[Jason Thurman]

As to hole 2, it might be the least strategic tee shot on the course for me. While the better angle comes from hugging the right side, the tee shot is so blind and disorienting that it's hard to be all that choosy about the line for me. But man, there might not be a more fun tee shot that I've ever played. Line it up between the bunkers in the hillside ahead and rip it, then walk to the top of the hill and see one of the best views in golf, with an extra bonus if it includes your little white orb lying in the fairway.

[Paul Gray]

As an aside, what happens mid atlantic to make 220 carries short? I don't carry the ball much further than that, nor do many of the club pro's I know.

[Brian Bowman]

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?

I'd like to point out. That for the longer, much longer amateur player, the blind rising fairway adds an element of insecurity for the few that can drive the ball 290-300 yards. The average player has the issues that Mike pointed out, but the longer player will have to avoid going through the fairway or hitting it in the right fairway bunker if they push their drive off the intended line that would allow their ball to stopin the fairway. Excellent starting hole all around.

[Mike Hendren]

As Jason noted the 2nd is not a place to get cute given the blindness from the tee.  The incremental 25 yards reflected in the aerial below is not insignificant, however as it eliminates the semi-blindness the shorter hitter faces over the large grass bank/depression barely visible in the aerial.  The 225 yards drive is also vulnerable to leaving a blocked approach if slightly leaked right.

[Evan Fleisher]

Bogey,

Please do continue!  This thread is fascinating, especially since we're talking about one of my favorite all-time courses.

Haven't been on GCA for a while, but THIS is the kind of thread that makes this place so valuable to me.  Keep it coming, boys!

[Jason Topp]

A few of us will be out there this Saturday.  If you want us to photograph anything let us know.

[Mike Hendren]

The short hitter must proceed cautiously from the 3rd tee as it is much more difficult to fit a drive along side the bunker than it is to carry it into a much wider landing area.  The 225 drive yields a reasonable 140 yards approach while the 250 yards drive leaves a 90 yards pitch, arguably turning the 3rd into a half-par hole.  Unlike the first two approaches, no ground game option is available here to the pushed up green. 

This hole is also the rare case of structures enhancing the landscape as the whtle clapboard buildings down the right side match the course in their architectural simplicity and seem so indigenous to the area. 

Bogey

[Mike Hendren]

The 4th completes a nifty triangulation early in the routing. 



This stout uphill one-shotter plays 170 from the regular markers.  Some have hinted that it is a redan, but there is no right-hand kickplate and the green generally follows the slope of the hill  down from the rear.  In other words, the ball doesn't migrate toward the back left of the green.  It is a bit of a visual challenge to take on the front left bunker, particularly with the offset fairway and it's likely the right-hand greenside bunker sees its fair share of visitors.

Overall this hole is a good test, perhaps the toughest approach in the first five opening holes.

Two stellar half-par holes follow.

[Jason Thurman]

The 3rd was originally my least favorite hole at Lawsonia, and I still don't love it. However, I've gradually begun to understand the strategy at play more after a half-dozen rounds on the course. On my first few plays, I thought it was a very simple hole. Just hit a 3 wood up the left side of the fairway to the outside corner of the dogleg, and open the angle of approach through the bunkers and into the heart of the green.


However, what you can't see from aerials is how fiercely tilted the green is. If you play to the outside corner of the dogleg, you're left with a short iron shot to one of the course's smallest targets that tilts aggressively from left to right. From that angle, a high approach will likely bounce right upon landing, and sometimes funnel down the steep slope into the fronting right bunker.


I now think the play off the tee, at least for my game, depends a lot on the pin position. If the pin is in the middle or on the left side of the green, I think the ideal drive goes over the bunker and sets up a flip wedge from the right side of the fairway, where the green's slope acts as a backstop. If the pin is on the right side, the play to the outside of the dogleg is still a solid option as it allows you to feed the ball down the green's slope toward the flag more easily.

[Jason Thurman]

As for the 4th, my favorite shot in golf is a hard slinging hook. I was predestined to love this hole for the same reason that I was always going to love the 3rd tee shot at Pebble Beach, or the tree on the 2nd hole at Holston Hills - it sets up perfectly for my slinging hook shot. For me, the play is simply a 3 iron or hybrid that starts out toward the 5th tee and bends hard back through the opening at the green's front right.


Most par 3s aren't strategic, but the 4th at Lawsonia is the rare one that can be. A classic example of the long, brutal par 3s that Langford loved (and not even the best example of such on this course), it plays dramatically uphill and those greenside bunkers are steep and imposing from the tee some 215 yards away. It takes a perfect tee shot to set up a birdie try, and for a lot of players, the reward may not be worth the risk. It can, however, easily be played as a short two-shotter by laying up to the fairway to gain an angle for a simple pitch into the heart of the green.


Mike mentions that two half-par holes will follow this one. For my money, this hole is the first in one of the greatest stretches of holes in golf, characterized by half-par holes of every variety. I'd characterize all but one hole in the stretch from 4-11 as half-par holes, and the stretch from 4-10 is about as good as golf gets for me.

