Why Isn't Kafelnikov Being Inducted Into Tennis Hall of Fame?

M

McEnroeisanartist

Hall of Fame
Comparing his career with Gustavo Kuerten (who is being inducted) , it’s pretty plain to see that Kafelnikov’s achievements and record exceed that of Kuerten. Kafelnikov won approximately 40 percent more career singles matches and prize money, six more singles titles (25 more titles in singles and doubles combined), double the major titles (singles and doubles combined) and double the number of semifinal or better finishes at Grand Slam tournaments than that of Kuerten.

SINGLES RECORD

Kafelnikov 609–306

Kuerten 358–195

SINGLES TITLES

Kafelnikov 26

Kuerten 20

WEEKS RANKED No. 1

Kafelnikov 6 weeks

Kuerten 43 weeks

MAJOR SINGLES TITLES

Kafelnikov 2 – 1996 French, 1999 Australian

Kuerten 3 – 1997, 2000, 2001 French

MAJOR DOUBLES TITLES

Kafelnikov 4 (1997 US Open, 1996, 1997, 2002 French Open)

Kuerten 0

MAJOR RUNNER-UP SHOWINGS SINGLES

Kafelnikov 1 (2000 Australian)

Kuerten 0

MAJOR SEMIFINAL FINISHES SINGLES

Kafelnikov 3 (1999, 2001 US Open, 1995 French)

Kuerten 0

BEST OLYMPIC RESULT

Kafelnikov Gold Medalist, Singles, 2000

Kuerten Quarterfinalist, Singles, 2000

DAVIS CUP RECORD/BEST TEAM RESULT

Kafelnikov Champion, 2002

Kuerten Semifinals, 2000

DOUBLES TITLES

Kafelnikov 27

Kuerten 8
 
Red scare!!!

Probably because Kuerten was way more popular and won one more major, as well as finished as year-end #1. Those are the biggies, me thinks, out of the stats you posted.
 
Because Guga is a sentimental favourite. But I believe Yevgeny is gonna be inducted some time in the future.
 
Kafelnikov should be in of course. 1 FO and 1 AO and n°1 in 99. I don't really understand why Rafter has been in for so many years already but not Kafelnikov yet. Rafter has won like 10 titles in his career.

Year-ends ranking for Yevgueni in his prime :

1994 : 11
1995 : 6
1996 : 3
1997 : 5
1998 : 11
1999 : 2
2000 : 5
2001 : 4

He should be in.
 
Hall of fame is not the best acknowledgement you can get for your work, much like the oscars. I'm not trying to be anti-american but outside the US there really are no 'halls of fame'.
 
He is the weakest 2 slam winner in history by far, other than perhaps Kriek won 2 Australians when it was a non major really. He couldnt even win a freaking Masters title. I dont think he belongs in the HOF and I hope he doesnt get in. Ability wise alone he is something below a typical 1 slam winner, and his records vs Sampras, Hewitt, Tomas Johansson (who owns Yevgeny yet many call one of the worst 1 slam winners ever), and others reflect this.
 
Also no Kafelnikov is nowhere near Kuerten unless you consider doubles strongly. Kuerten has more majors, has won the WTF despite that he is a so called clay courter, has a year end #1, has won many Masters titles vs none for Kafelnikov. Heck if it wasnt for his Australian Open title which was lucky facing a nothing draw and a choking Enqvist in the final, Kuerten would have numerous titles on non clay surfaces bigger than Kafelnikov's biggest, despite being known as mostly a clay courter. Clay courter Kuerten beating Sampras and Agassi back to back to win the WTF to end the year #1 on a fast indoor court, already makes it clear Kuerten >>> Kafelnikov. Lastly Kuerten is a legend of clay, one of the all time best, Kafelnikov is a legend of lemons maybe.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
NadalAgassi said:
Also no Kafelnikov is nowhere near Kuerten unless you consider doubles strongly. Kuerten has more majors, has won the WTF despite that he is a so called clay courter, has a year end #1, has won many Masters titles vs none for Kafelnikov. Heck if it wasnt for his Australian Open title which was lucky facing a nothing draw and a choking Enqvist in the final, Kuerten would have numerous titles on non clay surfaces bigger than Kafelnikov's biggest, despite being known as mostly a clay courter. Clay courter Kuerten beating Sampras and Agassi back to back to win the WTF to end the year #1 on a fast indoor court, already makes it clear Kuerten >>> Kafelnikov. Lastly Kuerten is a legend of clay, one of the all time best, Kafelnikov is a legend of lemons maybe.
Click to expand...

So, what are you saying?
 
rafter was in before kuerten because he retired earlier. this is the first year kuerten is eligible - u have to be retired minimum 5yrs from atp

kafelnikov prolly isnt in yet cause he was pretty borin n unpopular. plus he never won anythin important in north america and its an american museum. the guys less qualified than him are prolly chang n rafter. chang is american n rafter won 2 USOs plus a bunch of other north american hardcourt titles. both of em are pretty popular as well.

its just a circle jerk anyway. almost as lame as the rock n roll hof.
 
Last edited:
Just 3 slams for the hall of fame??Guga shouldn't be there either.
 
i am pretty sure that in a few yrs u will start to see one slam wonders inducted

like all hofs, the older they get the lower the standards drop cos u start running out of nominees

rock n roll hof inducted laura nyro this yr. startin to scrape the bottom of the barrel
 
TeflonTom said:
i am pretty sure that in a few yrs u will start to see one slam wonders inducted
Click to expand...

They already have done that. Gaby Sabatini, Yannick Noah, and Jana Novotna (albeit she had a stellar doubles career) were all inducted recently.
 
noah is black so doesnt really count, novotna was inducted mostly 4 her doubles

gaby is hot n should have been inducted way earlier
 
tank_job said:
Welcome to ban land
Click to expand...
what? my point is that there are exactly 2 black slam winners, n he is one of them. so its natural that he is in

same with chang bein asian-american

u dont think its a coincidence that the 2 most woefully underqualified guys (one slam, no #1 ranking) in the hof are from minority groups that are traditionally poorly represented in tennis?

the hof wants diversity.
 
Last edited:
It's pretty close, Guga has a better winning %, but I agree it's very difficult to pick between the two.

Guga is/was more popular though I guess.
 
By Kafelnikov's reasoning Kuerten is better, for after his third loss to Guga at RG in 2001 he said:

"I said whoever won the match today would win the tournament. It's a big, big paradox for me. The guy who beats me always gets huge, huge confidence because they know it's not an easy thing to accomplish, beat me in a Grand Slam. Normally, when they do that, they go on and take the title. Hopefully, he will do that again. Otherwise, I'll be very ashamed."

Well, everyone's favourite Brazilian tennis player lifted the FO trophy every time he took out Yevgeny, won 5 more masters than him, didn't have a losing record against top 10 players, and by most accounts was more fun to watch.

He also wasn't afraid to show his sense of humour on court, such as when he accidentally fooled Pioline into thinking he was retiring mid-match:

guga.gif
 
Last edited:
Cormorant said:
By Kafelnikov's reasoning Kuerten is better, for after his third loss to Guga at RG in 2001 he said:

"I said whoever won the match today would win the tournament. It's a big, big paradox for me. The guy who beats me always gets huge, huge confidence because they know it's not an easy thing to accomplish, beat me in a Grand Slam. Normally, when they do that, they go on and take the title. Hopefully, he will do that again. Otherwise, I'll be very ashamed."

Well, everyone's favourite Brazilian tennis player lifted the FO trophy every time he took out Yevgeny, won 5 more masters than him, didn't have a losing record against top 10 players, and by most accounts was more fun to watch.

He also wasn't afraid to show his sense of humour on court, such as when he accidentally fooled Pioline into thinking he was retiring mid-match:

guga.gif
Click to expand...

I thought the French loves comedy.....:)
 
Magnetite said:
It's pretty close, Guga has a better winning %, but I agree it's very difficult to pick between the two.

Guga is/was more popular though I guess.
Click to expand...

It is not at all close. More majors, the WTF, a year end #1, Kuerten has the H2H edge. Kuerten was the undisputed best clay courter for about 3 years, Kafelnikov was ever considered the best player on any surface when exactly? As for versatility Kuerten's only weak surface was grass and Kafelnikov is a mug on grass too.

The only argument for Kafelnikov being close is if you really value doubles highly.
 
NadalAgassi said:
It is not at all close. More majors, the WTF, a year end #1, Kuerten has the H2H edge. Kuerten was the undisputed best clay courter for about 3 years, Kafelnikov was ever considered the best player on any surface when exactly? As for versatility Kuerten's only weak surface was grass and Kafelnikov is a mug on grass too.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah by the way he won 3 Halle titles and was once runner-up there.
Apart from doubles, also in his favour: Olympic gold and Davis Cup title.
 
Last edited:
Kafenilkov was not that good.He played every second rate tourney he could find to keep his rating up and dollars coming in. I hope he never gets in. I thought it was Davey that was caught up in the whole gambling thing.
 
Kafelnikov will be inducted sooner or later. He was a great player.

He was a fantastic indoor-carpet player (he won 12 indoor-carpet titles plus several more finals), he won 3 titles in Halle (grass) plus some other final. He was obviously great in hard courts too ( some eight hard court outdoors titles), plus three titles on clay.

26 singles titles overall ( and 20 other finals), 2 GS singles titles. At least three titles in each surface (indoor-carpet, clay, grass and hard court outdoor).

On top of that he was a great player in doubles too.

If Chang and Rafter are already there, Yevgeny will be there soon as well.
 
I love it when people bash the resumes of Kafelnikov, Kuerten, Thomas Johansson, etc. as somehow they weren't very good. Winning one Grand Slam in the modern era of tennis is an epic achievement regardless of whether you won a second or third one. One slam is better than no slams that 99.9% of professionals will never come close to winning.

Petr Korda won only one slam yet is/was universally considered one of the most gifted players of his day. Same with Marcelo Rios who didn't win a slam.

People will quibble about resumes until they're blue in the face. Yannick Noah is in the HOF for crying out loud! Jana Novotna is too. Michael Chang anyone?

I don't think this has anything to do with resume. I think it's more Kafelnikov was a surly dude who no one really liked. Nowadays he's a rather jovial fellow and might have always been but popularity goes a long way. The single biggest reason why Michael Stich is not in the HOF. Only one slam as well but his resume is stellar. But he was the unloved second son after Boris Becker.

Also the fact that Kafelnikov kinda got run off the tour in a cloud of suspicion over throwing matches and ties to Russian mafia, the same guys that Davydenko was accused of being tied to.

All in all his tennis resume is not the issue. It was his personality and the circumstances surrounding the end of his career.
 
Kuerten has more majors, won the WTF (defeating Agassi and Sampras indoors, when he supposedly can only play on clay) and won 5 Masters series. Besides being a lot more time at N°1. He is clearly better than Kafelnikov. YK deserves being in the HOF too, but he is not better than Guga.
 
Ehhh.. If they can put Chang in and put Rafter in.. I see no reason why Kafelnikov shouldn't go in if you take into account his singles and doubles career.

Not to many guys have managed even 2 slams like Kafelnikov or say they have even close to the doubles resume this guy has or say they were #1 in the world and won 2 slams on 2 different surfaces? He was a very good player in his heyday (especially in doubles).. Ive never understood the hate for the guy.
 
Last edited:
NadalAgassi said:
He is the weakest 2 slam winner in history by far, other than perhaps Kriek won 2 Australians when it was a non major really. He couldnt even win a freaking Masters title. I dont think he belongs in the HOF and I hope he doesnt get in. Ability wise alone he is something below a typical 1 slam winner, and his records vs Sampras, Hewitt, Tomas Johansson (who owns Yevgeny yet many call one of the worst 1 slam winners ever), and others reflect this.
Click to expand...

Weak players don't win two grand slams.
 
I wonder what their head to head life time prize money is. Wow Kafelnikov was a money making machine. Kafelnikov $23,883,000 Kuerten $14,807,000
 
It's a scandal to not see Kafelnikov and Ivanisevic in the Tennis Hall of Fame.

Seriously they both were BIG names during Sampras' era.
 
I wasn't around to see either of these guys but from what I can gather about the HOF induction it seems to be based off charity work and a marketable life story. IIR Guga is involved in lots of charity work so that is probably why. It seems to be based more on contributions to the world at large than tennis achievements so comparing resumes is pointless.
 
Last edited:
Carl Pierce said:
Kafenilkov was not that good.He played every second rate tourney he could find to keep his rating up and dollars coming in. I hope he never gets in. I thought it was Davey that was caught up in the whole gambling thing.
Click to expand...

What about the two majors he won?
 
PSNELKE said:
What about the two majors he won?
Click to expand...

Major cakewalk draws. Krajicek, Sampras, and Stich on clay. An aging Todd Martin, teenage Tommy Haas, and Tomas Enqvist on hard courts. Davydenko with those draws could have won 2 slams easily as well (although knowing him he probably would have found a way to throw one or both away somehow, just knowing it was a slam). Muster going out of the 96 French was a godsend for Kafelnikov who had maybe a 1% chance of beating him on clay that year, and maybe a 10% chance to win a set. Costa and a few others he had very little chance to beat going out early too. The 99 Australian was alot of things coming together, Sampras not playing, Agassi having his worst slam performance of the year, all the upset, Enqvist playing giant killer but choking in the final. Lets just say the tennis gods smiled in his favor in a big way. It needs to be reminded again he couldnt even win a Masters title.

Also I dont know about where you live, it is possible it was different in Europe, but I can ensure you 200% Kafelnikov was no big name in North America when he played ever, not even to the most serious tennis insiders, writers, journalists, etc... Ask anyone here and they will tell you the same thing. Ivanisevic was a bigger name, and because he was an enigma attracted some interest here, although still not quite at huge star level.



90's Clay said:
Ehhh.. If they can put Chang in and put Rafter in.. I see no reason why Kafelnikov shouldn't go in if you take into account his singles and doubles career.

Not to many guys have managed even 2 slams like Kafelnikov or say they have even close to the doubles resume this guy has or say they were #1 in the world and won 2 slams on 2 different surfaces? He was a very good player in his heyday (especially in doubles).. Ive never understood the hate for the guy.
Click to expand...

I never agreed with Chang's inclusion. However he has 7 Masters titles (vs 0 for Kafelnikov), over 30 career titles, an incredible record at the U.S Open even without winning there. Overall I think his career was probably better than Kafelnikov even with 1 less major.

Rafter won 2 slams just like Kafelnikov, and numerous Masters titles so definitely had the better career, even with only 11 titles overall (as already pointed out Kafelnikov horded the mickey mouse events, and outside his 2 majors that is what pretty much all his titles were). Especialy with back to back titles at the U.S Open, and back to back finals at Wimbledon, both events Kafelnikov was useless in, and Kafelnikov could not defend a slam, or defend a final at a 2nd slam even at his own 2 strong slam, or make the semis of every slam like Rafter. Both had a blip at #1 that nobody remembers or cares about, but some thought Rafter was the real #1 for the year 1998, and he probably would have ended there over Sampras without his injury. He also played a style of play that was fun to watch and brought alot of interest to the game with his charisma, which needless to say isnt true of YK.

Most dont care about doubles, and it very little to no factor in the voting and assessment of the careers I bet. I really dont think Novotna even got in due to doubles, but due to her epic struggle for a Wimbledon title and the fame that brought her. Even so Novotna was a more legendary doubles player than Kafelnikov.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
NadalAgassi said:
Major cakewalk draws. Krajicek, Sampras, and Stich on clay. An aging Todd Martin, teenage Tommy Haas, and Tomas Enqvist on hard courts. Davydenko with those draws could have won 2 slams easily as well (although knowing him he probably would have found a way to throw one or both away somehow, just knowing it was a slam). Muster going out of the 96 French was a godsend for Kafelnikov who had maybe a 1% chance of beating him on clay that year, and maybe a 10% chance to win a set. Costa and a few others he had very little chance to beat going out early too. The 99 Australian was alot of things coming together, Sampras not playing, Agassi having his worst slam performance of the year, all the upset, Enqvist playing giant killer but choking in the final. Lets just say the tennis gods smiled in his favor in a big way. It needs to be reminded again he couldnt even win a Masters title.

Also I dont know about where you live, it is possible it was different in Europe, but I can ensure you 200% Kafelnikov was no big name in North America when he played ever, not even to the most serious tennis insiders, writers, journalists, etc... Ask anyone here and they will tell you the same thing. Ivanisevic was a bigger name, and because he was an enigma attracted some interest here, although still not quite at huge star level.





I never agreed with Chang's inclusion. However he has 7 Masters titles (vs 0 for Kafelnikov), over 30 career titles, an incredible record at the U.S Open even without winning there. Overall I think his career was probably better than Kafelnikov even with 1 less major.

Rafter won 2 slams just like Kafelnikov, and numerous Masters titles so definitely had the better career, even with only 11 titles overall (as already pointed out Kafelnikov horded the mickey mouse events, and outside his 2 majors that is what pretty much all his titles were). Especialy with back to back titles at the U.S Open, and back to back finals at Wimbledon, both events Kafelnikov was useless in, and Kafelnikov could not defend a slam, or defend a final at a 2nd slam even at his own 2 strong slam, or make the semis of every slam like Rafter. Both had a blip at #1 that nobody remembers or cares about, but some thought Rafter was the real #1 for the year 1998, and he probably would have ended there over Sampras without his injury. He also played a style of play that was fun to watch and brought alot of interest to the game with his charisma, which needless to say isnt true of YK.

Most dont care about doubles, and it very little to no factor in the voting and assessment of the careers I bet. I really dont think Novotna even got in due to doubles, but due to her epic struggle for a Wimbledon title and the fame that brought her. Even so Novotna was a more legendary doubles player than Kafelnikov.
Click to expand...

Well they are no doubt lowering their standards for HOF inductions obviously. Again.. He got to #1 in the world for a short period of time.. Thats more then 90 plus percent of the tour can ever say.. He's got 2 slams, again.. more then most of the tour can ever say.. 23 mil in prize money which is a lot even though he didn't have a ton of success on big events.

Should he be in the Hall? No probably not if they had greater standards set.. But looking at their standards I don't see why not. Getting to number 1 isn't easy regardless of the era, you have to be good to get there..

Standards aren't the highest if you can put a Chang or Rafter in. Who had reasonable success but not HUGE success.. They will probably put Goran in and Roddick.. Only 2 slams between them despite being on tour and near the top for many years..
 
Last edited:
Yevgeny Kafelnikov should have been in the hall of fame years ago. He's won multiple majors in singles and doubles, an Olympic champion, a Davis Cup winner and a former world number 1. And he was certainly better than Chang and Rafter overall. Muster's loss to Stich at the 1996 French Open is a painful memory for me, but Kafelnikov took his chance brilliantly, dropping only 1 set in winning the tournament.
 
Mustard said:
Yevgeny Kafelnikov should have been in the hall of fame years ago. He's won multiple majors in singles and doubles, an Olympic champion, a Davis Cup winner and a former world number 1. And he was certainly better than Chang and Rafter overall. Muster's loss to Stich at the 1996 French Open is a painful memory for me, but Kafelnikov took his chance brilliantly, dropping only 1 set in winning the tournament.
Click to expand...

Why better than Rafter? Rafter also has 2 Slams and made 1 more Slam final. Plus he has 2 Masters titles whereas Kafelnikov has none.

Chang has 1 less Slam but he too made more finals and he also has 7 Masters titles to Kafelnikov's none. So hardly a wide gap.

That said, I think Kafelnikov should be inducted. Why not? He's a multiple Slam winner, a former world #1 and was Russia's top player for many years. He was good. I remember him. :)
 
Mainad said:
Why better than Rafter? Rafter also has 2 Slams and made 1 more Slam final. Plus he has 2 Masters titles whereas Kafelnikov has none.

Chang has 1 less Slam but he too made more finals and he also has 7 Masters titles to Kafelnikov's none. So hardly a wide gap.

That said, I think Kafelnikov should be inducted. Why not? He's a multiple Slam winner, a former world #1 and was Russia's top player for many years. He was good. I remember him. :)
Click to expand...

I might have exaggerated a bit, but Kafelnikov always seemed to be in the mix from 1994-2001. He lost to the eventual champions a lot in the majors, and was able to win 2 himself. Rafter crammed a lot of his successes into the summer of 1998, and Chang's prime was a handful of years in the mid-1990s. Kafelnikov just seemed a more relentless presence to me. And if we're talking doubles as well, like the hall of fame criteria should do, then Kafelnikov rises even more.

By the way, Rafter won 2 majors and reached 2 more major finals :razz:;)
 
Kafelnikov is not better than Rafter in anything but doubles, and it is proposterous to even suggest so, let alone much better. Yes Rafter had a shorter time on top but he achieved more in that short span than Kafelnikov had in all his time on top. Same # of slams, more slam finals, defense of a slam title, defense of a slam final at another slam, wins over Agassi in back to back Wimbledon semis, win over prime Sampras at the U.S Open, Masters titles which Kafelnikov has none of, semis of all the slams. Kafelnikov has nothing on Rafter in singles except a bunch of tier 4 titles.

As for Chang, Chang was a real threat from 1989-1997, that is even longer than Kafelnikov was. Kafelnikov could be argued as better than Chang based on the 2nd slam I suppose, but it is almost the equivalent of Del Potro vs Murray today. Chang has his beat so badly in every other stat, 7 Masters titles to 0, better overall performances at the slams, many more titles (even with all the weak fields Kafelnikov went out of his way to enter), more time consistently with a higher ranking.
 
90's Clay said:
Well they are no doubt lowering their standards for HOF inductions obviously. Again.. He got to #1 in the world for a short period of time.. Thats more then 90 plus percent of the tour can ever say.. He's got 2 slams, again.. more then most of the tour can ever say.. 23 mil in prize money which is a lot even though he didn't have a ton of success on big events.

Should he be in the Hall? No probably not if they had greater standards set.. But looking at their standards I don't see why not. Getting to number 1 isn't easy regardless of the era, you have to be good to get there..

Standards aren't the highest if you can put a Chang or Rafter in. Who had reasonable success but not HUGE success.. They will probably put Goran in and Roddick.. Only 2 slams between them despite being on tour and near the top for many years..
Click to expand...


Entirely true. The HOF has become a joke in many respects and none of Rafter, Kafelnikov, Chang, Ivanisevic, Roddick, Krajicek, belong anywhere near it, although of those guys Kafelnikov and Krajicek are the weakest so I understand why of all the unworthy group the others are deemed the slightly more worthy by the ones deciding.

However I concur that Ivanisevic and Roddick will get in at some point. I predict Conchita Martinez to be inducted (hehe) too. Although they could get in as well I think Kafelnikov and Krajicek will just miss out. Then again I wouldnt be surprised if they lower the standards even more and raise the # of entries per year the way things are going. It is amazing fans of Elena Dementieva and Anastasis Myskina seem to think they have a chance of getting in, is that how long things are about to sink?

As someone said they are quite poor though so they bend over backwards to get more people in. So if you havent been able to get in even with how desperate they are for new members, as is the case with Kafelnikov for awhile now, you really just dont deserve it.
 
Because Kafelnikov was boring.

However, for a rec player, I think his 2 handed backhand is a great model (one of the best shots in the game - and simple).
 
I think there should be a 3-4 slam standard MINIMUM. If they only got 1-2 slams will with many years near the top, they better have BUTTLOAD of Masters titles. Many will say "Well so and so had this extended 10 year run near the top, that should count for something." I guess it does, but it also says that person had all these years near the top and they only managed the top prize ONCE OR TWICE? If you are a true HOF'er you darn well better have more then only 1-2 slams if you have all those years in the top 5-10. (Pre open era, the pro slams what have you)

I mean whats next? Are we going to put a Gaudio or Johannson in next??

The standard set definitely needs to be looked at.. You shouldn't be able to put just any old tom dick and harry in there just because they managed a slam or two. Every HOF'er IMO should have some form of dominance at both Masters events AND Slams IMO.

Guys who already in (Chang and Rafter), and other guys who all probably go in (if they haven't already), Safin (with his underachieving) Goran, Roddick what have you.. have NO BUSINESS being in a true tennis HOF IMO. That should be reserved for guys who had more marginal success in their careers and had some form of dominance at the top or at a slam or two,None of these guys had any periods of dominance or huge HOF-like runs
 
Last edited:
Mustard said:
Yevgeny Kafelnikov should have been in the hall of fame years ago. He's won multiple majors in singles and doubles, an Olympic champion, a Davis Cup winner and a former world number 1. And he was certainly better than Chang and Rafter overall. Muster's loss to Stich at the 1996 French Open is a painful memory for me, but Kafelnikov took his chance brilliantly, dropping only 1 set in winning the tournament.
Click to expand...

He's not better than Chang. Chang has 7 Master series titles and way more deep runs in slams but ran into Sampras a few times at the US Open and lost to prime Muster at the French.
 
dominikk1985 said:
Wasn't he also supposed to be involved in betting (maybe even against himself)?
Click to expand...

I don't know about him betting, but if you're gonna bet on your own match, it's obvious that you're going to bet against yourself.. Betting on yourself to win probably isn't even illegal (and if it is, it shoudn't be). When you're betting on yourself to win you're still doing your best but if you're betting against yourself you can just place a million dollars on your opponent and lose on purpose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

federerfanatic
  • Poll Poll
Weakest mens player to win 2 slam titles in last 30 years?
2
Replies
91
Views
8K
grandefrankie
G
M
Men who defeated 4 or more past/future finalists of a Grand Slam during one Grand Slam
Replies
23
Views
940
Sudacafan
Sudacafan
federerfanatic
Current field of top players, other then Federer, weak? You might be surprised.
Replies
18
Views
2K
federerfanatic
federerfanatic
W
  • Poll Poll
Martina vs Justine: Who will WIN?
Replies
17
Views
2K
♥n a t a l i a
♥
tennisaddict
Kafelnikov ignores first Rule of Hall of Fame and lets the cat out of the bag !
Replies
16
Views
2K
Gonzalito17
Gonzalito17
Back
Top