PDA

View Full Version : My personal Hall of Fame (only retired players)


AnnaK_4ever
Jul 31st, 2007, 04:56 PM
No certain criteria, just my personal point of view.



Notes:
† deceased
only Grand Slams and Olympics results mentioned
players listed in alphabetical order


AKHURST, Daphne (Australia) †
Singles (5): 1925, 1926, 1928-1930 Australasian/Australian Chmps
Doubles (5): 1924, 1925, 1928, 1929, 1931 Australasian/Australian Chmps
Mixed (4): 1924, 1925, 1928, 1929 Australasian/Australian Chmps
* semifinalist at Wimbledon; quarterfinalist at French Open
* died at age of 29 in 1933; the trophy for female winner of Australian Open was named after her

ALVAREZ, Lili (Spain) †
Singles Finals (3): 1926-1928 Wimbledon
Doubles (1): 1929 French Open
* four-time semifinalist at French Open

ATKINSON, Juliette (United States) †
Singles (3): 1895, 1897, 1898 US Chmps
Singles Finals (1): 1896 US Chmps
Doubles (7): 1894-1989, 1901, 1902 US Chmps
Mixed (3): 1894-1896 US Chmps

AUSSEM, Cilly (Germany) †
Singles (2): 1931 French Open, Wimbledon
Mixed (1): 1930 French Open
* retired at age of 25 due to continious health problems

AUSTIN, Tracy (United States)
Singles (2): 1979, 1981 US Open
Mixed (1): 1980 Wimbledon
* two-time semifinalist at Wimbledon; quarterfinalist at Australian and French Opens
* basically retired at 21 due to injuries

BENNETT WHITTINGSTALL, Eileen (Great Britain) †
Singles Finals (2): 1928 French Open; 1931 US Open
Doubles (3): 1928 French Open; 1931 French Open, US Open
Mixed (3): 1927 Wimbledon; 1928, 1929 French Open
* two-time quarterfinalist at Wimbledon

BETZ, Pauline (United States)
Singles (5): 1942-1944 US Open; 1946 Wimbledon, US Open
Singles Finals (3): 1941, 1945 US Open; 1946 French Open
Mixed (1): 1946 French Open
* reached finals at 8 of 10 majors she competed
* in 1947 at age of 28 was forced to quit amateur tennis by USTA

BINGLEY-HILLYARD, Blanche (Great Britain) †
Singles (6): 1886, 1889, 1894, 1897, 1899, 1900 Wimbledon
Singles Finals (7): 1885, 1887, 1888, 1891-1893, 1901 Wimbledon

BJURSTEDT MALLORY, Molla (Norway/ United States) †
Singles (8): 1915-1918, 1920-1922, 1926 US Open
Singles Finals (4): 1921 World Hard Court Chmps; 1922 Wimbledon; 1923, 1924 US Open
Doubles (2): 1916, 1917 US Chmps
Mixed (3): 1917, 1922, 1923 US Open
Olympics: Singles Bronze at Stockholm-1912
* won a record eight US Open singles titles

BOYD-ROBERTSON, Esna (Australia) †
Singles (1): 1927 Australian Chmps
Singles Finals (6): 1922-1926, 1928 Australasian/Australian Chmps
Doubles (5): 1922, 1923, 1925, 1926, 1928 Australasian/Australian Chmps
Mixed (3): 1922, 1926, 1927 Australasian/Australian Chmps
* quarterfinalist at Wimbledon

BROUGH, Louise (United States)
Singles (6): 1947 US Open; 1948, 1949 Wimbledon; 1950 Australian Chmps, Wimbledon; 1955 Wimbledon
Singles Finals (8): 1942, 1943 US Open; 1946 Wimbledon; 1948 US Open; 1952 Wimbledon; 1954 Wimbledon, US Open; 1957 US Open
Majors Doubes (21): 1942-1945 US Open; 1946 French Open, Wimbledon, US Open; 1947 French Open, US Open; 1948 Wimbledon, US Open; 1949 French Open, Wimbledon, US Open; 1950 Australian Chmps, Wimbledon, US Open; 1954 Wimbledon; 1955-1957 US Open
Mixed (8): 1942 US Open; 1946 Wimbledon; 1947, 1948 Wimbledon, US Open; 1949 US Open; 1950 Wimbledon

BROWNE, Mary (United States) †
Singles (3): 1912-1914 US Chmps
Singles Finals (2): 1921 US Open; 1926 French Open
Doubles (6): 1912-1914, 1921, 1925 US Open; 1926 Wimbledon
Mixed (4): 1912-1914, 1921 US Open

BUENO, Maria (Brasil)
Singles (7): 1959 Wimbledon, US Open; 1960 Wimbledon; 1963 US Open; 1964 Wimbledon, US Open; 1966 US Open
Singles Finals (5): 1960 US Open; 1964 French Open; 1965 Australian Chmps, Wimbledon; 1966 Wimbledon
Doubles (11): 1958 Wimbledon; 1960 Australian Chmps, French Open, Wimbledon; 1962 US Open; 1963, 1965 Wimbledon; 1966 Wimbledon, US Open; 1968 US Open
Mixed (1): 1960 French Open

CAPRIATI, Jennifer (United States)
Singles (3): 2001 Australian Open, French Open; 2002 Australian Open
Olympics: Gold at Barcelona-1992
* multiple semifinalist at Wimbledon and US Open

CASALS, Rosie (United States)
Singles Finals (2): 1970, 1971 US Open
Doubles (9): 1967 Wimbledon, US Open; 1968, 1970 Wimbledon; 1971 Wimbledon, US Open; 1973 Wimbledon; 1974, 1982 US Open
Mixed (3): 1970, 1972 Wimbledon; 1975 US Open
* semifinalist at Wimbledon and Australian Open; two-time quarterfinalist at French Open

CLIJSTERS, Kim (Belgium)
Singles (1): 2005 US Open
Singles Finals (4): 2001 French Open; 2003 French Open, US Open; 2004 Australian Open
Doubles (2): 2003 French Open, Wimbledon
* semifinalist at Wimbledon
* retired at 23

CONNOLLY, Maureen (United States) †
Singles (9): 1951 US Open; 1952 Wimbledon, US Open; 1953 Australian Chmps, French Open, Wimbledon, US Open; 1954 French Open, Wimbledon
Doubles (2): 1953 Australian Chmps; 1954 French Open
Mixed (1): 1954 French Open
* the first player to win the Grand Slam; won swingles titles at 9 straight majors out of 11 she ever competed
* Maureen’s career ended in 1954 when she was hit by a truck, she was only 19; fifteen years later, at 34, she died of cancer

COOPER-STERRY, Charlotte (Great Britain) †
Singles (5): 1895, 1896, 1898, 1901, 1908 Wimbledon
Singles Finals (6): 1897, 1899, 1900, 1902, 1904, 1912 Wimbledon
Olympics: Singles and Mixed Gold at Paris-1900

COYNE LONG, Thelma (Australia)
Singles (2): 1952, 1954 Australian Chmps
Singles Finals (4): 1940, 1951, 1955, 1956 Australian Chmps
Doubles (13): 1936-1940, 1947-1949, 1951, 1952, 1954, 1956, 1958 Australian Chmps
Mixed (5): 1951, 1952, 1954, 1955 Australian Chmps; 1956 French Open
* quarterfinalist at Wimbledon, US and French Opens

DOD, Lottie (Great Britain) †
Singles (5): 1887, 1888, 1891-1893 Wimbledon
* as she never played majors outside Wimbledon Dod remains the only player to have never lost a match at majors

DOUGLASS CHAMBERS, Dorothea (Great Britain) †
Singles (7): 1903, 1904, 1906, 1910, 1911, 1913, 1914 Wimbledon
Singles Finals (4): 1905, 1907, 1919, 1920 Wimbledon
Olympics: Singles Gold at London-1908

