2022 LPGA Year in Review

[ChronicSlicer]

3 hours ago, MelloYello said:

We might be getting to that point where we're not really going to see anyone dominate for long. Maybe 27 is too high a number now that the LPGA game is so much better than it was 10-15 years ago. 

 

For better or worse, the swings of today's players look perfect in comparison to some that I used to see. Players are a lot more powerful, too. 

 

27 might just be too unrealistic if you want a new person to get there every 5 years. 

I can actually agree with you, 27 is too much. Too much talent out there.

[ChronicSlicer]

10 hours ago, MelloYello said:

Can DK make her way back to elite status? 

 

.

How do you personally define elite? Top 20, top 10, top 5.

[woahnelly]

27 is tough, but glad to see standards are high to make the HoF unlike the NBA..or WWE 😂

[Tasals]

2 minutes ago, woahnelly said:

27 is tough, but glad to see standards are high to make the HoF unlike the NBA..or WWE 😂

exactly, its the hall of fame. not the hall of very good.

[MelloYello]

4 hours ago, woahnelly said:

27 is tough, but glad to see standards are high to make the HoF unlike the NBA..or WWE 😂

 

4 hours ago, Tasals said:

exactly, its the hall of fame. not the hall of very good.

 

You have to decide what the HoF is for. Most everyone would agree that across sports, Halls of Fame exist largely to tell the story of the respective game by highlighting the most relevant players of each era.

 

So for a sport like golf, we'd suspect around 3-5 players from each decade would get in. But is that what we're getting?  

 

Well, the LPGA had pretty much hit that pace in the late '70s - early '80s and then had a good run in the '90s with Bradley, Sheehan, King, Alcott, Daniel and Inkster all getting in. 

 

Then the '00s saw Sorenstam, Webb, Pak and Ochoa* all qualify.

 

*I'm counting Ochoa because she played between '02-'10 and would've qualified. She was only enshrined in '22 because they lifted the 10-year minimum rule.  

 

 

 

 

The problem is that things have slowed down this side of Ochoa's exit in 2010. It's been 12 years. You'd expect at least 5 names to have been added for the 2010s on through 2023 but no. We've only seen Inbee Park qualify (and presumably Lydia Ko in '23 or '24). 

 

And not only have things slowed down but no one else is even close and it's entirely doubtful any of the current crop will get there. 

 

J.Y. Ko could get there by 2026 but that's very much in doubt. 

Henderson is only about half-way there and would probably take the better part of 6-7 years (at best). 

Korda is a possibility but that's at least a decade off. 

 

The most likely scenario is that none of those three players reach the required 27 points. That's scary if you're trying to fill up a Hall of Fame. 

 

 

You know what's going to happen? Probably the same thing the LPGA did with the other "honorary" members. They already threw as many "Founders" in there as they could. Who are the closest? Yani Tseng? Christie Kerr? Maybe one of them will get a nod at some point for good behavior? Maybe? IDK. You've got to put names on the list somehow!

 

[Joselo]

nelly is at least a decade off?  yeiks!

 

did they go around the world on a super long schedule on the 70s, 80s and 90s ?

 

 

[OnTheBag]

2 hours ago, Joselo said:

nelly is at least a decade off?  yeiks!

 

did they go around the world on a super long schedule on the 70s, 80s and 90s ?

 

 

As a caddy during most of that era, I offer that the difference between the field was greater than today.  Even the most ardent fans can only name 3 or 4 total LPGA players from that time frame.  The skill difference between the top 5 and 25-50 was significant.  Not so much these days.  In my humble opinion, that difference now is between 1-25 and 75-125.  That dilutes the winner's circle a bit. 

 

We no longer see players winning 5, 8, 9, 10 events in a single season.  3 wins is a monster season for a golfer now.  Look at some of these total wins and majors numbers from the Historical Top 25.

 

 

[AKL Kiwi]

48 minutes ago, OnTheBag said:

We no longer see players winning 5, 8, 9, 10 events in a single season.  3 wins is a monster season for a golfer now. 

