[Dan Kelly]

Sounds awesome.

I'm curious, other than Smols lament, did any Virgins feel or experience any GCA epiphanies?

Not exactly an epiphany, but something I don't see much: firm greens and approaches that weren't terribly fast. The ground game was, on occasion, the only way to go for a guy who doesn't drive it over the moon, and the best way to go for everyone.

Not at all an epiphany, but something that wandered through my little mind time and again over the weekend: Length is its own reward. (See No. 1.)

[RJ_Daley]

Dan, I've debated the notion that #4 is a redan and would be a near perfect one if L&M had built up the backside of the approach from about 10-15 yards in the foregreen and extended that kickplate into the rear right of the green, gradually leveling the kickplate off as it feeds back to rear.  Some don't think it is a redan at all.

I think you are a little off on your yardage from blue tees.  The yardage is max about 215 at very rear of blue (card says 203).  Playing uphill and into wind may very well have played like 245 Saturday.  I played white Saturday, just because I feel strongly that with my driving distance and ability, that is where I belong to have maximum enjoyment of the course.  #4 is measured at 175-white, but even in calm conditions, it plays 185-190.  I chose 4 wood and made it on center front 1/3  of green.  I usually hit anywhere from 3 iron to 3 wood there.  So, while #10 plays all of 240 from blues, and #4 plays in that wind uphill 245 Saturday, there still is a bit of room to say not two real ballbuster par 3s as opposed to one really long and one moderately so, in my view.  Given 5 par 3s on course, the yardages are a good spread, I think.  I'm most on edge with uncertainty what to hit, no matter white or blue, on #12.  That is the most scary par 3 tee to me, moreso than the boxcar.

On the question of could #4 be remodeled to more faithfully mimic a true Redan, I think it should not be tampered with.  What would really be cool, is if we could find some documentation that Langford in his Yale days may have discussed the design and merits of the Redan with McDonald or Raynor and this was what he came up with, deliberately.

[Doug Siebert]

Dan,

I agree with RJ - #4 just seemed long because of the uphill and the strong wind it sounds like you had that day.  #10 is indeed fairly long but allows a reasonable layup and I believe it allows for running the ball on better than the 4th.
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again.  People on this board are all in favor of half par holes until you present them with a hole where it is a half stroke OVER the par listed on the card.  Where's the "par on the scorecard doesn't matter" philosophy when these are encountered.  If you stick a guy who drives it 200 yards on this course and make him play from the blue tees, he won't reach either green, but its no different from the disadvantage he faces on say the 11th, which is certainly a half par hole in the other direction (I'd suggest the 5th is as well for most long hitters, but that tee shot just does not fit my eye so I don't even pull driver there anymore)

[Bill Seitz]

I love 10 (great trompe l'oeil bunker; great, undulating green), and I wanted to love 4 -- but the more I think about 4, the more I think it's just TOO long -- particularly with that punitively deep bunker guarding ... what? 90 percent of the front of the green.

Uphill, into the wind, at 245 yards, my smartest play (never pursued, naturally) probably would have been a layup with a 4-iron to the right, hoping for a pitch and a putt. But what fun is that?

I ended up short and right in the two rounds where I played my own ball.  I thought that was a great place to to sit with the pin we we had (back center/left).  While a lot of golfers may have tried to fly the ball all the way to the hole, after walking it off, the best play from there, in my opinion, was a pitching wedge hit hard enough to just carry about 5-8 yards onto the green, letting ball run another 25-30 yards to the hole.  Both times I hit the same shot, ended up in the same spot, and sunk the 5-6 foot putt for par.  This was a really tough hole, and had the pin been more towards the front right, the tee shots I hit would have left very difficult pitch shots.

[Jud_T]

Back to #13.  Again, perhaps it just doesn't suit my eye and I still haven't figured out how to master the damn thing.  But lets go under the assumption that I'm just too stupid to lay back to the proper distance (an excellent assumption by the way).  So a medium hitter hits a good drive, a mid-iron layup to 190.  So then I'm left with 190 uphill to a semi-blind green as the proper play from the whites?  I agree that the 5s at Lawsonia do a great job of making you think about your second shot more than most courses, I just prefer the bunkering and engineered "eyebrows" with visual depth-perception deception to the 60 foot down and up.  Call me crazy, and it's a nitpicking point amidst my overall love for the course, but IMHO this hole significantly favors the better player to the average Joe.  Maybe that's simply OK at this point in the match and they used the land they had as best they could here...

