Ivanisevic in the Hall of Fame, yes or no?

Should Ivanisevic be aducted into the International Tennis Hall of Fame


  • Total voters
    46
  • Poll closed .

Mark Bosko

New User
Ivanisevic, who remains the lowest-ranked player to win Wimbledon and the only male player to win a Grand Slam singles title as a wildcard. Seems like he should be in the biggest upset HoF but I don't really think of him as one of the all time tennis greats that should be included.

I was going to complain Jonas Bjorkman as well but evidently he is # 40 on the all time earnings list with earnings over $14M, as a doubles specialist.

I guess the ITHF is kind of like the Rock Hall of Fame. You have to nominate someone every year.
 

TripleATeam

Legend
I'm assuming you meant inducted, not aducted.

Yeah, I'd put Goran in there. A top player for quite a while, and we're going to run out of multi-slam winners. Goran was a consistent guy and a top-level player, particularly at Wimbledon. He deserved it at least once, which he got.
 

Poisoned Slice

Bionic Poster
I would vote yes. Might be one of those situations you had to be watching at the time. His Wimbledon final defeats, falling off the face of the planet, and then coming back to win Wimbledon. That is hall of fame worthy to me unless it doesn't fit a mandatory must do.
 

Mark Bosko

New User
I'm assuming you meant inducted, not aducted.

Yeah, I'd put Goran in there. A top player for quite a while, and we're going to run out of multi-slam winners. Goran was a consistent guy and a top-level player, particularly at Wimbledon. He deserved it at least once, which he got.
Yep, can't figure out how to edit the typo.
 

King No1e

Legend
If Roddick got in the HoF, then Ivanisevic is nothing out of the ordinary. It's not like he was a wildcard journeyman all his life apart from the Wimbledon title. He was a consistent top 5 player and made multiple finals.
 

TripleATeam

Legend
having a low ranking and being a wildcard both suggest inconsistency in a career, not a strong argument for HOF.
Well, not quite. It may suggest they were blocked by greater players in the slams (as it does in this case). I'd say that this doesn't really help the argument - it just means he was playing an abnormally high level of tennis for one tournament at the end of his career.
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
I'm assuming you meant inducted, not aducted.

Yeah, I'd put Goran in there. A top player for quite a while, and we're going to run out of multi-slam winners. Goran was a consistent guy and a top-level player, particularly at Wimbledon. He deserved it at least once, which he got.
I was very happy for Goran when he finally won Wimbledon, even though I normally would have rooted for Rafter against anyone else that year. Still, despite that great tournament for him, he doe not deserve to be in the Tennis HOF. He really did not win very many tournaments and was not a major factor in the other slams.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
I was very happy for Goran when he finally won Wimbledon, even though I normally would have rooted for Rafter against anyone else that year. Still, despite that great tournament for him, he doe not deserve to be in the Tennis HOF. He really did not win very many tournaments and was not a major factor in the other slams.
He won 22 titles which isn't too bad and they included a Slam, a Grand Slam Cup (apparently that was a pretty big event in his time) and 2 Masters. Rafter only won 11 titles, half fewer, although they did include an extra Slam of course.

Besides his title, he made 3 other finals at Wimbledon (losing 2 close 5 setters to Agassi and Sampras). His best results at other Slams are a semi-final at the US Open, 3 quarter-finals each at the Australian and the French.
 

Chadalina

Hall of Fame
Greatest wimbledon of all time and helped out Karlovic with a stutter so bad he was afraid to go outside.

I dont think you realize how easy it is to get into the tennis hall of fame, they take like everyone.
 
He's in. Consistent Top 10 for years. One-slam winners generally get in if they made at least 2 other Slam finals - he made 3. 22 career titles. Plus, he has personality and being a character on his side. Plus, Olympic medals, Davis Cup victory. It's a no-brainer.

He does have lot of early round Slam losses over his career, but the Hall seems more about awarding achievement, not penalizing inconsistency.
 
Last edited:

Mainad

Bionic Poster
He's in. Consistent Top 10 for years. One-slam winners generally get in if they made at least 2 other Slam finals - he made 3. 22 career titles. Plus, he has personality and being a character on his side. Plus, Olympic medals, Davis Cup victory. It's a no-brainer.

He does have lot of early round Slam losses over his career, but the Hall about awarding achievement, not penalizing inconsistency.
(y)
 
Numbers aren't everything.
Sometimes it's about the path/story.
And there isn't a more poetic story at Wimbledon than Ivanisevic's.
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
He won a major. That separates him from the majority of just show up / check collectors in the sport's history.
True, but still does not put him or Rafter in the same league as: Courier-4 slams, Edberg and Becker-6 slams, Wilander-7, McEnroe-7, Agassi, Connors- 8, never mind the likes of Feder, Sampras, Borg, Nadal and Djokovic
 

fed1

Semi-Pro
Letting Roddick in really changed the landscape of who should be getting in. With that being said, he’d have to be a yes.
 

DSH

Hall of Fame
He won a major. That separates him from the majority of just show up / check collectors in the sport's history.
So, Johanson should enter the hall of fame, is that what you are saying?
Gomez, Muster, Gaudio, Cilic, and others who won at least one Major should be part of that supposed group of select players who once achieved maximum glory in tennis.
If that is the criterion, then why couldn't Ivanisevic also get in there?
 

Mark Bosko

New User
I don't think there are enough truly great tennis players to be inducted each year so they have to lower the bar somewhat. Otherwise, the Hall of Fame would be forgotten most of the time. While Goran is not an all time great, he certainly had a "famous" moment at a grand slam, so maybe he should be in. Chang beating Lendl was the same thing, I still remember the cramping and the underhand serve. Both were high drama matches, similar to this last Wimbledon. I guess Federer & Djokovic are gonna get in too. Andy lost 4 GS finals to Federer including a 14-16 fifth set at Wimbledon, lucky for him, he won the US open against Juan Carlos Ferrero, so, he should be in too.
 

BeatlesFan

Talk Tennis Guru
I don't think there are enough truly great tennis players to be inducted each year so they have to lower the bar somewhat. Otherwise, the Hall of Fame would be forgotten most of the time.
(y) Great post and so true. In the perfect world, only the absolute greats get into the HOF. The bar might me at least 2 or 3 slams, which would have kept out Roddick and a host of other players. It sort of reduces the aura of the HOF when you have Laver, Mac and Borg types sharing space with someone like Kafelnikov. No knock on him and he was a great player, but nowhere near the level of the true greats of the sport.
 

MeatTornado

Legend
I wouldn't have voted for him, but it also doesn't bother me seeing him in. He's a fringe guy that could've gone either way
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
I guess it will be interesting to see if the HoF will eventually induct all the remaining retired Slam winners because they're quickly running out of them. Are we likely to see Johan Kriek, Brian Teacher and Chris O'Neill in there at some future date or will they call a moratorium on new entrants until there are some more future retired Slam champions appearing on the scene?
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
So, Johanson should enter the hall of fame, is that what you are saying?
Answer that for yourself: he won his lone major, and he would be in company with players such as Sabatini (inducted 2006), Michael Chang (inducted in 2008), Novotna (inducted in 2005) and Roddick (inducted in 2017), so...
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
True, but still does not put him or Rafter in the same league as: Courier-4 slams, Edberg and Becker-6 slams, Wilander-7, McEnroe-7, Agassi, Connors- 8, never mind the likes of Feder, Sampras, Borg, Nadal and Djokovic
Then what is the baseline criteria for majors winners? I ask because by that standard, one could argue that Becker & Edberg's 6 or Connors' 8 are "not on the level" of Sampras and other double-digit winners, so it risks becoming a self-defeating value system that would fail to recognize truly great and/or historic players. By no means am I lowering the bar for the major-less number one players, "lifers" who are only recognized for never retiring when they should have, so many recall their name, Mary Jo Fernandez, et al., but Ivanisevic broke through to win that lone major. Its up to others to determine if one is not enough--it seemed to be for other HoF inductees with their greatest achievement being the capturing of one major.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Then what is the baseline criteria for majors winners? I ask because by that standard, one could argue that Becker & Edberg's 6 or Connors' 8 are "not on the level" of Sampras and other double-digit winners, so it risks becoming a self-defeating value system that would fail to recognize truly great and/or historic players. By no means am I lowering the bar for the major-less number one players, "lifers" who are only recognized for never retiring when they should have, so many recall their name, Mary Jo Fernandez, et al., but Ivanisevic broke through to win that lone major. Its up to others to determine if one is not enough--it seemed to be for other HoF inductees with their greatest achievement being the capturing of one major.
Current eligibility requirements:

Automatic Ballot Inclusion & Length of Time on Ballot


  • Players can now be placed on the ballot either by automatic inclusion based on their records, or by nomination and subsequent review by the Enshrinee Nominating Committee. (Previously, everyone’s career was reviewed by the Enshrinee Nominating Committee.)
  • Criteria for automatic ballot inclusion on first eligible ballot will be:
    - Singles: Must have won 3 major singles titles and have been world No. 1 for a minimum of 13 weeks; Or, have won 5 major singles titles
    - Doubles: Must have won 12 major doubles titles and have been world No. 1 for a minimum of 52 weeks; Or, have won 15 major doubles titles
  • Players who do not meet the criteria for automatic ballot inclusion will have their career history assessed by the Enshrinee Nominating Committee (as has been done previously), who will determine if they should be placed on the ballot for voting by the Voting Groups.
  • Any player candidate who is not voted in will remain on the ballot for a period of 3 years. This is a change in that, previously, candidates were reviewed and selected annually. If they are not voted in during those 3 years, they will be removed from the ballot for a period of 2 years, after which they will be eligible to be considered for ballot inclusion again.

 
A thousand YES! I will take 1 slam over 40 for this.

Goran is an absolute lock for the HOF, moreso than any of the other candidates his year.

He has arguably the most iconic serve in the history of tennis. And one of the most memorable personalities in the history of tennis. He was a rock star. He will get in with a landslide yes vote on the first try.
 
Top