[Andy Troeger]

Interesting thread and discussion from before my GCA days. I was fortunate enough to see both Kingsley and Lost Dunes before I left the area. I have them 2nd and 3rd in Michigan of what I've seen behind only Crystal Downs. I haven't played Oakland Hills, but have seen many of the other candidates.

I have Kingsley a little bit ahead of Lost Dunes, but the differences are pretty minor. The greens on both courses are really good--that's pretty close to a wash for me. I'd give Kingsley a little bit of advantage tee-to-green with variety of holes--I really like #1, 3, 6, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 amongst others. There's some good ones at Lost Dunes too--#2, 6, 10, 11, 15, 17 come to mind. I'd go back to either one in a heartbeat certainly.

[Chuck Brown]

Hey this is a fun thread!  I like it!

I happen to love the idea of TKC, the spirit, the effort, and I think it is a very attractive and rewarding course to play.  TKC was unquestionably built on a superior bit of real estate.

Still, I think I'd rather play at Lost Dunes every day, and I think Lost Dunes is one of the finest works of golf architecture in the state.  I think Michigan needs about two or three dozen more Tom Doak golf courses.

Count me in agreement with post Number 1...

[Mike_Cirba]

Shiv,

If memory serves we had a front approaching and a pretty good breeze in the puss coming up 18 that day.   I hit it solid but it got hung up on the right side hill and I had about a six-iron in.

However, when I was last there a few years back it was hot and still and I hit probably my best drive of the day, caught a turbo-boost, and had about 100 yards in.

In the immortal words of Joseph Merrick, I am NOT an animal.   

[Will E]

I'm with Dave on this one, Kingsley beats Lost Dunes.
In what many may see as an upset I have Black Forest up on Kingsley.

[Adam Clayman]

That's insane!
 Kingsley's routing is so vastly superior to Black Forest, the rest is immaterial.

[George Freeman]

I will say this, having now played both:  I think Kingsley is the better golf course primarily due to the better topography. The greens at Lost Dunes are out of this world, but the overall variety at Kingsley is really something.

I have to disagree with those that say the back nine at KC is light. I really liked every hole on that side.  Oddly enough I thought 12 and 14 were alright, but nothing all thaaaaat special.  I loved 13, 15, 16 and 17.

I thought 7 was the worst hole on the course.

Dave,

I will agree with you that the greens at Lost Dunes are really good, however I think the greens at Kingsley are equally as good, if not better.  IMO the greens at KC seem more natural and LD's greens feel a little more contrived (and more contrived than some of Tom Doak's other works).

I have to disagree with you on #7 at KC.  I really like the movement of the entire hole, the vista at the tee, the options of the lay up (and blindness) and the green complex, which i think is fantastic.  I'm not in love with the trees at the end of the landing area and would like to see a little more playable hazard instead of trees (i.e. bunkers or scrub). 

It's not my absolute favorite on the course, but I don't think it's the weakest.

[Will E]

Adam-
Insane?
Is that a good thing?
Even though Kingsley and Black Forest had the same talent involved in the bunkering they are two VERY different types of golf courses.
Somewhat like comparing NGLA and Shinnecock.
They are both appealing to my eye, I just happen to think the golf is better at Black Forest.
If I had to put walking into the mix, sure Kingsley is an easier walk.
Put the conditioning into the mix and Kingsley scores a K.O.
I do think that the flow of Black Forest works, it's a big course, with big features and is a big insane walk. It does work though and I'll defend the routing.
The only folks I know that don't like Black Forest need to work on their games.
hint.

[Adam Clayman]

Thats a pretty cheap shot oh great and boring ball striker. Especially since I played the swinging gate perfectly. Truthfully, I had no problem with the width, but the separation of holes, compared to the intimacy at Kingsley, makes it a no brainer. The pond holes are like a bad dream with that zero grade and the two mile hike back to the clubhouse is just dandy.

[Matt_Ward]

Wellender:

Help me out with your thinking -- where do you rate Black Forest among all the courses you have played in MI ?

You say "the golf is better" at Black Forest. I can appreciate vague general comments but it would be helpful for you to flush out your thought process and apply a bit more chicken to the bone of your rationale.

Kingsley for me is stunning golf -- the land, sheer complexity and skill with the routing and the top tier shot values encountered are all there for anyone with eyes to see. The only real weakness I see rests with the 10th and 11th holes. They are both good but a clear step or two behind the rest you see there.

Look forward to your detailed comments.

[Brian Cenci]

Interesting thread and discussion from before my GCA days. I was fortunate enough to see both Kingsley and Lost Dunes before I left the area. I have them 2nd and 3rd in Michigan of what I've seen behind only Crystal Downs. I haven't played Oakland Hills, but have seen many of the other candidates.

I have Kingsley a little bit ahead of Lost Dunes, but the differences are pretty minor. The greens on both courses are really good--that's pretty close to a wash for me. I'd give Kingsley a little bit of advantage tee-to-green with variety of holes--I really like #1, 3, 6, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 amongst others. There's some good ones at Lost Dunes too--#2, 6, 10, 11, 15, 17 come to mind. I'd go back to either one in a heartbeat certainly.

Where's Greywalls in your mix?  Myself and a few others feel that Greywalls is #2 or #3 in the state.

-Brian

[Brian Cenci]

I'm with Dave on this one, Kingsley beats Lost Dunes.
In what many may see as an upset I have Black Forest up on Kingsley.

IMO Black Forest is overated and to say it is better than Kingsley is crazy.  Take away the Doak name to it and I doubt most people would put it in their top 20 in Michigan.  IMO the following courses in Michigan are better than Black Forest: Crystal Downs, Greywalls, Oakland Hills, Franklin Hills, Lost Dunes, Dunes Club, Arcadia Bluffs, Forest Dunes, Eagle Eye, Tullymore, Radrick Farms, Lakewood Shores, Angel's Crossing, Wuschowan Players Club, Indianwood (Old), Barton Hills, CC of Lansing, Muskegon CC, Red Hawk, Point O'Woods, etc....there, that's 20 and I didn't even talk about Shephards Hollow and a few other publics that are pretty good.

[Jim Thompson]

I don't know you can even start to compare the two courses given the dramatic difference in topography.  You might bne able do this green complex to green complex btu as for the rest of it, this task has more to do with stylistic appeal and that is all based on the individual's eye.

For what its worth, the back nine at Kingsley might be some of the best golf I've ever seen.  My only tweak would be the 15th green complex and maybe another 5,000 yards of earthmoving here and there.  The front is very severe, but that term has to be taken in context of minimal design considerations and a bit of DeVriesian thinking.

As an aside, I wonder if we can ever do one of these hole by hole match play type comaprison based upon what the architect achieved relative to what he started with instead of comparing the end results?  The real gift is how much you can do with what you are given in my mind.



Cheers!

JT

[Andy Troeger]

Interesting thread and discussion from before my GCA days. I was fortunate enough to see both Kingsley and Lost Dunes before I left the area. I have them 2nd and 3rd in Michigan of what I've seen behind only Crystal Downs. I haven't played Oakland Hills, but have seen many of the other candidates.

I have Kingsley a little bit ahead of Lost Dunes, but the differences are pretty minor. The greens on both courses are really good--that's pretty close to a wash for me. I'd give Kingsley a little bit of advantage tee-to-green with variety of holes--I really like #1, 3, 6, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 amongst others. There's some good ones at Lost Dunes too--#2, 6, 10, 11, 15, 17 come to mind. I'd go back to either one in a heartbeat certainly.

Where's Greywalls in your mix?  Myself and a few others feel that Greywalls is #2 or #3 in the state.

-Brian

Oops, should have added the caveat that I haven't seen Greywalls either...I wouldn't be surprised at all if I agreed with you though, looks amazing.

[JC Jones]

I don't know you can even start to compare the two courses given the dramatic difference in topography.  You might bne able do this green complex to green complex btu as for the rest of it, this task has more to do with stylistic appeal and that is all based on the individual's eye.

For what its worth, the back nine at Kingsley might be some of the best golf I've ever seen.  My only tweak would be the 15th green complex and maybe another 5,000 yards of earthmoving here and there.  The front is very severe, but that term has to be taken in context of minimal design considerations and a bit of DeVriesian thinking.

As an aside, I wonder if we can ever do one of these hole by hole match play type comaprison based upon what the architect achieved relative to what he started with instead of comparing the end results?  The real gift is how much you can do with what you are given in my mind.



Cheers!

JT

Neither of them accomplished as much as the guy who did Angels crossing....

btw, how is your back? 

