I received the ballot with all the nominees people selected several weeks ago. I immediately took a look at it and scratched several names straight away. Then I had a "short list" but I needed to weed that out further.
This is where I got stuck and why I haven't completed the task just yet is what this post is about today. See, I am conflicted.
First off, I want to present the "mission statement" for the GCHoF, if I can call it that. Maybe saying this is its raison d'etre is a better way to put it. Anyway....
"The Gravel Cycling Hall of Fame exists to recognize and celebrate those who explore, endure, overcome and inspire in the sport of gravel cycling."
Kinda vague, right? Sounds great, says.......nothing. It doesn't help me choose the new class of inductees, that's for sure. I'm looking for some hard and fast boundaries here. My choices should be based upon some easily understood guidelines. But there is a hint given in the email that the site doesn't have in the opening statements. Here it is; "We're so passionate about preserving the history and stories of the sport that has impacted us all so much."
History and stories. Okay, here's where I am having a problem. Obviously we're inducting people, so is this "people with a history and a story that impacted gravel cyclists and gravel cycling in general? Is this a "popularity contest" where we induct well-known, current names in the gravel scene? And if either things are the case, where do they have to have had this impactful history and story? Regionally? Nationally? World-wide?
 |
| A scene from the 2023 induction ceremonies in the Grenada Theater. |
I look over the list of nominees and some I know, some I've heard about, and many of them I've no clue as to who they are. The nomination process is a very democratic one, where people can nominate anyone, literally anyone, as long as they've had a whiff of gravel dust on them, it's somehow fair game.
I get the uneasy feeling that some people just want to see "hall of famer" behind their name and whether or not they really had any influence, impact, or did anything on the larger stage in terms of events, "story-telling", or marketing doesn't seem to matter.
And that sort of thing just makes for confusion on my end and ends up being a lot of "noise" and clutter that I don't feel we, as electors, should even be exposed to. I get that the noms are to be "by the people", but without any fence posts or filters, you get a lot of distorted views on what makes a 'hall of fame' worthy person. Unfortunately, the whole hall-of-fame deal is one that is going to feel exclusive, discriminatory, and it is going to make some people feel left out. That's the nature of these deals. You gotta draw some clear-cut lines, and some will be outside of them. Right now, the lines, if you can even say there are any, are pretty blurry.
I also stated last year that the nominations were chaotic in their format, length, and prose. This year's noms were better, but not by a lot. This could easily be cleared up by placing guidelines to nominating people which have to be met, be written in a concise format provided by the GCHoF, and those that are not deemed to be done within guidelines get rejected. Sounds harsh, but anything would be better than the mass chaos we are sent currently to look through.
 |
| Some people, like Joel Dyke, co-founder of the DK200, are obvious choices |
While some folks have had great influence that cannot be denied, some are regionally important, and maybe even that could be based on the popularity of the person locally. Did they have any lasting, outside their region influence? We don't often get anything to tell us that, and the nomination process doesn't demand it either.
Historical impact? Moved the needle nationally? Worldwide? Yes. Then lets make those folk's stories known. I'm good with that. But if the name I'm looking at doesn't resonate with me, you'd better have something better on the nomination than, "I feel that 'so-and-so' deserves to be in the Gravel Cycling Hall of Fame. That's great that "you" feel that way, but that's not what the GCHoF should be sending me as an elector to use as criteria for this hall of fame. I mean, just put everyone in and let's move on to something else, right?
Anyway..... In my view this thing could easily get off the rails into feting popular characters, regional influencers with dubious ties to gravel history, and whomever the popular gravel personality of the day happens to be. Historical influence and good, influential stories are something else altogether, in my opinion.
And none of this is getting me any closer to a completed vote, so I better get to gettin' .
9 comments:
If no vetting or ranking system exists, I would encourage you come up with one and share it with your electors. As part of a civic group, we have to evaluate and rank scholarship applicants. Having a sheet with categories and rankings (typically on a scale of 1-10) goes a long ways towards simplifying the process.
It will probably take some iterative development, and that's okay, and that process will generate some good discussion in determining what priorities the GCHoF and its members value and want to honor about the sport.
It seems like there may be pressure to induct a few people each year to keep the momentum up. If it's truly a HOF I don't see anything wrong with sending back a ballot with no one selected if you don't feel they meet the criteria. A year when there's 0 or 1 person that is inducted is perfectly fine and sends the right message.
@Stud Beefpile - Good suggestions. Be the solution, I get that. Thanks for the reminder.
@S. Fuller - The thing is, I can think of some that are not even on the ballot that maybe should be, some that are on the ballot have REALLY POOR stories written about them as to why they should be in, and others that have (as far as I can tell) ZERO influence on the gravel scene have their names in the running.
And we - as electors - are not all up on who is who and why anyone is on the ballot. For example, I see in the media all the time how gravel cycling is "new" or "relatively new" and many think this all got started in the late twenty-teens. Much of the 60 electors are made up of media personalities. I see potential issues there. Hopefully I am wrong.
So..... I guess the process needs to be one of education and one of informed choices. But when you have fans of personalities writing the noms, this becomes a weird morass of fan-boy/girl blathering and poorly explained history with points missing in terms of relevance to the gravel scene.
And unless you do some digging as an elector, who is to know what is what?
Should we even HAVE to do investigative searches to vet nominees? Maybe, I don't know.... We're just handed this and asked to vote.
As Stud says in his comment, all I can really do is ask the GCHoF to make changes and let them know what I think those should be. This post is just my expression of frustration with the process. But that's not entirely fair to the GCHoF. I plan on making a separate list of changes when I sen in my ballot.
I agree with @S. Fuller’s comment, and it is wild to me that it sounds like no pre-existing evaluation system exists.
I can imagine behind-the-scenes people like Jason Boucher (as just one example) probably aren’t household names and may not get nominated, even though he was part of a team that developed something that has helped thousands of folks enjoy gravel cycling and bikepacking. I consider that a major accomplishment in gravel cycling, but most folks just aren’t aware of bicycle development logistics (and I wouldn’t be without your blog!).
Talking media heads and race winners are the most visible in modern gravel cycling, and the nomination process is just an online form (or at least for the initial class it was), so the nomination process is not that formal nor rigorous. It comes down to the nominator to kind of lay out the nominee’s résumé for the electors to evaluate each candidate is what it sounds like the current process is. It may be intentional to not funnel down the nominees, but that would drive me bonkers (as it sounds like it is driving you).
I would be bugging whomever heads up the election/selection process to form a committee to get the evaluation process laid out and streamlined a bit (if such a person exists).
If I hadn’t heard of the person, and the nominating résumé was not convincing, I would not support their selection. If a single Google search of their name doesn’t ring a bell or meet your threshold for enshrinement (if their claim to fame exists within the post-2010 gravel cycling era),I don’t believe they deserve to be elected. I see no problem with no one being elected or only 1 or 2 folks achieving such an honor.
I can imagine “pre-internet” persons or folks at companies who aren’t part of the PR process may require a little bit more digging, so the nomination should include additional references if the person was kind of obscure or private (to validate the nominee’s accomplishment(s)). That would be frustrating and time-consuming to chase down as an individual elector, too. If I recall correctly, the nominator had to include their name (with the online nomination), so maybe you could follow up with nominators/nominees that sound somewhat convincing but lack the supporting context in the documentation provided to you?
As another one of the electors, I understand the challenge of ‘getting it done’. We had to weed through more than 50 pages of nominations, some of which were several pages long, so simply reading all the nominations took me more than a day to complete.
I think the process of ‘making it better’ starts with giving more strict guidelines about the nominations, both for length and necessary items to include.
I have to admit that, when I nominated you, Mark, I ended the nomination with something to the effect of “a Gravel Cycling Hall of Fame wouldn’t be a legitimate entity without him being in it. He’s been at the heart and soul of the sport since the beginning and perhaps more than anyone, he deserves the honor.”
It wasn’t the best written nomination, I’m sure, but it worked.
Nominate those you feel are worthy. Let your conscience be your guide. You’ll figure it out. If I can do it, you can do it.
@MG - What you said here:"I think the process of ‘making it better’ starts with giving more strict guidelines about the nominations, both for length and necessary items to include" - THAT sure would help.
I have a few more ideas as well.
Thanks Brother!
Part 1:
Hey Mr. Ted. Captain of the Gravel Cycling Hall of Fame here.
Really appreciate the feedback from your article and email to me directly of your feedback. Going into year 3 of the GCHOF, we have made drastic changes every year to make this process as good as we possibly can. Our goal has been to make the entire process as democratic as possible from nomination to voting. Who's to say us 7 board members should have the power to choose at will who is in or out? Certainly not me. So before going any further, we do listen to feedback and have already started having discussions for changes to fix some of the things you are worried about. So thank you for the constructive criticism that will allow the board to do better in the future.
Some points to clear up. We as a board actually do go through the nominations and weed out as much as we can. Trust me, there are WAY more horrible nominations than were presented to the elector. "XYZ is the best". "XYZ needs no explanation". And ranges of rant-filled nominations that don't really say much about the person being nominated to lala land stories that don't make any sense. Maybe in the future we as a board narrow the nominations down even further? Down to the top 25? Or top half? The reason we haven't narrowed down nominations further than we have is we don't want to be the Kings and Queens that restrict someone's stories. Maybe a nominee resonates with the electors more than it does with the board and then that person doesn't get in because 7 people instead of over 50 didn't like it.
Our biggest shortcoming right now is the nomination process, but this is where I hope I can inspire you and your readers to help in 2025. Like I said earlier, we want it to be democratic as much as we can and that starts with the nominations. We open those nominations for 5 weeks for any person to nominate. We say in the nomination form that what is submitted is the story that is given to the electors. There are so many people who need to be nominated and have a great nomination submitted who haven't. My #1 suggestion to every person reading your blog is to follow us on social media and when we open nominations in the fall, to take the time to write nominations that are worth the electors' time. Tell a story to the electors why your nominee should be in. There are so many amazing stories that haven't been nominated or haven't been told in a way that convinces the electors to vote for that nominee. So PLEASE, nominate and write great nominations that are deserving of the stories that have been made. It's the only way for us to share them.
Part 2:
You also mentioned the vagueness of qualifications of who you should vote for. That's intentional. Hall of Fame means something different to every person. Every hall of fame from the Rock and Roll to NFL is a point of controversy and discussion every year and that's one thing that makes them great. There are amazing humans in every hall of fame that people feel are snubbed for decades before getting inducted. There may be others that never get in that probably should. There are also countless examples of arguments of someone getting in too early or jumping the line. Every elector, every fan, every board member has a different interpretation of who should be next in line to the GCHOF. It's a big reason we have stuck with rank-based voting so that you don't have to pick one person. Every elector gets to pick a range of nominees they feel should be the next class. And as a group of electors you all decide the fate. I do agree we need to do our best to ensure it's not just a popularity contest every year. You are correct. And we've done our best to choose electors who have a broad perspective of the sport of gravel. Not just midwest promoters or just athletes or just old-school gravel guys. So thank you to you and all the electors who have taken their own perspectives and experiences of gravel and voted their own conscious to what they believe is deserving to be in the GCHOF.
Last I'll say this. The great news is the GCHOF isn't going anywhere. We're just in year 3! This year will only be 15 people to be inducted. We have so many more years to induct the incredible humans of this sport who have inspired us. And even more exciting is there are so many stories being written write now that will be celebrated many years from now. There will no doubt be controversy and debate every year of who should of been or shouldn't of been in and I look forward to those conversations.
Love and appreciate all you have done and are doing for our sport.
Jason Strohbehn
Captain of the Gravel Cycling Hall of Fame
Post a Comment