If you wanted to make the case for Arcadia, you’d say it’s more challenging and more complex and in prime condition.
Yes! It's a lot to take in. And maybe it's a little too much in spots. In hindsight, I'd have been a lot more selective about the club I chose off the tee and played for position more often. It's almost a "target links" with landing areas defined by bunkers on practically every par 4/5. But it's really cool to think how the ideal position would change with different pins, and it's augmented by the way the squared off putting surfaces create so many different sharply angled pin positions that, in turn, influence the proper target from the tee. It's a remarkably cerebral chess match and the course's unrelenting firmness really takes it up another notch on that front.
For Lawsonia, you’d say the topography is much more dramatic and it’s got an awesome set of greens.
So, in fairness, I think Arcadia South has an awesome set of greens all its own. But I do think Lawsonia has the better set, because of all the microcontours. I keep thinking about the first holes. It seems so obvious that Arcadia South has the better opener, because it's an awesome hole and Lawsonia has that awkwardly undefined tee shot. And the green at Arcadia South is incredible - huge with enormous slopes. But Lawsonia's is equally interesting on the approach with the way that it feeds balls to the left, but so much harder to putt once you're on it because even though it's smaller and doesn't have the same boldness of shaping (within the surface itself...), it's also full of microundulations that make even 3 footers really tough.
I do think the topography of the courses is very similar though. I'll grant that Lawsonia has a little bit more drama, but I wouldn't call it "much more." Although certain transcendent holes at Lawsonia like 6 and 13 are really bolstered by their topography and I'm not sure Arcadia South has anything that quite matches them. Overall, though, I found the topography of the courses really similar.
John, I don’t know why but it sounds like you do not remember Lawsonia’s greens very well. They are much more varied than the Rayner templates, and there are a few (5, 6, 12) that belong in a sculpture museum.
Agreed again here. But we should put respect on greens like 2 and 9 at Arcadia South too. There are others that I think might be world-class contenders. At risk of contradicting The Fried Egg, I also thought 17 was pretty exceptional.
But there's a consistent excellence to the greens at Lawsonia that Arcadia South might not quite match (?). It's sorta funny - Lawsonia is so much more straightforward tee-to-green, and that's exactly what makes it such a fabulous example of strategic architecture. The short answer to the question "How do I play Lawsonia strategically?" is "put your ball near the hazards, and you'll enjoy better angles into the greens." Whereas the strategy at Arcadia South will vary daily depending on pin position and wind and tees you're playing and it's just a lot more complicated tee-to-green. But once you're on the green, the surfaces at South are challenging but usually a little more straightforward. You might have a 150 ft putt, but it's unlikely you'll be reading more that one or two primary slopes while a 20 footer at Lawsonia might change direction 3+ times as it traverses a primary ridge along with a couple secondary ones.