Landmand 2024

[Gary Kurth]

Have not talked to one person whom I trust that has liked the golf course,  The words that I continue to hear are"excessive" and "over the top".

Golf course architects and football referees should have something in common.  Sometimes it is best when you forget that they were there. 

Seems like King and Collins are intent and making sure that every golfer knows that they were there.  No thanks.

The only thing that's really 'excessive' are some of the greens; 4, 7 & 15 really push the limits.  #7 is most severe.  #4 is funky, in a good way.  #15 has some crazy mounding/buried elephants.  I have a picture of #4 on my desktop at work and open it every couple of weeks and just go 'wow, that took balls'.  I love it and look forward to playing that hole. 

There are 2 others (1 & 17) that push the limits due to the size slopes.  You need to be in the right area on the green to have a decent shot at birdie.  The remaining greens aren't anything out of the ordinary except the size.  I guess they could've had much smaller greens and you could be chipping more versus putting.  During the 2022 outing and the three times I played it last summer, I've seen a lot of birdies (not so much me, by others ).

My biggest concern for the golf course long term is the ability to keep it maintained, especially the bunkers.

Once the initial shock of 'woah, that's different' wears off, I believe the course gets better the more one plays it. It still may not fit everyone's eye.  I suggest you play it with an open mind and form your own opinion.

[Matt Schoolfield]

Have not talked to one person whom I trust that has liked the golf course,  The words that I continue to hear are"excessive" and "over the top".

Golf course architects and football referees should have something in common.  Sometimes it is best when you forget that they were there. 

Seems like King and Collins are intent and making sure that every golfer knows that they were there.  No thanks.

My understanding is that the land was already extremely severe, and that most of the work they did was actually softening features, not building them up:

King and Collins softened features because they had to; they moved dirt because they had to. The designers neither constrained themselves with ideology nor indulged themselves in gratuitousness; the result is radically pragmatic.

The design still is dramatic (there is a difference, after all, between taming unplayable features and destroying them), but Collins rejects the idea that Landmand was fundamentally too severe a site for golf.

https://www.lyingfour.com/conversations-blog/2020/11/24/landmand-story

[Ben Hollerbach]

If there is a poster child for anti-golf, Landmand is it.  I keep thinking what Melvyn would write if he played it :-)

What would you define as anti-golf?

[Ken Fry]

Have not talked to one person whom I trust that has liked the golf course,  The words that I continue to hear are"excessive" and "over the top".

I enjoyed the course very much over my 3 1/2 rounds in 2022.

That's all I got.  Thank you.

Ken

[Tom_Doak]

If everyone likes a new course, I doubt it has anything truly new about it.  I like every Coore & Crenshaw and Doak course I've played. They are all extremely good, but they can bleed together sometimes and there are a lot of them now.  I'm glad something different has been built, regardless if it ends up not being as good.

I don't know how you can turn the fact that you like all of our courses, into a negative?


Not sure about Bill and Ben, because they are so personable, but I get my fair share of criticism:  witness the NLU guys getting smoked by The Loop, or Matty G rating Cape Kidnappers as his least favorite course played in Australia and New Zealand. 


There are always going to be haters.  You just have to consider whether they had anything constructive to offer.  They usually don't.

[Joe Zucker]

If everyone likes a new course, I doubt it has anything truly new about it.  I like every Coore & Crenshaw and Doak course I've played. They are all extremely good, but they can bleed together sometimes and there are a lot of them now.  I'm glad something different has been built, regardless if it ends up not being as good.

I don't know how you can turn the fact that you like all of our courses, into a negative?


Not sure about Bill and Ben, because they are so personable, but I get my fair share of criticism:  witness the NLU guys getting smoked by The Loop, or Matty G rating Cape Kidnappers as his least favorite course played in Australia and New Zealand. 


There are always going to be haters.  You just have to consider whether they had anything constructive to offer.  They usually don't.

I didn't say anything negative about your courses, I just said I like variety.


I'm guessing there will be above average criticism for Sedge Valley because it is something different than what's normally built.  That's pretty cool and I'm glad you're doing it.  The Loop was also very different and I think the polarization around it (from NLU or elsewhere) is a positive in many ways. 

[Jason Thurman]

Tobacco Road isn't the greatest course in America, but it IS the course that provokes the most interesting discussion when mentioned at the average 19th hole. Landmand could challenge it someday if they keep selling out all their tee times within 5 minutes of the New Year. Some courses touch your soul or whatever, and that's cool, but a round at Landmand might just make you a more interesting human being.

[Cal Carlisle]

Have not talked to one person whom I trust that has liked the golf course,  The words that I continue to hear are"excessive" and "over the top".

I enjoyed the course very much over my 3 1/2 rounds in 2022.

That's all I got.  Thank you.

Ken

Agreed. It's a good thing we didn't play with the "trusted few".

[Niall C]

"Sweetens Cove, a rollicking nine-hole course in South Pittsburg, Tennessee, with wide fairways, surreal green contours, and breathtaking bunkering, all jam-packed into a miniscule 72 acres"

Wow. I know you do things bigger in the US but if 72 acres is miniscule for 9 holes then I must be playing a different game to everyone else 

Niall

[Ben Hollerbach]

"Sweetens Cove, a rollicking nine-hole course in South Pittsburg, Tennessee, with wide fairways, surreal green contours, and breathtaking bunkering, all jam-packed into a miniscule 72 acres"

Wow. I know you do things bigger in the US but if 72 acres is miniscule for 9 holes then I must be playing a different game to everyone else 

Niall

Take away the ponds and the course occupies closer to 56 acres.

[Joe Melchiors]

Tommy,


Why is it bad to have some greens where a 3 putt is ok, or even good (not a retort, more of a philosophical question)?  I have to say I totally agreed with your sentiment initially, but I'm not so sure now if it's just because that is what I've been conditioned to think.  Some of those greens are so massive that getting down in 3 from a bad spot is actually pretty darn good, and I' not sure that's a bad thing. 


My normal concern when greens are really difficult is more related to the slowdown in play (nothing like double rolled greens on a Friday in Chicagoland), but if they have 20 minute tee times, then maybe it's not an issue.


I did, sadly, watch my opponent take Landmand apart when we were there last year, so good scores are definitely out there.


-Joe 

Have not talked to one person whom I trust that has liked the golf course,  The words that I continue to hear are"excessive" and "over the top".

Golf course architects and football referees should have something in common.  Sometimes it is best when you forget that they were there. 

Seems like King and Collins are intent and making sure that every golfer knows that they were there.  No thanks.

I will agree that you know for sure that KC were there and that the course walks the line between exciting and over the top. I went there thinking that I might not like the course. I liked the routing, terrain, expansiveness, vistas, and shots into the greens. Where it got over the top were the greens. I'm not sure I'd like to regularly play a course where a three-putt is good.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I know this issue comes up regularly in one form or another…. And I know I veer away from some respected views on this… but I dislike greens where it isn’t possible to get pretty close to any pin from anywhere on the green. And I certainly dislike greens where a three putt is seen as a par outcome (I.e. a two putt is seen as exceptional) from certain points.


Putting counts for too much already. Without making it 3/5ths of your shots.

[Jason Thurman]

Ally, does that math change at all if a green is 70 yards long or wide?


Landmand has some enormous greens. It's very possible to find the putting surface after a fairly poor shot, and to face a very difficult two-putt as a result.


In fairness, I also personally witnessed a few spots where the only way to leave a tap-in would've been to pitch from the green. Dan Moore and I both faced that conundrum from 30 feet or so on 12. Dan proved a two-putt was possible by burying the 8 footer coming back, but I think he also hit about as good a lag as was feasible.

[Tim Martin]

I know this issue comes up regularly in one form or another…. And I know I veer away from some respected views on this… but I dislike greens where it isn’t possible to get pretty close to any pin from anywhere on the green. And I certainly dislike greens where a three putt is seen as a par outcome (I.e. a two putt is seen as exceptional) from certain points.


Putting counts for too much already. Without making it 3/5ths of your shots.

Ally-I wonder if that’s a reasonable expectation when traversing slopes from high to low on tiered greens? Runout can be almost impossible both to judge and manage.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Tommy,


Why is it bad to have some greens where a 3 putt is ok, or even good (not a retort, more of a philosophical question)?  I have to say I totally agreed with your sentiment initially, but I'm not so sure now if it's just because that is what I've been conditioned to think.  Some of those greens are so massive that getting down in 3 from a bad spot is actually pretty darn good, and I' not sure that's a bad thing. 


My normal concern when greens are really difficult is more related to the slowdown in play (nothing like double rolled greens on a Friday in Chicagoland), but if they have 20 minute tee times, then maybe it's not an issue.


I did, sadly, watch my opponent take Landmand apart when we were there last year, so good scores are definitely out there.


-Joe 

The course is gettable if you are fortunate enough to hit it close. There were a couple of times I hit what I thought were good shots into the greens, only to end up in a spot where two putts were only possible with a ten-foot second putt. The greens are not only huge they have slope and undulation that, for my way of thinking, is a bit much.

[Tim Martin]

Tommy,


Why is it bad to have some greens where a 3 putt is ok, or even good (not a retort, more of a philosophical question)?  I have to say I totally agreed with your sentiment initially, but I'm not so sure now if it's just because that is what I've been conditioned to think.  Some of those greens are so massive that getting down in 3 from a bad spot is actually pretty darn good, and I' not sure that's a bad thing. 


My normal concern when greens are really difficult is more related to the slowdown in play (nothing like double rolled greens on a Friday in Chicagoland), but if they have 20 minute tee times, then maybe it's not an issue.


I did, sadly, watch my opponent take Landmand apart when we were there last year, so good scores are definitely out there.


-Joe 

The course is gettable if you are fortunate enough to hit it close.

Isn’t that true of any course?

[Ben Hollerbach]

The course is gettable if you are fortunate enough to hit it close. There were a couple of times I hit what I thought were good shots into the greens, only to end up in a spot where two putts were only possible with a ten-foot second putt. The greens are not only huge they have slope and undulation that, for my way of thinking, is a bit much.

If the contours were kept the same but the green mow lines were changes, converting many of these tough putting spots into tough chipping spots, would it still be a bit much?

[Charlie Goerges]

Nobody likes three putts, myself included, but If we have to accept that sometimes a two-shotter isn't get-able in two, don't we also have to accept that occasionally a green might require more than two putts?

[PCCraig]

I'll be there August 2-4 with a bunch of WBYC guys. Really looking forward to seeing the course.

[Matt Schoolfield]

I know this issue comes up regularly in one form or another…. And I know I veer away from some respected views on this… but I dislike greens where it isn’t possible to get pretty close to any pin from anywhere on the green. And I certainly dislike greens where a three putt is seen as a par outcome (I.e. a two putt is seen as exceptional) from certain points.


Putting counts for too much already. Without making it 3/5ths of your shots.

As someone who grew up in Texas and learned to use the Texas Wedge from the day I started playing, I think the problem here is not green size, but green speeds. On every single dry, close-cut fairway you'll see me putting from ≈ 50 yards away, and getting close. Yet on many of the same courses, I struggle to get close on 15 ft putts because the surface is like glass, and it's a completely different putting stroke for me. I may be beating a dead horse here, but I see little value at all in large, and especially contoured, fast greens. Ironically, my understanding is that especially fast greens need to be large because they're more fragile than the green with longer grass that stimp closer to 8, but I may be wrong there. However, I do see value in large, contoured slower greens, where it's just easier to get the speed right, even if it's harder to harder to get line right.

I just think that any course maintenance regime that make a putt more challenging than a chip is counterproductive, yet we regularly see players chipping from the fringe on modern, fast greens because it's easier to spin-stop the ball at the hole than it is to judge the speed of a putt.

[Tom_Doak]

 my understanding is that especially fast greens need to be large because they're more fragile than the green with longer grass that stimp closer to 8, but I may be wrong there. However, I do see value in large, contoured slower greens, where it's just easier to get the speed right, even if it's harder to harder to get line right.

A green only NEEDS to be large if the combination of speed and slope means that significant parts of it are not useful as hole locations.  You've got to have X area of hole locations, which X being a function of Y traffic.


The size of the Landmand greens [and many other modern greens] is more of an effort to present way-different hole locations on a given hole so that it plays very differently from round to round.  I don't think many would argue that is not a worthwhile objective . . . but you are correct to point out that the way they are achieving that objective ALSO creates some very difficult situations on the green that golfers will be quick to criticize as unfair.


I am a fan of greens with contour, and I won't abide by anyone else's rule of what's fair or not fair, but I do have my own standard.  Generally, I don't worry about someone who's left their ball with no chance to get a putt within 5-6 feet, as long as they didn't have to leave themselves there.  If they had a reasonable chance to play short of the hole, but blew their shot by, and the comebacker won't let them get close, that's their fault, not the green's.  But if they had to play over a deep bunker or water in front, and couldn't stop the ball before it got to the spot of contention, then that green is probably too severe.


For my tastes, anyway.