News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Matthew Lloyd

  • Karma: +0/-0
Green Valley Ranch -- Denver, CO
« on: April 13, 2015, 02:25:04 PM »
Played here this past weekend while visiting Denver. From what I can tell on this board there seem to be some diverging opinions about this course, and I understand why, but I really enjoyed it.  Despite playing through 25mph winds, there were a lot of fun risk/reward holes, including some interesting short par 4s and a couple of reachable par 5s (though we didn't play from the tips so not sure how reachable they'd be from there). Overall, I feel like this course would be a fairly stiff challenge for low handicap players (I'm not in that category). It also has a great practice facility, the conditioning of the course was great, and it's not too expensive (around $50 I believe).

I'd be very interested to hear thoughts from Colorado residents who have played here more frequently.  But for non residents passing through town, I highly recommend this course.

Matthew Petersen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Green Valley Ranch -- Denver, CO
« Reply #1 on: April 13, 2015, 06:08:14 PM »
Played here this past weekend while visiting Denver. From what I can tell on this board there seem to be some diverging opinions about this course, and I understand why, but I really enjoyed it.  Despite playing through 25mph winds, there were a lot of fun risk/reward holes, including some interesting short par 4s and a couple of reachable par 5s (though we didn't play from the tips so not sure how reachable they'd be from there). Overall, I feel like this course would be a fairly stiff challenge for low handicap players (I'm not in that category). It also has a great practice facility, the conditioning of the course was great, and it's not too expensive (around $50 I believe).

I'd be very interested to hear thoughts from Colorado residents who have played here more frequently.  But for non residents passing through town, I highly recommend this course.

I worked at this course the summer it opened, so I have a bias based on the many fond memories. However, it also means I have a ton of rounds there, since I played the course probably 4-5 times a week.

I do think it's a very enjoyable course. As you say, there are plenty of interesting risk/reward and other strategic options. Holes like 2, 7, 9, 12, and 16 were especially good in this regard, as I recall.

It's not destination architecture, by any means. And if you absolutely cannot abide environmentally sensitive wetland areas or a manufactured lake or two, then by all means, give it a pass. But even for folks here who would visit Colorado for the likes of Ballyneal, CGC, Sanctuary, or Cherry Hills ... I'd say if you have an evening flight out of town and a tee time at CommonGround, or DCC, then you could do a lot worse than an afternoon trip around GVR out by the airport.

Matthew, I'm curious ... do they still offer a free drink in the 19th hole if you par 16, 17, and 18?

Tom Bacsanyi

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Green Valley Ranch -- Denver, CO
« Reply #2 on: April 13, 2015, 09:57:56 PM »
It's not ALL bad, but it features two of the worst holes I have ever played.  16 and 18.  16 has trees blocking the approach except for a 5 yard wide strip of fairway, and 18 is a crescent shaped par 5 that's 600 yards long but only 500 as the crow flies with OB lining the left and swamp right.  Oh I forgot, 10 is also bad.  If there weren't any other options I'd say go for it, but courses like Riverdale Dunes, CommonGround, Heritage at Westmoor are superior and similarly to cheaper priced.
Don't play too much golf. Two rounds a day are plenty.

--Harry Vardon

Ross Harmon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Green Valley Ranch -- Denver, CO
« Reply #3 on: April 13, 2015, 11:52:50 PM »
It's not ALL bad, but it features two of the worst holes I have ever played.  16 and 18.  16 has trees blocking the approach except for a 5 yard wide strip of fairway, and 18 is a crescent shaped par 5 that's 600 yards long but only 500 as the crow flies with OB lining the left and swamp right.  Oh I forgot, 10 is also bad.  If there weren't any other options I'd say go for it, but courses like Riverdale Dunes, CommonGround, Heritage at Westmoor are superior and similarly to cheaper priced.

Tom - What did you not like about the 10th?

Tom Bacsanyi

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Green Valley Ranch -- Denver, CO
« Reply #4 on: April 14, 2015, 11:27:01 AM »
It's not ALL bad, but it features two of the worst holes I have ever played.  16 and 18.  16 has trees blocking the approach except for a 5 yard wide strip of fairway, and 18 is a crescent shaped par 5 that's 600 yards long but only 500 as the crow flies with OB lining the left and swamp right.  Oh I forgot, 10 is also bad.  If there weren't any other options I'd say go for it, but courses like Riverdale Dunes, CommonGround, Heritage at Westmoor are superior and similarly to cheaper priced.

Tom - What did you not like about the 10th?

It plays about 10 yards wide off the tee.  Maybe I am just bad.
Don't play too much golf. Two rounds a day are plenty.

--Harry Vardon

Pat Burke

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Green Valley Ranch -- Denver, CO
« Reply #5 on: April 14, 2015, 02:20:53 PM »
Played last year in the Colorado Senior Open.
Played awful, but I didn't mind the place.
They had been ravaged by severe hail, and the greens were still pockmarked from it.
Houses along the course still showed signs of the storm and hail damage.  It was pretty amazing actually.
There are a couple holes that were meh, but the facility is pretty nice, and there are good people there.

Brad Swanson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Green Valley Ranch -- Denver, CO
« Reply #6 on: April 14, 2015, 10:10:13 PM »
It's not ALL bad, but it features two of the worst holes I have ever played.  16 and 18.  16 has trees blocking the approach except for a 5 yard wide strip of fairway, and 18 is a crescent shaped par 5 that's 600 yards long but only 500 as the crow flies with OB lining the left and swamp right.  Oh I forgot, 10 is also bad.  If there weren't any other options I'd say go for it, but courses like Riverdale Dunes, CommonGround, Heritage at Westmoor are superior and similarly to cheaper priced.

Sorry, but 10 is one of the better holes on the course.  When the pin is placed back, you really have to be precise to get close, but there's plenty of room to get dancing if you play to the middle of the green, which is open in front.

I heard that the 2001 club champion was quite a player back in the day. ;)


Stewart Abramson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Green Valley Ranch -- Denver, CO
« Reply #7 on: April 14, 2015, 10:25:30 PM »
I think of it as quirky rather than bad.  It is unusual in that trees are in play on three holes (2, 7 and 16.) It requires you to place your shot in the correct portion of the fairway so as not to have your next shot impeded by the tree

Green Valley ranch #2 tree blocks approach if you’re too far right



Green Valley Ranch #7  approach



Green Valley Ranch #7 d view back



Green Valley Ranch #16 b 100 yard approach from left side of fairway



Tom B - If 16 and 18 are two of the worst holes you’ve ever played, perhaps you haven’t played many truly terrible holes. 16 is one of the shortest  par 4’s on the course. It requires accuracy off the tee not length. Place your tee shot on the left half of the fairway and it’s not too hard to get your approach on the green with a mid or short iron. On 18, the route around the hazard for the secon shot isn’t so bad.  A short hitter having to circumnavigate a hazard rather than go straight across is not so unusual or bad. There are plenty of holes where the distance around is a lot longer than “as the crow flies” including most doglegs and holes that follow the “Waterloo”  template.


Green Valley Ranch #18 par 5 2nd shot zoomed from edge of hazard if you dare go for it



Green Valley Ranch #18 d par 5 second shot  the long way around



Green Valley Ranch #18 f view back



Green Valley Ranch #10 a dogleg left from tee
  I don’t recall # 10  being all that tight off the tee, although a slice will kill you on that shot 

Link to full photo tour: https://www.flickr.com/photos/golfcoursepix/sets/72157645410668474
There are other courses in the Denver area that are better choices, but I’ve had some nice days of golf there.

Tom Bacsanyi

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Green Valley Ranch -- Denver, CO
« Reply #8 on: April 14, 2015, 11:06:35 PM »
I think of it as quirky rather than bad.  It is unusual in that trees are in play on three holes (2, 7 and 16.) It requires you to place your shot in the correct portion of the fairway so as not to have your next shot impeded by the tree...

I actually really like the 2nd hole, and it is a good use of tree encroachment.  16 however, I will not concede.  Fair enough on 10, maybe it's just because I made big numbers on it twice.  And as for my lack of playing bad holes and thus lacking perspective, I have played Hyland Hills 3 times and there are enough bad holes on that course for anyone's lifetime.
Don't play too much golf. Two rounds a day are plenty.

--Harry Vardon

Matthew Petersen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Green Valley Ranch -- Denver, CO
« Reply #9 on: April 15, 2015, 12:04:26 AM »
I liked 16 back when I was playing the course, but even then I asked management a couple times what the long-term plan was for keeping the trees from encroaching too much on the hole. The idea then was to prune as needed. I haven't been back since 2008, so I don't know how much growth there has been or if it has been managed.

I recall seeing three or four ways to play the hole, two of which would tend to be pretty much exclusively for the better player. The best play is just to take an accurate club and hit it down the left side. It's not a long hole, so you can pick whatever club you feel confident of not pulling into the creek. Anything in the left half of the fairway allowed a clear shot to the green. Even shots toward the middle or mid-right of the fairway had some shot at the green if played with a cut. Obviously not all can control it, but certainly that's the shot shape most amateurs have. As I recall there was enough space to aim somewhat left of the green and still be OK--a bunker, or plenty more room left and long.

I saw some guys, when not playing from the tips, actually try to bang driver up there as far as they could, basically right into the tree. I wasn't long enough to try that in those days. If you could really get in under the trees, you were close enough where you had a reasonable chance at a little bump and run shot into the green.

The play I favored was just to lay well back off the tee. I wanted to leave 150-160 in, whatever club that meant from the tee I was playing. I would try to play down the left side, but I could hit short irons very high (when you grow up in Denver, there's no reason not to hit your irons that way), and from that distance even if I hit the drive too far right, I found I could play over the trees.

Of course, if the trees have grown up or out and reduced those options and corridors, that's too bad, because the penalty left is pretty severe. But at that time I always enjoyed it as a sneaky hard hole. Only 330 from the blue tees and yet the play was still to lay way back with your tee shot. Then again, some guys could try to smash it toward the green. I always liked that hole. 2 and 7 worked for me, as well.

Wyatt Halliday

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Green Valley Ranch -- Denver, CO
« Reply #10 on: April 15, 2015, 12:15:22 AM »
While I would argue that Denver is the best city in the US for varied and affordable public golf, there are at least 15 public courses I'd play in metro area before GVR. The routing is awkward, the containment mounding is off putting, the housing element isn't pleasing to the eye, and the conditions are substandard unless you happen to play around Colorado Open time.

I guess it's fine for an average round if you need to catch a flight out of DIA. But even then, I'd opt for two or three nearby courses that might require an additional 10 minutes drive time.


Tim Pitner

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Green Valley Ranch -- Denver, CO
« Reply #11 on: April 15, 2015, 08:49:32 AM »
Wyatt,
I'm not a big advocate of GVR, but 15 seems a little high--care to name the courses you have in mind?

Wyatt Halliday

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Green Valley Ranch -- Denver, CO
« Reply #12 on: April 15, 2015, 12:15:14 PM »
Bear Dance
Black Bear
Buffalo Run
Common Ground
Fox Hollow
Westmoor
Highland Meadows
Highlands Ranch
Murphy Creek
Plum Creek
Ridge at Castle Pines
Riverdale Dunes
South Suburban
Wellshire
Willis Case




Tim Pitner

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Green Valley Ranch -- Denver, CO
« Reply #13 on: April 15, 2015, 12:23:00 PM »
Not a bad list, although I'd take specific exception to Highlands Ranch and you're stretching the definition of Denver metro a bit by including Castle Rock and Larkspur.  I have fond memories of Fox Hollow but I like the course a bit less each time I play it.

Matthew Petersen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Green Valley Ranch -- Denver, CO
« Reply #14 on: April 15, 2015, 01:00:14 PM »
Bear Dance
Black Bear
Buffalo Run
Common Ground
Fox Hollow
Westmoor
Highland Meadows
Highlands Ranch
Murphy Creek
Plum Creek
Ridge at Castle Pines
Riverdale Dunes
South Suburban
Wellshire
Willis Case


Quite a few good or interesting courses there, even if (as Tim says) a few really stretch the definition of Denver's metro area.

But South Suburban? There's probably 25 public courses I can name in the Denver area more worth seeing than that. It's a Doak 3 in the CG and I always thought Tom was being a little generous. I'd call it a 2. I played in a tournament there every year in high school and don't recall any holes of interest at all. I'd give it this: there are fewer homes encroaching on it than on many courses in the city (which is not to say there weren't 2-3 holes homes were in play on).

As for GVR, that's part of my bias. When I worked there and played it a ton, there was nothing else around at all. I played it in 2008 and recall the area was much more built up, but I don't have specific memories of homes encroaching on the golf course. Maybe that has gotten worse in the years since, or maybe I just didn't notice that go around.

Wyatt Halliday

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Green Valley Ranch -- Denver, CO
« Reply #15 on: April 15, 2015, 03:06:53 PM »
30-45 minutes isn't a stretch for being included in a metro area.

And yes South Suburban. I really don't care about the Doak score. I like it because it is the most challenging set of greens to putt in the city (public or private). And I sometimes I like that sort of challenge.

astavrides

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Green Valley Ranch -- Denver, CO
« Reply #16 on: April 15, 2015, 03:31:48 PM »
off the top of my head, to that list
I'd add...
Arrowhead
Raccoon Creek
Vista Ridge(called CO Nat'l now I think)
Fossil Trace

and take out...
Black Bear
Wellshire
Willis Case
Buffalo Run or South Suburban

not that any of those 4 or 5 is that bad.

Ross Harmon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Green Valley Ranch -- Denver, CO
« Reply #17 on: April 15, 2015, 10:40:57 PM »
It's not ALL bad, but it features two of the worst holes I have ever played.  16 and 18.  16 has trees blocking the approach except for a 5 yard wide strip of fairway, and 18 is a crescent shaped par 5 that's 600 yards long but only 500 as the crow flies with OB lining the left and swamp right.  Oh I forgot, 10 is also bad.  If there weren't any other options I'd say go for it, but courses like Riverdale Dunes, CommonGround, Heritage at Westmoor are superior and similarly to cheaper priced.

Tom - What did you not like about the 10th?

It plays about 10 yards wide off the tee.  Maybe I am just bad.

Give #10 another chance.  :)

Ross Harmon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Green Valley Ranch -- Denver, CO
« Reply #18 on: April 15, 2015, 10:43:54 PM »
Fossil Trace

Sub thread: What's worse, the trees on #16 at GVR or the rocks on #12 at Fossil Trace? I'd say the rocks, at least the trees will die one day.

Allan Long

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Green Valley Ranch -- Denver, CO
« Reply #19 on: April 16, 2015, 11:32:10 AM »
As an archeological spot where dinosaur tracks and fossils were uncovered from 60 million years ago or whenever it was when dinosaurs roamed that part of the property, I can give the rocks on #12 at Fossil Trace a pass. The whole course with features like that would be a bit much, but I think that one spot gives the course some character.
I don't know how I would ever have been able to look into the past with any degree of pleasure or enjoy the present with any degree of contentment if it had not been for the extraordinary influence the game of golf has had upon my welfare.
--C.B. Macdonald

Brad Tufts

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Green Valley Ranch -- Denver, CO
« Reply #20 on: April 16, 2015, 11:37:49 AM »
I liked Fossil Trace...but I tend to like the Engh funkiness. 

My biggest problem with #12 is that the green is odd.

I've only played it once (2010 or so), but I would go back...I had to play the last couple holes in the dark during my only round.
So I jump ship in Hong Kong....

Tim Pitner

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Green Valley Ranch -- Denver, CO
« Reply #21 on: April 16, 2015, 01:56:10 PM »
I had to play the last couple holes in the dark during my only round.

Might have improved the aesthetics...

Doug Wright

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Green Valley Ranch -- Denver, CO
« Reply #22 on: April 16, 2015, 05:06:40 PM »
I play GVR a couple times a year, and I am in the middle about GVR. It is a perfectly fine course and a decent value, around $35-$40 walking. From what I’ve seen of Perry Dye (haven’t seen too much, actually), it is a pretty good offering.  Last year I played GVR and CommonGround on the same day, and there really is no comparison from an architecture standpoint. Unlike many suburban courses, GVR doesn’t suffer from encroaching houses though they are increasingly present with noisy development happening now after a slow start out there. I like the combination of longer and  shorter par 4s (except for #16).  The greens aren’t too interesting, which is a negative for me. Another negative—which applies to both #10 and #16 as well as some other holes like #17-- is that the ESAs (off limits environmentally sensitive areas) are way too close to the greens. Miss #10 or #16 (or #1) by a few yards left of those greens and you’re in the ESA.   I used to totally dislike #10 but now not as much as I figured out the landing area on the drive is more forgiving than it appears. The trees on #2 and #7 are fine; #16 is just a terrible hole, completely out of character with the rest of the course. That’s probably my biggest beef with GVR; kind of like Legacy Ridge in the north Denver suburbs, the layout seems disjointed and inconsistent with a couple very bad holes. I could say the same thing about Riverdale Dunes, which I prefer over GVR, but there are more really good holes at Riverdale Dunes than at GVR. Also, since I know the schizoid history of Riverdale Dunes (Young Tom Doak +/- Perry Dye + Pete Dye, oh my) I’m inclined to give it some slack.

