Tennis Forum banner

At the end of the day, how important are the Grand Slams?

1K views 32 replies 13 participants last post by  Volcana 
#1 ·
There has been much talk on the board about Kim becoming no.1 without a major. I think that obviously, you need to win one or a couple to be considered a great player, but after that, how important are they?

Three examples spring to mind

1. Many people consider that Steffi a greater player than Margaret Court, even though their respective singles titles total 22 and 24

2. i think that most people would agree that Gaby sabatini had a better career than say Mary Pierce, even though Mary won 2 GS and Gaby 1

3. Would we have felt different about Martina Nav and Chris Evert had Martina lost the 93 Wimbeldon final to Zina, and ended up with 17 GS compared to Chris's 18?
 
#27 ·
BCP said:
I forgot about the jennifer Capriati case, which is the most obvious of all. Her is a player who has won 3 GS and been no 1 but has an inability to win tournaments. How great can she be considered if she finishes her career with little more than 10 tour titles for her entire career :eek:
She sure must be the no.1 who has won the least amount of tournaments during her reign as no.1!!
 
#28 ·
BCP said:
There has been much talk on the board about Kim becoming no.1 without a major. I think that obviously, you need to win one or a couple to be considered a great player, but after that, how important are they?

Three examples spring to mind

1. Many people consider that Steffi a greater player than Margaret Court, even though their respective singles titles total 22 and 24

2. i think that most people would agree that Gaby sabatini had a better career than say Mary Pierce, even though Mary won 2 GS and Gaby 1

3. Would we have felt different about Martina Nav and Chris Evert had Martina lost the 93 Wimbeldon final to Zina, and ended up with 17 GS compared to Chris's 18?

Martina Nav is the greatest tennis player male or female ever. Period. No she doesnt have as many grandslams as steffi but as you just stated steffi doesnt have as many as margaret court so its not just about grandslam singles titles. Then since tennis is a game that includes singles, doubles, and mixed doubles. why shouldn't players who play all of these be valued for their accomplishments? Martina Nav is a force of nature a tennis ball slapping hurricane who leaves behind devastation and awed players in her wake. She is better than steffi better than chris better than court.
 
#29 ·
For me when i want to decide who is the greatest the number of singles Grand Slams are the top priority. If the numbers are similar, eg Graf and Court, Gaby and Pierce, then i look to other factors like number of other titles, highest ranking, head to heads etc.
But primarily Grand Slam titles are what people use to separate out different levels of greatness. Theres no way someone with ten slams would be considered greater than someone with 20 even though they somehow beat them in all other catergories like weeks at #1, titles, head to heads etc.
 
#30 ·
At the end of the day the grand slam will be more important.........cos u are now in an elite field and you have a big prize I imagine that is why they all play tennis....to win one of the big ones.......Kim was honest for not feeling like a true number one, but she is number one and that too can't be changed....

I imagine that to be number one is prestigious because the list of number ones is shorter than the list of grand slam champions but somehow u shouldn't enjoy number one cos u didn't accomplish the feat of winning a grand slam of being the only one standing after 128 players had tried and failed........
 
#31 ·
Cybelle Darkholme said:
Martina Nav is the greatest tennis player male or female ever. Period. No she doesnt have as many grandslams as steffi but as you just stated steffi doesnt have as many as margaret court so its not just about grandslam singles titles. Then since tennis is a game that includes singles, doubles, and mixed doubles. why shouldn't players who play all of these be valued for their accomplishments? Martina Nav is a force of nature a tennis ball slapping hurricane who leaves behind devastation and awed players in her wake. She is better than steffi better than chris better than court.
If you count singles, doubles, and mixed, then Margaret Court is hands down the greatest. She owns 19 women's doubles majors, AND 19 mixed doubles majors to compliment her 24 singles majors. Martina has played very little mixed doubles throughout her career- why, I don't know, but Steffi is a distant third if all majors are considered.
 
#33 ·
BCP said:
There has been much talk on the board about Kim becoming no.1 without a major. I think that obviously, you need to win one or a couple to be considered a great player, but after that, how important are they?

Three examples spring to mind

1. Many people consider that Steffi a greater player than Margaret Court, even though their respective singles titles total 22 and 24
Those are people who ignore doubles. Court won 63 total GS titles, I believe. Stefii won 23 total. SOME people consider Steffi a better SINGLES player. I've never heard of anyone who concerned Steffi the superios all around player.

2. i think that most people would agree that Gaby sabatini had a better career than say Mary Pierce, even though Mary won 2 GS and Gaby 1
Actually, at think most people consider Mary superior. Most knwoledgeable tennis fans would probably go with gaby, but how many of those people are there?

3. Would we have felt different about Martina Nav and Chris Evert had Martina lost the 93 Wimbeldon final to Zina, and ended up with 17 GS compared to Chris's 18?
No. Because of the same reasons given for Gourt vs Graf. Chris Evert, like Steffi, was a singles specialist. Margaret and Martina were played all aspects of tennis. I'd still rank Martina over Chris because of doubles.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top