[Scott Szabo]

Tim Pitner,

I finally made it out to play Buffalo Run a few weeks ago.  I know you've played quite a few of the Denver area courses - how would you rate CG in regards to Buffalo Run and, say, Riverdale Dunes? 

I came away less than impressed with Buffalo Run.  There were a few good holes but as a whole, it wasn't quite what I had hoped for. 

Riverdale Dunes has always been a favorite of mine.

[Tim Pitner]

Scott,

I rate CG ahead of Riverdale Dunes (before CG, my favorite Denver-area public course) and quite a bit ahead of Buffalo Run.  

Among other reasons, overall, the greens at CG are more interesting than Riverdale's, CG doesn't have any holes as weak as RD #18 and Riverdale's overwatering of the bent grass fairways during the summer has become a turnoff.  

My opinion of Buffalo Run has diminished over the years as the houses have filled in and as conditioning has really fallen off (I admit I haven't been out there in over a year).  The layout is pretty solid, with a few exceptions (e.g., #2)--it's really not different in kind from Foster's course at Haymaker (although Haymaker enjoys a setting advantage), that often gets rated quite highly.  The past few times I've been out there though, there have been real conditioning issues on the greens and in the fairways (GUR in the middle of multiple fairways)--not sure what happened.  

Conditioning aside, I'd put BR in a similiar category as a Murphy Creek or Green Valley Ranch.  

[Tom_Doak]

Matt,

My skin is fine.  I just think you missed seeing a couple of the key fairway bunkers in your one visit, for whatever reason.  The 13th hole has a great bunker 300 yards out on the left which caused havoc at the Renaissance Cup, for example.  The bunker short of the green on #4 is right in your wheelhouse, too, unless you laid up there.  Or maybe you just had a lucky day off the tee and failed to notice these.  I am not saying the tee shots are uber demanding ... that was never part of our goal ... but I know that Eric Iverson put in several bunkers just to screw with players like you, and for you to dismiss them when you probably just didn't notice them is not right.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom D:

Be curious to know if you ever agree when someone sees things differently with one of your courses ?

Those with thick skins can admit as much and not see it as a bailout.

I saw the course fairly well -- yes, the 13th is a fine addition but overall -- the course accentuates the playability element with the main focus towards the putting greens. I saluted CG for what it provides and I think it bodes well for golf if more of such courses came into existence.

All I suggested was a tweaking in certain spots -- my God folks, let's understand that such tweaks are primarily my opinion. Simple as that. I am fully aware of what the goals were going in.

[Tim Pitner]

Matt,

Who's thin-skinned?  Tim W and I asked you for specific suggestions regarding the "tweaks" you had in mind--you didn't mention any.  Frankly, more fairway bunkers doesn't impress me very much as a suggestion. 

[Matt_Ward]

Tim:

CG has plenty of straight fairway cuts -- weaving a few in and out would make for an interesting situation. No doubt there are few there already but it would help matters. I like what Team Doak has done previously in having center-placed fairway bunkers -- think of the 3rd at Pac Dunes as a specific example.

Would have liked to see a large bunker in the drive zone right on the 4th -- keep players from totally bailing out to that side. Having something on the right or even dead center on the 5th would have been a nice touch too. I would also increase the size of the bunker at #10 on the right and even have positioned it further down the fairway -- possibly two bunkers on that side.

Tim one doesn't need sand bunkers but grass depressions mixed with alternating fairways cuts would help make the drive game a bit more compelling. I didn't say the course is woeful but just a few tweaks of the type I mentiond would add something.

Just realize I like the course but you guys seem to believe the place is untouchable.

[David Camponi]

Tim, do you think CG is the perfect golf course?

Tom where would you rank CG compared to Diamond Creek, Atlanta Country Club, and Grandfather? I am unfamiliar with Riverdale Dunes so can't evaluate the comparison

[Tim Pitner]

Matt,

Thanks for being more specific.  Re: 5, there are some mounds with longer grass in the middle of the fairway that serve a similar purpose.  I love the bunkering at Pacific Dunes #3, but I'm not sure it'd be appropriate at CG.  There is a design philosophy at work at CG--I question whether it would be advanced by sprinkling in a bunker or long grass here or there. 

David,

C'mon--just because I didn't like Matt's suggestions doesn't mean I think CG is the perfect golf course.  I rated it a 7, after all, not a 9-10.  I recognize the site has inherent limitations. 

[Adrian_Stiff]

I'd rate this a Doak 4 comparing it to other stuff. TD was very restricted as he says its a $40 course, with respect it shows, as a compliment most $40 courses are 2's. When you work to a tough budget its gonna show.

[Matt_Ward]

Tim:

"Design philosophy?"

Help me out with that.

I understand that CG was designed for the masses and frankly does well on that front. The issue is how it can still keep the attention of the better player -- without providing pedestrian alleyways (for the most part) to the greens which is where much of the attention was spent.

