M. Chang makes the Hall of Fame

I used to be firmly for 1-Slam winners to get in, or at least some of them. In my mind, it was easy to differentiate between someone like Gabriela Sabatini who won one slam, but was finalist in others, a factor in many more, won lots of other big tourneys, and competed very well with the people at the top of the game, as compared to someone like Iva Majoli, who was a good player with 1 Slam, but really did nothing else.

I aloo think it's easy to differentiate between 1-Slam winners who were competitive across the board and guys like all of the 1-Slam FO winners who didn't do much away from clay (though a few of them did).

But, more and more, I think this just opens up a can worms. Krajicek, Ivansesivic, Korda, Rios, Moya, Ferrero, Johnannson, Kusnetsova - what do we do with these players?
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
But, more and more, I think this just opens up a can worms. Krajicek, Ivansesivic, Korda, Rios, Moya, Ferrero, Johnannson, Kusnetsova - what do we do with these players?
Rios never won a Grand Slam. The closest he ever got was a final at the Aus Open where he got blown out by Korda, 6-2, 6-2, 6-2. Other than that, he never got past the quarters at any other Slam.

But you can add Gaudio, Costa, Stich, Cash, Muster, Gomez, Gerulaitis, Teacher, Tanner, Edmonson, and Roddick to your list of one-Slam wonders.
 

rosenstar

Professional
I've been reading over this thread, and in all honesty, I feel that pretty much anyone who has won a grandslam and has had a respectable career (multiple years in the top 10, held any records, etc.) deserves to be in the hall of fame.

I think that because there are four grandslam tournements every year, it takes away from the meaning behind winning one. I don't think many of the people on this board understand what it takes to win a grandslam. especially when players like federer do it so easily. just 1 grandslam title is truly an incredible feat. I mean, out of 6 billion people on this earth, how can say they have won a grandslam? My guess is less than 0.25%???
 
Last edited:

OnceWas

Rookie
Just looking at some of the people in the International Tennis Hall of Fame, and the standards they seem to have. Micheal Chang belongs in that group, when you look at his career accomplishments.
 

kimbahpnam

Hall of Fame
I've been reading over this thread, and in all honesty, I feel that pretty much anyone who has won a grandslam and has had a respectable career (multiple years in the top 10, held any records, etc.) deserves to be in the hall of fame.

I think that because there are four grandslam tournements every year, it takes away from the meaning behind winning one. I don't think many of the people on this board understand what it takes to win a grandslam. especially when players like federer do it so easily. just 1 grandslam title is truly an incredible feat. I mean, out of 6 billion people on this earth, how can say they have won a grandslam? My guess is less than 0.25%???
lol...way way way WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY less than .25% of 6 billion! nonetheless, good guess. :)
 
Top