PDA

View Full Version : Is Serena the best of her generation; and better than Hingis?


ECB043
Apr 3rd, 2007, 10:40 AM
I am just thinking is serena the best of her era, and better than Hingis. How long do you think she can stop, Justine?

Williams Rulez
Apr 3rd, 2007, 11:22 AM
I am just thinking is serena the best of her era, and better than Hingis. How long do you think she can stop, Justine?

stop Justine from what?

Mina Vagante
Apr 3rd, 2007, 11:28 AM
yes and defo yes

hectopascal
Apr 3rd, 2007, 11:28 AM
Hingis was in a different era and was the best in that era, however shortlived it was. Serena is definitely the best of this era, which was also briefly ruled by Justine. I think she means stop Justine from winning RG?

jusanothername
Apr 3rd, 2007, 11:30 AM
yes i would say better than Hingis. Mentally she is and shot wise, but i thin Hingis plays cleaner tennis and doesn't always looked rushed or forced...

Tennisaddict
Apr 3rd, 2007, 11:41 AM
I think you should compare Hingis to Henin and Venus not with Serena. One more slam and Serena can be compared with Monica.

So yes Serena is the best of her generation and definitely better than Hingis she proved that already in the 1999 Us Open final.

Oh, and I don´t think Serena is going to stop Justine or vice versa. I think they´re going to have an even big battle this year and that they will dominate the field.

paranr
Apr 3rd, 2007, 11:48 AM
I am just thinking is serena the best of her era, and better than Hingis. How long do you think she can stop, Justine?

I don't know: Hingis has 19 tier-1 titles. Serena has only half of it. :rolleyes:

Hingis has spent over 200 weeks at number 1, Serena I think maybe 50.

A lot of Serena's wins are based on powerful first serve, Hingis's wins are 100% tremendous tennis!

Williams Rulez
Apr 3rd, 2007, 11:51 AM
I don't know: Hingis has 19 tier-1 titles. Serena has only half of it. :rolleyes:

Hingis has spent over 200 weeks at number 1, Serena I think maybe 50.

A lot of Serena's wins are based on powerful first serve, Hingis's wins are 100% tremendous tennis!and a serve is not part of tennis? :lol: :tape:

yeah, and Serena has a superior match record, winning record vs top 10, slam results, more majors won, more variety of majors won too.. :rolleyes:

bandabou
Apr 3rd, 2007, 11:57 AM
Yep..without a doubt..and she's only adding to her legacy.

bandabou
Apr 3rd, 2007, 12:01 PM
Hingis's acomplishments..weeks at no.1, tier I titles,etc..only tell that she played more. I mean Lindsay has more titles and weeks at no.1 too..does that make her better than Serena? Don't think so.

Mudbone
Apr 3rd, 2007, 12:19 PM
I don't know: Hingis has 19 tier-1 titles. Serena has only half of it. :rolleyes:

Hingis has spent over 200 weeks at number 1, Serena I think maybe 50.

A lot of Serena's wins are based on powerful first serve, Hingis's wins are 100% tremendous tennis!

You cannot be serious???:lol: :lol: :lol:

Just curious if you know how many women have powerful serves and have never won jack...Think about your premise for a bit and decide if you really believe what you posted....

paranr
Apr 3rd, 2007, 12:25 PM
You cannot be serious???:lol: :lol: :lol:

Just curious if you know how many women have powerful serves and have never won jack...Think about your premise for a bit and decide if you really believe what you posted....

no one in the wta tour serves better than Serena's. she can serve a 200 km per hour first serve, something that most men on the atp tour can't reach.

there are degree's to power serve , Serena has a ridiculous powerful serve more that any other woman in this sport which has helped her win matches in which her qualities from the back of the court were less than her opponent's. anyway, this is just my opinion.

Mina Vagante
Apr 3rd, 2007, 12:28 PM
no one in the wta tour serves better than Serena's. she can serve a 200 km per hour first serve, something that most men on the atp tour can't reach.

there are degree's to power serve , Serena has a ridiculous powerful serve more that any other woman in this sport which has helped her win matches in which her qualities from the back of the court were less than her opponent's. anyway, this is just my opinion.

lol i bet most men can reach 200 kmh, thats not THAT hard

bandabou
Apr 3rd, 2007, 12:52 PM
Is like saying: Pete Sampras only won because he got such a damn good serve. Serve is most important part of tennis...can't serve, can't win.

austennis
Apr 3rd, 2007, 01:11 PM
They both champs.. and in twenty years its Serena,Venus, Justine, Martina, Lindsay, and Jen that ppl are talking about from the late 90s and early 2000s..

lecciones
Apr 3rd, 2007, 01:12 PM
Hingis was in a different era and was the best in that era, however shortlived it was. [i]Serena is definitely the best of this era, which was also briefly ruled by Justine[i]. I think she means stop Justine from winning RG?


I agree with this, Martina's era of 1997-2000 was her years and she was the best.

Serenas years of 2002-2003 plus if she does dominate this year in titles and grandslams then 2007 is hers.

I still believe Martina is the best player in 1997-2000. All the numbers show that. As for 2002 to 2007 It can be said that Serena dominated fully in 2002-2003 and then here and there. As for generation, Martina was the best of her generation :) FOR ME. :)

Ok my last post, this thread is just .... I've discussed so much of these kinds already.

TSequoia01
Apr 3rd, 2007, 01:34 PM
I agree with this, Martina's era of 1997-2000 was her years and she was the best.

Serenas years of 2002-2003 plus if she does dominate this year in titles and grandslams then 2007 is hers.

I still believe Martina is the best player in 1997-2000. All the numbers show that. As for 2002 to 2007 It can be said that Serena dominated fully in 2002-2003 and then here and there. As for generation, Martina was the best of her generation :) FOR ME. :)

Ok my last post, this thread is just .... I've discussed so much of these kinds already.

Martina's problem is, she has not won a slam since 1999 which is 8 yrs ago.

Sinnet
Apr 3rd, 2007, 01:42 PM
Yea, Williams only dominated because of her serve.

It wasn't her powerful, deep, corner-to-corner groundstrokes, or her sheer athleticisim, or tough mentality, or ability to fight back in matches. None of that helped her reach the top and win matches. :rolleyes:

tennnisfannn
Apr 3rd, 2007, 01:50 PM
Lindsay had a powerful serve too, didn't make her the best of her generation.
Brenda schultz-mccarthy holds the fastest serve speed, she is yet to make crack even the top 20.
Molik, nadia, stosur, etc have such powerful serves, they are yet to win majors. It takes more than a big serve to beat up even the most 'artistic' players.

thrust
Apr 3rd, 2007, 01:54 PM
Yes, and most definitely YES! I would also rate Davenport over Hingis as she, at a young age, had to compete with the likes of Graf, Seles, ASV and Sabatini in their prime. Once she reached her prime, Lindsey dominated Hingis. I would also rate Justine and Venus, at their best, over Hingis.

Stamp Paid
Apr 3rd, 2007, 02:09 PM
Hingis <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Serena

bandabou
Apr 3rd, 2007, 02:17 PM
Lindsay had a powerful serve too, didn't make her the best of her generation.
Brenda schultz-mccarthy holds the fastest serve speed, she is yet to make crack even the top 20.
Molik, nadia, stosur, etc have such powerful serves, they are yet to win majors. It takes more than a big serve to beat up even the most 'artistic' players.

Yep...you said it. Brenda..wow, she's like 50 majors.

barmaid
Apr 3rd, 2007, 02:26 PM
It is difficult to assess a dominant decade of either player...certainly if it was divided into say from 1995-2000 Martina's total of wins and slams far exceed Serena's...here are her stats:
1995 as a 14 year old...didn't win any tournaments but had a 22-13 record
1996 - Beat the likes of Anke Huber an Monica Seles and won 4 tournaments for a 51-16 total
1997- Really her breakthrough year started the year at #6 and finished #1..winning AO, Wimbledon and the U.S. Open over Venus..her total was 75-5
1998 - Won AO but whereas her singles total dipped to 67-13 she won all four Grand Slams that year in dubles
1999 - Again won AO and finished the year with a respectable total of 71-13
2000- No slams but again a very impressive total of 77-10.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Now we all know that Martina quit at the end of the 2002 season....so you'd have to say that from 2001-2002 Venus led that year and Serena 2003-2004 so how anybody can quantify Serena as having any dominance for say 2005-2007 when she played so little in 2006 (really only held the #1 position for a very short time) but she's got that amazing gift of coming up winning Slams even though she plays very little tennis....I think she won her first slam in 1999....then the other 7 in the period of 2001-2007.

So I would say certainly this is a split/best decade generation honor....that should make everybody happy!!:bounce: :D :worship: :lol:

barmaid:wavey:

brickhousesupporter
Apr 3rd, 2007, 02:33 PM
I agree with this, Martina's era of 1997-2000 was her years and she was the best.

Serenas years of 2002-2003 plus if she does dominate this year in titles and grandslams then 2007 is hers.

I still believe Martina is the best player in 1997-2000. All the numbers show that. As for 2002 to 2007 It can be said that Serena dominated fully in 2002-2003 and then here and there. As for generation, Martina was the best of her generation :) FOR ME. :)

Ok my last post, this thread is just .... I've discussed so much of these kinds already.

Just for arguments sake.....What was the head to head with Serena and Martine during 1997-2000.

Volcana
Apr 3rd, 2007, 02:34 PM
yes i would say better than Hingis. Mentally she is and shot wise, but i thin Hingis plays cleaner tennis and doesn't always looked rushed or forced...Against top players, Hingis always looked rushed. It's a big reason she loses to them. By her own admission, she's running as fast as she can just to catch up to the ball.

joyforall
Apr 3rd, 2007, 02:47 PM
imo, both of em are the best.. and if we look at the presence, imo serena is far better than hingis. Why? because, of serena's belief in herself. If Hingis, can believe more (this applied to all the players). i believe, she and serena can pulled out a very great match (when they met)

RenaSlam.
Apr 3rd, 2007, 03:09 PM
Serena has won all four slams in singles and doubles.

Hingis never won the FO.

The end.

pinkydinky
Apr 3rd, 2007, 03:10 PM
She won more slams than Martina so the answer is obviously yes. An unnecessary worship thread.

brickhousesupporter
Apr 3rd, 2007, 03:14 PM
Head to Head between them during Hingis' most dominant period.
1998 Key Biscayne (http://www.itftennis.com/womens/tournaments/tournamentoverview.asp?tournament=1020000694) QF Hard (O) M.HINGIS 6-3 1-6 7-6
1998 Manhattan Beach (http://www.itftennis.com/womens/tournaments/tournamentoverview.asp?tournament=1020000776) QF Hard (O) M.HINGIS 6-4 6-1
1999 Key Biscayne (http://www.itftennis.com/womens/tournaments/tournamentoverview.asp?tournament=1020000695) SF Hard (O) S.WILLIAMS 4-6 6-7
1999 Rome (http://www.itftennis.com/womens/tournaments/tournamentoverview.asp?tournament=1020001001) QF Clay (O) M.HINGIS 6-2 6-2
1999 Manhattan Beach (http://www.itftennis.com/womens/tournaments/tournamentoverview.asp?tournament=1020000777) SF Hard (O) S.WILLIAMS 3-6 5-7
1999 US Open (http://www.itftennis.com/womens/tournaments/tournamentoverview.asp?tournament=1020000191) FR Hard (O) S.WILLIAMS 3-6 6-7
2000 Los Angeles (http://www.itftennis.com/womens/tournaments/tournamentoverview.asp?tournament=1020000737) SF Hard (O) S.WILLIAMS 6-4 2-6 3-6
2000 Canadian Open (http://www.itftennis.com/womens/tournaments/tournamentoverview.asp?tournament=1020000390) FR Hard (O) M.HINGIS 0-6 6-3 3-0 RET

4-4 It is pretty even .... This suggest that Serena is better, because even in her most dominant period, Hingis just breaks even with Serena. Couple of Serena's losses she was well on her to winning....but as we have all learn this weekend it does not matter how close you get if you still did not win.

Volcana
Apr 3rd, 2007, 03:20 PM
How long is a 'generation'? What delimits it? It's certainly not, in my eyes, only three or four years long. More like 10-15 years. Certainly a generation is longer than a period of dominant play, or even a career, in some cases. In fact, changes in equipment have a lot to do with it.

Roughly, I think there are four 'generations' in Open tennis.

The Transitional - This is the group that brought us Open tennis, and their career spans the break into the Open era, more or less. This is also the last generation where serve-and-volley was the dominant style. Court, King, Goolagong, Wade, Durr, et al. This is also when the shift was made from wood rackets to metal.

Evert vs Navratilova - (mid 70's - late 80's)

Graf Dominant - (late 80's - mid 90's)

post-Graf (mid 90's to now)

The edges of these 'generations' are necessarily fuzzy. Graf herself won slams in what's clearly the post-Graf generation. Navratilova won slams in the Graf Dominant generation.

Serena, Venus, Hingis, Henin, and Davenport are the dominant players of the post-Graf generation. (Capriati and Pierce won slams, but never really dominated play.) Davenport is a bit older than the other four.

Serena, Venus, Hingis and Henin are quite close in age. The current age range of the four is 24-26. (I'm not sure of the actual birthdays.) Consequently, they can be measured against each other pretty much straight up.

Hingis' game matured the fastest, Henin's the slowest. (Henin didn't actually even play her first WTA tour event til after Hingis' 1997 run in the slams.)

By 2000 Venus was clearly a better tennis player than Hingis. By 2002, Serena was clearly better than Venus. By 2004, Henin was the only one of the four even playing. In 2007, we realize that we've never really seen Henin vs Serena for a protracted period. And we wonder if Venus will return to that level.

Hingis actually turned out to be the least of the these four, in terms of actual head-to-head ability. Whether that was because of foot injuries, or changes in how the game is played, or whatever. She isn't as good as Venus and Serena or Justine Henin, and she hasn't been the best of those four since 2000. She had accomplished way more, but she was no longer the best of that group. And Hingis was a better tennis player in 2000 than in 1997.

To answer the actual question, Serena is clearly the best player of the 'post-Graf' generation so far. The gap in slams is simply too big. One slam might be debate-able. Most people would say two slams shows a clear gap. Three isn't even in the discussion. I have never heard anybody but a hardcore Seles fan argue she had a greater career than Billie Jean King, for example. On top of that, Serena's doubles and mixed records are good enough to stand up to that of Venus and Hingis. Also, Serena's WINNING of slams spans a nine year period so far, 1999-2007. Compare that to Venus' six years, Henin's four years, and Hingis' three.

But it's all a matter of 'what constitutes a generation?' I figure the current 'generation' is about ten years old, and we're just beginning the transition to the next generation. If Serena and Henin and Venus keep winning, the start of that next 'generation', kinda gets pushed back.

spartanfan
Apr 3rd, 2007, 03:23 PM
yes i would say better than Hingis. Mentally she is and shot wise, but i thin Hingis plays cleaner tennis and doesn't always looked rushed or forced...


But Hingis can look overwhelmed, overpowered, and outhit by many players. The same can't be said about Serena.

barmaid
Apr 3rd, 2007, 03:23 PM
O.K. judge for yourself...here are Serena's stats for 2001-2006

2001- Lost U.S. Open to Venus finished the year 38-7 lost twice to Martina and 3 times to Jennifer Capriati that year
2002 - Won RG, Wimbledon & U. S. Open - 56-5 certainly her most dominant year.
2003- Won A.O. & Wimbledon against Venus record 38-3 so must have been injured the rest of the year and lost her #1 ranking
2004 - Rank #6 39-9 didn't play anymore since losing to Sharapova at Wimbledon
2005 - Won AO defeating Lindsay Davenport only played in 4 tournaments 21-7
2006 - Lost to everybody 12-4

So considering that 2002 was her only really dominant year I hardly think her stats for this 5 year period stacks up to Martina's 5 years 1995-2000...yes the overall total says 5 Grand Slams for Martina and 7 Grand Slams for Serena but activity wise, production wise Martina's are the best.

barmaid:wavey:

spartanfan
Apr 3rd, 2007, 03:25 PM
O.K. judge for yourself...here are Serena's stats for 2001-2006

2001- Lost U.S. Open to Venus finished the year 38-7 lost twice to Martina and 3 times to Jennifer Capriati that year
2002 - Won RG, Wimbledon & U. S. Open - 56-5 certainly her most dominant year.
2003- Won A.O. & Wimbledon against Venus record 38-3 so must have been injured the rest of the year and lost her #1 ranking
2004 - Rank #6 39-9 didn't play anymore since losing to Sharapova at Wimbledon
2005 - Won AO defeating Lindsay Davenport only played in 4 tournaments 21-7
2006 - Lost to everybody 12-4

So considering that 2002 was her only really dominant year I hardly think her stats for this 5 year period stacks up to Martina's 5 years 1995-2000...yes the overall total says 5 Grand Slams for Martina and 7 Grand Slams for Serena but activity wise, production wise Martina's are the best.

barmaid:wavey:

Now list Hingis' accomplishments in any 6 year period in the same manner, and I guarantee it will not be as stella or impressive.

lecciones
Apr 3rd, 2007, 03:30 PM
Now list Hingis' accomplishments in any 6 year period in the same manner, and I guarantee it will not be as stella or impressive.

I'd bet on that. just give the titles each their due points and sum them up accordingly like what AnnaK_4ever did, unless of course we are just talking about grandslams here, which is a very good point but to me isn't everything.

Darn, sorry guys, I already said I'd have my last post. LoL its just so weird having these type of threads come up again and again and we still have the same arguments. I guess for Serena fans she is the best and for Martina fans she is the best. :) I'm happy with that already. But if some people wanna push it and want an absolute answer I'd say for now AnnaK_4ever's formula (with my doubles calculation) about this is good enough an answer.

barmaid
Apr 3rd, 2007, 03:36 PM
But Hingis can look overwhelmed, overpowered, and outhit by many players. The same can't be said about Serena.

We are talking about who was the best of her generation....look at the stats Serena had quite a few players she lost to....the fact that she didn't play as much as Hingis hardly compares to other players who were averaging playing 20 or more tournaments a year compared to Serena's hand full. Yes, when she did play she managed to win two Grand Slams even though playing very little tennis...it would appear she could have been a much more successful player had she played more tennis...but she didn't!:worship:

barmaid:wavey:

lecciones
Apr 3rd, 2007, 03:41 PM
What I'm astounded at is so much titles in such a little time, to keep a win loss ratio playing in and out, she must have had so much talent, skill and willpower to win match and match again since she played 15-20 tournaments every year and manage to win 5-7+ titles per year, NOT even including the doubles titles she won and all her doubles matches she needed to play concurrently with singles so that she could reach no.1 in doubles.. :) And against the likes of Lindsay, ASV, Graf, Serena, Venus, Monica, Henin, Clijsters, etc... so many and to continually be ranked or seeded no.1 week in week out against these opponents is awesome to me, and to maintain very respectable and sometimes flat out great head to heads against these opponents is great. Maybe if she rested more, spent more time at the gym, paced her tournaments farther she would have done much better at the slams where you need to win 7 straight matches and most probably 2-4 of those players are highly seeded, etc. This is what I like about Hingis and why I think she is the best of her generation.

and no matter what they say 1997-2000 will always be Hingis's domination years :)

marlon
Apr 3rd, 2007, 04:03 PM
you a dickrider

bandabou
Apr 3rd, 2007, 04:06 PM
The thing is that Serena has longevity to her side. Won her first major as a teen and now 8 years later she's still winning. Martina really had three-year window..after that she was Kim Clijsters before Kim became....awfully consistent, never losing to player she shouldn't lose to but never beating the big guns either...

Can't see Martina do what Serena did this year..play only the two BIGGEST tournaments and win them both..

cellophane
Apr 3rd, 2007, 04:10 PM
Better player, yes, but if Hingis had more power, it'd be a different story.

Stamp Paid
Apr 3rd, 2007, 04:11 PM
And if Davenport was faster, and if Venus had a good forehand...

barmaid
Apr 3rd, 2007, 04:15 PM
Now list Hingis' accomplishments in any 6 year period in the same manner, and I guarantee it will not be as stella or impressive.

I already have except for the 2001 year (just go back a few posts) ....I just thought I'd do Hingis's 5 year period over Serena's...but if you want the 2001 total for Hingis its 60-15 and she suffered an ankle injury in Filerstadt in late 2001 so required surgery after that. As I stated before...Hingis's totals are far more stellar and impressive than Serena's except in the Grand Slam category, 5 slams for Hingis to 7 for Serena. :bounce: :kiss: :hearts: :worship:

barmaid:wavey:

cellophane
Apr 3rd, 2007, 04:15 PM
And if Davenport was faster, and if Venus had a good forehand...

Adding power is something that can be done (Justine) more easily than something like getting a good forehand, although that's not impossible either... Why Hingis doesn't do it, I don't know, but I don't think she wants to. I am not making hypotheticals about some skill that I don't know if Hingis can get.

lecciones
Apr 3rd, 2007, 04:21 PM
Adding power is something that can be done (Justine) more easily than something like getting a good forehand, although that's not impossible either... Why Hingis doesn't do it, I don't know, but I don't think she wants to.

The biggest mystery is why Hingis hates to go to the gym but loses because she actually needs to start hitting as hard as those other players. Sometimes, especially at the 3rd set, her hits lack steam, and when that happens the opponent hits a winner. Serena on the oher hand really has no problem with the physical side of the game. Nowadays, the gauge is based on Serena which means she is the typical champion stuff for power players, but I've never given up hope that Martina can somehow find another way to dominate like when she did in 2000, I don't even need slams for now (but 1 would do), if she wins 3-5 Tier Is and other lesser 2-4 titles per year, I'd be really happy. :)

The Daviator
Apr 3rd, 2007, 04:26 PM
and no matter what they say 1997-2000 will always be Hingis's domination years :)

Except 1998 when Davenport ended the year #1 and won the US Open :p

Seriously, Serena has 3 more Slams, she's more accomplished, she's even won at more doubles Slams for crying out loud! 6 to 5, yeah Hingis beats her with weeks at #1 and titles, but then so does Lindsay, Serena is the best of this generation, and that's that.

bandabou
Apr 3rd, 2007, 04:31 PM
:lol: I say...Hingis can have the weeks at no.1, tier I titles, etc...huge acomplishment for shizzle, but at the end of the day it's all about the benjamins: MAJORS!!! Now if Serena hadn't been ranked no.1 or something, then yeah...but Serena has MORE majors, has won ALL majors, has won FOUR in a row, MULTIPLE majors in a year twice ( Hingis only once)...I mean, what are we talking about?

Now they wanna come with: yeah...but give Hingis more power. Answer: There's the gym.

lecciones
Apr 3rd, 2007, 04:33 PM
Except 1998 when Davenport ended the year #1 and won the US Open :p

Seriously, Serena has 3 more Slams, she's more accomplished, she's even won at more doubles Slams for crying out loud! 6 to 5, yeah Hingis beats her with weeks at #1 and titles, but then so does Lindsay, Serena is the best of this generation, and that's that.

I'd have to cry out loud about that - Martina has won 9 doubles plus 1 mixed. And Lindsay did not accomplish as much as Hingis as a whole that is why she is not compared, if she did then we would be seeing as much Serena vs. Lindsay threads around would we? Although, due respect for Lindsay who I am very much fond of, some records Lindsay holds are better than Hingis' (no. of year end no.1, career match wins, career singles titles, career money list).

cellophane
Apr 3rd, 2007, 04:34 PM
The biggest mystery is why Hingis hates to go to the gym but loses because she actually needs to start hitting as hard as those other players.

Martina has beaten Serena without the power in 2001 really, so I don't know if she needs it necessarily. Of course if she had it, it would only be better. If anything she needs to stop counterpunching and start playing smart tennis.

lecciones
Apr 3rd, 2007, 04:40 PM
Martina has beaten Serena without the power in 2001 really, so I don't know if she needs it necessarily. Of course if she had it, it would only be better. If anything she needs to stop counterpunching and start playing smart tennis.


Hitting the ball hard and fast is as good as hitting the ball early, the both give the opponent less time to react and hit a shot, but most players now are fast and hit hard so Martina cannot just rely on hitting early, she has to hit hard as well unless she wants her shots played around with on court and then she has to do all the defensive running which saps her energy.

I agree though, she sometimes forgets to mix it up like what she has done so easily before - I think its the confidence, she doesn't seem so confident of hitting shots that are risky anymore, not unlike before she's hit these angles that are just amazing, sometimes her shot isnt a blazing fast ball but slow, but amazing still and they turn out as winners, because the ball moves away from the opponent. :) Maybe it coms with her age, her mentality now. I just hope she gets her fighting spirit back.

Anyway guys nice discussion. At least there was no personal attacks this time. :) I have to sleep now LOL sleepy!!

mojeri
Apr 3rd, 2007, 05:00 PM
no one in the wta tour serves better than Serena's. she can serve a 200 km per hour first serve, something that most men on the atp tour can't reach.

there are degree's to power serve , Serena has a ridiculous powerful serve more that any other woman in this sport which has helped her win matches in which her qualities from the back of the court were less than her opponent's. anyway, this is just my opinion.
hello everyone, this is my first time here but i have been enjoying every part of this site. I am a serena fan and will always be even if she doesn't win.
I will say serena has a very good sreve but against justin her serve was not that good all credit to justin who is a very very good player. I promised myself that if serena won the last macth against justin i will lick the dirty ground. this shows how much i respect justin.
For me if serena plays to her capability she is simply the best. She can't because a lot of reasons including injuries.But she still needs a bit of luck to beat someone like justin who i don't really like but really rate.She is a damm good player{justin} But i will rather worhisp THE GOD OF SERENA

The Daviator
Apr 3rd, 2007, 05:17 PM
I'd have to cry out loud about that - Martina has won 9 doubles plus 1 mixed. And Lindsay did not accomplish as much as Hingis as a whole that is why she is not compared, if she did then we would be seeing as much Serena vs. Lindsay threads around would we? Although, due respect for Lindsay who I am very much fond of, some records Lindsay holds are better than Hingis' (no. of year end no.1, career match wins, career singles titles, career money list).

I know Marti has more doubles Slams, but Serena has all 4 doubles and 2 mixed compared to Martina's 4 doubles and 1 mixed ;)

mojeri
Apr 3rd, 2007, 05:32 PM
Sorry Hingis fans.She can never win a slam again if she keeps on playing the way she is. She is still young and hungry but her style is old school. If serena is injury free the only person who we should be concerned about is justin who will take care of hingis at anytime of the day.
LONG LIVE THE GOD OF SERENA!!!

Anne K.
Apr 3rd, 2007, 05:41 PM
All these ladies we're discussing are very talented, but I would have to give
the nod to Serena. They're all fairly close in age, and of the same gen-
eration. Sure, Martina Hingis has way more weeks as #1 than Serena, but
the WTA's screwed up the ranking system so much since 1996 that you
can't trust it. In the previous (and IMO, best) divisor ranking, losses hurt
your ranking. How much you won was measured against how many tourneys
you played, not just # of matches. I think the base # of tournaments was
12. It sure made a lot more sense than the confusion of the last dozen
years! :)

Lulu.
Apr 3rd, 2007, 05:51 PM
Yes and Yes :)

John.
Apr 3rd, 2007, 05:56 PM
Serena is by far the best player of this generation

SAEKeithSerena
Apr 3rd, 2007, 06:14 PM
I think you should compare Hingis to Henin and Venus not with Serena. One more slam and Serena can be compared with Monica.

So yes Serena is the best of her generation and definitely better than Hingis she proved that already in the 1999 Us Open final.

Oh, and I donīt think Serena is going to stop Justine or vice versa. I think theyīre going to have an even big battle this year and that they will dominate the field.


well put my friend:wavey:

kiwifan
Apr 3rd, 2007, 06:16 PM
obviously.

MistyGrey
Apr 3rd, 2007, 06:23 PM
I think its pretty safe to say that Serena is better than Martina Hingis,although not by much, no offence to Hingis.

Watching
Apr 3rd, 2007, 06:27 PM
Going to the gym does not necessarily mean Hingis will be more powerful.
Stroke types give more power. Sharapova has like 0 arm muscles....Okay Serena is powerfully built but it's her long swings and flat hitting that give her so much power.

Hingis shots are shorter and much more varied (with regard to spins). To add power she would have to change the fundamentals of her game. I don't think she could even if she wanted to.

As for the question. Easily Serena. +3 slams is way better. Hingis is losing all over the place these days and played WAY more for those other stats. This isn't even an argument anymore. Even before 2007 Serena was better.

RenaSlam.
Apr 3rd, 2007, 06:33 PM
Serena Serena Serena.

oliverbecken
Apr 3rd, 2007, 06:35 PM
Are different generations, I think so

AcesHigh
Apr 3rd, 2007, 06:38 PM
Same generation and not even close. The argument should be is Hingis greater than Venus/Henin?

OrdinaryfoolisNJ
Apr 3rd, 2007, 06:41 PM
O.K. judge for yourself...here are Serena's stats for 2001-2006

2001- Lost U.S. Open to Venus finished the year 38-7 lost twice to Martina and 3 times to Jennifer Capriati that year
2002 - Won RG, Wimbledon & U. S. Open - 56-5 certainly her most dominant year.
2003- Won A.O. & Wimbledon against Venus record 38-3 so must have been injured the rest of the year and lost her #1 ranking
2004 - Rank #6 39-9 didn't play anymore since losing to Sharapova at Wimbledon
2005 - Won AO defeating Lindsay Davenport only played in 4 tournaments 21-7
2006 - Lost to everybody 12-4

So considering that 2002 was her only really dominant year I hardly think her stats for this 5 year period stacks up to Martina's 5 years 1995-2000...yes the overall total says 5 Grand Slams for Martina and 7 Grand Slams for Serena but activity wise, production wise Martina's are the best.

barmaid:wavey:

Just because Hingis played more than Serena, does not make her the best! In fact, your table above suggest othewise. Serena was able to win more grand slams even though she played less, so I say that makes her the more dominate player.

Also, 2006 shouldn't be there because Serena was clearly rehabbing from a surgery. In 2005, she only played 4 tournaments you say, so that year doens't tell us much (plus wasn't her sister killed, causing both William's to leave the tour to mentally recouperate).

In 2003 she didn't play after Wimbledon, but she DID win both the AO and Wimbledon! That sounds like a pretty darned good year to me! The other players are probably happy she didn't play the rest of the season.

mike/topgun
Apr 3rd, 2007, 06:45 PM
Yes she's the best of her generation, and she's definately better than Martina, Justine and even Lindsay;)

OrdinaryfoolisNJ
Apr 3rd, 2007, 06:46 PM
Going to the gym does not necessarily mean Hingis will be more powerful.
Stroke types give more power. .

I agree. Still going to the gym helps (ask Chrissie Evert) because its not just bout building power but speed and endurance and quick footwork.

Still, I think Hingis needs to look at how Justine Henin manages to produce so much power considering she's smaller and shorter than most other competitors. She matched Serena for power in Miami. Also, Justine is really fast! She gets to a lot of shots and knows what to do with them once she gets there.

Martina Hingis is of the same era age wise of Venus, but she learned a different style game and old style strokes. She seems to have more power than she had before she retired the first time though.

thrust
Apr 3rd, 2007, 07:04 PM
Peak Serena would beat peak Hingis 3 out of 5 times, at least. Hingis only real chance of an advantage would be on clay even though she never won the FO, whereas, Serena has. On peak form: 1- Serena, 2- Venus, 3- Justine, 4-Davenport, 5- Hingis. Davenport has a winning H-H against Hingis, they met twice in a Slam final with Lindsay winning both.

barmaid
Apr 3rd, 2007, 07:07 PM
Just because Hingis played more than Serena, does not make her the best! In fact, your table above suggest othewise. Serena was able to win more grand slams even though she played less, so I say that makes her the more dominate player.

Also, 2006 shouldn't be there because Serena was clearly rehabbing from a surgery. In 2005, she only played 4 tournaments you say, so that year doens't tell us much (plus wasn't her sister killed, causing both William's to leave the tour to mentally recouperate).

In 2003 she didn't play after Wimbledon, but she DID win both the AO and Wimbledon! That sounds like a pretty darned good year to me! The other players are probably happy she didn't play the rest of the season.

Well we don't know that do we?? We can only assess numbers and figures according to the games they did play. Granted given the few games Serena played she certainly had the BEST overall percentage when she competed.....but you also have to acknowledge Martina's fine play for her competitive years as well. Somebody did post the % here at one time and yes, Serena does lead in that department (wins/losses) but Martina does have 43 titles...vs. Serena's 27. Overall Serena has 343-68 compared to Martina's 532-123 (just approximate figures).

barmaid:wavey:

Stamp Paid
Apr 3rd, 2007, 07:18 PM
death @ barmaid.
give it up baby. Serena > Hingis, K. everyone knows this but deluded Hingis fans. :awww:
Hingis is still > Henin and Venus though. :)

MisterQ
Apr 3rd, 2007, 08:07 PM
They both champs.. and in twenty years its Serena,Venus, Justine, Martina, Lindsay, and Jen that ppl are talking about from the late 90s and early 2000s..

I pick Serena as the best of her generation if I must choose one...

But I like the type of statement you wrote. From any given generation, most people (outside of intense fans) will remember at most a handful of names. To establish yourself as one of the defining figures of your generation is an amazing accomplishment. :worship:

Callystarr
Apr 3rd, 2007, 08:10 PM
I don't know: Hingis has 19 tier-1 titles. Serena has only half of it. :rolleyes:

Hingis has spent over 200 weeks at number 1, Serena I think maybe 50.

A lot of Serena's wins are based on powerful first serve, Hingis's wins are 100% tremendous tennis!

Hingis has also competed in 250+ more professional matches :rolleyes: while Hingis was running around competing in 20-25 tournaments a year....Serena in her prime stayed around 13-16 :rolleyes:

PatrickRyan
Apr 3rd, 2007, 08:12 PM
Wasn't it Hingis who retired because she felt like she couldn't compete with the William Sisters anymore??? And then she comes back during a slump in their careers.

Callystarr
Apr 3rd, 2007, 08:23 PM
I can't beleive folks are actually comparing Hingis to Serena....I mean seriously when was the last time Hingis was considered a HUGE threat to win a major with a loaded field?

SJW
Apr 3rd, 2007, 08:39 PM
O.K. judge for yourself...here are Serena's stats for 2001-2006

2001- Lost U.S. Open to Venus finished the year 38-7 lost twice to Martina and 3 times to Jennifer Capriati that year
2002 - Won RG, Wimbledon & U. S. Open - 56-5 certainly her most dominant year.
2003- Won A.O. & Wimbledon against Venus record 38-3 so must have been injured the rest of the year and lost her #1 ranking
2004 - Rank #6 39-9 didn't play anymore since losing to Sharapova at Wimbledon
2005 - Won AO defeating Lindsay Davenport only played in 4 tournaments 21-7
2006 - Lost to everybody 12-4

So considering that 2002 was her only really dominant year I hardly think her stats for this 5 year period stacks up to Martina's 5 years 1995-2000...yes the overall total says 5 Grand Slams for Martina and 7 Grand Slams for Serena but activity wise, production wise Martina's are the best.

barmaid:wavey:


What? She won Beijing and made the YEC finals.

SJW
Apr 3rd, 2007, 08:40 PM
Adding power is something that can be done (Justine) more easily than something like getting a good forehand, although that's not impossible either... Why Hingis doesn't do it, I don't know, but I don't think she wants to. I am not making hypotheticals about some skill that I don't know if Hingis can get.

Gaining speed is something that can be done easier than adding power.

bandabou
Apr 3rd, 2007, 08:40 PM
Kinda sad: Hingis sees the Kuznetsova's and Myskina's won majors back in 2004 and that there wasn't really a dominating force in 2005...she decides, hmmm..maybe I can too..but she still can't make a real dent and in 2nd year of her comeback is already regressing!

Now comes a Serena who people call fat, over the hill, etc..bam she wins Oz open destroying no.1 to be in the finals..for major no.8.

That's the difference.

SJW
Apr 3rd, 2007, 08:43 PM
Why are we comparing Serena with Hingis? That's very unfair on Martina.
You guys have more of an argument when comparing her to the other 5-slam players.

égalité
Apr 3rd, 2007, 08:45 PM
Hingis wasn't playing when Serena was most dominant, and Serena was still very young when Hingis was dominant. These comparisons are getting annoying.

bandabou
Apr 3rd, 2007, 08:48 PM
Why are we comparing Serena with Hingis? That's very unfair on Martina.
You guys have more of an argument when comparing her to the other 5-slam players.

Exactly..wanna compare hingis to justine or venus..'cause Serena is waaaayyy out of Martina's league.

Volcana
Apr 3rd, 2007, 08:51 PM
Wasn't it Hingis who retired because she felt like she couldn't compete with the William Sisters anymore???
No.

Kunal
Apr 3rd, 2007, 08:52 PM
serena is naturally the best of this era and also hingis's era

DOUBLEFIST
Apr 3rd, 2007, 08:53 PM
:lol: Serena surpassed Martina's legacy several years ago. A more apt comparison would be Serena to Monica Seles.

Serena is, Seles notwithstanding, the greatest player of her generation. Martina fell out of that conversation a while ago.

sapir1434
Apr 3rd, 2007, 08:54 PM
She is definitely better than Hingis

raquel
Apr 3rd, 2007, 08:58 PM
Serena's not only better than Hingis but the best of her generation, to answer the thread questions :) I'd rate Henin just above Hingis too. The fact Henin (who like Serena still has years of achieving ahead of her to add to her records) did not let her relatively small stature prevent her from getting the most from herself sets her apart from Hingis slightly. Both are small, talented shot makers but Henin competes - and more. She really put in the graft to get the best of herself and you have to respect that so much.

Back to Serena, what more can be said? Winning Australian and Miami back to back after being ranked in the 80s and barely playing 6 events in 18 months, is just the tip of the iceberg. I can only think of maybe Graf as the other player who could come off lay offs and win Slams? Serena's the best of the generation, one of the all time best and still got years ahead.

bandabou
Apr 3rd, 2007, 09:24 PM
Serena's not only better than Hingis but the best of her generation, to answer the thread questions :) I'd rate Henin just above Hingis too. The fact Henin (who like Serena still has years of achieving ahead of her to add to her records) did not let her relatively small stature prevent her from getting the most from herself sets her apart from Hingis slightly. Both are small, talented shot makers but Henin competes - and more. She really put in the graft to get the best of herself and you have to respect that so much.

Back to Serena, what more can be said? Winning Australian and Miami back to back after being ranked in the 80s and barely playing 6 events in 18 months, is just the tip of the iceberg. I can only think of maybe Graf as the other player who could come off lay offs and win Slams? Serena's the best of the generation, one of the all time best and still got years ahead.

:worship:

PatrickRyan
Apr 3rd, 2007, 09:26 PM
No.

Um Yes.

barmaid
Apr 3rd, 2007, 09:30 PM
Hingis wasn't playing when Serena was most dominant, and Serena was still very young when Hingis was dominant. These comparisons are getting annoying.