DURR, Francoise (France)
Singles (1): 1967 French Open
Doubles (7): 1967, 1968 French Open; 1969 French Open, US Open; 1970, 1971 French Open; 1972 US Open
Mixed (4): 1968, 1971, 1973 French Open; 1976 Wimbledon
* semifinalist at Wimbledon and US Open; two-time quarterfinalist at Australian Chmps

EVERT, Chris (United States)
Singles (18): 1974 French Open, Wimbledon; 1975 French Open, US Open; 1976 Wimbledon, US Open; 1977, 1978 US Open; 1979 French Open; 1980 French Open, US Open; 1981 Wimbledon; 1982 Australian Open, US Open; 1983 French Open; 1984 Australian Open; 1985, 1986 French Open
Singles Finals (16): 1973 French Open, Wimbledon; 1974 Australian Open; 1978 Wimbledon; 1979 Wimbledon, US Open; 1980 Wimbledon; 1981 Australian Open; 1982 Wimbledon; 1983 US Open; 1984 French Open, Wimbledon, US Open; 1985 Wimbledon, Australian Open; 1988 Australian Open
Doubles (3): 1974, 1975 French Open; 1976 Wimbledon
* won at least one Grand Slam title for 13 consecutive years

FRY, Shirley (United States)
Singles (4): 1951 French Open; 1956 Wimbledon, US Open; 1957 Australian Chmps
Singles Finals (4): 1948 French Open; 1951 Wimbledon, US Open; 1952 French Open
Doubles (12): 1950 French Open; 1951-1953 French Open, Wimbledon, US Open; 1954 US Open; 1957 Australian Chmps
Mixed (1): 1956 Wimbledon
* won three straight majors before retiring in 1957

GIBSON, Althea (United States) †
Singles (5): 1956 French Open; 1957, 1958 Wimbledon, US Open
Singles Finals (2): 1956 US Open; 1957 Australian Chmps
Doubles (6): 1956 French Open, Wimbledon; 1957 Australian Chmps, Wimbledon, US Open; 1958 Wimbledon
* retired from amateurs in 1958 having won four straight majors she entered

GOOLAGONG-CAWLEY, Evonne (Australia)
Singles (7): 1971 French Open, Wimbledon; 1974-1976, 1977 [Dec.] Australian Open; 1980 Wimbledon
Singles Finals (11): 1971 Australian Open; 1972 Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon; 1973 Australian Open, US Open; 1974 US Open; 1975, 1976 Wimbledon, US Open
Doubles (6): 1971 Australian Open; 1974 Australian Open, Wimbledon; 1975, 1976, 1977 [Dec.] Australian Open
Mixed (1): 1972 French Open
* in 1971-1977 reached finals at 17 of 21 majors she played

GRAF, Steffi (Germany)
Singles (22): 1987 French Open; 1988 Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon, US Open; 1989 Australian Open, Wimbledon, US Open; 1990 Australian Open; 1991, 1992 Wimbledon; 1993 French Open, Wimbledon, US Open; 1994 Australian Open; 1995, 1996 French Open, Wimbledon, US Open; 1999 French Open
Singles Finals (9): 1987 Wimbledon, US Open; 1989 French Open; 1990 French Open, US Open; 1992 French Open; 1993 Australian Open; 1994 US Open; 1999 Wimbledon
Doubles (1): 1988 Wimbledon
Olympics: Singles Gold and Doubles Bronze at Seoul-1988; Singles Silver at Barcelona-1992
* the third (and the last thus far) player to win the Grand Slam; the only player (male or female) to have won the so-called Golden Grand Slam

HARD, Darlene (United States)
Singles (3): 1960 French Open, US Open; 1961 US Open
Singles Finals (4): 1957 Wimbledon; 1958 US Open; 1959 Wimbledon; 1962 US Open
Doubles (13): 1955 French Open; 1957 French Open, Wimbledon; 1958 US Open; 1959 Wimbledon, US Open; 1960 French Open, Wimbledon, US Open; 1961, 1962 US Open; 1963 Wimbledon; 1969 US Open
Mixed (5): 1955 French Open; 1957, 1959, 1960 Wimbledon; 1961 French Open

HART, Doris (United States)
Singles (6): 1949 Australian Chmps; 1950 French Open; 1951 Wimbledon; 1952 French Open; 1954, 1955 US Open
Singles Finals (12): 1946 US Open; 1947 French Open, Wimbledon; 1948 Wimbledon; 1949 US Open; 1950 Australian Chmps, US Open; 1951 French Open; 1952 US Open; 1953 French Open, Wimbledon, US Open
Doubles (14): 1947 Wimbledon; 1948 French Open; 1950 Australian Chmps, French Open; 1951-1953 French Open, Wimbledon, US Open; 1954 US Open
Mixed (15): 1949, 1950 Australian Chmps; 1951-1953 French Open, Wimbledon, US Open; 1954, 1955 Wimbledon, US Open

HAYDON-JONES, Ann (Great Britain)
Singles (3): 1961, 1966 French Open; 1969 Wimbledon
Singles Finals (6): 1961 US Open; 1963 French Open; 1967 Wimbledon, US Open; 1968, 1969 French Open
Doubles (3): 1963, 1968, 1969 French Open
Mixed (2): 1969 Australian Open, Wimbledon

HINGIS, Martina (Switzerland)
Singles (5): 1997 Australian Open, Wimbledon, US Open; 1998, 1999 Australian Open
Singles Finals (7): 1997 French Open; 1998 US Open; 1999 French Open, US Open; 2000-2002 Australian Open
Doubles (9): 1996 Wimbledon; 1997 Australian Open; 1998 Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon, US Open; 1999 Australian Open; 2000 French Open; 2002 Australian Open
Mixed (1): 2006 Australian Open

HOTCHKISS-WIGHTMAN, Hazel (United States) †
Singles (4): 1909-1911, 1919 US Chmps
Singles Finals (1): 1915 US Chmps
Doubles (7): 1909-1911 US Chmps; 1915 US Chmps; 1924 Wimbledon, US Open; 1928 US Open
Mixed (6): 1909-1911 US Chmps; 1915, 1918, 1920 US Chmps

JACOBS, Helen (United States) †
Singles (5): 1932-1935 US Open; 1936 Wimbledon
Singles Finals (11): 1928 US Open; 1929 Wimbledon; 1930 French Open; 1932 Wimbledon; 1934 French Open, Wimbledon; 1935 Wimbledon; 1936 US Open; 1938 Wimbledon; 1939, 1940 US Open
Majos Doubles (4): 1932-1935 US Open
Mixed Doubles (1): 1934 US Open

JEDRZEJOWSKA, Jadwiga (Poland) †
Singles Finals (3): 1937 Wimbledon, US Open; 1938 French Open
Doubles (1): 1939 French Open

JONES, Marion (United States) †
Singles (2): 1899, 1902 US Chmps
Singles Finals (2): 1898, 1903 US Chmps
Doubles (1): 1902 US Chmps
Olympics: Singles and Mixed Bronze at Paris-1900

KING, Billie Jean (United States)
Singles (12): 1966 Wimbledon; 1967 Wimbledon, US Open; 1968 Australian Chmps, Wimbledon; 1971 US Open; 1972 French Open, Wimbledon, US Open; 1973 Wimbledon; 1974 US Open; 1975 Wimbledon
Singles Finals (6): 1963 Wimbledon; 1965, 1968 US Open; 1969 Australian Open, Wimbledon; 1970 Wimbledon
Doubles (16): 1961, 1962 Wimbledon; 1964 US Open; 1965 Wimbledon; 1967 Wimbledon, US Open; 1968, 1970, 1971 Wimbledon; 1972 French Open, Wimbledon; 1973 Wimbledon; 1974, 1978 US Open; 1979 Wimbledon; 1980 US Open
Mixed (11): 1967 French Open, Wimbledon, US Open; 1968 Australian Chmps; 1970 French Open; 1971, 1973 Wimbledon, US Open; 1974 Wimbledon; 1976 US Open

LANCE HARPER, Sylvia (Australia) †
Singles (1): 1924 Australasian Chmps
Singles Finals (2): 1927, 1930 Australian Chmps
Doubles (3): 1923-1925 Australasian Chmps
Mixed (1): 1923 Australasian Chmps

LENGLEN, Suzanne (France) †
Singles (12): 1914 World Hard Court Chmps; 1919, 1920 Wimbledon; 1921-1923 World Hard Court Chmps, Wimbledon; 1925 French Open, Wimbledon; 1926 French Open
Doubles (11): 1914 World Hard Court Chmps; 1919, 1920 Wimbledon; 1921, 1922 World Hard Court Chmps, Wimbledon; 1923 Wimbledon; 1925 French Open, Wimbledon; 1926 French Open
Mixed (8): 1920 Wimbledon; 1921 World Hard Court Chmps; 1922 World Hard Court Chmps, Wimbledon; 1923 World Hard Court Chmps; 1925 French Open, Wimbledon; 1926 French Open
Olympics: Singles and Mixed Gold, Doubles Bronze at Antwerp-1920
* won 12 of 16 majors she played

MANDLIKOVA, Hana (Czechoslovakia/ Australia)
Singles (4): 1980 Australian Open; 1981 French Open; 1985 US Open; 1987 Australian Open
Singles Finals (4): 1980 US Open; 1981 Wimbledon; 1982 US Open; 1986 Wimbledon
Doubles (1): 1989 US Open

MARBLE, Alice (United States) †
Singles (5): 1936, 1938 US Open; 1939 Wimbledon, US Open; 1940 US Open
Doubles (6): 1937 US Open; 1938, 1939 Wimbledon, US Open; 1940 US Open
Mixed (7): 1936 US Open; 1937 Wimbledon; 1938, 1939 Wimbledon, US Open; 1940 US Open
* being 27 years old retired from amateurs in 1940

MARTINEZ, Conchita (Spain)
Singles (1): 1994 Wimbledon
Singles Finals (2): 1998 Australian Open; 2000 French Open
* two-time semifinalist at US Open

MATHIEU, Simone (France) †
Singles (2): 1938, 1939 French Open
Singles Finals (6): 1929, 1932, 1933, 1935, 1936, 1937 French Open
Doubles (9): 1933, 1934 French Open, Wimbledon; 1936 French Open; 1937 French Open, Wimbledon; 1938, 1939 French Open
Mixed (2): 1937, 1938 French Open
* six-time semifinalist at Wimbledon; quarterfinalist at US Open

McKANE-GODFREE, Kitty (Great Britain) †
Singles (2): 1924, 1926 Wimbledon
Singles Finals (4): 1923 World Hard Court Chmps, Wimbledon; 1925 French Open, US Open
Doubles (2): 1923, 1927 US Open
Mixed (3): 1924 Wimbledon; 1925 US Open; 1926 Wimbledon
Olympics: Singles Bronze, Doubles Gold and Mixed Silver at Antwerp-1920; Singles Bronze and Doubles Silver at Paris-1924

MELVILLE-REID, Kerry (Australia)
Singles (1): 1977 [Jan.] Australian Open
Singles Finals (2): 1970 Australian Open; 1972 US Open
Doubles (3): 1968, 1977 [Dec.] Australian Open; 1978 Wimbledon
* semifinalist at Wimbledon and French Open

MOLESWORTH, Margaret (Australia) †
Singles (2): 1922, 1923 Australasian Chmps
Singles Finals (1): 1934 Australian Chmps
Doubles (3): 1930, 1933, 1934 Australian Chmps

MOORE, Elisabeth (United States) †
Singles (4): 1896, 1901, 1903, 1905 US Chmps
Singles Finals (4): 1892, 1897, 1902, 1904 US Chmps
Doubles (2): 1896, 1903 US Chmps
Mixed (2): 1902, 1904

