PDA

View Full Version : Which is the most impressive "The Grand Slam of Tennis"?


Sam L
Jul 9th, 2005, 04:09 PM
"The Grand Slam of Tennis" is to hold all four majors at the same time.

Five women have done that in singles tennis in six different streaks of wins.

Please vote for which one you think is the most impressive and justify your answer.

Brooks.
Jul 9th, 2005, 04:17 PM
to me Serena's is the most impressive..........to not only win four slams in a row but to do it each time in the final over your sister :tape: .........well that takes a lot of mental strengh imo........she faced match pts. in the ao semi...with all the pressure on her to win four in a row (which hadn't been done since steffi) she was able to come through it...she was utterly brilliant for those 4 slams! :hearts: :hearts:

VeeReeDavJCap81
Jul 9th, 2005, 04:21 PM
Serena Slam, because she did it with the highest competition.

Calimero377
Jul 9th, 2005, 04:28 PM
"The Grand Slam of Tennis" is to hold all four majors at the same time.

Five women have done that in singles tennis in six different streaks of wins.

Please vote for which one you think is the most impressive and justify your answer.


To compare a non-calendar grand slams with a real grand slam is retarded to the max!
A real Grand Slam only can be started with the first slam of the year, meaning only ONCE every year. Only in ONE of FOUR cases four consecutive slam wins mean a real Grand Slam.

Everybody in his right mind would take Graf's GOLDEN Grand Slam of course. She won the 4 slams PLUS the gold medal at the Olympics. Only once in every four years is it possible to do this! :worship:
And that the Olympics feature tennis only since 1988 is no valid argument as all the other contenders in your poll won their consecutive slams in years without Olympics ....

So Graf.
Of course.
As always.

Calimero377
Jul 9th, 2005, 04:29 PM
Serena Slam, because she did it with the highest competition.

:rolls:

Good one!

Sam L
Jul 9th, 2005, 04:30 PM
To compare a non-calendar grand slams with a real grand slam is retarded to the max!
A real Grand Slam only can be started with the first slam of the year, meaning only ONCE every year. Only in ONE of FOUR cases four consecutive slam wins mean a real Grand Slam.

Everybody in his right mind would take Graf's GOLDEN Grand Slam of course. She won the 4 slams PLUS the gold medal at the Olympics. Only once in every four years is it possible to do this! :worship:
And that the Olympics feature tennis only since 1988 is no valid argument as all the other contenders in your poll won their consecutive slams in years without Olympics ....

So Graf.
Of course.
As always.
Do you even know how the idea of "The Grand Slam" was initiated? :cuckoo:

VeeReeDavJCap81
Jul 9th, 2005, 04:32 PM
:rolls:

Good one!

One day you'll get over yourself......

How old are you again? If you're a day over 15, kill yourself now.

KV
Jul 9th, 2005, 04:32 PM
The ones who won 6 GS in a row.

faboozadoo15
Jul 9th, 2005, 04:36 PM
anyone who votes for

Steffi Graf (1993 French Open to 1994 Australian Open) - 4 grand slams in a row

is oficially a :retard: and should be immediately banned.

SJW
Jul 9th, 2005, 04:38 PM
Serena. cuz im biased and i dont care.

VeeReeDavJCap81
Jul 9th, 2005, 04:42 PM
Serena. cuz im biased and i dont care.
:worship:

Helen Lawson
Jul 9th, 2005, 04:43 PM
I voted for the one that was most likely to piss people off.

ys
Jul 9th, 2005, 04:53 PM
Dunno about Connelly and Court, as AO was an utter junk back then and tennis was not played by so many people. Not Steffi's two either, as one of them was after two most dominant players ever have just passed their prime and there was not much of a competition, and another of them was just after stubbing, so not much of competition either. A tossup between Navratilova who had to face qutie a decent field, and Serena who had to deal with a decent field too,

Maria Croft
Jul 9th, 2005, 04:59 PM
Steffi Graf and Serena Williams

Calimero377
Jul 9th, 2005, 05:01 PM
:worship:


SJW is at least honest.
"Biased" and "not caring".
That can explain voting for the "Serena slam" of course.

VeeReeDavJCap81
Jul 9th, 2005, 05:03 PM
SJW is at least honest.
"Biased" and "not caring".
That can explain voting for the "Serena slam" of course.

And you're not biased? Please take your Bonk's adventure size head out of your ass.

Calimero377
Jul 9th, 2005, 05:07 PM
Dunno about Connelly and Court, as AO was an utter junk back then and tennis was not played by so many people. Not Steffi's two either, as one of them was after two most dominant players ever have just passed their prime and there was not much of a competition, and another of them was just after stubbing, so not much of competition either. A tossup between Navratilova who had to face qutie a decent field, and Serena who had to deal with a decent field too,


Who was the "decent field" in 83/84?
Evert and?
4 of those 6 slam win were on grass courts. Wow ...


And - oops, in 1988 Navi suddenly was "past her prime" although she had won 15 slams in 1982-87, won another one in 1990, made the Wimbledon final in 1994. Although Navi had a 68-3 win/loss streak still in 89/90 with her only 3 losses coming against - Steffi Graf.

KoOlMaNsEaN
Jul 9th, 2005, 05:20 PM
i think graf was the best one esp. with the golden slam

Timariot
Jul 9th, 2005, 05:22 PM
Serena Slam, because she did it with the highest competition.

You must be joking - WTA field was extremely weak at the time, with Hingis and Davenport out with injuries and Belgians/Russians only beginning to emerge.

That said, all of the Open era Grand Slams were won against relatively weak competition - probably one of the pre-requirements for winning one...

mboyle
Jul 9th, 2005, 05:23 PM
Last time I checked, 6 is more than 5, which is more than 4, which is more than 4 played against one person who choked in every single one of those finals.

1. Navratilova (the fact that she dominated as much as she did against one of the best three/four players of all time is astounding. Her competition was just:eek: , and she managed to do it anyway.)

2. Court (she faced BJK, who won 11 grand slams, and Goolagong, who won 7. That's tough competition)

3. Graf (usually, 6 is more than 5, but Connolly really had no outstanding competition, while Graf did. If we include Graf's entire 89 year, that's probably the most dominant period ever.)

4. Connolly

5. Graf 93-94 (she beat four different players.)








6. Serena (The ONLY way one could see this as top five would be bias. There was not higher competition. There was far less competition. Find me someone equivalent to Chris Evert.)

mboyle
Jul 9th, 2005, 05:24 PM
You must be joking - WTA field was extremely weak at the time, with Hingis and Davenport out with injuries and Belgians/Russians only beginning to emerge.

That said, all of the Open era Grand Slams were won against relatively weak competition - probably one of the pre-requirements for winning one...

Navratilova played against Chris Evert and beat her for 12 straight times over two years. That's not weak competition. That's the greatest ever at her prime.

Calimero377
Jul 9th, 2005, 05:30 PM
Last time I checked, 6 is more than 5, which is more than 4, which is more than 4 played against one person who choked in every single one of those finals.

1. Navratilova (the fact that she dominated as much as she did against one of the best three/four players of all time is astounding. Her competition was just:eek: , and she managed to do it anyway.)

...

Navi beat (most prominent opponents only)

Jaeger (Wim 83)
Shriver, Evert (USO 83)
Shriver, Jordan (AO 83)
Mandlikova, Evert (FO 84)
Jordan, Evert (Wim 84)
Turnbull, Evert (USO 84)

Yes, the competition was just :eek: ....


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Brooks.
Jul 9th, 2005, 06:49 PM
Last time I checked, 6 is more than 5, which is more than 4, which is more than 4 played against one person who choked in every single one of those finals.

1. Navratilova (the fact that she dominated as much as she did against one of the best three/four players of all time is astounding. Her competition was just:eek: , and she managed to do it anyway.)

2. Court (she faced BJK, who won 11 grand slams, and Goolagong, who won 7. That's tough competition)

3. Graf (usually, 6 is more than 5, but Connolly really had no outstanding competition, while Graf did. If we include Graf's entire 89 year, that's probably the most dominant period ever.)

4. Connolly

5. Graf 93-94 (she beat four different players.)








6. Serena (The ONLY way one could see this as top five would be bias. There was not higher competition. There was far less competition. Find me someone equivalent to Chris Evert.)

trying to discredit serena's four slams in a row by saying that "she only had to play" venus is pathetic and really stupid.....further more using the analogies of "so and so" won 10 slams therefore that means that it was harder to beat them blah blah bs is just stupid as well........what you dont seem to understand is that SERENA AND VENUS DOMINATED THE FIELD IN 2002.........they were far and away better players than hingis, davenport, capriati, clijsters, henin, and everyone else....the competition was there but venus and serena were in a class all of their own similar to evert and navratilova & graf and seles

Brooks.
Jul 9th, 2005, 06:52 PM
and on top of that.......the fact that you put graf of 93-94 over serena shows how stupid you are really being about this.......honestly your bias when it comes to venus and serena is really ridiculous when you are actually pretty smart when its comes to other things

faboozadoo15
Jul 9th, 2005, 07:20 PM
5. Graf 93-94 (she beat four different players.)



6. Serena (The ONLY way one could see this as top five would be bias. There was not higher competition. There was far less competition. Find me someone equivalent to Chris Evert.)
ummm, playing 4 different opponents other than monica seles (who was stabbed in 1993) is in no way more impressive than playing and beating venus williams 4 times in a row. in this period, the serena slam, she also has wins over capriati, davenport, kim, and henin before the finals.

Shonami Slam
Jul 9th, 2005, 07:24 PM
serena shouldn't be on the list.
there's a reason they call it a "serena slam" and not "serena's grand slam".
it's the special magic of doing it in one season.
she can still do it though, if she puts her heart into it.
the "golden slam" is rubbish IMO, you don't need no olympics to make it more rare and special, the only gold is the player herself.
and i say steffi's the purest of golds.

Sam L
Jul 10th, 2005, 01:27 AM
4 of those 6 slam win were on grass courts. Wow ...


No. 1 Australian Open on grass, 2 Wimbledons on grass. That's it. 2 US Opens were on hardcourts and 1 French Open on clay. So that's 3 grass, 2 hardcourts and 1 clay.

Steffi won her 5 consecutive slams on 3 hardcourts, 1 clay and 1 grass.

mboyle
Jul 10th, 2005, 02:26 AM
Navi beat (most prominent opponents only)

Jaeger (Wim 83)
Shriver, Evert (USO 83)
Shriver, Jordan (AO 83)
Mandlikova, Evert (FO 84)
Jordan, Evert (Wim 84)
Turnbull, Evert (USO 84)

Yes, the competition was just :eek: ....


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Yup, it was pretty tough. Graf's competition was pretty much the same, maybe a hair easier (cuz Evert in 83/84 was better than Nav in 88/89,) but Nav won 6 in a row.

mboyle
Jul 10th, 2005, 02:27 AM
and on top of that.......the fact that you put graf of 93-94 over serena shows how stupid you are really being about this.......honestly your bias when it comes to venus and serena is really ridiculous when you are actually pretty smart when its comes to other things

you are right, actually. Serena's four were tougher than Graf's 93/94 run, when I really look at it. However, these people that are putting it above the other four slam runs were upsetting me, so I was not thinking properly:angel: .

Sam L
Jul 10th, 2005, 02:29 AM
Navi beat (most prominent opponents only)

Jaeger (Wim 83)
Shriver, Evert (USO 83)
Shriver, Jordan (AO 83)
Mandlikova, Evert (FO 84)
Jordan, Evert (Wim 84)
Turnbull, Evert (USO 84)

Yes, the competition was just :eek: ....


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
So who Graf have as competition again?

Evert is like one of the greatest, if not the greatest, claycourt tennis player ever. Not even Graf can compete with her there. And Martina beat her in the French Open final like 6-3 6-1.

Calimero377
Jul 10th, 2005, 03:22 AM
Yup, it was pretty tough. Graf's competition was pretty much the same, maybe a hair easier (cuz Evert in 83/84 was better than Nav in 88/89,) but Nav won 6 in a row.


Yeah, Shriver, Jordan and Turnbull were real giants of modern tennis.

And never mind that Evert had a worse win/loss record in 83/84 than Navi in 88/89.
And that her 83/84 winning percentage was worse than in 86. 1986 being exactly the year when a 16-year-old Graf beat Evert like a drum in Hilton Head (clay) starting her winning streak against Chris (never lost again to her).

Mboyle's gut feeling beats it all ...
:lol: :lol: :lol:

mboyle
Jul 10th, 2005, 03:24 AM
Yeah, Shriver, Jordan and Turnbull were real giants of modern tennis.

And never mind that Evert had a worse win/loss record in 83/84 than Navi in 88/89.
And that her 83/84 winning percentage was worse than in 86. 1986 being exactly the year when a 16-year-old Graf beat Evert like a drum in Hilton Head (clay) starting her winning streak against Chris (never lost again to her).

Mboyle's gut feeling beats it all ...
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Yeah but Evert played about 10 tournaments a year. Martina played about 16. They both lost to the same number of players, more or less.

Calimero377
Jul 10th, 2005, 03:29 AM
So who Graf have as competition again?

Evert is like one of the greatest, if not the greatest, claycourt tennis player ever. Not even Graf can compete with her there. And Martina beat her in the French Open final like 6-3 6-1.


Graf had Mandlikova, Shriver, Evert as well.
Instead of Turnbull and Jordan she had Sukova and Kohde-Kilsch.

Plus Sabatini and Navratilova.


BTW, I have the video of Graf when - as a 16-year-old - she completely outplayed Chris Evert on clay (Hilton Head 1986). Evert went on to win the FO that year (Graf was ill) but Graf never lost to Evert again.
Peak clay Evert would have been blown off the court by peak clay (FO 88) Graf, buddy. Blown off the court ...

Calimero377
Jul 10th, 2005, 03:38 AM
Yeah but Evert played about 10 tournaments a year. Martina played about 16. They both lost to the same number of players, more or less.


Your lies won't help you.

In 1983 Evert played 15 tournaments, winning 6 (with a 57-8 win/loss record).
In 1984 Evert played 14 tournaments, winning 6 (with a 69-8 win/loss record).
Navi played 16 tournaments in 1988, winning 9 (with a 70-7 record).
And she played 17 tournaments in 1989, winning 8 (with a 73-7 record).

To suggest that Evert of 83/84 was better than Navi of 88/89 is pure BS.

Considering that Navi's main opponents at her 6 slams in 83/84 were Evert, Jordan, Shriver, Mandlikova and Graf's at her 5 slams in 88/89 were Navi, Evert, Sabatini, Mandlikova, Shriver, Sukova we conclude that typical mboyle drivel has been debunked thoroughly again.

Sam L
Jul 10th, 2005, 03:45 AM
Graf had Mandlikova, Shriver, Evert as well.
Instead of Turnbull and Jordan she had Sukova and Kohde-Kilsch.

Plus Sabatini and Navratilova.


BTW, I have the video of Graf when - as a 16-year-old - she completely outplayed Chris Evert on clay (Hilton Head 1986). Evert went on to win the FO that year (Graf was ill) but Graf never lost to Evert again.
Peak clay Evert would have been blown off the court by peak clay (FO 88) Graf, buddy. Blown off the court ...

Right so let me try and understand this.

You were laughing at the fact that Nav had Mandlikova as competition but she's like a huge threat to Graf a couple of years later? :confused:

Shriver? What did she do in singles aside from 1978 US Open final? Really?

Weren't you just arguing about what a bad year Evert had in 1984? :confused: And now she's worthy opponent of Graf's???

Sabatini? Oh, the one slam wonder as you would put it with some players?

And Nav? It's convenient how you pull her name out now. But shouldn't she be "over-the-hill" like Venus according to your book? After Steffi's domination, she only won one slam and that was a farewell last slam, right?

So to sum it up. Steffi had competition in:

Mandlikova, whose 4 slam wins came before Steffi's domination.

Evert, who had such a bad year in 1984 and really could've only gotten worse thereafter.

Shriver, who's like a once GS finalist. :confused:

Sabatini, a one slam wonder.

Navratilova, an over-the-hill hag who was only really sticking around for her final farewell slam.

Tough competition there.

Sam L
Jul 10th, 2005, 03:50 AM
To suggest that Evert of 83/84 was better than Navi of 88/89 is pure BS.


Actually to suggest otherwise is pure insanity.

Evert won 83 French Open and 84 Australian Open.

What did Navratilova win in 88/89???? :confused:

You know, her main priority was winning a 9th Wimbledon right? That's why she was sticking around.

Evert OTOH, actually wanted to stop Navratilova from winning all the slams and she actually wanted to win other slams too.

Face it, Graf's domination had less rivals than Navratilova and Serena.

Whoever, said that those two had it the toughest is correct.

Really, the most impressive should be either Navratilova or Serena.

Calimero377
Jul 10th, 2005, 05:05 AM
Actually to suggest otherwise is pure insanity.

Evert won 83 French Open and 84 Australian Open.

What did Navratilova win in 88/89???? :confused:

....


OK, Myskina of 04 was better than Navi of 88/89 ....

:rolleyes:

Calimero377
Jul 10th, 2005, 05:09 AM
Right so let me try and understand this.

You were laughing at the fact that Nav had Mandlikova as competition but she's like a huge threat to Graf a couple of years later? :confused:

Shriver? What did she do in singles aside from 1978 US Open final? Really?

Weren't you just arguing about what a bad year Evert had in 1984? :confused: And now she's worthy opponent of Graf's???

Sabatini? Oh, the one slam wonder as you would put it with some players?

And Nav? It's convenient how you pull her name out now. But shouldn't she be "over-the-hill" like Venus according to your book? After Steffi's domination, she only won one slam and that was a farewell last slam, right?

So to sum it up. Steffi had competition in:

Mandlikova, whose 4 slam wins came before Steffi's domination.

Evert, who had such a bad year in 1984 and really could've only gotten worse thereafter.

Shriver, who's like a once GS finalist. :confused:

Sabatini, a one slam wonder.

Navratilova, an over-the-hill hag who was only really sticking around for her final farewell slam.

Tough competition there.


A certain Dumbo suggested that Navi had tougher competition in 83/84 than Graf in 88/89.
I dismissed that nonsense with

"Graf had Mandlikova, Shriver, Evert as well.
Instead of Turnbull and Jordan she had Sukova and Kohde-Kilsch.
Plus Sabatini and Navratilova."

Did you have lobotomy or why don't you understand that?

Sam L
Jul 10th, 2005, 05:09 AM
OK, Myskina of 04 was better than Navi of 88/89 ....

:rolleyes:
At least she would've wanted to WIN the French Open 1988/89 and fought for it, instead of using it as practice for Wimbledon?

Calimero377
Jul 10th, 2005, 05:14 AM
At least she would've wanted to WIN the French Open 1988/89 and fought for it, instead of using it as practice for Wimbledon?


Navi didn't play FO 89 ....

:wavey:


Face it - modern tennis was invented by Graf at the end of the 80ies. Graf of 88 would have blown Evert off every clay court in the world.

Now let me get some sleep although I have a severe cold that kept me awake almost the whole night.

(Signing off)

Richie77
Jul 10th, 2005, 06:19 PM
I have to go with Martina's. Since she won most of those majors in the face of another all-time great in Chris Evert. Serena's Slam is second, because she won her Slams while facing another all-timer in Venus. But 6 is greater than 4, so...

In both women's favor is the fact that they were both incredibly dominating at the time. If I recall correctly, both only lost two matches during their Slam :eek:

Calimero377
Jul 10th, 2005, 06:25 PM
I have to go with Martina's. Since she won most of those majors in the face of another all-time great in Chris Evert. Serena's Slam is second, because she won her Slams while facing another all-timer in Venus. But 6 is greater than 4, so...



Graf faced Evert and Navi in her 88 slam wins. TWO all-time greats.

And Venus "another all-timer"? :tape: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Let me guess: You're from the U.S., aren't you? Thought so .... :lol:

Kart
Jul 10th, 2005, 06:26 PM
Navratilova I guess. Six is the most and Evert was pretty stiff competition. I don't know that much about Conolly or Court.

To be honest, winning any number of slams in a row is pretty special so it's a bit academic to me.

Timariot
Jul 10th, 2005, 06:43 PM
and on top of that.......the fact that you put graf of 93-94 over serena shows how stupid you are really being about this.......honestly your bias when it comes to venus and serena is really ridiculous when you are actually pretty smart when its comes to other things

Really, I don't see how Graf's opposition in 93-94 (ASV, Capriati, Novotna, Martinez, Sabatini etc) was somehow weaker than what Serena faced. Ditto for Navratilova in the '80s. I'm sure that people back then thought that likes of Shriver, Jaeger and Novotna were real threats and beating them was a big deal, much like today someone like Mauresmo is consider elite threat.

It is generally accepted that WTA has never been deeper than it was during Seles/Graf era (1989-1993), with possible exception of today. Although Seles' stabbing left a gaping hole, essentially same players were still around when Graf won her non-CY Slam in 93-94.

manu32
Jul 10th, 2005, 06:55 PM
steffi of course.....

Brooks.
Jul 10th, 2005, 08:17 PM
Really, I don't see how Graf's opposition in 93-94 (ASV, Capriati, Novotna, Martinez, Sabatini etc) was somehow weaker than what Serena faced. Ditto for Navratilova in the '80s. I'm sure that people back then thought that likes of Shriver, Jaeger and Novotna were real threats and beating them was a big deal, much like today someone like Mauresmo is consider elite threat.

It is generally accepted that WTA has never been deeper than it was during Seles/Graf era (1989-1993), with possible exception of today. Although Seles' stabbing left a gaping hole, essentially same players were still around when Graf won her non-CY Slam in 93-94.

Serena played and dominated every top player on the tour from french 02' to AO 03'...........Graf would not have won 4 slams in a row from 93-94 had Seles not been stabbed and anyone who thinks that she would have is seriously delusional :tape:

Timariot
Jul 10th, 2005, 08:29 PM
Serena played and dominated every top player on the tour from french 02' to AO 03'...........Graf would not have won 4 slams in a row from 93-94 had Seles not been stabbed and anyone who thinks that she would have is seriously delusional :tape:

And if Hingis and Davenport were not injured yada yada...what was the point again?

Oizo
Jul 10th, 2005, 08:30 PM
Steffi's 1988 Golden Slam is a masterpiece and will probably never be repeated again in the history of tennis. At least not so soon. She gets my vote all the way.

And Sam, a Grand Slam is indeed like Calimero said it.

mboyle
Jul 10th, 2005, 08:36 PM
Why does everyone make a big deal about the fact that Steffi just so happened to win the Olympics in her grand slam year? That's not fair. Other players might not have had the opportunity to compete in the olympics during their grand slam year (are you saying Nav would not have won the olympics if they had been held in 84?:lol: )

Oizo
Jul 10th, 2005, 08:39 PM
Why does everyone make a big deal about the fact that Steffi just so happened to win the Olympics in her grand slam year? That's not fair. Other players might not have had the opportunity to compete in the olympics during their grand slam year (are you saying Nav would not have won the olympics if they had been held in 84?:lol: )

The Olympics are jinxed. Not everyone has the power to win them :devil:

Brooks.
Jul 10th, 2005, 08:42 PM
And if Hingis and Davenport were not injured yada yada...what was the point again?

how can you compare hingis & davenport to seles :rolleyes: ........now if venus had been out for those 4 slams in a row that serena won then there would be some question as to the validity of the "Serena Slam" but alas she was there and even so...serena has winning records against both hingis and davenport.....i hardly think they could have stopped her at any of the slams that year(hingis could have certainly challenged her at the 02' french had she been healthy)

Knizzle
Jul 10th, 2005, 08:44 PM
And if Hingis and Davenport were not injured yada yada...what was the point again?

What exactly would Hingis and Davenport do to Serena Williams?? LD couldn't beat Serena even before Serena hit her 4 in a row GS form. Serena had won their last 3 matches 2 of them surrendering 4 and 5 games. I hate when people make comparisons when they are not even close to being the same situation.

Timariot
Jul 10th, 2005, 08:49 PM
how can you compare hingis & davenport to seles :rolleyes: ........now if venus had been out for those 4 slams in a row that serena won then there would be some question as to the validity of the "Serena Slam" but alas she was there and even so...serena has winning records against both hingis and davenport.....

...much like Graf had winning record against Seles, even during their peaks.

Which doesn't change the point - fact is that field which Graf faced in 1993-94 was at least as strong which Serena faced 2002-2003. Sure, Graf got a lucky break in that her main rival went out but Serena was just as lucky with her timing herself.

Knizzle
Jul 10th, 2005, 08:58 PM
...much like Graf had winning record against Seles, even during their peaks.

Which doesn't change the point - fact is that field which Graf faced in 1993-94 was at least as strong which Serena faced 2002-2003. Sure, Graf got a lucky break in that her main rival went out but Serena was just as lucky with her timing herself.

Again how was Serena lucky. Look Seles had won 7 of 8 slams that she played in Graf during that time won the other 2 slams. Then after the stabbing Graf goes on a slam winning streak. I don't think it's a coincidence. Hingis and Lindsay weren't winning the slams previous to Serena's dominance.

Calimero377
Jul 10th, 2005, 09:03 PM
Again how was Serena lucky. Look Seles had won 7 of 8 slams that she played in Graf during that time won the other 2 slams. Then after the stabbing Graf goes on a slam winning streak. I don't think it's a coincidence. Hingis and Lindsay weren't winning the slams previous to Serena's dominance.


Of course no coincidence.
Main reason is that Graf made only 44 % of slam finals from summer 1990 until end of 1992 but 85 % of slam finals in 1993-96. Considering that Graf won almost 80 % of her career final matches it is no surprise that Graf racked up many, many slams in 93-96. And we must not forget that Graf won 5 of 7 matches against Seles when Seles was #1! :bounce:

Brooks.
Jul 10th, 2005, 09:04 PM
...much like Graf had winning record against Seles, even during their peaks.

Which doesn't change the point - fact is that field which Graf faced in 1993-94 was at least as strong which Serena faced 2002-2003. Sure, Graf got a lucky break in that her main rival went out but Serena was just as lucky with her timing herself.

ok let me try to break this down for you k.......the early 90's was all graf & seles...they won 90% of the big titles yada yada..........just like 2000 wimbledon-2003wimbledon was all the william sisters and jennifer capriati.....then of course for each of these periods you have the other top players who are threats but nothing more.......in the early 90's you had navratilova, asv, garrison, sabatini...those types........from 2000-2003 you had justine henin-hardenne, davenport, hingis, seles types.....so basically in the case of the graf slam of 93-94 HER MAIN RIVAL was gone for all 4 of those slams.....which is not the case with serena in 02'...sure hingis or davenport missed a slam or two in that time period but honestly it wasnt going to make a difference whether they were there or not......why is this so difficult for you to understand :confused:

Calimero377
Jul 10th, 2005, 09:05 PM
Again how was Serena lucky. Look Seles had won 7 of 8 slams that she played in Graf during that time won the other 2 slams. Then after the stabbing Graf goes on a slam winning streak. I don't think it's a coincidence. Hingis and Lindsay weren't winning the slams previous to Serena's dominance.


Speaking of coincidences:
I don't think it was coincidence that Seles went on a tear exactly when Graf's blackmail scandal started in May 1990.

Calimero377
Jul 10th, 2005, 09:10 PM
ok let me try to break this down for you k.......the early 90's was all graf & seles...they won 90% of the big titles yada yada..........just like 2000 wimbledon-2003wimbledon was all the william sisters and jennifer capriati.....then of course for each of these periods you have the other top players who are threats but nothing more.......in the early 90's you had navratilova, asv, garrison, sabatini...those types........from 2000-2003 you had justine henin-hardenne, davenport, hingis, seles types...


Enna was still maturing in 2000-03, Hingis washed-up post-FO99, Davenport caught tons of injuries post-AO00, Seles was a joke in that time (no comparison to 90-93 and 95/96. That a player like JenCap could steal 3 slam wins in 01/02 speaks libraries ....
Face it, the Willy sisters had pathetic competition in 00/03!

Timariot
Jul 10th, 2005, 09:10 PM
Again how was Serena lucky. Look Seles had won 7 of 8 slams that she played in Graf during that time won the other 2 slams. Then after the stabbing Graf goes on a slam winning streak. I don't think it's a coincidence.

Nobody sane is saying it's a coincidence. It's not relevant at all in this point: even without Seles, Graf faced stronger field than Serena, who got several lucky breaks herself with Hingis, Davenport and Capriati injured, Henin sick, Venus slumping etc.

Surely Sabatini, Novotna and ASV are more impressive lineup of opponents than Mauresmo, Capriati or Clijsters.

Knizzle
Jul 10th, 2005, 09:11 PM
Of course no coincidence.
Main reason is that Graf made only 44 % of slam finals from summer 1990 until end of 1992 but 85 % of slam finals in 1993-96. Considering that Graf won almost 80 % of her career final matches it is no surprise that Graf racked up many, many slams in 93-96. And we must not forget that Graf won 5 of 7 matches against Seles when Seles was #1! :bounce:

Seles also beat her in 3 of their 4 GS finals meetings, something Hingis or Lindsay have never done to Serena.

G1Player2
Jul 10th, 2005, 09:14 PM
Enna was still maturing in 2000-03, Hingis washed-up post-FO99, Davenport caught tons of injuries post-AO00, Seles was a joke in that time (no comparison to 90-93 and 95/96. That a player like JenCap could steal 3 slam wins in 01/02 speaks libraries ....
Face it, the Willy sisters had pathetic competition in 00/03!

I bet the likes of an injured Davenport, a maturing JHH and Kim, a washed-up Hingis, resurgent PEAK Capriati would have been shaking in their boots against tennis legends like under-acheiver Sabatini, choking Novotna, and the likes of Conchita Martinez and ASV...:lol: :lol: :lol:

Knizzle
Jul 10th, 2005, 09:15 PM
Nobody sane is saying it's a coincidence. It's not relevant at all in this point: even without Seles, Graf faced stronger field than Serena, who got several lucky breaks herself with Hingis, Davenport and Capriati injured, Henin sick, Venus slumping etc.

Surely Sabatini, Novotna and ASV are more impressive lineup of opponents than Mauresmo, Capriati or Clijsters.

Venus wasn't slumping and Henin wasn't sick. Where are you getting this from?? Capriati was only out of shape at the AO 03 because of her eye problems and even then Serena had beaten her the last SIX times they played. Again she had no problems beating Hingis and Davenport before they were injured.

Calimero377
Jul 10th, 2005, 09:15 PM
Seles also beat her in 3 of their 4 GS finals meetings, something Hingis or Lindsay have never done to Serena.



Well, Graf made 31 slam finals and Serena only 9. Obviously there were far more opportunities to beat Graf in a slam final.
It not Hingis/Davenport's/Graf's fault that Serena missed the finals at USO 98, AO 99, FO 99, Wim 99 ......

Knizzle
Jul 10th, 2005, 09:16 PM
Speaking of coincidences:
I don't think it was coincidence that Seles went on a tear exactly when Graf's blackmail scandal started in May 1990.Seles won one slam that year.

Timariot
Jul 10th, 2005, 09:17 PM
ok let me try to break this down for you k.......the early 90's was all graf & seles...they won 90% of the big titles yada yada..........just like 2000 wimbledon-2003wimbledon was all the william sisters and jennifer capriati.....then of course for each of these periods you have the other top players who are threats but nothing more.......in the early 90's you had navratilova, asv, garrison, sabatini...those types........from 2000-2003 you had justine henin-hardenne, davenport, hingis, seles types.....so basically in the case of the graf slam of 93-94 HER MAIN RIVAL was gone for all 4 of those slams.....which is not the case with serena in 02'...

It's exactly the same case. Sure, individually Hingis and Graf may look lesser threats to Serena than Seles was to Graf, but when you add all up together, you are going to see that Serena was playing against diluted field. Calimero may be an idiot but he has a point - no way Capriati would have won three Slams during that time period if that wasn't a case. Funny how when Belgians, Williamses and Russians stepped up, Capriati stopped appearing in Slam finals...

Brooks.
Jul 10th, 2005, 09:18 PM
Nobody sane is saying it's a coincidence. It's not relevant at all in this point: even without Seles, Graf faced stronger field than Serena, who got several lucky breaks herself with Hingis, Davenport and Capriati injured, Henin sick, Venus slumping etc.

Surely Sabatini, Novotna and ASV are more impressive lineup of opponents than Mauresmo, Capriati or Clijsters.

oh so now its a stronger field....... :lol: :lol: :tape: .....this honestly isnt even worth dicussing if you are gonna try and tell me that graf faced a strong field in 93-94 :o

Calimero377
Jul 10th, 2005, 09:18 PM
I bet the likes of an injured Davenport, a maturing JHH and Kim, a washed-up Hingis, resurgent PEAK Capriati would have been shaking in their boots against tennis legends like under-acheiver Sabatini, choking Novotna, and the likes of Conchita Martinez and ASV...:lol: :lol: :lol:


Funny that JenCap and the Willy sisters won their first slams only after Graf, Novotna, Sabatini had retired and ASV/Martinez were old ....

Knizzle
Jul 10th, 2005, 09:20 PM
Well, Graf made 31 slam finals and Serena only 9. Obviously there were far more opportunities to beat Graf in a slam final.
It not Hingis/Davenport's/Graf's fault that Serena missed the finals at USO 98, AO 99, FO 99, Wim 99 ......

They only faced off in 4 finals Cali, so the fact that Graf made 31 finals is of no relevance. So let me get this straight, you're saying that Hingis and Davenport were of the same competitive level to Serena as Seles was to Graf during 90-93 before the stabbing??

Knizzle
Jul 10th, 2005, 09:21 PM
Funny that JenCap and the Willy sisters won their first slams only after Graf, Novotna, Sabatini had retired and ASV/Martinez were old ....

Hingis and Davenport didn't and we know the sisters got to a higher level of play than either of them did.

Brooks.
Jul 10th, 2005, 09:21 PM
It's exactly the same case. Sure, individually Hingis and Graf may look lesser threats to Serena than Seles was to Graf, but when you add all up together, you are going to see that Serena was playing against diluted field. Calimero may be an idiot but he has a point - no way Capriati would have won three Slams during that time period if that wasn't a case. Funny how when Belgians, Williamses and Russians stepped up, Capriati stopped appearing in Slam finals...

its not even close to be the same case and that fact that you are using calimero to back up your argument just shows how weak it actually is ;)

Calimero377
Jul 10th, 2005, 09:21 PM
It's exactly the same case. Sure, individually Hingis and Graf may look lesser threats to Serena than Seles was to Graf, but when you add all up together, you are going to see that Serena was playing against diluted field. Calimero may be an idiot but ...


And I just good-repped you ...
:mad:

raquel
Jul 10th, 2005, 09:22 PM
I bet the likes of an injured Davenport, a maturing JHH and Kim, a washed-up Hingis, resurgent PEAK Capriati would have been shaking in their boots against tennis legends like under-acheiver Sabatini, choking Novotna, and the likes of Conchita Martinez and ASV...:lol: :lol: :lol:
OK I like Gaby, Jana and Conchita but can we get ASV out of that category with them? ASV won 4 Slams and was world number 1 in singles and doubles and was finalist (at least) twice at all Grand Slams. ASV reached 12 Slam finals compared to Jana's 4, Conchita's 3 and Gaby's 3. ASV beat Graf twice and Seles and Pierce in her GS final wins. Jana beat Tauziat in her GS final win. Conchita beat 38 year old Navratilova in hers. Gaby did at least beat Graf in hers but all of that puts ASV in a category above the other 3 IMO.

G1Player2
Jul 10th, 2005, 09:22 PM
Funny that JenCap and the Willy sisters won their first slams only after Graf, Novotna, Sabatini had retired and ASV/Martinez were old ....

The Willy sisters were in their early teens and had not matured when Graf, Sabatini and Novotna retired...

Also, Jenn was smoking pot, getting arrested, and to busy rebelling to win slams...

Calimero377
Jul 10th, 2005, 09:24 PM
They only faced off in 4 finals Cali, so the fact that Graf made 31 finals is of no relevance. So let me get this straight, you're saying that Hingis and Davenport were of the same competitive level to Serena as Seles was to Graf during 90-93 before the stabbing??


Seles, ASV, Sabby, Navi, Novi, Cappy of 90-93 were far better competition for Graf than the depleted field of 00-03 was for Williamses.
That's a no-brainer.

Timariot
Jul 10th, 2005, 09:25 PM
Venus wasn't slumping and Henin wasn't sick. Where are you getting this from??


Henin was sick at FO 2002. Granted, Venus didn't really begin slumping until 2003 but she was obviously unmotivated playing Serena.


Capriati was only out of shape at the AO 03 because of her eye problems and even then Serena had beaten her the last SIX times they played. Again she had no problems beating Hingis and Davenport before they were injured.

You mean, like Sydney 2001 and AO 2001? Hingis was the queen of Rebound Ace. It was also Capriati's best surface. Really, you are stretching here claiming that player who has made SIX straight finals in a Slam is somehow immaterial.

I think it's also quite telling that neither of the Williamses have never made SEMIS in Roland Garros outside of, that's right, 2002. What a coincidence...

Calimero377
Jul 10th, 2005, 09:26 PM
Hingis and Davenport didn't and we know the sisters got to a higher level of play than either of them did.


We all remember fondly the high-quality Williams-Williams slam finals ....

:lol:

Knizzle
Jul 10th, 2005, 09:27 PM
Seles, ASV, Sabby, Navi, Novi, Cappy of 90-93 were far better competition for Graf than the depleted field of 00-03 was for Williamses.
That's a no-brainer.

Says you.

G1Player2
Jul 10th, 2005, 09:28 PM
Seles, ASV, Sabby, Navi, Novi, Cappy of 90-93 were far better competition for Graf than the depleted field of 00-03 was for Williamses.
That's a no-brainer.

Players like Jana "choker" Novotna...Who didn't even win her ONLY slam until she was over-the-hill..Sabby:lol: ...biggets underacheiver EVER...Navi :lol: ...LOL, anyone who thinks their is better competition in an era where a player who is closer to 40 than 30, is still winning majors and being at the top o the women's game is :eek: ...:lol: :lol: :lol:

Knizzle
Jul 10th, 2005, 09:28 PM
We all remember fondly the high-quality Williams-Williams slam finals ....

:lol:

Yeah, but the funny thing is that both of them got to the finals in 5 out of 6 slams. Why?? Because they took their games to another level not attainable by the other girls on tour. Only injury and death of a sister could stop them.

G1Player2
Jul 10th, 2005, 09:30 PM
Henin was sick at FO 2002. Granted, Venus didn't really begin slumping until 2003 but she was obviously unmotivated playing Serena.



You mean, like Sydney 2001 and AO 2001? Hingis was the queen of Rebound Ace. It was also Capriati's best surface. Really, you are stretching here claiming that player who has made SIX straight finals in a Slam is somehow immaterial.

I think it's also quite telling that neither of the Williamses have never made SEMIS in Roland Garros outside of, that's right, 2002. What a coincidence...

Serena followed this up by making the semis in 2003...Shame on you :eek:

Also, Serena was up 4-2, 30-0 against JHH, only six points away from the final before the hand incident came up...

Get your facts straight...

Brooks.
Jul 10th, 2005, 09:30 PM
Henin was sick at FO 2002. Granted, Venus didn't really begin slumping until 2003 but she was obviously unmotivated playing Serena.



You mean, like Sydney 2001 and AO 2001? Hingis was the queen of Rebound Ace. It was also Capriati's best surface. Really, you are stretching here claiming that player who has made SIX straight finals in a Slam is somehow immaterial.

I think it's also quite telling that neither of the Williamses have never made SEMIS in Roland Garros outside of, that's right, 2002. What a coincidence...

um try 2003 french open ;) ......please have your facts straight :kiss: :rolleyes:

Calimero377
Jul 10th, 2005, 09:30 PM
The Willy sisters were in their early teens and had not matured when Graf, Sabatini and Novotna retired...

Also, Jenn was smoking pot, getting arrested, and to busy rebelling to win slams...


Early teens?
You sure ... ? :rolleyes:

Venus was a 19-year-old model athlete in 1999 and world-#3.
Serena won her first slam in 1999.

JenCap?
Minor off-court distractions don't count according to Selesians ...

Timariot
Jul 10th, 2005, 09:32 PM
Players like Jana "choker" Novotna...Who didn't even win her ONLY slam until she was over-the-hill..Sabby:lol: ...biggets underacheiver EVER...Navi :lol: ...LOL, anyone who thinks their is better competition in an era where a player who is closer to 40 than 30, is still winning majors and being at the top o the women's game is :eek: ...:lol: :lol: :lol:

Navratilova, at age 46, and not having played a singles match for 8 years, was still good enough to beat world #21 of this supposedly so tough modern era...

Sam L
Jul 10th, 2005, 09:33 PM
We all remember fondly the high-quality Williams-Williams slam finals ....

:lol:
6-0 6-0

Calimero377
Jul 10th, 2005, 09:34 PM
Players like Jana "choker" Novotna...Who didn't even win her ONLY slam until she was over-the-hill..Sabby:lol: ...biggets underacheiver EVER...Navi :lol: ...LOL, anyone who thinks their is better competition in an era where a player who is closer to 40 than 30, is still winning majors and being at the top o the women's game is :eek: ...:lol: :lol: :lol:


Navi won 5 matches against Superseles in the 90ies.

Sabby was ousted by Graf in 10 slams; imagine what she would have won without the greatest-ever being a constant stumbling-block for her in the majors ....

Calimero377
Jul 10th, 2005, 09:36 PM
6-0 6-0


???

Knizzle
Jul 10th, 2005, 09:36 PM
Henin was sick at FO 2002. Granted, Venus didn't really begin slumping until 2003 but she was obviously unmotivated playing Serena.

Serena had the mental edge over Venus, it happens with alot of players besides these two. I can't believe you brought up Henin being sick at one tourney as evidence to back up your claim. That's really weak.



You mean, like Sydney 2001 and AO 2001? Hingis was the queen of Rebound Ace. It was also Capriati's best surface. Really, you are stretching here claiming that player who has made SIX straight finals in a Slam is somehow immaterial.

Serena won the last three meetings against Hingis and then took her game to an even HIGHER level after that. It may have been Cappy's best surface, but Serena owned her mentally at that point. No real reason to think Capriati would have beaten her. Besides Capriati was on Venus' side of the draw so had she made the SF Venus would have probably munched her up.

I think it's also quite telling that neither of the Williamses have never made SEMIS in Roland Garros outside of, that's right, 2002. What a coincidence...

Ok and Hingis and Davenport had nothing to do with it. I guess if the field was so weak then they would have made more semis right??

G1Player2
Jul 10th, 2005, 09:36 PM
Navratilova, at age 46, and not having played a singles match for 8 years, was still good enough to beat world #21 of this supposedly so tough modern era...

Panova sucks...This still doesn't come close to a nearly 40 year-old Graf winning majors and reaching slam finals...:eek:

Sam L
Jul 10th, 2005, 09:37 PM
Seles, ASV, Sabby, Navi, Novi, Cappy of 90-93 were far better competition for Graf than the depleted field of 00-03 was for Williamses.
That's a no-brainer.
90-93? LOL! Your words, not ours.

Even if you include the whole of 1990 and the whole of 1993. How many slams did Graf win? 6. How many did Seles win? 8.

So you admit that Seles was better than Graf during that period with no excuses?

Timariot
Jul 10th, 2005, 09:37 PM
um try 2003 french open ;) ......please have your facts straight :kiss: :rolleyes:

Admittably I missed that, but it doesn't change the point. Serena stopped winning everything as soon as credible opponent showed up. Which doesn't mean that she sucks on clay or isn't the best player of the 2000s so far, just that she perhaps is not as invincible as some of her more rabid fans like to think.

Sam L
Jul 10th, 2005, 09:38 PM
???
You insinuated that Williams finals weren't high quality. I don't know what that even has to do with Serena Slam's greatness. But I wanted to remind you of Steffi's little easy win against a certain Natalia Zvereva? You forgot? Oh.

Knizzle
Jul 10th, 2005, 09:39 PM
Admittably I missed that, but it doesn't change the point. Serena stopped winning everything as soon as credible opponent showed up. Which doesn't mean that she sucks on clay or isn't the best player of the 2000s so far, just that she perhaps is not as invincible as some of her more rabid fans like to think.

Her opponents sure thought so. "The gap is too huge" "There is nothing I could do" Please tell me you remember these statements??

BTW who is this "credible" opponent?

G1Player2
Jul 10th, 2005, 09:40 PM
Admittably I missed that, but it doesn't change the point. Serena stopped winning everything as soon as credible opponent showed up. Which doesn't mean that she sucks on clay or isn't the best player of the 2000s so far, just that she perhaps is not as invincible as some of her more rabid fans like to think.

Oh please...Nobody said she was invincible...And who are these "credible opponents." Serena has winning records against ALL of them...(She is tied with Graf.) If you are referring to JHH, you must be forgetting that Serena led 4-2, 30-0 on her serve before the hand incident occured, crowd start booing like gangbusters, and Serena let the match slip away...This was PEAK JHH on her favorite surface...

JHH was drummed in their next matchup on the lawns of WImbledon...

Sam L
Jul 10th, 2005, 09:42 PM
Why don't we look at who Steffi beat in her 5 slam run in 88-89?

88 Oz: Evert (Her last slam final; she was WELL into her 30's. Very over the hill.)
French: Zvereva (Did she reach any other grand slam final? Um, NO!)
Wimbledon and US: Navratilova (Not as over the hill as Evert but still well into her 30's. Would win only 1 more slam.)
89 Oz: Sukova (Like Zvereva except she had reached 2 slam finals before and will reach another again but will never win.)

That's REALLY tough competition.

You better pray that this is Venus's last slam because if she starts winning a lot more from now (which I know she will), that will certain elevate Serena Slam in people's eyes.

Brooks.
Jul 10th, 2005, 09:42 PM
Admittably I missed that, but it doesn't change the point. Serena stopped winning everything as soon as credible opponent showed up. Which doesn't mean that she sucks on clay or isn't the best player of the 2000s so far, just that she perhaps is not as invincible as some of her more rabid fans like to think.

Serena stopped winning everything when she had knee surgery and her sister was murdered......i guess you missed that too ;) ........henin and clijsters were there before serena had her knee surgery and guess what.......serena owned them (justine could only put up a challenge on clay).......oh but thats right........magically at the very moment that serena had knee surgery and venus was out with an ab injury...clijsters and henin hit their peak........ :rolleyes: :lol: :lol:

Knizzle
Jul 10th, 2005, 09:44 PM
Why don't we look at who Steffi beat in her 5 slam run in 88-89?

88 Oz: Evert (Her last slam final; she was WELL into her 30's. Very over the hill.)
French: Zvereva (Did she reach any other grand slam final? Um, NO!)
Wimbledon and US: Navratilova (Not as over the hill as Evert but still well into her 30's. Would win only 1 more slam.)
89 Oz: Sukova (Like Zvereva except she had reached 2 slam finals before and will reach another again but will never win.)

That's REALLY tough competition.

You better pray that this is Venus's last slam because if she starts winning a lot more from now (which I know she will), that will certain elevate Serena Slam in people's eyes.

Give it up for Sam L!! :worship:

Timariot
Jul 10th, 2005, 09:46 PM
Serena had the mental edge over Venus, it happens with alot of players besides these two. I can't believe you brought up Henin being sick at one tourney as evidence to back up your claim. That's really weak.


Yes, if it was the only thing going - but it isn't.


Serena won the last three meetings against Hingis and then took her game to an even HIGHER level after that. It may have been Cappy's best surface, but Serena owned her mentally at that point.


But their matches were almost always close and it was obvious that it wouldn't take much to turn the tables around - which indeed happened in 2004.


Ok and Hingis and Davenport had nothing to do with it. I guess if the field was so weak then they would have made more semis right??

I don't really get what you're trying to say here.

Timariot
Jul 10th, 2005, 09:48 PM
Her opponents sure thought so. "The gap is too huge" "There is nothing I could do" Please tell me you remember these statements??


Aren't these very similar statements what Graf's opponents used to say in 1993-96? Davenport (IIRC) once said 1996 that "You don't want to take a set from her, it will just make her mad" or something to that effect.

Calimero377
Jul 10th, 2005, 09:49 PM
90-93? LOL! Your words, not ours.

Even if you include the whole of 1990 and the whole of 1993. How many slams did Graf win? 6. How many did Seles win? 8.

So you admit that Seles was better than Graf during that period with no excuses?


Navi won more slams than Graf in 1987, ASV won more slams than Graf in 1994, Hingis won more slams than Graf in 1997/98.
Your point being?

Knizzle
Jul 10th, 2005, 09:50 PM
Yes, if it was the only thing going - but it isn't.

What do you mean?



But their matches were almost always close and it was obvious that it wouldn't take much to turn the tables around - which indeed happened in 2004.

After Serena came back from being out 8 months with injury. Alot of people got victories over Serena in 2004 not just Capriati.



I don't really get what you're trying to say here.

That they didn't make alot of SF's after 2002, but Hingis and Davenport had nothing to do with them not making it.

Knizzle
Jul 10th, 2005, 09:51 PM
Aren't these very similar statements what Graf's opponents used to say in 1993-96? Davenport (IIRC) once said 1996 that "You don't want to take a set from her, it will just make her mad" or something to that effect.

You would have never heard Seles say that cause she was winning the slams at that time (90-93)

Calimero377
Jul 10th, 2005, 09:54 PM
You insinuated that Williams finals weren't high quality. I don't know what that even has to do with Serena Slam's greatness. But I wanted to remind you of Steffi's little easy win against a certain Natalia Zvereva? You forgot? Oh.


Easy?
Graf played transcendent tennis that day.
Don't forget that Natasha had eliminated Navratilova in the FO 88 quarters.
Same Navi who had made the FO finals in 84, 85, 86 and 87 ....

Graf simply had those days.
Ask Navi about her Wimby 88 encounter with Graf :worship: , ASV about her destruction at AO 94 and Seles about her Wimbledon 92 experience.
Graf displayed on those four occasions what is possible for a woman tennis player when everything falls into place - The Perfect Match! :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

Timariot
Jul 10th, 2005, 09:54 PM
Serena stopped winning everything when she had knee surgery and her sister was murdered......i guess you missed that too ;)


Did you miss WTA champs final 2002, at LA no less...?


........henin and clijsters were there before serena had her knee surgery and guess what.......serena owned them (justine could only put up a challenge on clay).......oh but thats right........magically at the very moment that serena had knee surgery and venus was out with an ab injury...clijsters and henin hit their peak........ :rolleyes: :lol: :lol:

Yes....so? I'm surely not here arguing that Belgians are superior to Williams^2. But mind you, if you look at their records, it's clear that they improved from 2002 even ignoring that Williamses went to slump.

Timariot
Jul 10th, 2005, 10:00 PM
You would have never heard Seles say that cause she was winning the slams at that time (90-93)

No, you did not but that's not the point, isn't it?

Just for a record, I think it's highly unlikely that Graf would have won 4 Slams in a row had Seles not been stabbed (if nothing else, Monica OWNED Australian Open), I'm just countering the ridiculous notion that Graf was beating nobodies. Mauresmos and Clijsters aren't exactly all-time great tennis Giants either...

It may be hard to accept for some, but history of tennis did not begin at September 1999 and there were bloody good tennis players even before Venus, Serena and Justine...

Brooks.
Jul 10th, 2005, 10:02 PM
No, you did not but that's not the point, isn't it?

Just for a record, I think it's highly unlikely that Graf would have won 4 Slams in a row had Seles not been stabbed (if nothing else, Monica OWNED Australian Open), I'm just countering the ridiculous notion that Graf was beating nobodies. Mauresmos and Clijsters aren't exactly all-time great tennis Giants either...

It may be hard to accept for some, but history of tennis did not begin at September 1999 and there were bloody good tennis players even before Venus, Serena and Justine...

there is also a ridiculous notion started by you that serena faced nobodies in 2002-2003....... Timariot = hypocrite

Timariot
Jul 10th, 2005, 10:06 PM
After Serena came back from being out 8 months with injury. Alot of people got victories over Serena in 2004 not just Capriati.


Indeed; of course, Capriati's results 2004 were hardly great either. She won zero titles last year.


That they didn't make alot of SF's after 2002, but Hingis and Davenport had nothing to do with them not making it.

True, so what? Davenport of course is no clay master herself and has lost to plenty of players on clay.

Knizzle
Jul 10th, 2005, 10:06 PM
No, you did not but that's not the point, isn't it?

Just for a record, I think it's highly unlikely that Graf would have won 4 Slams in a row had Seles not been stabbed (if nothing else, Monica OWNED Australian Open), I'm just countering the ridiculous notion that Graf was beating nobodies. Mauresmos and Clijsters aren't exactly all-time great tennis Giants either...

It may be hard to accept for some, but history of tennis did not begin at September 1999 and there were bloody good tennis players even before Venus, Serena and Justine...

Don't try to make this into someone being so enamored with Serena that they didn't know anything about tennis before her. The whole point that I was arguing is that you made Hingis and Davy's injuries comparable to Seles being out of the game because of the stabbing and Serena and Graf having it easier because their respective "rivals" were out. Hingis and LD weren't beating Serena immediately before their injuries, like I said Serena won the last 3 against Hingis and the last 4 and 9 out of the last ten against Lindsay. LD and Hingis had also won no slams for 2 years prior to Serena dominating them. Seles had won 7 of the 8 she played. Surely you see the differences.

Knizzle
Jul 10th, 2005, 10:08 PM
Indeed; of course, Capriati's results 2004 were hardly great either. She won zero titles last year.

She won 1 in each of 2003 and 2002(AO which is impressive)



True, so what? Davenport of course is no clay master herself and has lost to plenty of players on clay. So stop saying that LD and Hingis would have kept Serena from dominating the way she did.

Timariot
Jul 10th, 2005, 10:15 PM
there is also a ridiculous notion started by you that serena faced nobodies in 2002-2003....... Timariot = hypocrite

Never said that they were 'nobodies', just saying that they were no better (and case can be made they were inferior) to Graf's opposition 1993. Seles was not the only elite player around 90-92.

Timariot
Jul 10th, 2005, 10:22 PM
The whole point that I was arguing is that you made Hingis and Davy's injuries comparable to Seles being out of the game because of the stabbing and Serena and Graf having it easier because their respective "rivals" were out. Hingis and LD weren't beating Serena immediately before their injuries, like I said Serena won the last 3 against Hingis and the last 4 and 9 out of the last ten against Lindsay. LD and Hingis had also won no slams for 2 years prior to Serena dominating them. Seles had won 7 of the 8 she played. Surely you see the differences.

Difference is that Seles was fully healthy when she was stabbed: one reason why Hingis and Davenport stopped winning Slams is that they hit an injury streak (Hingis of 2001 was pale shadow of her former self). They were not suddenly taken out like Seles, but the point is the same. Of course, there were other players missing too - like Pierce. Individually, yes, I agree that any of Serena's rivals were lesser opposition that Seles was to Graf, but when you add it all together, effect is the same, though less dramatic.

Timariot
Jul 10th, 2005, 10:33 PM
She won 1 in each of 2003 and 2002(AO which is impressive)


2 titles in 2 years...I remain unimpressed. Sure, she had injuries and stuff but still.


So stop saying that LD and Hingis would have kept Serena from dominating the way she did.

Don't see how that makes it any way untrue. It's not just about RG, you see. FWIW, I think that Serena would have been dominant player anyway, but winning 4 straight Slams against fully healthy Hingis/Davenport et al would have been very tall order, which is a question here. Graf didn't win everything either despite her enormously positive h2h against opponents who weren't Seles.

To add on, it doesn't mean that 'Serena Slam' was not somehow "legit", you play and win against those you meet, and that's it. It's not your fault if some of the opponents don't show up. 30 years from now, nobody remembers who you faced in semis and quarters...

Richie77
Jul 11th, 2005, 07:40 AM
Graf faced Evert and Navi in her 88 slam wins. TWO all-time greats.

And Venus "another all-timer"? :tape: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Let me guess: You're from the U.S., aren't you? Thought so .... :lol:
Because......5 is greater than 6. Steffi won five straight Slams, Martina won six.

As those of us who are from the U.S. would say: Do the math :p

MistyGrey
Jul 11th, 2005, 08:36 AM
Steffi's..
and that Steffi slam of 94 was cool, but the fact that Monica got stabbed takes something away.

MistyGrey
Jul 11th, 2005, 08:39 AM
Cali, u have a tendency to go over the top, other than that (when u r not insulting other players) ur posts are funny and the stats u post r amusing. Why do u have to go over the top? some of ur posts are very acurate.

1jackson2001
Jul 11th, 2005, 10:19 AM
Steffi's 5-in-a-row is the tops for me. (includes calendar year GS)
Then Martina's 6-in-a-row.
Then the other two 6-in-a-rows by Connolly and Court (more grass heavy for slams then!)

Then the Serena Slam.

Then Steffi's 93-94 run.

:cool::wavey:

Andy T
Jul 11th, 2005, 11:05 AM
Martina's 6 in a row - in singles AND doubles!

Geisha
Jul 11th, 2005, 11:42 AM
For all you bitches that are saying that Serena's Slam wasn't impressive as Graf's in 1988, are absolutely nuts!

If you looked at the results and the players they each played, you would see that Serena's competition was a lot tougher than Steffi's.

Serena Slam

At the French Open in 2002, Serena defeated the defending champion and current World's No.1, Jennifer Capriati 3-6, 7-6, 6-2. In the finals, she defeated the No. 2 ranked player, Venus Williams. At Wimbledon, Serena lost an average of six games and defeated the now, three-time Wimbledon champion, Venus Williams and lost eight total games against the No.12 and No.11 ranked players, respectively. At the US Open, Serena knocked off Lindsay, Daniela, and Venus and finished the tournament with an average of four games lost- she did this all in a black, lycra catsuit. Serena then goes into the Australian Open where all of her opponents were ranked above 66. She saved matchpoints over Kim Clijsters, who had won consecutive tournaments and defeated the No.2 ranked player, Venus again.

The Golden Slam

Don't get me wrong- I still think this is very impressive from Steffi. But, at the Australian Open in 1988, Steffi played three players out of the top 99 and still averaged four games lost, each match. At the French Open- she defeated three players out of the top 106 and defeated the 37th ranked Bettina Fulco and the 15th ranked Natasha Zvereva in the QF and F, respectively. But, that is nothing compared to playing Capriati and Venus- no.1 and 2. At Wimbledon, she beat the 36th ranked player in the QF- that's an easy draw into the SF. There is nothing bad to say about the US Open, besides the fact that she didn't even have to play Evert in the SF.

All I'm saying is that the competition Serena got in 2002-2003 was just as tough, if not tougher than during the Golden Slam from Graf.

Sam L
Jul 11th, 2005, 11:53 AM
For all you bitches that are saying that Serena's Slam wasn't impressive as Graf's in 1988, are absolutely nuts!

If you looked at the results and the players they each played, you would see that Serena's competition was a lot tougher than Steffi's.

Serena Slam

At the French Open in 2002, Serena defeated the defending champion and current World's No.1, Jennifer Capriati 3-6, 7-6, 6-2. In the finals, she defeated the No. 2 ranked player, Venus Williams. At Wimbledon, Serena lost an average of six games and defeated the now, three-time Wimbledon champion, Venus Williams and lost eight total games against the No.12 and No.11 ranked players, respectively. At the US Open, Serena knocked off Lindsay, Daniela, and Venus and finished the tournament with an average of four games lost- she did this all in a black, lycra catsuit. Serena then goes into the Australian Open where all of her opponents were ranked above 66. She saved matchpoints over Kim Clijsters, who had won consecutive tournaments and defeated the No.2 ranked player, Venus again.

The Golden Slam

Don't get me wrong- I still think this is very impressive from Steffi. But, at the Australian Open in 1988, Steffi played three players out of the top 99 and still averaged four games lost, each match. At the French Open- she defeated three players out of the top 106 and defeated the 37th ranked Bettina Fulco and the 15th ranked Natasha Zvereva in the QF and F, respectively. But, that is nothing compared to playing Capriati and Venus- no.1 and 2. At Wimbledon, she beat the 36th ranked player in the QF- that's an easy draw into the SF. There is nothing bad to say about the US Open, besides the fact that she didn't even have to play Evert in the SF.

All I'm saying is that the competition Serena got in 2002-2003 was just as tough, if not tougher than during the Golden Slam from Graf.

:worship::worship::worship:

Oizo
Jul 11th, 2005, 12:00 PM
You can't compare diffrent eras. Get over it. And you can't have a Golden Slam again. Moving on.

Sam L
Jul 11th, 2005, 12:05 PM
You can't compare diffrent eras. Get over it. And you can't have a Golden Slam again. Moving on.
Why not? :confused: Someone could win the slams and the Olympic Gold in 2008 or 2012? :confused:

And it's not about comparing. It's about which one impressed you the most.

I think that most people are tricked into thinking that "Golden" Grand Slam is the be all and end all. I mean when did the Olympic Games became the FIFTH slam? :confused:

Geisha
Jul 11th, 2005, 12:05 PM
...and to all of you losers that are saying that as soon as JHH showed up, Serena lost...

1. Serena's worst surface is clay and JHH loves clay- that match was Serena's until the incident, and it still went to 7-5 in the third. Serena then spanked her 6-3, 6-2 the next time they played- only a couple of weeks later.

2. Had Serena's injury not occured, I reckon we might have seen two or three more consecutive Slams.

Steffi's 93-94 Slam came right after Seles was stabbed. I highly doubt Steffi would have 22 or whatever Grand Slams than Seles- not saying that she wouldn't have more than Monica, but definitely 22-9 would not be their retiriing ratio.

and to you people that are saying that Serena wasn't invincible- isn't that even more impressive? The fact that she plays rough-around-the-edges tennis, is arguably less talented than JHH, Clijsters, Capriati, Davenport, Hingis, Seles, Venus, Hantuchova- yet, she still managed to win five of six Grand Slams. That, to me, is more impressive than just being the best and nobody can even challenge you.

Timariot
Jul 11th, 2005, 12:45 PM
...and to all of you losers that are saying that as soon as JHH showed up, Serena lost...


Nobody's saying that - just that Henin was a credible opponent for Serena, which most of the top players around then weren't. Being a 'credible opponent' doesn't mean that you actually win EVERY time - just that you have a fighting chance.


2. Had Serena's injury not occured, I reckon we might have seen two or three more consecutive Slams.


So, it's ok to count in Serena's injuries when others were winning Slams, but not others' injuries when Serena was winning Slams?


Steffi's 93-94 Slam came right after Seles was stabbed. I highly doubt Steffi would have 22 or whatever Grand Slams than Seles- not saying that she wouldn't have more than Monica, but definitely 22-9 would not be their retiriing ratio.


Which is so not the point. Nobody other than Calimero is claiming that...


and to you people that are saying that Serena wasn't invincible- isn't that even more impressive? The fact that she plays rough-around-the-edges tennis, is arguably less talented than JHH, Clijsters, Capriati, Davenport, Hingis, Seles, Venus, Hantuchova- yet, she still managed to win five of six Grand Slams. That, to me, is more impressive than just being the best and nobody can even challenge you.

Serena less talented than Clijsters, Davenport, Capriati, Hantuchova (who has never made SEMIFINAL in GS tournament)? Huh?

My whole point was to counter (rather absurd) claim that Serena Slam was somehow Uber-tough compared to other similar achievments. Lets not forget that

1) Navratilova won SIX slams in a row against fellow all-time great and dangerous semi-great (Mandlikova) at their respective primes. You could make an argument that rest of the field was very weak, but clearly MN faced very elite threats.

2) Graf won a REAL Grand Slam (which in itself is much tougher than non-calendar-year GS) against two all-time greats who admittably were in decline, but still top threats and who would likely have won the Slams at her absence.

Really, I don't see how anyone could make an argument that Serena Slam or Lesser Graf Slam were somehow more impressive achievments than above two. Sure, you can argue that Serena faced tougher competition than Graf did in 1993-94 (I wouldn't buy it myself, but YMMV) but that it, as we say, a "Titanic deck chair excercise".

It's all part of what I call "current era myopia". Modern commentators and analysts like to make statements like "things were different back then, nowadays sport is much more competive, look how top seeds struggle at early rounds, it's impossible to dominate anymore" etc. I seldom buy that. I'm sure they were saying same thing when Lori McNeil beat Graf at Wimbledon 1st round. Or when Horvath beat Navratilova at French Open. Look at what happened in ATP. Everyone was repeating the "incredible parity...anyone could win" mantra, and how days of single player dominating are long past...funny how that turned out, isn't it? Now ATP #1 has 58-3 match record for this year, and even race #2 player has 7 titles already, and year is only barely past halfway. What happened to parity? Will observers of the future view this year as very weak for ATP?

Scotso
Jul 11th, 2005, 12:54 PM
Steffi's first.

auntie janie
Jul 11th, 2005, 02:11 PM
Mo Connolly -- the ORIGINAL teen queen of tennis. :kiss:

Alize's#1fan
Jul 11th, 2005, 02:13 PM
Serena didnt have much competition thta year so idk

RenaSlam.
Jul 11th, 2005, 02:22 PM
Serena because I'm bias as hell.

Geisha
Jul 11th, 2005, 06:08 PM
So, it's ok to count in Serena's injuries when others were winning Slams, but not others' injuries when Serena was winning Slams?

When was Serena winning Slams when others were injured. Who was injured at the 1999 US Open? Lindsay? Martina? Conchita? Monica? Clijsters? NO. Serena beat them all.

Who was injured at the 2002 French Open, Wimbledon? Martina Hingis, who lost to Serena three times consecutively (6-4, 6-0; 6-3, 6-2) to say the least. Lindsay Davenport? Serena spanked her many a time.

Nobody at the top, or real contenders, were injured when Serena was winning her Slams. Period.

Geisha
Jul 11th, 2005, 06:11 PM
Timariot, how is a Calendar-Year Slam any tougher than winning three Slams in one year then one the next year. IMO, it was a lot harder for Serena to win the AO because the whole tour had a month the regroup for the 2003 AO. Everybody was a lot more fresh than the year previously.

Calimero377
Jul 11th, 2005, 06:13 PM
When was Serena winning Slams when others were injured. Who was injured at the 1999 US Open? Lindsay? Martina? Conchita? Monica? Clijsters? NO. Serena beat them all.

Who was injured at the 2002 French Open, Wimbledon? Martina Hingis, who lost to Serena three times consecutively (6-4, 6-0; 6-3, 6-2) to say the least. Lindsay Davenport? Serena spanked her many a time.

Nobody at the top, or real contenders, were injured when Serena was winning her Slams. Period.


Graf retired 2 weeks before USO 99.
Otherwise Serena evidently would not have won.

Calimero377
Jul 11th, 2005, 06:18 PM
Timariot, how is a Calendar-Year Slam any tougher than winning three Slams in one year then one the next year. IMO, it was a lot harder for Serena to win the AO because the whole tour had a month the regroup for the 2003 AO. Everybody was a lot more fresh than the year previously.


How is winning a calendar-year slam any tougher than winning AO in the first year, FO in the second, Wim in the third and USO in the fourth? :lol:

Sweetie, if you want to win four slams in a row you have the chance to start your run four times each year.
But when you want to win the "Grand Slam" you have that chance only once every year. And when you want to win the "Golden Grand Slam" :worship: you have the chance only every four years.

Got it now?

jj74
Jul 11th, 2005, 06:27 PM
Steffi 88-89, absolutely fantastic

Geisha
Jul 11th, 2005, 06:36 PM
How is winning a calendar-year slam any tougher than winning AO in the first year, FO in the second, Wim in the third and USO in the fourth? :lol:

Sweetie, if you want to win four slams in a row you have the chance to start your run four times each year.
But when you want to win the "Grand Slam" you have that chance only once every year. And when you want to win the "Golden Grand Slam" :worship: you have the chance only every four years.

Got it now?

She was injured at the 2002 Australian Open. Who's to say she wouldn't have won it then?

Calimero377
Jul 11th, 2005, 06:42 PM
She was injured at the 2002 Australian Open. Who's to say she wouldn't have won it then?


Woulda-coulda ....

JenCap was too tough at AO in 01/02.

G1Player2
Jul 11th, 2005, 06:44 PM
Graf retired 2 weeks before USO 99.
Otherwise Serena evidently would not have won.

LOL...Serena would have beaten Graf at the 1999 US Open...Graf was not nearly in the same form she was at the FO that year...

G1Player2
Jul 11th, 2005, 06:55 PM
Woulda-coulda ....

JenCap was too tough at AO in 01/02.

Too tough? lol...too tough to be two points away from losing to Henrieta Nagyova in the 1st round...Too tough to be down a set and a break to Monica Seles? Too tough to be down 4-6, 0-6 w/ matchpoints when an opponent didn't take their chance...Yeah real tough...:lol: :lol: :lol:

Calimero377
Jul 11th, 2005, 06:57 PM
LOL...Serena would have beaten Graf at the 1999 US Open...Graf was not nearly in the same form she was at the FO that year...


Of course she was.
Just ask Agassi.

Paialii
Jul 11th, 2005, 06:59 PM
Of course it was Graf, hands down.

I think Serena's was the most difficult, though. Let's keep in mind that she played none other than her SISTER in all four of those slam wins. I think that's impressive on a DIFFERENT level than Steffi's.

Calimero377
Jul 11th, 2005, 06:59 PM
Too tough? lol...too tough to be two points away from losing to Henrieta Nagyova in the 1st round...Too tough to be down a set and a break to Monica Seles? Too tough to be down 4-6, 0-6 w/ matchpoints when an opponent didn't take their chance...Yeah real tough...:lol: :lol: :lol:


Yes, real tough. :worship:

G1Player2
Jul 11th, 2005, 07:01 PM
Of course she was.
Just ask Agassi.

graf, or no other player for that matter, was NOT beating the Serena Williams of the 1999 US Open...No way, no how...

Calimero377
Jul 11th, 2005, 07:08 PM
graf, or no other player for that matter, was NOT beating the Serena Williams of the 1999 US Open...No way, no how...

Serena at USO 99:
128 W **Kimberly PO (USA) 6-1 6-0
64 W **Jelena KOSTANIC (CRO) 6-4 6-2
32 W **Kim CLIJSTERS (BEL) 4-6 6-2 7-5
16 W **Conchita MARTINEZ (ESP) 4-6 6-2 6-2
QF W **Monica SELES (USA) 4-6 6-3 6-2
SF W **Lindsay DAVENPORT (USA) 6-4 1-6 6-4
FR W **Martina HINGIS (SUI) 6-3 7-6

What would even an over-the-hill Graf (with reconstructed knee) not have been able to emulate? :confused:

Graf had beaten Clijsters, Seles, Davenport and Hingis only weeks before!

G1Player2
Jul 11th, 2005, 07:15 PM
Serena at USO 99:
128 W **Kimberly PO (USA) 6-1 6-0
64 W **Jelena KOSTANIC (CRO) 6-4 6-2
32 W **Kim CLIJSTERS (BEL) 4-6 6-2 7-5
16 W **Conchita MARTINEZ (ESP) 4-6 6-2 6-2
QF W **Monica SELES (USA) 4-6 6-3 6-2
SF W **Lindsay DAVENPORT (USA) 6-4 1-6 6-4
FR W **Martina HINGIS (SUI) 6-3 7-6

What would even an over-the-hill Graf (with reconstructed knee) not have been able to emulate? :confused:

Graf had beaten Clijsters, Seles, Davenport and Hingis only weeks before!

She had just lossed to Davenport in the Wim final. and Hingis was playing her best SINCE the FO final...

DA FOREHAND
Jul 11th, 2005, 07:18 PM
"The Grand Slam of Tennis" is to hold all four majors at the same time.

Five women have done that in singles tennis in six different streaks of wins.

Please vote for which one you think is the most impressive and justify your answer.


Trick question


Only three women have won The Grand Slam

Serena and Martina aren't two of them!

.ivy.
Jul 11th, 2005, 07:36 PM
Didn't Steffi win a Golden Slam? And is the only one to EVER do so?

Yeah, her. ;)

Oizo
Jul 11th, 2005, 07:52 PM
Didn't Steffi win a Golden Slam? And is the only one to EVER do so?

Yeah, her. ;)

:bigclap:

Oizo
Jul 11th, 2005, 07:54 PM
Too tough? lol...too tough to be two points away from losing to Henrieta Nagyova in the 1st round...Too tough to be down a set and a break to Monica Seles? Too tough to be down 4-6, 0-6 w/ matchpoints when an opponent didn't take their chance...Yeah real tough...:lol: :lol: :lol:

You gotta make the last point darling.

Sam L
Jul 11th, 2005, 09:52 PM
Timariot, how is a Calendar-Year Slam any tougher than winning three Slams in one year then one the next year. IMO, it was a lot harder for Serena to win the AO because the whole tour had a month the regroup for the 2003 AO. Everybody was a lot more fresh than the year previously.

anniflava, those morons don't even know the meaning of the grand slam which is to hold all four slams at the same time. But don't argue this with them because it'll just drag you down.

Calimero377
Jul 11th, 2005, 10:15 PM
anniflava, those morons don't even know the meaning of the grand slam which is to hold all four slams at the same time. But don't argue this with them because it'll just drag you down.



From Wikipedia:


"True Grand Slam

The winners of the Grand Slam (all four tournaments in the same calendar year) in singles are:

* Don Budge (1938)
* Maureen Connolly (1953)
* Rod Laver (1962 and 1969)
* Margaret Smith Court (1970)
* Steffi Graf (1988) (also the Olympic Gold medal, thus winning a Golden Slam)


Four consecutive Grand Slam titles

Though the term was originally restricted to the winning of all four tournaments in the same calendar year, it is now sometimes used for holding all four titles simultaneously, regardless of the calendar. During an interview with Serena Williams at the U.S. Open, after she had won the title, an interviewer coined the term "Serena Slam" for this achievement. Serena did indeed succeed in winning this honour, but counter to Martina Navratilova before her, she had to leave it at four titles."


:lol: :lol: :lol:

Graf-aholic
Jul 12th, 2005, 02:56 AM
I voted for Steffi Graf (1988 Australian Open to 1989 Australian Open) - 5 grand slams in a row[including her Olympic win in 88].

arcus
Jul 12th, 2005, 03:29 AM
olympics-shympics :-) Winning was an achievement for graf, but it doesnt, in itself, help raise her above other greats, cos most couldnt compete in the event, as there was no tennis in their eras, so please leave the so-called "golden" slam out of the equation.........

6 slams in a row for navratilova stuns me, especially when evert was on the other side of the draw trying to stop her..............

faboozadoo15
Jul 12th, 2005, 04:10 AM
Graf retired 2 weeks before USO 99.
Otherwise Serena evidently would not have won.
you can think that...
but steffi would have lost to amy frazier or something. perfect timing, i guess.

Summer_Snow
Jul 12th, 2005, 05:38 AM
6 slams in a row for navratilova stuns me, especially when evert was on the other side of the draw trying to stop her..............

:worship: :worship: That's exactly what I'm thinking !!!

Sam L
Jul 12th, 2005, 10:58 AM
From Wikipedia:


"True Grand Slam

The winners of the Grand Slam (all four tournaments in the same calendar year) in singles are:

* Don Budge (1938)
* Maureen Connolly (1953)
* Rod Laver (1962 and 1969)
* Margaret Smith Court (1970)
* Steffi Graf (1988) (also the Olympic Gold medal, thus winning a Golden Slam)


Four consecutive Grand Slam titles

Though the term was originally restricted to the winning of all four tournaments in the same calendar year, it is now sometimes used for holding all four titles simultaneously, regardless of the calendar. During an interview with Serena Williams at the U.S. Open, after she had won the title, an interviewer coined the term "Serena Slam" for this achievement. Serena did indeed succeed in winning this honour, but counter to Martina Navratilova before her, she had to leave it at four titles."


:lol: :lol: :lol:
:sigh: I know I shouldn't stoop beneath my level but anyway...

The term "grand slam" was coined after Don Budge won the 6 consecutive slams (including all in 1938). Had he stopped his streak at 1938 French, it still would've been coined?

You know why? Because it was named so for the achievements of a player who won the four major tournaments of the four major countries who dominated the Davis Cup up to that point.

Navratilova was the first to win a NON-calender slam and not to go on and complete a CALENDER slam.

There's no difference, and certainly none in the origins.

And if you ask me, I'd rather win 6 consecutive slams than 5. :lol:

Lemonskin.
Jul 12th, 2005, 11:07 AM
The woman with the most aptly-named last Name...

MARGARET COURT

John.
Jul 12th, 2005, 11:09 AM
I think I have to say Graf's 88-89 and Serena's for the simple fact they were achieved on 4 different surfaces.

Sam L
Jul 12th, 2005, 11:29 AM
Also, this is something interesting that I noticed...

When Budge won his 6 consecutive slams, he started his streak at Wimbledon 1937 which was the third grand slam played in 1937.

When Connolly won her 6 consecutive slams, she started her streak at Wimbledon 1952 which was the third grand slam played in 1952.

When Laver won hisfirst4 consecutive slams, he started his streak at Australian 1962 which was the first grand slam played in 1962.

When Laver won his second 4 consecutive slams, he also started his streak at Australian 1962 which was the first grand slam played in 1962.

When Court won her 6 consecutive slams, she started her streak at US Open 1969 which was the last grand slam played in 1969.

When Navratilova won her 6 consecutive slams, she started her streak at Wimbledon 1983 which then was the second grand slam played in 1983.

When Graf won her 5 consecutive slams, she started her streak at Australian Open 1988 which was the first grand slam played in 1988.

When Graf won her 4 consecutive slams, she started her streak at French Open 1993 which was the second grand slam played in 1993.

When Serena Williams won her 4 consecutive slams, she started her streak at French Open 2002 which was the second grand slam played in 2002.

So is it any coincidence that any player that started their streak in the 2nd grand slam played in the first year and continued into the second year never went onto win all the slams played in the second year? HELL NO!

Any person with logic would be able to see that to do that would require winning 7 consecutive grand slams, which has never been done. Look at the players who started their streaks with a 2nd grand of the year: Navratilova; Serena and Graf, yes even Graf failed to continued her streak in 1994.

Calimero377 (member.php?u=27652) just so you know, you're going on my ignore list. I've decided, I don't want to argue with fools any more. Fools who bring up useless stats and does not provide proof. Fools who bring up players who are 6 years retired and detract from potential/real modern greats. It's so obvious that you are so threatened by the success of the Williams sisters, especially Serena. Sometimes, I wonder if you're really a Graf or a Serena hater, who constantly brings up Graf in the hope that Serena's achievements will be looked over.

And here's my parting kiss for you in this thread.

You want a REAL calender grand slam and you want an OPEN-ERA grand slam? That's what defines greatness? Cool! I present you Margaret Court who won her 1970 Grand slam in the midst of a 6 slam streak (yes, more than Steffi) and it was Open-era. She couldn't win a gold medal because there were no Olympic Games for tennis in 1970.

So I guess it comes down to whether having 6 consecutive grand slams or 5 consecutive slams with an Olympic Gold.

Olympic gold or a slam? Tough question. Hmm...

Wallow in your misery you miserable troll. I'm sure I'm not the first and certainly not the last to put you on ignore.

Enjoy arguing with yourself in the future. :wavey:

DA FOREHAND
Jul 12th, 2005, 11:31 AM
Three Women have won The Grand Slam

Maureen Connolly
Maggie Court
STEFFI GRAF....

Serena Williams, and Martina Navratilova get atta-girl! for thier accomplishments.

Sam L
Jul 12th, 2005, 11:45 AM
Three Women have won The Grand Slam

Maureen Connolly
Maggie Court
STEFFI GRAF....

Serena Williams, and Martina Navratilova get atta-girl! for thier accomplishments.
Repeating things DO NOT make them true.

Navratilova is a talentless hack.
Navratilova is a talentless hack.
Navratilova is a talentless hack.

Nope didn't work.

:lol:

Andy T
Jul 12th, 2005, 11:58 AM
Between December 1983 and September 1984, Navratilova won all four majors in the same order that Maureen, Madge and Steffi won their Grand Slams in 53,70 and 88. The difference was that Oz happened a few weeks earlier then. Pam & Martina also won the doubles Grand Slam in 1984.

Oizo
Jul 12th, 2005, 05:27 PM
If you ask any tennis-journalist on this planet which players won "THE GRAND SLAM" in the history of tennis you will get the people mentioned as an answer: Budge, Connoly, Laver, Smith Court and Graf.
Holding all 4 grand-slam titles is what Navratilova and Serena Williams achieved. Winning "THE" Grand Slam not. You gotta make it in a calendar-year. Only then you will read in the papers "she/he won The GRAND SLAM".

Calimero377
Jul 12th, 2005, 05:41 PM
olympics-shympics :-) Winning was an achievement for graf, but it doesnt, in itself, help raise her above other greats, cos most couldnt compete in the event, as there was no tennis in their eras, so please leave the so-called "golden" slam out of the equation................


Even IF tennis had been in every Olympics since 1896 Graf would have been the ONLY one with the Golden Grand Slam. Because no-one won the Grand Slam in an Olympic year.

So let's put the "Golden Grand Slam"back into the equation ..........


:worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

:worship:

LeRoy.
Jul 12th, 2005, 05:45 PM
Martina Navratilova (1983 Wimbledon to 1984 US Open) - 6 grand slams in a row

6 > 5 and she had better competition than the others with 6 IMO.

Calimero377
Jul 12th, 2005, 05:46 PM
:sigh: I know I shouldn't stoop beneath my level but anyway...

The term "grand slam" was coined after Don Budge won the 6 consecutive slams (including all in 1938). Had he stopped his streak at 1938 French, it still would've been coined?

You know why? Because it was named so for the achievements of a player who won the four major tournaments of the four major countries who dominated the Davis Cup up to that point.

Navratilova was the first to win a NON-calender slam and not to go on and complete a CALENDER slam.

There's no difference, and certainly none in the origins.

And if you ask me, I'd rather win 6 consecutive slams than 5. :lol:


I'd rather win the Golden Grand Slam, five consecutive slams and 22 slams in total than only the "NON-calendar slam", 6 consecutive slams and only 18 slams in total ........ :angel:

:worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

:worship:

Oizo
Jul 12th, 2005, 05:48 PM
I'd rather win the Golden Grand Slam, five consecutive slams and 22 slams in total than only the "NON-calendar slam", 6 consecutive slams and only 18 slams in total ........ :angel:

:worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

:worship:

Me too :cool:

Calimero377
Jul 12th, 2005, 05:55 PM
.....
Calimero377 (member.php?u=27652) just so you know, you're going on my ignore list. I've decided, I don't want to argue with fools any more. Fools who bring up useless stats and does not provide proof. Fools who bring up players who are 6 years retired and detract from potential/real modern greats. It's so obvious that you are so threatened by the success of the Williams sisters, especially Serena. ....


Graf: 4 AOs
Serena: 2 AOs
Loeffler-Caro: zero AOs

Graf: 6 FOs
Serena: 1 FO
Loeffler-Caro: zero FOs

Graf: 7 Wimbledons
Serena: 2 Wimbledons
Loeffler-Caro: zero Wimbledons

Graf: 5 USOs
Serena: 2 USOs
Loeffler-Caro: zero USOs

I'd say Serena is less a threat to Graf than Loeffler-Caro is to Serena ....

Calimero377
Jul 12th, 2005, 05:57 PM
Between December 1983 and September 1984, Navratilova won all four majors in the same order that Maureen, Madge and Steffi won their Grand Slams in 53,70 and 88. The difference was that Oz happened a few weeks earlier then. Pam & Martina also won the doubles Grand Slam in 1984.


Don't forget Martina's mixed doubles titles .....

:lol:

LeRoy.
Jul 12th, 2005, 05:59 PM
Don't forget Martina's mixed doubles titles .....

:lol:

Sour Grapes .

Calimero377
Jul 12th, 2005, 06:02 PM
Martina Navratilova (1983 Wimbledon to 1984 US Open) - 6 grand slams in a row

6 > 5 and she had better competition than the others with 6 IMO.


You think

Evert, Mandlikova, Shriver, Jordan and Turnbull (Navi 83/84)

is better competition than

Navratilova, Evert, Mandlikova, Shriver, Sabatini (Graf 88)?


Then obviously Jordan/Turnbull were better than Navratilova/Sabatini ......


:lol: :lol: :lol:

LeRoy.
Jul 12th, 2005, 06:03 PM
You think

Evert, Mandlikova, Shriver, Jordan and Turnbull (Navi 83/84)

is better competition than

Navratilova, Evert, Mandlikova, Shriver, Sabatini (Graf 88)?


Then obviously Jordan/Turnbull were better than Navratilova/Sabatini ......


:lol: :lol: :lol:

5 < 6

Get that ? Duh :rolleyes: