What should the standards for tennis HOF be? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

What should the standards for tennis HOF be?

SetSampras
11-17-2011, 05:49 PM
Should there be a dividing line in terms of slam count, YEC, masters events, longevity on top etc. Should a player like Chang, Roddick, with 2 slams between them go in? Would u say there should be a maybe a 3-4 slam count minimum along with the longevity, masters events, YEC all taken into account etc. We assume say someone like Roddick will go in with 1 slam, chang already in with only 1 slam, lets say Murray goes in with 0 SLAMS becuase of his masters count for argument sakes (not saying Murray may not win one or two) .. Should they have been tougher on the HOF standards?

Should one time or 0 time slam winners be in this thing?

Saberq
11-17-2011, 06:11 PM
I think Slams(titles overall),ranking,years in top 10.....Roddick will make the HOF....Murray wont

LawrenceOfTennis
11-17-2011, 06:46 PM
I think slams. No, I'm not saying it because of Delpo. He is far from being HOF material.
You can be top 5 for years and win titles, the real memorable moments are at slams. I think Roddick should be inducted into the HOF for his SLAM even though he failed to win another one. I'm not overrating slams, it's just a good way to categorize players.

eduggs
11-17-2011, 07:25 PM
I think the tennis HOF is more strict about induction than several major US sports HOFs. Very few players get inducted. And you have to be one of the very best players of your generation out of thousands of professionals. In other sports you can sneak in without ever having been the best or even one of the best.

Saberq
11-17-2011, 07:32 PM
I think the tennis HOF is more strict about induction than several major US sports HOFs. Very few players get inducted. And you have to be one of the very best players of your generation out of thousands of professionals. In other sports you can sneak in without ever having been the best or even one of the best.

not more strict than MLB or NBA HOF .....I know that Roger,Rafa,Novak and Roddick are a lock for HOF at this point

Lopez
11-17-2011, 07:49 PM
Roddick should be inducted not only because of the Slam win but because of the nr.1 ranking (and the year-end rank to boot).

Chang, I'm a bit on the fence about him, he did "only" win one Slam but he did it very young and the way he fought was admirable.

Alex999
11-17-2011, 07:52 PM
not more strict than MLB or NBA HOF .....I know that Roger,Rafa,Novak and Roddick are a lock for HOF at this point
Roger, Rafa and Novak yes but I'm not sure about Roddick. Kafelnikov won 2 majors and he is still not in HOF.

Saberq
11-17-2011, 07:57 PM
Roger, Rafa and Novak yes but I'm not sure about Roddick. Kafelnikov won 2 majors and he is still not in HOF.

was number 1,top 10 for 8 years or so...year end number 1,30 + titles ....he is going in

LawrenceOfTennis
11-17-2011, 07:59 PM
What about Kafelnikov? Guy retired 8 years ago and still hasn't been inducted yet. He won 2 slams plus the olympics. Titles 20+

Saberq
11-17-2011, 08:37 PM
What about Kafelnikov? Guy retired 8 years ago and still hasn't been inducted yet. He won 2 slams plus the olympics. Titles 20+

he should be in at some point ......

buzz
11-17-2011, 09:36 PM
Roddick is also famous for reaching all those semis and finals in grand slams. He was an important part of tennis 10 years long, so he is a famous tennis player, thus deserves a spot in the hall of fame if you ask me.

philosophicalarf
11-17-2011, 09:50 PM
They should just ask me.

Fedex
11-17-2011, 09:54 PM
Roger, Rafa and Novak yes but I'm not sure about Roddick. Kafelnikov won 2 majors and he is still not in HOF.

Hewitt is also a lock.

fast_clay
11-17-2011, 09:55 PM
A Melzer-like sex drive that has delivered at least three different sexually transmitted diseases... you need to be a real man to be accepted as part of The Hoff...

Saberq
11-17-2011, 09:58 PM
Hewitt is also a lock.

yeah I forgot about him......

acionescu
11-17-2011, 10:00 PM
I think at least 15 Slams :D

asmazif
11-17-2011, 10:05 PM
2 slams

Alex999
11-17-2011, 10:07 PM
I think at least 15 Slams :D
Yeah, HOF should be renamed to RHOF ;).

atennisfan
11-17-2011, 10:19 PM
Hewitt is also definitely in.

leng jai
11-17-2011, 10:36 PM
- Singlehanded backhand
- the ability to hit a slice with less than 5cm net clearance

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
11-17-2011, 10:41 PM
Rios deserves to be in the HOF

i dont think slam count alone is fair

roddick made multiple finals and has had a great career only haters wouldn't allow him a place

and even if murray doesnt win a slam- his masters shields definately warrant him a place in the HOF

murray could end up with more MS than Agassi

thrust
11-18-2011, 12:02 AM
I think the tennis HOF is more strict about induction than several major US sports HOFs. Very few players get inducted. And you have to be one of the very best players of your generation out of thousands of professionals. In other sports you can sneak in without ever having been the best or even one of the best.

You cannot be serious! The tennis HOF is a JOKE! At least half the players in it should not be. Anyone with less than 4 slams, 20 tournament wins, at least 1 YE @ #1 should not be in the HOF. Also, slams should be on more than one surface. Other criteria can be included, but the above should be minimul requirements.

thrust
11-18-2011, 12:05 AM
Rios deserves to be in the HOF

i dont think slam count alone is fair

roddick made multiple finals and has had a great career only haters wouldn't allow him a place

and even if murray doesnt win a slam- his masters shields definately warrant him a place in the HOF

murray could end up with more MS than Agassi

RIOS? Now I have heard it all-LOL!!

Saberq
11-18-2011, 12:07 AM
Rios deserves to be in the HOF

i dont think slam count alone is fair

roddick made multiple finals and has had a great career only haters wouldn't allow him a place

and even if murray doesnt win a slam- his masters shields definately warrant him a place in the HOF

murray could end up with more MS than Agassi

Murray is without a Slam and world number 1 two things that you need to have to be considered for HOF

Ilovetheblues_86
11-18-2011, 12:11 AM
I think Messi should be in the tennis hall of fame.

(sounds cool)

thrust
11-18-2011, 12:11 AM
not more strict than MLB or NBA HOF .....I know that Roger,Rafa,Novak and Roddick are a lock for HOF at this point

How can you possibly put Roddick in the same league with: Roger, Rafa, Sampras, Agassi, Laver, Rosewall, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, or even Novak after this year?

yesh222
11-18-2011, 12:15 AM
I thought Kafelnikov hasn't been inducted yet because of some political issue?

Orka_n
11-18-2011, 12:47 AM
Golden CYGS

Saberq
11-18-2011, 01:05 AM
How can you possibly put Roddick in the same league with: Roger, Rafa, Sampras, Agassi, Laver, Rosewall, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, or even Novak after this year?

I cant but he will make the HOF.......

stewietennis
11-18-2011, 01:11 AM
I think the qualifications should be more strict, they should have either:

a. At least two majors or;
b. At least ten masters shields (or equivalent) or;
c. At least 26 weeks as number one or;
d. At least 20 career titles or;
e. At least two Olympic gold medals

incognito
11-18-2011, 01:26 AM
A minimum of 6 slams and a year-end #1 ranking.

MuzzahLovah
11-18-2011, 01:32 AM
Golden Calendar Slam should be the cut off and/or 18+ majors.
http://www.hellomagazine.com/imagenes/profiles//steffi-graf/2524-steffi-graf-pb.jpg


But seriously, I'm not sure why they need a Hall of Fame if they are only going to include major winners- they already live on in the championship roster.

I could see someone like Nishikori entering(of course, much later, after he retires hopefully having won some tournaments), for being the only person from Asia to enter upper echelons of the sport.

Ilovetheblues_86
11-18-2011, 01:36 AM
Hm, Roddick was the best american of the 00's, hence he will be inducted....the question isnt really to put every tennis player into the same category..otherwise Pat Rafter would be ashamed to be compared with the likes of Laver or Rosewall

Del Potro was only important for tennis in 2009, while Roddick is on the mainstream for a long time, even if he doesnt deserve, thats how FAME is constructed, and this is a HALL of Fame, not a hall of ACHIEVeMENTS. Fame isnt meant to be fair.

Saberq
11-18-2011, 01:53 AM
Hm, Roddick was the best american of the 00's, hence he will be inducted....the question isnt really to put every tennis player into the same category..otherwise Pat Rafter would be ashamed to be compared with the likes of Laver or Rosewall

Del Potro was only important for tennis in 2009, while Roddick is on the mainstream for a long time, even if he doesnt deserve, thats how FAME is constructed, and this is a HALL of Fame, not a hall of ACHIEVeMENTS. Fame isnt meant to be fair.

hall of fame is based on your ACHIEVEMENTS ...period

shiaben
11-18-2011, 02:09 AM
Roddick SHOULD not be inducted. 1 slam is pathetic. This place deserves special people, actual competitors. Nadal and Federer are more than eligible. Novak is almost there, I think once he reaches about 8, he should be included.

Topspindoctor
11-18-2011, 02:10 AM
Make HoF truly unique. No mugs like Chang and Rodmug in HoF. 5 majors minimum should be the requirement to get into it.

Saberq
11-18-2011, 02:27 AM
Make HoF truly unique. No mugs like Chang and Rodmug in HoF. 5 majors minimum should be the requirement to get into it.

ok ...but what about other stuff like number 1 ranking,or top 10 or masters titles,WTF ans stuff?........

stewietennis
11-18-2011, 02:55 AM
ok ...but what about other stuff like number 1 ranking,or top 10 or masters titles,WTF ans stuff?........

It's a Tennis Hall of Fame so exemplary achievements in Tennis should be able to get you in - Majors aren't the only titles that are significant in the sport.

Topspindoctor
11-18-2011, 02:58 AM
ok ...but what about other stuff like number 1 ranking,or top 10 or masters titles,WTF ans stuff?........

Nah, I think only majors should count where HoF is concerned.

MAYBE if you got like 4x majors and 2-3WTF, then you could be considered.

fast_clay
11-18-2011, 03:01 AM
It's a Tennis Hall of Fame so exemplary achievements in Tennis should be able to get you in - Majors aren't the only titles that are significant in the sport.

indeed, there are more factors involved...

what about a decent player, yet more so a coach who was practically the foreman who oversaw a major revolution in the game from 1950 to 1970...?

Mountaindewslave
11-18-2011, 03:03 AM
Rios deserves to be in the HOF

i dont think slam count alone is fair

roddick made multiple finals and has had a great career only haters wouldn't allow him a place

and even if murray doesnt win a slam- his masters shields definately warrant him a place in the HOF

murray could end up with more MS than Agassi

how in any world do you comprehend Murray ever reaching Agassi's master series count. he would have to keep up his current rate of 2 masters titles a year for the next 5 years. it's not very likely

Topspindoctor
11-18-2011, 03:06 AM
Rios deserves to be in the HOF


No, he doesn't. Rios was a clown.

Mae
11-18-2011, 01:50 PM
Funny I like men's tennis better, but I know more about the Hall of Fame in women's tennis and it is a complete joke. They let a player in who won more double titles than singles :rolleyes:

Saberq
11-18-2011, 02:11 PM
Nah, I think only majors should count where HoF is concerned.

MAYBE if you got like 4x majors and 2-3WTF, then you could be considered.

So if Novak retires at the end of this season he wouldn't get a vote from you for HOF?

stewietennis
11-18-2011, 09:21 PM
They let a player in who won more double titles than singles :rolleyes:

Doubles tennis is still tennis.

MuzzahLovah
11-18-2011, 10:10 PM
Funny I like men's tennis better, but I know more about the Hall of Fame in women's tennis and it is a complete joke. They let a player in who won more double titles than singles :rolleyes:

You mean Martina Navratilova?

decrepitude
11-18-2011, 11:14 PM
;)Roddick should get in just because of the quality of his interviews

QuitYerWhining
08-28-2013, 11:46 PM
Well it really depends what kind of Hall you want. If you want it to be a place for only the absolute greatest in the world, then 4.5 Slams is the minimum. 1 slam = 1 slam obviously. A Tour Final or YE#1 counts as half of a slam. Olympic Gold is 0.75 Slams, Silver or Bronze is 0.25 Slams. This would let in about 16-18 players in the history of the Open Era. Murray will probably get there eventually, and Del Potro has an outside shot. Throw in Rosewall as a transition between Open Era and Closed, and you have about 20 players in the first fifty years of the Open Era. No doubles specialists whatsoever, since you can't put in the Bryans or the Woodies ahead of Gustavo Kuerten or 2-Slam Murray. The LPGA does something like this, strict criteria based on a points structure. They are probably the only HOF in the world that restricts their entries to a very very select few, as an uber-exclusive Hall of Absolute Legends.

Realistically, tennis already has the most stringent HOF that I can think of. They let in fewer men than the basketball, football, hockey, and golf halls--at least the last 15 years or so, their inductions are a lot slimmer. (Baseball is a different story with the steriod era (how football isn't branded for having a steriod era is wayyy beyond my understanding btw)). Besides, you really can't just boot 2/3 of the HOF after the fact. So that's that.

I honestly think the ITF does a fantastic job. Yannick Noah was a bit soft in 2005, but since then they haven't let in anyone worse. I think Noah is actually an ideal "bare minimum" standard for one-slam wonders:

1) 20+ titles (probably should be 25 if you haven't won any doubles titles)
2) Three Masters titles. Reason being, winning thrice in a nine-event season is a slightly better ratio than once in a four-event season. So it fully legitimizes your Slam.
3) A few years in the top-ten.
4) A solid track record of getting at least decent results in other Slams.
5) Win a Slam in doubles (or nowadays, win an Olympic medal in singles, since people stopped caring about the former and started caring about the latter).

If you win two Slams, then Bruguera and Kriek are a terrific guide on how not to get elected to the Hall:
1) Only win 14 titles (ZERO masters titles for Kriek)
2) Have some other weird, gaping black hole on your resume (Kriek has never been ranked higher than #7; Bruguera has never been to the QF of a Slam other than the French Open).

Or just be Yevgeni Kafelnikov and get ignored for some weird, possibly top-secret reason.

Muster and Stich should probably get in IMO. I was actually shocked that Muster hasn't been inducted, until I saw his track record at Wimbledon. Holy Heck. Anyway, these standards probably wouldn't let in any more 40-45 players by the time the 50th Anniversary of the Open Era rolls around. Plus maybe the Bryans in addition to the Woodies, and Daniel Nestor--those are your doubles specialists.

IMHO.