PDA

View Full Version : Michael Chang in the Hall of Fame?


A.J. Sim
02-13-2007, 02:18 PM
With Sampras being inducted into the Hall of Fame, I got to thinking if Chang would be a lock to make it into the hall of fame. Any thoughts? I sure hope he gets in soon; along with Andre, Jim, and Pete, he helped rebuild American tennis for a long time...

Moose Malloy
02-13-2007, 02:25 PM
He is a lock because Noah is in. It isn't all about accomplishments, but other factors as well.

Chang was the 1st American to win the French since 1955 & was the youngest male ever to win a major. That, in addition to being consistently ranked in the top 10 for almost a decade is more than enough.

Plus the hall of fame likes to induct people that will show up(and names that will encourage fans to buy tickets to the ceremony, like a Noah)
Since its in Newport, Americans seem to be good choices.

goober
02-13-2007, 02:59 PM
Well Pam Shriver is in, so yes Michael Chang is a lock.

spadesss
02-15-2007, 06:07 AM
the NIKE logo must get in as well then!!!
for real.

ATXtennisaddict
02-15-2007, 06:16 AM
First Asian-American ever to win a slam. Right? Or even, first anyone of Asian descent to win the FO or any GS singles?

mJeez4293
02-15-2007, 06:47 AM
haha but ill be the next

VGP
02-15-2007, 07:02 AM
Well, Pam Shriver was a very accomplished doubles player (mostly with Navratilova) and she's done good as a commentator and game promoter since her retirement.

As for Chang, remember he was a solid #2 for a while if it weren't for Sampras. He was three sets away from the #1 ranking (USO final '96).

He also promoted the game heavily in Asia and has stellar Davis Cup accomplishments (as does Yannick Noah as a player and captain).

People tend to only focus on grand slam singles accomplishments.

I'm fully expecting Woodforde and Woodbridge to be inducted to the HOF too.

spadesss
02-15-2007, 07:41 AM
tennis is not all about stats but one's influence and impact they make.
chang bought tennis to the asian countries and promoted it. his background and winning the FO put him on the map. he was a fighter and a top player for years. never got arrested or rush into the law, figured that counts for soemthing nowadays in the sports scene. too bad he didn't win more slams but i think he should be in the hall for sure.

scaino
02-15-2007, 10:12 AM
I for one have always felt that the Hall of Fame's standards are much too low for enshrinees. What does it say for Sampras to be inducted into company that already includes Noah, Rafter and Sabatini? Not really an honor that reflects his achievements. As others have said, often it comes down to global popularity, but this fades with time, whereas the players themselves, with their meager accomplishments, remain in the Hall for ALL time. I would perhaps like to see enshrinees selected not on an annual basis, but every five or ten years, limiting the number of players selected from each period and with a more firm standard of qualifications. From the 2000s, Federer, Nadal, Hewitt, Safin, and Roddick are probably already locks, whereas I would say only Federer is yet truly deserving, like Sampras or Agassi from the '90s. If the Hall maintains its current procedures, there should perhaps be another hall within the Hall, for enshrinees of special merit, no more than a handful from each decade of the sport. Though I suppose that would be a much less successful business model, from the organization's perspective.

ohplease
02-15-2007, 10:16 AM
He is a lock because Noah is in. It isn't all about accomplishments, but other factors as well.

Chang was the 1st American to win the French since 1955 & was the youngest male ever to win a major. That, in addition to being consistently ranked in the top 10 for almost a decade is more than enough.

Plus the hall of fame likes to induct people that will show up(and names that will encourage fans to buy tickets to the ceremony, like a Noah)
Since its in Newport, Americans seem to be good choices.

Agreed - there's not even a question in my mind that Chang would be in.

slice bh compliment
02-15-2007, 10:25 AM
....What does it say for Sampras to be inducted into company that already includes Noah, Rafter and Sabatini? Not really an honor that reflects his achievements. .....

I see what you're saying, but I'm sure Pete still regards it is an honor to slum it in Newport for a weekend. He gets to be a part of something greater than his accomplishments.

Chang is nowhere near Pete, in many respects. But a Hall of Famer for sure, based on his accomplishments and his character. Tennis is richer for having known him. I never could stand the kid's game, but he's good people.

goober
02-15-2007, 10:46 AM
Well, Pam Shriver was a very accomplished doubles player (mostly with Navratilova) and she's done good as a commentator and game promoter since her retirement.

.

I have nothing against Shriver but she won all those titles because she was partner with the greatest Volleyer and doubles player in the history of Women's tennis. There are probably a fair number of WTA players that could have won all those titles if Martina was partner with them. She is like Peter Fleming with JMac. I am not saying she shouldn't be in the HOF, but if that is the standard...

Moose Malloy
02-15-2007, 10:51 AM
Shriver did win major titles with players other than Martina. She is a great doubles player, period.

bluetrain4
02-15-2007, 10:53 AM
A lock if there ever was one. We can debate all day whether player's with only one or two slams should make it, but the fact is that the Hall of Fame has already set the standard. And, remember, even though some of us complain that the one Slam shouldn't be enough, there are plenty of players who won one Slam, who won't even get close to getting in: Majoli, Korda, Myskina, Kusnetsova (may be premature), Albert Costa, just to name a few.

Chang won the French and is the youngest player to win a Slam. He was in a couple of other Slam finals and was consistently in the later rounds of Slams. He held the number 2 ranking. He won lots of other tournaments, including Masters Series events. Great Davis Cup player. First man of Asian descent to win a Slam. As someone said, he was a catalyst for tennis in Asia. And, it never hurts to play alongside the greats, and he played alongside Sampras.

lawrence
02-15-2007, 11:56 AM
chang was the first for quite a few things i think (at least first in a long period of time)
not to mention his game against lendl was pretty innovative, 4 hours of mind ******** haha

stormholloway
02-15-2007, 09:39 PM
If I were on tour, I'd convert to polygamist Mormon. That way even if I weren't that good, I'd still make hall of fame for opening the door for other polygamist Mormon players.

Plus I'd have like three 15-year-old wives.

Nick Irons
02-15-2007, 09:54 PM
Well Pam Shriver is in, so yes Michael Chang is a lock.

Shriver may be the Lowest Common Denominator when it comes to comparing the Shrinees but her profile warrants the selection I think

http://www.tennisfame.com/famer.aspx?pgID=867&hof_id=155

Chang ? Without a doubt.

4 Slam Finals

34 Titles (58 Total Finals)

World No. 2

Top 10 Player for 6 years straight (Spent a month at Number 11 during this period)

travlerajm
02-15-2007, 10:14 PM
First OS to win a slam = automatic lock.

dirkgnuf
02-18-2007, 09:48 AM
For someone of Chang's stature to achieve all his accomplishments is amazing. You won't see too many players with Chang's height who break the top 5.

!Tym
02-18-2007, 10:31 AM
I for one have always felt that the Hall of Fame's standards are much too low for enshrinees. What does it say for Sampras to be inducted into company that already includes Noah, Rafter and Sabatini? Not really an honor that reflects his achievements.

What would the Newport Hall of Fame ceremony and tournament say every year if they only inducted the likes of Pete Sampras? Who would show up...AT ALL?

I don't think what's factored in enough is that tennis is an INDIVIDUAL sport. What would basketball and basketball hall of fames be if they ONLY inducted the likes of Michael Jordan and Babe Ruth?

What would the tennis hall of fame be if they ONLY inducted the likes of Laver, Borg, Lendl, Sampras, Federer every FEW years?

Tennis is an individual sport, so when you get your one or two Jordan-esque level of domination players every ERA, then what does that leave you with? A very-VERY-lonely hall of fame. I mean it's all about perspective. In team sports, everyone knows Jordan was king...but what does that mean guys like Barkley, Pippen, Miller, Stockton and Malone, Patrick Ewing, David Robinson, Clyde the Glide Drexler, Dominique Wilkins, Isiah Thomas, Gary Patyon, etc., etc. are all chump change by comparison? Hmm...let me think about that for a second--YES, yes, they ARE chump change by comparison just as Sabatini was chump change by comparison to Graf and Rafter was chump change next to Sampras. STILL, come on, it IS worth something to be considered a "known" star in tennis AT SOME POINT. In team sports, there's room for SEVERAL star players to get their due, because they each get to headline their own team, but if they were all put on the same team with Jordan, that means what? That Clyde the Glide suddenly becomes what? A *bench warmer*. Yup, that is EXACTLY what he would be "considered" as if tennis were a true INDIVIDUAL TEAM sport like tennis. That is to say, if you want to make a FAIR comparison between the so-called hall of fame standards between an individual sport like tennis and a team sport like basketball, imagine it as there is only ONE team in the league. There are a thousan other professional "caliber" players in the world who are BEGGING for a chance to get to play on that ONE team, just to get on t.v. for ONCE in their entire lifetime of toil FIGHTING for this, to make it all worth it, to make even a paltry living. Then, make it so that *only so many* players are allowed onto the "active" *TV* playing squad. That you have all these other just "pretty good" and "ok" and "well, he's half-way decent, I GUESS" players "allowed" on to that active squad...and all of them playing behind, JORDAN. Yup, that's what pro tennis is like. Ever heard of the term, there can only be ONE king?

Well, there you go. That's how tennis more or less is. There are only just so many kings, and everyone else is considered a pauper by comparison by the public...even though the public doesn't "get" or "see" the TRUE perspective of it all. Of how unfair and ludicrous it is in my opinion to consider guys and gals like Rafter and Sabatini relative nobodies just like Dominique Wilkins and Patrick Ewing and Clide Drexler were relative "nobodies" by comparison to Jordan's IMMENSE star. Yup, just go tell that to Atlanta Hawks fans or New York Knicks fans, tell San Antonia fans that well, David Robinson wasn't really ALL that, he was just alright for a few years until that what's his name, "Tim Duncan" guy came along. No, it just doesn't work that way in team sports, because there's room enough for both the superstar players and the LEGEND players both to coincide without the superstar players being denigrated in anyway nor the legend players insulted in anyway. There's room enough for BOTH in team sports hall of fames, and I think that's how it should be.

Put it this way, if tennis were ONLY played in the world team tennis format, then no one would be complaining about the likes of Rafter and Sabatini getting let in. Why? Because while Sampras might just go ahead and "lead his team to victory" almost every single year, effectively "snuffing out" the "championship bids" of so many of his other fellow all-stars from competing teams every year; we'd STILL recognize that hey, yeah, that Gary Payton fellow's pretty slick too. And why? Simple. Because there would be SEVERAL teams in the league. Say oh, TEN teams in the league. And each team has its anointed "superstar" player who on any given day is pretty darn good and could give Sampras and his "team" and a pretty decent ride, heck, maybe even steal a flash upset victory *here and there* once in a blue moon but NEVER actually being able to win the battle. Still, no one would see these other "all-stars," the TOP TEN if you will, as being any less of a men. They'd still be considered awesome players and superstars in their own right by their respective team's hometown fans and they'd still give their respective team's fans a lot of great memories through the years and a lot of great moments too.

It's just that in tennis with ONLY SO MANY *true* legend caliber players around, it just makes every other "one of the best freaking players in the world"'s player's accomplishments look merely "nice" by comparison. In fact, a guy like Barkley could make it to a "fluke" #1 ranking one year and win the league MVP, and still be considered a TOTAL chump because why? Well, he and his team didn't win the ONLY championship that *really* counts now did he?--wink, wink. Yup, that would mean that in basketball, a guy like Barkley could put together a year like he did, win the league MVP, and still that year would be considered nothing much. But it's not. It really was a great year for him. Just as Marcelo Rios' run to #1 was a great year for him, but it still doesn't really count in tennis terms now does it, because why? Because he failed to win a slam during his run to #1.

Nick Irons
02-18-2007, 10:42 AM
This is a great post !Tym

I concur.