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knows better" because Piercy clearly doesn't. But his sponsors do, thankfully, tho' any Tour punishment will be kept unpublished - unless he starts missing tournaments, from which we might draw our own conclusions.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.

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.

You could also ask where Carbrera is. Two majors, not there. Very influential for South American golf. Guaranteed if it was Kenny Perry that had won two majors he'd be in there.

It's also rather tragic that the inductees are noted to be "Class of....." as if it's some sort of graduation. Hilariously American stuff and the ridiculously bad bronze statuettes of the inductees remind me of that awful Christiano Ronaldo statue. Just the tackiest, least classy exhibition I can imagine.

Golf is an "essential service" in Arizona and Alex Cejka has just won his second mini-Tour event of the (Tour) shutdown.
He played his final 6 holes in 6 under par, including a hole-in-one and another eagle - Peter O'Malley-like stuff.

Last moments of Fred Couples Hall of Fame induction speech.

https://youtu.be/o0wbEtMLkps?t=343

Obviously his induction didn't mean ANYTHING to him.

GPB wrote:Last moments of Fred Couples Hall of Fame induction speech.

https://youtu.be/o0wbEtMLkps?t=343

Obviously his induction didn't mean ANYTHING to him.

Of course he's going to say something nice, it's good manners. You still haven't given me any reason for the HoF existing, who it benefits and what it is for, it's certainly not a document of history, because it's just a list of names with no real citation. You can find out a lot more about each inductee in other places.

Do you seriously think any golfer wakes up in the morning and gushes over their hall of fame induction?

Would the Hall of Fame existing or not put anyone up or down. Doubt it. Why can't you just admit it's a meaningless platitude?
Even more pointless than the Presidents Cup. At least there is some sort of measurable merit in winning that whereas Hall of Fame is just a buggins turn unless your face doesn't fit like Daly or Cabrera

Realist, it was mentioned that the hof benefits the thousands of people who visit it each year and enjoy it. It benefits golf fans who like that kind of thing, it benefits golfers who are inducted, I would assume they are pretty pleased.

It doesn't benefit people who don't care about it.

Is it really that hard to understand?

beninho wrote:Realist, it was mentioned that the hof benefits the thousands of people who visit it each year and enjoy it. It benefits golf fans who like that kind of thing, it benefits golfers who are inducted, I would assume they are pretty pleased.

It doesn't benefit people who don't care about it.

Is it really that hard to understand?

In what way does it benefit anyone? To view a selective list, token inductees and view some ghastly statuettes? They're the sort of hideous ornaments you see in the a pensioners front room even worse then the profile pictures on the PGA website.
Even the R&A museum in St.Andrews is better than that and that is rubbish.

It benefits people who enjoy it. Really not hard.

Do I have to explain, that, shock horror, people are different, some people even enjoy different things. What someone enjoys, someone else may not. You do not like children, i have 2 of them and really like my kids. Look a difference.

Some people like the golf hof and its museum. Others don't. Hard to believe isn't it.

I know its difficult to understand, but if you have any more questions on differences please just ask.

And a quick wiki search states the reason it exists is because it was formed in 1974. Though the women had one in 1951. Anyway they both changed a bit over time, and gradually joined together. The wghof all moved to Florida in 1998 as part of the world golf village.  Which looks pretty impressive.
https://www.worldgolfvillage.com/hall-of-fame/
I think it more exists for the fans now, from the look of things anyway. But I'm sure players are fine with being honoured.

Again, I think I it benefits anyone who goes and enjoys it, or anyone with a keen golf history knowledge.

Next question?

Half of my objection to it is simply to dig at GPB because he absolutely cannot take criticism of anything 'Murican and I know he loves awards for the sake of nothing which this clearly is and it amuses me to watch him furiously defend silly institutions like this and try to pretend that the Presidents Cup grabs the public attention.

