[JC Jones]

Tim Bert,

Dont forget #18.  I agree, there is such thing as too much punch!!

[Adam Clayman]

Bogey, I also take exception to your limited formulaic thinking/approach visa vie your suggestions on what would work better for the 15th green. Also, your assertion that one need fly onto the surface as the dictated shot. Mike clearly has created something unique and special. Special in that it has it's secrets on how best to approach depending on from where you are attempting. I think someone on this thread might've given a clue on how it's possible, counter intuitively.

[Brian Cenci]

Golfweek has at least gotten it right on Kingsley Club (or in the ballpark)

[Mike Hendren]

Adam,

My thinking is in no way limited, and it's only formulaic in the golden age sense - kind of like saying the 18th at Pebble Beach is a formulaic dogleg left par five finisher with water down the left side.  The green that DeVries built resulted in a hole that could have effectively been constructed/replicated anywhere.  Several people have mentioned that it's a good thing to design a tough hole.  I don't disagree and from Mike's comments at the Kingsley outing, it is clear to me that defending par against the better player is a key element of his design strategy.  Toward that end, the 15th is a solid golf hole on a course that has a wealth of solid golf holes.  However, I continue to firmly believe that the corridor could have yielded one of the best par fours in modern golf course architectural history.  

Paul Turner brings up a good point regarding my pathetically low ball flight (fat, middle-aged guys don't generate much club speed) and there is little doubt that the 15th doesn't suit my game.  I am keenly aware of this and try hard not to let it color my assessment of golf course architecture.  Frankly, hitting an extremely low shot makes the study of the architecture  more critical - so I consider it a blessing.  

Paul, I don't believe Kingsley is more undulating than Sand Hills from a playability standpoint - perhaps visually.  While I'm not a fan of hay, only a poorly played shot will find it at Kingsley.  I had no problems with my low ropes bounding into trouble.  The only hole that penalized a decent drive was the 6th - a hole I liked immensely and perhaps the best one on site.

I wish I had the flippin' sweet skills to put together a GCA design contest for the 15th.

Bogey

[Michael Whitaker]

I can't help but wonder how some of you reconcile your thoughts about Kingsley Club's 9th green with the opinion of revered courses in the UK such as North Berwick and Royal Dornoch which have highly praised greens that are much more unconventional. American architects have a difficult time designing course features that truly draw on the quirk of the past.

Why the double standard?

[Bill_McBride]

I have played Kingsley 3 times now and enjoy the course.  I can appreciate it's architecture and at the same time see where GD raters may have issues but so what....with all due respect I would sum up my feelings of the course by using a racetrack analogy...it may be that conditions are too fast for the track sometimes...and the quirk can really frustrate some really good players ( one guy that played with me had been a tour player and was freaked)
But now after having read all fo Bob Crosby's writing on Joshua Crane.....I want to know what he would have said
Mike

Mike, those conditions you accurately describe at Kingsley are very much evocative (to me at least) of Crystal Downs.  You can really see how much golf Mike DeVries has played at Crystal when you play Kingsley.

[George Freeman]

I have played Kingsley 3 times now and enjoy the course.  I can appreciate it's architecture and at the same time see where GD raters may have issues but so what....with all due respect I would sum up my feelings of the course by using a racetrack analogy...it may be that conditions are too fast for the track sometimes...and the quirk can really frustrate some really good players ( one guy that played with me had been a tour player and was freaked)
But now after having read all fo Bob Crosby's writing on Joshua Crane.....I want to know what he would have said
Mike

Mike, those conditions you accurately describe at Kingsley are very much evocative (to me at least) of Crystal Downs.  You can really see how much golf Mike DeVries has played at Crystal when you play Kingsley.

And herein lies my real issue with GD's awful rating for Kingsley Club.  Of course I think KC is MUCH better than #13 in MI, IMO more like top 2-3 in the state (I admittedly have not played OHCC South), however it is the inconsistency that really erks me.  You can list all the possible reasons in the world as to why KC is so far down the list, that's fine - to each their own, but when you have a course like Crystal Downs ranked at #1 in the state that shares MANY qualities (and negative traits in some people's eyes) with KC, it is unexplainable why there would be such a spread between the two.  Almost everything that has been listed as potential reasons why GD raters would discount KC are present at CD (i.e. severe slopes funneling away from the hole, difficult/unfair greens, difficult to figure out/understand in one visit, potential to score high even though you think you should be able to score well, hitting good shots that aren't rewarded, hitting poor shots that are rewarded, etc, etc).  

You could argue that CD is so good and KC so bad as to explain why there are twelve courses in MI separating the two, but I really don't think that is the case, and I doubt many on here do either.  So it must come down to something else...?  I'm not sure what that is, but would assume the huge dispersion is more from being star struck by CD, allowing the usually critical eye towards those traits listed above to "look the other way", whereas that is not the case at KC.

Disclaimer: In addition to KC, I absolutely loved CD in my one round there.  This post is in no way attempting to discredit CD's perch at #1 in MI or on any other list.

[Mike_DeVries]

I think Mike expressly tried to build a course that would polarize opinion.  

Tom,

I think that is a pretty strong statement for anything that either of us builds.  I want to offer options to players and get golfers to think about what they are trying to do -- that isn't expressly trying to polarize opinion.  Certainly, we build courses that approach the game differently than most but I still want players to enjoy it.  Of course, not all will -- that is the nature of everything.

Best,
Mike

[Mike_DeVries]

...with all due respect I would sum up my feelings of the course by using a racetrack analogy...it may be that conditions are too fast for the track sometimes...

Mike,

Thanks for all your comments.  The above is interesting because some members find when the course plays a bit slower, they lose some of their options to use the slopes for their advantage as effectively.  I think you just have to adjust your approach to the current conditions, but I can see your point and theirs.

Best,
Mike

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

I thouroghly enjoyed our day at Kingsley and can still recall nearly every hole we played and some of its unique features.  I will grant that it was too much golf course for my game but I wouldn't let that determine my rankings for any course.  KC has a very high memorability factor and I think that is what most of us strive for, no?

[Bill_McBride]

Hey Bogey Hendren

You hit one of the lowest balls I can remember, I'm mean knee high on a midget...Kingsley looks tough for that kind of shot, always bouncing off hills and careening off into the fescue?  Is it more undulating than SHGC?

Wait a minute, Hendren hit a low tee ball? 

And yes you did coin the name "Dixie Cup," even perhaps posting the photo of the Dixie Cup dispenser?

Sorry you can't make it this year, I wanted to compare notes on what happens to short knockers at Kingsley!

[Mike_DeVries]

Fair question.  For one thing, a low profile green at the 15th would have been a nice contrast to the elevated greens at the 17th and 18th - two other lengthy two-shotters.  What green configuration fits better in a natural punchbowl than - a punchbowl.   Maybe toss in a couple of bunkers crossing the fairway 30 yards short of the green.  Alternatively, how about the ability to work a fade off the natural slope left of the existing green around a fronting bunker (and perhaps directly over a bunker 50 yards short of the green - resulting in a hole that favors a draw off the tee and fade into the green?  Perhaps nice nader and redan short requirements back-to-back.

I thought the existing green wasted one of the best natural green sites I've seen.

Bogey

Bogey,

Thanks for the thoughts but let me correct a few things:

1) How is the 18th green elevated?  It is in a punchbowl and flows directly from approach to the green, with a kicker bank at the left front and receptive bowl-sides for the back and right sides of the green.  It is about 420 from the back and usually plays into the wind so an approach shot of 140-180 yards can be common for a regular hitter but use of the slopes often leave big hitters with only 100 in.  The approach shot from the ridge is downhill to level, while the left valley is uphill but gives a unique angle into certain pins.

2)17 is a par 5, not a long four.

3)the greensite for the 15th is not a natural bowl -- it was a valley that extended from the top of the 17th hole across the 16th and down the entire 15th until it crossed in front of the 14th green -- it was critical to provide an arrest to this significant threat of storm water flow and I did that by building the cart path for 16 on top of a fill that separated the flow into a native area on the side of #17 and fronting the 15th side with a large bunker.  The greensite had considerable pitch to it and the elevated nature of its design allows for a putting surface that I think is acceptable for what I was trying to build -- a difficult long four at that point in the round that flowed with the terrain.  Also, the center of the valley runs along the left side of the green in case Noah’s flood comes and breaches everything.

