Jump to content
IGNORED

Raymond Floyd upset at Hall of Fame for inducting 'guys who don't belong'


mvmac
Note: This thread is 4033 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

John Daly deserves to be in the World Golf Hall of Fame. Two Majors.... One of the most charismatic golfers of his generation... His personal life (as mentioned earlier)? Well, divorces are not that unusual, (sadly). Alcoholism? I'd classify that as a human frailty, not a moral weakness. His personal life ought not to preclude him. The guy was great to watch in the 1990s (and still is). For whatever reason he never made a US Ryder Cup team. Give him the recognition he deserves by inducting him into the HofF...
Link to comment
Share on other sites


That is where I disagree with the HOF. They don't recognize the greatest players through the ages. They recognize players for being popular, being writers, TV-personalities or whatever. It is unfortunately impossible to avoid when they induct five guys every year. There are only that many great golfers through the history.

Ogio Grom | Callaway X Hot Pro | Callaway X-Utility 3i | Mizuno MX-700 23º | Titleist Vokey SM 52.08, 58.12 | Mizuno MX-700 15º | Titleist 910 D2 9,5º | Scotty Cameron Newport 2 | Titleist Pro V1x and Taylormade Penta | Leupold GX-1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Many posters on this thread seem to debate who should be inducted into the Hall of Fame thinking the only parameter should be the inductees golf record.

Obviously this is the main parameter, but please understand the definition of the word 'Fame'

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fame

This conveniently lets in people like Peter Alliss et al.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Originally Posted by Vermeer

Many posters on this thread seem to debate who should be inducted into the Hall of Fame thinking the only parameter should be the inductees golf record.

Obviously this is the main parameter, but please understand the definition of the word 'Fame'

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fame

This conveniently lets in people like Peter Alliss et al.


That's the overriding question. Fame as in Hall of Fame does not necessarily meet the strict definition. There are hundreds of baseball players who have or had fame who are not in that hall. It's all about the criteria needed for entry. To me it's unfortunate that the World Golf HOF is not a more exclusive club as it dilutes it's true meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Didn't Mark O'Meara complain about Fred too? I was sure he said something too. It seems like these guys get old crotchety and think that just because they think and feel it, somebody needs to hear them.

God strike me down when I get there please.

"My ball is on top of a rock in the hazard, do I get some sort of relief?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Nothing more I like then talking about HOF and what it means, the only more ambigous term then HOF is MVP!  I don't understand why the golfing powers didn't establish minimum criteria for entry into the HOF, it would make sense, since wins and majors are pretty straight forward.  IMHO, what happens with no criteria, it becomes a Hall of Popularity, not a Hall of Fame.

Craig 

Yeah, wanna make 14 dollars the hard way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Quote:
since wins and majors are pretty straight forward.

Indeed they are. Hence, isn't there an argument that wins and Majors basically speak for themselves? A player such as Tom Watson will always be acknowledged for his 8 Majors, irrespective of his Hall of Fame status. Of course, it's right that a player like Watson is in the Hall of Fame. But perhaps the purpose of the Hall of Fame should also be to provide a venue to acknowledge those who have contributed enormously to golf, but whose actual achievements don't blatantly speak for themselves (in the same way that 8 Major Championship victories do)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Quote:
Originally Posted by ScouseJohnny View Post

Quote:
since wins and majors are pretty straight forward.

Indeed they are. Hence, isn't there an argument that wins and Majors basically speak for themselves? A player such as Tom Watson will always be acknowledged for his 8 Majors, irrespective of his Hall of Fame status. Of course, it's right that a player like Watson is in the Hall of Fame. But perhaps the purpose of the Hall of Fame should also be to provide a venue to acknowledge those who have contributed enormously to golf, but whose actual achievements don't blatantly speak for themselves (in the same way that 8 Major Championship victories do)?


Agreed. Merits should take precedence. They have bare walls and need stuff on it. Maybe Happy Gilmore should be in it too.

"My ball is on top of a rock in the hazard, do I get some sort of relief?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • 2 weeks later...
Originally Posted by k-troop

Daly meets criteria to be on the ballot with 2 majors.  Long John doesn't reflect well on the game, though, so he'll never get in.  His wild temper, frequent quitting, and ungentlemanly attitude on the course are not the image most golfers want their game to project.

(Note:  You could also throw in his bouts with alcoholism and string of messy divorces as arguments against his admission.  Certainly other high-profile golfers have had such issues--including Freddy--but in John's case they seem more reflective of his character.)

How about how many thousands of autographs Daly has give out in his career, particularly to kids?  How does that reflect on the game?

Drunks, smokers, gambling addicts, poor sports, and bad country musicians all rate pretty high on my list of least favorite people.  But for some reason I kind of like Daly.  I guess because he's so transparent - there's a fair amount of good you can see in him notwithstanding his numerous faults that are as every bit as larger-than-life as his drives.

In my bag: - Ping G20 driver, 10.5 deg. S flex - Ping G20 3W, 15 deg., S flex - Nickent 4dx 3H, 4H - Nike Slingshot 4-PW - Adams Tom Watson 52 deg. GW - Vokey 58 deg. SW -Ping Half Wack-E putter

Link to comment
Share on other sites


My Criteria would be this (just throwing something out there for fun)

-If you have 15+ career wins (Combined "Official" PGA and European Tour events), you must also have at least 2 majors to be inducted into the hall of fame **if you have 2 majors and less than 15 Official PGA and European Tour wins, too bad.

-If you have 0 majors, you must have at least 20+ wins (Combined "Official" PGA and European Tour events) to be "considered" into the hall of fame.  A confirmed induction would be at the discretion of other credentials i.e. Ryder / President Cup appearances, OWGR, number of wins over 20 (say you have 35 wins), etc etc...

**Note - if you have 20+ wins and 1 major, the 1 major barely kicks you in without the credentials.

A good example of someone besides Fred Couples who would get left out based on this criteria is Jim Furyk.  He has 16 Official PGA Tour wins (0 European tour Wins) and 1 Major.

Another good example is John Daly.  He has 8 combined European Tour and PGA Tour wins along with 2 majors which doesn't meet my criteria.

I would induct Colin Montgomerie as he has 31 Official European Tour Wins (0 PGA Tour) and 0 majors.  However, the extra criteria that gets him in is the multiple European Tour order of merit awards, OWGR status during his career and Ryder cup playing / captain experience.

Deryck Griffith

Titleist 910 D3: 9.5deg GD Tour AD DI7x | Nike Dymo 3W: 15deg, UST S-flex | Mizuno MP CLK Hybrid: 20deg, Project X Tour Issue 6.5, HC1 Shaft | Mizuno MP-57 4-PW, DG X100 Shaft, 1deg upright | Cleveland CG15 Wedges: 52, 56, 60deg | Scotty Cameron California Del Mar | TaylorMade Penta, TP Black LDP, Nike 20XI-X

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Originally Posted by Deryck Griffith

My Criteria would be this (just throwing something out there for fun)

-If you have 15+ career wins (Combined "Official" PGA and European Tour events), you must also have at least 2 majors to be inducted into the hall of fame **if you have 2 majors and less than 15 Official PGA and European Tour wins, too bad.

-If you have 0 majors, you must have at least 20+ wins (Combined "Official" PGA and European Tour events) to be "considered" into the hall of fame.  A confirmed induction would be at the discretion of other credentials i.e. Ryder / President Cup appearances, OWGR, number of wins over 20 (say you have 35 wins), etc etc...

**Note - if you have 20+ wins and 1 major, the 1 major barely kicks you in without the credentials.

A good example of someone besides Fred Couples who would get left out based on this criteria is Jim Furyk.  He has 16 Official PGA Tour wins (0 European tour Wins) and 1 Major.

Another good example is John Daly.  He has 8 combined European Tour and PGA Tour wins along with 2 majors which doesn't meet my criteria.

I would induct Colin Montgomerie as he has 31 Official European Tour Wins (0 PGA Tour) and 0 majors.  However, the extra criteria that gets him in is the multiple European Tour order of merit awards, OWGR status during his career and Ryder cup playing / captain experience.

Darren Clarke misses out on these criteria as well - 14 career wins including 1 major & 2 WGC events - 3 wins on the Japanese tour.

But Westwood might get in 24 wins, lots of Ryder Cup appearances, 2 x Order of Merit winner, 14 wins on other tours, consistent high OWGR including a spell as number 1.

Not sure that's right

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Originally Posted by k-troop

Daly meets criteria to be on the ballot with 2 majors.  Long John doesn't reflect well on the game, though, so he'll never get in.  His wild temper, frequent quitting, and ungentlemanly attitude on the course are not the image most golfers want their game to project.

(Note:  You could also throw in his bouts with alcoholism and string of messy divorces as arguments against his admission.  Certainly other high-profile golfers have had such issues--including Freddy--but in John's case they seem more reflective of his character.)

Based on all of this, Tiger wouldn't be allowed in either. I think Daly should get in and so should Couples. I don't believe it's fair to hold anyone to the golfing standards of Hogan, Nicklaus, and so forth. The dirty little secret is that the more golf spreads to developing countries, the more competitive it's going to get. This has been occurring with each passing decade and it's only going to get more competitive when China starts getting more involved in the game. Individual dominance will become more and more difficult as time goes by.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Based on all of this, Tiger wouldn't be allowed in either. I think Daly should get in and so should Couples.

Sorry, but no. John gets demerits because he acts like an ass on the course, quitting mid-round (or swatting shots with one hand) when he's playing bad and pissed off. Tiger's infiscretions were all off the course and don't compare. Not to mention the fact that Daly isn't really even a HoF bubble guy. Saying that the same arguments for or against admission apply to both JD and Tiger is absurd and makes your argument sound a little ridiculous.

Kevin

Titleist 910 D3 9.5* with ahina 72 X flex
Titleist 910F 13.5* with ahina 72 X flex
Adams Idea A12 Pro hybrid 18*; 23* with RIP S flex
Titleist 712 AP2 4-9 iron with KBS C-Taper, S+ flex
Titleist Vokey SM wedges 48*, 52*, 58*
Odyssey White Hot 2-ball mallet, center shaft, 34"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

So lets pose the questions -- Do sports writers and teachers have any business being in the Golf HOF? Should it be a matter of mathematics -- win so many of this or that and you automatically get in? I have problems with that. I can imagine someone with 5 green jackets (or 3 or whatever) who should not be inducted. It's not a matter of mathematics, not a matter of so many wins. If a golfer's contribution to the heritage of golf rests solely on wins why should he or she be inducted at all? The mathematics of wins and of percentage wins are recognized forever in the record books. What more is needed? A Golf Hall of Fame does not merely copy off the record books! Of course these "halls of fame" mean little. They crop up everywhere, hall of fame for this or for that sport or endeavor. Horseshoe Pitching Hall of Fame. Tiddlywinks Hall of Fame. Disk Golf Hall of Fame. They are simply enterprises being promoted by persons out to make a buck or a name for themselves or to do something for a community wanting to suck in a few tourist bucks. Ideally though, a golf hall of fame ought to present to a child of the 22nd century what the sport was like a hundred or two hundred years before, hitting a few high points. For that, you need more than cold numbers. You need colorful personalities in and around golf, like Doug Sanders and Tommy Bolt and . You need caddies, writers, teachers, bookies, painters, photographers and a few players. Even long-time hookers and groupies. " So IMO no automatic pass in for a certain number of wins. It's not about wins at all.

Carry Bag, experimental mix-- 9* Integra 320, TT X100 Gold shaft
MacGregor Tourney 2-iron circa 1979

High grass club: #5 Ginty
Irons: 3,4,8,9 Cleveland 588P RTG Proforce 95 Gold shafts
Hogan fifty-three Hogan 5612

Ping Kushin

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Originally Posted by k-troop

Sorry, but no. John gets demerits because he acts like an ass on the course, quitting mid-round (or swatting shots with one hand) when he's playing bad and pissed off. Tiger's infiscretions were all off the course and don't compare.

Not to mention the fact that Daly isn't really even a HoF bubble guy. Saying that the same arguments for or against admission apply to both JD and Tiger is absurd and makes your argument sound a little ridiculous.

TW throws tantrums on the golf course. Cursing, slamming clubs, etc. He even dragged his putter on a green at U.S. Open. That was a classless move. Not quite as bad as Sergio spitting in the cup, but still classless nonetheless. You brought up these character issues as part of the reason JD shouldn't get into the Hall of Fame. Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens were just denied entrance into the Baseball Hall of Fame due to the character clause in the voting instructions despite the fact that they had two of the greatest careers ever at their positions. If you are going to bust out the character clause on JD, then it would apply against TW as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Originally Posted by Ole_Tom_Morris

.... Ideally though, a golf hall of fame ought to present to a child of the 22nd century what the sport was like a hundred or two hundred years before, hitting a few high points. For that, you need more than cold numbers. You need colorful personalities in and around golf, like Doug Sanders and Tommy Bolt and . You need caddies, writers, teachers, bookies, painters, photographers and a few players. Even hookers and groupies. " So IMO no automatic pass in for a certain number of wins. It's not about wins at all.

This is a fair point, however if the Golf Hall of Fame is anything like the Baseball Hall of Fame (the only one I've been to) they already have all of that.  One half (actually more like 80%) of the Hall of Fame includes everything you mention.  It's basically a museum to the history of the game complete with at least some little tidbit on just about anything you could think of ... certainly baseball equivalents to Tommy Bolt and photographers, etc.  Then there is the other side of the museum ... the Shrine to the great players that is simply row after row of busts of the best of the best.*

* As long as you either didn't cheat, or if you did you only cheated by sharpening your spikes to try and murder second basemen while breaking up double plays, threw spitballs, or took amphetamines, but just not steroids. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

So is good conduct and morality to be a criterion? How far ought that to go? If a candidate has been divorced ought that to be a DQ? Commits adultery? Uses profanity? Has sex outside of wedlock? Will anyone qualify?

Carry Bag, experimental mix-- 9* Integra 320, TT X100 Gold shaft
MacGregor Tourney 2-iron circa 1979

High grass club: #5 Ginty
Irons: 3,4,8,9 Cleveland 588P RTG Proforce 95 Gold shafts
Hogan fifty-three Hogan 5612

Ping Kushin

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Originally Posted by Ole_Tom_Morris

So is good conduct and morality to be a criterion? How far ought that to go? If a candidate has been divorced ought that to be a DQ? Commits adultery? Uses profanity? Has sex outside of wedlock? Will anyone qualify?

Well, these things are voted on by sportswriters, right?  So it's totally subjective.  Some of them probably do consider things (like those you mentioned) that others would believe have no bearing on whether they are Hall of Fame material or not.

In the case of a guy like John Daly, who is a borderline candidate at best, those negative items might sway the vote against him, just like the perception of a guy like Fred Couples might have been the boost that got him over the hump.

Tiger Woods?  Not exactly going to be "borderline" so the club slamming or cursing isn't going to change anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 4033 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-15%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope.
  • Posts

    • You may be able to find a regular flex Blueboard on the second hand market. I’m little more than half your age so I swing a shaft that launches pretty low so I don’t have a lot of experience with Regular flex (other than when I try to hit it I miss way to the left).    There are other shafts, such as the newer Ping Alta that I’ve heard good things about. And one that no one talks about. The Jupiter shaft. You can get this shaft for a $100 with a grip and your Ping adapter installed. I was talking to the golf manager at Dick’s Sporting Goods here and he has one in his driver and has nothing but good things to say about it. I thought about getting one for my Paradym Triple Diamond to play it a little shorter, but haven’t pulled the trigger yet.
    • Wordle 1,013 3/6* ⬛🟨⬛🟨🟨 🟩⬛🟩🟩⬛ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
    • Meanwhile, another old Tour Edge guy switches to Callaway for this season. I have a different problem, course dependent set-ups. What I’m wondering is if @dragonsmhas the 8 iron set 5-PW, AW, GW or just 5-PW, GW. Because the PW is 42°, AW 47°, and GW 52°. Because that could potentially be a gap there. The 5-iron to 6-iron length jump is 5/8” instead of 1/2” so you should be careful of that.    @WUTiger the problem most people have with 3-woods is they don’t play them far enough back into their stance. And they usually don’t have enough loft and the shaft is too long. So 3HL, 4 or 5-wood is probably better for most golfers. I do the “Frankenwood” approach. I have both the 3+ and 5 woods. I typically will either add two degrees to the 3+ on 6600 yards or longer courses, or take a degree off the 5-wood on shorter courses than 6300 or so, and use the 5-wood shaft for both. I don’t usually find a situation where I need both the 3 and 5 wood on a course. I don’t play from 7000 yards it’s no fun. Edit: I mostly agree with @WUTiger on the gapping, although a lot of the newer even fixed hosel fairway woods are made better than what we had when we were playing the old Exotics XRails.
    • Wordle 1,013 4/6* ⬛🟦🟦⬛⬛ ⬛🟦⬛🟦🟦 🟧⬛🟧🟧🟧 🟧🟧🟧🟧🟧 par is good after a double bogey yesterday.
    • I did read the fine print tonight. It said replace with “similar features & function”.  8 yeas ago my purchase had features that today are available on the lower end models and the current version of my model has more “bells & whistles” than what I got 8 years ago.  So I am thinking they honored the agreement and I can’t argue the offer. since getting a credit for the full purchase price all I am really out over the past 8 years was the cost of the extended warranty, which was less than a low end  treadmill would have cost me. now the question is which model to replace with.  I’ll stay with Nordic Track or I forfeit the $1,463 credit so I will get Nordic Track.  And they honored the warranty and were not hard to work with which is a plus.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...