[Tom_Doak]

I happened to have a chance to play the course myself last Saturday afternoon.  We played in 4:40, not great, but not awful at the end of a 200-player day.

I was generally pleased with the condition of the course, considering the price and the traffic it's endured this summer.  I had the same trouble using chipping areas around the green that Matthew did, but realistically, bluegrass fairways aren't going to allow those shots very well unless you've got a big topdressing budget.  The fairways probably also need a fair amount of water in the mornings to survive the onslaught of the day, so if you play early, it will be wetter. 

More relevant is how the conditions compare to other public courses around Denver.  I would guess by that standard they are excellent, but I would love to hear from people who have played around out there more than I have.

[Thomas Patterson]

I've been out a total of 5 times and every time gets better! 

I have played 4 times in the afternoon, and once in the morning.  I agree with the assessment that the fairways need a lot of water in the morning to endure the sun/heat of the day.  I can speak from my own experience with just my lawn (which is also bluegrass).  The sun is a lot more intense here in CO b/c of the elevation. 

My round in the morning was a lot softer than any other time that I have played the course.  By the end of the round, it was starting to dry out and get a little faster though.  Every time I have played in the afternoon, the conditions have been excellent.  Firm and fast. 

Comparing conditions to other courses in the area, CG blows them away.  The greens are some of the best kept of all the courses I have played in the area.  I don't live very close to CG, but I keep coming back not only for the course, but the conditions.  Golf is a lot more fun when the course is in good shape. 

I'm very happy to have this course and facility in our area. 

[Matt_Ward]

Wyatt:

Try to calculate the costs of what it is to play a solid golf course located in and around the mountain area of Colorado. Stack up the fees at Lakota Canyon Ranch and in its own way it's a bargain no less than what you find at CommonGround. Normal fees for courses like Red Sky Ranch and the courses at Cordillera are far more than what you have to pay at Lakota Canyon Ranch.

One other thing -- I believe Four Mile Ranch is the best quality course you can play in all of Colorado for the type of design you receive, the land the course occupies and, of course, the fees charged to play.

You asked me is Lakota twice the course that CG is -- my short answer is maybe not twice the course but it's overall a better overall golf experience and worth whatever the differential is.

Matthew Rose:

Fair points on the condition side of things. There are other public courses within the same price point that provide a bit better overall turf conditions than now encountered at CG. I do agree about the hairyness of the fairways and the general lack of any real ground condition that fostered a ground game component. To be fair, the course is quite young and likely all the other elements will likely come into play as time progresses. I sure hope so.

I liked the firmness of the greens but I too agree that without the wherewithal to properly spin the ball it puts even more pressure on those players who likely don't hit the ball far enough to hit let less club into them.

[Tim Pitner]

I'd prefer tighter lies in the fairway, but hey, I'd prefer sand-based, linksy turf too--what can you reasonably expect of a public course at this time of year in Denver?  You want tight lies--you should have seen the hardpan lies available at the old Mira Vista.  

Last time I played CG, it was a warm, dry afternoon with a 1-2 club wind--the greens were very firm and, while we're not talking Pacific Dunes or Ballyneal here, there were ground game options, at least around the greens.  I thought that aspect of the course had improved from earlier in the summer.  

Matt, I'm glad you enjoyed the course--I wasn't sure it'd be your cup of tea.  

[Matt_Ward]

Tim:

I liked CG -- it just needs a bit of seasoning and maturation and that will come with time. No doubt if they had the x-tra $$ they would have included a range of additions to make the course even more compelling from a conditioning perspective. I like the idea in letting the wild grasses start to grow because the definition they provide will add a bit of make-up to the overall drab-like surroundings you encounter for much of the layout.

The Doak team did a fine job in providing plenty of interesting and exciting at times design elements. The tee game side is not really challenged when held against the sheer details they have included at or near the putting surfaces.

No doubt the fees charged limit what could have been done and CG is meant to bring people into the game at a wide variety of levels and backgrounds. For that reason it deserves high marks and you are 1000% correct when weighed against the drab likes of the former Mira Vista.

I'll be curious to see what progress CG makes in the next few years -- the details are still possible and if they are included will only make the course even more interesting to play.

[Rob Rigg]

Matt,

Lakota looks like an interesting and scenic course but it is cart ball (at least that is how several golfers have rated it for Walkability) - thus I have trouble understanding how it can be a better "overall golfing experience" than CG which is incredibly walkable.

Do you mean "aesthetic and strategic experience" or "cart golf experience"?

Or are the "pros" of playing at Lakota, in your opinion, so superior to CG that the inability to walk is outweighed by all of the other positives?

