PDA

View Full Version : Conchita Martinez's chances of getting into the Hall of Fame


the bambi
Jul 6th, 2005, 04:03 PM
the mary pierce thread made me think of conchita's chances for the hof. here's a few of her credentials to remind everyone:

won wimbledon

finalist melbourne

finalist roland garros

us open, two time semifinalist

reached #2 in the world

currently has over 700 wins

33 career singles titles

Won 50-plus matches in six seasons 1992-96 and 2000, including 71 in 1993 and 63 in 1995

thoughts on conchi and the hof?

PointBlank
Jul 6th, 2005, 04:05 PM
She should. Noah did it with 1 win.

Gallofa
Jul 6th, 2005, 04:11 PM
+ 5 Fed Cup titles
+ 3 Olympic medals: 1992 Doubles (silver), 1996 Doubles (bronze), 2004 Doubles (silver)

Shonami Slam
Jul 6th, 2005, 04:16 PM
well, it's starting to be a problem because looking at these stats, you could already (or at least in 3 years time) place players such as sharapova in there since she has a grand slam title, two semis and career best of world #2...
of course - conchita with her fed-cup wins and rich doubles career has more than sharapova has (at the moment) but surely you have to set the bar higher than that.
Lindsay has a much better chance for instance, with two finals this year and her GS victories, but anyone with less that that is questionable.
how many people can we have in the HOF before it becomes too crowded with potential players that did not quite win the biggies?
that said - she is an enormous player, true giant of the game and an important part of the nineties tennis.
so - personally, i'd put her in - but it raises alot of questions regarding other players with simuler success.
i love them - but i don't know if it's fair to put dementieva, kuznetsova and clijsters in the same row with navratilova, graf and evert.

the bambi
Jul 6th, 2005, 04:17 PM
+ 5 Fed Cup titles
+ 3 Olympic medals: 1992 Doubles (silver), 1996 Doubles (bronze), 2004 Doubles (silver)

cool.

if getting into the hof was based on career consistency, ranking and singles titles, conchi would definitely have pierce beat. the advantage pierce has is slams and more wins over quality players (conchi never beat graf, seles, hingis or the williams sisters in a grand slam).

alfonsojose
Jul 6th, 2005, 04:22 PM
Only if Tarabini can make it too :devil:

Kart
Jul 6th, 2005, 04:25 PM
Entry into the Hall of Fame is a subjective joke.

So even though Conchita ought to be in there I wouldn't hold your breath.

Yes I am still bitter about Novotna getting before Sabatini so deal with it :armed:.

thrust
Jul 6th, 2005, 08:42 PM
Neither Martinez or Pierce should be in the tennis HOF

selking
Jul 6th, 2005, 09:43 PM
if she gets in then the hall of fame is a joke. I remeber when awhile ago the commentators were arguaging over whether andre should get in, and thats when he had 8 grandslams as he does now. I really think only the truely greats should get in, and martinez imo is not one of them

Pengwin
Jul 6th, 2005, 09:45 PM
if she gets in then the hall of fame is a joke. I remeber when awhile ago the commentators were arguaging over whether andre should get in, and thats when he had 8 grandslams as he does now. I really think only the truely greats should get in, and martinez imo is not one of them

Ditto

Helen Lawson
Jul 6th, 2005, 09:46 PM
Conchita is one of my favorites, and I think she will get in, but it is because today it's the Tennis Feel Good Hall of Fame. She's far more than a one-slammer with her Fed Cup and solid play for many years, but if Jana Novotna and Yannick Noah and even that awful Shriver woman get in, Conchita gets in.

Steffica Greles
Jul 6th, 2005, 10:41 PM
well, it's starting to be a problem because looking at these stats, you could already (or at least in 3 years time) place players such as sharapova in there since she has a grand slam title, two semis and career best of world #2...
of course - conchita with her fed-cup wins and rich doubles career has more than sharapova has (at the moment) but surely you have to set the bar higher than that.
Lindsay has a much better chance for instance, with two finals this year and her GS victories, but anyone with less that that is questionable.
how many people can we have in the HOF before it becomes too crowded with potential players that did not quite win the biggies?
that said - she is an enormous player, true giant of the game and an important part of the nineties tennis.
so - personally, i'd put her in - but it raises alot of questions regarding other players with simuler success.
i love them - but i don't know if it's fair to put dementieva, kuznetsova and clijsters in the same row with navratilova, graf and evert.

Shonami: While I'd definitely say you're one of the more intelligent posters (from what I read), I have to say that I think you've overlooked something here...

The point is Martinez's longevity, which is incredible. She is "the" definition of a tennis player. She has committed herself to the tour for over half of her life, and has a span of 1988-2005 for beating top ten players. She was in the top 10 from 1989 to 2000, and the top 20 1988-2003. She currently, let's not forget, is no.23 in the race to chase - at 33.

She has spanned so many eras: the tail end of Evertilova, Graf & Sabatini, Graf & Seles, Hingis, Novotna, Hingis-Davenport, Williams', Belgians, Russians...it's incredible. The players she hits with these days were in nappies when she first joined the higher echelons, or even unborn.

But, of course, she's no journey woman, as the stats above will show. She has over 700 career wins - do you know what that means?

It means that only Graf, Evert, Nav'lova, Wade and Sanchez-Vicario (who she's nearly caught) have more career wins.

Conchita's earned her place in both singles and doubles on ALL surfaces, and I have no doubt that, particularly in light of her capturing of the world's most prestigious title, she will be put into the hall of fame.

Helen Lawson
Jul 6th, 2005, 10:42 PM
I think, personally, the standard should be set at like Martina Hingis, Justine, and Venus. 4-5 majors in singles and some weeks at number one should be the baseline standard. Someone like Lindsay with 3 and tons of weeks at no. 1, a borderline case. Anything below that, no, it's not good enough to me. But I won an Oscar, so maybe my standard is too high.

Steffica Greles
Jul 6th, 2005, 10:56 PM
Err..Helen Lawson? :lol: :

The thing is, what does "Hall of Fame" mean? To me it means commitment to the sport, love of tennis, achievements on the court. And of course, we all have different perspectives of what meets that criteria.

By my own reckoning, Conchita scores more highly than all but a select few in ALL those categories?

For a hall of fame, what do we want? A hall of flash in the pans? Hingis won 5 slams, but she retired herself at 21. You can't look at her career and say "Would she have coped with so and so?" without speculating. These days "here todays, gone tomorrows" are becoming more and more frequent. Players just can't motivate themselves, and in my opinion don't work nearly as hard as Evert, Navratilova and Graf did to establish their hegemony over the major titles.

Yet Conchita is one of the few players who has remained throughout. If the game of tennis ended tomorrow and archivists were looking at who achieved what, they'd see Conchita won Wimbledon, dominated clay court seasons and reached a RG final, played well on hard courts....and that's not all. They'd see her name on tournament listings in 1987, and her name 18 years later in 2005 - beating top 10 players (the world's best) in both years. I think that would draw their attention more than a lot of players who've won more than 2 slams.

Shonami Slam
Jul 7th, 2005, 01:19 AM
Shonami: While I'd definitely say you're one of the more intelligent posters (from what I read), I have to say that I think you've overlooked something here...

The point is Martinez's longevity, which is incredible. She is "the" definition of a tennis player. She has committed herself to the tour for over half of her life, and has a span of 1988-2005 for beating top ten players. She was in the top 10 from 1989 to 2000, and the top 20 1988-2003. She currently, let's not forget, is no.23 in the race to chase - at 33.

She has spanned so many eras: the tail end of Evertilova, Graf & Sabatini, Graf & Seles, Hingis, Novotna, Hingis-Davenport, Williams', Belgians, Russians...it's incredible. The players she hits with these days were in nappies when she first joined the higher echelons, or even unborn.

But, of course, she's no journey woman, as the stats above will show. She has over 700 career wins - do you know what that means?