[George Freeman]

Back to #13.  Again, perhaps it just doesn't suit my eye and I still haven't figured out how to master the damn thing.  But lets go under the assumption that I'm just too stupid to lay back to the proper distance (an excellent assumption by the way).  So a medium hitter hits a good drive, a mid-iron layup to 190.  So then I'm left with 190 uphill to a semi-blind green as the proper play from the whites?  I agree that the 5s at Lawsonia do a great job of making you think about your second shot more than most courses, I just prefer the bunkering and engineered "eyebrows" with visual depth-perception deception to the 60 foot down and up.  Call me crazy, and it's a nitpicking point amidst my overall love for the course, but IMHO this hole significantly favors the better player to the average Joe.  Maybe that's simply OK at this point in the match and they used the land they had as best they could here...

Jud,

Would your issues be fixed if you played it at closer to 500 yards?

[Jud_T]

Good question.  I suppose it would be better for guys like me to be able to reach the bottom of the hill, but then for the longer hitter it would be either go for it or a silly layup so I think the answer is no, although I guess maybe the solution is to simply move the white tees up a bit.  Is it actually too severe terrain to be really good?  Seems like I'm in the minority on this one.  I think it's also that the lefty power fade that's required is beyond my normal capabilities and it just doesn't set up well for me.  Maybe if I ever took enough risk to be aggressive up the left side and hit a good drive I'd figure the damn thing out!! But imagine a woman hitting it 175 off the tee (me?  ), probably not her favorite hole either...

[Matthew Sander]

Jud,

I think you make an excellent point regarding thirteen in terms of its relationship to the other holes. I believe all of the other par 5s rely more on the engineered features than on severe terrain to create the interest. While the entire course is on interesting property, I think 13 (at least on the layup, because the drive with the echelon bunkers doesn't apply) and to a lesser extent 6, are the holes that most use the terrain to challenge the player. Regardless, I find it one of the best holes out there...

[Adam Clayman]

With all the faux redan's built, the 4th at Lawsonia is better than most.

The uphill nature is key to the redan concept, imo. Why? Because it's based on a military concept. What well defended military would choose to build their encampment where the surrounding area was higher ground?

Back in the beginning of gca.com, I recall reading the definition of a redan for the first time. The 4th at Lawsonia came immediately to mind. I will admit that when I was there recently, 2-3 yrs ago, the hole didn't jump off the page as a redan, the way it did in memory. Yes it's demanding. But, when negotiated successfully, walking off with a good score is most satisfying.

Another key to the 4th hole is how the archie gets you up the hill. How else could that be accomplished without compromising the route, or the length of the great stretch that follows?

[George Freeman]

Back to #13.  Again, perhaps it just doesn't suit my eye and I still haven't figured out how to master the damn thing.  But lets go under the assumption that I'm just too stupid to lay back to the proper distance (an excellent assumption by the way).  So a medium hitter hits a good drive, a mid-iron layup to 190.  So then I'm left with 190 uphill to a semi-blind green as the proper play from the whites?  I agree that the 5s at Lawsonia do a great job of making you think about your second shot more than most courses, I just prefer the bunkering and engineered "eyebrows" with visual depth-perception deception to the 60 foot down and up.  Call me crazy, and it's a nitpicking point amidst my overall love for the course, but IMHO this hole significantly favors the better player to the average Joe.  Maybe that's simply OK at this point in the match and they used the land they had as best they could here...

Also, I know you have at least a partial view of the pin all the way up to about 135 yards out (near the end of the downslope).  However, the kicker is the closer you get the more downhill your stance is and the quicker you need to get the ball up. 

I really like the fact that if you try the aggressive layup to get all the way to the bottom (or even on the up slope) and fail by 10-15 yards, you're left with a very difficult shot.  Whereas if you stayed back at 160ish, you would be more level with the green and have a much flatter lie.

