Most Overrated Courses in the World

[Gene Greco]

Mike:

   You know me too well!

Paul:

    Youre probably right. As I walked off Cypress I thought,"This is it!"

However, I felt the same at County Down, Sand Hills, Pine Valley, Dornoch and The Old Course.

One of the individuals I mentioned before lived in CA, played Cypress dozens of times, had 67 at Pebble from the tips and ran up to Frisco every chance he got to play Olympic just to see how good he was REALLY playing.

It was and still is his personal measuring stick. His eyes have a certain glow whenever there's the mention of Olympic. Its his favorite course in the world.

To each his own.

[metroman]

Matt Ward,

The reason that Plainfield is so underrated is because Baltusrol Lower has been so overrated.

Historically, Baltusrol Lower has gotten all the attention, all the raves, the USOPEN and all the New York Media and Golf Magazine hype about the course and the tournaments it has hosted.

For many years Plainfield members have bristled at being relegated to the shadows while Baltusrol has basked in the media spotlight, which translated into high ratings.

Ask yourself, who would dare go against the New York media and the golf magazines ?

Tom Doak is right about two issues.

A "destination" golf course receiving play over a few days, and the distance/remote factor.

Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes aren't courses you just happen to play because you're in town, passing through or making a connection.  You have to make the trek for the specific purpose of playing the golf course.  And, because the trek is extensive for most golfers, you just don't play one round and leave town.  You stay for a few days and play as many rounds as your can.  Even chimpanzees learn through experience, so the golfer comes away with more than he would with a single round.

Because the traveled golfer finds himself thrust together with like minded individuals, conversations about the merits of the course are standard fare at dinner and leisure conversations, adding to the information base and golfing experience.

What golfer, after traveling thousands of miles, spending money and playing for a few days, is going to declare that the courses he sought were less than fabulous ?

Noone is going to admit that the trek they made and the golf they experienced wasn't worth it, it's against human nature.

The wilderness influence is also a factor.
When you're from New York City, Chicago, Philladelphia, Los Angeles, Dallas and other city and urban sprawl environments the unencombered great outdoors has great appeal.  It represents a radical departure from the environment we live in, and as such it's intoxicating.

Put apartment buildings and condos next to Sand Hills or bring Sand Hills into Queens and a good deal of that appeal would be lost.

Rich Goodale,

There are those who have felt that the ranking given to TCC is, dare I say it, a fraud.  Not only is the composite course rarely played, but, the second hole is converted from a short par 4 to a par 3.  The 9th and 10th holes are eliminated as is the par 3 12th which creates a Long walk from # 11 green to the 13th tee.  # 14 is created by combining the par 4 1st and the par 3 2nd holes of the primrose nine into a par 4.  The next hole is a par 5 converted to a par 4.

How any golf magazine could seriously rank a golf course that is practically non-existant is beyond me.  I believe it is a concession to the Boston media and regionalism.

[ForkaB]

metroman

I've never played TCC, so my comment was only directed at the concept of a "composite" pseudo-course being rated.  As one of my great-grandfathers was a member at TCC, I really shouldn't dis it anyway.........

[Lou Duran]

In my opinion, the most overrated course that I've played, without a question, is PEBBLE BEACH (a few world-class holes, some good ones, and several real yawners).  Firestone South used to be, but it has fallen down in the list over the years.

The most underrated of the well known courses are Long Cove and Scarlet.  Both will test the game throughout the bag, and identify the superior player.  LC is a joy to walk, specially late in the afternoon.  If Scarlet would undertake a serious tree project and do some work on the bunkers and green surrounds, it could be right up there among the other three or four top courses in Columbus.

In terms of cost to build and to play, the best-value course that I am aware of is Wild Horse in Nebraska.  At a cost of nearly $500 (with caddy), is there a worse value than the peerless PB?

