PDA

View Full Version : Kim Clijsters will be most remembered in the league of:


Rub
Apr 23rd, 2007, 05:34 AM
Myskina, Kuznetsova, Dementieva?

or

the Williams Sisters, Henin, Sharapova?

Natash.
Apr 23rd, 2007, 05:35 AM
I think probably in the middle between those two.

LoveFifteen
Apr 23rd, 2007, 05:36 AM
I think probably in the middle between those two.

In the middle in the Mauresmo/Pierce league.

Rub
Apr 23rd, 2007, 05:38 AM
forgot pierce... but mauresmo is shaping up to be in the league of henin

spencercarlos
Apr 23rd, 2007, 05:50 AM
forgot pierce... but mauresmo is shaping up to be in the league of henin
Henin´s league = Venus league, don´t forget that.
Still Mauresmo has to win a lot more slams to be there, more than the ones she already has got. So...

And as Lofefiftheen said Kim is in the middle in the Mauresmo/Pierce league.

tucker1989
Apr 23rd, 2007, 05:55 AM
I really believe that Kim is tarnishing her legacy by choosing to play this year as she has. I mean skipping the two grand slams where her results have been the best for the one where they have been the worst? Playing less than ten events in the entire year? It just seems so pathetic to me. That said, she will be around Sabatini probably. I think that Mary has had a far better career than Kim, but others may disagree.

LoveFifteen
Apr 23rd, 2007, 05:55 AM
Perhaps Kim is in Capriati's league, too, because even though J Cap has 3 Slams, she didn't really win much else. Kim has several major Tier I titles and 2 YEC titles. They are basically in the same league.

LoveFifteen
Apr 23rd, 2007, 05:56 AM
I really believe that Kim is tarnishing her legacy by choosing to play this year as she has. I mean skipping the two grand slams where her results have been the best for the one where they have been the worst? Playing less than ten events in the entire year? It just seems so pathetic to me. That said, she will be around Sabatini probably. I think that Mary has had a far better career than Kim, but others may disagree.

Kim should have quit the day after she won the 2005 US Open. Seriously ...

treufreund
Apr 23rd, 2007, 05:59 AM
Sharapova will surpass them all by winning 17 slams. Just kidding ;)

RJWCapriati
Apr 23rd, 2007, 05:59 AM
Hard to say

spencercarlos
Apr 23rd, 2007, 06:04 AM
Perhaps Kim is in Capriati's league, too, because even though J Cap has 3 Slams, she didn't really win much else. Kim has several major Tier I titles and 2 YEC titles. They are basically in the same league.
Then Sabatini is among that league :worship: ..

darrinbaker00
Apr 23rd, 2007, 06:31 AM
Even though she won a major and was ranked #1, I think Kim Clijsters will be remembered in the "Unrealized Potential" league.

Orion
Apr 23rd, 2007, 06:38 AM
She, Sabatini, and Pierce occupy that middle area and likely won't improve, but Mauresmo's got a shot at moving into Capriati/ASV territory, maybe up to Davenport/Hingis, but Serena level, or even Henin/Venus, is too far, I think.

Martian Jeza
Apr 23rd, 2007, 06:39 AM
Desperate Housewife :p

Lin Lin
Apr 23rd, 2007, 06:43 AM
Kim is definitely better than Mauresmo

friendsita
Apr 23rd, 2007, 06:45 AM
Top League

Serena Williams
Venus Williams
Justine Henin
Martina Hingis
Amelie Mauresmo
Kim Clijsters
Maria Sharapova

Natalicious
Apr 23rd, 2007, 06:51 AM
Kim is definitely better than Mauresmo

because?

Shvedbarilescu
Apr 23rd, 2007, 06:56 AM
Sabatini is easily the best match. Both won one slam, at the US Open, both retired early (Sabatina at 26 and Kim will be 24 when she finishes). Clijsters won a few more tournaments that Sabatini, 34 to 27 and was a losing slam finalist 4 times to Sabatini's twice. Sabatini however did notch up alot more semifinal slam showings, 15 vs 7.

Sabatini will in the end get the edge based on a) having a longer career and b) remaining more in the limelight (selling her own Perfume) than Clijsters appears likely too.

friendsita
Apr 23rd, 2007, 07:08 AM
Defff no. Maria Sharapova is the future of tennis, she is young and one of the best right now, so in 3 or max 4 years when Venus, Serena, Amelie, Kim, Martina & Justine leave the wta tour she will be te only current tennis queen.

Philbo
Apr 23rd, 2007, 07:29 AM
Kim should have quit the day after she won the 2005 US Open. Seriously ...

Absolutely spot on!

Kunal
Apr 23rd, 2007, 07:34 AM
yeap...in the middle of the two leagues.....

No Name Face
Apr 23rd, 2007, 07:36 AM
she won't be remembered.

kidding. probably in sabatini league. regardless of how many tier 1's she's won, they're historically irrelevant. slams are what matter when determining a great player.

Rome
Apr 23rd, 2007, 07:46 AM
I think Kim had the game to be the best in the world I mean speed, power slice you name kim had in her game. But the one thing she did'nt have in her was inner fire to be the best. I just wish she did'nt come from a rich family maybe then she would have had that inner fire to win. Same thing can be said about lindsey. God I just wish these girl had the fight in them like Serena ,Justine,Venus and Maria.

Yasmine
Apr 23rd, 2007, 08:41 AM
why another thread like that here? :rolleyes:

terjw
Apr 23rd, 2007, 08:41 AM
Justine and Kim will never be remebered on their own. Just as Serena and Venus will always be remembered as the sisters. Kim will always be remembered with Justine as those two great Belgian players who came along.

ViennaCalling
Apr 23rd, 2007, 08:53 AM
Serena?

jujufreak
Apr 23rd, 2007, 08:56 AM
Sabatini is easily the best match. Both won one slam, at the US Open, both retired early (Sabatina at 26 and Kim will be 24 when she finishes). Clijsters won a few more tournaments that Sabatini, 34 to 27 and was a losing slam finalist 4 times to Sabatini's twice. Sabatini however did notch up alot more semifinal slam showings, 15 vs 7.

Sabatini will in the end get the edge based on a) having a longer career and b) remaining more in the limelight (selling her own Perfume) than Clijsters appears likely too.

I agree :)

jujufreak
Apr 23rd, 2007, 08:58 AM
Justine and Kim will never be remebered on their own. Just as Serena and Venus will always be remembered as the sisters. Kim will always be remembered with Justine as those two great Belgian players who came along.

that depends on what Justine will achieve after Kim's said goodbye :)

jujufreak
Apr 23rd, 2007, 09:00 AM
I think Kim had the game to be the best in the world I mean speed, power slice you name kim had in her game. But the one thing she did'nt have in her was inner fire to be the best. I just wish she did'nt come from a rich family maybe then she would have had that inner fire to win. Same thing can be said about lindsey. God I just wish these girl had the fight in them like Serena ,Justine,Venus and Maria.

she relied too much on her physical qualities and was too stubborn, her serves and netplay could have been much better.

jujufreak
Apr 23rd, 2007, 09:01 AM
Top League

Serena Williams
Venus Williams
Justine Henin
Martina Hingis
Amelie Mauresmo
Kim Clijsters
Maria Sharapova

those last three don't belong there (yet)

all_slam_andre
Apr 23rd, 2007, 09:22 AM
Kim is definitely better than Mauresmo

Not true. Mauresmo has achieved slightly more:

Mauresmo - 2 grand slam titles, 1 YEC title, 6 Tier I titles
Clijsters - 1 grand slam title, 2 YEC titles, 5 Tier I titles

sonnys
Apr 23rd, 2007, 09:22 AM
i will remember kim when i see lleyton..

saki
Apr 23rd, 2007, 09:28 AM
Sabatini is pretty much a perfect comparison for Kim, although Sabatini caught the public imagination because of her looks and stylish game in a way that Kim just hasn't. Novotna or Martinez aren't bad comparisons either. Posters here who didn't watch tennis prior to 2000 kinda forget that it's not that unusual for a tennis player to be an elite player, win a load of titles, but only win one GS.

And, no, Kim and Justine's careers are not especially entwined any longer. That was true around 2003 but Justine left Kim behind a long time ago and, given that sports journalists already recognise Justine as being in a different league, so will history.

terjw
Apr 23rd, 2007, 10:01 AM
that depends on what Justine will achieve after Kim's said goodbye :)

Not really. Both player's careers are so entwined - Justine would have to dominate for years from now to get a mention on her own. And the jury is out as to whether any player is able to dominate for even a single year at the moment.

A good example of where a player has broken free is Graf and Sabatini. Despite the difference in slams and titles - those two were touted to gether for a long long time in the same breath before Graf was mentioned on her own. That sort of disparity ain't gonna happen.

Where it is possible Justine may be remembered on her own without Kim is for certain controversial incidents. Only player to have pulled out of a GS final? Not saying she was wrong - but she has a history of controversies - and that sort of thing is easier to remember than a count of the number of slams which the ordinary person would have no idea at all.

aussie12
Apr 23rd, 2007, 10:10 AM
it is kind of hard to say because she honestly hasnt achieved that much when compared to others, but she will be remembered for a long time because she is so popular.

lecciones
Apr 23rd, 2007, 10:57 AM
forgot pierce... but mauresmo is shaping up to be in the league of henin

Perhaps Kim is in Capriati's league, too, because even though J Cap has 3 Slams, she didn't really win much else. Kim has several major Tier I titles and 2 YEC titles. They are basically in the same league.

I agree, she can be in Pierce to Capriati league but definitely not in the Hingis/Serena/Venus/Justine league. And I pretty much have the same thoughts as the other posts here as well - many well remembered excellent players won loads of titles but just a few grandslams.

Kim has been in 5 finals and won 1 of them. Mauresmo in 3 and won 2. So Mauresmo although she seems to be in the elite group I believe is not, although between her and kim, Mauresmo has done a lot better in the Tier I tournaments, appearing in more finals and winning more finals.

Sam L
Apr 23rd, 2007, 10:58 AM
Mauresmo, Pierce, Sabatini, Novotna etc...

Harvs
Apr 23rd, 2007, 11:03 AM
Clijsters/Henin/Williamses... there were a good couple of eyars there when it was all them!

ce
Apr 23rd, 2007, 11:08 AM
sabatini leaque

Tennisaddict
Apr 23rd, 2007, 11:09 AM
Not really. Both player's careers are so entwined - Justine would have to dominate for years from now to get a mention on her own. And the jury is out as to whether any player is able to dominate for even a single year at the moment.
A good example of where a player has broken free is Graf and Sabatini. Despite the difference in slams and titles - those two were touted to gether for a long long time in the same breath before Graf was mentioned on her own. That sort of disparity ain't gonna happen.

Where it is possible Justine may be remembered on her own without Kim is for certain controversial incidents. Only player to have pulled out of a GS final? Not saying she was wrong - but she has a history of controversies - and that sort of thing is easier to remember than a count of the number of slams which the ordinary person would have no idea at all.


I disagree. I´m not a fan of Henin but she is definitely in her own league and cannot be compared to Kim. Justine is mentioned without Kim for a long time now. Maybe not in Belgium but that´s for other reasons. Justine is in the league of the WS and Hingis and Kim will not get there. She´s not even in Mauresmo´s leauge. She´s indeed best compared with Sabatini.

Slutiana
Apr 23rd, 2007, 12:13 PM
Achievements:

Top League(8 Slams): Serena williams

Second league(5 Slams): Venus williams, Justine henin,Martina Hingis

Third league(3-4 Slams): Lindsay Davenport, Jen Cap

Fourth League(1-2 Slams): Kim Clijsters, Amelie Mauresmo, Maria Sharapova, Mary Pierce

Ability:
Top league: Serena Williams, Venus Williams

Martina Hingis (i dont think she's a legend but we all know she is such a talented player..i dont like her THAT MUCH but i can appreciate a great player when i see won..her tactical knowlege is amazing..she should be beating henin;))

Second league: Justine Henin, Kim Clijsters, Lindsay Davenport, Jen Cap

Third League: Mary Pierce, Amelie Mauresmo

Fourth League: Maria Sharapova (this is my opinion so dont start)

all_slam_andre
Apr 23rd, 2007, 12:22 PM
Out of the current players that have won grand slam titles:
Top Tier - Serena Williams
Second Tier - Martina Hingis, Justine Henin, Venus Williams
Third Tier - Lindsay Davenport, Jennifer Capriati
Fourth Tier - Amelie Mauresmo, Maria Sharapova, Mary Pierce, Kim Clijsters
Fifth Tier - Svetlana Kuznetsova, Anastasia Myskina

ZeroSOFInfinity
Apr 23rd, 2007, 12:27 PM
Achievements:

Top League(8 Slams): Serena williams

Second league(5 Slams): Venus williams, Justine henin

Third league(3-4 Slams): Mary Pierce, Lindsay Davenport, Jen Cap

Fourth League(1-2 Slams): Kim Clijsters, Amelie Mauresmo, Maria Sharapova

Ability:
Top league: Serena Williams, Venus Williams

Second league: Justine Henin, Kim Clijsters, Lindsay Davenport, Jen Cap

Third League: Mary Pierce, Amelie Mauresmo

Fourth League: Maria Sharapova (this is my opinion so dont start)

You forgot someone important, my fren... and her army wouldn't be pleased.

Clue: She comes from the land of Rolex and _ _ _ _ _ cheese :p

fifiricci
Apr 23rd, 2007, 12:39 PM
Not really. Both player's careers are so entwined - Justine would have to dominate for years from now to get a mention on her own. And the jury is out as to whether any player is able to dominate for even a single year at the moment.

A good example of where a player has broken free is Graf and Sabatini. Despite the difference in slams and titles - those two were touted to gether for a long long time in the same breath before Graf was mentioned on her own. That sort of disparity ain't gonna happen.

Where it is possible Justine may be remembered on her own without Kim is for certain controversial incidents. Only player to have pulled out of a GS final? Not saying she was wrong - but she has a history of controversies - and that sort of thing is easier to remember than a count of the number of slams which the ordinary person would have no idea at all.

Sorry, but I can't agree with this. If I have understood you correctly, you are suggesting that Justine is only memorable in relation to Kim? Justine has won 5 grand slams for god sake and may win a few more before she throws in the tennis towel. Kim has won one and whilst she may be remembered with more affection than Justine, Justine will be remembered as the great tennis player and in generations to come that is what people will refer to. When they are looking up the record books, Justine will be miles above Kim.

Perhaps I misunderstood the point you were trying to make?

trufanjay
Apr 23rd, 2007, 12:40 PM
Clijsters will not be in the league of the Williams sisters at all. I don't even think she will be talked about in ten years.

lolas
Apr 23rd, 2007, 01:03 PM
Clijsters will not be in the league of the Williams sisters at all. I don't even think she will be talked about in ten years.

Do not generalize it. She will be talked about in Belgium for sure,.

goldenlox
Apr 23rd, 2007, 01:09 PM
It's a good question, because a lot of people think she had a rare talent. But she's retiring so young, she might never have reached her best form.
Amellie and Nadia had their best results at an age where Kim will be retired.

TennisGuy21
Apr 23rd, 2007, 01:10 PM
forgot pierce... but mauresmo is shaping up to be in the league of henin

no way- Amelie is no Justine, and I dont even like Justine like that, but Justine is a little bit better. ( Although I always want Amelie to do better the Justine, at the end of the day, she cant handle her opponents the same way.)

Kim falls right in there with Amelie and Pierce, just a couple of people held them back from being the ish of their day. Very Mary Jo Fernadez of her.

bandabou
Apr 23rd, 2007, 01:27 PM
Could have been soooooo much more. But now just a Sabatini-type player. Not bad, but had so much more potential.

gopher
Apr 23rd, 2007, 01:43 PM
she will be remembered for her US season in 2005. Won virtually all the big US tournaments in a single year (IW, KB, US Open Series, US Open)

Slutiana
Apr 23rd, 2007, 01:47 PM
You forgot someone important, my fren... and her army wouldn't be pleased.

Clue: She comes from the land of Rolex and _ _ _ _ _ cheese :p

ohh hingis! i though u were talking about schnyder at first and i was like:rolleyes: but i could swear i put hingis' name down..o wel..i'll change it before the swiss army comes on;)

Apoleb
Apr 23rd, 2007, 01:50 PM
Perhaps I misunderstood the point you were trying to make?

No you didn't. It's the same stupid point you critisized.

Scotso
Apr 23rd, 2007, 01:52 PM
She's not in the Pierce/Mauresmo league. They're in that second tier. Mauresmo still has a great chance to move up another one. And maybe even Pierce, too.

Kim is in the third tier with most of the rest of the one-slam wonders.

rjd1111
Apr 23rd, 2007, 01:55 PM
Myskina, Kuznetsova, Dementieva?

or

the Williams Sisters, Henin, Sharapova?



Why is Sharapova in there with The Sisters and Henin.

She should be down there with Momo and the others.

selesfanisgreat
Apr 23rd, 2007, 02:22 PM
Starting at the King-Court era, these, IMO, are the leagues.

1st:
Margaret Court, Steffi Graf.

2nd:
Martina Navratilova, Chris Evert.

3rd, Billie Jean-King, Monica Seles, Serena Williams.

4th:
Martina Hingis, Venus Williams, Justine Henin, Evonne Goolagong.

5th:
Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario, Lindsay Davenport, Hana Mandlikova.

6h:
Jennifer Capriati, KIM CLIJSTERS, Gabriela Sabatini.

7th:
Mary Pierce, Amelie Mauresmo, Maria Sharapova.

8th:
Anastasia Myskina, Conchita Martinez, Svetlana Kuznetsova.

NB, Dementieva is below all of these, because she has ZERO Slams.

frontier
Apr 23rd, 2007, 02:32 PM
kim was in a gs final at 18yrs,i remember watching her play capriati at the french open and pushed jen to 12-10 in the final set i really was disappointed when she lost thats when i realised that she's special.she lost many slams that she would have won but that wont diminish the fact that she is a phenominally talented athelete,her 34titles speak a lot about her talent.
kim is at par with venus,justine,hingis and well above pova,kuzzi,myskina.

ToeTag
Apr 23rd, 2007, 02:34 PM
Then Sabatini is among that league :worship: ..

Yeah the difference is milk maid won't be remembered and celebrated 11 years after she's retired,like Sabatini ! I'll look 11 year from now to she if Kim has any web sites dedicated to her or is able to shill any product than -- somehow I doubt it.

Wayn77
Apr 23rd, 2007, 02:36 PM
kim was in a gs final at 18yrs,i remember watching her play capriati at the french open and pushed jen to 12-10 in the final set i really was disappointed when she lost thats when i realised that she's special.she lost many slams that she would have won but that wont diminish the fact that she is a phenominally talented athelete,her 34titles speak a lot about her talent.
kim is at par with venus,justine,hingis and well above pova,kuzzi,myskina.

Can't really add to that. Top notch player, a delight to watch when on fire (the memory of her match with Momo at YEC still burns brightly). Should have won more Slams.

jujufreak
Apr 23rd, 2007, 02:36 PM
I disagree. I´m not a fan of Henin but she is definitely in her own league and cannot be compared to Kim. Justine is mentioned without Kim for a long time now. Maybe not in Belgium but that´s for other reasons. Justine is in the league of the WS and Hingis and Kim will not get there. She´s not even in Mauresmo´s leauge. She´s indeed best compared with Sabatini.

:)

"maybe not in Belgium but that's for other reasons"

so true...

pierce0415
Apr 23rd, 2007, 02:37 PM
I'm sorry but Kim will not be remembered as greater than Mary Pierce

selesfanisgreat
Apr 23rd, 2007, 02:39 PM
kim was in a gs final at 18yrs,i remember watching her play capriati at the french open and pushed jen to 12-10 in the final set i really was disappointed when she lost thats when i realised that she's special.she lost many slams that she would have won but that wont diminish the fact that she is a phenominally talented athelete,her 34titles speak a lot about her talent.
kim is at par with venus,justine,hingis and well above pova,kuzzi,myskina.

You have to be kidding?! Kim has 1 Slam, whereas Venus, Justine and Martina each have 5. You're right about her being well above the others though.

jujufreak
Apr 23rd, 2007, 02:39 PM
Ability:
Top league: Martina Hingis (i dont think she's a legend but we all know she is such a talented player..i dont like her THAT MUCH but i can appreciate a great player when i see won..her tactical knowlege is amazing..she should be beating henin;))

Second league: Justine Henin, Kim Clijsters

:lol: Justine proves you wrong :p Ju is a better version of Martina (who I appreciate a lot)

and Kim never had the talent (talking about technical (and tactical) qualities) Justine has... Clijsters was blessed with an athletic body and a lot of power.

venus_rulez
Apr 23rd, 2007, 02:40 PM
I think history always tends to remember people a little bit more kindly. I think despite ony having one slam, she has been number one, won a shitload of titles, and I think it's fair to say was at the very very top of the game. Can we ever truly say that about Pierce or Sabatini? Sure they were/are solid and close to the top, but at one point (espeically when the Sisters were out) she was one of two heavy favorites everytime she entered a tournament (with Henin being the other) there's not many people in the history of the game thatcan say that.

jujufreak
Apr 23rd, 2007, 02:42 PM
Sorry, but I can't agree with this. If I have understood you correctly, you are suggesting that Justine is only memorable in relation to Kim? Justine has won 5 grand slams for god sake and may win a few more before she throws in the tennis towel. Kim has won one and whilst she may be remembered with more affection than Justine, Justine will be remembered as the great tennis player and in generations to come that is what people will refer to. When they are looking up the record books, Justine will be miles above Kim.

:eek: we agree :lol:

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

kiwifan
Apr 23rd, 2007, 02:42 PM
Starting at the King-Court era, these, IMO, are the leagues.

1st:
Martina Navratilova, Margaret Court (no one was playing the Aussie so she got to pad her stats), Steffi Graf (the stabbing padded her stats), Chris Evert.

2nd:
Billie Jean-King, Monica Seles, Serena Williams.

3rd:
Martina Hingis, Venus Williams, Justine Henin, Evonne Goolagong. (I'd either move Venus and Henin up one with another Slam win or create a new 3rd tier with just them on it)

4th:
Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario, Lindsay Davenport, Hana Mandlikova.

5th:
Mary Pierce, Jennifer Capriati, Amelie Mauresmo, Maria Sharapova.

6h:
KIM CLIJSTERS, Gabriela Sabatini.

7th:
Anastasia Myskina, Conchita Martinez, Svetlana Kuznetsova.

8th:
"Dementieva is below all of these, because she has ZERO Slams" ;).

Slutiana
Apr 23rd, 2007, 02:43 PM
:lol: Justine proves you wrong :p Ju is a better version of Martina (who I appreciate a lot)

and Kim never had the talent (talking about technical (and tactical) qualities) Justine has... Clijsters was blessed with an athletic body and a lot of power.

kk fair enough its just my opinion justine IS better than KIM though...i dno about her and hingis tho...Justine's game just matches up well with hingis'

jujufreak
Apr 23rd, 2007, 02:45 PM
Do not generalize it. She will be talked about in Belgium for sure,.

yes, but if it's about her as a tennis player, the odds are high Justine will be mentioned as the better player (even by those who don't like to admit it, but are honest :cool: )

cool thread btw :D

jujufreak
Apr 23rd, 2007, 02:47 PM
Starting at the King-Court era, these, IMO, are the leagues.

1st:
Margaret Court, Steffi Graf.

2nd:
Martina Navratilova, Chris Evert.

3rd, Billie Jean-King, Monica Seles, Serena Williams.

4th:
Martina Hingis, Venus Williams, Justine Henin, Evonne Goolagong.

5th:
Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario, Lindsay Davenport, Hana Mandlikova.

6h:
Jennifer Capriati, KIM CLIJSTERS, Gabriela Sabatini.

7th:
Mary Pierce, Amelie Mauresmo, Maria Sharapova.

8th:
Anastasia Myskina, Conchita Martinez, Svetlana Kuznetsova.

NB, Dementieva is below all of these, because she has ZERO Slams.

doesn't J-Cap deserve to be in the 5th category, having won 3 GS titles, been n°1 ànd been olympic champion ?

I also think it's odd to put Sabatini above Mauresmo, Sharapova and Pierce, as she has won less slams...

jujufreak
Apr 23rd, 2007, 02:49 PM
I'm sorry but Kim will not be remembered as greater than Mary Pierce

it might be the case in Belgium ;) :D

selesfanisgreat
Apr 23rd, 2007, 02:50 PM
Starting at the King-Court era, these, IMO, are the leagues.

1st:
Martina Navratilova, Margaret Court (no one was playing the Aussie so she got to pad her stats), Steffi Graf (the stabbing padded her stats), Chris Evert.

2nd:
Billie Jean-King, Monica Seles, Serena Williams.

3rd:
Martina Hingis, Venus Williams, Justine Henin, Evonne Goolagong. (I'd either move Venus and Henin up one with another Slam win or create a new 3rd tier with just them on it)

4th:
Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario, Lindsay Davenport, Hana Mandlikova.

5th:
Mary Pierce, Jennifer Capriati, Amelie Mauresmo, Maria Sharapova.

6h:
KIM CLIJSTERS, Gabriela Sabatini.

7th:
Anastasia Myskina, Conchita Martinez, Svetlana Kuznetsova.

8th:
"Dementieva is below all of these, because she has ZERO Slams" ;).

I have to admit, that is better! :)

selesfanisgreat
Apr 23rd, 2007, 02:55 PM
doesn't J-Cap deserve to be in the 5th category, having won 3 GS titles, been n°1 ànd been olympic champion ?

I also think it's odd to put Sabatini above Mauresmo, Sharapova and Pierce, as she has won less slams...

You have a fair point with your second sentence (see new ammended list), because their other titles are quite equal.

However, Jen doesn't deserve in the same league as Lindsay, Hana and Arantxa because she won 14 titles, Hana won 27, Arantxa 29 and Lindsay 51. If we're to go purely on Slams, that would mean that only 4 tournaments in tennis count. Okay, Slams are the most important events, but what about all those other important events that the other three won. Jennifer never played her best outside the Slams.

all_slam_andre
Apr 23rd, 2007, 03:32 PM
kim is at par with venus,justine,hingis


:lol: Nope. A player with 1 grand slam title is certainly not a par with players that have won 5.

jujufreak
Apr 23rd, 2007, 03:32 PM
You have a fair point with your second sentence (see new ammended list), because their other titles are quite equal.

However, Jen doesn't deserve in the same league as Lindsay, Hana and Arantxa because she won 14 titles, Hana won 27, Arantxa 29 and Lindsay 51. If we're to go purely on Slams, that would mean that only 4 tournaments in tennis count. Okay, Slams are the most important events, but what about all those other important events that the other three won. Jennifer never played her best outside the Slams.

Okay :)

kiwifan
Apr 23rd, 2007, 03:41 PM
I have to admit, that is better! :)

Oh my G-d!!!

In only 4 posts you've beaten out the entire history of this board (including myself) as the most pleasant poster ever. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Even though I commented that yours was a "Great Post", I was braced for the attack. :scared:

Guess I'm just shell shocked from too many years in GM.

Welcome to WTAworld. :wavey:

saki
Apr 23rd, 2007, 03:49 PM
With 33 career titles, RUP at two GSes in addition to her Wimbledon title, a career highest rank of #2, two Olympic silver medals & one bronze, great Fed Cup record, I think Conchita Martinez is being a bit short-changed by a couple of posters here.

Especially when you compare her to Sabatini - 1 GS, 2 RUP, 27 titles, 1 Olympic silver, highest rank #3 - it's not clear to me why Sabatini is being ranked ahead.

ToeTag
Apr 23rd, 2007, 03:57 PM
it's not clear to me why Sabatini is being ranked ahead.
I think SpencerCarlos said it best.:)
Gabriela Sabatini 2006 HOF
18 Grand Slam SF´s, Won 27 titles, 1 GS Sin, 1 GS in Dubs,2 Masters
Sabatini vs Martinez ?
Seasons in the top ten: Sabatini 10 Conchita 9
Straight Seasons in the top ten: Sabatini 10 Conchita 6
Seasons in the top 5: Sabatini 6 Conchita 5
Straight seasons in the top 5: Sabatini 6 Conchita 4
Tier II and above titles
Sabatini 24 Martinez 17
Record at the Masters
Sabatini has 2 titles 2 Runner up and 3 SF
Martinez has 0 titles, 0 RU, and 0 Sf
Record against the best players
Sabatini 40% Martinez 21%
Head to Head
Sabatini leads 9-6 over Martinez
FWTT Hard 111(111 + ny)Carpet 104(104 + ny)Clay 107(107 + 4) Grass 100(100 ny)

saki
Apr 23rd, 2007, 04:02 PM
I think SpencerCarlos said it best.:)
Gabriela Sabatini 2006 HOF
18 Grand Slam SF´s, Won 27 titles, 1 GS Sin, 1 GS in Dubs,2 Masters
Sabatini vs Martinez ?
Seasons in the top ten: Sabatini 10 Conchita 9
Straight Seasons in the top ten: Sabatini 10 Conchita 6
Seasons in the top 5: Sabatini 6 Conchita 5
Straight seasons in the top 5: Sabatini 6 Conchita 4
Tier II and above titles
Sabatini 24 Martinez 17
Record at the Masters
Sabatini has 2 titles 2 Runner up and 3 SF
Martinez has 0 titles, 0 RU, and 0 Sf
Record against the best players
Sabatini 40% Martinez 21%
Head to Head
Sabatini leads 9-6 over Martinez
FWTT Hard 111(111 + ny)Carpet 104(104 + ny)Clay 107(107 + 4) Grass 100(100 ny)

But, then, Martinez has more Olympic medals and more titles overall. I can see why you might give Sabatini the edge but they are certainly in the same league, IMO. In particular, putting Sabatini and Clijsters in one league but dumping Martinez into one with Kuznetsova and Myskina really doesn't seem fair when Martinez has almost twice as many titles as both of them combined!

Slutiana
Apr 23rd, 2007, 04:04 PM
Oh my G-d!!!

In only 4 posts you've beaten out the entire history of this board (including myself) as the most pleasant poster ever. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Even though I commented that yours was a "Great Post", I was braced for the attack. :scared:

Guess I'm just shell shocked from too many years in GM.

Welcome to WTAworld. :wavey:

lool

Yonexforever
Apr 23rd, 2007, 04:09 PM
Kim should have quit the day after she won the 2005 US Open. Seriously ...

I say amen to that.. this side show she is on is a waste of time.

ToeTag
Apr 23rd, 2007, 04:14 PM
But, then, Martinez has more Olympic medals and more titles overall.Martinez also played longer, Gaby retired at 26, and she only played 1 Olympics. I can see why you might give Sabatini the edge but they are certainly in the same league, IMO. Gaby gets the edge cuz she wins the head to head; she has more Tier 2 and above titles, and her record against the best players--particularly against Graf is better than Martinez. To me Martinez is a level below Gaby. In particular, putting Sabatini and Clijsters in one league but dumping Martinez into one with Kuznetsova and Myskina really doesn't seem fair when Martinez has almost twice as many titles as both of them combined!I wouldn't put Kuzy or Myskina in Martinez's league.

serenafan08
Apr 23rd, 2007, 04:19 PM
In terms of game style, she'll be in the the Williams sisters/Henin league, but in terms of achievements, she'll be in the Dementieva/Myskina league. Kim really underachieved for how good a player she is.

Brαm
Apr 23rd, 2007, 04:20 PM
Kim Clijsters will be remembered in the league of Conchita Martinez, Jana Novotna, Mary Pierce and Gabriela Sabatini :)

tennisjunky
Apr 23rd, 2007, 04:40 PM
Starting at the King-Court era, these, IMO, are the leagues.

1st:
Margaret Court, Steffi Graf.

2nd:
Martina Navratilova, Chris Evert.

3rd, Billie Jean-King, Monica Seles, Serena Williams.

4th:
Martina Hingis, Venus Williams, Justine Henin, Evonne Goolagong.

5th:
Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario, Lindsay Davenport, Hana Mandlikova.

6h:
Jennifer Capriati, KIM CLIJSTERS, Gabriela Sabatini.

7th:
Mary Pierce, Amelie Mauresmo, Maria Sharapova.

8th:
Anastasia Myskina, Conchita Martinez, Svetlana Kuznetsova.

NB, Dementieva is below all of these, because she has ZERO Slams.

Greatest of all time:
Margaret Court, Steffi Graf, Martina Navratilova, Chris Evert

All time greats:
Billie Jean-King, Monica Seles, Serena Williams

Champions:
Martina Hingis, Venus Williams, Justine Henin, Evonne Goolagong, Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario

The Elite:
Lindsay Davenport, Hana Mandlikova, Jennifer Capriati

Great Players w/good credentials:
KIM CLIJSTERS, Gabriela Sabatini, Mary Pierce, Amelie Mauresmo, Maria Sharapova

Hall of Fame “Maybes”:
Anastasia Myskina, Conchita Martinez, Svetlana Kuznetsova

venusfan
Apr 23rd, 2007, 04:45 PM
Who is Kim Clijsters?

Demska
Apr 23rd, 2007, 04:46 PM
Group 2. World no. 1, grand slam champ, many slam SF's, 34 carrer titles.

saki
Apr 23rd, 2007, 04:47 PM
Hall of Fame “Maybes”:
Anastasia Myskina, Conchita Martinez, Svetlana Kuznetsova

Conchita Martinez is not a 'maybe' for the Hall of Fame. Take a look at her record.

Kart
Apr 23rd, 2007, 04:58 PM
Kim on a good day is capable of beating anyone on the tour.

She should be remembered in the league of the best players in the world because she competed with (and beat) them all.

What is more likely though, is that she'll be remembered in the future by many people that saw her results but barely saw her play.

Much in the way that people 'remember' several players before her.

Volcana
Apr 23rd, 2007, 04:59 PM
50 years from now? Clijsters won't be remembered at all.

Check this out.

#1 ranked player for 1959, 1960, 1964, 1966
18 total slam titles
7 slam singles titles (3 Wimbledon, 4 US, made finals of the other two slams)

1966 is 41 years ago. And a player who won seven slam singles titles isn't even a footnote in discussions on this board. And some of the people who post here are pretty hardcore fans.

Yes it's the internet era, and more things are saved for eternity on video, but when you start talking about being 'remembered', take a look back and see who's been forgotten. How many times have you seen someone on this board opine that Tracy Austin doesn't know what she's talking about? Somebody says it after every time she appears on TV.

Peoples memories are short. To shine on through time, you have to excel above and beyond. How many female tennis players have been remembered, just for the tennis accomplishments from 75 years ago? One. Helen Wills Moody. 19 GS singles titles kinda forces the issue. (There IS another player well remembered from so long ago. Suzanne Lenglen, probably the second most significant player in the history of women's tennis, and certainly the first female celebrity tennis player. But Clijsters is no world-wide celebrity.)

But if you look at the active players, and remember that they're following Graf, none of them has accomplished enough to really be remembered 50, 60 years from now. It happens that incidentals will help some of them be remembered. Seles stabbing will be recalled a hundred years from now. The Williams Sisters, because they were a sister act, will be remembered as a tandem fifty years from now. But Venus is going to be 'Serena's sister, who was also pretty good' unless she wins another Wimbledon.

Hingis and Henin haven't done enough. (Remember the mystery player from the beginning of the post?)

People's memories are short.

tennisjunky
Apr 23rd, 2007, 05:13 PM
50 years from now? Clijsters won't be remembered at all.

Check this out.

#1 ranked player for 1959, 1960, 1964, 1966
18 total slam titles
7 slam singles titles (3 Wimbledon, 4 US, made finals of the other two slams)

1966 is 41 years ago. And a player who won seven slam singles titles isn't even a footnote in discussions on this board. And some of the people who post here are pretty hardcore fans.

Yes it's the internet era, and more things are saved for eternity on video, but when you start talking about being 'remembered', take a look back and see who's been forgotten. How many times have you seen someone on this board opine that Tracy Austin doesn't know what she's talking about? Somebody says it after every time she appears on TV.

Peoples memories are short. To shine on through time, you have to excel above and beyond. How many female tennis players have been remembered, just for the tennis accomplishments from 75 years ago? One. Helen Wills Moody. 19 GS singles titles kinda forces the issue. (There IS another player well remembered from so long ago. Suzanne Lenglen, probably the second most significant player in the history of women's tennis, and certainly the first female celebrity tennis player. But Clijsters is no world-wide celebrity.)

But if you look at the active players, and remember that they're following Graf, none of them has accomplished enough to really be remembered 50, 60 years from now. It happens that incidentals will help some of them be remembered. Seles stabbing will be recalled a hundred years from now. The Williams Sisters, because they were a sister act, will be remembered as a tandem fifty years from now. But Venus is going to be 'Serena's sister, who was also pretty good' unless she wins another Wimbledon.

Hingis and Henin haven't done enough. (Remember the mystery player from the beginning of the post?)

People's memories are short.

so true. the best post in this thread. in belgium she will be remembered probabably forever, but outside of that she wont be remembered too much. although because she did the splits when chasing balls down she might be remebered for that.

sounds weird to be remembered for that, but it sets her apart and when ever other players are stretched out wide people will say, 'remember kim clijsters used to do the splits when chasing down balls.' that is probably what she will be known for 50 years- or nothing at all.

seles has her stabbing she'll be remembered.

steffi of course.

bjk, margaret court, suzanne langlan, navratilova, chris evert, and maria bueno all wont be forgotten anytime soon.

serena and venus- sister act wont be forgotten. venus is lucky she's serena's sister, otherwise she might not be remembered years from now, but she is, so she will.

hingis did so much at a young age and it's likely no other young person will ever do what she did- so she'll be remembered.

but honestly most of the other greats like justine, davenport, pierce, mauresmo, majoli, capriatti, aranxta, and so on will be nothing more than footnotes.

you have to do something special, that no one has done in order to be remembered. and that's why kim's best shot at being remembered is her famous splits.

vesanto
Apr 23rd, 2007, 05:24 PM
In 20 years, Clijsters will be not remembered. That is the true.

But I can see a comentator making an analysis of a match and saying:

"Oh my God, Alyana Kutyovaskevakinka is such a great athlete! The way she runs and reaches all ball remind me of an old belgian player, Clijsters, she was remarkable in that art!"

jujufreak
Apr 23rd, 2007, 05:28 PM
With 33 career titles, RUP at two GSes in addition to her Wimbledon title, a career highest rank of #2, two Olympic silver medals & one bronze, great Fed Cup record, I think Conchita Martinez is being a bit short-changed by a couple of posters here.

Especially when you compare her to Sabatini - 1 GS, 2 RUP, 27 titles, 1 Olympic silver, highest rank #3 - it's not clear to me why Sabatini is being ranked ahead.

I'd put Conchi, Gabriela and Kim in the same group...

Dave.
Apr 23rd, 2007, 05:36 PM
Clijsters is more in Kuznetsova's league. Kuznetsova is above Sharapova though!

jujufreak
Apr 23rd, 2007, 05:37 PM
Kuznetsova is above Sharapova though!

:confused: :tape:

Dave.
Apr 23rd, 2007, 05:59 PM
From the Open Era


1st
Martina Navratilova, Margaret Court, Steffi Graf, Chris Evert

2nd
Billie Jean-King, Monica Seles, Serena Williams, Natasha Zvereva

3rd
Lindsay Davenport, Gigi Fernandez, Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario, Martina Hingis, Venus Williams, Evonne Goolagong

4th
Justine Henin, Hana Mandlikova, Lisa Raymond, Virginia Wade, Jana Novotna, Helena Sukova, Pam Shriver

5th
Jennifer Capriati, Mary Pierce, Conchita Martinez, Virginia Ruano-Pascual, Paola Suarez

6th:
Amelie Mauresmo, Svetlana Kuznetsova, Gabriela Sabatini, Daniela Hantuchova, Ai Sugiyama

7th
Anastasia Myskina, Svetlana Kuznetsova, Maria Sharapova

Chrissie-fan
Apr 23rd, 2007, 06:20 PM
Greatest of all time:
Margaret Court, Steffi Graf, Martina Navratilova, Chris Evert

All time greats:
Billie Jean-King, Monica Seles, Serena Williams

Champions:
Martina Hingis, Venus Williams, Justine Henin, Evonne Goolagong, Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario

The Elite:
Lindsay Davenport, Hana Mandlikova, Jennifer Capriati

Great Players w/good credentials:
KIM CLIJSTERS, Gabriela Sabatini, Mary Pierce, Amelie Mauresmo, Maria Sharapova

Hall of Fame “Maybes”:
Anastasia Myskina, Conchita Martinez, Svetlana Kuznetsova
For the period in history it covers I agree with your rankings. I can imagine in the future Sharapova joining your "elite" group, Justine the "all time greats" and Serena the "greatest of all time group".

jujufreak
Apr 23rd, 2007, 06:24 PM
From the Open Era


1st
Martina Navratilova, Margaret Court, Steffi Graf, Chris Evert

2nd
Billie Jean-King, Monica Seles, Serena Williams, Natasha Zvereva

3rd
Lindsay Davenport, Gigi Fernandez, Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario, Martina Hingis, Venus Williams, Evonne Goolagong

4th
Justine Henin, Hana Mandlikova, Lisa Raymond, Virginia Wade, Jana Novotna, Helena Sukova, Pam Shriver

5th
Jennifer Capriati, Mary Pierce, Conchita Martinez, Virginia Ruano-Pascual, Paola Suarez

6th:
Amelie Mauresmo, Svetlana Kuznetsova, Gabriela Sabatini, Daniela Hantuchova, Ai Sugiyama

7th
Anastasia Myskina, Svetlana Kuznetsova, Maria Sharapova

what is this based on :confused:

there's no way you can put Lindsay and Arantxa above Justine...

Helen Lawson
Apr 23rd, 2007, 06:29 PM
From the Open Era


1st
Martina Navratilova, Margaret Court, Steffi Graf, Chris Evert

2nd
Billie Jean-King, Monica Seles, Serena Williams, Natasha Zvereva

3rd
Lindsay Davenport, Gigi Fernandez, Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario, Martina Hingis, Venus Williams, Evonne Goolagong

4th
Justine Henin, Hana Mandlikova, Lisa Raymond, Virginia Wade, Jana Novotna, Helena Sukova, Pam Shriver

5th
Jennifer Capriati, Mary Pierce, Conchita Martinez, Virginia Ruano-Pascual, Paola Suarez

6th:
Amelie Mauresmo, Svetlana Kuznetsova, Gabriela Sabatini, Daniela Hantuchova, Ai Sugiyama

7th
Anastasia Myskina, Svetlana Kuznetsova, Maria Sharapova

:worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

Chrissie-fan
Apr 23rd, 2007, 06:30 PM
In 20 years, Clijsters will be not remembered. That is the true.

But I can see a comentator making an analysis of a match and saying:

"Oh my God, Alyana Kutyovaskevakinka is such a great athlete! The way she runs and reaches all ball remind me of an old belgian player, Clijsters, she was remarkable in that art!"
I think that she won't be remembered by the general sports fan with only a minor interest in the game, but she will be remembered in a positive way by the true tennis fan, and they are the ones that matter the most.

athake
Apr 23rd, 2007, 06:40 PM
what is this based on :confused:

there's no way you can put Lindsay and Arantxa above Justine...

biased minds with beyond the limit of subjectivity :)
-------
Trying to manipulate perceptions by writing the categories of rememberance lists in a forum seems so funny :))

Tennisaddict
Apr 23rd, 2007, 06:45 PM
so true. the best post in this thread. in belgium she will be remembered probabably forever, but outside of that she wont be remembered too much. although because she did the splits when chasing balls down she might be remebered for that.

sounds weird to be remembered for that, but it sets her apart and when ever other players are stretched out wide people will say, 'remember kim clijsters used to do the splits when chasing down balls.' that is probably what she will be known for 50 years- or nothing at all.

seles has her stabbing she'll be remembered.

steffi of course.

bjk, margaret court, suzanne langlan, navratilova, chris evert, and maria bueno all wont be forgotten anytime soon.

serena and venus- sister act wont be forgotten. venus is lucky she's serena's sister, otherwise she might not be remembered years from now, but she is, so she will.
hingis did so much at a young age and it's likely no other young person will ever do what she did- so she'll be remembered.

but honestly most of the other greats like justine, davenport, pierce, mauresmo, majoli, capriatti, aranxta, and so on will be nothing more than footnotes.

you have to do something special, that no one has done in order to be remembered. and that's why kim's best shot at being remembered is her famous splits.

You can say the same for Serena. Venus is not lucky at all. Both benefit from being the amazing pairing that they are.

tennisjunky
Apr 23rd, 2007, 06:52 PM
You can say the same for Serena. Venus is not lucky at all. Both benefit from being the amazing pairing that they are.

nope, serena is one of only 9 women to win a career slam, and serena is in even more select company winning 4 majors in a row. being the only black female to win four glues her place in history.

they both benefit from being sisters, that's true. but with or without venus serena would be talked about years from now. lucky venus,like i said.

Dave.
Apr 23rd, 2007, 07:06 PM
what is this based on :confused:

there's no way you can put Lindsay and Arantxa above Justine...

Arantxa (14 Slams) & Lindsay (6 Slams) > Justine (5 Slams)


Not to mention the loads and loads more titles Arantxa and Lindsay have won, aswell as the weeks at the top and everything else. Also, the fact they could both handle singles and doubles.

Of course though, it is unfair on the players who are still playing because their careers are unfinished so far. For all we know, Justine could end up with 25 Slams and be one of the greatest. It is hard to compare past players with the present.

LindsayRulz
Apr 23rd, 2007, 07:07 PM
In the under-archived league.

ShimSham
Apr 23rd, 2007, 07:10 PM
nicest girls on the tour.

spencercarlos
Apr 23rd, 2007, 07:14 PM
From the Open Era


1st
Martina Navratilova, Margaret Court, Steffi Graf, Chris Evert

2nd
Billie Jean-King, Monica Seles, Serena Williams, Natasha Zvereva

3rd
Lindsay Davenport, Gigi Fernandez, Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario, Martina Hingis, Venus Williams, Evonne Goolagong

4th
Justine Henin, Hana Mandlikova, Lisa Raymond, Virginia Wade, Jana Novotna, Helena Sukova, Pam Shriver

5th
Jennifer Capriati, Mary Pierce, Conchita Martinez, Virginia Ruano-Pascual, Paola Suarez

6th:
Amelie Mauresmo, Svetlana Kuznetsova, Gabriela Sabatini, Daniela Hantuchova, Ai Sugiyama

7th
Anastasia Myskina, Svetlana Kuznetsova, Maria Sharapova
Conchita Martinez above Gaby in that list based on? Tier III titles? :lol:

If anything Gaby has 2 Masters titles to her credit, 2 Masters finals, and 1 GS Doubles title won in 1988. That alone puts her head of Martinez no matter what.

:wavey:

Yet again mixing singles list with the doubles list, does not seem quite right for me.
Zvereva being ahead of Hingis is just ridiculous too. Same as listing Zvereva beside those greats for the game does not look right either.

RenaSlam.
Apr 23rd, 2007, 07:16 PM
Serena > Henin/Hingis/Venus > Pierce/Mauresmo/Clijsters

Helen Lawson
Apr 23rd, 2007, 07:18 PM
Conchita Martinez above Gaby in that list based on? Tier III titles? :lol:

If anything Gaby has 2 Masters titles to her credit, 2 Masters finals, and 1 GS Doubles title won in 1988. That alone puts her head of Martinez no matter what.

:wavey:

Yet again mixing singles list with the doubles list, does not seem quite right for me.
Zvereva being ahead of Hingis is just ridiculous too. Same as listing Zvereva beside those greats for the game does not look right either.

Why are you so mean to Conchita? :sad:

Dave.
Apr 23rd, 2007, 07:27 PM
Conchita Martinez above Gaby in that list based on? Tier III titles? :lol:

If anything Gaby has 2 Masters titles to her credit, 2 Masters finals, and 1 GS Doubles title won in 1988. That alone puts her head of Martinez no matter what.

:wavey:

Yet again mixing singles list with the doubles list, does not seem quite right for me.
Zvereva being ahead of Hingis is just ridiculous too. Same as listing Zvereva beside those greats for the game does not look right either.

Yes I can see your point. I don't think I meant to do that. Perhaps Conchita would be bumped down, it's a hard one:confused:


As for this mixing thing, well these are the greatest players of all time, whether they were great in singles or doubles, or both. They both require the same amount of talent, hard work etc. I could have seperated the lists, but that would be so hard as they both have an effect on each other.

Again, like Conchi and Gaby, I can see where you are coming from. This was another hard one. Zvereva is one of the greatest doubles players of all time, probably an equivalent to maybe Graf or Seles in singles. Of course you can make the same arguments for Gigi Fernandez and Pam Shriver. Perhaps Zvereva could be bumped down:confused:

CDGS22
Apr 23rd, 2007, 07:34 PM
She will be remembered as "the woman who left her promising tennis career to pursue a marriage at such a young age."

spencercarlos
Apr 23rd, 2007, 07:41 PM
Yes I can see your point. I don't think I meant to do that. Perhaps Conchita would be bumped down, it's a hard one:confused:


As for this mixing thing, well these are the greatest players of all time, whether they were great in singles or doubles, or both. They both require the same amount of talent, hard work etc. I could have seperated the lists, but that would be so hard as they both have an effect on each other.

Again, like Conchi and Gaby, I can see where you are coming from. This was another hard one. Zvereva is one of the greatest doubles players of all time, probably an equivalent to maybe Graf or Seles in singles. Of course you can make the same arguments for Gigi Fernandez and Pam Shriver. Perhaps Zvereva could be bumped down:confused:
Doubles and Singles are not the same thing, and does not require the same amount of talent, i would not consider a player who won 9 grand slam titles in singles like Monica Seles for example in the same league of a player that won 5 grand slams in singles and 4 in doubles like Venus.
Lets not even talk if we try to put the mens Singles grand slam winners along with the doubles Champions.

friendsita
Apr 23rd, 2007, 07:42 PM
NB, Dementieva is below all of these, because she has ZERO Slams.

jajaja poor lena :tape:

jujufreak
Apr 23rd, 2007, 07:49 PM
Doubles and Singles are not the same thing, and does not require the same amount of talent, i would not consider a player who won 9 grand slam titles in singles like Monica Seles for example in the same league of a player that won 5 grand slams in singles and 4 in doubles like Venus.
Lets not even talk if we try to put the mens Singles grand slam winners along with the doubles Champions.

I agree, a lot has to do with your doubles partner ...

spencercarlos
Apr 23rd, 2007, 07:54 PM
I agree, a lot has to do with your doubles partner ...
Exactly that´s a team competition, same as Fed Cup and Davis Cup. You depend a lot on the other (s) to make it.

MisterQ
Apr 23rd, 2007, 08:03 PM
Sabatini is easily the best match. Both won one slam, at the US Open, both retired early (Sabatina at 26 and Kim will be 24 when she finishes). Clijsters won a few more tournaments that Sabatini, 34 to 27 and was a losing slam finalist 4 times to Sabatini's twice. Sabatini however did notch up alot more semifinal slam showings, 15 vs 7.

Sabatini will in the end get the edge based on a) having a longer career and b) remaining more in the limelight (selling her own Perfume) than Clijsters appears likely too.

That's a good comparison, imo.

spencercarlos
Apr 23rd, 2007, 08:10 PM
Could have been soooooo much more. But now just a Sabatini-type player. Not bad, but had so much more potential.
Different games but potential wise pretty similar to Gaby as well. Both underachievers.

MisterQ
Apr 23rd, 2007, 08:15 PM
50 years from now? Clijsters won't be remembered at all.

Check this out.

#1 ranked player for 1959, 1960, 1964, 1966
18 total slam titles
7 slam singles titles (3 Wimbledon, 4 US, made finals of the other two slams)

1966 is 41 years ago. And a player who won seven slam singles titles isn't even a footnote in discussions on this board. And some of the people who post here are pretty hardcore fans.


Interesting post. :) When Bueno is mentioned, it's usually for her famously graceful play, not for those remarkable achievements.

friendsita
Apr 23rd, 2007, 08:30 PM
I think history always tends to remember people a little bit more kindly. I think despite ony having one slam, she has been number one, won a shitload of titles, and I think it's fair to say was at the very very top of the game. Can we ever truly say that about Pierce or Sabatini? Sure they were/are solid and close to the top, but at one point (espeically when the Sisters were out) she was one of two heavy favorites everytime she entered a tournament (with Henin being the other) there's not many people in the history of the game thatcan say that.

Good point... :worship:

frontier
Apr 23rd, 2007, 09:03 PM
nope, serena is one of only 9 women to win a career slam, and serena is in even more select company winning 4 majors in a row. being the only black female to win four glues her place in history.

they both benefit from being sisters, that's true. but with or without venus serena would be talked about years from now. lucky venus,like i said.venus will be talked about because she won wimbledon three times,thats an amazing achievement that every tennis player dream of.her 2003 dress is in the wimbledon museum.she is the 2nd african american player in 50yrs to win wimbledon,the first female athelete endorsed for a lot of money $40mil.venus is in the annals of history,from olympics,wimbledon,usa open.the first player to defend wimbledon and usa titles .petrova,kim,dementieva,jj,capriati all dreamt or still dream of winning at least one wimbledon.she was in four successive finals at wimbledon total five finals,what more do you want from vee ,she is an achiever and has done more than jj will ever do or myskina,kuzzie or the rest of the pretenders on the wta.

Tennisaddict
Apr 23rd, 2007, 09:31 PM
nope, serena is one of only 9 women to win a career slam, and serena is in even more select company winning 4 majors in a row. being the only black female to win four glues her place in history.

they both benefit from being sisters, that's true. but with or without venus serena would be talked about years from now. lucky venus,like i said.

Luck has nothing to do with this. As I said before they both benefit from being sisters. Venus won´t only get her name mentioned because of that only however. Her legacy and her star power right now is strong enough to get her name mentioned 50 years from now. She doesn´t need Serena´s fame for it any more than Serena needs Venus´. It´s an addition. Besides Venus is not done yet I believe she will add to her slam collection which will prolong her fame longevity wise.

Dave.
Apr 23rd, 2007, 10:28 PM
Doubles and Singles are not the same thing, and does not require the same amount of talent, i would not consider a player who won 9 grand slam titles in singles like Monica Seles for example in the same league of a player that won 5 grand slams in singles and 4 in doubles like Venus.
Lets not even talk if we try to put the mens Singles grand slam winners along with the doubles Champions.

Yes it does. Doubles is still tennis and requires different skills. It is still tennis though and is no lesser than singles. It may not be as exciting to watch for some, and not at the forefront of the media, but it still takes alot of effort. Doubles is more about quick-fire tennis, skills at the net etc. Singles is more about the mind. Someone who succeeds alot in doubles is still a successful tennis player. I agree that a singles slam is biger than a doubles slam because it is a 2-week event, 7 matches. But someone like Gigi Fernandez, a 17-time doubles Grand Slam champion is still one of the all-time greats.

ASV_FAN
Apr 23rd, 2007, 10:29 PM
No way is Kim in Jennifer's league, Jennifer is in a much higher league than Kim.

IMO Kim is a bit of a choker and has failed to deliver in the grand slams numerous times. Jennifer has had some dubious SF exits but her 3 final wins speak volumes.

Yes Kim has had lots of tier 1&2 wins but for me she'll always be an also-ran and her name doesn't belong in the same breath as Williams/Capriati/Davenport or the big 3 of the 90's Graf/Seles/ASV.

I suppose if you insisted on likening her to someone it would maybe be Conchita because they're both talented and should've won more than 1 slam. I wouldn't liken her to Kuznetsova or Myskina because IMO their slam wins are erroneous and they greatly over-achieved.

The Daviator
Apr 23rd, 2007, 10:56 PM
She's in Sabatini's league IMO :)

Bruno71
Apr 23rd, 2007, 11:06 PM
With 33 career titles, RUP at two GSes in addition to her Wimbledon title, a career highest rank of #2, two Olympic silver medals & one bronze, great Fed Cup record, I think Conchita Martinez is being a bit short-changed by a couple of posters here.

Especially when you compare her to Sabatini - 1 GS, 2 RUP, 27 titles, 1 Olympic silver, highest rank #3 - it's not clear to me why Sabatini is being ranked ahead.

Because Gabby was a popular, beautiful media darling and Conchita was somewhat unliked. Honestly, I think that's why. Although one thing Gabby achieved was to really challenge Graf during her heydey...she got a lot of press for that.

DemWilliamsGulls
Apr 23rd, 2007, 11:30 PM
The same legue as the other 1 hit wonders....in grand slams...

winone23
Apr 23rd, 2007, 11:53 PM
Myskina, Kuznetsova, Dementieva?

or

the Williams Sisters, Henin, Sharapova?

She in the leauge of the Williams sisters Henin, Sharapova. I actually think she much better than Maria.

winone23
Apr 23rd, 2007, 11:55 PM
No way is Kim in Jennifer's league, Jennifer is in a much higher league than Kim.

IMO Kim is a bit of a choker and has failed to deliver in the grand slams numerous times. Jennifer has had some dubious SF exits but her 3 final wins speak volumes.

Yes Kim has had lots of tier 1&2 wins but for me she'll always be an also-ran and her name doesn't belong in the same breath as Williams/Capriati/Davenport or the big 3 of the 90's Graf/Seles/ASV.

I suppose if you insisted on likening her to someone it would maybe be Conchita because they're both talented and should've won more than 1 slam. I wouldn't liken her to Kuznetsova or Myskina because IMO their slam wins are erroneous and they greatly over-achieved.


Although Jen has more slams. Kim is far better than Jen.

winone23
Apr 24th, 2007, 12:05 AM
venus will be talked about because she won wimbledon three times,thats an amazing achievement that every tennis player dream of.her 2003 dress is in the wimbledon museum.she is the 2nd african american player in 50yrs to win wimbledon,the first female athelete endorsed for a lot of money $40mil.venus is in the annals of history,from olympics,wimbledon,usa open.the first player to defend wimbledon and usa titles .petrova,kim,dementieva,jj,capriati all dreamt or still dream of winning at least one wimbledon.she was in four successive finals at wimbledon total five finals,what more do you want from vee ,she is an achiever and has done more than jj will ever do or myskina,kuzzie or the rest of the pretenders on the wta.

Great post!! Plus Venus is also the first African American player to become the number one player in the world. It's absurd for people to say Venus benefits from being Serena's sister. In many (American) polls about whom was the more famous of the two Venus has come out on top more than Serena and Venus always seems to beat Serena out in the favorite athlete category too. Venus beat Serena out last year for favorite athlete. So people really need to stop. Venus will be remember for HER accomplishments alone.

terjw
Apr 24th, 2007, 12:24 AM
Sorry, but I can't agree with this. If I have understood you correctly, you are suggesting that Justine is only memorable in relation to Kim? Justine has won 5 grand slams for god sake and may win a few more before she throws in the tennis towel. Kim has won one and whilst she may be remembered with more affection than Justine, Justine will be remembered as the great tennis player and in generations to come that is what people will refer to. When they are looking up the record books, Justine will be miles above Kim.

Perhaps I misunderstood the point you were trying to make?

I'm saying the average sports fan in years to come will simply say - Oh I remember she was one of those two Belgians - that is if they remember either. Women's tennis isn't exactly highest priority on the minds of the average sports fan who probably follows their home slam and may pick up a bit elsewhere. They certainly won't know exactly how many slams a player has. That is not what's even known generally let alone remembered.

Similarly if Serena won 10 more slams and Venus didn't win any more. Serena would still be remembered firstly as one of the sisters before the Serena slam.

I think there's just 3 categories for the average sports fan - not the multiple categories based on slams we get in this thread. And apart from the very top category - not many people in the real world bother to go into comparisons:

The Graf, Nav, Federer, Sampras etc stratosphere for players always winning year on year out with tons of slams. No-one in that category today.
The players who are top seeds and always up there every time you hear about them.
The player that pops un with a win now and then - but is really down the order as a likely finalist.Kim and Justine both fall in the 2nd category. They've also played a lot of matches against each other as well which is also why in years to come if you think of one - the other will be remembered. It is suggested that Kim may well be largely forgotten in 50 years by most people. Quite possible and Justine as well.

Mind you the other thing that may spring to people's mind about Kim is "early retirement". So there may be a bit of a comparison in a different sort of way with Tracy Austin or Andrea Jaeger.

Zhao
Apr 24th, 2007, 01:10 AM
Kim will be in the same league as Jana Novotna

the "should -have-won-more-but-somehow-cannot" league

Zhao
Apr 24th, 2007, 01:12 AM
Although Jen has more slams. Kim is far better than Jen.

in terms of what?? you can't say that someone whom don't give 100% a beter player compare to player who always give 110%... and possess the never-say-die attitude :angel:

kiwifan
Apr 24th, 2007, 01:37 AM
I think there's just 3 categories for the average sports fan - not the multiple categories based on slams we get in this thread. And apart from the very top category - not many people in the real world bother to go into comparisons:
The Graf, Nav, Federer, Sampras etc stratosphere for players always winning year on year out with tons of slams. No-one in that category today.
The players who are top seeds and always up there every time you hear about them.
The player that pops un with a win now and then - but is really down the order as a likely finalist.

Actually I think for the casual fan Borg, McEnroe and Connors are going to be higher in the category of "most remembered" than Fed, Sampras and any others who have won more slams. Heck I'm even happy that hardly anyone remembers Lendl, of whom I am proud to be a "Hater". :devil:

The pro women are generally fortunate in that the ones who win the biggest titles most often also tend to be the true stars of tennis history, with Anna K being the notable exception. :angel:

I'm showing my age, but I have a hard time believing any women have ever truly eclipsed the tennis star power of Peak Evert and Peak Navrat (well maybe Billie Jean the day of the Bobby Riggs match :p ).

spencercarlos
Apr 24th, 2007, 01:37 AM
Correction, Conchita was ranked number 2* behind Graf and Seles. :rolleyes:
And nice way to bump up the importance of a team competition like Fed Cup, where Conchita was well backed up with Sanchez Vicario, a world number one at some point and number two for a long period of time during the 90ties, whereareas Gaby did not have someone from her country to work the team with.

And of course you left out the record at the Masters (Gaby 2 titles 2 RU 3 Semifinals) where we know how Conchita fared (0 titles, 0 finals, 0 semifinals at the MAsters :eek: )when facing the very best players in the world 21% wins (eg players that were number one at some point of their carreers) and how Gaby did with her 40% record win of those matches against those players.
Or the fact that Conchita has trailing head to head records with +30 players and Gaby only against 11 players.

Plus going back to the Olympics, Conchita´s medals come up again in "team" doubles competition backed up with Arantxa and Virginua Ruano, and Gaby´s silver medal comes from singles. Once again it was not up to Gaby to have another sucessful country woman in her playing days

Oh and again almost half of Conchita´s titles are Tier III or below.


Oh and in normal doubles competition without the restrictions of having to play with a player from your country Gaby won more doubles titles than Conchita and a Grand Slam in doubles.

Yeah there are many reasons. When you have an overview their records seem pretty similar but when you actually look closer at their results, especially against the very best players in the world, you have to go with Gaby.

spencercarlos
Apr 24th, 2007, 02:10 AM
With 33 career titles, RUP at two GSes in addition to her Wimbledon title, a career highest rank of #2, two Olympic silver medals & one bronze, great Fed Cup record, I think Conchita Martinez is being a bit short-changed by a couple of posters here.

Especially when you compare her to Sabatini - 1 GS, 2 RUP, 27 titles, 1 Olympic silver, highest rank #3 - it's not clear to me why Sabatini is being ranked ahead.
Sorry for the double post but i wanted to quote you!

Correction, Conchita was ranked number 2* behind Graf and Seles.
And nice way to bump up the importance of a team competition like Fed Cup, where Conchita was well backed up with Sanchez Vicario, a world number one at some point and number two for a long period of time during the 90ties, whereareas Gaby did not have someone from her country to work the team with.

And of course you left out the record at the Masters (Gaby 2 titles 2 RU 3 Semifinals) where we know how Conchita fared (0 titles, 0 finals, 0 semifinals at the MAsters )when facing the very best players in the world 21% wins (eg players that were number one at some point of their carreers) and how Gaby did with her 40% record win of those matches against those players.
Or the fact that Conchita has trailing head to head records with +30 players and Gaby only against 11 players.

Plus going back to the Olympics, Conchita´s medals come up again in "team" doubles competition backed up with Arantxa and Virginua Ruano, and Gaby´s silver medal comes from singles. Once again it was not up to Gaby to have another sucessful country woman in her playing days

Oh and again almost half of Conchita´s titles are Tier III or below.


Oh and in normal doubles competition without the restrictions of having to play with a player from your country Gaby won more doubles titles than Conchita and a Grand Slam in doubles.

Yeah there are many reasons. When you have an overview their records seem pretty similar but when you actually look closer at their results, especially against the very best players in the world, you have to go with Gaby.

SAEKeithSerena
Apr 24th, 2007, 02:17 AM
I really believe that Kim is tarnishing her legacy by choosing to play this year as she has. I mean skipping the two grand slams where her results have been the best for the one where they have been the worst? Playing less than ten events in the entire year? It just seems so pathetic to me. That said, she will be around Sabatini probably. I think that Mary has had a far better career than Kim, but others may disagree.


i couldn't agree with you any more!:worship: :)

UDACHi
Apr 24th, 2007, 02:17 AM
none of those players are planning to retire.

veesbest
Apr 24th, 2007, 02:19 AM
shes apart of the the one slam wonder group

jellybelly
Apr 24th, 2007, 02:32 AM
Saba
When her fans go away it will become more obvious that she was not that big deal. 2001 was good year but still she was not one of the top 2 players. 2002 was promising by the end but her choking in 2003 destroyed any chances to become a great player. 2004 was more choking and then injuries and 2005 she was choking again and was lucky that Venus had bad conditioning. She again choked second set with Sharapova and then Sharapova choked to return the present and in final Mary choked. That is not a remarkable career, in a few years she will not be thought about by new tennis fans because she did not do anything special or leave any special memories.

winone23
Apr 24th, 2007, 02:44 AM
in terms of what?? you can't say that someone whom don't give 100% a beter player compare to player who always give 110%... and possess the never-say-die attitude :angel:

In terms that Kim is a better player than Jen. If Jen was so die hard she would have more than 13 titles.

champGS1452
Apr 24th, 2007, 02:50 AM
In terms that Kim is a better player than Jen. If Jen was so die hard she would have more than 13 titles.

The slams are what matter. Jen has 3 (including beating Kim in a final),Kim has 1. Jen > Kim.

spencercarlos
Apr 24th, 2007, 03:08 AM
Saba
When her fans go away it will become more obvious that she was not that big deal. 2001 was good year but still she was not one of the top 2 players. 2002 was promising by the end but her choking in 2003 destroyed any chances to become a great player. 2004 was more choking and then injuries and 2005 she was choking again and was lucky that Venus had bad conditioning. She again choked second set with Sharapova and then Sharapova choked to return the present and in final Mary choked. That is not a remarkable career, in a few years she will not be thought about by new tennis fans because she did not do anything special or leave any special memories.
Sorry but winning 30+ titles most of them big titles, 1 grand slam, along with many other finals, gs title in doubles, 2 YEC, and world number one ranking, is something especial that many many girls on tour never achieve. Of course her carreer won´t rank among the best ever, but to say she did "nothing especial" in her tennis carreer is ridiculous.

Saba
When her fans go away it will become more obvious that she was not that big deal. 2001 was good year but still she was not one of the top 2 players. 2002 was promising by the end but her choking in 2003 destroyed any chances to become a great player. 2004 was more choking and then injuries and 2005 she was choking again and was lucky that Venus had bad conditioning. She again choked second set with Sharapova and then Sharapova choked to return the present and in final Mary choked. That is not a remarkable career, in a few years she will not be thought about by new tennis fans because she did not do anything special or leave any special memories.
Oh and even more ridiculous your excuse for Venus´s own choking against Kim 6-4 4-2 and CHOKED :lol:
Nothing else could be expected from an average Venus fan. :rolleyes:
To be fair to Kim she won her slam very fair, she was playing great tennis that summer, and really deserved her grand slam, she fought like never before while being on the brink of defeat against Queen Vee, and in the final she simply outplayed Pierce with her great movement and big hitting.

trufanjay
Apr 24th, 2007, 03:10 AM
I would say Kim is in the league of the one slam winners along with Myskina and Kuznetsova.

bello
Apr 24th, 2007, 03:14 AM
She, Sabatini, and Pierce occupy that middle area and likely won't improve, but Mauresmo's got a shot at moving into Capriati/ASV territory, maybe up to Davenport/Hingis, but Serena level, or even Henin/Venus, is too far, I think.


WELL SAID

winone23
Apr 24th, 2007, 04:13 AM
The slams are what matter. Jen has 3 (including beating Kim in a final),Kim has 1. Jen > Kim.

Yes, Jen does have more slams, but Kim is still the better player. You can say Jen has the better career b/c she has two more slams, but you can't tell me that Jen is a better player than Kim.

KoOlMaNsEaN
Apr 24th, 2007, 04:29 AM
In the league of sabatini I think.

To me she will remembered with her nagging injuries and how she left which right now looks weakly.

Rub
Apr 24th, 2007, 04:34 AM
in the league of the splits...

MS_FP
Apr 24th, 2007, 04:45 AM
I've never really been a fan but hopefully she will be remembered with some of the better players of this generation :worship:

Volcana
Apr 24th, 2007, 04:51 AM
hingis did so much at a young age and it's likely no other young person will ever do what she did- so she'll be remembered.I don't believe her age will be enough. Tracy Austin did so much at an even younger age, winning her first pro tournament at 14, youngest US Open champ at 16, and look at how few people today even remember.

History is a damn cruel mistress.

peanuts
Apr 24th, 2007, 07:06 AM
Desperate Housewife :p

:haha: :haha:

Mileen
Apr 24th, 2007, 07:13 AM
Myskina, Kuznetsova, Dementieva?

or

the Williams Sisters, Henin, Sharapova?

You mean you've already decided Sharapova is in the league? Kim has a better career than Sharapova and is a much better player too.

DOUBLEFIST
Apr 24th, 2007, 08:29 AM
Kim's in Sabatini, Pierce league. All could be argued as not having reached their potential for differing reasons.

The book is clearly still open on Momo.

btw, how did Shapo pass the J-Cap, LD leauge already? :weirdo:

Zhao
Apr 24th, 2007, 03:59 PM
Yes, Jen does have more slams, but Kim is still the better player. You can say Jen has the better career b/c she has two more slams, but you can't tell me that Jen is a better player than Kim.

it's not only abt the no of titles that determines a good player
its the attitude... if Jenn's body could hold up
trust me she would be carrying on playing...
she wouldn't be thinking of being retiring to be a desperate housewife all the time...

Mr. Magassi
Apr 24th, 2007, 04:03 PM
Perhaps Kim is in Capriati's league, too, because even though J Cap has 3 Slams, she didn't really win much else. Kim has several major Tier I titles and 2 YEC titles. They are basically in the same league.

I don't think so... Jenn has 3 Slams, Olympic Gold Medal, #1 ranking... so a bit higher than Kim I think... (also, Jenn broke a number of records as a teen prodigy)

jellybelly
Apr 24th, 2007, 04:04 PM
Sorry but winning 30+ titles most of them big titles, 1 grand slam, along with many other finals, gs title in doubles, 2 YEC, and world number one ranking, is something especial that many many girls on tour never achieve. Of course her carreer won´t rank among the best ever, but to say she did "nothing especial" in her tennis carreer is ridiculous.

Sorry I know you are big fan of Gabriela but do not split hairs. She and Kim are "special" when comparing with average woman or average player but not special enough to become truly remembered in the future. Don't tell me Saba is in the Hall of Fames because they have too many players now and most of them will not actually be remembered in the future. When you look back in 20 years and just see the record sheet, not knowing how anybody played before, you would not think Kim is remarkable. On the Grand Slam sheet she is not even equal to forgettable Stan Smith. Noone will bother to look at master series or tier 1 title. Only her old fans will care about that. Noone will compare her to average player and thinks she is special. In a list of champion she is not worth to remember.


Oh and even more ridiculous your excuse for Venus´s own choking against Kim 6-4 4-2 and CHOKED :lol:
Nothing else could be expected from an average Venus fan. :rolleyes:
To be fair to Kim she won her slam very fair, she was playing great tennis that summer, and really deserved her grand slam, she fought like never before while being on the brink of defeat against Queen Vee, and in the final she simply outplayed Pierce with her great movement and big hitting.

I did not say she cheated but she was lucky in that Venus match because the last part was very horrible tennis from both side. Mary was frozen in the final once again that was not hard to see. I am not taking away her achievement, she will forver be a GS champion so noone can take that from her.

Chrissie-fan
Apr 24th, 2007, 04:26 PM
yes, but if it's about her as a tennis player, the odds are high Justine will be mentioned as the better player (even by those who don't like to admit it, but are honest :cool: )
Yes, but that's inevitable and it doesn't say much about Kim's own considerable achievements in the game since Justine is the greatest sports phenomenon that Belgium has produced since Eddy Merckx. Of course Kim will come out of such a comparison as second best, but she's a second best of a very high standard. I really don't understand why Belgian newspapers still waste all that space on our third rate soccer losers. Our tennis girls is where it's at!!! :worship: ;)

Orion
Apr 24th, 2007, 04:59 PM
When I think of the players since the 90's that have retired, they fit like this:

Graf.
Seles, Serena*.
Henin*, V. Williams*, Hingis*.
Davenport, Sanchez-Vicario.
Capriati.
Mauresmo*, Sharapova*, Pierce, Sabatini, Novotna, Clijsters.
Martinez, Kuznetsova*, Myskina*, Majoli.

Capriati is a level above because she had about 6 seasons at or near the top (1992, 1993, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004), while the ones below either didn't have the longevity or the achievement. Davenport is above Capriati because of her longevity at the top. Of the active players, the only ones who I can really see rising are Mauresmo, Sharapova, and Kuznetsova. The 5 slam girls I don't see differentiating themselves dramatically, and there are too many factors at work to separate them.

winone23
Apr 24th, 2007, 05:16 PM
it's not only abt the no of titles that determines a good player
its the attitude... if Jenn's body could hold up
trust me she would be carrying on playing...
she wouldn't be thinking of being retiring to be a desperate housewife all the time...

I'm not talking about titles. I think Kim is the better player.

Uranus
Apr 24th, 2007, 08:44 PM
Yes, in the league of Mauresmo/Pierce. She doesn't deserve to be among the very best (Henin/Williams sisters) - she had the ability IMO but underachieved like a few girls before her. She's definitely better than the 3 Russians cited - Myskina, Dementieva, Kuznetsova.
I'll add Sharapova with Kim/Mauresmo/Pierce because nobody knows if she'll win other GS tournaments and how many. At the moment she's not as good as Henin/Williams sisters.

spencercarlos
Apr 24th, 2007, 11:24 PM
Sorry I know you are big fan of Gabriela but do not split hairs. She and Kim are "special" when comparing with average woman or average player but not special enough to become truly remembered in the future. Don't tell me Saba is in the Hall of Fames because they have too many players now and most of them will not actually be remembered in the future. When you look back in 20 years and just see the record sheet, not knowing how anybody played before, you would not think Kim is remarkable. On the Grand Slam sheet she is not even equal to forgettable Stan Smith. Noone will bother to look at master series or tier 1 title. Only her old fans will care about that. Noone will compare her to average player and thinks she is special. In a list of champion she is not worth to remember.



I did not say she cheated but she was lucky in that Venus match because the last part was very horrible tennis from both side. Mary was frozen in the final once again that was not hard to see. I am not taking away her achievement, she will forver be a GS champion so noone can take that from her.
Yet again i never said that Kim´s tennis carreer was among the best ever, still she made some great acomplishments, for example she owns more weeks at number one than players like Venus, Capriati, Sharapova, Sanchez Vicario eventhough they have won more grand slam titles than her. She has two master´s titles, whereareas Venus, Capriati, Sanchez Vicario never even won one. KIm has a nice number of titles, considerably way more than say Capriati for example, pretty much even numbers of titles with Venus Williams, despite the fact we know that Kim is three younger than Venus, just go figure.

Kim seems to be in the mix of everything and will be remmembered by the players that witnessed her play as a player that could have achieved way more in her tennis carreer, with great amount of talent and ability as a great hitter of the ball as well as an amazing mover on the court.

And to be honest little people forget many players despite having won 4-6 grand slams in their carreers simply for two reasons: 1) Never watch them play. 2) History will always go by the numbers, no matter the player´s real potential or whatever things happened that prevented to make the top of the history lists. Players like Seles, Austin ,Mandlikova, Clijsters, Capriati (why not), won´t be remmembered among the very best players in the sport, despite we know that many of them were robbed (some because of being chokers, some because of injustices, or injuries) by some reason or another their chance to make the top of the bests in the game.

That is why the names of Graf, Wills Moody, Court, Navratilova, Evert, will always be named in the future, because of their huge acomplishments in numbers and the way they dominated the sport for such long period of time.

Today´s players does not seem near to make those lists, Serena huge bet and Henin probably the players that could pass the single digits numbers in grand slam wins and make them company. Still remains to be seen.
With Serena we don´t know what injury will prevent her being at the top, or if Justine finds a way to be more sucessful in grand slam finals.

Kenny
Apr 25th, 2007, 12:23 AM
Kim is definitely better than Mauresmo

Oh really? Her results haven't shown it.

winone23
Apr 25th, 2007, 07:17 PM
Oh really? Her results haven't shown it.

The haven't???? Kim has shown that she's far better than Momo. Momo has two slams, but look at the way she won the first one. 3 retirements at a slam is not impressive at all.