julesb
Banned
Chang was a bigger threat to the top dogs than Kafelnikov and had a better overall career. Kafelnikov's only edge is winning 1 more major and it is not enough of an edge. Anyway as has already been said his draw was a joke to win both those majors. Who here would even try and dispute that.
CyBorg
Legend
Sometimes it's just a matter of all the chips falling in one place. Chang had great performances at majors, but would, to his luck, fall to just really great players. Muster at the French, Sampras at the US Open. Best opportunity was probably Becker at the Australian.
Kafelnikov's Aussie win coincided with Sampras starting to tail off and in general tennis was a crapshoot at the time and no one seemed to be willing to move atop of the rankings.
Chips didn't fall that way for Chang. 1997 was his last good year, but Sampras was still playing his peak tennis.
This is why I don't just count majors. I really like Chang - I see a bit more consistency from him in his career.
lambielspins
Banned
That is my feeling too. I was probably too hard on Kafelnikov in his initial posts but the chips definitely fell his way alot more than they did for Chang, especialy in the grand slams. Chang never had a situation he peaked at a moment there wasnt a big shark waiting for him. Very unlucky to have his ultimate peak around the ultimate Sampras peak, and even his early peaking during Edberg-Becker-Lendl all being near the top still. Draws never really broke his way, all those losses to the eventual champion at the U.S Open, etc...
Becker was playing some outstanding tennis at that 96 Australian Open. I agree that was his best shot of all of those but it still was a tough ask. Alot tougher than say beating 1 time slam finalist Thomas Enqvist in the Australian Open final.
nickynu
Semi-Pro
od1n - far from being at a disadvantage when writing in English I would say you do very well.
As for the point about Kafelniov not doing so well at masters series events, people may remember he was supposed to be fined for the following comments made in 1999.
TEN: Kafelnikov rapped by ATP Tour
Article from: AAP Sports News (Australia) Article date: May 11, 1999 More results for: atp kafelnikov | Copyright informationProvided by ProQuest LLC. (Hide copyright information)
AAP Sports News (Australia)
05-11-1999
TEN: Kafelnikov rapped by ATP Tour
By Trevor Huggins
ROME, May 10 AFP - Disciplinary changes are in the offing in world tennis after men's No.1
Yevgeny Kafelnikov claimed he didn't care about non-Grand Slam tournaments.
Mark Miles, head of the ATP Tour, claimed that Kafelnikov had not made his true feelings
clear when he made the comment in Monte Carlo, the fifth of six consecutive first round
exits.
Miles had a meeting with Kafelnikov here on Sunday, showing him the transcript of his news
conference, and stressing that the Russian needed to explain his feelings more clearly in
future.
Anyway I think the whole debate is spurious, KAFELNIKOV made world number 1, KAFELNIKOV won 2 slams, chang did neither despite argueably having consistently more mental determination and effort to call upon.
As for the point about Kafelniov not doing so well at masters series events, people may remember he was supposed to be fined for the following comments made in 1999.
TEN: Kafelnikov rapped by ATP Tour
Article from: AAP Sports News (Australia) Article date: May 11, 1999 More results for: atp kafelnikov | Copyright informationProvided by ProQuest LLC. (Hide copyright information)
AAP Sports News (Australia)
05-11-1999
TEN: Kafelnikov rapped by ATP Tour
By Trevor Huggins
ROME, May 10 AFP - Disciplinary changes are in the offing in world tennis after men's No.1
Yevgeny Kafelnikov claimed he didn't care about non-Grand Slam tournaments.
Mark Miles, head of the ATP Tour, claimed that Kafelnikov had not made his true feelings
clear when he made the comment in Monte Carlo, the fifth of six consecutive first round
exits.
Miles had a meeting with Kafelnikov here on Sunday, showing him the transcript of his news
conference, and stressing that the Russian needed to explain his feelings more clearly in
future.
