PDA

View Full Version : Players Defeated World Number 1!


azmad_88
Apr 9th, 2007, 05:15 PM
Lindsay Davenport (15) :worship:

2006 New Haven: def Mauresmo 6-4 7-5
2004 Filderstadt: def Mauresmo 6-2 ret.
2001 Tokyo Pan Pacific: def Hingis 6-7(4) 6-4 6-2
2001 Filderstadt: def Hingis 2-1 ret.
2001 Zurich: def Capriati 6-1 5-7 6-2
2000 Australian Open: def Hingis 6-1 7-5
2000 Indian Wells: def Hingis 4-6 6-4 6-0
2000 Philadelphia: def Hingis 7-6(7) 6-4
1999 Philadelphia: def Hingis 6-3 6-4
1999 Chase Championships: def Hingis 6-4 6-2
1998 Tokyo Pan Pacific: def Hingis 6-3 6-3
1998 Los Angeles: def Hingis 4-6 6-4 6-3
1998 US Open: def Hingis 6-3 7-5
1997 Los Angeles: def Hingis 6-2 4-6 6-4
1996 Los Angeles: def Graf 6-3 6-3


Serena Williams (11)

def Martina Hingis Miami1999 6-4 7-6
def Martina Hingis LA 1999 6-3 7-5
def Martina Hingis USO 1999 6-3 7-6
def Martina HIngis LA 2000 4-6 6-2 6-3
def Martina Hingis USO 2001 6-3 6-2
def Jennifer Capriati Miami2002 7-5 7-6
def Jennifer Capriati RG2002 3-6 7-6 6-2
def Venus Williams Wimbledon2002 7-6 6-3
def Lindsay Davenport AO2005 2-6 6-3 6-0
def Justine Henin Miami2007 0-6 7-5 6-3
def Justine Henin Miami2008 6-2 6-0


Gabriela Sabatini (10)

Martina Navratilova Rome 1987 7-6 6-1
Steffi Graf VS Florida 1988 2-6 6-3 6-1
Steffi Graf Amelia Island 1988 6-3 4-6 7-5
Steffi Graf Amelia Island 1989 3-6 6-3 7-5
Steffi Graf Usopen 1990 6-2 7-6
Steffi Graf Masters 1990 6-4 6-4
Steffi Graf Tokio 1991 4-6 6-4 7-6
Steffi Graf VS Florida 1991 6-4 7-6
Monica Seles Rome 1991 6-3 6-2
Monica Seles Rome 1992 7-5 6-4


Venus Williams (9)

def Martina Hingis Sydney1998 3-6 6-4 7-5
def Martina Hingis Miami1998 6-2 5-7 6-2
def Martina Hingis ITALIANOPEN1999 6-4 1-6 6-4
def Lindsay Davenport SanDiego1999 6-4 7-5
def Martina Hingis Zurich1999 6-3 6-4
def Martina Hingis Wimbledon2000 6-3 4-6 6-4
def Martina Hingis USO2000 4-6 6-3 7-5
def Martina Hingis ERICSSON2001 6-3 7-6
def Linsday Davenport Wimbledon2005 4-6 7-6 9-7


Amelie Mauresmo (8)

def Lindsay Davenport AO 99
def Martina Hingis Paris 99
def Martina Hingis Sydney 2000
def Martina Hingis Rome 2001
def Martina Hingis Berlin 2001
def Serena Williams Rome 2003
def Henin Amelia Island 2004
def Kim Clijsters Antwerp 2006


Justine Henin (7)

def Serena Williams Charleston2003 6-3 6-4
def Serena Williams RG2003 6-2 4-6 7-5
def Kim Clijsters USO2003 7-5 6-1
def Lindsay Davenport Charleston2005 3-6 6-3 1-0
def Lindsay Davenport AO2006 2-6 6-2 6-3
def Amelie Mauresmo Berlin2006 6-1 6-2
def Amelie Mauresmo YEC2006 6-4 6-3


Mary Pierce (7)

1994 Roland Garros SF def Steffi Graf 6-2,6-2
1994 YEC QF def Steffi Graf 6-4,6-4
1997 YEC QF def Martina Hingis 6-3,2-6,7-5
1998 San Diego SF def Martina Hingis 3-6,7-6,6-2
2000 Roland Garros SF def Martina Hingis 6-4,5-7,6-2
2005 Roland Garros def. Lindsay Davenport 6-3,6-2
2005 YEC def Lindsay Davenport 7-6,7-6


Jennifer Capriati (6)

1991 San Diego(F):def. Monica Seles 4-6,6-1,7-6(2)
1992 Miami(QF):def. Monica Seles 6-2,7-6(5)
1996 Chicago(SF):def. Monica Seles 6-3,6-3
2001 Australian Open(F):def. Martina Hingis 6-4,6-3
2001 Charleston(F):def. Martina Hingis 6-0,4-6,6-4
2001 French Open(SF):def. Martina Hingis 6-4,6-3


Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (6)

d. Steffi Graf 7-6(6), 3-6, 7-5, 1989 RG Final
d. Monica Seles 6-3, 4-6, 6-3, 1992 Canadian Open Final
d. Steffi Graf 4-6, 7-6(3), 7-6(6), 1994 Hamburg Final
d. Steffi Graf 7-5, 1-6, 7-6(4), 1994 Canadian Open Final
d. Steffi Graf 1-6, 7-6(3), 6-4, 1994 US Open Final
d. Martina Hingis 6-2, 6-4, 2001 Amelia Island QF


Kim Clijsters (4)

def Martina Hingis IW2001 6-2 2-6 6-1
def Venus Williams Hamburg 2002 1-6 6-3 6-4
def Serena Williams YEC 2002 7-5 6-3
def Lindsay Davenport IW 2005 6-4 4-6 6-2


Svetlana Kuznetsova (4)

2004 Doha defeated Henin 6-2 4-6 6-3
2006 Miami defeated Mauresmo 6-1 6-4
2006 Beijing def Mauresmo 6-4 6-0
2007 Berlin def Henin 6-4 5-7 6-4


Amanda Coetzer (4)

1995 Canadian Open def. S. Graf 36 62 76(6)
1997 Australian Open def. S. Graf 62 75
1997 Leipzig def. M. Hingis 64 46 76(3)
1999 Tokyo Pan Pazifik Open def. L. Davenport 26 64 63


Maria Sharapova (4)

def Lindsay Davenport Tokyo2005 6-1 3-6 7-6(5)
def Lindsay Davenport YEC2005 6-3 5-7 6-4
def Amelie Mauresmo USO 2006 6-0 4-6 6-0
def Justine Henin AO 2007 6-4 6-0

Dinara Safina (4)

def Maria Sharpova 1-6 6-4 7-5 Moscow 2005
def Justine Henin 5-7 6-3 6-1 Berlin 2008
def Maria Sharapova 6-7 7-6 6-2 RG 2008
def Jelena Jankovic 6-2 5-7 6-3 Olympics 2008

Nicole Vaidisova (2)

def Amelie Mauresmo RG 2006 6-7 6-1 6-2
def Amelie Mauresmo Moscow2006 1-6 7-5 7-6(3)


Elena Dementieva (2)

def Martina Hingis Moscow2001 6-2 6-2
def Lindsay Davenport USO2005 6-1 3-6 7-6(6)


Nadia Petrova (2)

def Justine Henin-Hardenne USO2004 6-3 6-2
def Amelie Mauresmo YEC2006 6-2 6-2


Jelena Dokic (2)

1999 Wimbledon 1R, Dokic def. Hingis
2003 Zurich SF, Dokic def. Clijsters


Martina Hingis (2)

def Steffi Graf ITALIANOPEN1996 2-6 6-2 6-3
def Lindsay Davenport CHASE1998 7-5 6-4 4-6 6-2


Anastasia Myskina (2)

def Kim Clijsters Leipzig 2003 5-7 4-4
def Lindsay Davenport YEC2004 6-4 7-6


Chanda Rubin (2)

1999 Indian Wells QF, Rubin def Hingis(1) 6-3 7-6
2002 Los Angeles QF, Rubin def S.Williams(1) 6-2 4-6 7-5


Conchita Martínez (2)

d. Steffi Graf 63 63. Philadelphia'93 (carpet indoor)
d. Martina Hingis 64 75. Berlin'00 (clay outdoor)


Patty Schnyder (2)

def Martina Hingis 5-7 7-5 5-5 Grandslam Cup 1998
def Jennifer Capriati 6-3 6-4 Charleston 2002

Francesca Schiavone (2)

def Amelie Mauresmo in fed cup 2006 4-6 7-6 6-4
def Justine Henin Dubai 2008 7-6 7-6

Virginia Ruano Pascual (1)

d. Martina Hingis 64 62. Wimbledon'01 (grass)


Ana Ivanovic (1)

def Maria Sharpova 6-1 0-1 Tokyo2007


Vera Zvonareva (1)

def Maria Sharapova 4-6 7-5 6-1 IW2007


Nathalie Dechy (1)

def Amelie Mauresmo 3-6 6-2 6-3 Eastbourne2006


Tatiana Garbin (1)

def Justine Henin-Hardenne 7-5 6-4 RG2004


Maria Kirilenko (1)

def Maria Sharapova 6-4 2-1 Beijing 2005


Anna Kournikova (1)

def. Martina Hingis(1)- 6:3,7-6 Berlin, clay,1998


Dominique Monami (Van Roost) (1)

def Martina Hingis 6-3 6-7(4) 6-4 Filderstadt 1998


Anna Lena-Gronefeld (1)

def Lindsay Davenport 5-0 ret Standford 2005


Marion Bartoli (1)

def Justine Henin Wimbledon 2007 1-6 7-5 6-1


Jie Zheng (1)

def Ana Ivanovic Wimbledon 2008 6-1 6-4


Na Li (1)

def Serena Williams Stutgart 2008 0-6 6-1 6-4


Tamira Paszek (1)

def Ana Ivanovic Montreal 2008 6-2 1-6 6-2


Julie Coin (1)

def Ana Ivanovic US Open 2008 6-3 4-6 6-3

azmad_88
Apr 9th, 2007, 05:17 PM
I hope u guys can add other players such as Amelie,Jennifer,Lindsay etc

MrSerenaWilliams
Apr 9th, 2007, 05:17 PM
Serena :worship:

only lost 4 matches as world #1

frenchie
Apr 9th, 2007, 05:18 PM
Anastasia Myskina

def Justine Henin Hardenne Leipzig 2003 3/6-6/3-6/3

Slutiana
Apr 9th, 2007, 05:18 PM
this kinda doesnt work 4 hingis since s2he was no1 herself 4 ages!

Beny
Apr 9th, 2007, 05:19 PM
..Lena only beat the No.1 once..strange :/ :)

FrOzon
Apr 9th, 2007, 05:20 PM
this kinda doesnt work 4 hingis since s2he was no1 herself 4 ages!

Yup, seems little bit odd. It's the same thing with Serena the other way round...

Demska
Apr 9th, 2007, 05:20 PM
Anastasia Myskina

def Justine Henin Hardenne Leipzig 2003 3/6-6/3-6/3

Myskina def. Davenport 7-6(5) 6-4 | YEC 2004

frenchie
Apr 9th, 2007, 05:21 PM
Myskina def. Davenport 7-6(5) 6-4 | YEC 2004

:eek: forgot this great match;)
Was Lindsay nr1 when Nastya beat her in Moscow??

Hashim.
Apr 9th, 2007, 05:23 PM
only 2 for Hingis:speakles:

Demska
Apr 9th, 2007, 05:23 PM
:eek: forgot this great match;)
Was Lindsay nr1 when Nastya beat her in Moscow??

Nope, lindsay was no. 2

azmad_88
Apr 9th, 2007, 05:24 PM
this kinda doesnt work 4 hingis since s2he was no1 herself 4 ages!

yea..she only played 5 -6 matches agasint number 1s i think

and include last year vs mauresmo twice

LCS
Apr 9th, 2007, 05:28 PM
Elena defeated Hingis in Moscow 2001 62 62...;)

The Daviator
Apr 9th, 2007, 05:29 PM
:eek: forgot this great match;)
Was Lindsay nr1 when Nastya beat her in Moscow??

Lindsay ascended to #1 the week after Moscow ;)

There are probably loads for Lindsay, but her most recent was over Mauresmo in New Haven last year :drool:

Demska
Apr 9th, 2007, 05:29 PM
Dechy def. MoMo 3-6 6-2 6-3 Eastbourne 2006

Fire_Fox
Apr 9th, 2007, 05:30 PM
Tathiana Garbin(86) def. 1 Justine Henin(1) 7/5 6/4 RG 2004

Demska
Apr 9th, 2007, 05:31 PM
Kuznetsova def MoMo 6-4 6-0 BEIJING F

Demska
Apr 9th, 2007, 05:31 PM
Petrova def. Momo 6-2 6-2 YEC 2006

Mina Vagante
Apr 9th, 2007, 05:32 PM
:bounce: serena

Imperfect Angel
Apr 9th, 2007, 05:35 PM
:worship: to serena!the only one to beat 5 different no.1 players!
props to justine & kim for defeating 4 different no.1 players too!:bounce:
so what's lindsay's record here?:wavey:

Fire_Fox
Apr 9th, 2007, 05:37 PM
12 Chanda Rubin(21) def 1 Serena Williams(1) 6/2 4/6 7/5 Los Angeles 2002

azmad_88
Apr 9th, 2007, 05:37 PM
will do editing later

But here are more

Myskina

def Kim Clijsters Leipzig 2003 5-7 4-4
def Lindsay Davenport YEC2004 6-4 7-6

Il Primo!
Apr 9th, 2007, 05:38 PM
LOL Amélie is probably the most defeated number one ever! It says lots of things...

Serena and Venus :worship:

Cankarlo
Apr 9th, 2007, 05:40 PM
Dokic defeat Hingis Wimbledon '99 6-2 6-0,beat Clijsters Zurich '03 1-6 6-3 6-4!!!

Fire_Fox
Apr 9th, 2007, 05:42 PM
Maria Kirilenko def Maria Sharapova 6/4 2/1 ret BEIJING 2005
Dinara Safina def. Maria Sharapova 1/6 6/4 7/5 MOSCOW 2005

MistyGrey
Apr 9th, 2007, 05:43 PM
Mary Pierce (7)

1994 Roland Garros SF def Steffi Graf 6-2,6-2
1994 YEC QF def Steffi Graf 6-4,6-4
1997 YEC QF def Martina Hingis 6-3,2-6,7-5
1998 San Diego SF def Martina Hingis 3-6,7-6,6-2
2000 Roland Garros SF def Martina Hingis 6-4,5-7,6-2
2005 Roland Garros def. Lindsay Davenport 6-3,6-2
2005 YEC def Lindsay Davenport 7-6,7-6


Ironic that Mary has beaten the number one player 3 times each at Rg and YEC.

pcrtennis
Apr 9th, 2007, 05:47 PM
Ai Sugiyama defeated #1-Henin-Hardenne 6-4, 6-3 at YEC 2003. With this win, Ai finished the year in the top ten!

TaxPower
Apr 9th, 2007, 05:48 PM
Tathiana Garbin(86) def. 1 Justine Henin(1) 7/5 6/4 RG 2004

Love that one! :lol:

Fire_Fox
Apr 9th, 2007, 05:49 PM
Amanda Coetzer (15) def. Lindsay Davenport (1) 2/6 6/4 6/3 Pan Pacific(Tokyo) 1999
Anna-Lena Groenefeld(39) def. Lindsay Davenport(1) 5/0 ret Stanford 2005
Mary Pierce(5) def. Lindsay Davenport(1) 7/6 7/6 TOUR CHAMPIONSHIPS 2005

azmad_88
Apr 9th, 2007, 05:56 PM
edited

¤CharlDa¤
Apr 9th, 2007, 05:57 PM
I thought Maria and Kim would ahve a lot more. Shows that Henin, and the willies are really the top 3 of that generation.

Demska
Apr 9th, 2007, 06:00 PM
Zvonareva def. Sharapova 4-6 7-5 6-1 | IW R16

AlwaysAmelie
Apr 9th, 2007, 06:02 PM
Amelie

def Davenport AO 99
def Hingis Paris 99
def Hingis Sydney 2000
def Hingis Rome 2001
def Hingis Berlin 2001
def Serena williams Rome 2003
def Henin Amelia Island 2004
def Clijster Antwerp 2006

LindsayRulz
Apr 9th, 2007, 06:09 PM
Does anyone know how many times Lindsay defeted world #1?

azmad_88
Apr 9th, 2007, 06:10 PM
edited...someone get me amelie's scores

AlwaysAmelie
Apr 9th, 2007, 06:16 PM
:worship: to serena!the only one to beat 5 different no.1 players!props to justine & kim for defeating 4 different no.1 players too!:bounce:
so what's lindsay's record here?:wavey:

not only Serena ;)

Amelie

def Davenport AO 99
def Hingis Paris 99
def Hingis Sydney 2000
def Hingis Rome 2001
def Hingis Berlin 2001
def Serena williams Rome 2003
def Henin Amelia Island 2004
def Clijster Antwerp 2006

cheyk
Apr 9th, 2007, 06:17 PM
Conchita Martínez

d. Steffi Graf 63 63. Philadelphia'93 (carpet indoor)
amd defeated Hingis 75 64. Berlin´00 (clay)

Hashim.
Apr 9th, 2007, 06:20 PM
Amelie

def Davenport AO 99
def Hingis Paris 99
def Hingis Sydney 2000
def Hingis Rome 2001
def Hingis Berlin 2001
def Serena williams Rome 2003
def Henin Amelia Island 2004
def Clijster Antwerp 2006

:yeah:

cheyk
Apr 9th, 2007, 06:22 PM
Kuznetsova
2004 Doha defeated Henin 6-2 4-6 6-3
2006 Miami defeated Mauresmo 6-1 6-4
2006 Beijing def Mauresmo 6-4 6-0

azmad_88
Apr 9th, 2007, 06:24 PM
il leave now...hope u guys get me JJ,Lindsay,Svetlana etc

LDF
Apr 9th, 2007, 06:25 PM
Does anyone know how many times Lindsay defeted world #1?

2006 New Haven: def Mauresmo 6-4 7-5
2004 Filderstadt: def Mauresmo 6-2 ret.
2001 Tokyo Pan Pacific: def Hingis 6-7(4) 6-4 6-2
2001 Filderstadt: def Hingis 2-1 ret.
2001 Zurich: def Capriati 6-1 5-7 6-2
2000 Australian Open: def Hingis 6-1 7-5
2000 Indian Wells: def Hingis 4-6 6-4 6-0
2000 Philadelphia: def Hingis 7-6(7) 6-4
1999 Philadelphia: def Hingis 6-3 6-4
1999 Chase Championships: def Hingis 6-4 6-2
1998 Tokyo Pan Pacific: def Hingis 6-3 6-3
1998 Los Angeles: def Hingis 4-6 6-4 6-3
1998 US Open: def Hingis 6-3 7-5
1997 Los Angeles: def Hingis 6-2 4-6 6-4
1996 Los Angeles: def Graf 6-3 6-3

cheyk
Apr 9th, 2007, 06:28 PM
Rubin
1999 Indian Wells QF, Rubin def Hingis(1) 6-3 7-6
2002 Los Angeles QF, Rubin def S.Williams(1) 6-2 4-6 7-5

brickhousesupporter
Apr 9th, 2007, 06:29 PM
Amelie Mauresmo has sure lost alot of matches as the number 1 player in the world.

Would this qualify her as the weakest number 1 player?

Vlover
Apr 9th, 2007, 06:31 PM
[QUOTE]LOL Amélie is probably the most defeated number one ever! It says lots of things...

I'm just guessing that Hingis holds that distiction! Her fans love to boast of her #1 reign but for the most part she was a paper #1 indeed. Actualy I think she was the first to start the devaluation of the #1 status by just putting in qantity over quality.

BTW with those stats I can understand why most of the Hingis fans hate WS because they provided most of the beatdowns for Hingis as #1:lol:

azmad_88
Apr 9th, 2007, 06:36 PM
lindsay beat hingis at number 1 SO MANY TIMES!..updated for lindsay...

rest tomorrow..il sleep now...

hingisGOAT
Apr 9th, 2007, 06:38 PM
[QUOTE=le xiax;10481382]

I'm just guessing that Hingis holds that distiction! Her fans love to boast of her #1 reign but for the most part she was a paper #1 indeed. Actualy I think she was the first to start the devaluation of the #1 status by just putting in qantity over quality.


Hingis lost so much at #1 because she was there three times as long as both of your favorites put together :shrug:

hingisGOAT
Apr 9th, 2007, 06:38 PM
And probably 20x as long as Venus :haha:

The Dawntreader
Apr 9th, 2007, 06:39 PM
[QUOTE=Vlover;10481845]

Hingis lost so much at #1 because she was there three times as long as both of your favorites put together :shrug:

and three times as fallible as number 1:tape:

littlebin
Apr 9th, 2007, 07:09 PM
As far as I remember, Justine was not #1 yet at Leipzig 2003, she was World #2 at that time.

Anastasia Myskina

def Justine Henin Hardenne Leipzig 2003 3/6-6/3-6/3

littlebin
Apr 9th, 2007, 07:11 PM
Justine was not #1 at YEC 2003, Kim was #1 at YEC 2003, Justine became #1 after YEC 2003.

Ai Sugiyama defeated #1-Henin-Hardenne 6-4, 6-3 at YEC 2003. With this win, Ai finished the year in the top ten!

frenchie
Apr 9th, 2007, 07:12 PM
As far as I remember, Justine was not #1 yet at Leipzig 2003, she was World #2 at that time.


You're right;)
Actually Nastya beat the nr1 at this tourny but that was Kim:p

The Dawntreader
Apr 9th, 2007, 07:13 PM
Justine was not #1 at YEC 2003, Kim was #1 at YEC 2003, Justine became #1 after YEC 2003.

Justine orginially became number 1 for a week, after winning Zurich;)

(incidentally, dokic's last hurrah:tape: ).

markhingis
Apr 9th, 2007, 07:14 PM
Martina was no 1 even then when she wasn't winning as much as in her prime time. Almost the whole 2001 she was no1.

stefi62
Apr 9th, 2007, 07:16 PM
Mary Pierce (7)

1994 Roland Garros SF def Steffi Graf 6-2,6-2
1994 YEC QF def Steffi Graf 6-4,6-4
1997 YEC QF def Martina Hingis 6-3,2-6,7-5
1998 San Diego SF def Martina Hingis 3-6,7-6,6-2
2000 Roland Garros SF def Martina Hingis 6-4,5-7,6-2
2005 Roland Garros def. Lindsay Davenport 6-3,6-2
2005 YEC def Lindsay Davenport 7-6,7-6


Ironic that Mary has beaten the number one player 3 times each at Rg and YEC.


I really miss her! :sad:

The Dawntreader
Apr 9th, 2007, 07:17 PM
I really miss her! :sad:

ditto:sad:

Beat
Apr 9th, 2007, 07:19 PM
Lindsay Davenport (15)

whooooow!

Gogo123
Apr 9th, 2007, 07:19 PM
I just read this in Notes and Netcords April 2 edition:
Serena Williams has a 15-1 record against No.2 ranked players.

Pretty impressive.

DAVAJ MKirilenko
Apr 9th, 2007, 07:31 PM
Tokyo 2007
Ana Ivanovic (5) def. Maria Sharapova (1) 6-1 0-1 Retired

The Dawntreader
Apr 9th, 2007, 07:35 PM
Rubin defeated Serena in LA in 2002:)

iWill
Apr 9th, 2007, 07:50 PM
[QUOTE=Vlover;10481845]

Hingis lost so much at #1 because she was there three times as long as both of your favorites put together :shrug:

Thats true she was number 1 alot longer and i'm not trying to take away from her reign but as soon as the other players got their heads on right and their games together (Serena Venus Lindsay Jennifer) It was alot harder to obtain and keep the number 1 ranking especially in 02 and although Hingis was number one through most of 00-01 it was clear that Venus was the best player in the world IMO... i'm not trying to discredit Hingis because being number 1 means something but i feel the need to bring up that point

zakketiello
Apr 9th, 2007, 08:12 PM
tatiana garbin def justine henin : roland garros 2004

CrossCourt~Rally
Apr 9th, 2007, 08:26 PM
Amy Frazier defeated HINGIS 6-3, 6-3 when she was no 1 in 2000 in the SAN DIEGO Qtrs ;)

Viktymise
Apr 9th, 2007, 08:30 PM
Elena defeated Hingis in Moscow 2001 62 62...;)

Probably the 1st amazing match lena played in her career. She made Hingis look really ordinary and looked like a future world number 1, even the commentators who are reputable were saying the same

Poova
Apr 9th, 2007, 08:34 PM
Petrova def. Momo 6-2 6-2 YEC 2006
Nadia also defeated Henin 6-3 6-2 in the US Open 2004. :)

hablo
Apr 9th, 2007, 08:53 PM
Amelie Mauresmo (8)

def Lindsay Davenport AO 99
def Martina Hingis Paris 99
def Martina Hingis Sydney 2000
def Martina Hingis Rome 2001
def Martina Hingis Berlin 2001
def Serena Williams Rome 2003
def Henin Amelia Island 2004
def Kim Clijsters Antwerp 2006


Not bad Momo, not bad at all. :drool:

AnnaK_4ever
Apr 9th, 2007, 09:03 PM
It would make much more sense if it showed number of matches played vs No.1. Hingis spent on the top more time than Davenport, Serena and Henin combined so she didn't have many chances to beat No.1.

Also, it is supposed every great player loses only because she beats herself. Should we include such 'wins' as well? :lol:

Vlover
Apr 9th, 2007, 11:27 PM
[QUOTE=Vlover;10481845]

Hingis lost so much at #1 because she was there three times as long as both of your favorites put together :shrug:

Of what value is #1 when everyone and their mother is beating the shit out of you. Are you by any chance implying that she was the best player at this during this time.:help: Anyway the Williams fans enjoyed it even more when she was #1 and getting her ass kicked.:lol:

hectopascal
Apr 9th, 2007, 11:34 PM
LOL Amélie is probably the most defeated number one ever! It says lots of things...

Serena and Venus :worship:

I was looking at the list and was seeing a lot more Hingis losses (aka against Davenport, Serena, Venus, Amelia). Oh well, at least she was longest at #1 out of them!

Havok
Apr 9th, 2007, 11:35 PM
Dokic (2)

1999 Wimbledon 1R, Dokic def. Hingis
2003 Zurich SF, Dokic def. Clijsters

MatchpointPRT
Apr 9th, 2007, 11:38 PM
Martina has less wins against number 1 players because she has been number 1 more time than the other players, so she played less matches against number ones.

Havok
Apr 9th, 2007, 11:41 PM
[quote=heylookimgay;10481907]

Of what value is #1 when everyone and their mother is beating the shit out of you. Are you by any chance implying that she was the best player at this during this time.:help: Anyway the Williams fans enjoyed it even more when she was #1 and getting her ass kicked.:lol:
She was the best player who played throughout the entire YEAR. Venus showed up to a handful of events, won her fair share of them, but didn't play nearly enough tennis even with all those big wins, so no she wasn't #1. And no not everyone was beating Hingis :weirdo:. I'm sure she had a few weird losses, but she only lost to top players, and beat them too! I really don't get your point there. Hingis' career still far outshines Venus'.

spencercarlos
Apr 10th, 2007, 12:40 AM
My Signature has the final number but here are the details

Gabriela Sabatini (10)
Martina Navratilova Rome 1987 7-6 6-1
Steffi Graf VS Florida 1988 2-6 6-3 6-1
Steffi Graf Amelia Island 1988 6-3 4-6 7-5
Steffi Graf Amelia Island 1989 3-6 6-3 7-5
Steffi Graf Usopen 1990 6-2 7-6
Steffi Graf Masters 1990 6-4 6-4
Steffi Graf Tokio 1991 4-6 6-4 7-6
Steffi Graf VS Florida 1991 6-4 7-6
Monica Seles Rome 1991 6-3 6-2
Monica Seles Rome 1992 7-5 6-4

Gaby nevertheless she got 6 straight set wins over world number ones :o :) :worship: Gaby :kiss:

spencercarlos
Apr 10th, 2007, 12:53 AM
[quote=Vlover;10484274]
She was the best player who played throughout the entire YEAR. Venus showed up to a handful of events, won her fair share of them, but didn't play nearly enough tennis even with all those big wins, so no she wasn't #1. And no not everyone was beating Hingis :weirdo:. I'm sure she had a few weird losses, but she only lost to top players, and beat them too! I really don't get your point there. Hingis' career still far outshines Venus'.
And even when Hingis sat out from tennis 3 and half years :worship: LOL :lol:

Ryan
Apr 10th, 2007, 12:53 AM
Bottom line is Hingis was #1 for 209 weeks, all deserved. She played well enough to be ranked higher than EVERY single player in the world. If she was a "weak" #1, what does that say about her competition? I guarantee Mauresmo would take an extra 150 weeks at #1 - so would Kim, and Justine, and Lindsay and Arantxa and Austin. It's pretty hard to beat the best player in the world when you are the best player in the world most of your career. :)

spencercarlos
Apr 10th, 2007, 12:59 AM
Probably the 1st amazing match lena played in her career. She made Hingis look really ordinary and looked like a future world number 1, even the commentators who are reputable were saying the same
Hingis herself was playing very pooly at the time, she was invisible in her second half of 2001.
Sorry but after that win Elena did not like she was going to be number one herself that is delusional.

Junex
Apr 10th, 2007, 03:09 AM
Ai Sugiyama defeated #1-Henin-Hardenne 6-4, 6-3 at YEC 2003. With this win, Ai finished the year in the top ten!

It was only after the YEC 03 when Justine ascended to #1 for the 2nd time...
so technically, Ai didn't defeat Justine when she was #1.

Vlover
Apr 10th, 2007, 03:27 AM
[QUOTE]She played well enough to be ranked higher than EVERY single player in the world. If she was a "weak" #1, what does that say about her competition?

Yes, I agree she played quantity tennis to be computer ranked #1 but due to the quality of the competition she got her ass kicked a lot during that time. Hingis had one dominant year which was '97 after that she was totally dominated by other players.

As for those who are picking on Venus the race is not for the swift but for those who endure to the end. As far as I'm concern tennis players are mainly judged by the # of majors won and that is all I want Venus to focus on for the rest of her career while the others can keep #1 for the rest of their career.:p

switz
Apr 10th, 2007, 03:28 AM
Patty beat Capriati at Charleston 2002.

lecciones
Apr 10th, 2007, 03:31 AM
Yup, seems little bit odd. It's the same thing with Serena the other way round...


Not exactly the same thing because for a little more than four years Martina was no.1 compared to 58 weeks (like a year) with Serena. So it is expected to see Martina often in these lists.

As for Hingis playing quantity tennis these are her year end win-loss for when she was dominantly no.1
1997: 71-5 (.93)
1998: 61-13 (.82)
1999: 71-13 (.85)
2000: 77-10 (.89)

As dominantly no.1 in the world from 1997-2000 she had 280-41 wins/losses or 0.87 winning percentage.

If that is not quantity and quality then I'm not a Hingis fan.

[QUOTE=heylookimgay;10481907]

Thats true she was number 1 alot longer and i'm not trying to take away from her reign but as soon as the other players got their heads on right and their games together (Serena Venus Lindsay Jennifer) It was alot harder to obtain and keep the number 1 ranking especially in 02 and although Hingis was number one through most of 00-01 it was clear that Venus was the best player in the world IMO... i'm not trying to discredit Hingis because being number 1 means something but i feel the need to bring up that point

I'm sorry but did you read what happened during 2001 and 2002 and why if you look at her normal schedule she suddenly didn't play as much as she used to or performed as bad? Didn't you also know that she was defending both her singles and doubles title in the Championships of 2001 but had to withdraw due to injury, just as well with all the other tournaments she used to play, and then imagine the French and Wimbledon points she lost when she had to withdraw there as well in 2002? That is why she wasn't dominant ro ranked one but in either case she was still in the top 10. But credit to those who were shining in 2001-02, but it would be a lot different and Martina would've won a lot more if not for those freaking feet injury of hers.


[quote=Vlover;10484274]
She was the best player who played throughout the entire YEAR. Venus showed up to a handful of events, won her fair share of them, but didn't play nearly enough tennis even with all those big wins, so no she wasn't #1. And no not everyone was beating Hingis :weirdo:. I'm sure she had a few weird losses, but she only lost to top players, and beat them too! I really don't get your point there. Hingis' career still far outshines Venus'.
[QUOTE=Naldo;10484337]
And even when Hingis sat out from tennis 3 and half years :worship: LOL :lol:

Yeah I mean, has anybody ever took a peek at AnnaK_4ever's chart on singles successes? I mean Martina far outshines Venus career wise. Even with just 5 slams she's just a stone-throw away from Serena (something like a Tier I final/win. But if you includes doubles career Martina outshines them all.

[QUOTE=heylookimgay;10481907]

and three times as fallible as number 1:tape:

No.1 nevertheless which requires a player to win tournaments and thats what Martina did, ask yourself why Venus has never ended the season no.1? it's because she couldn't do it, she was never good enough, her best chance was 2002 but her sister beat her to it.

[QUOTE=le xiax;10481382]

I'm just guessing that Hingis holds that distiction! Her fans love to boast of her #1 reign but for the most part she was a paper #1 indeed. Actualy I think she was the first to start the devaluation of the #1 status by just putting in qantity over quality.

BTW with those stats I can understand why most of the Hingis fans hate WS because they provided most of the beatdowns for Hingis as #1:lol:

I'm sorry to say but although the WS put 12 defeats for Hingis one player did 11 - Lindsay Davenport, and for Martina it hurt more than what the Williams Sisters did because she lost to Lindsay in 10 Finals: Thats 10 titles that could have been Martina's. As compared to only one each final loss to Venus and Serena.

1998: Tokyo (lost to Lindsay Davenport)
1998: Los Angeles (lost to Davenport)
1998: U.S. Open (lost to Davenport)
1999: Sydney (lost to Davenport)
1999: U.S. Open (lost to Serena Williams)
1999: Zurich (lost to Venus Williams)
1999: Philadelphia (lost to Davenport)
1999: Chase Championships (lost to Davenport)
2000: Australian Open (lost to Davenport)
2000: Indian Wells (lost to Davenport)
2000: Philadelphia (lost to Davenport)
2001: Tokyo (lost to Davenport)

Bottom line is Hingis was #1 for 209 weeks, all deserved. She played well enough to be ranked higher than EVERY single player in the world. If she was a "weak" #1, what does that say about her competition? I guarantee Mauresmo would take an extra 150 weeks at #1 - so would Kim, and Justine, and Lindsay and Arantxa and Austin. It's pretty hard to beat the best player in the world when you are the best player in the world most of your career. :)

Thats how I would end my post.

azmad_88
Apr 10th, 2007, 06:17 AM
edited and updated..if u guys have more..please share with me

switz
Apr 10th, 2007, 06:34 AM
you didn't update Patty

Family Circle Cup 2002

SF Schnyder def Capriarti (1) 6-4, 6-3

If you're counting retirement Patty's also beating Hingis at the Grand Slam Cup in 1998 when they were tied 5-5 in the third.

Dan23
Apr 10th, 2007, 06:50 AM
Ana Ivanovic (1)

def Maria Sharpova 6-1 1-0 Tokyo2007


Vera Zvonareva (1)

def Maria Sharapova 4-6 7-5 6-1 IW2007


Maria Kirilenko (1)

def Maria Sharapova 6-4 2-1 Beijing 2005


Dinara Safina (1)

def Maria Sharpova 1-6 6-4 7-5 Moscow 2005
:tape: always in good shape when shes been #1

azmad_88
Apr 10th, 2007, 07:04 AM
you didn't update Patty

Family Circle Cup 2002

SF Schnyder def Capriarti (1) 6-4, 6-3

If you're counting retirement Patty's also beating Hingis at the Grand Slam Cup in 1998 when they were tied 5-5 in the third.


yes can i have that too? il update when i have both...scores place year

bandabou
Apr 10th, 2007, 07:36 AM
Not exactly the same thing because for a little more than four years Martina was no.1 compared to 58 weeks (like a year) with Serena. So it is expected to see Martina often in these lists.

As for Hingis playing quantity tennis these are her year end win-loss for when she was dominantly no.1
1997: 71-5 (.93)
1998: 61-13 (.82)
1999: 71-13 (.85)
2000: 77-10 (.89)

As dominantly no.1 in the world from 1997-2000 she had 280-41 wins/losses or 0.87 winning percentage.

If that is not quantity and quality then I'm not a Hingis fan.

[QUOTE=ivanw2008;10482593]

I'm sorry but did you read what happened during 2001 and 2002 and why if you look at her normal schedule she suddenly didn't play as much as she used to or performed as bad? Didn't you also know that she was defending both her singles and doubles title in the Championships of 2001 but had to withdraw due to injury, just as well with all the other tournaments she used to play, and then imagine the French and Wimbledon points she lost when she had to withdraw there as well in 2002? That is why she wasn't dominant ro ranked one but in either case she was still in the top 10. But credit to those who were shining in 2001-02, but it would be a lot different and Martina would've won a lot more if not for those freaking feet injury of hers.


[QUOTE=Naldo;10484337]
[QUOTE=spencercarlos;10484591]

Yeah I mean, has anybody ever took a peek at AnnaK_4ever's chart on singles successes? I mean Martina far outshines Venus career wise. Even with just 5 slams she's just a stone-throw away from Serena (something like a Tier I final/win. But if you includes doubles career Martina outshines them all.

[QUOTE=dl05;10481924]

No.1 nevertheless which requires a player to win tournaments and thats what Martina did, ask yourself why Venus has never ended the season no.1? it's because she couldn't do it, she was never good enough, her best chance was 2002 but her sister beat her to it.

[QUOTE=Vlover;10481845]

I'm sorry to say but although the WS put 12 defeats for Hingis one player did 11 - Lindsay Davenport, and for Martina it hurt more than what the Williams Sisters did because she lost to Lindsay in 10 Finals: Thats 10 titles that could have been Martina's. As compared to only one each final loss to Venus and Serena.

1998: Tokyo (lost to Lindsay Davenport)
1998: Los Angeles (lost to Davenport)
1998: U.S. Open (lost to Davenport)
1999: Sydney (lost to Davenport)
1999: U.S. Open (lost to Serena Williams)
1999: Zurich (lost to Venus Williams)
1999: Philadelphia (lost to Davenport)
1999: Chase Championships (lost to Davenport)
2000: Australian Open (lost to Davenport)
2000: Indian Wells (lost to Davenport)
2000: Philadelphia (lost to Davenport)
2001: Tokyo (lost to Davenport)



Thats how I would end my post.


I'll give you Venus...so far yeah Martina's had the superior career, but when you say that Hingis is just a tier I final away from outshining Serena as well, then you become deluded.

austennis
Apr 10th, 2007, 07:43 AM
WOW hingis lost a lot of times at world no.1 to the likes of the williams sisters and davenport

azmad_88
Apr 10th, 2007, 08:27 AM
capriati anyone?

azmad_88
Apr 10th, 2007, 08:41 AM
added PATTY

donniedarko
Apr 10th, 2007, 08:50 AM
anna Kournikova Def. Martina Hingis(1)- 6:3,7-6 Berlin,clay,1998

Viktymise
Apr 10th, 2007, 08:54 AM
Hingis herself was playing very pooly at the time, she was invisible in her second half of 2001.
Sorry but after that win Elena did not like she was going to be number one herself that is delusional.

Sorry but lena was shit in 2001, much much worse than Hingis. Although Hingis may not have been at her best, she just got to the USO SF. Well im sorry for repeating what the commentators said that its the kind of the performance that makes her look like a future number 1

Viktymise
Apr 10th, 2007, 08:55 AM
And even when Hingis sat out from tennis 3 and half years :worship: LOL :lol:

And when was the last time Hingis even got close to winning a slam :haha:

lecciones
Apr 10th, 2007, 08:57 AM
"......




I'll give you Venus...so far yeah Martina's had the superior career, but when you say that Hingis is just a tier I final away from outshining Serena as well, then you become deluded.

Well if you read my post well I was referring that statement to AnnaK_4ever's Top 10 active singles player stats calculation thread AND not to any other gauge.

Of course 5 is 3 grandslams less than 8. But I wasn't comparing grandslams, I was comparing aggregate singles career success as calculated by AnnaK_4ever's thread.

Hope that clears this up.

And when was the last time Hingis even got close to winning a slam :haha:

And would you like to relate that to the thread or is that just an insult [again] to Martina.

azmad_88
Apr 10th, 2007, 09:01 AM
added Anna Kournikova

Viktymise
Apr 10th, 2007, 09:02 AM
Well if you read my post well I was referring that statement to AnnaK_4ever's Top 10 active singles player sats calculation thread AND not to any other.

Of course 5 is 3 grandslams less than 8. But I wasn't comparing grandslams, I was comparing aggregate singles career success as calculated by AnnaK_4ever's thread.

Hope that clears this up.



And would you like to relate that to the thread or is that just an insult [again] to Martina.

Why don't you say that to Spencercarlos about his comments about Venus :rolleyes:

Brαm
Apr 10th, 2007, 09:02 AM
Dominique Monami (Van Roost)

Filderstadt 1998: beat Martina Hingis 6-3 6-7(4) 6-4 :D

lecciones
Apr 10th, 2007, 09:07 AM
Why don't you say that to Spencercarlos about his comments about Venus :rolleyes:


Because spencercarlos has not written anything I've seen on this thread against Venus which is unfair only saying the fact that Martina was away for 3 years and still has a better record overall (and this is a comparison applicable to all players listed and not to Venus only); and I have nothing to do with spencercarlos. My only concern is your comment about Martina here, and nothing else, of how you seem to be attacking Martina for some comment on which was just stated the fact that martina was gone for 3 years and yet she appears well in these listings.

azmad_88
Apr 10th, 2007, 09:08 AM
Monami to the list as well

lecciones
Apr 10th, 2007, 09:11 AM
If retirements and walkovers count, you can include Patty like what was posted beforehand, as well as Martina's walkover win against Graf in Tokyo 1997 Finals.

Viktymise
Apr 10th, 2007, 09:12 AM
Because spencercarlos has not written anything I've seen on this thread against Venus only saying that Martina was away for 3 years (this is a comparison to all players listed and not to Venus only), and I have nothing to do with spencercarlos. My only concern is your comment about Martina here and nothing else and how you seem to be attacking Martina for some comment on which was just stated the fact that martina was gone for 3 years and yet she appears well in these listings.

He's a Venus hater, was there any need to say that just because Hingis was out for 3 years is still better than Venus in this thread. No. I could say if Venus wasn't so injured from 2003 onwards, she would have won more slams and that she was unlucky that Serena peaked in 02/03 winning 4 straight slams with Venus in the final, and Venus would have probably won Wimbledon 2003 if i were not for her stomach strain, but no i didn't say that. I mean if some people in this thread want to say irrelavent things about my faves then ill gladly respond

azmad_88
Apr 10th, 2007, 09:13 AM
i dont think walkover shud be counted because they didnt even hit a ball :shrug:

azmad_88
Apr 10th, 2007, 09:14 AM
i have added patty's win over martina earlier

lecciones
Apr 10th, 2007, 09:23 AM
i dont think walkover shud be counted because they didnt even hit a ball :shrug:

yeah your right.

He's a Venus hater, was there any need to say that just because Hingis was out for 3 years is still better than Venus in this thread. No. I could say if Venus wasn't so injured from 2003 onwards, she would have won more slams and that she was unlucky that Serena peaked in 02/03 winning 4 straight slams with Venus in the final, and Venus would have probably won Wimbledon 2003 if i were not for her stomach strain, but no i didn't say that. I mean if some people in this thread want to say irrelavent things about my faves then ill gladly respond

three whole years is a big difference. And it wasn't irrelevant because that statement is applicable as a comparison to all players, not only Venus. It was just that Venus became the example well of course if the previous response/s weren't so "windy" then maybe comments from spencercarlos wouldn't look like it was all against Venus because it's not unfair to say that for three whole seasons which included 12 grandslam events Martina was absent and still has a stellar record.

athake
Apr 10th, 2007, 09:35 AM
its statistically so wrong to compare them in this way.

the true one;

-(number of loss at number 1)/(weeks at number 1)

it will make reliable and valid data to compare...

azmad_88
Apr 10th, 2007, 09:42 AM
well...some players just beat number 1 players...and not number 1...

i understand why martina doesnt have that many wins because She was the number 1 most of the time

but no harm seeing how others beat other number 1 players

jazzfuzion
Apr 10th, 2007, 09:57 AM
alexandra stevenson beat jennifer 2002 sydney.i'll remember all the stevenson losses forever haha.

wave
Apr 10th, 2007, 10:50 AM
Could you add Amanda Coetzer and Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario? Both beat Steffi during her time as reigning no. 1.

Also Steffi beat Martina N. as no. 1 and of course also Martina H... and Monica in Wimbledon 1992.

azmad_88
Apr 10th, 2007, 11:18 AM
hope u guys give me scores and place too :) then it will be easier to edit

Imperfect Angel
Apr 10th, 2007, 11:52 AM
Jennifer Capriati (6)
1991 San Diego(F):def. Monica Seles 4-6,6-1,7-6(2)
1992 Miami(QF):def. Monica Seles 6-2,7-6(5)
1996 Chicago(SF):def. Monica Seles 6-3,6-3
2001 Australian Open(F):def. Martina Hingis 6-4,6-3
2001 Charleston(F):def. Martina Hingis 6-0,4-6,6-4
2001 French Open(SF):def. Martina Hingis 6-4,6-3

azmad_88
Apr 10th, 2007, 11:59 AM
thanks..added capriati

spencercarlos
Apr 10th, 2007, 05:27 PM
you didn't update Patty

Family Circle Cup 2002

SF Schnyder def Capriarti (1) 6-4, 6-3

If you're counting retirement Patty's also beating Hingis at the Grand Slam Cup in 1998 when they were tied 5-5 in the third.
OK ITS NOT AN EXHIBITION :p

spencercarlos
Apr 10th, 2007, 05:31 PM
Why don't you say that to Spencercarlos about his comments about Venus :rolleyes:
Im just stating a fact, painful for you and Venus fans but true. No matter the excuses, the injuries, or peaking players at the time that´s not gonna take away the fact that eventhough Martina was out from the tour 3 and half years still Queen Vee has not catched up with her :o

spencercarlos
Apr 10th, 2007, 05:32 PM
And when was the last time Hingis even got close to winning a slam :haha:
That was in 2002 her last year on tour before coming back in 2006 go figure.
Still i don´t believe Martina is close to winning one these days.

AnnaK_4ever
Apr 10th, 2007, 05:33 PM
Compaq Grand Slam cup its not a regular tour event. It´s an exhibition.

It's not. It's counted among players titles/finals and included in their win-loss records by both WTA and ITF. Same goes for ATP Tour.

spencercarlos
Apr 10th, 2007, 05:38 PM
It's not. It's counted among players titles/finals and included in their win-loss records by both WTA and ITF. Same goes for ATP Tour.
Oh ok thanks! I thought it was not counted.

azmad_88
May 13th, 2007, 10:10 AM
Svetlana Kuznetsova def Justine Henin 6-4 5-7 6-4 Berlin 2007

Hashim.
May 13th, 2007, 10:16 AM
kuzi:yeah:

ste86
May 13th, 2007, 10:16 AM
Schiavone def Mauresmo in fed cup 2006
4-6 7-6 6-4

lilly
May 13th, 2007, 11:09 AM
its statistically so wrong to compare them in this way.

the true one;

-(number of loss at number 1)/(weeks at number 1)

it will make reliable and valid data to compare...

that sounds really interesting!

Seems to me Justine hardly lost to these top players mentioned when being nr 1...

Harvs
May 13th, 2007, 11:15 AM
molik shoudve beaten davenport...
aaaagh! still kills me!

tennismaster8820
May 13th, 2007, 11:27 AM
Iva Majoli Roland Garros 1997

DAVAJ MKirilenko
May 13th, 2007, 11:39 AM
Ana Ivanovic (1)

def Maria Sharpova 6-1 1-0 Tokyo2007




Just a little correction. The score was 6-1 0-1 ;)

lindsayno1
May 13th, 2007, 02:01 PM
Myskina def. Davenport 7-6(5) 6-4 | YEC 2004


that match was shite. lindsay was on her death bed there!

lilly
May 13th, 2007, 09:20 PM
its statistically so wrong to compare them in this way.
the true one:
-(number of loss at number 1)/(weeks at number 1)
it will make reliable and valid data to compare...

so I tried this for the recent nr 1's (please correct me if you see mistakes):

Justine Henin: 6 losses / 66 weeks at nr 1 = 9,09 %
Oct 20, 2003 - Oct 26, 2003: 1 week - no loss
Nov 10, 2003 - Sep 12, 2004: 44 weeks - 4 losses :eek:
Nov 13, 2006 - Jan 28, 2007: 11 weeks - no loss
Mar 19, 2007 - May 21, 2007: 10 weeks - 2 losses

Maria Sharapova: 4 losses / 14 weeks at nr 1 = 28,57 %
Aug 22, 2005 - Aug 28, 2005: 1 week - no loss
Sep 12, 2005 - Oct 23, 2005: 6 weeks - 2 losses
Jan 29, 2007 - Mar 18, 2007: 7 weeks - 2 losses

Amélie Mauresmo: 12 losses / 39 weeks at nr 1 = 30,77 %
Sep 13, 2004 - Oct 17, 2004: 5 weeks - 1 loss
Mar 20, 2006 - Nov 12, 2006: 34 weeks - 11 losses (+1 in Fed Cup)

Kim Clijsters: 5 losses / 19 weeks at nr 1 = 26,32 %
Aug 11, 2003 - Oct 19, 2003: 10 weeks - 4 losses
Oct 27, 2003 - Nov 09, 2003: 2 weeks - no loss
Jan 30, 2006 - Mar 19, 2006: 7 weeks - 1 loss

Lindsay Davenport: 20 losses / 98 weeks at nr 1 = 20,41 %
Oct 12, 1998 - Feb 07, 1999: 17 weeks - 4 losses
Jul 05, 1999 - Aug 08, 1999: 5 weeks - 1 loss
Apr 03, 2000 - May 07, 2000: 5 weeks - 1 loss
May 15, 2000 - May 21, 2000: 1 weeks - 1 loss
Nov 05, 2001 - Jan 13, 2002: 10 weeks - no loss
Oct 18, 2004 - Aug 21, 2005: 44 weeks - 9 losses
Aug 29, 2005 - Sep 11, 2005: 2 weeks - 1 loss
Oct 24, 2005 - Jan 29, 2006: 14 weeks- 3 losses

Serena Williams: 5 losses / 57 weeks at nr 1 = 8,77 %
Jul 08, 2002 - Aug 10, 2003: 57 weeks - 5 losses :worship:

Venus Williams: 3 losses / 11 weeks at nr 1 = 27,27 %
Feb 25, 2002 - Mar 17, 2002: 3 weeks - 1 loss
Apr 22, 2002 - May 19, 2002: 4 weeks - 1 loss
Jun 10, 2002 - Jul 07, 2002: 4 weeks - 1 loss

Jennifer Capriati: 5 losses / 17 weeks at nr 1 = 29,41 %
Oct 15, 2001 - Nov 04, 2001: 3 weeks - 2 losses
Jan 14, 2002 - Feb 24, 2002: 6 weeks - no loss
Mar 18, 2002 - Apr 21, 2002: 5 weeks - 2 losses
May 20, 2002 - Jun 09, 2002: 3 weeks - 1 loss

Martina Hingis: 54 losses / 209 weeks at nr 1 = 25,84 %
Mar 31, 1997 - Oct 11, 1998: 80 weeks - 17 losses (5 1997)
Feb 08, 1999 - Jul 04, 1999: 21 - 6 losses
Aug 09, 1999 - Apr 02, 2000: 34 - 9 losses (6 1999)
May 08, 2000 - May 14, 2000: 1 - 1 loss
May 22, 2000 - Oct 14, 2001: 73 - 21 losses (6 2000)


.... Lindsay and Martina have the greater number of weeks, but Justine and Serena have lost a way lower percentage of matches while being nr 1. A sign of greater dominance?

faboozadoo15
May 13th, 2007, 09:34 PM
[QUOTE=heylookimgay;10481907]

Of what value is #1 when everyone and their mother is beating the shit out of you. Are you by any chance implying that she was the best player at this during this time.:help: Anyway the Williams fans enjoyed it even more when she was #1 and getting her ass kicked.:lol:

Venus didn't win a damn thing while she was #1, so STFU. And Venus wasn't even the best player in 2002, the ONLY time she was ever world #1.

And nobody was EVER beating the shit out of Hingis. She still, to this day, holds a winning record over Venus.

You still have to win more matches, accumulate more points and have quality wins to be #1. Hingis was #1 during an era where there were still bonus points for beating ranked players.

nathan07
May 13th, 2007, 09:54 PM
If you actually study their head-to-head records, Justine and Serena are by far most
dominant players on the WTA Tour of the 2000s. That is noted frequently in WTA press releases.
And, of course, Serena edges Justine in their own personal head-to-head record (6-3).

Martina Hingis was especially vulnerable to defeat as a no.1 ranked player - particularly
in match-ups against Serena Williams (even when Serena was ranked far lower than Hingis, in the
late 1990s and early 2000s) and the highly-ranked Lindsay Davenport (ranked solidly at no.2 or
no.1, through 1998 to 2001).
In this era, Sharapova is expressly vulnerable to defeat (and one-sided defeat, at that)
by particular players - Justine and Serena. At present, Justine Henin seems rather more
vulnerable to defeat than she was in 2003 (ascending the rankings) to spring 2004, though still
generally dominant, and against every player on the Tour - except Serena and Venus Williams.


Im my opinion, to give validity to the 'no.1' ranking, the no.1 ranked player should consistently
defeat the world's best players, and across all events.


The peculiarity of a ranking system based upon consistency is that a player can have
negative record against most of her leading opponents and still be ranked at no.1.
The inherent weakness of such a ranking system was severely called to account by players and
ex-players in the early 2000s. Lindsay Davenport ended the year 2001 ranked at no.1,
achieved through a year of consistent results - despite repeatedly losing to Venus and Serena
Williams, and not making a single Slam final Slam final). Lindsay made it clear that
such a ranking rested very uneasily upon her shoulders. Lindsay was not totally happy to be
in such a position, and i understood this totally.

Martina Hingis was a highly consistent player, yet one that was extremely vulnerable to
defeat during her long period ranked at the top of the game. More so than any previous
(continuously) no.1 ranked player.


To illustrate, in the period 1997 - 2000, when Martina was at her 'most 'dominant', she went:

7-9 against Davenport

4-4 against Serena (who was ranked no higher than no.40 in 1998, rising
to no.7 in 2000)

9-7 against Venus (who was ranked at no.110 in 1997, no.3 in 2000)

1-2 against Steffi Graf (who was ranked no.1 in early 1997, no.6 in June 1999)


All of these players were ranked below Martina; even Davenport was more frequently
ranked at no.2 than at no.1.


In 1999, when Martina was ranked at no.1 through most parts of the year/season, the
hardest player to defeat was Lindsay Davenport. However, Davenport went:

3-2 against Venus
3-0 against Martina

.... yet
0-3 against Serena - Lindsay's sole nemesis on the Tour


For most of 2000 and 2001 (when she was fully active on Tour) the hardest player to defeat
was Venus Williams. In 2002 was Serena Williams, and by a huge distance....... 1998 was a
transitional year: Martina went 2-3 against Davenport and 3-2 against Venus. As if to
illustrate a highly fluctuating year, each Slam in 1998 was won by a different player
(a situation that would be repeated once again in 1999); Lindsay Davenport finished as the
year-end no.1 ranked player and Martina Hingis (ranked no.1 for most of the year) won the
Season-Ending Championships. I have tennis magazines from 1998 discussing the reality that
Martina Hingis, who was continuously ranked at no.1, was consistently vulnerable to defeat,
as contrasted with former world no.1 ranked players, such as Steffi Graf, Monica Seles and
Martina Navratilova.


Now, let's contrast this to Serena William's record in her best years, mid
2001-2003.

Serena went:

3-0 against Martina (who was ranked at no.1, no. 5 and no.3 in
these meetings)

5-0 against Lindsay (Davenport was ranked 8 to 10 places higher for
three of these meetings)

6-1 against Venus (Venus was ranked higher for the first four of
these meetings)

8-2 against Jennifer Capriati (Capriati was ranked higher for the first seven
of these meetings)

6-1 against Kim Clijsters

5-3 against Justine Henin-Hardenne

.... Serena had highly dominant head-to-head records against the top players
even when she was ranked below (or far below) them.


I won't even begin to present a list of Steffi Graf's head-to-head records as she was
an incredibly dominant player, and for most of a decade. Steffi only lost a couple (or handful)
of matches each year and no player came close to achieving an equal (of winning) record
against her during her period of dominance, 1987 - 1996.

Many people place a lot of stock in the world ranking but the 'top player' (for me) will
always the player that is most difficult to defeat, not the one that plays the most
amount of matches and tournaments throughout a season.

faboozadoo15
May 13th, 2007, 09:56 PM
[QUOTE=Ryan;10484593]

Yes, I agree she played quantity tennis to be computer ranked #1 but due to the quality of the competition she got her ass kicked a lot during that time. Hingis had one dominant year which was '97 after that she was totally dominated by other players.

As for those who are picking on Venus the race is not for the swift but for those who endure to the end. As far as I'm concern tennis players are mainly judged by the # of majors won and that is all I want Venus to focus on for the rest of her career while the others can keep #1 for the rest of their career.:p

Bullshit's a'flying out of your mouth again.

In 1998, Hingis still owned the Williams sisters 5-2, and trailed 2-3 to Davenport and all three of Hingis's losses to Davenport came on fastcourts, as did Hingis's wins. And Hingis didn't end 1998 as #1. ;)

In 1999, Hingis had less luck, losing three matches to Davenport but still held her own to tie Venus and lose 3-1 to Serena in head 2 head.

In 2000, Hingis only played Venus twice, losing both, split her encounters with Serena, and lost out 3-2 over Davenport.

In 2001 Hingis led Serena in head to head, tied Venus, including a 6-1 6-1 ass whooping. But she lost out 2-1 to Davenport because in Filderstadt she suffered an injury three games into the match, and that ended her year.

2002 was Hingis's worst year on tour, and she lost twice to serena, once to venus.

All any of this shows is that Hingis was a worthy #1 on top of players who challenged her a great deal of the time. SHe showed up a great deal more often than any three of these other players and consistently made it further in draws.

in 1999

nathan07
May 13th, 2007, 10:08 PM
Just to correct - Venus didn't win a title while ranked at no. 1 (for what was
only a short period). However, she won several titles which earned her the points that
accrued to (her achieving) the no.1 ranking early the following year. That's how
the ranking systems works.

In 2001 Venus won Wimbledon, US Open, tier I Miami, Hamburg, San Diego
and New Haven. From June to September 2001 (inclusive) Venus lost a
grand total of 1 match(es) from 25 played.




[QUOTE=Vlover;10484274]

Venus didn't win a damn thing while she was #1, so STFU. And Venus wasn't even the best player in 2002, the ONLY time she was ever world #1.

And nobody was EVER beating the shit out of Hingis. She still, to this day, holds a winning record over Venus.

You still have to win more matches, accumulate more points and have quality wins to be #1. Hingis was #1 during an era where there were still bonus points for beating ranked players.

lilly
May 13th, 2007, 10:09 PM
post of the week, gave me a different look on the ranking nr 1, thanks for the insight!!

If you actually study their head-to-head records, Justine and Serena are by far most dominant players on the WTA Tour of the 2000s. That is noted frequently in WTA press releases.
And, of course, Serena edges Justine in their own personal head-to-head record (6-3).

Martina Hingis was an especially vulnerable (to defeat) no.1 ranked player - particularly when facing Serena Williams (even when Serena was ranked, far lower than her in the late 1990s and early 2000s) and the highly-ranked Lindsay Davenport (solidly at no.2 or no.1, through 1998 to 2001).
In this era, Sharapova is expressly vulnerable to defeat (and one-sided defeat, at that) by particular players - Justine and Serena. At present, Justine Henin seems rather more vulnerable to defeat than she was in 2003 (ascending the rankings) to spring 2004, though still generally dominant, and against most players

Im my opinion, to give validity to the 'no.1' ranking, the no.1 ranked player should consistently defeat the world's best players, and at all events.

The peculiarity on a ranking system based upon consistency is that a player can have
negative record against most of your leading opponents and still be ranked at no.1!
The inherent weakness of the ranking system was severely called to account by players and ex-players in the early 2000s. Lindsay Davenport ended 2001 ranked at no.1, achieved through a year of consistent results - despite repeatedly losing to Venus and Serena Williams, and not making a single Slam final Slam final). Lindsay made it clear that such a ranking rested very uneasily upon her shoulders. Lindsay was not totally happy to be in such a position, and i understood this totally.

Martina Hingis was a highly consistent player, yet one that was extremely vulnerable to defeat during her long period ranked at the top of the game. More so than any previous (continuously) no.1 ranked player.

...

In 1999, when Martina was ranked at no.1 through most parts of the year/season, the hardest
player to defeat was Lindsay Davenport. ...

For most of 2000 and 2001 (when she was fully active on Tour) the hardest player to defeat was
Venus Williams; in 2002 it was Serena, and by a huge distance....... 1998 was a transitional
year: ...
I have tennis magazines from 1998 discussing the reality that Martina Hingis, who was continuously ranked at no.1, was consistently vulnerable to defeat, as contrasted with former world no.1 ranked players, such as Steffi Graf, Monica Seles and Martina Navratilova.

.... Serena had highly dominant head-to-head records against the top players
even when she was ranked below (or far below) them.

I won't even begin to present a list of Steffi Graf's head-to-head records as she was an
incredibly dominant player, and for most of a decade. Steffi only lose a couple (or handful)
each year and no player came close to achieving an equal (of winning) record against her
during her period of dominance, 1987 - 1996.

Many people place a lot of stock in the world ranking but the 'top player' (for me) will always
be the one that is most difficult to defeat, not the one that plays the most amount of matches
and tournaments.

So who's the top player for you right now? and 2006 for that matter?

Justine has been winning a lot, but has had letdowns at the GSfinals and other important matches.

For the first part of 2007, Serena is the top player with her wins over Maria and Justine.

Olórin
May 13th, 2007, 10:14 PM
I think Hingis and Davenport were definitely the best players in the world 1997-1999 which is why I have no problem with them being number ones in that period.

However, I did have misgivings about Martina being number one in 2000-2001. It just didn't make sense. She was seeded number one for all of the slams that Venus won and, didn't get to the final of a single one. Granted she had those two Australian Finals where she got blasted away by Davenport and Capriati.

ANd Lindsay ending the year number one in 2001, was the most bizarre thing. I had no problems with it in 2004, but in 2001 it just seemed too weird with Venus and Cappy being so dominant. Venus especially so.

nathan07
May 13th, 2007, 10:31 PM
.... and, let's be clear here: Lindsay found the situation odd (to say the least) herself,
and made no secret of the fact that she didn't 'feel' like the no.1 ranked player,
having lost several times to both Serena and Venus during the year (and not finishing
with a single win). With Capriati, the argument is less clear as though she enjoyed a
especially good year at Slam level (two Slam wins + two semi-final finishes) she was prone
to defeat - by Serena, Venus (3 losses, no wins) and Davenport (2 losses, i win) - throughout
the year.

Overall, Capriati went 56-14 in 2001, which is not exactly a 'dominant' record.

Vlover
May 13th, 2007, 10:32 PM
in 1999

What ever you may feel doesn't negate these facts. Yes Hingis dominated '97 and later Lindsay, Jennifer, Venus and Serena consistently defeated her. The fact is that tennis players are judged by the # of majors they win and everything else is secondary. Presently Serena surpassed Martina and Venus stands a good chance of doing this also. I guess that is why many Venus haters are so angry these days and hoping for her to fail. When Venus wins her 6th major #1 and a match win will be of least importance in my book.;)

Vlover
May 13th, 2007, 10:39 PM
[QUOTE=nathan07;10713632]Just to correct - Venus didn't win a title while ranked at no. 1 (for what was
only a short period). However, she won several titles which earned her the points that
accrued to (her achieving) the no.1 ranking early the following year. That's how
the ranking systems works.

In 2001 Venus won Wimbledon, US Open, tier I Miami, Hamburg, San Diego
and New Haven. From June to September 2001 (inclusive) Venus lost a
grand total of 1 match(es) from 25 played.
Thank you for providing the FACTS because the Venus haters are willing to claim Hingis was better as she played more but unable to win one major while Venus was able to win 2 consecutive majors.:help:

nathan07
May 13th, 2007, 10:40 PM
[QUOTE=Vlover;10484952]In 2001 Hingis led Serena in head to headin 1999

However, by the end of 2001, Serena had defeated Hingis 4 of the last 7 times that they played.
Serena was ranked no higher than 6 in any of these matches (often ranked far lower).
In marked contrast, Hingis was ranked solidly at no.1 in every single one of these matches.

Graf and Serena never lost to anyone (or came close to losing) with such frequency during their
periods ranked at no.1.


Interesting, from their three matches played in 2001, Hingis and Serena are tied for a total
of 35 games each; Hingis' two wins (at Syney and at the Australian Open) being far more tightly
contested than Serena's 50 minute 6-3 6-2 win at the 2001 US Open.

nathan07
May 13th, 2007, 10:46 PM
[QUOTE]Thank you for providing the FACTS because the Venus haters are willing to claim Hingis was better as she played more but unable to win one major while Venus was able to win 2 consecutive majors.:help:

I neither 'hate' or love any player - they are only human beings, no more, and no less.
And i could never make an idol out of a tennis player....

However, it is clear to anyone that follows tennis, including the players active during the period,
that Hingis was especially vulnerable to defeat whilst being ranked solidly and consistently
at no.1. That is an inescapable fact, one that cannot be dismissed.

However, it is also important to note that only a few players were capable of defeating Hingis
with any degree of frequency.

nathan07
May 13th, 2007, 11:14 PM
post of the week, gave me a different look on the ranking nr 1, thanks for the insight!!
So who's the top player for you right now? and 2006 for that matter?
Justine has been winning a lot, but has had letdowns at the GSfinals and other important matches.
For the first part of 2007, Serena is the top player with her wins over Maria and Justine.

I would go with Serena for 2007, simply because of her 100% record (so far) against Sharapova and Justine,
currently the highest ranked players on the Tour.

In 2006 Justine Henin was clearly the most dominant player on the Tour. Though she only won one
of the Grand Slam finals in which she was featured (you have to go back to Serena and then Hingis to
find a player featuring in four consecutive Slam finals though... ). She had the strongest
head-to-head record of any player versus the top 10 and top 20 and lead Sharapova 3-1 for
the year.

Henin reached 10 finals from 13 tournaments entered, including every Slam tournament and the Season
Ending Championships), winning 6 titles. Lindsay Davenport, always an intelligent observer of the
Tour, commented (in September 2006) that (for her) Henin was 'the best' player on the Tour,
regardless of her place in the actual rankings lists.


More generally, Henin has built a career of dominance versus her nearest rivals rivals...

Henin leads:

Petrova* 10-2
Sharaova 5-2
Mauresmo 7-6 (winning 5 of last 8)
Clijsters 12-10 (winning 8 of last 10 completed matches)
Davenport 7-5 (winning the last 7 matches)
Kuznetsova 14-2 (as of today)

The only significant players that Justine has a losing record against are Serena (3-6) and
Venus Williams (1-7), though she has only played one of these players (Serena) once in the last
four years, a period of continuous and marked improvement in Henin's game etc.
It is quite possible that Henin's head-to-head record will even out against both players, with time.

Olórin
May 14th, 2007, 12:31 AM
Here are Serena's head to head records with her contempories. Truly Grafesque:

Venus Williams 7-7
Lindsay Davenport 10-4
Justine Henin 6-3
Jennifer Capriati 10-7
Martina Hingis 7-6
Kim Clijsters 7-1
Monica Seles 4-1
Amelie Mauresmo 9-2
Mary Pierce 5-1
Maria Sharapova 4-2
Elena Dementieva 4-0
Svetlana Kuznetsova 2-0
Anastasia Mysinka 4-0
Nadia Petrova 6-1

She has dominated most since being a 17 year old on the tour. The only players she initially had problems with for a while were Venus and Capriati.

OrdinaryfoolisNJ
May 14th, 2007, 12:43 AM
Here are Serena's head to head records with her contempories. Truly Grafesque:

Venus Williams 7-7
Lindsay Davenport 10-4
Justine Henin 6-3
Jennifer Capriati 10-7
Martina Hingis 7-6
Kim Clijsters 7-1
Monica Seles 4-1
Amelie Mauresmo 9-2
Mary Pierce 5-1
Maria Sharapova 4-2
Elena Dementieva 4-0
Svetlana Kuznetsova 2-0
Anastasia Mysinka 6-0
Nadia Petrova 6-1

She has dominated most since being a 17 year old on the tour. The only players she initially had problems with for a while were Venus and Capriati.

Hingis is only 1 match down on Serena. Not bad for a girl short on power!

Olórin
May 14th, 2007, 12:47 AM
Hingis is only 1 match down on Serena. Not bad for a girl short on power!

True, both her wins against Serena in 2001 were very impressive :)

AnnaK_4ever
May 14th, 2007, 12:47 AM
Here are Serena's head to head records with her contempories. Truly Grafesque:

Venus Williams 7-7
Lindsay Davenport 10-4
Justine Henin 6-3
Jennifer Capriati 10-7
Martina Hingis 7-6
Kim Clijsters 7-1
Monica Seles 4-1
Amelie Mauresmo 9-2
Mary Pierce 5-1
Maria Sharapova 4-2
Elena Dementieva 4-0
Svetlana Kuznetsova 2-0
Anastasia Mysinka 6-0
Nadia Petrova 6-1

She has dominated most since being a 17 year old on the tour. The only players she initially had problems with for a while were Venus and Capriati.

She might lead Mysinka 6-0 but her H2H vs Myskina is 4-0.

Olórin
May 14th, 2007, 12:52 AM
She might lead Mysinka 6-0 but her H2H vs Myskina is 4-0.

WTA site isn't working at the moment for me, so I'll just assume you're right :p

Lindsayfanumber1
May 14th, 2007, 01:00 AM
Linds :)

LindsayRulz
May 14th, 2007, 01:35 AM
Lindsay :worship:

Shaboinka84
May 14th, 2007, 01:41 AM
Where's Chanda Rubin? Didnt she defeat Serena at JP morgan Chase in 2002?

nathan07
May 14th, 2007, 01:55 AM
Hingis is only 1 match down on Serena. Not bad for a girl short on power!

Sure, but most on Hingis's wins came when Serena was ranked way, way below her.
Indeed, all of Hingis's wins against Serena came when Hingis was ranked solidly
at no.1, so logically you would expect Hingis to defeat Serena,
and with ease.

For me, and (especially) given their respective rankings, the head-to-head
oddly stacked.

Vlover
May 14th, 2007, 02:57 PM
[QUOTE=nathan07;10713751]
However, it is clear to anyone that follows tennis, including the players active during the period,
that Hingis was especially vulnerable to defeat whilst being ranked solidly and consistently
at no.1. That is an inescapable fact, one that cannot be dismissed.

Of course reasoned people know this but I can assure you that devout haters of Williams and worshippers of Hingis like spensercarlos refuse to admit this.

lecciones
May 15th, 2007, 10:10 AM
Hingis is only 1 match down on Serena. Not bad for a girl short on power!


Not bad at all especially since it she supposedly left because she couldn't defeat the power players. She has actually the best results against Serena, win for win.


Quote:
Thank you for providing the FACTS because the Venus haters are willing to claim Hingis was better as she played more but unable to win one major while Venus was able to win 2 consecutive majors.

In 2001 Hingis lost her no.1 ranking for the last time, a 73 consecutive run at no.1 lost due to ankle injury [start of her problems] at Filderstadt against Lindsay. Definitely Venus was performing better than Hingis for the whole year of 2001 as Venus ended no.3 while Hingis no.4 in rankings, no help due to Martina's injuries.
[QUOTE=Vlover;10713724]

I neither 'hate' or love any player - they are only human beings, no more, and no less.
And i could never make an idol out of a tennis player....

However, it is clear to anyone that follows tennis, including the players active during the period,
that Hingis was especially vulnerable to defeat whilst being ranked solidly and consistently
at no.1. That is an inescapable fact, one that cannot be dismissed.

However, it is also important to note that only a few players were capable of defeating Hingis
with any degree of frequency.

Let's look at the years where Hingis and Venus reached their highest ranking and highest year end ranking:

Venus

Highest Ranking No.1 February 2002.
Highest Year end ranking No.2 2002. (940 points behind no.1; 16 tournaments; 5140 points)

No. of losses in 2002: 9
Loses to: 2002: 62-9 0.87
Rank 10 Seles AO(QF),
Rank 11 Testud Dubai(SF),
Rank 9 Serena Miami(SF),
Rank 3 Clijster Hamburg(F),
Rank 3 Serena RG(F),
Rank 2 Serena Wmb(F),
Rank 1 Serena USO(F),
Rank 23 Maleeva Moscow(R16),
Rank 6 Clijsters WTAc(SF)
[loss to three players out of top 9]

No of top Ten wins: 17 (Ranks: 7,8,9,10,9,9,4,6,6,5,7,9,5,10,5,9,7 mean:7.35 median:7 mode:9 span:4-10 no. of different ranks:7 of 9 did not defeat rank 1,3)

Hingis

Highest Ranking No.1 March 1997.
Highest Year end ranking No.1 1997,1999,2000. (2511,1233, 1023 points respectively ahead of no.2; 17,20,20 tournaments; 6264, 6074, 6044 points respectively)

No. of losses in 1997,1999,2000: 5,13,10 average 9.3
Loses to:
1997: 75-5 0.938
Rank 9 Majoli RG(F),
Rank 7 Lindsay LA(SF),
Rank 6 Coetzer Leipzig(SF),
Rank 19 Raymond Zurich(QF),
Rank 7 Pierce WTAc(QF)
[loss to only 5 players in 80 matches, loss to one player below rank 9]

1999: 71-13 0.85
Rank 1 Davenport Sydney(F),
Rank 18 Mauresmo Paris(Q),
Rank 26 Rubin IW(Q),
Rank 16 Serena Miami(S),
Rank 5 Venus Rome(SF),
Rank 6 Graf RG(F),
Rank 129 Dokic Wmb(R128),
Rank 11 Serena LA(SF),
Rank 6 Serena US(F),
NO ranking NO WTA points Venus GSCUP(SF),
Rank 3 Venus Zurich(F),
Rank 2 Lindsay Pdelphia(F),
Rank 2 Lindsay WTAc(F)
[loss to rank 129!! loss to 5 players ranked below 9; but defeated 20 top 10s]


2000: 77-10 0.89
Rank 9 Mauresmo Sydney(FS),
Rank 2 Lindsay AO(F),
Rank 2 Lindsay IW(F),
Rank 8 Conchita Berlin(SF),
Rank 7 Pierce RG(SF),
Rank 5 Venus Wmb(QF),
Rank 26 Frazier San Diego(QF),
Rank 7 Serena LA(SF),
Rank 3 Venus USO(SF),
Rank 2 Lindsay Pdelphia(F)
[loss to only one player ranked below top 9]


No of top Ten wins:
1997: 18 (Ranks: 10,8,1,4,7,4,5,5,6,4,3,7,10,3,6,6,9,3 mean:5.88 mode: 3&6 span:3-10 no. of different ranks: 8 of 10 defeated 1 as 2, did not defeat 2 as 1)
1999: 20 (Ranks: 7,4,7,3,4,10,7,7,9,4,10,6,5,8,3,6,10,7,5,3 mean:6.26 mode: 7 span:3-10 no. of different ranks: 8 of 9 did not defeat rank 2)
2000: 15 (Ranks: 6,8,6,8,2,6,7,5,9,2,10,9,9,10,4 mean:6.7 median:6 mode:6&9 span:2-10 no. of different ranks: 8 of 9 did not defeat rank 3)


You can judge now from those facts. I know Martina is better. :)
As a side note, I'd just like to say that when martina was no.1 she lost just average compared to when other players were no.1, its just that she was no.1 for a little over FOUR years, and so she really lose to many many players as a total. If Venus was no.1 for that long she would have similar numbers.

lecciones
May 15th, 2007, 10:59 AM
If you actually study their head-to-head records, Justine and Serena are by far most
dominant players on the WTA Tour of the 2000s. That is noted frequently in WTA press releases.
And, of course, Serena edges Justine in their own personal head-to-head record (6-3). Let's see if Serena continues playing if Justine will level it, since you see Martina and Serena have a 7-6 head to head in favor of Serena in 5 years or so of playing together.

Martina Hingis was especially vulnerable to defeat as a no.1 ranked player - particularly
in match-ups against Serena Williams (even when Serena was ranked far lower than Hingis, in the
late 1990s and early 2000s) and the highly-ranked Lindsay Davenport (ranked solidly at no.2 or
no.1, through 1998 to 2001). My last post shows that as No.1 she loss to an average number of players just as would other top players like Venus only that she was number one four times more than Venus or a lot more than other players who reached no.1

In this era, Sharapova is expressly vulnerable to defeat (and one-sided defeat, at that)
by particular players - Justine and Serena. At present, Justine Henin seems rather more
vulnerable to defeat than she was in 2003 (ascending the rankings) to spring 2004, though still
generally dominant, and against every player on the Tour - except Serena and Venus Williams.


Im my opinion, to give validity to the 'no.1' ranking, the no.1 ranked player should consistently
defeat the world's best players, and across all events.The worlds best is the no1. player :confused: The world no.1 should consistenyl beat no.2 and onwards, and Hingis has shown that defeating 18,20, and 15 top 10 players in 97,98 and 00 - her most dominant years.


The peculiarity of a ranking system based upon consistency is that a player can have
negative record against most of her leading opponents and still be ranked at no.1.Too bad Martina's record against ALL TIME GREATEST Serena is just negative 1 7-6. Now you see the ranking system awards players not only for their wins but for players with the capacity to play many tournaments and win many tournaments. If martina was playing 20 tournaments because she was losing so early then she wouldn't ever had hold on to her no.1 ranking beating all those top 10 players along the way. The fact is she played 17 tournaments in 1997 and won 12, 20 tournaments in 1999 and won 7, 20 tournaments in 2000 and won 9. Not even counting her Finals, SF, and QF appearances and alongside all of this her accomplishments as well as a doubles player of which she won 8 in 97, 6 in 99, and 7 in 00.

The inherent weakness of such a ranking system was severely called to account by players and
ex-players in the early 2000s. There are quality points for beating top ranked players when Hingis, Davenport, Serena and Venus were playing, here are their results:
1997:
Hingis: 2018 pts
Davenport: 1284

1998:
Davenport: 2308
Hingis: 2092
Venus: 1283

1999:
Hingis: 2212
Davenport: 1866
Venus: 1756

2000:
Hingis: 2273
Davenport: 2011
Venus: 1698
Serena: 846

2001:
Lindsay: 1871
Venus: 1699
Hingis: 1340
Serena: 1175

2002:
Serena: 2206
Venus: 1705
Hingis: 703

Never has Serena nor Venus reached the highest quality points that Martina has, only Davenport reached higher than Martina, that was in 1998 Lindsay 2308; 2000 Martina 2273.




Lindsay Davenport ended the year 2001 ranked at no.1,
achieved through a year of consistent results - despite repeatedly losing to Venus and Serena
Williams, and not making a single Slam final Slam final). Lindsay made it clear that
such a ranking rested very uneasily upon her shoulders. Lindsay was not totally happy to be
in such a position, and i understood this totally.

Martina Hingis was a highly consistent player, yet one that was extremely vulnerable to
defeat during her long period ranked at the top of the game. More so than any previous
(continuously) no.1 ranked player.
Lost an average of 9.3 or 9 times for each year 97, 99, 00 she was dominantly no.1; Davenport who ended year no.1 one more time than Hingis, at 4 lost an average of 10.75 or 11 matches during those years. As comparison to Serena who ended year no.1 once, in 2002 with 5 losses, comparable to when Hingis was year ender in 1997. The fact is let us see Serena or Venus claim no.1 year ender AGAIN and let us see how many times she lost as no.1 during the course of that year. So it is just fine Hingis' and Davenports record for that time period of women's tennis.


To illustrate, in the period 1997 - 2000, when Martina was at her 'most 'dominant', she went:

7-9 against Davenport

4-4 against Serena (who was ranked no higher than no.40 in 1998, rising
to no.7 in 2000)

9-7 against Venus (who was ranked at no.110 in 1997, no.3 in 2000)

1-2 against Steffi Graf (who was ranked no.1 in early 1997, no.6 in June 1999)


All of these players were ranked below Martina; even Davenport was more frequently
ranked at no.2 than at no.1.
The thing is Martina could play more and go deeper in each tournament she entered as a whole for the season, the is for other players is they just couldn't do better, or they were tired, got injured because their bodies couldn't play that many matches in a span of time OR they just didn't dare and try to play more matches to reach no.1 BECAUSE they didn't feel like the best, didn't want to be injured, or had other things in mind other than being ranked no.1.

In 1999, when Martina was ranked at no.1 through most parts of the year/season, the
hardest player to defeat was Lindsay Davenport. However, Davenport went:

3-2 against Venus
3-0 against Martina

.... yet
0-3 against Serena - Lindsay's sole nemesis on the Tour
Lindsay's sole Nemesis in the tour in 1999? EEK Davenport won all 3 against Martina in Finals, the match which decides who wins the title, as opposed to losing to Serena in R32, SF and SF of GrandSlam Cup with no WTA points, I think Davenport was eyeing the no.1 spot and wanting to meet Hingis in the finals and winning the title when she meets Hingis there.


For most of 2000 and 2001 (when she was fully active on Tour) the hardest player to defeat
was Venus Williams. UHM, Martina won 5 Tier I's, YEC, and was Finalist in AO in 2000, hardest player to defeat in 2000? UHM....

In 2002 was Serena Williams, and by a huge distance....... Well not as huge but a large gap indeed:
1 (1) WILLIAMS, SERENA USA 6080.00 2206.00 13 484.00 .00 .00
2 (2) WILLIAMS, VENUS USA 5140.00 1705.00 16 296.00 .00 .00
3 (3) CAPRIATI, JENNIFER USA 3796.00 1226.00 17 276.00 .00 .00

Very easily you could say the WS owned 2002. But it was nothing like Hingis best in 1997:
1 (1) HINGIS, MARTINA SUI 6264.0000 2018.0 17 132.00 0.0000
2 (3) NOVOTNA, JANA CZE 3753.0000 1228.0 20 562.00 0.0000
3 (2) DAVENPORT, LINDSAY USA 3696.0000 1284.0 22 54.00 0.0000
That gap is huge enough to make another player named Martina Hingis at Rank 9.

1998 was a
transitional year: Martina went 2-3 against Davenport and 3-2 against Venus. As if to
illustrate a highly fluctuating yearHighly fluctuating? one match difference? Martina Hingis in GS was W SF SF F, 2 out of 4 GS's she was at the Finals and the other 2 SF, that is not highly fluctuating when related to Hingis, but as a tour each GS to a different player is fluctuating but the no.1 spot was only fluctuating between Hingis and Davenport, each Slam in 1998 was won by a different player
(a situation that would be repeated once again in 1999); Lindsay Davenport finished as the
year-end no.1 ranked player and Martina Hingis (ranked no.1 for most of the year) won the
Season-Ending Championships. This is how the Year end looked like in 1998 where Martina completed her Doubles Grand Slam and was no.2 in singles:
1 (1) DAVENPORT, LINDSAY USA 5654.00 2308.0 20 386.00 0.00 65.00
2 (2) HINGIS, MARTINA SUI 5366.00 2092.0 17 611.00 0.00 0.00
She played 3 less tournaments then Davenport where their difference was only 288 points or something like a Tier I SF (just guessin on that one)

I have tennis magazines from 1998 discussing the reality that
Martina Hingis, who was continuously ranked at no.1, was consistently vulnerable to defeat,
as contrasted with former world no.1 ranked players, such as Steffi Graf, Monica Seles and
Martina Navratilova.You should have included Evert who was more unbeatable as no.1, besides the point have you seen her win/loss ratios of each year where she ended no.1? Here they are:
1997: 0.94
1999: 0.85
2000: 0.89 How beatable is that? "vulnerable to defeat...."


Now, let's contrast this to Serena William's record in her best years, mid
2001-2003.

Serena went:

3-0 against Martina (who was ranked at no.1, no. 5 and no.3 in
these meetings) Ankle Injury at Filderstadt in 2001, which required RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, started Martina's Problems

5-0 against Lindsay (Davenport was ranked 8 to 10 places higher for
three of these meetings) Davenport played how many tournaments in 2002? 9, and why was that? According to her website: "w/right knee injury; underwent arthroscopic knee surgery on January 11 to correct full thickness cartilage defect and spent nine weeks on crutches" Nine weeks in crutches..... it was a good thing she even came back to play.

6-1 against Venus (Venus was ranked higher for the first four of
these meetings)

8-2 against Jennifer Capriati (Capriati was ranked higher for the first seven
of these meetings)

6-1 against Kim Clijsters

5-3 against Justine Henin-Hardenne

.... Serena had highly dominant head-to-head records against the top players
even when she was ranked below (or far below) them.


I won't even begin to present a list of Steffi Graf's head-to-head records as she was
an incredibly dominant player, and for most of a decade. Steffi only lost a couple (or handful)
of matches each year and no player came close to achieving an equal (of winning) record
against her during her period of dominance, 1987 - 1996.Go list Evert's Instead more stellar for me.


Many people place a lot of stock in the world ranking but the 'top player' (for me) will
always the player that is most difficult to defeat, not the one that plays the most
amount of matches and tournaments throughout a season.Difficult to beat... hmmmm I'd still go for the rankings, what if that difficult to beat player who has a positive head to head record against most players never really plays much or doesn't always go far into tournaments? That can happen. But what cannot happen is a number 1 ranked player in the world who cannot consistently win against the top 10.


My Comments/Replies are in bold. Too lazy to reorganize. :P

QuicKyMonSter
May 15th, 2007, 11:04 AM
12 Chanda Rubin(21) def 1 Serena Williams(1) 6/2 4/6 7/5 Los Angeles 2002
:drool:
That tournament was awesome :tears:

azmad_88
May 15th, 2007, 11:29 AM
added Rubin! please tel me more

lecciones
May 15th, 2007, 11:54 AM
Hey you have TWO Chanda Rubin already (thought it was Chandra) lol

"Chanda Rubin (2)

1999 Indian Wells QF, Rubin def Hingis(1) 6-3 7-6
2002 Los Angeles QF, Rubin def S.Williams(1) 6-2 4-6 7-5


Conchita Martínez (2)

d. Steffi Graf 63 63. Philadelphia'93 (carpet indoor)
d. Martina Hingis 64 75. Berlin'00 (clay outdoor)


Patty Schnyder (2)

def Martina Hingis 5-7 7-5 5-5 Grandslam Cup 1998
def Jennifer Capriati 6-3 6-4 Charleston 2002


Virginia Ruano Pascual (1)

d. Martina Hingis 64 62. Wimbledon'01 (grass)


Ana Ivanovic (1)

def Maria Sharpova 6-1 0-1 Tokyo2007


Vera Zvonareva (1)

def Maria Sharapova 4-6 7-5 6-1 IW2007


Nathalie Dechy (1)

def Amelie Mauresmo 3-6 6-2 6-3 Eastbourne2006


Tatiana Garbin (1)

def Justine Henin-Hardenne 7-5 6-4 RG2004


Maria Kirilenko (1)

def Maria Sharapova 6-4 2-1 Beijing 2005


Dinara Safina (1)

def Maria Sharpova 1-6 6-4 7-5 Moscow 2005


Anna Kournikova (1)

def. Martina Hingis(1)- 6:3,7-6 Berlin, clay,1998


Dominique Monami (Van Roost) (1)

def Martina Hingis 6-3 6-7(4) 6-4 Filderstadt 1998


Anna Lena-Gronefeld (1)

def Lindsay Davenport 5-0 ret Standford 2005


Francesca Schiavone (1)

def Amelie Mauresmo in fed cup 2006 4-6 7-6 6-4


Chanda Rubin (1)

def Serena Williams in Los Angeles 2002 6-2 4-6 7-5"

*JR*
May 15th, 2007, 12:02 PM
Shortly after Kim became the first Slamless #1 in '04 :o she lost to Baby Blue Eyes :sad: :sad: (Lina) in Toronto.

Edit: I liked the result, :sad: :sad: is just a symbol for Lina's eyes like Eggy uses :silly: for the Peppermint Perm hairdo.

lecciones
May 15th, 2007, 12:23 PM
When was Amelie the only slamless no.1? I knew about her being that not Kim... well thanks for the new info!

nathan07
May 15th, 2007, 10:14 PM
lecciones -

That only (truthfully) demonstrates Hingis's consistency whilst continually ranked at no.1. There is simply not getting away from the fact that she was highly vulnerable to defeat, and repeatedly defeat by particular players. In her best years (2000 - 2003) on Tour, Venus was not susceptible to repeated defeat by particular players and lead her all nearest rivals, except Serena:


9-1 versus Davenport:
4-2 versus Hingis
2-7 versus Serena


Serena endured very, very few losses against her nearest rivals and was incredibly dominant from summer 2001 to July 2003, when she repeatedly played multi-Slam winners. Even before she reached her second Slam (US Open) final (in 2001), Serena led Davenport 7-2 - and had achieved four wins (three i]consecutively[/i]) over Hingis while being ranked outside the top 5 or top 10 - and when Hingis was firmly ranked at no.1. Against, its inconceivable that a player like Graf (or Serena) would post such results while being ranked at.1


Venus was, of course, also vulnerable to defeat, and especially on clay but she was only ranked for >20 weeks - as compared to Hingis's (very impressive) 209 weeks ranked at no1. Comparing Hingis and Venus' rercords is a little like comparing Jennifer Capriati's 2001 - 2002 record against Hingis' best years. My point is that a player ranked solidy (month after month after month) at no.1 should not be enduring repeated defeat to particular players. This was not the case with Graf, Serena, or Henin.


Still, Venus Williams did achieve remarkable wining steaks, especially on grass and hardcourt. This includes a 35 match-winning streak, taking in six straight titles (including Wimbledon, the US Open and the 2000 Olympics) in 2000, during which she defeated Hingis and Davenport (solidly ranked at no.1 and no.2) multiple times.

nathan07
May 15th, 2007, 10:58 PM
I can't correct all the points mentioned above (i don't have the time) but i should address a few startling ones:

a.)
Ankle Injury at Filderstadt in 2001, which required RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, started Martina's Problems
Serena did not meet Hingis at the time of this injury. However, in the months following the surgery, Hingis reached five finals, January to March 2002 (Sydney, Australian Open, tier I Tokyo, Dubai, tier I Indian Wells), winning three - before meeting Serena Williams at tier I Miami (defeated 4-6 0-6). Hingis was the no.1 ranked played in the 'Race to the Championships'. Here are Hingis' results at 2002 Miami before meeting Serena: 6-1 6-0 (r64); 6-0 6-1 (r32); 6-2 6-0 (r16). Quite incredibly efficient for a player experiencing 'problems'. ;)


b.)
Davenport played how many tournaments in 2002? 9, and why was that? According to her website: "w/right knee injury; underwent arthroscopic knee surgery on January 11 to correct full thickness cartilage defect and spent nine weeks on crutches" Nine weeks in crutches..... it was a good thing she even came back to play.

Serena Williams and Lindsay Davenport met only once(!!) in 2002 (at the US Open, semi-final), so this point is not even irrelevant to the multiple losses that Davenport endured against Serena from 1998 onward. In any case, Davenport was cruised her way through the 2002 US Open (losing only one set, and around only 2 or 3 games in the ten other sets that she played) and played Serena far tougher than expected, losing 3-6 5-7 in their semi-final. Davenport had also reached two finals (Los Angels and New Haven) on the summer hardcourt season leading to the US Open.

c.) Chris Every lost far more frequently (e.g. as many as 10 times in one year) in her 'dominant' years on the Tour (1974 - 1980 etc.) than compared to Navratilova (1982 - 1987) and Graf (1987 - 1989; 1993 - 1996), who lost only 2 or 3 (or a handful) matches (or a handful) each year. Moreover, Evert freely admitted (during Wimbledon 1998, in studio discussions with Sue Barker) that competition on the Tour became steadily more intense through the 1980s, as compared to the 1970s. Navratilova and Graf are widely understood to have been far more 'dominant' no.1 - ranked players than Evert who, again, was noted for her consistency rather than outright dominance.

lecciones
May 15th, 2007, 11:31 PM
lecciones -

That only (truthfully) demonstrates Hingis's consistency whilst continually ranked at no.1. There is simply not getting away from the fact that she was highly vulnerable to defeat, and repeatedly defeat by particular players. In her best years (2000 - 2003) on Tour, Venus was not susceptible to repeated defeat by particular players and lead her all nearest rivals, except Serena:


9-1 versus Davenport:
4-2 versus Hingis
2-7 versus Serena


Serena endured very, very few losses against her nearest rivals and was incredibly dominant from summer 2001 to July 2003, when she repeatedly played multi-Slam winners. Even before she reached her second Slam (US Open) final (in 2001), Serena led Davenport 7-2 - and had achieved four wins (three i]consecutively[/i]) over Hingis while being ranked outside the top 5 or top 10 - and when Hingis was firmly ranked at no.1. Against, its inconceivable that a player like Graf (or Serena) would post such results while being ranked at.1


Venus was, of course, also vulnerable to defeat, and especially on clay but she was only ranked for >20 weeks - as compared to Hingis's (very impressive) 209 weeks ranked at no1. Comparing Hingis and Venus' rercords is a little like comparing Jennifer Capriati's 2001 - 2002 record against Hingis' best years. My point is that a player ranked solidy (month after month after month) at no.1 should not be enduring repeated defeat to particular players. This was not the case with Graf, Serena, or Henin.


Still, Venus Williams did achieve remarkable wining steaks, especially on grass and hardcourt. This includes a 35 match-winning streak, taking in six straight titles (including Wimbledon, the US Open and the 2000 Olympics) in 2000, during which she defeated Hingis and Davenport (solidly ranked at no.1 and no.2) multiple times.

It is true that while Hingis was no.1 she was susceptible to defeat by Lindsay, Serena, and Venus, as well as Seles, Graf, and a host of other players But by how much?
1997: 75-5 0.938
Rank 9 Majoli RG(F),
Rank 7 Lindsay LA(SF),
Rank 6 Coetzer Leipzig(SF),
Rank 19 Raymond Zurich(QF),
Rank 7 Pierce WTAc(QF)
Never loss to one person twice in her most dominant year as no.1

1999: 71-13 0.85
Rank 1 Davenport Sydney(F),
Rank 18 Mauresmo Paris(Q),
Rank 26 Rubin IW(Q),
Rank 16 Serena Miami(S),
Rank 5 Venus Rome(SF),
Rank 6 Graf RG(F),
Rank 129 Dokic Wmb(R128),
Rank 11 Serena LA(SF),
Rank 6 Serena US(F),
NO ranking NO WTA points Venus GSCUP(SF),
Rank 3 Venus Zurich(F),
Rank 2 Lindsay Pdelphia(F),
Rank 2 Lindsay WTAc(F)
Loss to Lindsay 3x, Serena 3x, Venus 3x But had 20 Top 10 wins and reclaimed no.1 from Davenport, won 7 singles titles, at the very least she was the most dominant on tour, she might lose head to heads during that year to her three biggest rivals but she definitely did better than all three of them for the season.


2000: 77-10 0.89
Rank 9 Mauresmo Sydney(FS),
Rank 2 Lindsay AO(F),
Rank 2 Lindsay IW(F),
Rank 8 Conchita Berlin(SF),
Rank 7 Pierce RG(SF),
Rank 5 Venus Wmb(QF),
Rank 26 Frazier San Diego(QF),
Rank 7 Serena LA(SF),
Rank 3 Venus USO(SF),
Rank 2 Lindsay Pdelphia(F)
loss to lindsay 3x Serena 1x Venus 1x, I really can't see how she was dominated by Serena or Venus in 2000. Even the loss to Lindsay is normal since she was the only other real player trying to vie for the number one position in yet another year where Hingis was dominant.

Of course Hingis cannot have the same 1997 record allover again in 1999 and 2000 lest she become the best player of this decade LOL her record in 1997 which is her best year far outshines Serena's best year of 2002. They both have five losses, But martina has more wins to boot:

Martina 1997: 75-5 0.938
47 match win streak (ended at FO Final; 19 win streak after that)
Rank 9 Majoli RG(F),
Rank 7 Lindsay LA(SF),
Rank 6 Coetzer Leipzig(SF),
Rank 19 Raymond Zurich(QF),
Rank 7 Pierce YEC(QF)

Serena 2002: 59-5 0.921
21 match win streak (ended at LA QF; 18 win streak after that)
loss to:
Rank 13 Shaughnessy Sydney(SF)
Rank 30 Schnyder Charelston(QF)
Rank 8 Henin Berlin(F)
Rank 21 Rubin LA(QF)
Rank 6 Clijsters YEC(F)

and to compare more Serena lost to three (13,21,30) players below rank 9, while martina only 1 (19). Also Hingis reached all four finals, while Serena just reached 3 since she did not play in AO. And 12 singles titles and 8 doubles to 8 singles and 2 doubles? Hingis was dominant in all respects during her best year of 1997.


And to think that the tour continually improved after her 1997 dominance and yet she was able to hold on to her no.1 position in the wake of Lindsay's resurgence the improvement of Serena and Venus, the resurgence of Capriati, the last push of Graf in 1999, the continual threat of Seles, ASV, etc... for four whole years she was able to be at no.1 and to lose an average of just around 9.3 players per year? Just the same of Venus's 9 player loss the years she had her best results? Or to equal serena's best year of 5 losses but to have 16 more wins, and much much longer win streaks? She might loss a couple (1-3) matches to her great rivals each year, but she does win tons more titles (except maybe for lindsay) than those same rivals during her best years.

She did lose a lot more than previous players who held the no.1 position for that long, but it is hard to compare the figures to players who only held the no.1 position during their first and initial great season, to hold it after that is always a different thing, and Hingis' numbers are good to say the very least. The fact is Serena didn't hold the number one position that much after her first great season of 2002, and Venus only held it for how many weeks? So you can't really conclude anything from that.

lecciones
May 15th, 2007, 11:48 PM
I can't correct all the points mentioned above (i don't have the time) but i should address a few startling ones:

a.)

Serena did not meet Hingis at the time of this injury. However, in the months following the surgery, Hingis reached five finals, January to March 2002 (Sydney, Australian Open, tier I Tokyo, Dubai, tier I Indian Wells), winning three - before meeting Serena Williams at tier I Miami (defeated 4-6 0-6). Hingis was the no.1 ranked played in the 'Race to the Championships'. Here are Hingis' results at 2002 Miami before meeting Serena: 6-1 6-0 (r64); 6-0 6-1 (r32); 6-2 6-0 (r16). Quite incredibly efficient for a player experiencing 'problems'. ;)


b.)


Serena Williams and Lindsay Davenport met only once(!!) in 2002 (at the US Open, semi-final), so this point is not even irrelevant to the multiple losses that Davenport endured against Serena from 1998 onward. In any case, Davenport was cruised her way through the 2002 US Open (losing only one set, and around only 2 or 3 games in the ten other sets that she played) and played Serena far tougher than expected, losing 3-6 5-7 in their semi-final. Davenport had also reached two finals (Los Angels and New Haven) on the summer hardcourt season leading to the US Open.

c.) Chris Every lost far more frequently (e.g. as many as 10 times in one year) in her 'dominant' years on the Tour (1974 - 1980 etc.) than compared to Navratilova (1982 - 1987) and Graf (1987 - 1989; 1993 - 1996), who lost only 2 or 3 (or a handful) matches (or a handful) each year. Moreover, Evert freely admitted (during Wimbledon 1998, in studio discussions with Sue Barker) that competition on the Tour became steadily more intense through the 1980s, as compared to the 1970s. Navratilova and Graf are widely understood to have been far more 'dominant' no.1 - ranked players than Evert who, again, was noted for her consistency rather than outright dominance.

a) "January to March 2002" That is a year after the incident and in 2002 she had another injury [(May 5, 2002) Martina Hingis has withdrawn from next week's German Open in Berlin due to an injured left ankle that was troubling her in Hamburg.) read here: http://sports.quickfound.net/martina_hingis_2002_news_a.html; and forced her to withdraw from 4 tournaments Tier I's Berlin, and Rome, GS RG and Wimbledon. During her January to March period She was ranked 4 during that time and was 24-4 after Serena defeated her in Miami F. She had plenty months rest and so predictably her injury didn't factor in, I was talking about her season 2001 in other case. Because after her injury in 2001 Filderstadt took her out of the rest of the season and couldn't even defend her YEC title she won last year, thus her no.4 year end rank.

b) in the first place you give such huge time periods for this dominance thing and head to head record, I'd do the same to hingis I can find a positive head to head.

c) I'll look into this. But her record is still stellar. :P

Pheobo
May 15th, 2007, 11:54 PM
Linds :hearts:


I was just thinking about how fun it was to be a lindsay fan in 2004 and 2005

stevos
May 16th, 2007, 12:18 AM
Martina :help:

spencercarlos
May 16th, 2007, 02:10 AM
Conchita Martínez (2)

d. Steffi Graf 63 63. Philadelphia'93 (carpet indoor)
d. Martina Hingis 64 75. Berlin'00 (clay outdoor)

So much for her so called longevity :lol:

lecciones
May 16th, 2007, 04:18 AM
So much for her so called longevity :lol:

:lol: Sabatini is a special and unique player we might likely won't see someone as beuatiful as her play again.... unless someone from that country plays again. :)

spencercarlos
May 16th, 2007, 04:23 AM
:lol: Sabatini is a special and unique player we might likely won't see someone as beuatiful as her play again.... unless someone from that country plays again. :)
;) Gaby being so high on that list :kiss:

lecciones
May 16th, 2007, 04:24 AM
;) Gaby being so high on that list :kiss:

That how she caught the attention of the media right? Some beautiful lady playing stunning tennis and defeating no.1 Graf? :)

FaceyFacem
May 16th, 2007, 04:48 AM
Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (6 times):
d. Steffi Graf 7-6(6), 3-6, 7-5, 1989 RG Final
d. Monica Seles 6-3, 4-6, 6-3, 1992 Canadian Open Final
d. Steffi Graf 4-6, 7-6(3), 7-6(6), 1994 Hamburg Final
d. Steffi Graf 7-5, 1-6, 7-6(4), 1994 Canadian Open Final
d. Steffi Graf 1-6, 7-6(3), 6-4, 1994 US Open Final
d. Martina Hingis 6-2, 6-4, 2001 Amelia Island QF

azmad_88
May 16th, 2007, 05:21 AM
thank u for Arantxa

azmad_88
May 16th, 2007, 05:27 AM
added arantxa

faboozadoo15
May 16th, 2007, 07:09 AM
I imagine Seles wouldn't be too high on the list, seeing as she was ranked #1 for almost her entire career before she was stabbed.

She would have 2 wins over graf in 1990 when graf was #1. In 1998, she beat hingis at RG and at the Canadian Open. In 2001, she also scored wins over #1 Hingis at San Diego and LA. That makes 6.

Am I forgetting any?

Thanx4nothin
May 16th, 2007, 07:13 AM
Good stats there for Serena...as always!

OZTENNIS
May 16th, 2007, 07:23 AM
Do walk overs count?

If so ---

Hingis def. Graf 1997 Tokyo Final W/O

A'DAM
May 16th, 2007, 07:35 AM
Martina lost tons of matches as nb 1 :o

The Daviator
May 16th, 2007, 10:52 AM
So Lindsay holds this record :eek: :worship:

lecciones
May 16th, 2007, 11:45 AM
Lindsay definitely does since Martina was no.1 most of the time they both were playing. Hingis gave Lindsay 11 of her no.1 wins.

Hingis being the no.1 during the time all of those players were playing - Lindsay, Serena, Venus, Capriati, Seles, Graf, Mauresmo, Pierce, Aranxta Sanchez-Vicario, Clijsters, Martinez; just shows how talented she was, being able to hold the no.1 in the face of many and different types of opponents for such a long time (rank 1 seed 1 in 78 tournament events), and losing to them is nothing bad at all since they are all great players of the past, present and future from the time she was no.1.

bandabou
May 16th, 2007, 12:16 PM
It is true that while Hingis was no.1 she was susceptible to defeat by Lindsay, Serena, and Venus, as well as Seles, Graf, and a host of other players But by how much?
1997: 75-5 0.938
Rank 9 Majoli RG(F),
Rank 7 Lindsay LA(SF),
Rank 6 Coetzer Leipzig(SF),
Rank 19 Raymond Zurich(QF),
Rank 7 Pierce WTAc(QF)
Never loss to one person twice in her most dominant year as no.1

1999: 71-13 0.85
Rank 1 Davenport Sydney(F),
Rank 18 Mauresmo Paris(Q),
Rank 26 Rubin IW(Q),
Rank 16 Serena Miami(S),
Rank 5 Venus Rome(SF),
Rank 6 Graf RG(F),
Rank 129 Dokic Wmb(R128),
Rank 11 Serena LA(SF),
Rank 6 Serena US(F),
NO ranking NO WTA points Venus GSCUP(SF),
Rank 3 Venus Zurich(F),
Rank 2 Lindsay Pdelphia(F),
Rank 2 Lindsay WTAc(F)
Loss to Lindsay 3x, Serena 3x, Venus 3x But had 20 Top 10 wins and reclaimed no.1 from Davenport, won 7 singles titles, at the very least she was the most dominant on tour, she might lose head to heads during that year to her three biggest rivals but she definitely did better than all three of them for the season.


2000: 77-10 0.89
Rank 9 Mauresmo Sydney(FS),
Rank 2 Lindsay AO(F),
Rank 2 Lindsay IW(F),
Rank 8 Conchita Berlin(SF),
Rank 7 Pierce RG(SF),
Rank 5 Venus Wmb(QF),
Rank 26 Frazier San Diego(QF),
Rank 7 Serena LA(SF),
Rank 3 Venus USO(SF),
Rank 2 Lindsay Pdelphia(F)
loss to lindsay 3x Serena 1x Venus 1x, I really can't see how she was dominated by Serena or Venus in 2000. Even the loss to Lindsay is normal since she was the only other real player trying to vie for the number one position in yet another year where Hingis was dominant.

Of course Hingis cannot have the same 1997 record allover again in 1999 and 2000 lest she become the best player of this decade LOL her record in 1997 which is her best year far outshines Serena's best year of 2002. They both have five losses, But martina has more wins to boot:

Martina 1997: 75-5 0.938
47 match win streak (ended at FO Final; 19 win streak after that)
Rank 9 Majoli RG(F),
Rank 7 Lindsay LA(SF),
Rank 6 Coetzer Leipzig(SF),
Rank 19 Raymond Zurich(QF),
Rank 7 Pierce YEC(QF)

Serena 2002: 59-5 0.921
21 match win streak (ended at LA QF; 18 win streak after that)
loss to:
Rank 13 Shaughnessy Sydney(SF)
Rank 30 Schnyder Charelston(QF)
Rank 8 Henin Berlin(F)
Rank 21 Rubin LA(QF)
Rank 6 Clijsters YEC(F)

and to compare more Serena lost to three (13,21,30) players below rank 9, while martina only 1 (19). Also Hingis reached all four finals, while Serena just reached 3 since she did not play in AO. And 12 singles titles and 8 doubles to 8 singles and 2 doubles? Hingis was dominant in all respects during her best year of 1997.


And to think that the tour continually improved after her 1997 dominance and yet she was able to hold on to her no.1 position in the wake of Lindsay's resurgence the improvement of Serena and Venus, the resurgence of Capriati, the last push of Graf in 1999, the continual threat of Seles, ASV, etc... for four whole years she was able to be at no.1 and to lose an average of just around 9.3 players per year? Just the same of Venus's 9 player loss the years she had her best results? Or to equal serena's best year of 5 losses but to have 16 more wins, and much much longer win streaks? She might loss a couple (1-3) matches to her great rivals each year, but she does win tons more titles (except maybe for lindsay) than those same rivals during her best years.

She did lose a lot more than previous players who held the no.1 position for that long, but it is hard to compare the figures to players who only held the no.1 position during their first and initial great season, to hold it after that is always a different thing, and Hingis' numbers are good to say the very least. The fact is Serena didn't hold the number one position that much after her first great season of 2002, and Venus only held it for how many weeks? So you can't really conclude anything from that.

Nice, nice..but Martina retaining the no.1 rank after say '99 is more to her PLAYING so much than anything else. That's why she gets so much scrutiny...no way was Martina the BEST player..only that she was consistent: beat the players she must beat,but pretty much didn't stand a chance against the big guns.

I mean..no.1 not always tells the whole story..heck, Kim and Momo became no.1 without even a major, sooo.

lecciones
May 16th, 2007, 01:18 PM
Nice, nice..but Martina retaining the no.1 rank after say '99 is more to her PLAYING so much than anything else. That's why she gets so much scrutiny...no way was Martina the BEST player..only that she was consistent: beat the players she must beat,but pretty much didn't stand a chance against the big guns.

I mean..no.1 not always tells the whole story..heck, Kim and Momo became no.1 without even a major, sooo.

So theres no question about no.1 of Martina in 97 and 99? thats good hate to have to get data and explain myself for those.

But could it be that that was all that that player could take? Regarding the number of tournaments she could play? Lest it lead her to injuries? Martina could take more, and unfortunately in 01 after her injuries it was different and thus she couldn't play as much.

Look at these examples:
2001
1 (1) DAVENPORT, LINDSAY USA 4902.00 1871.00 17 .00 .00 .00
2 (2) CAPRIATI, JENNIFER USA 4892.00 1947.00 17 .00 .00 .00

Why didn't either of them play just one more tournament since they were so close to eachother, in order to get the number one ranking?

Same thing happens in 2004 & 2005:
2004
1 (1) DAVENPORT, LINDSAY USA 4760.00 1667.00 17 .00 .00 .00
2 (2) MAURESMO, AMELIE FRA 4546.00 1520.00 17 .00 .00 .00
2005
1 (1) DAVENPORT, LINDSAY USA 4910.00 1643.00 16 304.00 .00 .00
2 (2) CLIJSTERS, KIM BEL 4829.00 1719.00 17 164.00 .00 .00

In all three examples Lindsay didn't win a Grandslam in each those years. Is there something wrong with lindsay, does she not deserve the ranking? The points and her performance decide the rankings, irregardless of what she might be thinking, feeling, or saying.

How about in 2003:
1 (2) HENIN-HARDENNE, JUSTINE BEL 6628.00 2346.00 18 311.00 .00 101.00
2 (1) CLIJSTERS, KIM BEL 6553.00 2272.00 21 707.00 .00 170.00

is it because Kim already played 21 tournaments and didn't want to force an injury?

Look at the year end figures for 2000 where Martina was no.1 and won Tokyo, Miami, hamburg, 's-Hertogenbosch, Montreal, Fidlerstadt, Zurich, Moscow and the YEC (5 Tier Is), aside from F SF QF SF appearances in AO, RG, WMB, AO respectively:

1 (1) HINGIS, MARTINA SUI 6044.00 2273.0 20 0.00 0.00 136.00
2 (2) DAVENPORT, LINDSAY USA 5021.00 2011.0 18 0.00 0.00 1.00
3 (3) WILLIAMS, VENUS USA 3694.00 1698.0 9 0.00 0.00 0.00
4 (4) SELES, MONICA USA 3255.00 1183.0 15 0.00 0.00 0.00
5 (5) MARTINEZ, CONCHITA ESP 2752.00 864.0 20 0.00 0.00 43.00
6 (6) WILLIAMS, SERENA USA 2306.00 846.0 11 0.00 0.00 0.00
7 (7) PIERCE, MARY FRA 2162.00 866.0 13 0.00 0.00 0.00
8 (9) SANCHEZ-VICARIO, ARANTX ESP 2131.00 762.0 18 0.00 0.00 1.00
9 (8) KOURNIKOVA, ANNA RUS 2098.00 724.0 26 0.00 0.00 60.00
10 (10) TAUZIAT, NATHALIE FRA 1918.00 536.0 26 0.00 0.00 45.00

First comparison, why didn't Lindsay play two more tournaments to match Martina's 20? Their difference was 1023 points, that would mean she would need excellent results even two Tier I's can't get those points, thus she would need to play even more than just two tournaments. Thing is Martina can, did, and now has more points than any of them.

Second comparison, Seles has 15 tournaments while Venus has just 9 but they are both at 3000, a difference of 439 points. Both of them woudl require at least 1327 for Venus and 1766 points to match Lindsay who is still 1023 points away from Martina. Monica would have no chance at all unless she plays 30 tournaments. Venus on the other hand has played 9 tournaments gaining an average of 410 points per tournament entered. Now lets say she played 7 more tournaments to make her reach the number of tournaments she played when she reached her highest year end ranking (no.2 with 16 tournies played): 410x7=2870=6564 so theoretically if she played up to her maximum she could have been no.1 BUT she didn't and it was either because her body couldn't take it: "first four months of season with tendonitis in both wrists".

Is it bad for a player who won 5 Tier I's (Tokyo, Miami, Montreal, Zurich, Moscow), the YEC, some lesser tournaments (Hamburg, Filderstadt, 's-Hertogenbosch) and then made the Finals for the 4th time in AO, SF in RG and US Open and QF in Wimbledon, while winning 77 of 87 matches played (0.89) to be no.1? As compared to a player who played 9 tournaments (reasons: "first four months of season with tendonitis in both wrists") reaching 7 finals and winning two big titles Wimbledon, US Open and lesser titles Stanford, San Diego, New Haven, and a no WTA points Olympics ending with a 0.91 41-4 win loss ratio? NO.

Venus had a great 2000 bar the first four months of absence due to injury, but that is part of the game and Martina was the best player for that year with her overall results and thus ended no.1 that year. Martina was holding the no.1 in 2001 and could have ended year no.1 again but Filderstadt final happened and you see its part of the game so us martina fan's know she was no.1 at the start of the year but ended no.4 and we know she wasn't the best player for the end of the year for so many things, BUT she could have been the best if she did reach taht year end no.1, which she did not.

You see the GS win is just like winning a couple of Tier Is so it is not Martina's fault that they make it that way but the points are made in comparison with the draws and other factors, I don't really know but they must be fair because the WTA makes them, the WTA which owns the tour. Martina won 5 Tier Is, YEC and went far in all the slams. I guess people just can't take a number one who didn't win a grandslam that year.

lecciones
May 16th, 2007, 02:47 PM
Jana Novotna (2)

def Steffi Graf Australian 1991 QF 5-7 6-4 8-6
def Steffi graf Philadelphia 1996 F 6-4 ret.


Lori McNeil (2)

def Steffi Graf Wimbledon R128 7-5 7-6(5)
def Steffi Graf WTA Championships R16 7-6(1) 6-4

Amanda Coetzer (2)

def Steffi Graf Canada Open 1995 R32 3-6 6-2 7-6(6)
def Steffi Graf Australian Open 1997 R16 6-2 7-5

Mariaan De Swardt

def Steffi Graf Brighton 1995 R16 6-2 4-6 6-1



does Fed Cup count?

Kimiko Date

def Steffi Graf Fed Cup 1996 7-6(7) 3-6 12-10

How about W/O (like Hingis'?)

Anke Huber

def Steffi Graf Leipzig 1996 S W/O

Petkorazzi
May 16th, 2007, 02:51 PM
Martina has only 2 victories because all the rest she was #1 :worship:

StZox
May 16th, 2007, 02:52 PM
I think that Ana Ivanovic defeated Amelie in the 3rd round of RG 2005. Was Amelie No1 at the time?

lecciones
May 16th, 2007, 03:00 PM
Amelie was no.3 StZox :

FRENCH OPEN See all FRENCH OPEN Results for IVANOVIC
GS, FRANCE, June 4, 2005, $ 5,301,154 , CLAY (O)
Draw: 128M/128Q/64D, Rank: 31, Seed/Entry: 29

Rnd Opponent Rank W/L Score
R128 H2H FORETZ, STEPHANIE FRA 103 W 6-3 6-3
R64 H2H BENESOVA, IVETA CZE 55 W 6-3 6-1
R32 H2H (3) MAURESMO, AMELIE FRA 3 W 6-4 3-6 6-4
R16 H2H (22) SCHIAVONE, FRANCESCA ITA 24 W 6-4 6-7(3) 6-3
Q H2H (7) PETROVA, NADIA RUS 9 L 6-2 6-2
WTA Championship Pts: 282 WTA Ranking Pts.: 282

Petkorazzi
May 16th, 2007, 05:50 PM
you can add Sammy's win over Amelie Today :drool:

hablo
May 16th, 2007, 05:54 PM
you can add Sammy's win over Amelie Today :drool:

Justine Hénin is world#1 at the moment though! :scratch:

Chrissie-fan
May 16th, 2007, 06:36 PM
c.) Chris Every lost far more frequently (e.g. as many as 10 times in one year) in her 'dominant' years on the Tour (1974 - 1980 etc.) than compared to Navratilova (1982 - 1987) and Graf (1987 - 1989; 1993 - 1996), who lost only 2 or 3 (or a handful) matches (or a handful) each year. Moreover, Evert freely admitted (during Wimbledon 1998, in studio discussions with Sue Barker) that competition on the Tour became steadily more intense through the 1980s, as compared to the 1970s. Navratilova and Graf are widely understood to have been far more 'dominant' no.1 - ranked players than Evert who, again, was noted for her consistency rather than outright dominance.
Evert didn't play the FO in 1976-1978 (all of whom she was almost certain to win if she had competed) and the AO only once in the 70's . If she had competed at (and almost inevitably won) the 1976 FO she could have gone for the calender year Grand Slam at the AO , the last slam of the year at the time, because she had won Wimbledon and the US Open.

For the years you mention....

1974: 16 tournaments won, including French Open & Wimbledon;
win/loss record: 100-7 (93%)

1975: 16 tournaments won, including French Open, Wimbledon & YEC;
win/loss record: 94-6 (94%)

1976: 12 tournaments won, including Wimbledon & US Open ;
win/loss record: 75-5 (93%)

1977: 11 tournaments won, including US Open & YEC;
win/loss record: 70-4 (94%)

1978: 7 tournaments won, including US Open;
win/loss record: 56-3 (94%)

1979: 8 tournaments won, including French Open;
win/loss record: 92-15 (86%)

1980: 8 tournaments won, including French Open & US Open ;
win/loss record: 70-5 (93%)

Those statistics are impressive enough for me, but if not, forget about them. Consider her career as a whole, 18 years in a row as a top player, never ranked any lower than # 4 between 1972 and 1989. That's just obscene and even more impressive than how dominant any one player may have been during a part of her career.

I'm not arguing that Evert is better than Graf, Navratilova or Court (or Lenglen, Wills or Connolly for that matter). All these players are equals in my book, or at the very least so close that to pick one of them as the best ever is almost an insult to the others. All of them have achievements and statistics that speak in their favor and I don't see why those that speak for Evert should be any less important than those that speak for any of the others.

OrdinaryfoolisNJ
May 16th, 2007, 07:03 PM
Moreover, Evert freely admitted (during Wimbledon 1998, in studio discussions with Sue Barker) that competition on the Tour became steadily more intense through the 1980s, as compared to the 1970s.

Chris always says that, but the facts are that she played the players she was given (some of them considered to be amongst the GOATS). And many of them pushed her to the limit.

In the early 70's, three of Everts' early rivals were amongst the greatest of all time or nearly so -- Margaret Court (still playing at or near peak), Billie Jean King (still at or near peak), and Evonne Goolagong (who more than likely would have been considered for GOAT had her career not been interrupted), not to mention a young and very deadly Tracy Austin and also competitive Martina Navratilova (who was a threat as early as 1974). So Evert's competition was plenty awesome in the 70's (I've left out players like Dianne Fromholtz, Kerry Melville, Nancy Richey, and Ginny Wade - on her day - who also gave all players fits).

I consider Martina's competition to have been awesome too since she had to deal with Austin, Evert, and then Graf (although Martina was aging when that rivalry took off - still Martina played Graf tough).

In my opinion, Graf's competition was not as strong as it could have been on a consistent basis because of the problems with Seles and Capriati (two players who could have been contenders for or near GOAT in my opinion had circumstances not worked against them)! I think that had either not had issues, Graf would have had more serious competition for her GS titles. Especially from Seles. Although, I give Graf credit for being able to dominate on all surfaces.

The game had changed in the 80's, and I think this is what Chris meant. The women (including Chris) became fitter, faster, stronger, and the game followed suite. The young upstarts (Graf and company) were brought up on a different kind of game physically. But that's to be expected -- women as a whole were stronger and more fit in the 80's up to today than in the 60's and 70's when it was considered unfeminine to lift weights (remember Chrissie's nutty comment about that in the early 70's) or go to the gym.

Whatever Chris' losses in the 70's, I have memories of interviews and countless articles where players stated how much they FEARED Evert back then! Chris always showed up to fight and fight hard. I'm relearning how good she was now that I'm getting the chance to look back at some of her old matches.

p.s. Chrissiefan noted, that because Chris played WTT, she (like all WTT players) was exclused from the French Open in 76, 77, and 1978. Also, she rarely played the Australian Open because at the time it was scheduled in late December which confliced with both Christmas and her birthday. Had she played these events, God knows how many more GS's she would have to her record. Alas, twas not meant to be.

spencercarlos
May 16th, 2007, 07:26 PM
Jana Novotna (2)

def Steffi Graf Australian 1991 QF 5-7 6-4 8-6
def Steffi graf Philadelphia 1996 F 6-4 ret.


Lori McNeil (2)

def Steffi Graf Wimbledon R128 7-5 7-6(5)
def Steffi Graf WTA Championships R16 7-6(1) 6-4

Amanda Coetzer (2)

def Steffi Graf Canada Open 1995 R32 3-6 6-2 7-6(6)
def Steffi Graf Australian Open 1997 R16 6-2 7-5

Mariaan De Swardt

def Steffi Graf Brighton 1995 R16 6-2 4-6 6-1



does Fed Cup count?

Kimiko Date

def Steffi Graf Fed Cup 1996 7-6(7) 3-6 12-10

How about W/O (like Hingis'?)

Anke Huber

def Steffi Graf Leipzig 1996 S W/O
Was not Seles co ranked number one in 1996 when Jana beat her? and she did it twice.

SAEKeithSerena
May 16th, 2007, 08:10 PM
awesome statistics! Serena :)

New_balls_please
May 16th, 2007, 08:38 PM
Dominique Monami (Van Roost) (1)

def Martina Hingis 6-3 6-7(4) 6-4 Filderstadt 1998



Dominique :worship: :worship:

Still in my memory :worship: :worship: :worship:

Kai
May 16th, 2007, 09:02 PM
Amanda Coetzer :D

1995 Canadian Open def. S. Graf 36 62 76(6)
1997 Australian Open def. S. Graf 62 75
1997 Leipzig def. M. Hingis 64 46 76(3)
1999 Tokyo Pan Pazifik Open def. L. Davenport 26 64 63

:worship:

bandabou
May 16th, 2007, 09:15 PM
So theres no question about no.1 of Martina in 97 and 99? thats good hate to have to get data and explain myself for those.

But could it be that that was all that that player could take? Regarding the number of tournaments she could play? Lest it lead her to injuries? Martina could take more, and unfortunately in 01 after her injuries it was different and thus she couldn't play as much.

Look at these examples:
2001
1 (1) DAVENPORT, LINDSAY USA 4902.00 1871.00 17 .00 .00 .00
2 (2) CAPRIATI, JENNIFER USA 4892.00 1947.00 17 .00 .00 .00

Why didn't either of them play just one more tournament since they were so close to eachother, in order to get the number one ranking?

Same thing happens in 2004 & 2005:
2004
1 (1) DAVENPORT, LINDSAY USA 4760.00 1667.00 17 .00 .00 .00
2 (2) MAURESMO, AMELIE FRA 4546.00 1520.00 17 .00 .00 .00
2005
1 (1) DAVENPORT, LINDSAY USA 4910.00 1643.00 16 304.00 .00 .00
2 (2) CLIJSTERS, KIM BEL 4829.00 1719.00 17 164.00 .00 .00

In all three examples Lindsay didn't win a Grandslam in each those years. Is there something wrong with lindsay, does she not deserve the ranking? The points and her performance decide the rankings, irregardless of what she might be thinking, feeling, or saying.

How about in 2003:
1 (2) HENIN-HARDENNE, JUSTINE BEL 6628.00 2346.00 18 311.00 .00 101.00
2 (1) CLIJSTERS, KIM BEL 6553.00 2272.00 21 707.00 .00 170.00

is it because Kim already played 21 tournaments and didn't want to force an injury?

Look at the year end figures for 2000 where Martina was no.1 and won Tokyo, Miami, hamburg, 's-Hertogenbosch, Montreal, Fidlerstadt, Zurich, Moscow and the YEC (5 Tier Is), aside from F SF QF SF appearances in AO, RG, WMB, AO respectively:

1 (1) HINGIS, MARTINA SUI 6044.00 2273.0 20 0.00 0.00 136.00
2 (2) DAVENPORT, LINDSAY USA 5021.00 2011.0 18 0.00 0.00 1.00
3 (3) WILLIAMS, VENUS USA 3694.00 1698.0 9 0.00 0.00 0.00
4 (4) SELES, MONICA USA 3255.00 1183.0 15 0.00 0.00 0.00
5 (5) MARTINEZ, CONCHITA ESP 2752.00 864.0 20 0.00 0.00 43.00
6 (6) WILLIAMS, SERENA USA 2306.00 846.0 11 0.00 0.00 0.00
7 (7) PIERCE, MARY FRA 2162.00 866.0 13 0.00 0.00 0.00
8 (9) SANCHEZ-VICARIO, ARANTX ESP 2131.00 762.0 18 0.00 0.00 1.00
9 (8) KOURNIKOVA, ANNA RUS 2098.00 724.0 26 0.00 0.00 60.00
10 (10) TAUZIAT, NATHALIE FRA 1918.00 536.0 26 0.00 0.00 45.00

First comparison, why didn't Lindsay play two more tournaments to match Martina's 20? Their difference was 1023 points, that would mean she would need excellent results even two Tier I's can't get those points, thus she would need to play even more than just two tournaments. Thing is Martina can, did, and now has more points than any of them.

Second comparison, Seles has 15 tournaments while Venus has just 9 but they are both at 3000, a difference of 439 points. Both of them woudl require at least 1327 for Venus and 1766 points to match Lindsay who is still 1023 points away from Martina. Monica would have no chance at all unless she plays 30 tournaments. Venus on the other hand has played 9 tournaments gaining an average of 410 points per tournament entered. Now lets say she played 7 more tournaments to make her reach the number of tournaments she played when she reached her highest year end ranking (no.2 with 16 tournies played): 410x7=2870=6564 so theoretically if she played up to her maximum she could have been no.1 BUT she didn't and it was either because her body couldn't take it: "first four months of season with tendonitis in both wrists".

Is it bad for a player who won 5 Tier I's (Tokyo, Miami, Montreal, Zurich, Moscow), the YEC, some lesser tournaments (Hamburg, Filderstadt, 's-Hertogenbosch) and then made the Finals for the 4th time in AO, SF in RG and US Open and QF in Wimbledon, while winning 77 of 87 matches played (0.89) to be no.1? As compared to a player who played 9 tournaments (reasons: "first four months of season with tendonitis in both wrists") reaching 7 finals and winning two big titles Wimbledon, US Open and lesser titles Stanford, San Diego, New Haven, and a no WTA points Olympics ending with a 0.91 41-4 win loss ratio? NO.

Venus had a great 2000 bar the first four months of absence due to injury, but that is part of the game and Martina was the best player for that year with her overall results and thus ended no.1 that year. Martina was holding the no.1 in 2001 and could have ended year no.1 again but Filderstadt final happened and you see its part of the game so us martina fan's know she was no.1 at the start of the year but ended no.4 and we know she wasn't the best player for the end of the year for so many things, BUT she could have been the best if she did reach taht year end no.1, which she did not.

You see the GS win is just like winning a couple of Tier Is so it is not Martina's fault that they make it that way but the points are made in comparison with the draws and other factors, I don't really know but they must be fair because the WTA makes them, the WTA which owns the tour. Martina won 5 Tier Is, YEC and went far in all the slams. I guess people just can't take a number one who didn't win a grandslam that year.

If you what you say is true...then the question becomes: How come Martina can win all those tier I's, YEC, etc..but couldn't get it done at the majors..?? the creme de la creme in tennis?

winning a major= winning a tier I, right?

lecciones
May 17th, 2007, 02:55 AM
If you what you say is true...then the question becomes: How come Martina can win all those tier I's, YEC, etc..but couldn't get it done at the majors..?? the creme de la creme in tennis?

winning a major= winning a tier I, right?

Doesn't really matter. Because like I said she went far into the GS and won a host of other big titles. Venus won two majors and then some Tier II or below titles. Martina reached the F SF QF SF in majors and then 5 Tier Is and YEC.

Williams
Wimbledon title:

Q H2H (1) HINGIS, MARTINA 1 W 6-3 4-6 6-4
S H2H (8) WILLIAMS, SERENA 8 W 6-2 7-6(3)
F H2H (2) DAVENPORT, LINDSAY 2 W 6-3 7-6(3)

Impressive wins against rank 1, 8 & 2

US Open title:

Q H2H (8) TAUZIAT, NATHALIE 8 W 6-4 1-6 6-1
S H2H (1) HINGIS, MARTINA 1 W 4-6 6-3 7-5
F H2H (2) DAVENPORT, LINDSAY 2 W 6-4 7-5

Impressive wins against ranked 1, 8, and 2 again.

It is true that to get her two majors she had to go against three highly ranked players consecutively, while Martina had to only go against at most two. But the thing I'm saying is not that Martina couldn't win a major and thus she doesn't deserve her no.1 position, she was able to win other titles and also defeated top ranked players to get them. This is about how many titles you can win, and how many tournaments you can play to try to win it depends on the player, and Martina although not winning a major, went deep into the draws in majors PLUS won 5 Tier I's and YEC. If you want go ahead and ask WTA to change their rating scheme and make anybody who wins a major, or most majors if there is a tie to be automatically no.1, irregardless if they play any other tournament or win any other title.


And to answer your question: If you what you say is true...then the question becomes: How come Martina can win all those tier I's, YEC, etc..but couldn't get it done at the majors..?? the creme de la creme in tennis?

(1) her fitness (she isn't known to be a gym buff person)
(2) pressure of being no.1
(3) pressure of winning another grandslam
(4) she pushed venus to three sets all of them close
*from what I've seen of Martina, when she is about to win she locks up and goes back to her baseline defense, and then she loses the match.


P.S. to Chrissie-fan, those win/loss ratios are just similar to Graf who holds the number one position longest, hers ranges from 0.89-0.97 (something like that), also when Evert didn't play those 3 French and the numerous Australian Opens that was when she had her 125 win streak on clay right? She could have easily been 22+ majors and 18+ runnerup, instead of her 18 majors and 16 runner ups.

azmad_88
May 17th, 2007, 04:08 AM
Added Amanda Coetzer

bandabou
May 17th, 2007, 09:36 AM
Doesn't really matter. Because like I said she went far into the GS and won a host of other big titles. Venus won two majors and then some Tier II or below titles. Martina reached the F SF QF SF in majors and then 5 Tier Is and YEC.

Williams
Wimbledon title:

Q H2H (1) HINGIS, MARTINA 1 W 6-3 4-6 6-4
S H2H (8) WILLIAMS, SERENA 8 W 6-2 7-6(3)
F H2H (2) DAVENPORT, LINDSAY 2 W 6-3 7-6(3)

Impressive wins against rank 1, 8 & 2

US Open title:

Q H2H (8) TAUZIAT, NATHALIE 8 W 6-4 1-6 6-1
S H2H (1) HINGIS, MARTINA 1 W 4-6 6-3 7-5
F H2H (2) DAVENPORT, LINDSAY 2 W 6-4 7-5

Impressive wins against ranked 1, 8, and 2 again.

It is true that to get her two majors she had to go against three highly ranked players consecutively, while Martina had to only go against at most two. But the thing I'm saying is not that Martina couldn't win a major and thus she doesn't deserve her no.1 position, she was able to win other titles and also defeated top ranked players to get them. This is about how many titles you can win, and how many tournaments you can play to try to win it depends on the player, and Martina although not winning a major, went deep into the draws in majors PLUS won 5 Tier I's and YEC. If you want go ahead and ask WTA to change their rating scheme and make anybody who wins a major, or most majors if there is a tie to be automatically no.1, irregardless if they play any other tournament or win any other title.


And to answer your question: If you what you say is true...then the question becomes: How come Martina can win all those tier I's, YEC, etc..but couldn't get it done at the majors..?? the creme de la creme in tennis?

(1) her fitness (she isn't known to be a gym buff person)
(2) pressure of being no.1
(3) pressure of winning another grandslam
(4) she pushed venus to three sets all of them close
*from what I've seen of Martina, when she is about to win she locks up and goes back to her baseline defense, and then she loses the match.


P.S. to Chrissie-fan, those win/loss ratios are just similar to Graf who holds the number one position longest, hers ranges from 0.89-0.97 (something like that), also when Evert didn't play those 3 French and the numerous Australian Opens that was when she had her 125 win streak on clay right? She could have easily been 22+ majors and 18+ runnerup, instead of her 18 majors and 16 runner ups.

Hmmm....so interestingly all those factors only came up during the majors...fitness, pressure, etc...? Why is that?

I'm not saying that winning a major is all that's needed to become no.1..my only point is that weeks at no.1 don't tell the whole story of how good a player really is. E.g.: Martina-fans want to use the weeks at no.1 as reason for saying Martina's greater than Serena...and that to me is bullocks.

Heck..Justine, Lindsay have more weeks at no.1 too than Serena, does this make them greater too??

Chrissie-fan
May 17th, 2007, 09:52 AM
Nice, nice..but Martina retaining the no.1 rank after say '99 is more to her PLAYING so much than anything else. That's why she gets so much scrutiny...no way was Martina the BEST player..only that she was consistent: beat the players she must beat,but pretty much didn't stand a chance against the big guns.

I mean..no.1 not always tells the whole story..heck, Kim and Momo became no.1 without even a major, sooo.
Well, consistency should count for something IMO. In fact, it's what the # 1 ranking is all about. While I agree that slams are definitely more important than any of the other tournaments, they already have trophees as a reward for winning those. The # 1 ranking is the reward for playing great tennis all year long. It doesn't necessarily mean that at her "peak" (:rolleyes: ) she was better than all of the others, but it means (or should mean IMO) that she played at - or close to her best more often than anyone else. That in itself is a major achievement. Sure, there's the pressure of being able to be at your best at the sports biggest stage - the slams, but holding on to the # 1 position on the computer for as long as Martina did brings it's own kind of pressure - the need to perform in every tournament you enter.

lecciones
May 17th, 2007, 09:52 AM
Hmmm....so interestingly all those factors only came up during the majors...fitness, pressure, etc...? Why is that?

I'm not saying that winning a major is all that's needed to become no.1..my only point is that weeks at no.1 don't tell the whole story of how good a player really is. E.g.: Martina-fans want to use the weeks at no.1 as reason for saying Martina's greater than Serena...and that to me is bullocks.

Heck..Justine, Lindsay have more weeks at no.1 too than Serena, does this make them greater too??


Well I don't know which Hingis fan your referring too because I don't solely and only count on her weeks at no.1 for her greatness. She has plenty of other stats which make her great. I usually just refer to AnnaK_4ever's stats as a nuetral and general aggregate performance of a players single's career, of which Serena leads Martina by a small margin.

Serena definitely has proven herself tremendously great in the grandslams, but for me Martina Hingis is my no.1 I don't bother for WS fans when they say Serena is great, they have a good point - she has 8 slams, but I have my own reasons for Martina being no.1 for me. But when it comes to Venus being better than Martina, I care because no way is Venus better than Martina.

P.S. another reason why i like AnnaK's stats is it shows that a combination of different things can make you better than someone who has clearly done better in only one category. I.E. Why even if Justine, Venus, and Martina all have 5 grandslams Martina is way ahead of JH and Venus and JH lags behind Venus. It's like if I compared a player with 7 single grandslams and 13 titles to someone with just 4 grandslams but 10 doubles grandslams and 70 titles total. Some people would go for just the Grandslams, I'd go for the whole package, while others would just lump them together just like they lump Graf, Evert and Navratilova together and then Monica and them in the next tier.

lecciones
May 17th, 2007, 10:01 AM
Well, consistency should count for something IMO. In fact, it's what the # 1 ranking is all about. While I agree that slams are definitely more important than any of the other tournaments, they already have trophees as a reward for winning those. The # 1 ranking is the reward for playing great tennis all year long. It doesn't necessarily mean that at her "peak" (:rolleyes: ) she was better than all of the others, but it means (or should mean IMO) that she played at - or close to her best more often than anyone else. That in itself is a major achievement. Sure, there's the pressure of being able to be at your best at the sports biggest stage - the slams, but holding on to the # 1 position on the computer for as long as Martina did brings it's own kind of pressure - the need to perform in every tournament you enter.


And I'll repeat again, she entered 78 tournaments as RANK 1 SEED 1, so imagine what kind of pressure you have that the whole tour demands of you and expects you to at least be at the finals and you yourself want to win it, then there's your great rival, in Hingis' case, Lindsay who has been trying to capture the no.1 from you and she has beaten you countless times already in finals but still you are no.1 because most of the time you appear in the final while she drops, but if ever she does meet you at the finals it is a big problem. Then you have all these new comers who are talented and have been brought up in an even more physical condition than you have during your time and they are all vying to capture the title or dream of being no.1. You have to fight it all off for more than four years.

To me Martina can handle more consistent and longterm pressure than Serena (although Serena still has the best in-match determination), since from 1997-2001 she held on to the number 1 ranking with all its pressure and criticisms while Serena didn't same with the rest of the other players who held on to the rankings just recently, it is only Justine who I see has the steely determination to keep her ranking for more than just one great year of performance, she wants consistency too and we can see that in her attitude and her results and her entering the tournaments regularly.

So imagine the pressure.

bandabou
May 17th, 2007, 12:32 PM
Well I don't know which Hingis fan your referring too because I don't solely and only count on her weeks at no.1 for her greatness. She has plenty of other stats which make her great. I usually just refer to AnnaK_4ever's stats as a nuetral and general aggregate performance of a players single's career, of which Serena leads Martina by a small margin.

Serena definitely has proven herself tremendously great in the grandslams, but for me Martina Hingis is my no.1 I don't bother for WS fans when they say Serena is great, they have a good point - she has 8 slams, but I have my own reasons for Martina being no.1 for me. But when it comes to Venus being better than Martina, I care because no way is Venus better than Martina.

P.S. another reason why i like AnnaK's stats is it shows that a combination of different things can make you better than someone who has clearly done better in only one category. I.E. Why even if Justine, Venus, and Martina all have 5 grandslams Martina is way ahead of JH and Venus and JH lags behind Venus. It's like if I compared a player with 7 single grandslams and 13 titles to someone with just 4 grandslams but 10 doubles grandslams and 70 titles total. Some people would go for just the Grandslams, I'd go for the whole package, while others would just lump them together just like they lump Graf, Evert and Navratilova together and then Monica and them in the next tier.

Ok..I'm with cool with this. As long as we agree that Serena's greater than Hingis, hey..it's fine with me. ;)

Medina
May 17th, 2007, 12:36 PM
no Lena so im not :inlove:

lecciones
May 17th, 2007, 12:49 PM
Ok..I'm with cool with this. As long as we agree that Serena's greater than Hingis, hey..it's fine with me. ;)

Oh about Serena, we agree to disagree, Martina is always no.1 for me. :) My signature can't even hold all her statistics which for me is why she is no.1 :)

azmad_88
Jul 7th, 2007, 08:32 AM
Marion Bartoli def Justine Henin 1-6 7-5 6-1 Wimbledon 2007

Polikarpov
Jul 7th, 2007, 08:37 AM
only 2 for Hingis:speakles:

Well it's because Hingis was no. 1 for a long time. When you're no.1 you have no choice but to play against lower rankeed players right?

sfselesfan
Jul 7th, 2007, 08:48 AM
Monica Seles - at least 7 times that I count.

SF

marion127
Jul 7th, 2007, 08:58 AM
yes, 7 times !

azmad_88
Feb 2nd, 2008, 07:25 AM
Maria Sharapova def Justine Henin 6-4 6-0

kittyking
Feb 2nd, 2008, 08:05 AM
Patty has twice as many wins of world number ones's as Ivanovic and Jankovic combined :tape: (don't get me wrong, Im a fan of Jankovic but even so this is pretty funny)

up!
Feb 2nd, 2008, 08:22 AM
Patty has been playing for more than 10 years ;)

DOUBLEFIST
Feb 2nd, 2008, 08:27 AM
Poor Hingis. Damn! I knew it was a lot (as I watched many of them), but when you see it written down... :eek:

mr_burns
Feb 2nd, 2008, 09:41 AM
what about a threat most defeats as a world no 1


it seems that amelie has a lot for her short number of weeks at the top

kittyking
Feb 2nd, 2008, 09:44 AM
Patty has been playing for more than 10 years ;)

Even so :p

mpmg
Feb 2nd, 2008, 09:56 AM
wasnt graf number one when she was beaten by Lori Mcneil at an early round at Wimbledon back in 1994. Didn't Zina Garrison beat the number one player in the 90 wimbledon...graf or seles???

AnnaK_4ever
Feb 2nd, 2008, 10:00 AM
what about a threat most defeats as a world no 1


it seems that amelie has a lot for her short number of weeks at the top

short number? :tape:
Amelie spent almost as many weeks on the top of the rankings as Venus, Clijsters and Sharapova combined.

Steffica Greles
Feb 2nd, 2008, 11:19 AM
Hingis was toast as number one. Every woman and her dog had her.

Aranxta's record is better than at first glance: five of her six wins over world number ones were in major finals.

And, of course, she was at her height during the era of two dominant number ones, in Graf and Seles, for whom Aranxta was their greatest challenge.

azmad_88
Feb 29th, 2008, 06:50 AM
francesca Schiavone def Justine Henin 7-6 7-6

merda2004
Feb 29th, 2008, 06:54 AM
Lindsay Davenport (15) :worship:

2006 New Haven: def Mauresmo 6-4 7-5
2004 Filderstadt: def Mauresmo 6-2 ret.
2001 Tokyo Pan Pacific: def Hingis 6-7(4) 6-4 6-2
2001 Filderstadt: def Hingis 2-1 ret.
2001 Zurich: def Capriati 6-1 5-7 6-2
2000 Australian Open: def Hingis 6-1 7-5
2000 Indian Wells: def Hingis 4-6 6-4 6-0
2000 Philadelphia: def Hingis 7-6(7) 6-4
1999 Philadelphia: def Hingis 6-3 6-4
1999 Chase Championships: def Hingis 6-4 6-2
1998 Tokyo Pan Pacific: def Hingis 6-3 6-3
1998 Los Angeles: def Hingis 4-6 6-4 6-3
1998 US Open: def Hingis 6-3 7-5
1997 Los Angeles: def Hingis 6-2 4-6 6-4
1996 Los Angeles: def Graf 6-3 6-3


Gabriela Sabatini (10)

Martina Navratilova Rome 1987 7-6 6-1
Steffi Graf VS Florida 1988 2-6 6-3 6-1
Steffi Graf Amelia Island 1988 6-3 4-6 7-5
Steffi Graf Amelia Island 1989 3-6 6-3 7-5
Steffi Graf Usopen 1990 6-2 7-6
Steffi Graf Masters 1990 6-4 6-4
Steffi Graf Tokio 1991 4-6 6-4 7-6
Steffi Graf VS Florida 1991 6-4 7-6
Monica Seles Rome 1991 6-3 6-2
Monica Seles Rome 1992 7-5 6-4


Serena Williams (10)

def Martina Hingis Miami1999 6-4 7-6
def Martina Hingis LA 1999 6-3 7-5
def Martina Hingis USO 1999 6-3 7-6
def Martina HIngis LA 2000 4-6 6-2 6-3
def Martina Hingis USO 2001 6-3 6-2
def Jennifer Capriati Miami2002 7-5 7-6
def Jennifer Capriati RG2002 3-6 7-6 6-2
def Venus Williams Wimbledon2002 7-6 6-3
def Lindsay Davenport AO2005 2-6 6-3 6-0
def Justine Henin Miami2007 0-6 7-5 6-3


Venus Williams (9)

def Martina Hingis Sydney1998 3-6 6-4 7-5
def Martina Hingis Miami1998 6-2 5-7 6-2
def Martina Hingis ITALIANOPEN1999 6-4 1-6 6-4
def Lindsay Davenport SanDiego1999 6-4 7-5
def Martina Hingis Zurich1999 6-3 6-4
def Martina Hingis Wimbledon2000 6-3 4-6 6-4
def Martina Hingis USO2000 4-6 6-3 7-5
def Martina Hingis ERICSSON2001 6-3 7-6
def Linsday Davenport Wimbledon2005 4-6 7-6 9-7


Amelie Mauresmo (8)

def Lindsay Davenport AO 99
def Martina Hingis Paris 99
def Martina Hingis Sydney 2000
def Martina Hingis Rome 2001
def Martina Hingis Berlin 2001
def Serena Williams Rome 2003
def Henin Amelia Island 2004
def Kim Clijsters Antwerp 2006


Justine Henin (7)

def Serena Williams Charleston2003 6-3 6-4
def Serena Williams RG2003 6-2 4-6 7-5
def Kim Clijsters USO2003 7-5 6-1
def Lindsay Davenport Charleston2005 3-6 6-3 1-0
def Lindsay Davenport AO2006 2-6 6-2 6-3
def Amelie Mauresmo Berlin2006 6-1 6-2
def Amelie Mauresmo YEC2006 6-4 6-3


Mary Pierce (7)

1994 Roland Garros SF def Steffi Graf 6-2,6-2
1994 YEC QF def Steffi Graf 6-4,6-4
1997 YEC QF def Martina Hingis 6-3,2-6,7-5
1998 San Diego SF def Martina Hingis 3-6,7-6,6-2
2000 Roland Garros SF def Martina Hingis 6-4,5-7,6-2
2005 Roland Garros def. Lindsay Davenport 6-3,6-2
2005 YEC def Lindsay Davenport 7-6,7-6


Jennifer Capriati (6)

1991 San Diego(F):def. Monica Seles 4-6,6-1,7-6(2)
1992 Miami(QF):def. Monica Seles 6-2,7-6(5)
1996 Chicago(SF):def. Monica Seles 6-3,6-3
2001 Australian Open(F):def. Martina Hingis 6-4,6-3
2001 Charleston(F):def. Martina Hingis 6-0,4-6,6-4
2001 French Open(SF):def. Martina Hingis 6-4,6-3


Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario (6)

d. Steffi Graf 7-6(6), 3-6, 7-5, 1989 RG Final
d. Monica Seles 6-3, 4-6, 6-3, 1992 Canadian Open Final
d. Steffi Graf 4-6, 7-6(3), 7-6(6), 1994 Hamburg Final
d. Steffi Graf 7-5, 1-6, 7-6(4), 1994 Canadian Open Final
d. Steffi Graf 1-6, 7-6(3), 6-4, 1994 US Open Final
d. Martina Hingis 6-2, 6-4, 2001 Amelia Island QF


Kim Clijsters (4)

def Martina Hingis IW2001 6-2 2-6 6-1
def Venus Williams Hamburg 2002 1-6 6-3 6-4
def Serena Williams YEC 2002 7-5 6-3
def Lindsay Davenport IW 2005 6-4 4-6 6-2


Svetlana Kuznetsova (4)

2004 Doha defeated Henin 6-2 4-6 6-3
2006 Miami defeated Mauresmo 6-1 6-4
2006 Beijing def Mauresmo 6-4 6-0
2007 Berlin def Henin 6-4 5-7 6-4


Amanda Coetzer (4)

1995 Canadian Open def. S. Graf 36 62 76(6)
1997 Australian Open def. S. Graf 62 75
1997 Leipzig def. M. Hingis 64 46 76(3)
1999 Tokyo Pan Pazifik Open def. L. Davenport 26 64 63


Maria Sharapova (4)

def Lindsay Davenport Tokyo2005 6-1 3-6 7-6(5)
def Lindsay Davenport YEC2005 6-3 5-7 6-4
def Amelie Mauresmo USO 2006 6-0 4-6 6-0
def Justine Henin AO 2007 6-4 6-0


Nicole Vaidisova (2)

def Amelie Mauresmo RG 2006 6-7 6-1 6-2
def Amelie Mauresmo Moscow2006 1-6 7-5 7-6(3)


Elena Dementieva (2)

def Martina Hingis Moscow2001 6-2 6-2
def Lindsay Davenport USO2005 6-1 3-6 7-6(6)


Nadia Petrova (2)

def Justine Henin-Hardenne USO2004 6-3 6-2
def Amelie Mauresmo YEC2006 6-2 6-2


Jelena Dokic (2)

1999 Wimbledon 1R, Dokic def. Hingis
2003 Zurich SF, Dokic def. Clijsters


Martina Hingis (2)

def Steffi Graf ITALIANOPEN1996 2-6 6-2 6-3
def Lindsay Davenport CHASE1998 7-5 6-4 4-6 6-2


Anastasia Myskina (2)

def Kim Clijsters Leipzig 2003 5-7 4-4
def Lindsay Davenport YEC2004 6-4 7-6


Chanda Rubin (2)

1999 Indian Wells QF, Rubin def Hingis(1) 6-3 7-6
2002 Los Angeles QF, Rubin def S.Williams(1) 6-2 4-6 7-5


Conchita Martínez (2)

d. Steffi Graf 63 63. Philadelphia'93 (carpet indoor)
d. Martina Hingis 64 75. Berlin'00 (clay outdoor)


Patty Schnyder (2)

def Martina Hingis 5-7 7-5 5-5 Grandslam Cup 1998
def Jennifer Capriati 6-3 6-4 Charleston 2002

Francesca Schiavone (2)

def Amelie Mauresmo in fed cup 2006 4-6 7-6 6-4
def Justine Henin Dubai 2008 7-6 7-6

Virginia Ruano Pascual (1)

d. Martina Hingis 64 62. Wimbledon'01 (grass)


Ana Ivanovic (1)

def Maria Sharpova 6-1 0-1 Tokyo2007


Vera Zvonareva (1)

def Maria Sharapova 4-6 7-5 6-1 IW2007


Nathalie Dechy (1)

def Amelie Mauresmo 3-6 6-2 6-3 Eastbourne2006


Tatiana Garbin (1)

def Justine Henin-Hardenne 7-5 6-4 RG2004


Maria Kirilenko (1)

def Maria Sharapova 6-4 2-1 Beijing 2005


Dinara Safina (1)

def Maria Sharpova 1-6 6-4 7-5 Moscow 2005


Anna Kournikova (1)

def. Martina Hingis(1)- 6:3,7-6 Berlin, clay,1998


Dominique Monami (Van Roost) (1)

def Martina Hingis 6-3 6-7(4) 6-4 Filderstadt 1998


Anna Lena-Gronefeld (1)

def Lindsay Davenport 5-0 ret Standford 2005


Marion Bartoli (1)

def Justine Henin Wimbledon 2007 1-6 7-5 6-1


can i say that eleni beat justine twice?ok she wasnt no1 back then but she was a good player and a former no1.

azmad_88
Apr 2nd, 2008, 02:12 AM
Serena Williams def Justine Henin 6-2 6-0

Tennisstar86
Apr 2nd, 2008, 02:19 AM
hrmm..i think itd be interesting to see records against #1.....(hint)

Ryan
Apr 2nd, 2008, 02:28 AM
Not really surprising Hingis has so many losses since she was #1 for four years. She was pretty much #1 during her entire peak and even afterwards...and once she fell from the top spot she wasn't a good enough player to beat the best in the world.

Tennisstar86
Apr 2nd, 2008, 02:31 AM
Not really surprising Hingis has so many losses since she was #1 for four years. She was pretty much #1 during her entire peak and even afterwards...and once she fell from the top spot she wasn't a good enough player to beat the best in the world.

thats not what happened to hingis.... Basically the results show that whereas she had the #1 ranking... she clearly was not the best player during her entire reign as #1. basically after 97. Davenport, Venus, Capriati all had her number.... she was always top 3 but not really #1

MakarovaFan
Apr 2nd, 2008, 02:37 AM
Dam,in Sharapova's few no.1 wins she has 3 bagels against them!!!! wow half of her sets wins were bagels lol

Ryan
Apr 2nd, 2008, 02:39 AM
thats not what happened to hingis.... Basically the results show that whereas she had the #1 ranking... she clearly was not the best player during her entire reign as #1. basically after 97. Davenport, Venus, Capriati all had her number.... she was always top 3 but not really #1


I didn't say she was the best. I said she was #1, as in, she held the #1 ranking during her entire peak from 1997 even through to 2001 when she wasn't playing very well. So its no surprise she has that many losses.

Ryan
Apr 2nd, 2008, 02:40 AM
And Capriati only had Hingis' number for 4 matches over the course of one year, not exactly ownage or anything, especially "after 97" like you said.

@danieln1
Apr 2nd, 2008, 02:54 AM
:worship: Lindsay!!! :worship:

Geisha
Apr 2nd, 2008, 03:08 AM
most dominating win against a no. 1?

Tennisstar86
Apr 2nd, 2008, 03:35 AM
And Capriati only had Hingis' number for 4 matches over the course of one year, not exactly ownage or anything, especially "after 97" like you said.

sigh..... I thought you were intelligent enough to understand that While Hingis had the #1 ranking from 97-01...she wasnt considered the #1 player during that time by most after mid 98...

98-99 - Davenport
00-01- Venus
01-02 Behind Venus and CApriati.... The fact is Hingis got a lot of losses as the number 1 player... but she lost a ton of matches to players who were considered better than her...
Many of her losses as the #1 player werent that shocking..unlike say Henin getting bagelled by Sharapova and then Serena, when She there is no arguement that she is the #1 player....

Summer_Snow
Apr 2nd, 2008, 06:40 AM
Hahaha...Hingis lost tons of matches as World no.1

Becool
Apr 2nd, 2008, 06:55 AM
Chanda Rubin (2)

1999 Indian Wells QF, Rubin def Hingis(1) 6-3 7-6
2002 Los Angeles QF, Rubin def S.Williams(1) 6-2 4-6 7-5 (this was televisionized?)

mm1147
Apr 2nd, 2008, 07:09 AM
wow lindsay :worship:

Dave.
Apr 2nd, 2008, 09:47 AM
sigh..... I thought you were intelligent enough to understand that While Hingis had the #1 ranking from 97-01...she wasnt considered the #1 player during that time by most after mid 98...

98-99 - Davenport
00-01- Venus
01-02 Behind Venus and CApriati.... The fact is Hingis got a lot of losses as the number 1 player... but she lost a ton of matches to players who were considered better than her...
Many of her losses as the #1 player werent that shocking..unlike say Henin getting bagelled by Sharapova and then Serena, when She there is no arguement that she is the #1 player....


There were a few different players who could be considered the best in this period. And Hingis was one of them. Nobody was totally dominant for the entire season in any of these years (like Hingis in 97 and Serena in 02). Lindsay did take over in 1998 but in 1999 it was pretty even between Lindsay and Martina. They both did enough to say they were the best player. Martina actually finished as YE-no.1, so it's unfair to leave her out of 99. In 2000, Venus had a great summer which just about swings it her way, but you have to look at the fact that despite her great success, she still couldn't breach the Lindsay/Martina hold on the rankings. Lindsay and Martina both had better years from Jan-Nov, but Venus had alot of success in a smaller period. 2001 is either Jennifer or Venus due to the slams. But again, for nearly the whole year Martina was #1 and Lindsay #2. Lindsay had a fantastic indoor season to clinch YE-#1.

Olórin
Apr 2nd, 2008, 10:32 AM
Just to put this in context a little, let's look at some humiliating losses by some of the best players of all time. Regardless of whether they were number one at the time or not, these thrashings come from periods when these players had already established themselves as greats.

Martina Navratilova
lost to Billie Jean King 61 61 Chichester QF 1979
lost to Tracy Austin 62 60 Stuttgart F 1979
lost to Tracy Austin 62 61 Tokyo Emerson Cup F 1979
lost to Chris Evert 60 60 WITA Championship F 1981
lost to Chris Evert 64 60 VS of Houston Final 1988
lost to Monica Seles 61 61 Italian Open Final 1990

Chris Evert
lost to Martina Navratilova 64 60 VS of Chicago SF 1975
lost to Virginia Wade 62 62 Dewar Cup F 1976
lost to Sue Barker 63 61 Avon Boston QF 1979
lost to Tracy Austin 63 60 VS Washington SF 1980
lost to Tracy Austin 62 61 Cincinnati F 1980
lost to Tracy Austin 62 61 Toyota Championships SF 1981
lost to Andrew Jaeger 60 63 French Open SF 1982
lost to Martina Navratilova 62 60 VS Championships 1982
lost to Martina Navratilova 61 63 US Open F 1983
lost to Martina Navratilova 62 60 WITA Championship F 1983
lost to Martina Navratilova 63 61 French Open F 1983
lost to Martina Navratilova 62 61 VS of Dallas F 1986

Steffi Graf
lost to ASV 60 62 French Open SF 1991
lost to Mary Pierce 62 62 French Open SF 1994
lost to Amanda Coetzer 61 60 Berlin SF 1997

Monica Seles
lost to Steffi Graf 62 61 Wimbledon F 1992

Serena Williams
lost to Mary Pierce 62 61 Indian Wells QF 2000
lost to Lindsay Davenport 61 63 LA F 2004

Steffica Greles
Apr 2nd, 2008, 10:36 AM
lol, Did anyone not beat Hingis? Even Coetzer and Sanchez-Vicario, who she normally thrashed, had their moments at Martina's expense.

Dave.
Apr 2nd, 2008, 10:45 AM
Lindsay Davenport

Indian Wells 2001 lost to Serena 1-6 2-6
San Diego 2002 lost to Venus 2-6 1-6
French Open 2004 lost to Dementieva 1-6 3-6
Australian Open 2008 lost to Sharapova 1-6 3-6

Ryan
Apr 2nd, 2008, 01:11 PM
sigh..... I thought you were intelligent enough to understand that While Hingis had the #1 ranking from 97-01...she wasnt considered the #1 player during that time by most after mid 98...

98-99 - Davenport
00-01- Venus
01-02 Behind Venus and CApriati.... The fact is Hingis got a lot of losses as the number 1 player... but she lost a ton of matches to players who were considered better than her...
Many of her losses as the #1 player werent that shocking..unlike say Henin getting bagelled by Sharapova and then Serena, when She there is no arguement that she is the #1 player....



Are you fucking stupid? I never said Hingis was the BEST player from 1997 to 2001, merely that she was ranked #1 virtually the entire time which accounts for having so many losses. :shrug: Learn how to read.

Steffica Greles
Apr 2nd, 2008, 01:26 PM
I never said Hingis was the BEST player from 1997 to 2001, merely that she was ranked #1 virtually the entire time which accounts for having so many losses. :shrug: Learn how to read.

Finally he lets slip what I'd been arguing interminably with him over the last couple of years: the number one ranking is just a number, and not indicative of who is the best player.

Sometimes with people like Ryan it's best to just let them hear themselves; tell them the truth and they just react with expletives and childish jibes like 'troll' or 'retard'. Give them time to think things through, and they come round.

I'm sure I read that in a childcare book once.

:lol:

IanRadi
Apr 2nd, 2008, 01:32 PM
Gaby & Mary :hearts:

DA FOREHAND
Apr 2nd, 2008, 02:07 PM
Are you fucking stupid? I never said Hingis was the BEST player from 1997 to 2001, merely that she was ranked #1 virtually the entire time which accounts for having so many losses. :shrug: Learn how to read.

Extra Classy with Cheese:lol::tape::drool:

Tennisstar86
Apr 2nd, 2008, 06:36 PM
Not really surprising Hingis has so many losses since she was #1 for four years. She was pretty much #1 during her entire peak and even afterwards...and once she fell from the top spot she wasn't a good enough player to beat the best in the world.
:rolleyes: right there you implied that while on top she was the best and only once she fell from the top (which means wasnt 1) was when she couldnt beat the top players anymore... which clearly the results of all her losses as the #1 player show that she couldnt beat them long before she lost it.

Are you fucking stupid? I never said Hingis was the BEST player from 1997 to 2001, merely that she was ranked #1 virtually the entire time which accounts for having so many losses. :shrug: Learn how to read.

I understand you're alittle slow...but im just happy i could help you understand what you posted....:wavey:

MrSerenaWilliams
Apr 2nd, 2008, 06:39 PM
Just to put this in context a little, let's look at some humiliating losses by some of the best players of all time. Regardless of whether they were number one at the time or not, these thrashings come from periods when these players had already established themselves as greats.

Serena Williams
lost to Mary Pierce 62 61 Indian Wells QF 2000


How was she a great after 1 major :confused:

azmad_88
Oct 2nd, 2008, 04:31 AM
li def serena

égalité
Oct 2nd, 2008, 04:38 AM
lol, Did anyone not beat Hingis? Even Coetzer and Sanchez-Vicario, who she normally thrashed, had their moments at Martina's expense.

:banghead:

Are you serious? You're criticizing Martina for losing a match against Sanchez-Vicario in their TWENTY match head-to-head series? You could say the same thing about any frequent match-up in which one player is typically dominant. Except perhaps Graf/Tauziat.

But thanks for reminding us how Martina "normally thrashed them." Absolutely right. :worship:

hingisGOAT
Oct 2nd, 2008, 05:33 AM
wow, 16 pages of hingis :hearts:

Renalicious
Oct 2nd, 2008, 06:12 AM
Julie Coin :haha: By far the least accomplished player on the list.

petkoan
Oct 2nd, 2008, 06:51 AM
I just LOVE the quarrel about Hingis, the sisters and Lindsay. It's just a joy to read. Thank you.

Ciarán
Oct 4th, 2008, 12:36 PM
Thanks for that list very interesting! :yeah: