PDA

View Full Version : If Justine passes Serena in slams soon, will she be best of this era?


Sinnet
Sep 10th, 2007, 12:55 AM
Pre-thread note: PLEASE do not turn this thread into a trollfest. If you have something to say, make it substantial/factual, not hateful!

Much talk has surrounded the Serena vs. Justine rivalry, and who people consider to be the best of the era between those two. The two are now just one slam apart, and as a result, many still claim that Serena is the best of her era because of her four straight slams, and because she's still leading in slams total.

However, should Justine pass Serena in the slam total (either be a considerable amount or maybe even just by one), will Justine be the unquestionable number one of this era, or is there something else that makes Serena the best?

What do you think?

David55
Sep 10th, 2007, 01:10 AM
Yes. More slams + more weeks at #1 = better.

jellybelly
Sep 10th, 2007, 01:12 AM
Only if she wins the whole grand slam next year. She needs Wimblendon, and she needs 4 straight GS to prove dominance on Serena's level.

SunriseSunset
Sep 10th, 2007, 01:12 AM
I think the fact that Serena won at the Australian when no-one believed she'd do well and whilst she's not as fit as the others shows what she'd be capable of if she had a stricter gym regime/eating plan. If Justine had as many injuries and a death to cope with, then we'd see more clearly who was stronger but a stomach bug (don't know what it was) and a divorce is not as devastating.

By this "era" do you mean starting from the yr 2000 to 2010 or from when Serena faded and Justine came?

Sinnet
Sep 10th, 2007, 01:16 AM
I think the fact that Serena won at the Australian when no-one believed she'd do well and whilst she's not as fit as the others shows what she'd be capable of if she had a stricter gym regime/eating plan. If Justine had as many injuries and a death to cope with, then we'd see more clearly who was stronger but a stomach bug (don't know what it was) and a divorce is not as devastating.

By this "era" do you mean starting from the yr 2000 to 2010 or from when Serena faded and Justine came?

2000 to 2010

VivalaSeles
Sep 10th, 2007, 01:18 AM
If Justine were to pass Serena in Slams and one of the Slams Juju won were Wimbledon, I would consider her the best of this era.

David55
Sep 10th, 2007, 01:19 AM
I think the fact that Serena won at the Australian when no-one believed she'd do well and whilst she's not as fit as the others shows what she'd be capable of if she had a stricter gym regime/eating plan. If Justine had as many injuries and a death to cope with, then we'd see more clearly who was stronger but a stomach bug (don't know what it was) and a divorce is not as devastating.

By this "era" do you mean starting from the yr 2000 to 2010 or from when Serena faded and Justine came?

History doesn't care about that kind of stuff because it is subjective. Whoever has more slams will be considered better by most people.

harloo
Sep 10th, 2007, 01:27 AM
Isn't a thread like this one already floating around?:confused:

Brooklyn90
Sep 10th, 2007, 01:32 AM
She needs to win Wimbledon.

maximus82
Sep 10th, 2007, 01:36 AM
Only if she wins the whole grand slam next year. She needs Wimblendon, and she needs 4 straight GS to prove dominance on Serena's level.


Serena needs to hold the #1 ranking for over a hundred weeks to show dominance at a Justine Henin level. She also needs to win the same slam four times.

Nicolás89
Sep 10th, 2007, 01:39 AM
yes, she have to win wimbledon to become greater than serena.

I think the fact that Serena won at the Australian when no-one believed she'd do well and whilst she's not as fit as the others shows what she'd be capable of if she had a stricter gym regime/eating plan. If Justine had as many injuries and a death to cope with, then we'd see more clearly who was stronger but a stomach bug (don't know what it was) and a divorce is not as devastating.

By this "era" do you mean starting from the yr 2000 to 2010 or from when Serena faded and Justine came?

you dont know nothing about justine, do you? :tape:

Paialii
Sep 10th, 2007, 02:10 AM
I think we have to dissect this a little further..

I'm the biggest Williams fan on the planet (we all say it, I know ;)) but I do admit that stat-wise, Justine leads by a mile, and therefore when she surpasses Serena in slams (as I suspect she will, unless Serena can gain that little bit more of consistency in her game) I don't think there will be any questions as to who is the best of their era stat-wise.

However...

Justine will never be remembered in the same light that Serena was, regardless of how well or poorly Serena performs for the rest of her career. Serena will always be remembered for the kick-ass-and-take-names style she played while dominating the game. For that matter, I think Serena will be remembered or thought of more as the best of her time, if not all time.

faboozadoo15
Sep 10th, 2007, 02:24 AM
If she wins more majors, she'd have that, more titles, weeks at #1, olympic gold in singles, year end #1's, etc.

There'd really be no question.

faboozadoo15
Sep 10th, 2007, 02:25 AM
Justine will never be remembered in the same light that Serena was, regardless of how well or poorly Serena performs for the rest of her career. Serena will always be remembered for the kick-ass-and-take-names style she played while dominating the game. For that matter, I think Serena will be remembered or thought of more as the best of her time, if not all time.

You really think people anywhere but America give a shit about Serena's hype?

goldenslam888
Sep 10th, 2007, 02:34 AM
justine also has a gold medal, more weeks at #1, ye #1's, and has won more tournaments.

and she is younger than serena.

justine is really a new level for the wta. not just ballbashing, but a complete skillful all-court game.

VivalaSeles
Sep 10th, 2007, 02:37 AM
justine also has a gold medal, more weeks at #1, ye #1's, and has won more tournaments.

and she is younger than serena.

justine is really a new level for the wta. not just ballbashing, but a complete skillful all-court game.

Though I think Justine is more complete a player than Serena, Serena has NEVER just a ballbasher.

Ntour
Sep 10th, 2007, 02:46 AM
i think the weeks at number 1 , YE#1, more titles and olympic gold more than cancel out the serena slam, if they reach the same number serena might just have an edge but as soon as juju has more she is greater

goldenslam888
Sep 10th, 2007, 02:49 AM
Though I think Justine is more complete a player than Serena, Serena has NEVER just a ballbasher.

well, that net game certainly looked weak against henin. she doesn't vary her spins, hit angles, or use the drop much. what does serena do besides hit aces and winners, or errors, from the baseline?

bunch_01
Sep 10th, 2007, 03:11 AM
If Justine passes Serena she'll be the best unless Serena passes her back again. To judge who's best I include all grand slam finals appearances and olympic finals appearance regardless of win or lose.

Justine is 7 in 11 GS finals appearances with a gold medal. Serena is 8 in 10 but has held all 4 at the same time.

For me its pretty even right now with Serena having a slight edge for holding all 4. That's offset a bit by the fact that Justine actually made all four finals in a the 2006 calendar year. Serena needs another preferably not Australian to stand out from Justine. Justine needs Wimbledon or a couple more anything elses including a gold medal to stand out from Serena.

lucashg
Sep 10th, 2007, 03:14 AM
I'll give the edge to Serena if Justine surpasses her number of slams only by one title and not counting Wimbledon. If she has more than one of advantage or one and a Wimbledon title, then Justine gets the prize.

Justine's dominance seems underrated to me. Sure, she didn't win 4 consecutive slams as Serena, but after when she caught the mononucleosis virus in 2004, she was the defending champion of the Australian Open, US Open, Roland Garros, Indian Wells, Zurich, Toronto, Berlin, Charleston, Dubai, Sydney and San Diego, and world #1. How about that?

It's still soon to talk these things. Justine now has the upper hand over Serena, but I really think she could've won had they met later in the slams, and at least in the FO, no one else would've beaten Serena. Both will be main contenters come the Australian Open along with Venus and hopefully Sharapova. We'll see how 2008 plays out.

VivalaSeles
Sep 10th, 2007, 03:20 AM
well, that net game certainly looked weak against henin. she doesn't vary her spins, hit angles, or use the drop much. what does serena do besides hit aces and winners, or errors, from the baseline?

Did you watch Serena playing at AO? She did indeed hit lots of angles, she went for them, especially because her strokes were not as consistently powerful as they used to be. Plus, when she was fitter, she was a awesome defender, along with Venus.

VivalaSeles
Sep 10th, 2007, 03:21 AM
I'll give the edge to Serena if Justine surpasses her number of slams only by one title and not counting Wimbledon. If she has more than one of advantage or one and a Wimbledon title, then Justine gets the prize.

Completely agree.

Williams Rulez
Sep 10th, 2007, 09:21 AM
What Serena has over Justine now is Wimbledon and a few doubles slams..

And what Justine has over Serena is more weeks at number 1 and more titles..

So I would say tt if Justine can win Wimbledon and surpass Serena's number, she is greater.. otherwise, Serena is greater unless Justine can win a few more slams than Serena.

LeChuck
Sep 10th, 2007, 09:37 AM
Serena is one of 5 women to have held all 4 grand slams simultaneously. I don't think that she has ever received enough credit for that non-calendar grand slam (from the media mainly). Assuming Justine doesn't match that feat, in my opinion she would need to win at least 3 grand slam titles more than Serena to usurp her in the greatness category.
I think that at the moment Serena is a Tier II great, while Justine is a Tier III great (Venus and Hingis both are as well).

Vlad Tepes
Sep 10th, 2007, 09:40 AM
Domination is really very subjective and shouldn't be included in this discussion. Yes, Serena held all 4 slams at the same time, which is amazing, but Justine also held 3 of the slams in early 2004, was a semifinalist at the 4th and had many other big titles, so it's just about the same thing. She also dominated 2006 and 2007, reaching 6 GS finals and 1 SF out of 7 appearences and winning so many other titles.
As for the greateness issue, I'd say that if Justine gets Wimbledon and ends up with as many GS titles as Serena, she will be greater, as she'll have more titles and many more weeks at #1. If Justine doesn't win Wimbledon, then it's hard to say, maybe if she has like 6-7 RG and 20 more titles, she would be in front even if they are tied in GS titles.

Vlad Tepes
Sep 10th, 2007, 09:44 AM
Serena is one of 5 women to have held all 4 grand slams simultaneously. I don't think that she has ever received enough credit for that non-calendar grand slam (from the media mainly). Assuming Justine doesn't match that feat, in my opinion she would need to win at least 3 grand slam titles more than Serena to usurp her in the greatness category.
I think that at the moment Serena is a Tier II great, while Justine is a Tier III great (Venus and Hingis both are as well).

So you're saying that if Justine ends up with 12 GS titles, including Wimbledon, 50+ titles and something between 150 and 200 weeks at #1, she's not going to be greater than a Serena with 10 GS titles, ~35 titles and 57 weeks at #1? All this just because she didn't hold the 4 GS titles at the same time, but only held 3 and was a semifinalist at the other one? :confused:

LeChuck
Sep 10th, 2007, 09:51 AM
So you're saying that if Justine ends up with 12 GS titles, including Wimbledon, 50+ titles and something between 150 and 200 weeks at #1, she's not going to be greater than a Serena with 10 GS titles, ~35 titles and 57 weeks at #1? All this just because she didn't hold the 4 GS titles at the same time, but only held 3 and was a semifinalist at the other one? :confused:

Sorry I should make myself clearer. In my opinion:
- If Justine completes the career grand slam, but doesn't hold all 4 simulatenously like Serena has done, then she would need to finish ahead of Serena in the grand slam title count to be ranked above her in my opinion. If Serena was to finish ahead or the two players were tied, then Serena would be greater.
- If Justine fails to complete the career grand slam, then she would need to finish at least 3 clear of Serena in the grand slam title count to have a case to be ranked above her.

I do think that the non-calendar grand slam is far more significant than weeks at no. 1 or total WTA titles when it comes to greatness.

Kworb
Sep 10th, 2007, 10:11 AM
I think the Serena Slam isn't rated as highly because she always played her sister in the final who pretty much gave her the match every time, except at AO when they agreed to at least let it go to three sets.

Vlad Tepes
Sep 10th, 2007, 10:15 AM
Sorry I should make myself clearer. In my opinion:
- If Justine completes the career grand slam, but doesn't hold all 4 simulatenously like Serena has done, then she would need to finish ahead of Serena in the grand slam title count to be ranked above her in my opinion. If Serena was to finish ahead or the two players were tied, then Serena would be greater.
- If Justine fails to complete the career grand slam, then she would need to finish at least 3 clear of Serena in the grand slam title count to have a case to be ranked above her.

I do think that the non-calendar grand slam is far more significant than weeks at no. 1 or total WTA titles when it comes to greatness.

Ahh, I see now. I pretty much agree, although Justine would be greater even with 2 more GS and more tournaments and weeks at #1 in my opinion.

Petersmiler
Sep 10th, 2007, 10:18 AM
If she wins Wimbledon next year, it will be very close, but the Serena slam would still be the deciding factor.

If Justine were to win the Aussie and RG as well though......................

I have to say though that even as a Justine fan, I can see the extra pressure winning wimbledon puts on her. She even alluded to having a problem there during some of the strange questions she was asked at her post match interviews during the open. If she were to overcome that, then we can have this discussion again.

cypher_88
Sep 10th, 2007, 10:22 AM
If she wins Wimbledon next year, it will be very close, but the Serena slam would still be the deciding factor.

If Justine were to win the Aussie and RG as well though......................

I have to say though that even as a Justine fan, I can see the extra pressure winning wimbledon puts on her. She even alluded to having a problem there during some of the strange questions she was asked at her post match interviews during the open. If she were to overcome that, then we can have this discussion again.

agreed :D

darice
Sep 10th, 2007, 10:36 AM
Pre-thread note: PLEASE do not turn this thread into a trollfest. If you have something to say, make it substantial/factual, not hateful!

Much talk has surrounded the Serena vs. Justine rivalry, and who people consider to be the best of the era between those two. The two are now just one slam apart, and as a result, many still claim that Serena is the best of her era because of her four straight slams, and because she's still leading in slams total.

However, should Justine pass Serena in the slam total (either be a considerable amount or maybe even just by one), will Justine be the unquestionable number one of this era, or is there something else that makes Serena the best?

What do you think?

juju+rena are both fav's of mine. :) i think that juju has to win wimby and then have more slams than rena for her to be called the best of 00's. it could totally happen. :)

lecciones
Sep 10th, 2007, 01:04 PM
Justine will be the best of this current crop of players :D My opinion.
and That era includes players who "peaked" or did their best from 2000 onwards in my opinion.
THE power player generation... bested by a powerful and minute ebergy-packed Belgian :D

RenaSlam.
Sep 10th, 2007, 02:17 PM
Yes. I think if she wins Wimbledon next year she will be the best of this era. She has accomplished everything but that.

Watching
Sep 10th, 2007, 04:08 PM
For me Henin has to win Wimbledon and surpass Serena's slam total to be considered greater. Simple as. Until then Serena still holds the consecutive calender slam in which she played a brand of tennis that left many in awe.

Also alot of people are mentioning Henin's superior stats in weeks at no.1, Olympic Gold etc. which is where she has shown much greater consistency than Serena. But you must also remember that Serena has I think 6 Grandslam doubles titles (also Career slam in doubles), 2 mixed grandslam titles and a doubles Gold medal.

Many people will say we are just talking about singles but when you talk about the greatness of a player these things come into play and I am sure Serena's 8 Doubles Grandslams are a facet just as significant as Henin's statistics.

homogenius
Sep 10th, 2007, 04:16 PM
Yes

new-york
Sep 10th, 2007, 04:17 PM
She just needs a Wim, really.
Or like 2 more slams than Serena.

Serena has been impressive like no others during her domination but as a career is a long way, that domination was a mighty cool part but it can't be the ultimate comparison point.

Hadn't she won those two AO, she'd be the n2 already.
She has to keep winning to remain the boss or she will be catched up, as huge as her abilities are.

Watching
Sep 10th, 2007, 04:22 PM
If Serena next year gets her act together say and pulls of what I would consider in her capabilities:
-Australian Mixed title
-French Mixed titles
-French Open
-Wimbledon
whilst Henin won:
-Australian Open
-US Open

then it would be 10-9 to Serena. I am being hugely biased but favouring Henin a bit. It seems relatively even on the whole 2 slams each. But that would give Serena the BOx set Slam plus the double calender slam and 3 Wimbledon over Henin's 0.

THats my dream year. Well except the US Open for Venus.

shap_half
Sep 10th, 2007, 04:24 PM
If Serena next year gets her act together say and pulls of what I would consider in her capabilities:
-Australian Mixed title
-French Mixed titles
-French Open
-Wimbledon
whilst Henin won:
-Australian Open
-US Open

then it would be 10-9 to Serena. I am being hugely biased but favouring Henin a bit. It seems relatively even on the whole 2 slams each. But that would give Serena the BOx set Slam plus the double calender slam and 3 Wimbledon over Henin's 0.

THats my dream year. Well except the US Open for Venus.


How are you favoring Justine when you're giving Serena the FO? Not only are you unfavoring Justine, you're living in LA-LA land. I'd honestly be incredibly surprised, and sorely disappointed, if Justine doesn't win the first 2 GSs of 2008.

shap_half
Sep 10th, 2007, 04:26 PM
For me Henin has to win Wimbledon and surpass Serena's slam total to be considered greater. Simple as. Until then Serena still holds the consecutive calender slam in which she played a brand of tennis that left many in awe.

Also alot of people are mentioning Henin's superior stats in weeks at no.1, Olympic Gold etc. which is where she has shown much greater consistency than Serena. But you must also remember that Serena has I think 6 Grandslam doubles titles (also Career slam in doubles), 2 mixed grandslam titles and a doubles Gold medal.

Many people will say we are just talking about singles but when you talk about the greatness of a player these things come into play and I am sure Serena's 8 Doubles Grandslams are a facet just as significant as Henin's statistics.

How can you compare Serena's prolific doubles career to Justine's non-existent one?

jellybelly
Sep 10th, 2007, 04:27 PM
LOL the best of this era beaten by cake Bartoli :lol:

next.

Donny
Sep 10th, 2007, 04:30 PM
How can you compare Serena's prolific doubles career to Justine's non-existent one?

Unless the debate was over best singles player (which I don't believe was specified), then doubles count, as well as singles.

Doubles are, imo, what makes Navritolova a greater player than Graf.

shap_half
Sep 10th, 2007, 04:31 PM
LOL the best of this era beaten by cake Bartoli :lol:

next.

Yeah that is kinda sad.
But tell me: is that better or worst than being beaten by Jill Craybas in straights?

plantman
Sep 10th, 2007, 04:35 PM
LOL the best of this era beaten by cake Bartoli :lol:

next.

TROLL.........alert!

homogenius
Sep 10th, 2007, 04:35 PM
LOL the best of this era beaten by cake Bartoli :lol:

next.

Bartoli was able to beat the n°1 player at Wimbledon this year.Serena failed.
Cake Bartoli > Cake Serena

Shinjiro
Sep 10th, 2007, 04:36 PM
if she wins Wimbledon and keeps a good H2H, its not out of the question.

jellybelly
Sep 10th, 2007, 04:36 PM
Yeah that is kinda sad.
But tell me: is that better or worst than being beaten by Jill Craybas in straights?

If Henin ever had the problems Serena had in that match (basically her right knee was still broken and it was her first tournament back and her conditioning was very poor then) she would never even come on the court. At least Serena was ready to finish the match, no matter what the outcome or how she looked, she was going to fight and she fought 'till the very end. Henin was playing at her peak at Wimblendon and lost to Cake Bartoli. That was a choke because of a fear of Venus. The best player of a generation cannot be that feeble minded.

homogenius
Sep 10th, 2007, 04:42 PM
If Henin ever had the problems Serena had in that match (basically her right knee was still broken and it was her first tournament back and her conditioning was very poor then) she would never even come on the court. At least Serena was ready to finish the match, no matter what the outcome or how she looked, she was going to fight and she fought 'till the very end. Henin was playing at her peak at Wimblendon and lost to Cake Bartoli. That was a choke because of a fear of Venus. The best player of a generation cannot be that feeble minded.

According to her father, her ankle was broken, not her knee.No matter what, she should still have won, she's the fucking Serena Williams.

Donny
Sep 10th, 2007, 04:51 PM
Yeah that is kinda sad.
But tell me: is that better or worst than being beaten by Jill Craybas in straights?

Horrible analogy.

Justine was the FAVORITE for the title after she beat Serena.

Playing the best tennis of her life, according to some on the board.

shap_half
Sep 10th, 2007, 05:04 PM
Horrible analogy.

Justine was the FAVORITE for the title after she beat Serena.

Playing the best tennis of her life, according to some on the board.

Justine played poorly in that match against Serena and was mentally and emotionally drained and Marion was able to capitalize and Justine couldn't match the level Marion put up. Unfortunately, Justine is able to concede that match and claim that Marion had a played a better game.

and what was Serena in that match against Craybas? The underdog? Ok...

shap_half
Sep 10th, 2007, 05:06 PM
If Henin ever had the problems Serena had in that match (basically her right knee was still broken and it was her first tournament back and her conditioning was very poor then) she would never even come on the court. At least Serena was ready to finish the match, no matter what the outcome or how she looked, she was going to fight and she fought 'till the very end. Henin was playing at her peak at Wimblendon and lost to Cake Bartoli. That was a choke because of a fear of Venus. The best player of a generation cannot be that feeble minded.

excuses excuses excuses. I don't care if Serena had a missing limb during the match, she came on the court and was beaten. If she had so many injuries, why risk aggrivating said injury and playing only to bitch and moan about it when she lost. Put up or STFU!

Watching
Sep 10th, 2007, 05:06 PM
How can you compare Serena's prolific doubles career to Justine's non-existent one?

Greatness is not specified as singles. Everything is included. So if Gold medals and weeks at #1 and YE#1 is counted then so is doubles. I don't blame Henin for not playing doubles because she has been able to focus on her singles but it is still accountable in this debate.

Also you need a new Avatar your current one makes me nauseous. :wavey:

Mightymirza
Sep 10th, 2007, 05:08 PM
she gotta win a wimbledon...Please for my sake juju :lol: ;hearts:

shap_half
Sep 10th, 2007, 05:10 PM
Greatness is not specified as singles. Everything is included. So if Gold medals and weeks at #1 and YE#1 is counted then so is doubles. I don't blame Henin for not playing doubles because she has been able to focus on her singles but it is still accountable in this debate.

Also you need a new Avatar your current one makes me nauseous. :wavey:

Unfortunately, your gastric activity is none of my concerns.

achivement in singles like paltry Gold medals and weeks at #1 and YE#1 should not be discounted.

Fine, doubles count but to claim that they are on par with singles achievements is ridiculous.

SerenaAndTheVee
Sep 10th, 2007, 05:11 PM
I don't know about the best but Henin would be the most consistent if she surpasses Serena.

Donny
Sep 10th, 2007, 05:11 PM
Justine played poorly in that match against Serena and was mentally and emotionally drained and Marion was able to capitalize and Justine couldn't match the level Marion put up. Unfortunately, Justine is able to concede that match and claim that Marion had a played a better game.

and what was Serena in that match against Craybas? The underdog? Ok...

A better analogy would be to compare the two players at the same periods in their careers.


Serena's loss to Craybas is much more comparable to Justine's loss in the first round of that same tournament, no?

Serena's NEVER been beaten in the first round of a slam. No matter how poorly she was playing.

shap_half
Sep 10th, 2007, 05:15 PM
A better analogy would be to compare the two players at the same periods in their careers.


Serena's loss to Craybas is much more comparable to Justine's loss in the first round of that same tournament, no?

Serena's NEVER been beaten in the first round of a slam. No matter how poorly she was playing.

I'm not going to argue which is worse or whatever else. My point of using Serena's loss was an example that they all suffer unexpected losses. Whoever tried to point out Justine's loss to Marion as a means of diminishing Justine's claim to greatest of the gen, should she surpass Serena's GS count, is an idiot. Every champion has had her fair share of disappointments against "lesser" players. That shouldn't mean anything...that included Serena, who seems like that poster's favored player.

Donny
Sep 10th, 2007, 05:16 PM
Unfortunately, your gastric activity is none of my concerns.

achivement in singles like paltry Gold medals and weeks at #1 and YE#1 should not be discounted.

Fine, doubles count but to claim that they are on par with singles achievements is ridiculous.

Theoretically, if one player (Serena) were the second best singles player of her generation, and the best doubles player of her generation, and another (Henin) were the best singles player of her generation, by a slim margin, but had a non existant doubles record, well, then, I'd pick Serena.

Donny
Sep 10th, 2007, 05:17 PM
I'm not going to argue which is worse or whatever else.

Yeah that is kinda sad.
But tell me: is that better or worst than being beaten by Jill Craybas in straights?


You started the comparison game. Not I.

Watching
Sep 10th, 2007, 05:19 PM
Unfortunately, your gastric activity is none of my concerns.

achivement in singles like paltry Gold medals and weeks at #1 and YE#1 should not be discounted.

Fine, doubles count but to claim that they are on par with singles achievements is ridiculous.

Yeh, and unfortunately your face can't get serious surgical help.

I am not saying Gold Medals and stats should be discounted. I'm saying doubles should also be counted.

shap_half
Sep 10th, 2007, 05:21 PM
Theoretically, if one player (Serena) were the second best singles player of her generation, and the best doubles player of her generation, and another (Henin) were the best singles player of her generation, by a slim margin, but had a non existant doubles record, well, then, I'd pick Serena.

what would slim margin mean?
Right now, in singles play, Serena only trumps Justine in GS achievements. Justine has a gold medal, more weeks at #1, more titles, more ye#1. If say, we continue this trend and Justine has more GS than Serena, maybe 2 more including W, would doubles play really mean more than a gold medal, more weeks at #1, more titles, more YE#1?

From what you're saying this seems to be the preferred way of judging who's "greater" than whom:

GS achievements + DOUBLES Career = Who is better...

shap_half
Sep 10th, 2007, 05:24 PM
Yeh, and unfortunately your face can't get serious surgical help.

I am not saying Gold Medals and stats should be discounted. I'm saying doubles should also be counted.

Are you 12 and can't handle a discussion withour retorting to personal attacks? If so, run along.

shap_half
Sep 10th, 2007, 05:27 PM
[/B]

You started the comparison game. Not I.

You're right my words belie my intention, which was merely to show jellybelly how ridiculous his/her comment was. It's hard not to get bitchy and confused when this is what you're dealing with:


Originally Posted by jellybelly
LOL the best of this era beaten by cake Bartoli

next.

Watching
Sep 10th, 2007, 05:27 PM
what would slim margin mean?
Right now, in singles play, Serena only trumps Justine in GS achievements. Justine has a gold medal, more weeks at #1, more titles, more ye#1. If say, we continue this trend and Justine has more GS than Serena, maybe 2 more including W, would doubles play really mean more than a gold medal, more weeks at #1, more titles, more YE#1?

From what you're saying this seems to be the preferred way of judging who's "greater" than whom:

GS achievements + DOUBLES Career = Who is better...

Yes if Justine say had one more Wimbledon therefore equalling 8 slams each with a career slam (forget that Serena's was non-calender) then I would consider Serena greater.

Simply on the doubles. 8 doubles grandslams is better than more weeks at #1 or whatever.

homogenius
Sep 10th, 2007, 05:31 PM
Theoretically, if one player (Serena) were the second best singles player of her generation, and the best doubles player of her generation, and another (Henin) were the best singles player of her generation, by a slim margin, but had a non existant doubles record, well, then, I'd pick Serena.

Sereana is not the best doubles player of her generation.

Watching
Sep 10th, 2007, 05:34 PM
Sereana is not the best doubles player of her generation.

Conceded but she is up there and has a fair amount of GS titles.

homogenius
Sep 10th, 2007, 05:36 PM
Conceded but she is up there and has a fair amount of GS titles.

I know it's not the topic of this thread, but according to your criteria, is Hingis greater than Venus ?

Donny
Sep 10th, 2007, 05:36 PM
Sereana is not the best doubles player of her generation.

She's two mixed titles away from a boxed set. No one from this era can say that. She also has the gold in doubles.

If she were to win those, along with the gold in singles next year, she'd have accomplished everything of relevance in the sport of tennis.

Every singles GS
Every doubles GS
The gold in singles and doubles
YEC championship
Year End Number one
Part of a winning Fed Cup team

homogenius
Sep 10th, 2007, 05:40 PM
She's two mixed titles away from a boxed set. No one from this era can say that. She also has the gold in doubles.

If she were to win those, alogn with the gold in singles next year, she'd have accomplished everything of relevance in the sport of tennis.

Every singles GS
Every doubles GS
The gold in singles and doubles
YEC championship
Year End Number one
Part of a winning Fed Cup team

In doubles, Hingis has 3x more titles than Serena, more GC wins (and more finals), 2YEC (Serena has none), n°1 ranking, numerous T1 wins.All that with DIFFERENTS partners.She has better achievements than Serena.

moby
Sep 10th, 2007, 05:46 PM
If Justine had as many injuries and a death to cope with, then we'd see more clearly who was stronger but a stomach bug (don't know what it was) and a divorce is not as devastating.I don't know which world you live in, but Justine has been coping with her mother's death since she was 12. And of course, she had mono, which put her out of the game when she had won 3 of the previous 4 slams.

Anyway, I think Justine just needs Wimbledon to overtake Serena. If she wins Wimbledon next year, she'll tie Serena at 8 slams (assuming neither wins a slam before then) and they'll both have a career slam to prove their proficiency on all surfaces. Serena's calendar slam is impressive (also achieved by Navratilova, Graf in the open era), but Justine's winning a slam every year for 6 consecutive years is an equally rare feat (only Navratilova, Evert, and Graf have shown greater consistency in the open era). Furthermore, Justine "owns" one of the slams, i.e. RG, and one can make an argument for her being an RG legend. In fact she has a chance next year to be the first woman in the Open Era to win 4 consecutive RG crowns.

In conclusion, weeks at number one and the Olympic Gold would put Justine just ahead IMHO.

freeandlonely
Sep 10th, 2007, 05:47 PM
Justine will never be remembered in the same light that Serena was, regardless of how well or poorly Serena performs for the rest of her career. Serena will always be remembered for the kick-ass-and-take-names style she played while dominating the game. For that matter, I think Serena will be remembered or thought of more as the best of her time, if not all time.

Are u sure?

jellybelly
Sep 10th, 2007, 05:49 PM
You're right my words belie my intention, which was merely to show jellybelly how ridiculous his/her comment was. It's hard not to get bitchy and confused when this is what you're dealing with:

First of all. Please don't speak about me behind my back. It's very rude. Secondly, you still haven't grasped my point. The Bartoli loss was at Henin's peak. The Craybas loss was at the nadir of Serena's career. Of course it's absurd for anyone who claims to be the best player of a generation to lose such a match at the height of her powers. Serena would never lose such a match at her peak.

Ceri
Sep 10th, 2007, 05:49 PM
I actually think Justine has a more complete game than Serena. But slams-wise, Justine isn't there yet. She needs Wimbledon first.

freeandlonely
Sep 10th, 2007, 05:52 PM
Just why suddenly double and mix become important to some people

homogenius
Sep 10th, 2007, 05:52 PM
First of all. Please don't speak about me behind my back. It's very rude. Secondly, you still haven't grasped my point. The Bartoli loss was at Henin's peak. The Craybas loss was at the nadir of Serena's career. Of course it's absurd for anyone who claims to be the best player of a generation to lose such a match at the height of her powers. Serena would never lose such a match at her peak.

Henin has never claimed to be the best of her generation.

Watching
Sep 10th, 2007, 05:53 PM
I know it's not the topic of this thread, but according to your criteria, is Hingis greater than Venus ?

In doubles, Hingis has 3x more titles than Serena, more GC wins (and more finals), 2YEC (Serena has none), n°1 ranking, numerous T1 wins.All that with DIFFERENTS partners.She has better achievements than Serena.

Good question I am not sure. Venus has that one more slam in singles but less doubles and less *other acheivements. So I suppose I would give Hingis the slight nod over Venus although in my head I would still consider Venus the better player proven over a longer career (i.e. able to cope these days).

Back on topic to the second quote. Serena with 3 slams extra and non-calender slam in singles outweighs the better doubles stats of Hingis. She started to beat Hingis regularly and has proven she can play with today's game and simply gone too far ahead on singles.

jellybelly
Sep 10th, 2007, 05:55 PM
Henin has never claimed to be the best of her generation.

This thread is about whether she is the best of this era. I thought that much would be obvious for a "genius."

shap_half
Sep 10th, 2007, 05:55 PM
First of all. Please don't speak about me behind my back. It's very rude. Secondly, you still haven't grasped my point. The Bartoli loss was at Henin's peak. The Craybas loss was at the nadir of Serena's career. Of course it's absurd for anyone who claims to be the best player of a generation to lose such a match at the height of her powers. Serena would never lose such a match at her peak.

It's a public forum so it's not behind your back. You are free and able to read whatever I write.

As far what you're blabbing about, players will lose matches. To suggest that for a player to show vulnerability should be used against her is ridiculous. Justine had one blip in an other astonishing year and you want to harp on it and magnify it beyond its merit. Stop scraping.

Watching
Sep 10th, 2007, 05:57 PM
I don't know which world you live in, but Justine has been coping with her mother's death since she was 12. And of course, she had mono, which put her out of the game when she had won 3 of the previous 4 slams.

Anyway, I think Justine just needs Wimbledon to overtake Serena. If she wins Wimbledon next year, she'll tie Serena at 8 slams (assuming neither wins a slam before then) and they'll both have a career slam to prove their proficiency on all surfaces. Serena's calendar slam is impressive (also achieved by Navratilova, Graf in the open era), but Justine's winning a slam every year for 6 consecutive years is an equally rare feat (only Navratilova, Evert, and Graf have shown greater consistency in the open era). Furthermore, Justine "owns" one of the slams, i.e. RG, and one can make an argument for her being an RG legend. In fact she has a chance next year to be the first woman in the Open Era to win 4 consecutive RG crowns.

In conclusion, weeks at number one and the Olympic Gold would put Justine just ahead IMHO.

Just why suddenly double and mix become important to some people

They are not ultra important to me but they are atleast equivalent to stats like mentioned above which is why I wouldn't say these stats are the deciding factor if singles slams were equal.

Also for Henin owning RG is just as good as Serena owning everyone at once in the non calender slam.

QUEENLINDSAY
Sep 10th, 2007, 05:58 PM
I think we can only calculate when these two players are almost done with their careers, and as of now, I think they are still in their peak.

However, its just funny to see some fans changing tunes when it concerns their fave. Before when Justine and Venus had only 4 slams in a long time, they were so easy to discredit Lindsay still being ahead of them with all of her other accomplishments and simply telling that only slam total number counts. And now if Justine surpass serena's number, she still needs to win wimbledon to surpass Serena.

For me being the greatest, you have to count every accomplishment and not just slams. The very simple explanation to that is Iva Majoli is no way be greater than Mary Joe Fernandez.

SerenaAndTheVee
Sep 10th, 2007, 05:59 PM
"Also for Henin owning RG is just as good as Serena owning everyone at once in the non calender slam."

Fully agree. Their respective win streaks were equally dominant.

homogenius
Sep 10th, 2007, 05:59 PM
Good question I am not sure. Venus has that one more slam in singles but less doubles and less *other acheivements. So I suppose I would give Hingis the slight nod over Venus although in my head I would still consider Venus the better player proven over a longer career (i.e. able to cope these days).

Back on topic to the second quote. Serena with 3 slams extra and non-calender slam in singles outweighs the better doubles stats of Hingis. She started to beat Hingis regularly and has proven she can play with today's game and simply gone too far ahead on singles.

I meant that Hingis has better doubles achievements.

shap_half
Sep 10th, 2007, 06:01 PM
Yes if Justine say had one more Wimbledon therefore equalling 8 slams each with a career slam (forget that Serena's was non-calender) then I would consider Serena greater.

Simply on the doubles. 8 doubles grandslams is better than more weeks at #1 or whatever.

It's not just more weeks at #1, it's year end #1, more titles and olympic gold. Young players dream of being #1, not being an 8 time doubles GS...or maybe they are. whatevs. potato-potahto

homogenius
Sep 10th, 2007, 06:05 PM
This thread is about whether she is the best of this era. I thought that much would be obvious for a "genius."

Still, she never said herself that she was the best.
As for the genius part : I'm sure you can find better arguments to defend your views.

Donny
Sep 10th, 2007, 06:07 PM
It's not just more weeks at #1, it's year end #1, more titles and olympic gold. Young players dream of being #1, not being an 8 time doubles GS...or maybe they are. whatevs. potato-potahto

I think of it like this.

Greatest player = both singles and doubles


What decides greatest singles player? GSs. If someone asked you how many weeks Graf was number one, you'd need to look it up. Almost every tennis fan know how many majors she's won, though.

There really isn't even a question. GSs > weeks and number one, year end number ones, etc.


Same with doubles.

Combining both GS singles titles together, and doubles GS titles, gives a measure of a player as a whole.

That's why personally, Navritolova is the greatest of all time.

densuprun
Sep 10th, 2007, 06:25 PM
If Justine were to pass Serena in Slams and one of the Slams Juju won were Wimbledon, I would consider her the best of this era.

If Justine were to equal Serena in Slams and one of the Slams Juju won were Wimbledon, I would consider her the best of this era, on weeks at #1 as a tie-breaker.

If Justine were to pass Serena in Slams, I would consider her the best of this era, even if none of the Slams Juju won were Wimbledon.

Donny
Sep 10th, 2007, 06:27 PM
We should make a distinction between greatest and "best" per the purposes of this argument.

"Greatest" implies who's achieved the most.

"Best" implies the best at the sport of tennis.

The two don't need to correlate at all.

Onyxangel
Sep 10th, 2007, 06:34 PM
First of all. Please don't speak about me behind my back. It's very rude. Secondly, you still haven't grasped my point. The Bartoli loss was at Henin's peak. The Craybas loss was at the nadir of Serena's career. Of course it's absurd for anyone who claims to be the best player of a generation to lose such a match at the height of her powers. Serena would never lose such a match at her peak.

Hard to back your line of thinking... after all, Roger won 3 slams and made the finals of the 4th this year, so I don't think anyone would claim he isn't at or near his peak... and yet he lost to a lucky loser this year... guess ol Fed can wave goodbye to any chance of becoming the all-time greatest in your book eh? Yep... kinda hard to back that...

Watching
Sep 10th, 2007, 06:38 PM
If Justine were to equal Serena in Slams and one of the Slams Juju won were Wimbledon, I would consider her the best of this era, on weeks at #1 as a tie-breaker.

If Justine were to pass Serena in Slams, I would consider her the best of this era, even if none of the Slams Juju won were Wimbledon.

I agree that if Juju won Wimbledon and was equal with Serena there would need to be a tiebreaker.

BUT why does that tiebreaker have to be purely weeks at no.1 YE no.1 gold medal and not doubles as well. Cause if you add doubles into the tiebreaker (i.e. good but not as good as singles) then serena would win.

IceSkaTennisFan
Sep 10th, 2007, 06:39 PM
Serena needs to hold the #1 ranking for over a hundred weeks to show dominance at a Justine Henin level. She also needs to win the same slam four times.
Serena's shown that rankings are often just a showing of which players are most consistent. In Australia and Miami, she knocked off so many top 10 players. Consistency doesn't necessarily equal the best. It's also arguable that Justine's favored more by a weak field than Serena was when she was ranked no.1. You say dominance at Justine's level, but Serena's competition was much tougher when she was no.1. Svetlana's performances the past few days just makes this argument stronger. In general, the women's tour is much more shaky and unstable than it was when Serena was dominant. And for Serena to have to win the same slam four times in order to be the best is just non sequitur. The real test of the better player is the player that has the most titles and as in this case the most competition at that time.

SerenaAndTheVee
Sep 10th, 2007, 06:46 PM
"The real test of the better player is the player that has the most titles and as in this case the most competition at that time."

That's my issue with Hingis. Not that she didn't play the best players during her dominance but they either hadn't flourished yet or were struggling with injury. It's not her fault but it taints Hingis's accomplishments in my opinion.

Onyxangel
Sep 10th, 2007, 07:03 PM
"The real test of the better player is the player that has the most titles and as in this case the most competition at that time."

That's my issue with Hingis. Not that she didn't play the best players during her dominance but they either hadn't flourished yet or were struggling with injury. It's not her fault but it taints Hingis's accomplishments in my opinion.

I never liked that argument about the level of competition... it's too arbitrary. Who is to say where the line of dominance over competition is drawn? Was Mike Tyson only dominant (when he was dominant) because of weak competition? What did anyone in his era do besides him (aging Larry Holmes does not count). Should Jack get more credit that Tiger simply because the competition in his era was considerably more impressive on paper? Or is Tiger just that dominant that no one else has a chance to build an impressive resume on his watch? Who is to say? I personally don't believe that anyone in the Pre-WS era is on level with the girls that play now, and I'll explain: No matter where they wind up in a historical statistical sense of greatness, Vee and especially Rena will have done something that few others in history have done... they changed the way the game is played to an elevated level. This is why anyone who really knows basketball would pick Wilt over Mike in a heartbeat, when they have to change the rules of the game to account for you, your dominance transcends your numbers or your supposed "level of competition". Even if Rena never wins another slam, she will always be remembered for elevating the women's game to the level of athleticism it now has... That's why she's my fave, and that's why Ju would have to beat her by a couple of slams anyway to surpass her in greatness.

supergrunt
Sep 10th, 2007, 07:07 PM
well it might happen now that Serena is pregnant. :(

sportywoman
Sep 10th, 2007, 07:26 PM
Objectively, what I have noticed is that eventhough the greatest or best is a subjective notion, there is, like in most athletical sport a conscensus based on FIGURES. The greatest fast and track sprinter is the one who has the best record based on the record he hold in terms of figures.

In tennis, most of the time, the consensus to measure greatness is

1) First, the number of slams, whatever they are, hence FEDERER, SELES are already considered as greatest eventhough they have 3/4 of them.

2) Then, you usually see after that, the consistency criterion as number 1 weeks. Hence the impact and perception of greatness of an Hingis or to a lesser extent a Davenport who despite the fact that they both possess less slams than Justine or Venus have been perceived at a time great based on their consistency.

Note that with the excteption of the double diggit holder like Graf, Navratilova, Evert, it goes along with an impressive number of titles. Hingis has like 43 but many Tier I, Davenport and Seles have both more than 50 titles...hence the consistency factor.

3) Third, it just a consequence of the 2nd point : the number of titles

4) the grand slam achievment. This one is usually the ultimate criterion that is used when adressing standardly 'the greatest' one.

At the end of FEDERER career, what will be first and foremost remembered is his number of slams he got, then his consistency in terms of weeks as number 1. And only eventually some will asked if he had ever made the Grand Slam which in the consious is always an adding great thing but not the main factor that determine who is the greatest.

ogc
Sep 10th, 2007, 08:10 PM
come on, it's wtaword.com, not wtaworld.eu or wtaworld.be.

David55
Sep 10th, 2007, 08:56 PM
Doubles was more emphasized in the past, but not now. Which is why the current no. 1's don't even play doubles. :lol:
Nowaday's, singles titles are what make you great.
And I also think no. 1 ranking is NOW more impt than doubles even.