[JC Jones]

There is hardly a new thing to be added on this site regarding Kingsley Club.  Most members of this site love the course, to varying degrees for all of its quirk, strategy, variety, brilliant routing, ambiance, etc.

Yet, most on this site share in the chorus of Kingsley Club being underrated by the publications.  Whether it be the absurdity of not being in the Golf Digest Top 100 or the arguably low position in the Golfweek Modern Rankings (I've heard some say Kingsley should be as high as Ballyneal and Sand Hills).

The true question is, what really can be done?  Many Golf Digest raters think the course has "too much quirk" or the "best tee shots aren't all readily apparent from the tees."  Those aspects of the course, which most on here love, aren't going to change.

Crystal Downs went largely unnoticed for decades, will it take the next budding critic/architect to begin to champion Kingsley in order get similar results.  Were Crystal Downs and NGLA able to climb the rankings due to their architectural pedigree?  Will Kingsley have to wait until Mike DeVries gets the big break he deserves?

Does it's proximity to Crystal Downs and its perceived (though very unreal) similarity hold it back?  Sure NGLA and Shinny are close but they are so wildly different that their proximity doesn't hurt them.

I've played some great courses and Kingsley Club offers as much golfing merit as ANY course I've played and is More FUN to play than it's "big brother," Crystal Downs.  Can the narrative be rewritten?

[Mike Hendren]

JC, One Man might opine that the course remains under-appreciated/rated while the Other Man might feel as though the back nine is relatively weak compared to the front, citing: 1) the pedestrian nature of the 10th; 2) the abrupt constriction confronted at the 12th tee; 3) the gimmickry of the 13th;  4) the unnecessarily pushed up 15th green; 5) the "fake" redan at the 16th (it is easier to access most pin locations by playing directly at them than by trying to sling a tee shot off the right hillside; and 6) the clumsiness of the land the 17th traverses. 


As for yours truly, I like the course and feel it is rated about right.

Mike

[Steve Lang]

  back  9 pedestrian, abrupt constriction, gimickry, unnecessarily, fake, clumsiness .. beware of what you ask for in rewriting the narrative..

Jason, do we kill all the raters? or just let them be and where are the damages?  do the members really care about rankings?  does a guest really walk away saying "boy, that was not fun, should have played xyz instead?" 

[Jud_T]

JC,
There was a rater out here yesterday.  Perhaps the situation will be rectified in the not too distant future.

[JC Jones]

JC, One Man might opine that the course remains under-appreciated/rated while the Other Man might feel as though the back nine is relatively weak compared to the front, citing: 1) the pedestrian nature of the 10th; 2) the abrupt constriction confronted at the 12th tee; 3) the gimmickry of the 13th;  4) the unnecessarily pushed up 15th green; 5) the "fake" redan at the 16th (it is easier to access most pin locations by playing directly at them than by trying to sling a tee shot off the right hillside; and 6) the clumsiness of the land the 17th traverses. 


As for yours truly, I like the course and feel it is rated about right.

Mike

Bogey,

While my intent was not to dive into the architectural specifics, you (as always) bring forth some great discussion points so I'll attempt to give my counter-points.

Before I start, when you say the course is rated about right, do you mean in Golfweek and/or Golf Digest?  Do you think Kingsley is not a top 100 course?

With respect to your points above:

Generally, I have heard the "back 9 is the weaker 9" argument for Crystal Downs as well and I just don't buy it.  Different terrain with different "looks" and different attributes does not necessarily equal "weaker."  Moreover, the brilliance of one 9 over the other should not come into play when judging the aggregate.

Specifically, to your points:

1)  Is the 10th pedestrian relative to the rest of the course, or generally?  It is a very strong start to the back 9 as an up hill par 4 with bunkers flanking both the inside and the bailout line.  From the angled tee box, you have to flirt with the inside edge or risk going too far left into the bunkers.  Couple that with a very interesting green that has multiple pin positions and I don't think it is pedestrian by general standards.  Is it the best par 4 on the course?  No.  What are your thoughts on #2 at Crystal Downs?  Speaking of pedestrian.....

2)  I'm not sure I follow with the "abrupt constriction at the 12th tee."  That fairway is quite wide and you may "feel" the hole is narrow, it certainly isn't the most narrow fairway on the course (no stats to back this up, just my eyes and multiple plays on the course).

3)  Gimmicky 13th?  It is a risk/reward driveable par 4 with one of the largest and most interesting greens I've ever seen.  Whatever will you think of the greens at Old Mac if you don't like this one?  That hole can be played 1,000,000 different ways.  2 weeks ago I went with driver from the left tee box and drove the green but needed a career best 2 putt for birdie.  On my second 18 I hit 3 wood from the right tee box and came up just short in the bunker.  The right tee box is shorter but there is much more trouble to deal with.  The left tee box is longer but gives you more room off the tee.  For curiosity's sake, what are your thoughts on driveable par 4's, generally and #17 at Crystal Downs, specifically?  How about par 4's that deliberately take most clubs out of your bag and force you to hit iron off the tee (see #7 at Crystal Downs and #15, too).

4)  I remember having the pushed up 15th green conversation with you last year.  I know you feel it is a great site for a natural bowl green but I have to say that the 15th green is genius because a) there are other bowl greens on the course (#1, 4, 5 and 18 come to mind) and b) by pushing the green up to the right, it gives the golfer a non-bunkered area to bail when hitting a long iron or wood into that very long par 4.  As opposed to a bowl green which would most certainly have to have bunkers on both sides of the entrance or else be rendered without defense.

5)  I don't understand this at all.  If you don't want to play off the right side, don't.  I don't think anything at Kingsley is meant to be a replica hole and so if 16 doesn't play like a true Redan, I don't think it is supposed to.

6)  What would you have done with the 17th?  Plowed the hill down and made it a ho-hum elevated tee to up hill green par 5?  I might have agreed with you pre-opening of the left side but now that there are two avenues to play that hole from, I think it is great and I don't see any "clumsiness."

I know you've played Crystal Downs so I'm curious to wonder if you also think it is a not-top-100 course.  Certainly the back 9 is pedestrian compared to the front and there is come pretty "clumsy" terrain out there on 11, 17, 5 and 7.  Moreover, you have the pedestrian 16th, 18th, 2nd and 4th holes.

Good to hear your thoughts, Bogey!

[Mike Hendren]

JC, just trying to stir the pot a little bit.  

As for the comparison with Crystal Downs, I don't believe they're in the same league.  Crystal Downs is in that rarified "great" group.  I appreciate my single round there more every day.  Only the 16th stands out as lacking.

As for rankings, I've played 8 of the 18 courses ranked ahead of Kingsley Club on Golfweek's modern list and can't argue that any should be leap-frogged with Bandon Dunes being the best candidate.  I'd replace it with Bandon Trails, however, which I believe is underrated at 28.  

As for the classic list I've only played Lehigh, Palmetto and Beverly among the bottom 20 plus Augusta Country Club which just rotated off Golfweek's list.  I have repeatedly admitted my bias toward golden age architecture and wouldn't dismiss any of those in favor of Kingsley Club off the top of my head.  

Conversely, I'd never argue that Kingsley Club is not a top 100 course in the U. S.   I think that opinion is very valid.  I just don't agree that the course is being treated like a red headed step-child with freckles.

We studied the devil at Sunday School this morning so bear that in mind when interpreting my comments - what with that devil's advocacy thing and all.

Kindest regards,

Bogey

[Tim Bert]

One Man might argue that there are no candidates to be leap-frogged. The Other Man might contend that Kingsley is superior to Whistling Straits, Bandon Dunes, Spyglass Hill, and Honors Course. One Man (actually many men) might argue that Crystal Downs is in another class. The Other Man might argue that if roles were reversed (that is to say that Kingsley were classic and Crystal Downs was modern) the back nine at Kingsley might be raved about and the back nine at Crystal might be deemed clumsy.  One  Man might argue the 16th is too easy on shots played directly at the pin and doesn't provide an advantage to play left. The Other Man might have seen every shot played directly at the pin repelled off the green and every shot played 20 yards right feed nicely to the green.

One Man might be right, but the Other Man might be content to play no other golf course than Kingsley to the end of time.

[JC Jones]

JC, just trying to stir the pot a little bit.  

As for the comparison with Crystal Downs, I don't believe they're in the same league.  Crystal Downs is in that rarified "great" group.  I appreciate my single round there more every day.  Only the 16th stands out as lacking.

As for rankings, I've played 8 of the 18 courses ranked ahead of Kingsley Club on Golfweek's modern list and can't argue that any should be leap-frogged with Bandon Dunes being the best candidate.  I'd replace it with Bandon Trails, however, which I believe is underrated at 28.  

As for the classic list I've only played Lehigh, Palmetto and Beverly among the bottom 20 plus Augusta Country Club which just rotated off Golfweek's list.  I have repeatedly admitted my bias toward golden age architecture and wouldn't dismiss any of those in favor of Kingsley Club off the top of my head.  

Conversely, I'd never argue that Kingsley Club is not a top 100 course in the U. S.   I think that opinion is very valid.  I just don't agree that the course is being treated like a red headed step-child with freckles.

We studied the devil at Sunday School this morning so bear that in mind when interpreting my comments - what with that devil's advocacy thing and all.

Kindest regards,

Bogey

Bogey,

I have had the great fortune of playing Crystal Downs multiple times and each time I feel incredibly blessed and overwhelmed with the entire experience.  Please don't take my comparisons as a discredit of Crystal Downs.  I mean them only as a credit to Kingsley Club.

I think your bias is affecting your judgment.  Tim Bert brings up a great point when he says that if the ages of the courses were flipped that you'd likely think Kingsley to be in the great category.  Personally, I think they are both great but I feel as though Kingsley is unfairly compared and it's ranking is discounted accordingly.  Unfortunately, I think the only comparison that it loses to Crystal Downs is that of age and not of golfing merit.

Of the other classic gems you mentioned, I've only played Palmetto.  I will say that Palmetto is a special, special place, however, it does not come close to Kingsley as far as golfing merit.  While there are 12 or 13 great greens at Palmetto, the routing is not at the elite level and neither are the other 5 or 6 greens.

[Tim Bert]

JC - with all due respect, try to attack this puzzle in a different manner than comparing Kingsley to Crystal Downs.  This approach is a dead end.  I tend to be in your camp. So far that makes it a camp of three.  I don't agree with the proximity issue you stated. Spyglass and Bandon haven't been hurt by this factor. If anything I think more people get a chance to see it and rate it because it is near another course they are seeking out. It could go both ways, I suppose. 

Let's stick to the moderns and try to better understand that one first. I would love to hear what moderns Bogey and others have played that stand above Kingsley in the rankings, and what makes those courses superior to Kingsley.

[Jud_T]

Tim,

Excellent point.  Here are the courses which are above Kingsley on the current Golfweek Modern list.  Of those I've played, I have colored green those that I would put ahead of Kingsley and red for those that I would rank below.  Love to hear others' input:

1. Sand Hills
2. Pac Dunes
3. Whistling Straights
4. Bandon Dunes
5. Ballyneal
6. Sebonack
7. The Golf Club
8. Pete Dye Golf Club
9. Friar's Head
10. Shadow Creek
11. Muirfield Village
12. Old Sandwich
13. Kinloch Club
14. Spyglass
15. Honors Course
16. TPC Sawgrass
17. Kiawah Ocean
18. Wade Hampton

Here's a few below KC that some may feel can give it a run for the money:

20. Chambers Bay
21. Calusa Pines
22. Colorado Golf Club
23. Bayonne
24. Dunes Club
26. Wild Horse
28. Bandon Trails

[Eric Smith]

There is hardly a new thing to be added on this site regarding Kingsley Club.  Most members of this site love the course, to varying degrees for all of its quirk, strategy, variety, brilliant routing, ambiance, etc.

Yet, most on this site share in the chorus of Kingsley Club being underrated by the publications.  Whether it be the absurdity of not being in the Golf Digest Top 100 or the arguably low position in the Golfweek Modern Rankings (I've heard some say Kingsley should be as high as Ballyneal and Sand Hills).

It did get an honorable mention in the Golf Blog Top 10 Courses of the Decade.  (6 Doaks on there.)

[Tom_Doak]

And all six of those courses kick ass.  But, still, not all of them are rated higher than Kingsley [even though I think they should be] ... which just goes to show there is room for disagreement in the rankings.

[Eric Smith]

Exactly, Tom. 

In your experience, have you worked with many developers who could give a flip about the rankings, before, during or after you built them their golf course?

[Tim Bert]

And all six of those courses kick ass.  But, still, not all of them are rated higher than Kingsley [even though I think they should be] ... which just goes to show there is room for disagreement in the rankings.

I agree entirely that there's room for disagreement in the rankings. In reality, the rankings aren't my issue.  My issue is that I see what folks here daily say they value in golf course architecture. Many of them are consistent with my values. Yet those same people and I don't see eye to eye on Kingsley. I give it more credit.

I'd just like to have a good conversation with a few of them comparing some of the courses in question. And I think it would be fascinating to hear your thoughts re: Crystal vs Kingsley because I know exactly how you feel about Crystal and I know that you respect Mike's work at Kingsley but don't consider it all-world or off the charts. I see at Kingsley a whole lot of the same kind of stuff that makes me love many of your courses.

Damned be the rankings, I just want to understand why I like it so much.

[Mike Hendren]

I would love to hear what moderns Bogey and others have played that stand above Kingsley in the rankings, and what makes those courses superior to Kingsley.

Tim, let's start with four contentions:
1) A course ranked 3rd is not inherently "superior" to a course ranked 23rd.  
2) This ranking business is highly subjective.
3) Don't tell me what I like.
4) I could be wrong. Big time.

That said, in a nutshell I prefer the following modern courses to Kingsley Club:
Sand Hills
Pacific Dunes
Whistling Straits
Ballyneal
Spyglass (Frankly, I have a tough time explaining my affinity for this golf course)
Honors Course
TPC Sawgrass
Chambers Bay
Bandon Trails

Demoted:
Bandon Dunes

My point in rebutting JC's original premise is two-fold:
1) Playing the role of contrarian; and
2) Refuting the implication that only a dumb-a#@ can't see Kingsley's brilliance.  

If pushed to assign a number I'd give it a 7 to 7.5 - not that different than the 7.65% average according to Golfweek's pundits.  Hence my comment that Golfweek has it about right.  

As for overall top 100, I'd like to see all the Ross restorations bubble to the top over the next few years before reaching a conclusion on Kingsley's place.  

Mike

[Mike Hendren]

Double-clutch deleted.

[Jud_T]

Bogey,

Aside from the lake view, the imported sheep and a couple of tournaments, I'd love to hear what specifically leads you to rate Whistling Straights higher than KC?  I may be biased but I don't see it as very close. 

[Tom_Doak]

Eric S:  I hate to tell you this, but I am not sure I've EVER had a client who didn't care about the rankings, deep down; and I don't believe the ones who claim not to, either.  Some are better at not talking about it than others, and not letting it get in the way of the work.  But, any owner with a pulse knows that the rankings will have a big impact on the success of his new business venture, and they all care about that.

Tim B:  I don't think it would be appropriate for me to try and pick apart what I don't like as much as you do about Kingsley.  There are lots of things I would have done differently, but the same could be said of any modern golf course designed by someone other than myself.

I will stick with two general observations:

1.  Mike Hendren is telling you the truth ... trying to shout down someone else's opinion usually leads nowhere.

2.  The part that's always funny to me is that the severe features and quirks which Kingsley's fans like the most about it, are the exact SAME things that its detractors DISLIKE about it.  You know that a green like the 9th or 13th is going to be criticized as too severe by some people, but you can't understand how that holds the course back in the rankings?  The best thing about Kingsley is that Mike designed it without worrying about the people who would disagree ... but when you start discussing rankings, then you are starting to worry about the people who disagree.  It took me a few years and a few rankings disappointments to understand that.

[Mike Hendren]

Bogey,

Aside from the lake view, the imported sheep and a couple of tournaments, I'd love to hear what specifically leads you to rate Whistling Straights higher than KC?  I may be biased but I don't see it as very close. 

Off the top of my head I really like the scale and expansiveness of Whistling Straits.  That is no small feat to pull off.    While the double-figure 8 routing is somewhat contrived it does expose the player to wind in all directions.  While it also has weak holes, notably the 9th, 18th and double-dogleg par five on the front, there is good variety in two and three shot holes (though I don't like the new bunker that cuts into the short par four on the front).  The peripheral hillside bunkering is overdone but enhances the landscape in my opinion.  I consider it scenery, not architecture as it is only visited by the true hacker.  While Kingsley Club has some very good quirk, I find the architecture at WS to be more consistent and even reserved - tee to green -  notwithstanding the exceptions I've noted.  Dye did not try to wow with individual architectural features as was the case at TPC Sawgrass for example.  That's what I mean by reserved.  Sometimes he tries too hard with a particularly bad habit of doing so at the home hole as evidened by the goofy 18th at Whistling Straits and the need to modify the 18th green at the Honors Course.   

Pretty random, huh?

Mike

[Jud_T]

Fair enough.  And to each his own.  Of course you're up to 3 weak holes and I don't think there are 3 at Kingsley...The 10th is often cited, but with the new back tee it's certainly no pushover.  Although it's a bit more straightforward of a hole than most at Kingsley, I think at any other course it would simply be a good stout par 4.  And then there's the 11th.  I agree that it's probably the weakest hole at KC but it's a perfectly acceptable short par 3 connector that I think is a nice respite in the flow of the round coming after 8,9 & 10.  If I had to be self-critical, KC is a tough course to walk and I understand why it confounds the scorecard and pencil set.  I just got back from a marathon weekend there, and I had a standing bet with my buddy, a six hdcp., that he wouldn't break 90 from the tips.  You should have seen the steam coming from his ears when he walked off #9 with a snowman! Also the sequence of 1,2 & 3 is a pretty tough start to the round, but I applaud Mike for taking the best that the land would give him and each is a great hole in it's own right IMHO.  Tom makes a very good point about the mathematics of rankings.  When you average in a couple of guys who thought it was OTT it drags down the number.  But I wouldn't change anything about the place!

[JC Jones]

Bogey,

Please point to where I made any implication of anyone being a dumbs$$ for not thinking Kingsley was great.  We've met, we've had conversations, believe me when I tell you that I respect your opinions and wanted nothing other than a genuine discussion with you.

Tom,

Please point to where I or anyone shouted anyone down.  Legitimate points were made and counter points were made for purposes of discussion.

[Mac Plumart]

To me this says it all and it came from Jud's last post...

"I wouldn't change anything about the place!"

What more could a member ask for and/or want.  



.

[Tim Bert]

Bogey - I wasn't trying to tell you what to like or what you should like.  I'm just looking for good discussion to level out my star-struck opinion of Kingsley.

Tom D - I wasn't trying to shout anyone down.  I also didn't expect you to get on this web site and degrade Mike's work.  I know that you respect him and his work and I also know that you could find things you'd do differently on just about any course.  It doesn't mean that it wouldn't be extremely interesting to hear your perspective in private, even if you have no intent of sharing it.  Finally, I understand your comment completely about the severity and quirk, and I can appreciate some golfers not liking it.  But I thought that Crystal Downs had plenty of severity and quirk as well.  I think that Ballyneal does too.  I'm guilty of hating it in some places and loving it at others - I thought all of these courses were examples of good quirk and severity.  That's why I also tried to change the direction from the ratings to opinions and perspectives.  I'm not trying to change anyone else's opinion as that usually proves fruitless.  I'm also not looking for others to convince me.  I'll either still feel this way or I won't after I have the pleasure of playing some additional rounds at Kingsley.  I'm just interested in different perspectives.  For that reason, I should probably get out of JCs way on this thread as he appears to be interested in re-writing the narrative.  I just want to hear the full version of the existing narrative.

For me, Kingsley is about the variety of the quirk and the fact that it remains highly playable and enjoyable despite the severity.  It is also every bit as much about the maintenance and the way the course plays as it is the way it routed and designed.  I can't think of a course I've played, other than those at Bandon, where the maintenance at the time I played it seems to match the architects intent (or at least my interpretation of it) as well as at Kingsley.  And that includes the very narrow view of one day at Crystal Downs.

[Tom_Doak]

Bogey,

Please point to where I made any implication of anyone being a dumbs$$ for not thinking Kingsley was great.

Tom,

Please point to where I or anyone shouted anyone down.  Legitimate points were made and counter points were made for purposes of discussion.

JC:

My previous post was directed at Tim B.  But, one man's "legitimate counter points" are another man's shouting.  In fact, the title of this thread says that you are trying to "rewrite the narrative," as if it is your prerogative to tell others what they should think.

You prefer bells and whistles.  That's fine, but that's not the way everyone thinks.  Most people prefer a bit of restraint.  Pacific Dunes is much more deliberately restrained than Lost Dunes (or Kingsley), at the client's request, and that is just one reason it is appreciated by more people.

Take Jud's example above.  I was not aware that the tenth hole at Kingsley had been "strengthened", but to the course's detractors, that's exactly the opposite of what it needs ... for them, it needs some holes to be softened.


Tim B:

Crystal Downs does have plenty of severity and quirk.  But it also has a better variety of holes than practically any other course in the world, and it does a great job of balancing its nasty side with being short enough to provide scoring opportunities, too.

Ballyneal is very quirky like Kingsley, though not as tough overall.  It, too, is highly rated by GOLFWEEK and nowhere to be found in the GOLF DIGEST ranking ... and it may never be, for all the same reasons as Kingsley.  If so, I think they are wrong, but I can live with that.  Arguing against people's basic point of view is not going to change their opinion.

I agree with you completely about the conditioning of the course.  I think it's one of the best-conditioned courses I have played, although as everyone knows, I am a fan of fescue.  I don't know if the GOLF DIGEST system rewards that character of maintenance -- it would be interesting to see the numbers for that part of the charade that passes for their rankings.

[JC Jones]

JC:

My previous post was directed at Tim B.  But, one man's "legitimate counter points" are another man's shouting.

I never said anything with respect to the legitimacy of my counter points.  Only that Mike Hendren's points were legitimate.

In fact, the title of this thread says that you are trying to "rewrite the narrative," as if it is your prerogative to tell others what they should think.

Actually, Tom, had you read my post I only asked whether the narrative could be rewritten.  I laid out the narrative as I understood it to be and wondered whether it could change. 

This is now the third thread of mine where you have come in, misinterpreted/mischaracterized (either purposely or not purposely) what I wrote and attempted to discredit me with attacks.  Please point out anywhere in any thread where I have told others what they should think.  You clearly don't like discussion.  You like to lay out your view of things and view any disagreement as "shouting down" or "telling others what they should think."  I find it curious that you think others should go out and see golf courses and make up their own mind but are only willing to accept what they come up with so long as it agrees with your own view. 

As opposed to copping out and labeling those who disagree with you as "shouting down," why not address the points made?  Why not tell me or others why Crystal Downs #2 has significantly more golfing merit than Kingsley Club #10.

You prefer bells and whistles.  That's fine, but that's not the way everyone thinks.  Most people prefer a bit of restraint.  Pacific Dunes is much more deliberately restrained than Lost Dunes (or Kingsley), at the client's request, and that is just one reason it is appreciated by more people.

You have no idea what I prefer.  That would require actually reading my posts or, perhaps, engaging in discussion with me and asking some questions to find out what I (or others) think.  Can you list my favorite courses?  I'll give you a hint, Pacific Dunes is #1.  Above, Crystal Downs, above Seminole, above many others.  So, perhaps I like restraint.  Perhaps you should ask sometime.

Take Jud's example above.  I was not aware that the tenth hole at Kingsley had been "strengthened", but to the course's detractors, that's exactly the opposite of what it needs ... for them, it needs some holes to be softened.

You seem to know a lot about what the course's detractors think.  Perhaps you would have done something different with the property but that is no guarantee that would have been better.  In fact, according to your own definition of greatness, I'm not sure it could have been because I'm not sure Mike could have gotten anymore out of that land.

There are posts on this website of yours dating all the way back to 2002 where you have criticized and degraded Kingsley Club.  I'm not sure what your motivation is but Kingsley Club seems to raise your hair a lot more than any other modern course.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()