or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Tour Talk › Raymond Floyd upset at Hall of Fame for inducting 'guys who don't belong'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Raymond Floyd upset at Hall of Fame for inducting 'guys who don't belong' - Page 3

post #37 of 74
Quote:
it should be a difficult accomplishment available to select great golfers.

 

The World Golf Hall of Fame clearly serves a purpose beyond that, though, doesn't it? How else do you justify the inclusion of, (and in recent years, too) :

 

Bush 41 (US President)

Eisenhower (US President, 5 star US General in WWII, and 18 handicapper)

 

Peter Alliss (know first and foremost as a British broadcaster - from what I can see his career as a professional golfer was limited to European wins and he never won a Major - so the same criticisms that apply to Montgomerie can presumably be applied to Alliss, if tournament victories are the sole criterion for a place in the Hall of Fame)?

 

I'm not questioning the right of any of these three people to be in the World Golf Hall of Fame. But clearly the qualities for being inducted go beyond simply being, "a great golfer" (in the literal sense of that term)?

post #38 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by phan52 View Post

As do many people who found golf because of a affection for Fred, especially among junior golfers. If you ask people on the street who Raymond Floyd is you would most probably get a quizzical look. This same debate was on these boards a couple of months ago about Chi Chi Rodriguez, another guy who didn't win as much as some others, but most probably had far more of an impact on the game of golf in general than a lot of Majors winners. Don't get hung up on the numbers.

I could argue that John Daly did more than Freddy to expand golf's appeal, especially among "Regular folks" who never paid any attention to golf prior to Daly and his booming drives & "Every man" quality. Not as many wins as Freddy but one more major. Does he deserve to be in?

post #39 of 74

The Lifetime Achievement category takes in other less tangible contributions to the game.  That seems to include quite a range of  possibilities.  Someone who had an average career, but made other contributions to the advancement of the game could clearly become eligible under this heading.  

 

Not sure why the presidents would be there though.  And if so, why not Gerald Ford?  He contributed a great deal to the comedic aspect of the game. d2_doh.gif

post #40 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScouseJohnny View Post

Peter Alliss (know first and foremost as a British broadcaster - from what I can see his career as a professional golfer was limited to European wins and he never won a Major - so the same criticisms that apply to Montgomerie can presumably be applied to Alliss, if tournament victories are the sole criterion for a place in the Hall of Fame)?

 

This was a time when virtually no Europeans were playing in the US, in fact South Africans were being run out of the US for being too good.

 

Alliss's record is significantly poorer than Montgomerie, though he did win a lot of British PGA championships, he is mostly remembered for choking away a Ryder Cup in the days when GB didn't get close to being in contention.

 

The question I suppose is it right to have an International category and then judge the person on the number of wins in the US. Large numbers of European players playing significant number of events on the US tour is a relatively new thing. Jacklin, Oosthouse(sp?), Lyle tried but Seve was always arguing with Dean Bemen about access to the US tour.

 

Anyone know if Sandy Lyle is in the HOF, 2 majors and a Players title suggest he should be but he did it over a very short period of time and the feeling is the rest of his career is a bit average.

post #41 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetsknicks1 View Post

I could argue that John Daly did more than Freddy to expand golf's appeal, especially among "Regular folks" who never paid any attention to golf prior to Daly and his booming drives & "Every man" quality. Not as many wins as Freddy but one more major. Does he deserve to be in?

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.)

post #42 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by hkgolfer View Post

Ray Floyd has always been a self important prat. 

 

I can understand there being debate about criteria, but why one would feel the need to go public I'm not sure.  Except for his "hall of fame ego".  I have a friend who drew Floyd in a pro-Am many years ago and was quite excited.  However, the reality was that he was an absolutely self-absorbed moron and refused to speak to his pro-Am partners throughout the round.  Glad to see that he is at least consistent.

 

Fred Couples has been one of the most important players in the game in his generation and he is adored by fans.  Ask 100 fans whose display they would rather visit at a Hall of Fame and most would say 'Freddie' hands down.  In addition to his wins he played in multiple Ryder and President's Cups and is a two-time winning Captain of the US team.  He also represented the US (with DL3)  in the early years of the World Cup and won several.  And - by the way - the World Golf Hall of Fame (and I will come back to the importance of "World" in a moment) is supposed to be a place that attracts people to the site and to the game.  So maybe someone wildly popular with fans the world over is actually an important candidate.

 

As for 'Monty', I must confess that I am not a huge fan but he did win the European Tour Order of Merit SIX times in a row.  He has one of most impressive Ryder Cup records in history including captaining a winning side and has won many times around the world.  Say what you want, but it is not ridiculous for someone with that kind of record to be considered.

 

As a final note - this is the WORLD Golf Hall of Fame.  Therefore, golf achievements around the world are relevant.  Not just on the US Tour.  Ray Floyd's bias (it's all about what you do in the US) is symptomatic of why the US continues to get their assess handed to them in the Ryder Cup.

 

Do us all a favor Ray - take your grumpy old man act somewhere else !

 

+1 

 

Well thought out and well written.   Montgomery doesn't get much respect here in the US, both because of his lack of success here, and because his inability to shrug off the heckling made him too much of a target.  He never seemed to quite come to grips with the differences in the fans here, or understand that they were naturally going to root for the home guys.  I think if he had just ignored the early rowdiness of some fans, his time here would have been more pleasant in the long run.  As it is, no matter what his accreditation, Monty will never be a fan favorite on this side of the pond.


You know Rick you could use the add rep button once in a while.

post #43 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by k-troop View Post

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.)

I, for one, am against the whole notion of using someones personality traits and off course issues as a measure of their worthiness of admission to the HOF. It isn't the Real Nice Guy Hall of Fame, admission should based purely on the players on-course performance.

 

The frequent quitting and poor sportsmanship could be a measure but the alcoholism and divorces etc...are off limits, nothing to do with golf and therefor as irrelevant to the topic as the color of Tiger's skin IMHO.

 

Patrick Roy is by all accounts an A-Hole of near epic proportions but ain't no one ever gonna argue his HOF hockey career.

post #44 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernest Jones View Post


Patrick Roy is by all accounts an A-Hole of near epic proportions but ain't no one ever gonna argue his HOF hockey career.

That would be relevant if punching people in the face were an accepted part of golf.
post #45 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by k-troop View Post


That would be relevant if punching people in the face were an accepted part of golf.

Um, 3 fights over an 18 year pro career? Hardly a defining aspect of Patrick Roy as a player lol.

 

Anyway my point, which you may have missed due to the last sentence of my post b3_huh.gif is that whether or not someone is a pleasant individual should have absolutely no bearing on their worthiness of induction, unless of course it is an induction to the Pleasant People HOF. FWIW, I'm not arguing for nor against JD, just the parameters by which a candidate should be judged.

 

I would agree that the quitting mid-round and the on course behaviour could be a factor but even there I would be cautious as to how much weight should be given to it.

post #46 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by k-troop View Post

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.)

I don't think he belongs in the HOF either. Just tossing out a different situation for discussion.

post #47 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by hkgolfer View Post

Ray Floyd has always been a self important prat. 

 

I can understand there being debate about criteria, but why one would feel the need to go public I'm not sure.  Except for his "hall of fame ego".  I have a friend who drew Floyd in a pro-Am many years ago and was quite excited.  However, the reality was that he was an absolutely self-absorbed moron and refused to speak to his pro-Am partners throughout the round.  Glad to see that he is at least consistent.

 

Fred Couples has been one of the most important players in the game in his generation and he is adored by fans.  Ask 100 fans whose display they would rather visit at a Hall of Fame and most would say 'Freddie' hands down.  In addition to his wins he played in multiple Ryder and President's Cups and is a two-time winning Captain of the US team.  He also represented the US (with DL3)  in the early years of the World Cup and won several.  And - by the way - the World Golf Hall of Fame (and I will come back to the importance of "World" in a moment) is supposed to be a place that attracts people to the site and to the game.  So maybe someone wildly popular with fans the world over is actually an important candidate.

 

As for 'Monty', I must confess that I am not a huge fan but he did win the European Tour Order of Merit SIX times in a row.  He has one of most impressive Ryder Cup records in history including captaining a winning side and has won many times around the world.  Say what you want, but it is not ridiculous for someone with that kind of record to be considered.

 

As a final note - this is the WORLD Golf Hall of Fame.  Therefore, golf achievements around the world are relevant.  Not just on the US Tour.  Ray Floyd's bias (it's all about what you do in the US) is symptomatic of why the US continues to get their assess handed to them in the Ryder Cup.

 

Do us all a favor Ray - take your grumpy old man act somewhere else !

ALL of this. Great post.

post #48 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post

You're right he has the numbers to minimally qualify.  I do believe the requirements aren't stringent enough for a HoF, but that's my opinion and I don't influence the decision to change it.  Ray probably shouldn't have called out Couples and instead just focused on his concerns with the requirements being too lax since Freddy is so well liked. 

The thing that I find odd about it all is that they are very good friends. I think Ray may have lost his governor when Maria passed away.

post #49 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by phan52 View Post

The thing that I find odd about it all is that they are very good friends. I think Ray may have lost his governor when Maria passed away.

It could be that, or Ray was having a bad day or he was quoted out of context to make it seem more malicious than was meant.  Older players in all sports seem to have a selective memory about their career when compared to younger guys. 

 

That's one of the things I've always liked about Jack, he always seems gracious and complimentary of Tiger and his career. 

post #50 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by phan52 View Post

The thing that I find odd about it all is that they are very good friends. I think Ray may have lost his governor when Maria passed away.


First of all Ray Floyd never mentioned Couples. He cited no player specifically. Go back and read his comments in the article. He is commenting that the criteria are not strict enough. I find no fault in what he said. He was nothing but honest with his feelings and I have no idea how anyone can find fault with that.

post #51 of 74
Quote:
Quote:
The thing that I find odd about it all is that they are very good friends. I think Ray may have lost his governor when Maria passed away.

 

Originally Posted by MSchott View Post

 


First of all Ray Floyd never mentioned Couples. He cited no player specifically. Go back and read his comments in the article. He is commenting that the criteria are not strict enough. I find no fault in what he said. He was nothing but honest with his feelings and I have no idea how anyone can find fault with that.

 

He certainly referenced Fred in answer to a question, Fred and Monty, both.

 

Fred Couples has one major and 15 Tour wins, and Colin Montgomerie never won a major, and they'll be enshrined this year. It sounds like they didn't get your vote.
 

I'll just say that you should have at least two majors. At least! Wow, there are guys in there that it's a joke. It takes integrity away from the term "Hall of Fame." I'm very upset at the Hall of Fame.



Read more: http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/hall-fame-golfer-raymond-floyd-interview-hall-fame-career-death-his-wife#ixzz2LeyQuGeZ

post #52 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by phan52 View Post

 

He certainly referenced Fred in answer to a question, Fred and Monty, both.

 

Fred Couples has one major and 15 Tour wins, and Colin Montgomerie never won a major, and they'll be enshrined this year. It sounds like they didn't get your vote.
 

I'll just say that you should have at least two majors. At least! Wow, there are guys in there that it's a joke. It takes integrity away from the term "Hall of Fame." I'm very upset at the Hall of Fame.



Read more: http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/hall-fame-golfer-raymond-floyd-interview-hall-fame-career-death-his-wife#ixzz2LeyQuGeZ


That's a question from the interviewer. You are taking this out of context. He was asked specifically about Fred and Montgomery. He did not bring up their names. There are people in this thread that seem to think he is dissing Fred specifically. He is not. He is commenting on the integrity of the Hall.

post #53 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSchott View Post


That's a question from the interviewer. You are taking this out of context. He was asked specifically about Fred and Montgomery. He did not bring up their names. There are people in this thread that seem to think he is dissing Fred specifically. He is not. He is commenting on the integrity of the Hall.

 

It is both the question and the direct answer to that question. Hardly out of context.

I think it is a fair interpretation that he is talking about Fred and Monty when he says "I'll just say that you should have at least two majors. At least! Wow,there are guys in there that it's a joke", in direct answer to the question.

post #54 of 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by phan52 View Post

 

It is both the question and the direct answer to that question. Hardly out of context.

I think it is a fair interpretation that he is talking about Fred and Monty when he says "I'll just say that you should have at least two majors. At least! Wow,there are guys in there that it's a joke", in direct answer to the question.


We will not agree on this but earlier Floyd mentioned players who made the hall over the last "6, 8, 10 years" so he is not singling out Fred and Colin. There's no doubt he thinks they don't belong in the hall but he's certainly not insulting Couples. Once again, he's saying he disagrees with the criteria for making the HOF. That is very clear.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Tour Talk
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Tour Talk › Raymond Floyd upset at Hall of Fame for inducting 'guys who don't belong'