While watching coverage of today's round at Justin Timberlake's PGA tournament (and yes, I am simply calling it the JT Open because the actual title is ridiculously long), I was rather interested in a conversation between the commentators focusing on the golf Hall of Fame.
The premise of the argument was simply this: should more subjectivity or objectivity be used when determining who is accepted into the Hall of Fame?
For the most part, when anyone is talking about a truly great player (and in any sport, mind you) the majority of fans and experts will agree that he or she should be in the Hall. For example, there is no doubt that Tiger Woods, Phil Mickelson, and the like will be inducted soon enough. These players have won numerous tournaments, shown a great deal of consistency throughout a long career and probably have a few Major wins under their belt. In fact, the very thought of these players NOT making the Hall would be lunacy.
However, there is also a grey area where many golfers still reside in terms of their career accomplishments. For example, the commentators for the JT Open were focusing on Jim Furyk.
For all intents and purposes, Furyk has had a heralded career on the PGA Tour with 13 tournament wins, including a US Open in 2003, and enough money to secure the number 3 spot on the all-time career money list. He has also had something like 130 Top 10 finishes in tournaments, which is certainly nothing to shake a stick at. However, does Furyk deserve to be inducted into the golf Hall of Fame?
From an objectivity standpoint, Furyk certainly has the credentials to make a strong case at earning a spot in the Hall. However, the Hall of Fame is certainly not the most objective arena, and often times the subjective opinions of those given the privilege of choosing the inductees often take precedence. There are certainly people in the Hall who have not won multiple tournaments let alone a Major. Heck, there are even greenskeepers in the Hall. Could it be possible that a player of Furyk's talent may be overlooked?
OK, let's be honest: Jim Furyk will probably get into the Hall of Fame. But the argument of subjectivity vs. objectivity is still valid. Should a committee designate a minimum number of wins or accomplishments before a player can even be considered? Should this number be the same for all professional golf tours? Will amateurs, then, be allowed into the Hall as well?