PDA

View Full Version : What's more impressive? Winning a GS at 16 or 33?


Volcana
Dec 1st, 2004, 10:41 PM
Many people rave about players winning young, but winning late may be rather the more rare accomplishment. Quite a few players have won GS singles titles before age 20. How many have won GS singles titles after age 30?

Leading the pack among the Grande Dames is Martina Navratilova, who won Wimbledon at age 33.

Margaret Court won the Australian Open, AND Roland Garros AND the US Open in 1973, the year she turned 31.

1998 saw 30 year old Jana Novotna (finally) winning Wimbledon.

1999 saw 30 year old Steffi Graf winning Roland Garros (again).

Comparing that list to under 20's is pointless, so let's compare to 17 or younger.

Graf won RG87 at 17
Hingis won OZ97 at 16
Seles won RG90 at 16
Sharapova won WB04 at 17
Serena Williams won US99 at 17

It seems to be harder to win one at 33 than 16. Rather rare occurences either way.

Chunchun
Dec 1st, 2004, 10:49 PM
:lol: i'd say ...............at 16

Andrew.
Dec 1st, 2004, 10:52 PM
I think for sure 33. At that age, things don't work like the used too. Injuries are always a concern. I think it's huge to win at that age.

Jaime Bahena
Dec 1st, 2004, 11:07 PM
i'M JUST IMPRESSED BY SOMEONE THAT CAN WIN A GRAND SLAM EVENT. I HAVEN'T WON A SLAM, YET.

Babolatpro880
Dec 1st, 2004, 11:11 PM
LOL. I agree with Jaime. However, I think although winning a grand slam when you are so young is indeed special, winning one when you are 33(when most players have already retired) is just remarkable.

Philbo
Dec 1st, 2004, 11:18 PM
Absolutely at age 33.

At age 33 most people have retired. Just to have enough drive and motivation to still be capable of winning slams at 33 is more remarkable that some tennis teen phenom winning a slam at 16 or 17.

At 16 or 17 there is LESS pressure. Sure, at 33 you have more experience - but that experience can work against you - you know time is running out and you have fewer chances left, so grand slam finals have more importance than at 17 when you still have your whole career ahead of you..

But the biggest reason why age 33 is more impressive is just the fact that at that age you are still motivated to put the hard work in in training week in, week out when your peers are off having babies and doing other stuff with their lives and you continue to put the hard work in in order to be capable of winning slams.

Thats truley impressive.

Drake1980
Dec 1st, 2004, 11:23 PM
I hope Navratilova wins a slam at 48 next year. good luck Martina and Daniella.

griffin
Dec 1st, 2004, 11:23 PM
33. We fossils gotta stick together ;)

Seriously, ditto what's already been said.

Justeenium
Dec 1st, 2004, 11:25 PM
Many people rave about players winning young, but winning late may be rather the more rare accomplishment. Quite a few players have won GS singles titles before age 20. How many have won GS singles titles after age 30?

Leading the pack among the Grande Dames is Martina Navratilova, who won Wimbledon at age 33.

Margaret Court won the Australian Open, AND Roland Garros AND the US Open in 1973, the year she turned 31.

1998 saw an unusual double when 30 year old, Novotna and Graf, won WImbledon and Roland Garros.

Comparing that list to under 20's is pointless, so let's compare to 17 or younger.

Graf won RG87 at 17
Hingis won OZ97 at 16
Seles won RG90 at 16
Sharapova won WB04 at 17

It seems to be harder to win one at 33 than 16. Rather rare occurences either way.

Graf won the 99 RG, ASV won the 98 RG ;)

Volcana
Dec 1st, 2004, 11:39 PM
Graf won the 99 RG, ASV won the 98 RG ;)Thanks

vettipooh
Dec 2nd, 2004, 12:01 AM
Serena won USopen at 17. Why isn't she on that list??:confused:

Doc
Dec 2nd, 2004, 01:21 AM
I'll argue the opposite position.

Winning a Grand Slam as a young teenager is an amazing feat. You have to have the stamina, skill, strength and mental ability to fight through seven consecutive matches against far more experienced and court-crafty opponents, including some of the top players in the world. A young player has to adapt to playing on huge show-courts, in the full glare of TV and publicity, as well as playing excellent consistent tennis. Most young players crumble when faced with these demands, and take years to rise to a standard where they can put it all together to win a Slam.

Older players have the necessary experience. They know the courts, know the tournaments, and know the other players and their games inside out. I really don't think a player should be physically over-the-hill at 30 years of age. Many Olympic medals are won by people of 30 plus. I think the main reason (apart from injuries) we have so few 30+ Slam winners is burnout. Players get fed up with the rigours of the tour after 10-15 years of tennis, and take the opportunity to retire with their pile.

bandabou
Dec 2nd, 2004, 01:43 AM
Both are difficult, but in different ways.....when you´re young you don´t have much experience and might still be finding your game and getting mental strength..but otoh you´re still fresh, fast, quick, strong, etc...

Whereas when you´re older you´ve already had your share of injuries, you´ve lost a step and have to contend with younger opponents who´re all fresh, fast, etc...but otoh you´ve your experience and nothing´s gonna faze you easily.

And Doc, I don´t really think it´s burn-out....it´s more that in tennis when you lose a step, that´s almost fatal.....you can contend but when you face the elite players, that lost step means that you rarely will come out the victor.

wateva
Dec 2nd, 2004, 01:47 AM
both... it doesn't matter wat age u win a grand slam. it's impressive if u can win it!

Volcana
Dec 2nd, 2004, 03:11 AM
Serena won USopen at 17. Why isn't she on that list??:confused:The point wasn't to get everybody. Just a representative sample. I'm sure there are others I've missed. But, just to make you happy ....

WhatTheDeuce
Dec 2nd, 2004, 03:15 AM
33.

Volcana
Dec 2nd, 2004, 03:19 AM
I think the main reason (apart from injuries) we have so few 30+ Slam winners is burnout. Players get fed up with the rigours of the tour after 10-15 years of tennis, and take the opportunity to retire with their pile.I don't really agree, mostly because when I was researching the thread, it quickly became apparent that relatively few players win slams at 25. Players play YEARS past their slam winning years. Very few pull a Steffi. That would tend to indicate they aren't feeling burned out.

JLDementieva
Dec 2nd, 2004, 03:36 AM
I say 33, and it'll definitely mean a lot more when a player wins a GS at 33.

Prizeidiot
Dec 2nd, 2004, 05:36 AM
Definitely 33.... females reach their physical peaks fairly early, so 16 isn't that young to be winning. But at 33, people tend to be thinking more about retirement, the past 10 years has taken a lot out of them, and to still be able to play, let alone play well for 2 weeks is incredible.

Andy T
Dec 2nd, 2004, 05:52 AM
Thirtysomething champions in the last 40 years:

Martina Navratilova won WB in 1990 aged 33
**********************
BJK won WB in 1975 aged 31
Chris Evert won RG in 1986 aged 31
Margaret Court won US in 73 aged 31
Virginia Wade won WB in 77 aged 31
***********************
Margaret Court won OZ, RG in 73 aged 30
Ann Jones won WB in 1969 aged 30
Chris Evert won RG in 1985 aged 30
BJK won US Open in 74 aged 30
Martina Navratilova won WB and US Open in 87 aged 30
********************************
Kerry Reid won OZ in Jan 77 aged 29
Jana Novotna won Wimbeldon in 98 aged 29
Steffi Graf won RG in 99 aged 29
Chris Evert won OZ in 84 aged 29
BJK won Wimbledon in 73 aged 29
Martina Navratilova won Oz 85, WB and US in 86 aged 29
********************************

AlexB
Dec 2nd, 2004, 05:59 AM
ide say 33 as well...at 16 you can get a young talented phenom who could catch everybody off guard and adopt match by match..at 33 for the most part you cannot add to your game and you will be well scouted by your opponents, so they will know your strengths and weaknesses...at 16 many opponents will not know too much about you or how to beat you yet....

BeautifulGirl
Dec 2nd, 2004, 10:15 AM
17 years of age

MARIA SHARAPOVA :worship:

Andy T
Dec 2nd, 2004, 10:45 AM
The fact that only one woman has won a slam at 33 in the last 40+ years whereas two have won slams at 16 (Hingis, Seles) and a whole group more at 17 (Graf, Hingis, Seles, Sharapova, Serena) kind of speaks for itself, no?

vertigo
Dec 2nd, 2004, 10:49 AM
Yep. 33 years and counting is far more impressive as it shows absolute determination and dedication to tennis, and it has a happy finality about it. A GS win is definitely the perfect way to finish your career!

*Jool*
Dec 2nd, 2004, 10:50 AM
At 33 !
Conchi will win her 33rd tournament in FO at 33... :rolleyes: if that cd be true ...

Greatest
Dec 2nd, 2004, 10:51 AM
Many people rave about players winning young, but winning late may be rather the more rare accomplishment. Quite a few players have won GS singles titles before age 20. How many have won GS singles titles after age 30?

Leading the pack among the Grande Dames is Martina Navratilova, who won Wimbledon at age 33.

Margaret Court won the Australian Open, AND Roland Garros AND the US Open in 1973, the year she turned 31.

1998 saw 30 year old Jana Novotna (finally) winning Wimbledon.

1999 saw 30 year old Steffi Graf winning Roland Garros (again).

Comparing that list to under 20's is pointless, so let's compare to 17 or younger.

Graf won RG87 at 17
Hingis won OZ97 at 16
Seles won RG90 at 16
Sharapova won WB04 at 17
Serena Williams won US99 at 17

It seems to be harder to win one at 33 than 16. Rather rare occurences either way.


16 years of age

Seles ..1 major singles title
Graf ....0 major singles title

Past the age of 30:

Navratilova ...... 4 major singles titles
Evert ............. 2 major singles titles
Graf ............. 0 major singles titles


Monica Seles was the epitome of BRILLIANCE as the best 16 year old player ever while Martina Navratilova sure had unparalleled LONGETIVITY as the best past 30's player ever.

Experimentee
Dec 2nd, 2004, 11:42 AM
At 33. At that age its just an achievement to be out on court playing instead of having other interests, or injured or burned out, let alone to win a Slam. People think they are over the hill and should retire, and everyone knows their game and tactics.
At 16 players have less pressure and feel like they have nothing to lose. Also since they are new no one has figured out their game yet.

It also says something that right now there aren't any 33 year olds who are even in the top 100. It surely does take a lot to even still be playing at that age.

jenny161185
Dec 2nd, 2004, 11:46 AM
definatley 33!