PDA

View Full Version : Serena joins rare company with AO win


Pureracket
Jan 31st, 2010, 06:22 PM
AO- Serena Williams 5
FO-Chris Evert 7
W-Martina Navratilova 9 (DAYUM!)
USO-Chris Evert 6

She's won more Australian Open Womens Singles Titles than any other woman in the Open Era. Is it time to give her legendary status?

Sir Stefwhit
Jan 31st, 2010, 06:26 PM
Before someone comes into your thread bringing up Court- we are talking most slams in the "OPEN ERA"...

Before it's all said and done I can envision one or two more. I'd love for her to inflate that count. Actually the only slam I want more is the French, outside of that I'd be happy if she continued adding Oz titles to her collection.

HRHoliviasmith
Jan 31st, 2010, 06:27 PM
Before someone comes into your thread bringing up Court- we are talking most slams in the "OPEN ERA"...

Before it's all said and done I can envision one or two more. I'd love for her to inflate that count. Actually the only slam I want more is the French, outside of that I'd be happy if she continued adding Oz titles to her collection.

this.

Pureracket
Jan 31st, 2010, 06:29 PM
Thanks for the correction. Her AO titles kinda crept up on me too. I remember how mad about her losing to Likhotseva a few years back @ the AO as she came in totally unprepared. She's come a long, long way.

Serenita
Jan 31st, 2010, 06:30 PM
http://kiwipolemicist.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/goat.jpg

friendsita
Jan 31st, 2010, 07:11 PM
Legend

DOUBLEFIST
Jan 31st, 2010, 08:06 PM
Legend

Olórin
Jan 31st, 2010, 08:19 PM
http://kiwipolemicist.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/goat.jpg

:haha:

dscho99
Jan 31st, 2010, 08:23 PM
AO- Serena Williams 5
FO-Chris Evert 7
W-Martina Navratilova 9 (DAYUM!)
USO-Chris Evert 6

She's won more Australian Open Womens Singles Titles than any other woman in the Open Era. Is it time to give her legendary status?


"Lengendary"?
You have to win more than 20 singles slam titles in the open era to be called that.
Everything else is only "very good".

AcesHigh
Jan 31st, 2010, 08:28 PM
She is a legend already. She's in rarified air only touched by Graf, Evert and Navratilova in the Open Era.

Serenita
Jan 31st, 2010, 08:33 PM
"Lengendary"?
You have to win more than 20 singles slam titles in the open era to be called that.
Everything else is only "very good".
uhm no SERENA is a tennis legend she has transformed the game of tennis, that alone makes her a legend;)

Thanx4nothin
Jan 31st, 2010, 08:35 PM
"Lengendary"?
You have to win more than 20 singles slam titles in the open era to be called that.
Everything else is only "very good".

:rolleyes: You clearly have NO knowledge of tennis whatsoever.

Must call Navvie and tell her she's just 'Very good' I'm sure that'll go down well.

Ntosake
Jan 31st, 2010, 08:51 PM
Yep. Legend.

Love the GOAT picture.

Love your new avatar, Oliviasmith.

Lucemferre
Jan 31st, 2010, 09:18 PM
http://kiwipolemicist.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/goat.jpg

:haha:

dscho99
Jan 31st, 2010, 09:21 PM
uhm no SERENA is a tennis legend she has transformed the game of tennis, that alone makes her a legend;)


In which way has she "transformed" the game of tennis??:tape::lol:

Tennisstar86
Jan 31st, 2010, 09:26 PM
In which way has she "transformed" the game of tennis??:tape::lol:

Have you not been Banned again yet? :lol: Aside from the power game which everyone now plays thanks to her and Venus... shes currently changed the name of the game with her serve... and the other ladies best get a serve or she will continue to win all the majors.....

Rolling-Thunder
Jan 31st, 2010, 09:32 PM
According to dscho99's logic neither Navratilova nor Evert are legends since they have less than 20 slams. Wow such thinking is amazing.

Serenita
Jan 31st, 2010, 09:33 PM
In which way has she "transformed" the game of tennis??:tape::lol:

God u really dont get it.

TheAllan
Jan 31st, 2010, 09:34 PM
"Lengendary"?
You have to win more than 20 singles slam titles in the open era to be called that.
Everything else is only "very good".
Yes, Federer still has a long way to go to rise above "very good" level.

Serenita
Jan 31st, 2010, 09:35 PM
Yes, Federer still has a long way to go to rise above "very good" level.
omg epic:lol:

cehowardrx7
Jan 31st, 2010, 10:11 PM
"Lengendary"?
You have to win more than 20 singles slam titles in the open era to be called that.
Everything else is only "very good".

Wrong!!

You are legendary, when some old geezer who didn't know tennis from his tailhole, went and rented some videos on playing tennis, got some used tennis balls, and took his two young daughters to a parking lot and taught them how to play tennis. Those two young girls are at the top of the tennis world.

That is LEGEND all over the world..:wavey:

mboyle
Jan 31st, 2010, 10:27 PM
Yep. I don't even get a bit of hesitation anymore saying she's better than Seles. I think the 12 slams did it for me, plus her endless string of doubles accomplishments. I still say Nav is the best, then Evert, then Graf, then Serena probably.

mboyle
Jan 31st, 2010, 10:28 PM
I guess the only thing is, if Serena had Graf's/Nav's work ethic, she'd have won like legitimately 25/30 slams by now. She has gotten better at this aspect recently. Hope she keeps it up.

Pureracket
Jan 31st, 2010, 10:34 PM
I guess the only thing is, if Serena had Graf's/Nav's work ethic, she'd have won like legitimately 25/30 slams by now. She has gotten better at this aspect recently. Hope she keeps it up.It seems that JH is the only one who is singleminded enough to reach Graf's/Nav's work ethic. It would be nice to see JH go for Evert's FO record. I think that if Serena maintains/lifts her level of fitness and plays for the next 5-6 years, she should put the AO record out of reach. I would think that Serena would be underachieving with less than 15 Slams.

dscho99
Jan 31st, 2010, 11:00 PM
It seems that JH is the only one who is singleminded enough to reach Graf's/Nav's work ethic. It would be nice to see JH go for Evert's FO record. I think that if Serena maintains/lifts her level of fitness and plays for the next 5-6 years, she should put the AO record out of reach. I would think that Serena would be underachieving with less than 15 Slams.


Serena playing for the next 5-6 years?
:tape::lol::lol::lol:

Nicolás89
Jan 31st, 2010, 11:03 PM
"Lengendary"?
You have to win more than 20 singles slam titles in the open era to be called that.
Everything else is only "very good".

Please, don't try to make your totally subjective point of view in a fact. :tape:

RYNJ
Jan 31st, 2010, 11:07 PM
"Lengendary"?
You have to win more than 20 singles slam titles in the open era to be called that.
Everything else is only "very good".

You have just insulted 99.9% of all tennis players to ever play the game, in a single sentence. Congratulations.

Serenita
Jan 31st, 2010, 11:24 PM
You have just insulted 99.9% of all tennis players to ever play the game, in a single sentence. Congratulations.
:sobbing: And i always thought Nav was speciaal,, now she's just " VERY GOOD" :sad::sad:.
I feel cold inside.


NOT GOATESK JUST VERY GOOD:sad::sad::sad:

http://images.teamtalk.com/08/06/800x600/Wimbledon-Greats-1978-MARTINA-NAVRATILOVA_957509.jpg

BlameSerena
Feb 1st, 2010, 12:02 AM
Don't feed the troll.

Pureracket
Feb 1st, 2010, 01:56 AM
True

No Name Face
Feb 1st, 2010, 02:04 AM
Serena is a legend - always was one, always will be.

BuTtErFrEnA
Feb 1st, 2010, 02:10 AM
funniest thing i've ever heard...martina is gonna have a fit, come back and trash jh just to make sure she gets past 20 since she's only now "very good"

tennisphilia
Feb 1st, 2010, 02:40 AM
AO- Serena Williams 5
FO-Chris Evert 7
W-Martina Navratilova 9 (DAYUM!)
USO-Chris Evert 6

She's won more Australian Open Womens Singles Titles than any other woman in the Open Era. Is it time to give her legendary status?

ALLEZ SERENA.

PlayByPlay
Feb 1st, 2010, 02:52 AM
Legendary Status ugh?? I like that. Hail Queen Serena.:worship:

sorceress
Feb 1st, 2010, 02:55 AM
Definitely a legend and the best ever, I've never seen such a complete dominance in sport let alone tennis.

mdterp01
Feb 1st, 2010, 02:56 AM
Great stuff from Princess Ree. Steffi Graf remains my favorite all time but wow Serena has overcome a lot in her career. Very admirable especially considering many wrote her off after 2006. I don't think there was ever a period when anyone wrote Steffi off.

1jackson2001
Feb 1st, 2010, 08:15 AM
:rolleyes: You clearly have NO knowledge of tennis whatsoever.

Must call Navvie and tell her she's just 'Very good' I'm sure that'll go down well.
There's a reason why he set the bar at 20. Hint: check out his/her flag. ;)

Sam L
Feb 1st, 2010, 08:33 AM
AO- Serena Williams 5
FO-Chris Evert 7
W-Martina Navratilova 9 (DAYUM!)
USO-Chris Evert 6

She's won more Australian Open Womens Singles Titles than any other woman in the Open Era. Is it time to give her legendary status?

The problem with these "open-era only" records is that it doesn't tell the whole story. For me, it's almost like discounting doubles and mixed.

I don't like Court but she did win 11 Australians (baby brain) and Molla Mallory won 8 US Championships - this was nothing to sneeze at, she beat Wills and Lenglen on her way to some of those wins.

bandabou
Feb 1st, 2010, 08:53 AM
:lol: And still some folks wanna talk about how some Hana Madiklova's gonna be remembered more than Serena. I'm still laughing. :lol:

Go Serena! almost twice the majors as your two nearest competitors!

Arnian
Feb 1st, 2010, 09:02 AM
Serena is definitely a legend already and she's near very honorable company.

I still can't believe Martina won 9 wimbledons....dayum is definitely the right phrase for that.

PalomaPiccaso
Feb 1st, 2010, 09:31 AM
umgh Serena is a legend no doubt about that, she is the greatest out of her generation. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot.

tennis-insomniac
Feb 1st, 2010, 09:33 AM
some people may find serena unsuits to be a champion but I can tell you right here that you can not challange the woman's talent and skill no doubt her mental and technique and physical power combine and make her the remarkable legend

let's imagine serena was born in 1970 era i have no doubt she could be as great as martina navra, christ evert or steffi graf, And btw people say that she's got no class in game, it's ridiculous sometimes ithat one eyes can be too blind to see her beauty, maybe this problem isn't her nor her skin but it's yours

renstar
Feb 1st, 2010, 09:50 AM
Unfortuneately she has two factors that make her well short of legend or GOAT. Those being she only has one French open and consistently beaten by the so called "pushers" on clay. Compare this to Steffi who was successful on ALL surfaces. Second she consisntely loses to no name players in smaller tournaments, something Evert, Navratilova or Graf rarely did. Thirdly her 12 grand slams are still well short of the 18 of Evert and Navratilova and Graf's 22! So all these claims are so premature its ridiculous!

bandabou
Feb 1st, 2010, 09:59 AM
Now, serena has 3 or more titles at three of the four majors...so that ain't too shabby. not many players have done that in history.

Nico_E
Feb 1st, 2010, 10:03 AM
fuck the 'open era' technicality


its all about who has won the most since the start of history

there for Serena is not No.1 on this list, hope that helps :wavey:

bandabou
Feb 1st, 2010, 10:11 AM
And neither is Graf. Soo..:shrug: I guess Court is the greatest then.

MrSerenaWilliams
Feb 1st, 2010, 10:13 AM
Unfortuneately she has two factors that make her well short of legend or GOAT. Those being she only has one French open and consistently beaten by the so called "pushers" on clay. Compare this to Steffi who was successful on ALL surfaces. Second she consisntely loses to no name players in smaller tournaments, something Evert, Navratilova or Graf rarely did. Thirdly her 12 grand slams are still well short of the 18 of Evert and Navratilova and Graf's 22! So all these claims are so premature its ridiculous!

The fact that she (along with Martina Navratilova) are the ONLY two women (in tennis history, as far as I know) to win grand slam events in 3 different decades, along with the fact that Serena stands alone with the most Open Era AO titles make her an all-time great.

No she's not the THE greatest...yet, but only time will tell.

BuTtErFrEnA
Feb 1st, 2010, 11:49 AM
open era?

Golovinjured.
Feb 1st, 2010, 11:54 AM
I guess the only thing is, if Serena had Graf's/Nav's work ethic, she'd have won like legitimately 25/30 slams by now. She has gotten better at this aspect recently. Hope she keeps it up.

Thisss.

Chrissie-fan
Feb 1st, 2010, 10:16 PM
AO- Serena Williams 5
FO-Chris Evert 7
W-Martina Navratilova 9 (DAYUM!)
USO-Chris Evert 6

She's won more Australian Open Womens Singles Titles than any other woman in the Open Era. Is it time to give her legendary status?
Definitely. You also have to take into account that because of the physicality of todays game careers of todays players are on average shorter than those of the legends of the past, so to have such a long career at the top as she had in an era when careers are cut short due to injuries or burn out is already a major achievement by itself. And by the looks of it she ain't done yet. I'm not a fan, but I have no problem admitting that she has her place in the tier one group of all time greats.

Pureracket
Feb 1st, 2010, 10:29 PM
Though JH is close with 4, I actually think Chris Evert's 7 @ the FO is going to be harder to break. Oftentimes the Wimbledon victory goes to either the best player in the world(Serena/Graf) or the best athlete(Venus/Navratilova). The FO, however, seesms to require a kind of patience and consistency that not all the players have. With JH's revamped game, I'm not sure she's a "shoe-in" for the FO anymore; in fact, I'm not sure she's even preoccupied with it either.

SAEKeithSerena
Feb 1st, 2010, 10:31 PM
amazing.

Szavay #1
Feb 1st, 2010, 10:49 PM
congrats to serena. that really is awesome! :yeah:

tennisphilia
Feb 3rd, 2010, 05:25 AM
Allez Serena!

cehowardrx7
Feb 3rd, 2010, 09:36 AM
fuck the 'open era' technicality


its all about who has won the most since the start of history

there for Serena is not No.1 on this list, hope that helps :wavey:

Ha, ya are fucked up!! ]!!http://www.cehoward.net/badteeth%5b1%5d.gif

At the start of history, EVERYBODY was not allowed to play.

Example, you think Babe Ruth would have been the home run king way back when, if all RACES WERE ALLOWED TO PLAY MLB???

I can't hear you!! ]!!http://www.cehoward.net/badteeth%5b1%5d.gif

Chrissie-fan
Feb 3rd, 2010, 10:46 AM
Ha, ya are fucked up!! ]!!http://www.cehoward.net/badteeth%5b1%5d.gif

At the start of history, EVERYBODY was not allowed to play.

Example, you think Babe Ruth would have been the home run king way back when, if all RACES WERE ALLOWED TO PLAY MLB???

I can't hear you!! ]!!http://www.cehoward.net/badteeth%5b1%5d.gif
That's a good point, but the history of sports like baseball or boxing in terms of who won the major titles was more affected by that than was the case for tennis. True - prior to 1950 blacks had to play in a segrated league, but there are virtually no historians who believe that any of their players had what it took to beat the Lenglen's, Wills' or Marble's of the world. This may of course be because they had no access to the best coaches and less oportunity to develop their skills. The best female player of colour prior to Althea Gibson was Ora Mae Washington, a contemporary of Helen Wills. Her dream was that one day she would be allowed to play a match against Helen. It's very doubtfull that she would have had a chance of winning, but she should of course been allowed to try.

But if there were "false results" in tennis history in terms of who won what it's mostly the result of the ridiculous amateur/professional rules prior to the open era. The men's tour tour suffered the most from it, but the women's tour was affected as well. Suzanne Lenglen "turned professional" at the age of 26, thus robbing the world of what would have been one of the greatest rivalries is sports history: Lenglen vs Wills. And players like Alice Marble and Pauline Betz would rank much higher in those ATG lists if their careers hadn't been cut short by the silly amateur rule and/or world war II.

brickhousesupporter
Feb 3rd, 2010, 01:52 PM
That's a good point, but the history of sports like baseball or boxing in terms of who won the major titles was more affected by that than was the case for tennis. True - prior to 1950 blacks had to play in a segrated league, but there are virtually no historians who believe that any of their players had what it took to beat the Lenglen's, Wills' or Marble's of the world. This may of course be because they had no access to the best coaches and less oportunity to develop their skills. The best female player of colour prior to Althea Gibson was Ora Mae Washington, a contemporary of Helen Wills. Her dream was that one day she would be allowed to play a match against Helen. It's very doubtfull that she would have had a chance of winning, but she should of course been allowed to try.

If opinions by historians, journalist and other pros was all it took to win a grandslam, then Hingis would still be number 1 and the Williams sisters would have never won a grandslam. Back in those days, it was all about protecting the image of the white race as being superior in every aspect of life including sports. Journalists often downplayed the attributes of black athletes and praised the attributes of white ones. An example of this can be seen in the world of boxing where black athletes were never allowed to fight white athletes until Jack Johnson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Johnson_%28boxer%29). They said he was not a worthy adversary for a white man with superior intellect and technique.....hmmm where have I heard that before. The first chance he got to fight the white champion he won and he beat every champion they put in from of him. So just because the sports writers, and historians never praised their games does not mean they weren't able to compete. The only way to negate that would have been to allow them play, and that little bit of doubt will always be enough to question the legitimacy of the titles.

cehowardrx7
Feb 3rd, 2010, 02:30 PM
That's a good point, but the history of sports like baseball or boxing in terms of who won the major titles was more affected by that than was the case for tennis. True - prior to 1950 blacks had to play in a segrated league, but there are virtually no historians who believe that any of their players had what it took to beat the Lenglen's, Wills' or Marble's of the world. This may of course be because they had no access to the best coaches and less oportunity to develop their skills. The best female player of colour prior to Althea Gibson was Ora Mae Washington, a contemporary of Helen Wills. Her dream was that one day she would be allowed to play a match against Helen. It's very doubtfull that she would have had a chance of winning, but she should of course been allowed to try.

But if there were "false results" in tennis history in terms of who won what it's mostly the result of the ridiculous amateur/professional rules prior to the open era. The men's tour tour suffered the most from it, but the women's tour was affected as well. Suzanne Lenglen "turned professional" at the age of 26, thus robbing the world of what would have been one of the greatest rivalries is sports history: Lenglen vs Wills. And players like Alice Marble and Pauline Betz would rank much higher in those ATG lists if their careers hadn't been cut short by the silly amateur rule and/or world war II.

Very well put!! Not only that, there are those records that were padded too. Such as Rocky Marciano, they counted fights he had with his brother!!

bandabou
Feb 3rd, 2010, 02:39 PM
If opinions by historians, journalist and other pros was all it took to win a grandslam, then Hingis would still be number 1 and the Williams sisters would have never one a grandslam. Back in those days, it was all about protecting the image of the white race as being superior in every aspect of life including sports. Journalists often downplayed the attributes of black athletes and praised the attributes of white ones. An example of this can be seen in the world of boxing where black athletes were never allowed to fight white athletes until Jack Johnson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Johnson_%28boxer%29). They said he was not a worthy adversary for a white man with superior intellect and technique.....hmmm where have I heard that before. The first chance he got to fight the white champion he won and he beat every champion they put in from of him. So just because the sports writers, and historians never praised their games does not mean they weren't able to compete. The only way to negate that would have been to allow them play, and that little bit of doubt will always be enough to question the legitimacy of the titles.

:lol: LDV, take notice..everytime you wanna insist that some Mandlikova or Sabatini is gonna be more remembered than either Williams.

Chrissie-fan
Feb 3rd, 2010, 02:40 PM
If opinions by historians, journalist and other pros was all it took to win a grandslam, then Hingis would still be number 1 and the Williams sisters would have never one a grandslam. Back in those days, it was all about protecting the image of the white race as being superior in every aspect of life including sports. Journalists often downplayed the attributes of black athletes and praised the attributes of white ones. An example of this can be seen in the world of boxing where black athletes were never allowed to fight white athletes until Jack Johnson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Johnson_%28boxer%29). They said he was not a worthy adversary for a white man with superior intellect and technique.....hmmm where have I heard that before. The first chance he got to fight the white champion he won and he beat every champion they put in from of him. So just because the sports writers, and historians never praised their games does not mean they weren't able to compete. The only way to negate that would have been to allow them play, and that little bit of doubt will always be enough to question the legitimacy of the titles.
Yeah, but it has long since been acknowledged that black boxers and baseball players from that era were just as good, and often better than their white colleagues. I've never heard anyone argue that Ora Mae Washington was a better tennis player than Helen Wills.

brickhousesupporter
Feb 3rd, 2010, 02:47 PM
Yeah, but it has long since been acknowledged that black boxers and baseball players from that era were just as good, and often better than their white colleagues. I've never heard anyone argue that Ora Mae Washington was a better tennis player than Helen Wills.

Since they weren't allowed to compete......
http://media.43places.com/entry/102737pw150.jpg
The world may never know.

Chrissie-fan
Feb 3rd, 2010, 03:03 PM
Since they weren't allowed to compete......
http://media.43places.com/entry/102737pw150.jpg
The world may never know.
They played on a segregated tour. People who saw both say that Wills was better. People who saw black fighters compete against other blacks said that they were just as good or better than white fighters. Same for baseball.

If they would have taken the Wills from the 1930's and put the Washington from the 1930's on the other side of the net Wills would probably easily have won. The thing we will never know is how good Washington and others could have been if they would have had the same opportunities as their white colleagues, but I'm not disputing that.

brickhousesupporter
Feb 3rd, 2010, 03:12 PM
They played on a segregated tour. People who saw both say that Wills was better. People who saw black fighters compete against other blacks said that they were just as good or better than white fighters. Same for baseball.

If they would have taken the Wills from the 1930's and put the Washington from the 1930's on the other side of the net Wills would probably easily have won. The thing we will never know is how good Washington and others could have been if they would have had the same opportunities as their white colleagues, but I'm not disputing that.
That is all hearsay....matches aren't won by what people say. If that was the case, Sharapova would not have lost the 07 Aus Open final. Jimmy Connors would not have lost to Arthur Ashe....and the list goes on.

Chrissie-fan
Feb 3rd, 2010, 03:24 PM
That is all hearsay....matches aren't won by what people say. If that was the case, Sharapova would not have lost the 07 Aus Open final. Jimmy Connors would not have lost to Arthur Ashe....and the list goes on.
Well, I'm only giving you my opinion, nothing more. ;)

brickhousesupporter
Feb 3rd, 2010, 03:37 PM
Well, I'm only giving you my opinion, nothing more. ;)
Aren't we all.;)

They played on a segregated tour. People who saw both say that Wills was better. People who saw black fighters compete against other blacks said that they were just as good or better than white fighters. Same for baseball.

We must also remember that this is tennis.....Baseball was the American pastime, and people were actually clammering for the black athletes to be recognized. As much as we like the sport, nobody really cares if past black tennis players were given their due.....However, with Venus and Serena, their fans seem hellbent on making sure the sisters get their accolades. In boxing they had no choice but to give the black boxers their due. They allowed the black boxers to compete and that was she wrote.

Chrissie-fan
Feb 3rd, 2010, 03:55 PM
Helen Wills played on a tour that was in anything but name professional. She had access to the best coaches and absolutely destroyed the best players of her time. Washington on the other hand didn't have access to the best coaches, played on a tour that was amateurish in comparison and competed in a more limited number of tournaments against a much more limited number of players. Considering all this it seems logical to me to assume that Wills must have been the better player.

Monirena Wiles
Feb 3rd, 2010, 04:43 PM
Helen Wills played on a tour that was in anything but name professional. She had access to the best coaches and absolutely destroyed the best players of her time. Washington on the other hand didn't have access to the best coaches, played on a tour that was amateurish in comparison and competed in a more limited number of tournaments against a much more limited number of players. Considering all this it seems logical to me to assume that Wills must have been the better player.I guess it makes since to assume that people with better coaches will do better on tour... wait that actually doesn't make any sense at all. Just because a coach is more known doesn't mean they are better. Look at Mellanie Mollatar (sp?) you would assume Nick Bolleteri is a better coach because he was known, but I'd bet Mellanie is actually a better coach. As for the argument about stiffer competition. Venus and Serena didn't even compete much in the junior circuit, almost no competition compared to countless other that went through the junior circuit. Goes to show that the level of competition doesn't make you better neccessarily.

Thkmra
Feb 3rd, 2010, 04:50 PM
Wrong!!

You are legendary, when some old geezer who didn't know tennis from his tailhole, went and rented some videos on playing tennis, got some used tennis balls, and took his two young daughters to a parking lot and taught them how to play tennis. Those two young girls are at the top of the tennis world.

That is LEGEND all over the world..:wavey:

Let 'em know!!!:worship::worship:

Olórin
Feb 3rd, 2010, 04:59 PM
Hmm...Serena and Venus played against each other - that's the stiffest competition you could ask for. Far better than the Junior Tour.
And given the amount of legends that have come through his ranks, it seems to me that Nick eis a far better coach than Melanie Mollitor - wasn't Hingis even sent to Bolleteri's academy for a period?

It does seem logical that Wills would have been better player - but we'll never know.

Denise4925
Feb 3rd, 2010, 06:00 PM
http://kiwipolemicist.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/goat.jpg

:rolls: :rolls:

Denise4925
Feb 3rd, 2010, 06:01 PM
"Lengendary"?
You have to win more than 20 singles slam titles in the open era to be called that.
Everything else is only "very good".

:weirdo:

Monirena Wiles
Feb 3rd, 2010, 07:15 PM
And given the amount of legends that have come through his ranks, it seems to me that Nick eis a far better coach than Melanie Mollitor - wasn't Hingis even sent to Bolleteri's academy for a period?.
Think of all the players that came through the academy and didn't do well. It's only a real small percent that actually became something. In Agassi's book he says Nick knows very little about tennis, he more of a business man. Look at Melanie she has coached one player but she's 100% with her students. Every student Melanie has had has been a success, not the same for Boleteri. And really who do you think would give better advice in a match, Nick or Melanie?

Chrissie-fan
Feb 3rd, 2010, 07:16 PM
I guess it makes since to assume that people with better coaches will do better on tour... wait that actually doesn't make any sense at all. Just because a coach is more known doesn't mean they are better. Look at Mellanie Mollatar (sp?) you would assume Nick Bolleteri is a better coach because he was known, but I'd bet Mellanie is actually a better coach. As for the argument about stiffer competition. Venus and Serena didn't even compete much in the junior circuit, almost no competition compared to countless other that went through the junior circuit. Goes to show that the level of competition doesn't make you better neccessarily.
Let's just say that going by what we know of the two players the odds of Washington beating Wills are extremely slim. But I agree with you guys that it's all just a matter of opinion since they never had the chance to compete against each other.

Denise4925
Feb 3rd, 2010, 07:42 PM
Unfortuneately she has two factors that make her well short of legend or GOAT. Those being she only has one French open and consistently beaten by the so called "pushers" on clay. Compare this to Steffi who was successful on ALL surfaces. Second she consisntely loses to no name players in smaller tournaments, something Evert, Navratilova or Graf rarely did. Thirdly her 12 grand slams are still well short of the 18 of Evert and Navratilova and Graf's 22! So all these claims are so premature its ridiculous!

Are you being obtuse on purpose? :confused: She lost to the eventual champion every time since she's been fit enough to win on clay at the RG. Regardless of how many times she's won it, she's won it and she's the only female player to have won all four in a row since Steffi Graf. So, she has been successful on all surfaces and to say she hasn't is just a lie in the face of the truth.

Second, she doesn't consistently lose to anyone. Do you honestly think that the matches she's lost to this so-called "no name" players is on their racket? She beats them when she wants to beat them and you know that, you just don't want to admit it. :lol: She just doesn't always feel like having to play at a high level at these smaller tour tournaments, and why should she? :shrug: If she can beat these players playing half ass at these tournaments, that's what she does. That's just being honest. I'm not saying it's the best attitude to have, but it's the one she possesses and I have no choice but to accept it.

Lastly, 12 GS's singles titles are nothing to turn your nose up at. BJK has 12 GS singles titles and I dare you to say she isn't a legend.

Denise4925
Feb 3rd, 2010, 07:53 PM
I guess the only thing is, if Serena had Graf's/Nav's work ethic, she'd have won like legitimately 25/30 slams by now. She has gotten better at this aspect recently. Hope she keeps it up.

Work ethic has nothing to do with it. You should read her book, then you would know the travails she's been through since her sister's killing. I hate it when people who don't have all of the facts assume that something is the way it is based on what they perceive from their viewpoint on the outside. People's lives are very different and complicated. Plus, todays game is totally different from when Graf/Nav were on top and winning 20 GS titles. Also, Graf hardly played doubles, let alone played doubles and singles winning both in the same GS tournament. Nav, Serena, Venus and Mary Pierce have been the only ones to have successfully done that in recent years.

If Serena didn't have a strong work ethic she wouldn't be the tennis player she is today. Obviously she's gifted, but she also had to work and has to work very hard to win the tournaments she wins and to play the caliber of tennis she plays.

Denise4925
Feb 3rd, 2010, 07:56 PM
Definitely. You also have to take into account that because of the physicality of todays game careers of todays players are on average shorter than those of the legends of the past, so to have such a long career at the top as she had in an era when careers are cut short due to injuries or burn out is already a major achievement by itself. And by the looks of it she ain't done yet. I'm not a fan, but I have no problem admitting that she has her place in the tier one group of all time greats.

This.

Denise4925
Feb 3rd, 2010, 08:03 PM
If opinions by historians, journalist and other pros was all it took to win a grandslam, then Hingis would still be number 1 and the Williams sisters would have never one a grandslam. Back in those days, it was all about protecting the image of the white race as being superior in every aspect of life including sports. Journalists often downplayed the attributes of black athletes and praised the attributes of white ones. An example of this can be seen in the world of boxing where black athletes were never allowed to fight white athletes until Jack Johnson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Johnson_%28boxer%29). They said he was not a worthy adversary for a white man with superior intellect and technique.....hmmm where have I heard that before. The first chance he got to fight the white champion he won and he beat every champion they put in from of him. So just because the sports writers, and historians never praised their games does not mean they weren't able to compete. The only way to negate that would have been to allow them play, and that little bit of doubt will always be enough to question the legitimacy of the titles.

Wow. :worship::worship::worship:

Denise4925
Feb 3rd, 2010, 08:04 PM
:lol: LDV, take notice..everytime you wanna insist that some Mandlikova or Sabatini is gonna be more remembered than either Williams.

:lol: He didn't say that.:tape::help:

Chrissie-fan
Feb 3rd, 2010, 08:14 PM
Graf hardly played doubles, let alone played doubles and singles winning both in the same GS tournament. Nav, Serena, Venus and Mary Pierce have been the only ones to have successfully done that in recent years.
They would be the only ones if it weren't for Martina Hingis. ;)

:wavey:
Howdy, Denise. How's life?

Denise4925
Feb 3rd, 2010, 08:16 PM
They would be the only ones if it weren't for Martina Hingis. ;)

:wavey:
Howdy, Denise. How's life?

Whoops, forgot about her. :lol: Howya doing my old friend. :hug: :wavey:

Chrissie-fan
Feb 3rd, 2010, 08:19 PM
Whoops, forgot about her. :lol: Howya doing my old friend. :hug: :wavey:
Pretty good. No worse than is usually the case with me anyway.:lol: How about you?

Singleniacki
Feb 3rd, 2010, 08:23 PM
AO- Serena Williams 5
FO-Chris Evert 7
W-Martina Navratilova 9 (DAYUM!)
USO-Chris Evert 6

She's won more Australian Open Womens Singles Titles than any other woman in the Open Era. Is it time to give her legendary status?

:rolls:

Stamp Paid
Feb 3rd, 2010, 08:26 PM
Let's just say that going by what we know of the two players the odds of Washington beating Wills are extremely slim. But I agree with you guys that it's all just a matter of opinion since they never had the chance to compete against each other.Its interesting though, because Helen Wills Moody refused to play Ora Mae when given the opportunity. Was it purely racism or fear of losing?

Monirena Wiles
Feb 3rd, 2010, 08:31 PM
Unfortuneately she has two factors that make her well short of legend or GOAT. Those being she only has one French open and consistently beaten by the so called "pushers" on clay. Compare this to Steffi who was successful on ALL surfaces. Second she consisntely loses to no name players in smaller tournaments, something Evert, Navratilova or Graf rarely did. Thirdly her 12 grand slams are still well short of the 18 of Evert and Navratilova and Graf's 22! So all these claims are so premature its ridiculous!OK. So she's not a great because she has one less French title than Navratilova, forget the fact she has TWO more Australian Open titles than her though. Same for Evert, Serena has THREE more Australian Open title than her and the same amount of Wimbledon titles. When you compare greats one player does better than another in one are and the other will do better in another area.

mauresmofan
Feb 3rd, 2010, 08:37 PM
I think what I saw from Serena at this Aussi Open bodes well for her future in the game. She's playing very intelligently which wasn't always the case. Before she'd just blast the ball for all it was worth and when she was on she was impossible to beat but then again if she was off she was suseptible to an early upset. She seems to have gotten a level of maturity now where in the heat of a losing battle, as was against Azarenka, she remains calm, doesn't obliterate a racket or 2 and shout and scream at herself in a negative fashion. It remains to be seen if she will be able to control her emotions on court but it has to be said so far so good. Her serve is a fantastic shot - it really couldn't be any better - it's fluid, controlled, powerful and acurate and it only seems to go off when she tries to force more power out of it with her legs which really isn't necessary. Her serve alone can save her in the early rounds of slams and she is then more dangerous in the latter stages. I don't expect her to win the French again but I do expect a better showing from her this year and maybe a semi or a final depending on where she meets Henin or Clijsters but put her on a fast court and she's deadly and odds on fav to win. If she sticks with the attitude adjustment and keeps up the work ethic it could be Serenas best ever year on tour. Maybe that US Open incident did her a lot of good!

Chrissie-fan
Feb 3rd, 2010, 08:38 PM
Very well put!! Not only that, there are those records that were padded too. Such as Rocky Marciano, they counted fights he had with his brother!!
It's mostly the period between when Jack Johnson and Joe Louis were the champs that's the problem though. After Johnson lost the title the white establishment decided "never again" and blacks didn't get a chance to fight for the heavyweight crown again until Louis came on the scene. But there are serious doubts if some of the fighters that held the title in that era were even the best white fighters. The mafia was very powerful in those days when it came to boxing. Primo Carnera is a prime example. He "won" the title in 1933, but he was a fighter of very limited ability and many of his fights, including probably his title fight against Sharkey were fixes.

Denise4925
Feb 3rd, 2010, 08:39 PM
Pretty good. No worse than is usually the case with me anyway.:lol: How about you?

No worse for the wear, I guess. ;)

Chrissie-fan
Feb 3rd, 2010, 08:46 PM
Its interesting though, because Helen Wills Moody refused to play Ora Mae when given the opportunity. Was it purely racism or fear of losing?
No, I don't think it was fear of losing. I'm not convinced that it was a case of racism on Helen's part either. My guess (and it's nothing more than that) is that if such a match would have taken place that Helen would have run the risk of getting suspended for breaking the apartheid rule.

Dave.
Feb 3rd, 2010, 08:52 PM
They would be the only ones if it weren't for Martina Hingis. ;)


....and Davenport, Novotna, Sanchez-Vicario. And Graf actually did it more recently than Navratilova.

But Denise is right, the WS and Pierce are the only ones to do it in the 2000's, if that's what she meant by recently (not sure if Nav is considered recent :lol:). Although Kim was ranked no.1 in both at the same time in 2003.

DOUBLEFIST
Feb 3rd, 2010, 09:34 PM
I think what I saw from Serena at this Aussi Open bodes well for her future in the game. She's playing very intelligently which wasn't always the case. Before she'd just blast the ball for all it was worth and when she was on she was impossible to beat but then again if she was off she was suseptible to an early upset. She seems to have gotten a level of maturity now where in the heat of a losing battle, as was against Azarenka, she remains calm, doesn't obliterate a racket or 2 and shout and scream at herself in a negative fashion. It remains to be seen if she will be able to control her emotions on court but it has to be said so far so good. Her serve is a fantastic shot - it really couldn't be any better - it's fluid, controlled, powerful and acurate and it only seems to go off when she tries to force more power out of it with her legs which really isn't necessary. Her serve alone can save her in the early rounds of slams and she is then more dangerous in the latter stages. I don't expect her to win the French again but I do expect a better showing from her this year and maybe a semi or a final depending on where she meets Henin or Clijsters but put her on a fast court and she's deadly and odds on fav to win. If she sticks with the attitude adjustment and keeps up the work ethic it could be Serenas best ever year on tour. Maybe that US Open incident did her a lot of good!
There's been no attitude adjustment.

We're we watching the same tournament? Serena was just as intense, just as emotional and just as hard on herself as she's ever been. With the exception of smashing a racket, there was no change. In fact, many around here criticized her for being to "intense" this tournament. :rolleyes:

I know many would like to claim some sort of pyrrhic victory out of the USO incident, but there's been none. In fact, it could be argued that the victory was Serena's - she's come out more determined than ever to dominate it seems.

btw, those are very nice words in your sig' about Mauresmo from Justine.

Matt01
Feb 3rd, 2010, 09:36 PM
What does "DAYUM" mean?

dscho99
Feb 3rd, 2010, 09:40 PM
What does "DAYUM" mean?


Zack!

mauresmofan
Feb 3rd, 2010, 09:49 PM
There's been no attitude adjustment.

We're we watching the same tournament? Serena was just as intense, just as emotional and just as hard on herself as she's ever been. With the exception of smashing a racket, there was no change. In fact, many around here criticized her for being to "intense" this tournament. :rolleyes:

I know many would like to claim some sort of pyrrhic victory out of the USO incident, but there's been none. In fact, it could be argued that the victory was Serena's - she's come out more determined than ever to dominate it seems.

btw, those are very nice words in your sig' about Mauresmo from Justine.

I'm not saying she wasn't as intense as ever of course she was but she seemed more controlled and positive. She also seemed quite content to rally instead of murdering the ball at the first opportunity especially against Justine. You have to admit that in that QF against Azarenka she was remarkably calm at a set and 4-0 down and compare that to her semi against Kim where she couldn't control her emotions at all and was in far less trouble in comparrison. I'm not saying she's a changed individual or anything of the sort but in terms of being aware of herself and her on court behaviour she is definitely better at that....so far.

DOUBLEFIST
Feb 3rd, 2010, 10:14 PM
I'm not saying she wasn't as intense as ever of course she was but she seemed more controlled and positive. She also seemed quite content to rally instead of murdering the ball at the first opportunity especially against Justine. You have to admit that in that QF against Azarenka she was remarkably calm at a set and 4-0 down and compare that to her semi against Kim where she couldn't control her emotions at all and was in far less trouble in comparrison. I'm not saying she's a changed individual or anything of the sort but in terms of being aware of herself and her on court behaviour she is definitely better at that....so far.

Well, see, that's the point. You've described apples and oranges. Let's make this clear. Serena is famous for coming back from the edge of defeat to beat the best in the game, just ask Maria, Kim C and even Justine. In none of those matches, when facing certain defeat, did she have an episode like the USO, so OBVIOUSLY that episode had NOTHING to do with the score. Nothing.

In Serena's mind, I'm sure it was about not getting ripped off AGAIN. I promise you, that if it seems like she's getting hooked again by a linesperson or Ump, she will NOT hold back. You could see evidence of this in the final when the lines person called "out" then corrected themselves. Serena was on top of that situation with a quickness, and had the Chair not handle the situation so clearly, it could have gotten..., "messy."

So, until we see some other :bs: call like we did at the USO, we won't KNOW if Serena's behavior has been affected by the disciplinary actions (or lack thereof) of the ITF.

sweetpeas
Feb 3rd, 2010, 10:54 PM
Right!on.:wavey::kiss::bounce::lol:

mykarma
Feb 3rd, 2010, 11:38 PM
In which way has she "transformed" the game of tennis??:tape::lol:
No you didn't. :tape::lol:

Pureracket
Feb 4th, 2010, 12:08 AM
No, I don't think it was fear of losing. I'm not convinced that it was a case of racism on Helen's part either. My guess (and it's nothing more than that) is that if such a match would have taken place that Helen would have run the risk of getting suspended for breaking the apartheid rule.
http://www.annaguirre.com/wp-content/uploads/can-o-worms.gif

Denise4925
Feb 4th, 2010, 12:20 AM
12 grand slam singles titles is a huge accomplishment in the sport of women's tennis. Not many have achieved that success. However, Billie Jean King's legend has more to do with what she did off-court to advance women's equal pay in sports and will be her lasting legacy.

Wrong. She wouldn't have had that much political pull if she wasn't as successful as she was on court. Let's just say that her off-court work is all you know about her, but I grew up watching her on court. Her offcourt legacy just enhanced what she accomplished on the court.

Denise4925
Feb 4th, 2010, 12:30 AM
....and Davenport, Novotna, Sanchez-Vicario. And Graf actually did it more recently than Navratilova.

But Denise is right, the WS and Pierce are the only ones to do it in the 2000's, if that's what she meant by recently (not sure if Nav is considered recent :lol:). Although Kim was ranked no.1 in both at the same time in 2003.

Well since you asked, this is what I was thinking in my head. With Nav and the WS, winning more than one singles/doubles championships in the same grand slam, and Pierce and the WS being the more recent. I wasn't aware that Davenport, Novotna, Sanchez-Vicario and Graf won a singles and doubles in the same slam more than once.

Denise4925
Feb 4th, 2010, 12:31 AM
I'm not saying she wasn't as intense as ever of course she was but she seemed more controlled and positive. She also seemed quite content to rally instead of murdering the ball at the first opportunity especially against Justine. You have to admit that in that QF against Azarenka she was remarkably calm at a set and 4-0 down and compare that to her semi against Kim where she couldn't control her emotions at all and was in far less trouble in comparrison. I'm not saying she's a changed individual or anything of the sort but in terms of being aware of herself and her on court behaviour she is definitely better at that....so far.

:lol: Did you just start watching Serena at the US Open last year?

Denise4925
Feb 4th, 2010, 12:32 AM
Well, see, that's the point. You've described apples and oranges. Let's make this clear. Serena is famous for coming back from the edge of defeat to beat the best in the game, just ask Maria, Kim C and even Justine. In none of those matches, when facing certain defeat, did she have an episode like the USO, so OBVIOUSLY that episode had NOTHING to do with the score. Nothing.

In Serena's mind, I'm sure it was about not getting ripped off AGAIN. I promise you, that if it seems like she's getting hooked again by a linesperson or Ump, she will NOT hold back. You could see evidence of this in the final when the lines person called "out" then corrected themselves. Serena was on top of that situation with a quickness, and had the Chair not handle the situation so clearly, it could have gotten..., "messy."

So, until we see some other :bs: call like we did at the USO, we won't KNOW if Serena's behavior has been affected by the disciplinary actions (or lack thereof) of the ITF.

:worship::worship::worship:

BuTtErFrEnA
Feb 4th, 2010, 01:06 AM
someone saying serena appeared calm on court because of the us open incident :rolls: this forum keeps getting better

VenusSerenaBlvd.
Feb 4th, 2010, 02:19 AM
Until some other female tennis player develops an AMAZING serve, Serena Williams in the best player of this generation. How many aces and how many times did her serve save her? Too many to count.

thelittlestelf
Feb 4th, 2010, 03:14 AM
12 grand slam singles titles is a huge accomplishment in the sport of women's tennis. Not many have achieved that success. However, Billie Jean King's legend has more to do with what she did off-court to advance women's equal pay in sports and will be her lasting legacy. Yeah... but who are we to determine who is or isn't a legend?

DOUBLEFIST
Feb 4th, 2010, 04:10 AM
Yeah... but who are we to determine who is or isn't a legend?
I and I alone determine who is and isn't legend. Only me - MOI - myself. Nobody else.



Serena J Williams = Legend.





I have spoken.

Denise4925
Feb 4th, 2010, 11:22 PM
I agree and disagree.

The biggest tennis match Billie Jean King played and the most watched in tennis history was played against a man named Bobby Riggs. The political effect of that non-sanctioned, non-grand slam event affected generations of women in sports. Bobby Riggs originally wanted to play Billie Jean King because of her stance on equal pay for women in sports. Billie Jean refused, so Riggs enticed the #1 player in the world at the time, Margaret Court to play. After defeating her, Riggs got what he wanted, the match with Billie Jean King.

There is a reason why the USTA named its tennis center the Billie Jean King National Tennis Center. And its not because she won 12 Grand Slam singles events. Why didn't they name it the Helen Wills Moody Tennis Center (winner of 19 grand slam singles events)?

The USTA didn't name its tennis center after BJK because she beat Bobby Riggs in an exhibition match, which was a very publicized match and widely watched by millions of Americans. It's because she won 12 GS singles titles, 16 GS doubles and 11 GS mixed doubles titles, and while doing so established the WTA and WTT. That's no small feat. Otherwise, why would Bobby Riggs even want to play her if she wasn't a great name on court or a winner? However, winning the match against Bobby didn't hurt her politically as she continued to strive to make the fledgling WTA a success, as well as WTT.

There is a distinct reason why they named the tennis center after BJK. A couple of other American women, besides Wills Moody who have won more GS titles, namely Chris Evert and Martina Nav, were not given the honor of the tennis center being named after them. That's because they didn't do as much off court at the same time as winning those titles as BJK. :shrug: Would she have been able to accomplish as much off court as she did without being such a winner on court? I don't think so. No one, including the other female players, would have taken her as seriously.

pov
Feb 4th, 2010, 11:26 PM
She's won more Australian Open Womens Singles Titles than any other woman in the Open Era. Is it time to give her legendary status?
She already has legendary status. That's obvious. And, if she didn't already have it, AO wins alone wouldn't be anything to base it on.

Olórin
Feb 4th, 2010, 11:31 PM
The USTA didn't name its tennis center after BJK because she beat Bobby Riggs in an exhibition match, which was a very publicized match and widely watched by millions of Americans. It's because she won 12 GS singles titles, 16 GS doubles and 11 GS mixed doubles titles, and while doing so established the WTA and WTT. That's no small feat. Otherwise, why would Bobby Riggs even want to play her if she wasn't a great name on court or a winner? However, winning the match against Bobby didn't hurt her politically as she continued to strive to make the fledgling WTA a success, as well as WTT.

A couple of other American women, besides Wills Moody who have won more GS titles and was not given the honor of the tennis center being named after them, e.g. Chris Evert and Martina Nav. That's because they didn't do as much off court at the same time as winning those titles as BJK. :shrug: Would she have been able to accomplish as much off court as she did without being such a winner on court? I don't think so.

I fully agree. She wouldn't have been able to do close to 1% of what she did for for women's tennis or women's sports if she hadn't had the undeniably high profile she possessed as multiple-Wimbledon Champion and world #1.

LightWarrior
Feb 5th, 2010, 03:01 AM
I fully agree. She wouldn't have been able to do close to 1% of what she did for for women's tennis or women's sports if she hadn't had the undeniably high profile she possessed as multiple-Wimbledon Champion and world #1.

No. Only the number slams in singles count. The rest is b***.

tennisvideos
Feb 5th, 2010, 08:48 AM
What has the Open era got to do with history and facts? All the top women played the tour prior to the open era. The womens tour was never divided in the pre-open era like the mens was.

So you have to count Molla Mallory (USO) and Margaret Court (AO). Facts are facts.

Still, a phenomenal performance by Serena to reach her tally and she isn't finished yet. :)

bandabou
Feb 5th, 2010, 10:47 AM
Shipss..so Serena didn't achieve anything with this 5th Oz open title?! Ah well, ok..

BuTtErFrEnA
Feb 5th, 2010, 01:03 PM
No. Only the number slams in singles count. The rest is b***.

keep telling yourself so...

btw didn't nav come back a few years ago so she could pass some record, and the tennis world cheered with her because she had broken a GS record with a doubles win??? clearly it has more importance than a few idiots like you here seem to think

Denise4925
Feb 5th, 2010, 04:26 PM
Shipss..so Serena didn't achieve anything with this 5th Oz open title?! Ah well, ok..

:lol: Now that Serena is at legendary status and in the company of such names as BJK, Martina Nav, Chris Evert and Steffi Graff, they want to include the time before the Open Era, when they were just fine with those five names being legends without considering the time before the Open Era. People can be so transparent. :lol:

Denise4925
Feb 5th, 2010, 04:29 PM
No. Only the number slams in singles count. The rest is b***.

Huh? :scratch: So, BJK, Martina Nav and the WS doubles titles mean nothing? Those titles are bullshit? :haha: Come on now. :lol:

Chrissie-fan
Feb 5th, 2010, 04:38 PM
:lol: Now that Serena is at legendary status and in the company of such names as BJK, Martina Nav, Chris Evert and Steffi Graff, they want to include the time before the Open Era, when they were just fine with those five names being legends without considering the time before the Open Era. People can be so transparent. :lol:
"Tennisvideas" has always been an advocate of the pre-open champs. And players like Lenglen, Wills, Connolly and Court are definitely the legends of their time. I don't see why saying that would take anything away from Serena. ;)

Olórin
Feb 5th, 2010, 05:04 PM
No. Only the number slams in singles count. The rest is b***.

This doesn't really have anything to do with what Denise or I were talking about :shrug:

What has the Open era got to do with history and facts? All the top women played the tour prior to the open era. The womens tour was never divided in the pre-open era like the mens was.

So you have to count Molla Mallory (USO) and Margaret Court (AO). Facts are facts.

Still, a phenomenal performance by Serena to reach her tally and she isn't finished yet. :)

Hey TV, I don't think most people in this thread are discounting pre-open era accomplishments. Of course Margaret Court has 11 AOs and that is an unbeatable record like Nav's 9 Wimbledons.

However, I think a lot of people in the tennis world and on this board do tend to use "Open Era" records just for simplicity and because a lot of people aren't aware of how much information actually is available for the 60's, 50's and earlier.

Denise4925
Feb 5th, 2010, 05:35 PM
"Tennisvideas" has always been an advocate of the pre-open champs. And players like Lenglen, Wills, Connolly and Court are definitely the legends of their time. I don't see why saying that would take anything away from Serena. ;)

Well, I don't know about "Tennisvideas", but on this message board it hasn't been an issue until now. :shrug: That's why it takes away from Serena.

Williams 123
Feb 5th, 2010, 06:16 PM
Goat

Shinjiro
Feb 5th, 2010, 06:50 PM
thanks, good post.

bandabou
Feb 6th, 2010, 11:29 AM
I definitely think Serena is a legend of her generation and one of the fiercest competitors in Grand Slam history. But its difficult to disregard tennis results before 1968 because that would mean erasing almost nine decades of tennis history.

From this generation, Serena Williams, Venus Williams and Justine Henin are in the top 12 of all-time Grand Slam singles wins. Serena's accomplishments stand-out because she won the Serena Slam and moved up with win #12 and tied Billie Jean King. Its pretty awesome that three people from the same generation have that much singles success in tennis.

Ponder the thought that only six of the women listed below didn't play in the Open Era.

Grand Slam Singles title holders:

Rank Titles Player

1 24 Margaret Court (most AO singles titles-11)***
2 22 Steffi Graf
3 19 Helen Wills Moody
4 18 Chris Evert (most FO singles titles-7)***
4 18 Martina Navratilova (most Wim singles titles-9)***
6 12 Billie Jean King
6 12 Serena Williams
8 9 Maureen Connolly Brinker
8 9 Monica Seles
10 8 Suzanne Lenglen
10 8 Molla Bjurstedt Mallory (most US Open singles titles-8)***
12 7 Venus Williams
12 7 Maria Bueno
12 7 Evonne Goolagong Cawley
12 7 Dorothea Douglass Lambert Chambers
12 7 Justine Henin

Nice....so either way you see it, Serena ain't soing all too shabby. One of only 7 players with double digits in singles titles!

BuTtErFrEnA
Feb 6th, 2010, 01:47 PM
nicely done bandy :lol:

irma
Feb 6th, 2010, 02:42 PM
I don't get the three decade thing. Example: Evert won her single slams between 1974-1986 (french open), Nav won her slams between 1978-1990(wimbledon) so is the timespan of Nav winning slams in singles really more impressive because she started to win them late in the decade?
But I definitely think Serena is not done in winning single slams yet, so she can pass Nav, Evert and Steffi for longlivety in single slams if she win the australian open 2012.

Sam L
Feb 6th, 2010, 03:45 PM
Remember that Australia was Court's home grand slam. She played there just about every single year and dominated there. The same can be said for Mallory who dominated her home slam. Both of these players didn't emulate that success at other slams. Court obviously fared better winning Wimbledon 3 times and 10 at the other two slams.

But let's consider the likes of Lenglen and Wills whose best records came at Wimbledon (not their home slam and traditionally and certainly during that time the No. 1 tennis event). Lenglen won 6 out of 8 she entered. Two were walkovers. Wills won 8 out of 10 she entered. One a walkover and one a loss in the final.

People tend to forget that some pre-open era players (like those two) were actually at a disadvantage because unlike modern players they didn't compete every single year.

For instance, Helen Wills played and won Wimbledon in these years 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930, 1932, 1933, 1935 and 1938. The gaps she actually didn't play. Therefore 1931, 1934, 1936 and 1937. Navratilova played year in, year out for how many years to get that record? Of course, Navratilova dominated Wimbledon in the 80s and absolutely deserve that record but to just simply look at the number 9 and not look at how many slams the pre-open era players missed because of (travel, other priorities etc...) just doesn't give you the full picture.

dscho99
Feb 6th, 2010, 08:32 PM
:lol: Now that Serena is at legendary status and in the company of such names as BJK, Martina Nav, Chris Evert and Steffi Graff, they want to include the time before the Open Era, when they were just fine with those five names being legends without considering the time before the Open Era. People can be so transparent. :lol:


Serena definitely is not in the company of Steffi Graff.
Want to bet?

dscho99
Feb 6th, 2010, 08:34 PM
Huh? :scratch: So, BJK, Martina Nav and the WS doubles titles mean nothing? Those titles are bullshit? :haha: Come on now. :lol:


Who is greater?
Pam Shriver or Gabriela Sabatini?

dscho99
Feb 6th, 2010, 08:37 PM
This doesn't really have anything to do with what Denise or I were talking about :shrug:



Hey TV, I don't think most people in this thread are discounting pre-open era accomplishments. Of course Margaret Court has 11 AOs and that is an unbeatable record like Nav's 9 Wimbledons.

However, I think a lot of people in the tennis world and on this board do tend to use "Open Era" records just for simplicity and because a lot of people aren't aware of how much information actually is available for the 60's, 50's and earlier.



The big difference between the amateur and the open era is that in the open era players could make a living from playing tennis. Which drew many more talents to the game. So it is quite reasonable to distinguish those eras.

Arnian
Feb 6th, 2010, 08:47 PM
I think Serena is close (she's is in the striking zone) to making it into the higher pantheon of the Graf/Evert/Navratilova, but she's not there yet. She needs to win 4-5 more majors before we start putting here in talks with them.

Chrissie-fan
Feb 6th, 2010, 09:39 PM
The big difference between the amateur and the open era is that in the open era players could make a living from playing tennis. Which drew many more talents to the game. So it is quite reasonable to distinguish those eras.
The dominant players of the first few years from the open era were the same ones as the ones that were dominant in the last years from the pre-open era. A few years later they were joined by new talents like Goolagong and Evert. The same natural transition from old to new that you always get. It's not as though as soon as the open era started there were all of a sudden a truckload of new players on the scene. Besides, the best of the so-called amateurs from the pre-open era weren't really amateurs at all. They were often payed "under the table" and full time tennis players, just like Eastern European (or American for that matter) athletes who used to participate in the Olympics were always so-called students, or they were in the army or something. But everyone knew that in reality they were professional athletes in anything but name.

tennisvideos
Feb 7th, 2010, 01:21 AM
:lol: Now that Serena is at legendary status and in the company of such names as BJK, Martina Nav, Chris Evert and Steffi Graff, they want to include the time before the Open Era, when they were just fine with those five names being legends without considering the time before the Open Era. People can be so transparent. :lol:

Well Denise, if you aren't going to include the pre-open era then you you can also take away some of King's slams as she only has 8 in the Open era. So that will prop your favourite up even higher in the rungs. FYI Court has 12 in the Open era just so you are aware of the list of actual players that Serena is joining in the Open era only stats.

Seems like the pre-open era women in the 60s weren't very good ...
Margaret Court, Billie-Jean King, Maria Buneo, Darlene Hard, Karen Susman, Nancy Richey, Virginia Wade, Francoise Durr, Rosie Casals et all. Even though many of them also dominated in the early open era. :rolleyes:

bandabou
Feb 7th, 2010, 10:43 AM
wow, lots of big names there, tennisvdideos.

dscho99
Feb 7th, 2010, 11:36 AM
The dominant players of the first few years from the open era were the same ones as the ones that were dominant in the last years from the pre-open era. A few years later they were joined by new talents like Goolagong and Evert. The same natural transition from old to new that you always get. It's not as though as soon as the open era started there were all of a sudden a truckload of new players on the scene. Besides, the best of the so-called amateurs from the pre-open era weren't really amateurs at all. They were often payed "under the table" and full time tennis players, just like Eastern European (or American for that matter) athletes who used to participate in the Olympics were always so-called students, or they were in the army or something. But everyone knew that in reality they were professional athletes in anything but name.


But when we include Court, King and their stats in discussions about GOATs and records we have to include Wills, Lenglen and the 19th century players and their stats as well. Which seems rather pointless to me.

The beginning of the open era seems a resonable cut to make, IMO.
Bonus is that many of us have watched tennis back in the 70ies and are able to compare.

So at least for me it is more interesting who is the greatest pro of all time (GPOAT), who has won the most slams in the open era or the most tournaments.

dscho99
Feb 7th, 2010, 11:39 AM
The dominant players of the first few years from the open era were the same ones as the ones that were dominant in the last years from the pre-open era. A few years later they were joined by new talents like Goolagong and Evert. The same natural transition from old to new that you always get. It's not as though as soon as the open era started there were all of a sudden a truckload of new players on the scene. Besides, the best of the so-called amateurs from the pre-open era weren't really amateurs at all. They were often payed "under the table" and full time tennis players, just like Eastern European (or American for that matter) athletes who used to participate in the Olympics were always so-called students, or they were in the army or something. But everyone knew that in reality they were professional athletes in anything but name.


BTW, I have started a new thread in BFTP and Chris Evert looks very good there!
Most slam finals and best final/participation percentage in open era!!:worship:

She should have played a few more FOs in the 70ies and the GOAT discussions would look quite different today ...

Chrissie-fan
Feb 7th, 2010, 12:13 PM
But when we include Court, King and their stats in discussions about GOATs and records we have to include Wills, Lenglen and the 19th century players and their stats as well. Which seems rather pointless to me.

The beginning of the open era seems a resonable cut to make, IMO.
Bonus is that many of us have watched tennis back in the 70ies and are able to compare.

So at least for me it is more interesting who is the greatest pro of all time (GPOAT), who has won the most slams in the open era or the most tournaments.
Personally I accept players such as Lenglen, Wills and Connolly as all time greats. I believe however that one has to take into account that Lenglen and Wills were pioneers and that the competition that they faced was probably not of the same standard as those that later greats had to compete against. But that's not the fault of Lenglen and Wills. While their almost ridiculously great stats and the ease with which they beat their opponents doesn't mean that they were better than later champs who faced tougher competition, those same stats nevertheless prove in my opinion that they were so much better than everyone else of their era that they indeed were truly great players who deserve to be included in ATG discussions. I mean, what more could, say, Helen Wills possibly have done to earn herself a reputation as one of the greats? It's not her fault that she wasn't born forty years later.

All this in my modest opinion of course. ;)

Chrissie-fan
Feb 7th, 2010, 12:23 PM
BTW, I have started a new thread in BFTP and Chris Evert looks very good there!
Most slam finals and best final/participation percentage in open era!!:worship:

She should have played a few more FOs in the 70ies and the GOAT discussions would look quite different today ...
Chris would definitely have won three more French Opens and probably more Aussie Opens if she had competed in all of them. But for me she's already up there with the very best in history as it is. Personally I don't believe there's any such thing as "the single greatest player in history." There are several players who can claim to be the best ever, it all depends on which statistics one pays the most attention to and how one interprets them. That's why I think more along the lines of a tier one group of all time greats who are too close in achievements to seperate them, and Chrissie is a member of that group.

Denise4925
Feb 7th, 2010, 11:48 PM
Well Denise, if you aren't going to include the pre-open era then you you can also take away some of King's slams as she only has 8 in the Open era. So that will prop your favourite up even higher in the rungs. FYI Court has 12 in the Open era just so you are aware of the list of actual players that Serena is joining in the Open era only stats.

My point is that no one made a point of mentioning pre-open era until now when talking about records and greats. But, I'm still trying to understand your sarcasm here.

Seems like the pre-open era women in the 60s weren't very good ...
Margaret Court, Billie-Jean King, Maria Buneo, Darlene Hard, Karen Susman, Nancy Richey, Virginia Wade, Francoise Durr, Rosie Casals et all. Even though many of them also dominated in the early open era. :rolleyes:

Is that what you're saying? :confused:

Denise4925
Feb 7th, 2010, 11:52 PM
Personally I accept players such as Lenglen, Wills and Connolly as all time greats. I believe however that one has to take into account that Lenglen and Wills were pioneers and that the competition that they faced was probably not of the same standard as those that later greats had to compete against. But that's not the fault of Lenglen and Wills. While their almost ridiculously great stats and the ease with which they beat their opponents doesn't mean that they were better than later champs who faced tougher competition, those same stats nevertheless prove in my opinion that they were so much better than everyone else of their era that they indeed were truly great players who deserve to be included in ATG discussions. I mean, what more could, say, Helen Wills possibly have done to earn herself a reputation as one of the greats? It's not her fault that she wasn't born forty years later.

All this in my modest opinion of course. ;)

What about the "professionals" who the "amateurs" couldn't compete against in the slams and the professional tournaments? I think the Open Era as a cut off point is a good measuring tool because it puts everyone on the same level competing in the same tournaments. Prior to the Open Era, things seem to be pretty confusing between who was professional, who was an amateur and where they could compete.

tennisvideos
Feb 8th, 2010, 01:54 AM
What about the "professionals" who the "amateurs" couldn't compete against in the slams and the professional tournaments? I think the Open Era as a cut off point is a good measuring tool because it puts everyone on the same level competing in the same tournaments. Prior to the Open Era, things seem to be pretty confusing between who was professional, who was an amateur and where they could compete.

Denise - that only related to the mens tour. There is no distinction as such for the women. The leading ladies of the tour were all eligible to play the regular tour and slams through history except for a few very rare excepts eg. Lenglen and Mary K. Browne in the 20s and a few other players. But the womens tour was not like the mens. The mens had a seperate Professional circuit which comprises of the leading male players eg. Kramer, Gonzales, Laver, Rosewall etc. And the remainder played the normal tour.

So there is no cutoff point for women. Every one on the womens side had the same level competing field prior to 1968 as they did afterwards.

Eg. You had King, Court, Wade, Durr, Richey, Jones, Bueno etc all playing the Slams and tour before 68 and you had them also playing the slams as soon as the tour went open. Except Bueno who retired from injuries.

Denise4925
Feb 8th, 2010, 01:56 AM
Denise - that only related to the mens tour. There is no distinction as such for the women. The leading ladies of the tour were all eligible to play the regular tour and slams through history except for a few very rare excepts eg. Lenglen and Mary K. Browne in the 20s and a few other players. But the womens tour was not like the mens. The mens had a seperate Professional circuit which comprises of the leading male players eg. Kramer, Gonzales, Laver, Rosewall etc. And the remainder played the normal tour.

So there is no cutoff point for women. Every one on the womens side had the same level competing field prior to 1968 as they did afterwards.

Eg. You had King, Court, Wade, Durr, Richey, Jones, Bueno etc all playing the Slams and tour before 68 and you had them also playing the slams as soon as the tour went open. Except Bueno who retired from injuries.

You're correct. They were all amateurs. My mistake. BJK started the WTA, I know that.

Just a brain freeze, no need to panic. :lol:

Look, as long as Serena is in the discussion with all time greats such as Pre-Open Era greats and Open Era greats, I'm good with that. No need to get sarcastic or offended.

tennisvideos
Feb 8th, 2010, 03:00 AM
You're correct. They were all amateurs. My mistake. BJK started the WTA, I know that.
Just a brain freeze, no need to panic. :lol:
Look, as long as Serena is in the discussion with all time greats such as Pre-Open Era greats and Open Era greats, I'm good with that. No need to get sarcastic or offended.
No probs. And of course Serena is in the discussion of all time greats (all eras). She is definately has the best credentials of the current era, and IMO that counts for everything. You cannot have the GOAT in my opinion as there are too many variables. But you can have the best of each generation, and Serena is certainly that.

Matt01
Feb 8th, 2010, 12:12 PM
No probs. And of course Serena is in the discussion of all time greats (all eras). She is definately has the best credentials of the current era, and IMO that counts for everything. You cannot have the GOAT in my opinion as there are too many variables. But you can have the best of each generation, and Serena is certainly that.


:bs:

No, you can't since no one knows when one generation ends and the next generation starts.

Human Nature
Feb 8th, 2010, 02:21 PM
:bs:

No, you can't since no one knows when one generation ends and the next generation starts.

:confused:

So one can say that bjorn Borg and serena Williams are the same generation and its OK ..!?

bandabou
Feb 8th, 2010, 03:05 PM
:bs:

No, you can't since no one knows when one generation ends and the next generation starts.

:lol: Who of Serena's generation is even within striking distance of her, qua greatness?

Matt01
Feb 8th, 2010, 03:41 PM
People need to read my post before they're replying to me. Seriously.

bandabou
Feb 8th, 2010, 04:43 PM
People need to read my post before they're replying to me. Seriously.

No, no mister...you say something, people ask you about. That's the way it works. No chickening out here.

You said you don't agree with saying Serena's the greatest of her generation and then you come with some lame: You don't know when a generation ends. What's that for response?

Generation is players no more than 5 years older, like a Kim, a Momo, a Venus, a Juju..who of those realistically is gonna surpass Serena?

Matt01
Feb 8th, 2010, 09:07 PM
No, no mister...you say something, people ask you about. That's the way it works. No chickening out here.

You said you don't agree with saying Serena's the greatest of her generation and then you come with some lame: You don't know when a generation ends. What's that for response?

Generation is players no more than 5 years older, like a Kim, a Momo, a Venus, a Juju..who of those realistically is gonna surpass Serena?


I didn't say that Serena was not the best of her generation. My point was that that generation-crap is highly overrated and inaccurate. Please tell me when exactly one generation starts and when it ends. For me, a generation is 25 years which means that S. Graf and S. Williams were playing in the same generation.

Unless we really know what a generation is and which timeframe it compasses, this whole discussion is useless.

Chrissie-fan
Feb 8th, 2010, 09:28 PM
I didn't say that Serena was not the best of her generation. My point was that that generation-crap is highly overrated and inaccurate. Please tell me when exactly one generation starts and when it ends. For me, a generation is 25 years which means that S. Graf and S. Williams were playing in the same generation.

Unless we really know what a generation is and which timeframe it compasses, this whole discussion is useless.
I think it's pretty clear that what posters mean is that Serena has been the best player of the last decade or so.

Matt01
Feb 8th, 2010, 09:41 PM
I think it's pretty clear that what posters mean is that Serena has been the best player of the last decade or so.


Sorry, but the fact hat you ended your sentence with "or so" only means that it is not clear. So instead of generations, we are talking about decades now?

Denise4925
Feb 8th, 2010, 09:51 PM
I didn't say that Serena was not the best of her generation. My point was that that generation-crap is highly overrated and inaccurate. Please tell me when exactly one generation starts and when it ends. For me, a generation is 25 years which means that S. Graf and S. Williams were playing in the same generation.

Unless we really know what a generation is and which timeframe it compasses, this whole discussion is useless.

Matt, a generation is 20 years.

Donny
Feb 8th, 2010, 09:55 PM
I didn't say that Serena was not the best of her generation. My point was that that generation-crap is highly overrated and inaccurate. Please tell me when exactly one generation starts and when it ends. For me, a generation is 25 years which means that S. Graf and S. Williams were playing in the same generation.

Unless we really know what a generation is and which timeframe it compasses, this whole discussion is useless.



Trying to come up with bright line divisions makes no sense. Using this logic, someone who played tennis in 2000 would be the same generation as someone who played tennis in 2024, but they wouldn't be in the same generation as someone who played in 1996. Does that make even a iota of sense?

Chrissie-fan
Feb 8th, 2010, 09:55 PM
Sorry, but the fact hat you ended your sentence with "or so" only means that it is not clear.
Please. What they mean is that she's been the best player for the period that covers her career.

Matt01
Feb 8th, 2010, 09:55 PM
Matt, a generation is 20 years.


Maybe where you are living.

Matt01
Feb 8th, 2010, 09:57 PM
Please. What they mean is that she's been the best player for the period that covers her career.


In 1999, Graf and Serena were both Top Players and they were playing each other several times.

Chrissie-fan
Feb 8th, 2010, 10:04 PM
In 1999, Graf and Serena were both Top Players and they were playing each other several times.
So what? If you have to pick the best player for the period covering 1999-2010 (the period covering her career as a top player), who would it be? It doesn't mean that she had to be the best player each year, or even everyday of her best years. There were times when Graf, Venus, Hingis, Justine, Kim or Capriati may have been better, but overall she has been the best player of that period.

Denise4925
Feb 8th, 2010, 10:04 PM
Maybe where you are living.

There is no biological or scientific evidence to back up any definition for how many years a generation is. Up until recently it was 20 years. It's probably higher now that women are starting to have children later in life. :rolleyes:

Matt01
Feb 8th, 2010, 10:16 PM
There is no biological or scientific evidence to back up any definition for how many years a generation is. Up until recently it was 20 years. It's probably higher now that women are starting to have children later in life. :rolleyes:


Then why are you telling me that it's 20 years?


So what? If you have to pick the best player for the period covering 1999-2010 (the period covering her career as a top player), who would it be? It doesn't mean that she had to be the best player each year, or even everyday of her best years. There were times when Graf, Venus, Hingis, Justine, Kim or Capriati may have been better, but overall she has been the best player of that period.


I already apologize for being so annyoing and I thank you for being patient with me...but: How relevant is all this? Why are we picking exactly the timeframe where one certain player was a top player? We could pick any timeframe.
And what happens when in a few years, Henin has won more Slams than Serena? Then she could possibly be the best player from 2003 until (e.g.) 2013. I guess then Serena will not be the best player of her "generation" anymore?

Denise4925
Feb 8th, 2010, 10:20 PM
Then why are you telling me that it's 20 years?

:rolleyes: Good gawd.





I already apologize for being so annyoing and I thank you for being patient with me...but: How relevant is all this? Why are we picking exactly the timeframe where one certain player was a top player? We could pick any timeframe.
And what happens when in a few years, Henin has won more Slams than Serena? Then she could possibly be the best player from 2003 until (e.g.) 2013. I guess then Serena will not be the best player of her "generation" anymore?

Chrissie, he literally wants you to explain it to him like he's a 2 year old.

Matt01
Feb 8th, 2010, 10:23 PM
Denise: :weirdo:

Donny
Feb 8th, 2010, 10:26 PM
Question for Matt:

You set the length of a generation at 25 years. That all fine and dandy, but this still doesn't solve the problem of when generations begin and end. So how do you decide when these hypothetical generations start/finish?

Matt01
Feb 8th, 2010, 10:34 PM
Question for Matt:

You set the length of a generation at 25 years. That all fine and dandy, but this still doesn't solve the problem of when generations begin and end. So how do you decide when these hypothetical generations start/finish?


I don't know, that's why I was asking. And I still haven't read an asnwer that convinces me. To make it clear, my definition of a generation (=25years) doesn't need to be true in tennis, too.

Donny
Feb 8th, 2010, 10:39 PM
I don't know, that's why I was asking. And I still haven't read an asnwer that convinces me. To make it clear, my definition of a generation (=25years) doesn't need to be true in tennis, too.

It's totally subjective, imo. It's based mostly on conventional wisdom.

For example: Serena, Venus, Davenport, Henin, et al all were born around the same time, all competed with each other for long periods of time, where slam contenders pretty much contemporaneously with one another. They played with essentially the same equipment and technology, made pretty much equal prize money during the bulk of their careers. It makes sense to group them into the same generation.

Contrast that to Graf, who was winning events before any of those players had even picked up a racket.

Matt01
Feb 8th, 2010, 10:45 PM
It's totally subjective, imo. It's based mostly on conventional wisdom.

For example: Serena, Venus, Davenport, Henin, et al all were born around the same time, all competed with each other for long periods of time, where slam contenders pretty much contemporaneously with one another. They played with essentially the same equipment and technology, made pretty much equal prize money during the bulk of their careers. It makes sense to group them into the same generation.

Contrast that to Graf, who was winning events before any of those players had even picked up a racket.


Davenport won one of her biggest titles in 1996 Olympics). Justine started her pro career 3 years later and won her first Slam 7 years later. Loot at their H2H: Davenport won their first 5 meeetings and Justine won the next 7. Are Justine and Lindsay players of the same generation? Like you said, it's totally subjective.

bandabou
Feb 9th, 2010, 07:37 AM
Then why are you telling me that it's 20 years?





I already apologize for being so annyoing and I thank you for being patient with me...but: How relevant is all this? Why are we picking exactly the timeframe where one certain player was a top player? We could pick any timeframe.
And what happens when in a few years, Henin has won more Slams than Serena? Then she could possibly be the best player from 2003 until (e.g.) 2013. I guess then Serena will not be the best player of her "generation" anymore?

Is that it? Are u still hoping that Juju's gonna somehow end up with more majors than serena?

And if it don't happen, then what? Suddenly we don't have no generation, till you find a player you like and you put that player in Serena's generation..just to deny her greatness?

bandabou
Feb 9th, 2010, 07:38 AM
:lol: I guess it's up to you no..when Juju's losing, the generation don't count..:lol:

tennisvideos
Feb 9th, 2010, 12:17 PM
Please. What they mean is that she's been the best player for the period that covers her career.

Exactly. :D

Matt01
Feb 9th, 2010, 05:03 PM
Is that it? Are u still hoping that Juju's gonna somehow end up with more majors than serena?

And if it don't happen, then what? Suddenly we don't have no generation, till you find a player you like and you put that player in Serena's generation..just to deny her greatness?


You're obessed, aren't you?

I already said that I find that whole generation-crap overrated and inaccurate. And of course I hope that Henin wins as many Slams as possible but I'm not hoping that in order to declare as the "best of her generation" or whatever if that is what you mean :rolleyes:

irma
Feb 9th, 2010, 05:35 PM
Serena is the most succesfull player of last decade. I think that's a good criteria to show that she must have done something right;)

bandabou
Feb 9th, 2010, 09:14 PM
You're obessed, aren't you?

I already said that I find that whole generation-crap overrated and inaccurate. And of course I hope that Henin wins as many Slams as possible but I'm not hoping that in order to declare as the "best of her generation" or whatever if that is what you mean :rolleyes:

It's cool man. I'll take best player of the last decade as Irma said. ;)