Pinehurst #2 2008

[Droogy33]

Please don't take this the wrong way, but if you, your brother, and your impartial jury would subscribe to LSPN and start playing, the 2001 event particiaption would more than double.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but that doesn't say very much about the Links community.

[Droogy33]

Please don't take this the wrong way, but if you, your brother, and your impartial jury would subscribe to LSPN and start playing, the 2001 event particiaption would more than double.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but that doesn't say very much about the Links community.

But let me add this, in all candor: I am truly surprised that LSPN continues to honor Links 2001. The numbers certainly do not warrant it.

[terrell]

But let me add this, in all candor: I am truly surprised that LSPN continues to honor Links 2001. The numbers certainly do not warrant it

the credit goes entirely to the benevolence of mark hulka. if it were left up to me, lspn wouldn't support 2k1, v1.05, and very likely ammy. but then, i'm not a warm, fuzzy personality.

[Maximus]

But let me add this, in all candor: I am truly surprised that LSPN continues to honor Links 2001. The numbers certainly do not warrant it

the credit goes entirely to the benevolence of mark hulka. if it were left up to me, lspn wouldn't support 2k1, v1.05, and very likely ammy. but then, i'm not a warm, fuzzy personality.

terrell,

If LSPN was left up to you, your business skills might be called into question. By not supporting v1.05 and Links 2001, you'd lose 91% of your customers.

Max

[terrell]

If LSPN was left up to you, your business skills might be called into question. By not supporting v1.05, you'd be losing 88% of your customers

lol. i know, max. but i'm a distributed processing person, and a firm believer of the cost/benefit curve. i've been harping on this for years that i just don't believe one site can be all things to all players. though mark has wildly exceeded all of my expectations.

for example, i don't like v1.05-like conditions. i've never played a round of ammy or pro, even practicing. but mark has a finite amount of time to work on lspn. something has to wait on the back burner. i believe we could have had matchplay/ladder play/and an accurate method of handicapping based on a mandatory schedule with mod playable pin locations a long time ago if mark didn't have to cater to v1.05, v1.06, v1.07, and droogy playing 2k1!

mark's income (i'm chuckling as i type this) from links would be less. but the lspn tour experience would be far more satisfying (given the way i play, i'm pretty satisfied), if not more finely tuned. players like me would be willing to pay more to play, and quite possibly make up the difference.

other sites could pick up the slack. there could be ammy sites, v1.05 sites, matchplay sites, etc. all supported by paying/interested customers. and the site management(s) would have sufficient motivation to do good work. if not, someone who could do a good job would take their place. failure of poor performers is not a bad thing for consumers (us).

true, i'm not a business person. i couldn't sell ice to eskimos. maybe my department could get rich selling amway on the side. but then, we wouldn't be very good at what we're supposed to be doing (beware...'nother analogy thingy).

final thought: i was thinking of mark's 'income' on legacy course sales at linkscountryclub. there should be a fair method of remunerating apcd course designers. the designer gets a cut. the site selling the course(s) gets a cut. if the designer doesn't want a cut, then the money goes into a pool to benefit sites, e.g. lspn, apcd-courses, linkscorner, etc.

secondary thought: i know designers create these courses out of the goodness of their hearts. but if they were to be compensated, perhaps, just perhaps, increased desires for quality might kick in.