[T.J. Sturges]

The campaign on this site to heap praise on The Kingsley Club reminds me of how 2 years ago, Lost Dunes (located just a couple of hours from TKC) was a big topic of discussion here, and now you hear nary a word.  Lost Dunes was indeed "lost" for 3 years as the conditions there were beyond soft, thus ruining the enjoyment factor in playing there.  The owner has changed all that this year and the course is playing firm and fast (indeed if you haven't played Lost Dunes this year, please try to get back there for another look).  Lost Dunes also does not make the Top 100 in the US list (which I think it should make IMHO).  I will disclose that I am a member there, so my comments are biased.  How would this group compare Kingsley to LD?  Below is my match play:

1  LD 1 up
2  LD 2 up
3  LD 1 up
4  halved, LD 1 up
5  KC, match all sq.
6  LD,  LD 1 up
7  LD, LD 2 up
8  KC, LD 1 up
9  LD, LD 2 up
10  LD, LD 3 up
11  LD, LD 4 up
12  LD, LD 5 up
13  KC, LD 4 up
14  KC, LD 3 up
15  LD, LD 4 up
16  KC, LD 3 up
17  LD, LD 4 up
18 halved, LD wins 4 up

To Matt Ward et al;  If TKC is clearly in the world top 100 as you suggest, shouldn't it beat the pants off Lost Dunes?  Maybe I like LD more than I should, but I don't see how anyone could put together a match play score 8 or 9 holes in the other direction, which would be what you'd need to make the argument that TKC is significantly better than LD (solidifying the argument that TKC is in the World top 100).  Others who have played both care to comment?

TS  

[Matt_Ward]

TS:

Please send me by FexEx the wacki tobaci you're smoking because you are cleary flying really hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii !!!

TKC would win -- I'm not saying it would be a 6&5 trouncing but there's no doubt in my mind TKC is superior and I'd have it no less than 3rd in MI behind Crystal Downs (I give the benefit to the course because of it's long standing reputation and Mackenzie pedigree) and Oakland Hills / South which still has plenty to offer but it will be curious to see how the ocurse fares in the Ryder Cup Matches next year.

P.S. Let me say this -- I really like Lost Dunes and believe a much stronger case can be made with that layout than what you find at Hidden Creek. The green contours at LD and TKC are a wash in my mind but the ebb and flow you get with TKC -- the pacing and overall routing is just something that few courses being built today can come close to matching IMHO.

[T.J. Sturges]

Matt,

Can you provide something more concrete to support your argument?  

TS

[Steve Lang]

TS .. You're starting to sound like Pat Mucci!

Matt,

Can you provide something more concrete to support your argument?  

TS

[T.J. Sturges]

Ouch!  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Steve,
PLEASE!

I'm enjoying seeing Ted go to town here. Please don't ruin it!

Ted, you don't know how refreshing it all really is! Please urge Ward back too while your at it!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Steve,
Also, little known fact:

My first ever post on Golf Club Atlas was to answer back on  a post he made, entitled something like, "Do we give Dr. MacKenzie too much credit?" It was a post made several, several years ago..................

Ted, do you remember that post?

[Tim_Weiman]

Ted,

I've walked but not played both Kingsley and Lost Dunes. On the personal side I enjoyed meeting Mike DeVries and sharing the company of fellow GCAers, especially dinner later that evening where Dick Daley asked Mike "what the hell he was thinking on #18?". To Mike's credit he laughed as much as everyone else at the table.

At Lost Dunes I mentioned to Tom that I was not one to be turned off by the highway running through the property as I grew up playing a course that also did and held a major championship and isn't Oakmont. Amazingly, Tom thought about it for just a couple seconds and said "Pelham Country Club". Not bad.

As for the golf courses, I'd enjoy going back and playing both of them. Unlike Matt Ward, I did get the impresion that Lost Dunes greens were more interesting. Moreover, the difficult routing job Tom had to do actually gave Lost Dunes points in my mind. I like courses to have their own unique character and Lost Dunes had that for me more than Kingsley. Perhaps that is because there seems to be so much land like Kingsley up in Northern Michigan that at some point it becomes a blur for me. FYI, that is one reason I'm also a fan of the Gailes course over on the "Sunshine" part of the State.

You mentioned the issue of water at Lost Dunes and I do agree that firm and fast conditions really are required to bring out the best in the course. I can imagine where a good part of the challenge and fun might be lost without the proper care.

At Kingsley I really enjoyed Mike's bunker work, especially on holes like #2 and #8. I mentioned this to Mike several times because it was so good and also what can be found missing on far too many modern courses. Mike appreciated the compliments but, in fact, kept asking my impressions of the greens. Taken in by the bunker work, I was left to promise Mike a more thorough inspection of the greens on a return trip.

I don't mind saying that I'm a big fan of Tom Doak and his entire team. But, I also think Mike DeVries is committed to doing really good work and I can only wish them both the best. Any day at either Kingsley or Lost Dunes would be pretty good in my book.

[GeoffreyC]

Ted

We did not get to play Lost Dunes during our trip.

However, you have asked Matt Ward for details without providing ANY yourself!

Are we to take your match play comparison as God's word?

[Tim_Weiman]

Geoffrey Childs:

You make a fair point to Ted about his match play.

Kingsley and Lost Dunes may illustrate the difficulty of the match play game as I believe these are very different courses and, inevitably, personal preferences will come into play.

The opening holes at both courses are an example. At Kingsley you have one of the biggest and boldest you will find in golf. Lost Dunes takes the opposite approach where subtlety is more the order of the day, especially on the approach shot.

I suspect you could get quite a debate as to which is the better opening hole. Personally, I prefer the first hole at Lost Dunes because I like that kind of opener. But, then, I'm also a big fan of #1 at Spyglass, one of the few courses that features a more dramatic opening hole than Kingsley.

[T.J. Sturges]

To Geoffrey Childs,

I provided several specific points about TKC, but you are correct in that I hadn't given any specifics about Lost Dunes.  I have done so in the past, but need to put it out there for this thread.

Lost Dunes:

In the match against TKC, I have LD winning the first 2 holes.  #1 @ LD is a terrific opener in my book.  The bunker at the corner of the dogleg is in the perfect spot and catches lots of balls.  The greencomplex introduces the golfer to what is to come by presenting a green that runs away from you and causes many misjudged approach shots and 3 putts.  The hole is short enough to allow less than a driver and still have 9 or wedge...a great opening hole in my view.  I do like the green complex at #1 @ KC, but give the nod for the hole to LD.  The 2nd @ LD is one of the my 6 favorite holes on the property.  The bunker that comes into the fairway from the right is there to challenge a bold tee shot.  If you carry it, the hole becomes WAY easier.  Another great green complex hidden behind a natural dune makes this a very good hole.  My comments about the 2nd @ KC precede this post.  I give 3 (one of my favorite holes @ KC) to KC.  The 4th is perhaps the funnest hole to play @ LD.  Great hole @ KC, I halve them.  The 5th @ KC with it's punchbowl green was one of my favorites.  Neat, neat hole.  The 5th at LD can be a brutal hole with a driver in your hand, but I give the 5th to KC.  The 6th @ LD from the top tee is a great look and a fun shot to play.  Now that the course is firm, you can have a mid-iron into the hole from there.  This hole beats the 6th @ KC easily. LD wins the 7th as well.  LD's 7th is a fun driving hole and has one of the most demanding approaches on the course.  The 7th @ KC was one of the holes I thought was too "forced" by the minimalism.  The tee shot was very tight looking, and I thought the trees near the landing area should be removed.  I liked the green, but the 2nd shot was just an advancement shot which lacked interest.  8th to KC (I really liked that hole).  The more bold the tee shot down the right, over the hill and bunker, the easier the approach.  Neat hole.  LD's 8th is long and straight and is not that interesting.  9th holes.  Both par 3's.  From a playability standpoint, the 9th is the most severe hole on the property @ KC.  I didn't really enjoy it from either of the 2 tees I played it from.  The 9th @ LD is solid offering the golfer one of the few forced carries on the property and a challenging putting green if the golfer is lucky enough to reach the green.  9th to LD.  This puts LD up 2 at the turn.

