News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


John Kavanaugh

Please help with a negative Lawsonia review.
« on: January 09, 2008, 08:37:36 AM »
I felt the courses was a huge let down and I am not sure why.  It felt so very protestant.  I grew up playing a L&M course that sits not nine miles from where I post and Lawsonia was a close duplicate, so that could be a reason.  I played the first seven holes alone which may not have filled my rampant need for attention.  

The course was in perfect condition with firm fairways and fast greens.  The weather was crisp and beautiful.  The price was fair.  The pace of play was perfect and the gentleman I hooked up with was a delight.

Is it me or do L&M have a history of not putting the cap on the chino?  Please feel free to discuss any hole or feature that I should have loved.

Phil_the_Author

Re:Please help with a negative Lawsonia review.
« Reply #1 on: January 09, 2008, 09:31:35 AM »
John,

Are you seeking comments that would change a review that you will be submitting?

If so, doesn't that at least go against the spirit of the process? You've been entrusted with the privilege and job of doing it, not others.

Of course, when you play it for rating purposes you will speak with those you play and others before or after the round while at the facility, but that is part of the entire experiencial "ambience." Seeking helpful comments to avoid giving anegative review, at least in my mind, may signify that you shouldn't be doing it.

Of course, that is just my humble opinion, but, then again, isn't that what your review of the course is supposed to be?

Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Please help with a negative Lawsonia review.
« Reply #2 on: January 09, 2008, 09:55:34 AM »
John,

Seriously, could it be that your length rendered the steep fairway grass or sand bunkers obsolete?

When I played with Brad Swanson he blew by all of them.  We played from the tips and as you know I hit the ball extremely low and relatively short.  As a result I really had to maneuver around them to avoid a one stroke premium (since I can't pitch the ball anymore).  I also had to be a little careful to not short-side approaches with probably 3 to 4 clubs more than Brad.  

Also, could L&M's architectural style be more vulnerable to the lenth and the aerial game than that of other golden agers?  

For me, it is a GREAT course that lacks nothing. But that's not necessarily inconsistent with your opinion.  

Make sense?
« Last Edit: January 09, 2008, 09:56:45 AM by Michael_Hendren »
Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Please help with a negative Lawsonia review.
« Reply #3 on: January 09, 2008, 10:12:24 AM »
It would be terribly boring around here if we all had the same taste in GCA.

Keep your opinion, John...it's OK!

 :)
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

John Kavanaugh

Re:Please help with a negative Lawsonia review.
« Reply #4 on: January 09, 2008, 10:18:11 AM »
John,

Are you seeking comments that would change a review that you will be submitting?

If so, doesn't that at least go against the spirit of the process? You've been entrusted with the privilege and job of doing it, not others.

Of course, when you play it for rating purposes you will speak with those you play and others before or after the round while at the facility, but that is part of the entire experiencial "ambience." Seeking helpful comments to avoid giving anegative review, at least in my mind, may signify that you shouldn't be doing it.

Of course, that is just my humble opinion, but, then again, isn't that what your review of the course is supposed to be?

Phillip,

I want to be able to articulate why I did not love the course.  First I need to find out why.  I really do not know.  Who knows, I may be convinced that I need to make a return trip and change my mind.

Upon completion of the round I had plenty of time to go for another round but chose not to because I was bored with the idea.  

btw..I am not submitting a review beyond what is posted on this site and any recommendations I may give to friends.  Recently I did tell someone on a budget to skip The American Club and go play Lawsonia and Erin Hills.  Of course I have never been to The American Club.

TEPaul

Re:Please help with a negative Lawsonia review.
« Reply #5 on: January 09, 2008, 10:21:36 AM »
JohnK:

I thought you understood that Lawsonia was one of those rare courses and architecture that was designed for sophisticated architecture analysts and buffs to look at only. Langford and Moreau's primary purpose with Lawsonia was not that people should play golf on it. That kind of thing they merely considered to be a fairly unnecessary protestant by-product. You're a Catholic, aren't you? If so you should go to confession for what you've just said on here about Lawsonia.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2008, 10:24:14 AM by TEPaul »

John Kavanaugh

Re:Please help with a negative Lawsonia review.
« Reply #6 on: January 09, 2008, 10:23:52 AM »
John,

Seriously, could it be that your length rendered the steep fairway grass or sand bunkers obsolete?

When I played with Brad Swanson he blew by all of them.  We played from the tips and as you know I hit the ball extremely low and relatively short.  As a result I really had to maneuver around them to avoid a one stroke premium (since I can't pitch the ball anymore).  I also had to be a little careful to not short-side approaches with probably 3 to 4 clubs more than Brad.  

Also, could L&M's architectural style be more vulnerable to the lenth and the aerial game than that of other golden agers?  

For me, it is a GREAT course that lacks nothing. But that's not necessarily inconsistent with your opinion.  

Make sense?

It was a cold November day and launching the ball over hazards was not a problem.  With a few pulled drives on right to left doglegs I had a few long irons into the greens.  I did think the uncut fairway grass was artificial looking and may have felt that the greens were too pushed up.  I can not recall a natural greensite in the bunch.  It could have been called Pete Dye without the experience (a Tim Liddy so to speak) design.  Come to think of it, the course is similar to Sultan's Run.

John Kavanaugh

Re:Please help with a negative Lawsonia review.
« Reply #7 on: January 09, 2008, 10:25:34 AM »
JohnK:

I thought you understood that Lawsonia was one of those rare courses and architecture that was designed for sophisticated architecture analysts and buffs to look at only. Langford and Moreau's primary purpose with Lawsonia was not that people should play golf on it. That kind of thing they merely considered to be a fairly unnecessary protestant by-product. You're a Catholic, aren't you? If so you should go to confession for what you've just said on here about Lawsonia.

I was thinking the same thing this morning that the course is great to study and ok to play.  It is that cutesey review style I am trying to go beyond.

Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Please help with a negative Lawsonia review.
« Reply #8 on: January 09, 2008, 11:47:57 AM »
I can not recall a natural greensite in the bunch.  

Maybe the 9th?  I did like the dead flat approach to the low profile 9th green as a juxtaposition to the remainder of the course including the first and second shots on that hole.

I grew up on small pushed up greens.  I'm a sucker for them I must admit.

Speaking of Liddy, I need to head your way this spring to see some of his regional work you've spoken of.

Mike
Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

John Kavanaugh

Re:Please help with a negative Lawsonia review.
« Reply #9 on: January 09, 2008, 11:50:52 AM »
Liddy is a jewel and I am fortunate to be able to play so many of his courses at such affordable prices.

Can someone link up a picture of the 9th green at Lawsonia.

TEPaul

Re:Please help with a negative Lawsonia review.
« Reply #10 on: January 09, 2008, 11:54:19 AM »
"I can not recall a natural greensite in the bunch."

JohnK:

You need to team up with the likes of Wayne Morrison on a subject like that.

His point is some of those architects who did some of the really respected courses of that time just didn't seem to be into the natural aesthetic like others were but that did not necessarily mean their architecture was not really cool stuff and good to play.

Jon Spaulding

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Please help with a negative Lawsonia review.
« Reply #11 on: January 09, 2008, 01:47:45 PM »
Attached are a couple of photos of the 9th hole from a trip this past October; did not get a picture of the green. The course was fantastic, save the weather. I am surprised that JK did not like this course. From the tips I felt a number of hazards were in play, and where they were not, did a fine job of adding interest to the hole. The greens, while not all that natural, had interesting contour and were well defended.

#6 green with #9 fairway in background


Tee shot


approach





You'd make a fine little helper. What's your name?

Brian Cenci

Re:Please help with a negative Lawsonia review.
« Reply #12 on: January 09, 2008, 02:17:04 PM »
I'm not as big on Lawsonia as others are on this site.  It's a good course but not worth more than a 1/2 hour drive out of your way to play.  I can think of 10 local country club style courses I like better that have nver had a word mentioned on this site.

Eric_Terhorst

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Please help with a negative Lawsonia review.
« Reply #13 on: January 09, 2008, 02:20:10 PM »
John, I think you need to give Lawsonia another longer look.  

For talking purposes, consider the par 5s  # 5, 9, 11, and 13.

*Each has a strategic choice to make on the tee—how much to take on trouble to set up the second shot.  Though it’s certainly difficult to lose a ball off those tees, you can put yourself in some ugly or at least disadvantaged spots if you don’t pay attention.  But exacting tee shots are not a feature of L&M’s philosophy—by design and preference.  Nor is the longer player advantaged on these holes either—typical of their best par 4 and 5 holes that I’ve played, it’s the second shots and the greens that make the holes interesting.  

*Each has an intriguing second shot.  On 5, a guy like you can probably reach the green on most days, and a well-struck second will roll on, but the severe slope of the green, steeply engineered fall-offs around the green, possibility of being badly short-sided, and OB for shots that are well off right, all make you want to consider whether the risk is justified.  On 9, the second shot is blind and the golfer is faced with two daunting bunkers that make the shot more interesting (see Jon’s pic).  On 11, the landing area short of the green is pinched by two long bunkers that angle in to the fairway, and the green is again no simple matter to reach and hold with a long shot—though it can be done.  On 13, the lone oak tree in the fairway, the deep valley from (I’d say) 170-120, the steep slope up to the green, and death-by-forest left and right all make the choice on the second shot one to give a second thought.  

*Michael Hendren pointed out that the green on 9 is relatively tame, but the other greens on these par 5s are all challenging in terms of slopes and contouring, in addition to being large enough and engineered in such a way as to make some extremely difficult hole placements possible—to give the long hitter pause on whether he wants to approach with his longer second or a third that he can hit with some spin, and to heighten the emphasis on the short game that apparently was Langford’s forte.

To me these par 5s are great examples of nominal 3-shotters that can be played as 2-shotters by the better player, but with some risk-taking and decision-making to make them interesting.  I think they’re all great fun.

One could fault two weaknesses at Lawsonia:  1) Par 4s # 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, and 15 are all dogleg or angled to the right.  You could be excused if you felt there was some strategic “sameness” about these par 4s.  But they’re all also fun to play and each has something to distinguish it—the blind tee shot on 2, and the scary-severe green on 6 (see Jon’s pic), for example.   2) The finishers 17 and 18 were probably novel in their day but don’t seem so today.  These holes are the weakest on the course imo, and could stand to be re-thought, but they are disadvantaged from being on a bland part of the property.

Your comment about not recalling a natural green site isn’t well-considered.  First, as a matter of design philosophy, L&M built greens, they didn’t “find” them.  Second, even though the greens are built-up, they had a way of integrating them in with the surroundings to make them feel and play naturalistically, unlike many of their modern successors (imo).  If you missed that aspect of their work, you weren’t looking carefully. In the discussion on another thread about Sleepy Hollow’s 16th, there was criticism, perhaps justified, of how the engineered look didn’t fit the surroundings.  On the other hand, several observers said “So what.”  If you like the look, it will add to your enjoyment of playing a fun hole.  If not, stick to other architects’ courses.  


Eric_Terhorst

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Please help with a negative Lawsonia review.
« Reply #14 on: January 09, 2008, 02:23:06 PM »
I'm not as big on Lawsonia as others are on this site.  It's a good course but not worth more than a 1/2 hour drive out of your way to play.  I can think of 10 local country club style courses I like better that have nver had a word mentioned on this site.

Brian, John said he was looking for help.  These comments aren't very helpful or illuminating.  e.g., what 10 courses are you thinking of?  

wsmorrison

Re:Please help with a negative Lawsonia review.
« Reply #15 on: January 09, 2008, 03:26:52 PM »
I've never played or visited a Langford/Moreau course.  From photographs alone, it appears easy to see the connection to the National School.  How would those that know L/M and Raynor courses compare the two?  I am not a fan of the look of National School architecture.  Beyond the look, I don't think all of it is exciting to play because of the template concept (seen it, played it effect to an extent) and a reduced use of offset greens and fairways.  Yet there's something about Langford's work that seems more appealing than Raynor's.  I think the lines are less linear and more curved, but that is just a guess.  I am hoping that someone who knows both can discuss similarities and differences so I can start to figure out what is more appealing about Langford than Raynor.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2008, 03:27:11 PM by Wayne Morrison »

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Please help with a negative Lawsonia review.
« Reply #16 on: January 09, 2008, 03:35:43 PM »
John, How about the pre-conceived notions you went with into your round. Be honest? You were never going to love the place.

Wayne, The lines are not as sharp as what is typically Raynor, and, there is no template feel to any of the features at Lawsonia.
Your questions make me wish I knew more
« Last Edit: January 09, 2008, 03:39:29 PM by Adam Clayman »
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Please help with a negative Lawsonia review.
« Reply #17 on: January 09, 2008, 03:44:07 PM »
Brian,

You might be a minority of one if you're unwilling to drive 31 minutes for this (upper left photo only):



Mike
« Last Edit: January 09, 2008, 03:45:05 PM by Michael_Hendren »
Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

Phil McDade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Please help with a negative Lawsonia review.
« Reply #18 on: January 09, 2008, 04:54:14 PM »
John:

Well, you can't buy a beer in the clubhouse, so it's got that going against it.

Lawsonia isn't perfect, but it's better than most in Wisconsin, and when I say better, I'd suggest that's true for both scratch/near-scratch golfers to hacks like me. Some courses in Wisconsin may be harder than Lawsonia, but it combines interesting and unique architecture, the need for precise shot-making on approaches, some fascinating greens, and a multi-dimensional approach to how it can be played.

I've always liked the blandness of the opening tee shot -- a level tee to a level fairway, with no sight of the green. When you turn the corner, however, and see that dramatically pushed-up green on No. 1, it provides a strong sense of what the golfer will encounter throughout his round. I've always like courses that subtley announce themselves, rather than come at you with horns blaring, and Lawsonia's opening tee shot does that.

The blind tee shot over the gull-wing bunkers on 2 is a thrill, and the downhill approach to a relatively level green allows one to be fairly bold with the second shot.

The 3rd is my favorite of the opening trio of dogleg par 4s -- the setting is archetypical of the area, with the big dairy barn off to the right, and the second shot framed by the backside of a simple white clapboard Wisconsin farmhouse. It's good strategy, too -- drive left to avoid the fairway bunker on the right, and you leave yourself with a longer approach, but one with a more open green. Stay to the right, and you shorten the approach, but the yawning greenside right bunker must be carried. Or you can try to carry the right bunker, but the prospect of rough on the right and bunkers front-right and back-left means the approach must be certain.

No. 4 is the first of the course's very good set of par 3s, and in my view it's the best of the bunch (most others consider it to be the 10th). A near-Redan, lacking only the sharp bank on the right side of the green, it requires an uphill, 203-yard draw (usually into the prevailing wind) to a heavily trapped green. That's a pretty tough shot for anyone, I'd think. What I like about it is that it's a tough, brawny par 3 that allows an 18-handicapper like me a way to par -- I always play short into the "throat" of the opening between the two bunkers, and hope to chip and putt my way to par.

Eric has discussed 5; 6 is a very solid downhill par 4 with a slick green that looks like a dogleg but is actually a straight hole -- a good use of visual deception often employed by L/M.

7 is the boxcar hole, and a good Short hole. Another good use of visual deception; because of the severity of the pushed-up green, and the penalty for missing, the green looks smaller than it actually is (I know because I once bladed a 7-iron there, and thought my ball would be lost in the woods behind. It hit the front of the green and came to rest on the backside.)

