Li Na, Pierce and Kafelnikov will be enter the Hall of Fame
- Thread starter Enceladus
- Start date
Mainad
Bionic Poster
A little surprised that they are inducting 3 players this year as I always thought the maximum was 2. However, couldn't be more pleased with the choices. Long overdue for Kafelnikov and Pierce and Li Na (doesn't seem 5 minutes since she was playing) will be a very popular inclusion.
Many congratulations to all 3!!
Many congratulations to all 3!!
It could be that in light of finding a candidate that is indirectly tied to the game, they have the option to induct more former players. And I thought Kafelnikov would never get in. It's sort of a shame that it happened after Safin but just goes to show that it's a very subjective achievement.
BringBackWood
Professional
is every slam winner now being inducted? Don't understand 'hall of fame'..
EloQuent
Legend
It's the "ultimate honor in tennis". Clear as day.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Many 1 time Slam winners have not been inducted eg. Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Cash. Doesn't mean they aren't remembered though!
With the latest additions it now looks like Sergi Bruguera is the only multi-Slam champion left who has not been inducted.
BringBackWood
Professional
Ivanisevic (& cash) understandbly. He did something rembarkable and 'People's Monday' will always be a memory cherished for many. Mary Pierce perhaps. But Li Na & Kalfenikov? Not for me.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Li Na was the first and, so far, only Chinese player to win a Slam. She has helped to raise the profile of tennis in China. Kafelnikov won as many Slams as his countryman Safin and also helped win Davis Cup for Russia. Unlike Safin he also won doubles Slams and an Olympic title for Russia so, if Safin can get in, why not him?
Just occurred to me that all 3 of the inductees won 2 Slams, 1 each at the Australian Open and French Open!
That is unusual.
What people consistently want to discount about Kafelnikov is that he has 6 major titles. 2 in singles. 4 in doubles. All while playing a ridiculous number of tournaments each year. Could the quality of his play been better at times? Sure. But you can't deny his accomplishments.
Again..it's a popularity contest imo. At this stage, they're running out of "legitimate" options for induction. The next wave of likeable or less controversial inductees are still on the main tour playing well into their late 30s and early 40s. Now they're having to induct players that might have been much less popular but highly accomplished nonetheless.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Each person's idea of who is a "legitimate" option is always up for debate. They seem to fall roughly into 2 camps: the Excluders (who want entry to be as restricted as possible to only the very highest achievers) and the Includers (who favour as broad an acceptance policy as possible). I tend to fall into the 2nd category because I think the definition of fame shouldn't just revolve around how many Slams you win but about the impact you have on the game and on the attention of the fans.
BringBackWood
Professional
Its even arguable whether Murray should be inducted. Sure, in any other era. But in an era where 3 players have surpasssed the previous GS total record, his career is essentially a footnote.
Maybe being a bit harsh, but it is arguable.
Maybe being a bit harsh, but it is arguable.
RaulRamirez
Legend
None of these inductees scream "Hall of Famer" to me, though I sincerely salute them all. Although I'm a huge tennis fan, I have much stronger opinions about the MLB, NBA, NFL and NHL Halls of Fame.
@BBWood, I think you are being way harsh on Murray.
@BBWood, I think you are being way harsh on Murray.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Murray meets the current standard of eligibility for automatic consideration:
"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"
https://www.tennisfame.com/blog/201...of-fame-to-amend-induction-policies-in-2-01-8
BGod
G.O.A.T.
If you're born in Canada you don't have to do much to maintain citizenship. You can't actually lose it. I as an immigrant can lose it easier than Pierce can. No confirmation she carries a passport.
But if you live in another country and played under another national flag you're out in my books.
But if you live in another country and played under another national flag you're out in my books.
No, I read that she carries three passports.
You cannot have a passport without some work at it.
Some tennis players have played under more than one flag....Mulligan, Segura, Olmedo, others. Remember Greg Rusedski?
That does not preclude a multiple citizenship.
This award is not about Davis Cup or Fed Cup only, but overall play, most of which is not under a particular flag.
At Wimbledon, you represent yourself, not your country.
Rusedski is another joint country player.
boredone3456
G.O.A.T.
All are Deserving, Pierce and Kafelnikov are overdue for sure. I am guessing both were inducted with Li since they are so overdue.
Congrats
Congrats
BGod
G.O.A.T.
Rusedski actually represented Canada though. Like Lennox Lewis before he went back to using Union Jack for marketing.
Pierce never played under the Leaf.
True, but that doesn't change her citizenship or passport status.
Representing a country is just a Davis Cup and Fed Cup thing, not a general rubric for tennis players.
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who wishes to claim Mary Pierce as a standard-bearer for Canada is free to do so. There are no rules for that kind of fandom. However, I do think that if Pierce herself said something like, "I'm proud to be the first Canadian in the Tennis Hall of Fame," she probably would be laughed at.
BGod
G.O.A.T.
Place of birth is pretty damn arbitrary if nothing is done with it except for yes, passport, passport for everyone!
There are countries like Hungary for example where being born there doesn't guarantee you citizenship and frankly that's a good thing. You now have more foreign citizens coming to certain countries just so their baby is born there and automatically gets citizenship. Great.
Meanwhile, where a child is educated and then carries a banner is much more important. The dividing line is pretty damn clear to me:
1. Birth place
2. Place of education
3. Nation represented (with international sport)
4. Nation of residence
I mean, I can bash some guy living in Florida for 10 years that calls himself a Mexican but at least if he was educated there and has carried the flag in some way publicly then ok, still a phony but ok. But damn if there's people out there claiming to be a nationality when they literally have no connection to that country individually. Like during World Cup some dork calls himself German because one of his grand-parents immigrated from there.
There are countries like Hungary for example where being born there doesn't guarantee you citizenship and frankly that's a good thing. You now have more foreign citizens coming to certain countries just so their baby is born there and automatically gets citizenship. Great.
Meanwhile, where a child is educated and then carries a banner is much more important. The dividing line is pretty damn clear to me:
1. Birth place
2. Place of education
3. Nation represented (with international sport)
4. Nation of residence
I mean, I can bash some guy living in Florida for 10 years that calls himself a Mexican but at least if he was educated there and has carried the flag in some way publicly then ok, still a phony but ok. But damn if there's people out there claiming to be a nationality when they literally have no connection to that country individually. Like during World Cup some dork calls himself German because one of his grand-parents immigrated from there.
Perhaps if someone pointed that out to her, she would be happy to say so.......
BGod
G.O.A.T.
And there in lies the crux of my argument.
I am not sure exactly how long she lived in Montreal before moving on to U.S.A......I believe that it was long enough to develop some attachment to
Canada. And, of course, she would return to Canada often to play tennis, including the Canadian Open.
I feel a real attachment to Cornwall, England (actually, the Duchy of Cornwall, which is not an English county legally speaking), having only been there a
couple of weeks.
My grandfather was a Cornish fisherman before migrating to Canada, and my dad and his brother spent a lot of time there during WWII while on leave
from military duty. They made close contacts with cousins there, which we renewed ten years ago.
It feels like home to me.
I hope that someone does mention that to her, perhaps she would be interested in the fact.
The Tennis HOF, has always been a joke. IMO, none of these three deserve to be in the HOF.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
All 3 must have been popular choices because none of them met the current requirement for automatic consideration which stipulates for 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".
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Kafelnikov was a former world number #1 who won 2 Slams as well as an Olympic singles title, Davis Cup and 4 doubles Slams. Pierce won 2 Slams as well as 2 doubles and Federation Cup. She is the only Frenchwoman to win the French Open in the Open Era.
How did Owen Davidson get in? He won two major doubles titles.
And...the only Canadian woman to win the French Open.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Davidson was inducted under the old 'Master Player' category defined as:
"The Master Player Category primarily served a purpose of honoring those who played prior to the Hall of Fame’s existence, or prior to the Hall of Fame serving the international game." After last year, this category became defunct.
The current criteria for automatic consideration for doubles players is:
"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."
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Only Canadian-born woman to win ANY Slam in the Open Era (or maybe ever)?
Or even close to it, I think.
Bassett beat Mandlikova to reach semi at 1984 U.S. Open.
Raonic was runner-up at Wimbledon.
Rusedski runner-up at U.S. Open.
Eugenie Bouchard runner-up at Wimbledon.
Powell was semi-finalist at 1908 Wimbledon.
That may be it for singles....Daniel Nestor won some doubles majors.
Last edited:
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Bassett only got as far as the the semi-final (l. to Evert).
I was just about to correct that.
In that tournament, I believe, she did win her most impressive match in a major, over Hana Mandlikova. A great performance.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Don't forget Bouchard's run to the Wimbledon final in 2014.
Both active Canadian Slam finalists did so at Wimbledon.
Bitsy Grant was a fine player, but never ranked higher than 6th (in the U.S.?), never won, or came close to winning, a slam tourney, in either singles or doubles......................but he is in the Tennis HOF.
How did that happen?
It looks like there were no rules at all for this category.
Last edited:
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Also inducted under the Master Player category.