What a silly statement to make...Martina is the same age as Venus...26...Serena is 25 they most certainly played each other 25 times I think with Serena holding a 14-11 advantage..Martina has a 12-11 advantage over Venus..the comparisons are annoying because posters keep losing the focus on the title....Is Serena the best of her generation? ie. kin, clan, line, race, breed, house, issue, stock,tribe, family, growth, strain et al I concede that certainly for certain periods during the last 6 years she was....but I made a statement backed with facts and figures for Hingis and her dominating years 1997-2001!! It is very clear Hingis fans think she had the best showing for her generation and Serena's fans think that she had the best for the latter part! So the "best" of is divided half in half, with Serena winning 8 Grand Slam titles to 5....while that accomplishment holds a lot of weight...so do Martina's 9 Grand Slam doubles titles and 1 mixed! :worship:

barmaid:wavey:

PatrickRyan
Apr 3rd, 2007, 09:31 PM
Martina Hingis on Serena after AO 07..........
"...It is not a realistic thing to talk about winning a Grand Slam, because I'm not the kind of player like Serena Williams, coming out of nowhere and blowing everybody away,"

rjd1111
Apr 3rd, 2007, 10:15 PM
I don't know: Hingis has 19 tier-1 titles. Serena has only half of it. :rolleyes:

Hingis has spent over 200 weeks at number 1, Serena I think maybe 50.

A lot of Serena's wins are based on powerful first serve, Hingis's wins are 100% tremendous tennis!

KEY BISCAYNE, Fla. (AP) -- The Williams sisters have done what once seemed impossible: They've transformed Martina Hingis into a sympathetic figure.
Once a brash teen tennis queen, Hingis can no longer stay in a rally with the game's most powerful players. Serena Williams provided the latest evidence Wednesday, drubbing Hingis 6-4, 6-0 in the quarterfinals of the Nasdaq-100 Open.
Their once-fierce rivalry has become so lopsided that when they met at the net afterward, Williams offered Hingis a consoling pat on the back.
``It's kind of sad to see a champion like Martina lose all the time like she does when she plays Serena,'' said Richard Williams, father and coach of the sisters.
Serena has beaten Hingis three straight times and seven consecutive times on U.S. hardcourts. Venus Williams has won five of her past seven matches against Hingis, including their most recent meeting at Key Biscayne last year.
After 209 weeks at No. 1, Hingis has slipped to third in the rankings, behind Venus and top-ranked Jennifer Capriati. It's been more than three years since Hingis won the most recent of her five Grand Slam titles at the Australian Open.
But she bristled at the suggestion she might not win another major title.
``How can you say that?'' she said. ``Come on. It's not that I played that bad.''
Actually, she did. Hingis hit just four winners to 34 for Williams, who won the last seven games. Shots whizzed past as Hingis stood helpless and motionless with no time to react. In the final set, she won six points.
Hingis grudgingly admitted she was outclassed by Williams.
``I just didn't stay with her,'' she said. ``It was difficult for me to do anything. She was hitting winners from all over the court.''

And in Hingis' first four matches at Key Biscayne, she lost a total of four games. But she has no weapons with which to do damage against the Williamses, who thrive on her softball shots.

There was a time when Serena and Martina traded barbs after their matches, but those days are over. Now that Williams dominates, she has only nice things to say about the former No. 1.
``Until I was shaking her hand, that's when I knew the match was over,'' Serena said. ``I never think the match is over until it's done, because Martina is always good at making comebacks.''
She needs one now.

OrdinaryfoolisNJ
Apr 3rd, 2007, 10:24 PM
Well we don't know that do we?? We can only assess numbers and figures according to the games they did play. Granted given the few games Serena played she certainly had the BEST overall percentage when she competed.....but you also have to acknowledge Martina's fine play for her competitive years as well. Somebody did post the % here at one time and yes, Serena does lead in that department (wins/losses) but Martina does have 43 titles...vs. Serena's 27. Overall Serena has 343-68 compared to Martina's 532-123 (just approximate figures).

barmaid:wavey:

I acknowledge that Hingis was a fine player in the transition years from the old game to the power game. But her style is not in line with how players are trained today in my opinion. So, comparing Hingis and Serena is like comparing apples and oranges.

Martina may have more titles, but per the chart, again, Serena has played less in her career for whatever reasons. So of course she will have fewer titles and fewer weeks at number one.

By the way, I like Martina Hingis better now that she's an adult (that elder player sympathy factor works on me), but she did sour me as a fan during her teen years. I still remember how badly she acted at that 1999 FO against Graf. Had Hingis concentrated on her game rather than her tantrum, she wouldn't have allowed Graf to groove her game and win her last GS.

Pureracket
Apr 3rd, 2007, 10:31 PM
Serena with anything less than 15 Slams will have underachieved.

OrdinaryfoolisNJ
Apr 3rd, 2007, 10:38 PM
I pick Serena as the best of her generation if I must choose one...

But I like the type of statement you wrote. From any given generation, most people (outside of intense fans) will remember at most a handful of names. To establish yourself as one of the defining figures of your generation is an amazing accomplishment. :worship:

I agree with this Mr Q.

I'm always souring the GOAT (Greatest of all time) threads because I just do not believe eras can be compared! The players of this generation are much faster and powerful and better athletes than the one that came before them. And that's generally true of every sport, not just tennis.

People are generally stronger and faster with every decade, how players learn to strike the ball and train has changed to help create more power and speed, diets are looked at more closely and scientifically, technology in the equipment has helped bring along changes to generate more power and pace, all these things together (and probably a few more things that I haven't thought of) have changed greatly how the game is played in Serena's time. Its apples and oranges.

Lenglen, Connolly, Althea Gibson, Court, King, Evert, Navratilova are great players. And each was better (or shall we say more evolved) than the players in the generation that followed them. Graf was better than the Evert Navratilova generation, and Serena is better than Grafs (in my opinion).

The game is always growing. That's a good thing.

PLP
Apr 3rd, 2007, 10:56 PM
Serena's not only better than Hingis but the best of her generation, to answer the thread questions :) I'd rate Henin just above Hingis too. The fact Henin (who like Serena still has years of achieving ahead of her to add to her records) did not let her relatively small stature prevent her from getting the most from herself sets her apart from Hingis slightly. Both are small, talented shot makers but Henin competes - and more. She really put in the graft to get the best of herself and you have to respect that so much.

Back to Serena, what more can be said? Winning Australian and Miami back to back after being ranked in the 80s and barely playing 6 events in 18 months, is just the tip of the iceberg. I can only think of maybe Graf as the other player who could come off lay offs and win Slams? Serena's the best of the generation, one of the all time best and still got years ahead.

It's an interesting perspective but I don't agree completely. Justine is amazing, the fact that she beefed up her body, and became a 'power' player is a testament to her, However, the fact that Martina DIDN'T makes her accomplishments that much more impressive IMO.

Serena...Yes, she is definitely the greatest of all of these players. Her 8 GS singles titles really do set her apart from Martina/Vee/JuJu, but all 4 are great champions.

Denise4925
Apr 3rd, 2007, 11:03 PM
Oh hell yes. Stop Justine from what?

rjd1111
Apr 3rd, 2007, 11:05 PM
I agree with this Mr Q.

I'm always souring the GOAT (Greatest of all time) threads because I just do not believe eras can be compared! The players of this generation are much faster and powerful and better athletes than the one's that came before them.

Does this mean that players like Lenglen and Connolly and Althea Gibson and Evert and King and Navratilova (to mention but a few) are lesser players because they did not play with as much power and pace during their time in the game? NO! They (and several others) were the greatest

It just means that people are generally stronger and faster with every decade, how players learn to strike the ball and train has changed to help create more power and speed, diets are looked at more closely and scientifically, technology in the equipment has helped bring along changes to generate more power and pace, all these things together (and probably a few more things that I haven't thought of) have changed greatly how the game is played in Serena's time. Its apples and oranges.

The game is always growing. That's a good thing.

Very Good post. Its unfair to compare oldtime players against todays
players. Serena is the greatest player today. Any of those players
put here today with todays conditions would lose to Serena, Justine,
and Several other of todays top players when they are playing at their
best. Graf, and to a lesser extent Nav would compete with todays players
because they are relatively close to todays generation. But they would
not win all those titles they did in their times. This is not slight of those
champions. They were the greatest of their time. They are also a
victim of their times in these unfair comparisons.

ps. Its just a matter of time before another young lady of tommorrow
comes along who is better than Serena. Then she will be the GOAT

Chrissie-fan
Apr 3rd, 2007, 11:30 PM
Very Good post. Its unfair to compare oldtime players against todays
players. Serena is the greatest player today. Any of those players
put here today with todays conditions would lose to Serena, Justine,
and Several other of todays top players when they are playing at their
best. Graf, and to a lesser extent Nav would compete with todays players
because they are relatively close to todays generation. But they would
not win all those titles they did in their times. This is not slight of those
champions. They were the greatest of their time. They are also a
victim of their times in these unfair comparisons.

ps. Its just a matter of time before another young lady of tommorrow
comes along who is better than Serena. Then she will be the GOAT
I had posted a reply which I've deleted because, well, I had a feeling that I had written that post on several other occasions.;) Let's just say that,yes, todays players are superior athletes while the best old timers were superior technicians. They had to be, because those old racquets made it (technically speaking) a more difficult game. I'm not convinced that the current players' athletic ability would be enough to overcome that if they would play the greats from the past in THEIR OWN era.

rjd1111
Apr 3rd, 2007, 11:34 PM
I know I'm in the minority, but I don't agree. Move Navratilova to Helen Wills' era and my money is on Wills to win, move Wills to Navratilova's era and Navratilova will win easily. The difference between tennis and those other sports is that tennis is not only a matter of athletic ability but also of technique, and the technology has a huge influence on the way the game is played and differs from one era to the other. Most of the finesse players of the 70's would be blown of court if they played a similar game today. Similarly, move the current players back forty years and most of them would be humiliated by the greats of that era. It wouldn't matter that the current players are stronger and faster. What would be important is what they would do with the ball once they got to it, which most of the time would be make an unforced error, unless they learned a different type of play (in the process giving up what makes them so good today).


The better athlete is just that. Of course they would have to learn to
use the different equip. but why would you think they couldn't do that.
Barring a lucky event, at their best, and all conditions being equal the
better athlete will win.

Chrissie-fan
Apr 3rd, 2007, 11:50 PM
The better athlete is just that. Of course they would have to learn to use the different equip. but why would you think they couldn't do that.
Fair enough, but if we put todays players in a time machine that puts them back in time thirty or forty years, and we assume that they can learn to play with the equipment of those days, we can also assume that if we catapult those oldies to the 21st century, that they would also adapt to todays training methods and be better athletes. ;)

rjd1111
Apr 4th, 2007, 12:26 AM
I had posted a reply which I've deleted because, well, I had a feeling that I had written that post on several other occasions.;) Let's just say that,yes, todays players are superior athletes while the best old timers were superior technicians. They had to be, because those old racquets made it (technically speaking) a more difficult game. I'm not convinced that the current players' athletic ability would be enough to overcome that if they would play the greats from the past in THEIR OWN era.

Okay you are entitled to your opinion.

One point I have heard many times is that todays racquets are larger
and have a bigger sweet spot.

Well Serena has reduced the size of her new racquet and she says
she can generate more power and control

"I was at 113 square inches, I think. Now I'm at 105, huge difference. And I'm actually able to generate a lot more power. Not only that, the K Factor enables me to have a lot of control, and it works out amazing."

rjd1111
Apr 4th, 2007, 12:37 AM
Fair enough, but if we put todays players in a time machine that puts them back in time thirty or forty years, and we assume that they can learn to play with the equipment of those days, we can also assume that if we catapult those oldies to the 21st century, that they would also adapt to todays training methods and be better athletes. ;)

Yes but the whole premice is that athletes are better today.

They can't train up to be a better athlete than todays athlete.

Todays athletes are bigger, stronger and faster. Any Training

up they do todays athletes can do too. and still be better.

mauresmofan
Apr 4th, 2007, 12:41 AM
We should wait and see - Serena is definitely the front runner but Justine could catch up given the extraordinary talent she has. I look forward to some hotly contested battles!

MrSerenaWilliams
Apr 4th, 2007, 12:52 AM
Lindsay Davenport + Martina Hingis: 300+ weeks @ #1, over 100 titles 8 GS Singles titles

Serena Williams: 57 weeks @ #1, 28 titles, 8 GS Singles titles

Who would you rather be?

spartanfan
Apr 4th, 2007, 01:53 AM
Lindsay Davenport + Martina Hingis: 300+ weeks @ #1, over 100 titles 8 GS Singles titles

Serena Williams: 57 weeks @ #1, 28 titles, 8 GS Singles titles

Who would you rather be?

Aaaahhh, SNAP!:p

bandabou
Apr 4th, 2007, 04:30 AM
Wow..so Serena has as many majors as Lindsay and Martina COMBINED, despite Lindsay and Martina having almost 6 times as many weeks as no.1.

Shows that the no.1 rank sometimes only tells one half of the story.

lecciones
Apr 4th, 2007, 06:45 AM
Lindsay Davenport + Martina Hingis: 300+ weeks @ #1, over 100 titles 8 GS Singles titles

Serena Williams: 57 weeks @ #1, 28 titles, 8 GS Singles titles

Who would you rather be?

I'd still be Hingis. :) 17 Tier Is titles, 21 Tier II/III/IV titles, 15 grandslam titles, 27 other doubles titles. 209 weeks no. 1, no.1 in singles and doubles at the same time. Doubles Grandslam, 3 out of four wins and all 4 finals in grandslams in 1997, highest winning percentage of the 1990s (.938). :) Well thats me. Of course I'd love to have more GS (and others would look at GS singles counts alone), but I like a more complete player in that sense, so I'd want to be Hingis.

bandabou
Apr 4th, 2007, 08:42 AM
I'd still be Hingis. :) 17 Tier Is titles, 21 Tier II/III/IV titles, 15 grandslam titles, 27 other doubles titles. 209 weeks no. 1, no.1 in singles and doubles at the same time. Doubles Grandslam, 3 out of four wins and all 4 finals in grandslams in 1997, highest winning percentage of the 1990s (.938). :) Well thats me. Of course I'd love to have more GS (and others would look at GS singles counts alone), but I like a more complete player in that sense, so I'd want to be Hingis.

Ok..:lol: I think you're part of the minority, but it's ok.

Williams Rulez
Apr 4th, 2007, 08:57 AM
I dun even think Martina should be compared to Serena.. there is no basis.. Serena is just that much above Martina.

But, if it isn't clear to all, it doesn't matter because I'm sure at the end of their careers, the difference will be even greater and there would just be no way anyone can argue tt Martina is greater than Serena.

In fact, I think that Martina should be more worried about Justine overtaking her in the greatest department, seeing that Justine is raking up weeks at no1 and still win slams unlike Martina.. If she wins RG this year, she would be in a v rare category of having 3 consecutive RGs.

jazar
Apr 4th, 2007, 09:07 AM
no, hingis is way better

bandabou
Apr 4th, 2007, 09:18 AM
no, hingis is way better

:rolls: :rolls:

BuTtErFrEnA
Apr 4th, 2007, 02:20 PM
let me add my 2 cents....#1 ranking for Hingis came because she was playing a whole lot...she played nearly as much as Federer had played last year each year...she was consistent and that is just how MaSha is now....playing alot, consistent, so the ranking is up.....Serena played alot less but won almost everything she entered hence why she still isn't above 100 losses in the 10 years she has been playing....Serena and Hingis have both been out with injury but Hingis herself said she can't do what Serena does...the titles she has won have been against competition she can outwit...but most players have her number after being astounded last year that they were actually playing Hingis....Serena has achieved much more playing much less than any other player...Hingis used to play almost every tournament and because no one compared to her then she would be winning...Serena has players who can beat her and is still at the top....ignore ranking....no other player on the tour can do that....the only way Serena can win more titles is if she plays like 20 tournaments a year which ain't gonna happen....Davenport solved this problem long time ago....she said she was disappointed she only won 3 slams because at the end of your career it's the slams people care about....anyone can win a title but it takes much more to win a slam...anyone can win a tier 1 title cause it's not mandatory, anyone can win a tier II title cause it's not mandatory and we can go down the list....but a GS has 128 players and is mandatory and Serena has excelled at the GS that are full of players like MaSha, JH, Kim, MoMo, Vaidisova, Peer, Jankovic (need I continue?) who all have the potential to bring down Serena and to win 8 slams with the people in her draws especially this year having to face most of them and not losing is worth way more to me....Serena is best:worship: :worship: not because I love Serena....but because the stats show it...playing less and winning more..beating everyone when she does play...and going on potential Venus is right there cause she is the only one that can beat Serena when they are both at their best...JH is third

lecciones
Apr 4th, 2007, 03:21 PM
Well for me best of the generation would mean all accomplishments as a player and i'd still base my judgement on what I previously said and something like AnnaK_4evers calculation of aggregate career success, but I would include doubles in that calculation.

trufanjay
Apr 4th, 2007, 03:33 PM
Are people debating over who is better? Serena is better than Hingis and always has been. What's all the fuss about?

lecciones
Apr 4th, 2007, 03:57 PM
Yes, I think thats what this thread is about. And we are all giving our opinions here and explaining why we think so.

Dave.
Apr 4th, 2007, 04:18 PM
I think Serena is one of the best of this generation, but not better than Lindsay or Martina. So what if Lindsay or Martina haven't won as many slams as Serena?, they still have spent alot more time at number 1, have been extremely consistent and have won a variety of other tournaments around the world. Part of being an all-time great is being able to dominate and win consistently. Serena has been inconsistent throughout her career and has allowed herself to reach a huge low in terms of fitness, ranking and have long title droughts. Lindsay has never had that in her career despite having problems herself. Martina had that 3-year gap but came back straight away to her best level of consistency again. You would never have known she had gone. It's all well for Serena winning big titles after long gaps, but it's even more impressive to be winning titles week-in week-out for years and years and sustaining a top ranking and never having a huge let-down.

Chrissie-fan
Apr 4th, 2007, 04:25 PM
Yes but the whole premice is that athletes are better today.

They can't train up to be a better athlete than todays athlete.

Todays athletes are bigger, stronger and faster. Any Training

up they do todays athletes can do too. and still be better.
Well, I'm sure it's somewhat a simplification, but the main difference between us is mostly about the fact that you are of the opinion that athletic ability would be sufficient to beat past greats in their own era and I don't. I think that adapting to a different type of tennis with different material would cause more problems than you do. But I respect your opinion, even though my own is very different. So, let's just agree to disagree. ;)

trufanjay
Apr 4th, 2007, 04:27 PM
I think Serena is one of the best of this generation, but not better than Lindsay or Martina. So what if Lindsay or Martina haven't won as many slams as Serena?, they still have spent alot more time at number 1, have been extremely consistent and have won a variety of other tournaments around the world. Part of being an all-time great is being able to dominate and win consistently. Serena has been inconsistent throughout her career and has allowed herself to reach a huge low in terms of fitness, ranking and have long title droughts. Lindsay has never had that in her career despite having problems herself. Martina had that 3-year gap but came back straight away to her best level of consistency again. You would never have known she had gone. It's all well for Serena winning big titles after long gaps, but it's even more impressive to be winning titles week-in week-out for years and years and sustaining a top ranking and never having a huge let-down.
I see your point but I am sure most people will disagree with you. Serena Williams will be remembered as one of the all-time greats. I am sure that Lindsay would trade in a dozen of her titles for a couple of more grands slams because when it comes down to it that is the most important thing. Serena will probably be more memorable than Lindsay. Hingis and Davenport are obviously great champions who have accomplished so much but Serena has proved that she can win on all surfaces and that she can come up with big wins after long lay offs. Many people will agree that Serena's 8 grand slams set her apart from both Lindsay and Hingis. Consistency is very important but grand slam consistency is even more important. When we look back at who is great we are more likely to measure it by who was good enough to win the most important titles in tennis.

trufanjay
Apr 4th, 2007, 04:29 PM
Well, I'm sure it's somewhat a simplification, but the main difference between us is mostly about the fact that you are of the opinion that athletic ability would be sufficient to beat past greats in their own era and I don't. I think that adapting to a different type of tennis with different material would cause more problems than you do. But I respect your opinion, even though my own is very different. So, let's just agree to disagree. ;)
wow, you are very true to the greats of the past

I'm sure I'll be the same way about players of today in about 10 years or so.

PatrickRyan
Apr 4th, 2007, 04:30 PM
I think Serena is one of the best of this generation, but not better than Lindsay or Martina. So what if Lindsay or Martina haven't won as many slams as Serena?, they still have spent alot more time at number 1, have been extremely consistent and have won a variety of other tournaments around the world. Part of being an all-time great is being able to dominate and win consistently. Serena has been inconsistent throughout her career and has allowed herself to reach a huge low in terms of fitness, ranking and have long title droughts. Lindsay has never had that in her career despite having problems herself. Martina had that 3-year gap but came back straight away to her best level of consistency again. You would never have known she had gone. It's all well for Serena winning big titles after long gaps, but it's even more impressive to be winning titles week-in week-out for years and years and sustaining a top ranking and never having a huge let-down.
Serena has 5 more slams than Lindsay, so im sorry they don't even come close. Yes she was #1 longer, but when the time comes no one will be looking how long each were number one, but how many slams each had one. I love Lindsay, but trying to say that she is a better player than Serena is just idiotic.

lecciones
Apr 4th, 2007, 04:31 PM
wow, you are very true to the greats of the past

I'm sure I'll be the same way about players of today in about 10 years or so.

I've learn a lot about respecting the great past champions from him. :) I look forward to that day when we are talking about the greatest again of that old era hahaha. :P

marlon
Apr 4th, 2007, 04:39 PM
the hingis fans making me laugh man

Chrissie-fan
Apr 4th, 2007, 04:42 PM
I see your point but I am sure most people will disagree with you. Serena Williams will be remembered as one of the all-time greats. I am sure that Lindsay would trade in a dozen of her titles for a couple of more grands slams because when it comes down to it that is the most important thing. Serena will probably be more memorable than Lindsay. Hingis and Davenport are obviously great champions who have accomplished so much but Serena has proved that she can win on all surfaces and that she can come up with big wins after long lay offs. Many people will agree that Serena's 8 grand slams set her apart from both Lindsay and Hingis. Consistency is very important but grand slam consistency is even more important. When we look back at who is great we are more likely to measure it by who was good enough to win the most important titles in tennis.
I agree (somewhat reluctantly, because I like Hingis:p ;) ). Serena won all four slams, the YEC, was No 1, etc. She's done it all. I think Hingis comes the closest to Serena in terms of achievement, but 8 to 5 slams in Serena's favor is too big a difference to give the nod to Martina IMO, especially since the French are missing from her resume and that she hasn't won a slam yet this century. If Martina's wins had included the French and she would have 6 or 7 slams to Serena's 8 one could overlook the difference of one or two major titles and argue that Martina's other achievements (other tournament wins, weeks at No 1, etc) even it up for her. But as it is, I must give the edge to Serena.

trufanjay
Apr 4th, 2007, 04:46 PM
I agree (somewhat reluctantly, because I like Hingis:p ;) ). Serena won all four slams, the YEC, was No 1, etc. She's done it all. I think Hingis comes the closest to Serena in terms of achievement, but 8 to 5 slams in Serena's favor is too big a difference to give the nod to Martina IMO, especially since the French are missing from her resume and that she hasn't won a slam yet this century. If Martina's wins had included the French and she would have 6 or 7 slams to Serena's 8 one could overlook the difference of one or two major titles and argue that Martina's other achievements (other tournament wins, weeks at No 1, etc) even it up for her. But as it is, I must give the edge to Serena.
I agree. :)

Chrissie-fan
Apr 4th, 2007, 04:48 PM
wow, you are very true to the greats of the past

I'm sure I'll be the same way about players of today in about 10 years or so.
Yes, but 10 years from now I will help you defending the players of today also.;)

woosey
Apr 4th, 2007, 04:55 PM
serena is the best of her era - 8 gs singles titles and multiple grand slam doubles and mixed doubles titles...

plus, make no mistake, venus and serena drove poor little hingis into early retirement. the hingis "era" was stopped by the williams sisters.

TSequoia01
Apr 4th, 2007, 04:55 PM
I think Serena is one of the best of this generation, but not better than Lindsay or Martina. So what if Lindsay or Martina haven't won as many slams as Serena?, they still have spent alot more time at number 1, have been extremely consistent and have won a variety of other tournaments around the world. Part of being an all-time great is being able to dominate and win consistently. Serena has been inconsistent throughout her career and has allowed herself to reach a huge low in terms of fitness, ranking and have long title droughts. Lindsay has never had that in her career despite having problems herself. Martina had that 3-year gap but came back straight away to her best level of consistency again. You would never have known she had gone. It's all well for Serena winning big titles after long gaps, but it's even more impressive to be winning titles week-in week-out for years and years and sustaining a top ranking and never having a huge let-down.

There is something to be said for winning tournaments, consistency, and longevity. If the question was who are the most consistent of this generation I could go with Hingis or Davenport. Problem is that was not the question, the query was who is the greatest of this Generation, that title goes to Serena. Serena simply defeats the best, in order to be the best that is what you must do. Martina has not won a slam since 1999, Davenport since what 2000. Slams are where the best show up and perform not tier II's, III's, or even I's.

Dave.
Apr 4th, 2007, 04:57 PM
I see your point but I am sure most people will disagree with you. Serena Williams will be remembered as one of the all-time greats. I am sure that Lindsay would trade in a dozen of her titles for a couple of more grands slams because when it comes down to it that is the most important thing. Serena will probably be more memorable than Lindsay. Hingis and Davenport are obviously great champions who have accomplished so much but Serena has proved that she can win on all surfaces and that she can come up with big wins after long lay offs. Many people will agree that Serena's 8 grand slams set her apart from both Lindsay and Hingis. Consistency is very important but grand slam consistency is even more important. When we look back at who is great we are more likely to measure it by who was good enough to win the most important titles in tennis.

I am not denying that Serena will be remembered as an all-time great, but I am just saying that I think Lindsay and Martina are the two players who are better than her in from their generation. It doesn't matter who will be more memorable, their records, rankings etc. are the things that matter. Look at Sabatini, she could easily be forgotten with her 1 US Open title, but she was probably the 3rd best player after Graf and Seles in that late-80's/early-90's period.

I think surfaces are much less significant in women's tennis, all the top women are able to play well on all surfaces. Yes Serena has won a career Grand Slam, but Lindsay and Martina have still had alot of success at the slam they haven't won (French Open) and outside that in the regular claycourt season. I think Lindsay and Martina have also proved they can win on all surfaces aswell.

It is good that Serena can win titles after long lay-offs, but Lindsay hasen't had to take a long layoff. We all know Lindsay had many injuries during her career, but that's not what her results would say. Lindsay didn't have any huge layoffs like Serena has had. The only time Lindsay took a substantial amount of time off was 2002 when she had surgery. After that she came back to her perfect level of consistency again. Hingis didn't have any of that during her career, and after she retired, she has come back and again has not had a layoff like Serena. Serena has these long layoffs all the time, while Lindsay and Martina have played through pain at some points, or just have not let their bodies break down like Serena's. Never did their rankings plummet to outside the top 100 and never did they struggle as much as Serena did when they came back. Lindsay and Martina have kept in great shape througout their careers. Serena has showed up to some events extremely overweight and underprepared.

Some people would say the 8 slams of Serena set her aside from Martina and Lindsay, but those people would be the fans that don't look past Slam titles. Lindsay and Martina have been some of the most consistent players ever in the Grand Slams. Lindsay reached the second week of every slam since 2000 and was constantly in the last 8/last 4 of nearly every slam. Serena has had periods when she didn't even play slams, and others where she had poor early round losses. Grand Slams are clearly the most important tournaments in tennis, but overall they take up 8 weekd in the year. There is alot outside of them where players still play at their very best.

and Paco, I wouldn't say I am being 'idiotic', I am merely giving my opinion.

Chrissie-fan
Apr 4th, 2007, 05:02 PM
I've learn a lot about respecting the great past champions from him. :) I look forward to that day when we are talking about the greatest again of that old era hahaha. :P
Check out Blast From The Past my friend. Hundreds of interesting threads. Some fun threads also, and almost no mean spirited troll posts.

lecciones
Apr 4th, 2007, 05:07 PM
I agree, i was just looking at sabatinis profile, such few tournaments played around 27 titles only with 1 gs but those titles are tier Is, two championships, full of big ones with big wins over the greats of the time. At least we are sure that the generation of Serena and Martina produced plenty of champions like Venus and Lindsay to name a few :) This generation that we are talking about has had so many as in so many great players playing together at one time its so astounding.

And when I look at past champions I first look at grandslams and say wow Graf is great, but then later I become curious and look into all aspects of their career and say wow Chris is unbelievable. But i do agree slams are the most important and right now total slam count Serena is 16 and Martina is 15. Not far away and so the rest of their careers count a lot too.

woosey
Apr 4th, 2007, 05:10 PM
some of yall are so funny.

so, not only is hingis better than serena but now davenport is :haha: too. :lol:

i think we're forgetting that in tennis the goal is always to win GRAND SLAM TITLES. they are GRAND because everyone wants one. kids dreams about winning the u.s. open or wimbledon not some crappy little tournament. obviously, they represent the pinnacle of achievement in the sport.

as in soccer/football the world cup represents their top. if you don't win one, your legacy is tainted. this is one of the reasons why beckham may never be considered the greatest; he couldn't bring his team a championship. when people look back, they'll say how can he be truly great without bringing the top award to his team.

same with michael jordan - there's no way he could be considered great without winning.

same with tiger woods, greg norman, etc. - if you can't win the pga championship, the fans, the players, the commentators will never believe you were truly the top.

muhammed ali was the greatest because he won.

when people look back on a career the first thing they recount about graf, evert, billie jean king, margaret court, seles, et al, are the number of grand slams.

not whether they won warsaw or brussels or sydney or dubai. not how many weeks you were at number one.

if that were so all-encompassing, why did pete sampras eventually say that the number ranking wasn't as important as slams?

so, people can go along with their delusional self-serving arguments all they want.

facts remain facts.

trufanjay
Apr 4th, 2007, 05:17 PM
I am not denying that Serena will be remembered as an all-time great, but I am just saying that I think Lindsay and Martina are the two players who are better than her in from their generation. It doesn't matter who will be more memorable, their records, rankings etc. are the things that matter. Look at Sabatini, she could easily be forgotten with her 1 US Open title, but she was probably the 3rd best player after Graf and Seles in that late-80's/early-90's period.

I think surfaces are much less significant in women's tennis, all the top women are able to play well on all surfaces. Yes Serena has won a career Grand Slam, but Lindsay and Martina have still had alot of success at the slam they haven't won (French Open) and outside that in the regular claycourt season. I think Lindsay and Martina have also proved they can win on all surfaces aswell.

It is good that Serena can win titles after long lay-offs, but Lindsay hasen't had to take a long layoff. We all know Lindsay had many injuries during her career, but that's not what her results would say. Lindsay didn't have any huge layoffs like Serena has had. The only time Lindsay took a substantial amount of time off was 2002 when she had surgery. After that she came back to her perfect level of consistency again. Hingis didn't have any of that during her career, and after she retired, she has come back and again has not had a layoff like Serena. Serena has these long layoffs all the time, while Lindsay and Martina have played through pain at some points, or just have not let their bodies break down like Serena's. Never did their rankings plummet to outside the top 100 and never did they struggle as much as Serena did when they came back. Lindsay and Martina have kept in great shape througout their careers. Serena has showed up to some events extremely overweight and underprepared.

Some people would say the 8 slams of Serena set her aside from Martina and Lindsay, but those people would be the fans that don't look past Slam titles. Lindsay and Martina have been some of the most consistent players ever in the Grand Slams. Lindsay reached the second week of every slam since 2000 and was constantly in the last 8/last 4 of nearly every slam. Serena has had periods when she didn't even play slams, and others where she had poor early round losses. Grand Slams are clearly the most important tournaments in tennis, but overall they take up 8 weekd in the year. There is alot outside of them where players still play at their very best.

and Paco, I wouldn't say I am being 'idiotic', I am merely giving my opinion.
The best will always be measured by # of slams and records. That's how it's always been and that is how it always will be. No one will be looking at the weeks at #1 or the # of titles won. The experts will all say Serena. Serena has all four slams and has won the French Open and Wimbledon in the same year without dropping a set. I see your opinion but a small minority will agree with you that consitency overshadows the slam wins. Not many people will buy it.
That goes for any sport. If a football team wins many games in a row with blow out scores and goes into the Super Bowl and loses then the team who won that Super Bowl will most likely be considered the best of that season. Smaller tournaments are just practice for the big thing. They do matter and are important but the Australian Open, Roland Garros, Wimbledon and US Open are the events that players are shooting for. Serena has won the most grand slams of her generation and therefore would be considered the best of her generation because she has played better when it most mattered. That's just the way it is. That's how tennis is, that's how sports are. A player would have to have outstanding title numbers and weeks at number one to be considered one of the best if he or she has never won a slam.

lecciones
Apr 4th, 2007, 05:18 PM
some of yall are so funny.

so, not only is hingis better than serena but now davenport is :haha: too. :lol:

i think we're forgetting that in tennis the goal is always to win GRAND SLAM TITLES. they are GRAND because everyone wants one. kids dreams about winning the u.s. open or wimbledon not some crappy little tournament. obviously, they represent the pinnacle of achievement in the sport.

as in soccer/football the world cup represents their top. if you don't win one, your legacy is tainted. this is one of the reasons why beckham may never be considered the greatest; he couldn't bring his team a championship. when people look back, they'll say how can he be truly great without bringing the top award to his team.

same with michael jordan - there's no way he could be considered great without winning.

same with tiger woods, greg norman, etc. - if you can't win the pga championship, the fans, the players, the commentators will never believe you were truly the top.

muhammed ali was the greatest because he won.

when people look back on a career the first thing they recount about graf, evert, billie jean king, margaret court, seles, et al, are the number of grand slams.

not whether they won warsaw or brussels or sydney or dubai. not how many weeks you were at number one.

if that were so all-encompassing, why did pete sampras eventually say that the number ranking wasn't as important as slams?

so, people can go along with their delusional self-serving arguments all they want.

facts remain facts.

We are entitled to our own opinion too you know. Especially if we have a good point we are trying to add to the discussion.

But I guess this thread has just served its purpose already. You don't have to wait long till somebody has to take it a little too personal. This will be my last post don't want to get into those name calling arguments.

woosey
Apr 4th, 2007, 05:27 PM
We are entitled to our own opinion too you know. Especially if we have a good point we are trying to add to the discussion.

But I guess this thread has just served its purpose already. You don't have to wait long till somebody has to take it a little too personal. This will be my last post don't want to get into those name calling arguments.

yes, we're all entitled to our opinions even when they defy logic.

you can say 1 + 1 = 5 all you want.

logic dictates the answer is 2 no matter how much you wanna argue about it. :lol:

Chrissie-fan
Apr 4th, 2007, 05:33 PM
The best will always be measured by # of slams and records. That's how it's always been and that is how it always will be. No one will be looking at the weeks at #1 or the # of titles won. The experts will all say Serena. Serena has all four slams and has won the French Open and Wimbledon in the same year without dropping a set. I see your opinion but a small minority will agree with you that consitency overshadows the slam wins. Not many people will buy it.
Consistency DOES matter alot IMO, but it can't make up for a lack of slam titles. I think it's important to have held the No 1 ranking at some point in your career also. If Serena would retire with eight slam titles but without having ever been No 1 tennis historians would hold it against her when comparing her with other ATG's with a (more or less) similar number of major titles...."The former No 1 player" sounds more impressive than "former top 10 player."

Hashim.
Apr 4th, 2007, 05:48 PM
at the Moment i think both..but Serena is gonna pass that in 2-3 years..
but one thing Serena is not gonna be able to break is Hingis's 209( i think) weeks at no.1

dibbyt
Apr 4th, 2007, 06:20 PM
at the Moment i think both..but Serena is gonna pass that in 2-3 years..
but one thing Serena is not gonna be able to break is Hingis's 209( i think) weeks at no.1

I don't think that matters to Serena. Being #1 didn't help Hingis at the 99 U.S. Open. Didn't help her at the 00 Wimbledon or 00 U.S. Open. Alot it did her at the 01 Aussie and the 01 U.S. Open - as one commentator quoted Jimmy Durante - "this is murda" - referring to Serena's humiliation of Hingis. So let Hingis have her 209 weeks @ #1.

Steffica Greles
Apr 4th, 2007, 06:53 PM
If you mean of those born from the 1980s onwards, undoubtedly. Who would really argue against that?

And there are many players born in the said time period who are more prodigious than Hingis, not only Serena. Clijsters, Henin, Mauresmo (born 1979), Sharapova, Venus -- all of them would defeat Hingis at 90% of their form.

iWill
Apr 4th, 2007, 07:32 PM
I think you should compare Hingis to Henin and Venus not with Serena. One more slam and Serena can be compared with Monica.

So yes Serena is the best of her generation and definitely better than Hingis she proved that already in the 1999 Us Open final.

Oh, and I donīt think Serena is going to stop Justine or vice versa. I think theyīre going to have an even big battle this year and that they will dominate the field.

Thats true if you look at Justine and Venu's careers to me they are so similar they both have achieved about the same thing the only thing that can slightly put Justine ahead of Venus is the fact that shes won 3 different slams and Venus has only won two different As for Serena

She is for sure better than Hingis they are in the same era to me its just that Martina came sooner in that era and only faced up and coming players like herself and at the time she was the best Graf and Seles and all the other top players were on their way out so she was able to win but once Serena, Jennifer and Lindsay and Venus came up she wasnt winning anymore so to me Serena is for sure better

iWill
Apr 4th, 2007, 07:43 PM
The best will always be measured by # of slams and records. That's how it's always been and that is how it always will be. No one will be looking at the weeks at #1 or the # of titles won. The experts will all say Serena. Serena has all four slams and has won the French Open and Wimbledon in the same year without dropping a set. I see your opinion but a small minority will agree with you that consitency overshadows the slam wins. Not many people will buy it.
That goes for any sport. If a football team wins many games in a row with blow out scores and goes into the Super Bowl and loses then the team who won that Super Bowl will most likely be considered the best of that season. Smaller tournaments are just practice for the big thing. They do matter and are important but the Australian Open, Roland Garros, Wimbledon and US Open are the events that players are shooting for. Serena has won the most grand slams of her generation and therefore would be considered the best of her generation because she has played better when it most mattered. That's just the way it is. That's how tennis is, that's how sports are. A player would have to have outstanding title numbers and weeks at number one to be considered one of the best if he or she has never won a slam.

That is exactly right if you look at last year that is a perfect example Justine made all 4 GS finals but only won one time so many consider Amelie to have been the best of 06 because she had 2 GS titles and on top of that she beat Justine for both

As for Davenport being compared to Serena......Lindsay is a great and will be in the hall of fame but her consistency is what kept her at the top but couldnt take her over the top (if that makes sense) my reasoning for this is 04 should have been Lindsay's year there was really Serena or Venus no Justine for most of the year so to me she should've dominated that year that is also a signal of greatness to me great players take advantage of their draw and situtations and capitalize and Lindsay was only able to do that from 98-00 if Serena nvr held the number 1 ranking or have any mixed titles then Davenport could be considered better but not by alot............
really all i'm saying is if you look at the statistics 8>3 and that to me determines who is the best if you can show up at the most important events and shine

:inlove:
Apr 4th, 2007, 07:49 PM
sad:kiss:wohoow

bandabou
Apr 4th, 2007, 08:44 PM
Wow...now folks wanna put Davenport, along with Hingis,over Serena too because they've been more consistent?! Well they forgot the most important part: Serena is/was the one consistently winning majors.

all_slam_andre
Apr 4th, 2007, 08:56 PM
Serena is the best player of this generation no doubt about that. She has held all 4 grand slams at the same time. Winning all 4 grand slams in your career is an amazing enough achievement, but to win all 4 grand slams in a consecutive sequence is simply unbelievable. In my opinion she didn't get the anywhere near enough credit for her Serena Slam.
Serena is one of only 9 women to have completed the career grand slam, and one of only 5 women to have held all 4 of the grand slams at the same. She has 3 more grand slams titles than Hingis, a pretty significant margin of difference.

PatrickRyan
Apr 4th, 2007, 08:56 PM
Serena won 5 Slams in a 2 year period.
Martina won 5 Slams in a 3 year period.

Serena won 4 slams in a row.
Hingis still does not have the French Open.

Australian Open:
Serena-3 Hingis-3
French Open:
Serena-1 Hingis-0
Wimbledon:
Serena-2 Hingis-1
Usopen:
Serena-2 Hingis-1

marlon
Apr 4th, 2007, 09:01 PM
no doubt its serena you ask lindsay who's she hate playing the most its serena

DunkMachine
Apr 4th, 2007, 09:09 PM
The greatest womens tennisplayer of all time. Any other questions?

bandabou
Apr 4th, 2007, 09:10 PM
I mean..this ain't even a discussion. Only the most die-hard Martina-fan will find a way to say that Hingis is greater than Serena.

marlon
Apr 4th, 2007, 09:12 PM
they just bring wanna bring serena down man

all_slam_andre
Apr 4th, 2007, 09:14 PM
I rank Serena as one of the top 5 players of the open era along with Graf, Navratilova, Evert and Seles (those 4 players mentioned in no particular order).

TaxPower
Apr 4th, 2007, 09:51 PM
Hingis is much more talented but with an evident lack of power.

ico4498
Apr 4th, 2007, 10:25 PM
Serena's generation could possibly play at a high level for another 5/10 years.

too early to call, but Baby Girl currently leads after overcoming Hingis' frontrunning jumpstart.

hablo
Apr 4th, 2007, 10:44 PM
Yes, Serena is the best of her era.

BuTtErFrEnA
Apr 4th, 2007, 11:35 PM
hello.....why doesn't anyone remember Davenport saying that the MOST important thing in tennis is GS....she even said said she would trade her titles if she could win more GS titles...this coming from the player you say is better than her because of her consistency and winning many titles??? Hingis may have been consistent but not consistently good enough to win GS titles...next thing you'll be saying is that because MaSha has been consistent for the past couple years means she's better than Serena despite her only winning 2 GS titles...

mm1147
Apr 5th, 2007, 02:24 AM
wow another hingis-williams feud

mm1147
Apr 5th, 2007, 02:26 AM
Why are we comparing Serena with Hingis? That's very unfair on Martina.
You guys have more of an argument when comparing her to the other 5-slam players.

agree

RenaSlam.
Apr 5th, 2007, 02:30 AM
Serena >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hingis.

frontier
Apr 5th, 2007, 02:45 AM
serena is way better,if they play tomorrow serena will sent martina into orbit again.
serena embodies superstar athelete,she is unique,unapologetic,charismatic,vulnerable,ruthles s,lion heart and the ultimate diva.all these qualities manifest in one match and she has no match.

mykarma
Apr 5th, 2007, 03:17 AM
I think you should compare Hingis to Henin and Venus not with Serena. One more slam and Serena can be compared with Monica.

So yes Serena is the best of her generation and definitely better than Hingis she proved that already in the 1999 Us Open final.

Oh, and I donīt think Serena is going to stop Justine or vice versa. I think theyīre going to have an even big battle this year and that they will dominate the field.
I don't know about that. Justine hasn't proved that she can beat Serena on anything except clay. Even though Vee hasn't hit her stride yet, I don't think she should be left out of the equation.

mykarma
Apr 5th, 2007, 03:26 AM
And if Davenport was faster, and if Venus had a good forehand...
:lol::lol:

mykarma
Apr 5th, 2007, 03:37 AM
Going to the gym does not necessarily mean Hingis will be more powerful.
Stroke types give more power. Sharapova has like 0 arm muscles....Okay Serena is powerfully built but it's her long swings and flat hitting that give her so much power.

Hingis shots are shorter and much more varied (with regard to spins). To add power she would have to change the fundamentals of her game. I don't think she could even if she wanted to.

As for the question. Easily Serena. +3 slams is way better. Hingis is losing all over the place these days and played WAY more for those other stats. This isn't even an argument anymore. Even before 2007 Serena was better.
Give you some props. :worship::worship::worship:

mykarma
Apr 5th, 2007, 04:18 AM
Hingis is much more talented but with an evident lack of power.
So in a round about way you're saying that Serena is the best. :worship:

1jackson2001
Apr 5th, 2007, 06:10 AM
hello.....why doesn't anyone remember Davenport saying that the MOST important thing in tennis is GS....she even said said she would trade her titles if she could win more GS titles...this coming from the player you say is better than her because of her consistency and winning many titles??? Hingis may have been consistent but not consistently good enough to win GS titles...next thing you'll be saying is that because MaSha has been consistent for the past couple years means she's better than Serena despite her only winning 2 GS titles...

Petrova was pretty consistent last clay court season! She's greater than Serena! ;);)

bandabou
Apr 5th, 2007, 06:18 AM
:lol:

MrSerenaWilliams
Apr 5th, 2007, 06:23 AM
Petrova was pretty consistent last clay court season! She's greater than Serena! ;);)

You actually might be able to argue that

She's beaten Henin twice on clay during argurably her most successful season, and she's beaten Serena on clay...in straights :shrug:

But then there is the matter of that one day in June 2002 ;)
http://www.sportinglife.com/pictures/tennis/allsportserenavenusfrenchtrophy.jpg

and that one Sunday a couple weeks before that

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20020520/sp8.jpg


:shrug::cool:

CORIA01
Apr 5th, 2007, 08:42 AM
Not The Best !

A'DAM
Apr 5th, 2007, 09:22 AM
Yes she is!!!

And if you would look at the level of tennis she played in her career and the level from the past (when BJK Navratilova Evert even Graff have been playing)
I must say she is the best player of all time!!!

OZTENNIS
Apr 5th, 2007, 10:01 AM
I'm a Martina fan so I'll go with my fave lol

Tennisaddict
Apr 5th, 2007, 12:01 PM
I don't know about that. Justine hasn't proved that she can beat Serena on anything except clay. Even though Vee hasn't hit her stride yet, I don't think she should be left out of the equation.

Well, I always have faith in Venus so I havenīt counted her out but the last match between Serena and Justine convinced me that Justine really has improved on hardcourts. Thatīs why I think that the big titles this year will be divided between Justine and Serena. I of course hope that Venus will get in the mix and preferably wins RG ;) but it remains to be seen how her form will develop. If it was up to me I would love to see Serena or Venus win the next three slams. With Justine and Serena itīs already clear that barring injury they will make some big noise this year. Sharapova and Mauresmo could also become big factors if they heal up and get into winning form again.

BuTtErFrEnA
Apr 5th, 2007, 12:46 PM
Petrova was pretty consistent last clay court season! She's greater than Serena! ;);)

Pattinator beat JH last year on clay too and had a relatively good clay court season.....is she better too???...Jelena Jankovic had a good end to last year and a good beginning to this year....is she better too??:) :)

Williams Rulez
Apr 6th, 2007, 05:59 AM
I'm a Martina fan so I'll go with my fave lolhow insightful..

woosey
Apr 6th, 2007, 06:09 AM
i can see 1+1 still equals 5 to some people. :lol:

anything to try to deny serena her rightful place.

so now even winning is irrelevant (or at least relative) even in a sport.

hmmmm...:rolleyes:

some people need to just pick themselves off the floor and accept that their favorite white girl players of this era were forced into early retirement and/or thrown from their thrones by two black girls from compton.

life sucks doesn't it.

bandabou
Apr 6th, 2007, 06:45 AM
:lol: Hingis fans..Serena could have 9 or 10 majors say by next year, but Hingis would still say yeah but Hingis has more weeks at no.1, has won more on clay...:rolls:

Williams Rulez
Apr 6th, 2007, 06:57 AM
:lol: Hingis fans..Serena could have 9 or 10 majors say by next year, but Hingis would still say yeah but Hingis has more weeks at no.1, has won more on clay...:rolls:
means nothing if u can't win RG.. ;)

bandabou
Apr 6th, 2007, 07:42 AM
means nothing if u can't win RG.. ;)


:secret: ;)

Chance
Apr 6th, 2007, 08:19 AM
No doubt you have to say Serena is the best of her generation....it's all about the grand slams :)

PatrickRyan
Apr 6th, 2007, 08:21 AM
means nothing if u can't win RG.. ;)

:lol: :devil:

Veronique
Apr 6th, 2007, 09:20 AM
I can't believe this is even a question. Of this generation of players, Serena is head and shoulder above the rest. Any objective tennis fan will tell you that much.

As to Martina and Lindsay being better than Serena, even they don't think so.

Tennisaddict
Apr 6th, 2007, 10:11 AM
I can't believe this is even a question. Of this generation of players, Serena is head and shoulder above the rest. Any objective tennis fan will tell you that much.

As to Martina and Lindsay being better than Serena, even they don't think so.

:lol:

I canīt believe these people! First they claim Hingis is better than Serena now they want to claim that Davenport is better as well?

Davenport isnīt even better than Venus and Henin let alone Serena!
I like Davey btw. but the comments are way out of line.
Serena so far is untouchable and in a league of her own in the current field of active players. Why is that so hard to admit?

Venus is my nr.1 fave and Serena is my second fave but still I know that Serena right now is the best of her generation. I donīt have a problem with that at all. Itīs up to Henin, Hingis and Venus to catch up with her.

I think itīs silly and childish to say that your fave is the best of her generation just because itīs your fave :rolleyes:

acetoace
Apr 6th, 2007, 11:37 AM
I am not denying that Serena will be remembered as an all-time great, but I am just saying that I think Lindsay and Martina are the two players who are better than her in from their generation. It doesn't matter who will be more memorable, their records, rankings etc. are the things that matter. Look at Sabatini, she could easily be forgotten with her 1 US Open title, but she was probably the 3rd best player after Graf and Seles in that late-80's/early-90's period.

I think surfaces are much less significant in women's tennis, all the top women are able to play well on all surfaces. Yes Serena has won a career Grand Slam, but Lindsay and Martina have still had alot of success at the slam they haven't won (French Open) and outside that in the regular claycourt season. I think Lindsay and Martina have also proved they can win on all surfaces aswell.

It is good that Serena can win titles after long lay-offs, but Lindsay hasen't had to take a long layoff. We all know Lindsay had many injuries during her career, but that's not what her results would say. Lindsay didn't have any huge layoffs like Serena has had. The only time Lindsay took a substantial amount of time off was 2002 when she had surgery. After that she came back to her perfect level of consistency again. Hingis didn't have any of that during her career, and after she retired, she has come back and again has not had a layoff like Serena. Serena has these long layoffs all the time, while Lindsay and Martina have played through pain at some points, or just have not let their bodies break down like Serena's. Never did their rankings plummet to outside the top 100 and never did they struggle as much as Serena did when they came back. Lindsay and Martina have kept in great shape througout their careers. Serena has showed up to some events extremely overweight and underprepared.

Some people would say the 8 slams of Serena set her aside from Martina and Lindsay, but those people would be the fans that don't look past Slam titles. Lindsay and Martina have been some of the most consistent players ever in the Grand Slams. Lindsay reached the second week of every slam since 2000 and was constantly in the last 8/last 4 of nearly every slam. Serena has had periods when she didn't even play slams, and others where she had poor early round losses. Grand Slams are clearly the most important tournaments in tennis, but overall they take up 8 weekd in the year. There is alot outside of them where players still play at their very best.

and Paco, I wouldn't say I am being 'idiotic', I am merely giving my opinion.



......and your point is? I can't believe there are minds like you out there who will go to any length and twist facts just to deny someone a rightful place. Talk of selective memory here......!

Given the title of the thread, the fact remains that Hingis has 5 Slams and hasn't won any since 1999. Davenport has 3 Slams and hasn't/didn't win any since 2000. Greatness in tennis consists in winning slams and the number of slams won by a player. There is no and, or, but, if to the matter.

In tennis, a players's accomplishments is measured in the amount of Slams won period. Reason why, when names are being called decades from now, players like Iva Majoli, (Myskina and Kuznetsova if they retire today) would be remembered and hailed long before anyone remembers players with no slams attached to their names i.e Dementieva, Schnyder, Rubin, Dechy Shaughnessy etc.

Correct me if I'm wrong.......No.1 ranking is not a title or is it? What good is the number of months a player holds the No.1 ranking if it cannot be justified with continued Slam Wins? The rank is irrelevant in substance particularly these days when players assume the rank due to the 'de facto' holder being injured. From 2002 to present, the only TRUE No.1s are Serena & Justine. No other player come close.

Hingis held the rank for a while back in the day.......but during that period, Hingis was being trashed on a regular basis by her peers and lesser players as well and didn't win more slams till she retired. The records are there to revisit if you're not averse to digging them up.

Tier 1 & 2 titles have never being the yardstick for measuring a players greatness and I doubt if they will ever be. In sum, Serena is the best of her generation and no amount of fact twisting will change the truth!!

all_slam_andre
Apr 6th, 2007, 11:41 AM
In tennis, a players's accomplishments is measured in the amount of Slams won period. Reason why, when names are being called decades from now, players like Iva Majoli, (Myskina and Kuznetsova if they retire today) would be remembered and hailed long before anyone remembers players with no slams attached to their names i.e Dementieva, Schnyder, Rubin, Dechy Shaughnessy etc.



Exactly. It's grand slam titles that count in tennis. The number of finals or semi-finals that a players reaches is irrelevant. In the words of many athletes over the years, 'We play to win'. Challenging for titles but ultimately falling short is overrated.

acetoace
Apr 6th, 2007, 11:53 AM
I am not denying that Serena will be remembered as an all-time great, but I am just saying that I think Lindsay and Martina are the two players who are better than her in from their generation. It doesn't matter who will be more memorable, their records, rankings etc. are the things that matter. Look at Sabatini, she could easily be forgotten with her 1 US Open title, but she was probably the 3rd best player after Graf and Seles in that late-80's/early-90's period.

I think surfaces are much less significant in women's tennis, all the top women are able to play well on all surfaces. Yes Serena has won a career Grand Slam, but Lindsay and Martina have still had alot of success at the slam they haven't won (French Open) and outside that in the regular claycourt season. I think Lindsay and Martina have also proved they can win on all surfaces aswell.

It is good that Serena can win titles after long lay-offs, but Lindsay hasen't had to take a long layoff. We all know Lindsay had many injuries during her career, but that's not what her results would say. Lindsay didn't have any huge layoffs like Serena has had. The only time Lindsay took a substantial amount of time off was 2002 when she had surgery. After that she came back to her perfect level of consistency again. Hingis didn't have any of that during her career, and after she retired, she has come back and again has not had a layoff like Serena. Serena has these long layoffs all the time, while Lindsay and Martina have played through pain at some points, or just have not let their bodies break down like Serena's. Never did their rankings plummet to outside the top 100 and never did they struggle as much as Serena did when they came back. Lindsay and Martina have kept in great shape througout their careers. Serena has showed up to some events extremely overweight and underprepared.

Some people would say the 8 slams of Serena set her aside from Martina and Lindsay, but those people would be the fans that don't look past Slam titles. Lindsay and Martina have been some of the most consistent players ever in the Grand Slams. Lindsay reached the second week of every slam since 2000 and was constantly in the last 8/last 4 of nearly every slam. Serena has had periods when she didn't even play slams, and others where she had poor early round losses. Grand Slams are clearly the most important tournaments in tennis, but overall they take up 8 weekd in the year. There is alot outside of them where players still play at their very best.

and Paco, I wouldn't say I am being 'idiotic', I am merely giving my opinion.

[/B]

:lol:

I canīt believe these people! First they claim Hingis is better than Serena now they want to claim that Davenport is better as well?

Davenport isnīt even better than Venus and Henin let alone Serena!
I like Davey btw. but the comments are way out of line.
Serena so far is untouchable and in a league of her own in the current field of active players. Why is that so hard to admit?

Venus is my nr.1 fave and Serena is my second fave but still I know that Serena right now is the best of her generation. I donīt have a problem with that at all. Itīs up to Henin, Hingis and Venus to catch up with her.

I think itīs silly and childish to say that your fave is the best of her generation just because itīs your fave :rolleyes:


I agree with your summation. These naysayers are about what they WISH the FACTS should be; they are not about what the record proves or establishes!

CanIGetAWhat
Apr 6th, 2007, 03:11 PM
Martina > Serena ?

Lindsay > Serena ? Only because Lindsay was more "consistent" in reaching SF and F? :tape: :spit: :lol: :rolls:

Only in the delusional world of people who are clearly grasping at any straw they can find to deny Serena.

When they all retire, people will only remember slam wins.

LDF
Apr 6th, 2007, 03:27 PM
I think Serena is one of the best of this generation, but not better than Lindsay or Martina. So what if Lindsay or Martina haven't won as many slams as Serena?, they still have spent alot more time at number 1, have been extremely consistent and have won a variety of other tournaments around the world. Part of being an all-time great is being able to dominate and win consistently. Serena has been inconsistent throughout her career and has allowed herself to reach a huge low in terms of fitness, ranking and have long title droughts. Lindsay has never had that in her career despite having problems herself. Martina had that 3-year gap but came back straight away to her best level of consistency again. You would never have known she had gone. It's all well for Serena winning big titles after long gaps, but it's even more impressive to be winning titles week-in week-out for years and years and sustaining a top ranking and never having a huge let-down.

As much as I love Lindsay, I just don't see how she can be considered a better player from this generation than Serena. Serena has won FIVE more Slams, and that outweighs Lindsay's consistency/greater number of titles/weeks at #1.

Sure, remaining consistent and performing well away from the majors is important, but really when you look back at a player's career, their accomplishments are mainly measured by the number of Slams they've won.

Serena is unquestionably the greatest player of her generation.

Monica_Rules
Apr 6th, 2007, 03:37 PM
I think she is the best player of this century so far.

I think Hingis had her time in the late 1990's yes she was #1 in some of the 2000's and reached a few grandslam finals but didn't win any.

I think when people talk about 2000-2005 i think the players talked about will eb Serena, Venus, Justine and maybe Kim. Momo will be remembered in the late 2000's cos thats when she won her grandslams, maybe a few more to come too.

terjw
Apr 6th, 2007, 03:57 PM
It is difficult to assess a dominant decade of either player...certainly if it was divided into say from 1995-2000 Martina's total of wins and slams far exceed Serena's...here are her stats:
1995 as a 14 year old...didn't win any tournaments but had a 22-13 record
1996 - Beat the likes of Anke Huber an Monica Seles and won 4 tournaments for a 51-16 total
1997- Really her breakthrough year started the year at #6 and finished #1..winning AO, Wimbledon and the U.S. Open over Venus..her total was 75-5
1998 - Won AO but whereas her singles total dipped to 67-13 she won all four Grand Slams that year in dubles
1999 - Again won AO and finished the year with a respectable total of 71-13
2000- No slams but again a very impressive total of 77-10.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Now we all know that Martina quit at the end of the 2002 season....so you'd have to say that from 2001-2002 Venus led that year and Serena 2003-2004 so how anybody can quantify Serena as having any dominance for say 2005-2007 when she played so little in 2006 (really only held the #1 position for a very short time) but she's got that amazing gift of coming up winning Slams even though she plays very little tennis....I think she won her first slam in 1999....then the other 7 in the period of 2001-2007.

So I would say certainly this is a split/best decade generation honor....that should make everybody happy!!:bounce: :D :worship: :lol:

barmaid:wavey:

Exactly. That's what this decade has been all about. There is no one single best player. Lot's of players being the best - but only for a short while. Unlike in the men's game with Federer and Sampras who were the best over a long period of time - every top player this generation has had far more years when others were better than them than years when they were on top.

What you can legitimately compare is the achievements and records of the players over the last decade. Then I think Serena's record is the best on account of the slams. But only a couple of years or so has she been the best player.

woosey
Apr 6th, 2007, 04:06 PM
best by only a couple of years?

yet another backhanded sneaky way of taking attempting to take away credit from someone.

nobody owes it to anyone to be "fair." in a sport such as tennis it's all very clear cut - you get the win or you don't.

the fact is, martina went into early retirement because of the williams sisters. in fact, she has said that she came back after seeing the opportunity to do well again b/c of the absence of the williams sisters and a dominating player.

apparently her fans are just as underhanded and opportunistic and cowardly as she is.

facts are facts. and, while hingis wil probably never win another slam, we can all see that serena ain't done yet.

let's do this thread at the end of the year when serena has won at least two more slams. i'm sure you all will think of some other reason/excuse to justify you logic challenged positions.

terjw
Apr 6th, 2007, 04:28 PM
best by only a couple of years?

yet another backhanded sneaky way of taking attempting to take away credit from someone.

What are you talking about? Can you read? I said no-one is the best. I also said only during 2 years has she been the best. That's a lot of years someone else has been better. Same with Martina. Only 2 years in the last 10 has she been the best. She may have held the #1 ranking longer but she wasn't the best that last year.

It just doesn't compare to the likes of Federer or Sampras who had slams and dominated and were the best over a long period of time. What I said was Serena's record is better than Martina's.

bandabou
Apr 6th, 2007, 04:28 PM
:lol: are we still debating this??

Tennisaddict
Apr 6th, 2007, 05:06 PM
What are you talking about? Can you read? I said no-one is the best. I also said only during 2 years has she been the best. That's a lot of years someone else has been better. Same with Martina. Only 2 years in the last 10 has she been the best. She may have held the #1 ranking longer but she wasn't the best that last year.

It just doesn't compare to the likes of Federer or Sampras who had slams and dominated and were the best over a long period of time. What I said was Serena's record is better than Martina's.

The threadstarter asks if Serena is the best of her generation and if she's better than Hingis.

The main thing that defines if a player is the best of a certain era is the nr. of slam wins. Serena far exceeds every active player in that category and is therefore the best player of this generation and obviously better than Hingis.

Don't try to spin this into who was playing best the longest in the past ten years. Just stick to the thread topic.

You can't say no one is the best in sports there's always a person or team that's the best. In women's tennis concerning this topic it's Serena.

pooh14
Apr 6th, 2007, 05:10 PM
:lol: are we still debating this??

yep. it comes up every few months.
the only difference this time is the thread title, instead of serena vs martina

if we don't debate this, then we will have venus vs martina, serena vs henin...etc etc etc....

if henin's wins RG, i am pretty sure i am going to see henin vs serena and hingis vs henin thread.

CuteLatinGirl
Apr 6th, 2007, 07:05 PM
First at all, what’s her generation? Compared only with Hingis? and Seles,
Capriati or Mauresmo or Sharapova??? She played with a lot of players
of different "eras". This thought o comparison is slightly objective...

In any ase, S. Williams the best? I don’t think so. But I have to admit
that Serena is one of these strange cases that had amazing results
but with very little talent for tennis. Serena is an incredible incredible
athlete but she's not an amazing tennis player at all.

MrSerenaWilliams
Apr 6th, 2007, 07:31 PM
:tape::spit::rolls:

Stamp Paid
Apr 6th, 2007, 07:58 PM
First at all, what’s her generation? Compared only with Hingis? and Seles,
Capriati or Mauresmo or Sharapova??? She played with a lot of players
of different "eras". This thought o comparison is slightly objective...

In any ase, S. Williams the best? I don’t think so. But I have to admit
that Serena is one of these strange cases that had amazing results
but with very little talent for tennis. Serena is an incredible incredible
athlete but she's not an amazing tennis player at all.

:spit::spit::spit::spit::spit::spit::spit::spit::s pit::spit:

bandabou
Apr 6th, 2007, 08:10 PM
First at all, what’s her generation? Compared only with Hingis? and Seles,
Capriati or Mauresmo or Sharapova??? She played with a lot of players
of different "eras". This thought o comparison is slightly objective...

In any ase, S. Williams the best? I don’t think so. But I have to admit
that Serena is one of these strange cases that had amazing results
but with very little talent for tennis. Serena is an incredible incredible
athlete but she's not an amazing tennis player at all.

:rolls: :rolls: :rolls:

trufanjay
Apr 6th, 2007, 08:28 PM
Everyone is laughing at the comments made by CuteLatinGirl but it's too sad to be funny. Really. How can someone make such a................

I don't even have a word for it.

Tennisaddict
Apr 6th, 2007, 08:35 PM
First at all, what’s her generation? Compared only with Hingis? and Seles,
Capriati or Mauresmo or Sharapova??? She played with a lot of players
of different "eras". This thought o comparison is slightly objective...

In any ase, S. Williams the best? I don’t think so. But I have to admit
that Serena is one of these strange cases that had amazing results
but with very little talent for tennis. Serena is an incredible incredible
athlete but she's not an amazing tennis player at all.

And here I thought I had read the worst in this thread :help: .
How low can you go :tape:

trufanjay
Apr 6th, 2007, 08:38 PM
And here I thought I had read the worst in this thread :help: .
How low can you go :tape:
Can't get any lower. That was rock bottom.

Nicolás89
Apr 6th, 2007, 08:41 PM
well serena being an incredible athlete without talent, is more than talent is a gift given to her

Tennisaddict
Apr 6th, 2007, 08:43 PM
Can't get any lower. That was rock bottom.

True that.

People like this are so hateful that they let it cloud their judgement.
They are not true fans of tennis.

Contemplate
Apr 6th, 2007, 08:43 PM
Can't get any lower. That was rock bottom.

Hey, just blame it on youth...that's likely the only explanation for such a ridiculous post...in fact, from this point forward, we should simply ignore her comments and move on.

trufanjay
Apr 6th, 2007, 08:48 PM
Hey, just blame it on youth...that's likely the only explanation for such a ridiculous post...in fact, from this point forward, we should simply ignore her comments and move on.
:lol: :lol: :lol:


I'm young also but I would never say something so dumb :tape:

CuteLatinGirl
Apr 6th, 2007, 09:08 PM
First at all, I don’t say that Serena was a bad player, in fact I admire
her a lot and I enjoy very much her style and brave character but I’m
not a fan of any player, I admire the tennis itself and with that premise
I do my comments.

For me she doesn’t have "talent" of Graf, Navratilova, Sabatini or
Sampras, Rios or Federer, they had special TALENT for tennis; and for
me she is very goooood but she is not this kind of player.

Maybe my point is too deep to explain in a forum or to fans of some
specific player, in any case I’m free to have my personal point of view
and I’m not disrespecting to anybody as you are doing with me, so...

Paz... :wavey: