[Matt_Ward]

Phil:

Shot values has different meanings to different people.

For me -- high caliber design forces the player to have the maximym skill level for the greatest number of clubs. You cannot simply get by with skill at say a few of them -- but wiill need to bring to the course the widest array of skill sets.

That includes knowing how to work the ball into different positions. Shaping shots is something that a superior layout calls upon the player to do. It's not enough to simply power the ball -- you may need to work the ball -- both high and low, and side-to-side from right-to-left and left-to-right.

Digest has long maintained shot values is the mixture of power, finesse and accuracy in such a way that all three elements are involved without any of them dominating over the other. I never really thought that defnition really flushed things out that far.

Hope this helps you better understand ...

p.s. It seems from the comments posted thus far that CommonGround has a number of clear shot values that call upon the player to have high skill levels with the braodest array fo clubs. I'll find out firsthand when I play there later this month.

[Mike Hendren]

Based on these photographs, I'd put this course at the top of my list of Doak's work I'd like to see.  We're all guilty of a little hyperbole from time to time, but I find this particular photograph as good as it gets:



Major kudos to Tom Doak.  While Tim Bert likes to call me the Anti-Doak, Tom's stock just went up in my book.

Mike

[Peter Pallotta]

Michael - that's interesting. I think it was you, quite a while back, who posted pictures of a mystery course you'd played with John K, and asked us our opinions of it and to guess the architect. And I think that course was Riverfront, or another lower-keyed Tom D course.  And from pictures, both that course and this one seem to shout out not so much GOLF (the way, say, Pacific Dunes does) but PLAYING GOLF....if you know what I mean. I think of it as some kind of very fine Donald Ross course, or of a lesser-known, low-profiled English course like the ones Sean A writes about. Do you see the same thing? (Do I have any of this right?)

Peter

[Mike Hendren]

Peter,

You're thinking of Quail Crossing - just a stones throw from Victoria National in southern Indiana.   While I've had the tremendous good fortune of playing Ballyneal and Pacific Dunes, I think Tom Doak's talent shines through in the photograph I posted.  While I understand it might not be the highest and best use of his talents to design courses on "common ground" and in doing so he might not be following in the footsteps of his idol, The Good Doctor, I'd like to see more of this type of work from him - which I believe holds the promise of a genuine renaissance in golf course architecture.

Bogey

[Doug Wright]

Bogey, It's even more fun when you're in one of those bunkers....

At first I didn't like the name CommonGround. I thought it was too pedestrian and boring. Now I think it's a very apt description of the course, and I think you have it right Peter Pallotta: CommonGround is a playing field for golfers. In this respect it is much like the lower profile courses I've played in the UK.

[Eric_Terhorst]

high caliber design forces the player to have the maximym skill level for the greatest number of clubs. You cannot simply get by with skill at say a few of them -- but wiill need to bring to the course the widest array of skill sets.

Matt, execution skill is clearly required on a well-designed course, but to say that the design must test the player's skill with "the greatest number of clubs" is complete nonsense.  Will you be arguing next that we go back to the old days when golfers carried two dozen specialty impelments?

A good design challenges the brain and the player's ability to execute what he imagines.  Whether I choose to do that with 1 club, 3 clubs, or a set of 14 is compeltely irrelevant to the quality of the design. 

[Matt_Ward]

Doug:

Given your experience with various Colorado public courses where would you place CommonGround ?

Is it ahead of Murphy's Creek? Fossil Trace? Bear Dance?

I'd like to get a handle on where you see it given your awareness and playing involvements within the state for public type courses.

Thanks ...

Eric:

"Complete nonsense" you say.

Really ?

Eric, let me help sort out your narrow mis-understanding of what I wrote. Golfers get 14 clubs -- great designs don't allow you to zone in with a skill set to hit only 3-4 and the rest hang in one's bag as ornaments.

I view many courses today as being extremely limited -- a well hit tee shot and often times on a mediocre designed course the hole(s) will generally surrender.

Hate to break the news to you -- but if a course only challenges you to create shot with one club or 3 then the course is a limited one in my mind. I can't name a single legitimate great course that doesn't really force maximum skill levels with the widest array of clubs.

Your mentioning of "brain power" when playing is also quite elementary on your part.

The reality is matching the brain dimension with an execution skill set with the widest array of clubs is what really take a good course to an even higher level. 

[Doug Wright]

Doug:

Given your experience with various Colorado public courses where would you place CommonGround ?

Is it ahead of Murphy's Creek? Fossil Trace? Bear Dance?

I'd like to get a handle on where you see it given your awareness and playing involvements within the state for public type courses.

Thanks ...

/quote]

Matt, fair question but I think I need to play CG a couple more times before I can provide a refined answer. The subtle, low profile nature of CG makes it difficult to compare to the courses you mention. Fossil Trace and Bear Dance are VERY different golf courses from CommonGround.

[Matt_Ward]

Doug:

No doubt the nature of Colorado public golf is quite different from one end of the state to the other. Be interested in reading your take when time permits.

One of my favorite affordable and quality public courses is Devil's Thumb in Delta by Rick Phelps. Charges low green fees but gets little exposure although it finished 2nd to Rustic Canyon in the Digest assessment of Best New Affordable a few years back. The issue for DT is its location and the fact that Rick Phelps gets little overall attention. Certainly well worth playing and the layout there has one of the best split fairway holes I have ever played.

CG clearly is anoither reason to sample the many fine and varied public course offerings you find in Colorado.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Yannick, my friend:

What is it about the look of Common Ground that you don't like?

Curious,

[Tim Gerrish]

"  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...."

I can't wait to see the budget either.  I've built enter 18 hole courses more than once from undeveloped land for that amount.  I'll assume it is for ol' prevailing wage devil.


Jeff,  I don't think it is anything in particular that Yannick doesn't like, just that 4.5 isn't really that cheap for a renovation.   It better include a new irrigation system!

[Jeff_Mingay]

Tim,

Yannick specifically says he's not fond of the look of the course in a previous post.

Just curious, again, what it is that he doesn't particularly like about the look.

Cheers,

[Thomas Patterson]

Tuesday afternoon was my first chance to see CommonGround Golf Course and to play a round.  Wow......

I was really blown away by the course.  I had very high expectations after all the discussion I have seen here and read throughout construction on various blogs/etc.  I felt as though every tee shot made you decide what route would work best in order to put you in the best position going forward.  The fairways had width to allow for a "safe" play, but also presented risk/reward options quite frequently.  From the tee, bunkers appear very subtle as some have said, but I think they are anything but that when seen from up close and personal.  Firm and fast conditions also put these hazards into play much more.  Speaking of conditions, I was equally impressed.  Everything was firm and fast and in beautiful shape.  The greens, although seeing a lot of play, were in excellent shape.  They rolled very true and were pretty fast! 

The greens deserve a new paragraph in my opinion.  I could not believe how much FUN I had on every single one!  They were pretty big for the most part, which put a premium on accuracy.  The movement and slope of the greens are just amazing.  My favorite greens were #8, 12, 14 and 15.  I have a feeling the more I play out there, all will become favorites though!  The conditions allowed for some run up shots that you don't see out in CO.  Several approaches were hit multiple times just for fun after our first shots were hit....trying to run over the contours and get it close was a ton of fun!  They were not easy by any means, nor is the course.  From the tips it is a tough test.

Anyone that can get out and play a round (or 10!) here should.  I think that it will introduce a great many people to amazing architecture and in turn, open their eyes to a whole new world of golf they never knew existed. If people are anything like me, it will also put a lot of fun into each round!!!

Here are a couple of pictures I took from the evening.  Cheers!

[Sean_A]

I think this course looks to have a lot of the stuff I really like. It looks to be wide, with a variety of hazards and many grade levelish greens from the approach angle.  There are some details that I scratch my head over.  Some mounding with rough, bunkers surrounded by rough and the awful bunker separating the green from water, but all in all, the course looks a cracker. 

Like Mike, I too am impressed by these sorts of efforts because for one its flat land.  This is very much a positive for walking, but a negative for visuals and trying to create variety of design - yet the course looks to be interesting enough.  I am also impressed because the course is accessible and affordable, yet it looks like they are making an effort to create a club as well - very commendable.  How many think that if this course had a better back drop there would be a lot more ooohing and ahhhing?

Peter - thanks for posting the pix.     

Ciao

[Tim Pitner]

How many think that if this course had a better back drop there would be a lot more ooohing and ahhhing?

Sean,

Sorry to quibble, but the "back drop" of CommonGround--the expansive views to the west of the front range of the Rocky Mountains and downtown Denver--is actually very impressive, as Thomas' photo at sunset shows.  I would say it's the flat land plus the immediate location in strip-mall filled southeast metro Denver that puts off some people. 

Just judging from your comments on various courses, I think CommonGround is a course you would appreciate. 

[Adam Russell]

Thomas -

You've just made my day, friend! This picture shows off my one true masterpiece. See that mound on the right side of the bunker in the foreground here? 3+ hrs. I raked and shoveled dirt on that thing. It was hideous in the before shots. See the way it tapers off after it hits the rough line. That is no accident!!! That's my baby. And you're the first one to showcase it. Thanks for taking to the time - they're the best yet of the green contours. What did you think of the half-pipe on the right side of #5 green?

[Thomas Patterson]

Adam - Glad I could make your day! 

My partner and I both loved the bunkering and shapes/mounds around this green.  I was coming in from the right side and I pulled my shot a little.  It hit your little mound and shot it straight into the bunker.  Beautiful design!  I actually went to hit my ball in the bunker, but decided I had to get a picture first and ran back and snapped this before hitting. 

Loved #5 as well, but stayed on the left hand side, and pin was cut left as well, so didn't get to experience your half pipe.  I look forward to going back out and getting a few more rounds under my belt out there and really study some of the features.  I think it's a course that gives you so many options you'll never get bored!

[Matt_Ward]

Be curious to know if anyone has played both The Rawls Course in Lubbock, TX and CommonGround.

Given what Doak and team tried to create at both -- with the desire to keep greens fees modest -- I wonder where they merge and where they are dissimilar.

Thanks ...

[Adam Russell]

Thomas -
The Renaissance guys deserve all the credit for the rough shapes and the design ideas, like the half-pipe on #5. What we (three interns and myself) did was take the shapes down from rough dirt and smooth them into natural curves. It's harder to do than one would think because a half-inch of dirt not blended into the native soil looks foreign to the eye. The blending is done with baseball and simple garden rakes, wetting it slightly and taking a hard crust and breaking it down pass by pass until you get the desired shape. We also did all the drainage and cut the lines for all but maybe five bunkers.

I'm glad you appreciated #10. It's one of the reason why I came to love the course so much, and think so highly of its design. There is a simplicity to the construction of it, yet there was so much though that went into it - how the green angled, what type of shot would come into the hole, how a different trajectory will affect the bounce, how much easier the angle would change if you challenge the bunkers. Discussion that I imagine goes into any sound golf hole design. What is so neat about CommonGround is that these ideas are built so simply that any number of courses could take the same set-up and use it. #10 could be done anywhere - it a ground level flat entrance, and turns into a kind of canted double-plateau as it drops off the back. The contours never seem to rise more than half and inch, even though there probably more like a foot and a half by the back edge of the green. The construction to build it was minimal, because the contours are less exaggerated. Add a couple mounds, and it turns into a dynamic area of the course. And the more you play it the more you see so many simplistically sound design ideas that other courses of its kind should emulate, and could emulate very easily. #14's mounds are another area. I'm glad you enjoyed Thomas it was a master's session in golf course construction no doubt.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:  Common Ground and The Rawls Course are very, very different.

Both of them started with a budget number -- $4 million for CG and twice that for The Rawls.  Common Ground had relatively few topo features but already surface drained [because there was already a golf course there] ... The Rawls had 0.2% of tilt to it, so everything had to be graded just to get the water off and make it playable after a rain.

The CGA didn't care much at all about spending money on esthetics, they just wanted a good golf course.  Mr. Rawls and the University cared a lot about esthetics, and as a result we spent a couple million dollars on the perimeter of the property, with mounding and landscaping to block out the less attractive neighbors.

Lubbock is the windiest place we've ever worked [even windier than Tasmania!], so a lot of our holes there are designed around the wind ... difficult little pitches or long, running approaches on downwind holes; lengthy holes which play like beasts back into the wind.  Common Ground is wide, but The Rawls Course is uber-wide because of those winds.  The Rawls Course also has a unique bunker style -- narrow bunkers to keep the wind from getting into them too much.

At The Rawls Course we were encouraged to think about tournament play and a possible NCAA Championship someday.  The CGA will host many of its statewide events at Common Ground over time, but the overriding mission was to build a good and BUSY $40 golf course that was fun to play.

[Thomas Patterson]

Thomas -
The Renaissance guys deserve all the credit for the rough shapes and the design ideas, like the half-pipe on #5. What we (three interns and myself) did was take the shapes down from rough dirt and smooth them into natural curves. It's harder to do than one would think because a half-inch of dirt not blended into the native soil looks foreign to the eye. The blending is done with baseball and simple garden rakes, wetting it slightly and taking a hard crust and breaking it down pass by pass until you get the desired shape. We also did all the drainage and cut the lines for all but maybe five bunkers.

I'm glad you appreciated #10. It's one of the reason why I came to love the course so much, and think so highly of its design. There is a simplicity to the construction of it, yet there was so much though that went into it - how the green angled, what type of shot would come into the hole, how a different trajectory will affect the bounce, how much easier the angle would change if you challenge the bunkers. Discussion that I imagine goes into any sound golf hole design. What is so neat about CommonGround is that these ideas are built so simply that any number of courses could take the same set-up and use it. #10 could be done anywhere - it a ground level flat entrance, and turns into a kind of canted double-plateau as it drops off the back. The contours never seem to rise more than half and inch, even though there probably more like a foot and a half by the back edge of the green. The construction to build it was minimal, because the contours are less exaggerated. Add a couple mounds, and it turns into a dynamic area of the course. And the more you play it the more you see so many simplistically sound design ideas that other courses of its kind should emulate, and could emulate very easily. #14's mounds are another area. I'm glad you enjoyed Thomas it was a master's session in golf course construction no doubt.

Adam - Thank you for the information about the blending, which sounds pretty fun actually!!  I am fairly new to construction and that helped immensely in my understanding of the features!

I agree with you about the simplistic design.  I enjoyed it very much and can't wait to go back.  If you are in the area and want to get a round, let me know. 

Cheers!

[Jerry Kluger]

I played the course last week and it was really enjoyable.  First of all, it is only about 15 minutes from the airport so if you come in from the east you have time for a round the day you arrive.  The course has been well received as evidenced by the fact that I played at 11:30 on a Thursday and the course was packed until dark.  The property is not very exciting as there is just one hill in one corner of the property but there are some natural wetlands and streams running through the property which are well used as hazards on a few holes.  The trees were already there and do create some good playing corridors such as on number 16 where you can play around or over the trees.  The three local guys I played with raved about the course and appreciated the centerline hazards such as the bunker on number 4 which you can challenge or avoid - performing exactly as it was intended.  The par 3 12th is especially good on a clear day with the Rockies as the backdrop. The greens are well contoured and an approach shot from the wrong side can be more than challenging.  The course is an easy walk and if you are in the area it is certainly one of the best values you can find. 

[Matt_Ward]

I had the pleasure in playing CommonGround a few days ago and I read with much interest the comments posted by people who played the course.

I have to say hats off to all the folks at the CGA for taking a previous course which was lackluster in so many ways and transforming the property into a layout that accentuates the game of golf for the widest array of players. When I stepped on the practice area I was happy to see the whole host of different types of players engaged in the fullest enjoyment of the game.

Clearly, the mission to provide a walkable and fun $40 course has made its mark there.

A few other comments ...

The course was a bit wet for my tastes when there ... it needs to play a bit firmer and faster and likely that will happen when everything is settled. Grass cuts are also needed for a number of tees as well -- ditto a few of them need to be thoroughly examined to see that they are level.

The greens are well done -- the details are clearly there and need to be respected -- I especially loved the frontal mound that protects the entire right side of the green at the par-5 3rd -- makes for a real decision-maker when pondering what to do with one's second shot.

A few impressions on some of the holes ...

The strength of the course comes down to how well you can handle the final five holes. Each of them presents challenges that need to be faced and overcomed.

The par-3 14th plays to a max of 229 yards -- the scorecard length says 198 yards but I saw the distance plate from the tips and it makes for a tough hole because you most overcome a frontal mound that appears closer to the green than it actually is. A tough par because you have different sections of the green and failure to be somewhat nearby can likely mean a quick three-jack.

