Do the 'classics' carry too much gravity to live up to?

Rating: 5/10 (30 May 2006)

At my age, 24, there are a lot of old 'classic films' that I recognise the name of but, which I have not seen. As a film fan and student I try to make it my job to catch up.
And maybe it's me but Caddyshack is, by no means, a classic or even a good film. If you're into modern comedy and thought Ghostbusters was OK (btw, for the record, I love GBs) you might as well just forget you even heard of Caddyshack.
The film has no identifiable lead role, discomfortingly swapping stations between dryish Chevy Chase and very dry Bill Murray, who between them hog all the decent lines - few though they are - offencive loudmouth Rodney Dangerfield, stuck up Ted Knight and typical teenager Michael O'Keefe. Who's story is this film telling?
It isn't long before the film becomes predictable with Knight stating gambling is illegal and Chase saying he doesn't gamble for money. With Knight's and Dangerfield's conflict the only real substantial one, I found myself simply waiting for the final one round big-money gamble. Murray's appearance, though satisfying, wasn't satisfying enough to justify its need - especially since he did such a bad job of trying to rid the course of it's pest.
I've been harsh, I realise. I always try to watch every film with no expectation or premeditated value but when it comes to these 'classics' it's hard not to. There's some witty dialogue and bold performances but the film, overall, is pretty bland.
One last thing - going into the 18th all tied with each team taking 3 shots each to pot should have been a draw, right? Or had my mind wandered by then?