
Hall of a debateIf Novotna is worthy, so are more than 10 on TourPosted: Wednesday October 3, 2007 10:18AM; Updated: Thursday October 4, 2007 4:55PM
I just read your discussion about the players eligible for consideration into the Hall of Fame next year. It made me wonder whether or not there should be a set criteria for entry or allow it to remain subjective? I know the LPGA has a minimum criteria a player must meet to get into its Hall of Fame (basically, active players get in by playing a minimum of 10 years on the tour, having won at least one major championship or been awarded the Player of the Year award, etc.). What is your take in setting up a system like this? The player has to have won at least one major or been ranked No. 1 for a certain number of weeks and then attained a certain number of points based on tournament victories (different points based on whether the tournament is a Tier IV vs. Tier I vs. Grand Slam), being in the top five and awarded the Player of the Year. You can also say the player has to have played a certain number of Davis or Fed Cup matches as well as participated in one Olympic Games in his or her career. A similar criteria can be set for entry as basically a doubles player. Lots of fallout from last week's Hall of Fame discussion, so let's continue. As for Pedro's point, it seems to me this is akin to the problem college admissions officers face. So long as their criteria is/are subjective, there will always be the issue of unfairness: How did Player A get in and not Player B? At some level, LPGA-style prerequisites would end this. Or would it? Just look at this year's candidates. If we said, "A player must win two majors," Sergi Bruguera gets in and Michael Stich and Michael Chang don't. Yet, I think most of you agreed with me that the latter two players are superior candidates. Similarly, who did more to enrich the sport of tennis: Gabby Sabatini or Yevgeny Kafelnikov? Yet a two-Slam minimum would preclude Sabatini from consideration. Particularly given the nature of tennis -- "the sport of a lifetime" -- I think you need the mushy, ineffable, "plus factors." Players' contributions and the totality of their career go beyond wins and losses, much less "Slams won." (Catch lightning in a bottle and win seven straight matches over two weeks and you're suddenly golden?) Pam Shriver is obviously someone who never won a major. Yet her enshrinement doesn't bother me the way it does many of you. From the doubles excellence to the behind-the-scenes leadership to the philanthropy, I think her candidacy is actually pretty strong. All that said, something has to be done to curtail the current trend. When players the likes of Jana Novotna and Stich get in, that's a pretty iffy precedent being set. Just survey the current landscape and compare various players to Novotna. Off the top of my head I can name more than 10 active or quasi-active players who, even if they quit playing today, are probably more deserving. Serena Williams, Venus Williams, Martina Hingis, Lindsay Davenport, Monica Seles, Jennifer Capriati, Mary Pierce, Justine Henin, Maria Sharapova, Amélie Mauresmo, maybe Kim Clijsters, maybe even Svetlana Kuznetsova . This is problematic, no? If you're going to consider the "Asian" factor regarding Chang, shouldn't that also include the number of his 34 titles that were won in Asia, playing against much less qualified opponents? Sorry, he just doesn't have HOF credentials. Funny, within two minutes of this e-mail, I got another from Bob Kim of Washington, D.C., which began: "What, Chang barely makes it into the HOF in your mind? OK, now I'm mad." And then he offered an eloquent defense. (See the end of the column, by the way, for another fine defense.) I think you guys also swayed me on Stich. Add his Davis Cup play, his 10 doubles titles and an Olympic gold and he gets by the Cerberus of Newport.
| |||||||||||||||