"the most clutch" (adjectival phrase)

[Victor Steinbok]

Although I'm quite certain that I've heard "most clutch" before--largely
under similar circumstances (e.g., "most clutch performance"), most of
the stuff mentioned by Ron is virtually never described in the manner he
suggests. When talking about clutch hitting, we get "better clutch
hitter" or "better hitter in the clutch", either way modifying "hitter",
not "clutch". If the degree of clutchness was more common, we hear more
"more clutch hitter" instead. But we don't. It's still rare. So is, "How
clutch is that hit?!"

VS-)

On 12/19/2011 4:10 PM, Laurence Horn wrote:
> On Dec 19, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Ron Butters wrote:
>
>> It so rarely appears as a bare noun (except as the object of the preposition "in") that one can scarcely classify it as a full-fledged noun, either, but rather as an adjective like "dead" that does not so easily allow comparative forms.
> Well, I'd argue that degrees of clutchness (e.g. hitting .400 vs. .300 in late inning situations with runners on base, successfully kicking 90% vs. 75% of one's field goal attempts in the fourth quarter to tie the game or give your team the lead) are a lot more easily defined than degrees of deadness, "deader than a doornail" notwithstanding.
>
>> "How clutch is he as a player?" sounds as good to me as the quoted example.
> Exactly as good.  This is precisely the pattern of adjectivistic "fun", except for the synthetic vs. analytic nature of the compared forms:  How fun is it?  It seems fun.  That was the funnest ride.  (Granted, the last of these seems a bit…jejune.)
>
> LH

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org