Tim -- I am not suggesting a penal approach -- that's your interpretation -- not mine. A bit more interest in the drive areas -- either adding or expanding along with varying fairway cuts would do a bit more than what is there now.

The budget realities clearly are at work here and I recognize this. My comments were more of a "wish" list.

[Tim Pitner]

Matt,

I have to run but, in brief, I was referring to the course being generous off the tee, but rewarding well-placed drives with good angles into the green, reduced distance, etc., and then being more challenging around the greens. 

[Matt_Ward]

Tim:

I don't see the "well-placed" drive element you refer to. Get a guy who can move the ball off the tee and in only certain specific and limited situations - a few Doak mentioned -- does that remotely happen. Otherwise -- it's just bombs away and with that the short iron doesn't matter if you're on the right or left side of the fairway.

With a tight budget something had to give.

[Peter Pallotta]

A very interesting discussion.

I'm struck how a concept like 'limitation' shapes not so much the reality but the perception.

I also, for some strange reason, feel compelled to write: Many that are first shall be last, and the last shall be first.

Peter  

[Tom_Doak]

Tom D:

Be curious to know if you ever agree when someone sees things differently with one of your courses ?

Matt,

The main purpose of the recently-held Renaissance Cup is to get people to play our courses twice and give us good feedback.

Most of the comments were very positive, and I did go out and watch the semifinal and final matches closely, to see how the course held up against the best players in the field.  Incidentally, in those three matches I saw drives bunkered at the first, third, eighth, and thirteenth.

The two comments I got back from multiple players were about the bunker 100 yards out on #11 ... Many people thought it discouraged them from trying to get close in two and potentially finding trouble ... and about having three pretty long par 3 holes on the back nine.  (The idea of that was to require more long approach shots from the low handicappers, but a good friend of mine who is a reasonable player had to hit driver on all three when the wind came up Saturday.)

I always listen to criticism but that doesn't mean I always agree with it.  I get the best feedback at private clubs because the members play them enough to start noticing nuances that I had not.  On the other hand, I generally know what's out there a lot better than anyone who has only played the course one time.

Do you remember what you shot in your one trip around?  Did you really just bomb away on holes like 3 and 4 and 7 and 8 and 10 and 13 and 16 and find that the angle of approach made no difference to you and that they were all easy birdies?

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt,

Honestly, I had the same impression that Tim Pitner had that what you really wanted to see was Common Ground more penal off the tee and you believed that was necessary to make the course good for the “better” player.

For discussion’s sake, why not just come right out and say that?

I don’t know what “width for width’s sake” really means. Didn’t Tim sum up the architectural virtues of Common Ground pretty well……a course where you shouldn’t make double bogeys but where you will have fun trying to make pars or birdies?

All else being equal, isn’t that a much better design concept than a course where one has to hit long and straight tee shots?

[Matt_Ward]

Tom D:

One of the real strengths of CG for me is the insertion of the long par-3 holes. They force players to hit something beyon a mid or short iron into such holes. I've already said the final four holes at CG are well done and the long par-3 17th is quite challenging and entertaining.

Tom, I never expected you or anyone else to accept criticism - constructive I might add -- 100%. But, frankly I think many archies have a super ego and when challenged the defensive mode often comes out in full force. Maybe you are far different than that -- only you can say for sure.

My power of observation is not gleaned from just simply walking around a place without being aware of things. I take copious notes of all my visits and when time allows I try even to make return visits to many of them to see if my initial feelings were accurate. I've been to numerous courses in my lifetime and my travel itinerary is more than most here on this site.

All I suggested were a few minor tweaks -- my God, you and a few others think I am suggesting the course is a failure and that the place needs to be turned on its head for massive changes. That is far from the case. Sometimes agreement with others can be a learning process too.

Tim W:

Say what? With all due respect Tim you are spinning the discussion away from what I advocated.

You lost me -- how does tweaking a few holes in the drive zone automatically then become a desire on my part to see a totally penal course philosophy in that regard ?

I never said that. What I said was that the drive zones could be more challenging so that the desire to rear back and fire away from the back tee is not so forgiving and in certain instances rather predictable. That preceding statment doesn't then mean I want to see Oakmont become the norm for CG.

I have said several times I am aware of what the course was meant to be AND what budget limitations were going in for such a development.

CG is Doak-lite. Nothing wrong with that. I salute CG for what it is and I have simpyl added some thoughts on how it could be even better. Tim -- I never suggested that only long and straight tee shots be the norm or requirement.

[Tim Pitner]

Matt,

Can you answer Tom's question regarding what you shot and whether you bombed away on all holes and found the angle into the green made no difference?  I'm curious as well. 

Your comment about CG being Doak-lite is puzzling to me.  Even with an unlimited budget, CG was never going to be Pacific Dunes, Ballyneal or Rock Creek.  I haven't seen the Rawls course so I don't know what a Renaissance manufactured course is like, but I for one am glad that was not the approach taken at CG (I realize that was not under consideration).  CG shows that minimalism works on less than perfect land. 

