John Daly and the Hall of Fame

[BigBaffy]

Ok, here are my first questions for 2018:

Q: Should John Daly be in the golf hall of fame? If so, why? If not, why not?

Q: Who, in your opinion, was a more prolific long-ball hitter, Daly, Couples, or Davis Love III (or someone else I'm not thinking of. e.g., Jack, Tiger, Snead, etc.). Of course, this assumes equipment restricted all golfers to the era they played in.

I'm hoping this will produce better responses than the gang-bang I took over single-length clubs  (I knew not of what I spoke). Peace.

 

Edited January 11, 2018 by iacas
Added poll

[iacas]

I voted "no" and "someone else" because "prolific" means bountiful, productive, fruitful, and John Daly didn't win very much. Neither did the other two. Couples, Woods… Dustin Johnson… all much better winners. Rory. Jack. Arnie.

[Patch]

I would vote yes. The guy won two majors. Are any current HOF members there with out a major? 

 Most HOFs are watered down as it is with non deserving members. 

Daly even with his short comings was a top 5 draw for quite a few years. A lot of week end golfers identified with him. 

I also suspect he won't get in the HOF due to his negative, non golf antics. If that is the case, other golfers, with much better careers, should not be allowed in for their own negative non golf antics. 

As for the second question, I have no opinion. Voted someone else. 

Edited January 11, 2018 by Patch

[Eric C]

I would like to change my vote from "yes" to "no".  According to HOF website, the following is the criteria for selection of male competitors:   

Quote

 

A player must have a cumulative total of 15 or more official victories on any of the original members of the International Federation of PGA Tours (PGA TOUR, European Tour, Japan Golf Tour, Sunshine Tour, Asian Tour and PGA of Australasia) OR at least two victories among the following events: The Masters, THE PLAYERS Championship, the U.S. Open, The Open Championship and the PGA Championship.

A player must be at least 50 years old during the year of a given Induction Ceremony (example: A player must turn 50 years old in 2017 in order to qualify for the Class of 2017), or be at least five years removed from being an active participant (as determined by the Tour) on any of the original members of the International Federation of PGA Tours.

 

Pretty weak criteria if you ask me, and by my reading, a shit-show of a personal life doesn't weigh on his selection one way or the other. Lack of sportsmanship, poor role model, whatever would have been my off-the-cuff reason for excluding him. Then I learned that he did win two majors and a total of five times on the PGA tour and also won three other times on the Euro, Asian and Hogan tours. A good, solid career that qualifies him for membership. So I then voted "yes". 

Then I started comparing him to past inductees, and others who are eligible, and at the end of the day his lifetime achievements in golf are not comparable, or even in the same ballpark, as others.  Eligible? Certainly.  Induct him? No way.

 

[NJpatbee]

I voted "no" based on the number of PGA Tour wins.  I chose Couples, but now that I think about it again I should have selected someone else (e.g. Jack, Woods, Norman, etc.).  I will see if I can change my vote.

[The Hook Meister]

Put Mr Grip it and Rip it. Longest of the tee he did hit some very mighty shots

[BigBaffy]

I voted that he should be in, because I just can't think of a golf Hall of Fame without him in it. I know five (or is it six now?) wins, even if two of them were majors where he pretty much dismantled the courses, aren't a lot, but I do know there are a lot of people that took up golf just because of Mr. Daly.

A train wreck yes, but definitely Hall-worthy, IMO.

Now, as much as I love watching him squash a ball, I'd have to say Jack Nicklaus is the hands-down long-ball master. The guy was competitive, truly competitive, for almost 40 years (the '98 Masters his final Wow), and the favorite to win for at least 15 of those years. And, that said, his ability to out-drive and otherwise embarrass the rest of the field throughout the 1960's and into the '70s took long-ball hitting, and golf for that matter, to a whole new level. 

Edited January 11, 2018 by BigBaffy

[BigBaffy]

And just to give Love some love, here's an excerpt from a Golf Digest article from August of 2015:

     "In Love's most recent previous tour win, which came seven years ago at the 2008 Children's Miracle Network Classic, he ranked 14th in the field with an average of 289.9 off the tee. Like this past event, Love averaged 20 yards less than that week's longest hitter, J.B. Holmes (309.8).

When Love broke onto the PGA Tour he was arguably the longest hitter. He consistently finished in the top 10 in driving distance for his first 20-plus years on tour, leading in that category in 1986 (285.7) and 1994 (283.1). This year he ranks 56th at 294.7."

 

Edited January 11, 2018 by BigBaffy

[ghalfaire]

I voted no and I am a John Daly fan.  But his accomplishments just don't seem to measure up to those that are in the HoF.  

I voted someone else. However I don't think I can make a pick as the equipment has changed so much that the long hitters of decades gone, those guys'  length wouldn't qualify as long today.  But today's golfers, I'd pick Dustin J.  Long and accurate.

[BigBaffy]

7 minutes ago, ghalfaire said:

I voted no and I am a John Daly fan.  But his accomplishments just don't seem to measure up to those that are in the HoF.  

I voted someone else. However I don't think I can make a pick as the equipment has changed so much that the long hitters of decades gone, those guys'  length wouldn't qualify as long today.  But today's golfers, I'd pick Dustin J.  Long and accurate.

True, distance wise, the past can't match the present (for the most part), but for the era they played in, if a player out-drove the entire field for years, like a Nicklaus, Woods, or Sam Snead did, then I think you can compare them.

[AlDena]

Vote no for now, until the golf Channel deems him worthy of a made for TV movie.

[David in FL]

Good grief, no.

I like JD, and always pull for him, but HOF?  Not even close.

[Golfingdad]

26 minutes ago, David in FL said:

Good grief, no.

I like JD, and always pull for him, but HOF?  Not even close.

What he said.  Except the part about liking JD because I don't particularly, to be honest. 

[jamo]

I really dislike Daly but I was going to vote yes until I looked it up and saw that he doesn't meet the win requirements. 

If the requirements weren't stated the way they are, I'd vote yes. I have a higher tolerance than most for inducting players based on influence and uniqueness even if their resume falls a bit short. 

[BigBaffy]

2 hours ago, David in FL said:

Good grief, no.

I like JD, and always pull for him, but HOF?  Not even close.

He did win two majors, and made the cover of Sports Illustrated when he was, like, 9th alternate or something for the PGA. I think it's a little close, 

1 hour ago, jamo said:

I really dislike Daly but I was going to vote yes until I looked it up and saw that he doesn't meet the win requirements. 

If the requirements weren't stated the way they are, I'd vote yes. I have a higher tolerance than most for inducting players based on influence and uniqueness even if their resume falls a bit short. 

I must be missing something, because, according to the rule criteria posted earlier by Eric C, all he needs is 15 wins on a pro tour, OR two major wins. Well, he has two major wins and, until the appearance of Tiger, was the biggest draw in golf by a long shot (no pun intended).

[billchao]

No, John Daly is not a HoFer in my eyes.

2 hours ago, jamo said:

I have a higher tolerance than most for inducting players based on influence and uniqueness even if their resume falls a bit short. 

I dunno, I feel like his influence on the game is overstated. He's really only well known because of his uniqueness: the swing, fans' ability to relate to him, umm the pants?

27 minutes ago, BigBaffy said:

He did win two majors, and made the cover of Sports Illustrated when he was, like, 9th alternate or something for the PGA. I think it's a little close, 

I disagree. He's a flash in the pan, abeit a really bright one. He got all that attention because it was a good story. Angel Cabrera won two majors, too. I don't think he's hall worthy either.

27 minutes ago, BigBaffy said:

I must be missing something, because, according to the rule criteria posted earlier by Eric C, all he needs is 15 wins on a pro tour, OR two major wins. Well, he has two major wins and, until the appearance of Tiger, was the biggest draw in golf by a long shot (no pun intended).

That's the minimum criteria for consideration. He still has to be approved by the selection committee. 

You can read the rules for the entire process here: http://www.worldgolfhalloffame.org/induction/criteria/

[BigBaffy]

14 minutes ago, billchao said:

I dunno, I feel like his influence on the game is overstated. He's really only well known because of his uniqueness: the swing, fans' ability to relate to him, umm the pants?

I agree that he was a flash in the pan that should have done way more in golf, but I disagree that he's only known for being a guy with a mullet that wears loud pants. When they change golf courses for you because you take doglegs out of play, because you're so freakishly long, I think you have to acknowledge that. 
That said, thanks for posting the full criteria for induction.

[Golfingdad]

He did win 2 majors.  But so did the aforementioned Angel Cabrera.  So did Andy North, Lee Janzen, Retief Goosen, Dave Stockton.  I don't believe any of them are in the Hall of Fame either.

Also worth noting (as another tick against him) is that he never really had any great years ... he never played on a Ryder Cup team and only once was he even in the top 20 of Ryder Cup points - in 1995 he was 16th.

That said, I should mention that my opinions on Halls of Fame are more in line with what @jamo said - I'm fine with them letting lots of people into these things.  All they are are museums of their particular sport, and Daly is something that people who go to that museum might be interested in learning about.

But on merit?  No way - he wasn't that good.