N
NadalAgassi
Guest
Which of these 3 players do you think was the best.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
I went with Chang since he was a bit more versatile as far as surfaces than Ivanisevic. Ivanisevic at his best on grass or carpet was devastating though.
Ivanisevic is flashier, Chang might be mentally stronger, but over the course of his career Kafelnikov was overall more consistent than those 2.
He might not have won any Super 9 titles but he won 2 slams vs 1 for the other two and someone else would have to check this but I'm pretty sure he spent more time in the top 5 - top 10.
Basically, if you pick a random 90s player and pit him against those 3 on a random surface, I believe Kafelnikov would be the most likely winner.
He might not have won any Super 9 titles but he won 2 slams vs 1 for the other two and someone else would have to check this but I'm pretty sure he spent more time in the top 5 - top 10.
Basically, if you pick a random 90s player and pit him against those 3 on a random surface, I believe Kafelnikov would be the most likely winner.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Chang is the most resilient and mentally stronger of the three and you could rely on him the most of these 3 players to give his all to win.
Ivanisevic is unpredictable on a tennis court and could lose to anybody on a bad day, but at his best he blows away both Chang and Kafelnikov.
Kafelnikov has every shot in the book and plays a very steady game in all departments. Kafelnikov was also mentally unpredictable on a tennis court, like Ivanisevic.
Ivanisevic is the best, for me. Kafelnikov second, and Chang third.
Ivanisevic is unpredictable on a tennis court and could lose to anybody on a bad day, but at his best he blows away both Chang and Kafelnikov.
Kafelnikov has every shot in the book and plays a very steady game in all departments. Kafelnikov was also mentally unpredictable on a tennis court, like Ivanisevic.
Ivanisevic is the best, for me. Kafelnikov second, and Chang third.
Last edited:
NicoMK
Hall of Fame
Kafelnikov, because he could do anything on a court, amazing backhand, great groundstrokes, volleys and pretty good serve. He could destroy anybody with his backhand down the line.
He could play on any surfaces and could beat anyone - except maybe Sampras - when he WANTED it. Because that was the key with Kafel, I think he was not 100% focused on tennis, or on some rare occasions in his career. And when he was dominated, he was sometimes giving me the impression of not fighting.
But overall, great player with great capabilities. I liked to watch him play very much.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgScOlDlZWY&feature=related
or : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KD2cuQQqbxE
He could play on any surfaces and could beat anyone - except maybe Sampras - when he WANTED it. Because that was the key with Kafel, I think he was not 100% focused on tennis, or on some rare occasions in his career. And when he was dominated, he was sometimes giving me the impression of not fighting.
But overall, great player with great capabilities. I liked to watch him play very much.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgScOlDlZWY&feature=related
or : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KD2cuQQqbxE
Last edited:
mental midget
Hall of Fame
good choices for comparison. no doubt goran was the most dangerous. chang probably the most consistent, too lazy to look it up but my guess is he won more tournaments than the other two. however 1 extra slam + attaining world #1 position says kafelnikov wins this one. goran's got the big W though + 3 finals, it's close.
Carolina Racquet
Professional
I just saw an ATP Champions Tour recap showing a very overweight Kafelnikov... What is he... 230 lbs!?!?
Every time he served his gut would hang out. Pretty bad.
Every time he served his gut would hang out. Pretty bad.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
Wow I am surprised Chang doesnt have more support in this poll. His overall career is arguably the best of these 3. He won 7 Masters, over 30 tournaments, reached the finals of 3 different slams. Kafelnikov of course has 2 slams but 0 Masters and no U.S Open or Wimbledon final. Ivanisevic only has 1 slam like Chang, and also hasnt won the WTF.
goober
Legend
The question was not who had the best career. It was who was the best. If all 3 played each other playing at their best- Chang would lose to the other two most of the time.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
Doesnt Chang have a decent head to head with Ivanisevic? Kafelnikov is a bad matchup for Chang which explains the H2H, but Chang at his best is overall better than Kafelnikov IMO. Kafelnikov isnt even capable of beating top players in a slam since his game isnt good enough.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Here are the head-to-heads involving these players.
Michael Chang 6-5 Goran Ivanisevic
1992 World Championships RR: Goran Ivanisevic def. Michael Chang (7-6, 6-2)
1992 Grand Slam Cup SF: Michael Chang def. Goran Ivanisevic (6-7, 6-2, 6-4, 3-6, 6-3)
1993 Paris Indoor R16: Goran Ivanisevic def. Michael Chang (7-6, 7-5)
1994 Tokyo Indoor F: Goran Ivanisevic def. Michael Chang (6-4, 6-4)
1994 Paris Indoor QF: Michael Chang def. Goran Ivanisevic (3-6, 6-4, 7-6)
1996 Miami QF: Goran Ivanisevic def. Michael Chang (6-4, 6-4)
1996 Cincinnati QF: Michael Chang def. Goran Ivanisevic (6-3, 7-5)
1996 World Championships RR: Michael Chang def. Goran Ivanisevic (6-7, 7-6, 6-1)
1997 World Team Cup RR: Goran Ivanisevic def. Michael Chang (6-2, 2-6, 6-3)
1998 Shanghai F: Michael Chang def. Goran Ivanisevic (4-6, 6-1, 6-2)
2001 Vienna R32: Michael Chang def. Goran Ivanisevic (6-7, 6-3, 6-3)
Hardcourt: 2-1 to Chang
Clay: 1-0 to Ivanisevic
Grass: 0-0
Carpet: 4-3 to Chang
In Slams: 0-0
Yevgeny Kafelnikov 4-0 Michael Chang
1994 Long Island QF: Yevgeny Kafelnikov def. Michael Chang (3-6, 7-6, 6-4)
1997 World Championships RR: Yevgeny Kafelnikov def. Michael Chang (6-3, 6-0)
1998 Cincinnati R32: Yevgeny Kafelnikov def. Michael Chang (6-3, 4-6, 6-4)
1999 French Open R128: Yevgeny Kafelnikov def. Michael Chang (6-2, 5-7, 6-0, 7-6)
Hardcourt: 3-0 to Kafelnikov
Clay: 1-0 to Kafelnikov
Grass: 0-0
Carpet: 0-0
In Slams: 1-0 to Kafelnikov
Goran Ivanisevic 10-5 Yevgeny Kafelnikov
1994 Hamburg R32: Yevgeny Kafelnikov def. Goran Ivanisevic (7-6, 6-0)
1994 Rome R32: Goran Ivanisevic def. Yevgeny Kafelnikov (6-2, 6-4)
1994 Stockholm Indoor SF: Goran Ivanisevic def. Yevgeny Kafelnikov (7-5, 6-4)
1995 Milan SF: Yevgeny Kafelnikov def. Goran Ivanisevic (7-5, 6-7, 6-4)
1995 World Team Cup RR: Goran Ivanisevic def. Yevgeny Kafelnikov (6-4, 7-6)
1995 Wimbledon QF: Goran Ivanisevic def. Yevgeny Kafelnikov (7-5, 7-6, 6-3)
1995 Grand Slam Cup SF: Goran Ivanisevic def. Yevgeny Kafelnikov (7-6, 4-6, 6-3, 6-4)
1996 Rotterdam F: Goran Ivanisevic def. Yevgeny Kafelnikov (6-4, 3-6, 6-3)
1996 Moscow F: Goran Ivanisevic def. Yevgeny Kafelnikov (3-6, 6-1, 6-3)
1996 Grand Slam Cup SF: Goran Ivanisevic def. Yevgeny Kafelnikov (6-7, 2-6, 6-3, 6-2, 6-4)
1998 New Haven SF: Goran Ivanisevic def. Yevgeny Kafelnikov (6-3, 6-4)
1998 Moscow F: Yevgeny Kafelnikov def. Goran Ivanisevic (7-6, 7-6)
1999 Basel QF: Goran Ivanisevic def. Yevgeny Kafelnikov (4-6, 6-3, 6-4)
2001 Indian Wells R16: Yevgeny Kafelnikov def. Goran Ivanisevic (5-7, 6-2, 6-3)
2001 Masters Cup RR: Yevgeny Kafelnikov def. Goran Ivanisevic (6-3, 6-4)
Hardcourt: 2-1 to Kafelnikov
Clay: 2-1 to Ivanisevic
Grass: 1-0 to Ivanisevic
Carpet: 6-2 to Ivanisevic
In Slams: 1-0 to Ivanisevic
Michael Chang 6-5 Goran Ivanisevic
1992 World Championships RR: Goran Ivanisevic def. Michael Chang (7-6, 6-2)
1992 Grand Slam Cup SF: Michael Chang def. Goran Ivanisevic (6-7, 6-2, 6-4, 3-6, 6-3)
1993 Paris Indoor R16: Goran Ivanisevic def. Michael Chang (7-6, 7-5)
1994 Tokyo Indoor F: Goran Ivanisevic def. Michael Chang (6-4, 6-4)
1994 Paris Indoor QF: Michael Chang def. Goran Ivanisevic (3-6, 6-4, 7-6)
1996 Miami QF: Goran Ivanisevic def. Michael Chang (6-4, 6-4)
1996 Cincinnati QF: Michael Chang def. Goran Ivanisevic (6-3, 7-5)
1996 World Championships RR: Michael Chang def. Goran Ivanisevic (6-7, 7-6, 6-1)
1997 World Team Cup RR: Goran Ivanisevic def. Michael Chang (6-2, 2-6, 6-3)
1998 Shanghai F: Michael Chang def. Goran Ivanisevic (4-6, 6-1, 6-2)
2001 Vienna R32: Michael Chang def. Goran Ivanisevic (6-7, 6-3, 6-3)
Hardcourt: 2-1 to Chang
Clay: 1-0 to Ivanisevic
Grass: 0-0
Carpet: 4-3 to Chang
In Slams: 0-0
Yevgeny Kafelnikov 4-0 Michael Chang
1994 Long Island QF: Yevgeny Kafelnikov def. Michael Chang (3-6, 7-6, 6-4)
1997 World Championships RR: Yevgeny Kafelnikov def. Michael Chang (6-3, 6-0)
1998 Cincinnati R32: Yevgeny Kafelnikov def. Michael Chang (6-3, 4-6, 6-4)
1999 French Open R128: Yevgeny Kafelnikov def. Michael Chang (6-2, 5-7, 6-0, 7-6)
Hardcourt: 3-0 to Kafelnikov
Clay: 1-0 to Kafelnikov
Grass: 0-0
Carpet: 0-0
In Slams: 1-0 to Kafelnikov
Goran Ivanisevic 10-5 Yevgeny Kafelnikov
1994 Hamburg R32: Yevgeny Kafelnikov def. Goran Ivanisevic (7-6, 6-0)
1994 Rome R32: Goran Ivanisevic def. Yevgeny Kafelnikov (6-2, 6-4)
1994 Stockholm Indoor SF: Goran Ivanisevic def. Yevgeny Kafelnikov (7-5, 6-4)
1995 Milan SF: Yevgeny Kafelnikov def. Goran Ivanisevic (7-5, 6-7, 6-4)
1995 World Team Cup RR: Goran Ivanisevic def. Yevgeny Kafelnikov (6-4, 7-6)
1995 Wimbledon QF: Goran Ivanisevic def. Yevgeny Kafelnikov (7-5, 7-6, 6-3)
1995 Grand Slam Cup SF: Goran Ivanisevic def. Yevgeny Kafelnikov (7-6, 4-6, 6-3, 6-4)
1996 Rotterdam F: Goran Ivanisevic def. Yevgeny Kafelnikov (6-4, 3-6, 6-3)
1996 Moscow F: Goran Ivanisevic def. Yevgeny Kafelnikov (3-6, 6-1, 6-3)
1996 Grand Slam Cup SF: Goran Ivanisevic def. Yevgeny Kafelnikov (6-7, 2-6, 6-3, 6-2, 6-4)
1998 New Haven SF: Goran Ivanisevic def. Yevgeny Kafelnikov (6-3, 6-4)
1998 Moscow F: Yevgeny Kafelnikov def. Goran Ivanisevic (7-6, 7-6)
1999 Basel QF: Goran Ivanisevic def. Yevgeny Kafelnikov (4-6, 6-3, 6-4)
2001 Indian Wells R16: Yevgeny Kafelnikov def. Goran Ivanisevic (5-7, 6-2, 6-3)
2001 Masters Cup RR: Yevgeny Kafelnikov def. Goran Ivanisevic (6-3, 6-4)
Hardcourt: 2-1 to Kafelnikov
Clay: 2-1 to Ivanisevic
Grass: 1-0 to Ivanisevic
Carpet: 6-2 to Ivanisevic
In Slams: 1-0 to Ivanisevic
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
I think the only head to head which isnt reflective of the abilities of the players is Chang vs Kafelnikov. Kafelnikov had one good win over a prime Chang and then lucked out to beat an on the way down Chang in their next 3 matches. Chang vs Ivanisevic is about right, the two of them are very evenly matched. And Ivanisevic vs Kafelnikov is also about right, Ivanisevic on a whole other level than Kafelnikov on faster courts and evenly matched on slower ones.
I see Chang and Ivanisevic as quite close in overall ability with Ivanisevic the higher peak level and Chang more consistent. Kafelnikov far behind the other two.
I see Chang and Ivanisevic as quite close in overall ability with Ivanisevic the higher peak level and Chang more consistent. Kafelnikov far behind the other two.
Fabresque
Legend
Kafelnikov over the other two, he was quite a strong all around player, Ivanisevic was a headcase but he was pretty good, not to mention a crazy good serve. Chang was clutch, so I think in a high stakes match Chang would beat the two, like Wawrinka in a slam final against a world no. 1.
Make a thread between Hewitt, Roddick, and Marcelo Rios, lets he how that'd play out.
Make a thread between Hewitt, Roddick, and Marcelo Rios, lets he how that'd play out.
deacsyoga
Banned
Kafelnikov is the weakest of the trio despite having 2 slams. The guy couldnt even win a Masters and his winning 2 slams is really one of the games biggest ever flukes IMO. This is the guy who is 0-9 vs Sampras off of clay and lost 8 times in a row to Tomas Johansson, the same Johansson some tout as the worst ever 1 slam winner.
deacsyoga
Banned
Oh please Ivanisevic at his best is light years more dangerous and lethal than Kafelnikov. Kafelnikov put a scare into none of the big guns if they were playing well, nor even as a RG champion the big clay guns on clay when they were playing well either. In terms of raw ability among those 3 it is Ivanisevic easily. In terms of consistency Chang and Kafelnikov are better of course.
Consistency is always a problem for guys who play serve and volley and have a huge serve.
Ivanisevic, Krajicek and Philippoussis are the best examples. Stich also, though his serve was a little below these guys.
They were nor consistent and if they had a bad serve day they usually lost to journeymen.
Baseline grinders without a big weapon like chang, muster or ferrer are superconsistent. But their peak level is much much lower than the other guys. No one really feared them.
Ivanisevic, Krajicek and Philippoussis are the best examples. Stich also, though his serve was a little below these guys.
They were nor consistent and if they had a bad serve day they usually lost to journeymen.
Baseline grinders without a big weapon like chang, muster or ferrer are superconsistent. But their peak level is much much lower than the other guys. No one really feared them.
deacsyoga
Banned
Fixed. And Muster absolutely was super feared at his peak on clay, moreso than Kafelnikov was on any surface by a ton.
Muster was only feared by other claygrinders. I bet Becker, Stich and Sampras never feared Muster on clay. Muster is overrated. But thats abother thread
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
I always found it an odd quirk of history that Chang and Ivanisevic, two of the top players of the 1990s, both won their only slam title outside of that decade. In two of the most magical runs as well.
deacsyoga
Banned
Of course Sampras or Becker wouldnt fear Muster at his clay peak in 95-96 since there wasnt a hope in hell either would ever get far enough to play him in the first place.
And those so called other claygrinders were the best clay courters after Muster so of far more importance on the surface than Sampras, Becker, or Stich anyway even if you are right.Who exactly was Kafelnikov feared by on any surface? Malivai Washington on hard courts?
Whether you think he was that feared on not peak Muster was ten times more feared on clay than Kafelnikov (or Chang for that matter) on any surface. Only prime Ivanisevic on grass would come close.Of course Sampras or Becker wouldnt fear Muster at his clay peak in 95-96 since there wasnt a hope in hell either would ever get far enough to play him in the first place.
Who exactly was Kafelnikov feared by on any surface? Malivai Washington on hard courts?
I never said somebody feared kafelnikov. No one did.
Tennis players usually fear only 3 kind of players:
1. Huge servers
2. Federer
3. Nadal on clay
Muster doesnt belong in any of these 3 cathegories . He was beaten by Stich in french open 1996 and becker had a 2:0 lead and 2 matchballs in the monte carlo final 1995. Ivanisevic beat hin on clay in davis cup 1995. He wasnt feared by these guys, cause they knew they can beat him on clay when they bring their A-game. However, i agree that this happened like once in 2 years
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Muster beat Becker in the 1995 Monte Carlo final, saving 2 championship points and won 6-0 in the fifth set. Muster was 111-5 on clay in 1995-1996, winning 17 tournaments on clay in those 2 years combined, including in those two years 1 French Open (a major), 2 Italian Opens (equivalent of M1000), 2 Monte Carlos (equivalent of M1000), 2 Stuttgart Outdoors (equivalent of ATP500) and 2 Barcelonas (equivalent of ATP500). Ivanisevic's win over Muster on clay in Davis Cup was in April 1997.
deacsyoga
Banned
Peak Muster was absolutely feared by the guys who could actualy win big on clay (which were not Sampras, Ivanisevic, Becker, or Stich) and that is what matters most, not whether a bunch of guys who often lost 1st round at RG feared him on clay or not. And I am no Muster fan. All the real best clay courters in the world other than maybe Courier who had a great match up with Muster, feared him.
And yes full credit to Stich for his huge win over Muster at the 96 French which had every single guy in the locker room breathing a huge sigh of relief and believing they could actualy win the event now (Sampras included in what became his best and only ever realist shot at a RG title) when before there was no belief. That is fear. And the Monte Carlo final you refer to was likely Becker's best ever performance on clay, and still ended in defeat vs a relatively subpar Muster.
As the question was who was the best out of the 3 players, and not who had the best career, I would definitely go for Goran. In my opinion he was clearly the most talented player out of the 3, although I did like Kafelnikov's backhand a lot (but not the guy himself).
Speaking of Muster, he definitely had a huge fear factor on clay in the mid 90s. I was lucky enough to attend the Barcelona tournament in 1996, which a had an incredibly strong line-up and a lot of entertaining matches (I particularly enjoyed watching Rios's run to the final), and I clearly felt the huge aura that he had on the surface at the time. He was just the main man, and a lot of the other fans that I spoke to were talking about him in reverential terms. This was the 3rd tournament that he won in 1995 and then successfully defended in 1996.
Speaking of Muster, he definitely had a huge fear factor on clay in the mid 90s. I was lucky enough to attend the Barcelona tournament in 1996, which a had an incredibly strong line-up and a lot of entertaining matches (I particularly enjoyed watching Rios's run to the final), and I clearly felt the huge aura that he had on the surface at the time. He was just the main man, and a lot of the other fans that I spoke to were talking about him in reverential terms. This was the 3rd tournament that he won in 1995 and then successfully defended in 1996.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Okay.
Funny thing about Chang is despite the fact he won his only major on clay I felt he was best on hard court.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Doubt the emergence of Agassi and Sampras in the 1990s was a coincidence here.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
True enough. I will say that Chang was very close to number one at one point and was a terrific player for years.
My favorite of the three is Goran. It was fitting that the last tournament he won was Wimbledon!
Last edited:
wangs78
Legend
I agree. Going by career results alone Chang was better than the other two and certainly better than Goran. I don't know why ppl like say "peak" so and so was better than the other guy only so and so wasn't as consistent, but would still pick the guy with the higher peak or more perceived talent. The overriding reason Fed is the GOAT is that he has the best overall career results. Why would one care that peak Ivanisevic would or could beat Chang. The fact is that peak Ivansivec didn't show up often enough to achieve better career results than Chang.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
True enough. Chang was an underdog even though people thought he had huge potential and Goran was thought to be through.
Goran's run was my favorite. One of the most emotional wins in tennis history along with Noah's win in the French in 1983.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
I agree. All 7 of his Super 9 tournament wins were on hardcourt, and Chang was one match away from being US Open champion and world number 1 in 1996 (losing to Sampras), and seemed to be the clear favourite to win the 1997 US Open after Sampras' loss to Korda, but lost in the semis to Rafter. Chang was also beaten by a brilliant Becker in the 1996 Australian Open final.
Druss
Hall of Fame
On grass it would be Ivanisevic, everywhere else Chang but only by a smidgen. All 3 are in the same category as Roddick.
Chang's achievement to win RG at the age of 17 was just incredible.
He grew up playing almost exclusively on hard courts in California (after initially learning the sport in Minnesota), and will have hardly ever set foot on a clay court before that 1989 RG title run. In fact was just the second ever red clay tournament that he entered as either a junior or professional player, after reaching the 3rd round at RG in 1988 and never featuring in the junior event. His only other clay court experience was a small handful of har-tru tournaments at Forest Hills and Charleston.
He grew up playing almost exclusively on hard courts in California (after initially learning the sport in Minnesota), and will have hardly ever set foot on a clay court before that 1989 RG title run. In fact was just the second ever red clay tournament that he entered as either a junior or professional player, after reaching the 3rd round at RG in 1988 and never featuring in the junior event. His only other clay court experience was a small handful of har-tru tournaments at Forest Hills and Charleston.
deacsyoga
Banned
Fixed for you.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Being the youngest ever player to win a Slam in the Open Era was undoubtedly a major factor in his admission into the Hall of Fame.
deacsyoga
Banned
I think 7 Masters titles helped a lot. I dont think if he were a 1 slam winner that only had 1-2 Masters he would have much shot, especialy never reaching #1. Making multiple slam finals on both clay and hard courts would have also helped him.
In addition to that he did a lot of good things in Asia, travelling there often and helping to promote the game there. Also playing tiny tournaments there someone of his ilk and rank rarely played, again to help bring interest to the sport there. This also aided his induction IMO.
Being American doesnt hurt, I cant think of a single bubble American for the HOF who ever missed or even had to wait, apart from Nancy Richey having to wait a few decades as the only example. Most bubble Europeans dont make it at all or are made to wait. It is kind of silly Pierce is being made to wait, although I am almost sure she makes it at some point, when Roddick and Chang made it immediately. Others like Martinez and Muster and maybe Kafelnikov will probably never make it, despite being atleast as worthy as Roddick and Chang. One common thread of Martinez, Muster, and Kafelnikov is they are all boring and unpopular players even in Europe though.
I do think overall he has more successful, atleast in singles, than Masters title-less Kafelnikov, despite Kafelnikov having 1 more major. To say otherwise is to really embrace the "slams only" to the extreme. Factoring in doubles Kafelnikov would have a decent case for better career, depending how much you value doubles.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Hard to be overrated when you've won two slams, been ranked world No 1, won Olympic Gold, finished multiple years in the top ten, and had an impressive doubles career on top of that (remaining the last player to have won the singles and doubles tournaments at the same slam - 1996 French).
Now there's plenty of reasons to dislike Kafelnikov's personality and attitude (dull, money grabber etc.) but he was a very decent player. It's more his personality than his achievements which has caused his lack of acceptance in the tennis HOF.
deacsyoga
Banned
Again 0 Masters titles. For a 2 slam winner that is utterly pathetic and that is certainly a black mark on his "achievements". Now 2 slams are remarkable in any case but 2 slams often is borderline for HOF still, and the weaker 2 slam winners often miss, just as the very best 1 slam winners with tons of slam finals, slam semis, and Masters/Premiers wins sometimes make it (eg- Chang, Roddick, Sabatini). Having 0 Masters titles and no WTF title to compensate puts him dead bottom of the 2 slam winners probably, apart from probably Kriek who won 2 slams during the illegit period of the Aussie Open. And given the general HOF standards puts him borderline to make it even based on achievements, when many 2 slam winners dont make it, and 0 Masters titles with no WTF title solidifies him as one of the worst of all 2 slam winners even statistically.
I agree intangibles like his personality and attitude are against him. But the tennis intangibles also are, such as the common knowledge he had very lucky draws to his 2 slams, that he was not feared by any of the top guys in his era, that he was pretty boring and unremarkable to watch play even at his very best, that he was the pigeon of many of the greats like Sampras, and many of the non greats like Johansson. Johansson is considered by many the worst 1 slam winner ever yet he won 8 matches in a row at one point vs the 2 slam winner Kafelnikov. it is not a good look. In intangibles he is weak, both on and off the court. So if the achievements are borderline to make it or not, intangibles make it hard for him to get in, similar to how if Roddick, Chang, Rafter, are borderline in achievements they make it since they are all very strong in intangibles, Roddick and Rafter especialy.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
I see where you're coming from, but I don't think number of Masters titles are that important in the grand scheme of things.
deacsyoga
Banned
IMO they arent that important for a 12 slam winner at all. Nobody cares much for instance Djokovic and Nadal has more Masters than Federer, atleast not while they are 4 and 7 slams behind.
When you are comparing 2 slam winners who both dont have a WTF title they are of HUGE importance. What is more important. Slam finals? Which Safin has 1 more of anyway, and most 2 slam winners have more of than Kafelnikov's 3 anyway. Time at #1? Where Safin and Kafelnikov have an identical brief stint (9 weeks to 6), the only difference being some felt Safin should have been #1 in 2000 I guess which nobody would say for Kafelnikov in 99. Even if you dont think 5 Masters titles is a big deal, 5 Masters to 0 for two different 2 slam winners is a bigger deal to most people than Olympic Gold at the time Paes, Cherkasov, and Di Pasquale were medaling in singles, and a strong but unlegendary doubles career. And if 5 Masters to 0 isnt a big deal, than 10-15 more 250 titles is even less of one.
Masters is a very big deal for most players. The only ones it isnt are ones with a lot of slams, by that I mean 5 or 6 minimum. What are they supposed to look at to determine which 1 or 2 slam winners are more qualified or better? Slam finals, Masters titles, WTF titles, time at #1, those would come next to most obviously. And Kafelnikov isnt better than Safin or most of the weaker 2 slam winners in even a single one of those, while being far behind in Masters titles. Even if you add doubles success, that would only give him one thing.
Honestly how can you say Masters titles are not important in the grand scheme of things between two different 2 slam winners who spent almost no time at #1, and neither won the WTF title? If that isnt important what is? When I say that Safin beat legends to win his slams and Kafelnikov's slam wins were far less impressive in that sense by comparision that is shot down too. So is only 4 doubles slams in the weak doubles field when double digit slam winning doubles legends like Venus and McEnroe and even Serena are given little extra credit relative to people close with them in singles achievements, and extra 250 and 500 titles (you know the events well below Masters in importance) important then?
Last edited:
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
IMO they arent that important for a 12 slam winner at all. Nobody cares much for instance Djokovic and Nadal has more Masters than Federer, atleast not while they are 4 and 7 slams behind.
When you are comparing 2 slam winners who both dont have a WTF title they are of HUGE importance. What is more important. Slam finals? Which Safin has 1 more of anyway, and most 2 slam winners have more of than Kafelnikov's 3 anyway. Time at #1? Where Safin and Kafelnikov have an identical brief stint (9 weeks to 6), the only difference being some felt Safin should have been #1 in 2000 I guess which nobody would say for Kafelnikov in 99. Even if you dont think 5 Masters titles is a big deal, 5 Masters to 0 for two different 2 slam winners is a bigger deal to most people than Olympic Gold at the time Paes, Cherkasov, and Di Pasquale were medaling in singles, and a strong but unlegendary doubles career. And if 5 Masters to 0 isnt a big deal, than 10-15 more 250 titles is even less of one.
Masters is a very big deal for most players. The only ones it isnt are ones with a lot of slams, by that I mean 5 or 6 minimum. What are they supposed to look at to determine which 1 or 2 slam winners are more qualified or better? Slam finals, Masters titles, WTF titles, time at #1, those would come next to most obviously. And Kafelnikov isnt better than Safin or most of the weaker 2 slam winners in even a single one of those, while being far behind in Masters titles. Even if you add doubles success, that would only give him one thing.
Honestly how can you say Masters titles are not important in the grand scheme of things between two different 2 slam winners who spent almost no time at #1, and neither won the WTF title? If that isnt important what is? When I say that Safin beat legends to win his slams and Kafelnikov's slam wins were far less impressive in that sense by comparision that is shot down too. So is only 4 doubles slams in the weak doubles field when double digit slam winning doubles legends like Venus and McEnroe and even Serena are given little extra credit relative to people close with them in singles achievements, and extra 250 and 500 titles (you know the events well below Masters in importance) important then?
Why are you babbling on about Safin?
I agree he should be in the HOF. I also think Kafelnikov should be. In all honesty, Masters events weren't compulsory in the 1990s, so you can't fault Kafelnikov for not winning one.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Kafelnikov was an awesome player. He had a great career although I thought he should have done more.
Similar threads
