PDA

View Full Version : Do One-Slam-Wonders deserve to be in the Hall of Fame?


sandiegotennisboy
07-14-2006, 03:01 PM
i say no.

i hate it when they do give it away to one-slam-wonders a la novotna. puh-lease. she had a lucky week.

ill puke when they give it to roddick, sharapova, kim, myskina, and kuznetsova and so on and so on when they retire.

i think giving a one-slam-wonder a spot in the HOF devalues the majors and the HOF. give them a plaque or something and an espn 1hr special... or at least give priority to people who have won more than one slam to enter the HOF.

tarheels2323
07-14-2006, 03:06 PM
I agree. If a player only wins one Slam then it very well could be a fluke. They don't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame for that. However, if they did something else for the game or in the game, then yes, regardless of their lack of Slams they should be let in.

sandiegotennisboy
07-14-2006, 03:09 PM
I agree. If a player only wins one Slam then it very well could be a fluke. They don't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame for that. However, if they did something else for the game or in the game, then yes, regardless of their lack of Slams they should be let in.

well the whole civil rights, charity, and "men and women are equal" thing have been done... so what's left?

Marat Safinator
07-14-2006, 03:13 PM
so marat will be in the hall of fame.

sandiegotennisboy
07-14-2006, 03:17 PM
so marat will be in the hall of fame.

he has 2. when youre a diehard fan youre supposed to know this sh1t. you let him down.

Dilettante
07-14-2006, 03:20 PM
Some of them deserve it for sure. Don't you think Moya for example deserves it?

hoosierbr
07-14-2006, 03:24 PM
Michael Chang only won one slam but I think he deserves a place in the HOF.

sandiegotennisboy
07-14-2006, 03:27 PM
why to post 6 and 7? why?

Dilettante
07-14-2006, 03:27 PM
Thomas Muster.

Yes, I know, why to post #9?

sandiegotennisboy
07-14-2006, 03:31 PM
Thomas Muster.

Yes, I know, why to post #9?

thats exactly what im saying. the list goes on and on. i think that if you at least win two, then youve proven you werent just "lucky" or everyone else had a bad week. you dont think that Myskina's slam is her last? has she done sh1t for the game worth noting? has muster? the tennis HOF is a joke.

Dilettante
07-14-2006, 03:38 PM
thats exactly what im saying. the list goes on and on. i think that if you at least win two, then youve proven you werent just "lucky" or everyone else had a bad week. you dont think that Myskina's slam is her last? has she done sh1t for the game worth noting? has muster? the tennis HOF is a joke.

It's called "hall of fame", not "Hall of Multimple Slam Winners" or whatever.

Like or not, players like Moya (still active though), Chang, Muster, are remembered by tennis fans because one or another reason. They played a role in tennis game, whatever that role was, and they are remembered because that. You can say they played a singnificant role in their primes.

Anyway, I don't think a player wins a slam just by being "lucky".

mavsman149
07-14-2006, 03:39 PM
whats worse is that gabrilela sabatini never won one and shes getting in.

superman1
07-14-2006, 03:40 PM
There's a lot more to it than Slams. Chang only won 1 Slam but he was always a contender, he competed with the best of them and won 34 Singles titles and went 662-312 in his career. He also did a lot for Asian tennis as he was the highest ranked Asian in history (#2). And he was one of the 4 famous Americans who revolutionized 90's tennis.

Then you look at Safin...he has won 2 Slams and 15 titles and his win-loss record is good (333-187), but his entire career is full of "could have's" and "wasted potential." He has never been very consistent and he's gone down many times to much lesser players, usually by beating himself. He will have to do more in tennis to deserve Hall of Fame status.

Marat Safinator
07-14-2006, 03:42 PM
he has 2. when youre a diehard fan youre supposed to know this sh1t. you let him down.

i know he has 2 you moron.

Marat Safinator
07-14-2006, 03:45 PM
Some of them deserve it for sure. Don't you think Moya for example deserves it?

yes i do.

sandiegotennisboy
07-14-2006, 03:45 PM
i know he has 2 you moron.

this is a one slam wonder thread. go take english classes. and yeah youre right, he will be in the HOF. sorry for being quick with you. i just dont like you for some reason.

cuddles26
07-14-2006, 03:45 PM
It depends who it is. If they have enough other sufficent accomplishments, and the longevity, and the number of serious bids to win another slam title then yes. If their lone slam win stands out very isolated, and they were rarely if ever close another time, and they spent very little time in the top 3, or top 5, depending on the individual then probably not.


Here are 1 slam winners I think belong in hall of fame: Chang, Novotna, Sabatini, Martinez, Ivanisevic, Roddick, Clijsters

Here are 1 slam winners I believe do not belong in hall of fame: Korda, Krajcek, Stich, Majoli, Myskina, Kuznetsova(although probably will in time), Sharapova(ditto Kuznetsova), Ferrero

sandiegotennisboy
07-14-2006, 03:48 PM
why is sabatini getting in. i told you people the HOF is a joke.

dont get me started on korda and majoli. geesus kryst.

cuddles26
07-14-2006, 03:52 PM
why is sabatini getting in. i told you people the HOF is a joke.

dont get me started on korda and majoli. geesus kryst.

Sabatini deserves to be in. She won many tier 1 titles on clay even though she sadly never won the french. She made the semis of three Australian Opens, semis of five French Opens, finals of Wimbledon almost beating Graf, winning a U.S Open, other semis at Wimbledon and the U.S Open to go along with it. She is definitely worthy of Hall of Fame even with sadly only one slam.

Sabatini is miles ahead of Korda and Majoli, they arent in the hall of fame are they? Well Majoli isnt eligable yet I think but Korda is not in that I heard of.

sandiegotennisboy
07-14-2006, 03:56 PM
bud collins' mummified corpse will be entered in as a relic

Dilettante
07-14-2006, 03:56 PM
bud collins' mummified corpse will be entered in as a relic

Lol

sandiegotennisboy
07-14-2006, 03:59 PM
Sabatini deserves to be in. She won many tier 1 titles on clay even though she sadly never won the french. She made the semis of three Australian Opens, semis of five French Opens, finals of Wimbledon almost beating Graf, winning a U.S Open, other semis at Wimbledon and the U.S Open to go along with it. She is definitely worthy of Hall of Fame even with sadly only one slam.

Sabatini is miles ahead of Korda and Majoli, they arent in the hall of fame are they? Well Majoli isnt eligable yet I think but Korda is not in that I heard of.

korda was on roids. majoli won cuz hingis fell off a horse the week before the french and managed to cortisone-shot herself to the finals.

edberg505
07-14-2006, 04:13 PM
i say no.

i hate it when they do give it away to one-slam-wonders a la novotna. puh-lease. she had a lucky week.

ill puke when they give it to roddick, sharapova, kim, myskina, and kuznetsova and so on and so on when they retire.

i think giving a one-slam-wonder a spot in the HOF devalues the majors and the HOF. give them a plaque or something and an espn 1hr special... or at least give priority to people who have won more than one slam to enter the HOF.


Well, that's one more slam than you own.

cuddles26
07-14-2006, 04:36 PM
korda was on roids. majoli won cuz hingis fell off a horse the week before the french and managed to cortisone-shot herself to the finals.

I laughed when he tested positive for performance enchancement drugs. He was skinny, he looked like a bird. I could not believe he was juiced.

Majoli definitely was lucky at that French Open. Davenport was crushing her and then gave the match away pretty much. She got to play Dragomir in the quarters instead of Novotna. Then in the semis Coetzer choked big time and still almost beat Majoli. In the final she played a super super match though, the best I have ever seen her play. In a normal year she would not even been in the final though.

AAAA
07-14-2006, 04:46 PM
The last time I looked it was called the 'Hall of Fame' and not the 'Hall of Achievement'.

lacoster
07-14-2006, 05:04 PM
Novotna (1 GS, 3 finals) won over 100 titles (singles and doubles) joining the likes of only Evert, Navratilova, and Graf...so she's in.
You have to be at least 4 years removed from the pro tour to qualify for HOF nomination.

Well, they are running out of people to induct every single year (they should have a cap on the number of people to induct to make it more exclusive)......Chang (youngest GS champ, 3 finals), Sanchez-Vicario (4 GS, 8 finals), Muster (1 GS, former no.1, 111-5 clay record), Bruguera (2 GS, 1 final) have the credentials to make it under the player category the next few years....Alan Mills will make it under the contributor category.

Muster and Bruguera have a good chances next year....Chang and Sanchez-Vicario will have to wait...Chang played his last match USOpen '03 and ASV played a limited doubles schedule last year.
________
Volcano vaporizers (http://volcanovaporizer.net/)

siber222000
07-14-2006, 05:15 PM
Michael Chang only won one slam but I think he deserves a place in the HOF.
me too, since he was the youngest *17 1/2 years old i think?* guy to get a championship

siber222000
07-14-2006, 05:17 PM
this is a one slam wonder thread. go take english classes. and yeah youre right, he will be in the HOF. sorry for being quick with you. i just dont like you for some reason.
1 and 2... doesn't really matter does it? ;) i dont really care about safin, but yeah just because its not 1 i dont think 2 should be allowed either, unless he did something REALLY incredible

clayman2000
07-14-2006, 05:58 PM
It depends who it is. If they have enough other sufficent accomplishments, and the longevity, and the number of serious bids to win another slam title then yes. If their lone slam win stands out very isolated, and they were rarely if ever close another time, and they spent very little time in the top 3, or top 5, depending on the individual then probably not.


Here are 1 slam winners I think belong in hall of fame: Chang, Novotna, Sabatini, Martinez, Ivanisevic, Roddick, Clijsters

Here are 1 slam winners I believe do not belong in hall of fame: Korda, Krajcek, Stich, Majoli, Myskina, Kuznetsova(although probably will in time), Sharapova(ditto Kuznetsova), Ferrero
the hof is a joke...they will proabaly choose todd martin to bee in it...and how may career titles did he win ...like 1 (no he one 9)
thought i do not beleive roddick will go to hof...he might in time, but as of right now no....kuznetsova i think will never win a gs again

cuddles26
07-14-2006, 06:25 PM
the hof is a joke...they will proabaly choose todd martin to bee in it...and how may career titles did he win ...like 1 (no he one 9)
thought i do not beleive roddick will go to hof...he might in time, but as of right now no....kuznetsova i think will never win a gs again

I think Kuzy has a good chance to win a second or even third slam before she retires. I give her about even odds to Sharapova.

travlerajm
07-14-2006, 06:55 PM
Let Goran in! Safin, nah.

Chang
07-14-2006, 07:04 PM
It depends who it is. If they have enough other sufficent accomplishments, and the longevity, and the number of serious bids to win another slam title then yes. If their lone slam win stands out very isolated, and they were rarely if ever close another time, and they spent very little time in the top 3, or top 5, depending on the individual then probably not.


Here are 1 slam winners I think belong in hall of fame: Chang, Novotna, Sabatini, Martinez, Ivanisevic, Roddick, Clijsters

Here are 1 slam winners I believe do not belong in hall of fame: Korda, Krajcek, Stich, Majoli, Myskina, Kuznetsova(although probably will in time), Sharapova(ditto Kuznetsova), Ferrero

I agree it should depend on their overall performance and what they have done and not entirely based on how many slams they've won as you mentioned.

shawn1122
07-14-2006, 07:06 PM
Anyone think Federer will get in after he retires?

Max G.
07-14-2006, 08:06 PM
Anyone think Federer will get in after he retires?

Maybe. If he gets lucky. ;) And they DO have really relaxed standards.

ACE of Hearts
07-14-2006, 08:44 PM
Does anyone know if Novotna is in it or will get consideration?I am sure she will choke up during the presentation or whateva speech.:mrgreen:

lacoster
07-14-2006, 08:47 PM
Does anyone know if Novotna is in it or will get consideration?I am sure she will choke up during the presentation or whateva speech.:mrgreen:

She was inducted last year with Courier.
________
FIELD (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Ford_Field)

ACE of Hearts
07-14-2006, 08:49 PM
The tennis hall of fame is a joke.Seriously they need to make it harder when it comes to getting in.Patrick Rafter is getting in this sunday i believe.

jhhachamp
07-14-2006, 08:53 PM
i say no.

i hate it when they do give it away to one-slam-wonders a la novotna. puh-lease. she had a lucky week.

ill puke when they give it to roddick, sharapova, kim, myskina, and kuznetsova and so on and so on when they retire.

i think giving a one-slam-wonder a spot in the HOF devalues the majors and the HOF. give them a plaque or something and an espn 1hr special... or at least give priority to people who have won more than one slam to enter the HOF.

