PDA

View Full Version : M. Chang makes the Hall of Fame


f1 tech
01-23-2008, 08:37 AM
NEWPORT, Rhode Island -- French Open winner Michael Chang was elected to the International Tennis Hall of Fame, and IMG creator Mark McCormack and Tennis Week magazine founder Eugene Scott were selected posthumously.

McCormack and Scott were selected in the contributor category, the hall announced on Wednesday. The induction ceremony is July 12 at the International Tennis Hall of Fame and Museum.

Chang was only 17 when he won the 1989 French Open -- the youngest male player to win a Grand Slam title.

His run to the French Open title included a memorable five-set upset of No. 1 Ivan Lendl in the fourth round, when a cramping Chang resorted to underhand serves. He defeated Stefan Edberg in the final.

Chang reached No. 2 in the rankings in 1996, finished runner-up three times at Grand Slams and won 34 singles titles.

McCormack, who died in 2003 at 72, was a sports marketing pioneer. He created International Management Group in 1960 and turned success in sports into commercial marketability. His clients included Billie Jean King, Chris Evert, Martina Navratilova and John McEnroe.

Scott, a former top 20 player, founded Tennis Week in 1974 and served as its publisher and editor until he died in 2006 at 68. He also was a tournament director, player agent and author of more than 20 tennis books.

AP NEWS
The Associated Press News Service

f1 tech
01-23-2008, 08:39 AM
I personally think he deserves it. I know many will disagree.

goober
01-23-2008, 08:43 AM
I personally think he deserves it. I know many will disagree.

Really? I thought he would be a shoe-in based on the past players that have made it in.

Moose Malloy
01-23-2008, 08:45 AM
I know many will disagree.

Maybe the 'many' fans here who don't know anything about the Hall of Fame will disagree, but not anyone else.

Once Pam Shriver & Yannick Noah got in, all bets were off. Chang's career looks like Laver's compared to those 2.

jaggy
01-23-2008, 08:57 AM
Maybe the 'many' fans here who don't know anything about the Hall of Fame will disagree, but not anyone else.

Once Pam Shriver & Yannick Noah got in, all bets were off. Chang's career looks like Laver's compared to those 2.

Agree 100%, means nothing really now.

A.J. Sim
01-23-2008, 08:58 AM
this is good to hear; Chang was a part of one of the greatest generation American tennis has produced with Sampras, Courier, and Agassi. They took tennis as a sport to new levels.

Chang made the semis or better at 3 of the 4 slams (the exception being Wimbledon and its fast grass courts). He was consistently ranked in the top 10 during his prime. Also, you could argue that he had a huge impact on popularizing the game amongst Asian Americans and in Asia.

tennisnj
01-23-2008, 09:39 AM
Congrats to him. My favorite player. I modeled much of my 'never give up' attitude on the courts after him. He showed that people short in stature could succeed in tennis.

lordmanji
01-23-2008, 10:08 AM
my first reaction was, omg pam shriver got in?! but after looking at her record, its a VERY good doubles record. my initial reaction was more ignorant than anything. here's some highlights that i got from wikipedia:

reached no.1 ranking in doubles

US Open finalist. several grand slam semifinalist in singles.

21 grand slam doubles titles with Navratilova. 7 AO, 5 FO, 5 Wimbledon and 4 USO. won two more grand slam doubles titles with other partners.

Gold medal in doubles at 88 Olympics.

total of 133 doubles and singles titles.

Yannick Noah's rec isn't half bad either. He was last french player to take the French Open which was probably about inspiring to the French as Michael Chang's win was.

career high of no. 3. AO semifinalist. 3-time USO quarterfinalist.

1 grand slam doubles title. 1 runner up.

Spatula
01-23-2008, 10:17 AM
I happen to play at the McCormack Nagelson Tennis Center on the campus of William and Mary in Williamsburg (where he was an alumni). They have a glass case with many personal affects and whatnot. He's story is an excellent one, and the tennis center (which he donated the money for) is one of the best in the nation.

jaggy
01-23-2008, 06:40 PM
I happen to play at the McCormack Nagelson Tennis Center on the campus of William and Mary in Williamsburg (where he was an alumni). They have a glass case with many personal affects and whatnot. He's story is an excellent one, and the tennis center (which he donated the money for) is one of the best in the nation.

Maybe Betsy Nagelson could get in also, didnt she win a few matches here and there? All it seems to take really.

Fuzzy10sBalls
01-23-2008, 06:57 PM
Maybe Betsy Nagelson could get in also, didnt she win a few matches here and there? All it seems to take really.

hell toss brad gilbert in there, and tim mayotte

10schick
01-23-2008, 07:10 PM
NEWPORT, Rhode Island -- French Open winner Michael Chang was elected to the International Tennis Hall of Fame, and IMG creator Mark McCormack and Tennis Week magazine founder Eugene Scott were selected posthumously.

McCormack and Scott were selected in the contributor category, the hall announced on Wednesday. The induction ceremony is July 12 at the International Tennis Hall of Fame and Museum.

Chang was only 17 when he won the 1989 French Open -- the youngest male player to win a Grand Slam title.

His run to the French Open title included a memorable five-set upset of No. 1 Ivan Lendl in the fourth round, when a cramping Chang resorted to underhand serves. He defeated Stefan Edberg in the final.

Chang reached No. 2 in the rankings in 1996, finished runner-up three times at Grand Slams and won 34 singles titles.

McCormack, who died in 2003 at 72, was a sports marketing pioneer. He created International Management Group in 1960 and turned success in sports into commercial marketability. His clients included Billie Jean King, Chris Evert, Martina Navratilova and John McEnroe.

Scott, a former top 20 player, founded Tennis Week in 1974 and served as its publisher and editor until he died in 2006 at 68. He also was a tournament director, player agent and author of more than 20 tennis books.

AP NEWS
The Associated Press News Service

RE: Michael CHang..... I can't think of a nicer guy. I met him in about 1991 at a charity tournament event. WELL DESERVED.. What a guy he is! NICE JOB MICHAEL!

AndrewD
01-23-2008, 08:43 PM
Once Pam Shriver & Yannick Noah got in, all bets were off. Chang's career looks like Laver's compared to those 2.

True, but can you explain why Chang gets in before Pat Cash?

Both have 1 singles major and two runner-up efforts. However, Cash won Wimbledon, the world's premier event, was the catalyst for two Davis Cup wins (highly significant to the rest of the world, even if not to America) and was twice runner-up in the Wimbledon doubles. Chang has a singles ranking high of #2, Cash's was #4. Chang had a doubles ranking high of #199, Cash's was #6. Chang won 0 doubles titles, Cash won 12. Chang won 34 singles titles, Cash won 7. That last figure may seem telling but, remember, Cash's career was plagued by injury and, physically, he was done by the age of 26. So, if you look at each player's win/loss record you'll see that Chang's was 662 - 312 (68%) and Cash's was 242 - 149 (62%) with a large number of Cash's losses coming after he'd lost the ability to compete physically. If you ignore those last few years when he could barely get through a match (and surely the Hall has that kind of flexibility in its thinking), his win/loss percentage is almost 70%.

grafrules
01-23-2008, 09:24 PM
Once Pam Shriver & Yannick Noah got in, all bets were off. Chang's career looks like Laver's compared to those 2.

If you are talking only about singles for sure. I guess it depends how much value you give to Shrivers's amazing doubles careeer.

BreakPoint
01-23-2008, 10:07 PM
True, but can you explain why Chang gets in before Pat Cash?

Both have 1 singles major and two runner-up efforts. However, Cash won Wimbledon, the world's premier event, was the catalyst for two Davis Cup wins (highly significant to the rest of the world, even if not to America) and was twice runner-up in the Wimbledon doubles. Chang has a singles ranking high of #2, Cash's was #4. Chang had a doubles ranking high of #199, Cash's was #6. Chang won 0 doubles titles, Cash won 12. Chang won 34 singles titles, Cash won 7. That last figure may seem telling but, remember, Cash's career was plagued by injury and, physically, he was done by the age of 26. So, if you look at each player's win/loss record you'll see that Chang's was 662 - 312 (68%) and Cash's was 242 - 149 (62%) with a large number of Cash's losses coming after he'd lost the ability to compete physically. If you ignore those last few years when he could barely get through a match (and surely the Hall has that kind of flexibility in its thinking), his win/loss percentage is almost 70%.
Chang actually had three runner-up efforts at Grand Slams: '95 French, '96 Australian, and '96 US Open. He also had 4 other appearances in Grand Slam semifinals. I'm not sure how many Cash had but I do know of the one when he lost to Lendl in the '84 US Open semis.

OnyxZ28
01-23-2008, 10:20 PM
Chang was also ambassador of the game to a whole continent -- his popularity in Asia brought a lot of people to the game who otherwise wouldn't follow it.

OrangeOne
01-23-2008, 10:26 PM
the youngest male player to win a Grand Slam title.

I think that fact is worth a fair amount of kudos...

BreakPoint
01-23-2008, 10:29 PM
I think that fact is worth a fair amount of kudos...
Chang was also the youngest male player to win a main draw match at the US Open (and perhaps in any Grand Slam?) at 15 years old.

OrangeOne
01-23-2008, 11:02 PM
Chang was also ambassador of the game to a whole continent -- his popularity in Asia brought a lot of people to the game who otherwise wouldn't follow it.

Chang was also the youngest male player to win a main draw match at the US Open (and perhaps in any Grand Slam?) at 15 years old.

Both good points. A well-deserved inductee in my view.

BreakPoint
01-23-2008, 11:22 PM
Both good points. A well-deserved inductee in my view.
It's hard to believe but Chang also made the 4th round of the US Open, the 3rd round of the French, and the 2nd round of Wimbledon all at 16 years old. Not even Nadal was able to do that.

Ultra2HolyGrail
01-24-2008, 11:05 AM
It's hard to believe but Chang also made the 4th round of the US Open, the 3rd round of the French, and the 2nd round of Wimbledon all at 16 years old.

Thats because chang had a two handed backhand..

BreakPoint
01-24-2008, 11:30 AM
Thats because chang had a two handed backhand..
So is that the same reason you crticized him for being able to win only one Grand Slam in that other thread? LOL

sunflowerhx
01-24-2008, 12:07 PM
this is good to hear; Chang was a part of one of the greatest generation American tennis has produced with Sampras, Courier, and Agassi. They took tennis as a sport to new levels.



How can you compare him with multi slam/surface winners like Sampras, Courier, and Agassi?

He was a one slam wonder and he did it with questionable sportsmanship against Lendl.

I agree he did help popularise the game in Asia, but I never saw here as a sporting hero and I'm oriental.

A.J. Sim
01-24-2008, 12:25 PM
I did not say he was the best of the 4; he probably was the worst in that he only won 1 slam and he had the least amount of talent of the 4.

However, he was still the youngest man ever to win a grandslam title, win a main draw match at the Open at age 15. It's been said that he was probably the greatest 15-16 year old player of all time. Read what BreakPoint and some of the others have said about his accomplishments.

A one slam wonder? He was consistently in the top 10 before he started getting old and his body broke down from injuries. He lost to Sampras at the Open, Becker at the Australian, and Muster at the French. Not bad names to lose to for grand slam finals.

My argument is that you can't leave out any member of the 4 Americans.

I'm Asian too, and I did see him as an early inspiration of mine for tennis. If you're old enough to remember, he was basically the only Asian guy in the top 25 for years.

urvasive
01-24-2008, 12:41 PM
How can you compare him with multi slam/surface winners like Sampras, Courier, and Agassi?

He was a one slam wonder and he did it with questionable sportsmanship against Lendl.

I agree he did help popularise the game in Asia, but I never saw here as a sporting hero and I'm oriental.

Lendl was a dick anyway... he got to lendl's head which was pretty clever for a 15 year old..

If you are oriental, then call up michael jackson and ask him how to that bleached skin look. Because you are a disgrace to the asian community:shock:

VGP
01-24-2008, 12:56 PM
Please stop calling people "oriental."

It's like using the word "colored."

Don't forget that Noah was also the Davis Cup captain for France (remember '91 against USA - breaking a 58 year drought).

As for Pam Shriver, doubles is tennis too. That's why Woodforde and Woodbridge should be inducted as well.

onehandbh
01-24-2008, 12:56 PM
I think Chang being the first player of Asian descent to win
a grand slam is quite significant and probably warrants his
getting into the hall of fame. Not quite like the first
black getting into MLB or NBA but significant nevertheless.

sunflowerhx
01-24-2008, 01:20 PM
Lendl was a dick anyway... he got to lendl's head which was pretty clever for a 15 year old..

No he was 17, and Lendl was graceful in defeat despite Chang's antics
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,958038-1,00.html

Crowding the service box impudently, Chang taunted Lendl into double faulting away the closing point in the last 6-3 set. But the three-time French Open champion brought grace to the interview room afterward. "He showed me a lot of courage," Lendl said. "He deserves credit."



If you are oriental, then call up michael jackson and ask him how to that bleached skin look. Because you are a disgrace to the asian community:shock:

What the fu*k?
So if I was black, I cannot criticise James Blake?

Grow up and get your facts straight you tosser.

jayrlo
01-24-2008, 01:41 PM
you both should grow up a little. michael chang was one of the greatest players to watch. if u havent seen him play and only judge him by the results u see then you shouldnt be talking. it is like saying marat safin isnt good because he doesnt consistently rack in results. ask sampras, agassi or courier. they will all say chang was an impact to their tennis development and was at one point, in their teens, the leader of the pack.

BreakPoint
01-24-2008, 01:48 PM
If you are oriental, then call up michael jackson and ask him how to that bleached skin look. Because you are a disgrace to the asian community:shock:
What does being Asian have anything to do with whether he likes Chang or not?

If you're Asian, do you also like Mao Tse-tung? Should all blacks vote for Obama just because he's black? Should all blacks think O.J. Simpson is innocent just because they're also black? Should all white people love Roddick? :confused: Don't be ridiculous!!

ohplease
01-24-2008, 02:02 PM
True, but can you explain why Chang gets in before Pat Cash?

Both have 1 singles major and two runner-up efforts. However, Cash won Wimbledon, the world's premier event, was the catalyst for two Davis Cup wins (highly significant to the rest of the world, even if not to America) and was twice runner-up in the Wimbledon doubles. Chang has a singles ranking high of #2, Cash's was #4. Chang had a doubles ranking high of #199, Cash's was #6. Chang won 0 doubles titles, Cash won 12. Chang won 34 singles titles, Cash won 7. That last figure may seem telling but, remember, Cash's career was plagued by injury and, physically, he was done by the age of 26. So, if you look at each player's win/loss record you'll see that Chang's was 662 - 312 (68%) and Cash's was 242 - 149 (62%) with a large number of Cash's losses coming after he'd lost the ability to compete physically. If you ignore those last few years when he could barely get through a match (and surely the Hall has that kind of flexibility in its thinking), his win/loss percentage is almost 70%.

It's about context, not numbers. Chang could have fallen off the face of the earth after his win at Roland Garros - he'd likely still get in as the youngest ever, especially after the series of memorable matches he got through during that win.

Noah? One slam wonder, sure. Last Frenchman to win in Paris? Way bigger deal.

Cash? If he'd won in Melbourne AND Melbourne had as high a profile as it does now AND he needed to get through dramatic, widely televised matches, sure. As it is? Nope.

sureshs
01-24-2008, 02:08 PM
I heard from a local pro that Chang is recruiting coaches for his academy in Shenzen. Complete package with room and board. If you are an unemployed/underemployed teaching pro, and able to relocate, look into it. China is the next big emerging market.

AndrewD
01-24-2008, 02:24 PM
Chang actually had three runner-up efforts at Grand Slams: '95 French, '96 Australian, and '96 US Open. He also had 4 other appearances in Grand Slam semifinals. I'm not sure how many Cash had but I do know of the one when he lost to Lendl in the '84 US Open semis.

sorry, I did forget his runner-up at the Aus Open. Cash had only another 2 semi appearances in majors. However, in Davis Cup, the most pressure filled atmosphere in tennis, Chang had an 8-4 (66%) record (tellingly losing 3 of his 4 matches in Davis Cup finals) while Cash had a 31-10 (76%) record, including being 4-2 in Davis Cup finals. As a counterpart, Yannick Noah had a 39-22 (64%) record and was 1-2 in Davis Cup finals (also a very poor record in semi-finals). You could also ask, which of the three players - Cash, Noah and Chang- was closest to a secong major? Noah never got to another one, Chang was beaten soundly in one and flogged in the other two, while Cash was close enough to taste victory in both his runner-up efforts.

Essentially, what you have are two great day-to-day players as opposed to a greater big-match player - someone who had an extra gear neither of those two had. To me, all of that makes him an equally worthy candidate who, excluding any politics, should have slotted in after Noah and before Chang (personally, I'd have inducted them all at the same time).

BreakPoint
01-24-2008, 02:37 PM
sorry, I did forget his runner-up at the Aus Open. Cash had only another 2 semi appearances in majors. However, in Davis Cup, the most pressure filled atmosphere in tennis, Chang had an 8-4 (66%) record (tellingly losing 3 of his 4 matches in Davis Cup finals) while Cash had a 31-10 (76%) record, including being 4-2 in Davis Cup finals. As a counterpart, Yannick Noah had a 39-22 (64%) record and was 1-2 in Davis Cup finals (also a very poor record in semi-finals). You could also ask, which of the three players - Cash, Noah and Chang- was closest to a secong major? Noah never got to another one, Chang was beaten soundly in one and flogged in the other two, while Cash was close enough to taste victory in both his runner-up efforts.

I'm surprised that the one you forgot was Chang's runner-up effort in the Aus Open, you being Aussie and all. :wink:

I think the other issue may be that the Aus Open just did not have the same importance back in the 80's when Cash made the finals twice as it does today or even in '96 when Chang made the final because back in the 80's many of the world's top players did not bother to play the Aus Open.

NoBadMojo
01-24-2008, 02:49 PM
So maybe Cash gets in next year...or the year after. Are there many who have won a major who havent gotten in? Shouldnt Bruguera be in if Chang is in? he's got a couple of Frenches I think
Most importantly is Beppe Merlo in the HOF? ;O

!Tym
01-24-2008, 04:36 PM
So maybe Cash gets in next year...or the year after. Are there many who have won a major who havent gotten in? Shouldnt Bruguera be in if Chang is in? he's got a couple of Frenches I think
Most importantly is Beppe Merlo in the HOF? ;O

Bruguera had an imcomplete career. Had he stayed healthier longer, I believe he would have definitely got in. As it is, by far the biggest knock against him is that he maxed out at the round of 16 outside the French at the slams. His did, however, make the year ending masters semis when the courts actually played like a proper indoor cout, and he also won silver in the Olympics in his worst year before turning into essentially a half-time pro only. He was also the only two time ATP Comeback Player of the Year, but that doesn't factor for much. Still, if they can let doubles players in for being one of the best doubles players of all time; legitimate consideration should be made for someone who is one of the greatest clay court players of all time. Back to back French titles, historically dethroned Jim Courier when he was seen to be invincible, one semi, and one final, in his prime one of the most feared clay courters of all time. To me, I can understand the logic of letting in great doubles players, but by the same token I think that's more relevant in the woman's game than the men's in terms of actual ability level. The top women pros have always been more likely to play doubles than the men. The top women also don't have to simultaneously juggle best of five matches at slams with doubles the way a male pro would have to, significantly lessening the burden. To me, men's doubles has always been watered down. I remember watching Mahesh Buphati live before in singles, and the guy was nothing special at all. The only thing that really stood out was that he had a relatively solid, sharp, backhand and serve; but that's it. When a guy like that who in singles is exposed for what he is...mediocre at best...can go down as one of the greatest doubles players in history...or for that matter the Jensen brothers and their success in doubles...that's REALLY saying something negative about the general caliber of players headlining the men's doubles tour.

In men's doubles, with few exceptions, it really is true. It's the guys who could never quite hack it enough in singles who turn to doubles as the easier path to at least SOME fame and fortune and slam glory...see, the Bryan brothers. As good as they are, can you honestly tell me that they are even close to the caliber of say someone like Cedric Pioline? I couldn't.

To me, if you were to go down a list of all the pros who've ever played the game, the number of players who've won two slams or made the finals of three or more slams is ludicously small.

It's just that because tennis is an individual sport, we tend to think anyone who hasn't won a bejellion slams like the "legend" players is nothing special. News for ya, if team sport players were held to the same vaunted standards of tennis, then guys like Charles Barkley and John Stockton and Karl Malone and Reggie Miller and Patrick Ewing and Scottie Pippen would be considered the same chump change that apparently guys like Stich, Bruguera, Noah, Chang, and Rafter are. Why? Because playing second fiddle to the once in a generation type players like Agassi and Sampras is for some reason as seen as something to be ashamed of or something in tennis, whereas in team sports the "living legend" caliber players can still get their glory with OUT diminishing the importance or greatness in their own right of the second tier superstars, you know the guys who always seem to fall just one hair short of the greatness of the great bald one and soaring eagle known as the Michael Jordan's of the world.

To me, Stich by virtue of three slam final appearances and one HIGH caliber slam victory over a game Becker on his home turf (i.e. NOT in the same category and weight of historic importance as say Thomas Johansson waltzing through a listless and horny to get in bed Safin), should make it. Bruguera should too for being one of the most dominant clay courters of all time. Muster should too for making it to #1, putting together one of the most awesome streaks on clay ever, AND winning a slam. Rios SHOULDN'T, because he is the very definition of a flash in the pan. To me, a #1 ranking AND a slam victory is worthy of the hall of fame. Petr Korda IF he had managed to not choke away his chance at the #1 ranking should also be in the hall of fame. Two slam victories is worthy of the hall of fame, as it's not a fluke (i.e. remember everyone including your mother and Sampras basically intimating that Rafter winning the US Open once was just a fluke and he's still my bi-atch basically, for all intents and purposes, just being PC and polite here...or also, Roddick who DIDN'T go back to back at the Open...going back to back at a slam is EXCEEDINGLY rare and difficult as everyone and their mama is gunning for you the next year). Two slam victories, especially back to back is also worthy of the hall of fame, EVEN IF it's ONLY on clay, which most tennis "purist" and voting "committe" members seem to think requires less talent and ability to play on...albeit Johan Kriek winning the Aussie twice I believe doesn't count, because back then the Aussie was in reality more of a pseudo slam than an actual slam like it is now. Three slam finals appearances (not a fluke a la Malivai Washington and Cedric Pioline compared to Michael Chang or Goran Ivanisevic) is also worthy of the hall of fame, thus no nod for me on someone like Cedric Pioline. One slam but with NO other finals appearances is NOT worthy of the hall of fame, as it DEFINITELY signifies a complete and total fluke run that would never again happen in history a la Johnasson, Costa, Gaudio, Gomes, and if Medvedev hadn't choked away that one French final...and to a lesser extent Krajicek...though with him, like with Bruguera, without the injuries, they would have achieved more.

Also, I think too much is made of popularity. The reality is that popular and/or glamorous hunks like Rafter are more likely to make it.

For me, I would say that guys like Martin, Coria, Pioline, Washington, Krajicek, Rios, Korda, Nalbandian, Medvedev, Costa, Johansson, Corretja, etc. are all OBVIOUSLY not hall of fame worthy. They would be the relative equivalent of letting in guys like Glen Rice into the hall of fame. Good but not great players with the occasional splash of greatness once in a blue moon.

Muster, Bruguera, Stich, Rafter, Safin, Kuerten, Ferrero, Moya, Goran, Roddick, Chang, Rafter, Hewitt, etc. however, are ALL hall of fame worthy despite being seen as probably borderline. To me, there is a fairly CLEAR difference and a dividing line can be drawn where it no longer seems that murky if you use my guidelines. People act like if you let in ALL these fringe hall of famers, then the place will be over run and littered with junk. To me that elitist mindset just doesn't hold water, because again I look at it from the big perspective and just in terms of ACTUAL magnitude of accomplishment vs. PERCEIVED magnitude of accomplishment. Everything's skewed in individual sports, because usually there's much more of a tendency to think there can only be ONE king so to speak...and then there's everyone else, whereas in team sports you have room for BOTH the kings and the princes, the batman's AND the robin's (see Pippen and Jordon, or how Shaq used to want to pigeon hole Kobe as his robin to his batman, etc.).

Still, if you really look at this objectively, reaching three slam finals is NO joke or fluke when you consider just how few people in tennis history have been able to do that, or win two slams, or achieve the #1 ranking, etc.

Tennis' elitists act like oh my gosh, we're letting in alllll this riff-raf, what will we do? Really? THAT much rif-raff, I mean REALLY? To me, lets see the players I listed as being borderline but still definitely worthy, how many of those vs. how many thousands of WORLD-CLASS players who have gone by the wayside through the years without so much as even sniffing even ONE single slam final appearance or even sniffing the top twenty let alone top ten? In team sports, these guys would be considered nothing less than ONE hair below the totem pole of the legends. In team sports, they would be your Karl Malones and Charles Barkley's and NOT your Kenny "the jet" Smith's. They would still get the respect they deserve, and still be revered, and still NOT encroach on the greatness of the BEYOND greats like your Jordan's, Bird's, Wilt's, Magic's, Jabar's, what have you.

drakulie
01-24-2008, 04:46 PM
^^^ Nice, but anyway you cut it>>> The tennis hall of fame is a joke. Chang was a great player, but he doesn't deserve to have his name immortalized among the true greats of the sport.

Gaudio, Ferrero, Moya, Brugera, Muster, Roddick, Safin, Thomas Johanson, Goran, Rafter, Klijsters, Kusnetsova should all be getting in as well.

Sorry, but their standards are way too low. Being inducted doesn't mean anything when anyone with a mediocre career (comparatively to the true greats) has their name next to yours.


Just to add, imagine how many players right now are not winning any slams, nor will they ever because fed/Nadal are around, yet if Fed/nadal weren't around, they would be multiple slam winners.

NoBadMojo
01-24-2008, 04:48 PM
I should rephrase my post to "How many multiple Major winners in the open era eligable for the HOF didnt make it yet?" if the number is none, or two, or something like that, Sergei should be in....many of the players are first and foremost judged by <and judge themselves by> the number of Slam events they've won, and there are some who got in with only 1 major win

My use of a keyword in my initial post triggered the appearance of !Tym ;). I'm just messin with you....you know a lot about the game.

AndrewD
01-24-2008, 09:30 PM
I think the other issue may be that the Aus Open just did not have the same importance back in the 80's when Cash made the finals twice as it does today or even in '96 when Chang made the final because back in the 80's many of the world's top players did not bother to play the Aus Open.

Oh come on now, I thought you knew a bit about tennis. While the Aus Open lacked significance (as it couldn't attract the best players) from 76-82, that just wasn't an issue from 1983 onwards. By the time Cash started playing the Aus, the best in the world were competing again (apart from Connors, not that anyone was too unhappy about that), as you would see if you had a look at the winners and finalists. Cash was runner-up in 87, on grass, to Edberg and in 88, on Rebound Ace, to Wilander.

If he's being overlooked because the voters believe the Aus Open lacked significance during his day, then they must know sweet fa about tennis and don't deserve the privelage of their position.

Another person mentioned Sergi Bruguera and I do think that, if Noah, Chang and Cash (my opinion) belong in the Hall of Fame, so does he and before all three of them. Yes, his results were patchy on surfaces apart from clay but, unlike the other three, he was genuinely dominant. Two wins and one runner-up effort trumps, for me, 1 win and any number of runner-up placings.

Of course, Chang and Noah are bigger names stateside than Cash and Bruguera, and the Hall is, after all, a tourist attraction.

VGP
01-24-2008, 09:30 PM
^^^ Nice, but anyway you cut it>>> The tennis hall of fame is a joke. Chang was a great player, but he doesn't deserve to have his name immortalized among the true greats of the sport.

Gaudio, Ferrero, Moya, Brugera, Muster, Roddick, Safin, Thomas Johanson, Goran, Rafter, Klijsters, Kusnetsova should all be getting in as well.

Sorry, but their standards are way too low. Being inducted doesn't mean anything when anyone with a mediocre career (comparatively to the true greats) has their name next to yours.


Just to add, imagine how many players right now are not winning any slams, nor will they ever because fed/Nadal are around, yet if Fed/nadal weren't around, they would be multiple slam winners.

Your point of view disappoints me drak.

Tennis is rich in tradition and international flavor. The "I" of the IHOF is often left out. The "standards" are subjective, but fair in the overview of the sport.

Yes there are greats, but in reality, like !Tym implies, with players such as Chang, Rafter, Safin, Sabatini, Novotna mediocrity is a misconception. They were great players with their ups and downs.

There are greats and there are truly greats. Give the greats their due.

For some, it seems the Hall of Fame should just be a Wall of Fame with a plaque that reads:


MEN:
Sampras
Federer
Emerson
Borg
Tilden

WOMEN:
Court
Graf
Navratilova
Evert
King

....with the names being knocked off as "better" people come along.

BreakPoint
01-24-2008, 11:22 PM
While the Aus Open lacked significance (as it couldn't attract the best players) from 76-82, that just wasn't an issue from 1983 onwards. By the time Cash started playing the Aus, the best in the world were competing again (apart from Connors, not that anyone was too unhappy about that), as you would see if you had a look at the winners and finalists. Cash was runner-up in 87, on grass, to Edberg and in 88, on Rebound Ace, to Wilander.

Are you sure? Are you able to confirm if most of the Top 100 players showed up for the Aus Open in '87 and '88, as they do now? I'm not really sure of the answer. You mentioned Connors not showing up but how about McEnroe? I don't think he showed up either, did he? If not, then that's at least two top players who weren't in the draws, right?

ohlori
01-25-2008, 12:59 AM
^^^ Nice, but anyway you cut it>>> The tennis hall of fame is a joke. Chang was a great player, but he doesn't deserve to have his name immortalized among the true greats of the sport.

Gaudio, Ferrero, Moya, Brugera, Muster, Roddick, Safin, Thomas Johanson, Goran, Rafter, Klijsters, Kusnetsova should all be getting in as well.

Sorry, but their standards are way too low. Being inducted doesn't mean anything when anyone with a mediocre career (comparatively to the true greats) has their name next to yours.


Just to add, imagine how many players right now are not winning any slams, nor will they ever because fed/Nadal are around, yet if Fed/nadal weren't around, they would be multiple slam winners.

Not Johansson and Gaudio according to the poster before you.

sunflowerhx
01-25-2008, 03:14 AM
http://www.tennis.com/features/40greatest/index.aspx

I would say about 30 out of these 40 deserve to be in the hall of fame.

Zimbo
01-25-2008, 01:16 PM
Are you sure? Are you able to confirm if most of the Top 100 players showed up for the Aus Open in '87 and '88, as they do now? I'm not really sure of the answer. You mentioned Connors not showing up but how about McEnroe? I don't think he showed up either, did he? If not, then that's at least two top players who weren't in the draws, right?

Mac was there in '83 where in lost in the Semi's and he was there in '85 also. I agree with AndrewD the AO from '83 on had pretty good fields. It's been a legit slam for some time now.

Moose Malloy
01-31-2008, 04:59 PM
Here is a recent interview w/Tony Trabert where he sort of says what Tym says about Hall of Fames:

"Believe it or not, we got an email from a guy the other day saying "Chang's a farce, it's a joke to put him in. He's only won one major, you're diluting the Hall of Fame, etc...." Some people think that the only people who should be in the Hall of Fame are people like Sampras, Graf, Agassi, Don Budge, Laver. In the player category, you have to have won at least one Grand Slam title to get in, but the argument I always use when people complain is look at baseball: they put Bill Mazeroski in the Hall of Fame because enough people voted for him. It's not like they just have Joe DiMaggio, Babe Ruth and Willie Mays in the baseball Hall of Fame and that's what we do: we have two media panels considering the nominations and you have to get 75 percent of the votes to be elected."

"To use the baseball analogy: if you limited baseball's Hall of Fame to Mickey Mantle and DiMaggio, you'd have a very, very small Hall of Fame. Two other points I would like to make: number one we're charged to put people up for nomination who we think have a chance to be considered for election and number two, our Hall of Fame ceremony is a major fund-raising event for us and as you know we're a non-profit organization. We don't just put someone up for the heck of it. Look at some of the names considered this year: Sergi Bruguera, Pat Cash, Peter Fleming, Andres Gomez, who won the French, Richard Krajicek, who won Wimbledon, Thomas Muster, Anders Jarryd. Monica Seles, we would have placed on the ballot but we called her and asked her and she said "I don't consider myself retired yet." And of course Hingis would have coming up for induction had she not made her comeback a couple of years ago. Mark Woodforde is another guy, but I believe the consensus on him is to hold off until Woodbridge is also up for it so they can go in together since they're such a fantastic doubles team."

http://www.tennisweek.com/news/fullstory.sps?inewsid=528242#top

Phil
01-31-2008, 07:07 PM
How can you compare him with multi slam/surface winners like Sampras, Courier, and Agassi?

He was a one slam wonder and he did it with questionable sportsmanship against Lendl.

I agree he did help popularise the game in Asia, but I never saw here as a sporting hero and I'm oriental.
Going strictly by the numbers, you cannot compare him to those guys. But obviously the HoF uses other criteria, too, for its inductees. As someone else said, Chang had a tremendous international impact on the game, especially in Asia. Asia will one day be pro tennis' largest market, and this guy got the ball rolling. If you ever visited Guangzhou or Shanghai while Chang was at the peak of his career, you would realize how much influence he had in China. Massive billboards with his photo, magazine covers, talk shows...the works.

BreakPoint
01-31-2008, 07:13 PM
Also, a lot of people talk about how Rios was the most talented tennis player ever but check out what Chang did to him in a QF match at a Grand Slam:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=178665

ATXtennisaddict
02-01-2008, 05:12 AM
Congratulations Michael! Is he the first person of Asian descent to be in the HoF?

Leublu tennis
02-01-2008, 05:42 AM
Great news. Good to hear it.

Grandslam
02-01-2008, 05:45 AM
Maybe the 'many' fans here who don't know anything about the Hall of Fame will disagree, but not anyone else.

Once Pam Shriver & Yannick Noah got in, all bets were off. Chang's career looks like Laver's compared to those 2.

That's no joke...

bluetrain4
02-01-2008, 07:59 AM
I used to be firmly for 1-Slam winners to get in, or at least some of them. In my mind, it was easy to differentiate between someone like Gabriela Sabatini who won one slam, but was finalist in others, a factor in many more, won lots of other big tourneys, and competed very well with the people at the top of the game, as compared to someone like Iva Majoli, who was a good player with 1 Slam, but really did nothing else.

I aloo think it's easy to differentiate between 1-Slam winners who were competitive across the board and guys like all of the 1-Slam FO winners who didn't do much away from clay (though a few of them did).

But, more and more, I think this just opens up a can worms. Krajicek, Ivansesivic, Korda, Rios, Moya, Ferrero, Johnannson, Kusnetsova - what do we do with these players?

BreakPoint
02-01-2008, 01:28 PM
But, more and more, I think this just opens up a can worms. Krajicek, Ivansesivic, Korda, Rios, Moya, Ferrero, Johnannson, Kusnetsova - what do we do with these players?
Rios never won a Grand Slam. The closest he ever got was a final at the Aus Open where he got blown out by Korda, 6-2, 6-2, 6-2. Other than that, he never got past the quarters at any other Slam.

But you can add Gaudio, Costa, Stich, Cash, Muster, Gomez, Gerulaitis, Teacher, Tanner, Edmonson, and Roddick to your list of one-Slam wonders.

rosenstar
02-02-2008, 07:07 PM
I've been reading over this thread, and in all honesty, I feel that pretty much anyone who has won a grandslam and has had a respectable career (multiple years in the top 10, held any records, etc.) deserves to be in the hall of fame.

I think that because there are four grandslam tournements every year, it takes away from the meaning behind winning one. I don't think many of the people on this board understand what it takes to win a grandslam. especially when players like federer do it so easily. just 1 grandslam title is truly an incredible feat. I mean, out of 6 billion people on this earth, how can say they have won a grandslam? My guess is less than 0.25%???

Benhur
02-07-2008, 12:41 PM
If you are talking only about singles for sure. I guess it depends how much value you give to Shrivers's amazing doubles careeer.

Then Peter Fleming should be there too.

2 Cent
02-08-2008, 11:08 PM
does Anna Kournikova deserve to be in the HoF?

OnceWas
02-09-2008, 03:49 PM
Just looking at some of the people in the International Tennis Hall of Fame, and the standards they seem to have. Micheal Chang belongs in that group, when you look at his career accomplishments.

kimbahpnam
02-09-2008, 05:08 PM
I've been reading over this thread, and in all honesty, I feel that pretty much anyone who has won a grandslam and has had a respectable career (multiple years in the top 10, held any records, etc.) deserves to be in the hall of fame.

I think that because there are four grandslam tournements every year, it takes away from the meaning behind winning one. I don't think many of the people on this board understand what it takes to win a grandslam. especially when players like federer do it so easily. just 1 grandslam title is truly an incredible feat. I mean, out of 6 billion people on this earth, how can say they have won a grandslam? My guess is less than 0.25%???

lol...way way way WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY less than .25% of 6 billion! nonetheless, good guess. :)

bigdaddyKahuna
02-09-2008, 06:06 PM
Congradulations Mr. Michael Chang... Its about time,eh?;)