Has the Hall of Fame bar gotten too low?
- Thread starter trownjeff
- Start date
boredone3456
G.O.A.T.
Conchita fully deserves to be in the HOF. Even if you want to state that her playing career is weak, you have to take into account her contributions to the game since. She has been a coach for several players (including coaching Garbine Muguruza during her run to her Wimbledon title). She also was the captain of both Spain's Fed and Davis Cup Teams, I believe at the same time actually. She has done commentary and I think was also a tournament director. she has more than contributed to the game in addition to her playing career and fully deserves to be in the HOF.
As for the bar for the HOF...well....Sabatini and Roddick are in. How much different should it be...Change it when you have them in and it looks unfair. Are you proposing to kick them both out?
As for the bar for the HOF...well....Sabatini and Roddick are in. How much different should it be...Change it when you have them in and it looks unfair. Are you proposing to kick them both out?
I feel like Sabatini and Roddick are absolutely borderline at best, and I question even their making it although not terrible. And Conchita had a clearly weaker career than both of those.
You have valid points on her non playing career and contributions. If she did get in, it would only be for that IMO. I do not think her playing career alone merits it.
And I would never call Conchita's career "weak" so please do not patronize me. She did have an excellent playing career, just not Hall of Fame worthy in my eyes. Her 1 slam title came on her weakest surface by beating a 37 year old in the final. On her clearly best surface she took until near the end of her career to finally make a final, and lost that to a winnable opponent. Her head to heads vs the best of her era like Graf and Seles are horrific. Great player, just not HOF material in my eyes.
I think the standards have been slowly slipping for awhile and it based on that exact thinking- "well this one is in so if this one is even arguably equal or a bit better than this they should be too." And when you do that continously a very slowly dropping bar is certain. They need to ratchet it back up a bit again, no matter how unfair to some future players that might look.
Sukova's induction was another recent strange one.
aliceinpains
Rookie
There might be some years in the future when nobody gets in.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Once they've exhausted all the retired Slam champions they may have to wait some years until the current crop of Slam champions start to retire.
Yes this is a good period for a lot of the borderline types to make it in. If you can't make it over the next little while you probably never will.
Rabbit
G.O.A.T.
They're working too hard to "legitimize" tennis. I don't think any other countries give a hoot in hell about the ITHOF. They appear to have a list of candidates who are "eligible" should no one else be available. I think the whole blazer thing and parade around the court is funny.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
The players and the fans enjoy it and that's all that counts.
I do think people like Kafelnikov and Hewitt are my minimum bar. Either a 2 slam winner and former #1 in singles who also has numerous doubles slams, or a 2 slam winner who spent a lot of time at #1 in singles (Hewitt).
People like Sabatini, Roddick, Chang, Novotna, Sukova, would not get into my Hall of Fame. Wawrinka might eke in due to his 3 slams but even he is borderline and given his lack of other achievements might miss too. Of course in the real Hall of Fame standards he is already a lock.
People like Sabatini, Roddick, Chang, Novotna, Sukova, would not get into my Hall of Fame. Wawrinka might eke in due to his 3 slams but even he is borderline and given his lack of other achievements might miss too. Of course in the real Hall of Fame standards he is already a lock.
Rabbit
G.O.A.T.
I think they're there more for the tournament which is being run simultaneously, not the "ceremonies". But hey....whatever....
boredone3456
G.O.A.T.
I would agree with all of this except I would offer some defense of Novotna. Her singles career was sort of disappointing in that she choked away some big chances for additional majors. That and she never looked close to being number 1.
However in doubles she won 12 womens doubles titles at the majors (at least 2 of each major). in 1990 and 1998 she won 3 of the 4 majors in womens doubles. She contested the womens doubles final of every major in 1990 and 1991. 76 overall doubles titles and got to #1. In 1998 she missed the Calendar year major in doubles as she didn't play the 1998 AO. She failed in 1990 to do it when her and Sukova lost the USO final to Navratilova and Fernandez.
I would argue her doubles career is one of the best of the last 30 years. That should fit her in comfortably.
Also Sukova won 14 majors in Doubles/Mixed doubles...so she deserves to be there as well. The HOF is not all about singles.
OK fair enough. I still would not have Sabatini, Roddick, Chang, Noah, Pierce, even Mauresmo, and many others in my Hall of Fame though. They might merit it under the current standards, but I think the current standards need to be bumped up a bit.
boredone3456
G.O.A.T.
Roddick, Noah, Chang and Sabatini I can see the point
Pierce is is borderline
Mauresmo...well again I contest especially in light of her post retirement contributions in the form of coaching. She assisted Murray in improving on clay and coached Bartoli to her Wimbledon title. Bartoli actually credits Mauresmo for her success there. Pouille while working with her made the SF of the AO, a tournament where before he hadn't done, well, squat.
She also at different points captained both Frances Fed and Davis cup Teams.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Those versions of Agassi and Martina wouldn’t make the cut though.
They should just induct Pete again. Cos he’s PETE.
suwanee4712
Professional
Yes. I'm not sure why 2 and 3 people are going in most years. There just aren't that many people that deserve HOF status in my opinion. I wasn't overly impressed with this year's class nor with next year's nominees.
Yeah we are starting to see some strange inductees.
As much as I like Sukova she was a head scratcher. Stich too.
I was ok with Kafelnikov I guess just because he has his doubles achievements as well but last years class as a whole was extremely borderline with 3 absolute low end non legendary inductees.
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
It must be too low.
Even I'm in the Hall of Fame! Says so next to my name...
Even I'm in the Hall of Fame! Says so next to my name...
There were many years when NO ONE deserved to be in the HOF.
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
Except Blake, Gonzalez and Baghdatis.
heninfan99
Talk Tennis Guru
As a male singles player you should have at least two slams or a load of Masters 1000 and WTF. For me Roddick is iffy. It shouldn't be whose friends with who or a slippery slope.
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
YE1, a slam, four finales, a bunch of M1000s (not everyone can win 25), lengthy top 10 career, beat everyone (despite pathetic H2H vs RF).
Easy candidate.
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
Sabatini and Roddick are an order of magnitude more famous than Martinez.
It is called the Hall of Fame after all.
heninfan99
Talk Tennis Guru
candidate, yes, but to get in, no.
travlerajm
Talk Tennis Guru
Clinched it by signing up BD to his team.
UnderratedSlam
G.O.A.T.
So using your standards we have 5 people there per century?
heninfan99
Talk Tennis Guru
at least Pierce one more than one slam
I think you have to win more than one slam or at least reach the #1 ranking. I mean, seriously. Or have an exceptional doubles career?
BGod
G.O.A.T.
Of course the bar is low. The problem lies with the sport itself. You got 1-5 men and women who can dominate the singles game for a decade and 2-8 men and women on the doubles side where doubles is less illustrious so they have to do more. Those numbers for playing careers alone means 10-15 possible candidates per decade, adding in coaches who can stretch out for years you might have 20 candidates a decade or 2 a year for induction.
For a sport like tennis, absolutely. But not having a ceremony 8 of 10 years ain't good for business, so they have to make the tournament mean something more like a 500 level to off-set lost interest.
The primary problem for the Tennis Hall is what it wants to be. If it's a history museum for the sport and a bastion where retired players show up and fans can meet them, then they're doing it right because you'll have more retired faces. But if you want to have a big honor system, then only the big legends should be considered. One possible idea, specially after the Big 3 area, is to have an elite wing and busts like the Football Hall of Fame. For that wing you could have different categories of which I would suggest for singles:
Had to be #1
26 male players
Minimum 3 Slams
16 male players
I think that's fair, and then you see how people vote if they believe that's a good base to put guys like Courier, Kuerten, Murray in or if voters feel they're not worthy.
For a sport like tennis, absolutely. But not having a ceremony 8 of 10 years ain't good for business, so they have to make the tournament mean something more like a 500 level to off-set lost interest.
The primary problem for the Tennis Hall is what it wants to be. If it's a history museum for the sport and a bastion where retired players show up and fans can meet them, then they're doing it right because you'll have more retired faces. But if you want to have a big honor system, then only the big legends should be considered. One possible idea, specially after the Big 3 area, is to have an elite wing and busts like the Football Hall of Fame. For that wing you could have different categories of which I would suggest for singles:
Had to be #1
26 male players
Minimum 3 Slams
16 male players
I think that's fair, and then you see how people vote if they believe that's a good base to put guys like Courier, Kuerten, Murray in or if voters feel they're not worthy.
Similar threads
