PDA

View Full Version : At the end of the day, how important are the Grand Slams?


BCP
Aug 8th, 2003, 12:17 PM
There has been much talk on the board about Kim becoming no.1 without a major. I think that obviously, you need to win one or a couple to be considered a great player, but after that, how important are they?

Three examples spring to mind

1. Many people consider that Steffi a greater player than Margaret Court, even though their respective singles titles total 22 and 24

2. i think that most people would agree that Gaby sabatini had a better career than say Mary Pierce, even though Mary won 2 GS and Gaby 1

3. Would we have felt different about Martina Nav and Chris Evert had Martina lost the 93 Wimbeldon final to Zina, and ended up with 17 GS compared to Chris's 18?

irma
Aug 8th, 2003, 12:25 PM
it's about the whole career but the margaret court less then steffi has to do with the fact that most didn't see her play.

in 30 years a lot (outside the historians under us) people have forgotten the steffi's, nav's and monica's, venus and serena's too

Sam L
Aug 8th, 2003, 12:29 PM
Not to mention the fact that Helen Wills Moody with her 19 grand slams hardly rates in the "greatest 5" of most fans' lists. :rolleyes:

doloresc
Aug 8th, 2003, 12:34 PM
There has been much talk on the board about Kim becoming no.1 without a major. I think that obviously, you need to win one or a couple to be considered a great player, but after that, how important are they?

Three examples spring to mind

1. Many people consider that Steffi a greater player than Margaret Court, even though their respective singles titles total 22 and 24

2. i think that most people would agree that Gaby sabatini had a better career than say Mary Pierce, even though Mary won 2 GS and Gaby 1

3. Would we have felt different about Martina Nav and Chris Evert had Martina lost the 93 Wimbeldon final to Zina, and ended up with 17 GS compared to Chris's 18?

the grand slams are very important primarily because you have to win 7 matches under intense physical and mental pressure. playing a tier I final doesn't carry the same pressure. also, we need the grand slams in order for the players to set goals. otherwise, one tournament is indistinguishable from another one.

i agree about sabatini. despite her title drought in the latter stages of her career, she played consistently well throughout her slump.

just a correction: navratilova def. garrison in the 1990 wimbledon final.

BCP
Aug 8th, 2003, 12:35 PM
So are we saying that the GS are no1? I still say that Gaby had a much better career than Mary Pierce, even though she won less GS. Also, say that Martina had lost to Zina, and ended up with 17 GS to Chris's 18, would we still think that Martina was greater than Chris?

BCP
Aug 8th, 2003, 12:36 PM
Sorry. You are right about Wimbeldon. i always seem to think that it was 93.

doloresc
Aug 8th, 2003, 12:39 PM
So are we saying that the GS are no1? I still say that Gaby had a much better career than Mary Pierce, even though she won less GS. Also, say that Martina had lost to Zina, and ended up with 17 GS to Chris's 18, would we still think that Martina was greater than Chris?

it's all relative, depending on your perspective. there's no question that navratilova dominated evert in their final years but we could turn around and laud evert's clay court record and french open title tally and compare it to navratilova's. but to answer your question, overall i would say navratilova had the better career even if she had one less slam than evert because of her head-to-head with evert.

irma
Aug 8th, 2003, 12:39 PM
well grand slams are important but the rest counts too. see I don't think rankings on the other hand are so important mandlikova won 4 slams, so did asv. can you say then asv is greater because she was number one? I think mandlikova won also two slams in a year once (I keep it with singles since asv was probably way more succesfull in doubles)

doloresc
Aug 8th, 2003, 12:44 PM
well grand slams are important but the rest counts too. see I don't think rankings on the other hand are so important mandlikova won 4 slams, so did asv. can you say then asv is greater because she was number one? I think mandlikova won also two slams in a year once (I keep it with singles since asv was probably way more succesfull in doubles)

sanchez vicario won two slams in 1994. i love mandlikova's game but sanchez vicario's heart and determination gives her a big edge over mandlikova in my book.

Darran
Aug 8th, 2003, 12:46 PM
I think Slams carry a certain amount of prestige and people are likely to remember who won them etc. However I think some people place too much importance on them. Some tier1s / tier 2s are far more difficult to win than a slam, as you have to play difficult players from round 1. In a slam 7 matches have to be played but especially nowadays with the advent of 32 seeds you can virtually walk yourself (if a top player) into the 2nd week.

Generally all the best players willl have a slam at the end of their careers. But by comparing the number that they have accumulated is pointless i feel.

The number 1 position is harder to achieve than a slam, as can be seen by the number of people holding it.

irma
Aug 8th, 2003, 12:48 PM
sanchez vicario won two slams in 1994. i love mandlikova's game but sanchez vicario's heart and determination gives her a big edge over mandlikova in my book.

yeah I know she did in 94. mandlikova was a bit before I really got into tennis so I can't judge her tennis. I only base it on results

doloresc
Aug 8th, 2003, 12:54 PM
I think Slams carry a certain amount of prestige and people are likely to remember who won them etc. However I think some people place too much importance on them. Some tier1s / tier 2s are far more difficult to win than a slam, as you have to play difficult players from round 1. In a slam 7 matches have to be played but especially nowadays with the advent of 32 seeds you can virtually walk yourself (if a top player) into the 2nd week.

Generally all the best players willl have a slam at the end of their careers. But by comparing the number that they have accumulated is pointless i feel.

The number 1 position is harder to achieve than a slam, as can be seen by the number of people holding it.

re: the tier I and tier II, sometimes it's true that draws are tough and sometimes they're not. a habitual thing that occurs at the upper tier tournaments: top contenders pull out of them often (i'm sure a statistician can prevent some evidence), top seeds get byes, top seeds fall early and you'll get a surprise winner.. it's really a case of apples and oranges.

very good point about the #1 ranking.

BCP
Aug 8th, 2003, 01:02 PM
I think that most recent dilema the tour encountered was the Hingis/Venus situation in 99/2000. Hingis probably won all of the tier 1's outside the GS, and was at the latter stages of all of the GS. her problem was that she just couldn't win one, but in the rankings, she was streets ahead of venus.

If we were to look at a palyer's career would we prioritise as follows:

1. GS
2. Highest ranking
3. no. of tourneys won?

irma
Aug 8th, 2003, 01:04 PM
but what if you win 30 tier 3's are you greater then when you win 10 tier 1's?

SJW
Aug 8th, 2003, 01:05 PM
also era is everything.

if Serena was to play another 10 years (improbable, not impossible) and was to win on average a slam a year in that time, i think i would have a claim to say its as impressive as Steffis 22 slams, based on competition.

also Courts slams were b4 the Open era right? so thats why Steffi's are more impressive :)

BCP
Aug 8th, 2003, 01:09 PM
also era is everything.

if Serena was to play another 10 years (improbable, not impossible) and was to win on average a slam a year in that time, i think i would have a claim to say its as impressive as Steffis 22 slams, based on competition.

also Courts slams were b4 the Open era right? so thats why Steffi's are more impressive :)

:rolleyes: Do we have to go through this again........sigh..........

Sam L
Aug 8th, 2003, 01:11 PM
Open era/pre open era means nought.

The only situation that can have an effect is when some players turned professional and are no longer eligible to compete to win slams, but this happened mainly on the men's side.

I don't think there were any professionals who would've beaten the greats of the pre-open era anyway.

irma
Aug 8th, 2003, 01:14 PM
I think grand slams are the ice on the cake everybody wants to win them, number 1 is great since only 11 since 73 achieved. winning many titles means that you are simple good but as said there are many different levels of titles so it's third

I mean kim won more titles then cappy still kim doesn't come close to cappy achievements yet because of the three slam difference. jmho

SJW
Aug 8th, 2003, 01:20 PM
:rolleyes: Do we have to go through this again........sigh..........

sorry but WHO created this topic? :confused:

"im gonna start a topic but dont say certain things that have relevance in it ok?" LMAO :D

u start topic-->i try to answer-->dont bring that shit up!

some people :rolleyes:........*SIGH*

doloresc
Aug 8th, 2003, 01:26 PM
it's times like this that i wish the rolleyes emoticon was eradicated. :(

BCP
Aug 8th, 2003, 01:30 PM
It wasn't a personal dig at you. However, it seems like everytime any topic comes up there's always a post about how much more competition there is today, and how there wasn't very much competition in the past. blah blah blah

What will you say to young posters in 10 years time when they post that Serena only won the serena slam becuase she had no competition. After all, Venus was distracted by her new business, lindsay had just gotten married, Hingis had retired, Monica was injured, Capriati was in a slump ,and the Belgians had not yet reached their peak?

SJW
Aug 8th, 2003, 01:32 PM
It wasn't a personal dig at you. However, it seems like everytime any topic comes up there's always a post about how much more competition there is today, and how there wasn't very much competition in the past. blah blah blah

What will you say to young posters in 10 years time when they post that Serena only won the serena slam becuase she had no competition. After all, Venus was distracted by her new business, lindsay had just gotten married, Hingis had retired, Monica was injured, Capriati was in a slump ,and the Belgians had not yet reached their peak?

what about Mauresmo?


;)

BCP
Aug 8th, 2003, 01:34 PM
:) I knew I forgot someone....see instantly forgettable! :p

bandabou
Aug 8th, 2003, 01:35 PM
I think grand slams are the ice on the cake everybody wants to win them, number 1 is great since only 11 since 73 achieved. winning many titles means that you are simple good but as said there are many different levels of titles so it's third

I mean kim won more titles then cappy still kim doesn't come close to cappy achievements yet because of the three slam difference. jmho

Uhum and in cases like this one is intended to think that slams shouldnīt be it all. Yeah, Jen won three slams but only one other regular tournament during her stint. Also in jen being much older than Kim, Kimīs already as much titles as Jen does.

Itīs not comparable to the Serena vs Kim question, because itīs clear that Serena IS the dominating force on tour since ī02.

BCP
Aug 8th, 2003, 01:46 PM
I forgot about the jennifer Capriati case, which is the most obvious of all. Her is a player who has won 3 GS and been no 1 but has an inability to win tournaments. How great can she be considered if she finishes her career with little more than 10 tour titles for her entire career :eek:

SJW
Aug 8th, 2003, 01:48 PM
hey im sure Kimmy would take the 3 slams and retire happy!

IMO u are remembered for the slams....not who won the FCC in 2001 (Jennifer ;):p)

bandabou
Aug 8th, 2003, 01:50 PM
I forgot about the jennifer Capriati case, which is the most obvious of all. Her is a player who has won 3 GS and been no 1 but has an inability to win tournaments. How great can she be considered if she finishes her career with little more than 10 tour titles for her entire career :eek:

She sure must be the no.1 who has won the least amount of tournaments during her reign as no.1!!

Cybelle Darkholme
Aug 8th, 2003, 03:34 PM
There has been much talk on the board about Kim becoming no.1 without a major. I think that obviously, you need to win one or a couple to be considered a great player, but after that, how important are they?

Three examples spring to mind

1. Many people consider that Steffi a greater player than Margaret Court, even though their respective singles titles total 22 and 24

2. i think that most people would agree that Gaby sabatini had a better career than say Mary Pierce, even though Mary won 2 GS and Gaby 1

3. Would we have felt different about Martina Nav and Chris Evert had Martina lost the 93 Wimbeldon final to Zina, and ended up with 17 GS compared to Chris's 18?


Martina Nav is the greatest tennis player male or female ever. Period. No she doesnt have as many grandslams as steffi but as you just stated steffi doesnt have as many as margaret court so its not just about grandslam singles titles. Then since tennis is a game that includes singles, doubles, and mixed doubles. why shouldn't players who play all of these be valued for their accomplishments? Martina Nav is a force of nature a tennis ball slapping hurricane who leaves behind devastation and awed players in her wake. She is better than steffi better than chris better than court.

Experimentee
Aug 8th, 2003, 03:48 PM
For me when i want to decide who is the greatest the number of singles Grand Slams are the top priority. If the numbers are similar, eg Graf and Court, Gaby and Pierce, then i look to other factors like number of other titles, highest ranking, head to heads etc.
But primarily Grand Slam titles are what people use to separate out different levels of greatness. Theres no way someone with ten slams would be considered greater than someone with 20 even though they somehow beat them in all other catergories like weeks at #1, titles, head to heads etc.

maccardel
Aug 8th, 2003, 03:56 PM
At the end of the day the grand slam will be more important.........cos u are now in an elite field and you have a big prize I imagine that is why they all play tennis....to win one of the big ones.......Kim was honest for not feeling like a true number one, but she is number one and that too can't be changed....

I imagine that to be number one is prestigious because the list of number ones is shorter than the list of grand slam champions but somehow u shouldn't enjoy number one cos u didn't accomplish the feat of winning a grand slam of being the only one standing after 128 players had tried and failed........

alfajeffster
Aug 8th, 2003, 05:07 PM
Martina Nav is the greatest tennis player male or female ever. Period. No she doesnt have as many grandslams as steffi but as you just stated steffi doesnt have as many as margaret court so its not just about grandslam singles titles. Then since tennis is a game that includes singles, doubles, and mixed doubles. why shouldn't players who play all of these be valued for their accomplishments? Martina Nav is a force of nature a tennis ball slapping hurricane who leaves behind devastation and awed players in her wake. She is better than steffi better than chris better than court.

If you count singles, doubles, and mixed, then Margaret Court is hands down the greatest. She owns 19 women's doubles majors, AND 19 mixed doubles majors to compliment her 24 singles majors. Martina has played very little mixed doubles throughout her career- why, I don't know, but Steffi is a distant third if all majors are considered.

Martian Willow
Aug 8th, 2003, 05:09 PM
I don't think anyone will be talking about Kim as a great player in 20 years time if she doesn't win a Slam, however long she stays at #1.

Volcana
Aug 8th, 2003, 05:39 PM
There has been much talk on the board about Kim becoming no.1 without a major. I think that obviously, you need to win one or a couple to be considered a great player, but after that, how important are they?

Three examples spring to mind

1. Many people consider that Steffi a greater player than Margaret Court, even though their respective singles titles total 22 and 24

Those are people who ignore doubles. Court won 63 total GS titles, I believe. Stefii won 23 total. SOME people consider Steffi a better SINGLES player. I've never heard of anyone who concerned Steffi the superios all around player.

2. i think that most people would agree that Gaby sabatini had a better career than say Mary Pierce, even though Mary won 2 GS and Gaby 1

Actually, at think most people consider Mary superior. Most knwoledgeable tennis fans would probably go with gaby, but how many of those people are there?

3. Would we have felt different about Martina Nav and Chris Evert had Martina lost the 93 Wimbeldon final to Zina, and ended up with 17 GS compared to Chris's 18?

No. Because of the same reasons given for Gourt vs Graf. Chris Evert, like Steffi, was a singles specialist. Margaret and Martina were played all aspects of tennis. I'd still rank Martina over Chris because of doubles.