[Jud_T]

The 4th probably makes my list of top 10 Par 3's I've played.  Just a great hole.  Also possibly the best par 3 I've seen that plays significantly uphill.

[Phil McDade]

Really enjoying this thread on my favorite course. The overheads provide a great perspective on the difference just a smattering of yards can make on approaches into greens. A few observations:


-- One of the things I've always liked about Lawsonia is how the course slowly reveals its charms and challenges. Take the 1st; on the tee, the golfer may wonder: What's the big deal? But then you turn the corner after the drive, and that looming shelf of the 1st green appears, and you know you are in for a treat (a friend of mine, playing the course for the first time, literally said "Holy s..." when he turned that corner). You see this again and again at Lawsonia -- the 2nd, the 4th, the 6th, the 8th, holes 15 and 16 on the back nine. One of the great pleasures of playing Lawsonia is the journey through 18 holes, and the challenges that Langford presents that aren't readily evident on the tee.


-- I also like the ying and yang of the course. Some obvious choices on tee shots, others blind. It's notable to me, at least, that on two holes where the average golfer (or less than average, such as myself) may want to take a healthy swing with a long-iron/fairway wood into the green (holes 2 and 9), Langford presents the golfer with two of his easier green sites, in that they are two that are the least built-up on the course. Langford's writings indicate that he really cared less about par, and a particular hole's length, than he did in demanding that the golfer use a wide variety of clubs in coming into those greens.


-- I'm not entirely sure I agree with Jason's assessment of 3. I've always loved this hole in terms of its setting -- the former dairy barn astride the hole was reputed to the be the largest in the state, and the approach toward the simple white farmhouse has echoes of Hogan's "3-iron into some guy's bedroom window." No hole at Lawsonia encapsulates the course's setting -- rural Wisconsin -- better than the 3rd. But I have long wondered why anyone (other than a truly accomplished player) would want to take on that bunker, because playing away from it seems to leave the player with a less-riskier approach (re. Jason Topp's recent thread on doglegs and how they open up closer to, or away from, fairway hazards). The risk to me seems to outweigh the reward, because it makes the green shallower and one where the fronting bunker must be taken into consideration. Jason's argument is that the fierce tilt of the green provides an advantage (ala Ran's much-derided "catcher's mitt" green design) for an approach shot. I'm not so sure; the tilt of that green has never struck me as all that "fierce" and "aggressive." There are other greens I fear much more at Lawsonia in terms of being in the wrong place.


-- I second Jud's notion of the merits of #4; sometimes it gets lost in the shuffle of the course's par 3s because of the notoriety of the boxcar 7th and the glorious 10th. But it's a great hole. I'll stick with my interpretation of it as Redan-like -- not a true Redan, but it's hard for me to imagine that Langford (a very good golfer in his own right, and one who studied and wrote about golf architecture seriously) didn't at least want to pay some kind of homage to the classic Redan -- and incorporate some of its elements -- when he designed this hole, and placed it where he did in the routing. No proof of course, but the circumstantial evidence is strong enough for me to hold to my view in calling it Redan-like.

[BHoover]

I played Lawsonia Links over the weekend for the first time with Jason Topp, Morgan Clawson, and Dick Daley.

The wind was howling and the course was playing fairly firm and fast. I'm still trying to gather thoughts on the course, but it's da fe to say my two rounds on the Links were some of the most enjoyable I have ever played. For a fairly short course, it was challenging but still great fun; the holes that played into the wind were definitely all I could handle. But even in a howling wind, it's still absolutely playable and probably even more fun.

The only disappointment was seeing Mr. Topp hole out for eagle on the 1st hole of the day and eventually take $7 from me.

[Jason Topp]

It is always a pleasure to take money from Hoover and really nice to ask if anyone made a 1 after the first hole to determine whether or not you have the honor.
I am not sure I agree that the tee shot on 2 is one of the least strategic on the course.  The look from the right side is a very nice angle compared to the view from the left.  To hit that shot you risk some long grass and trees if you lose it that way. 

[RJ_Daley]

I was disappointed that I opted only to meet these fine gents late for their afternoon round and not drive early for their morning one.  I may have missed the greatest shot ever of all the years I have been meeting GCA guys to play Lawsonia.  An eagle on the opening hole there, 430some yarder with death awaiting shots errant left and a decent bunker right of the green, was pretty epic.  As those who play there know, the opening hole(s) at Lawsonia are not the kind of gentle handshake Ross would taut. 

The other aspect was that we had a lot of rain since I played Lawsonia only a week andhalf ago with Flemma.  The greens were slightly softer and not quite as fast as before.  They were as fast as I'd ever seen them then.  But, when one factors some of the highest winds and gusts I've seen at Lawsonia over the years, even in fall, I must say these Minnesota guys played very well on a day I think the wind made the overall test harder than the firmer faster day earlier.  The ball still bounced in FWs this weekend, but did hold greens more readily.

Thanks to Morgan, Brian, Jason and John for having this aging hacker join the group.  I had a great time.

[RJ_Daley]

BTW, the fellows were destined for Erin Hills Sunday morning early, but WI had heavy rains.  Since no one has posted, I wonder if their round there was washed out.  What happened to you guys, Brian or Jason?  Personally, I wouldn't want to play EH in sloppy conditions, even for free... 

[Jason Topp]

Dick - We almost entirely dodged the rain at Erin Hills and enjoyed a nice cool day with a brisk West wind.  A fine time was had by all other than the fact that Morgan snuck in at the end to win most of the money. 

[BHoover]

Dick--very glad you were able to join us and tell me some of the history of Lawsonia. As a first-time visitor, I had high expectations and the day at Lawsonia did not disappoint; if anything, it exceeded those expectations.

I must take issue, however, with your assessment of Topp's eagle on the 1st hole. It was a lucky shot. Let's not give him too much credit! 

[BCowan]

I was curious if any of the Lawsonia regulars knew if there were any plans to renovate the Woodlands course?

[Phil McDade]

I was curious if any of the Lawsonia regulars knew if there were any plans to renovate the Woodlands course?

Ben:


Not that I've heard, but given the courses are under relatively new (and very good) management, it wouldn't surprise if the Woodlands gets at least a look to assess whether it could be tweaked/improved in some way. Both courses seem to enjoy pretty steady play.

[RJ_Daley]

Perhaps Dan Moore will weigh in because he has official ties to Oliphant Company now that they are managing the property.  I have not played the Woodlands in 15 years!   It isn't that it is not a good course.  It was always a decent round of golf in a beautiful setting.  It is just that folks don't come all the way here to WI to play the Woodlands when the classic Links is the real cherry to be picked.  Thus, I meet folks who come and end up always playing the links.  I must make an effort to at least play Woodlands once in the near future. 

The turf on the greens has become outstanding in the last few years.  And, the prices of rounds have creeped up.  They still have twilight rates, and the late fall before the put the course to bed is actually the best time to play there, particularly after they blow out the sprinkler lines and there are still a few weeks or days of firm and fast fall conditions. 

[BHoover]

I've been thinking since the weekend about how much fun the Links course is to play. If I'm being critical, however, I'd say that the greens are probably the weakest part of the course. I'm not saying that the greens are bad, not at all. But what I'm saying is that the greens aren't quite as impressive as the rest of the course--the elevation changes, the bunkering, the blind shots, etc. There are a few very good greens, such as the 6th, which is just awesome, but by and large, the greens are not as bold and interesting as the rest of the course.

Am I wrong? I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. Like I said, it's only if I'm being extra-critical of what is one of the finest (and certainly most fun) courses I've ever played.

[Phil McDade]

I've been thinking since the weekend about how much fun the Links course is to play. If I'm being critical, however, I'd say that the greens are probably the weakest part of the course. I'm not saying that the greens are bad, not at all. But what I'm saying is that the greens aren't quite as impressive as the rest of the course--the elevation changes, the bunkering, the blind shots, etc. There are a few very good greens, such as the 6th, which is just awesome, but by and large, the greens are not as bold and interesting as the rest of the course.

Am I wrong? I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. Like I said, it's only if I'm being extra-critical of what is one of the finest (and certainly most fun) courses I've ever played.

Brian:


I don't #1 is all that complicated; a solid green with some tilt, but nothing dramatic or special.


#2 I think is a very good green, especially if you get above the hole. That's a scary putt, and the size of that green has always made me worry about 3-putts (which I've done often there).


#3 Jason and I "debated" earlier in this thread. I think #4 green, while by itself may not have the Redan character that I see in the rest of the hole, is angled quite neatly to the line of play off the tee, and makes for a tough target. A difficult two-putt from the right if the pin is left, and I've always found it kind of tricky to get pitch shots close to the pin if I'm playing from the "throat" of the hole short.


Of the remaining greens (not to outpace this great thread... ), I think #10, #12 esp. (with its fault-like contour), #14, #17 and #18 all have a great deal of interest. From what I've seen, they may not be the best set of greens in the state (I might lean toward Blue Mound), but they are very good.

[BHoover]

Phil, I don't disagree with you. I'm just playing devil's advocate when suggesting that maybe the greens, when compared to the overall architecture, are the weakest part of the course. Of course, it could just be that I don't know a damn thing...I accept that could be the case!

But 6, 10, 12 and 18 are very good.

[PCCraig]

Phil, I don't disagree with you. I'm just playing devil's advocate when suggesting that maybe the greens, when compared to the overall architecture, are the weakest part of the course. Of course, it could just be that I don't know a damn thing...I accept that could be the case!

But 6, 10, 12 and 18 are very good.

I don't think you're wrong in saying that the greens are a weaker part of the overall course, however I don't think they are nessasarily bad....and there are some awesome greens in there.


I like the 5th green a lot as there is a ton of movement and a missed green after a short approach can lead to a tough up and down. The 6th green is awesome. The 7th is really cool and has more movement than you think, not to mention its setting. The 8th is a really neat green with a little kickplate off the back (if my memory serves me right). The 9th is a boring green. The 10th is pretty good. I think the 11th and especially 12th greens are awesome. 13th green is ok...14th is better than you'd think (?) as it has a TON of macro movement. I think the 17th green is really good, as is the 18th.


It's been two years since I was last there, so my memory for the details isn't great right now.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()