My reverse Mucci!
-The course is too soft with too severe false fronts to allow a ground game
-It looks like a links course, but it is just a facade.
It is not a links course to my mind. Instead it is a unique challenge that does not fit neatly into any category.
With respect to firmness - I played it during a full day of rain and the day after. It was plenty firm both days. It looked very green but the ball ran forever.
I have heard the false front argument before - particularly with respect to 1 and 13. I don't buy it. I think they are a terrific way to impose fear on the golfer while giving everyone options for recovery shots. Keep in mind, in many instances the approach is a very short iron with an option to reach the green in less than regulation.
As to ground game - I would hazard a guess that the ground game is as viable an option at Sand Hills as it is at Dornoch. The only hole where it is not a reasonable alternative at all is number 17 and I recall individuals very familiar with the course arguing that one should use the bit of fairway short right in certain conditions.
-Raised tee, drive to a lower fairway, hit approach to a raised green. Rinse and repeat.-
I can only think of 4 holes that fit this description (1, 4, 7, 11). Those holes are a par five, reachable or a bear depending on wind, a 485 yard downhill par four, a driveable par four and a short nondriveable par four. Each hole presents a very unique challenge distinct from the others.
It is over-rated because it was the first to start the modern renaissance, but it has been surpassed by many since.
As to whether others have surpassed it - I have played some of the contenders (Barnbougle, Pacific Dunes, Bandon Dunes, Bandon Trails, Kingsley) and do not share that view. I have never been to Ballyneal and I am sure it is wonderful but I cannot imagine how it could be considered to have "surpassed" Sand Hills.