[David Camponi]

Asking Doak what he rates his own course is like asking Little Johnny's mom how smart Little Johnny is.

I have no bias; I seriously doubt Matt does either, I have no connection to Spy Glass or to CG or for that matter any Doak 7's.

I feel I have a pretty good pulse on what most people will think about golf courses, Spyglass and the other Doak 7's are courses that vacations are planned around, courses that you think about for days and weeks after, Common Ground is just flat out not one of those courses, in fact it is not even close to one of those courses.  Someone earlier put up the definition of a Doak 5 and that fit it perfectly, definately better than the average course and with what he had to work with that is quite an accomplishment. 

I never said it was pretty good for what it is; for what it is it's great, one of the better if not the best shoestring budget courses in the country.

Most everyone is making a valid point, I am not saying you couldn't enjoy CG more than Spyglass or for that matter Cypress,  but to say with a straight face that it is superior is nonsense. 

[Tom_Doak]

Listening to David opine on how correct he is in rating courses is also like asking David's mom how smart he is. 

Here are some of my old ratings for courses in Colorado:

5's:  Arrowhead GC, The Broadmoor (East), CC of the Rockies, Plum Creek, Singletree.

6's:  Denver CC, Riverdale (Dunes), Castle Pines.  Note that I don't like Castle Pines very much, compared to most people; too gimmicky for me.  I know many people would rate it higher based on scenery and conditioning and money.

7:  Cherry Hills was the only 7 in Colorado according to my book.

So, which of these is Common Ground more like?  The only comparison that's been made by any of the unbiased locals is to Riverdale Dunes; Doug Wright rated Common Ground equal or slightly higher than that one.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom D:

Since you wrote CG the overall depth and quality of CO public golf has really grown dramatically -- ditto on the private side. The numbers you gave them -- clearly were valid at that time -- but I would not be so bold to say they are in need of updating and likely in some cases major revision.

I don't see CG as a Doak 7 but I can't speak for you. If I had to apply a number it would be a 5 -- possibly a 6 if I'm able to make a second visit and see it again.

David:

CG does need to be seen in some sort of context. It was created to provide the masses with a quality product at a very good price. It has done that in spades. But, like I said above to Tom, the nature of CO golf has certainlly blossomed since then in so many ways. I would be hard pressed to have CG among my top best public courses because of the sheer depth of the courses that are there now.


Doug:

The shotmaking requirements at Troon are at a very high level and can test the world's best. CG is a fine course but it was not meant to handle such players or even those in the same ballpark.

Tim P:

Don't know if you meant some sort of linkage -- but CG is not to be confused with the likes of a Garden City or Chicago. I don't think you meant to say they were equivalents but when one uses names it can easily confuse people to believe that is what was meant even though I am fairly sure you didn't mean a equal connection -- just one that is fairly similar.

Ross:

The money paid influences what people think about a golf course in plenty of instances. When you say SH mad better "kick ass architecture" then the same standard should be applied to just about any other deep pocket type course -- including Pebble and others like that (e.g. Pinehurst #2, Whisting Straits, etc, etc). The real issue would be if money were NO object how would people feel about the two courses?

[Ian Andrew]

Tim, you need to give SH it's due. The place is set in a pristine location -- it's more than the ocean holes and Trent Jones did a superlative job in balancing the internal holes -- albeit not at the same level as the ocean ones -- but frankly CG is a notch below it for sure in my mind.

What balance is that Matt?

The fours are pretty much all uphill and long with greens that were elevated above the approach.
The threes are all downhill over a pond.
Trent's version of the fives had a pond in front of the two that I remember.

I find that predictable and dull myself.


David,

Sorry for the delay in answering your question. Yes I think CG is better than SH.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt,

I understand that there are lots of courses in Colorado I haven't played.  But the rating of Common Ground shield not go up or down based on what else has been built recently.  I didnt say it was a 7, i said it was better an a 5.  You really think it compares unfavorably with the courses I listed as 6's?  If so, then we will have to agree to disagree, and I think you ought  to take a second look.

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt Ward,

What is a "fan club approach"?

[Mike_Young]

Matt,

I understand that there are lots of courses in Colorado I haven't played.  But the rating of Common Ground shield not go up or down based on what else has been built recently.  I didnt say it was a 7, i said it was better an a 5.  You really think it compares unfavorably with the courses I listed as 6's?  If so, then we will have to agree to disagree, and I think you ought  to take a second look.

  ;)Above is the very first time I have ever seen TD with a mispelled word in one of his post...that's pretty good.....

[Matthew Rose]

I like CG better than Riverdale Dunes, for what that's worth.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt,

I understand that there are lots of courses in Colorado I haven't played.  But the rating of Common Ground shield not go up or down based on what else has been built recently.  I didnt say it was a 7, i said it was better an a 5.  You really think it compares unfavorably with the courses I listed as 6's?  If so, then we will have to agree to disagree, and I think you ought  to take a second look.

  ;)Above is the very first time I have ever seen TD with a mispelled word in one of his post...that's pretty good.....

Mike,

It's the iPad.  It keeps anticipating the words I want to use and changing them for me if I don't preempt it.  It has turned hell into he'll several times already!

[Mike_Young]

Matt,

I understand that there are lots of courses in Colorado I haven't played.  But the rating of Common Ground shield not go up or down based on what else has been built recently.  I didnt say it was a 7, i said it was better an a 5.  You really think it compares unfavorably with the courses I listed as 6's?  If so, then we will have to agree to disagree, and I think you ought  to take a second look.

  ;)Above is the very first time I have ever seen TD with a mispelled word in one of his post...that's pretty good.....

Mike,

It's the iPad.  It keeps anticipating the words I want to use and changing them for me if I don't preempt it.  It has turned hell into he'll several times already!

I know ..that's a hassle...

[Matt_Ward]

Tom D:

You missed my point -- the numbers you applied in CG to CO courses is in need of updating. Not all of them would be exactly the same now and other courses have clearly pushed their way up into the equation as well.

Tom -- I like CG and understand what it provides. However, since you are so connected to the place and have a clear vested interest --don't you think your objectivity might be an issue? I say the course is at least 5 -- some may say it's a 6. I salute CG for what it provides and I commend all the parties involved for doing what they have done in helping golf grow because of what it provides to the masses.

I just don't see CG being ahead of SH. Are you saying that ?

Tim W:

I am a fan of CG too. But it needs to be placed in some sort of context -- CG is not at the same level as SH -- you see it differently. So be it -- for you.

[Matt_Ward]

Just wanted to add this -- the final four holes at CG are among the best public one can find in all of CO. Just a solid concluding quartet and the par-3 17th is among the best long holes I have played from Team Doak.

[Matt_Ward]

Be curious to know from Tom and his team if they had another $1 million to spend on the design would there have been any other features / elements that would have been added to what is there now ?

[Sven Nilsen]

Mike,

It's the iPad.  It keeps anticipating the words I want to use and changing them for me if I don't preempt it.  It has turned hell into he'll several times already!
[/quote]

Hell Bunker - a bunker at St. Andrews or its replica at Old MacDonald, a place to be avoided.

He'll Bunker - predictive, the end result of the shot will end up in a bunker, possibly the Hell Bunker.

[Tom_Doak]

Be curious to know from Tom and his team if they had another $1 million to spend on the design would there have been any other features / elements that would have been added to what is there now ?

Matt:

That's a great question.

Honestly, I don't know the answer to it.  The entire project was designed with that budget in mind, so we really didn't think about costlier ideas which would have tried to transform the landscape.  The limited budget enabled us to put the landscape appearance firmly in the back seat on this project.  And I've always known that building a course with cool strategy really doesn't cost anything more, aside from paying the shapers to do the cool work.  [All the shapers on the job worked at a discount to their normal rates ... that probably knocked $50,000 off the final tally.]

The only thing we had to forego over budget concerns was filling the ditch between #11 green and #12 tee ... we really wanted to do that, because the unseen ditch could really come into play if you're going for the green on #11, but the quote to do it was outrageous.  I think we might have done a lot of things differently on #11 had we been able to fill that ditch.

But, other than that, I don't know what we might have done differently.  Maybe a bit more tree work, and a more elaborate children's course -- Eric Iverson built the kids' course out of scraps left over from the main course budget.  I'm sure others would have spent more on irrigation or cart paths or drainage, but all of those seem to be entirely adequate as they are.  I suspect any additional monies would have gone into the fund to build a real clubhouse someday.  

[Sean_A]

Be curious to know from Tom and his team if they had another $1 million to spend on the design would there have been any other features / elements that would have been added to what is there now ?

Matt:

That's a great question.

Honestly, I don't know the answer to it.  The entire project was designed with that budget in mind, so we really didn't think about costlier ideas which would have tried to transform the landscape.  The limited budget enabled us to put the landscape appearance firmly in the back seat on this project.  And I've always known that building a course with cool strategy really doesn't cost anything more, aside from paying the shapers to do the cool work.  [All the shapers on the job worked at a discount to their normal rates ... that probably knocked $50,000 off the final tally.]

The only thing we had to forego over budget concerns was filling the ditch between #11 green and #12 tee ... we really wanted to do that, because the unseen ditch could really come into play if you're going for the green on #11, but the quote to do it was outrageous.  I think we might have done a lot of things differently on #11 had we been able to fill that ditch.

But, other than that, I don't know what we might have done differently.  Maybe a bit more tree work, and a more elaborate children's course -- Eric Iverson built the kids' course out of scraps left over from the main course budget.  I'm sure others would have spent more on irrigation or cart paths or drainage, but all of those seem to be entirely adequate as they are.  I suspect any additional monies would have gone into the fund to build a real clubhouse someday.  

Wow!  This post demonstrates an incredible head to purpose approach to the task.  After getting the basics down, I always assumed archies worked off a bit of wish list and went from there depending on the budget.

Ciao

[Matt_Ward]

Tom D:

Was there any real discussion to upgrade the drive zone on a few of the holes -- for the most part -- they are really devoid of any real strategic element. The one clear exception that comes to mind is the great fairway bunker on the 16th on the left side. Very well done and well-positioned.

[Tim Pitner]

Tom D:

Was there any real discussion to upgrade the drive zone on a few of the holes -- for the most part -- they are really devoid of any real strategic element. The one clear exception that comes to mind is the great fairway bunker on the 16th on the left side. Very well done and well-positioned.

Matt,

I think you're referring to the 15th hole. 

Upgrade the drive zone?  It sounds like you'd prefer more fairway bunkering or hazards to dictate play.  I'd argue virtually every par 4 or par 5 hole at CommonGround requires or rewards strategic placement of the tee shot. 

[Matt_Ward]

Tim:

Thanks Tim for the correction.

CG doesn't have the amt of interest from the tee perspective as I believe it could have.

I don't know if that was a budget decision or simply a conscious one to leave things there as is.

It doesn't mean the course is not good -- it just means to me that a few bucks more could have meant something with a bit more included.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt,

There are fairway bunkers in play for the big hitter on holes 3 and 4 and 7 and 10 and 11 and 13 and 15 and 18.  It's way more than one hole.

But, we limited the number of bunkers as a function of the maintenance budget, not the construction budget.  It still had to work as a $40 course when we were finished, and you can't have 100 bunkers on one of those ... Unless I guess you could have taken your hypothetical million dollars and put it in a bunker maintenance endowment.  If you are interested, I am sure the CGA will gladly accept a donation, and if they raise the funds I would be happy to put in a couple more bunkers for you.

