Kim Clijsters.. hall of famer??

What do you think her prospects are of joining the hall of fame when she retires after this year? Do you think she needs another slam in order to be competitive?

I think the for sures obviously of the women still playing are Venus, Serena, Hingis, Henin.. I'm sure i'm missing more.. and the semi-retired.. Davenport, Seles, Capriati

What about Mauresmo, Sharapova and Pierce?
 

Sagittar

Hall of Fame
well i don't think that she will make the list if she does rertire this year but if she continued playing , had some more titles , some more majors she's sure gonna make it to the list ..
 

jukka1970

Professional
What do you think her prospects are of joining the hall of fame when she retires after this year? Do you think she needs another slam in order to be competitive?

I think the for sures obviously of the women still playing are Venus, Serena, Hingis, Henin.. I'm sure i'm missing more.. and the semi-retired.. Davenport, Seles, Capriati

What about Mauresmo, Sharapova and Pierce?

You can move Davenport from semi-retired to retired, she's pregnant, and she said once she started her family that she would be done with professional tennis. And yes, I agree, she'll be in

Jukka
 
Clijsters has had a better career then Sabatini and Novotna who made it IMO. She definitely should make it even if she doesnt win another slam. She only has 1 slam title but I think she has 5 slam finals, and has been a WTA player of the year for 2006 something Sabatini and Novotna never did. She also had another year in 2004 of reaching the semis or finals in all 4 slams, and holding #1 for several months of the year. Sabatini and Novotna never reached #1 for any period of time. She won the year end Championships twice, Sabatini twice, Novotna once. I am not sure how her # of titles compare, I am guessing reasonably well but I am already convinced she had a better career then they did.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
Clijsters has had a better career then Sabatini and Novotna who made it IMO. She definitely should make it even if she doesnt win another slam. She only has 1 slam title but I think she has 5 slam finals, and has been a WTA player of the year for 2006 something Sabatini and Novotna never did. She also had another year in 2004 of reaching the semis or finals in all 4 slams, and holding #1 for several months of the year. Sabatini and Novotna never reached #1 for any period of time. She won the year end Championships twice, Sabatini twice, Novotna once. I am not sure how her # of titles compare, I am guessing reasonably well but I am already convinced she had a better career then they did.

I understand your point, but in all honesty, I think players with less than 4 or 5 slams really do not deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. As a player on tour, its good for your ranking and confidence to appear in GS finals a few times (and perhaps win one or two), but if you fail to win time after time, it makes a hot brand of "Never would Be" appear on their respective foreheads.

Sabatini and Novotna were fine and fun to watch, but their appearance in any HoF is really just tosing them a bone, and i my opinion, robs the HoF of that quality of being only for the greatest talents of all time....the legends who changed the game in some way....and Clijsters simply is not the greatest at anything in tennis.
 
Last edited:
I understand your point, but in all honesty, I think players with less than 4 or 5 slams really do not deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. As a player on tour, its good for your ranking and confidence to appear in GS finals a few times (and perhaps win one or two), but if you fail to win time after time, it makes a hot brand of "Never would Be" appear on their respective foreheads.

Sabatini and Novotna were fine and fun to watch, but their appearance in any HoF is really just tosing them a bone, and i my opinion, robs the HoF of that quality of being only for the greatest talents of all time....the legends who changed the game in some way....and Clijsters simply is not the greatest at anything in tennis.

Believe me I totally understand what you are saying. I dont think any of Novotna, Sabatini, or Clijsters-unless she adds atleast a couple more slam titles in her final year somehow, are worthy of the hall of fame. However by allowing all of Sabatini, Novotna, and Noah in recently they have set a certain standard, and now it will be hard to not let future candidates in who atleast equal the careers of that group. Basicaly if they now second guess lowering the standards of excellence of the Hall of Fame to a questionable point, they have made it that it will be hard to go back on that now.

Personaly I would like to see them re-establish a more demanding hall of fame standard again, even if it means certain people feeling slighted who feel they should be in when they compare themselves to Novotna or Sabatini.
 

maverick66

Hall of Fame
they have to let people in with less than perfect records because theres not alot of people to add. its not like other major sports were there are hundreds of players every year doing something. especially right now with feds dominance there is no way roddick can win more slams but i guarantee he gets in. and on the womens side its used to be dominated by 1-4 people and that makes it tough to add members to a HOF because accomplishments will be lower.
 

Steve Huff

G.O.A.T.
If only players with 4 or 5 slams made it to the HOF, there wouldn't be much to look at once you got there. I think anyone who becomes #1 in the world and wins a Grand Slam event should probably be in it. You got a remember, she got screwed out of one in the final against Justine by a referee who overruled a call on a critical point (would have put her up 5-2 --I think--in the deciding set, may have even been a match point) that was later shown to be wrong. The referee later apologized to Clijsters, but it didn't help her any. This wasn't just a bad call. It was an OVERRULE, which are only supposed to be made when an error has CLEARLY been made. It couldn't have been real clear if it was later shown to have been the correct call originally.
 

lacoster

Professional
Clijsters is in. No doubt about it. One Grand Slam singles title and a handful of GS finals, Top notch W-L record, a simultaneous #1 ranking (both singles and doubles), spearheading a Fed Cup title, and sprinkle in some Grand Slam doubles titles (all w. Sugiyama). Not to mention, she's already won so many awards as a great philanthropist and an eloquent spokesmodel of the sport.

Shriver and Carillo are on the nominating comittee and have already decided (unofficially) during commentary, I think during vs. her Hingis match this year, that she's a shoe in.

Now, if someone like Iva Majoli, who is only known for her Grand Slam fluke, makes it in, then of couse, Hall of Fame credibility must be questioned.
________
Honey oil
 
Last edited:
Sabatini made it. So why not Clijsters?

Gaby was top 10 from 1986 until 1995 - 10 years.
Top 7 from 1987 until 1995 - 9 years.
Played in the Golden Age of Women's tennis.
Would have won tons of slams if it weren't for Graf.

Clijsters won only one slam in an era when Davenport, Mauresmo, Sharapova types were able to reach #1.

Condi
 

AndrewD

Legend
Absolutely.

According to the Hall of Fame, for a player to be eligible they must have:

# A distinguished record of competitive achievement at the highest international level, with consideration given to integrity, sportsmanship and character.

Kim Clijsters epitomises those criteria. She does have a distinguished record of success/achievement at the highest level (not as many majors as she could have won but few have achieved as much as she has) and her integrity, sportsmanship and character are beyond reproach (thank goodness McEnroe and Connors won enough majors to have them overlook that part). The Hall of Fame would be a much poorer and far less significant place without her in it.
 
Thats nice for her, I really feel she is one of the world's best.. she is just very unlucky with injuries.

So what about the others? If Clijsters qualifies would you count Pierce in there? She two majors but she has never really DOMINATED the WTA.
 

Warriorroger

Hall of Fame
Sabatini is a greater player than Kim. Sabatini stirred up the tennisworld with her tennis and good looks. She was loved, but also a super attraction everywhere she played, a true tennisplayer. She had the bad luck of being in the Steffi Graf era.

Clijsters is a nice player, but only occupied with life after tennis and being friends with her competitors. Nice, hall of Fame: Kim who?
 

lethalfang

Professional
Hall of fame should be THE highest honor concluding a player's tennis career.

My response to some of the comments above:

"You win a Slam; you're in"
We can find slam winners on wikipedia, but Hall of Fame should be more. It is reserved for the most revered players in the history of the sport, a place that transcends time. Simply put, it is a honor reserved for the greatest of the greats.

"If only players with 4 or 5 slams made it to the HOF, there wouldn't be much to look at once you got there."
Precisely. It is a place where Sampras belongs and Roddick does not. To put them in the same room devalues the room. The Hall of Fame room is only as fame as the least deserving player in the room.
 
So the consensus I am getting is..

Does Kim deserve to be in the hall of fame under IDEAL criteria -

No.

Does Kim deserve to be in the hall of fame under CURRENT criteria -

Yes.

I agree though, HOF would mean more if it only meant the true greats were inducted only. Hingis, Venus, Serena, Henin, Davenport, Seles, Capriati should qualify, while Amelie and Maria still need to build up their resume, along with Kim who would need to win a major this year and dominate by winning a slew of titles and end her career with a bang.. otherwise she would be out of the running..
 
So the consensus I am getting is..

Does Kim deserve to be in the hall of fame under IDEAL criteria -

No.

Does Kim deserve to be in the hall of fame under CURRENT criteria -

Yes.

I agree though, HOF would mean more if it only meant the true greats were inducted only. Hingis, Venus, Serena, Henin, Davenport, Seles, Capriati should qualify, while Amelie and Maria still need to build up their resume, along with Kim who would need to win a major this year and dominate by winning a slew of titles and end her career with a bang.. otherwise she would be out of the running..


JenCap in but Momo and Shrap not?
Yes, Capriati has 3 slams but 2 of them are AOs and none is Wimbledon (M & S have 2 slams with one of them Wimbledon). And she was #1 for fewer weeks than M & S.

Condi
 

dh003i

Legend
In defense of more generous standards, consider the HoF for football...

In football, there are many different positions. Basically, great players get into the Hall of Fame. Players like NYG Linebacker Carl Banks. But, if they had the same standards some of you guys have, only the top talents of a time, like Lawrence Taylor, could get in. I think you should have to be a great player, but not necessarily the best of the time.

Also, I think there are some very great all-time players who only had 3 slams.

Yea, Roddick can't compare to Sampras. But everyone knows that anyone. In the same way, even though Jimmy Connors is rightfully in the HoF as one of the greatest of all time, he isn't on anyone's list when debating who is the GOAT.
 
JenCap in but Momo and Shrap not?
Yes, Capriati has 3 slams but 2 of them are AOs and none is Wimbledon (M & S have 2 slams with one of them Wimbledon). And she was #1 for fewer weeks than M & S.

Condi

I was debating whether to include capriati, but then I figured she made such a splash as a young teenager, then went through a lot of drama and really made one of the most dramatic comebacks ever, winning 3 slams in 2 years.

