PDA

View Full Version : What's your criteria for a player entering the Hall of Fame?


DA FOREHAND
Aug 16th, 2004, 06:14 PM
for me multiple Grand Slam titles,major wins, top five status.

ex. Iva Majoli, wouldn't make the cut.
Jana Novotna ....would be iffy.

bandabou
Aug 16th, 2004, 07:01 PM
grand slams...a must. top 5 player with results, longevity as contender.

GoldenSlam
Aug 16th, 2004, 07:05 PM
Being likable....

Helen Lawson
Aug 16th, 2004, 07:46 PM
You have to have at least one LEADING Oscar win, with at least ONE other LEADING nomination to prove it wasn't a fluke.
Louise Fletcher-out
Loretta Young-in


Helen Lawson--in easily

I love Mary
Aug 16th, 2004, 08:17 PM
Who are the players in Hall of fame?
How many titles did a player need to win? What about Slams?

GoldenSlam
Aug 16th, 2004, 08:19 PM
Who are the players in Hall of fame?
How many titles did a player need to win? What about Slams?
You are induced by voting from WTA players.....
So you dont need to win anything, Anna Kournikova could well be induced too.

Helen Lawson
Aug 16th, 2004, 08:21 PM
Tracy Austin is by and large a good benchmark for bare minimum in singles: 2 Slams and a brief period at No. 1, (and American). More slams, no need to be No. 1, like Hana Mandlikova. A single slam might be enough with a very, very good doubles career. But for a singles-only player, Tracy has to be considered about what it takes. Novotna will almost certainly get in eventually, but less than that, probably not.

Kart
Aug 16th, 2004, 08:23 PM
Beating the best playing in history more than ten times.

I love Mary
Aug 16th, 2004, 08:23 PM
What about a player who got 2 Grand Slams, 2 Final, other 14 titles, 2 Fed Cup titles, beat #1 in the world more time and got, in 2 different times, # 3 in the ranking?

Helen Lawson
Aug 16th, 2004, 08:27 PM
Mary Pierce, maybe, she's got the same slams as Tracy, but no No. 1 ranking, and no age-awing records or accomplishments like Tracy. Mary did get a single slam doubles, though, and has lasted. Jana has a great, great doubles career, but Jana was consistently higher ranked. Mary, who knows, you can't say no for sure, but if she gets in, it will be a long time from now. I don't know, but she's not really Tracy Austin, so it could be tough.

buscemi
Aug 16th, 2004, 08:27 PM
"Tracy Austin is by and large a good benchmark for bare minimum in singles: 2 Slams and a brief period at No. 1, (and American). More slams, no need to be No. 1, like Hana Mandlikova. A single slam might be enough with a very, very good doubles career. But for a singles-only player, Tracy has to be considered about what it takes. Novotna will almost certainly get in eventually, but less than that, probably not."

In all fairness, though, Austins' situation is pretty unique. She came in and took 2 U.S. Opens and the #1 ranking when 2 of the best ever were in their primes and then had her career cut short by injury. If, say Iva Majoli won the 1997 U.S. Open in addition to her French title and got the #1 ranking away from Hingis for a little while, I think it would be a different story.

Helen Lawson
Aug 16th, 2004, 08:30 PM
"Tracy Austin is by and large a good benchmark for bare minimum in singles: 2 Slams and a brief period at No. 1, (and American). More slams, no need to be No. 1, like Hana Mandlikova. A single slam might be enough with a very, very good doubles career. But for a singles-only player, Tracy has to be considered about what it takes. Novotna will almost certainly get in eventually, but less than that, probably not."

In all fairness, though, Austins' situation is pretty unique. She came in and took 2 U.S. Opens and the #1 ranking when 2 of the best ever were in their primes and then had her career cut short by injury. If, say Iva Majoli won the 1997 U.S. Open in addition to her French title and got the #1 ranking away from Hingis for a little while, I think it would be a different story.
If Iva did that, she'd be in, but not being American, they'd probably make her wait. No. 1 is a big addition to two slams. Tracy also did so much so young, that may have helped out, but there's not too many players with less titles, slams, or No. 1 who are in, at least that I can remember. There may be some less accomplished singles players, but they had great doubles careers.

