Going for the Green

Robert Thompson's comments, criticism and opinion on the world of golf.

16 responses to “Course Preview: Turnberry GC (Brampton, Ont.)”

  1. 3 wood from Oakville

    i’m excited about it personally-options are a nice thing- I would suggest somehow to the owners having getting a coffee type card where you play 5 rounds at Turnberry you get to play Eagles Nest for 50% off.

  2. Barry Forth

    Turnberry looks great …courses like this are a lot of fun to play and the swale on that 13th green looks like a solid 3 putt green if you aren’t in the right spot!

  3. Craig

    I am not sure there will be enough interest in a crowded market hard hit by the economy…but most importantly the shortness of it.
    I agree that better golfers may want to test their short game..but if you head to any golf range and watch the newbies, the old timers and the better golfers….what do you see in their hand?
    answer: the driver
    no matter how much we are told it is so important to work on our mid irons, wedges, putting etc…we instinctively pull driver.
    I admit it myself..i enjoy practice when i can, but there is no better feeling than pulling the headcover of my driver, ready to bomb one out there…well just not at turnberry….. :(
    I guess we will see if it works.

  4. ian andrew

    Craig,

    I think your comment has some serious truth to it – some simply won’t play it for that reason. To me, it looks like the ideal place for a golf league held late afternoon in the mid-week.

    The question on this project has nothing to do with the quality of golf – which is clearly there – but whether people will pay $50. for this alternative.

    I hope they do. Kudos for everyone involved in offering something different.

  5. Tighthead

    I would sooner play a nice nine hole course than this arrangement. It may do well, and I hope it does. I am generally pretty open minded about the courses I play, but this just doesn’t grab me. Nine holes or time at the practice area would be more to my liking.

  6. jon mills

    $50!???? wow.

  7. phil

    RT: it sounds like a fun matchplay course, as you say.. but would you pay $50? which i doubt you did. not that there’s anything wrong with that if afforded the opportunity!

    woodya?

  8. grumpy

    Robert Thompson Says:
    November 2nd, 2009 at 5:08 pm
    $50 is probably not bad given the experience and the location. But that’s also the top rate — I suspect a lot of people will pay closer to $35, and that seems very fair.

    RT

    Are they using a graduating green fee schedule or how do you figure the difference in fees?

    In 1965 I built a course similar to this (Lido in Oakville) and it was VERY successful.

  9. ian andrew

    I played it yesterday (or at least 4 -16)

    It’s very good and the Biarritz is well worth the cost alone.

    The best part was we played those holes in an hour and a half!
    Assuming a 2 1/2 hour round – that alone may bring people in.

  10. dsl

    The course looks great, but the price seems out of line. Is it wrong to hope that it doesn’t ‘catch on’, so they’ll be forced to actually get cost competitive? Some of those pictures look amazing and I hope the ‘green glow’ is due to the wet weather and not a sign of the course being a water pig. With holes like those, I sure hope they turn off the sprinklers and let it brown out a bit in the summer.

    At $30 for 18, I’d definitely drive there from Niagara. I can play a whole host of full sized courses for $50 or less around here. Heck, Lochness Links (aka Hunter’s Pointe) is only $35 right now.

    One other thing – it sounds like the short course at Legends seems to have a better balance for the ‘driver’ crowd. In 9 holes, 3 are par fours which invite you to swing away and are actually much more open than they appear from the tee. You can usually get in 18 on that course for around $30 (I think it’s $15 right now for ‘unlimited’ holes, but not positive).

    The only problem with Legends’ short course is that the conditioning is starting to slide – it appears that they’re in the process of letting the bunkers grass over (there’s no more ‘fluffy’ sand, just clay and weeds). However, I happen to be of the opinion that I’d rather have bad bunkers (and drier & browner fairways) if I can keep some extra dollars in my pocket.

  11. henrye

    The images make it look very manufactured as opposed to minimalist, but Carrick’s best works are of a similar vein. Curious to know how much land the course occupies and how much it cost to design/build? Wondering if it might have been a better product if they’d built 14 holes instead of squeezing in 18 short ones. Lastly, all this hype about playing so quickly – golf is meant to be relaxing and enjoyable. No one likes to wait around on the teebox for slow groups holding everyone up, but who likes to run around like rabbits?

  12. Weekend Enthusiast

    We need more “rabbits” on public golf courses today. Few public courses play 18 holes in 4 hours or less (unless you are one of the first groups of the day and play at a reasonable pace). Let’s celebrate fast play wherever possible.

    There is no reason a four ball needs to play 18 holes in more than 4 hours. Difficult course, beginner players, etc are no excuses. Simply, golfers take too long over the ball…too many practice swings, sequential preparation (rather than concurrent while others are playing), not playing ready golf, unnecessary preparation over putts….the reasons are many…and slow play has been a problem for many years, not just since the advent of television and watching Jack Nicklaus.

    Let’s not advocate running around a course but playing 18 holes in 4 1/2 or 5 hours is too long.

  13. Jeff

    What wrong with running around the course? I don’t mean that literally, but I think the problem with slow is largely that people take too long to get between shots. Watch your average foursome as you wait frustrated on the tee; they saunter along like a casual walk on the beach. Put some vigor in your bloody stride. I personally take longer over putts than most people would like to see, but my view is that this is where good scores come from. But I play with my father-in-law, who is 65, in 2 hours in 50 minutes when we are the first group off at Mad River. Mad is not the easiest walking course (e.g. the back nine), nor an easy test of golf, but by simply picking up the pace between shots we save probably 30-40 minutes a round. As a foursome, golf should never exceed 4 hours! As Weekend Enthusiast puts it: no excuses!

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>