Common Ground Golf Course

[Tim_Weiman]

I had the opportunity this weekend to visit and play the Common Ground Golf Course in Denver, Colorado. What a treat!

Common Ground is what golf in America should be: affordable, easy to walk, interesting and fun. Though not as famous or as highly rated compared other Renaissance Golf Design’s, Common Ground may be even more impressive. Sure, we would all love to play Pacific Dunes or overlook the cliffs at Cape Kidnappers, but Common Ground is a course one could find – one should find – in every city in America.

The property, though quite pleasant, is not anything special. You might find something like it just about anywhere. But, Renaissance did not “dumb down” the architecture, as Brian Schneider put it. The bunker work fits perfectly creating strategic interest without beating up your average player who typically has limited skill when it comes to bunker play. Thanks to generous fairway width the bogey golfer can make it around without losing a golf ball, but there are many approach shots one would enjoy playing over and over again. My favorite site on the golf course may have been the 16th tee where one can look over play on maybe half the golf course – a super pleasant links like setting.

I don’t play much golf these days, but can’t imagine better conditioned greens for a course where locals with pay only $40 a round to play. Common Ground, though sponsored by the Colorado Golf Association, is essentially a “muni” course, but I would step out and say it would be a great place for a group of golfers to visit and stay for several days. Common Ground is a great place for architecture junkies and also great for the “average Joe”.

Apparently, the Colorado Golf Association is considering Common Ground for local qualifying events. The course will hold up just fine. But, what should really happen is for other local USGA associations to visit and do what they can to replicate Common Ground in other cities.
The logic of Tom Doak’s Confidential Guide rating system is to evaluate how far out of the way one should go to visit the golf course. By this measure, Common Ground gets the highest marks in my book.

[RJ_Daley]

Tim,I think you still have the best tag line of GCA.com posters over the years; "people want to play more, not pay more"   

[Tim_Weiman]

Dick,

Thanks. Hopefully, before too long we can catch up at a"play more, not pay more" course.

[RJ_Daley]

I will be at what I believe is the ultimate in that category, tomorrow and for the next week! 

I'm sorry I missed you by a week out here in the wild Buffalo Bill west.

[Tim Pitner]

I really enjoyed Wild Horse--CommonGround, though on less interesting terrain, is at least in the same league as Wild Horse. 

[Chris Johnston]

Played it last week.  Fun and challenging.  Terrific design, great staff and spirit.  BIG youth program. Denver is fortunate.

[astavrides]

I really enjoyed Wild Horse--CommonGround, though on less interesting terrain, is at least in the same league as Wild Horse. 

that struck me as a pretty strong statement until i remembered the pirates are in the same league as the yankees.  maybe you could elaborate a bit.  Ive been to wild horse but not to common ground yet.

[Ben Sims]

Tim,

I found CG to be in the same league as many more well-heeled courses.  In particular, holes like #8 and #14 are holes that public golfers don't get to see too much.  Folks can call them quirky if they want, but it's fun golf that allows for error and shows a more unique side of golf architecture to the general public.

In particular, the contours on greens like #17 and the way the tees tie into many of the preceding greensites is another feature virtually dead in public golf.

What are your favorite holes? 

[Tim_Weiman]

Ben,

I enjoyed quite a few holes.

#1 is an ideal opening hole
#3 has a really fun approch shot, especially for a back right pin
#5 is quite long but also has a fun shot to play for a back right pin
#6 must be really enjoyable for course regulars trying to pull off the perfect tee shot

and entire sequence of #13 thru #18.

Sounds crazy but I also liked the big dike. It gives the course a pretty unique backdrop for many of the holes.

......and the tie ins from greens to tee are also why I say Common Ground is what golf in America should be.

[Patrick Kiser]

Ben,

I enjoyed quite a few holes.

#1 is an ideal opening hole
#3 has a really fun approch shot, especially for a back right pin
#5 is quite long but also has a fun shot to play for a back right pin
#6 must be really enjoyable for course regulars trying to pull off the perfect tee shot

and entire sequence of #13 thru #18.

Sounds crazy but I also liked the big dike. It gives the course a pretty unique backdrop for many of the holes.

......and the tie ins from greens to tee are also why I say Common Ground is what golf in America should be.

Tim,

Good stuff.

