I hope we haven't talked The Kingsley Club to death in here already, but...
I just spent back to back 36 hole days at Crystal Downs, followed by TKC....
The oft-asked question is how Golf Digest managed to completely miss the boat on this one. After playing it, the obvious thought that comes to my mind is that their rating "criteria" needs some thought and revision. Still, I don't want this thread to degenerate into another ratings discussion.
Instead, I wanted to offer some possibly controversial thoughts and comparisons off the top of my head and see what reactions and responses are generated;
For a course that one would want to play every day of the two, Crystal Downs is simply too demanding and punitive around the greens to come out on top. It beats the crap out of the golfer, not through distance requirements on most holes, but because of the fact that depending on hole location, there is often only ONE place to place your approach to have any chance of getting down in two.
There are a number of greens, most conspicuously #9, 11 & 13, where even a really good shot is not enough. Instead, some of the greens are so severe in their demands that they no longer necessarily reward a thoughtful approach but instead penalize anything but a shot that also carries a high degree of good luck. In fact, one could reasonably argue that greens of the CD severity do NOT facilitate options and playability, but instead dictate that the golfer play to only ONE possible position to have any chance of birdie or par.
The front nine at Crystal is wonderful, but I have a number of questions about the back. Thinking about it strictly from a routing standpoint, one wonders if the trek to the really cool land found on 13 & 14 is worth the trip, because the course does not necessarily finish gracefully. After making the turn, one finds the cool 15th with it's great landing area for the drive and demanding pitch, but it's followed by the slog of the 16th, the VERY controversial 17th over severe land, and a good, if uninspiring finisher. It also includes a long uphill walk from 11 to 12, which is a good hole, but which seems more like a "transition" hole than anything.
By contrast, TKC is more forgiving, yet keeps a similar demand on the golfer to think about position from the tee, offering probably more choices and options overall. The greens, while not having quite the degree of internal intracacies of Mac/Maxwell contours, have broad, sweeping slopes that tend to carry away the slightly misdirected shot, yet offer the opportunity to use those same slopes to work the ball closer to the hole.
The "look" of the two courses is similar, and even share the "open linksland" on the front, and "wooded back nine" contrast. If anything, more of TKC is on land with sharper, more intensive elevation changes, yet there is nowhere that seems in the least awkward or as questionable as, say the 17th at CD.
Both courses feature holes that are unique to the world of golf. The 5-6-7-8 stretch at CD is nearly unbeatable for originality and interest but one doesn't have to look far at TKC to find holes of similar imagination and use of the natural landforms. The 2nd and 3rd holes are amazing, and the 13th is one of the best short par fours I've ever seen, with a humungous, hanging green that offers a smorgasborgic variety of approach shots depending on hole location. Talk about a "thinking man's" hole!!
Yet, of all the holes that standout at both courses, I can honestly say I've never seen anything like the 15th at TKC. It's a long, uphill par four, usually the recipe for "SLOGDOM". Instead, the hole turns slightly left while the slope of the hole is sort of a reverse camber. The approach is to an elevated, sliver of a green that is unusually severe in slope from back to front. Somewhat like "Foxy" at Dornoch, except for the fact that the green, instead of being wide and shallow, is narrow and deeper. With the HUGE green on a short par four at the 13th, the skinny, tabletop green on 15 is clear indication that all of the "rules" of architecture mean little to the architect.
The bunkers at both courses give renewed meaning to the antiquated idea that they should play as "hazards", and are beautifully crafted and naturally integrated into their surrounds in a wonderful way. One cannot look at them, or play from them, without wondering why there are so many boring, flaccid, incongruous bunkers being built today, and how meaningless so many of them really are to strategic play.
I could go on, but won't in the interest of space and time. Instead, I'll throw this out there for consideration. Our foursome of fairly well-traveled golfers did a "Ran match-play" of hole by hole comparison of CD & TKC on the ride to the airport. It says a tremendous amount about the quality of both courses to tell you that they came out "halved".
Yes, Crystal Downs is a wonderful, creative, original if sometimes infuriating and frustrating test of golf at "short" yardage, but TKC offers much of the same type of challenge while also offering encouragement and a greater degree of forgiveness, playability, and FUN to the average golfer.
Anyone who bemoans the state of modern architecture should be encouraged to hear that places like TKC are being built.
And, anyone who plays TKC and rates it "down" on factors such as "resistance to scoring" needs to seriously consider what golf is all about, in my opinion.