Lawsonia question...

[Paul Payne]

I finally got a side trip in on my way to Chicago last week to stop and play Lawsonia. I have to say I really enjoyed the course. It is one of those courses that plays like an arcade game. A little off and you can be in a whole lot of trouble.

I shot well in spite of the fact my tee shots were fair to poor. Lots of scramble golf. Anyone who has played there knows that involves trying to figure your way out of a bunker with a five to six foot mound between you and where you want to go. The green complexes are great. Swollen mounds protected by more bunkers and some very interesting contours.

Which brings me to my question. I want to emphasize that I loved playing the course however, the more I looked at it the more contrived it appeared. The fairways are fairly natural to the terrain but the bunkering and green complexes look a bit like Pamela Anderson circa 1994.

If Lawsonia were built today would it get praise for being ingenious our would it get panned for being over the top? I am curious what you guys think.  

[ed_getka]

Paul,
   I haven't been there yet, but will see it soon. It would most definitely be seen as over the top by the general golfing public if it were built today. It sounds like it is viewed as over the top as is, because from what I gather the Links course gets much less play than the other course. Of course, the main reason for that is probably that the other course is easier to score on and that is the bottom line for the average golfer. I may be wrong, but I'll find out soon enough.

[Paul Payne]

Ed,

That is exactly the impression I got from my playing partners. They preferred the Woodlands course for a lot of resasons that sounded like they play better on that course.

I would certainly recommend the Links course for a visit. In fact now that I understand some of the nuances I'd like to get another crack at it.

[Adam Clayman]

Paul, After I learned Lawson wasn't a golfer, building it for his high society friends, I immediately assumed his intentions were to piss them off. Peronally, I couldn't agree more with that motive. Seeing how someone handles adversity is most telling, especially if you are dealing with other more serious matters.

Just so you know, I have not been to Green Lake for many years. When I played the course, it didn't look as it does today.  There were tight fescue reddish looking, hardly irrigated  very narrow fairways w/ relatively sparse rough. It was a very natural and evolved look. These conditions were a part of that initial impression.

I'm gratified to hear she still has teeth.

That is what you are saying, right?

[Paul Payne]

Adam,

Absolutely has teeth.

As I spoke with the guy in the pro shop he mentioned that they had been thinning trees and cutting the fescue back a little. This created a first cut of rough before you are in the thick stuff. Both have possibly created the result of making the shapes in the terrain more visible.

Just because you can see opportunities for trouble doesn't mean you can always avoid them.

There are also many strategic choices and blind or partially blind shots where if you choose incorrectly you will pay.

I found the most anguish in the fact that if you do end up in one of those mounded bunkers you CAN NOT advance the ball very far at all. DON'T TRY. Frustrating yes, but waaaay fun.

[Brad Swanson]

The bunkers and green complexes are certainly manmade looking in a similar fashion to Macdonald and Raynor.  Although manmade has a negative connotation in most GCA conversations, it works for me in this particular sense.

Cheers,
Brad

[Evan Fleisher]

Agree with Brad's comments above...and it is interesting to note how many folks really enjoy the Woodlands course because it much more resembles a "traditional" American layout than does the Links course.

But...taken in the proper way, the links course is what it is (as Adam put it built to "test" and "challenge" one's game) and does not appear contrived or manufactured in that sense, even though the mounding you speak of was obviously built for a specific purpose.

Me...I'll take the Links course ANY day of the year...

[Dan Moore]

Paul's view is one I have often heard about Lawsonia and as Evan noted the differences between the Woodlands and Links illustrates the point.  For some reason many people prefer the traditional parkland beauty of the Woodlands even though the Links is a far superior test of golf and way more fun.  

While the Link's bunkers and greens are very manufactured, I always have found they are carefully integrated with the surrounding land and each other to create an aesthetic whole.  I have always found there is a visual flow to the Links that works extremely well.  Other than the bunkers and greens I think very little other earth was moved.  Add to that that every man made feature has very specific strategic purpose and is not there for eye candy, and I think that's why it works so well.  

Try this one to illustrate my point.

Links Par 5 11th




Also here is one to show why some love the Woodlands.  I think Adam Clayman cited this one as a great hole on an otherwise forgettable course.

Woodlands Par 4 2nd "Quarry Hole"

[Adam Clayman]

Wow! They removed the tree on the quarry hole.

Dan's last pic is pointing str8 at what use to be a tree,
 right there gaurding the front right of the green.
It was a huge tree and dictated play.
Forcing the golfer to choose the right stem of the "Y"
 fairway, off the tee, causing a quarry carry.
While making the ground option almost impossible, up the left.

Now without the tree, a golfer could bump it
 up the left the whole way.
I really like it, better.

Thanx

Lawsonia may be the perfect facility,
 allowing groups to split-up between the courses,
 picking which style of golf they'd prefer to play.

[Dan Moore]

Adam.

The tree is still there, you can see a little of it in the upper right corner and still really affects the far left hole locations.  It close enough to the green that my photo didn't pick it up.  On this particular day the flag was on the very far right so the look back didn't pic-up the tree too much.

Here is another look from about 200, much farther back than the landing zone which would be at the stake or preferably closer.  The guys on the green are on the right of the green.  You can get hole placements on the far left behind the tree forcing you to play well out to the right if you don't want to be blocked out by the tree.  

[Dave Collard]

Lawsonia, contrived or not, is a curvaceous and
voluptuous woman of a golf course.  

[RJ_Daley]

Thor, nice to see you are still hanging around.  But, you ought to work on upping your post count to better than 8, which by my estimation works out to about 1.2 a year...  

[Dave Collard]

It's too scary to post here :-)

[RJ_Daley]

For a fellow that runs as robust of a website as yours, of links to other golf links, you sure have a perplexing fear...  

http://www.ttsoft.com/thor/golflinks.html

I confess I am on the other side of the issue.  I already spend too much time on GCA.com.  I am sorry to say I don't spend much time on Shackelford's fine site, nor yours.  But, yours certainly is a wealth of reference links to be used to locate almost anything one wants in the golf arena.  You are to be congratulated for keeping up a great reference site.  

[Dave Collard]

For a fellow that runs as robust of a website as yours, of links to other golf links, you sure have a perplexing fear...  

http://www.ttsoft.com/thor/golflinks.html

I confess I am on the other side of the issue.  I already spend too much time on GCA.com.  I am sorry to say I don't spend much time on Shackelford's fine site, nor yours.  But, yours certainly is a wealth of reference links to be used to locate almost anything one wants in the golf arena.  You are to be congratulated for keeping up a great reference site.  

In truth, the congratulations are misplaced.  My site is
not up to date and is quickly becoming a collection of dead links.

Actually, I just haven't played very many of the courses
discussed here, so I mostly read and learn.