World Golf Hall of Fame

[bjwestner]

I was talking to a friend the other day about golfers that are in or not in the hall of fame.  This started me thinking on who should be in that's not and maybe who got in that might not get in today based on the newer criteria from the hall of fame.  I'm not a big fan of the new criteria as players can not meet the criteria but clearly be hall of famers and yet there are some that meet the criteria (John Daly for example), yet have no chance of getting in the hall of fame

The following may be considered “questionable”, but are in the hall of fame:

Fred Couples, 15 wins, 1 major, 2 players wins, #1 golfer in OWGR

Mark O’Meara, 16 wins, 2 majors (this is a no brainer and I don’t see how anyone can argue O’Meara getting into the HOF)

Ken Venturi, 14 wins, 1 major

David Graham, 8 wins, 2 majors (20 worldwide wins)

Curtis Strange, 17 wins, 2 majors (back to back US Open wins)

Tom Kite, 19 wins, 1 major

Tony Jacklin, 4 PGA wins, 8 Euro PGA wins, 2 majors

Ben Crenshaw, 19 wins, 2 majors

Lanny Wadkins, 19 wins, 1 major

Based on who’s already in, then why not?

Corey Pavin, 15 wins, 1 major

Davis Love III, 20 wins, 1 major, 2 players (this is a no brainer and surely has to be just a matter of time?)

Paul Azinger, 12 wins, 1 major, also last captian to win a ryder cup for USA

Hal Sutton, 14 wins, 1 major, 2 players championships

Lee Janzen, 8 wins, 2 majors, 1 players championship

Fuzzy Zoeller, 10 wins, 2 majors

Mark Calcavecchia, 13 wins, 1 major

Padraig Harrington, 6 pga wins, 14 euro pga wins, 3 majors (this has to be another no-brainer, right?)

Retief Goosen, 7 pga wins, 14 euro pga wins, 2 majors, 43 world-wide wins, euro tour order of merit winner x 2 (01,02)

Lee Westwood, 2 pga wins, 23 euro pga wins, #1 in OWGR (despite no major I don’t see how he does not get in considering Colin Montgomerie did get in)

Miguel Angel Jimenez, 21 euro pga wins (again, he’s gotta get in as he’s over the magical 20 win mark)

David Duval, 13 pga wins, 1 major, 1 players, #1 in OWGR during Tiger’s time on tour (to me this is a no-brainer, he was dominant and was a clear word #1 and should get in)

Jim Furyk, 17 pga wins, 1 major (another no-brainer and just a matter of time I’d say?)

David Toms, 13 pga wins, 1 major

Mike Weir, 8 pga wins, 1 major

John Daly, 5 pga wins, 2 majors

Tom Lehman, 5 pga wins, 1 major, #1 in OWGR for 1 week in 1997

Now, the hall of fame’s new criteria is: The minimum qualifications for male and female competitors are: minimum of 40 years old, or five years removed from "active competition" and 15 or more wins on "approved tours" or two "major wins"

This is interesting to me because I don’t think that we are going to see many players ever getting to 15 wins anymore. The life of a professional tour golfer is shrinking in my opinion as more and more players become millionaires.  Based on the new criteria, several players that I really strongly believe should be in the hall of fame will not meet the minimum criteria.  In my opinion, David Duval is at least as good as Fred Couples and has almost the same numbers despite not even close to the longevity (this shows how good double D was at his peak years).  Hal Sutton would not meet the criteria but is another that I believe should be in the hall of fame easily.

I’m also a believer in that if you reach #1 in the owgr, that is a very big accomplishment in my opinion and warrants getting into the hall of fame. Tom Lehman has the lowest career stats of all of the golfers that have been ranked #1.  Luke Donald has 5 pga wins, 7 euro wins, and was year end #1 and was #1 multiple times.  Westwood has more than 20 euro wins.  Ian Woosnam is not in the hall of fame, I’m not sure how that’s possible considering he has 29 euro wins and a major, however, my point is that every other #1 golfer is or was a clear lock for the hall of fame with the exception of Lehman and maybe Donald (Adam Scott has 11 pga wins already, 1 major, 1 players, and 27 worldwide wins and he’s still has 5+ more years to reach 40).

Lehman presents an interesting issue though, because while I place a great value in reaching number one, he has just 5 pga wins. Shoot, you could potentially make an argument that John Daly’s numbers are as good or better as he has one more major than Lehman does.  Let me make it clear that I am in no way saying that Daly should be in the hall of fame.  He should not and is not even close in my opinion.  Out of all the golfers that have been #1 in the world (16 of them), just 2 of them do not have majors (Donald and Westwood).

[imsys0042]

Interesting take on this.   My feeling is that HoF is part accomplishment and part popularity contest.

Freddy Couples got in because he's very popular and an overall great guy.   There are a lot of die hard Freddy fans (I'm one of them) and that's going to sway votes.

I'd argue (but don't really believe it) that Mark O'Meara doesn't deserve to get in because he had a hot year and was a B player (his words) who built up a long and steady career.   Is that HoF material?   Not sure.  Mark struck me as a guy who is precisely that you describe as not getting to 15 wins because it's easier to shoot for 10 tops, except he built up a long career and won enough.  Someone who will pad his bank account over the risk of losing money by aggressively trying to win tourneys.

Ken Venturi battled dehydration to win a US Open, he got the nod for that.   A lot of one time major winners aren't there, but they almost didn't die doing their job. Curtis Strange, Tom Kite and many of the other 1-2 major winners were quite popular in golf publications and had a good amount of lime light during their careers.

Azinger and DL III should get in someday.   Many of the people on your "Are not in" list are people that you could make a case for either way.   Some of them I think deserve it, others I don't know.   Personally, I think Daly has had such a presence (good or bad) that he should be in.

Lehman, to me, is the perfect example of where I think we need a second category.   He is defined, to me, by his quest to win a US Open and before Phil's quest, Lehman went through the same thing.   I think an Honorable Mention category is in order.   Some of the people on your list could fall in there.

[oregongolfguy]

Interesting conversation......A quick take.

To me Hall of Fame should be Hard to get into, should be only the best of the best.....

Luke Donald unless he turns his game around somehow is not a HOF player to me.  12 combined tour wins...5 PGA.  Really only a couple top years on the PGA tour, no majors......He is a good player, no nobody will ever think of him as one of the best players of his time.....

Lee Westwood is more interesting to me.  He has contended in majors...Has only 2 pga wins but has had a really good career in the euro tour.  I'm just not sure what his euro record is worth.  He did win a few money titles there.  I'm not sure if I would put him in, but I wouldn't argue hard against it either....He is at least in the conversation.

David Duval....Is interesting also.  Really he had a really, really good 4 year stretch right in the middle of tiger hitting his stride.  He put up HOF type numbers in 4yrs.  Is a spectacular 4yrs worthy of hall of fame?

Paddy is in...I think 3 majors is rare enough company that you get in.....

A lot of the rest of them are kinda the same player....A bunch of guys with long careers, a good number of wins and 1-2 majors....I just don't know if that is Hall of Fame worthy....I tend to think that a lot of them are in the hall of very good, but not the hall of fame.

[atb5079]

Whole bunch of good thoughts and opinions in here.

I'm with oregongolfguy. This should be for the best of the best. These guys have their trophies for winning their respective majors and tournaments. That was how they have been honored...along with big checks.

World Golf Hall of Fame should be the utmost elite criteria. All these leagues and tours are watering down their respective HOFs.

I do like the new criteria they have in place. I think 2 majors and 15 tournaments does set one apart. But I almost think it should be both those criteria to get in.

To me a HOFer you don't need to question. If I say Tom Lehman, I don't think HOF unless I really try and make a good argument. If I say John Daly, I think HOF. If I say Paddy Harrington, I easily say HOF. If I say David Toms, I do not say HOF.

The problem is with some of the players we already have in. If Freddy is in, Furyk is in. Problem is, IMO neither deserve to be in.

[atb5079]

Has the idea ever been brought up about a scoring system?

Maybe....

PGA/Euro win = 1 point

Major win = 10 points

Players win = 5 points

WGC = 3 points

World #1 = 3 points

Minimum of 30 points to get in.

Furyk:

16 regular wins = 16 points

1 Major win = 10 points

Total = 26 points

Duval:

12 regular wins = 12 points

1 Major win = 10 points

1 WGC win = 3 points

1 Players win = 5 points

World #1 = 3 points

Total = 33 points

Something along those lines would be nice.

[bjwestner]

Has anyone read Bill Simmons' book of basketball where he basically ranks the greatest players of all time by pyramid level?  Great book.  It would be cool if there was a golf book like that....

Starting at the very top, the highest level would be those that are clear icons and shaped the game, changed the game, and that were at the top of the game worldwide for an extended period of time.

Bobby Jones

Ben Hogan

Jack Nicklaus

Arnold Palmer

Tiger Woods

Greg Norman

In the second group, I'd put those that maybe got to #1 at some point in their careers and are clear cut hall of famers with multiple majors, etc.

Gary Player

Ernie Els

Phil Mickelson

Vijay Singh

Lee Trevino

Tom Watson

Seve Ballesteros

Nick Faldo

Bobby Locke

Peter Thomson

Byron Nelson

Sam Snead

Gene Sarazen

Walter Hagen

Harry Vardon

In the next group, it would be the level just under those named above, such as:

Nick Price

Billy Casper

Bernard Langer

Payne Stewart

Jose Maria Olazabal

Colin Montgomerie

Ian Woosnam

Larry Nelson

Johnny Miller

Hale Irwin

Ray Floyd

I'm sure I'm leaving lots of people out but this is just what came to me off the top of my head....

[jamo]

Has the idea ever been brought up about a scoring system? Maybe.... PGA/Euro win = 1 point Major win = 10 points Players win = 5 points WGC = 3 points World #1 = 3 points Minimum of 30 points to get in. Furyk: 16 regular wins = 16 points 1 Major win = 10 points Total = 26 points Duval: 12 regular wins = 12 points 1 Major win = 10 points 1 WGC win = 3 points 1 Players win = 5 points World #1 = 3 points Total = 33 points Something along those lines would be nice.

I've actually been working on something like that recently, but broken down a little farther to include how individual tournaments have gained and lost importance over time. I didn't relate it to the HoF though (because I don't really care about the HoF).

[bjwestner]

Whole bunch of good thoughts and opinions in here.

I'm with oregongolfguy. This should be for the best of the best. These guys have their trophies for winning their respective majors and tournaments. That was how they have been honored...along with big checks.

World Golf Hall of Fame should be the utmost elite criteria. All these leagues and tours are watering down their respective HOFs.

I do like the new criteria they have in place. I think 2 majors and 15 tournaments does set one apart. But I almost think it should be both those criteria to get in.

To me a HOFer you don't need to question. If I say Tom Lehman, I don't think HOF unless I really try and make a good argument. If I say John Daly, I think HOF. If I say Paddy Harrington, I easily say HOF. If I say David Toms, I do not say HOF.

The problem is with some of the players we already have in. If Freddy is in, Furyk is in. Problem is, IMO neither deserve to be in.

I'm actually surprised that you believe John Daly is in, yet you don't think that Freddy or Furyk deserve to be in.  You hit the nail on the head though in that because of those that are already in, it's hard to keep those with as good or better resumes out.

I like the idea of the best of the best too, but when you have people like Colin Montgomerie among others that are in, the hall of fame has already let many in that are not the best of the best.  The other problem is that it seems to be more of a popularity contest (Freddy).  I love Freddy and am a big fan of his, however, this is a hall of fame, not a fan club.

Something that I found very interesting and still do, is people's perception of certain players.  For example, a golfing buddy and I were talking over breakfast after a morning round of golf this past weekend and he did not believe me that Lanny Wadkins was in the hall of fame.  He had to check it on his phone and was surprised to find out that I was right.  David Duval for example, his "run" was actually longer than people seem to remember.  A few of my friends have told me that he only had one or two good years.  In reality, he had 5 straight seasons with at least one win and had 7 straight years where he finished in the top 11 of money earned on tour.  Then he had a five year stretch where he racked up 13 wins of which one was a major and one was a players title and was the undisputed world number 1 and this was "AT" aka, after Tiger got on tour.

If we reset the hall of fame and only used the new criteria, then Venturi would not be in, Azinger and Sutton would not get in, yet Lee Janzen, Fuzzy Zoeller, and John Daly would get in.  Thus I don't think that there is any concrete formula that could work.  Perception does not work either by asking yourself if so-in-so is a hall of famer because I've held opinions on many of the golfers mentioned only to find out after I looked closer at their resumes that they were much better and more accomplished than I had thought.....

[iacas]

In the second group, I'd put those that maybe got to #1 at some point in their careers and are clear cut hall of famers with multiple majors, etc.

Gary Player

Ernie Els

Phil Mickelson

Vijay Singh

Lee Trevino

Tom Watson

Seve Ballesteros

Nick Faldo

Bobby Locke

Peter Thomson

Byron Nelson

Sam Snead

Gene Sarazen

Walter Hagen

Harry Vardon

I always look for Walter Hagen on lists like this.

He's third in total major victories, and you put him in the second group.

(Though, as is relevant in other threads, the strength of field back when he was playing was significantly weaker. So I'd probably put him in the second tier as well… I just might also move Palmer down, and Norman I'd definitely move down.)

[bwdial]

I'm actually surprised that you believe John Daly is in, yet you don't think that Freddy or Furyk deserve to be in.  You hit the nail on the head though in that because of those that are already in, it's hard to keep those with as good or better resumes out.

I like the idea of the best of the best too, but when you have people like Colin Montgomerie among others that are in, the hall of fame has already let many in that are not the best of the best.  The other problem is that it seems to be more of a popularity contest (Freddy).  I love Freddy and am a big fan of his, however, this is a hall of fame, not a fan club.

Something that I found very interesting and still do, is people's perception of certain players.  For example, a golfing buddy and I were talking over breakfast after a morning round of golf this past weekend and he did not believe me that Lanny Wadkins was in the hall of fame.  He had to check it on his phone and was surprised to find out that I was right.  David Duval for example, his "run" was actually longer than people seem to remember.  A few of my friends have told me that he only had one or two good years.  In reality, he had 5 straight seasons with at least one win and had 7 straight years where he finished in the top 11 of money earned on tour.  Then he had a five year stretch where he racked up 13 wins of which one was a major and one was a players title and was the undisputed world number 1 and this was "AT" aka, after Tiger got on tour.

If we reset the hall of fame and only used the new criteria, then Venturi would not be in, Azinger and Sutton would not get in, yet Lee Janzen, Fuzzy Zoeller, and John Daly would get in.  Thus I don't think that there is any concrete formula that could work.  Perception does not work either by asking yourself if so-in-so is a hall of famer because I've held opinions on many of the golfers mentioned only to find out after I looked closer at their resumes that they were much better and more accomplished than I had thought.....

Love him or hate him, Daly has two major wins.  Also, Gary Player deserves to be in the top group over Greg Norman.  He's a career Grand Slam winner.  Greg Norman did less with more talent than any golfer in history in regard to major championships.

[bjwestner]

I always look for Walter Hagen on lists like this.

He's third in total major victories, and you put him in the second group.

(Though, as is relevant in other threads, the strength of field back when he was playing was significantly weaker. So I'd probably put him in the second tier as well… I just might also move Palmer down, and Norman I'd definitely move down.)

I considered putting Hagen in the top list as I am well aware that his #3 in majors, however, my impression (and I could be wrong as I frequently am) or perception is that he is just not quite at the same level as Jones/Hogan/Nicklaus/Woods/etc.  Maybe this is the media's fault, maybe it is because his prime was so long ago, maybe I'm just wrong and he should be in the top level?

Regarding Palmer....looking at stats alone and Palmer is just one more major ahead of Trevino.  However, he is apparently the reason the tour made many changes, increased payouts, and was the first golfing tv star.  So despite "only" 7 majors, I was looking at what else he did/contributed.

[bjwestner]

Love him or hate him, Daly has two major wins.  Also, Gary Player deserves to be in the top group over Greg Norman.  He's a career Grand Slam winner.  Greg Norman did less with more talent than any golfer in history in regard to major championships.

I have a feeling that Norman would probably be one of the most controversial.  I know, he choked away so many majors and underachieved, however, he won more money than anyone prior to Tiger coming on and was pretty dominant.

Someone mentioned that golfers back in the day competed against lesser competition.  I disagree.  I think the difference is not in the handful of golfers that are at the top but the depth of the field.  If you look at Tiger's main competition for the last 19 years or so, it's Els, Mickelson, and Singh primarily.  Nicklaus was competing against Trevino, Watson, Player, etc.

[ChrisP]

Surprised not many guys have mentioned Goosen. Two U.S. Opens, 42 worldwide wins, 11 top-5s in majors and was ranked in the top-5 in the world for a long time. Was part of the "Big Five" in the early 2000s. Will be also curious to see if Angel Cabrera gets in for his 2 majors, which I believe is the most for any player from South America.

[RJH999]

Surprised not many guys have mentioned Goosen. Two U.S. Opens, 42 worldwide wins, 11 top-5s in majors and was ranked in the top-5 in the world for a long time. Was part of the "Big Five" in the early 2000s. Will be also curious to see if Angel Cabrera gets in for his 2 majors, which I believe is the most for any player from South America.

Yeah I don't think Cabrera will get in, even though Montgomerie is in, which is a travesty. I think the Goose will make it.

[Sandersfan]

How does Doug Sanders not get in the HOF. He won 20 times on the PGA tour. He won the Canadian Open as an amateur. No he doesn't have a major but was without a doubt one of the most colorful and lover golfers of his era. And although he never won a major he finished 2nd in all of them.