[Peter Ferlicca]

I had the great chance to play CommonGround today in a afternoon round after my treacherous round at horrible Heritage Eagle Bend for the Assistants Championship.   I must say I thought this was an AWESOME golf course.  The bunkers are not the usual you will see with Tom Doak courses but I just loved them, it was almost sort of a Seth Raynor look but yet not.  The greens were awesome, the strategy was evident on every hole, and it was just a very enjoyable golf round.  The front nine is the easy nine and then you get to the back and are approached by quite a hard stretch of holes with 13-17.  The greens were great shape IMO, nice and firm and were rolling at the perfect speed for the slope.  I played with three local Denver guys and they all expressed their great joy in the course and how happy they are it is there.  One guy even mentioned this is the ONLY GOOD public course in Denver, and after playing it I'm sure I agree with him.  The same guy said that once I got screwed by a nasty downhill lie on one of the random mounds Tom builds he goes, "everyone around here calls that getting Doaked."  I started cracking up once I heard that one.  Tom Doak, Eric Iverson, Don Placek and all the great associates that helped out in building this course so be very proud of themselves for building such a great enjoyable golf course

Here is the practice putting green with mowed down grass all over the place



Hole 1 (Par 4- 489 vards)  Good soft opening tee shot but a very difficult opening green, I have a feeling Tom likes to start the players out with a green that shows what they are in for.




Hole 2 (Par 3- 144 yards) Awesome moat green that is raised up


Hole 3 (Par 5- 586 yards)  Cool punchbowl par 5





Hole 4 (Par 4- 424 yards)  IMO the best hole on the golf course, great view from the tee with Denver skyline in the background and and great approach shot to a severly sloping back to front green.





Hole 5 (Par 4- 489 yards)  Another good hole, hazard down the left the whole way, there are just so many holes that look awesome when you step up to the tee.  There are a couple of breast rough humps in the middle of the fairway, that made me chuckle a bit.



Hole 6 (Par 3- 188 yards)  Here is the supposed replica of the 16th at Augusta, I haven't been there but the green sure did seem similar.  That pin position was impossible.



Hole 7 (Par 5- 545 yards)  A very easy par 5, considering I made an eagle



Hole 8 (Par 4- 355 yards) A driveable par 4, but if you miss it to the left or the right you have a very difficult chip.



Hole 9 (Par 4- 376 yards)  A good uphill par 4, there is a little hill that come into play on holes #1, 9, 10, 18, but other than that it is a flat golf course, very walkable.



Hole 10 (Par 4- 437 yards) A good downhile par 4, a very good looking approach shot



Hole 11 (Par 5- 539 yards) A tough par 5 despite its distance, the second shot is quite hard if you are laying up, not much room for comfort.  If you haven't noticed yet, the geese out here are very friendly and just sit around while you hit your shot




Hole 12 (Par 3- 219 yards) A long tough par 3 with hazard all the way around the green



Hole 13 (Par 4- 417 yards)  My second favorite hole on the golf course, a real shallow green surround by awesome looking bunkers.






Hole 14 (Par 3- 198 yards) A good par 3 to a severly sloping green



Hole 15 (Par 4- 505 yards) A loooooooooonng par 4 that plays a little bit uphill too.



Hole 16 (Par 4- 476 yards) Another good hole, a dogleg left par 4.



Hole 17 (Par 3- 243 yards) A great par 3, it plays long but the look of it makes up for it 



Hole 18 (Par 5- 568 yards) A great finishing hole, plays uphill and then a lone pine tree plays into your second and third shot depending on how far you hit it.

[Yannick Pilon]

Hey Peter!

It was nice meeting you at Stone Eagle this past April.  I had a blast playing there with the help of Joe Mac!!

Nice pictures of Common Ground.  It's great to see new courses like Rustic Canyon, Tallgrass and the likes pop up here and there.  It's what this industry needs.

I am not sure I like the look of the course in general, at least from the pictures, but I sure like the idea behind the development of this course: affordable golf that is smart and interesting.  It might be on another thread already, but I wonder what were the cost saving measures that were employed here.  4.5 million is still a good chunk of money to work with....

Cheers.

YP

[Brad Swanson]

IMHO, CommonGround is a great case study for how fun green complexes and interesting angles off of the tee are really all that are necessary to hold my attention on the golf course.  I don't agree that CG is the "only good" public golf course in Denver, but it certain is a welcome addition.  I just wish they had built it about 10 years ago so I could've enjoyed it on a regular basis.  The closing stretch of holes is really solid.

Cheers,
Brad

[Adam Clayman]

It might be on another thread already, but I wonder what were the cost saving measures that were employed here.  4.5 million is still a good chunk of money to work with....

Cheers.

YP

Yannick, Where did you get that figure? I was unaware it was that much. I have my doubts as to it's accuracy.

Confirmation?

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks much, Peter.

The first time I heard the name CommonGround, the first thought that popped into my head was Village Green - the common/communal green space in the middle of old English towns that everyone could use for recreation and refreshment and celebration.

I don't know if the connection to the old village green concept was in any way intentional (I'd like to think so), but the pictures are pretty much exactly what I'd imagined them to be....

Fwiw, I like the 'message' that sends, intentional or not

Peter

  

[Rob Rigg]

Thanks for the pictures - this looks like a really enjoyable walking course that would be the envy of many a city.

Not every course in the US needs to be competing for top 100 honors (even if 99% of them are doing so in a delusional manner).

CommonGround should be a case study in how to renovate a flat course by adding interest through the greens, bunkers and via strategy.

Instead of CCFADs with tricked up routings sliced up with miles of cart paths, cities should be looking to work with developers/archies/municipalities on grassroots golf projects like CG.

[Eric Smith]

Yannick, Where did you get that figure? I was unaware it was that much. I have my doubts as to it's accuracy.

Confirmation?

Tom Doak has confirmed this figure, or round about it on here before.  He has also stated that the irrigation costs for this particular project were higher than the norm.

This article pegs the budget at $4.8M...    http://www.denvermagazine.com/structure/2009/04/sense-belonging

[Will Smith]

I had the great pleasure of playing at Common Ground this spring. It is a very good golf course and worthy of study. I vistied the course in the Sprng of '08 and rode around with Eric Iverson. This video shows a little of the thought process behind Renaissance Golf's work with some images from construction and the competed golf course.

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

[Tim Pitner]

Thanks for the pictures - this looks like a really enjoyable walking course that would be the envy of many a city.

Not every course in the US needs to be competing for top 100 honors (even if 99% of them are doing so in a delusional manner).

CommonGround should be a case study in how to renovate a flat course by adding interest through the greens, bunkers and via strategy.

Instead of CCFADs with tricked up routings sliced up with miles of cart paths, cities should be looking to work with developers/archies/municipalities on grassroots golf projects like CG.

Rob, I agree with what you say, but I think people may be under-selling CommonGround.  It is an enjoyable walking course, but it's more than that--it's really quite a good course.  I'm not into ratings, but I would rate it very highly, certainly among Colorado public courses.

[Jerry Kluger]

Peter:

thanks for the pictures - I am going there in a couple of weeks and it looks like a fun course

I think as a public venue there is a need to challenge and please all levels of golfers and that is done quite well at CG.  The holes allow for different lines of play where the lesser skilled player can go around the hazards while the better player can challenge them  - there are no difficult forced carries off the tee and one can go around or over the fairway bunkers as well as the water hazards.  The greens allow the player to get on the putting surface without going over the bunkers and the contours of the green surfaces are significant but not overly severe. 

[Matt_Ward]

Tim:

Given your awareness level of Colorado public courses -- especiall those in and around the Dener metro region -- where would you place CommonGround -- top five, top ten, etc, etc ?

I like what I see and will be playing the course this summer.

Specifics are appreciated.

[Brad Swanson]

Let's not forget about the very cool kids course at CommonGround.  I think that aspect of the facility is a big plus for a public access golf  course located in a major metro area.  It might not be long enough to garner any praise from Matt though, and I'm not sure if its been rated for slope or course rating either.

Cheers,
Brad

[Tim Pitner]

Matt,

I'll try to answer your question, but my rankings are very personal; I don't have any sort of established methodology that takes into account the totality of the shot values or any such thing.  

I would rate CommonGround at least a 6 on the Doak Scale (although I believe Tom himself said it was no more than a 5--I disagree).  In the Denver area, that would put CG roughly equal to Riverdale Dunes in my book and above the likes of Murphy Creek, Buffalo Run and Fossil Trace.  (I know you like Fossil Trace more than I do, which I put down to personal preferences--I enjoy the wild greens there, but don't particularly like several other features).  

I tend to regard Riverdale Dunes as the gold standard of Denver-area public golf.  In comparing CG to Riverdale, CG fares pretty well.  Generally, the greens have more internal contours and I find the greens and greens surrounds to be more interesting than at Riverdale.  I also appreciate the consistency of the design when compared to the somewhat uneven design at Riverdale (e.g., #5 at RD might not seem to belong on the same course as #15).  I would also say that CG doesn't have any weak holes where Riverdale has at least one (#18).  RD is more penal and more resistant to scoring.  Some might find CG to be not difficult enough.  

I have a hard time comparing the publicly accessible mountain courses like Breckenridge, the Keystone courses, the Raven and Pole Creek to the front range courses because they're so different.  I generally prefer walking courses to cart courses.  I wouldn't rate any of the above courses more than a Doak 6.  Nor would I rate courses like Haymaker or River Valley Ranch, which are more comparable to the Denver-area courses, more than a 6.  I haven't played some of your favorites like Lakota Canyon or Red Sky Ranch (Norman).  

So, geez, I guess I think pretty highly of CG, but I'm a sucker for cross-bunkering, closely mowed chipping areas, interesting greens, cool subtleties and a walkable course.  (And Brad's right--I've been around the kids' course with my 6 year old daughter and it was great fun).

