Personally, it's very close. Both have just about 80% winning percentage. Kim has one more Grand Slam, but Lindsay has the Olympic Gold. Both had around a ten year stretch of consistently advancing deep into the draw at Majors. Kim's three YEC help her out, a lot. Lindsay has fourteen more overall titles than Kim, which helps her a lot. Lindsay really played peak-Hingis, peak-Venus, and peak-Serena throughout her career, and she had to beat almost all of them to win her titles, so I think her competition was consistently tougher. Kim's two best years were kind of lacking in the competition department. Clijsters leads the head-to-head by one match. Davenport finished #1 four times.
Anyway it's Davenport. Clijsters won her slams during generation suck and with Safina/Wozniacki being #1. Davenport won when Seles, Hingis, Graff were active and when being in top 10 meant something.
Plus she won more tournaments I think?
Anyway it's Davenport. Clijsters won her slams during generation suck and with Safina/Wozniacki being #1. With the only exception in 2005.
Davenport won when Seles, Hingis, Graff were active and when being in top 10 meant something.
Plus she won more tournaments I think?
Lindsay Davenport with a big margin . Overall she had much better career in highly competitive WTA, whereas Kim's main achievements happened when she was a part-timer in the time of nobodies
Clijsters. Not only does she have 1 more slam but she has 2 more WTA Championships which is a huge event. She has many Miami titles while Lindsay has none, that is the next biggest. Also surface to surface Lindsay is only better on grass. Kim is better on hard courts by a considerable margin, and obviously better on clay by default vs Lindsay who sucked. As for excelling vs tough competition Lindsay won 0 slams once the Williams began their era.
Davenport won her slams in a very tight window, about 18 months. Clijsters won her's over a five plus year span, with a two year layoff. It's fair to say Clijsters was a slam winner for a far longer period of time, and that isn't a small thing.
There's not a heckuva lot to choose between them. They went about their careers in different ways, matured at different times.
BTW, the whole 'generation suck' thing is BS. The ranking system has a purpose. So-called 'fans' choose to use it for another purpose, and then insult the players.
Anyway it's Davenport. Clijsters won her slams during generation suck and with Safina/Wozniacki being #1. With the only exception in 2005.
Davenport won when Seles, Hingis, Graff were active and when being in top 10 meant something.
Plus she won more tournaments I think?
Sorry but a lot of Davenport´s weeks at number one were post 2000, when she won her last slam, if anything she benefited from the flawed ranking system that rewards quantity vs quality. Not that Kim did not profited from this in 2003, but still, Davenport gets a lot of credit from the weeks at number one and she was not number one for that much time between 98-2000 when she won her slams..
More to that Kim won 3 of her slams having to go throught the Williams sisters, and she basically just won the Australian Open 2011 over the generation suck players.
This is a super difficult question, i think think the slam win tops everything else, here is no different ...
Kim also leads their head to head 9-8 just as barely her carreer over Lindsay... This is so tough..
Otherwise we should assume that players like Conchita, Sabatini > Peak Mary
Anyway it's Davenport. Clijsters won her slams during generation suck and with Safina/Wozniacki being #1. With the only exception in 2005.
Davenport won when Seles, Hingis, Graff were active and when being in top 10 meant something.
Plus she won more tournaments I think?