Wyatt, your list is good. However, South Suburban and Willis Case in your top 15? Really? In many ways, City Park is better than those two, including having greens every bit as interesting as South Suburban…   

PS to Brad Swanson—were there any others playing in the GVR Club Championship in 2001?  ;D     
Twitter: @Deneuchre

Brad Swanson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Green Valley Ranch -- Denver, CO
« Reply #23 on: April 16, 2015, 10:26:40 PM »

PS to Brad Swanson—were there any others playing in the GVR Club Championship in 2001?  ;D     


Doug,
   What does the size of the field have to do with the quality? ;D  On second thought, don't answer that...

Wyatt Halliday

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Green Valley Ranch -- Denver, CO
« Reply #24 on: April 17, 2015, 02:07:22 AM »
I play GVR a couple times a year, and I am in the middle about GVR. It is a perfectly fine course and a decent value, around $35-$40 walking. From what I’ve seen of Perry Dye (haven’t seen too much, actually), it is a pretty good offering.  Last year I played GVR and CommonGround on the same day, and there really is no comparison from an architecture standpoint. Unlike many suburban courses, GVR doesn’t suffer from encroaching houses though they are increasingly present with noisy development happening now after a slow start out there. I like the combination of longer and  shorter par 4s (except for #16).  The greens aren’t too interesting, which is a negative for me. Another negative—which applies to both #10 and #16 as well as some other holes like #17-- is that the ESAs (off limits environmentally sensitive areas) are way too close to the greens. Miss #10 or #16 (or #1) by a few yards left of those greens and you’re in the ESA.   I used to totally dislike #10 but now not as much as I figured out the landing area on the drive is more forgiving than it appears. The trees on #2 and #7 are fine; #16 is just a terrible hole, completely out of character with the rest of the course. That’s probably my biggest beef with GVR; kind of like Legacy Ridge in the north Denver suburbs, the layout seems disjointed and inconsistent with a couple very bad holes. I could say the same thing about Riverdale Dunes, which I prefer over GVR, but there are more really good holes at Riverdale Dunes than at GVR. Also, since I know the schizoid history of Riverdale Dunes (Young Tom Doak +/- Perry Dye + Pete Dye, oh my) I’m inclined to give it some slack.

Wyatt, your list is good. However, South Suburban and Willis Case in your top 15? Really? In many ways, City Park is better than those two, including having greens every bit as interesting as South Suburban…   

PS to Brad Swanson—were there any others playing in the GVR Club Championship in 2001?  ;D     


Hi Doug,

So pleased you chimed in!

Odd for the conversation to turn to City Park, South Suburban, and Willis Case on GCA. Nice departure actually.
I like SS due to the variety of greens presented. Most likely due to the more varied terrain surrounding Dry Creek while City Park basically utilizes one ridgeline. The repetitive nature of the back to front tilt at CP continues throughout. With the exception of 6 and 16, the greens at CP are either severely pitched back to front or dead flat.

I also favor Willis Case over City Park because of the driving challenge. WC while shorter and less demanding overall, is a really neat and gentle routing that makes use of many reverse camber holes (blame my affinity for Perry Maxwell here). The greens are fine, maybe not the challenge that CP presents, but I think Willis Case more than makes up for it in short Par Fours, whereas City Park only has one really good short four (the 8th). There is no denying the cityscape and mountain views that City Park has to offer, among other things. We really do have an enormous amount of fantastic public access golf in this town.

As for GVR, I guess the biggest issue I have with it stems from playing it so much. It presents the same challenge regardless of season or wind direction. I guess I just get bored there. There is nothing egregious about the golf course, it's just not one of my favorites in town.

I hope we can revisit a few of these together soon.

Wyatt

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back