[PCCraig]

I love 10 (great trompe l'oeil bunker; great, undulating green), and I wanted to love 4 -- but the more I think about 4, the more I think it's just TOO long -- particularly with that punitively deep bunker guarding ... what? 90 percent of the front of the green.

Uphill, into the wind, at 245 yards, my smartest play (never pursued, naturally) probably would have been a layup with a 4-iron to the right, hoping for a pitch and a putt. But what fun is that?

I ended up short and right in the two rounds where I played my own ball.  I thought that was a great place to to sit with the pin we we had (back center/left).  While a lot of golfers may have tried to fly the ball all the way to the hole, after walking it off, the best play from there, in my opinion, was a pitching wedge hit hard enough to just carry about 5-8 yards onto the green, letting ball run another 25-30 yards to the hole.  Both times I hit the same shot, ended up in the same spot, and sunk the 5-6 foot putt for par.  This was a really tough hole, and had the pin been more towards the front right, the tee shots I hit would have left very difficult pitch shots.

Bill and Dan:

The 4th played a lot harder this past weekend than I had ever seen it. With a normal wind and an up pin, it's closer to a 4/5 iron for me which makes it much easier than trying to hammer a 2-hybrid or 3 wood like most were doing Saturday and Sunday. Another reason why a change of pins would of been great

IMO, the 4th hole is my least favorite hole on the course. I've said before that I don't mean that it's even close to a bad hole, just that it features a lot less strategy than others on the Links. To me, regarless of if it's an iron or a wood...the player just hits something up the hill at the pin and does his best to not hit it in the front left bunker (which I did twice this weekend   ).

I can't for the life of me understand how anyone would call it a redan...

[Phil McDade]

Another key to the 4th hole is how the archie gets you up the hill. How else could that be accomplished without compromising the route, or the length of the great stretch that follows?

Adam:

That's a good point about the uphill nature of the 4th, and the rest of the front nine. The front nine sort of snakes around the perimeter of the front nine property, never mingling with the back nine, while the back nine commences when you cross the road and involves more back-and-forthing, with several holes running parallel to each other and two par 3s -- 12 and 14 -- serving as "bridge holes" between the corridors. I've always wondered about Langford's routing on the front nine, and his deliberate avoidance of the land that now serves as the internal driving range. Not sure the front nine could've been routed better -- although I can see a totally uphill, blind drive on the 1st as a possibility with use of that land -- but I've long thought Langford was a very good "router" of uphill holes, because he's not afraid to confront the player with blind and semi-blind tee shots.

[Phil McDade]

IMO, the 4th hole is my least favorite hole on the course. I've said before that I don't mean that it's even close to a bad hole, just that it features a lot less strategy than others on the Links. To me, regarless of if it's an iron or a wood...the player just hits something up the hill at the pin and does his best to not hit it in the front left bunker (which I did twice this weekend   ).

I can't for the life of me understand how anyone would call it a redan...

Pat:

Perhaps less strategy for the single-handicapper like yourself; for hacks like Jud and I, there is plenty of strategy on #4 (given the nature of par 3s generally, which are less strategic than most course's par 4s and 5s, and esp. so at Lawsonia, where the 4s and 5s are uber-strategic). Under the conditions described for this past weekend, I'd never aim at the green, much less the pin; that fronting bunker is just too penal for my game. In fact, I almost always (unless confronted with a strong wind out of the north, something often found in the drier conditions there in the fall) play for the "throat" of the approach, with the strategy of chipping and one-putting my way to par.

Take a look at Richard Choi's set-up thread for the Redan playoff; the 4th at Lawsonia, I'd argue, has more elements of a classic Redan than several of the contestants. Like Adam, I have a bias toward uphill Redans (or at least not explicitly downhill ones), the fronting bunker is penal as heck, the green runs away from the player (from front-right to back-left), and a running approach into that green is possible (although it takes a highly skilled/lucky player to do so). As the mayor suggests, the green does lack that severe tilt, and the kicker bank isn't evident. But it has enough qualities of the classic hole to, in my mind, be called "Redan-like."

