Lawsonia Links - A Short Hitter's Dream Course

[Mike Hendren]

I can only carry the ball 220 yards or so from the tee.  On my second play I found Lawsonia Links to be the most strategic golf course I've played.  It's an 8 for anybody and a 9 for me.  Deserves a spot on Doak's 31 Flavors.
 
In my personal list I've bumped it above the likes of Plainfield, Pasatiempo, Peachtree, Palmetto and Fenway.  If it was more difficult to access and had a wonderful clubhouse from its time period, (the house right by the parking lot would do nicely) with a signature dish and powerful showerheads it could hold its own with any club in the country. 
 
More on the golf course later.
 
Have I lost my mind?
 
Bogey

[Peter Pallotta]

This promises to be a very good thread. Please elucidate at length, Mike, and I hope others join in.
Peter

[Tom_Doak]

Likewise, Mike.  I'm curious to hear what makes it more strategic than the other courses you mention.

[Zack Molnar]

Could not agree more Bogey. It is also quite strategic for long hitters as well. The 6th hole is a perfect example of that, with the bunker lurking across the fairway from the mound to catch any balls that took too conservative of a line across the mound.

[Mike Hendren]

You know you're already in deep when P2 and Doak are expecting more.

As for strategy specifically, hopefully I can remember how to cut individual aerials and insert lines of specific distances to support my case.  I'll try tomorrow.  Generally, the course's strategy is driven by the depth and placement of Langford's bunkers, whether grassed or sanded.  The fairway bunkers exact a full stroke and the deep greenside bunkers at least a half stroke. Short siding most greens is a disaster and Langford suckers the timid by generally wide surfaces that invite a 3-putt when playing for the fat of the green. The placement of the fairway bunkers is right on the money for my game as they can make the different between reaching a two shot hole  - the 6th which is made more critical by the bank short of the green that requires a fully carry or the 16th which is long and uphill, or the half-par 5th and 18th.  Not to mention reaching the flat plateau short of the 13th green.    Additionally Langford really paid attention to the areas 30 to 50 yards short of the two and three shot holes where I seem to wind up frequently either from amateurish under-clubbing, truncated approaches from the rough or a visit to fat or thin city.   These areas are either slightly pinched or protected by an offset pair of bunkers with a corresponding twist in the fairway.   

Several of the greens are set at an angle to the fairway, my personal nemisis the 7th being a perfect example.  Playing away from the corner of doglegs is often advisable, the 8th being a good example.  At other times cutting the corner leaves the line of charm into the green, the 2nd being a good example.

Hopefully, more tomorrow.

Bogey

[Tom_Doak]

The placement of the fairway bunkers is right on the money for my game

I hope this does not spoil your explanation tomorrow, but ...


I'm guessing the course fits you well because it was designed for 220-yard drives back in 1920-something, and due to its ownership it is one of the few courses of that vintage that hasn't screwed around with moving bunkers or building new tees in the past 30 years.  So it still works exactly as it was designed to work [for players like you], instead of having been tweaked out of alignment by someone else.

[Mark Pavy]

For reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnlSgKp091Q

[Mike Hendren]

Tom, I think your conclusion is spot on.  I first played Lawsonia 7 or 8 years ago with Brad Swanson, who bombed drives over all hazards and reduced the course to pitch-and-putt.  He was around par with several birdies. 
 
Your post does given me reason to rejoice over my dramatic loss of distance over the past 40 years.  I guess I'm just lucky?
 
That said, the pushed up greens and deep greenside bunkers do yield sucker pins for the better player and the green contouring is far better than I recalled.  Also, there is no Garanimal like matching of green contours with approach distances as the lengthy approaches at 6 and 10 are to two of the more dramatic greens. 
 
Based upon your theory, it might be a 10 for me.
 
Can you give us a preview of its rating in the new CG?
 
Mike

[Mike Hendren]

By the way, the tree clearing is fantastic, particularly exposing the short 14th.  As I stood on the 16th green I could see all 9 flags on the back fluttering in a strong breeze.  For some reason, Walton Health Old - another course I fell in love with, came to mind. 

[Jason Topp]

I actually thought of Crystal Downs when playing the course.  The specifics of each course are very different but the feeling I got from the places was quite similar.

[Jason Thurman]

Mike, I actually think you’re dead on with this one. It strikes me that building a strategic course shouldn’t be all that difficult. It’s simply a matter of making the riskiest lines off the tee the ones that pay the highest dividends when successfully executed, and building features that place a real premium on choosing those lines. There is certainly no course I’ve played that does this the way Lawsonia does, and with the variety of strategies it employs.
 
I hit it a bit longer than you, but I also suspect you also played a tee ahead of the one I play on my visits there. For me, it’s one of the most consistently engaging courses I’ve played. In particular, each tee shot asks me to wager a stroke against my ability to reach Position A. The way those wagers take shape varies from hole to hole.
 
On many holes, skirting a bunker (or grass “cop bunker”) off the tee sets up a better approach angle: 1, 11, 16, and 18 (on the second shot)
 
On other holes, making an aggressive carry sets up the ideal approach: 3, 9, and 13
 
Still others tempt a big hit to set up birdie on a shot with a high penalty for a ball sent offline: 5 and 15
 
And yet, for my money the best holes are the ones where the ideal placement for a drive could vary tremendously from player to player and day to day: 2, 6, and 8
 
It always presents some safe option for the weak or conservative player (aside from the two shortest par 3s), which is probably why it’s still my mother’s second-favorite course. And yet, it constantly presents big, tempting carries and aggressive play for the stronger player. Even true bombers have to pay attention to their choices on holes like 6, 8, 9, 13, and 16. The course really encourages players to “swing from the heels” with its open presentation, and it’s often surprising just how much danger lurks as soon as a shot is missed by just a hair.

[Tom_Doak]

It strikes me that building a strategic course shouldn’t be all that difficult. It’s simply a matter of making the riskiest lines off the tee the ones that pay the highest dividends when successfully executed, and building features that place a real premium on choosing those lines.

Jason:


This is much harder than it sounds, because the distance of the bunkers from the tees is so important if you think this way.  Jack Nicklaus tries to do exactly what you say, but his calculations are all based on successfully executing a 280-yard tee shot, which you can't do, so you have to play away from the hazards, and leave yourself with more difficult approaches all day.


Meanwhile, if Jack went to Lawsonia, he'd fly it over all of the bunkers [even at age 75!] so they wouldn't present much strategy to him.


Most architects try to solve the problem with multiple tees, but you can't build a tee for every player ... note that the Tour pro who hits it 250 or 300 yards doesn't have much to worry about on EITHER of the examples used above.  This is why it's essential to mix up the distances from the tee to the fairway bunker, even if you think you are building some of them "out of play".  They're always in play for somebody!

[Matthew Sander]

Jason:

Most architects try to solve the problem with multiple tees, but you can't build a tee for every player ... note that the Tour pro who hits it 250 or 300 yards doesn't have much to worry about on EITHER of the examples used above.  This is why it's essential to mix up the distances from the tee to the fairway bunker, even if you think you are building some of them "out of play".  They're always in play for somebody!

Tom,


Isn't this precisely why the ideal sites are not necessarily perched above a body of water? Rather, they are properties that include enough contour and landforms that allow for some blindness, speedslots, fairway hollows, etc. All of which are features that challenge a player w/o relying solely on bunkers.

[Mike Hendren]

Funny, I remember playing TPC Sugarloaf in Atlanta and even from the forward tees didn't worry about driving the ball into a bunker all day long.  They were always along the sides of fairways and out of reach.
 
Boy do I have it made.
 
Bogey

[Jason Thurman]

That's the thing though, Tom. Lawsonia does exactly that. It's 291 yards to carry the inside bunker off 1, and it's 170 to carry the first bunker on 6. Throughout the round, hazards are presented at almost every yardage from the tee and each hole features angles of play more relevant for one player than another, but without a consistent pattern. That's why there's so much variety for my game, and why there's so much variety for Mike's as well despite the fact that we play very different games from very different tees.


For me, a certain number of hazards come into play out there that make certain holes more awkward than others when it comes to hitting the ideal line off the tee. The hazards in play would be different for the +3s who will compete for my club's championship next weekend, and they'd also be different for the average 20 handicap showing up in Green Lake on any given day. But because the bunkers are set at a variety of distances, and because laying up short of them is only a loss of 10 yards as opposed to the 50 yards a player might lose laying up short of some sprawling modern bunkers, they factor into the equation for a much greater variety of players.


In fact, the vertically deep but horizontally shallow bunkers might be the course's greatest attribute. Thanks to them, the bunkers scare even the best players as any shot not precisely judged risks hitting a grass face and costing a stroke, but weaker players can nestle up close to the hazards and still take advantage of the better angle without laying so far back as to render the angle of approach meaningless.


Also, to Matt's point, Lawsonia has plenty of interest in the driving zones irrespective of the hazards thanks to its angled fairways and relatively large number of blind landing areas. Driving the ball there is just fun. Even if you're facing the rare hole without a real feature to think about off the tee, the simple fact that the course encourages you to make a full and aggressive swing makes it a constant pleasure to play.

[Jud_T]

Isn't this precisely why the ideal sites are not necessarily perched above a body of water? Rather, they are properties that include enough contour and landforms that allow for some blindness, speedslots, fairway hollows, etc. All of which are features that challenge a player w/o relying solely on bunkers.

Matt,


This is a very good point.  Some of the more perplexing shots on the course don't really involve bunkers.  For instance the layup yardage on 13 so as not to be left hitting off the downslope to an elevated green (at least for us short hitters).  Or the pucker factor on 7 tee (although not naturally occurring?)

[Tom_Doak]

Driving the ball there is just fun. Even if you're facing the rare hole without a real feature to think about off the tee, the simple fact that the course encourages you to make a full and aggressive swing makes it a constant pleasure to play.

That is the great appeal of Royal Melbourne, too.  The pucker factor is certainly there on the approach shots, but off the tee you can swing freely, even though there are some holes where you can get in a lot of bunker trouble.

[Jason Topp]

From this aerial tour (which allows you to measure between two points) and my memory of the course, the carry distances off the tee at Lawsonia are all over the lot, ranging from 140 to 320.  http://course.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/course/course/lawsonialinkscourse/aerial.htm#
 

[Jay Flemma]

So glad to see this because Dick Daley and I played there early this morning as a break from my working at the PGA.  A wonderful day with terrific playing partners on a Golden Age masterpiece!





Love the Boxcar hole









The Gull Wing Bunkers are amazing

[Peter Pallotta]

Most architects try to solve the problem with multiple tees, but you can't build a tee for every player ...

Of course, there is also this: no matter how many sets of tees there are to ensure that every golfer can get over the same bunker (in the name, I suppose, of some kind of equity/parity), the rewards for having taken the risk can never be comparable from one golfer to the next. The one who has played from the tips might have, for him, an 8 iron left; while the golfer who played from the whites will have to use a 5 iron or more to cover the (same) remaining yardage to the green. Not that there is anything wrong with that necessarily, except for the fact that with all those sets of tees the architect has not really kept his (implicit/implied) promise.
Best not to listen to us too much, Tom -- you seem to be doing okay figuring this all out for yourself.
Peter

[Mike Hendren]

Starting with the 1st:  The red line from the tee is is 225 yards while the yellow line is 250 - generally the range of my drives (most are closer to 225).  All shots will be measured from the regular tees.  I read 40 years ago that the ability to hit a green from outside of 150 yards separates the good from the average player.  That holds true for me as I'm relatively comfortable with a 7-iron or less in my hands. 



The 225 yards drive yields a 185 yards approach.  The 250 yards drive yields a 144 yards approach.  That's a half shot for me.  So, do I try to lean on the first tee ball of the day?  If I do but don't take the correct line, I gain nothing and perhaps drive through the fairway.  Conversely, if I plan on the more aggressive line but don't execute, I likely don't make the fairway.  The bend on this hold is ideal.

I'll continue if you find this worthwhile  Thoughts?

[Peter Pallotta]

Please do continue, Mike. That is a wonderful first illustration, especially for someone who doesn't know the course. I'm way out of my element here, but that gentle opener seems to me like a waterless cape hole, and the absence of bunkers in the landing zone make it even more 'pure' a (strategic) question for a thoughtful golfer, ie is it swing away and leave an awkward distance (or worse), or is it a (driver/three wood) 'layup' to your best yardage. Very lovely way to start a round, and one that I can't remember encountering before.
Peter

[Mike Hendren]

P2, the drive is slightly uphill and the fairway is only partially visible, adding to the challenge.   

The hole deserves bonus points for its rare Geo. C. Thomas, Jr. "fairtee."

Mike

[Rees Milikin]

Mike,

Please continue with your analysis because I too find Lawsonia to be one of the most mentally stimulating golf courses I have played.

[Jason Thurman]

Mike, I also hope you'll continue. Don't rush though, as I'd like to try to keep up with you, and I hope others will too. I think our games are different enough to illustrate how good the course is at being everything to everyone. There's also a small group of GCA guys heading up next weekend who might chime in when they return. It's been a long time since we've had a good hole-by-hole thread, and this may be one of the most interesting courses to explore collaboratively.


Your look at the first hole revealed to me something I've never noticed: that the dogleg itself cuts in at a distance that makes even a player who can't challenge the bunker think a bit about what line they want to take. I face the same question you do off the tee in spite of my point of worry coming further down the fairway.


For my game, the play off the first tee is a cut off the center telephone pole in the distance. When the wind (which is usually against on this tee shot) is blowing, I have to worry about cutting it too much and getting into tree trouble. When the wind is down and conditions are firm, the concern is to stay short of the fairway bunker. If I hang it straight or pull it a bit, I'll run through the fairway and the falloff left of the green is decidedly in play.


The first few times I played the course, I considered it to have architecture that was "excellent in theory." While the features were great, the turf conditions didn't make for an architecturally compelling experience in practice. That all changed when I came back last year for the first time since moving out of Wisconsin, and found it playing firmer and faster than any course I'd played since Kingsley the previous fall. I understand that my experience is now the norm when weather permits, and that's an important note to add. Generally I wouldn't worry about the crappy angle after a pulled drive with a 9 iron in my hand. But on an uphill approach over the severe falloff that wraps around the green in conditions as firm as I saw last year, there's a serious payoff for me to hugging the more dangerous right side on the tee shot and leaving the open look down the green that results from a successful drive.