Common Ground Golf Course

[Will Smith]

Common Ground is a very good course that like other top layouts gets better the more times that you play it. My first time around I was impressed and thought that it was a great value. Now having played it five times in different seasons, different conditions, and a variety of hole locations, I am confident that it should be placed in very rare company. It is flat out a blast to play and has many nuances that are only revealed with repeat play. The place leaves me with a smile and should be studied by those that care about the game and want to see it grow and thrive.

My hats off to Tom, Don, Eric, Brian, Brian, Mike, Jonathan, Kye, Bruce, Jim, and the rest of the crew. Thanks for putting as much thought, effort, and care into this course as you do with your more high profile projects.

[Doug Wright]

But, the reason I would recommend a visit...is to see what can be done on a piece of property that is hardly blessed in terms of topography or interesting features.

Tim, I think your comment above gets to the essence of CommonGround (and why the name has many useful connotations...)

[Richard Choi]

I agree COMPLETELY that Common Ground is a great model for creating interesting golf courses where terrain or budget constraints exist.

But just because it is noteworthy in that area, does it make it a great course? When you are talking about Doak 7's, you are talking about some great courses, some that have hosted majors like Medinah #3, Cherry Hills, Troon, Pasatiempo, Spyglass, Machrihanish, Saucon Valley, Plainfield (wow, Tom needs to revisit that...), etc.

To argue that Common Ground, for all its worth, belongs in that category of courses seems like hype to me having played the course.

Doak scale is unique in that it is a bell curve. There are very few 10's, few more 9's, and keeps increasing logarithmically until 1 or 2 then drops off steeply for 0. Just because the course B is better than A which is a 6, but worse than C which is 8, does not mean automatically that the course B is 7. There are a lot courses in 5's and 6's and even if course B is better than A, that still probably means it belongs in 6 more than 7.

Also, Doak 5 is a very, very good rating. I would be happy to play any Doak 5 course on any given weekend. There is no shame in saying a course in a Doak 5 or 6. That is a pretty good endorsement in my book.

[Thomas Patterson]

I moved to SC from Denver last November and only had the chance to play CommonGround from May/June - October, and probably played around 8-10 rounds there.  I would give ANYTHING to have this course within 100 miles of me now, and would definitely travel frequently to play it if it was....so I guess I would classify it as a 7 as well

[Tim Pitner]

I agree COMPLETELY that Common Ground is a great model for creating interesting golf courses where terrain or budget constraints exist.

Richard,

I agree with the above, but I think it's more than that.  Mind you, I like understated golf courses--perhaps you prefer more bells and whistles and consider factors such as whether the course has hosted major championships (I don't care about that).  

From what I've seen and heard (I haven't played them), it doesn't strike me as crazy to rank CG in the company of Cherry Hills, Medinah and Royal Troon.  Very different courses, to be sure, but perhaps that just underscores the folly of trying to rate golf courses.  

I understand the Doak scale and whether CG is a high 6 or a low 7 isn't really the point (it's better than a 5).  As Tim W, Will and Greg (and now Thomas) have indicated, CG is more than just a good value course.  

[Richard Choi]

If you believe that Common Ground is in the same class as Plainfield, that is your prerogative. However, I think Tom would be the first one to disagree.

[Thomas Patterson]

Richard - how many rounds have you played at CG?  Just curious

In my honest opinion, CG beats almost every course in Charleston, SC hands down.  I say almost b/c it rivals, yes, rivals Yeamans Hall Club.  I have NOT played The Ocean Course, Bulls Bay or Charleston Country Club....but have played every other public in the area and they don't even come close. 

[Tim Pitner]

Didn't you say above you thought Plainfield was underrated as a 7?  

It's getting hard to pin you down, Richard.  If we're not going to apply any independent thought and just follow Mr. Doak like sheep, then why don't we all just shut up and turn the website into Tom Doak's blog?

[Richard Choi]

Plainfield is underrated, especially after the Hanse restoration. However, I can still see how all of the other courses with Doak 7 are arguably in the same class. The same does not apply to CG. I mean, we are talking about courses like Bethpage Black at 7. Pretty much every course at 7 is a top 100 course on all of the magazine rankings. Are you seriously telling me that CG belongs on top 100 lists (it is not even on the Golfweek top 100 modern)? I mean, c'mon..

And follow Doak like sheep??? IT IS HIS SCALE!!! If you want to be independent, then stop using his scale.

Thomas, I have played it only once. I have been to Denver twice since to play Ballyneal and I have had no desire to sacrifice a single round at Ballyneal to play CG again.

[Tim Pitner]

Richard,

It is possible to use Doak's scale (i.e., to consider the descriptions he created) to apply a rating to a course that might not be the same rating that Doak himself would give. 

[Richard Choi]

Tim, if you twist the rating to suit your needs, it would no longer be a DOAK rating.

You have to understand where Tom is coming from. He has played practically every course worth playing around the world. His database of golf courses to compare from are VAST! The courses that you or I are drawing from are tiny compared to his. When Tom says that a course is worth a 100 mile drive, that is in comparison to every other course he has ever played. That is not going to be the same scale from our own experiences.

That means, that you can't really apply the Doak scale literally. You need to see what other courses are on his scale and place courses accordingly. Unless you have played and studied as many courses as Tom has, you should not be using his scale definitions only to rate a course.

[Tim Pitner]

Richard,

I concede that my rating of any course isn't as valuable as Doak's rating.

But, I maintain there is a distinction between a Doak scale rating (which anyone can give, no twisting necessary) and a Doak rating (which only Tom Doak can give).  

We're probably talking past each other on this, Richard, because you're citing magazine rankings and stuff about which I really don't care.  I perused Golfweek's Top 100 Modern list after reading your post and I have to say there are plenty of courses on that list that I just have no interest in playing (e.g., Whistling Straits, Shadow Creek, etc.).  I'm not a proponent of the Big World theory--there are certain types of golf courses I like and others I don't.  Further, I would say that CommonGround is at least in the same class as Wild Horse and Harvester, for example, although I'm not sure what that means for ranking purposes.  

I apologize, Tim W, for this diversion. 

[Tim_Weiman]

Richard Choi:

More than most people I happen to be a fan of Royal Troon, but I do wonder if there really is a signifcant difference in its quality relative to Common Ground.

For example, would you really argue that Troon has better greens than Common Ground?

Which course has the more interesting shots to play?

Or more strategic bunkering?

Then, too, what about a comparison to Spyglass?

Take away the dramatic opening holes and tell me how the rest of the course is better architecturally than Common Ground?

[Sean_A]

I have never played Common Ground and likely never will.  However, I am a big fan of the compressed rating system.  There are some really top notch courses out there and a bunch of good or very good courses which fill out top 100 lists.  I would suggest that there are literally hundreds of other courses which could fill out these lists and among those hundreds are some which are genrally never considered for such status.  In other words. the Doak Scale inflates the quality of the well known courses and concurrently deflates the quality of the lesser known courses.  IMO, it is entirely possibe that there are plenty of courses out there that are just as good or near as damn it for the punter as the well known courses, but that they will never be rated merely because they weren't rated highly or at all to begin with.  In other words, in other words, ratings scale to top 100 lists.

Ciao

[David Camponi]

Tim,

I have been looking at this website for 10+ years and that is one of the most outrageous statements i have ever read on this board.

I like Commonground; it is good for what it is; to compare it to Spyglass is an insult to the other members of this board. You are leading people to believe that they will be playing a course the equivalent of Spyglass, when they in fact will be getting something far different then if that is what they expect.

Your opinion is your opinion and there is no right or wrong but I would be willing to bet 99 out of 100 would prefer Spyglass to Common Ground, and I would consider that a safe bet.  If you factor in bang for your buck then the numbers obviiously shift but if you are talking only golf then WOW!!, I honestly can't imagine Doak believing that.

My opinion on Common Ground is that on a basically flat piece of land surrounded by Strip Malls it is pretty darn good; I really liked the greens, there firmness and internal contour.  Some of the flat holes are as good as they can be for dead flat holes without any natural features to enhance them but when a golf course has 10+ holes with little to no elevation change on a piece of land surrounded by strip malls it can only be so good. 

[David Camponi]

I just read the entire first page and am now astounded by what I saw!!!!  If this golf course was not designed by Tom Doak I feel very comfortable in saying it would an afterthought on this board.  The only reason people are enamored and would drive "100 miles" to play it" "wish they had a course like that around them"....is Doak.  If designed by basically anyone other than Doak or Coore and Crenshaw it would be an after thought.

That being said for what the golf course is meant to be it succeeds and is significantly better than average....for a muni.  BTW Wildhorse isn't all that good either and was a extreme disappointment strictly because I was expecting Sand Hills based on all the hype from this board, I don't want the next unsuspecting soul heading out to Denver to think they are playing the equivalent of Castle Pines or Cherry Hills and in truth they are playing something closer to Denver Municiple or ___________ high quality Muni.

[Ian Andrew]

I would be willing to bet 99 out of 100 would prefer Spyglass to Common Ground, and I would consider that a safe bet.

I know you’ll think I’m either trying to be “clever” or being a jerk, but I honestly prefer Common Ground over Spyglass Hill. Spyglass is a course I don’t like. I find it one dimensional in both architecture and play. It’s one of the least interesting courses I have ever played and I found the experience (3 rounds now) drudgery. I would never recommend the course.

Common ground is over average land with descent long views to the West in particular. I liked it a lot because there are a myriad of options and the style of game is completely up to the player. I played with a near scratch and a 22 over the two days and all enjoyed playing there. We all felt that we were having fun solving riddles, trying alternative shots and exploring the different possible ways to the greens. I played two rounds and tried different ideas each day. That is good golf and I would recommend the course.

[David Camponi]

Ian,

Did not say that one could not enjoy playing at Common Ground better than "Fill in the blank golf course" for a wide variety of reasons.  Would you say that Common Ground is a better golf course than Spyglass?

[Tim Pitner]

Ian,

Did not say that one could not enjoy playing at Common Ground better than "Fill in the blank golf course" for a wide variety of reasons.  Would you say that Common Ground is a better golf course than Spyglass?

David,

I'll let Ian answer your specific question, but . . .

If one enjoys playing course X more than course Y (and it's not based on variables like the weather or how one played on any particular day), I don't know why one would hesitate to say that, in their view, course X is better than course Y.  You don't need to look at any other factors--which is the better test, which one is prettier, which one hosted a major in the 1970s, etc.--beyond that. 

[Matt_Ward]

David:

I don't disagree with what you said -- inherent preferences are clearly part and parcel of this site.

I also see Spyglass Hill as the better course but try to keep this in mind -- CG was built on a very small budget and was able to succeed in a considerable way -- while preserving fees that the vast preponderance of people can absorb. From a design standpoint there were built in limitations that CG incorporated that SH likely never had to worry about.

I only wish more CG's were being built to provide the masses with something of quality and at a very affordable rate.

p.s. Your comment on Wild Horse is spot on -- one would think in going there that you are playing Sand Hills "lite" when that's not the case at all. Still a fine course but one that needs to be kept in some sort of context.

[Tim_Weiman]

David,

In my view, Spyglass has such a dramatic opening series of holes that I can understand anyone wanting to play it, but I also believe when you get back inland it really isn't anything special.

Let's agree to agree on the virtue of holes 1-4....or maybe even #5. But, tell me what you find so interesting about the rest of the course.

[Rob Rigg]

The fact that the team took what sounded like a Doak 0 on that property to a 6 or 7 is very admirable.

CG is a testament to the quality of golf that can be laid out over fairly flat ground. The manner in which bunkers, greens and angles are used to provide interest is fantastic and as mentioned many times on the thread it is a great model for other "muni sites."

Overall, the strength of the routing and consistent interest found from hole to hole is something any GCA could learn from - especially when you consider that various members of the team "owned" each hole.

One of my favorite elements of the course is the way a golfer is forced to "focus" on fairway bunkers on many holes, which draw ones attention away from some of the less attractive surrounding features immediately adjacent to the course while encouraging the golfer to take in the "majestic" mountain views from many spots on the site.

[Scott Sander]

The fact that the team took what sounded like a Doak 0 on that property...

Mira Vista wasn't much, but it was no 0.  It was not offensive to sensibility or the senses, nor was it a blight on the landscape.  It neither aspired to greatness nor pretended to approach it.   

It was bland.  It was limp.  It was not especially challenging.  But in both its military and civilian clothes, it was what it aimed to be:  affordable golf in an area that craved it.  There was no reason to be interested in it if you lived outside a 5 mile radius from it, but nor was there any reason to saddle it with the scorn inherent in the definition of a 0.

[Tim Pitner]

Good point, Scott, Mira Vista was no 0--it was squarely in the 2-3 range. 

[Doug Wright]

Good point, Scott, Mira Vista was no 0--it was squarely in the 2-3 range. 

I agree, Mira Vista wasn't much but it had some redeeming value as an affordable/accessible course with some decent holes. In fact I thought the greens were pretty good. CommonGound is quite interesting in part for its contrast with what was there, but Mira Vista wasn't just a cow pasture.