Common Ground Golf Course

[David Camponi]

Matt I agree with you 100%; I wish more and more courses like Common Ground existed; for what it is its first rate all the way. 

I am not going to argue on the merits of Common Ground being a Doak 7 or comparing it to a Spyglass, Bethpage Black, Pasatiempo, New South Wales, Kiawah Ocean, etc..; CG is so far from that it is pointless and would be the equivalent of me asking one to argue in defense of Mark Sanchez being a better quarterback than Peyton Manning; he just isn't and I wouldn't expect someone to have to defend such ignorance.

I hope I made my point that Common Ground is good; if I lived in Denver and did not belong to a private club I would play it often.

To compare it to some true greats and an insult to everyone on this board including Doak and ones needs to look at themselves and figure out why they would believe such. although art is subjective there is some limit to that subjectiveness; I can't claim a clay bowl I made my mother for mother's day when I was 10 is the equal to Michelaneglo's Statue of David.   

[Matt_Ward]

David:

Certain architects on this site nearly always get the benefit of the doubt -- put the same course and throw a different designer name on the scorecard and it's likely -- if not almost certain -- the thoughts will be different.

CG is a fine course and a wonderful addition to the public course scene in the immediate Denver area. More type golf of this caliber should be pushed ahead.

However, for people to say CG is a better course than Spyglass Hill is mind boggling for being so hilarious. SH has more high end holes --even after you account for the ocean holes. If someone wishes to say CG is the better overall design than SH I challenge them to provide the specifics.

[Sean_A]

Matt

From my perspective, you couldn't get me to pay for Spyglass.  No chance, no how.  It doesn't look remotely special to me yet the green fee suggests they want to charge like it is special.  However, if in/near Denver, I would give CG a go.  Now, what does this mean when talking about "better"?  Yes, absolutely nothing - just about the same as when you say Spyglass is better than CG - it means absolutely nothing except to you and whoever agrees with you.  So what?

Ciao 

[Matt_Ward]

Sean:

Help me out here -- you HAVE NOT played CG and are telling me I'm all wet.

Have you ever played SH ?

Oh, I get it now.

Makes perfect sense to me. 

The price issue is not relevant here. It's about the design side of the equation.

No doubt people can disagree but i'd like to see the pro-CG specifics over SH from those who believe that.

Simple as that ...

[Sean_A]

Matt

You are not listening.  I don't care if you think Spyglass is this much or that much better than Common Ground.  Using MY experience looking at photos, playing golf on some of the best courses around and reading what folks I trust have to write, I have concluded that I will not pay the green fee to play Spyglass because I don't believe the course is nearly special enough to merit $350.  You may look strictly at design merit and conclude otherwise - that is your choice.  All I am raising is doubt as to what "better" means and how many of us are actually qualified to make that determination.  Personally, I think very, very few of us are qualified to determine what is better unless we hhave detailed knowledge of projects, so I will stick with the layman's opinion of what is best for the money.  That doesn't mean that all expensve courses are necessarily thrown under the bus, but they had better be exceptional for me to pay $350. 

Ciao

[Tim Pitner]

David,

Different people look for different things in courses.  To use one of your earlier examples, I honestly prefer CommonGround to Castle Pines.  CG obviously isn't as scenic but, as a golf course, I prefer it.  You may think that's crazy but my opinion is sincere--I have no other agenda.  

[Matt_Ward]

Sean:

You can look at pictures until the cows come home.

The experience of playing the courses is the only absolute proof I give a rats ass about.

If you don't wish to pay the fee is your choice. The fee charged has nothing to do with the quality of the design. Got it.

Tiim:

Among all CO public courses you have played where do you rate CG among them all. Use any criteria you wish.

[Tom_Doak]

To compare it to some true greats and an insult to everyone on this board including Doak and ones needs to look at themselves and figure out why they would believe such. although art is subjective there is some limit to that subjectiveness; I can't claim a clay bowl I made my mother for mother's day when I was 10 is the equal to Michelaneglo's Statue of David.   

David,

I wasn't insulted by the people who really liked Common Ground, and Im not insulted by most of your posts on this thread, either.  I understand that nearly all golfers include the scenery and setting as part of the golf course architecture, and I have benefitted from that phenomenon in recent years as much as anyone.

However, for the record, I don't believe I rated Common Ground on the Doak scale, and had I done so, it certainly would have gotten a 6 from me and not a 5.  I noticed you were not so quick to list the 6's and 5's and rail against how the course did not compare to them.  It is an interesting course with an excellent set of greens PLUS some driving hazards in the wheelhouse of today's better players, and there are not too many of those.

