Is your argument based on Serena's domination against her peers? I don't understand why numerical records would falsify the thesis that Serena is the "Greatest by ability at physical peak." Graf, Evert, Martina and Serena dominated their peers at their physical peaks but Serena played in an era that was more physical.
This is always the big argument in Sports.
Was Hakeem Olajuwon the greatest Center in NBA history, cause he was the best Center, when the best, biggest, tallest, most athletic Centers played?
Some would ask, was Wilt Chamberlain (or Kareem Abdul Jabbar even) The best Center ever cause they dominated the best/more over their contemporaries than ever before?
Now of course athletes who dominated in the 1960's, generally are not going to be as dominate over their peers in 2011 (or athletes in 2011 against each other). So it gets complicated. We all know this.
I think here, we blended (taken from two different posters), a Peak Play vs Peak Physical play argument, actually. Those are two different arguments.
If it's simple play or domination; then I think Chris, Steffi and Navratilova win that out easy. If it's who was the most physically gifted, than that becomes more complicated.
Do you wanna say Serena, cause she 5'9", 165lb, fast, powerful, etc., then you can. But that doesn't mean she was that much more physically better than her peers, compared to Martina or Graf (though she may of been). But I'm not sure what that even means, cause skill level wise some would argue, it wasn't enough for Serena to dominate the sport the way Chris or Martina did, or even Graf, a relative contemporary of hers (unless we change the scales or judgements). Of course Serena supporters, can make that argument as well, by saying their competition/physicality of the sport was better (though as Chris Williams pointed out the other day; players of the 60-70's had their condition/court requirements that many players today could/maybe not deal with, no like medical time outs, standing between games, no on court trainers, TV time outs, entourages, including massage therapist, nutritionist, etc.).
Shoot. Another argument can be made, that Venus
, was even more physically gifted than Serena (because of her combined height, reach,
speed and power), but that only got Venus 7 majors, and inconsistent play throughout her career. See what I mean?
The other thing people try to do is just look at physical/mental/skill assessments; but those don't always translate era's either, though it does work many times (compensating a little for new racquets, training, size growth, etc.). You know, who was the better player; Roger, Rafa, Sampras or Laver argument?
I mean we can go on and on with this, but I'm not in a position right now, to write in such detail, as the scales and qualifiers we can use right now to accurately assess different players of different era's and their peak performance.
So in a simple line (addressing your original question), Serena or Venus may very well of been the most physically gifted female tennis players ever, but it doesn't mean they were the best, had the best careers, combined it with the best skills, had the biggest physical advantage or even played the best peak tennis ever (at one time, one year, or a career).
But I do understand why some would make that argument (especially if Serena would of had 18-22 majors, instead of 13 and counting)?
PS (speaking about physical): Gael Monfis, is probably the most combined physically/skill wise gifted male Tennis Player (he's got all the shots and power, along with that brilliant athleticism, reach and height), maybe ever, but it hasn't translated into him even winning a major. A shame!