PDA

View Full Version : Are Williams sisters the benchmark for any modern great tennis player?


Hulet
Apr 26th, 2004, 10:37 PM
It seems to me when we talk about greatness, atleast in this board, most of the time people compare players with either Venus or Serena (Evidence all the numerous polls about Venus vs some past or present player). So, I am wondering if the Williams sisters are the defacto threshold for any greatness discussion involving any modern women's tennis player? If so, why is that? Is it because they are well known? Or, are they that great?

Inquiring minds want to know.:)

CanadianGuy
Apr 26th, 2004, 10:38 PM
not really, they just own more slam titles than others:)

Pureracket
Apr 26th, 2004, 10:44 PM
not really, they just own more slam titles than others:)Well, eta psi is right about the polls, though. You have two on the main page yourself that mention Venus.:lol:

CanadianGuy
Apr 26th, 2004, 10:45 PM
Well, eta psi is right about the polls, though. You have two on the main page yourself that mention Venus.:lol:
No reasons, just because Venus seems to be the topics currently. Why not catch the train:)

Pureracket
Apr 26th, 2004, 10:49 PM
No reasons, just because Venus seems to be the topics currently. Why not catch the train:)I don't blame you, Canadian. It's easy to be infatuated with Queen V. We've all gone through what you're going through right now.:)

Volcana
Apr 26th, 2004, 11:02 PM
.So, I am wondering if the Williams sisters are the defacto threshold for any greatness discussion involving any modern women's tennis player? If so, why is that? Is it because they are well known? Or, are they that great?.They ARE that great, but that isn't the reason. It's because most people on the board or very young, or have very short memories. They don't remember Monica in '90, '91, or Steffi in '88 or Nav the whole 80's. The highest level of performance of performance they remember outside the Williams sisters was Hingis '97. Actuall most of them don't remember THAT. The look at Monica now, Steffi in '99 and Hinigs in 2002, and they think, 'well Venus and Serena are both better than that'. Which they are. But neither of them have dominated like Margaret Court or Chris Evert or Nav. Yet.

It's a lack of perspective on the part of most fans.

calabar
Apr 26th, 2004, 11:16 PM
In a word, YES.

CanadianGuy
Apr 26th, 2004, 11:24 PM
They ARE that great, but that isn't the resaon. It's because most people onthe board or very young, or have very short memories. They don't remember Monica in '90, '91, or Steffi in '88 or Nav the whole 80's. The highest level of performance of performance they remember outside the Williams sisters was Hingis '97. Actuall most of them don't remember THAT. The look at Monica now, Steffi in '99 and Hinigs in 2002, and they think, 'well Venus and Serena are both better than that'. Which they are. But neither of them have dominated like Margaret Court or Chris Evert or Nav. Yet.

It's a lack of perspective on the part of most fans.
I will have to agree. Many Williams fans follow their fav relentlessly. They try to hype them up to be better than others. But Venus never dominated, Serena's domination was already discussed by Bob Larson, and that domination only came after the injuries of Lindsay/Amelie/Jen, and Marinta's retirement, with the biggest resistance being the teenager Kim. These fans are the ones I am not too fond of:)

Knizzle
Apr 26th, 2004, 11:40 PM
I will have to agree. Many Williams fans follow their fav relentlessly. They try to hype them up to be better than others. But Venus never dominated, Serena's domination was already discussed by Bob Larson, and that domination only came after the injuries of Lindsay/Amelie/Jen, and Marinta's retirement, with the biggest resistance being the teenager Kim.
Venus did dominate and Serena dominated after her. They dominated together. These are not disputable. They are facts.

Kabezya
Apr 26th, 2004, 11:53 PM
People seem to want it both ways - fans and players alike.

When Venus was beaten by Raymond and a Russian this year (please excuse me for I don't have her name on my mind), it was used as a mark that the Venus era was over. That beating Venus was a standard for a player to go to the next level of tennis.

Same with Serena. When she was beaten this year, it was "Oh the Williams domination is officially over" or that everyone has caught up to Serena and to Venus.

But when they win, it's an excuse that the field doesn't have Justine or doesn't have the top 5 players in the world and therefore the field was depleted and not up to snuff.

I don't know if this standard that seems to cling to Venus and Serena is used to keep them on a certain level, if it's a backward sense of respect or just respect. There's no denying the Sisters are great - they still have a lot of greatness in their future, and that they are well known. But I will dispute the point made by CanadianGuy - sure fans of Venus and Serena follow the women and stake their own claim to the Sisters being great. But that itself wouldn't be possible without the tennis establishment harping on and continuing to showcase the greatness and level of tennis the Sisters are and have against other players. The first time I heard anything about domination was from Amelie saying another Williams vs Williams final was bad for women's tennis. So it's a little bit of everyone giving into the legend of that which is Venus and Serena Williams.

CanadianGuy
Apr 27th, 2004, 12:00 AM
Venus did dominate and Serena dominated after her. They dominated together. These are not disputable. They are facts.
Venus never dominated, and Serena's domination was compared by Bob to many of the other greats, and he concluded that her domination was not greater than Martina's, even with Serena's slam, playing less is no excuse.
And those are facts:)

harloo
Apr 27th, 2004, 12:08 AM
People seem to want it both ways - fans and players alike.

When Venus was beaten by Raymond and a Russian this year (please excuse me for I don't have her name on my mind), it was used as a mark that the Venus era was over. That beating Venus was a standard for a player to go to the next level of tennis.

Same with Serena. When she was beaten this year, it was "Oh the Williams domination is officially over" or that everyone has caught up to Serena and to Venus.

But when they win, it's an excuse that the field doesn't have Justine or doesn't have the top 5 players in the world and therefore the field was depleted and not up to snuff.

I don't know if this standard that seems to cling to Venus and Serena is used to keep them on a certain level, if it's a backward sense of respect or just respect. There's no denying the Sisters are great - they still have a lot of greatness in their future, and that they are well known. But I will dispute the point made by CanadianGuy - sure fans of Venus and Serena follow the women and stake their own claim to the Sisters being great. But that itself wouldn't be possible without the tennis establishment harping on and continuing to showcase the greatness and level of tennis the Sisters are and have against other players. The first time I heard anything about domination was from Amelie saying another Williams vs Williams final was bad for women's tennis. So it's a little bit of everyone giving into the legend of that which is Venus and Serena Williams.
:worship: :worship: :D

*JR*
Apr 27th, 2004, 12:52 AM
It's still hard to compare anything to Monica winning more of her 14 "pre-Hamburg" Slams (8) Than The rest of those draws combined (6).

MrSerenaWilliams
Apr 27th, 2004, 12:57 AM
Of course they are the modern bechmarks for this era, just like Navratilova and Graf were the benchmarks for their respective eras. Now in almost every statement I make I support it with facts, so let's take a look shall we:

Let's Look At Serena First

Serena Jameka Williams- 14 Grand Slam Titles (6 Singles (4 in a row (an accomplishment in itself), also the only person besides Venus and Jenny C. to defend Grand Slam titles (Serena- Wimbledon '02-'03, Venus- Wimbledon and US Open '00-'01, and Jenny C. '01-'02 Oz Open) owns a 6-1 record in Grand Slam finals, 6 Doubles (which includes a doubles career grand slam, meaning she has a career grand slam in singles and doubles), and 2 Mixed Doubles) :eek:, spent over 52 consecutive weeks as the undisputed #1 player in the world before falling to injury :eek: , ranked in the Top Ten of all time win/loss rankings overall, and on every surface except clay (ranked #22) :eek:, earned nearly 13 million in career earnings :eek: , has not lost a match on hardcourt since the SUMMER OF 2002 :eek: , undefeated in Fed Cup play :eek: , the only other player besides Steffi Graf to complete a three-peat of Miami Tier I titles :eek: , has spent 6 + uninterrupted years in the Top 10 :eek: , owns seven Tier I titles :eek: , only the fifth woman in tennis history to hold all four Grand Slam titles at once :eek: , ranked in the top two from June 2002- November 2003 :eek: , in 2002 won Wimbledon and US Open without losing a set (in fact, she won 18 consecutive sets in Grand Slam matches) :eek: , Olympic Gold Medalist, the highest paid female athlete EVER :eek: ...... the list goes on!

Now let's take a look at Venus

Venus Ebone Starr Williams- 12 Grand Slams (4 Singles (back to back titles at US Open and Wimbledon, and reached the final of 4 straight Wimbledon finals(only the third woman in history to do that) 4 straight Grand Slam finals), 6 Doubles (see Serena Williams GS doubles record), 2 Mixed Doubles) :eek: , 13 million + in career earnings :eek: , 2x Olympic Gold Medalist (one of only a few women in history to win both singles and doubles @ the same Olympic games) :eek:.....the list goes on!

Now let's look at some of their accomplishments together

Williams Sisters- 36 Grand Slam titles :eek: , the only sisters to face-off in multiple Grand Slam finals :eek: , the only players to face-off in 4 consecutive Grand Slam finals (inc. 2 consecutive US Open and Wimbledon finals) :eek: , the only family in tennis to have two sisters to both win Grand Slams and be ranked #1 :eek: , ranked #1 and #2 for 10 consecutive months :eek: .....the list goes on!

So in other words, YES, they definately are the benchmark for this era of women's tennis, not to mention the fact that in 90% of WTA events, if the Williams Sisters aren't there, attendance heavily dwindles (compare 2002 WTA Tour Champs to 2003 WTA Tour Champs). Not to mention the fact that neither of them are even in their mid-20s. If there are any doubts...check the stats, they don't lie.

THE WILLIAMS SISTERS!
A TWO-FOR-ONE ORDER OF GREATNESS
:worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

Knizzle
Apr 27th, 2004, 12:57 AM
Venus never dominated, and Serena's domination was compared by Bob to many of the other greats, and he concluded that her domination was not greater than Martina's, even with Serena's slam, playing less is no excuse.
And those are facts:)
Was there anyone better than Venus Williams in 2000-2001?? Fuck Bob Larson, no one takes what he says as gospel. He is a HUGE Hingis fan. Of course he will say that.

alwayshingis
Apr 27th, 2004, 01:04 AM
Was there anyone better than Venus Williams in 2000-2001?? Fuck Bob Larson, no one takes what he says as gospel. He is a HUGE Hingis fan. Of course he will say that.

And you are a HUGE Williams fan. Of course you will say that. We all think our favorites are the best, and that's healthy.

Knizzle
Apr 27th, 2004, 01:07 AM
And you are a HUGE Williams fan. Of course you will say that. We all think our favorites are the best, and that's healthy.
I'm not a tennis writer who should be unbiased when comparing two players either.

TeeRexx
Apr 27th, 2004, 01:08 AM
I don't blame you, Canadian. It's easy to be infatuated with Queen V. We've all gone through what you're going through right now.:)
Just ignore CG because he/she/it seems to have issues with players/people with dark skin. :eek: :fiery: :lol:

moon
Apr 27th, 2004, 01:09 AM
Was there anyone better than Venus Williams in 2000-2001?? Fuck Bob Larson, no one takes what he says as gospel. He is a HUGE Hingis fan. Of course he will say that.
:lol::lol: completely agree. Only some teeny bopper will quote a newspaper columnist to quote who is dominant and who is not. Look at the facts for yourself!

btw-- Venus won 35 matches in a row, winning US Open, Wimby, and an Olympic medal along the way during the summer of 2000. If that's not dominant then I don't know what is. ;)

Ballbuster
Apr 27th, 2004, 01:09 AM
And you are a HUGE Williams fan. Of course you will say that. We all think our favorites are the best, and that's healthy.

but my dear,

you have no favorite. She left you. She simply could not and would not stand for Serena whipping that azz routinely.

Therefore, she retired. So yes, the Sistah's set the standard - even in fake career retirings.

TeeRexx
Apr 27th, 2004, 01:20 AM
In answer to the thread question; the Williams name sure seems to come up when they are entered in a tournament and when they are not entered in a tournament; a victory over a Williams, even if either Williams was injured at the time, is always the career highlight of the victorious player; most of the players, that want a chance to win a GS, are suddenly deciding to get their asses in shape by doing more physical training than they ever did in their lives; tournament directors consider their event a success only if a Williams is entered and it is a major coup to have them both play.


So, yes, VENUS & SERENA are the benchmark, not only for current players, but for many future palyers, who will be champions, as well. :angel:

TR :cool:

LindsayRocks89
Apr 27th, 2004, 01:28 AM
YES :bounce:

DeDe4925
Apr 27th, 2004, 01:29 AM
It seems to me when we talk about greatness, atleast in this board, most of the time people compare players with either Venus or Serena (Evidence all the numerous polls about Venus vs some past or present player). So, I am wondering if the Williams sisters are the defacto threshold for any greatness discussion involving any modern women's tennis player? If so, why is that? Is it because they are well known? Or, are they that great?

Inquiring minds want to know.:)
Yes, because they are great.

DeDe4925
Apr 27th, 2004, 01:33 AM
People seem to want it both ways - fans and players alike.

When Venus was beaten by Raymond and a Russian this year (please excuse me for I don't have her name on my mind), it was used as a mark that the Venus era was over. That beating Venus was a standard for a player to go to the next level of tennis.

Same with Serena. When she was beaten this year, it was "Oh the Williams domination is officially over" or that everyone has caught up to Serena and to Venus.

But when they win, it's an excuse that the field doesn't have Justine or doesn't have the top 5 players in the world and therefore the field was depleted and not up to snuff.

I don't know if this standard that seems to cling to Venus and Serena is used to keep them on a certain level, if it's a backward sense of respect or just respect. There's no denying the Sisters are great - they still have a lot of greatness in their future, and that they are well known. But I will dispute the point made by CanadianGuy - sure fans of Venus and Serena follow the women and stake their own claim to the Sisters being great. But that itself wouldn't be possible without the tennis establishment harping on and continuing to showcase the greatness and level of tennis the Sisters are and have against other players. The first time I heard anything about domination was from Amelie saying another Williams vs Williams final was bad for women's tennis. So it's a little bit of everyone giving into the legend of that which is Venus and Serena Williams.
:worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

DeDe4925
Apr 27th, 2004, 01:36 AM
Of course they are the modern bechmarks for this era, just like Navratilova and Graf were the benchmarks for their respective eras. Now in almost every statement I make I support it with facts, so let's take a look shall we:

Let's Look At Serena First

Serena Jameka Williams- 14 Grand Slam Titles (6 Singles (4 in a row (an accomplishment in itself), also the only person besides Venus and Jenny C. to defend Grand Slam titles (Serena- Wimbledon '02-'03, Venus- Wimbledon and US Open '00-'01, and Jenny C. '01-'02 Oz Open) owns a 6-1 record in Grand Slam finals, 6 Doubles (which includes a doubles career grand slam, meaning she has a career grand slam in singles and doubles), and 2 Mixed Doubles) :eek:, spent over 52 consecutive weeks as the undisputed #1 player in the world before falling to injury :eek: , ranked in the Top Ten of all time win/loss rankings overall, and on every surface except clay (ranked #22) :eek:, earned nearly 13 million in career earnings :eek: , has not lost a match on hardcourt since the SUMMER OF 2002 :eek: , undefeated in Fed Cup play :eek: , the only other player besides Steffi Graf to complete a three-peat of Miami Tier I titles :eek: , has spent 6 + uninterrupted years in the Top 10 :eek: , owns seven Tier I titles :eek: , only the fifth woman in tennis history to hold all four Grand Slam titles at once :eek: , ranked in the top two from June 2002- November 2003 :eek: , in 2002 won Wimbledon and US Open without losing a set (in fact, she won 16 consecutive sets in Grand Slam matches) :eek: , Olympic Gold Medalist, the highest paid female athlete EVER :eek: ...... the list goes on!

Now let's take a look at Venus

Venus Ebone Starr Williams- 12 Grand Slams (4 Singles (back to back titles at US Open and Wimbledon, and reached the final of 4 straight Wimbledon finals(only the third woman in history to do that) 4 straight Grand Slam finals), 6 Doubles (see Serena Williams GS doubles record), 2 Mixed Doubles) :eek: , 13 million + in career earnings :eek: , 2x Olympic Gold Medalist (one of only a few women in history to win both singles and doubles @ the same Olympic games) :eek:.....the list goes on!

Now let's look at some of their accomplishments together

Williams Sisters- 36 Grand Slam titles :eek: , the only sisters to face-off in multiple Grand Slam finals :eek: , the only players to face-off in 4 consecutive Grand Slam finals (inc. 2 consecutive US Open and Wimbledon finals) :eek: , ranked #1 and #2 for 10 consecutive months :eek: .....the list goes on!

So in other words, YES, they definately are the benchmark for this era of women's tennis, not to mention the fact that in 90% of WTA events, if the Williams Sisters aren't there, attendance heavily dwindles (compare 2002 WT Tour Champs to 2003 WTA Tour Champs). Not to mention the fact that neither of them are even in their mid-20s. If there are any doubts...check the stats, they don't lie.

THE WILLIAMS SISTERS!
A TWO-FOR-ONE ORDER OF GREATNESS
:worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:
:worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

dreamgoddess099
Apr 27th, 2004, 02:43 AM
But Venus never dominated,Oh really, name a player with better results in 2000/2001? Serena's domination was already discussed by Bob Larson, and that domination only came after the injuries of Lindsay/Amelie/Jen, and Marinta's retirement, First, let me stop laughing. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Ok, Serena has lost 1 match to a combined Lindsay/Amelie/Jennifer/Martina since Wimbledon 2001. she was already beating them consistantly long before any of them got injured or off tour.
with the biggest resistance being the teenager Kim. No, you've got Justine confused with Serena. I'm sure that's a first. :lol:

CanadianBoy21
Apr 27th, 2004, 03:20 AM
Please don't get me confused with CanadianGuy.

DeDe4925
Apr 27th, 2004, 03:25 AM
Oh really, name a player with better results in 2000/2001? First, let me stop laughing. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Ok, Serena has lost 1 match to a combined Lindsay/Amelie/Jennifer/Martina since Wimbledon 2001. she was already beating them consistantly long before any of them got injured or off tour.
No, you've got Justine confused with Serena. I'm sure that's a first. :lol:
:lol: :lol:

Black Mamba.
Apr 27th, 2004, 03:27 AM
I would have to say yeah. I mean when you have other players openly taking about how they play for third when they are both in the tournement, when you have other players complaining that you win all the time, and when you have commentators openly wishing you would lose says alot about you. Venus and Serena are the benchmark they are fierce competitors who play with a chip on their shoulders and they play with that us against the world swagger that makes them that much better.

CanadianGuy
Apr 27th, 2004, 03:43 AM
Oh really, name a player with better results in 2000/2001? First, let me stop laughing. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Ok, Serena has lost 1 match to a combined Lindsay/Amelie/Jennifer/Martina since Wimbledon 2001. she was already beating them consistantly long before any of them got injured or off tour.
No, you've got Justine confused with Serena. I'm sure that's a first. :lol:
Wrong, Define better;)
Year End top 10 2001
1. Davenport
2. Capriati
3. V Williams
4. Hingis
5. Clijsters
we all know what happened to Lindsay and Martina, both skipped RG, and Kim was way worse than she is today, not to mention Capriati who obviously was not that good. In the end, Jen finished 3rd, Kim finished 4th in 2002.
It is way easier to dominate 2002 than say 1997 where almost every legend was still around, or 2000 where most of the active player were healthy. You catch my drift:)
Believe me, it is a lot easier to dominate 2002 than 2001.

Knizzle
Apr 27th, 2004, 03:56 AM
Wrong, Define better;)
Year End top 10 2001
1. Davenport
2. Capriati
3. V Williams
4. Hingis
5. Clijsters
we all know what happened to Lindsay and Martina, both skipped RG, and Kim was way worse than she is today, not to mention Capriati who obviously was not that good. In the end, Jen finished 3rd, Kim finished 4th in 2002.
It is way easier to dominate 2002 than say 1997 where almost every legend was still around, or 2000 where most of the active player were healthy. You catch my drift:)
Believe me, it is a lot easier to dominate 2002 than 2001.
It's clear you don't believe what you're saying. You are just arguing for the sake of arguing or spite.

CanadianGuy
Apr 27th, 2004, 04:05 AM
It's clear you don't believe what you're saying. You are just arguing for the sake of arguing or spite.
:) Whatever you say. The only thing I believe is that the Williams were thought to be better than they really are. But I dont blame them, this kind of things will always happen. I just think Venus and Serena are not as good as those fans they are, dont think there is anything wrong with that, it's all about perspectives.:)

bandabou
Apr 27th, 2004, 04:49 AM
:) Whatever you say. The only thing I believe is that the Williams were thought to be better than they really are. But I dont blame them, this kind of things will always happen. I just think Venus and Serena are not as good as those fans they are, dont think there is anything wrong with that, it's all about perspectives.:)

Maybe, maybe not.....but if you´re saying that, then you must say this too: Who of the CURRENT generation are better or have achieved more than Serena or even Venus?! Who, who?!

Volcana
Apr 27th, 2004, 05:18 AM
I think perhaps a lot of folks are going about this the wrong way.

Think five out of six GS finals between the same two players.

It's not Evert/Nav, or even King/Court. But it rivals Seles/Graf, and so far, it isn't over yet.

And BTW, Bob Larson is ONE person. He isn't THE authority in tennis anymore than say, Jon Wertheim. His opinions may make you feel better, but you're talking about a 23 year old and a 24 year old. Both of whom say they'll play til they're 30. This story ain't written folks.

But remember, the thread asks is, 'Are they the benchmark'? Of course they are. And of all places, I'm amazed that would be disputed HERE. While both of them were out for six months, a quarter of the threads on this board STILL were about one or the other of them, or both.

And, 25 years form now, all most people will do is look at GS singles titles singles. Fair? No. But if Venus doesn't win another one, Hingis will ultimately be considered greater. And nothing Martina can do will make history consider her greater than Serena.

Apply the same standard you do comparing Court and Graf.

Pureracket
Apr 27th, 2004, 05:21 AM
Wrong, Define better;)
Year End top 10 2001
1. Davenport
2. Capriati
3. V Williams
4. Hingis
5. Clijsters
we all know what happened to Lindsay and Martina, both skipped RG, and Kim was way worse than she is today, not to mention Capriati who obviously was not that good. In the end, Jen finished 3rd, Kim finished 4th in 2002.
It is way easier to dominate 2002 than say 1997 where almost every legend was still around, or 2000 where most of the active player were healthy. You catch my drift:)
Believe me, it is a lot easier to dominate 2002 than 2001.I'm sure you kinda confused yourself with this post. . ..LOL!!!!! The part that is understandable is crap.:lol:

"Topaz"
Apr 27th, 2004, 06:00 AM
AhhhhhGG! ...Talking about short (very short) memory! ...At this moment Justine is pretty much part of that standard together with Vee and Rena. In fact, many of us are waiting to see how the sisters will each do against JHH.

Yes, I know, recent fave victories can affect the judgement of some.

CanadianGuy
Apr 27th, 2004, 07:12 AM
I'm sure you kinda confused yourself with this post. . ..LOL!!!!! The part that is understandable is crap.:lol:
lol. where do you find that's "crap" to you?:)
I'm merely pointing out that Venus was not really dominating in 2000/2001 (didnt end up as #1 in either year, playing less is no excuse) And Seren was dominating in a weak field with less degrees of domination than many of the greats. That's all。 No need to get all hostile towards me:)

Jakeev
Apr 27th, 2004, 12:09 PM
What drives me nuts about these kinds of topics is that we forget the sisters are still young women and if they are still around in their 30's, that is when this question should probably be asked.

But I can say one thing, of any number of players in history, I really think it's these two women that are FORCING today's players to get raise their own games to another level. More so than any of the past.

I think many of the women totally respect the sisters, but I don't think that same fear factor exists with all the women as perhaps they did with Martina, Monica or Steffi, because they have a some ounce of belief they can do something against one of them.

In another thread, people took knocks at rising Polish player Marta Domachowka because she had the nerve to say that on a specific day, she might have a chance to beat a Williams or Amelie Mauresmo.

If she were playing during Martina's or Steffi's heyday, I seriously doubt we would here her say anything that positive.

DA FOREHAND
Apr 27th, 2004, 12:17 PM
AhhhhhGG! ...Talking about short (very short) memory! ...At this moment Justine is pretty much part of that standard together with Vee and Rena. In fact, many of us are waiting to see how the sisters will each do against JHH.

Yes, I know, recent fave victories can affect the judgement of some.

No I think you've got it twisted. I'm waiting to see how justine does against the sisters. One and seven (1-7) tells me she has a lot of ground to make up, speaking of ground how long before she beats one of them off the clay? :wavey:

"Topaz"
Apr 27th, 2004, 03:41 PM
No I think you've got it twisted. I'm waiting to see how justine does against the sisters. One and seven (1-7) tells me she has a lot of ground to make up, speaking of ground how long before she beats one of them off the clay? :wavey:Well, same difference. Waiting to see A against B or B against A at that level is a matter of your current coordinates. The sisters did set the benchmark but JHH has joined them, thereby reflecting that benchmark herself. She did raise her game and dominate in the sisters' absence to the point where we want to know how they are measuring up among the three of them. A glance at recent statistics clearly indicates that, power wise, JHH's serve and ground strokes are pretty much at the sisters' level.

BTW, you mentioned clay as if it were Justine's domain. Remember even before JHH went through her transformation, she was already good enough to reach WB-01 final and push Venus to 3 sets, and that was grass. She currently has USO-03 and OZ-04 in her bag, and these are not clay. So be careful. I can assure you the Williamses as well as the other players know she's a force to reckon with on all surfaces, hence part of the top benchmark.

Having said all this out of objectivity, I still need a few encounters of these three fine athletes to settle my mind.

Greenout
Apr 27th, 2004, 03:44 PM
No they are not!

The bench mark was set by original Martina. Then again in the
historical match at the US OPEN between Monica Seles -vs- The Capster.
This was two biggest moments in my opinion of the biggest hardest
hitting examples of modern tennis. Serena and Venus just went beyond
what Mary, and Ld were doing- which in turn were all influenced by
the Capster and Seles in the early 1990's.

I also think Hingis brought back finesse and she's the grey area
between what the Belgians who brought back hard hitting *forehands
and 1-handed backhands into women's tennis. The next standard
are players that can do everything, and not really have a weak
spot shot. Net play will be the next big factor. Oh..everyone will
soon have a good serve.

*I never considered Serena's forehand her best shot. I think her
2 handed shot is the weapon, thus I didn't name her. Ok.

DA FOREHAND
Apr 27th, 2004, 03:56 PM
No they are not!

The bench mark was set by original Martina. Then again in the
historical match at the US OPEN between Monica Seles -vs- The Capster.
This was two biggest moments in my opinion of the biggest hardest
hitting examples of modern tennis. Serena and Venus just went beyond
what Mary, and Ld were doing- which in turn were all influenced by
the Capster and Seles in the early 1990's.

I also think Hingis brought back finesse and she's the grey area
between what the Belgians who brought back hard hitting *forehands
and 1-handed backhands into women's tennis. The next standard
are players that can do everything, and not really have a weak
spot shot. Net play will be the next big factor. Oh..everyone will
soon have a good serve.

*I never considered Serena's forehand her best shot. I think her
2 handed shot is the weapon, thus I didn't name her. Ok.


read your post then read your location...You've been away from the states too long...try picking up a newspaper, turning on a television....No other player this century has dominated the entire field as Serena Williams has.

LOL @ Capriati setting a standard....what AER?

Greenout
Apr 27th, 2004, 03:58 PM
Really? I just heard Justine won Roland Garros and made Serena cry.
News travels really slow here. Sorry. ;)

DA FOREHAND
Apr 27th, 2004, 04:00 PM
Then I won't spoil you w/the news of what happened to justine at Wimbledon. :wavey:

Knizzle
Apr 27th, 2004, 04:02 PM
Really? I just heard Justine won Roland Garros and made Serena cry.
News travels really slow here. Sorry. ;)
I just heard Serena beat the breaks off Justine at Wimbledon and told her "Sorry about that!!" at the net.

DA FOREHAND
Apr 27th, 2004, 04:04 PM
I just heard Serena beat the breaks off Justine at Wimbledon and told her "Sorry about that!!" at the net.
Now why you gonna go and spoil it for him!? That's f'd up!

Greenout
Apr 27th, 2004, 04:07 PM
Funny. I heard a rumour that Serena broke Justine's hand and she sued
her in European court or something like that? ;)

DA FOREHAND
Apr 27th, 2004, 04:10 PM
Funny. I heard a rumour that Serena broke Justine's hand and she sued
her in European court or something like that? ;)


no you can't believe those foriegn papers...that was just bad karma catching up to justine...at least that's what the Natl. enquirer printed.

Greenout
Apr 27th, 2004, 04:12 PM
Serena is truly a big bully. Breaking poor little Justine's hand like
that. Geez.

Andy T
Apr 27th, 2004, 04:19 PM
Serena is unquestionably the most successful player since Graf, that's for sure, but Venus is no way in the same category - she's just another chaser. She had a 15-month span where she won 4 slams, but Hingis won 4 in 13 months, Capriati won 3 in 13 months and Justine has won 3 in less than 9 months. Venus has won just 2 titles in 11 tournaments since the beginning of 2003 while both Davenport and Hénin have won two titles already this year from 6 starts and against much stiffer opposition.

Knizzle
Apr 27th, 2004, 04:31 PM
Serena is unquestionably the most successful player since Graf, that's for sure, but Venus is no way in the same category - she's just another chaser. She had a 15-month span where she won 4 slams, but Hingis won 4 in 13 months, Capriati won 3 in 13 months and Justine has won 3 in less than 9 months. Venus has won just 2 titles in 11 tournaments since the beginning of 2003 while both Davenport and Hénin have won two titles already this year from 6 starts and against much stiffer opposition.
Andy T please. Venus was also injured for the majority of 2003. That had ALOT to do with it. Seems you don't remember Venus' 35 match win streak in 2000. Capriati never got anywhere CLOSE to that. Davenport and Henin didn't come back from injury this year either.

Yummy
Apr 27th, 2004, 04:38 PM
Serena is unquestionably the most successful player since Graf, that's for sure, but Venus is no way in the same category -

Serena is still many levels below Monica IMHO. but i agree Venus isn't in the same class as these players yet. At this point i'd even say that ASV had a better career than Venus did /will (coz i don't see Venus winning a slam again)

Hulet
Apr 27th, 2004, 04:49 PM
Hmm. Many actually are not responding to my question so let me rephrase it this way: if the sisters are not setting the benchmark, why do people feel they have to compare other players with them to determine the greatness of these players? Why not compare, JHH or Martina with Monica for example? Why does the record of Williams' sisters need to be examined against other player to elivate the latter to greatness?

DA FOREHAND
Apr 27th, 2004, 04:52 PM
Serena is still many levels below Monica IMHO. but i agree Venus isn't in the same class as these players yet. At this point i'd even say that ASV had a better career than Venus did /will (coz i don't see Venus winning a slam again)
I hope you're not suggesting what I think you're suggesting? Serena of 02-03 would beat Monica best...whenever you'd like to say that was.

"Topaz"
Apr 27th, 2004, 05:01 PM
Hmm. Many actually are not responding to my question so let me rephrase it this way: if the sisters are not setting the benchmark, why do people feel they have to compare other players with them to determine the greatness of these players? Why not compare, JHH or Martina with Monica for example? Why does the record of Williams' sisters need to be examined against other player to elivate the latter to greatness?Yup! Let's get back to the thread's focus; let's make a trip back to my last post.
:cool:

bandabou
Apr 27th, 2004, 05:35 PM
AhhhhhGG! ...Talking about short (very short) memory! ...At this moment Justine is pretty much part of that standard together with Vee and Rena. In fact, many of us are waiting to see how the sisters will each do against JHH.

Yes, I know, recent fave victories can affect the judgement of some.

We will see....but let it be clear: The Williamses don´t have thing to prove.

"Topaz"
Apr 27th, 2004, 06:44 PM
We will see....but let it be clear: The Williamses don´t have thing to prove.
As a matter of fact, none of these three players has anything to prove. Their records and stats are out there for all to see. However, as competitors, they have something to demonstrate every time they step on the court.

The question is whether the sisters are the benchmark. My contention is the sisters and Justine currently set the benchmark. We know the Williamses can live up to that standard over time, as demonstrated after valleys in their careers. Can Justine do the same over two, three years? I don't know. But now, when healthy, the records say she's at that standard. That's all.

Now, who is the best? That's another thread.

bandabou
Apr 27th, 2004, 07:00 PM
As a matter of fact, none of these three players has anything to prove. Their records and stats are out there for all to see. However, as competitors, they have something to demonstrate every time they step on the court.

The question is whether the sisters are the benchmark. My contention is the sisters and Justine currently set the benchmark. We know the Williamses can live up to that standard over time, as demonstrated after valleys in their careers. Can Justine do the same over two, three years? I don't know. But now, when healthy, the records say she's at that standard. That's all.

Now, who is the best? That's another thread.

Now we´re talking the same language!

GoDominique
Apr 27th, 2004, 07:01 PM
It seems to me when we talk about greatness, atleast in this board, most of the time people compare players with either Venus or Serena (Evidence all the numerous polls about Venus vs some past or present player). So, I am wondering if the Williams sisters are the defacto threshold for any greatness discussion involving any modern women's tennis player? If so, why is that? Is it because they are well known? Or, are they that great?

Inquiring minds want to know.:)

You shouldn't forget that most of these polls come from trolls, like CanadianGuy and TR. :)

DeDe4925
Apr 27th, 2004, 07:06 PM
Well, same difference. Waiting to see A against B or B against A at that level is a matter of your current coordinates. The sisters did set the benchmark but JHH has joined them, thereby reflecting that benchmark herself. She did raise her game and dominate in the sisters' absence to the point where we want to know how they are measuring up among the three of them. A glance at recent statistics clearly indicates that, power wise, JHH's serve and ground strokes are pretty much at the sisters' level.

BTW, you mentioned clay as if it were Justine's domain. Remember even before JHH went through her transformation, she was already good enough to reach WB-01 final and push Venus to 3 sets, and that was grass. She currently has USO-03 and OZ-04 in her bag, and these are not clay. So be careful. I can assure you the Williamses as well as the other players know she's a force to reckon with on all surfaces, hence part of the top benchmark.

Having said all this out of objectivity, I still need a few encounters of these three fine athletes to settle my mind.
I feel what you're saying but I disagree wholeheartedly. How can you be a part of a benchmark you didn't set? Justine has raised her game to the level of the sisters to give them some competition, I would imagine. I really don't know, because the whole time she's been winning, except for the FO '03, has been minus the sisters, so we really don't know if her level of play has reached that benchmark set by the sisters. All we know is that she's better than everyone else besides the sisters on the tour right now. We are all going to have to wait and see who is the best in the world right now. Clearly Serena was and Venus was at one time. It's up in the air this year with everyone coming off injuries.

DeDe4925
Apr 27th, 2004, 07:10 PM
No they are not!

The bench mark was set by original Martina. Then again in the
historical match at the US OPEN between Monica Seles -vs- The Capster.
This was two biggest moments in my opinion of the biggest hardest
hitting examples of modern tennis. Serena and Venus just went beyond
what Mary, and Ld were doing- which in turn were all influenced by
the Capster and Seles in the early 1990's.

I also think Hingis brought back finesse and she's the grey area
between what the Belgians who brought back hard hitting *forehands
and 1-handed backhands into women's tennis. The next standard
are players that can do everything, and not really have a weak
spot shot. Net play will be the next big factor. Oh..everyone will
soon have a good serve.

*I never considered Serena's forehand her best shot. I think her
2 handed shot is the weapon, thus I didn't name her. Ok.
If it's true what you say, then why did the other players on tour say that they had to raise their level of fitness, strength and most importantly, the level of their game in order to give the sisters any competition? If the benchmark was set, wouldn't Jennifer and Monica be the sisters' biggest competition? Or wouldn't they have been, when the sisters became dominate? Would they have even been dominate? Wouldn't Jennifer and Monica be dominate instead?

DeDe4925
Apr 27th, 2004, 07:11 PM
Then I won't spoil you w/the news of what happened to justine at Wimbledon. :wavey:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Now pick up your face Greenout. :wavey:

Andy T
Apr 27th, 2004, 07:13 PM
Serena and Justine set the benchmark as the reigning and previous #1 players. Serena's loss of the top spot was unfortunately due to injury but the fact is that she lost it and she has to get it back. Venus is no more in the equation in 2004 than Clijsters, except as the two players most likely to challenge Serena and Justine. Venus' 35 wins 4 years ago is not the benchmark now, and never was, as Hingis had clocked up 37 in 1997. Anyway, 35 is down there in the teens in terms of open era win-streaks and 7 other players have done better in the open era for sure, maybe more.

(ps when i said since Graf I meant since 96, so Graf/Monica)

DeDe4925
Apr 27th, 2004, 07:21 PM
Serena and Justine set the benchmark as the reigning and previous #1 players. Serena's loss of the top spot was unfortunately due to injury but the fact is that she lost it and she has to get it back. Venus is no more in the equation in 2004 than Clijsters, except as the two players most likely to challenge Serena and Justine. Venus' 35 wins 4 years ago is not the benchmark now, and never was, as Hingis had clocked up 37 in 1997. Anyway, 35 is down there in the teens in terms of open era win-streaks and 7 other players have done better in the open era for sure, maybe more.

(ps when i said since Graf I meant since 96, so Graf/Monica)
But, again you are talking about stats and win/loss records of retired people compared against someone who is still active on tour and will remain active for quite some time to come. It's impossible to do that since Venus has not completed her legacy. The question is about benchmarks set. I reiterate, if a benchmark was not set by Serena AND Venus, why did the rest of the tour increase their level of play and change their training methods to incorporate strengthening? Benchmarks are set when records are broken. Venus broke and set a record for the fastest serve for women's tennis. That's a benchmark. So, to say that Venus has not set a benchmark is just wishful thinking.

bandabou
Apr 27th, 2004, 07:21 PM
Hmm....specially would like to see ms Juju beating the sisters, specially Serena, on another surface...

Knizzle
Apr 27th, 2004, 07:21 PM
Serena and Justine set the benchmark as the reigning and previous #1 players. Serena's loss of the top spot was unfortunately due to injury but the fact is that she lost it and she has to get it back. Venus is no more in the equation in 2004 than Clijsters, except as the two players most likely to challenge Serena and Justine. Venus' 35 wins 4 years ago is not the benchmark now, and never was, as Hingis had clocked up 37 in 1997. Anyway, 35 is down there in the teens in terms of open era win-streaks and 7 other players have done better in the open era for sure, maybe more.

(ps when i said since Graf I meant since 96, so Graf/Monica)
Venus streak may not be in the top ten all time, but Justine has never come close to that mark. Venus doesn't have to "challenge" someone she is 7-1 against. The challenge is for Justine to beat her. Venus won 4 of 6 slams and then after that made 5 of 6 slam finals. I guess that means nothing though. None of the top players outside of Serena have more slams than her or have a winning H2H against her. Check Venus' tournament winning percentage. It's higher than Hingis', Davenport's, Justine's, and Clijsters'. These are things I guess you wish to ignore. The only person Venus has to challenge is Serena Williams.

Andy T
Apr 27th, 2004, 07:32 PM
Venus streak may not be in the top ten all time, but Justine has never come close to that mark. Venus doesn't have to "challenge" someone she is 7-1 against. The challenge is for Justine to beat her. Venus won 4 of 6 slams and then after that made 5 of 6 slam finals. I guess that means nothing though. None of the top players outside of Serena have more slams than her or have a winning H2H against her. Check Venus' tournament winning percentage. It's higher than Hingis', Davenport's, Justine's, and Clijsters'. These are things I guess you wish to ignore. The only person Venus has to challenge is Serena Williams.

YET - she's two years younger than Venus.
4/6 = 66.67% strike rate, 3/4 ongoing= 75% strike rate. Go figure.

You can't argue about the present by quoting stats which are in the past. The benchmark is NOW, not 2000.

Knizzle
Apr 27th, 2004, 07:40 PM
YET - she's two years younger than Venus.
4/6 = 66.67% strike rate, 3/4 ongoing= 75% strike rate. Go figure.

You can't argue about the present by quoting stats which are in the past. The benchmark is NOW, not 2000.
When is the last time Justine beat Venus?? Put them on the same court, who would you put your money on?? The fact is that the sisters' tennis is still a cut above the rest.

Yummy
Apr 27th, 2004, 07:42 PM
When is the last time Justine beat Venus?? Put them on the same court, who would you put your money on?? The fact is that the sisters' tennis is still a cut above the rest.

They haven' t played each other for a year and a half now and in that time Justine has won THREE slams while Venus won NONE :rolleyes:

Knizzle
Apr 27th, 2004, 07:45 PM
They haven' t played each other for a year and a half now and in that time Justine has won THREE slams while Venus won NONE :rolleyes:
Your point??

Yummy
Apr 27th, 2004, 07:50 PM
Your point??

H2H's (especially when the last match was a year and a half ago) are NOT a factor while deciding on who is currently the better player (especially if the said 'weaker' player won THREE slams since that match while the so called "better" player won ZERO)

Andy T
Apr 27th, 2004, 07:54 PM
Venus is yesterday's benchmark. Venus and Justine haven't played since 2002. Everybody has to accept that Justine has improved since then. Venus hasn't beaten Serena since her heyday. Justine beat her last year.

"Topaz"
Apr 27th, 2004, 07:55 PM
I feel what you're saying but I disagree wholeheartedly. How can you be a part of a benchmark you didn't set? Justine has raised her game to the level of the sisters to give them some competition, I would imagine..."Disagree wholeheartedly", no. I thought you did until I read the rest of your post. We are indeed very amicably in bed :kiss: . The benchmark we're talking about is a moving one; some time ago it was represented (not set) by the sisters alone. All I'm saying is that currently Justine represents that standard jointly with the sisters. Note that before the Williamses, there were Seles, Steffi, and so on. Players target the standard of their time, join it and then surpass it, thereby creating a new one. Incidentally, I think Justine has joined the sisters in representing today's benchmark. Nowhere have I said she has surpassed it.

...We are all going to have to wait and see who is the best in the world right now. Clearly Serena was and Venus was at one time. It's up in the air this year with everyone coming off injuries.
That's another thread (as I indicated in a previous post in this thread).

Knizzle
Apr 27th, 2004, 07:57 PM
H2H's (especially when the last match was a year and a half ago) are NOT a factor while deciding on who is currently the better player (especially if the said 'weaker' player won THREE slams since that match while the so called "better" player won ZERO)
Justine may have had better results in the past year, but she is not the overall better player. Is she better than Serena also?? Clijsters has better results in the past year than Venus too. We all know the reason for this too. Davenport has more titles than Venus this year and is ranked higher, but does that make her better??

Knizzle
Apr 27th, 2004, 07:58 PM
Venus is yesterday's benchmark. Venus and Justine haven't played since 2002. Everybody has to accept that Justine has improved since then. Venus hasn't beaten Serena since her heyday. Justine beat her last year.
Aus 03 Venus def Justine 6-3, 6-3. Justine beat Serena, but Venus beat Justine.

Andy T
Apr 27th, 2004, 08:08 PM
Of course, sorry, but my point is still valid. Noone would argue that Justine is playing at the same level now as she was then. Neither of course is Venus but I'm not arguing about who's better at her best, just who's the benchmark now.

bandabou
Apr 27th, 2004, 08:47 PM
Only thing I know is that the Williamses have clearly given notice that they are STILL a factor in any tournament they enter and that they´re gonna have a say in who´s gonna win where.

DeDe4925
Apr 27th, 2004, 08:57 PM
YET - she's two years younger than Venus.
4/6 = 66.67% strike rate, 3/4 ongoing= 75% strike rate. Go figure.

You can't argue about the present by quoting stats which are in the past. The benchmark is NOW, not 2000.
How can the benchmark be set now, when everyone from the year 2000 was trying to be like Venus? Then comes Serena in 2002, she set an even higher benchmark, alas Venus kept up with her meeting her in 5 of the last 7 grandslam finals and set a record for the fastest serve in the process.

Unfortunately wishing something was reality and it being reality is two different things. No matter how you look at it, Justine aspired to reach the benchmarks set by the Williams' sisters. We have yet to see whether she has met or surpassed that mark.

DeDe4925
Apr 27th, 2004, 08:59 PM
They haven' t played each other for a year and a half now and in that time Justine has won THREE slams while Venus won NONE :rolleyes:
:rolleyes: She wasn't playing, idiot.

DeDe4925
Apr 27th, 2004, 09:06 PM
"Disagree wholeheartedly", no. I thought you did until I read the rest of your post. We are indeed very amicably in bed :kiss: . The benchmark we're talking about is a moving one; some time ago it was represented (not set) by the sisters alone. All I'm saying is that currently Justine represents that standard jointly with the sisters. Note that before the Williamses, there were Seles, Steffi, and so on. Players target the standard of their time, join it and then surpass it, thereby creating a new one. Incidentally, I think Justine has joined the sisters in representing today's benchmark. Nowhere have I said she has surpassed it.


That's another thread (as I indicated in a previous post in this thread).
No, I disagree, we are not in the same bed. You cannot have a moving benchmark. It is either there or not. It's set in stone, hence why it's called a benchmark. If you mean that people set new benchmarks, then I agree, just like people set new records. The most recent benchmark was set by the sisters, alone. As I said, Justine has maybe reached it, but we won't know that until she plays one of the sisters. All we know about Justine is that she's better than the rest of the tour that she has played since the sisters' absence from the tour. I never said you said she surpassed it, but that she helped set it. She didn't. Again, she has possibly reached it, but we don't know that yet.

Andy T
Apr 27th, 2004, 10:33 PM
How can the benchmark be set now, when everyone from the year 2000 was trying to be like Venus? Then comes Serena in 2002, she set an even higher benchmark, alas Venus kept up with her meeting her in 5 of the last 7 grandslam finals and set a record for the fastest serve in the process.

Unfortunately wishing something was reality and it being reality is two different things. No matter how you look at it, Justine aspired to reach the benchmarks set by the Williams' sisters. We have yet to see whether she has met or surpassed that mark.

Why insist on lumping the sisters together. They are not siamese twins, for God's sake. In 97-8, there was Hingis, in 2000-1 there was Venus, in 2002-3 Serena overtook Venus, beating her in every major championship. Serena was the benchmark, not Venus. Justine then drew level with Serena in winning 3/4 of the last slams. Venus is no longer in the picture because she hasn't won a slam in well over 2 years, just like Clijsters, Davenport, Capriati and the rest.

Jakeev
Apr 27th, 2004, 10:53 PM
If it's true what you say, then why did the other players on tour say that they had to raise their level of fitness, strength and most importantly, the level of their game in order to give the sisters any competition? If the benchmark was set, wouldn't Jennifer and Monica be the sisters' biggest competition? Or wouldn't they have been, when the sisters became dominate? Would they have even been dominate? Wouldn't Jennifer and Monica be dominate instead?
You are absolutely correct in what you say here and I find it amazing that people just can't seem to comprehend that perhaps it is the Williams sisters that are raising the level of tennis today.

Look every significant player in the past 30 years have had some influence on lower-ranked tennis players. But I just don't think to the capacity of the Williams sisters.

This is not rocket science folks. How many Martina N., Graf or Seles like players do we have that play the game today?

And very few even come close to being emulating Chris Evert. Those style of players called "Chrissie Clone" went out the door in tennis years ago.

Time will tell the truth of this topic.

fammmmedspin
Apr 28th, 2004, 12:45 AM
You are absolutely correct in what you say here and I find it amazing that people just can't seem to comprehend that perhaps it is the Williams sisters that are raising the level of tennis today.

Look every significant player in the past 30 years have had some influence on lower-ranked tennis players. But I just don't think to the capacity of the Williams sisters.

This is not rocket science folks. How many Martina N., Graf or Seles like players do we have that play the game today?

And very few even come close to being emulating Chris Evert. Those style of players called "Chrissie Clone" went out the door in tennis years ago.

.
Not sure of this if you mean in terms of style of play. There an awful lot of players out there who play an awful lot like Graf with a backhand - their plays look very familiar. There are very few younger players who play like Venus. Not sure if Serena has influenced many yet either. Thats what you would expect from people who watched Graf from 1992- 1999. There are a lot of players who are trying to match Williams movement and speed and serving speed but the lesson of their injuries and limited schedules is that you need to be careful how far down that road you go because it is likely to end in either injury or poverty if you are lesser player. There are also an increasing number of players who can keep up for a while with a sister or even do bits of the Williams repertoire as well or even better. The benchmark is no longer way out of sight and as it becomes less frightening other players with better technique, tactics, strategy or even more power will challenge it.

1Williams
Apr 28th, 2004, 03:28 AM
No, I disagree, we are not in the same bed. You cannot have a moving benchmark. It is either there or not. It's set in stone, hence why it's called a benchmark. If you mean that people set new benchmarks, then I agree, just like people set new records. The most recent benchmark was set by the sisters, alone. As I said, Justine has maybe reached it, but we won't know that until she plays one of the sisters. All we know about Justine is that she's better than the rest of the tour that she has played since the sisters' absence from the tour. I never said you said she surpassed it, but that she helped set it. She didn't. Again, she has possibly reached it, but we don't know that yet.

This is bullshit Demond. Your being to kind, Justine hasn't reached
it yet. She sucks too much to ever be near the great Venus and Serena.
She's sick and if we're lucky out of the tour for good. Who needs liars
like her on the tour. Nobody even likes the punk. She'll never win
another tournament ever, we should be happy that this is happening
again with Venus rising again. Taking her rightful place away from
the Euro shits!

DeDe4925
Apr 28th, 2004, 03:49 AM
Why insist on lumping the sisters together. They are not siamese twins, for God's sake. In 97-8, there was Hingis, in 2000-1 there was Venus, in 2002-3 Serena overtook Venus, beating her in every major championship.Serena was the benchmark, not Venus.

I don't lump them together as if they are Siamese twins, I suggested that they together brought in a new era of tennis and raised the bar for all to follow. That is a true statement. Both came right off the heels of Hingis and forced her into retirement because she could no longer compete at that level. You forget that Serena won her first major in 1999 defeating No. 4 Seles, No. 2 Davenport and No. 1 Hingis and finished the season ranked No. 4 in only her third full season. In 2001 she lost to Venus in the finals at the US Open and won the season ending Championships that year. Those are bench marks. During the same period Venus made it to the semi-finals at the 1999 US Open and went on to win numerous titles and Wimbledon and US Open back to back. Venus was the only player to meet Serena in the finals of the next four majors defeating everyone on her way there. As a bonus, she set the record for the fastest serve at 127 mph. Those are benchmarks. So, during the years you've listed they, together, set benchmarks. Finese tennis was out, power tennis was in and Venus and Serena set the bar.

Justine then drew level with Serena in winning 3/4 of the last slams.
:lol: How did she draw level, when she barely beat Serena on her favorite surface at the FO '03 and was soundly beaten by her at Wimby '03. Also, the last three majors she won, the Williams' sisters were out with injury and last I looked before their injury time-out, each were ahead of her H2H on all surfaces, whereas, she's only beaten Venus on clay. But, that was in the past. We've yet to see whether she has drawn level with them because she hasn't played them. Hence, there is no measuring stick to determine whether she is level. BTW, winning slams sans your biggest competition because of injury is not the measuring stick to determine whether players are equal. Besides, I seriously doubt that winning three slams is level with winning four in Venus' case and five in Serena's case.

Venus is no longer in the picture because she hasn't won a slam in well over 2 years, just like Clijsters, Davenport, Capriati and the rest. But, unlike the rest, she has been in the finals of all the majors in the last two years, except for the the RG '03, US Open '03 and the AO' 04 due to injury. Just because she hasn't won a slam doesn't mean she's no longer in the picture. It's immature and premature for you to think that. If all the players thought the way you think, what's the point in trying? All I'm saying is they said the same thing about Serena during her drought after winning the 1999 US Open and look what happened.

bandabou
Apr 28th, 2004, 05:02 AM
Not sure of this if you mean in terms of style of play. There an awful lot of players out there who play an awful lot like Graf with a backhand - their plays look very familiar. There are very few younger players who play like Venus. Not sure if Serena has influenced many yet either. Thats what you would expect from people who watched Graf from 1992- 1999. There are a lot of players who are trying to match Williams movement and speed and serving speed but the lesson of their injuries and limited schedules is that you need to be careful how far down that road you go because it is likely to end in either injury or poverty if you are lesser player. There are also an increasing number of players who can keep up for a while with a sister or even do bits of the Williams repertoire as well or even better. The benchmark is no longer way out of sight and as it becomes less frightening other players with better technique, tactics, strategy or even more power will challenge it.

Different style, different style....that´s the only way you´re gonna beat them. NO ONE plays the Williams-game better than the Williamses. Simple.

Andy T
Apr 28th, 2004, 06:29 AM
I don't lump them together as if they are Siamese twins, I suggested that they together brought in a new era of tennis and raised the bar for all to follow. That is a true statement.


A suggestion is a suggestion, not a statement of fact. I agree that Venus led the field in the period 2000-01 but she was then overtaken by Serena. Serena set the benchmark in 2002-3, Venus fell behind.


Both came right off the heels of Hingis and forced her into retirement because she could no longer compete at that level. You forget that Serena won her first major in 1999 defeating No. 4 Seles, No. 2 Davenport and No. 1 Hingis and finished the season ranked No. 4 in only her third full season.

I don't forget this at all. In 99, Serena was #4, so three other women were ahead of her (4 if you count Graf, who retired in August ranked #3).

In 2001 she lost to Venus in the finals at the US Open and won the season ending Championships that year. Those are bench marks.

By that logic, Kim Clijsters, who was runner up in the US Open and won the season ending champs in 2003, set a benchmark. I don't think so.


During the same period Venus made it to the semi-finals at the 1999 US Open and went on to win numerous titles and Wimbledon and US Open back to back. Venus was the only player to meet Serena in the finals of the next four majors defeating everyone on her way there.
As a bonus, she set the record for the fastest serve at 127 mph. Those are benchmarks. See above for venus' position 200-01.

So, during the years you've listed they, together, set benchmarks. Finese tennis was out, power tennis was in and Venus and Serena set the bar.

No! First Venus, then Serena but not together!

:lol: How did she draw level, when she barely beat Serena on her favorite surface at the FO '03 and was soundly beaten by her at Wimby '03. Also, the last three majors she won, the Williams' sisters were out with injury and last I looked before their injury time-out, each were ahead of her H2H on all surfaces, whereas, she's only beaten Venus on clay.

Again, we're back to history. in 2003 the Serena-Justine h2h was 1-1. They each won 2 majors. Yes Serena missed the US through injury but Justine in winning it staked her claim as the main challenger.

But, that was in the past. We've yet to see whether she has drawn level with them because she hasn't played them.

Finally! You accept that the past is past. If Justine has to prove that she is top dog, in your opinion, why can't you say that Serena has to prove the same after her comeback from injury?

Hence, there is no measuring stick to determine whether she is level.
In that case, there is no measuring stick to establish whether Serena is still top, either.


BTW, winning slams sans your biggest competition because of injury is not the measuring stick to determine whether players are equal. Besides, I seriously doubt that winning three slams is level with winning four in Venus' case and five in Serena's case.
More confusion of past and present.

But, unlike the rest, she has been in the finals of all the majors in the last two years, except for the the RG '03, US Open '03 and the AO' 04 due to injury. Just because she hasn't won a slam doesn't mean she's no longer in the picture.

Failure to win a slam indicates that she is not in the picture as top player. As I said before, imo she is a leading challenger to Justine and Serena at the moment but she's certainly not level with them right now. The picture I am referring to is of the leaders. Venus is third/fourth with Clijsters right now.


It's immature and premature for you to think that. If all the players thought the way you think, what's the point in trying? All I'm saying is they said the same thing about Serena during her drought after winning the 1999 US Open and look what happened.

I'm not saying that for her it's finished - on the contrary I think her game has enormous scope for development.

DeDe4925
Apr 28th, 2004, 07:12 PM
I'm not saying that for her it's finished - on the contrary I think her game has enormous scope for development.
:lol: Yeah, that should be pretty scary for the rest of the tour. :wavey:

DeDe4925
Apr 28th, 2004, 07:39 PM
A suggestion is a suggestion, not a statement of fact. I agree that Venus led the field in the period 2000-01 but she was then overtaken by Serena. Serena set the benchmark in 2002-3, Venus fell behind.

No, I suggested that they brought in a new era of tennis. The fact that they raised the bar in tennis is a true statement. If Venus had played more tennis than Hingis (which was an impossibility with her playing every single tourney (Tier 1's through 3's) to keep the No. 1 ranking) Venus would have been No. 1 long before she actually became No. 1, but everyone knew that Hingis was just a paper champion and Venus was the true No. 1 in the world. Venus and Serena set the benchmark in 1999 with their style of play. Are we talking just about No. 1 ranking, slams or setting benchmarks, because I don't think you know the difference. Just because Serena beat Venus in the slams of 02 and 03 doesn't mean that she overtook Venus in setting the benchmark.

I don't forget this at all. In 99, Serena was #4, so three other women were ahead of her (4 if you count Graf, who retired in August ranked #3).

In 2001 she lost to Venus in the finals at the US Open and won the season ending Championships that year. Those are bench marks.

By that logic, Kim Clijsters, who was runner up in the US Open and won the season ending champs in 2003, set a benchmark. I don't think so.


LOL, but I'm just responding to your definition of what benchmark is. Winning slams and being No. 1 in my opinion, is not the standard for setting benchmarks. It's style of play and the way the game has evolved as a result of the way the sisters play. That's benchmarks. When people start to emmulate you, that's setting benchmarks. When people change their style of play and their practice and conditioning to keep up, that's what the sisters did and that's benchmarks.

No! First Venus, then Serena but not together!


I thought you said that Venus never set benchmarks, only Serena and now you're saying she did it first? They did it together, because they play the same style of tennis. Now, Venus is evolving even further and honing her skills in another direction. I got to see this during the FCC and the FedCup.


Finally! You accept that the past is past. If Justine has to prove that she is top dog, in your opinion, why can't you say that Serena has to prove the same after her comeback from injury?


Because it would not be a true statement. Venus and Serena already set the benchmark. They don't have anything to prove. The only thing they may have to prove to others is that they are as good as they were before they left the tour because of injury, but that's going to take some time, and it will be an even more pitiful state for Justine if she still can't beat them on anything but clay after such a long lay-off for them.

In that case, there is no measuring stick to establish whether Serena is still top, either.


LOL, been there, done that. Serena has nothing to prove. Justine does. Is she just a paper champion or the real No. 1.


BTW, winning slams sans your biggest competition because of injury is not the measuring stick to determine whether players are equal. Besides, I seriously doubt that winning three slams is level with winning four in Venus' case and five in Serena's case.
More confusion of past and present.


LOL, how is it confusion when you brought it up. Aren't you the one who said Justine was level with Serena and Venus. You would have to go to the past to look at the playing field. It's a statement of fact that Justine has only one 3 slams to Venus' 4 and Serena's 5.


Failure to win a slam indicates that she is not in the picture as top player.

OMG, then what does that say about Kim Clijsters who was No. 1 over Justine and hasn't won a slam, and what does that say about Justine all those years she went without a slam victory? She wasn't a top player until she won a slam? Puhleeze. I even give Justine more credit than that.


As I said before, imo she is a leading challenger to Justine and Serena at the moment but she's certainly not level with them right now. The picture I am referring to is of the leaders. Venus is third/fourth with Clijsters right now.


Well, you do have a right to your opinion. Right or wrong. But, Justine, Serena, Venus, Lindsay and Myskina have each won at least one Tier 1 tournament this year. I thought it took a top player to win a Tier 1. How is Justine and Serena at a higher level of play than Venus now? Isn't it possible for Venus to up her level , just as Justine supposedly did after Venus and Serena became injured?

DA FOREHAND
Apr 28th, 2004, 07:44 PM
"Failure to win a slam indicates that she is not in the picture as top player. "

So Hingis wasn't a top player after the 99 A.O. til the end of her career?

MrSerenaWilliams
Apr 28th, 2004, 08:28 PM
Aus 03 Venus def Justine 6-3, 6-3. Justine beat Serena, but Venus beat Justine.
Not to mention Serena's vengeful 6-3 6-2 bitch-slap over Justine. Then she beat Venus so....yeah they are the benchmark

FarinaLover
Apr 28th, 2004, 08:32 PM
Serena maybe but Venus NO!! she is already on her way down she did not win a serious title since 2000 that's 4 years ago. She is wasted like Shawn Kemp!

DA FOREHAND
Apr 28th, 2004, 08:34 PM
Serena maybe but Venus NO!! she is already on her way down she did not win a serious title since 2000 that's 4 years ago. She is wasted like Shawn Kemp!

I know you're new here let me give you a little pointer....buy a calendar!
Venus defended two slams in 01! :wavey: :tape: :wavey:

MrSerenaWilliams
Apr 28th, 2004, 08:45 PM
Serena maybe but Venus NO!! she is already on her way down she did not win a serious title since 2000 that's 4 years ago. She is wasted like Shawn Kemp!
So what was the Tier I Charleston Title?

She got to a final that not even, one of my personal favorites, Davenport, could get to. She has her motivation back. The rest of the WTA Tour, even little sis, better watch out!

DeDe4925
Apr 28th, 2004, 09:07 PM
Serena maybe but Venus NO!! she is already on her way down she did not win a serious title since 2000 that's 4 years ago. She is wasted like Shawn Kemp!
My confusion lies in what some fans consider benchmarks. What I've seen so far from Farina and Andy T is that they think benchmarks translate into major wins and being No. 1. That's not my understanding what a benchmark means.

Here's Websters definition for the word "benchmark":
"1: a mark on a permanent object indicating elevation and serving as a reference in topographical surveys and tidal observations. 2: a: a point of reference from which measurements may be made b: something that serves as a standard by which others may be measured.

Obviously 2 is the definition that applies in this case. Therefore if we are to determine whether Venus and Serena are the benchmark for any modern great tennis player, you would have to look at their wins, how they won and whether they were dominant. Whether their style of play is different from their predecessors, and whether that style of play elevated the level of play on the tour. Whether the other players on tour were losing to both of them on a consistent basis as a result of their style of play, and whether the other players changed or incorporated some of the Williams' style of play into their game in order to compete with them. Whether the other players on tour did things differently in their practice routines or conditioning routines in order to lift their level of play.

If the answer to all these issues is yes, then the Williams' sisters are a benchmark for any up and coming modern great tennis player.

flyingmachine
Apr 28th, 2004, 09:22 PM
I'm not saying that for her it's finished - on the contrary I think her game has enormous scope for development.
Yeap I think Justine has a long way to go before she peaks.

Andy T
Apr 29th, 2004, 06:08 AM
Guys, it's clear that we do indeed have a different idea of what a benchmark is. The definition of benchmark,
"a: a point of reference from which measurements may be made b: something that serves as a standard by which others may be measured."
gives anyone the freedom to select the point of reference s/he chooses. For me it is the top (by which I mean #1, leading) player(s) and I maintain that Venus is not the leading player right now as she is not setting the standard. In 2001, she was up there with Capriati, imo, as those two were the best players in the world, both capable of winning the big tournaments. Hingis stopped being the leading player imo in 99, whatever the rankings said, because she was no longer "the player" to beat. Serena, imo set a higher benchmark/standard in 2002 and Venus clearly fell short of it, along with everyone else.


If you define/understand benchmark in a different way, then obviously you're going to have a different argument and conclusion. It seems that you guys are focussing more on playing style than achievements and in that case, it is fair to say that the big babe tennis which the sisters play has set the norm.