I've never suggested you think CG is crap, but it does seem to me that you'd prefer CG to be something that it just isn't. 

[Matt_Ward]

Tim:

I played alone at CG and hit numerous shots from different positions on the course. When I rate courses the score element is not the main priority -- I want to review all the design elements. No one was in front or behind me so I could take the time to play various positions -- especially around the greensites. If one hits the ball a long way -- the angles don't really mean much when you have a short iron in your hand. That's not unique to CG but often to other courses as well. I think a few of the options I mentioned would give more pause.

Tim -- CG is Doak-lite in my mind. That's not meant to be an insult just reality. In those other courses the owner had deeper pockets and a certain audience that meant designs could be that much more involved.

Tim -- help me understand something -- I have outlined a few things that could be tweaked -- so what's the problem. I get accused from Tim W and even you that I want CG to be penal. That's rubbish. I simply said adding a few items would make the course even more interesting. You raise a good point -- I've played Rawls and it's a good bit better than CG. No doubt -- different budgets and different needs. The Lubbock-based course provides what I mentioned is lacking in CG but I still like what CG does.

[Tim Pitner]

Matt,

With respect, it's pretty easy to bomb away when you're not playing one ball. 

After reading your comments, my conclusion is that CG, with its "generous off the tee, more difficult around the greens" approach isn't your type of course.  I understand you've said favorable things about it, but I'll stand by the preceding statement, whether you acknowledge it or not. 

It's funny because one of the shorter hitters I play with has made similar statements about CG--he thinks the fairways are too wide and his driving isn't challenged enough (although he doesn't score any better at CG than elsewhere). 

Which makes me think it's not a big hitter vs short hitter issue at all.  Instead, some golfers just want to get beat up.  CG isn't that type of course. 

[Matt_Ward]

Tim:

With respect -- if I don't play from various areas then I get accused of seeing the course in only one dimension.

I took considerable time to see various places on the course and to see what difference, if any, could be made that woud bolster (not a penal dimension as you erroneously conclude) the course.

Tim -- you need to open your mind more than you have on this topic. You love CG and feel any critcism is beyond the pale.

So be it -- for you.

I enjoyed Rawls much more so and if you ever play it you'll hopefully lift the blinders off your eyes and admit as much.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

I guess the bottom line for me is that for every guy like yourself who would want to see more bunkering at Common Ground, there are ten players who would not be affected and who don't want to pay for your bunkers.  You are right that some clients ask me to build those same bunkers and some don't, but I don't think that preference makes Common Ground "Doak-lite".

[Matt_Ward]

Tom:

Try to realize I do like CG. The elements I mentioned were more of a "wish" list.

I would hope people who see things differently -- don't label such differences of opinion as a desire to twist the course into some penal exercise. That's not the case and I've said so numerous times.

You have outlined the mission at CG and what the budget would allow. I understand that perfectly -- I just see CG as being Doak-lite because it gives as much as what could be supported at the level that could be sustained.

For what it's worth -- if you can share - what were the costs for CG and for Rawls ?

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt,
If at the end of the day your criticism of Common Ground is that it needs a few more fairway bunkers, then I would say that our assessment of the course is fairly close.

But, it feels the criticism of some here, including perhaps you, is that Common Ground is “good for what it is” meaning not really that good.

That’s the point really worth focusing on.

I noticed the suggestion that praise for Common Ground was just part of being in the Tom Doak fan club, a suggestion I found nothing but silly. I AM part of the Tom Doak fan club but have far more praise for Common Ground than a Rock Creek or say Cape Kidnappers.

One can’t really argue these courses are what golf architecture in America should be. Beautiful settings, of course, and some fine golf holes, but I’d sure rather see the golf architecture profession create more Common Grounds than more RC or CKs.

[Tim Pitner]

Tim -- you need to open your mind more than you have on this topic. You love CG and feel any critcism is beyond the pale.

Matt,

I do like CG a lot--I don't think it can't be criticized and for you to suggest that just because I didn't like your idea, for example, of a bunker on the right side of the fairway on #4, is ludicrous (I think).

You say you'd like CG to be more challenging off the tee--my reading of that is, essentially, you'd like it to be more penal.  I think that's a reasonable conclusion based on your comments.  You disagree--so be it.  Thanks for the good discussion. 

[Matt_Ward]

Tim:

Wrongo -- again !

You keep adding a spin that says penal from my mouth.

That's not the case and it would be a bit easier to swallow if you would really understand what I wrote.

Adding or increasing a bunker(s) here and there and possibly alternating the fairway cuts, as I have suggested, doesn't by any way mean I want CG to be a public course version of Oakmont.

Tim -- you see the course as perfect as is. You have blown off any suggestions made. Fair enough -- but when you ask about the minds of people try to realize how closed yours is.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()