[RJ_Daley]

David W., unfortunately, if you get to KC next week, and the snow has melted, it still won't be a fair environment with likely soggy post melt conditions.  I'd bet you don't get to play at all.  But, Noel is seeing it in 5 weeks and that should be fine with spring underway and hopefully, not to soft conditions due to heavy spring rain.  KC is truly a summer and fall kind of spectacle.  

On the other thread, I probably shouldn't have done the match play with HP.  It wasn't even a fair fight.  But, a match play with AB is intriguing.  Without revealing my results, I did a matchplay of those two and had KC8, APB7 and 3pushes, thus 1 up.

[Paul Richards]

Matt:

you said:
>the minimum you could have a good old fashioned 19th hole discussion on whether TKC is better than Arcadia Bluffs.  

That would be lively discussion indeed!  I played Kingsley a day or two after Arcadia last fall.  As I said, TKC has a fantastic front nine, but Arcadia is strong throughout!  Arcadia makes my personal top 15 of Modern courses, while, as I mentioned, Kingsley is more in the 80-90 range.  However, if Kingsley had 18 holes like the front nine, we'd all be comparing Kingsley to Pacific Dunes!  It would be that good.

When can we get that beer?

[ed_getka]

I agree with Paul about the front nine being superior to the back nine. The front nine at Kingsley is world class, however the back nine is not as weak as Paul intimates in my opinion.
When we made the turn at Kingsley the first time, after seeing the amazing bunkering Mike did, I said something to the effect that I felt I had taken a wrong turn and ended up on a Fazio course. #10 is wide open off the tee, although Mike says it is actually the narrowest fairway on the course. The green complexes are consistently excellent throughout the course. #11 is an okay par 3, but pales in comparison to the rest of the course. #12 is a decent par 4. #13 has one of the most amazing greens ever, I could hit balls into that green all day and never be bored. #14 is a par 5 that doesn't have much to offer for two shots, but again has an excellent green. #15 is a long hard par 4 and you just have to accept that making par requires getting up and down most of the time. #16 is a good redanish quality par 3. #17 is a par 5 I don't really care for. #18 has a fairway sloping left that will put most tee shots in the same place, but it hardly matters, because that green and surrounds are fantastic.

Is it world class all the way through, no, but few courses are. Will it surpass your expectations, I bet it will. Will you have fun, I have no doubt.

To put it another way, Kingsley Club surpassed my expectations, even though I had very positive things about it. Crystal Downs didn't quite live up to my expectations, but Mike assures me thats just because I don't know what the heck I'm talking about.

[David Wigler]

Dick,

I have wanted to get to see Mike's work at Kingsley for two years.  Even if all I can do is have a relaxing 18 hole walk and drop a few balls along the way, I will consider it an afternoon well spent.

[NAF]

Ed,

I think #17 at the KC is an excellent hole where Mike utilized the natural ridge there to make it a good risk reward tee shot.  In someways it is built like the renowned 5th hole (also a par 5) at New South Wales.  If your tee shot carries the ridge at the KC you can get the roll and be left with a mid iron into the green. If you don't carry the ridge it plays a bit straightfoward but I think the temptation is there to try and have an eagle putt to another great green.  With #14 being a tough dogleg right par 5 to reach in 2 (I did do it somehow though when the KC was playing hard and fast) at least 17 gives you a gambling option.

[Matt_Ward]

Paul:

A straight match play contest between TKC and AB is pointless because I've always believed that you need to size up the matching of holes based on their par and by assessing each through the front and back nines. For example --

Take the par-5's at TKC -- you have a superb opener -- talk about a James Bond opening credit intro for a hole! You also have the 6th which is a solid par-5 depending upon your appetite for risk.

