PDA

View Full Version : Who has had the better career - Hingis or Henin-Hardenne?


Verdasco
Dec 1st, 2006, 10:25 AM
Who has had the better career - Marina Hingis or Justine Henin-Hardenne. Both have won 5 Grand Slams but Hingis has reached 12 finals compared to Justine's 9. Martina has won 42 career titles compared to Justine's 29. Both have won three of one Grand Slam - Hingis has won Australian Open three times and Henin-Hardenne has won Roland Garros three times. Both have one Grand Slam which has eluded them from a career Grand Slam - Hingis at Roland Garros and Henin-Hardenne at Wimbledon. Both players have done pretty poor in a particular Grand Slam except for the times which they won the title once - Hingis has lost in the first round of Wimbledon twice, Henin-Hardenne has only ben past the 4th Round of the US Open twice. Hingis has been World No.1 for 209 weeks compared to Justine's reign at the top for 46 weeks.

So who has had the better career? I would definitely say Hingis. Just look at the career titles, Grand Slam finals and period at World No.1.

MrSerenaWilliams
Dec 1st, 2006, 10:52 AM
Martina - Justine

Time @ #1 - MARTINA
Titles - Martina
Majors - =

Biggest Accomplishment :

Martina won 4/5 Majors 1997-1998, while reaching finals of all 4
Justine reached 4 straight GS finals in 2006.

Martina by a MILE

hdfb
Dec 1st, 2006, 10:54 AM
Hingis.

Billabong
Dec 1st, 2006, 11:00 AM
Hingis by far. She surpasses Henin in weeks at #1, singles titles, doubles titles, GS doubles titles, career winning %. Hingis won Wimbledon, Henin the French. The only advantage Henin has is winning the Olympics gold.

die_wahrheit
Dec 1st, 2006, 11:03 AM
Hingis, no doubts

Stavie
Dec 1st, 2006, 11:03 AM
Justine has much much more to give to Women's Tennis ;)

Princeza
Dec 1st, 2006, 11:06 AM
:hearts: Martina :hearts:

pigmalion
Dec 1st, 2006, 11:18 AM
Justine cans again improve her results. Martina I don't think so

Erika_Angel
Dec 1st, 2006, 11:24 AM
Hingis atm, but she is past her heyday IMO. Justine I think can last several more years and I'm sure has a few more GSs in her.

Derek.
Dec 1st, 2006, 11:25 AM
For now it's Hingis.

In a year? Possibly Henin-Hardenne.

tennisbear7
Dec 1st, 2006, 11:25 AM
Martina will be remembered for her doubles prowess, as well as singles. Martina by a fair bit, but I think that might change if HH won more slams. But that said, they've both played for roughly the same amount of time and Martina has achieved more.

frenchie
Dec 1st, 2006, 11:31 AM
Hingis by far!!!

.Andrew.
Dec 1st, 2006, 11:39 AM
I love Henin-Hardenne but its obvious that Martina had a better career as of now. At the end, when both of them retire though, I think that Henin-Hardenne will have the better career but NOW Martina does I think.

MrSerenaWilliams
Dec 1st, 2006, 11:41 AM
Justine has no doubles career...Martina is one of best doubles player this side of Navratilova....she Venus and Serena are the only current players to have a doubles career slam (she won the Doubles GS in 1998). Not to mention she and Lindsay are the only active players to have been #1 in singles and doubles (not to mention Martina acheived both at the SAME TIME :eek: )

Even if Justine won 3 more slams and was #1 for 150 weeks, Martina wouldd still stand above because she was a more complete player.

die_wahrheit
Dec 1st, 2006, 11:50 AM
Justine has no doubles career...
doubles is a dead horse.
That can't be counted.

There will be the time, when anyone thinks, mixed has any value.
Please respect a little bit more the reality.

TonyP
Dec 1st, 2006, 12:00 PM
I think it is much too early in both women's career for this kind of question. Justine apparently plans to play another couple of years and is young enough to win more slams.

HIngis may also play a few more years and could also win slams, if her Madrid form continues.

Talk to me about this in say 2009.

And fyi, doubles matters. It is no longer getting the attention it once had, but all that will change, I guarantee it, if Hingis decides to again play doubles.

That part of the sport needs some glamour, as it had when Hingis played, especially with Kournikova. But if she picks somebody new with talent, she will again have people watching women's doubles matches.

I'm hoping that after achieving what she wants in singles, she decides to devote a couple of years to doubles. Then watch out!

Calvin
Dec 1st, 2006, 12:00 PM
Not to mention she and Lindsay are the only active players to have been #1 in singles and doubles (not to mention Martina acheived both at the SAME TIME :eek: )

We're not 2008 yet, Kim is still an active player.

pooh14
Dec 1st, 2006, 12:01 PM
if i was given a choice on whose career i prefer, i would say hingis, even if henin wins a few more slams.

in my opinion, slams isn't everything.
i would say hingis because the way she took the world at the age of 17, breaking all the youngest ever record. i would say hingis because of her doubles. yaya, i know doubles is not important, but i rather be a accomplish doubles and singles players, rather then just singles.

i would say hingis cause the number of years she stayed at #no1. i would say hingis because the number of tournament she has won.

but that does not mean i do not think henin had a great career, i just prefer hingis ;)

Steffica Greles
Dec 1st, 2006, 12:05 PM
Better player? Henin

Potential to have a better career? Henin

Better career? Hingis

Martina's been in more slam finals and has won far more matches despite the near 4 year break. And she's also won a dozen more titles.

ioni
Dec 1st, 2006, 12:07 PM
hingis ;)

Greenout
Dec 1st, 2006, 12:18 PM
Off course Martina has a better resume, she's turned pro in 1994.

Justine came in right after the new WTA rules about age requirements, and a limit on how many pro tournaments they can enter if they are under 16 years of age.


Justine turned pro in 1999 with the age cap on entering WTA events, Hingis didn't.

HenryMag.
Dec 1st, 2006, 12:22 PM
Justine in younger than Martina and I think she will win more GS..

Justine!

Sund7101
Dec 1st, 2006, 12:41 PM
martina has:

Has been #1 longer

Reached more slam finals

Won more titles in both singles and doubles

and she still has the potential to win more

That to me means Hingis has had a better career.

DragonFlame
Dec 1st, 2006, 12:48 PM
after next year it will be justine;) Right now it's hingis obviously.

And people mentioning doubles as a breakthrough result why martina is better, come on. :rolleyes: Doubles means crap. It's all about singles and you all know that.

Ryan
Dec 1st, 2006, 12:53 PM
after next year it will be justine;) Right now it's hingis obviously.

And people mentioning doubles as a breakthrough result why martina is better, come on. :rolleyes: Doubles means crap. It's all about singles and you all know that.



Are you kidding me? Singles is obviously more important, but if you're looking at players tied in almost every stats, doubles becomes a HUGE decider - especially when it's so overwhelming for one player. And it's really pathetic that you have to degrade doubles, when there are professionals who rely on it to make a living. They get points, and money just like singles players, and I guarantee if you said that in front of anyone on the ATP or WTA Tours you'd deservedly get this living pulp kicked out of you.

RJWCapriati
Dec 1st, 2006, 12:55 PM
Hingis as of today

natacha1
Dec 1st, 2006, 12:58 PM
They both are still playing so ....

tennisIlove09
Dec 1st, 2006, 12:59 PM
Martina.

athake
Dec 1st, 2006, 01:05 PM
i say "Even if Justine wins 5 GS more than Hingis, and 20 GS more than Serena, Hingis and Serena'll have better career moreever sureever forever :)", so be happy :)

Worry shorten lifes, its no good. Justine'll make it in a painless way, dont worry..

JCF
Dec 1st, 2006, 01:05 PM
Justine obviously, she has won more slams and that is all that matters.

That person who says slams are not the only thing that matters, well :lol: cos it really is.

Marcus1979
Dec 1st, 2006, 01:05 PM
definately Martina

MrSerenaWilliams
Dec 1st, 2006, 01:06 PM
We're not 2008 yet, Kim is still an active player.

I forgot Kim was dual #1 too....:wavey:

MrSerenaWilliams
Dec 1st, 2006, 01:08 PM
doubles is a dead horse.
That can't be counted.

There will be the time, when anyone thinks, mixed has any value.
Please respect a little bit more the reality.

If it has a world ranking and a Year-Ending Championship, it deserves attention....:wavey: Don't overlook doubles just because Justine chose not to play, because if the tables were turned and Martina had the significantly lesser career, you'd be lobbying that doubles meant more too :wavey: ;)

Please respect more the reality of your personal bias

Marcus1979
Dec 1st, 2006, 01:12 PM
how many mixed titles does Martina have?
does she have the collection in that?

jamatthews
Dec 1st, 2006, 01:13 PM
1 Ao 2006. ;)

Marcus1979
Dec 1st, 2006, 01:15 PM
ooh I thought she had more than that thats all
I know she played a lot of doubles earlier on in her career or was that like just womens doubles not mixed?

The Dawntreader
Dec 1st, 2006, 01:16 PM
I'd say Henin-Hardenne, has won the French and Olympic Gold, although she hasnt won the wimby title, has been in two finals.

tennisbear7
Dec 1st, 2006, 01:22 PM
Justine obviously, she has won more slams and that is all that matters.

That person who says slams are not the only thing that matters, well :lol: cos it really is.

:lol:

Hingis and HH have equal number of singles slams.

Hingis has about, like, 12 more doubles slams than HH. :lol:

It might change in the future ;P

Ryan
Dec 1st, 2006, 02:03 PM
I'd say Henin-Hardenne, has won the French and Olympic Gold, although she hasnt won the wimby title, has been in two finals.

That makes no sense. Hingis has won Wimbledon, which Justine hasn't, and has made the RG final twice. I don't think the "type" of slams won can count, because they both have 5 and are equal in that department. Justine has an Olympic Gold, but Hingis only competed in the Olympics when she was 15. Hingis has 9 doubles slams, one mixed slam, more singles and doubles titles, 2 YEC's, more weeks at #1, more career wins, everything.

The Dawntreader
Dec 1st, 2006, 02:10 PM
That makes no sense. Hingis has won Wimbledon, which Justine hasn't, and has made the RG final twice. I don't think the "type" of slams won can count, because they both have 5 and are equal in that department. Justine has an Olympic Gold, but Hingis only competed in the Olympics when she was 15. Hingis has 9 doubles slams, one mixed slam, more singles and doubles titles, 2 YEC's, more weeks at #1, more career wins, everything.

Well remember Justine is only 24 and well capable of achieving those things in the future:)

thrust
Dec 1st, 2006, 02:13 PM
No doubt Hingis had a great carrer, however, she peaked at a time when Graf and Seles, were past their prime and before Venus, Serena, Jennifer and Lindsay reached theirs. Once that happened Martina was no longer dominant, especially in Slams. Justine had to compete against these power players when they were at their peak and she had not reached hers. I certainly admire the Hingis game and mental skill, but she cannot really compete with today^s power players which include: Justine, a peak Amelie, Kim, or Maria-off clay. The same would be true with the Williams sisters, if they were at their best today.

Ryan
Dec 1st, 2006, 02:13 PM
Well remember Justine is only 24 and well capable of achieving those things in the future:)




Bully for her. This says "better career", not "potential to win more". God, I really have a problem with morons today.

Ryan
Dec 1st, 2006, 02:16 PM
No doubt Hingis had a great carrer, however, she peaked at a time when Graf and Seles, were past their prime and before Venus, Serena, Jennifer and Lindsay reached theirs. Once that happened Martina was no longer dominant, especially in Slams. Justine had to compete against these power players when they were at their peak and she had not reached hers. I certainly admire the Hingis game and mental skill, but she cannot really compete with today^s power players which include: Justine, a peak Amelie, Kim, or Maria-off clay. The same would be true with the Williams sisters, if they were at their best today.



Hingis "cant compete" with them now because she is HARDLY close to her peak. Hingis cannot control who sucked and who didn't from 97-99. Lindsay was winning slams, Seles, Venus and Serena were all competing for them during this period, and so was Steffi.

Justine won the US Open and Australian Open with no Venus or Serena present, the two best players at the time. She won her last two french opens hardly facing a top player that can threaten her, especially with no decent claycourters in this era. Everything can be turned around, especially when Justine hasn't had to defeat stellar players to win most of her slams.

The Dawntreader
Dec 1st, 2006, 02:17 PM
Bully for her. This says "better career", not "potential to win more". God, I really have a problem with morons today.

Why the need for aggression? Have you got problems with opinions that differ from your own? i'm not going to be called a 'moron' just because we disagree. Grow up!:rolleyes:

die_wahrheit
Dec 1st, 2006, 02:17 PM
If it has a world ranking and a Year-Ending Championship, it deserves attention....:wavey: Don't overlook doubles just because Justine chose not to play, because if the tables were turned and Martina had the significantly lesser career, you'd be lobbying that doubles meant more too :wavey: ;)

Please respect more the reality of your personal bias

Hingis had the better career, but that has nothing to do with doubles.

Ryan
Dec 1st, 2006, 02:19 PM
Why the need for aggression? Have you got problems with opinions that differ from your own? i'm not going to be called a 'moron' just because we disagree. Grow up!:rolleyes:



No, I'm calling you a moron because you have problems reading. I have no problems with someone disagreeing with me, as long as they post something intelligent and well-argued.

The Dawntreader
Dec 1st, 2006, 02:23 PM
No, I'm calling you a moron because you have problems reading. I have no problems with someone disagreeing with me, as long as they post something intelligent and well-argued.

Fine, i shall take your arguments on board:)

But i think this thread makes it sound like neither are going to win titles again, i think it should be ' who will have the better career ' or whatever.

:lol:

saki
Dec 1st, 2006, 02:23 PM
Currently, Hingis. But you don't have to bring doubles in at all - she was #1 for longer, has more singles titles, one more YEC. That outweighes the Olympic gold. But it won't be long before Justine overtakes her.

die_wahrheit
Dec 1st, 2006, 02:25 PM
Hingis of course, to repeat it.

but stop writing nonsense. It's not about mixed, it's not about doubles, it's not about soccer, it's not about beauty (although Hingis wins this more easily) it's only about tennis and that means professionel tennis at the highest level. And that does not include mixed, doubles or junior events.

barmaid
Dec 1st, 2006, 02:38 PM
While both 5-time GS Champions have had controversial things happen on the court...Justine with the "hand" and this year at AO '06, then Martina with the '99 meltdown...Martina with her sheer charisma has accomplished more on and off the tennis court than Justine...she is a "high profile" player while Justine was always considered "low profile" thus her accomplishments were to a degree somewhat "over-shadowed" simply because Martina has had such great success and notoriety because she became so famous as a "teenager" or child prodigy..thus she became famous far before any of her compatriots..giving her an "edge" in the competition - over Venus, Davenport, Capriati, Justine, Kim, I would say over almost everybody else except Maria who is acknowledged at the moment to be the most recognized player out there and the most popular. Excluding Serena who holds 7 GS titles, Martina leads the pack of contenders and if you consider her doubles stats she "tops" the list. It will be interesting to see however if Justine wins her 6th slam...then the evaluation will start all over.:worship:

barmaid:wavey:

Steffica Greles
Dec 1st, 2006, 02:39 PM
Why the need for aggression? Have you got problems with opinions that differ from your own? i'm not going to be called a 'moron' just because we disagree. Grow up!:rolleyes:

I wouldn't worry. Ryan is usually like that.

ayusania
Dec 1st, 2006, 02:46 PM
hingis 4 sure, i think

selyoink
Dec 1st, 2006, 02:58 PM
Even though the numbers say Hingis at this point since I believe Justine is a better player I voted for her.

Justine Fan
Dec 1st, 2006, 03:41 PM
Bully for her. This says "better career", not "potential to win more". God, I really have a problem with morons today.

You have a problem .. period! :cuckoo:

Justine Fan
Dec 1st, 2006, 03:46 PM
Fine, i shall take your arguments on board:)

But i think this thread makes it sound like neither are going to win titles again, i think it should be ' who will have the better career ' or whatever.

:lol:

dl05 .. true, this thread doesn't make sense purely because the thread starter is a Justine hater. They came into the JHH forum trying to bspread hate etc. Hence why they started this thread :rolleyes:

Ryan
Dec 1st, 2006, 03:54 PM
You have a problem .. period! :cuckoo:


How so? I just cant stand it when people don't read the thread properly, and post nonsensical bullshit.

Ryan
Dec 1st, 2006, 03:55 PM
dl05 .. true, this thread doesn't make sense purely because the thread starter is a Justine hater. They came into the JHH forum trying to bspread hate etc. Hence why they started this thread :rolleyes:


This thread has a valid premise whether you like it or not. True, it wasn't made by the most objective person, but that shouldn't take away from what the thread is asking.

Dexter
Dec 1st, 2006, 04:01 PM
Martina right now, but Justine will surpass her ;)

Ryan
Dec 1st, 2006, 04:01 PM
quote deleted

Haha, I usually dont, it's just one of those days.

Stavie
Dec 1st, 2006, 04:11 PM
Martina right now, but Justine will surpass her ;)

totally agree ;)

Nicolás89
Dec 1st, 2006, 04:13 PM
hingis has the better carrer period

justine will surpass her?
maybe, we dont know:wavey:

spencercarlos
Dec 1st, 2006, 04:17 PM
Martina - Justine

Time @ #1 - MARTINA
Titles - Martina
Majors - =

Biggest Accomplishment :

Martina won 4/5 Majors 1997-1998, while reaching finals of all 4
Justine reached 4 straight GS finals in 2006.

Martina by a MILE
So far.. But Henin will finish higher

Wayn77
Dec 1st, 2006, 04:17 PM
Both are great all-court champions with different styles. I can't split them.:scratch:

Joachim1978
Dec 1st, 2006, 04:23 PM
I will edge towards Hingis. She has been more consistent, has more titles by a long way (which counts for a lot), has (for the most part) managed to avoid injury, and is a phenomenally talented doubles player.

I will say however, that Henin-Hardenne won her 5 Grand Slams with tougher draws than Hingis did. I also think that Henin-Hardenne is more focussed and works harder.

I agree with many people here that, barring injury or a drop of form, it is highly likely that Henin-Hardenne will win more Grand Slams and will possibly have the more impressive career by the time both players retire. Hingis's chances of winning another are slimmer.

But Henin-Hardenne will never own a season like Hingis did in 1997 or Serena did in 2002, and that's one thing Martina will always have over her.

thrust
Dec 1st, 2006, 04:29 PM
With all due respects to the know it all Ryan, competition does matter. Hingis won Wimbledon against one of the all-time choke artists- Novotna. Her AO finals wins were against the clay courter Martinez, the erratic Mary Pierce, and novice-and at that time choke artist Mauresmo. Her USO win was against a novice Venus Williams. She lost two Slam finals against Davenport and Capriati. Her two FO finals losses were to Iva Majoli-one of the all time greats-lol! and the retiring and injured Graf. Her USO final loss was to the young Serena. Like I said before, once the Sisters, Cpariati, and Davenport reached their peak Martina^s dominance ended.

PLP
Dec 1st, 2006, 04:32 PM
It's a difficult question to answer since they are both still playing, and hopefully both will continue to play for 4 or 5 more seasons, no matter what certain threads say ;) .

Martina has a more impressive career so far, but that doesn't take anything away from what JuJu has accomplished...which is much more than 99.9% of players.

I will say this...Justine will have to accomplish A LOT in the next few years to surpass Martina, but this isn't a war between them. They both belong in the Hall of Fame and they will both be remembered as great champions.

Winning 9 doubles GS and 1 Mixed GS is an incredible achievement and should not be dismissed. I understand why JuJu has chosen to save herself for singles, considering her health and how physically demanding the game is. I hope Martina plays some select dubs over the next few years and adds to her # of titles, she is one of the greatest in doubles...ever.

The Daviator
Dec 1st, 2006, 04:39 PM
I think you should have included Venus in this poll, Venus, Justine and Martina are all pretty even, except in weeks at #1, as for this poll, I say Hingis right now, but in a year's time, the answer will be Justine :)

Shimizu Amon
Dec 1st, 2006, 04:48 PM
At this time it's Hingis, but I voted Henin-Hardenne because she'll surpass her. And besides that I think that Henin-Hardenne is the better player.

Billabong
Dec 1st, 2006, 05:08 PM
With all due respects to the know it all Ryan, competition does matter. Hingis won Wimbledon against one of the all-time choke artists- Novotna. Her AO finals wins were against the clay courter Martinez, the erratic Mary Pierce, and novice-and at that time choke artist Mauresmo.

Ridiculous. As far as I know, Henin beat an even-more erratic Pierce in the 2005 RG final, much more erratic than in the 1997 AO final. Also, you discredit Novotna, but who can forget she won Wimbledon the very next year? When she was on, Novotna was almost invincible on grass, and she certainly didn't choke in the 1997 Wimbledon final. About choking, as much as i love her, where do you place Kim Clijsters in that department? In the 2003 RG and 2003 US Open finals, Kim was totally absent, she basically totally choked both matches and didn't make a great opposition to Henin then. She was also the only opposition to Henin in AO 2004, a totally empty tournament. And you can't say Henin had SO much competition in the 2006 RG, even though she was by far the best player in that tournament. I reckon she definitely deserved all her GS titles, just as much as Hingis deserved her victories, but the "competiton" factor can go against both players.

Il Primo!
Dec 1st, 2006, 06:28 PM
Hingis by far!!!
We're not asking you who you hate the most..

However I agree, Hingis has the best career so far..

jazar
Dec 1st, 2006, 08:23 PM
looking at their career stats atm, martina. but justine will surpass her. however it think martina will be remembered as the more successful player

Mother_Marjorie
Dec 1st, 2006, 08:51 PM
Well, in 2007, Henin will likely surpass Martina in single majors. At that point, Henin is having the better career.

Hingis' grand slam singles drought has extended and it will be very difficult for Martina to ever win a singles major in her second career.

eck
Dec 1st, 2006, 09:26 PM
pfft. Slams do matter. So the minute Justine wins another GS (hopefully), I'm pretty sure most would say that she will have the better career til Martina gets another GS title.

Ben.
Dec 1st, 2006, 09:48 PM
At the moment Hingis has the better career over Henin for me personally.

Both of them have won 5 slams, both of them have been No.1 in the World & both of them have been in all 4 slam finals. Big difference is that Hingis has won more career singles titles (42 titles from Hingis to 29 from Henin), has been at No.1 for 209 weeks compared to Henin's 48 weeks & has even won Wimbledon which Henin has not done. Plus Hingis' 6 consecutive Aussie Open finals spanning from 1997-2002 edges out Henin as Henin has never reached 6 consecutive finals at a slam event.

Only achievements that Henin has that Hingis has never achieved were an Olympic Gold Medal, a French Open title & even a Fed Cup title 2 boot. But Hingis' career 2 me stands out 2 be the more impressive but I have a feeling that Henin will surpass that no doubt in future years 2 come.

franny
Dec 1st, 2006, 10:36 PM
With all due respects to the know it all Ryan, competition does matter. Hingis won Wimbledon against one of the all-time choke artists- Novotna. Her AO finals wins were against the clay courter Martinez, the erratic Mary Pierce, and novice-and at that time choke artist Mauresmo. Her USO win was against a novice Venus Williams. She lost two Slam finals against Davenport and Capriati. Her two FO finals losses were to Iva Majoli-one of the all time greats-lol! and the retiring and injured Graf. Her USO final loss was to the young Serena. Like I said before, once the Sisters, Cpariati, and Davenport reached their peak Martina^s dominance ended.

And Justine won hers against another big choke artist Clijsters (3 times!), Mary Pierce (who played like crap), and Kuznetsova. I'm sorry, but dont' pull that Hingis won over weak opponents crap. Both players won their slams justly. One can also claim that Justine's grand slam tally in inflated by her mastery of just one surface, whereas while Hingis has won three Aus Opens, at least the surface there is more neutral to all the other surfaces. But I of course will not claim that, since I don't like to diminish people's records and victories.

The point is, even with a few more slams, Justine will have to contend with Martina's weeks at number 1, phenomenal dominating year, consistency at the top, being a teen phenom, and amazing doubles career.

Hingie
Dec 1st, 2006, 10:55 PM
I really do not think doubles comes into it much at all. Look at the Navratilova/Graf greatness argument. Steffi seems to still come out on top despite almost non-existent doubles accomplishments.

But doubles results aside, to this day it is Hingis without a doubt. People seem to forget what she did as a 16 year old will probably not be repeated for some time to come.

Thrust - don't even go there about Slam competition because JHH was handed some of her Slams - one in particular match with Kim - awful! Novotna was playing well at 97 Wimby and Pierce was the favourite going into the Aussie against Hingis.

The next couple of years will be very interesting though. JHH's work ethic has got to be admired and if she continues she will enjoy more success - whether Hingis can raise her game and again capture Slams we don't know at this stage.

And Steffica - good to see you in another Hingis thread! :wavey: Obsessed... and uses any opportunity to bag Marti. Better player based on what exactly?

Junex
Dec 2nd, 2006, 02:41 AM
Ugh I hate threads like this.....

But, i like to be in the mix so...

Hingis has had the better career so far....

Justine has a good chance to surpass that though...