[D. Kilfara]

There are those who have felt that the ranking given to TCC is, dare I say it, a fraud.  Not only is the composite course rarely played, but, the second hole is converted from a short par 4 to a par 3.  The 9th and 10th holes are eliminated as is the par 3 12th which creates a Long walk from # 11 green to the 13th tee.  # 14 is created by combining the par 4 1st and the par 3 2nd holes of the primrose nine into a par 4.  The next hole is a par 5 converted to a par 4.

How any golf magazine could seriously rank a golf course that is practically non-existant is beyond me.  I believe it is a concession to the Boston media and regionalism.

Metroman, your last paragraph is terribly hyperbolic, and you've got some hole numbers wrong in the other paragraph, but even ignoring these things...let's analyze the TCC Composite Course vs. the regular 18-hole course:

--#2 (Comp) is an awkward uphill par-3 - a decent enough hole, but the green is clearly designed for pitches and short irons and not mid-to-long irons. #2 (Reg) for the members is a really neat drive-and-pitch par-4 that can be driven by the longest hitters at some risk.

--#11-12-13 (Comp) are the holes incorporated from the Primrose course: a claustrophobic par 4 over water that combines a par 4 and a par 3 from the Primrose nine; a very challenging par 5 converted to a par 4 with a blind second shot; and a downhill par 4 to a green sloping harshly from back-to-front. #9-10-12 (Reg), the holes that are eliminated, are a difficult uphill par 4 to a small, blind green (most players have to land the approach short and bounce it into the green from an uphill lie in the fairway); an awkward short par 4 to a semi-blind green; and a superb dropshot par 3 that Nicklaus once called the best hole on the property. #10 (Reg) is easily the weakest hole of the six, but #9 and #12 (Reg) are arguably better than the holes that replace them.

My point being, the ranking of the Regular Course shouldn't be much lower than the ranking of the Composite Course - for me, having played both the Primrose nine and the Regular course over 50 times apiece, they're about equal. So what's the big deal? I believe the reason given by the golf magazines for their rankings is that many raters (e.g. professional players) only ever see the Composite course. I'd just as soon see the Regular course ranked instead of the Composite, but to say that "concessions to the Boston media and regionalism" are being made is nonsense.

Cheers,
Darren

[Paul Richards]

Adam:

Just to set the record straight, the Links at Spanish Bay has been a frequent guest on various Top 100 lists:

#24 in US - GM resort list - 1992
#12 in state - GD 1995
#95 in US - GD 1991
#54 public course - GM 1996
#48 public course - GD 1996
#10 in state - GD 1997
#99 in US - GD 1997
#97 in US Modern courses - GW 1997
#45 public course - GM 1998
#13 in state - GD 1999
#43 public course - GM 2000
#23 in state - GD 2001
#7 in state, public courses list - 2002 GW
#41 public course - GM 2002

(GD = Golf Digest, GM = Golf Magazine, GW = Golfweek magazine)


So, as you can see, various publications have rated the Links at Spanish Bay very highly.

Having commented on my thoughts on Spanish Bay in many previous threads, I won't repeat those comments.  Suffice it to say that SB is perhaps the most overrated course I have EVER seen.  Nothing about it deserves any of the accolades heaped upon it by the above publications.

But that's just my humble opinion, for what it's worth.

[Mike Hendren]

While Shoal Creek continues to slide down various lists, it is still overrated.  Peal away the history, lodging and ambiance and one is left with a good, but not great golf course.

Regards,

Mike

[D. Kilfara]

In my opinion, I'd have to say that Spanish Bay is most overly judged as being most overrated, or something like that. I think many people can't get past a) the course's trials and failures with different grasses, b) the environmentally sensitive areas, and c) the marketing of the course as a "Scottish-style Links" (in the grand American tradition) to see what a good course it is. Spyglass may be a marginally stronger course among those on the Peninsula, but given the choice between Spyglass and Spanish Bay I'd rather play at the latter. I guess SB is a love-hate kind of course, but I can't understand why so many people are moved to so actively hate it!

Cheers,
Darren

[tonyt]

Hello there,

I am a first time poster, so here goes;

Being a Melbourne based Australian, I have a couple of idle thoughts on overrated courses. Whilst Melbourne is blessed with a sandbelt zone with quite a number of great courses, too many of them feel that they would vie to be among their top 3-4.

