Canada's Great Golf Holes: Capilano's Par 5, 18th

[drewharvie]

https://blog.torontogolfnuts.com/canadas-great-golf-holes-the-18th-at-capilano/

Starting a new series on the site identifying some of Canada's best golf holes and what makes them special/a walkthrough.

Decided to start with Capilano's 18th, a par 5 of 574 yards from the back marker climbing uphill and slightly past the clubhouse.

Drop your thoughts below and leave suggestions on holes you want to see written about!

[bcampb00]

Good thread, I like your concept. I don't have any specific hole requests right now but would generally be interested in different "types" of great holes - i.e. a reachable par 4, mid-length 4, long 4; long par 3, short par 3; reachable par5, etc.

I will try to think of some good examples but variety in your reviews might be cool.

[drewharvie]

Good thread, I like your concept. I don't have any specific hole requests right now but would generally be interested in different "types" of great holes - i.e. a reachable par 4, mid-length 4, long 4; long par 3, short par 3; reachable par5, etc.

I will try to think of some good examples but variety in your reviews might be cool.

Definitely. I think this series opens up a ton of examples. I'm going to try and have a ton of variety in the hole styles. I'll be interested in your suggestions--you know your golf!

[bcampb00]

Definitely. I think this series opens up a ton of examples. I'm going to try and have a ton of variety in the hole styles. I'll be interested in your suggestions--you know your golf!

OK, since you asked .... I am a big fan of the short (driveable) par 4's. 10 at Riviera and 17 at Oakmont are both excellent as examples. Where are the great driveable par 4's in Canada? Scarboro has a couple - I like 16 as an example and there is one other. I like 6 at Beacon Hall as well (now that it has been redone). Where are all of the others? My recollection of Ancaster is a bit vague but there is one really good one there. National? (no). Toronto (one doesnt come to mind)?

Dare I say it - is that a weakness of Stanley Thompson, that he didn't seem to love short par 4's? He seemed to really like long par 3's and short par 5's (i.e. par 3 1/2's or par 4 1/2's). ls there a good driveable 4 at St. Georges? Does the absence of one diminish it? Highland links? Banff? Capilano?

Excuse my directness - I am trying to be provocative to generate discussion - I don't believe half of the stuff I write....

p.s. one more came to mind - 17 at Toronto Ladies - pretty fun.

[drewharvie]

OK, since you asked .... I am a big fan of the short (driveable) par 4's. 10 at Riviera - 17 at Oakmont are both excellent as examples. Where are the great driveable pa

Perfect. I'll think about a few drivable par 4's in Canada. Hamilton's 5th is the best I can think of off the top of my head, but I'll wait to use Hamilton until it re-opens to see if they butchered it or just sort of touched it.

[Carsy1995]

OK, since you asked .... I am a big fan of the short (driveable) par 4's. 10 at Riviera and 17 at Oakmont are both excellent as examples. Where are the great driveable par 4's in Canada? Scarboro has a couple - I like 16 as an example and there is one other. I like 6 at Beacon Hall as well (now that it has been redone). Where are all of the others? My recollection of Ancaster is a bit vague but there is one really good one there. National? (no). Toronto (one doesnt come to mind)?

Dare I say it - is that a weakness of Stanley Thompson, that he didn't seem to love short par 4's? He seemed to really like long par 3's and short par 5's (i.e. par 3 1/2's or par 4 1/2's). ls there a good driveable 4 at St. Georges? Does the absence of one diminish it? Highland links? Banff? Capilano?

Excuse my directness - I am trying to be provocative to generate discussion - I don't believe half of the stuff I write....

p.s. one more came to mind - 17 at Toronto Ladies - pretty fun.

Off the top of my head the 12th at Montebello, a once fantastic Thompson, could, under the right circumstances and for a long hitter, be driveable. The hole features one of the most interesting fairways in Canada.

In terms of driveable 4s, the 17th at Cabot Cliffs gets much praise; however, i'm not sure it functions that well as a golf hole.

7 at The Marshes, by RTJ in Ottawa, is a pretty decent split fairway 4, but the green might be a little too tightly guarded for only but the brave or extremely confident to give it a whirl.

[drewharvie]

OK, since you asked .... I am a big fan of the short (driveable) par 4's. 10 at Riviera and 17 at Oakmont are both excellent as examples. Where are the great driveable par 4's in Canada? Scarboro has a couple - I like 16 as an example and there is one other. I like 6 at Beacon Hall as well (now that it has been redone). Where are all of the others? My recollection of Ancaster is a bit vague but there is one really good one there. National? (no). Toronto (one doesnt come to mind)?

Dare I say it - is that a weakness of Stanley Thompson, that he didn't seem to love short par 4's? He seemed to really like long par 3's and short par 5's (i.e. par 3 1/2's or par 4 1/2's). ls there a good driveable 4 at St. Georges? Does the absence of one diminish it? Highland links? Banff? Capilano?

Excuse my directness - I am trying to be provocative to generate discussion - I don't believe half of the stuff I write....

p.s. one more came to mind - 17 at Toronto Ladies - pretty fun.

Thompson, like Mackenzie, Flynn, etc, wasn't really a fan of the idea of a drivable par 4. Likely because they were building driver par 3's! Thompson's 4th at Jasper Park Lodge in 1924 was 255 as a par 3. Roughly, the ball flies 25% further now than 1924, which means it's a 310 yard par 3 now. They were blurring the lines between par.

Instead, they liked the "drive-pitch" hole. Thompson typically built at least one of these into each of his courses. Examples such as the 1st and 10th at St. George's, Jasper has 14 and 16, Banff has 6, although that's a Ross hole, but Thompson still made the choice to keep it when he ripped up the rest of Ross stuff. Cap's driver pitch hole is the 6th barrelling down the mountainside. Like the reply above, the 12th at Montebello is a driver pitch hole.

Thompson spoke about his "ideal course" at a presentation for the Greenskeeping Superintendant's Association in 1949 as follows:

1 -- 340 yards, par 4
2 -- 400 yards, par 4
3 -- 460 yards, par 5
4 -- 385 yards, par 4
5 -- 145 yards, par 3
6 -- 530 yards, par 5
7 -- 415 yards, par 4
8 -- 220 yards, par 3
9 -- 430 yards, par 4
10 -- 355 yards, par 4
11 -- 490 yards, par 5
12 -- 170 yards, par 3
13 -- 445 yards, par 4
14 -- 195 yards, par 4
15 -- 370 yards, par 4
16 -- 370 yards, par 4
17 -- 245 yards, par 3
18 -- 475 yards, par 5

The 10th at 355 would be the driver pitch hole.

The drivable par 4 is a modern interest with the ball going too far. Aside from Rivieras 10th, I'd have to think about a hole designed purposely in the Golden Age to be drivable as a 4. Scarboro's numerous short par 4's are to get around a difficult property, I would suspect Tillinghast would've liked to avoid them if he could've or he was given a flat site, but I don't think it's a bad thing.

My two cents anyway, the idea of the drivable par 4 never really took off until TPC Scottsdale when Wieskopf decided to build one for the tournament

[Carsy1995]

Thompson, like Mackenzie, Flynn, etc, wasn't really a fan of the idea of a drivable par 4. Likely because they were building driver par 3's! Thompson's 4th at Jasper Park Lodge in 1924 was 255 as a par 3. Roughly, the ball flies 25% further now than 1924, which means it's a 310 yard par 3 now. They were blurring the lines between par.

Instead, they liked the "drive-pitch" hole. Thompson typically built at least one of these into each of his courses. Examples such as the 1st and 10th at St. George's, Jasper has 14 and 16, Banff has 6, although that's a Ross hole, but Thompson still made the choice to keep it when he ripped up the rest of Ross stuff. Cap's driver pitch hole is the 6th barrelling down the mountainside. Like the reply above, the 12th at Montebello is a driver pitch hole.

Thompson spoke about his "ideal course" at a presentation for the Greenskeeping Superintendant's Association in 1949 as follows:

1 -- 340 yards, par 4
2 -- 400 yards, par 4
3 -- 460 yards, par 5
4 -- 385 yards, par 4
5 -- 145 yards, par 3
6 -- 530 yards, par 5
7 -- 415 yards, par 4
8 -- 220 yards, par 3
9 -- 430 yards, par 4
10 -- 355 yards, par 4
11 -- 490 yards, par 5
12 -- 170 yards, par 3
13 -- 445 yards, par 4
14 -- 195 yards, par 4
15 -- 370 yards, par 4
16 -- 370 yards, par 4
17 -- 245 yards, par 3
18 -- 475 yards, par 5

The 10th at 355 would be the driver pitch hole.

The drivable par 4 is a modern interest with the ball going too far. Aside from Rivieras 10th, I'd have to think about a hole designed purposely in the Golden Age to be drivable as a 4. Scarboro's numerous short par 4's are to get around a difficult property, I would suspect Tillinghast would've liked to avoid them if he could've or he was given a flat site, but I don't think it's a bad thing.

My two cents anyway, the idea of the drivable par 4 never really took off until TPC Scottsdale when Wieskopf decided to build one for the tournament

A good short 4 should force the player to make a decision off the tee; if there isn't one to be made, then it's just a hole on which three is a good score and four is okay. Is there really another option except to rip driver right at 17 at TPC?

The best short 4s i've played either require a heroic drive or leave the less-brave golfer with a knee jittering pitch: for example, 14 at Dormie, 6 at Pac Dunes, and even 15 at World Woods PB

[drewharvie]

A good short 4 should force the player to make a decision off the tee; if there isn't one to be made, then it's just a hole on which three is a good score and four is okay. Is there really another option except to rip driver right at 17 at TPC?

The best short 4s i've played either require a heroic drive or leave the less-brave golfer with a knee jittering pitch: for example, 14 at Dormie, 6 at Pac Dunes, and even 15 at World Woods PB

I'm not sure if TPC Scottsdale's 17th is a "great" hole or not but it's certainly where I can trace the curiosity with the drivable par 4 to. The first three stadium courses were Abbey, Sawgrass and Scottsdale, and neither of the first two have a drivable 4 I think.

There was examples before, but like Desert Highlands (to stay in the region), it was the one that popularized the trend (with Desert Highlands, the televised skins game in '83 put Phoenix on the map)

[bcampb00]

Thompson, like Mackenzie, Flynn, etc, wasn't really a fan of the idea of a drivable par 4. Likely because they were building driver par 3's! Thompson's 4th at Jasper Park Lodge in 1924 was 255 as a par 3. Roughly, the ball flies 25% further now than 1924, which means it's a 310 yard par 3 now. They were blurring the lines between par.

Instead, they liked the "drive-pitch" hole. Thompson typically built at least one of these into each of his courses. Examples such as the 1st and 10th at St. George's, Jasper has 14 and 16, Banff has 6, although that's a Ross hole, but Thompson still made the choice to keep it when he ripped up the rest of Ross stuff. Cap's driver pitch hole is the 6th barrelling down the mountainside. Like the reply above, the 12th at Montebello is a driver pitch hole.

Thompson spoke about his "ideal course" at a presentation for the Greenskeeping Superintendant's Association in 1949 as follows:

1 -- 340 yards, par 4
2 -- 400 yards, par 4
3 -- 460 yards, par 5
4 -- 385 yards, par 4
5 -- 145 yards, par 3
6 -- 530 yards, par 5
7 -- 415 yards, par 4
8 -- 220 yards, par 3
9 -- 430 yards, par 4
10 -- 355 yards, par 4
11 -- 490 yards, par 5
12 -- 170 yards, par 3
13 -- 445 yards, par 4
14 -- 195 yards, par 4
15 -- 370 yards, par 4
16 -- 370 yards, par 4
17 -- 245 yards, par 3
18 -- 475 yards, par 5

The 10th at 355 would be the driver pitch hole.

The drivable par 4 is a modern interest with the ball going too far. Aside from Rivieras 10th, I'd have to think about a hole designed purposely in the Golden Age to be drivable as a 4. Scarboro's numerous short par 4's are to get around a difficult property, I would suspect Tillinghast would've liked to avoid them if he could've or he was given a flat site, but I don't think it's a bad thing.

My two cents anyway, the idea of the drivable par 4 never really took off until TPC Scottsdale when Wieskopf decided to build one for the tournament

Interesting- lots to think about here. Do you have any ideas about why these older architects liked the reachable par 5 but not the driveable par 4? Seems like a similar concept?

When you mentioned Weiskopf, I remembered another fun drivable par 4 at Loch Lomond in Scotland - I think it is 14 or 15. Have a look.

[bcampb00]

Off the top of my head the 12th at Montebello, a once fantastic Thompson, could, under the right circumstances and for a long hitter, be driveable. The hole features one of the most interesting fairways in Canada.

In terms of driveable 4s, the 17th at Cabot Cliffs gets much praise; however, i'm not sure it functions that well as a golf hole.

7 at The Marshes, by RTJ in Ottawa, is a pretty decent split fairway 4, but the green might be a little too tightly guarded for only but the brave or extremely confident to give it a whirl.

Interesting, thanks. I played Montebello as a teen (years ago) but have mostly forgotten it. Now on my list to try out again - hopefully next year.

[drewharvie]

Interesting- lots to think about here. Do you have any ideas about why these older architects liked the reachable par 5 but not the driveable par 4? Seems like a similar concept?

When you mentioned Weiskopf, I remembered another fun drivable par 4 at Loch Lomond in Scotland - I think it is 14 or 15. Have a look.

Honestly, I suspect the holes we think about as a "reachable par 5" weren't actually reachable, but more of a "two big hits and a pitch" type of hole. When Hamilton opened up in 1914, 2, 11 and 18 were all par 5's at 450, 430 and 425. Granted, the ball flew further in the 20's than the 10's, which is part of why the Golden Age happened to "modernize" golf courses (Bendelow, for example, had majority of his work built over by Ross, Park and Thompson in Canada).

For modern comparisons, the ball from the 1915's now flies about 32% further in 2020, so the 425 yard par 5, 18th would be the equivalent to 561 yards, so more of a middle length par 5 I'd think, which is what I'd consider two big hits to get to, or two big hits and a pitch--roughly the same.

Same with Thompson. In 1949, the ball flew roughly 20% shorter, so Thompson speaking about a 460 yard par 5, so a 550 par 5 with the current conversion.

The golf ball has really messed with the expectations. There was no real "reachable" par 5's unless you were Nicklaus (there's an article in Sports Illustrated about the 11th at Scioto in the 60s that was 430 as a par 4, and only Nicklaus could get there!). They liked the idea to tempt golfers into getting just to the front edge potentially if it was firm for a drive/pitch or a drive-wood-pitch.

[drewharvie]

For example, Hamilton's 9th was 425 yards as a par 4 in 1915, which is equivalent to a 561 yard par 4 now if you wanted to keep the same "integrity" of the hole.

Likewise with Hamilton's par 3's. Back when they had much more variety in length, the holes were 200, 135, 205, 165, which is now a ridiculous 264, 179, 271, 217.

6300 at Hamilton in 1915 is now 8,316 yards if you wanted to keep the same clubs Colt had in mind. It's become absurd, really