PDA

View Full Version : Who's greater: Monica Seles vs Venus Williams?


rimon
May 7th, 2011, 09:15 AM
I would say Monica. Who do you think?

Mr.Sharapova
May 7th, 2011, 09:18 AM
:rolleyes:.These kind of threads are becoming really ridiculous !

BlueTrees
May 7th, 2011, 09:29 AM
Weeks at #1

Monica Seles: 178
Venus Williams: 11

Have a nice day. :wavey:

Miracle Worker
May 7th, 2011, 09:36 AM
Who's greater: Steffi Graf vs Aravane Rezai :facepalm:

scandic78
May 7th, 2011, 09:37 AM
Please ban these useless threads.

J4m3ka
May 7th, 2011, 09:46 AM
Weeks at #1

Monica Seles: 178
Venus Williams: 11

Have a nice day. :wavey:

Interesting to know you personally decided that determining order of greats is done solely by weeks at #1 :eek: :eek: :eek: :haha: :haha: :haha:

:kiss::kiss: :wavey:

BlueTrees
May 7th, 2011, 09:52 AM
Interesting to know you personally decided that determining order of greats is done solely by weeks at #1 :eek: :eek: :eek: :haha: :haha: :haha:

:kiss::kiss: :wavey:

Grand Slam titles

Monica Seles: 9
Venus Williams: 7

How many of the Four Grand Slams

Monica Seles: 3
Venus Williams: 2

Career titles:

Monica Seles: 53
Venus Williams: 43

Career finals

Monica Seles: 85
Venus Williams: 70

Tier I titles:

Monica Seles: 9
Venus Williams: 8

Tier II titles:

Monica Seles: 22
Venus Williams: 17

The Witch-king
May 7th, 2011, 10:00 AM
Grand Slam titles

Monica Seles: 9
Venus Williams: 7

How many of the Four Grand Slams

Monica Seles: 3
Venus Williams: 2

Career titles:

Monica Seles: 53
Venus Williams: 43

Career finals

Monica Seles: 85
Venus Williams: 70

Tier I titles:

Monica Seles: 9
Venus Williams: 8

Tier II titles:

Monica Seles: 22
Venus Williams: 17
Wow I never knew how close their stats were!

J4m3ka
May 7th, 2011, 10:06 AM
Grand Slam titles

Monica Seles: 9
Venus Williams: 7

How many of the Four Grand Slams

Monica Seles: 3
Venus Williams: 2

Career titles:

Monica Seles: 53
Venus Williams: 43

Career finals

Monica Seles: 85
Venus Williams: 70

Tier I titles:

Monica Seles: 9
Venus Williams: 8

Tier II titles:

Monica Seles: 22
Venus Williams: 17

9-1 H2H?(:help:) Olympic golds? Doubles achievements? Prize money? Slam finals? Fighting for gender equality? Winning the most prestigious tournament where tennis began 5 times?

I'm not making a conclusion by any means, just pointing out that you simply can't pick all the statistics that Monica is ahead in for convenience's sake - especially when the stats you posted are actually quite close. :wavey:

:help:

rimon
May 7th, 2011, 10:09 AM
9-1 H2H?(:help:) Olympic golds? Doubles achievements? Prize money? Slam finals? Fighting for gender equality? Winning the most prestigious tournament where tennis began 5 times?

I'm not making a conclusion by any means - just pointing out that you simply can't pick all the statistics that Monica is ahead in for convenience sake :wavey:

:help:

H-2-H's aren't really that big a factor. Doubles is a different category? Prize money increased since Monica's glory days. A slam is a slam these days. Winning Wimbledon is just as good as winnng any other slam. Gender equality? What does that have to do with it? Anyway, I haven't heard Venus protest for gender equality. She wants women to earn as much as men while not competing against them for it, and not playing as many sets. How does that constitute equality?

BlueTrees
May 7th, 2011, 10:26 AM
9-1 H2H?(:help:) Olympic golds? Doubles achievements? Prize money? Slam finals? Fighting for gender equality? Winning the most prestigious tournament where tennis began 5 times?

I'm not making a conclusion by any means, just pointing out that you simply can't pick all the statistics that Monica is ahead in for convenience's sake - especially when the stats you posted are actually quite close. :wavey:

:help:

Venus and Seles never played each other until two years after she won her last Grand Slam in 1998. She was way past her peak and was never the same player after she was stabbed. I'm sure if Seles played Venus in 1990-1993 she would win. :rolleyes:

Prize money has increased over the years, in case you haven't realised.

It's obvious you're getting desperate when you go to doubles, which isn't even related, and for god's sake, "fighting for gender equality"? WTF does that have to do with ANYTHING? :rolls:

Matej
May 7th, 2011, 11:06 AM
Well, Seles results in 1990-1993 are far better than anything Venus achieved. And without the notorious stabbing incident Seles could have easily had about 15 GS titles (or perhaps even slightly more) under her belt. After all, she was still 19 years old at that time and won 8 GS titles already.

Steven.
May 7th, 2011, 11:32 AM
Venus could've won double digits slams had she not given away the slam finals to Serena :oh:

Mattographer
May 7th, 2011, 11:39 AM
9-1 H2H?(:help:) Olympic golds? Doubles achievements? Prize money? Slam finals? Fighting for gender equality? Winning the most prestigious tournament where tennis began 5 times?

I'm not making a conclusion by any means, just pointing out that you simply can't pick all the statistics that Monica is ahead in for convenience's sake - especially when the stats you posted are actually quite close. :wavey:

:help:
LOOOOOOOOL! Epic fail.

Seles > Venus, without a question.

Steven.
May 7th, 2011, 11:56 AM
9-1 H2H?(:help:) Olympic golds? Doubles achievements? Prize money? Slam finals? Fighting for gender equality? Winning the most prestigious tournament where tennis began 5 times?

I'm not making a conclusion by any means, just pointing out that you simply can't pick all the statistics that Monica is ahead in for convenience's sake - especially when the stats you posted are actually quite close. :wavey:

:help:

Fight for gender equality contributes to greatness? That's a first. I doubt it's ever even been used in the Henin vs. Venus debate. Sit down, buddy.

Seles > Venus.

Veesus
May 7th, 2011, 12:27 PM
I like Wimbledon :shrug:

Mistress of Evil
May 7th, 2011, 12:30 PM
Seles :shrug:

rimon
May 7th, 2011, 01:21 PM
Fight for gender equality contributes to greatness? That's a first. I doubt it's ever even been used in the Henin vs. Venus debate. Sit down, buddy.

Seles > Venus.

She didn't though. She fought for special rights for women. If she wanted equality, why didn't she push for the women to actually compete against the men, or at the very least play 5 sets like the men?

Kworb
May 7th, 2011, 01:23 PM
9 Slams > 2 Slams

thrust
May 7th, 2011, 01:27 PM
Please ban these useless threads.

Monica.

Beat
May 7th, 2011, 01:27 PM
Doubles achievements? Fighting for gender equality? Winning the most prestigious tournament where tennis began 5 times?

:lol: good definition of "clutching at straws"

thrust
May 7th, 2011, 01:33 PM
Interesting to know you personally decided that determining order of greats is done solely by weeks at #1 :eek: :eek: :eek: :haha: :haha: :haha:

:kiss::kiss: :wavey:

SLAMS: Monica-9, Venus-7
Titles: Monics-55, Venus-43
Monica- Slams on 3 surfaces, Venus-2
Chances are Venus played many more tournaments and slams.

L'Enfant Sauvage
May 7th, 2011, 01:42 PM
Why was this thread created? I probably like Venus more, but 9>7, end of :shrug:

I do think they are alike in that they both could have been literally twice as great as they will go down in history, due to unfortunate circumstances. Obviously Seles's stabbing, her family and weight troubles. I said it before and I'll say it again, I'm not one of those Seles fans who are all "Z0MG, she would have had 45 slams!!!" But I certainly think if she wasn't so unfortunate she would have been in the upper teens.

Venus' troubles are obviously less dramatic, but I think with her skills, even including whom she had to compete with, maximizing her potential should have got her to around twelve slams. (For one thing though, I believe total slam number is a touchy and slightly misleading issue, since IMO Venus, Serena, Henin, Clijsters, Hingis, Capriati, Davenport, and Monica herself had tougher competition in the early 2000s[when Venus reached her prime] than Seles and Graf had in the early 90s[when Monica reached her's]) If Venus wasn't such a mental midget when faced with her sister, if she never had the career-altering abdominal injury, she could have been far greater - And that's not counting all the disgraceful missed opportunities she's had from 2005-2010, in which she should have collected three more US Opens.

Re: The Serena thing, I don't care what anyone says, there is no reason the second best player(and not by a ton) at the time should've been getting thrashed in a slam final on HC or straight setted on grass, when even Capriati(who was neither greater, nor better at her peak than Venus,) could at least go out in respectable three. Venus was always the sister who took it easy in their matches.

But anyways, at the end of the day it is what it is. Injury is a part of sports and everyone misses opportunities. For that, Monica > Venus quite simply.

Sombrerero loco
May 7th, 2011, 01:43 PM
lol, seles by far.....

Anabelcroft
May 7th, 2011, 02:00 PM
Is this really a question...although I like Venus,one has to be realistic and say that Monica's achievements > achievements of Venus,although she is still(kind of) active on Tour!

Leo St
May 7th, 2011, 02:27 PM
there is really no question, venus by far
although monica seles is a legend, venus and serena stepped up the game, it will never be the same after them (her first)
its just a matter of people from one generation being able to recognize achievements from past generations easier

Sammo
May 7th, 2011, 03:37 PM
Are you f*cking serious?

serenafan08
May 7th, 2011, 05:16 PM
Now I love me some Venus - yes I do - but even I have to say Seles here. What Venus has done for the sport is tremendous; she and Serena raised the bar, and are still considered to be players to beat even with all these new young girls coming up. But no one can deny that at her peak Monica was unlike any player we had seen. That stabbing ruined everything. :( Just think of the rivalry she and Steffi would have had - they already were in the middle of it! The 1992 French Open final is still the best women's match I have ever seen, given the context and the quality of play. We've had some really great Grand Slam semifinals, but not a final like that. Serena and Venus's real rivals have been each other. Just think...Venus could have 10+ Slams if not for Serena in her way. It's close, but I gotta give Monica the nod.

it-girl
May 7th, 2011, 05:51 PM
Why can't there ever be appreciation threads for players achievements instead of all this who is greater? There are many different levels of greatness besides results on the tennis court. Greatness transcends the sport. True greatness is when you can use your platform to make a difference in this world not stupid tennis results no matter how special they may be. Because in the end of the day those tennis results only speak for one person. But deciding not to defend your title if Shahar Peer could not play was a great moment in world history that will be remembered. I consider things like that to be Great, not tennis results.


Further more I would say this thread has more to do with who has won more & not who is greater. Because Venus is the superior athlete and if both were in their primes Venus would win every time. But what I do consider great about Monica is that she actually had the courage to come back and play after a horrible possibly near death experience, it really takes guts to do something like that. So to me I think Venus is the greater player because she changed the way the women's game was played and has done amazing things both on & off the court and is the best women's athlete in tennis history. Monica I would say has the greater results by winning more.


I also think they played against different players. Because Venus brought in a new style of play she eventually had to play against players with more consistent power and she still managed to beat them to win her big titles. But Monica was just clearly better than everyone else in her prime and though I do not consider her a power broker, she was more powerful than most of those girls she played and beat. So really you cannot compare their greatness by their results because if the roles were reversed & they both played their prime game Venus would destroy the players of Monica's era but I cannot say that Monica would destroy the player's of Venus's era. So I really don't think this question is valid because there are 2 different era's involved. This really only works when players are playing in the same era against the same type of players.

So I voted for Venus because I think she is great both on & off the tennis court & that is how I measure greatness. But I consider both to be great player's because they have both excelled in their own era. I really wish there was a both option with these types of threads.

justineheninfan
May 7th, 2011, 05:52 PM
Seles is yet another overrated player on this forum, so it is closer than however the vote will play out. The fact Seles actually won the poll vs Evert for "better baseliner" or nearly won the poll over Graf for greater player is laughable and proof of how insanely overrated Monica Seles is on this forum. However that said Seles is the "greater" player and had the better career. Anyway with what happened to her someone probably needs 12 slams to surpass her, especialy one with as up and down a career in some ways as Venus. That said I do think peak Venus is the "better" player in many ways. Venus at her best would beat Seles at her best on all except rebound ace or clay, and would destroy her on grass.

Since Seles has more votes than she deserves on this poll, like nearly all polls she is, I am voting for Venus.

justineheninfan
May 7th, 2011, 05:55 PM
Venus and Seles never played each other until two years after she won her last Grand Slam in 1998. She was way past her peak and was never the same player after she was stabbed. I'm sure if Seles played Venus in 1990-1993 she would win. :rolleyes:


Venus would thrash the 90-93 Seles version on grass. Even that version of Seles couldnt even beat Zina Garrison on grass and could barely get games off Graf. And Venus of 2000 to 2003 would win on a medium to fast court or carpet too. Seles was never facing power hitters like Serena, Venus or Davenport in the early 90s. Even on clay and rebound ace Venus would make it competitive just because she is a bad matchup for Monica.

Matt01
May 7th, 2011, 06:26 PM
Venus would thrash the 90-93 Seles version on grass. Even that version of Seles couldnt even beat Zina Garrison on grass and could barely get games off Graf.


Seles had a bad day that day against Graf, who lost against Garrison, too :lol:

Seles reached a Wimbledon final in her prime, beating the grass GOAT on the way, and she won titles on grass even after the stabbing. No one knows how many W titles she would have won...

Of course peak Venus would beat peak Seles but she'd lose on any other surface clearly IMO...

justineheninfan
May 7th, 2011, 06:47 PM
Seles had a bad day that day against Graf, who lost against Garrison, too :lol:

Seles reached a Wimbledon final in her prime, beating the grass GOAT on the way, and she won titles on grass even after the stabbing. No one knows how many W titles she would have won...

Of course peak Venus would beat peak Seles but she'd lose on any other surface clearly IMO...

Martina was in her mid 30s and was regularly losing to people like Martinez, Capriati, Seles, Novotna, etc...on grass by that point. I already pointed that out to you in the other thread. You seem to think Martina was still the best grass courter in the World by the early 90s, that was clearly Graf and had been for half a decade by that point. From 88-94 Martina won 1 Wimbledon and Graf won 5, so Graf was the true barometer on grass by then, not the aging Martina. Who cares if Graf had a loss to Garrison at Wimbledon, everyone knows she was having one of her worst years ever, and she won 7 Wimbledons and is the all time grass #2 behind Martina. Seles during her glory period on grass loses to Garrison, skips Wimbledon, and struggles to get games vs Graf, end of.

Atleast you concede Venus would win on grass (anyone who suggest otherwise is an idiot). Of course on hard courts there will be varied opinions and I understand how some would think Seles woudl win. However I still think the 2000-2003 Venus would have too much combined power and speed for the 1990-1993 version of Seles on a medium to fast hard court. Venus faced way more big hitters during this period than Seles did. Venus serves much better than Seles, can hit with more power off very shot, obviously has more of an all court game, and moves light years better. Seles would have to try and win out through consistency, use of angles, and mental toughness. Seles never faced women like Venus, Serena, or Davenport in her prime years who could outhit from all parts of the court. The closest to that she faced was Graf who had a weak backhand which Seles could exploit, and even Graf never lost to Seles on a surface faster than clay. A player that both hits harder, serves 120 mph regularly, and moves MUCH better than Seles would be a nightmare for her.

Matt01
May 7th, 2011, 06:53 PM
The closest to that she faced was Graf who had a weak backhand which Seles could exploit, and even Graf never lost to Seles on a surface faster than clay. A player that both hits harder, serves 120 mph regularly, and moves MUCH better than Seles would be a nightmare for her.


What? :lol: Maybe you check their H2H again.

And maybe you've never seen Seles play pre-stabbing but Seles at that time moved actally very well so any points like Venus moving "much better" than Seles get dismissed by me immediately.

And Seles in her prime years didn't have any "nightmares", no matter which kind of player she met, so your theories are not standing on solid ground IMO.

Direwolf
May 7th, 2011, 06:54 PM
Grand Slams:
Venus: 18
Seles: 9

18>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>9

justineheninfan
May 7th, 2011, 06:58 PM
What? :lol: Maybe you check theory H2H again.

Rebound ace is the slowest surface, slower than clay. Hence Graf has not lost to Seles on any surface faster than clay.

And maybe you've never seen Seles play pre-stabbing but Seles at that time moved actally very well so any points like Venus moving "much better" than Seles get dismissed by me immediately.

Seles pre stabbing was indeed a reasonable mover but nowhere near the greatest ever movers like Graf, Navratilova, or Venus.

And Seles in her prime years didn't have any "nightmares", no matter which kind of player she met, so your theories are not standing on solid ground IMO.

Of course she didnt, there were no player in the early 90s to even test Seles other than Graf. Martina was in her mid 30s and almost a decade past her peak. Does anyone think Sanchez, Sabatini, Martinez, or Fernandez were ever going to pose real problems for Seles. :help: Seles faced nothing resembling a player like Venus and Serena who served harder, hit harder, and moved better, all at the same time. There werent even any power players back then other than Seles and Graf, and even Graf didnt have a powerful backhand and served 15 mph slower than the big babe era leaders and still never lost to Seles on a medium to fast court. Power players who can put Monica on the defensive are her biggest fear, and they hardly even existed at all back then. Well and a pre pubescent Capriati who even at her adult peak many years later is a big gap below Venus, Serena, and Davenport in sheer power.

Matt01
May 7th, 2011, 06:58 PM
Grand Slams:
Venus: 18
Seles: 9

18>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>9


Sorry to say but this is GM and not the doubles forum ;)

Matt01
May 7th, 2011, 07:03 PM
Rebound ace is the slowest surface, slower than clay. Hence Graf has not lost to Seles on any surface faster than clay.



Seles pre stabbing was indeed a reasonable mover but nowhere near the greatest ever movers like Graf, Navratilova, or Venus.



Of course she didnt, there were no player in the early 90s to even test Seles other than Graf. Martina was in her mid 30s and almost a decade past her peak. Does anyone think Sanchez, Sabatini, Martinez, or Fernandez were ever going to pose real problems for Seles. :help: Seles faced nothing resembling a player like Venus and Serena who served harder, hit harder, and moved better, all at the same time. There werent even any power players back then other than Seles and Graf, and even Graf didnt have a powerful backhand and served 15 mph slower than the big babe era leaders and still never lost to Seles on a medium to fast court. Well and a pre pubescent Capriati who even at her adult peak many years later is a big gap below Venus, Serena, and Davenport in sheer power.


1. Rebound is clearly faster than clay.

2. Venus isn't among the best movers ever, either.

3. Comparing players of different eras and then developing theories about peak player x would defeat player y is quite useless. Just because the game wasn't as fast in the 90s as it was in the 00s, that doesn't mean that Seles would have had to play her "nightmares". The main reason why she couldn't compete anymore with power players post-stabbing is because she was OVERWEIGHT.

danieln1
May 7th, 2011, 07:07 PM
I would say Monica. Who do you think?

Oh really?? You´re so smart!

:facepalm:

justineheninfan
May 7th, 2011, 07:14 PM
1. Rebound is clearly faster than clay.

Commentators and even past players called it slower and higher bouncing than clay. Either way it is a slower surface still and by far the slowest hard court. If you want to say the faster surface Graf has lost to Seles on is rebound ace it makes little difference to the overall point, and even Graf isnt as powerful (note I didnt say better, I am just talking about the power aspect Seles has so much trouble facing) as the top players of the Venus decade).


2. Venus isn't among the best movers ever, either.

LOL this is insane. You are saying peak Venus is NOT one of the best movers ever, really. You ask if I have ever seen peak Seles but I in turn should ask if you have ever seen peak Venus.

Watch Venus move in these matches vs Davenport in 2000:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjNqNAg-fGw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEQiiExx3Tk&playnext=1&list=PLE17811A6902447EE

The gets she makes are amazing, and only a small handful of women in history could have made them.


3. Comparing players of different eras and then developing theories about peak player x would defeat player y is quite useless. Just because the game wasn't as fast in the 90s as it was in the 00s, that doesn't mean that Seles would have had to play her "nightmares". The main reason why she couldn't compete anymore with power players post-stabbing is because she was OVERWEIGHT.

Even you are admitting the game was significantly slower in the 90s. This made things far easier for Seles who never had problems with consistent players, counter punchers, or spin masters. She only had problems with unpredictable attackers (Novotna or Hingis) or most of all the power players which hardly existed in Seles's heyday. Of course being overweight didnt help, but she continued to completely own Sanchez, Martinez, Fernandez, Huber, Sabatini and all those she owned in the early 90s (she never owned Graf), so the real difference was the power players.

justineheninfan
May 7th, 2011, 07:45 PM
Keep in mind too that Monica had far more trouble with Davenport than she did Justine, despite that Justine is by far the better player. Clijsters she blew out completely in their rivalry, even though Kim is a player of similar level to Davenport. Davenport is by far the most powerful player of the 3 though so further proof that is what Seles has the most trouble with. Justine and Kim are quite powerful, but not powerful enough to overpower Monica, and if you cant overpower her she will have her way with you.

Then when you look at her matches with Pierce, Mauresmo and Capriati in her career it is clear that Pierce is her toughest opponent of the three, then Capriati, and Mauresmo last. All those players are of similar level but Pierce is the most powerful of the trio for sure, with Mauresmo the least powerful, and hence which ones Seles has more or less trouble with.

Basically even if you are a really good player if you are not powerful enough Seles will make mincemeat of you, at any stage of her career. If you cant best or atleast match her power she will run roughshed over you, unless you are a master of unpredictable nuanced all court attacking like Hingis and to a lesser degree Novotna and really old Martina. However the really powerful ones are the ones she has alot of trouble with.

Smitten
May 7th, 2011, 09:43 PM
9-1 H2H?(:help:) Olympic golds? Doubles achievements? Prize money? Slam finals? Fighting for gender equality? Winning the most prestigious tournament where tennis began 5 times?


:help:

:sobbing: What is this reaching?

JCTennisFan
May 7th, 2011, 10:25 PM
I love Venus, and they are both Hall of Fame players, but Seles was just so revolutionary for her time.... Venus much less so. Seles really throttled the ball, probably more than any single other player out there. I truely believe she had more firepower than Davenport or Pierce, but she paid a large price for her Double-handed forehand/backhand combo. Ever try to play like that for fun? How she managed it is beyond me, but it severly restricts your reach out wide. It makes for great returning capability, because both hands allow for better control of hard/strong serves. But with her slow movement, and reduced reach due to her style of play, it really made her movement easy to exploit. I still have a soft spot for her though.... she could put on one hell of a display even well into the 00's. Most aggressive baseliner ever... imo.

*Edit* and I hate to nitpick... but Seles last GS was the 96 Aussie open..... she Lost to ASV in the FO final 98.

Matt01
May 8th, 2011, 12:25 AM
Keep in mind too that Monica had far more trouble with Davenport than she did Justine, despite that Justine is by far the better player. Clijsters she blew out completely in their rivalry, even though Kim is a player of similar level to Davenport. Davenport is by far the most powerful player of the 3 though so further proof that is what Seles has the most trouble with. Justine and Kim are quite powerful, but not powerful enough to overpower Monica, and if you cant overpower her she will have her way with you.

Then when you look at her matches with Pierce, Mauresmo and Capriati in her career it is clear that Pierce is her toughest opponent of the three, then Capriati, and Mauresmo last. All those players are of similar level but Pierce is the most powerful of the trio for sure, with Mauresmo the least powerful, and hence which ones Seles has more or less trouble with.

Basically even if you are a really good player if you are not powerful enough Seles will make mincemeat of you, at any stage of her career. If you cant best or atleast match her power she will run roughshed over you, unless you are a master of unpredictable nuanced all court attacking like Hingis and to a lesser degree Novotna and really old Martina. However the really powerful ones are the ones she has alot of trouble with.


That's all very nice but that doesn't negate my point that Seles had trouble with these kind of players because of her lack of fitness and movement post-stabbing. Did Seles have any trouble with Pierce before the stabbing? Or with Huber who was considered a "power-player" in teh 90s?

new-york
May 8th, 2011, 12:42 AM
Moni, no contest. :worship:

The h2h is what it is though :hearts:, and it does not change MoniGOAT's achievements.

So stop moaning, Venus did amazing to have such a h2h vs one of the greatest.
Or any match Venus lost post 2003 doesn't count. :cool:

rimon
May 8th, 2011, 12:46 AM
there is really no question, venus by far
although monica seles is a legend, venus and serena stepped up the game, it will never be the same after them (her first)
its just a matter of people from one generation being able to recognize achievements from past generations easier

Thanks for the laugh.

rimon
May 8th, 2011, 12:52 AM
Seles is yet another overrated player on this forum, so it is closer than however the vote will play out. The fact Seles actually won the poll vs Evert for "better baseliner" or nearly won the poll over Graf for greater player is laughable and proof of how insanely overrated Monica Seles is on this forum. However that said Seles is the "greater" player and had the better career. Anyway with what happened to her someone probably needs 12 slams to surpass her, especialy one with as up and down a career in some ways as Venus. That said I do think peak Venus is the "better" player in many ways. Venus at her best would beat Seles at her best on all except rebound ace or clay, and would destroy her on grass.

Since Seles has more votes than she deserves on this poll, like nearly all polls she is, I am voting for Venus.

So you're voting for Venus, since it "deserves" to be close despite Monica leading in every category? :help:

Also, it's not like Steffi isn't overrated or anything. It's not like she apitalised on the stabing of someone who had just beatene her in 3 slam finals. Oh wait...

rimon
May 8th, 2011, 12:54 AM
Venus would thrash the 90-93 Seles version on grass. Even that version of Seles couldnt even beat Zina Garrison on grass and could barely get games off Graf. And Venus of 2000 to 2003 would win on a medium to fast court or carpet too. Seles was never facing power hitters like Serena, Venus or Davenport in the early 90s. Even on clay and rebound ace Venus would make it competitive just because she is a bad matchup for Monica.

IMO, no way would peak Venus get near peak Monica on Rebound Ace or Clay. You cannot compare post stabing Monica to pre stabbing Monica, they simply weren't the same player. Here's what I think would happen if they met at their peak in slams:

AO - Monica easily.
FO - Monica easily.
W - Venus easily.
USO - toss up, close match either way.

rimon
May 8th, 2011, 12:58 AM
Grand Slams:
Venus: 18
Seles: 9

18>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>9

Clutching at straws. Doubles is a different category. How can one compare someone like Justine Henin and Rennae Stubbs, for example?

Leo St
May 8th, 2011, 01:08 AM
thats funny. your intention with this topic was never to know what other people think, but to impose your point of view.
its sad because its one of the first threads that i participate and i was willing to have a nice chat about this matter, because unlike the majority of this forum i find it interesting to compare players in all their aspects.
but well i came to reply your own topic and yet you managed to be disrespectful to my opinion.. at least good that i made you laugh since the purpose of this is to enjoy it with people with similar interests

justineheninfan
May 8th, 2011, 01:17 AM
So you're voting for Venus, since it "deserves" to be close despite Monica leading in every category? :help:

Also, it's not like Steffi isn't overrated or anything. It's not like she apitalised on the stabing of someone who had just beatene her in 3 slam finals. Oh wait...

Graf has nothing to do with this thread, so it is silly of you to bring her up in the first place. Plus I never mentioned Graf in my post other than indirectly nothing her as the closest example that Seles doesnt have an easy time with real power on the other side especialy on a fast court (while stating that IMO the best power hitters of the Williams era are far more powerful than Steffi was which is hardly a ringing praise).

As for Monica leading in every category, hardly. Venus has won the Worlds biggest tournament 5 times which Seles won 0 times (and even without the stabbing would have come nowhere near Venus's success there, and might still have never won it). Both have 2 U.S Open titles and 4 U.S Open finals but Venus overall has the better record there too. Venus also has the better record in Miami. Seles has the better record at the Australian, French, and WTA Championships, so of the big 6 events each has a better record at 3. Venus has the Olympic Gold in singles. Venus has far superior longevity. Venus has won many titles on all surfaces, even if she never won the Australian or French slams. Seles has only 1 grass court title ever, and it came beating Mary Joe Fernandez. And while doubles might not count anything to you, it does to some people, it all depends on a persons point of view. Oh yeah and not to mention the head to head, 9-1 Venus. :lol:

justineheninfan
May 8th, 2011, 01:21 AM
That's all very nice but that doesn't negate my point that Seles had trouble with these kind of players because of her lack of fitness and movement post-stabbing. Did Seles have any trouble with Pierce before the stabbing? Or with Huber who was considered a "power-player" in teh 90s?

Huber is a B level player at the top, a regular round of 16 kind of player in the slams on average (of course on occasion doing better and just as often doing worse). She never posted a career win over either Graf or Seles, and it was pretty obvious was never going to win a slam title anywhere, amongst any field. It is true though that people like Huber, Majoli, and Maggie Maleeva is what actually passed for a top "power player" (LOL) in the early to mid 90s which pretty much proves my point so thanks. As for Pierce, you know full well Pierce did not emerge as a top player until over a full year after the stabbing. In 1992 nobody even knew who she was other than maybe a bit because of her crazy dad.

Matt01
May 8th, 2011, 01:25 AM
Huber is a B level player at the top, a regular round of 16 kind of player on average at best. It is true that people like Huber, Majoli, and Maggie Maleeva is what actually passed for a top "power player" (LOL) in the early to mid 90s which pretty much proves my point so thanks. As for Pierce, you know full well Pierce did not emerge as a top player until over a full year after the stabbing. In 1992 nobody even knew who she was other than maybe a bit because of her crazy dad.


Everyone knew Pierce in 1992 as a young and upcoming talent. And as for the bolded part: No, it doesn't prove your point. :tape:

justineheninfan
May 8th, 2011, 01:32 AM
Everyone knew Pierce in 1992 as a young and upcoming talent. And as for the bolded part: No, it doesn't prove your point. :tape:

LOL sorry but just no. Pierce was not a known commodity in 1992. The 1993 Australian Open where she almost beat Sabatini was the first time anyone even started to talk about her a bit. Even so she still wasnt any kind of a top player until 1994. Pierce as late as the 93 U.S Open was losing 6-1, 6-0 to Steffi Graf in the round of 16 and was still ranked below such giants as the Maleeva sisters and Julie Halard. :lol:

Early 90s "power" players (other than Seles and Graf): 14 and 15 year old Capriati, 15 and 16 year old abused enfant terrible Pierce, Huber, Majoli, Maggie Maleeva, serve only Schultz McCarthy

late 90s-early 2000s "power" players: Venus, Serena, Davenport, adult Capriati, adult Pierce, young Henin, past her prime Seles

Just a bit of difference.

rimon
May 8th, 2011, 01:33 AM
thats funny. your intention with this topic was never to know what other people think, but to impose your point of view.
its sad because its one of the first threads that i participate and i was willing to have a nice chat about this matter, because unlike the majority of this forum i find it interesting to compare players in all their aspects.
but well i came to reply your own topic and yet you managed to be disrespectful to my opinion.. at least good that i made you laugh since the purpose of this is to enjoy it with people with similar interests

You said "Venus, no question", despite the fact that Monica has more weeks at number 1, 10 more titles, 2 more slams, and 3/4 slams, to Venus's 2/4.

Do you respect my opinion that Martina Hingis is greater han Venus?

justineheninfan
May 8th, 2011, 01:36 AM
You said "Venus, no question", despite the fact that Monica has more weeks at number 1, 10 more titles, 2 more slams, and 3/4 slams, to Venus's 2/4.

Do you respect my opinion that Martina Hingis is greater han Venus?

Well for starters Venus wasnt hitting 5-11 winners per match vs Seles like Hingis was reduced to in virtually every match with Venus after 1998. :tape: Actually Seles herself was often reduced to that by Venus when they played.

rimon
May 8th, 2011, 01:36 AM
Graf has nothing to do with this thread, so it is silly of you to bring her up in the first place. Plus I never mentioned Graf in my post other than indirectly nothing her as the closest example that Seles doesnt have an easy time with real power on the other side especialy on a fast court (while stating that IMO the best power hitters of the Williams era are far more powerful than Steffi was which is hardly a ringing praise).

As for Monica leading in every category, hardly. Venus has won the Worlds biggest tournament 5 times which Seles won 0 times (and even without the stabbing would have come nowhere near Venus's success there, and might still have never won it). Both have 2 U.S Open titles and 4 U.S Open finals but Venus overall has the better record there too. Venus also has the better record in Miami. Seles has the better record at the Australian, French, and WTA Championships, so of the big 6 events each has a better record at 3. Venus has the Olympic Gold in singles. Venus has far superior longevity. Venus has won many titles on all surfaces, even if she never won the Australian or French slams. Seles has only 1 grass court title ever, and it came beating Mary Joe Fernandez. And while doubles might not count anything to you, it does to some people, it all depends on a persons point of view. Oh yeah and not to mention the head to head, 9-1 Venus. :lol:

Monica has a FAR greater record at the AO and FO. Venus has a FAR greater record at W. Both have very similar records at the USO. So, Monica leads as far as slams go. YEC and Miami, yes, they negate each other, however, more players are more serious about YEC than Miami. Wimbledon is a sub-category. A slam is a slam is a slam is a slam. All top players play all slams, Wimbledon doesn't make one "greater". Is Conchita Martinez greater than Jennifer Capriati.

I know that Steffi is not the topic of this thread, but to say that Monica is overrated, and not she, is just wrong.

rimon
May 8th, 2011, 01:39 AM
Well for starters Venus wasnt hitting 5-11 winners per match vs Seles like Hingis was reduced to in virtually every match with Venus after 1998. :tape: Actually Seles herself was often reduced to that by Venus when they played.

Martina leads Venus 11-10, including 4-2 in slams. Match ups are match ups. Player A can lead player B, who leads player C, who leads player A.

Martina has several more weeks at number 1, 3/4 slams to Venus's 2, and more Tier 1 titles. She also made all slam finals in one year. Anyay, that's neither here nor there to this thread, I'll let Darrin answer that himself.

justineheninfan
May 8th, 2011, 01:41 AM
All top players play all slams, Wimbledon doesn't make one "greater". Is Conchita Martinez greater than Jennifer Capriati.

Wimbledon is the most prestigious slam, followed by the U.S Open. That is how it has always been, and even is today in this time of equality over the 4 slams more than ever. God knows as a Henin fan I have had to accept the factor of Venus's vast Wimbledon superiority into arguments I partake in between the two as well.

Conchita's Wimbledon win was the biggest fluke in the history of the Championships, a clay courter who cant even win big or beat the best players on clay winning on grass, LOL! Considering what an accident it was, and that she didnt beat any of the best players to win it (no a granny almost 40 year old Martina doesnt count) her title there is taken with a grain of salt to most. Her tier 1 titles on clay mark her respectable career more than her fluke Wimbledon triumph.

I know that Steffi is not the topic of this thread, but to say that Monica is overrated, and not she, is just wrong.

Graf is overrated too. She is considered the GOAT by many and should be rated only 4th behind Navratilova, Evert, and Court, all of whom have better overall records even apart from any stabbing talk. Court is underrated since she isnt an American and the American based tennis clique of King, Navratilova, et al dont like her and make her invisible to the public over here atleast. Evert is underrated since Martina at her scary peak in the mid 80s made her look kind of bad for awhile, and people put too much emphasis on just that. Happy now.

Matt01
May 8th, 2011, 01:45 AM
Early 90s "power" players (other than Seles and Graf): 14 and 15 year old Capriati, 15 and 16 year old abused enfant terrible Pierce, Huber, Majoli, Maggie Maleeva, serve only Schultz McCarthy

late 90s-early 2000s "power" players: Venus, Serena, Davenport, adult Capriati, adult Pierce, young Henin, past her prime Seles

Just a bit of difference.


Like I said: They are totally different eras. How pre-Seles would have fared in the 00s without is up to anyone's speculations...

justineheninfan
May 8th, 2011, 01:46 AM
Martina leads Venus 11-10, including 4-2 in slams. Match ups are match ups. Player A can lead player B, who leads player C, who leads player A.

Martina has several more weeks at number 1, 3/4 slams to Venus's 2, and more Tier 1 titles. She also made all slam finals in one year. Anyay, that's neither here nor there to this thread, I'll let Darrin answer that himself.

Fact is Martina's career fizzled out in somewhat embarassing fashion for a champion of her stature and that is how she is remembered to many. Winning 3 slams in a year at 16 and then winning your last at 18 and retiring at 21 getting owned by all the power players doesnt exactly enhance your legacy. Of course it doesnt take away that she had a fine career and is one of the top 5 players of her era, but to most Henin and Venus have both flown past her by now (mentioning Serena isnt even worthwhile as she is another orbit by now). The very minor head to head lead Hingis has in the head to head doesnt ring out strong in comparision to the memory of Venus still winning Wimbledon titles and contending for various big titles on tour a decade after her dominant 2000 summer, and the memory of the Williams all but chasing Hingis out of the game.

And if you are so sure that Seles would have continued to reign over Graf that surely brings into question Hingis's 97-98 success (where nearly all her major success came) too. After all if according to you Graf wouldnt have even been able to handle her in the coming years, what hope would Hingis have had. :lol: By that logic Venus's 7-5 lead on Hingis in slams should be something more like 7-3 or 7-2 right.

rimon
May 8th, 2011, 01:48 AM
Wimbledon is the most prestigious slam, followed by the U.S Open. That is how it has always been, and even is today in this time of equality over the 4 slams more than ever. God knows as a Henin fan I have had to accept the factor of Venus's vast Wimbledon superiority into arguments I partake in between the two as well.

Conchita's Wimbledon win was the biggest fluke in the history of the Championships, a clay courter who cant even win big or beat the best players on clay winning on grass, LOL! Considering what an accident it was, and that she didnt beat any of the best players to win it (no a granny almost 40 year old Martina doesnt count) her title there is taken with a grain of salt to most. Her tier 1 titles on clay mark her respectable career more than her fluke Wimbledon triumph.



Graf is overrated too. She is considered the GOAT by many and should be rated only 4th behind Navratilova, Evert, and Court, all of whom have better overall records even apart from any stabbing talk. Court is underrated since she isnt an American and the American based tennis clique of King, Navratilova, et al dont like her and make her invisible to the public over here atleast. Evert is underrated since Martina at her scary peak in the mid 80s made her look kind of bad for awhile, and people put too much emphasis on just that. Happy now.

More prestigious, yes. Does it make one greater though? No, at least not in my opinion. How can it make one greater, when they face he exact same competition as those who win the other slams? It's not really fair. Justine herself said that she wanted to win FO by far the most. People make a big deal of her coming back to win W. The thing is though, yes she did come back to win W, but it was about completing the career slam, not W itself.

I couldn't agree more on the second part, particularly about Court. It's disgraceful the way that Navratilova, King and Evert have tried to dismiss her. I think that they're jealous, particularly King, who was always overshadowed by Court. Didn't Navratilova say that Court was her role-model, too?

justineheninfan
May 8th, 2011, 01:49 AM
Navratilova is down on Court since Court is homophobic and made some comments that hurt her, especialy at one point saying she wasnt a good role model due to her sexuality (which in truth of course was quite nasty on Court's part). King is down on her since she didnt contribute much to King's gender equality pursuit, due to the homophobia issue as well, and probably somewhat due to jealousy of playing second fiddle to Court in their era. And of course most of the rest of the U.S based greats, major or minor (eg- Shriver, Austin, and Carillo), are friendly with them and follow their lead.

rimon
May 8th, 2011, 01:53 AM
Fact is Martina's career fizzled out in somewhat embarassing fashion for a champion of her stature and that is how she is remembered to many. Winning 3 slams in a year at 16 and then winning your last at 18 and retiring at 21 getting owned by all the power players doesnt exactly enhance your legacy. Of course it doesnt take away that she had a fine career and is one of the top 5 players of her era, but to most Henin and Venus have both flown past her by now (mentioning Serena isnt even worthwhile as she is another orbit by now). The very minor head to head lead Hingis has in the head to head doesnt ring out strong in comparision to the memory of Venus still winning Wimbledon titles and contending for various big titles on tour a decade after her dominant 2000 summer, and the memory of the Williams all but chasing Hingis out of the game.

And if you are so sure that Seles would have continued to reign over Graf that surely brings into question Hingis's 97-98 success (where nearly all her major success came) too. After all if according to you Graf wouldnt have even been able to handle her in the coming years, what hope would Hingis have had. :lol: By that logic Venus's 7-5 lead on Hingis in slams should be something more like 7-3 or 7-2 right.

I won't cop that about the WS chasing Martina out of the game. Martina led Venus 11-10, and trailed Serena 6-7. So overall they were equal. Also, Martina won 4/6 of their slam matches, 3 easily. Venus's 2 wins were very tough and competitive matches, even at her peak at W, it took a 6-4 third set to get Venus over the line. I don't care when one wins their slams, the fact is that Martina has 5, and Venus 7. Martina has 3/4, Venus 2/4. If Venus is better for having 2 more slams than Martina, then the same must be true about Monica's 9 to Venus's 7. Otherwise, there is no credinility in the argument.

The second part is purely hypothetical, we cannot judge that. The fact is that Steffi has 22 slams, and Monica 9. My point was merely that IMO, Steffi is overrated.

rimon
May 8th, 2011, 01:57 AM
Navratilova is down on Court since Court is homophobic and made some comments that hurt her, especialy at one point saying she wasnt a good role model due to her sexuality (which in truth of course was quite nasty on Court's part). King is down on her since she didnt contribute much to King's gender equality pursuit, due to the homophobia issue as well, and probably somewhat due to jealousy of playing second fiddle to Court in their era. And of course most of the rest of the U.S based greats, major or minor (eg- Shriver, Austin, and Carillo), are friendly with them and follow their lead.

Well, Margaret is entitled to her views and beliefs, and has the right to express them. It is no way, shape or form diminishes her achievements. I don't think that she's nasty, she just doesn't agree with homosexuality. King is jealous, Margaret completely overshadowed her. Why Evert though? What would she have against Margaret? As I said,this has nothing to do with achievements, but I know I respect more of the two. The one who married years ago and is still married to the same man, not the ones is three times divorced, and had an afair with a married man.

Leo St
May 8th, 2011, 02:10 AM
man, of course i respect your opinion.. thats why im posting here, because im mature enough to handle opinions that are diferent than my own.
about venus and martina, first i must say that the title being GREATER implies a strong subjective concept that depends on the person who analyses it.. FOR ME venus williams followed by her sister (which im not even a fan) turned the format of game played in womens tennis. it was great before that (not for me but i agree its a common fact everyone enjoyed it) but i see this being the evolution of women in sports, playing more similar to the men's style and therefore captivating new audience and being able to stay alive.
therefore, i think of her as goat because she was able to captivate my attention to the sport changing the way it was played.. its a very personal aproach to the matter i know.
and i also know that if your great means tennis achievements monica seles achieved more in her career (wimbledon value can be discussed to point the oposite) but of course, diferent eras, diferent chalenges.. no one will have this kind of success graffi and seles had before... tennis is much more competitive now. why? BECAUSE SHE STEPPED UP THE GAME! haha

justineheninfan
May 8th, 2011, 02:15 AM
]I won't cop that about the WS chasing Martina out of the game. Martina led Venus 11-10, and trailed Serena 6-7.

The point is the way the tide was turning just before Hingis's first retirement. Hingis lost nearly every match against Venus from 2000 onwards, I think posting only one win from 2000-2002, and Hingis began getting destroyed badly by Serena in late 2001-2002 (6-3, 6-2 and 6-4, 6-0 in 2 of their final 3 matches, the other a 3 set loss) after already beginning to lose frequently back in 1999. Hingis got off to a strong start in both rivalries which explains the respectable head to head but both Williams were surging and getting better while Hingis was stagnating by the time the early 2000s came around. By 2001 and 2002 she was regularly losing to Venus, Serena, Capriati, Davenport, and even often to Pierce and Mauresmo. She started having problems with a couple of that group then it just snowballed.

It is interesting we end up discussing both Seles and Hingis in this thread as IMO it turned out their problem was mutual. Both had troubling keeping up with the huge surge of the power game which was led first and foremost by someone like Venus.

If Venus is better for having 2 more slams than Martina, then the same must be true about Monica's 9 to Venus's 7. Otherwise, there is no credinility in the argument.

Actually I think the point that is being made by many is that 2 more slams alone isnt a total dealbreaker and hence one could argue Venus against Seles and also Hingis against Venus or Henin if one wanted to. Of course arguing Hingis against Seles for example would be almost impossible with the almost doubled slam count, even with Hingis's 15-5 head to head. With that said I think Venus in many ways is superior to both since I think her best tennis would beat the other twos best on any medium to fast court. When Venus played Monica or Martina the match was on her racquet and would be determined by how consistent she played that day. They were at the mercy of how many unforced errors she made, virtually nothing else went into the final outcome but that. I have seen enough of their matches to know this for sure, and I am far from a Venus fan. Heck even when she played both on clay this was true, and that despite that Venus is overall a weaker clay courter. Of course you could argue Monica was past her prime (which she was) but Martina much less so, and even if she was she had no real excuse to be so young. Her longevity as a top player also far eclipses both, even through all the ups and downs of her career.

Leo St
May 8th, 2011, 02:26 AM
justinehenin and rimon you guys have some good points of view, i wish we could sit at a bar and discuss this drinking beers, all my friends hate tennis hehe. where are you from in canada? i lived in montreal for a year :)

justineheninfan
May 8th, 2011, 02:28 AM
I am from Ottawa. I am moving to Montreal soon though. I like to travel to the Canadian Open tournaments for men and women in Toronto and Montreal anually.

Leo St
May 8th, 2011, 02:35 AM
ive been in ottawa and saw some kind of flower festival. it is a beautiful clean city. about the tournaments, everyone here is so lucky that they can see their idols live. ill probably never see venus (time is running out) and also never saw henin.
oh and since im new here, how do people from the forum stay in touch? because im guessing its also a nice way to make friends around the globe

Bonfire
May 8th, 2011, 04:34 AM
My first instinctual answer was Monica...so I voted for her.

KBlade
May 8th, 2011, 07:00 AM
Monica is the greater singles player, Venus is the greater tennis player.

Pops Maellard
May 8th, 2011, 10:09 AM
Monica Seles. :shrug:

Safe-From-Harm
May 8th, 2011, 10:24 AM
Monica Seles, of course.

petkoan
May 8th, 2011, 10:46 AM
Fact is Martina's career fizzled out in somewhat embarassing fashion for a champion of her stature and that is how she is remembered to many. Winning 3 slams in a year at 16 and then winning your last at 18 and retiring at 21 getting owned by all the power players doesnt exactly enhance your legacy. Of course it doesnt take away that she had a fine career and is one of the top 5 players of her era, but to most Henin and Venus have both flown past her by now (mentioning Serena isnt even worthwhile as she is another orbit by now). The very minor head to head lead Hingis has in the head to head doesnt ring out strong in comparision to the memory of Venus still winning Wimbledon titles and contending for various big titles on tour a decade after her dominant 2000 summer, and the memory of the Williams all but chasing Hingis out of the game.

And if you are so sure that Seles would have continued to reign over Graf that surely brings into question Hingis's 97-98 success (where nearly all her major success came) too. After all if according to you Graf wouldnt have even been able to handle her in the coming years, what hope would Hingis have had. :lol: By that logic Venus's 7-5 lead on Hingis in slams should be something more like 7-3 or 7-2 right.

You know you are talking about a player who came just one match short of the Grand Slam, right? Two years later she was two points away from completing a career Grand Slam. That says something, really.

BartoliBabes
May 8th, 2011, 11:46 AM
Monica.

Joe.
May 8th, 2011, 11:49 AM
No one will ever know how many more grand slams Seles would've won if it were not for 'the incident'. So this thread is pointless. The Williams fans will never accept that anyone is better than their player so there is simply no point.

L'Enfant Sauvage
May 8th, 2011, 12:00 PM
No one will ever know how many more grand slams Seles would've won if it were not for 'the incident'. So this thread is pointless. The Williams fans will never accept that anyone is better than their player so there is simply no point.

Uhm...? Most of us openly voted for Monica :confused:

hingis-seles
May 8th, 2011, 12:19 PM
What I like about Venus and Monica is the one thing they both share: She was ahead of her time and it was scary how insanely good she was.

Venus idolised Monica when she was growing up, so it makes sense that she ended up being the superior tennis player. You also have to factor in the progression of tennis players. Monica herself was a better tennis player than Graf who was better than Navratilova, etc. And so Venus > Seles as far as being a tennis player.

But in terms of accomplishments, new isn't necessarily better and that's where Monica is greater than Venus.

Juju Nostalgique
May 8th, 2011, 12:52 PM
I voted for Monica because I was inspired to follow tennis after seeing her playing in 1989. She was so young and so determined that you couldn't help but love her! :smooch:

Also her accomplishments are IMHO better than those of Venus. :yeah: No Wimbledon title though... :sobbing:

OTOH I think that Venus is one of the same league. Not only for her GS titles but also because she played a great role inspiring young people from poor areas. Kudos for that! :bowdown: :yeah:

Betten
May 8th, 2011, 01:49 PM
I like Venus, but achievement-wise Seles is better.

Both could and should have done so much more than they did though.

pierce85
May 8th, 2011, 02:40 PM
fighting for gender equality? lolol Monica saved a puppy from drowning once, please put this into the list

spencercarlos
May 8th, 2011, 04:44 PM
fighting for gender equality? lolol Monica saved a puppy from drowning once, please put this into the list
:lol: Indeed.


Is this really a question? Even Serena with all 4 slams and stuck with 9 same as Seles was slightly on dissadvantage on the stats against Monica.
People also forget that Monica won 3 slams + YEC in the same year twice, her domination peak period was greater than even Serena as well.

Venus has no business in this poll and in a singles comparisson vs Monica IMO.

LDVTennis
May 8th, 2011, 05:38 PM
Monica herself was a better tennis player than Graf who was better than Navratilova, etc.

Monica WAS NOT a better tennis player than Graf.

She had trouble volleying. Never saw her hit a high backhand volley or a high backhand overhead.

She couldn't do much with low balls. The two-hands on both sides were an impediment.

Her service motion was not bio-mechanically sound, hence the torn labrum.

She had trouble with any shot that required her to move forward and hit.

She was limited as an athlete and tennis player.

justineheninfan
May 8th, 2011, 07:13 PM
You also have to factor in the progression of tennis players. Monica herself was a better tennis player than Graf who was better than Navratilova, etc. And so Venus > Seles as far as being a tennis player.


You see that is where I dont totally agree. I dont neccessarily agree tennis always involves and the newer player is always "better" in the sense of the natural progression of the game. Graf in 1987 lost only 2 matches all year, and still got spanked by a 30 year old Navratilova in the Wimbledon and U.S Open finals so I dont see how she was raising the level from a prime Martina. 15 year old Seles lost 6-2, 6-0 to a 34 year old Chris Evert at the U.S Open, another example. Seles never lost 2 matches a year like Graf at her peak was, and she was facing the same field, so I dont see her raising the level from where Graf had been at her best either.

Most of all though consider this. Are Wozniacki and the rest currently playing at a higher level than the William sisters in 2000-2003 or Henin from 2003-2007? After all with the naturally progression of equipment and the game as you put it shouldnt they be. Yet they are not even close.

new-york
May 8th, 2011, 07:25 PM
No one will ever know how many more grand slams Seles would've won if it were not for 'the incident'. So this thread is pointless. The Williams fans will never accept that anyone is better than their player so there is simply no point.

:facepalm:.

Most of us voted Moni.

hingis-seles
May 8th, 2011, 07:27 PM
Monica WAS NOT a better tennis player than Graf.

She had trouble volleying. Never saw her hit a high backhand volley or a high backhand overhead.

She couldn't do much with low balls. The two-hands on both sides were an impediment.

Her service motion was not bio-mechanically sound, hence the torn labrum.

She had trouble with any shot that required her to move forward and hit.

She was limited as an athlete and tennis player.

You see that is where I dont totally agree. I dont neccessarily agree tennis always involves and the newer player is always "better" in the sense of the natural progression of the game. Graf in 1987 lost only 2 matches all year, and still got spanked by a 30 year old Navratilova in the Wimbledon and U.S Open finals so I dont see how she was raising the level from a prime Martina. 15 year old Seles lost 6-2, 6-0 to a 34 year old Chris Evert at the U.S Open, another example. Seles never lost 2 matches a year like Graf at her peak was, and she was facing the same field, so I dont see her raising the level from where Graf had been at her best either.

Most of all though consider this. Are Wozniacki and the rest currently playing at a higher level than the William sisters in 2000-2003 or Henin from 2003-2007? After all with the naturally progression of equipment and the game as you put it shouldnt they be. Yet they are not even close.

The development of the game retarded with the decline and retirement of Henin and Mauresmo.

Steffi was the first "power" player to have such a high level of success. Seles took it to another level by hitting equally hard off both sides and taking the ball on the rise, robbing her opponents off time. Hingis raised the bar further by forcing the power babes to "clean up" their games, i.e: sustained aggression combined with superior athleticism and big serving. The Williams Sisters answered the challenge posed by Hingis with their powerful groundstrokes, big serves and superior athleticism. This proved to be unsustainable as their bodies fell apart. Henin & Mauresmo showed a mixture of variety and ability to cope with power could go a long way in solving that equation (although this is arguable since they never had strong results during the Williams era, except for Henin's lone RG title in '03). But what we see today is a result of players' bodies falling apart in trying to keep up in the arms race for greater power hitting. Women's tennis essentially began a slow and painful death with the injuries to Venus and Serena - this is as far as female athletes could go. What we see now is a mess. The game stopped evolving at that point. It's been rubbish for the most of 2008 onwards.

Regarding my original point, as players evolve they get better. Venus less accomplished but a better player than Monica who was less accomplished but a better player than Steffi who was less accomplished but a better player than Martina Navratilova, etc.

new-york
May 8th, 2011, 07:28 PM
:lol: Indeed.


Is this really a question? Even Serena with all 4 slams and stuck with 9 same as Seles was slightly on dissadvantage on the stats against Monica.
People also forget that Monica won 3 slams + YEC in the same year twice, her domination peak period was greater than even Serena as well.

Venus has no business in this poll and in a singles comparisson vs Monica IMO.

No.

But well done on using the opening.

Slutiana
May 8th, 2011, 07:45 PM
The development of the game retarded with the decline and retirement of Henin and Mauresmo.

Steffi was the first "power" player to have such a high level of success. Seles took it to another level by hitting equally hard off both sides and taking the ball on the rise, robbing her opponents off time. Hingis raised the bar further by forcing the power babes to "clean up" their games, i.e: sustained aggression combined with superior athleticism and big serving. The Williams Sisters answered the challenge posed by Hingis with their powerful groundstrokes, big serves and superior athleticism. This proved to be unsustainable as their bodies fell apart. Henin & Mauresmo showed a mixture of variety and ability to cope with power could go a long way in solving that equation (although this is arguable since they never had strong results during the Williams era, except for Henin's lone RG title in '03). But what we see today is a result of players' bodies falling apart in trying to keep up in the arms race for greater power hitting. Women's tennis essentially began a slow and painful death with the injuries to Venus and Serena - this is as far as female athletes could go. What we see now is a mess. The game stopped evolving at that point. It's been rubbish for the most of 2008 onwards.

Regarding my original point, as players evolve they get better. Venus less accomplished but a better player than Monica who was less accomplished but a better player than Steffi who was less accomplished but a better player than Martina Navratilova, etc.
Completely agreed. Though regarding Henin/Mauresmo, I'd say that they found a way to pick the Williams sisters off when they weren't playing well, because before that it got to the point they trashed the field even when below par. And yes, Venus and Serena will always be the peak/epitome of the mix between tennis ability and athleticism in women's tennis.

That said, I don't think that Women's tennis is "dying". I think it will take time for tennis players' bodies to adjust to this new physical game, but it will eventually happen. And this generation is just exceptionally talentless compared with others. Zero athletes.

homogenius
May 8th, 2011, 08:01 PM
9-1 H2H?(:help:) Olympic golds? Doubles achievements? Prize money? Slam finals? Fighting for gender equality? Winning the most prestigious tournament where tennis began 5 times?

I'm not making a conclusion by any means, just pointing out that you simply can't pick all the statistics that Monica is ahead in for convenience's sake - especially when the stats you posted are actually quite close. :wavey:

:help:

You forgot "wearing psychedelic/slutty outfits and being Serena's sister" (yes that count as achievements too):rolleyes:

Seriously : Monica

justineheninfan
May 8th, 2011, 08:09 PM
Completely agreed. Though regarding Henin/Mauresmo, I'd say that they found a way to pick the Williams sisters off when they weren't playing well, because before that it got to the point they trashed the field even when below par.

Except on clay. Henin was always superior to the Williams sisters on clay, even when they were at their peaks and she wasnt.

LDVTennis
May 8th, 2011, 08:44 PM
Seles took it to another level by hitting equally hard off both sides and taking the ball on the rise, robbing her opponents off time. Hingis raised the bar further by forcing the power babes to "clean up" their games, i.e: sustained aggression combined with superior athleticism and big serving.

Regarding my original point, as players evolve they get better. Venus less accomplished but a better player than Monica who was less accomplished but a better player than Steffi who was less accomplished but a better player than Martina Navratilova, etc.

First of all, Seles did not hit the ball hard on every shot. That is a myth.

Seles had great timing on the ball, but she did not possess natural power. Some of her power came from her oversized racquet with its enhanced stiffness and larger sweet spot. The larger sweet spot was almost a necessity given her limited reach with two hands. She was able to take the ball early in large part because of the playing characteristics of her racquet.

There is evidence of Seles' using moonballs as late as 1992. For someone that apparently took the game "to another level," that would be quite retrograde. I can cite the youtube clips if you doubt this fact.

For someone who took power "to another level," Seles somehow never managed to win Wimbledon, a surface that rewards power.

As for Hingis, she has a losing record to Steffi Graf, even during Hingis' time at No. 1. So much for her taking the game to another level.

Where exactly is your proof that as players evolve they get better? The myth of progress is just that, a myth.

justineheninfan
May 8th, 2011, 09:58 PM
I feel the same way. While I respect Hingis-Seles's viewpoint and in theory she makes some good points I still dont see it.

Graf had lots of trouble with Navratilova even in Martina's advanced age. Their final head to head is 9-9. How does that happen if she is raising the level clearly above Martina's peak years play.

Seles never reached the same level of dominance Graf had in the late 80s, despite playing the same field of women. She did not win a Grand Slam, she did not even win a Wimbledon, she lost many more matches, many more sets in slams, got destroyed several times including by Graf herself twice and in a slam final which never happened to late 80s or 95-96 Graf, and lost matches to everyone in the top 6 which again never happend to late 80s or 95-96 Graf. So even if she surpassed Graf in 91 and 92 itself, she did not surpass Graf's previous best level of play.

Navratilova and Evert won a good share of their matches with the much younger Seles despite being even older and more past their primes then when playing Graf.

Hingis had her way with Seles when she was 200 pounds and moving like a slug due to the illness of her father and the general laziness and poor eating addictions she picked up as an adult, but Hingis lost most of her matches even to granny Graf. In late 98-99 Graf way past her prime beat peak Hingis in 2 of their 3 encounters.

I fail to see any evidence of how the next great was raising the level in each case.

hingis-seles
May 8th, 2011, 11:11 PM
First of all, Seles did not hit the ball hard on every shot. That is a myth.

Seles had great timing on the ball, but she did not possess natural power. Some of her power came from her oversized racquet with its enhanced stiffness and larger sweet spot. The larger sweet spot was almost a necessity given her limited reach with two hands. She was able to take the ball early in large part because of the playing characteristics of her racquet.

There is evidence of Seles' using moonballs as late as 1992. For someone that apparently took the game "to another level," that would be quite retrograde. I can cite the youtube clips if you doubt this fact.

For someone who took power "to another level," Seles somehow never managed to win Wimbledon, a surface that rewards power.

As for Hingis, she has a losing record to Steffi Graf, even during Hingis' time at No. 1. So much for her taking the game to another level.

Where exactly is your proof that as players evolve they get better? The myth of progress is just that, a myth.

That's what seperates Seles from today's power players. She was a shrewd tactician and had uncanny anticipation. Yes, she did throw in moonballs to get herself back into position and when in rallies with Steffi's backhand. Serena is a power player but doesn't bash the ball every single shot either - do we not call her a power player?

Seles took the game to another level with her aggression from the baseline (which she and Steffi were the first to introduce, versus the traditional aggression coming from a serve-and-volleyer). In addition, Seles hit equally hard off both sides. There was no weak side to go to. She had the best return of serve in the women's game and was the first to attack the serve so ruthlessly. Serena, Venus, Ivanovic, Jankovic, Sharapova all have a Seles influence in them and idolised her growing up. Unfortunately, they did not pick up on her accuracy and mental toughness.

As I mentioned earlier, it was the Seles game which was viewed as the next way forward for the women's game seeing the legion of top players she inspired. How Hingis figures into this equation is how her game was designed to pick apart Seles - the model for the next player. This worked initially too, as Hingis won her Slams taking apart obese and slow power hitters (Seles, Davenport, Pierce) and erratic power players (Venus, Serena, Pierce). They realized they needed to be fit, reduce errors and maintain sustained aggression against her if they were to stand a chance.

Venus, Serena and Lindsay managed to do so. However, it was Venus and Serena who took the game to yet another level by using Seles' power game and incorporating big serving and athleticism (which were the missing ingredients in the Seles game) into the equation.

I feel the same way. While I respect Hingis-Seles's viewpoint and in theory he ;) makes some good points I still dont see it.

Graf had lots of trouble with Navratilova even in Martina's advanced age. Their final head to head is 9-9. How does that happen if she is raising the level clearly above Martina's peak years play.

Seles never reached the same level of dominance Graf had in the late 80s, despite playing the same field of women. She did not win a Grand Slam, she did not even win a Wimbledon, she lost many more matches, many more sets in slams, got destroyed several times including by Graf herself twice and in a slam final which never happened to late 80s or 95-96 Graf, and lost matches to everyone in the top 6 which again never happend to late 80s or 95-96 Graf. So even if she surpassed Graf in 91 and 92 itself, she did not surpass Graf's previous best level of play.

Navratilova and Evert won a good share of their matches with the much younger Seles despite being even older and more past their primes then when playing Graf.

Hingis had her way with Seles when she was 200 pounds and moving like a slug due to the illness of her father and the general laziness and poor eating addictions she picked up as an adult, but Hingis lost most of her matches even to granny Graf. In late 98-99 Graf way past her prime beat peak Hingis in 2 of their 3 encounters.

I fail to see any evidence of how the next great was raising the level in each case.

In addition to what I explained in the post above, I'd just like to add regarding the even/favourable head-to-heads for the older opponent that one might consider inexperience as a factor in why those head-to-head records are the way they are. For example, Martina may have won a number of her matches against Steffi before Steffi developed into a great player (I am unsure as I haven't reviewed the detailed head-to-head record). Monica and Chris ended 1-1 and both matches were when Seles was on her first year on Tour and before she won a Slam. One can only speculate how an even older Chris would have fared against an ever-improving, Slam-winning Monica. Hingis owned morbidly obese Seles but would have always been a tough proposition simply because of how their games matched up. Steffi and Martina only played 3 matches after Hingis reached the summit of women's tennis. All matches were three-sets and Steffi led the head-to-head for that period 2-1. That's close enough and we all know how RG 1999 played out and how the Hingis game was designed to counter the Seles attack (discussed above and just a theory on my part).

justineheninfan
May 9th, 2011, 03:04 AM
The way you break it down makes sense, but as far as making the game better there are still too many holes that I pointed out for me to totally buy into it. And 30 year old Navratilova was still beating Graf in 1987 when Graf lost only 2 matches that year and won her first slam title and reached #1, so I dont think that was before Graf became a great champion. IMO it is as much about each player adding something new to the game or something different, as opposed to automatically taking it to a higher level. I dont believe each player successfully did that. Only the Williams sisters for awhile conclusively took the game to a higher level than their predecessors at #1. I am uncertain that Graf took the game to a higher level than Navratilova, Seles than Graf, or Hingis than Graf and Seles. I am equally unsure Henin took the game to a higher than the Williams on anything but clay, and am certain than the array of #1s since have not taken the game to a higher level than the Williams and Henin, or even close to it.

Whitehead's Boy
May 9th, 2011, 03:09 AM
If we look at the global picture of the last 30 years, it's hard to entirely deny the "players taking the game to a new level" theory, but at the same time the main factor to explain the progression is technology and not so much due to the previous generation. Take any player out of the picture and I don't think the overall trend would be different.

I mean, for example, it's a no-brainer that players need to be fit and reduce errors, so it's not like the WTA needed Hingis for players to progress. And I think Hingis played the way she did simply because it was her game, not because it was the answer to Seles' game.

Re: the debate. Venus played so many awful matches over the years that we have to ask ourselves if you really can be called one of the greats if you can't sustain your level of play over the years. In my mind there is no doubt that all her ugly matches over the years have seriously tarnished her legacy.

Having said that, assuming they are both playing decent tennis, I think Venus would win a majority of her matches against Seles.

rimon
May 9th, 2011, 05:07 AM
justinehenin and rimon you guys have some good points of view, i wish we could sit at a bar and discuss this drinking beers, all my friends hate tennis hehe. where are you from in canada? i lived in montreal for a year :)

I appreciate and find your views interesting too. :) I wish that we could too, but I am on the other side of the world. :sad: I totally empathise with your situation, none of my friends or family has any interest in tennis.

rimon
May 9th, 2011, 05:14 AM
Except on clay. Henin was always superior to the Williams sisters on clay, even when they were at their peaks and she wasnt.

Justine is also superior to Venus on hard courts.

justineheninfan
May 9th, 2011, 06:11 AM
Justine is also superior to Venus on hard courts.

Career wise possibly but Venus at her best would win on hard courts. I cant see even 2007 Justine beating the 2000 and 2001 summer versions of Venus on hard courts more than once in awhile. Venus's problem is that she didnt have a long peak, and her game is high risk so even in her best years she often doesnt play her best unlike players like Seles and Henin. That along with her relative struggles on clay and even rebound ace.

Betten
May 9th, 2011, 06:12 AM
I mean, for example, it's a no-brainer that players need to be fit and reduce errors, so it's not like the WTA needed Hingis for players to progress. And I think Hingis played the way she did simply because it was her game, not because it was the answer to Seles' game.

I think I once heard that her mother prepared Hingis to play in a way that could counter Seles's game in particular, because she was the top player at the time (Hingis won her first junior slam title at the French Open in 1992, when she was only 12 years old).

KBlade
May 9th, 2011, 06:12 AM
Justine is also superior to Venus on hard courts.

I'm not sure I would believe this. Peak Justine still had issues dealing with 07' Venus at the US Open even if she did win in straight sets. I'm sure prime Venus would have more than enough game to take it to Justine. Ditto for peak Justine vs peak Serena on clay.

justineheninfan
May 9th, 2011, 06:17 AM
I'm not sure I would believe this. Peak Justine still had issues dealing with 07' Venus at the US Open even if she did win in straight sets. I'm sure prime Venus would have more than enough game to take it to Justine. Ditto for peak Justine vs peak Serena on clay.

Venus playing her very best would pretty much always beat Justine on hard courts, no matter how well Justine played. Justine has played her best on hard courts many more times in her career and much more consistently over a number of years than Venus has though. So it depends how you define better. I dont think it is similar to Justine vs Serena on clay since there is no doubt Justine is superior on clay to anyone of her era. On hard courts there are a whole bunch of women very close after Serena- Venus, Davenport, Henin, Clijsters, Sharapova, maybe even Capriati. Some with higher peak levels, some with better consistency, some with better achievements. Venus is the kind of player who rates much better through peak level of play and longevity than she does consistent results. At her best there are few women in history who can beat her on most surfaces, yet she is only a 7 slam winner (I say only relative to her talent level that is, of course that is still incredible).

KBlade
May 9th, 2011, 06:23 AM
Venus playing her very best would pretty much always beat Justine on hard courts, no matter how well Justine played. Justine has played her best on hard courts many more times in her career and much more consistently over a number of years than Venus has though. So it depends how you define better. I dont think it is similar to Justine vs Serena on clay since there is no doubt Justine is superior on clay to anyone of her era. On hard courts there are a whole bunch of women very close after Serena- Venus, Davenport, Henin, Clijsters, Sharapova, maybe even Capriati. Some with higher peak levels, some with better consistency, some with better achievements. Venus is the kind of player who rates much better through peak level of play and longevity than she does consistent results. At her best there are few women in history who can beat her on most surfaces, yet she is only a 7 slam winner (I say only relative to her talent level that is, of course that is still incredible).

I completely agree with this. That is all I have to say.

LDVTennis
May 9th, 2011, 06:10 PM
Seles took the game to another level with her aggression from the baseline (which she and Steffi were the first to introduce, versus the traditional aggression coming from a serve-and-volleyer). In addition, Seles hit equally hard off both sides. There was no weak side to go to. She had the best return of serve in the women's game and was the first to attack the serve so ruthlessly. Serena, Venus, Ivanovic, Jankovic, Sharapova all have a Seles influence in them and idolised her growing up. Unfortunately, they did not pick up on her accuracy and mental toughness.

As I mentioned earlier, it was the Seles game which was viewed as the next way forward for the women's game seeing the legion of top players she inspired. How Hingis figures into this equation is how her game was designed to pick apart Seles - the model for the next player. This worked initially too, as Hingis won her Slams taking apart obese and slow power hitters (Seles, Davenport, Pierce) and erratic power players (Venus, Serena, Pierce). They realized they needed to be fit, reduce errors and maintain sustained aggression against her if they were to stand a chance.

Venus, Serena and Lindsay managed to do so. However, it was Venus and Serena who took the game to yet another level by using Seles' power game and incorporating big serving and athleticism (which were the missing ingredients in the Seles game) into the equation.

Seles' game took the path of least resistance. It is no surprise then that the players who may have modeled their game after hers have led the game to an evolutionary dead end, all the ball-bashing.

It was always harder to play like Graf. That is why only the men play that way today. They have been playing that way ever since Ivan Lendl, though Courier is really the first to run around his backhand more of the time than not.

Seles never had the athleticism to play either like Graf, Hana, Martina, or even Evert. So, with the assistance of her oversized racquet, she developed a game that was a prototype for the big babe tennis of the early 2000's. Seen in hindsight, there is really nothing that original about it. Minus the two hands, everyone plays like that today. Given what big babe tennis has done to destroy the women's game, I don't see what there is to celebrate in Monica's influence. (You can include the grunting in that.)

As for Hingis, she learned tennis under the tutelage of her mother. Her mother learned her tennis in the old Czech system, that brought us Martina N., Hana, and Sukova. If Hingis's variety was influenced by anybody, it was by the Czech emphasis on racquet work, and not any plan to counter Seles' game. In many ways, Hingis plays like Hana, without the natural racquet speed and the beautiful one-handed backhand.

Too bad, because Hingis really needed that natural power to counter Graf, something she never effectively did, something Hana never did either for that matter.

As for Hingis' dominating record versus Monica, it is just a coincidence. It was not by design.