Dissing Mary Pierce

Gonzalito17

Gonzalito17

Banned
Gimelstob, Carillo and Davenport were talking about Hall of Fame this year and the electees Bruguera, Kafelnikov, Mauresmo and Pierce.

Mauresmo won two majors but the commentators were lauding her decision to announce she was gay at age 19 as some kind of great feat which added to her achievements. Really?

But then they smalled Pierce who won 2 majors and was in 3 or 4 finals, saying her contributions to the sport were minimal. Say what? Pierce is coaching a couple of juniors from Mauritius in Bradenton FL, at no charge, she's doing it for free, because she loves the sport and wants to give back and help these two kids who she is tight with the family.

Just very annoying to see Gimel, Carillo and Davenport small Pierce. What did Davenport contribute to tennis besides winning her majors? Yeh she played Fed Cup, yahoo for that. But what else? TV commentating is good, coaching Keys is good but she does not stand out far and away above and beyond Pierce.

Shame to see Mary Pierce getting discredited and smalled, she was a great player and is worthy of Hall of Fame.
 
Carillo i a fairly bad commentator IMO. I'd expect that from her. Davenport i wouldn't expect that from and is nearly always level headed and professional when she commentates.
 
Mary Pierce at the top of her form was unplayable. She wouldn't lose many games when playing that well. She rubbed some people up the wrong way, though, because of her aloof personality and game. The nickname "Queen Mary" really suited her.
 
Ronaldo said:
How long was Pierce the #1 player? That may be a reason Davenport dismissed MP HoF credentials.
Click to expand...

Mary Pierce's highest ranking was world number 3. However, if that's the reason for negativity, then Sergi Bruguera's highest ranking was also world number 3.
 
How about overcoming an abusive parent to still be a champion, why is that not as "brave" as coming out, in a sport clearly comfortable with "alternative lifestyles", not like Amelie "came out" in the military or as a politician...WTF?
 
Gonzalito17 said:
Gimelstob, Carillo and Davenport were talking about Hall of Fame this year and the electees Bruguera, Kafelnikov, Mauresmo and Pierce.

Mauresmo won two majors but the commentators were lauding her decision to announce she was gay at age 19 as some kind of great feat which added to her achievements. Really?

But then they smalled Pierce who won 2 majors and was in 3 or 4 finals, saying her contributions to the sport were minimal. Say what? Pierce is coaching a couple of juniors from Mauritius in Bradenton FL, at no charge, she's doing it for free, because she loves the sport and wants to give back and help these two kids who she is tight with the family.

Just very annoying to see Gimel, Carillo and Davenport small Pierce. What did Davenport contribute to tennis besides winning her majors? Yeh she played Fed Cup, yahoo for that. But what else? TV commentating is good, coaching Keys is good but she does not stand out far and away above and beyond Pierce.

Shame to see Mary Pierce getting discredited and smalled, she was a great player and is worthy of Hall of Fame.
Click to expand...

Yes coming out at age 19 is a great feat for a sportsperson given the history of hate, violent attacks, and loss of sponsorships which have happened in the past and still do. Don't diss something you don't understand.

Also, are you sure they said that Pierce's contributions were "minimal?" Were those really their words?

And I have to say that Davenport and Mauresmo have had more of an impact than Pierce. Mauresmo is coaching Murray, another milestone in gender relationships, and Davenport has won 3 of the 4 Slams and was one of the cleanest ball strikers ever.
 
Man of steel said:
Carillo i a fairly bad commentator IMO. I'd expect that from her. Davenport i wouldn't expect that from and is nearly always level headed and professional when she commentates.
Click to expand...

Mary is the very worst. Just talks... talks and talks. In most cases she brings nothing to the match and talks while the point is going on. Every so often (It must be the producer) tells he to shut the heck up when the ball is in play... that lasts all but like 15 minutes. Then back to .. Yada... Yada.. Yada.. Blah... Blah...Blah. Drives me crazy. USELESS!!!
 
SteveI said:
Mary is the very worst. Just talks... talks and talks. In most cases she brings nothing to the match and talks while the point is going on. Every so often (It must be the producer) tells he to shut the heck up when the ball is in play... that lasts all but like 15 minutes. Then back to .. Yada... Yada.. Yada.. Blah... Blah...Blah. Drives me crazy. USELESS!!!
Click to expand...

Don't quote me on this but apparently Carillo was asked to tone it down in some of her comments at ESPN or else she would be fired after the producers started to notice some of her biased views against certain multislam champs on the womens tour.
 
SteveI said:
Mary is the very worst. Just talks... talks and talks. In most cases she brings nothing to the match and talks while the point is going on. Every so often (It must be the producer) tells he to shut the heck up when the ball is in play... that lasts all but like 15 minutes. Then back to .. Yada... Yada.. Yada.. Blah... Blah...Blah. Drives me crazy. USELESS!!!
Click to expand...

Never noticed Pierce yapping during her matches. Must be that Canadien' accent.
 
Last edited:
Mustard said:
Mary Pierce at the top of her form was unplayable. She wouldn't lose many games when playing that well.

She rubbed some people up the wrong way,

though, because of her aloof personality and game. The nickname "Queen Mary" really suited her.
Click to expand...
Word had it that she also rubbed a lot of people the right way.
 
Mustard said:
Mary Pierce at the top of her form was unplayable. \.
Click to expand...

No. There were many who had higher peak form than her. She was a bruiser, with flatttened strokes, so against a lesser player she could look unstoppable, but her footspeed, agility, and quickness was never great - average at best.

This actually greatly limited her potential (and her very weak mental game didn't help either), and against a Serena Williams, or even a Steffi Graf, even her best game wouldn't match up if they were at their best.

As to the comments, I agree that Mauresmo coming out of the closet should have no bearing on the hall of fame.
 
My only concern surrounding Pierce is that she sure developed shoulders and biceps that many a man would love to have, wouldn't be surprised if testosterone wasn't in play.
 
Carillo is an elitist snob. I remember back when she was on ESPN.. when Venus and Serena were playing all those finals, she complained it was boring. When they took a break from the sport to do school, fashion, acting, she was ticked off over them abandoning the sport.. how dare they pursue something else.
It was like they couldn't do anything to satisfy her.

Then I think she won an Emmy for some segment she did about clay court tennis.. how it was a canvas yadda yadda.

The question is a good one to ask, I think. If you win two majors is that all you need to get into the Hall of Fame. I think my answer would be.. if they run out of players that have won more than two.. than yea, one year.. two should be enough.

I loved Mary Pierce's comeback. She was so out of shape. She was losing to players she never lost to before. Then she just got into the grind and was punishing the top players.. beating Henin so bad, I think in Canada, and going on to the French Open final.. to then lose to Henin. And then meeting Clijsters in a final. I think she should get in. The woman had one of the most embarrassing moments at the French Open when she couldn't speak the language of the country she was representing. Totally dedicated herself to learning the language and gaining the respect of the crowd back.
She's a French player who won the French Open.. and you're going to keep her out of the Hall of Fame.
Amelie couldn't do much at all at the French Open with the pressure... and I love Amelie. Amelie should get in because of so many reasons.
And the conversation about Amelie coming out in front of Davenport was priceless. Wasn't it Davenport and Hingis who claimed Amelie was a man?
Just completely wrong. If that would have happened today... they'd be sent to some kind of rehab for saying that.
And let's be fair.. Davenport and Hingis aren't exactly selling swimsuit calendars..let's be clear. I don't like to speak about women in this way.. but it does anger me that Davenport sat there silent when Carillo was getting deep into Amelie's coming out at such a very young age in front of such a very big audience.
Amelie was forced out like Billy and Martina before her.. because of people like Davenport, etc.
 
jarko111 said:
... Wasn't it Davenport and Hingis who claimed Amelie was a man?
Just completely wrong. If that would have happened today... they'd be sent to some kind of rehab for saying that.
.
Click to expand...

That doesn't sound like something Davenport would say.
 
sureshs said:
Yes coming out at age 19 is a great feat for a sportsperson given the history of hate, violent attacks, and loss of sponsorships which have happened in the past and still do. Don't diss something you don't understand.

Also, are you sure they said that Pierce's contributions were "minimal?" Were those really their words?

And I have to say that Davenport and Mauresmo have had more of an impact than Pierce. Mauresmo is coaching Murray, another milestone in gender relationships, and Davenport has won 3 of the 4 Slams and was one of the cleanest ball strikers ever.
Click to expand...

No they did not use the world minimal but they made it seem like Pierce's contributions to the sport outside of playing are insufficient, they didn't say anything to support her. They were all clearly writing her off as undeserving. Which is an injustice.
 
Last edited:
Mr.Lob said:
That doesn't sound like something Davenport would say.
Click to expand...

She didn't. They never accused her of being a man, but they likened her to playing against a man.

Davenport had gone on and on about how strong Mauresmo was, how big her shoulders were and how intimidating her shoulders and strength were. One of her first remarks was something like "it was like playing a guy". She admitted she had rarely been intimidated by somebody's strength that much. Hingis joined in by saying she played like man ....though she mentioned that Serena's shoulders were bigger...haha.

The press ran with this and accused them both of anti-gay. They both denied it and later accused the press of manufacturing that, and taking their quotes out of context. Hingis claimed that her "half-man" quote was competely made up.

My guess is that it was probably a bit of both, Davenport and Hingis were both annoyed at the attention Mauresmo was getting, and the remarks they made had at least a bit of Federer passive-aggressive snippiness to them....the press for their part took that and ran with it big-time.

And yes....if players said that today there would be.....huge repercussions - sadly. I think a player should be allowed to say such things if that is there opinion....our PC has run amuck so that only one sensibility is now tolerated - and you wonder why tennis personalities aren't terribly interesting these days....
 
Pierce & Mauresmo are both worthy admissions. They both satisfy the criteria, and I'm sure gave many spectators lots of pleasure: personally, pierce's demolition of Graf at RG will always remain with me, and to a lesser extent (but joyful nonetheless) Mauresmo's Wimbledon win over the heavily favoured Henin.
 
Gonzalito17 said:
Gimelstob, Carillo and Davenport were talking about Hall of Fame this year and the electees Bruguera, Kafelnikov, Mauresmo and Pierce.

Mauresmo won two majors but the commentators were lauding her decision to announce she was gay at age 19 as some kind of great feat which added to her achievements. Really?

But then they smalled Pierce who won 2 majors and was in 3 or 4 finals, saying her contributions to the sport were minimal. Say what? Pierce is coaching a couple of juniors from Mauritius in Bradenton FL, at no charge, she's doing it for free, because she loves the sport and wants to give back and help these two kids who she is tight with the family.

Just very annoying to see Gimel, Carillo and Davenport small Pierce. What did Davenport contribute to tennis besides winning her majors? Yeh she played Fed Cup, yahoo for that. But what else? TV commentating is good, coaching Keys is good but she does not stand out far and away above and beyond Pierce.

Shame to see Mary Pierce getting discredited and smalled, she was a great player and is worthy of Hall of Fame.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I think you should reply directly to these commentators with your thoughts, I am sure they have a public email address or Twitter etc where they can read your thoughts, I think it is worth doing that to make them re-think what they are saying. We know commentators can often say things to sound good without thinking it through.
 
Very surprised they were saying this.

Pierce has pretty good HOF bona fides. Her overall number of tournament wins is pretty low, but considering current HOF standards (and always remember HOF nominations are based on those standards, not what you or I might want them to be), she has a very good resume. It's tough to ignore two Slams on two different surfaces and 4 more finals.

Players do contribute to the sport to vastly varying degrees, but if they possess the necessary tennis achievements anyway, then "contribution" is just icing. (I'm not saying Pierce hasn't contributed, just making a point).

I do think Mauresmo should be lauded for coming out when she did, early in her career. It was courageous and commendable. And, it's worth noting in her profile. It's not what will get her into the HOF. I'm sure with two Slams, a No. 1 ranking, and Tour Finals win, she would have been nominated anyway.
 
Last edited:
Mary is HOF worthy

She made a few good runs to prove she was no flash in the pan. Her decimation of Graf at FO sf was especially impressive.

Lindsay Davenport made the remark that Mauresmo played like a man. She meant nothing malicious by it, just complementing her opponents play.
 
I wonder how Mauresmo took the comment, that she "played like a man."

At the time Mauresmo was playing quite masculine tennis, remember her shoulders were astonishingly strong looking. The comments could be taken either way, as a compliment or veiled insult.
 
PDJ said:
Pierce & Mauresmo are both worthy admissions. They both satisfy the criteria, and I'm sure gave many spectators lots of pleasure: personally, pierce's demolition of Graf at RG will always remain with me, and to a lesser extent (but joyful nonetheless) Mauresmo's Wimbledon win over the heavily favoured Henin.
Click to expand...

You can say that again! :) I remember that year at RG, I think Pierce lost something like ten games before her SF with Graf(a record at the time) and I thought she had a good chance of winning but never in my wildest dreams did I expect such a drubbing. One of the finest performances from a female player I've ever seen.
 
What do you expect from Gimelstob & Carillo? They are both at the bottom of commentating & insights. Don't care what they're paid.
 
Djokovic2011 said:
You can say that again! :) I remember that year at RG, I think Pierce lost something like ten games before her SF with Graf(a record at the time) and I thought she had a good chance of winning but never in my wildest dreams did I expect such a drubbing. One of the finest performances from a female player I've ever seen.
Click to expand...

Def in my top 5 female matches ever. Was shell-shocked watching it. There really was something about Mary :)
Check out this video on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyidS1Mwf6E&feature=youtube_gdata_player
 
Last edited:
I was a fan of Bruguera and Kafelnikov. I didnt really follow much woman's tennis but i prefered Mauresmo over Pierce. I dont feel Pierce should in the Hall.
 
Gonzalito17 said:
I wonder how Mauresmo took the comment, that she "played like a man."

At the time Mauresmo was playing quite masculine tennis, remember her shoulders were astonishingly strong looking. The comments could be taken either way, as a compliment or veiled insult.
Click to expand...

She didn't say much at all.The whole business caused a furore in the aussie press at the time and Mauresmo did the dignified things and refused to get dragged into the discussion.

Davenport was very vocal in her defense of Mauresmo, accusing the media of hurting a nice person.

Hingis made herself look stupid if I recall rightly.
 
HRB said:
How about overcoming an abusive parent to still be a champion, why is that not as "brave" as coming out, in a sport clearly comfortable with "alternative lifestyles"...
Click to expand...

There is an agenda to promote Amelie Mauresmo. Murray was/is a part of it, too.

encylopedia said:
I would call her well below average in looks. On any give street, there are 5 women who look better ...
Click to expand...

Well, depending on the street.
I saw her at an itf futures 2.5 yrs ago. She looked really nice for her age. I might not have said that a decade or two ago. She has grown up nicely.

AngieB said:
#Mah-reePierce ...
grew-up in the #UnitedStates ... #JustinGibelstob would ride the #coattails of ...
Of course, #MaryCarillo would be complementary of #AmelieMauresmo for obvious reasons. #Mah-reePierce didn't conform to the USA brand...the USTA...
Poor form by #MaryCarillo, #LindsayDavenport and #JustinGibelstob. They could do much better representing the sport...
Click to expand...


GrannyIlluminati knows there is an agenda. Lindsay, carillo and gimel are pawns.

But did you know, growing up as a jr player here in the States, people called her Mary, and not Mah-ree?
 
PDJ said:
Pierce & Mauresmo are both worthy admissions. They both satisfy the criteria, and I'm sure gave many spectators lots of pleasure: personally, pierce's demolition of Graf at RG will always remain with me, and to a lesser extent (but joyful nonetheless) Mauresmo's Wimbledon win over the heavily favoured Henin.
Click to expand...
Agreed, especially in the case of Amelie Mauresmo. If Yannick Noah's in, they both should be.

Noah
W-L record: 476-210
winning % - .694
GS titles: 1 (French)
singles titles: 23
highest rank: #3
misc.: Davis Cup captain

Mauresmo
W-L record: 545-227
winning % - .706
GS titles: 2 (Wimbledon/Australian)
singles titles: 25
highest rank: #1
misc.: coached Marion Bartoli to Wimbledon title; Michael Llodra to Wimbleon doubles title

Pierce
W-L record: 511-237
winning % - .683
GS titles: 2 (Australian/French)
singles titles: 18
highest rank: #3
misc.: overcame emotionally abusive father to reach 6 GS finals (Noah only reached 1 GS final).

As for a previous comment in this thread about Mauresmo playing a "masculine game," it should be noted that Mauresmo's "game" (stroke production) was very much like that of the 'feminine' Gabriela Sabatini: big one-handed topspin backhand with a full western forehand.
 
HRB said:
How about overcoming an abusive parent to still be a champion, why is that not as "brave" as coming out, in a sport clearly comfortable with "alternative lifestyles", not like Amelie "came out" in the military or as a politician...WTF?
Click to expand...

Yes, well personally, I feel this has NO PART in the "tennis" hall of fame. From a tennis perspective I don't care what her gender preferences were, nor do I care if she told people about them.

Should those who stay in the closet be penalized for it when it comes to the hall of fame?? If it really shouldn't matter as activists advocate, then it shouldn't be an issue either way!

And....as you point out...I don't see why her personal brand of insecurity/bravery/suffering should necessarily be ranked greater than anyone else's. Perhaps we could build a complex matrix of difficulties: personality/psychiatric disorders, eating disorders, parents/coach dead, had to leave homeland, low scocioeconomic status, abusive people in life and rank on a spectrum by both professionals and the public, on various key metrics...and go from there.... ;-)
 
Good point. Mauresmo's sexual preference and the manner in which she publicized it should be no factor at all regarding her election to Hall of Fame. It should be a private matter. Tennis Hall of Fame is about tennis. Not politics.
 
Gonzalito17 said:
Good point. Mauresmo's sexual preference and the manner in which she publicized it should be no factor at all regarding her election to Hall of Fame. It should be a private matter. Tennis Hall of Fame is about tennis. Not politics.
Click to expand...

Agreed. It should not be about politics, social whims/trends/agendas...which of course change over time. Of course there may be some rubrics to cross ... criminal activity etc....but beyond that personal life choices should not be factors for....or against...the player. Ultimately, when you start adding in such things, it becomes a popularity contest - and ultimately belittles the actual tennis accomplishments.

When you remove yourself from the specific cultural context (difficult of course since we're all inundated with it daily), the silliness of it becomes more clear.
 
Truth.
I am sure gimel and company would never want to detract from Amelie's qualifications or the meaning of IHOF enshrinement. They were probably just talking, which, i suppose is their job.

Does not mean i enjoy it.
 
While I agree Pierce should be in the Hall of Fame, and will be inducted into the Hall of Fame, make no mistake about one thing. Davenport's acheivements in the sport absolutely drawf Pierce. Yes she is only 1 major ahead, but that is the only area they are even close. Not that 1 major difference isnt already a huge thing when you are talking about players with a relatively small # of majors to begin with btw.

Davenport has 4 YE#1s, an incredible feat. Pierce never even reached a rank of #2 for a single feat.

Career titles is 18 vs something over 50.

Davenport won the Olympics and YEC. Pierce won nothing big outside her 2 slams.

While Pierce's insane peak level might make her seem like an underachiever to some, the reality is she wasnt even in any of the 4 slam finals she lost. She is also 6-0 in slam semis, so has no other times even past the quarters. So she didnt really miss any other chances at a slam, outside the 94 French which she probably would have won without the rain delay.

However it is Davenport who was unlucky to win only 3 slams and blew a ton of really close chances. 2005 Wimbledon served for a straight sets win vs Venus, then had match points in the 3rd she couldnt convert. Also lost serve from 40-15 up when up a break, and aggravated an old back injury at that point. Lost the 2005 Australian Open final to Serena from a set and break up, falling apart at the end. Lost the 2004 wimledon title when she blew a 6-2, 2-0, chances for 2 break lead vs Sharapova in the semis, and would have beaten abysmal Serena in final. 2004 U.S open which she totally would have won easily without aggravating an old thigh injury vs Kuznetsova in the semis, and still probably should have won even with that. Even 2000 Wimbledon and 2000 U.S Open finals vs Venus she had her chances. So she could easily have 7-9 majors while Pierce did well just to win 2.

So Davenport >>>>> Pierce. Make no mistake about that.
 
Mustard said:
Mary Pierce at the top of her form was unplayable. She wouldn't lose many games when playing that well. She rubbed some people up the wrong way, though, because of her aloof personality and game. The nickname "Queen Mary" really suited her.
Click to expand...

Had the Seles stabbing not occured, Mary might have 0 majors. Davenport would likely still have 3, and like I said she could have won 8 or 9 majors if she took half of her chances. She should have won atleast 5 or 6. She isnt considered an underachiever, but she still got very unlucky given the position she put herself in. Pierce might have a more spectacular peak level play than Davenport but she could onlly produce it like 2% of the time, and Davenport's average day to day level was way better, and was in general a much bigger force in the game for alot longer than Mary was.

As I said their career achievements outside their being only1 major apart are miles apart.
 
^^^

I don't think anyone at all questions Davenport's superior credentials over Pierce. I thought were discussing Pierce and Mauresmo's HOF credentials and to what degree non-tennis factors should be considered, if at all.
 
The initial posters in this thread seemed to be saying why would Pierce be seen as much below Davenport. It is quite clear why Pierce's career and stock as an overall player is much below Davenport, despite their being only 1 major apart. Davenport is by a huge margin the most accomplished player ever to win only 3 slams. Pierce is at best just about average for a 2 slam winner.
 
Is there a limit to the # of people that be inducted into the Player Category per year btw? Of those 4 the order they would be chosen in is clearly:

1. Mauresmo
2. Pierce
3. Bruguera
4. Kafelnikov

So the # that can be inducted in the Player Category per year would be what determines who gets in amongst that group, atleast this year.
 
Are there actual criteria written somewhere as to what is needed to enter the hall of shame? It seems to me that they have watered it down so much, that the really greats are muddled together with many that were decent pros but not even the best of their time. I think that you should have at least obtained #1 for a reasonable length of time or sat at #2 for a long period because of coinciding with maybe a GOAT candidate, kind of like cycling's Raymond Poulidor. What will you do with a Caroline Wozniaki, #1 for over a year and can't win a major (I do hope that changes this year).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

justinjay
Kafelnikov, Pierce and Conchita Martinez should be put into the Hall of Fame this year
Replies
19
Views
1K
justinjay
justinjay
M
Jana Novotna's hilariously contrasting head to head vs top power players- Davenport, Pierce, Graf, Seles, but imparticular Davenport and Pierce
Replies
5
Views
1K
travlerajm
travlerajm
Mainad
Mauresmo elected to Hall of Fame
Replies
26
Views
2K
Russeljones
Russeljones
C
Kim Clijsters.. hall of famer??
Replies
39
Views
4K
powerangle
powerangle
C
Mary can't finish the deal
Replies
3
Views
953
PierceCheng
P
Back
Top