Why doesn't Capilano get more recognition?

[Ran Morrissett]

Cape Breton Highland gets tons and tons of positive press. I haven't seen it but I understand that it has a few weak holes from some people who have seen it who don't get completely choked up by its settings.

On the other hand, Capilano really doesn't have any indifferent stretches and it is hardly shy on majestic scenery either. A quote from Thompson himself seemed to indicate that Capilano was a personal favorite of his but I appreciate that could just be meaningless architect-speak.

Why doesn't Capilano seem to generate the same level of passion as the other Thompson courses? It absolutely does for me and I am disappointed on a bi-annual basis each time it doesn't make it back into GOLF's world top 100. My understanding is that Capilano is 90% plus true to the original design, something that St. Georges in Toronto or Banff can't claim.

What are Capilano's shortcomings as a course/design a) in general and b) relative to Thompson's other work? I know it rains there some (!) and the course therefore plays slow on such occasions, but otherwise, I don't get it - Capilano is a great course in my books.

Cheers,

[David Wigler]

Ran,

You could not be more right.  I got back from Vancouver about two weeks ago and plan on writing extensively on Capilano when I get a chance.  In short, I found the course to be brilliant.  I liked it more than St. George and comfortably would put it in the top five or ten that I have ever played.  On top of that, #6 may be the best tee shot hole I have ever seen.  The visual options and challenges offered are awe-inspiring.

[Brad Klein]

Couldn't disagree more. Capilano has a great setting and some views - where the trees don't obscure the scenery. And there are some fascinating slopes and bunker shapes. Also, strong and varied par-3s

But what drove me absolutely nuts about the place (a decade ago) is that on most of the par-4s and 5s, there's a blind ridge or mound across the front of the entrance about 50-75 yards out from the green that cuts off the flow and contour, leaving the greens isolated from the approaches.

I'm not saying that every hole has to be perfectly visisble, but it seemed that most of the green locations fell away and left you wondering what was going on over there. I think I would have reversed the routing ofthe entire first nine.

[Ran Morrissett]

Brad,

What are some examples of what you are referring?

For instance, do you mind the location of the 18th green behind the ridge with bunkers cut into its face? I guess the 7th hole also has a ridge 300 yards or so from the  tee but I think that adds to the hole, especially since the 8th fairway is essentially flat.

Those are the only two holes that come to mind though I haven't played the course in 5 years so details are fuzzy. Perhaps the 10th and 12th holes are also candidates?

Surely, you wouldn't rather play the 6th and 5th holes uphill?!

Cheers,

[Jeff_Mingay]

Highlands Links has benefited from very ambitious PR work in recent years, since the 1996 "restoration" by Graham Cooke/Steve Miller. That's at least partially why Highlands Links receives more press than Capilano these days.  

Capilano's 6th and 14th greens (as well as, I think, the 11th) are Les Furber's work, Ran. And they're not very good. So the course might not be as close to original-Thompson as you think. Plus, the green surfaces there have shrunken significantly, and more than a few trees should be felled.

The front nine at Capilano is nowhere near as strong as the incoming holes, beginning with the par 3 ninth. Thirteen, and #14 thru #18 are also some of the best holes I know of. Still, Highlands Links is the better golf course; at least according to the "Morrissett Match-Play System":  

#1: (Highlands Links) HL 1up
#2: (Highlands Links) HL 2up
#3: (Highlands Links) HL 3up
#4: (Highlands Links) HL 4up
#5: (Highlands Links) HL 5up
#6: (Highlands Links) HL 6up
#7: (Highlands Links) HL 7up
#8: (Highlands Links) HL 8up
#9: (Highlands Links) HL 7up

#10: (Capilano) HL 6up
#11: (Capilano) HL 5up
#12: (Capilano) HL 4up
#13: (Capilano) HL 3up
#14: (Capilano) HL 2up  
#15: (Halved) HL 2up
#16: (Halved) HL 2up
#17: (Halved) HL 2up
#18: (Capilano) HL 1up

As you can see, Capilano gets much better as the round progresses. But still, I can't agree with Brad's opinion. Reversing the routing of the first nine holes doesn't make sense. First of all, the 9th doesn't return to the clubhouse. And, as Ran points out, playing the 5th and 6th uphill would be suicidal!

[Ran Morrissett]

Jeff,

Not having seen CBH, I am at somewhat of a disadvantage   but based on your international recognized format for comparing two courses    , I must say that:

1. 12 at CBH must be a dog as Capilano's is nothing special

2. Capilano's 17th would win against almost any 17th hole; are you sure you didn't home cook the match at the end?  

3. 1-3 are hardly bad holes at Capilano - they are basically 1/2 par holes to my way of thinking, and none the worse for it. Is CBH really that strong out of the gate?

Cheers,

[Jeff_Mingay]

I wouldn't say CBH's 12th is a dog. But it's not the best hole out there. It's a long, 240 yard par 3 on flattest section of the course. And the green's nothing to write home about.

I kinda like Capilano's 12th. There's a well placed fairway bunker on the inside of the dogleg right that needs to be carry to shorten the length of the approach. And the green is well-situated.

Perhaps you're right about Capilano's 17th. I agree that it's a fantastic hole. But CBH's par 3 17th is pretty good too. They're different types of holes, equally well-designed.

I didn't say the first few holes at Capilano were "bad", just that CBH is indeed that much better out of the gate. Although, Capilno picks up the pace heading in... alright, I'll give the 17th to Capilano and we'll call the match SQUARE