[George Freeman]

IMO, the 4th hole is my least favorite hole on the course. I've said before that I don't mean that it's even close to a bad hole, just that it features a lot less strategy than others on the Links. To me, regarless of if it's an iron or a wood...the player just hits something up the hill at the pin and does his best to not hit it in the front left bunker (which I did twice this weekend   ).

I can't for the life of me understand how anyone would call it a redan...

Pat:

Perhaps less strategy for the single-handicapper like yourself; for hacks like Jud and I, there is plenty of strategy on #4 (given the nature of par 3s generally, which are less strategic than most course's par 4s and 5s, and esp. so at Lawsonia, where the 4s and 5s are uber-strategic). Under the conditions described for this past weekend, I'd never aim at the green, much less the pin; that fronting bunker is just too penal for my game. In fact, I almost always (unless confronted with a strong wind out of the north, something often found in the drier conditions there in the fall) play for the "throat" of the approach, with the strategy of chipping and one-putting my way to par.

I would agree with both of you on this.  Like Pat, #4 is probably my least favorite hole on the course.  That does not mean, however, that it is a bad hole.  I think it might have to do with the players inability to see the green until you’re basically standing on it, and the featureless field the holes sits in (barring, of course, the wall of grass blocking the left 3/4th of the green).

I do, like Phil, think there is a decent amount of strategy there.  The smart player who knows their chance of clearing the bunker is small should play well out to the right, maybe even to your preferred yardage for a pitch/chip.  There is plenty of room out there and the green complex is positioned perfectly for a pitch from that angle.  Take your chances going at the pin and you’ll pay the price if you don’t execute.

I also think the hole has all of the features of a Redan, except the right to left ramp feeding balls to the back portion of the green.  That is, however, probably the most important feature of any Redan…

[Dan Kelly]

I also think the hole has all of the features of a Redan, except the right to left ramp feeding balls to the back portion of the green.  That is, however, probably the most important feature of any Redan…

Thank you, George (and Pat).

I thought, reading people call this a Redan, that I'd been so busy all weekend extricating myself from that bunker that I'd failed to notice the downhill, right-to-left "ramp."

Absent the "ramp," it ain't no Redan! That's like a Big Mac without the beef!

[Patrick Kiser]

Sounds awesome.

I'm curious, other than Smols lament, did any Virgins feel or experience any GCA epiphanies?

The echelon concept in more ways than one.  I don't recall if Dan mentioned it on his old thread or not, but the echelon technique is used extensively on ... the greens.

I honestly can not recall playing a course with as many double / triple breakers.  

And ... it works.  Very unique and pleasing to the eye.  It's like having layers weaving in and out of each other to create this effect.

[Patrick Hodgdon]

Sounds awesome.

I'm curious, other than Smols lament, did any Virgins feel or experience any GCA epiphanies?

The echelon concept in more ways than one.  I don't recall if Dan mentioned on his old thread or not, but the echelon technique is used extensively on ... the greens.

I honestly can not recall playing a course with as many double / triple breakers. 

And ... it works.  Very unique and pleasing to the eye.  It's like having layers weaving in and out of each other to create this effect.

Mine was the beauty and strategy of all the "eyebrow"/"turbo-boost" berms. I think Lawsonia has more of these berms than every course I've ever played combined but I absolutely loved the use of them both in how they look and play. Honestly I'm a bit surprised it isn't/hasn't been used more by other archies.

[Rick Shefchik]

Re: The 4th -- As has been mentioned, the hole location didn't change all weekend, and neither did the wind direction, for the most part. The flag was about as far back on a very deep green as it could go, and I think it was Bill Seitz who got the 245 reading on his range finder. It couldn't have been off by more than a couple of yards. Under those conditions, it was the most difficult par-3 tee shot I've ever played. I did detect a front right ridge that would propel a shot toward that back left of the green, but it wasn't as pronounced as other Redans I've played, and the green sloped slightly uphill from front to back. I'll call it a Redan, with an element or two missing.

