PDA

View Full Version : Whose Career Would you choose: Kim Clijsters or Mary Pierce


Rub
Nov 21st, 2003, 09:26 AM
if you were to have a tennis career, which career will you choose between the two?

Kim's or Mary's

Mary has 2 slams, Kim has yet any.
Kim had been no.1, Mary hadn't.

which one?

jimbo mack
Nov 21st, 2003, 09:31 AM
right now, it would be mary's.

but in 5 years time, i'm sure i'd rather have clijster's

azza
Nov 21st, 2003, 09:41 AM
Kim

Kart
Nov 21st, 2003, 09:56 AM
Mary.

kim4eva
Nov 21st, 2003, 10:04 AM
Kim :worship:

Chance
Nov 21st, 2003, 10:13 AM
either...I'm not fussy

How about between Venus & ASV? Both have 4GS, around the same amount of time at no.1 and both have 29 titles.

-Ph51-
Nov 21st, 2003, 10:21 AM
Kim is only 20 and she'll win a lot of slams, soooo :bounce:

casanovalover
Nov 21st, 2003, 10:26 AM
silly question. i don't get the need to compare players and completely different stages in their careers. mary has achieved much more and until clijsters steps up mary has had the better career by far. but i mean it is just pointless to have these kind of threads

rikvanlooy
Nov 21st, 2003, 10:33 AM
if you were to have a tennis career, which career will you choose between the two?

Kim's or Mary's

Mary has 2 slams, Kim has yet any.
Kim had been no.1, Mary hadn't.

which one?


Let's take two (fictious) careers as an example :

X :

has won 5 times the masters, has won 65 tournaments, has won more than 16 million dollar, has played 8 GS finals (but lost them all), has been more than 3 years number one, has been number one in doubles, has won multiple doubles slams

Y :

has won two slams, has lost one GS final and has lost 1 Master final, has won 7 million, has never been higher than number three, has won 18 tournaments

Well, if you believe the people on this board then Y has had a much bigger career than X


Let's take two real careers :

Iva Majoli : has won 1 slam
Kim : has never won a slam, ....

Who has had the better career :

Answer : Majoli, off course :devil:

rikvanlooy
Nov 21st, 2003, 10:36 AM
silly question. i don't get the need to compare players and completely different stages in their careers. mary has achieved much more and until clijsters steps up mary has had the better career by far. but i mean it is just pointless to have these kind of threads


mary has achieved much more

??????


What has whe won more ? Those 2 slams and what else ????????

What BS is this ?

drapero
Nov 21st, 2003, 10:41 AM
So Kim is going to win 65 tournaments ???

rikvanlooy
Nov 21st, 2003, 10:47 AM
So Kim is going to win 65 tournaments ???


Kim ? It's X, not Kim ! :p

drapero
Nov 21st, 2003, 10:49 AM
Majoli isn't Pierce either...

fleemkeģ
Nov 21st, 2003, 10:51 AM
Well don't underestimate the carreer of Mary. I made an article about her (it's in Dutch and you can read it on www.tennissquad.tk -edition 11/12) and was surprised to see what she did. she has several records on her name and had some great wins. That said I think it's better to choose for Kim because she is at the 'beginning' of her carreer. But if you think that way .. it's a stupid question because you can't compare both! :)

rikvanlooy
Nov 21st, 2003, 10:53 AM
Well don't underestimate the carreer of Mary. I made an article about her (it's in Dutch and you can read it on www.tennissquad.tk -edition 11/12) and was surprised to see what she did. she has several records on her name and had some great wins. That said I think it's better to choose for Kim because she is at the 'beginning' of her carreer. But if you think that way .. it's a stupid question because you can't compare both! :)

Bedankt, ik zal het even lezen !

skanky~skanketta
Nov 21st, 2003, 10:57 AM
it depends. who's richer?who's got a cuter boyfriend?who's happier?

hingis-seles
Nov 21st, 2003, 10:59 AM
I'd take the Slams over the #1 ranking...

rikvanlooy
Nov 21st, 2003, 11:01 AM
Well don't underestimate the carreer of Mary. I made an article about her (it's in Dutch and you can read it on www.tennissquad.tk -edition 11/12) and was surprised to see what she did. she has several records on her name and had some great wins. That said I think it's better to choose for Kim because she is at the 'beginning' of her carreer. But if you think that way .. it's a stupid question because you can't compare both! :)

Ik heb de tekst even gelezen en eerlijk gezegd, echt onder de indruk ben ik van die carriere toch niet.

Ze is natuurlijk goed, maar uitzonderlijk lijkt mij dat allemaal toch niet.

Vergelijk dit even met wat op de site van de Masters werd geschreven over Kim en je zult begrijpen wat ik bedoel. Dat staat vol met records en met verwezenlijkingen die slechts de grootsten hebben geëvenaard of verbeterd.

matthias
Nov 21st, 2003, 11:05 AM
Mary - and no matter how many GS clijsters will win in the future

fleemkeģ
Nov 21st, 2003, 11:10 AM
Rikvanlooy :) Ik heb niet gezegd dat Mary's carriere beter of slechter was dan Kim's he :) Heb gewoon gezegd dat vele de carričre van Pierce wa onderschatten.
Ze heeft heel wat blessures gehad en waren die weggebleven .. wie weet wat er dan allemaal op haar palmareske stond!

and now back in English ;)

rikvanlooy
Nov 21st, 2003, 11:14 AM
Rikvanlooy :) Ik heb niet gezegd dat Mary's carriere beter of slechter was dan Kim's he :) Heb gewoon gezegd dat vele de carričre van Pierce wa onderschatten.
Ze heeft heel wat blessures gehad en waren die weggebleven .. wie weet wat er dan allemaal op haar palmareske stond!

and now back in English ;)

Heb je die tekst over Kim (op de site van de Masters) al eens gelezen ?

Veel wist ik al, maar er waren statistieken die ik nog niet kende.

fleemkeģ
Nov 21st, 2003, 11:23 AM
yes ;)

ans
Nov 21st, 2003, 03:17 PM
Let's dig up this thread again in...five years or something. Kim is quite some years younger than Pierce, no? Anyway, Pierce doesn't seem like a 20-year-old to me. How could you compare their careers at this stage??

NicoMary
Nov 21st, 2003, 03:21 PM
Pierce has won two GS :worship: , she was n°3 in the world :worship: and beated every player on the tour :eek: . Mary had a great carrer but she will probably retire in 3 or 4 years... :sad: She was and is just the best!! :hearts:
Clisters was n°1 and is a lot younger than mary she can play at her best for more than 6 years...

bandabou
Nov 21st, 2003, 05:07 PM
Thatīs tricky......Kim already has more titles and a higher ranking than Mary, but Mary STEPPED UP at the plate on the big occations! Mary won 2 GSīs and Kim hasnīt yet.

So right now Mary, but that can change in a beep!

shap_half
Nov 21st, 2003, 05:51 PM
Thatīs tricky......Kim already has more titles and a higher ranking than Mary, but Mary STEPPED UP at the plate on the big occations! Mary won 2 GSīs and Kim hasnīt yet.

So right now Mary, but that can change in a beep!

are you sure in a beep? i don't think so. kim had three 'beep' cahnces to change the situation and she didn't take advantage. obviously a 'beep' is not quick enough for kim.

Havok
Nov 21st, 2003, 05:59 PM
Pierce:rocker2:

Pamela Shriver
Nov 21st, 2003, 06:48 PM
I'll answer this question when both have had better careers than mine

space
Nov 21st, 2003, 06:53 PM
Serena or Venus.

space
Nov 21st, 2003, 06:56 PM
Venus got 40Million dollars and Serena got 6 slams. Who would not want that.

SerenaSlam
Nov 21st, 2003, 09:04 PM
seeing they've been basing all careers of every player on slams etc, it would be mary right now cuz she has slams. but kim will pass her eventually.

bandabou
Nov 21st, 2003, 09:06 PM
are you sure in a beep? i don't think so. kim had three 'beep' cahnces to change the situation and she didn't take advantage. obviously a 'beep' is not quick enough for kim.

You know what Iīm talking about.....but I donīt want to hurt any Kimmy-sapian.

space
Nov 21st, 2003, 09:08 PM
When they refer to players who have won slams they alway say 4 GS or 6 GS champs. They never say YE champions. So mary would be my choice.

Frank Riley
Nov 21st, 2003, 09:12 PM
I would take Kims because I think she is not done yet and still can win much more.
But if you asked me about any tennis player, I would like several, I think it would be cool to be Kournikova (everyone knows why), I would like to try Sampres, look at his wife, Roddick (Mandy Moore), I could go on but what is the point, I want money, fame and hot chicks I am just a dirt bag perhaps. Maybe be McEnroe he has had a cool life, even Becker but I would stay out of trouble. :devil:

-Ph51-
Nov 21st, 2003, 09:13 PM
You know what Iīm talking about.....but I donīt want to hurt any Kimmy-sapian.
Sapian, Bandabou-sapian loooooool :cool:

Declan
Nov 21st, 2003, 10:34 PM
Kim is only 20 and she'll win a lot of slams, soooo :bounce:

I remember a lot of similar assumptions made about Andrea Jaeger twenty years ago and look what happened. Nothing is a given in professional sport. So Mary all the way, for now anyway. But what an arbitrary choice of players!

GoDominique
Nov 21st, 2003, 10:54 PM
If choosing either Mary or Kim includes sharing their fathers, I would go with Kim and Lei. :eek:

Brαm
Nov 21st, 2003, 11:08 PM
I'd pick Kim's career.

Why? Well, It must be horrible to deal with all those injuries (like Mary's)! :eek: :(:( :sad:

mboyle
Nov 21st, 2003, 11:21 PM
mary has achieved much more

??????


What has whe won more ? Those 2 slams and what else ????????

What BS is this ?

Kim has 4 more titles, but most of Mary's titles have been big, wheras some of Kim's have been tier 3 ish.:) Plus, Mary (I believe) has won more prizemoney. Besides, I don't think Kim will EVER win a major, and, as Mary has 2 (thus bringing her out of the "Majoli" category) she has had the better career I think.

Here's a scenario for ya;) :

Player A: Takes tour by storm at 14--winning her first two tournaments at Zurich and Linz. The next year, she wins Miami, Wimbledon, the US Open, and 3 other tournaments before winning the year ending championship and finishing the year no. 1. Finally, at 15-16, she wins the grand slam and loses only 1 match the whole year--obviously finishing no. 1 in the world and earning countless millions in prizemoney. Then, over the off-season, she badly breaks her leg and is out of tennis forever.

Player B: Plays first pro tournie at 15, is in top 50 by 16, top 20 at 17, and top 10 at 18, then becomes top 5 around 21. However, it becomes apparent that she just isn't no. 1 material. Sure, she is consistent as hell, and reaches year-ending championships almost every season, but she has trouble winning majors. Finally, she breaks through and wins the US Open before retiring at the end of the year aged 30. By this time, she has amassed roughly 50 titles (including a few championships), 25 mil. in prizemoney, and a brief stint at no. 1 (albeit mostly to the injuries of top players).

Who had the better career?

bandabou
Nov 21st, 2003, 11:22 PM
If choosing either Mary or Kim includes sharing their fathers, I would go with Kim and Lei. :eek:

One interesting thing is that rarely the "One Happy Family"-girls succeed! Steffi, Mary, even Jen....some pretty disfunctional parent-daughter relationships there, but PLENTY of slams too!

mboyle
Nov 21st, 2003, 11:23 PM
I remember a lot of similar assumptions made about Andrea Jaeger twenty years ago and look what happened. Nothing is a given in professional sport. So Mary all the way, for now anyway. But what an arbitrary choice of players!

And Andrea was more mentally tough than Chokesters:sad: .

disposablehero
Nov 22nd, 2003, 12:37 AM
if you were to have a tennis career, which career will you choose between the two?

Kim's or Mary's

Mary has 2 slams, Kim has yet any.
Kim had been no.1, Mary hadn't.

which one?


I'd rather have Kim's career. Probably at least 2 Slams, probably over 20 million in prize money alone, and already ahead on total tournament titles.

bandabou
Nov 22nd, 2003, 01:30 AM
I'd rather have Kim's career. Probably at least 2 Slams, probably over 20 million in prize money alone, and already ahead on total tournament titles.

Girl has to win them first! Sofar she hasnīt performed to a level that shows sheīs capable of winning one, let alone two.

disposablehero
Nov 22nd, 2003, 01:47 AM
Girl has to win them first! Sofar she hasnīt performed to a level that shows sheīs capable of winning one, let alone two.

What level would you like? Asking her to have won the tour championships 4 or 5 times in a row by age 20 is a little much. Nobody has ever made #1 in Singles and not won a Slam in her career. Nobody in the open era has ever won 9 events in a year and not won a Slam in her career. Nobody has ever won the tour championships and not won a Slam in her career. If you haven't seen Kim "perform at a level that shows she's capable of winning a Slam" yet, then you aren't too bright and probably won't see it until about 10 minutes after she has.

bandabou
Nov 22nd, 2003, 03:06 AM
Nice and all. 9 tournament victories, championships this and that, no.1.

But how many tier Iīs?! Only two and a championships. Itīs easy to win tier II and IIIīs, but it is the slams that matter!

Justine had "only" 8 tournament victories, but 4 tier Iīs, 2 GSīs. THAT is impressive! Thatīs stepping up at the plate.

Of course Kim is elite....but her play in GS finals recently hasnīt been all too bright: 6-0 6-4, 7-5 6-1, against Justine?! R u kidding, me? So it ainīt a case-closed deal that sheīs gonna win a GS.

First seeing than believing!

casanovalover
Nov 24th, 2003, 06:19 AM
i can't believe someone bad repped me for saying that i believe mary career at present is more impressive. some people's obsessions with their fans is scary.

clearly clijsters will possibly have a better career, but at the moment it's mary with the slams, mary with the big wins when it really counts, and mary with the better career. if you're going to acknowledge this thread you can't turn it into fortune telling exercise, because nobody knows what clijsters will achieve in the future. i hope she does achieve more than mary, because i'd hate to see another talented player not fulfil their talent like mary has, because i personally believe that at her peak mary ie fitness/form etc can go stroke for stroke with almost anyone.

Rothes
Nov 24th, 2003, 06:22 AM
Mary Pierce, 2 Slams to me is more important then the Number 1 Ranking, and he Ranging of 3 is highly respectible anyway.

jenn
Nov 24th, 2003, 06:26 AM
This is tough. As soon as Kim wins a slam, its over. Even if she only has 1 to Mary's 2. But now? The biggest gap is between 0 slams and 1 slam. Probably Mary.

bandabou
Nov 24th, 2003, 06:36 AM
Exaxtly as it stands NOW, Mary is better.....because two slams are bigger than anything Kim has won. YECīs are great et al, but slams are the measure of success.

firefly_ac
Nov 24th, 2003, 06:59 AM
Mary's The Queen!!!

disposablehero
Nov 24th, 2003, 07:01 AM
Exaxtly as it stands NOW, Mary is better.....because two slams are bigger than anything Kim has won. YECīs are great et al, but slams are the measure of success.

As it stands now, sure. But I don't think there is a sane person on this board who thinks that Mary will have widened the gap a decade from now. Personally, I think its a 50/50 chance that Kim's career surpasses Mary's by the end of 2004.

Knizzle
Nov 24th, 2003, 07:05 AM
If they both ended today, it would be Pierce no doubt, but looking to the future, I'd take Clijsters'.

bandabou
Nov 24th, 2003, 07:18 AM
Thatīs what people have been saying since ī99 about Kim. So far ....NADA?! Even Justineīs surpassed her, without being nearly as hyped.

disposablehero
Nov 24th, 2003, 08:00 AM
Thatīs what people have been saying since ī99 about Kim. So far ....NADA?! Even Justineīs surpassed her, without being nearly as hyped.

Since 99? You cannot be serious! In 99 I said Kim might be a future #1. Most people said she couldn't hold a candle to Alex Stevenson. Some people weren't convinced she was better than Jelena Dokic until late in 2002.

bandabou
Nov 24th, 2003, 08:07 AM
With reason,no?! Letīs face it prior to YECī02 Kim hasnīt done a thing! Yeah,she reached a GS final and stuff....but she had NO big titles. When Stanford is your biggest title before you won the YEC, then you know how BAD you were doing.

Then came ī03, she started to play more and more...thus amassing MANY points and keep winning her ( small) titles. But....what has she really won?! Two yecīs, Rome and IW...those are her biggest titles so far. Sorry, but that ainīt comparable to two GSīs imo. Doesnīt matter how many other titles you have.

maryjane
Nov 24th, 2003, 08:09 AM
Kim Clijsters.

Wojtek
Nov 24th, 2003, 08:41 AM
Mary

rikvanlooy
Nov 24th, 2003, 09:03 AM
Kim has 4 more titles, but most of Mary's titles have been big, wheras some of Kim's have been tier 3 ish.:) Plus, Mary (I believe) has won more prizemoney. Besides, I don't think Kim will EVER win a major, and, as Mary has 2 (thus bringing her out of the "Majoli" category) she has had the better career I think.

Here's a scenario for ya;) :

Player A: Takes tour by storm at 14--winning her first two tournaments at Zurich and Linz. The next year, she wins Miami, Wimbledon, the US Open, and 3 other tournaments before winning the year ending championship and finishing the year no. 1. Finally, at 15-16, she wins the grand slam and loses only 1 match the whole year--obviously finishing no. 1 in the world and earning countless millions in prizemoney. Then, over the off-season, she badly breaks her leg and is out of tennis forever.

Player B: Plays first pro tournie at 15, is in top 50 by 16, top 20 at 17, and top 10 at 18, then becomes top 5 around 21. However, it becomes apparent that she just isn't no. 1 material. Sure, she is consistent as hell, and reaches year-ending championships almost every season, but she has trouble winning majors. Finally, she breaks through and wins the US Open before retiring at the end of the year aged 30. By this time, she has amassed roughly 50 titles (including a few championships), 25 mil. in prizemoney, and a brief stint at no. 1 (albeit mostly to the injuries of top players).

Who had the better career?

A, but who is player B ? Certainly not Kim. She was already number three at age 18 (with the change of becoming one of the youngest number ones ever), two years after her debut.

bandabou
Nov 24th, 2003, 09:05 AM
I was nearly gonna say Sabatinin as player B, but she never reached no.1....so it gotta be Kim then. ;)

disposablehero
Nov 24th, 2003, 09:10 AM
OK, to the basic point of my response and half the responses to this thread:
Why the hell would anyone want to know who had the better career out of 2 ACTIVE players with a 8 and a half year age difference?

bandabou
Nov 24th, 2003, 10:37 AM
THAT is ANOTHER question altogether!

-Sonic-
Nov 24th, 2003, 01:50 PM
Mary's, and the first reason being that it was much longer than Kim's

When Kim is in her late 20's I dare say i might change that

Tompier
Nov 24th, 2003, 02:24 PM
HELLO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do you really think it is all about point, rankigs and tournaments ????????
MARY IS MUCH BIGGER than KIM AS A PERSON and sport icon.
Mary will be remembered as a Queen of courts, She is the fashion lady, the one who convinced other female players that Lady should go in dress "to work" :) She is the Swan of courts long before Anna. Her behaviour on court is classic. Her biography is classic, first American then French..
She is loved all over the world and I love to watch her. Many of her matches were always big shows. She can make people have a good time during her clashes. Her soul always flies around the stadiums.
She has done more to tennis than Kim will ever do. Despite all of her injuries (even very serious in 1996) she has won big tornaments. Many players would end their career having just half of Mary's health problems. I respect her very much for that. Her career is like movie and despite I like Kim i think her game and story that She is writting about herself isn't going to be interestnig even 10 years from now.

:bounce: GO MARY :bounce:
:worship: YOU ARE THE BEST :worship:

rikvanlooy
Nov 24th, 2003, 02:40 PM
HELLO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do you really think it is all about point, rankigs and tournaments ????????
MARY IS MUCH BIGGER than KIM AS A PERSON and sport icon.
Mary will be remembered as a Queen of courts, She is the fashion lady, the one who convinced other female players that Lady should go in dress "to work" :) She is the Swan of courts long before Anna. Her behaviour on court is classic. Her biography is classic, first American then French..

and I love to watch her. Many of her matches were always big shows. She can make people have a good time during her clashes. Her soul always fly around the stadiums.
She has done more to tennis than Kim will ever do. Despite all of her injuries (even very serious in 1996) she has won big tornaments. Many players would end their career having just half of Mary's health problems. I respect her very much for that. Her career is like movie and despite I like Kim i think her game and story that She is writting about herself isn't going to be interestnig even 10 years from now.

:bounce: GO MARY :bounce:
:worship: YOU ARE THE BEST :worship:

I have another opinion. The way she acts on court always irritates me immensely (eg. all that bouncing of the balls before she serves, ...).

But still that is my opinion. I'm not impressed by the girl.

firefly_ac
Nov 24th, 2003, 03:06 PM
Sorry...But i love MAry! Everytime she touches her rosaries(last time) before serving..Indeed,she is so much "bigger" then Kim..Great personality,great friends too...And the millions of Mary fans can testify to that....

fifiricci
Nov 24th, 2003, 03:41 PM
are you sure in a beep? i don't think so. kim had three 'beep' cahnces to change the situation and she didn't take advantage. obviously a 'beep' is not quick enough for kim.

Yes, well I keep saying this and I'll say it again: Everyone bangs on about Kim choking in GSs. Lets remember that Andre Agassi lost his first three GS finals. Would you dare call him a choker to his face now? I think not. Let's wait and see about Kim, shall we?