MJF only has 7?!!
I thought, for sure, she had more than that.
Alright, well here's why I'm asking.
It seems to me that the argument of "who are the all time greats" constantly comes up along with the question "how do we measure them?"
One issue, in relation to the metric used, is non slam Singles Titles. A lot of weight is given to this factor along with a host of others (doubles titles, doubles ranking, weeks at #1).
The funny thing about this to me is now that we look at what players have the most singles titles without winning a slam, NONE OF THEM seem to ever make it on to that list of all time greats that everybody wants to factor Single's titles into.
I imagine the same would hold true of all those who top the charts in the other non slam factors.
All this says to me that, deep down in the dark crevices of our tennis loving souls, we really DON'T give a damn about singles titles.
It's ALL about SLAM titles.
So why not, next time this argument comes up, make it simple and just count the slams! Because we know deep down we're not that impressed with whoever wins all that other stuff anyway.