Most Overrated Courses in the World

[John_Conley]

Point taken, but I don't yet know what to write.  Why are the Gophers so horrible this year?  I actually thought they'd rest near the Top 10 and win the Big 10.  As I predicted, everyone else has some weaknesses with Indiana shooting poorly on the road, Illinois being too young, Michigan State just not having the talent everyone assumes they go, and Wisconsin having no depth.  But 4-4 for the Gophers with what I thought were skilled players at every position?  Woe is us.

It'll be updated when I figure out what to put.

The good news is that they do look like a team with a chance to show late season improvement, so it may be about two weeks too early to write them off now.

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

With the constant direction towards equipment and lessons that GOLF takes, it is amazing that this is the only time they delve into architecture.

This list does a great disservice to these courses, if this is the extent of the critique.  It feeds the belief among readers that the high-priced courses are overrated and not worth seeking out.  

Six of his selections are in the Top 17 courses in the world; so simple adding a one-line critique is completely inadequate.  It would also have been interested to see his top 10 courses, because it would have given some idea of his taste.

With 100 panelists, who the magazine deems worthy of rating golf courses around the world, it would have been interesting to seek their opinions.

[Rick Shefchik]

I see no problem with the list -- mass circulation golf magazines need to run provocative stories to get people talking, and as long as they are not factually dishonest, they can be kind of fun.

And it seems to have been successful at starting a conversation here, so I'll join in: In my opinion, the holes at Sand Hills do NOT all look alike. I haven't been there in several years, but most of them still stand out quite distinctly in my mind. There are uphill and downhill tee shots and approaches, elevated greens, two-tiered greens, exposed greens, protected greens, straightaway holes, doglegs left and right, long and short par 4s, reachable and unreachable par 5's, etc. I really don't know how much more diversity you could fit onto a course situated in the middle of arid nowhere.

And I think that's why some may sense a sameness. It's not that the holes are similar; it's that everywhere you look other than the holes, the surrounding scenery is the same: rolling, rugged, ungreen sandhills.

Put an ocean, a river, a lake, a forest, a mountain or even some condos around the extrerior of the course, and the impression one would get looking around from each teebox would be quite different. As it is, the golf holes provide the visual interest. At least, they did for me.  

[Rick Shefchik]

And a quick off-topic note to John Conley --

The Gophers suck this year because they can't take advantage of their size superiority. Their guards are ordinary, shooting poorly from the outside and failing to penetrate and drop the ball off to Holman, Rickert and Bauer. The big guys aren't very strong, so they can't make the inside shots for themselves; Rickert and Bauer get frustrated, move outside and start bombing threes, and they don't make very many of them -- then there's either no one underneath to rebound when they miss, or they get blocked off the boards by stronger, quicker opponents.

To be honest, I don't think Monson has gotten the most out of this team, but it could be they're just not very coachable.

[Slag Bandoon]

 I haven't read the whole article but what I've read does not educate me.  So, what's it in there for?  To be funny and iconoclastic?   Architecture is serious stuff.  It ain't funny.
  Humor is the last thing that should be incorporated into golf course discussion.  How dare he!

 I've only played one of those courses (quite blessed I was), but if I ever get to play any more of them I'll be sure not to give a darn about it's rating.

Adam TurboFoot, What about the Dungeness Golf Course with the crab theme bunker?

NCAA basketball rankings don't mean "SQWAAAT"  That's what the tournament is for.    Munson! Put Shackelford in!

[Mike_Sweeney]

Sand Hills - I thought the experience of being there was magnificent, but I thought every hole looked the same.  Not as good as nearby (400 miles) Prairie Dunes.

Jim,

Now I really need to see PD, which is on my long-term list. As my host at SH said to me, Sand Hills is like playing on Mars, as you will never see a place like that anywhere on Earth. Maybe alot of the attraction of Sand Hills is the location for me, however I have to say that a large number of holes stick in my mind from a brief 4 day trip.

I have always been curious why they did not place the course near the river (name?) near the cabins, as it would have added a different element. I am sure there is a reason, just curious to know.

[A_Clay_Man]

That's the Dismal river. But as Slag can attest it's more of a pathetic gorge.

[Slag Bandoon]

The Dismal River was originally discovered by a Frenchman.  He named it D' Small River.  Well, no self-respectin' prairie pioneer's gonna be talkin' no French words lest there be an oak tree necktie, so, before the Tourism Board got word that changes were astirrin', it morphed into Dismal.  

 That's all documented in the Historical Revisionists Almanac.

Adam, Remember what we were talking about as we zoomed by that river... Awareness !    What a great detour it was and a portent for me of being lost for the rest of the day  - blissfully, of course.  

[Matthew Mollica]

Wouldn't it be nice to see Golf Magazine and similar publications send a design savvy member of staff to each of the courses we've discussed, along with a sharp photographer, and publish a four page course review, once a month for the next ten months ?

I bet they'd sell more too.

Perhaps the magazine has already been denied special access to the courses in Hunki's list, and have subsequently come in for a bit of a serve...

Matthew

[Bob_Huntley]

Muirfield, East Lothian.

[Matt_Ward]

If I had a few American courses to add to the thread I would start with these (there may be others):

Oakland Hills / South -- the young guns at last year's Amateur really showed how much the course has lost as being the so-called "monster" of all time. In my mind it's the Baltusrol of the Midwest (see Baltusrol below).

Medinah #3 -- the question is simple -- what has had more face / lifts -- Medinah #3 or Michael Jackson? I mean what version of the 17th hole are they working on now? The course has plenty of length, but fails miserably in the character and charm category. Also the quick turning dog-legs really become predictable.

Baltusrol -- I do agree with those who have picked the Lower. There have been some serious revisions to the course over the last few years to prepare for the '05 PGA, but the course does owe a good bit of its standing to its convenient location to the USGA and that the Golden Bear won two exciting Open there in '67 and '80. I do like the course, but I can see and agree with those who view it as being overrated. How the course maintained a top 30 position among the USA's best is truly mind boggling.

Spyglass -- I do like what was said. It's just too bad the layout / routing could not have been reversed so that the ocean views are part of the back nine. Still tough but so are a few steaks I've eaten.

*Torrey Pines / South -- I have not played the "new" version by Rees Jones but the original layout I did play was truly a major league disappointment. Here you have a course on the bluffs of some of the most eye-catching scenery you can find, but little, to nonexistent, strategy with them using that gorgeous topography.

Shoreacres -- I'm sure the course is loved by Raynor fans but for me the utter lack of terrain movement (minus one or two spots on the course) and the constant repetition of design copies from his other works make for an uneventful day. When I see this course listed in America's top 50 I know that those proponents are more into the charm aspect than in the real teeth of solid design and challenge. In my mind, you have the best of two exmaples that don't really work that are both in Chicago -- Medinah #3 and Shoreacres. The real course is Olympia Fields and kudos to Keith Foster for the work he's done there. The '03 Open should be something to watch.

Maidstone -- Minus the middle stretch of holes (the 9th is clearly supreme!) I've always found the course to be a big time questionmark. When people list Maidstone in the company of Shinnecock Hills and National I just have to start laughing. GD has Maidstone ahead of Bethpage Black and Plainfield in their top 100 listing -- please forgive my snickering. Give a course a fancy address (it helps being in the Hamptons!) and plenty of nice things can happen.

Southern Hills -- Here you have a course with great connections (USGA & PGA) that continues to land major championships. Minus the demanding 2nd hole (one of the toughest drives you can play) I don't see what all the fuss is about. Also, can someone explain to me how the 12th is rated among the great holes as stated by Hogan? One last thing -- how weird is the manner in which the 18th is set-up?

Colonial -- This is another one of the Hogan touted layouts that few really examine. Yes, you have to work the ball with the tee shot, but minus the big three holes in the beginning of the round (#3, #4 and #5) I don't see how the course is rated among the 50 best in America. Just because a course may be great for Texas doesn't automatically transform itself into the upper echelon. Give Colonial credit in one regard -- when I have covered the tournament they do have the best looking babes on the Tour there each May!

One last course to throw in -- Champions (Cypress Creek) in Houston. The most boring piece of land you can find with the same boring nondescript holes one after another after another. They can hold all the Tour Championships they want the layout is a dud in my opinion. How it landed the Open n 1969 is a credit to Demaret and Burke.

I can understand the feelings that some have Pebble but I disagree. Many people have played the course when it plays "slow." Play Pebble when the firmness of the turd is present and the wind freshens. The greens are like dots and the new 5th is a real tiger of a hole.  

[Michael Dugger]

I too go for firm turds

[Matt_Ward]

mdugger:

At least at Pebble "turd" can be had for no less than $300 per round!

For those not seeing the humor I meant to say firm turf.

[Tom Doak]

"Maybe alot of the attraction of Sand Hills is the location for me, however I have to say that a large number of holes stick in my mind from a brief 4 day trip." -- Mike Sweeney.


This quote really got me thinking ... how many courses are there which visitors play as much as Sand Hills when they go?  My bet would be that if someone played Seminole or Pinehurst No. 2 four days in a row, they'd see the light on them a lot more clearly.  But so few courses today get that kind of attention ... Matt Ward would see all of them in two days!

I think this is the hidden advantage for really out-of-the-way courses to make the rankings.  When someone goes, they stay for long enough to understand more of the merits of the course.

[Peter_Herreid]

I'll state the obvious, Tom--Aren't Bandon Dunes/Pacific Dunes a perfect example of this?  Out-of-the-way, the entire complex condusive to repeat(ed) play over the course of a day(s), with the wind and/or tee and/or hole placement often lending a different feel to each from one round to the next...

I also think there is something to be said for the sense of anticipation that surrounds the effort to get to a remote place to play...

I would have a hard time imagining I could ever downplay too harshly a course I have made a considerable effort to get to--I guess that's why i should continue to bypass Sandpines going between Portland and Bandon!!

[Matt_Ward]

Tom Doak:

Thanks for the plug in getting around. I believe Alamo car rental may just change its "unlimited mileage" arrangement because of people like me.