I did just host a bunch of people there including more than thirty single-digit handicaps, and with a bit of wind and the pins tucked, the course was plenty challenging for the best of them.

[Tim Pitner]

Matt,

I'm not trying to snuff out every criticism of CommonGround--I'm just not sure what you'd like to see with more money spent.  More bunkering or shaping in the landing zones?  Narrower fairways?  To me, these things might negate one of the best things about CG--that it offers width but (I believe) rewards strategic play off the tee.  

[Matt_Ward]

Tim:

You are trying to snuff out every comment.

Width for width sake is a basic copout.

Too many people want to believe you can have The Old Course duplicated anyplace. The simple fact is that TOC does provide for rather elaborate and complex strategic calculations.

CG is about placing the emphasis in the greens area. Nothing wrong with that but the drive zones are merely a sidebar to what could have been included.

Look, I realize the place provides a winning formula for the cost conscious person and I salute that. I'm just saying a bit more from the drive zone area would have been a nice compliment.

Tom:

Get a thicker skin -- please.

I only suggested a wish list -- never said the course suffered dramatically because of it.

I think the existing bunkers that are present -- save for the really good one at #15 are merely a sideshow and not really a major influencer. Just my opinion.

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt Ward,

Over the years I watched many golfers at a variety of venues - from famous world class courses to munis we would never discuss here. So, far I've never met a golfer or seen a situation where the tee shot is just a "sidebar". That is certainly not the case at Common Ground. Almost always, fairway position influences the approach shot, at least for about 90-95 percent of all golfers.

I suspect your comment about a "sidebar" is really meant to suggest Common Ground has excessive width or not enough bunkers placed in fairways to influence the line of play. If it is the latter, I think it would be fun to suggest exactly where you would suggest additional bunkers or different bunker placement.

If your gripe is really about width, I have to wonder. Very few golfers I've seen can hit a golf ball straight. Moreover, it is simply no fun to lose a ball off the tee or be taken out of the hole.

Doesn't a golf course like Common Ground excel at taking this basic reality into account?

At the risk of sounding contradictory, there have been many times I’ve spoken in favor of very penal USGA set ups for the U.S Open. This event and method of course set up is for the super elite class of players.

But, for everyday golf in America, Common Ground provides an excellent model – one the golf architecture junkies like ourselves should be promoting more, in my opinion.

[Matt_Ward]

Tim W:

Hold the phone buckeroo.

I simply said CG concentrates more of the emphasis with the greens -- less so for the tee game elements.

Costs obviously influenced how much time and energy would be devoted to other things. I don't see width for width sake being the ultimate solution. That doesn't mean I don't appreciate what CG provides or what it was forced to deal with given the shoestrong budget involved.

I never said I don't appreciate what the course provides and I salute the desire to have such a layout serve as a model for other courses -- but sad to say Tim -- all courses can't be all things to all people. A few extra elements would have likely bolstered what is there now. Just my opinion.

[Tim Pitner]

Matt,

My inference is that, fundamentally, you'd prefer a more penal course.  It's not that CG is missing strategy off the tee, it's that the punishment for not executing the intended shot isn't as severe as you'd like.  Tom pointed out the fairway bunkers in play; additionally, there are several holes that can reward agressive lines off the tee (e.g. , #1 and #16) and that reward a tee shot placed on the correct side of the fairway based on the angle into the green (e.g., #5, #9 and #13).  

What I'm hearing you say is you don't like that one can get away with a so-so driving day at CG and still score reasonably well.  I think that's part of what's great about CG.  Poorly placed drives make it harder to make pars and may take birdie out of the equation, but they don't automatically lead to double bogeys.  Well-executed tee shots create good scoring opportunities but, as you say, challenges await on the greens.  

You never really answered my question regarding what additional features you'd like to see at CG to provide more interest for you off the tee, but I don't see them as needed or even desirable.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()