[Matt_Ward]

One of the really good holes at CG is the 10th -- a downhill slight dog-leg right par-4 of 437 yards from the tips. The land is a good bit better than what you get for much of the round. You tee off above the fairway and you begin to realize just how well positioned the solitary fairway bunker is on the right side of the hole. The bunker is roughly 100 yards from the green but can be reached because of the altitude and the downhill nature of the shot. One must play either short of it -- or try to hit past it if one so dares.

The green is another solid dimension to the hole -- very long and narrow with plenty of movement to induce three-putting. The start of the back nine at CG begins well with the 10th. Curious to know how others view the hole among all the par-4's at CG.

[Doug Wright]

Matt, I’m glad you enjoyed CommonGround. A couple reactions to your comments. First, I don’t get the over-emphasis on conditioning (e.g. wet conditions). The course is 3 months old! I think it’s in remarkable condition for a brand new golf course, especially with the play it’s getting. Many courses here in Colorado get really stressed later in the summer due to the high heat and low humidity. I’d expect that this has been a particularly difficult summer due to the excessive rainfall here. If measures aren’t taken (like leaving fairway heights a bit higher than normal and keeping things wet in the morning so the fairways survive the day) very bad things can happen, especially to a brand new golf course.  I think it’s more valid to take an established course like Riverdale Dunes to task for wet conditions. It’s not fair to evaluate the conditions of a brand new course like an established course. And to answer Tom Doak’s question, CG is in better shape than any public course I’ve played in and around Denver (including two “comparable” Denver city courses I’ve played the last two weeks) —again amazing for a 3 month old course still in its shakedown cruise over its first summer.

Second, regarding the golf course itself, you make some salient points. The course is more about what’s happening around the greens than off the tee. I expected you to be more harsh in your criticism of that aspect sicne I know you long and accurate advocate driving skill as a major facet of course analysis.  I agree that the strength of the course is the final five holes, and I suspected that would be your reaction since they are all brawny holes (save for the 18th). What’s interesting is your comment about the 15th hole. You mentioned the challenge of the left side fairway bunker on this 505 yard par 4; the brilliance of this hole (and many other features of CG) is that, for me and many mortals, that bunker doesn’t even exist! Instead, we have to deal with the RIGHT side bunker that stands between us and the perfect, unobstructed angle to the green. This is the essence of golf course design for me—a hole that successfully challenges and interests all levels of players. This occurs on holes like the par 5 3rd and 11th, where the cross-bunkers present many players with a decision and options.

I’m surprised you didn’t mention the 13th, which IMO is the best hole on the course due to the terrific pushed up and angled green that puts a premium on both the tee shot and the second shot.  I also thought you’d like the 5th, which is long, requires a solid drive with trouble left and right, and a massive green with great pin positions.  I’m not as excited about the 10th as you seem to be. It’s a nice hole with an interesting green that falls away, but in some respects I wish it had even more front to back cant, which would have added to the interest. I don’t find the tee shot all that exciting.  If that bunker in fact is 100 yards from the green on a 437 yard hole, it may  get your attention but it won’t get mine.   

You mention the 6th as the best par 3 hole. Would be great if you’d elaborate.

It’s really not fair to compare CommonGround with a mountain course like Lakota Canyon. It is fair to say that CommonGround stacks up very well vs. the other public offerings along the Front Range.   

[Will Smith]

Here is a link to Eric Iverson talking about the third and fourth holes at CG during construction with pictures from earlier this summer edited in.

http://punchbowlgolf.com/2009/08/common-ground-34/

When I was there June, the course was very firm despite the wet spring. I actually thought the conditioning was some of the best i had ever seen on a new course. Either things have gone down hill or some people expect way too much.

[Matt_Ward]

Doug:

The conditions were as I described. Should I simply ignore them and let everything go as is ? I understand how young the course is and salute the fine elements that are indeed present.

The fairways were long -- ditto for the tees -- several of which need to be leveled so proper play can occur over and over again. I'm not too good at adjusting my feet for a tee shot like I was on the side of a pitcher's mound.

What you didn't mention -- which I did -- was how special the greens and their surrounding areas were. I try to provide a fair presentation in my comments -- if you think opposite so be it. I didn't highlight conditioning as my only point but it does play a role. When a course opens it needs to have all the crucial details in working order within reason. In regards to courses being saturated -- I have a big bone to pick with plenty of mountain time zone courses that overwater to the point of tee shots hitting and stopping when landing. I used to think NM courses were like this (save for Black Mesa) but it's clear other take the approach in applyiing H20 to the max.

