PDA

View Full Version : The HOF waiting list


clonesheep
Jul 10th, 2011, 05:28 AM
A realistic assessment of future Hall of Famers:

Tier 1: Shoo-in's

Serena Williams
Venus Williams
Justine Henin
Martina Hingis
Kim Clijsters
Lindsay Davenport
Jennifer capriati
Maria Sharapova
Amelie Mauresmo

All were No. 1 and multiple slam winners. All made minimum of 3 slam finals (Mauresmo). Venus, Henin, Davenport, and Capriati were Olympic gold medalists in singles. (Serene+Venus gold in doubles, Mauresmo silver in singles.) Serena+Venus multiple slam doubles winners and doubles No. 1. Davenport doubles No. 1 as well.

Tier 2: Very likely in's

Mary Pierce
Svetlana Kuznezova

They didn't make No. 1 but won 2 slams and made multiple appearances at slam finals (Pierce 5, Kuznezva 4). One can even argue that they are more accomplished than Mauresmo.

Tier 3: Hopefuls

Ana Ivanovic
Anastasia Myskina
Na Li
Francesca Schiavoni
(Petra Kvitova)

They each won only 1 slam but there are compelling reasons to let them in. Ana was No. 1 and made 3 slam finals. Myskina and Li were "pioneers" who paved the way for the Russian (and future chinese) booms. Schiavoni because there hasn't been an Italian in a long time (if ever). Moreover, she made 2 slam finals and her fighting spirit reminds the good old Michael Chang, who was in with 1 slam.

I put Kvitova in parenthesis because her career has just begun, but I believe she will achieve a lot more and make it.

Tier 4: The rejects

Dinara Safina
Jelena Jankovic
(Caroline Wozniacki)

They were (are) No. 1 but they are also the reason that No. 1 ranking is no longer respected. There will be more unworthy No. 1 to come and they will further dilute the value of it. None of them will make it to the HOF unless they win slams. I put Wozniacki in parenthesis because she is still young, but I kind of don't believe she can pull it off anymore.

Patrick345
Jul 10th, 2011, 05:55 AM
You forgot Iva Majoli on the hopefuls list.

Volcana
Jul 10th, 2011, 05:56 AM
dilute the value of it.There's the problem. The bar for the HoF is so, ANYBODY who gets the #1 ranking should get in. Why? Why is Yannick Noah in? LOVED his tennis. But is that truly that bar?

Want a REAL Hall of Fame? Start with this. Should Martina Hings be in? She was the FOURTH best player of her generation. Include doubles, and she rises to .... THIRD best.

IMHO, the gatekeeper player for being in the HoF, at least post 1987, should be.... Venus Williams.

If you had a career that was more or less comparable to Venus', you're in. So NO to Conchi, ASV, Davenport, Capriati, Hingis, Sharapova, Pierce, Kuznetsova, Yes to Henin,Sererna,Goolagong ......

Dav.
Jul 10th, 2011, 06:03 AM
I honestly believe Kournikova deserves it for her amazing doubles career and the attention she brought to the WTA. Pretty great singles career for a 21-year-old retiree as well.

lang26
Jul 10th, 2011, 06:09 AM
i still say Elena Dementieva should be in HOF

lang26
Jul 10th, 2011, 06:10 AM
i think Dinara Safina Jelena Jankovic still gotta chance at RG that one slam like said many time is always wide open and them two is great on clay

LoveFifteen
Jul 10th, 2011, 06:12 AM
Why on earth should Venus be the gatekeeper? :unsure:

Curtos07
Jul 10th, 2011, 06:22 AM
If Ana can somehow turn her career around, start posting good results consistently again and win another slam, she could get in, but that's a lot of IF's. But she is still 23 so she has time.

Dementieva should be considered.

lang26
Jul 10th, 2011, 06:24 AM
If Ana can somehow turn her career around, start posting good results consistently again and win another slam, she could get in, but that's a lot of IF's. But she is still 23 so she has time.

i think she get in with one slam really

Solitaire
Jul 10th, 2011, 06:36 AM
So NO to Conchi, ASV, Davenport, Capriati, Hingis, Sharapova, Pierce, Kuznetsova

Totally disagree. These women all deserve to get in for various reasons. I think we as tennis fans often forget how HARD it is to win a slam and/or become number one.

AnomyBC
Jul 10th, 2011, 06:54 AM
Wozniacki will definitely get in one way or another. First of all, statistically speaking, she's likely to win multiple slams in her career because no one who's reached #1 so quickly has ever not won multiple slams, no one who's ever spent as much time as her at #1 has ever not won multiple slams and, as far as I know, no one who's ever won as many titles as her by her age has ever not won multiple slams. But even if she doesn't win a single slam, I think there would likely be a very good argument for her just based on the number of weeks she'll likely have spent at #1 by the end of her career and the number of titles she's likely to have won. I mean, she's only 20 years old and she's already in the Top 10 of all time in terms of weeks at #1. She's already ahead of people like Venus, Clijsters, Sharapova, Capriati and Sanchez Vicario. And she already has more titles than Capriati, Kuznetsova, Ivanovic, Li and Schiavone (and also Kvitova, but she's just starting out). At the rate she's going she could very well end her career with 50 titles and more than 100 weeks at #1. So even if she somehow fails to win a slam, that would still be a pretty damn impressive career.

Shonami Slam
Jul 10th, 2011, 07:37 AM
each year we get 4 new slam winners
each year we get one new HoF.
yes, this whole organiziation is BS, but even so - i reckon that anywhere less than 5 slams shouldn't even be looked at.
no one to introduce in every year? well - for every year with no top player to show, another ceremony can be held for players with outstanding personality or impact on the game that weren't as succesful.
Kim was great for the sport, sharapova was a recognizable face and date is a sign of age not stopping anything etc.
you can't just put any player in, or the list turn pointless.

AnomyBC
Jul 10th, 2011, 08:15 AM
each year we get 4 new slam winners

No we don't. It's possible to get 4 new winners, but that rarely happens. Usually the winners are people who have won previously.

clonesheep
Jul 10th, 2011, 08:28 AM
You forgot Iva Majoli on the hopefuls list.

Ah, I forgot Majoli. She should belong to near the bottom of the "hopefuls" but I feel that she will not get in.

Regarding one slam wonders, some said Yanick Noah doesn't deserve it but people do remember him fondly as time goes by. On the other hand, Majoli is just fading.

PLP
Jul 10th, 2011, 08:49 AM
There's the problem. The bar for the HoF is so, ANYBODY who gets the #1 ranking should get in. Why? Why is Yannick Noah in? LOVED his tennis. But is that truly that bar?

Want a REAL Hall of Fame? Start with this. Should Martina Hings be in? She was the FOURTH best player of her generation. Include doubles, and she rises to .... THIRD best.

IMHO, the gatekeeper player for being in the HoF, at least post 1987, should be.... Venus Williams.

If you had a career that was more or less comparable to Venus', you're in. So NO to Conchi, ASV, Davenport, Capriati, Hingis, Sharapova, Pierce, Kuznetsova, Yes to Henin,Sererna,Goolagong ......

Not sure about that. I can see why Mary, Sveta, and Momo are questionable, but Hingis, Aranxta, Maria, Jen, Kim, and Linds are all far too important in the history of the game for various reasons as well as being former #1's and multiple slam winners.

I think 1 time slam winners should not be included.

Chrissie-fan
Jul 10th, 2011, 09:02 AM
Totally disagree. These women all deserve to get in for various reasons. I think we as tennis fans often forget how HARD it is to win a slam and/or become number one.
I agree. If you put the bar so high that not even ASV, Davenport, Capriati, Hingis, Sharapova, Pierce or Kuznetsova get in, your HOF will be the size of the average toilet.

It's also worth considering that you have to be of a much higher standard in tennis to win titles or get a high ranking than in many other sports. If you would for example translate the much ridiculed Kournikova's #8 ranking to someone of similar standing in the boxing world with it's zillion weight categories (not to mention their WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO, IRA, PLO, CIA, FBI, and god only knows what else) she would easily be a multiple world champion. Same for judo, karate, weightlifting, etc.. The same goes for, say, track and field where you can choose from many different events in what (and thus against who) you want to compete. Same for swimming....

No such things in tennis where you can't avoid other competitors because you belong to a different weight class or compete in a different event. Therefore being the 20th best tennis player in the world is arguably as big an achievement as being a #1 in any of the above sports because that 'only' means that you're the best of a fraction of those that compete in that sport.

bandabou
Jul 10th, 2011, 09:25 AM
I agree. If you put the bar so high that not even ASV, Davenport, Capriati, Hingis, Sharapova, Pierce or Kuznetsova get in, your HOF will be the size of the average toilet.

It's also worth considering that you have to be of a much higher standard in tennis to win titles or get a high ranking than in many other sports. If you would for example translate the much ridiculed Kournikova's #8 ranking to someone of similar standing in the boxing world with it's zillion weight categories (not to mention their WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO, IRA, PLO, CIA, FBI, and god only knows what else) she would easily be a multiple world champion. Same for judo, karate, weightlifting, etc.. The same goes for, say, track and field where you can choose from many different events in what (and thus against who) you want to compete. Same for swimming....

No such things in tennis where you can't avoid other competitors because you belong to a different weight class or compete in a different event. Therefore being the 20th best tennis player in the world is arguably as big an achievement as being a #1 in any of the above sports because that 'only' means that you're the best of a fraction of those that compete in that sport.

Preach! Volcana went a bit overboard. :lol: Having said that..I don't think just winning a major should mean that you're AUTOMATHICALLY in the HoF either.

Mistress of Evil
Jul 10th, 2011, 10:44 AM
Golden Goddess Lenochka deserves a place :sobbing:

backhandsmash
Jul 10th, 2011, 11:48 AM
KDK surely must get there when she ends her career, #1 or not, slam or not. :worship:

Raiden
Jul 10th, 2011, 11:58 AM
KDK surely must get there when she ends her career, #1 or not, slam or not. :worship:She's not a Yank so she won't. The tennis HoF thing seems to be nothing more than a Yankee tennis celeb museum thing rather than a tennis version of the serously taken Hall of fame system in the major American sports.

The only permanent tennis HoF criteria is: Do you have a green card and do you have ANY kind of slam? If yes then you will automatically be a hall-of-famer. Proof: Gigi Fernandes :lol:

Shonami Slam
Jul 10th, 2011, 12:09 PM
No we don't. It's possible to get 4 new winners, but that rarely happens. Usually the winners are people who have won previously.

well, what i meant was that there are 4 new slams in the overall slam total pile, distributed in any possible form.
if winning a slam (or two) is enough to get into the HOF, than every year creates more and more potential HoF, while in reality you should really do much more.

i hope i made my point clearer now.
p.s - we are currently on a two slam streak of first timers, amusingly.

pattyclijsters
Jul 10th, 2011, 01:18 PM
A realistic assessment of future Hall of Famers:

Tier 1: Shoo-in's

Serena Williams
Venus Williams
Justine Henin
Martina Hingis
Kim Clijsters
Lindsay Davenport
Jennifer capriati
Maria Sharapova
Amelie Mauresmo

All were No. 1 and multiple slam winners. All made minimum of 3 slam finals (Mauresmo). Venus, Henin, Davenport, and Capriati were Olympic gold medalists in singles. (Serene+Venus gold in doubles, Mauresmo silver in singles.) Serena+Venus multiple slam doubles winners and doubles No. 1. Davenport doubles No. 1 as well.

Kim Clijsters is also a multiple GS Doubles winner and former doubles no. 1 (simultaneously with being no.1 in singles)

KournikovaFan91
Jul 10th, 2011, 01:23 PM
I honestly believe Kournikova deserves it for her amazing doubles career and the attention she brought to the WTA. Pretty great singles career for a 21-year-old retiree as well.

This :bowdown:

Olórin
Jul 10th, 2011, 01:23 PM
Does it really matter? :shrug:
If you are a true great your career and achievements are already immortalised in a way that transcend anything a "Hall of Fame" could provide.

Malkmus_
Jul 10th, 2011, 02:09 PM
Kim Clijsters is also a multiple GS Doubles winner and former doubles no. 1 (simultaneously with being no.1 in singles)

Same with Martina Hingis. It's ludicrous to suggest those two shouldn't be elected into the HOF.

thrust
Jul 10th, 2011, 02:30 PM
i think she get in with one slam really

UFORTUNATELY, you are probably right. Tier 1 yes, except for Mauresmo. The rest, as of now, NO WAY!

18majors
Jul 10th, 2011, 02:52 PM
Serena is one of the all time best.

Ryan
Jul 10th, 2011, 02:55 PM
There's the problem. The bar for the HoF is so, ANYBODY who gets the #1 ranking should get in. Why? Why is Yannick Noah in? LOVED his tennis. But is that truly that bar?

Want a REAL Hall of Fame? Start with this. Should Martina Hings be in? She was the FOURTH best player of her generation. Include doubles, and she rises to .... THIRD best.

IMHO, the gatekeeper player for being in the HoF, at least post 1987, should be.... Venus Williams.

If you had a career that was more or less comparable to Venus', you're in. So NO to Conchi, ASV, Davenport, Capriati, Hingis, Sharapova, Pierce, Kuznetsova, Yes to Henin,Sererna,Goolagong ......



:weirdo: You're cracked in the head. Excluding ASV, Davenport, Hingis to HOF? Ludicrous.

Volcana
Jul 10th, 2011, 04:01 PM
Why on earth should Venus be the gatekeeper? :unsure:A Hall of Fame should be about THE most accomplished players. I'd rather leave out deserving players than include those who were kind of only very, very good.

Lindsay Davenport, for example, had much the same career as Virginia Wade. They both certainly belong in the HoF under today's criteria. But if you were writing the COMPLETE history of the sport in 20 players of less, would you include either one of them? Of course not. Molla Mallory won the US Championships EIGHT times. But if I don't include her n a list of all time great players, most never miss her.

Picking Venus as 'gatekeeper' IS arbitrary, to an extent. I could have picked Evonne Goolagong. Or Justine Henin. And picking Hingis instead doesn't change much. Except that in what other period in tennis would you say the fourth best player was all that?

If you're want an HoF that getting into means something, try starting with this. Who were the ten most accomplished players of the Open era? (In the case of player whose careers began before the Open era, I'm taking ONLY their Open era accamplishments). Order by slam singles titles won, for convenience

Graf
Navratilova
Evert
Serena
Margaret Court (NOTE: Grand Slam, Boxed Set, 11 slams singles. Pretty good Open era career)
Seles
BJK
Evonne Goolagong
Venus
Henin

THAT'S a list of absolutely no-doubt Hall of Fame players. SO for other players, I judge their Hall of Fame candidacy based on comparison with those players.

Chip.
Jul 10th, 2011, 04:06 PM
At this moment in time, I pretty much agree with the OP's list.

In Caro's case, she still has the ability to move up in the list, unlike the other two at this rate :sobbing:

I want Lena on the list too :banana:

MH0861
Jul 10th, 2011, 04:09 PM
Kim Clijsters is also a multiple GS Doubles winner and former doubles no. 1 (simultaneously with being no.1 in singles)

Davenport too.

young_gunner913
Jul 10th, 2011, 04:12 PM
Since my first comment got deleted, I'll be less blunt. :lol:

Kournikova being in the HOF would be an embarrassment. She didn't win a singles title and her doubles career was made by Hingis. Not to mention she only passed the 4th round of a major ONCE in her career in her 4th slam appearence then never again. Congrats to her on making a career based on her looks but the HOF isn't a beauty contest. The only time Kournikova should be in the HOF is to be in the audience watching real players get inducted.

SoBlackAndBlue
Jul 10th, 2011, 04:31 PM
I agree. If you put the bar so high that not even ASV, Davenport, Capriati, Hingis, Sharapova, Pierce or Kuznetsova get in, your HOF will be the size of the average toilet.

Why is that a bad thing?

Imo it comes down to what you want the HoF to be. Do you want it to be a Hall of Very Good Players? Or do you want it to be a pantheon of legendary players, who were exceptional in historical terms?

SoBlackAndBlue
Jul 10th, 2011, 04:36 PM
Another thing: Looking back on their respective achievements, why is venus considered without question better than Lindsay or Clijsters? Lindsay's won 3 of the slams to Venus' too, has wayyyyy more weeks at numbers one (back when it mattered), more titles. Do 2 slam titles REALLY overcome all of that?

And honestly, if Clijsters wins one more slam, I think there's a good argument for her as well.

Henpova
Jul 10th, 2011, 04:52 PM
Do you guys even know how many name are in the HOF? Well there is over 100 players alone. It is not as hard as you would think for them to let you in. Francis Hunter is in and the only thing he ever won was the Olympic Games in 1921. So knowing that, if you when a Slam you are in (singles, doubles or mixed)...Now as far as number one with out a slam, I am not sure about. I would say that they will let them in but we have never had one before and the question really about Safina or Woz since JJ has won Wimbledon in Mixed. I know a lot of you think I am crazy but just look at the people in the HOF and you will see my point. Trust it is not that hard to make it.

List of Player in the HOF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Tennis_Hall_of_Fame#Player_category)

Henpova
Jul 10th, 2011, 04:56 PM
Why is that a bad thing?

Imo it comes down to what you want the HoF to be. Do you want it to be a Hall of Very Good Players? Or do you want it to be a pantheon of legendary players, who were exceptional in historical terms?

I want it to be of both.....when you go to a HOF you have a lot of little Display of people who had there day in the sun but never stayed long....and then you have these huge displays of people who are legends. If it was just legends then it would be too small and you would be in and out....but by having both you can walk around and really learn a lot more because many of the name you may of never heard of. Now I am not just talking about tennis I am talking about all kinds of HOF's.

Chrissie-fan
Jul 10th, 2011, 05:07 PM
Why is that a bad thing?

Imo it comes down to what you want the HoF to be. Do you want it to be a Hall of Very Good Players? Or do you want it to be a pantheon of legendary players, who were exceptional in historical terms?
To tell you the truth, I don't really care. I don't need a hall to tell me who's famous.

But since there is one, it seems to me that such an institution also has - or should have some educational purpose. If it's only there to declare to the world that Graf is an all time great I think it's pointless since even those with no interest in tennis whatsoever already know that.

theFutureisNow
Jul 10th, 2011, 05:13 PM
Wozniacki will definitely get in one way or another. First of all, statistically speaking, she's likely to win multiple slams in her career because no one who's reached #1 so quickly has ever not won multiple slams, no one who's ever spent as much time as her at #1 has ever not won multiple slams and, as far as I know, no one who's ever won as many titles as her by her age has ever not won multiple slams.

The odds aren't as much in her favor as you think.

How many multiple slam winners lost their first 18 slams? Just 3.

Dave.
Jul 10th, 2011, 05:48 PM
A Hall of Fame should be about THE most accomplished players. I'd rather leave out deserving players than include those who were kind of only very, very good.

Lindsay Davenport, for example, had much the same career as Virginia Wade. They both certainly belong in the HoF under today's criteria. But if you were writing the COMPLETE history of the sport in 20 players of less, would you include either one of them? Of course not. Molla Mallory won the US Championships EIGHT times. But if I don't include her n a list of all time great players, most never miss her.

Picking Venus as 'gatekeeper' IS arbitrary, to an extent. I could have picked Evonne Goolagong. Or Justine Henin. And picking Hingis instead doesn't change much. Except that in what other period in tennis would you say the fourth best player was all that?

If you're want an HoF that getting into means something, try starting with this. Who were the ten most accomplished players of the Open era? (In the case of player whose careers began before the Open era, I'm taking ONLY their Open era accamplishments). Order by slam singles titles won, for convenience

Graf
Navratilova
Evert
Serena
Margaret Court (NOTE: Grand Slam, Boxed Set, 11 slams singles. Pretty good Open era career)
Seles
BJK
Evonne Goolagong
Venus
Henin

THAT'S a list of absolutely no-doubt Hall of Fame players. SO for other players, I judge their Hall of Fame candidacy based on comparison with those players.

If you're going to do it like that then do it properly and leave out the bottom three. None of those three were the greatest of their eras, none have an argument for being the GOAT and you don't need them to write the history of the sport. While the top seven all have their undisputed place in history and all/most can be argued in one way or another as being the GOAT.

The top seven players in your list are the only ones absolutely necessary for a HOF which only has the most deserving players. The bottom three only come in because 10 is a convenient number, but you can't really say they are absolutely necessary while Hingis/Davenport/ASV aren't. Can't have it both ways.

DefyingGravity
Jul 10th, 2011, 06:10 PM
With Ivanovic and some of the other names, if they're particularly pioneering like the first to do something from a certain country, then they've certainly got that going for them. She and Djokovic could be in as the first Grand Slam champions from Serbia.

Root
Jul 10th, 2011, 06:11 PM
Since my first comment got deleted, I'll be less blunt. :lol:

Kournikova being in the HOF would be an embarrassment. She didn't win a singles title and her doubles career was made by Hingis. Not to mention she only passed the 4th round of a major ONCE in her career in her 4th slam appearence then never again. Congrats to her on making a career based on her looks but the HOF isn't a beauty contest. The only time Kournikova should be in the HOF is to be in the audience watching real players get inducted.

:hysteric:

+1 to this post. Kournikova has no business being in the HOF.

Dav.
Jul 10th, 2011, 06:28 PM
Since my first comment got deleted, I'll be less blunt. :lol:

Kournikova being in the HOF would be an embarrassment. She didn't win a singles title and her doubles career was made by Hingis. Not to mention she only passed the 4th round of a major ONCE in her career in her 4th slam appearence then never again. Congrats to her on making a career based on her looks but the HOF isn't a beauty contest. The only time Kournikova should be in the HOF is to be in the audience watching real players get inducted.

Wrong. 2001 Aussie QF. She was a consistent top 10-15 player and played in three Tier I finals, gaining major scalps along the way. To put it into perspective, Lisicki is at the age of Kournikova when she ended her career.

In doubles, she won 16 titles, including two grand slams, and ended 1999 ranked #1 (as an 18-year-old). To say that Hingis made their doubles career means that you never watched any of their matches...

Volcana
Jul 10th, 2011, 06:29 PM
If you're going to do it like that then do it properly and leave out the bottom three. None of those three were the greatest of their eras, none have an argument for being the GOAT and you don't need them to write the history of the sport. While the top seven all have their undisputed place in history and all/most can be argued in one way or another as being the GOAT.

The top seven players in your list are the only ones absolutely necessary for a HOF which only has the most deserving players. The bottom three only come in because 10 is a convenient number, but you can't really say they are absolutely necessary while Hingis/Davenport/ASV aren't. Can't have it both ways.I'm not trying to have it both ways. I just disagree with YOUR definition of 'properly'. Specifically, if I were limiting it to 'Greatest of their Era', that list would be Court, Navratilova, Graf, Serena. Sure I went for ten as a convenient number, but if I went with your seven, I could still argue that Evonne Goolagong and Venus belonged, since, measuring their career accomplishments against Seles', they both are at least compable, both having had significant doubles careers, and Venus having three Olympic Gold medals.

Simply put, exclusivity is the point of the thing. There ARE players who I might want to make an exception for, the most notable being Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario, for all those Fed Cups. But every multi-slam winner is not a Hall of Fame player. Every #1 ranked player is not a Hall of Fame player. That's why I like a list to compare these players to.

Compare ASV's career to Justine Henin's. Totally different kind of career, but add in all the doubles titles and Fed Cups, and you've at least got an arguement for ASV. Same deal comparing Hingis and Henin. Hingis was the most brilliant doubles player I've ever seen this side of McEnroe and Nav. But if I compare Lindsay Davenport's career to Venus' or Evonne Goolangong's or Justine Henin's, it's just not on the same level.

terjw
Jul 10th, 2011, 07:33 PM
This is why the HOF should not be subjective but a set of objective criteria that should all be met:

Slams criteria
Titles criteria
weeks at #1 criteria
Fed Cup wins criteria
years playing on the tour criteria
age and retired from the tour criteriaAs some of the players who obviously have to be in the HOF - notably Serena - won't meet the Fed Cup criteria if it's only introduced now - they will need to be voted in. In exceptional situations - a player who fails to meet the criteria can get voted in. But that should be very rare once we get past the older players who didn't bother playing Fed Cup and being voted in should be extremely rare and not happen lightly thereafter.

Have three categories in the HOF: an elite ctegory for the players meeting tough criteria Volcana had in mind they might meet. A catogory for the rest singles only. And a category for Doubles.

Betten
Jul 10th, 2011, 07:39 PM
The flaw in Vulcana's argument is that the HOF is not just based around dry accomplishments. It's also about remembering players who have contributed to the game in other ways: setting records, rivalries, involvement in historic events, reputation, advancement of tennis in general, etc. For example, Althea Gibson's record is not as strong as that of other great players ('only' five majors), but she definitely belongs in the HOF nonetheless. It are cases like this that make it impossible to define clear rules regarding admittance to the HOF. Tennis is played and watched by people - it is more than just 'results' and a HOF should not reduce a sport's history to just results.

Dave.
Jul 10th, 2011, 07:40 PM
I'm not trying to have it both ways. I just disagree with YOUR definition of 'properly'. Specifically, if I were limiting it to 'Greatest of their Era', that list would be Court, Navratilova, Graf, Serena. Sure I went for ten as a convenient number, but if I went with your seven, I could still argue that Evonne Goolagong and Venus belonged, since, measuring their career accomplishments against Seles', they both are at least compable, both having had significant doubles careers, and Venus having three Olympic Gold medals.

Simply put, exclusivity is the point of the thing. There ARE players who I might want to make an exception for, the most notable being Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario, for all those Fed Cups. But every multi-slam winner is not a Hall of Fame player. Every #1 ranked player is not a Hall of Fame player. That's why I like a list to compare these players to.

Compare ASV's career to Justine Henin's. Totally different kind of career, but add in all the doubles titles and Fed Cups, and you've at least got an arguement for ASV. Same deal comparing Hingis and Henin. Hingis was the most brilliant doubles player I've ever seen this side of McEnroe and Nav. But if I compare Lindsay Davenport's career to Venus' or Evonne Goolangong's or Justine Henin's, it's just not on the same level.


I was only really factoring singles into this. If we include doubles then 20+ time slam champs Pam and Natasha would no doubt have to be considered also. But just for singles, while there is an argument, I think the * next to Seles' name makes her essential where Goolagong and Venus aren't (in addition to other areas in which Seles leads the two).

If you want a truly exclusive HOF then you only put the essential players in and not just set a "top 10" which needs fillers like Henin and co.

That last part is a contradition. If ASV is comparable to Henin for Fed Cup and doubles well then so is Davenport (who already has a stronger argument for singles alone than ASV). You can make comparisons between all these players and see their careers in different lights. The point is, there is only a small group of players who truly belong in an exclusive HOF, and from the rest letting some in and keeping some out based on slam count, Fed Cups, doubles, how much you like them etc. defeats the purpose and you may as well just have what we have now.

SoBlackAndBlue
Jul 10th, 2011, 08:55 PM
If you're going to do it like that then do it properly and leave out the bottom three. None of those three were the greatest of their eras, none have an argument for being the GOAT and you don't need them to write the history of the sport. While the top seven all have their undisputed place in history and all/most can be argued in one way or another as being the GOAT.

The top seven players in your list are the only ones absolutely necessary for a HOF which only has the most deserving players. The bottom three only come in because 10 is a convenient number, but you can't really say they are absolutely necessary while Hingis/Davenport/ASV aren't. Can't have it both ways.

I agree completely with this post.

The HoF is a recognition of greatness, not a museum. We could, and should, have both, but the two should not be conflated.

SoBlackAndBlue
Jul 10th, 2011, 08:59 PM
This is why the HOF should not be subjective but a set of objective criteria that should all be met:

Slams criteria
Titles criteria
weeks at #1 criteria
Fed Cup wins criteria
years playing on the tour criteria
age and retired from the tour criteriaAs some of the players who obviously have to be in the HOF - notably Serena - won't meet the Fed Cup criteria if it's only introduced now - they will need to be voted in. In exceptional situations - a player who fails to meet the criteria can get voted in. But that should be very rare once we get past the older players who didn't bother playing Fed Cup and being voted in should be extremely rare and not happen lightly thereafter.

Have three categories in the HOF: an elite ctegory for the players meeting tough criteria Volcana had in mind they might meet. A catogory for the rest singles only. And a category for Doubles.

Absolutely disagree. Someone's greatness should not hinge on the efforts of others.

What if the next tennis great is from The Vatican, or Eritrea, or some other country that can't field a proper team and doesn't qualify for Fed Cup? What if your national team doesn't let you play?

This is the exact beef I have with using Olympic success as a barometer of greatness as well.

Chrissie-fan
Jul 10th, 2011, 09:07 PM
What if the next tennis great is from The Vatican, or Eritrea, or some other country that can't field a proper team and doesn't qualify for Fed Cup? What if your national team doesn't let you play?

But since you want a HOF with only a few people in it their Fed Cup results won't come into play anyway.

Malkmus_
Jul 10th, 2011, 09:15 PM
Venus having three Olympic Gold medals.

I don't see what the significance of that is.

Malkmus_
Jul 10th, 2011, 09:18 PM
If you're going to do it like that then do it properly and leave out the bottom three. None of those three were the greatest of their eras, none have an argument for being the GOAT and you don't need them to write the history of the sport. While the top seven all have their undisputed place in history and all/most can be argued in one way or another as being the GOAT.

The top seven players in your list are the only ones absolutely necessary for a HOF which only has the most deserving players. The bottom three only come in because 10 is a convenient number, but you can't really say they are absolutely necessary while Hingis/Davenport/ASV aren't. Can't have it both ways.

This.

tennis-insomniac
Jul 10th, 2011, 09:19 PM
Nicole Vaidisova hands down :worship:

terjw
Jul 10th, 2011, 09:22 PM
Absolutely disagree. Someone's greatness should not hinge on the efforts of others.

What if the next tennis great is from The Vatican, or Eritrea, or some other country that can't field a proper team and doesn't qualify for Fed Cup? What if your national team doesn't let you play?

This is the exact beef I have with using Olympic success as a barometer of greatness as well.

What on earth are you rambling on about. What qualification to Fed Cup are you on about. :rolleyes: There aren't any. Do you have any idea how Fed Cup even works?

The only way a country with a top player doesn't play in Fed Cup is if that country decided of it's own accord it didn't want to play. Name one top player who cannot play for a country because that country has decided to pull out of Fed Cup. And name me one country that has been denied permission to play in Fed Cup because it hasn't qualified whatever that means - never mind a country with a budding HOF player.

As for the National Team not letting you play - the only example of a top player who really wants to play are they are not good enough or won't abide by the rules - in which case did they really want to play. Any HOF player is going to be good enough. If not - then the answer is to get better. HOF is not something that should come easy or by right. It should be earned.

Fed Cup singles wins is not dependant on others. It is dependant on you being good enough to make the team, you being bothered to represent your country, and you winning your matches.

égalité
Jul 10th, 2011, 09:40 PM
There's the problem. The bar for the HoF is so, ANYBODY who gets the #1 ranking should get in. Why? Why is Yannick Noah in? LOVED his tennis. But is that truly that bar?

Want a REAL Hall of Fame? Start with this. Should Martina Hings be in? She was the FOURTH best player of her generation. Include doubles, and she rises to .... THIRD best.

IMHO, the gatekeeper player for being in the HoF, at least post 1987, should be.... Venus Williams.

If you had a career that was more or less comparable to Venus', you're in. So NO to Conchi, ASV, Davenport, Capriati, Hingis, Sharapova, Pierce, Kuznetsova, Yes to Henin,Sererna,Goolagong ......

5 majors and 4 years at #1 aren't HOF numbers? :spit: It doesn't matter that she's the 4th best player of her generation. If there are 4 HOF-worthy players in a generation, then all 4 of them should get into the HOF. Hingis is on a different level from the rest of the players you put in the same sentence as her.

Ryan
Jul 10th, 2011, 09:41 PM
Dave. just owned this thread. :bowdown:


I really think there should be measurable criteria, not just subjective decisions. The LPGA have a great system actually, I think. Maybe take 5-6 set of criteria and a player has to meet 4-5 of those for admittance to the HOF.

Volcana's "criteria" is ridiculous, to say the least.

Spring Pools
Jul 10th, 2011, 10:18 PM
What about Danielle Anotoxfa? She was a top 5 singles player, a top 5 doubles player who made it to the Aussie open final twice and the RG final once, and she won a career grand slam in mixed doubles.

SoBlackAndBlue
Jul 10th, 2011, 10:19 PM
What on earth are you rambling on about. What qualification to Fed Cup are you on about. :rolleyes: There aren't any. Do you have any idea how Fed Cup even works?

The only way a country with a top player doesn't play in Fed Cup is if that country decided of it's own accord it didn't want to play. Name one top player who cannot play for a country because that country has decided to pull out of Fed Cup.

And name me one country that has been denied permission to play in Fed Cup because it hasn't qualified whatever that means - never mind a country with a budding HOF player.

South Africa was barred from both Davis Cup and Fed Cup play during apartheid.

terjw
Jul 10th, 2011, 10:30 PM
South Africa was barred from both Davis Cup and Fed Cup play during apartheid.

:lol: That's what like 30-40+ years ago.:lol: You are desparate aren't you if that's all you can find.

Well if you'd read my post you'd have read in extremely rare situations under extraordinary circumstances. And that is pretty extraordinary and unique - a player could get voted in to the HOF. If a player met all, the other criteria and wasn't able to meet Fed Cup criteria because of an apartheid ban - then that would be used for precisely that.

Any more gems of countries being barred from the Fed Cup you can find?

SoBlackAndBlue
Jul 10th, 2011, 10:36 PM
:lol: That's what like 30-40 years ago.:lol: You are desparate aren't you if that's all you can find.

Well if you'd read my post you'd have read in extremely rare situations under extraordinary circumstances. And that is pretty extraordinary and unique - a player could get voted in to the HOF. If a player met all, the other criteria and wasn't able to meet Fed Cup criteria because of apartheid - then that would be used for precisely that.

Any more gems of countries being barred from the Fed Cup you can find?

1991= "30-40 years ago".

You might be the dumbest person I've met on this site so far.

And there are recent example of a nation's tennis federation being barred from entry into Fed Cup. Iran's tennis federation wasn't allowed to participate in Fed Cup play until 2009. And to my knowledge, they haven't participated since.

KBdoubleu
Jul 10th, 2011, 10:52 PM
Since my first comment got deleted, I'll be less blunt. :lol:

Kournikova being in the HOF would be an embarrassment. She didn't win a singles title and her doubles career was made by Hingis. Not to mention she only passed the 4th round of a major ONCE in her career in her 4th slam appearence then never again. Congrats to her on making a career based on her looks but the HOF isn't a beauty contest. The only time Kournikova should be in the HOF is to be in the audience watching real players get inducted.

I'm not saying Kournikova should be in the HOF, as I believe she is no where near the criteria required of a HOF career, but there are several things wrong with this post. Kournikova did not pass the 4th round of a major just once (reached Wimbledon semis and Australian Open quarters). Kournikova also had very difficult draws in the Slams when she was playing her best tennis - which kind of deflated her Grand Slam resume. Her losses in her first twelve slams (which is when she was playing her best tennis) were to: (Hingis (x3), Graf (x2), Davenport, Venus, Novotna, Sanchez Vicario, Coetzer, Spirlea, and Pierce. Not one mediocre player in that mix. She won doubles titles with five partners other than Hingis. Finished '99 ranked number 1 in doubles. Had wins over several former number ones in singles. All in all - she is not nearly as bad a player as people try to make her out to be.

gc-spurs
Jul 10th, 2011, 10:54 PM
This is why the HOF should not be subjective but a set of objective criteria that should all be met:

Slams criteria
Titles criteria
weeks at #1 criteria
Fed Cup wins criteria
years playing on the tour criteria
age and retired from the tour criteriaAs some of the players who obviously have to be in the HOF - notably Serena - won't meet the Fed Cup criteria if it's only introduced now - they will need to be voted in. In exceptional situations - a player who fails to meet the criteria can get voted in. But that should be very rare once we get past the older players who didn't bother playing Fed Cup and being voted in should be extremely rare and not happen lightly thereafter.

Have three categories in the HOF: an elite ctegory for the players meeting tough criteria Volcana had in mind they might meet. A catogory for the rest singles only. And a category for Doubles.

Some of that criteria is whack if you're implying that all of those have to be met. Years playing on tour/retirement age criteria? That has nothing to do with achievements. Weeks at no.1? Venus is a shoe in but she only had 11 weeks. Slams criteria? from other comments it seems 5 is the benchmark, but what if someones 4GS are a CGS?

The flaw in Vulcana's argument is that the HOF is not just based around dry accomplishments. It's also about remembering players who have contributed to the game in other ways: setting records, rivalries, involvement in historic events, reputation, advancement of tennis in general, etc. For example, Althea Gibson's record is not as strong as that of other great players ('only' five majors), but she definitely belongs in the HOF nonetheless. It are cases like this that make it impossible to define clear rules regarding admittance to the HOF. Tennis is played and watched by people - it is more than just 'results' and a HOF should not reduce a sport's history to just results.

Exactly. Greatness shouldn't be reduced to statistics, rather achievements (not just titles, weeks at no 1) and contributions to the sport.

duhcity
Jul 10th, 2011, 11:19 PM
What is all this bullshit about the #1 ranking not mattering?
Because the way some people seem to continually bitch about it is a clear indication that people still take it very seriously.

Anyway, as the HoF is now, anyone with a slam in any discipline or been to #1 will likely be in the discussion to get in.

KournikovaFan91
Jul 10th, 2011, 11:44 PM
I'm not saying Kournikova should be in the HOF, as I believe she is no where near the criteria required of a HOF career, but there are several things wrong with this post. Kournikova did not pass the 4th round of a major just once (reached Wimbledon semis and Australian Open quarters). Kournikova also had very difficult draws in the Slams when she was playing her best tennis - which kind of deflated her Grand Slam resume. Her losses in her first twelve slams (which is when she was playing her best tennis) were to: (Hingis (x3), Graf (x2), Davenport, Venus, Novotna, Sanchez Vicario, Coetzer, Spirlea, and Pierce. Not one mediocre player in that mix. She won doubles titles with five partners other than Hingis. Finished '99 ranked number 1 in doubles. Had wins over several former number ones in singles. All in all - she is not nearly as bad a player as people try to make her out to be.

I know Anna got no cakewalk draws in slams. Some tournaments she had draws she could have capitalized on but even then she played so many Tier I and II tournys it was tough to get a good draw during that time period.

If she went around the MM circut like some players nowadays she would have won multiple titles.

Joana
Jul 11th, 2011, 12:30 AM
I honestly believe Kournikova deserves it for her amazing doubles career and the attention she brought to the WTA. Pretty great singles career for a 21-year-old retiree as well.

What amazing doubles career? :confused: People go on about it as if she won 20+ Slam titles, when she won two. That's as many as Zi Yan and Vania Kind have, and fewer than, say, Cara Black, Virginia Ruano Pascual, Lisa Raymond and Ai Sugiyama. Not to mention that both of those titles came with Martina Hingis, who made Slam champions out of such doubles legends as Mary Pierce and Mirjana Lucic.

As for the attention she brought to the WTA, let's give a WC for the US Open to Lady Gaga, that will also bring a lot of attention, so she can be included in HoF as well.

Dav.
Jul 11th, 2011, 12:31 AM
I know Anna got no cakewalk draws in slams. Some tournaments she had draws she could have capitalized on but even then she played so many Tier I and II tournys it was tough to get a good draw during that time period.

If she went around the MM circut like some players nowadays she would have won multiple titles.

She almost solely played top events and consistenly faced top players. Imagine if she hadn't gotten injured when beating Graf on grass before Wimbledon or in 2001 after starting the year so well..

http://www.wta96.com/wiki/lresults.php?aar=2000&spnr=286

terjw
Jul 11th, 2011, 12:56 AM
Some of that criteria is whack if you're implying that all of those have to be met. Years playing on tour/retirement age criteria? That has nothing to do with achievements. Weeks at no.1? Venus is a shoe in but she only had 11 weeks. Slams criteria? from other comments it seems 5 is the benchmark, but what if someones 4GS are a CGS?


The years on the tour I think is important. To be in the HOF you should have been playing on the tour a reasonable time. But say we took 10 years - no-one on the list fails that. Age and retired is important because I just don't think anyone should be in the HOF while they are actually still playing on the tour.

The other accomplishments. For basic level HoF - sort of thing I had in mind as a starter was 1 slam, reached #1 (just reached it for 1 week) and 20 tournament wins. And on top of that must have either 3 slams or 50 weeks at #1. That's a sort of idea - I'm not saying definitely that. Something like that though. When I looked at that definition I see it would exclude Jen and MoMo so perhaps needs relaxing. It certainly would not exclude Venus though.

A definition for an elite HOF would be more like 7 slams minimum, 100 weeks at #1, 30 titles (low but that's where Serena is weak). And maybe something with a mixture of options on top of that.

KournikovaFan91
Jul 11th, 2011, 12:57 AM
I know that injury after beating Graf is such a frustrating moment in her career :o

Even in 2002 when she was coming back from the injury she still played Is and IIs except on Clay where she played some IIIs which was never a great surface for her.

I wish she played more MMs. :sobbing:

Some of todays current Top 10 wouldn't be Top 50 during the era Kournikova played.

Chrissie-fan
Jul 11th, 2011, 01:20 AM
I know that injury after beating Graf is such a frustrating moment in her career :o

Even in 2002 when she was coming back from the injury she still played Is and IIs except on Clay where she played some IIIs which was never a great surface for her.

I wish she played more MMs. :sobbing:

Some of todays current Top 10 wouldn't be Top 50 during the era Kournikova played.
Indeed. She should have played more small events early in her career to get that "never won a tournament" monkey of her back as soon as possible. But if she hadn't been hampered by a never ending series of foot and (especially) back injuries in the second half of her short career she probably would have gone on to great things. Her beauty is a double edged sword really. On the one hand her legend is build upon it, but on the other hand people also refuse to see what a talented young lady she was because of it.

Dav.
Jul 11th, 2011, 01:38 AM
What amazing doubles career? :confused: People go on about it as if she won 20+ Slam titles, when she won two. That's as many as Zi Yan and Vania Kind have, and fewer than, say, Cara Black, Virginia Ruano Pascual, Lisa Raymond and Ai Sugiyama. Not to mention that both of those titles came with Martina Hingis, who made Slam champions out of such doubles legends as Mary Pierce and Mirjana Lucic.

As for the attention she brought to the WTA, let's give a WC for the US Open to Lady Gaga, that will also bring a lot of attention, so she can be included in HoF as well.

Consistent/year-end #1 with 16 titles...She had great results in the other doubles majors as well.

I don't get why people feel the need to be so critical of her when she clearly had a very successful career. I understand the attention was not equal to her results, but it's not as if she played tennis to market herself.

Chrissie-fan
Jul 11th, 2011, 01:52 AM
I don't get why people feel the need to be so critical of her when she clearly had a very successful career.
Put Wozniacki in your signature and you'll realize that you've never really appreciated how good you've had it up to now. :lol:

*JR*
Jul 11th, 2011, 01:53 AM
There's something the Annaholics still ignore to this day. Sure she'd show up for all her practice sessions on time, but often wasted from the night B4 sponsor parties that her agents loaded up her schedule with. You can only get out of practice what you put into it, and Anna often lacked the energy to practice well, because she cared more about the sponsor $$$ than her tennis.

Add that many of the practices were open to the nutty fans (against the wishes of her coaches like Harold Solomon) and she'd interact with those ppl, as they were also customers for her calendars, etc. and she'd rarely play up to her full potential even B4 the back injury. Its embarrassing to actually be talking about Ms. Famous For Being Famous in a thread about the tennis Hall of Fame.

BTW, sure she'd show up every year @ the Memphis tourney to present Marlo Thomas with a check for St. Jude's Children's Hospital... except it was always the event owners' money. Sure she brought ppl out and thus increased it, but she easily could have afforded to add 10K or so out of her own hype-driven fortune. (When Buce Springsteen would do a charity concert, he was a huge draw, but he'd routinely announce his personal donation of 10K or so first).

Smitten
Jul 11th, 2011, 12:49 PM
Not sure why names like Myskina, Majoli, Schiavone are even mentioned here. They're never getting in.

And Volcana has absolutely done the most in this thread.

bandabou
Jul 11th, 2011, 01:28 PM
Put Wozniacki in your signature and you'll realize that you've never really appreciated how good you've had it up to now. :lol:

:awww::hug:;)

darrinbaker00
Jul 11th, 2011, 03:40 PM
I agree completely with this post.

The HoF is a recognition of greatness, not a museum. We could, and should, have both, but the two should not be conflated.

Actually, all Halls of Fame are museums.

Beat
Jul 11th, 2011, 04:02 PM
Tier 2: Very likely in's

Mary Pierce
Svetlana Kuznezova

They didn't make No. 1 but won 2 slams and made multiple appearances at slam finals (Pierce 5, Kuznezva 4). One can even argue that they are more accomplished than Mauresmo.

one can - if one wants to make a fool of oneself. :angel:

What amazing doubles career? :confused: People go on about it as if she won 20+ Slam titles, when she won two. That's as many as Zi Yan and Vania Kind have, and fewer than, say, Cara Black, Virginia Ruano Pascual, Lisa Raymond and Ai Sugiyama. Not to mention that both of those titles came with Martina Hingis, who made Slam champions out of such doubles legends as Mary Pierce and Mirjana Lucic.

As for the attention she brought to the WTA, let's give a WC for the US Open to Lady Gaga, that will also bring a lot of attention, so she can be included in HoF as well.

:lol: pwned.

Chrissie-fan
Jul 11th, 2011, 05:05 PM
Actually, all Halls of Fame are museums.
Unfortunately the tennis HOF would be the smallest museum on the planet if most posters had their way. Hardly worth a visit really.

darrinbaker00
Jul 11th, 2011, 07:05 PM
Unfortunately the tennis HOF would be the smallest museum on the planet if most posters had their way. Hardly worth a visit really.

No, if most of us had our way, the International Tennis Hall of Fame wouldn't be what it is today, the International Tennis Hall of Really, Really Good. For instance, I don't think Tracy Austin should be in, but since she is in, you can't justify keeping Hana Mandlikova, Gabriela Sabatini, Aranxta Sanchez Vicario, or even Jennifer "13 Titles in 14 Years As a Pro" Capriati out.

Chrissie-fan
Jul 11th, 2011, 07:31 PM
No, if most of us had our way, the International Tennis Hall of Fame wouldn't be what it is today, the International Tennis Hall of Really, Really Good. For instance, I don't think Tracy Austin should be in, but since she is in, you can't justify keeping Hana Mandlikova, Gabriela Sabatini, Aranxta Sanchez Vicario, or even Jennifer "13 Titles in 14 Years As a Pro" Capriati out.
In my opinion all those players are great and HOF worthy. But I guess it all depends on one's interpretation of the word 'great.' I don't believe in a HOF where there's only room for the likes of Court or Graf though. If so few players can get in it hardly seems worth the trouble to me. Best to just give each of those happy few a museum of their own.

Henpova
Jul 11th, 2011, 07:36 PM
In my opinion all those players are great and HOF worthy. But I guess it all depends on one's interpretation of the word 'great.' I don't believe in a HOF where there's only room for the likes of Court or Graf though. If so few players can get in it hardly seems worth the trouble to me. Best to just give each of those happy few a museum of their own.

This....I think you need a lot of people so it can be a learning experience when you visit. I also think it should not just only be singles players...because there is more to tennis then singles. So they way they are doing it now, where if you win a slam of any kind of the most part you are in. That way when I go, there will be names I never heard of.

nat75
Jul 11th, 2011, 09:19 PM
This....I think you need a lot of people so it can be a learning experience when you visit. I also think it should not just only be singles players...because there is more to tennis then singles. So they way they are doing it now, where if you win a slam of any kind of the most part you are in. That way when I go, there will be names I never heard of.

Natasha Zvereva and Gigi Fernandez are in ( which were really monsters in doubles :worship: ) and Pam Shriver is in so I think they're considering doubles. Thinking about it Paola Suarez and Virginia Ruano Pascual may have a chance. :)

*JR*
Jul 11th, 2011, 09:39 PM
What amazing doubles career? :confused: People go on about it as if she won 20+ Slam titles, when she won two. That's as many as Zi Yan and Vania King have, and fewer than, say, Cara Black, Virginia Ruano Pascual, Lisa Raymond and Ai Sugiyama. Not to mention that both of those titles came with Martina Hingis, who made Slam champions out of such doubles legends as Mary Pierce and Mirjana Lucic.

As for the attention she brought to the WTA, let's give a WC for the US Open to Lady Gaga, that will also bring a lot of attention, so she can be included in HoF as well.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/jon_wertheim/news/2002/09/23/mailbag

The WTA Tour came out with its gold and silver exempt lists for 2003. The "winners" were Anna Kournikova, Amanda Coetzer, Alexandra Stevenson and Arantza Sánchez-Vicario, who all made the list despite being ranked outside the top 20. This didn't sit well with Patty Schnyder, currently No. 18, who responded in an e-mail to tour officials: "Very funny. Perhaps in the next year Michael Jackson [can get] a gold exempt and Donald Duck a special silver exempt." ;)

Excelscior
Jul 11th, 2011, 09:58 PM
Since my first comment got deleted, I'll be less blunt. :lol:

Kournikova being in the HOF would be an embarrassment. She didn't win a singles title and her doubles career was made by Hingis. Not to mention she only passed the 4th round of a major ONCE in her career in her 4th slam appearence then never again. Congrats to her on making a career based on her looks but the HOF isn't a beauty contest. The only time Kournikova should be in the HOF is to be in the audience watching real players get inducted.

Very well said!

Excelscior
Jul 11th, 2011, 09:59 PM
Why is that a bad thing?

Imo it comes down to what you want the HoF to be. Do you want it to be a Hall of Very Good Players? Or do you want it to be a pantheon of legendary players, who were exceptional in historical terms?

Well said, and good points!!

lang26
Jul 12th, 2011, 04:49 AM
I love Anna Kournikova and always be a fan but I doubt they put her in the HOF if they do they put her in for her double GS she won which is the only reason i can see her getting in for. Because if she get in for anything else players like Nicole Vaidisova,Chakvetadze,Tatiana Golovin, & elena dementieva should get in due to the fact they won titles

lang26
Oct 21st, 2011, 05:52 PM
Jennifer capriati going be in HOF

kusiak
Oct 21st, 2011, 05:59 PM
There's the problem. The bar for the HoF is so, ANYBODY who gets the #1 ranking should get in. Why? Why is Yannick Noah in? LOVED his tennis. But is that truly that bar?

Want a REAL Hall of Fame? Start with this. Should Martina Hings be in? She was the FOURTH best player of her generation. Include doubles, and she rises to .... THIRD best.

IMHO, the gatekeeper player for being in the HoF, at least post 1987, should be.... Venus Williams.

If you had a career that was more or less comparable to Venus', you're in. So NO to Conchi, ASV, Davenport, Capriati, Hingis, Sharapova, Pierce, Kuznetsova, Yes to Henin,Sererna,Goolagong ......

Hingis hasn't comparable career to Venus? Please, yeah 2 slam less in singles 5<7 but 9 in doubles and 1 in mixed. Compare now how many weeks was Martina at number one and how many Venus :lol: Venus is GOAT at Wimlbedon, but Martina has so many records for example youngest slam champion, but overall their careers are really comparable and i wouldn't disagree if somebody say that Martina's one was more impressive.

lang26
Nov 18th, 2011, 11:19 PM
Samantha Stosur Could join the Hopeful list since she won herself a Slam Or even Very likely in's due to the fact the Slams she won in doubles

Betten
Nov 19th, 2011, 12:43 AM
Hingis hasn't comparable career to Venus? Please, yeah 2 slam less in singles 5<7 but 9 in doubles and 1 in mixed. Compare now how many weeks was Martina at number one and how many Venus :lol: Venus is GOAT at Wimlbedon, but Martina has so many records for example youngest slam champion, but overall their careers are really comparable and i wouldn't disagree if somebody say that Martina's one was more impressive.

Venus won more majors than Hingis in doubles (both women's and mixed). And while Hingis set many marks when she was young, she didn't achieve anywhere near as much afterwards; meanwhile Venus has longevity: her first and (so far) last major finals are twelve years removed, while she missed only four majors between them.

GAGAlady
Nov 19th, 2011, 03:16 AM
As someone earlier reported . Jennifer Capriati has been selected for te following years induction into tennis vaunted hall of fame joining the likes of Graf an Navratilova and BJK. Jennifer exemplifies the qualities of brin in the hall of fame. She has won multiple
Slams: she has been world number 1: she has had amazing game changing rivalries that propelled women's tennis forward and been involved in some
Of the most electric moments in women's tennis period. This is all
Valid HOF criteria... It's nt just about overall titles an obviously Jen proves
This... Congrats Jen Jen!!! You deserve it girl!!!! Woot woot!!!

pav
Nov 19th, 2011, 05:45 AM
Do they invite players in who have shit in their own nest with repeat bad oncourt behaviour:confused:

propi
Nov 19th, 2011, 12:16 PM
I am really confident that the mighty Spanish trio ASV, Conchita and Vivi, will get it :D