Do you consider a 1 slam wonder anyone who won exactly 1 slam? Roddick won only 1 slam, but he reached 2 other finals and reached #1 in the world. I can see calling Gaudio or Costa or Johannson a 1 slam wonder, but not Roddick. He accomplished much more than that.

sandiegotennisboy
07-14-2006, 09:07 PM
The last time I looked it was called the 'Hall of Fame' and not the 'Hall of Achievement'.

well if you look at it that way, they are choosing some not so famous people.... either way it is a JOKE

sandiegotennisboy
07-14-2006, 09:08 PM
Do you consider a 1 slam wonder anyone who won exactly 1 slam? Roddick won only 1 slam, but he reached 2 other finals and reached #1 in the world. I can see calling Gaudio or Costa or Johannson a 1 slam wonder, but not Roddick. He accomplished much more than that.

all in the same boat to me. roddick had his one good year and the downward spiral from there.

ACE of Hearts
07-14-2006, 09:15 PM
Hey San Diego, u think Rafter belongs in the tennis hall of fame?I would make it more difficult.

tennisjunkiela
07-14-2006, 09:53 PM
Hey San Diego, u think Rafter belongs in the tennis hall of fame?I would make it more difficult.

In rafter's defense, he did win 2 us opens and made 2 wimbledon finals. also, he reached #1 (however only for 1 week).

but i agree with most of the posters - the tennis hall of fame is a joke. it should be much more difficult to get into.

psamp14
07-14-2006, 10:41 PM
i dont think so, unless the player achieved more such as a great career win-loss record or stayed competitive for a prolonged period of time, won many titles other than grand slams, like masters series events, consistently in the top 10...it would be embarassing to see roddick get into the hall of fame with his achievements so far...

typingchamp
07-15-2006, 02:07 AM
whats worse is that gabrilela sabatini never won one and shes getting in.

Check your facts before getting so emo.

Rhino
07-15-2006, 02:43 AM
Federer and Nadal have all the forseeable slams sewn up so eventually the one slam wonders like Roddick, Gaudio, Ferrero and Ivanisevic, etc will be the only ones left to choose from!
By the way I think Ivanisevic should definitely be in there. All those Wimby finals and then finally winning as a wildcard when he was out for the count, deserves a place.

bc-05
07-15-2006, 03:14 AM
kournikova should be in there.. boy has she changed my view on womens tennis :P

bc-05
07-15-2006, 03:15 AM
kournikova should be in there.. boy has she changed my view on womens tennis :P

tennisprofl
07-15-2006, 05:27 AM
i think they deserve it if they posted good results the rest of their career...consistently being ranked high and getting deep in tournaments in addition to a grand slam should allow them to get in.

Warriorroger
07-15-2006, 05:39 AM
Good thread and the answer is no. Putting Rafter, Sabatini, Novotna in devaluetes the Hall of Fame. Nice people: yes, good tennisplayers yes, great tennisplayers NO! Putting Rafter and Sabatini in is saying they were as good as Sampras and Graf, and they just weren't.

mctennis
07-15-2006, 01:44 PM
I think it depends on what type of career they actually had. Which player has finished as runner-up the most times. Not that they chocked just they could not win the big ones. Which player has knocked out the most seeded players in theiur career? Which player(s) give the top seeds the most problems., etc.. Things like that should be considered. Just because they win one title doesn't make them Hall Of Fame bound. I like Michael Chang but do not think he is Hall Of Fame material. Don't put them there just to put "someone" there. That takes the credibility out of the whole thing. If you wait long enough everyone will be inducted. IMHO.

Warriorroger
07-15-2006, 02:09 PM
I think it depends on what type of career they actually had. Which player has finished as runner-up the most times. Not that they chocked just they could not win the big ones. Which player has knocked out the most seeded players in theiur career? Which player(s) give the top seeds the most problems., etc.. Things like that should be considered. Just because they win one title doesn't make them Hall Of Fame bound. I like Michael Chang but do not think he is Hall Of Fame material. Don't put them there just to put "someone" there. That takes the credibility out of the whole thing. If you wait long enough everyone will be inducted. IMHO.

Good point! IMO everyone gets inducted, the Hall of Fame has become totally meaningless. Everyone is there.

flymeng
07-15-2006, 02:38 PM
Good thread and the answer is no. Putting Rafter, Sabatini, Novotna in devaluetes the Hall of Fame. Nice people: yes, good tennisplayers yes, great tennisplayers NO! Putting Rafter and Sabatini in is saying they were as good as Sampras and Graf, and they just weren't.

I think putting Rafter and Sabatini and trying to compare them with the best of the best (Sampras and Graf) is not what HOF committee has in mind. If HOF committee would vote what you suggested, you'll probably see Sampras, Graf, Laver, Navratilova and few more players in that group. What fun would that be if you visit that place? Probably not much fun. BTW, they inducted Pam Shriver a few years ago. She accomplished less than Rafter or Sabatini on the court. I think the committee vote for players who have contributed much on and off the court. :)

sandiegotennisboy
07-15-2006, 03:09 PM
I think putting Rafter and Sabatini and trying to compare them with the best of the best (Sampras and Graf) is not what HOF committee has in mind. If HOF committee would vote what you suggested, you'll probably see Sampras, Graf, Laver, Navratilova and few more players in that group. What fun would that be if you visit that place? Probably not much fun. BTW, they inducted Pam Shriver a few years ago. She accomplished less than Rafter or Sabatini on the court. I think the committee vote for players who have contributed much on and off the court. :)

well the HOF to me should be the cream of the crop, and there should be exceptions for people that have done incredible stuff for the sport or humanity. tell me what the hell shriver or novotna have done. the committee or voting body needs an overhaul. if i were laver or borg id be wondering what the heck they were doing in there. as a tennis fan visiting the HOF, i EXPECT the great figures of the game to be there. dont you?

Condoleezza
07-15-2006, 04:17 PM
Good thread and the answer is no. Putting Rafter, Sabatini, Novotna in devaluetes the Hall of Fame. Nice people: yes, good tennisplayers yes, great tennisplayers NO! Putting Rafter and Sabatini in is saying they were as good as Sampras and Graf, and they just weren't.


Then Capriati, Davenport, Venus and Serena won't stand a chance to be enshrined in the HoF. Becausing doing this would be saying there were as good as Evert, Navratilova, Graf, and they just weren't .....

Re: Sabatini
Gaby won one slam, made two more slam finals, won 2 YECs, made 15 slam semis, won about 30 WTA titles (tier 1 & 2), beat Graf 11 times.
And she was a year-end top-10er for 10 years in a row (1986-95). And - together with Graf - the most popular female player in that time.

Condi

nadalgirl26
07-15-2006, 04:39 PM
Myh Nadal is no one slam wonder. He is not a losers like those fruits who won only one slam.

Rob the Tennis Player
07-15-2006, 04:49 PM
Nadal has only won at one Slam tournament. I'm waiting for him to win at Wimbledon, AO, USO

nadalgirl26
07-15-2006, 04:51 PM
Nadal will win atleast 10 times at each of Auastwalina, U.S Open, Wiemlbedon.
That to go with his 17 Frecnh Opens. He will play until 35 and win ateleast two thirds of the slams he enteres except for the French which he will win every year. So there.

Condoleezza
07-15-2006, 04:54 PM
Nadal will win atleast 10 times at each of Auastwalina, U.S Open, Wiemlbedon.
That to go with his 17 Frecnh Opens. He will play until 35 and win ateleast two thirds of the slams he enteres except for the French which he will win every year. So there.

I don't think so. Advanced doping detection capabilities will drive him out of tennis in a few years ....

Condi

nadalgirl26
07-15-2006, 04:56 PM
I don't think so. Advanced doping detection capabilities will drive him out of tennis in a few years ....

Condi

Are you saying my Nadadl is on dopoing. You are a dumb crut if you are saying that. UYou have no proof of him cehating or using drgus. He is just the most talented ans works the hardest. People hating seeing him winning all the time and knowning he will win almost every slam the next 15 years so they say he dopes and he keeps people proving worng since he is so much more taletened the all the others. Screw you!!!