MORTIMER, Angela (Great Britain)
Singles (3): 1955 French Open; 1958 Australian Chmps; 1961 Wimbledon
Singles Finals (2): 1956 French Open; 1958 Wimbledon
Doubles (1): 1955 Wimbledon
* semifinalist at US Open

NAVRATILOVA, Martina (Czechoslovakia/ United States)
Singles (18): 1978, 1979 Wimbledon; 1981 Australian Open; 1982 French Open, Wimbledon; 1983 Wimbledon, US Open, Australian Open; 1984 French Open, Wimbledon, US Open; 1985 Wimbledon, Australian Open; 1986, 1987 Wimbledon, US Open; 1990 Wimbledon
Singles Finals (14): 1975 Asutralian Open, French Open; 1981 US Open; 1982 Australian Open; 1985 French Open, US Open; 1986 French Open; 1987 Australian Open, French Open; 1988 Wimbledon; 1989 Wimbledon, US Open; 1991 US Open; 1994 Wimbledon
Doubles (31): 1975 French Open; 1976 Wimbledon; 1977, 1978 US Open; 1979 Wimbledon; 1980 US Open, Australian Open; 1981 Wimbledon; 1982 French Open, Wimbledon, Australian Open; 1983 Wimbledon, US Open, Australian Open; 1984 French Open, Wimbledon, US Open, Australian Open; 1985 French Open, Australian Open; 1986 French Open, Wimbledon, US Open; 1987 Australian Open, French Open, US Open; 1988 Australian Open, French Open; 1989 Australian Open, US Open; 1990 US Open
Mixed (10): 1974 French Open; 1985 French Open, Wimbledon, US Open; 1987 US Open; 1993, 1995 Wimbledon; 2003 Australian Open, Wimbledon; 2006 US Open

NOVOTNA, Jana (Czech Republic)
Singles (1): 1998 Wimbledon
Singles Finals (3): 1991 Australian Open; 1993, 1997 Wimbledon
Doubles (12): 1989 Wimbledon; 1990 Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon; 1991 French Open; 1994 US Open; 1995 Australian Open, Wimbledon; 1997 US Open; 1998 French Open, Wimbledon, US Open
Olympics: Doubles Silver at Seoul-1988; Doubles Silver and Singles Bronze at Atlanta-1996
* two-time semifinalist at US and French Opens

NUTHALL, Betty (United States) †
Singles (1): 1930 US Open
Singles Finals (2): 1927 US Open; 1931 French Open
Doubles (4): 1930 US Open; 1931 French Open, US Open; 1933 US Open
Mixed (4): 1929 US Open; 1931 French Open, US Open; 1932 French Open
* four-time quarterfinalist at Wimbledon

OSBORNE-DuPONT, Margaret (United States)
Singles (6): 1946 French Open; 1947 Wimbledon; 1948 US Open; 1949 French Open, US Open; 1950 US Open
Singles Finals (4): 1944, 1947 US Open; 1949, 1950 Wimbledon
Doubles (21): 1941-1945 US Open; 1946 French Open, Wimbledon, US Open; 1947 French Open, US Open; 1948 Wimbledon, US Open; 1949 French Open, Wimbledon, US Open; 1950 Wimbledon, US Open; 1954 Wimbledon; 1955-1957 US Open
Mixed (10): 1943-1946, 1950, 1956, 1958-1960 US Open; 1962 Wimbledon

PALFREY COOKE, Sarah (United States) †
Singles (2): 1941, 1945 US Open
Singles Finals (2): 1934, 1935 US Open
Doubles (11): 1930, 1932, 1934, 1935, 1937 US Open; 1938, 1939 Wimbledon, US Open; 1940, 1941 US Open
Mixed (5): 1932, 1935, 1937 US Open; 1939 French Open; 1941 US Open
* semifinalist at Wimbledon; quarterfinalist at French Open

RICHEY-GUNTER, Nancy (Great Britain)
Singles (2): 1967 Australian Chmps; 1968 French Open
Singles Finals (4): 1966 Australian Chmps, French Open, US Open; 1969 US Open
Doubles (4): 1965 US Open; 1966 Australian Chmps, Wimbledon, US Open
* semifinalist at Wimbledon