The 13th -- I have no objection to the trees. I thought the hole looked and played great -- a true standout on a nine that, for me, does not have as many sear-into-your-brain holes as the front nine. But I'll bet if you took all the trees out around 13 and 14, both holes would be every bit as good, if not better, and fit the concept of the Links Course that much more. I suppose safety could be an issue, but I'm guessing the main purpose of the pines to the right of 14 are to provide a visual (and aural) buffer from The Adjoining 18 That One Dare Not Play Or Look Upon.

I want to second Patrick's praise for the turbo-boost cross bunkers. I benefited from them numerous times when I was able to clear one with a drive, and I was penalized by the one on the left side of number 5 when I failed to clear it. Classic risk-reward stuff, found on nearly every two- and three-shot hole, and about as much fun as a design element can provide. I found myself thinking about all the courses I've played that would be improved by a few of those, and fewer garden-variety fairway bunkers.

I don't have a number for it, but I'm comfortable calling Lawsonia Links a great golf course.

[Dan Kelly]

Re: The 4th -- As has been mentioned, the hole location didn't change all weekend, and neither did the wind direction, for the most part. The flag was about as far back on a very deep green as it could go, and I think it was Bill Seitz who got the 245 reading on his range finder. It couldn't have been off by more than a couple of yards.

That's the reading we got, too.

(At least I think it was, though -- reading Bill Seitz's next post -- maybe I got that wrong, too!)

[Bill Seitz]

Re: The 4th -- As has been mentioned, the hole location didn't change all weekend, and neither did the wind direction, for the most part. The flag was about as far back on a very deep green as it could go, and I think it was Bill Seitz who got the 245 reading on his range finder. It couldn't have been off by more than a couple of yards. Under those conditions, it was the most difficult par-3 tee shot I've ever played. I did detect a front right ridge that would propel a shot toward that back left of the green, but it wasn't as pronounced as other Redans I've played, and the green sloped slightly uphill from front to back. I'll call it a Redan, with an element or two missing.

Actually, I think it was about 220, but uphill and into the wind it probably played about 245.  I think it was the tenth hole that checked in at about 245 yards.  

I only make the correction because of an incident Friday at Spring Valley where I inadvertently shot the trees behind the par 3 11th and got 190.  After crushing a five iron well over the green, it dawned on me to check the card, where I found out the hole is only 170 yards.  Sometimes, good old analog is the best option.  Fortunately, I noticed the discrepancy before my playing partners hit, so they weren't forced to rely on my idiocy.

[Bill Seitz]

Oops.  Ignore this.

[Mark Smolens]

I'm glad Bill owned up to his operator error on the Bushnell (which was the first thought that came to my mind when reading Rick S's post) -- tho many reading this will be critical at its use at all. As a practical matter, for most of us in the field there isn't much different between 215 and 245 uphill, except for the fact that we probably would have to hit driver on the 245 hole.

As for my anger at myself for not having been to Lawsonia before, I must confess that I have been invited to go there on several occasions, but declined invitations after hearing tales of woe about "slow" greens and soft, mushy conditions. I saw nothing of the sort last weekend. I felt that the fairways were firm and bouncy enough to allow a short knocker to play from the blue tees, and the hard greens (ball marks were rare) made the striking of approach shots crisply an absolute essential. Finally, I don't see how you could play those greens if they were as fast as some here in the Chicago district -- very Ballynealesque in their speeds and playability.

In terms of a Doak rating, I have played four. Clearly Pacific Dunes is the best, but that rating must obviously take into consideration its setting. Apache Stronghold (in my three plays) could be incredible, but conditioning issues are a detriment. I would, however, now place Lawsonia's Links in the same class as Ballyneal -- high praise indeed. .  . and a lot easier to gain access for a Chicago golfer.

I look forward to returning to Lawsonia on a non-Wildcat football weekend this fall to see how the course plays in different conditions. Maybe they'll even have moved the pins by then I even purchased a new purple shirt to wear for all the Badger fans to see. . .

[George Freeman]

How good are #5 and #6!?  Especially those greens!

5-6-7 is a pretty special run.

[Phil McDade]

Lots of interesting discussion about the various holes here; anyone have thoughts on #8, one of my favorite short par 4s I've played? My personal favorite 3-hole stretch at Lawsonia is 6-7-8.

[Jud_T]

Isn't there a hole at Old Elm like 6?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()