Do Chang, Stich and Bruguera deserve Hall entries?

Michael Chang may have won 34 titles, but his only Slam was the French Open in 1989; he reached two other Grand Slam finals. AP

MAILBAG Jon Wertheim will answer questions from SI.com users in his mailbag every Wednesday. Your name: Your e-mail address: Your home town: Enter your question:

If Michael Chang and Michael Stich have both earn a place in the Hall of Fame by winning one and only one Grand Slam, can we assume that the likes of Thomas Johansson, Alberto Costa and Gaston Gaudio will be gracing the halls of Newport within the next few years?
-- Andy, Arlington

The three players on the Hall of Fame ballot for next year are Chang, Stich and Sergi Bruguera and -- at the risk triggering a flood of hate mail -- I have my reservations about each of the above. In the past I've lobbied for fairly liberal standards with the profound argument of "What's the harm in being charitable?" I look at how other sports take themselves so seriously and deny the likes of Art Monk (pro football) and 300-game winner Bert Blyleven (baseball) and ask, "What's to be gained from such exacting standards?"

The flip side is that you gotta draw the line somewhere. This precedent of opening the doors to anyone into the Hall who's won a solitary Slam must be reversed. With all due respect to this year's nominees, are any really tennis immortals?

Bruguera won two French Opens but -- get this -- he never even reached the quarters (!) of the other three Slams. His career record at the U.S. Open and Wimbledon was 10-10. He never reached the No. 1 ranking. He won a modest 14 total titles and lost more finals than he won. Did the guy have a great career? Absolutely. Are these Hall of Fame credentials? Not in my book.

You could make a stronger case, I think, for Stich. He only won one Slam, but he reached the quarters are all four Majors, including the finals at both the U.S. Open and French Open. He never reached the No. 1 ranking, but came close. His career spanned less than a decade and he only won 18 titles (fewer than, say, Andres Gomez, who ain't in). I'm on the fence here.

Perhaps the trickiest case is Chang. He won the French in spectacular fashion as a teenager, tapping the spigot as it were on the "Great Generation." (After Chang broke through at Roland Garros, the Agassi-Sampras-Courier axis followed with a combined 26 majors) but then he never re-entered the winner's circle.

Also, much as we hate to penalize someone for playing, the last five or so years of his career were dismal. If, say, Elgin Baylor had played five additional years in the NBA but sat on the bench, dropping his career stats, I suspect this would could against him.

On the other hand, Chang was still a top player for the better part of a decade; like Stich, he reached a U.S. Open final and came close to the top ranking. Most important, he won 34 titles (more than Courier; more than Stich and Bruguera combined.) He also probably gets some subconscious style points, inasmuch as he compensated for a lack of power and a modest stature with terrific quickness. Overall, I think he gets my vote. Barely.

A few of you brought this up last week, but I don't put much stock in the "Asian pioneer" argument. I think it's great that Chang was the first to represent a new community in tennis. But I guess it's unclear to me why this adds to his legacy any more than being an Iran-American adds to Agassi's case or being a Greek-American factors into Sampras' epitaph. If there were hardships Chang had to overcome because of ethnicity, it might be one thing. But otherwise, I think this reasoning sends us down the proverbial slippery slope. I'm open to being swayed, so if someone wants to take up this point, fire away.

1 of 3