Lawsonia Construction Question

[Ken Fry]

So I don't thread jack the overall Midwest Mashie discussion...

My question to those in the design and construction business has to do with the massive drop offs found all over Lawsonia.

The course was built in 1930.  Every hole has at least two major slopes designed and constructed somewhere on the hole, whether it be the push up cross bunkers, greens side bunkers, or drop offs from the putting surface down.

How did Langford and Moreau successfully construct such massive vertical features??  Obviously there are other architects of the era that were successful with this also.

How were they able to have the features hold during the construction process?  A little rain onto a big wall of dirt will quickly turn into a wider, flatter pile of dirt.  With no vegetation to assist in holding the soil together, how were they able to create so many steep faced features and that lasted from grow in through so many years of play?

Ken

[Phil McDade]

Ken:

I may not be able to provide exact construction details, but some background:

Langford and I believe Moreau were both trained civil engineers; they knew about construction, displacement, how to protect fill, drainage, and all sorts of civil engineering concepts and practices that are evident at Lawsonia (and some other courses, notably nearby West Bend CC). At a seminar held for some GCA folks a few years ago, architect Ron Forse (who has consulted at Lawsonia) said that Langford kept incredibly detailed construction records of his courses; his construction crews would move massive amounts of dirt, and Langford kept records of those "cuts and fills" down to a just few cubic feet. According to Forse, Langford was something of a stickler for details, and each fill pad at Lawsonia's greens, for instance, would have specific Langford plans on cubic feet of fill, grade, height, and so on.

Maybe Kavanaugh -- I think he's got a civil engineering degree -- can chime in generally on the topic.

[Adam Clayman]

While I think it's been proven a myth, from the first time I set foot on property, the lore was that they buried railroad box cars to get that steepness. I'm sure Dan or Phil can confirm that was a myth, otherwise, that's what it looks like, to me.

[RSLivingston_III]

I hope someone can answer this as I think it is a great question.

[Mike McGuire]

The angle of repose is naturally fairly stable. Once there is some vegetation on it it's good.

[Ken Fry]

I'm aware of the education both Langford and Moreau had.  I'm sure from an engineering point of view they were both meticulous with their plans, measurements and execution.  Gravity is gravity and with a healthy does of rain those steep faces will not last unless something is holding them in place.  What would they be using in 1930?  How could they supply the support required and also grow grass?  Silt fences could never be used on faces that steep.  Straw netting couldn't be held tight enough to hold such massive mounding, could it??

The only hole I had heard the box car reference was #7.  After playing from all sides of that green, it wouldn't surprise me if a train box car containing Jimmy Hoffa in one of his cars was buried there!  (Obscure reference to possible mafia connections of the property back in the late 40's).

Ken

[Kalen Braley]

They could have use temporary retaining walls. Or perhaps they attempted the steep faces a few times before it finally stuck.

I was also thinking they could have sodded on the steep faces, but I don't think that was a known practice back then.

[SL_Solow]

A couple of years ago a group of us played Ozaukee.  Afterwards, Ron Forse addressed us on Langford & Moreau's architecture and construction practices.  I don't recall anything specific but he stressed the precision of their cuts and fills.  No mention of railroad cars and the like.  i suspect Dan Moore may have some information.

[RSLivingston_III]

I doubt that par 3 had a RR car under it. In that era I believe they were all constructed of wood, so the thing would have collapsed from rot by now and there would be a 'bit' of a dip in the green these days.

[Adam Clayman]

Since it is kettle moraine country, the obvious would be rock. Wouldn't it?
 There's the old quarry on the south nine, too.

[Mike_Young]

I think the main thing going for it in those days was time....course might take years to grow in where we would try for a year today....it might not hve been perfect for a long time....

[PCCraig]

Ken,

I'm glad you posted your very good question here.

After thinking about it, I would guess the two things Langford had going for him was a huge budget (according to Dan Moore's Lawsonia thread: "Costing around $250,000, an enormous sum in the Roaring 20’s, the Links Course opened for Play in 1930.") and time, as Mike Young suggests.

In addition, I doubt the course got much play in its first 20 years of existence, as a failing resort in a somewhat remote part of Wisconsin which has a short golfing season. This would of made for less wear and tear on the growing turf.

But then again, "perfect angles" or not, some of those slopes are almost vertical and I wouldn't know where to begin to start growing grass on it today.

[Bradley Anderson]

Dan Moore has copy of a magazine article I found that shows how they mowed those banks - using a push mower with mountain climbing boots that had 1 inch spikes on the toe and heels!

I would guess they built those pads with steam shovels. They probably used sprigs to propagate the putting surface, and maybe they sodded the banks, but it's more likely that they seeded them and covered them with burlap or straw to control erosion.

[Matthew Sander]

Not intended as a threadjack, but I'd like to piggy-back a little on Ken's original question, which is outstanding and something we kept coming back to during our match on Saturday.

