Current active players that will make HOF

[PiKapp23]

In honor of the Baseball Hall of Fame Balloting results today, I was wondering what current players will make the Golf Hall of Fame. I'm just going to go ahead and remove these players from consideration: Vijay (he's already in anyway), Tiger, Phil and DL3. I also know there are several LPGA players who are already in because of the static criteria for them, but I can't remember off the top of my head who.

I won't go into a big list of names so that others can give their choices, but I will give one name that is worthy of debate, if not actual induction - Fred Couples.

So who and why? What about up and coming players? College players, amateurs, mini-tour, international tours, Nationwide tour, LPGA, Futures tour, etc?

[apex53]

I would say Freddie gets in... A Masters and two Players Championships... Padraig Harrington - 2 Opens, PGA... Olazabal - 2 Masters, strong Ryder Cup record... Is Larry Nelson in the HOF? 2 PGA Championships and a U.S. Open at Oakmont is pretty strong

[uttexas]

Will make it (I think) Montgomery (best player to never win a major), Els

Is O'Meara in? Weiskopf?

They need more golf architects in the Hall IMO.
Also instructors. Harvey Penick,

http://www.wgv.com/hof/member_list.php?sort=year

[RC]

Harvey was put in in 2002...

[Stacey_E]

+1 for Freddie. He's my favorite golfer. His accomplishments are enough, but the fact that he has a lot of fan support should help as well. Rich Beem is really my favorite, but no chance there. I'll call Freddie my #1A golfer.

I'd also add Ernie Els.

[PEZGolf]

I would say Freddie gets in... A Masters and two Players Championships... Padraig Harrington - 2 Opens, PGA... Olazabal - 2 Masters, strong Ryder Cup record... Is Larry Nelson in the HOF? 2 PGA Championships and a U.S. Open at Oakmont is pretty strong

Yes, Larry Nelson was elected in 2006, and his election brings up this question: what are the most important criteria for election? Here is what the HOF says:

PGA TOUR Minimum 40 years old PGA TOUR member for 10 years 10 TOUR wins or 2 Majors or PLAYERS Championship wins Champions Tour Champions Tour member for five years 20 wins between PGA TOUR and Champions Tour or five major or PLAYERS Championship wins Larry Nelson won only 7 PGA Tour events, but, as you pointed out, he won two PGA Championships and one US Open. In my opinion, Majors should be weighted more than Tour wins. That does work out, as the case of Lanny Wadkins proves. He won only 1 Major---the 1977 PGA Championship, but had over 20 Tour wins (21 to be exact). He is not in the Hall of Fame. My personal opinion is that two Majors should be a requirement, and then other stats can be supplementary to that. Therefore, a player with only one Major, like Lanny should not get in, and that applies to Fred Couples as well. Even though I really like Freddie and am a big fan, I can set aside those sentiments, and say he just does not have two Majors. He had many close calls, but that does not matter. He did not get the job done. Based on this, Davis Love III should not get in, and I am disappointed that Tom Kite did. Tom was elected in 2004 and had 18 Tour wins, but only one Major--the 1992 US Open at Pebble Beach. Here are some interesting facts about the importance of Majors: 1. When Payne Stewart and Greg Norman were first eligible, they did not get elected! The requirement then was 75% of the ballots cast, and both came close but failed. The following year (2001), the percentage was lowered to 65% and both made it. The Shark, believe it or not, won only two Majors--the Open Championships of 1986 and 1993, while Payne won three (the PGA in 1989 and the US Opens in 1991 and 1999). 2. If players like Greg and Payne could not make it in the first year, why should a player with only one Major get in at all? Craig Wood was finally elected last year, and he played in the 1930's and 1940's, and won two Majors---the Masters and the US Open, and he was the first player to win those two in the same year (1941). He was in the original Hall of Fame in Pinehurst, run by the PGA, but was not "grandfathered" into the World Golf Hall of Fame when it was established. Wood, from Lake Placid, NY, had a great career---19 Tour wins and the first player to lose each of the Majors in a playoff, including the famous 1935 Masters when Gene Sarazen hit the "shot heard round the world"--a double eagle on #15 on Sunday that enabled him to tie Wood. Sarazen then won the playoff the next day. If it took this long for Wood to become eligible, and he won two Majors, then why should a player with only one get in at all? If we accept that Majors should be the main criterion, then Retief Goosen deserves consideration, and Colin Montgomerie does not. Personally, I like the LPGA standards, which are clear and are based on a point system: LPGA Point System -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Active LPGA Tour member for 10 years Cumulative 27 point-system based on LPGA tournament wins. Must include a major championship win, the Vare Trophy or Rolex Player of the Year honor. Any player meeting this criteria is eligible for induction. Because of this system, Dottie Pepper, who had 2 Major wins, has not earned enough points and has not been selected, and cannot, unless the Veterans Committee decides to so recognize her. It is sad that she did not earn enough points since her career was cut short by a bad shoulder that did not respond well to surgery. I have to believe that the "heart and soul" of the US Solheim Cup team will be selected by the Veterans Committee.

[PiKapp23]

My personal opinion is that two Majors should be a requirement, and then other stats can be supplementary to that.

The biggest problem I have with this critieria is Tiger Woods. Or Jack Nicklaus... Because those players dominated the majors for so many years this would exclude a number of great players that 'might' deservce to be in. This is like suggesting that a player in baseball had to win 2 World Series or an NFL player had to win 2 Super Bowls. Of course those are team sports where less is in the individual's hands than golf, but still I think that should not be the minimum. I kind of like the current criteria, although I'm not sure about the 'Player's Championship' being included. As far as most fans are concerned it's just another big tournament (like Bay Hill or Memorial). If TPC is included, shouldn't WGC events also be included since they have a similar criteria to qualify. Of course, because it's owned and run by PGA Tour, it's more important to the tour itself. Personally, I think the HoF should be somewhat subjective (although I like the LPGA system because it gives people something to shoot for, if Laura Davies isn't eligible it's incomplete).

If 2 majors makes a player eligible, John Daly is headed to HoF, and while I like John, he's not deserving of hall consideration. I think the current criteria is fine, except for the minimum age of 40 - I think I would have to make this 50. I agree 10 wins should be a minimum. Majors should be in the dicussion, but I'm not sure I would set a minimum number for majors for eligibility. But from subjective standpoint, I think overall contribution to the game and the tour should be considered stongly. Things like Ryder Cup and President's Cup, as well as money list, Vardon Trophy, Player of the Year awards, etc. should all be looked at. If they were to make 'automatic' eligibility criteria like LPGA (but make it so playes can still be voted in with less), perhaps make 20 wins + 2 majors or something like that. We always have to remember with HoF's for each sport that they are intended to be the absolute best of all time - not the really good. Defining the criteria of 'best' as opposed to 'really good' is what makes it an interesting debate.

[iacas]

The biggest problem I have with this critieria is Tiger Woods. Or Jack Nicklaus... Because those players dominated the majors for so many years this would exclude a number of great players that 'might' deservce to be in.

I don't know about that. Two isn't a lot, and Tiger's only won, what, about 30% of the ones he's played in (as a pro)? 14/44 or thereabouts? That's quite a few for "the other guys" to win, isn't it?

It was probably worse when Jack was playing. Tom Watson was around. Arnie was around (well, for four years anyway). Gary Player. They had a "big three" that actually produced back then... these days it's just Tiger. He wins a few more than Jack (his pace anyway), but except for a short burst from Phil, there's been no #2 or #3. Short burst from Paddy recently, too. Both of those players were able to get to two majors (well, Paddy did it with Tiger on the sidelines...). So I don't know about two majors, but I'm leaning towards "that wouldn't be a bad 'soft' rule" to have. I wouldn't like to see it as a requirement, but name a great player who doesn't have two majors and I'll show you a whole lot of people disagreeing about how great they are. I can name one: Monty. Sergio's another. If two is a soft rule, one could very well be a hard rule. I don't think you're great until you've won at least one major, and I'm not in favor of having weak inductions to the Hall of Fame just because they need to fill the available slots that year.

This is like suggesting that a player in baseball had to win 2 World Series or an NFL player had to win 2 Super Bowls. Of course those are team sports where less is in the individual's hands

That's why that's not a valid comparison at all. Ernie Banks couldn't make his teammates play better. Greg Lloyd couldn't make Neil O'Donnell not throw two horrible interceptions (not that Greg Lloyd was Ernie Banks' equal, at all...). Etc.

If 2 majors makes a player eligible, John Daly is headed to HoF, and while I like John, he's not deserving of hall consideration.

Eligible != "automatic induction."

I think the current criteria is fine, except for the minimum age of 40 - I think I would have to make this 50.

Agreed. Weird to have Vijay in the HOF and still winning FedExCups and stuff.

[VOX]

Is Davis Love III in? I would be very surprised. He's a good golfer but nowhere near HOF material.

[apex53]

Good stuff... Craig Wood definitely deserves to be in the HOF... If I remember correctly he won his U.S. Open at Colonial in Fort Worth... You make a good point about Freddie... The two misses that come to mind are the 90 PGA and 06 Masters when he couldn't make a three footer... What about Lee Janzen? Dude won two U.S. Opens but I don't think of him as a Hall of Famer... Not saying that's right, just my opinion

[PEZGolf]

Is Davis Love III in? I would be very surprised. He's a good golfer but nowhere near HOF material.

No, he is not in, and I agree with you. He is good, but not one of the very best---only one Major win---the memorable PGA in 1997 with the rainbow overhead.

[PiKapp23]

No, he is not in, and I agree with you. He is good, but not one of the very best---only one Major win---the memorable PGA in 1997 with the rainbow overhead.

I think the 20th win put him over the top, especially considering how long he has been good and his impact in Ryder Cup and President's Cups.

[Stacey_E]

I think the 20th win put him over the top, especially considering how long he has been good and his impact in Ryder Cup and President's Cups.

That's what I was thinking before. Didn't that win make him eligible for the PGA events for life, or something like that? I realize he is not the hottest player out now. But I'd vote for him.

[PEZGolf]

We always have to remember with HoF's for each sport that they are intended to be the absolute best of all time - not the really good. Defining the criteria of 'best' as opposed to 'really good' is what makes it an interesting debate.

I agree with you that the HOF should be the very best or it will be regarded as being "watered down". The very definition of "very best" does lend itself to vigorous debate, as you said.

It is interesting that Jim Rice was barely elected and on his 15th try. Besides his home run (382), RBI (1,451), and hit numbers, consider this: "USA Today" stated that he is the only player to ever hit 35 or more home runs and have 200 hits in three consecutive years. Add that to his MVP in 1978, and his numbers, and I thought he deserved to go in well before this. And he did this before steroids became an issue. Congratulations to him! I like his statement that the important thing is to get in, and the fact that once there, they cannot take it away from you. He displayed no bitterness about the long wait, just gratitude that it finally happened.

[PiKapp23]

We always have to remember with HoF's for each sport that they are intended to be the absolute best of all time - not the really good. Defining the criteria of 'best' as opposed to 'really good' is what makes it an interesting debate.

Another thing that voters think about in most HoF voting is "Was the player really good for a long time?" Sometimes that is the same as being great. I agree that Love is still debatable, but think he's good enough to get in.

[Ben]

I would say Freddie gets in... A Masters and two Players Championships... Padraig Harrington - 2 Opens, PGA... Olazabal - 2 Masters, strong Ryder Cup record... Is Larry Nelson in the HOF? 2 PGA Championships and a U.S. Open at Oakmont is pretty strong

Wow, an early post nod for Olazabal. He's on my list too. As well as Padraig.

Tiger Freddie is in for sure Els Goosen Ochoa I think Bruce Lietzke may get in there eventually DLIII A Kim Morgan Pressel I think Justin Leonard has got a chance Henrik Stenson Greg Norman I'm sure I'll think of a few more...

[Big_M]

Wow, an early post nod for Olazabal. He's on my list too. As well as Padraig.

I agree with most of these...

I would be shocked if DL3 didn't get in AK will assuming he lives up to what he has shown, BUT... Norman certianly will Els definately not sure about Justin Leonard or Goosen... maybe both need a little more? others... Phil Paddy VJ Sergio is similar to AK... also throw Adam Scott in there, maybe Camilo? Jim Furyk Oglivy is on pace to have a shot... another major and a few more wins, perhaps a players many others I'm not thinking of...

[Ben]

Big_M

Yeah, Leonard may be a strecth. I just see something in him. I think he's got a lot of good years left. Maybe my choice has a little something to do that I can relate to his game. We have sorta the same build, and we're about the same age. He's been around for a while now and seems to be able to play for longevity in this game. Something I'm looking for. Also why I've included Pressel on my list. I see it in her too. Accept for similarity in age and build of course, haha.

Goosen, I just like him, my favorite player. He's one two US Opens. Had some great years in a row. Still has potential for more.

You're right about Furyk, although about 4 more wins and maybe a major wouldn't hurt his cause.

Sergio, yeah, about AK status.

I was hot on Justin Rose last year, but his escapade at The Masters seemed to have hurt his confidence. I still have hope for him.