PDA

View Full Version : Top Ten Players from Margaret Court Smith to the present


Volcana
Jul 8th, 2005, 10:15 PM
Turns out to be a pretty interesting exercise. As well as hopelessly subjective. I was really interested in 'Overall' and 'Singles Only'.

Overall is especially tough, since things like doubles, Fed Cup, the US Open and OZ going to hardcourts and Rebound Ace respectively come into play. Also the quality of the opposition.

Nav got the overall #1 spot over court ultimately for sheer longevity. Still winning GS titles in your late forties is without comparable measure.

Court over Graf for singles #1 was simply recognizing the most dominant player of all time.

However, I am well aware that just about everyone has their own opinion of how those three should be ordered. You're welcome to it.
xx overall.......singles
-------------------------
01 Nav...........Court......
02 Court.........Graf.......
03 Graf..........Nav........
04 King..........Evert......
05 Evert.........King.......

06 Serena........Monica.....
07 Bueno.........Serena.....
08 Goolagong.....Goolagong..
09 Monica........Bueno......

10 Hingis........Venus......
xx Venus.........Hingis.....

King over Evert for overall #4? She's third on the alltime list for GS titles with 39. Throw in Battle of the Sexes II.

Serena Williams, Evonne Goolagong, Maria Bueno and Monica Seles

Well, Monica for singles, easily.
Overall? Tougher, but I gave to to Serena, basically because she won GS titles on four different surfaces in singles and doubles. Maria Beuno won 7 GS singles titles, and 10 GS doubles titles, but they were all on grass. Still ten is ten, which is why I put her ahead of Goolagong

And of course number ten.

Overall, gotta give it to Hingis, much as I love Vee. But it singles, these players were peers, and Venus superior even before injuries laid low Hingis.

Well, that was fun. Don't expect me to get too worked up defending it though. Life's too short.

Pengwin
Jul 8th, 2005, 10:17 PM
Now do overall Singles/Doubles TITLES ;)

Calimero377
Jul 8th, 2005, 10:24 PM
Now do overall Singles/Doubles TITLES ;)



"Doubles"?
Is that this funny competition where Liezel Huber is a Wimbledon champ?

vertigo
Jul 8th, 2005, 10:27 PM
Tennis snob :tape:

abayen
Jul 8th, 2005, 10:38 PM
Yea, the same event where Steffi had a 173-72 record and Martina N had a 667-102 record...

"Doubles"?
Is that this funny competition where Liezel Huber is a Wimbledon champ?

selking
Jul 8th, 2005, 10:44 PM
tennis is such a weird sport because you can't really know who the best is. I wouldn't consider MSC as the best considering she won i belive over half of her 11 aussie opens against people who were not top talent such as BJK and such. Grandslams don't tell you who is the best becasue people like court or graf "got lucky" and had weaker competition then say someone like serena did.

Pengwin
Jul 8th, 2005, 10:45 PM
"Doubles"?
Is that this funny competition where Liezel Huber is a Wimbledon champ?

Yep, and the competition where Graf is a lame nobody :)

selking
Jul 8th, 2005, 10:54 PM
Yep, and the competition where Graf is a lame nobody :)

oh wait.. is that the competition where Martina has like 39 grandslams and butterface graf has like umm 1?

Calimero377
Jul 8th, 2005, 10:56 PM
Yep, and the competition where Graf is a lame nobody :)


But Graf is better in table tennis.

So - what's your point?

thrust
Jul 8th, 2005, 10:56 PM
Martina lasted longer than Court, but then, Court gave birth to and raised three children. Martina^s whole life IS tennis.

Calimero377
Jul 8th, 2005, 10:57 PM
oh wait.. is that the competition where Martina has like 39 grandslams and butterface graf has like umm 1?


Not everybody can be a beauty like Navi .... :lol:

Pengwin
Jul 8th, 2005, 10:59 PM
Not everybody can be a beauty like Navi .... :lol:

She was actuallly pretty fit in her day. Especially compared to 17 year old Graf *vomits*

abayen
Jul 8th, 2005, 11:01 PM
we are talking about tennis here and the last I checked both singles and doubles were part of tennis. Table tennis still hasn't been made part of tennis.

And any stats to prove that Graf is better in TT?

But Graf is better in table tennis.

So - what's your point?

Calimero377
Jul 8th, 2005, 11:01 PM
tennis is such a weird sport because you can't really know who the best is. I wouldn't consider MSC as the best considering she won i belive over half of her 11 aussie opens against people who were not top talent such as BJK and such. Grandslams don't tell you who is the best becasue people like court or graf "got lucky" and had weaker competition then say someone like serena did.


You CAN know it.

Just check who beat the old greats at the beginning of her career and the newer "greats" at the end of her career. Graf ended Evertilova's reign but prevailed against Hingis/Venus at slams in her last weeks on the tour.

And of course you can consider who wins almost all greatest-ever polls (even in the U.S.!).

Actually it is very easy ...

:wavey:

mboyle
Jul 9th, 2005, 12:20 AM
Grandslams don't tell you who is the best becasue people like court or graf "got lucky" and had weaker competition then say someone like serena did.

:retard: Serena has faced three people in her grand slam finals. Three. She has never faced anyone who has won more than 5 grand slam titles. Steffi Graf beat an 18 time grand slam titlist 5-7; 6-2; 6-1, winning 24 of the last 25 games. To say that Serena had harder competition is just absurd in every single way. I would argue that she had some of the easiest competition. Navratilova won 18 grand slam titles during the same period Chris Evert won 18 grand slam titles. Graf won grand slams over Navratilova and Seles. King and Court had to fight each other for slams.

As for the Court vs. Graf argument, Margaret had easier competition, but she also did not play nearly as much. Anyone who wins half of the grand slams entered has to be at least co. no 1 for singles best ever.

mboyle
Jul 9th, 2005, 12:21 AM
You CAN know it.

Just check who beat the old greats at the beginning of her career and the newer "greats" at the end of her career. Graf ended Evertilova's reign but prevailed against Hingis/Venus at slams in her last weeks on the tour.

And of course you can consider who wins almost all greatest-ever polls (even in the U.S.!).

Actually it is very easy ...

:wavey:

Navratilova was better if we include doubles, as we should, because tennis players played singles and doubles until recently.

mboyle
Jul 9th, 2005, 12:23 AM
"Doubles"?
Is that this funny competition where Liezel Huber is a Wimbledon champ?

or, alternatively, singles: the sport where Maria Sharapova (who cannot play doubles at all, gosh) can be no. 2.

selking
Jul 9th, 2005, 12:24 AM
:retard: Serena has faced three people in her grand slam finals. Three. She has never faced anyone who has won more than 5 grand slam titles. Steffi Graf beat an 18 time grand slam titlist 5-7; 6-2; 6-1, winning 24 of the last 25 games. To say that Serena had harder competition is just absurd in every single way. I would argue that she had some of the easiest competition. Navratilova won 18 grand slam titles during the same period Chris Evert won 18 grand slam titles. Graf won grand slams over Navratilova and Seles. King and Court had to fight each other for slams.

As for the Court vs. Graf argument, Margaret had easier competition, but she also did not play nearly as much. Anyone who wins half of the grand slams entered has to be at least co. no 1 for singles best ever.

Ok mr straight diva, which by the way is a contradiction. So you're saying that Graf beating an aged martina Navratilova (in three sets none the less) is harder then having to play Venus williams ,Maria sharapova and Martina Hingis all at their primes?

Sam L
Jul 9th, 2005, 12:25 AM
Court over Graf for singles #1 was simply recognizing the most dominant player of all time.

Really? And yet she was only able to win Wimbledon 3 times, here and there?

Or you mean the most dominant player of all time at the Australian?

bobcat
Jul 9th, 2005, 12:25 AM
I know people are going to mention this, but here goes anyways. The AO was not considered a very important tournament when MSC won them. It was MAYBE on the order of a Tier 1. It's like if we suddenly made Key Biscayne the "Fifth Slam" and then counted Venus's past wins there to boost her slam total retroactively.