My question for those who've seen this course for many years is - was there any significant settling/softening/eroding of those near vertical banks and walls through the years? If so, were those instances addressed by Ron Forse during his renovation? If not, it is truly impressive that those features have maintained their original integrity for these many years...

[Adam Clayman]

Matthew, I first step foot on property there in '89. There was no apparent difference, save for the left side of #7.

[Dan Kelly]

Not intended as a threadjack, either, but...

Is anyone building golf-land forms like Lawsonia's, nowadays?

If not ... why not?

[Kalen Braley]

Not intended as a threadjack, either, but...

Is anyone building golf-land forms like Lawsonia's, nowadays?

If not ... why not?

Dan,

That's an easy one....because its contrived, unnatural looking, man-made quirk.  The expiration date on that kind of stuff has already passed and it was sometime back in the 30s.

[Phil McDade]

Not intended as a threadjack, either, but...

Is anyone building golf-land forms like Lawsonia's, nowadays?

If not ... why not?

Dan:

Brian Silva's Black Creek is more Raynor-esque than Langford-esque, but it's a modern design that apparently comes close:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/usa/black-creek/

[Phil McDade]

Not intended as a threadjack, either, but...

Is anyone building golf-land forms like Lawsonia's, nowadays?

If not ... why not?

Dan,

That's an easy one....because its contrived, unnatural looking, man-made quirk.  The expiration date on that kind of stuff has already passed and it was sometime back in the 30s.

Kalen:

The interesting thing about Lawsonia is that Langford and Moreau engineered things like greenpads, bunker depth, and mounding (and to some extent internal green slopes) to an extreme rarely found elsewhere. Yet the routing of the course indicates they largely laid out holes using the natural folds of the terrain, creating the kind of quirkiness and blindness that many "natural" advocates want in the game (see the Midwest Mashie thread for thoughts on how Langford's use of the land on #13 impacts play, or the many blind/semi-blind tee shots alluded to in the thread). To me, what's really enjoyable about Lawsonia is that -- perhaps uniquely in the golfing world -- it combines both very natural and engineered uses of land to create a golf course of challenge and surprise, with a variety of ways to attack each hole.

I'd also add that what some here on GCA may view as the holy grail of "naturalism" in a golf course -- Pacific Dunes -- was "engineered" in significant ways, as Doak has noted in various threads over the years.

[Dan Kelly]

Not intended as a threadjack, either, but...

Is anyone building golf-land forms like Lawsonia's, nowadays?

If not ... why not?

Dan,

That's an easy one....because its contrived, unnatural looking, man-made quirk.  The expiration date on that kind of stuff has already passed and it was sometime back in the 30s.

Maybe so, and maybe not -- but done well, it makes for great golf.

See: Tom Paul's Great Big World Postulate.

[Kalen Braley]

Not intended as a threadjack, either, but...

Is anyone building golf-land forms like Lawsonia's, nowadays?

If not ... why not?

Dan,

That's an easy one....because its contrived, unnatural looking, man-made quirk.  The expiration date on that kind of stuff has already passed and it was sometime back in the 30s.

Maybe so, and maybe not -- but done well, it makes for great golf.

See: Tom Paul's Great Big World Postulate.

I guess I needed at least one of these in there...  and maybe one of these 

I love modern examples of stuff like this, but it usually gets panned on GCA.com for being over the top.  Quirk has always been quirk to me and it doesn't need to be "old timing" for it to be tons of fun...like Jim Engh courses. To me they are the best example of out of the box stuff that's a blast to play.

[George Freeman]

Matthew, I first step foot on property there in '89. There was no apparent difference, save for the left side of #7.

Adam - what was different about the left side of #7?

[Rick Shefchik]

I was told the original intent on the left side of #7 was to mow it as fairway so that shots could bounce off the hill and onto the green. I don't know if they ever actually played it that way, but it would add another wild element to a course that's already more fun than a sleeve of exploding golf balls.

[Dan Kelly]

Matthew, I first step foot on property there in '89. There was no apparent difference, save for the left side of #7.

Adam - what was different about the left side of #7?

According to Dan Moore's Lawsonia photo thread -- http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,37022.0/ -- there was a bunker left of 7, apparently flanking the front half of the green.

 

[Adam Clayman]

George, Dan, It was more than just a bunker added or missing. The whole left side was (that smaller area between the cart path and the green) was different. How different, my memory fails, but different enough to notice it after having not been there for 15 years. If there's not a bunker there now, there was one. And/or vice versa. Forse's work made it look better and play better, that's for sure. Rugged is how I would describe the old version. A very difficult up and down, not solely because of the landform, but also maintenance practices.

Rick, I believe you can use the left hill side to gain entry to the green. It's farther up the hill than what I'm referencing above, but, I believe it's still a possible shot attempt. Especially to a front pin. But, as admitted above, my memory is shot.