The Royal Ottawa Golf Club

[natgolfer]

For the first time in about 10 years, I had the pleasure of playing at the Royal Ottawa in a tournament, yesterday. By far, it was the best conditioned golf course that I have ever played.

The fairways were perfect, while the greens were smooth as silk and running about 12 on the Stimpmeter. There was a lot of sand in the traps, but the surface was firm, making them very easy to get out of.
While they have made some subtle changes over the years, by adding a few new tee locations, changing the location of a couple of bunkers, and improving the drainage, the course has not changed. Every hole is lined with a wide variety of magnificantly, mature trees.

For those who feel that bull-dozed, contrived courses like The Marshes and Stonebridge are great, a walk around the Royal will show you what a "real" golf course looks like.

Oh, to be wealthy!

[Weazl]

For the first time in about 10 years, I had the pleasure of playing at the Royal Ottawa in a tournament, yesterday. By far, it was the best conditioned golf course that I have ever played.

The fairways were perfect, while the greens were smooth as silk and running about 12 on the Stimpmeter. There was a lot of sand in the traps, but the surface was firm, making them very easy to get out of.
While they have made some subtle changes over the years, by adding a few new tee locations, changing the location of a couple of bunkers, and improving the drainage, the course has not changed. Every hole is lined with a wide variety of magnificantly, mature trees.

For those who feel that bull-dozed, contrived courses like The Marshes and Stonebridge are great, a walk around the Royal will show you what a "real" golf course looks like.

Oh, to be wealthy!

I have been wanting to play this course for years - I drive by all the time and DREWL!!!!!! if anyone here is a member and needs a partner one day I will be more than happy to join them. How did you get on?

[Christian]

I completely agree with Natgolfer on this one. After blowing my brains out on the par 4 third hole, I really started paying attention to layout and conditioning as I had not played the course in at least six or seven years.

The fairways were absolutely pristine. Divots had all been replaced or filled in with grass mix (as were tee boxes). In some places, the rough was penal (on 16, I was only able to advance the ball 60 yards from 100 yards out!). On more than one occasion I saw my fellow competitors chip off the green by 10 yards as the greens were the fastest I have ever played!

The most interesting thing about the course are some of the views and forced layups. It is refreshing that you are forced to hit a 5 iron off the tee and into the green on a 420 yard par 4 (number 9 and 15). The course really forces you to use every club in your bag.

All in all an amazing test of golf and a humbling experience. I can't wait to try it again!!!

[Rough Stuff]

Oddly enough, the course never used to be THAT expensive to join. In 80 (I think) a father of a friend had a membership that was quite reasonable. Oh to have a grandfather clause.

[LBH]

natgolfer and Christian got on during the OVGA's 'A' class field day yesterday (Sept. 8th). I registered for it but it was oversubscribed and, obivously, preference is given to those who have already played in an OVGA event before.

I walked the course during the last LPGA Du Maurier classic that was held over there and I must admit I was overly impressed by the layout of the course. It is quite challenging to say the least.

For results, see www.ovga.org

[spidey]

For those who feel that bull-dozed, contrived courses like The Marshes and Stonebridge are great, a walk around the Royal will show you what a "real" golf course looks like.

I don't think the members of the R&A, nor the members of the first golf course in the world had the Royal Ottawa in mind when they built their initial golf mecca.

Some of the great golf courses in the world are contrived. There's a wide range of styles among Prestwick, the Old Course at St. Andrews, Pebble Beach, Pine Valley, Doral and Muirfield Village. I'll bet you get agreement from the R&A and the USGA that they're all real golf courses. And I think we can all agree that if all the golf courses were built on the mold of the Royal Ottawa, golf would be less interesting. Human nature is to be bored from lack of variety.

[natgolfer]

And I think we can all agree that if all the golf courses were built on the mold of the Royal Ottawa, golf would be less interesting. Human nature is to be bored from lack of variety.

No, we cannot ALL agree on the above statement. If the only golf course that I was permitted to play for the rest of my life was the Royal Ottawa or a course with the same design philosophy, I would play every day. If it was Course X, or the like, I would take up lawn bowling - at least, then the greens would be puttable.

Interestingly, in the last decade, the LPGA played the Du Maurier on both the old fashioned Royal Ottawa and the Thomas McBroom, "modernized," contrived, Ottawa Hunt and Golf Club. Guess which one was preferred? Guess which one is about to undergo some changes to demodernize portions of its terrain?

Another classic "old" fashioned golf course that has received great reviews from many players was the Hamilton G&CC, host of the recent Canadian Open.

Closer to "home," compare the front and back nines at Greensmere. The front nine had lousy terrain so the holes are contrived. The mounding now in place, and in the future, when sand traps are built, will make the nine more difficult, but it will always look "artificial." However, on the back nine, the holes look "natural," because of the hills, the wooded areas from which many holes were cut, and the ponds. Why does everyone enjoy the back nine more? Will the third nine be "natural," or contrived? The answer is obvious, already.

The Oaks of Cobden, featured in this month's "Flagstick" magazine, is another example of a beautifully designed, "natural" golf course. Rolling terrain, and gorgeous trees created a "walk in the park" type atmosphere. Renfrew GC was similar is structure and while the modernization has altered all of the holes around the greens, the basic natural layout has not changed. Contrast those two valley courses with Emerald Links and The Falcon in Hudson, Que., both Graham Cooke designed courses, and the contrast between the two design philosophies, is apparent. The sad thing about The Falcon is that Graham had a wonderful piece of property to work with before the bull dozers ruined it, IMHO.

Those who watch the European Tour events on The Golf Channel see many old fashioned golf courses. When a modern design appears somewhere, it looks so out of place.

The difference between the two types of design is like going for a walk through Algonquin Park or down Bank Street. (Admittedly, a walk down Sparks Street at noon can be pleasant.)

[Andru]

Thank Goodness natgolfer doesn't run the world. I don't think "If I had only one course to play" was part of the last statement. I agree with Spidey. Variety is the spice of life and golf.

I agree Stonebridge isn't the bench mark for modern course design. But Angus Glen is pretty good. I'll put Angus Glen up against the Royal Ottawa any day of the week.

PGA tour players raved about the Hamilton GCC because it was different. If they played that style ALL the time they would rave about the TPC at Sawgrass.

The Oak Hill country club in Rochester was a little contrived but it's one of the oldest in the country. and I would LOVE to play that course!!!!

I'll admit I haven't played the RO myself. I have some friends who's opinion I trust have said the layout at the RO is ho-hum and quirky but the conditioning is superb. Big deal they throw more money at it. The marshes has to be played more than once to appreciate the subtle details. You'll grow to love it if you play it more often.

[spidey]

Although it's bad form to respond to your own post, I'll just clarify since it's not my intent to make an argument out of a mere difference of opinion.

I don't think the members of the R&A, nor the members of the first golf course in the world had the Royal Ottawa in mind when they built their initial golf mecca.

By this I meant that the Royal Ottawa is a contrived course when compared to the likes of Prestwick and the Old Course - sites where the game of golf originated.

And I think we can all agree that if all the golf courses were built on the mold of the Royal Ottawa, golf would be less interesting. Human nature is to be bored from lack of variety.

Perhaps my choice of words was less than optimal. If we all agreed that the Royal Ottawa was the ideal golf course, then nobody would build a contrived, links, or other style of golf course. Obviously that's not the case. All the members at Camelot would probably be accepted at the Royal Ottawa if they applied (of course I'm guessing here). But there are still many members at the Camelot, which as I understand it is very contrived.

Human nature is to be bored from lack of variety.

Of course this is not necessarily universal. Obsessive compulsives obviously will not stand for a great deal of variety. I'm not implying that anybody who posted in this thread is obsessive compulsive, nor that there is anything wrong with being obsessive compulsive. Just that there's an exception to every "rule", and sometimes there are more exceptions than rules.

[Andru]

Very Diplomatic Spidey, but you were right Just kidding natgolfer

[alice]

Being a member at the RO is alot about being a member of a club not just a golf course. The RO like any established course has traditions and standards they want to keep in place. There are alot of people who are members at the RO simply for the business aspect. I have played both Camelot and RO courses. Prior to being a member at the RO my boss was a member at Camelot. You need a fair sized bank account to be a member at either club, just that there seems to be a bit more stature in saying you belong to the Royal.
My opinion that is.

[Andru]

The RO like any established course has traditions and standards they want to keep in place.

You mean like Augusta National? Hmmm.

[natgolfer]

Of course this is not necessarily universal. Obsessive compulsives obviously will not stand for a great deal of variety. I'm not implying that anybody who posted in this thread is obsessive compulsive, nor that there is anything wrong with being obsessive compulsive. Just that there's an exception to every "rule", and sometimes there are more exceptions than rules.

It's been too long since Walther's Psychology 101 at Carleton, however, my fading memory recalls that obsessions are thoughts that come into your mind, even when you don't want them to, and compulsions are things that people feel they have to do, even though they try not to. It is a relief to know that I don't suffer from OCD, because the thoughts of playing a natural looking golf course, like the Royal, are pleasant. Wait a minute! Maybe I do suffer from OCD because the thoughts of playing a Course X every day are very unpleasant, a characteristic of OCD.

Naw! My shrink may say that I am in denial, but I believe that my passion to play good golf on good golf courses is compelling, and not obsessive compulsive.

Gotta go. I haven't cleaned my clubs for 30 minutes and I know that they are feeling neglected.

BTW: What do you call a golfer who hits a perfect 7 iron into number 10 at Course X and enjoys watching the ball roll off the green, down the fairway 30 yards, into a sewer grate. (a) a golfer, (b) a masochist, (c) a person who plays golf. You may choose two of the three.

[Weazl]

It's been too long since Walther's Psychology 101 at Carleton, however, my fading memory recalls that obsessions are thoughts that come into your mind, even when you don't want them to, and compulsions are things that people feel they have to do, even though they try not to. It is a relief to know that I don't suffer from OCD, because the thoughts of playing a natural looking golf course, like the Royal, are pleasant. Wait a minute! Maybe I do suffer from OCD because the thoughts of playing a Stonebridge every day are very unpleasant, a characteristic of OCD.

Naw! My shrink may say that I am in denial, but I believe that my passion to play good golf on good golf courses is compelling, and not obsessive compulsive.

Gotta go. I haven't cleaned my clubs for 30 minutes and I know that they are feeling neglected.

BTW: What do you call a golfer who hits a perfect 7 iron into number 10 at Stonebridge and enjoys watching the ball roll off the green, down the fairway 30 yards, into a sewer grate. (a) a golfer, (b) a masochist, (c) a person who plays golf. You may choose two of the three.

All of this chatter about Golf course Vs. golf course. Just enjoy them for what they are and play the ones you like. Now thast that has been said, when is someone going to get me on to Camelot or the RO?????

Hello - I'm waiting!

[Andru]

What do you call a golfer who hits a perfect 7 iron into number 10 at Stonebridge and enjoys watching the ball roll off the green, down the fairway 30 yards, into a sewer grate.

Natgolfer

If you think stonebridge is too difficult you should just say so. They do have shorter tee decks.

[spidey]

BTW: What do you call a golfer who hits a perfect 7 iron into number 10 at Stonebridge and enjoys watching the ball roll off the green, down the fairway 30 yards, into a sewer grate. (a) a golfer, (b) a masochist, (c) a person who plays golf. You may choose two of the three.

Well, I'd have to say I sympathize with you, but on the first occasion that I played the first hole on the west nine ( I think we're speaking of the same hole), I too hit a perfect 7 iron to the flag, and it stuck there within two feet for an easy tap-in birdie. One under to start my first round at Stonebridge.

[4jag]

memo to Natgolfer: Try a "bump and run" with your 5 iron if you have trouble sticking that shot.

[natgolfer]

Natgolfer
If you think stonebridge is too difficult you should just say so. They do have shorter tee decks.

Andru, Andru, Andru. It is not the length of the course that bothers me about Stonebridge, although, admittedly my driving distance is quite modest by today's standards, it's simply the poor design of the greens.

You are probably correct. Maybe I should play from the ladies' or senior tees because unlike you Stonbridge lovers, I obviously lack the skill to land a 150 yard 8 iron on a spot on the green the size of a bread plate in order to have reasonable chance for a birdie.

Perhaps if I played the course more frequently I would gain a greater appreciation for it, but after playing it once last year, I have no desire to go back. I may be strange but I just don't enjoy watching a playing partner hit a beautiful sand shot, on the last par 5, about 8 feet from the hole and then watch gravity pull the ball towards the hole,(it almost went in as it trickled by) and then on down off the green, down the fairway into a drainage grate. How is the golfer supposed to play a shot like that in order to have a realistic chance at a par? And please don't tell me that he should not have been in the bunker in the first place. I am looking for a serious answer. Do you guys really enjoy that stuff?

Since I played there last year I have asked a number of low, single digit, local amateurs, with whom I have played in tournaments, and some of whom played in the Citizen tournament, their opinion of Stonebridge. The first reaction of the majority is to laugh or shake their heads, and without exception, they all agreed with me that SB is a great driving course, but the greens are &#/$*!$!

But then, what do I know about how to play the game?

[4jag]

Natgolfer you make some valid points. SB is has difficult greens and it can be difficult (verging on impossible) to attack some pins. But there-in lies the challenge.

To me SB is a sobering test of golf. It brings me back to reality after a 75 at Cloverdale for instance.

Just an observation but it is very apparent that most (not all) golfers initial opinion of a course is directly related to their score. The higher the score the worse the opinion and vise-versa.

[natgolfer]

Well, I'd have to say I sympathize with you, but on the first occasion that I played the first hole on the west nine ( I think we're speaking of the same hole), I too hit a perfect 7 iron to the flag, and it stuck there within two feet for an easy tap-in birdie. One under to start my first round at Stonebridge.

Actually, I hit a pitching wedge for my second shot when I played it for the first time, putted the third, hit a wedge for the fourth and 1 putted for a bogey.

If a 9" putt is not a tap it, then why would you describe your two footer as one?

It's great that you started one under for your first round at Stonebridge. How many under were you after 18? Under 90, that is.

And how many times did gravity prevent you from having a realistic chance at a par? or a birdie? or a bogey?

[Andru]

Come on Nat I was just pulling your chain.

I have to be honest I really don't like SB either. I wouldn't use SB as the bench mark for modern course design. I guess the debate was old style vs. modern style.

You're opinion: you can live without new style courses, fair.

Spidey said, and I agreed that variety is the best. I enjoy both. Then it went off topic including personal but friendly digs and has hopefully come back to topic.

Try playing angus glen in Markham sometime. Or Glen Abbey. those are great courses. Good shots are rewarded. Not so good shots are really punished. If you're going to judge the "new courses" pick a good one that's all I'm saying. You're really challenged to play a variety of shots. very cool. I enjoy thinking around a golf course.

Not that you cant' think around a place like royal ottawa. It's just a little different and I really like that. You should play Wooden Sticks in uxbridge sometime. http://www.woodensticks.com/ It's a real treat. 200 bucks but a real treat. That's all inclusive. Including two gourmet meals.

[spidey]

If a 9" putt is not a tap it, then why would you describe your two footer as one?

I didn't take a gimme, I just smacked it and it went in. Seems to me I could have trusted anybody in the group to have made it... maybe I was wrong.

It's great that you started one under for your first round at Stonebridge. How many under were you after 18? Under 90, that is.

Well, honestly, I played pretty much my regular game. I shot 81 if memory serves... which isn't far from what I'd expect playing a course for the first time. My last round was 78 there. Maybe I've just been lucky.

And how many times did gravity prevent you from having a realistic chance at a par? or a birdie? or a bogey?

Maybe I'm encouraging you, or maybe I've been misunderstood. I'm not a proponent of this course, at best I'm merely defending it. Maybe I'm just the only guy voicing a contrary opinion? I don't think it's the best course in the area, nor even one that I'd make a point of playing regularly. I just don't think it's worthwhile to beat up on it.

But I will agree with you on one point... they could have made it a better course.... but then that could be said of many courses around here.

[Andru]

How about most of them. there are only a few in the area I truly enjoy playing. That's sadly the honest truth.

[natgolfer]

How about most of them. there are only a few in the area I truly enjoy playing. That's sadly the honest truth.

Understandable. Which ones do you like?

[natgolfer]

Come on Nat I was just pulling your chain.

I have to be honest I really don't like SB either. I wouldn't use SB as the bench mark for modern course design. I guess the debate was old style vs. modern style. Try playing angus glen in Markham sometime. Or Glen Abbey. those are great courses. Good shots are rewarded. Not so good shots are really punished. If you're going to judge the "new courses" pick a good one that's all I'm saying. You're really challenged to play a variety of shots. very cool. I enjoy thinking around a golf course.

I have not played Angus Glen, but have played Glen Abbey and agree that it is a tough, but fair test of golf, for golfers of all levels.

[Rough Stuff]

Actually, the thing I like about Stonebridge is that its different from all other courses. I experienced the 10th hole drainage problem, after hitting a beautiful tee shot, but managed to salvage the hole. I guess you have to accept the quirks of SB as part of the novelty. Its certainly not a course I would frequent without being mentally prepared.

[Andru]

Understandable. Which ones do you like?

- Eagle Creek Though the condition hasn't been great this year a little soft
- Front Nine at Loch March.
- Marshes.
- Back Nine Greensmere
- I like the layout of calabogie I wish it had bent grass fairways and greens.

Now that you've seen my favourites can you recommend something? I need to find some new tracks so I don't have to make trips to Toronto every weekend.

Here's the courses I've played in Ottawa.

Amberwood - Pineview - Arnprior - Kanata Lakes
Calabogie - Poplar Grove - Canadian - Prescott
Raceview - Capital - Eagle Creek
Marshes - Meadows - Emerald Links - Metcalfe
Falcon Ridge - Mont Cascades - Loch March
Chateau Cartier - Madawaska - Stonebridge
Greensmere - Manderley - Nation
Thunderbird - Dragonfly - Pakenham

Cheers
Phil

[natgolfer]

- Now that you've seen my favourites can you recommend something?

Renfrew
Outaouais
Oaks of Cobden

[Rough Stuff]

Here's the courses I've played in Ottawa. Cheers Phil[/QUOTE]
.
.
.
Well, if the drive choice is Toronto, be sure to also try:
Trillium Woods (Belleville)
Upper Canada (Morrisburg)
Montibello (Well past Thurso)
For that matter, there's a nice one at Thurso

I haven't been to Edelweiss in a long time, so I can't say...probably akin to Mont Cascades.

[Andru]

I will try those thanks Natgolfer.


Rough Stuff.

I've played Trillim Woods 4 times this year. I enjoy that track. I also like Timberridge in Brighton. I will look into the others.