It means that only Graf, Evert, Nav'lova, Wade and Sanchez-Vicario (who she's nearly caught) have more career wins.

Conchita's earned her place in both singles and doubles on ALL surfaces, and I have no doubt that, particularly in light of her capturing of the world's most prestigious title, she will be put into the hall of fame.

intelligent :lol: more of a troll sadly i still favour hautbois, cali and godomique as the wizzbizz team on WTAworld.

I'd like to point out something i thought about regarding her time around and her fed-cup wins -
she'll always be in some way spanish-girl #2, and maybe if she had a different nationality it would be easier to accept her as an equal to ASV, but since the two played together and one against each other, she's always going to be looked down at (quite unfairly).
Perhaps in a different place and time she could have been a 5+ grand slam champ, a gold medalist and a former #1 player, she just so happened to be at the wrong place, all the time.

I'm trying to find the exact words I'm looking for to describe the feeling I get from her career - maybe i can cunclude that she's the most deserving one-time GS winner, and that another trophy would have given her the justified bar over many others "in the way" alla majoli, capriati, pierce and even ASV herself.
just makes you feel for her, in a way.

jfk
Jul 7th, 2005, 01:36 AM
No, I don't think she should...sure she's had longevity and consistency, but she never took that big step toward becoming a legend, which is what the HOF needs.

If Sabatini who rightfully deserved to but hasn't gotten in, Conchita shouldn't come close.

cartmancop
Jul 7th, 2005, 02:30 AM
if she gets in then the hall of fame is a joke. I remeber when awhile ago the commentators were arguaging over whether andre should get in, and thats when he had 8 grandslams as he does now. I really think only the truely greats should get in, and martinez imo is not one of them


I think the standards should be MUCH higher too...

The current players I see as locks are Venus, Serena, Davenport, & Justine...

Obviously Hingis & Seles but I don't consider them current.

The whole idea of Noah for instance getting in kind of takes away from the prestige IMO. 1 Slam.... That's kind of a low standard.

& Novotna this year...she is slightly more understandable b/c althoug she has 1 slam singles title, she was a finalist a few times & had several GS Doubles titles.

I mean last year it was Steffi Graf...now that's somebody who deserves to be in there....


The HOF seems to me like they base their nominations on not wanting to leave anybody out who might have had 1 big achievement :rolleyes:

I think Conchita's 700 wins may be what does it for her, if she gets in which I am not sure of..

spencercarlos
Jul 7th, 2005, 04:20 AM
No, I don't think she should...sure she's had longevity and consistency, but she never took that big step toward becoming a legend, which is what the HOF needs.

If Sabatini who rightfully deserved to but hasn't gotten in, Conchita shouldn't come close.
I agree.
Conchita´s most dominating stats comes in fed cup, and its been said before that 16 of her 33 titles are Tier III or lower, i doubt you can describe greatness when half of your titles are Tier III, and when you have a very poor record against most of the game greatest players.
Sure a very solid, consistent carreer but GREAT? no.. there are at least 21 players with a better carreer than Martinez.

slice
Jul 7th, 2005, 06:52 AM
conchi :hearts:

C.MARTINEZ
Jul 7th, 2005, 09:55 AM
Conchita is a tennis star, it would be stupid to ignore it, her lonvevity in the world of tennis is a fact and who deny it obviosuly don´t have any idea about tennis.

Sabatini for example was a great tennis star but i would like to see if she could hold now the level against the youngest player, not only Sharapova, Kuznetsova....

Conchita is a legend, and she should be in the hall of fame :worship: :worship:

spencercarlos
Jul 7th, 2005, 11:07 AM
Conchita is a tennis star, it would be stupid to ignore it, her lonvevity in the world of tennis is a fact and who deny it obviosuly don´t have any idea about tennis.

Sabatini for example was a great tennis star but i would like to see if she could hold now the level against the youngest player, not only Sharapova, Kuznetsova....

