Re: The YEC should be considered a fifth major
Adding a fifth major just makes it even harder to compare players across eras. I see no reason that make tat any worse than it is
Look at it this way, the history of the sport is Lenglen, Wills Moody, Court, King, Evert, Navratilova, Graf and Serena Williams.
Does counting the YEC as a major add anybody to that list? No.
Add half a slam for every slam doubles title.
44.0 = 24 + .5(19 +21) Court
38.5 = 18 + .5(31 +10) Navratilova
25.5 = 12 + .5(16 + 11) King
25.0 = 19 + .5(09 + 03) Wills Moody
24.5 = 17 + .5(13 + 02) Serena
22.0 = Graf
20.0 = 12 + .5(11 +05) Lenglen *
19.5 = 18 + .5(03 +00) Evert
*The politics of French tennis distort her records. And which way is debatable.
I actually like this better because it does a better job of letting you compare early champs to later one. I can compare Serean to BJK, for example. It also points up just how good Graf was as a single player. She's still in the middle of the list despite basically NEVER playing doubles.
And while we're talking how good or bad a tournament OZ is.was, note that Helen Wills Moody's record contains no OZ appearances at all. Pretty sharp looking record.
But when all is said and done, is there really any dispute over wo the long term dominant champions of the game were?
There were lights that shone brightly for brief periods: Seles, Venus, Henin, Mallory, Goolagong, Connelly, Gibson, Hingis, but the keyword there is 'brief'. (Or in Mallory's case, relegated to one tournament, the US Championships.) I see no real need to bend the stats to increase the perceived importance of any given player. Most tennis people agree on who the Amazons of the sport are.
Proud to be an American
Not blind. Not uninformed. We are party to atrocities. But the response of the world after 9/11 is worth noting. Even our most dire enemies offered aid. We should all be so lucky.
Last edited by Volcana; Dec 12th, 2013 at 05:41 PM.