O'Meara Feels Snubbed by Hall of Fame Absence
by Ryan Ballengee on Oct 11, 2010 1:31 PM EDT
in Pro Golf
Email
PrintWhen the news of the electees to the World Golf Half of Fame came out, it caught Mark O'Meara's attention. Left out yet again, O'Meara is uncertain if he will ever be inducted.
After O'Meara's playoff win yesterday, Bill Fields had an excellent question for the winner: did he think winning on the Champions Tour can help his status with the Hall voters?
"Another disappointment -- you know, I know Hall of Fame always comes up. I'll be honest, I'm disappointed I didn't get in this year. I'm 53. I'll be 54 next year. Borderline, I think there's guys that had maybe semi-careers, they're all in.
"I'm thinking: When am I going to get the call? That would be a great honor for me. Especially for what I accomplished on the regular TOUR, my worldwide wins. I was disappointed. That kind of hurt a little bit. Now we'll see.
"You've just got to wonder if it's a popularity contest or what. I think my record hopefully is good enough by what I've accomplished. And now certainly winning this, you know, it's just a feather in the cap, because anytime you win, no matter what it is, it's always a thrill."
He has a point. President George H. W. Bush got elected into the Hall of Fame on the basis of his attendance at all of the Presidents Cup. Would O'Meara be in by now if that were true for him as well?
Maybe a more apt comparison is Tom Kite. He has one career major - the '92 US Open. O'Meara has two, won in the same wonderful 1998 season. Kite has three more PGA Tour wins than O'Meara and a better record on the Champions Tour with nine total W's. Does that make Tom Kite that much better than Mark O'Meara? Of course not, that's ridiculous.
He may not have 111 wins like Jumbo Ozaki, but get Mark O'Meara in the Hall of Fame.
32 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Obviously O'Meara isn't popular
It’s the price to be paid for having a subjective criteria.
"(I)f you think you've got an inside track to absolute truth, you become doctrinaire, humorless and intellectually constipated." Saul Alinsky
Mark O'Meara
I just played his course design last week in Huntsville ON. great course. He should be in the HOF. We has also been bi-passes as captain of the Ryder Cup. a terrible shame.
Actually Ryan, Kite has 3 more PGA Tour wins than O'Meara 19-16
And Kite also won a Players Championship, which is as close to the fifth major as golf can get.
Hmm, the World Golf Hall of Fame’s site is wrong then. They had him at 18. My bad!
Just so you can see I’m not crazy: http://www.worldgolfhalloffame.org/hof/member.php?member=1072
Find me! Email: ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com, Twitter: http://twitter.com/waggleroom, or Facebook: http://facebook.com/waggleroom.
by Ryan Ballengee on Oct 11, 2010 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions
BTW, I’m still reluctant to count the Players as any more than a very nice win.
Find me! Email: ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com, Twitter: http://twitter.com/waggleroom, or Facebook: http://facebook.com/waggleroom.
by Ryan Ballengee on Oct 11, 2010 5:06 PM EDT up reply actions
It's more than a regular win is worth
not as much as a major championship, but ask any of the players, and they will tell you it has taken on a special stature.
But it’s not a regular field. The Players is one of the deepest fields every year. They bring in the top players from the world rankings on all the tours.
It’s not a major – nor should it be – but it is definitely bigger than a regular tour event.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
Should it be worth two wins then? If you go by the way the HOF seems to decry majors as worth 3 regular wins or more, (think Larry Nelson), shouldn’t the players carry more weight than one regular win?
two wins ? three wins ? The HoF on the men’s side doesn’t have a points system like the women. Votes are opinion based more or less related to the career of the person being considered.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
I understand that
What i’m saying is how does a guy with only 10 wins (Larry Nelson) get in? Yes he won 3 majors, so winning majors had to account for the bulk of what helped him to get in. Getting into the hall should be done by a points system. The LPGA is right on this one. This is nothing more than a glorified popularity contest. How else does it explain Doug Ford, he with 19 PGA Tour wins and a Masters and PGA Championship, not getting in until this year?
It’s all perception. Majors are bigger – they just are – so stepping up in those tournaments gets more notice than a regular event. Nelson’s career goes past just those 7 regular events and 3 majors. He was a consistent presence in the top 10 and was a very popular figure with the public.
Face it – we’ll never be able to quantify what makes a hall of famer in the men’s game. I always get a chuckle thinking about the men vs the women. The “rational” men choose on emotion and opinion, and the “emotional” “relativist” women have a merit based system.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
Players is a big PGA tour event... and there are 4 majors only.
This is supposed to be the World golf hall of fame. Trying to suggest Kite’s Players win almost gets him 2 majors is silly.
Hey Easy...are we goona let Wendy vote ?
If we do than we gotta let Diana too…next thin ya knows them women will wanna take over tnins….We have to look at this with clear head and sparkling eyes….The WGHF at least for the men is a POPULARITY CONTEST….Has little or nothing to do with wins, majors, etc….Now the Ladies…that’s a real hall of fame….Do ya think Wendy and Diane will let us vote for a female golfer with lovely legs, smile and etc ? when a pig gives sour English beer they will….jis sayin…STUB
No it isn't
The Players is arguably the most important event outside the majors. It isn’t a major of course, but the majority of players rank it as the event they want to win the most outside of the majors. That should count for more than a regular win.
In America I agree with you.
It is a deep field in golf. Perks biggest win was the Players, yet who remembers him ? The WGC events will eventually carry more status that the Players. And it does count more than a regular win, but it will always be just a big tournament on the PGA tour. There are far bigger tournaments in the world historicly that dwarf the Players but obviously don’t have the fields today. This obsession with trying to make the Players the so called 5th major lost it’s momentum years ago.
This has nothing to do with making it the 5th major
The Players isn’t a major, nor should it be. It does however have a special stature different from any other tour event, if i can quote Jack Nicklaus. You have the deepest field playing for the largest tournament purse in the world. It’s a no brainer that this event should count as more than a nice win. As a footnote, i do remember Perks, his chip-ins on two of the last 3 holes were as memorable as anyone. The WGC won’t carry more weight than the Players because of the fact they are limited field, no cut tournaments. And what are these “far bigger tournaments” than the Players? If the Players wasn’t arguably the 5th most important event, why would Lee Westwood play, or Justin Rose or any of the international players? If this event wasn’t at the staure it is why would Jack Nicklaus have 3 Players titles himeself? After all he is the epitome of caring only for big championships.
You brought up this outdated "5th major" topic.
The Players is a very big event that carries a big purse and world ranking points… in America. IMO, WGC events will spread around the world more and challenge golfers abilities in different conditions, etc. Jack winning the Players was 30 years ago. Golf is more worldwide now.
Does it matter that Jack wins were 30+ years ago? No it doesn’t. If that’s the case then his wins in other events shouldn’t matter either, i.e. the Masters or Open Championship, etc. Second, the reason why it has as many WR points as it does is because of the deepest field from around the world. Because of it’s field size and strength. tell me which one of those pathetic excuses for WGC events (since most are held in the U.S, not really a global series, huh) will ever have a better field than the Players? Answer, none of them. That’s what happens with 50-70 player, no cut fileds. Yet even with golf being more worldwide now, the Players in the United States has the deepest and best field each year. If others outside of the U.S. didn’t care, as you are implying, why bother playing it at all? The Euro tour has it’s own Players Championship if i recall correctly, yet who outside of Europe follows it? Not many, that’s for sure.
The PGA tour has been and is
still the richest tour. I personally think that will change. I think it will end up part of a world tour. But that’s another story. It matters that janks wins in the players were 30 years ago. At that time, the TPC , owned by the PGA tour, was (and still is a huge event in the US. Deep field, yes. But those were the days when many international players didn’t play the US tour. It now always has the top 64 in, as do all the majors and the WGC events. The winner gets 80 points for winning it, WGC events get between 70 and 78. Majors get 100. All count on the PGA and Euro tour lists. But not the Players. It is a home tour event. Albeit a big one. So when one hears this “5th major” lets try to put it in perspective. Before World ranking points, world events, and the two main tours beginning to merge, it meant a lot on one tour. Today it is still big, but attempts over the years by the PGA trying to make it a 5th major ( by the press as well) have now fizzled out. World golf is gathering pace and if it takes off you will see courses overseas far more deserving of a huge event than Sawgrass, a course that owes all of it’s fame to an island green. I agree not many inside the US follows the Euro tour, but that is nothing new, is it ?
In addition
Kite also won the Vardon trophy for low scorer in 1981, topped the money list in ‘81 and in 1989 based on the strength of three wins, including his Players title, he won the PGA of America’s Player of the Year. To suggest that O’Meara is more qualified than KIte after looking at both careers, is stretching it a bit. Both in my opinion are equally talented and have very similar resumes. Both should be in.
forgot to post this as well
He also won the vardon in ’82
Kite was a fine player, as was O'meara
Neither could be considered great players, but did well to get the majors they did as late in their careers as they did. In light of some others who got in, it is a no brainer they should be.
All valid points, certainly. I’m not saying necessarily that O’Meara is better than Kite in overall accomplishments, but you kind of read my mind when thinking about Larry Nelson above. They would make a great group of three guys to rank because of how their careers all played out.
Find me! Email: ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com, Twitter: http://twitter.com/waggleroom, or Facebook: http://facebook.com/waggleroom.
by Ryan Ballengee on Oct 12, 2010 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Have a golf story tip? Contact editor Charles Boyer and he will follow the story! Thanks!
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
