By Guillermo Morales-Rubert
Since 1954, the International Tennis Hall of Fame (ITHF) has chronicled the history of the sport by honoring 235 tennis legends from 20 different nations. The sport of tennis merits greater credibility and transparency in the election and recognition of both nominees and inductees in the International Tennis Hall of Fame. The opinion piece that follows proposes a rationale for applying those two great principles in the decision-making process.
One of the best known methods to increase credibility and transparency is to publish the percentage of votes received by each nominee to a Hall of Fame. To use an example from a different sport, the 2014 Baseball Hall of Fame Ballot shows Greg Maddux earned 97.2% of the votes, while Tom Glavine obtained 91.9% and Frank Thomas came in third with 83.7% of the votes. The standards for election into the ITHF stipulate that a nominee must achieve 75% affirmative vote on all returned ballots. Similarly, to be enshrined in the Baseball Hall of Fame, recent players must be named on at least 75% of the Committee Member’s ballots. Since we know the bar is set at 75%, why not reveal the relative percentage of the votes received by each nominee? Imagine the confusion of having general elections and not knowing the vote count or the percentages by which each candidate won or lost. The more transparent the voting process, greater credibility is achieved.
A second method for increasing transparency would be to give relative weight for each criterion used to nominate a player. There are specific criteria that need to be met in order to be considered a nominee. Currently, the general public does not know the relative weight given to each criterion. For instance, does winning a single Major carry a 70% weight and each additional Major adds to this percentage or not?
Unfortunately, the administration of ITHF in Newport, Rhode Island and the International Media Panel, have not felt compelled to disclose either specific categories in which each nominee is weighed, or the relative percentages of total affirmative vote attributed to each nominee in the selection process. Alternatively, perhaps they felt comfort in secrecy, or to be above the need to inform the relative weight given to each category? As a Member of the Chairman’s Circle Commemorative group in the ITHF, I have always been intrigued by several years of closely held nominations and induction processes in the annual selection of enshrinees. The lack of transparency in these types of decisions suggests that the ITHF should publish the relative percentage of votes and relative categories that each of their nominees receive.
Back in 2005, three nominees in the Recent Player category were enshrined. Jim Courier, Yannick Noah and Jana Novotna were deemed worthy candidates for possible induction into the ITHF in the Recent Player category. All three nominees were inducted that same year without differentiating the relative percentages obtained by each. Notwithstanding that the public did not hear about the relative percentages obtained by each, all were definitely qualified and highly accomplished players. Other years, two out of four nominees are chosen or one out of three. More recently, I was intrigued by a comment made by Lindsay Davenport, a 2014 ITHF inductee. During an interview conducted by Stan Smith, Lindsay stated the following: “I’ll never forget after winning my second Grand Slam, Bud Collins said to me, “Well, darlin’, I got to tell you, I think you are going to get in the Hall of Fame nowâ€. I concur with Bud Collins, considered by many as the “human encyclopedia of tennisâ€. Winning two majors shows you are not a flash in the pan. In other words, winning multiple Majors is a clear benchmark to be inducted into the ITHF.
This leads me to question this year’s decision to nominate, yet not to induct an exemplary tennis star, Mary Pierce. The decision was even more perplexing since Mary has a distinguished record of competitive achievement at the highest international level by winning multiple Majors. Furthermore, Mary is the epitome of honor, integrity and sportsmanship. She is a true Ambassador for the sport of tennis. Without a doubt, the International Media Panel made an oversight by not selecting Mary to the ITHF this year. Perhaps another year will bring a new opportunity for Mary to be inducted into the ITHF platform. She certainly merits that honor. In addition to her laudable achievements in tennis, Mary has a wide reaching impact on the world through the charities to which she devotes her life. It should be noted that Mary’s focus is not on external recognition, but on spiritual rewards, which only makes her all the more admirable as a human being.
To recapitulate, in terms of the decision-making process, when the committee clearly defines the benchmarks, the potential for oversights, goes down exponentially. The general public and members would prefer to be informed of the criteria for induction by the International Media Panel. For example, does the Panel attribute 70% for Majors, 20% for the category of rankings, and 10% for sportsmanship? or some other relative value is considered for each of their nominees? Categories and percentages are deemed essential and important to increase both credibility and transparency.
On a positive note, the recent appointment of Todd Martin as Chief Executive Officer of the International Tennis Hall of Fame is a step in the right direction. Todd stands tall, both literally and figuratively. In all likelihood, Todd and the ITHF Board of Directors and staff can tackle changes to the nomination and induction process leading to greater transparency. At the very least, one hopes that future selection of inductees will be accompanied by qualifying percentages ascribed to each nominee.
_________________________________________
Author: Guillermo Morales-Rubert
Chairman’s Circle Commemorative Member
International Tennis Hall of Fame
"Pierce is the epitome of honor · integrity and sportsmanship"
Mary Lou · May 22, 2014 at 9:17 pm
This interesting, insightful and well researched piece adds value by pointing out existing lack of clarity in the decision making process of selecting inductees to the International Hall of Fame. The piece makes specific suggestions on how to improve the process by increasing transparency and credibility. It also describes the personal and professional qualities of nominee Mary Pierce, who was not inducted this year, but perhaps will be inducted in 2015!
Scoop Malinowski · May 23, 2014 at 9:48 am
Nice read Guillermo. You certainly make a solid case for Mary Pierce’s inclusion, as well as Yevgeny Kafelnikov, who was world number two or three, won two majors, an Olympic gold and Davis Cup. Pierce and Kafelnikov need to be inducted into the Hall of Fame.
Scoop Malinowski · May 23, 2014 at 4:46 pm
Comment on Facebook from Mary’s dad/coach Jim Pierce: THANKS SCOOP FOR YOUR KIND WORDS , WHEN MARY HURT HER KNEE SHE REHABBED IT FOR 5 MONTHS , HER DOCTOR TOLD HER SHE COULD PLAY AGAIN , BUT HER KNEE WAS NEVER THE SAME ,MARY TOLD ME , SHE SAID DAD THERE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS THAN TENNIS OR MONEY , SHE HAS PROVED HER WORD BY HELPING OTHERS IN AFRICA AND ELSE WHERE AND GIVING FREE TENNIS INSTRUCTION , SHE TAKES NO MONEY BUT SHE VERY WELL COULD ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, GIVES HER TIME , MONEY TO HELP THOSE LESS FORTUNATE WITH CLOTHES , FOOD , SHOES , WHAT EVER IS NEEDED , THANKS AGAIN SCOOP JIM PIERCE
Guillermo Morales-Rubert · May 23, 2014 at 5:56 pm
I concur with your comments about Yevgeny Kafelnikov. Mr. Kafelnikov certainly merits induction into the International Tennis Hall Of Fame. Mr. Kafelnikov is a former world no.1 who won four Majors in doubles among many other accolades. Also, I am interested in the candidacy of Marat Safin. Thank you Mr. Scoop for your insightful comments.
Nicholas · May 24, 2014 at 2:06 am
Great article! This article is a must read for all the members of the tennis committee and for any tennis fan. I like how you showed examples, as well as, possible solutions that the ITHF should start using when evaluating players. Mary Pierce has my vote!
Belinda De La Garza · May 25, 2014 at 3:29 pm
Very interesting and surprising! I love visiting the Tennis Hall of Fame during the Enshrinement weekend. Its exciting and there are many events. Its eye opening the process of being inducted into the hall of fame and doesn’t seem fair not to know where a player stands among the other candidates. In my opinion Mary Pierce and Lindsay Davenport should have BOTH been inducted together. Its not like it hasn’t happened before. Both players are very talented and have won multiple majors. The Tennis Hall of Fame needs to post the voting percentages, not just for the players, but for the fans.
John · May 25, 2014 at 8:39 pm
As a life-long tennis fan, I was unaware of the biased, unethical selection process for the ITHF. I agree this article offers vital research based statistics that support the notion of how unequal advantages of particular candidates and nominees are recognized. The facts listed explain why it’s important to advocate for a selected professional to be nominated with identifiable qualifying percentages. Wonderful article and a must read!
Scoop Malinowski · May 25, 2014 at 9:18 pm
I asked one of the fellow voters about why Kafelnikov has not been elected yet and he said something about his links to gambling are an impediment. So maybe they are reluctant to elect Pierce because her dad was a somewhat controversial personality, but that should not play a part at all. Capriati had a lot of controversial issues and that did not impede or delay her election. This year I’m going to talk to a lot of the fellow voters about Pierce and Kafelnikov who should both be elected ASAP. Hall of Fames are always quirky, certain people just get in later than they should. Bollettieri, who will be inducted this year, is an example.
gustarhymes · May 25, 2014 at 10:51 pm
I am in agreement that there needs to be more transparency. Also other notable players who needs to be in is Sergi Bruguera who won 2 majors and 1976 French Open and Davis Cup champ Adriano Panatta.
gusta
Charles · May 26, 2014 at 4:36 pm
Why should tennis be any different than anything else when an elite group of people decide for the rest of us there will never be transparency
Gullermo is right to compare tennis to baseball but the hall of fame voting has the same flaw the allstars are selected by popular vote this is the voice of the fans of course im not sure who counts the votes
Belinda De La Garza · May 26, 2014 at 6:49 pm
Interesting and surprising. I love going to the Tennis Hall of Fame during the Inshrinement weekend. It’s very exciting and there are many events! Mary Pierce and Lindsay Davenport both should have been inducted to the hall of fame together. It’s not like it has not happened before. Both have won multiple majors. Percentages need to be published, not just for the players, but for the fans.
Michael Anderson · May 27, 2014 at 9:09 am
Interesting article on transparency, yet there was no potential solution provided. Mr. Morales-Rubert did a great job lobbying for more transparency in the selection criteria for HOF induction, ultimately stating that both members and fans wanted and deserved to know what parameters are used for induction. However, with him being a member of the Chairman’s Circle Commemorative group in the ITHF, and knowing something about the inner workings for the ITHF, I would have expected Mr. Morales-Rubert to offer up ideas on what he feels SHOULD be used for selection.
He makes a strong case for Mary Pierce, spending as much time on her out-of-tennis accomplishments as on her tennis accomplishments. This has always begged the question: should committee members look at the whole person concept or just focus on the the accomplishments on the court? Unfortunately, any time humans are involved without criterion, selection events throw all objectivity out of the window. Using the same comparison to baseball, should people who used PEDs be admitted to the HOF? Should non-300-game winning pitchers be admitted? Why is hitting 500 home runs deemed an automatic induction?
Transparency in any selection process is needed, but only if the process includes solid, quantitative selection criteria. Without it, selection committee members will continue to hide behind their ballots, unwilling to publicly justify why a player was or was not selected. This is the weak man’s way out, in my opinion, but unfortunately the gravest of realities.
Hans Landa · May 27, 2014 at 9:17 am
hi, all. kefelnikov would not be considered because he has some skeletons (more public than others) plus some ties to russian mobsters – as did safin.
and pierce / davenport were both great however they lacked some of the “it” factor IMO.
Scoop Malinowski · May 27, 2014 at 9:50 am
Hans, that has nothing to do with Kafelnikov’s on court achievements. I don’t recall Kafelnikov ever disgracing the sport in any way, he was a great champion and an impeccable, fair, classy sportsman.
Hans Landa · May 27, 2014 at 10:42 am
the board at the IHF know better – maybe even biased. nonetheless, they arent going to induct a thug with ties in the eastern euro / russian mob regardless of his 2 slams and his gentleman act on court, etc. i actually like safin’s game and his nutty antics however IHF will probably not induct him either, IMO.
Ambassador Cesar B. Cabrera · May 30, 2014 at 4:16 pm
I had the distinct pleasure to spend meaningful time with Mary in Mauritius. Mary has tremendous panache! A coalition of American Ambassadors are gathering support for Mary’s 2015 nomination to The Tennis Hall Of Fame. Guillermo makes a powerful case for Mary’s induction. We all will rally behind Mary.
Scoop Malinowski · May 30, 2014 at 4:29 pm
Thanks for your comments Ambassador. It’s good to see the ‘Induct Mary Pierce Into The Hall of Fame Movement’ is picking up speed. She certainly deserves to be in the Hall of Fame and it’s just a matter of time before she is.