[Joe Hancock]

John,

Is a probinion to a rater what a buttboy is to an architect?

 

[John Kavanaugh]

A probinion is the opposite of a minion.  They are the ones behind and in front of the scenes who do not submit rankings but still get all the benefits.  I am a minor probinion.  The rankings have been very good to me in that I have seen courses and met friends that I would have never otherwise.

[Mark_Fine]

John,
Very few things are not ranked or listed in some fashion and they all have positives and negatives.  We've been throught this a zillion times on this site.  Let me ask this question, did the ranking and exposure of a course like Sand Hills help golf architecture in any way?

I apologize to George for diverting this thread.
Mark

[John Kavanaugh]

John,
Very few things are not ranked or listed in some fashion and they all have positives and negatives.  We've been throught this a zillion times on this site.  Let me ask this question, did the ranking and exposure of a course like Sand Hills help golf architecture in any way?

I apologize to George for diverting this thread.
Mark

No, I don't see how the ranking of Sand Hills has helped golf in any way.  My brother, who is an architect, was aware of Sand Hills and how great it was before it was ranked.  I don't believe for a second that Wild Horse or Ballyneal were built because Sand Hills was ranked.  I see no benefit to golf because some misinformed hack begs to get on Sand Hills because it is ranked.  I don't think the good members of Sand Hills enjoy their time playing more because it is ranked.  I don't see a revolution in architectural design mimicking Sand Hills because it is ranked.  I don't think their membership is full because it is ranked.  I can not think of a single good thing that has come about because Sand Hills is ranked.

[Mark_Fine]

John,
I guess you'll just have to think harder.  Eventually something positive will come to you  

Maybe Ran will chime in.  He is a "ranker" as some call them, and apparently wastes his time like many here doing reviews for lots of courses that will have no positive impact on golf.  

[John Kavanaugh]

John,
I guess you'll just have to think harder.  Eventually something positive will come to you  

Maybe Ran will chime in.  He is a "ranker" as some call them, and apparently wastes his time like many here doing reviews for lots of courses that will have no positive impact on golf.  

Mark,

Did you give up your position at Digest?  I support rankings for my own selfish reasons because they have been very good for me personally.  I just don't think they are good for golf.  I would go so far to say they are a detriment to architects, owners and architecture.

I read every review that Ran posts...I have not seen the latest Golf Magazine and subscribe to no others.

Can you give me one example where rankings have inspired an architect to do something good for the game.  Nobody said the tree removal at Oakmont was great because it got its ranking up...noooobody.

[JESII]

I agree with George, to the extent that there is no minimum caliber of play required to make these assesments...

So long as the guy is standing on the tee contemplating the best way FOR HIM / HER[/i] to get the ball in the hole in the fewest strokes, they will be engaged in battle against the architecture...this is the best way to find out about the architecture.

I say this with the caveat that, players can only really judge a golf course through their own play. I don't care if I've played 50 rounds with a 15 handicapper, I cannot tell you how he feels when he's standing on the tee trying to figure out the best way to make a par or bogey...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()