I love Mary
Aug 16th, 2004, 08:30 PM
Can someone tell me where I can find this list of players?
Thanks. :) :)

buscemi
Aug 16th, 2004, 08:30 PM
I think Pierce gets in b/c of her Fed Cup play and the GS doubles title.

buscemi
Aug 16th, 2004, 08:33 PM
Majoli would be a tough call. Besides '97, she only had 2 other years finishing in the top 10 and none in the top 5.

Helen Lawson
Aug 16th, 2004, 08:34 PM
It's subjective, but Tracy Austin is a good minimum.

All I know is that if they had an acting Hall of Fame, I'd be in.

atina
Aug 16th, 2004, 08:41 PM
Can someone tell me where I can find this list of players?
Thanks. :) :)
http://www.tennisfame.com/enshrinees_chrono.html

DA FOREHAND
Aug 16th, 2004, 09:00 PM
It's subjective, but Tracy Austin is a good minimum.

All I know is that if they had an acting Hall of Fame, I'd be in.


I would agree w/the former part of your statements. :tape:

Geisha
Aug 16th, 2004, 09:07 PM
At least two Grand Slams in singles and doubles. Graf was outstanding in singles, so she fits it. Venus and Serena, Martina H., Arantxa, Navratilova, Evert, Lindsay, Monica would all fit my criteria.

Jennifer wouldn't. She only had three singles Slams, but nothing in doubles.

I also think you would have to play for a while. I mean, if you won two slams in a year, but only played for one year, then you wouldn't make it.

darrinbaker00
Aug 16th, 2004, 09:09 PM
for me multiple Grand Slam titles,major wins, top five status.

ex. Iva Majoli, wouldn't make the cut.
Jana Novotna ....would be iffy.
Here's the million-dollar question: if Jennifer Capriati were to retire today, would she get in? I say no, for the following reasons:

1. In 14 years as a professional, she's only won 14 singles titles and one doubles title.

2. She has a losing record against many of the top players of her era: 2-9 vs. Lindsay Davenport, 1-10 vs. Steffi Graf, 1-5 vs. Justine Henin-Hardenne, 4-5 vs. Martina Hingis, 3-7 vs. Amelie Mauresmo, 4-11 vs. Gabriela Sabatini, 3-6 vs. Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario, 5-9 vs. Monica Seles, 6-10 vs. Serena Williams, and 0-4 vs. Venus Williams. Heck, Jennifer has losing records against Anna Kournikova (1-3) and Alex Stevenson (2-3), for crying out loud.

Yes, Jennifer has won multiple majors and Olympic gold. Yes, Jennifer is one of the "Lucky 13" who have been ranked #1 since the WTA went to the computer rankings in 1975. Unfortunately, Jen has a losing record against eight of the other 12, and combined with her relative lack of titles, I think she's on the outside looking in right now.

tennisiscool
Aug 16th, 2004, 09:11 PM
Yes Jenny should and WILL get into the HOF :)

mboyle
Aug 16th, 2004, 09:24 PM
Jennifer wouldn't. She only had three singles Slams, but nothing in doubles.
.
Only world no. 1s and/or multiple slam winners should be inducted into the hall of fame. (That applies to singles or doubles.)

buscemi
Aug 16th, 2004, 09:29 PM
I think Jennifer definitely gets in:

3 GS titles
Olympic gold
#1 ranking

top 10: 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 2003 (probably 2004)
top 3: 2002
top 2: 2001

Calimero377
Aug 16th, 2004, 09:40 PM
Majoli would be a tough call. Besides '97, she only had 2 other years finishing in the top 10 and none in the top 5.


:lol:
majoli never will get into the HoF. Unless it is a aircraft hangar ....

Calimero377
Aug 16th, 2004, 09:43 PM
At least two Grand Slams in singles and doubles. Graf was outstanding in singles, so she fits it. Venus and Serena, Martina H., Arantxa, Navratilova, Evert, Lindsay, Monica would all fit my criteria.

Jennifer wouldn't. She only had three singles Slams, but nothing in doubles.

I also think you would have to play for a while. I mean, if you won two slams in a year, but only played for one year, then you wouldn't make it.


Doubles is completely irrelevant.
Hey, in the end you would vote Pam Shriver into the HoF, wouldn't you?
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Calimero377
Aug 16th, 2004, 09:45 PM
Here's the million-dollar question: if Jennifer Capriati were to retire today, would she get in? I say no, for the following reasons:

1. In 14 years as a professional, she's only won 14 singles titles and one doubles title.

2. She has a losing record against many of the top players of her era: 2-9 vs. Lindsay Davenport, 1-10 vs. Steffi Graf, 1-5 vs. Justine Henin-Hardenne, 4-5 vs. Martina Hingis, 3-7 vs. Amelie Mauresmo, 4-11 vs. Gabriela Sabatini, 3-6 vs. Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario, 5-9 vs. Monica Seles, 6-10 vs. Serena Williams, and 0-4 vs. Venus Williams. Heck, Jennifer has losing records against Anna Kournikova (1-3) and Alex Stevenson (2-3), for crying out loud.

Yes, Jennifer has won multiple majors and Olympic gold. Yes, Jennifer is one of the "Lucky 13" who have been ranked #1 since the WTA went to the computer rankings in 1975. Unfortunately, Jen has a losing record against eight of the other 12, and combined with her relative lack of titles, I think she's on the outside looking in right now.


In 36 years of professional tennis there are only 12 players who won more slams. And she won a Gold medal at the Olympics against the greatest-ever ...

darrinbaker00
Aug 16th, 2004, 10:05 PM
In 36 years of professional tennis there are only 12 players who won more slams. And she won a Gold medal at the Olympics against the greatest-ever ...
True enough, but (a) that was Jennifer's only win against Graf in 11 meetings, and (b) besides the majors and the gold medal, Jennifer's only won 10 other titles in FOURTEEN YEARS. I would be neither surprised nor unhappy if she were to be inducted, but I don't think she's done enough yet.

buscemi
Aug 16th, 2004, 10:12 PM
Wow, darrinbaker00. So, she's 1 of 13 to be #1 and tied for 13th with 3 GS's. Add to that Olympic gold. Is there anyone not in both of those groups you would put in before Capriati, or do you think that only 11 (I think all the #1s besides Clijsters and Austin had 3 or more Slams) should be in the HOF?

Helen Lawson
Aug 16th, 2004, 10:16 PM
Using the Tracy Austin standard, Jennifer gets in easily, she has three slams and No. 1, plus she's American. She didn't win those slams at a young age, but she made slam semis at a very young age and won some titles when very young. She's in easily, probably the second or third year she's eligible.

I love Mary
Aug 16th, 2004, 10:20 PM
I hope that will be choose:

1 Monica
2 Martina H.
3 Serena
4 Lindsay
5 Venus
6 Arantxa
7 Jennifer
8 Mary
9 Jana

*Karen*
Aug 16th, 2004, 10:23 PM
Top 5 for atleast a year without leaving the top 5. Multiple slam winner. Don't know about giving it to doubles players. Should Anna K be in. She was number one in doubles and is the most famous. If Tracy and Kim are in then so is Jen.

Who's in the hall of fame so far?

darrinbaker00
Aug 16th, 2004, 10:31 PM
Wow, darrinbaker00. So, she's 1 of 13 to be #1 and tied for 13th with 3 GS's. Add to that Olympic gold. Is there anyone not in both of those groups you would put in before Capriati, or do you think that only 11 (I think all the #1s besides Clijsters and Austin had 3 or more Slams) should be in the HOF?
Broken record time: Jennifer has won 15 titles in 14 years (contrary to what other posters have written, doubles do count); in my opinion, that's not a Hall-of-Fame career. Hingis, for instance, turned pro four years after Jennifer and played her last match in 2002. In that time, she won 40 singles titles (5 majors) and 36 doubles titles (nine majors). THAT'S a Hall-of-Fame career, and I'm a card-carrying member of the Hingis Haters Club. Heck, I wouldn't let Sabatini in, and she put up better overall numbers than Jennifer. You have to draw the line somewhere.

buscemi
Aug 16th, 2004, 10:33 PM
It would be interesting to compare Pierce & Novotna:

Top 10s:

Pierce: 1994, 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999 , 2000 (6)
Novotna: 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1996, 1997 1998 (7)

Top 5s:

Pierce: 1994, 1995, 1999 (3)
Novotna: 1994, 1996, 1997, 1998 (4)

GSs:

Pierce: 2
Novotna: 1

GS Finals (losses):

Pierce: 2
Novotna: 3

Head-to-Head: 5-1 Novotna (all on fast surfaces)

GS winning %:

Pierce: 73.6%
Novotna: 75%

Winning %:

Pierce: 67.6%
Novotna: 71.6%

Titles:

Pierce: 16
Novotna: 24

Helen Lawson
Aug 16th, 2004, 10:33 PM
There's a website that lists all the dames, but all the usual suspects, Steffi, Evonne, Margaret Court, BJK, Martina N., Chris, Hana, Virginia Wade, that awful Shriver woman, Rosie Casals is in also.
All the old-timers pre-Open era are in who you would think are in.

Crazy_Fool
Aug 16th, 2004, 10:34 PM
Top 5 for atleast a year without leaving the top 5. Multiple slam winner. Don't know about giving it to doubles players. Should Anna K be in. She was number one in doubles and is the most famous. If Tracy and Kim are in then so is Jen.

Who's in the hall of fame so far?
No offence but Kim shouldn't be in. I think Jennifer should make it in there, after all she's won 3 slams and thats more than most...

buscemi
Aug 16th, 2004, 10:39 PM
darrinbaker00, you wouldn't put Sabatini in?

-Top 10 for a decade 1986-1995
-Top 5 6 straight years 1988-1993
-Top 3 in 1989, 1991, 1992 (the latter 2 being when maybe the best 2 ever were playing in their primes)
-U.S. Open Champion
-27 singles titles
-14 doubles titles

*Karen*
Aug 16th, 2004, 10:42 PM
I think all the number 1's deserve it. Even Kim. She's not won a slam but has been in about 4 finals and won lots of other tournements. Although I know nothing about Sabanti, players with her record should definetly be considered.

Winston's Human
Aug 16th, 2004, 10:48 PM
It would be interesting to compare Pierce & Novotna:

Top 10s:

Pierce: 1994, 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999 , 2000 (6)
Novotna: 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1996, 1997 1998 (7)

Top 5s:

Pierce: 1994, 1995, 1999 (3)
Novotna: 1994, 1996, 1997, 1998 (4)

GSs:

Pierce: 2
Novotna: 1

GS Finals (losses):

Pierce: 2
Novotna: 3

Head-to-Head: 5-1 Novotna (all on fast surfaces)

GS winning %:

Pierce: 73.6%
Novotna: 75%

Winning %:

Pierce: 67.6%
Novotna: 71.6%

Titles:

Pierce: 16
Novotna: 24


I think Novotna gets the edge when you consider doubles performance:

Novotna:
12 Majors
76 Titles
(Plus 5 Mixed Slams)

Pierce:
1 Major
10 Titles

darrinbaker00
Aug 16th, 2004, 10:54 PM
darrinbaker00, you wouldn't put Sabatini in?

-Top 10 for a decade 1986-1995
-Top 5 6 straight years 1988-1993
-Top 3 in 1989, 1991, 1992 (the latter 2 being when maybe the best 2 ever were playing in their primes)
-U.S. Open Champion
-27 singles titles
-14 doubles titles
Like I said, you have to draw the line somewhere, and Sabatini only won two majors ('90 US Open singles, '88 Wimbledon doubles with Graf). WILL Sabatini get in? Probably. SHOULD Sabatini get in? I don't think so.

mboyle
Aug 16th, 2004, 11:07 PM
True enough, but (a) that was Jennifer's only win against Graf in 11 meetings, and (b) besides the majors and the gold medal, Jennifer's only won 10 other titles in FOURTEEN YEARS. I would be neither surprised nor unhappy if she were to be inducted, but I don't think she's done enough yet.
You must be some kind of idiot to claim that a three time slam winner, former world no. 1, and olympic champion shouldn't get into the hall of fame. Oh and she has won more than 75% of her matches. Little teeny tournament titles don't count at all.

mboyle
Aug 16th, 2004, 11:09 PM
I think my system works the best. No major champion would be left out if all no. 1s and multiple slam winners (in singles or doubles) got in automatically. BTW Darren Cahill, Dodo Cheney was inducted. Are you telling me that Dodo Cheney should be inducted but Jennifer Capriati shouldn't?:confused:

darrinbaker00
Aug 16th, 2004, 11:12 PM
Using the Tracy Austin standard, Jennifer gets in easily, she has three slams and No. 1, plus she's American. She didn't win those slams at a young age, but she made slam semis at a very young age and won some titles when very young. She's in easily, probably the second or third year she's eligible.
People keep bringing up Jennifer's three majors, but forget that she's been playing professionally for FOURTEEN YEARS. Is a one-title-per-year average good enough for the Hall of Fame? If so, then you really have to question its relevance.

buscemi
Aug 16th, 2004, 11:14 PM
"People keep bringing up Jennifer's three majors, but forget that she's been playing professionally for FOURTEEN YEARS. Is a one-title-per-year average good enough for the Hall of Fame? If so, then you really have to question its relevance."

