HALL OF FAME Discussion Thread

(10-05-2026 20:17 )Boomerangutangangbang Wrote:  If you use your recommendation, for example, Kelly Bell was inducted last year, but the other finalist Emma C received a large percentage of votes in the previous rounds & final. By your reckoning Emma C was not of a standard. But if she is inducted this year, she is somehow considered so much better than 12 months prior, that is ridiculous as very little will have change in 12 months..
Inducting Emma C last year along with Kelly Bell would have no way diluted the quality, it would've just made common sense to do so.
I must reiterate, this is not a competition with stand alone annual winners, we view all inductees equally which is why they are & should be referred to as inductees & not winners.

I started to read through the last few pages and lost the will to live when I came to Boomers post . I'll come back to it when I'm less knackered.

However, if I can just pick up on this. I don't think we should be inducting 2nd placed girls if a vote is taken to it's conclusion, because it'll seem like a consolation prize.
I've seen mention of voting thresholds for induction, which seems a better idea. But the devil will be in the detail. You can't decide on a number in advance, without knowing how many people are going to vote. Or we could use percentages, but you'd have to pare the nominees right down to avoid babes getting inducted with low percentages due to votes being spread too thin between multiple babes.

So, to summerise..... I haven't a fucking clue
But I'm sure Snooks can pull this off, then he can move on to Starmers job

(10-05-2026 22:32 )The Silent Majority Wrote:  But I'm sure Snooks can pull this off, then he can move on to Starmers job

No amount of money offered could get me to do his job. Bloody impossible job.

Don't put too much faith in old Snooks. He is a senile, decrepit old bugger after all .

Just to clarify something about what I suggested earlier,
With regards to the vote % , I meant each finalist would have their own yes or no poll, they wouldn't be competing against the other finalists.
The poll would be - " do you think babe x should be inducted yes or no "
Then if ??% of the votes counted are "yes" they get inducted.

(10-05-2026 22:32 )The Silent Majority Wrote:  

(10-05-2026 20:17 )Boomerangutangangbang Wrote:  If you use your recommendation, for example, Kelly Bell was inducted last year, but the other finalist Emma C received a large percentage of votes in the previous rounds & final. By your reckoning Emma C was not of a standard. But if she is inducted this year, she is somehow considered so much better than 12 months prior, that is ridiculous as very little will have change in 12 months..
Inducting Emma C last year along with Kelly Bell would have no way diluted the quality, it would've just made common sense to do so.
I must reiterate, this is not a competition with stand alone annual winners, we view all inductees equally which is why they are & should be referred to as inductees & not winners.

I started to read through the last few pages and lost the will to live when I came to Boomers post . I'll come back to it when I'm less knackered.

However, if I can just pick up on this. I don't think we should be inducting 2nd placed girls if a vote is taken to it's conclusion, because it'll seem like a consolation prize.

I've seen mention of voting thresholds for induction, which seems a better idea. But the devil will be in the detail. You can't decide on a number in advance, without knowing how many people are going to vote. Or we could use percentages, but you'd have to pare the nominees right down to avoid babes getting inducted with low percentages due to votes being spread too thin between multiple babes.

Because I'm a bit shite at explaining stuff, I believe we are practically on the same page.
With the example I've used, don't look at it as a first & second, rather two nominees that have reached a required threshold. I don't see how it is a consolation prize as the both get inducted.
You raise a great point, the threshold must be percentage based, but it is critical that sufficient numbers vote for this method to work at a decent capacity.
The forum has 64,000 members, granted not all active, but we can get around 1,000 daily visits.
I'll be honest the footfall for some of the comps & I include the HOF has been quite frankly embarrassing at times, babes crowned winners & inducted by virtue of paltry numbers makes them less meaningful.
Maybe we have to forgo some of the excitement we previously had with knockouts & head to heads in order to find a more satisfactory & less controversial outcome.
I accept that voting apathy is a thing even on important issues such as electing political leaders.
Sorry again if I lost a few along the way with that post, I only did it to get my own back on snooks for all the years of reading his very long posts.

(10-05-2026 23:29 )Supersteve247 Wrote:  Just to clarify something about what I suggested earlier,
With regards to the vote % , I meant each finalist would have their own yes or no poll, they wouldn't be competing against the other finalists.
The poll would be - " do you think babe x should be inducted yes or no "
Then if ??% of the votes counted are "yes" they get inducted.

Just a hunch, but if not forced to choose won’t most members always vote ‘yes’ for most nominees?

(10-05-2026 23:54 )Boomerangutangangbang Wrote:  Sorry again if I lost a few along the way with that post, I only did it to get my own back on snooks for all the years of reading his very long posts.

Snooks throws his toys out of the pram

(10-05-2026 19:23 )William H Bonney Wrote:  Important principle: It is better to induct too few than too many.

It's important because if you induct too many, the whole exercise quickly becomes pointless. It becomes just a catalogue of performers. So it's a must to always err on the side of inducting too few.

Good thinking.

The Golf Hall Of Fame actually boasts about how few players they have inducted.

They clearly think the less they induct the more prestigious their Hall Of Fame is.

(11-05-2026 02:09 )Goodfella3041 Wrote:  

(10-05-2026 23:29 )Supersteve247 Wrote:  Just to clarify something about what I suggested earlier,
With regards to the vote % , I meant each finalist would have their own yes or no poll, they wouldn't be competing against the other finalists.
The poll would be - " do you think babe x should be inducted yes or no "
Then if ??% of the votes counted are "yes" they get inducted.

Just a hunch, but if not forced to choose won’t most members always vote ‘yes’ for most nominees?

Fair point.( This did cross my mind after I posted lol )
How about this...
Still use the % method,but one combined poll and voters can only choose yes for 3 of the 5 finalists on the ballot.

Every voter would still have voted yes or no for each finalist but this would eliminate the problem that you raised.......I think.

(10-05-2026 19:23 )William H Bonney Wrote:  A strict annual cap is what's required. A fixed number per year to keep standards high.

A strict annual cap is certainly popular, NFL, Hockey, Golf, NASCAR etc.

NASCAR is interesting. An annual competition to determine the inductees. Voters choose two from the Modern Ballot and one from the Pioneer Ballot. A good template for us?

(11-05-2026 14:36 )barracuda Wrote:  

(10-05-2026 19:23 )William H Bonney Wrote:  A strict annual cap is what's required. A fixed number per year to keep standards high.

A strict annual cap is certainly popular, NFL, Hockey, Golf, NASCAR etc.

NASCAR is interesting. An annual competition to determine the inductees. Voters choose two from the Modern Ballot and one from the Pioneer Ballot. A good template for us?

I still think it should be two and two. It's not fair on the category that has just the one pick. It's discriminatory. Needs to be equal across the board.