[Mike_DeVries]

Thanks Tim for starting this thread -- great to hear everyone's fodder about the holes.  I am travelling for the next week or so and won't have much time to check in, but will when I return home Thanksgiving week.

Mike D

[Patrick Kiser]

Time for the 3rd hole?  Please ... 

[John Mayhugh]

My vote (if I get one) is that Tim slows down the posting of holes until Mike D is able to participate.  Doak's commentary added a lot to the Pac Dunes discussion and I think it would be great to have DeVries explain just what the hell he was thinking on a couple of holes.   

Seriously, the hole by hole architect commentary is so valuable.  I think we lose something if we expect Mike to play catch-up.

[Brian Cenci]

I love the second hole and in my 10 rounds at Kingsley am probably only a few over par on it.  I can recall two times making birdie and one time an X.  The last time I played this hole I drew a 7 iron (playing the back tees around 150 yards) into a headwind to a back right pin (I'm a lefty) and it landed 2 feet past the pin and rolled into the back bunker.  Hit it long over the green into a front bunker but then got up and down off of that bunker for a 4.  I honestly think the way to go is take two clubs more and half swing the ball up the front of the green.

[Brian Cenci]

I too hope that Mike will chime in on this thread at some point if he has the time. I started this thread with his blessing.

My take on the relationship to Crystal Downs is that there are clearly some ways Mike was influenced by CD. I think the same could be said of Tom Doak at High Pointe. At the same time, I would not consider either of these courses to be tribute courses. To do so (as great as CD is) would not serve justice to either course and the original holes and ideas that are plentiful at each.

One can't help but notice the broad-brush similarities in routing of the three in terms of front nine more intricate and inter-woven and back nine meanders through the woods, but there are plenty of differences as well.

Quite frankly, and I say this fully understanding I will be in the VAST minority, I prefer Kingsley slightly to CD. I think they are both outstanding.  One of my playing partners at Kingsley shared my opinion, so there are at least two of us that walk the Earth. This opinion is equal portions design and course presentation. Full kudos are due to the grounds crew. More on that throughout.   

If it isn't yet obvious I walked away from this course feeling almost as strongly as Shivas feels about Rock Creek. And that's saying something.

Looking forward to the continued discussion.

Kingsley is onviously influenced by the Downs because much of the course is local knowledge around the greens.  I learn something new every time out at Kingsley and I'm into double digits on rounds there and I still learn something new every time out at the Downs and I've probably played 300 or 400 rounds there.  Ask Mike D. the same thing and he would agree regarding both courses.  You're constantly learning.

[Chris_Clouser]

I loved Kingsley my one time there.  Unfortunately, that was the last time I've been in the area in decent weather.  So I have not been back. 

The first was a pretty nice hole.  I'm not sure if I agree with all of the attention it gets as a great opener.  For me it was just a standard three shot hole that almost yielded a birdie to me, but if I hit it further off of the tee, I could see how that bunker complex could be of real interest.  I think Mike thought I was a ringer after the first hole.  Other than the eye candy from the tee, the great view, nice terrain movement and the incredible green, what else is there... 

I dispelled all of those thoughts of superiority on the second hole.  I hit a beautiful shot to the green that just managed to roll over the back and into the junk lining a bunker.  I could barely see the ball, let alone hit it.  4 shots later I was walking to the next tee with my tail between my legs.  I think the second was a really strong test that reminded me of a lot of Maxwell's template short par threes with tight bunkering and heavily contoured greens.  There is a lot more going on with that hole than it appears.

Looking forward to the rest of the round. 

[Tim Bert]

My vote (if I get one) is that Tim slows down the posting of holes until Mike D is able to participate.  Doak's commentary added a lot to the Pac Dunes discussion and I think it would be great to have DeVries explain just what the hell he was thinking on a couple of holes.   

Seriously, the hole by hole architect commentary is so valuable.  I think we lose something if we expect Mike to play catch-up.

John this is my intention given Mike's response.  I'm not going to stop, but I will slow down knowing Mike will be around next week.  I plan to post hole #3 later this week (Thursday or Friday) and then will let Mike chime in with thoughts on the first three before I move along.