Conchita is a legend, and she should be in the hall of fame :worship: :worship:
If Gaby could hold it up pretty well against Graf and Seles (obviously better than Martinez period), im pretty sure she would have sneaked a win here and there against younger players.
Anyway im not comparing Gaby with Martinez, im comparing AT LEAST 21 other players who have a better carreer than Conchita.

C.MARTINEZ
Jul 7th, 2005, 12:47 PM
Yo can´t be sure about Sabatini´s resistence against the youngest players....

Sanchez Vicario (with better carreer that Sabatini for example) can´t hold the level when she was old...

Como veo que eres de Venezuela y que me haré entender mejor si te hablo en español :D .....
Conchita ha aguantado el empuje de todas las lolitas durante al menos 8 o 9 años, el circuito quema mucho y cada vez es más físico, no tengo tan claro que otras jugadoras de antaño (como Sabatini por ejemplo) hubiera podido hacer lo mismo de la misma manera, o por lo menos permíteme que lo dude, no te hablo del pasado (las estadísticas favorecen a Sabatini ante las grandes, sí) te hablo del tenis actual y de que Conchita ha resistido el empuje de un montón de genereaciones de jugadoras, no tengo tan claro que esas 21 jugadoras que dices que tienen mejor carrera que conchita hubieran podido hacer eso.

Es lo que tengo que puntualizar, aunque tengo que confesarte que me encantaba el tenis de Sabatini (muy parecido al de conchita) y que para nada mi intención es desprestigiarla.

:wavey:

puede utilizar el adjetivo "great" y "solid" hablando de la carrera de Conchita, no olvides que no estás hablando de Anke Huber ni de Kimiko Date :tape:

416_Man
Jul 7th, 2005, 02:06 PM
You have to be kidding yourself if you don't think she'll make it in. Her career is one of longevity- not many people could last nearly as long as she has in the game. And the fact that she upped her results earlier this year- shows she can end her career positively. It's more interesting to ask if non-grand slam winners will make it, despite phenominal careers.

Scotso
Jul 7th, 2005, 04:54 PM
Exactly, 416.

Conchita has had a long and VERY successful career. You can't judge success on majors alone. Players can win slams and still not be all that great.... Iva Majoli.

Look at the number of tournaments Conchita has won on a high level, and on all surfaces. She'll definitely get in, and she certainly deserves it.

Even though I'm a HUGE fan of Mary and have been forever, Conchita would get my pick over Mary. Mary has won two majors and done well in many... but she has so few titles compared to other places like her.

justineheninfan
Jul 29th, 2011, 07:26 PM
Wasnt 2010 (last year) the first year she was eligible. She could still make it in eventually but it looks like she didnt make it in right away atleast.

I wouldnt be surprised if she never makes it though. Kafelnikov still hasnt made the Hall of Fame and Martinez is like the female Kafelnikov except without a 2nd slam, without that much doubles success outside of Olympics and Fed Cup, and more success winning tier 1/Premier/Masters events.

Novotna made the Hall of Fame and she is a similar caliber of singles player but a much better doubles player, and is more famous with her history of up and downs at Wimbledon.

justineheninfan
Jul 29th, 2011, 07:27 PM
Exactly, 416.

Conchita has had a long and VERY successful career. You can't judge success on majors alone. Players can win slams and still not be all that great.... Iva Majoli.

Look at the number of tournaments Conchita has won on a high level, and on all surfaces. She'll definitely get in, and she certainly deserves it.

Even though I'm a HUGE fan of Mary and have been forever, Conchita would get my pick over Mary. Mary has won two majors and done well in many... but she has so few titles compared to other places like her.

Mary has won 2 slams and been in 6 slam finals vs Martinez's 1 slam and 3 slam finals. She has a few memorable thrashings of Graf and other great players, and beat many of the best players in her runs to slam finals and to slam titles. She is a more exciting, popular, interesting, and media friendly player than Martinez.

Martinez was more consistent but between the two Pierce will get into the Hall of Fame sooner if the choice is between the two.