PDA

View Full Version : Is winning overrated? (ex.Hingis/Serena)


selesrules
Feb 23rd, 2003, 05:18 PM
Most people are all of a sudden putting Serena over Hingis because Hingis hasn't won all slams, despite Hingis having twice more titles, about 5 times more weeks at no.1, more then twice of grandslam finals, etc.

However, my question is the following:

Let's take Serena's record at the FO. She has one title but then everything else sucks!

1 title, 1 QF, 1 4R, 1 3R.

However let's take Hingis' record at the FO:

2 finals, 3 Semis, 2 3R.

Is 1 title and basically nothing else bigger then 2 finals + 3 semis?? In my opinion, not at all.

Also many people tend to forget that Hingis reached 6 consecutive grandslam finals at the AO including winning a hat trick, yet Serena has never come close to this and hasn't even defended a grandslam title.

Anyways I just think that winning 1 title and doing nothing else, doesn't mean that it's "greater" then making several finals and semis thus proving consistancy and longevity. Hingis' record at the FO is better then Serena's record at the AO and FO. And add this to the fact that Hingis has many more slam finals overall, many more titles, many more weeks at no.1, Hingis comes out on top easily.

"Winning a title" is very overated, in fact if you compare the Serena final at the AO and the Hingis final at the FO, the only difference is one point or two. That shouldn't make THAT much of a difference. When you look at it Hingis' record at the FO is bigger then Serena's record at the FO or AO.

Serena y Monica
Feb 23rd, 2003, 05:27 PM
No sweety...winning is not overated...sad to say and I know in advance it will start an arguement (not my intention) but calibre on competition is why some elavate Serena Venus and Lindsay over Hingis. You may not agree...but itīs okay to have opposing points of view.

selesrules
Feb 23rd, 2003, 05:28 PM
Is it Martina's fault that Venus didn't know how to play at the 1997 US Open? In fact Venus is older then Hingis, there was no excuse that she still sucked and Hingis didn't. Didn't Hingis also beat Davenport in that tournament, is it her fault that despite Davenport being much older she hadn't "evolve" yet at that point? :rolleyes: She did beat Venus, Serena & Davenport despite being younger, it's not her fault if they didn't know how to play yet. It's not as if she was 20 and they were 15. It was Hingis who was younger and there was no excuse for them.

Also Hingis continued beating Serena, Venus and Davenport all the way into 2001 including Serena & Venus back to back at the AO. What was their excuse then? They both had won slams.

Jericho
Feb 23rd, 2003, 05:37 PM
serena has all the grand slams and has won them consecutively...i wouldnt put to much value about weeks at number one, the ranking system is flawed...and serena has played less tournaments than hingis, so of course hingis will have more...quality over quantity...

Serena has won the french, hingis hasnt...

Serena y Monica
Feb 23rd, 2003, 05:38 PM
Whose assessing blame...other than you Selesrules. Its just a matter of fact. Hinigis at her best vs Lindsay Venus and Serena at their best (all by the way are within a few years of one another) does not favor Hingis.

By the way...saying that someone sucked...is an attempt to change this from a discussion to an attack on players ability...I choose not to do that at the moment...though Iīm sure some one will come in and save you from show casing your inability to argue your own point without changing the topic.

selesrules
Feb 23rd, 2003, 05:40 PM
oh please! You are the ones who keep saying that Venus, Serena, Davenport and Capriati "sucked" during Hingis' dominance, I'm just repeating what all of you said. :rolleyes: I'm not changing the subject, YOU ARE.

Bright Red
Feb 23rd, 2003, 05:43 PM
Anyone who'd argue that reaching more finals is a greater accomplishment than winning the whole shebang has lost just about all of his credibility.

None of the metrics mentioned in the opening thread (weeks at #1, reaching the semis, finals, QFs, etc) can compare to winning. If they were so important, we'd have too many "great players" to mention.

It would be very hard to overrate winning.

irma
Feb 23rd, 2003, 05:44 PM
I am sure martina would love to have serena's record at the french!

selesrules
Feb 23rd, 2003, 05:45 PM
So in other words, Venus sucked in the last year since she "only" reached finals and didn't win? :rolleyes:

Bright Red
Feb 23rd, 2003, 05:48 PM
No, Venus didn't suck, and reaching finals isn't a bad thing. But Venus certainly didn't have a better year than Serena who (hmm, let me think of the word...) WON.

selesrules
Feb 23rd, 2003, 05:55 PM
Yes but is Majoli's french open title more impressive then Venus' 4 consecutive grandslam finals just because she "won"? :rolleyes: I DON'T THINK SO.

Serena y Monica
Feb 23rd, 2003, 05:55 PM
Distraction is not a point of view.

For all the would be bashers of Williams fans...this is a prime example on someone starting a thread to start contraversy as opposed to argue a point.

By the way rules...since I refuse to add Seles to your tag, to say that one is not as experienced as another is not equal to saying the less experienced sucked...as to Venus, for reasons be they mental or physical...was not as good as Serena...yet better than the rest...among the group that is the best ever, so if you would like to define that as sucking...be my guest.

VRULES
Feb 23rd, 2003, 05:58 PM
Selesrules. Think of it this way. Venus may not "known" how to play in 97, but Hingis isn'T playing anymore. VEnus will play for probably f more yar, and should end up with more of everthing. Rena is a better player than Hingis. She proven that as of late. Rena is at top for now, but when Hingis was in top for she would lose to Rena. I mean she just would. Rena movs better, smacks 100mph returns, serves a hell of a lot better, hit much harder, uses angles as well, doesn't choke in the final (aka 97 RG final just MO). Plus saying she made 6 AO finals in a row doesn't say much. She should have won in 02 but she didn't. Hingis is what 5-6 in finals rena is 5-1. Yes Hignis has more title, but hingis played twice as many tournies in a year as Rena does, and look what happened she burnt out, Rena isn't even near finishing.

ANd since 99 when VEnus fianlly developed into a complete player, she has a much better record. No doubt Hingis was a better player from 97-99, but even during 99 Venus beat her more than she lost, so Venus got behing in the H2H very quickly because Hingis was better when the played, and it was Venus's first full year on tour, it was Hingis'S 3. By the time Venus got to her third year sehe was beating Hingis more than she lost to her, and since the 99 USO SF she has lost 1 match to her!

Serena y Monica
Feb 23rd, 2003, 06:03 PM
Oh and by the way...some would point to Hingisī inability to beat Iva at a time when she was dominating a weak (in my opinion) wta says more about her than it ever could about Iva...who is a good player but one who beat the better opponent, on what was said to be the bests best surface.

Bright Red
Feb 23rd, 2003, 06:03 PM
If Majoli had won a single FO title, and Venus had only reached 4 GS finals, I'd feel that Majoli had the better career and year than Venus. Runner ups never get the glory. Haven't you heard?

Cybelle Darkholme
Feb 23rd, 2003, 06:24 PM
someone is having a hard time accepting that serena williams is the better player than martina hingis. In tennis grandslams are the end all be all. They have an equal number of slams but Serena is a grandslam champion on all surfaces, Martina is not.

end of story.

selesrules
Feb 23rd, 2003, 06:25 PM
Then Margaret Court is the greatest. I guess it's official.

hingis-seles
Feb 23rd, 2003, 06:32 PM
Everyone's forgetting that Hingis has the Grand Slam in doubles which she won in 1998. Oh wait, that doesn't count for anything around here, does it......

Serena y Monica
Feb 23rd, 2003, 06:53 PM
No Hingis Seles it doesn't. This is not a discussion re doubles.

Rules I now realize you have no point.

selesrules
Feb 23rd, 2003, 06:57 PM
well I realized that you have no point hours ago. :rolleyes:

King Lindsay
Feb 23rd, 2003, 07:04 PM
My god people. Haven't we learned to expect these types of threads from Selesrules? No use getting all riled up, or even responding. The fact of the matter is, when he gets through Grade 9 and 10, I think he'll be a lot more personable, and hopefully even a little more sensible. we just need to give him time to just adjust to the whole puberty thing. having hair where ya had none before can be disconcerting.

selesrules
Feb 23rd, 2003, 07:07 PM
what an idiot. I posted a valid thread and here you are without anything smart to say, just the childish typical attack that my dog can write.

selesrules
Feb 23rd, 2003, 07:13 PM
Do you agree then that from start of january 2002 until now, Capriati has been better then Venus? After all in the last 13 months, Capriati won 1 slam & Venus won 0. I'm sure 90% of people would say no that Venus did better even if she didn't win because she reached many more slam finals. But for you I guess Capriati is no.2 after Serena. WHAT AN IDIOT.

england_rules
Feb 23rd, 2003, 07:22 PM
I've stated this before that Hingis and Serena's achievements are so similar that it's ridiculous to say that one is better than the other! Anyone would die for either one of their careers! Trust me, I'm one of them!

selesrules
Feb 23rd, 2003, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by england_rules
I've stated this before that Hingis and Serena's achievements are so similar that it's ridiculous to say that one is better than the other! Anyone would die for either one of their careers! Trust me, I'm one of them!

You're right they are both great. But the one thing that this thread proved though is that King Lindsay is a big pathetic idiot.

Serena y Monica
Feb 23rd, 2003, 07:56 PM
Rules why do you push so hard.

No, I'd say Venus had a better year because more times than not and esp. in the slams she beat everyone but the #1 keeping in mind that she's #2...I'd say she competed to her ranking and Jenn didn't over that same course of time.

selesrules
Feb 23rd, 2003, 08:00 PM
Ok Serena y Monica, so you see my point, just because in that period Capriati won 1 slam and Venus 0, doesn't mean that Capriati is better, because Venus did reach 4 slam finals. It's not only winning that matters. So that's my point about both Martina's and Serena's records at the French Open, even though Martina didn't win it, she reached 2 finals and 3 semis which could count more impressive then 1 win and basically nothing else. Either way it's debatable, but my Capriati/Venus example shows that it is a good debate and doesn't merit the idiotic remarks that some people such as King Lindsay give.

Serendy Willick
Feb 23rd, 2003, 08:16 PM
Sorry, but reaching 100000 finals will never be as good as winning the whole shebang.

england_rules
Feb 23rd, 2003, 08:23 PM
Originally posted by Luci
Sorry, but reaching 100000 finals will never be as good as winning the whole shebang.
Actually... You can't really think that!

selesrules
Feb 23rd, 2003, 08:51 PM
So Luci, I guess Venus is the no.3 player since the last 13 months. Capriati is no.2. Well that settles everything, it's not a Williams domination, it's a Serena/Capriati domination. :rolleyes:

Rocketta
Feb 23rd, 2003, 08:57 PM
Originally posted by selesrules
So Luci, I guess Venus is the no.3 player since the last 13 months. Capriati is no.2. Well that settles everything, it's not a Williams domination, it's a Serena/Capriati domination. :rolleyes:

why 13 months?? why not the last 20 months?? Stop being stupidly arbitrary and thinking that makes you sound like you have a point. All someone would have to say is yeah but in the last 20 months Venus has two slams to Jennifer's one. Both scenarios are arbitrary bullshite and you know it.

Find another point that one is stupid. Comparing careers and compairing one year and a month are two different things.

selesrules
Feb 23rd, 2003, 09:05 PM
Fine, then in 2002, CAPRIATI was no.2, VENUS was no.3.

Rocketta
Feb 23rd, 2003, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by selesrules
Fine, then in 2002, CAPRIATI was no.2, VENUS was no.3.

yeah that's different. :rolleyes:

selesrules
Feb 23rd, 2003, 09:24 PM
do you agree or not.

VRULES
Feb 23rd, 2003, 10:51 PM
I agree. I think hingis would give that final and those SF for Serena's title. I think if it was a career stat then Serena would be better(just because no one looks to see hoiw far you got in a tourney the look to see if you won it), and I think winnign a slam is better than finalling it. (hingis finaled one).
As for Cappy and Venus. Cappy won one slam, but Venus finaled 3, and she won 7 tournies and other than the AO Cappy had none.. SO Venus had a better year than Cappy. I think if you are looking at a clay court career Hingis'S would show higher than Rena's, but if you are looking at FO then i think most people whould go with Rena because she won it once.

selesrules
Feb 23rd, 2003, 10:55 PM
Originally posted by VRULES
I agree. I think hingis would give that final and those SF for Serena's title. I think if it was a career stat then Serena would be better(just because no one looks to see hoiw far you got in a tourney the look to see if you won it), and I think winnign a slam is better than finalling it. (hingis finaled one).
As for Cappy and Venus. Cappy won one slam, but Venus finaled 3, and she won 7 tournies and other than the AO Cappy had none.. SO Venus had a better year than Cappy. I think if you are looking at a clay court career Hingis'S would show higher than Rena's, but if you are looking at FO then i think most people whould go with Rena because she won it once.

You are contradicting yourself.

Pureracket
Feb 23rd, 2003, 10:58 PM
Selesrules,
I'm sure you have a point. I'd like to hear it.

selesrules
Feb 23rd, 2003, 11:09 PM
First of all you guys say that it doesn't matter that Hingis has 40 titles and Serena has 21 or that Hingis has 5 times more weeks at no.1, what matters is the grandslam numbers and since they have both 5 but Serena won the French, then Serena is greater.

Fine so let's talk about the SLAMS:

French Open: Hingis 2 finals + 3 semis. Serena 1 title.
Year 2002 Slams: Venus 3 finals. Capriati 1 title + 1 semi.

How can you vote for Venus even though she didn't win a slam and not for Hingis just because she didn't win the french? If you think that what matters is winning the slams, then you should vote for Capriati instead of Venus. As for Venus' 7 other titles, remember Hingis has 20 more titles then Serena but you guys do not think it's important.

Rocketta
Feb 23rd, 2003, 11:42 PM
Originally posted by selesrules
do you agree or not.

I thought I answered that already. :confused:

joaco
Feb 24th, 2003, 02:09 AM
Originally posted by selesrules
Is it Martina's fault that Venus didn't know how to play at the 1997 US Open? In fact Venus is older then Hingis, there was no excuse that she still sucked and Hingis didn't. Didn't Hingis also beat Davenport in that tournament, is it her fault that despite Davenport being much older she hadn't "evolve" yet at that point? :rolleyes: She did beat Venus, Serena & Davenport despite being younger, it's not her fault if they didn't know how to play yet. It's not as if she was 20 and they were 15. It was Hingis who was younger and there was no excuse for them.

Also Hingis continued beating Serena, Venus and Davenport all the way into 2001 including Serena & Venus back to back at the AO. What was their excuse then? They both had won slams.
What's your point?:confused: :rolleyes:

Joaco

VRULES
Feb 24th, 2003, 02:59 AM
Originally posted by selesrules
First of all you guys say that it doesn't matter that Hingis has 40 titles and Serena has 21 or that Hingis has 5 times more weeks at no.1, what matters is the grandslam numbers and since they have both 5 but Serena won the French, then Serena is greater.

Fine so let's talk about the SLAMS:

French Open: Hingis 2 finals + 3 semis. Serena 1 title.
Year 2002 Slams: Venus 3 finals. Capriati 1 title + 1 semi.

How can you vote for Venus even though she didn't win a slam and not for Hingis just because she didn't win the french? If you think that what matters is winning the slams, then you should vote for Capriati instead of Venus. As for Venus' 7 other titles, remember Hingis has 20 more titles then Serena but you guys do not think it's important.

Ok you can say it like this. You are comparing one tourney. If you compared Capp'y AO and venus's AO result. I would go with Cappy. But for the year, Venus won 7 titles and made three major finals. Cappy one one major and that was it really. For a year that make a difference, but since you are only looking at one tourney, it doesn't make sense to compare Venus and Cappy. I also think that Hingis would trade her 2 finals and at least 2 or her Semis to have Rena's one title. So that can prove it is better to win.
If you are a tennis statistition than Hingis is better, but if you are a player and a average joe just looking at result, winning is better. Therefor giving Rena the edge. Plus how do you know Rena isn't goning to win it again. If she even finals she would have the edge over Hingis. Hingis has the best result at AO over anyone.

VRULES
Feb 24th, 2003, 03:02 AM
Plus your thing is the slam. Overall Hingis has had a better career, but what you are arguing is the FO not career. hwoever Martina was on tour 2 more years when she won 9 and ten titles and had a few previous year, so she is gonna have more.

In two years, if Rena domitae the way she is now I think they will be closerin tourney wins, and Rena will still have fewer weeks at number one, but she will have many more slams.

selesrules
Feb 24th, 2003, 03:04 AM
Don't you think that Venus would trade her 3 slam finals last year for the Australian Open championship? I even think she would throw in many titles in addition. So my point is, if you want to apply your theory to Hingis/Serena by saying that Serena is better at the French just because she won and that all those finals and semis of Hingis do not matter, then you can also apply it to Capriati/Venus and say that Capriati did better in 2002.

VRULES
Feb 24th, 2003, 03:08 AM
I don't think venus was. Venus has always been happy doing what she does. She even said people have good years and bad year, and I wouldn't trade those experiences for eveything. I think she would trade a final and like 2 title for the AO but that is it., She wouldn't trade all three finals. Or even two. Venus has no problem with her results and is proud of them. SHe has shown it.

But you are not getting the point. You can't compare a year with one tourney. I even said for a statistision hingis was better.

Volcana
Feb 24th, 2003, 04:14 AM
s-rules - In the last couple years, the 'career 'slam' has been much in vogue. SOme ven invoke it to argue Agassi had a better career than Sampras. (I disagree). But if the Grand Slam means anything, if the career slam menas anything, then Serena's five GS titles mean more than Martina's five.

And Capriati DID do better at the slams than Venus in 2002. She won one if them. That's not the same as having a better year. The year covers a lot more than the four biggest ITF tournaments.

Winning isn't over-rated. The #1 ranking is over-rated, if anything. What good is being ranked #1 if you get beat at every major?

King Lindsay
Feb 24th, 2003, 05:42 AM
Selesrules, I don't recall entering into the debate, but thanks for putting a whole lot of words into my mouth that I did not say.

anyway, here is the problem with your Serena/Hingis scenario versus your Cappy-Venus scenario. With Serena and Hingis, you are comparing their records at ONE TOURNAMENT and asking people whether you feel Serena's one title is better than Hingis' several near misses. Most people have said that it is, which you seem to think means that they would have to agree by default that Jennifer capriati had a better YEAR than Venus Williams because she won the australian Open while Venus could not claim a Slam. Do you see the problem here? It's not an apt comparison. Iva Majoli won the French Open in 1997. She did not have a better year than the slamless Jana Novotna, who finished the year ranked higher than her. She had a better FRENCH OPEN. that is why there is a difference.

for the record, Serena's record at the French Open exceeds Hingis', but only because she won it while martina didn't. Capriati's record at the Australian open exceeds Venus', but that doesn't mean she had the better season.

selesrules
Feb 24th, 2003, 05:47 AM
Let me put it that way, who do you think did better in 2002 at the grandslams Capriati or Venus? Afterall, it's the slams that matter according to all of you otherwise Hingis' 40 titles compared to Serena's 21 wouldn't have been treated as nothing. So it's irrelevant that Venus won those smaller titles. So anyways, what is your answer to my question?

King Lindsay
Feb 24th, 2003, 06:16 AM
Selesrules, you continue to put words into my mouth. i did not say Hingis' titles mean nothing. Show me the post where I said only the slams matter? In fact, in my last post, I think I showed that I felt just the opposite.

for the question "Who did better at the Slams in 2002, venus or Jennifer," yes, obviously the other titles Venus won are irrelevant. LOL. smart guy, you are.

Anyway, who did better at the majors in 2002? Well, Jen won one and Venus did not. so I'd have to say Jennifer. i would rather have had her season at the slams than Venus'. but that doesn't mean that she had the better season as a whole.