Fred Couples voted into the Hall of Fame, Creating some Controversy

[Zeph]

Looking at the list from the HOF, it's obvious this has got little to do with playing golf. Which makes Fred a legit pick. 2009 Dwight D. Eisenhower - former U.S. President 2011 Ernie Els 2011 Masashi "Jumbo" Ozaki 2011 Doug Ford 2011 Jock Hutchison 2011 Frank Chirkinian - television producer, known as the 'father of televised golf' for the impact he had on golf broadcasting. 2011 George H. W. Bush - former U.S. President 2012 Phil Mickelson 2012 Dan Jenkins - golf writer 2012 Sandy Lyle 2012 Peter Alliss

[k-troop]

Agreed that, if you look at the full list, there doesn't seem to be much rhyme or reason.

http://www.worldgolfhalloffame.org/hof/member_list.php?sort=alpha

Bush 41 was a great man who loved golf.  But his qualifications for the HoF seem to be that his father and grandfather were USGA Presidents, he taught golf to his sons, he was a loyal golf fan, and he didn't tolerate slow play.

[Monte the Bear]

Originally Posted by LuciusWooding

I don't see how making majors more difficult would improve anything, it's all about the strength of the field and the size of the reward. Who cares if the winning score at Augusta is -14? And how can you suggest St Andrews be dropped? I agree Carnoustie is probably a better course, but still. Try playing the Old Course in a 30mph gale with no roll on the fairways. It's been bad luck lately that we haven't had a really tough Open. And the suggestion that we pick Irish courses to hold the BRITISH Open is a pretty odd one. I don't think the Irish will go for it unless they change the name. Not that there aren't great links in Ireland, it's just that there has been a spot of trouble between the UK and Ireland for a good while now. The US Open is all about tricked up courses and all, which is fine, but no need to make the PGA the little brother of the US Open.

If you try to fight the longest players with course design, you'll lose every time. There will always be that one guy who has wedges into the 500 yard par 4s, plays the par 3s like a pitch and putt, and gets an eagle chance on anything under 600 yards. That's 600 yards uphill, no doglegs and wind in your face. And meanwhile Luke Donald is back at the ladies tee hitting his second, needing a long iron to reach those long par 4s and laying up on a lot of the par 5s. He's not thinking about cutting back the ball or lengthening tees, he needs all the distance he can get. Everything honestly balances out pretty well for the average 290 hitter on tour, IMO. That's all they can do when there's such a difference between the longer and shorter players.

Anyway, I think Freddie deserves to get in on the basis of sheer style. Not something that can be said for too many players.

OK, let me break this down.

St Andrews will be played (I think) in two years. Right now, there are 11 holes including the two par three's that players will take irons or 3 woods on the tee. To paraphrase Moe Norman, Par 4's that don't require a wood from the tee should be made illegal.

It's not bad luck that the Open is not played in bad weather on a boggy track - the thing is played in July in mid-summer when the most light is afforded the British Isles. It does not guarantee great weather, but it certainly helps. Besides, a 30 mph wind and no run on most links courses make it a bit tougher...you may not even be playing because of the ball moving on certain exposed greens (Hoylake anybody?).

Here are some Irish courses that would qualify (they are in Northern Ireland, part of the GB) - Portrush (take anyone of the courses for a test), Royal County Down, Portstewart Strand (unbelievable course) for starters. Go over there and play them - if you break 100 on a clear day at RCD, let me know, I'll buy you a beer.

The US open is fantastic. It's the very fact that the course is tricked up and not dumbed down that makes it the best major. The PGA should not be it's little brother - it should be it's brother, end of.

I don't think length is the answer, but I do think that tightening the fair way cut is one way to work out who is straighter. As for Luke Donald, I suggest he gets in the gym, or change ball, or change driver. If you ain't knocking it 305, it's doubtful you are gonna win a major from back at 290.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by Monte the Bear

OK, let me break this down.

St Andrews will be played (I think) in two years. Right now, there are 11 holes including the two par three's that players will take irons or 3 woods on the tee. To paraphrase Moe Norman, Par 4's that don't require a wood from the tee should be made illegal.

It's not bad luck that the Open is not played in bad weather on a boggy track - the thing is played in July in mid-summer when the most light is afforded the British Isles. It does not guarantee great weather, but it certainly helps. Besides, a 30 mph wind and no run on most links courses make it a bit tougher...you may not even be playing because of the ball moving on certain exposed greens (Hoylake anybody?).

Here are some Irish courses that would qualify (they are in Northern Ireland, part of the GB) - Portrush (take anyone of the courses for a test), Royal County Down, Portstewart Strand (unbelievable course) for starters. Go over there and play them - if you break 100 on a clear day at RCD, let me know, I'll buy you a beer.

The US open is fantastic. It's the very fact that the course is tricked up and not dumbed down that makes it the best major. The PGA should not be it's little brother - it should be it's brother, end of.

I don't think length is the answer, but I do think that tightening the fair way cut is one way to work out who is straighter. As for Luke Donald, I suggest he gets in the gym, or change ball, or change driver. If you ain't knocking it 305, it's doubtful you are gonna win a major from back at 290.

This really belongs in a separate thread, but I think you are contradicting yourself.  Make the holes tighter to require that a driver be played more off the tee??

I also like to see the driver tested more often, but I don`t think tightening the holes is the answer.  If you hit a 300 yard shot and a 250 yard shot straight at the same angle off line, the 300 yard shot will be farther from the middle of the fairway.  In the US Open, most guys would take a 250 yard drive in the fairway rather than a 300 yard one in the deep rough.  (Of course, if you are going to miss the fairway anyways, better to be 50 yards closer to the hole with a powerful swing that has a better chance of fighting through the grass)

Wanna see more drivers- put the trouble at 220 to 270 or so off the tee and make the fairways wider at 300+ yards.  One reason that Daly won the PGA is that he could bomb it over the trouble into the easier areas of the golf course.

[Monte the Bear]

Originally Posted by MEfree

This really belongs in a separate thread, but I think you are contradicting yourself.  Make the holes tighter to require that a driver be played more off the tee??

I also like to see the driver tested more often, but I don`t think tightening the holes is the answer.  If you hit a 300 yard shot and a 250 yard shot straight at the same angle off line, the 300 yard shot will be farther from the middle of the fairway.  In the US Open, most guys would take a 250 yard drive in the fairway rather than a 300 yard one in the deep rough.  (Of course, if you are going to miss the fairway anyways, better to be 50 yards closer to the hole with a powerful swing that has a better chance of fighting through the grass)

Wanna see more drivers- put the trouble at 220 to 270 or so off the tee and make the fairways wider at 300+ yards.  One reason that Daly won the PGA is that he could bomb it over the trouble into the easier areas of the golf course.

Agree about Daly - he also won at St Andrews knowing he shove it out there either left or centre.

I agree with what you say - put the rough at 240-280 yards plus tighten up the fairway rough. It's hard not to be contradictory when it comes to course design - I don't like lengthening courses any more than anyone else, but somehow they have to be stopped being an easy pick - I say push the rough in and if driver is the go, then make it more risk-reward. Same with a 3 wood.

BTW St Andrews will never be off the Open list - the R&A; have invested waay too much in mythology of the place and in the set-up on the other courses, such as the Castle and Dune courses. However, it's still true that if you hit it left or straight, you'll generally be OK. Quite how this fact escapes people when marking it up as a great course I'll never know.

[bplewis24]

So, to get into the HoF for Golf, I can either be one of the greatest players of all time, or be a US President with a professed love for golf?

Guess I'm screwed either way :)

[Beachcomber]

Originally Posted by k-troop

Freddy is a star.  He's the face of Bridgestone, on all kinds of commercials, and people care what he's doing.  And I wouldn't underestimate the importance of his Ryder Cup and President's Cup performance, particularly as 3-time Captain.  Honestly, I think the Cups should get more weight than winning the John Deere, as there's no money involved--it's all about the game.

I agree - Freddy is famous and likable (probably why he got voted in).  People like him, and talk about him as a professional.  People don't do the same with Stadler (used as an example above on lowering the bar).

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by mvmac

Golfweek's Jeff Rude poses a Q&A; and asks if this dumbs down the hall:

No offense to Fred, whom I like, but someone getting in with 15 victories and one major does lower the previous unwritten benchmark, yes.

Anybody know what the previous unwritten benchmark was?

Originally Posted by Zeph

Do they have to put someone in the HoF every year, or can they suddenly skip three years?

I don't know, but if it's anything like baseball or football, then technically no, but realistically yes.  In both of those cases, they make a big production out of the whole ceremony week or weekend.  Football even includes a preseason "Hall of Fame" game as part of the festivities.  I would assume that those weekends are big moneymakers for the respective halls and they would be hurt on years when they had to cancel the whole thing if nobody got elected.

I went to Cooperstown this past summer and the thing that most struck me about the place is that it is out in the middle of nowhere.  I would imagine that Hall of Fame induction weekend is a really big deal locally.

[phan52]

Freddy has more going for him than those 15 wins. He was a stalwart on the Ryder and Presidents Cup and he brought a lot of casual fans to golf. Promoting the game goes a long way and Freddy did more than most.

Plus, I just met him a few weeks ago and he was the most down-to-earth celebrity I have ever been around. Class individual. Congrats, Freddy!!

[joekelly]

May i ask who is doing the voting for the GHOF?  Other pros only, sportswriters, USGA, PGA bosses, the Pres of Bridgestone and Titleist, TV producers, all golfers worldwide with scratch HC, internet and mobile device voters (like for the baseball All Star Game)...etc?

And relatedly,  i cannot accept another man dissing Fred's, or any other man's, choice of woman. Behind the facade we each build and maintain there often  lies  a very different person that we cannot discern.

But Fred has a nice swing and wears swell shoes, both on the course and in the car.

[jimdandy]

so according to you guys, with "popularity" being so important, then we should expect Michele Wie to be in the Hall. She "captivated" the world was when she was a teen.

She can't even break 80!

Golf HOF is so meaningless, it's laughable.

Could you imagine baseball electing guys in because of their popularity....wow!

[Beachcomber]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Anybody know what the previous unwritten benchmark was?

I don't know, but if it's anything like baseball or football, then technically no, but realistically yes.  In both of those cases, they make a big production out of the whole ceremony week or weekend.  Football even includes a preseason "Hall of Fame" game as part of the festivities.  I would assume that those weekends are big moneymakers for the respective halls and they would be hurt on years when they had to cancel the whole thing if nobody got elected.

I went to Cooperstown this past summer and the thing that most struck me about the place is that it is out in the middle of nowhere.  I would imagine that Hall of Fame induction weekend is a really big deal locally.

I believe it was 20 wins and 2 majors?  Maybe it was 20 wins and 1 major?  But it was one of those...

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Beachcomber

I believe it was 20 wins and 2 majors?  Maybe it was 20 wins and 1 major?  But it was one of those...

OK, something like this would have been what I guessed based on Freddie's numbers.  Isn't the LPGA the one that actually has a real benchmark to get elected?  I want to say 30 wins or something like that?

[Parker0065]

I won't debate whether Couples does or doesn't belong in the HOF. I always pulled for him in the 80's and 90's and would have liked to have seen him win more. You can't ignore the injury aspect of why he didn't tee it up as much as a Norman or Faldo back then but there's also his "layed back" personality that may have played into him not winning as much. Of course that's all speculation because many tour players have commented how competitive he can be. What ever the reason is, he should/could have won more to make his HOF selection seem more worthy.

I tend to forget that people on internet golf forums mostly came to the game in the Tiger era and all you have to look back on is the stats. To consider Couples as just a ho-hum average tour player that just happened to be a "popular" likeable guy and that's why he got in is on the edge of absurd! Only Couples can answer why he didn't win more but in his time I believe he was the most talented golfer on tour compared to Norman, Faldo and Price who won most of the big events back then.

They voted him in, fine. If they didn't vote him in because he didn't have enough wins, that's fine as well. I will say that in the last 25 years watching the PGA tour I have witnessed 3 guy's that could just make the game look so easy with their combination of length and accuracy.

Those three guy's are: Tiger Woods, Rory Mcilroy, and Fred Couples!

I guess if you had to put your finger on one thing about Couples game that was less than stellar and probably held him back from winning more was his putting. Maybe if he had that belly putter in the 1980's he would have got his win total in the 30-40 range, lol!

Let the debate rage on!!!!!!

[jimdandy]

Originally Posted by Parker0065

I won't debate whether Couples does or doesn't belong in the HOF. I always pulled for him in the 80's and 90's and would have liked to have seen him win more. You can't ignore the injury aspect of why he didn't tee it up as much as a Norman or Faldo back then but there's also his "layed back" personality that may have played into him not winning as much. Of course that's all speculation because many tour players have commented how competitive he can be. What ever the reason is, he should/could have won more to make his HOF selection seem more worthy.

I tend to forget that people on internet golf forums mostly came to the game in the Tiger era and all you have to look back on is the stats. To consider Couples as just a ho-hum average tour player that just happened to be a "popular" likeable guy and that's why he got in is on the edge of absurd! Only Couples can answer why he didn't win more but in his time I believe he was the most talented golfer on tour compared to Norman, Faldo and Price who won most of the big events back then.

They voted him in, fine. If they didn't vote him in because he didn't have enough wins, that's fine as well. I will say that in the last 25 years watching the PGA tour I have witnessed 3 guy's that could just make the game look so easy with their combination of length and accuracy.

Those three guy's are: Tiger Woods, Rory Mcilroy, and Fred Couples!

I guess if you had to put your finger on one thing about Couples game that was less than stellar and probably held him back from winning more was his putting. Maybe if he had that belly putter in the 1980's he would have got his win total in the 30-40 range, lol!

Let the debate rage on!!!!!!

Being the most talented means nothing, unless you win. Winning means a full rounded game. Bad putters don't win much. And couples wasn't a good putter.

Couples had the smooth swing, but couldn't finish. He's kind of like Lee Westwood. Lee has one of the best tee to green games, but not a great putter or short game guy.

It's also the same reason why Johnny Miller didn't win more.

"length and accuracy" is only 1/2 the battle.

[Parker0065]

Originally Posted by jimdandy

Being the most talented means nothing, unless you win. Winning means a full rounded game. Bad putters don't win much. And couples wasn't a good putter.

Couples had the smooth swing, but couldn't finish. He's kind of like Lee Westwood. Lee has one of the best tee to green games, but not a great putter or short game guy.

It's also the same reason why Johnny Miller didn't win more.

"length and accuracy" is only 1/2 the battle.

Yes, as I mentioned putting probably held him back more than anything from winning by the bushel barrel, thanks for restating that.

Couples was a good putter by tour standards, he just didn't have that extra gear like a Nicklaus, Palmer, Tiger had where they could seemingly "will" the ball into the hole when they most desperately needed it.

Does that mean he doesn't belong in the hall of fame? You guy's can go have fun debating that into the wee hours of the morning :)

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by Parker0065

I tend to forget that people on internet golf forums mostly came to the game in the Tiger era and all you have to look back on is the stats. To consider Couples as just a ho-hum average tour player that just happened to be a "popular" likeable guy and that's why he got in is on the edge of absurd! Only Couples can answer why he didn't win more but in his time I believe he was the most talented golfer on tour compared to Norman, Faldo and Price who won most of the big events back then.

He wasn't a ho-hum average player, but to characterize winning as "just a stat" is understating it a bit.  And as was originally pointed out, O'Meara had more wins, and more majors, but Freddy got the vote over O'Meara.  I don't care how many fairways Freddy hit, if O'Meara won more tournaments, and more majors, then he was the better player of that era.

So what's the difference?  Why did Freddy get in and Mark-O didn't?

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by Beachcomber

I believe it was 20 wins and 2 majors?  Maybe it was 20 wins and 1 major?  But it was one of those...

20 wins and 1 major is exactly what DL3 had, and he didn't get in.  After I read the article that MVMAC posted, I'm really starting to wonder how this went down.  DL3 is a great player, great person, and a Ryder Cup stalwart as well.  He's had just as many brilliant moments as Freddy.  I guess a Wannamaker doesn't count as much as the Green Jacket, although I'd venture that the PGA Championship is a better win (and his final round 64 in the 2003 Players was sick).