PDA

View Full Version : Hall of Fame Material?


tennisIlove09
May 12th, 2004, 09:44 PM
I've been thinking...what exactly is Hall of Fame material?

Being #1?

This seems like the best way to ensure you get into the HOF, but there are weak #1's (Clijsters-Rios, who were #1 without majors).

Majors?

And if so, how many? Conchita Martinez only has one major, but it seems like she'll head to the HOF. Iva Majoi on the other hand has one major as well, but she probably won't go to the HOF (or will she?)

miranda_lou
May 12th, 2004, 09:57 PM
What makes you think either Conchita or Iva will make the Hall of Fame?:rolleyes: I don't think either will.

The criteria for entering the Hall of Fame has been lowered since they put Shriver in there but the criteria is still not low enough for those two to get in.:lol:

WhatTheDeuce
May 12th, 2004, 09:59 PM
What makes you think either Conchita or Iva will make the Hall of Fame?:rolleyes: I don't think either will.

The criteria for entering the Hall of Fame has been lowered since they put Shriver in there but the criteria is still not low enough for those two to get in.:lol:
Conchi, maybe. Iva no way.

tennisIlove09
May 12th, 2004, 10:01 PM
What makes you think either Conchita or Iva will make the Hall of Fame?:rolleyes: I don't think either will.

The criteria for entering the Hall of Fame has been lowered since they put Shriver in there but the criteria is still not low enough for those two to get in.:lol:

Which was the point of the thread. To see what the criteria was.

I think Conchita will go for numerous reasons
1-She won a major
2-she was near the top of the sport of many years, and has had solid results (many titles)
3-Fed-Cup icon. Her and Arantxa were a dynasty for years

Iva hasn't done much of anything outside Roland Garros

bandabou
May 12th, 2004, 10:46 PM
I think Conchita should go....I mean if Pam can go on doubles alone, then Conchita´s runs at all the majors and her solid career titles make her a good bet. Consider she has reached the final of three of the majors, has won the IO like 4 times in a row,etc...

Back to the topic...I think you need a high ranking, solid career numbers and/ or a couple of majors....

darrinbaker00
May 12th, 2004, 11:20 PM
What makes you think either Conchita or Iva will make the Hall of Fame?:rolleyes: I don't think either will.

The criteria for entering the Hall of Fame has been lowered since they put Shriver in there but the criteria is still not low enough for those two to get in.:lol:
Of course Conchita gets in, and I can give you 706 reasons why. In my opinion, the real question mark is Jennifer Capriati. Yes, Jen's one of the lucky 13 who's been ranked #1 on the computer. Yes, Jen's won three majors and an Olympic gold medal. The problem is, Jen's only won 10 other titles in FOURTEEN years on your. You have to draw the line somewhere; which side will Jen be on when it's drawn? ;)

RainyDays
May 12th, 2004, 11:40 PM
I think Jen will get in....possibly because of the comeback, and the WAY she's won her GS's.
Iva is a def. question mark, i think since she won RG she deserves to get in, but then again, the trophy might be enough since she never really made a name for herself other than RG, i think.


I think people just have to know who you are. Tennis fans atleast. say Jack SmithJohnsonMiller was number 1 for a week. no one knew who he was, but would he still be in the HOF? i dont think so, but maybe.
i dont know the criteria, so i dunno why i replyed.

Gallofa
May 12th, 2004, 11:45 PM
the Hall of Fame has been lowered since they put Shriver in there I thought it was the other way around, didn't they have to raise the roof so that she could fit in? :lol: ;)

I think out of the active players, the Hall of Fame players are:

Should make it: Monica Seles, Serena Williams, Venus Williams, Lindsay Davenport, Jennifer Capriati, Justine Henin.

Probable: Mary Pierce & Conchita Martinez

Long shot: Iva Majoli

Recently retired and not yet in the Hall of Fame but should also make it: Martina Hingis, Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario,

Probable: Jana Novotna & Gabriela Sabatini

I think a GS in singles is almost a MUST, at a rate of 2 inductions a year (recent player, old player) most of the people mentioned should make it... Also Pam Shriver making it to the Hall gives hope to people like Gigi Fernandez and Natasha Zvereva, with their outstanding doubles careers.

Kart
May 13th, 2004, 12:18 AM
If Conchita or Jana make it in and Gaby doesn't I'm going after this infamous hall of fame thing :armed:.

Gallofa
May 13th, 2004, 12:34 AM
If Conchita or Jana make it in and Gaby doesn't I'm going after this infamous hall of fame thing :armed:.
;)

I gave Jana, Conchita and Gaby about the same chances :D ;)

Fingon
May 13th, 2004, 02:18 AM
Petrova

faboozadoo15
May 13th, 2004, 02:38 AM
Petrova
lol...
maybe if they didn't induct her had a small little thing on the best player who never won a title... o wait, that would be kournikova...

MisterQ
May 13th, 2004, 05:04 AM
Of course Conchita gets in, and I can give you 706 reasons why. In my opinion, the real question mark is Jennifer Capriati. Yes, Jen's one of the lucky 13 who's been ranked #1 on the computer. Yes, Jen's won three majors and an Olympic gold medal. The problem is, Jen's only won 10 other titles in FOURTEEN years on your. You have to draw the line somewhere; which side will Jen be on when it's drawn? ;)


I agree that it is strange for Jen to have only 10 other titles, but I think the accomplishments you just mentioned merit a place in the Hall of Fame. It seems likely that those with at least 3 slams (Capriati, Davenport, Henin-Hardenne) will make it in.

Capriati's accomplishments are comparable in some respects (although obviously not identical) to those of Tracy Austin, who has a place in the Hall. Tracy won 2 majors (both USO), 29 total titles, and reached the No. 1 spot briefly.

Mr_Molik
May 13th, 2004, 05:06 AM
kim will get in even if she doesnt win a slam, cos of her doubles results, no1 singles ranking and number of singles titles (including 2 YEC)

Rothes
May 13th, 2004, 05:43 AM
Hall of Fame I believe has to be contemplated before they let a certain Player be initiated in, No, A Player doesn't have to revolutionize the game of Tennis but has to show what they have contributed to Tennis, eg: Navratilovas Surpremecy of Singles and Doubles, BJK, Steffi Graf etc etc

It's not just singles Results that count, Shriver had a fond Singles Career, but her doubles career was her Surpremecy, Thats why she was Initiated.

Conchita will be known as a great Champion of Tennis, Possibly more in Spain, I don't believe however she has got enough results to have her excelled in the Hall of Fame, 95 was her Best Season, and past and present before then, Conchita was a threat, Her Singles Career is Glamourous, considering the Singles Titles (Which seem to comprise of Teir 3 <) and a Mediocre-good Doubles Player.

Her Career up to now has been Excellent, No Doubt about it. Grandslam Champion? Yes, Hall of Fame representative? Highly Unlikely.

Rothes
May 13th, 2004, 05:50 AM
I think Conchita should go....I mean if Pam can go on doubles alone, then Conchita´s runs at all the majors...

HOF Isn't just about Singles Careers, and while though Pams Singles Career isn't as Glorious as her Doubles, it was not half bad ;)

People Who Initiate people into the HOF specially on Singles intelligence don't just want "Runs" they want multiple Results of Grand Slam Championships to promote their chance, Having winning won one and a few Finals Here in there, splash in a few SF's, while that might sound extravagant, It shouldn't be enough to enter H&F.

bello
May 13th, 2004, 10:52 AM
If Conchita or Jana make it in and Gaby doesn't I'm going after this infamous hall of fame thing :armed:.
AMEN to that Kart!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gaby should be in there no doubt! And i guess Conchita, if she must. lol

Anyone know if there is a sight of the official hall of fame??

Pamela Shriver
May 13th, 2004, 12:01 PM
what exactly is Hall of Fame material?

Having the largest neck in the world. Well thats how I got in, I'm sure.

Philbo
May 13th, 2004, 12:54 PM
I understand why some people question Shriver getting in, but I dont think many of you are really giving her any credit for the career she had - speaking of her doubles which is what got her in..

The statement "Also Pam Shriver making it to the Hall gives hope to people like Gigi Fernandez and Natasha Zvereva, with their outstanding doubles careers" I think is pretty misguided when you compare the doubles records of Fernandez/Zvereva to Shriver.

Pam was undefeated for OVER 2 years in doubles from April 1983 to July 85 she won 104 matches in a row and 8 consecutive slams.. She won something like 7 Australian Opens, 5 Wimbledons, and 4 French and US Opens..

Neither Fernandez or Zvereva or any other doubles players in the modern era can boast a record comparable to that besides Martina of course.

I think Capriati should be there above Martinez for sure, not only does Capriati have some of the 'youngest ever' records to her name (which to me should count as criteria) but she has triple the slams that Martinez has.

calabar
May 13th, 2004, 01:32 PM
Pam was undefeated for OVER 2 years in doubles from April 1983 to July 85 she won 104 matches in a row and 8 consecutive slams.. She won something like 7 Australian Opens, 5 Wimbledons, and 4 French and US Opens..


If one looks closely at the above statements, one gets the impression that those were achievements by an INDIVIDUAL. No they were not. They were achievements by a TEAM. Which leads me to this question, why are doubles players honored as individuals and not as a team? While I do not question the supremacy of the Shriver/Navratilova TEAM, I believe the Hall-of-Fame (HOF) should honor the team rather than the individual. We can all speculate how a doubles player would perform if they were partnered with another player, but until they do we will never know.

The team of Lisa Raymond/Renee Stubb was an impressive one back in the day, but neither player has set the world on fire since they went their separate ways. Should either player get in the HOF? Hardly. Consideration should at least be given if they were considered as a team imo.

As far as singles players are concerned, it appears that the Tracy Austin 2-slam minimum rule is the "official" benchmark. I suppose winning one slam could be construed as being lucky whereas 2 require more than luck. Then there are the intangibles such as; what an individual may have brought to the sport. Obviously that last criterion is designed to be intentionally vague.

In closing, I think 2 slams PLUS a number 1 ranking ought to be enough. And I do believe so-called doubles "specialists" should be inducted as part of a team.

My 2 cents

CapFan#1
May 13th, 2004, 02:43 PM
Anyone who has reached the pinnacle in the rankins, the #1 spot, deserves to be in the HOF. Anyone who has won multiple Slams should be there as well. PERIOD.

Gallofa
May 13th, 2004, 02:50 PM
The statement "Also Pam Shriver making it to the Hall gives hope to people like Gigi Fernandez and Natasha Zvereva, with their outstanding doubles careers" I think is pretty misguided when you compare the doubles records of Fernandez/Zvereva to Shriver.That's your opinion. I don't agree. But we never agree. So just a normal day at the Boards :lol: .

Philbo
May 18th, 2004, 03:00 AM
Agreement or not, when you compare the records of the two teams, they are incomparable.

faboozadoo15
May 18th, 2004, 03:56 AM
calabar has a point. i just don't know how that could be put into action. lisa and rennae were so good for so long.