PDA

View Full Version : Mickelson to Enter Hall of Fame


shankuverymuch
Dec 1, 2011, 10:03 AM
Surprised I missed this ...

Mickelson to enter hall of fame (http://tourreport.pgatour.com/2011/11/10/mickelson-to-enter-hall-of-fame-in-2012/)

Johnrw
Dec 1, 2011, 12:56 PM
Your sure did miss it. That is a week's old new. He's earned his way so it's a deserving honour.

Golden Bear
Dec 1, 2011, 01:37 PM
It's easy to overlook a golf hall of fame induction. It's the nature of the beast. Because a player like Mickelson can get in while still active, and still one of the top-ranked players in the game (even if he has fallen out of the top 10), it doesn't generate the kind of interest as other sports.

When a baseball or hockey player goes into the hall of fame, there's usually a waiting period after their retirement, so nostalgia has been built up. (That's why I thought it was a shame when, for example, the Hockey Hall of Fame waived the waiting period for Gretzky. The guy had barely stepped off the ice when he went in. It would have been nice to celebrate him at his retirement, wait a few years, then celebrate him as a hall of famer. But I digress ...)

It is, unfortunately, how things have to work in golf. Players play on the PGA well into their forties and can be serious contenders. If we waited until their retirement, they could be so far removed from their "glory" years that the nostalgia would be for a far distant past. I think Arnold Palmer played his last round on the Champions Tour five years ago -- imagine if he were only eligible now!

So, guys go in while still playing. Kills the excitement, but what can you do.

jimfastcar
Dec 1, 2011, 03:40 PM
Is Tiger in ?
Should be ahead of Mickelson :D

shankuverymuch
Dec 1, 2011, 04:25 PM
Is Tiger in ?
Should be ahead of Mickelson :D

Only 3 replies to get Tiger into a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with Tiger ! A new record ?:rolleyes:

jimfastcar
Dec 1, 2011, 07:28 PM
Only 3 replies to get Tiger into a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with Tiger ! A new record ?:rolleyes:

Better than Phil....;)

golfnutz
Dec 2, 2011, 10:59 PM
I believe you must be minimum of 40 yrs old to gain entry to Golf Hall of Fame.

TourIQ
Dec 3, 2011, 12:44 AM
Better than Phil....;)Tiger who? At least Phil will sign an autograph for the kids. Are we discussing golf or being a family man or both?

jimfastcar
Dec 3, 2011, 04:15 AM
Tiger who? At least Phil will sign an autograph for the kids. Are we discussing golf or being a family man or both?

Golf Hall of Fame, just like Pete Rose should be in the Baseball Hall of Fame

mpare
Dec 3, 2011, 05:55 AM
First, let me say that Phil's induction into Golf's Hall of Fame is well deserved. As for Charlie Hustle, he knew that gambling on the game would keep him out of Baseball's Hall of Fame. Yet, he gambled on baseball, and then lied about it. That he's not been inducted should, therefore, come as no surprise. If Pete Rose gets in, then so should Shoeless Joe Jackson.

Golf Hall of Fame, just like Pete Rose should be in the Baseball Hall of Fame

bigfreak
Dec 3, 2011, 06:44 AM
Ells has been in for a few years now as well.

anybody been to the GHoF? Amazing place. Didn't go in, but walked the grounds. really cool

I think it's awesome that Phil is being inducted.

jimfastcar
Dec 3, 2011, 08:04 AM
First, let me say that Phil's induction into Golf's Hall of Fame is well deserved. As for Charlie Hustle, he knew that gambling on the game would keep him out of Baseball's Hall of Fame. Yet, he gambled on baseball, and then lied about it. That he's not been inducted should, therefore, come as no surprise. If Pete Rose gets in, then so should Shoeless Joe Jackson.

I have always had a real hard time equating the morality with the sports proficiency. To me, they are separate. Just my opinion, as it is not called the Baseball and "Good person" Hall of Fame :confused:

mpare
Dec 3, 2011, 09:16 AM
My initial response to your post was dismissive. However, on reflection, you have a point. The problem, as I have found since looking into it, is that the criteria for induction is open ended. For example, the Baseball Writers Association of American is governed accordingly:

"3. Eligible Candidates -- Candidates to be eligible must meet the following requirements:
A. A baseball player must have been active as a player in the Major Leagues at some time during a period beginning twenty (20) years before and ending five (5) years prior to election.
B. Player must have played in each of ten (10) Major League championship seasons, some part of which must have been within the period described in 3 (A).
C. Player shall have ceased to be an active player in the Major Leagues at least five (5) calendar years preceding the election but may be otherwise connected with baseball.
D. In case of the death of an active player or a player who has been retired for less than five (5) full years, a candidate who is otherwise eligible shall be eligible in the next regular election held at least six (6) months after the date of death or after the end of the five (5) year period, whichever occurs first.
E. Any player on Baseball's ineligible list shall not be an eligible candidate.

There is no morality clause included in that criteria. However, clause E is the real kicker. Either the Commissioner of Baseball or a six member screening committee, I am not sure which, may place a person on the ineligibility list. If there are guidelines which govern the exercise that authority, they are not easily located. Even the National Baseball Hall of Fame site does not seem to list them.

It would appear that any past or present player may be put on the ineligibility list for having tarnished the baseball's repute. Conduct that could be said to be detrimental to baseball is an open question. One gets a sense of the arbitrary nature of the criteria, when one considers that Mantle and Mays "both retired and both in no way involved in baseball anymore, were banned [by then Commissioner Kuhn] in 1983 after they were hired by casinos in Atlantic City, New Jersey, as greeters and autograph signers." They were later reinstated by Commissioner Peter Ueberroth. Admittedly, this was a question of banishment from baseball by the Commissioner and not an issue of being place on the ineligible list, but the arbitrary nature of the process is similar.

If Baseball is going to place individuals on an ineligibility list, then it should do so on the basis on a clearly articulated set of criteria to remove any suggestion of arbitrariness. If they exist, they are so well hidden that even baseball writers are unaware of them. By contrast, the eligibility criteria for Golf's Hall of Fame is very clear.



I have always had a real hard time equating the morality with the sports proficiency. To me, they are separate. Just my opinion, as it is not called the Baseball and "Good person" Hall of Fame :confused:

Golden Bear
Dec 3, 2011, 10:33 AM
Awesome. A baseball thread broke out! Anytime I can talk about baseball and golf in the same thread, I'm a happy man.

It is correct that Rose is not eligible for the Hall of Fame as long as he is banned from baseball. The question isn't whether he should be in the Hall of Fame, because he's not even eligible. The question is whether his lifetime ban should be lifted.

And that depends on how serious we think his offences were. He bet on games involving his own team -- that we know for a fact. How serious is that? It can affect the way a manager manages for individual games -- burning an arm he wouldn't ordinarily, etc. I think that's pretty serious, but not "lifetime ban" serious.

However, there has been speculation over the years that the commissioner's office has knowledge or suspicion of dirtier deeds. Specifically, betting against his own team. The chief investigator even said publicly at one point that he believes Rose bet against his own team. That is far more serious, and, in my mind, unforgiveable. I wouldn't let a guy in the Hall if he'd bet against his own team, since, obviously, it gives him motivation to throw a game.

Big Shooter
Dec 3, 2011, 12:19 PM
I don't care WHAT THEY did (while not playing), as an Athlete that I enjoyed watching, if they've got the NUMBERS, they should be IN the Hall of Fame....

Tiger Woods
Phil Mickelson
Pete Rose
Barry Bonds
Mark McGwire

Leftygolfer30
Dec 3, 2011, 12:24 PM
I don't care WHAT THEY did (while not playing), as an Athlete that I enjoyed watching, if they've got the NUMBERS, they should be IN the Hall of Fame....

Tiger Woods
Phil Mickelson
Pete Rose
Barry Bonds
Mark McGwire

Sorry to argue but Bonds and McGwire used performance enhancing drugs to get the "numbers". They don't deserve to be on the ballot.

Ignatius Reilly
Dec 3, 2011, 12:35 PM
I don't care WHAT THEY did (while not playing), as an Athlete that I enjoyed watching, if they've got the NUMBERS, they should be IN the Hall of Fame....

Tiger Woods
Phil Mickelson
Pete Rose
Barry Bonds
Mark McGwire

There are (or should be) some limits.

IF their numbers were achieved through cheating at their sport, there's an argument for keeping them out.

IF they broke major rules of the league (Pete Rose) that's valid too.

IF they broke other rules of society (e.g. Michael Vick) it will be interesting to see what happens (I'd keep him out).

IF they cheated on their wife - well, you may as well allow them in or it's going to be a pretty small Hall of Fame...

I think HoF's should be places where you see people who are to be admired - for their achievements and for their character. Talented scumbags take away from that. They should be places where you can take your kids and show them heroes. That's why I'd keep Vick out, and I see Tiger as going in - although he's still got 4+ years to go until he's eligible and he's given up a strike. I can't imagine him being dumb enough to get any more strikes, but then again I couldn't have imagined what turned up two years ago either...

mpare
Dec 3, 2011, 12:37 PM
I agree. If illegally using performance enhancing drugs to gain an advantage over fellow competitors doesn't diminish baseball, then I cannot imagine what does.

Sorry to argue but Bonds and McGwire used performance enhancing drugs to get the "numbers". They don't deserve to be on the ballot.

Big Shooter
Dec 3, 2011, 12:56 PM
Sorry to argue but Bonds and McGwire used performance enhancing drugs to get the "numbers". They don't deserve to be on the ballot.

...and I disagree, it's JUST A GAME, which I watch for enjoyment...let them wreck their lives, they're paid very well, but they made the choice!

To be honest, I never watch the HOF inductions and I thing I've only ever been to 1 HOF!!

Leftygolfer30
Dec 3, 2011, 01:15 PM
...and I disagree, it's JUST A GAME, which I watch for enjoyment...let them wreck their lives, they're paid very well, but they made the choice!

To be honest, I never watch the HOF inductions and I thing I've only ever been to 1 HOF!!

Well, if you think taking performance enhancing drugs is okay then we're never going to agree.

4wedges
Dec 3, 2011, 05:33 PM
Well, if you think taking performance enhancing drugs is okay then we're never going to agree.
IMHO that is better than cheating on one's wife.
What defines performance enhancing? That term gets thrown around a lot, and just about any thing you take could fall under that definition.
As for cheating, should Gaylord Perry be in the Hall?

Leftygolfer30
Dec 3, 2011, 05:47 PM
IMHO that is better than cheating on one's wife.
What defines performance enhancing? That term gets thrown around a lot, and just about any thing you take could fall under that definition.
As for cheating, should Gaylord Perry be in the Hall?

I don't see how cheating on one's wife affects the playing of the particular sport. As previously mentioned, the major sport's HOF's would be a LOT emptier if infidelity were a criteria.

Taking steroids in order to help one's self hit an obscene number of home runs IMHO, doesn't make a player worthy of a HOF induction.

4wedges
Dec 3, 2011, 05:50 PM
My point was I'd rather a guy take 'roids than cheat on their wife. It is the lesser of two evils, but I agree it doesn't impact their play.
Are you referring to steroids or performance enhancing drugs?

A steroid is a p.e.d., but a p.e.d. is not necessarily a steroid.

golf nut
Dec 3, 2011, 06:13 PM
Hell you could screw my wife and I would vote for you entering the HOF, however if you cheated to get there .... screw you!

P25
Dec 3, 2011, 06:22 PM
I don't see how cheating on one's wife affects the playing of the particular sport. As previously mentioned, the major sport's HOF's would be a LOT emptier if infidelity were a criteria.

Taking steroids in order to help one's self hit an obscene number of home runs IMHO, doesn't make a player worthy of a HOF induction.

Agreed.

However...baseball has a real dilemma coming up. They had no testing policy when Bonds et al were playing. Do you just keep Bonds, McGwire, and Clemens out? How do you decide who took PEDs? Slippery slope. Glad I don't have a vote.

As for Tiger - he cheated on his wife. I'd imagine close to half of the people in halls of fame have done the same - at least. Again...do we make a scapegoat out of Tiger because he's the most famous athlete to have been outed? Would be ridiculous.

Leftygolfer30
Dec 3, 2011, 06:29 PM
Agreed.

However...baseball has a real dilemma coming up. They had no testing policy when Bonds et al were playing. Do you just keep Bonds, McGwire, and Clemens out? How do you decide who took PEDs? Slippery slope. Glad I don't have a vote.

As for Tiger - he cheated on his wife. I'd imagine close to half of the people in halls of fame have done the same - at least. Again...do we make a scapegoat out of Tiger because he's the most famous athlete to have been outed? Would be ridiculous.

Thank you. Exactly my point.

Ignatius Reilly
Dec 3, 2011, 06:58 PM
Agreed.

However...baseball has a real dilemma coming up. They had no testing policy when Bonds et al were playing. Do you just keep Bonds, McGwire, and Clemens out? How do you decide who took PEDs? Slippery slope. Glad I don't have a vote.

As for Tiger - he cheated on his wife. I'd imagine close to half of the people in halls of fame have done the same - at least. Again...do we make a scapegoat out of Tiger because he's the most famous athlete to have been outed? Would be ridiculous.

I think it's tough to kick people out for breaking a rule if it didn't exist at the time. If they broke it but weren't caught due to soft policing, they should be out.


Hell you could screw my wife and I would vote for you entering the HOF, however if you cheated to get there .... screw you!

Pics required before further discussion... :cool:

P25
Dec 3, 2011, 07:03 PM
I think it's tough to kick people out for breaking a rule if it didn't exist at the time. If they broke it but weren't caught due to soft policing, they should be out.


So what? Do you just rely on hearsay and speculation to determine who broke it? We all know that Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, and Big Mac took them. Did Bagwell? Did Griffey? Did any other player in that era? I don't think you can use that as a reason to keep players out from that era. Similarily, players from the 60s and 70s that took uppers (different type of PED, but still a PED) are in the Hall as we speak. Players will always look for an edge.