PDA

View Full Version : Evert: puts Serena with Graf and Navratilova


Pages : [1] 2

Vlover
Aug 24th, 2011, 09:07 PM
Obviously not only Serena fans think this way!:lol: Lets see how the Serena haters handle this especially the Steffi worshipers who think women's tennis is non existent since Steffi retired.:help:
Chris Evert calls Serena Williams the favorite to win the U.S. Open and also says the 13-time Grand Slam champion's career can be placed alongside those of 22-time Grand Slam winner Steffi Graf and 18-time Grand Slam winner Martina Navratilova.

"We saw her at Wimbledon, and I think even though she lost a close match to [Marion] Bartoli, Bartoli played out of her head," said Evert in an ESPN conference call. "I think that exceeded people's expectations, that Serena would do that well at Wimbledon after being out for a year and all her health issues. She committed herself. She practiced. She's won two tournaments. That's unbelievable. Not to undermine the rest of the field, but it just shows that she's head and shoulders above anybody else, again, when she's healthy.

"I'd put her right up there [as the greatest of all time] with Martina and Steffi. She's the best comeback player we've ever seen. If you look at the last 10 years, she's been out, she comes back. Even when she hasn't been in shape, she can still win a Grand Slam. She is an incredible athlete. She's got the power. She's got the speed. She's got the mental toughness. There isn't a chi-nk in the armor there at all. Her health is her own worst enemy. Her health is her rival or competitor."


http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/ticker.aspx?articleid=13833&zoneid=6

HRHoliviasmith
Aug 24th, 2011, 09:09 PM
::subsrcibes::

darrinbaker00
Aug 24th, 2011, 09:10 PM
Obviously not only Serena fans think this way!:lol: Lets see how the Serena haters handle this especially the Steffi worshipers who think women's tennis is non existent since Steffi retired.:help:

I would like to see how the Serena "fans" who hammered Chrissie for her "open letter" to Serena handle this.

edificio
Aug 24th, 2011, 09:12 PM
Well, I was just looking at this ranking graph (http://www.wta96.com/wiki/images2/e/e0/yeSerena_Williams.jpg) for Serena, and it is interesting because it shows an incredible drive to get to the top of the game over and over again. She is a tough and determined woman. One should never count her out. I think Chris has it right here.

edificio
Aug 24th, 2011, 09:12 PM
I would like to see how the Serena "fans" who hammered Chrissie for her "open letter" to Serena handle this.

What is the relevance? :confused:

Nicolás89
Aug 24th, 2011, 09:15 PM
Modest Chrissie. :oh:

In The Zone
Aug 24th, 2011, 09:17 PM
What is the relevance? :confused:

People tore Evert apart for being criticizing Serena (yet, the letter was incredibly complimentary) and now Evert is rejoicing in Serena's success (paralleling the letter - which people took incorrectly).

I doubt the open letter even hurt Serena, it only motivated her. If you read her "autobiography", she acknowledged she wanted nothing to do with tennis and then rekindled her fire overnight.

LeRoy.
Aug 24th, 2011, 09:19 PM
Did she forget to mention herself and Seles ?

Serena is up there with Seles, Evert, Navratilova and Graf.

brickhousesupporter
Aug 24th, 2011, 09:22 PM
I may not go as far as Chrissie, but i will say she certainly is one of the best to have ever played the game.

DOUBLEFIST
Aug 24th, 2011, 09:25 PM
I would like to see how the Serena "fans" who hammered Chrissie for her "open letter" to Serena handle this.

Very few people are wrong ALL the time, Darrin. You know, the ol' "Even a broken clock..." adage. ;)

In addition, many of us who criticized her open letter were criticizing her for just that - THE OPEN LETTER - and the manner in which her opinion was offered, not her perspective on the history of the game and where players fit among it. That's an entirely different subject.

Anybody here who thinks Evert isn't in a better position then they to historically assess Serena's place in the game and how she stacks up against Nav' and Graf is an utter fool. A FOOL.

Further, nobody back then took issue when Chris, even in a letter that was unnecessarily made public, declared THEN that Serena not only was among the greatest of all time but COULD end up being the greatest. Serena fans didn't cherry pick on that one. We all saw that Chris credited Serena's greatness.

Apparently what you failed to understand then and seem to continued to do so now is it was the the MANNER in which she did it that MOST of us had a problem with.

edificio
Aug 24th, 2011, 09:26 PM
People tore Evert apart for being criticizing Serena (yet, the letter was incredibly complimentary) and now Evert is rejoicing in Serena's success (paralleling the letter - which people took incorrectly).

I doubt the open letter even hurt Serena, it only motivated her. If you read her "autobiography", she acknowledged she wanted nothing to do with tennis and then rekindled her fire overnight.

You seem as though you are keeping charts of all the disagreements and points made.:rolleyes: [I'm sorry. Not you, In the Zone. DarrinBaker00.]

In any case, people can be wrong on some points and right on others. That is human. :shrug:

Frankly, the points Evert made in her letter to Serena were about things she values and not necessarily things that Serena values. Therefore, the main point of her open letter was to score publicity for her magazine. She's no different than Chris Chase (Yahoo) in that respect, except she has more tennis knowledge than he does.

2Black
Aug 24th, 2011, 09:33 PM
I would like to see how the Serena "fans" who hammered Chrissie for her "open letter" to Serena handle this.

I'll still hammer her for that open letter. It was more for publicity for her magazine. End of discussion.

Evert ALWAYS has alterior motives.

debby
Aug 24th, 2011, 09:40 PM
Well, Serena got lucky in the game...

debby
Aug 24th, 2011, 09:47 PM
and lol since Serena is on the same level than Graf and Navratilova? They are out of her league, a league above I would say

Joseosu19
Aug 24th, 2011, 09:48 PM
You seem as though you are keeping charts of all the disagreements and points made.:rolleyes: [I'm sorry. Not you, In the Zone. DarrinBaker00.]

In any case, people can be wrong on some points and right on others. That is human. :shrug:

Frankly, the points Evert made in her letter to Serena were about things she values and not necessarily things that Serena values. Therefore, the main point of her open letter was to score publicity for her magazine. She's no different than Chris Chase (Yahoo) in that respect, except she has more tennis knowledge than he does.
The ordeal about the open letter was so blown out of proportion by some fans that it did not require anyone to "keep score"...especially since some people still love to say "Chris hates Serena".

Chris's letter to Serena was a genuine outreach to try and save women's tennis. She knew that women's tennis needed superstars, and that there is none bigger than Serena Williams. She also knew that Serena had a chance to make a push to place herself among the GOATs. She was right in everything she said. The WTA tour is falling apart and Serena has missed her chance to be truly considered alongside Martina, Margaret, Steffi, and Chrissie. In Chris's day older players reached out to help the younger players in time of need.

When it comes to Serena being compared to Nav and Graf (which Chris so modestly left herself out...once again being Chrissie America or Little Miss Perfect), when playing her best tennis, or anywhere near her best for that matter, Serena can hold her own against any of those ladies.

However, Serena was rarely at or around her best in her career. You simply cannot compare someone who has played 593 matches and lost 103, with someone who has played 1448 matches and lost only 144 (Chris) or someone who has played 1661 singles matches, and 890 doubles matches (Navratilova)(and I'm guessing more as these are only according to the WTA site) and won 167 singles titles compared to Serena's 39.

You can say what you want about different generations and the evolution of the difficulty of the game, but take a look at Martina Nav in her prime and tell me she didn't train her butt off. I'm not buying it.

Serena is the greatest of her generation, there is no disputing that. She simply did not take enough interest in the game to be considered anything more. There's no shame in that, especially if she is happy with her decision to have her own personal life.

brickhousesupporter
Aug 24th, 2011, 09:50 PM
The ordeal about the open letter was so blown out of proportion by some fans that it did not require anyone to "keep score"...especially since some people still love to say "Chris hates Serena".

Chris's letter to Serena was a genuine outreach to try and save women's tennis. She knew that women's tennis needed superstars, and that there is none bigger than Serena Williams. She also knew that Serena had a chance to make a push to place herself among the GOATs. She was right in everything she said. The WTA tour is falling apart and Serena has missed her chance to be truly considered alongside Martina, Margaret, Steffi, and Chrissie.

When it comes to Serena being compared to Nav and Graf (which Chris so modestly left herself out...once again being Chrissie America or Little Miss Perfect), when playing her best tennis, or anywhere near her best for that matter, Serena can hold her own against any of those ladies.

However, Serena was rarely at or around her best in her career. You simply cannot compare someone who has played 593 matches and lost 103, with someone who has played 1448 matches and lost only 144 (Chris) or someone who has played 1661 singles matches, and 890 doubles matches (Navratilova)(and I'm guessing more as these are only according to the WTA site) and won 167 singles titles compared to Serena's 39.

You can say what you want about different generations and the evolution of the difficulty of the game, but take a look at Martina Nav in her prime and tell me she didn't train her butt off. I'm not buying it.

Serena is the greatest of her generation, there is no disputing that. She simply did not take enough interest in the game to be considered anything more. There's no shame in that, especially if she is happy with her decision to have her own personal life.
How can you determine that it was genuine......she even admitted, it may not have been the best way to communicate about Serena's situation.

Lucemferre
Aug 24th, 2011, 09:51 PM
Let's see how this thread goes :drive:

Joseosu19
Aug 24th, 2011, 09:54 PM
How can you determine that it was genuine......she even admitted, it may not have been the best way to communicate about Serena's situation.
How can you determine that it was malicious?

Rui.
Aug 24th, 2011, 09:55 PM
These two are the greatest of all time:

8HSsH7V3Ml8

This video is a great treasure. :worship:

tennisbum79
Aug 24th, 2011, 09:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by brickhousesupporter http://imgsrv2.tennisuniverse.com/wtaworld/images2007/buttons/lastpost.gif (http://www.tennisforum.com/showthread.php?p=20115274#post20115274)
How can you determine that it was genuine......she even admitted, it may not have been the best way to communicate about Serena's situation.


How can you determine that it was malicious?


Please let's not derail this thread.

mykarma
Aug 24th, 2011, 10:01 PM
I would like to see how the Serena "fans" who hammered Chrissie for her "open letter" to Serena handle this.
Just fine thank you very much.

tennisbum79
Aug 24th, 2011, 10:03 PM
Modest Chrissie. :oh:
I could bad rep you for that, you know:mad:

The Dawntreader
Aug 24th, 2011, 10:05 PM
Divorce clearly can make one go slightly insane. Until Serena's stats are comparable, she's not in the same league as Graf/Navratilova and even Evert herself.

Me personally, i feel that Graf will be in a league of her own for some time to come.

debby
Aug 24th, 2011, 10:08 PM
These two are the greatest of all time:

8HSsH7V3Ml8

This video is a great treasure. :worship:

YOU ARE SO DELUDED THEY WERE PLAYING WITH WOODEN RACKETS !!!!!!!!11

lulz

dsanders06
Aug 24th, 2011, 10:09 PM
Divorce clearly can make one go slightly insane. Until Serena's stats are comparable, she's not in the same league as Graf/Navratilova and even Evert herself.

Me personally, i feel that Graf will be in a league of her own for some time to come.

This. All of this.

Evert is entitled to her opinion, but other greats such as Navratilova don't share the same opinion :shrug:

darrinbaker00
Aug 24th, 2011, 10:09 PM
Very few people are wrong ALL the time, Darrin. You know, the ol' "Even a broken clock..." adage. ;)

In addition, many of us who criticized her open letter were criticizing her for just that - THE OPEN LETTER - and the manner in which her opinion was offered, not her perspective on the history of the game and where players fit among it. That's an entirely different subject.

Anybody here who thinks Evert isn't in a better position then they to historically assess Serena's place in the game and how she stacks up against Nav' and Graf is an utter fool. A FOOL.

Further, nobody back then took issue when Chris, even in a letter that was unnecessarily made public, declared THEN that Serena not only was among the greatest of all time but COULD end up being the greatest. Serena fans didn't cherry pick on that one. We all saw that Chris credited Serena's greatness.

Apparently what you failed to understand then and seem to continued to do so now is it was the the MANNER in which she did it that MOST of us had a problem with.

Of course it was. :yeah:

tennisbum79
Aug 24th, 2011, 10:10 PM
These two are the greatest of all time:

8HSsH7V3Ml8

This video is a great treasure. :worship:

Well, I watched.

But I must tell you, it one of those events for which it is much better to read about it than to watch it.:)

LightWarrior
Aug 24th, 2011, 10:11 PM
Modest Chrissie. :oh:

I know ! It's weird that she's not naming herself as part of the all time greats. I mean she has 5 more slams than Serena...:confused:

Rui.
Aug 24th, 2011, 10:14 PM
YOU ARE SO DELUDED THEY WERE PLAYING WITH WOODEN RACKETS !!!!!!!!11

lulz

OMG :rolls:

The Dawntreader
Aug 24th, 2011, 10:16 PM
I'm a big Serena fan, but it's farcical to suggest that she is is anyway greater than these players, given their prolific achievements, some that have stood for at least two decades.

If we're talking about the quality of individual performances, or individual seasons, then that's another story, but even that isn't a conclusive enough reason to put Serena in the category of those women (yet).

I don't see the emphasis that other people seem to have to group her with Graf/Navratilova/Evert. Her career has already eclipsed her entire generation, and has surpassed many established greats. Her career will have it's own tremendous legacy regardless.

tennisbum79
Aug 24th, 2011, 10:17 PM
Divorce clearly can make one go slightly insane. Until Serena's stats are comparable, she's not in the same league as Graf/Navratilova and even Evert herself.

Me personally, i feel that Graf will be in a league of her own for some time to come.
So did you recently have a divorce yourself? Or something else that "clearly can make one slightly insane"
Writing a statement like is also insane.

acetoace
Aug 24th, 2011, 10:18 PM
This. All of this.

Evert is entitled to her opinion, but other greats such as Navratilova don't share the same opinion :shrug:


Ok, whatever.......

U watch how those opinion would swing by WB 2012 when Serena would be attempting to win her 16th slam.

debby
Aug 24th, 2011, 10:20 PM
So did you recently have a divorce yourself? Or something else that "clearly can make one slightly insane"
Writing a statement like is also insane.

He wants to convier a message :awww:

dsanders06
Aug 24th, 2011, 10:31 PM
I'm a big Serena fan, but it's farcical to suggest that she is is anyway greater than these players, given their prolific achievements, some that have stood for at least two decades.

If we're talking about the quality of individual performances, or individual seasons[b], then that's another story, [b]but even that isn't a conclusive enough reason to put Serena in the category of those women (yet).

I don't see the emphasis that other people seem to have to group her with Graf/Navratilova/Evert. Her career has already eclipsed her entire generation, and has surpassed many established greats. Her career will have it's own tremendous legacy regardless.

Nowhere near conclusive enough. Steffi had atleast four seasons in her career that trumped Serena's 2002. While that year was superb, it wasn't anything spectacular relatively speaking when comparing her to the main GOAT contenders... hell, even Hingis's best season was better than Serena's best! :lol:

Ok, whatever.......

U watch how those opinion would swing by WB 2012 when Serena would be attempting to win her 16th slam.

Well, atleast you're not deluded enough to think Serena's winning RG :hug:

TheDream
Aug 24th, 2011, 10:48 PM
Nowhere near conclusive enough. Steffi had atleast four seasons in her career that trumped Serena's 2002. While that year was superb, it wasn't anything spectacular relatively speaking when comparing her to the main GOAT contenders... hell, even Hingis's best season was better than Serena's best! :lol:



Well, atleast you're not deluded enough to think Serena's winning RG :hug:


If the likes of Na Li can win the French Open at almost 30, and she did it pretty comfortably besides going 6-3 in the 3rd against Kvitova, then any one can win it.

faboozadoo15
Aug 24th, 2011, 11:07 PM
Thank GOD Chris had more confidence in herself when she was a player...

Sammo
Aug 24th, 2011, 11:10 PM
LOL so she gives up her position behind Graf and Navratilova to give it to a player with a way worse career like Serena :lol: Must be the age :facepalm:

bobcat
Aug 24th, 2011, 11:24 PM
There is one interesting stat in which Serena would be placed alongside Evert, Graf, and Navratilova if she were to win the USO: longevity as measured by time between first and last slam victory. All 4 would have won their slams over a 12 year period exactly.

Evert (FO '74 - FO '86)
Navratilova (W '78 - W '90)
Graf (FO '87 - FO '99)
Serena (USO '99 - USO '11)

dsanders06
Aug 24th, 2011, 11:27 PM
There is one interesting stat in which Serena would be placed alongside Evert, Graf, and Navratilova if she wins the USO: longevity as measured by time between first and last slam victory. All 4 would have won their slams over a 12 year period exactly.

Evert (FO '74 - FO '86)
Navratilova (W '78 - W '90)
Graf (FO '87 - FO '99)
Serena (USO '99 - USO '11)

Though Navratilova made her first Slam final 3 years before 1978, and made her last Slam final 4 years after 1994, so Serena still has a long way to go before catching up in the longevity department yet. ;)

hotandspicey
Aug 24th, 2011, 11:28 PM
I would like to see how the Serena "fans" who hammered Chrissie for her "open letter" to Serena handle this.

We simply say "apology accepted, Chrissie"! :rolleyes: And you really need to stop pretending.:rolleyes:

wayitis
Aug 24th, 2011, 11:31 PM
The ordeal about the open letter was so blown out of proportion by some fans that it did not require anyone to "keep score"...especially since some people still love to say "Chris hates Serena".

Chris's letter to Serena was a genuine outreach to try and save women's tennis. She knew that women's tennis needed superstars, and that there is none bigger than Serena Williams. She also knew that Serena had a chance to make a push to place herself among the GOATs. She was right in everything she said. The WTA tour is falling apart and Serena has missed her chance to be truly considered alongside Martina, Margaret, Steffi, and Chrissie. In Chris's day older players reached out to help the younger players in time of need.

When it comes to Serena being compared to Nav and Graf (which Chris so modestly left herself out...once again being Chrissie America or Little Miss Perfect), when playing her best tennis, or anywhere near her best for that matter, Serena can hold her own against any of those ladies.

However, Serena was rarely at or around her best in her career. You simply cannot compare someone who has played 593 matches and lost 103, with someone who has played 1448 matches and lost only 144 (Chris) or someone who has played 1661 singles matches, and 890 doubles matches (Navratilova)(and I'm guessing more as these are only according to the WTA site) and won 167 singles titles compared to Serena's 39.

You can say what you want about different generations and the evolution of the difficulty of the game, but take a look at Martina Nav in her prime and tell me she didn't train her butt off. I'm not buying it.

Serena is the greatest of her generation, there is no disputing that. She simply did not take enough interest in the game to be considered anything more. There's no shame in that, especially if she is happy with her decision to have her own personal life.

this was absolutely outstanding, very good post :worship:... There is no doubt that Serena has probably played the best tennis that we have ever seen on the WTA Tour, and even the best Evert could produce would be hard pressed to win only 1 game against her... but that has been the natural evolution of the game, players do tend to get faster and stronger with each passing generation and 20 to 30 years from now, the top players will probably make even Serena's more powerful shots look slow... but accomplishment wise Chris still trumps Serena, her total numbers are superior, helped in great way due to her steely determination and lenghty career, and also weaker competition, of course... Evert is being very modest here, something she was never known for, so I wouldn't be surprised if it was more of a marketing stunt than a reflection of her true feelings...

serenafan08
Aug 24th, 2011, 11:39 PM
The ordeal about the open letter was so blown out of proportion by some fans that it did not require anyone to "keep score"...especially since some people still love to say "Chris hates Serena".

Chris's letter to Serena was a genuine outreach to try and save women's tennis. She knew that women's tennis needed superstars, and that there is none bigger than Serena Williams. She also knew that Serena had a chance to make a push to place herself among the GOATs. She was right in everything she said. The WTA tour is falling apart and Serena has missed her chance to be truly considered alongside Martina, Margaret, Steffi, and Chrissie. In Chris's day older players reached out to help the younger players in time of need.

When it comes to Serena being compared to Nav and Graf (which Chris so modestly left herself out...once again being Chrissie America or Little Miss Perfect), when playing her best tennis, or anywhere near her best for that matter, Serena can hold her own against any of those ladies.

However, Serena was rarely at or around her best in her career. You simply cannot compare someone who has played 593 matches and lost 103, with someone who has played 1448 matches and lost only 144 (Chris) or someone who has played 1661 singles matches, and 890 doubles matches (Navratilova)(and I'm guessing more as these are only according to the WTA site) and won 167 singles titles compared to Serena's 39.

You can say what you want about different generations and the evolution of the difficulty of the game, but take a look at Martina Nav in her prime and tell me she didn't train her butt off. I'm not buying it.

Serena is the greatest of her generation, there is no disputing that. She simply did not take enough interest in the game to be considered anything more. There's no shame in that, especially if she is happy with her decision to have her own personal life.

Totally agree. Serena's body simply couldn't support her athletic style, hence she's been injured a lot. That, coupled with her interests off the court, have kept her from being "the all-time greatest." But without a doubt no on in this generation holds a candlestick to her. She can still add to her legacy before she officially calls it quits. That's encouraging, and it's also more than a lot of other players can say...:oh:

bobcat
Aug 24th, 2011, 11:59 PM
Though Navratilova made her first Slam final 3 years before 1978, and made her last Slam final 4 years after 1994, so Serena still has a long way to go before catching up in the longevity department yet. ;)

Sure there are countless ways to measure longevity, but I consider Slam victories a lot more important than Slam finals.

Diesel
Aug 25th, 2011, 12:13 AM
I would like to see how the Serena "fans" who hammered Chrissie for her "open letter" to Serena handle this.

Chrissie isn't saying anything this Serena didn't already know about Serena J. Williams' greatness.

mauresmofan
Aug 25th, 2011, 12:13 AM
Chris is very modest not putting herself up there too - she was clearly one of, if not the toughest players mentally out there - no emotion, no mistakes and just a wonderful tennis brain. You really had to beat her because she gave her opponents nothing thus proves her 90% success rate over her entire career. Serena is a great no question and possibly a victim of her own success in a way and because of her, her opposition got better. Capriati, Davenport, Venus, Henin, Clijsters, Mauresmo, Sharapova and the other Russians amongst many others all improved their standards and it allowed for one of the truely great eras of womens tennis until the later 00's. I'm sure she'll keep going for at least 3 or 4 more years. We should enjoy this great champion now while she's still competing and setting the standard.

DOUBLEFIST
Aug 25th, 2011, 12:15 AM
This. All of this.

Evert is entitled to her opinion, but other greats such as Navratilova don't share the same opinion :shrug: ...Evidence? ...Quotes? ...Do you have any or are you, as ever, talking out your ass and calling them facts?

See, Chris is ON RECORD multiple times stating this. Where is Nav' ON RECORD stating the opposite? Find. it. Please. Then we can have a real debate. Otherwise it's just your opinion against Evert's. No need to tell you, YOU LOSE that one BIG and only look more the fool for trying to convince us that you're right and Evert's wrong.

...I don't see the emphasis that other people seem to have to group her with Graf/Navratilova/Evert.
How many of these players have YOU played.

See, it's Chris' experience and expertise that qualifies her above any dissenting opinions here.

What would serve those of you who disagree better is to go find someone of EQUAL merit who disagrees with Chris.

I would sincerely like to have that debate based on another All Time Greats opinion. That would be interesting. Right now, it's a one-sided argument.

faboozadoo15
Aug 25th, 2011, 12:34 AM
LOL so she gives up her position behind Graf and Navratilova to give it to a player with a way worse career like Serena :lol: Must be the age :facepalm:

I wonder if she's beein drinking.

Helen Lawson
Aug 25th, 2011, 12:46 AM
Serena has the intangible greatest of these gals, but she does not have the record they have. I like Serena a lot, but that's a big gap.

MB.
Aug 25th, 2011, 12:49 AM
Whatever Evert is smoking, I want some.

tennisbum79
Aug 25th, 2011, 12:54 AM
Let's see



Insanity
Divorce clearly can make one go slightly insane. Until Serena's stats are comparable, she's not in the same league as Graf/Navratilova and even Evert herself.

Me personally, i feel that Graf will be in a league of her own for some time to come.


Old age
LOL so she gives up her position behind Graf and Navratilova to give it to a player with a way worse career like Serena Must be the age



Drunkenness
I wonder if she's beein drinking.


Next? Confinement to a geriatric mental and detox facility

Stamp Paid
Aug 25th, 2011, 12:54 AM
Thankfully Lord Rena is a gracious and forgiving God.

justineheninfan
Aug 25th, 2011, 12:55 AM
I am not a big Serena fan and I would have to agree she is in the first tier of all time greats. I put her up on a level with Graf and Navratilova as well. Just based on her sheer ability, even if her numbers arent there right now. Usually I wouldnt do that but she is a unique case since I think any women in history would have a hard time not having a losing record on both hard courts and grass to Serena. I do think Evert and Court are very underrated and atleast on level with Graf and Navratilova as well though.

brickhousesupporter
Aug 25th, 2011, 01:05 AM
Thankfully Lord Rena is a gracious and forgiving God.
Praise her.......
http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt272/vensy91/gif-baby-lawd-gif.gif

Aravanecaravan
Aug 25th, 2011, 01:11 AM
In terms of ability, it's hard to argue with her.

In terms of achievement, I think Chrissie's statement is nuts.

Serena has made a career out of cherry picking majors. Had Martina, Steffi, Seles, BJK, Court, Connelly, or Evert herself done that, God only knows how many slams those women would have won in their careers. They played hurt, they played 30+ weeks a year, they WON 10+ times a year regularly throughout their careers, and they made a habit out of doing it against the other top players in the game. Serena's career has been made, by and large, playing against players that do not belong in the same category, and basically having few if any legitimate career long rivalries. Henin, her sister, and who else?

Serena's a great player. I don't dispute that. But to put her in the same category as some of the legends in the game isn't credible. It trivializes what Navratilova, in particular, accomlished. She revolutionized the sport, moreso than any single player in the game's history. And she was so head and shoulders dominant above a field of peers that included Evert, Goolagong, King, Austin, Shriver and Jaeger, among others, that some of the W-L records she set in the 80's bordered on the obscene. Navratilova was a workhorse, and that she could play so much and be so productive was part of what made her so brilliant. Serena has to rest 85% of the time to achieve the same level of greatness. To me, it's a no brainer that there's no comparison between them.

HRHoliviasmith
Aug 25th, 2011, 01:15 AM
The ordeal about the open letter was so blown out of proportion by some fans that it did not require anyone to "keep score"...especially since some people still love to say "Chris hates Serena".

Chris's letter to Serena was a genuine outreach to try and save women's tennis. She knew that women's tennis needed superstars, and that there is none bigger than Serena Williams. She also knew that Serena had a chance to make a push to place herself among the GOATs. She was right in everything she said. The WTA tour is falling apart and Serena has missed her chance to be truly considered alongside Martina, Margaret, Steffi, and Chrissie. In Chris's day older players reached out to help the younger players in time of need.

When it comes to Serena being compared to Nav and Graf (which Chris so modestly left herself out...once again being Chrissie America or Little Miss Perfect), when playing her best tennis, or anywhere near her best for that matter, Serena can hold her own against any of those ladies.

However, Serena was rarely at or around her best in her career. You simply cannot compare someone who has played 593 matches and lost 103, with someone who has played 1448 matches and lost only 144 (Chris) or someone who has played 1661 singles matches, and 890 doubles matches (Navratilova)(and I'm guessing more as these are only according to the WTA site) and won 167 singles titles compared to Serena's 39.

You can say what you want about different generations and the evolution of the difficulty of the game, but take a look at Martina Nav in her prime and tell me she didn't train her butt off. I'm not buying it.

Serena is the greatest of her generation, there is no disputing that. She simply did not take enough interest in the game to be considered anything more. There's no shame in that, especially if she is happy with her decision to have her own personal life.

GREAT post! very well said. :worship:

I slightly disagree with you though on one aspect. I believe that her main intent when she published that letter was to sell magazines. While not disputing her concern for the state of the women's game, i think that if she was sincere in getting through to serena, that she should have communicated with her directly, on a personal level.

LDVTennis
Aug 25th, 2011, 01:21 AM
...Evidence? ...Quotes? ...Do you have any or are you, as ever, talking out your ass and calling them facts?

See, Chris is ON RECORD multiple times stating this. Where is Nav' ON RECORD stating the opposite? Find. it.

At 2:34 of this clip, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4Y_fiRG7Mc

:smash: .... Bahahahahahaha

tennisbum79
Aug 25th, 2011, 01:28 AM
At 2:34 of this clip, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4Y_fiRG7Mc

:smash: .... Bahahahahahaha

She did also say not right now, but maybe in a couple of years, if she win more slams, she could be considered one of the greatest.

The interview was taped in 2009

LDVTennis
Aug 25th, 2011, 02:03 AM
She did also say not right now, but maybe in a couple of years, if she win more slams, she could be considered one of the greatest.

The interview was taped in 2009

By a "couple of more years," Martina meant a couple of more years of "week-in-and-week-out" consistency.

tennisbum79
Aug 25th, 2011, 02:08 AM
By a "couple of more years," Martina meant a couple of more years of "week-in-and-week-out" consistency.

Why does one have to play every week to be considered great, I don't get that.


Yes her generation did that, this generation has chosen a different path.

thrust
Aug 25th, 2011, 02:10 AM
I am not a big Serena fan and I would have to agree she is in the first tier of all time greats. I put her up on a level with Graf and Navratilova as well. Just based on her sheer ability, even if her numbers arent there right now. Usually I wouldnt do that but she is a unique case since I think any women in history would have a hard time not having a losing record on both hard courts and grass to Serena. I do think Evert and Court are very underrated and atleast on level with Graf and Navratilova as well though.

I agree!

AcesHigh
Aug 25th, 2011, 02:12 AM
Why does one have to play every week to be considered great, I don't get that.


Yes her generation did that, this generation has chosen a different path.

It's not about playing every week.. it's about showing sustained greatness

tennisbum79
Aug 25th, 2011, 02:18 AM
It's not about playing every week.. it's about showing sustained greatness
No, I think she said you have to play week-in week-out.

This is not the first time Martina has expressed this view, she thinks Serena and Venus lack commitment to tennis.

She think they should postpone everything they are doing when they are not playing after they retire.


You cam make the argument that if Serena plays with limited schedule and still won this many tournament, that is a testimony to her greatness.


But we can agree to disagree.

Stamp Paid
Aug 25th, 2011, 02:22 AM
In terms of ability, it's hard to argue with her.

In terms of achievement, I think Chrissie's statement is nuts.

Serena has made a career out of cherry picking majors. Had Martina, Steffi, Seles, BJK, Court, Connelly, or Evert herself done that, God only knows how many slams those women would have won in their careers. They played hurt, they played 30+ weeks a year, they WON 10+ times a year regularly throughout their careers, and they made a habit out of doing it against the other top players in the game. Serena's career has been made, by and large, playing against players that do not belong in the same category, and basically having few if any legitimate career long rivalries. Henin, her sister, and who else?

Serena's a great player. I don't dispute that. But to put her in the same category as some of the legends in the game isn't credible. It trivializes what Navratilova, in particular, accomlished. She revolutionized the sport, moreso than any single player in the game's history. And she was so head and shoulders dominant above a field of peers that included Evert, Goolagong, King, Austin, Shriver and Jaeger, among others, that some of the W-L records she set in the 80's bordered on the obscene. Navratilova was a workhorse, and that she could play so much and be so productive was part of what made her so brilliant. Serena has to rest 85% of the time to achieve the same level of greatness. To me, it's a no brainer that there's no comparison between them.So the increased level and physicality of the game during Serena's era are just meaningless then?

dsanders06
Aug 25th, 2011, 02:28 AM
So the increased level and physicality of the game during Serena's era are just meaningless then?

Intangible and frankly very dubious. Injuries for the top players were just as frequent in the early 90s as now. And "increased level" isn't backed up by the fact worldwide interest in women's tennis is at its lowest point in living memory.

AnomyBC
Aug 25th, 2011, 02:29 AM
This all depends on what you mean by "greatest". Serena may very well be as great as Graf/Navratilova/Evert, etc. in terms of talent, but clearly she hasn't achieved anywhere near as much as they have in terms of titles.

dsanders06
Aug 25th, 2011, 02:32 AM
This all depends on what you mean by "greatest". Serena may very well be as great as Graf/Navratilova/Evert, etc. in terms of talent, but clearly she hasn't achieved anywhere near as much as they have in terms of titles.

Even this is highly debateable, seeing as how Steffi beat Serena herself when she was on the verge of retirement. Hell, even the 4th best player of the 90s (Sanchez Vicario) gave Serena fits...so much for Serena's era being a "much higher level".

AnomyBC
Aug 25th, 2011, 02:38 AM
Even this is highly debateable, seeing as how Steffi beat Serena herself when she was on the verge of retirement. Hell, even the 4th best player of the 90s (Sanchez Vicario) gave Serena fits...so much for Serena's era being a "much higher level".

All I said was that she may be as great as them in terms of talent. I'm not claiming that it's been proven definitively :)

Pump-it-UP
Aug 25th, 2011, 03:18 AM
Even this is highly debateable, seeing as how Steffi beat Serena herself when she was on the verge of retirement. Hell, even the 4th best player of the 90s (Sanchez Vicario) gave Serena fits...so much for Serena's era being a "much higher level".

That same Steffi also lost to a young and inexperienced Serena in a final back when Serena was notorious for getting tight and flopping on the big stages. Neither was even remotely close to their peak. If verge-of-retirement Steffi beat Peakrena then you'd have an argument, but she didn't, so.... :shrug:

And pulling out the ASV H2H... how about comparing how Serena and Steffi each fared with Davenport? :confused::scratch:

SoBlackAndBlue
Aug 25th, 2011, 03:22 AM
Intangible and frankly very dubious. Injuries for the top players were just as frequent in the early 90s as now. And "increased level" isn't backed up by the fact worldwide interest in women's tennis is at its lowest point in living memory.

There are more people, in a greater number of countries, who are able to play tennis now.

Had Serena and Venus been born in 1950's Compton, there'd have been almost no chance they'd become professional tennis players. Same goes for Sharapova, or Li Na, or half the top 20.

XSTopspin
Aug 25th, 2011, 03:29 AM
This. All of this.

Evert is entitled to her opinion, but other greats such as Navratilova don't share the same opinion :shrug:

But other greats such as Billie Jean King do. Also, Navratilova picked Serena, not Graf as the player she'd most like
to play if both were in their primes. Says a lot to me.

L'Enfant Sauvage
Aug 25th, 2011, 03:35 AM
That same Steffi also lost to a young and inexperienced Serena in a final back when Serena was notorious for getting tight and flopping on the big stages. Neither was even remotely close to their peak. If verge-of-retirement Steffi beat Peakrena then you'd have an argument, but she didn't, so.... :shrug:

And pulling out the ASV H2H... how about comparing how Serena and Steffi each fared with Davenport? :confused::scratch:

All of this.

At 2:34 of this clip, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4Y_fiRG7Mc

:smash: .... Bahahahahahaha

By a "couple of more years," Martina meant a couple of more years of "week-in-and-week-out" consistency.

When asked where Serena ranked in history after Wimbledon 2010, Martina also responded "Top five." So she clearly regards her as one of the game's greatest. (We can assume Marrtina regards herself as #1, Steffi/Chrissie 2/3... Court 4?)

Also, can't wait for Rimon to find this thread :inlove: Here, I'll make your post for you:

"Weave-wearing Serena will NEVER be in Margaret or X Player's league. She's MUCH closer to Justine and Venus :fiery:"

XSTopspin
Aug 25th, 2011, 03:35 AM
At 2:34 of this clip, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4Y_fiRG7Mc

:smash: .... Bahahahahahaha

FAIL on this example. Martina first says "all we talk about is the slams and day in and day out is more important" but then she turns right around and says "maybe if she wins a few more slams we can begin the conversation"....don't be a sheep.

starin
Aug 25th, 2011, 03:52 AM
LOL so she gives up her position behind Graf and Navratilova to give it to a player with a way worse career like Serena :lol: Must be the age :facepalm:

It's called humility. It's tacky to praise yourself. A lesson Navratilova should probably learn.

Moveyourfeet
Aug 25th, 2011, 04:06 AM
Serena is a GREAT tennis player. However 22/18 >>>>> 13.
She still has time though. There is no one on her level on the WTA.

justineheninfan
Aug 25th, 2011, 04:12 AM
When asked where Serena ranked in history after Wimbledon 2010, Martina also responded "Top five." So she clearly regards her as one of the game's greatest. (We can assume Marrtina regards herself as #1, Steffi/Chrissie 2/3... Court 4?)

Martina probably ranks herself #1, Chris #2, Seles #3, King #4, and Serena #5, with Graf and Court both outside the top 5. She has made no bones about the fact she does not like those latter two players while she is an extremely good friend of both Seles and King, and bias usually overcomes her opinions more than rational, which is why Evert's opinion in this case is more credible.

Annie.
Aug 25th, 2011, 04:14 AM
Like moths to a flame, the trolls see Serena's name & they come rushing in

http://i54.tinypic.com/2el8n7s.gif

Brad[le]y.
Aug 25th, 2011, 04:23 AM
Even this is highly debateable, seeing as how Steffi beat Serena herself when she was on the verge of retirement. Hell, even the 4th best player of the 90s (Sanchez Vicario) gave Serena fits...so much for Serena's era being a "much higher level".

:happy:

Okay so 1999 was Serena at her best? :lol: I think Steffi would have a harder time if she face Serena in 2002. Graf may have been past her peak but still won RG (:sad:) and made the final of Wimbledon and thus still had credibility even then.

Steffi is greater than Serena but it's kind of hard to compare them when they only played two matches and neither were at their peak at the time :shrug:

moby
Aug 25th, 2011, 04:34 AM
6 pages and this still hasn't turned into Graf-Seles part 13485905 yet?

justineheninfan
Aug 25th, 2011, 04:44 AM
There is really no basis to compare Graf and Serena either way by their matches. 2 matches with both well out of their primes, yet both good enough to win a slam this year, both very close. Really nothing to take from those.

rimon
Aug 25th, 2011, 05:06 AM
No credibility whatsoever when she doesn't even mention Court, Wills and Lenglen.

HRHoliviasmith
Aug 25th, 2011, 05:23 AM
No credibility whatsoever when she doesn't even mention Court, Wills and Lenglen.

:haha:

Smitten
Aug 25th, 2011, 05:36 AM
Martina probably ranks herself #1, Chris #2, Seles #3, King #4, and Serena #5, with Graf and Court both outside the top 5. She has made no bones about the fact she does not like those latter two players while she is an extremely good friend of both Seles and King, and bias usually overcomes her opinions more than rational, which is why Evert's opinion in this case is more credible.

Disagree about Martina ranking Seles #3.

Martina was always quite vocal, especially when she commentated Wimbledon toward the end of Seles' career, about how Monica couldn't ever be truly considered as great as Evert and herself due to her poor record at Wimbledon. She called it "not good enough for a champion like her." Navratilova always took constant small jabs at Seles' inability to win on grass, so I highly doubt she'd consider her so high.

DOUBLEFIST
Aug 25th, 2011, 05:43 AM
At 2:34 of this clip, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4Y_fiRG7Mc

:smash: .... Bahahahahahaha

EPIC FAIL. (though not unexpected :o )

So where does Williams rank among the best women's tennis players through the years?

"Top five," answered Navratilova, without a moment's hesitation. "It's not just about how many Slams you win or how many tournaments you win - it's just your game overall. And she's definitely got all the goods. It would have been fun to play her, but at the same time, I'm glad that I didn't have to."

Source: http://www.scpr.org/news/2010/07/03/16900/serena-williams-wins-4th-wimbledon-13th-major/

bandabou
Aug 25th, 2011, 06:10 AM
Even this is highly debateable, seeing as how Steffi beat Serena herself when she was on the verge of retirement. Hell, even the 4th best player of the 90s (Sanchez Vicario) gave Serena fits...so much for Serena's era being a "much higher level".

' 99 Serena was of course peak Serena, huh?! :lol: You're so pathetic!

DOUBLEFIST
Aug 25th, 2011, 06:27 AM
...but other greats such as Navratilova don't share the same opinion :shrug:
:facepalm:

So where does Williams rank among the best women's tennis players through the years?

"Top five," answered Navratilova, without a moment's hesitation. "It's not just about how many Slams you win or how many tournaments you win - it's just your game overall. And she's definitely got all the goods. It would have been fun to play her, but at the same time, I'm glad that I didn't have to."

I suppose I could have included this response in my previous post, but..., well, I thought you needed a little special place all your own.

bandabou
Aug 25th, 2011, 06:36 AM
Serena has made her mark in tennis...she might well be the last player to win double digits majors in singles. Her numbers speak for themselves.

Where she ranks on all-time list? Is all about subjectivity, what you value more, etc..objecitively? She is certainly top 10 for sure. Of course rimon would come with some Goolagong and Bueno over Serena. :lol:

justineheninfan
Aug 25th, 2011, 06:42 AM
Even Venus and Henin probably rate above Bueno and Goolagong, especialy Goolagong who won 4 of her 7 slams at the Australian Open, and unlike Court does not have the overall dominance of rivals and the game to warrant so much benefit of doubt she would have won that many if it were a regular slam.

Bijoux0021
Aug 25th, 2011, 06:56 AM
I'll still hammer her for that open letter. It was more for publicity for her magazine. End of discussion.

Evert ALWAYS has alterior motives.
Thank you. The letter did not have to be an "open letter." That's what most Serena fans had/have a problem with.

serenafann
Aug 25th, 2011, 06:56 AM
Well said Chris,she has actually grown on me these last couple of years,I see her as getting away from the anti Williams negativity that people like Carillo and Navratilova wallow in,like pigs in mud.

Pat Bateman
Aug 25th, 2011, 07:50 AM
If nothing else this proves that Chrissie should refrain from making public statements after smoking weed.

propi
Aug 25th, 2011, 08:17 AM
LOLZ!!!!!
Actually maybe if she repeats it enough times this might become true:haha:

Sam L
Aug 25th, 2011, 08:29 AM
Chrissie knows best. :hearts:

Thing is, Serena and Martina have doubles accomplishments that Graf doesn't. IMO, they're ahead of Graf.

Sam L
Aug 25th, 2011, 08:47 AM
Can I just remind people that Graf's "achievements" were attained on the back of a stabbing of a current world No. 1 and dominant player of women's tennis.

She also competed in arguably the weakest period in women's tennis. When she started dominating in late 80s, Navratilova and Evert were 31 and 33 year olds respectively.

We all know Navratilova peaked late but, she peaked at 27-28, not 31.

Once Graf took over from these ladies, she had no competition until a 16-17 year old Seles took over. After Seles was eliminated at 19, Graf had no competition for the rest of her career.

Let me show you examples of weakness. ASV, a cow on grass, player reached back-to-back Wimbledon finals. Martinez, never played Wimbledon for about 5 years, wins Wimbledon. A 37-year-old Martina Navratilova reaches Wimbledon final. A two-and-half year off the tour Seles, who was out of shape physically and mentally, returns to the game and wins 3 out of her 4 first tournaments including a slam.

In that such a weak period, Graf amassed her records. AND yet through all that, she STILL COULDN'T win more Grand Slam singles titles than Margaret Court at 24.

If Navratilova or Evert were eliminated from the game in say 1980 or earlier, the other would have completely dominated the sport. Evert lost so many Wimbledon finals to Navratilova. Navratilova lost so many French Open finals to Evert.

Evert and Navratilova were the greatest on clay and grass respectively. They were their own roadblocks. And yet they achieved 18 Grand Slam singles titles to their name. Judging by singles performances alone, those stats are far greater than Graf's 22 Grand Slam titles she achieved with NO COMPETITION.

BUT let's be honest here, tennis is about singles, doubles and mixed doubles. And Graf miserably fails in this category. Court, Navratilova, King, Wills, Williams all won singles, doubles and mixed doubles Grand Slam titles.

Billie Jean King once said that Martina Navratilova is the greatest singles, doubles and mixed doubles tennis player ever.

There are only two players aside from Martina who's won calendar or non-calendar Grand Slams in singles as well as doubles/mixed. That is Court and Serena Williams.

Sorry but I will take their accomplishments over Graf's empty accomplishments in SINGLES ONLY against NO competition. She's a gloried transition player. Basically trash.

At least players like Lenglen and Seles could claim to be trendsetters who changed the game.

Graf basically has nothing. Did she even like the game? Didn't she say she didn't like tennis? What an embarrassment for the sport that this trash could be considered "great".

Please give me women that actually contributed to the sport and loved it.

bandabou
Aug 25th, 2011, 09:25 AM
:lol: Sammyy....noooooohhh!! :sobbing: :facepalm:

justineheninfan
Aug 25th, 2011, 09:26 AM
LOL this thread is about to get ugly fast.

irma
Aug 25th, 2011, 10:03 AM
Can I just remind people that Graf's "achievements" were attained on the back of a stabbing of a current world No. 1 and dominant player of women's tennis.

She also competed in arguably the weakest period in women's tennis. When she started dominating in late 80s, Navratilova and Evert were 31 and 33 year olds respectively.

We all know Navratilova peaked late but, she peaked at 27-28, not 31.

Once Graf took over from these ladies, she had no competition until a 16-17 year old Seles took over. After Seles was eliminated at 19, Graf had no competition for the rest of her career.

Let me show you examples of weakness. ASV, a cow on grass, player reached back-to-back Wimbledon finals. Martinez, never played Wimbledon for about 5 years, wins Wimbledon. A 37-year-old Martina Navratilova reaches Wimbledon final. A two-and-half year off the tour Seles, who was out of shape physically and mentally, returns to the game and wins 3 out of her 4 first tournaments including a slam.

In that such a weak period, Graf amassed her records. AND yet through all that, she STILL COULDN'T win more Grand Slam singles titles than Margaret Court at 24.

If Navratilova or Evert were eliminated from the game in say 1980 or earlier, the other would have completely dominated the sport. Evert lost so many Wimbledon finals to Navratilova. Navratilova lost so many French Open finals to Evert.

Evert and Navratilova were the greatest on clay and grass respectively. They were their own roadblocks. And yet they achieved 18 Grand Slam singles titles to their name. Judging by singles performances alone, those stats are far greater than Graf's 22 Grand Slam titles she achieved with NO COMPETITION.

BUT let's be honest here, tennis is about singles, doubles and mixed doubles. And Graf miserably fails in this category. Court, Navratilova, King, Wills, Williams all won singles, doubles and mixed doubles Grand Slam titles.

Billie Jean King once said that Martina Navratilova is the greatest singles, doubles and mixed doubles tennis player ever.

There are only two players aside from Martina who's won calendar or non-calendar Grand Slams in singles as well as doubles/mixed. That is Court and Serena Williams.

Sorry but I will take their accomplishments over Graf's empty accomplishments in SINGLES ONLY against NO competition. She's a gloried transition player. Basically trash.

At least players like Lenglen and Seles could claim to be trendsetters who changed the game.

Graf basically has nothing. Did she even like the game? Didn't she say she didn't like tennis? What an embarrassment for the sport that this trash could be considered "great".

Please give me women that actually contributed to the sport and loved it.

And yet you have this deep obsession about her :lol:

brickhousesupporter
Aug 25th, 2011, 11:22 AM
Can I just remind people that Graf's "achievements" were attained on the back of a stabbing of a current world No. 1 and dominant player of women's tennis.

She also competed in arguably the weakest period in women's tennis. When she started dominating in late 80s, Navratilova and Evert were 31 and 33 year olds respectively.
We all know Navratilova peaked late but, she peaked at 27-28, not 31.

Once Graf took over from these ladies, she had no competition until a 16-17 year old Seles took over. After Seles was eliminated at 19, Graf had no competition for the rest of her career.
Let me show you examples of weakness. ASV, a cow on grass, player reached back-to-back Wimbledon finals. Martinez, never played Wimbledon for about 5 years, wins Wimbledon. A 37-year-old Martina Navratilova reaches Wimbledon final. A two-and-half year off the tour Seles, who was out of shape physically and mentally, returns to the game and wins 3 out of her 4 first tournaments including a slam.

In that such a weak period, Graf amassed her records. AND yet through all that, she STILL COULDN'T win more Grand Slam singles titles than Margaret Court at 24.
If Navratilova or Evert were eliminated from the game in say 1980 or earlier, the other would have completely dominated the sport. Evert lost so many Wimbledon finals to Navratilova. Navratilova lost so many French Open finals to Evert.

Evert and Navratilova were the greatest on clay and grass respectively. They were their own roadblocks. And yet they achieved 18 Grand Slam singles titles to their name. Judging by singles performances alone, those stats are far greater than Graf's 22 Grand Slam titles she achieved with NO COMPETITION.
BUT let's be honest here, tennis is about singles, doubles and mixed doubles. And Graf miserably fails in this category. Court, Navratilova, King, Wills, Williams all won singles, doubles and mixed doubles Grand Slam titles.

Billie Jean King once said that Martina Navratilova is the greatest singles, doubles and mixed doubles tennis player ever.
There are only two players aside from Martina who's won calendar or non-calendar Grand Slams in singles as well as doubles/mixed. That is Court and Serena Williams.

Sorry but I will take their accomplishments over Graf's empty accomplishments in SINGLES ONLY against NO competition. She's a gloried transition player. Basically trash.
At least players like Lenglen and Seles could claim to be trendsetters who changed the game.

Graf basically has nothing. Did she even like the game? Didn't she say she didn't like tennis? What an embarrassment for the sport that this trash could be considered "great".
Please give me women that actually contributed to the sport and loved it.

6 pages and this still hasn't turned into Graf-Seles part 13485905 yet?

You were a bit premature, it only took a couple more posts......here it comes.

L'Enfant Sauvage
Aug 25th, 2011, 11:26 AM
:lol: I was going to post a bait post just for the hell of it after I read Moby's comment but decided to keep it classy.
http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/1735/16k0rgw.gif

BuTtErFrEnA
Aug 25th, 2011, 12:10 PM
::subsrcibes::

this


http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s49/Mr_Muggles/GIFS/ofoy0k.gif

doomsday
Aug 25th, 2011, 12:17 PM
Martina probably ranks herself #1, Chris #2, Seles #3, King #4, and Serena #5, with Graf and Court both outside the top 5. She has made no bones about the fact she does not like those latter two players while she is an extremely good friend of both Seles and King, and bias usually overcomes her opinions more than rational, which is why Evert's opinion in this case is more credible.

Martina already stated that Steffi was the greatest on all courts but she and Chris weren't far from her, Chris for being great on clay and Nav on grass courts.

BlameSerena
Aug 25th, 2011, 12:29 PM
Very few people are wrong ALL the time, Darrin. You know, the ol' "Even a broken clock..." adage. ;)

In addition, many of us who criticized her open letter were criticizing her for just that - THE OPEN LETTER - and the manner in which her opinion was offered, not her perspective on the history of the game and where players fit among it. That's an entirely different subject.

Anybody here who thinks Evert isn't in a better position then they to historically assess Serena's place in the game and how she stacks up against Nav' and Graf is an utter fool. A FOOL.

Further, nobody back then took issue when Chris, even in a letter that was unnecessarily made public, declared THEN that Serena not only was among the greatest of all time but COULD end up being the greatest. Serena fans didn't cherry pick on that one. We all saw that Chris credited Serena's greatness.

Apparently what you failed to understand then and seem to continued to do so now is it was the the MANNER in which she did it that MOST of us had a problem with.

:yeah:

SerenaSlam
Aug 25th, 2011, 12:30 PM
what i don't understand is how ANYONE can question a "great's" opinion about another Tennis player? As if we are out there playing and have just as much say so....the sh*t is funny to listen to peoples OPINIONS about someone that played on the tour and has amazing stats give another Generation player Props for what she has done. At the end of the day that is what tennis is for. If you want to brush off Serena you have to brush off the Entire WTA IMO

rimon
Aug 25th, 2011, 01:24 PM
:haha:

Such a great come back. Well done.

rimon
Aug 25th, 2011, 01:26 PM
what i don't understand is how ANYONE can question a "great's" opinion about another Tennis player? As if we are out there playing and have just as much say so....the sh*t is funny to listen to peoples OPINIONS about someone that played on the tour and has amazing stats give another Generation player Props for what she has done. At the end of the day that is what tennis is for. If you want to brush off Serena you have to brush off the Entire WTA IMO

It doesn't matter who she is. Her opinion is just that, an opinion. Serena is nowhere near Navratilova and herself, and not in the same galaxy as Court, Graf, Wills and Lenglen.

24 slams and 199 titles >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 13 slams and 39 titles. Are we actually discussing this? :confused:

thrust
Aug 25th, 2011, 01:30 PM
Can I just remind people that Graf's "achievements" were attained on the back of a stabbing of a current world No. 1 and dominant player of women's tennis.

She also competed in arguably the weakest period in women's tennis. When she started dominating in late 80s, Navratilova and Evert were 31 and 33 year olds respectively.

We all know Navratilova peaked late but, she peaked at 27-28, not 31.

Once Graf took over from these ladies, she had no competition until a 16-17 year old Seles took over. After Seles was eliminated at 19, Graf had no competition for the rest of her career.

Let me show you examples of weakness. ASV, a cow on grass, player reached back-to-back Wimbledon finals. Martinez, never played Wimbledon for about 5 years, wins Wimbledon. A 37-year-old Martina Navratilova reaches Wimbledon final. A two-and-half year off the tour Seles, who was out of shape physically and mentally, returns to the game and wins 3 out of her 4 first tournaments including a slam.

In that such a weak period, Graf amassed her records. AND yet through all that, she STILL COULDN'T win more Grand Slam singles titles than Margaret Court at 24.

If Navratilova or Evert were eliminated from the game in say 1980 or earlier, the other would have completely dominated the sport. Evert lost so many Wimbledon finals to Navratilova. Navratilova lost so many French Open finals to Evert.

Evert and Navratilova were the greatest on clay and grass respectively. They were their own roadblocks. And yet they achieved 18 Grand Slam singles titles to their name. Judging by singles performances alone, those stats are far greater than Graf's 22 Grand Slam titles she achieved with NO COMPETITION.

BUT let's be honest here, tennis is about singles, doubles and mixed doubles. And Graf miserably fails in this category. Court, Navratilova, King, Wills, Williams all won singles, doubles and mixed doubles Grand Slam titles.

Billie Jean King once said that Martina Navratilova is the greatest singles, doubles and mixed doubles tennis player ever.

There are only two players aside from Martina who's won calendar or non-calendar Grand Slams in singles as well as doubles/mixed. That is Court and Serena Williams.

Sorry but I will take their accomplishments over Graf's empty accomplishments in SINGLES ONLY against NO competition. She's a gloried transition player. Basically trash.

At least players like Lenglen and Seles could claim to be trendsetters who changed the game.

Graf basically has nothing. Did she even like the game? Didn't she say she didn't like tennis? What an embarrassment for the sport that this trash could be considered "great".

Please give me women that actually contributed to the sport and loved it.
,
Overall, and accurate post, especially concerning Steffi's singels accomplishments. She did play in a rather weak era, especially after the Seles incident. As for doubles, the Court-King era was extremely tough, much more so than the Navratilova or Serena eras. Still, I do think Steffi is an all-time great and would have been so in any era. The same is true of: Court, Evert, Nav, and Serena. To call Steffi trash and glorified transition player, is both hateful and untrue.

rimon
Aug 25th, 2011, 01:32 PM
Divorce clearly can make one go slightly insane. Until Serena's stats are comparable, she's not in the same league as Graf/Navratilova and even Evert herself.

Me personally, i feel that Graf will be in a league of her own for some time to come.

24>22. 199>107.

Vlover
Aug 25th, 2011, 01:38 PM
When asked where Serena ranked in history after Wimbledon 2010, Martina also responded "Top five." So
Evert: I'd put her right up there [as the greatest of all time] with Martina and Steffi.I see very little difference between both statements. Obviously Martina is including herself and Graf in the top 5 therefore Martina is essentially saying Serena belongs right up there with them also.:shrug:

Personally I don't care about the "greatness" talk because I'm more focus on enjoying the present but I just thought Evert statements were interesting. As for Evert's past statements about the Sisters I still hold a grudge against her but there might be a reprieve in the works if she continues on the same path since Wimbledon.;)

tennisbum79
Aug 25th, 2011, 01:39 PM
I don't know if this has been brought up yet, but Evert may be thinking about the depth of the WTA tour in Serena's era vs Graf/Martina/Evert era.

Whereas in those early eras, they each had to deal with 3 or 4 other top players to win GS.
Serena had to deal with many more accomplished players in their own right.

Martina/Evert included Martina , Evert, later joined Graf, Seles, Zina Garisson, Sabatini, Vicario


Serena had to contend with Hingis, Seles, Davenport, Capriati, Venus, Henin, Kim, Sharapova, Dementieva, Mauresmo, Myskina , Kusnetsova, Li Na, Ana Ivanovic
All of these players, a the exception of Dementiava, are GS winners.

You will not find this much spread or distribution in the Martina/Evert or Graf/Seles era.
I should also say, that Seles stabbing (followed by a long absence) was also a factor in Graf GS , so much so that each was the main obstacle to the other winning a GS.


I just wanted to throw that in there.

rimon
Aug 25th, 2011, 01:40 PM
I am not a big Serena fan and I would have to agree she is in the first tier of all time greats. I put her up on a level with Graf and Navratilova as well. Just based on her sheer ability, even if her numbers arent there right now. Usually I wouldnt do that but she is a unique case since I think any women in history would have a hard time not having a losing record on both hard courts and grass to Serena. I do think Evert and Court are very underrated and atleast on level with Graf and Navratilova as well though.

And not Wills and Lenglen? :rolleyes:

SAEKeithSerena
Aug 25th, 2011, 01:45 PM
speechless. thank you CHRIS for finally saying something fantastic about Serena. that was SO kind.

2Black
Aug 25th, 2011, 01:45 PM
Navratilova obviously thinks Serena is up there because she so wish she could create a time machine so Serena & she could play each other in their prime.

No Serena didn't play as much as Graf & Navratilova but it's the EYE TEST people. Very easy to see that Serena is Top 5 all time & could have beaten any of the other Top 5. Steffi definitely wouldn't have as many slams if she had a Serena during her era. I love Steffi but her competition after Monica's stabbing was WEAK

LightWarrior
Aug 25th, 2011, 01:46 PM
Chris is very modest not putting herself up there too - she was clearly one of, if not the toughest players mentally out there - no emotion, no mistakes and just a wonderful tennis brain.

Or maybe Evert secretly ranks herself higher than both Nav and Graf. ;)

rimon
Aug 25th, 2011, 01:49 PM
Serena is a GREAT tennis player. However 22/18 >>>>> 13.
She still has time though. There is no one on her level on the WTA.

So true, just as 24>22.

rimon
Aug 25th, 2011, 01:54 PM
Serena has made her mark in tennis...she might well be the last player to win double digits majors in singles. Her numbers speak for themselves.

Where she ranks on all-time list? Is all about subjectivity, what you value more, etc..objecitively? She is certainly top 10 for sure. Of course rimon would come with some Goolagong and Bueno over Serena. :lol:

Evidence? Though saying that Bueno and/or Goolagong is greater than Serena is no more delusional than saying that Evert and Navratilova are greater than Court.

rimon
Aug 25th, 2011, 01:59 PM
Can I just remind people that Graf's "achievements" were attained on the back of a stabbing of a current world No. 1 and dominant player of women's tennis.

She also competed in arguably the weakest period in women's tennis. When she started dominating in late 80s, Navratilova and Evert were 31 and 33 year olds respectively.

We all know Navratilova peaked late but, she peaked at 27-28, not 31.

Once Graf took over from these ladies, she had no competition until a 16-17 year old Seles took over. After Seles was eliminated at 19, Graf had no competition for the rest of her career.

Let me show you examples of weakness. ASV, a cow on grass, player reached back-to-back Wimbledon finals. Martinez, never played Wimbledon for about 5 years, wins Wimbledon. A 37-year-old Martina Navratilova reaches Wimbledon final. A two-and-half year off the tour Seles, who was out of shape physically and mentally, returns to the game and wins 3 out of her 4 first tournaments including a slam.

In that such a weak period, Graf amassed her records. AND yet through all that, she STILL COULDN'T win more Grand Slam singles titles than Margaret Court at 24.

If Navratilova or Evert were eliminated from the game in say 1980 or earlier, the other would have completely dominated the sport. Evert lost so many Wimbledon finals to Navratilova. Navratilova lost so many French Open finals to Evert.

Evert and Navratilova were the greatest on clay and grass respectively. They were their own roadblocks. And yet they achieved 18 Grand Slam singles titles to their name. Judging by singles performances alone, those stats are far greater than Graf's 22 Grand Slam titles she achieved with NO COMPETITION.

BUT let's be honest here, tennis is about singles, doubles and mixed doubles. And Graf miserably fails in this category. Court, Navratilova, King, Wills, Williams all won singles, doubles and mixed doubles Grand Slam titles.

Billie Jean King once said that Martina Navratilova is the greatest singles, doubles and mixed doubles tennis player ever.

There are only two players aside from Martina who's won calendar or non-calendar Grand Slams in singles as well as doubles/mixed. That is Court and Serena Williams.

Sorry but I will take their accomplishments over Graf's empty accomplishments in SINGLES ONLY against NO competition. She's a gloried transition player. Basically trash.

At least players like Lenglen and Seles could claim to be trendsetters who changed the game.

Graf basically has nothing. Did she even like the game? Didn't she say she didn't like tennis? What an embarrassment for the sport that this trash could be considered "great".

Please give me women that actually contributed to the sport and loved it.

:worship: :drool: :drool:

As for King's comment, she was 1/3 right. Navratilova is the greatest women's doubles player to ever live. Women's singles and mixed belong to Court.

SerenaSlam
Aug 25th, 2011, 02:05 PM
It doesn't matter who she is. Her opinion is just that, an opinion. Serena is nowhere near Navratilova and herself, and not in the same galaxy as Court, Graf, Wills and Lenglen.

24 slams and 199 titles >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 13 slams and 39 titles. Are we actually discussing this? :confused:

Hmmm...that's all ill say...have a good day

LUVMIRZA
Aug 25th, 2011, 02:14 PM
What would you expect from a fellow American:shrug:

dsanders06
Aug 25th, 2011, 02:22 PM
:facepalm:



I suppose I could have included this response in my previous post, but..., well, I thought you needed a little special place all your own.

You'll have to show me where Navratilova says Serena is the greatest in that quote.

what i don't understand is how ANYONE can question a "great's" opinion about another Tennis player? ...

In that case, you presumably wouldn't question Navratilova's opinion that Steffi is the greatest ever, and that Serena is only top 5?

I don't if this has been brought up yet, but Evert may be thinking about the depth of the WTA tour in Serena's era vs Graf/Martina/Evert era.

Whereas in those early eras, they each had to deal with 3 or 4 other top players to win GS.
Serena had to deal with many more accomplished players in their own right.

Martina/Evert included Martina , Evert, later joined Graf, Seles, Zina Garisson, Sabatini, Vicario


Serena had to contend with Hingis, Seles, Davenport, Capriati, Venus, Henin, Kim, Sharapova, Dementieva, Mauresmo, Myskina , Kusnetsova, Li Na, Ana Ivanovic
All of these players, a the exception of Dementiava, are GS winners.

You will not find this much spread or distribution in the Martina/Evert or Graf/Seles era.
I should also say, that Seles stabbing (followed by a long absence) was also a factor in Graf GS , so much so that each was the main obstacle to the other winning a GS.


I just wanted to throw that in there.

So there's more Slam champions in this generation because Serena wasn't good enough to win the majority of the Slams, whereas Steffi was able to win far more Slams in her time and stop the Na Li's and Ana Ivanovic's of her generation from winning any. All that proves is how much better Steffi is than Serena. :shrug:

tennisbum79
Aug 25th, 2011, 02:32 PM
So there's more Slam champions in this generation because Serena wasn't good enough to win the majority of the Slams, whereas Steffi was able to win far more Slams in her time and stop the Na Li's and Ana Ivanovic's of her generation from winning any. All that proves is how much better Steffi is than Serena. :shrug:
You did not put my name in the post your responded to, but it was mine.


You could make that point, but is it not true.
In Chris/Martina/Graf eras, there simply were not that many good players to challenge them even in early rounds.
They alwasy had a cake walk until the semi finals

roots
Aug 25th, 2011, 02:44 PM
I do think Chris is right. There are many factors to consider, but I always like to look at longevity. If we take Martina, she won her first Grand Slam at Wimbledon in '78 and her last at the same event 12 years later Wimbledon '90. The same can be said for Graf, who won her first Grand Slam at RG in '87 and her last 12 years later at the same event, RG '99. I think that his a huge span of high level tennis for both of them, 12 years is remarkable. As for Serena, well we are exactly 12 years after her first triumph at the US Open in '99, I just have a feeling she will pull it off and win this year's event. I could also add that Chris Evert also acheived what Martina and Steffi did and what Serena will try to do. She won her first Grand Slam in RG '74 and her last, yes 12 years later, RG '86! It would be an incredible feat for Serena to join these 3 legends, but if anyone can do it, Serena can. It's strange how none of them managed to win a Slam over a longer period of 12 years, but again if anyone can, Serena sure could do it. It's safe to say she will remain competitive leading up to the London Olympics next year. (I did leave out Margaret Court who has a 13 year career span between Slams, just because her first of many wins came at the Australian Open in 1960 and is considered by many not to be at the same level as the other Slams at that time. So I'm considering the Open Era)

friendsita
Aug 25th, 2011, 03:09 PM
I have no doubt that Serena is the greatest. But still she has to pass 15 slams at least to be 'officially GOAT' JMHO.

SoBizarre
Aug 25th, 2011, 03:48 PM
When talking about WTA era, I tend to agree with those who say that greatness is all about dominating the whole field for many seasons AND winning a rivalry. That's why Navratilova and Graf are considered The Great Ones and not Evert and Seles, latter two being losers in rivalries. IMHO the stats that show us the clearest picture are those HERE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTA_Tour_records#Best_annual_singles_winning_perce ntage) and HERE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WTA_number_1_ranked_players#Total).

Serena is the greatest player of her time, no doubt about it. If she and her sister were more dominant during their time, we would all agree about her being as great as Navratilova and Graf. But the fact is that they (Williams Sisters) weren't that dominant, for many different reasons. In professional tennis pantheon there are still only two major goddesses - Navratilova and Graf and I'm afraid it will stay that way for years to come.

bandabou
Aug 25th, 2011, 04:26 PM
You'll have to show me where Navratilova says Serena is the greatest in that quote.



In that case, you presumably wouldn't question Navratilova's opinion that Steffi is the greatest ever, and that Serena is only top 5?



So there's more Slam champions in this generation because Serena wasn't good enough to win the majority of the Slams, whereas Steffi was able to win far more Slams in her time and stop the Na Li's and Ana Ivanovic's of her generation from winning any. All that proves is how much better Steffi is than Serena. :shrug:

:lol: Hey stopping Li was Sharapova's job..Li didn't win no major with Serena in the draw. :smash:

Nobody's saying that Serena's the greatest ever, but she's in the discussion for top 5. That's all.

bandabou
Aug 25th, 2011, 04:26 PM
Evidence? Though saying that Bueno and/or Goolagong is greater than Serena is no more delusional than saying that Evert and Navratilova are greater than Court.

With you, one never knows...;)

DOUBLEFIST
Aug 25th, 2011, 05:49 PM
You'll have to show me where Navratilova says Serena is the greatest in that quote.
What?

What kind of knot-head are you?

Evert said Serena is among the greatest. She didn't say she IS THE GREATEST. Despite how many would like to make that the argument, that's not what's being said. She says she should be considered among the greatest.

Again, this is another example of your intellectual dishonesty.

Look, you're the one that said Nav' doesn't feel that way. Well, we showed you you were WRONG. OWN IT and keep on movin'.

Nav' quote is clear. She says Serena is "top five." That puts her AMONG the greatest. Don't be foolish.

sweetpeas
Aug 25th, 2011, 07:07 PM
Who else she has to talk about?Maria Kim !

LDVTennis
Aug 25th, 2011, 08:08 PM
EPIC FAIL. (though not unexpected :o )

NO, the EPIC FAIL was all yours for berating DSanders for claiming that Martina N. did not share Chris' opinion. I quote: "...Evidence? ...Quotes? ...Do you have any or are you, as ever, talking out your ass and calling them facts?" --- http://www.tennisforum.com/showpost.php?p=20115878&postcount=46 As it turns out, it was YOU who "talking out of your ass."

As to the quote from Martina in that story, she said Top 5. She didn't contradict what she said in the clip I referenced earlier. In the clip, she was talking "greatest of all time." In Martina's mind, she's always been in competition with only one woman, Steffi Graf, for that title.

Plus, nowhere in the story you quoted does she say Serena has overcome the primary objection she voiced in the clip, the stuff about "week-in-and-week-out" consistency. Really, some of you Serena fans need to smart up because Martina just outsmarted you.

When the timing is right, after Serena retires, she'll revive the same objection about Serena's lack of consistency. She has a track record of doing this, of backtracking. The thing that the reporter of your story didn't do was press her for a complete answer. So, you've got nothing that she can't take back later.

In that sense, the quote from the story is like that autograph from Venus you never got because, like Venus, Martina was just pretending to be nice. Though in all fairness to Martina, it is not nice to turn down someone's request for an autograph, especially by pretending you are busy. --- :lol::lol::lol:

GAGAlady
Aug 25th, 2011, 08:21 PM
Did she forget to mention herself and Seles ?

Serena is up there with Seles, Evert, Navratilova and Graf.

She forgot to mention seles because Seles is not consides to be the best player ever.

Graff and Martina are.

And let be honest here...Serena is a better fighter than all of those ladies. Seles was a great fighter for her part...but she was also fat and out of shape the last 10 years of her career. Pretty unproffesional if u ask me. Not deserving of title "best there ever was" thats for sure!:o

DOUBLEFIST
Aug 25th, 2011, 08:21 PM
...As to the quote from Martina in that story, she said Top 5.
I guess I have to ask you the same question. What kind of knot-head are you?

The premise of this conversation is not based on "who is THE greatest of all time," but, rather, is Serena AMONG the greatest? It's simple. Nav' says Serena's top 5. THAT puts her among the greatest. You can whine about it all you like but it doesn't change what she said.

The rest of your post is irrelevant :bs:

For example:

...When the timing is right, after Serena retires, she'll revive the same objection about Serena's lack of consistency...
You know this... how? You predict futures now. :haha:

The INDISPUTABLE FACT is that Nav' puts Serena J Williams in the TOP 5 of ALL TIME and that is Among the greatest which is the subject of this thread. And also the thing that dsanders and apparently you, said she didn't feel.

...Dsander's was wrong and you lose. two knot-heads pwn'd for the price of one. I oughta play the lotto today :wavey:

LDVTennis
Aug 25th, 2011, 08:26 PM
You'll have to show me where Navratilova says Serena is the greatest in that quote.

He's got nothing. He needed Martina to say Serena was Top 3 for it to matter. That would have affirmed Chris' most recent opinion.

But Martina was smarter than that. She gave a "nice" answer, but still kept the top spots for herself, Steffi, Chris and Court.

Martina can always go back later and drop Serena from the top 5, probably just after Serena retires. --- :yeah:

LDVTennis
Aug 25th, 2011, 08:39 PM
The premise of this conversation is not based on "who is THE greatest of all time," but, rather, is Serena AMONG the greatest? It's simple. Nav' says Serena's top 5. THAT puts her among the greatest. You can whine about it all you like but it doesn't change what she said.

...Dsander's was wrong and you lose. two knot-heads pwn'd for the price of one. I oughta play the lotto today :wavey:

The premise of the conversation between you and DSanders was whether or not Martina had said something to contradict what Chris said.

I stepped in to show you that she had said something to that effect. You countered with a short quote in which Martina said Serena is Top 5. Top 5 is not equivalent to Top 3.

Mangle Martina's words all you want. She did not say that Serena was Top 3, which is what Evert said.

So, you have nothing.


BTW, what with the word "pwn'd.' Aren't you nearly 40 years old? --- :help:

darrinbaker00
Aug 25th, 2011, 08:46 PM
The premise of the conversation between you and DSanders was whether or not Martina had said something to contradict what Chris said.

I stepped in to show you that she had said something to that effect. You countered with a short quote in which Martina said Serena is Top 5. Top 5 is not equivalent to Top 3.

Mangle Martina's words all you want. She did not say that Serena was Top 3, which is what Evert said.

So, you have nothing.


BTW, what with the word "pwn'd.' Aren't you nearly 40 years old? --- :help:

I'd say you need help, but that would be like saying water is wet.

Dodoboy.
Aug 25th, 2011, 08:51 PM
Would Christie lie?

http://i55.tinypic.com/aouo2s.jpg

DOUBLEFIST
Aug 25th, 2011, 08:55 PM
...She did not say that Serena was Top 3, which is what Evert said.
Speaking of mangling words... :rolleyes:

She did NOT say "top 3" she said "with." That's an important distinction that anyone with half a wit of sense would understand. She could have just as easily put herself and Court up there "with" Graf and Nav'. Few would argue they have a place there.

Martina, by calling Serena top 5, puts Serena "WITH" her, Graf and likely Court and Evert. That's damn good company and high praise from Nav' no matter how desperate you are to hope/pray/predict Nav' will retract it in the future.

This whole thing would be different if she said Serena's THE greatest or even third greatest. She, in effect, said she's among two of the greatest. Clearly Nav' agrees.

dsanders06
Aug 25th, 2011, 08:58 PM
What?

What kind of knot-head are you?

Evert said Serena is among the greatest. She didn't say she IS THE GREATEST. Despite how many would like to make that the argument, that's not what's being said. She says she should be considered among the greatest.

Again, this is another example of your intellectual dishonesty.

Look, you're the one that said Nav' doesn't feel that way. Well, we showed you you were WRONG. OWN IT and keep on movin'.

Nav' quote is clear. She says Serena is "top five." That puts her AMONG the greatest. Don't be foolish.

Actually, Evert said she was on a par with Navratilova and Graf (from one of her quotes in the OP: "I'd put her right up there [as the greatest of all time] with Martina and Steffi"). Navratilova disagrees and puts herself and Steffi ahead of Serena - hence why I said Navratilova has a different opinion.

To quote you, "what kind of a knot-head are you?"

dsanders06
Aug 25th, 2011, 08:59 PM
Speaking of mangling words... :rolleyes:

She did NOT say "top 3" she said "with." That's an important distinction that anyone with half a wit of sense would understand. She could have just as easily put herself and Court up there "with" Graf and Nav'. Few would argue they have a place there.

Martina, by calling Serena top 5, puts Serena "WITH" her, Graf and likely Court and Evert. That's damn good company and high praise from Nav' no matter how desperate you are to hope/pray/predict Nav' will retract it in the future.

This whole thing would be different if she said Serena's THE greatest or even third greatest. She, in effect, said she's among two of the greatest. Clearly Nav' agrees.

No, it puts Serena BEHIND them. If she meant Serena was on a par with them, she would've said "with" like Evert did or "joint first", not "top five".

mykarma
Aug 25th, 2011, 09:02 PM
No, it puts Serena BEHIND them. If she meant Serena was on a par with them, she would've said "with" like Evert did or "joint first", not "top five".
"Top five" means she is one of the five best. The "fifth best" means there are four players better than her.
What are the top five most memorable US Open finals you've ever seenis different than saying:
What is the fifth most memorable US Open final you've ever seen

DOUBLEFIST
Aug 25th, 2011, 09:03 PM
No, it puts Serena BEHIND them. If she meant Serena was on a par with them, she would've said "with" like Evert did or "joint first", not "top five".

She didn't specify an order and my argument isn't based on order. It's based the CATEGORY of player in which both Evert and Nav' associated Serena. "Top five" is CLEARLY a category amongst the GREATEST ever to have played the game, even IF you're 5th on that list. :shrug:

rimon
Aug 25th, 2011, 11:19 PM
With you, one never knows...;)

No, I never said that, and you're putting words in my mouth. I don't think that Bueno or Goolagong are greater than Serena, because a 6 slam difference is way too much, just like it is between Margaret and Evert/Navratilova.
I also don't see how Serena can be in the top 6. Who gets turfed between Lenglen, Wills, Court, Graf, Evert and Navratilova?

justineheninfan
Aug 25th, 2011, 11:35 PM
Lenglen and Wills came from a whole different period. I dont know how you can possibly know if they are better or worse than more modern greats. They should be put into their own category of players, which they would be at the top of. The game was completely different then. The best players were gauranteed to win every single match they played in their primes, as proven by Wills, Lenglen, and even Marble. They did not play every slam, just the ones they felt like. They played in long dresses to their ankles. How can you even know how they realistically compare to Graf, Navratilova, or Serena.

JAS_
Aug 25th, 2011, 11:38 PM
Another hail Serena thread on the eve of US Open?
Impossible :help:

rimon
Aug 25th, 2011, 11:46 PM
Lenglen and Wills came from a whole different period. I dont know how you can possibly know if they are better or worse than more modern greats. They should be put into their own category of players, which they would be at the top of. The game was completely different then. The best players were gauranteed to win every single match they played in their primes, as proven by Wills, Lenglen, and even Marble. They did not play every slam, just the ones they felt like. They played in long dresses to their ankles. How can you even know how they realistically compare to Graf, Navratilova, or Serena.

The whole fact is that their records eclipse Serena. Also, saying that Navratilova is in Court's real is laughable. A 6 slam difference? Really?

Nicolás89
Aug 25th, 2011, 11:47 PM
Intangible and frankly very dubious. Injuries for the top players were just as frequent in the early 90s as now. And "increased level" isn't backed up by the fact worldwide interest in women's tennis is at its lowest point in living memory.

Intangible and frankly very dubious.

dsanders06
Aug 25th, 2011, 11:52 PM
Intangible and frankly very dubious.

Go and examine TV ratings.

Nicolás89
Aug 26th, 2011, 12:02 AM
Go and examine TV ratings.

This FO's final was the most watched in history. :shrug:

earthcrystal
Aug 26th, 2011, 01:23 AM
Chris Evert is a tool and totally uninformed and irrelevant today.

That said, this thread and the tooth and nail fighting over semantics?

Pricelss.

bandabou
Aug 26th, 2011, 04:29 AM
well, well...LDV suddenly a fan of Navratilova, huh?! Just shows the fickleness of this 'guy'. :lol:
Most other days, it's all about Navratilova putting gays to shame, this and that...now her opinion is the gospel?! :spit:

bandabou
Aug 26th, 2011, 04:30 AM
Anyways...Serena is already top 10, so that's an achievement.

rimon
Aug 26th, 2011, 06:12 AM
Anyways...Serena is already top 10, so that's an achievement.

She most definitely is, but nowhere near the top 6.

tievae
Aug 26th, 2011, 06:14 AM
Does Chris Evert's opinion matter that much? :spit: We all know Rena's the Queen! :worship: :kiss:

DOUBLEFIST
Aug 26th, 2011, 06:14 AM
She most definitely is, but nowhere near the top 6.

...according to you, but not Nav' and Evert, so...

calou
Aug 26th, 2011, 06:18 AM
well, well...LDV suddenly a fan of Navratilova, huh?! Just shows the fickleness of this 'guy'. :lol:
Most other days, it's all about Navratilova putting gays to shame, this and that...now her opinion is the gospel?! :spit:
Usually LDV is Martina hater number one :devil:
Yes, it's an evidence Martina is smart , Serena too .We can't say the same for everyone ;)

calou
Aug 26th, 2011, 06:25 AM
She most definitely is, but nowhere near the top 6.
Reading your posts is a pure delight :haha:

justineheninfan
Aug 26th, 2011, 06:26 AM
Did she forget to mention herself and Seles ?

Serena is up there with Seles, Evert, Navratilova and Graf.

No she did not forget Seles. Seles is a 9 slam winner and 0 time Wimbledon winner, so of course is not mentioned in the same sentence as Evert, Navratilova, and Graf. Serena is a 13 slam winner but she was a slam champion across 3 decades, and by far the dominant player of her generation, so that puts her into a different category than Seles as well.

rimon
Aug 26th, 2011, 06:29 AM
...according to you, but not Nav' and Evert, so...

199 career titles with 24 slams (including a CYGS) VS. 39 career titles with 13 slams. Hmmm, tough choice.

rimon
Aug 26th, 2011, 06:29 AM
Reading your posts is a pure delight :haha:

Awww, thanks. :kiss:

bandabou
Aug 26th, 2011, 06:31 AM
No, it puts Serena BEHIND them. If she meant Serena was on a par with them, she would've said "with" like Evert did or "joint first", not "top five".

Waiiiit...dsanders?! Is this the same guy that said that Serena wasn't a good mover, even back in ' 02-' 03?! :spit: :lol: Guys, don't mind him any attention.

Thank God we DO have the videos of her matches against Capriati still..:lol:

bandabou
Aug 26th, 2011, 06:33 AM
She most definitely is, but nowhere near the top 6.

Court/Graf/Navratilova/Evert...for level of play are the only ones I put above Serena. But I know you're a numbers man, so you'll come with Wills/Lenglen/ and whatever great from 1900. :lol:

rimon
Aug 26th, 2011, 06:37 AM
Court/Graf/Navratilova/Evert...for level of play are the only ones I put above Serena. But I know you're a numbers man, so you'll come with Wills/Lenglen/ and whatever great from 1900. :lol:

And what's wrong with that? :confused: Wills and Lenglen have greater records than Serena. I may immensely dislike Serena, but I am very fair and unbiased in my assessment of who is greater.

justineheninfan
Aug 26th, 2011, 06:37 AM
Court/Graf/Navratilova/Evert...for level of play are the only ones I put above Serena. But I know you're a numbers man, so you'll come with Wills/Lenglen/ and whatever great from 1900. :lol:

If it is all about numbers then Roy Emerson is greater than Bjorn Borg, Rafael Nadal, Ivan Lendl, and Andre Agassi. :tape: Emerson has 1 more slam title than Rod Laver in fact. Sometimes you actually have to think beyond the numbers a little bit.

Also while I think Court is underrated I must admit to finding it funny to see someone saying Navratilova is nowhere near Court's league. :lol: Usually I have to argue Court is even in Navratilova's league to most people (without much success most times).

rimon
Aug 26th, 2011, 06:57 AM
If it is all about numbers then Roy Emerson is greater than Bjorn Borg, Rafael Nadal, Ivan Lendl, and Andre Agassi. :tape: Emerson has 1 more slam title than Rod Laver in fact. Sometimes you actually have to think beyond the numbers a little bit.

Also while I think Court is underrated I must admit to finding it funny to see someone saying Navratilova is nowhere near Court's league. :lol: Usually I have to argue Court is even in Navratilova's league to most people (without much success most times).

Why aren't they?

People say that Henin/Bueno/Goolagong are nowhere near Serena, because of the 6 slam differential. The same is the case with Court and Navratilova. Can you give me just one category where Navratilova leads?

bandabou
Aug 26th, 2011, 07:10 AM
And what's wrong with that? :confused: Wills and Lenglen have greater records than Serena. I may immensely dislike Serena, but I am very fair and unbiased in my assessment of who is greater.

See Justineheninfan's post below. Sampras NEVER was the GOAT then?! And Agassi doesn't even crack top 10, if it's all about just numbers.

rimon
Aug 26th, 2011, 07:14 AM
See Justineheninfan's post below. Sampras NEVER was the GOAT then?! And Agassi doesn't even crack top 10, if it's all about just numbers.

Well it's hard to say that Sampras was GOAt, because his a special case, in that he never even made an RG final. Laver won 2 CYGSs, so that more than makes up for it IMO in the slams department. As for total number, I'd have to check more, because I don't know as much about the men's game. As for Serena:

Top 10? without a doubt.
Top 6? Not even close.

bandabou
Aug 26th, 2011, 07:25 AM
Well it's hard to say that Sampras was GOAt, because his a special case, in that he never even made an RG final. Laver won 2 CYGSs, so that more than makes up for it IMO in the slams department. As for total number, I'd have to check more, because I don't know as much about the men's game. As for Serena:

Top 10? without a doubt.
Top 6? Not even close.

See...you're backpedalling. You're adamant to say that Serena doesn't crack top 6. I say she's at least top 7, NO lower than no.7..no matter how you slice it.

And on the same token: you can't say that Sampras was or wasn't the GOAT? Here's the list for men.
Federer ( 16)
Sampras (14)
Emerson ( 12)
Laver, Borg ( 11)
Nadal, Tilden ( 10)
Perry, Connors,Rosewall, Lendl, Agassi. (8)

I stopped at eight...so there you have it. Emerson has even more majors than Laver, but was never in the conversation.
Johnny Mac has less titles than Lendl and Agassi, yet people still talk that he was greater than both.

So how are we gonna rank the boys?!

rimon
Aug 26th, 2011, 07:41 AM
See...you're backpedalling. You're adamant to say that Serena doesn't crack top 6. I say she's at least top 7, NO lower than no.7..no matter how you slice it.

And on the same token: you can't say that Sampras was or wasn't the GOAT? Here's the list for men.
Federer ( 16)
Sampras (14)
Emerson ( 12)
Laver, Borg ( 11)
Nadal, Tilden ( 10)
Perry, Connors,Rosewall, Lendl, Agassi. (8)

I stopped at eight...so there you have it. Emerson has even more majors than Laver, but was never in the conversation.
Johnny Mac has less titles than Lendl and Agassi, yet people still talk that he was greater than both.

So how are we gonna rank the boys?!

I am not backpeddaling. The whole fact is that Sampras never made an RG final. All of the very top women have won each slam multiple times. The reason that I put Sampras lower than Laver is because of this EXCEPTION. I would have to check the other stats too, like total career titles. Also, another EXCEPTION is that Laver won the CYGS TWICE (I mean, come on, :eek:), and wasn't even allowed to play for several years between winning them.

As for the women, I don't see how anyone can be put in the same league as Margaret. I'll post my top 10 later, but before I go, in regards to Serena, as I said, she's definitely top 10, but definitely not top 6.

bandabou
Aug 26th, 2011, 07:46 AM
I am not backpeddaling. The whole fact is that Sampras never made an RG final. All of the very top women have won each slam multiple times. The reason that I put Sampras lower than Laver is because of this EXCEPTION. I would have to check the other stats too, like total career titles. Also, another EXCEPTION is that Laver won the CYGS TWICE (I mean, come on, :eek:), and wasn't even allowed to play for several years between winning them.

As for the women, I don't see how anyone can be put in the same league as Margaret. I'll post my top 10 later, but before I go, in regards to Serena, as I said, she's definitely top 10, but definitely not top 6.

So now the criteria is how many times you won the GS?! Okay...so Laver is still the GOAT, because I mean he did win the GS TWICE and didn't even get to play for some years. Okay, cool. Consistency?!

I'll wait out your list..very very curious. :lol:

I already stated that serena isn't top 6, she's probably top 7.

calou
Aug 26th, 2011, 07:49 AM
I am not backpeddaling. The whole fact is that Sampras never made an RG final. All of the very top women have won each slam multiple times. The reason that I put Sampras lower than Laver is because of this EXCEPTION. I would have to check the other stats too, like total career titles. Also, another EXCEPTION is that Laver won the CYGS TWICE (I mean, come on, :eek:), and wasn't even allowed to play for several years between winning them.

As for the women, I don't see how anyone can be put in the same league as Margaret. I'll post my top 10 later, but before I go, in regards to Serena, as I said, she's definitely top 10, but definitely not top 6.
I agree for Court's league nobody is as bigot :haha:

Chrissie-fan
Aug 26th, 2011, 08:04 AM
And what's wrong with that? :confused: Wills and Lenglen have greater records than Serena.
But against less fierce competition. If travel arrangements of the time had allowed for it winning calender year grand slams would have been a matter of routine for Helen, so I guess by your reasoning that makes her greater than Court as well. Of course, Lenglen and Wills were not responsible for the level of their competition. They no doubt were terrific players who could have done nothing more to fully deserve their place in the tier one group of ATG's. But you need to have some consideration for the ever changing set of circumstances under which the game is played. Stats tell us a lot, but not everything. I don't understand this need for a single GOAT anyway. Nobody knows for sure how Serena would have done in the age of serve and volleyers that was Court's, just like nobody knows how Court would have done against todays baseline power hitters or if either one would have been as effective playing with the others' material. But we do know that Serena is the best player of her time, so she belongs up there with others that were the best of their time. Serena's competition is not Lenglen, Wills, Connolly, Court, Evert, Navratilova or Graf - it's been Hingis, Venus, Capriati, Davenport, Henin, Sharapova and Clijsters. Having superior records to her contemporaries is enough to consider her a tier one ATG.

justineheninfan
Aug 26th, 2011, 08:44 AM
Why aren't they?

People say that Henin/Bueno/Goolagong are nowhere near Serena, because of the 6 slam differential. The same is the case with Court and Navratilova. Can you give me just one category where Navratilova leads?

For what it is worth Emerson is not even ranked as a top 15 player all time by any expert. Many dont even rate him in the top 30. There is hardly any expert that would even rank him over players like Becker and Edberg, both 6 slam winners. This despite sitting 3rd in singles slams and many doubles achievements. That alone should tell you something. Greatest or best ever is NOT based solely on singular stats like most slams. There are many factors to considers, including circumstances, level of competition, the era, the way it was achieved, etc..his is more extreme than most as it is the simple fact he won almost all his slams while the real best players in the World had gone "pro" and back then were barred from the slams. There probably isnt any women with that extreme a situation, but still it just shows how much numbers can be skewed from reality.

Also the difference between 13 slams to 7 and 24 to 18 is not nearly the same. 7 is barely more than 50% of 13. 18 is 75% of 24 so not nearly the difference. Navratilova has 3 times as many Wimbledons as Court. She has 5 more combined Wimbledon/U.S Opens than Court. While Wimbledon isnt everything of course, Wimbledon and the U.S Open were by far the most important events back then, much moreso than today when the 4 slams are pretty much equal despite the greater prestige of the aforementioned 2. Many players didnt even attend the Australian and French Opens in those days. Navratilova at her peak was more dominant than any Open Era women, other than possibly Graf. She lost only 6 total matches between 1982-1984, and had a 74 match win streak at one point, and a 13 match win streak over a fellow all time great like Evert. As dominant as Court was at times, even she doesnt match those kind of stats. I do think Court and Navratilova are definitely in the same league, and as I said I am being more generous to Court than most as most experts actually dont rate her at Navratilova's level.

calou
Aug 26th, 2011, 09:24 AM
For what it is worth Emerson is not even ranked as a top 15 player all time by any expert. Many dont even rate him in the top 30. There is hardly any expert that would even rank him over players like Becker and Edberg, both 6 slam winners. This despite sitting 3rd in singles slams and many doubles achievements. That alone should tell you something. Greatest or best ever is NOT based solely on singular stats like most slams. There are many factors to considers, including circumstances, level of competition, the era, the way it was achieved, etc..his is more extreme than most as it is the simple fact he won almost all his slams while the real best players in the World had gone "pro" and back then were barred from the slams. There probably isnt any women with that extreme a situation, but still it just shows how much numbers can be skewed from reality.

Also the difference between 13 slams to 7 and 24 to 18 is not nearly the same. 7 is barely more than 50% of 13. 18 is 75% of 24 so not nearly the difference. Navratilova has 3 times as many Wimbledons as Court. She has 5 more combined Wimbledon/U.S Opens than Court. While Wimbledon isnt everything of course, Wimbledon and the U.S Open were by far the most important events back then, much moreso than today when the 4 slams are pretty much equal despite the greater prestige of the aforementioned 2. Many players didnt even attend the Australian and French Opens in those days. Navratilova at her peak was more dominant than any Open Era women, other than possibly Graf. She lost only 6 total matches between 1982-1984, and had a 74 match win streak at one point, and a 13 match win streak over a fellow all time great like Evert. As dominant as Court was at times, even she doesnt match those kind of stats. I do think Court and Navratilova are definitely in the same league, and as I said I am being more generous to Court than most as most experts actually dont rate her at Navratilova's level.
:yeah:
Don't forget ,during Court era 3 slams were played on GRASS ,Navratiova's best surface , guess how many slams she would have won ? That's why when it is about the GOAT (something i don't care ) it's always between Nav and Graf ..
Be back at this thread : i agree Serena is among these great players .

rimon
Aug 26th, 2011, 11:03 AM
So now the criteria is how many times you won the GS?! Okay...so Laver is still the GOAT, because I mean he did win the GS TWICE and didn't even get to play for some years. Okay, cool. Consistency?!

I'll wait out your list..very very curious. :lol:

I already stated that serena isn't top 6, she's probably top 7.

I have always thought that. It just hasn't been an issue, because we've only discussed women before. After all, I though that this was a women's tennis forum? :rolleyes:

My list:

1. Margaret Court.
2. Steffi Graf.
3. Helen Wills.
4. Martina Navratilova.
5. Chris Evert.
6. Suzanne Lenglen.
7. Serena Williams.
8. Billie Jean King.
9. Monica Seles.
10. Either Maria Bueno or Evonne Goolagong.

rimon
Aug 26th, 2011, 11:08 AM
For what it is worth Emerson is not even ranked as a top 15 player all time by any expert. Many dont even rate him in the top 30. There is hardly any expert that would even rank him over players like Becker and Edberg, both 6 slam winners. This despite sitting 3rd in singles slams and many doubles achievements. That alone should tell you something. Greatest or best ever is NOT based solely on singular stats like most slams. There are many factors to considers, including circumstances, level of competition, the era, the way it was achieved, etc..his is more extreme than most as it is the simple fact he won almost all his slams while the real best players in the World had gone "pro" and back then were barred from the slams. There probably isnt any women with that extreme a situation, but still it just shows how much numbers can be skewed from reality.

Also the difference between 13 slams to 7 and 24 to 18 is not nearly the same. 7 is barely more than 50% of 13. 18 is 75% of 24 so not nearly the difference. Navratilova has 3 times as many Wimbledons as Court. She has 5 more combined Wimbledon/U.S Opens than Court. While Wimbledon isnt everything of course, Wimbledon and the U.S Open were by far the most important events back then, much moreso than today when the 4 slams are pretty much equal despite the greater prestige of the aforementioned 2. Many players didnt even attend the Australian and French Opens in those days. Navratilova at her peak was more dominant than any Open Era women, other than possibly Graf. She lost only 6 total matches between 1982-1984, and had a 74 match win streak at one point, and a 13 match win streak over a fellow all time great like Evert. As dominant as Court was at times, even she doesnt match those kind of stats. I do think Court and Navratilova are definitely in the same league, and as I said I am being more generous to Court than most as most experts actually dont rate her at Navratilova's level.

24 - 18 = 6.
13 - 7 = 6.

AO wins - 11-3 for Margaret.
RG wins 5-2 for Margaret.
W wins 9-3 for Martina.
USO wins 5-4 for Margaret.

You also discuss their dominance. Well, one of them won a CYGS and one didn't. Which one did?

Again, is there any category where Martina leads Margaret?

rimon
Aug 26th, 2011, 11:09 AM
:yeah:
Don't forget ,during Court era 3 slams were played on GRASS ,Navratiova's best surface , guess how many slams she would have won ? That's why when it is about the GOAT (something i don't care ) it's always between Nav and Graf ..
Be back at this thread : i agree Serena is among these great players .

This is pure speculation.

justineheninfan
Aug 26th, 2011, 11:24 AM
Again, is there any category where Martina leads Margaret?

9 Wimbledons to 3 is a pretty huge lead in a huge category. :lol: Also whether you choose to accept it or not the fact is any player in the 60s, 70s, or 80s would rather 9 Wimbledons and 3 Australian Opens than 11 Australian Opens and 3 Wimbledons. Court definitely has a better French Open record, but then again she didnt face prime Chris Evert for over a decade on clay either. I already pointed out to you as well Martina had a better win-loss record in her best years and several longer winning streaks than Court's longest. So it is silly for you to even ask if there is any category Martina leads Court in.

PS- if you are such a stats whore, especialy looking ONLY at # of slams won, why is Lenglen supposably head and shoulders above Serena. Lenglen won only 12 slams, Serena has already won 13. Lenglen never won the Australian or U.S Open. If you are going to say it is because she didnt play more slams, by your past logic the answer to that is that is useless speculation. :lol:

bandabou
Aug 26th, 2011, 11:30 AM
I have always thought that. It just hasn't been an issue, because we've only discussed women before. After all, I though that this was a women's tennis forum? :rolleyes:

My list:

1. Margaret Court.
2. Steffi Graf.
3. Helen Wills.
4. Martina Navratilova.
5. Chris Evert.
6. Suzanne Lenglen.
7. Serena Williams.
8. Billie Jean King.
9. Monica Seles.
10. Either Maria Bueno or Evonne Goolagong.

:lol: If you say sooo....

Anyways...Lenglen above Serena? Interesting...Serena has MORE majors AND the career slam. So then all of sudden the stats and your logic become kind...:lol: It's cool though.

rimon
Aug 26th, 2011, 11:46 AM
9 Wimbledons to 3 is a pretty huge lead in a huge category. :lol: Also whether you choose to accept it or not the fact is any player in the 60s, 70s, or 80s would rather 9 Wimbledons and 3 Australian Opens than 11 Australian Opens and 3 Wimbledons. Court definitely has a better French Open record, but then again she didnt face prime Chris Evert for over a decade on clay either. I already pointed out to you as well Martina had a better win-loss record in her best years and several longer winning streaks than Court's longest. So it is silly for you to even ask if there is any category Martina leads Court in.

PS- if you are such a stats whore, especialy looking ONLY at # of slams won, why is Lenglen supposably head and shoulders above Serena. Lenglen won only 12 slams, Serena has already won 13. Lenglen never won the Australian or U.S Open. If you are going to say it is because she didnt play more slams, by your past logic the answer to that is that is useless speculation. :lol:

That's a sub-category. You didn't answer my question. Which one won a CYGS?

As for Lenglen, it's only a one slam difference, and hers is an exceptional case. She lost 1 (that's right, 1, single match in her career).

I am not all about numbers anyway, but it's just too hard to see over a 6 slam difference.

rimon
Aug 26th, 2011, 11:47 AM
:lol: If you say sooo....

Anyways...Lenglen above Serena? Interesting...Serena has MORE majors AND the career slam. So then all of sudden the stats and your logic become kind...:lol: It's cool though.

I never said that it's all about numbers. Where did you get that idea? Lenglen lost a single match in her whole career. Btw, what's your order?

calou
Aug 26th, 2011, 11:52 AM
That's a sub-category. You didn't answer my question. Which one won a CYGS?

As for Lenglen, it's only a one slam difference, and hers is an exceptional case. She lost 1 (that's right, 1, single match in her career).

I am not all about numbers anyway, but it's just too hard to see over a 6 slam difference.
Wimbledon the most prestigious slam a sub category :eek:
i think we all waste our time with you :p

bandabou
Aug 26th, 2011, 11:58 AM
I never said that it's all about numbers. Where did you get that idea? Lenglen lost a single match in her whole career. Btw, what's your order?

It's not all about the numbers...only when it's about placing Serena, I guess. If you had your way you wouldn't even have put her in the top 10..but then you'd totally looked like a fool and the bias would've beocme impossible to defend.

Who cares if Lenglen only lost one match in her career? The criteria you yourself had set: total majors, then career slam or no career slam...so if Lenglen is already behind on the first count, then you go invent another rule?! :lol: It's cool man. Whatever.

my top 10?
1. Court..24 majors are 24 majors.
2. Graf...if you make a case for Lenglen over Serena, then a case can be made for Graf over Court too..nahh, of course not. :lol:
3. Navratilova..her peak was better than evert's.
4. Evert.
5. Wills.
6. Serena..career slam and her peak form gives all the above her a run for their money.
7. Lenglen..no oz or u.s.opens hurt her case.
8. BJK. Wimbledon legend.
9. Seles..tragic, but numbers are numbers.
10. anybody from Goolagong/ Juju/ Vee.

tennisvideos
Aug 26th, 2011, 11:58 AM
9 Wimbledons to 3 is a pretty huge lead in a huge category. :lol: Also whether you choose to accept it or not the fact is any player in the 60s, 70s, or 80s would rather 9 Wimbledons and 3 Australian Opens than 11 Australian Opens and 3 Wimbledons. Court definitely has a better French Open record, but then again she didnt face prime Chris Evert for over a decade on clay either. I already pointed out to you as well Martina had a better win-loss record in her best years and several longer winning streaks than Court's longest. So it is silly for you to even ask if there is any category Martina leads Court in.

PS- if you are such a stats whore, especialy looking ONLY at # of slams won, why is Lenglen supposably head and shoulders above Serena. Lenglen won only 12 slams, Serena has already won 13. Lenglen never won the Australian or U.S Open. If you are going to say it is because she didnt play more slams, by your past logic the answer to that is that is useless speculation. :lol:

You have to remember though that Court faced some of the greatest clay courters in the 60s and early 70s while racking up her 5 French Opens - Anne Jones, Nancy Richey, Lesley Turner and indeed Chris Evert herself. Honestly, these 4 were great clay courters.

But I agree, there isn't much separating Court and Navratilova in reality - Martina was far better at Wimbledon and yet Court was much better at Roland Garros. And both were great champions in Doubles and Mixed. So it all balances out. I guess Court has the greater singles win/loss percentage so that is why I rate her and Evert ahead of the rest of the modern day greats.

tennisvideos
Aug 26th, 2011, 12:02 PM
See...you're backpedalling. You're adamant to say that Serena doesn't crack top 6. I say she's at least top 7, NO lower than no.7..no matter how you slice it.

And on the same token: you can't say that Sampras was or wasn't the GOAT? Here's the list for men.
Federer ( 16)
Sampras (14)
Emerson ( 12)
Laver, Borg ( 11)
Nadal, Tilden ( 10)
Perry, Connors,Rosewall, Lendl, Agassi. (8)

I stopped at eight...so there you have it. Emerson has even more majors than Laver, but was never in the conversation.
Johnny Mac has less titles than Lendl and Agassi, yet people still talk that he was greater than both.

So how are we gonna rank the boys?!

Truth is, Laver and Rosewall probably would have around 20 Slams each had they have been able to play the slams (Laver missed 7 years and Rosewall missed 11 years at his peak!). Tilden, Perry, Gonzales and Kramer all would have won lots more slams too except for turning pro.

So you cannot compare the mens accurately. The one who is inflated the most in that list is Emerson who won most while Laver, Rosewall and Gonzales were all pro. He was the beneficiary. IMO he is not an all time great.

In the mens, the true GOATS, IMO, are:

Laver
Rosewall
Federer
Tilden
Borg
Sampras
Gonzales
Nadal and the others ...

tennisvideos
Aug 26th, 2011, 12:08 PM
On topic, Serena is the greatest of her generation and that is all you can be! Serena at her best is up there with the very best - no doubt about that.

I think if she played more she would be closer to the all time greats but as it stands I still put Lenglen, Wills, Court, Evert, Navratilova and Graf above her in terms of records.

rimon
Aug 26th, 2011, 12:09 PM
It's not all about the numbers...only when it's about placing Serena, I guess. If you had your way you wouldn't even have put her in the top 10..but then you'd totally looked like a fool and the bias would've beocme impossible to defend.

Who cares if Lenglen only lost one match in her career? The criteria you yourself had set: total majors, then career slam or no career slam...so if Lenglen is already behind on the first count, then you go invent another rule?! :lol: It's cool man. Whatever.

my top 10?
1. Court..24 majors are 24 majors.
2. Graf...if you make a case for Lenglen over Serena, then a case can be made for Graf over Court too..nahh, of course not. :lol:
3. Navratilova..her peak was better than evert's.
4. Evert.
5. Wills.
6. Serena..career slam and her peak form gives all the above her a run for their money.
7. Lenglen..no oz or u.s.opens hurt her case.
8. BJK. Wimbledon legend.
9. Seles..tragic, but numbers are numbers.
10. anybody from Goolagong/ Juju/ Vee.

Except for very exceptional cases. I mean, losing 1 match in your entire career? Are you kidding me? No, fair is fair and I recognise Serena as the champion that she is. Despite my dislike for her, I have no qualms whatsoever in recognising that she is well within the top 10. Funny, our lists include the exact same players, except Justine. Curious, why do you think that she has a case against Bueno and Goolagong? And no, this is not an attack, it's a friendly curious question.

rimon
Aug 26th, 2011, 12:10 PM
Wimbledon the most prestigious slam a sub category :eek:
i think we all waste our time with you :p

That's a matter of opinion, and it IS a sub-category.

rimon
Aug 26th, 2011, 12:11 PM
You have to remember though that Court faced some of the greatest clay courters in the 60s and early 70s while racking up her 5 French Opens - Anne Jones, Nancy Richey, Lesley Turner and indeed Chris Evert herself. Honestly, these 4 were great clay courters.

But I agree, there isn't much separating Court and Navratilova in reality - Martina was far better at Wimbledon and yet Court was much better at Roland Garros. And both were great champions in Doubles and Mixed. So it all balances out. I guess Court has the greater singles win/loss percentage so that is why I rate her and Evert ahead of the rest of the modern day greats.

Evert and Navratilova are as close as it gets. You could really argue either way. More career titles and better H-2-H (Martina), or higher winning percentage and winning streak on a surface (Chris).

rimon
Aug 26th, 2011, 12:13 PM
Truth is, Laver and Rosewall probably would have around 20 Slams each had they have been able to play the slams (Laver missed 7 years and Rosewall missed 11 years at his peak!). Tilden, Perry, Gonzales and Kramer all would have won lots more slams too except for turning pro.

So you cannot compare the mens accurately. The one who is inflated the most in that list is Emerson who won most while Laver, Rosewall and Gonzales were all pro. He was the beneficiary. IMO he is not an all time great.

In the mens, the true GOATS, IMO, are:

Laver
Rosewall
Federer
Tilden
Borg
Sampras
Gonzales
Nadal and the others ...

I couldn't agree more. Comparing men and women's fields is like comparing chalk and cheese. Why no McEnroe and Agassi on your list though? How underrated are Tilden and Gonzales??

brickhousesupporter
Aug 26th, 2011, 12:13 PM
Truth is, Laver and Rosewall probably would have around 20 Slams each had they have been able to play the slams (Laver missed 7 years and Rosewall missed 11 years at his peak!). Tilden, Perry, Gonzales and Kramer all would have won lots more slams too except for turning pro.

So you cannot compare the mens accurately. The one who is inflated the most in that list is Emerson who won most while Laver, Rosewall and Gonzales were all pro. He was the beneficiary. IMO he is not an all time great.

In the mens, the true GOATS, IMO, are:

Laver
Rosewall
Federer
Tilden
Borg
Sampras
Gonzales
Nadal and the others ...
You cannot have it both ways.....you can't say there are valid excuses for the men's records, and then dismiss the people questioning courts records....you either take the records as they are, or you acknowledge that stats aren't everything. That opens the door for people to question Courts records.

tennisvideos
Aug 26th, 2011, 12:18 PM
You cannot have it both ways.....you can't say there are valid excuses for the men's records, and then dismiss the people questioning courts records....you either take the records as they are, or you acknowledge that stats aren't everything. That opens the door for people to question Courts records.

There is a very simple reason for my argument about the men ... and I am sure you know it, but to reiterate for those who don't ....

Before 1968 there was a separate mens Pro and Amateur tour. The best players played the pro tour and were ineligible to play the Grand Slams. In the 1960s the 3 best players COULD NOT PLAY the Slams (Laver, Rosewall and Gonzales). This is why Emerson won 12 Slams.

This was not the case in the womens tour. So everyone was eligible to play any event.

So yes, that is why it is different when talking about the mens and womens tour and their records.

tennisvideos
Aug 26th, 2011, 12:20 PM
I couldn't agree more. Comparing men and women's fields is like comparing chalk and cheese. Why no McEnroe and Agassi on your list though? How underrated are Tilden and Gonzales??

Well McEnroe and Agassi fall in around Nadal... I just didn't want to keep going on and on with the list.

I think Tilden was a great player - very dominant back in the Lenglen era. Gonzales was a bit like the Sampras of the late 50s and early 60s. He was a great grasscourt player with a huge serve and great volley. Not as great an all rounder as Laver and Rosewall though who were both better on clay as well.

bandabou
Aug 26th, 2011, 12:21 PM
On topic, Serena is the greatest of her generation and that is all you can be! Serena at her best is up there with the very best - no doubt about that.

I think if she played more she would be closer to the all time greats but as it stands I still put Lenglen, Wills, Court, Evert, Navratilova and Graf above her in terms of records.

Lenglen too? even despite her lack of career-slam and having one title less than Serena? Okay...

Serena has the GOHG then as consolation, I guess...no problemos.

bandabou
Aug 26th, 2011, 12:23 PM
Except for very exceptional cases. I mean, losing 1 match in your entire career? Are you kidding me? No, fair is fair and I recognise Serena as the champion that she is. Despite my dislike for her, I have no qualms whatsoever in recognising that she is well within the top 10. Funny, our lists include the exact same players, except Justine. Curious, why do you think that she has a case against Bueno and Goolagong? And no, this is not an attack, it's a friendly curious question.

Then she's greater than EVERYBODY else, no? Who else lost only one match for their careers?! :shrug:
But it's cool..top 7? Okay..no problems.

JuJu and Vee too can claim that they were the best players of the world for a period. Bueno and Goolagong imo never could. There was always somebody better than them.

Chrissie-fan
Aug 26th, 2011, 12:25 PM
It's not all about the numbers...only when it's about placing Serena, I guess. If you had your way you wouldn't even have put her in the top 10..but then you'd totally looked like a fool and the bias would've beocme impossible to defend.

Who cares if Lenglen only lost one match in her career? The criteria you yourself had set: total majors, then career slam or no career slam...so if Lenglen is already behind on the first count, then you go invent another rule?! :lol: It's cool man. Whatever.

my top 10?
1. Court..24 majors are 24 majors.
2. Graf...if you make a case for Lenglen over Serena, then a case can be made for Graf over Court too..nahh, of course not. :lol:
3. Navratilova..her peak was better than evert's.
4. Evert.
5. Wills.
6. Serena..career slam and her peak form gives all the above her a run for their money.
7. Lenglen..no oz or u.s.opens hurt her case.
8. BJK. Wimbledon legend.
9. Seles..tragic, but numbers are numbers.
10. anybody from Goolagong/ Juju/ Vee.
Good list, but I think you forgot to include Connolly.

bandabou
Aug 26th, 2011, 12:38 PM
Good list, but I think you forgot to include Connolly.

Ah there goes Serena's rank..top 8. :sobbing:
' Cause her case is even more tragic than Lenglen's if I'm not mistaken, no?!

tennisvideos
Aug 26th, 2011, 12:44 PM
Lenglen too? even despite her lack of career-slam and having one title less than Serena? Okay...

Serena has the GOHG then as consolation, I guess...no problemos.

Well, I think Lenglen was one of the very greatest of the them all - I mean she only ever lost a couple of singles matches (by default too I think) after a certain age. So I factor that in along with the number of slams ... I actually think career singles win/loss percentage is just as important as slams. Plus Suzanne is one of my all time idols. :worship:

bandabou
Aug 26th, 2011, 01:03 PM
Well, I think Lenglen was one of the very greatest of the them all - I mean she only ever lost a couple of singles matches (by default too I think) after a certain age. So I factor that in along with the number of slams ... I actually think career singles win/loss percentage is just as important as slams. Plus Suzanne is one of my all time idols. :worship:

Okay, then GOHG it'll have to be for Serena and a place low in the top 10 of the GOATS..

tennisvideos
Aug 26th, 2011, 01:23 PM
Okay, then GOHG it'll have to be for Serena and a place low in the top 10 of the GOATS..

Well on the positive side Serena is the greatest of her generation and as I mentioned before, that is all you can be! It's all subjective when comparing the GOATS and let's face it, everyone has their own favourites. :)

thrust
Aug 26th, 2011, 01:37 PM
Truth is, Laver and Rosewall probably would have around 20 Slams each had they have been able to play the slams (Laver missed 7 years and Rosewall missed 11 years at his peak!). Tilden, Perry, Gonzales and Kramer all would have won lots more slams too except for turning pro.

So you cannot compare the mens accurately. The one who is inflated the most in that list is Emerson who won most while Laver, Rosewall and Gonzales were all pro. He was the beneficiary. IMO he is not an all time great.

In the mens, the true GOATS, IMO, are:

Laver
Rosewall
Federer
Tilden
Borg
Sampras
Gonzales
Nadal and the others ...
GOOD AND ACCURATE LIST!
If you combine Rosewall's Pro slams with the regular slams, he has 24, Laver has 22. Laver lost 5 years as a Pro playing the regular slams, Rosewall lost 11 years. If you take away Ken's pre Open Era Slams, he still has 20. If you take away Laver's pre open era slams, he would have 16 slams.

bandabou
Aug 26th, 2011, 01:52 PM
Well on the positive side Serena is the greatest of her generation and as I mentioned before, that is all you can be! It's all subjective when comparing the GOATS and let's face it, everyone has their own favourites. :)

:lol: Of course..but GOHG isn't too bad to start with..

thrust
Aug 26th, 2011, 01:56 PM
For what it is worth Emerson is not even ranked as a top 15 player all time by any expert. Many dont even rate him in the top 30. There is hardly any expert that would even rank him over players like Becker and Edberg, both 6 slam winners. This despite sitting 3rd in singles slams and many doubles achievements. That alone should tell you something. Greatest or best ever is NOT based solely on singular stats like most slams. There are many factors to considers, including circumstances, level of competition, the era, the way it was achieved, etc..his is more extreme than most as it is the simple fact he won almost all his slams while the real best players in the World had gone "pro" and back then were barred from the slams. There probably isnt any women with that extreme a situation, but still it just shows how much numbers can be skewed from reality.

Also the difference between 13 slams to 7 and 24 to 18 is not nearly the same. 7 is barely more than 50% of 13. 18 is 75% of 24 so not nearly the difference. Navratilova has 3 times as many Wimbledons as Court. She has 5 more combined Wimbledon/U.S Opens than Court. While Wimbledon isnt everything of course, Wimbledon and the U.S Open were by far the most important events back then, much moreso than today when the 4 slams are pretty much equal despite the greater prestige of the aforementioned 2. Many players didnt even attend the Australian and French Opens in those days. Navratilova at her peak was more dominant than any Open Era women, other than possibly Graf. She lost only 6 total matches between 1982-1984, and had a 74 match win streak at one point, and a 13 match win streak over a fellow all time great like Evert. As dominant as Court was at times, even she doesnt match those kind of stats. I do think Court and Navratilova are definitely in the same league, and as I said I am being more generous to Court than most as most experts actually dont rate her at Navratilova's level.

Interesting post but the fact is that the French, especially when Margreat was playing, was just as important as Wimbledon and the US. All the top players competed, just as at Wimby and the US. Also, in 68 and 69 there was the regular USO and an amateur championship. I think that King, Cassals, Richey did not compete in the amateur but all the other top players did. In 68, Wade beat King in the regular final, while Court beat Bueno in the amateur final. In the semis, Bueno beat Wade. In 69, Court won both, beating Richey in the Open and Wade in the amateur final. Richey defeated King in the quarters of the Open tournament, then lost to Court in the final. Therefore, I think, there is an arguement that Court should be credited with 2 more slam wins. Others have suggested this too. If BJK had won those finals she would have been given credit for slam wins, IMO.

bandabou
Aug 26th, 2011, 04:13 PM
:eek: Court had even more majors?!

VenusSerenaBlvd.
Aug 26th, 2011, 04:38 PM
Serena is GOAT to me. Her best can beat anybody else's best. I mean put peak Serena v peak Graf, honestly Serena would win. Her serve is the best of all time in the Women's game.

*Nefertiti*
Aug 26th, 2011, 06:01 PM
Serena and Venus are a phenomenon. A very good role model to young African Americans in US. Rarely are there good role models of African Americans in US TV.

justineheninfan
Aug 26th, 2011, 10:37 PM
I agree on one thing on Serena. She cant yet be considered for the greatest ever, she simply has not achieved enough or had the career for it YET. If she can add considerably to her already considerable achievements than she can be in contention for the title.

However I like to seperate greatest from best. I know it is subjective but I do think Serena at her best would beat Graf, Navratilova, or Evert at theirs. Well definitely not Graf or Evert on clay, but on all other surfaces she would stand a real shot. That is even if born at the same time, same equipment, etc...It is harder to judge vs players even further back who never played with a graphite racquet, but I do think Serena ability wise is competive with past greats in history so could be in consideration for the "best" player of all time. Past greats of the game have suggested so too, as the thread title suggests.

dsanders06
Aug 26th, 2011, 10:51 PM
Serena is GOAT to me. Her best can beat anybody else's best. I mean put peak Serena v peak Graf, honestly Serena would win. Her serve is the best of all time in the Women's game.

Probably, but Graf had the better forehand and better movement. :shrug:

justineheninfan
Aug 26th, 2011, 11:04 PM
Probably, but Graf had the better forehand and better movement. :shrug:

By early 1993 Graf at her best couldnt even beat Seles at her best on hard courts anymore. Graf played her best in the Australian Open final and got thrashed in the last 2 sets, winning only 5 games. Seles not only outbackhanded her, outreturned her, and outsteadied her in the decisive 3rd set, but even surprisingly outserved and outplayed forehand to forehand Steffi Graf. So what would Graf then do against Serena who serves much better than Seles (and even better than Graf), moves and defends far better than even pre stabbing Seles, hits the ball as hard or harder off the ground, and returns as well and is as mentally tough. OK she does give up more errors than pre stabbing Seles, and that is what Graf would be reduced to vs Serena on a hard court. Totally on her heels and just praying for unforced errors. That is how she was in their Indian Wells match when neither was at their peak.

tennisvideos
Aug 27th, 2011, 12:52 AM
GOOD AND ACCURATE LIST!
If you combine Rosewall's Pro slams with the regular slams, he has 24, Laver has 22. Laver lost 5 years as a Pro playing the regular slams, Rosewall lost 11 years. If you take away Ken's pre Open Era Slams, he still has 20. If you take away Laver's pre open era slams, he would have 16 slams.

Actually I agree you should take away their pre-open slams to make it more accurate for the men. In which case Rosewall would indeed have 20 Slams and Laver 16. Much more realistic. And I have always thought Rosewall deserved a spot up there with the best ever in the mens. I mean he was winning slams as a teenager, then left the amateur era to become top dog on the pro ranks, then came back to the regular tour in his mid 30s and was still winning slams in his late 30s and making finals in his early 40s! A truly astonishing player ... and when you watch his clashes with Laver, Smith etc you begin to realise what a magician this guy was.

I know this belongs in the MTF but it doesn't hurt occasionally to have some of these inclusions in here when comparing the different mens and womens tours.

tennisvideos
Aug 27th, 2011, 12:56 AM
Interesting post but the fact is that the French, especially when Margreat was playing, was just as important as Wimbledon and the US. All the top players competed, just as at Wimby and the US. Also, in 68 and 69 there was the regular USO and an amateur championship. I think that King, Cassals, Richey did not compete in the amateur but all the other top players did. In 68, Wade beat King in the regular final, while Court beat Bueno in the amateur final. In the semis, Bueno beat Wade. In 69, Court won both, beating Richey in the Open and Wade in the amateur final. Richey defeated King in the quarters of the Open tournament, then lost to Court in the final. Therefore, I think, there is an arguement that Court should be credited with 2 more slam wins. Others have suggested this too. If BJK had won those finals she would have been given credit for slam wins, IMO.

Wow I had never even considered or thought about those. I thought they were already included in her list of 24 slams. So in reality, she could easily claim to have 26 slams.

Yes, had King have won those events I am certain they would be added to her tally.

dsanders06
Aug 27th, 2011, 01:07 AM
By early 1993 Graf at her best couldnt even beat Seles at her best on hard courts anymore. Graf played her best in the Australian Open final and got thrashed in the last 2 sets, winning only 5 games. Seles not only outbackhanded her, outreturned her, and outsteadied her in the decisive 3rd set, but even surprisingly outserved and outplayed forehand to forehand Steffi Graf. So what would Graf then do against Serena who serves much better than Seles (and even better than Graf), moves and defends far better than even pre stabbing Seles, hits the ball as hard or harder off the ground, and returns as well and is as mentally tough. OK she does give up more errors than pre stabbing Seles, and that is what Graf would be reduced to vs Serena on a hard court. Totally on her heels and just praying for unforced errors. That is how she was in their Indian Wells match when neither was at their peak.

You mean Graf at her best couldn't beat her on slow hardcourts. I don't think they ever even played at the US Open til 1995. And of course, Steffi thrashed Seles when they met on grass.

Also, Seles is definitely a better ballstriker than even peak Serena, and I'd even quibble whether Serena is as mentally tough - she might be as self-confident, but even at her peak she was much more prone to concentration lapses than Seles in her prime was.

SoBlackAndBlue
Aug 27th, 2011, 01:11 AM
Probably, but Graf had the better forehand and better movement. :shrug:

And Serena had the better backhand.

dsanders06
Aug 27th, 2011, 01:14 AM
And Serena had the better backhand.

Debateable. I have a hard time seeing Serena handling Steffi's backhand slice, particularly on grass, when she struggled against the more mediocre slices in her generation (e.g. in that match against Emilie Loit in 2002).

SoBlackAndBlue
Aug 27th, 2011, 01:19 AM
Debateable. I have a hard time seeing Serena handling Steffi's backhand slice, particularly on grass, when she struggled against the more mediocre slices in her generation (e.g. in that match against Emilie Loit in 2002).

Funny, she handled Henin's backhand pretty well in Wimbledon in 2003.

dsanders06
Aug 27th, 2011, 01:21 AM
Funny, she handled Henin's backhand pretty well in Wimbledon in 2003.

Not at RG the month before :shrug: Steffi had a much better slice than Henin anyway.

rimon
Aug 27th, 2011, 02:22 AM
Well McEnroe and Agassi fall in around Nadal... I just didn't want to keep going on and on with the list.

I think Tilden was a great player - very dominant back in the Lenglen era. Gonzales was a bit like the Sampras of the late 50s and early 60s. He was a great grasscourt player with a huge serve and great volley. Not as great an all rounder as Laver and Rosewall though who were both better on clay as well.

Yes, that's so true. Tilden doesn't get enough credit IMO, obviously because it was so long ago. Sampras and Gonzales are really hurt by their dire (for their standards) results on clay.

rimon
Aug 27th, 2011, 02:24 AM
Then she's greater than EVERYBODY else, no? Who else lost only one match for their careers?! :shrug:
But it's cool..top 7? Okay..no problems.

JuJu and Vee too can claim that they were the best players of the world for a period. Bueno and Goolagong imo never could. There was always somebody better than them.

IMO, it can't overcome 24, 22, 19 and 18 slams. 13 is a different kettle of fish. I'm not sure about Bueno, but I think that most rate Goolagong as the best of 1971.

rimon
Aug 27th, 2011, 02:25 AM
Good list, but I think you forgot to include Connolly.

:tape: So true. I will have to change my list now. I'd put her ahead of Monica.

rimon
Aug 27th, 2011, 02:27 AM
I agree on one thing on Serena. She cant yet be considered for the greatest ever, she simply has not achieved enough or had the career for it YET. If she can add considerably to her already considerable achievements than she can be in contention for the title.

However I like to seperate greatest from best. I know it is subjective but I do think Serena at her best would beat Graf, Navratilova, or Evert at theirs. Well definitely not Graf or Evert on clay, but on all other surfaces she would stand a real shot. That is even if born at the same time, same equipment, etc...It is harder to judge vs players even further back who never played with a graphite racquet, but I do think Serena ability wise is competive with past greats in history so could be in consideration for the "best" player of all time. Past greats of the game have suggested so too, as the thread title suggests.

How can you possibly be sure of that?

rimon
Aug 27th, 2011, 02:28 AM
Wow I had never even considered or thought about those. I thought they were already included in her list of 24 slams. So in reality, she could easily claim to have 26 slams.

Yes, had King have won those events I am certain they would be added to her tally.

Total double standards, and Margaret is really underrated because she's Australian, IMO.

darrinbaker00
Aug 27th, 2011, 02:39 AM
:lol: If you say sooo....

Anyways...Lenglen above Serena? Interesting...Serena has MORE majors AND the career slam. So then all of sudden the stats and your logic become kind...:lol: It's cool though.

Not to single you out, Bandabou, but I think we should put Helen Wills Moody and Suzanne Lenglen in a separate category for one simple, yet very big reason: there was no commercial air travel when they played. Neither of them ever played Australia, and Lenglen only played the U.S. Championships once. Heck, they only played EACH OTHER once. I can't hold it against them for not wanting to take a two-week boat trip to play a tennis tournament for no prize money.

darrinbaker00
Aug 27th, 2011, 02:43 AM
Yes, that's so true. Tilden doesn't get enough credit IMO, obviously because it was so long ago. Sampras and Gonzales are really hurt by their dire (for their standards) results on clay.

Gonzalez turned pro early and couldn't play the majors, and just like some people hold Margaret Court's religious beliefs against her, a lot of people (like me) don't hold Bill Tilden in high regard because he was a twice-convicted pedophile.

rimon
Aug 27th, 2011, 03:30 AM
Gonzalez turned pro early and couldn't play the majors, and just like some people hold Margaret Court's religious beliefs against her, a lot of people (like me) don't hold Bill Tilden in high regard because he was a twice-convicted pedophile.

And this is relevant to their on-court achievements how? :wavey:

tennisvideos
Aug 27th, 2011, 05:09 AM
Gonzalez turned pro early and couldn't play the majors, and just like some people hold Margaret Court's religious beliefs against her, a lot of people (like me) don't hold Bill Tilden in high regard because he was a twice-convicted pedophile.

How judgemental of you and therefore he wasn't a great player? Just bullshit.

No one has the right to sit here and judge other's lives unless you walk in their footsteps. I do not condone pedophilia but at the same time that is between Bill Tilden and the universe to work through (call that God or whatever you want). But Bill Tilden was still an incredible tennis player and a great personality for our sport.

As for Margaret Court - I have an email from her private secretary which I shall share on these boards when the time and thread is right in which she has openly stated her love for gay and lesbian people and in fact their church provides support for them. As I have stated a number of times - she does not agree with the act - but she still has love and compassion for gay and lesbian people. A big difference there. And despite this, Margaret Court is, without a shadow of a doubt, one of the all time greatest tennis players. It is a fact. Hate her if you will, you cannot take her unbelievable achievements away from her.

Just like a lot of people I know can't stand the Williams sisters for a myriad of reasons, they are still great champions and Serena is the greatest of this generation and deserves that credit no matter what people think of her personally. I think the Williams sisters have been great for the sport, it's just a shame they haven't played enough to truly show us what they could be capable of.

rimon
Aug 27th, 2011, 05:17 AM
How judgemental of you and therefore he wasn't a great player? Just bullshit.

No one has the right to sit here and judge other's lives unless you walk in their footsteps. I do not condone pedophilia but at the same time that is between Bill Tilden and the universe to work through (call that God or whatever you want). But Bill Tilden was still an incredible tennis player and a great personality for our sport.

As for Margaret Court - I have an email from her private secretary which I shall share on these boards when the time and thread is right in which she has openly stated her love for gay and lesbian people and in fact their church provides support for them. As I have stated a number of times - she does not agree with the act - but she still has love and compassion for gay and lesbian people. A big difference there. And despite this, Margaret Court is, without a shadow of a doubt, one of the all time greatest tennis players. It is a fact. Hate her if you will, you cannot take her unbelievable achievements away from her.

Just like a lot of people I know can't stand the Williams sisters for a myriad of reasons, they are still great champions and Serena is the greatest of this generation and deserves that credit no matter what people think of her personally. I think the Williams sisters have been great for the sport, it's just a shame they haven't played enough to truly show us what they could be capable of.

This, this and this.

Has Margaret called for homosexuals to be killed? No. Has she sated that they are beneath her? No. Does she hate the act? Yes. Does she hate them. No.

Apoleb
Aug 27th, 2011, 05:55 AM
Serena is overrated. When people talk about her, they have in mind her 2002-2003 form. But this form lasted only for a year and a half.

The bulk of her success also came post-2008, in one of the worst eras in women's tennis ever, with world #1s, Jankovic/Safina/Wozniacki and rivals such as Zvonareva.

DOUBLEFIST
Aug 27th, 2011, 06:59 AM
Serena is overrated. When people talk about her, they have in mind her 2002-2003 form. But this form lasted only for a year and a half.

The bulk of her success also came post-2008, in one of the worst eras in women's tennis ever, with world #1s, Jankovic/Safina/Wozniacki and rivals such as Zvonareva.

:help:

Stamp Paid
Aug 27th, 2011, 06:59 AM
Serena is overrated. When people talk about her, they have in mind her 2002-2003 form. But this form lasted only for a year and a half.

The bulk of her success also came post-2008, in one of the worst eras in women's tennis ever, with world #1s, Jankovic/Safina/Wozniacki and rivals such as Zvonareva.The bulk?
Serena has won 4 of her 13 slams post 2008.
And her mental strength and longevity play into why she is rated so highly.

Apoleb
Aug 27th, 2011, 07:10 AM
The bulk?
Serena has won 4 of her 13 slams post 2008.
And her mental strength and longevity play into why she is rated so highly.

5. I'm including 2008. She also won 5 slams in 2002-2003. So "the bulk of her success also came post-2008" is correct.

With this in mind, and her 13 slams in comparison to Evert's 18 and Graf's 22 and the huge deficit in everything else, I wouldn't put her with those two. :shrug:

TheDream
Aug 27th, 2011, 08:01 AM
5. I'm including 2008. She also won 5 slams in 2002-2003. So "the bulk of her success also came post-2008" is correct.

With this in mind, and her 13 slams in comparison to Evert's 18 and Graf's 22 and the huge deficit in everything else, I wouldn't put her with those two. :shrug:

You fail to realize that Serena's peak physical condition was interrupted by a knee surgery at the height of her career. It's obvious then that Serena's peak was over 8 years ago. She didn't move the same or have the same reaction speed as a surgically repaired knee is never ever the same again and takes months and even years to rehab.

And, Serena is still playing. But, Evert and Navratilova played during an era where there were more grasscourt tournaments and slams and also clay. Those surfaces aren't nearly damaging on the body which is why they consistently played nearly 20 tournaments per year. Now, most tournaments are on Hardcourts which are much more physically demanding.

Serena may hang around awhile because even with all the injuries she's paced herself well. Hard to believe she averages only 8 or 9 tournaments per year. :tape:

bandabou
Aug 27th, 2011, 09:53 AM
IMO, it can't overcome 24, 22, 19 and 18 slams. 13 is a different kettle of fish. I'm not sure about Bueno, but I think that most rate Goolagong as the best of 1971.

Of course..13 majors are nothing, huh?! :lol: If Serena wins another 2 majors, then what?

Like that..then she takes the nr 10 spot.

bandabou
Aug 27th, 2011, 09:56 AM
5. I'm including 2008. She also won 5 slams in 2002-2003. So "the bulk of her success also came post-2008" is correct.

With this in mind, and her 13 slams in comparison to Evert's 18 and Graf's 22 and the huge deficit in everything else, I wouldn't put her with those two. :shrug:

:lol: 5 of her 13 is a bulk now? She won that many in 16 MONTHS in '02-'03. But cool..the holy foursome is pretty much out of reach, but she's at least top 7/8.

bandabou
Aug 27th, 2011, 09:59 AM
This, this and this.

Has Margaret called for homosexuals to be killed? No. Has she sated that they are beneath her? No. Does she hate the act? Yes. Does she hate them. No.

The advice for your own, rimon. You're the one letting your dislike of the WS and Serena particular to cloud your judgement about the great champions they are.

So what gives? :shrug:

rimon
Aug 27th, 2011, 10:52 AM
Of course..13 majors are nothing, huh?! :lol: If Serena wins another 2 majors, then what?

Like that..then she takes the nr 10 spot.

Where did I say that 13 majors isn't impressive? :confused: 12 can overcome 13 with other factors, 12 can never overcome 18. I just think that Lenglen losing one match in her entire career more than makes up for her having one less slam than Serena.

Pat Bateman
Aug 27th, 2011, 12:19 PM
How judgemental of you and therefore he wasn't a great player? Just bullshit.

No one has the right to sit here and judge other's lives unless you walk in their footsteps. I do not condone pedophilia but at the same time that is between Bill Tilden and the universe to work through (call that God or whatever you want). But Bill Tilden was still an incredible tennis player and a great personality for our sport.

As for Margaret Court - I have an email from her private secretary which I shall share on these boards when the time and thread is right in which she has openly stated her love for gay and lesbian people and in fact their church provides support for them. As I have stated a number of times - she does not agree with the act - but she still has love and compassion for gay and lesbian people. A big difference there.




If Margaret truly feels this way, why doesn't she say so in public?

As for the email from her 'private secretary' - bring it on.
What are you waiting for?

Morrissey
Aug 27th, 2011, 12:42 PM
You can't compare Serena to Navratilova and Graf these women are from different eras. Women's tennis is more competitive now. I mean look Graf's competition losers like Sabatini, Novotna, Mary Joe Fernandez, Martinez, of course Graf won all those slams. Once Seles got stabbed Graf dominance returned because NONE of her competition had the mental toughness or the weapons to challenge her. 1993 to 1996 were three of the WORST years in women's tennis history.

thrust
Aug 27th, 2011, 01:52 PM
Except for very exceptional cases. I mean, losing 1 match in your entire career? Are you kidding me? No, fair is fair and I recognise Serena as the champion that she is. Despite my dislike for her, I have no qualms whatsoever in recognising that she is well within the top 10. Funny, our lists include the exact same players, except Justine. Curious, why do you think that she has a case against Bueno and Goolagong? And no, this is not an attack, it's a friendly curious question.

Justine's career was at least as successful as Maria's or Evonne's. Actually, they are my three favorite female players of all-time.

tennisvideos
Aug 27th, 2011, 02:17 PM
If Margaret truly feels this way, why doesn't she say so in public?

As for the email from her 'private secretary' - bring it on.
What are you waiting for?

I don't think this is the thread to post that email and start up a discussion on that subject and take away from Serena Williams.

The email is from her Personal Assistant not her private secretary - my error.

I am sure she has publicly stated her compassion for gays and lesbians but of course the mainstream media rarely publish positive news. The baying public tend to want to read sensationalistic and derogatory pieces ... hence the plethora of trashy tabloids on the market.

UPDATE:
I deleted the link to the thread showing the email between myself and Margaret Court's PA because I was being attacked. The email was something I did over a month before deciding to post on these boards, thinking it might open a few minds. Instead all it did was open me up to being attacked and judged (unfairly IMO).

VS Fan
Aug 27th, 2011, 04:24 PM
Sure there are countless ways to measure longevity, but I consider Slam victories a lot more important than Slam finals.
Yeah, think "Buffalo Bills" !

DOUBLEFIST
Aug 27th, 2011, 04:50 PM
5. I'm including 2008. She also won 5 slams in 2002-2003. So "the bulk of her success also came post-2008" is correct.

With this in mind, and her 13 slams in comparison to Evert's 18 and Graf's 22 and the huge deficit in everything else, I wouldn't put her with those two. :shrug:
But Evert and Nav' would. :lol:

justineheninfan
Aug 27th, 2011, 05:15 PM
1993 to 1996 were three of the WORST years in women's tennis history.

Not worse than Wozniacki staying at #1 over a year. :lol:

XSTopspin
Aug 27th, 2011, 05:38 PM
Where did I say that 13 majors isn't impressive? :confused: 12 can overcome 13 with other factors, 12 can never overcome 18. I just think that Lenglen losing one match in her entire career more than makes up for her having one less slam than Serena.

Hilarious. You do know that only about 30 people even knew how to play tennis back then, right?

Serena is dominant in a time when tennis has finally become a truly global and class-blind sport. You better recognize.

Le Chat
Aug 27th, 2011, 06:10 PM
But Evert and Nav' would. :lol:


owned :lol:

bandabou
Aug 27th, 2011, 08:04 PM
Where did I say that 13 majors isn't impressive? :confused: 12 can overcome 13 with other factors, 12 can never overcome 18. I just think that Lenglen losing one match in her entire career more than makes up for her having one less slam than Serena.

Ok fair enough...then why the talk about there not being much difference between Serena and Juju, yet you saying that there Lenglen isn't comparable to Navratilova/ Evert?! :shrug: Your own words..

cehowardrx7
Aug 27th, 2011, 08:20 PM
I wouldn't include Steffi in that threesome. Navratilova and Serena didn't have NOBODY STAB somebody to help them win SLAMS!!

Seles WAS STABBED so Steffi could have a clear path to
Slams. This even comes from the STABBERS own mouth. That was the stabber's motive all along.

So, all the slams the Steffi won, would not have happened if the crazy Steffi fan had not stabbed Seles. This is not HEARSAY, it is FACT. Live with it Steffi fans, cause it is nothing but the PURE DE TRUTH... :)

mykarma
Aug 27th, 2011, 09:04 PM
Hilarious. You do know that only about 30 people even knew how to play tennis back then, right?

Serena is dominant in a time when tennis has finally become a truly global and class-blind sport. You better recognize.
This

rimon
Aug 28th, 2011, 01:58 AM
The advice for your own, rimon. You're the one letting your dislike of the WS and Serena particular to cloud your judgement about the great champions they are.

So what gives? :shrug:

Sorry, I missed this yesterday. I fail to see how I am overlooking Serena. :shrug:

rimon
Aug 28th, 2011, 02:00 AM
Justine's career was at least as successful as Maria's or Evonne's. Actually, they are my three favorite female players of all-time.

IMO, there is too large a gap in career titles. Also, Evonne reached the final of the slam that she never won (the USO) 4 times, and was 2 games a way from winning it. She came far closer to the career slam than the other two did.

rimon
Aug 28th, 2011, 02:00 AM
Hilarious. You do know that only about 30 people even knew how to play tennis back then, right?

Serena is dominant in a time when tennis has finally become a truly global and class-blind sport. You better recognize.

That's not their fault.

rimon
Aug 28th, 2011, 02:03 AM
Ok fair enough...then why the talk about there not being much difference between Serena and Juju, yet you saying that there Lenglen isn't comparable to Navratilova/ Evert?! :shrug: Your own words..

You've misinterpreted me. I pointed out that people put Evert/Navratilova in the same class (and often times above) as Court despite the 6 slam differential, yet then put Williams well above Henin because of a 6 slam differential! They contradict themselves, and lose credibility.

L'Enfant Sauvage
Aug 28th, 2011, 02:26 AM
You've misinterpreted me. I pointed out that people put Evert/Navratilova in the same class (and often times above) as Court despite the 6 slam differential, yet then put Williams well above Henin because of a 6 slam differential! They contradict themselves, and lose credibility.

That's actually very different. Margaret is from a different era than Evert or Navratilova, whereas Serena and Justine are from the same crop of players. If you took three of Evert's slams and gave them to Nav, or vice-versa(giving one 21 slams, the other 15) no one would consider them in the same league. The slam differential holds less weight when the players came up in different times, with different standards of competition and different circumstances around their wins. This is why Serena is regarded in a different league than Juju, because they had to face the same general competition and Serena came out clearly on top.

sluggahjells4
Aug 28th, 2011, 02:38 AM
Without a doubt, Serena is the best ever now in my mind if everyone played at their peak.

Despite the lack of stability at the top, this is the toughest tennis ever played, with the depth of the game so greater, and slowly moving towards what the men were in 2000 and on, where movement, playing great defense with offensive, and being in top shape is required, and where the top seeds had better play well or suffer losing in the first round even more so now than ever before.

The girls are physical woman all throughout, and it's not just about 8 players, but many players. The 80's, early 90's, and even the late 90's still just wasn't as big as the depth and maturity in the WTA now, and that's just a fact (and I'm not taking about "Top 10" depth, I'm talking about from 1 to 200, and further.)

Now of course to make haters not bring up those numbers, Serena will need to just win a few more Grand Slams, and she is set to play at least 4 or 5 more years for sure, with dedication, in great shape, and at peak mentally.

rimon
Aug 28th, 2011, 03:59 AM
That's actually very different. Margaret is from a different era than Evert or Navratilova, whereas Serena and Justine are from the same crop of players. If you took three of Evert's slams and gave them to Nav, or vice-versa(giving one 21 slams, the other 15) no one would consider them in the same league. The slam differential holds less weight when the players came up in different times, with different standards of competition and different circumstances around their wins. This is why Serena is regarded in a different league than Juju, because they had to face the same general competition and Serena came out clearly on top.

Okay, fair point, but you have to look at it the other way too. For example, Billie Jean King and Justine Henin. Should Henin be elevated to King's status? There is a 5 slam differential, but they're from different generations.