Doug, I like CG for what it offers to so many players -- a clear intro to what quality design can and should be about without chaging people a small fortune to play -- unfotunately that's what happens to many facilities in the mountains west of Denver and people will likely not head to a Red Sky Ranch (Norman) to see what all the fuss is about there because of $$.

Doug, I mentioned comparisons to all public courses in CO of comparable dollar amounts. I know Lakota is a mountain type course and it charges more -- but clearly elevation of Four Mile Ranch is a more apples to apples comparison. I played there again on my latest trip and I believe it's one of the best affordable public courses in the nation and likely Colorado's best when those conditions are applied.

Doug, good point on the 15th hole -- but the 11th is really no big deal for a player of any serious length. They will simply blow it down the left side and have a relatively e-z 2nd to the green.

In regards to the 10th - keep in mind the distance to the bunker becomes far less when played from the middle or frontal markers. The distance from the tips will keep better players on their toes though.

I liked the 13th and agree it's a hole I should have said more about. I like the angled tee shot and the way the front bunker protects that entire side of the green. Once again -- the back nine really shows something.

In regards to the 5th I didn't find the hole that special ... no doubt a tough par but if played downwind it's fairly ordinary when held against the other long par-4's at CG -- especially holes like #15 and #16.

I found the 6th to be a real test as a par-3 hole. The green wraps around the frontal bunkers and when the pin is placed far left the H20 is very e-z to reach for any misplay that happens. Also, the hole is well within the range of most players so it's not about length as the 14th and 17th clearly are. 

[Wayne Wiggins, Jr.]

I recently played CommonGround on very, very windy day in Denver.  Since there are an abundance of pix on this thread, I didn’t take any (plus my camera sucks), but here are a couple initial thoughts. First, I don’t care if this were a rank-and-file muni, CCFAD, or private club, this was very good and very fun golf.  Superb use of width and angles, as evidence in those pix of #1, #4 (cape), #10, #11.  Fairway width was especially useful in the wind, as it provided plenty of opportunity to hit the fairway, and I imagine that keeps the pace-of-play moving so players aren’t searching for their balls in the rough.  Conditioning was fine.  Greens were fast enough, and putted true enough.  For the group that are fans of Rustic Canyon (as I am), I think CommonGround is equally worthy, and multiple plays should allow one to appreciate the angles, and run-offs, etc. 

I agree with many of the thoughts that have been made here that the course is very interesting around the greens, maybe more so than off the tee.  However, it seems those green complexes, and the variety of shots needed to play into them and around them after you’ve missed the putting surface was very dependant on the angle of your approach shot.  I had to imagine and then play a number of different shots with a variety of different clubs, and that’s something I haven’t done since coming back from playing in the UK (Wales). 

The greens are big and well done, and the thoughts and details are clearly there.   I really liked the par-5 3rd…  part punchbowl, part “boomerang” like the 7th at Crystal Downs.  Wonder if T. Doak was influenced at all by that green?

Much as been said about the closing 5 holes… and I wholeheartedly agree that they are a fantastic stretch, especially the blind 2nd shot on the par-5 18, with an Alps-type bunker (I think) a little off to the left of the green.

All in all, my playing partner, who is very good, lo-handicapper, and I really liked CommonGround.  While the land was certainly flat in a number of areas (holes 3 and 4)  #11,  I do think there was plenty of intrigue in dealing with bunkers, especially those of the crossing nature, and angles into the putting surfaces.  And, for $75 for both us, not sure there’s a better deal to be had anywhere!  So, if and when one is in the Denver area, CommonGround is well worth your time and money.

[Matt_Ward]

Wayne:

Interetsing to read your comments.

The par-5 3rd benefits immensely from the mound that protects the right half of the green. It's close enough to force any player to think very carefully on how best to either go over or around it.

Be curious to match up the two courses -- Rustic Canyon and CommonGround.

Wayne, if you get back to the area you should try to visit Four Mile Ranch in Canon City. It provides no less the elements you highlighted and is located on an even more unique piece of terrain.

I do concur -- those who happen to land at Denver Int'l Airport should pop right over and play the course -- it certainly is a bargain in today's economy.

[Patrick Kiser]

Resurrecting this thread because I had a chance to play it this week + thought I'd provide an update.

I have to say this course rocks.  It didn't take more than one round either to figure that out.  So I'm very much in agreement with most on this thread.  Sounds like conditioning was being questioned somewhat about this time last year and I have to say ... the course is holding up rather well.  I wouldn't go so far as to say fast and firm, but certainly quite good and the ball rolled nicely.  Greens were in very good shape.