Cheers,
Mike      

[Mike_DeVries]

By the way, what are all those yellow pointy shrubs in the rough?  Are they native?

Are you referring to the "spear-like" plants?  Common mullein -- a noxious weed that is hard to control.  Takes a great deal of labor to remove, so a certain tolerance is needed.  Harder to control in a year like this, with cooler temps and consistent moisture.

Mike

[Adam Clayman]

Adam,

My thinking is in no way limited, and it's only formulaic in the golden age sense - kind of like saying the 18th at Pebble Beach is a formulaic dogleg left par five finisher with water down the left side.  The green that DeVries built resulted in a hole that could have effectively been constructed/replicated anywhere.  Several people have mentioned that it's a good thing to design a tough hole.  I don't disagree and from Mike's comments at the Kingsley outing, it is clear to me that defending par against the better player is a key element of his design strategy.  Toward that end, the 15th is a solid golf hole on a course that has a wealth of solid golf holes.  However, I continue to firmly believe that the corridor could have yielded one of the best par fours in modern golf course architectural history.  
Bogey

Mike, Honestly, your changes came off as homogenizing original gca. I wonder what you'd do to the first green at Greywalls?
I'm curious about your comment about how, if he'd listen to you, it would be one of the greatest holes in modern golf. To me, your suggestion is making it a predictable hole, (like many built in mountainous settings). Also, it might not separate itself from the 17th as much as it does now with a more center position. (If I'm recalling both correctly)

For the record; On my one play of the hole, I hit driver driver and my ball rolled up the front slope almost making it to the green and did an about face and fell back a few yards. The chip was dicey as to how much temperature to apply, and, if I had to do it over again I'd putt my hybrid.

[Link Walsh]

I liked what somebody said earlier about a person expecting the 15th green to be in the middle of the wide corridor, and how it leaves the golfer startled and perplexed that it isn't.  To me the bowl to the left of the green reminded me of what people say about Pinehurst #2.  Ross might give the golfer the impression that missing a green to one side looks scary (as in the trees appearing to be so close to the right of 15), especially when there is all that fairway mown grass to the other side.  Unfortunately, I found the left bowl on 15 once and it took me 3 tries with the putter to get it to stay up top...

The thing I loved about Kingsley is the raw emotions that it brings to the forefront when playing the course.  I can't think of too many other courses where a few shots to me just seemed terrifyingly difficult (2, 9, approach on 13, everything about #6, and I'm sure I'm missing some others).  The interesting theme is that many of these shots come with some of the shortest clubs in the bag.  I can see where that might turn some people off to the course because they expect to be able to hit the typical wedge shots and spin them back to the holes without really having to think too much.  That's what's unique about the course- the so called easy "shots" can put the fear of God in you.  

When I first played there about 6 years ago, I made a 10 on the 2nd hole.  It was not pretty, and I'll just say #9 didn't go very well either.  On the way up to Michigan for the GCA outing in June, I must say that those holes were especially on my mind.  So to play each of the holes 2 over par in 3 rounds that weekend made me feel like I had really accomplished something to be proud of.  I also found that the tee shot on 6 wasn't nearly as scary as it looks, but it still took me a few rounds to actually believe it.  

On top of all this, I think Mike did a great job of making some of the other approach shots that looked "easier" because there weren't any big bunkers, big mounds, or apparent drop-offs play more challenging than they appeared.  Bogey, you're right about that 12th green.  That little crescent depression to the right makes you think, doesn't it?  And then the approach on #3, with it's huge target and lack of trouble fronting the green (except the big hole to the right) gives a golfer the impression that it isn't a big a deal where you wind up hitting it in relation to the pin.  Of course, when one arrives at the green and sees the bold contours, you realize after the fact that you may be screwed.

I have never belonged to a club, either growing up or now.  So I got used to and now enjoy playing lots of different courses for the variety of it.  Now I almost feel that I wouldn't want to join a club, especially one with just 18 holes, because I would get bored playing the same holes over and over.  But courses like Kingsley and Crystal Downs in Michigan (I'm sure there's more, but I'm from the south...) would never bore me because they both provide so many different options on how to play the holes, especially with the natural winds that accompany each site, and the fact that they bring out such strong and exciting emotional reactions when playing them.            
  

