Richard,
When we talk about courses, I think we should get their names right--people can't expect to speak of Marion or Royal Dornock, for example, without being corrected. So . . . you're welcome.
To your point, here's the Doak Scale 5-7:
5. Well above the average golf course, but the middle of my scale. A good course to choose if you’re in the vicinity and looking for a game, but don’t spend another day away from home to see it, unless your home is in Alaska.
6. A very good course, definitely worth a game if you’re in town, but not necessarily worth a special trip to see. It shouldn’t disappoint you.
7. An excellent course, worth checking out if you get anywhere within 100 miles. You can expect to find soundly designed, interesting holes, good course conditioning and a pretty setting, if not necessarily anything unique to the world of golf.
As I read the scale, a "7" doesn't say anything about driving 3 hours or even whether people are actually traveling from 100 miles to see the course. It says that a course is worth checking out if you get within 100 miles. To me, CG fits that bill and generally exceeds the descriptions of a "5" and "6."
The fact that certain golfers are only playing CommonGround as a tie-in with Ballyneal doesn't affect CG's place on the scale or my thinking of the course.
Actually, with respect, the argument that CG can't be a 7 because you and your mates have not deemed it worthy of play, except in conjunction with a trip to Ballyneal, is one of the dumber arguments I've heard.
CG is a course that doesn't try to do too much and succeeds wildly. And it's great fun to play. I don't know which courses Doak rated as 7s and Mr. Doak is probably a tougher grader than me (I believe Doak himself suggested that CG was about a 5, but I think he undervalued it, perhaps deliberately). But, when I apply the scale, CG gets a 7.