I'm not a huge fan of the 10th @ LD, and in comparisons, it rarely "wins" a match play hole against another quality course.  The 10th @ KC was so understated, there was not much happening on it for me.  10th to LD.  The 11th is my favorite hole @ LD.  There are not many places in the states where you stand in the fairway and look at a green complex like that!  And....what a green!  The 11th @ KC was an OK hole, but my 3rd favorite one shot hole there.  11th to LD.  12th to LD as well with it's elevated tee shot which must carry the cross bunkers, and one of the more subtle yet very challenging green complexes on the property.  The 12th @ KC was one of my least favorites.  It shares the elevated tee shot with LD, and the rest of the hole just isn't as interesting as the 12th @ LD.  This completes a 3 hole stretch all to LD, putting it 5 up.  13 to KC hands down.  I'm not a big fan of the 14th @ LD (my second least favorite hole).  With the water hazard the hole looks too "modern" and not very natural looking to me.  I liked the 14th @ KC better the 2nd time around.  14 to KC, bringing it back to only 3 down.  15 @ LD is my second favorite hole.  I think it is hard to build really interesting par 5's, and this one is terrific.  The tee shot is a "cape" strategy shot and the 2nd allows a golfer to play safe or go for the green.  The green is a holy terror!  I liked the 15th @ KC, but it falls short of LD's 15th.  16 @ KC might have been my favorite hole on the property.  A fantastic one shot hole.  It easily beats the weakest one shotter @ LD.  17 @ LD is a great natural hole.  Maybe the prettiest hole on the property.  You don'e see any other hole but that one when playing it.  It is a long hole, but the fairway is big, and the approach can be bounced on.  A fun green complex with a tiny bunker left that catches the left miss.  I think it's one of the 6 best holes @ LD.  I liked the 17th @ KC (and one could make the argument that it's better than 17 @ LD), but I am biased toward 17 @ LD.  LD wins 17 and goes 4 up.  I halve the 18th as both are underwhelming finishing holes.  The 18th @ LD is my least favorite on the course.  LD wins 4 up.  

TS

[GeoffreyC]

Ted

Thanks for the summary.  I will try to get up and see Lost Dunes.  You make it sound very entising.

I will say that to beat the first two holes at KC the holes at LD must be really special. Recall Ran's quote about the 2nd hole in his course profile.

Similarly, the 4th at KC was really special in its use of the bowls in the landing area much like 16 at NGLA and the guts to put the biggest green on the course on such a short hole. I think it worked fabulously well and that hole wouuld be hard to beat.

I loved the drive especially from the back tee on #6 at KC and the uneven stances in the fairway and teh bunkering around the green gave the hole a great quality.  Hard to beat in my opinion.

Please explain what you mean by "The 7th @ KC was one of the holes I thought was too "forced" by the minimalism."  This seems counterintuitive to me. Try laying up a bit too close to this green especially to right pin locations and tell me if the 2nd is just an advancement up the fairway.  Again, the movement of the land and stances and lies that are possible make placement of the 2nd all important.

I liked the 9th at KC and from both tee's.  We'll disagree but I'll ask you if you make the same criticism of the 11th green at Crystal Downs?

Same for the 12th which I thought to be a perfect natural hole without need for a bunker.

The 15th at LD must be really world class because that's what I thought the 15th at KC was.  That greensite while among the least natural on the course was ingeniously contrived.  Our front right pin location was awesome.

So, without seeing Lost Dunes I can't comment any further except to say believing your arguments makes LD one great golf course.

[T.J. Sturges]

Geoffrey,

1.  I think John wrote the course profile on Kingsley.  I can't speak for Ran, but I don't think he would make the same comment praising the 2nd as is in that course profile.

2.  RE:  My comments on TKC #7.  First, standing on the tee the golfer doesn't get the feeling that there is ample room to play the tee shot.  Compared to the rest of the course up to that point (and beyond) this tee shot seems out of character.  Mike Devries asked us when we played whether we would have removed the trees.  I told him I thought I would (I'd like to see what that hole looks like w/o the trees).  On the 2nd shot, from where I drove it, I thought the 2nd shot was blind.  Your comments about where exactly to lay up would come with more rounds there.  I appreciate that a blind shot can be strategic, but from where I drove it, I just hit about 6 iron to advance the ball.  More rounds there would change this it sounds like.