I suspect that the people who have "overrated" Common Ground on this thread did so because the lack of scenery forced them to take a closer look at the architecture and to appreciate the strategic design for what it is, whereas at some other projects I've done, like Cape KIdnappers, it took nearly a year before any of my friends or critics even noticed that it also has a really good, subtle set of greens.  And I also suspect that if you looked at Spyglass Hill really closely, while it is still a 7 in my book, the design features are not as interesting as those at Common Ground.

[Sean_A]

Sean:

You can look at pictures until the cows come home.

The experience of playing the courses is the only absolute proof I give a rats ass about.

If you don't wish to pay the fee is your choice. The fee charged has nothing to do with the quality of the design. Got it.

Tiim:

Among all CO public courses you have played where do you rate CG among them all. Use any criteria you wish.

Matt

I just figured out what Nyorkers do best - fail to pay attention to others' comments whilst supposedly conversing with them.  If there is one thing in life I have learned is that one man's experience of something could be totally disconnected with another man's experience and yet they are both valid.  This is not meant to be harsh, but I don't care if you play a course and think it is great, wonderful or whatever because your opinion of a course is not one I seek.  I never know what the hell you are talking about with the words you use and without photos to illustrate the points.  Its all just a vague verbage blur to me.  Plus, I highly suspect that I look for different things in a course than you do, but I can't be sure.  I have always felt we are on complete opposite sides of the architecture spectrum, but again, I can't be sure.

Ciao

[Doug Wright]

To compare it to some true greats and an insult to everyone on this board including Doak and ones needs to look at themselves and figure out why they would believe such. although art is subjective there is some limit to that subjectiveness; I can't claim a clay bowl I made my mother for mother's day when I was 10 is the equal to Michelaneglo's Statue of David.   

David,

I wasn't insulted by the people who really liked Common Ground, and Im not insulted by most of your posts on this thread, either.  I understand that nearly all golfers include the scenery and setting as part of the golf course architecture, and I have benefitted from that phenomenon in recent years as much as anyone.

However, for the record, I don't believe I rated Common Ground on the Doak scale, and had I done so, it certainly would have gotten a 6 from me and not a 5.  I noticed you were not so quick to list the 6's and 5's and rail against how the course did not compare to them.  It is an interesting course with an excellent set of greens PLUS some driving hazards in the wheelhouse of today's better players, and there are not too many of those.

I suspect that the people who have "overrated" Common Ground on this thread did so because the lack of scenery forced them to take a closer look at the architecture and to appreciate the strategic design for what it is, whereas at some other projects I've done, like Cape KIdnappers, it took nearly a year before any of my friends or critics even noticed that it also has a really good, subtle set of greens.  And I also suspect that if you looked at Spyglass Hill really closely, while it is still a 7 in my book, the design features are not as interesting as those at Common Ground.

Whenever Tom comes on here with comments such as these I'm always reminded of the "Marshall McLuhan movie line" scene from Annie Hall...

[EXCERPT FROM FILM ANNIE HALL PLAYS]

MAN IN MOVIE LINE: It's the influence of television. Now, now Marshall McLuhan deals with it in terms of it being a, a high-- high intensity, you understand? A hot medium--

WOODY ALLEN [BEHIND MAN IN MOVIE LINE]: What I wouldn't give for a large sock with horse manure in it.

MAN: -- as opposed to the truth which he [sees as the] media or--

WOODY ALLEN: What can you do when you get stuck on a movie line with a guy like this behind you?

MAN: Now, Marshall McLuhan--

WOODY ALLEN: You don't know anything about Marshall McLuhan's work--

MAN: Really? Really? I happen to teach a class at Columbia called TV, Media and Culture, so I think that my insights into Mr. McLuhan, well, have a great deal of validity.

WOODY ALLEN: Oh, do you?

MAN: Yeah.

WOODY ALLEN: Oh, that's funny, because I happen to have Mr. McLuhan right here. Come over here for a second?

MAN: Oh--

WOODY ALLEN: Tell him.

MARSHALL McLUHAN: -- I heard, I heard what you were saying. You, you know nothing of my work. How you ever got to teach a course in anything is totally amazing.

WOODY ALLEN: Boy, if life were only like this.

[Tim Pitner]

Doug,

I thought of the same scene and further thought, "why should I respond to Matt Ward's question when no one gives a damn what I think, especially after hearing from the architect/course rater himself."

But, I will answer Matt's question:

Matt, I rate it at the top of Colorado publics I've played.  A few caveats though--I haven't played some likely suspects such as Broadmoor East or the Red Sky courses and I generally treat cartball courses as in an entirely different category as walkable courses (I don't want to get into a debate on this, but I do feel that golf is a walking game and anything else isn't quite golf). 

I rate CG over the likes of Riverdale Dunes, Bear Dance, Murphy Creek and Haymaker, just to give you some examples. 

[Matt_Ward]

Tim:

Have you played Lakota Canyon, Four Mile Ranch and Raven at Three Peaks or even Highland Meadows in the Windsor area ?

I do care what you think given your experiences in the state. Ditto for Doug W.

Walking can be done at the ones mentioned -- although Lakota could be a bit edgy !

[Tim Pitner]

Matt,

"Yes" to Raven at Three Peaks (I enjoy it, especially the back 9, although I've never seen anyone walk it), "no" to the others.  I'm not a big fan of Engh's style (I know we differ on this) so I don't seek out his courses.  I would like to play Highland Meadows, but I haven't made it up there yet. 

[Doug Wright]

Tim:

Have you played Lakota Canyon, Four Mile Ranch and Raven at Three Peaks or even Highland Meadows in the Windsor area ?

I do care what you think given your experiences in the state. Ditto for Doug W.

Walking can be done at the ones mentioned -- although Lakota could be a bit edgy !

Matt,

I haven't jumped into this thread to throw around Doak X for CommonGround because (a) I don't have the Doak scale committed to memory and (b) even if I did I think it's tough to compare a course like CommonGround with other courses either in state or elsewhere. It is so subtle and understated that to compare it with a course like, say, Broadmoor East, is pretty silly. Sort of like someone trying to compare Wild Horse with Sand Hills. I don't know why anyone would even think to do that. As others have said on this thread, it's what you like/in the eye of the beholder etc. Comments like CG is surrounded by strip malls so it can't be any good are off the mark IMO. Regardless, it is a fine golf course for what Renaissance had to work with both topograpically and budgetarily. 

Having said that, I will offer a few thoughts on how I think CommonGround stacks up against some courses that are in the range of reasonableness to compare. I've not played Highland Meadows but toured it with the architect Art Schaupeter pre-opening and it looked quite good; I think Four Mile Ranch is one of Engh's best jobs and actually is comparable to CG in that Engh did not have a huge budget to play with and did some very interesting work there that is not as over the top as at some other courses like Lakota. So I guess I'd say CG and Four Mile are courses I'd compare favorably, while I would find mountain courses like Lakota and Raven at Three Peaks (both unwalkable) less so but again probably unfair to compare. CG is better than, say, local munies like Buffalo Run, Murphy Creek and Green Valley Ranch just by virtue of the workmanship that defines CG. I'm not saying that those courses don't have value and interest because they do.  I struggle to compare CommonGround with Riverdale Dunes, but on balance I think I'd agree with Tim Pitner that CommonGround is superior. Riverdale Dunes is much like CommonGround in many respects. and when it opened would likely have garnered much of the same commentary that CG has if GolfClubAtlas were around then. It is a municipal course laid on barren ground that took some risk and has a ton of interest and some very unique holes for a reasonably priced muny course. That's why I have liked it so much over the years. Where Riverdale Dunes falls down is the schizoid nature of the course that has some very cool holes that Doak had a hand in (eg #5-6) and some very bad holes that reek of Perry Dye [maybe Perry Dye will come on here and tell me I'm full of crap a la Marshall McLuhan!]. That's why this rating game is so crazy. The outcome can be very different depending on whether you're a Doak-aphile/phobe or a Dye-aphile/phobe or an Engh-aphile/phobe. As for me, since I liked Mira Vista just fine before it was nicely covered over with CommonGround and I can find something good in almost any golf course I play (channeling Tom Huckaby here) or work that an architect has done (but for perhaps Art Hills...), I guess I subscribe to the Big World Theory.

[Matt_Ward]

Tim:

Don't know if you have played Fossil Trace - you didn't mention it. I know you don't seek out Engh courses but his work there is quite good.

Raven at Three Peaks is more cart oriented -- but it can be walked.

Surprised that you see Haymaker behind the likes of CG. I thought Keith Foster did a solid job there in Steamboat Springs.

Let me point out that Rick Phelps did a wonderful job at Antler Creek -- although too many people only highlight the fact it's 8,000 yards from the tips. There's more to the story there than the length -- and it can be walked too.

Four Mile Ranch and Lakota Canyon would be ahead of CG for me without question. Ditto the Norman Course at Red Sky Ranch. I'd be pressed to have CG in a top ten -- not because it's not good but because Colorado is so blessed with quality affordable layouts. In my State of NJ that's not the case.

Doug:



Well said -- the state of Colorado public golf does encompass many different styles and geographic locations. For me Four Mile Ranch is right at th etop for both design qualities, cost to play and for what the architect did there given the constraints encountered.

[Tim Pitner]

Matt,

I have played Fossil Trace--I appreciate the novelty and there are some good holes there, but I'm not a big fan--it's generally too manufactured, and appears so, for my taste. 

I like Haymaker quite a bit; I just happen to think CG is better. 

[Tim_Weiman]

Guys:

Since I started this thing......my real point about Common Ground is that is what golf in America should be: affordable, easy to walk, interesting and fun.

Reading some of the responses it is not clear to me if anyone really disagrees. Nobody actually said golf in America should be something different. Nobody actually said Common Ground didn't achieve those goals.

I'm glad Tom Doak mentioned Cape Kidnappers because I'm one of those people who played it, had a great time but never really said or wrote anything great about it (actually I love both the tee shot and the approach on #18 which almost nobody would mention).

Anyway, Cape Kidnappers has the same problem Pacific Dunes has - they are both "dream golf". Now I don't mean to be hypocritical -certainly I've made a point of traveling to see as many of the truly elite courses in the world I could possibly visit.

But, to me Common Ground is something better than "dream golf": it is really good everyday (or every weekend) golf for the person who isn't so lucky to roam the world to play the Top 100.

Aside from that, I would observe nobody has really explained how Spyglass 6-18 are really in such a different league than Common Ground.

[Matthew Rose]

I liked CG, although I personally feel it is a little bit overpriced.

The course itself is fun to play.

[Ross Waldorf]

Tim W:

I like what you had to say -- sounds like CommonGround is a very cool place in particular because of your comment that it's not "dream golf." I like dream golf quite a lot, when I get to experience it. But the idea of a place that costs, what was it? $40? to play that can maintain the interest of an architecturally-minded player is just a wonderful thing. We definitely need more of them.

Tim P:

I also have been enjoying your passionate responses about CG -- we all like to spread the word about our home course when it's really worthy. And I am definitely a kindred spirit in that my home course is also a public course that gets some of that GCA love -- Rustic Canyon. In some ways they are perhaps cousins, although it sounds like Rustic probably has a little more terrain and scenic views that help the way people perceive the course -- no shopping malls in sight from any of the holes. Based on my reading of the Doak scale, Rustic is a solid 7 (I'm a homer, so I could argue that it's an 8, but I'll get shelled for that), and I can easily see how a course like CG would rate a 7.

Anyway -- kudos to you for having an excellent public track as your home course. There sure is a lot of bland golf out there for the regular paying public. The comments that I've made many times that seemed appropriate here is one I often utter when asked about Rustic Canyon. I'll usually say "It's the best golf course I've ever gotten to play in my life on a regular basis." Sounds like CommonGround fits the bill.

Cheers,
R

[Matt_Ward]

Tim W:

Setting does count for something -- SH has that in spades -- CG doesn't.

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt,

I agree with your comment about setting. However, the "setting" advantage really only benefits Spyglass (quite dramatically, of course) during the start of the course - through the 5th hole. After that, I don't think Spyglass has much "setting" advantage, if any at all. So at that point, Spyglass has to compete on architectural values alone and to my mind it isn't necessarily a winner over a place like Common Ground.

I'd make a similiar point when it comes to Royal Troon which someone else mentioned in comparison. Of course, I love golf in Scotland and the seaside setting give Royal Troon an advantage. There are also several hole that most people obviously enjoy (e.g., 7 - 8 - 9). But, aside from that I'm not sure the overall quality of the golf course is that much better than Common Ground.

[Matt_Ward]

Tim W:

SH is more than just the ocean holes -- the movement into the forest and the enveloping feeling of playing those holes makes for some interesting golf. I am not suggesting that SH is at the level of its neighbors but you are really straining when you think that CG is the better designed layout. The land Doak and his team found is relatively dead flat -- had to deal with the surrounding area which is a bit of an issue.

Tim, try to see what CG provides -- without going over-the-top. The facility provides a solid course for mass consumption -- it provides for playability and has a number of fun and interesting green sites. It also is fairly predictable in terms of ground movement given the relative flatness of the site. Most importantly, it provides affordable golf so people can really enjoy the game without taking a major financial hit. Just for those reasons alone the place is a real plus to the greater Denver golf scene.

Tim, you need to give SH it's due. The place is set in a pristine location -- it's more than the ocean holes and Trent Jones did a superlative job in balancing the internal holes -- albeit not at the same level as the ocean ones -- but frankly CG is a notch below it for sure in my mind.

I have also played Troon -- and while the course is fairly predictable -- going out and back -- and therefore the wind pattern is generally one way going out and the other coming back in -- the overall nature of what the course provides is also beyond CG.

Tim, I salute your fan club approach to CG -- I liked it too but context is something that cannot be so quickly dismissed - nor can the primary focus of what CG was meant to provide. On that front CG does really well -- but it's hard pressed to push aside a number of other comparable CO public courses.

[Doug Wright]

I have also played Troon -- and while the course is fairly predictable -- going out and back -- and therefore the wind pattern is generally one way going out and the other coming back in -- the overall nature of what the course provides is also beyond CG.

Matt, I'm not sure your statement above does much to support why Troon is better than CommonGround. Would you care to elaborate? In particular, what do you mean by "the overall nature of what the course provides"?

[Tim Pitner]

Tim W:

I like what you had to say -- sounds like CommonGround is a very cool place in particular because of your comment that it's not "dream golf." I like dream golf quite a lot, when I get to experience it. But the idea of a place that costs, what was it? $40? to play that can maintain the interest of an architecturally-minded player is just a wonderful thing. We definitely need more of them.

Tim P:

I also have been enjoying your passionate responses about CG -- we all like to spread the word about our home course when it's really worthy. And I am definitely a kindred spirit in that my home course is also a public course that gets some of that GCA love -- Rustic Canyon. In some ways they are perhaps cousins, although it sounds like Rustic probably has a little more terrain and scenic views that help the way people perceive the course -- no shopping malls in sight from any of the holes. Based on my reading of the Doak scale, Rustic is a solid 7 (I'm a homer, so I could argue that it's an 8, but I'll get shelled for that), and I can easily see how a course like CG would rate a 7.

Anyway -- kudos to you for having an excellent public track as your home course. There sure is a lot of bland golf out there for the regular paying public. The comments that I've made many times that seemed appropriate here is one I often utter when asked about Rustic Canyon. I'll usually say "It's the best golf course I've ever gotten to play in my life on a regular basis." Sounds like CommonGround fits the bill.

Ross,

Thanks, well said.

The point I was trying to emphasize here is I don't think statements like "it's really good for what it is" and "it's a model for public golf" do CommonGround justice.  It's a really good golf course, without regard to considerations of cost and budget, and like any good course, it reveals itself more with repeated play.  

The question of how good CG is depends on how you like your golf--if only the Ballyneals and Sagebrushes of the world make much of an impression on you, then CG might not be your thing.  But, if you like more subtle features and a light touch on the land, combined with fun, strategic golf, then you'll probably like CG a lot.  I don't see the general flatness of the property to be a big downside (see Garden City, Chicago Golf).  

As an aside, while there are strip malls across streets from CG, they don't mar the golf experience and there are some quite good views of the Front Range, as well as downtown Denver, from the course.  

[Ross Waldorf]

Tim P:

Totally get your point. And having never been to Denver I can't speak to the views or the overall vibe at all. But I'm sure I'd love the place. There's just something really fantastic about low key municipal golf courses that surprise you with the quality of the architecture. It's unexpected and a real pleasure. I like places that everybody can play and while they do they'll get a little dose of what great golf architecture can be. Fo 40 bucks. If I go to Spyglass and pay $350, I better get kick ass architecture and I better get it continuously. $350 ought to buy me that. Which has nothing to do with evaluating the quality of the architecture itself -- it's just an observation about value.

But the other thing that I think is really important here is that just playing a really well-designed golf course over and over makes a difference in how you perceive it. It's one thing to play a course multiple times, but it's a completely different thing to play it week after week -- only then do the real subtleties and quirks become apparent. And you get to decide to do different things on different days, depending on the wind, or the hole location, or your swing, or maybe just your mood. It's a pleasure to have a course of real architectural merit available to you on an everyday basis. I'm sure you enjoy it.

Cheers,
R