[Mike_DeVries]

Mike,

I thouroghly enjoyed our day at Kingsley and can still recall nearly every hole we played and some of its unique features.  I will grant that it was too much golf course for my game but I wouldn't let that determine my rankings for any course.  KC has a very high memorability factor and I think that is what most of us strive for, no?

Jeff,

Thanks, I enjoyed the day also.  Memorability is certainly a goal, as long as we have good golf to go along with it.  One of my big concerns at Greywalls was that it was just too spectacular -- that was hard to avoid -- but I think I the golf is really good there while still having highlight views of the lake and rock outcroppings along the way.

Hope all is going well with you this summer.
Mike

[JWinick]

Unfortunately, I was not able to play the Kingsley Club last year as my golf trip was abruptly canceled do to a work emergency.  I look forward to making my own independent judgment.  But, I'm not sure the Kingsley Club's lack of GD rating is much of a plight.   Obviously, I'm sure they market the heck out of their Golfweek rating.   

What is odd is the huge diversion between the Golfweek rating and the Golf Digest rating.   Since both have a broad diversity of raters, it shouldn't be that different. 

[Tom_Doak]

I think Mike expressly tried to build a course that would polarize opinion.  

Tom,

I think that is a pretty strong statement for anything that either of us builds.  I want to offer options to players and get golfers to think about what they are trying to do -- that isn't expressly trying to polarize opinion.  Certainly, we build courses that approach the game differently than most but I still want players to enjoy it.  Of course, not all will -- that is the nature of everything.

Best,
Mike

Mike:

My apologies for misinterpreting your intentions.  However, do you not think the course polarizes opinion?  And is that a good thing, or not?

[Ken Fry]

I brought a group of guys to Kingsley last fall as part of a golf weekend around Northern Michigan.  We had 2 groups, one with me played 36 and began earlier, the other a later 18.  We finished our first 18 and ran into our other group making the turn.  While my foursome loved the place, the other hated the front nine and were all ready to leave.  I was blown away!

One issue I was not aware of was since the club had an event going on no forecaddies were available to guide these guys around.  They had no idea where they were going and spent most of their time searching for balls.  Later in our trip, we played Arcadia Bluffs and these particular guys could not stop raving about it.

This got me thinking about "popular" opinion which Golf Digest rankings seem to fall into.  The guys in my group loved Kingsley because my enthusiasm lead them down that path.  Our forecaddie and I showed them where to hit the ball, where to avoid and all the fun shots that were possible given the conditioning and contouring.  The other group suffered from the cliches we hear about often:  they like holes where you see where you're going and it's all right in front of you, beautiful views, nice elevation changes as long as they don't provide strange bounces on shots, etc.

This is not a knock on Arcadia Bluffs which I enjoy, but "popular" opinion will rank Arcadia above Kingsley every time because most players won't "get" Kingsley in one trip around,  especially without someone coaching and cheer leading them along the way.

I believe Tom makes a valid point that Kingsley does tend to polarize opinions which is not a knock on Mike nor the job he did there.  "Popular" opinion people just won't get it at first much like the greens at Tom's Lost Dunes polarize people around our area.

By the way, I'm taking those same guys back to Kingsley this fall to tour around with me and put my theory to the test.

Ken

[Mike_DeVries]

I think Mike expressly tried to build a course that would polarize opinion.  

Tom,

I think that is a pretty strong statement for anything that either of us builds.  I want to offer options to players and get golfers to think about what they are trying to do -- that isn't expressly trying to polarize opinion.  Certainly, we build courses that approach the game differently than most but I still want players to enjoy it.  Of course, not all will -- that is the nature of everything.

Best,
Mike

Mike:

My apologies for misinterpreting your intentions.  However, do you not think the course polarizes opinion?  And is that a good thing, or not?

Tom,

No problem -- I think you are probably right and it does polarize opinions in many respects, most often with the 9th hole, which some think is too demanding or penal.  I guess it all depends on your approach to the game and what are you trying to achieve, whether as a player or a designer.  I think it is important to demand a precise iron shot of players, particularly at a private club where they will be playing the course repeatedly over time.  Is a demanding shot like that much different than the 9th at Oakland Hills, 7th at Pebble Beach, 11th at Crystal Downs, 5th and 10th at Pine Valley, 16th at Cypress, etc.  OK, so most of the holes I cited are longer par 3's and players don't "expect" to make par on them, but I don't think that makes them less difficult or controversial in many aspects.  As designers, I think you and I are trying to do something that is different and maybe that pushes the envelope a little further than is generally accepted but I think that makes golf interesting.  I love to see Pete Dye's work just for that reason -- I want to see what he will try this time -- sometimes it works and sometimes not, but I enjoy seeing the variety.

Cheers,
Mike

[Mike_DeVries]

By the way, I'm taking those same guys back to Kingsley this fall to tour around with me and put my theory to the test.

Ken

Ken,
I look forward to your report, after the trip this fall.
Best,
Mike

[Bill_McBride]

I think Mike expressly tried to build a course that would polarize opinion.  

Tom,

I think that is a pretty strong statement for anything that either of us builds.  I want to offer options to players and get golfers to think about what they are trying to do -- that isn't expressly trying to polarize opinion.  Certainly, we build courses that approach the game differently than most but I still want players to enjoy it.  Of course, not all will -- that is the nature of everything.

Best,
Mike

Mike:

My apologies for misinterpreting your intentions.  However, do you not think the course polarizes opinion?  And is that a good thing, or not?

Tom,

No problem -- I think you are probalby right and it does polarize opinions in many respects, most often with the 9th hole, which some think is too demanding or penal.  I guess it all depends on your approach to the game and what are you trying to achieve, whether as a player or a designer.  I think it is important to demand a precise iron shot of players, particularly at a private club where they will be playing the course repeatedly over time.  Is a demanding shot like that much different than the 9th at Oakland Hills, 7th at Pebble Beach, 11th at Crystal Downs, 5th and 10th at Pine Valley, 16th at Cypress, etc.  OK, so most of the holes I cited are longer par 3's and players don't "expect" to make par on them, but I don't think that makes them less difficult or controversial in many aspects.  As designers, I think you and I are trying to do something that is different and maybe that pushes the envelope a little further than is generally accepted but I think that makes golf interesting.  I love to see Pete Dye's work just for that reason -- I want to see what he will try this time -- sometimes it works and sometimes not, but I enjoy seeing the variety.

Cheers,
Mike

I have read that C. B. Macdonald's goal with the Short hole was to test the player's ability to hit a short iron precisely, hence the huge greens with difficult internal contours.  The 2nd and 9th at Kingsley certainly exemplify that design objective!  I would love to have been able to make that trip to Kingsley this summer just to play those two holes again.  One thing an older player can still do is hit short irons - just a longer club - even when the 250 yard tee shots are a distant memory.

The Kingsley Club is such a great place to play golf, from the welcoming staff to the comfortable on site accommodations to that incredibly challenging and interesting golf course.  Clearly rankings are a joke at worst and misleading at best.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I know Mike talked about the critiques he gets on 9 but I didn't understand the critiques at all.  The green is huge and you can putt around the corner if need be.  I agree that courses need to push the envelope and especially at a closing hole of the front nine.  If its a bit tougher, shouldn't it be? 

Using the Pete Dye school of defending a design, I would just tell everyone thats the way you like it, ah huh, thats the way you like it.......and then add that Donald Ross said par 3 holes can be tougher because the ball is on the tee.  At least if they don't like that hole, they can just quit right there and save themselves the trouble of playing the back nine.

Geez.

[Mike_DeVries]

I know Mike talked about the critiques he gets on 9 but I didn't understand the critiques at all.  The green is huge and you can putt around the corner if need be. 

Jeff,

Thanks for your comments.  The 2nd green is about 4500 sq. ft. and the 9th is about 4900 sq. ft. -- those aren't huge in my book.  Maybe the critics are complaining about the size of the target area, which doesn't go much beyond the putting surface to be in a "favorable" position.

Mike

[Jason McNamara]

Mike, regarding polarizing features (however one may define that)

Are there things you did at Kingsley that you considered for Greywalls, or outright rejected at The Mines?

(And thanks to you, Tom D. and Jeff for a great conversation.)

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()