[Mark Bourgeois]

Ever since Peter Pallotta endorsed the Meta Thread Movement by starting his own navel gazer, I've been wracking my brain for a thumbsucker, for my Napoleon to his Beef Wellington (Woody Allen joke).

I predict GCA.com will implode when the new version of TCG comes out. The devastation destination will be the same - a boatload of commentary on the numbers that completely ignores the writing (or pays it just enough lip service to wrap the commentary in ersatz 'thoughtfulness' - but posters will use three routes to immolation:

1) "All four guys gave [insert course] a 5. Are these people idiots?? I have played [insert course] way more than them. It's a 6, minimum."

2) "Nice to see W gave this course a 7, not sure what X, Y and Z were thinking to give it 6s. Pretty much confirms my belief this course is underrated." (Note: we already saw a variant of this when Doak posted ONE review.)

3) If Dismley Cinqueports scores less than 8 the GCA.com spaceship will cross the event horizon.

[John Kavanaugh]

There hasn't been a good rating/ranking thread in years.  The haters won't have it.

[Rich Goodale]

There hasn't been a good rating/ranking thread in years.  The haters won't have it.

A meta-master meta-class on how to meta-wreck a meta-thread.

Meta-well meta-done Meta-John!

Meta-Rich

[Mark Bourgeois]

So far I have the posts in this thread:
1 Kavanaugh
2 Goodale

------- gap --------

3 OP

I reserve the right to rerank as this thread fails the walk in the park test. OTOH it does make me want to drop everything and call my travel agent.

[Peter Pallotta]

Now this is joy - three highly clever posters outdoing each other with their unique brands of cleverness!

My but you're all rascals, I say, rascals!

Mark, what a perfect choice: the means of a gca meta-implosion (post confidential guide) are almost endless.

Peter

[Jud_T]

I predict that the site will be down for a week after the book is shipped and that at least 3 regular posters will quit and 1 will self-immolate as a result of the ensuing free-for-all discussion when it does come back up...

So what's the over/under on number of direct/indirect threads about the CG in the ensuing month post publication?  20?  I think we should get the insider's discount for all the free marketing we'll be doing for the book.   

[Mark Bourgeois]

There won't be a "free for all" discussion, just a lot of people afflicted by 'numerosis'. Those afflicted argue / discuss / throw out single-digit numbers in lieu of thinking.

But to your point, it is kinda funny for the book to have 'confidential' in its title when there will be a kajillion threads about it on a public forum.

[Ronald Montesano]

Paging Sam Morrow.

Please write something unmistakably Texan; the previous contributions gave me the dry heaves.

[Peter Pallotta]

And if TD's rated a course after only walking it, there'll be blood around here. Blood - heck, it'll be a Cormac McCarthy novel, with blood  bleeding red into bright red pools of blood as meta-posts about other bloody posts spills out bloodily across the bright red tatters of a bloody gca landscape.

Peter

[Ed Brzezowski]

I have a photo credit in the new book, you guys fight it out.  Probably going to be a Y2K event with global destruction but chicks dig photographers.

Ask Joe B.

[Eric Smith]

Someone mention Red?

[Don Mahaffey]

I'm wondering if there will be a refinement of the Doak scale. With the modern ease of travel, will the regional emphsis be removed to better explain a global ranking system?  Sorry to get serious.   

[Jud_T]

I actually think more of the debate will center around an anal analysis of differences and bias amongst the 4 reviewers.  In a sense this takes a little pressure off Tom directly and allows those who, say, have more of an affinity for Ran's predilections to follow his rec's etc.

[Peter Pallotta]

I actually think more of the debate will center around an anal analysis of differences and bias amongst the 4 reviewers, In a sense this takes a little pressure off Tom directly and allows those who, say, have more of an affinity for Ran's predilections to follow his rec's etc.

Oh, that's just like you Jud T! I really don't understand why posters like you seem to insist on derailing perfectly good threads with your usual b.s.! If you've got an ax to grind about so-called rating "bias" take it to another site. Maybe you'd be happier on "The View"!!

It's post like yours that mark how far gca.com has fallen since its glory days, and that drive great posters like, err, you know, that guy, what's his name, he was really good, off the site!

(Thread being started shortly repeating verbatim this same rant). 

[Bill_McBride]

And if TD's rated a course after only walking it, there'll be blood around here. Blood - heck, it'll be a Cormac McCarthy novel, with blood  bleeding red into bright red pools of blood as meta-posts about other bloody posts spills out bloodily across the bright red tatters of a bloody gca landscape.

Peter

Blood Meridian Redux?

[Peter Pallotta]

Ha - yeah, Bill, the writer's cut, with 45 pages of previously unused material not good enough to get into print originally....

[Ronald Montesano]

Sam, hurry up. Time is running short. They're at the gate...can't hold out much longer.

[Tom_Doak]

I'm not worried about this.  From what I've read on the other thread, the price of the book will prevent most of the meta-critics on GCA from ever buying a copy.

I suppose they could still disagree with the book here, without actually having read it.

[Jud_T]

I actually think more of the debate will center around an anal analysis of differences and bias amongst the 4 reviewers, In a sense this takes a little pressure off Tom directly and allows those who, say, have more of an affinity for Ran's predilections to follow his rec's etc.

Oh, that's just like you Jud T! I really don't understand why posters like you seem to insist on derailing perfectly good threads with your usual b.s.! If you've got an ax to grind about so-called rating "bias" take it to another site. Maybe you'd be happier on "The View"!!

It's post like yours that mark how far gca.com has fallen since its glory days, and that drive great posters like, err, you know, that guy, what's his name, he was really good, off the site!

(Thread being started shortly repeating verbatim this same rant). 

 

[Jason Thurman]

There will be a lot of upset people if Kingsley scores less than an 11.

[John Kavanaugh]

I'm not worried about this.  From what I've read on the other thread, the price of the book will prevent most of the meta-critics on GCA from ever buying a copy.

I suppose they could still disagree with the book here, without actually having read it.

Don't worry, the Haters will make copies and pass them around at their outings just like they did with the first issue.  What I will find most interesting is the leeway that will be allowed on word for word postings of reviews on this site.

We will never discuss quality of architecture as long as quality of character gets more clicks.  Just look at Ronny Buffalo, he can't get a sniff on a thread until he makes it personal.  That Mucci thread is epic.

For those reasons I don't see the NCG gaining much traction on thread count at all.  There just isn't any motivation for discussion beyond character assassination and with Ran involved that goes out the window.

[John Connolly]

In honor of the 30 year anniversary of the greatest rockumentary every made.

Nigel Doak: The ratings all go to eleven. Look, throughout the book, 11, 11, 11

Marty Morrissette: Oh, I see. And most ratings go to 10?

Nigel Doak: Exactly

Marty Morrissette: Does that mean it's better? Is it any better?

Nigel Doak: Well, it's one better isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most blokes, you know will rate a great course to 10. You're on 10, all the way up the scale. Where can you go from there? Where?

Marty Morrissette: I don't know.

Nigel Doak: Nowhere. Exactly. What I do is, if the course needs that extra push over the cliff, you know what I do?

Marty Morrissette: Rate it up to 11.

Nigel Doak: 11. Exactly. One better.

Marty Morrissette: Why don't you just make 10 better and make 10 the top rating?

Nigel Doak: My rating goes to 11.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

But what would Pi9ne Valley rank if trees were removed

[Tom_Doak]

In honor of the 30 year anniversary of the greatest rockumentary every made.

Nigel Doak: The ratings all go to eleven. Look, throughout the book, 11, 11, 11

Marty Morrissette: Oh, I see. And most ratings go to 10?

Nigel Doak: Exactly

Marty Morrissette: Does that mean it's better? Is it any better?

Nigel Doak: Well, it's one better isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most blokes, you know will rate a great course to 10. You're on 10, all the way up the scale. Where can you go from there? Where?

Marty Morrissette: I don't know.

Nigel Doak: Nowhere. Exactly. What I do is, if the course needs that extra push over the cliff, you know what I do?

Marty Morrissette: Rate it up to 11.

Nigel Doak: 11. Exactly. One better.

Marty Morrissette: Why don't you just make 10 better and make 10 the top rating?

Nigel Doak: My rating goes to 11.

I've already got this covered.  See John Morrissett's review of Himalayan Golf Club, elsewhere on this site.

"The first 11 on the Doak Scale"  [sadly, I couldn't get his image to post here]

High praise from Tom in the course’s guestbook after his 2012 visit.

[Eric Smith]

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()