Jim Courier
Yannick Noah
Jana Novotna
Butch Buchholz

[Copyrighted material deleted in compliance with Outsports' Fair Use policy. - Outsports moderator]


For Discussion:

I suspect Novotna's inclusion pretty much guarantees that Mary Pierce will also make the Hall of Fame, yes? That a "good thing" or a "bad thing"?

I think Courier's inclusion is deserved, Noah's also, especially for serving as Fed Cup captain. Thinking of Noah in similar terms as Novotna, are there any male single-Slam winners that contributed to tennis in other ways that would warrant inclusion?

[ January 11, 2005, 06:42 PM: Message edited by: m1 ]

Is Novotna in for her singles win at Wimbledon or is she in because of her doubles success, a la Pam Shriver? Because let me tell you ... if they let Novotna in for that one Wimby title they damn sure better pave the way for Gabriela Sabatini. And Gaby won a Wimbledon doubles title and two year-end championships! Not to mention that she retired before tired old Jana Novotna.

Oh, but I guess whether or not Mary gets in depends on what you imagine the criteria for Jana's induction to be.

Ostensibly, it's the athletes whole performance. On the Tennis Hall of Fame site, there is a full bio http://www.tennisfame.com/enshrinees/novotna.html as well as this blurb on the page announcing the new enshrinees:

Jana Novotna, 36, of the Czech Republic, captured the women's singles championship at Wimbledon in 1998 after reaching the final in both 1993 and 1997. In addition, she won 12 major women's doubles championships: 2 Australian (1990, 1995); 3 French (1990-91, 1998); 4 Wimbledon (1989-90, 1995, 1998) and 3 US (1994, 1997-98); along with 4 major mixed doubles championships: 2 Australian (1988-89) Wimbledon (1988) and US (1987). In a career spanning twelve years, Novotna captured 24 singles titles and 76 doubles titles, reaching a career high singles ranking of No. 2 in 1997. She was ranked in the World Top 10 seven times between 1991 and 1998. Her career win-loss record stands at 568-223 in singles and 697-152 in doubles. Her doubles career took her to No. 1 eleven times, earning five WTA Doubles Team of the Year honors (1989-90 w/Sukova; 1991 w/Fernandez; 1996 w/Sanchez-Vicario; 1998 w/Hingis) and an International Tennis Federation Doubles Team of the Year honor (1997 w/Davenport). She played Fed Cup for eleven years (1987-93, 1995-98), competing in 33 ties and posting an overall win-loss record of 33-12 (22-7 singles; 11-5 doubles), and was a member of the 1988 winning Cup team. A serve and volley player, Novotna won the doubles silver medal in the 1988 Olympics, and went on to capture the singles bronze and doubles silver medals in the 1996 Olympics.

Well, in that case, I say no ... Mary's inclusion is not guaranteed by Jana's induction.

Although I think Mary stands a good chance of getting in, actually, all on her own.

I just don't get the whole selection process anyway! Stefan Edberg retired a few years before Boris Becker and Boris gets in a year before Stefan, and Stefan had a better record overall!

Gaby retired in 1996, has a better singles record than Jana and several doubles titles and was an AWESOME ambassador for the sport off the court! So why is Ms. Choked-Alot getting in before Gaby! It's funny, the Wimbledon final against Steffi doesn't pop up so much as Novotna's 3rd Round match at the 1995 French Open against Chanda, where she was leading like 6-0, 5-0 and Chanda came back to win that-THAT was the choker!

I don't deny that she deserves to get in but Gaby DEFINITELY should be in there before her!

Gaga, I would say Jana got in because of her success in doubles. She might have gotten in even without her Wimbledon title, since her doubles record is so solid. Twelve majors is nothing to sneeze at.

Courier deserves it due to his four major singles titles, people forget how dominant he was in the early 90's before Pete Sampras took over.

Noah...hmmmmm...I guess he deserves it because of his Davis Cup play and captain duties. Can't think of any other male one-time winners who would get nominated off the top of my head, though...I'd have to dig out the history book for that one.

[ January 11, 2005, 10:29 PM: Message edited by: Bulldog1977 ]

I think I'm in love with playerten. [He Swoons ... He Swoons ... He Faints.]

Blush! Seriously, though, Gaby brought an interest to tennis that hadn't been seen up until that point, really, not just for her looks, but for her backhand!

I read the article on her in the current Tennis Magazine and they said that it was unfortunate that she played in the same era as Monica, Steffi and Martina N., which might be true, but I don't think her nerves were weak a la Novotna, just she didn't always have that 'Killer Way' like those other players had, meaning, I think she realized that tennis wasn't her whole life and the other players all did at that point!

I also think she retired way to soon and should have played at least another 2 years!

Yeah, you're probably right about that. It may very well be the difference between Justine Henin-Hardenne and players like Kim Clijsters and Amelie Mauresmo, as well.

It's funny how we all moan and bitch about players not fulfilling their potential whose lives don't totally revolve around their sports. Yet how many of us, and our friends and colleagues, are focused at being the best possible at our jobs that we could be? Would we even want to hang around with people who were totally consumed by a desire to be the best?

Jana deserves it especially with winning all four majors in doubles. Gaby definitely deserves it as well though especially winning two year end championships...and being an overall great player. She did have to play against three all time greats during her time (Martina, Steffi, Monica) which is rough to say the least...she handled herself well plus she has her own perfume; that takes chutzpah.

Hey guys we are yapping, as usual here, about Jana, Mary and Gabby but remember that this year's Hall of Fame inductees also include Butch Buchholz. I did some research into Buchholz's tennis career, which is impressive, but also saw some pics. This man was quite something when he was young and a world ranked player....what a stunner... with emphasis, for sure, on "butch"

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

I just want to tell you all that Jon Wertheim is a dolt. I know you all love him, but I'm telling ya ... dolt. Talking about the Hall of Fame in this week's mailbag:

Gabriela Sabatini is not Jana Novotna's "slippery slope," thank you very much. Jana needs to thank her lucky stars that her best tennis happened post Graf/Seles and pre-Williams sisters ... at a time where you could play Natalie Friggin' Tauziat in a Grand Slam final. Meanwhile, Sabatini was a major factor in tennis for over a decade and faced Steffi Graf - quite possibly the greatest player of all time - in all of her Grand Slam finals. Slippery slope my ass!

Wertheim dogs on Gaby in his column alot. I'd write him a nasty email, but I think I'm already on sort sort of black list

[ January 27, 2005, 10:12 AM: Message edited by: Gaga4Gaby ]

GagaGaby, you make me chuckle. But I wonder, if we here on the board didn't have you to remind us, would any of us be discussing Sabatini as regularly as we do? Why not Mandikova or Austin or Sanchez Vacario? Whose impact was greater? (I really do not propose an answer here, just the question.) Are they not more equal in tennis stature than Sabatini with Graf, Seles, later Hingis, etc? There are A listers, and then there are others. The Hall of Fame is for A Listers.

Are those fighting words? I'm sure they are, but I don't want to fight. Call me chicken, call me weak.

(hesitate to press "Add Reply")

You don't have to be afraid of me. Really. But you did open a can of worms.

Gabriela Sabatini is not on par in terms of results with Hingis, Graf, Seles, or even Sanchez-Vicario. Of course not. I don't think she was the greatest player ever or even that she belongs on the "A" list. I do think she's victimized by the fact that people expected her to be there - and she fell short of that - while players like Novotna were never (and still aren't) subjected to such scrutiny. So, 100s of doubles titles be damned, if Novotna is Hall of Fame material than so is Sabatini. I tell you right now, Novotna ain't on the "A" list and neither is Yannick Noah.

It's telling to me that, despite just the one Slam, Sabatini has winning records against all but the truly elite in the game. Players who are better on paper -- Pierce, Sanchez-Vicario, and Davenport come to mind -- all had losing records to Sabatini. Sabatini also had winning records over two people currently in the Hall of Fame - Novotna and Shriver.

Gabriela Sabatini was a huge presence in tennis for her entire career, but just came out on the losing end of her most epic moments; she was not the sustained rival to Graf and dominant No. 1 everyone predicted she would be, and I think the prognosticators resent that, but she is:

the 1990 U.S. Open Champion; the 1988 Wimbledon doubles Champion (w/Graf); the 1988 and 1994 Year End Champion; the 1988 U.S. Open runner-up and Olympic Silver Medalist; the 1987 and 1990 Championships runner-up, which included being part of the first women's five-set match in the Open Era; the 1991 Wimbledon runner-up; winner of 27 career singles titles; the only woman from Argentina to ever win a Grand Slam singles title; owner of a career 624-187 mark; and an 18-time Grand Slam semifinalist.

Also, the Hall of Fame cites sportsmanship and contributions to the game as factors - Sabatini was renowned for her sportmanship as a top competitor ... after finals, she searched out the locker room attendant and gave obligatory flowers to her instead of throwing them away and was the only top player to put her own interests aside stand up for Monica Seles when she was attacked in 1993. Gaby was also one of - if not the - most popular players in the history of the sport, having once been described in the press as "having inspired more interest in tennis than Pete Sampras, John McEnroe, and Bjorn Borg combined." She has roses, dolls, and perfumes that bear her name.

Gaby was far more of a factor in women's tennis during her entire career than other "one Slam wonders" and even moreso than someone like Pierce who owns two Slams. I think she stands on her own merit as someone deserving of enshrinement, even though she is a notch below the greatest champions of her era. If she never makes it in, I'll understand the flip side of the argument, but I'll never believe it. I simply resented the "slippery slope" example ... as if Sabatini was somehow the epitome of a lesser player to Novotna, when in fact, based on the credentials above, I would say she is clearly superior.

[ January 27, 2005, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: Gaga4Gaby ]

PS - I do think Mandlikova, Austin, and Sanchez-Vicario should and will be in the Hall of Fame ... just by the way.

Meanwhile, ANYONE can nominate a player for the Hall of Fame and I've filled out the form for Gaby. I know they're gonna write me off but I am a pretty good writer and can make the case as well anyone. So what the heck??

What really irks me about Wertheim's comments is that he's said (written actually) that he prefers to "air on the side of inclusion." So the slippery slope stuff is wack.

I was being provocative, but also genuinely curious, when I asked about whether Jana opened the door for Mary Pierce's inclusion. In my mind, Gabriela Sabatini is a definite.

In Wertheim's defense, however, it's important to remember that he is a tennis writer. Folks like him and Bud Collins eat, drink, sleep, dream tennis. Day in and day out. The Hall of Fame must be a really big deal to him, so I can understand him getting a little riled up about who gets in.

That said, Gabriela better damn well be admitted. Even with "only" one Slam, she is an enormously accomplished champion with a decade-spanning career with runs at the US Open and Wimbledon, in particular, that were positively remarkable.

Gaga, you are a fine man. Thank you. Really. I respect your support for Sabatini and argument, tremendously.

[ January 27, 2005, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: shore ]

I could talk abou this all day. Thanks for being "brave" enough to contradict me ... most people just 'yes' me about stuff like this and - actually - sometimes I understand why. But I value my discussions with the tennis folks at Outsports (the coolest kids on the site, for my money) and thank you too, Shore, for the discussion and good will.



And B Man rocks, in case you all were wondering. Loved your post!!

FYI guys, Tracy Austin is already in the Hall of Fame!

Also, Gaby is the player with the most wins over Steffi, 11, more than Martina M., Monica, Arantxa, etc. And Novotna lost to Steffi more times than anyone can count, so I think Gaby stacked up pretty well against the greatest ever, despite a losing record, most of those matches went the distance!

Gaby will get in but I definitely feel she should be there before Novotna!

History will remember Gaby over Novotna! I always hear reference to Gaby beating Steffi in straight sets in the 1990 U.S. Open Final and never hear about Novotna beating Tauziat in the Wimbledon Final!

Let's see about next year! Go Gaby!

There really seem to be two camps on Sabatini to me - those who feel like she is an overrated waste of potential (let's call them "the jerk squad" ) and those who realize the intangibles of a career that evolved in the primes of Evert and Navratilova, then Graf, and finally Seles. That's about as tough a career arc as one can have. I don't know if history will remember Sabatini or not ... but her peers (particularly Seles, Graf, and Navratilove) remember Gaby for the great player and opponent that she actually was. I have no doubt about that.

G4G,
I forgot to mention earlier that when I was in Melbourne, Gabriela arrived at an Italian restaurant and sat quite near us. I was going to ask for a photograph, if the opportunity arose but that would have been intrusive and tacky.

What can I tell you except she was wearing a salmon coloured frock, strapless with some great jewellery (as you say bling bling)Looked stunning.She does like her vino too.

One of my group was European and he said that they were speaking Italian not Spanish and sounded like business deals.

Very cool! Thanks for the story.

Gaby loves to party, so it's no surprise she can drink. And it was nice of you not to bother her at dinner, but she's really lovely and I'm sure would have posed for a picture with you.

Speaking italian, eh? Her grandfather's Italian and she's quite cosmopolitan, but I didn't realize she could speak languages other than Spanish and English.

Gaby speaks Italian? Ciao bella ... *drool*.

The Hall of Fame debate is always tough b/c everyone has their own mindset about what makes someone Hall of Fame worthy.

Personally, I think that Grand Slam success on each surface is important, but also ... I think that if someone is Hall of Fame worthy, they should have some success in doubles as well. I think that doubles is a more tactical game, requiring more intelligence, and Gaby was strong in that area as well. *shrug*

(BTW, Gaby ... I'm not trying to get into your pants with this Gaby love fest ... I can get in your pants using my other skills, dear.)

I think that Jana is a tougher call ... I think that she has a bit of the sympathy vote b/c of her close calls at Wimbledon before she finally broke through. *shrug* I think that her doubles success is the main reason why she was included. *shrug* Gotta love a serve and volleyer in the era where that style of play was quickly falling out of fashion.

Nick

[ February 01, 2005, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: The_Hammerman ]

Hey, whatever it takes, Nick! wink

The way I see it, if you have three majors, you're definitely in, even if the rest of your career accomplishments are shaky (e.g. Jennifer Capriati). With two majors, I think you ought to have something a little beyond that--maybe huge success in doubles or a ton of titles or reached #1, or been a regular in the semis of majors for years and years. Personally, I think Mary Pierce is a bit shaky as a candidate but her story line may help her get in. I wouldn't have voted for Tracy Austin, but I'm guessing the intangibles (all the youngest evers, the sense of lost potential) went in her favor, and that sort of sentiment may help Mary as well. When you have only one major, I think you need a combination of those other factors to put you over. Jana's doubles titles were probably the decisive factor, plus the sympathy factor. In Sabatini's case, she reached an extraordinary number of major semis, had a lot of titles, won a year-end championship, and *probably* gets in. As a singles player, she certainly outranks Novotna or Pierce. I also think Conchita Martinez should get in. She has 32 career titles, stayed in the top 10 for years and years, and didn't she and Arantxa win a bunch of Fed Cup titles?

I think there's a lot of gray area in who may or may not get in right now because of the evolution that's going on with current players ... as the game's depth grows, the number of players who are unquestionable Hall of Famers - the ones with double-digit Slam titles - will diminish; you'll have more players with borderline credentials than ever before and other factors will have to be considered. The generation that we're discussing now was still dominated by Graf and Seles, but there are more debatable candidates because the depth of women's tennis improved. It continues to improve and this kind of debate will only grow.

JC ... forgive for me being anal and obnoxious, but I just have to point out the Sabatini won two year-end titles, in 1988 and 1994. And 1990 was the five set final loss to Monica Seles. She also made one other Championships final, losing to Steffi in 1987.

The criterion for Hall of Fame players does list Fed Cup/Davis Cup contributions, so you're right that her dominance alongside Sanchez-Vicario might help Conchita Martinez make the Hall of Fame. This is assuming she ever friggin' retires. I have to wonder if someone who sticks around long past time to go is hurting their chances? She's getting further and further away from her salad days and she'd still have to be retired for five years before consideration ...

Ok, so I just happened upon this web site yesterday. I had just learned Jana Novotna had been elected into the Hall of Fame and Googled some stuff...anyway you guys came up. So; I was so happy to find this site! I may be the only gay girl here but so what...I too think Gaby was/is fabulous. And I just have to rant! I just about barfed when I heard Jana was in the Hall before Gaby--what are they thinking!? I mean it is the Hall of FAME--Gaby was and is way more famous that Jana. I didn't tune into espn to watch Jana vs. Conchita, that's for sure. Gaby was a headliner for about a decade on the WTA, drew big crowds in the stands and on TV. Ok, so she didn't have 70+ doubles titles--so what--nobody cares about doubles--the seats are empty for doubles. And she wasn't a sourpuss, crybaby like Novonta. Gaby was always graceful in defeat and in victory;showed great sportsmanship throughout her career. I could go on (like her legacy of really good looking players going on to have there own fragrance, but that might be a bad thing.) Anyway, if the pure tennis numbers are not good enough to get into the Hall of Fame I think the "progressing the sport" part should get her in. I started watching tennis because of her too G4G.
p.s. is it true Gaby no longer can be elected in the "recent" and must wait about 10 years to be elected in the "legend" Hall of Fame? If that's the case, I just don't see her ever getting to the Hall of Fame...shame; but hey, if Jana's there why would you want to be there too.

Seems G4G has found a friend in tigercub. Welcome, I'm sure Gaga will be happy to have someone around here with as much enthusiasm for Sabatini as he has(well, almost). And the board can always use more tennis enthusists.(where is my spellcheck, I'm so American lazy). And grammatically inept.

I couldn't have said it better myself!

Welcome tigercub! You're not the only girl on the board, but there aren't many; it will be especially nice to have a female perspective in the tennis forums.

Gaby still qualifies as a recent player. A recent player is someone who was part of tennis within the past 20 years but who has not been competing on the tour at least five. So, she's still eligable.

So happy to have another Sabatini fan on the board!

Oh, dear. It's about fame...I guess that means Anna Kournikova HAS to go in.

Now THAT'S the slippery slope Jon Wertheim should be worried about!

Well, all joking aside, I have wondered if Anna would get in on her doubles record, and then some--those intangibles. How many Grand Slams doubles did she win?

The better question would be how many Grand Slam doubles titles did Anna win WITHOUT Hingis?

Nick

Didn't she win Wimbledon with Mirnyi?

I saw Hingis and Kournakova play doubles in Philadelphia, a very quick and smart team. Anna's game was so strong, her court sense equal to Hingis; it is mystifying how she never won a singles title.

If I remember correctly, her bling bling was bigger than Martina's bling.

She won 2 slams and 2 year end championships--with Hingis. But to be fair, she also won doubles titles with Seles, Zvereva, Schett and even Janet Lee. She was pretty accomplished, but I really doubt the doubles record gets her serious consideration.

Paola Suarez and Virginia Ruano Pascual, on the other hand, are starting to get interesting--especially if they keep up their current pace.

Edited to add: Oh, yeah, 3--forgot about mixed doubles. But does that really count?

[ February 03, 2005, 07:01 AM: Message edited by: JC ]

Not to change the subject, but where is Suarez? Is she injured? I noticed VRP has been playing quite a bit with Conchita....even the Aussie Open. I assumed Suarez was injured because she was not listed in the singles tournament. Further, I thought both Paola and Ginny decided that they would only play with each other in order to keep their points the same??!?!

Although Anna was/is a great doubles player - she held her own with or without Hingis - I think her infamy for having won ZERO singles titles would never allow her entry. Shriver and Novotna, presumably both in because of their strong doubles records, were successful in singles and won tournaments.

conchita in the hall of fame? please.

the hall of fame should be for the true all time greats of the sport; the honor is cheapened with "very good" players like conchita included.

yannick noah is a joke. i wonder if race or country of origin had anything to do with it? (yes, i know there are other blacks and french in the hall)

In any event, their doubles credentials are far beyond Anna's. Had Anna continued to play, maybe she could have accumulated HOF-worthy numbers in doubles, but she didn't.

Although I felt Anna was overhyped, I also felt she was overcriticized for the lack of a singles title. Anna really wasn't around all that long and some pretty good players go without titles for a long while. Petrova still hasn't got one. If Zvonareva played Anna's schedule, she probably wouldn't have one either, since her biggest title is a Tier III. Dementieva's first title was a long time in coming and she might be the most relevant point of comparison--another tall, blonde russian with considerable talent and a lousy serve. Elena has more power off the ground and competitive fire than Anna, though. Anna's net game was obviously superior, but she never was able to really exploit her volleying skills in singles.

Now that Novotna's in, does Sukova have a chance?

kournikova as a hall of famer is an even bigger joke. should michael llodra be in too?

I think Sukova's biggest challenge is that others are coming in after her that will be remembered and she may slip through the cracks (for consideration, at least, if not enshrinement). I mean, it's hard to believe that Sukova made the U.S. Open final as late as 1993!

You are joking right? But if not; Anna was only famous to frat boys and creepy men on the internet. Tennis fans know she was lame.

tigercub, Anna fame did go further than creepy men on the internet, frat boys, and tennis followers; she had all sorts of world endorsements, including the famous bra ad, "only the ball should bounce'. She's dated hockey players, a few of them, pop stars, maybe even married one. I think even my Mom knows who she is.

Ok, but her fame was not really tennis related, and we are descussing tennis fame--not just general fame--Anna won't get into the Tennis Hall of Fame because she dated a lot of men. (eww) This thread isn't about Anna.

Didn't Bud Collins get into the game because of his tennis columns, etc. ... issues that were off of the tennis court. Since Anna's off the court activities have gotten more attention than those of Mr. Collins, she has just as good of a shot. (Note ... that was sarcasm.)

I didn't really think about Sukova because she was a bit before my time. Her longevity should be respected, although there comes a point where hanging on past your prime (i.e., Chi Chi Martinez) could hurt your Hall of Fame candidacy. *shrug* I was surprised that she had a run at Wimbledon back in 1997, losing to Kournikova in the 4th round, no less.

I agree with whoever posted up-thread about how, given the nature and depth of today's game, that it will be incredibly difficult for anyone to win 10+ Grand Slam titles in their career. I'm waiting for there to be clay court specialists on the women's tour ... although, since there are fewer clay court events for the women in the non-traditional clay court seasons, there isn't a large chance of that happening ... which will make it even more difficult. *shrug* Bottom line ... I think that our standards for what is or is not Hall of Fame worthy may need to change ... OR ... we need to stop admitting as many people to the HOF. *shrug* I understand both points of view, but until La Pierce stops playing, I don't care much either way.

Later,
Nick

Does anyone know who is on the "panel of the international tennis media" that vote on the Recent Player nominees? I understand that a 75% favorable vote is required for induction (or "Enshrinement" as the Hall calls it.) Gabriela Sabatini has been elligable for consideration for over five years now, which makes me think the people on this panel don't like her very much. Fine, but honestly--Jana Novota?! It's like they have the attitude "anyone but Gabby."