Some Things Wisconsin Golf

[klebs01]

20 hours ago, StudentGolfer4 said:

On 2 you can create the blind shot with mounds and not need sand 130 yards off the tee. 6, 8, and 10 come to mind as similar bunkers. You can still obscure the landing zone without requiring a 130-160 yard carry from the tee box. I generally dislike hazards that only apply to weaker players.

Doak writes about this and I agree with him. Lesser players should have the thrill of carrying a hazard too. 2 and maybe 15 are the only holes that have anything resembling a forced carry and 2 doesn’t result in a lost ball. That seems pretty fair to me. 

[collje26]

20 hours ago, StudentGolfer4 said:

A few days after playing Lawsonia and I am still trying to gather my thoughts on it. I think the course is good, really good. How I would stack it up to the handful of other top 100 places I’m not really sure though. It’s rightfully in there, but I can’t figure out where just yet.
 

Highlights. 
 

The layout was a ton of fun and the land was much better than I expected. Walking onto 11 tee and seeing the entire back 9 laid out was a really cool “reveal”.
 

6-9 on the front was my favorite stretch of holes. 

 

I love the conditions and how they embraced firmer playing surfaces. The fairways with a bit of brown in them were great. 
 

Endless pin positions would help keep the course fresh if playing it frequently. The fescue/heather was for sure a penalty but in my limited experience it was findable and playable. 
 

I love how you could use some slopes around the greens to funnel balls to certain pin positions and run shots onto the green. I tend to play a higher ball but a couple of my playing partners used the slopes with great results. This is great for lower spin/trajectory players. 
 

The variety of par 3s were enjoyed. From running up a 4 iron on 10, hitting a short wedge on 14, the redan like 12th, and of course the boxcar hole.

 

 

My biggest points of contention are actually around the bunkers. 

 

They forced players to think their way around the course but I kept asking myself “are these maybe a bit much?” I’m 100% a guy that believes bunkers should be penalties and not something players want to find themselves in around the green but some of these were over the top maybe.
 

I was able to get out of all of them fine, and even got up and down twice but I don’t know. The thought was never, how much room do I have up there, where do I need to land it, or what’s this ball going to do when it’s on the green. The task was simply, swing hard and get out of here. 
 

On a couple of occasions they led to my playing partners picking up after a couple of whacks. I’m sure that’s not an uncommon thing.  If we are going to criticize and talk about some of the cavernous Pete Dye bunkers as over the top, like at PGA West, these need to be discussed as well. It’s not just 1-2 that you have to avoid. It’s almost every hole. And plenty of greens has them on both sides and wrapping around towards the rear. 
 

I understand the course was built in a different time with different equipment and the ball didn’t fly as far. With that said, the placement of some bunkers made me scratch my head. On 2 you can create the blind shot with mounds and not need sand 130 yards off the tee. 6, 8, and 10 come to mind as similar bunkers. You can still obscure the landing zone without requiring a 130-160 yard carry from the tee box. I generally dislike hazards that only apply to weaker players. If someone hits it in there off the tee it felt too much like a double penalty. Especially considering the depth of the bunkers. 
 

The layout of the back 9 led to a bit of a shooting gallery at times. My group didn’t run into issues but it seems like I heard constant shouts of Fore! It looks like they may have eliminated some fescue between holes and that probably led to it being more of a problem but it definitely was. It was definitely a problem  on 10, 12, and 14. 

 

I enjoyed the woodlands course as well. Nothing new or noteworthy but I agree it’s worth a play. I would be lying if a couple of times I wasn’t wishing I was on the links again though. The greens were m fantastic. Rolled true and fast. 2, 5, 10 were favorites. 3 was a dramatic par 3 but I think the green was a bit small and bunker too penal for the length of shot. Would work well from 120-140 but not as much from 175. (Maybe it generally plays shorter I don’t know.)  Did they build a new green on 18 at some point? The one ticket away further right had 3-4 holes and the type of flags you would see on a putting green. Based on where #1 tee is I don’t see how it could have been used for that purpose though. 
 

Paid $190 for the day. Cant beat it for that price. The staff everywhere was great. The starter in particular, Joe, was an asset to the course. 

Really solid write up, as someone who plays it daily I have similar thoughts, the bunkers on the links require extreme control and often not the ability to get the ball on the green from them specifically 1,2,6 but it challenges the longer players nowadays.

 

It's absolutely insane to me that the woodlands is rated around 2 shots easier than the links from the back tees.

 

I think the links has gotten over rated a bit with the rating and the amount of play but it's one of the most unique courses/layouts in the midwest, I don't know a single course I've played where you don't encounter a par 4 for 6 holes in a row (9-14 on the links) and it really challenges your rhythm has a player. On the flip side if they found land or added distance to the woodlands it might be one of the more challenging courses due to the hazards and the inability to hit driver on alot of the holes if you're a longer player.

[StudentGolfer4]

@klebs01 I can get behind that thinking. And you’re right. With the exception of hole 2 there was plenty of room to go around the hazard. 15 I think their was room to go left but would have to look back and see. 
 

@collje26 what’s the predominant wind direction out there? It was out of the SW when I played and 12 was a beast of a hole! Definitely one of the more challenging par 5s I’ve played when you consider it’s pretty wide open and has no water. When did they cut down the fescue on the back 9? It looked different than most of the photos I have seen. 
 

I agree about the woodlands. Off the tee it’s more challenging because you can lose a ball on a lot of holes. I would probably play the links 7-3 or even 8-2 but it’s a great change of pace. I enjoyed getting out of the sun a bit for my second round of the day too. 

Edited July 17 by StudentGolfer4

[collje26]

51 minutes ago, StudentGolfer4 said:

@klebs01 I can get behind that thinking. And you’re right. With the exception of hole 2 there was plenty of room to go around the hazard. 15 I think their was room to go left but would have to look back and see. 
 

@collje26 what’s the predominant wind direction out there? It was out of the SW when I played and 12 was a beast of a hole! Definitely one of the more challenging par 5s I’ve played when you consider it’s pretty wide open and has no water. When did they cut down the fescue on the back 9? It looked different than most of the photos I have seen. 
 

I agree about the woodlands. Off the tee it’s more challenging because you can lose a ball on a lot of holes. I would probably play the links 7-3 or even 8-2 but it’s a great change of pace. I enjoyed getting out of the sun a bit for my second round of the day too. 

Typically it's out of the southwest. I'm guessing you meant 13 as the par 5 uphill with the ski slope in the middle. Every now and then we'll get a wind out of the south east and it honestly doesn't change the holes much because then the hard holes play much easier but the easier holes really show their teeth. I split my rounds about 70/30 on the woods because if you play the links enough it's somewhat easier to score and your handicap just gets so inflated. They cut down the fescue between holes 11/13 about 4 years ago as well as cut it much wider on 15/16/17/18 to encourage faster pace of play.

 

The greens are as in good of shape on both courses as they ever been. They typically keep the links a bit slower due to pace of play.

[ode1]

10 hours ago, klebs01 said:

Doak writes about this and I agree with him. Lesser players should have the thrill of carrying a hazard too. 2 and maybe 15 are the only holes that have anything resembling a forced carry and 2 doesn’t result in a lost ball. That seems pretty fair to me. 

Not much you can do re a super duffer in those scenarios.  IMO far less penal then some places with hazards all over the place.  Links is a kind driving course even for the average to decent striker.  Nothing wrong with moving to the most forward tees on holes like that.  Does the golfer have thick enough skin to do it and/or do the playing partners phrase it in a way that supports it!/?

[ode1]

10 hours ago, collje26 said:

the woodlands is rated around 2 shots easier than the links

Agreed.  It's tougher for sure....much more trouble to get into!  Even after the reno it's harder IMO.

[TBone0576]

Finally put a nice round together this season, thus far I could only manage one nine or another.  Played Brighton Dale Blue.  Holed out  for eagle from 105 yards on the tough par 5 fifth.  Made the turn at 34 and kept it going on the back.  I was -4 going into 17.  Managed to hit the green and then three putted.  Bogied the last when I flared it long and right off the tee and was blocked by trees.  Hit 15 greens which was a big part of the better play.  

[TBone0576]

I’ve been fortunate to attend the Masters 3x the last 20 years for practice rounds.  My parents lived in the Augusta area and had some good contacts for tix.   The last two times we were rained off the course by noon.  I’ve been putting in for passes the last 20 years with no luck.  Got the news yesterday that I won two for Sunday in the lottery.  

[Gdane]

Played Stevens Point and Wild Rock over the weekend. 

 

First time at Stevens Point and it is phenomenal.  Pristine conditioning, really cool greens where you just cannot be above the hole and beautiful playing corridors.  It was a course I could play every day.

 

 

It wasn't my first time to Wild Rock so I don't want to knock it too hard because I've liked it enough in the past to return, but its borderline criminal that they are charging almost $130 when a number of the greens are in terrible shape.  The picture below is admittedly the worst I saw, but wasn't an isolated situation out there.   Tee to green the conditioning was good, but about half of the greens had issues.

 

[ckck81]

That’s a real bummer about Wild Rock. I was out there in June and it was the same but was hopeful that it would be resolved by the time I go back out there for the first round of a Lawsonia / EH / LLB trip in August. I had pre purchased 4 rounds of their $65 deal back in March, am now going to see if they’ll give me a refund and we can go play Trappers instead.

[StudentGolfer4]

Jealous. I reached out to Stevens Point twice this year about playing the week in was in the area and never heard back.