Sam L
Jul 9th, 2005, 12:30 AM
I know people are going to mention this, but here goes anyways. The AO was not considered a very important tournament when MSC won them. It was MAYBE on the order of a Tier 1. It's like if we suddenly made Key Biscayne the "Fifth Slam" and then counted Venus's past wins there to boost her slam total retroactively.
You know, bobcat, I've argued this over and over again with Margaret worshippers but they won't listen. Here's the thing. I'm not even picking on the Australian wins. If she were REALLY that good, why couldn't she back it up in Wimbledon? I mean, if she were good enough at Australian to win it 11 times, you'd think she must win at least 6 Wmbledons right?

Now compare and contrast this with Helen Wills-Moody. People have said that the US c'ships in in the 1920's was not that important either. But that's ok. She won that title 7 times. You know how many Wimbledons she won? 8.

You can write her national championships off as much as you want, but she proved it where it matters (in her time) so many times.

CJ07
Jul 9th, 2005, 12:55 AM
I think you also ahve to respect the fact the game is so much different than it was even 10 years ago.

Monica Seles would've gotten blown off the court against Venus or Maria last thursday.
But she was arguably a "better player"

Why? Because at the time she played, she was the best. But the game is different than it was then. Go ask Lindsay, she made a great point about how different the game is from even 1998.

Ryan
Jul 9th, 2005, 12:59 AM
Hingis > Venus in singles too. Same amount of slams, but she has more titles, more Tier 1's, had more weeks at #1, leads in their H2H....what else do you want?

Calimero377
Jul 9th, 2005, 01:01 AM
I think you also ahve to respect the fact the game is so much different than it was even 10 years ago.

Monica Seles would've gotten blown off the court against Venus or Maria last thursday.
But she was arguably a "better player"

Why? Because at the time she played, she was the best. But the game is different than it was then. Go ask Lindsay, she made a great point about how different the game is from even 1998.


What do you expect Lindsay to say?

"I am worse today than in 98/99 when I struggled bigtime against an over-the-hill Graf?"

Come on .....

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Kart
Jul 9th, 2005, 01:05 AM
Don't expect me to get too worked up defending it though. Life's too short.

Too short to even attack it ;).

Rtael
Jul 9th, 2005, 01:11 AM
Hingis > Venus in singles too. Same amount of slams, but she has more titles, more Tier 1's, had more weeks at #1, leads in their H2H....what else do you want?

A signed confession from Venus? :p

jdog3008
Jul 9th, 2005, 02:11 AM
:retard: Serena has faced three people in her grand slam finals. Three. She has never faced anyone who has won more than 5 grand slam titles. Steffi Graf beat an 18 time grand slam titlist 5-7; 6-2; 6-1, winning 24 of the last 25 games. To say that Serena had harder competition is just absurd in every single way. I would argue that she had some of the easiest competition. Navratilova won 18 grand slam titles during the same period Chris Evert won 18 grand slam titles. Graf won grand slams over Navratilova and Seles. King and Court had to fight each other for slams.

As for the Court vs. Graf argument, Margaret had easier competition, but she also did not play nearly as much. Anyone who wins half of the grand slams entered has to be at least co. no 1 for singles best ever.

I usually agree with what you say, mboyle, but you shouldn't downgrade Serena's GS titiles like this. She is clearly one of the best players of her generation (7 GS and counting). Davy beat a 22 time GS winner (who just won the FO), so who is better, Serena or Lindsay?

Ryan
Jul 9th, 2005, 03:02 AM
A signed confession from Venus? :p


In an ideal world. ;)

LDVTennis
Jul 9th, 2005, 05:34 AM
Turns out to be a pretty interesting exercise. As well as hopelessly subjective. I was really interested in 'Overall' and 'Singles Only'.

Overall is especially tough, since things like doubles, Fed Cup, the US Open and OZ going to hardcourts and Rebound Ace respectively come into play. Also the quality of the opposition.

Nav got the overall #1 spot over court ultimately for sheer longevity. Still winning GS titles in your late forties is without comparable measure.

Court over Graf for singles #1 was simply recognizing the most dominant player of all time.

However, I am well aware that just about everyone has their own opinion of how those three should be ordered. You're welcome to it.

That's looks like fun, making unsupported declarations. Can I try?

Here are the requirements a player must meet in order to be considered the "greatest ever." A player must meet all the requirements in order to be awarded the title of "greatest ever."

First requirement: Only singles records will count. Doubles records will have no bearing in the matter because doubles records represent the efforts of two players, not just the player under consideration for the title of "greatest ever."

Second requirement: To be considered for the title of "greatest ever," the player in question must have at least won a number of majors equal to or greater than the average of the number of majors won by the Top 6 female major winners.

Third requirement: The player in question must have won all four majors (i.e., the AO, FO, Wimbledon, and the US Open) in a career.

Fourth requirement: The player in question must have won each major at least 2 times.

Fifth requirement: The player in question must have been the No. 1 player for at least 2 full, consecutive seasons.

Sixth requirement: The player in question must have played at least three seasons with match wins equal to or greater than 50 and match losses equal to or lesser than 6.

Seventh requirement: The player in question must have won at least 6 tournaments a year for at least 6 years of her career. Years do not need to be consecutive.

Eighth requirement: The player in question must have won all the majors consecutively at least once.

Ninth requirement: The player in question must have won all the majors in the same calendar year at least once.

Tenth Requirement: If after all previous requirements are met, there is still more than one player under consideration, the tie will be broken by imposing requirement #4 again, except the minimum requirement (n) will be raised by one (n+1) until only one player remains.

There are the requirements. Have fun figuring out who gets eliminated at each stage. And, the greatest ever is ..... ?

Rtael
Jul 9th, 2005, 05:41 AM
:retard:

Brooks.
Jul 9th, 2005, 06:12 AM
Hingis > Venus in singles too. Same amount of slams, but she has more titles, more Tier 1's, had more weeks at #1, leads in their H2H....what else do you want?

sadly for you though..........venus is still playing and she has plenty of time to win more slams..........hingis really shouldnt have made those comments a year ago about how she didnt want to come back b/c "look at venus...i would never want to be in that position"......well martina look at venus now........WIMBLEDON CHAMPION 2005! :D :hearts: :kiss:

Volcana
Jul 9th, 2005, 06:28 AM
Hingis > Venus in singles too. Same amount of slams, but she has more titles, more Tier 1's, had more weeks at #1, leads in their H2H....what else do you want?Ryan m'man, we're talkig about two players within a year of each other in age. Throw out 2002 because foot problems had to be affecting hingis by then. Who was better in 2000 and 2001. Not who had accomplished more to that point. Who was better?

It rare we get to compare two great players that close in age. But this time, it's not a matter of different eras or opponents. Venus won five of the last seven matches she played against Hingis. Two of them on her way to GS titles. It not even a contest which player was ultimately a better singles player. Just look at the head-to-head.
1999 ZURICH ........HARD (I) F V. WILLIAMS 6-3 6-4 1/1
1999 CHASE CHAMPS...CARP (I) S M. HINGIS 6-4 7-6(2) 1/1
2000 WIMBLEDON......GRAS (O) Q V. WILLIAMS 6-3 4-6 6-4 1/1
2000 US OPEN........HARD (O) S V. WILLIAMS 4-6 6-3 7-5 1/1
2001 AUS OPEN.......HARD (O) S M. HINGIS 6-1 6-1 1/1
2001 MIAMI..........HARD (O) S V. WILLIAMS 6-3 7-6(6) 1/1
2002 HAMBURG........CLAY (O) S V. WILLIAMS 7-5 6-3

Volcana
Jul 9th, 2005, 06:41 AM
You know, bobcat, I've argued this over and over again with Margaret worshippers but they won't listen. Here's the thing. I'm not even picking on the Australian wins. If she were REALLY that good, why couldn't she back it up in Wimbledon? I mean, if she were good enough at Australian to win it 11 times, you'd think she must win at least 6 Wmbledons right?That's less relevant than you make it. At the time, the US Open, the Australian, and Wimbledon were all played on grass. She won the US Open eight times. (Twice in '69.)

She DID back up those Australian titles. She won ten other GS titles on grass.

And the lack of other top players at OZ inthose days CAN be laid to the attitude of 'Why go down there so Margo can stomp the living shit out of me? The weather isn't THAT good. And I can throw my own damn shrimps on the 'barbie'? ANd pain isn't THAT edifying.'

Robbie.
Jul 9th, 2005, 07:19 AM
Ryan m'man, we're talkig about two players within a year of each other in age. Throw out 2002 because foot problems had to be affecting hingis by then. Who was better in 2000 and 2001. Not who had accomplished more to that point. Who was better?

It rare we get to compare two great players that close in age. But this time, it's not a matter of different eras or opponents. Venus won five of the last seven matches she played against Hingis. Two of them on her way to GS titles. It not even a contest which player was ultimately a better singles player. Just look at the head-to-head.


Look, I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion but the logic is clearly lacking in its application to this list.

By the same logic, looking at the head to head, it is even clearer that Jennifer Capriati and Lindsay Davenport were ultimately better players than Hingis as well. Why are they not ranked ahead of her?

After all, once Jenn whipped herself into shape she was 4/4 against Martina.

And Lindsay? Well I don't think anyone was ever as dominant over Hingis as she was. Lindsay was the first one to dent Hingis' invincibility. She ended up winning 10 of their 15 matches from 1998 onwards. That run of demoralising straight sets beat downs in 1999-2000 was spectacular. If we're talking about victories en route to GS, Lindsay's wins over Martina at USO '98 and AO '00 were far more decisive than Venus' two victories in 2000 which, less face it, were by the thinnest edge of the wedge.

Surely, when deciding this list, it's either the more materially accomplished player OR the better player based on notions of ability, head to head etc.

If you choose the first, Lindsay and Jenn have to be behind Martina. Choose the second and surely they have to be above her?

When comes to who is the BETTER between Venus v Martina, I tend to agree with you. It's Venus. Marginally though. Venus never achieved the kind of supremacy over Martina that Serena and Lindsay did.

But the more accomplished player is still Hingis. Again, it's marginal. Venus' record at Wimbledon is phenomenal. But in the other categories, Hingis is trumps.

deja_entendu
Jul 9th, 2005, 07:56 AM
Volcana you are CRAZY. :haha: If it makes you feel better about Venus, sure, but let's compare primes: Hingis was bagelling Venus in Grand Slam titles, and in Tier Is, and dominated the tour. Venus, however, was relying on Hingis' consistent tensing up in their matches (Wimby, USO, and Miami 00-01) or was playing against someone on painkillers (2002). And still she was barely winning their matches. Keep in mind Hingis was A LOT slower by that point, and far less agressive. And this was at the height of Venus' career.

Anyway, if you want something close to both of their bests, I suggest you watch tapes from 1999, with Hingis still fairly mobile and Venus controlling her aggression. It proves that Hingis, playing her best stuff and being able to close out matches, had a game that left Venus baffled more often than not.

Robbie.
Jul 9th, 2005, 08:14 AM
Volcana you are CRAZY. :haha: If it makes you feel better about Venus, sure, but let's compare primes: Hingis was bagelling Venus in Grand Slam titles, and in Tier Is, and dominated the tour. Venus, however, was relying on Hingis' consistent tensing up in their matches (Wimby, USO, and Miami 00-01) or was playing against someone on painkillers (2002). And still she was barely winning their matches. Keep in mind Hingis was A LOT slower by that point, and far less agressive. And this was at the height of Venus' career.

Anyway, if you want something close to both of their bests, I suggest you watch tapes from 1999, with Hingis still fairly mobile and Venus controlling her aggression. It proves that Hingis, playing her best stuff and being able to close out matches, had a game that left Venus baffled more often than not.

I'm not going to be as emphatic as you are, but the thrust of your post is correct.

Bottom Line: the head to head is far less conclusive than Volcana makes it out to be.

He himself says to disregard '02. So what we have is 4-2 head to head in their last 6 matches and two of those Venus wins were on a knife edge at her two favourite venues in the whole world and surfaces which, on their face, tended to favour her more than Hingis. In light of Venus' record at Wimbledon, which is second only to Graf and Nav in the last 25 years, you see what an achievement it was for Martina to get so close to a peaking Venus in what was really her least successful GS tournament, her win exempted.

There was literally nothing between these two. At Melbourne Park, I'd always favour Hingis. At Wimbledon, I'd always favour Venus. Hingis probably gets the nod at RG. At the US Open it's a toss up. Hingis was really one fluffed overhead short of having a 3-0 match win record over Vee at Flushing (after '97 and '99).

Venus could never do to Hingis what Lindsay and Serena could do, which was absolutely shut her out. Even when Venus was in peak form, Martina played her close. This is because Venus, unlike her sister and Davenport, is at her best when she can get her rhythm in baseline rallies. The same was true for Martina and she had the kind of game that could take Venus out of her rhythm. A very even match up that produced classic matches.

Steffica Greles
Jul 9th, 2005, 01:41 PM
From Margaret Court? You mean the end of her career or the beginning, when she was Margaret Smith?

If you're concentrating on singles only...(spaces indicate large gaps)

1. Steffi Graf

2. Martina Navratilova (narrowly)


3. Margaret Court (if you look at all of her career)

4. Chris Evert


5. Billie Jean King


6. Monica Seles


7. Serena Williams

8. Evonne Goolagong


9. Venus Williams

10. Martina Hingis

11. Aranxta Sanchez-Vicario

12. Lindsay Davenport


13. Hana Mandlikova

14. Justine Henin-Hardenne

15. Virginia Wade

Followed by the likes of Tracy Austin, Jennifer Capriati, Jana Novotna...and then...Rosie Casals, Conchita Martinez, Helena Sukova, Mary Pierce.

A few explanations...

I think Graf's 22 slams to Navratilova's 18 is too great a difference to overlook. In addition Graf achieved this despite more injuries than Martina and all by the age of 30. Had Martina won 22 slams by that age, maybe she would have retired?

Martina has two strong points heavily in her favour: her 167 singles titles to Graf's 107, and her outstanding longevity. But two French titles and all those final losses really does not help Navratilova. Of course, had Seles not been stabbed Graf's total would have been no more than 18, possibly 16. Or, if Evert had been removed from Navratilova's path she could have easily racked up at least 22 herself. But that's not what the history books say, so we can't vote on what might have been.

Davenport, Hingis, Venus and Sanchez-Vicario are also one close group. They've all played and beaten each other, for a start.

I think Venus has now eclipsed Hingis, mainly because of her longevity. Venus has played through the Hingis era, won as many slams as Hingis, and has now won Wimbledon in this eraless era. She's not far off Hingis' total of tour titles now, either. And where is Hingis? Venus has also won more slams and career titles than Sanchez-Vicario, who she held a convincing winning record against, and has beaten Davenport in the finals of 3 of her 5 slam victories, so she deserves to go above Davenport in my opinion.

Sanchez-V has won the most career matches by far and had the longest longevity. Furthermore she won two Olympic medals and in a great deal of her 12 slam finals (more than Venus and Davenport, equal with Hingis) only lost narrowly to the player who was the greatest of them all - Steffi Graf. In fact, in 2 of her 4 slam wins she defeated Steffi for the title. But her career titles total lets her down a little.

Hingis won more slams than Davenport or Sanchez-Vicario and was number one for an amount of weeks that totals 4 years! Extraordinary when you think about it, given that her peak only lasted 5 years! She also holds 40 career titles, has won 3 of the 4, and twice a finalist in Paris. But her relatively short career weighs heavily against her, particularly as 3 of her 5 slams were in one year and from then on she was no more effective against the top players than Sanchez-Vicario was against Graf; merely a thorn in their side.

Davenport has only won 3 slams, but she also has that Olympic title, almost equivalent to a slam. She's contested a total of 7 major finals and is a Chase champion as well. Also, she's now won a whopping total of 47 career titles and is creeping up on Aranxta's match win record. Furthermore she's been in the top 20 since 1993, the top 10 since 1994. She's played through so many eras -- Graf, Sanchez-Vicario, Hingis, Williams', Belgians, Russians -- and held firm as a world class player throughout. Not many can say that. However, her record on red clay lets her down a little and also the amount of times she's folded, in my opinion. Is Davenport seen as a great competitor as well as a great player? That's the question that hangs over her.

fammmmedspin
Jul 9th, 2005, 02:22 PM
Write out one hundred times comparing apples and oranges has little point.

Court played in an age where jets had only just learnt to fly long distances and propellers were still around. Its not surprising Court won the AO when other people looked where Australia was on the map. Navratilova played in an age when the number 1 could play doubles, mixed and singles - only Martina Hingis tried it afterwards and her foot wore out trying as did her body in her two last GS finals. When the tour was less deep and less organised and distance was a problem, winning a GS was the key indicator. Since then on a more level playing field, weeks at number one has come along as a criteria. Keeping GS as the only measure has made less and less sense as some top players have stopped playing a full schedule as well as dropping doubles in any form - GS wins unsupported by tournament wins just creates a new category of best GS player alongside the best player on tour category. At present when GS are won by players who play magnificently for a week to win a GS in between playing poorly or being injured for the rest of the year the rankings tell you far more about who are the best players than recent GS performance.

jj74
Jul 9th, 2005, 02:28 PM
I think if Steffi Graf were from the united states we don't have always the same talk, Steffi is the best single player of all time. And sorry but Venus and Maria don't beat easely Monica Seles, no way, Monica (before being stabbed) has a real killer instint and a a great mental strenght, and made angles than Maria and Venus only can dream. And please don't compare the raquet tecnology nowadays with early 90's ther's a world between

Ryan
Jul 9th, 2005, 02:56 PM
Ryan m'man, we're talkig about two players within a year of each other in age. Throw out 2002 because foot problems had to be affecting hingis by then. Who was better in 2000 and 2001. Not who had accomplished more to that point. Who was better?

It rare we get to compare two great players that close in age. But this time, it's not a matter of different eras or opponents. Venus won five of the last seven matches she played against Hingis. Two of them on her way to GS titles. It not even a contest which player was ultimately a better singles player. Just look at the head-to-head.


Why is their H2H from 2000/2001 more important than their earlier matches? Hingis and Venus were established players from 1997-on, so you cant throw out their matches and pick Venus' two best years. and besides your biased look at their H2H, Hingis still leads Venus 10-9, and has a more established singles career.

Calimero377
Jul 9th, 2005, 03:02 PM
.... Of course, had Seles not been stabbed Graf's total would have been no more than 18, possibly 16. ....


Which slams would you deduct "of course", Dumbo .... ?

Sam L
Jul 9th, 2005, 03:47 PM
That's less relevant than you make it. At the time, the US Open, the Australian, and Wimbledon were all played on grass. She won the US Open eight times. (Twice in '69.)

She DID back up those Australian titles. She won ten other GS titles on grass.

And the lack of other top players at OZ inthose days CAN be laid to the attitude of 'Why go down there so Margo can stomp the living shit out of me? The weather isn't THAT good. And I can throw my own damn shrimps on the 'barbie'? ANd pain isn't THAT edifying.'
She won 10 other GS on grass?

Why are you counting the two in 69? They're not official. Officially, she only has 3 Wmbledons and 5 US C'ships.

Steffica Greles
Jul 9th, 2005, 05:02 PM
Which slams would you deduct "of course", Dumbo .... ?

Hehe, you really come across as such a nice guy. Steffi must be embarrassed to have so many people with serious social problems as fans of hers. All she did was play tennis! :cool:

As for the question, I'll only reply to people who deserve the attention, not those who seek it.

:wavey:

Calimero377
Jul 9th, 2005, 05:18 PM
Hehe, you really come across as such a nice guy. Steffi must be embarrassed to have so many people with serious social problems as fans of hers. All she did was play tennis! :cool:

As for the question, I'll only reply to people who deserve the attention, not those who seek it.

:wavey:


Steffi IS embarrassed that many fans of her former opponents still try to devaluate her slam wins post-Selesstabbing. Steffi won AO 94, FO 93, 95, 96, 99, Wim 93, 95, 96 and USO 93, 95, 96.

Seles competed at FO 96 (lost to Novotna), FO 99 (lost to GRAF), Wim 96 (lost to Studenikova), USO 95 (lost to GRAF) and 96 (lost to GRAF). These Graf wins are "legit" even for Selesians like you, no?

Leaves us with 6 Graf slams while Seles was out due to Stabbing.
Wimbledon 93 and 95 among them. Enough said.

Leaves us with 4 Graf slams.
USO 93, AO 94, FO 93 & 95.

USO 93?
Graf is 3-0 against Seles on hard-courts, has a far higher winning percentage on hard-court, has beaten Seles twice at Flushing Meadows. And we don't know whether Seles would have made the USO 93 final at all.

AO 94?
Seles' best surface. Nevertheless she struggled against Graf in the 93 final. And Graf was considerably better at AO 94 than in 93, considerably better in winter of 94 than in winter of 93 (results prove that).

FO 93 & 95?
IF Seles had made the finals she would have had a chance against Graf. But we must not forget that even in her slump Graf had only very narrow losses against Seles in Roland Garros. And that she was able to beat Seles at FO 99 and at Hamburg 91 on clay.

So what makes you think that without the Seles Stabbing Graf "of course" would have won only 18 or 16 slams?
I tell you:
Rabid Graf hate ... :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:


:wavey:

Brooks.
Jul 9th, 2005, 05:21 PM
Steffi IS embarrassed that many fans of her former opponents still try to devaluate her slam wins post-Selesstabbing. Steffi won AO 94, FO 93, 95, 96, 99, Wim 93, 95, 96 and USO 93, 95, 96.

Seles competed at FO 96 (lost to Novotna), FO 99 (lost to GRAF), Wim 96 (lost to Studenikova), USO 95 (lost to GRAF) and 96 (lost to GRAF). These Graf wins are "legit" even for Selesians like you, no?

Leaves us with 6 Graf slams while Seles was out due to Stabbing.
Wimbledon 93 and 95 among them. Enough said.

Leaves us with 4 Graf slams.
USO 93, AO 94, FO 93 & 95.

USO 93?
Graf is 3-0 against Seles on hard-courts, has a far higher winning percentage on hard-court, has beaten Seles twice at Flushing Meadows. And we don't know whether Seles would have made the USO 93 final at all.

AO 94?
Seles' best surface. Nevertheless she struggled against Graf in the 93 final. And Graf was considerably better at AO 94 than in 93, considerably better in winter of 94 than in winter of 93 (results prove that).

FO 93 & 95?
IF Seles had made the finals she would have had a chance against Graf. But we must not forget that even in her slump Graf had only very narrow losses against Seles in Roland Garros. And that she was able to beat Seles at FO 99 and at Hamburg 91 on clay.

So what makes you think that without the Seles Stabbing Graf "of course" would have won only 18 or 16 slams?
I tell you:
Rabid Graf hate ... :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:


:wavey:

:cuckoo: :tape: :help:

Sam L
Jul 9th, 2005, 05:29 PM
4-6 6-3 6-2 is hardly a struggle.

That match quickly became a Monica winner-fest when she got her motor started.

Monica beat Steffi as a 16 year old in straight sets. Are you saying that she was much better than then when she beat Graf 10-8 two years later? You have no idea about the dynamics about tennis matches and how players can have a bad day.

Fact is, a 19 year old can hardly be termed "the peak" of her career. Monica was still rising (and improving a lot) when she was stabbed.

And if you really want to analyse, analyse this.

Before 1990 claycourt season:

Graf had 9 slams
Seles had 0 slams
Graf held a 3-0 lead in H2H

Now, fast forward 3 years to before 1993 claycourt season (During which period Graf was aged 21 to 24):

Graf had 11 slams
Seles had 8 slams
Graf held a 6-4 lead in H2H

Looking at that, anyone with half a brain would be able to tell you that Monica had the momentum. She was winning 4 times as many GS as Graf and narrowed down their head 2 head record. Monica was 19. She was only getting better.

Objectively and analytically speaking, one could only assume that she was going to get even more dominant, unless another unknown talent usurped her.

You can't consider Monica's results after she came back from the stabbing. If you think everything was normal with her, you need to take psychology classes.

Calimero377
Jul 9th, 2005, 05:44 PM
4-6 6-3 6-2 is hardly a struggle.

That match quickly became a Monica winner-fest when she got her motor started.

Monica beat Steffi as a 16 year old in straight sets. Are you saying that she was much better than then when she beat Graf 10-8 two years later? You have no idea about the dynamics about tennis matches and how players can have a bad day.

Fact is, a 19 year old can hardly be termed "the peak" of her career. Monica was still rising (and improving a lot) when she was stabbed.

And if you really want to analyse, analyse this.

Before 1990 claycourt season:

Graf had 9 slams
Seles had 0 slams
Graf held a 3-0 lead in H2H

Now, fast forward 3 years to before 1993 claycourt season (During which period Graf was aged 21 to 24):

Graf had 11 slams
Seles had 8 slams
Graf held a 6-4 lead in H2H

Looking at that, anyone with half a brain would be able to tell you that Monica had the momentum. She was winning 4 times as many GS as Graf and narrowed down their head 2 head record. Monica was 19. She was only getting better.

Objectively and analytically speaking, one could only assume that she was going to get even more dominant, unless another unknown talent usurped her.

You can't consider Monica's results after she came back from the stabbing. If you think everything was normal with her, you need to take psychology classes.


Seles played great tennis in 95/96.
She won AO 96, she made two great USO finals losing only to peak Graf.
And she lost - being injured - at FO and - as always - at Wimbledon.
Only when she started to decline post-96 Selesians discovered the "not-the-same-player-because-of-the-stabbing" excuse.

BTW, there is no law that 19-year-old female tennis stars will become better and better. What about Austin, Jaeger, Sabatini, Graf, Majoli, Hingis?
Even Venus and Serena had their best years as 19-21-year-olds.
And Seles had the genes to get fat anyway. She gained weight considerably already in 92/93.

If Graf had won FO 92 *OR* AO 93 she would have been #1 in the rankings in April 1993. We would not have those stupid "woulda-coulda" discussions. So you base your assumption that Seles would have been the greatest-ever without The Stabbing on some points here, some points there in the FO 92 final.

I base my opinion on Graf's and Seles' performances from 1982 until 2005.

Volcana
Jul 9th, 2005, 05:46 PM
Volcana you are CRAZY. :haha: "I'm not crazy I'm just a little impaired ...."

If it makes you feel better about Venus, sure, but let's compare primesI disagree with your definition of 'prime'. Hingis wasn't a better player from January 1997 to January 1999 as opposed to February 1999 to November 2001. She just won more important tournaments during that period. She was actually a BETTER player. Just as Venus was a better player in 2002 than 2001, even though she was losing slam finals, not winning them.

'Prime' is about the quality of your play, not the results.

Jenn and Lindsay and Venus simply got BETTER than Martina, just as Serena in turn got better than Venus.

Volcana
Jul 9th, 2005, 05:55 PM
She won 10 other GS on grass?

Why are you counting the two in 69? They're not official. Officially, she only has 3 Wmbledons and 5 US C'ships.Of course they're official. What, you think the ITF didn't certify them or something? Got to http://ITFTennis.com (http://itftennis.com/). They're certainly listed there. Also, allow me to refer you the International Tennis Hall of Fame

http://www.internationaltennishalloffame.com/enshrinees/margaret_smith.html

Why is their H2H from 2000/2001 more important than their earlier matches? Hingis and Venus were established players from 1997-on, so you cant throw out their matches and pick Venus' two best years. and besides your biased look at their H2H, Hingis still leads Venus 10-9, and has a more established singles career.Under normal circumstances, for two players that close in age, and that young, the matches when they were 20 and 21 tell us more about how good they ultimately are than matches when they are 17 and 18. Most players are better at 21 than they are at 18. These to certainly were. I can't see 17 year old Martina hingis beating 20 year old Martina Hingis.

Calimero377
Jul 9th, 2005, 05:55 PM
4-6 6-3 6-2 is hardly a struggle.

That match quickly became a Monica winner-fest when she got her motor started.

...
Looking at that, anyone with half a brain would be able to tell you that Monica had the momentum. She was winning 4 times as many GS as Graf and narrowed down their head 2 head record. ...


1) Seles won with 86-78on points played. Graf had break-point on Seles' serve at 2-4in 3rd. Seles aced her and made the next 6 points as well. So 4 minutes before the end of the match Seles was leading with 79-78 on points. A match on Seles' best and Graf's worst surface.
Enough said.

2) Momentum?
Like Graf's momentum at the beginning of 1990?
Navi's at then end of 1986?
Capriati's in 1991?
Hingis' in spring of 1999?
Venus' at the end of 2001?
Serena's after her "Serena slam"?
Enna's after her AO 04 win?
Davenport after her AO 00 win?
Capriati after her AO 02 win?
Wilander after his USO 88 win?
Becker after his Wim & USO 89 wins?
Courier after his AO 93 win?
McEnroe after his USO 84 win?
Borg after his FO 81 win?
Majoli after her FO 97 win?
Sharapova after her Wim 04 win?
Sabatini after her USO 90 win?
Graf after her USO 96 win?


I remember that Seles had a comfortable lead in the WTA rankings at the end of 1991 and that Graf had cut that lead to a third in April of 1993. That Graf was SO close that a FO 93 win would have made her #1 EVEN with Seles competing ...

mboyle
Jul 9th, 2005, 06:28 PM
Ok mr straight diva, which by the way is a contradiction. So you're saying that Graf beating an aged martina Navratilova (in three sets none the less) is harder then having to play Venus williams ,Maria sharapova and Martina Hingis all at their primes?

Obviously I know that it is a contradiction. That is the point. Venus Williams and Martina Hingis are blips on the radar screen in the tennis world. Maria Sharapova hasn't even made a blip yet. Martina Navratilova is the greatest player ever, and her prime did not end until 1989 or so.

mboyle
Jul 9th, 2005, 06:39 PM
Ryan m'man, we're talkig about two players within a year of each other in age. Throw out 2002 because foot problems had to be affecting hingis by then. Who was better in 2000 and 2001. Not who had accomplished more to that point. Who was better?

It rare we get to compare two great players that close in age. But this time, it's not a matter of different eras or opponents. Venus won five of the last seven matches she played against Hingis. Two of them on her way to GS titles. It not even a contest which player was ultimately a better singles player. Just look at the head-to-head.

Are we talking about the greatest players ever in terms of who would beat whom? In that case, Serena at her prime wins, and Venus, Justine, Kim, Lindsay and Maria follow up. Why would we do that? The game evolves. Steffi Graf and Martina N. are much better than any of the previous people I listed. Hingis wins the singles 10th spot.

Andy T
Jul 9th, 2005, 06:53 PM
Shout yourselves hoarse if you want to, everyone, but this is really a futile exercise.

You can't determine a list because:

1) the slams have not always been the cornerstones of the game, so as a benchmark they are totally unreliable.
2) if they had been, then players of the past would have played them more.
3) the surfaces for the slams have changed and in some places the surfaces the players have learned on have changed.
4) the racquets the players use have changed
5) the training facilities the players have (technology, diet, knowledge about taking care of the body,etc) has changed
6) the support systems the players have has changed, as has the medical know how in injury prevention and treatment.
7) the computer rankings didn't exist at all before November 1975 and the system used has changed countless times since.
8) the prize money levels have changed to the point where players can now pick and choose where/when thet play instead of having to play non-stop to make a living.
9) the players are now free to decide their own schedules instead of having to comply with the dictats/deals of their national associations.
10) traditons have changed regarding playing doubles and mixed.

manu
Jul 9th, 2005, 07:01 PM
Shout yourselves hoarse if you want to, everyone, but this is really a futile exercise.

You can't determine a list because:

1) the slams have not always been the cornerstones of the game, so as a benchmark they are totally unreliable.
2) if they had been, then players of the past would have played them more.
3) the surfaces for the slams have changed and in some places the surfaces the players have learned on have changed.
4) the racquets the players use have changed
5) the training facilities the players have (technology, diet, knowledge about taking care of the body,etc) has changed
6) the support systems the players have has changed, as has the medical know how in injury prevention and treatment.
7) the computer rankings didn't exist at all before November 1975 and the system used has changed countless times since.
8) the prize money levels have changed to the point where players can now pick and choose where/when thet play instead of having to play non-stop to make a living.
9) the players are now free to decide their own schedules instead of having to comply with the dictats/deals of their national associations.
10) traditons have changed regarding playing doubles and mixed.

I second that.

Might also add:

11) techniques and tactics have changed
12) competition changes and has been heavier in some era's/decades than other

Still I love these discussions :p

Anne K.
Jul 9th, 2005, 07:26 PM
:confused: I'm not trying to undervalue Margeret Smith Court's achievements, but

I'm pretty sure that, at least at the Aussie Opens in the early '60, the

champion only had to win 5, maybe 6 rounds to win the title. Weren't the

fields either only 64 draw, or the top seed(s) got a bye in the first round?

Not sure if this was only the Aussie open, or if it was the norm for ALL the

slams at that time? Perhaps a knowledgable BFTP poster can shed some

light on this subject. Also, when we downgrade more recent players who

didn't play a lot of doubles, I think it's kinda unfair. Starting 15 or so

years ago, the trend has been for the top players to play less and less

doubles. Of course, Martina H. and a few other players did so, but I don't

think we should de-value players whom, for whatever reason, chose not

to do so. :)

anabel
Jul 9th, 2005, 07:30 PM
Venus superior to Hingis in singles? :lol:

VeeReeDavJCap81
Jul 9th, 2005, 07:33 PM
Venus superior to Hingis in singles? :lol:

Hingis does get the slight edge on Venus, but only because she has more singles titles.

bobcat
Jul 9th, 2005, 08:28 PM
And the lack of other top players at OZ inthose days CAN be laid to the attitude of 'Why go down there so Margo can stomp the living shit out of me? The weather isn't THAT good. And I can throw my own damn shrimps on the 'barbie'? ANd pain isn't THAT edifying.'

If the AO was an important enough tournament players would have still gone. You could hold the Olympics on the moon and athletes would still find some way to attend because it's just too important. People didn't go to OZ because it wasn't important, and after Court retired they STILL didn't go.

tennislover
Jul 9th, 2005, 08:39 PM
MARTINA NAVRATILOVA IS THE ALL TIME BEST

in singles doubles triples quadruples etc men/women/mixed/gay/lesbian etc
case closed

:hearts: :hearts: :hearts:

deja_entendu
Jul 9th, 2005, 09:01 PM
Hingis wasn't a better player from January 1997 to January 1999 as opposed to February 1999 to November 2001. She just won more important tournaments during that period. She was actually a BETTER player.

How often do you smoke crack? :wavey:

Please, just watch any tape of Hingis from 97 to 99, and then any tape from late 99 to 02. If you can do this and tell me that Hingis was moving even half as well later in her career as she was in her prime, I'll know the answer to my question is "very often" :rolls:

You're the Venus fan, and you can judge if she played better in 02 or 01, but any Hingis fan or commentator or someone who has seen Hingis play without wishful, Venus-tinted glasses would laugh at your insane suggestion that Hingis was playing better in 01 than in 97. She was even serving softer!

LDVTennis
Jul 9th, 2005, 09:24 PM
Looking at that, anyone with half a brain would be able to tell you that Monica had the momentum. She was winning 4 times as many GS as Graf and narrowed down their head 2 head record. Monica was 19. She was only getting better.

Objectively and analytically speaking, one could only assume that she was going to get even more dominant, unless another unknown talent usurped her.

You can't consider Monica's results after she came back from the stabbing. If you think everything was normal with her, you need to take psychology classes.

Getting better? Seles did not have unlimited potential.

At her best, she was a resourceful, consistent, baseliner who could hit the the odd ball with power and precision.

She was not, nor did she have the potential to become:

(a) An all court player. She had no transition game or shots in the midcourt range. The grips on her shots made it difficult for her to hit agressive shots off low balls while moving forward.

(b) A net player. Again, her grips limited her reach and reflexes at the net. Her ability to read passing shots was average. Her quickness and agility were average to below average.

(c) A great athlete. Her speed on the court was below average. Her ability to adapt to low or erratic bounces was below average. Her ability to move freely in all areas of the court was average. She moved well side to side, but found it very difficult to operate in the extreme areas of the court.

Seles could have improved her execution on a shot here or there, but she still would not have become an all court player, a net player, or a great athlete. Seles just did not have the natural ability to do that.

The player who did have all the natural ability and just needed better coaching to improve was Steffi Graf. She began to get the better coaching in '92 when HG signed on as coach. That is why the Steffi Graf of '96 was such a better player and athlete than the Graf of '88. The forehand was more powerful, the slice backhand more resourceful, the serve more precise, the volley game more efficient, the game plan more refined, and the body more tuned and taut than ever.

Brooks.
Jul 9th, 2005, 09:40 PM
How often do you smoke crack? :wavey:

Please, just watch any tape of Hingis from 97 to 99, and then any tape from late 99 to 02. If you can do this and tell me that Hingis was moving even half as well later in her career as she was in her prime, I'll know the answer to my question is "very often" :rolls:

You're the Venus fan, and you can judge if she played better in 02 or 01, but any Hingis fan or commentator or someone who has seen Hingis play without wishful, Venus-tinted glasses would laugh at your insane suggestion that Hingis was playing better in 01 than in 97. She was even serving softer!

is somebody a little insecure because venus is catching up to his favorite player and it is inevitable that venus williams > martina hingis :awww: :baby:

Volcana
Jul 9th, 2005, 09:52 PM
How often do you smoke crack? :wavey:

Please, just watch any tape of Hingis from 97 to 99, and then any tape from late 99 to 02. If you can do this and tell me that Hingis was moving even half as well later in her career as she was in her prime, I'll know the answer to my question is "very often" :rolls:You do sound like someone very familiar with smoking crack. I however, am not. And since I get to view this through eyes, rather than your drug fogged ones, I have no trouble seeing that Hingis moved every bit as well in 2000 as in 1999.

Put down the crack pipe, get a couple of cornea transplants, and take another look.

(I never could understand why anyone would smoke crack. But with you (clearly vast) experience with the substance, maybe you could tell me.:))

abayen
Jul 9th, 2005, 10:13 PM
And that game was more than enough to beat Graf...

Lol at "who could hit the odd ball"... looks like you have hardly watched her tennis. so how about not commenting if you dont know what she could do...

seles was improving her serve.. as much as you guys like to comment about her lack of ability to pick up low tennis balls or her lack of success in wimbledon, you guys need to watch the 92 semis against Martina before making such inane comments.

and if you talk pure reason, you will know seles was only improving on grass. her results on grass pre-stabbing speak for themselves...

and again, whether LDV or Calimero admit it or not, it was more than apparent that Seles had completely lost the mental edge post stabbing...

calimero, don't kid us by saying seles was playing her absolute best in 96... that's just BS.


Getting better? Seles did not have unlimited potential.

At her best, she was a resourceful, consistent, baseliner who could hit the the odd ball with power and precision.

She was not, nor did she have the potential to become:

(a) An all court player. She had no transition game or shots in the midcourt range. The grips on her shots made it difficult for her to hit agressive shots off low balls while moving forward.

(b) A net player. Again, her grips limited her reach and reflexes at the net. Her ability to read passing shots was average. Her quickness and agility were average to below average.

(c) A great athlete. Her speed on the court was below average. Her ability to adapt to low or erratic bounces was below average. Her ability to move freely in all areas of the court was average. She moved well side to side, but found it very difficult to operate in the extreme areas of the court.

Seles could have improved her execution on a shot here or there, but she still would not have become an all court player, a net player, or a great athlete. Seles just did not have the natural ability to do that.

The player who did have all the natural ability and just needed better coaching to improve was Steffi Graf. She began to get the better coaching in '92 when HG signed on as coach. That is why the Steffi Graf of '96 was such a better player and athlete than the Graf of '88. The forehand was more powerful, the slice backhand more resourceful, the serve more precise, the volley game more efficient, the game plan more refined, and the body more tuned and taut than ever.

Calimero377
Jul 9th, 2005, 10:32 PM
How often do you smoke crack? :wavey:

Please, just watch any tape of Hingis from 97 to 99, and then any tape from late 99 to 02. If you can do this and tell me that Hingis was moving even half as well later in her career as she was in her prime, I'll know the answer to my question is "very often" :rolls:

You're the Venus fan, and you can judge if she played better in 02 or 01, but any Hingis fan or commentator or someone who has seen Hingis play without wishful, Venus-tinted glasses would laugh at your insane suggestion that Hingis was playing better in 01 than in 97. She was even serving softer!


You are right.
Hingis peaked in 97/99.
Nevertheless she lost twice against the greatest-ever back then (and had one win because the greatest-ever caught an injury).

Calimero377
Jul 9th, 2005, 10:37 PM
And that game was more than enough to beat Graf...

Lol at "who could hit the odd ball"... looks like you have hardly watched her tennis. so how about not commenting if you dont know what she could do...

seles was improving her serve.. as much as you guys like to comment about her lack of ability to pick up low tennis balls or her lack of success in wimbledon, you guys need to watch the 92 semis against Martina before making such inane comments.

and if you talk pure reason, you will know seles was only improving on grass. her results on grass pre-stabbing speak for themselves...

and again, whether LDV or Calimero admit it or not, it was more than apparent that Seles had completely lost the mental edge post stabbing...

calimero, don't kid us by saying seles was playing her absolute best in 96... that's just BS.

Take Seles' winning percentage of 90-93.
Then take her winning percentage of 95-spring97.
Exclude all Hingis (new kid on the block) and Graf matches.
What do you get?
Exactly the same winning percentage ....

:wavey:

G1Player2
Jul 10th, 2005, 12:36 AM
:retard: Serena has faced three people in her grand slam finals. Three. She has never faced anyone who has won more than 5 grand slam titles. Steffi Graf beat an 18 time grand slam titlist 5-7; 6-2; 6-1, winning 24 of the last 25 games. To say that Serena had harder competition is just absurd in every single way. I would argue that she had some of the easiest competition. Navratilova won 18 grand slam titles during the same period Chris Evert won 18 grand slam titles. Graf won grand slams over Navratilova and Seles. King and Court had to fight each other for slams.

As for the Court vs. Graf argument, Margaret had easier competition, but she also did not play nearly as much. Anyone who wins half of the grand slams entered has to be at least co. no 1 for singles best ever.

You're an idiot...It's not Serena's fault that players were not good enough to meet her in the finals...Or better yet, why would it matter how many slams the person won who she faced in a slam final? Let's put it this way, since Graf retired, before Serena's peak, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for Serena to face ANYONE who has won more than 5 grand slams...Monica Seles was the only person who came close and we know she wasn't going to reach a final, so your argument that Serena faced "mediocre" competition in the finals is ridiculous and flawed...

LDVTennis
Jul 10th, 2005, 02:19 AM
And that game was more than enough to beat Graf...

Lol at "who could hit the odd ball"... looks like you have hardly watched her tennis. so how about not commenting if you dont know what she could do...

seles was improving her serve.. as much as you guys like to comment about her lack of ability to pick up low tennis balls or her lack of success in wimbledon, you guys need to watch the 92 semis against Martina before making such inane comments.

and if you talk pure reason, you will know seles was only improving on grass. her results on grass pre-stabbing speak for themselves...

and again, whether LDV or Calimero admit it or not, it was more than apparent that Seles had completely lost the mental edge post stabbing...

calimero, don't kid us by saying seles was playing her absolute best in 96... that's just BS.

Yes, the "odd ball." The perception that Seles hit out on every shot is wrong. Seles even hit moonballs when she got in trouble in a point. During rallies (c. 1989 to 1993), Seles used a moderately-paced, looping shot to keep the point going. When she saw an opening, she would hit out on a shot. She also was quite good at creating openings for a winning shot by rolling the ball wide and short.

Improving her serve? At the '92 Wimbledon, Steffi stood closer to the "T" because by that time it was common knowledge that most of Seles' fastest serves landed in the general vicinity of the "T." As of the '93 AO, Seles' second serve was still a perceived liability, slow and not very penetrating. In her postmatch newsconference, Graf is asked why she didn't attack the second serve more.

On low balls. Apparently, between the '92 Wimbledon Semi's and the '92 Wimbledon Final, Seles lost the ability to handle low balls. Seven years later, at the '99 FO Quarters, she still had not refound that ability.

Improving on Glass? Yes, by '92, she had improved so much that Graf thrashed her 2 and 1. If improvement can be measured in games won, that means that since 1989 when she lost to Graf 0 and 1, she had improved enough to win 2 more games. That is an "extraordinary" improvement of 2 games in 3 years. At that rate, it might have taken her at least 13.5 more years just to win enough games to win a match against Steffi at Wimbledon. So, she should be ready by my calculations to win Wimbledon next year.

But, wait a minute. Steffi Graf (7-time Wimbledon Champion) is now retired. No problem. After all, Monica did better at the majors when Steffi did not play or was eliminated in the previous rounds. That settles it. 2006 will be the year Monica finally wins Wimbledon. ;)

Sam L
Jul 10th, 2005, 02:34 AM
Of course they're official. What, you think the ITF didn't certify them or something? Got to http://ITFTennis.com (http://itftennis.com/). They're certainly listed there. Also, allow me to refer you the International Tennis Hall of Fame

http://www.internationaltennishalloffame.com/enshrinees/margaret_smith.html



Well then why do we always say that she won 24 slams? Why do most, if not all, books say that.

And even if, you want to count them, so what? They're still not Wimbledons. (Or did she win some unofficial Wimbledons too? :lol: )

Look, here's a glaring fact.

BJK was considered her contemporary. Court won many, many more slams than BJK. But look at their Oz and Wimbledon records.

BJK hardly ever went down to Oz and she won that title once. Court won it 11 times.

BJK won Wimbledon 6 times, and Court only 3. That's a huge indictment on Courts record. Why was BJK able to win twice the number of Wimbledons than Court if Court really was that great of a player?

Court relied on her longevity to rack up as many slams as possible during weak competition years in French, Wimbledon and US.

She was the ASV of that era but just had a lot more time.

Sam L
Jul 10th, 2005, 02:43 AM
Getting better? Seles did not have unlimited potential.

At her best, she was a resourceful, consistent, baseliner who could hit the the odd ball with power and precision.

She was not, nor did she have the potential to become:

(a) An all court player. She had no transition game or shots in the midcourt range. The grips on her shots made it difficult for her to hit agressive shots off low balls while moving forward.

(b) A net player. Again, her grips limited her reach and reflexes at the net. Her ability to read passing shots was average. Her quickness and agility were average to below average.

(c) A great athlete. Her speed on the court was below average. Her ability to adapt to low or erratic bounces was below average. Her ability to move freely in all areas of the court was average. She moved well side to side, but found it very difficult to operate in the extreme areas of the court.

Seles could have improved her execution on a shot here or there, but she still would not have become an all court player, a net player, or a great athlete. Seles just did not have the natural ability to do that.

The player who did have all the natural ability and just needed better coaching to improve was Steffi Graf. She began to get the better coaching in '92 when HG signed on as coach. That is why the Steffi Graf of '96 was such a better player and athlete than the Graf of '88. The forehand was more powerful, the slice backhand more resourceful, the serve more precise, the volley game more efficient, the game plan more refined, and the body more tuned and taut than ever.
We're not doubting that. But do you think that Steffi would've turned around things SO QUICKLY after Monica won the Australian Open 1993????

That's really at the heart of all arguments. If Steffi doesn't win just one, just one of the four slams ensuing the stabbing, it goes to suggest that her slam record was inflated.

And I don't think any sane person would suggest that Steffi would've won 1993 French - 1994 Oz WITH Seles competing in each one of them. I dare anyone to... :p

And you know that's the thing about rivalries. Did Chris Evert just lay down and die after Martina N won 6 slams in a row? NO! She came back and defeated Martina and won some slams too.

Steffi was getting better and catching back up to Monica. But do you think she would've completely taken back the domination from Monica? HELL NO!

And Calimero, stop talking about Hingis and her potential extra. That's an entirely different person with different circumstances.

So what, just because Hingis didn't realise her potential, does that mean that Monica also wouldn't have (WITHOUT the stabbing)? Why suggesting that would be like rather INSANE! :rolleyes:

Andy T
Jul 10th, 2005, 11:48 AM
Well then why do we always say that she won 24 slams? Why do most, if not all, books say that.

And even if, you want to count them, so what? They're still not Wimbledons. (Or did she win some unofficial Wimbledons too? :lol: )

Look, here's a glaring fact.

BJK was considered her contemporary. Court won many, many more slams than BJK. But look at their Oz and Wimbledon records.

BJK hardly ever went down to Oz and she won that title once. Court won it 11 times.

BJK won Wimbledon 6 times, and Court only 3. That's a huge indictment on Courts record. Why was BJK able to win twice the number of Wimbledons than Court if Court really was that great of a player?

Court relied on her longevity to rack up as many slams as possible during weak competition years in French, Wimbledon and US.

She was the ASV of that era but just had a lot more time.

Below is a list of their relative performances at Wimbledon from their first encounter to the last time they both played the tournament.

King beat Court in 62 (7-5 in the third having trailed 5-2) in a huge upset.
Court beat King in 63 en route to the title.
Court beat King but lost to Bueno in 64.
Court won the championship in 65, beating Bueno, who had knocked out King.
King won the title in 66, beating Court in the SF.
King won the title in 67. Court was absent, having retired.
King won the title in 68, beating Tegart, who had knocked out the returning Court in the QF.
King and Court lost to eventual champion Jones in 69.
Court beat King to win the title in 1970
King and Court lost to eventual champion Goolagong in 71
King won the title in 72. Court was absent (maternity).
King won the title in 73 over Evert, who had beaten Court in the SF.
King was upset in the QF by Morozova. Court was absent (maternity)
King won the title over Goolagong, who had beaten Court in the SF.

From these 14 years, several points emerge:
Of King's 6 victories, 2 came in years (67 & 72) when Court did not play.
Court had a winning h2h record over King at Wimbledon - 3 wins in 63, 64 & 70 against 2 defeats in 62 & 66.
There were six occasions when both were in the draw but they didn't meet
On two occasions, both women were beaten by the same opponent.
King beat Court's conqueror 3 times (68, 73, 75)
Court beat King's conqueror once (65)

bandabou
Jul 10th, 2005, 02:46 PM
Wait a sec....'95 Graf was peak Graf again, right? Didn't Graf nearly lost to ASV at RG that year and struggled also against her on grass? Hmm...so why is Cali acting like Seles beating Graf there, sans stabbing, would be a longshot? :confused:

tennisvideos
Jul 11th, 2005, 04:05 AM
Well then why do we always say that she won 24 slams? Why do most, if not all, books say that.

And even if, you want to count them, so what? They're still not Wimbledons. (Or did she win some unofficial Wimbledons too? :lol: )

Look, here's a glaring fact.

BJK was considered her contemporary. Court won many, many more slams than BJK. But look at their Oz and Wimbledon records.

BJK hardly ever went down to Oz and she won that title once. Court won it 11 times.

BJK won Wimbledon 6 times, and Court only 3. That's a huge indictment on Courts record. Why was BJK able to win twice the number of Wimbledons than Court if Court really was that great of a player?

Court relied on her longevity to rack up as many slams as possible during weak competition years in French, Wimbledon and US.

She was the ASV of that era but just had a lot more time.

SamL ... it seems you are a little misguided - there are so many holes in your arguments.

About Court's longevity and weak competition years in French, Wimbledon and US? WTF??? So are you suggesting that Billie-Jean King, Maria Bueno, Chris Evert, Evonne Goolagong, Anne Jones, Lesley Turner etc (all multiple GS Champions in their own right) were weak???? And Court did not really have longevity compared to King, Evert, Navratilova etc. Her career was interrupted to have 2 children (72 & 74) which ultimately led to her final retirement in 77.

BTW, Margaret's winning strike rate at Wimbledon, French and US Open is the best of all the modern champions since Maureen Connolly in the early 50s. That is even forgetting about her Aussie Open wins (which would make her GS rate even more outstanding). And despite the fact that the Aussie was weaker, she still had to beat some of the world's best to win a number of those titles - Maria Bueno, Darlene Hard, Billie-Jean King, Lesley Turner, Nancy Richey, Evonne Goolagong (all multiple GS winners themselves) etc. All of her Aussie Open wins can't be dismissed!!!!!! People do tend to make sweeping generalisations.

She has won MORE SINGLES TITLES than any other tennis player in HISTORY (including the legend herself Navratilova) in almost half as much time when you factor in the face that she retired 3 times (including twice to have children). Not only that, but she might very well have the best winning strike rate of all the modern players in all tournaments ... AndrewTas has been compiling the figures in the Blast from the Past and based on those figures it seems her strike rate in ALL tournaments was superior to all post 1955 players.

And people make a deal about Evonne winning Wimbledon as a mum - and rightly so! How about Mags who won 3 of the 4 Slams in 1973 and dominated the tour that year after having her first child!

To suggest Margaret was the ASV of her era is just a little outrageous. So what are you insinuating about her her magnificent rivals (who she had comfortable winning H2H records over) like Billie-Jean King, Maria Bueno, Darlene Hard, Lesley Turner, Virginia Wade, Nancy Richey, Anne Jones and so on? These are some of the great players of her generation. The 60's and early 70's were some of the richest times in womens tennis in terms of star quality. To be so dismissive of such talent only smacks of ignorance.

There are many wonderful links in the Blast From the Past where many truths and facts are posted about Margaret Court. Sure, she may be despised by many for her stance on particular issues, and unfairly denigrated by some of her peers, but her incredible tennis record stands as a testimount to her astonishing ability. A true Legend of the game.

Volcana
Jul 11th, 2005, 06:50 AM
tennisvideos - Thanx. Couldn't have said it better myself.