 |  |
 |
|
| Monday, November 4 Should Halls relax standards of greatness? By George Johnson Special to ESPN.com |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Time may run out on a career, but there's no statute of limitations on entering hockey's gates of Olympus.
All three playing inductees were stars of their era. Indisputably fine players who excelled at vastly different facets of the game. None, however, were considered slam-dunk, can't-bypass, first-chance Hall selections. Gillies has been retired all of 14 years, Federko 12 and Langway nine. Langway won two Norris trophies, Gillies four Stanley Cups and Federko piled up 1,130 points and 10 consecutive 50-or-more assist seasons. No one could possibly appreciate the honor more than Neilson, a man who has spent virtually his entire life devoted to the game. Their admission will bring the honor roll at the HHOF to 332, 229 of which are skaters. Can all 220-odd in the Hall be classified as immortals? After all, that, in the purest sense, is what fans believe a Hall of Fame in any sport to be. Which begs an often-asked question: Are the Halls becoming too crowded? Halls of Fame in the major North American professional sports have an innate responsibility to claim an almost savage exclusivity; no one wants to pay good money to visit empty palaces, but they in theory should be pantheons to house only the most glittering stars in the constellations.
Think Chamberlain, Dr. J, the Big O, Kareem. Think Lombardi, Halas, Brown, Starr. Think Richard, Sawchuk, Orr, Hull, Howe. Legendary names. Legendary exploits. To be included meant someone met the most stringent set of requirements imaginable for his or her particular sport -- achievement (collective and individual), charisma, fame, impact. Has unwise precedent robbed the preceding "hallowed" from the hallowed Halls nowadays; are more and more places not reserved for the very-greats but merely the very-goods? We have evolved into a celebratory culture. Why else would there be the Oscars and the Emmys and Golden Globes and the Peoples Choice Awards. We enjoy watching well-known beings being feted at fancy 'dos. They are good for business. And the NHL, NBA, MLB and NFL are as much entertainment companies as DreamWorks. From 1953 to 1958, no players were inducted into the old Hockey Hall. A lack of interest? Or a lack of viable candidates? It's an interesting dilemma. There's a certain school of thought that a player should only be eligible on his first crack at induction; that if he doesn't make it then, he isn't cut out of rich enough cloth. Others subscribe to the theory that only over the passage of time can an individual's true measure be taken. Players must be retired for three seasons before becoming eligible for nomination to the Hockey Hall of Fame. To gain entry requires 75 percent of an 18-member Selection Committee vote. The Committee is made up of ex-players, media representatives and hockey executives. A maximum of four players, two builders and one referee/linesman can be elected each year. There are no set benchmarks for player induction into the Hockey Hall of Fame. The only criteria are "playing ability, sportsmanship, character and their contribution to the teams or teams and to the game in general." But the following are pretty safe guidelines:
A perfect test case in the Hall of Fame debate is winger Mike Gartner, elected a a year ago. He certainly had the longevity, playing 19 seasons for five teams, and the productivity/consistency, scoring over 700 goals and 1,300 points and 13 seasons of 30 or more goals. But Gartner never won a major individual bauble, never made an end-of-season all-star team at right wing and does not have his name inscribed on the Stanley Cup. A solid pro, no question. Upcoming for the selection committee to vote on are three defensemen whose last official season is registered as 2000-2001. Ray Bourque's 22 seasons, 1,579 points, five Norris trophies and that final, emotional Stanley Cup win with Colorado make him an automatic for first-ballot induction. So, too, Paul Coffey, despite the defensive misgivings many have of his game. Twenty-two years, 1,579 points, four Stanley Cup rings, three Norris trophies and a defenseman-as-offensive-force impact surpassed in history only by Orr assures his inclusion. More problematical, perhaps, will be the fate of Larry Murphy. Murphy piled up 1,195 points, ranks third in games played (1,615) and was a part of as many Cup-winning teams as Coffey. But he lacked the over-all solidity of Bourque; the flash and dash of Coffey. Murphy won't be a first-vote sure thing. Not that he's lacking company in that regard. Halls of Fame could be compared to opulent hotels such as the Cipriani in Venice or the Plaza in New York; room reserved for only the privileged. Instead, there is an argument, and a viable one at that, that they are rapidly being transformed into a string of Howard Johnsons. When debating entry into consecrated ground such as the Hockey Hall of Fame there are invariably going to be differing opinions on who belongs and who does not, what should be considered sufficient criteria for admittance and what should not. It's a difficult, almost impossible assignment, determining value of a career and where an individual rates in comparison to the past and to his peers. But to enter a Hall of Fame -- whether it has an enrollment of 30, 300 or 3,000 -- the highest standards must be applied. Shameless elitism? Certainly. But that's precisely what a Hall of Fame is all about. Or should be. George Johnson of the Calgary Herald is a regular contributor to ESPN.com. |
| ||||||||||||||||||