Okay, so for Capriati:

strength: 3 GSs
weakness: only 14 titles

strength: #1
weakness: bad record against 'top' players

strength: many years in the top 10
weakness: ?

strength: Olympic gold
weakness: ??

darrinbaker00
Aug 16th, 2004, 11:40 PM
I think my system works the best. No major champion would be left out if all no. 1s and multiple slam winners (in singles or doubles) got in automatically.
Using your criteria, players like Cara Black, Rennae Stubbs and Anna Kournikova would get in. Even they would tell you that they aren't Hall material.
BTW Darren Cahill, Dodo Cheney was inducted. Are you telling me that Dodo Cheney should be inducted but Jennifer Capriati shouldn't?:confused:
It's Darrin Baker, not Darren Cahill (he's in D.C. with Andre Agassi), and if you look at the entirety of both their careers, yes. IN THIS ONE PERSON'S OPINION, Jennifer's relatively bare trophy case (when you only have three big ones, you'd better have at least 25 "little" ones) and lack of success against other top players should be enough to keep her out of the Hall of Fame.

buscemi
Aug 16th, 2004, 11:44 PM
My criteria: Any 2 of the following --

1. 1 GS or more
2. #1 ranking
3. 8 years in the top 10
4. 4 years in the top 5

Any 1 of the following --

1. 2 GS or more
2. Year end #1 twice or more

darrinbaker00
Aug 16th, 2004, 11:56 PM
You must be some kind of idiot to claim that a three time slam winner, former world no. 1, and olympic champion shouldn't get into the hall of fame. Oh and she has won more than 75% of her matches. Little teeny tournament titles don't count at all.
1. I'm not claiming anything. Like you, I'm stating my opinion and using factual evidence to back it up.

2. According to Jennifer's WTA Tour bio, her winning percentage is .710 (423-173). If you're going to post statistics, please post correct statistics.

If a player is going to be a singles specialist like Jennifer, then three majors and 14 overall titles in 14 years isn't good enough. I like Jennifer, but I don't think she's done enough YET to be inducted into the Hall of Fame.

mboyle
Aug 17th, 2004, 12:12 AM
People keep bringing up Jennifer's three majors, but forget that she's been playing professionally for FOURTEEN YEARS. Is a one-title-per-year average good enough for the Hall of Fame? If so, then you really have to question its relevance.
Who the hell cares about crappy tier two and tier one titles? Only the slams and the olympics matter to any normal tennis player. Jennifer has won 4 of those titles, which is plenty to get herself into the hall of fame.

RainyDays
Aug 17th, 2004, 02:28 AM
I think Jen should and will get in.

yukon145
Aug 17th, 2004, 06:34 AM
Jennifer will and should get in. i don't understand how people can say that 3 grand slams, world #1, and an Olympic gold medal aren't enough to get in. Jenn also did alot at a very young age and i believe still holds the record for the youngest player ever to reach a grand slam singles semifinal. give those stats to anybody in the world and they would take that career.

I love Mary
Aug 17th, 2004, 08:43 AM
Jennifer also won a GS title with #13 seed.

*Karen*
Aug 17th, 2004, 09:29 AM
Jen should get in. She's got about the same amount of slams as the others. Lindsay has 3 slams, Juju has 3 so far, Austin only has 2, Venus has 4. If any of the players still active should get in I think Serena deserve's it most. She has won all 4 of the slams.

Elldee
Aug 17th, 2004, 11:06 AM
Jen should get in. She's got about the same amount of slams as the others. Lindsay has 3 slams, Juju has 3 so far, Austin only has 2, Venus has 4. If any of the players still active should get in I think Serena deserve's it most. She has won all 4 of the slams.

I think that Lindsay deserves it most out of those you mentioned.

*Karen*
Aug 17th, 2004, 11:09 AM
Yeah Lindsay definetly deserves it aswell. She'll probably get in before the Williams sisters.

chris whiteside
Aug 17th, 2004, 11:33 AM
darrinbaker00, you wouldn't put Sabatini in?

-Top 10 for a decade 1986-1995
-Top 5 6 straight years 1988-1993
-Top 3 in 1989, 1991, 1992 (the latter 2 being when maybe the best 2 ever were playing in their primes)
-U.S. Open Champion
-27 singles titles
-14 doubles titles


In the Blast from the Past forum, a former top player from the 60s and 70s, Slam winner and member of the HOF, Nancy Richey has been chatting with us recently.

She says that although she thought Sabatini might make it, at the recent induction she was talking to other members and the general opinion is that Gabi's record is NOT strong enough.

*Karen*
Aug 17th, 2004, 11:36 AM
I think it's because of her lack of slams. I don't know who she is but she certainly has a great record.

Veritas
Aug 17th, 2004, 11:42 AM
Jennifer Capriati should be given a spot, if only for being the youngest player to have reached a Slam Semi and having won 3 Slam titles as well.

stevenPRIDE
Aug 17th, 2004, 11:57 AM
i think its shamefull....really, to even suggest Jennifer not get the honor of hall of fame.

In fact, in a RECENT (canadian open quarter final between Likhovsteva/ Capriati) Tracy Austyn said to her idiot co-broadcaster Rob Black "Capriati really turned her career around, from the best player never to win a slam. Really a girl who was supposed to have her own "era" much like Steffy and Monica....Capriati really, unfortunetly, never really had an era, but shes deffinitly a hall of fame player with a hall of fame career" THIS IS COMING FROM A FELLOW GRAND SLAM CHAMPIONS OWN MOUTH.

This goes to show you what the real champions think, From STeffie to Martina to Chrissy to Tracy, they all really believe Jennifer is hall of fame material, in fact, even IF she hadnt gotten to the three slams, she probably would have ended up in the vaunted hall of fame anyways.

Capriati IS one of the best of her generation, her game has transcended any era, its going down in history.

Steve.

yukon145
Aug 17th, 2004, 05:05 PM
i think its shamefull....really, to even suggest Jennifer not get the honor of hall of fame.

In fact, in a RECENT (canadian open quarter final between Likhovsteva/ Capriati) Tracy Austyn said to her idiot co-broadcaster Rob Black "Capriati really turned her career around, from the best player never to win a slam. Really a girl who was supposed to have her own "era" much like Steffy and Monica....Capriati really, unfortunetly, never really had an era, but shes deffinitly a hall of fame player with a hall of fame career" THIS IS COMING FROM A FELLOW GRAND SLAM CHAMPIONS OWN MOUTH.

This goes to show you what the real champions think, From STeffie to Martina to Chrissy to Tracy, they all really believe Jennifer is hall of fame material, in fact, even IF she hadnt gotten to the three slams, she probably would have ended up in the vaunted hall of fame anyways.

Capriati IS one of the best of her generation, her game has transcended any era, its going down in history.

Steve.
well said.

miranda_lou
Aug 17th, 2004, 05:42 PM
Jennifer will definitely be in the Hall of Fame, probably the first time she's eligible(5 years after retirement). She's won three Slams and a gold medal, plus she's an American. Why wouldn't she be inducted into the Hall?:rolleyes: Gaby, unfortunately, most likely never will get in. Her 5 year retirement anniversary came and went without a hint that she will be voted in.:tape: I think she deserves to be in but, I don't have a vote.:sad:

DA FOREHAND
Aug 17th, 2004, 05:45 PM
Yeah Lindsay definetly deserves it aswell. She'll probably get in before the Williams sisters.


Yes she will , because she will be retiring before either of them.

darrinbaker00
Aug 17th, 2004, 06:15 PM
Who the hell cares about crappy tier two and tier one titles? Only the slams and the olympics matter to any normal tennis player.
They may not matter to you, but I'd bet everything I own that they matter to the people who vote.
Jennifer has won 4 of those titles, which is plenty to get herself into the hall of fame.
If that's the case, then why doesn't Jennifer have more than the four you mentioned? Venus Williams has been playing for only 10 years, yet she has four times as many majors as Jennifer (12-3) and two Olympic gold medals to Jennifer's one.

My original question was this: IF JENNIFER CAPRIATI WERE TO RETIRE TODAY, would she get in? Fortunately for her, she's not retiring today, so she could still win a lot more titles and leave no doubt (it's also fortunate for her that I don't have a vote ;) ). As far as my criteria, I think that if you accomplish something very few others, if anyone, have, you should get in. For instance, Chris Evert won at least one major 13 years in a row AND won 90 percent of her matches. Martina Navratilova won six majors in a row AND won a doubles Grand Slam. Steffi Graf is the only Golden Slam winner in the history of the game, male or female. Althea Gibson won the Wimbledon doubles title three years in a row with three different partners. Venus and Serena are the only duo, male or female, to play each other in four straight major finals. Jennifer hasn't done anything to distinguish herself YET, so I wouldn't let her in NOW.

*kaz*
Aug 17th, 2004, 06:26 PM
Jens just a eligable as the williams sisters, davenport and any other number one. Every former number 1 should get in when they retire. Everyone will look back on Jen, Serena, Venus and Lindsay. It wont be the tier II and III titles people remember it will be the slams.

Volcana
Aug 17th, 2004, 06:43 PM
I think they let too many players into the hall of fame, but the 'Tracy Austin' standard is good. Capriati should be in. Not by much, maybe, but in. #1 isn't a good measure, since how it's determined changes. For quite a while, it was a vote of sportswriters, I think. It's a good tiebreaker if you're close to the edge, like Tracy, or Mary, but by itself I wouldn't give it the wieght of one slam.

For example, Marcelo Rios is NOT getting in on the men's side, and he WAS #1.

I wouldn't put any winner of only one GS singles title in. One GS singles and a bunch of GS doubles would be fine. One GS singles and a bunch of Fed Cup titles would be fine. I'd put in Conchi without question.

What should it take to get in as a doubles player? Pam Shriver IS in, I think.

DA FOREHAND
Aug 17th, 2004, 06:58 PM
So Conchi is in w/out question...but you'd check Jenns' ID at the door?

Pamela Shriver
Aug 17th, 2004, 07:11 PM
What's your criteria for a player entering the Hall of Fame?
Being best mates with Martina Navratilova.

stevenPRIDE
Aug 18th, 2004, 01:12 AM
capriatis a Evert Family friend, and Shes also a close Navy Friend...so she gets in for association alone! not to mention the graff connection.....and the Andre Agassi comparisson.

Jennifer, like it or not, is the ANdre Agassi of tennis....the oldest top 10 player whos comeback and comeback some more....and, who looks to come back once again.

Capriati even does the bowing thing Agassi does LMAO.

Steven.

Snuffkin
Aug 18th, 2004, 01:48 AM
Jen walks in. No doubt about it. Sure she may not have put up big numbers when it comes to 'other' tournies, but former number one? Multiple Slam winner? Top ten for a fair length of time? Nah, she's got a lot in her favour to guarantee her spot. I'm not sure she'd have got in before 2001, but we're not talking about that.

The question of if she retired today, be honest, do you really expect Jen to put up anything major in the last however long of her career? I'm a big fan, but I'll be the first to admit she's not going to win many more titles between now and when she retires. So you may as well assess it now, because the final total may not be any different.

With Jen there's a few stages of a career to consider and all put together, it gives her a place. Let's not forget her achievements from the early 90s. This is someone who managed the amazing feat of taking 6 months from turning pro to getting into the top 10. Consider that for a moment. From nothing to top 10 in 6 months. No one before or since has ever come close. Put together as part of a total career and she has to be in. As for the people with more titles, well, ask Conchita if she'd trade 20 of them for a French title. Betcha anything she'd say yes.

Volcana
Aug 18th, 2004, 03:16 AM
My criteria: Any 2 of the following --

1. 1 GS or more
2. #1 ranking
3. 8 years in the top 10
4. 4 years in the top 5

Any 1 of the following --

1. 2 GS or more
2. Year end #1 twice or more
If Kim Clijsters finds a way to finish inthe top five this year, or any other one year, she'll meet your criteria. (#1 ranking and 4 years in the top five) Do you reallyconsider her a hall of fame player?