[Matthew Lloyd]

Was very lucky to play Landmand on Memorial Day this year.


First, before I get to the main point I'm hoping to make, the pro shop sells a terrific coffee table book with summaries of each hole and some great photography - the book was given to my dad for summer reading so I don't have it in front of me, but I recognized several GCA names as the photographers. Apologies for drawing a blank on your names (Halyard and Hornstein maybe if my memory is working?) but your pics were incredible - I was thrilled to get a copy of the book and really enjoyed your contributions.


As for the course... I absolutely loved it. My hope is to spend an entire weekend there next year and play the course 4-5 more times to get a better sense of things, as it can be a bit overwhelming for one round - especially when it comes at the end of a 5 day trip that covers almost 1700 miles of driving.


But I got the sense that too many of the golfers making the trek to Landmand weren't maximizing their enjoyment of the course due to a rigid adherence to playing as an individual and fretting about score on a course that can clearly have tremendous wind, and that is a difficult puzzle to figure out on an initial round.


Landmand is perfect for match play - and the scorecard in fact promotes that idea. I'm sure there are groups out there following this recommendation - but not any of the groups that I saw or heard.


It's also a perfect course on which to mix up formats - scramble, shamble, etc. If you could get 2-4 people to engage on that type of round at Landmand you might have the best 4.5 hours of your golfing life - and it would enable you to learn the course (and its massive and mystifying greens) better.


My recommendation is that if you make the trek try to play at least 2 rounds - and find a group of golfers who are willing to take part in a team format for at least one of the rounds - guaranteed you'll have a blast.


I remain confused as to why American golfers seem to take so little joy in team formats. It's a particularly good idea on a long trip.


Landmand in particular seems to fit the bill.

[Matt Schoolfield]

Landmand in particular seems to fit the bill.

I'm actually thinking about writing something about which game formats work with which types of courses. I think the over-the-top type of course like Landmand, and fickle links and links-like courses lend themselves to match play, but I think the big, tough, last hole that most american course use, is quite bad for that.

We play a big rabbit at my club on the weekends, and I don't think our course is ideal for it, because the last hole is the highest index, so we just null that, and readjust everything. The game design and the architecture definitely go hand in hand. I'd like to know what makes some courses more conducive to something like foursomes.

[Matthew Lloyd]

Landmand in particular seems to fit the bill.

I'm actually thinking about writing something about which game formats work with which types of courses. I think the over-the-top type of course like Landmand, and fickle links and links-like courses lend themselves to match play, but I think the big, tough, last hole that most american course use, is quite bad for that.

We play a big rabbit at my club on the weekends, and I don't think our course is ideal for it, because the last hole is the highest index, so we just null that, and readjust everything. The game design and the architecture definitely go hand in hand. I'd like to know what makes some courses more conducive to something like foursomes.

Excellent idea. I’m convinced that golfers and courses need to get more creative with formats and games to make it more fun and collaborative.


How many 86s do I need to shoot and keep track of?


I’d love to find a course ideally suited for alternate shot (maybe none are hahahaha)

[Dan_Callahan]

I have a somewhat annual trip to Tobacco Road with a group of friends. We like to play 18 as traditional stroke play. But then for our second round of the day, we split up into teams of two where birdies earn a point (eagle two points), and par or worse is worth nothing. So it is essentially fire at every flag, birdies or bust. It also speeds up play because once you have no chance of birdie, you pick up and go to the next hole. It's a very fun way to play the second round, when concentration and energy are waning.

[Tom_Doak]

“Play it in a scramble, drink a lot of beer.” - my late friend Dave Richard’s’ suggestion for the definition of a 2 on the Doak Scale. 


Muirfield is the perfect course for foursomes - you only have to look for half as many balls in the rough, and you have an advance scouting party.


The “best 4.5 hours of my golfing life” was certainly 27-36 holes somewhere in Scotland, not 18 holes in the USA, in any possible format.

[Ben Hollerbach]

“Play it in a scramble, drink a lot of beer.” - my late friend Dave Richard’s’ suggestion for the definition of a 2 on the Doak Scale. 


Muirfield is the perfect course for foursomes - you only have to look for half as many balls in the rough, and you have an advance scouting party.


The “best 4.5 hours of my golfing life” was certainly 27-36 holes somewhere in Scotland, not 18 holes in the USA, in any possible format.

Is this line missing a qualifier like "The only way I'd play this course is to..."?
I could imagine for many Augusta National or Memorial Park would be wonderful courses for scrambling and drinking beer.

[Tom_Doak]

“Play it in a scramble, drink a lot of beer.” - my late friend Dave Richards’ suggestion for the definition of a 2 on the Doak Scale. 

Is this line missing a qualifier like "The only way I'd play this course is to..."?
I could imagine for many Augusta National or Memorial Park would be wonderful courses for scrambling and drinking beer.

Yes, that approach works well for many courses, the qualifier was meant to be implied.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()