PDA

View Full Version : Hingis good, not great


GogoGirl
Feb 23rd, 2003, 12:11 PM
I think Martina was great in her way and day. I think V&S and others feel that she was great there for a time. They couldn't beat her at one time - and especially - consistently.




http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/sfl-tencol23feb23,0,113804.story?coll=sfla-sports-headlines

Hingis good, not great

Posted February 23 2003

If Martina Hingis never plays another WTA match, and it now appears she won't, she will carry into her injury-imposed retirement five Grand Slam titles and three years (1997-99) of dominance.

She will not, however, be remembered as one of the great players in women's tennis. Great means Serena Williams, Martina Navratilova, Venus Williams, Chris Evert.











Hingis was a champion with the most technically polished game since Evert, but her finesse and tactical genius were overpowered by the evolution of the big hitters -- first Venus, then Lindsay Davenport and, finally, Serena.

She never found a way to compete with the power players in women's tennis, and that is what has kept her from greatness.

When Hingis rose to No. 1 on March 31, 1997, she was at 16 years and six months the youngest player to hold that position in women's tennis, and she remained at No. 1 for 209 weeks.

Yet for all the impressive numbers, her legacy is that she filled the void between the demise of Steffi Graf and the ascent of the Williams sisters. In fact, if she were 100 percent fit today, at age 22, Hingis wouldn't be among the top five players on the WTA tour.

She won her last major at the 1999 Australian, finishing short of a trophy in her past 13 Slams. It was one of the great ironies in recent history that, though she supplanted Graf at No. 1, it was Steffi who delivered Hingis' most disappointing loss -- in the 1999 French Open final.

Precocious and self-important, Hingis burst upon women's tennis at age 14, and her pious attitude served her less and less well as she grew. She cried after Graf beat her in three sets at that '99 final at Roland Garros, and then she briefly discarded her mother as coach following a first-round loss at Wimbledon two weeks later.

But from that point on, Hingis grew much more rapidly as a person than as a player. She is, today, one of the most mentally and emotionally mature players on the WTA Tour.

Along with five Grand Slam titles, tennis has helped her grow up.

persond
Feb 23rd, 2003, 12:22 PM
:D Interesting, but, oh so true!!! I imagine the "usual suspects" will arrive and decry the "blasphemy of the author" on what I consider a well written viewpoint!!!

Thanks, again GoGoGirl!!!:hearts: :hearts: :hearts: :hearts: :kiss: :kiss:

hingis-seles
Feb 23rd, 2003, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by GogoGirl
Yet for all the impressive numbers, her legacy is that she filled the void between the demise of Steffi Graf and the ascent of the Williams sisters. In fact, if she were 100 percent fit today, at age 22, Hingis wouldn't be among the top five players on the WTA tour.

If that is the case, then certainly Graf should be considered a "gap-filler" from '93-'96 since she just filled the void between the stabbing of Monica Seles and the ascent of Martina Hingis. :rolleyes:

As for the author's "what if's", that just shows his bias.

Pathetic!

King Lindsay
Feb 23rd, 2003, 12:32 PM
That was a poor article.

hingis-seles
Feb 23rd, 2003, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by GogoGirl
She will not, however, be remembered as one of the great players in women's tennis. Great means Serena Williams, Martina Navratilova, Venus Williams, Chris Evert.

Ofcourse, Venus and Serena deserve to be mentioned with Evert and Navratilova as great with 4 and 5 GS Singles titles respectively, while Graf and Seles with 22 and 9 respecitvely and BJK with 12 are not even mentioned. LOL!

Was this a composition written by an 8th grader?

It is beyond me that this was published. ROTFLMFAO!

bwguy
Feb 23rd, 2003, 12:42 PM
Charles Bricker, the guilty columnist, is primarily a football writer for that paper (probably a 20:1 ratio of football to tennis). They drag him out almost every Sunday to write his tennis column, which is usually a dab of dubious opinion mixed with several snippets of tour "news" that most tennis readers already know. He is not taken seriously by well-informed tennis enthusiasts. I feel sorry that Hingis fans, of which I was never one, have to be exposed to it.

tennisjam
Feb 23rd, 2003, 12:48 PM
the person who wrote that article obviously don't know very much about tennis...

Aloysius
Feb 23rd, 2003, 12:59 PM
"Good" and "Great" are just words. I can't believe this football columnist wasted ink and paper to dispute the difference. I hope his life is better for knowing that Martina Hingis wasn't the best player of all-time, but merely one of the better players of all-time.

irma
Feb 23rd, 2003, 01:01 PM
ali of course martina doesn't belong there. you know the real reason right? :o :rolleyes:

GoDominique
Feb 23rd, 2003, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by GogoGirl
Great means Serena Williams, Martina Navratilova, Venus Williams, Chris Evert.

[...]but her finesse and tactical genius were overpowered by the evolution of the big hitters -- first Venus, then Lindsay Davenport and, finally, Serena.


Just 2 'highlights' of this pathetic article. :rolleyes:

Please, GogoGirl, don't waste your time with this rubbish.

persond
Feb 23rd, 2003, 01:24 PM
This thread is becoming "funnier" by the minute.!!!!

LMBAO

hingis-seles
Feb 23rd, 2003, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by irma
ali of course martina doesn't belong there. you know the real reason right? :o :rolleyes:

For a second there, I took this comment seriously! :D

GoDominique
Feb 23rd, 2003, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by persond
This thread is becoming "funnier" by the minute.!!!!

LMBAO

I'm LMAO about you. Considering this piece of trash 'a well written viewpoint' - hahaha, how funny.

hingis-seles
Feb 23rd, 2003, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by GoDominique
I'm LMAO about you. Considering this piece of trash 'a well written viewpoint' - hahaha, how funny.

ROTFLMAO! :D

persond
Feb 23rd, 2003, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by GoDominique
I'm LMAO about you. Considering this piece of trash 'a well written viewpoint' - hahaha, how funny.



:rolleyes: :rolleyes: Sticks and stones...:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

How is that when the viewpoint isn't as "favorable" towards Hingis, then it's crap, and should that same author write something more favorable towards Hingis, your azzz suggest "Nobel Prize" ????????????

Go suck on a lemon!!!!

sartrista7
Feb 23rd, 2003, 01:35 PM
I think GogoGirl's comment on Martina is far more worthy of our time than the article.

GoDominique
Feb 23rd, 2003, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by persond
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: Sticks and stones...:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

How is that when the viewpoint isn't as "favorable" towards Hingis, then it's crap, and should that same author write something more favorable towards Hingis, your azzz suggest "Nobel Prize" ????????????

Go suck on a lemon!!!!

You are really dumb beyond believe. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

First of all, I don't give a damn whether this article is 'favourable' towards any player. And I'm no Hingis-fan by any means. :rolleyes:
And if you are sooooo smart, you can certainly explain to me this 'well written viewpoint': but her finesse and tactical genius were overpowered by the evolution of the big hitters -- first Venus, then Lindsay Davenport and, finally, Serena.

So this knowledgable author thinks the evolution first brought Venus and then Lindsay ??? How many slams had Venus won when Lindsay won the last of her 4 titles ???
And how in hell is Venus greater than Martina so far ? And of course the greatest players only include Americans, what a coincidence. :rolleyes:
An article including this nonsense is pure crap. But as it's thrashing Hingis, YOU are blind to this, of course. :rolleyes:

DunkMachine
Feb 23rd, 2003, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by irma
ali of course martina doesn't belong there. you know the real reason right? :o :rolleyes:

ROTFLMAOPOE Superb!!:devil:

persond
Feb 23rd, 2003, 01:57 PM
I'm glad that you KNOW me so well!!! At any rate, the point is that the author's main point of Hingis' finesse not enough to thwart the power emergence is true. So, he ordered the players incorrectly. So what. The point remains valid!! And, I never said Venus was greater than Hingis, at least not at this time. But, the impact of Venus on the sport in this place at this time, is greater, solely based on the fact another African American has emerged onto the forefront of womens tennis. Even in the year 2002, that's still quite an oddity!!!

And, when and where did I "declare" the greatest players to be American??? Maybe your comprehension has failed you!!! Or, rather, the fact that you're upset with me on a personal level, has clouded your sense of reason and understanding!!! At, any rate, if you're going to attack me with such venom, at least have your facts straight.!!!:kiss: :kiss: :kiss: :kiss: :kiss:

:angel:

King Lindsay
Feb 23rd, 2003, 02:00 PM
Persond, that article was badly written and researched. Lots of stupid errors. Maybe its central point is correct, but is anybody debating that? It's still a worthless article. I could write something 100 times better, and so could many of the members of this board.

Crazy Canuck
Feb 23rd, 2003, 02:05 PM
Persond, I suppose that you would find an article that attempted to depreciate Venus or Serena's accomplishments in a similar manner, that you would find it equally hilarious?

The article was poorly written, and whatever his underlying message was, it's burried beneathe crap. Regardless of wether or not that message was valid, he's managed to ruin any point that he might have had.

Crazy Canuck
Feb 23rd, 2003, 02:06 PM
Hmm I should really try refreshing next time to avoid echoing other people.

hingis-seles
Feb 23rd, 2003, 02:07 PM
LOL, Rebecca!

persond
Feb 23rd, 2003, 02:08 PM
However suspect the author/writter's credentials, were the main characters switched, the "usual suspects" would have been the first in the thread to concur!!! It has absolutely nothing to do with the journalistic excellence or lack thereof in the article. But, rather, the non-objective views of the various fans on this board. I knew from the initial posting, what the responses would be, ergo my first post.

Wait until the true "usual suspects" show up!!!! Let the fireworks begin!!!!

GoDominique
Feb 23rd, 2003, 02:10 PM
persond, you fool, the point is:

I criticise the article because it's shit, NOT because I'm a Hingis-fan. But YOU are so biased and rate this nonsense so highly that you can't think of another reason to hate this article than being a Hingis-lover and Williams-hater. Nuff said !

selesrules
Feb 23rd, 2003, 02:11 PM
If Steffi Graf was stabbed at her prime, Monica Seles would own all the records. Therefore I guess "Gunther Parche" is the one who decides greatness :rolleyes: Heck maybe if someone stabs Serena today then Venus will start adding slams and end with 10 compared to Serena's 5, then Venus becomes the greatest. :rolleyes: Let the criminals decide :rolleyes:

Crazy Canuck
Feb 23rd, 2003, 02:11 PM
persond, your hypocracy is nothing less than amusing.

venusfan
Feb 23rd, 2003, 02:14 PM
great article...encore

GoDominique
Feb 23rd, 2003, 02:16 PM
selesrules and venusfan do their best to ruin this thread even more.

persond
Feb 23rd, 2003, 02:21 PM
Rebecca, moi, a "hypocrite"????

Okay, guys, stop attacking me!!!! I concede, already. gosh!! *persond tucks his tail between his legs, and shuffles off into the sunset* *Teary eyed and heart broken* *wonders why everyone hates him..GoDom, Becca, King Lindsay* *persond shakes his head in bewilderment*

JoeyWinson3.0
Feb 23rd, 2003, 02:22 PM
I can't beleive it is such a struggle for me to get into journalism when there are absolute clowns like this actually earning decent money for writing about stuff they clearly haven't researched.

What a load of pigs knackers.

hingis-seles
Feb 23rd, 2003, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by GoDominique
selesrules and venusfan do their best to ruin this thread even more.

Could it possibly be ruined any further?!

Crazy Canuck
Feb 23rd, 2003, 02:24 PM
Yes, persond, you are a hypocrite...

Your description of "Hingis fans" behavior regarding the tone of the article, and how it would be different if it was a positive article is EXACTLY how you act with the Williams sisters.

Attempting to be a voice of reason results in miserable failure if you aren't willing to address your own shortcomings on similar matters..

Crazy Canuck
Feb 23rd, 2003, 02:32 PM
persond- i dont' know if you care but everything you say here would always be 'discredited' by a few, with opinion such as the ones you expressed here...............


Personds opinion on this matter is being "discredited", because it's hypocritical crap.

persond
Feb 23rd, 2003, 02:32 PM
I never ascribed to be the "voice of reason", but rather, I "portend" to be the "defender of truth"!!!


Okay, I'm BUSTED!!!:angel: :angel: :angel: :angel:

Crazy Canuck
Feb 23rd, 2003, 02:35 PM
I'll answer you in this thread as well, Joy. Max won 7-6 6-4. It was a pretty decent match, but Max was just too much for Sluiter in the tie break of the first set. Sluiter played on sloppy service game in the next set, and that was it. He couldn't do much to Max's serve.

persond
Feb 23rd, 2003, 02:39 PM
For, my feet a firmly planted on the ground...I'm an old veteran of the "civil rights" era, battle scars and all!! I know how to "fight the good fight" and certainly fear no one on a nameless, powerless message board.!!! And, the little battles, I care nothing about, for it's the war that I want to win.!!!

:angel: :angel: :angel: :angel:

King Lindsay
Feb 23rd, 2003, 02:39 PM
Since when do I hate you, persond. We go way back, like I said!

Crazy Canuck
Feb 23rd, 2003, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by persond
For, my feet a firmly planted on the ground...I'm an old veteran of the "civil rights" era, battle scars and all!! I know how to "fight the good fight" and certainly fear no one on a nameless, powerless message board.!!! And, the little battles, I care nothing about, for it's the war that I want to win.!!!

:angel: :angel: :angel: :angel:

Gee, this related to the topic.

Ryan
Feb 23rd, 2003, 02:42 PM
Once I read the first heading that mentioned Venus and Serena as great, but not Hingis, I knew the article would be stuuuupid. Aside from his nonsense attempts to discredit everything Hingis has done, he never mentioned any of her big wins, only her losses. The part about her filling a gap is bullshit, just like the rest of this "article".

persond
Feb 23rd, 2003, 02:46 PM
Too many "smileys" again???? *persond slaps his thigh, adjusts his white ten gallon cowboy hat, mounts his steed, and rides off into the sunset, singing "Happy Trails"*

persond
Feb 23rd, 2003, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by King Lindsay
Since when do I hate you, persond. We go way back, like I said!

Yeah, we do, don' t we??? You know I really didn't mean to include you, buddy.:hearts: :hearts: :hearts: :hearts:

Crazy Canuck
Feb 23rd, 2003, 02:49 PM
persond, is there a reason that you act like a 12 year old? Is this your laugh for the day, or what?

hingis-seles
Feb 23rd, 2003, 02:50 PM
Maybe he forgot to take his medication!

Serena y Monica
Feb 23rd, 2003, 04:21 PM
I'm still trying to figure out why all the passion? Is it because the author reversed the dominance of Venus and Lindsay? Because his point is certainly valid...and that point is Hingis won her titles during a lull in competition. As much as I love Monica and hate what happened to her, to try to say that Steffi could or would not have figured out a way to beat here is a exercise in what if's.

We know that Steffi did have competition Monica ASV Gabriella Conchita and as bookends Martina 1 2 Lindsay Venus and Serena.

She won and lost her Grandslams against the best in the game at the time. Angry as it makes you, try as you might one can say the same about all the greats with the exception of... Hingis. If you like to believe that it doesn´t deminish her stature...fine, but don´t try to deny the validity of the opposite point of view.

Right now women´s tennis is at it highest level. The women are big fast strong aggressive, it´s never been tougher to win...we have seen Hingis against many of today´s best while both were playing at their peak...Hingis has come up short. Please do not try to point to her early dominance of Lindsay or the sisters...she was a veteran...they were learning once things evened out...well, now we know the rest of the story.

Bright Red
Feb 23rd, 2003, 04:38 PM
Ditto what Serena y Monica says. Hingis was good, but wasn't great. I think even she'd admit it.

harloo
Feb 23rd, 2003, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by persond
For, my feet a firmly planted on the ground...I'm an old veteran of the "civil rights" era, battle scars and all!! I know how to "fight the good fight" and certainly fear no one on a nameless, powerless message board.!!! And, the little battles, I care nothing about, for it's the war that I want to win.!!!

:angel: :angel: :angel: :angel:

ROTFLMAO@persond.

My 2 cents on this article:

I feel the author was sort of unfair to Hingis, but anyone has to admit that when Hingis dominated no one was on a level to even compete with her. She was that far ahead of the rest of the field. Lindsay wasn't good enough, V&S were not developed enough, and the rest of the tour couldn't handle the tactical genuis of Hingis. IMO, that's what made her good at the time. However, Hingis could not adjust to the climate of new competition. Now the players on tour are atheletes and better players and it's harder to win.

Hingis had her time at the top, and she deserved her reign. However, I think she would of been considered greater if she could of adjusted her game and came back to challenge the top players, but she never was able to adjust and that's what makes her greatness questionable IMO.

Serena y Monica
Feb 23rd, 2003, 05:10 PM
Humble yet balanced and objective...all things considered I´d give two very enthusiastic thumbs up.

Giuliano
Feb 23rd, 2003, 05:19 PM
Yes he has a fair point about her not being able to adjust but as for the domination thing. Isn't it what happens when anyone dominates? The rest of the field can't catch up... because the one who dominates brings something new. We wouldn't say that Graf dominated because Seles, Davenport or the Williams weren't there? Or that Seles dominated because the others were weak, would we? No, they were too good for the others for a certain period...
I fail to see why this can't be applied to Hingis even if she really really dominated for a year/ a year and a half.

hingis-seles
Feb 23rd, 2003, 05:25 PM
Hingis faced the same competition in 1997 that Graf did in 1996.

Hingis had to beat whoever was put in front of her and therefore, she gets the credit for each of her victories. Do not try and diminsh her achievements just because of any personal hatred or dislike you may have towards her.

hingis-seles
Feb 23rd, 2003, 05:26 PM
As for the article, it was a pile of crap! The guy can't write. I can do a MUCH better job at getting the same point across!

Bright Red
Feb 23rd, 2003, 05:33 PM
I think that articles like these are in poor taste, but I think they are important all the same. People are interested in these types of topics.

I think that Hingis did make her mark in the sport, and particular in Switzerland. She has millions of fans who will never forget her. Most importantly, she's healthy, young, and still has her whole life ahead of her. In fact, she could even come back in a few years to try to become one of the greatest of the sport.

Don't get all worked up over the few mistakes made by the author when his overall point is valid. Besides, Hingis is none the worse for it. She's doing fine.

hingis-seles
Feb 23rd, 2003, 05:38 PM
Yes but what was laughable was that he mentioned her not being as great as Serena and Venus and Chris and Martina N.

Shows his knowledge of the sport! :rolleyes:

Serena y Monica
Feb 23rd, 2003, 05:39 PM
Maartian Julien

I think you are missing the point. I don't believe that Hingis was the best during the time she won...I believe the best was injured, thereby allowing the second best of her time to win. To me this does not detract from the fact that she beat who was availabe...but to others it might, esp. when coupled with the fact that when her generation caught up to her she wilted, keep in mind that this isn't a younger breed doing what is inevitable...I'm saying that when the best of her generation was at their best she could not compete. Keeping that fact in mind then surely a reasonable person could formulate the opinion that she was good and not great without being disparaged for the suggestion.

Bright Red
Feb 23rd, 2003, 05:39 PM
Yes, H-S. It's too early to put the Williams' in the same category.

Serena y Monica
Feb 23rd, 2003, 05:47 PM
Hingis-Seles...she's not. Lindsay Venus Serena are winning against the best athletes the women's game has ever seen...Hingis is in their generation and amongst this competition she would not be in the top five...so how can she be better or as good as they...there was a time when she was better than they...but they...the game has transcended her ability. I'm sure you will disagree...and doing so doesn't make you laughable.

selesrules
Feb 23rd, 2003, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by Serena y Monica
Maartian Julien

I think you are missing the point. I don't believe that Hingis was the best during the time she won...I believe the best was injured, thereby allowing the second best of her time to win. To me this does not detract from the fact that she beat who was availabe...but to others it might, esp. when coupled with the fact that when her generation caught up to her she wilted, keep in mind that this isn't a younger breed doing what is inevitable...I'm saying that when the best of her generation was at their best she could not compete. Keeping that fact in mind then surely a reasonable person could formulate the opinion that she was good and not great without being disparaged for the suggestion.

First of all, Steffi Graf played all the way until the French in 1997 but she lost both in the AO and the FO early to her nemesis Coetzer, while Hingis dominated the tour with 37 wins and won the AO and reached the FO final. So when Graf left, she was not the best, Hingis already surplanted her.

Second of all, why is it that everyone always says this about Hingis, but when Seles fans talk about the stabbing and how Graf dominated for years without the "best player" like you put it, then they get attack and everyone starts saying "too bad, don't live in what if's". Monica was more dominant then Graf when she left, she hadn't lost her last 2 slams early, she was winning everything for the last 2 to 3 years. Plus she was stabbed which is much different from an injury.

I think you should gave Hingis a break, and either way the only reason why Graf was the "best" before Hingis, was because the real best Monica Seles was stabbed and her career was destroyed. And either way, Hingis became the dominant no.1 when Graf was still playing, Graf became the dominant no.1 after Seles got stabbed. You can't just make excuses simply against Hingis. :rolleyes:

irma
Feb 23rd, 2003, 05:51 PM
steffi played all the way in 97? show me her result from feb till mai 97 then. I missed them

selesrules
Feb 23rd, 2003, 05:53 PM
As you can see, Hingis had already been dominating when Graf was still playing in 1997. Hingis had won 37 matches in a row up until the French including I think 6 titles and the AO. Hingis became no.1 when Steffi was still there.

Australian Open at Melbourne, Australia
January 13, 1997
Surface: Hardcourt
Round Opponent W/L Score
R128 Janette Husarova (SVK) W 5-1 ret
R64 Larisa Neiland (LAT) W 7-5 6-2
R32 Ines Gorrochategui (ARG) W 7-5 6-3
R16 Amanda Coetzer (RSA) L 2-6 5-7
Win/Loss: 3/1

Tokyo, Japan
January 27, 1997
Surface: Indoor Carpet
Round Opponent W/L Score
R32 Bye
R16 Lisa Raymond (USA) W 6-3 6-2
QF Iva Majoli (CRO) W 6-2 6-3
SF Brenda Schultz-McCarthy (NED) W 6-1 7-5
F Martina Hingis (SUI) L w/o
Win/Loss: 6/1

Berlin, Germany
May 12, 1997
Surface: Clay
Round Opponent W/L Score
R64 Bye
R32 Chanda Rubin (USA) W 6-3 3-6 6-1
R16 Ruxandra Dragomir Ilie (ROM) W 6-3 6-2
QF Amanda Coetzer (RSA) L 0-6 1-6
Win/Loss: 8/2

Strasbourg, France
May 19, 1997
Surface: Clay
Round Opponent W/L Score
R32 Bye
R16 Patricia Hy-Boulais (CAN) W 6-3 6-2
QF Sandrine Testud (FRA) W 3-6 6-2 6-1
SF Amanda Coetzer (RSA) W 4-6 7-5 7-6(4)
F Mirjana Lucic (CRO) W 6-2 7-5
Win/Loss: 12/2

Roland Garros at Paris, France
May 26, 1997
Surface: Clay
Round Opponent W/L Score
R128 Paola Suarez (ARG) W 6-1 6-4
R64 Amelie Mauresmo (FRA) W 6-3 6-3
R32 Magui Serna (ESP) W 7-6(4) 6-1
R16 Irina Spirlea (ROM) W 6-7(4) 6-2 6-2
QF Amanda Coetzer (RSA) L 1-6 4-6

Giuliano
Feb 23rd, 2003, 05:53 PM
So we can at least acknowledge that she was the best during the time she dominated and that she was the best because she brought something that beat the others for a period? :angel:

Graf being injured that year doesn't change much. We will never know what would have happened had the two been healthy (just as we won't know 100% surely what would have happened hadn't the unfortunate stabbing happened).
Lots of happened in this sentence.

irma
Feb 23rd, 2003, 06:00 PM
where was steffi in key biscane 97?

irma
Feb 23rd, 2003, 06:03 PM
martina deserved her titles though even when I personally think for her it would have been better if it had taken a little longer.

I serious think she had won more then in the end.

her first burn out was already in 98 at 17 :eek: (if I don't count that little one at the start of 96)

Serena y Monica
Feb 23rd, 2003, 06:10 PM
I think you made my point martian julien Hingis was the best for a brief moment...and I might point out that Hingis could not even beat Steffi until she began having chronic knee problems. And ýou make the authors point which is that dominated at a weak piont in wta history...during the decline of Steffi and before the coming of age of Lindsay Venus and Serena...if she were still in the top 5 maybe we could redicule the writers point, but she's not, and he's simply stating an opinion with which we disagree.

Doesn't make him a hack or laughable...just a man with an opinion.

TeeRexx
Feb 23rd, 2003, 06:23 PM
-----
"Yet for all the impressive numbers, her legacy is that she filled the void between the demise of Steffi Graf and the ascent of the Williams sisters."
-----

A form of this statement has been made several times over the years by various tennis analyst.
There is quite a bit of truth in that comment.

However, I thought the article made Hingis look very good by giving a very poitive picture of her growing maturity.

Hingis beat a few players before they had achieved the level of play that would make them future greats like VENUS, SERENA and Davenport.

I believe that some of Hingis' fans over reacted to this this simple, objective article.

Giuliano
Feb 23rd, 2003, 06:27 PM
Errr ok, geee I didn't know I said the author was laughable nor that I mentioned Davenport and the Sisters. :D

There's one thing that disturbs me somehow. So Hingis dominated completely for a year/ a year and a half because Martinez, Sanchez, Coetzer, Graf at the start of the year, Pierce, Huber, Majoli couldn't keep the ball in the court and all the others dominating players had to face strong opponents? Talk about bad luck :sad:.

irma
Feb 23rd, 2003, 06:30 PM
I think her real bad luck was that she could speak german so she had to defend herself for winning towards the german press :rolleyes:

Serena y Monica
Feb 23rd, 2003, 06:47 PM
No I'm not saying you said those things I'm just saying that so many in this thread was rediculing the man for an opinion...one that maybe we don't agree with...but not one that makes him a scurge to sports writers the world over.

And they could keep the ball in court...just not long enough to win the match. Listen Hingis to me is a great champion...I don't like her style of play, because believe it or not...I love to see the big girls step up to the ball and crush it...but during her time she beat and I do mean beat the opponents she faced...she could not control who they were and some had the skills to win and didn't so she didn't have a total cake walk...but none had the gifts that the cream of today's crop possess... Lindsay Venus Serena Kim and even little Justine...now that they've come into their own...Hingis could retrieve til the cows come home but unless they missed...she could do nothing to hurt them.

Playa
Feb 23rd, 2003, 07:52 PM
Serena y monica , you nailed it.
your posts are greatssssssssssssss!

bwguy
Feb 24th, 2003, 01:11 AM
OK, some of you clearly missed my original post or this would no longer be an issue, so I will repeat it here along with an additional example: Charles Bricker, the guilty columnist, is primarily a football writer for that paper (probably a 20:1 ratio of football to tennis). They drag him out almost every Sunday to write his tennis column, which is usually a dab of dubious opinion mixed with several snippets of tour "news" that most tennis readers already know. He is not taken seriously by well-informed tennis enthusiasts. I feel sorry that Hingis fans, of which I was never one, have to be exposed to it.

Let us take a closer look at what he has written and then decide if he is worthy of the defense some of your are putting forth. First, he notes Hingis' "three years (1997-99) of dominance". Then, he writes "...but her finesse and tactical genius were overpowered by the evolution of the big hitters...."

OK, fine so far. I think we can all agree that the game of tennis and the type of players who play it have always evolved and will continue to evolve to a new level.

But here is where his logic breaks down: "She never found a way to compete with the power players in women's tennis, and that is what has kept her from greatness."

Got that? He maintains that in order for any player to be considered great, regardless of years of dominance, she must find a way to compete with the next "evolution" player and game.

By that criteria, it is clear, many players long considered "greats" of the game must be demoted. And further, even if players of the present, such as Serena, continue to dominate for the next year or two, but fail to compete well against the next evolution, they too will fall short of greatness.

Ridiculous, of course. Players who dominate for long periods of time are "greats". Period. End of discussion. Class dismissed.

Now, to provide further illustration of my assertion that Mr. Bricker's opinion is frequently obtained through some convoluted logic, usually based on information he pulls from elsewhere, consider this article from June 26, 1997. (boldface phrases represent some pretty creative leaps in deduction):

FRICTION FOLLOWING RISING VENUS' RISING STAR
Sun Sentinel; Fort Lauderdale; Jun 26, 1997; CHARLES BRICKER

Venus Williams, playing her first Wimbledon, has been the toast of the London media with her purple, green and white Wimbledon-color hair beads, her prodigious ability and her 6-foot-2 height.

Photographers can't get close enough to her. British reporters can't get enough interviews.

But away from the spotlight, Williams, a Palm Beach Gardens resident, is catching an increasing amount of criticism from her fellow pros, and some of the most damaging hits were aired on a five-minute segment on HBO on Wednesday.

"I played her in Oakland and I thought it was a great match. I beat her 6-3 in the third set," said Brenda Schultz-McCarthy, one of the most popular players on the Corel WTA Tour. "After the match, I said, `Hey, well done.' And she said, `Don't touch me.'

"I was like, `OK, I won't do that again.' "

Frank Deford, who narrated the hard-hitting segment, said Williams was a crashing success on the tour but not in the women's locker room.

Williams and Iva Majoli crossed paths in Eastbourne last week, where tournament organizers put Williams on the stadium court and sent Majoli, the French Open champion, to an outer court.

Majoli expressed her displeasure after the match, but there was no hint of personal friction between the players until the HBO program.

On HBO, Majoli said before losing to Williams in March at Indian Wells, "We argued before the match and I got a little upset with things she said after the match. She said she would have even beaten me three years ago if we played. She was a little cocky, like she was the best in the world."

There also was mild criticism from Gigi Fernandez, another popular tour figure, who said that it can get very lonely out on tour. "You have to mingle," said Fernandez.

Mingling with other players has not been something father Richard Williams, the dominant force behind Venus' rise, has encouraged. Deford described the family tennis philosophy as "us vs. them."

When Williams goes on the road, her only hitting partner is her younger sister, Serena, 15, who has picked up a lot of Williams' arrogance.

Last week Serena told a London reporter, who had asked whether she was playing the Wimbledon juniors: "I'm way beyond that."

The segment had some balance. It showed Venus and Serena in the family living room, looking very warm and friendly, joking with each other and reciting Shakespeare.

But that side of her evidently has not been seen often by players on tour.


There can be no defense for this. Mr. Bricker is a "columnist" and therefore paid to offer an opinion, so we do not find fault with him for providing one. It is my belief that what makes Mr. Bricker a "hack" (to borrow a term) is not that he expresses an opinion contrary to our own, but that he reaches that opinion through questionable logic and little apparent effort to provide balance. After reading his articles with eyes not blinded by personal bias for or against specific players, you will be led to the same conclusion.

selesfan
Feb 24th, 2003, 01:19 AM
And they could keep the ball in court...just not long enough to win the match. Listen Hingis to me is a great champion...I don't like her style of play, because believe it or not...I love to see the big girls step up to the ball and crush it...but during her time she beat and I do mean beat the opponents she faced...she could not control who they were and some had the skills to win and didn't so she didn't have a total cake walk...but none had the gifts that the cream of today's crop possess... Lindsay Venus Serena Kim and even little Justine...now that they've come into their own...Hingis could retrieve til the cows come home but unless they missed...she could do nothing to hurt them.

I agree! With the women stepping it up the past couple years, Martina's retrieving game is not effective, the power players of these days also move better than the power players of old and Martina can't keep up with them. If she came back she would be ranked no higher than #10.

LUIS9
Feb 24th, 2003, 03:32 AM
not only is it bias and nonensense its not even accurate! if you read carefully the guy cant even remember that the williams episode at indian well took place in 2001.thats first thing and then, who is he anyways? no disrespect?if hes going to propose an argument bring proof,not nonsense and erraneous bs.who else has 15 tiers 1's, won on all the 5 different surfaces; and multiple big tier 2 events and on top of that 5 grand slams and a total of 40 titles singles that is and 36 doubles titles let alone with twelve different partners.more so 9 doubles grand slam won each doubles grand slam twice and won the doubles grand slam as well. and again she won these titles with multiple partners as well. if that's not great then i would propose there are many mediocre players on the wta tour, if not then the wta tour has no talent period.of course excluding the williams and the everts and navratilova's and company as well as the great seles.:rolleyes: :mad:

kku
Feb 24th, 2003, 03:37 AM
Originally posted by GogoGirl
I think Martina was great in her way and day. I think V&S and others feel that she was great there for a time. They couldn't beat her at one time - and especially - consistently.




http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/sfl-tencol23feb23,0,113804.story?coll=sfla-sports-headlines

Hingis good, not great

Posted February 23 2003

If Martina Hingis never plays another WTA match, and it now appears she won't, she will carry into her injury-imposed retirement five Grand Slam titles and three years (1997-99) of dominance.

She will not, however, be remembered as one of the great players in women's tennis. Great means Serena Williams, Martina Navratilova, Venus Williams, Chris Evert.











Hingis was a champion with the most technically polished game since Evert, but her finesse and tactical genius were overpowered by the evolution of the big hitters -- first Venus, then Lindsay Davenport and, finally, Serena.

She never found a way to compete with the power players in women's tennis, and that is what has kept her from greatness.

When Hingis rose to No. 1 on March 31, 1997, she was at 16 years and six months the youngest player to hold that position in women's tennis, and she remained at No. 1 for 209 weeks.

Yet for all the impressive numbers, her legacy is that she filled the void between the demise of Steffi Graf and the ascent of the Williams sisters. In fact, if she were 100 percent fit today, at age 22, Hingis wouldn't be among the top five players on the WTA tour.

She won her last major at the 1999 Australian, finishing short of a trophy in her past 13 Slams. It was one of the great ironies in recent history that, though she supplanted Graf at No. 1, it was Steffi who delivered Hingis' most disappointing loss -- in the 1999 French Open final.

Precocious and self-important, Hingis burst upon women's tennis at age 14, and her pious attitude served her less and less well as she grew. She cried after Graf beat her in three sets at that '99 final at Roland Garros, and then she briefly discarded her mother as coach following a first-round loss at Wimbledon two weeks later.

But from that point on, Hingis grew much more rapidly as a person than as a player. She is, today, one of the most mentally and emotionally mature players on the WTA Tour.

Along with five Grand Slam titles, tennis has helped her grow up.

Partly true. But I can't help but detect strong bias in the article.

Serena y Monica
Feb 24th, 2003, 03:38 PM
bwguy

His oppinions are valid despite the fact the he primarily writes about football.

It's one thing for an ageing Martina N to loose dominance against the next generation of players i.e. Steffi Monica Jennifer et.al...However we could never have considered her great if when she was being dominated by Chrissy (a great player of the same generation)she had not taken the steps to become a better athlete and competitor...it is in fact her drive to win which lead her to evolve so that she could not just compete with the best, but win. If she had not improved she still would have been good...just not the great that she is.

Martina Hingis didn't concede to the next generation...she gave way to her own generation. She didn't become better she peaked. Venus is at risk of doing the same as is Lindsay...if they never win another slam they will still be good...but one could validly say...without being disparaged, that they are not greats.

btw...that is my only point. Not to make his point for him but to point out that reasonable people can share his opinion...and many do.

GogoGirl
Feb 24th, 2003, 06:07 PM
As I've said before - Great - is just a word, and many folks have a different perception on what it means . There are numerous words to describe a person - and many persons have many attributes.

Here is why I would Call Martina a great player.

1. She did dominate the tour for a while - and if some want to say it is because this or that - then so be it. Yet - it does not erase what she accomplished during her reign. There was absolutely no one able to dismantle her on the tour when she shined.

2. I can call a match great if I want to or analyze it as such. Two average players can play a great match. So at times - it is subjective.

3. The way Martina used to dismantle her opponents was something to see - and certainly - IMO - had its place.

4. Her hugest attribute was the way she constructed a point - and she used to redirect the ball with such skill during the construction.

5. She never gave an inch - and was always alert. I don't think I ever saw Martina unaware what was going on around her. She was very attentive and had great concentration.

6. She was great at hitting the ball deep in her prime. There was no one like her as it pertained to her way of trying to move the ball around in setting up a point.

7. At one time - Martina served in the nineties - until the big babes really started going for her second serve. In the beginning of her slide of losing to the more powerful players - her second serve was one of the Only ways her opponent could really take the offense. The biggest part of that story was that V&S&L&J started going after Martina’s first serves and not just the seconds. They put the pressure on and kept it there. She started worrying about whether she could get the first serve in. I think the one thing that some mention when discussing Martina is - her serve. Even before we probably realized it – she was already worrying about her serve. And with all the attacking of her serve game – it was something that helped to sink her confidence in her game - IMO.

IMO - Martina had some greatness - and again - Venus & Serena and others would attest that she was badd and had it going on - in her day. Does it really matter so much that she wasn't winning her tourneys w/a lot of power play? I doubt it. She won it in her way with her style and play - and at one time it was the best out there - because the bottom line is and will always be:

"WINNING"

Martina was a winner. And as I've commented before - she didn't want to lose to players she felt she should beat. If she saw that if she came back - she would lose 50% of the time - then she wasn't having that. That was out. She wanted to go out a winner. And I don't blame her. Can she come back? Yes - and she just may - but it will be on her own terms. And one of those terms would have to be IMO – would she feel that she would still be a Winner on the WTA tour? And if not - was it worth it?

I don't think Martina wants to come back unless she has a chance on winning tourneys. Who truly can blame her?

nash
Feb 24th, 2003, 06:21 PM
Hingis had one dominating year. One. Not three. She does not deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Steffi, Monica, Navratilova, Evert, King, & Court. Their accomplishment far, far exceed those of Hingis.

She does deserve to be mentioned with Venus & Serena at this point. However, they both have the potential to far exceed Martina's accomplishments if their careers continue at their current pace.

Just my opinion...

-Nash-

bwguy
Feb 24th, 2003, 11:21 PM
I will agree, Serena Y Monica, that reasonable people can share Mr. Bricker's opinion, but only if they make the case in a logical manner, something he did not. An opinion earns its validity by being based on sound reasoning. You are defining great as a player being able to rise to a meet a challenge of her own generation. Martina did not do that in the eyes of many. That's fine if that's part of your definition. Mr. Bricker defined great as meeting the challenge of the next evolution in the game, something that does not necessarily equate to next generation. By his definition, it's hard to think of anyone who could be considered great. It's the reasoning that I find flawed consistently in his writing, as opposed to the resulting opinion necessarily.

franny
Feb 25th, 2003, 12:10 AM
omg i got it!!! Persond is the writer of this article, i mean, right after this article was posted, he was first to go and defend and speculate on hingis fans or other's attacking it, and then he keeps on going on and on about how this article is so beautifully written when it has obvious flaws, and then he gets so defensive of this article. I seriously think that Persond is actually.......................................... ....................CHARLES BRICKER!!! BUM BUM BUM.

o0O0o
Feb 25th, 2003, 12:30 AM
The "lack of competition" thing is nonsense. It can be unreasonably applied to anyone. Let's take the Williams sisters.

She starts dominating (...gasp...) as soon as Hingis' ankles and speed start detiorating. And Lindsay's knee completely went. Their two main competitors were injured. That's the only reason they won. Then there was Capriati. She was the #3 player in the world but only won, what, like four tournaments? She couldn't beat anyone, and she was fat. The new girls such as Henin, Clisters, and Hantuchova were way too young to challenge them, and they only challenged them because Seles, Hingis, and Davenport went out of their prime.

Etc...

*JR*
Feb 25th, 2003, 12:45 AM
This really depends on what one is looking for from a favorite player. For pure artistry, Marti was spectacular. Re. domination, she was the WTA equivilant of former heavyweight champion Larry Holmes. He was a superb ring technician with a great left jab, a pleasure for fans to watch. Re. dominating, he did for about 8 years. However, it was between the end of Ali's era and the beginning of Tyson's. (Larry beat an old Ali and was KO'd by Tyson in the twilight of his own career). The relevant point is that while Ali vs. Tyson @ their primes could have gone either way, either would have clearly beat Holmes in such a "prime vs. prime" bout. Likewise with Marti, who won so much by "filling a gap in time". Yes, Monica was back, but never nearly the same after the stabbing; Steffi was chronically injured by then; Jen was sorting out her own life; and the W/S hadn't harnessed their power yet. The funny thing is boxing fans don't see that kind of analysis as being @ all dissing Larry Holmes.

Infiniti2001
Feb 25th, 2003, 12:56 AM
The "lack of competition" thing is nonsense. It can be unreasonably applied to anyone. Let's take the Williams sisters.

She starts dominating (...gasp...) as soon as Hingis' ankles and speed start detiorating. And Lindsay's knee completely went. Their two main competitors were injured. That's the only reason they won.

Keep comforting yourself with this 5 os... You fail to realize that Hingis stopped being an issue way back in 99, before any mention of injury.. and PLEASE do not forget that she lost her #1 ranking because she couldn't make up for her lack of Grand Slam winner points by playing a gazillion tournaments.
When was the last time Lindsay had a win over either sister before her knee gave way?? :eek:

o0O0o
Feb 25th, 2003, 12:57 AM
Maybe that's because tennis isn't as simple and archaic as boxing?

I would argue that Martina would crush Venus if they were both in their prime. After all Hingis put up fights against her in the last few years, even though she was twice as slow, not nearly as consistent, half as aggressive, and served 10-15 mph slower than she used to.

But this is just a pure point-counterpoint issue, which will never truly be resolved. It's rather annoying to discredit Hingis as many are doing, and I hope you're prepared for an equal amount of discrediting when Venus retires with her grand total of four Slams and a few measely weeks at #1.

o0O0o
Feb 25th, 2003, 12:59 AM
And Hingis played 22 tournaments at most. Usually 20. That was the same number as Capriati and Lindsay a few years ago. I remember Hingis throwing that common misconception back into reporters faces. The reason everyone thought she played so much is because she won all of the smaller tournaments, I suppose.

Infiniti2001
Feb 25th, 2003, 01:01 AM
Why must everything be tit for tat for you o0O0o ?? You are so bitter young man. Oh well, there's still hope considering you are still a teenager..

Infiniti2001
Feb 25th, 2003, 01:03 AM
I would argue that Martina would crush Venus if they were both in their prime.

woulda, coulda,shoulda, NOT!! End of story!!

Infiniti2001
Feb 25th, 2003, 01:06 AM
P.S. were her ankles deteriorating in 2000 , 2001 and early 2002??? She reached 3 slam finals and won a few tournaments , so my guess is it wasn't an issue then.. QUIT making excuses.

*JR*
Feb 25th, 2003, 01:16 AM
Uh, 50, does it discredit Venus that she has a sister who is even better than she is (undoubtedly owing a good bit to practicing with and being "nurtured" as a player by Venus herself)? If Marti had a younger sister even better than she was, would you mock her if she retired with only 4 Slams? And Venus is the clear favorite to win anytime she's playing and Serena isn't. And it is certainly your right to consider boxing archaic, but simple? Pul-eeeze. Were it such, Tyson would have simply knocked the crap out of Evander Holyfield, for example, instead of saying "Can you lend me an ear"? :eek: :p

ico4498
Feb 25th, 2003, 01:40 AM
Dang, yah can only beat the opponents across the net. Unless you're Tonya Harding ....

I thingk Hingis was arrogant and self absorbed. She placed more importance on technically remaining #1, than actually being the best player.

Was she a great player? For my two pennies .... hell yes!

Cybelle Darkholme
Feb 25th, 2003, 03:17 AM
why are you guys arguing over this stupid article? Martina is gone let her enjoy her retirement she earned it.

That bricker guy has always had dubious articles.

Oh and don't be so bitter OoOoo just because your favorite left the game without accomplishing as much as much as her rivals will in the years to come. Why not enjoy what she did accomplish, which is a lot instead of trying to throw some very weak stones.

Venus may retire with four slams, anything is possible, didn't hingis retire without a french open and without a career slam? Though somehow I sincerely doubt Venus' slam count will end at four.

hingis-seles
Feb 25th, 2003, 05:15 AM
Originally posted by Serena y Monica
Hingis-Seles...she's not. Lindsay Venus Serena are winning against the best athletes the women's game has ever seen...Hingis is in their generation and amongst this competition she would not be in the top five...so how can she be better or as good as they...there was a time when she was better than they...but they...the game has transcended her ability. I'm sure you will disagree...and doing so doesn't make you laughable.

First of all, what I was saying was laughable was that this "journalist" mentioned Venus and Serena in the same sentence as Martina and Chris saying that is what great is, as Bright Red clearly understood. Clearly, they have a way to go before even being mentioned in the same sentence as those two!

Secondly, you say Hingis WOULD not have been in the Top 5. Well, we'll never know the answer to that one. So stop with the hypothetical's!


Has the game transcended her ability? I wouldn't agree with that completely. To an extent, maybe, but could we think for a while, that maybe, just maybe, it could be possible that her broken ankles may have had something to do with her retirement.

Just a thought.

Robbie.
Feb 25th, 2003, 05:31 AM
Originally posted by hingis-seles
First of all, what I was saying was laughable was that this "journalist" mentioned Venus and Serena in the same sentence as Martina and Chris saying that is what great is, as Bright Red clearly understood. Clearly, they have a way to go before even being mentioned in the same sentence as those two!

Secondly, you say Hingis WOULD not have been in the Top 5. Well, we'll never know the answer to that one. So stop with the hypothetical's!


Has the game transcended her ability? I wouldn't agree with that completely. To an extent, maybe, but could we think for a while, that maybe, just maybe, it could be possible that her broken ankles may have had something to do with her retirement.

Just a thought.
The argument that Hingis would not be in the top 5, or at least the top 10 is given even less credibility when we consider that when she was forced off the tour in May last year - for the second time in 7 months - she was still ranked #3 and leading the race to the championships at that stage.

The argument that the game has evolved to the extent that she would no longer be a competitve force in tennis, really does not fly at all. Even when she was burnt out and playing like a shell of her former self in the second half of 2001 she was still #4 in the world. Apart from her notable absence, the top 10 looks exactly the same as it did at the end of 2001, so where is this evolution we are hearing about? You can hardly make the case that the game has passed her by when the same players she was routinely competitive with and often beat still occupy positions in the top 10. No one in their right mind would say that Jennifer, Lindsay, Jelena, Monica, Amelie or even Venus are playing better tennis than they were in 2001and the start of 2002 - infact in the case of the former 4, they are most certainly playing worse. The only players who can claim to have "improved" significantly in Hingis' absence are Serena, Kim and Daniela. And hobbling in extruciating pain, Martina was still able to beat Daniela in straight sets before being forced off the tour the second time. A realistic hypothesis, taking into account form and fact would indicate that a fit early 2002 Hingis would still be extremely close to top 5 material.

GogoGirl
Feb 25th, 2003, 02:02 PM
Martina also deserves her props for being such an outstanding doubles player. I will miss the M&A - V&S matchups.


http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030225/STEBBX/TPSports/Columnists

Hingis will be missed for grace, subtle skills


By TOM TEBBUTT
Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - Page S14



She was the most guileless, down-to-Earth No. 1 player in modern tennis.

In 1997, Martina Hingis, at 16, became the youngest No. 1 in history, capping a rise that first came into focus when she won the 1993 French Open (under-18) junior title as a 12-year-old.

At the 1997 U.S. Open, the world's top-ranked player could be seen dawdling alone through the players' lounge, greeting all and sundry as though she were just some chirpy kid from the qualifying event.

She had already become the youngest Grand Slam champion of the 20th (and 21st) century by beating Mary Pierce in the 1997 Australian Open final.

Hingis would go on to reach the French Open final and win both the Wimbledon and U.S. Open titles that year.

A fall from her horse, which led to knee surgery on April 21, may well have prevented 1997 Grand Slam perfection.

She did not play before the French Open and ended up losing the final there to Iva Majoli after a draining 6-7, 7-5, 6-4 first career victory over Monica Seles in the semi-finals.

With her exceptional court coverage and consistent groundstrokes, the French Open was the most logical Grand Slam title for her to win. Instead, it wound up as the only one missing among the total of five in her portfolio.

She was snake-bitten in Paris, losing in 1998 to purposeful Seles, who was playing with an other-worldly fury only weeks after her father died, and then to Steffi Graf in a 1999 final unforgettable for her emotional meltdown after she crossed the net to dispute a baseline call while comfortably ahead 6-4, 2-0.

On that inglorious afternoon, she was petulant, unsporting and embarrassing. But she was also only 18.

Little did anyone know then that she would never again win a Grand Slam title, unless she makes what now appears to be a highly unlikely return to the sport.

There were the occasional growing pains, but her basic good-natured personality emerged. Quite simply, she matured -- witness her admirable composure after losing a heartbreaker Australian Open final to Jennifer Capriati last year after holding four match points.

She possessed abilities that took tennis into a new realm. Instead of raw power, she used more subtle skills -- anticipation, deception and instinctive placement -- to outplay opponents.

The great Chris Evert once declared that 5-foot-7, 130-pound Hingis was thinking two or three shots ahead of her opposition.

That may have been true, but when the "Big Babes" (Venus and Serena Williams, Lindsay Davenport, Jennifer Capriati et al), as commentator Mary Carillo aptly dubs them, matured, Hingis had less time to methodically implement her creative strategies. The ball was coming too hard and fast.

Venus has now won six of their past eight matches, Serena six of the past nine, Davenport eight of the past 11 and Capriati the past four.

Hingis has made it known that continuing foot problems would make her return to tennis "unforeseeable."

She has reaffirmed her intentions recently, saying to the Swiss-German publication Blick: "Health comes before everything. It's more sensible that I stop. I've had another chat with my doctors and I've been told that I can no longer play tennis."

Although already fluent in English, she has enrolled in classes at home in Switzerland to improve it.

At the 1999 Canadian Open (now the Rogers AT&T Cup) in Montreal, Hingis, who speaks Czech and German, said she would not use her imperfect French in public until the Sunday final.

After winning against Serena Williams, who had to retire with a foot injury, Hingis launched into competent French at the presentation ceremony, delighting the appreciative Jarry Park patrons.

The ingenuity and charm she showed that day will surely serve her well in whatever the future holds for her.

Few players have the natural tennis grace and fluidity Hingis possessed. Only Justine Henin-Hardenne, to some extent, and Roger Federer and Marcelo Rios come to mind.

It will be very sad to no longer be able to observe Hingis's ease of execution on court and her effervescence away from it.
ttebbutt@globeandmail.ca

Volcana
Feb 25th, 2003, 02:24 PM
Venus and Martina DID play in their respective 'primes'. In 2000. I've never read one published report that suggested Martina was a WORSE tennis player in 2000 than she was in 1997.

Martina certainly didn't 'crush' Venus in 2000.

irma
Feb 25th, 2003, 02:25 PM
martina's prime ended in sydney 98?

Volcana
Feb 25th, 2003, 02:28 PM
In 1998,
no one was saying Martina was worse than in 1997.
No one was saying Martina was slower than in 1997.

In 1998,
no one was saying Martina was worse than in 1998.
No one was saying Martina was slower than in 1998.

In 1999,
no one was saying Martina was worse than in 1998.
No one was saying Martina was slower than in 1998.

In 2000,
no one was saying Martina was worse than in 1999.
No one was saying Martina was slower than in 1999.

In 2001, people were saying she'd been surpassed, but virtually
no one argued Martina was a worse tennis player.
They were arguing other players had gotten better.

However, if you want to argue NOW that she was clearly worse in
2001, go ahead. BUt you really won't want to do that.

The two players are roughly the same age. Given similar
ages and the same sport, their athletic primes match up
under most circumstances. Without injury, we'd expect Martina
2003 to trounce Martina 1997.

1997 Hingis' 'year' H2H is 3-0 Hingis. This is, of course,
Martina's 'prime', but not Venus's.

1997 Key Biscayne Hard (O) 32 Martina HINGIS 6-4 6-2
1997 San Diego Hard (O) 16 Martina HINGIS 6-2 6-1
1997 US Open Hard (O) FR Martina HINGIS 6-0 6-4

1998 Venus is picking it up, but Martina
is still much the better player
H2H is 3-2 Hingis.

1998 Sydney Hard (O) 16 Venus WILLIAMS 6-3 4-6 5-7
1998 Indian Wells Hard (O) SF Martina HINGIS 6-0 7-6
1998 Key Biscayne Hard (O) SF Venus WILLIAMS 2-6 7-5 2-6
1998 Rome Clay (O) FR Martina HINGIS 6-3 2-6 6-3
1998 Roland Garros Clay (O) QF Martina HINGIS 6-3 6-4

1999 H2H is 3-2 Hingis

1999 Rome Clay (O) SF Venus WILLIAMS 4-6 6-1 4-6
1999 San Diego Hard (O) FR Martina HINGIS 6-4 6-0
1999 US Open Hard (O) SF Martina HINGIS 6-1 4-6 6-3
1999 Zurich Hard (I) FR Venus WILLIAMS 3-6 4-6
1999 Tour Champs Carp (I) SF Martina HINGIS 6-4 7-6

2000 H2H is 2-0 Venus

2000 Wimbledon Grss (O) QF Venus WILLIAMS 3-6 6-4 4-6
2000 U.S. Open Hard (O) SF Venus WILLIAMS 6-4 3-6 5-7

anywhere after this you want to argue Martina was
'past her prime', go ahead. But from 1997 to 2000,
we definitely saw Hingis in her prime.
And given Venus' prime would be 2000 to the present,
the year 2000 really did show Maritna in her prime vs
Venus in her prime.

2001 H2H is 1-1

2001 Australian Open Hard (O) SF Martina HINGIS 6-1 6-1
2001 Miami Hard (O) SF Venus WILLIAMS 3-6 6-7(6)

2002 H2H is 1-0 Venus

2002 Hamburg Clay (O) SF Venus WILLIAMS 5-7 3-6

Volcana
Feb 25th, 2003, 02:33 PM
hingis-seles - I'll certainly consider any source you cite, and the end result may well be the same, but 'broken ankles' would usually refer to a bone fracture. It had been my belief that Martina suffered ligament damage.

In a high physical stress sport like tennis, it's almost impossible for a player to have played for a year with fractures in both ankles. Even non-displaced fractures would deteriorate quickly given the stress tennis puts on that joint. And the first time she rolled an ankle, she wouldn't get up.

I'm no doctor, but I have a long, painful and extensive relationship with sports medicine. Martina's history is not consistent with bone breaks. I'm totally willing to be corrected on this, especially if you have any articles form Martina's doctors.

DunkMachine
Feb 25th, 2003, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by rd878
This really depends on what one is looking for from a favorite player. For pure artistry, Marti was spectacular. Re. domination, she was the WTA equivilant of former heavyweight champion Larry Holmes. He was a superb ring technician with a great left jab, a pleasure for fans to watch. Re. dominating, he did for about 8 years. However, it was between the end of Ali's era and the beginning of Tyson's. (Larry beat an old Ali and was KO'd by Tyson in the twilight of his own career). The relevant point is that while Ali vs. Tyson @ their primes could have gone either way, either would have clearly beat Holmes in such a "prime vs. prime" bout. Likewise with Marti, who won so much by "filling a gap in time". Yes, Monica was back, but never nearly the same after the stabbing; Steffi was chronically injured by then; Jen was sorting out her own life; and the W/S hadn't harnessed their power yet. The funny thing is boxing fans don't see that kind of analysis as being @ all dissing Larry Holmes.

Doesn't really apply here but still, Mike is at it again. Check picture.

hingis-seles
Feb 25th, 2003, 05:35 PM
Volcana, I stand corrected!

*JR*
Feb 25th, 2003, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by rd878
Were it such, Tyson would have simply knocked the crap out of Evander Holyfield, for example, instead of saying "Can you lend me an ear"? :eek: :p Perhaps this is what Dunk Machine's pics refer to? :o

Iconoclast
Feb 25th, 2003, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by {{{RoB}}}
The argument that the game has evolved to the extent that she would no longer be a competitive force in tennis, really does not fly at all.
Couldn't agree more. That was easily the most naive claim in an already absurd article. Of course, a fit Hingis would be capable of challenging for a Top 5 spot today. I even suspect she would be neck and neck with Clijsters for #3, as Martina was the points gatherer par excellence.

LUIS9
Feb 25th, 2003, 08:23 PM
aside from the obvious that this article is biased and just useless garbage which i had already mentioned, there's one thing i would like to mention or point out that monica y serena may have a misconception.by saying"they were not experienced" around those lines, but davenport had been playing full schedule since 93 hingis was still winning wimby and french open juniors during this time.however yes venus and serena were less experienced than hingis but venus had been pro since 94 and serena since 95, not to say it was hingis fault she rose earlier as a champion than they did!if you were referring to the williams sisters you should have been more explicit in pointing it out as so, because you had mentioned davenports name in the same sentence so i dont think she lacked in experience by the time she met hingis for the 1st time, in 96 i think, when hingis was 15 2nd full year on tour and davenport was 20 years old and had play on tour for 3 full years and i wouldnt call that lack of experience by any means!
:wavey: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Robbie.
Feb 26th, 2003, 02:32 AM
Originally posted by Volcana

However, if you want to argue NOW that she was clearly worse in
2001, go ahead. BUt you really won't want to do that.



Volcana, I agree that physically, Hingis was in her prime in 2000. Venus and Martina played their best tennis in those two GS matches, and boy were they closely matched. The big determining factor in those matches was that Venus had evolved to be a mentally tougher player than Martina. Hingis had always been the MENTALLY tougher of the two, even if they were quite evenly matched physically towards the end of 1998 and though 1999. I will still maintain that in terms of game these two girls are extremely even, it is Serena who is a notch above both of them.

Why would I not want to argue that Hingis was worse 2001, than she had been previously? After losing the AO final to Jen, Martina was jaded and but a shadow of her former self for the rest of 2001. Her level of play was appalling, her balls short and punishable and her trademark consistency had all but disappeared as she made more and more unforced errors. Her serve too was significantly weaker than at any stage throughout her career. You only have to watch any of her matches at the US Open or her match against Dementieva at Moscow to see how her level had deteriorated.

Now this may offend some Seles fans, but IMO you could always tell Hingis was on a slope if she was losing to Seles. Her two losses to Seles during 1998 were during a tournament drought that extended from May to November, in which she was dethroned at Wimbledon and the US Open by Novotna and Davenport. Her two losses to Seles in 2001 indicate a similar slump, coming during a 10 month tournament drought in which she lost to players whom she had routinely beaten such as Capriati (3), Mauresmo (2), Clijsters (1) and Dementieva (1), lost first round at Wimbledon and was significantly tested by Majoli at the US Open. When Hingis returned to decent form at the start of 2002 she beat Seles 3 times in 2 months, and yet when she returned from injury at the Us Open Monica dealt with her in straight sets. Sense a pattern here? Now one can come to the conclusion that all these players simply surpassed Hingis during 2001, but why then was she able to beat Seles 3 times, Clijsters and soon to be top tenner Hantuchova in the first four months of 2002 as well as all but administering the coup de grace to Capriati in the AO Final? The answer is that Hingis was in her worst form since early 1996 during the last 8 months of 2001 - returned to her best in early 2002 but another ankle injury put a halt to that.