PDA

View Full Version : Does Serena now own the alltime highest ranking point total?


TSequoia01
Jan 27th, 2003, 12:41 AM
I read that Steffi had the previous highest ranking point total with 6951. If that is so Serena has broken that. If it is not Steffi, then who? :confused:

VS Fan
Jan 27th, 2003, 12:53 AM
I do not know but I bet is is the highest for ANYONE with just 13 tournaments in the last 12 months.

However possibly points awarded per tournament have changed since then.

Jericho
Jan 27th, 2003, 01:00 AM
serena will be at her highest which i bet will be around 7000 after paris...but its downhill after that...

1jackson2001
Jan 27th, 2003, 01:03 AM
Just think if Serena had committed to a more full schedule last year. Then she would be probably over 8,000 points. :eek:

CJ07
Jan 27th, 2003, 01:03 AM
I highly doubt it, in 1997 Hingis owned the tour, even more so than Serena, so I doubt it

TSequoia01
Jan 27th, 2003, 01:04 AM
The record is now owned by Serena. Steffi held the record

Achieved highest ranking point average ever of 441.1746
Achieved highest ranking point total ever of 6951.6185


Serena now holds the highest ranking point total 6989
Serena now holds the highest ranking poiint average 537.61

I know there are factors but there are always factors. Serena now holds these records along with most money in a season. :D

selesfan
Jan 27th, 2003, 01:13 AM
Wow! All those points and she only played 13 tournaments.
:eek:

o0O0o
Jan 27th, 2003, 01:20 AM
1) Hingis had over 7000 points in early 98

(I'm pretty sure)

2) She LAPPED her nearest competitor. Has Serena done that?

vs1
Jan 27th, 2003, 01:29 AM
Hingis didn't hold all four grand slams in 1997/1998. So should she even be mentioned in the same breath as Serena?! I think not. Please compare Serena to Steffi, Martina N., Margaret Court...the legends of women's tennis.

Jericho
Jan 27th, 2003, 01:34 AM
Originally posted by vs1
Hingis didn't hold all four grand slams in 1997/1998. So should she even be mentioned in the same breath as Serena?! I think not. Please compare Serena to Steffi, Martina N., Margaret Court...the legends of women's tennis.

LoL...I love it!!! :worship: :worship: to VS1

...and hingis had at least the full 17 compared to serenas 13...

o0O0o
Jan 27th, 2003, 01:38 AM
Are you kidding me? Compare Martina Hingis from 1997-Aussie 98 to Serena from 2002-Aussie2003.

Hingis Slams: 4
Serena Slams: 4

Hingis GS finals: 5
Serena GS finals: 4

Hingis titles: 13?
Serena titles: much less

Hingis age: 16/17
Serena age: 20

Hingis had to beat a different player in all her Slam wins. Serena got to face the same player. Hingis won more doubles titles. She racked up more points. She had a higher winning percentage. She reached #1 sooner.

Etc.

I don't doubt that Serena will eventually pass Martina in overall Slam wins, but Hingis 1997 is far superior to Serena's now. If Serena goes undefeated until the French Open final and wins that Slam again, talk.

vs1
Jan 27th, 2003, 01:44 AM
Oh, don't make me laugh. Even Martina would acknowledge that Serena is in another category altogether. Serena is in the Legends of Tennis category.

Hingis has all of those titles because (1) there was no strong competition and (2) she played so many damn tournaments! Serena plays less and has accomplished more. That can't even be argued. Serena also showed that she can win Grand Slams on ALL surfaces, unlike Martina. So please, don't sound desparate. Martina was very good at tennis, just not quite the Legend, like Serena, Steffi, Martina N and the select few legends. Congratulations to Serena!

o0O0o
Jan 27th, 2003, 01:48 AM
"(1) there was no strong competition"

Haha, today's field is weaker than it was back then.

"(2) she played so many damn tournaments! Serena plays less and has accomplished more."

Hingis played many more tournaments than Serena and only had 5 losses. Serena had 5 losses in much less tournaments. How does that favor Serena?

The only difference between the two is that Serena doesn't seem like she will stop anytime soon. But then again after 1997 many people predicted Hingis would win a double-digit number of slams.

Venus Forever
Jan 27th, 2003, 01:49 AM
Originally posted by o0O0o
"(1) there was no strong competition"

Haha, today's field is weaker than it was back then.



That is the funniest thing I have heard yet!!:D







:rolleyes:

TSequoia01
Jan 27th, 2003, 01:49 AM
Often times it is impossible to compare players. Such as Navratilova, Graf or say Evert in comparison to Serena and Venus. There are just too many factors when comparing players of different eras. But Serena and Martina are of the same era. So comparisons are not only easy but more importantly valid. Martina in 2000 and 2001, never played better. She never ran faster, been more fit, hit harder or was more mentally tough. Yet she could not win a slam. In fact she was beginning to be dominated by more than one player. At 22 she suffered injury and everyone wishes her nothing but the best upon her return. But comparing the Martina of 97 to the Serena of 02 is a sad joke. In 1997 Martina was fat, I mean embarrassingly fat. That in itself tells everyone who wants to look, at the state of women's tennis then. Hopefully she will come back so we can see the difference in lady's tennis then and now. :cool:

o0O0o
Jan 27th, 2003, 01:57 AM
"She never ran faster"

You're a moron. I've been following her for years and the FIRST thing I notice is that Martina is five steps slower than she was in her prime. In 1997 she was superbly quick, considered one of the fastest retrievers on tour. In 2000 and especially 2001 she had never been slower. Even her AO 2001 Australian Open matches were won by consistence. Look at her match against Capriati, agonizingly dull-footed. Don't speak if you don't know what you're talking about.

"hit harder"

Pfff @ the thought. In 1997-1999 her first serve was regularly in the 90 mph range and usually topped 100 every match. She has hardely topped 90 since 2000.

"or was more mentally tough."

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Could you be moronic? Really? Ever since RG 99 she has been a choker. Truly, learn the material.

...Wow.

CJ07
Jan 27th, 2003, 02:05 AM
Serena is in the Legends of Tennis category.

As much as I love V and Rena, this is simply not true

15 months dont make a career

TSequoia01
Jan 27th, 2003, 02:21 AM
Originally posted by o0O0o
"She never ran faster"

You're a moron. I've been following her for years and the FIRST thing I notice is that Martina is five steps slower than she was in her prime. In 1997 she was superbly quick, considered one of the fastest retrievers on tour. In 2000 and especially 2001 she had never been slower. Even her AO 2001 Australian Open matches were won by consistence. Look at her match against Capriati, agonizingly dull-footed. Don't speak if you don't know what you're talking about.

"hit harder"

Pfff @ the thought. In 1997-1999 her first serve was regularly in the 90 mph range and usually topped 100 every match. She has hardely topped 90 since 2000.

"or was more mentally tough."

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Could you be moronic? Really? Ever since RG 99 she has been a choker. Truly, learn the material.

...Wow.

I noticed you did not deal with the fat part. In 2000 and 2001 Martina was in the best shape of her life. The Williams Sisters saw to that. You are in serious denial if you thought Martina was physically better in 1997 or you want me to start posting pictures. She had issues with Steffi at Roland Garros but she played one hell of a match against Venus at Wimbledon (1999 & 2000. I cannot remember her being any tougher. In fact it was only her mental toughness that allowed her to defeat the Sisters at all in 99, 00, and 01. Because really she never had the game.

:cool:

Infiniti2001
Jan 27th, 2003, 02:26 AM
You're a moron. I've been following her for years

Either I am crazy, or o0O0o is a LIAR... When he first came on this board as Rocksteady, he posted that he started liking Hingis at the US Open when she lost to the eventual champ Venus Williams (one of the main reasons he so despises her) It's like she had no right to beat poor 'Tina UGH.
Anyway, to toss around her achievements now has about as much meaning as tossing around those of Margaret Court.

p.s. how many seeded players did she beat to win her slams??? You are one angry young man, get some help sheesh!!!

:eek:

fammmmedspin
Jan 27th, 2003, 02:29 AM
Unfortunately as the points calculation has changed you can't compare past and present totals. Rebasing the round points of the past and the quality points would be possible but the sum(s) would drive you mad. As some other players won more titles than Serena with fewer losses in the year and with comparable Grand Slam/Chase totals it would probably not be Serena's record? Though you would have to check all the rankings of all the opponents to work out a conclusive answer. Its still a pretty impressive achievement by Serena though.

TSequoia01
Jan 27th, 2003, 02:34 AM
Originally posted by fammmmedspin
Unfortunately as the points calculation has changed you can't compare past and present totals. Rebasing the round points of the past and the quality points would be possible but the sum(s) would drive you mad. As some other players won more titles than Serena with fewer losses in the year and with comparable Grand Slam/Chase totals it would probably not be Serena's record? Though you would have to check all the rankings of all the opponents to work out a conclusive answer. Its still a pretty impressive achievement by Serena though.

You probably could make the same case to any record held by any player. Steffi owns the career earnings record with over 21mil. Hingis is third neither were adjusted for inflation, raise in money per tournament.....etc :cool:

selesfan
Jan 27th, 2003, 02:45 AM
Of course Martina H. acknowledges that Serena is above her, why do you think she is afraid to come back.;)

MarcusRock
Jan 27th, 2003, 02:46 AM
Originally posted by o0O0o
1) Hingis had over 7000 points in early 98

(I'm pretty sure)

2) She LAPPED her nearest competitor. Has Serena done that? On number 1: Post proof or STFU
On number 2: No Serena hasn't lapped her sister or Clijsters but she has everyone else. By the way, Hingis is currently lapped FIVE TIMES OVER by Serena (Hingis' 1386 points x 5 = 6930 - Serena has 6989 points). Before you pull that "oh she's hurt" retort, there's no doubt Hingis would be lapped by Serena were she healthy today. Now, you were saying? :o

Robbie.
Jan 27th, 2003, 03:00 AM
The Martina Hingis of 2000 was the best Martina ever - perhaps not in confidence but certainly in game - I am sure that she was better than she was in 1997. Hingis was in the best physical shape of her career from the 1999 Australian Open- 2001 Australian Open - I am quite sure of this also. She also reached this peak again in the first 2 months of 2002. Hingis was not dominant at all in 1998 (people forget this), she was unfit and complacent. In 1997, Martina was still a girl, her muscle tone was not that of an athlete yet. But I would not have called her fat.

By the same token, anyone who confuses the 2000 Hingis with the Hingis of post Australian Open 2001 is sadly ill informed. I'm sorry but the Hingis of 2000 would not have lost to Sanchez Vicario while winning only 5 games. Neither would she have stuggled to beat Iva Majoli at the US Open, or be pounded indoors by Elena Dementieva when winning only 4 games. And those are only three examples. There were several other indicators through-out the year. Hingis was but a shell of her former self after losing to Jenn in the 2001 Aussie Open Final - to deny that, would be to dellude ones self.

Freewoman33
Jan 27th, 2003, 03:59 AM
I see why he dislikes the sisters so much. He reminds me of a poster long ago from the old Sanex WTA message board. Damn...the name is at the tip of my tongue

tennisIlove09
Jan 27th, 2003, 04:14 AM
Serena will pass the 7000 mark as well. She's playing the Open Gaz de France, which she did not play last year!

As for the Hingis/Serena battle.

Is there more depth now? I find it hard to believe. with the more depth, 2 players have reached the last 4 slam finals; 4 of the last 6. Since WB 99, 4 players have won Slams [Davenport, Capriati, Serena, Venus]. That's DEPTH? obviously it was no better in 97. The difference is, the girls hit the ball harder. That's the difference. Does that make the depth larger?

But really, who cares who's had the most points! Hingis/Serena? They both had great runs...so what's the deal? points are points.

kournikovafan13
Jan 27th, 2003, 04:16 AM
Originally posted by o0O0o
"(1) there was no strong competition"

Haha, today's field is weaker than it was back then.

I am no Williams fan, but you are so clearly blinded by your liking for Martina. Today's field weaker? What have you been smoking? Sorry, but Serena right now is way better than Martina in 1997 ever was, in terms of game. And the scary thing is, Serena can only get better.

And :rolleyes: @ your signature. "She doesn't beat her opponents, she embarrasses them", lol.

Like how she does to Serena? :devil: Or Petrova...?

Infiniti2001
Jan 27th, 2003, 04:42 AM
Please excuse o0O0o , he just cannot come to terms with the fact that his favourite player's career is on life support:rolleyes:

Bella
Jan 27th, 2003, 04:54 AM
Two foot surgeries, years of plantar fascitis, and she still worries them. (Why else spend so much time trying to argue her away?)

persond
Jan 27th, 2003, 05:04 AM
Originally posted by Bella
Two foot surgeries, years of plantar fascitis, and she still worries them. (Why else spend so much time trying to argue her away?)


:) :)I think the only ones that seemed to be worried is the zeroes and possibly you!!!:rolleyes: :rolleyes: And, oh, by the way, she's not the only player to suffer injuries!!!:kiss: :kiss:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, wasn't it the zeroes that brought Martina Hingis into the discussion????:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

persond
Jan 27th, 2003, 05:07 AM
:D :D Sorry mate, I, guess it was MMcdonald that brought Martina into the discussion.!! :kiss: :kiss: :kiss: :kiss:

1jackson2001
Jan 27th, 2003, 05:30 AM
Let's compare Serena to Martina like this then:

Speed: Edge to Serena
Court Coverange: Serena
Power: Serena
1st Serve: Serena
2nd Serve: Serena
Return of Serve: Serena
Net Play/Volley: ?
Overhead: Serena
Forehand: Serena
Backhand: Serena

Now Martina may have been more consistent on her groundies but would she be so consistent if she had to face the power of Serena's strokes?

maya
Jan 27th, 2003, 06:18 AM
The points for grand slams and tier I have increased - I think last year or the year before - and for other tournaments they have changed, too.

irma
Jan 27th, 2003, 06:23 AM
"She reached #1 sooner."


that had hardly to do with her qualities in march 97 lmao ( number 2 defending 3 grand slams, masters)

Robbie.
Jan 27th, 2003, 06:29 AM
Originally posted by 1jackson2001
Let's compare Serena to Martina like this then:

Speed: Edge to Serena
Court Coverange: Serena
Power: Serena
1st Serve: Serena
2nd Serve: Serena
Return of Serve: Serena
Net Play/Volley: ?
Overhead: Serena
Forehand: Serena
Backhand: Serena

Now Martina may have been more consistent on her groundies but would she be so consistent if she had to face the power of Serena's strokes?

Talk about a biased review.

#1 - Martina is clearly better at the net
#2 - Martina's overhead ihas long been regarded as one of the best in the game (save for THAT overhead in the Us Open semis 2000). Its not a gimme for Serena who can tend to dump overheads
#3 - Serena's backhand is by no means conclusively better than martina's. Have you seen Marti's backhand up the line? Even in Miami 2002, Martina was able to hit toe to toe with Serena off the backhand
#4 Martina has better anticipation, court craft and is more consistent. She has a better drop shot. You make it sound like their head to head is 11-0, when it is actually only 6-5 in Serena's favour. I remember Martina handling Serena's power just fine in the Aus Open Quarters 2 years ago btw.

1jackson2001
Jan 27th, 2003, 06:44 AM
Sorry about the review..but it's not biased. I haven't seen that much of Martina, but I'll take your word for it. ;)

And yes I know Martina has excellent court strategies and tactics...for she is a tactician. ;)

1jackson2001
Jan 27th, 2003, 06:46 AM
Sorry about the review..but it's not biased. I haven't seen that much of Martina, but I'll take your word for it. ;)

And yes I know Martina has excellent court strategies and tactics...for she is a tactician. ;)

So I guess it's like this then :confused: :

Speed: Edge to Serena
Court Coverage: Serena
Power: Serena
1st Serve: Serena
2nd Serve: Serena
Return of Serve: Serena
Net Play/Volley: Martina
Overhead: Martina
Forehand: Serena
Backhand: Martina
"Strategy": Martina

:)

Robbie.
Jan 27th, 2003, 06:57 AM
Something like that, Jackson. Although I think Martina and Serena are very evenly matched on the backhand. Sorry if I seemed rude before, I am just sick of people disrespecting Martina's game. She was...is...a champion after all.

tennisIlove09
Jan 27th, 2003, 07:05 AM
also, Martina's return of serve isn't that bad. In her glory days, she was returning as well as anyone...the problem of recent years, have been the power players. Any big serve, and she [like everyone else on tour] has trouble getting it back

Pureracket
Jan 27th, 2003, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by mmcdonald
As much as I love V and Rena, this is simply not true

15 months dont make a career

mmcdonald,
15 months don't normally make a year, but in this case it does. Four consecutive Grandslams were won by the same player. Four finals were reached by the same two players. For me, this is enough for 2 careers.:p

*JR*
Jan 27th, 2003, 12:48 PM
How far back do the Quality Points records go, and who ranks where (unless the allocation of these has been changed in between)? :confused:

Ryan
Jan 27th, 2003, 12:56 PM
15 Months don't make you a legend, but they can make a career. Serena will be remembered for the Slam but do you honestly think she'd want to call it a career now?



Must we do this Serena/Hingis stuff? Obviously the players now are better and hit harder. BUT when you compare it to 1997, you cant say "there was no depth". Back then, Hingis dominated because she was MUCH better then anyone. Serena is dominating now because she is MUCH better then anyone else.


When comparing domination "era's" you CANNOT compare level of play compared to today, because obviously it's better now. You can compare records, titles, weeks at #1, but comparing the power or speed of the field makes it biased towards today's players.

anton
Jan 27th, 2003, 12:57 PM
serena will need to have anoter good year to prvoe herself i think. she is off to a good start but hopefully venus will win paris

Bella
Jan 27th, 2003, 01:06 PM
But Ryan, she must be denied. Serena is great. She is successful. But that's not the point. Martina must be less. (And Jen, etc.) All 'similar' players must be less. They must be ground into the dirt. (Note how every single person on the tour before 2000 is defined when these people try to explain away Martina.)

Ryan
Jan 27th, 2003, 01:17 PM
Sorry Bella, I made a stupid mistake, I dont know what I was thinking.:rolleyes: ;)

Aloysius
Jan 27th, 2003, 03:20 PM
What's with all the rude replies from Williams fans? Aren't you happy that Venus and Serena are on top of the world? Is it necessary to gloat too? Not just in this thread but others too. So hostile. So schoolyard. So rude.

In terms of Grand Slam achievement, Serena has outdone Martina's 1997. In terms of tournament victories, Martina still sits above Serena.

With regards to points, I'm not so sure Martina ever went too far above 6850 at her highest point. But even so, Back in 1997, the points allocation wasn't the same as it was in 2002-2003. It was less. It was lesser still when Steffi achieved her highest points total.

Who had the better year? You can't go by points. They had equally dominant years.

MarcusRock
Jan 27th, 2003, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by Aloysius
What's with all the rude replies from Williams fans? Aren't you happy that Venus and Serena are on top of the world? Is it necessary to gloat too? Not just in this thread but others too. So hostile. So schoolyard. So rude.Have you been paying attention? The thread started off as a question on what Serena had achieved. Soon after a Hingis fan came in to try and cheapen the accomplishment, calling people "morons" in the process. Anybody doing that deserves what they get in my opinion.

MarcusRock
Jan 27th, 2003, 03:36 PM
Um, I asked for rankings points proof on whether Hingis was above 7000 points in early 1998. Perhaps I missed that somewhere on your post Judio, seeing as it's Martina's 1997 achievements and all.

MarcusRock
Jan 27th, 2003, 04:17 PM
It's ok Judio. :wavey: I appreciate the effort but the burden of proof wasn't on you anyway. However, perhaps the person in question can help you out since he's the one who made the statement in the first place. Waiting .....

MarcusRock
Jan 27th, 2003, 05:03 PM
Here, I'll even help the guy out a little. I found posted rankings for the week of May 18th, 1998 in an article. Still, it's not "early 1998" but it's the earliest I've seen out there. Here's the link: http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/womens_tennis/7646

And this is what they read like:

1.Martina Hingis 6308 points
2.Lindsay Davenport 3963
3.Jana Novotna 3949
4.Arantxa Sanchez Vicario 2798 (She went on to win the French that year, BTW)
5.Amanda Coetzer 2770
6.Monica Seles 2644
7.Conchita Martinez 2617
8.Venus Williams 2615
9.Irina Spirlea 2204
10.Iva Majoli 2129
Others:
11.Mary Pierce 2013
13.Anna Kournikova 1867
15.Dominique van Roost 1738
19.Patty Schnyder 1486
27.Serena Williams 958
30.Mary Joe Fernandez 836
33.Mirjana Lucic 779
34.Amelie Mauresmo 774
44.Steffi Graf 633

Notice the striking similarities. I didn't see Hingis having lapped her nearest competitor there (or even close to 7000 for that matter) but she did have positions 4 and lower lapped back then exactly like Serena does currently. Also, Hingis had Serena lapped more than 6 times as Serena sat in the number 27 position and now Serena has Hingis lapped just over 5 times (as time passes, it could be 6 or more) as Hingis sits in the 18th position. I only wish this link gave the number of tournaments played in the past 52 weeks so we could see just how many more tournaments Hingis played than Serena at that point in 1998 because at this point in 2003 Serena only has 3 more tournaments played than Hingis.

*JR*
Jan 27th, 2003, 09:26 PM
Originally posted by o0O0o
She LAPPED her nearest competitor. Has Serena done that? Hey, whatever Martina 1 did off the court is her own business! :o

angiestarr
Jan 28th, 2003, 06:12 AM
Not only did Hingis dominate the tour in 1997 (4 GS finals/13 titles), 1999 (3 GS finals/7 titles), 2000 (1 GS final/9 titles/season ending championship), and the early part of 2001 (1 GS final/3 titles), she (up until 2002) had a consistent point total of 5000 points or more counting towards her ranking and had fewer quality points counting towards that ranking than other players (percentage). Even towards the end of her lackluster 2001 season she had over 5000 points post US Open going into the European indoor season (where she soon lost a plethora of points due to injury). She ended what was her best season on tour (but mediocre slam results) with 6003 points in 2000. Hingis has the superior volleys and better backhand down the line compared to Serena, but Serena does have the better serve and more power. Although, I do think Hingis has taken strides to ameliorate the problems in her service. If you notice, the positioning of her hands on the ball and where it is in relation to the racket before to tossing it in the air, has changed since 1999 and 2001. It's a real toss up as to who's the better player, but Hingis is more consistent. It will be interesting to see if Serena can keep up the pace like Martina has for six years.

smygelfh
Jan 28th, 2003, 09:04 AM
I noticed you did not deal with the fat part. In 2000 and 2001 Martina was in the best shape of her life. The Williams Sisters saw to that. You are in serious denial if you thought Martina was physically better in 1997 or you want me to start posting pictures. She had issues with Steffi at Roland Garros but she played one hell of a match against Venus at Wimbledon (1999 & 2000. I cannot remember her being any tougher. In fact it was only her mental toughness that allowed her to defeat the Sisters at all in 99, 00, and 01. Because really she never had the game.


Fat or not fat, being in shape and being fast must not be the same. It doesn't matter how strong or accurate or perceptive you are - you're not returning the ball if you're not near it.

Martina had what was needed to dominate in '97. She thought it was enough, and is reportedly not very fond of training. In 98, the opposition got better. In 99 it got even better. And so forth. Martina got in better shape muscle/fat-wise, but she didn't get faster, rather slower. In short, she really didn't improve as the rest of the field did. When Martina realized she no longer had what it took to dominate, it was too late - her body said no way to more improvement.

The question now is, what will Serena do? Will she continue to improve, or will she be content with dominating? That will decide if she will dominate in two years or not. I hope for her that she learns by Martinas mistake and keep improving.

servenrichie
Jan 28th, 2003, 10:44 AM
Dont worry smygelfh, Serena is dominating, so you dont need to cry more than the bereaved. Channel those energies in bringing Hingis back!!!

smygelfh
Jan 28th, 2003, 10:52 AM
Feel free to elaborate... I don't see your point.

servenrichie
Jan 28th, 2003, 10:56 AM
smygelfh wrote:
The question now is, what will Serena do? Will she continue to improve, or will she be content with dominating? That will decide if she will dominate in two years or not. I hope for her that she learns by Martinas mistake and keep improving.

If you need more elaboration, i 'd be happy to oblige...

JonBcn
Jan 28th, 2003, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by rd878
Hey, whatever Martina 1 did off the court is her own business! :o

Haha! Was beginning to wonder why I'd bothered trawling through this thread :)