t135
Professional
I always loved watching him play. Loved the strokes.
Why Isn't Kafelnikov Being Inducted Into Tennis Hall of Fame?
- Thread starter McEnroeisanartist
- Start date
I always loved watching him play. Loved the strokes.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Kafelnikov was always in the mix for years. Like I said before, Kafelnikov lost to the eventual champions of majors quite a lot, and managed to win 2 of them himself. Based on achievement, Kafelnikov should have been a bigger certainty for the hall of fame than Rafter, and this especially becomes the case when doubles is added in.
Kafelnikov has 2 majors at different venues, Olympic singles gold, more weeks at number 1 and more career titles. And more importantly, had greater consistency over many years.
Why compare it to Murray and del Potro? Murray has a very good record against del Potro in their head-to-head while Kafelnikov beat Chang every time they played against each other.
Their overall record of deep runs in majors is about the same, while Chang's career was about 6 years longer than Kafelnikov's. Kafelnikov also lost to prime Muster at the French Open, the same year when Muster beat Chang. Kafelnikov was beaten 3 times by Kuerten in all 3 of the years when Kuerten won the French Open, although Kuerten did beat Chang during the 2000 French Open as well. And then there's the times when Sampras, Agassi and Becker would beat Kafelnikov on their way to winning majors.
And yes, Chang has 7 masters series titles compared to 0 for Kafelnikov, but Kafelnikov has 6 weeks as world number 1 and has Olympic singles gold.
Last edited:
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
1. By that logic Chang looks even better by comparision sine he lost the eventual winner of the U.S Open ever year from 1991-1997.
2. That just show one of the biggest stigmas against Kafelnikov, he could never beat the top guys in slams. What is his biggest win in a slam. Sampras or Stich on CLAY, Todd Martin on hard courts? Seriously for a 2 slam winner that is a huge LOL. Even Chang with only 1 slam has produced many far bigger wins. Lendl at the French, Agassi twice in hard court slam semis, Bruguera at the French.
Doubles is irrelevant to most voters unless you do really outstanding, a double digit slam doubles winner atleast, and based on anything that matters Rafter's singles career > Kafelnikovs. Same # of slams, defended a slam title, back to back Wimbledon finals as well, semis of all the slams, multiple Masters titles vs 0 for Kafelnikov (and neither won the TMC), many more big wins in majors, better records vs the top players. All Kafelnikov has is more small tournament wins, and being an all time joke #1 for something like 15 weeks vs being a #1 for one week hardly anyone knew got there, both are irrelevant in the #1 category stat. If you asked the top guys of that time like Sampras, Agassi, Kuerten, Safin, who they thought was a better player between Kafelnikov and Rafter, I would bet a large chunk of money Rafter would win in a landslide. Read Sampras's book to get a sense how much the big dogs of that time respected Kafelnikov.
LOL believe me head to heads is the LAST thing you want to bring up to defend Kafelnikov. Yes he head a good record vs Chang, but on the whole he has some of the most pathetic head to heads imaginable for a top player, especialy a 2 slam winner. Dont even go there.
If you think a mere 6 weeks at number 1, not a year end #1 or anything like that, especialy the way Kafelnikov got there, is of alot of value, then you are truly delusional. The fact many considered Rafter the real player of the year in 1998 and that he probably would have ended the year #1 without his fall injury is already more value than Kafelnikov's 6 weeks as a laughable computer #1 if you want to go there. Olympic Gold back in 2000 was about the value of a 500 tournament at best. Even today far more respected than it was then it gets less ranking points from the ATP or WTA than a regular Masters or tier 1.
Anyway think what you want. I am only pointing out what the voters probably think, and they concur with my views on their careers most likely as who is in and who is out thus far demonstrates.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Not in 1995. Courier beat Chang that year.
Uh? He beat Krajicek, Sampras and Stich in succession to win the 1996 French Open.
You do realise that the conditions at the 1996 French Open were hotter and faster than other French Opens, yes? 3 of the 4 semi finalists were serve and volleyers. Kafelnikov was the only predominant baseliner amongst those semi finalists.
And Tommy Haas and Thomas Enqvist. Admittedly not as impressive as the 1996 French Open run, but Sampras pulled out of the tournament, Rios was forced to pull out through injury and missed a golden opportunity to win a major, Corretja lost to Ruud, Rafter lost to Enqvist and Moya lost to Kiefer.
Kafelnikov took his chance.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
Sorry but nobody is going to think beating a majorly gassed out Sampras or Stich on clay is that impressive. It is like if you had beaten Ferrero and Ferrer to win Wimbledon. Are you actually denying Rafter by FAR had the bigger wins in the slams, or even Chang for that matter. Also dont be going telling me things like that dont matter when you pulled up the Chang vs Kafelnikov H2H which is going into that same type of territory.
Yes Kafelnikov took his chances and earned his majors. Nobody is denying that. It doesnt make him a better player than someone who won 2 majors and reached 4 major finals with bigger wins and by defending those results at the 2 biggest tournaments, who also won Masters titles which Kafelnikov was not able to ever do, and who was a more emphatic force at the top of the mens game at his brief peak by a long ways; or a guy who won only 1 major but 7 majors to 0 for Kafelnikov, and won many more tournaments despite not going out of his way to enter the mickey mouse ones Kafelnikov did. I dont think that makes him better, most in this thread dont, the peers of this trio on tour at the time clearly did not if you review their comments over the years, and obviously the HOF do not.
Anyway I am sick of this discussion. As 90's clay pointed out it is moot anyway since none of Kafelnikov, Rafter, Roddick, Chang, Ivanisevic, Krajicek belong anywhere near the HOF. Courier standard should be the minimum but we all know the HOF is desperate so let in many non legends to the so called legends club. They feel Rafter and Chang stand higher among the minnows than Kafelnikov, you dont agree, oh well suck it up, nobody really cares.
PS- Marc Rosset is not a serve and volleyer.
Yes Kafelnikov took his chances and earned his majors. Nobody is denying that. It doesnt make him a better player than someone who won 2 majors and reached 4 major finals with bigger wins and by defending those results at the 2 biggest tournaments, who also won Masters titles which Kafelnikov was not able to ever do, and who was a more emphatic force at the top of the mens game at his brief peak by a long ways; or a guy who won only 1 major but 7 majors to 0 for Kafelnikov, and won many more tournaments despite not going out of his way to enter the mickey mouse ones Kafelnikov did. I dont think that makes him better, most in this thread dont, the peers of this trio on tour at the time clearly did not if you review their comments over the years, and obviously the HOF do not.
Anyway I am sick of this discussion. As 90's clay pointed out it is moot anyway since none of Kafelnikov, Rafter, Roddick, Chang, Ivanisevic, Krajicek belong anywhere near the HOF. Courier standard should be the minimum but we all know the HOF is desperate so let in many non legends to the so called legends club. They feel Rafter and Chang stand higher among the minnows than Kafelnikov, you dont agree, oh well suck it up, nobody really cares.
PS- Marc Rosset is not a serve and volleyer.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mustard
Bionic Poster
So what was he then with that big serve and a load of aces? Oh, and I'm not saying he can't play from the back. He won Olympic gold on clay after all. Even players like Sampras and Becker would regularly stay back on hardcourts.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
Serving huge and coming to net behind your serve 20% of the time does not = serve and volleyer. It = huge server. If how big your serve was is what determined if you were a serve and volleyer or not Edberg wouldnt be one.
Everyone Rosset beat at that French he bullied around from the baseline except for Karbacher some of their match. He didnt just serve his way to the semis, and certainly didnt serve and volley his way there.
Everyone Rosset beat at that French he bullied around from the baseline except for Karbacher some of their match. He didnt just serve his way to the semis, and certainly didnt serve and volley his way there.
egn
Hall of Fame
Chang is in. Kafelnikov should be in. Personally I'd say neither deserve it, I don't even think Guga deserves it. Was a great clay courter, wouldn't call him top 5 though. Rosewall, Borg, Nadal, Lendl and Wilander all ahead of him and frankly Guga had no real top notch competition on the surface when he played. Rosewall had Laver and crew, Borg had Vilas, Connors, Panetta, Lendl and crew. Wilander and Lendl probably had the best clay court rivalry with a super dangerous field in Clerc, Noah, Mecir, McEnroe, Connors etc. Nadal had Fed and Djokovic. I'm not sure who Kuerten had in his prime I'd call top notch on the surface besides himself. Norman might have developed into something but was riddled with injuries. Frankly not to be mean but my cut off for the hall of fame is Boris Becker. (You could maybe sell me on Courier) You need to be really "great" to get in. Guga had a short lived time at the top, only really could be a threat on one surface. He was a great player, but I wouldn't say Hall of Fame worthy. Then again, the more they induct, the more attention they get so whatevs. However yes based on HOF standards and the fact that Chang is in there Kafelnikov not being in there is ridiculous.
ClairHarmony
Rookie
Life is too short to be concerned with those snooty so far up their azes to see the greater point in life was only in those sharing the hue...z-z-z-. I love how fellow of hallow lifters...like Superman, Joni muy Caliente Tada!, and Randy Snow, and egalitarian Capriati, and sun syrupy Guga...got to stop crying over there Guga, don't worry, Bruguera's still there for you, got to stop being so exclusive, now. Sheesh, the audacity it must take all of us wanna be those grinches still hanging by gateside, not even gate keepers, mind you, but gate slammers accomplishing nothing worth upholding. Is it that important to you, that'd you'd rather not want to share the view with those who want to cry *with* you, too? You know even Michael Jordan with no one to guard him would have been a bobblehead without hair, and where's the point in that? A museum with nothing but Sampras, Nadal, and Benji...would be nothing more than a glaring museum, with a tremendous amount of air...but not much else, to do there. I really don't know what they're trying to accomplish, this so-called "Tennis Hall of Shame" Induction committee...let's see, Sampras = 99.99% better than like everyone, but God...maybe, on clay. Wilander's/Agassi's/Becker's, and Beatlejuic McEnroe, vs. our sub-poultry ability; man, that's like 99.89% unfair, probably. Guga/Courier's are about, *bare minimum,* 99.812313-ish%-ish, sooo awesomer than we mortals can ever dream of! Leconte's? A fairy beautiful rainbow sometimes, but he still sucks. He is so that kid you knew who sometimes got an A+ for charming, but then would fall back down to a B+ next time. But the point is, he *sucks.* He doesn't even belong in the same neighborhood courts as you...gee, I wish I wonder what it'd be like to know and wander...but nope, I knocked on every local court for a lifetime, and found NO ONE, *not even close.* *That's how good,* even a schmuck like Leconte was, boo-hoo-hoo! I'm sooo glad, that he doesn't belong in the tennis hall of trying to appear snootier than ever today...because, really, no one, not even in tennis really cares all that much...*unless* they got invited. Because that's how you make people change, include them, and everyone's mood begins to lift from utter despair. In a sheety bang-bang Spanish economy, I'm sure people are still crying over Bruguera not getting in, not fair. Remember, even Dale Murphy made some crummy, Braves' fans in Atlanta, proud...I feel sorry for individuals living in a world without perspective. If you're not in a team sport, greater than 99.978% of the time (the fringe Hall of Famers approximate level), the rest of eternity will think you sucked, no offense, but you really did. All the heros play team sports, only difference is in team sports, *regional* stars are somehow deemed worthy enough.
Just how big is the difference you say? Well, at one point in time, two years in a row; Sergi Bruguera stomped out the world's best as if they were ants. There he stood, quite a dude. And there was NO DOUBT, that he was Jordan for 2 days in his life...wheras...can we *ever* say the same for Dale Murphy? Was he ever REALLY the best that baseball had to offer God on that day? The pinnacle of human worthiness? I really don't see why people think it's so important, to slam the gate on another human being today. To me, once you've been through the dumps; you want to *let more people in.* *It's not even a question.* Or else, what else could, would possibly make living worth living in a roundabout way, again? When I think about gate keepers today? I think of smashing down gates, with these fingernails worn down through the years like an intricate jigsaw puzzle that ended in nothing. Distress don't mean nothing to me now, I would like it very much if Kafelnikov could make it in, to say shove it, if you think you're too good for me, then why are any of us even here? You know, you would have tuned in anyway, and if you were near, perhaps bought a ticket, just to throw kernels and kernels of hot, buttered corn into my eyes...aoohh!!! They fling!!! The sting!!! Ah, great, now you've really done it...made another special moment in live TV history, someone cried again, genuine, heartfelt emotion makes life all the more worthwhile. I wish I could say a little more of that, and Mindy, a little less of, this trophy is all for me, and me, and me...oh, oh, it was all really worth it, I love it when this trophy must have been made just for me. It's soooo very important to keep the unworthy's out of the hallowed empty grounds of Newport, Rich Island folks. BJ Penn's rich, but at least he didn't grow up believing he was surround by snot. The Penn household, was an *open door,* no stones ever needed. I love it more when there's more than enough cookies to go around for everyone.
Just how big is the difference you say? Well, at one point in time, two years in a row; Sergi Bruguera stomped out the world's best as if they were ants. There he stood, quite a dude. And there was NO DOUBT, that he was Jordan for 2 days in his life...wheras...can we *ever* say the same for Dale Murphy? Was he ever REALLY the best that baseball had to offer God on that day? The pinnacle of human worthiness? I really don't see why people think it's so important, to slam the gate on another human being today. To me, once you've been through the dumps; you want to *let more people in.* *It's not even a question.* Or else, what else could, would possibly make living worth living in a roundabout way, again? When I think about gate keepers today? I think of smashing down gates, with these fingernails worn down through the years like an intricate jigsaw puzzle that ended in nothing. Distress don't mean nothing to me now, I would like it very much if Kafelnikov could make it in, to say shove it, if you think you're too good for me, then why are any of us even here? You know, you would have tuned in anyway, and if you were near, perhaps bought a ticket, just to throw kernels and kernels of hot, buttered corn into my eyes...aoohh!!! They fling!!! The sting!!! Ah, great, now you've really done it...made another special moment in live TV history, someone cried again, genuine, heartfelt emotion makes life all the more worthwhile. I wish I could say a little more of that, and Mindy, a little less of, this trophy is all for me, and me, and me...oh, oh, it was all really worth it, I love it when this trophy must have been made just for me. It's soooo very important to keep the unworthy's out of the hallowed empty grounds of Newport, Rich Island folks. BJ Penn's rich, but at least he didn't grow up believing he was surround by snot. The Penn household, was an *open door,* no stones ever needed. I love it more when there's more than enough cookies to go around for everyone.
Cormorant
Professional
I'm disappointed you didn't see fit to mention Safin at least once here.
Rosset was the prototype of the modern player. He was DelPotro before there was a DelPotro.
egn
Hall of Fame
Ferrero was at his best from 01-03. His 2000 semifinal was his coming out, but he wasn't really a rival to Guga. Kafelnikov left his best clay days in the 90s, after his 1996 final he made zero clay court finals, let alone won a title. I wouldn't call him a rival to Guga. I mean you could make a case for Corretja being his consistent rival, but Guga frankly was relatively unchallenged. Norman was his best bet and injury ruined that. Guga's competition on clay is definitely the weakest out of the three time or more French Open winners, add that with his short time at the top of the game and being very limited to one surface I just have my doubts on hall of fame status. But then again to each his own, I hold higher standards for the hall, but if Guga is in Kafelnikov deserves it.
bluetrain4
G.O.A.T.
I think Kafelnikov will be inducted. You can argue that he should have got in before Kuerten, but they'll both be in regardless.
winstonplum
Hall of Fame
The Smiths aren't in the Rock n' Roll HOF, making a mockery of HOFs the world over.
vive le beau jeu !
Talk Tennis Guru
lack of big matches for kafelnikov
i think a weak point for kafelnikov is his lack of big matches against the greats of his time. if you compare him with safin or rafter (winners of 2 slams too), for instance, it is clear that they won more big/memorable matches (in big occasions, like their 5 sets slam wins against agassi/federer for safin and agassi/sampras for rafter, for example). on the contrary, kafelnikov has been frequently severely beaten by such players.
i'd also tend to think that his game was a lot less exciting for the audience than safin or rafter (who also seemed to have this "extra gear" at times), but that's a personnal opinion...
that being said, kafel will/should probably be inducted in the tennis hall of fame, considering who's already there.
i think a weak point for kafelnikov is his lack of big matches against the greats of his time. if you compare him with safin or rafter (winners of 2 slams too), for instance, it is clear that they won more big/memorable matches (in big occasions, like their 5 sets slam wins against agassi/federer for safin and agassi/sampras for rafter, for example). on the contrary, kafelnikov has been frequently severely beaten by such players.
i'd also tend to think that his game was a lot less exciting for the audience than safin or rafter (who also seemed to have this "extra gear" at times), but that's a personnal opinion...
that being said, kafel will/should probably be inducted in the tennis hall of fame, considering who's already there.
Similar threads
- Poll
