What happens to one-slam wonders?

This evening, I read a series of comments about whether it was right to induct Gabriela Sabatini into the International Tennis Hall of Fame, and whether Kim Clijsters--if she doesn't win another Slam before retiring at the end of this year--should be inducted. The general results of the discussion were:

1. Sabatini should not have been inducted.

2. It was right to induct Sabatini because: a. she would have won more Slams if she hadn't been playing in the error of dominating tennis geniuses Steffi Graf and Monica Seles, b. she brought much more to tennis than just Slam competition, including c. her glamor and sex appeal.

3. Clijsters should not be inducted unless she hurries up and wins another Slam because, unlike Sabatini, she has not brought much else to the world of tennis.

Clijsters has won 34 singles titles and 11 doubles titles, including two Slam titles. Sabatini won 27 singles titles and 14 doubles titles, including one Slam title. Clijsters was a finalist in 4 Grand Slam events; Sabatini was a finalist in 2 Slam events, and she also won a silver medal at the Olympics. Clijsters has been an active Fed Cup team member, and--like Sabatini--won the WTA Year-End Championships twice. Clijsters, unlike Sabatini, has been ranked number one in the world.

Looks about even to me. Both are properly called under-achievers. Sabatini retired suddenly at age 26, and Clijsters is retiring (she'll be 24) long before her fans want her to.

On to glamor and sex appeal, but first let me first address the obvious sexism inherent in this consideration. To even suggest that a woman should or should not be inducted into the Hall of Fame on the basis of "glamor" is deeply offensive. In this case, it is also not fact-based. Sabatini is very glamorous now, but when she was on the tour, she was not. She did, however, have one of the most graceful and beautiful games of anyone I can recall. Clijsters, for her part, astounds fans with her athleticism, and especially with the Clijsters splits.

I personally think that a lot more should be considered than just Slam wins in the decision to induct someone into the Hall of Fame. Yes, there should be at least one Slam victory, but there are tour titles, Fed Cup, the Year-End Championships, the Olympics, and the consistency of a high ranking to be factored in.