Michael Stitch inducted into hall of fame

Gemini

Hall of Fame
Funny, if the standards are too high, the list of inductees will shrink. Fewer enshrinements brightens the accolade, but could dull the lustre of the ceremony each summer.
With the domination of the big (3, 4), we will have some lean induction classes, unless they include some single slammers...."1 slam wonders"

This is the hall of fame, not the hall of GOAT or the hall of ATG.
Stich, yes, obviously.
Sergi, i am for it.
Krajicek, i am for it.
Korda....nah, sadly. Loved his game, but Petr would need a major PR campaign clearing him of PED use. I feel this way about Sharapova, but she has something Over korda. Number of slams, yeah, and also a certain intangible q factor.
One slammers....Thomas Johansson? Gaston gaudio? Albert Costa? JC Ferrero?

Current crop.....Hard not to simply project the enshrinement of Muzza and Stanley, and The Bryan brothers together. Leander Paes. Both Williams sisters. Well, as much as i do not respect her, I would think Sharapova would get in.
Marin Cilic? JM Del Potro? I do realize those two have a shot at becoming multiple slammers.

Funny how Todd Martin is administratively the guy behind the guys on this project. Or is he just a figurehead?
Honestly..it's a popularity contest. Accomplishments (major titles) really are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to getting in. It's really about how well liked and how popular/visible/impactful you are among peers, fans, the game, etc.
 

FrontHeadlock

Professional
In that case there should be a doubles HOF and a separate singles HOF.
yes, agreed. or, at least, you should get elected as a "Singles Inductee" or a "Doubles Inductee" or both if you are someone like Hingis or McEnroe.

So for example, Helena Sukova should get introduced as "Doubles Inductee, Helena Sukova"
 
Honestly..it's a popularity contest. Accomplishments (major titles) really are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to getting in. It's really about how well liked and how popular/visible/impactful you are among peers, fans, the game, etc.
Yup. Q factor, as they call it in the ad business.
Hall of Fame.
 

TennisDawg

Professional
I vaguely remember now . It is terrible and shows the bias

How on earth Kafelnikov is not in but Pam Shriver is ?
It has to be her doubles. I don’t understand all the ins and outs of THOF. I know she made it to USO final against Chris Evert and lost very easily.
 
It has to be her doubles. I don’t understand all the ins and outs of THOF. I know she made it to USO final against Chris Evert and lost very easily.
Yes sir, dubs for sure. She was half a legendary team.
I remember her singles final against evert. It was the first year at flushing in louis armstrong stadium. Shriver was very young. Had the old metal prince classic with the green plastic throat. She had an old Australian coach called Don Candy. Pammy peaked in terms of singles results right thurr.

Thing is, this is the intl tennis hall of fame. Not the men's tennis hall of fame, not the singles hall of fame. International Tennis in general.
Though i do not watch much women's dubs, shriver was a famous name, and got in because she did great things in women's dubs alongside a true legend.

Kafelnikov, a multi-slammer, singles and dubs...ought to get in at some point, right?

As an aside, anyone remember the warm, beautiful speeches at the enshrinements of Guga Kuerten and Yannick Noah? ITHoF gold. Memorable tears of joy.
 
Last edited:

dgold44

G.O.A.T.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/news/stich-entering-hall-of-fame-january-2018

Press Release
Jan 24, 2018


In a special ceremony at the Australian Open, it was announced that Michael Stich has been elected for induction into the International Tennis Hall of Fame in 2018. Hall of Fame induction is the ultimate honour in tennis, indicating that one’s career was among the most accomplished and impactful of all-time.

Since the Hall of Fame’s inception in 1954, just 252 individuals have been honoured, hailing from 23 nations. Stich is the sixth German to be inducted, joining the ranks of Boris Becker, Stefanie Graf, and 1930s tennis greats Barron Gottfried Von Cramm, Hans Nusslein, and Hilde Krahwinkel Sperling.

Joining Michael in the Hall of Fame’s Class of 2018 is Czech tennis legend Helena Sukova, a 14-time major champion in doubles and mixed doubles. Stich and Sukova will be officially inducted into the International Tennis Hall of Fame on 21 July, during Hall of Fame Weekend in Newport, Rhode Island.

“Michael’s laser focus and the versatility in his game made him a Wimbledon champion, and today, those skills and accomplishments make him a Hall of Famer,” said Hall of Famer Stan Smith, who also serves as president of the Hall of Fame.

“Being elected into the International Tennis Hall of Fame ensures that their careers and accomplishments will forever be distinguished as being among the greatest in our sport’s history. It’s a well-deserved honour for Helena and Michael, and we look forward to celebrating with them in Newport in July.”

Stich said, “It’s quite an honour to become part of the International Tennis Hall of Fame. I’m humbled to be included among this elite group of tennis athletes, many of whom I so greatly admired and was inspired by throughout my career.”

A versatile player with a full arsenal of skills, Stich achieved a ranking of world No. 2 and became a Wimbledon champion and Olympic gold medalist.

The highlight of Stich’s Hall of Fame career came in 1991 when he won the Wimbledon title, skillfully battling past two former champions and grass-court stars in Stefan Edberg and Becker. A year later, he partnered with John McEnroe to win the doubles title at Wimbledon in a five-hour match that spanned two days. Stich made two more finals appearances at Grand Slam tournaments — at the US Open in 1994 and Roland Garros in 1996.

A skilled player at both the baseline and the net, Stich was successful on all surfaces throughout his career. In 1991 and 1993, he won professional tournaments on all four surfaces.

Stich appeared in 31 finals and won 18 career singles titles, including particularly momentous victories at season-ending events. In the 1992 Grand Slam Cup, Stich defeated Stefan Edberg, Richard Krajicek, Pete Sampras, and Michael Chang to win the title. A year later, he closed the season with wins over Michael Chang, Jim Courier, and Pete Sampras to capture the Nitto ATP Finals title.

Stich was an accomplished representative of Germany throughout his career. At the Barcelona Olympics in 1992, he partnered with Boris Becker to win the Gold Medal in doubles. In 1993 Davis Cup final, he won all three points versus Australia to win the title for Germany.

Today, Stich is the Tournament Director for the German Tennis Championships 2018, an ATP World Tour 500 event in Hamburg. In 1994 he created the Michael Stich Foundation, a robust charity focused on programs aimed at HIV and AIDS awareness, as well as helping children in need.

Class of 2018 Induction Ceremony
The Class of 2018 will be officially inducted on 21 July, during Hall of Fame Weekend at the International Tennis Hall of Fame in Newport, Rhode Island. Tickets for the Induction Ceremony will go on sale on 5 March. In addition, the class will be celebrated in a tribute exhibit in the museum at the International Tennis Hall of Fame, which will open in June and be displayed for one year.
Laughable !!
One Slam only ???
What a shame the HF has become

Will roddick be next because of his big serve and big Nebraska behind !!
 

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/news/stich-entering-hall-of-fame-january-2018

Press Release
Jan 24, 2018


In a special ceremony at the Australian Open, it was announced that Michael Stich has been elected for induction into the International Tennis Hall of Fame in 2018. Hall of Fame induction is the ultimate honour in tennis, indicating that one’s career was among the most accomplished and impactful of all-time.

Since the Hall of Fame’s inception in 1954, just 252 individuals have been honoured, hailing from 23 nations. Stich is the sixth German to be inducted, joining the ranks of Boris Becker, Stefanie Graf, and 1930s tennis greats Barron Gottfried Von Cramm, Hans Nusslein, and Hilde Krahwinkel Sperling.

Joining Michael in the Hall of Fame’s Class of 2018 is Czech tennis legend Helena Sukova, a 14-time major champion in doubles and mixed doubles. Stich and Sukova will be officially inducted into the International Tennis Hall of Fame on 21 July, during Hall of Fame Weekend in Newport, Rhode Island.

“Michael’s laser focus and the versatility in his game made him a Wimbledon champion, and today, those skills and accomplishments make him a Hall of Famer,” said Hall of Famer Stan Smith, who also serves as president of the Hall of Fame.

“Being elected into the International Tennis Hall of Fame ensures that their careers and accomplishments will forever be distinguished as being among the greatest in our sport’s history. It’s a well-deserved honour for Helena and Michael, and we look forward to celebrating with them in Newport in July.”

Stich said, “It’s quite an honour to become part of the International Tennis Hall of Fame. I’m humbled to be included among this elite group of tennis athletes, many of whom I so greatly admired and was inspired by throughout my career.”

A versatile player with a full arsenal of skills, Stich achieved a ranking of world No. 2 and became a Wimbledon champion and Olympic gold medalist.

The highlight of Stich’s Hall of Fame career came in 1991 when he won the Wimbledon title, skillfully battling past two former champions and grass-court stars in Stefan Edberg and Becker. A year later, he partnered with John McEnroe to win the doubles title at Wimbledon in a five-hour match that spanned two days. Stich made two more finals appearances at Grand Slam tournaments — at the US Open in 1994 and Roland Garros in 1996.

A skilled player at both the baseline and the net, Stich was successful on all surfaces throughout his career. In 1991 and 1993, he won professional tournaments on all four surfaces.

Stich appeared in 31 finals and won 18 career singles titles, including particularly momentous victories at season-ending events. In the 1992 Grand Slam Cup, Stich defeated Stefan Edberg, Richard Krajicek, Pete Sampras, and Michael Chang to win the title. A year later, he closed the season with wins over Michael Chang, Jim Courier, and Pete Sampras to capture the Nitto ATP Finals title.

Stich was an accomplished representative of Germany throughout his career. At the Barcelona Olympics in 1992, he partnered with Boris Becker to win the Gold Medal in doubles. In 1993 Davis Cup final, he won all three points versus Australia to win the title for Germany.

Today, Stich is the Tournament Director for the German Tennis Championships 2018, an ATP World Tour 500 event in Hamburg. In 1994 he created the Michael Stich Foundation, a robust charity focused on programs aimed at HIV and AIDS awareness, as well as helping children in need.

Class of 2018 Induction Ceremony
The Class of 2018 will be officially inducted on 21 July, during Hall of Fame Weekend at the International Tennis Hall of Fame in Newport, Rhode Island. Tickets for the Induction Ceremony will go on sale on 5 March. In addition, the class will be celebrated in a tribute exhibit in the museum at the International Tennis Hall of Fame, which will open in June and be displayed for one year.
Who is Stitch??
 

Gemini

Hall of Fame
Laughable !!
One Slam only ???
What a shame the HF has become

Will roddick be next because of his big serve and big Nebraska behind !!
I'd like to think you're being facetious but just in case...Roddick has already been inducted. But yes..the HOF is pretty laughable.
 

Gemini

Hall of Fame
You would think so but there seems to be something about him the voting members don't like!
Correct. I never got the impression that he was a disagreeable person but I don't think he went out of his way to make friends.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Correct. I never got the impression that he was a disagreeable person but I don't think he went out of his way to make friends.
Still, it shouldn't be based on personal popularity but on achievements alone but I guess when voting is involved, the personal factor can never entirely be eliminated. Imagine if no-one liked Federer or Nadal and refused to vote them in? :cool:
 

Gemini

Hall of Fame
Still, it shouldn't be based on personal popularity but on achievements alone but I guess when voting is involved, the personal factor can never entirely be eliminated. Imagine if no-one liked Federer or Nadal and refused to vote them in? :cool:
Agreed..and that's why the whole HOF situation is not to be taken too seriously. All things being equal the only thing that will keep you out, e.g. Kafelnikov, seems to be everything that is not related to your achievements on court and how the establishment feels about it. I found this opinion piece from a couple of years ago which sheds some light on why he'll probably never make it in.

https://www.si.com/tennis/2016/09/28/mailbag-2016-hall-of-fame-nominees-roddick-kafelnikov-sharapova-lepchenko
 
Last edited:
Very impressive recall, and a great post gemini. Wertheim acknowledges yevgeny's records, while nailing the reason for non-enshrinement. Citizenship. Sad. He was always in it for the money.
What a great record though.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Agreed..and that's why the whole HOF situation is not to be taken too seriously. All things being equal the only thing that will keep you out, e.g. Kafelnikov, seems to be everything that is not related to your achievements on court and how the establishment feels about it. I found this opinion piece from a couple of years ago which sheds some light on why he'll probably never make it in.

https://www.si.com/tennis/2016/09/28/mailbag-2016-hall-of-fame-nominees-roddick-kafelnikov-sharapova-lepchenko
Yet I recall Kafelnikov turned up with other former world #1s for the 40th anniversary bash for the ATP in New York back in 2013. This would seem to suggest that he felt genuinely honoured to be there (unless I'm being naive and each attendee was paid an appearance fee) and would probably feel even more honoured to be allowed to join his peers in the Hall of Fame!
 

tkramer15

Rookie
yeah, 5 vs. 1 in major finals is huge difference, especially when you consider that Roddick lost 3 of them to absolute peak Fed. really hard to hold that against Roddick imo, and i'm not even that big of a Roddick fan.

My test is always this: if you change the outcome of a single match in a player's career, can you still make the case for that player being in the HOF?

With someone like Roddick, I think the answer is yes.

With someone like Muster, suppose, at 5-5 in the 4th set of the 1995 RG QF, that Albert Costa wins the next two games as opposed to Muster and thus wins the match. Could you then credibly argue Muster as a HOFer? Heck, get Muster to the final and assume he loses that -- could you still credibly argue him as a hall of famer? I can't, and I'm one who is very supportive of clay court players.
Your single match test theory is intriguing, and I agree with it to a point. Still, I find it difficult to pin everything on Grand Slam results. Sure, the Slams are the absolute pinnacle of the sport and should be weighted heavily, but there are so many factors to consider. For one, the seeding of only 16 players at Grand Slams until 2001 lessened the balance and created some difficult early round draws for prominent players in the 1990s. Obviously, we'll never know if anything would've played out differently, but Muster certainly did not receive much luck in his French Open draws. The flip side of that take: If Muster was an all-time clay court great, why couldn't he overcome the likes of Sampras, Courier, Rafter, Stich or Kuerten (then unknown before he beat Muster en route to the 1997 title) in relatively early rounds at the French? It's a difficult conundrum. Courier was in his prime during those French Open meetings in 1992 and 1993. Muster's loss to Rafter in the 1994 third round came after Muster had beaten Agassi in a five set thriller in the second round (another brutal draw). Stich brilliantly disrupted Muster's rhythm in that 1996 fourth round upset and then nearly went on to win the tournament. Muster, despite having had a poor clay court season in 1997, had Kuerten on the ropes at 3-0 in the fifth, but Gustavo outplayed him down the stretch and famously went on to win the event and two more in 2000 and 2001. The overall takeaway is that Muster is often maligned for having not done better at the French Open (one win, plus a SF and a QF), which should've easily been his best Slam. Whether it is viewed as an excuse or not, the fact is that Muster was forced to play the eventual winner or finalist in the fourth round or earlier four times between 1992 and 1997.

There's no question that Roddick's entire body of work is superior to Muster's. I would also put the likes of Chang, Kafelnikov and perhaps Ivanisevic ahead of Muster among '90s era stars with comparable resumes. I'm not sure about Stich or Marat Safin, who are both already in the Hall, or Sergi Bruguera, though. They may have reached another high or two at Slams, but each's entire body of work falls short of Muster's in nearly every other area.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
There's no question that Roddick's entire body of work is superior to Muster's. I would also put the likes of Chang, Kafelnikov and perhaps Ivanisevic ahead of Muster among '90s era stars with comparable resumes. I'm not sure about Stich or Marat Safin, who are both already in the Hall, or Sergi Bruguera, though. They may have reached another high or two at Slams, but each's entire body of work falls short of Muster's in nearly every other area.
Roddick vs Muster is debateable. The former has 32 titles including 1 Slam (plus 4 other finals) and 5 Masters (all on hard) and twice as long at #1 (13 weeks vs 6). Muster has 44 titles including 1 Slam (no other finals) and 8 Masters (6 on clay, 2 on hard). As a former #1 with more Masters titles, I would certainly place Muster ahead of Chang and Ivanisevic (both highest rank #2).
 

fezer

Rookie
Your single match test theory is intriguing, and I agree with it to a point. Still, I find it difficult to pin everything on Grand Slam results. Sure, the Slams are the absolute pinnacle of the sport and should be weighted heavily, but there are so many factors to consider. For one, the seeding of only 16 players at Grand Slams until 2001 lessened the balance and created some difficult early round draws for prominent players in the 1990s. Obviously, we'll never know if anything would've played out differently, but Muster certainly did not receive much luck in his French Open draws. The flip side of that take: If Muster was an all-time clay court great, why couldn't he overcome the likes of Sampras, Courier, Rafter, Stich or Kuerten (then unknown before he beat Muster en route to the 1997 title) in relatively early rounds at the French? It's a difficult conundrum. Courier was in his prime during those French Open meetings in 1992 and 1993. Muster's loss to Rafter in the 1994 third round came after Muster had beaten Agassi in a five set thriller in the second round (another brutal draw). Stich brilliantly disrupted Muster's rhythm in that 1996 fourth round upset and then nearly went on to win the tournament. Muster, despite having had a poor clay court season in 1997, had Kuerten on the ropes at 3-0 in the fifth, but Gustavo outplayed him down the stretch and famously went on to win the event and two more in 2000 and 2001. The overall takeaway is that Muster is often maligned for having not done better at the French Open (one win, plus a SF and a QF), which should've easily been his best Slam. Whether it is viewed as an excuse or not, the fact is that Muster was forced to play the eventual winner or finalist in the fourth round or earlier four times between 1992 and 1997.

There's no question that Roddick's entire body of work is superior to Muster's. I would also put the likes of Chang, Kafelnikov and perhaps Ivanisevic ahead of Muster among '90s era stars with comparable resumes. I'm not sure about Stich or Marat Safin, who are both already in the Hall, or Sergi Bruguera, though. They may have reached another high or two at Slams, but each's entire body of work falls short of Muster's in nearly every other area.
Is the Muster/Stich discussion on here? and do you really think, that Stich's body of work falls short of Muster's in any area besides slams? what about olympics? davis cup? yec? doubles?
and as far as draws are concerned Stich did lose to eventual winners and finalists, too. Such as Kafelnikov, Agassi, Sampras, Krajicek, Pioline... And that Wimbledon 91 draw was a cakewalk? Courier, Edberg, Becker?
The single match theory otoh could also be applied in the case of Stich, whose Wimbledon campaign was saved by a net cord dribbler vs Volkov...
I dont think that Stich has to fear comparison to Muster. I think the case was closed in four sets in RG96!
 

tkramer15

Rookie
Is the Muster/Stich discussion on here? and do you really think, that Stich's body of work falls short of Muster's in any area besides slams? what about olympics? davis cup? yec? doubles?
and as far as draws are concerned Stich did lose to eventual winners and finalists, too. Such as Kafelnikov, Agassi, Sampras, Krajicek, Pioline... And that Wimbledon 91 draw was a cakewalk? Courier, Edberg, Becker?
The single match theory otoh could also be applied in the case of Stich, whose Wimbledon campaign was saved by a net cord dribbler vs Volkov...
I dont think that Stich has to fear comparison to Muster. I think the case was closed in four sets in RG96!
I didn't intend to turn this into a Muster vs. Stich debate. The thread had taken on a different life; however, where a number of other players were mentioned. Stich is rightfully in the Hall of Fame, especially when considering his doubles success. I had admittedly not factored that into the equation. Davis Cup is tricky because it obviously helps to be from a larger country with more top players. Muster had an excellent Davis Cup record, but he has very little in the way of team success to show for it because Austria didn't have a broad base of talent. My description of the seeding differences in the '90s was to make the point that it affected many top players, not just Muster. There's no question that Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are on another level in terms of consistent greatness compared to the greats of past eras, but they have benefited from having 32 seeds at the Slams versus 16.

While Stich certainly has a more well-rounded resume than Muster in terms of success on all surfaces, Muster won 26 more tournaments, including six more Masters/Super 9 events. Muster also reached #1 in the world. Although mostly a function of scheduling preference and avoidance of injury, Muster won 240 more matches in his career despite having to overcome a major knee injury which limited the amount he could play on harder surfaces.

I gave Roddick the nod over Muster because of his longer sustained high level success and because he was extremely close to winning several other Slams as was stated. I don't think that Muster's higher overall titles figure or Masters titles are enough to top Roddick because of those other facts. While Muster did reach #1 and Chang never quite got there, I think Chang's three other Slam finals and similar enough resume in other areas probably give him the edge. It's even tougher to decide between Muster and Ivanisevic. Bottom line: They all should be in. I'm just not sure how the committee has prioritized some over others. Kafelnikov should've been in much earlier.
 

fezer

Rookie
I didn't intend to turn this into a Muster vs. Stich debate. The thread had taken on a different life; however, where a number of other players were mentioned. Stich is rightfully in the Hall of Fame, especially when considering his doubles success. I had admittedly not factored that into the equation. Davis Cup is tricky because it obviously helps to be from a larger country with more top players. Muster had an excellent Davis Cup record, but he has very little in the way of team success to show for it because Austria didn't have a broad base of talent. My description of the seeding differences in the '90s was to make the point that it affected many top players, not just Muster. There's no question that Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are on another level in terms of consistent greatness compared to the greats of past eras, but they have benefited from having 32 seeds at the Slams versus 16.

While Stich certainly has a more well-rounded resume than Muster in terms of success on all surfaces, Muster won 26 more tournaments, including six more Masters/Super 9 events. Muster also reached #1 in the world. Although mostly a function of scheduling preference and avoidance of injury, Muster won 240 more matches in his career despite having to overcome a major knee injury which limited the amount he could play on harder surfaces.

I gave Roddick the nod over Muster because of his longer sustained high level success and because he was extremely close to winning several other Slams as was stated. I don't think that Muster's higher overall titles figure or Masters titles are enough to top Roddick because of those other facts. While Muster did reach #1 and Chang never quite got there, I think Chang's three other Slam finals and similar enough resume in other areas probably give him the edge. It's even tougher to decide between Muster and Ivanisevic. Bottom line: They all should be in. I'm just not sure how the committee has prioritized some over others. Kafelnikov should've been in much earlier.
Thank you for your nice and thoughtful response. What was really bothering me was your statement that Stich falls short vs Muster in any area besides Slams.
I appreciate that you thought that over.
Muster certainly has his cards to play vs Stich as you mentioned. I never doubted that. It's a tough call. Can go either way.
In that case Davis Cup isn't tricky in the way you mentioned, because Stich won it, when Becker wasn't playing. Goellner played singles. Prinosil doubles. If memory serves me right. They won in front of a hostile Austrian crowd. Stich even held a match point vs Muster there.
After all you are right that all of the players are worthy HoFrs.
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
Achievements-wise you may be right, but given that he did all of it after that terrible drunk driver incident, which I read took some iron will and regimen to recover from, I'd like to see him in the HoF, too.
Excellent point about Muster accomplishments after his horrible injury. While I think all those mentioned in this discussion do not belong in the HOF, certainly Muster does compared to the others, especially compared to Stich. 45 tournament wins is considerably more than 18, plus I think he won more Masters as well and reached #1 as well
 

fezer

Rookie
Excellent point about Muster accomplishments after his horrible injury. While I think all those mentioned in this discussion do not belong in the HOF, certainly Muster does compared to the others, especially compared to Stich. 45 tournament wins is considerably more than 18, plus I think he won more Masters as well and reached #1 as well
As i mentioned above. Muster has his cards to play compared to Stich. It is correct, that the Austrian reached the top spot, has a higher number of titles and his overwhelming comeback!!!
But it remains a close race, because Stich performed better at the slams. SF or better in all four! Stich won a YEC! Stich is a Davis Cup Champion! Stich won a Wimbledon in doubles! Stich won an olympic gold medal. And he did beat Muster in RG.
I can understand people that give Muster the edge, but he cannot be rated considerably above Stich, when he couldn't prevent Stich from mps on clay! And otoh Muster wasn't able to score a single match win at Wimbledon.
 
Top