For what this course offers, I was pleasantly surprised at how good it was.  I'll agree with Matt the course is not a complete challenge shot value wise, but I don't think short game wise you can possibly be disappointed.  Very, very good in and around the greens.

So although I agree the greens and surrounds are rather fun and good, I have to say I'm a little surprised we didn't go more in depth to some other things I felt were quite strong...

First off the routing...  Nicely done actually with many shifts in direction.  Tight tee to green transitions with many chances to have a look at the upcoming hole and its green.  I know this course gets tagged as being flat, but I think the design deserves kudos for making the most of the elevation changes (especially on the back nine).  There's good ebb and flow throughout.  We made great time on the front nine and kept a very good rhythm going.

I liked the parkland feel to the course and you especially notice this from the bunkers that give off at times the "old school" feel.  Bunker shaping wise, it kind of felt something Colt / Ross like.

The width of the fairways really inspired confidence and you absolutely feel you can go for it, but you really do want to pick your position in order to angle into the green.  It's not wham bam...  I did not find the rough to be at all bad.  Reasonable is how I would describe it.  So maybe they are listening.

Shared fairway bunkers on a couple of holes is something I like to see.  I also saw a few suttle mounds short of a few greens that can make a big difference in how good your running approach plays out.

We don't often bring this up about a course, but I felt CG had a pretty decent practice facility.  Range and short game areas to warm up to.  Practice green is identical in speed to the course greens, so you can really feel prepared once you walk onto that first tee.

Although they have the caddie program when I asked for one ... I was disappointed to find out I had to reserve 48 hours in advance.  On a hot day like it was on Monday, I could have used the relief.  Oh well...  Otherwise, reasonable pricing for a caddie.

I had a couple of favorites like everyone else I guess and I particularly enjoyed the uphill 9th with a boomerang like green.  Quite fun I thought.  Then the par 3 12th had a lot going on short and around the green + had a sweet green as well.  I also liked the follow up 13th.  The green shaping left to right and up along the way was fun.  The par 3 14th had a fine green and I like the slight blindness from the right.  I really liked the par 4 16th and the nice little power boost for those able to reach out there with their drive, plus the quick transition from the 15th green to 16th tee there was well done.  

One thing I did not like was how the 18th finished.  Although, I liked the 18th from the tee and for the approach ... I simply did not get the tree right of the green where you also found a bunker complex just beyond it.  The left and right trees also felt like a departure and seem to crowd the green somewhat.

One last thing was the pace of play on the back nine.  It was simply ridiculous.  It got very cluttered once we got onto the 13th / 14th and things basically came to a rather bad halt.  No marshall at all to get things moving along and that seemed odd because the marshall's presence was noticed on the front nine where ... things were moving along.

So all in all, quite an enjoyable round (except for the pace on the back) and I'd highly recommend folks give this course a try or ... another try.  Just be sure to walk it if you can as well.

[Carl Rogers]

Is it possible to fast forward 15 years and anticpate the need for a tree removal program?  Or do trees without that much water not grow very fast there?

[Tom_Doak]

Carl,

Trees do not grow very fast there.  And with Eric Iverson living close by, I'm confident the trees won't get away from them.

Patrick,

You are not the only one to dislike my tree on #18.  But I left it because it would otherwise be an easy 4 for good players with nothing to make them worry, and because you can't see bunkers or anything else from underneath the hill after a good tee shot.  We were pretty much stuck with playing blind and uphill for the 18th.

[Matthew Petersen]

I get a lot of enjoyment seeing photos of this beautiful course. I played Mira Vista (the one-time military course that then turned public once the base closed) many, many times. It had no interest but it was cheap and golf is golf. My favorite memory of that course is heading into the clubhouse snack bar at the turn to grab some lunch one day and being there at just the perfect time to watch the CU-Michigan Hail Mary play live as it happened.

I should very much like to play CG sometime when I'm back in Denver, but it's great to get to see these photos in the meanwhile.

[Mark Provenzano]

Took my boys to the CommonGround kids course in August, two very enthusiastic thumbs up from them. They felt it was more like a real golf course than most short courses, and learned a few valuable lessons about how being in a grass bunker can be much, much worse than sand.  Thanks to the CGA for including that with the project.

The huge driving range is supposed to be usable from both ends, but we saw how much farther the ball can travel at altitude. There were warm-ups for a long-drive contest going on as we were finishing up, and one competitor put a ball onto the the 9th green of the kids course. If you've been there, you can appreciate just how ridiculously far that is.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()