PDA

View Full Version : What is Hall of Fame Worthy?



Ragar
08-21-2010, 08:59 PM
The discussion of me against the world (it seems) against Kurt Warner being inducted into the Hall of Fame, got me to thinking in a more general abstract of the simple question, what is Hall of Fame Worthy? In that discussion, I proposed the following three criteria of a players's "worthiness" to be elected.

1) One of the top players at his position during his years playing the game.
2) Be compared favorably to the top players at his position historically.
3) Compare the apples and oranges of historically great players at different positions.

My question to the other forum readers is this: Do you feel that the passing of the above criteria are adequate to determine players being enshrined into the Hall of Fame? If not, I wouild like to hear what some of you guys(girls) are thinking in regards to this issue.

Pulled from an recent article, The specific bylaw reads as follows: “The only criteria for election to the Pro Football Hall of Fame are a nominee’s achievements and contributions as a player, coach, or contributor in professional football in the United States of America.”

Kosar19
08-22-2010, 10:50 PM
I think you criteria are good. The main thing to remember, IMO, is that football cannot be measured in numbers. The stats are important, but there is much more to it than that. Would you say Curtis Martin was better than Jim Brown? Was Corey Dillon better than O.J? Clearly not, but the career rushing totals say they are. To me, how did I feel when I saw (sometimes on ESPN Classic if it's before my time) them play, and how do I remember them now. Outside of Bernie Kosar, I'm objective and unemotional when looking at a career of a player (I understand he's no HOFer but, #19 in your programs, #1 in Cleveland's heart). However, the emotions I felt when I watched a guy play or the ones I feel when I recollect make all the difference in the world.

Baseball is a game of numbers, football is a game of passion....and that's what matters to me.

Ragar
08-23-2010, 08:04 AM
I think you criteria are good. The main thing to remember, IMO, is that football cannot be measured in numbers. The stats are important, but there is much more to it than that. Would you say Curtis Martin was better than Jim Brown? Was Corey Dillon better than O.J? Clearly not, but the career rushing totals say they are. To me, how did I feel when I saw (sometimes on ESPN Classic if it's before my time) them play, and how do I remember them now. Outside of Bernie Kosar, I'm objective and unemotional when looking at a career of a player (I understand he's no HOFer but, #19 in your programs, #1 in Cleveland's heart). However, the emotions I felt when I watched a guy play or the ones I feel when I recollect make all the difference in the world.

Baseball is a game of numbers, football is a game of passion....and that's what matters to me.

Interesting that you go that direction with it, since I never mentioned statistics in the post. I feel statisitcs matter as another point of comparison, when the comparison can be closer to apples to apples rather then apples to oranges. Apples to oranges comparison's are about feeling's and perceptions, which i agree with you.

Kosar19
08-23-2010, 04:58 PM
I was just kinda putting out there the way I look at the HOF, not so much dissecting or responding to a specific part of your post. The complicated thing about the pro football HOF is that it is vague as to what is worthy. I do, however, love the process they use of having people speak for them and having a conversation in a room rather than just handing out ballots to sportswriters and letting them decide anonymously