Grand Niagara Review

[bcampb00]

Yes, pretty clearly the best of the Niagara courses. Sweet little bar, too, with great craft options (before COVID at least).

Not sure how you draw up your boundaries of “Niagara”, but based on my definition of the region, I would put Cherry Hill, Lookout Point and Whirlpool (and maybe St. Catherine’s) all ahead of Grand Niagara. I like Grand Niagara but lots of competition for “best” down there.

[bobby Jones]

Great track. Certainly my favorite as a local and I live less than 2 mins from Legends tbh. NOW for the sad news....get your rounds in if you haven't as the word is that the golf course has been zoned and passed for housing. Approx 1800 new units and the NEW Hospital is to be built on the site. Not sure when the shovels are to hit the ground, but I would schedule any rounds for next year at the latest.

https://niagarafalls.ca/pdf/planning/grand-niagara-secondary-plan/grand-niagara-pic-3-presentation.pdf

[73monte]

Not sure how you draw up your boundaries of “Niagara”, but based on my definition of the region, I would put Cherry Hill, Lookout Point and Whirlpool (and maybe St. Catherine’s) all ahead of Grand Niagara. I like Grand Niagara but lots of competition for “best” down there.

Apples and oranges here. Lookout and Cherry Hill are both fully private, so hence a different class comparison. As for Whirlpool vs. Grand Niagara? Not even close. The course conditions at Grand Niagara are significantly better. Whirlpool is an old and established Thompson design, but GN is in far superior condition currently.

[drewharvie]

Yes, pretty clearly the best of the Niagara courses. Sweet little bar, too, with great craft options (before COVID at least).

I don't agree. Lookout Point, Cherry Hill and Whirlpool are all better

[drewharvie]

Apples and oranges here. Lookout and Cherry Hill are both fully private, so hence a different class comparison. As for Whirlpool vs. Grand Niagara? Not even close. The course conditions at Grand Niagara are significantly better. Whirlpool is an old and established Thompson design, but GN is in far superior condition currently.

You base your entire rankings off the conditioning alone?

[73monte]

You base your entire rankings off the conditioning alone?

No, but conditions are certainly an important comparative difference for me/most. End of the day will of course boil down to opinion. Whichever course you decide to join/play and how you prioritize your reasons are your business.

[QuentinJJ]

You base your entire rankings off the conditioning alone?

Conditioning should really have little to no bearing on ranking the merits of a golf course - the design, routing, use of land and natural features, playability, the strategy. Conditioning is another issue. Often mediocre courses are ranked much higher because of the scenery.

[Clubman]

Re the location of our new hospital, it will be a Bigger rd and Montrose, a couple of miles away from the course.

[drewharvie]

Conditioning should really have little to no bearing on ranking the merits of a golf course - the design, routing, use of land and natural features, playability, the strategy. Conditioning is another issue. Often mediocre courses are ranked much higher because of the scenery.

It's a really interesting debate that I've had lots in the past year and maybe even warrants its own thread, but I tend to agree with your side and remove conditioning entirely when ranking golf courses. There's far too many factors in conditioning to accurately rank it. You and I could go see the same golf course on different sides of the golf season and see two differently conditioned golf courses. Vancouver, Victoria, Kelowna, Toronto and Niagara would instantly be ahead in terms of conditioning because of their climate, whereas the prairies or the maritimes might have a hard time because they have much harsher winters. A lot of the time it boils down to budget, and I don't think it's necessarily fair to reward the golf course who charges the most for the green fee.