[Matt Kardash]

These pictures are off their website. The course is called le club de golf de l'ile de montreal (the montreal island golf club) and it is the first course designed by Pat Ruddy outside of Ireland. I think It opened two years ago. I honestly can't imagine a more difficult course than this one. You could realistically lose a golf ball on everyhole because each fairway(and they are all pretty narrow) is lined with tall dunes covered in two foot long grass. That being said, i would take this public course over pretty much any in Montreal in a heartbeat. Maybe I found the course really hard because it was raining and I played pretty poorly, but still, this course isn't for the faint of heart. Enjoy!













If you want to see bigger versions of some of these pics then click on the pics on their website at the bottom of the page
http://www.cgimgolf.com/parcours_s.htm#

[Jeff_Mingay]

I had heard about this project, then forgot about it. The course hasn't received much press in Canada, has it Matt?

Looks like another fake links. I can't get very excited about that concept. How many more do we need in Canada... Devil's Paintbrush, the Osprey Valley courses, Glencairn, Eagle's Nest, et. al.

[Matt Kardash]

Well Jeff, when was the last time a course in Montreal got any press? I think Montreal is like the black sheep of canada.

Yeah it's a fake links, but it's the only one in the montreal area so I guess to the golfers in montreal it's not such a bad idea. And besides, the other 18 at this facility is a gentle parkland layout, so this club can satisfy anyone I guess.

Montreal is honeslty the blackhole of golf. Is their any huge city in north america that has more crappy new courses opening than montreal? I think not. I'm surprised this course was actually built, seeing how Graham Cooke actually had nothing to do with it  

I should say that the canadian club pro's played an event here this year and I don't think anyone broke par on any day, and the winning score was +9 i beleive  

[Tyler Kearns]

Jeff,

Are you trying to tell us that that is not the natural landscape of Quebec?  

The Canadian Tour played an the Montreal Open there this year, and the event yielded a winning score of -4 over three rounds (67-69-70).

Tyler Kearns

[Cliff Hamm]

Clicked on the link and while my French is not the best, if I read the rates correctly they are $59 weekday for prime time and $64 weekends Canadian.  Given the exchange rate that would convert to $45 and $50 or a bit more American.  There are way too few American upscale courses that are in this range.  Let's try at least double if not more.  This is especially true in a major metropolitan area.  Why is Canadian golf, with a short season, so much cheaper than American even before exchange rates are considered?

Cliff

[Matt Kardash]

Sorry about the french website. I think the english site is still under constuction.

Yeah i have no idea why golf here is SO much cheaper. I grew up on a pretty good public course and it's peak price was only $30 dollars canadian. There are no courses in this area that cost more than $80 to play. Well except if you go to tremblant(2 hours north of here) which is about $100 I guess.


The hard thing about this course (and i'm not sure you can tell from the pictures) is that almost every hole plays uphill and all the greens are elevated. So a par 70 of 7255 yards becomes A LOT more. Mind you, I didn't play from those tee's, you would have to be crazy to want to play from there.

But at the same time, all 4 par 3's play very much downhill.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Matt,

You've got me really excited about public golf in Montreal  

No matter, there's so much more to do in Montreal than golf!

[Matt_Ward]

Matt K:

Great post!

What's the slope and CR from the various tee boxes?

On the par-3 holes are they all downhill and how much are the listed distance wise -- how much of a difference does the downhill situation provide for "effective" yardage?

Is there much movement in the par-4's -- do they swing a bit to require a deft touch with the driver to slide the ball right or left on command.

Be curious to know what was the toughest courses you had played prior to your visit here.

Many thanks ...

P.S. How much contouring is their with the greens? If you have played Devil's Paintbrush and Devil's Pulpit how much harder is the course you played when compared to them?

[Matt Kardash]

Matt, well first off, here's the scorecard....it's in french but I'm sure you can figure it out.
http://www.cgimgolf.com/zoom-carte-sud.htm

Well I don't know the exact CR and slope. But when the course first opened I somehow remmeber the slope being around 135 or 137 and the CR being around 74 (par 70). I actually couldn't believe the slope was that low, because I am currenlty a member at a club that has a slope of 141(the highest in quebec) and I thought this course was WAY more difficult.

Well the par 3's do all play downhill. Actually one them might be level. The 3rd hole (247 yards) is probably at least one club downhill. The 6th hole (206 yards) is even a little more downhill. The 13th hole (170 yards) is the most downhill hole, probably two clubs downhill. It 's essentially a drop-shot hole that has two or three nasty little pot bunkers right in front of the green (I found one of them). And the 16th hole (212 yards) is pretty level, maybe a little downhill, and has two very deep pot bunkers short.

Actually most of the holes play kind of straightish. Probably 70% of them. The site left little choice, because it is a long narrow site, meaning it is an out and back routing. However there are a few holes that call for a fade or a draw.

The greens are not crazy countoured. Some have a little more than others. However, I think the greens are the part of the course that actually give you a little bit of a breather. Thought I do remember some of them have some pretty big countour, like the 10th hole and the 6th hole, and I think the 18th hole. However there are a number of very deep pot bunkers surrounding the greens

In actually fact, the fairways have some wild countours. The fairways have huge ups and downs and dips and hollows. I remember being on the left side of the 18th fairway, and about 10 feet right of my ball there was a slope that dipped down 10 feet to the right side of the fairway.

I have played the ocean course and I found this personally more difficult to me. The reason I say this is because I am a very long hitter who is not always the most accurate. Therefore this course off the tee intimidates me to no end. From the tee almost all the holes (even the 490 yard par 4's) play uphill. not only that but since 75% of the holes have high "dunes" running down both sides it makes the fairways even feel narrower. And I am convinced that some of these fairways get real tight in spots. So off the tee this is all the course you could ever want. I would say that even though it says 7255 yards on the scorecard, it feels like it plays closer to 75 or 7600 yards. And that's par 70!! Par will never be threatened much on this course.

What I do like about this course however is that there are a number of pot bunkers scattered about in the middle of the fairways. And often you can't even see them from the tee. I found this aspect to be quite refreshing actually.

That was a bummer was that i don't remember there being two many closly mowned areas around the greens. What also was odd (for a "links" course) was that almost all the greens were quite elevated, so running the ball into most greens is no practical at all.

All in all, this course is well priced, and offers something VERY different for the Montreal golfing public.

[Matt Kardash]

What's also unfortunate is that a major highway runs along holes 10-14. If you look at the final picture I posted you can see the cars in the top left portion of the picture going over the river on a bridge. However, you never see the highway from the fairway because huge mounds were constructed to hide it and block as much noise as possible. However, you still do hear the gentle hum of traffic on these holes.

And in case anyone is wondering how in the world they moved this much dirt, the answer is they didn't. Pretty much everything you see if the result of them dumping garbage. This site was a dump prior to it being a golf course. So they actually dumped and moved garbage around to make this course. So essentially making this course cost them nothign because they made companies pay to dump thier garbage on their site. Therefore it took them 3 or 4 years to actually build this place.

The entire course is elevated about 40 or 50 feet on a pile of garbage. That is why they were able to make big elevation changes.

[rgkeller]

Nice looking course.

If Doak had been the architect, every GEA rater would have been foaming at the mouth to get a free round.

[Jeff_Mingay]

rgkeller,

I don't know what a "GEA rater" is, but if Doak built this course I would still say, it looks like a fake links. In fact, the photos I've seen of Doak's Heathland course down at Myrtle Beach makes that course look like a fake links. Whatever.

Your comment reminds me of something Bruce Lietzke said during the 2002 Canadian Senior Open at my home course, Essex. A reporter asked him something like, how he would rate Essex amongst all the Donald Ross designed courses he'd played.

Lietzke said: "I don't care if this course was designed by Donald Ross or Donald Duck, it's just a good golf course."

[Matt_Ward]

Matt K:

To better understand the difficulty of the course you posted please list for me the names of equally demanding courses that this layout surpassed.

Thanks ...

[Matt Kardash]

Matt W

Well, I am not as well travelled as most on this site. I'm only 22 and still go to university. The two most difficult courses that I have played that everyone will know are Blackwolf run river and the ocean course. To me, this course was more difficult than both. Mind you, I'm sure someone will play this course and tell me it's nowhere near as hard as I'm making it out to be. Also, I play well on Dye courses, they seem to make sense to me and fit my eye well.

