Is it time we had an International Tennis Hall of All Time Greats?

Mainad

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Seeing as how this subject has been the topic of so much discussion lately and obviously excites intense interest for most posters on here, is it time we kicked the outdated International Tennis Hall Of Fame into touch (with all the endless arguments about who should and who shouldn't be in there) and simply apply the 6 Slams guillotine rule which most people on here seem to favour?

In singles, that would currently include 27 men and 21 women, a total of 48 players.

Men (in order of Slam count and listed alphabetically if more than one player with same number):

1. Roger Federer (20)
2. Rafael Nadal (19)
3. Novak Djokovic (17)
4. Pete Sampras (14)
5. Roy Emerson (12)
6. Bjorn Borg (11)
7. Rod Laver (11)
8. Bill Tilden (10)
9. Andre Agassi (8)
10. Jimmy Connors (8)
11. Ivan Lendl (8)
12. Fred Perry (8)
13. Ken Rosewall (8)
14. Henri Cochet (7)
15. Rene Lacoste (7)
16. William Larned (7)
17. John McEnroe (7)
18. John Newcombe (7)
19. William Renshaw (7)
20. Richard Sears (7)
21. Mats Wilander (7)
22. Boris Becker (6)
23. Don Budge (6)
24. Jack Crawford (6)
25. Lawrence Doherty (6)
26. Stefan Edberg (6)
27. Anthony Wilding (6)

Women ((in order of Slam count and listed alphabetically if more than one player with same number):

1. Margaret Smith Court (24)
2. Serena Williams (23)
3. Steffi Graf (22)
4. Helen Wills Moody (19)
5. Chris Evert (18)
6. Martina Navratilova (18)
7. Billie Jean King (12)
8. Maureen Connolly (9)
9. Monica Seles (9)
10. Suzanne Lenglen (8)
11. Molla Bjurstedt Mallory (8)
12. Maria Bueno (7)
13. Evonne Goolagong Cawley (7)
14. Dorothea Lambert Chambers (7)
15. Justine Henin (7)
16. Venus Williams (7)
17. Nancye Wynne Bolton (6)
18. Louise Brough (6)
19. Margaret Osborne DuPont (6)
20. Doris Hart (6)
21. Blanche Bingley Hillyard (6)

Not sure of what the doubles criteria would be. Open to the wise counsel of TTW on that one.

Thoughts?
 
Just going purely by numbers is so dumb with something like this is my thoughts. Leaving off guys who managed say 5 tough majors and including names who went north of that number by playing in the era of the challenger round is idiotic beyond belief.
 
I get your point, but...no.
Per the sports that I most follow,there are no objective criteria for enshrinement into their respective Halls of Fame.

If there are objective criteria, this should be transparent to all players at the start of their careers, which has not been the case.

As for "ATG", that's another matter. While I don't think that 6 majors is a bad line for OE players, not everyone accepts that. It's more art than science, if you will.
 
This looks good to me, but I'd recommend it as the Hall of Fame having a "Greats" wing and an "ATG" wing. Before crunching the numbers, if you had asked how often we should have a singles ATG, I would have said about 1 every 5 years. Here, on the men's side you have 12 pure Open Era ATGs over 52 years of the Open Era. That is 1 every 4.33 years, which is cool and makes the designation meaningful. And, again, the beauty of this is that you have 2 players -- Becker and Edberg -- with 6 Majors each, followed by a gap with no pure Open Era players with 5 Majors, followed by only 2 pure Open Era players with 4 Majors (and Vilas is dubious given his 2 weak Australian Open titles).

Moreover, that 52 years of history shows us that players with 6+ Majors have great overall careers. Edberg was twice year-end #1, spent 72 weeks at #1, and won WTF. Becker won WTF 3 times and made 5 other finals.

But once you go below that level, things are hit and miss. For example, Kodes won 3 Majors...and 9 total titles. So, absolutely, put Kodes and Kuerten and Murray in the Hall of Fame. But they're greats rather than ATGs.
 
Last edited:
Pancho Gonzalez should be there instead of Emerson.

That being said, seeing no Andy Murray there makes me so happy. I have tears of joy in my eyes.
 
