PDA

View Full Version : Is Rena a great?


Wojtek
Jul 11th, 2005, 08:50 PM
Discussion for today....

7 majors, no.1...but NO Olympics gold medal in singles. Can she be considered a great?

G1Player2
Jul 11th, 2005, 08:54 PM
She's up there but she still has a way to go to be in the same category as players like Steffi Graf(acheivements anyway), etc. But she definitely has the talent to be up there...

Knizzle
Jul 11th, 2005, 09:02 PM
Nope, the greatest player of all time never won Olympic Gold Singles ;)

[Calimero377]Graf did win the Gold Medal in Singles in 1988 as part of her "Golden" Grand Slam which no other female singles players has done EVER!!

Superdumbo. :rolleyes: [/Calimero377}

SJW
Jul 11th, 2005, 09:09 PM
shes got great ass & tits so....

Paneru
Jul 11th, 2005, 09:18 PM
[Calimero377]Graf did win the Gold Medal in Singles in 1988 as part of her "Golden" Grand Slam which no other female singles players has done EVER!!

Superdumbo. :rolleyes: [/Calimero377}

I think you may be
the "Superdumbo". ;)

Apparently, she isn't the greatest of all time from
where Hautbois is sitting! :p


Serena's definitely on the road to great!

7 Slam Titles
6 Slam Doubles Titles
2 Slam Mixed Doubles Titles
Doubles Olympic Champion

blumaroo
Jul 11th, 2005, 09:29 PM
Its too bad that in sports so much emphasis is put on stats. Of course the amount of majors/titles is the most important in the end but if you see Serena playing at her best, you wouldn't even have to check the stats that quality and talent wise, she IS a great.

Volcana
Jul 11th, 2005, 09:49 PM
Discussion for today....

7 majors, no.1...but NO Olympics gold medal in singles. Can she be considered a great?Well, her career accomplishments, taken as a whole, are among the ten best in the Open era (restricting this to women).

All-time? I'd say she's riiiight on the egde of making it in accomplishments again, but it's iffy. The top seven are easy.

Nav, Court, Graf, Wills Moody, Evert, King, Lenglen.

Mboyle has point out that Maureen Connolly is a clear #8. In retrospect, I agree. Winning the Grand SLam is pretty huge.

But then you have five four players tightly packed for the other three two spots

Bueno, S Williams, Seles and Goolagong.

Different eras, different opponents, and note that I'm specifically measuring accomplishments, not a subjective obscurity like 'greatness'.

Some things we have to throw out as not measurable across eras. No 'weeks-at-#1', no Olympics, no Fed Cup. Even total titles isn't really fair. Connolly and Bueno has fewer opportunities to play. It really comes down to GS titles, when you're measuring across eras.

I have no real trouble giving spots #8 and #9 and #10 to Goolagong and Bueno. Aside form having the most beautiful games I've seen in my lifetime, they both had significant doubles accomplishments.

When leaves Serena, and two players with two more GS singles titles than her.

I'm giving it to Connolly for having won the Grand Slam.

That leaves Monica Seles AND Serena Williams out of my all-time top ten, but they are both active players, they have it on their own rackets to fix that.

..............----------------GS-------------
..............singles..doubles...mixed..total
Bueno............07......11.......00.....18..
Goolagong........07......06.......01.....14..
S Williams.......07......04.......02.....13..
Seles............09......00.......00.....09..


Again, this is a list of career accomplishments, relative to opportunity. I'm not saying Maria Bueno was 'greater' then Monica Seles. I'm saying her overall career accomplihments were greater, given what her opportunites were.

We have more than enough 'greatness' threads.

Calimero377
Jul 11th, 2005, 09:50 PM
Nope, the greatest player of all time never won Olympic Gold Singles ;)


Twisting the facts again!

Graf won Olympic gold in 88.
FACT!

Completing the "Golden Grand Slam" by this.

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

:worship:

Spunky83
Jul 11th, 2005, 09:51 PM
Uhhh....now this thread could be a threat for the "Nastya is a bitch, dude"-thread!

Calimero377
Jul 11th, 2005, 09:51 PM
[Calimero377]Graf did win the Gold Medal in Singles in 1988 as part of her "Golden" Grand Slam which no other female singles players has done EVER!!

Superdumbo. :rolleyes: [/Calimero377}


:bounce:

Calimero377
Jul 11th, 2005, 09:52 PM
shes got great ass & tits so....


Big.

Sam L
Jul 11th, 2005, 09:54 PM
She's right up there. She had the toughest competition to complete her grand slam aside from Navratilova.

1jackson2001
Jul 11th, 2005, 09:55 PM
I think you may be
the "Superdumbo". ;)

Apparently, she isn't the greatest of all time from
where Hautbois is sitting! :p


Serena's definitely on the road to great!

7 Slam Titles
6 Slam Doubles Titles
2 Slam Mixed Doubles Titles
Doubles Olympic Champion

Plus:

1 of 9 women all-time to own all 4 majors in career.
1 of 5 women all-time to have held all 4 majors at one time.

^^That has to count for something as well. ;)

Black Mamba.
Jul 11th, 2005, 09:56 PM
I believe when all is said and done Serena will be considered a great because if you look at he accomplishments she did them all playing very few tournements per year.

Calimero377
Jul 11th, 2005, 09:56 PM
She's right up there. She had the toughest competition to complete her grand slam aside from Navratilova.


No, I think Jordan, Turnbull, Jaeger and Shriver were tougher than anyone of 02/03's players ....

:lol:

Calimero377
Jul 11th, 2005, 09:58 PM
I think you may be
the "Superdumbo". ;)

Apparently, she isn't the greatest of all time from
where Hautbois is sitting! :p


Serena's definitely on the road to great!

7 Slam Titles
6 Slam Doubles Titles
2 Slam Mixed Doubles Titles
Doubles Olympic Champion


Some more mixed doubles titles will clinch it .....

stenen
Jul 11th, 2005, 10:01 PM
Nope, the greatest player of all time never won Olympic Gold Singles ;)

It was unfortunate that Navratilova didn't take part at the Olympics in 1988. Who knows how things would have turned out to be if she had.

jimbo mack
Jul 11th, 2005, 10:16 PM
i would say she's a 'great'

you cant compare her to graf, nav or evert

she's in the same league as seles and hingis

serenafan08
Jul 11th, 2005, 10:28 PM
I think she is. She's done some incredible things for the game of tennis. Serena and Venus are the reason that you see players working hard to get stronger, faster and fitter. She's got the best fighting spirit on tour, and I hope she goes down as one of the WTA's best fighters ever. I know that Serena doesn't have the same resume of Steffi, but no one probably will ever match Steffi's Grand Slam total. Serena's a great player and champion, and I thinks she'll go down as just that.

Bitter Blue Bong
Jul 11th, 2005, 10:39 PM
The original question was whether Serena was a great, and yes, she is. Her accomplishments basically speak for themselves.

jmcfarla
Jul 11th, 2005, 10:55 PM
Is she a great: no.
Great players, IMO, have to be retired (with a few exceptions). For the most part players seem to be universally appreciated more once they have stopped playing. Plus you can't compare the record/achievements of a graf (for example) to a serena, as serena can still improve on what she has achieved.

Will she be a great when she has finished: again IMO, yes
what Serena has achieved already (if she never wins another slam, or gets back to no.1) would be enough to merit the title one of the greats. Missing one title (and the olympics especially) would not be enough to disqualify someone who has reached the height Serena has.

thrust
Jul 11th, 2005, 10:58 PM
Serena is indeed a great player, with a great Slam record. While winning the Olympics is a wonderful accomplishment the facts are: They are only played once every four years and for many years tennis was not an olympic sport.

mboyle
Jul 11th, 2005, 11:55 PM
Well, her career accomplishments, taken as a whole, are among the ten best in the Open era (restricting this to women).

All-time? I'd say she's riiiight on the egde of making it in accomplishments again, but it's iffy. The top seven are easy.

Nav, Court, Graf, Wills Moody, Evert, King, Lenglen.

But then you have five players tightly packed for the other three spots

Bueno, S Williams, Seles, Goolagong and Connolly

Different eras, different opponents, and note that I'm specifically measuring accomplishments, not a subjective obscurity like 'greatness'.

Some things we have to throw out as not measurable across eras. No 'weeks-at-#1', no Olympics, no Fed Cup. Even total titles isn't really fair. Connolly and Bueno has fewer opportunities to play. It really comes down to GS titles, when you're measuring across eras.

I have no real trouble giving spots #8 and #9 to Goolagong and Bueno. Aside form having the most beautiful games I've seen in my lifetime, they both had significant doubles accomplishments.

When leaves Serena, and two players with two more GS singles titles than her.

I'm giving it to Connolly for having won the Grand Slam.

That leaves Monica Seles AND Serena Williams out of my all-time top ten, but they are both active players, they have it on their own rackets to fix that.

..............----------------GS-------------
..............singles..doubles...mixed..total
Bueno............07......11.......00.....18..
Goolagong........07......06.......01.....14..
Connolly.........09......02.......00.....11..
S Williams.......07......04.......02.....13..
Seles............09......00.......00.....09..


Again, this is a list of career accomplishments, relative to opportunity. I'm not saying Maria Bueno was 'greater' then Monica Seles. I'm saying her overall career accomplihments were greater, given what her opportunites were.

We have more than enough 'greatness' threads.



I totally agree with your top seven. However, Connolly won the grand slam, and won nine straight grand slams entered. Even though she did not excell in doubles, that amount of dominance alone should put her at 8 or above. Seles won eight out of twelve grand slams before you know what. That's a sustained period of dominance. She did suck at doubles and was not that great afterwards, so I'm okay with her being around Goolagong and Bueno.

mboyle
Jul 11th, 2005, 11:57 PM
No, I think Jordan, Turnbull, Jaeger and Shriver were tougher than anyone of 02/03's players ....

:lol:

who the HELL did Steffi play that was so damn tough? Don't even give me Evert and Nav. Evert was 34 years old. Nav counts, but so does Evert of 83/84, and every bit as much.

Volcana
Jul 12th, 2005, 03:34 AM
I totally agree with your top seven. However, Connolly won the grand slam, and won nine straight grand slams entered. Even though she did not excell in doubles, that amount of dominance alone should put her at 8 or above. Seles won eight out of twelve grand slams before you know what. That's a sustained period of dominance. She did suck at doubles and was not that great afterwards, so I'm okay with her being around Goolagong and Bueno.You're right. Connolly should be #8. I did some editing of the post.

UDiTY
Jul 12th, 2005, 03:38 AM
This isn't even debatable, of course she is.

In this day and age a player will never win more than 10 Grand slams in their career.

Volcana
Jul 12th, 2005, 03:42 AM
This isn't even debatable, of course she is.

In this day and age a player will never win more than 10 Grand slams in their career.Says who? Graf won her last six years ago. Navratilova won her last at 34. Venus, Serena and Justine Henin-Hardenne could all make it to double figure slams. Serena's only 24, and needs only three more.

~Cherry*Blossom~
Jul 12th, 2005, 03:44 AM
Big.

Great.

tennisIlove09
Jul 12th, 2005, 03:44 AM
Until Serena wins another 4 majors, she'll never be considered anything more than lucky :), ask Navratilova ;)

G1Player2
Jul 12th, 2005, 05:11 AM
Says who? Graf won her last six years ago. Navratilova won her last at 34. Venus, Serena and Justine Henin-Hardenne could all make it to double figure slams. Serena's only 24, and needs only three more.

Serena is 23...

Geisha
Jul 12th, 2005, 05:18 AM
Serena is definitely on her way to becoming a great. But, there are a couple of different categories I rate my players on:

1. All-Time Greats: These are Navratilova, Graf, Evert, King, Court (Open Era, specifically). These players had lengthly careers, won a bunch of Grand Slam titles, and most won a couple of Doubles and Mixed Doubles titles, too, which always gives a play an edge.

2. On Their Way...: These are Serena Williams, Venus Williams, Sharapova, Henin-Hardenne, Capriati, and Davenport. These players are Grand Slam Champions, but they haven't dominated for a long period of time and they could still accomplish more if they wanted to. Also, put Seles and Hingis in this list. This list could also include Mandlikova and Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario- players that have already retired and have accomplished much throughout their careers.

3. Coulda/Shoulda/Woulda...: These players include Seles, Hingis, etc. Criteria for this type of "Great" is a player who won a bunch of Grand Slam titles and other titles, but due to injuries and other effects, they didn't do as good as their potential. Seles was stabbed in her prime in 1993 and had Hingis been born ten years earlier, she probably would have done a lot more with her career.

4. Never Ever Greats: These players include Martinez, Dementieva, Myskina, Kuznetsova, Coetzer. These players probably didn't deserve the Slam results they have gotten and won't do anything great during the rest of their careers/ or they never did anything great.

Also, I don't think it is necessary to have an Olympic Medal. I mean, the Olympics were only recognized by the WTA during this past season, as this was the first season that ranking points were awarded. Also, if Russia were to compete in the Olympics next month, imagine the weak field: Petrova, Sharapova, Myskina, Kuznetsova, Dementieva- only three players can be chosen and two that aren't are probable contenders. Venus, Serena, Lindsay, Jennifer- once again, for the USA, one of them won't be chosen and thus, making this a weak field. I think the Olympics are too hyped up. I mean, it is a great accomplishment, but Venus had to beat Dementieva in the finals of the Syndey Olympics- it's harder to win a Tier II title these days.

Volcana
Jul 12th, 2005, 05:19 AM
Until Serena wins another 4 majors, she'll never be considered anything more than lucky :), ask Navratilova ;)Funny, I could have sworn Navratilova said Serena already WAS great, and had the potential to be an all-time great. Musta missed an article .....

Larrybidd
Jul 12th, 2005, 05:46 AM
No, I think Jordan, Turnbull, Jaeger and Shriver were tougher than anyone of 02/03's players ....

:lol:

LOL. Between the 4 of those "greats" how many GS sigles titles did they win?

ceiling_fan
Jul 12th, 2005, 06:02 AM
now...maybe, but once she is done with her career (she still has more fuel), i think people will look back on her achievements and consider her a 'great'

i don't know if this makes sense to anyone ELSE though

Lemonskin.
Jul 12th, 2005, 10:52 AM
Big.
:scared:

Andy T
Jul 12th, 2005, 12:53 PM
Discussion for today....

7 majors, no.1...but NO Olympics gold medal in singles. Can she be considered a great?

Of course she's a great: the top player of this decade. Having won all four majors in singles and doubles, plus the YEC, she has done it all. The Olympics doesn't mean anywhere near as much as all that.

Sam L
Jul 12th, 2005, 01:15 PM
Of course she's a great: the top player of this decade. Having won all four majors in singles and doubles, plus the YEC, she has done it all. The Olympics doesn't mean anywhere near as much as all that.
Exactly, Andy. It's not nothing but it's also not everything either. At least in tennis anyway.

Sam L
Jul 12th, 2005, 01:16 PM
Serena will hit double digit, for sure.

Pureracket
Jul 12th, 2005, 01:42 PM
This discussion is going to hinge on whether or not the Olympics is going to be seriously considered in the discussion of tennis greats. For track and Field and gymnastics, the Olympics is the crowning point of glory. For tennis, however, the Olympics is plan "B" to the Slams(see Roger Federer). In fact, I think Fed Cup could eclipse the Olympics for tennis players pretty soon.

Sir Stefwhit
Jul 12th, 2005, 01:47 PM
Serena is definitely on her way to becoming a great. But, there are a couple of different categories I rate my players on:

1. All-Time Greats: These are Navratilova, Graf, Evert, King, Court (Open Era, specifically). These players had lengthly careers, won a bunch of Grand Slam titles, and most won a couple of Doubles and Mixed Doubles titles, too, which always gives a play an edge.

2. On Their Way...: These are Serena Williams, Venus Williams, Sharapova, Henin-Hardenne, Capriati, and Davenport. These players are Grand Slam Champions, but they haven't dominated for a long period of time and they could still accomplish more if they wanted to. Also, put Seles and Hingis in this list. This list could also include Mandlikova and Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario- players that have already retired and have accomplished much throughout their careers.
Not sure how you can put Maria and Serena in the same category when their accomplishments are not comparable. Serena is a 7 time slam winner, she has held 4 consecutive slams at one time, she has been ranked number one for more than 50 weeks, and she has won a slam on every surface. I agree that her accomplishments don't put her on the same level of a Graf or Navratilova, but in the same vein, Maria's accomplishments don't put her on the same level as Serena. Of all the people in this category Serena is by far the more accomplished player. I'm not saying five years from now things wont be different but at this time in point Serena is a "Great" and she has the slams to proove it. Putting Maria with Serena, who has seven times more slams is just as silly as putting Serena with Graf who has three times as many slams...

Experimentee
Jul 12th, 2005, 02:45 PM
The Olympics is overrated. If you look at the field, its about as strong as a good Tier II. A lot of players dont play, and some cant bc of the restriction on country, eg Sharapova last time.

Cybelle Darkholme
Jul 12th, 2005, 02:50 PM
It seems to me that if you are in the hall of fame you are considered one of the greats

thelittlestelf
Jul 12th, 2005, 02:59 PM
Whether Serena is great or not certainly does not come down to the Olympics.

moby
Jul 12th, 2005, 03:09 PM
Winning the Olympics isn't the standard for being a great, but it isn't exactly a glorified exhibition or Tier II either. I don't think it's a coincidence that all the Olympic winners on the women's side are multiple GS winners, or turned out to be so.

I'd certainly give any gold medallist bonus points.

On the question of whether Serena is a great, I'd say yes. But then, I also consider Martina and Venus greats. The threshold for greatness is 5 slams for me, so Justine is almost there too :)

Venus+Serena#1fan
Jul 12th, 2005, 03:13 PM
Serena is already great. And with many years left, its only up to her if she doubles her GS titles or not.

K-Dog
Jul 12th, 2005, 03:18 PM
who the HELL did Steffi play that was so damn tough? Don't even give me Evert and Nav. Evert was 34 years old. Nav counts, but so does Evert of 83/84, and every bit as much.


I often ask the same question to Calimero, but he continually says that today's competition was nothing in comparison to that of yesterday's. I guess sometimes he doesn't listen to the players themselves when they are asked whether today's players are better than those of yester-years. Chris Evert said that the game she played looks like in slow motion compared to now. Steffi, Monica, and perphaps Martina N. are the only players that could still win and win majors now-a-days in their prime. The facts are that today's players serve harder, hit harder off the ground (racquets or not), are in better shape, and are much better athletes. Steffi did not have to play against basically 8 players that can each win slams on their day. The truth was Graf dominated because she was years beyond her time. Those 8 players are: Lindsay Davenport (in better shape than when she played Steffi), Maria, Amelie, Serena (7 slam titles later), Venus (5 slam titles late), Justine (4 slam titles later), Kim (a far advanced form of Arantxa), & Svetlana (about the strongest and hardest hitter in the top ten). Even the suporting cast on the tour (Myskina, Dementieva, Molik) are still better than most of the top tenners in Graf's time. I don't see how Graf's competiton in more deep and tougher than now-a-days. As I said and now add Seles, Martina N., Jennifer, and even Pierce are exceptions. But MJ Fernandez, Arantxa, Gaby, Amanda, Conchita, and some others are not as good as today's players, period. Hingis was a player that I also consider to be a high quality opponent, so props to Steffi for beating her SO many times. From what it sounds like Calimero doesn't play tennis competitvely himself, so he doesn't understand a lot of the things about actually playing the sport itself. Steffi was just above her competition in SO many ways, not that she had an ample amount of players that could challenge her.

spartanfan
Jul 12th, 2005, 03:24 PM
Well, her career accomplishments, taken as a whole, are among the ten best in the Open era (restricting this to women).

All-time? I'd say she's riiiight on the egde of making it in accomplishments again, but it's iffy. The top seven are easy.

Nav, Court, Graf, Wills Moody, Evert, King, Lenglen.

Mboyle has point out that Maureen Connolly is a clear #8. In retrospect, I agree. Winning the Grand SLam is pretty huge.

But then you have five four players tightly packed for the other three two spots

Bueno, S Williams, Seles and Goolagong.

Different eras, different opponents, and note that I'm specifically measuring accomplishments, not a subjective obscurity like 'greatness'.

Some things we have to throw out as not measurable across eras. No 'weeks-at-#1', no Olympics, no Fed Cup. Even total titles isn't really fair. Connolly and Bueno has fewer opportunities to play. It really comes down to GS titles, when you're measuring across eras.

I have no real trouble giving spots #8 and #9 and #10 to Goolagong and Bueno. Aside form having the most beautiful games I've seen in my lifetime, they both had significant doubles accomplishments.

When leaves Serena, and two players with two more GS singles titles than her.

I'm giving it to Connolly for having won the Grand Slam.

That leaves Monica Seles AND Serena Williams out of my all-time top ten, but they are both active players, they have it on their own rackets to fix that.

..............----------------GS-------------
..............singles..doubles...mixed..total
Bueno............07......11.......00.....18..
Goolagong........07......06.......01.....14..
S Williams.......07......04.......02.....13..
Seles............09......00.......00.....09..


Again, this is a list of career accomplishments, relative to opportunity. I'm not saying Maria Bueno was 'greater' then Monica Seles. I'm saying her overall career accomplihments were greater, given what her opportunites were.

We have more than enough 'greatness' threads.




Serena has 6 Grand Slam Doubles titles 2 AO, 1 FO, 1 W and 2 USO. So does this now put her ahead of Goolagong in your opinion?

Black Mamba.
Jul 12th, 2005, 03:43 PM
I often ask the same question to Calimero, but he continually says that today's competition was nothing in comparison to that of yesterday's. I guess sometimes he doesn't listen to the players themselves when they are asked whether today's players are better than those of yester-years. Chris Evert said that the game she played looks like in slow motion compared to now. Steffi, Monica, and perphaps Martina N. are the only players that could still win and win majors now-a-days in their prime. The facts are that today's players serve harder, hit harder off the ground (racquets or not), are in better shape, and are much better athletes. Steffi did not have to play against basically 8 players that can each win slams on their day. The truth was Graf dominated because she was years beyond her time. Those 8 players are: Lindsay Davenport (in better shape than when she played Steffi), Maria, Amelie, Serena (7 slam titles later), Venus (5 slam titles late), Justine (4 slam titles later), Kim (a far advanced form of Arantxa), & Svetlana (about the strongest and hardest hitter in the top ten). Even the suporting cast on the tour (Myskina, Dementieva, Molik) are still better than most of the top tenners in Graf's time. I don't see how Graf's competiton in more deep and tougher than now-a-days. As I said and now add Seles, Martina N., Jennifer, and even Pierce are exceptions. But MJ Fernandez, Arantxa, Gaby, Amanda, Conchita, and some others are not as good as today's players, period. Hingis was a player that I also consider to be a high quality opponent, so props to Steffi for beating her SO many times. From what it sounds like Calimero doesn't play tennis competitvely himself, so he doesn't understand a lot of the things about actually playing the sport itself. Steffi was just above her competition in SO many ways, not that she had an ample amount of players that could challenge her.

Exactly, sports evolve over time and athletes get bigger, stronger, and faster. Sure they had better technique, variety, and better overall games when Martina N and Graf played, but tennis in its present state is about weight training and conditioning. Where in the past it was about technique and skill. That is why you won't see players winning 20+ grand slams because with the amount of wear and tear these women take not only in the tournaments, but in their training programs as well they are more proned to injury than ever before. With the increase in injury potential and the lack of a true off season I don't think any one player can stay healthy long enough to win a bunch of grandslams.

Pengwin
Jul 12th, 2005, 03:51 PM
Serena is a great because she dominated tennis for a period of time and is a proven and consistant champion.

Sir Stefwhit
Jul 12th, 2005, 06:17 PM
I would love for some to explain to me how it's possible to accomplish all of what Serena has and not be considered "great"...

Knizzle
Jul 12th, 2005, 06:21 PM
I would love for some to explain to me how it's possible to accomplish all of what Serena has and not be considered "great"...Exactly.

Which 2 mixed did Serena win??

LeRoy.
Jul 12th, 2005, 06:29 PM
She is more than a foot in ......

miffedmax
Jul 12th, 2005, 06:37 PM
Martina N. splintered the door of the women's "finesse" game.

Serena knocked it off its hinges, smashed into matchstick sized fragments, set them on fire and threw Hingis et al into the flames. She forced every woman on the tour to either get stronger, get fitter or get off the tour.

Her 7 singles slams make her a candidate for greatness, but it's her impact on the overall game that is the true measure of her accomplishments.

Honestly, I'm not much of a Serena fan. But I wouldn't be a tennis fan if I didn't admire her achievements. Even if she never wins another slam she will be remembered as one of the greatest women ever.

Larrybidd
Jul 12th, 2005, 07:32 PM
I would love for some to explain to me how it's possible to accomplish all of what Serena has and not be considered "great"...

It isn't possible. You'd have to argue that all the players in Serena's era were laying down their rackets and letting her win. someone will probrably try.

selyoink
Jul 12th, 2005, 08:02 PM
I think she is most definitely a great. She held all 4 slams at once and dominated the game for a year and half. Right now she is the best player of her generation. She is one of the best ever.

RVD
Jul 12th, 2005, 08:11 PM
Not sure how you can put Maria and Serena in the same category when their accomplishments are not comparable. Serena is a 7 time slam winner, she has held 4 consecutive slams at one time, she has been ranked number one for more than 50 weeks, and she has won a slam on every surface. I agree that her accomplishments don't put her on the same level of a Graf or Navratilova, but in the same vein, Maria's accomplishments don't put her on the same level as Serena. Of all the people in this category Serena is by far the more accomplished player. I'm not saying five years from now things wont be different but at this time in point Serena is a "Great" and she has the slams to proove it. Putting Maria with Serena, who has seven times more slams is just as silly as putting Serena with Graf who has three times as many slams...Which makes Serena's greatness a foregone conclusion. Why is this even a question? Even the commentators have commented on Serena's 'greatness' during her 2002-2003 domination.
Again, why is this even a debatable question? :shrug:

The question should read: 'How Great Is Serena' or 'How Much Greater Will Serena Be'?.

Pureracket
Jul 12th, 2005, 08:11 PM
Martina N. splintered the door of the women's "finesse" game.

Serena knocked it off its hinges, smashed into matchstick sized fragments, set them on fire and threw Hingis et al into the flames. She forced every woman on the tour to either get stronger, get fitter or get off the tour.

Her 7 singles slams make her a candidate for greatness, but it's her impact on the overall game that is the true measure of her accomplishments.

Honestly, I'm not much of a Serena fan. But I wouldn't be a tennis fan if I didn't admire her achievements. Even if she never wins another slam she will be remembered as one of the greatest women ever.This is the point that only marginalized journalists will discuss. Whether or not Serena wins another match in her career, I think her impact is underrated.

Rollo
Jul 12th, 2005, 08:26 PM
Serena is easily already an all-time great. Period.


Volcana's post was spot on IMO:)
As Andy T put it-she's the best of this decade so far.

Winning an Olympic gold medal is a great accomplishment, but at best it's icing on the cake or a tiebreaker. I'm surprised it's even being brought up.

Paialii
Jul 12th, 2005, 08:32 PM
Serena's impact on the game is invaluable, her and her sister's. Two African-americans that came from a poor family and terrible enviornment, where they not only moved fast to tennis balls, but moved fast to dodge drive-by shooters. Serena breaks through in 1999 to be the first african-american woman since Althea Gibson to win a major in 30-someodd years. That's history alone. She had her Serena slam; closest thing you're going to get to a grand slam probably any time soon.

She and her sister dominated with vengence from 00-03, and they've both put their toes in the water this year. Just wait until they get knee-deep in it. ;)

In my opinion, Serena doesn't have to win another major to be considered a great. She's done so much for the sport thusfar, who cares if she doesn't have more titles than anyone else. Right now we may not want to use the word "great" to describe her, but in the future, without a doubt, she'll be considered one of the best players in history.

Dana Marcy
Jul 12th, 2005, 10:17 PM
If I was Serena or some other great player, it would NOT matter to me whether I won an Olympic medal or not because I've never seen tennis as an Olympic sport.

SJW
Jul 12th, 2005, 11:28 PM
Martina N. splintered the door of the women's "finesse" game.

Serena knocked it off its hinges, smashed into matchstick sized fragments, set them on fire and threw Hingis et al into the flames. She forced every woman on the tour to either get stronger, get fitter or get off the tour.

Her 7 singles slams make her a candidate for greatness, but it's her impact on the overall game that is the true measure of her accomplishments.

Honestly, I'm not much of a Serena fan. But I wouldn't be a tennis fan if I didn't admire her achievements. Even if she never wins another slam she will be remembered as one of the greatest women ever.
best. post. ever.

tennisIlove09
Jul 13th, 2005, 01:00 AM
Funny, I could have sworn Navratilova said Serena already WAS great, and had the potential to be an all-time great. Musta missed an article .....

first of all, it was sarcasm ;) secondly, i think it was a recent article with Martina saying Serena was lucky to win her Australian title or something.

SJW
Jul 13th, 2005, 01:07 AM
If I was Serena or some other great player, it would NOT matter to me whether I won an Olympic medal or not because I've never seen tennis as an Olympic sport.

me either. i dont get why its there but i love tennis so im not complaining. if she doesnt win the medal then c'est la vie. i know she wants it, but i'd be happy with slams too.

le bon vivant
Jul 13th, 2005, 01:32 AM
youd have to ask Keyshawn or Brett. :)

Knizzle
Jul 13th, 2005, 01:36 AM
youd have to ask Keyshawn or Brett. :)

They asked if she was a great, not a Pro. You can ask me about that though.

le bon vivant
Jul 13th, 2005, 01:58 AM
They asked if she was a great, not a Pro. You can ask me about that though.

:armed: Stop slandering the virgin.

LDVTennis
Jul 13th, 2005, 02:30 AM
Exactly, sports evolve over time and athletes get bigger, stronger, and faster. Sure they had better technique, variety, and better overall games when Martina N and Graf played, but tennis in its present state is about weight training and conditioning. Where in the past it was about technique and skill. That is why you won't see players winning 20+ grand slams because with the amount of wear and tear these women take not only in the tournaments, but in their training programs as well they are more proned to injury than ever before. With the increase in injury potential and the lack of a true off season I don't think any one player can stay healthy long enough to win a bunch of grandslams.


About weight training and conditioning? So Martina and Steffi were as athletic as it got for their generation? Nothing more, nothing less? Natural athletes. No training required.

More proned to injury? Why, because there is no offseason? And, this is just a recent phenomenon? There was no offseason either when Steffi played. Yet, in spite of her own injuries, Steffi won at least 7 tournaments for 11 years, from 1985-1996. How many have Lindsay, Venus, Serena, Henin, et al., won each year over the last 5 five years? How many tournaments have each played over the same period?

I could see where Clijster's injury last year may be due to the accumulated effect of overplaying, but what about everybody else? Lindsay's body is simply breaking down after a substantial career. Henin's body, on the other hand, is simply breaking down. Venus and Serena? Take a guess. But, given how little these two play this is much is clear. The length of the season has nothing to do with it.

Bitter Blue Bong
Jul 13th, 2005, 03:41 AM
Exactly.

Which 2 mixed did Serena win??

Wimbledon and USO in 1998 (the same year that Venus won the Australian/French in mixed doubles).

Larrybidd
Jul 13th, 2005, 07:09 AM
I could see where Clijster's injury last year may be due to the accumulated effect of overplaying, but what about everybody else? Lindsay's body is simply breaking down after a substantial career. Henin's body, on the other hand, is simply breaking down. Venus and Serena? Take a guess. But, given how little these two play this is much is clear. The length of the season has nothing to do with it.

I disagree. First of all, the way women play tennis these days can hardly be compared with womens tennis longer than 12 years ago. They used to play a a dainty little game where athletics had little to do with tennis. My first fav tennis player was Evonne Goolagong. I don't think she lifted a weight in her life. Different game - tons less stress on the body.

The Sisters are big girls with big athletic games. If you thing thay get injured a lot now, if they tryed to play more than they play now, they'd never have lasted this long. The smartest thing they do is as far as schedulling is basically bag the indoor season each year. You will notice that if they have played a full season (no long layoff do to injury) the season is basically over for them after the USO. My knees hurt thinking about playing on carpet, the sisters don't need that. Think of Clijsters and her famous splits, and tell me she can play 10 and a half months out of the year, year in and year out, and stay healthy? Those Russian girls coming up will have real short careers trying to play what counts for a full WTA season.

When are the powers that be gonna understand that the amont of injuries to the top players on tour IS definatly realated to the unrealistic length of the season. The players these days are real athletes, and thus they can't play as long a season as the old-timers used to.

VeraNuVirgosFan
Jul 13th, 2005, 08:19 AM
Yes, certainly Serena is one of all-time greatest WTA players.

So Venus was totally right when she said to Serena: "I just wanted to be like you".

1jackson2001
Jul 13th, 2005, 08:20 AM
For me:

Greatest of All Time: 15+ slams
All Time Greats: 10+ slams
Greats: 5+ slams

:wavey:;)

morningglory
Jul 13th, 2005, 01:32 PM
Serena is a great. No argument. :)
But has she fulfilled her potential? Sadly no. :sad: That's just it.

RenaSlam.
Jul 13th, 2005, 02:37 PM
Yes, she will be a great.