3.  Yes, I would make the same criticism of the 11th @ Crystal Downs.  That green complex was built with stimp meter speeds of about 7 in mind.  I've played there with the greens very fast and that hole is unplayable with many hole locations.  It is a great looking hole (as is the 9th @ KC), it just doesn't always work well with certain conditions.

4.  The 15th @ LD is indeed world class in my opinion.  One of T. Doak's best par 5's I think.  

5.  Please get up to LD.  I'd be happy to assist you with this.  What part of the country do you live in?  How often do you get to Michigan?

TS

[GeoffreyC]

Ted

I think these discussions are good for this site.  They help us to learn one anothers preferences and importantly the rationale for generating them. I'm glad you decided to come back and contribute.

I live in Westchester County and play out of Yale (until they kick me out for my big mouth).  Please let me know when you are in the area. Our trip this spring was my first golfing experience in Michigan.  It will not be the last.  Thanks for the offer of assistance.

[Matt_Ward]

Mr. Sturges:

I'm on the road back to the NY metro area after being in the West Virginia and Pittsburgh area for the last few days. I will be more than happy to post a detailed match play comparison and a general overview of the par-3's, par-4's and par-5's at both courses.

The Kingsley Club is a superb course and I do like Lost Dunes but I will convince you of the error of your ways.

[Matt_Ward]

Mr. Sturges:

You indicated in you r intial post that Lost Dunes would beat TKC by a 4-up margin. That is far from what I see when comparing the two courses.

Let's start with a few generalized comments.

Both courses play to a par of 71 with an equal split of five par-5's, five par-3's and the rest being par-4's. Both are roughly close in total yardage -- LD is 6,905 from the back and TKC is just under 6,800.

I will do a hole-by-hole match and then an assessment of the holes by their category and a genralized analysis of the routing pattern the player faces.

Since I need to be with my family this afternoon I will do the front side today and the remaining holes and analysis tomorrow.

1st hole -- TKC goes one-up
The 1st at TKC is a superb starter -- the views from the elevated tee are marvelous and the options you are faced with make for a dynamic opening hole. The green is also elevated above the fairway and is nicely contoured. The 1st at LD is a pro forma opener that has little more than pedestrian written on it.

2nd hole -- LD wins hole / match all-square
The 2nd at LD is a stout par-4 that plays 425 yards and is guarded very well by a bunker ont he left side. The 2nd at TKC is a wondeful par-3 that is extremely narrow and testing with the approach. As much as I like hole at TKC I have to give the nod to LD because of the nature of its overall challenge.

3rd hole -- TKC wins hole / goes one-up
The 3rd at TKC is a solid dog-leg right that forces the player to decide how much do you dare risk off the tee. I also believe the green is well done and appropriately contoured. The 3rd at LD is a good par-3 but not at the same level as the 3rd at TKC.

4th hole -- LD wins hole / match all-square
The 4th at LD is a clever par-5 that will not yield birdies unless you position the first two shots. And the green is indeed quite special! The 4th at TKC is also a good hole and I like the blind approach to a green that is devilishly positioned but it doesn't have the same qualities that the 4th at LD has.

5th hole -- Hole is havled -- match all-square
Both par-3's here on equal in my mind. I do enjoy the green at TKC because you have to shape the shot from right-to-left from the tee but the 5th at LD is also quite demanding because of its green contours.

6th hole -- LD wins hole -- LD goes one-up
Demanding long par-4 at LD tests the tee shot and the placement of the approach. The 6th at TKC is a good mid-length par-4 that tightens up in the driving zone the longer you go. Still -- the edge to LD.

7th hole -- TKC wins hole -- match is squared
The 7th at TKC is no less in quality as a par-5 than the 1st which is brillant IMHO. You can be aggressive off the tee but the slightest push will mean looking for the ball in the hay. The green is also set nicely on a perch above the fairway. The 7th at LD is a good long par-4 of 448 yards but it's primarily pro forma in what it asks from the player.

8th hole -- Hole is halved -- match remains square
The 8th at LD is simply a long par-5 that lacks on the character meter for me. The 8th at TKC is likely the weakest of the holes on the front from an architectural perspective. Since they both come at the same time I rate them a draw.

9th hole -- TKC wins hole --  TKC goes one-up
Good test of par-3's but TKC has the more demanding approach and the green is simply D-E-L-I-C-I-O-U-S stuff. Not many short par-3's can exctract so much sweat then when you stand on the tee on this hole. A frontal pin placement is quite good and back right is also quite testing. The 9th at LD is also a good hole as it is protected well by sand and is contoured quite well but the sheer comprehsneive naure of the 9th at TKC is simply too good.

P.S. Mr. Sturges: One last thing before going for now ... in a match of quality golf courses you will likely not see the hugre margin of differences you think will happen. I said before that Lost Dunes is a very good course and IMHO beyond Hidden Creek, to name just one example. The back nine and overall  
comparison of the hole categories and routing demands will be posted tomorrow. Adios for now ...

[Ran Morrissett]

Matt,

"The 1st at LD is a pro forma opener that has little more than pedestrian written on it."  I guess you and I disagree - again -that the front to back 1st green at Lost Dunes is easily among Doak's all-time finest  

I am going to file that one with your comments on flat tees, how Rees was sympathetic to Travis's style at Equinox, how The Bridge is top 5 on Long Island, how Maidstone isn't in the top 25 in New York State, and how overrated Shorecares is as among the things that I need to reconsider.

Cheers,

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Maidstone isn't in the top 25 in New York State...........

Matt, please tell me that you didn't say, that did you?

[T_MacWood]

I love the first at Lost Dunes....one of the more intruiging openers I've run across....the approach is very unique....and the tee shot although relatively easy is visually intimidating (and for that reason no piece of cake). And I wonder if the 1st at Kingsley (which I also like) might be better suited for later in the round.

[T.J. Sturges]

To:  Tommy N.,

I absolutely do not recall that your first ever post here was an answer to a question I had posed.  All I can say about that is that I need a new publicist.  Since then, YOU:  have appeared on the pages of Sports Illustrated, and I: can't beat anyone in this confounding game except Ran!....  this world is just not a fair place, now is it.

I DO remember holding the door open for a rather robust gentleman walking into the hotel at Apache Stronghold and that gentleman asking me "are you with the Renaissance Cup group?".... followed by "hello, my name is Tommy Nacarrato"....  in one instant I felt the magic of this thing we call the internet...


To Matt Ward:

Please, please, please do not post your analysis of the back nine at LD and TKC.  Any competent fight doctor would have stopped this thing after the 4th or 5th hole.  I know Ran will want you to continue as disecting your analysis will be good for business, but I'd like to stop the madness and help salvage some dignity here...

And...please tell me you didn't say that: (1)  Maidstone isn't in the top 25 in NY State, and (2) That The Bridge is Top 5 Anything...

TS

[T_MacWood]

If I might pile on....Mathew also said Lost Canyons and Nantucket were masterpieces and that he loved Bendelow's tremendous work at Skokie....I believe Bendelow's work was wiped out about a century ago.

In fairness no one has seen more good golf courses than Matt Ward....unfortunately no one has also seen more mediocre and goof ball designs either....under the circumstances its amazing he can assess anything....I'd be in analytical traction...

[Matt_Ward]

Ran:

With all due respect you and a few other folks here on GCA march to the beat of the same drummer in terms of how you see golf courses. I sometimes have a different view and when I state my reasons I then get some bomblast about being out of touch. Really? Last I checked you see Somerset Hills as being one of the 4-5 best in New Jersey. Ran -- help me out -- is that before or after Hidden Creek?

I don't see how the 1st at Lost Dunes is a better hole than The 1st at The Kingsley Club. I've played them both and for my money the 1st at Kingsley is the superior hole. Do you think the 1st green at TKC is chop liver -- how about the strategic concerns regarding the well-positioned fairway bunker. Oh, I guess, that doesn't mean anything.

Second, let's also be clear -- you are a major league fan of Crenshaw & Coore. If someone says the least bit different you seem to take great umbrage on how such an opinion can be formed. Just look at the number of people who have played Hidden Creek and you can tell from there posts that they concur it isn't a top 100 course and that the omission of The Kingsley Club is certainly something missed by Golf Digest's panel and the one from Golf Magazine.

I also stand behind my belief that quite a few people here on GCA have their select "fan club" of architect "A" and architect "B" and so forth. Heaven forbid -- if someone says the least bit thing that is then interpreteted by others as derogatory. I don't promote architects -- I rate courses from my standpoint and in observing the characteristics of that design and how it impacts on the greatest range of players.

Ran -- yes, yes, yes -- Shoreacres is vastly overrated. Have you forgotten the mediocire holes at the start and the sad conclusion. No -- I forgot -- it's a Raynor design and all must genuflect to that type of course even though Raynor did far better work with places such as Camargo and Fisher's Island IMHO. If you want a Chicago alternative trek the 30 minutes or so to Skokie.

Oh, one last thing -- I try to pay attention to the lesser known architects who do some outstanding work. I'd be most curious when you venture to New Mexico (sorry no Raynor or Mackenize courses there -- oh darn!) and get your take on Black Mesa, Paa-Ko Ridge and the others you will be playing.

Mr. MacWood:

Before casting stones -- you're the same guy who says things about courses -- excuse me how they "look from aerial since the time of Moses and Abraham, but has NEVER "played" the courses in question. Mr. MacWood you are an apt historian (for what that's worth ), but alas you are not a golfer who takes the time and trouble to play the courses BEFORE lobbing another tired bromide about how much you know.

When you talk about my opinions of The Bridge and Maidstone I stand behind it. Maidstone has a number of excellent holes through the dunes section -- there are also a number of holes that are simply filler at the beginning and for people to rate the course among the top 50 in the USA when others are left out of the mix altogether sends a strong message to me that we see things vastly different.

I also enjoyed Nantucket and I also enjoyed the Sky Course at Lost Canyons. Have you played both of these yourself -- I'm sorry Tom -- you specialize in aerial analysis -- the kind that simply looks at pictures from the comforts of your living room chair and then throws verbal bombs when people take you to task because you have not played the layout but hide behind the aspect of how something "looked" from yesteryear. Great historical analysis no doubt -- you need to teach others how you can do such a thorough job by leaving the equation of a hole / course plays out of the picture.

You're also the guy with a major league hard-on against Rees Jones and think he's the present day Darth Vader of design. Oh, but that's OK, because Rees is not a pet favorite of the "in" crowd here on GCA.

I stated how much I love Skokie and I how I credited Ron Prichard for his outstanding restoration work. Guess you must have forgotten to include that missing fact -- right Tom?

Yes, I made an error in not stating the accurate depiction of Rees Jones work at the Equinox but at least I will admit my errors. I forgot I have not heard your mea culpa on your half-baked analysis on Hollywood, Bethpage Black and Baltusrol, to name just three.

Emperor:

Look almighty one -- we see things differently. You favor the "look" of golf courses and I believe, first and foremost, that how a course "plays" takes the position of first among equals.

Tommy, there are a few people here on GCA who would rate food simply by the manner of its "presentation" but would rate the taste / flavor of it in a secondary position. I think that's backwards but what do I know. I'm just a heathen from New Jersey.

Mr. Sturges:

If there is need for medical attention -- please contact the local hospital. You're the one who threw the inane position that Lost Dunes knocks out The Kingsley Club by a four hole margin. Right?

At least in my assessment I have tried to be fair and balanced in comparing the courses. If you see it differently -- fine but there are a great many others, here on GCA and elsewhere, who have played The Kingsley Club and know full well how fantastic the course is.

[T_MacWood]

Matt
What is a bromide? And what happens if you are struck by one thats been lobbed?

I don't ever recall commenting on your opinions of the Bridge and Maidstone....bromide not discharged....and what does that have to do with my take on the 1st at Kingsley and Lost Dunes?

Nantucket yes. Lost Canyons no. I'm glad you enjoyed both courses...I'd hope so after declairing both masterpieces.

I make mistakes too. Regarding documenting the changes to Bethpage, Baltusrol and Hollywood, I don't normally admit to mistakes until I discover the mistakes I made.

I always enjoy your fall back position....I am not a Raynor-ite and you are....I am not C&C groupy and you are....I'm not blinded by the names MacKenzie, Tillie, Ross, Macdonald, Travis, Langford, etc (in fact who is this Langford cat anyways) and you are.

Anything interesting to report from Arizona, New Mexico or Nevada?

[Matt_Ward]

Tom:

Enjoy the living room analysis -- keep it coming!

You believe the 1st at TKC could / should come later in the round. I like it where it is because it introduces the course in such a profound manner. There's plenty of choices to be made and I believe the option aspect trumps what you find at the 1st at LD although I did undervalue the nature fo the green in my original post.

Appreciate the "spin" on my words -- but I never said Lost Canyons (Sky) and Nantucket were masterpieces -- just good tests of golf. If they don't have a Mackenzie, Maxwell, Tillie design focus or point I'm sorry it may lose a few of the "traditionalists" here on GCA.

I also just like the different styles they present and I also made it a point to highlight why the sister course Shadow at Lost Canyons is really a "lost" cause because of the terrain it has and the limited options it presents for the mid to high handicapper. I also believe what Rees Jones did at Nantucket is beyond some of his earlier designs and I stated which ones and how some of the newer designs (Nantucket among them) works better than his overuse of containment mounding and other such man-made features.

Tom, I don't have to offer a fallback position because it's clear there are people, you among them, have a distaste for a good number of modern designs. Instead of getting off the couch you simply provide "aerial assessments" on how courses should "look" from the time of Moses until the present day. Of course -- you can't comment on how they play because that would mean leaving the comfort of the couch. Geeeeeze, that's unfortunate.

Tom, you erred big time on Hollywood, Bethpage Black and Baltusrol, to name just three. You can tapdance all you want but it became quite clear that you were making comments on courses from simple analysis of aerials but had never played the courses in question. I don't see how one can do such a thing because the work that was carried out in all three cases turned out quite well IMHO.

Tom, I take a pragmatic position regarding courses and if you bothered to check my personal top 50 you will find a wide assortment of courses from both the classic period and those that have serious positive qualities from the modern era. I'd be happy to see your listing but it's far easier to hide behind the cloak of secrecy and simply lob another bromide about how Ward is so out of touch.

P.S. If you don't believe that people favor certain type of architects on this site then we simply disagree. I see it all the time. One other thing -- there's plenty of fine golf in the states you mentioned -- send me a postcard address and I'll make sure you get the latest info -- you won't even have to leave your comfy couch!

[T.J. Sturges]

Matt,

I've got to hand it to you for sticking to your convictions when grenades (or bromide...whatever that is) are being tossed your way.

A comment you made to Tommy however, puzzles me.  You said, "You (Tommy) favor the look of golf courses and I believe, first and foremost, that how a course plays takes the position of first among equals."

If you are indeed a student of that school of thought, I think you share that notion with: Ran, Tom Macwood, Tommy, myself and others (who you categorize as being opposed to your views).  To the contrary, I think the way a course plays is what it is all about as well.  To paint Tommy as a person who likes the way a course looks more than how it plays would make him a Fazio fan (which, last time I checked is not the case).  Strategic design has always been favored by those you feel oppose your views.  We just don't have much evidence that strategic design is utilized by Rees, Fazio, Nicklaus et al. When one looks beyond their waterfalls, one has a difficult time finding 2 or 3 holes on many modern designer's courses that are "strategic".  

So when you say how a course plays is what should carry the day, I'm puzzled as to why you don't like the work of the old masters more (these are the guys who understood and utilized strategic design principles in their work).  

I agree with you that The Kingsley Club played (read: playing conditions) GREAT and that Mike has utilized several strategic design principles in this course.  We just differ on what we like and dislike architecturally (as I always joke to my wife, "honey, if everybody had the same taste, we wouldn't have good taste!").  But to say that Ran's "rat pack" only "worships" the famous architects is not accurate.  When this site was created, Tom Doak's name was not on the radar screen.  His work has put him where he is, and if Mike Devries can develop as highly an acclaimed  portfolio of work as the men at Renaissance Golf, he will become more well known in the business.  I think Mike is a talented architect.  I just don't rate TKC as high as you do. (Check The Confidential Guide's rating scale...a 7 is an extremely good golf course).

Lastly, don't ever lose your sense of humor.  This site is supposed to be fun!  If one takes a swat at another's post, it should be to make a point, and to do it in a fun way.  I try not to take these posts (or myself) too seriously.  It makes these discussions much more fun!

TS

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()