I truthfully think any player who wins four grand slams is more than a transitional player.
Venus has accomplished a lot, there is no denying that.
That Martina accomplished a lot and actually, did more than Venus has so far, is not even open to debate.
I think the real problem here is trying to establish "eras" which are mostly just story lines for the journalists.
There are brief periods of domination in the sport, but then something usually happens and that domination ends. I expect Serena's domination to end, as well. But it is hardly an "era" for any of them.
Did Graf really have an era? Yes, but it will be foreever marred by the Seles stabbing, which propelled Graf back to number one and eliminated for more than two years not just her biggest opponent, but a woman who was pretty much dominating her.
Actually, everyone's accomplishments are what they are. Bob Larson is correct, that some have always tried to diminish Hingis' accomplishments, saying she didn't face stiff competition.
The truth is, Martina and Venus are the exact same age and turned pro within weeks of one another. Martina's game matured a lot faster and she got very big results a lot faster than Venus did.
Venus is still around for now and Martina is not, but Martina has still piled up a much more distinguished record of achievement than has Venus in less time on the tour than Venus has spent there. Remember, Martina missed about half of 2002 and hasn't played at all in 2003.
The part that bothers me the most is that some of those who support Venus seem to be on a never ending quest to diminish Martina's record.
I think that's because Martina always stood in the way of the Williams sisters rise in the sport. IN many ways, while Martina played part of 2002, her old prediction proved to be rather accurate.
Asked if the Williams sisters would get to the absolute top, she said maybe, after she retired. That, considering her injury problems in 2002, proved pretty prophetic.