PDA

View Full Version : What player has the Most Singles titles and no Slam? (controversy sneakily enclosed)


DOUBLEFIST
Jul 10th, 2009, 12:27 AM
Anyone know off hand?

I'm too lazy to look it up myself.

Horizon
Jul 10th, 2009, 12:32 AM
Elena has 13

Probably isn't the most though, and it depends what you define as a title? Challengers, ITF?

spiceboy
Jul 10th, 2009, 12:36 AM
Most singles WTA titles without a GS win

21 - Pam Shriver
19 - Manuela Maleeva-Fragnière

DOUBLEFIST
Jul 10th, 2009, 12:38 AM
Elena has 13

Probably isn't the most though, and it depends what you define as a title? Challengers, ITF?

No, I mean tour level tournaments- above whatever the present equivalent of a "tier 3" was.

DOUBLEFIST
Jul 10th, 2009, 12:38 AM
Most singles WTA titles without a GS win

21 - Pam Shriver
19 - Manuela Maleeva-Fragničre

Are you certain about this?

The Daviator
Jul 10th, 2009, 12:41 AM
Kim has 34, same number as Serena, and just 1 Slam compared to Serena's 11 :o I don't know if that says more of Kim or Ree :o

spiceboy
Jul 10th, 2009, 12:42 AM
Are you certain about this?

Yeah, it may seem hard to believe but lovely Pam even played a US Open final as a teenager losing in two tight sets against Evert. She got to #3 in the rankings also :worship:

DOUBLEFIST
Jul 10th, 2009, 12:44 AM
Well, I gotta be honest.

There's a more controversial reason I'm asking this question, but I just want to make sure the facts are correct.

DOUBLEFIST
Jul 10th, 2009, 12:46 AM
How many titles does MJF have?

:lol: I guess I should at least be willing to go look myself on the WTA site.

spiceboy
Jul 10th, 2009, 12:47 AM
LOL Mary Joe won just 7...even Amy Frazier got more titles than her :lol: Let alone the likes of Smashnova, Nagyova or Medina Garrigues :help:

brickhousesupporter
Jul 10th, 2009, 12:50 AM
How many titles does MJF have?

:lol: I guess I should at least be willing to go look myself on the WTA site.
7 titles

spiceboy
Jul 10th, 2009, 12:51 AM
But to be fair Mary Joe consistently refused to play the small tournaments, she would only play the big tourneys. In fact, 6 of these titles came in big ones, and the only "small" was in Strasbourg which used to have quite a decent draw

Steadyniacki
Jul 10th, 2009, 12:56 AM
Jelena Jankovic has 10
Medina Garrigues has 9

darrinbaker00
Jul 10th, 2009, 12:58 AM
Yeah, it may seem hard to believe but lovely Pam even played a US Open final as a teenager losing in two tight sets against Evert. She got to #3 in the rankings also :worship:
Why would that be so hard to believe?

DOUBLEFIST
Jul 10th, 2009, 01:00 AM
MJF only has 7?!!

I thought, for sure, she had more than that. :lol:

Alright, well here's why I'm asking.

It seems to me that the argument of "who are the all time greats" constantly comes up along with the question "how do we measure them?"

One issue, in relation to the metric used, is non slam Singles Titles. A lot of weight is given to this factor along with a host of others (doubles titles, doubles ranking, weeks at #1).

The funny thing about this to me is now that we look at what players have the most singles titles without winning a slam, NONE OF THEM seem to ever make it on to that list of all time greats that everybody wants to factor Single's titles into. :weirdo: I imagine the same would hold true of all those who top the charts in the other non slam factors.

All this says to me that, deep down in the dark crevices of our tennis loving souls, we really DON'T give a damn about singles titles.

It's ALL about SLAM titles.

So why not, next time this argument comes up, make it simple and just count the slams! Because we know deep down we're not that impressed with whoever wins all that other stuff anyway.

Golovinjured.
Jul 10th, 2009, 01:04 AM
:unsure:

AcesHigh
Jul 10th, 2009, 01:08 AM
:weirdo:

Why do we have non-slam tournaments at all? Let's just play slam events and get rid of the rest. :smash:

brickhousesupporter
Jul 10th, 2009, 01:08 AM
Isn't if funny that the most decorated person in the ESPN commentary box is Pam Shriver.

hellas719
Jul 10th, 2009, 01:11 AM
How many titles does Dinara have?

DOUBLEFIST
Jul 10th, 2009, 01:12 AM
:weirdo:

Why do we have non-slam tournaments at all? Let's just play slam events and get rid of the rest. :smash:

Money has to be made, honey.

Anyway, I get the point you're trying (not so cleverly) to make, but I'm talking about something very specific.

I'm not talking about (though you seem to want to exaggerate and MAKE it about that) the relevance of non slam events to the survival of the tour and interest of the viewer.

I'm talking STRICTLY in terms of how we measure all time greatness.

darrinbaker00
Jul 10th, 2009, 01:14 AM
Isn't if funny that the most decorated person in the ESPN commentary box is Pam Shriver.
No.

DOUBLEFIST
Jul 10th, 2009, 01:16 AM
Darrin, you LOVE you some Pam Shriver, huh?

darrinbaker00
Jul 10th, 2009, 01:17 AM
Money has to be made, honey.

Anyway, I get the point you're trying (not so cleverly) to make, but I'm talking about something very specific.

I'm not talking about (though you seem to want to exaggerate and MAKE it about that) the relevance of non slam events to the survival of the tour and interest of the viewer.

I'm talking STRICTLY in terms of how we measure all time greatness.
No, you're talking in terms of how YOU measure all-time greatness. Besides, if WE were to use your formula, there would be no debate: Margaret Court would be the greatest of all-time.

darrinbaker00
Jul 10th, 2009, 01:21 AM
Darrin, you LOVE you some Pam Shriver, huh?
I like her now, but I loved her when she played. How could you NOT love a white girl with an Afro? :hearts:

AcesHigh
Jul 10th, 2009, 01:25 AM
Money has to be made, honey.

Anyway, I get the point you're trying (not so cleverly) to make, but I'm talking about something very specific.

I'm not talking about (though you seem to want to exaggerate and MAKE it about that) the relevance of non slam events to the survival of the tour and interest of the viewer.

I'm talking STRICTLY in terms of how we measure all time greatness.

I got your point...and I think it doesnt make any sense. No one without a slam is considered an all-time great... so that means its ALL about slams? No. Slams are obviously the most important but it's ALSO about being #1, non-slam titles, etc. Notice how all the GOAT candidates pretty much have 80 to 150 non-slam titles. For a while, some non-slam events were considered more important and prestigous than AO.

TOTAL titles are a better barometer for complete dominance than number of slam titles. Everyone knows slams are the biggest in the game.. but you need more than that.

Joana
Jul 10th, 2009, 01:26 AM
One issue, in relation to the metric used, is non slam Singles Titles. A lot of weight is given to this factor along with a host of others (doubles titles, doubles ranking, weeks at #1).

The funny thing about this to me is now that we look at what players have the most singles titles without winning a slam, NONE OF THEM seem to ever make it on to that list of all time greats that everybody wants to factor Single's titles into. :weirdo: I imagine the same would hold true of all those who top the charts in the other non slam factors.


That's because all the players who are considered all time greats have also won a lot of WTA titles along with Slams.


So why not, next time this argument comes up, make it simple and just count the slams! Because we know deep down we're not that impressed with whoever wins all that other stuff anyway.

So you're saying that the careers of Iva Majoli and Kim Clijsters are equal?

BuTtErFrEnA
Jul 10th, 2009, 01:27 AM
:rolls: DF...i'm sorry boo i only saw your reason for editing that post *death*

Dave.
Jul 10th, 2009, 01:29 AM
Money has to be made, honey.

Anyway, I get the point you're trying (not so cleverly) to make, but I'm talking about something very specific.

I'm not talking about (though you seem to want to exaggerate and MAKE it about that) the relevance of non slam events to the survival of the tour and interest of the viewer.

I'm talking STRICTLY in terms of how we measure all time greatness.

A huge part of being a "great" professional tennis player is doing well in all the tournaments aswell as the slams. It doesn't make sense to only use 4 tournaments a year as measures of greatness when they are out there competing against each other almost every week.

All those players, Graf/Nav/Evert etc. aren't regarded as the GOATs just because of their slams, you'll see they all have title counts in the 100s, they all reached no.1 and stayed there for a long time, they all lasted at the top of the game for many years playing in and taking every tournament seriously. Graf's 22 slams is not the only reason she is a great player. Similarly there are those with one slam who aren't necessarily regarded as all-time greats. It's not ALL about the slams. Personally I'd rate 1 time champion Clijsters' career well above 2 timer Kuznetsova's.

DOUBLEFIST
Jul 10th, 2009, 01:32 AM
So you're saying that the careers of Iva Majoli and Kim Clijsters are equal?
I'm not "saying" it so much as trying to understand the rationale of how much WEIGHT is attributed to it.

But I would argue that those careers aren't equal because Kim had better SLAM results.

DOUBLEFIST
Jul 10th, 2009, 01:34 AM
:rolls: DF...i'm sorry boo i only saw your reason for editing that post *death*

:lol: I was wondering if people ever read those things.

Donny
Jul 10th, 2009, 01:35 AM
Hypo: A player plays nothing but slams every year, wins all of them, 5 years in a row. Comes out with 20 slams, 5 Grand Slams. Only 20 titles total, never makes it to number one.

Would this disqualify them from being considered for GOAT? Because this is what some in this thread (Aceshigh, Dave, et al) seem to be implying.

Pheobo
Jul 10th, 2009, 01:35 AM
No, you're talking in terms of how YOU measure all-time greatness. Besides, if WE were to use your formula, there would be no debate: Margaret Court would be the greatest of all-time.

Not really. Even by this standard most of Margaret Court's (I keep wanting to type Margaret Cho :lol: ) Australian Open titles aren't very impressive considering it was pretty much a MM tournament back in the 60s. Not a whole lot of top players attended it. That's why when tennis historians give their take on the GOATs Margaret Court often falls behind the likes of Steffi and Nav. Because in the end, it really IS all about GS titles and 1960's AO titles are only technically considered such. They don't garner the same amount of respect.

brickhousesupporter
Jul 10th, 2009, 01:35 AM
No.
Sorry did not mean to step on your toes..........:tape:

joz
Jul 10th, 2009, 01:37 AM
MJF only has 7?!So why not, next time this argument comes up, make it simple and just count the slams! Because we know deep down we're not that impressed with whoever wins all that other stuff anyway.
WOW... so we only talk about Margret Court and Steffi Graf. That would be pretty boring...

DOUBLEFIST
Jul 10th, 2009, 01:41 AM
No, you're talking in terms of how YOU measure all-time greatness. Besides, if WE were to use your formula, there would be no debate: Margaret Court would be the greatest of all-time.No. I meant what I said. It seems that singles only matters in RELATION to slams. An axiom which I'm surprised you- being a Pam lover- find fair in terms of measuring greatness.

I got your point...and I think it doesnt make any sense. No one without a slam is considered an all-time great... so that means its ALL about slams?
No. It means that you don't value singles like you PURPORT to value singles.

A huge part of being a "great" professional tennis player is doing well in all the tournaments aswell as the slams. I agree. That's a huge part of being a pro, but it doesn't seem to count for much when WE measure greatness in a non slam winner.

DOUBLEFIST
Jul 10th, 2009, 01:45 AM
Hypo: A player plays nothing but slams every year, wins all of them, 5 years in a row. Comes out with 20 slams, 5 Grand Slams. Only 20 titles total, never makes it to number one.

Would this disqualify them from being considered for GOAT? Because this is what some in this thread (Aceshigh, Dave, et al) seem to be implying.

Ah, my friend. You catch my flow.

AcesHigh
Jul 10th, 2009, 01:50 AM
Hypo: A player plays nothing but slams every year, wins all of them, 5 years in a row. Comes out with 20 slams, 5 Grand Slams. Only 20 titles total, never makes it to number one.

Would this disqualify them from being considered for GOAT? Because this is what some in this thread (Aceshigh, Dave, et al) seem to be implying.


But that's a ridiculous hypothetical question. If a player made 16 straight slam finals, won several YEC's and had over 100 titles but no slams would that person not be considered an all-time great?
And no, that person could never IMHO be considered the greatest of all-time if they could never be #1 and could never win at any other event.

DOUBLEFIST
Jul 10th, 2009, 01:53 AM
If a player made 16 straight slam finals, won several YEC's and had over 100 titles but no slams would that person not be considered an all-time great? By your OWN standards, no. As no one with a good amount of titles (singles and doubles) but no slams seems to make it to the All Time Great debate.

KournikovaFan91
Jul 10th, 2009, 01:58 AM
Americans with a passing interest in tennis would know who Pam Shriver was quicker than they would Virgina Ruzici (French Open Champ 1978).

Slams aren't the be all and end all with regards success or fame. Pam had a much more successful career than Ruzici who is a slam winner.

AcesHigh
Jul 10th, 2009, 01:59 AM
By your OWN standards, no. As no one with a good amount of titles (singles and doubles) but no slams seems to make it to the All Time Great debate.

GOAT status? No. But I don't consider all-time great and GOAT consideration to be the same thing. I think Venus is an all-time great but not even close to the GOAT conversation.

darrinbaker00
Jul 10th, 2009, 02:01 AM
By your OWN standards, no. As no one with a good amount of titles (singles and doubles) but no slams seems to make it to the All Time Great debate.
For the sake of this thread, what would be considered a "good amount?"

Dave.
Jul 10th, 2009, 02:03 AM
Hypo: A player plays nothing but slams every year, wins all of them, 5 years in a row. Comes out with 20 slams, 5 Grand Slams. Only 20 titles total, never makes it to number one.

Would this disqualify them from being considered for GOAT? Because this is what some in this thread (Aceshigh, Dave, et al) seem to be implying.

When comparing that person with Graf/Nav/Evert who each did all of that plus everything else significant in this sport a million times over? Of course they wouldn't be considered.



I agree. That's a huge part of being a pro, but it doesn't seem to count for much when WE measure greatness in a non slam winner.

There aren't any non slam winners with huge or "great" title counts (21 is a respectable amount, and Pam Shriver is actually in the HOF). It's taken for granted that the slam winners also win the most titles, but it's not for certain. If Graf retired with no slams but 85 titles it would be difficult to argue against her being a great player.

DOUBLEFIST
Jul 10th, 2009, 02:07 AM
Americans with a passing interest in tennis would know who Pam Shriver was quicker than they would Virgina Ruzici (French Open Champ 1978).
Well, yeah you're right. Americans would certainly know who Pam- American Athlete, American television sports journalist for many years- Shriver is quicker than Romanian, Virginia Ruzici. :shrug:

darrinbaker00
Jul 10th, 2009, 02:07 AM
No. I meant what I said. It seems that singles only matters in RELATION to slams. An axiom which I'm surprised you- being a Pam lover- find fair in terms of measuring greatness.
In that case, it's still Margaret Court, because she won 62 total majors.

Joana
Jul 10th, 2009, 02:07 AM
By your OWN standards, no. As no one with a good amount of titles (singles and doubles) but no slams seems to make it to the All Time Great debate.

OK, let's see, the players that are usually in the GOAT debate.

Graf: 22 Slams, 85 WTA titles
Navratilova: 18 Slams, 149 WTA titles
Evert: 18 Slams, 126 WTA titles
Seles: 9 Slams, 44 WTA titles
S. Williams: 11 Slams, 23 titles - so far

Pam Shriver cannot even compare to them in the number of WTA titles won, let alone Slams.

In fact, I don't see what you're trying to prove here. That Slams are more important that WTA titles? It goes without saying.
But the WTA titles are also a factor in determining a greatness of the player. Not the important ones, that would indeed be Slam titles, but can and do serve as a separator *among other factors) when players have similar Slam records.

Thanx4nothin
Jul 10th, 2009, 02:07 AM
Money has to be made, honey.

Anyway, I get the point you're trying (not so cleverly) to make, but I'm talking about something very specific.

I'm not talking about (though you seem to want to exaggerate and MAKE it about that) the relevance of non slam events to the survival of the tour and interest of the viewer.

I'm talking STRICTLY in terms of how we measure all time greatness.

:worship:

Thanx4nothin
Jul 10th, 2009, 02:09 AM
GOAT status? No. But I don't consider all-time great and GOAT consideration to be the same thing. I think Venus is an all-time great but not even close to the GOAT conversation.

In your estimation, can one be an all time great without any slams? Maybe shriver?

Donny
Jul 10th, 2009, 02:10 AM
But that's a ridiculous hypothetical question. If a player made 16 straight slam finals, won several YEC's and had over 100 titles but no slams would that person not be considered an all-time great?

I'd argue no. They'd be by far the best player to never win a slam. Notice how there is no "best player to never be number one" or "best player to never be year end number one", or "best player to win less than 50 titles". Why do you think that is?


And no, that person could never IMHO be considered the greatest of all-time if they could never be #1 and could never win at any other event.

So a person with 20 slams and 5 calendar year grand slams would not be an all time great?

Lol, ok.

Any player who managed to win every slam they ever played in without warmup tournaments would be a legend in the history of tennis. They'd literally have movies made about them.

Donny
Jul 10th, 2009, 02:16 AM
When comparing that person with Graf/Nav/Evert who each did all of that plus everything else significant in this sport a million times over? Of course they wouldn't be considered.


They won every grand slam event they played? really? And if not, at what point does winning percentage become a decisive factor? If someone's literally batting .1000 at slams, I'd say that's impressive in and of itself.

DOUBLEFIST
Jul 10th, 2009, 02:18 AM
GOAT status? No. But I don't consider all-time great and GOAT consideration to be the same thing. I think Venus is an all-time great but not even close to the GOAT conversation.

If you'll note, I have purposefully stayed away from the term GOAT, as I'm not talking about that. I am talking about the argument of the all time greats list. Didn't mean to imply otherwise.
For the sake of this thread, what would be considered a "good amount?"
I have no idea. You tell me. I'm just riffin' here.
When comparing that person with Graf/Nav/Evert who each did all of that plus everything else significant in this sport a million times over? Of course they wouldn't be considered.
Seriously?! That seems odd to me.
In that case, it's still Margaret Court, because she won 62 total majors.
I honestly don't care WHO it is. I'm not talking about the Goat. I'm more interested in the metrics used for making the list. I don't see what you're trying to prove here.
I'm not sure I'm TRYING to prove anything, but I'm sure it has something to do with post #15 in this thread. ;)

Tennisstar86
Jul 10th, 2009, 02:34 AM
Lame Arguement....The only person whose title count Serena is even near that is argued by anymore as the GOAT is Seles, and thats due to the fact that Seles got stabbed, which sadly throws her out of the conversation all together...... Serena only has 34 titles..... Thats 5th best in her Generation......If Serena wants to be considered the Goat she needs to double her title count, with 9 of those being Grand slams..... And preferably at least one of those being a French Open... otherwise. You cant deny the stats of Graf, Navratilova, Evert.....

Junex
Jul 10th, 2009, 02:36 AM
Seriously!
It has always been about SLAMS when we name names for all-time greats.
Do we really need to argue about it?

All other Stats are considered when we factor players with equal number or close enough number of Slam wins.

AcesHigh
Jul 10th, 2009, 02:41 AM
I'd argue no. They'd be by far the best player to never win a slam. Notice how there is no "best player to never be number one" or "best player to never be year end number one", or "best player to win less than 50 titles". Why do you think that is?

Actually there is a "best player to never be number one". This is when we talk about slam winners who have never reached the highest ranking of the sport. They'd still be an all-time great, obviously different than GOAT which they obviously would not even be close to.


So a person with 20 slams and 5 calendar year grand slams would not be an all time great?

Lol, ok.

Any player who managed to win every slam they ever played in without warmup tournaments would be a legend in the history of tennis. They'd literally have movies made about them.

I said they wouldnt be greatest of all-time. And I'd think it was pretty sad since it would either show a pathetic showing at all other events of a complete lack of respect for the tour since they'd only be participating in ITF events and no WTA tournaments.

Obviously they'd be an all-time great and it would be a unique achievement.. but one that would be a slight against their record.

Joana
Jul 10th, 2009, 02:41 AM
Seriously!
It has always been about SLAMS when we name names for all-time greats.
Do we really need to argue about it?

All other Stats are considered when we factor players with equal number or close enough number of Slam wins.

Basically. That's what I've said as well.

We could play with hypothetical scenarios like a player winning 20 Slams and no WTA titles or a player winning 125 titles and no Slams, but that way we may just as well discuss the significance of Serena Williams losing 15 times in a row to Martina Muller.

Junex
Jul 10th, 2009, 02:42 AM
Hypo: A player plays nothing but slams every year, wins all of them, 5 years in a row. Comes out with 20 slams, 5 Grand Slams. Only 20 titles total, never makes it to number one.

Would this disqualify them from being considered for GOAT? Because this is what some in this thread (Aceshigh, Dave, et al) seem to be implying.

Deservely so, heck even if she had only 10 Staright Slam titles and nothing else, she contest for a place atop the All-time greats.

But, till it hasn't been done..then it will always be a hypo.....

Once again.. It has always been about Slams, all other stats are just tie-breakers....

KournikovaFan91
Jul 10th, 2009, 02:46 AM
Well, yeah you're right. Americans would certainly know who Pam- American Athlete, American television sports journalist for many years- Shriver is quicker than Romanian, Virginia Ruzici. :shrug:

So would most people with a passing interest in tennis outside of Romania.

Who actually remembers Ruzici :rolleyes:

Donny
Jul 10th, 2009, 02:52 AM
Actually there is a "best player to never be number one".

Who is it?



I said they wouldnt be greatest of all-time.

I guess we have to agree to disagree then. I think someone with twenty slams and a perfect record at the majors would certainly be in contention for the title of GOAT, at the very least.

And I'd think it was pretty sad since it would either show a pathetic showing at all other events of a complete lack of respect for the tour since they'd only be participating in ITF events and no WTA tournaments.

When the WTA is turned int oa privately owned professional league, where every player has a contract, then we can discuss respect. As it is, the player and the tour are equals. A player isn't obligated to "respect" anything. But that's for another thread.

Obviously they'd be an all-time great and it would be a unique achievement.. but one that would be a slight against their record.

On the contrary, I think it'd make it more impressive an achievement.

starin
Jul 10th, 2009, 02:52 AM
Kim has 34, same number as Serena, and just 1 Slam compared to Serena's 11 :o I don't know if that says more of Kim or Ree :o

:lol: Serena!! :hug:

Serena's title count is low for someone w/ her slam record. But honestly I don't even consider it a knock against her cuz frankly when I look at Kim and Serena I would much rather have Serena's career. It says more about Kim that she couldn't bring that winning mentality and game to the slams i.e. when it mattered than it does about Serena.

Tennisstar86
Jul 10th, 2009, 02:56 AM
Deservely so, heck even if she had only 10 Staright Slam titles and nothing else, she contest for a place atop the All-time greats.

But, till it hasn't been done..then it will always be a hypo.....

Once again.. It has always been about Slams, all other stats are just tie-breakers....

You're arguing against what the OP is arguing. hes trying to suggest that other titles arent the tie breaker... The fact is no one is trying to argue that say Davenport with her 50+ titles is higher on the greats list than Serena with 34...... What the OP is trying to imply is that say Serena ended with 19 titles..... and say all 8 of those were GS from now on so she'd have 42 titles when she retired.... More grandslams than Martina with 18, but less titles. Hes saying that she should be considered greater. and sorry thats not the case.....

To be in the All time greats list 16+ grand slams must be won and then thats when other things come into the equation namely. And other titles is one of them and right now Serena is lacking in titles.

DOUBLEFIST
Jul 10th, 2009, 03:09 AM
...It has always been about Slams, all other stats are just tie-breakers....

:lol: Junex, I don't know if I've EVER agreed with you or if I ever will again, but this is pretty much the direction I'm leaning right now. (though I do think I g' repped you once, but don't tell anyone as it might hurt my Henin hating reputation).

Non slam titles are important as tie breakers and other than that, are basically a non-factor when it comes to the list.

So I guess it's only relevant in discussing Evert and Nav'?

DOUBLEFIST
Jul 10th, 2009, 03:15 AM
You're arguing against what the OP is arguing. hes trying to suggest that other titles arent the tie breaker...

eh hem...

Maybe the OP could speak for himself...?

I'm not really trying to argue anything so much as trying to voice a contradiction or conundrum or hypocrisy. :shrug: Basically, I'm trying to work something out and am TRULY listening to what people are saying.

And for the record, this has NOTHING to do with Serena. It just seems that so much weight is given to non slam singles titles when discussing the list of all time greats, but none of the non slam winning players who have amassed titles in singles and double (or in the other areas that seem to factor into the all time greats list argument) are even remotely close to be on the aforementioned list. :shrug: So, non slam singles titles AREN'T really all that important in the discussion of all time greats. Right?

AcesHigh
Jul 10th, 2009, 03:18 AM
It just seems that so much weight is given to non slam singles titles when discussing the list of all time greats, but none of the non slam winning players who have amassed titles in singles and double (or in the other areas that seem to factor into the all time greats list argument) are even remotely close to be on the aforementioned list. :shrug: So, non slam singles titles AREN'T really all that important in the discussion of all time greats. Right?

How does that make any sense? You do realize taht all-time greats have slam titles AND non-slam titles, right?

So all-time greats do BOTH... not just one or the other.

Joana
Jul 10th, 2009, 03:21 AM
And for the record, this has NOTHING to do with Serena.

I'm not sure I believe it, because the only player who is in the GOAT discussion and who hasn't amassed a huge number of WTA titles is... Serena Williams.

And I also don't think that "so much weight is given to non slam singles titles when discussing the list of all time greats".

And again, no player has ever won a great deal of singles WTA titles (doubles titles are really not all that relevant, if we're honest) WITHOUT winning a number of Slams.

Dave.
Jul 10th, 2009, 03:25 AM
I don't get the singles/doubles thing going on here. If you're talking about singles greatness, then singles WTA titles and singles slams count. If you're talking about overall greatness (which is what really matters), then singles and doubles WTA titles and slams all count.


How does that make any sense? You do realize taht all-time greats have slam titles AND non-slam titles, right?

So all-time greats do BOTH... not just one or the other.

Yes! :yeah: Trust you to make sense :lol: ;)

You don't get a non-slam winner with 50 titles, and you don't get a 20 time slam winner with no other titles. It would be unusual or extremely difficult for anyone to pan their career out like that.

DOUBLEFIST
Jul 10th, 2009, 03:27 AM
I'm not sure I believe it, because the only player who is in the GOAT discussion and who hasn't amassed a huge number of WTA titles is... Serena Williams.

You don't have to believe, completely your choice. It is, however, the truth. Otherwise I wouldn't have posted what I did in response to Junex. :shrug:

But like I said, I'm still thinking about this and wanted to post it.

:lol: the funny thing about posting things you haven't arrived at a 100% proof positive position at around here is, you get IMMEDIATELY attacked. But it's pretty easy to not take it personally when you really haven't decided how you feel.

spartanfan
Jul 10th, 2009, 03:29 AM
MJF only has 7?!!

I thought, for sure, she had more than that. :lol:

Alright, well here's why I'm asking.

It seems to me that the argument of "who are the all time greats" constantly comes up along with the question "how do we measure them?"

One issue, in relation to the metric used, is non slam Singles Titles. A lot of weight is given to this factor along with a host of others (doubles titles, doubles ranking, weeks at #1).

The funny thing about this to me is now that we look at what players have the most singles titles without winning a slam, NONE OF THEM seem to ever make it on to that list of all time greats that everybody wants to factor Single's titles into. :weirdo: I imagine the same would hold true of all those who top the charts in the other non slam factors.

All this says to me that, deep down in the dark crevices of our tennis loving souls, we really DON'T give a damn about singles titles.

It's ALL about SLAM titles.

So why not, next time this argument comes up, make it simple and just count the slams! Because we know deep down we're not that impressed with whoever wins all that other stuff anyway.
That's like saying why have a baseball season, just cut straight to the playoff in October.:rolleyes:

Donny
Jul 10th, 2009, 03:33 AM
I don't get the singles/doubles thing going on here. If you're talking about singles greatness, then singles WTA titles and singles slams count. If you're talking about overall greatness (which is what really matters), then singles and doubles WTA titles and slams all count.




Yes! :yeah: Trust you to get it right :lol: ;)

You don't get a non-slam winner with 50 titles, and you don't get a 20 time slam winner with no other titles. It would be unusual or extremely difficult for anyone to pan their career out like that.

Those are logical extremes used to illustrate a point.

If your argument is that all time greats should have loads of titles because it's expected, not because it's great in and of itself, then that's some flimsy reasoning.

Donny
Jul 10th, 2009, 03:33 AM
That's like saying why have a baseball season, just cut straight to the playoff in October.:rolleyes:

The regular season is used to determine who plays in the playoffs...

DOUBLEFIST
Jul 10th, 2009, 03:35 AM
I don't get the singles/doubles thing going on here. If you're talking about singles greatness, then singles WTA titles and singles slams count. If you're talking about overall greatness (which is what really matters), then singles and doubles WTA titles and slams all count.

I'm talking about "process" and "metrics."

When this conversation has come up in the past, all sorts of measurables were brought in as if they had REAL bearing on the discussion of the all time greats list and "greatest of their generation" list, etc, etc- non slam singles, doubles results, weeks at #1 blah, blah, blah. The one, however, that had the biggest weight and has continued to have weight is the non slam singles titles.

The hypocrisy to me seemed (and still seems) to be that no one really gives a damn about the achievements of those who have done well in those other categories (though not winning a slam) to put them on the all time greats list. So, it would seem those other things AREN'T really THAT important, except perhaps in breaking a tie. :shrug:

Nicolás89
Jul 10th, 2009, 03:44 AM
And for the record, this has NOTHING to do with Serena. It just seems that so much weight is given to non slam singles titles when discussing the list of all time greats, but none of the non slam winning players who have amassed titles in singles and double (or in the other areas that seem to factor into the all time greats list argument) are even remotely close to be on the aforementioned list. :shrug: So, non slam singles titles AREN'T really all that important in the discussion of all time greats. Right?

Because you don't include Serena in the discussion of all time greats, right? Then this has nothing to do with Serena.

Joana
Jul 10th, 2009, 03:45 AM
Can you name an example of this hypocrisy you keep talking about? Because I just don't see it. I cannot really remember that many people have claimed that Davenport is greater than Serena because she's won more non-Slam titles, for example. There may be a couple who do say it, but it's certainly not a trend.

miffedmax
Jul 10th, 2009, 03:49 AM
It's interesting. My old brain ain't what it used to be, but I can remember players who, in their day, were considered pretty damn elite--Rosie Casals, Betty Stove, Carling Bassett (briefly), Andrea Temesavari, Helena Sukova, Bettina Bunge--I'm sure if I really thought harder, I could come up with more, who faded. Some, like Sukova, have massive numbers of wins, but not that many tournaments. Most of the others don't even have that many tournaments on the tour.

The bottom line is that, as others have pointed out, most truly elite players pick up a number of slams and plenty of other titles in a career.

The real debate, of course, is further downstream. is a one-slam wonder, like Nastya Myskina, better than Dementieva? Is Ivanovic with her slam and brief stint at Number 1 more successful than Safina, with three slam runner-ups and but much longer run at #1 (and I'm fairly certain more tournament titles)?

Joana
Jul 10th, 2009, 03:54 AM
The real debate, of course, is further downstream. is a one-slam wonder, like Nastya Myskina, better than Dementieva? Is Ivanovic with her slam and brief stint at Number 1 more successful than Safina, with three slam runner-ups and but much longer run at #1 (and I'm fairly certain more tournament titles)?

I agree, that's much more interesting.
I'd also add Sanchez Vicario with 4 Slams vs Davenport with 3 Slams (+ 1 YEC, Olympic gold, more titles and weeks at #1) and Kuznetsova with 2 Slams vs Clijsters with 1 Slam (+ 2 YEC titles, more titles and #1 ranking), and probably many more.

DOUBLEFIST
Jul 10th, 2009, 03:59 AM
Because you don't include Serena in the discussion of all time greats, right? Then this has nothing to do with Serena.

No, Serena by the #s that I value most, SLAMS, is not an all time great yet. She's in that tweener netherworld to me. she past Seles, approaching King. :shrug: I love her. She's my favorite all time. But she's not there...


...yet.

Robert-KimClijst
Jul 10th, 2009, 04:04 AM
I think other titles matter a lot. Slams are important and are the ultimate factor when putting together a list of all time greats. Look at the example of Kim and Sveta. Kim has one slam while Kuznetsova has two slams. Yet I still think Kim's career is better. One more grand slam can't have that much weight. Slams are important, but if you discount other titles than it's not fair to other players. Iva Majoli really wasn't that good of a player and would be relatively unheard of if she didn't have that French Open title.

All-time greats are judged by total careers, which are largely made up by slams, but not completely. If Serena ended ehr career with 20 majors (two more than Chris Evert) and 43 overall titles, I'd still have to say Chris Evert was the better player since she has been the year end world number 1 numerous times and had 157 overall titles.

DOUBLEFIST
Jul 10th, 2009, 04:07 AM
Can you name an example of this hypocrisy you keep talking about?

Yeah, there were a lot of conversation a while back about Venus v/s Henin v/s Hingis v/s Davenport and yes even v/s Serena. That was the GOTG conversation.

Then, more recently, the poster- I can't remember who, but he was a noted Hingis fan- tried to come up with a formula for measuring GOATness. In both instances, as I recall, the conversation begin to turn HEAVILY on singles, doubles titles. To me, that's the hypocrisy. We really don't consider those non slam titles winners in the conversation of All time greatness, no matter how many they've amassed, so why include non slam singles titles in the conversation of all time greatness at all UNLESS they are only important RELATIVE to SLAMS?

Nicolás89
Jul 10th, 2009, 04:15 AM
Yeah, there were a lot of conversation a while back about Venus v/s Henin v/s Hingis v/s Davenport and yes even v/s Serena. That was the GOTG conversation.

Then, more recently, the poster- I can't remember who, but he was a noted Hingis fan- tried to come up with a formula for measuring GOATness. In both instances, as I recall, the conversation begin to turn HEAVILY on singles, doubles titles. To me, that's the hypocrisy. We really don't consider those non slam titles winners in the conversation of All time greatness, no matter how many they've amassed, so why include non slam singles titles in the conversation of all time greatness at all UNLESS they are only important RELATIVE to SLAMS?

And what you do when multiple players have the same amount of single slams titles? (Like Henin and Venus)

hkyen
Jul 10th, 2009, 04:16 AM
oh it may be a good point

DOUBLEFIST
Jul 10th, 2009, 04:29 AM
The bottom line is that, as others have pointed out, most truly elite players pick up a number of slams and plenty of other titles in a career.

They do, but it seems- because we don't put any non-slam singles titles winners anywhere NEAR the list- singles titles are just a... bi-product and a convenient tool for breaking slam count ties. :shrug:

DOUBLEFIST
Jul 10th, 2009, 04:35 AM
And what you do when multiple players have the same amount of single slams titles? (Like Henin and Venus)

Well, like I've been saying, I guess they become the tie-breaker. IF all other things are equal, that is.

See, as much as I like Venus, I think it's a fair argument of her v/s Henin. Personally, I think Wimby is the most important slam, so I would lean Vee (also because she's my second fave ;) ), but I good argument could be made for Henin based on other reasons, ie, three different surfaces of slam victories.

UDACHi
Jul 10th, 2009, 04:36 AM
omg this is the stupidest thread i have ever seen. :spit:

Junex
Jul 10th, 2009, 04:40 AM
:lol: Junex, I don't know if I've EVER agreed with you or if I ever will again, but this is pretty much the direction I'm leaning right now. (though I do think I g' repped you once, but don't tell anyone as it might hurt my Henin hating reputation).

Non slam titles are important as tie breakers and other than that, are basically a non-factor when it comes to the list.

So I guess it's only relevant in discussing Evert and Nav'?

Oh don't worry I won't tell.....;)

All I am saying is that determining who among who is the GOAT and who are the ATGs, Single Slam Count (in significant differential)is all that matters.

All other Stats, like doubles achievement, non-slam titles, weeks @ #1 and etc.... only comes into the discussion when separating two or more players who have the same or almost the same count in Singles Slams. Only then the discussion becomes complicated...

2moretogo
Jul 10th, 2009, 04:44 AM
Isn't if funny that the most decorated person in the ESPN commentary box is Pam Shriver.

hilarious!:lol:

DOUBLEFIST
Jul 10th, 2009, 04:44 AM
omg this is the stupidest thread i have ever seen. :spit:

:shrug:

I think this thread has been pretty intelligent, well reasoned with great points, little flaming and very civil...






...until you showed up.

Volcana
Jul 10th, 2009, 05:17 AM
The funny thing about this to me is now that we look at what players have the most singles titles without winning a slam, NONE OF THEM seem to ever make it on to that list of all time greats that everybody wants to factor Single's titles into.That doesn't make the number of singles titles irrelevant. It just means that players who win a lot of singles titles also win slams. But for example, the differential in the number of titles Davenport has won, vs what Capriati won, is telling.

Far more to the point, look at Navratilova's career, Graf's career, and Coourt's career. Which player is truly the greatest is completely an issue of what factors, BESIDES slam singles titles, you actually decide are relevant. Otherwise, we'd all just say 'Court = GOAT', and that would be the end of the discussion.

Donny
Jul 10th, 2009, 05:21 AM
That doesn't make the number of singles titles irrelevant. It just means that players who win a lot of singles titles also win slams. But for example, the differential in the number of titles Davenport has won, vs what Capriati won, is telling.

Far more to the point, look at Navratilova's career, Graf's career, and Coourt's career. Which player is truly the greatest is completely an issue of what factors, BESIDES slam singles titles, you actually decide are relevant. Otherwise, we'd all just say 'Court = GOAT', and that would be the end of the discussion.

Those things matter, but slams dwarf them in terms of importance. A non slam winner would never be considered an all time great. You'd be hard pressed to argue that someone with 15 slams but no other titles isn't up there in terms of greatness.

This is the point DOUBLE was making, and in reality, it would be stating the obvious-- but some posters on here try to argue that slams aren't, by far, the most important things in tennis.

Dave and AcesHigh tried to argue that someone with 20 slams won out of 20 slams played, but no other titles wouldn't be in contention for GOAT. Frankly, that's nuts. And that's the emntality DOUBLE is arguing against.

Donny
Jul 10th, 2009, 05:25 AM
Oh don't worry I won't tell.....;)

All I am saying is that determining who among who is the GOAT and who are the ATGs, Single Slam Count (in significant differential)is all that matters.

All other Stats, like doubles achievement, non-slam titles, weeks @ #1 and etc.... only comes into the discussion when separating two or more players who have the same or almost the same count in Singles Slams. Only then the discussion becomes complicated...

Troof.

DOUBLEFIST
Jul 10th, 2009, 05:40 AM
Those things matter, but slams dwarf them in terms of importance. A non slam winner would never be considered an all time great. You'd be hard pressed to argue that someone with 15 slams but no other titles isn't up there in terms of greatness.

This is the point DOUBLE was making, and in reality, it would be stating the obvious-- but some posters on here try to argue that slams aren't, by far, the most important things in tennis.

Dave and AcesHigh tried to argue that someone with 20 slams won out of 20 slams played, but no other titles wouldn't be in contention for GOAT. Frankly, that's nuts. And that's the emntality DOUBLE is arguing against.
I don't think I need to say another word. :yeah:



(alright, some of you stop cheering :p )

SIN DIOS NI LEY
Jul 10th, 2009, 07:05 AM
I tend to make the comparison Grand Slams = Champions League and the other non slam titles with national leagues

For some reason Arsenal is greater than Aston Villa and its not due to the Champions League won by them (Arsenal)

Junex
Jul 10th, 2009, 09:01 AM
I tend to make the comparison Grand Slams = Champions League and the other non slam titles with national leagues

For some reason Arsenal is greater than Aston Villa and its not due to the Champions League won by them (Arsenal)

Well... Its not really the same.

You tend to face to the same competition in Grand Slams and non-GS events.

Shvedbarilescu
Jul 10th, 2009, 09:26 AM
eh hem...

Maybe the OP could speak for himself...?

I'm not really trying to argue anything so much as trying to voice a contradiction or conundrum or hypocrisy. :shrug: Basically, I'm trying to work something out and am TRULY listening to what people are saying.

And for the record, this has NOTHING to do with Serena. It just seems that so much weight is given to non slam singles titles when discussing the list of all time greats, but none of the non slam winning players who have amassed titles in singles and double (or in the other areas that seem to factor into the all time greats list argument) are even remotely close to be on the aforementioned list. :shrug: So, non slam singles titles AREN'T really all that important in the discussion of all time greats. Right?

That's because slam winners Evert and Navratilova won over 100 non-Slam events in their careers. Several other Slam winners have amassed well over 50 non-Slam titles. The only non-Slam winner to amass more than 20 titles is Pam Shriver and she only won 21. Now if their was a non-Slam winner who really did have a massive amount of non-Slam titles at least over 50 but preferably over 100 then we could compare like for like and see how such a player was regarded. Personally I have no doubt if such a player existed she would be regarded as an all time great, although certainly she would not be in the debate as being the greatest of all time. But she would be in the Hall of Fame for sure.

But the simple fact is anyone who wins 50+ titles is going to be a great player and inevitably as a result will have won a Slam somewhere along the line too. The probability of a player with over 50 titles not having won a Slam is infinitesimally small.

I know exactly why Doublefist is making these silly arguments although he/she won't admit it. But it should be plainly obvious. To be considered as the greatest player of all time it is not enough to tick a few boxes, you have to tick the lot. Yes, you need a massive amount of slams, but you also need a long time a number one, you need a huge amount of non-Slam titles and you need year on year consistancy. You need everything. Serena has collected eleven singles Slam titles and eleven more doubles and mixed doubles Slam Titles. Those are great numbers and make her without question the best player of her generation. But when comparing her non-Slam stats and even her consistency in Slams to other all-time greats her numbers really don't stack up against the Navratilovas, Grafs or Everts.

DOUBLEFIST
Jul 10th, 2009, 10:05 AM
I know exactly why Doublefist is making these silly arguments although he/she won't admit it.

You're wrong. You don't know.

If I was trying to make a case for Serena, I'd do it plainly. No shame in it.

You clearly have not read the whole thread. Otherwise you'd know that the position that I've taken doesn't necessarily aid Serena EVER achieving GOAT status. But what interest me most in this thread is the contradiction in the terms used to evaluate the ATG list, which I won't go into here because it's there for you to read in all my posts in this thread- or even DonnyDarko's posts. (he probably has stated my point more clearly than I have, myself)

kiwifan
Jul 10th, 2009, 10:08 AM
MJF only has 7?!!

I thought, for sure, she had more than that. :lol:

Alright, well here's why I'm asking.

It seems to me that the argument of "who are the all time greats" constantly comes up along with the question "how do we measure them?"

One issue, in relation to the metric used, is non slam Singles Titles. A lot of weight is given to this factor along with a host of others (doubles titles, doubles ranking, weeks at #1).

The funny thing about this to me is now that we look at what players have the most singles titles without winning a slam, NONE OF THEM seem to ever make it on to that list of all time greats that everybody wants to factor Single's titles into. :weirdo: I imagine the same would hold true of all those who top the charts in the other non slam factors.

All this says to me that, deep down in the dark crevices of our tennis loving souls, we really DON'T give a damn about singles titles.

It's ALL about SLAM titles.

So why not, next time this argument comes up, make it simple and just count the slams! Because we know deep down we're not that impressed with whoever wins all that other stuff anyway.

I have to spread the rep around...but I agree 100%...

..."like totally" :cool: :devil: :cool:

Shvedbarilescu
Jul 10th, 2009, 10:10 AM
You're wrong. You don't know.

If I was trying to make a case for Serena, I'd do it plainly. No shame in it.

You clearly have not read the whole thread. Otherwise you'd know that the position that I've taken doesn't necessarily aid Serena EVER achieving GOAT status. But what interest me most in this thread is the contradiction in the terms used to evaluate the ATG list, which I won't go into here because it's there for you to read in all my posts in this thread- or even DonnyDarko's posts. (he probably has stated my point more clearly than I have, myself)

I have read the whole thread and if you read my 1st paragraph you will see my reply. ;)

bandabou
Jul 10th, 2009, 10:42 AM
It's kinda an interesting convo. You had a situation in the past where people wanted to make it seem like Lindsay was in the same league as a Justine, Venus or even Serena because Linds had 50+ stats.

Just bogus. Anybody who wanna talk now about Linds being in Serena's league just because Linds has 20 odd more regular tour titles...just crazy, no?

AcesHigh
Jul 10th, 2009, 11:27 AM
That's because slam winners Evert and Navratilova won over 100 non-Slam events in their careers. Several other Slam winners have amassed well over 50 non-Slam titles. The only non-Slam winner to amass more than 20 titles is Pam Shriver and she only won 21. Now if their was a non-Slam winner who really did have a massive amount of non-Slam titles at least over 50 but preferably over 100 then we could compare like for like and see how such a player was regarded. Personally I have no doubt if such a player existed she would be regarded as an all time great, although certainly she would not be in the debate as being the greatest of all time. But she would be in the Hall of Fame for sure.

But the simple fact is anyone who wins 50+ titles is going to be a great player and inevitably as a result will have won a Slam somewhere along the line too. The probability of a player with over 50 titles not having won a Slam is infinitesimally small.

I know exactly why Doublefist is making these silly arguments although he/she won't admit it. But it should be plainly obvious. To be considered as the greatest player of all time it is not enough to tick a few boxes, you have to tick the lot. Yes, you need a massive amount of slams, but you also need a long time a number one, you need a huge amount of non-Slam titles and you need year on year consistancy. You need everything. Serena has collected eleven singles Slam titles and eleven more doubles and mixed doubles Slam Titles. Those are great numbers and make her without question the best player of her generation. But when comparing her non-Slam stats and even her consistency in Slams to other all-time greats her numbers really don't stack up against the Navratilovas, Grafs or Everts.

:worship: And this really is about Serena... let's stop beating around the bush.

bandabou
Jul 10th, 2009, 12:05 PM
Like we already didn't know that. But some Aces won't even admit that she IS BY FAR the greatest of her generation.

Sam L
Jul 10th, 2009, 01:15 PM
MJF only has 7?!!

I thought, for sure, she had more than that. :lol:

Alright, well here's why I'm asking.

It seems to me that the argument of "who are the all time greats" constantly comes up along with the question "how do we measure them?"

One issue, in relation to the metric used, is non slam Singles Titles. A lot of weight is given to this factor along with a host of others (doubles titles, doubles ranking, weeks at #1).

The funny thing about this to me is now that we look at what players have the most singles titles without winning a slam, NONE OF THEM seem to ever make it on to that list of all time greats that everybody wants to factor Single's titles into. :weirdo: I imagine the same would hold true of all those who top the charts in the other non slam factors.

All this says to me that, deep down in the dark crevices of our tennis loving souls, we really DON'T give a damn about singles titles.

It's ALL about SLAM titles.

So why not, next time this argument comes up, make it simple and just count the slams! Because we know deep down we're not that impressed with whoever wins all that other stuff anyway.

Very well said.

The argument that Graf or Navratilova is greater because they won more non-slam tournaments or spent more weeks at No. 1 means nothing.

BuTtErFrEnA
Jul 10th, 2009, 01:30 PM
why would DF want to start a thread about serena and not mention serena :lol: stop grasping at straws aces :lol:

homogenius
Jul 10th, 2009, 01:34 PM
Like we already didn't know that. But some Aces won't even admit that she IS BY FAR the greatest of her generation.

Serena is an interesting case really.She's obviously the best of her generation but the only category in which she's dominant is the number of slams.It'd be unfair to wait for her to get 100 or more titles like Navratilova or Evert or to spent 5 years as #1.These expectations are unrealistics these days.
However, when comparing her to the other great players in each generation, they all dominated most of the stats categories while Serena failed to do that.In her generation, there are players with more titles than her, more weeks as n°1, more years finishing n°1, more YEC titles etc...

This makes a big difference : even if she ended her career with a number of slams approaching those of the greatests, her lack of domination in the other aspects of the tour will always prevent her to be considered as the GOAT.So these other categories are maybe not that pointless at the end...

bandabou
Jul 10th, 2009, 01:53 PM
Serena is an interesting case really.She's obviously the best of her generation but the only category in which she's dominant is the number of slams.It'd be unfair to wait for her to get 100 or more titles like Navratilova or Evert or to spent 5 years as #1.These expectations are unrealistics these days.
However, when comparing her to the other great players in each generation, they all dominated most of the stats categories while Serena failed to do that.In her generation, there are players with more titles than her, more weeks as n°1, more years finishing n°1, more YEC titles etc...

This makes a big difference : even if she ended her career with a number of slams approaching those of the greatests, her lack of domination in the other aspects of the tour will always prevent her to be considered as the GOAT.So these other categories are maybe not that pointless at the end...

I don't know about that.. those meaningless stats only become an issue when there's a vacuum.. in Serena's case she is the ONLY one of her generation to acomplish EVERYTHING ( ok save gold medal in singles), so the discussion is moot then no?

Slutiana
Jul 10th, 2009, 02:42 PM
:help:

volta
Jul 10th, 2009, 02:46 PM
:help:

:lol:

miffedmax
Jul 10th, 2009, 02:57 PM
This is also a case where you run into the difficulties of comparing across generations. The fact is, for a player of Serena's generation, slams probably do weigh more because these days slams consistently attract all the top players.

That wasn't the case for Evert and Navratilova. Graf sort of straddles the two era. During there era, as Martina herself, the players put more emphasis on being Number 1 and winning WTA titles--money had a lot to do with it, and it seems to me the tour structure made more sense.

The pendulum may swing back again.

Right now, the other factor is that Serena has such an overwhelming lead in slams. The big "if" in the scenario is, of course, Justine. If she'd kept playing, and kept the slam count close, then all of a sudden those weeks at No.1 and WTA tournaments won would loom large in a debate over who's number one (along with h2h).

kiwifan
Jul 10th, 2009, 03:09 PM
Serena is an interesting case really.She's obviously the best of her generation but the only category in which she's dominant is the number of slams.It'd be unfair to wait for her to get 100 or more titles like Navratilova or Evert or to spent 5 years as #1.These expectations are unrealistics these days.
However, when comparing her to the other great players in each generation, they all dominated most of the stats categories while Serena failed to do that.In her generation, there are players with more titles than her, more weeks as n°1, more years finishing n°1, more YEC titles etc...

This makes a big difference : even if she ended her career with a number of slams approaching those of the greatests, her lack of domination in the other aspects of the tour will always prevent her to be considered as the GOAT.So these other categories are maybe not that pointless at the end...

Most of the old greats had no real competition until they reached the finals and played each other. :shrug: This made for bigger rivalries but that's about it. Even decent "name brand" players like a Shriver or Mandlikova who should have challenged the top players only won every once in a while and it was generally considered a big upset when a number 4 or lower ranked player made it into the finals. All the old greats would "play" thier way into a Slam since the first 3 rounds were always out of shape or unskilled "Easybeats"...that attitude today will land you a meeting with some hard hitting Eastern European 15 year old who on a good day will blow you off the court.

Now any top 15-20 player can beat anyone else (well other than Serena in a Slam Final of course) and it wouldn't make headlines.

Women's tennis since around 1999 (with the overlap of Steffi's generation with the Hingis/Williams new generation) is a lot deeper than it was in Steffi's, Martina Nav's and Chris Evert's primes...

Slutiana
Jul 10th, 2009, 03:48 PM
This is also a case where you run into the difficulties of comparing across generations. The fact is, for a player of Serena's generation, slams probably do weigh more because these days slams consistently attract all the top players.

That wasn't the case for Evert and Navratilova. Graf sort of straddles the two era. During there era, as Martina herself, the players put more emphasis on being Number 1 and winning WTA titles--money had a lot to do with it, and it seems to me the tour structure made more sense.

The pendulum may swing back again.

Right now, the other factor is that Serena has such an overwhelming lead in slams. The big "if" in the scenario is, of course, Justine. If she'd kept playing, and kept the slam count close, then all of a sudden those weeks at No.1 and WTA tournaments won would loom large in a debate over who's number one (along with h2h).
I don't think she would've been able to anyway. The reason she retired is because she had completely burnt herself out mentally and physically and had just completely maximised her potential. :shrug: The other players who were much fresher than her and were not burnt out were consistently beating her, you have to wonder whether she would've been able to win another Slam, let alone keep her tally close to Serena's.

In hindsight, I think she retired at the right time. She retired at the peak of her powers, there was no long and drawn out decline a-la Mauresmo where she could go from winning a pretty good tournament one week to losing to a complete nobody in the next, because I mean seeing Amelie as she is now almost makes me forget how good she was and how much of a challenge she was to the top back in 2001-06 or whenever it was that she got to her first AO final (See, I don't even remember that anymore! :help:).

Olórin
Jul 10th, 2009, 05:04 PM
People are over analysing if anything. Slams are by far the most important criteria in determining 'greatness', they are called Grand Slams afterall.

You know, I've never heard anyone say that Navratilova is greater than Evert because she has more YE#1s or that Evert is greater than Navratilova because her winning %age is 4% more. No, it's because Navratilova has won 9 Wimbledons or if people say Evert's greater it's because she won Grand Slams 13 years consecutively. No-one really cares or remembers a lot of these other stats people are throwing mentioning. Even something really and truly important and record breaking like Evert's 126 match winning streak on clay, I've never heard it mentioned outside of these forums....

Joana
Jul 10th, 2009, 05:26 PM
It's always interesting how people act like their favourite players. Now that Serena is apparently on a crusade against the WTA tournaments, some of her fans insist they're irrelevant.

thrust
Jul 10th, 2009, 05:27 PM
MJF only has 7?!!

I thought, for sure, she had more than that. :lol:

Alright, well here's why I'm asking.

It seems to me that the argument of "who are the all time greats" constantly comes up along with the question "how do we measure them?"

One issue, in relation to the metric used, is non slam Singles Titles. A lot of weight is given to this factor along with a host of others (doubles titles, doubles ranking, weeks at #1).

The funny thing about this to me is now that we look at what players have the most singles titles without winning a slam, NONE OF THEM seem to ever make it on to that list of all time greats that everybody wants to factor Single's titles into. :weirdo: I imagine the same would hold true of all those who top the charts in the other non slam factors.

All this says to me that, deep down in the dark crevices of our tennis loving souls, we really DON'T give a damn about singles titles.

It's ALL about SLAM titles.

So why not, next time this argument comes up, make it simple and just count the slams! Because we know deep down we're not that impressed with whoever wins all that other stuff anyway.

Well, it should not be only about Slams. Winning a tier 1 or tier 2 Tournament is very admirable and should be taken seriously. It is, and alyways be, by the ranking system. Otherwise, why a a tour at all?

Olórin
Jul 10th, 2009, 05:28 PM
Now that Serena is apparently on a crusade against the WTA tournaments, some of her fans insist they're irrelevant.

Since when is Serena on a crusade against WTA tournaments? She's playing more than ever before. You'll have to try harder than that.

Joana
Jul 10th, 2009, 05:32 PM
Since when is Serena on a crusade against WTA tournaments? She's playing more than ever before. You'll have to try harder than that.

Since she hasn't won one in over a year and thinks it's hilarious that Safina cared about winning Rome and Madrid.

CloudAtlas
Jul 10th, 2009, 05:32 PM
It's always interesting how people act like their favourite players. Now that Serena is apparently on a crusade against the WTA tournaments, some of her fans insist they're irrelevant.



Only against Indian Wells , and that's been happening for 8 years. The other tournaments she criticised were due to her feeling they were forcing her to play , which is totally fair when you think about it.

Olórin
Jul 10th, 2009, 05:32 PM
Well, it should not be only about Slams. Winning a tier 1 or tier 2 Tournament is very admirable and should be taken seriously. It is, and alyways be, by the ranking system. Otherwise, why a a tour at all?

What a lot of people seem to be missing is that this debate is pertaining only to 'greatness'. No-one is trying to devalue 'normal' tour titles. It's very important to play and win them, as warm ups for the Grand Slams and to support the tour if nothing else. But can you remember what other titles Don Budge won in his Grand Slam year, do you even care? No.

CloudAtlas
Jul 10th, 2009, 05:34 PM
Is Margaret Court really considered the greatest even though she's won more GS titles than Graf and Navratilova? The average person on the street probably doesn't even know who she is whereas they'd know who the other two were.

Grand Slams have more value than other aspects but just GS alone do not constitute the "GOAT".

Olórin
Jul 10th, 2009, 05:38 PM
Since she hasn't won one in over a year and thinks it's hilarious that Safina cared about winning Rome and Madrid.

As I said, you need to try harder. She wants to win every tournament she enters, injury and poor form have gotten in the way. She made a joke that Rome and Madrid weren't as important as Wimbledon and the US Open etc., as obviously Safina is number one as Rome and Madrid Champion and Serena is number two as the Wimbledon Champion. It's the journalists who ask Serena about the number one ranking all the time. She doesn't look for opportunities to get onto her soapbox. Serena cares a great deal about many smaller tournaments, notably Rome, why do you think she has only missed it once in the past eight years.

BuTtErFrEnA
Jul 10th, 2009, 06:32 PM
As I said, you need to try harder. She wants to win every tournament she enters, injury and poor form have gotten in the way. She made a joke that Rome and Madrid weren't as important as Wimbledon and the US Open etc., as obviously Safina is number one as Rome and Madrid Champion and Serena is number two as the Wimbledon Champion. It's the journalists who ask Serena about the number one ranking all the time. She doesn't look for opportunities to get onto her soapbox. Serena cares a great deal about many smaller tournaments, notably Rome, why do you think she has only missed it once in the past eight years.

you're doing exactly what they want you to do..make it about serena when DF actually wasn't talking about her :lol:....it was his way of asking why do lesser titles seem to carry you up the GOAT ranking :shrug:

his (and my) thinking is that people put in a whole lot of irrelevant stats...no one except die hard tennis fans remember smaller titles when players are done, and even so i don't think that anyone, without research can rattle off all the titles that martina, chris or graf won from year to year...no one talks about how many, Romes or whatever a player wins...

tournaments are subective...tournaments can change in their worth, have strong fields couple years and the next have weak fields couple year, or even be removed...the only thing constant is a Grand Slam...it's why you play WARM UPtournies on hard to lead up to the AO, it's why you play WARM UP tournies on clay leading up to RG, etc...it's why ordinary people outside of die hard tennis fans know that graf has 22 slams, and know serena has 11, but don't know every other nitty gritty detail in between....

if everything was equal then they'd offer equal points and equal money and there would be no separation between the two...no one would aim to win slams, since everything would be the same...

Volcana
Jul 10th, 2009, 06:40 PM
Is Margaret Court really considered the greatest even though she's won more GS titles than Graf and Navratilova? The average person on the street probably doesn't even know who she is whereas they'd know who the other two were.The 'average person on the street' doesn't know who Martina Navratilova or Steffi Graf ARE. Men's tennis is a niche sport. Women's tennis is barely an afterthought,

And after all the hype about Federer breaking Sampras' 'record', (as though Rod Laver never existed), the 'average person on the street', if they had any interest in women's tennis, would google 'most slam titles' and 'women's tennis' or something similiar, and quite quickly land on Margaret Court.

OTOH, the average 'research is tooo hard for me' average person probably thinks Serena Williams IS the greatest tennis player ever. They don't hear about anybody else.

Archer16
Jul 10th, 2009, 07:16 PM
When comparing that person with Graf/Nav/Evert who each did all of that plus everything else significant in this sport a million times over? Of course they wouldn't be considered.

There aren't any non slam winners with huge or "great" title counts (21 is a respectable amount, and Pam Shriver is actually in the HOF). It's taken for granted that the slam winners also win the most titles, but it's not for certain. If Graf retired with no slams but 85 titles it would be difficult to argue against her being a great player.

I'd argue no. They'd be by far the best player to never win a slam. Notice how there is no "best player to never be number one" or "best player to never be year end number one", or "best player to win less than 50 titles". Why do you think that is?

So a person with 20 slams and 5 calendar year grand slams would not be an all time great?
Lol, ok.

Any player who managed to win every slam they ever played in without warmup tournaments would be a legend in the history of tennis. They'd literally have movies made about them.
This is an irrelevant hypo, but even though I think slams are slightly overrated, that person would be in the GOAT discussion after her third Calendar Grand Slam, if not after the second.
Shriver btw would have never gotten to the HOF based on her singles titles career alone - she's there much more based on being half of arguably the best double partnership ever to play the game.

I agree, that's much more interesting.
I'd also add Sanchez Vicario with 4 Slams vs Davenport with 3 Slams (+ 1 YEC, Olympic gold, more titles and weeks at #1) and Kuznetsova with 2 Slams vs Clijsters with 1 Slam (+ 2 YEC titles, more titles and #1 ranking), and probably many more.

They do, but it seems- because we don't put any non-slam singles titles winners anywhere NEAR the list- singles titles are just a... bi-product and a convenient tool for breaking slam count ties. :shrug:

It's kinda an interesting convo. You had a situation in the past where people wanted to make it seem like Lindsay was in the same league as a Justine, Venus or even Serena because Linds had 50+ stats.

Just bogus. Anybody who wanna talk now about Linds being in Serena's league just because Linds has 20 odd more regular tour titles...just crazy, no?
These three just as a sample: Slams are the number one criteria for greatness, yes, and a 3 time slam winner cannot be placed over an 11 time winner based on pretty much anything, but when the margin is 1 or 2, not only when equal, then yes, those other titles - of course, big ones and not MMs - can tip the scale for the player with the fewer slams, e.g: Clijsters > Kuznetsova, Clijsters > Capriati, Dementieva > Myskina, Dementieva >> Majoli, and as someone said, say Serena (who is surely an ATG but not even close to GOAT discussion) wins 9 more slams and no other titles, than yes, both Nav and Evert > Serena too.


And please stop bringing Margaret Court's name into this, unless you're prepared to discuss Wills-Moody or compare Little Mo to Seles in these discussions. Open Era only, and here Court has 11 slams, four of which are 70s AOs, and these count much less.

Matt01
Jul 10th, 2009, 08:06 PM
The 'average person on the street' doesn't know who Martina Navratilova or Steffi Graf ARE.


Are you sure? I'd say in most civilized countries, the name Navratilova or Graf should be quite well known to "the average person".

DOUBLEFIST
Jul 10th, 2009, 08:17 PM
:worship: And this really is about Serena... let's stop beating around the bush.

Aces' you're so unbelievably obtuse.

If you had bothered to READ much of what I've said in this thread- instead of running to your knee-jerk, paranoid, "what-are-those-Serena-fans-up-to-next," delusions- you would have seen that my position in large part argues AGAINST Serena in the list of ATGs. But as ALWAYS, you want to make this thread about your own vendetta against Serena fans and argue from there. Sit back. Relax and let the non-bitter adults talk.
Well, it should not be only about Slams. Winning a tier 1 or tier 2 Tournament is very admirable and should be taken seriously. It is, and alyways be, by the ranking system. Otherwise, why a a tour at all?The tour is great and necessary. It makes money for a lot of people- slam winners included and it drives the sport we love so much. As a CRITERIA for judging ATGs, however, :shrug: . If we're honest about it, it doesn't mean that much except in order to break ties.

you're doing exactly what they want you to do..make it about serena when DF actually wasn't talking about her :lol:....it was his way of asking why do lesser titles seem to carry you up the GOAT ranking :shrug:

his (and my) thinking is that people put in a whole lot of irrelevant stats...no one except die hard tennis fans remember smaller titles when players are done, and even so i don't think that anyone, without research can rattle off all the titles that martina, chris or graf won from year to year...no one talks about how many, Romes or whatever a player wins...

tournaments are subective...tournaments can change in their worth, have strong fields couple years and the next have weak fields couple year, or even be removed...the only thing constant is a Grand Slam...it's why you play WARM UPtournies on hard to lead up to the AO, it's why you play WARM UP tournies on clay leading up to RG, etc...it's why ordinary people outside of die hard tennis fans know that graf has 22 slams, and know serena has 11, but don't know every other nitty gritty detail in between....

if everything was equal then they'd offer equal points and equal money and there would be no separation between the two...no one would aim to win slams, since everything would be the same... Precisely. And I rep you, but I gotta spread it.

CloudAtlas
Jul 10th, 2009, 08:43 PM
The 'average person on the street' doesn't know who Martina Navratilova or Steffi Graf ARE. Men's tennis is a niche sport. Women's tennis is barely an afterthought,

And after all the hype about Federer breaking Sampraa' 'record', (as though Rod Laver never existed), the 'average person on the street', if they had any interest in women's tennis, would google 'most slam titles' and 'women's tennis' or something similiar, and quite quickly land on Margaret Court.

OTOH, the average 'research is tooo hard for me' average person probably thinks Serena Williams IS the greatest tennis player ever. They don't hear about anybody else.


That's not really true to be honest. Before I watched tennis I knew who both of those players were but I had no clue who the hell Pete Sampras was. I'd hazard a guess and say the name of Steffi Graf is better known than the name of Pete Sampras.

Anyhow , both Graf and Navratilova are better known than Court , without the intervention from Google and even are regarded as better than Court even though she has more Slams , which implies that it's not Slams which exclusively contribute towards "GOATness"

BuTtErFrEnA
Jul 11th, 2009, 12:14 AM
Aces' you're so unbelievably obtuse.

If you had bothered to READ much of what I've said in this thread- instead of running to your knee-jerk, paranoid, "what-are-those-Serena-fans-up-to-next," delusions- you would have seen that my position in large part argues AGAINST Serena in the list of ATGs. But as ALWAYS, you want to make this thread about your own vendetta against Serena fans and argue from there. Sit back. Relax and let the non-bitter adults talk.




*DEATH*

Dave.
Jul 11th, 2009, 12:36 AM
his (and my) thinking is that people put in a whole lot of irrelevant stats...no one except die hard tennis fans remember smaller titles when players are done, and even so i don't think that anyone, without research can rattle off all the titles that martina, chris or graf won from year to year...no one talks about how many, Romes or whatever a player wins...

Nobody except die hard fans would really be interested in making a GOAT list. :shrug: What's wrong with doing a bit of research anyway? The people who look up their stats and know their stuff are far more able to come up with an accurate answer than the people who can only be bothered to know who won Wimbledon. :shrug:


tournaments are subective...tournaments can change in their worth, have strong fields couple years and the next have weak fields couple year, or even be removed...the only thing constant is a Grand Slam...it's why you play WARM UPtournies on hard to lead up to the AO, it's why you play WARM UP tournies on clay leading up to RG, etc...it's why ordinary people outside of die hard tennis fans know that graf has 22 slams, and know serena has 11, but don't know every other nitty gritty detail in between....

The Grand Slams are not constant either. There was a time when Team Tennis was more important than the French Open, and when the Australian Open was less important than many non-slam tournaments.

Which tournaments are Indian Wells, Miami, Dubai, YEC warming up for? Madrid and Rome are not solely "warm ups" for the French,they are significant tournaments in themselves. The Italian Open is one of the longest running tournaments around with alot of history. Same with the Canadian. Madrid might not have as much money on offer as the French but it's still a huge amount, certainly not an amount the players would want to miss out on.

Who cares what "ordinary people" think or know about tennis? Why are they in a better position to say whose GOAT?



if everything was equal then they'd offer equal points and equal money and there would be no separation between the two...no one would aim to win slams, since everything would be the same...

Slams don't all have equal prize money either. Why don't we just have the US Open as the only significant tournament because they offer the most money. The Australian, French and Wimby can be the warm ups.

LoveFifteen
Jul 11th, 2009, 03:49 AM
Fuck this shit! Before the mid 80s, there were several tournies more prestigious and harder to win than the French and Australian Opens. So yes, singles titles do matter. :weirdo:

Donny
Jul 11th, 2009, 04:04 AM
Are you sure? I'd say in most civilized countries, the name Navratilova or Graf should be quite well known to "the average person".

Lol, yea, whatever.

And what do you mean by "civilized" countries?

Volcana
Jul 11th, 2009, 04:08 AM
That's not really true to be honest. Before I watched tennis I knew who both of those players were but I had no clue who the hell Pete Sampras was.I would argue that that makes you different than the 'average person on the street'.

Renalicious
Jul 11th, 2009, 04:58 AM
Wrong post. Ick.

BuTtErFrEnA
Jul 11th, 2009, 05:03 AM
Nobody except die hard fans would really be interested in making a GOAT list. :shrug: What's wrong with doing a bit of research anyway? The people who look up their stats and know their stuff are far more able to come up with an accurate answer than the people who can only be bothered to know who won Wimbledon. :shrug:



The Grand Slams are not constant either. There was a time when Team Tennis was more important than the French Open, and when the Australian Open was less important than many non-slam tournaments.

Which tournaments are Indian Wells, Miami, Dubai, YEC warming up for? Madrid and Rome are not solely "warm ups" for the French,they are significant tournaments in themselves. The Italian Open is one of the longest running tournaments around with alot of history. Same with the Canadian. Madrid might not have as much money on offer as the French but it's still a huge amount, certainly not an amount the players would want to miss out on.

Who cares what "ordinary people" think or know about tennis? Why are they in a better position to say whose GOAT?




Slams don't all have equal prize money either. Why don't we just have the US Open as the only significant tournament because they offer the most money. The Australian, French and Wimby can be the warm ups.

plz...Grand Slams are where its at...there's a reason why maria became world famous after 1 wimbledon win and safina et al aren't...you're paid more especially, and yes MONEY is why people do it...
yes at one point all slams weren't worth the same but at this point they are and have been for a while now...just because they don't offer the same prize money at each doesn't mean jack...the americans will always try to out do everyone else, and so will the brits...

you don't grow up dreaming of winning Rome because of bla bla bla, you grow up dreaming of winning slams, and the other titles are icing on the cake, not the other way around....there's a reason why they count how many slams you have and the other titles are after thoughts...if someone came along and won more singles titles than graf but only 1 slam would you say she is GOAT...no, why? because when it came to your test against the best over two weeks graf out performed the other player...regular tour titles are like your usual in class exams, but your finals are the slams, and if you fail your finals you're toast

and you're argument about non tennis fans is backwards to what all you people keep arguing about "drawing fans"...if their opinion isn't important then why do you care about drawing people to tennis???

Nicolás89
Jul 11th, 2009, 05:29 AM
MJF only has 7?!!

I thought, for sure, she had more than that. :lol:

Alright, well here's why I'm asking.

It seems to me that the argument of "who are the all time greats" constantly comes up along with the question "how do we measure them?"

One issue, in relation to the metric used, is non slam Singles Titles. A lot of weight is given to this factor along with a host of others (doubles titles, doubles ranking, weeks at #1).

The funny thing about this to me is now that we look at what players have the most singles titles without winning a slam, NONE OF THEM seem to ever make it on to that list of all time greats that everybody wants to factor Single's titles into. :weirdo: I imagine the same would hold true of all those who top the charts in the other non slam factors.

All this says to me that, deep down in the dark crevices of our tennis loving souls, we really DON'T give a damn about singles titles.

It's ALL about SLAM titles.

So why not, next time this argument comes up, make it simple and just count the slams! Because we know deep down we're not that impressed with whoever wins all that other stuff anyway.

We know? YOU know, I'm still clueless.
Of course no one cares about Fernandez, she is got no single slams.
When you measure a GOAT list (I know, right? WTF is that?) you count players who at least won a singles slam, so as I said, of course no one cares about Fernandez and her 7 titles or anyone without a single slam title for that matter, but when the player is got the slam you may want to start measuring mmore feats to make that precious list. At the end, deep down titles do matter and a lot.

DOUBLEFIST
Jul 11th, 2009, 06:26 AM
...When you measure a GOAT list (I know, right? WTF is that?) you count players who at least won a singles slam,...no one cares about Fernandez and her 7 titles or anyone without a single slam title for that matter,
Which highlights my point. We begin with slams and don't care about anyone with anything else.
but when the player is got the slam you may want to start measuring mmore feats to make that precious list.Well of course you "may want to", as evidenced by some of the posters opinions in this thread, but it seems to be superfluous, especially given your previous observation. I will give you- as I have earlier in the thread- that non slam singles titles are useful to an ATG list for breaking ties I suppose.

morbidangle
Jul 11th, 2009, 09:04 AM
1 slam is >> a lot of non slam titles! What is with this new obsession of underrating the slams. Other wise people would just try to win 10 titles on all four surfaces and then consider their achievements equal to a career slam...

OsloErik
Jul 11th, 2009, 09:23 AM
It seems to me that the argument of "who are the all time greats" constantly comes up along with the question "how do we measure them?"

One issue, in relation to the metric used, is non slam Singles Titles. A lot of weight is given to this factor along with a host of others (doubles titles, doubles ranking, weeks at #1).

The funny thing about this to me is now that we look at what players have the most singles titles without winning a slam, NONE OF THEM seem to ever make it on to that list of all time greats that everybody wants to factor Single's titles into. :weirdo: I imagine the same would hold true of all those who top the charts in the other non slam factors.

All this says to me that, deep down in the dark crevices of our tennis loving souls, we really DON'T give a damn about singles titles.

It's ALL about SLAM titles.

So why not, next time this argument comes up, make it simple and just count the slams! Because we know deep down we're not that impressed with whoever wins all that other stuff anyway.

Generally speaking, people do. Singles titles outside the slams is only used in tie breaking situations. The only time you manage to jump ahead of somebody with more slam titles is if you have more diversity of slams or a significant #1 weeks status or a ton of doubles success (hence the reason the Hingis-Henin argument is still a legitimate one). For example, the Davenport-Capriati-Sharapova debate largely rested on the fact that Capriati won so few titles overall. Or the "GOSWOAT" (One-Slam-Wonder GOAT) conversation, which is pretty much down to Sabatini and Clijsters at this point. A one slam difference can be overcome with a decent disparity in titles hauls or doubles success or weeks and number one or slam finals reached, and I would at least listen to a two-slam difference but it would require HUGE disparity in all those categories (Hingis-Henin comes fairly close). But just about everybody on here uses slam titles as the first measuring stick.

Basically, once you've won a slam, you're in the club. Inside that club, the extra things matter in the margins, but they don't gain you entrance to the club. Helena Sukova isn't there; Chris O'Neil is (in spite of being a truly aberrational member).

Archer16
Jul 11th, 2009, 11:07 AM
Pretty much what I've said last page.
Basically, once you've won a slam, you're in the club. Inside that club, the extra things matter in the margins, but they don't gain you entrance to the club. Helena Sukova isn't there; Chris O'Neil is (in spite of being a truly aberrational member).
And what club would that be, other than a "Slam Winners" one? All slams are quite equal in the last 20 years or so, but not before that. Anyone that knows something about tennis knows that AOs until about 1985 should be, at most, worth half of a regular slam. And measuring who had the better career, Sukova (and MJF, and some other slam finalists) would need a microscope to see Chris O'Neil.

DOUBLEFIST
Jul 11th, 2009, 11:10 AM
Generally speaking, people do. Singles titles outside the slams is only used in tie breaking situations. The only time you manage to jump ahead of somebody with more slam titles is if you have more diversity of slams or a significant #1 weeks status or a ton of doubles success (hence the reason the Hingis-Henin argument is still a legitimate one). For example, the Davenport-Capriati-Sharapova debate largely rested on the fact that Capriati won so few titles overall. Or the "GOSWOAT" (One-Slam-Wonder GOAT) conversation, which is pretty much down to Sabatini and Clijsters at this point. A one slam difference can be overcome with a decent disparity in titles hauls or doubles success or weeks and number one or slam finals reached, and I would at least listen to a two-slam difference but it would require HUGE disparity in all those categories (Hingis-Henin comes fairly close). But just about everybody on here uses slam titles as the first measuring stick.

Basically, once you've won a slam, you're in the club. Inside that club, the extra things matter in the margins, but they don't gain you entrance to the club. Helena Sukova isn't there; Chris O'Neil is (in spite of being a truly aberrational member).

Interesting. I appreciate your post.

On a somewhat side note, I don't think there should be any comparison between Henin and Hingis. Henin is far greater, imho. I think a two slam (or even one slam) difference is sufficient. Certainly two. See, I just think they (extra things) are weighted waaaaay too much in light of the fact that they don't even "gain you entrance to the club."

I mean, damn. What about Pam Shriver, who has all those doubles slam titles. Adding those up, I think she damn near in the top ten of accumulated slams. She's not in the ATG conversation, but her accomplishments are used as criteria? To me, that's a contradiction- at least if used for anything other than breaking ties like the Capriati, Sharapova, Davenport log jam. Even then, I'd look at quality of Slams vis-a-vis surface, opponents, etc, etc

Now, I'm not arguing for or against Pam Shriver as a ATG, I'm just saying let's not kid ourselves. It's about the slams.

bandabou
Jul 11th, 2009, 11:12 AM
Generally speaking, people do. Singles titles outside the slams is only used in tie breaking situations. The only time you manage to jump ahead of somebody with more slam titles is if you have more diversity of slams or a significant #1 weeks status or a ton of doubles success (hence the reason the Hingis-Henin argument is still a legitimate one). For example, the Davenport-Capriati-Sharapova debate largely rested on the fact that Capriati won so few titles overall. Or the "GOSWOAT" (One-Slam-Wonder GOAT) conversation, which is pretty much down to Sabatini and Clijsters at this point. A one slam difference can be overcome with a decent disparity in titles hauls or doubles success or weeks and number one or slam finals reached, and I would at least listen to a two-slam difference but it would require HUGE disparity in all those categories (Hingis-Henin comes fairly close). But just about everybody on here uses slam titles as the first measuring stick.

Basically, once you've won a slam, you're in the club. Inside that club, the extra things matter in the margins, but they don't gain you entrance to the club. Helena Sukova isn't there; Chris O'Neil is (in spite of being a truly aberrational member).

Uhumm..and once you have 4 more majors than the nearest competitor, complete set of majors...then that's it.

Ellen Dawson
Jul 11th, 2009, 11:26 AM
So...of the current players is it Elena Dementieva?

LCS
Jul 11th, 2009, 11:32 AM
Useless thread :wavey:

S_Fahad
Jul 11th, 2009, 12:07 PM
The total number of titles/doubles/etc etc only come into the picture if there is a tiebreak situation. I can understand if someone uses these stats in the Hingis/Henin/Venus debates, but other than that, slams are pretty much everything. Davenport has great other-than-slams stats, but she is still wayyyy behind Hingis/Henin/Williams. Even behind ASV in my book.

Nicolás89
Jul 11th, 2009, 08:50 PM
Which highlights my point. We begin with slams and don't care about anyone with anything else.
Well of course you "may want to", as evidenced by some of the posters opinions in this thread, but it seems to be superfluous, especially given your previous observation. I will give you- as I have earlier in the thread- that non slam singles titles are useful to an ATG list for breaking ties I suppose.

Gotta love how you twisted everything I said. I feel like I'm talking to a wall.

DOUBLEFIST
Jul 11th, 2009, 10:06 PM
Gotta love how you twisted everything I said. I feel like I'm talking to a wall. As do I. :shrug:

Expat
Jul 11th, 2009, 10:12 PM
No of Slams are not the end all but are pretty huge. I wouldn't rate someone who has 100 weeks at no 1 but no slams higher than someone who has 3 slams but over one person who may have fluked out a slam I could rate that person higher.
Lets say Venus had 8 slams (including a 6th Wimbledon) vs Henin who has 7 slams. Even then I would rate Henin higher because she has a lot of other factors that make her better like weeks at no 1.

OsloErik
Jul 11th, 2009, 10:44 PM
And what club would that be, other than a "Slam Winners" one? All slams are quite equal in the last 20 years or so, but not before that. Anyone that knows something about tennis knows that AOs until about 1985 should be, at most, worth half of a regular slam. And measuring who had the better career, Sukova (and MJF, and some other slam finalists) would need a microscope to see Chris O'Neil.

Problem I have with devaluing any Aussie titles (or the three French titles during WTT in the '70s) is that the field wasn't always bad. There are a couple years where someone who has no business winning a slam won, and years when Court beat a field of Australian journeywomen, but there are even more years with stacked fields of Court, King, Goolagong, Reid, etc.

At the end of the day, I think Sukova would trade all four slam finals for Chris O'Neil's Aussie title.

OsloErik
Jul 11th, 2009, 10:47 PM
On a somewhat side note, I don't think there should be any comparison between Henin and Hingis. Henin is far greater, imho. I think a two slam (or even one slam) difference is sufficient. Certainly two. See, I just think they (extra things) are weighted waaaaay too much in light of the fact that they don't even "gain you entrance to the club."

And I agree to an extent, but there are just so many categories that Hingis leads in. Weeks at number one, singles titles won outside slams, doubles slams, grand slam finals...

I don't actively argue for the Hingis > Henin position, but I at least recognize that it has merit (unlike, say, Davenport > Henin, or Clijsters > Davenport). I think if Hingis played in a more competitive era than 1997, she would have a better argument, because Henin didn't win with the best field either. But as it stands, I think Hingis loses the comparative strength of field debate, and that keeps that discussion closed.

DOUBLEFIST
Jul 11th, 2009, 10:53 PM
And I agree to an extent, but there are just so many categories that Hingis leads in. Weeks at number one, singles titles won outside slams, doubles slams, grand slam finals...

I don't actively argue for the Hingis > Henin position, but I at least recognize that it has merit (unlike, say, Davenport > Henin, or Clijsters > Davenport). I think if Hingis played in a more competitive era than 1997, she would have a better argument, because Henin didn't win with the best field either. But as it stands, I think Hingis loses the comparative strength of field debate, and that keeps that discussion closed.

Again, well reasoned, but let me ask you a question that probably can't be answered in any incredibly accurate way...

How many weeks at #1 do you think Martina would trade for two more slams?

UDACHi
Jul 11th, 2009, 11:07 PM
:shrug:

I think this thread has been pretty intelligent, well reasoned with great points, little flaming and very civil...






...until you showed up.

it doesn't even make sense. :lol: "controversy sneakily enclosed". :haha:

Archer16
Jul 11th, 2009, 11:10 PM
Problem I have with devaluing any Aussie titles (or the three French titles during WTT in the '70s) is that the field wasn't always bad. There are a couple years where someone who has no business winning a slam won, and years when Court beat a field of Australian journeywomen, but there are even more years with stacked fields of Court, King, Goolagong, Reid, etc.

At the end of the day, I think Sukova would trade all four slam finals for Chris O'Neil's Aussie title.
Okay, but it least some of these are slam titles with an asterisk.
She may, but the debate here is about careers as a whole (at least I think it is :p ). Same goes for Dementieva and Majoli.
Clijsters > Davenport certainly isn't true, but what do you think about Clijsters > Capriati? Clijsters > Kuznetsova (at least for now) isn't even a question IMO.

DOUBLEFIST
Jul 11th, 2009, 11:39 PM
it doesn't even make sense. :lol: "controversy sneakily enclosed". :haha:

Welcome to the world of ignore, my friend.

...unless you want to have a try at posting something..., anything intelligent. Criticizing the thread title means very little, especially considering the thread has gone 10 pages.

btw...


Thought this might help to.


con⋅tro⋅ver⋅sy
  /ˈkɒntrəˌvɜrsi; Brit. also kənˈtrɒvərsi/ Show Spelled [kon-truh-vur-see; Brit. also kuhn-trov-er-see] Show IPA
Use controversy in a Sentence
–noun, plural -sies.
1.a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion.
2.contention, strife, or argument.
Origin:
1350–1400; ME controversie (< AF) < L contrōversia, equiv. to contrōvers(us) turned against, disputed (contrō-, var. of contrā against, + versus, ptp. of vertere to turn) + -ia -y 3



Sneak
–adjective, sneak⋅i⋅er, sneak⋅i⋅est.
like or suggestive of a sneak; furtive; deceitful.
Origin:
1825–35; sneak + -y 1

—Related forms
sneak⋅i⋅ly, adverb



en⋅close
  /ɛnˈkloʊz/ Show Spelled [en-klohz] Show IPA
Use enclosed in a Sentence
–verb (used with object), -closed, -clos⋅ing.
1.to shut or hem in; close in on all sides: a valley enclosed by tall mountains.
2.to surround, as with a fence or wall: to enclose land.
3.to insert in the same envelope, package, or the like: He enclosed a check. A book was sent with the bill enclosed.
4.to hold or contain: His letter enclosed a check.
5.Roman Catholic Church.
a.to restrict to the enclosure of a monastery or convent.
b.(of a monastery, convent, church, etc.) to establish or fix the boundary of an enclosure.
Also, inclose.

Origin:
1275–1325; ME en-, inclosen. See in- 1 , close

—Related forms
en⋅clos⋅a⋅ble, adjective
en⋅clos⋅er, noun

BuTtErFrEnA
Jul 12th, 2009, 12:21 AM
Welcome to the world of ignore, my friend.

...unless you want to have a try at posting something..., anything intelligent. Criticizing the thread title means very little, especially considering the thread has gone 10 pages.

btw...


Thought this might help to.


con⋅tro⋅ver⋅sy
  /ˈkɒntrəˌvɜrsi; Brit. also kənˈtrɒvərsi/ Show Spelled [kon-truh-vur-see; Brit. also kuhn-trov-er-see] Show IPA
Use controversy in a Sentence
–noun, plural -sies.
1.a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion.
2.contention, strife, or argument.
Origin:
1350–1400; ME controversie (< AF) < L contrōversia, equiv. to contrōvers(us) turned against, disputed (contrō-, var. of contrā against, + versus, ptp. of vertere to turn) + -ia -y 3



Sneak
–adjective, sneak⋅i⋅er, sneak⋅i⋅est.
like or suggestive of a sneak; furtive; deceitful.
Origin:
1825–35; sneak + -y 1

—Related forms
sneak⋅i⋅ly, adverb



en⋅close
  /ɛnˈkloʊz/ Show Spelled [en-klohz] Show IPA
Use enclosed in a Sentence
–verb (used with object), -closed, -clos⋅ing.
1.to shut or hem in; close in on all sides: a valley enclosed by tall mountains.
2.to surround, as with a fence or wall: to enclose land.
3.to insert in the same envelope, package, or the like: He enclosed a check. A book was sent with the bill enclosed.
4.to hold or contain: His letter enclosed a check.
5.Roman Catholic Church.
a.to restrict to the enclosure of a monastery or convent.
b.(of a monastery, convent, church, etc.) to establish or fix the boundary of an enclosure.
Also, inclose.

Origin:
1275–1325; ME en-, inclosen. See in- 1 , close

—Related forms
en⋅clos⋅a⋅ble, adjective
en⋅clos⋅er, noun


omg i thought i told you and RVD to stop :sobbing:

BuTtErFrEnA
Jul 12th, 2009, 12:29 AM
Again, well reasoned, but let me ask you a question that probably can't be answered in any incredibly accurate way...

How many weeks at #1 do you think Martina would trade for two more slams?


exactly...didn't lindsay at one point hint that she would trade in either some of her #1 weeks or singles titles (can't remember which) if she could have gotten a few more slams :shrug:

at the end of it all, singles titles and weeks at #1 are only an after thought...when i first heard of graf it wasn't because of her singles titles (as up til now i don't know and don't care)...same goes with big Nav...

even critics and people on this forum would agree that with lindsay's talents, she has underachieved...why? when she clearly surpasses even serena in weeks at #1 and titles won???? its because with all that talent she has managed to get a grand total of THREE GRAND SLAMS...

DOUBLEFIST
Jul 12th, 2009, 03:26 AM
omg i thought i told you and RVD to stop :sobbing:

Believe me, I want to, but..., well..., you know.

And, yeah, I have no doubt LD would trade All that, because she definitely was capable of more slams. It's just her bad luck that her game doesn't match up well with anyone named Williams.

Robert-KimClijst
Jul 12th, 2009, 03:52 AM
The reason why the prestige of winning something like a tier I tournament has been lessened is because players don't treat it with the same reserve. Look at Indian Wells, it's like since the Williams don't play it anymore it's not that big of a deal. Personally, I feel like the only tournament where all players treat each match with the same respect of a grand slam is Miami, and that's it. If the best players of a generation don't treat certain tournaments with respect, then the prestige of the tournament wanes. When the greatest player of a generation, like Serena, starts to "diss" other tournaments besides grand slams, then they lose prominence. Right now people have a mindset of "slams are everything." Tier I's and the #1 ranking have lost so much respect. It comes down to comparing generations. Serena probably would have had more titles had she played in the time of Evert and Navratilova because she would have been pressured and seen more importance in other titles.

Dave.
Jul 12th, 2009, 04:00 AM
plz...Grand Slams are where its at...there's a reason why maria became world famous after 1 wimbledon win and safina et al aren't...

and Kournikova??



you're paid more especially, and yes MONEY is why people do it...
yes at one point all slams weren't worth the same but at this point they are and have been for a while now...just because they don't offer the same prize money at each doesn't mean jack...the americans will always try to out do everyone else, and so will the brits...

If the money is different, what exactly makes them worth the same? Ranking points are the same but rankings don't mean anything....The all important non-tennis fans here only pay attention to Wimbledon....



and you're argument about non tennis fans is backwards to what all you people keep arguing about "drawing fans"...if their opinion isn't important then why do you care about drawing people to tennis???

Not really. Bringing more fans in and talking about GOATs are completely different things. I don't know anything about Golf and have only ever watched it a couple of times, am I in any position to say who the best Golfer of all time is?

Dave.
Jul 12th, 2009, 04:03 AM
even critics and people on this forum would agree that with lindsay's talents, she has underachieved...why? when she clearly surpasses even serena in weeks at #1 and titles won???? its because with all that talent she has managed to get a grand total of THREE GRAND SLAMS...


Ok I know you're trying to make a point but let's not go overboard, 3 (6 in total) Grand Slams is still a massive, great accomplishment, nothing to be sniffed at.

Believe me, I want to, but..., well..., you know.

And, yeah, I have no doubt LD would trade All that, because she definitely was capable of more slams. It's just her bad luck that her game doesn't match up well with anyone named Williams.

The trading in thing means nothing if you're looking at greatness. If I were in the position to I'd trade in 2 French Opens just to have 1 Wimbledon, does that mean 1 Wimbledon is a bigger achievement, NO!

DOUBLEFIST
Jul 12th, 2009, 04:19 AM
The trading in thing means nothing if you're looking at greatness.

Sure it does- especially if one who is approaching greatness or in the thick of the hunt for it DEFINES what it means, ie, I'd trade my x weeks at #1 for two more slams.

If I were in the position to I'd trade in 2 French Opens just to have 1 Wimbledon, does that mean 1 Wimbledon is a bigger achievement, NO! That's a false comparison. We're not comparing slam to slam. We're comparing all the non-slam, ancillary criteria cited as a greatness barometer to slams.

OsloErik
Jul 12th, 2009, 05:48 AM
Again, well reasoned, but let me ask you a question that probably can't be answered in any incredibly accurate way...

How many weeks at #1 do you think Martina would trade for two more slams?

And let me answer in a fairly ambiguous way...
Depends on the slam ;)

Sam L
Jul 12th, 2009, 05:53 AM
Are you kidding me? I don't know about Martina but I would trade all weeks at #1 except one week for two more slams.

It's nice to be #1 at least once just to say you were #1. But aside from that, it is really not that important.

Grand Slam events are everything.

AcesHigh
Jul 12th, 2009, 05:59 AM
It's nice to be #1 at least once just to say you were #1. But aside from that, it is really not that important.

Grand Slam events are everything.

That's for you. For others and many tour players being #1 is a huge achievement.

I'd rather be Dinara Safina than Anastacia Myskina. I'd rather be Kim Clijsters than Mary Pierce.

Sam L
Jul 12th, 2009, 06:10 AM
That's for you. For others and many tour players being #1 is a huge achievement.

I'd rather be Dinara Safina than Anastacia Myskina. I'd rather be Kim Clijsters than Mary Pierce.
Really? Ok that is surprising.

I would rather be Myskina (former French Open champion) and Mary Pierce (two-time Grand Slam singles champion).

To each his own I guess.

http://i3.iofferphoto.com/img/item/107/586/453/fjIB0WO2ksasQ6X.jpg

faboozadoo15
Jul 12th, 2009, 06:55 AM
All of this talk about "meaningless #1" is only propagated by zealous tennis fans who hyper-analyze and criticize the ranking system and can't really account for what the "average fan" will remember anyway.

The #1 ranking is significant. Every time the World #1 wins a match, their ranking is mentioned, every match played, each draw. The longer you're there, the better.

There's a reason Martina Hingis has a stronger legacy than Mats Wilander and why many would rate Davenport above Mandlikova or Sanchez-Vicario.

DOUBLEFIST
Jul 12th, 2009, 10:02 AM
And let me answer in a fairly ambiguous way...
Depends on the slam ;)

:lol: touche'

She'd probably trade her right arm for a French.

DOUBLEFIST
Jul 12th, 2009, 10:07 AM
Really? Ok that is surprising.

I would rather be Myskina (former French Open champion) and Mary Pierce (two-time Grand Slam singles champion).

Agreed- especially the latter comparison.

crazillo
Jul 12th, 2009, 10:13 AM
Manuela Maleeva-Fragniere certainly could have won the French Open one year...

BuTtErFrEnA
Jul 12th, 2009, 01:37 PM
Ok I know you're trying to make a point but let's not go overboard, 3 (6 in total) Grand Slams is still a massive, great accomplishment, nothing to be sniffed at.



The trading in thing means nothing if you're looking at greatness. If I were in the position to I'd trade in 2 French Opens just to have 1 Wimbledon, does that mean 1 Wimbledon is a bigger achievement, NO!

apples and oranges...

lindsay is an "underachiever", especially considering all her talent and given that 3/4 slams are played on surfaces she can and has won on...people expected lindsay to be somewhere nears 7 or 8 given how clean her technique was...and don't blame me for using lindsay's own thoughts against you...she said that while she was commentating...she would trade in something for a few more slams :shrug: it shows where the players put their stock...

but if that's not enough for you let's go further...

why is that that players on a seemingly "hot streak" in minor tournaments, crumble in GS play?? they aren't playing different players, their game hasn't changed, and the surface hasn't changed either...so what is it?? why can elena go from beating serena 3 times in a row, 6-3 6-1 the week before, but then at the AO SF (same stage as the sydney SF) serena handles her 6-4 6-4...why can elena handle winning normal tour titles but can't get over the hump of getting to a GS fina or winning a GS? or most other players for the matter??

the pressure is different, tournament worth is different....and as i said in another thread, there's a reason why i would take serena's past 52 weeks and be #2 than safina's 52 weeks and be #1...the former has 3 GS titles under her belt, and those were her only titles but that alone guarantees her HOF status (even if she didn't have 8 more before), while the latter has a couple other titles and that's it...

and about trading in RG for Wimbledon?? that's a player's preference of slams :shrug: some players may dream to win wimbledon or whatever, or their home slam depending on where you're from...but if a player who has 3 slams, and plenty weeks at #1, as well as plenty other singles titles, says she would trade in any of them for more slams, i think that is saying something

DOUBLEFIST
Jul 12th, 2009, 06:40 PM
apples and oranges...

lindsay is an "underachiever", especially considering all her talent and given that 3/4 slams are played on surfaces she can and has won on...people expected lindsay to be somewhere nears 7 or 8 given how clean her technique was...and don't blame me for using lindsay's own thoughts against you...she said that while she was commentating...she would trade in something for a few more slams :shrug: it shows where the players put their stock...

but if that's not enough for you let's go further...

why is that that players on a seemingly "hot streak" in minor tournaments, crumble in GS play?? they aren't playing different players, their game hasn't changed, and the surface hasn't changed either...so what is it?? why can elena go from beating serena 3 times in a row, 6-3 6-1 the week before, but then at the AO SF (same stage as the sydney SF) serena handles her 6-4 6-4...why can elena handle winning normal tour titles but can't get over the hump of getting to a GS fina or winning a GS? or most other players for the matter??

the pressure is different, tournament worth is different....and as i said in another thread, there's a reason why i would take serena's past 52 weeks and be #2 than safina's 52 weeks and be #1...the former has 3 GS titles under her belt, and those were her only titles but that alone guarantees her HOF status (even if she didn't have 8 more before), while the latter has a couple other titles and that's it...

and about trading in RG for Wimbledon?? that's a player's preference of slams :shrug: some players may dream to win wimbledon or whatever, or their home slam depending on where you're from...but if a player who has 3 slams, and plenty weeks at #1, as well as plenty other singles titles, says she would trade in any of them for more slams, i think that is saying something:yeah:

UDACHi
Jul 12th, 2009, 10:06 PM
Welcome to the world of ignore, my friend.

...unless you want to have a try at posting something..., anything intelligent. Criticizing the thread title means very little, especially considering the thread has gone 10 pages.

btw...


Thought this might help to.


con⋅tro⋅ver⋅sy
  /ˈkɒntrəˌvɜrsi; Brit. also kənˈtrɒvərsi/ Show Spelled [kon-truh-vur-see; Brit. also kuhn-trov-er-see] Show IPA
Use controversy in a Sentence
–noun, plural -sies.
1.a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion.
2.contention, strife, or argument.
Origin:
1350–1400; ME controversie (< AF) < L contrōversia, equiv. to contrōvers(us) turned against, disputed (contrō-, var. of contrā against, + versus, ptp. of vertere to turn) + -ia -y 3



Sneak
–adjective, sneak⋅i⋅er, sneak⋅i⋅est.
like or suggestive of a sneak; furtive; deceitful.
Origin:
1825–35; sneak + -y 1

—Related forms
sneak⋅i⋅ly, adverb



en⋅close
  /ɛnˈkloʊz/ Show Spelled [en-klohz] Show IPA
Use enclosed in a Sentence
–verb (used with object), -closed, -clos⋅ing.
1.to shut or hem in; close in on all sides: a valley enclosed by tall mountains.
2.to surround, as with a fence or wall: to enclose land.
3.to insert in the same envelope, package, or the like: He enclosed a check. A book was sent with the bill enclosed.
4.to hold or contain: His letter enclosed a check.
5.Roman Catholic Church.
a.to restrict to the enclosure of a monastery or convent.
b.(of a monastery, convent, church, etc.) to establish or fix the boundary of an enclosure.
Also, inclose.

Origin:
1275–1325; ME en-, inclosen. See in- 1 , close

—Related forms
en⋅clos⋅a⋅ble, adjective
en⋅clos⋅er, noun

can you just tell me what the point of this thread is? and what the controversy is that's sneakily enclosed? :lol:

Slutiana
Jul 12th, 2009, 10:19 PM
Really? Ok that is surprising.

I would rather be Myskina (former French Open champion) and Mary Pierce (two-time Grand Slam singles champion).

To each his own I guess.

http://i3.iofferphoto.com/img/item/107/586/453/fjIB0WO2ksasQ6X.jpg
Agree.

DOUBLEFIST
Jul 12th, 2009, 11:02 PM
can you just tell me what the point of this thread is? and what the controversy is that's sneakily enclosed? :lol:

It's not for me to explain the thread. It's for you to read it (if you are able).

If you do and still don't know, no amount of explaining will help you, as you have a learning disability. :shrug:

Nicolás89
Jul 12th, 2009, 11:10 PM
I'd rather be Dementieva than Myskina or Majoli, although being Clijsters would definitely be better than being Dementieva.

DOUBLEFIST
Jul 12th, 2009, 11:17 PM
I'd rather be Dementieva than Myskina or Majoli, although being Clijsters would definitely be better than being Dementieva.

Elena's got the Olympics. Granted, it's not the French, but it's pretty damn prestigious- and worth more than a pack of non-slam singles, imho.

AndreConrad
Jul 12th, 2009, 11:18 PM
The slam titles are necessary to be considered an all time great, but not sufficient on its own.

Ellen Dawson
Jul 13th, 2009, 03:50 AM
Useless thread :wavey:

Not useless. Sidetracked is more like it. :tape:

Craig.
Jul 13th, 2009, 03:53 AM
It's not for me to explain the thread. It's for you to read it (if you are able).

If you do and still don't know, no amount of explaining will help you, as you have a learning disability. :shrug:

Umm, no need to be rude. I thought that was a valid/legitimate question :shrug:

BuTtErFrEnA
Jul 13th, 2009, 04:03 AM
Umm, no need to be rude. I thought that was a valid/legitimate question :shrug:

not after all these posts with the issue being debated :tape:

Craig.
Jul 13th, 2009, 04:09 AM
not after all these posts with the issue being debated :taped:

I guess. A little summary wouldn't have hurt though :shrug:

But never mind, doesn't matter anyways.

DOUBLEFIST
Jul 13th, 2009, 06:53 AM
Umm, no need to be rude. I thought that was a valid/legitimate question :shrug:

Craig, you should check and see Udachi's 1st post in the thread and Then talk about "rude".

It's always amazing to me that people come inside a thread they think is senseless. If it's senseless, stay out. :lol:

As for explaing the thread, I think there are at least 12 pages of posts to get the gist of things. And I think post #15 (I think it's 15) sums up the issue.

UDACHi
Jul 13th, 2009, 03:29 PM
not after all these posts with the issue being debated :tape:

i'm just curious because i don't even see the original question answered nor do i see why something that's been debated 4029 times would be a sneaky controversy. :p

Breske
Jul 13th, 2009, 03:56 PM
I'd rather be Dementieva than Myskina or Majoli, although being Clijsters would definitely be better than being Dementieva.

I'd actually rather be Myskina. She had a better career than people think outside of that RG run. Plus, she was #2 and almost #1.

Archer16
Jul 14th, 2009, 01:49 AM
i'm just curious because i don't even see the original question answered nor do i see why something that's been debated 4029 times would be a sneaky controversy. :p
Post #3.
Whether there's any "sneaky controversy" here is in the eye of the beholder.
Craig, you should check and see Udachi's 1st post in the thread and Then talk about "rude".

It's always amazing to me that people come inside a thread they think is senseless. If it's senseless, stay out. :lol:

As for explaing the thread, I think there are at least 12 pages of posts to get the gist of things. And I think post #15 (I think it's 15) sums up the issue.
That post #15 isn't one of your best in this thread. I don't know what's the exact threshold for being an ATG (by that you mean HOFer?), but one slam certainly isn't, and again, as said, Shriver, MJF and Dementieva (the first two, it has to be said, have a lot on their doubles resume) are more worthy of that the Myskina and Majoli, not to mention the likes of Chris O'Neill. You can put it down to the "some achievements can overcome 1-2 slam differential" position of Erik and myself.

DOUBLEFIST
Jul 14th, 2009, 06:10 AM
Post #3.
Whether there's any "sneaky controversy" here is in the eye of the beholder.

That post #15 isn't one of your best in this thread. I don't know what's the exact threshold for being an ATG (by that you mean HOFer?), but one slam certainly isn't, and again, as said, Shriver, MJF and Dementieva (the first two, it has to be said, have a lot on their doubles resume) are more worthy of that the Myskina and Majoli, not to mention the likes of Chris O'Neill. You can put it down to the "some achievements can overcome 1-2 slam differential" position of Erik and myself.

Interesting. It seems some feel that others share that opinion.

i'm just curious because i don't even see the original question answered

:lol: Now, I see your comprehension problem. :lol:

Of course you don't see the original question answer. That's the point. The thread was NEVER really about the "original" question. :lol: , though I didn't actually expect it to fool anybody. :eek:

nor do i see why something that's been debated 4029 times would be a sneaky controversy. :p

It's not a "sneaky controversy." It is a controversy "sneakily enclosed" in the thread. There is a difference.

The latter is what I said, and it was said because the subject people have been debating has NOTHING (or little) to do with the original question. which, again, is why you don't see a an answer to the "original" question more than a sentence or two long, eg, post #3.

The former- which I did not say- is an adjective describing a kind of controversy, which- of course- there's nothing sneaky about. The subject is debated quite often.

The latter- which is what I did say- is an adverb describing the MANNER in which the main subject was brought up- ie, indirectly.

Now, that is the most... idiot-proof... way I can describe the thread title.

Anyway, doesn't matter. The thread's ran its course, regardless.

Medina
Jul 14th, 2009, 06:36 AM
:yawn:

UDACHi
Jul 14th, 2009, 07:30 PM
omg you like think you're so clever for this thread. :lol: good work doublefist i feel so shocked and awed by this controversy/