Royal Melbourne, Kingston Heath and Metropolitan seem to be the favourites of pros (I was a full time caddy from 1988-1993), whilst Huntingdale (thankfully now derided, when once it was proclaimed by some as almost the equal of the others listed above), and Commonwealth are those who's claims are a little out of their league.

Yarra Yarra doesn't make the top 3 due to it's praise being based on a small handfull of holes (the par 3s, and the 11th in particular), and Victoria has a few design limitations based on space that hold it back.

Throughout Australia, I find The Australian Golf Club the most overrated. A good course, but not one my nation's finest, and not re-designed within the character of the original.

I hate references to Royal Melbourne having too wide fairways or the fact that it is a composite course. There are now at least 15 times per year when the members routinely play the composite course, and many of them are as a result, more familiar with this routing than with at least one of the other permanent courses. A member friend of mine prefers West to East, and so playes East under once a month. He reckons he has now played composite far more often.

As for the fairways, they may be wide to hit, but not wide from which one wants to set up their approach shot. You can't merely hit the fairway anywhere, and then all have similar shots into the green. As most of you know, this is the very attribute that AM brought to Royal Melbourne that has probably resulted in it's exulted reputation in the first place.

Additionally, so many good courses built in Australia from the early 30s through to beyond Yarra Yarra and after the war, are due to the influence of Alistair and Alex Russell, and are ranked highly mainly because they successfully captured some of the Royal Melbourne strengths.

Now a daring comment from one who has not seen many top international courses first hand. Courses like RM, TOC and No.2 are often loved by some for exactly the same reasons they are hated by others. And that rarely, have many of the critics of these courses played them more than a handful of times. Admittedly, I may only get one chance in my life to go and play TOC, and I don't want to be left with the feeling that you can't enjoy it until you've played it ten times, and in different seasons.

Finally, I'd like to see Pebble Beach. Then I will know whether to respect it as it is ranked, or whether my hunch from afar is correct, that it is a spectacular resort course, with some great holes, but not worthy of anything better than a top 20 world ranking.

[Matt_Ward]

metroman:

Let me clarify a few things -- people who REALLY know golf would never have Plainfield under Baltusrol. I don't buy into the "one must follow the trail of others" as you infer about the power of NY media and the big time magazines.

Unfortunately, too many people place the fact of hosting major championships on a higher plane than the inherent architectural qualities of a given layout. I believe a great many people on GCA do not fall prey to this argument as others are wont to do.

As Editor of Jersey Golfer magazine we had biennial state ratings since 1996 and Plainfield has ALWAYS been rated the 2nd best course in the Garden State. The reason is simple: the qualities that Donald Ross are simply first rate stuff.

Let me say that I do like Baltusrol but logistics and the presence of a few USGA people within the membership doesn't hurt the club one bit. I can see the Lower course possibly claiming a top 100 position, but more towards the rear than the front.

P.S. I forgot to add one other course that meets the most overrated tag -- Saucon Valley in the Lehigh Valley area of Pennsy.

The Grace Course is just one long and hideous layout that is soooooo bad. I can't for the life of me how this William & David Gordon design course was rated among the top 100 courses in America for so long. Yes, the Old Course (which hosted two US Senior Opens) is a bit better but Saucon Valley clearly falls under the heading of "overrated."

What's really amazing is how such a fine layout down the street, Lehigh CC, has been virtually ignored, until recently by many others, who are supposed to know something about golf architecture.

[Theodore Havemeyer]

Matt
How does one determine if someone really knows golf....what is the criteria....who determines the critieria? Do you really know golf?

[Paul Richards]

Darren:

As I stated previously, I am not much of a fan of the Links at SB.  I also have written much on the topic of my dislike for it, so I won't rehash, but much of it has to do with what you wrote here:

>the environmentally sensitive areas, and c) the marketing of the course as a "Scottish-style Links" (in the grand American tradition) to see what a good course it is.