Maybe I just find this course hard because it requires long straight hitting. I have the long part nailed down as I drive it 300 yards easily, but not always straight. I either hit every fairway or I miss every fairway. On this day I didn't hit too many fairways. On most of the holes, if you miss the fairway you lose your golf ball. And almost all the holes are long and uphill. This course is all about long straight driving and then long iron approaches.

And I have to admit, these pics don't really show you how narrow the course feels. Most of these pics are of the wider holes. However that pic with the bunker with the sleepers has a blind uphill tee shot over that bunker through the dunes to a fairway that at its widest is 20 yards. If you miss the fairway on either side you are in 3 foot grass on a dune and you lose your ball. It's a bitch.

And I should also say that this is by no means a great course. It's just hard as hell and has some fun holes.

[blasbe1]

I had heard about this project, then forgot about it. The course hasn't received much press in Canada, has it Matt?

Looks like another fake links.

Jeff:

I find this criticism, without more thought, entirely wanting.  In fact, taking this notion of a "fake links" as a negative to its logical end, one would be forced to suggest that compared to National and Maidstone, Shinnecock is a fake links irrespective of the obvious merits of this timeless course.  

As far as the TMIGC is concerned, it's either a good design (or better) or it's not.  If anyone on this board can make a definitive  judgment from the photos posted they are worlds ahead of me, but from what I've seen, it's looks like it's got potential, even if the aiming stakes in the fairway seem cheesey.  

Furthermore, I believe Doak's Heathland in MB was appropriately named and in the tradition of it's name sake from what I recall.

Take this notion of "fake links" any further and next we may hear that low and behold Sand Hills is a fake links.  If you're looking for an adjacent body of water in order for pot bunkers to be appropriate I'm sure the clubhouse has a toilet or two.  

Sorry if this is harsh but this criticism appears naive . . . to speak in modern business cliche "drill down" to a more substantive level of criticism if you are going to hammer a project without having played it.    

[Jeff_Mingay]

Interesting post, Jason.

I'm sure Ruddy's Montreal course is a blast to play, just like Devil's Paintbrush is. I didn't "hammer" the course. All I said was it looks like a fake links. Revisiting the photos, it still does.

The reason I say that is, the inherent landscape of Montreal Island doesn't look like a dunesland on the coast of Ireland. Nor are sod wall bunkers and railroad ties shoring up sand hazards practically required in that locale.

Still, the golf course in the photos here looks like someone attepted to replicate dunesland, and fashion sod wall bunkers and railroad tie supports in other sand hazards to imply a "links" feeling. Thus, this Montreal course is a fake links.

Which, again, is fine. I'm sure it's a pleasure to play. I've passed no judgment on how the course plays.  

National GL, Maidstone, Shinnecock Hills are classic examples of courses routed to best utilize native landscapes for golf. These courses are natural, and magnify the brilliance of the landscape out on the eastern tip of Long Island. They were not constructed to mimic a British links, as it appears Ruddy's Montreal course was.  

Artificial dunes were not constructed on the periphery of any hole at Shinnecock Hills. There are no sod wall bunkers, or bunkers shored up with railroad ties at Shinnecock Hills. Practically, sod walls and railroad ties aren't required at Shinnecock, or the National GL. Those courses are not fake links. And, either is Sand Hills, for the same reasons.  

Last, Doak's heathland course is poorly named. It's a fake links. Not a fake heathlands course.

[blasbe1]

They were not constructed to mimic a British links, as it appears Ruddy's Montreal course was.  

Good points Jeff, but you must admit that at least particular holes on those great courses, including a recently controversial hole, are complete mimics, intentionally derived versions of idealic originals across the Pond.  

That's exactly my point, once you copy holes, what difference is copying design concept, combine that with today's technology, see, e.g., the Bethpage Black post, and Ruddy is free to sleeper all the bunkers he wants.  BTW, I'm not sure that sleepers were indigenous to any of Pete Dyes layouts either.  

I absolutely concede, however, the difference between a design that works with the land it lays on and a design that is greatly manufacutered.  I much prefer the former, but I guess my question is what difference does it make anymore, especially considering the complete scarcity of great viable Linksland in most of North America?

BTW, I played the Links at Crowbush on PEI about a month ago and absolutely loved it, please tell me that you do not consider Crowbush a fake links . . .    

   

[Matt Kardash]

Jason,

To me Crowbush is the opposite of TMIGC. Crowbush is an american style course that happens to be on the ocean, while TMIGC is an Irish looking course that happens to be nowhere near an ocean. Does that make sense?

[Jeff_Mingay]

Jason,

Crowbush isn't a fake links. It's just a golf course by the sea. It wasn't constructed to mimic the look of a British links.

What difference does it make? Personally, I enjoy playing unique golf courses. And, unique golf courses derive their character from unique landscapes. Think about it, Shinnecock Hills, Cypress Point, Pine Valley, Royal Melbourne, the Old Course at St. Andrews. These course all derive their individual character from inherent site characteristics.

Imposing a preconceived idea onto any landscape results in an inferior golf course. Period. Precedent teaches us that. Imposing a dunesland course on Montreal Island results in a fake links.

 

[Matt Kardash]

Jeff

That was freaky. We essentially wrote the same thing at the same time  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Nice looking course.

If Doak had been the architect, every GEA rater would have been foaming at the mouth to get a free round.

RG,
Since you brought it up, explain to me the features you see where a "GEA" rater would confuse it for a Doak course.

While I'll be a little less pleasant then Jeff Mingay and tell you that some of the shaping reminds me of something Rees Jones, would you believe me, or would you write it off as me just complaining about Rees again?

While the bulkheading is reminescent of a links in the West of Scotland or the Southeast of England, this bunkering is a little too perfect for me. Too perfect of a circumference, too perfect of a band of rough going around it and honestly, some of the most un-natural postions for it.

Honestly, if you closed your eyes to the outer enviroment, it looks like something you would find in circe 1980's Rancho Mirage.

[Philippe Binette]

Personal thoughts on the course: the concept is good about the links-style...

BUT:

- the course lack of all the finesse play that is so cool in links golf because the holes are so long (no par 4 under 400 yards and the shorter one are into the wind. Basically, bomb it straight is the only strategy..

- the possibilities for ground game are not there, most of the greens are raised up by a long slope or the entrance are too narrow to even think about it so there is no inviting shots that promote ground play...Only strategy, hit it high...

- There you go, that's why it tough

[blasbe1]

To me Crowbush is the opposite of TMIGC. Crowbush is an american style course that happens to be on the ocean, while TMIGC is an Irish looking course that happens to be nowhere near an ocean. Does that make sense?

Matt:

That makes perfect sense, I agree with the American style Crowbush displays, especially the front nine.  I would say, however, that the ground game is very much available nothwithstanding the fact that most of the greens are elevated.  And the wind certainly plays much more of a factor than any traditionally American style course that I've played.    

Not sure what you think about 17 but its likely my third favorite short hole that I've played (#1 the 10th at Pacific Dunes and #2 the 7th at Pebble).  Unfortunately, I've not yet played the Postage Stamp.  

What amazed me most about Crowbush was the unlimited golf "Season Pass" for something like $1,200 CD.  By far the best value that I've ever found at a resort course, and likely the best value I've ever seen for local residents b/c of the ability to access the course.  Bethpage Black is still the best greens fee dollar to course quality in the world, but the only problem is you can never get on, and when you do it's a 5.5 hour round.

 

[Matt_Ward]

Matt K:

If you know can you please post what type of fairways the course has and do they "run out" when you played there?

Plenty of times the nature of the turf is the end ingredient to showcase what the layout has. If the course is routinely "slow" then the design aspects the pictures highlight won't really mean as much to me.

I tried to locate it but can you post the CR and slope from various tee boxes?

Thanks ...

P.S. Last question -- how far outside Montreal is the course located?

[Jeff_Mingay]

Jason,

The 17th hole at Crowbush Cove is arguably the most interesting hole Tom McBroom has designed. I agree, it's a great short hole.

Funny, I've heard more golfers complain about that hole  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()