Compare the par-5's on the front at AB. The 1st at AB is just a hole to loosen up the muscles -- if an event of consequence were played at the course the hole caould be made into a long par-4. The second par-5 -- the 3rd is a good hole -- especially with the second shot determining how frisky you want to be. The 5th is simply a grand hole -- again, if you have the desire to be aggressive you can get home in two shots but fail to produce and you will suffer the consequences. The thing about AB is the odd balance of par-5 holes when compared to the standard two per side you see at TKC.

On the hole I'd have to give the slightest edge to TKC for the par-5's on the front.

The par-5's on the back rate a very slight edge to AB. The 14th and 17th holes at TKC are slightly above average. The two at AB -- the 11th and 15th offer a bit more of a challenge since they both go in opposite directions.

Overall on the par-5's I rate them a dead draw.

On the par-3 front you have three superb ones at TKC -- the 2nd is good but the pace picks up considerably with the long par-3 5th -- what a delight as the ground should be used to funnel your approach near the target. The 9th is a sheer delight! A short par-3 that will leave you gasping for air!

AB has a pro forma par-3 for the 2nd -- the 6th, on the other hand, is quite good because the yardage is uphill and the green is no walk in the park. What can be said about the stunning 9th -- an eyeful hole that makes you play the long iron or even wood approach. On the hole I'd have to rate the par-3's on the front a draw.

The par-3's on the back at TKC feature the straightforward 11th -- which has a devilish back right pin placement and the redan like 16th. AB counters with the 13th -- a good looking hole that is at best straightforward but nothing more. The 17th, on the other hand, is quite good. It plays uphill and you have to negotiate the distance with a good bit of skill. Overall -- I'd rate the par-3's on the back a draw.

Finally, the par-4's at TKC on the front side are a good mix but there is a lacking of any really good long par-4. The holes do move in different directions and the green complexes are certainly unique -- how about the blind approach to the par-4 4th with its cleverly crafted putting surface!

AB has a better mixture of par-4's on its front. They do range in distance and go in different directions to offset any win situation. I'd give AB a clear edge on the front.

On the back side TKC does have a better mixture of par-4's --the downhill narrow par-4 12th is really disconcerting if you're not hitting it straight. The short par-4 13th is simply delightful with its vexing green. The small target at the par-4 15th is also demanding and the best of its sort at TKC.

AB also has a good mixture of holes on its backside. They do offer a broader mixture of both length and direction than TKC.

Overall, I'd have to give the edge to AB but the margin of difference rests withe par-4's by a slight bit. In match play terms I'd say TKC takes AB to the 18th hole but loses by a nose.

LAST ITEM TO CONSIDER -- Arcadia Bluffs rightly is recognized for being a wonderful design -- TKC may not have the ultimate range of holes that you will find at AB IMHO, however, the difference is THAT close. How TKC finishes out of the top ten Best New Private for 2002 by GD and only #22 in MI is beyond mystifying -- it demonstrates ignorance for quality design -- again, IMHO.

[Tom_Doak]

I try to stay out of discussions about The Kingsley Club because Mike is a former associate.  If I say anything positive it's cronyism, if I say anything negative it's sour grapes.

But I can relate to the discussion about the difference between the GOLF DIGEST and GOLFWEEK panels, because ten years ago High Pointe was in the middle of the same discussion (refer to GOLF DIGEST v. GOLF MAGAZINE).

On the one hand, GOLF DIGEST gives new courses no credit for "being different."  They're rated on how well they conform to a certain set of criteria.  Likewise, GD panelists give a new designer like Mike (or myself ten years ago) no credit for being new and different.  In fact, the fact that he has no "name recognition" hurts him with some of the panelists, they're less inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt when one of his holes isn't their cup of tea.

On the other hand, GOLFWEEK (and GOLF Magazine too) give a course maybe a bit too much credit for being "different," because there are no other criteria in play.  And they give a new designer maybe a bit too much credit for being different.  I don't think there's any question that some of the enthusiasm for Mike's work is based in wanting to discover and promote someone new, instead of "another Fazio course."

High Pointe benefited from this in the GOLF poll ten years ago.  It was very different from most of what was being built then.  It's less different now, because other courses (including The Kingsley Club) have followed its lead.

In ten years, I'm fairly sure that The Kingsley Club will be higher on GOLF DIGEST's list, and lower on GOLFWEEK's ... perhaps behind some of Mike's future work.  Or perhaps not; I would have guessed High Pointe would go up on GOLF DIGEST's list, not down.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Doak;

I'm not sure that "unknown" reasoning holds up.

How would you explain Mike Strantz (then an unknown and now hardly a household name) winning best new course two years consecutively in Golf Digest?  

Consequently, he hasn't done particularly well on the Golfweek list, even if we do try to go out of our way to see designs by lesser known names.  

[Matt_Ward]

Tom Doak:

Interesting comments -- consider a few points from my position in the cheap seats in left field. Say a prayer for me as a few friends AND i head to Yankee Stadium for opening day in such d-e-l-i-g-h-t-f-u-l northeast weather!

GD has gone out of its way to greatly expand the pool of panelists. The theory being more people will provide more coverage of courses which in turn will unearth a richer variety of courses eligible for consideration. What's been the real outcome?

The issue for any large group of panelists is really quality control. Do the people who are on any panel know what it is they are looking at? Do they understand that variety is a good thing within golf architecture? Are they lulled into the belief that if a course is desined by person "X" or has hosted event "X" therefore the layout must be something of quality --you know, the star syndrome. Do they come with such ingrained baggage that their minds are not open? If such a group really doesn't understand what they are looking at then all you're going to get, in most instances, is a Zagat's type guide to golf courses.

Tom, I didn't go TKC because of some "unknown" architect or a desire to promote something or someone "new." I value TKC simply because of what the golf course is about. IT JUST SO HAPPENS MIKE DEVRIES IS THE ARCHITECT. Some people chase / rate courses with the flipside of the issue.

Once you include a vast number of people (GD now has 800+) you begin to get a routinization and standardization of what is great -- given that golf architecture is about the successful interplay between art and engineering I don't see how one can limit one's mind. I have no reason how people on GD's panel can be so "out to lunch" on TKC. Obviously, the chief arhitectural critic for GD understands the rightful fanfare attached to TKC and said so in a concise and detailed analysis. I also believe if any serious course reviewer wants to learn more about how such an analysis should be carried forward he / she can simply read Brad Klein's comments on the "new" Augusta National which appeared in the last issue of GW.

Tom, I quite agree that too much time, namely from panelists, is not properly focused on the "up and coming" people in the business. There are plenty of "unknown" stars involved within the industry and if one takes the time to search them out you will be pleasantly surprised at how good there work turns out to be -- not all the time mind you -- but enough to take seriously and when warranted to rate among the nation's elite.

When I was contacted by a key source who I respect greatly about the qualities of TKC I didn't start with the usual BS on who designed the course -- I just figured that if such an open-minded person would recommend strongly a golf course in Michigan I should get my compass out and head in that direction ASAP.

What's really ironic is not the qualities of The Kingsley Club -- in my mind, it's patently clear. It's the people who are selected to make the choices of what constitutes architectural greatness / quality. What's even more ironic, and somewhat laughable, is that GD now has had to set forward additional criteria in order prevent the fullest measures of what it's panel actually believes.

Amazing stuff isn't it?

[Tom_Doak]

Mike C:

Mike Strantz's first couple of courses were very high in the GOLFWEEK poll three years ago, as they were with GOLF DIGEST.  Now that he's done more, none of them are rated quite as highly, because those first courses seem less original.

You are right, though, even in the GOLF DIGEST rankings, there has been some "boost" from being an unknown if the golf course catches people's fancy.  Stonehouse and Royal New Kent are both examples; so are Bandon Dunes and Pacific Dunes and Rustic Canyon.  The Kingsley Club just didn't hit home with enough panelists to give it the buzz that these others got ... just as High Pointe didn't.