Rob the Tennis Player
07-15-2006, 04:59 PM
Nadal will win atleast 10 times at each of Auastwalina, U.S Open, Wiemlbedon.
That to go with his 17 Frecnh Opens. He will play until 35 and win ateleast two thirds of the slams he enteres except for the French which he will win every year. So there.

your saying he is going to have

10 AO
10 USO
10 Wimbledon
17 FO

47 slams?

Well at least I can spell French and Wimbledon and Australia

nadalgirl26
07-15-2006, 05:03 PM
your saying he is going to have

10 AO
10 USO
10 Wimbledon
17 FO

47 slams?

Well at least I can spell French and Wimbledon and Australia

Yes that is what I asm saying, do you have ap roblem with that?

Rob the Tennis Player
07-15-2006, 05:10 PM
Yes that is what I asm saying, do you have ap roblem with that?

I do.

nadalgirl26
07-15-2006, 05:13 PM
I do.

What is the problem? Nadal has the worth ethic, talent and all needed to play top contending tennis until age 35. He is even starting to schedule smarter so he will be a contedner until 35 like Agassi was. So that makes sense to think he is a contender until 35. Also winning 2 out of 3 of every Auastralian Open, Wimbledon, and U.S Open makes sense. He is so hard to beat that it is hard to see him being beaten more then 1 out of every 3 times, it takes such a miracaelous effort to win sets from him, let alone a whole match. I did not say he would win every slam, I did say 1 out of every 3 Australian, Wimbledon, and U.S Open until Nadal is 35 would go to another players, you cant win everything.

Raistlin
07-15-2006, 06:34 PM
I hope some other topspin monkey comes out of nowhere and kick Nadal's *** on clay and now he won't have a home anymore:mrgreen:

Anyhoo, I think the HOF should be reserved for people who made a definte impact as player. That doesn't necessarily mean winning a grand slam. Cause here's the scenario:

If a player wins let's say 133 singles titles and 100 doubles title and has never won a grand slam, should that person be inducted into the hall of fame?

I say hell yeah!!

Warriorroger
07-16-2006, 07:49 AM
I think putting Rafter and Sabatini and trying to compare them with the best of the best (Sampras and Graf) is not what HOF committee has in mind. If HOF committee would vote what you suggested, you'll probably see Sampras, Graf, Laver, Navratilova and few more players in that group. What fun would that be if you visit that place? Probably not much fun. BTW, they inducted Pam Shriver a few years ago. She accomplished less than Rafter or Sabatini on the court. I think the committee vote for players who have contributed much on and off the court. :)

I see your point, and I love Sabatini and what she has shown on the court, but what would be an appropiate thing/place to honour players like a Steffi Graf and in future Roger Federer? Have you any ideas?

Condoleezza
07-16-2006, 08:27 AM
I see your point, and I love Sabatini and what she has shown on the court, but what would be an appropiate thing/place to honour players like a Steffi Graf and in future Roger Federer? Have you any ideas?


Monuments on Times Square, Place de la Concorde, Trafalgar Square and in front of the Brandenburg Gate?
10 slams would be the minimum requirement, though.

Condi

MTChong
07-16-2006, 09:34 AM
And soon we'll be wondering if even 10 - no 14, Pete status - slams is enough to make it.

Lame.

helloworld
07-16-2006, 10:11 AM
Nadal will win atleast 10 times at each of Auastwalina, U.S Open, Wiemlbedon.
That to go with his 17 Frecnh Opens. He will play until 35 and win ateleast two thirds of the slams he enteres except for the French which he will win every year. So there.
lol, not again ! Nadalgirl26, why are you so convinced with that dillusional idea ? 47 slams is just impossible. Wake up nadalgirl, wake up, jeez...

jamumafa
07-16-2006, 10:17 AM
How about if ,say for example, Davydenko won every single Msters series tournament for 7 years running, but didn't win a slam. Would he be inducted or not?

Condoleezza
07-16-2006, 10:30 AM
How about if ,say for example, Davydenko won every single Msters series tournament for 7 years running, but didn't win a slam. Would he be inducted or not?


Yes, of course.
He would be world-famous - "the idiot who win every tournament in sight but fails miserably in slams".

Condi

Mikael
07-16-2006, 10:44 AM
Hall of Fame should be for legends, players that people will still remember easily in 30, 40 years. That should be about 4, 5 male players and 4, 5 female players per decade, not more, IMO... Otherwise, as others said, if you let one guy in, then some people will say "why not this other one here?" etc etc That is exactly what is happening now with Rafter about to get in and people suggesting names like Moya... Soon there will be talk of Davydenko, Henman, Kucera, then gradually standards will keep slipping and in no time Siemerink and Radulescu will be there too ;-)

Tennis_Monk
07-16-2006, 01:19 PM
we should also include Andy Murray and irakil labadze into hall of Fame.

sandiegotennisboy
07-16-2006, 04:47 PM
And soon we'll be wondering if even 10 - no 14, Pete status - slams is enough to make it.

Lame.

or they could just let anyone in to make you happy and further cement their place as the biggest joke of any sport's HOF. you should go when they finally induct Majoli. please.

how can you put sabatini or novotna in the same league as graf or navratilova?

how can you let korda (who would eventually be inducted due to his sole slam win) be in the same league as laver, or courier even?

just let everyone in then since making it into the HOF is totally meaningless now. HOF means nothing specially since they give no special consideration for people that have actually won MORE slams than people they induct. like i said before, if i go into a HOF for ANY sport, i expect to see legendary greats in there, not every freegin player that ever hit a ball.

jukka1970
07-16-2006, 06:42 PM
Below is the criteria to get into the hall of fame. Perhaps this will answer how some get in, and some don't.

ELIGIBILITY
Since 1955, and including the Class of 2004, 186 people have been elected to the International Tennis Hall of Fame. Eligibility was extended to include candidates worldwide in 1975. Players are elected based on their records of competitive achievement, with ancillary consideration given to sportsmanship and character. Individuals are elected in one of three categories:

Recent Player Category Eligibility Criteria
Active as competitors in the sport within the last 20 years prior to consideration.
Not a significant factor on the ATP Tour or the WTA Tour within five years prior to election.
A distinguished record of competitive achievement at the highest international level, with consideration given to integrity, sportsmanship and character.

To be inducted as a Recent Player, a panel of the international tennis media votes on Recent Player nominees; a 75% favorable vote is required for Enshrinement.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Master Player Category Eligibility Criteria
Competitors in the sport who have been retired for at least 20 years prior to consideration.
A distinguished record of competitive achievement at the highest international level, with consideration given to integrity, sportsmanship and character.

To be inducted as a Master Player, an affirmative vote of 75% or higher is necessary. The International Masters Panel, which consists of Hall of Fame Enshrinees and other individuals who are highly knowledgeable of the sport and its history, selects the Master Player Enshrinees.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Contributor Category Eligibility Criteria
Exceptional contributions that have furthered the growth, reputation and character of the sport, in categories such as administration, media, coaching and officiating.
Contributor candidates do not need to be retired from their activities related to the sport.

To be inducted as a Contributor, a nominee must receive the following: a) an affirmative vote of 75% or higher, and b) the highest percentage of affirmative votes. The International Masters Panel, which consists of Hall of Fame Enshrinees and other individuals who are highly knowledgeable of the sport and its history, selects the Contributor Enshrinees.

jukka1970
07-16-2006, 07:00 PM
Perhaps the following will explain better how Novotna, Shriver, Rafter and Sabatini got in. This can all be found at http://www.tennisfame.com

Lets start with Sabatini.
"Top 10 player for 10 consecutive years. 1986-1995
#1 ranked in South America and Argentina from 1985-1996
77% win lifetime average in singles."

Shriver
"One of only 5 woman to have won more then 100 titles (Graf, Navratilova, Evert and yup Novotna)
Grand Slam doubles in 1984, 22 career doubles titles in grand slam events."

Novotna (1 of 5 woman written under Shriver's name)
"Ranked #1 in doubles 11 times.
Highest ranking #2
71.8% win lifetime average in singles, 82% win lifetime average in doubles"

Rafter
"Made it to the number 1 ranking
4 time winner of the Edberg Sportsmanship award (Edberg won it 5 times)
Tons of awards won including Ashe Humanitarian award when he donated his 97-98 US open winnings to Brisbane Mater Hospital for terminally ill children
played 8 years on the Australian davis cup team."

there's a lot more under each person's name, and I've quoted everything to show it's from the site.

Jukka

Chang
07-17-2006, 01:57 AM
Are you saying my Nadadl is on dopoing. You are a dumb crut if you are saying that. UYou have no proof of him cehating or using drgus. He is just the most talented ans works the hardest. People hating seeing him winning all the time and knowning he will win almost every slam the next 15 years so they say he dopes and he keeps people proving worng since he is so much more taletened the all the others. Screw you!!!

you are a dumb crut for suggesting Nadal will win 47 slams. You say people hate watching Nadal win so much yet you are no different because you must hate Federer winning so much that you have to give false information.

Nadal will not win 47 slams. END OF.

Ivanišević
07-17-2006, 06:07 AM
Are you saying my Nadadl is on dopoing. You are a dumb crut if you are saying that. UYou have no proof of him cehating or using drgus. He is just the most talented ans works the hardest. People hating seeing him winning all the time and knowning he will win almost every slam the next 15 years so they say he dopes and he keeps people proving worng since he is so much more taletened the all the others. Screw you!!!
u have serious problems.

dmastous
07-17-2006, 06:35 AM
It's the Hall of Fame. It's about accomplishments along with noteriety. Sabatini made tennis in Argentina. Kuerten made tennis in Brazil. Becker, along with Graf, made tennis in Germany. I'm not saying they started it in their country, I'm saying their success created an entire generation of new fans in their country.
It's about the number of titles they've won, the number of matches they've won and the amount of press you get. It's what you've done along with your Grand Slam title. So by that meter, Nadal is a lock, Federer is a lock, Venus and Serena and Sharapova are probably also locks. Safin has been dissapointing. He has been a threat, but he's lost first round a lot. He's tanked matches.
Novotna won one Grand Slam, but she was a threat in every slam. She got to a couple Wimbledon finals. She won a lot of matches and a number of Grand Slam doubles titles. Noah one one French, but was a tennis icon in many ways. He also was threat in any tournament he played in. I also won a number of doubles titles.
Bud Collins is a lock. As annoying as he is, he's a tennis icon and has been there every year emceeing the Hall of Fame ceremony. I don't know who will emcee it when he is inducted.
It also has a lot to do with the talent pool. Sampras is the guy next year. No question. But other than Sampras, who has the creds? Kafelnikov? the Barcelona Bumblebee? Seles (is she officially retired yet?)?
I do agree that the HoF committe should think about actually not inducting in years where there are no viable candidates, but I also think they have a ceremony that they get $$$$$ for and if there are no candidates there's no $$$$$.

dmastous
07-17-2006, 06:39 AM
or they could just let anyone in to make you happy and further cement their place as the biggest joke of any sport's HOF. you should go when they finally induct Majoli. please.

how can you put sabatini or novotna in the same league as graf or navratilova?

how can you let korda (who would eventually be inducted due to his sole slam win) be in the same league as laver, or courier even?

just let everyone in then since making it into the HOF is totally meaningless now. HOF means nothing specially since they give no special consideration for people that have actually won MORE slams than people they induct. like i said before, if i go into a HOF for ANY sport, i expect to see legendary greats in there, not every freegin player that ever hit a ball.
I don't think Korda is going into the Hall. I don't think he has the other accomplishments to go along with his Slam.
It's not that they are on the same level as Navratalova or Laver, if that was the critiria there'd only be 1 or 2 inductees every 10 years or so. That would be a booring Hall of Fame indeed.

brucie
07-17-2006, 06:40 AM
Ivanesivic stands out to me as a hall of famer dont know why, but 1 slam, no way!

dmastous
07-17-2006, 06:51 AM
Ivanesivic stands out to me as a hall of famer dont know why, but 1 slam, no way!
Because he was a quote machine in his career (his press conferences were legendary) and he was involved in a lot of grand slam "moments". He had a very successful career. Lubicic is a player now because of him. I think he will be in, maybe in 2008 after Sampras next year, or maybe along with Sampras.

diegaa
07-17-2006, 08:02 AM
whats worse is that gabrilela sabatini never won one and shes getting in.


Check your facts before getting so emo.

and your spelling