[Will E]

Hey Matt-
I really like Kingsley and probably feel as though I'm defending Black Forest because I think it's really overlooked.
As far as my top 10 MI ratings go-
Crystal Downs, Dunes, Oakland Hills South, Black Forest, Kingsley, Indianwood Old, CC of Detroit, Lost Dunes, Barton Hills front nine
I haven't seen Greywalls.
Arcadia Bluffs and True North just aren't my cup of tea.
I do know the rest of Brian's list and think that living in Lansing is clouding his judgment.
As far as the specifics as to why I think Black Forest is more enjoyable than Kingsley;
I'm not sure as though I could easily nail it down, I just like it more because I do.
I find BF to be one of the purest test of golf anywhere, and find the "shot values" incredible.
and Adam, I'm not a great ball striker unless you're comparing me to BCD
now that I think about it #17 along the pond is an incredible hole!

[George Freeman]

I don't know you can even start to compare the two courses given the dramatic difference in topography.  You might bne able do this green complex to green complex btu as for the rest of it, this task has more to do with stylistic appeal and that is all based on the individual's eye.

For what its worth, the back nine at Kingsley might be some of the best golf I've ever seen.  My only tweak would be the 15th green complex and maybe another 5,000 yards of earthmoving here and there.  The front is very severe, but that term has to be taken in context of minimal design considerations and a bit of DeVriesian thinking.

As an aside, I wonder if we can ever do one of these hole by hole match play type comaprison based upon what the architect achieved relative to what he started with instead of comparing the end results?  The real gift is how much you can do with what you are given in my mind.



Cheers!

JT

Neither of them accomplished as much as the guy who did Angels crossing....

btw, how is your back? 

JC,

really?!

I definitely disagree with you that the architect of Agels Crossing accomplished more than either Doak or DeVries at Lost Dues and Kingsley Club, respectively.  Although Angels Crossing is a nice course and indeed well done, I don't see it in even the same ballpark as Lost Dunes, and definitely not Kingsley. 

Did you mean "accomplished" more b/c the architect turned out a good course on a site far inferior to the ones Doak and DeVries had to work with?  If that is the case, did Dye at Whistling Straights or Fazio at Shadow Creek "accomplish" more than Coore/Crenshaw at Sand Hills or MacKenzie at Cypress Point?

Creating a good/great golf course on lousy terrain is an accomplishment (for lack of a better word) no doubt, but I think the end product is the ultimate measure of a golf course...not what was there before it was.

- George

[Matt_Ward]

Wellender:

A couple of quick comments ...

This site is based on a good bit more than just ...

"I just like it more because I do."

I'm not suggesting you can't have an opinion but to lamely come forward and present a defense with such a meager analysis does little for your case and your overall understanding of just how superior Kingsley is.

[Will E]

thanks for that Matt, in this context I'll agree that more explanation would be helpful.

To help you comprehend my choice you should understand that on most days I enjoy a difficult course that I feel presents many decisions on most every shot.
Probably why I liked Bethpage before the 23 yard wide fairways, ditto for OH south,
also why I think TPC Sawgrass is a gem and can't quite figure out the obsession some here have with Maidstone or Shoreacres.
As you noted, Kinglsey is fantastic, and on some days I'd rather tee it up there than BF.
IMHO BF provides a more challenging course especially off of the tee, I also feel that luck (bounce) is more of a factor at Kingsley and when firm and fast occasionally plays over the top
I can understand liking Kingsley more, it obviously puts much more focus on the ground game and doesn't require as much precision as BF.
I think it gets down to Gib's "Whimsical Adventure vs. Objective Examination" argument.

as much as you want (or need) to be right, you never will be.

I'll continue to be free to choose.

anyway this is supposed to be about Kingsley vs. Lost Dunes, we'll agree Kingsley easily wins this battle

[Jim Thompson]

JC,

Thanks so much for the compliment!  I think we did a pretty good job given a site with not more than 40 foot of undulation and you had to go over 500 yards start to finish to even find that.  As for my back, I'm still really having trouble with spasms.  It is getting better though, I think working on my front may be the best thing I can do for my back, so I'm trying to get back down from playing weight to fighting weight.  Its comin'!

George,

I certainly understand what you are saying in your post, BUT everyone doesn't get a great piece of land and not all situations are even comparable.  To use Kingsley as the example, the front nine is so severe and abrupt that Mike really deserves a bunch of credit for even figuring out how to get nine holes on that side of the road.  Further to do it in a natural manner is an accomplishment as well.  There are things I would change if I had to work within his paradigm, but I understand the process better than most having lived it a few times.  I know one thing – every feature and slope was well pondered and evaluated before being settled on and it will take me a few more plays to even begin to appreciate Mike’s intent.

I think what is lost in most of these type of discussions is what the intent was when the concept was developed for a course.  Not wanting to use Angels as an example, but it fits here; we really wanted to create a 1900 era style course that was scaled to today's game.  To us that meant that we wanted to be honest and straight forward about features that were going to be significantly engineered and built up.  The areas of 4,5,6 / 9,1,10,18,11 / 8,13,14,15 were farmed in the fifties, everything you see there is man made.  That style choice, for us, required avoiding being overly visual and leaving the drama to the location of features rather than to the eye.  Granted, we could have put about anything in there and could have chosen a number of different styles, probably even one you prefer over the one we chose, but it was our choice.  I'm not sure a more natural looking golf corridor would have given us a strong identity in our market.  Yarrow is just around the corner, Thornapple has a similar look and our goal was to really differentiate our project from the competition.  One of the great comments we got when I was there was that the course looked old, had the appearance of being established, bold and conveyed mass.  Since I left, the course has been kept wetter and lusher, which I do not think has helped promote the intended playability.  The natives are being allowed to dry and brown to add visual texture etc…  As I said above, I think it will take many plays to understand our intent and to appreciate the variability that results form our approach to green design and its impact on strategic decision making as pin locations move on those greens.

I also think JC was responding to my comment relative to land one starts with.  I would never say Kingsley and Angels are comparable, because they’re not and they were never intended to be.  Nor would I ever say one is better than the other as they are to different in their intended experience to be comparable.  Angels was intended to be a course that the player could play 60+ times a year and not get bored or feel beat up where Kingsley is a seasonal destination or a two month club for those in the TC area.  Each has a different role.

Lost Dunes is a private club full season club and has yet another set of criteria.  This one really is an apples to oranges to pineapple comparison.


Cheers!

JT

[JC Jones]

I don't know you can even start to compare the two courses given the dramatic difference in topography.  You might bne able do this green complex to green complex btu as for the rest of it, this task has more to do with stylistic appeal and that is all based on the individual's eye.

For what its worth, the back nine at Kingsley might be some of the best golf I've ever seen.  My only tweak would be the 15th green complex and maybe another 5,000 yards of earthmoving here and there.  The front is very severe, but that term has to be taken in context of minimal design considerations and a bit of DeVriesian thinking.

As an aside, I wonder if we can ever do one of these hole by hole match play type comaprison based upon what the architect achieved relative to what he started with instead of comparing the end results?  The real gift is how much you can do with what you are given in my mind.



Cheers!

JT

Neither of them accomplished as much as the guy who did Angels crossing....

btw, how is your back? 

JC,

really?!

I definitely disagree with you that the architect of Agels Crossing accomplished more than either Doak or DeVries at Lost Dues and Kingsley Club, respectively.  Although Angels Crossing is a nice course and indeed well done, I don't see it in even the same ballpark as Lost Dunes, and definitely not Kingsley. 

Did you mean "accomplished" more b/c the architect turned out a good course on a site far inferior to the ones Doak and DeVries had to work with?  If that is the case, did Dye at Whistling Straights or Fazio at Shadow Creek "accomplish" more than Coore/Crenshaw at Sand Hills or MacKenzie at Cypress Point?

Creating a good/great golf course on lousy terrain is an accomplishment (for lack of a better word) no doubt, but I think the end product is the ultimate measure of a golf course...not what was there before it was.

- George

   It was a nod to JT b/c of JT's involvement w/ Angels.

Actually, I've not played Angels or Lost Dunes.  LD b/c I dont have any contacts and Angels b/c I switched jobs this summer and didnt play much golf (although I told JT I'd play it after he gave me a drubbing at High Pointe this past spring).

Kingsley is tremendous.  Of the courses I've played, I rank it #2 in MI behind Crystal Downs and ahead of Arcadia.  (I have not played Oakland or Franklin Hills or Detroit (Colt)).

As to the second part of your post, JT raised the question if the end product should be the measure, I agree w/ you that it is the ONLY way to measure the success.  The same goes for a great painting, a great bottle of wine or any other work of art.  B/c of this, I would also agree that Sand Hills is better that WS (although I've played neither so my assessment is based merely on pictures and this site).

[Brian Cenci]

Hey Matt-
I really like Kingsley and probably feel as though I'm defending Black Forest because I think it's really overlooked.
As far as my top 10 MI ratings go-
Crystal Downs, Dunes, Oakland Hills South, Black Forest, Kingsley, Indianwood Old, CC of Detroit, Lost Dunes, Barton Hills front nine
I haven't seen Greywalls.
Arcadia Bluffs and True North just aren't my cup of tea.
I do know the rest of Brian's list and think that living in Lansing is clouding his judgment.
As far as the specifics as to why I think Black Forest is more enjoyable than Kingsley;
I'm not sure as though I could easily nail it down, I just like it more because I do.
I find BF to be one of the purest test of golf anywhere, and find the "shot values" incredible.
and Adam, I'm not a great ball striker unless you're comparing me to BCD
now that I think about it #17 along the pond is an incredible hole!

Thanks for posting a list.  I always respect people on the site that are at least willing to list out their opinions on courses.  I like your top 10 and have played them all but come on, you can't just pick 9 holes on a course for your top 10 (Barton Hills).  If that's the case you could make a strong argument for the back 9 only of Blythfield CC in Grand Rapids.  Living in Lansing certainly doesn't cloud my judgement in that there isn't much to play in Lansing behind Eagle Eye, CC of Lansing and Walnut Hills and considering I play about 100 of my 150 rounds a year away from those 3 facilities and have played pretty much every top 50+ courses in Michigan (minus Point O'Woods, Timberstone and a few others) I'd say I've got a pretty good perspective for MI.

I don't understand how you don't like Arcadia and would love to hear some reasons but I respect your opinion.  True North is not my cup of tea at all too and would route you to Tullymore for a much better golf experience and I'm not a huge Bay Harbor fan either so I'm glad you don't mention that anywhere in a top 10 in MI.  However if you're listing a top 10 in Michigan you certainly need to talk about Franklin Hills (IMO better than OHCC-South), Forest Dunes, Eagle Eye or even Radrick Farms.  Forest Dunes is a great track and you need to factor in that it is a public facility that might be the best maintained facility in the state.  Greens are glass and the course is a treat.

-Brian

[Adam Clayman]

The wetlands @ Angel's Crossing were as beautiful of an influence as the ocean @ PB. So much so that when big Jim and I finished the 1st he turned to me and said "how Edenesque". I looked around and thouht it could easily resemble the garden of Eden. Too bad he was referencing the green.

[Brian Cenci]

The wetlands @ Angel's Crossing were as beautiful of an influence as the ocean @ PB. So much so that when big Jim and I finished the 1st he turned to me and said "how Edenesque". I looked around and thouht it could easily resemble the garden of Eden. Too bad he was referencing the green.

Adam,
     I was fortunate enough to get out to Angel's when Big Jim was there 3 years ago and had a blast with him and really enjoyed the course...except for the fact that I seemed to remember like triple pressing him twice and still loosing.  I noticed that Jim's unique "goose removal" tactics have paid off in that there weren't too may of the canadien's on the course in my last visit.  I went back this year and played 36 at Angel's again (by myself) and remembered why I loved it so much.  The green complexes there are something else and it is one of the few courses you will get to play that really set up from the greens back to the tee.  I really felt that everything was based off of where a pin was on a green and you really played the entire course that way.  All in all a great course and for public golf in the lower-southern-Michigan area certainly one of, if not, the best.

-Brian

[George Freeman]

Jim,

I definitely understand where you're coming from and understand the difficulties of comparing courses with different intent.  However, as much as the economic intent of golf courses can vary, their true intent are all exactly the same (i.e. hitting a little white ball with a metal stick into a hole at various distances).  With that said, I don't think comparing any two golf courses is out of the realm of appropriate analysis, no matter how differently they are used.

On a side note, congratulations on Angel's Crossing!  I really enjoyed the course on my one visit.  It says something about a course when both my girlfriend (probably a 35 handicap) and I (a single digit) really had fun and liked the course.  Great stuff!


George

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()