More HOF controversy
By Torleif Sorenson on 12/19/12
If you thought the inclusion of Fred Couples in the World Golf Hall of Fame was controversial because he won only one major, hang on to your hats: On Tuesday, they announced two more inductees, one of which is sure to get tongues wagging:
(Longtime European Tour director Ken Schofield is also being inducted in the Lifetime Achievement Category.)
Jason Sobel of the Golf Channel managed to point out some justifications for inducting Montgomerie, including eight Order of Merit (money list) titles, 31 European Tour victories, and an undefeated singles record in the Ryder Cup.
Two mitigating factors stand out in contrast:
Read an interesting golf article? Please Tip Your Editor!
Image via Wikipedia
[ comments ]
Bryan K says:
So he's the John Stockton/Dan Marino of golf?
There are many athletes in all of the Sports halls of fames who made recognizable contributions to their sports without every having won a championship. 8 Order of Merits, 7 in a row I believe, which I would say made him the dominant player on the European tour for that time plus a standout Ryder cup record seems pretty impressive. As far as PGA tour success, why should that be a mitigating factor? It's the World, not the PGA Tour, Golf Hall of Fame.
I saw a post comparing Ian Woosnam (not in) compared to Monty. Monty did not fair well in the comparison. That being said, Monty has enough credentials compared to some of the other inductees to warrant consideration. No controversy for me.
Agree with Dusty. You say in your mitigating factors you say he never won a major, he ONLY came 2nd FIVE times, whats ONLY about that!? How many other players have ONLY 5 runner ups in majors. Combined with 31 tour wins, 8 OOM's and 7 or 8 ryder cups with a record of 20-9-7 plus a ryder cup win as captain. Overall a much better record than freddy. And im not even a Monty fan
joe jones says:
Monty deserves the nomination. He was the best player on the continent when none of their top players came to the USA. His record against some of Europe's best was outstanding. He played often on courses that were in poor condition and often in horrible weather. Yes he had elephant ears. It was said he could hear a flea pass gas from three fairways away but his skill deserves the honor.
Call me a stickler for semantics but a Hall of Fame should be based on fame. Otherwise call it a Hall of Accomplishment or Hall of Deeds or something. In the world of golf this Montgomerie character is rather famous. I know him, you know him, we all know who Monty is for cryin out loud. It's not just golf, in all sports this HoF business is taken way serious. We are not talking about Supreme Court appointments here or anything. When people visit a Hall of Fame, why do they do it? That's right, they visit for fun. So what's with all the consternation and politicking.
Without commenting on Monty specifically, all HOF's, (baseball, golf, Rock and Roll, etc., you name it) have been watered down in past years. I think it comes from the PR around HOF and their induction ceremonies and they want to have 3-5 inductees per year, otherwise their is no show. I think a HOF should be subjective, but at least the women golf have upheld their standards by having objective qualifications.
Call me a taxi.
[ post comment ]