In all honesty, creating a "buzz" among the raters is the most important factor to getting a course highly rated, especially in the Best New.  Once a few panelists rave breathlessly about a course to their buddies on the panel, a course takes off.  Any good marketing guy could tell you that.  This has happened for The Kingsley Club within the GOLFWEEK panel, but not within the GOLF DIGEST panel.

[Jonathan Cummings]

Great food for thought - the "buzz" effect...  What TD says makes a lot of sense - new glitz course can often be initially over-rated.  

I don't know how to numerical apply this to rankings but Digest's waiting 5 years to let a course settle before allowing ratings has to be a reasonable approach....

JC

[Mike_DeVries]

Hi All!

Once again, I am honored to have so much discussion on the merits of the Kingsley Club, as it gives me much to think about.  As to the ratings, I always hope to be recognized for good work, as anyone does, but know that there is only so much room on the lists.  I think the biggest compliment comes from strong arguments like these that weigh the merits of a hole or course against itself or other courses.  Wasn't MacKenzie disturbed by the unanimous gushing over Cypress Point (not that it isn't deserving!) and thought that he hadn't done something right?

I hope that all of you will come to Kingsley to check it out for yourself and make your own determination of its merits.  I look forward to meeting David Wigler next week for the first time, especially after seeing Plum Hollow last fall -- it is a truly wonderful golf course and doesn't get the recognition it deserves -- a sensitive restoration of that course would really make it a gem.

Here's hoping the snow stays away this time!

Mike

[David Wigler]

As proof that the higher power is a golf fan, Monday was 81 degrees with bright sunshine and the 25 mph wind necessary for links golf.  I wanted to wait to post this so I could collect my thoughts.  The final summation is that Kingsley is underrated.

The use of the land, selection of greensites, shaping of course surrounds, routing and fit are all fantastic.  The bunker work and greens are magical.  Some other thoughts:

The view leading to the 3rd shot on #1 is unbelievable.  Mike framed the green perfectly into the sky and it really puts a great opening stamp on the round

#3 and #4 are wonderful par 4's.  The options of the tee make for terrific challenges and the greens are very cool (It is interesting how Mike gave you a preview of all of his blind shots, if you were looking while you walked up previous holes).

The punchbowl green on #5 is really special and I would bet on a stroke average over four for the front left pin.

#6 is an awesome skyline green (I wish I had a digital camera for a better picture).

The only tough decision about #9 is which of the two sets of tees makes the hole better.  The finger Mike extended on the green is terrific.

The tee shot of #12 is one of the best in the state.

#13 might be the best short par 4 in the Midwest (Certainly on the short list with Double Eagle).  That is a very gutsy green to construct and Mike pulled it off.  Mackenzie would be very proud of the entire green complex.

#17 has another amazing tee shot.  I suspect that people are hitting 400-yard drives when it is really hard and fast in the summer.

#18 is a perfect golf hole and would fit right in on Cypress Point.  The way Mike cut the front right trap into the hill feels like a Cypress hole.

The only way I can see this course struggling as it did in GD's rankings is because it takes 3 miles of dirt road to get to the course, the clubhouse is non-existent and the course is less than 6800 yards from the tip and certainly (With the exception of #15) can be scored on.  Even so, it is way too good and will move up in GD.  My gut is that it will settle in the 20's or 30's in Golfweek and be very appropriate there.

Congratulations to all involved.  You designed a really special piece of property.

[THuckaby2]

Great stuff, David.  Can't wait to see this special course some day... add it to the list of MUSTS from your state.

As for GD rankings, I continue to speculate.  If 30 ratings are required to make it... well... it seems very possible that less than 30 made it up there, given short season, the way it is published in our listings (it doesn't have the "actively seeking raters" designation), private club, hard to get to, etc.

Assuming the minimum number did get there, I really don't know what would keep it from getting the high ratings it would seem to deserve.  Nothing makes sense to me, really... Your comments would lead one to believe that it could suffer on "resistance to scoring", true, but hell, lots of great courses don't get very high numbers there...  The road in and lack of clubhouse ought not to matter at all, also - I'd have to guess that to most who would trek that far and make the effort required to see TKC, those things would ADD to "ambiance", as it is defined for us.....

I fully believe that as more people see the course, it will most definitely move up.  It's just too early to make any judgments on it really, at least how GD does things.

TH

[Matt_Ward]

David W:

Given your knowledge of other MI courses -- how would you stack up TKC versus the whole bunch of them? I see TKC as easily being among the state's top five. Your comments are much appreciated.

No less than Noel Freeman, a person I respect because of his desire to travel and play a number of outstanding courses, believes TKC is superior to Crystal Downs. I'm not prepared to go THAT far just yet, but I also believe the depth and substance you find at TKC is truly competitive for such a comparison to take place. Saying even that much says plenty about TKC in my book.

Kudos to Ron Whitten for an excellent analysis on the course, however, the panel blew it big time -- both as a top ten "best new private" and as a real bonafide contender for top 100 inclusion. In my book the course is already there.

I will say this that much is talked about such new gems as Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes and for good reason. In my mind you can throw in TKC alongside and not suffer from any comparison IMHO.

[NAF]

Matt,

Close but not quite..I think the Kingsley Club belongs in Golf magazines Top 100 list..Obviously towards the end of that list as I find it superior to some of the courses there in the #80 to #100 range..But Crystal Downs is in the top 25 and I don't think the KC is its architectual equivalent.  Where our misunderstanding comes about is I have said I'd rather play the KC on a daily basis more than Crystal Downs.  In many ways I think the courses are comparable as Mike was obviously influenced by what he saw at CD when he did the course.  Even the routings are similar in the front 9 of the KC being so open and linksy like with the back 9 being wooded.

I think Mike's course is a more fun place to play everyday from a member perspective.  If we go by the Doak Scale I reckon the KC is an 8 or weak 9..Its definitely a place I would travel to for a game.

[Dan_Lucas]

I am pretty sure Kingsley did have the required number of raters from GD both years (over 15). I played the back 9 w/ David on Monday and we discussed the difference in the ratings committees a little.
 
GD's main requirement for raters is that they have a low handicap. No special architectural studies are required. Therefore some (not all) of GD's raters have grown up basing their knowledge of architecture on whatever courses they play all the time. They are very impressed by big clubhouses, big name architects and high class amenities. Perfectly trimmed, dark green, lush playing surfaces mean Augusta to them. Kingsley Club has none of these.

We had one GD panelist come into the pro shop already hot under the collar because he got his car dusty driving in. His first question at the turn was "when were we going to pave the cart paths, and maybe we should wait to get rated until our clubhouse was built like St. Ives did."

It only takes one or two people like that to screw you in the ratings. Kingsley is so different from what these people are used to that there will always be those few bad marks to keep us from doing well in the GD ratings.

I agree with Dave that this opinion is probably much closer to the golfing masses (GD reader)than that of the classical traditionalist view represented in Golfweek. Neither is right or wrong, they are opinions. But comparing Kingsley to St. Ives (Jerry Mathews/ Best New Public mid-1990's) did make me see red for a minute.

Dan

[RJ_Daley]

You fellows certainly had good timing by playing on Monday!  

Dan, is the course officially open, or did you just allow the fellows to go out, pre-opening?  

[Dan_Lucas]

RJ,

The course is open and greens were mowed for the first time Monday. They came through in winter in good shape and were rolling smooth, but not fast. Fw's and tees will be mowed next week after this blast of winter passes.

Dan

[THuckaby2]

Dan:  you have a very good take on ratings, particularly how GD does things, by my reckoning.  I'd just disagree with you in you in saying that while it is a requirement that GD raters be 3 handicap or less, I wouldn't say that this is the "main requirement".  I have to believe a lot more goes into selection of raters than that.

