Tim, I understand the tight-ish budget on which CommonGround was built. Like every other course, the final product is the result of a design team, a property owner, a site with benefits and drawbacks, and a budget. This forum is dedicated to the frank discussion of golf course architecture, which ultimately distills to a discussion of those four components. For whatever reason though, when a Doak course is discussed and anyone points out a drawback, there's a rush to make excuses on the course's behalf.
CommonGround is a very nice public golf facility and a major asset to the Denver community. It has a very interesting set of greens, consistently strategic holes, a very walkable routing, and provides an enjoyable challenge to everyone from the beginners it welcomes to the US Amateur competitors it tested. It has many strengths along with a few weaknesses, as I mentioned before. Again, I found it aesthetically uncohesive. I've played LOTS of courses designed on a budget that I can't say the same about. Something about the trees, shaping, and hole corridors at CommonGround just looked "off" to me. It seemed like there was a lot of width and a nice rawness to the bunker shaping that contrasted too sharply with the starchly defined edges of holes lined by what were usually fairly small trees. The natural presentation of the course against the obvious hand of man in its surroundings was jarring. The large engineered ridge to the right of 11 and 12 is similarly at odds with the shaping of the course. There are plenty of reasons why the surroundings are as they are, and it's not surprising that the design team didn't have free rein to blow up a manmade ridge surrounding the course and chop down all the trees that had been planted on the property in the last 50 years. I also think the shaping is of high quality and the corridors have a scale and width that fits the mountainous backdrop. Most of my criticism is centered on areas of the course that the design team probably either didn’t have the option of touching or chose not to prioritize based on budget constrictions. But if we care about jarring aesthetics on Dye and RTJ courses, we have to at least acknowledge that they exist on Doak courses too.
Have you played the course? What are your feelings on its aesthetic presentation?
David, I thought there were a lot of dogleg holes that turned around a bunker or other feature, usually at a similar distance from the tee. This is obviously a fundamental strategy that produces quality golf, but like anything else, it can be overdone. I see it at 1, 4, 7, 13, 15, and 16. That’s almost half the non-par-3 holes on the course.
In contrast, I look at a course like Tim Liddy’s The Trophy Club outside of Indianapolis. It’s a similarly playable but challenging course with Golden Age principles, built on a budget and available to play at a similar price point. Like CommonGround, it’s highly strategic, but its strategy varies far more from hole to hole. It features dogleg corner carry bunkers/hazards like CommonGround on holes like 3, 5, 13, and 15. It features waste areas or other lateral hazards guarding the preferred side of the fairway on holes like 1, 7, 12, and 16. It features alternate-route holes like 2, 10, and 11. And it features centerline hazards in the driving zone on several holes. It’s a spectacularly creative, fun course and about as interesting off the tee as any course I’ve played. I’d have liked to have seen more variability and creativity employed with the hazard placement and shot demands from the tee at CommonGround as well.
I don’t want anyone to think I don’t like CommonGround. It’s an excellent facility and the type of golf this country needs more of. When Pete Dye designs fun, accessible courses that balance challenge and forgiveness on a budget, they generate frank discussion on this forum. I’d like to see us do the same even with our favorite designers.