What Exactly is an Underrated Course?

[Mark_F]

The Woodlands and Kingston Heath thread got me thinking about this, because Woodlands is the perennial King of the Underrrated, yet it would be hard to discern why.

It has fantastic bunkers.

It has fantastic holes, including a great set of threes and short fours.

It has a few spectacular shots.

It has some great greens, although I guess none that really grab you and make you just want to stare at them.

In a recent book on the Mornington Peninsula, one famous course was described as underrated, yet it is the complete opposite of Woodlands - spectacular and thrilling.

Does it mean the course's features are so subtle it you have to understand and appreciate architecture, as opposed to having awe-inspiring visuals?

What are courses you are familiar with that are commonly described as underrated, and why are they so?

[Chris Kane]

Mark, Woodlands is not on the sandbelt  , and does not have its origins as a prestigious, old-school tie club like most of Melbourne's other top courses.  That its "underrated" has nothing to do with the course.  

If Metropolitan's course was there, it would be top 10.    

[David_Elvins]

Under-rated. As in people rate it less than it is.  As in Golf Magazine magazine rating it Australia's 63rd best course two years ago.  Now that is under-rated.

[Mark_F]

Chris,

Do you really think it is just the old 'not enough dotors and lawyers' argument?

I think it is the least visually appealing of the Sandbelt courses, although that could just be because I'm not particularly fond of that Aussie bush look.

It was National Old described as underrated. It may not be on the Sandbelt, but it's on the Mornington Peninsula  , and it surely has lots of doctors and lawyers on the membership roster, not to mention computer geeks .

Is it just because its greens make it appear gimmicky in others' eyes, so they therefore bypass the good stuff?

[Chris Kane]

Mark, National Old generally ranks between 20 and 30 - surely thats about right?  If anything, some people overrate it because of the wonderful views.

[Mark_F]

David,

The more depressing fact is that Golf Magazine is the 2nd best selling golf mag in the country.

It's so bad my dog craps in it before I've even read it.

[Brian Walshe]

Mark,

Is it more to do with "accepted wisdom"?  A lot of courses get a reputation, perhaps either undeservedly good or bad and it takes a long time to change.  Royal Sydney was for years Top 10 in every list in Australia but was nowhere near that.  Likewise there was a time when Newcastle didn't rate but thanks to the likes of Ran championing it, is now appreciated for what it is, an excellent course.

It has only been in the last 5 or so years with the advent of forums like this one that true critical discussion of golf courses has been public.  Go back 10 years and besides the lists in mags and the occasional argument in the bar there wasn't any public discussion.  

You also had the issue of the limited knowledge people had of the current state of courses.  I played Royal Adelaide for the first time a year or so ago and a friend thought I was insane when I criticised it.  He rang me from the course 3 months later and agreed they made a mess of the changes.  He was going on his knowledge of the course from a few years previously.  None of us, other than perhaps Kite Boy, have the time to play the Top 50 courses each year.  Again forums like this enable open timely discussion on the merits or otherwise of changes and other factors that impact courses.

Perhaps under and over rated is about "accepted wisdom" rather than how the courses are today?

[Brad Tufts]

I don't know if this is where this discussion was going, but I do find it interesting that with the "renaissance" of golf architecture and relevance of sites and discussion groups like GCA, the golf magazines (Golf and GD at least) seem to still recommend the same venues and resorts in their travel articles.  

Yes, many of the recent great courses built are private, but why wouldn't they try to explore a few untested or remote regions like Montana, Edmonton/Calgary, or Maine?  They could focus on an older course that presents solid design values as opposed to the resort courses with water carries and flower beds.

Most golf travelers are looking for quick hit golf vacations, long weekends with the boys to break up a long stretch at work, etc... it's the key to Myrtle's success.  There are many towns in this country of ours (and Canada) that have three or four courses worth playing, and I get disappointed when I open a new golf mag. and the travel article covers Tampa, Orlando, Scottsdale and Vegas for the thousandth time.  I also cannot consider a new upscale public that no doubt has gotten at least some good regional press a "hidden gem." At least Links and some of the local magazines (Golf Boston for me) are starting to express alternate ideas.

The caveat is that your average golfer might just want to hit Orlando, Vegas or Scottdale, as opposed to a more golf-centric long weekend without Mickey or casinos, but I'm sure they'd be open when told the hotel and golf would probably be cheaper in some of these more remote locales......