Greensmere bashing

[Christian]

I put this in as a new thread as I did not think it warranted being in the course conditions thread.

Originally posted by mr shank
- as you now know pingzzing, Greensmere is vehemently defended on this site as one of the best value & designs in the area.

The only thing I can deduce from that is:
many who post here have paid for memberships ( or even lifetime memberships) and don't want to hear a bad word about the large investment they have made, but would rather foam about what a great place it is so they can feel good about their investement.

There are much worse values than Greensmere around, but there are also some better.

When Greensmere opened, I was told it was a "must play" - it just isn't.

Mr. Shank.

My guess is that you are still missing the point. What would concern members at any public/semi-private facility are postings that "misinform" (e.g. pingzing's comment that one would be hardpressed to find grass on the fairways of the front nine). This is an outright lie.

I will be the first to admit that Greensmere needs better conditioning and that grass coverage is not 100% in certain places but mother nature will take care of this over time (remembering that the course is only one year old and the past two seasons have not been great for growth). I would also admit that the design of the front nine is rather ordinary compared to the back nine. This will change over time as additional bunkering and other 'hazards' are added to the mix. Who knows what the next 18 will bring being carved out of the forest on the south side of the property?

IMHO, most members care little of what other people's opinion of the value of their investment is as they are quite happy. However, they do care that statements made about the course are factually correct.

I think you last statement about what constitutes a good value or not is perfectly fair because it boils down to personal preference (layout, conditions, pace of play etc....) I personally have no problem with it. I may disagree but it is a valid opinion as opposed to a 'campaign of misinformation'.

I suspect that over time, opinions on Greensmere may change (then again they may not). Same reason why some pro's like certain courses and not others (may or may not suit their game). That's golf.

[spidey]

Greensmere is vehemently defended

Yes, I can see your point. But I think you worded it very poorly.

I think you'll find that the members at Greensmere recognize the shortcoming of the design and the upkeep of the course. We play it all the time, and we don't ignore it, especially when our balls land in it.

But I think the part you misunderstand is that unlike most courses in the West End, you'll see the owners and the greenskeepers doing something about it. This is what I think is being vehemently defended.

Yes there are yahoos that come out to the course expecting either to treat it like a cow pasture or expecting to see some PGA quality course. Both of these types will be disappointed. The majority of the people coming out like to see a course that is playable and being continuously improved. Because I respect the rules of this forum I'll refrain from naming all the clubs in the West End that do not make an effort to improve their inadequacies. But I think our point is that Greensmere is practically unique in being a playable course that is being continuously improved, not that it is the Holy Grail of golf in Ottawa's west end.

In fact, I suspect you'll find that Greensmere members are very tolerant, and in general support golf in the entire Ottawa area. But just like Sens fans even if they love hockey, they prefer to cheer for their own team.

[Kilroy]

Because I respect the rules of this forum

I certainly respect those who respect the rules, but you may be thinking that some valid comments are discouraged. As with the game of golf, the rules are designed with equity and fairness in mind, not to inhibit constructive comments.

Not Acceptable:
Warning Warning! I have played some dogtracks in my life, but this one takes the cake. Don't waste your money!

Sure some people feel that Greensmere should have grown in fully in 2 dry growing seasons. Seems unreasonable to me, but I guess it could happen. There are also people who will defend it. This is healthy, and I do not think it hurts the business any to have people touting how hard they are working on the course.

Mother nature has a more lot to do with this business than people seem to think. "Dry fairways = bad greenskeeping". Nobody seems to remember that last summer was a virtual dought.

[mr shank]

Originally posted by spidey
In fact, I suspect you'll find that Greensmere members are very tolerant, and in general support golf in the entire Ottawa area. But just like Sens fans even if they love hockey, they prefer to cheer for their own team. [/B]

- well said Spidey.

I agree as well, there are some other courses in the area that do not seem to be as intersted in course improvement as at Greensmere.

My point is, those of us shelling out $$ for green fees are not really interested in the grandiose plans for the course 5 years from now. If I'm paying green fees I want the course to be in good shape now, not 5 years from now.

Of course nobody expects a new course to have PGA type conditioning, but as a "green-feer" why would I pay to play a course that doesn't have %100 grass coverage as opposed to one that does?

All I'm saying is, IMO, it doesn't make sense for green fee golfers to play at brand new courses.

If I had purchased a membership at Greensmere I'm sure I'd be practically living at the place.

[LBH]

It's the same thing for a lot of members of any brand new golf course (including myself at Predator). We expect the course not to be in top notch quality for the beginning (say 2-3 years) but, on the other hand, when you buy in early in a new golf course, you usually pay a lower initiation fee.

Whenever I know of a new course that opens (like Greensmere), I go out once and play "green fee" golf to check out the layout, scenery but not the condition. If I'm satisfied, I'll wait a year or two before I go back to make sure it's fully grown in. Another example of that is "Les Vieux Moulins". I played once the first year it opened then I waited a year to go back.

I just wait to "really" get my money's worth before playing those new courses again.

On the other hand, there are new courses like The Marshes which I usually wouldn't wait 1 year or two to play it (although I've yet to play it) because I know based on feedback from other people that the conditions are much better than expected for a new course.

My 2 cents....

[natgolfer]

Further proof that mr. shank's and pingzzing's coments about Greensmere have some validity is the fact that the only time that starting times were available this past Saturday and Sunday were during the afternoon Sens game. Sunday was booked solid, mostly by non-members, too.

It's obvious that all these people have poor taste in golf courses.

BTW: Forty two years ago I joined Outaouais when it was in its infancy, and we too put up with some bare patches and rough, slow greens. However, golfers also saw the potential that this club had, did not crap all over it, and look at it now.

Having been part of Outaouais then and Greensmere now, Greensmere will be a much better facility and in a lot less time than Outaouais.

It's not The Marshes, Hunt, Royal or Rideau View, but in time, it will be close, and I am determined to be around to see it to fruition.