PDA

View Full Version : Anna Kournikova should be in the Tennis HOF


rhz
Oct 29th, 2006, 05:20 AM
She made tennis as famous as it is now! Tennis owes a lot to her. big time!

Do you agree? Please no haters.

Sharakim
Oct 29th, 2006, 06:18 AM
No. She never won a WTA tour singles title and although she made it as high as #8 in the world and won a number of doubles titles, that shouldn't be enough to earn a place in the HOF. To me, the only significance that she has as a player is as the trailblazer for the Russian revolution.

snooky1
Oct 29th, 2006, 06:59 AM
Well,she made tennis as popular as other sports like football,she gave hope to all the russians out there to fight their place in tennis world,the new fans were coming with all her preformances on the courts around the world,the tickets was selling like never before,she made tennis soooo entertaiment,and show that beatiful girls can be great sports figure too,so YES,she deserves a lace in Hall Of Fame.Without her,who knows...

selecta
Oct 29th, 2006, 07:01 AM
she surely does :kiss:

kittyking
Oct 29th, 2006, 07:09 AM
I think Anna K does, but not by how well she played

Anna K made tennis a more well known sport internationally, and you can see this by how much the television contracts cost when Anna K entered them. At her peak she was good, not by any means the best woman on the planet though.

Sharakim
Oct 29th, 2006, 07:20 AM
I think Anna K does, but not by how well she played

Anna K made tennis a more well known sport internationally, and you can see this by how much the television contracts cost when Anna K entered them. At her peak she was good, not by any means the best woman on the planet though.But is her fame really all that important. Yes I agree that it did make tennis more popular around the world, but what about the Williams sisters? Weren't they popular as well? And, unlike Anna, they had major titles to back up their fame. I'm not saying that Anna's contribution was unimportant - because it was - but I think it pales in compareson to what her successors are contributing on the court. My point is that everything Anna accomplished with her fame will be/has already been elipsed by the other Russians; therefore, she doesn't deserve to be in the HOF based on her fame.

snooky1
Oct 29th, 2006, 07:30 AM
Please...don't compare Anna's popularity to sisters.She is known around the world,and is much more popular than any other player will ever be,but i agree that's not a factor in here.If the only reason to be in HOF is winning singles titles-then NO,she don't deserve it,but we all know that it's not only that.She won 2 grand slams in doubles and 14 others,was nr 1 in the world and 8 in singles,mix it up with her popularity and you got a worthy player to be in HOF.

DutchieGirl
Oct 29th, 2006, 08:01 AM
:yeah: Absolutely. ;)

Veeko
Oct 29th, 2006, 08:10 AM
Surely

If you've ever watched her games,you may know it:D

though she has never won a WTA tour singles title,no doubt,she is still a tennis talent:kiss: Without her,tennis isn't as popular as it is now

James
Oct 29th, 2006, 08:12 AM
Of course she made tennis more popular, but that could be said about lots of other players. She should have at least achieved a major title win to be eligible for the HOF.

DutchieGirl
Oct 29th, 2006, 08:15 AM
Of course she made tennis more popular, but that could be said about lots of other players. She should have at least achieved a major title win to be eligible for the HOF.

What, doubles don't count? :p

rhz
Oct 29th, 2006, 08:16 AM
Bud Collins is in the HOF and what did he do?

James
Oct 29th, 2006, 08:18 AM
What, doubles don't count? :p

It plays a part, but a HOF inductee without a singles win does not seem right for me.

James
Oct 29th, 2006, 08:20 AM
Bud Collins is in the HOF and what did he do?

That is a different category altogether.

Sharakim
Oct 29th, 2006, 08:23 AM
Of course she made tennis more popular, but that could be said about lots of other players. She should have at least achieved a major title win to be eligible for the HOF. :yeah:

rhz
Oct 29th, 2006, 08:39 AM
That is a different category altogether.

Then she should be in the category!

moby
Oct 29th, 2006, 08:49 AM
Interesting thread. There should be a poll.

I say yes, she deserves to be in the HOF. She had a credible career in singles (no titles, but she did reach Top 10) and a doubles career that more than 99% of the tour can only dream of. And she did made tennis so much more popular even if it wasn't because of her tennis.

cindy
Oct 29th, 2006, 08:49 AM
I don't think that there is a lot of other player who've done as much for tennis popularity...btw anna didn't inspired only tennis player but a lot of sportwomen!! I never saw that much doll in sport before anna! a lot of person though that a woman who makes too much sport is too much like a man
then anna came and her body was screaming that you can be sexy and beautiful even if you are a sportwoman
a lot of person (must I say a lot of men) came to watch tennis not because of the game but because of anna K!
is there another sportwomen who has been "the most beautiful woman in the world"? I don't think so...
of course you can say that we are not talking about tennis at all and it will be a lie to say that anna has the best career ever but one thing is sure she inspires a lot of other career, she makes tennis more popular thx to her beauty, if sponsors grant importance to the women not only for her game but also for their personality and their body it's thx to anna too (I think that there is a lot of tennis player who can go and give her a huge thx!!!)
I realy don't think (even if it can sound stupid) that tennis is the more important (especially when we are talking about anna K) I mean there is a lot of actors who won an oscar (the GS of tennis) and you don't even know their name because they wasn't popular, because, finaly, safe from giving a great performance in a movie they didn't do that much for cinema!
I like iva majoli but here is a theory...she won a GS so she did better than anna but who is the more known? who did inspire lil girls more?
It will be great if anna was in the HOF (even if I doubt she'll be one day) because as a lot of commentators and journalist said she did a lot for tennis without winning a single title which is maybe even more impressing!

James
Oct 29th, 2006, 09:08 AM
Then she should be in the category!

No, she should not. This would be the contributor category. Exceptional contributions that have furthered the growth, reputation and character of the sport, in categories such as administration, media, coaching and officiating. That does not involve players.

Louis Cyphre
Oct 29th, 2006, 09:11 AM
No. She never won a WTA tour singles title and although she made it as high as #8 in the world and won a number of doubles titles, that shouldn't be enough to earn a place in the HOF. To me, the only significance that she has as a player is as the trailblazer for the Russian revolution.

Smashnova won 12-13 titles but who cares :shrug:
So your point is at least ridiculous

Sharakim
Oct 29th, 2006, 09:21 AM
Smashnova won 12-13 titles but who cares :shrug:
So your point is at least ridiculousWhatever, I'd consider Smashnova more worthy of a spot than Anna just because she won more singles titles. To each to his own, for me having a couple of doubles titles (without even a doubles career/calender slam) and a whole bunch of fame doesn't cut it.

Veeko
Oct 29th, 2006, 09:55 AM
I don't think that there is a lot of other player who've done as much for tennis popularity...btw anna didn't inspired only tennis player but a lot of sportwomen!! I never saw that much doll in sport before anna! a lot of person though that a woman who makes too much sport is too much like a man
then anna came and her body was screaming that you can be sexy and beautiful even if you are a sportwoman
a lot of person (must I say a lot of men) came to watch tennis not because of the game but because of anna K!
is there another sportwomen who has been "the most beautiful woman in the world"? I don't think so...
of course you can say that we are not talking about tennis at all and it will be a lie to say that anna has the best career ever but one thing is sure she inspires a lot of other career, she makes tennis more popular thx to her beauty, if sponsors grant importance to the women not only for her game but also for their personality and their body it's thx to anna too (I think that there is a lot of tennis player who can go and give her a huge thx!!!)
I realy don't think (even if it can sound stupid) that tennis is the more important (especially when we are talking about anna K) I mean there is a lot of actors who won an oscar (the GS of tennis) and you don't even know their name because they wasn't popular, because, finaly, safe from giving a great performance in a movie they didn't do that much for cinema!
I like iva majoli but here is a theory...she won a GS so she did better than anna but who is the more known? who did inspire lil girls more?
It will be great if anna was in the HOF (even if I doubt she'll be one day) because as a lot of commentators and journalist said she did a lot for tennis without winning a single title which is maybe even more impressing!

:clap2: :yeah:
I really agree with you :kiss:

Aaron68
Oct 29th, 2006, 10:07 AM
Absolutely, yes.

And not just because she is a babe.

Anna was a hell of a player, wons Slams in doubles, and was in the Top-10 in Singles. Say what you want about her, she could play tennis. Probably still can, if she were healthy enough. An entire generation of Russian women followed in her footsteps. They dominate the game now, and that's all because of Anna.

Is Pam Shriver in the Hall? If so, then Anna should be too. A tremendous talent, Anna. Gorgeous, talented, fun to watch: she should be remembered.

Veeko
Oct 29th, 2006, 10:20 AM
Absolutely, yes.

And not just because she is a babe.

Anna was a hell of a player, wons Slams in doubles, and was in the Top-10 in Singles. Say what you want about her, she could play tennis. Probably still can, if she were healthy enough. An entire generation of Russian women followed in her footsteps. They dominate the game now, and that's all because of Anna.

Is Pam Shriver in the Hall? If so, then Anna should be too. A tremendous talent, Anna. Gorgeous, talented, fun to watch: she should be remembered.

oh,yeah,that's all because of Anna,or they have not the day like this

James
Oct 29th, 2006, 10:20 AM
I don't think that there is a lot of other player who've done as much for tennis popularity...btw anna didn't inspired only tennis player but a lot of sportwomen!! I never saw that much doll in sport before anna! a lot of person though that a woman who makes too much sport is too much like a man
then anna came and her body was screaming that you can be sexy and beautiful even if you are a sportwoman
a lot of person (must I say a lot of men) came to watch tennis not because of the game but because of anna K!
is there another sportwomen who has been "the most beautiful woman in the world"? I don't think so...
of course you can say that we are not talking about tennis at all and it will be a lie to say that anna has the best career ever but one thing is sure she inspires a lot of other career, she makes tennis more popular thx to her beauty, if sponsors grant importance to the women not only for her game but also for their personality and their body it's thx to anna too (I think that there is a lot of tennis player who can go and give her a huge thx!!!)
I realy don't think (even if it can sound stupid) that tennis is the more important (especially when we are talking about anna K) I mean there is a lot of actors who won an oscar (the GS of tennis) and you don't even know their name because they wasn't popular, because, finaly, safe from giving a great performance in a movie they didn't do that much for cinema!
I like iva majoli but here is a theory...she won a GS so she did better than anna but who is the more known? who did inspire lil girls more?
It will be great if anna was in the HOF (even if I doubt she'll be one day) because as a lot of commentators and journalist said she did a lot for tennis without winning a single title which is maybe even more impressing!

So if you attract a lot of testorone-filled teen boys to the sport, you are considered HOF-worthy. I don't really see what looks have to do with anything. If you happen not be blessed by great looks but work hard to achieve great results I would rate that higher. Ultimately the tennis results are those that play a major part as well. Her double career was good, so that could provide an opening, but still I think it's strange to induct someone to the Hall of Fame without any kind of singles win. Her doubles career should have been truly exemplary in that case and probably needed to have lasted longer.

Andy.
Oct 29th, 2006, 10:25 AM
That would be an absoloute discrase the hall of fame is for the very best of the generation not someone who was a wasted talent and retired young without achieving all that much. Putting her in the hall of fame would make it an international embarassment, sorry if that harsh but thats the truth, in no way does she deserve to be there.

AnnaK_4ever
Oct 29th, 2006, 11:05 AM
She was World No.1 in doubles. World No.1. What else does player need to achieve to be inducted in the HOF? Or do you think top rank means nothing?

Aaron68
Oct 29th, 2006, 11:06 AM
She was World No.1 in doubles. World No.1. What else does player need to be inducted in the HOF? Or do you think top rank means nothing?

Exactly.

Quoted For Truth.

Meteor Shower
Oct 29th, 2006, 11:21 AM
Going by your logic Lisa Raymond also should be in the HOF no?
Sam Stosur also in the next few years?

She could win the title 'best ambassador of the sports' but enter the HOF?

Poova
Oct 29th, 2006, 11:25 AM
So if you attract a lot of testorone-filled teen boys to the sport, you are considered HOF-worthy. I don't really see what looks have to do with anything. If you happen not be blessed by great looks but work hard to achieve great results I would rate that higher. Ultimately the tennis results are those that play a major part as well. Her double career was good, so that could provide an opening, but still I think it's strange to induct someone to the Hall of Fame without any kind of singles win. Her doubles career should have been truly exemplary in that case and probably needed to have lasted longer.
Agreed 100% with this post. She shouldn't be in there AT ALL.

Joana
Oct 29th, 2006, 11:26 AM
Thanks for reminding me why I'm so glad her ass is out of tennis for good.

And to answer the question, absolutely not.

KimC&MariaSNo1's
Oct 29th, 2006, 11:31 AM
for her bringing popularity to the sport yes for her tennis no

Andy.
Oct 29th, 2006, 11:36 AM
She was World No.1 in doubles. World No.1. What else does player need to achieve to be inducted in the HOF? Or do you think top rank means nothing?
Sorry but that was only in doubles and she was hardly a dominant number one, i think i little help from Martina had something to do with that too.

cindy
Oct 29th, 2006, 11:44 AM
So if you attract a lot of testorone-filled teen boys to the sport, you are considered HOF-worthy. I don't really see what looks have to do with anything. If you happen not be blessed by great looks but work hard to achieve great results I would rate that higher. Ultimately the tennis results are those that play a major part as well. Her double career was good, so that could provide an opening, but still I think it's strange to induct someone to the Hall of Fame without any kind of singles win. Her doubles career should have been truly exemplary in that case and probably needed to have lasted longer.

I'm not saying that looks is the more important too...I realy think that you must have done something for your sport to be is the HOF...but you must admit that anna's body or anna's look is a big part of her career...it's (unfortunatly for her) what made her so much popular and it helped tennis to be popular too
honestly could you say that marilyn monroe is not a great actress just because she never won an oscar? could you realy say that she is not an symbol of the cinema?
I think that for anna is the same...even if she won nothing (btw, as GL said, she was number one in double etc) it's right that if you only make your mind thinking of her tennis maybe that she doesn't deserve to be in that HOF
but sport is more than just result, you can be a great champion even in the defeat...anna did more for tennis than a lot of other player you won more than her
if she didn't so why are we (you and I but also all the others here and the media too) still talking about her?

James
Oct 29th, 2006, 11:51 AM
I'm not saying that looks is the more important too...I realy think that you must have done something for your sport to be is the HOF...but you must admit that anna's body or anna's look is a big part of her career...it's (unfortunatly for her) what made her so much popular and it helped tennis to be popular too
honestly could you say that marilyn monroe is not a great actress just because she never won an oscar? could you realy say that she is not an symbol of the cinema?
I think that for anna is the same...even if she won nothing (btw, as GL said, she was number one in double etc) it's right that if you only make your mind thinking of her tennis maybe that she doesn't deserve to be in that HOF
but sport is more than just result, you can be a great champion even in the defeat...anna did more for tennis than a lot of other player you won more than her
if she didn't so why are we (you and I but also all the others here and the media too) still talking about her?

But is it her looks or her tennis that you remember? Most of the attention went to her looks. But we are talking a TENNIS Hall of Fame here. It's not a Miss World competition. She has drawn attention, but for a lot of people it was cause she looked good and therefore was marketable. But if her all fans were true tennis fans, I would sincerely doubt.

I am not saying she was a bad tennis player and like I said before her doubles results are and were great. But all in all her career was too shortlived for it to be HOF-worthy.

Aaron68
Oct 29th, 2006, 11:53 AM
Exactly.

Anna is still talked about, still followed, still adored. And she doesn't even play tennis anymore (sadly). Ask a person on the street who Justine Henin-Hardenne is, and you will get a blank look. Ask that same person who Anna Kournikova is, and you will get a response.

She was more than just a pretty face though. Not only could she really play tennis, but she was an ambassador for the game. She made people interested in the game of tennis, the game of women's tennis in an era when Chrissie and Martina were no longer around.

If you aren't an American it's difficult to understand. Here, tennis is almost ignored. The only tennis player most Americans could name is Maria Sharapova. Anna made tennis something to watch for people. And she played her heart out, and was one hell of a player. Watch her old matches.

If for no other reason, starting the Russian Revolution in tennis is good enough for me. She made something happen. She did something bigger than herself. Isn't that what the Hall of Fame is all about?

snooky1
Oct 29th, 2006, 11:55 AM
I'm not saying that looks is the more important too...I realy think that you must have done something for your sport to be is the HOF...but you must admit that anna's body or anna's look is a big part of her career...it's (unfortunatly for her) what made her so much popular and it helped tennis to be popular too
honestly could you say that marilyn monroe is not a great actress just because she never won an oscar? could you realy say that she is not an symbol of the cinema?
I think that for anna is the same...even if she won nothing (btw, as GL said, she was number one in double etc) it's right that if you only make your mind thinking of her tennis maybe that she doesn't deserve to be in that HOF
but sport is more than just result, you can be a great champion even in the defeat...anna did more for tennis than a lot of other player you won more than her
if she didn't so why are we (you and I but also all the others here and the media too) still talking about her?

You are so right(ex with Marilyn Monroe is so good) and it's good that only few haters say shes not worth it.Anna gave tennis so much that no one from today's top 10 can give in next years.She's an Icon no matter what and shes worth the place inTHOF.

Kemper
Oct 29th, 2006, 11:56 AM
She made tennis as famous as it is now! Tennis owes a lot to her. big time!

Do you agree? Please no haters.


Tennis had higher TV ratings before her.

Kemper
Oct 29th, 2006, 12:09 PM
Well,she made tennis as popular as other sports like football,she gave hope to all the russians out there to fight their place in tennis world,the new fans were coming with all her preformances on the courts around the world,the tickets was selling like never before,she made tennis soooo entertaiment,and show that beatiful girls can be great sports figure too,so YES,she deserves a lace in Hall Of Fame.Without her,who knows...


Maybe in Russia.
I don't think that she helped sell more tickets at slams (Because everybody knew that she wouldn't be in the second week most of the time). :D

People watched women's tennis because of Evert, Navratilova, Graf, Sabatini, Seles. No Kournikova match is in the top 50 among the women's matches with the highest worldwide TV ratings, IMO.

Aaron68
Oct 29th, 2006, 12:15 PM
Maybe in Russia.


And in America.

Don't underestimate the effect that Anna had on Russians, or Americans.

WhatTheDeuce
Oct 29th, 2006, 12:18 PM
LOL. No.

Kemper
Oct 29th, 2006, 12:21 PM
And in America.

Don't underestimate the effect that Anna had on Russians, or Americans.


But the idea of Kournikova being elected to the HoF is so preposterous that it doesn't even deserve to be discussed.

If there were a HoF of pop culture she would be a sure inductee, though.
But it is about TENNIS here.

cindy
Oct 29th, 2006, 12:22 PM
But is it her looks or her tennis that you remember? Most of the attention went to her looks. But we are talking a TENNIS Hall of Fame here. It's not a Miss World competition. She has drawn attention, but for a lot of people it was cause she looked good and therefore was marketable. But if her all fans were true tennis fans, I would sincerely doubt.

I am not saying she was a bad tennis player and like I said before her doubles results are and were great. But all in all her career was too shortlived for it to be HOF-worthy.

I think she deserves it more for what she brings (because or thx to her body, one more time unfortunatly for her) to tennis which means a certain popularity even if you are not too much interested in sport
now I cannot say that you are wrong if HOF is just about tennis then I will not understand if anna is in...but I don't think that HOF just cares about tennis's result so...

Aaron68
Oct 29th, 2006, 12:26 PM
But the idea of Kournikova being elected to the HoF is so preposterous that it doesn't even deserve to be discussed.


No, it is not preposterous at all.

I can understand if you just don't like her, fine. But the fact is, it at least deserves consideration.

Andy.
Oct 29th, 2006, 12:28 PM
No, it is not preposterous at all.

I can understand if you just don't like her, fine. But the fact is, it at least deserves consideration.
You cant be serious, even considering her is an insult to the institute and the great champions who have been inducted.

snooky1
Oct 29th, 2006, 12:32 PM
...but I don't think that HOF just cares about tennis's result so...

that's right.Kemper read,learn and get over it!!!Tennis Hof is not only tennis...it's all goods player gave to the sport,so name any other player that is recognizeable(for looks,for game,for entertaiment,for beeing ambassador,for give hope,for enter soooooo many closed before doors!!!) so much as Anna does.Simply...there ain't one!

martin white
Oct 29th, 2006, 12:33 PM
r u serious? what have u been smoking:lol: she was a good draw card for womens tennis but not for her tennis ability.rip anna:tape: :lol:

Experimentee
Oct 29th, 2006, 12:34 PM
No. Its a TENNIS hall of fame, not a modelling HOF.

wta_zuperfann
Oct 29th, 2006, 12:37 PM
AnnaK brought in multiples of millions of dollars into pro tennis through her commercial endorsements and higher TV ratings. A lot of people associated with the sport are financially better off today thanks to her. As to why she did not go above # 8 in the rankings, I believe that some of that can be attributed to the fact that she has had numerous ankle and leg injuries. I have always said that hard surfaces are to blame for why so many of our WTA players suffer these severe injuries. If the WTA used soft surfaces, she and others would not have had such severe injuries and it is likely that her rankings may have been higher.

Pro tennis has enjoyed a great deal more success thanks to AnnaK. Let's reward her for all of her great contributions by electing her into the HOF.

James
Oct 29th, 2006, 12:39 PM
I think she deserves it more for what she brings (because or thx to her body, one more time unfortunatly for her) to tennis which means a certain popularity even if you are not too much interested in sport
now I cannot say that you are wrong if HOF is just about tennis then I will not understand if anna is in...but I don't think that HOF just cares about tennis's result so...

Maybe not just, but it will be a large part of it, it is a tennis hall of fame after all. Look at the criteria:

Recent Player Category Eligibility Criteria

Active as competitors in the sport within the last 20 years prior to consideration.
Not a significant factor on the ATP Tour or the WTA Tour within five years prior to election.
A distinguished record of competitive achievement at the highest international level, with consideration given to integrity, sportsmanship and character.The words "competitive achievement" stand out here. Integrity, sportsmanship and character are factors, good looks alone will never make it for you though.

Paul.
Oct 29th, 2006, 12:42 PM
if anna gets in then i think all the people who have won a singles title should be eligable :lol:

seriously though, i just dont think she achieved nearly enough

Kemper
Oct 29th, 2006, 12:43 PM
No, it is not preposterous at all.

I can understand if you just don't like her, fine. But the fact is, it at least deserves consideration.

I like her.
Like 70 % of the male population on this planet I'd like to f*** her.

But this is the *tennis* HoF.

Aaron68
Oct 29th, 2006, 12:46 PM
You cant be serious, even considering her is an insult to the institute and the great champions who have been inducted.

I am 100% serious. It is not an insult at all. It's an appreciation of what a woman can do for the game beyond just winning titles.

I am a big baseball fan. And I have never, and *will* never, visit the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown. Why? Three reasons:

Pete Rose
Shoeless Joe Jackson
Buck O'Neill

Now, Rose was the all-time hits leader. Jackson was one of the greatest players IN ANY SPORT ever.