And regarding the doubles, since Justine has "no-life" :rolleyes: whatsoever except tennis...she could do a Navratilova and play doubles the rest of her life after she can no longer compete in singles!:devil: :lol:

SJW
Dec 2nd, 2006, 02:58 AM
With all due respects to the know it all Ryan, competition does matter. Hingis won Wimbledon against one of the all-time choke artists- Novotna. Her AO finals wins were against the clay courter Martinez, the erratic Mary Pierce, and novice-and at that time choke artist Mauresmo. Her USO win was against a novice Venus Williams. She lost two Slam finals against Davenport and Capriati. Her two FO finals losses were to Iva Majoli-one of the all time greats-lol! and the retiring and injured Graf. Her USO final loss was to the young Serena. Like I said before, once the Sisters, Cpariati, and Davenport reached their peak Martina^s dominance ended.

I guess you "forgot" to mention that JHH's rise to the top coincided with serious injuries to the two most dominant players on tour.:confused::)

darrinbaker00
Dec 2nd, 2006, 04:06 AM
Martina Hingis - $19,505,362
Justine Henin-Hardenne - $13,573,319
-------------------------------------------------------------
As of right now, Hingis is having the better career.

MrSerenaWilliams
Dec 2nd, 2006, 05:07 AM
it's not that simple....Justine got more for her US Open 2003 win that Martina did for her 1997 triumph.....Martina SHOULD have a bigger advantage if this is your rationale

kittyking
Dec 2nd, 2006, 05:17 AM
Martina Hingis in my eyes is the smartest ever tennis player - mens or womens
Also she dominated the game at such a young age

Justine Henin Hardenne on the other hand does not quite understand the game as good as Martina IMO, although Justine is 3 or 4 times stronger than Martina.

Martina has had the better career :kiss:

hdfb
Dec 2nd, 2006, 05:22 AM
Ugh I hate threads like this.....

But, i like to be in the mix so...

Hingis has had the better career so far....

Justine has a good chance to surpass that though...

And regarding the doubles, since Justine has "no-life" :rolleyes: whatsoever except tennis...she could do a Navratilova and play doubles the rest of her life after she can no longer compete in singles!:devil: :lol:

Just out of curiosity, what do you think it will take for Justine to "surpass" Hingis in your eyes?

pooh14
Dec 2nd, 2006, 05:26 AM
Martina Hingis - $19,505,362
Justine Henin-Hardenne - $13,573,319
-------------------------------------------------------------
As of right now, Hingis is having the better career.


lol, that is so right.
whoever earns more at the end of the day, has the better career ?
isnt that all career is about? earning money :p

iamhe
Dec 2nd, 2006, 05:55 AM
Although i'm a fan of justine, I have to admit that Hingis had the better carrer so far.

Mother_Marjorie
Dec 2nd, 2006, 06:02 AM
I guess you "forgot" to mention that JHH's rise to the top coincided with serious injuries to the two most dominant players on tour.:confused::)

Why must you always attempt to interject two players who have had mediocre results since mid-2003?

I guess you forgot, but during Justine's rise in 2003, she held a 2-1 record against the then #1 player in the world.

Its going on four years now since their "serious" injuries and both players have only won a handful of tournaments and one grand slam singles victory each.

Why must you always belittle the accomplishments of Queen Justine by attempting to compare her to two players who have historically been plagued with motivation issues and outside interests which have affected their professional tennis results?

Persistently using "injury" as an excuse for their lingering lackluster results smacks of denial in the worst way. Especially considering Justine had two years in which she didn't win 40 matches, but still won grand slam titles.

2003-2006:

Serena Jameka Williams
Serena Williams 2003: 37-3
Serena Williams 2004: 39-11
Serena Williams 2005: 22-8
Serena Williams 2006: 12-6

110-28 = 79.7%
Year End #1 Ranked: 0
Grand Slam Titles: 3
Tournaments Won: 7


Queen Justine Henin-Hardenne
Justine Henin-Hardenne 2003: 74-11
Justine Henin-Hardenne 2004: 36-4
Justine Henin-Hardenne 2005: 34-5
Justine Henin-Hardenne 2003: 61-8

205-28 = 87.9%:eek:
Year End #1 Ranked: 2003 and 2006
Grand Slam Titles: 5
Tournaments Won: 23
Olympic Champion

Greenout
Dec 2nd, 2006, 06:12 AM
This isn't a good poll or comparison actually.


Venus or Hingis is more accurate. Both 5 grand slams, doubles, and mixed doubles titles. They both turned pro in 1994, and played against the players of the 1990's and the current crop.

Off course JHH is behind Hingis, she came in after the age cap from the WTA limiting her experience for regular WTA tours.

Same as Maria and Nikki- everyone after the age limit rule will have less titles than Hingis; period. Can't win unless they become experienced against regular WTA players, but only allowed to play a limited schedule because of age held back these players to win more at a younger age.

Justine Fan
Dec 2nd, 2006, 06:15 AM
Why must you always attempt to interject two players who have had mediocre results since mid-2003?

I guess you forgot, but during Justine's rise in 2003, she held a 2-1 record against the then #1 player in the world.

Its going on four years now since their "serious" injuries and both players have only won a handful of tournaments and one grand slam singles victory each.

Why must you always belittle the accomplishments of Queen Justine by attempting to compare her to two players who have historically been plagued with motivation issues and outside interests which have affected their professional tennis results?

Persistently using "injury" as an excuse for their lingering lackluster results smacks of denial in the worst way.

:worship: :worship:

Gosh don't they live in the past eh? :lol: That's the only power they have now "to belittle" :haha: :haha: Mind you, at least they (WS) are back on the court now ......... legal court! :haha: :haha: Oops :tape:

Brooklyn90
Dec 2nd, 2006, 06:17 AM
Why must you always attempt to interject two players who have had mediocre results since mid-2003?

I guess you forgot, but during Justine's rise in 2003, she held a 2-1 record against the then #1 player in the world.

Its going on four years now since their "serious" injuries and both players have only won a handful of tournaments and one grand slam singles victory each.

Why must you always belittle the accomplishments of Queen Justine by attempting to compare her to two players who have historically been plagued with motivation issues and outside interests which have affected their professional tennis results?

Persistently using "injury" as an excuse for their lingering lackluster results smacks of denial in the worst way.

well justine would have never won the us open in 03 or the Ao in 04 if the william's weren't injured. But whatever that's the past :)

Greenout
Dec 2nd, 2006, 06:18 AM
Hingis has a better resume, end of story. There's no comparison. Hingis has a greater resume than practically everyone on tour right now.

Justine Fan
Dec 2nd, 2006, 06:18 AM
This isn't a good poll or comparison actually.


Venus or Hingis is more accurate. Both 5 grand slams, doubles, and mixed doubles titles. They both turned pro in 1994, and played against the players of the 1990's and the current crop.

Off course JHH is behind Hingis, she came in after the age cap from the WTA limiting her experience for regular WTA tours.

Same as Maria and Nikki- everyone after the age limit rule will have less titles than Hingis; period. Can't win unless they become experienced against regular WTA players, but only allowed to play a limited schedule because of age held back these players to win more at a younger age.

Ah but, Greeny, that's a logical answer and a true answer. The thread starter is a hater (as you saw from the thread they started in H2H), hence why they say "Hingis & Henin"!

Mother_Marjorie
Dec 2nd, 2006, 06:26 AM
well justine would have never won the us open in 03 or the Ao in 04 if the william's weren't injured. But whatever that's the past :)

Well, that's odd youngin'.

Venus played in the '04 AO and lost in the third round.

Serena or Venus haven't been consistently injured for now going on four years. Its simply not the truth.

Brooklyn90
Dec 2nd, 2006, 06:28 AM
Well, that's odd youngin'.

Venus played in the '04 AO and lost in the third round.

but serena didn't and she was defending champ :p

MrSerenaWilliams
Dec 2nd, 2006, 06:29 AM
Well, that's odd youngin'.

Venus played in the '04 AO and lost in the third round.

Serena or Venus haven't been consistently injured for now going on four years. Its simply not the truth.

after AO 2003, Venus was losing some of her edge, but Serena was still mentally as ferocious as the day she began her 2002 campaign. I don't think she would have relinquished either USO or AO if she had played :wavey:

martinahfan
Dec 2nd, 2006, 08:13 AM
hello :)

for me it's martina hingis , it's simpy the best

LUIS9
Dec 2nd, 2006, 08:34 AM
No doubt Hingis had a great carrer, however, she peaked at a time when Graf and Seles, were past their prime and before Venus, Serena, Jennifer and Lindsay reached theirs. Once that happened Martina was no longer dominant, especially in Slams. Justine had to compete against these power players when they were at their peak and she had not reached hers. I certainly admire the Hingis game and mental skill, but she cannot really compete with today^s power players which include: Justine, a peak Amelie, Kim, or Maria-off clay. The same would be true with the Williams sisters, if they were at their best today.

When did Henin play a peak Serena and beat her? Only on clay and by a small margin. Then came Wimby and Serena had no mercy. This bashing of Hingis making it big in '97 because of no competition can apply to just about any other player. Henin had the '03 year because there were no Williams around and Clijsters was gifting her the slam titles whenever they met in a final.

Yes Henin without a trace of doubt is the best clay court player of her generation by quite a margin. Nevertheless, she in no shape or form had tough competition to contend with in order to win her slams aside from US open '03 (which Capriati couldn't cease) and then to have it her way against Clijsters in the final; and Roland '03 but the hand helped her out. I totally respect her dedication to the game and her ambitious nature that has made her the champion she is, and she's a very legit one at that.

Nonetheless, the no competition argument applies to Henin as much as it is applied to the Hingis hey days. Who was around to compete against Henin in 03 and 04 presumably her peak days. Dementieva (a formidable athlete but a headcase in the big moments and that serve has cost her dearly), Clijsters another great athlete but has always struggled against Henin's grit in the big occasions, who else was around? Davenport was coming back from injury.... Capriati was losing some of her sparkles and the russians have always been Henin's rollover opponents.

LUIS9
Dec 2nd, 2006, 08:39 AM
I really do not think doubles comes into it much at all. Look at the Navratilova/Graf greatness argument. Steffi seems to still come out on top despite almost non-existent doubles accomplishments.

But doubles results aside, to this day it is Hingis without a doubt. People seem to forget what she did as a 16 year old will probably not be repeated for some time to come.

Thrust - don't even go there about Slam competition because JHH was handed some of her Slams - one in particular match with Kim - awful! Novotna was playing well at 97 Wimby and Pierce was the favourite going into the Aussie against Hingis.

The next couple of years will be very interesting though. JHH's work ethic has got to be admired and if she continues she will enjoy more success - whether Hingis can raise her game and again capture Slams we don't know at this stage.

And Steffica - good to see you in another Hingis thread! :wavey: Obsessed... and uses any opportunity to bag Marti. Better player based on what exactly?

We seem to agree completely. Yes Henin's grit, dedication, discipline, and great fitness are among the many qualities to admire in this champion. However, Clijsters greatly helped Henin's cause at winning slam finals and her grand slam winning tally.

Si_Hi
Dec 2nd, 2006, 09:42 AM
Their careers haven't ended, so ask such qustion after both of them retired.

MistyGrey
Dec 2nd, 2006, 10:15 AM
Right now Hingis, but Justine will surpass her.

faste5683
Dec 2nd, 2006, 10:46 AM
well justine would have never won the us open in 03 or the Ao in 04 if the william's weren't injured. But whatever that's the past :)


How can you know that?

P.S., how's the Kool-aid?

:wavey:

Veritas
Dec 2nd, 2006, 12:00 PM
doubles is a dead horse.
That can't be counted.

There will be the time, when anyone thinks, mixed has any value.
Please respect a little bit more the reality.

If that was true, there wouldn't be any need to set aside a space at the Slams for it. And like it or not, the "reality" is that Martina's proven herself to be more versatile by performing well at both singles and doubles at the same time.

And I'd hardly think it's fair to compare all of 2003-2006 between Serena and Henin. For example, Serena's winning % in 2003 is 92.5%, while Henin's is 87.06% - obviously Serena playing 40 tournaments to Henin's 85 plays a big part in the outcome, but point is, it's rare for players to peak at the same time and comparing them only makes things unnecessarily complicated.

die_wahrheit
Dec 2nd, 2006, 01:07 PM
If that was true, there wouldn't be any need to set aside a space at the Slams for it. And like it or not, the "reality" is that Martina's proven herself to be more versatile by performing well at both singles and doubles at the same time.


Stop dreaming.
There's also space for the over 35 tournament and the junior event etc etc.
All these events, including doubles, have something in common. Nobody really cares about.

spencercarlos
Dec 2nd, 2006, 01:59 PM
When did Henin play a peak Serena and beat her? Only on clay and by a small margin. Then came Wimby and Serena had no mercy. This bashing of Hingis making it big in '97 because of no competition can apply to just about any other player. Henin had the '03 year because there were no Williams around and Clijsters was gifting her the slam titles whenever they met in a final.

Yes Henin without a trace of doubt is the best clay court player of her generation by quite a margin. Nevertheless, she in no shape or form had tough competition to contend with in order to win her slams aside from US open '03 (which Capriati couldn't cease) and then to have it her way against Clijsters in the final; and Roland '03 but the hand helped her out. I totally respect her dedication to the game and her ambitious nature that has made her the champion she is, and she's a very legit one at that.

Nonetheless, the no competition argument applies to Henin as much as it is applied to the Hingis hey days. Who was around to compete against Henin in 03 and 04 presumably her peak days. Dementieva (a formidable athlete but a headcase in the big moments and that serve has cost her dearly), Clijsters another great athlete but has always struggled against Henin's grit in the big occasions, who else was around? Davenport was coming back from injury.... Capriati was losing some of her sparkles and the russians have always been Henin's rollover opponents.
Exactly that applies to every era.
Graf domianted the late 80ties because Martina and Chrissy were too old.
Seles dominated in the early 90ties because of Graf´s personal problems.
Graf dominated again after Seles got stabbed (this one true :p)
Arantxa dominated in 94 because Graf was injured.
Conchita won a slam in 94 because she faced an old Martina.
Graf dominated in 95 because there was no competition and Seles was back for only 2 events.
and so on..

SJW
Dec 2nd, 2006, 02:05 PM
Why must you always attempt to interject two players who have had mediocre results since mid-2003?

I guess you forgot, but during Justine's rise in 2003, she held a 2-1 record against the then #1 player in the world.

Its going on four years now since their "serious" injuries and both players have only won a handful of tournaments and one grand slam singles victory each.

Why must you always belittle the accomplishments of Queen Justine by attempting to compare her to two players who have historically been plagued with motivation issues and outside interests which have affected their professional tennis results?

Persistently using "injury" as an excuse for their lingering lackluster results smacks of denial in the worst way. Especially considering Justine had two years in which she didn't win 40 matches, but still won grand slam titles.

2003-2006:

Serena Jameka Williams
Serena Williams 2003: 37-3
Serena Williams 2004: 39-11
Serena Williams 2005: 22-8
Serena Williams 2006: 12-6

110-28 = 79.7%
Year End #1 Ranked: 0
Grand Slam Titles: 3
Tournaments Won: 7


Queen Justine Henin-Hardenne
Justine Henin-Hardenne 2003: 74-11
Justine Henin-Hardenne 2004: 36-4
Justine Henin-Hardenne 2005: 34-5
Justine Henin-Hardenne 2003: 61-8

205-28 = 87.9%:eek:
Year End #1 Ranked: 2003 and 2006
Grand Slam Titles: 5
Tournaments Won: 23
Olympic Champion

What did you do, make those numbers up? :confused:
wtatour.com says you're wrong. Sorry, I had to check, didn't trust you :)

Like I said. It's funny how her rise to the top coincided with serious injuries to the two most dominant players at her time. Its funny how you didn't compare their first half of 2003, when both were healthy. :confused:
During her peak, Hingis was the undeniable best
During her peak, Venus was the undeniable best
During her peak, Serena was the undeniable best
At the start of her peak, JHH was the best out of everyone playing.

Mother_Marjorie
Dec 2nd, 2006, 06:59 PM
What did you do, make those numbers up? :confused:
wtatour.com says you're wrong. Sorry, I had to check, didn't trust you :)
I really don't care if you trust me or not. You are nothing to me.

Your denial of Serena's plummeting record and tennis since 2003 is well-known. So of course, it wouldn't be to your favor for you to post the numbers you saw, because it wouldn't support you.

You cannot deny the excellence of Justine Henin-Hardenne since 2003, even after Serena Williams began playing again in mid 2004.
Like I said. It's funny how her rise to the top coincided with serious injuries to the two most dominant players at her time.
So what is your excuse for 2006? It is the second time Justine ended the year #1 while Serena and Venus were playing, something neither Venus or Serena has done in their entire careers.
Its funny how you didn't compare their first half of 2003, when both were healthy. :confused:
In 2003, Justine had a winning record against Serena, then the #1 player, when both were healthy in 2003. It was inevitable that Justine would surpass Serena. The writing was on the wall.

You can't truly call Venus dominant when she's only been ranked #1 for 12 weeks and never ended a calendar year #1 during her career.

Serena had a 13 month period of dominance in mid 2002 to mid 2003 followed by four years of mediocricy. Lemme guess.....she was injured for all that time...right?

Me kinda thinks that Justine ending Serena's streak in the majors and adding insult to injury by taking Serena's #1 ranking is a big reason why you always attempt to diminish Justine's accomplishments.

However, when you compare the accomplishments of Justine vs anyone in the WTA since Justine's rise in 2003, its obvious why she is Queen. She has the record, the tournament wins, the GS titles, the Olympic Gold and two years YE #1 to prove her might. She's dedicated to playing and winning tennis, which some others have difficulty reconciling. Justine is a true tennis professional. That's the difference.

Justine is the ONLY player of this generation (including Hingis) to win a grand slam title four years in a row.

Hingis was a great player when she was 16. But she's proven that she no longer has the mental will or strength to capture singles majors....since 1999. Today's players are simply too strong for her to overcome.

Listen, it must be difficult watching your fav succumb to a true tennis professional. I understand that. But the 2006 season is over and 2007 is upon us. Its no longer 2002. And that kind of denial you will have to deal with. Not me.

Justine Fan
Dec 2nd, 2006, 08:10 PM
I really don't care if you trust me or not. You are nothing to me.

Your denial of Serena's plummeting record and tennis since 2003 is well-known. So of course, it wouldn't be to your favor for you to post the numbers you saw, because it wouldn't support you.

You cannot deny the excellence of Justine Henin-Hardenne since 2003, even after Serena Williams began playing again in mid 2004.

So what is your excuse for 2006? It is the second time Justine ended the year #1 while Serena and Venus were playing, something neither Venus or Serena has done in their entire careers.

In 2003, Justine had a winning record against Serena, then the #1 player, when both were healthy in 2003. It was inevitable that Justine would surpass Serena. The writing was on the wall.

You can't truly call Venus dominant when she's only been ranked #1 for 12 weeks and never ended a calendar year #1 during her career.

Serena had a 13 month period of dominance in mid 2002 to mid 2003 followed by four years of mediocricy. Lemme guess.....she was injured for all that time...right?

Me kinda thinks that Justine ending Serena's streak in the majors and adding insult to injury by taking Serena's #1 ranking is a big reason why you always attempt to diminish Justine's accomplishments.

However, when you compare the accomplishments of Justine vs anyone in the WTA since Justine's rise in 2003, its obvious why she is Queen. She has the record, the tournament wins, the GS titles, the Olympic Gold and two years YE #1 to prove her might. She's dedicated to playing and winning tennis, which some others have difficulty reconciling. Justine is a true tennis professional. That's the difference.

Justine is the ONLY player of this generation (including Hingis) to win a grand slam title four years in a row.

Hingis was a great player when she was 16. But she's proven that she no longer has the mental will or strength to capture singles majors....since 1999. Today's players are simply too strong for her to overcome.

Listen, it must be difficult watching your fav succumb to a true tennis professional. I understand that. But the 2006 season is over and 2007 is upon us. Its no longer 2002. And that kind of denial you will have to deal with. Not me.

:clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :rocker2: :rocker2: :rocker2:

Brooklyn90
Dec 2nd, 2006, 08:18 PM
I really don't care if you trust me or not. You are nothing to me.

Your denial of Serena's plummeting record and tennis since 2003 is well-known. So of course, it wouldn't be to your favor for you to post the numbers you saw, because it wouldn't support you.

You cannot deny the excellence of Justine Henin-Hardenne since 2003, even after Serena Williams began playing again in mid 2004.

So what is your excuse for 2006? It is the second time Justine ended the year #1 while Serena and Venus were playing, something neither Venus or Serena has done in their entire careers.

In 2003, Justine had a winning record against Serena, then the #1 player, when both were healthy in 2003. It was inevitable that Justine would surpass Serena. The writing was on the wall.

You can't truly call Venus dominant when she's only been ranked #1 for 12 weeks and never ended a calendar year #1 during her career.

Serena had a 13 month period of dominance in mid 2002 to mid 2003 followed by four years of mediocricy. Lemme guess.....she was injured for all that time...right?

Me kinda thinks that Justine ending Serena's streak in the majors and adding insult to injury by taking Serena's #1 ranking is a big reason why you always attempt to diminish Justine's accomplishments.

However, when you compare the accomplishments of Justine vs anyone in the WTA since Justine's rise in 2003, its obvious why she is Queen. She has the record, the tournament wins, the GS titles, the Olympic Gold and two years YE #1 to prove her might. She's dedicated to playing and winning tennis, which some others have difficulty reconciling. Justine is a true tennis professional. That's the difference.

Justine is the ONLY player of this generation (including Hingis) to win a grand slam title four years in a row.

Hingis was a great player when she was 16. But she's proven that she no longer has the mental will or strength to capture singles majors....since 1999. Today's players are simply too strong for her to overcome.

Listen, it must be difficult watching your fav succumb to a true tennis professional. I understand that. But the 2006 season is over and 2007 is upon us. Its no longer 2002. And that kind of denial you will have to deal with. Not me.

well you need to check your numbers on thoes stats that you had. There not even close. And yeah justine did beat serena twice in 03, but that was on clay. A serena on grass or hard courts is totally diffrent from a clay court serena. She proved that when she demolished justine at wimbledon that year.

SJW
Dec 2nd, 2006, 09:41 PM
I really don't care if you trust me or not. You are nothing to me.

K.

Your denial of Serena's plummeting record and tennis since 2003 is well-known. So of course, it wouldn't be to your favor for you to post the numbers you saw, because it wouldn't support you.There you go making things up again.

You cannot deny the excellence of Justine Henin-Hardenne since 2003, even after Serena Williams began playing again in mid 2004.I was talking about her rise to the top. Reading is fundamental.

So what is your excuse for 2006? It is the second time Justine ended the year #1 while Serena and Venus were playing, something neither Venus or Serena has done in their entire careers. Your lack of tennis knowledge doesn't surprise me, but I'd like to pleasantly inform you of 2002.

In 2003, Justine had a winning record against Serena, then the #1 player, when both were healthy in 2003. It was inevitable that Justine would surpass Serena. The writing was on the wall.2-1 is such a comprehensive winning record.
She was 1-1 in fair play and 0-1 off of clay.
Numbers can be manipulated.

You can't truly call Venus dominant when she's only been ranked #1 for 12 weeks and never ended a calendar year #1 during her career. Venus had a 35 match winning streak. Venus had winning records against every single top player. Who cares about #1: tournaments won said it all.

Serena had a 13 month period of dominance in mid 2002 to mid 2003 followed by four years of mediocricy. Lemme guess.....she was injured for all that time...right?Mediocre by whose standards? 2004 was a pretty decent comeback year. 2005 she won a slam. I'll give you 2006

Me kinda thinks that Justine ending Serena's streak in the majors and adding insult to injury by taking Serena's #1 ranking is a big reason why you always attempt to diminish Justine's accomplishments.What tunnel-vision. I was making a point to somebody else that competition can be questioned at any period. But you JHH fans wouldn't understand that, would you?

However, when you compare the accomplishments of Justine vs anyone in the WTA since Justine's rise in 2003, its obvious why she is Queen. She has the record, the tournament wins, the GS titles, the Olympic Gold and two years YE #1 to prove her might. She's dedicated to playing and winning tennis, which some others have difficulty reconciling. Justine is a true tennis professional. That's the difference.

I commend her.

Justine is the ONLY player of this generation (including Hingis) to win a grand slam title four years in a row.

Hingis was a great player when she was 16. But she's proven that she no longer has the mental will or strength to capture singles majors....since 1999. Today's players are simply too strong for her to overcome.JHH isn't even close to Hingis' tennis career as a whole. They've won the same number of Grand Slams, but that's where the comparison ends.

Listen, it must be difficult watching your fav succumb to a true tennis professional. I understand that. But the 2006 season is over and 2007 is upon us. Its no longer 2002. And that kind of denial you will have to deal with. Not me.I don't live through my favourites, unlike some. It isn't that serious.

Joana
Dec 2nd, 2006, 09:55 PM
During her peak, Hingis was the undeniable best
During her peak, Venus was the undeniable best
During her peak, Serena was the undeniable best
At the start of her peak, JHH was the best out of everyone playing.

Out of those you listed, Justine is not the only one whose rise to the top coincided with the injury of another player(s). :)

faste5683
Dec 2nd, 2006, 10:04 PM
I'm a bit confused by this "age requirement" thing. How old were each of the girls when they turned pro?

Thanks!

:wavey:

Veritas
Dec 2nd, 2006, 10:21 PM
Stop dreaming.
There's also space for the over 35 tournament and the junior event etc etc.
All these events, including doubles, have something in common. Nobody really cares about.

Of course there's space at other places - my point's that GS tournaments and ITF have found doubles profitable enough to give it space on the big stage.

And that's a nice sweeping statement you've got there. If you'd said something else, it might've looked better, but "nobody" seems like an awfully sure number. You got the stats to back it up?

Justine Fan
Dec 2nd, 2006, 10:40 PM
K.

There you go making things up again.

I was talking about her rise to the top. Reading is fundamental.

Your lack of tennis knowledge doesn't surprise me, but I'd like to pleasantly inform you of 2002.

2-1 is such a comprehensive winning record.
She was 1-1 in fair play and 0-1 off of clay.
Numbers can be manipulated.

Venus had a 35 match winning streak. Venus had winning records against every single top player. Who cares about #1: tournaments won said it all.

Mediocre by whose standards? 2004 was a pretty decent comeback year. 2005 she won a slam. I'll give you 2006

What tunnel-vision. I was making a point to somebody else that competition can be questioned at any period. But you JHH fans wouldn't understand that, would you?



I commend her.

JHH isn't even close to Hingis' tennis career as a whole. They've won the same number of Grand Slams, but that's where the comparison ends.

I don't live through my favourites, unlike some. It isn't that serious.
:spit: More crap as ever from SJW! :rolleyes: What else is new?

:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: At least SJW never lets me down ... always give me a laugh whatever they write. :lol: :lol:

austennis
Dec 3rd, 2006, 12:38 AM
Hingis is one of the all time greats.. theres no doubting that.. Justine is establishing herself as another of the All time greats but still not really there..
Hingis is a singles, doubles champion with one of the greatest records ever and i honestly dont see any womans player in the league now with the potential to hold no.1 for 200 odd weeks

Ryan
Dec 3rd, 2006, 01:10 AM
:spit: More crap as ever from SJW! :rolleyes: What else is new?

:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: At least SJW never lets me down ... always give me a laugh whatever they write. :lol: :lol:


You're absolutely pathetic, because you're fighting a pointless fight. Hingis, AT THIS POINT, has a better career. End of discussion. People claim she dominated in a weak era, but it can be twisted and pointed out that Justine dominated when the two BEST players were not competing.

VeeReeDavJCap81
Dec 3rd, 2006, 01:31 AM
I really don't care if you trust me or not. You are nothing to me.

Your denial of Serena's plummeting record and tennis since 2003 is well-known. So of course, it wouldn't be to your favor for you to post the numbers you saw, because it wouldn't support you.

You cannot deny the excellence of Justine Henin-Hardenne since 2003, even after Serena Williams began playing again in mid 2004.

So what is your excuse for 2006? It is the second time Justine ended the year #1 while Serena and Venus were playing, something neither Venus or Serena has done in their entire careers.

In 2003, Justine had a winning record against Serena, then the #1 player, when both were healthy in 2003. It was inevitable that Justine would surpass Serena. The writing was on the wall.

You can't truly call Venus dominant when she's only been ranked #1 for 12 weeks and never ended a calendar year #1 during her career.

Serena had a 13 month period of dominance in mid 2002 to mid 2003 followed by four years of mediocricy. Lemme guess.....she was injured for all that time...right?

Me kinda thinks that Justine ending Serena's streak in the majors and adding insult to injury by taking Serena's #1 ranking is a big reason why you always attempt to diminish Justine's accomplishments.

However, when you compare the accomplishments of Justine vs anyone in the WTA since Justine's rise in 2003, its obvious why she is Queen. She has the record, the tournament wins, the GS titles, the Olympic Gold and two years YE #1 to prove her might. She's dedicated to playing and winning tennis, which some others have difficulty reconciling. Justine is a true tennis professional. That's the difference.

Justine is the ONLY player of this generation (including Hingis) to win a grand slam title four years in a row.

Hingis was a great player when she was 16. But she's proven that she no longer has the mental will or strength to capture singles majors....since 1999. Today's players are simply too strong for her to overcome.

Listen, it must be difficult watching your fav succumb to a true tennis professional. I understand that. But the 2006 season is over and 2007 is upon us. Its no longer 2002. And that kind of denial you will have to deal with. Not me.


This coming from someone who posted incorrect stats for Serena's 2003-2006 seasons :rolleyes:

Justine Fan
Dec 3rd, 2006, 01:33 AM
You're absolutely pathetic, because you're fighting a pointless fight. Hingis, AT THIS POINT, has a better career. End of discussion. People claim she dominated in a weak era, but it can be twisted and pointed out that Justine dominated when the two BEST players were not competing.

You're the pathetic one you TWERP. SJW was talking about Serena and not Hingis! So YOU'RE THE IDIOT!!! :haha: :haha: :nerner:

MIND YOUR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS AND KEEP YOUR NOSE OUT OF IT!!! See what a pratt you made of yourself by not reading it properly! :haha: If your dick was as long as your nose, I'm sure you'd be happy! :ras:

VeeReeDavJCap81
Dec 3rd, 2006, 01:39 AM
2003-2006:

Serena Jameka Williams
Serena Williams 2003: 37-3
Serena Williams 2004: 39-11
Serena Williams 2005: 22-8
Serena Williams 2006: 12-6

110-28 = 79.7%
Year End #1 Ranked: 0
Grand Slam Titles: 3
Tournaments Won: 7


[


Get your facts straight....

Serena 2003 38-3
Serena 2004 39-9
Serena 2005 21-7
Serena 2006 12-4

110-23

Winning % 827

Interesting how you fauxed Serena's results to try and help Justine :help:

!<blocparty>!
Dec 3rd, 2006, 01:49 AM
MIND YOUR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS AND KEEP YOUR NOSE OUT OF IT!!!

Oh, like you've been doing throughout this thread? You dumb tard.

----

To answer the thread question: Martina by a country mile, at this very moment.

!<blocparty>!
Dec 3rd, 2006, 01:53 AM
Get your facts straight....

Serena 2003 38-3
Serena 2004 39-9
Serena 2005 21-7
Serena 2006 12-4

110-23

Winning % 827

Interesting how you fauxed Serena's results to try and help Justine :help:

Thank you for confirming what Sarah had already pointed earlier ITT.

LeRoy.
Dec 3rd, 2006, 02:26 AM
now - Hingis

a year from now - JHH

WhatTheDeuce
Dec 3rd, 2006, 03:03 AM
At this point in their careers, if you look at singles alone, it's Hingis by a decent margin.

If you take into account doubles as well, it's Hingis by a very, very wide margin.

Hingis.

Dawn Marie
Dec 3rd, 2006, 03:30 AM
Henin.

She won the FRENCH OPEN twice. Hingis owns no RG.

Henin will win more grandslams and will only add more titles. In the next years I think Justine will win alot more than Martina. She was only 4 matches away from winning 4 more slams.

Mother_Marjorie
Dec 3rd, 2006, 03:53 AM
Get your facts straight....

Serena 2003 38-3
Serena 2004 39-9
Serena 2005 21-7
Serena 2006 12-4

110-23

Winning % 827

Interesting how you fauxed Serena's results to try and help Justine :help:

Thanks for posting.

I don't quite see how those numbers help Justine, or Serena for that matter.

The reality is, great champions in the history of the sport of tennis don't have numbers like that in the prime of their careers. Ever. And that includes those that retire for three or four in the prime of their careers as well.

Keep it Henin.

Ben.
Dec 3rd, 2006, 04:01 AM
Let's just say this. Hingis & Henin-Hardenne r both great champions & legends in the women's game & that's something that u cannot argue against. They both have won slams, been No.1 in the World & have won a whole bunch of other big titles to boot. So therefore they have had successful tennis careers which u cannot take from them.

sunset
Dec 3rd, 2006, 04:04 AM
Who has had the better career - Marina Hingis or Justine Henin-Hardenne. Both have won 5 Grand Slams but Hingis has reached 12 finals compared to Justine's 9. Martina has won 42 career titles compared to Justine's 29. Both have won three of one Grand Slam - Hingis has won Australian Open three times and Henin-Hardenne has won Roland Garros three times. Both have one Grand Slam which has eluded them from a career Grand Slam - Hingis at Roland Garros and Henin-Hardenne at Wimbledon. Both players have done pretty poor in a particular Grand Slam except for the times which they won the title once - Hingis has lost in the first round of Wimbledon twice, Henin-Hardenne has only ben past the 4th Round of the US Open twice. Hingis has been World No.1 for 209 weeks compared to Justine's reign at the top for 46 weeks.

So who has had the better career? I would definitely say Hingis. Just look at the career titles, Grand Slam finals and period at World No.1.


I love them both but I thing Justine is on a roll.

Mother_Marjorie
Dec 3rd, 2006, 04:21 AM
K.

There you go making things up again.

I was talking about her rise to the top. Reading is fundamental.

Your lack of tennis knowledge doesn't surprise me, but I'd like to pleasantly inform you of 2002.
We're only 31 days away from 2007 and you want to talk about 2002? Like most of your ilk, you've been in denial for years now.
2-1 is such a comprehensive winning record.
Well, not bad for someone who was supposedly dominated by a player that was 1-2 against her for the year.
She was 1-1 in fair play and 0-1 off of clay.
Numbers can be manipulated.
Once a chair umpire announces a winner, the match is over. Justine was 2-1 vs Serena in 2003. Talk about "manipulating" numbers.
Venus had a 35 match winning streak. Venus had winning records against every single top player. Who cares about #1: tournaments won said it all.
And you really think they'll look back 50 years from now and talk about Venus' 35 match winning streak )which is historically insignificant) when she couldn't even finish the year number one??? Denial be they name.
Mediocre by whose standards? 2004 was a pretty decent comeback year. 2005 she won a slam. I'll give you 2006
Yeah, two tournament wins and a grand slam win is a great accomplishment for the best player since the invention of Spam meat. Justine had far better years but you can't bring yourself to acknowledge that?
What tunnel-vision. I was making a point to somebody else that competition can be questioned at any period. But you JHH fans wouldn't understand that, would you?
That's all well and good, but that's not what you said. I sense a little back-pedaling here.

That's rich. Don't try to lie out of your "intent."

Like clockwork you attempted to minimize the accomplishments of Justine by putting forth two players who over the past almost four years, by histories standards, have been mediocre WTA players. It just didn't stick, now did it, great leader?
JHH isn't even close to Hingis' tennis career as a whole. They've won the same number of Grand Slams, but that's where the comparison ends.

I don't live through my favourites, unlike some. It isn't that serious.
Let's be blunt, shall we?

Venus Williams, Serena Williams and Martina Hingis are has-beens in the WTA, who have sat by and watched their competitors pass them with minimal resistance.

Watching Martina Hingis play is like watching a 70's era match. She hasn't won a GS singles event since '99. Neither of those women could make it past a quarterfinal of a grand slam event in 2006. Venus has won 1 grand slam singles event in five years and Serena 1 in the past three years.

More than anything, their tennis careers are more novelty than anything these days. Its as if spectators enjoy watching them play just to see if they can muster up enough game like the old days to actually give the top players a good tussle.

Hingis seems to be the only one of the three that gives a damn about her results. But no matter how hard the little train tries, she just can't seem to make it up that big hill.

Why is it that Justine can go through a period of illness, lose her #1 ranking and regain it? Serena lost the #1 ranking and can't seem to muster up fight enough to make it back into the top five. Once you figure out the answer to that question, you'll realize how ridiculous you sound. Truly.

The train has passed. And Justine is now the conductor. Deal with it.

Marcus1979
Dec 3rd, 2006, 05:31 AM
And you really think they'll look back 50 years from now and talk about Venus' 35 match winning streak )which is historically insignificant) when she couldn't even finish the year number one??? Denial be they name.

u do remember that Venus missed first half of 2000 via wrist tendonitis right?

Rome in 2000 was actually her first event of the year

so she was never going to be able to finish #1 with that kind of chunk missing from her year

Marcus1979
Dec 3rd, 2006, 05:36 AM
Why is it that Justine can go through a period of illness, lose her #1 ranking and regain it? Serena lost the #1 ranking and can't seem to muster up fight enough to make it back into the top five. Once you figure out the answer to that question, you'll realize how ridiculous you sound. Truly.

The train has passed. And Justine is now the conductor. Deal with it.

What Justine had was no-where near as bad as what Serena had

Serena had surgery on her knee in 2003. SHe is nowhere near as fast as she once was which was one of her biggest strengths in her hey day.

also look at how much Serena has been injured 2004-2006
its been very rare that Serena would be injury free for 2-3 events in a row

its hard to win multiple events when your body is breaking down around u

darrinbaker00
Dec 3rd, 2006, 05:45 AM
What Justine had was no-where near as bad as what Serena had

Serena had surgery on her knee in 2003. SHe is nowhere near as fast as she once was which was one of her biggest strengths in her hey day.

also look at how much Serena has been injured 2004-2006
its been very rare that Serena would be injury free for 2-3 events in a row

its hard to win multiple events when your body is breaking down around u
Whose fault is it that Serena's body is breaking down? Serena's, that's who. If she would keep herself in better shape, she wouldn't be getting hurt so much. Besides, Lindsay Davenport, who was never nimble on her feet to begin with, regained the #1 ranking after having reconstructive surgery on her knee. If she could do it, why can't Serena?

Stamp Paid
Dec 3rd, 2006, 05:48 AM
Whose fault is it that Serena's body is breaking down? Serena's, that's who. If she would keep herself in better shape, she wouldn't be getting hurt so much. Besides, Lindsay Davenport, who was never nimble on her feet to begin with, regained the #1 ranking after having reconstructive surgery on her knee. If she could do it, why can't Serena?

Because Serena plays a far more athletic game than Lindsay Davenport.

Ben.
Dec 3rd, 2006, 05:50 AM
this thread is bout hingis & henin-hardenne, not henin-hardenne & serena.

hingis-seles
Dec 3rd, 2006, 05:55 AM
after next year it will be justine;) Right now it's hingis obviously.

And people mentioning doubles as a breakthrough result why martina is better, come on. :rolleyes: Doubles means crap. It's all about singles and you all know that.

I haven't read the entire thread, so maybe someone has already mentioned it. If that's the case, ignore this post.

Doubles becomes relevant because the players such as Hingis, who play singles and doubles at Slams and go deep in draws, end up exerting more energy and as a result have to work that much harder to win both trophies. To simpy toss that aside is ignorant and displays a lack of understanding, to say the least.

Hingis won the Grand Slam in 1998 in doubles. To pretend like that never happened or it's irrelevant would devalue your input in this discussion.

Ben.
Dec 3rd, 2006, 05:57 AM
I haven't read the entire thread, so maybe someone has already mentioned it. If that's the case, ignore this post.

Doubles becomes relevant because the players such as Hingis, who play singles and doubles at Slams and go deep in draws, end up exerting more energy and as a result have to work that much harder to win both trophies. To simpy toss that aside is ignorant and displays a lack of understanding, to say the least.

Hingis won the Grand Slam in 1998 in doubles. To pretend like that never happened or it's irrelevant would devalue your input in this discussion.

i agree with u there. u can't toss doubles out of the window.

darrinbaker00
Dec 3rd, 2006, 05:59 AM
Because Serena plays a far more athletic game than Lindsay Davenport.
If anything, being a better athlete should make it easier for Serena to come back from such an injury than Davenport. The only thing holding Serena Williams back is Serena Williams.

Stamp Paid
Dec 3rd, 2006, 06:00 AM
The only thing holding Serena Williams back is Serena Williams.

You're 100% correct.

darrinbaker00
Dec 3rd, 2006, 06:02 AM
You're 100% correct.
There truly is a first time for everything..... ;)

jerry yan 08
Dec 3rd, 2006, 08:34 AM
:) justine henin

DavidEllul
Dec 3rd, 2006, 07:23 PM
so far, Hingis

SJW
Dec 3rd, 2006, 10:57 PM
You're absolutely pathetic, because you're fighting a pointless fight. Hingis, AT THIS POINT, has a better career. End of discussion. People claim she dominated in a weak era, but it can be twisted and pointed out that Justine dominated when the two BEST players were not competing.

:worship:
Maybe I didn't make it simple enough for them to understand.
So maybe you should say it again s-l-o-w-l-y.

MatchpointPRT
Dec 7th, 2006, 06:47 PM
I think we can´t answer this question, but Martina dominated for lots of time,and played amazing during the seasons she dominated,winning more than 10 tournaments and i just think that JHH doesn´t really dominate, because i think she doesn´t play enough tournaments to say that she dominates. For example, this year, she played little more than 10 tournaments, i don´t think that is enough to say that she dominates, even if she wins 6 in those 10, because i think if she played the same number of tournaments as the other players i think the results wouldn´t be so good, but playing just that number of tournaments she´s more fresh and more motivated to win than the other players.

louisa2k2
Dec 7th, 2006, 09:20 PM
Martina by far.