I don't want to see the qualification to HOF diminished. They now have an Olympic gold medal as 1 point which has only recently been added. Perhaps they need to look at other achievements of note for points while still maintaining the 27 mark. This will have the effect of maintaining a high standard for qualification. What other achievements do you think could deserve a point towards HOF? e.g win X amount of tournaments in a year for a point.....🤔

[OnTheBag]

5 minutes ago, AKL Kiwi said:

I don't want to see the qualification to HOF diminished. They now have an Olympic gold medal as 1 point which has only recently been added. Perhaps they need to look at other achievements of note for points while still maintaining the 27 mark. This will have the effect of maintaining a high standard for qualification. What other achievements do you think could deserve a point towards HOF? e.g win X amount of tournaments in a year for a point.....🤔

Oh I completely agree with you.  I was trying to illustrate a point to @Joselo about why the difference between the eras.

[Titleist_PT23]

2 hours ago, AKL Kiwi said:

I don't want to see the qualification to HOF diminished. They now have an Olympic gold medal as 1 point which has only recently been added. Perhaps they need to look at other achievements of note for points while still maintaining the 27 mark. This will have the effect of maintaining a high standard for qualification. What other achievements do you think could deserve a point towards HOF? e.g win X amount of tournaments in a year for a point.....🤔

Isn't the part in bold essentially diminishing the qualification?

 

To me, wins still matter the most, although I won't complain too much about the other ways to get points.  I understand the changes in tour depth/field over time and how that has shaded things.  We can look at Kerr and Lewis and say that's the best (nearly) anyone has done in the last two decades, should it be adjusted?  Back to wins, I would be OK if Kerr is in, but I think Lewis is a bit short (we can quibble about this).  I would also be OK if Kerr is out, so that is around the gray area for me.

 

Of the current players, JYK is too hard to handicap due to injury.  Even if healthy, I don't think she's a lock to make it though (OK, nothing is a lock, but even saying closer to 100 than a coinflip I'm not sure).  I think Brooke is less than 50:50, although certainly possible.  The others need to do more (another good season or two or turn things around) to warrant serious deliberations.

[MelloYello]

3 hours ago, AKL Kiwi said:

I don't want to see the qualification to HOF diminished. They now have an Olympic gold medal as 1 point which has only recently been added. Perhaps they need to look at other achievements of note for points while still maintaining the 27 mark. This will have the effect of maintaining a high standard for qualification. What other achievements do you think could deserve a point towards HOF? e.g win X amount of tournaments in a year for a point.....🤔

 

That's tough because if a win is worth exactly 1 point then most other things are only going to be worth fractions of points. I think the intention of the original system was to earn your standing via significant accomplishments, meaning no amount of Top-10 finishes could ever be worth a single victory. 

 

If you were willing to dole out points in fractions you could involve lots of other things: Top-10s, Runner-Up finishes, World Rankings, ROTY titles, Money Winner(s) and other things relating to overall performance. 

 

Keep in mind the whole point is to try and boost the most dominant players because at present, it's virtually impossible to get in. 

 

 

Here's something I might do:

 

Why not give everyone inside the Top-5 something? Maybe you could award 1/2-point each to the Top-5 players in the world rankings on July 1st and then award another 1/2-point to the Top-5 on January 1st.

 

That way, if a player remained high in the rankings all year--which is something we'd like to reward--they'd earn what amounts to an extra win (1-point). That'd help the elite players who all compete to steal victories away from each other. 

 

Over the course of someone's career (roughly a decade) this could add a small boost to the most elite players and it would be justified because that player would've obviously been a humongous part of the story of that era having lived inside the Top-5 for that long. 

 

Some sort of "bonus" for relevancy like the above would help a lot. Maybe you could cap the number of points a player was allowed to accrue in this fashion, too, at ~9 so that you were assured at least 2/3rds of a players qualification came through the same kind of significant achievement originally intended. 

 

According to my idea, we would've seen the following players each get an extra point for being in the Top-5 all year long.

 

Here's how may points those players actually earned. You could imagine adding 1 point:

 

5 - Lydia Ko (3 wins, 1 POTY, 1 Vare)

3 - Minjee Lee (2 wins w/ Major)

2 - Atthaya Thitikul (2 wins)

1 - Jin Young Ko (1 win)

1 - Nelly Korda (1 win)

 

 

If a system like this were in place we'd see several things that feel right to me:

 

#1 -  Lydia Ko would already be qualified for the HoF having been a perennial Top-5. 

 

#2 - J.Y. Ko would be in the 20s and it'd seem far more possible that with another 2 years of relevancy she could do it. 

 

#3 - Nelly would already be in double-digits. 

 

 

FWIW, I'd extend this out to the Top-10. It's not going to affect many people but it could help someone like Brooke Henderson who's lived in that 6-10 range for most of her career. This would take her from 14 points and move her closer to 20 giving her at least some chance of reaching Hall of Fame status over the next 3-4 years. 

.

Edited December 8, 2022 by MelloYello

[Rapidcat]

Add Solheim Cup appearances: each gets 1 point.

 

Such an iconic contributor to women's golf folklore.

 

The point is only awarded if the player is a member of the LPGAT at the date of the event as it is the LPGA HoF.

 

I realise this isn't perfect as it excludes non US & euro players.

 

Could also consider awarding a point to the captain as well.

[postfold]

I don't have a problem with the points critera, but I would like to see a "veterans committee" able to occasionally get a player in that doesn't make it on points.  Say, Jane Blalock.  27 wins is a fantastic record, even if she didn't win a major (hey, there were only 4 back then). 

 

Set the rules so it's no slam dunk - high percentage of agreement - and limit it to max one at a time, meeting every other year or something.  That way you don't radically dilute the HOF but you still get in the occasional player who is deserving but didn't win the right tournaments, or play long enough, or who got hurt or whatever.

[Lobby]

It’s already been said, but there’s just a lot of great golfers nowadays. 
 

It’s inevitable that the hof criteria will be loosened. 
 

P.S.  All these great players is why I watch. They have dazzling skill. 

[OnTheBag]

38 minutes ago, postfold said:

I don't have a problem with the points critera, but I would like to see a "veterans committee" able to occasionally get a player in that doesn't make it on points.  Say, Jane Blalock.  27 wins is a fantastic record, even if she didn't win a major (hey, there were only 4 back then). 

 

Set the rules so it's no slam dunk - high percentage of agreement - and limit it to max one at a time, meeting every other year or something.  That way you don't radically dilute the HOF but you still get in the occasional player who is deserving but didn't win the right tournaments, or play long enough, or who got hurt or whatever.

Now this is something me and many others have pushed for in the past.  A committee made up of HoF members that vote on an entry every other year.  We all proposed 85-90% agreement of the committee as the threshold to avoid any weak selections.

 

The change dropping the 10 year membership rule was the first step.  Many argued that it would diminish the accomplishment, but when you consider what Lorena did over a 7 year period, you have to consider her one of the greatest ever.  And isn't that what this enshrinement is supposed to commemorate? 

 

Personally (and this is only one old dude's opinion), Stacy was never a dominant player for more than one year. Cristie, although she amassed a high win total over 15 years, was really only dominant during 2010 and she lost the WGR #1 twice that season.  Her win at the '10 LPGA was a beat down, but she never "owned the field" for multiple seasons like others have.  

 

I hope all my ramblings make sense.

[Joselo]

It's all very interesting

Was just reading about Jane Blalock, not in the HOF due to Major wins ouch!

[Titleist_PT23]

1 hour ago, OnTheBag said:

Now this is something me and many others have pushed for in the past.  A committee made up of HoF members that vote on an entry every other year.  We all proposed 85-90% agreement of the committee as the threshold to avoid any weak selections.

 

The change dropping the 10 year membership rule was the first step.  Many argued that it would diminish the accomplishment, but when you consider what Lorena did over a 7 year period, you have to consider her one of the greatest ever.  And isn't that what this enshrinement is supposed to commemorate? 

 

Personally (and this is only one old dude's opinion), Stacy was never a dominant player for more than one year. Cristie, although she amassed a high win total over 15 years, was really only dominant during 2010 and she lost the WGR #1 twice that season.  Her win at the '10 LPGA was a beat down, but she never "owned the field" for multiple seasons like others have.  

 

I hope all my ramblings make sense.

The only thing I have with a vote is that there's a general bias to let people in.  It risks becoming the best of what's available, whether that is "very very very good" or "just very good."

 

While many ideas have been tossed around, I still think just reducing the required points is the best option, if something needs to change.  The history books mainly remember wins.

 

I'm not in disagreement with the Lewis comment; I don't think she's there.  Kerr had 7 multiple win seasons; if she's not in based on adjusting the criteria for fields etc, then I don't think there's a reason to adjust anything (which I may be fine with).  Then it is really Inbee and (potentially/hopefully) Lydia like records that are required.  Lydia has four 3x+ win seasons; this is also showing how hard it is to get close.  Winning 1-2x per year and a couple of majors isn't likely to get it without extended longevity.  

[Rapidcat]

If you don't win a major, you don't deserve to be in HoF as it is now IMO.

 

Say over a 10 year career, that gives you 50 opportunities. Surely to be in this elite group you have to win at least one of these.

 

IMO, women in general are much kinder than men so I would avoid any change of criteria where a committee can decide to waive criteria, vote to admit an exception or such like.

 

Also I'd ignore the time pull associated with not having any or many people qualifying for awhile - so what, if they don't meet the criteria of the previous inductees they don't get in until someone comes along that does.

 

However....

 

Another idea is maybe have a two-tier HoF:

• Have a slightly easier HoF qualification of say 20 points based on the current criteria. This will capture a number of near misses both past and present.
• Introduce an elite level above this like the HoF 'Legends' and leave that at 27 points qualification.

 

So you can qualify for the HoF at 20 points but the absolute elite get into the HoF Legends category when they achieve 27 points.

Edited December 9, 2022 by Rapidcat

[MelloYello]

The HoF is not a sacred temple. It's a database of relevant players. That's all. Exclusivity is a dangerous poison which undermines what the HoF is there to do.

 

Unnecessary exclusivity only makes it harder to paint a picture of the sport over time. The LPGA has seen 1 person qualify during a stretch of 12 years when roughly 4-5 people probably should've done so. In short, the HoF is WAY behind schedule. That’s not exclusive. That's broken.
 

If the only thing the HoF does is tell us that Inbee Park and Lydia Ko were good players over the last 12 years then it’s failing to serve it’s purpose. 

 

And quite frankly, the numbers look ridiculous. You’re telling me that if Yani Tseng had won 4 more small-time events the entire narrative of the LPGA's history would be different?

 

And by the same logic, you’d tell me Lexi Thompson needs to entirely double every accomplishment she's ever had to be relevant?!

 

Both of those are self-evidently ludicrous. Nobody thinks that Tseng's legacy hinges on a few simple wins. And no one thinks of Lexi as being only half-way to having a memorable legacy. 

 

In short, we can’t set an arbitrary number because at some point we're going to look stupid. It’s just too unsophisticated. And while having people vote might feel less clear and transparent, it's probably necessary because humans are the ones who'd invent the criteria anyway, so why not just have them vote? They're infinitely more sensitive to the overall picture.
 

Lexi is only 50% qualified by the current standard. Look at her career resume and tell me with a straight face that she’d need to double all this to be worthy:

 

She's one of the most prominent names of the last decade. For much of her career she was the best (and sometimes the only relevant) US player. You can't talk about her era without mentioning her. She turned pro at 15, won on the LPGA at 16 (a record), officially joined the tour at 17 and has been winning ever since.
 

Lexi has won consistently, essentially every year for a decade. She won a major and finished runner-up 4 other times. She's been Top-3 in majors 9 times. She's finished a season ranked inside the Top-10 8 different times. She won the Vare Trophy in 2017. She won the Race to the CME Globe that year and narrowly missed POTY by 3 simple points. She's lived at the top of the LPGA in her career as much as anyone else and a decade later we still expect her to win as soon as they tee it up again. 
 

And to be clear she doesn't have a chance in the world of getting into the HoF. She could win 5 times next year and still wouldn't be close.

 

You could make a similar argument for Brooke Henderson and she's in the same exact spot. 
 

Right now, Lexi is 27, the age Inbee qualified. Soon, she'll be the age Lorena qualified (29). For the record, Brooke is 25, marginally younger than Lexi. If they don't get in you need to seriously ask yourself why they aren't. 

 

The answer is going to be competition. Lexi and Brooke faced better competition when it wasn't possible to win as much. 
 

And I get it, Lexi and Brooke aren't done yet but they soon will be. When they retire in 4-5 years with 20 or fewer points and aren't close you'll see the system for qualification is failing us. 
 

I would advise a change to something like the following wherein we require players accomplish a set number of things like I've listed below. I would advise we require players check a certain number of boxes (e.g. 7/10). Individual accomplishments like the following could be seen as partly qualifying a player:

 

- Win ROTY

- Win 10 tournaments

- Win 1 Major

- Win 2 Majors

- Win 3 Majors

- Win 5 or more Majors

- Win a Gold Medal

- Earn the #1 World Ranking

- Earn a Vare trophy

- Earn POTY

- Be the leading Money Winner

- Spend X years on Tour

- Earn X Rolex POTY Points (Career Total)

 

 

I'd love to see the HoF be a thing that motivates players late in their career, but I would also love to see "career" accomplishments added so players who are willing to hang around (e.g. Christie Kerr) would get the appropriate pat on the back for their dedication (and their ability to hold a tour card that long!).

 

 

There's so much more you could do to make this system more welcoming to the LPGA's best and most relevant players. 

Edited December 9, 2022 by MelloYello

[MelloYello]

5 hours ago, Rapidcat said:

Another idea is maybe have a two-tier HoF:

• Have a slightly easier HoF qualification of say 20 points based on the current criteria. This will capture a number of near misses both past and present.
• Introduce an elite level above this like the HoF 'Legends' and leave that at 27 points qualification.

 

So you can qualify for the HoF at 20 points but the absolute elite get into the HoF Legends category when they achieve 27 points.

 

The HoF doesn't need tiers because in principle it’s merely a list. It's not for ranking players. That tendency of wanting to "rank" people is actually toxic in the face of what the HoF is trying to do which is recognizing a player for being a contributor to some greater story.  

 

The HoF is an achievement recognizing a career of work. It’s existence is justified by the purpose it serves. It answers the question, "will I mention this player in 20 years when I talk about how the game used to be?"

 

We don't really bring up Mickey Wright, Kathy Whitworth, Judy Rankin, Annika Sorenstam and Inbee Park simply to debate who was better. 

 

.

Edited December 9, 2022 by MelloYello

[Rapidcat]

36 minutes ago, MelloYello said:

 

The HoF doesn't need tiers because in principle it’s merely a list. It's not for ranking players. That tendency of wanting to "rank" people is actually toxic in the face of what the HoF is trying to do which is recognizing a player for being a contributor to some greater story.  

 

The HoF is an achievement recognizing a career of work. It’s existence is justified by the purpose it serves. It answers the question, "will I mention this player in 20 years when I talk about how the game used to be?"

 

We don't really bring up Mickey Wright, Kathy Whitworth, Judy Rankin, Annika Sorenstam and Inbee Park simply to debate who was better. 

 

.

 

The very existence of the HoF ranks players: - you are either in the HoF or you are not, that is ranking. Therefore, as ranking is toxic according to you, the HoF shouldn't exist.

 

IMO, you are trying to be too clever in your response.

Edited December 9, 2022 by Rapidcat

[MelloYello]

5 minutes ago, Rapidcat said:

 

The very existence of the HoF ranks players: - you are either in the HoF or you are not, that is ranking. Therefore, as ranking is toxic according to you, the HoF shouldn't exist.

 

IMO, you are trying to be too clever in your response.

 

In that sense--relative to non-HoFers--sure. 

 

But the people in the HoF are not ranked among themselves. 

 

Clearly you can see the difference. 

 

Ranking is a distinctly human tendency best left to message boards, IMHO. The point of something like the HoF is to "rise above" that dirtiness. 

[Rapidcat]

Just now, MelloYello said:

 

In that sense--relative to non-HoFers--sure. 

 

But the people in the HoF are not ranked among themselves. 

 

Clearly you can see the difference. 

 

Ranking is a distinctly human tendency best left to message boards, IMHO. The point of something like the HoF is to "rise above" that dirtiness. 

 

Now you are just being pedantic.

 

Quit harshing my mello, Yellow.

[MelloYello]

1 minute ago, Rapidcat said:

 

Now you are just being pedantic.

 

Quit harshing my mello, Yellow.

 

Don't worry. Don't worry. I've got it covered.

 

You and I will have jobs AT THE HOF where we'll clearly explain our personal rankings to everyone who visits and be paid handsomely for it! 

 

 

[BadgerLin]

On 12/7/2022 at 3:53 PM, OnTheBag said:

Oh she was something to watch.  The final round of the '06 Samsung was a real treat.  Annika and Lorena at their best on a great track.  

And as an ambassador for the LPGA Lorena was the best!

[Titleist_PT23]

16 hours ago, MelloYello said:

The HoF is not a sacred temple. It's a database of relevant players. That's all. Exclusivity is a dangerous poison which undermines what the HoF is there to do.

 

Unnecessary exclusivity only makes it harder to paint a picture of the sport over time. The LPGA has seen 1 person qualify during a stretch of 12 years when roughly 4-5 people probably should've done so. In short, the HoF is WAY behind schedule. That’s not exclusive. That's broken.
 

If the only thing the HoF does is tell us that Inbee Park and Lydia Ko were good players over the last 12 years then it’s failing to serve it’s purpose. 

 

And quite frankly, the numbers look ridiculous. You’re telling me that if Yani Tseng had won 4 more small-time events the entire narrative of the LPGA's history would be different?

 

And by the same logic, you’d tell me Lexi Thompson needs to entirely double every accomplishment she's ever had to be relevant?!

 

Both of those are self-evidently ludicrous. Nobody thinks that Tseng's legacy hinges on a few simple wins. And no one thinks of Lexi as being only half-way to having a memorable legacy. 

 

In short, we can’t set an arbitrary number because at some point we're going to look stupid. It’s just too unsophisticated. And while having people vote might feel less clear and transparent, it's probably necessary because humans are the ones who'd invent the criteria anyway, so why not just have them vote? They're infinitely more sensitive to the overall picture.
 

Lexi is only 50% qualified by the current standard. Look at her career resume and tell me with a straight face that she’d need to double all this to be worthy:

 

She's one of the most prominent names of the last decade. For much of her career she was the best (and sometimes the only relevant) US player. You can't talk about her era without mentioning her. She turned pro at 15, won on the LPGA at 16 (a record), officially joined the tour at 17 and has been winning ever since.
 

Lexi has won consistently, essentially every year for a decade. She won a major and finished runner-up 4 other times. She's been Top-3 in majors 9 times. She's finished a season ranked inside the Top-10 8 different times. She won the Vare Trophy in 2017. She won the Race to the CME Globe that year and narrowly missed POTY by 3 simple points. She's lived at the top of the LPGA in her career as much as anyone else and a decade later we still expect her to win as soon as they tee it up again. 
 

And to be clear she doesn't have a chance in the world of getting into the HoF. She could win 5 times next year and still wouldn't be close.

 

You could make a similar argument for Brooke Henderson and she's in the same exact spot. 
 

Right now, Lexi is 27, the age Inbee qualified. Soon, she'll be the age Lorena qualified (29). For the record, Brooke is 25, marginally younger than Lexi. If they don't get in you need to seriously ask yourself why they aren't. 

 

The answer is going to be competition. Lexi and Brooke faced better competition when it wasn't possible to win as much. 
 

And I get it, Lexi and Brooke aren't done yet but they soon will be. When they retire in 4-5 years with 20 or fewer points and aren't close you'll see the system for qualification is failing us. 
 

I would advise a change to something like the following wherein we require players accomplish a set number of things like I've listed below. I would advise we require players check a certain number of boxes (e.g. 7/10). Individual accomplishments like the following could be seen as partly qualifying a player:

 

- Win ROTY

- Win 10 tournaments

- Win 1 Major

- Win 2 Majors

- Win 3 Majors

- Win 5 or more Majors

- Win a Gold Medal

- Earn the #1 World Ranking

- Earn a Vare trophy

- Earn POTY

- Be the leading Money Winner

- Spend X years on Tour

- Earn X Rolex POTY Points (Career Total)

 

 

I'd love to see the HoF be a thing that motivates players late in their career, but I would also love to see "career" accomplishments added so players who are willing to hang around (e.g. Christie Kerr) would get the appropriate pat on the back for their dedication (and their ability to hold a tour card that long!).

 

 

There's so much more you could do to make this system more welcoming to the LPGA's best and most relevant players. 

I'm not strongly for or against changing things; Brooke has been a top player for the better part of a decade but she's not close (you are right here).  She needs to double her output from here to make it; certainly possible but less than 50:50 in my opinion (aging, life events, etc).

 

In contrast, I don't think Lexi is close.  She's 1/4 of the way to being relevant (OK, maybe the ruling should have gone her way).  She's right next to Paula Creamer; someone everyone wants to be more than what she really is.   I don't believe 2nd or 3rd get you into the HOF.  One could finish 2nd in every tournament for a decade and I don't think it is worth much.  I know she's done more than that, but she's not close given what has actually been accomplished.  Voting for Lexi is akin to thinking Fred Couples belongs in the HOF...

 

Yanni vs. Kerr is more interesting for me.  Do we award winning over an extended period of time (plus two majors) or going crazy over 3 years?  For example, if Lydia's 2014-2016 + 2022 was 2024-2017 and then she fell off a cliff would we say "no" (and ended at 25 pts)?  For better or worse, perception of players also plays a role here.

Edited December 10, 2022 by agolf1

[MelloYello]

On 12/10/2022 at 4:17 AM, agolf1 said:

I'm not strongly for or against changing things; Brooke has been a top player for the better part of a decade but she's not close (you are right here).  She needs to double her output from here to make it; certainly possible but less than 50:50 in my opinion (aging, life events, etc).

 

In contrast, I don't think Lexi is close.  She's 1/4 of the way to being relevant (OK, maybe the ruling should have gone her way).  She's right next to Paula Creamer; someone everyone wants to be more than what she really is.   I don't believe 2nd or 3rd get you into the HOF.  One could finish 2nd in every tournament for a decade and I don't think it is worth much.  I know she's done more than that, but she's not close given what has actually been accomplished.  Voting for Lexi is akin to thinking Fred Couples belongs in the HOF...

 

Yanni vs. Kerr is more interesting for me.  Do we award winning over an extended period of time (plus two majors) or going crazy over 3 years?  For example, if Lydia's 2014-2016 + 2022 was 2024-2017 and then she fell off a cliff would we say "no" (and ended at 25 pts)?  For better or worse, perception of players also plays a role here.

 

Re: Brooke & Lexi

 

I can only assume that the narrative used against Lexi will be that a balky putter undid her chances. Along the same lines, I assume the narrative that'll eventually explain why we shouldn't feel any sympathy for Brooke will be that she's the same age as Lydia and yet she only achieved half of what Lydia did--the argument being that if Lydia could qualify, why go easy on Brooke, right? 

 

And that's really the issue. Players just aren't going to get as much done in these more competitive times. It's hard, if not impossible, to stand out. The fact Lydia got it done in such a difficult era is insane and kind of covers up what should be a larger controversy, I think, where you'd like to see a couple other names behind her (whoever those names might be). 

 

I think you almost have to look beyond Brooke & Lexi's actual records and consider whether in the 80s or 90s they'd not have gotten significantly more accomplished to bolster their career resumes. And to be 100% fair, the answer may indeed be they wouldn't have qualified in the face of that era's competition either. I haven't analyzed the 1980s or 1990s to really understand exactly how much things have changed at the highest level. What I do know is that golf is more popular and much more international which I'm taking as evidence that it's more competitive today than 30-40 years ago. 

 

 

Re: Tseng & Kerr

 

The period of Tseng's dominance was when I tuned into the LPGA as a fan so I remember her but I don't think of her as being better than later elites like Jin Young Ko. Tseng owned the early 2010s but disappeared after a 3 years stretch of winning everything. Her 2011 with 7 wins and 2 Majors was probably the best year anyone's had in recent memory but outside of 2011, she was merely "good," not necessarily an obvious HoF candidate.

 

And I don't think Tseng was an historically relevant player like Lydia (despite Lydia being only marginally ahead in points). To me, dominance that deteriorates and/or someone falling off a cliff entirely are important to consider (as negatives).

 

Hall of Famers shouldn't disappear at any stage of their career and IMHO a short stretch of dominance (no matter how impressive at the time) does not itself qualify one for HoF status. The HoF has to be a "career" achievement. 

 

It's a player's career-long relevance that earns them the HoF. If your career can be summed up as having 2-3 great seasons, that's not enough. Such a standard would see too many qualify. After all, nearly every year is highlighted by someone being top dog. 

 

Inbee and Lydia have been relevant over long stretches and that's the point of awarding them HoF status. The fact Inbee has had one foot out the door and is still as highly ranked as she is is just ridiculous. The fact Lydia's fought back to #1 and achieved POTY nearly a decade after bursting onto the scene is a great accomplishment that helps prove her noteworthiness. 

 

When I see people like Yani Tseng or Sung Hyun Park fall off a cliff I don't really have a lot of sympathy, TBH. That's the normal thing a player does, really. I take it as an indication maybe their initial rise was more a flash in the pan, even if it included majors or a #1 ranking. 

 

I'm no expert on Kerr. I feel like she existed as a transition player and just didn't get as much done in the Tseng era as she needed to. Kerr was big in the 2000s but needed to win in her early-30s and that generally didn't happen in the years between 2010 - 2015.

 

Thus, I don't picture Kerr as being on the level of Lorena or Lydia. Given how long she was on Tour, I see her more as the American So Yeon Ryu or maybe another Brooke Henderson. All stayed relevant for extended periods and won 2 Majors, but I wouldn't say any were ever "dominant" or even good enough throughout their careers to be historically relevant. 

 

Kerr was a great player but maybe not HoF-worthy if her record doesn't get her in? Tough to say. She had her chance IMHO. The lack of production pre-Lydia is what keeps her out. 

 

Then again, 20 wins and 2 Majors deserves to be in if you're asking me. I think 27 is too high a number. 

 

.

Edited December 11, 2022 by MelloYello

[Rapidcat]

Does anyone know how/why 27 points was determined as HoF entry?

[18majors]

On 12/7/2022 at 10:14 AM, 18majors said:

Nelly Korda                          24                              10

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry that I made a mistake earlier; Nelly was awarded a Hall of Fame point in retrospect for her Olympics gold medal win.  She now has 10 Hall of Fame points.

 

LPGA Announces Changes to LPGA Hall of Fame Criteria

[Titleist_PT23]

3 hours ago, MelloYello said:

...

Thus, I don't picture Kerr as being on the level of Lorena or Lydia. Given how long she was on Tour, I see her more as the American So Yeon Ryu or maybe another Brooke Henderson. All stayed relevant for extended periods and won 2 Majors, but I wouldn't say any were ever "dominant" or even good enough throughout their careers to be historically relevant. 

 

Kerr was a great player but maybe not HoF-worthy if her record doesn't get her in? Tough to say. She had her chance IMHO. The lack of production pre-Lydia is what keeps her out. 

 

Then again, 20 wins and 2 Majors deserves to be in if you're asking me. I think 27 is too high a number. 

 

.

This is the rub; I don't think anyone disagrees with the first two statements in bold.  The third one may be up for debate, but I think most see the challenges of 27.

 

I think what people struggle with is (something along these lines) if the player was a Top 5 - Top 10 player for a decade, her contributions to the game/tour/history are there.  They were the best of the time and that deserves to get in?

 

FWIW, I also tend to favour longevity over a 3-year (+/- ) window where someone went crazy.  This is also why I think IF the criteria is adjusted, it is better adjusted just by lowering the total points required.  POY and Vare are already there so I wouldn't suggest removing them, but these are things that favour a player that had a really hot flash.  I think wins and majors are what people really remember.  I know I'd rather win 4x and lose the Vare than win 3x and win the Vare.