Most important factors to consider when ranking the greats (after slam count)? - Page 9 - 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 #121 of 129 (permalink) Old Jan 31st, 2013, 10:48 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 13,760
                     
Re: Most important factors to consider when ranking the greats (after slam count)?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manitou View Post
So how do you judge Serena who is not leading in any of those categories, but is considered by many the best female player ever? At her best she was two leagues above everybody else. Peak Serena beats peak Graf, peak Navratilova, peak Seles, peak everybody. And still, she fails to win any of the listed classifications.


--
There's a difference between Greatness and Best.

Under your scenario, Serena could be the Best player of all time, but she still wouldn't be the Greatest player of all time. That's where all that other stuff comes in.

However, they're still many people who feel Serena would lose to Steffi Graf on grass, plexi-cushion, and especially clay. The same with Chrissie Evert on Clay (with today's technology or transplant Serena back to Chrissie's time), etc..

So it's not as simple as you said it. Could you really see Serena beating Graf at the US Open, Aussie Open and the French Open with regularity (mind you Wimby)?

Their era's are not that far apart. And we've seen them play a few matches against each other to get some semblance of minor overlap.
Excelscior is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #122 of 129 (permalink) Old Feb 1st, 2013, 12:52 AM
Senior Member
 
Matt-TennisFan24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 226
                     
Re: Most important factors to consider when ranking the greats (after slam count)?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NashaMasha View Post
being a sucker on some of three main tennis surfaces is definitely dougrading greatness.... For instance Kuerten , who will rank him even close to someone like Arthur Ashe or Guillermo Vilas? Actually he is in the same league as Safin or Kafelnikov



actually from this group

Tier1 - Davenport, Sharapova, ASV
Tier2 - Clijsters, Mandlikova
Tier3 - Capriati , Wade
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Stefwhit View Post
Interesting...out of curiosity when you use the check list criteria you pointed out and compare Clijsters to both Davenport and Sharapova are you saying the difference is big enough to rank Clijsters a whole tier below them? In my mind they would be more or less equal so that's a little surprising, but I never did a thorough comparison between them just a first glance comparison, but it's till surprising to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NashaMasha View Post
who was out for injuries during FO 2012?

as for 3-5 Slam Winners, check the table below (i marked the darker - the better)



who can find how many Tier 1s (i mean it's equivalents ) were won by Wade and Mandlikova?

Hey guys

First, to answer NashaMasha's question, I did some thorough research regarding the most important titles since 1968 which would qualify as "Tier I" titles. The criteria I used for doing this was specifically looking at which tournaments the better ranked players (No.1, No.2, etc) played apart from the Slams. I tried to get a number similar to today's Tier I tournaments (around 8 or 9), and did not make a difference when the players were not competing in the same tour. Here's what I did for the year 1970, for example. I made an average of the rankings provided by journalists of the time from the year before, in this case 1969 (all this info is in the BFTP section), and then I searched which tournaments the best players were part of in 1970. First, tournaments played by the No.1 and No.2 players of the past year got an automatic qualification as a Tier I. If more slots were available, then the tournaments played by No.1 and No.3 were next, then No.2 and No.3, No.1 and No.4, and so on.

1970
1-Court
2-Jones
3-King
4-Richey Gunter
AUCKLAND A Ann Jones bt Kerry Melville 0-6 6-4 6-1 (No.2)
PHILADELPHIA B Margaret Court bt Billie Jean King 6-3 8-6 (No.1, No.3 and No.4) Feb 2
HURLINGHAM A Ann Jones bt Joyce Williams 6-1 4-6 6-4 (No.1 and No.2) May 11
DURBAN A Billie Jean King bt Margaret Court 6-4 2-6 6-2 (No.1, No.2 and No.3) Apr 6
NEW YORK A Margaret Court bt Virginia Wade 6-3 6-3 (No.1 and No.3) Feb 9
BOURNEMOUTH A Margaret Court bt Virginia Wade 6-2 6-3 (No.1 and No.3) Apr 27
SUTTON A Margaret Court bt Ann Jones 6-3 6-3 (No.1 and No.2) Apr 20
FRINTON A Margaret Court bt Ann Jones 2-6 7-5 6-2 (No.1 and No.2) Jul 13
DALLAS A Margaret Court bt Billie Jean King 1-6 6-3 11-9 (No.1, No.2 and No.3) Feb 13
SOUTH AFRICAN OPEN A Margaret Court bt Billie Jean King 6-4 1-6 6-3 (No.1 and No.3) Mar 24


All the ones in font made the cut as a Tier I This year is the most impressive of my research to me. Margaret dominated most of the year's important tournaments! And you can see by the information on the brackets that they weren't cakewalk draws...

I have more for each year, up to the introduction of the Tier I system, if you are interested.


Now regarding how they would the four and three-time Slam winners would be ranked under this system, I did it again, and I got pretty much the same results, even though I think Sharapova is going to change that if she keeps having top seasons like 2012.

Here's how the graphic would look:

system for ranking the all-time greats.PNG


What do you think now?

Fan of the Four Beauty Angels

Maria Sharapova (Career High-Ranking: #1, Career Grand Slam ) · Caroline Wozniacki (Career High-Ranking: #1) · Ana Ivanovic (Career High-Ranking: #1, RG Champion) · Maria Kirilenko (Career High-Ranking: #10)

Kuznetsova · Bacsinszky · Svitolina · Diatchenko
Matt-TennisFan24 is offline  
post #123 of 129 (permalink) Old Jun 9th, 2013, 02:46 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Sir Stefwhit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: New York
Posts: 5,936
                     
Re: Most important factors to consider when ranking the greats (after slam count)?

As I've given this topic more thought overtime I now give more weight to the intangibles, the only probably with intangibles is that they are open to interpretation and are open to opinions and biases. Then again, when we talk about GOATS there's always some sort of bias and at the end of the day opinions Cary a lot of sway. With that said I think mental toughness, hunger, desire, determination, and a fighting spirit all play into GOAT discussions. You obviously can't measure those kinds of things but nonetheless the deserve to be at least me tinned alongside things you can measure.

Along with numbers, greatness is about being the best. And if u are regarded as the fastest, the most athletic, the most strategic, the best forehand, the best slice, the best serve....so in and so on, that carries weight in theses endless debates as well. Again no need to point out how these kinds of things are flawed since its hard to measure the best this or that. That's why I think a general consensus on things should factor in to these debates as well. If you are are regarded a certain way by the majority of the sports writers, your peers in the sport, and by most fans that's something significant that should be part of discussions as well.

So in summary it's a combination of things measured, things agreed upon, and things that can't be seen or measured, in other words its complicated..lol at the end of the day if you become part of the discussion of the best ever then that's all one could hope for...

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  
post #124 of 129 (permalink) Old Jun 9th, 2013, 05:46 AM
Senior Member
 
rjd1111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: usa
Posts: 3,643
                     
Re: Most important factors to consider when ranking the greats (after slam count)?

Who would kick whose ass .... before slam count.
rjd1111 is offline  
post #125 of 129 (permalink) Old Jun 9th, 2013, 06:08 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 718
                     
Re: Most important factors to consider when ranking the greats (after slam count)?

Slams, number of Tier1/PremierMandatory/Premier titles, and weeks at number one. Which all prove that Graf, Evert, and Navratilova are miles ahead of Serena in their all-time rankings. And not only that, those three have transcended the sport, unlike Serena. Maria Sharapova is still the most famous player on the planet, and no one could care less about Serena and her cakewalk draws and wins.
Thirty All is offline  
post #126 of 129 (permalink) Old Jun 9th, 2013, 06:40 AM
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
Hugues Daniel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Manosque
Posts: 22,368
                     
Re: Most important factors to consider when ranking the greats (after slam count)?

The quality, the toughness of the adversity. The more it's hard, rich, high, the more it's admirable.
Hugues Daniel is online now  
post #127 of 129 (permalink) Old Dec 18th, 2014, 04:54 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Sir Stefwhit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: New York
Posts: 5,936
                     
Re: Most important factors to consider when ranking the greats (after slam count)?

I think I realized the point isn't to be the greatest because no one will ever have 100% agreement on who the greatest is, so instead the goal is to get to a level where you're included in the discussions amongst the all time greats.

The fun part about it is having debates and based on slams first, then all the various other things mentioned in this thread we can start the conversation. Players tend to be lumped into catagories of greatness (I actually wished they had a tier system in the International Tennis Hall of Fame).

Platinum Greats: Serena, Navratilova, Steffi
Diamond Greats: Evert, Court, King
Gold Greats: Henin, Seles, Venus
Silver Greats: Lenglen, Connolly, Wills
Bronze Greats: Hingis, Sharapova, Vicario

and so on... (this isn't an actual listing just making the point about lumping greatness)

Then once you lump them and you usually do this by slam count, then you dive in deeper to the other stats for separation. I think the number of titles, length of time you held the number one ranking, and H2H have the most weight when trying to separate players with similar resumes.

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  
post #128 of 129 (permalink) Old Dec 18th, 2014, 09:31 PM
Senior Member
 
Strawberried4t55's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,162
                     
Re: Most important factors to consider when ranking the greats (after slam count)?

I'd say the overall WTA title account is very important. Along with no. of GS finals, YEC titles, highest medal. So for example when comparing one slam wonders like Sabatini, Novotna, Martinez and who is the greatest, I would do something like this below, and the player with the most Bolds would be the winner.

No. of titles won
Sabatini (27), Novotna (24), Martinez (33) - Martinez

No. of GS finals
Sabatini (3), Novotna (4), Martinez (3) - Novotna

No. of YEC titles
Sabatini (2), Novotna (1), Martinez (0), Sabatini

Highest medal
Novotna (bronze), Sabatini (silver), Martinez (none) - Sabatini

No. of GS semi-finals
Sabatini (18), Martinez (12), Novotna (8) - Sabatini

Therefore Sabatini is the greatest

Wimbledon 2004 Champion
US Open 2006 CHAMPION
Australian Open 2008 CHAMPION
Roland Garros 2012 CHAMPION
Roland Garros 2014 CHAMPION
Strawberried4t55 is offline  
post #129 of 129 (permalink) Old Dec 20th, 2014, 02:11 AM
Serena's #1 Hater
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Berkeley, CA
Posts: 19,717
                     
Re: Most important factors to consider when ranking the greats (after slam count)?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Stefwhit View Post
I think I realized the point isn't to be the greatest because no one will ever have 100% agreement on who the greatest is, so instead the goal is to get to a level where you're included in the discussions amongst the all time greats.

The fun part about it is having debates and based on slams first, then all the various other things mentioned in this thread we can start the conversation. Players tend to be lumped into catagories of greatness (I actually wished they had a tier system in the International Tennis Hall of Fame).

Platinum Greats: Serena, Navratilova, Steffi
Diamond Greats: Evert, Court, King
Gold Greats: Henin, Seles, Venus
Silver Greats: Lenglen, Connolly, Wills
Bronze Greats: Hingis, Sharapova, Vicario

and so on... (this isn't an actual listing just making the point about lumping greatness)

Then once you lump them and you usually do this by slam count, then you dive in deeper to the other stats for separation. I think the number of titles, length of time you held the number one ranking, and H2H have the most weight when trying to separate players with similar resumes.
Personally, I think you should take the eras in which the players competed into consideration when you look at their major count. For instance:
1. There was no commercial air travel when Suzanne Lenglen and Helen Wills played; as a consequence, neither of them played Australia, Lenglen only played the U.S. once, and Wills only played the French five times (winning four).
2. Because of World Wars I and II, 32 majors were cancelled.
3. Althea Gibson wasn't invited to play USLTA tournaments until 1950, after Alice Marble shamed them into it with a scathing letter.
4. During the pre-Open era, a lot of players skipped majors simply because they couldn't afford it.

I'm not trying to denigrate the modern players, nor am I trying to pump up the players of the past; I'm just trying to put things in a broader perspective.

"He who finds a wife finds a good thing, and obtains favor from the Lord." -- Proverbs 18:22

"Hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard." -- Herb Brooks

"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life." -- Muhammad Ali
darrinbaker00 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