Most important factors to consider when ranking the greats (after slam count)? - Page 5 - TennisForum.com
View Poll Results: Outside of winning Slams, what is the next most important factor when it comes to ran
How many total weeks spent @ number one. 54 25.35%
Versatility; being able to win titles on all surfaces. 57 26.76%
Total number of (non-slam) tournaments won. 44 20.66%
Win/Loss record; H2H Records. 39 18.31%
How many years you end the season @ number one. 8 3.76%
other (please explain) 11 5.16%
Voters: 213. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #61 of 129 (permalink) Old May 1st, 2010, 07:05 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Sir Stefwhit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: New York
Posts: 5,933
                     
Re: What's most important when it comes to ranking GREATNESS?

Quote:
Originally Posted by die_wahrheit View Post
Player A of course. It's Wimbledon and that counts more.

Player B would have nothing special.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or sincere...lol For the record though, winning each slam twice is something no man or woman currently playing on tour has achieved. Federer is regarded (by some) as the greatest to have ever played the sport and he hasn't yet achieved this feat. But to be fair no one on tour has won 10 Wimbledon's either- Dominating a slam like that and winning that amount of times would be the more remarkable of the two feats, but I don't know if "more remarkable" equals greater tennis player. Being able to win on any surface and doing it twice says a lot about you as a more complete tennis player. So I can see it going either way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by irma
The most important factor is: "who are the player that I like and who are the players that I don't like as much"?
irma~ Iove your answer! (it seems like both darinbaker00 and volta do as well). To a certain extent your personal preference does play a big roll no doubt about it.

A lot of Venus fans honestly believe Vee > Justine
A lot of Seles fans marginalize Steffi's accomplishments
Navratilova fans believe Navrat > Steffi
and so on and so forth... when it's close we use our personal preference to help break ties. But only when it's close. I love Clijsters and although I do believe that at her best she's better than Henin, I can't justify saying Clijsters>Justine and no Clijsters fan ever would be able to because the gap in criteria we use to make that determination is to big to overcome by personal preferences.

So the bottom-line is that WHEN we can interject our preferences we do, but only when it's applicable. When it's not it's the same list of criteria that's being discussed in this thread...

STEFWHIT'S HALL OF FAME
Greatest Singles Player of All Time: Steffi Graf
Simply the BEST: Serena Williams [Proud MEMBER OF RENA'S ARMY]
The REAL GOAT Rafael Nadal
Future Inductees: Clijsters, C.Evert, A.Agassi, A.Berasategui, N. Zvereva, I.Majoli, M.Safin, Li Na, VIKA, and Del Potro
Sir Stefwhit is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 129 (permalink) Old May 1st, 2010, 07:14 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 15,306
                     
Re: What's most important when it comes to ranking GREATNESS?

I say number of titles won; winning slams AND titles is a measure of greatness to me.

I used to think weeks ranked at No.1 was a good indicator but sometimes that can be an indicator of consistently playing alot.
Veerror is offline  
post #63 of 129 (permalink) Old May 1st, 2010, 07:44 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,958
                     
Re: What's most important when it comes to ranking GREATNESS?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Stefwhit View Post
Even if you take away everything Graf won during the time when Seles was out of the game; you're still left with her golden slam and a record of achievements that still would put her above Evert, IMO.

And to the comment about Graf having no competition. I just want to add that it's just about the exact competition Seles had when she won most of her slams. She only faced Graf a handful of times while winning her slams, most of the time she was beating the same weak level of competition to win her slams and not facing Graf- but we don't penalize her for that, and we shouldn't...

Graf ended up missing more tournaments because of injuries than Seles did being out because of the stabbing. Tracy Austin was a main rival to Evert and was the player who ended her 125 match win streak on clay and was the player who prevented Evert from winning 5 US Open titles in a row- imagine what could have been if she didn't have chronic sciatica, then of course there's her car accident too.

It's not fair to use what ifs and to penalize or marginalize a players accomplishments because of what happened to other players. Nonetheless it's relevant to this discussion that you brought it up because, while most don't agree with you, some do. And that's another example of how truly complicated it is to compare and rank the greats.
Before the stabbing Graf and Seles played 4 slam finals. Seles won 3 of them.
thrust is offline  
post #64 of 129 (permalink) Old May 1st, 2010, 08:11 PM
Senior Member
 
terjw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,359
                     
Re: What's most important when it comes to ranking GREATNESS?

Years of domination (or shared domination with another player e.g.Chris & Nav) is the mark of greatness - and I mean dominating the tour as well as just the slams. Overall H2H against the rest is a good indicator that the player is always winning (not selective H2H against particular players). Weeks at #1 coupled with winning slams is a also a good measure of greatness and shows dominance. If you win slams and are #1 for a whole year - you dominated that year. You don't do that just by playing lots of tournaments.

Incidentally - the notion that it's actual slam wins are remembered and not weeks at #1 is simply not true. No-one except for die hard tennis fans know let alone remember how many slam wins a player has and they won't even be able to name the slam winners at all 4 slams the previous year. What is remembered is the overall knowledge and impression that the great player is always winning especially at slams. Only a few people can quote that Nav won a record 9 Wimbledon titles. But people do remember she was always winniong and they do remember the epic battles she had with with her serve and volley game against Chris Evert with her two handed backhand and baseline game.

I don't go a lot on year end #1 ranking because rankings are based on a rolling 12 months and to elevate year end #1 is totally artificial and nothing to do with a player's ability. If all we had was a race and a #1 at the end of the year like league tables in cricket and football - the yes it would be different.

Caroline Wozniacki

Chris Evert, Steffi Graf, Kim Clijsters
terjw is offline  
post #65 of 129 (permalink) Old May 1st, 2010, 11:27 PM
Senior Member
 
The Witch-king's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Nairobi
Posts: 13,129
                     
Re: What's most important when it comes to ranking GREATNESS?

Number of Wimbledon titles times length of legs

^^^^ for all my ladies
The Witch-king is offline  
post #66 of 129 (permalink) Old May 1st, 2010, 11:29 PM
Senior Member
 
The Witch-king's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Nairobi
Posts: 13,129
                     
Re: What's most important when it comes to ranking GREATNESS?

Quote:
Originally Posted by irma View Post
The most important factor is: "who are the player that I like and who are the players that I don't like as much"?
that too

^^^^ for all my ladies
The Witch-king is offline  
post #67 of 129 (permalink) Old May 1st, 2010, 11:37 PM
Senior Member
 
Chakvenus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,502
                     
Re: What's most important when it comes to ranking GREATNESS?

for me, greatness is too hard to define in terms of tennis so i won't even try.
but for the whole legacy aspect, i think really just having at least one slam will make you remembered. even still, Ana is referred to as '2008 FO champion' in articles about her, even non-tennis ones. also Vee (while she only has 7, less than past greats and her sister) gets the recognition of '5-time Wimbledon champion,' a stellar feat that is just magnified when said like that. i agree though that only a diehard tennis fan will be like 'oh yeah, Davenport was the 2000 Aussie Open champion,' or ElenaD was twice a runner-up in 2004'. one little legacy (from a slam) is enough for you to be remembered, at least in your time.

Anna Chakvetadze Venus Williams
Bartoli Hantuchova Schnyder A.Radwanska Cibulkova Szavay Cornet S.Williams Hsieh Chuang Medina Garrigues A.Bondarenko
Chakvenus is offline  
post #68 of 129 (permalink) Old May 2nd, 2010, 02:22 AM
Senior Member
 
mboyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,514
                     
Re: What's most important when it comes to ranking GREATNESS?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sammy01 View Post
exactly, weeks at #1 are what i look at next, but if that is the only thing a player has over the other (slam ru's, career titles, YEC won all indicate the other player) then you have to way it up.
Weeks at number one is, to be honest, completely irrelevant after 1997. It is no longer designed to measure who is the best player. Instead, it measures who wins the most (best=who wins the most while losing the least), which essentially amounts to who plays the most matches.

The most important thing to look at is career win/loss percentage, especially at slams. That will tell you who won the most while losing the least. That is why I still keep Chris Evert in the discussion for number one. I still think Nav takes it, but Evert is my number two, with Graf my number three.

Romney/Ryan 2012
mboyle is offline  
post #69 of 129 (permalink) Old May 2nd, 2010, 02:24 AM
La Divina Assoluta
 
The Dawntreader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,904
                     
Re: What's most important when it comes to ranking GREATNESS?

Longevity of course.

The fact that Navratilova was top 5 for nearly 20 years is quite staggering. Something that is near-impossible in a modern climate of sport.
The Dawntreader is offline  
post #70 of 129 (permalink) Old May 2nd, 2010, 04:57 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,762
                     
Re: What's most important when it comes to ranking GREATNESS?

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrust View Post
If Graf had to play Evert or Nav, in their prime, she would probably have between 10-15 Slams. For two years before the stabbing, Seles was dominating the Slams even though she was younger and less experienced than Graf.
There is no space for word IF when we speak about greatness...we only speak here about achievements(facts) and that is what counts,not someone's possibilities...

Numbers don't lie,nor the categories for the greatness...
Anabelcroft is online now  
post #71 of 129 (permalink) Old May 2nd, 2010, 07:59 AM
Senior Member
 
hingis-seles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 19,128
                     
Re: What's most important when it comes to ranking GREATNESS?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Stefwhit View Post
Weeks @ #1
Venus ranks at the bottom of the list on this stat, ahead of her is Safina, Mauresmo, Hingis, Clijsters, Capriatti, ASV, and Sharapova- none of which would be ranked above her.
There is no way Venus should ever be ranked above Hingis in weeks at number one. She has never had the consistency of playing at a high standard across the year like Hingis did. She never had a dominant year on Tour, the way Hingis did in 1997.

Venus has been great in fits and bursts, but not good enough to be number one for a sustained period. Too injured and too prone to early exits.

FUCK YOU, SEWTA.
[/SIZE]
hingis-seles is offline  
post #72 of 129 (permalink) Old May 2nd, 2010, 08:30 AM
Senior Member
 
zxcVbnm88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,991
                     
Re: What's most important when it comes to ranking GREATNESS?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hingis-seles View Post
There is no way Venus should ever be ranked above Hingis in weeks at number one. She has never had the consistency of playing at a high standard across the year like Hingis did. She never had a dominant year on Tour, the way Hingis did in 1997.

Venus has been great in fits and bursts, but not good enough to be number one for a sustained period. Too injured and too prone to early exits.
Sir Stefwhit didn't say Venus should be ranked above Hingis in weeks at number 1.
Sir Stefwhit was trying to say that those players who have more weeks at number 1 than Venus are not greater than Venus. Therefore, one's greatness cannot be defined by that factor alone.

Quote:
Weeks @ #1
Venus ranks at the bottom of the list on this stat, ahead of her is Safina, Mauresmo, Hingis, Clijsters, Capriatti, ASV, and Sharapova- none of which would be ranked above her.
Sir's conclusion:
Quote:
So I get that the process is complicated and isn't simply a matter of any one isolated factor; when ranking the greats we have to take a lot into account and sometimes discount certain factors because of certain circumstances.
zxcVbnm88 is offline  
post #73 of 129 (permalink) Old May 2nd, 2010, 08:41 AM
Senior Member
 
hingis-seles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 19,128
                     
Re: What's most important when it comes to ranking GREATNESS?

Quote:
Originally Posted by zxcVbnm88 View Post
Sir Stefwhit didn't say Venus should be ranked above Hingis in weeks at number 1.
Sir Stefwhit was trying to say that those players who have more weeks at number 1 than Venus are not greater than Venus. Therefore, one's greatness cannot be defined by that factor alone.
My bad. I stand corrected.

FUCK YOU, SEWTA.
[/SIZE]
hingis-seles is offline  
post #74 of 129 (permalink) Old May 2nd, 2010, 10:39 AM
Senior Member
 
terjw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,359
                     
Re: What's most important when it comes to ranking GREATNESS?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcana View Post
Historical significance. If they still talk about you 50 years later, you were great.
Ana Kournikova?

Caroline Wozniacki

Chris Evert, Steffi Graf, Kim Clijsters
terjw is offline  
post #75 of 129 (permalink) Old May 2nd, 2010, 10:46 AM
Senior Member
 
sammy01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: England
Posts: 25,415
                     
Re: What's most important when it comes to ranking GREATNESS?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hingis-seles View Post
There is no way Venus should ever be ranked above Hingis in weeks at number one. She has never had the consistency of playing at a high standard across the year like Hingis did. She never had a dominant year on Tour, the way Hingis did in 1997.

Venus has been great in fits and bursts, but not good enough to be number one for a sustained period. Too injured and too prone to early exits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zxcVbnm88 View Post
Sir Stefwhit didn't say Venus should be ranked above Hingis in weeks at number 1.
Sir Stefwhit was trying to say that those players who have more weeks at number 1 than Venus are not greater than Venus. Therefore, one's greatness cannot be defined by that factor alone.
thats to me why weeks at #1 is important. venus lack of weeks at #1 hurts her greatness claim against someone like henin, because it shows henin was completely dominant as well as consistent for much longer streches/periods than venus, who has high peaks but also big lows and plenty of bad loses.

Anna Chakvetadze Rules

Kim Clijsters - Supporting the comeback!

I have no other faves, I just hate
sammy01 is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TennisForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Image Verification
Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.

Registration Image

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome