2014 Poker Hall of Fame Candidates Announced

[Dan Druff]

I wrote this last night: http://www.4flush.com/opinion/the-po...-of-joke/17706

I agree with parts of this.

Indeed, you are correct that the poker HOF is too heavy with players from a certain era, while almost completely ignoring others.

I also agree that "2 nominated per year" is stupid, and creates the backlog of worthy candidates that you described.

I also agree that the number of voters needs to be greatly increased, and this would also serve to eliminate the corrupt voting blocs which are essentially rigging the vote every year.

However, I think you and I differ on the standards that should be required for induction. I think that the poker HOF should be reserved for the true greats of the game. I'm fine with inducting the greats from each era (even though the competition today is MUCH tougher than it was many years ago), but we start entering a slippery slope when we simply induct those that "have done a lot for the game" without producing actual poker results at the table.

You mentioned Cyndy Violette. I think she's really nice and a reasonably good player, but not HOF material. She is known so well because of her longevity in the poker scene, dating back to the early '80s. The fact that she is attractive and female (especially when she was younger) obviously helped her notoriety. But has she been a big winner on the tournament trail? Has she crushed the cash scene? No and no. So while she's an easily identifiable player in poker for the past 30 years, she doesn't belong in the HOF. Same with people like Brunto Fitoussi, and many others you probably feel are HOF worthy.

The biggest flaw with the current poker HOF is the corrupt and secret voting process. SrslySirius laid out the complaints about this, and I agree with all of them. This opaque process is what got Tom McEvoy elected last year, while David Chiu was snubbed.

I think that, in addition to making the nomination and voting more fair and transparent, they need to separate HOF players from HOF "poker scene contributors". So have one election for the great players of the game, and one separate election for those who quailfy based upon contributions to the game away from the table. I don't like the fact that they are voting non-players against players in the induction process, and I also don't like that certain non-HOF-worthy players are getting a boost just because they "helped poker" in some way. If you weren't good enough as a player to make it, and if your contributions to poker away from the table also aren't enough to make it on their own, then you shouldn't be in. What I'm seeing here is the thought process of, "Well, he was a fairly good player, but he also did XXXXX for poker, so let's induct him."

[Dan Druff]

On a side note, while I understand Srsly removing his videos in order to make it easier to rise in his career, I hope he didn't simply do it for personal reasons.

Those videos were great, well-liked, and for the most part lighthearted and not too mean. Anyone paying attention to internet forums thinks "SrslySirius" when you think poker parody songs, and it would suck to lose that mostly positive reputation you have gained from it.

[BeerAndPoker]

Lots of thought going into this whole process when we all know Bob Hooks and Jack McClelland are the ones that should get the HOF nod obv.

[limitles]

Chris(short for Charisma) Bigler

Residence	Las Vegas, Nevada
World Series of Poker
Bracelet(s)	None
Money finish(es)	6
Highest ITM Main Event finish	5th, 1999
World Poker Tour
Title(s)	None
Final table(s)	2
Money finish(es)	8

Apparently being a fan club president means nothing anymore

[nunbeater]

Why?

It would take time to explain, and I may write in detail about it some time later, but for now suffice it to say that it's a personal choice.

nooooo man that totally sucks, no more siriussrsly vids at all then?

[Steve-O]

I think that, in addition to making the nomination and voting more fair and transparent, they need to separate HOF players from HOF "poker scene contributors". So have one election for the great players of the game, and one separate election for those who quailfy based upon contributions to the game away from the table. I don't like the fact that they are voting non-players against players in the induction process, and I also don't like that certain non-HOF-worthy players are getting a boost just because they "helped poker" in some way. If you weren't good enough as a player to make it, and if your contributions to poker away from the table also aren't enough to make it on their own, then you shouldn't be in. What I'm seeing here is the thought process of, "Well, he was a fairly good player, but he also did XXXXX for poker, so let's induct him."

I've said this in the past. There should be "wings" where you'd have a Circle of Legends (Doyle, Chip Reese, Negreanu, Chan, Ungar, Hellmuth etc), then really good players from different eras (John Juanda, Ken Flaton, Scotty Nguyen types), and the you have a Foreign wing and a Contributors wing. Be easy enough to break them down into different groups and give the true greats their due

[Pooh]

Honestly I think 2 a year is too many. This isn't the hall of shit or hall of pretty good. This is the hall of fame...only the best of all time. We're talking poker here so there are probably 10 people who should be included as of now, tops.

[Steve-O]

Honestly I think 2 a year is too many. This isn't the hall of shit or hall of pretty good. This is the hall of fame...only the best of all time. We're talking poker here so there are probably 10 people who should be included as of now, tops.

Problem is, it only got started in 1979, so you have 150 years of players to catch up on. If it's ever going to be a real "physical" location, it needs more people

[Pooh]

Poker Hall of Fame:

Doyle
Helmuth
Chan
Ivey (when eligible)

That's it for players. End of discussion.

[Pooh]

What? Because you all jerked off to most of these guys during the poker boom means they are hall of fame worthy? More like the hall of shit imo.

You have ten bracelets or a couple main events then come on down. If not then better luck next year.

[SrslySirius]

What? Because you all jerked off to most of these guys during the poker boom means they are hall of fame worthy? More like the hall of shit imo.

You have ten bracelets or a couple main events then come on down. If not then better luck next year.

How many people do you think should be in the baseball hall of fame?

[Pooh]

What? Because you all jerked off to most of these guys during the poker boom means they are hall of fame worthy? More like the hall of shit imo.

You have ten bracelets or a couple main events then come on down. If not then better luck next year.

How many people do you think should be in the baseball hall of fame?

I think baseball is a little different because of the sheer amount of players involved but the strict criteria is much more brutal than poker. Baseball's only recently jumped the shark with allowing good but not hall of fame type players in.

Golf is more in my wheel house and they've also been letting in a lot of very good but clearly not hall of fame caliber players in. This is because the hall of fame headquarters in Florida at the world of golf is going down the shitter fast because nobody is visiting it.

I just think Hall of Fame should equal best of all time...not just very good and it should mean something more.

[Pooh]

Just the fact that the ballot is most likely fixed has the poker hall of fame lose all credibility.

[Dan Druff]

There was a joke on a Futurama episode, where Leela was playing baseball for the Mets, and wore the number 7/8.

She was asked why she had a fractional number on her jersey, and her reply was, "All of the whole numbers have been retired."

It was funny because it's true. Futurama takes place in the year 3000, and if baseball still exists then, the numbers under 100 will definitely all be retired by every team.

And the Hall of Fame will look like a huge mess of good-but-not-great players, drowning out the few greats over the years.

Like Pooh, I think the HOF should have stricter entry requirements, though not as strict as he is advocating.

For example, Bob Hooks is barely known in the general poker community. This is despite the fact that he played in an era with players that ARE known today, such as Doyle, Johnny Moss, Amarillo Slim, etc. Bob Hooks doesn't even have a Wikipedia page!

They are nominating him simply because he has been in poker for 60 years. That's not even close to HOF worthy.

[fluffer]

Why?

It would take time to explain, and I may write in detail about it some time later, but for now suffice it to say that it's a personal choice.

Don't be so coy, my coy friend

[Steve-O]

There was a joke on a Futurama episode, where Leela was playing baseball for the Mets, and wore the number 7/8.

She was asked why she had a fractional number on her jersey, and her reply was, "All of the whole numbers have been retired."

It was funny because it's true. Futurama takes place in the year 3000, and if baseball still exists then, the numbers under 100 will definitely all be retired by every team.

And the Hall of Fame will look like a huge mess of good-but-not-great players, drowning out the few greats over the years.

Like Pooh, I think the HOF should have stricter entry requirements, though not as strict as he is advocating.

For example, Bob Hooks is barely known in the general poker community. This is despite the fact that he played in an era with players that ARE known today, such as Doyle, Johnny Moss, Amarillo Slim, etc. Bob Hooks doesn't even have a Wikipedia page!

They are nominating him simply because he has been in poker for 60 years. That's not even close to HOF worthy.

Serious Hall of Fames would have an exhibit on Hooks and his era of players, and then an exhibit on Riverboat gamblers, and so on. In this way you can squeeze multiple, borderline HOF'ers into a single diorama and tell the story without making it too cumbersome or overwhelming.

The Basketball Hall of Fame is a great example of this. There is an upper ring of the greats, the second floor is for regular HOF'ers, and the first floor is focused on eras and uniforms and such

[Pooh]

There was a joke on a Futurama episode, where Leela was playing baseball for the Mets, and wore the number 7/8.

She was asked why she had a fractional number on her jersey, and her reply was, "All of the whole numbers have been retired."

It was funny because it's true. Futurama takes place in the year 3000, and if baseball still exists then, the numbers under 100 will definitely all be retired by every team.

And the Hall of Fame will look like a huge mess of good-but-not-great players, drowning out the few greats over the years.

Like Pooh, I think the HOF should have stricter entry requirements, though not as strict as he is advocating.

For example, Bob Hooks is barely known in the general poker community. This is despite the fact that he played in an era with players that ARE known today, such as Doyle, Johnny Moss, Amarillo Slim, etc. Bob Hooks doesn't even have a Wikipedia page!

They are nominating him simply because he has been in poker for 60 years. That's not even close to HOF worthy.

Serious Hall of Fame's would have an exhibit on Hooks and his era of players, and then an exhibit on Riverboat gamblers, and so on. In this way you can squeeze multiple, borderline HOF'ers into a single diorama and tell the story without making it too cumbersome or overwhelming.

The Basketball Hall of Fame is a great example of this. There is an upper ring of the greats, the second floor is for regular HOF'ers, and the first floor is focused on eras and uniforms and such

You are correct. This is how it should be done.

[WillieMcFML]

It would take time to explain, and I may write in detail about it some time later, but for now suffice it to say that it's a personal choice.

Don't be so coy, my coy friend

the haters gonna hate hate hate hate hate

ss, how could you though?

[Pooh]

*giggling*

[fluffer]

Yeh, we know it's a personal choice, but why?