I would also add, as you play at standrews you have seen all the old history thousand times, so you've probably become a bit blaseè (sp?) Yet when I get to Troon, I still read all the history bits in the clubhouse. While members I'm with basically walk straight past.

beninho wrote:I would also add, as you play at standrews you have seen all the old history thousand times, so you've probably become a bit blaseè (sp?) Yet when I get to Troon, I still read all the history bits in the clubhouse. While members I'm with basically walk straight past.

That's certainly true. The history of St. Andrews means zilch to me, never has, which is why I'm able to look at the course for the very ordinary track of land that it is without it being clouded by considering who has played there etc.

super_realist wrote:

Of course he's going to say something nice, it's good manners. You still haven't given me any reason for the HoF existing, who it benefits and what it is for, it's certainly not a document of history, because it's just a list of names with no real citation. You can find out a lot more about each inductee in other places.

Do you think Fred Couples was acting?  :::EYEROLL:::

Several reasons have been given for the HoF existence.  Just because you don't like or accept them doesn't mean that they are real.  It is most certainly a document of history.  As ofr citations, if you question the management of the HoF, I suspect they have citations and documentation.

Do you seriously think any golfer wakes up in the morning and gushes over their hall of fame induction?

FWIW, I don't if any Hall of Famers wake up and starts to get giddy about being in the Hall of Fame..  They are probably thinking about brushing their teeth (novel concept for you Brits), getting a cup of coffee etc.

Would the Hall of Fame existing or not put anyone up or down

I have no clue how to respond.   (Bad Grammar)

Why can't you just admit it's a meaningless platitude?

Because it is not. Your opinion doesn't supersede all others.

Even more pointless than the Presidents Cup. At least there is some sort of measurable merit in winning that whereas Hall of Fame is just a buggins turn unless your face doesn't fit like Daly or Cabrera

Presidents Cup?  (There is that Strawman again).  Can't you ever stay on point?  Why not bring up Tiger's Nine Chins and Spindly Legs and Shane Lowry's ample waistline.

Daly and Cabrera are not in the HoF, .......... YET.  I don't think Daly will ever be inducted, but I think Cabrera will be eventually inducted.  Induction is not all objective based, Daly has too many demerits in his golf career.  Jane Blalock has a resume superior to some LPGAers and she hasn't been inducted.

Half of my objection to it is simply to dig at GPB because he absolutely cannot take criticism of anything 'Murican

WUM

Hold on lads I've caught a whopper. Too easy. Shooting fish in a barrel.

Why does it matter if Daly has demerits? I thought it was the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of the "you'll get in if we deem you worthy" Fame.

Can you imagine Diego Maradona being omitted from any such football honour just because he liked the Colombian marching powder?
What about the demerits on Botox Woods CV? What's good for the goose should be good for the gander.

As I said earlier in the thread, the criteria is not all objective.

Daly meets the minimum criteria, (barely) but not all players who meet that criteria get in.

BTW....Is John Daly an "Murican"? Am I defending him?  Certainly not!  There goes that premise.

So it's not a true representation of the game of golf, it's a sanitised and hypocritical version of an impartial Hall of Fame. Glad we have sorted that out.

There is a reason why Pete Rose is not in the Baseball Hall of Fame.

GPB wrote:There is a reason why Pete Rose is not in the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Puerile stuff.

GPB, robo,
Any sign of the Maridoe Samaritan leaderboard? I'm desperate for something to follow!


Pete Rose SHOULD be in the HOF, with a big honking disclaimer on his plaque which details all his indiscretions.

super_realist wrote:

GPB wrote:There is a reason why Pete Rose is not in the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Puerile stuff.

LMAO.

When Debate is lost, slander is the tool of the loser.

Kwini,

I think character should be absolutely be a consideration for Hall of Fame induction. I have no issue with Rose's exclusion from Cooperstown. Gambling on baseball is Capital Punishment for Baseball. It almost destroyed the sport 100 years ago.

GPB wrote:

super_realist wrote:

GPB wrote:There is a reason why Pete Rose is not in the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Puerile stuff.

LMAO.

When Debate is lost, slander is the tool of the loser.

Kwini,

I think character should be absolutely be a consideration for Hall of Fame induction. I have no issue with Rose's exclusion from Cooperstown.  Gambling on baseball is Capital Punishment for Baseball.  It almost destroyed the sport 100 years ago.

How do you justify Woods's inclusion then? He's practiced social intimacy with half the bimbos of Florida, to name just one State?
Just being facetious, but I think it should be instructive to show the sheer scope of Rose's achievements, and graphic details of his comeuppance.

Is because the "crimes" tiger committed are strictly speaking between him and the women in his life?

Plus his sexual exploits are probably Hall of fame worthy.

Woods dalliances were not a (for lack of a better term) "crime" against golf.

Rose's achievements? What does that have to do with the price of Green Fees in China?

GPB,
You've lost me . . . . . .

McLaren wrote:Is because the "crimes" tiger committed are strictly speaking between him and the women in his life?

Plus his sexual exploits are probably Hall of fame worthy.

He has some highly dubious on course situations too, spitting, swearing, dodgy rules infringements etc. Hall of Fame don't care about how awful a human being you are so long as you behave on the course? Makes it even more of a joke.

What did Daly do on the course which made him such a villain?

GPB wrote:

super_realist wrote:

GPB wrote:There is a reason why Pete Rose is not in the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Puerile stuff.

LMAO.






When Debate is lost, slander is the tool of the loser.

Kwini,

I think character should be absolutely be a consideration for Hall of Fame induction. I have no issue with Rose's exclusion from Cooperstown.  Gambling on baseball is Capital Punishment for Baseball.  It almost destroyed the sport 100 years ago.

How is that slander? Its not even close to being slander. Perhaps look up the definition before using it wrongly in a debate. Slander is also speech, not written.
Calling a decision not to include him in the HOF for gambling infraction is not slander because its not even aimed at an individual or his reputation, its an opinion on the decision of the committee in charge of inductions and has no bearing on reputation of either the HOF or the individual.

By the way,  I thought you were in your 50's, I had no idea you were only about 14 which you must be as they are the only people who say LMAO.
It explains a lot.

Kwini

Had to read that twice when you mentioned Coombe Hill...that’s my club!!

TM2K wrote:

Kwini

Had to read that twice when you mentioned Coombe Hill...that’s my club!!

Cool!
See pm . . . . .

kwinigolfer wrote:GPB,
You've lost me . . . . . .

It slipped my mind that we were talking about Pete Rose, I thought you were talking about Justin Rose, that is why I was confused.

IMO, Sexual Deviant Behavior is not even on the same planet as gambling on Baseball. Gambling on baseball nearly destroyed the game 100 years ago.

==========

Calling someone (or their post) puerile, is most definitely pejorative, if not slanderous. It is an ad hominem insult. I was LMAO because you didn't even say why it was puerile.

===========

Spitting on a golf course! Oh My Kick him off the golf course!
Swearing? 90% of the Tour swears and you would hear if the microphones are on them as much as they are on Tiger.
Rules Infractions? to my knowledge he has never been DQed from a tournament


Re: John Daly Among other things

His infamous incident at Pinehurst #2, 1999 US Open Hole #8 where he hit is a couple shots that returned to his feet, on the third attempt, he climbed the hill and hit while it was returning his feet.

39 Mid Tournament Withdrawals

Jail Time

Getting the DT's in Vancouver

Suing the PGATour

At least two suspensions from the PGATour 1993 and 2008.

Here's my latest attempt to keep up with COVID-19 Cancellations, Postponements and Reschedules.

RE: Hall of Fame... I missed a lot of that discussion.  IMO the key thing to remember is the current minimum"player" criteria (15+ wins on member tours or 2+ combination of Majors/Players) is a FLOOR to be eligible for consideration.  Being eligible does NOT get you in the HoF.   Here's a list I did a few months ago of those eligible for this class that Tiger just got into. These are players who's career finished beneficially 1980 or later.

 The players highlighted in orange are ones who are eligible only because The PLAYERS counts the same as a major. If not for the Players, they would not meet the 15/2 minimum.

The point of this list is to illustrate how many are eligible... but since only 6-8 from the player category are going to get in per decade... you can quickly see how FEW of this list will ever get in. Padraig is the only other LOCK out of all of them IMO... with Westwood & Furyk & Weiskopf with a very decent chance.

As for the Hall being too major centric?   I dunno about that. (Ask Monty).  And I don't believe 2 majors is or will be an automatic. John Daly & Andy North ain't getting in...  & IMO 2-major guys like Fuzzy, Janzen, Stockton and Zach  are VERY DOUBTFUL ever getting in...  Janzen might have the best chance because he has a Players too.   IMO, even with less qualifying wins, Cabrera likely has a better chance than any of those other 2-major guys I listed above, IMO they'd probably try to be "inclusive" to get a South American player in over the others.

I would think these really long gone past guys have a good chance of getting in someday too...

James Anderson - Scottish golfer 3 majors late 1800s
Bob Ferguson - Scottish golfer 3 majors early 1900s
Ted Ray - Early 1900s Jersy golfer w 2 majors
Macdonald Smith - 1910-30s era American with 25+ PGA Tour wins - no majors
Johnny Farrell - 1920-30s era American with 22 PGAT wins and 1 major
Willie Macfarlane - 1910-30s era Scot/American with 21 PGAT wins and 1 major
"Wild" Bill Mehlhorn - 1920-30s era American with 20 PGAT wins, no major
Jim Ferrier - 1940-50s AUS/American with 18 PGAT wins and 1 major
Johnny Revolta - 1930-40s American with 18 PGAT wins and 1 major

GPB wrote:

kwinigolfer wrote:GPB,
You've lost me . . . . . .

It slipped my mind that we were talking about Pete Rose, I thought you were talking about Justin Rose, that is why I was confused.

IMO, Sexual Deviant Behavior is not even on the same planet as gambling on Baseball.  Gambling on baseball nearly destroyed the game 100 years ago.  

==========

Calling someone (or their post) puerile, is most definitely pejorative, if not slanderous.  It is an ad hominem insult.   I was LMAO because you didn't even say why it was puerile.

===========

Spitting on a golf course!  Oh My Kick him off the golf course!
Swearing?  90% of the Tour swears and you would hear if the microphones are on them as much as they are on Tiger.
Rules Infractions?  to my knowledge he has never been DQed from a tournament


Re:  John Daly Among other things

His infamous incident at Pinehurst #2, 1999 US Open Hole #8 where he hit is a couple shots that returned to his feet, on the third attempt, he climbed the hill and hit while it was returning his feet.

39 Mid Tournament Withdrawals

Jail Time

Getting the DT's in Vancouver

Suing the PGATour

At least two suspensions from the PGATour 1993 and 2008.

Jesus, I was meaning that it was puerile of the HOF to exclude someone for gambling over their playing achievements, as I said you can't imagine a football HOF without Diego Maradona and he did a lot worse than gamble. That's not even close to slander, but it's clear you don't know what slander is.



By the way Phil hit a moving ball too, big bloody deal. Hardly a black mark.
Being drunk? Who cares. I bet most golfers have been drunk at a tournament.
When was John Daly in Jail, not like it was a prison sentence. He spent a night in jail, just like a dozen other golfers have including Tiger Woods.
Botox Woods has also been fined by the tour and made several withdrawals from tournaments.  Not so different from Daly?
Daly has done a lot more in the game than a lot of the people on that list and regardless of how people deem his behaviour ought to be in for his contribution to the game and raising its profile, pre Woods. Seems harsh on Daly that he is being punished for having mental health issues.
Daly's biggest crime has always been his hair. Absolutely terrible.

Jesus, I was meaning that it was puerile of the HOF to exclude someone for gambling over their playing achievements, as I said you can't imagine a football HOF without Diego Maradona and he did a lot worse than gamble. That's not even close to slander, but it's clear you don't know what slander is.

Jesus???? WTF?

Your post was certainly clear and unambiguous!!! clear as mud. Maybe you could have elaborated on what you meant in your original post.

Re: Daly

Just because a player has a resume for the HoF doesn't mean that they will be selected. Its not an entitlement. Daly barely meets the eligibilty requirements, and his "history" is going to, IMO, prevent his induction. He has soiled the game, many times. The discussion is about Daly, and not about Woods and Mickelson. But Woods and Mickelson fits your habit of bringing up a strawman's arguments. Woods is a GOAT #2 (at worse) and Mickelson is almost a GOAT Top 10. (I would rank him about #12). Daly is not even in the Top 100 IMO.

Robo just listed a bunch of players that are HoF eligible and probably will never get in. Like I said, the HoF is not an entitlement

IMO, any mental issues that Daly has (or had) are self-inflicted. (Oh no, there I go again, defending anything and anyone "Murican)

It seems strange that you began the HoF argument by saying that it is a

"ridiculous Premise"
" "buggins turn" of stupid back slapping "
" sycophantic nonsense"

among other things. Now you are arguing that Daly ought to be in it.

Wow. IMO, hypocritical. (or wumming)

Maradonna? Don't know and don't care anything about him. Its Soccer, and I don't give a rats arse about the sport. Ditto Rugby, ditto Formula 1 Racing, ditto Nascar, ditto Professional Wrestling.

GPB wrote:

Jesus, I was meaning that it was puerile of the HOF to exclude someone for gambling over their playing achievements, as I said you can't imagine a football HOF without Diego Maradona and he did a lot worse than gamble. That's not even close to slander, but it's clear you don't know what slander is.

Jesus????  WTF?

Your post was certainly clear and unambiguous!!! clear as mud.  Maybe you could have elaborated on what you meant in your original post.

Re:  Daly

Just because a player has a resume for the HoF doesn't mean that they will be selected.  Its not an entitlement.  Daly barely meets the eligibilty requirements, and his "history" is going to, IMO, prevent his induction.  He has soiled the game, many times.  The discussion is about Daly, and not about Woods and Mickelson.  But Woods and Mickelson fits your habit of bringing up a strawman's arguments.  Woods is a GOAT #2 (at worse) and Mickelson is almost a GOAT Top 10. (I would rank him about #12).   Daly is not even in the Top 100 IMO.

Robo just listed a bunch of players that are HoF eligible and probably will never get in.  Like I said, the HoF is not an entitlement

IMO, any mental issues that Daly has (or had) are self-inflicted.  (Oh no, there I go again, defending anything and anyone "Murican)

It seems strange that you began the HoF argument by saying that it is a

"ridiculous Premise"
" "buggins turn" of stupid back slapping "
" sycophantic nonsense"

among other things.  Now you are arguing that Daly ought to be in it.

Wow.  IMO, hypocritical.  (or wumming)

Maradonna?  Don't know and  don't care anything about him.  Its Soccer, and I don't give a rats arse about the sport.  Ditto Rugby, ditto Formula 1 Racing, ditto Nascar, ditto Professional Wrestling.

Daly barely meets the entry criteria, but George Bush, Bing Crosby and Bob Hope do? Ha ha ha.

I do think the HOF is ridiculous, but if you are going to have one then it shouldn't matter whether you consider them to be a good role model or not, it shouldn't be a closed shop based on some arcane moral judgement.

It's not a strawman to bring up Woods or Mickelson at all because you brought up reasons why Daly shouldn't be in it, whilst forgetting that others in the list are guilty of those very same things you claim precluded Daly's entry so they clearly aren't a determinant of whether you get in or not. It's a direct comparison and negates the points you were trying to make and therefore it's not a strawman at all.
They were absolutely relevant to bring up, so not only do you not know what slander means, you demonstrably  don't know what a strawman is either.

I get it, you like a handpicked roll of honour that doesn't truly represent the game , I think its inconsistent, a poor historical document and rather a pointless exercise if you just pretend that certain players simply don't exist.

Super: Do you enjoy being obtuse?

Daly barely meets the eligibility requirements and is not in the HoF, just many others. He is not being singled out. There are other considerations. The process is not 100% objective, which I said about 80 posts ago.

I get it, you don't like it. That's fine, different strokes for different Folks. What I can't understand is why you are obsessing over it. And in the overall scheme of things, what does it matter to you. I can truly say, that if the golf world shared your opinion, the WGHoF would not exist. Fortunately for the golf world, you don't have 51% of the vote

Here's some COMMON SENSE!

https://www.golfchannel.com/news/sources-pga-tour-pros-who-fall-outside-top-125-2020-wont-lose-their-status

I reckon that's a good decision, though it's not clear to me exactly what ramifications might be.
For instance, I wonder if non-American Pros may choose to stay in their home countries, especially if the US continues on its present haphazard course (almost as bad as GB&NI's)?

The composition of the field for the first post-COVID tournament, whether Colonial in June or something later, will be very interesting.

kwinigolfer wrote:Here's some COMMON SENSE!

https://www.golfchannel.com/news/sources-pga-tour-pros-who-fall-outside-top-125-2020-wont-lose-their-status

I reckon that's a good decision, though it's not clear to me exactly what ramifications might be.
For instance, I wonder if non-American Pros may choose to stay in their home countries, especially if the US continues on its present haphazard course (almost as bad as GB&NI's)?

The composition of the field for the first post-COVID tournament, whether Colonial in June or something later, will be very interesting.

Yeah... it all makes sense, especially for the international players who might be taking a lot more risk to get over to the states for the restart... Whenever that turns out to be.

GPB wrote:Super:  Do you enjoy being obtuse?

Daly barely meets the eligibility requirements and is not in the HoF, just many others.  He is not being singled out.  There are other considerations.  The process is not 100% objective, which I said about 80 posts ago.

I get it, you don't like it.  That's fine, different strokes for different Folks. What I can't understand is why you are obsessing over it.  And in the overall scheme of things, what does it matter to you.  I can truly say, that if the golf world shared your opinion, the WGHoF would not exist.  Fortunately for the golf world,  you don't have 51% of the vote

Can't name too many people with 18 PGA titles and two Majors who haven't been admitted.
Love that you ignored that you don't know what a strawman is.
Pretty much every reason you mentioned for Daly not being admitted has an inductee in the HOF who is guilty of precisely the same things, so I'm still not sure what reason you have for him not being admitted, other than his face doesn't fit, which very much shows that'm its not meritocracy and simply favouritism.

Super

It is a museum, do you you think museum curation happens via a standard formula?

McLaren wrote:Super

It is a museum, do you you think museum curation happens via a standard formula?

I don't think museums are in the habit of excluding people just because they don't like them. Do you think a WW2 exhibit would pretend that Hitler, Stalin or Mussolini didn't exist?
How about an Egypt exhibit? Just pretend the pyramids never happened?, or maybe an art exhibition pretending that certain artists just never existed. See the point?
If a museum is making the claim that its representing an historical record, why airbrush out aspects of it you might think are disagreeable? Does that represent history ( seeing as that seems to be the reason for its existence) or is it just the Hall of favouritism?
I'm presuming Rizla Johnson will not be getting entry in 10 years or so because he was banned by the tour?

Article that Robo highlighted on his Twitter feed by Alistair Tait. Some pros need a reality check

I'm never wrong wrote:Article that Robo highlighted on his Twitter feed by Alistair Tait. Some pros need a reality check

Not sure how I feel about that!
I DO think that pros should be able to play with normal rules, and gloves for caddies who should be responsible for dealing with the pin and bunkers.
Provided the testing protocol and daily temperature taking for ALL are properly in place, why not?

If Hadwin and Stallings said those things they are utter bell ends. Imagine being so privileged to be claiming you can't adjust to putting with the flag in.

McLaren wrote:If Hadwin and Stallings said those things they are utter bell ends. Imagine being so privileged to be claiming you can't adjust to putting with the flag in.

Golfers are bell ends in general Mac.

McLaren wrote:If Hadwin and Stallings said those things they are utter bell ends. Imagine being so privileged to be claiming you can't adjust to putting with the flag in.

But Mac,

For Pros, with a caddie wearing gloves, why the hell not do what you like with the flag?

Not sure what Stallings' beef is, but Hadwin's game, like many others, is based pretty much around his putting. I don't see why he should be placed at a competitive disadvantage just for political correctness.

kwinigolfer wrote:

McLaren wrote:If Hadwin and Stallings said those things they are utter bell ends. Imagine being so privileged to be claiming you can't adjust to putting with the flag in.

But Mac,

For Pros, with a caddie wearing gloves, why the hell not do what you like with the flag?

Not sure what Stallings' beef is, but Hadwin's game, like many others, is based pretty much around his putting. I don't see why he should be placed at a competitive disadvantage just for political correctness.

He's not at a disadvantage though. If his mind is so weak that he can't ignore the flag then that is his problem. You don't play golf and expect for every shot to be lying just the way you want it. If I land in a divot, I don't cry that it's unfair to me because it doesn't suit my game. It's up to me to adapt to the conditions. Ditto Hadwin. Tough titties.

super_realist wrote:

kwinigolfer wrote:

McLaren wrote:If Hadwin and Stallings said those things they are utter bell ends. Imagine being so privileged to be claiming you can't adjust to putting with the flag in.

But Mac,

For Pros, with a caddie wearing gloves, why the hell not do what you like with the flag?

Not sure what Stallings' beef is, but Hadwin's game, like many others, is based pretty much around his putting. I don't see why he should be placed at a competitive disadvantage just for political correctness.

He's not at a disadvantage though. If his mind is so weak that he can't ignore the flag then that is his problem. You don't play golf and expect for every shot to be lying just the way you want it. If I land in a divot, I don't cry that it's unfair to me because it doesn't suit my game. It's up to me to adapt to the conditions. Ditto Hadwin. Tough titties.

Apples and oranges, divots have always been part of the game, as has taking the pin out when putting. You don't create an artificial disadvantage, which this is, halfway through a season.
OK, We're going to resume the Premier League but players can only use their left foot . . . . . . .

Statistically you are better putting with the pin in so Hadwin should just suck it up.

super_realist wrote:

Can't name too many people with 18 PGA titles and two Majors who haven't been admitted.

Who might that be?

kwinigolfer wrote:

McLaren wrote:If Hadwin and Stallings said those things they are utter bell ends. Imagine being so privileged to be claiming you can't adjust to putting with the flag in.

But Mac,

For Pros, with a caddie wearing gloves, why the hell not do what you like with the flag?

Not sure what Stallings' beef is, but Hadwin's game, like many others, is based pretty much around his putting. I don't see why he should be placed at a competitive disadvantage just for political correctness.

 I have ZERO issues with any player who doesn't feel comfortable coming back because of safety concerns... but to not play for $7-10mil purses in a snit against temporary rule concessions in the name of THEIR safety is an AWFUL look.  Alistair Tate said it better than I could.  

Exception I would make to that, would be the caddie thing. There's plenty of players like Tiger, Day, Rose, Cantlay, etc. that have no business carrying their own bags...

Why don't they have a business carrying their own bags?