Should Michael Chang be inducted into the Tennis Hall of fame?

Question

This week, Michael Chang will be inducted into the International Tennis Hall of Fame. I am a little conflicted on this. Dont get me wrong, I think he was a good player but what really is Michael Chang's claim to fame? He has only won 1 grandslam and has reached a high of world #2. He didnt win any doubles titles too.

Did he really have a hall of fame career? I think this sends a very wrong message that you only need to win 1 grandslam and you are a tennis hall of famer. What do you guys think?

Answer 1

Maybe his move of hitting backwards winners between the legs should be inducted. I forgot what he even looks like.

Answer 2

if he can get in the hall of fame put andy roddick in

Answer 3

Yes. He was the youngest man to ever win a grand slam. Do you know how hard that is to accomplish?

Answer 4

Despite his lone Slam, he did remain number 2 for a long period of time, as well as a top 10 player. If you really think about it, many players dont even get that far. Along with the fact he won at an early age, says something also. Mens tennis was always more competitive then the womens game, but during Changs time, he had to deal with Courier, Agassi, Sampras, Edberg, Becker etc etc, plus his smaller frame in built, he was determined to succeed, and in different cases, had.

Answer 5

Yes, I think he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame.  In addition to that French Open title, he also reached grand slam finals 3 more times, and won 34 career titles (including 7 masters titles).  He also won almost 20 million in prize money.

You also have to think about the impact he has made on tennis in Asia, seeing as how he was the first Asian player to win a grand slam and get to #2 ranking.

Answer 6

yes, if I will be given the opportunity to decide... for anybody who achieved that much like him should be "fame" hallers... for he could be like Nadal at the moment, has never been number 1 but has won a lot of titles already...

Answer 7

It's all about the underhanded serve.

Answer 8

I think this has to do with contribution to tennis as a general rule...

Answer 9

no

Answer 10

i think so,because what you seem to forget is that the hall of fame isn't just about slam records. it's also about the general performance on the tour and also the ITF circuit. i mean people forget he does own 34 singles titles on the ATP tour including 7 masters series titles. and the fact that he's won on all surfaces except grass,bodes well for a hall of famer. and what's also forgotten,is that he was actually twice a slam finalist apart from that lone slam win,which i feel contributes.

so yes,of course,it's justified.

Answer 11

yes he was a great player