Should Character Deny Someone into the Hall of Fame?

by Josh Kirkendall on Feb 7, 2007 9:07 AM EST in Legal/Off Field Issues

I know I damn near obsess about it. But Hogs Haven added to the character debate and whether that should be considered for Hall of Fame nominations. This comes in reaction to Michael Irvin's election. I've always been under the impression that the Hall of Fame wasn't just an institution of greatness, but it was also a museum about the history of Pro Football (read: NFL). The theory is, at least with Cooperstown, is that some normal Joe could go to the Hall of Fame and get an understanding in its history without any previous observation of the sport. In other words, E.T. should go to the Hall of Fame and know the history of Pro Football (read: NFL) by the time he heads home.

But should character stop a player's nomination?

Using the Hall of Fame as a historical resource should be principle. Using it as a Great Players with Great Characters institution, seems to me, a failure in representing the sports history. There is, and always will be, questionable people that do questionable things. Honoring them for their questionable character isn't the goal of the Hall of Fame. But it shouldn't be debilitating. In fact, doing so, hurts the institution's reputation as a historical reference.

It's the same debate with Peter Edward Rose. His character is very questionable, but if you take a poll of non-righteous baseball fans -- or even baseball blogs -- you'll likely have overwhelming support for Rose in the Hall. Why? Because what he did on the field during his epic career should be honored -- not the person who signs autographs during the annual Hall of Fame celebrations for some fun-money. Nor the person that takes a Tombstone from Kane in Wrestlemania. People want to honor Rose who received a phone call from President Reagan, the night he broke the all-time hits record, at his press conference. "Hey Mr. President, how ya doin'?"

I do agree with every Redskins fan alive. The non-entry of former receiving record holder, Art Monk, is a failure of the Hall of Fame to honor the greats... on the field. Then again, it's the writer's personal subjective arguments that fulfills the history of the institution. Perhaps the election process should be revised.

Tweet Comment 3 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Thoughts...

First off, great post.

Honoring them for their questionable character isn't the goal of the Hall of Fame. But it shouldn't be debilitating. In fact, doing so, hurts the institution's reputation as a historical reference.

To a degree I can support this. Obviously if a player challenges the integrity of the game by doing something especially heinous (though I won't qualify that additionally here) then I think induction should be reconsidered. Is Michael Irvin, to use your word, debilitively heinous? Probably not, in my opinion.

Flip side to that question though. If negative character shouldn't be prohibitive in induction to the NFL Hall of Fame, do you think positive character should be allowed as a consideration of induction? Because my main complaint isn't really that an (alleged?) cokehead is in the Hall of Fame, but rather that an exemplorary character, who qualifies without it, is not.

Thanks again for the kind words regarding Art Monk. The HoF Committee likes to demonize Redskins fans as especially crazy regarding Art Monk and sometimes that criticism sticks. It is nice to see that fans from other teams recognize our plight, if only to vindicate slightly our immense frustration.

by Skin Patrol @ Cincy Jungle on Feb 7, 2007 10:25 AM EST reply actions

RE: subjective voting

I believe character or the quality of person shouldn't be accounted at all... or be the primary focus of the institutions purpose. Hall of Fame voters, using their own subjective ideology of who's acceptable is an unacceptable prerequisite to induction.

Take Barry Bonds for example. Do I think he's cheating? Yes. Is he slime with the media and the fans outside of San Francisco? Absolutely. But I also believe that he was great well before the questions started and I don't believe how he treated fans and the media has any consequence on his passage to the Hall. If the steroids scandal never rose, and if he wasn't being investigated by the Grand Jury, I'd bet he's a first time hall of fame player. Now, with Mark McGwire getting so few votes on his first ballot, I'm not sure Bonds will get inducted. If the reasoning for denying Bonds is cheating, I accept that. I would even accept denying Bonds over suspicion. Because that doesn't remove the probability that he artificially built his body, which in turn, saturates the hall with at least one (possible) cheater.

If the voters would vote him in, even after cheating, and if he were a nice guy with great character, then I would have a problem with that. Because then you're basing your vote on the character and not his performance.

Then again, isn't cheating bad character?

Perhaps the current system is flawed. Well, not perhaps. I believe it's outdated. Then again, what else could you use? The members in the hall would be much more subjective in their reasoning to elect players risking an elitist mindset. Art Monk, as he retired, held all-time receiving records. If that's not justification for induction, then who the hell knows what the voters are thinking.

by Josh Kirkendall on Feb 7, 2007 11:31 AM EST up reply actions

His resume

goes well beyond retiring the most prolific receiver in NFL history. But thanks again for pointing that out. Now...

I believe character or the quality of person shouldn't be accounted at all... or be the primary focus of the institutions purpose.

Couldn't the latter remain true yet the former not? Couldn't it be a consideration, albeit a minor one, while still maintaining the Hall's presence as a historical reference? What one does on the field isn't the only measure of what one does for the sport, because Paul Tagliabue is considered for the Hall despite playing basketball. Couldn't a truly selfless, exemplorary character, combined with a convincing statistical and on-field resume, be part and parcel of the same storyline? And if history is the measure of worthiness in the Hall, couldn't there be a historically admirable Football character?

Hall of Fame voters, using their own subjective ideology of who's acceptable is an unacceptable prerequisite to induction.

I think this has happened already. I openly question the integrity of the process as it is clearly broke per what they've done to Art Monk.

Solutions? Perhaps adding former players or living members of the Hall to the Committee. It seems strange that most (all?) of the people currently voting haven't played a single down of Professional Football. NFL Players and Coaches are no less guilty of individual biases than Media voters, but at a minimum they could provide context for the Sportswriters lacking in those discussions. Already Committee members base, or allege to, much of their vote on conversations with Hall of Famers, Peers, Coaches, and Players. Why not extend this influence from informal interviews to formal voting? Start small if the idea seems to radical (gasp, Football Players determining who makes it in the Football Hall of Fame?)

by Skin Patrol @ Cincy Jungle on Feb 7, 2007 12:23 PM EST up reply actions