Rafter is in the HOF but Kafelnikov isn't???

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by yashpant, Jul 26, 2011.

  1. yashpant

    yashpant New User

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2011
    Messages:
    37
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    I can't believe that's true(ok, Kafelnikov is my Fav. all time, but still).
    The stats say Kafelnikov is better, plus he has achieved more(olympic gold, 2 GS doubles, more titles, more wins(at a better %)). So why is Rafter in the HOF but not Kafelnikov?Something I missed?
     
    #1
  2. yashpant

    yashpant New User

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2011
    Messages:
    37
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    #2
  3. hoosierbr

    hoosierbr Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,837
    HOF selections are often popularity contests and Kafelnikov was never a popular player when he was on tour. He's quite a jolly fellow now and very pleasant but his attitude back in the day may be hurting him now.
     
    #3
  4. slice bh compliment

    slice bh compliment G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,026
    Yes.^
    Q rating trounce there, right? Rafter is just one of the nicest guys around. The sum of the whole are much greater than his actual numbers. In the words of Samuel L. Jackson, 'personality goes a long way'.

    Kalashnikov? Great player. Good numbers. Good at dubs. Davis Cup, too. Hall of Famer one day, but less of a slam dunk than a Rafter or a Guga.

    Guga will have one sweet speech. I hope we get to see that one day soon.
     
    #4
  5. yashpant

    yashpant New User

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2011
    Messages:
    37
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    Well, looking at it this way sure makes sense..and quoting S.L.Jackson can never be wrong :)
    But the disparity in numbers seems between Rafter and Kafelnikov seems too much to ignore, IMO.
    Any other notable omission from the Hall?
     
    #5
  6. NonP

    NonP Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,082
    Good point about the doubles. When you factor those in there's simply no argument for inducting Rafter but not Kafelnikov.

    BTW, Kaf failed to maximize his talent. His reputation as a money-grubber wasn't entirely undeserved (anyone remember the private jet nonsense?). It speaks volumes that Stefanki himself, who was still on board as his coach when he became No. 1, was speaking disapprovingly in public about how he was playing too much and not focusing enough on his singles career. And as is often the case with the fast-and-furious Kaf blew most of the money away not long after his retirement.
     
    #6
  7. slice bh compliment

    slice bh compliment G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,026
    Yes, dubs slam winner.
    There's another factor. I'm an American. I speak English. I will fully admit there's a very obvious bias at the ITF in favor of English-speaking tennis culture. You hear the French officials talk about the Anglo bent and the Latin side of things in Int'l tennis, Davis Cup, the aTp, the slams, etc. There's some truth to it in Newport, I think.

    Wacko theroy alert:
    Kalashnikov, I think ran afoul of the aTp or ITF or something. Something's up. Not really a conspiracy, but some sort of cover-up.

    In my head, I'm writing a hackish short story about a betting scandal...Russo-Mafioso types, honey traps and a Fischer supercombi 9pack full of rubles or Euros or something.

    But, I'm generally wrong about this stuff...and his IHOF day will come.

    Honestly, I'm just resisting the urge to turn this into a thread about Guga becoming a Hall of Famer.

    Superstar from South America. Undeniable.
     
    #7
  8. yashpant

    yashpant New User

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2011
    Messages:
    37
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    Guga will get in, for sure, don't sweat it :) 3 GS, no.1 , great personality..
    @NonP: True, true..and Safin picked up a lot from Kafelnikov(except the Iron man thing) and then some..
    Aside, will Safin ever be in the HOF?
     
    #8
  9. sarmpas

    sarmpas Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    494
    Wacko or not, I think Yevgeny had to return his prize money/appearance money once for a 'lack of effort' or am I thinking of someone else.


    RE: what S.L. Jackson said, it's a fact of life.
     
    #9
  10. NonP

    NonP Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,082
    I don't see why not. Marat did win "only" 15 titles, sure, but en route to his biggest wins he beat two of the greatest ever to play the game. If Rafter got in with fewer career titles (11 vs. 15), I think it's only a matter of time before Safin gets his due.

    Somewhat on topic, I shared these videos on another thread. Think you'll enjoy:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yylgZJwnZu0
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mb6i5pQIn5g
     
    #10
  11. travlerajm

    travlerajm Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    My unofficial but completely reasonable HOF point system, with each slam weighted for prestige:

    Wimbledon: W = 5, F = 3, SF = 2.
    US Open and FO: W = 4, F = 2, SF = 1.
    AO: W = 3, F = 1.
    (only singles counts).

    Using this formula: Rafter def. Kafelnikov, 17-11. So no conspiracy here. Kuerten's tally is 12, so better than Kafelnikov, but still well behind Rafter.
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2011
    #11
  12. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Kafelnikov won both of his slams with weak draws and he never even won a Masters title. Many consider him the weakest player to ever win 2 slams, and weaker than many 1 slam winners. He also was boring and made no other contributions to the game beside playing tennis.

    I dont see him making the HOF to be honest.
     
    #12
  13. rolandg

    rolandg Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    449
    A lot of it is to do with personality. Rafter was popular and marketable and bought a lot to the game, entertainment and business wise.

    Same with Sabatini and Novotna, who probably shouldn't be in there, but Sabatini brought the game a lot of attention and was popular, and Novotna's Wimbledon 1993 disaster is legendary, so they probably got extra votes for that.
     
    #13
  14. djokovicgonzalez2010

    djokovicgonzalez2010 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    11,865
    Location:
    SW Virginia, USA
    Kafelnikov will be there, surely
     
    #14
  15. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Exactly. To be quite blunt when Kafelnikov retired hardly anyone really missed him.
     
    #15
  16. yashpant

    yashpant New User

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2011
    Messages:
    37
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    @NonP: Thanks, saw those in your original post. Surprising how good Edberg's serve still is, even more surprising is that fat-kaf won..

    @Travelerajm : Does the olympic gold(singles) count for anything??and perhaps the difference in titles between kaf and rafter could be worth something?

    As great a performer rafter was on the big stage, kafelnikov won more and at a better rate(ok, marginally better rate :p ). And to think kafelnikov is the last guy to have won both the singles and doubles at a GS, that can't possible be overlooked..ahh the PR
     
    #16
  17. Whirly

    Whirly New User

    Joined:
    May 12, 2011
    Messages:
    37
    Wasn't he suspended at one point due to steroid use? Would that factor in at all?
     
    #17
  18. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Rafter defended a U.S Open title and a Wimbledon final result. This already puts him above Kafelnikov IMO. Plus he won Masters titles which Kafelnikov never managed (pretty pathetic for a 2 slam winner to have never won a single Masters).

    Also didnt both guys do well in doubles. Both guys also reached #1 but never was either viewed as a real #1 in their time their. Actually many did feel Rafter deserved #1 for 1998, which is something nobody ever suggested for Kafelnikov.

    Of course you could argue who is the greater player but their peers like Sampras, Agassi, the top Spaniards at the time, Ivanisevic, spoke more highly of Rafter as a threat than they ever did Kafelnikov. Sampras's book sums up how the top players of that era viewed Kafenlikov.
     
    #18
  19. dominikk1985

    dominikk1985 Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,365
    He also was suspected of gambling and throwing matches. Pete rose and joe jackson are not in the baseball HOF because of that.

    Of course there is no proof that he did that but considering his sometimes very unmotivated performances and his well documented love for gambling
    many voters might have suspected he did.
     
    #19
  20. slice bh compliment

    slice bh compliment G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,026
    ^Yes.

    He was involved in some gambling. I think that's been hushed.
    The lack of effort, I believe, was Marat Safin...not Kafelnikov.
    The drug cheat story was Korda...not Kafelnikov.

    Winning RG in singles and dubs puts him in rarified air, though. Now he's into golf and poker. Meh.
     
    #20
  21. NonP

    NonP Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,082
    Don't you get it, it was the modern topspin that killed off Edberg in this match. :twisted:

    Again I'm with you on the doubles, but I'm not sure about "better rate." When you compare their records against top-10ers, Rafter comes out slightly ahead at .417 vs. .407. In fact, Roddick (.354) and Korda (.366) are the only players with a comparable resume I know of (excluding surface specialists) with a worse record against the top 10, which doesn't exactly reflect well on Kafelnikov. (Especially when you consider that Korda went into a deep mid-career funk due to that groin injury of his, which eventually required surgery.) And which tells me Kaf often gave half-hearted efforts.

    Anyway I don't mean to be so down on your guy. Yevgeny is one of those players I didn't care much for at first, but have come to appreciate more since their retirement. It's quite remarkable to see what a clean ball-striker he was, and the well-rounded game he had.

    Another good point. BTW, how come a European like you knows so much about baseball? :) (I take it that you're from Germany?)
     
    #21
  22. yashpant

    yashpant New User

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2011
    Messages:
    37
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    ^ Well said/typed. Kafelnikov didn't win any master's titles, but he did win the Olympic gold(more prestigious if I might say?)
    @Nadal Agassi, Rafter did well in doubles, no doubt, but Kafelnikov did way better(4 GS to 1,27 titles to 10)..I'm starting to sound like a broken record.
    You could blame Kaf for lack of effort at times, but I don't remember any drug related bans(well, I'm sure there wasn't one).
     
    #22
  23. yashpant

    yashpant New User

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2011
    Messages:
    37
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    @NonP: I meant win-loss in singles(.665 for Kaf to .65 for Rafter.
    And about the Kafelnikov-Edberg match, blaming it on the Babolat eh? :D that's something I'd do too..
     
    #23
  24. NonP

    NonP Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,082
    Frankly it's hard to rate the Olympics higher than even, say, Miami, given the actual medalists over the years. But like a good Russian Kaf really wanted the Olympic gold, and he got what he wanted.

    I'd say he actually disciplined himself quite well for the greater part of 2000. He was simply outplayed at the AO and FO, by Agassi and Guga respectively.

    Yes, I know what you mean, on both counts. :)
     
    #24
  25. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,062
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Kafelnikov? No.
     
    #25
  26. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    At the time the Olympics were not more prestigious than even a regular Masters. Many of the top players didnt even show up, like the year Kafelnikov won the Olympic Gold was missing Agassi and Sampras who both volunteeringly chose to skip. The fields at Masters were stronger than the Olympics at the time.

    Not winning a Masters title is incredibly weak for a 2 slam winner and should not be ignored, and apparently is not ignored by things like the HOF voters.
     
    #26
  27. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,062
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Kafelnikov has won 2 majors in singles and 4 majors in doubles, including being the last man to win both singles and doubles at the same major (1996 French Open). How has Rafter bettered this? By winning 2 masters series titles?
     
    #27
  28. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Which one is in the HOF?

    Obviously some important people agree with me Rafter is better.

    Yes I would take winning back to back Masters and not having the embarassing stigma of being a rare 2 slam winner with no Masters over 4 doubles slams. If you disagree with me that is fine, but the HOF voters dont seem to.

    I would also rather defend a slam title as Rafter did at the U.S Open, then win two random slams that seemed to come completely out of blue. Rafter repeating as Wimbeldon finalist, and losing an all time classic to Ivanisevic in the second is also to be noted. That also gives Rafter 1 more slam final than Kafelnikov. Rafter has also made the semis of all 4 slams which Kafelnikov has not done.

    Rafter in 1998 many felt was the best player in the World towards the end of the year. Nobody felt that way about Kafelnikov ever.

    Lastly if both were playing their best tennis Rafter would win, except on clay. Rafter of 97-98 and late 2000-2001 is a better player than Kafelnikov, period. Subjective of course but I think most of their peers on tour and experts on the game would agree with me.
     
    #28
  29. ClairHarmony

    ClairHarmony Rookie

    Joined:
    May 24, 2010
    Messages:
    102
    The problem with the tennis hall of fame is that they allow "special contributors" or whatever to the game to get in every year. I have no issue with this, except that this is clearly a *political* move on their part. If they let special contributors get in who go on mini-campaigns in essence to get themselves elected, then, they need to let more players in. If they let doubles specialists in, then they need to let Bruguera in. No one dreams of becoming a grand slam doubles champion...*unless* they're *incapable* of winning a singles slam. If Bob Bryan was someone who could have legitimately vied for a slam, let alone dominate the field at any given time...let alone, make the top 20, 15, or heaven forbid, the top 10 or top 5...he would NOT have given up his singles career for his brother, *nor* would his brother have asked him too. Do I believe the Woodies, Bryan twins, and Leander Paes types be HOF contenders, let alone "shoo-ins" as Justin Gimelstob seems to think with the Bryan twins? Sure, doubles IS a part of the game...as our "special contributors" or whatever. BUT, in so doing, they MUST be more fair in how they "weigh" accoomplishments. If Yannick Noah, gets in, then Bruguera, Kafelnikov, Muster, even Stich should get in no questions asked. It IS a popularity contest, but what's worse is that there is a double-standard that the voters impose. The single players are the CREME-DE-LA-CREME' of the tennis world. And, the amount of singles players who have dominated at any given time, is an exceedingly rare accomplishment that is lost on voters for the simple fact that tennis is an *individual* sport first and foremost. In team sports, the top ten would be MEGASTARS in the league. Each one would headline their own team, and be treated accordingly. The MAGNITUDE of their accomplishments is almost BEYOND BELIEF...yet, voters somehow scoff at the "fringe" singles players for the hall, and yet somehow place doubles specialists on a higher pedestal. It is NOT a greater achievement, when you can play into middle-age in doubles, and still remain at or near the top of the game...gee, I wonder why? FAR less competition. McEnroe comes back in old geezer age, and wins his FIRST tournament back in doubles...it's outrageous, that doubles players are rewarded to the extent that they are...it's a loophole in the system that needs to be addressed. These voters are getting away with muder, with highway robbery. The Bryan twins? Why not elect Kevin Kim and Michael Russell then? They're simply NOT of the same caliber, and would NEVER in a million years be able to sniff a slam title...let alone win back to back in dominant fashion. It's like with MMA scoring in North America, it's an atrocity that HEAVILY favors wrestlers. Encourages them to take minimal risks, takes away necessary offensive tools to counter for fear of being judged too "brutal" for North American audiences, encourages stalling for points, and essentially handicaps strikers...who become tentative as heck, knowing that even a single takedown is essentially like kissing the round away. You can stuff 99 out of 100 takedowns, and poof, a wrestler takes you down just once, even if for only a second, and poof next thing you know you've lost the fight...see Martin Kampmann vs. Diego Sanchez. It's unfair, complaints are rampant, and yet when it comes to legislative/political type changes in life...it's always ho-hum, next, no one in power, ever listens...anyone with the power to change, just goes with the flow...spineless, there are not enough barnstormers in the world. It's absolutely outrageous that the Hall of Fame somehow thinks a special contributor who NO ONE knows about should get in every year, when "fringe" singles candidates who were at one time among the very best in the whole entire WORLD at what they do...are scoffed at, as somehow being "beneath" them, and unworthy. ANY of those special contributors, IF they could play even 1/1000th as good as a grand slam singles champion...they would, but they *can't.* It's all politics and popularity contest, and it's disgusting. These guys were the best in the whole freaking universe at what they do, and they get NO respect from the pansy voters and their "agendas" and "friends" and political "favors" and "networking." It's NOT some workplace poll party, the hall of fame should always be first and foremost for those who reached the pinnacle of their sport, and the ammount of who have been able to do that in tennis single and make ANY kind of name for themselves, is next to ZERO. The cost to make it in tennis is insane, the pay relative to their ability on a worldwide scale is woefully underpaid, they have no real offseason, are forced to travel WORLD wide, year round, make their own schedules, have no teammates to help with burnout/loneliness, don't get chartered team jets like sports teams, I mean it's just DESPICABLE how little respect the "fringe" singles candidates for the hall get...given that making it in tennis is one of the most *impossible* accomplishments known to man!

    Seriously these voters and their fine wine luncheons and snooty nose upturned, need a SERIOUS reality check from the association singles players mafiosas against doubles specialists and special contributors...organization. Yeah, that'll really send a "serious" message to these political foolios. World Peace. :) Next thing, you know they'll be electing Elton John for his charitalbe contributions, and how he's able to make tennis feel like poetry at his best, just like Rios. He is a true master of the game, and has played at one time one of the highest calibers of tennis ever seen. Not saing Rios should get in...but you know what? It's all relative. He SHOULD get in if they let doubles specialists in. Fair is fair. And to me, what Rios was able to do at his best is more "special" and amazing and *UNLIKELY* an accomplishment than what any elite doubles team does. What's more unlikely? Rios deciding to focus on doubles, making mince meat of their serves, winning a double slam...or Bob Bryan winning Wimbeldon in singles...*no matter* how hard he tries. I think from that perspective, the answer is obvious.
     
    #29
  30. NonP

    NonP Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,082
    ClairHarmony, no offense man, 'cause I do value your input, but you might wanna use paragraphs once in a while. Holy mackerel!!!

    And remember what the Bard said about brevity. :)
     
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2011
    #30
  31. NonP

    NonP Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,082
    OK, I probably shouldn't wade in, 'cause I don't want yet another War and Peace to digest. :) At the same time a couple of CH's points shouldn't go unchallenged. *crosses self*

    CH is quite right that a lot of the doubles specialists were nothing to write home about. Either the Woodies or the Bryans, as individual players, had absolutely no shot at a major, there's no denying that. But he's really off when he says or at the very least implies that this makes them inferior HoF candidates to even such one-time Slammers like Stich, Muster, etc.

    That's because playing doubles requires a different skill set than playing singles. Take McEnroe-Fleming, one of the best duos in history. Now, with all due respect to Fleming, nobody but a few tennis historians and enthusiasts would remember him these days if not for his doubles achievements. Yes, one half of the duo was Mac, arguably the best doubles player ever, but that's precisely the point: you don't need to be an all-time great in singles to become one in doubles.

    Also look at who Mac-Fleming lost to at the majors:

    '78 Wimb - Hewitt-McMillan
    '80 USO - Smith-Lutz
    '82 Wimb - McNamee-McNamara

    As you can see, Smith is the only one among this group who'd be considered an elite player. And this isn't just limited to the late '70s/early '80s. Here's hoodjem's list of doubles GOATs:

    Again, with exceptions, not exactly world-beaters. And let me repeat, these guys could and did beat duos consisting of all-time singles greats.

    Which should tell you that in doubles, teamwork and/or court sense often trumps other skills. It's almost a different game from singles. Trying to rate doubles players by the standards of their singles counterparts is really another case of apples vs. oranges. Keep this in mind next time you see someone trying to downgrade the Woodies or the Bryans due to a supposed lack of competition.

    Finally, I find it rather ironic that CH was effectively dismissing Noah's HoF induction while also raising Rios to the heavens. We can discuss all we want, but the bottom line is that Noah achieved something Rios never did: put together a complete 2-week run and win a major title. Mind you, I was and still is a big Rios fan. But the guy managed to reach only one major final, and when he finally did he got demolished by Korda in straight sets. And yes, I understand Korda was in the zone (the way he was blasting BH winners 10 feet behind the baseline was indeed a sight to behold), but that's still no excuse for going down so meekly. Unless my memory is faulty, there was no serious fight from Rios that day.

    Of course the likes of Stich and Safin are no mental giants, either. But, again, at least they put one or two runs together, and also earned themselves more than one shot at the biggest prize of 'em all. It isn't just a matter of luck that they're a former Slam champion and Rios is not.
     
    #31
  32. 0d1n

    0d1n Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    3,671
    Location:
    Cluj-Napoca, Romania
    Nobody cares about your bullsh1t HOF popularity contest, and stop inventing "facts" that "prove" your theory that somebody with LESS achievements is somehow "higher up" in some imaginary ranking that only exists in your own head.
    Kafelnikov accomplished more than Rafter did...and he was a better, more complete/well rounded player. The only reasons Rafter is in your "HOF" and K isn't is because Rafter is HOT, speaks English with a sexy Australian accent, and has a great personality => he's more popular. Kafelnikov is none of those things...hence...he's not anywhere near the top of the popularity list. The fact that this "international" HOF is also US based and Rafter won...(duh) the US Open instead of the French...should give you some general idea about the "objective reasons" for one being "in" and one being "out".
    It has NOTHING to do with achievements. Also ... Sampras' "book" which you use as reference for EVERYBODY's opinion about Kafelnikov...(can you give a quote from there ??) is irrelevant.
    Sampras was a bad matchup for K (as he was for AA), and Kafelnikov was basically a more all court version of AA but with much less mental fortitude and pi$$ poor tournament scheduling which meant he hardly ever got to practice/train to improve his game...and just played matches instead ... which DID bring him loads of cash...but in terms of "great" achievements hurt his career. Kafelnikov also had a mental problem against Sampras...he was beaten before stepping on the court.
    I have a feeling that the AO match (great 5 setter) where he gave it everything he had and still lost kind of broke him mentally when facing Sampras in the rest of his career.
    With regards to Sampras and his comments...he DID comment after that AO match that YK had the best groudstrokes in the game.
    How's that for "bad opinions" about him from fellow tour players ??
    You've stated your points quite a few times in this thread...now let others voice their opinions and stop reposting the same things over, and over and over again.
     
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2011
    #32
  33. rolandg

    rolandg Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    449
    No one is disputing that though. Rafter got in because he is more marketable, same as other players like Sabatini, Novotna, Noah etc. It may not be fair, but tennis is a business, and english is the universal business language etc etc
     
    #33
  34. 0d1n

    0d1n Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    3,671
    Location:
    Cluj-Napoca, Romania
    Actually...NadalAgassi is ...he keeps inventing reasons in order to rationalize this decision and make it somehow ... "objective and tennis achievements related"...when in fact...it is not !
     
    #34
  35. rolandg

    rolandg Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    449
    I don't think he was denying that personality played a part, but there is an argument for Rafter being the better player, and considering the slams he won, and who he beat, having the better career.
     
    #35
  36. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Exactly. IMO Rafter is the better player. Given his back to back U.S Open titles, his back to back Wimbledon finals, that he made all 4 slam semis (which Kafelnikov never did), that he was talked about as the best player in the World in 98 (which Kafelnikov never was), that he beat guys like Sampras and Agassi in big matches (which Kafelnikov never did), that he won Masters titles as a multi slam winner of course should (which Kafelnikov never did) there is ample justification to have the opinion he is the better player too.
     
    #36
  37. yashpant

    yashpant New User

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2011
    Messages:
    37
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    ^
    1. Kaf beat sampras in the 1996 FO semis, sampras could have won the french that year :) never say never..
    2. Masters titles > (Olympic gold + Davis cup win + better doubles +more titles + more wins) ? I find that hard to rationalize.
     
    #37
  38. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,062
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    So winning 2 majors at the same venue is better in your mind than winning 2 majors at 2 seperate venues?

    Okay, but Kafelnikov still got to the quarter finals of Wimbledon in 1995, losing to Ivanisevic.

    The way Kafelnikov became number 1 was bad, after 7 straight losses in singles competition. According to his coach at the time, Larry Stefanki, Kafelnikov himself was embarrassed at the way he became number 1.

    Kafelnikov's biggest win over Sampras was at the 1996 French Open semi finals, winning by the score of 7-6, 6-0, 6-2. That was the only time that Sampras managed to make it to the French Open semi final stage. Kafelnikov had 3 impressive wins over Agassi, the 1995 French Open quarter final (although Agassi had an injury problem), 1998 Davis Cup with Kafelnikov beating Agassi comfortably by 6-3, 6-0, 7-6, and another impressive win at 1999 Montreal, with Kafelnikov winning 7-6, 6-1.

    Kafelnikov won 4 majors in doubles. Rafter just the 1 doubles major.
     
    #38
  39. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Defending your title at a slam (thus proving it can be in no way termed a fluke ) is better than two random slam wins at 2 different venues after the draw collapsed, yes IMO.

    I imagine he was.

    Beating Sampras at the U.S Open and Agassi at Wimbledon >>>> Beating Sampras at the French (and injured immobile Agassi at the French). Keep in mind Rafter beating Agassi in back to back years in the Wimbledon semis, very impressive.


    I already noted Kafelnikov did better in doubles. Kafelnikov still isnt a doubles legend though, and that is generally what gets you in if you dont quite make the cut in singles.
     
    #39
  40. gavna

    gavna Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2010
    Messages:
    3,661
    Aside that records are close Rafter was pretty much liked and respected by the press, fans and players. Can't say that about Yevgeny and not by a long shot. He was notorious for being rude to both fans and the press, late and overall a huge jerk in a sport full of healthy egos. I worked quite a few tourneys in the 90's and saw the way he treated the press and tournament folks and wow he was up there with Rios. I even remember the U.S. Tennis magazine had him set for a cover article and shoot and he totally blew (Bodo? Flink?) off in Miami and they still ran the story but showed him no mercy.
    Also his involvement with Tokhtakhounov and what's pretty much accepted that he bagged the Lyon match for the Russian mob. This is the kind off stuff that will keep him from the HOF.
     
    #40
  41. slice bh compliment

    slice bh compliment G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,026
    I remember that match like it was yesterday. I rooted for Pete, then Stich in the final. Yevvy played great.
    Pete was a little tuckered out, as I recall, from a couple of rough ones against Martin and Courier and someone else really tough, too..maybe Bruguera or?
    Stich played too many droppers early on and was generally not solid enough in the final.
    Kudos to Kafelnikov on a heck of a weekend.
     
    #41
  42. 0d1n

    0d1n Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    3,671
    Location:
    Cluj-Napoca, Romania
    Of course winning 2 majors on 2 different surfaces is harder to do than winning the same major twice.
    You make some other great points...but they only resonate with non-biased people. Don't bother...
    Kafelnikov was a consistent threat at all majors...and a HUGE threat at the AO and FO. To argue his wins are "flukes" there means to disregard his consistently great results there...losing to on-fire/close to untouchable Guga at the french in VERY tough matches mind you and to inspired AA for example at the AO.
    But...like I said...why bother with arguments for people who dismiss and disregard them.
     
    #42
  43. dominikk1985

    dominikk1985 Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,365
    Yes I'm from germany. I do play baseball in a league (which is rare here in germany:D). I also like to watch it and I'm interested in baseball stats.

    I think boston is winning it all this season:D.
     
    #43
  44. dominikk1985

    dominikk1985 Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,365
    I don't think he used PEDs.

    however he (like safin) sometimes had unmotivated performances. He said several times that he played mainly for the money. I don't think he liked tennis very much.

    He also said that he played so much doubles because he doesn't like train and thus played a lot to stay in shape.
     
    #44
  45. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,062
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Absolutely. I was annoyed at Muster's loss to Stich, but I don't think Kafelnikov gets the credit he deserves for winning that tournament, and for winning the doubles as well.

    Here are the runs of Kafelnikov, Stich and Sampras at the 1996 French Open, by the way:

    Yevgeny Kafelnikov
    R128: Yevgeny Kafelnikov def. Galo Blanco (6-1, 6-3, 6-3)
    R64: Yevgeny Kafelnikov def. Thomas Johansson (6-2, 7-5, 6-3)
    R32: Yevgeny Kafelnikov def. Felix Mantilla (6-4, 6-2, 6-2)
    R16: Yevgeny Kafelnikov def. Francisco Clavet (6-4, 6-3, 6-3)
    QF: Yevgeny Kafelnikov def. Richard Krajicek (6-3, 6-4, 6-7, 6-2)
    SF: Yevgeny Kafelnikov def. Pete Sampras (7-6, 6-0, 6-2)
    F: Yevgeny Kafelnikov def. Michael Stich (7-6, 7-5, 7-6)

    Michael Stich
    R128: Michael Stich def. Patrik Fredriksson (6-4, 7-5, 6-4)
    R64: Michael Stich def. Greg Rusedski (6-3, 7-5, 6-3)
    R32: Michael Stich def. Mikael Tillstrom (4-6, 6-0, 6-4, 7-6)
    R16: Michael Stich def. Thomas Muster (4-6, 6-4, 6-1, 7-6)
    QF: Michael Stich def. Cedric Pioline (6-4, 4-6, 6-3, 6-2)
    SF: Michael Stich def. Marc Rosset (6-3, 6-4, 6-2)
    F: Yevgeny Kafelnikov def. Michael Stich (7-6, 7-5, 7-6)

    Pete Sampras
    R128: Pete Sampras def. Magnus Gustafsson (6-1, 7-5, 7-6)
    R64: Pete Sampras def. Sergi Bruguera (6-3, 6-4, 6-7, 2-6, 6-3)
    R32: Pete Sampras def. Todd Martin (3-6, 6-4, 7-5, 4-6, 6-2)
    R16: Pete Sampras def. Scott Draper (6-4, 7-5, 6-2)
    QF: Pete Sampras def. Jim Courier (6-7, 4-6, 6-4, 6-4, 6-4)
    SF: Yevgeny Kafelnikov def. Pete Sampras (7-6, 6-0, 6-2)
     
    #45
  46. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    I am sure the vast majority of people would agree if you give Kafelnikov the draws of Stich or Sampras instead of his own it is very unlikely he wins that French. Of course that isnt his fault, he did play very well and you can only play who is in front of you.
     
    #46
  47. slice bh compliment

    slice bh compliment G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,026
    ^Yeh yeh yeh, meaningless pre-Guga results.
    Kidding.

    Man, nice post. Gino Kafelnikov won that whole tournament while dropping only one set. and that was a breaker to Richard Krajicek. Wow.

    Stich did take out the defending champ, Muster. Nice, I remember cheering that one, along with the three awesome 5 setters by Pete.

    Kafelnikov beat four or five of my favorites at the time: Pete, Stich, Krajicek, Mantilla, ToJo and the illustrious Galo Blanco.

    I also remember 1996 as one of those rare years when 4 different men won the slams: Becker in Oz, Yevvy at RG, Krajicek at W and of course, Pete in Queens, NY. I was a teaching pro at the time and I remember Babolat did a poster about it...since all 4 men played with VS gut. I can picture the poster in my head.

    Tennis has changed.
     
    #47
  48. NonP

    NonP Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,082
    Somebody wants to meet you in St. Louis. :)

    No, seriously I'm pretty sure you know more about baseball than I and many other Americans do. Nothing can be called America's pastime these days... except maybe "reality" shows.

    P.S. Sorry about the late response. Was going to reply earlier, but life beckoned.
     
    #48

Share This Page