But O'Neill, whom they are inducted now that he *died*, was passed over while alive. And why should Buck be in the HoF? Because he did more for the sport, *as an ambassador*, for the Negro Leagues and for baseball in general, than almost anyone else in history.

I am not saying that Anna should be a shoe-in. But she should be considered. She did a lot for the game, and she was a talented player on top of it. To pretend like she isn't even a contender is to ignore a huge part of tennis history.

James
Oct 29th, 2006, 12:47 PM
AnnaK brought in multiples of millions of dollars into pro tennis through her commercial endorsements and higher TV ratings. A lot of people associated with the sport are financially better off today thanks to her. As to why she did not go above # 8 in the rankings, I believe that some of that can be attributed to the fact that she has had numerous ankle and leg injuries. I have always said that hard surfaces are to blame for why so many of our WTA players suffer these severe injuries. If the WTA used soft surfaces, she and others would not have had such severe injuries and it is likely that her rankings may have been higher.

Pro tennis has enjoyed a great deal more success thanks to AnnaK. Let's reward her for all of her great contributions by electing her into the HOF.

Injuries may have hampered indeed, but you can't induct someone for what might have been, if she stayed healthy.

And sure, she made profits for the WTA and the companies that endorsed her. But do you think her sponsors cared for the tennis in any way, she was just a tool to get their products sold. And if she did not produce any more headlines, she would be out as soon as possible, with the next player rushed in to deliver the goods.

hwanmig
Oct 29th, 2006, 12:51 PM
Honestly I didnt know who Kournikova was back in the days when I wasnt a tennis fan.

Edward.
Oct 29th, 2006, 12:56 PM
Never in a billion years.

Ballbasher
Oct 29th, 2006, 12:56 PM
Yes she made tennis popular :worship:

AnnaK_4ever
Oct 29th, 2006, 12:57 PM
Going by your logic Lisa Raymond also should be in the HOF no?
Sam Stosur also in the next few years?


Of course they should be inducted too.
World No.1! C'mon guys! No.1 = the best player on the Tour, no?

Aaron68
Oct 29th, 2006, 12:57 PM
The words "competitive achievement" stand out here. Integrity, sportsmanship and character are factors, good looks alone will never make it for you though.

She won Slams in doubles, was #1 in the world in doubles, and was ranked in the Top-10 at one point in singles.

I'd say that she had "competitive achievement" in tennis.

And let's face it, none of us who are arguing on the side of Anna's inclusion are doing so based *solely* on her accomplishments in the game. What we ARE saying is that her contributions to the game, alongside her accomlishments, make her a contender.

Damn, this whole thing is just making me sad. I so wish Anna would come back.

cindy
Oct 29th, 2006, 01:00 PM
Maybe not just, but it will be a large part of it, it is a tennis hall of fame after all. Look at the criteria:

Recent Player Category Eligibility Criteria

Active as competitors in the sport within the last 20 years prior to consideration.
Not a significant factor on the ATP Tour or the WTA Tour within five years prior to election.
A distinguished record of competitive achievement at the highest international level, with consideration given to integrity, sportsmanship and character.The words "competitive achievement" stand out here. Integrity, sportsmanship and character are factors, good looks alone will never make it for you though.


thx for these rules :) :worship:

btw, without talking about rules...there was an art exhibition about russia one years ago in bilbao...so there was thing about the czar, the comunism etc and do you know how it ended? with a statue of a tennis player who clearly was anna K...if this doesn't mean that she has been important I don't know how we will prove it

now if the rules are exactly what you said (and I believe you on this) anna will never be on the HOF...do you allow me to say "sadly"? :wavey:

James
Oct 29th, 2006, 01:05 PM
She won Slams in doubles, was #1 in the world in doubles, and was ranked in the Top-10 at one point in singles.

I'd say that she had "competitive achievement" in tennis.

And let's face it, none of us who are arguing on the side of Anna's inclusion are doing so based *solely* on her accomplishments in the game. What we ARE saying is that her contributions to the game, alongside her accomlishments, make her a contender.

Damn, this whole thing is just making me sad. I so wish Anna would come back.

But all in all her career was too shortlived for an induction. Maybe she will make a comeback like Hingis did.

James
Oct 29th, 2006, 01:07 PM
thx for these rules :) :worship:

btw, without talking about rules...there was an art exhibition about russia one years ago in bilbao...so there was thing about the czar, the comunism etc and do you know how it ended? with a statue of a tennis player who clearly was anna K...if this doesn't mean that she has been important I don't know how we will prove it

now if the rules are exactly what you said (and I believe you on this) anna will never be on the HOF...do you allow me to say "sadly"? :wavey:

The choice for Anna in the exhibition reflects the thoughts of the organisers, not more than that.

And the rules come straight from the hall of fame's own site, so you can trust me on that one.

http://www.tennisfame.com/tennisfame.aspx?pgID=871

Aaron68
Oct 29th, 2006, 01:09 PM
But all in all her career was too shortlived for an induction. Maybe she will make a comeback like Hingis did.

From your mouth to god's ears.

When Martina came back, I was shocked, and so friggin' happy. I couldn't believe it. If Anna came back, I would faint, probably.

She does say that Martina's come back has given her hope. I think Larry Scott would have a heart-attack if Anna came back. :)

Kimster
Oct 29th, 2006, 01:25 PM
OK!!!!



:haha:

OMG! I hope you were like joking, right? :rolleyes:

Kitten63
Oct 29th, 2006, 01:43 PM
no.

Kemper
Oct 29th, 2006, 01:52 PM
thx for these rules :) :worship:

btw, without talking about rules...there was an art exhibition about russia one years ago in bilbao...so there was thing about the czar, the comunism etc and do you know how it ended? with a statue of a tennis player who clearly was anna K...if this doesn't mean that she has been important I don't know how we will prove it

now if the rules are exactly what you said (and I believe you on this) anna will never be on the HOF...do you allow me to say "sadly"? :wavey:

No.
Let's say thank God ......

vogus
Oct 29th, 2006, 02:38 PM
Kournikova has her place in tennis history, but that place is not the Hall of Fame. Maybe she'll eventually sqeak in on her doubles results, but that won't happen for a long time. The way Kournikova wasted and disrespected her own tennis talent in favor of a celebrity image, is too fresh in people's minds.

Kart
Oct 29th, 2006, 02:48 PM
Probably not on achievement alone but she's definitely worth a mention as a footnote in tennis history.

*JR*
Oct 29th, 2006, 03:03 PM
:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:

Lunatiq
Oct 29th, 2006, 03:06 PM
No No No No No No No No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

tennismaster8820
Oct 29th, 2006, 03:14 PM
She should be in the Tennis HOF, she will be more remembered then some grand slam champions! She made tennis so popular, no other player had so many fans!

hingis-seles
Oct 29th, 2006, 04:51 PM
As much as I like Anna, I'd never consider her for the Tennis Hall of Fame. Someone in this thread mentioned Pam Shriver as a comparison. Shriver won more than 20 GS doubles titles, including the Grand Slam in 1984. Kournikova won 2 GS doubles titles (at the same event with the same partner). There's no comparison.

As for how much she popularized tennis, where do you draw the distinction between quantifying that claim and simply stating your opinion?

MrSerenaWilliams
Oct 29th, 2006, 05:32 PM
She WILL make the HOF because she won Doubles Majors

irma
Oct 29th, 2006, 05:34 PM
You should not be in the tennis hall of fame because men like to drool on your tennisdress
You should not be in the tennis hall of fame either because you are a talent and your career is cut short, because she isn't the only one.

And maybe Yuri S read a story about Anna during the mid nineties and dediced to take his daughter to America too, but that was still Yuri's decision. Monica's father also watched Virginia Ruzici receiving a cheque at the french open and decided that it was a good thing for his daughter, but she isn't in the hof (I think)

Kart
Oct 29th, 2006, 05:38 PM
^ irma :hearts:, I never asked you.

What do you think about Sabatini being in the Hall of Fame ?

Joana
Oct 29th, 2006, 05:44 PM
She WILL make the HOF because she won Doubles Majors

So did Larisa Neiland, Julie Halard-Decugis, Ai Sugiyama, Cara Black, Rennae Stubbs, Liezel Huber, Mirjana Lucic etc. They better make some room for all of them!

Kemper
Oct 29th, 2006, 05:45 PM
^ irma :hearts:, I never asked you.

What do you think about Sabatini being in the Hall of Fame ?


Men (and some women) drooled at her.

But there was something else - 1 slam, 2 YECs, 2 slam finals, 27 singles tournament wins, 10 years in the top 10. And she played in the perhaps greatest time of women's tennis (mid-80ies - mid-90ies) against Navratilova, Graf, Seles, Sanchez.

irma
Oct 29th, 2006, 05:50 PM
^ irma :hearts:, I never asked you.

What do you think about Sabatini being in the Hall of Fame ?

imho When players played during the same generation the most succesful players should be in first so I think she should have been inducted after ASV.

But she won 3 big titles (us open and masters) and was in the top 10 for 10 years so she definitely brought a lot on court so there is a case.
But I am also fair to say that I wonder if she would have been inducted already if she had not been famous for other things that had not much to do with tennis.

But on the Novotna is also in. But would she have been if she had not lost wimbledon 93?

Lets see what happens with Conchita who was by far the least famous between them!

Kart
Oct 29th, 2006, 06:01 PM
imho When players played during the same generation the most succesful players should be in first so I think she should have been inducted after ASV.

But she won 3 big titles (us open and masters) and was in the top 10 for 10 years so she definitely brought a lot on court so there is a case.
But I am also fair to say that I wonder if she would have been inducted already if she had not been famous for other things that had not much to do with tennis.

But on the Novotna is also in. But would she have been if she had not lost wimbledon 93?

Lets see what happens with Conchita who was by far the least famous between them!

You forgot the record against Steffi in Florida (which you know was my ONLY reason for mentioning it :p.)

I don't think they can not induct Conchita now that they've opened the door.

I agree with what you're wondering though - I don't think Gaby would have been inducted if not for her popularity outside of tennis.

That said, she was more likely to win major titles at her best than Novotna so I think if they let Jana it's much harder to make a case against Gaby unless you put major weight on doubles. I'd almost give Jana more credit for her 1993 Wimbledon final performance than her Wimbledon win - I'm not so sure she'd have been a slam winner if she'd faced someone better than Tauziat in the final.

vogus
Oct 29th, 2006, 06:19 PM
Gabby was the 4th best player behind 3 obvious HOF'ers in that generation, she won a GS, YEC, many Tier 1's. She is in, it's not even close.

Veeko
Oct 30th, 2006, 04:12 AM
Exactly.

Anna is still talked about, still followed, still adored. And she doesn't even play tennis anymore (sadly). Ask a person on the street who Justine Henin-Hardenne is, and you will get a blank look. Ask that same person who Anna Kournikova is, and you will get a response.

She was more than just a pretty face though. Not only could she really play tennis, but she was an ambassador for the game. She made people interested in the game of tennis, the game of women's tennis in an era when Chrissie and Martina were no longer around.

If you aren't an American it's difficult to understand. Here, tennis is almost ignored. The only tennis player most Americans could name is Maria Sharapova. Anna made tennis something to watch for people. And she played her heart out, and was one hell of a player. Watch her old matches.

If for no other reason, starting the Russian Revolution in tennis is good enough for me. She made something happen. She did something bigger than herself. Isn't that what the Hall of Fame is all about?


Great post :kiss: She should be for sure

Veeko
Oct 30th, 2006, 04:25 AM
If she shouldn't be,and then i don't think who should be :help:

Without her,do you think tennis would be popular,don't kid me

Kenny
Oct 30th, 2006, 04:39 AM
If she gets into the HOF having never won a title, the HOF might as well be a JOKE. Period.

Kunal
Oct 30th, 2006, 06:13 AM
HOF is for people who have accomplished something not for someone who has not won a single tournament

moby
Oct 30th, 2006, 06:14 AM
As James mentioned, there is the contributor category.

Contributor Category Eligibility Criteria

Exceptional contributions that have furthered the growth, reputation and character of the sport, in categories such as administration, media, coaching and officiating.

I don't see why Anna can't be placed under this category. And she won't be there just for her looks either, because if she couldn't at least play as well as she did, no one would even know about her. And before anyone says it is unfair, it is also "unfair" for Steffi Graf to be born with the natural ability to excel in the game.

James
Oct 30th, 2006, 06:38 AM
As James mentioned, there is the contributor category.

Contributor Category Eligibility Criteria

Exceptional contributions that have furthered the growth, reputation and character of the sport, in categories such as administration, media, coaching and officiating.

I don't see why Anna can't be placed under this category. And she won't be there just for her looks either, because if she couldn't at least play as well as she did, no one would even know about her. And before anyone says it is unfair, it is also "unfair" for Steffi Graf to be born with the natural ability to excel in the game.

Because it seems this is a category reserved for non-players.

denzuko
Oct 30th, 2006, 06:52 AM
Because it seems this is a category reserved for non-players.

As a player, Buchholz was the world No. 5 ranked player in 1960, was ranked four times in the US Top 10, played as a touring pro 1961-67 (U.S. Pro Champ 1962) and played Davis Cup 1959-60.

Not all of them are non-players... for example: former player Earl Buchholz, Jr. "Butch".
But it's almost a lifetime dedication for a contributor to enter HoF.
So, if she continues her work for another 20 years... who knows.

James
Oct 30th, 2006, 07:44 AM
Not all of them are non-players... for example: former player Earl Buchholz, Jr. "Butch".
But it's almost a lifetime dedication for a contributor to enter HoF.
So, if she continues her work for another 20 years... who knows.

Ok, then I stand corrected. But then I still wonder what exactly her dedication to tennis is at the moment. What does she do for the sport right now?

denzuko
Oct 30th, 2006, 08:05 AM
Actually I wasn't seriously considered her to enter HoF.
I forgot to put to put that little 'roll eyes'.
Something like this:
So, if she continues her work for another 20 years... who knows. :rolleyes: