First I'd like to say how I respect your hockey knowledge and enjoy your posts. But I have to disagree with you on the WWHHOF.
As I said, I also have respect for the hockey knowledge of my friends and colleagues who are part of the WWHOF committee.
I'm not sure if you are a committee member, a friend of one or just an interested outside observer. Maybe you can let me know.
The WWHOF is a great idea as an alternate process but in no way can you compare that group to the HHOF group. The HHOF's Chairman Jim Gregory is well respected and has been involved in more facets of the game than any of the WWHOF members can ever hope to be.
Yes, there is International representatives on the WWHOF but what do you think those NHL execs, on the HHOF committee were doing when the World Championships, Olympics, Canada Cups etc, were on? They were there. They also had European scouts and networking so its not fair to say they don't know their International hockey. Just one of the HHOF's committee members has probably seen more International hockey games than the WWHOF combined.
Its fine for the WWHOF to eliminate previous HHOF members from their Hall. But how do they know? They don't think that George Armstrong belongs. How many of the WWHOF actually saw Armstrong in his prime? Probably none. Its easy in hindsite to disregard a player's accomplishments but let's look at Armstong.
20 years in the NHL mostly in a 6 team league
Captain for several years and acknowledged as a superb leader
He scored goals - in his first 10 years, he was consistently close to 20 goals a year when that was a tough, tough thing to do.
He was a superb defensively player
He protected his teammates
His opponents hated to play against him because of his intensity
He captained 4 Stanley Cups
He was a clutch playoff performer
His line with Sloan & Duff was one of the very top lines in the NHL in the mid-50's
He almost scored almost 300 goals when 20 per season was a tough mark
He shared the Bickell Trophy in 1959
And if anyone watched him in his prime, you would see that he was a complete player who was dominant at times on the ice.
He was that good.
That's an awful lot to disregard.
My opinion is that he belongs.
But while you are quoting stats, let me tell everyone that the Hanson brothers received actual votes for a number of years running as contributor. For a few years they received 9,8,8,7,5,8,5 5, votes in successive years!
I'll list some players who got actual votes over the years in the Honoured Player category. (I won't list the crazier nominations because it will make people laugh.)
Peter Lee, Lou Fontinato, Connie Madigan, Larry Zeidel, Howie Young, Jack Carlson, Steve Carlson, Brad Marsh, Glen Skov, Gord Roberts and a whole lot more received votes as Hall of Fame players!
So, I feel I can criticize that group because of all that. I mean, what are their standards anyways?
I can tell you that they don't have any set criteria. Each member uses their own. They don't get together like the HHOF does but they vote via email.
I'm not one to just anonymously be critical so I asked the leader of the group for an explanation of the persistency of getting the Hansons inducted. Naturally, I wasn't satisfied with the answer that they built up the game in the US.
When I saw that the WWHOF website was throwing stones at the HHOF, I had to take a look at the WHHOF's own process to see if they had any credibility.
They might yet be credible if they smarten up and get rid of the members who by making the ridiculous votes, bring the whole group down.
You are right about the political thing in the HHOF committee. I can believe that, although my sense is that someone like Jim Gregory would step in if he saw that happening.
But, in no way, can you compare the two groups for first hand knowledge
murray said:
I think you are being over critical of the WWHOF because they cast a minimal number of votes for the Hansen brothers as "contributors" I focus more on who they actually elected & excluded and how close some of the votes were.
The profiles of their committee are out there for all to see and they look like a pretty knowlegeable group to me. They have some European representation whereas the "offical" committee Has none. They seem to be made up of hockey history fanatics, journalists, statistians & researchers. There are no ex-Nhl players on their committee. They have included 11 new players, 9 of whom are European. They have excluded 108 (several of whom have not reached their strict 5 year retirement requirement). Duff, Armstrong, Federko, gartner, Giacomin, giles, Lapointe, Lanny Mcdonald, Joe Mullin. Pulford, Rayner, Sittler, Stanley are all excluded (IMO, they should be). There are also several border line players excluded some of which may eventually get in.
The official committe is heavily made up of ex players many of whom went on to coach or into NHL administrative positions. There is also a smattering of career NHl management people & Print & TV journalists but no Europeans unlees you classify Mikita as one.
Again, I emphasize that the "official "committee operates in secret and no one knows what political deals are cut and no one knows if anyone in theire has ever voted for the Hansen brothers. I was on a secret committee in the business world and I know what kind of political stuff goes on.