Anyway I think the whole debate is spurious, KAFELNIKOV made world number 1, KAFELNIKOV won 2 slams, chang did neither despite argueably having consistently more mental determination and effort to call upon.
julesb
Banned
If Kafelnikov tanked all the Masters events, which would only speak poorly to him anyway, then he wouldnt have reached all those Masters finals he did. There is no way he did all the work to reach the final and simply chose to lose to the likes of Thomas Johansson, Sebastien Grosjean, Thomas Enqvist in Masters finals.
Getting to #1 as a main criteria for who is better is pretty silly unless the player stayed #1 for a decent period of time or ended a year #1. Kafelnikov got to #1 after losing six straight first rounds. He was never a respected or acknowledged #1 even by his peers. Sampras and others even said publicly it was a joke he got there. It was a nutty time for mens tennis with Sampras fading and Agassi in a slump, once Agassi came out of his slump that spring and Sampras was fired up again Kafelnikov's 15 minutes of fame as the #1 were up for good. Chang would have gotten to #1 too if he were playing in early 99 how he played any year from 92-97 with the field around the time.
Getting to #1 as a main criteria for who is better is pretty silly unless the player stayed #1 for a decent period of time or ended a year #1. Kafelnikov got to #1 after losing six straight first rounds. He was never a respected or acknowledged #1 even by his peers. Sampras and others even said publicly it was a joke he got there. It was a nutty time for mens tennis with Sampras fading and Agassi in a slump, once Agassi came out of his slump that spring and Sampras was fired up again Kafelnikov's 15 minutes of fame as the #1 were up for good. Chang would have gotten to #1 too if he were playing in early 99 how he played any year from 92-97 with the field around the time.
nickynu
Semi-Pro
(hey Julesb Im not gonna defend Kafelnikovs attitude as quite frankly it stunk, all I am saying is that he reached number 1 and that cant be taken away, actually its pretty poor that you seek to devalue the achievement of being number 1 in the world and you sound a little churlish if you dont mind me saying, after all you cant get any higher than the pinnacle, no matter what the circumstances.
You can argue all you want but he did it. When somebody makes number 1 in the world believe me they deserve it and it doesnt matter whether you are percieved to be a stellar talent like Federer Agassi and Mac or whether you are a lesser player like a Rios,or a Roddick - if you do it, .............you do it!!
Oh and I think Chang when being normal human being, (not being mr humble, ooh its all for God. I didnt do any of this, I am just the lords instrument blah blah etc etc to infinity) would say yeah I would swap my achievements for his.
You can argue all you want but he did it. When somebody makes number 1 in the world believe me they deserve it and it doesnt matter whether you are percieved to be a stellar talent like Federer Agassi and Mac or whether you are a lesser player like a Rios,or a Roddick - if you do it, .............you do it!!
Oh and I think Chang when being normal human being, (not being mr humble, ooh its all for God. I didnt do any of this, I am just the lords instrument blah blah etc etc to infinity) would say yeah I would swap my achievements for his.
I don't quite agree with this. There is something wrong when you get to #1 despite losing in the first round 6 times in a row. Petr Korda to me was a truer #1 had he won that one extra match and not choked his chance at #1 away. Why? Because for awhile, he struck fear in the parts of his opponents as a guy who was in dominant form out there. Rios? Same thing. Even Muster on clay. And Rafter to a degree outside clay.
Moya and Kafelnikov? Definitely not. They are #1's with asteriks as far as I'm concerned. Why? Because at no point in their careers did they strike fear in anybody as THE definitive guy to beat that could not be beaten. Imo, they were in the right place at the right time. They fit into the Bermuda triangle of #1's, asterik #1's.
Chang had he reached #1, I would say the same thing. But the key is Chang DIDN'T reach #1. He had this guy named Pete Sampras in the prime of his career standing in his way like this massive GOD-like road block. Chang lost to giants of the game in his other grand slam finals. Muster on clay, Becker fighting for what he must have known could well be his last shot at a slam at the Australian, Sampras at the US Open.
To me, that's how a #1 should be. Traditionally, the #1 has always been the guy who at the time was scene as virtually invincible. I'm talking TRANSCENDENT once in a generation type players like Agassi, Sampras, Edberg, Becker, Lendl, Courier, Connors, McEnroe, Borg, Nadal, Federer, etc. You know, in other words, LEGENDS. Anomaly #1's are like creepy crawlers, cockroaches in the night, they crawl into the void when there's the slightest opening and take over for a tiny spell before the master awakens or returns home from vacation and then they go back and do what they do best...scram for cover.
Now obviously, that's kind of an exaggeration; but it's true.
AND, get this I'm actually not one of those people who don't see Kafelnikov as anything less than he is and was, and that's a SUPREME talent. I always thought Kafelnikov was an ELITE talent in the game as did many others. Heck when he first came up, he nearly beat Sampras at the Australian Open in five sets as an unknown, and after the match Sampras
said this guy has the best groundies he's ever faced. No lie, he actually said that at one time.
Later on though, it became apparent that Sampras was a better stylistic matchup for Kafelnikov than he originally thought, but this does not mean that Kafelnikov wasn't sublimely talented. Agassi was another bad style matchup for Kafelnikov. ...and apparently Thomas Johansson was his kryptonite, but make no mistake if Kafelnikov was on and motivated, he was a class above a talented but not quite elte talented guy like Tommy Haas. See their Olympic final in which both REALLY wanted it. That's one of the few times you'll see a truly motivated Kafelnikov and I thought he ended up outclassing Haas in the end. To me, Kafelnikov is a lot like Haas in that he's good at everything, but nothing really seems to overwhelm you. He was, however, just a finer better returning version. I'd put his talent level equal to or even slightly better than David Nalbandian. They're cut from the same cloth and have the Charmin-like bellies to prove it.
Remember if Sampras wasn't around, guys like Bruguera, Stich, Martin, and Krajicek would have thought they had a chance at #1...scary thought right? That's my point. A *TRUE* dominant #1 gives all the other top players the sense that resistance is futile and they don't even dream of, or think that #1 is even possible. Put it this way, it took MUSTER of all people reaching #1 that woke Bruguera up for the 97 hard court season. He said that offseason, he really worked hard to get back into fighting trim. When asked why, he said if Muster can make it to #1 on the strength of all his clay court wins, why can't I?
See, that's the difference. There are #1's (Kafelnikov, Moya) and then there are #1's (Muster, Rafter, Rios)...and then there are NUMBER ONES! (Sampras, Lendl, Fed, et. all).
Last edited:
nickynu
Semi-Pro
This is bizarre I find myself defending a player who was not a particular favourite of mine when he played, because you guys bizzarely want to revise history, have some grace and just say well done to Kafelnikov. You might not like it but you cant take it away that he was world number 1 and a double slam winner.
The Chang thing is just nuts as well, Kafelnikov lead 4-0 in their head to head, on what planet can you judge that Chang was better. People are saying ah yes but when Chang played he had Sampras, but Chang is only one full year older than Kafelnikov so dont you think Kafelnikov had the same adversaries.
Kafelnikov won more prize money by almost 4 million $ also Kafelnikov was number 4 in the world in doubles too. (watching Chang try to volley was painful)
So lets give Kafelnikov some credit and just hope that if we ever reach number one in the world at something ourselves that the haters dont come out of the woodwork and say ----- yeah but they didnt deserve it----P___________LEASE !!!!
The Chang thing is just nuts as well, Kafelnikov lead 4-0 in their head to head, on what planet can you judge that Chang was better. People are saying ah yes but when Chang played he had Sampras, but Chang is only one full year older than Kafelnikov so dont you think Kafelnikov had the same adversaries.
Kafelnikov won more prize money by almost 4 million $ also Kafelnikov was number 4 in the world in doubles too. (watching Chang try to volley was painful)
So lets give Kafelnikov some credit and just hope that if we ever reach number one in the world at something ourselves that the haters dont come out of the woodwork and say ----- yeah but they didnt deserve it----P___________LEASE !!!!
julesb
Banned
If head to head automaticaly showed who was better than I guess you would have to then say Hrbaty and Thomas Johansson were better players than Kafelnikov as well. After all those guys pretty much own him head to head. Also anyone who followed tennis would know that Chang was never the same player after the 97 U.S Open and 3 of the 4 matches between Kafelnikov and Chang were after that event. Also since you are going to use head to head as an ultimate barometer Lleyton Hewitt was kicking the snot out of Kafelnikov even back in 1999-2000 when Hewitt was a teenager who hadnt entered his prime yet and Kafelnikov was at the absolute peak of his career.
J
Julieta
Guest
One of the best backhands ever.
nickynu
Semi-Pro
Nah if you read through my posts I am using lots of measures as a barometer so please dont selectively pick and choose and then trawl unrelated irrelevant stats to argue a point that has nothing to do with the debate. You dont agree with me thats fine, but in the biggest tennis stats that count, simply Kafelnikov was better-end of story (sorry if that upsets you somehow). Just because you want Chang to be better doesnt make it so.
lambielspins
Banned
nickynu seems to expect everyone to bow down and concede Kafelnikov is better than any 1 slam winner just because he has 2 slams. Sorry it doesnt work that way. There is alot more factors to who is a greater player then simply # of slams won. That flawed line of thinking extending to other players stems mostly from the excessive press of the Federer pursuit to end up with more slams than Sampras.
nickynu
Semi-Pro
other little factors like being world number 1 - yeah bow down Lambie
nickynu
Semi-Pro
Yeah other little factors like winnining an olympic gold medal-bow down lambie
nickynu
Semi-Pro
Yeah other little factors like 4 grand slam doubles titles -bow down lambie
nickynu
Semi-Pro
Yeah 53 titles - bow down lambie
nickynu
Semi-Pro
yeah other little factors like winning the davis cup(like Chang) - bow down lambie
Oh and by the way despite your condesending and selective comments I am all for praising all players, for their achievements, just because I recognise what a good career Kafelnikov had this is not to denigrate other players as you seem to wish to do, shame really that you do that when you obviously appreciate how well the silver medal skater guy did. Just recognise the gifts all these guys have and the work they put in.
lambielspins
Banned
Sorry lovesick Kafelnikov addict but:
-nobody cares about doubles slams these days when comparing singles players.
-Kafelnikov has only 26 titles in singles. Chang with 34 has more. That is all that really matters as far as titles. Ludricious you are even mixing small doubles titles with singles titles.
-again nobody cares about the Olympic Gold in tennis. It is less important than a Masters title in tennis, especialy before this years Olympics.
All that Kafelnikov has in his favor is the 1 more slam by virtue of the woose draws, and his fluke stint at #1. In Chang's favor:
-More tournament titles- 34 to 26
-Many more Masters titles- SEVEN to 0
-Big wins in a grand slam. Beating Andre Agassi twice in hard court slam semis- 96 Australian Open semis and 96 U.S Opens. Beating Bruguera in the semis of the French Open. Beating Lendl in the 4th round of the French Open. Kafelnikov has no big wins in a grand slam event at all. What is Kafelnikov's big slam win? Sampras on clay, ROTFL!
The biggest differences of all are the last 2. Masters titles are the most important events outside the slams for tennis players and Kafelnikov has won zippo and Chang a bunch of them. The difference in 7 Masters titles to 0 is more than the difference in 1 slam. As well Chang has taken down much bigger scalps in the slams, he simply hasnt gotten the cake draws of Kafenikov but he has actually beaten big guns in them in his pursuit of slam titles, something Kafelnikov could never do.
This forum is already full of *********** and *******s. Now we have our first official Kafelnikovtard: nickynu.
-nobody cares about doubles slams these days when comparing singles players.
-Kafelnikov has only 26 titles in singles. Chang with 34 has more. That is all that really matters as far as titles. Ludricious you are even mixing small doubles titles with singles titles.
-again nobody cares about the Olympic Gold in tennis. It is less important than a Masters title in tennis, especialy before this years Olympics.
All that Kafelnikov has in his favor is the 1 more slam by virtue of the woose draws, and his fluke stint at #1. In Chang's favor:
-More tournament titles- 34 to 26
-Many more Masters titles- SEVEN to 0
-Big wins in a grand slam. Beating Andre Agassi twice in hard court slam semis- 96 Australian Open semis and 96 U.S Opens. Beating Bruguera in the semis of the French Open. Beating Lendl in the 4th round of the French Open. Kafelnikov has no big wins in a grand slam event at all. What is Kafelnikov's big slam win? Sampras on clay, ROTFL!
The biggest differences of all are the last 2. Masters titles are the most important events outside the slams for tennis players and Kafelnikov has won zippo and Chang a bunch of them. The difference in 7 Masters titles to 0 is more than the difference in 1 slam. As well Chang has taken down much bigger scalps in the slams, he simply hasnt gotten the cake draws of Kafenikov but he has actually beaten big guns in them in his pursuit of slam titles, something Kafelnikov could never do.
This forum is already full of *********** and *******s. Now we have our first official Kafelnikovtard: nickynu.
julesb
Banned
Read your own posts:
So now that you were schooled on some dumb argument of yours you are now trying to whine that I brought up some unrelated irrelevant stat. Guess what, you are the one who brought up this so called "unrelated irrelevant stat" in the first place and I was the one who revealed just how unrelated and irrelevant it was for you to use as part of your argument in the first place.
Kafelnikov is 2 years younger, not 1. Players mature at different points. Chang's prime was from 1992-1997. Kafelnikov's was from 1995-2001. Chang is a grinder and those players typically mature earlier and burn out earlier as well. Kafelnikov from 1995-1997 when both were in their primes was having overall less success and a constantly lower ranking than Chang. That is when both had to deal with Sampras, Agassi, Becker, Muster on clay, Bruguera on clay, Ivanisevic on fast courts, and the like. Kafelnikov had his most success in 1999-2000 when you had Sampras starting to decline, Becker gone, Agassi aging. What a coincidence.
True. Players' "primes" isn't just age-relative, more than anything it's injury and burnout relative, which is individual to the player. Chang's downfall really was a result of tearing his MCL more than anything else imo. Chang's speed suddenly became merely above-average instead of jaw-dropping outlandish (I can still hear the British commentator squeal, "Oh my Gosh, he's so quick!"), but for a player like Chang (or Coria, or Hewitt, etc.), losing even a hair of speed is like a death sentence for their career. Speed players need speed like Roddick needs his serve...like Goran needed his. When Goran's shoulder went bum, his results plummeted. He found it painful to serve. The year he won Wimbledon he lost in the first round of QUALIFYING at the Australian Open. He loaded up on pain killers for one final run at Wimbledon. After that, he went back to sucking again w. his bad shoulder.
Bruguera - injuries + "half-ass" commitment = shorter prime. Guga = hip does him in, never the same after that. Magnus Norman, same deal. Krajicek - oft injured but it was a persistent bum elbow that put the nail in the coffin. Malivai Washington reaches a career peak at Wimbledon, but as soon as he does it's basically over for him. His knees gives out on him, and despite numerous surgeris, he can't remedy the problem, his knee never seems to hold up for more than a tournament or two at a time, his peak AND career is over as soon as it began; not so long after that Wimbledon final, he officially retires.
Rios = half-assed too, but also a consistently bad back and knee, do him in making it impossible for him to train regularly and play a full-time schedule.
Courier = some cit burn out, but the inside-story is that he also became plagued by something he called "dead arm", something kind of like tennis elbow, but that he said he couldn't get rid of no matter what he tried. It definitely hurt him and his results and was very much a part of his fall from grace according to him.
Moya's ranking plummeted at one point, but the reason was that he became plagued by back problems.
A reporter asked Petr Korda what happened to him, why was he suddenly so good again in taking out Sampras at the US Open. He said nothing was ever wrong with him...OR his talent. He said what was wrong with him was his groin, and that's why he suddenly dropped from the top ten into journeyman territory, but no one asked. He said that he needed surgery, but tried to avoid it over and over. He finally got surgery, and was able to play at 100% again. He said no one knew it, but when he dropped like a rock, he was playing at 60% of his capacity for years.
Pro tennis is like a war. There are many players, and whose at the top today may well not be tomorrow. All around you, players are dropping in and out and back in again w. injury, burnout, mental issues, rejuvination, etc. again. So much of who is at the top of the rankings is a question of who is HEALTHY enough and mentally fresh enough to stay atop the rankings. The draw fillers will always be draw fillers, but there is small pool consistently of players who have a top ten caliber game and talent, but of this pool, it's almost like a revolving door because you never really have everyone of that pool healthy at the same time.
Last edited:
0d1n
Hall of Fame
This is a good post but it doesn't address the "FAIL" posts from julesb and lamb-iel.
They have almighty powers and get to choose what arguments (i.e super 9 titles vs major + no 1 position) should be more important for EVERYBODY involved in this "Kafelnikov vs Chang" discussion, which is ... by the way ...off topic.
Chang shouldn't even factor into this discussion ... the OP is about Kafelnikov and whether he's under appreciated.
As one can see ... he obviously IS...at least by some of the posters in this thread.
He was also "under appreciated" by some seeding committees...as seen here -> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E01E2DA1439F936A1575BC0A960958260&sec=&spon=
I guess it helps sometimes to have a "home grand slam", if we are to talk about Chang vs Kafelnikov ...for example...even though it's getting to be a ridiculous conversation.
In my opinion comparing 2 players on results is the only way to go...in this case the results are fairly close ...even if we DON'T choose to include Kafelnikov's doubles record (it is obviously a sign of tennis SKILL to be able to compete at the grand slam level in doubles as well). As a result, the only other ways I see fit to compare the two is on "potential" and "peak game".
Both of those cathegories are purely subjective obviously, but in both of them Kafelnikov is superior IMO. If they both brought their A game on any given day, and on any of the existing surfaces, Kafelnikov would be the tougher man to beat for most players (and "mano a mano" would destroy Chang as well).
On hard courts it might be close...on any other surface it wouldn't even be close between the two.
Kafelnikov had more power, more weapons and more options in his game. Anybody who doesn't see that is biased or on crack.
Happy holidays to everybody including delusional American fans
.Reading that is like reading career obituaries for some really good players. I knew all of it, just scary to see it together again.
Leublu tennis
Legend
Amen to that. You could say that Federer was quite lucky to stay healthy for all those years. Then he starts getting sick, not injured just ill, and he is not the same player. Look at Safin. He has been trying to come back from injuries for several year, as he gets older. Tennis is primarily an individual non-contact sport but for a pro it sure requires a body in perfect condition.
What I meant to say was actually. "True. Players' 'primes' isn't just age-relative, more than anything it's injury and burnout relative...."
Btw, I think Muster put it best an interview about Nadal. He said that you never know how long grinders like Courier, Chang, Hewitt, etc. will last (and in some respect a lot like him...one day he was there up in everybody's faces, the next he's lost all motivation for the game and doesn't pick up a racket for years and gains fifty pounds overnight). He said how long Nadal will go will depend on injury and burnout. He said that when you get older it's not so much that you're physically unable anymore, but rather that you find when you've been around for awhile that you face some up and coming young guy, and maybe it's not so much that they're better than you, but rather that they're fresher than you. It's a HUGE distinction. By late career, Chang wasn't just slower, he looked absolutely hard-boiled. You could see it in his eyes. Something I thought I'd never see, but Hicham Arazi of all people actually out-tried Chang in one of his last matches. Chang literally tanked the last part of the second and the third. I NEVER thought I'd live to see the day, but by the end of Chang's career he didn't even bother trying anymore at the slightest hiccup. McEnroe used to say Chang at his best "imposed his WILL on you". So true, and by the end it was like "the soul had left the building", as I often describe the look you see in the eyes of former top pros whose wills have left the building. I saw it in Alberto Costa (another all-time trier type) near the end when he was contemplating retirement, against Hewitt at the Open, he barely had any resolve at all to hang in rallies, he was just going through the motions. I saw it in Bruguera when his mind was off in one of its mental hiatuses. I saw it in Ferreira in his last match at the Open in which he said afterward he could still compete if he wanted to, but it's the having to practice part he no longer wanted to do. I saw it in Medvedev near the end when he was contemplating retirement despite not that long ago having been inches within the French Open title. You saw it in Muster, Kafelnikov, Pioline, Corretja, even Rafter and Edberg...we've started to see signs of it in Hewitt (look into his eyes and you can tell he just doesn't have the same fire inside anymore, it's like now he just tries to pretend that he does hoping to fool his opponent but no one buys it). Basically, you see it in virtually ever former top pro as the wear and tear and burnout aspect of tour life starts to get to them. It doesn't really matter if the player was known as a "trier" or "half-asser". Irrespective, they all in the end seem to go out looking the same way...like they're not all entirely there.
FORTUNATELY! however, they're still rich! ...and who wouldn't trade places with them?
Seriously, when I think about it that way, there is NO need to feel bad at all.
FORTUNATELY! however, they're still rich! ...and who wouldn't trade places with them?
Seriously, when I think about it that way, there is NO need to feel bad at all.
0d1n
Hall of Fame
^ Sadly ... very true...(no...I don't actually feel sorry for them, they're rich and lived enchanted lives...I feel sorry for people who worked just as hard but never got in the top 500).
In Kafelnikov, since he's the topic of discussion...one didn't even need to "see it" (the burnout), he would actually put it into words towards the end of his career.
I remember hearing Eurosport commentators quote some of his interviews where he was saying something along the lines of "I already drive a Ferrari...why would I want/need to keep practicing and stay @ my top level anymore?". This kind of attitude I presume didn't win him a lot of fans...especially towards the end.
For somebody who was already notorious for hating to practice before being actually burned out statements like that say a lot. Even in his prime he said he played lots of tournaments, as a substitute for practice because he hated doing it (I guess getting prize money for the tournament was a plus as well...).
Just one of many reasons he might have actually under achieved in his career despite what some of the haters say.
In Kafelnikov, since he's the topic of discussion...one didn't even need to "see it" (the burnout), he would actually put it into words towards the end of his career.
I remember hearing Eurosport commentators quote some of his interviews where he was saying something along the lines of "I already drive a Ferrari...why would I want/need to keep practicing and stay @ my top level anymore?". This kind of attitude I presume didn't win him a lot of fans...especially towards the end.
For somebody who was already notorious for hating to practice before being actually burned out statements like that say a lot. Even in his prime he said he played lots of tournaments, as a substitute for practice because he hated doing it (I guess getting prize money for the tournament was a plus as well...).
Just one of many reasons he might have actually under achieved in his career despite what some of the haters say.
Last edited:
I really liked the guy as a player. I know I read , at one time, his cell phone bill every month was about $5000. Since he was on the road so much and called home a lot it made sense. He played in a lot more tournaments than other players and I enjoyed watching him play. I also noticed he had a huge bulge at the end of his racquet handle all the time. It was just built up to be like a baseball bat end. Look at some pictures of his racquet.
Similar threads
