Corey Deuel: Lock for Hall of Fame?

[the420trooper]

I'm watching a live stream right now, and just heard the commentator mention that Corey will be a shoe-in for the Hall of Fame in the next ten years.

He has amassed a VERY impressive list of titles, but has he accomplished enough to be considered for the HOF, given his lack of high finishes in the last few years?

 

[brophog]

I'm watching a live stream right now, and just heard the commentator mention that Corey will be a shoe-in for the Hall of Fame in the next ten years.

He has amassed a VERY impressive list of titles, but has he accomplished enough to be considered for the HOF, given his lack of high finishes in the last few years?

Those kinds of comments for a player of his age are usually with the implication "........if he continues on this pace.........".

 

[jason]

trooper...

Corey may be in a slump right now, but he is still one hell of a player.

Let's remember...Corey changed the rules of the game. In fact, I think he was significant in changing the game from 9 to 10 ball. His ability to make a controlled ball on the break, still to this day even in 10 ball, is second to none.

Hall of Fame. Mosconi Cup Player. Player of the Year.

I would vote yes.

 

[the420trooper]

Those kinds of comments for a player of his age are usually with the implication "........if he continues on this pace.........".

Agreed. And as much as I am in awe of Deuel's game, the last few years haven't been as impressive as some in years past. I think his best year was actually 2001, when he won: the US Open, the BCA Open, and the 7 ball Championship, as well as a number of smaller events.

I don't know for sure one way or the other, but before he turned 20, everyone was saying that he was the best player who ever lived, and that he was going to be the one to shatter all previous records...I don't think his subsequent performances have shown that.

He's a GREAT player, no doubt, but right now there are a lot of great players out there.

 

[westcoast]

He really needs to start playing better. He is one of my favorite players and he has been disappointing recently.

It must be a rough life these guys have. Always on the road. It must be hard to maintain relationships, friendships, etc. Must be a bit demoralizing at times

 

[Snapshot9]

Corey

To be honest, a player needs to win about 3 tournaments a year, to stay among the best. At least 1 of the 3 needs to be a big tournament. A lot of players get hot when they are about 20 or 21, but only the best having the staying power.

And quite frankly, what has he won since 2001, that's 10 years ago.

 

[rossaroni]

If he never wins another big title, I would have to say no. It will probably not get any easier with all the great players now. You could be a top ten player in the world(known ability, according to your peers, etc.), but never win a major title.

The BCA often looks at things differently then AZ, pool players, pro players, etc. Knowing how great someone plays or how feared they are gambling, etc. doesn't mean a whole lot to the BCA. They are looking for titles mostly. Corey definitely has titles, but not sure if he has enough in the eyes of the BCA voters.

 

[abie10]

Does the Hall of Fame take into account what you've done for the game as well? He may be a lock with all that as well.

 

[manwon]

I'm watching a live stream right now, and just heard the commentator mention that Corey will be a shoe-in for the Hall of Fame in the next ten years.

He has amassed a VERY impressive list of titles, but has he accomplished enough to be considered for the HOF, given his lack of high finishes in the last few years?

With all the great players of the past that are still living or those dead not being inducted I think it is a slap in the face that he should be considered.

JIMO

 

[jdxprs]

yes. he will be in.

 

[Celtic]

With all the great players of the past that are still living or those dead not being inducted I think it is a slap in the face that he should be considered.

JIMO

As harsh as that sounds I agree with it.

There are alot of players that have done alot more in this sport that are not in the hall of fame. IMO Corey has not had nearly the career to date to be considered over those people.

Winning 1 US Open is not instant HOF status, and Corey has slipped alot from his top pace 10 years ago.

 

[bob c]

To Answer Your Question

To be honest, a player needs to win about 3 tournaments a year, to stay among the best. At least 1 of the 3 needs to be a big tournament. A lot of players get hot when they are about 20 or 21, but only the best having the staying power.

And quite frankly, what has he won since 2001, that's 10 years ago.

2010 Turning Stone Classic XVI winner
2010 Seminole Pro Tour Stop winner
2009 Seminole Pro Tour Stop winner
2009 Seminole Pro Tour Stop winner
2008 SE Open 9-Ball Tour Stop winner
2008 Seminole Pro Tour Stop winner
2008 Seminole Pro Tour Stop winner
2008 Million Dollar Shootout winner
2007 Gabriels Open Professional Players Champion
2007 Space Coast Open winner
2007 Bob Martin Memorial winner
2007 Jacksonville Open winner
2006 Mosconi Cup, winning team member
2006 Relay for Life Nine-Ball Invitational Charity Benefit winner
2005 UPA Pro Tour Champion
2005 Fast Eddie's Nine-ball Tour Stop, Open Division winner
2004 Derby City Classic Ring Game winner
2004 Predator Central Florida Ring Game winner
2004 ESPN Sudden Death Seven-ball winner
2004 Seminole Florida Pro Tour Stop winner
2002 IBC Tour Stop 1 winner (Shirahima, Japan)
2002 UPA Atlanta Pro Open winner

 

[manwon]

As harsh as that sounds I agree with it.

There are alot of players that have done alot more in this sport that are not in the hall of fame. IMO Corey has not had nearly the career to date to be considered over those people.

Winning 1 US Open is not instant HOF status, and Corey has slipped alot from his top pace 10 years ago.

Thanks for your comments, I am not trying to take anything away from Corey and some day I am certain he will and should be considered he is certainly deserving.

But, in my opinion the current Hall Of Fame should be known as a Hall Of Shame, because while many of the players currently inducted are certainly deserving, politics plays to much of a roll. From what I have seen over the past 10 to 15 years the selection process is broken and it over looks the achievements of far to many.

I know my comments will not be taken well by many forum members, but one thing that is certain I do have an agenda, I would just like to see those deserving recognized in the order they are deserving, if that makes any sense. I would also like everyone to be recognized for their accomplishments equally which does not happen currently.

JIMO

 

[the420trooper]

Thanks for your comments, I am not trying to take anything away from Corey and some day I am certain he will and should be considered he is certainly deserving.

But, in my opinion the current Hall Of Fame should be known as a Hall Of Shame, because while many of the players currently inducted are certainly deserving, politics plays to much of a roll. From what I have seen over the past 10 to 15 years the selection process is broken and it over looks the achievements of far to many.

I know my comments will not be taken well by many forum members, but one thing that is certain I do have an agenda, I would just like to see those deserving recognized in the order they are deserving, if that makes any sense. I would also like everyone to be recognized for their accomplishments equally which does not happen currently.

JIMO

I can't honestly argue with any of that. Good post, Craig.

Without naming any names, there are several players currently in the HOF who have taken the places of more deserving players; although it was not my intention to point that out when starting this thread.

 

[brophog]

But, in my opinion the current Hall Of Fame should be known as a Hall Of Shame, because while many of the players currently inducted are certainly deserving, politics plays to much of a roll. From what I have seen over the past 10 to 15 years the selection process is broken and it over looks the achievements of far to many.

That's a dilemma for any Hall of Fame. The process is political by its nature. People are naturally prone to bias. For instance, in the recent thread on 'stealing information' it was clear to see that the word 'steal' was a trigger in that conversation.

Hall of Fame votes work much in the same way. A player may be a great player and may have a number of accomplishments, but perhaps never developed a name recognition that created those linkages in the voters minds. Sometimes the bias comes from players playing in different eras with different conditions. Baseball is the classic example with different field dimensions and prevailing environmental conditions. Pool is much the same way with cloth speeds, cue shaft technology, pocket sizes, etcetera. People will weigh those factors differently when they look at potential candidates and those all create bias.

Pool has a further disadvantage in that it doesn't have much in the way of analytics to help compensate for subjective bias.

It is easy to say that the system needs fixing, and there is certainly nothing wrong with saying that, however, solutions are far harder to come by. If one looks at any sports hall of fame, you would see such an opinion out of a certain percentage of the population.

 

[Joqpub4]

Points system...

The world golf HOF uses a points system to determine if you are eligible to be in the HOF. As an example here's the LPGA's:
LPGA point system
LPGA Tour golfers are eligible through a point system. Since 1999, LPGA members automatically qualify for World Golf Hall of Fame membership when they meet these three criteria:
Must be/have been an "active" LPGA Tour member for 10 years.
Must have won/been awarded at least one of the following - an LPGA major championship, the Vare Trophy or Player of the Year honors; and
Must have accumulated a total of 27 points, which are awarded as follows - one point for each LPGA official tournament win, two points for each LPGA major tournament win and one point for each Vare Trophy or Rolex Player of the Year honor earned.
Before 1999, players had to win 30 tournaments, including two majors; 35 tournaments with one major; or 40 tournaments in all to automatically qualify. At one time, players had to win two different majors to qualify with 30 wins, but this was changed earlier in the 1990s.

I've consistently in all sports heard endless discussions on HOF, particularly when comparing disparate eras. I feel a standard set of minimum eligibility and then a few (one annually, maybe) wild cards for those who the current professional feel belong because they RADICALLY changed a game, but don't make the grade due to longevity would be appropriately. BTW the % of professional peer approval for that should be really high.

HOF should be the best of the best in relation to the people/sports of any particular era.

Just my $0.02.

 

[TX Poolnut]

Corey is well on the long road to the Hall of Fame, but he's not there yet.

 

[oysteroyster]

This year he was runner up in the US Open, If it was not win by 2, he won the tournament. Appleton would have got second.

But, rules are the rules so he finished second.

Second in that format, with those players is still good.