8 is perhaps my favorite par 4 on the course, as I'm a sucker for fun, strategic short par 4s. It's 339 yds from the tips, and plays not really as a dogleg right, but a fairly straight hole with an offset green right. The visual play on the tee is straightaway toward a green off in the distance, but mounding and traps hide the rough on the line of charm. The typical play is probably a fade/cut over the bunker about 150 yards out, but this leaves a short pitch to a heavily trapped, pushed-up, and smallish green -- an exacting shot for most. The correct line is left -- to a wide spot of the fairway blind off the tee, and leaving the golfer with an easier pitch because it opens up the green. A neat, fun, strategic hole.

A note on the back nine -- it opens in terrific fashion, with a 239-yard par 3 that requires a wood for most. But the green is broad and accommodating, although two-putting from far away is tough. Some of the back-and-forthing on the back nine gets a bit repetitve, although the wide-open nature of the back nine is visually attractive. I like the way holes 15 and 16, both par 4s, slowly unveil themselves as the golfer moves from tee to fairway to green. And the Dick Daley/Phil McDade Fan Club of Lawsonia's 17th raises a small objection to Eric's characterization of 17 -- on a flat, dull piece of land, L/M fashioned a neat-looking hole, with gull-wing flanking fairway bunkers and a mini-volcano of a green flanked by bunkers left and right. In truth, not a hard hole, but a fun one to look at and play.

What I like best about Lawsonia is the manner in which the course plays for a range of golfing ability. The better player can aggressively go after it, knowing that L/M offers a direct line off the tee that's perhaps more challenging, while offering up alternative paths for those who like to tack their way around a course, like me. (And everyone eventually has to hit a good shot into those greens, because the penalty for missing is severe in many cases). Perhaps that's a weakness in some people's book; to me, it's always been one of the course's true strengths.

Dan Moore

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Please help with a negative Lawsonia review.
« Reply #19 on: January 09, 2008, 05:14:43 PM »
Lawsonia is a course that hides much of its charm on first play.  Its a course where the love grows over time.  I have played it more than any other course I can think of and gladly drive the 3.5 hours to play it at least 2x a year.  

John didn't like the manufactured pushed up greensites.  Fair enough, not everyone will like that look.  I do think the green sites on 2, 9, 13 and 16 are pretty natural and that many of the others have fairly natural approaches into the green at fairway level but with large dropoffs on the sides.  

Many who play the course for the first time are thrown by the  use of blindness.  I can't imagine the drive off #2 without some advice.  For many its the severity of some of the recovery shots to the raised greens that throws them off.  

It would have been better if you had been able to play with someone who knew the course.  

One of the things that grows on you over time and keeps the experince fresh is the variety of the holes.  Perhaps none of them are great (though an argument could be made for 6,7,8,10,11 and 13), but they are all unique and not one is weak.  The five par threes range from short (7 and 14) medium (12) to long (4) and very long (10).   The length of the 8 par fours is well distributed ranging from 339 to an all uphill 443 with four of them under 400 yds.  The 5 par fives are terrific if maybe a tad too short in this day and age, but with 3-4 reachable in two they make great match play holes.   Eighteen at 503 isn't a great hole, its just a great finishing hole if your match is tied.  

Wayne,  I have the opposite problem having seen MacRaynor's primarily in photos.  The overall look is similar but I agree L/M looks more natural.  Strategically, L/M on some courses have used MacDonald templates.  At Lawsonia you don't see them but some have agrued 4 is a Redan (I disagree) and that 7 or 15 are shorts (well they are short).  I would argue that nine presents a cape concept using long grass along the inside of the right swinging dogleg.  

The course has a very definte look, a certain purity of style.  Its has variety and strategy.  It has some great greens.  It has brats at the turn.  And in the final analysis it is a great match play course which makes if fun time after time.  That may be what John missed the most.   Do check it out again.  Let me know when and we'll set up a good 36 hole match.  

"Is there any other game which produces in the human mind such enviable insanity."  Bernard Darwin

Rick Shefchik

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Please help with a negative Lawsonia review.
« Reply #20 on: January 09, 2008, 05:34:35 PM »
Phil, I don't know if you managed to convince Barney, but your description of the course matches perfectly with my recollections and experiences from my round there two years ago. I can't wait to go back.

Regarding the idea of natural greensites: When you build on rolling farmland, a natural greensite is either going to be flat or perched on a knoll. That could get kind of old. I don't blame L&M for pushing up dirt and trying to create a little more interest around the green. If they hadn't buried the boxcar on 7, the alternative would have been a boring dropshot to a green that probably would have been underwater every year until June.
"Golf is 20 percent mechanics and technique. The other 80 percent is philosophy, humor, tragedy, romance, melodrama, companionship, camaraderie, cussedness and conversation." - Grantland Rice

Dan Moore

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Please help with a negative Lawsonia review.
« Reply #21 on: January 09, 2008, 06:32:19 PM »
Seventeen is a good example of the hidden charm concept.  Dead straight 383 yds.  The fairway slopes downhill ever so slightly at the end, just enough to hide the green from the tee.  The flanking bunkers left and right hide ample fairway beyond them.  Did you check the pin position  when you stood on the 12th tee?  If you didn't you won't know what side of the fairway is best and there is huge difference when the pins are tucked tight on the front right or left.  To attack those pins you have to be on the far opposite side of the fairway, the areas hidden from view by the flanking bunkers, or you have no chance.  A simple hole yes.  A birdie hole most definitely yes, but only if you are in the right position off the tee.  It's this kind of subtle use of terrain, man made features and strategy that makes L/M and Lawsonia so good.  

17 from short of left fairway bunker.  There is an identical bunker flanking the right side.  The best angles are far left for the right pin and far right for the left pin.  Both bunkers hide ample fairways beyond and make one try to hit down the middle which isn't ideal most of the time.  



And a look at the green with the pin tucked right.  As you can see there is virtually no way to get at that pin from the middle or right side of the fairway.  Far left is much better.   See how the bunkers pinching the green mimic the flanking bunkers pinching the fairway--some style points there.  

« Last Edit: January 09, 2008, 10:48:48 PM by Dan Moore »
"Is there any other game which produces in the human mind such enviable insanity."  Bernard Darwin

mark chalfant

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Please help with a negative Lawsonia review.
« Reply #22 on: January 09, 2008, 07:07:54 PM »
Wayne
I wrote an GCA.com essay on Langford ( in my opinion) which touches upon some of the possible aesthetic differences between Langford and Raynor. Architect Tim Liddy's  comments there are worth noting.

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Please help with a negative Lawsonia review.
« Reply #23 on: January 09, 2008, 07:22:43 PM »
One thing that Langford and Moreau's work displays is "economy of construction". You can easily see where the dirt is that moved to form the bunkers....it's right there forming the bunkers. Same thing on tees and greens.

Joe
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

John Kavanaugh

Re:Please help with a negative Lawsonia review.
« Reply #24 on: January 09, 2008, 08:25:07 PM »
John, How about the pre-conceived notions you went with into your round. Be honest? You were never going to love the place.

Wayne, The lines are not as sharp as what is typically Raynor, and, there is no template feel to any of the features at Lawsonia.
Your questions make me wish I knew more

Adam,

I have been golfing all day and just got a chance to read this excellent thread while sitting at the bar.  I can't put my finger on it but I do remember saying a few things that would have given you that impression.  I am sure it is somewhat true as I go into every course with preconceived notions.  I am sure that did have an effect on my final opinion.

Thanks to everyone for their excellent imput as I will attempt to reply in total tomorrow should I choose to work and have time behind a land based computer.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back