|
Post by MrPerfect on Feb 13, 2007 10:26:35 GMT -5
James Long Jr. is as worthy as I am as far as accomplishments to be in the Hall of Fame. The only reason he is not in yet, is because most feel he's too young. I still honestly feel that a min. age of 40 needs to be voted in for Hall of Fame consideration. If we don't and nothing against Jeremy but at age 30, maybe even sooner, and with today's easier lane conditions, he'll probably have a resume' worthy of consideration for the Hall of Fame by that age.... to me, that's just too young to even be considered...JMO....
I think the Assoc. board or Hall of Fame committee should also consider that when relatives of Hall of Famers including in-laws, those Hall of Famers should be excluded that year from voting from obvious bias for an inductee that is related..... JMO... Because you know as well as I do, that there are some members that will have their minds made up on who they are going to vote for, regardless of what anyone else has achieved....
And I do like your idea you posted yesterday or last week, can't remember, that nominees need to be submitted by a Hall of Famer......
|
|
|
Post by notgood on Feb 14, 2007 15:44:37 GMT -5
You will never ceese to amaze some of us at how desperate you are to get into the HoF. Now you want to tell the members of the HoF that certain ones can't vote because that might take a vote away from you, how crazy is that.
|
|
|
Post by MrPerfect on Feb 14, 2007 16:03:36 GMT -5
You will never ceese to amaze some of us at how desperate you are to get into the HoF. Now you want to tell the members of the HoF that certain ones can't vote because that might take a vote away from you, how crazy is that. That has nothing to do with it. It's about keeping the process of selection above reproach. I would still want it that way, even if I was already in. I don't know who you are but obviously, you don't really know me. To keep any honor worth desiring to be wanted by many, bias has to be taken out as much as possible. If you don't know the voting system or point system they use, it might be hard for you to understand.... If Hall of Fame members are unable to be unbias as far as when relatives or good friends are nominated when placing their vote, then they diminish the respectability of the honor. If not done that way, then it becomes more of a who likes who and who has more friends to get in, that's not the intention of any Hall of Fame of any sport...JMO...
|
|
|
Post by WineUdotKing on Feb 15, 2007 8:32:34 GMT -5
James Long Jr. is as worthy as I am as far as accomplishments to be in the Hall of Fame. The only reason he is not in yet, is because most feel he's too young. I still honestly feel that a min. age of 40 needs to be voted in for Hall of Fame consideration. If we don't and nothing against Jeremy but at age 30, maybe even sooner, and with today's easier lane conditions, he'll probably have a resume' worthy of consideration for the Hall of Fame by that age.... to me, that's just too young to even be considered...JMO.... I think the Assoc. board or Hall of Fame committee should also consider that when relatives of Hall of Famers including in-laws, those Hall of Famers should be excluded that year from voting from obvious bias for an inductee that is related..... JMO... Because you know as well as I do, that there are some members that will have their minds made up on who they are going to vote for, regardless of what anyone else has achieved.... And I do like your idea you posted yesterday or last week, can't remember, that nominees need to be submitted by a Hall of Famer...... Jeff, Unfortunately, there are alot of HoF's that are missing people that have the STATS to be in. But it seems in almost every case, that the individuals have a personal issue that the voting body. Case in point, Pete Rose. Look at his stats, not in. The public thinks he should be in, but the voters say no. Granted, you have the stats, but maybe you need to do that little extra by giving back to the sport. Did you know that you don't have to be a member of the board to be on a committee? You could do alot of things to get people to see you in a different way that they see you now. Right now all they see about you is "ME, ME, ME and how great I AM." Maybe go up and help some kids on a saturday morning without mentioning how good you are to them, ask David to put you on some committees, work some tournaments. Again, the most important part is do it without having to constantly tell everyone how good you are. Your stats speak for themselves and everyone knows it, but you have to constantly DRILL it into everyones head. People get tired of that and get the wrong idea about you. But only you can change what people think about you. I hope I'm not coming over too mean because that's not my intention, it's just my suggestion. Bowl well tonight.
|
|
|
Post by MrPerfect on Feb 15, 2007 8:57:48 GMT -5
James Long Jr. is as worthy as I am as far as accomplishments to be in the Hall of Fame. The only reason he is not in yet, is because most feel he's too young. I still honestly feel that a min. age of 40 needs to be voted in for Hall of Fame consideration. If we don't and nothing against Jeremy but at age 30, maybe even sooner, and with today's easier lane conditions, he'll probably have a resume' worthy of consideration for the Hall of Fame by that age.... to me, that's just too young to even be considered...JMO.... I think the Assoc. board or Hall of Fame committee should also consider that when relatives of Hall of Famers including in-laws, those Hall of Famers should be excluded that year from voting from obvious bias for an inductee that is related..... JMO... Because you know as well as I do, that there are some members that will have their minds made up on who they are going to vote for, regardless of what anyone else has achieved.... And I do like your idea you posted yesterday or last week, can't remember, that nominees need to be submitted by a Hall of Famer...... Jeff, Unfortunately, there are alot of HoF's that are missing people that have the STATS to be in. But it seems in almost every case, that the individuals have a personal issue that the voting body. Case in point, Pete Rose. Look at his stats, not in. The public thinks he should be in, but the voters say no. Granted, you have the stats, but maybe you need to do that little extra by giving back to the sport. Did you know that you don't have to be a member of the board to be on a committee? You could do alot of things to get people to see you in a different way that they see you now. Right now all they see about you is "ME, ME, ME and how great I AM." Maybe go up and help some kids on a saturday morning without mentioning how good you are to them, ask David to put you on some committees, work some tournaments. Again, the most important part is do it without having to constantly tell everyone how good you are. Your stats speak for themselves and everyone knows it, but you have to constantly DRILL it into everyones head. People get tired of that and get the wrong idea about you. But only you can change what people think about you. I hope I'm not coming over too mean because that's not my intention, it's just my suggestion. Bowl well tonight. No, you weren't coming across mean wine and I hear what your saying. Yes, baseball has in their Hall of Fame rules that voters can base their vote for Hall of Fame players based on "off the field antics, personalities and charitable organizations" they do. How ever NFL Football Hall of Fame rules for Hall of Fame nominees do not allow or can count anything "for off the field antics". They must discount everything that a nominee does good or bad or even personality and only base their decision by what they did on the field. Pasadena's Hall of Fame has no rules concerning this either way, they leave it totally up to the voters to value a nominee however way they want. That's not necessarily bad but it can create problems by not having some kind of guidelines in this area to go by, whatever it may be. What Pete Rose did was unethical to the sport and he is being punished for it. I have not done anything unethical to the sport of bowling. Have you ever stopped to think that if I got my just due as far as Hall of Fame, I would be different? The stubbornness of both sides is what has allowed this to go as far as it has. Where is it written in Pasadena's by-laws that a nominee has to be liked? or has to give back to bowling? Like I've already said, I served 1-1/2 years on the board and that evidentially has not changed anyones mind about me, so why would I think doing anything further would make a difference. Some members of the Hall of Fame are still cliquish and I guess Jimmy Young and I don't fit into their click.... I can't see how anyone could say differently, we see it plainly in the voting...
|
|
|
Post by PBAHoFer on Feb 15, 2007 9:24:37 GMT -5
I will agree, perfect has never done anything, or been a part of any situation that could be considered unethical as far as his involvment with bowling has been concerned to my knwoledge.
Of course I disagree with almost every other part of his post.
I don't think the former Board of Directors of the Pasadena BA and the Hall of Fame membership this year should be described as stubborn in selecting Mano, Don Parnell, Kris Boudny, Eddie Brod, Charlie Mills, Roger Banks and Robert Tatum for Hall of Fame recognition.
I think there were cliques in the past that had prejudice for and against certain candidates, both PBA and PWBA... however, as we have mentioned there is nothing that can be done, or should be done about someone bringing their personal values into a voting situation.
perfect is basing his non-elections on the voters ignorance of his accomlishments, or that they are unable to process just how "good" they are... while I have been trying to stress that the voters bring their values with them to the vote.
I think theere is merit to many of perfect's suggestions... there was unbiased discussion about a minimum age for nomination... it was openly discussed without pressure from the father of a younger nominee... it was considered that 20 year olds such as BigJLE would have 20 or 30 300 games by the time they were 27 28 years old and how that might affect the Hall of Fame...
All I can say is that the Hall of Fame membership that participated in the meetings and the voting should be commended for their dedication to the Hall of Fame... I heard NO derogatory remarks about any of the candidates... only that the Hall of Fame should be proud of their selections.
We will rightfully recognize perfect some year... who can say when.
I think service on the Board and helping with Youth is devalued if the service is perceived as trying to get elected into the Hall of Fame is the only reason for that service... I would rather have perfect's input on tournament and rules ideas in a committee setting with the right people around to see that he does have concerns about integrity and competition in bowling.
Board service is hard for perfect as he has trouble operating in a democratic sense... what I mean is he has trouble recognizing and keeping concerns of low average bowlers in mind as he analyzes situations because he is such a good bowler.
|
|
|
Post by MrPerfect on Feb 15, 2007 9:42:01 GMT -5
I can't disagree with anything you said PBA except just serving to try and gain favor for Hall of Fame purposes only. I was motivated to serve when you and Jimmy got on the board and y'all were looking for new blood to serve on the board. I was asked by you to take a vacant seat and I accepted because of the many things you discussed here on the forum about our assoc. and I wanted to be involved. Now some may feel that the timing is suspicious but they can think what they want, I know differently.
Even though all that have been inducted are very worthy of induction, but the function of the Hall of Fame is to induct those most worthy over those with lesser accomplishments that have been submitted for that year. Now if you feel that my accomplishments are less than every person you named in your post, then I'll retract everything I've said. But you know that my accomplishements are greater than every one you named, except maybe Charlie Mills..... but I am still the one being over looked for personal reasons of some members.
Just to add one thing as far as age requirement. I think a Grand Father clause would be very appropriate for Long Jr. and Bobby B. since there were no rules concerning that when they were first submitted. I would think that would be wrong to exclude them, if a rule change was made....JMO...
|
|
|
Post by PBAHoFer on Feb 15, 2007 11:42:43 GMT -5
I can't disagree with anything you said PBA except just serving to try and gain favor for Hall of Fame purposes only. I was motivated to serve when you and Jimmy got on the board and y'all were looking for new blood to serve on the board. I was asked by you to take a vacant seat and I accepted because of the many things you discussed here on the forum about our assoc. and I wanted to be involved. Now some may feel that the timing is suspicious but they can think what they want, I know differently. Even though all that have been inducted are very worthy of induction, but the function of the Hall of Fame is to induct those most worthy over those with lesser accomplishments that have been submitted for that year. Now if you feel that my accomplishments are less than every person you named in your post, then I'll retract everything I've said. But you know that my accomplishements are greater than every one you named, except maybe Charlie Mills..... but I am still the one being over looked for personal reasons of some members. Just to add one thing as far as age requirement. I think a Grand Father clause would be very appropriate for Long Jr. and Bobby B. since there were no rules concerning that when they were first submitted. I would think that would be wrong to exclude them, if a rule change was made....JMO... That's what I meant, I wouldn't want you to be perceived as serving only for Hall of Fame voting favor. I think your perception of a Hall of Fame is off... our does not have a criteria policy to recognize a set number of accomplishments by an individual with an automatic induction. Bowlers are nominated and the applications are distributed to the voting membership... they decypher and judge the stats and accomplishments independently and then cast their ballots... how they vote is not dependent solely on accomplishments. A voter has the opportunity to apply their own values in their decision making process. They are charged to judge an individual's accomplishments against what they consider to be Hall of Fame caliber accomplishments. One only needs to read your resume' to see you are quite possibly the best bowler ever to compete in Pasadena. Those accomplishments will be recognized with a Hall of Fame induction some day. Quite possibly a Houston, and maybe even a Texas Hall of Fame induction as well. I hope that some day this recognition will give you the satisfaction you lack at this point.
|
|
|
Post by MrPerfect on Feb 15, 2007 11:59:17 GMT -5
I'm sorry, I misinterpreted your post as far as service, I thought you meant in the past and after re-reading it, it was meant if I did it now.... and I agree with what you said. Besides, we have a category for Service for induction to the Hall of Fame, why would I need some sort of community service to enhance a Performance based nomination? The two are separate.
But to make sure I'm not misunderstood on this whole matter, I am very happy for the people that have been inducted for the last several years, they are all worthy as are some other nominees that haven't gotten in yet. They are all worthy. I'm hoping I'll get inducted next year and I'll be happy and gracious and would never say anything derogatory at the Banquet, that would be classless... Even though my words on here on this matter seem selfish, I can't help but think that if I can be discriminated against for personality or whatever, it could happen again to someone else in the future and that's not right. With me knowing the pain and anguish of rejection because of it, I would not want it to happen to anyone else....JMO... As for me after being inducted, I would vote solely based on accomplishments for the Performance category, regardless of a persons personality or friendship. The integrity of the Hall of Fame must take precedence over any personal feelings I may have....JMO...
As far as the best to compete in Pasadena, I appreciate the compliment but I would only compare myself as being included in the group of great bowers that have done well to in Pasadena also such as Mills, Long Jr, Jimmy Y., Eddie B. and others and those already in the Hall of Fame.
|
|
|
Post by WineUdotKing on Feb 15, 2007 12:32:28 GMT -5
Your accomplishments far exceed just about every bowler I can think of in Pasadean, but I think there were probably several voters that might have given Roger some higher votes due to all of the leagues he has been sec/tres of over the years even though that should not have been concidered when it comes to performance, but that is not anything we can make the voter ignore, but I think that is what got him over the hump when all the votes were added up. I can't imagine what kind of stats Roger could put up if he didn't have all those other duties to worry about while bowling...lol. I can relate on Thursday nights to some of the issues he has to deal with and it does interfere with your bowling.
|
|
|
Post by MrPerfect on Feb 15, 2007 12:46:31 GMT -5
Your accomplishments far exceed just about every bowler I can think of in Pasadean, but I think there were probably several voters that might have given Roger some higher votes due to all of the leagues he has been sec/tres of over the years even though that should not have been concidered when it comes to performance, but that is not anything we can make the voter ignore, but I think that is what got him over the hump when all the votes were added up. I can't imagine what kind of stats Roger could put up if he didn't have all those other duties to worry about while bowling...lol. I can relate on Thursday nights to some of the issues he has to deal with and it does interfere with your bowling. Roger is a good friend of mine and is a good bowler. And it is a great distraction to be a league secretary and bowl at the same time. He's on my team on Tuesday night that he secretaries and I'm the league President and I know all to well. But I don't consider that qualifies for service for him or even myself. A league Secretary gets paid for their service and that's a choice they make when wanting that job. I consider serving on the Board more of a service, because they don't get paid. To me, that's volunteering your time, not time that you get paid for....JMO....
|
|
|
Post by spktatr710 on Feb 15, 2007 14:26:57 GMT -5
I find MrP's comments on "favoritism" in the HoF voting rather amusing................. this from a gentlemen that pulls the REPUBLICAN handle on election day, regardless of the candidates' morals and stats.
MrP -- maybe the majority of the HoF voters are democrats and your rigid one-sided political views have deeply offended them.
If you "judged" Bill Clinton on having a Monica on the side (this type of man running our COUNTRY??), who's to say the HoF voters are judging your morals and ethics also? Your constant references for the past several years on this forum about young, well-endowed women has NOT gone unnoticed.
This is not an invitation to a political debate - especially about my reference on Clinton. I am just trying to make a point that ALL voters, whether it be for HoF or electing a national leader, bring prejudices to the plate. You, of all people, cannot cast the first stone.
Sometimes it will be in your best interest to keep your opinions to yourself if you want to win the battle. Your written words can come back to bite you in the butt.
|
|
|
Post by MrPerfect on Feb 15, 2007 14:54:40 GMT -5
I find MrP's comments on "favoritism" in the HoF voting rather amusing................. this from a gentlemen that pulls the REPUBLICAN handle on election day, regardless of the candidates' morals and stats. MrP -- maybe the majority of the HoF voters are democrats and your rigid one-sided political views have deeply offended them. If you "judged" Bill Clinton on having a Monica on the side (this type of man running our COUNTRY??), who's to say the HoF voters are judging your morals and ethics also? Your constant references for the past several years on this forum about young, well-endowed women has NOT gone unnoticed. This is not an invitation to a political debate - especially about my reference on Clinton. I am just trying to make a point that ALL voters, whether it be for HoF or electing a national leader, bring prejudices to the plate. You, of all people, cannot cast the first stone. Sometimes it will be in your best interest to keep your opinions to yourself if you want to win the battle. Your written words can come back to bite you in the butt. There is a lot of truth in what you said spktatr, but I'm the type of person that is open and honest with my opinion. At least people know where I stand and I don't leave people guessing...lol... I'm not the type to talk behind peoples back either, if I have a problem, I will confront them and discuss it.... I don't want to talk politics either or about girls I may have made comments on, in the past. Most of that stuff was just something to talk about with the guys, just to have something to talk about on the Forum. I really thought that people knew that, you know as well as any of us that this board is mostly BS but we all love bowling and like talking about it.... The day we lose love for this sport will be the day we lose bowling as a past time and we'll have to find something else to do and that would sux as far as I'm concerned. I wished we had more posters good or bad bowlers on the forum talking about bowling. You don't have to be a star to participate and talk to me about bowling, I talk to everyone..... and I'll help anyone to bowl better if they ask, which reminds me, Charley wanted me to work with him sometime to work on his game, does he still want my help? Just let me know a time when he'll be practicing and I'll come up and see what I can do....
|
|
|
Post by PBAHoFer on Feb 15, 2007 15:19:50 GMT -5
Your accomplishments far exceed just about every bowler I can think of in Pasadean, but I think there were probably several voters that might have given Roger some higher votes due to all of the leagues he has been sec/tres of over the years even though that should not have been concidered when it comes to performance, but that is not anything we can make the voter ignore, but I think that is what got him over the hump when all the votes were added up. I can't imagine what kind of stats Roger could put up if he didn't have all those other duties to worry about while bowling...lol. I can relate on Thursday nights to some of the issues he has to deal with and it does interfere with your bowling. Roger is a good friend of mine and is a good bowler. And it is a great distraction to be a league secretary and bowl at the same time. He's on my team on Tuesday night that he secretaries and I'm the league President and I know all to well. But I don't consider that qualifies for service for him or even myself. A league Secretary gets paid for their service and that's a choice they make when wanting that job. I consider serving on the Board more of a service, because they don't get paid. To me, that's volunteering your time, not time that you get paid for....JMO.... This is a perfect example of predisposed prejudice, or maybe preconceived definitions are what we are really talking about... service to bowlers is service. perfect has his definitin of service in mind, and will probably have that in the back of his mind forever... and will use that factoe in analyzing future nominees... The same factor that current Hall of Famers have used to analyze this year's nominees. Roger Banks is a d**n good bowler and has served on the Board in the past, including as a VP, and has served as league president and secretary for years. Maybe that "service" was the bump that made some consider his achievements more noteworthy than another... Charlie Mills was a landslide selection this year. who knows why. But, votes are factored by individuals before they are cast is many different ways.
|
|
|
Post by MrPerfect on Feb 15, 2007 15:34:40 GMT -5
Roger is a good friend of mine and is a good bowler. And it is a great distraction to be a league secretary and bowl at the same time. He's on my team on Tuesday night that he secretaries and I'm the league President and I know all to well. But I don't consider that qualifies for service for him or even myself. A league Secretary gets paid for their service and that's a choice they make when wanting that job. I consider serving on the Board more of a service, because they don't get paid. To me, that's volunteering your time, not time that you get paid for....JMO.... This is a perfect example of predisposed prejudice, or maybe preconceived definitions are what we are really talking about... service to bowlers is service. perfect has his definitin of service in mind, and will probably have that in the back of his mind forever... and will use that factoe in analyzing future nominees... The same factor that current Hall of Famers have used to analyze this year's nominees. Roger Banks is a d**n good bowler and has served on the Board in the past, including as a VP, and has served as league president and secretary for years. Maybe that "service" was the bump that made some consider his achievements more noteworthy than another... Charlie Mills was a landslide selection this year. who knows why. But, votes are factored by individuals before they are cast is many different ways. All very true PBA.... I didn't know Roger also served on the Board and I guess everyone is entitled to put as much or as little merit to it, when evaluating a Performance based nomination, since there is no guidelines or rules to go by, in separating the two categories. Roger is a good bowler, even though he's been slumping the last couple of years but he's been through a lot the last couple of years to with his ex... and I know how much that can affect a bowlers game...
|
|