PDA

View Full Version : Let's talk Hall of Fame


eugreene2
Oct 23rd, 2008, 03:59 PM
My boy & I occasionally have this debate over who deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. I think most would agree the tennis standards are way below par. He oftens argues that Gabby Sabatini had no business being inducted because she only has 1 slam and came up too short in many other grand slams. Here is my list ... what's yours

(Based on players I know about - no particular order)
1) Hingis (cocaine be damned)
2) Henin
3) Navratilova
4) Evert
5) Graf
6) Davenport
7) Serena
8) Seles
9) Shriver
10) Venus
11) Capriati
12) Sharapova

No, Clijsters is not hall of fame to me. She only won 1 slam and had no longevity. She's Hall of Very Good in my opinion

Callum
Oct 23rd, 2008, 04:02 PM
What about Sanchez-Vicario?

LudwigDvorak
Oct 23rd, 2008, 04:03 PM
Mauresmo deserves Hall of Fame.

MrSerenaWilliams
Oct 23rd, 2008, 04:13 PM
According to the "criteria"

Clijsters, Ivanovic, and Sharapova will all be there. In fact, Ivanovic and Sharapova would make it if they retired today :o

eugreene2
Oct 23rd, 2008, 04:41 PM
According to the "criteria"

Clijsters, Ivanovic, and Sharapova will all be there. In fact, Ivanovic and Sharapova would make it if they retired today :o

I know ... the tennis "criteria" is so weak. There is no way I could vote for Ivanovic at this point. I have no problems voting for Sharapova but I wouldn't vote for Clijsters or Ivanovic.

Mauresmo deserves Hall of Fame.

Mauresmo essentially had 1 great year. whoop-de-do! And I've never seen a number 1 get bageled as many times as she did during that year.

LudwigDvorak
Oct 23rd, 2008, 04:51 PM
Mauresmo continues to be an incredible ambassador for the game for many years now, which is another criterion for entering HOF, if I am not mistaken. If I am, then ignore the previous sentence. Her 2006 was extremely good, but her accomplishments, titles, wins, all from 1999-2005 cannot be ignored.

She's been one of the best players in the world since 1999. Longevity, consistency, two slams, multiple Tier Is, Year-Ending Championships, 20+ titles, 60+ top ten wins...what's not Hall of Fame material here? But you seem to have a negative stance on this entire subject, so I doubt anything I say could change your mind.

The HOF is useless. Scrap it if it's so flakey.

homogenius
Oct 23rd, 2008, 04:58 PM
My boy & I occasionally have this debate over who deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. I think most would agree the tennis standards are way below par. He oftens argues that Gabby Sabatini had no business being inducted because she only has 1 slam and came up too short in many other grand slams. Here is my list ... what's yours

(Based on players I know about - no particular order)
1) Hingis (cocaine be damned)
2) Henin
3) Navratilova
4) Evert
5) Graf
6) Davenport
7) Serena
8) Seles
9) Shriver
10) Venus
11) Capriati
12) Sharapova

No, Clijsters is not hall of fame to me. She only won 1 slam and had no longevity. She's Hall of Very Good in my opinion

So Shriver and Sharapova are in but not Sanchez, Mandlikova, Mauresmo etc...?

eugreene2
Oct 23rd, 2008, 05:07 PM
This is based on players I have seen or know about from documentaries, etc. I'm not saying my list is the end all/be all. I know nothing about Mandlikova so I can't vote on her. Sanchez should not have been left off my list.

eugreene2
Oct 23rd, 2008, 05:10 PM
Mauresmo continues to be an incredible ambassador for the game for many years now, which is another criterion for entering HOF, if I am not mistaken. If I am, then ignore the previous sentence. Her 2006 was extremely good, but her accomplishments, titles, wins, all from 1999-2005 cannot be ignored.

She's been one of the best players in the world since 1999. Longevity, consistency, two slams, multiple Tier Is, Year-Ending Championships, 20+ titles, 60+ top ten wins...what's not Hall of Fame material here? But you seem to have a negative stance on this entire subject, so I doubt anything I say could change your mind.

The HOF is useless. Scrap it if it's so flakey.

You make a good case for Mauresmo here. I'm interested in hearing what others think about the Hall of Fame, not just my list. I wonder if others agree with you on Amelie. I was definitely a "no" until I read this. Right now, I'm still "no" but you have made me think.

Even though Mauresmo has those wins, all I keep remembering is her coming up short in big matches and slams. Although in the '06 Wimby final, she came from a set down to beat Justine. That was impressive.

homogenius
Oct 23rd, 2008, 05:10 PM
This is based on players I have seen or know about from documentaries, etc. I'm not saying my list is the end all/be all. I know nothing about Mandlikova so I can't vote on her. Sanchez should not have been left off my list.

What makes Shriver more deserving than Mauresmo ?

Dave.
Oct 23rd, 2008, 05:19 PM
Of active players (in no order):

Lindsay Davenport
Venus Williams
Virginia Ruano-Pascual
Amelie Mauresmo
Cara Black
Lisa Raymond
Ai Sugiyama
Serena Williams
Rennae Stubbs
Liezel Huber
Maria Sharapova

misael
Oct 23rd, 2008, 05:33 PM
Tracey Austin should be in, 2 slams, 31 titles, #1, beat Martina and Chris back to back , five times, if it was'nt for that back injury, who knows how much more she could had accomplished, also Virginia wade who won 3 slams including the very first US Open of the open era, and the 100th anniversity of Wimbeldon,she also has 60+ titles, and even if someone does'nt know Manlikova, the fact that she won 4 slams during the Evert/Martina time speaks volumes...P.S. Mauresmo defitnetly belongs there!

eugreene2
Oct 23rd, 2008, 05:35 PM
What makes Shriver more deserving than Mauresmo ?

I think the numerous grand slams in doubles means something. Some may argue that she was playing with Martina but when you win as many matches as they did, I believe she was important to the chemistry & success of the team. 22 Grand Slams even 1 mixed without Martina. She also won the Olympic Gold without Martina. She definitely gets my vote as a Hall of Fame Doubles Specialist.

Serenita
Oct 23rd, 2008, 05:43 PM
Venus
Serena
Navratilova
Mauresmo
Henin
SharaPova
Hingis
Seles
Capriati
Graf

AnnaK_4ever
Oct 23rd, 2008, 08:39 PM
Navratilova
Evert
Graf
Seles
Williams
Williams
Henin
Goolagong
Hingis
Sanchez-Vicario
Mandlikova
Davenport
Capriati
Mauresmo
Pierce
Austin
Clijsters
Sharapova

Open Era players who never won a Grand Slam singles title shouldn't be inducted in HOF, imo.

Sharakim
Oct 23rd, 2008, 09:19 PM
OPEN ERA HALL OF FAME:
Margaret Court
Billie Jean King
Martina Navratilova
Chris Evert
Steffi Graf
Monica Seles
Serena Williams
Venus Williams
Justine Henin
Evonne Goolagong
Martina Hingis
Arantxa Sánchez Vicario
Hana Mandlíková
Lindsay Davenport
Jennifer Capriati
Maria Sharapova
Tracy Austin
Kim Clijsters

frenchie
Oct 23rd, 2008, 09:53 PM
Myskina for the Hall of Fame!

Come on Nastya you can do it!!

Cp6uja
Oct 23rd, 2008, 11:04 PM
Anna Kournikova should be in womans tennis Hall of Fame.

I'm not joke about this!

Her influence on current East-Europian (Russian especially) tennis boom is simple amazing. When she reach TOP50 at 15 in 1996 or Wimbledon SF next year, and all that off-court millions and global star status many parents take tennis way more seriously and for young girls tennis become 1st option sport (status which always have at west in womans competition). Ignoring "Kournikova Phenom" or only looks at theirs bad side - is simple wrong.

Because Influence on tennis global popularity, i think that Gabriela Sabatini with just one GS title and couple finals also deserve to be part of WTA Hall of Fame.

Another open era WTA name which nobody here not mentouned is Pam Shriver. Over 100 titles in doubles (including 20+ at slams) with OG Gold (OG gold from doubles have same value like in singles) is enough for me. I'm first here which will always says Singles>>>>>Doubles, but Shriver careers numbers is realy big achivment.

thrust
Oct 23rd, 2008, 11:25 PM
Just out of curiosity, what is the criteria to be eligible for the Tennis Hall of Fame? It is hard to belive they really have any criteria. Those eligible IMO are: Serena, Justine, Venus, Lindsay,Hingis. I assumed ASV, Navratilova, Manlikova were already in the HOF. My criteria is: 4 Slams, on more than one surface, at least 20 other tournament wins. Lindsay does not have 4 Slams, but she has sufficent other criteria to make her eligible. The other criteria being: Over 50 tournament wins, 4 years ending as #1, 98 weeks at #1.

mboyle
Oct 23rd, 2008, 11:27 PM
I say anyone who wins 2 grand slams gets in automatically.
1 grand slam would require other accomplishments, say 5 years in the top 5, 30+ titles, time at no. 1, etc. Novotna yes, Myskina no.

frenchie
Oct 23rd, 2008, 11:30 PM
Myskina yes!

who cares about achievements

duhcity
Oct 23rd, 2008, 11:36 PM
I agree with Cp6uja. The HOf shouldn't be based on achievements but rather impact on the sports.
Anna Kournikova probably had more impact on the development on the sport than the better slam winning players of her time. Like the person said, the amount of money she made really spurred parents to put their daughters into the sport of tennis.

Plus she's famous and american.

Any american slam finalist will make the HOF. Any American player that was ever decent on clay would probably make the HOF too.

fammmmedspin
Oct 23rd, 2008, 11:37 PM
Have they actually inducted Natasha and Gigi yet - its about time if not?

AcesHigh
Oct 23rd, 2008, 11:44 PM
Open Era players who never won a Grand Slam singles title shouldn't be inducted in HOF, imo.

Which is beyond ridiculous.

kiwifan
Oct 24th, 2008, 12:27 AM
Come on y'all, the Tennis "Hall of Fame" is really the Tennis "Hall of Participation", every player that wins a slam (singles) and stays on court for more than 7 years will probably end up in the Hall. :yawn:

darrinbaker00
Oct 24th, 2008, 12:53 AM
Come on y'all, the Tennis "Hall of Fame" is really the Tennis "Hall of Participation", every player that wins a slam (singles) and stays on court for more than 7 years will probably end up in the Hall. :yawn:
You just made Iva Majoli's day, my friend. ;)

MyskinaManiac
Oct 24th, 2008, 01:11 AM
Can't believe some of you have left off Pierce. Shame. Two grandslams, four finals, doubles grandslam and a final... along with a passion for the game that far exceeds an Henin, Clijsters or an Austin.

stevos
Oct 24th, 2008, 02:28 AM
Why hasn't Hall_Of_Fame showed up yet.
to talk.

Serenita
Oct 24th, 2008, 02:32 AM
Why not make the criteria steeper?
- min 3 gs
- 5 years in top 10
- 30 plus singles titles

spencercarlos
Oct 24th, 2008, 03:10 AM
My boy & I occasionally have this debate over who deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. I think most would agree the tennis standards are way below par. He oftens argues that Gabby Sabatini had no business being inducted because she only has 1 slam and came up too short in many other grand slams. Here is my list ... what's yours

(Based on players I know about - no particular order)
1) Hingis (cocaine be damned)
2) Henin
3) Navratilova
4) Evert
5) Graf
6) Davenport
7) Serena
8) Seles
9) Shriver
10) Venus
11) Capriati
12) Sharapova

No, Clijsters is not hall of fame to me. She only won 1 slam and had no longevity. She's Hall of Very Good in my opinion
Gabby Sabatini does not deserve to be in the Tennis HOF, Gabriela Sabatini does.
According to my standards you Venus Fan you are part of the Hall Of The I Don't Care.

:wavey:

Sharakim
Oct 24th, 2008, 03:44 AM
Anna Kournikova should be in womans tennis Hall of Fame.No she should not. Kournikova is a footnote in tennis history. A player who didn't win a single individual title during her time on tour should never be in the HOF. Her importance to russian tennis is debatable. Maybe she's the spark that lite the fire, but Sharapova, Dementieva, Myskina, Safina, and Kuznetsova are the ones who have really set the standard for russian tennis as far as I'm concerned.

Cakeisgood
Oct 24th, 2008, 04:45 AM
Myskina for the Hall of Fame!

Come on Nastya you can do it!!

um no.

Volcana
Oct 24th, 2008, 05:04 AM
My boy & I occasionally have this debate over who deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. I think most would agree the tennis standards are way below par. He oftens argues that Gabby Sabatini had no business being inducted because she only has 1 slam and came up too short in many other grand slams. Here is my list ... what's yours

(Based on players I know about - no particular order)
1) Hingis (cocaine be damned)
2) Henin
3) Navratilova
4) Evert
5) Graf
6) Davenport
7) Serena
8) Seles
9) Shriver
10) Venus
11) Capriati
12) Sharapova

No, Clijsters is not hall of fame to me. She only won 1 slam and had no longevity. She's Hall of Very Good in my opinionOf the list you provided, the only 'locks' for my Hall of Fame would be Graf, Navratilova, Evert, Seles and Serena. And I wouldn't think all that long before including Venus. A liitle more thought, I'd say yes to Henin. Not that many people win seven slam singles titles. And while doubles is a team thing, hingis won doubles slams with so many different partners (a couple of whom didn't win one without her) that she proved herself the best doubles player since Nav.

But that's it. No Davenport, no Capriati, no Sharapova (yet), no Mandlikova, no ASV.

moby
Oct 24th, 2008, 05:35 AM
Anna Kournikova should be in womans tennis Hall of Fame.

I'm not joke about this!

Her influence on current East-Europian (Russian especially) tennis boom is simple amazing. When she reach TOP50 at 15 in 1996 or Wimbledon SF next year, and all that off-court millions and global star status many parents take tennis way more seriously and for young girls tennis become 1st option sport (status which always have at west in womans competition). Ignoring "Kournikova Phenom" or only looks at theirs bad side - is simple wrong.Agreed. I wouldn't be surprised if Anna makes it under the Contributor category at some point in the future.

eugreene2
Oct 24th, 2008, 11:39 AM
Lawd, people are actually including Kournikova ... talk about low standards for Hall of Fame.

And to Spencer Carlos - Love U

eugreene2
Oct 24th, 2008, 11:40 AM
Come on y'all, the Tennis "Hall of Fame" is really the Tennis "Hall of Participation", every player that wins a slam (singles) and stays on court for more than 7 years will probably end up in the Hall. :yawn:

:worship: You aint neva lied ... so true & so sad!!!

Volcana
Oct 24th, 2008, 02:21 PM
A problem with the whole concept of a Hall of 'Fame' is that it's relatively easy to become famous in this day and age. So people are sugesting players who time will not be kind to. Let me give you an example. Most people here have no idea who Maria Bueno. Yet she won 7 singles slams (Wimbledon 3 times, the US Open four times), plus 11 slam doubles titles and was the AP Female Sportswoman of the Year. In 1959. So Fifty years later, she's not 'famous'. Yet she's pretty convincingly one of the top twenty-five female players in the history of the sport.

The tennis hall of fame has become so diluted it's a joke. Given the lack of criteria for getting in Anna Kournikova does deserve to get in. She's more 'famous' than all but a handful of tennisplayers ever.

Now, if you were going to have a 'Hall of Super Elite Tennis Careers', obviously Kournikova wouldn't be in it. Neither would Sabatini, or Yannick Noah, or Virgina Wade or a whole lot of other people who are in there now. And how do you measure across eras? A player from the 50's had far fewer tournaments outside the slam available to them to win. So is total titles really a fair measure of anything. Computerized rankings are a relatively recent development. And there have been many different systems. Under some systems, Sabatini would have made #1.Under some systems, Jankovic would not. I believe that under at least one system, Venus never would have been #1, playing the same schedule she's played.

If the HoF was reserved for the true elect of the sport, there would be less than twenty women in it. And I mean from the whole history of tennis, not just the Open era. We could call it 'The Maria Bueno Test'. If your slam record is not demonstrably better than Maria Bueno's, you don't get in.

orfgab
Oct 24th, 2008, 03:16 PM
I agree with Volcana that you can take different criteria. And you can make a "Hall of super elite tennis careers" (Graf, Navratilova, Seles, Williams and Hingis) or you can be less demanding. That's the case. For me, Sabatini, Clijsters and Mauresmo deserve the Hall of fame. I would say every Slam Winner who has strong enough results. The two players who won a slam and don't deserve it are Myskina and Majoli for me. For the other ones, no problem.

misael
Oct 24th, 2008, 03:17 PM
I agree with Cp6uja. The HOf shouldn't be based on achievements but rather impact on the sports.
Anna Kournikova probably had more impact on the development on the sport than the better slam winning players of her time. Like the person said, the amount of money she made really spurred parents to put their daughters into the sport of tennis.

Plus she's famous and american.

Any american slam finalist will make the HOF. Any American player that was ever decent on clay would probably make the HOF too.
I have a hard time inducting anyone that has'nt won a slam let alone a even one single title, if Anna makes the hall of fame it would make a mockery of it.

eugreene2
Oct 24th, 2008, 03:23 PM
A problem with the whole concept of a Hall of 'Fame' is that it's relatively easy to become famous in this day and age. So people are sugesting players who time will not be kind to. Let me give you an example. Most people here have no idea who Maria Bueno. Yet she won 7 singles slams (Wimbledon 3 times, the US Open four times), plus 11 slam doubles titles and was the AP Female Sportswoman of the Year. In 1959. So Fifty years later, she's not 'famous'. Yet she's pretty convincingly one of the top twenty-five female players in the history of the sport.

The tennis hall of fame has become so diluted it's a joke. Given the lack of criteria for getting in Anna Kournikova does deserve to get in. She's more 'famous' than all but a handful of tennisplayers ever.

Now, if you were going to have a 'Hall of Super Elite Tennis Careers', obviously Kournikova wouldn't be in it. Neither would Sabatini, or Yannick Noah, or Virgina Wade or a whole lot of other people who are in there now. And how do you measure across eras? A player from the 50's had far fewer tournaments outside the slam available to them to win. So is total titles really a fair measure of anything. Computerized rankings are a relatively recent development. And there have been many different systems. Under some systems, Sabatini would have made #1.Under some systems, Jankovic would not. I believe that under at least one system, Venus never would have been #1, playing the same schedule she's played.

If the HoF was reserved for the true elect of the sport, there would be less than twenty women in it. And I mean from the whole history of tennis, not just the Open era. We could call it 'The Maria Bueno Test'. If your slam record is not demonstrably better than Maria Bueno's, you don't get in.

In most sports, the Hall of Fame is not about how famous you are. If that was the case, Micheal Vick would be a shoe in for the NFL Hall. It SHOULD be about your accomplishments on the court. Any other entries should be reserved for people who had a tremendous impact on the sport. Kournikova has done neither but be a sex symbol. :lol:

misael
Oct 24th, 2008, 03:32 PM
Of the list you provided, the only 'locks' for my Hall of Fame would be Graf, Navratilova, Evert, Seles and Serena. And I wouldn't think all that long before including Venus. A liitle more thought, I'd say yes to Henin. Not that many people win seven slam singles titles. And while doubles is a team thing, hingis won doubles slams with so many different partners (a couple of whom didn't win one without her) that she proved herself the best doubles player since Nav.

But that's it. No Davenport, no Capriati, no Sharapova (yet), no Mandlikova, no ASV.
Davenport with her 56 titles, 3 slams, Olympic gold in singles, year end #1 3 times, a Year end championships, besides Serena, Graf and Henine winning record against all other players, a finished top ten 10 different years,winning Fed Cup record, Your crazy if you think davenport is not good enought for the Hall of fame.

Serenita
Oct 24th, 2008, 03:45 PM
Kournikova, should not be selected for HOF. The girl hasn't won nothing.