I am not a fan of in-course out-of-bounds.  I do not appreciate paying over $200 in greens fees for my each of wife and I, as well as about $400 a night for the hotel room that gets me in, being told that I am playing a Scottish-type links course, and then being given a green-grass, soaking-wet, typical American course.  To be honest, it would probably have cost me less to go to Scotland - and I would have gotten a Scottish-type links for real!

Also, I have been fortunate to have played golf with someone who was part of the design/build team at Spanish Bay.  He told me of his extreme disappointment as well over how "wet" and "Americanized" it has become and he was glad to no longer be associated with it as well.

Also, IMHO, Spyglass Hill is a much, much better course.  Just imagine if you could replace the first 4 or 5 holes at Pebble with the first 5 at Spyglass ....

[Chris Kane]

Tonyt,

For mine, Metropolitan would have to be the most overrated course on the sandbelt.  Good course?  Yes.  Equal to either Royal Melbourne course or Kingston Heath?  Definitely not.

Victoria and Woodlands feature many more world-class holes.

[D. Kilfara]

Paul,

I am not a fan of in-course out-of-bounds.  I do not appreciate paying over $200 in greens fees for my each of wife and I, as well as about $400 a night for the hotel room that gets me in, being told that I am playing a Scottish-type links course, and then being given a green-grass, soaking-wet, typical American course.  To be honest, it would probably have cost me less to go to Scotland - and I would have gotten a Scottish-type links for real!

Also, I have been fortunate to have played golf with someone who was part of the design/build team at Spanish Bay.  He told me of his extreme disappointment as well over how "wet" and "Americanized" it has become and he was glad to no longer be associated with it as well.

But this is my point - you shouldn't take the greens fee (for better or worse) or any marketing silliness (for better or worse) into account in evaluating the architectural merit of any golf course. I know you and others have written at length about SB before, but it seems to me that you are influenced too much by these sorts of things and can't see past them to the golf course.

In any event, if you think Spanish Bay is a "typical American course", we must be talking about different golf courses! I haven't played SB myself since 1992 (I probably played it upwards of 30 times before then, though, and I've driven past it as recently as fall of 2001), so I'm not familiar with current maintenance practices, apart from that the fescue experiment has been abandoned. Is the "soaking wet" aspect of SB entirely down to maintenance practices, or might it have something to do with the same weather that seems to drown out the AT&T every February (the current edition mercifully excepted)?

I hate in-course out-of-bounds, too, but principally the type that says a fairway inside of a dogleg on another hole is OB (because otherwise the best line of play would be down the wrong fairway) - that's clearly down to poor architecture. SB doesn't have this problem - each hole is relatively self-contained. It's really no different to playing a course with super-deep rough or desert scrub or thick trees that will automatically cause a lost ball. Sure, SB would be much better if there were fewer environmentalists in California, but the "sensitive areas" contribute to the aesthetics and the atmosphere and as such aren't totally worthy of derision.

Anyway, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I know I have personal reasons for liking SB that transcend the realm of golf course architecture. But I still think it possible that you're letting some peripheral factors color your view of SB as golf course architecture. Not that I expect to change your mind...

Cheers,
Darren

[Mike_Sweeney]

Matt Ward,

The wilderness influence is also a factor.
When you're from New York City, Chicago, Philladelphia, Los Angeles, Dallas and other city and urban sprawl environments the unencombered great outdoors has great appeal.  It represents a radical departure from the environment we live in, and as such it's intoxicating.

Put apartment buildings and condos next to Sand Hills or bring Sand Hills into Queens and a good deal of that appeal would be lost.

Matt,

I agree for the most part with two exceptions. Yale and The Bridge. Yale is on 750 acres and you never see or hear anything other than golf when you are there. I was lucky to play The Bridge last May, and there were only three foursomes on the course. Other than one distant house where I could hear a baby crying, it was "widerness". Obviously not the same at driving from North Platte to Mullen, but for 100 miles from Manhattan, it was amazing "wilderness", but like many others, I left wanting more.

[metroman]

Mike Sweeney,

Yale and The Bridge may give you a sense of the wilderness, but today they are in the hotbed of a hostile environmental arena.  It's doubtful that Yale, like many "Golden Age" golf courses, could be built today.

Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes reside in a friendlier environmental wilderness where you can build mostly where you want, not where someone else tells you to build.

This usually results in a better golf course at the end of the day.

As for the Links at Spanish Bay, the developer seems to have compromised the golf course in favor of the hotel, but it was their money to spend, AND they had the huge luxury of some very good nearby golf courses that act as an attractive lure to draw customers.  I wonder, if no other courses existed nearby, what SB would have looked like.  If the golf course had to be THE DESTINATION draw, I suspect that a better golf course would have been built.

[Bob_Huntley]

Lou Duran.

Your comments on Pebbble have given me apoplexy. As the host says to his guest who is beating him hollow and taking his money. "Look around, this may well be the last time you visit this place."  

For all the Spanish Bay loathers, count me in. A blank canvas that could have been another Cypress but was butchered.

[Lou Duran]

God forbid that I should be responsible for causing harm to this site's second most beloved figure.  I plead temporary insanity; probably blinding jealously brought on by watching the beautiful people luxuriate at PB while I am freezing my posterior in gloomy north Texas.

But really, the subject of this thread is "Most Overrated" and how many people truly believe that Pebble Beach is one of the top three courses in the U.S.?  Personally, it would take several rounds at CPC before I would even think about giving up an opportunity to play there in order to play PB.  But heck, Lanny Wadkins doesn't think that CPC is a very good course, so what do I know.      

Is PB a great course?  The setting alone goes a long way towards making it so.  The condition that it is in for this year's AT&T appears to be ideal.  And since Eastwood, Palmer, et. al. acquired the property things appear to be heading in a better direction.  However, there's a wide range between the strongest and weakest holes, and it appears that part of its resistance to scoring is the condition of the greens, specially for the late rounds.  I wonder which course is more difficult to play in strong winds, CPC or PB.

I do need to play PB in its current form to see if I can overcome my earlier less-than-positive experience there.  At around $500 per round, I'll start saving my pennies now.

[DMoriarty]

Lou, for God's sake, be careful and try not to trip.  Backtracking like you are doing can be quite dangerous for someone your age.

[ChipOat]

RDecker:

I've read through this whole thread waiting for someone else to argue Bay Hill with you - no such luck.

I actually have Bay Hill on my "Most UNDERrated" list.  Most people don't even put it in the Florida Top 5 anymore - I've enjoyed every round I've ever played there.

Unlike TOC (#'s 9 & 10), Pebble (#15), CPC (#18) and most others I've played, there are no holes at BH that I really dislike.  A couple of yawners?  You bet - welcome to Florida.

Lots of good holes, no bad holes, easy to walk (proximity of tees and greens), interesting green complexes - what's not to like?

I've heard Bay Hill was even better before AP started tinkering with it.  I don't know the details on that (or even if that's true) but it suits me fine "as is".

To All:

Spanish Bay was a disappointment to me but it seemed more because of the environmentally protected areas than the layout.

Tom Doak's point about playing a course multiple times to really appreciate it is worth a thread all by itself.  The more I play the 5 "all world" courses I'm privileged to play somewhat regularly, the higher they climb in my esteem.  I can see that Pinehurst #2 is a perfect example of that "discover the greatness" phenomenon (I've played it but once) as is Merion.  Pebble's "non ocean" holes (except for #15) have grown on me with each trip around.  This is why most golfers "favorite" course is the one they play most often.  Bobby Jones wrote about this somewhere but I can't find it just now.

BTW, more than a few good players believe National to be the ultimate overrated course.  I don't agree but I can understand their point.  It's not that difficult if you have a decent short game and its architectural genius is irrelevant to those for whom "great" means "hard".

[Lou Duran]

Is it your counsel, counselor, that I should quit while I am already behind?  Can the hole get any deeper?  Someone take my cursed keyboard away.  Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa.  PB is a most glorious place.  So there.  Now I have tripped backwards into the hole.  Redemption is deep at the bottom.  And I still have over a month to climb out.

[NGLAFAN]

Chipoat,

I think you've hit the nail on the head.....HARD

If NGLA was longer, those good players would redefine it.
It takes the insertion of the word "hard" for some golfers to see the light.  Others see the brilliance of the architecture
immediately.  There is so much to see that one's senses can become flooded or overwhelmed by hole after hole of great architecture.

As one learns, each hole is worthy of additional study to fully appreciate what CBM molded, melded and manufactured above Sebonic Bay.

Even more fun is the process of learning when and how to play a variety of unique shots on each of the holes

It's obvious that Winged Foot and Aronomink are HARD from the tips, it's also obvious to me that the architecture at NGLA is so much more diverse and interesting, and I like Winged Foot and Aronomink.

[RDecker]

Chipoat,

I was not giving my opinion regarding Bayhill I have heard or read that some consider it overrated.  

As far as some of the courses mentioned and supported or derided it seems like the courses can all be rated on different sets of criteria and all show differently.  Some are obviously beautiful and have great routing through beautiful surroundings ( Pebble, Pac dunes) and some courses might be a thrill to play inspite of their inherent difficulty or ease.  And some may be incredible to experience inspite of their surroundings or location.  But to me the great thing about the game of golf is that all of these courses can coexist and we can all try them out and see which ones we like or don't like and then express our feelings in the grill room after and on websites like this.  The other thing is we also all get to experience that thrill of playing shots we remember from watching tourneys on tv, reading about shots our heros hit years ago or even shots we played years past.  No other sport affords it's fans and participants at all levels this opportunity.  I'll never get to hit the fairpole Homerun Fisk hit in '75 but I can try shots Nicklaus or Tiger hit on the courses they hit em.  Golf is the best....  Sorry I got alittle carried away.

[Paul Richards]

Darren:

you said:
>But this is my point - you shouldn't take the greens fee (for better or worse) or any marketing silliness (for better or worse) into account in evaluating the architectural merit of any golf course. I know you and others have written at length about SB before, but it seems to me that you are influenced too much by these sorts of things and can't see past them to the golf course.

The gentleman I mentioned was part of the original design/build team.  It was the original intention and, by all means, the plan was for the Links to play hard-and-fast.  Unfortunately, the management chose to instead advertise this, yet they over-watered and Americanized the place.  

He left totally disgusted because the Links was never set up the way it was intentioned.

Either advertise it as a links and let it play that way, or just tell the truth that "we are calling it a links course because there are no trees on many holes."

[Matt_Ward]

T Havemeyer said:

"Matt
How does one determine if someone really knows golf....what is the criteria....who determines the critieria? Do you really know golf?"

Good question -- so I ask you a question -- do you believe Baltusrol / Lower is superior to Plainfield? I don't know of a single person on GCA who has stated that position. If you care to make the case please do so. I'd love to get a contrary point of view.

Baltusrol has played a significant role in hosting USGA Championships and the upcoming '05 PGA is the first major professional event at the club. My point was, and still is. that far too many people place an undue emphasis on a club's position  / stature on whether or not they have held major championships. I believe Baltusrol / Lower is a good test, however, does it possess the most unique and gifted of architectural qualities when compared to others? I don't see it -- particularly when compared to what you find at Plainfield.

I base what people know golf by the positions they take on overall course assessment. I believe, despite having a ho-hum finishing hole, that the overall architectural qualities of Plainfield are self-evident -- the green structures are vastly superior to the Lower; the bunkering scheme is well done; there is a greater variety in terms of hole qualities; and I believe the manner in which the land is used for the course routing also runs to the benefit of Plainfield.

I have a great respect for the courses that exist in my home state of NJ, but when I see something so clearly as the comparison between these two courses I say so. Please help me understand your position and your real name fi you dare to post.