As you might know, I am a GD rater myself.  Thus I believe your take is a great one, and you saved yourself by saying "some (not all)" when describing us....  

In any case, I've now heard 15 and 30 as the minimum number of raters required and I have no clue what it really is.  One way or the other, that's a small number... and a very good point you make is one I've been trying to get through for the entirety of the time we've been "discussing" the GD ratings, and that is that given the small number of ratings submitted period, it does without a doubt just take very few poor ratings to "screw" a course.  This is a weakness of the sytem that unfortunately I have no idea how to correct.  It's just reality that you're not gonna get 500 raters to show up to places like TKC... Thus TKC had the bad luck of that rater showing up complaining about his car getting dirty... He would seem to me to be a disgrace to the system, but that's just an opinion.

I gather there are GD raters who are like this... heck, in a pool of 800 there are always going to be bad apples.

David is damn right though - opinions like these - even the dork who complained about his car getting dirty - are much closer to the "masses" than the view generally espoused in this dg.  So if people here disagree with it, it is just one view, and perhaps not the majority, not even close...

This takes nothing away from TKC, from all I hear it's a place I would love to play again and again and again and it deserves far more kudos that it got from GD.

Just many thanks for giving a balanced view as to WHY these ratings come out how they do... people don't seem to listen to me... and kudos for you for acknowledging that even though TKC got screwed, which to me seems obvious.

I also believe as I say that as more raters get up there, you'll get far more of a majority of right-thinking ones, and this error will be corrected.  Just have patience, if that is possible!  

TH

[Mike_Cirba]

Dan Lucas;

Frankly, if raters (from ANY publication) came to my course and made such comments, I'd be on the phone with their boss to let them know what said rater(s) thought was important criteria.  

Recently, I had more fun than any human should be allowed to have on a rugged course that didn't even have a trailer, much less a clubhouse.  Are some of these guys for real??  

[THuckaby2]

Dan Lucas;

Frankly, if raters (from ANY publication) came to my course and made such comments, I'd be on the phone with their boss to let them know what said rater(s) thought was important criteria.  

Recently, I had more fun than any human should be allowed to have on a rugged course that didn't even have a trailer, much less a clubhouse.  Are some of these guys for real??  

1. Right on bruthah Mike re this, and my impression was that is exactly what courses are supposed to do... this guy OUGHT to be reported, because his concerns are so contra to all the criteria we are supposed to look at....

2. I'm trying to guess which course this is... I'd say Rustic Canyon but that wasn't recent... please fill me in, either here or privately if you wish... curiousity is killing this cat.    Friar's Head?

TH

[Jonathan Cummings]

Folks (Huck included!) - As I've posted before, Sideroff/Whitten don't recognize a course for eligibility on the GD top100 list until the course is 5 years old.  All 866 raters could have seen Kingsley but by their rules (not a bad idea either) it will not be considered until it is in its 5th year of eligibility.

Huck - Digest requires a minimum of 30 raters, not 15, before a course is considered statistically "sound" enough to be given top100 consideration.

Kingsley was eligible for best new private last year.  Based on the voting of the Digest panelist (I assure you they had more than 30 raters see it) it did not make the top 10 apparently because there were 10 other new private courses the raters liked more.

JC

[Joe Hancock]

Mr. Lucas,

Furthermore, the entrance sign wasn't lit nor surrounded by flowers, and I saw BROWN grass when I played there, and my boat trailer got dusty from the parking lot! Isn't there a way you could cool it off a little, too? I mean, it was 93 degrees each time I played there. You expect to get good ratings with those tempratures in Michigan?

Joe  

[Mike_Cirba]

Jonathan;

GD had evidently changed their rules re: eligibility.  Witness the entry of Bandon Dunes two years ago (the course opened in 1999) and Pacific Dunes this year to their "100 Greatest" list.

I'm not sure what the "wait time" is now, but it's no longer five years as it had been for a long time.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()