The Seigneurial System and Bad Golf Courses

[Doug Hodgson]

Quebec golf courses don't seem to be well thought of on this site or by magazine reviewers.  It is true I guess that there are more really bad courses here than in many other places, and I propose as a major reason for this the Seigneurial System.  This was the system of land distribution that was established in New France during the colonial era, in the seventeenth century.  Without getting into detail (https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/m/article/seigneurial-system/), the result was that most farms had an extended oblong shape, long and very narrow.  You can easily see this today by looking at any part of the Quebec countryside on Google Earth.


A direct implication is that many golf courses are on properties that are so narrow that the designer has no routing choice other than a series of back and forth parallel straight holes.  This can also be seen easily on Google Earth, and even some top clubs are constrained in this way.  A couple of notable exceptions to the rule are Royal Montreal and Mt Bruno, who both have properties that are closer to square in shape, allowing for more variety in the routings.


One curious thing I noticed on my recent trip to Melbourne is that several of the clubs in the sandbelt are also on oblong plots (though not as extreme as in Quebec)  and also feature lots of parallel holes.

[Keith Phillips]

Love this.  Studied the Seigneurial system as a high school student in Ontario in the 1970s but hadn't focused on the golf architecture implications.  To this day when I fly into Dorval Airport I look out the window and note the extremely narrow properties extending from the major waterways.

[Wayne_Kozun]

I think you are on to something Doug as the ideal layout of a golf course, like a links course, is a narrow strip running along the water.  That is the complete opposite of what you get in Quebec.


I also wonder if there are a couple of other issues to explain the lack of highly ranked courses in Quebec.  Quebec has the second fewest courses per capita (behind only Newfoundland - source), so perhaps golf isn't part of the French-Canadian culture as much as in English Canada.  I know that there were a lot of Scots that settled in Montreal and Quebec City 100+ years ago but perhaps it just didn't take.  I also wonder if more of the golf courses in Quebec from the Golden Era are NLE.  I am a member at Scarboro which is the only remaining Tillinghast course in Canada.  But Tillinghast designed at least two courses in Quebec - Anglo-American and Elm Ridge.  Anglo-American is NLE and Elm Ridge is (apparently) mostly NLE with perhaps a few holes remaining as part of Dorval Municipal Golf Course.


Your club, Royal Montreal, also moved as recently as 1959 so the bones of your courses were built in what is considered the dark ages of GCA.  Do you know anything about the previous course that existed in Dorval from 1896-1959?  Perhaps if more of the courses built from 1910-1930 remained then there would be more highly thought of courses in Quebec?


It also seems to me that there hasn't been much construction in higher end courses in Quebec in the last 50 years, with the exception of resort courses at Mt Tremblant.  Ontario has had an explosion of high end private courses during this period including The National, Devil's Pulpit, Devil's Paintbrush, Beacon Hall, Coppinwood, Goodwood, Redtail, Mad River, etc.  And then there have been high end public CCFADs like Eagle's Nest, Angus Glen, Osprey Valley, Copper Creek, etc.  Thirdly there were some wonderful courses built in Muskoka like Oviinbyrd, Rocky Crest, Bigwin, Muskoka Bay, Port Carling, Lake Joseph, Grandview, Deerhurst, etc.


And Ontario has more courses remaining from the Golden Age like Toronto, Hamilton, Mississauga, Scarboro, Weston, Summit, Westmount, St. Thomas, Essex, Cherry Hill, Rosedale, Brantford, etc and these were built by Thompson or the ODWGs from the US or UK like Ross, Park, Colt, Tillie, Travis, etc.

[Doug Hodgson]

Wayne,


I don't know much about the previous courses of Royal Mtl and Elm Ridge except to say that they were both on typical Quebec oblong properties close to and similar to that still occupied by Beaconsfield.  There is a plan of the previous courses (36 mostly Park designed) in the RMGC grillroom and it is full of straight parallel fairways.  The area where the club used to be is now covered with houses but doesn't look like the most interesting golfing terrain.


Whatever one may think of different "schools" of golf architecture I find it hard to believe that the old RMGC courses were anywhere near as good as the present ones.  The property in Ile Bizard is spacious rolling parkland with sandy loam soil base and beautiful wetland areas.  The drainage is excellent and the playing surfaces are delightfully firm.  Elm Ridge is now right next door and possesses similar attributes with its 36 holes designed by the Gordons I believe. 


Both clubs have current sites that seem to me to be much better suited to golf than their previous locations.  This is where I believe that we GCA aficionados sometimes get too hung up on "names".  This may sound like sacrilege to some but it is entirely possible that the overall quality of the golf courses on offer in Montreal was significantly improved when Tillinghast and Park courses were eliminated and replaced by Wilson and Gordon ones.  Indeed, I would see it as a potential gain if the members of Beaconsfield sold their Park-Thompson course to a developer, found a better piece of land farther out, and used the huge amount of money they would have to hire the likes of Tom Doak or Gil Hanse to finally give a Canada an example of their handiwork

[Doug Hodgson]

That Quebec is lower than Ontario in per capita golf courses is not, I believe, due to cultural factors.  French Canadians love golf and every 100% francophone small town in Quebec is well supplied with golf facilities.


I would guess the reason is that a larger proportion of the provincial population lives in a huge city and choose not to golf due to financial and time expenses

[Wayne_Kozun]

I don't know that I buy that Doug - about 50% of Quebecois live in Montreal but BC is even more concentrated in Vancouver, and just under 50% of Ontarians live in the GTA.  And I am guessing that public (and private) golf in the GTA is more expensive than in the Montreal area.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I can't comment on the golf in Quebec, but I had never heard of this system of land distribution. Google earth's view is just fascinating. I seems a brilliant way to carve up lots so more folks have access to the river.

[Doug Hodgson]

I don't know that I buy that Doug - about 50% of Quebecois live in Montreal but BC is even more concentrated in Vancouver, and just under 50% of Ontarians live in the GTA.  And I am guessing that public (and private) golf in the GTA is more expensive than in the Montreal area.

I was looking at 2016 census stats....But I had also thought of general economic indicators.  QC and Nfld are always near the bottom in most socio-economic categories.   (And I would guess that Nfld is the most Anglo-Saxon-Celtic of provinces which makes me question the cultural/ethnic account).  Perhaps not coincidentally Nfld and QC usually finish at or near the top in frequency of sexual activity....

[Wayne_Kozun]

Perhaps not coincidentally Nfld and QC usually finish at or near the top in frequency of sexual activity....

I wonder if there is a correlation between sexual activity and handicap? 

[Mike_Trenham]

Interestingly in Philadelphia there were very few square or rectangular properties of a large size.  I am not sure why that is the case, but we do have a lot of excellent courses almost all of which are on irregularly shaped plots of land.

[Philippe Binette]

Nice topic:
The Seigneurial system gave a land implemantation of about 150m x 1500m. 150m is the perfect with for 2 holes. So if you want to build a course, you often end up with a 300m x 1500m piece of land, or a 150m by 3000m. (my home course is set up in the latter format)


But it's a weak excuse.
Yes, it's hard to built an imaginative routing on land like that, but a good set of greens and strategic bunkering can produce good courses.




there is about 4 types of course in Québec:


1_ The classic layout built by the "old English money"with reknown architects: Beaconsfield, Mount Bruno, Islemere etc. But a lot of them have been demolished. (Prior to 1950, few French-Canadian played golf)


2_ The Howard Watson courses (Les Dunes, Joliette, Le Portage among others) built in the 60's and 70's. Very good routings, good greens but with systematic bunkering.


3_ The homemade courses built with little architectural knowledge on a long and straight piece of land... can give really bad results.


4_ The Graham Cooke courses of the 1990's and 2000's. Lateral mounding, built holes over the landscape instead of integrated holes in the landscape. Nice to play but nothing overly spectacular.




I think the lack of architectural knowledge by the players since they haven't played great courses, and the fact that we (since I'm one of them) french-canadian have a tendancy to fix stuff on our own... and not rely and pay for expertise... which lead to weird or stupid decision on golf courses.


This mentality is probably due to the fact that since 1760 (the lost battle against UK), we had to figure stuff by ourselves or worst, asked the "English" for expertise...

[Yannick Pilon]

Philippe is spot on in his analysis.
 
I have long felt that the golf course rankings of Canada courses was unjust to Quebec courses, but travelling across Canada over the past decades have made me realize that this is not necessarily the case, and I don't think the Seigneurial System has much to do with it. Building a great course on a narrow piece of land is not easy, but it is entirely possible if you put the effort and knowledge into it. A lot of courses here have been built by people with good intentions, but no knowledge of what they were doing. Add low construction budgets to the mix and mostly ordinary featureless sites and their clay base - some with the Seigneurial System shapes - and you can quickly get ordinary results.
 
But the truth is, Quebec golfers are simply not very knowledgeable when it comes to golf course architecture.  Even the more avid golfers don't seem to show much interest in golf course architecture.  They seem to put more emphasis on the conditions of a course rather than the quality of its architecture. Perhaps this is in part due to the fact that the season is so short up here.  Courses that luckily have better conditions in the spring after a long winter seem to generate more attention than the ones that had a rough winter and golfers seek out those courses. The quality of grass on the greens is often way more important than the design of it.
 
Another reason why Quebec golfers are not very knowledgeable when it comes to golf course architecture, is the places where they travel to when they head down south in the winter and/or for their golf vacations: typically, South Carolina (Myrtle Beach), Florida and Arizona.  Once again, don't get me wrong, those areas do have great golf courses, but the ones that are the most popular with Quebec golfers are most often on the lower end of the quality spectrum. The more popular and cheaper destinations seem to be the ones that are often advertised by the travel businesses. I keep talking to people about the great courses of Scotland, Ireland, and the new spectacular resorts that have been created in the past two decades all over the world (Bandon Dunes, Barnbougle, Prairie Club, Streamsong, Cabot, etc, to name just a few) and people have no clue they even exist. When they do seek them out, they most likely come back to me saying the green fee/hotel prices of these often remote places are way out of their league. While I prefer to play fewer courses, and play good ones, even if they are pricier, I find that most Quebec golfers I speak to seek out quantity, rather than quality.
 
This lack of interest and knowledge has led to mostly ordinary courses. How can you compare with the great courses and great designs if you don't know about them? There is just very little push towards design excellence.
 
That being said, Quebec golfers are avid golfers and they can be quite passionate about it. They're simply not passionate about the design of their courses. I don't think the low number of Quebec courses in the Canadian rankings is the result of courses built on the Seigneurial System plots of land, it's simply the result of a lack of great quality courses built on great pieces of land by builders striving for excellence in course design. There are good courses here, and a few great ones too, simply not that many of them. It's plain and simple. Sadly for us Quebecers, playing a few great courses across Canada will quickly make you realize that.
 
YP

[Doug Hodgson]

Thanks Yannick and Philippe.  Very interesting posts.  I have often encountered a general ignorance of and unconcern with the factors that make for great golf (I was unable to get a very avid golfing friend to understand why PGA National in Florida is not considered to be one of the world's greatest courses) but just assumed it was like that everywhere.
And it is true that the concept of Tree Clearance in completely unknown here.  Every single private club I have played at in Quebec has severe problems of excessive tree growth.

[SB]

I haven't seen as many courses in Quebec as many others, but the other thing that stands out to me about the courses that I have seen is the lack of interesting terrain.  It could be that if the long skinny parcels run directly downhill, then you'll get nothing but a gradual slope in one direction.  Also, most of the area around Montreal (with the exception of the City) seemed to be pretty flat, which means most of the courses were pretty flat. 

[Wayne_Kozun]

To the folks in the know - how many high end public or private courses have been built in Quebec in the last 40 years or so (other than Mt Tremblant)?  I still say that this, and the lack of Golden Age courses, is why there are fewer courses from Quebec in the ratings.  Ontario has had a ton of such courses built in the recent past starting with the National in the 70s.  Not all of these courses are great (Magna for example) but there were more opportunities to create something special which happened in many instances.


Many of the Golden Age (or earlier) private courses in Toronto were built around river/creek valleys - such as St Georges, Toronto, Weston, Lambton, Rosedale, Scarboro, Mississaugua, Credit Valley, etc.  IMHO this can make for interesting grounds for golf as it creates elevation changes.  And most of these courses managed to survive in their locations rather than being pushed out of town.  Perhaps part of the reason is that much of the land was not suitable for housing as it is in a floodplain - which became painfully (and fatally) evident with Hurricane Hazel in 1954.

[Yannick Pilon]

Wayne,
 
There has been many courses built in Quebec in the past 40 years or so, just like everywhere else. However, not many have been built on great sites and have produced great courses. Here are a few examples of courses built in that period:
 
High end public, in no particular order:
Quatre Domaine – 36 holes
The Falcon
Le Metropolitain
CG de l’Ile de Montreal – 36 holes
Le St-Raphael – 36 holes
La Bête
Owls Head
Hautes-Plaines
Atlantide
 
Private, again, in no particular order:
Le Mirage – 36 holes
Le Champêtre (now semi-private)
Le Fontainebleau
Le Maitre
La Tempête
Le Blainvillier
Royal Bromont (Now public)
Le Balmoral
 
There’s also many more public courses that most people would not consider to be high-end. Most of these courses are fine, but none truly stand out as being outstanding, especially when compared to the same category of courses in the Toronto area where the land has been much more interesting to work on for most courses built in the same time frame.  The economy also had a role in this, the market for high-end public courses or private courses is much bigger in the Toronto area, so more money has been invested in many of the courses in that area. I might be wrong here, but to my knowledge, there’s only a handful of courses that can charge over 100.00$ for a round in Quebec, and most if not all of them are in the Tremblant area. Quebec golfers are simply not willing to repeatedly spend a lot of money to play regularly on high end courses. That’s just the way things are around here, IMHO. I'm not saying that spending more money automatically means you'll get better results, but having better sites and more money can certainly help creating better results in the long run.
 
YP

[Yannick Pilon]

SBusch,


You are mostly right with your statement. Courses around the Montreal and Quebec region tend to be generally flat with clay based soils, while courses in the Laurentians or the Easter Townships have a bit more movement, but they are often built on rock based soils, similar to the Muskoka region north of Toronto. Good examples of these rock based courses are Montebello, Le Geant, Manoir Richelieu and the back nine of Le Diable.  While more exciting than the flatter courses near the bigger markets, such courses have been really expensive to built, and as such, there is a limited amount of them in Quebec.


YP

[Doug Hodgson]

One important course that is not mentioned in this thread or in the Scoregolf rankings and associated thread is McBroom's ultra-private course at Memphramagog.  I know a few people (better-connected than myself alas) who have played there and are highly impressed....

[Wayne_Kozun]

One important course that is not mentioned in this thread or in the Scoregolf rankings and associated thread is McBroom's ultra-private course at Memphramagog.  I know a few people (better-connected than myself alas) who have played there and are highly impressed....

Is it the quality of the course of the ultra-exclusivity and/or the high level of service of the place - kind of like Redtail or Magna?

[Yannick Pilon]

Doug and Wayne,
The Desmarais family (Power Corp) have two courses in Quebec designed by Tom McBroom.
The first one that was built is in Sagard, a couple of hours north-east of Quebec City. I believe that course is owned by the Desmarais family only and only a handful of people get to play there every summer. It is very remote and most easily accessed by helicopter! (https://goo.gl/maps/CiCNxYPSNh72)
The second course is the Memphremagog Club, south of Magog and close to the shore of Lake Memphremagog. From what I have heard, it is an ultraprivate course that only have a handful of very wealthy members tied to the Desmarais family. Service there is topnotch, and so is the landscaping. Looking at the aerial of the course, it seems to have the same design style as McBroom courses like Tobiano, Tower Ranch and Brudenell, with elaborate bunkering with very irregular and busy bunkers edges. (https://goo.gl/maps/1dCdbg5qMNB2)
Both courses are apparently very good, and quite possibly among the very best in Quebec. But since they are so private, they are not seen by many raters. But I guess they couldn't care less where they are ranked in Canada, since they are more about preserving their privacy, than about getting a high ranking.
YP

[Wayne_Kozun]

My understanding is that Mt Bruno also doesn't care about ratings and doesn't go out of its way to invite raters to play the course - many (most?) other private courses do this and I assume that all public/resort courses very actively court raters.  So that could also hurt its ratings.

[Yannick Pilon]

Wayne,


You are absolutely correct. I think Mount Bruno is far superior than any other course in Quebec and probably should be in Canada's top 25 courses, but most raters have never been there. Not only can you only get on the course with a member, I believe you can only join the club if you are personally invited by another member. It is a beauty where you feel like you are stuck in time somewhere around 1930. Quite unique in Quebec and possibly the rest of Canada.


YP.

[Wayne_Kozun]

Does Mt Bruno still require knee socks if you are wearing shorts?  They did when I played there about 7-8 years ago.

[Doug Hodgson]

Does Mt Bruno still require knee socks if you are wearing shorts?  They did when I played there about 7-8 years ago.

As of 2014 yes. I wore slacks when I played there that year because I have always refused to be seen in public (or in private for that matter) in knee high socks. It was definitely a relief when most clubs went to the short socks...

[Wayne_Kozun]

Does Royal Montreal require this as well - I had heard that they did but for your response it doesn't sound like it.  If not then Mt Bruno may be the last holdout in the country.  I have played most of the private courses in Toronto and you can wear short socks at all of them, even places like Rosedale and Toronto GC.  And courses in the west seem far more laid back about this kind of stuff.