The 606v2 Tennis Hall of Fame

As you know, there is a Hall of Fame already set up, though looking through it there are some names in that list which are debatable as to whether they really belong in such company. That, then, is up to us to decide. Let's make our Hall of Fame elitist in every way, ensuring that only the most worthy of candidates are elected.

I propose that we elect 10 founder members of our Hall of Fame before the voting gets underway - whose position in tennis history we can all agree on. Remember, this Hall doesn't have to only include players but can include managers, figureheads or anyone else that we feel has had a significant impact upon the sport to deem them worthy of a place.

Once our initial 10 members are agreed upon I suggest that we consider 10 more per month, working our way through the current Hall of Fame - http://www.tennisfame.com/hall-of-famers/members and casting our own votes as to whether those names should belong in our own elitist Hall of Fame here at 606v2.
Voting for each 10 candidates will run from the 1st of the month, when those names will be posted, until the last day of the month, when the votes will be tallied. (when voting any reasoning added can help spark some debates.)

In order for a candidate to gain election to the Hall, they will need a yes vote of 75% or more. Anything less will see them fail to get in. Every candidate must be retired from the sport, and no currently active players will be considered.

When we have exhaused those names in the current Hall of Fame, there will be an opportunity for our members to decide upon the next group of 10 nominees that aren't currently in the Hall of Fame, but may be worthy to be considered for our own (i.e. those that have recently retired).

So to start us off, we need the 10 founder members that we agree on. Please vote your nominations for them on this thread and then we will get on with the business of the first fifteen names that are up for nomination. Any questions let me know.

The two names that I would propose, for the V2 HoF, would be Pancho Gonzales and Rod Laver.

I would propose Laver, Perry, Navratilova, Armstrong, Graff and Tilden. I think also that 20 is pushing it.

How about 10 founders?

I think 10 is more sensible. I think that reaching agreement amongst posters may be tricky. I think 10 for everyone to agree on. 5 per month. I fear the problem may be running out of names that people may not be so fortunate in being familiar with and also Amateur v Pro will be a huge factor in who posters may nominate too. laverfan with her inifinate wisdom and Bud Collins book would agree that nominating players without Slam success from the past might be tricky.

10 would work as well.

legendkillar wrote:laverfan with her inifinate wisdom and Bud Collins book would agree that nominating players without Slam success from the past might be tricky.

It is, but using the HoF names from the official website with a synopsis should help posters in making their judgements, if they are so inclined.

Borg, Sampras, Laver.

Graf, Navratilova

could we have a british hall of fame

Perry, Renshaw, Doherty and GO ON TIM!
Wade, Barker, Jones and again GO ON TIM!

LuvSports! wrote:could we have a british hall of fame

Perry, Renshaw, Doherty and GO ON TIM!
Wade, Barker, Jones and again GO ON TIM!

Rusedski, Lottie Dod. Did you mean the Renshaw brothers?

nope just william as he won 7 compared to Ernest's 1

So far I count 9 founders being proposed. Are we agreed with this 9, and should there be a 10th?
Once the founders are confirmed we can crack on with this.

The 9 so far:
Gonzales, Laver, Perry, Navratilova, Armstrong, Graff, Tilden, Borg, Sampras

Margaret Court for me YI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Court

for the men I propose Tilden, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Laver and Borg. Has no-one else mentioned Rosewall. I need to make the case then, hold on...!

Hm. Just reading about Rosewall. It's very hard to assess his achievements. Won some slams in 1953-1956 but Gonzalez playing professionally was probably the better player at the time. Doesn't end up with many slams because he turned professional in 1957 and then had more than 10 years at the heart of his career where he couldn't play slams.
Then, in the true open era, he, now well into his 30s won several more slams in 1970-1972.

He won 23 majors, 8 traditional grand slams and a record 15 pro slams. It can be argued therefore that he won the equivalent of 23 slams. But then to confuse the issue he won more Australians of his 8 traditional slams and these were worth less then. Also, some of his amateur slams could be de-rated as they weren't against all the best players (in the 1960s the majority of the best players were professional, I am not so sure if the same was true or not in the 1950s). But he still is probably worth about 16-20 slams in today's money. This is very hard to judge though.

Looking more broadly at his dominance and titles and years as the best player he does seem to fall a notch below the older Gonzales (e.g. the 31 year old Gonzalez beat 25 year old Rosewall 16-5 in head to head in 1960) and the younger Laver. But the fact that he reached a Wimbledon final at the age of 39 , in 1974, should give a hint that he deserves a place at least in your hall of fame?