Best Value for your Dollar

[golfdoc]

Obviously everyone has different opinions as to what they consider good value for their money. When choosing a course to play, there are a lot of variables to consider.

What do you consider? What are the keys to your decision making? What courses do you consider the best value?

Not all of us are able to shell out $70 for Eagle Creek. Some of us are just beginning and want get good value for $25-30. Some of us don't care what it costs.

As far as I'm concerned, the best value for your dollar is Mondays at Cloverdale. 2for1 golf at a course that measures 6400 yards, is always in great shape, plays at a fairly good pace and can offer a very tough challenge if it is windy.

[mr shank]

My buddies & I usually go to Cloverdale for our "feel good " round. The course is failry easy, but fun, and is great for regaining lost confidence.
To me, best bang for the buck has to be Pakenham. The conditions are not the greatest, but the design is fun & the price is right.
I place most of the value of a course in design.
I don't care if a course has immaculate conditioning, if it is not designed well - e.g. 3 similar par 4's, one right after another - I'd rather not play it.

[powerlefty]

Best value "upper-end" is Stonebridge due to its price, conditioning, green design (see the Stonebridge thread ) and proximity to the city.

Best value "standard" course is Pakenham - it has good greens, good layout, good price and reasonable proximity to the city. And it can play around 6500 yards from the tips. If only they could grow grass on a few of the fairways stricken with weeds/mud (e.g. Lake 5, Island 3). In a year or two after Greensmere greows in, I would say it will overtake Pakenham.

[LBH]

I have to strongly agree with powerlefty on that...

Stonebridge is an excellent value for your money especially their twilight rate. Where else can you play such a top-notch course for less than $30?

On the other hand (standard course), I think Pakenham doesn't deserve it... I've never been a fan of a course with so many Mickey Mouse holes ( Canyon 1, 3 and 9 ). I'll take Cloverdale anytime over Pakenham... I'm not a big fan of Greensmere either (although I've only played the back nine) but what I saw in terms of layout (not conditions) didn't impress me too much.

That's my 2 cents.

LongBallHitter

[GarthM]

Since there are so many variables, you will probably get as many different answers to this question as there are registered golfers on OG! So here's my 2¢...

Best Challenge for Dollar: A tie. Stonebridge and Le Dome. Course management matters and the overall conditions are excellent.

Best Layout for Dollar: Les Vieux Moulins -- really. Too bad it's in terrible shape. I hope they find some money for topsoil and grass....

Best Greens for Dollar: Greensmere. What can I say?

My personal choice for overall value... Stonebridge, because I like it.

Ahhh so many courses so little daylight.....

Garth

[golfdoc]

There seems to be a fairly distinct group of courses at certain price ranges (weekend rates)

$30 and up - Cloverdale, Champlain, Cascades, Manderly, Pakenham, Nation, Meadows etc...

$40 and up - Canadian, Cedarhill, Chateau Cartier, Emerald Links, Greensmere

$50 and up - Stonebridge, Loch March

$70 and up - Eagle Creek

$More than I can afford - Marshes

[golfdoc]

Losing Le Dome is a big loss in my opinion. Up until the point where they announced it would no longer be a public Clublink course, it was always in great shape and always a lot of fun.

I played a lot of $cheap twilight rounds in less than 4 hours this summer there, and always enjoyed it. Late in the year, the condition deteriorated but oh well, it is not to be!

[GarthM]

golfdoc:

Could not agree more. I love Le Dome. Always have even when I was a 20+ handicap. I too am sorry to see it go. :crying

I do not understand Clublink's reasoning in making it private. What was wrong with the daily fee status?

I guess they needed cash to bulldoze Greyhawk -- good riddance BTW. Never liked that track.

Garth.

[golfdoc]

Greyhawk was crap. Never in good shape, always very slow, and overpriced.

I guess the majority of golfers at the Dome were not members and that is what they seem to want.

[natgolfer]

golfdoc

Just FYI, Greensmere's daily fee was $32 weekdays(now $27) and $38 weekends, not in the "$40 and up" grouping that you posted above.

[NoBack]

Golfdoc............nice to see your list of courses.........I Agree with you on most of those courses. Also happy to see my old home course make your list (Cascades).

BTW...........kinda cool to see 7 courses on your list that also are listed on the OttawaGolf "Club" course page.........

See Dan...................all that free advertisement!!!

[mr shank]

Longball - I gotta disagree with your assesment - true, there are some short par 4's at Pakenham, but you then say Cloverdale is better?
I'm no long ball hitta, but from the whites, I can drive the green on #7 & 9 at Cloverdale. On holes #2,6,13 I usually hit lob wedge in, and the only par five not reachable in two is #18.
If Pakenham is Mickey Mouse then Cloverdale must be Goofy.

[golfdoc]

If you are going to call a course Mickey Mouse, at least discuss it from the tips.

Cloverdale plays over 6400 from the tips and that is normally into strong winds with no trees for protection. I believe this is comparable to Pakenham.

I agree that from the whites, Cloverdale has some short holes. It also has a 435 yard par 4 from the whites.

[powerlefty]

Golfdoc, I enjoy playing at Cloverdale but it plays as a "short" 6400 from the tips compared to Pakenham except for the third hole which is a "long" 435 (or 485 from the tips). Conditioning of Cloverdale is superior but it is less challenging and further from town. As for Cloverdale 7 and 9, I agree with mr shank they are very short - I have driven within a couple of yards of 9 and pin high on 7 from the white tees with a moderate tailwind with a 3-wood. Pakenham does not have any such holes except for maybe 7 Lake if you have a tailwind and dare to carry 240 yards over the water.

[Kilroy]

"Dare to carry" could apply to attempting to go for Cloverdale 9 as well no? Fescue can be nasty.

[em69]

Even the pros agree that all courses should have at least one hole that is driveable. I find them fun just as the pros do, so I'm not sure why some of you complain about short holes.

[LBH]

Wait just a minute here.

I never complained about those two holes at Pakenham because they are short!! Trust me, I love nothing better than a chance at driving the green on a par 4. I've done it at 7 and 9 at Cloverdale...

On the other hand, Pakenham's holes 1 and 3 on the Canyon course requires that I hit something like a 4-5 iron and a 7-8 iron respectively. Then I have less than 100 yds to go! That's from the whites. Granted, #1 Canyon is less "Mickey Mouse" from the tips but I believe #3 is just as stupid... I hate hitting low irons from the tees on par 4's...

Cloverdale has no par 4's on which I hit a low iron off the tee especially from the tips... That's why I like it much more than Pakenham.

Pakenham will never see the color of my money again... That's a sure fact! Conditions have always been subpar whenever I played...

That's my 2 cents

LongBallHitter

[Kilroy]

I don't understand why people do not like holes that force a layup off the tee.
Do you really want every hole to play driver 5 iron before you are happy?
I love Pakenham Canyon 1-4 those are very interesting and visually stunning designs. They make you think off the tee. Always wanting to use driver is just not smart golf. Of course Falcon Ridge is always a good choice for that style of game, but Pakenham's Canyon 9 is certainly not "Mickey Mouse".
Oh well, each to their own. Without differing opinions, nobody would get to play, because we would all want to play the same course all the time.

[el tigre]

I would break it down into the following categories:

Best weekday golf deal:
Poplar Grove as an OG member - Its close to town at only $10/round! Can't get any cheaper than that. PG used to be a cow pasture, but is now in much better condition. Holes are still narrow, but I have 12 other clubs besides the driver to tee off with.

Best mountain course deal:
Mont Cascades - I think this is a special category when talking about "best value", because I only use a power cart for mountain courses and that obviously changes the economics. MC has beautiful scenery, challenging holes, good conditioning and the power carts are cheap and always available.

Best medium-priced course deal:
Cloverdale - The price is very reasonable and the conditioning (especially the greens) are better than many premium courses. It's a mix of easy and challenging holes, so yeah it's a "feel good" round, but sometimes I like feeling good.

Best premium course deal:
Emerald Links - Close to town, nice fairways, excellent greens, challenging course and only $10 more than most medium-priced courses. I think Eagle Creek is the "best" premium course, but when it comes to "value", I vote for Emerald Links.

[jimrobin]

I don't understand why people do not like holes that force a layup off the tee.

Do you really want every hole to play driver 5 iron before you are happy?

Dan:
Its not that I don't like short Par 4 holes. I actually like them once in a while. But I feel one or two of them per 9 holes is enough and they should not be back to back to back.
Especially, if your paying top dollar to play a course.

[McGavin]

LBH...

First of all #3 canyon plays at 334 from the whites... does this mean you hit a 7 or 8 iron over 235???

Secondly there is a big canyon that you MUST AVOID at about 135 yards... which forces you to lay up... you stated that you are within 100 yards.... which would probably put you in the water.

#1 Canyon is a tough approach over water. #9 Canyon is a very difficult par 5 with potential trouble on all three shots. Are you sure you are thinking of the right course????

You said that you would rather play Cloverdale because Pakenham is too "Mickey Mouse". If you play from the whites at Cloverdale... (like you do at Pakenham) there are 3 par 4's that play under 320 on the front...... and a par 5 on the back that measures 432 and usually plays downwind. With the exception of #9, none of these holes remotely forces one to lay up.... like the shorter holes at Pakenham do.

Just not sure where you are coming from...

McGavin

[NoBack]

I wonder if Tiger Woods and John Daly think ALL the courses they play are Mickey Mouse courses. I've seen Tiger say he only pulled out the Driver once during the round. Does this mean the course is Mickey Mouse or is he paying more attention to course management?

I dont have a problem with some holes being shorter off the tee than others, just play the course the way its meant to be played and enjoy your round.

I have played Pakenham quite a bit and find it one of the funnest courses around to play. There are an awful lot of elevation, par 5's that are reachable and very scenic holes on the Canyon course. I beleive all courses will have something you can complain about but whats the use, enjoy your game!!! If you dont like the course, dont go back, someone else will love the course and go instead.

jimrobin..........As far as three holes in a row being short....... does it really matter where they are? You said you dont mind 2 on each 9 being short, so why not 3 on the front and one on the back????

BTW......Stonebridge will put a dent into Eagle Creeks bank account as it is a closer and cheaper, quality track with better-than-most conditions and only to get better as years go by. Just my opinion here.

[Colby]

Amen Brother Steve! (is that politically correct?!?)

[jimrobin]

jimrobin..........As far as three holes in a row being short....... does it really matter where they are? You said you dont mind 2 on each 9 being short, so why not 3 on the front and one on the back????

Steve:
It’s just the fact, that I like variety in a course. If there were three-480 yard par 4's in a row I wouldn’t like that either. Its just that after finishing that stretch, I get a feeling that I just played the same hole 3 times in a row (driving iron, then wedge into the green) if they were spread out I probably wouldn’t mind and probably wouldn’t even notice it (the 3rd hole not as much as the 4th & 5th holes.) It’s the same thing as you mentioned earlier with Eagle Creek, the 6th & 14th holes. With one on the front & one on the back you don’t notice it and enjoy playing them. If those holes were back to back though, (say 6th & 7th) people would complain (poor design) Agree???
I just like to stand on a tee, look out at the hole, and see a new challenge, not the one I just played once again. This is the feeling I get there.

Maybe I’m being too hard on the course, but I wouldn’t be so critical if the price wasn’t so high. Like I said earlier, I love the back 9, and the conditions there are great.
I compliment the course for that. Not an easy job for sure!!!!!

I think I’m like you, I like to use every club in my bag, all 18, (just kidding Gary) and I like to think my way around a course. Our games seem similar, you say you’re a 10, I’m a 9 (handicap that is). We both shot a 71 this year and I too, enjoy playing the 19th hole. Maybe we should get a game together some time (if you don't think I'm too much of a jerk for being so hard on this course). I met you last year at the Golf-O-Max a couple of times.

JR

[NoBack]

I will take you up and lets get together for a round. Maybe you can play hookie on wed???? We have mini get together at Manderley starting at 930-10 am. We need a few more players so we get the golf and cart for $15 ............

No worries here jimrobin.

Just got back from Falcon Ridge and I lived up my average after 7 rounds there this year and shot another 87

Talk about course design.......try those 10th 11th and 12th holes......unbelievable!!! But fun enough.......besides for every ball you in the fescue, you find a half dozen

[jimrobin]

Being the Nortel casualty that I am, I'm sure my I can fit it into my schedule. Please send me an email with more info.

jjrobinson@bigfoot.com

[faldo]

Thank you, thank you!!!

I've been trying to convince my buddies & my office crowd that the absolute stupidest three-hole-stretch in the history of golf is #'s 10-11-12 at FALCON RIDGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[NoBack]

I never said it was stupid holes, just that they were fun.....a bit tight for me most of the time but fun.........when we play our nasau games it fun to be paired for those three holes with my buddies..........like to call it our amen corner!!

I'm going back next weekend again and hope to be better than 5 over on those three holes.

[faldo]

Well Ok Steve, you like FUN & I like STUPID. Let's settle on weird???
All I know is after going 8-7-6, I finished the back nine by going par-bird-par-bird-par-bird.
Maybe just giving another chance is best.........

[NoBack]

I hear you.....I am going to beat that course some day, well at least beat my other scores.......but I still like it. Maybe its the lenght and narrowness. All I know is I like the challenge.