clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Should Character Deny Someone into the Hall of Fame?

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 In fact, doing so, hurts the institution's reputation as a historical reference.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.