PDA

View Full Version : Peak Navratilova against Peak Hingis


ECB043
Mar 22nd, 2007, 12:15 PM
Although Hingis was names after navratilova, who would win if both were in their prime.

Effy
Mar 22nd, 2007, 12:57 PM
Oh MY GOD :rolleyes: not again :sobbing:
hey, people! PLEASE stop making "peak" threads please :help:

Volcana
Mar 22nd, 2007, 01:12 PM
This is the first one of these that's interesting. Navratilova made the Wimbledon final in 1994 or 1995. She was 38 I think. Hingis won it in 1997. So, arguably, Hingis at her most dominant wasn't a lot better than Navratilova at 38. Hingis won her last slam at 19 or 20. Navratilova won her first at 23.

Nav would get to net anytime she wanted against Hingis, which means Hingis would be defending some nasty angles. nav in the mid 80's was as fast or faster than anyone on the tour today, so I don't think Hingis could hit winners past her routinely. Reality is, Nav at say, 26, was bigger, faster, stronger and good at playing long rallies, since she faced Evert so many times.

Gotta go with Nav.

LUIS9
Mar 22nd, 2007, 02:14 PM
This is the first one of these that's interesting. Navratilova made the Wimbledon final in 1994 or 1995. She was 38 I think. Hingis won it in 1997. So, arguably, Hingis at her most dominant wasn't a lot better than Navratilova at 38. Hingis won her last slam at 19 or 20. Navratilova won her first at 23.

Gotta go with Nav.

I agree Navratilova would be too good even for a peak Hingis. However, a 38 year old Navra would have lost regulary to a 17-19 yr old Hingis. The bolded sentence: that's just absurd, Navra at 38 would not have beaten the Hingis of '97-'00.

Hingis during this period loved targets and her passing shots were just as good or almost as good as Everts, her backhand was the most accurate shot in tennis during this period. I am aware that Navra is the best player at net ever and Novotna does not even compare to her, but Hingis loved the targets Jana gave her anytime during this period.

Nonetheless, a Navra in her mid 20's would beat a peak Hingis quite often. 7-3 or something to that effect would be their hypothetic h2h. On the other hand Hingis of the era '97-'00 would have a 6-3 or 7-4 hypothetic h2h against a 37 or 38 yr old Navra. (mainly losing when she ocassionally got so out of shape or had one of those rare off days during her dominant period)

CooCooCachoo
Mar 22nd, 2007, 02:17 PM
This is the first one of these that's interesting. Navratilova made the Wimbledon final in 1994 or 1995. She was 38 I think. Hingis won it in 1997. So, arguably, Hingis at her most dominant wasn't a lot better than Navratilova at 38. Hingis won her last slam at 19 or 20. Navratilova won her first at 23.

Nav would get to net anytime she wanted against Hingis, which means Hingis would be defending some nasty angles. nav in the mid 80's was as fast or faster than anyone on the tour today, so I don't think Hingis could hit winners past her routinely. Reality is, Nav at say, 26, was bigger, faster, stronger and good at playing long rallies, since she faced Evert so many times.

Gotta go with Nav.

The comment in bold makes very little sense. Apart from the fact that Hingis has not yet retired and could, thus, still win Grand Slams, in theory at least, you cannot compare players' levels by looking at when they won their last big title. A title says nothing about the quality of play.

CORIA01
Mar 22nd, 2007, 03:22 PM
Hingis

MyskinaManiac
Mar 22nd, 2007, 03:35 PM
with their styles of games, I'd have to go with Hingis. Hingis can pretty much do what Nav can do. But I'd love to have seen both these girls play.

They did play right, on a couple of occassions?

lecciones
Mar 22nd, 2007, 03:36 PM
Hingis

why why why????? (why another peak thread???!!?!!)

John.
Mar 22nd, 2007, 03:46 PM
Hingis, but enough with the peak threads already :rolleyes:

Philbo
Mar 23rd, 2007, 02:55 AM
with their styles of games, I'd have to go with Hingis. Hingis can pretty much do what Nav can do. But I'd love to have seen both these girls play.

They did play right, on a couple of occassions?

Sorry, but Hingis has never been able to do what Nav can do. Did you ever see Nav at her peak?

Hingis serves and volleys once or twice a set as a surprise tactic. Martina stayed back from the net once or twice a set so their games are very different.

Martina's serve at her peak would allow her to get to net against Hingis, plus Martina's net approaches (at her peak) would penetrate enough to trouble Hingis.

At their peaks, Id give the H2H advantage to Martina by about 7-3.

Martina from 35+ would probably lose to Hingis more often than not - Martina a step or two slower than her peak would have problems establishing dominance at the net..

tonybotz
Mar 23rd, 2007, 03:11 AM
peak threads are speculative and purely imaginative and therefore fun. there is no right answer. just opinions.
That said, peak Navrat would beat peak Hingis. Martina was peak during a transitive period of the game. Nav's serve and volley would not be threatened by hingis' power, allowing nav to rush the net and make the volley. the inspiration always wins over the namesake.

BarsonlyOne
Mar 23rd, 2007, 05:46 AM
hingis beats navartilova for me, all the time. hingis groundstrokes are too consistent and accurate, plus she can move. and its not like hingis cant take the net from navra. THOUGH APPARENTLY NOW, SHE DOESNT WANT TO TAKE THE NET AT ALL, NOT FROM ANYONE.:fiery: :fiery:

they did play tean tennis in 2005, and hingis won 5-0. but peak hingis vs. peak navra would have been so fun to watch...

LOL imagine if 10 years from now if these "peak" threads still exist, we would still be comparing someone to peak hingis or sharapova or williams, but to some new top player.

bionic71
Mar 23rd, 2007, 05:54 AM
This to me is one of the easiest in this seemingly never-endng "PEAK" series of hypotheticals...

The best all round tennis I have ever seen a woman play has come from Navratilova...
Navratilova circa 1983 -1986 would be too powerful and too athletic for Hingis and would certainly win quite handily on most occasions.

hingisGOAT
Mar 23rd, 2007, 06:10 AM
With other 'peak' threads, most agree that Serena/Venus/Maria/Lindsay etc. would beat Evert/Nav/etc. with modern racquet technology, but Evert/Nav/etc. would beat Serena/Venus/Maria/Lindsay etc. with wooden racquets.

What makes Hingis so interesting is that her style of play -- although extremely succesful with modern racquet technology -- would have thrived with wooden racquets. Her touch, her lobs, her consistency, her ability to half-volley and take the ball early, her movement... it all makes me think that not only would Hingis win these hypothetical matches now, but would also win if they were played decades ago

PLP
Mar 23rd, 2007, 07:26 AM
50/50

:)

hingisGOAT
Mar 23rd, 2007, 05:30 PM
i guess these threads are past their peak :tape:

Calypso
Mar 23rd, 2007, 05:47 PM
Navratilova would easily win a wrestling contest against Hingis
staged on the Peak of any mountain, imho ;) .

Steffica Greles
Mar 23rd, 2007, 06:45 PM
Navratilova won her first at 23.



She was 21, nearly 22. Born Sept or Oct '56, won her first slam July 78. Her 3rd slam title, however, wasn't until she was almost 26. By the age of 30 she had won a further 12 (food for thought for Serena).

This is very interesting to ponder. I'm famously a great critic of Hingis, but I do rather feel that her limitations are a reflection of her being constantly put on to the back foot during baseline rallies.

She had a great record against Novotna, who was the best serve and volleyer she played against. Now, at her peak, I don't think the superb athlete that was Jana Novotna, with gifted repertoire and dextrous hands, was much less of a proposition than Navratilova, if at all.

I also feel, having seen Evert at her peak, that Hingis was a superior player in all departments, except that perhaps Chris was a better athlete -- although that is debatable; Hingis at her best is quick around the court, if a little frail.

But I still pick Navratilova on grass, indoor and hard courts. I just think she was an athlete in a different league, and if she were playing in today's competition, she is one of the few past champions one can tangibly see had the physique to adapt her game to overpowering opponents like Hingis.

Interestingly, Navratilova had an overwhelming record in her favour against Sanchez-Vicario. Now, although Hingis is far more talented than Aranxta (as reflected by her own head-to-head record against the latter), I think a comparison can be made here: both had great diversity of shot-making ability, both probed weaknesses, both liked to offset their opponent's rythmn, yet both could be impotent to decide contests when they needed to press home their advantage under immense pressure (think Hingis in the 99 French final, or the 2000 US semi; Sanchez-V in the 1996 French Open final).

SM
Mar 28th, 2007, 07:01 AM
hingis would dominate any woman player ever with wooden raquets