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.
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
Hall of Fame
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"
slice bh compliment
G.O.A.T.
Yup. Q factor, as they call it in the ad business.
Hall of Fame.
TennisDawg
Hall of Fame
I thought Shriver had already been enshrined into THOF and Carillo.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
I vaguely remember now . It is terrible and shows the bias
How on earth Kafelnikov is not in but Pam Shriver is ?
TennisDawg
Hall of Fame
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.
slice bh compliment
G.O.A.T.
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:
Laughable !!
One Slam only ???
What a shame the HF has become
Will roddick be next because of his big serve and big Nebraska behind !!
goldengoose
Rookie
Imagine if the good lord provided this guy with a pair of legs. Great player .But I could never bet on those legs.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Roddick was inducted last year!
http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2017/07/roddick-clijsters-among-tennis-hall-of-fame-inductees/67913/
Mainad
Bionic Poster
You would think so but there seems to be something about him the voting members don't like!
Who is Stitch??
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.
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
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?
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?
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/2016/09/2...minees-roddick-kafelnikov-sharapova-lepchenko
Last edited:
slice bh compliment
G.O.A.T.
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.
What a great record though.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
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!
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
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).
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.
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.
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.