Having a strict one-shot threshold like 6 Slams means there will be no one inducted several years.

There is a misconception that IHOF is only about merit. It also needs to make money and provide entertainment.
 
Should have included a poll, with multiple choices allowed, shouldn't I?

1. Yes, we should have an International Tennis Hall of All Time Greats.
2. Scrap the International Tennis Hall Of Fame.
3. Keep the 2 Halls side by side but separate.
4. No, the whole thing's a bad idea.
 
Mainad said:
Should have included a poll, with multiple choices allowed, shouldn't I?

1. Yes, we should have an International Tennis Hall of All Time Greats.
2. Scrap the International Tennis Hall Of Fame.
3. Keep the 2 Halls side by side but separate.
4. No, the whole thing's a bad idea.
Click to expand...
In that case, "4", if "the whole thing" means to reject 1-3, and essentially keep it as is.
 
Where is Andy bro? Lmao.

And it just goes confirms to me how silly this "all-time great" nonsense is. Casual tennis fans probably ain't even heard of half the names on the list. Everyone is gets forgotten eventually.
 
killerboss said:
Where is Andy bro? Lmao.

And it just goes confirms to me how silly this "all-time great" nonsense is. Casual tennis fans probably ain't even heard of half the names on the list. Everyone is gets forgotten eventually.
Click to expand...

Casual tennis fans might not know all of the pre-Open Era ATGs on the list, but casual tennis fans would know all of the 6+ Major winners in the Open Era. Casual tennis fans probably wouldn't know people like Kodes, despite the fact that he won 3 Majors.
 
Mainad said:
Seeing as how this subject has been the topic of so much discussion lately and obviously excites intense interest for most posters on here, is it time we kicked the outdated International Tennis Hall Of Fame into touch (with all the endless arguments about who should and who shouldn't be in there) and simply apply the 6 Slams guillotine rule which most people on here seem to favour?

In singles, that would currently include 27 men and 21 women, a total of 48 players.

Men (in order of Slam count and listed alphabetically if more than one player with same number):

1. Roger Federer (20)
2. Rafael Nadal (19)
3. Novak Djokovic (17)
4. Pete Sampras (14)
5. Roy Emerson (12)
6. Bjorn Borg (11)
7. Rod Laver (11)
8. Bill Tilden (10)
9. Andre Agassi (8)
10. Jimmy Connors (8)
11. Ivan Lendl (8)
12. Fred Perry (8)
13. Ken Rosewall (8)
14. Henri Cochet (7)
15. Rene Lacoste (7)
16. William Larned (7)
17. John McEnroe (7)
18. John Newcombe (7)
19. William Renshaw (7)
20. Richard Sears (7)
21. Mats Wilander (7)
22. Boris Becker (6)
23. Don Budge (6)
24. Jack Crawford (6)
25. Lawrence Doherty (6)
26. Stefan Edberg (6)
27. Anthony Wilding (6)

Women ((in order of Slam count and listed alphabetically if more than one player with same number):

1. Margaret Smith Court (24)
2. Serena Williams (23)
3. Steffi Graf (22)
4. Helen Wills Moody (19)
5. Chris Evert (18)
6. Martina Navratilova (18)
7. Billie Jean King (12)
8. Maureen Connolly (9)
9. Monica Seles (9)
10. Suzanne Lenglen (8)
11. Molla Bjurstedt Mallory (8)
12. Maria Bueno (7)
13. Evonne Goolagong Cawley (7)
14. Dorothea Lambert Chambers (7)
15. Justine Henin (7)
16. Venus Williams (7)
17. Nancye Wynne Bolton (6)
18. Louise Brough (6)
19. Margaret Osborne DuPont (6)
20. Doris Hart (6)
21. Blanche Bingley Hillyard (6)

Not sure of what the doubles criteria would be. Open to the wise counsel of TTW on that one.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Murray would demolish most of the guys on the list after Borg and Laver and no I’m not trolling.
 
Yea I agree that the ITHOF just inducts anybody nowadays. Give it 10-15 years and Cilic/Delpo will be inducted. Save this post if you want.
 
ibbi said:
Just going purely by numbers is so dumb with something like this is my thoughts. Leaving off guys who managed say 5 tough majors and including names who went north of that number by playing in the era of the challenger round is idiotic beyond belief.
Click to expand...
Yeah what is the point of a HOF in this case? Call it the 6+ champions club, once you win your 6th you know you're automatically in come retirement.

Also, I'm pressed to think of a sport where the HOF matters less.
 
buscemi said:
Casual tennis fans might not know all of the pre-Open Era ATGs on the list, but casual tennis fans would know all of the 6+ Major winners in the Open Era. Casual tennis fans probably wouldn't know people like Kodes, despite the fact that he won 3 Majors.
Click to expand...
The only two players, that I can think of who could be considered ATG players in the pre and in the OE would be Laver and Rosewall. Therefore, there should be a separation between the players of the OE and pre OE.
 
thrust said:
The only two players, that I can think of who could be considered ATG players in the pre and in the OE would be Laver and Rosewall. Therefore, there should be a separation between the players of the OE and pre OE.
Click to expand...

I'd add Newcombe. 7 singles Majors, won the WCT finals, spent some time at #1. Also won a ton of doubles Majors and Davis Cups.
 
The difference is that John never played on the pro tour, so was not banned from playing slams as Ken was for 11 years and Rod for 5 years.
 
Yes doubles is important tennis, especially in John's era. I have no problem with John being considered an ATG, especially considering his many doubles titles. Slams should not be the only criteria. Lindsay Davenport is an interesting example. Though she won only 3 slams, yet won over 50 tournaments, ended 4 years at #1 and won slam doubles titles.
 
thrust said:
Yes doubles is important tennis, especially in John's era. I have no problem with John being considered an ATG, especially considering his many doubles titles. Slams should not be the only criteria. Lindsay Davenport is an interesting example. Though she won only 3 slams, yet won over 50 tournaments, ended 4 years at #1 and won slam doubles titles.
Click to expand...

Davenport is my #1 favourite player. Perhaps she should have won a few more slams, but she had it though! The Grand Slam draws during her prime (97-05) were all packed of great players:
Graf, Seles, Sanchez, Sabatini, Novotna, Pierce, Hingis, The Williams, Capriati, Henin, Clijsters, Mauresmo, Sharapova....
I think the only slam she really should have won beside her 3 wins was the US Open 2004 but she got injured in the SF.
 
Mainad said:
Seeing as how this subject has been the topic of so much discussion lately and obviously excites intense interest for most posters on here, is it time we kicked the outdated International Tennis Hall Of Fame into touch (with all the endless arguments about who should and who shouldn't be in there) and simply apply the 6 Slams guillotine rule which most people on here seem to favour?

In singles, that would currently include 27 men and 21 women, a total of 48 players.

Men (in order of Slam count and listed alphabetically if more than one player with same number):

1. Roger Federer (20)
2. Rafael Nadal (19)
3. Novak Djokovic (17)
4. Pete Sampras (14)
5. Roy Emerson (12)
6. Bjorn Borg (11)
7. Rod Laver (11)
8. Bill Tilden (10)
9. Andre Agassi (8)
10. Jimmy Connors (8)
11. Ivan Lendl (8)
12. Fred Perry (8)
13. Ken Rosewall (8)
14. Henri Cochet (7)
15. Rene Lacoste (7)
16. William Larned (7)
17. John McEnroe (7)
18. John Newcombe (7)
19. William Renshaw (7)
20. Richard Sears (7)
21. Mats Wilander (7)
22. Boris Becker (6)
23. Don Budge (6)
24. Jack Crawford (6)
25. Lawrence Doherty (6)
26. Stefan Edberg (6)
27. Anthony Wilding (6)

Women ((in order of Slam count and listed alphabetically if more than one player with same number):

1. Margaret Smith Court (24)
2. Serena Williams (23)
3. Steffi Graf (22)
4. Helen Wills Moody (19)
5. Chris Evert (18)
6. Martina Navratilova (18)
7. Billie Jean King (12)
8. Maureen Connolly (9)
9. Monica Seles (9)
10. Suzanne Lenglen (8)
11. Molla Bjurstedt Mallory (8)
12. Maria Bueno (7)
13. Evonne Goolagong Cawley (7)
14. Dorothea Lambert Chambers (7)
15. Justine Henin (7)
16. Venus Williams (7)
17. Nancye Wynne Bolton (6)
18. Louise Brough (6)
19. Margaret Osborne DuPont (6)
20. Doris Hart (6)
21. Blanche Bingley Hillyard (6)

Not sure of what the doubles criteria would be. Open to the wise counsel of TTW on that one.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

who knows they might have already planned for a twin fraud body along these lines........
 
tacou said:
Yeah what is the point of a HOF in this case? Call it the 6+ champions club, once you win your 6th you know you're automatically in come retirement.

Also, I'm pressed to think of a sport where the HOF matters less.
Click to expand...

I think it's similar to the baseball hall of fame, where you'll generally get inducted if you have 3,000+ hits, 1,500+ RBIs, or 500+ home runs.

Basically, 6+ Majors is a good benchmark. Now, could there be a Kodes or Wawrinka type player down the road who wins 6 Majors who shouldn't be considered an ATG? Sure. Conversely, could there be a 5 Major winner down the road who is twice YE#1, wins 2 WTFs, and racks up bunch of Masters Series titles who should be considered an ATG? Sure.

But, as things currently stand, there are no pure Open Era players with 5 Majors, and the two 4 Major players each have issues (Vilas's Australian Opens are incredibly weak, and Courier's prime was pretty short).
 
BeatlesFan said:
If you think Andy Murray would have a prayer against Lendl, Agassi or Becker you're smoking some serious stash.
Click to expand...

We like to give more credit to current players with superior conditioning, athleticism, etc.! Murray's good, but not that good! If he's still allowing old man Roger to dominate him, I can't give him the benefit of the doubt over Lendl, Agassi, or even Becker! :unsure:
 
Last edited:
BeatlesFan said:
If you think Andy Murray would have a prayer against Lendl, Agassi or Becker you're smoking some serious stash.
Click to expand...

I'd be more interested in what you're smoking? Gven that he managed 29 victories against the top 3 guys in the ATG list, why on earth would you think he would not have a prayer against any of those 3?:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
BeatlesFan said:
If you think Andy Murray would have a prayer against Lendl, Agassi or Becker you're smoking some serious stash.
Click to expand...

He would definitely post some wins over Agassi and even Becker who are inconsistent as hell. Agassi's year end rankings from 88 to 2000 look like a lotto board. Yes on the whole all those guys are better players though.
 
buscemi said:
I think it's similar to the baseball hall of fame, where you'll generally get inducted if you have 3,000+ hits, 1,500+ RBIs, or 500+ home runs.

Basically, 6+ Majors is a good benchmark. Now, could there be a Kodes or Wawrinka type player down the road who wins 6 Majors who shouldn't be considered an ATG? Sure. Conversely, could there be a 5 Major winner down the road who is twice YE#1, wins 2 WTFs, and racks up bunch of Masters Series titles who should be considered an ATG? Sure.

But, as things currently stand, there are no pure Open Era players with 5 Majors, and the two 4 Major players each have issues (Vilas's Australian Opens are incredibly weak, and Courier's prime was pretty short).
Click to expand...

That is not how MLB hall of fame works. Players need to have played 10 seasons and to be retired for 5. No statistical criteria, which wouldn’t make sense for pitchers anyways.

Furthermore, baseball hall of fame is not just for “all time greats,” it’s a huge part of the sport and many successful players are accepted, including many with zero championships/individual accolades.

HoF doesn’t matter in tennis, but if there is one, Courier and Vilas sure as heck should be in it and more generally speaking 6 major cut off is a bad idea.
 
HoF is used for marketing purposes. They need to always have new players eligible to join so they can always hold it and that's why the requirements aren't 6+ slams etc. It's not what decides which players are all time greats.
 
tacou said:
That is not how MLB hall of fame works. Players need to have played 10 seasons and to be retired for 5. No statistical criteria, which wouldn’t make sense for pitchers anyways.

Furthermore, baseball hall of fame is not just for “all time greats,” it’s a huge part of the sport and many successful players are accepted, including many with zero championships/individual accolades.

HoF doesn’t matter in tennis, but if there is one, Courier and Vilas sure as heck should be in it and more generally speaking 6 major cut off is a bad idea.
Click to expand...

That was my point. 3,000 hits doesn't automatically get you in, and fewer than 3,000 hits doesn't automatically get you excluded. But it's generally a rule of thumb that 3,000 hits gets you in. I think the same should apply to tennis w/6 Slams.
 
Apart from the purely arbitrary choice of '6', another major flaw is ignoring people whose service to the sport made a big, positive difference in its health and wellbeing. Jack Kramer, for example, was one of the most important tour organizers in the sport's history. Although an elite player, he didn't accumulate 6 slams because his career was spent in the pre-Open era, as was Bill Tilden. Kramer, as a pro, couldn't play the majors. You've listed Tilden, but not Gonzales, Ellsworth Vines, etc. Not sure how you maintain that Tilden won 10 slams as a slam tournament should be applied only to the four championships in the Open era we recognize today.

The criterion or criteria for who is great in tennis and deserves enshrinement in some hall of fame is largely subjective and applying a simple number to the issue only hides that fact.
 
tacou said:
That is not how MLB hall of fame works. Players need to have played 10 seasons and to be retired for 5. No statistical criteria, which wouldn’t make sense for pitchers anyways.

Furthermore, baseball hall of fame is not just for “all time greats,” it’s a huge part of the sport and many successful players are accepted, including many with zero championships/individual accolades.

HoF doesn’t matter in tennis, but if there is one, Courier and Vilas sure as heck should be in it and more generally speaking 6 major cut off is a bad idea.
Click to expand...

I agree Courier should be in it. Vilas in the current world absolutely, but in an alternate universe the standards are greatly higher, I am not sure at all. He isn't a real 4 slam winner considering 2 of his slams are Australian Opens on grass, which he NEVER wins if is a regular slam. Just look at his Wimbledon record. I guess he might win an Australian Open if it were on slow hard courts like today, but even that is far from certain, and kind of getting into moot talk. And even his RG title was in a super depleted nothing field, that of course Borg amongst others didn't play. He basically won 1.5 or 2 slams if one is being generous. And never got to #1. And barely got games off Borg nearly every match they played, even on his beloved clay.

If say Murray is the minimum standard, Vilas should not make it in. If Wawrinka and his 3 legit slams don't make it in, or Hewitt the rock solid #1 of 2001-2002 who won 4 Wimbledon/U.S Open/YEC titles combined those 2 years do not make it in, Vilas shouldn't. I rate both over Vilas.

Feel free to say if you feel I am being too hard on Vilas, I am already guessing @Mainad and a few others will defend Vilas and say I am being too hard on him, and that is fine. But it is how I feel. In no way, on no planet, do I consider him the equal of Courier despite both technically having 4 slams.
 
buscemi said:
That was my point. 3,000 hits doesn't automatically get you in, and fewer than 3,000 hits doesn't automatically get you excluded. But it's generally a rule of thumb that 3,000 hits gets you in. I think the same should apply to tennis w/6 Slams.
Click to expand...
I don't know where this 3,000 hits thing is coming from. There is no statistical criteria for the MLB HOF. Anyways, my point is I think this is a bad idea. Players go to the HoF if they've made a considerable impact on the sport, which is something that shouldn't be measured purely by number of major titles. Furthermore, 6 majors is needlessly restrictive and would make the HoF less relevant than it already is. Those are my thoughts.

flutzingitaway said:
Feel free to say if you feel I am being too hard on Vilas.
Click to expand...

I think any player with multiple major titles should be considered for HOF, mostly because, like I've said, it's an irrelevant accomplishment in this sport. A player with 3x majors not in the HOF probably doesn't even know it exists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Most GS wins by year - Top10
2
Replies
56
Views
3K
MatsPhilander
MatsPhilander
C
Top 20 All Time
Replies
44
Views
3K
The_Mental_Giant
The_Mental_Giant
Razer
Number of Big Titles won with Best of 5 Finals
Replies
36
Views
973
nolefam_2024
nolefam_2024
T
WTA Tennis records of the Open Era
Replies
5
Views
2K
TMF
T
vanioMan
Most time spent on court in a Grand Slam
Replies
25
Views
4K
RS
RS
Back
Top