Will Roddick Make it to the Hall of Fame?

L

lordmanji

Guest
chang also won a davis cup. and correct me if im wrong, but he's the first asian grand slam winner which puts his win on par with arthur ashe's first slam win.

here's a description of chang's achievements off the tennis hall of fame website:

Michael Chang burst onto the tennis scene by winning the 1989 singles title at Roland Garros, a title that hadn’t been claimed by an American male in 34 years, since Tony Trabert in 1955. His two week run was highlighted by defeating the No. 1 seed Ivan Lendl in five sets (4th round), a come-from-behind victory that lasted well over four hours; he went on to defeat Stefan Edberg in the final, the No. 3 seed, in another five set championship battle. Turning pro in 1988, he won the grand slam title on red clay at a mere 17 years, 3 months; he still holds the record as the youngest male singles champion to win in France. In a career spanning 16 years, Chang reached a career high world ranking of No. 2 and was ranked in the World Top 10 for seven years. He captured 34 singles titles while also reaching 24 tournament finals. He was a finalist at the 1996 Australian Open and a semifinalist in 1995 and 1997; in addition to his Roland Garros win in 1989, he also reached the French final in 1995 and the quarterfinals in 1990-91; his best result at Wimbledon was the quarterfinal in 1994; and at the US Open, he reached the final in 1996, the semifinals in 1992 and 1997, and the quarterfinals in 1993 and 1995. He served the United States in Davis Cup competition (1989-90, 1996-97), winning the Cup in 1990, and posting an overall 8-4 singles record. Known for his quick footwork, tireless two-handed backhand and abundant energy, Chang was a determined, unwavering and courageous competitor.
 

heftylefty

Hall of Fame
chang also won a davis cup. and correct me if im wrong, but he's the first asian grand slam winner which puts his win on par with arthur ashe's first slam win.

Ashe won more than 3 single grand slams and runner up 4 times won & was ranked #1 twice in his career.

And I do appreciate the fact that Chang was the first asian grand slam winner; I think the social climate was a lot different in the 50's and 60's than the 90's.
 

sureshs

Bionic Poster
When Roddick becomes eligible (5 years after retirement), if his serve record of 155 mph still stands, he should be elected for that reason alone.
 

Azzurri

Legend
While I agree the HOF is a bit of a joke, they have to let guys like Roddick and Chang in.

As for some of you that claim Roddick's career has outperformed Chang's, think again. Within Chang's first 9 years, he won 33 titles to Roddick's 24. They both have ONE slam. Chang was in the top ten for 8/10 years during his prime. I laugh at people on this board when they try to downgrade Chang's accomplishment's. The guy had a lot more heart than Roddick and he was as much, maybe more consistent. By the way, Chang also played during an era with a lot of tennis icons (Edberg, Sampras, Agassi, Becker, Lendl, McEnroe..the list goes on).
 
D

Deleted member 3771

Guest
i thought the HOF was for winners.

If Roddick gets in that will set a new low standard then they will have to put every 1 slam wonder in there.
 

anointedone

Banned
If the Hall of Fame where what it really should be these are the only players who played tennis within the last 25 years who would be in it:

Men:

Pete Sampras
Andre Agassi
Stefan Edberg
Rafael Nadal
Roger Federer
Jim Courier
Boris Becker
Ivan Lendl
John McEnroe
Jimmy Connors
Mats Wilander

Women:

Steffi Graf
Serena Williams
Venus Williams
Martina Navratilova
Chris Evert
Monica Seles
Justine Henin
Lindsay Davenport (borderline)
Hana Mandlikova (borderline)
Aranxta Sanchez Vicario (borderline)

PS- I did not mention Borg since I was mentioning players I would put in among those who played in the last 25 years of course, remember he retired early 1982. Of course I would have him in too.

To have players like Chang, Hewitt, Roddick, Sabatini, Novotna, Noah, Capriati, Mauresmo, probably all making the HOF is an embarassment to all it should stand for.
 
T

TennisandMusic

Guest
If the Hall of Fame where what it really should be these are the only players who played tennis within the last 25 years who would be in it:

Men:

Pete Sampras
Andre Agassi
Stefan Edberg
Rafael Nadal
Roger Federer
Jim Courier
Boris Becker
Ivan Lendl
John McEnroe
Jimmy Connors
Mats Wilander

Women:

Steffi Graf
Serena Williams
Venus Williams
Martina Navratilova
Chris Evert
Monica Seles
Justine Henin
Lindsay Davenport (borderline)
Hana Mandlikova (borderline)
Aranxta Sanchez Vicario (borderline)

PS- I did not mention Borg since I was mentioning players I would put in among those who played in the last 25 years of course, remember he retired early 1982. Of course I would have him in too.

To have players like Chang, Hewitt, Roddick, Sabatini, Novotna, Noah, Capriati, Mauresmo, probably all making the HOF is an embarassment to all it should stand for.

I like your list...but curious...no Hingis? I was never a fan but she won a decent amount of slams and held number 1 for awhile. Or do you think her positive drug test should preclude her from admittance?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

Deleted member 3771

Guest
You forgot Hingis, She has more singles and more doubles slams than some of your borderlines.

If the Hall of Fame where what it really should be these are the only players who played tennis within the last 25 years who would be in it:

Men:

Pete Sampras
Andre Agassi
Stefan Edberg
Rafael Nadal
Roger Federer
Jim Courier
Boris Becker
Ivan Lendl
John McEnroe
Jimmy Connors
Mats Wilander

Women:

Steffi Graf
Serena Williams
Venus Williams
Martina Navratilova
Chris Evert
Monica Seles
Justine Henin
Lindsay Davenport (borderline)
Hana Mandlikova (borderline)
Aranxta Sanchez Vicario (borderline)

PS- I did not mention Borg since I was mentioning players I would put in among those who played in the last 25 years of course, remember he retired early 1982. Of course I would have him in too.

To have players like Chang, Hewitt, Roddick, Sabatini, Novotna, Noah, Capriati, Mauresmo, probably all making the HOF is an embarassment to all it should stand for.
 
T

TennisandMusic

Guest
i thought the HOF was for winners.

If Roddick gets in that will set a new low standard then they will have to put every 1 slam wonder in there.

Here is the thing...Roddick is surely "not that good" compared to the best players around. But if Roddick is a "loser" what does that make you and me?
 

matchmaker

Hall of Fame
Well IMO Roddick should not be in it but as mentioned their standards are very low and inconsistent so he probably will.
 
D

Deleted member 3771

Guest
makes us 0 slam wonders. 1 slam away from the HOF. :)

Here is the thing...Roddick is surely "not that good" compared to the best players around. But if Roddick is a "loser" what does that make you and me?
 

Azzurri

Legend
Really that is odd. He certainly marked the game. In fact he was the first topspinner a la Nadal as we would say now but we had better say a la Bruguera.

A two-time winner of any individual sport (major, slam, etc.) should be in the HOF. I am also surpised Brugerea is not in the HOF. Just thought of something...was he a complete waste on every other surface? I think you need to have had some sort of success in at least 2-3 surfaces.
 

anointedone

Banned
I am also surpised Brugerea is not in the HOF. Just thought of something...was he a complete waste on every other surface? I think you need to have had some sort of success in at least 2-3 surfaces.

He was pretty much a complete waste on other surfaces. He never even made it past the 4th round of another slam. He did have a few nice moments, such as a huge win over Sampras in the semis of the then Lipton, before losing to Muster in the final. However for the most part a complete waste.
 

anointedone

Banned
I am also surpised Brugerea is not in the HOF. Just thought of something...was he a complete waste on every other surface? I think you need to have had some sort of success in at least 2-3 surfaces.

He was pretty much a complete waste on other surfaces. He never even made it past the 4th round of another slam. He did have a few nice moments, such as a huge win over Sampras in the semis of the then Lipton, before losing to Muster in the final. However for the most part a complete waste outside of clay for top players standards.
 

bluetrain4

G.O.A.T.
i thought the HOF was for winners.

If Roddick gets in that will set a new low standard then they will have to put every 1 slam wonder in there.


Tell that to Iva Majoli, Petr Korda, Gaston Gaudio, Albert Costa and countless other 1-Slam wonders. A lot of them will not get in.

If you based HOF membership on Slams, then this makes absolutely no sense.

But, I think it's clear that the HOF takes into account Slam runner-ups (and general Slam performance), other big tourney wins, No. 1 ranking, Davis Cup, etc.

So, you can differentiate between 1-Slam champions, though no one will agree at what point or over what factors to differentiate the players.

I'm actually all for a more inclusive HOF. The true tennis fanatics know what set of players truly are the sports "legends", but many others made the game worth watching. But, again, the the problem is that choosing those players is highly subjective and ripe for criticism.

Sabatini had a "star" quality and obvious sex appeal in addition to her tennis accomplishments. Conchita Martinez's accomplishments on court are VERY similar to Sabatini's:

Sabatini:

1 Slam
2 Slam Runner ups
15 SFs
27 overall titles (including 6 Tier I and 2 WTA championships)
1 Olympic silver medal in singles
No. 3 highest ranking
Doubles slam

Martinez:
1 Slam
2 Slam Runner Ups
9 SFs
33 overall titles (on all surfaces) (including 9 Tier I, but no WTA championships)
3 Olympic medals - 2 silvers in doubles, 1 bronze in doubles
No. 2 highest ranking
Multiple Fed Cup wins

A good example of how subjective it can become. A lot of people would say keep Sabatini out. I'd vote Martinez in. Minor differences in their resumes, but Sabatini was a media phenomenon while Martinez wasn't. Is that fair?
 

In D Zone

Hall of Fame
No doubt Roddick will be in the HOF!

I think its not only the number of Slams or titles you win (well, although that's one of the major factor) that qualifies you to be in the list, I would think they also took into consideration the positive impact and any contribution the player may have on tennis as a whole.

Roddick definitely fits the qualification - after all he is known for his serve! Roddick is also one of the well known sports figure in the world; very active in the tennis community and involved in US Davis Cup.
 
I believe he will and should whether he does anything else of note in his pro tennis career. Others have made it who did far less overall...plus he's really been in the forefront for some years. Never can doubt the heart, just sometimes the ability.
 

Atherton2003

Hall of Fame
suppose Roddick continues his current course of being a main stay in the top ten, winning smaller tournaments and even masters tournaments, getting to a couple more grand slam finals, will Roddick make it to the Hall of Fame? he's won one slam and been to two finals at wimbledon and one at the us open, davis cup, been no. 1 briefly, and has been a mainstay in the top 10 if not the top 5 the past few years. but no second slam.

Perhaps he can make it to the Hall of Shame.
 

superman1

Legend
Hall of Fame isn't exactly super prestigious like the list anointedone put there. Roddick will definitely make it. People have short memories and short foresight. Roddick has been a hell of a player consistently for the past half decade, and he still has years to go. He'll never be dominant, he'll never be consistently top 3, but he'll always be around and he'll still win tournaments. Don't forget he's also one of the best American Davis Cup players ever.
 

chicubs

Rookie
There is a difference between superstars and hall of famers. Roddick is a superstar but he is no hall of famer.


I absolutely laugh at the notion that the fact that he is the sports biggest celebrity should get him in. Positive impact sure i guess but i guess you throw in kournikova too right?
 

In D Zone

Hall of Fame
There is a difference between superstars and hall of famers. Roddick is a superstar but he is no hall of famer.


I absolutely laugh at the notion that the fact that he is the sports biggest celebrity should get him in. Positive impact sure i guess but i guess you throw in kournikova too right?


Kournikova? Why not?
She may not be inducted immediately to HOF but I strongly believe she will eventually (another 10 years from now).

Anna has won 2 doubles slams (with Hingis) and was one time ranked #8. Aside from her pro career - Anna is responsible for bring 'sexy back' to Tennis and has been the main trailblazer for surge of Russian players. Anna continues to be the face and the ambassador for tennis even to this day.

So why not Anna and why not Roddick?

There are always more qualities and deeds that many of us average joe don't see; to the organizers of tennis they take noticed.
 
Last edited:
L

lordmanji

Guest
Kournikova? Why not?
She may not be inducted immediately to HOF but I strongly believe she will eventually (another 10 years from now).

Anna has won 2 doubles slams (with Hingis) and was one time ranked #8. Aside from her pro career - Anna is responsible for bring 'sexy back' to Tennis and has been the main trailblazer for surge of Russian players. Anna continues to be the face and the ambassador for tennis even to this day.

So why not Anna and why not Roddick?

There are always more qualities and deeds that many of us average joe don't see; to the organizers of tennis they take noticed.

the doubles slams you mention are the strongest argument for her inclusion but her bringing sexy back actually holds her back. tennis at its foundation i.e. the hall of game is still a very conservative institution and letting her in based on that is something theyd never admit to.

imagine the scandal that such a traditional sport like tennis which paradoxically features the most equal counterpart in the WTA allows anna into the HOF thereby implicitly admitting that sex sells and that they're rewarding the objectification of women in order to become more popular in the world. its at odds with what women's tennis currently stands for and even if its true theyd never admit it because it will set back their cause.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
If the Hall of Fame where what it really should be these are the only players who played tennis within the last 25 years who would be in it:

Men:

Pete Sampras
Andre Agassi
Stefan Edberg
Rafael Nadal
Roger Federer
Jim Courier
Boris Becker
Ivan Lendl
John McEnroe
Jimmy Connors
Mats Wilander

Women:

Steffi Graf
Serena Williams
Venus Williams
Martina Navratilova
Chris Evert
Monica Seles
Justine Henin
Lindsay Davenport (borderline)
Hana Mandlikova (borderline)
Aranxta Sanchez Vicario (borderline)

All logical choices, but IMO, your borderline choices should not be in the HOF--the fact that they are borderline removes any notion of solid HOF credentials.

To have players like Chang, Hewitt, Roddick, Sabatini, Novotna, Noah, Capriati, Mauresmo, probably all making the HOF is an embarassment to all it should stand for.

..and along with Clijsters, I agree.
 

In D Zone

Hall of Fame
the doubles slams you mention are the strongest argument for her inclusion but her bringing sexy back actually holds her back. tennis at its foundation i.e. the hall of game is still a very conservative institution and letting her in based on that is something theyd never admit to.

imagine the scandal that such a traditional sport like tennis which paradoxically features the most equal counterpart in the WTA allows anna into the HOF thereby implicitly admitting that sex sells and that they're rewarding the objectification of women in order to become more popular in the world. its at odds with what women's tennis currently stands for and even if its true theyd never admit it because it will set back their cause.

Changing times ..... it got Wimbly to raised the purse for WTA Don't see why WTA would dished Anna for her contribution for bring Sexy back to tennis? Billy Jean has spoken of Anna's contributions to tennis (see Tennis Magazine) and should not be discounted.

Again.... time heals and time will change perception.
 
Top