[A_Clay_Man]

To heck with Roberts. Get a look at Geoff's new piece, here;

A sample; "We wannabe moochers can't be there, but sources deep inside Golf Digest janitorial services found a discarded "Schedule of Events" draft that allows us to understand what will transpire. "

http://www.golfobserver.com/features/geoff/panel_111505.html

Some of Tommy's old stunts, on steroids.

[Steve Lapper]

Hilarious!!!

...but very scary as it's damn near the real truth that will occur down there.

The only thing missing is the Trump panel discussion with the Donald, Redanman and et.al;D discussing the merits of playing access (should or should not there be associate rater-level memberships?), ratings(if you built it they will play, and play, and play), and complimentary food & beverage menus(steak v. lobster v. caviar). The following year, this panel will address the issue of stretch limo v. town car, and call girls v. cart girls? and finally, do ANY classic courses matter?

Oh well, maybe next year

[PThomas]

and the only massage I want from an architect would be if Ms. Zeta-Jones starts designing courses!

[SPDB]

yawn.

[THuckaby2]

yawn also.  It's pick on Golf Digest time again.  One would think Geoff had better - or let's just say more original - things to do.  But heck, who can blame him for churning out the tried and true every so often?  Even the most critical of critics needs a week off.

BTW, the yawnability of the topic notwithstanding, it was a pretty damn funny article - and I'm a GD panelist!  I guess my daughter is REALLY gonna owe me for choosing her soccer tournament over getting my ass kissed by some of the biggest names in golf.

 

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Huck, Please do not be so thin skinned. I would love to be there for all but the golf. Grand Cypress is so average it hurts but any golf makes for a great day. I would love to listen to the pannelists. I think it is a strong group. I might want to puke if they go talk in  platitutes and spit out generic rubbage which I am guessing Geoff believes they will. I was visiting with Ben Freeman sunday at Birmingham CC after the round there and he was pumped for the event. I enjoy similar events and hope he comes away a better rater for (here is the shot) it is obvious the GD guys need it. lol

[THuckaby2]

Tiger - I am far from thin-skinned - did you read how I said I found the article VERY funny?  And I did.

I just figured I had to put in a word for our side, that's all.  Of course doing so in here is like preaching Christianity in Damascus or yelling GO VOLS in Baton Rouge, but hey, what the hell.

 

[THuckaby2]

David:

I found picking on Golf Digest to be a topic that's been covered so many times as to be less than original.  Let's just say I wondered why it took Geoff so long to get to it.  But I never said the article was boring or tedious or that he ought to give it a rest - that's you reading into my post thoughts I certainly don't have.  I did say it was unoriginal, that's all.  And it is.

All that being said, I did find the article pretty damn funny. I enjoyed it.

And yes, Geoff remains quite unafraid to take a stand and the golf world benefits for it.  This is just a stand that's been taken way too many times already, that's all.

Or at least I think so.  But of course I have reason to think that.

 

[THuckaby2]

PS - I'm trying not to read too much into your post, but just in case, do note a couple things:

a) I am not being duplicitous in any of this.  I remain a big fan of Geoff's.  I do at times disagree with his take on things, and hey this one hits close to home.  But a fan I remain.  As for him giving it a rest, well... as a fan I just hoped he had better topics, and remember the hitting close to home part.  But hell, some people do love this, and it is topical, so I guess I'm just ranting a bit.

b) can't you find humor in something with which you disagree?  I sure can.  I'm a life-long USC football fan and some of the more hilarious items I've read have been anti-USC diatribes by Bruins or Fighting Irish or others.  I love that stuff.  I'm kinda looking at Geoff's article in the same light.  It is very well-written and yes, very funny.

c) honest truth is I'm just kinda bored this morning waiting for a meeting and just kinda spouting off.  Bear with me.

Peace.

 

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Huck, you are so right and I agree with you. Yes Go Vols is not a good thing to say along the Bayou right now. However I think Geoff will likely be proven to be right on point after the event is held. That group could be so good if they wanted to be. I would like to think Geoff and Doak could liven up the debate.

[THuckaby2]

Tiger:

Well, perhaps naively I am hoping that the gathering does what it says in the ACTUAL itinerary, although who knows, it's quite more likely that a lot of what Geoff writes in humorous fashion does actually come to pass.  We'll see.  In any case one can look at this two ways:

a) as a step in the right direction for a panel that has so much "wrong" with it, waiting and seeing what occurs; or

b) a chance to rip said panel again, without giving it a chance.

I choose a.  No surprise.  Geoff and most here would choose b.  Also no surprise.

One thing's for sure - inviviting Doak and Geoff (as well as Gil Hanse, Kelly Blake Moran, Jeff Mingay, Mike DeVries, any of many other architects and influencers) would have been WONDERFUL.  But it's a rather crowded panel as it is, and I find it hard to blame GD for going for the "big names" in this first attempt.  Here's hoping - again perhaps naively - that such invititations occur in the future, and that the invitees accept.

TH

[THuckaby2]

OK Dave, well naive me I always try to look for the good before the bad.

But I swear to you man, there was nothing duplicitous about this.  The "yawn" was just following along with SPDB's post.  I guess I ought not to have written that.

Nothing slippery whatsoever here; just bad writing.

Peace, my friend.  BTW, my family post-Thanksgiving round is taking place at BALBOA!  Ever played there?  Man that's another one of those LA munis I grew up on.  I haven't played there in over 20 years.  I have rarely been so excited to play such an average course.  We'll see if one can go home again.

Non-duplicitously yours,

TH

[SPDB]

David:
Maybe I should weigh in here. They say yawning is contagious, so perhaps that's why Huckaby yawned also.

I don't really care about rater confabs, if anything I tend to find them distasteful.

I yawned at yet another Shackelford diatribe, which I've always found sort of boring and self-righteous. I don't find his approach very productive (assuming he's trying to produce something). He's enormously talented, and I don't expect him to mellow with age, but his writing style has always struck me as sort of immature.

Just my $.02, I don't expect anybody to agree with me.

[Dan King]

As some one who edits Geoff Shackelford's pieces (not a very tough job, just throw in some html a couple pictures and I'm done) I loved this piece. It is no wonder it bothers rankers. Ain't nothing wrong with bothering people.

Dan King

Everything is funny, as long as it's happening to someone else.
 Will Rogers

[THuckaby2]

Dan - of course it hits close to home.  If that was his intent, well he succeeded.  And sure there's nothing wrong with bothering folks, ESPECIALLY course rating panelists - we need to be bothered.

I refuse to call us rankers, you wanker.  

But hey, doesn't at least a little of what SPDB says ring true?  Geoff is so damn talented... and can effect and has effected great change for the good in this game... shouldn't this whole thing be beneath him?  That's really what I'm getting at, as a fan.  I just don't see how a diatribe like this does anything but produce a reaction like "there's Geoff railing against something again"... and give many readers the impression SPDB got.

But like I say, what the hell, even the most critical of critics deserves a week off - and this is topical in one sense given the gathering takes place this weekend.

I just can't see this article doing any good for him, does it?

Or is this a case of any publicity being good publicity?  Shock-jock kinda writing?

Geoff's better than that.

TH

[THuckaby2]

Dave:

What the hell, you likely roll your eyes at every post of mine you care to read.  But I truly do have very naive good intentions damn near all the time.  I know that's hard for you to believe, and my writing style doesn't help, but I yam what I yam and that's all that I yam.

I truly do think this issue is beneath Geoff BUT that it was very funny and an enjoyable read.  That is, for his sake given the impression it gives guys like SPDB - and for mine since it does hit close to home - I wish he wouldn't have written it, but since he did, well it was pretty funny.  I guess that's tough to understand.  Oh well.

And none of it is gonna cure cancer or make or break his career, so this is all just time-killing speculation on a boring day for me.

As for Balboa, very cool.  It's gonna be very interesting for me to see how much it's changed, if at all.

[SPDB]

David:

I don't see how the liking a particular piece and getting tired of Geoff's schtick are so contradictory (I think duplicitous is a bit gratuitous). I like satire very much, and over the years you may have gathered that I'm a pretty cynical person. That said, one can enjoy Geoff's pieces in isolation and still feel that perhaps he should move on from his current style, either because its stale or because it may be unproductive.

On this particular point I, personally, don't feel that way, but I don't think I would be contradicting myself if I did share Huck's sentiments.

[A_Clay_Man]

I thought this was an odd comment.

How Outsourcing to India and Pakistan Will Create The Next Generation of Golf Digest Panelists and Why This Is A Good Thing Even Though It Will Eliminate American Jobs On The Panel."

I wonder if Geoff was hoping to get picked-up as a national story with it??

[ForkaB]

Hey

We all loving ratings and we all love Huckabees, but we all hate raters!  No?

Geoff is just tapping into these sentiments.  IMO.

[Dan King]

Tom Huckaby writes:
I refuse to call us rankers, you wanker.

You aren't rating courses, you are ranking courses, or at least the magazine you work for is. What you do for the NCGA is rate courses, what you do for your chosen magazine is rank courses.

But hey, doesn't at least a little of what SPDB says ring true?

I don't agree. I think Geoff is one of the best golf writers working now (I may be partial because he writes for GolfObserver.) He is one of the few who has no fear about going after sacred cows. It has cost him work, but he still does it. After The Future of Golf you'd think publishers would be in a bidding war for Geoff. They aren't.

Geoff is so damn talented... and can effect and has effected great change for the good in this game... shouldn't this whole thing be beneath him?

There are many who believe (including me) that the rankings are not only incredibly silly but also bad for golf. What is so terribly wrong with poking something with a sharp stick? If you read Geoff he uses a variety of techniques to get his point across. Sarcasm works at times. We are talking about it.

I just don't see how a diatribe like this does anything but produce a reaction like "there's Geoff railing against something again"... and give many readers the impression SPDB got.

Of course raters aren't going to like it. But perhaps it will show the reader of these rating issues how stupid it is to blindly follow the Golf Digest (or pick some other magazine) ratings of golf courses.

But like I say, what the hell, even the most critical of critics deserves a week off - and this is topical in one sense given the gathering takes place this weekend.

It's a big old goofy world. I loved this piece. I think it is one of his finest. And I'm thrilled GolfObserver can give him a platform for this type of stuff that others are un-willing to give.

I just can't see this article doing any good for him, does it?

It probably pisses off all the wrong people to advance Geoff's career.

Dan King

If you don't want to use the army, I should like to borrow it for a while.
Yours respectfully,
A. Lincoln (Letter to General George B. McClellan)

[THuckaby2]

Dan:

Many thanks.  OK, I can certainly live with being a rater for one, a ranker for the other.  The latter just sounds too close to wanker, and in fact exactly like such if my son says it, so as true as it is, I don't like it.  

As for the rest, that is good wisdom, as always.  I just do like Geoff personally, and do like his work.  I am interested in his success.  If he could care less, well then what business is it of mine?  Sage counsel, much appreciated.

Just one thing though:  take it as a given that thin-skinned "rankers" won't like Geoff's take here - especially thin--skinned GD "rankers."  I just do believe there is a large segment who might just get tired of him railing on things PERIOD and always being so negative and/or "catty"; that this makes his writing style in these types of pieces "immature", as SPDB says... that wish he'd write something righteous and hopeful, as they say, if not more insightful.  Maybe I'm way off.  Not that Geoff likely cares one way or the other, but if this causes some not to take him seriously, well that can't be a good thing either, can it?

As for rankings being bad for golf, well that's a topic for another time.  I don't wholly disagree; though I'd say what is bad for golf is not the rankings themselves, but how overly seriously people take them and thus the way too large role they play.  I just also don't see that it matters much, because they aren't going away.  But you're right - if anyone is stupid enough to just follow any set of rankings blindly - and I don't doubt that such stupdity exists in the general public - well then if Geoff's very funny take does cause these folks to look at this another way, well then that's great also.  Well said.

BTW, if you can make any sense of what Rich just posted, I'd appreciate counsel there as well.

 

[late edit to add PS after seeing topic name change]

ps to Adam - do you really think Geoff is fireballing RANKERS in general?  My take is he's just fireballing GD, and you had it correct before.  But I surely could be wrong.

[Michael Moore]

I am a regular reader of geoffshackelford.com. Although I disagree with a fair number of his conclusions (especially regarding a proposed distance rollback), the site has links that cannot be found elsewhere, it is well written and well laid out, and for the most part the cleverness outweighs the snark.

That being said, the piece in question was ham-fisted and decidedly unfunny.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I like Geoff and have told him I love his historical research and writing.  It furthers golf.  I will even admit that the muck raking against any and all in power in golf today has its purpose, even when I (and my type! ) are the targets.

However, I do agree with Mr. Huckabys comments as to "Yawn."  I say that based on all the GD bashing that I read.  From my perspective, golf course rankings increase interest in gca, which is more than ever, but still less than it should be.  If I finish first or nowhere in the GD other rankings, it still highlights my craft.  

All three major mags that attempt ratings are more the same than different.  They basically have minor differences of influence.  GD started it, I think, and the others come up with and defend their systems as different enough to be warranted.  They do many things well, and it appears GD has decided to imitate its imitators with its raters/rankers conference.

While there is nothing wrong with humor, and it is funny (in spots) I have to say this - for someone who probably has written that (or at least seemingly represents those who think all modern design is formulaic, I find this column somewhat formulaic as well.  I read Geoff monthly in Golfdom, and I have seen this similar approach taking off on architects, contractors, the USGA, and now GD.  I probably left something out.  Nonetheless,  I think I can tell when Geoff is running on a deadline from the material - when I see this format, I think its a "quickie."

Anyway, Geoff is probably smiling to himself - the most important line in my post is that I read him monthly.  In the end, to a writer, its not who you piss off, or what you change.  Its circulation!

[ForkaB]

BTW, if you can make any sense of what Rich just posted, I'd appreciate counsel there as well.

Tom

I love you and all the other raters I know.  I love seeing golf magazines periodically assign numbers to objects that do not lend themselves to numeration.  I hate the fact that ratings are done by rank amateurs and that lovely people like you and all my other similarly affected lovely friends take the process of rating/ranking so seriously.

Have a nice day!

Rich

[THuckaby2]

Rich:

That was lovely and better understood now.  Well said.  Sometimes brevity is lost on us not so fine-tuned.

I concur with your statement completely, btw.  I'm not proud of any of the debating about the process I do.  But the "ranking" is something I enjoy, so when we get ripped on, well it's hard for me to just let it be.

But hopefully growth will occur.  I still am quite young.  As are you - in spirit anyway.

 

As for how seriously the rankings are taken, I'm kinda glad those who do them DO take them seriously.  My regret is how seriously they are taken out in the golf world.  That's what's bad for golf.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()