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

[ScouseJohnny]

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...

[Zeph]

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.

[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.

[MSchott]

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.

[Valleygolfer]

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.

[lumpuckeroo]

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.

[ScouseJohnny]

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)?

[Valleygolfer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScouseJohnny

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.

[Wisguy]

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.

[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.

[Wansteadimp]

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

[Dr. Manhattan]

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.

[k-troop]

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.

[Ole_Tom_Morris]

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.

[Dr. Manhattan]

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.

[Golfingdad]

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. ;)

[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?

[Golfingdad]

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.