PGA Tour: The Players: Notes from the Ballwasher

First topic message reminder :

1).Well done to Tyrrell Hatton, great win at Bay Hill which continued the run of non-American winners - Day, Leishman, McIlroy, Molinari, Hatton.
This was also an Open Championship qualifier and Keith Mitchell (for the second year running), Danny Lee and Dahmen get to battle the traffic at Royal St.George's in July.

2).For the second week running, the course set-up seemed to make scoring unnecessarily tricky given the prevailing weather conditions. A war of attrition, but not necessarily the most attractive golf for the TV viewer to enjoy.
Hopefully the set-up at TPC Sawgrass will enable the world's best to play their shots.

3).Scott Piercy made news for all the wrong reasons last week and now Tour Commish Monahan has expressed disappointment "in the lack of judgment used" and "that it has been addressed with Scott directly". Good thing Monahan didn't say "he knows better" because Piercy clearly doesn't. But his sponsors do, thankfully, tho' any Tour punishment will be kept unpublished - unless he starts missing tournaments, from which we might draw our own conclusions.
Personally, I'd like to have seen his "invitation" to Bay Hill revoked, but no such disapproval reported from the API.

4).Interesting graph from princedrac's twitter account this week showing the top ten owgr points-getters at The Players:
Four Americans: Woods, DLIII, Furyk, Couples
Three Aussies: Elk, Scott, Shark
Nick Price
Sergio & Langer
A good week, of which there haven't been many recently, will see Garcia can jump from 2nd to 1st, ahead of Tiger.

5).That's reflective of an international honours board with eight of the last twelve winners being "overseas" players.
And first-timers at TPC have a tough time too - after Jerry Pate won on the course's debut in 1982, only Hal Sutton and Craig Perks have won trophy on their first trip. Leading "rookie" last year was Eddie Pepperell who stormed home in 3rd place - but he's busy trying to figure out how you get dq'd three times in less than 2 years.

6).This week looks like the exact halfway point of the pre-Play-Off PGA Tour season, the 23rd event out of a total of 46. About 50 pros have already won enough FedEx Points to assure them a tee-time at the Northern Trust, Round 1 of the FedEx Cup Play-Offs.
Not many are Europeans: McIlroy, Hatton, Rahm, Hovland.

7).And only Fleetwood among other Europeans is comfortably placed, for now.
Those who have struggled this season so far, but are exempt at least through next year, include McDowell (79th), Casey (93rd), Lowry (140th), Molinari (168th), Donald (assuming he takes another earnings exemption - 172nd), Garcia (179th), Willett (181st), Stenson (197th), Wallace (202nd), Rose (205th),
While this lot, all not yet exempt for 2020/21 have it all to do: Straka (82nd), Norlander (84th), Knox (90th), Fitzpatrick (100th), Noren (107th), Rafa C-B (120th), Poulter (128th), Cappelen (130th), Laird (158th), Ventura (175th), Power (201st), Bjerregard (224th), Lewis (227th), plus 3 or 4 others on more tenuous status.

8).But one or two American "faces" are also struggling, with these three less than half-way to a Play-Off goal about 400 pts:
110th: Spieth
111th: D.Johnson
213th: Koepka

9).The Florida "Swing" has a musical chairs of dates next year, starting with Bay Hill, then The Players, followed by "Honda". No word yet on how Valspar fits in, but hopefully retains its fourth slot in Florida.

10).Finally, the Top 64 in the owgr's after The Players will qualify for the WGC-MatchPlay in Austin in a fortnight's time.

Any Valspar Notes will be added here next week.

I missed the conversation the last couple of days... But I would like to say that I appreciate the approach both th PGAT & ET are taking to potential restarts.  

I think the PGA Tour is trying to restart their schedule in mid-june is based on what's possible, not necessarily what's likely. There is so much more that needs to happen for Colonial to be possible. They know that. But good to see them trying and making all of it public so at least people can discuss it from the basis of facts, instead of little drips and drabs leaking out. (Which they certainly would)

And the ET not even trying to reschedule events Right now makes sense too.  Dealing with all the different countries involved is way more like herding cats than the PGA tour dealing with state and local governments is. 

As for players being able to get back to America to play on the PGA tour?  We are still 7 weeks out... Who could know at this point who's going to be able to get here and who can't?  My guess is probably 90%+ of those who want to get back to America will be able to do so some way or another. If they can't they can figure out what to do then.

But as far as eligibility is concerned... If they actually can get started in mid June, I think they are mostly going to be okay. I'm very doubtful they will graduate a full 50 from KFT... My guess is more like 25 (or even less)... So they can make special dispensation re full members where needed. Again that's just a guess.

Agree with most of that, robo, but some caveats:

~Will players/caddies be allowed in to the country? And then, will they have to quarantine?

~Will the players concerned want to travel until . . . . .

~Monahan has been satisfied the Tour can execute the 1M tests he reckons are necessary?

Don't feel we'll know the answers to any of this for at least another 3 or 4 weeks. I'm surprised there haven't been any "hotspots" publicised in Texas. Hope you keep it that way!

It looks as if Padraig Harrington has missed out on WGHOF induction this year . . . . . . imagine he's the first 3-Major man to be overlooked on the "first ballot" since Larry Nelson.
Hope Weiskopf makes it before it's too late, and can't think of any other woman in line to get in before Dottie Pepper.

kwinigolfer wrote:It looks as if Padraig Harrington has missed out on WGHOF induction this year . . . . . . imagine he's the first 3-Major man to be overlooked on the "first ballot" since Larry Nelson.
Hope Weiskopf makes it before it's too late, and can't think of any other woman in line to get in before Dottie Pepper.

Bet he's gutted. I can't think of a more pointless accolade to be inducted into such an American centric roll of honour.

super_realist wrote:

kwinigolfer wrote:It looks as if Padraig Harrington has missed out on WGHOF induction this year . . . . . . imagine he's the first 3-Major man to be overlooked on the "first ballot" since Larry Nelson.
Hope Weiskopf makes it before it's too late, and can't think of any other woman in line to get in before Dottie Pepper.

Bet he's gutted. I can't think of a more pointless accolade to be inducted into such an American centric roll of honour.

I guess that's part of my point super, but if you're going to have such a thing (and I'm all for it if accolades are doled out equitably), at least be consistent.

I can't take it seriously when  they have inductees like Bob Hope and Bing Crosby or people who have been dead for 30 years.
If they weren't good enough to be in when alive, why bother when they're dead?

super_realist wrote:I can't take it seriously when  they have inductees like Bob Hope and Bing Crosby or people who have been dead for 30 years.
If they weren't good enough to be in when alive, why bother when they're dead?

It gets worse when you see they have Eisenhower & a Bush, plus Augusta National's Payne. I'd've made Finchem cool his heels for a few years if the limit is four.

Surprised Jimmy Tarbuck, Kenny Lynch, Ronnie Corbett and Brucie aren't in it.

Its a Hall of "Fame" not a Hall of Accomplishment.

Bob Hope and Bing Crosby has done more to shape the modern Game of Golf that many of the Hall of Famers. Bush and Eisenhower too.

BTW, Jason ("Sick Note") Day has told Evin Priest (Aussie Journalist) that he intends to play 11 of the 13 weeks left on the schedule.

https://twitter.com/EvinPriest/status/1252759675080044546

What's the point of it? Why would the likes of Woods and Nicklaus want to share any sort of accolade with Bush, Eisenhower, Hope or Crosby?

It's like giving Cliff Richard an award for services to Wimbledon but giving Roger Federer and Bjorn Borg the same level. Just a pointless and embarrassing "honour"
Penguin Harrington would do well to just give them the middle finger.

Read My Lips

Its a Hall of Fame, not Accomplishments.

They are in the HoF because of their contributions to the game. Its not all about winning tournaments and major tournaments. It is what they have done for the game. The Pro-Am is the foundation of the PGATour working model, and no one did more for the Pro-Am than Crosby and Hope.

BTW, Bob Hope was born in England

FYI... A maximum of 5 per cycle can be inducted into the WGHOF.  It takes a 75% vote of the selection committee, which can result in anywhere from 0 to 5+ getting the vote. But if it's more than 5 they have to keep voting until they get it down to 5. 

I don't have any problem with their being a "contributors" category. I just wish it was limited to one per cycle. 

And GPB is correct... Its a hall of FAME... Not simply a spreadsheet of x wins here or there. NOT just x's is as it should be IMO. 

I would have liked to have seen them go to the max of 5. I thought Mike Purkey did a good job identifying the next five most deserving in the men's players category.  Harrington, Weiskopf, Norman Von Nida, Macdonald Smith & Westwood. 

Not necessarily in the order above though...

https://www.morningread.com/news-opinion/feature/2020-04-21/these-5-champions-merit-looks-for-world-golf-hall-of-fame

kwinigolfer wrote:Agree with most of that, robo, but some caveats:

~Will players/caddies be allowed in to the country? And then, will they have to quarantine?

~Will the players concerned want to travel until . . . . .

~Monahan has been satisfied the Tour can execute the 1M tests he reckons are necessary?

Don't feel we'll know the answers to any of this for at least another 3 or 4 weeks. I'm surprised there haven't been any "hotspots" publicised in Texas. Hope you keep it that way!

You're asking questions that nobody can answer right now and don't have to be answer right now. 

The Tour has revamped their schedule after talking to experts,  governments and such with the belief that what they are trying to do is possible.  Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. but if it's not, then simply push it back and try again.  It's not a fail if they can't accurately predict the unpredictable.

As for Texas... I'm not sure we're doing well or if we're just behind the curve.  Our testing rate is very low per capita, so I'm not sure we know where we are.  But on the face of it, it seems like except for a very few knuckleheads, most people "get it" and are acting responsible around here.

robo,
It is just possible that the narrative that the virus weakens in warm climates holds true.
Hopefully that can buy the Northern Hemisphere some time . . . . . but I'm too old to be confident of that!

kwinigolfer wrote:robo,
It is just possible that the narrative that the virus weakens in warm climates holds true.
Hopefully that can buy the Northern Hemisphere some time . . . . . but I'm too old to be confident of that!

Kwini... I consider myself someone who's quite adept in researching and learning thus understanding things, but there's so much conflicting information out about this virus I don't know what to think or believe.  I'm just doing my own little part as best I can, while keeping my fingers crossed for the best. (And trying to be optimistic, even though it's damn hard sometimes).  The only thing I am 100% sure on.... The whole thing SUCKS.

GPB wrote:Read My Lips

Its a Hall of Fame, not Accomplishments.  

They are in the HoF because of their contributions to the game.  Its not all about winning tournaments and major tournaments.  It is what they have done for the game.  The Pro-Am is the foundation of the PGATour working model, and no one did more for the Pro-Am than Crosby and Hope.

BTW, Bob Hope was born in England

I can't read your lips, you aren't speaking. I get that it's the hall of Fame, but it's still a ridiculous premise and nothing more than a "buggins turn" of stupid back slapping and sycophantic nonsense. Also still doesn't explain why people are in there post humously, what's the point in that. Its like a Mormon digging up their dead father to get them baptised.

super_realist wrote: Its like a Mormon digging up their dead father to get them baptised.

Is it though?




If you actually google it you will see that it is very common for a sport to have a hall of fame associated with it. There are even halls of fame for English and Scottish football.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_halls_and_walks_of_fame#Association_football


It is not something that interests me but does that make it as ridiculous as you are trying to claim? I think not. These places are essentially museums that use the nomination process as a means of advertising, and it works because we here about it every year and it creates a fair bit of discussion.

Also if you look at the list I posted above you will see that some of them like the Aboriginal and International Jewish halls of fame are probably quite important in keeping the interests of under represented communities relevant in the sport.

The point is who cares about them and who is going to be miffed if they aren't in it?
Sports people don't need validation in such a tinpot way. They know what they've done in the sport.
Why does the Hall of Fame only admit a few a year? Why don't they just admit everyone who meets the criteria at the same time?
Just shows how contrived it is that they are drawing it out to make it an annual event.
Can you name any sports person anywhere who would consider being admitted to such an institution as a highlight of their career? Probably there are some but for most it's just a night out and a free dinner.

Super

It seems like the only person worrying about the provenance and authenticity of the halls of fame is you. I don't think other people take it as seriously as you do.

McLaren wrote:Super

It seems like the only person worrying about the provenance and authenticity of the halls of fame is you. I don't think other people take it as seriously as you do.

It was mentioned, I offered an opinion, just ignore the topic if you don't want to discuss it and spend some time with your "wife"

Super

I am happily discussing it with you. I am just pointing out that for a guy who doesn't take the Hall of fame seriously you seem to worry a lot about the entry procedures? You talk about it as if you would have more respect for the institution if it had different entry procedures. Thus indicating you take it seriously enough to think about what would make you respect it more.

McLaren wrote:Super

I am happily discussing it with you. I am just pointing out that for a guy who doesn't take the Hall of fame seriously you seem to worry a lot about the entry procedures? You talk about it as if you would have more respect for the institution if it had different entry procedures. Thus indicating you take it seriously enough to think about what would make you respect it more.

My point is that I don't understand why anyone would consider it important, and so far no one has given me any reason as to why it is, let alone a good reason.
I don't have respect for it in the slightest, just as I have no respect for any awards based on sycophancy.
What does anyone gain from being in it? Nothing, so what is the point?
Would you care about being a member of a club that you've never asked to be a part of?

super_realist wrote:
Would you care about being a member of a club that you've never asked to be a part of?

I have never asked for it but if one of the clubs that play over TOC asked me to join it would be one of the best moments of my life.

McLaren wrote:

super_realist wrote:
Would you care about being a member of a club that you've never asked to be a part of?

I have never asked for it but if one of the clubs that play over TOC asked me to join it would be one of the best moments of my life.

Of course, but if all it entailed was just being on a worthless roll of honour I'm sure you wouldn't care.

Why don't you join one of the clubs? It's only £170 which makes you then eligible for a competition ticket which is only a few hundred then you can play comps at St Andrews for a visitor green fee.

super_realist wrote:
Also still doesn't explain why people are in there post humously, what's the point in that.

Why do people write and read books about history? Unless it is fairly recent history, all the people are dead. I can't imagine a Golf Hall of Fame that would not include Old Tom, Young Tom, Harry Vardon, Walter Hagen, and Bobby Jones. All dead before the Hall of Fame was founded.

Do you not think if someone started a Hall of Fame of Mathematicians that Euclid, Archimedes, Leibniz, and Newton wouldn't be included to honor their contributions.

super_realist wrote:Its like a Mormon digging up their dead father to get them baptised.

Wow, you are absolutely positively OBSESSED with Religion. No doubt about it. You constantly bring up the subject when no one else is talking about it. WUM

What has Harrington ever done for anyone other than himself, let alone for golf??

I get it, HOF is a theme museum and they have to bring in new acts from time to time to boost interest, just like normal museums have various temporary exibitions. But it’s still a terrible American invention. Where is John Daly for instance? Not PC enough? I’m sure he’s 10-fold more “famous” than some of the other people mentioned.

The WGHoF is tainted because it doesn't include John Daly.

Spoiler:

pedro wrote:What has Harrington ever done for anyone other than himself, let alone for golf??

You could say that for most on the list.

GPB wrote:

super_realist wrote:
Also still doesn't explain why people are in there post humously, what's the point in that.

Why do people write and read books about history?  Unless it is fairly recent history, all the people are dead.  I can't imagine a Golf Hall of Fame that would not include Old Tom, Young Tom, Harry Vardon, Walter Hagen, and Bobby Jones.  All dead before the Hall of Fame was founded.  

Do you not think if someone started a Hall of Fame of Mathematicians that Euclid,  Archimedes, Leibniz, and Newton wouldn't be included to honor their contributions.

super_realist wrote:Its like a Mormon digging up their dead father to get them baptised.

Wow, you are absolutely positively OBSESSED with Religion.  No doubt about it.  You constantly bring up the subject when no one else is talking about it.  WUM

Why would anyone start a mathematics hall of fame? What's the point? There is more than enough information about them and every other part of society without some laughable society which only exists to blow smoke up peoples arses.
Who benefits from a hall of fame? No one.

pedro wrote:What has Harrington ever done for anyone other than himself, let alone for golf??

You could say that for most on the list.

Daly not on the list because you're damned if you do and damned if you don't? How? He broke the mould. Would have thought he broadened appeal for the game. Why wouldn't you include him? Your criteria appears to be so one who has done something for the game, didn't Daly?

Seems like Shooter McGavin in Happy Gilmore determined to not let him play because 'he's bad for the game' laughable.

Really terrible argument for mentioning a maths hall of fame. There's so much known about historical figures that no one needs to refer to something like this. Why bother? Who would benefit from it? Who benefits from any hall of fame? No one, they just exist to blow smoke up peoples arses. A stupid American tradition where no one actually benefits, and as pointless as "employee of the month", another pointless American institution in the "buggins turn" realm.

Who ever refers to or reveres Hall of Fame as a barometer of anything?

Just because you are an American, doesn't mean you have to defend everything which is American. We all call tons of British stuff out as stupid and pointless, why can't you?

Sure America has a lot of silliness. The WGHoF is just not one of them. I have an interest in the History of the game.

The fact that you think I defend everything American is laughable. It just tells me that you look at the poster, and do not read the posts.

Who ever refers to or reveres Hall of Fame as a barometer of anything?

Hello Mr Strawman argument!!!

BTW. You must be fun at Parties. All you do is complain and complain and complain

The cry of "strawman" is always used when you having nothing worthwhile saying.

What is the point in a Hall of Fame? It's pointless, what does it do for anyone? Nothing.

The Hall of Fame is not a document of history, its simply a list of people who have been inducted at a certain point in time and who have been deemed to have fulfilled some random criteria which isn't consistent and which excused others who they don't fancy having in. Therefore even if you could argue it is historical, it is selective history, which is not a good way of recording history.

Ironic ( look it up) that you accuse me of being fun at parties when all you do is complain. I bet your party guests are enthralled to discuss Hall of Fame nominees.

Super

What do you have in mind as something you think is worthy of your respect that you are comparing a sporting hall of fame to?

Do you think it should be the equivalent to get a Nobel prize or an Oscar? Give me an example of what sort stature a hall of fame could get that would earn your respect?

Mac, I don't see a Hall of Fame as being of any point at all, either for contribution to the game or for achievement. Can you name any player who considers it a highlight of their career? I don't see any player giving it any sort of credence. Tournament wins are what matters to most.
I also see the  Oscars as being worthless and are mostly a Buggins Turn akin to Employee of the Month.

I just can't see the point in such validation, and GPB's inability to show what their worth is, especially as they lack impartiality and transparency rather demonstrates that.

Also, what use is it to a player to be inducted when they're dead?
Why were they not inducted when they were alive, weren't they considered as important enough at the time?

pedro wrote:What has Harrington ever done for anyone other than himself, let alone for golf??

Oh... I dunno... Except this maybe....

 [size=32]He runs his own Charitable Foundation, which supports deserving beneficiaries in Ireland and internationally, and supports the junior game as part of his role as an R&A Working for Golf Ambassador and as a Global Ambassador for the Special Olympics. Padraig is also a patron of the Irish charity, the Oesophageal Cancer Fund.[/size]

[size=32]https://www.golf-foundation.org/news/padraig-harrington-honoured-to-receive-golf-foundation-spirit-of-golf-award/[/size]

robopz wrote:FYI... A maximum of 5 per cycle can be inducted into the WGHOF.  It takes a 75% vote of the selection committee, which can result in anywhere from 0 to 5+ getting the vote. But if it's more than 5 they have to keep voting until they get it down to 5. 

I don't have any problem with their being a "contributors" category. I just wish it was limited to one per cycle. 

And GPB is correct... Its a hall of FAME... Not simply a spreadsheet of x wins here or there. NOT just x's is as it should be IMO. 

I would have liked to have seen them go to the max of 5. I thought Mike Purkey did a good job identifying the next five most deserving in the men's players category.  Harrington, Weiskopf, Norman Von Nida, Macdonald Smith & Westwood. 

Not necessarily in the order above though...

https://www.morningread.com/news-opinion/feature/2020-04-21/these-5-champions-merit-looks-for-world-golf-hall-of-fame

I can agree with those five, though reckon PH has a stronger case than any of the rest.
I'm stunned that Weiskopf hasn't got in, he must have rupfled a few pfeathers through the years.

Westwood is a strong candidate, as is Pepper and Furyk (and DC?). And don't know enough about MacDonald Smith but always respected NVN's influence as an Aussie pioneer.

They've rather tied their hands with their every other year induction. I'd like to see an architect or two get their recognition.

When Paddy actually had a playing career he seemed more focused on globetrotting for apperance fees and at the same time complaining about minimum tournament requirements. Now you could argue he’s finally paying his tithe. (Plus I assume he’s getting decent tax breaks.)

Most golfers do some sort of charity work, including John Daly, so that’s hardly an argument as such. I’m also sure most sponsors demand it.

And whatever has-been awards he’s been getting lately they’d be due to him being golf’s miss congeniality. It’s not like Irish golf is in a better place now compared to 10 years ago is it? I’m sure Daly - and even 606 friend Ishikawa - has done much more for the game than Paddy, and without even trying.

I think everybody should just admit that HOF induction by and large is a popularity contest without any other defined criteria.

I think Padraig would be inducted based upon his work 10 - 15 years ago, though would argue that SAhane Lowry has done his bit over the past ten years.

But your final sentence, pedro, is arguably a fair point. As in most Halls Of Fame unfortunately.
Can hope that integrity returns however.

pedro wrote:I think everybody should just admit that HOF induction by and large is a popularity contest without any other defined criteria.

Well you're certainly entailed to your opinion. But I disagree...

But I'll give you a chance to make your case. Here's the 83 Male Players chosen in the "players" category (either current or veteran) for the HOF so far....    If you'd like to make the case for the 40+ of the below list you think are "by in large in the HOF due to a popularity contest" and thus don't belong and why... I'd be happy to consider your reasoning

Walter Hagen, Ben Hogan, Bobby Jones, Byron Nelson, Jack Nicklaus, Francis Ouimet, Arnold Palmer, Gary Player, Gene Sarazen, Sam Snead, Harry Vardon, Willie Anderson, Chick Evans, Tom Morris (x2), J.H. Taylor, Tommy Armour, James Braid, Jerome Travers, Bobby Locke, John Ball, Billy Casper, Harold Hilton, Walter Travis, Henry Cotton, Lawson Little, Ralph Guldahl, Lee Trevino, Julius Boros, Jimmy Demaret, Cary Middlecoff, Peter Thomson, Tom Watson, Jim Barnes, Roberto de Vicenzo, Raymond Floyd, Gene Littler, Paul Runyan, Horton Smith, Harry Cooper, Hale Irwin, Johnny Miller, Seve Ballesteros, Nick Faldo, Lloyd Mangrum, Jack Burke, Jr. Greg Norman, Payne Stewart, Allan Robertson, Ben Crenshaw, Tony Jacklin, Tommy Bolt, Nick Price, Leo Diegel, John Ball, Isao Aoki, Tom Kite, Willie Park Sr., Vijay Singh, Larry Nelson, Henry Picard, Hubert Green, Kel Nagle, Curtis Strange, Bernhard Langer, Bob Charles, Denny Shute, Craig Wood, Jose Maria Olazabal, Lanny Wadkins, Ernie Els, Jumbo Ozaki, Doug Ford, Jock Hutchinson, Phil Mickelson, Sandy Lyle, Fred Couples, Willie Park Jr., Colin Montgomerie, David Graham, Mark O'Meara, Davis Love, Ian Woosnam, Retief Goosen, Tiger Woods.

So you just have to be famous and liked by the committee? Wow, what a great roll of honour.

Hall of Sycohancy more like. Again, will someone please tell me why it exists and for what/whose benefit?.I've still not had an answer as to why this ridiculous charade exists.

No one needs it for anything, it doesn't gauge anything, it isn't a reflection of achievements in the game, it isn't a rank of accomplishments it just seems to be a cherry picked list of many players and other people who aren't players within the golf world, but excluding others who they don't fancy or decide through guilt to add them post humously when they didn't consider them good enough when they were alive, but somehow they are more worthy in death ( eg Jock Hutchison) Bet he'd be delighted to be such an afterthought that he had to be a rotting corpse for 30 years to get in.

I'm not an expert on the hof. But it looks like hundreds or thousands visit it. So can see why it exists and it's for the benefit of golfers and golf fans who are interested in it

Really not a hard concept.

beninho wrote:I'm not an expert on the hof. But it looks like hundreds or thousands visit it. So can see why it exists and it's for the benefit of golfers and golf fans who are interested in it  

Really not a hard concept.

Yep... Some people enjoy exploring the history of the game, some people don't care. 

The part I always have trouble understanding is how some people seem to have the attitude: "Since I'm not interested in it, then it's stupid, meaningless and worthless, thus nobody else should be interested either".  Maybe I'm just not self-absorbed enough to think that way.... 

Robo, I think I’ve made my point by asking where John Daly is?
His induction would provide a nice balance by illustrating that there are other ways of winning majors than being whipped out of bed throughout childhood in order to practise by a sadistic drunken father (as in Tigers case).
“Normal people” don’t give a toss about most people on the list (even those from the same period as Daly), but I’m sure they do about Daly. Life is not perfect and polished, neither is golf.

pedro wrote:Robo, I think I’ve made my point by asking where John Daly is?.

So the weight (pun sort of intended) of JD's exclusion outweighs the credentials of the rest of the players inducted?

pedro wrote:Robo, I think I’ve made my point by asking where John Daly is?
His induction would provide a nice balance by illustrating that there are other ways of winning majors than being whipped out of bed throughout childhood in order to practise by a sadistic drunken father (as in Tigers case).
“Normal people” don’t give a toss about most people on the list (even those from the same period as Daly), but I’m sure they do about Daly. Life is not perfect and polished, neither is golf.

Maybe he will be one day, pedro. It's a good point, especially considering that a trick shot artist (albeit handicapped, and from a wheelchair) is already in.

I kinda take these hof's with some seriousness along with a pinch of salt because the good ones are quite special (especially baseball's).
And robo has omitted some Europeans (perhaps others) who are in, e'g. Neil Coles & Himself. The bias works itself out eventually.

Kwini... Speaking of Neil Coles... Like everybody else these days I had a little extra time, so I've been working on this project. 

Since the European tour is so young (started in 1972), it doesn't have the rich winners list and known history like the PGA tour does. You can go back and read a lot about Morris and up thru the Great Triumvirant days... But there's a big void from there up until Seve. 

I went back to WW2 and recorded the old British and European circuit wins as best I could. For instance, the ET has only 11 players with 20+ wins, but if you go back pre 1972 to WW2 you can easily add 7 more. And a lot of really quality names surface at 10 plus wins. But we rarely hear much about them. Anyway... FWIW...

PS... Neil Coles was omitted from my list above because he was admitted into the HOF via the lifetime achievement category. Same reason I left off players like Chi-Chi, Sifford, Venturi, Alliss etc...

robopz wrote:PS... Neil Coles was omitted from my list above because he was admitted into the HOF via the lifetime achievement category. Same reason I left off players like Chi-Chi, Sifford, Venturi, Alliss etc...

All worthy members for their full body of work.
I know you know this but sometimes wonder if the hof does, but most of these guys, as well as many from south of the equator, hardly played any Majors except The Open, for a variety of reasons - think Neil Coles (my boss used to take afternoons off to play with NC at Coombe Hill) was terrified of flying!