I too really enjoyed Tom Doak's commentary and think that if Mike is willing to add his commentary that it will improve immensely the experience of this thread.

[George Freeman]

ok,  it's past 'thursday or friday' Tim.  Let's get this thread going!  (thanks again for putting it together)

[Tom_Doak]

Since there have been 82 posts on this thread so far and not a one that was even slightly negative, I feel compelled to say that I disagree with Ran's assessment of #2 as the finest par-3 built anytime lately.

The last time I played it, with Mr. DeVries, I watched him hit his tee shot in the left bunker ... blast out and across the green into the right bunker ... blast back out and across the green into the left bunker ... get it on the collar and two-putt for a six.  And I didn't think he had played any of those bunker shots badly.  [I think we played the tee that John Kirk referenced, since it is Mike's favorite ... I thought that angle was a bit awkward, as not even a straight shot could be assured of missing the bunkers.]

It's a very narrow target, surrounded by deep bunkers on all sides.  That makes it a tough mother of a par-3, but I don't see how it makes it one of the great holes in golf.  I'm happy to listen if someone would explain why it is, but there have been 30 posts so far and nobody's got there yet.

There are some really cool holes at Kingsley.  In my opinion, this isn't one of them.  I'll be glad to weigh in with more positive comments on the third and fourth holes when you get there.

[Patrick Kiser]

TD,

I'm wondering if you feel this way because the recovery shot is being overchallenged?  Looks like an up and down is going to be seriously difficult.  Making the hole somewhat too penal perhaps?  Is the green too small in your opinion?

I don't think I can criticize anything I haven't played and I also do not like to compare courses or holes for greatness over one another, but this hole reminds me difficulty wise of your 3rd at Rawls.  It is a very tough up and down if you're not on at Rawls.  The big difference difference being at Rawls it's very much in front of you to see plus a bigger target perhaps (except the back bunkers are invisibile) whereas here at Kingsley it appears less obvious from the tee and a smaller target.

So what is not making this a great par 3 in recent modern design memory?

Just trying to understand the why part.

Since there have been 82 posts on this thread so far and not a one that was even slightly negative, I feel compelled to say that I disagree with Ran's assessment of #2 as the finest par-3 built anytime lately.

The last time I played it, with Mr. DeVries, I watched him hit his tee shot in the left bunker ... blast out and across the green into the right bunker ... blast back out and across the green into the left bunker ... get it on the collar and two-putt for a six.  And I didn't think he had played any of those bunker shots badly.  [I think we played the tee that John Kirk referenced, since it is Mike's favorite ... I thought that angle was a bit awkward, as not even a straight shot could be assured of missing the bunkers.]

It's a very narrow target, surrounded by deep bunkers on all sides.  That makes it a tough mother of a par-3, but I don't see how it makes it one of the great holes in golf.  I'm happy to listen if someone would explain why it is, but there have been 30 posts so far and nobody's got there yet.

There are some really cool holes at Kingsley.  In my opinion, this isn't one of them.  I'll be glad to weigh in with more positive comments on the third and fourth holes when you get there.

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

You're asking why not?, but you've got to answer why? first.  If a hole is going to be touted as one of the great par-3's in the world, I think it's got to have something going for it besides a small target and very difficult recovery.  (Then again, the Postage Stamp at Troon does not.)

The hole you compared it to at The Rawls Course isn't that similar ... the green is very wide and relatively shallow and there is a lot of internal green contour.  But I would never think of claiming it as one of the great par-3's in the world. 

For that matter, the one par-3 I've built which does sometimes get mentioned, the eleventh at Pacific Dunes, I wouldn't nominate either.  I think the best short 3 we've done is the one at Barnbougle ... a tiny target with nasty trouble, but which gives you one place to opt out if the wind is too severe and you just want to try and make a 4.

[Kalen Braley]

Tom,

While I haven't played Kingsley either, I can understand the criticsm on its face.

I'm curious what your thoughts would be on 16 at PD.  Its often been called one of the great short par 4s, and I can't argue against that.  However it can be very diabolical with the huge steep false front, massive rear bunker, fall away to the right, and severe windyness to boot.  I was 40 yards from the hole after my tee shot and walked away with  a 7 after facing several difficult shots to get on the green.

Kalen

[Tom_Doak]

Kalen:

No doubt 16 at Pacific Dunes is a severe hole, downright unfair in certain circumstances (when it's playing downwind).  At the same time, as you say, in those conditions you were lying 40 yards from the green in one.

From there, there are three things you can try to do.

a)  You can hit your L-wedge and pray it holds the green ... if you're going to do that, you should play toward the bit of grass that ramps up into the dune behind the green, and/or play to miss long left into the back bunker so you'll have a bunker shot back into the wind and into the length of the green.

b)  You can try to putt the ball onto the green, allowing for it to swing to the right severely on the approach.  Or,

c)  You can putt your ball into the little pocket at the left front of the green, and try to make 4 or 5 from there.

The hard thing about assessing par-3 holes for me is that they almost never give you any options like these.  Most people think the green has to be surrounded by trouble for a par-3 to be any good -- see:  17 at Sand Hills, 2 at Kingsley, etc.  I think that's their weakness.

[Andy Troeger]

I would agree that the 2nd isn't one of the great holes in the world by any means. It was the one hole that at the end of the day there I really disliked. As I thought it through more I have grudgingly accepted the difficulty and figured it had to be a better hole than I was giving it credit for, but the front pin is really severe.

I'm now willing to say its a good hole, but its nowhere near my favorite on the course--there's a lot of good ones so the competition is pretty steep. It might help if next time I actually manage to finish it though. Of the three par threes on the front, I'll take the 5th.

[Patrick Kiser]

Tom,

Hold on.  I was comparing the level of difficulty.  Not whether it was great.  In other words, lost of bunkers ringing the green, movement on the green itself, and even a false front (false right in the case of Kingsley).  Tough up and down in case the trouble comes in.

But I think you answered what I was hoping you would get at ... the need for more options.  So if I'm not mistaken, the penal factor with no room for error is not balancing out the hole enough to make it a great par 3.

Patrick:

You're asking why not?, but you've got to answer why? first.  If a hole is going to be touted as one of the great par-3's in the world, I think it's got to have something going for it besides a small target and very difficult recovery.  (Then again, the Postage Stamp at Troon does not.)

The hole you compared it to at The Rawls Course isn't that similar ... the green is very wide and relatively shallow and there is a lot of internal green contour.  But I would never think of claiming it as one of the great par-3's in the world. 

For that matter, the one par-3 I've built which does sometimes get mentioned, the eleventh at Pacific Dunes, I wouldn't nominate either.  I think the best short 3 we've done is the one at Barnbougle ... a tiny target with nasty trouble, but which gives you one place to opt out if the wind is too severe and you just want to try and make a 4.

[Kalen Braley]

Tom,

I'd certainly agree that there are several options that I had there...and in fairness my ball was lying in a divot, making that 1st chip shot much more difficult.  I chose to take the direct line at the pin and got in the bunker directly behind the green along with 2 others of us in our group.  Being last to play out of the bunker and watching one of the guys go back down in the swale problably made me a bit gun shy in trying to finesse my first two shots out of that bunker which stayed in.   

In retrospect, I think I would have chipped directly left from that 1st lie in the swale and chipped back towards the green for a possible 4.  Putting up that big slope to the green never occured to me, but I shall keep that in mind for my next trip. 

[John Kirk]

Just a comment about #16 at Pacific Dunes downwind.  Usually I try to drive it when it's downwind, favoring the right side, and almost always end up in the longer fescue about green high, 20-30 yards away and well below the green.  From there I try to lob it up there and make four, where I've been successful about 60% of the time.  At least I'm hitting into a crosswind.

When we start sidetracking into the 16th at another course, it's time for Tim to start the 3rd hole discussion.

Go Tim go!

[Michael J. Moss]

On the 2nd green at Kingsley, Tom Doak writes: "It's a very narrow target, surrounded by deep bunkers on all sides." That sounds exactly like The par-3, 17th at Sand Hills, which  I've enjoyed playing (somewhat!!?) on several occassions. Both holes elevate your blood pressure and tighten your grip before you take the club back.

In my opinion, the 2nd at Kingsley compares favorably with the 17th at Sand Hills - short irons to a small target surrounded by bunkers with more room towards the back of the green. Both are world class.

It sounds to me like Mike's problem when he made the 6 playing against his Traverse City arch rival, Tom Doak, was ego-based! He should have blasted out to the fat part of the green and accept a gentleman's bogey. Being a golf course architect does not neccessarily mean you don't make poor decisions on a hole you designed! What a great story! The possibility of going bunker to bunker only makes the hole better in my opinion. Sounds like the 15th green at Fenway, or the par-3, 3rd at Winged Foot West. I've gone bunker to bunker on each of those greens and I consider myself to be a pretty good bunker player (just not that smart).

[Josh Smith]

Tom Doak,

           Would you think "little tillie" at SFGC has much in common with this hole?  Is hitting the green much easier at SFGC?  Similar length, similar small target with some slope, similar how the land falls away everywhere around the green.  How would you compare these two holes?
 

Why do I find Kingsley 2 to be perhaps the best short par three that I have ever played?

It doesn't just look exacting, but it actually is.  Which is what a short three is all about to me.  I love a short three hole that a good/great player can actually fairly easily make a 5.  Too many short threes can be easily reached in one and parred after mishitting the tee shot.  That immediately takes the thrill out of the hole the next time you tee it up at that course, knowing you can just hit within a certain yardage and be of moderate accuracy and be pretty much guaranteed a par.

You don't just have to pick the right club, but you actually have to hit one of your best shots of the day to be in great shape.  I don't know of many others so exacting, a real equalizer between the short hitting average player and the top quality player. 

The ground that it sits on is unlike any I have ever seen a hole designed on, looks like the green was slightly cut on top of a natural ridge and the tee may have been the same.  Everything else on the hole is sloping away from your feet.  A very heroic setting.

This hole has about as much regard for acting as the par that it is as the 1st hole at Crystal Downs.  Perhaps those are two examples of more than "half par" holes. 

A great match play hole, (forget about par for a moment) where any player could suprise his partner by hitting the perfect little shot or just avoiding the severe danger.

All that said my 8 iron slightly off line kicked into the short right bunker and I hit the "triple black diamond" sand shot of my life to 3 feet for a par.

[Buck Wolter]

George posted this photo from the website, hopefully it shows up a bit larger here. I think it does a good job of showing the challenge of #2 looking back at the tees. The collective wisdom of those I've talked to is favor the back of the green regardless of the pin and if you go long into either of the 2 back bunkers you should make 4 at the worst. I never hit the ball left except on this hole -- that is a bad miss. I think you could lay up 20 yards short and right of the green if you were really nervous.

There was a thread on this hole a couple months ago and I told the story that this was the first golf hole my six year old ever played start to finish and he hit the green with his 3 wood -- he thinks it's pretty straight forward though he misread his bridie putt.

[Eric_Terhorst]

Most people think the green has to be surrounded by trouble for a par-3 to be any good -- see:  17 at Sand Hills, 2 at Kingsley, etc.  I think that's their weakness.

I've played the Kingsley hole just 3 times, but I don't see it as being "surrounded by trouble" because, well, I found the trouble, it wasn't that difficult, and I'm certainly not a short-game wizard.  The 17th at TPC Sawgrass or the 13th at Blackwolf Run River, those are "surrounded by trouble."

I like this as the 2nd hole, as it really requires attention--it draws you into the task ahead of you. It would be really irritating to make double on this little short hole, so you really want to bear down.  There may not be many options on the tee.  If you hit a poor tee shot, then the fun starts. 

"One of the greatest in the world" is over-wrought.  But with its scariness and demands for precision Kingsley #2 reminds me of other excellent, short, demanding par 3s we've talked about recently...although it's missing the ocean...

[Tim Bert]

You guys have a nice debate going now.  You don't need #3.   

Seriously, the weekend traffic usually isn't all that great anyway.  I'll post #3 Sunday night and hopefully we'll have Mike weigh in on the first three some time this week.

[Patrick Kiser]

TD,

You must be referring to the 7th at Barnbougle and I'm guessing the opt out option is short and somewhat left to left center.  That still seems to be a tight option though or am I guessing wrong on the opt out.  Maybe back left?  But I'm thinking to opt out you would have to "see" the option.  It doesn't appear as if a back left option would be viewable.

I guess I'm trying to visualize how obvious the option would be.

At any rate, I think it's coming down to one's philosophy and ideas/thoughts relative to that position.

I think my tendency would be somewhat like Josh's in the end.  I'd be curious to hear how Tim Leahy feels on this.  I like at times to be forced into a particular test or challenge.

With respect to what's being proposed on the 2nd at Kingsley, maybe the appropriate statement is that it's a very fine example of a herioc par 3.  The challenge and test being proposed is to hit the green.  You can not refuse the test.  There is no opt out.  Fail the test and you will be challenged even more to recover ... but you can recover.  And the recovery options are not just bunkers.

At Barndougle, the proposal simply appears different to me.  The challenge is there right in front of you ... with options.  There is no forcing to hit the green.  You can opt to NOT take the challenge of hitting the green and still find a way to a par / bogey.  It's up to you to make the choice.

So two different approaches I'd say.

Each great in their own way.

Patrick:

the one at Barnbougle ... a tiny target with nasty trouble, but which gives you one place to opt out if the wind is too severe and you just want to try and make a 4.

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

On the 7th at Barnbougle, you can play just short and right of the green, and try to chip for par.  It's a very difficult chip, and not too many people will consider laying up on a 110-yard hole, but I'm sure there are days where that's the best play for a lot of golfers.

Josh:

I wouldn't have nominated "Little Tillie" as one of the best par-3 holes in the world, either.  You're right that it is similar to #2 at Kingsley.  The thing I like best about Little Tillie is that there is a clear pecking order to which bunker you want to be in, if you don't hit the green.  The left and front bunkers aren't so bad, because either the green is tilted toward you, or you've got a fair amount of green to work with.  In contrast, the right-hand bunker is a disaster, because the green all tilts away from there, and you might have problems just getting the next shot on the green.  I don't know the second hole at Kingsley well enough to know if there is a similar pecking order there, but nobody has mentioned this so far, anyway.

Incidentally, I played the 17th at Sand Hills this spring in a 30-mph crosswind from right to left, and it was essentially reduced to "hit and hope".  Maybe Tom Watson would have been able to hit a controlled low shot onto that green, although the front bunker makes it pretty tough to try.

Eric T:

Not sure what those two pictures were supposed to illustrate.  There are bail-out areas on both holes if you are just trying to make four.

[Eric_Terhorst]

Incidentally, I played the 17th at Sand Hills this spring in a 30-mph crosswind from right to left, and it was essentially reduced to "hit and hope".  Maybe Tom Watson would have been able to hit a controlled low shot onto that green, although the front bunker makes it pretty tough to try.

Eric T:

Not sure what those two pictures were supposed to illustrate.  There are bail-out areas on both holes if you are just trying to make four.

Tom, for me, a 10.5 index, all these nasty little holes are superficially similar.  I am trying to make three, and if I miss the green I need to make a darn good recovery to make three, or settle for four.  Five or worse is aggravating, but I'm not bright enough to think about "laying up" on a short hole to try to avoid it (#5, the longer par 3 at Kingsley, is different).  In fact, I'm likely to think that ploy would more often result in five than four.  To me, suggesting your holes have a bail-out and the others don't is hair-splitting, but as I haven't built any, nor played as many of these as you, perhaps I haven't learned to appreciate the differences.

If any kind of 30mph wind is blowing at Pacific Dunes, #11 would be a hit and hope for me! 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()