I wasn't too crazed by the 1st and was actually a little worried by it.  Meaning if the rest of the course is like this ... gonna be boring.  Wasn't expecting or looking for drama on the 1st, but found it rather pedestrian.

But I agree that it's a gentle opener and gives you a chance to work into the round.

I think the 4th is one of the best holes on the course.  Just a good solid hole and a pretty decent green.  Some good movement on it to keep it interesting.

What I liked about the 6th was the recovery area off the green on the right and back right.  Can make for some fun chips in.

But for me, the short par 4 9th is probably my favorite hole.  Love that semi boomerang green as well.  Just a very cool uphill hole.

There's just a lot of good stuff going on and I think they made the most out of the topography.  Good routing too.  Lots of directional changes.

I totally agree with comments about the tying in and tee to green being seamless.  The transition from the 17th to 18th is a great example.  One is really able to keep a decent rhythm going ... until you run into traffic.

One thing not mentioned that I found to be quite good are the practice facilities.  They have a short game area near the 1st tee and I thought that was pretty cool actually.

Not too many negatives, but I did mention how I felt the trees on the 18th seemed out of place relative to the rest of the course and I just didn't get the bunker complex being behind the tree to the right of the 18th green.  Also, too bad you have to book a caddy 48 hours in advance.  Would have liked to have tried that, as it seemed very reasonable.  Other than that ... was pretty impressed overall.

Some pics of the 9th...

[Tim Pitner]

I really enjoyed Wild Horse--CommonGround, though on less interesting terrain, is at least in the same league as Wild Horse. 

that struck me as a pretty strong statement until i remembered the pirates are in the same league as the yankees.  maybe you could elaborate a bit.  Ive been to wild horse but not to common ground yet.

Alex,

Full disclosure--CommonGround is my home course and I've only played Wild Horse once, in July when it was quite soft.  My comment was meant as high praise for CommonGround, not as any dimunition of Wild Horse. 

CommonGround ticks a lot of boxes for me--no weak holes, width and playability (but conferring a benefit on well-placed shots), interesting greens and green surrounds, some shorter par 4s and par 5s that allow for options, a good mix of par 4s, including some very stout ones, and a low-profile, walkable course. 

It's also presented quite well--the greens are firm and, while they don't maintain the fairway heights as low as on a bent grass or fescue course, it plays reasonably firm.  The contrast right now between the green of the fairways and the brown of the rough is quite striking. 

Some of my favorite holes include 5, 9, 13 and 16. 

I rate CommonGround as a Doak Scale 7; Wild Horse might be a 7-8.  However, if I were given the choice of which course to play on an everyday basis, I might well choose CommonGround. 

Apart from the golf course, there are some other great attributes--the kid's course, the practice area, the caddie program, etc.  It's really a feather in Denver's cap. 

[Tim_Weiman]

Tim,

I find Common Ground tricky to rate on the Doak scale. While I don't want to go overboard and declare it in the super  elite category of courses, it seems to me that as a model of what golf in America should be there aren't many courses in its class.

[Tim Pitner]

Tim,

I find Common Ground tricky to rate on the Doak scale. While I don't want to go overboard and declare it in the super  elite category of courses, it seems to me that as a model of what golf in America should be there aren't many courses in its class.

I agree completely.  

My rating is a little arbitrary--I consider CG to be a notch above my previous favorite among Denver publics, Riverdale Dunes, which I rate as a good 6, and probably a notch below (due to topography and location) courses like Bandon Dunes and Bandon Trails, which I would say are in the range of an 8.  

[Mike_Young]

Played it this week and liked it...#3 green especially....good model and concept....

[Kenny Baer]

I've played Common Ground and thought it was very good for what it is trying to be; by no means would I put it in the upper echelon of golf courses and it does not belong on any "list" except maybe best courses to play under $40.

I feel the hype may be getting a little carried away.

[Tim Pitner]

I've played Common Ground and thought it was very good for what it is trying to be; by no means would I put it in the upper echelon of golf courses and it does not belong on any "list" except maybe best courses to play under $40.

I feel the hype may be getting a little carried away.

Kenny,

CommonGround has gotten some good press, but "hype" is not a term I would associate with it.  Most Denver-area residents I play with like the course, but can't understand why I rave about it.  The "hype" hasn't even reached Denver. 

[Richard Choi]

Doak 7 for Common Grounds would be "hype" in my opinion.

As Kenny has mentioned, it is very good for what it is. Doak 5 would be more appropriate based on the definition. Not many people are driving 3 hours just to play this course.

[Tim Pitner]

Richard,

We disagree on the rating.

What I hope we can agree on is that the name of the course (for better or worse) is CommonGround--no "s"--not now or at any other time relevant to your repeatedly misspelled references. 

[Richard Choi]

Tim, thanks for the spelling lesson.

Now, do you seriously think that many people will drive 3 hours to play this course? We are the biggest Doak supporters around and I have not seen anybody making a trip to Denver just to play this course. Most people are stopping by on their way to other courses (mostly Ballyneal - which most certainly worth the trip) in the area.

I like the course fine, but to put this course in the same category as other Doak 7 courses would be "hype" by any definition.

[Greg Chambers]

Tim, thanks for the spelling lesson.

Now, do you seriously think that many people will drive 3 hours to play this course? We are the biggest Doak supporters around and I have not seen anybody making a trip to Denver just to play this course. Most people are stopping by on their way to other courses (mostly Ballyneal - which most certainly worth the trip) in the area.

I like the course fine, but to put this course in the same category as other Doak 7 courses would be "hype" by any definition.

I have, three times.  I live in the mountains west of Denver, and it's better than any offerings in my neck of the woods.

[Tim Pitner]

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.  

[Richard Choi]

Tim, I apologize for confusing people by putting an extra "s" at the end. I didn't realize people could not recognize that I was talking about Common Ground by that extra "s" at the end. I will try to do better in the future.

How many other 7's have you played? You say that it is just a "notch" below Bandon courses which leads me to believe that you have not perhaps played many other courses in Doak 6 and 7 category. I am guessing that many people here would agree that there are literally hundreds (if not thousands) of golf courses that would fit between that notch between Bandon and Common Ground. I can name quite a few just from my own limited travels.

Tom is a tough rater on everybody, not just on his own design. If he rated it a 5, I think you should perhaps listen.

[Tim Pitner]

Richard,

I really don't think it's too much to ask to get the name right--if, hypothetically, I went on about some contrived, sandbox course called Chamber Bay, I would expect to be corrected.  

To clarify, when I say CommonGround is a 7 and Wild Horse is a 7-8, I'm applying the Doak scale--I'm not predicting where Tom Doak would rate courses on his scale.  How many 6s and 7s have I played?  Under my definition, I've played quite a few 6s and probably not many 7s.  I don't keep track of this stuff, but I may have played more 8s and 9s than 7s.  So, a 7 seems to occupy a unique place in my ratings and I'm happy to have CG fit there.  If you want to take it away from me because you think that there's some objective way to measure golf courses, I suppose that's your prerogative, but I think you're wrong.  

I respect Doak immensely (actually his work; I really don't know him), but I'm at liberty to disagree with him.  Perhaps more importantly, at one time, his job was to critique golf courses--I'm not interested in ranking the universe of golf courses, only the ones I've played, and I'm free to apply my own personal, heavily biased and perhaps arbitrary criteria.  

P.S., just kidding about Chambers Bay--while I have some thoughts about it based on what I've seen, I haven't played it so don't pretend to know anything about it.  

Oh, and Muck Fichigan, go Hawks!

[JNC Lyon]

Based on what I've seen, I'd drive 100 miles to play CommonGround.  Hell, I live in Upstate New York, and CommonGround is near the top of my list of courses to play.

[Tim_Weiman]

Richard:

Strange as it may sound, the last time I had a feeling similar to visiting Common Ground was at Kingston Heath.  Of course, KM is widely recognized as being one of the great courses in the world. But, the reason I would recommend a visit – if you can travel all the way to Melbourne – is to see what can be done on a piece of property that is hardly blessed in terms of topography or interesting features. Sure, the golf architecture student wants to spend time at nearby Royal Melbourne, yet I still wonder if there isn’t more to learn at the Heath.

Comparing Pacific Dunes to Common Ground leads me to a similar conclusion. Wow! We all get blown away in Bandon, yet part of me wonders how relevant those courses are. Elite?  Yes, but as a model for what golf in America should be, can Pacific Dunes really compare to Common Ground? I don’t think so.

Call it “hype” but Common Ground is well worth traveling 100 miles to play.

As Eric Iverson said, there should be something like it in every city.