Kinglsey "Forgotten" / GD's Best New Survey

[Matt_Ward]

I have learned from reliable sources that the forthcoming announcement of Golf Digest's Best New Courses for 2001 will not include The Kingsley Club, the sensationl Mike DeVries layout in Michigan, among even the TOP TEN best new private courses for the year!!!

To say that I am shocked is the absolute understatement of the year! Yes, I do rate courses for GD and have done so since 1984 and I truly believed The Kingsley Club would easily be among the top five, and, in my own personal opinion, was the best new private that I played this year.

Right behind it I would have rated Carnegie Abbey, the Donald Steel effort in Rhode Island, followed by a distant third with Hamilton Farm, the Hurdzan / Fry effort in my home state of NJ.

I cannot say for sure if The Kingsley Club did not make the top ten because of a lack of panelists who played the course or because overall rating points were too low. Either way -- whether it be ignorance or stupidity, I am flabbergasted given the quality of the design which is simply first rate by any clear standard.

Given all the talk that goes on GCA about courses I don't believe I ever heard one dissenting voice concerning the quality of The Kingsley Club and what Mike DeVries accomplished with his design.

I am mentioning this now because there are some people on GCA who believe all GD raters think the same. That is not the case -- and it is most certainly not the case in this particular instance.

The Kingsley Club is a tremendous feather in the design cap of Mike DeVries and to his skill in maximizing an overall presentation on how golf shots can be so magically tied together shot after shot -- hole after hole on terrain that simply engrosses the golfer from the 1st tee through your final putt.

As a GD rater I may be in the minority as it relates to that rating result, but in my heart of hearts it's one helluva layout and deserving of a greater acknowledgment of what it provides to golf architecture among modern courses today.

More on the Best New to follow in the next few days ...

[Mike_Cirba]

Matt,

I've never played The Kingsley Club, but I have to admit I'm incredulous based on the tremendously positive feedback I've heard.

I've also seen countless pictures of the course, which look to be wonderful.  

What won?

[T_MacWood]

What is the explanation for this -- is it related to some kind of techinical issue or is it a reflection of the GD panelists?

[John Morrissett]

Matt--

That's an outrage.  If true, it is an embarrassment for Golf Digest.

[RJ_Daley]

The only reason I can't get steamed and rail against the rating system is that I haven't seen the ones that will be in their top 10.  Unfortunately, I just don't have anything to compare KC with for the year's new best courses.  It may signal that we are entering a period of very high quality golf course design, however.  

Also, rather than go strictly by ratings, if someone is interested to find out what new courses are impressive and desirable to play, maybe a measure as good as going by the magazine ratings, is to simply hang out on GCA and catch the buzz...

[Craig Van Egmond]

I find it hard to believe that there were 10 private courses opened this year that are better than Kingsley Club.  I'd be amazed if there were 5 better.

I think Links magazine had it as one of the best 10 golf courses this year.

[brad_miller]

Matt, thanks for the heads up and your own comments. From the buzz and pictures I have heard/seen it would have been my first choice to play of all the new private courses that opened this year. Did The Bridge get enough play??

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt Ward:

Isn't easy to find out if a new course did not have enough panelist visits?

Assuming this was the case with Kingsley, does this mean Kingsley would be eligible next time?  Or does a course have only one shot (for the best new)?

[MTWilkinson]

Matt:

Why are you so shocked?

The fact is: (1) as long as GD continues with its seven-point criteria for evaluating courses, (2) has panelists that only want to play the most expensive, most "exclusive" new private courses each year to satisfy their egos, revelling that they are of the chosen few who can gain access to these courses, and finally (3) has Ron Whitten, Jerry Tarde and the architecture board of editors doing an "Abracadabra" adjustment - after the votes are in - to recognize "tradition" and adjust results in the Top 100 that I'm sure are even more bizarre than the ones that are published, you're going to get the result that you posted about.

Objectively review the results of the "best new" and Top 100 for past years and you'll find many examples that compare to your justifiable outrage regarding the omission of Kingsley.  I'm sure the reason the panelists weren't impressed with Kingsley, is because there weren't "memorable" water features and flower beds at Kingsley, there weren't huge wide fairways for "playability" at Kingsley, the course wasn't totally sodded for "conditioning points" at Kingsley, and...by the way, what are "shot values"?  And, there were too many members at Kingsley enjoying the course...it's not really a good course unless the panelist is the only outside who gets to play the course (with the head pro, superintendent, club president/developer rounding out the foursome) because then its more "exclusive", and that means "better".

Matt, I've read your posts and you're a very astute, thoughtful observer.  Unfortunately, you're an exception rather than the mainstream in the GD process.

[John_Conley]

When The Wilds opened outside of Mpls/StP it was about a year lag before it showed up on the Best New listings.  I don't know what the cut date is for this, but it appears as though Kingsley may be on next year's?

When did it open and what was cut-off date?  It sounds as though Kingsley will do well when it is considered.

[John_McMillan]

I think the golf magazine awards are somewhat like college football's Heisman trophy - it takes both a qualified candidate, and a good PR campaign.  I get the impression that the Kingsley Club's focus in the last year was in areas other than promoting itself for the magazine awards.  Hopefully, the story of the Kingsley Club 10 years from now will be how to create a great course without winning a bunch of magazine awards.

[Peyton Manning]

Spot on, John Mc.  I sympathize with Mike Devries.  Is ESPN behind this?

[aclayman]

Does "abracadbra" imply that they possibly cross reference their subscription demographics and their proximity to the courses qualifying and then cross refernce that with advertisers.

[Charles Woodson]

Let's not forget that I played the Kingsley Club this past summer and loved it.

[Jeff Tarango]

Do what I did at Wimbledon, quit in disgust.  Can't they see the injustice.  

Please Matt, call Ron and resign immediatly.

[JohnV]

When did the Kinsley Club officially open?  I believe that it used to be that a club which opened after July 1 wasn't eligible until the next year.

[Matt_Ward]

Gentlemen:

To my understanding The Kingsley Club was in play for consideration this year. As a panelist I did not receive any updates indicating that it would be held until next year.

The course, from my understanding, was open and available for rating reviews within the time line stipulated by the magazine for consideration for 2001. If I am in error I'm sure I will be corrected.

Mike Cirba:

I'll be posting more info on the rest of the results of the "Best New Survey" in the following days.

What amazes me Mike is that while I am still flabbergasted that TKC did not win, I cannot believe for one minute, change that -- one second, that it would not be among the top five private in the United States!

Again, it comes down to whether enough panelists visited the course or if there were enough visits why they voted as low as they did. I know what I saw and I was absolutely blown away by the quality of detail demonstrated by Mike DeVries.

TKC is a tour de force design and I agree with others who say it will only gain more fanfare in the years ahead.

Tom MacWood:

You ask good questions. Just keep in mind that not all GD panelists vote in this manner -- starting with yours truly.

I have raised questions about the orientation of the panelists involved and why so many have been included in the past few years. Truly, not enough panelists travel far beyond their region. Designating them as "national panelists" is not really accurate or appropriate given their limited coverage area. There is also the question about "cross comparison" voting. To put it simply -- if only 10 people saw one course and ten completely different people saw another courses how do you have the wherewithal to assess them jointly?

I try to review no less than 40-50 new courses per years and through a variety of sources, GCA included, base my travel plans on what is the "buzz" that I am hearing about new courses opening in the country.

Brad Miller:

The Bridge was not considered this year because it's official opening was not until after July 1. It will be considered for the 02 survey as far as I know.

Tim Weiman:

The first question is simple -- I can ask Ron Whitten and find out if enough panelists actually got there to play TKC. Sad to say, this issue does happen and it's really a crime to those who are so deserving.

Last year I was one of the few panelists who actually played Paa Ko Ridge, the wonderful Ken Dye design northeast of Albuquerque. When I played the course in last August of 2000 only 8 other panelists actually had been there. Fortunately, just enough panelists did get to see / play the course before the September deadline and justifiably, in my opinion, the course won the award for the Best Affordable course in the USA.

Your second question -- if a course does not get enough panelists to visit in the year it is eligible it does not remain eligible for the next year. To my understanding, I don't believe there are any exceptions.

MTWilkinson:

Appreciate your comments .. but, please keep in mind that many of my GD brethern raters are quite upset by the omission of TKC from the top ten. Many GD raters are not in it by any means for "freebies" or the opportunity to "network" or "rub elbows."

Many of us pay out of "OUR" own pocket to travel and see the courses listed. Many of us do take the time to listen to keen observers from a variety of sources (I include GCA as a main listening area).

I just want GCA contributors to really be careful when people periodically throw out some inane bomb that says "all GD raters" are such and such. MTWilkinson, I appreciate your comments in saying I am an "astute, thoughtful observer," but I will add there are plenty of others throughout the nation who review for GD who do as much as I, if not more. I am really disheartened that such a pure quality course could be completely forgotten.

I also understand that awards are not the end all. Nothing can take away the pure joy I experienced when playing TKC in early July. I trekked early on July 3 from just north of Whistling Straits and travelled across the top of Michigan to get to TKC very late that afternoon. I teed it up around 4:30 PM and I had a grand time playing a course of real distinction.

To those who are members of TKC and their staff I say thank you for giving me the privilege to see a superb design. Your exclusion -- does not diminish the superior quality of the golf you have by any bit in my mind.

[Birdieboy]

The best new courses issue is to be published in January.  Hold you horses before the GD bashing begins.

MTWilkinson you must be new to this site.  The GD rating scale has been discussed many times and is old news.  Your other points don't make any sense.  GD panelists are not trying to play the most exclusive courses and then brag about it.  Two of the best courses to open this year are Pacific Dunes and Arcadia Bluffs both of which are public and both are probably better then any of the best new private courses.

The Ron Whitten slam is crazy regarding the tradition catagory.  These are the best NEW courses and have no tradition. Duh.

Your lovely comments about Matt are very flattering.  I will admit that Matt tells it like he sees it and defends himself but in the past he has advocated the US Open be played at Lost Canyons, thinks The Bridge is one of the top 5 courses on Long Island and liked Wolfs Run in Las Vegas.  Everyone has their faults, even Ran can't see beyond his nose to like San Francisco Golf Club.  

[Mark_Fine]

FYI - There were close to 250 new courses scattered all around the U.S. that were "best new" candidates this year.  Panelists were given about 4 1/2 months to check them out (essentially April to August).  

Don't forget, in addition to the new ones, you need to check out the old ones as well.  Even the "classics" have to be reviewed and re-reviewed again and again.  Most of us agree, courses need to be studied many times to really get to know them.  Why do you think Golfweek publishes their Top 100 Classic list every year (and it always changes).  

I usually play 75 different courses a year and I missed The Kinglsey Club.  
So many courses to see, so little time  

Mark

[Nick_Christopher]

Birdieboy,

Was Arcadia Bluffs considered for this year's golf digest list?  If so, it may clear up some confusion and allow Kingsley to be rightfully included next year when more people have had a chance to get to it.  Arcadia opened for limited play in the fall of 1999, and was open for all of the 2000 season, so if it shows up in GD's 2001 "best new" lists, then it would make sense that Kingsley would be eligible next year.  

But I do have one point of contention with your claim that Arcadia is probably better than any private course.  Kingsley is clearly superior to Arcadia in terms of strategy, green sites / contours, natural appeal, bunkering and just pure fun to play.  I think Arcadia is great, has incredible views and serves a market, but Kingsley wins overall everytime.

[MTWilkinson]

Birdieboy:

You didn't "birdie" this topic with your post.

Reread my post and you'll see that my reference to the "tradition" catagory is clearly in reference to the Top 100 list put out every two years, and not the best new.  The gist of my comments are that the GD system for rating courses: (a) compartmentalizes the vote so much that it yields a misleading result; and (b)with respect to the Top 100 list, the raw data from the panelists is manipulated by the architecture board of editors (not just Ron Whitten) so that a Sanctuary or Wade Hampton doesn't land in the Top 100 ahead of San Francisco Golf Club.

Review GD's past Top 100 lists to prove it to yourself.

My compliment to Matt Ward is that, from the posts of his I've read, he provides a cogent, thoughtful analysis as to why he likes/dislikes a golf course based on architectural integrity, as opposed to the "golf experience" element which I believe, rightly or wrongly, affects many, but certainly not all, of the GD panelists.  

Read the "feedback issues" put out by GD after the best new courses are announced and you'll see as many comments by panelists about the service, caddies, conditions (the "golf experience") as there about the architecture itself.

From the 1997 feedback issue, here are some direct, unedited quotes from panelists about the first course listed, the Best New Affordable Public Course, Quarry Oaks Golf Club - "Management is first class", "The amenities at the clubhouse were equal to those found in exclusive country clubs.  The pro was very cordial and the staff does an excellent job maintaining the needs of the players", and, unbelievably, the best of all, "a particularly surprising event occured as we approached the 12th tee.  A red fox, startled as we approached, dropped the two field mice it had killed.  After we teed off, the fox dashed into the natural habitat.  We heard a quick thrashing sound, and the fox emerged with a freshly killed rabbit.  It pranced to the two mice, picked up both of them (without dropping the rabbit) and proudly pranced the length of the 550-yard par 5 and disappeared into the oaks to the right of the green."

There are similar comments by the panelists, excepting the lovely "Wild Kingdom" story, for all of the other courses reviewed.

The point is that Kingsley is a terrific golf course, and unfortunately it appears that many of the GD panelists didn't "prance" to it with their ratings as maybe they should have.

[Will E]

Kingsley club forgotten?
Consider the source.
Matt, what are you doing on GD's panel? You seem to "get it". We all know that without waterfalls, cobblestone cartpaths, GPS, big mounds, etc., Kingsley club is just another boring course. Hell, I had to drive on a dirt road to get to it. Damn, last time I played it I didn't even see a beverage cart!
Look at who is on some of these panels, it is a joke to think that these are the most qualified critics of Architecture.
I look at (most)raters the same way I look at club boards, a group of people who need to feel needed.
Please forgive me the non-celebrity well informed raters who are on these panels not to get free golf.
I always enjoy Matt's post, I'm reserving judgement on the Top 5 on LI take.
All of us who have played Kingsley know the truth.

[Jim Reilly]

I don't know if I have much to add here.  As has been the case all along with the KC, its hard to find the naysayers.  

The good news for Kingsley Club is that time is on its side.  Quality can only be hid for so long; unless the members really know what they have and are smart enough to keep it to them selves.

We here know its a great course.  My only regret is that I was hoping the exposure would give Mike some well earned recognition and, with it, more jobs.  I for one think the world needs more Mike D courses.

[Matt_Ward]

Gentlemen:

This year GD listed 43 private courses for nomination as "Best New" private. For TKC to be outside of the top ten just blows me away. I'm not saying the course is an automatic shoe-in to win the catgeory (although I think it is), but to be dismissed with such a low position is beyond comprehension.

For those out there not familiar with TKC the only clear analogy I can give would be if Pacific Dunes (nominated for Best Upscale Course this year) did not even finish in the top ten in that respective category. In my mind, it would be no different and no less outrageous.

And, to fellow posters on GCA, please realize that there are quite a few other GD raters who "get it." The rater who turned me on to the TKC is someone I respect a great deal and when he said, "Matt, you must see this course." That's all I needed to hear.

Michigan has plenty of solid courses, but I'd wager a good cold beer with anyone that TKC is easily among the top ten in the Wolverine State and if people really wise up is a contender for inclusion among any top 100 listing -- assuming people know what they are looking at!

*****

Mark Fine is correct about the total number of courses that are listed for consideration for "Best New" honors. However, the private category usually has less nominees because the market has been producing more and more daily fee courses for the public to play.

In addition, it isn't too difficult to narrow down the numbers based on a little research from a variety of different sources including GCA as I previously mentioned.

Birdieboy:

You're memory of my comments is accurate except for Wolfs Run in Vegas -- I played Wolf Creek at Paradise Canyon in nearby Mesquite -- well, you were only 80 miles away.

My memory is somewhat foggy so maybe you can help me somewhat.

*Have you ever played the Sky Course at Lost Canyons?

*Have you ever played The Bridge?

You see when I mentioned that the Sky Course could serve as a possible venue for an Open I believe that was in response to a thread that asked for possible future Open locations beyond the usual suspects that land the championship.

The Sky Course clearly has logisitical issues that Tommy N. and others have mentioned. What I spoke about was the demanding nature of the course and the wonderful way the holes are set in the various canyons. If you tweak the course like every Open course is then Sky, in my opinion, would do well.

If you think otherwise, it would be helpful to me for you to specify what holes are weak. Please do not tell me about lack of parking or other non-course related topics. I concede that. What I was talking about on that thread then and now is purely about the strength of the layout.

As far as The Bridge is concerned I have already stated my position enough times. Yes, I have no hestitation to say the course is among the top five on LI. And, I have played all of the top gems on the Island with the exception of Friar's Head and East Hampton. The Bridge is, in my mind, among the top three designs that Rees Jones has done and if people approach the course without excess baggage and a "chip on their shoulder" I believe many will concur.

Wolf Creek at Paradise Canyon, in my opinion, is the second best upscale public course I saw this year -- behind Pacific Dunes and ahead of Arcadia Bluffs.

Wolf Creek is clearly artificial, but I give the highest praise to Dennis Ryder in taking his dream and making it into a reality. There were plenty of hurdles for him to overcome and he has given golfers a gem of a layout. Wolf Creek is stunning to the eye and the wonderful interwoven nature of the different types of holes you'll encounter is a testament to his efforts.

Birdoeboy if you differ please feel free to enlighten me. I always appreciate different opinions, but if you are simply stating something without having played the courses in question then I have to say your tag name is in error -- it should be Bogeyboy!

Only kidding ...

[Will E]

Matt
Get the cold beer ready
1. Crystal Downs
2. Oakland Hills South
3. the Dunes
4. Indianwood Old
5. Black Forest
6. University of Michigan
7. Tullymoore
8. Country Club of Detroit
9. Barton Hills
10. Franklin Hills
T-11. the Gailes
T-11. Kingsley

I haven't seen Detroit GC, Point O'Woods, Arcadia or Lost Dunes but think they would probably rank up there.
I hope you don't think this is a bash on Kingsley Club, I really do like it a lot. It could easily be in my top ten, so I guess I'll buy the first round. Radrick Farms is also very good, no way is it a 4, it's more like a 6.
Michigan is great for golf, though it's not Long Island. I'm curious to see the Bridge, it has got to be fantastic due to your strong defense of it. I played in the MET Open at Atlantic about 6 years ago and thought that while the conditioning was fantastic, the course was not. The Rees Jones course at Black Lake does not make my top 15 in Michigan. I thought that the routing at Black Lake was very confusing, and disorienting; similar to Atlantic. The bunkering IMHO did not fit the land at all, it looks very manicured on a very rough site. The shots were framed very well and I did like the green complexes. It was a nice course, not a course that I would consider top shelf. I would put it on par with his brother's course near Detroit, the Orchards or the Smith or Fazio courses at Treetops.
Damn, what am I doing raking courses?

[Tags:]

Tags: