Connect with us
Advertisement

19th Hole

GolfWRX members debate: What should the World Golf Hall of Fame criteria be?

Published

on

There have been a couple of controversial inclusions on the World Golf Hall of Fame. This isn’t to rehash, say, Fred Couples earning a spot, but rather, take a look at entry criteria.

More specifically, GolfWRX member playar32 writes

“I know the actual criteria is 15 tour wins, or 2 majors/Players championship. But what’s YOUR minimum?…For example, if a player won a “B” tournament every year (the one opposite a WGC event), every year in a row for 15 years, but missed the cut in every other event, would you still considered them HOF?”

It’s an interesting point. Specifically, the World Golf Hall of Fame criteria for an active male golfer is as follows.

“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.”

Further, a player must be at least 50 or five years removed from competition.

Here are some other WRX members’ takes.

Bladehunter says

“15 tour wins and 2 majors for me. Otherwise almost every 1 major winner out there is in.”

McCann1 says

“If we won’t remember your name without the HOF in 50 years I think you shouldn’t be in.”

Fowlerscousin says

“If any of these three criteria are met: 3 or more majors. Minimum 5 Ryder cup appearances. 15 tour victories.”

Hawkeye77 says

“Whatever the criteria are, don’t ever think about it unless someone whose speech I want to hear gets in.’

Golfer929 has more stringent standards

“20 Wins. 3 Majors. 2 Ryder Cup/President Cup appearances. 100 total weeks inside Top 50 OWGR.”

Golfgirlrobin says

“I’d like to see them go to some sort of point system like the LPGA uses. Factor in everything that’s important and let the chips fall where they may.”

You’ll want to check out the rest of what GolfWRX members have to say in the thread.

There are a ton off questions to consider when thinking about which current/recent players should make the HoF.

A few…

1. Should the standards be on par with other sports? If so, what does that look like?
2. If the WGHOF should be more/less stringent, why?
3. How important are major victories? Why two and not three?
4. Why 15 wins and not 10? Or 20?

All important questions, and ones which the golf fans of the world should be able to weigh in on, rather than merely a selection committee of 16 people.

Let us know what you think, GolfWRX members!

Your Reaction?
  • 3
  • LEGIT0
  • WOW0
  • LOL0
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP0
  • OB0
  • SHANK2

5 Comments

5 Comments

  1. Mike C

    May 18, 2018 at 9:29 pm

    What do you guys think about David Duval getting into the HOF? 13 wins, 1 major, 1 players, world #1 during Tigers prime, shot perhaps the best of the 59’s prior to the distance evolution with a wound ball and an eagle on the last hole to win. He was a bright star that burned out too quickly but I can’t think of anyone who made the game look easier than DD. I vote yes.

    • Mike

      May 20, 2018 at 9:28 am

      great player but for too short a time for me to consider as HOF material

  2. Jamie

    May 18, 2018 at 7:09 pm

    Under current rules, Tom Weiskopf and Fred Couples are not eligible. Something’s not right about this.

    • Jamie

      May 18, 2018 at 7:12 pm

      PS. I thought the rule is Wins AND Majors, not OR. Maybe I’m wrong.

      • Edward Brumby

        May 21, 2018 at 6:34 am

        Couples has 17 wins (15 PGA, two distinct European), a major, and two Players. So even if combined he easily gets in.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

19th Hole

Hot takes on Phil Mickelson’s Saturday antics continue to fly

Published

on

Yesterday, Phil Mickelson played a bit of field hockey on Shinnecock’s 13th green that continues to be the talk of the golf world… Mickelson didn’t do much to quiet the murmurs with his refusal to talk to the media following his final round and his celebratory antics after a made putt at that hole, Sunday.

Regarding the left-hander’s violation of Rule 14-5, we have a thread that’s 18 pages long and 516 replies deep at the time of this writing. It spans the full spectrum of opinions, from staunch support for Phil to outright condemnation.

A poll among golf WRXers saw 41 percent of responders say Mickelson should have been disqualified. 49 percent said he shouldn’t have. 9 percent said Mickelson should withdraw.

MtlJeff had this take

“Imagine if a young player did it. We’d be ready to euthanize all millennials for their horrible tantrums.”

Ssfranny said

“I have to kinda think Phil just gave a big middle finger to the USGA and pin placements.”

Teetogreen

“Frustrated as he may have been, he’s no better than the field. Everyone has to play the same course. I know Phil’s a fan-favorite, but that was wrong and disgraceful.”

Nessism said

“Pure frustration. I feel sorry for him. A momentary lapse of awareness will now cost him endless scritany for years to come.”

Golfgirlrobin quickly perceived what would be Mickelson’s eventual explanation

“Or maybe brilliant. Ball goes all the way down the green into the fairway and taking the penalty might actually have ended up being the better play.”

HolyMoses said

“Phil said he hit the moving ball intentionally so it wouldn’t get behind the bunker again. If he’s that defiant, he should be DQ’d. That’s cheating, plain and simple.”

Moving from WRXers’ takes to a few from other realms.

On Twitter, Lee Westwood played the devil’s advocate with this slippery slope (appropriately) argument.

“Here’s a scenario…Thoughts everyone??? here you go….. over the back on 15 at Augusta. Chip it too hard, run over before it gets to the water and knock it on the green so you don’t have to hit it again or go the drop zone!”

Writer Alan Bastable introduced the specter of Rule 1-2.

“Meanwhile, just two years after the DJ rules fiasco at Oakmont, the USGA blue coats were left to explain to the world why Mickelson hadn’t been disqualified for such an egregious breach of the rules. Indeed, under Rule 1-2, the Committee could have deemed that Mickelson’s actions gave him “a significant advantage,” and therefore warranted a DQ. “I would have lobbied for disqualification,” former USGA executive director David Fay said on the Fox telecast.”

The portion of Rule 1-2 Bastable referenced states.

“A player is deemed to have committed a serious breach of Rule 1-2 if the Committee considers that the action taken in breach of this Rule has allowed him or another player to gain a significant advantage or has placed another player, other than his partner, at a significant disadvantage.”

Golf Channel’s Randall Mell discussed Mickelson’s communication with Mike Davis late Saturday after some scribes floated the idea that the golfer ought to be disqualified.

“Phil really did want to understand how the rule operates,” Davis said. “Frankly, as he said to me, `Mike, I don’t want to play in this championship if I should have been disqualified.’” Davis said he assured Mickelson that Rule 14-5 was correctly applied, and that a two-stroke penalty is all that was required.”

With respect to the claims that Mickelson ought to withdraw, ESPN’s Ian O’Connor wrote this.

“There was a problem with Lefty’s story — a fairly big one. His playing partner, Andrew “Beef” Johnston, said he told Mickelson, “Sorry, but I can’t help but laugh at that. It’s one of the funniest things I’ve ever seen.” Johnston also had this to say of his exchange with Mickelson: “He said, ‘I don’t know what that is. I don’t know what score that is or what happens now.’ And he started speaking to the rules official. It was one strange moment.”

“The standard-bearer with the group, Connor Buff, a 19-year-old from Smithtown and a student at the University at Albany, said he heard Mickelson tell the rules official, “Whatever I get, I get. Just let me know what it is.”

In other words, according to O’Connor Mickelson was both attempting to gain advantage and, for what it’s worth, lying about his thoughts during the field hockey moment.

And of course, Global Golf Post’s John Hopkins.

Amy Mickelson told Golfweek’s Beth Ann Nichols

“He has been pretty under fire,” she said. “A lot of people have been pretty rough. … . It’s not like we’re in his shoes and understand what he has gone through. You and me, we are looking at it from the outside, sitting in the press room or family dining. … They’re playing sports for a living, but still in the moment it’s a very heavy week, an intense week. A lot happens over the course of 24 hours every day.

Golf Digest’s Joel Beall wrote this about Mickelson’s mock celebration at the 13th, Sunday. He could just as well have written it Mickelson’s explanation and the whole ordeal

“His critics would call it the act of a charlatan. His fans would say he was being an entertainer. Part of the Phil Mickelson Experience is not knowing which is right.”

What do you think, GolfWRX members? Is there more to be said about the matter? Or, with the U.S. Open wrapped up, should be draw the curtain on all this as well? Do any other takes merit mention?

Your Reaction?
  • 6
  • LEGIT2
  • WOW1
  • LOL3
  • IDHT1
  • FLOP2
  • OB3
  • SHANK16

Continue Reading

19th Hole

See what today’s stars look like with Corey Pavin’s 1995 mustache. Hilarious!

Published

on

Surely, you’re familiar with Skratch TV’s efforts.

Launched in 2015, the PGA Tour/Bedrocket joint venture was billed as “golf’s first internet video network,” and it has grown into something pretty special in the golf mediaverse.

However, the producers of Adventures in Golf and a buffet of entertaining social media content have truly outdone themselves with the following.

Well played, Skratch. Well played.

Your Reaction?
  • 29
  • LEGIT1
  • WOW2
  • LOL8
  • IDHT1
  • FLOP1
  • OB0
  • SHANK0

Continue Reading

19th Hole

Can you call Shinnecock “Shinny”? GolfWRX members don’t think so.

Published

on

Surely, you’ve seen or heard it in the coverage of this 118th U.S. Open. Shinnecock Hills Golf Club. Most golf fans and producers of content refer to the famed Southampton course Shinnecock Hills Golf Club as “Shinnecock.”

However, some pepper in another name for the track, and it’s a nomenclature that annoys some GolfWRX members more than a stone-cold shank: Shinny.

Youdamantiger writes this regarding “Shinny.”

“For some reason this really gets on my nerves. You see it mostly from the print golf journalists as opposed to the TV guys. I mean, are they too lazy to type out the extra nine letters? Is it to sound hip? At next years Masters are they going to be talking about the extra length added to “Gussie?” Now get off my lawn.”

Get off my lawn, indeed. When you see venom in the forums, you always wonder how it will be received. Will the OP get burned, or will other WRXers join the fire breathing chorus?

In this case, the latter. A sampling of the concurrence with original sentiments.

Ferguson says

“I pointed this out 2 weeks ago when “someone” posted “Shinny” twice in one sentence. In that case, I think he was trying to make it sound as if he was familiar with the club, maybe trying to “give the impression” he had played there.”

AceCatKY says

“Almost as annoying as those calling Baltusrol “Balty” a few years back.”

Bscinstnct draws some parallels

“St. Andrewski

“Pebble Beachinator

“McGusta”

Sharkiesj takes this approach

“I’m goin full on Chevy Chase in Fletch and callin it Shinnycocktoastin.”

And on and on they go, for four pages at this point.

So, what say you front page, WRXers? Does “Shinny” irk you?

Your Reaction?
  • 3
  • LEGIT0
  • WOW0
  • LOL0
  • IDHT1
  • FLOP1
  • OB0
  • SHANK7

Continue Reading

19th Hole

Facebook

Trending