Golf Course Rankings - Capilano Golf Club

[Pat_McGuire]

The Club’s board is debating recent comments from a magazine representative which indicated that the course would be ranked higher if holes 1 and 10 were officially changed from par 5’s to par 4’s.  They currently play as par 4’s only during high calibre tournament play.

On the first hole, big hitters can catch the down-slope with a driver and be left with little more than an eight or nine iron coming in.  The fairway slopes left to right, making it difficult to hit the fairway.  The second shot is still very much down-hill, usually with side-hill lie with the ball below one’s feet.  Wind is rarely a factor.  

At the 1992 World Amateur team championships, most players used long irons off the tee to set up a long iron second shot from a flat lie.  In the 2003 Pacific Coast Amateur, some used irons, but the majority bombed drivers without worrying too much if they ended up in the rough.

Number 10 is more difficult.  It is a sweeping up-hill hole with a slight right to left dogleg.  Long hitters must hit a draw off the tee or risk going through the fairway into trees and OB right.  A good long-ball will set up an uphill mid-iron to a severely sloping green with false front and fall-away turf bunkers to the right.

The magazine rep said, essentially, that a “strong par 4” is preferable to “easy par 5”.

If you were on the board, what would your position be and how would you argue it?

[Bill_McBride]

What in the world is the difference?  If it's a medal play event, everybody's playing the same course.  If it's match play, it's even more irrelevant if possible!

I was lucky enough to play Capilano in September and have to say it was one of my most enjoyable rounds in years.  My first Stanley Thompson (regrettably missed the Banff/Jasper outing in July   ) and I hope to play more.  One of my favorite routings ever.

If #1 and #10 are too short to be par 5's, what of #5 or was it #6?  About the same length as #1, the major difficulty was the fallaway green which made it virtually impossible to stop a pitch shot to a front pin.

#18 is a brute par 5!  No arguments about that hole.

Capilano would be a great home course.  A wide variety of shots required, great driving holes, very walkable in an aerobic way, and very natural surroundings.  The views down to Vancouver and the water on the front nine are superb; the views of the mountain peaks walking uphill are exhilirating.  A most attractive design element of Thompson's courses is aiming holes directly at these surrounding peaks a la photos I've seen of Banff and Jasper.

[Brad Klein]

The club should hire the magazine representative as its course designer.

[ian]

Pat,

This has nothing to do with rankings and everything to do with reality. I also think that hole number one and ten should be par fours. Technology has long passed them by.
Pat, at issue is the fact you can reach 1, 3, 5 and 10 in two.
1, 3, 10 can be reached with irons.

For those who dont know the holes.

 Hole #1: The tee shot is very downhill, looking into Vancouver



The second shot can be as little as a wedge, severely downhill into a receptive green



Hole #10: The drive is slightly uphill requiring placement from the tee



The second shot is uphill, with a severe drop-off on the right, and a tough up and down from the left. The shot is precise, but the hole is only about 440 yards



But as everyone has stated, regardless of what the members do, it will remain a great course.

Brad, I'm kind of partial to the company that currently works there

[Jeff_Lewis]

The magazine representative may have that opinion, but he is wrong on two fronts. First, changing par, as oft discussed here, does not change architecture. Second, I seriously doubt that a majority of any magazine's panel would disagree with me on that.

[Bob_Huntley]

I say a pox on Magazines and their rating suggestions. Capilano is a gem, leave it well alone.

[ian]

Jeff and Bob,

If the hole is simply a two-shot hole, it is a par four. These are not "four and a halfs", they are fours. Changing par to reflect technology has a long history, including many famous courses. Was not the 17th at St. Andrew's a par five at one time?

St. George's last two holes were both par fives, but now play as 470 yard par fours from the same tees. I don't see this "changing the architecture" either, but I do see this as a great finish!

Obviously with what I do, I'm a big fan or history and tradition, but changing par has nothing to do with either. Many of these great architects we revere spent an awful lot of their time modernizing golf courses, and often changed the par of a hole to match the current standards. Ignoring what is current, can be placing your head in the sand at times.

Again, they can do what they like, but this still remains my opinion.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Pat,

I visited Capilano a few years ago and was struck by how much original green surface area has been lost at 10. There's a really interesting plateau that juts behind the skeleton of an old bunker at right that should be utilized.

(I talked with Ian Andrew about this.)

Reclaim that putting surface area, re-install the bunker, then cut a hole on that restored area of the green and it's likely some of your members will probably ask for the hole to be labelled a par 6!

[Daniel_Wexler]

Mr. McGuire:

My suggestion would be to ban such people entirely.  

Your club has stood among North America's best and most historic for nearly 70 years, designed by a genuine architectural icon who's status as a Canadian golfing legend is both unique and unquestioned.

Why would ANYONE change ANYTHING at such a place based upon the opinion of "a magazine representative???"

Talk about the tail wagging the dog...

DW

[Bill_McBride]

Daniel, right on!  

[Robert Thompson]

Pat: I assume the comments were made by reps from Score in regards to the Top 100 panel this past summer.
I'm on this panel and had some problems with the result.
However, I think Capilano is one of those courses where, in a few instances, time and new equipment has passed it by. The opening hole is a good par four, but on the three times I've played it, I regularly hit a mid to short iron into the green. I've never had to hit a third shot and don't see why you would, unless you snapped one into the trees and had to hit out sideways.
The first time I played the third hole, I made what I thought was a birdie on a tough, interesting four. Turns out I made an eagle and didn't even know it. The same could be said for 10.
Most rating panels have some element that regards resistance to scoring and I think that's where Capilano comes up short, though only on the front nine.
Does that make it a bad course? Of course not. It is one of Canada's great tracks.
However, I find it interesting that many people have said Capilano should ignore the ratings panel and continue with what their par-72 rating.
While I agree that raters shouldn't dictate a course's policies, it seems to me that Capilano is reluctant to admit that several of its holes simply don't hold up to the number on the card.  
The real battle here is whether Capilano would agree to be a par 69 or a par 70, which would make it tough as nails, but still very fair. That has nothing to do with raters, and everything to do with the reality of the course given current driving distances. Only in very unusual cases, perhaps where there is a risk/reward scenario, does a par-5 work well when it is under 500 yards -- which is the case of all three of Capilano's on the front nine.
All of that said, don't do anything because of Score. Do what's best for the club.

Robert

[Gerry B]

1) who cares about the rankers -the course is a gem and the members should be happy with what they have - it is short by todays standards  - but who cares!settng

2) large membership with many family memberships and golfers of all calibers - therefore majority should rule

Re: Hole 1  - could and should be a par 4 IMHO for the men and a 5 for the ladies / juniors  - ie put the mens tees up a few yards in one of the forward boxes and play it as a par 4 and ladies / juniors / seniors can play it as a par 5 from the tips.

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

Holding par against those two holes is ridiculous, even if they both play as par fours today.

I cannot think of anything more ridiculous than the idea it should lose points. If the rater thinks it should be a four, let them call it a four.

In five years this will be a problem for lots of courses and I would rather see the holes left untouched and the par be slightly misrepresentative than the holes be changed to accommodate the number.

I can think of a number of courses on the list that face the same dilemma in the coming years, should they all be punished?

If the club reduced those holes to par fours, would the rater not have a greater problem with a par under 70?

[Pat_McGuire]

Sorry about the late reply.

Of the above responses, Mr. Wexler’s comes closest to my sentiments.

Capilano is an absolute joy to play.  Walk up to the first tee, take a couple of practice swings, look with disdain towards the practice fairway, and hit away!  Hit till you’re happy or, if your playing partners think they’re playing the Open, console yourself with the fact that, should you bury your drive in the trees, you are looking at a chip out and bogey at worst.  Take in the view.  Is it clear enough to see the gulf islands?

Capilano has a flow to it.  It’s inviting, not intimidating.  Start off strong and play well through the first 5 holes and you can easily get to very low numbers.  But Mr. Thompson slowly ratchets up the pressure and defending a good score on holes 12 through 18 can be very, very difficult.  Start poorly, however, and you know you can get back in the game with birdies on 5 or 10.  That’s fun!

Good architecture is all about psychology, and par plays a big role.  Changing it on holes 1 and 10 would have zero effect on pros and very good amateur players.  But I fear that it would take a bit of the fun out of the game for the other 95% who play the course and love it.

Jeff, you may be right about the lost area on #10.  But I wouldn’t be in a big hurry to reclaim it.  The green is already very large, with severe slopes and scores of great pin locations.  Pinning on that back tier, with today’s green speeds, might turn it into a putting circus.  Besides, the worst place to put your second shot is over the green.  And the worst place over the green is a downhill lie in the area you are talking about.  Holding a chip from there is next to impossible and often turns into bogey or worse.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

What's wrong with having a very, very large green where if you hit over the green going at the back tier pin position you end up with a nearly impossible chip shot that could cause you to make bogey or worse?  For heaven's sake roll up the magazine and hit the rater on the butt on his way out and welcome Jeff and Ian into your doors.  There is much to be said about the company you keep.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Pat,

Your description of the tenth green, and the challenge a hole cut on reclaimed putting surface at right would present sorta confirms my original point: those who think it's too short for a par 5 should play the hole when the pin is placed over there! They might not think it's so easy afterward.

This is a typical conundrum when faced with a "half par" hole. It's too easy as a par 5, and too hard as a par 4. I say, just play golf. There are some very interesting shots presented at both the first and tenth holes at Capilano. Again, just play golf.

And, reclaim that green surface and lost bunker at ten! Even if you cut the hole over there twice a year, the aesthetic would be awesome.

[Ken_Cotner]

Seems obvious to me...

A.  Magazine ranking is all-important,
B.  #1 and #10 are easily reachable par-5's,
C.  Everyone knows that anything other than a par-72 course is suspect.

Therefore, the club must move those greens back (or tees, if moving the greens isn't feasible)!    

Ken

[Tags:]

Tags: