Another notch for the Michael Chang HOF Cheering Team...
Chang is a 3-time winner of this event (92, 96, 97), more than anyone else in its 17-year history of the event.
Those that were 2-time winners, were also back-to-back winners...*
Boris Becker 87-88
Pete Sampras 94-95
Lleyton Hewitt 02-03
*The lone exception, Jim Courier, who won in 91 and 93.
Deboogle!.
03-08-2004, 01:23 PM
always interesting factoids, TF :)
Leo
03-09-2004, 12:21 AM
Chang doesn't deserve HOF honors, IMO.
MisterQ
03-09-2004, 02:41 AM
Chang doesn't deserve HOF honors, IMO.
I agree, Leo. (Although if just a few things had gone differently in his career, he might be HOF material).
MisterQ
03-09-2004, 02:41 AM
but that is an impressive Indian Wells record, no doubt about it... :)
Tennis Fool
03-09-2004, 03:47 AM
Bunk: Thanks.
Leo, Q: Why doesn't he?
Deboogle!.
03-09-2004, 05:00 AM
um.... *embarrassed* what's "HOF honors"??
MisterQ
03-09-2004, 05:23 AM
bunk, HOF = Hall O' Fame ;)
Tennis Fool, with regards to the HOF, Chang only won 1 slam and never got to No. 1 in the world. Now of course he was very close to No. 1, and in the finals of several other slams, which is what I meant when I said he came close. But it seems that Hall of Famers usually have at least 3 slams under their belt. I think some players with 2 slams could also be candidates --- for example I think Rafter and Kafelnikov will probably be considered. But 1 slammers are unlikely.
I don't mean any disrespect to Chang's remarkable career with these comments. I'm just stating what I think will be true --- that the HOF will probably not vote him in. But of course, it's up to them, so maybe they will, who knows...
:)
Deboogle!.
03-09-2004, 02:03 PM
Thanks SuperQ :hug:
Yonge
03-10-2004, 02:45 PM
Wow, I just saw this:
Back to back wins in Indian Wells and Miami in the same year.
It's like playing a slam! I wonder how they did in their next tournament after Miami (which I think is on clay).
EDIT: ooops...my mistake. The schedule might have been different back then (the Miami event was in Key Biscayne). But I'm sure Agassi has done it in 2001.
Tennis Fool
03-10-2004, 10:29 PM
bunk, HOF = Hall O' Fame ;)
Tennis Fool, with regards to the HOF, Chang only won 1 slam and never got to No. 1 in the world. Now of course he was very close to No. 1, and in the finals of several other slams, which is what I meant when I said he came close. But it seems that Hall of Famers usually have at least 3 slams under their belt. I think some players with 2 slams could also be candidates --- for example I think Rafter and Kafelnikov will probably be considered. But 1 slammers are unlikely.
I don't mean any disrespect to Chang's remarkable career with these comments. I'm just stating what I think will be true --- that the HOF will probably not vote him in. But of course, it's up to them, so maybe they will, who knows...
:)
Well, if the HOF can honor Bud Collins over his illustrious tennis career, I think they can find a slot for Chang.
Tennis Fool
03-10-2004, 10:31 PM
Wow, I just saw this:
Back to back wins in Indian Wells and Miami in the same year.
And he's in that illustrious list with future HOF's all (maybe even Rios).
Leo
03-11-2004, 01:18 AM
And he's in that illustrious list with future HOF's all (maybe even Rios).
No, Rios would never. Yes, he was once #1 and won several Masters Series events, but you honestly need to have 1 Slam in singles, dubs, or mixed to even have a slight chance of being inducted.
Mister Q pretty much summed up my opinions of the Chang matter. IMO, 1 Slam doesn't cut it.
Experimentee
03-11-2004, 12:59 PM
But it is not like Chang was a player who only won one Slam and didnt do anything else after that. He had a consistent career where he maintained the #2 ranking and won a whole bunch of other big titles. The only player who stopped him from getting to #1 was Sampras. I think maintaining #2 for that long is better than getting to #1 for only 1 or 2 weeks, like Rafter did.
Yonge
03-17-2004, 11:05 PM
I agree Experimentee. I think Chang actually has a chance of being inducted into the HOF even though he never got to No. 1. I know he only has 1 slam, but is having multiple slams a requirement for getting inducted? I'm not sure about that. Maybe they should consider his other achievements, such as winning 34 titles - 1 slam, 7 MS - spanning 3 decades (80s, 90s, and 00s), youngest slam winner, being a role model/ inspiration to Asian (or others) athletes and helping to promote tennis in that region, which isn't really tennis-crazy, etc. It sounds like an HOF-worthy career to me.