Quick ways for a course to become "over-rated"?

[Ran Morrissett]

I guess the easiest way is for it to host a tournament. People confuse the ability to accommodate 25,000 people with being a great design XXX000!!??What are the other ways (and there evidently must be a lot of them)?

[peter_p]

A couple of other possibilities are looking pretty through a camera lens or being built as an CCFAD.

[T_MacWood]

I agree, hosting a major tournament is usually a sure fire way for a course to become over-rated. I could be wrong, but how do you explain Oak Hill and Medinahs lofty standing. Kemper Lakes, Hazeltine & Valhalla, just mentioning these three in the same sentence I'm hoping I won't be struck down.In the old days being a tough test was the top criteria. Long hard courses like Concord, Pine Tree, Champions, Bellerive and Firestone built their reputation on being long and hard. And lived off that reputation for years.The most meteoric rises for newcomers was the result of an intense media blitz. Harbour Town and Muirfield Vlg. had full spreads in Sports Illustrated, unusual to say the least. TPC, Shadow Creek and Sand Hills all received enormous publicity before or following their opening(all were unique for the time and extremely photogenic). The result was an over-rating followed by in some cases a backlash under-rating. The exception being Sand Hills who was barred from G.D.'s ranking for 3 years and then made its initial appearence at a surprising #31.The lemming factor, once a course or in some cases a designer is glorified, everyone follows off the cliff. I think Oak Tree, Butler Nat'l.,Haig Point,Shoal Creek and others fall into this category. And I'm starting to wonder if some of MacD/Raynor's courses are becoming over-rated(15 courses on GolfWeek's rankings). They are all appealing in their own way, but some I think are benefiting from a cult following. Now I know I'll be struck down.

[Bill Vostinak]

Tom brings up a point which was of course the genesis of the "Original" course rankings.  That was the two hundred hardest courses in the USA as judged solely by rating....This quickly evolved into the questionable series of criteria which make up the Golf Digest list now.  What do we really want to use for ranking or even judging criteria?There is no universal consensus as how to judge these courses.  I for one am probably different than many in that I try to minimize the effect of scenery. I have an admitted bias for older courses that were built on a contiguous property, but I try to overlook spectacular vistas and look at the course on a playing-based set of criteria.Courses today get their early ratings by a WOW factor which has more than allegedly involved some below the table dealings at times. Vistas, artistic features of little or no architectural merit, impressive clubhouses and practice facilities (I always think of warming up with 6-irons at Garden City with their shitty culled balls!) and don't forget the moniker of exclusivity.  Add a safe name designer and it can catapault a course into the spotlight, but can it stay there?So what is the way to judge a course?  How much credit do we give for the wow factor?Sanctuary comes to mind in Colorado.  Wow! but what a goofy, goofy course.   Best new private course of the year for 1998 (GD).  Some really terrible holes out there. Jim Engh did a better job at the public facility down the road, but no WOW!Load on the extras and you'll be noticed. AND make it exclusive.  Lots of exclamation points help!!!!!!!!!!

[Jack Nicklaus II [not!]]

The most obvious way, certainly, is to hire a "name" architect.  The whole point of a "name" is to convince people the course is good even before they see it, and most of the public buys in.Hiring a name like Nicklaus is also the way to get a big tournament, if you hadn't noticed.

[Dwrist@flop]

I agree that a big name architect can usually give it away, particularly if they have been a player, Palmer, Nicholas, Norman etc.  Leave it to the proffesionals guys.Another shore fire way for a course to be overated is by the name.  I have observed a current trend to include 'ridge', 'bluff' or 'canyon' to be considered as good.  Bizarrely this holds even to the barren arid flatlands of Dallas/Fort Worth.  No-one is going to rate 'Bog-side Golf Club', but 'Vultures Bluff' stands a lot more chance. Think of some of the rated courses in the US (Memorial, Congressional, Valhalla)they all sound impressive don't they?  Perhaps a side shoot to this dicussion could be rated courses with crap names.Finally I have come to the opinion that to be rated you have to enforce a cart only rule at all times and have one of those ridiculous GPS systems installed.  No right minded golfer likes riding in a cart anyway, and they certainly don't want to spend most of the round fiddly with a computer.  If people want an easy round they can pay me to go and play for them.Dickie

[John Sessions]

Fazio does build photogenic courses but otherwise, few of his courses host tournaments or are on TV. So how does this group account for him becoming a "name" architect?My theory is that he built 3/4 winners early and subsequent owners/developers are ignorant enough to have let him coast ever since. I don't hold that success against him in the least - I just doubt that he has learned anything new for at least a decade and must be geting stall, despite the millions.

[Tom Naccarato]

John,I tend to agree with you.Fizzio has produced some beautiful looking courses that photograph magnificently which of course does not mean that he is the great architect so many developers have made him out to be.I would give a dollar for a dime to challenge him to build something strategic and (Out here in the west coast at least)and see if it could be worthy.  It just isn't happening as his courses are at best boring beyond belief with beautiful bunkers that don't come into play for the sake of his idea of playability. The fairways of these courses could accomodate not two but three jumbo jets to land on similtainously.  (I'm not exagerating by much)While this suits the best of the Yuppie-wild, Orange County playing golfers that can't seem to focus on there golf swing with a $30.00 Cohiba hanging out of their mouth, it does not suit me.  Especially when the courses are in the $125.00-$225.00 price range on weekends and the Faz brought these courses in at a cost-saving of $17 million for the cheapest one.Yes John, I live in Hell.

[Scott Kraus]

Fazio went the money making machine path originally established by RTJ Sr. - do your best work upfront (The Dunes and a couple of others) and then ride the wave.

[Andy Troeger]

Some interesting comments on another old thread. Thought I would bring it forward and see what we all have to say today.

[rjsimper]

Getting it in really really good shape, or maybe related but different...having really really fast greens

[Kirk Gill]

On one level, the main question of this thread might really be "what is a bad reason for a course to be highly rated?" Things like having a big name designer but not a big league design, or being old and historical without necessarily being of top-rank quality.

Another way of looking at it might be, "what about a course might change and make it less deserving of the high ranking it still is given, despite the changes?" Conditioning might go downhill, or a misguided restoration or architectural change might diminish the course without the ranking being affected. Augusta may have slipped a little in recent rankings because a lot of people dislike the changes to the course, but is it still overrated? Is it the only altered course to be overrated?

And here's one more way a course might become overrated - the trend or "flavor of the month" quality that seemed to make a course special early in its history has either fallen out of favor or spawned enough quality imitators that an originally high-rated design no longer merits the grade it receives.

Three possibilities.....

[Gary Slatter]

Easy, if the advertising budget exceeds the maintenance budget the course tends to be "over-rated".

Does over-rated always result in disappointment?  Trump might love it.  I remember playing golf with Steve Garvey (many years ago when he was in Superstars) -  the subject of his attractive wife came up and he said "for every beautiful woman I can show you a man whose tired of playing her" or something like that

[Aidan Bradley]

A couple of other possibilities are looking pretty through a camera lens

Peter, I have a few "pretty" images of Augusta, St Andrews, RCD, Oakland Hills. Do you think they are over-rated?

[Norbert P]

 Free beer and exotic dancers at the 19th on raters day.

[Joel_Stewart]

Maybe I take this rating stuff way to serious but I have studied this for a number of years and can't pinpoint any one exact reason.   Rating is subjective so I try to always keep that in mind.

In my mind the reason that Fazio has been so successful and why his course are in my mind best examples of overrated boils down to landscaping and aesthetics.  Even on a good site, he is able to maximize the wow function.  Its human nature to enjoy many of these type sites which is why I try and avoid to rate Jim Engh, Tom Fazio type courses.

Lastly, all of the magazines are using mostly amateur/retired/low handicap golfers to rate these courses.  Golf magazine probably had the best chance of getting it right years ago when they used professional golfers, architects and people who knew what they were doing but it all fell apart when they stated placing Bryant Gumbel and Matt Lauer on the panel.

[Doug Ralston]

Keeping it in tip top condition invariably makes many ammendable to top dollar fees. Often a course with mediocre design, but in great condition, gets more raves than a great and challenging layout that is unkempt.

Doug

[John Mayhugh]

With me it seems to be a combination of factors, most of which have already been mentioned:  some wow holes, lots of maintenance expense, notable architect, & hosting some big tournament(s) all have a big impact.

I don't think anyone else has mentioned the exclusivity of the course.  Combine any of the above factors with limited or no access available to the unconnected (like yours truly) and all the right conditions are in place for an overrated course.  

[Garland Bayley]

Have it rated by scratch or better golfers.

[Dan_Callahan]

A course becomes overrated the second the architect claims it was "the best piece of golf property I've ever laid eyes on. The holes were just sitting there, waiting to be found."

[Phil Benedict]

How about being in the rotation for majors (eg Medinah and Baltusrol)?

[Michael Dugger]

My answer is more often than not the course received much too high of a ranking in the first place.

Thus, future top 100 lists create a situation where the course has to live up to an unrealistic billing.

[Andy Troeger]

Maybe I take this rating stuff way to serious but I have studied this for a number of years and can't pinpoint any one exact reason.   Rating is subjective so I try to always keep that in mind.

In my mind the reason that Fazio has been so successful and why his course are in my mind best examples of overrated boils down to landscaping and aesthetics.  Even on a good site, he is able to maximize the wow function.  Its human nature to enjoy many of these type sites which is why I try and avoid to rate Jim Engh, Tom Fazio type courses.

Joel,
I agree with you that I don't think you can pinpoint one reason courses become overrated. I think examples could probably be found from just about every theory posted on this thread. The conditioning, exclusivity, wow factor, and history/majors arguments I think all contribute.

Not sure I agree with your lumping Engh and Fazio together, however. I don't have a ton of experience with either one yet, but I would never confuse Tullymore for a Fazio course, or Estancia for an Engh. Both seem to have a reputation for building courses that play easier than they look, is that what you were referring to? Just curious.

[David Lott]

Take a course that deserves good ratings, and then let the green committee start to improve it. It will be overrated fast in most cases.