Fantasio, thanks for that explanation. And now I am really understanding this. It confirms my suspicions that the reason why Seles is so high is because of her success against Graf.
You're right. Of course, defeating Graf was important because Seles defeated all the other players (that is, was consisent). Sanchez-Vicario also defeated Graf, but was not consistent!
The reason why Connolly who had same Grand Slam success as Seles is, comparatively, so low is because she didn't have high quality competition.
Right again. It was not Connolly's fault, and maybe she could have defeated Court/King/everyone else, but there's no way to prove it. We only know she was stronger than Fry/Hart/Brough, but that's not enough.
To sum up, Seles dominated an era that included a GOAT and her losses came to that GOAT. Comparatively, it was harder for her to have dethroned Graf than anyone else in history and for dethroning Graf, she's rewarded heavily here.
You understood everything. :-)
And to only factor in the slams is very limiting - years at #1, career singles winning % and tournament wins should also factor in there somewhere.
I said many
times that dominance level is just one
factor. I never said ELO ranking=GOAT ranking and I myself think Navratilova to be the GOAT (nor Graf neither Seles).
Which are? (reasons for not counting "minors")
There are two main reasons.
First one, in tennis there's no official ELO ranking, in chess there is. This is one of the main reasons why top chess players do not compete in minor events: playing weak players is risky, because losing to just one of them would mean losing a lot of points. Beating all the others (in chess most tournaments are round-robin) could not compensate such a loss. In tennis, majors are valued much more than "minors", so top players do compete, often lose, but without consequences. Our Schiavone, for example, did not play seriously in minor events after winning in Paris last year, still never exited top 10. In chess that would not have been possible, and had she been a chess player, she would only have played in "majors". As many top players are Schiavone-like (i.e Williams sisters), it's better to count only majors: weak players will be ranked badly (as they play seriously in minor events) but top players will not. As we are only interested in top players, that's enough.
Second one, we've got no complete results for "minors", and it's nonsense counting them starting from 1968 (or 1974). Or we count them all, either we don't. And even counting them all, the Schiavone/Williams problem will stand. You surely do not want Serena to be ranked lower!