Mauresmo has two slams, but unfortunately most people will always mentally place an asterisk next to her Australian Open win thanks to JHH. And Maria.. I was debating on whether to put her in, she is definately one of the best known Tennis players ever to play but I wasn't sure if that was because of her tennis or because of her "hot" factor, but I think if she continues with the way she is going for a couple of years she should be a shoe in as well, thats why I was thinking she needed a couple of more years to build her resume.
 

BiGGieStuFF

Hall of Fame
Do tennis HOF members get any kickbacks like football HOF'ers get? I think in football you get some money each year if you're in the HOF
 

oberyn

Professional
If Jana Novotna is in, I don't see how the HoF can keep Clijsters out. This isn't exactly Cooperstown about which we are speaking.
 

allez

New User
Clijsters's impression had been the most consistent: most consistent in the top ten and most consistently choking in big moments.

I don't think she is HofF materials. She is very good but still not good enough.
 

lethalfang

Professional
In defense of more generous standards, consider the HoF for football...

In football, there are many different positions. Basically, great players get into the Hall of Fame. Players like NYG Linebacker Carl Banks. But, if they had the same standards some of you guys have, only the top talents of a time, like Lawrence Taylor, could get in. I think you should have to be a great player, but not necessarily the best of the time.

Also, I think there are some very great all-time players who only had 3 slams.

Yea, Roddick can't compare to Sampras. But everyone knows that anyone. In the same way, even though Jimmy Connors is rightfully in the HoF as one of the greatest of all time, he isn't on anyone's list when debating who is the GOAT.

I think it's good enough to be one of the greatest of all time, necessarily "arguable THE greatest of all time."
When time passes, and the masses forget the great players of the past, the mention of his or her induction in Hall of Fame alone should settle any dispute of his or her greatness. Likewise, only such players, few and rare, are deserving of such eternal reverence.
Yes, guys like Jimmy Connors deserve, but players like Kim Clijster do not. When tennis history is to be considered, she is merely "a really good player with one slam title" at the turn of the 21st century.
 

lethalfang

Professional
When I look at men's tennis today, only two players right now deserve Hall of Fame.
Federer of course, and Nadal for his record winning-streak on clay courts. No one else is on par with their Greatness.
 

Breaker

Legend
When I look at men's tennis today, only two players right now deserve Hall of Fame.
Federer of course, and Nadal for his record winning-streak on clay courts. No one else is on par with their Greatness.

Hewitt, Guga, and Safin would deserve hall of fame status if they retired today.
 
L

laurie

Guest
Is the Hall of Fame criteria more than just singles titles? If that's the case then Jana Novotna and Gabriela Sabatini both had good doubles careers winning slams I'm sure. Plus, both players won the Masters (WTA Championships) I think Sbatini won that event twice. Novotna won it in 1997. So, as a package of their whole career, not just singles titles, plus their contribution to the popularity to the game and in Sabatini's case, work for charity (I'm sure Novotna would also do good work there), I think they are worthy.

In the women's game, its just not possible to induct someone every year with 7 or 8 Grand Slam titles. Because there have been a few dominant women in recent times.

In the Sampras & Federer era next to eachother, it is already going to be a similar scenario and arguments about which men are worthy to be entered very soon. After all, besides 2 US Open titles, Rafter won only 11 singles titles. That's a very small number indeed. But we all know in a short space of time, Rafter made a great contribution to the recent history of Tennis.
 

Warriorroger

Hall of Fame
well hey, if sabatini made it, why not kim?


If you don't see the difference between Clijsters and Sabatini then your question it legitimate. There is a global difference: 10 years ago when you ask someone on he street who is Sabatini, everyone knows. Today do the same with Clijsters and only tennisfans will know.

Sabatini was a tennissuperstar, Kim is not.
 

scineram

Professional
Yeah, she is about to retire at 25 or what. 1 slam, a couple of weeks at no1 and then abort at the middle of a possible career without significant injury. Hardly someone to remember.
 

Nick Irons

Semi-Pro
I see the concerns for folks on this issue and that last post by scineram rings a bit true for me, but consider the stats a bit more:

She made 4 Grand Slam finals appearances, getting one of them and barely getting one from Capriati (2 more points her way and she has 2 Slams). She's won 45 Total Titles (61 Total Finals appearances)

-

But sometimes it is best to look at this conundrum from another view point. How many players have played in Grand Slams and how many have won one ? This stat shows how winning even 1 slam is a major accomplishment.

-

IN the 10 year period of 1996 to 2006, there were 40 Grand Slams played:

These Slams were comrprised of 2560 players. Of these Two-thousand, five-hundred and sixty people:

16 different people captured a title and she is one of them.

(Now granted, she has only played in 25 Slams)
 
Last edited:

powerangle

Legend
All you need to do to make the HOF is win at least one singles major, it seems. So Kim would have made it had she retired in 2007 (when the OP made this thread) and never came back. Of course now with another US Open win, she is even more of a shoo-in and I'd be surprised if she wasn't inducted some time in the future after retirement.
 
Top