I don't doubt that playing a course in consective days can be a real educational experience because sometimes seeing a course only once can be subjected to a variety of factors (i.e. how and where the wind was blowing from, the particular pin location, how the player adjusts / plays etc, etc). Initial impressions can often say plenty but they may not always be the final word. Pinehurst #2, as you point out Tom, is a classic example in this regard because too many people want the "big show" production and if they don't get it right away may feel shortchanged. The greatness of Pinehurst #2 is in the minor details -- a quick tour of the course in one day may leave most people with the exception of those with a keen eye feeling a bit underwhelmed.

I went to school in South Carolina and must have played #2 no less than 25-30 times during my college days and with each succeeding round the glories of #2 slowly revealed themselves. In today's instant gratification world such a gem may often be underappreciated and misunderstood.

Often times the most overrated courses are those that are centered in some of the real hotbed areas for golf design and are able to link themselves up to being considered as a great design. I can think of a number of courses in the NY / NJ / CT area where this applies and I've posted at least two of them.

Yes, it's very possible that courses in the middle of nowhere can get plenty of overrated ink because nothing is around them, but I believe anyone making the claim that Sand Hills is overrated is really talking nonsense. Yes, getting there is a hurdle (try treking to Links of North Dakota!) but C&C put together a sterling layout of a wide variety of holes. When you're battling a gusting midwest summer wind you have to invent the full range of shots to have the opportunity to succeed. It's been said by others on GCA but I would really like to know the type of holes that didn't make the final 18 hole cut!

One last thing on this subject -- a course can be overrated and fall a bit from where it is assessed, however, it still may be a fine course. Overrated does not always mean that it's dogmeat.

[JMD]

I agree with the criticism of Brookline.  There is a brilliant stretch on the front side and the neat par 5 that plays as 9 on the composite course, but there is much more that is ordinary.  Ouimet's victory makes the place's history important, but a course's past should not dictate its place on various lists.  

I am struck by the comments about repeated play.  It seems to me that the wonders of a Ross course, whether it is number 2, Salem, Brae Burn, or the Orchards, only ever reveal themselves through repeated play.  Contrast the experience of repeated play on one of these gems with the experience of repeated play on a highly rated desert track -- Ventana Canyon or Estancia -- and the difference between great design and "signature hole" design readily appears.  

[D. Kilfara]

JMD, I'll have to disagree with you re: Brookline - even Hunki's article only says that TCC is overrated because the rating is for a composite course that is very rarely played by the membership (like, once a year, maybe). What holes out there do you think are ordinary?

I wholeheartedly agree with the bit about repeated play. Here's a good question: given unlimited time and money, would you rather play 100 golf courses of your choice once, or a random selection of 25 of those 100 courses four times each? I think you'd probably learn more about architecture by choosing the latter option...

Certainly the Old Course is the first course I'd think of where repeated play is downright necessary before you can begin to appreciate its merits - ANYONE can play TOC once or twice and come away glibly commenting that it's overrated...

Cheers,
Darren

[brad miller]

The point about multiple play is very valid in my mind, like many things beautiful, those that end up being the most beautiful in ones eyes may not have been from the start or in golf terms one play.

Tom Doak, what might this mean for "The Confidential Guide"?

[RDecker]

Mr. Doak raises a great point.  If an individual thinks a particular course or a style of course is overrated then its
a pretty good bet his or her game doesn't fit that course.
If I had to guess Mr. Yun is a practitioner and proponent of target golf, the kind not rewarded at your St. Andrews or Seminoles.  This would also lead to a discussion about cultural practices and modern interpretations of the original architects intention for fairway firmness and width...

[Paul Richards]

To me, the most overrated golf course I have ever seen is the Links at Spanish Bay.

 

[Gene Greco]

BINGO!!!

RDecker wins the prize.

Indeed, my first reaction to this article was to instantly assess his personality type.

People who aren't enamored with Sand Hills are usually anal type A accomplished players who grow frustrated as a round progresses watching the slightly less skilled but more imaginative player compete as an equal.

Muirfield as opposed to The Old Course
Medinah.................Chicago Golf Club
Prairie Dunes...........Sand Hills
Shinnecock.............National Golf Links of America
The Bridge..............Maidstone
Olympic Club...........Cypress Point
Bruce Crampton.......Seve

You say everyone would want to play Cypress over Olympic?
You're wrong and I know more than one individual who states unwaveringly that Olympic is a better test for them and holds their interest to a greater degree.

Hard to believe but we're all different.

[Paul Richards]

Gene:

Olympic Club is wonderful, but Cypress Point is the BEST golf course on the Earth!


remember:

there's Heaven,
there's Cypress Point,
and
there's everything else!!!!

[Mike_Sweeney]

Dr,

I think we can safely say you are a "right brained" kind of guy from your list above.

[A_Clay_Man]

Clearly another riddle in the enigma. But the truth is that respecting ones opinion is essential. Listening to it more than once is another story.

I sense things won't be Hunki Dori at Golf Magazine very long, unless, he is truely just stirring the pot and/or there are enough magazine buyers who feel similarly.

And Paul Richards- I didn't know Spanish was rated let alone over rated. Those of us who have traversed that property more times than memory serves, disagree, respectfully.