th hole discussions will be lively!

[Paul_Turner]

Which of the London heath courses does Hidden Creek resemble the most?  I'd love to see it. I can't really tell what the terrain is like at HC just from the pics, nearly all of the London courses have a good degree of movement in the terrain; even the flattest of them: Walton Heath has rolling terrain on half of the holes.

[NAF]

Ted,

I respectfully disagree.
You must have caught the second on an unusual day.  I've played the hole 5 times now and hit the green 4 times.  I hit it both times on a normal wind day there with Geoff, Mike Cirba and Brad Miller to witness.  I dont think the KC has only 5 good holes.  1,2,3,4,5,7,8,12,13,15,16 are damn GREAT holes.  Hogback fairways (4), punchbowl greens (4, 5), redan complex (16), Foxy style green ala Dornoch (15), a hole that sits naturally in a valley (12) and one of the best short par 3s I've played (#2).  Mike DeVries along with Fred Muller created a course that is a TON of fun to play.  I don't view the property as that severe and find nothing wrong with a hole like the 17th.  The drive is very much like the 5th at New South Wales in SOME respects and no body complains about that b/c of the view of Botany Bay afterwards.  Sorry the KC doesnt have that view.

P.S. I forgot an all world green at the 13th!

[T.J. Sturges]

To Matt Ward,

You should be writing the architecture column in Golf Digest.  Your posts offer sound bites but no substance.  WHY do you think TKC is so good?   What holes do you like?  Why?  If you're gonna take shots at other people's posts, try loading your gun first.

TS

[T.J. Sturges]

To:  NAF

I don't disagree with much of what you say.  With the exception of the 12th (which I didn't care for) I like the same holes you like.  And....I must have caught the 2nd on an unusual day.  I'd like another shot at it.  Having said that, what would you rate TKC on the Doak scale?

TS

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()