The par-4 15th plays back into the general prevailing S-SW wind and one of the most demanding and well-placed bunkers is on the left side. From the tip tees you can see the depression where the ground is cut but you don't fully comprehend / appreciate its severity should one land in it. The key is keeping your drive as near to it as you dare. The more you head right the more demanding the approach angle becomes. When I played the pin was located on the far right side nearest to the front. Really good location indeed.

The par-4 16th is one of the best defined looking holes at the course. CommonGround does have a weakness now in that it's utter flatness -- save for the land around the 9th, 10th, 1st and 18th holes is comparable to what you encounter at most Florida courses. The 16th swings left and there are a few trees to avoid -- there is also one solitary bunker that you don't also fully appreciate unless you decide to cut more off than you dare.

A gentle draw plays the best and if you hit a strong drive you can have a fairly straightforward approach -- although the green is again sectioned off in a number of fun ways.

The long par-3 17th is a solid hole too. The green is elevated above tee and falls off on nearly all sides. The approach must gauge both distance and angle well. Miss too far to either side and it's possible you can bound even further away. I still see the par-3 6th as the best of the par-3 holes but the 17th requires a clear dexterity with the long iron, hybrid, fairway metal and/or driver if wind conditions demand it.

The finale is a solid closer -- at 568 yards it can be reached in two shots if you can get your tee shot down near the dirt crosswalk that cuts across the fairway. The key is dealing with the blind second -- a real neat feature which is often not present at so many muni type layouts. I hit a real solid drive and had roughly 230 yards for a five-iron shot with a gentle bit of wind helping from right-to-left. The key for me was gauging the appropriate target line -- it's not e-z to do the first go around. I like the inclusion of the pine trees which clearly make an impact for those who push or pull their shots. A safe play is to lay-up in the 90-100 yard area and play an approach from that point. The finale works very well -- it allows for players to get back a shot or two for what they may have coughed up prior to that point -- but it's far from an automatic birdie hole unless you play the tee shot and 2nd shot in fine form.

I liked CommonGround -- especially as the round progressed. The land is really not sizzling in terms of eye-opening elements that one can find in Colorado with the likes of Four Mile Ranch and Lakota Canyon, to name two other courses with comparable fees. I do think that when the facility allows the native grasses to grow to full maturation the contrast will help provide some additional definition which is now lacking in a number of areas.

CommonGround clearly adds another reason why Colorado public golf is so impressive on a range of fronts (no pun intended). I look forward to returning there in the years ahead and see how things progress. Last item of note -- it amazes me how many interesting public courses you can play in and around the Aurora area.

[Wyatt Halliday]

Matt,

I'll give you Four Mile Ranch, but Lakota having comparable fees? Try double the cost of a round at CG. At that price, do you think it's twice the course?

[Matthew Rose]

I played this for the first time recently, and will admit to being a little bit disappointed. But, to be fair, I blame what I felt were sub-standard maintenance practices, rather than anything the architects have done. I did enjoy the architecture very much. Unfortunately, the fairways were left to grow really thick and long, making run-up shots essentially impossible. The hairy fairways also made it difficult to put any spin on the ball. Couple this with greens which were quite firm, and nobody in our group could hit and hold greens with any kind of consistency, making for a real frustrating afternoon.

Perhaps firmer and faster turf would have allowed to accommodate the ground game a bit more.

I really enjoyed the cape hole (#4?), the par-fives, the three par-3s on the back nine, and the short par-four on the front (#8?). The finishing holes were especially memorable to me. The par-fives really challenge the second shot as much as the first, even when laying up.

#6 and #15 were probably the two holes I didn't like as much. Perhaps my judgement of #15 is clouded by the well-struck hybrid approach I hit that landed softly on the bottom tongue of the green and still managed to roll well over the back.

I think CommonGround is the type of place that one learns to appreciate with time and local knowledge, and I do wish to give it another go-round in the future. I hope the course can grow in and mature with time. CG is a classic example of a course where firm and fast is essential. I didn't feel that the soft, long and lush fairways and tees did the course a whole lot of justice, and perhaps feel let down by my round as a result. I paid $55 and felt that that was a little bit overpriced for the conditions that I saw.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()