[John Mayhugh]

Thanks for posting the photos Peter.

I played CG a few weeks ago and had a great time.  The course is not all that visually appealing IMO, but it plays wonderfully.  I told my buddy that it's a really solid lesson in golf architecture.  Choices abound on pretty much every hole and we spent a bit of time with the yardage book on almost every tee shot.  A 6 on the Doak scale sounds about right.  I would give it more like a 9 on the fun scale. 

[Jay Flemma]

looks great!  now tom can accept that challenge RTJ2 threw down on him about chambers bay!

http://www.cybergolf.com/golf_news/robert_trent_jones_jr_interview

[Matt_Ward]

Tim:

I never knew ratings were anything other than personal.

Have you played Bear Dance in Larkspur? Highland Meadows in Windsor? Vista Ridge? Devil's Thumb in Delta?

Interesting how you would not place Haymaker higher? Quality effort from Keith Foster that gets no attention here.

The long and the short of it -- CG makes your personal top 3 public courses you have played in all of Colorado?

Thanks ...

p.s. Last question -- how do you take into account shot values or is simply disregarded by you when evaluating?

[Brad Swanson]

looks great!  now tom can accept that challenge RTJ2 threw down on him about chambers bay!

http://www.cybergolf.com/golf_news/robert_trent_jones_jr_interview

Man Jay, do you get paid by the name drop?

[Tim Pitner]

Matt,

I'm very familiar with Bear Dance, but I haven't played the others.  I like BD and always enjoy playing there.  It's a much different kind of course than CommonGround or Riverdale Dunes, but I wouldn't say it's a better one. 

I like Haymaker a lot, although I only played it once, sort of late in the season in Steamboat and conditioning wasn't great.  I probably haven't played it enough to say, but I don't think it would rate above a 6 on the Doak Scale which, as you know, is a pretty demanding scale. 

Yes, I probably would put it in my top 3 publics in Colorado although, as I said, I find it very difficult to compare a walking, prairie-links style, under $50 course with a coniferous tree-lined, cartball, $150 course.  I have a bias for links-like courses so that obviously affects my rankings.

I have never heard a definition of "shot values" that is coherent to me.  If you're asking whether I consider whether the course requires the golfer to hit fun or challenging shots, yes, I do. 

[Yannick Pilon]

Adam,

The 4.5 million figure came from an article on the Punchbowl Golf website.  I believe Eric Iverson might even mention it as well in his interview there.  Can't be sure, though.  I listened to the thing a couple days ago....

I find 4.5 million is still fairly high, that's why I wonder what they did differently on that site that they would have normally done elsewhere.

Regardless, I wish there was more courses like that around.

YP

[Tom_Doak]

Yannick:

When I get back home next week I will post the outline budget for Common Ground, so everyone can see how it's easy to get up to $4 million nowadays, even when you're trying to keep costs in line.  There was a certain amount of red tape seeing that it was a public project, but it wasn't nearly as costly as doing a muni for a big city.

[Yannick Pilon]

Can't wait to see that Tom,

I am working on a course where my construction budget is 2.25 million!!  No doubt this is no Shadow Creek, and there are a lot of compromises being made, but I am interested to see how you did CommonGround for 4.5....

YP

[Matt_Ward]

Tim:

Thanks for the detailed reply.

Shot values to me is the wherewithal of a design to place a premium on maximum dexterity with the greater range of club. No doubt that also entails control of the ball / trajectory from different lies and the talent to work the ball when called upon -- a great course does throw in situations of this type.

Great courses also have critical holes where the elevation of what I just said can be rather intense -- but still fun in trying to overcome the issues presented.

Many courses overdose on the scenic meter and allow the backdrop to tell the story. The great layouts -- even those at the public level -- are able to tell a story that flows entirely from what the player faces starting from the 1st tee shot through the dropping of the final putt.

I like Bear Dance a lot and take heed of your comments on CommonGround which I will be playing shortly. I would give Haymaker a return play -- and also keep on the radar screen Highland Meadows in Windsor.

For any course to sniff the likes of Lakota Canyon and Norman's Red Sky Ranch is indeed a high bar. For dollar value and in comparable terms to what CG is about -- Devil's Thumb in Delta by Rick Phelps is also quite good. Ditto his effort in Falcon with Antler Creek.

[Cristian]

Peter,

Great thread thanks, another example of how good design can create a great course in terms of fun to play, even though maintenance or eye-candy factors may not be highest.
One question though; some of the youngish tree's seem to be affecting play considerably already. An interesting feature, but how will this evolve as these tree's further mature? Or are they less of a factor than they look like in the pictures?

Thanks for the pics!

[Adam Russell]

Cristian -

They're not a factor at all. The only tree I could think of that could impact play in the future is the an original pine to the left of #10 (besides the trees that were specifically part of the holes design - ala #16 or #11). None of the younger transplants will come into play even when they grow out.

[Phil McDade]

Shot values to me is the wherewithal of a design to place a premium on maximum dexterity with the greater range of club.

Matt -- what does this mean?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()