ROUND, Dorothy (Great Britain) †
Singles (3): 1934 Wimbledon; 1935 Australian Chmps; 1937 Wimbledon
Singles Finals (1): 1933 Wimbledon
Mixed (3): 1934-1936 Wimbledon
* semifinalist at US Open

RYAN, Elizabeth (United States) †
Singles Finals (4): 1921 Wimbledon; 1922 World Hard Court Chmps; 1926 US Open; 1930 Wimbledon
Doubles (19): 1914 World Hard Court Chmps, Wimbledon; 1919-1921 Wimbledon; 1922 World Hard Court Chmps, Wimbledon; 1923, 1925 Wimbledon; 1926 Wimbledon, US Open; 1927 Wimbledon; 1930 French Open, Wimbledon; 1932 French Open; 1933, 1934 French Open, Wimbledon
Mixed (11): 1913, 1914 World Hard Court Chmps; 1919, 1921, 1923 Wimbledon; 1926 US Open; 1927, 1928, 1930, 1932 Wimbledon; 1933 US Open
* won probably the most non-majors singles titles in tennis history

SABATINI, Gabriela (Argentina)
Singles (1): 1990 US Open
Singles Finals (2): 1988 US Open; 1991 Wimbledon
Doubles (1): 1988 Wimbledon
Olympics: Singles Silver at Seoul-1988
* multiple semifinalist at French and Australian Opens

SANCHEZ-VICARIO, Arantxa (Spain)
Singles (4): 1989 French Open; 1994 French Open, US Open; 1998- French Open
Singles Finals (8): 1991 French Open; 1992 US Open; 1994 Australian Open; 1995 Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon; 1996 French Open, Wimbledon
Doubles (6): 1992 Australian Open; 1993, 1994 US Open; 1995 Australian Open, Wimbledon; 1996 Australian Open
Mixed (4): 1990, 1992 French Open; 1993 Australian Open; 2003 US Open
Olympics: Doubles Silver and Singles Bronze at Barcelona-1992; Singles Silver and Doubles Bronze at Atlanta-1996

SCRIVEN, Margaret (Great Britain) †
Singles (2): 1933, 1934 French Open
Doubles (1): 1935 French Open
Mixed (1): 1933 French Open
* four-time quarterfinalist at Wimbledon

SELES, Monica (Yugoslavia/ United States)
Singles (9): 1990 French Open; 1991, 1992 Australian Open, French Open, US Open; 1993, 1996 Australian Open
Singles Finals (4): 1992 Wimbledon; 1995, 1996 US Open; 1998 French Open
Olympics: Singles Bronze at Sydney-2000

SHRIVER, Pam (United States)
Singles Finals (1): 1978 US Open
Doubles (21): 1981 Wimbledon; 1982 Wimbledon, Australian Open; 1983 Wimbledon, US Open, Australian Open; 1984 French Open, Wimbledon, US Open, Australian Open; 1985 French Open, Australian Open; 1986 Wimbledon, US Open; 1987 Australian Open, French Open, US Open; 1988 Australian Open, French Open; 1989 Australian Open; 1991 US Open
Mixed (1): 1987 French Open
Olympics: Doubles Gold at Seoul-1988
* three-time semifinalist at Wimbledon and Australian Open

SMITH-COURT, Margaret (Australia)
Singles (24): 1960, 1961 Australian Chmps; 1962 Australian Chmps, French Open, US Open; 1963 Australian Chmps, Wimbledon; 1964 Australian Chmps, French Open; 1965 Australian Chmps, Wimbledon, US Open; 1966 Australian Chmps; 1969 Australian Open, French Open, US Open; 1970 Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon, US Open; 1971 Australian Open; 1973 Australian Open, French Open, US Open
Singles Finals (5): 1963 US Open; 1964 Wimbledon; 1965 French Open; 1968 Australian Chmps; 1971 Wimbledon
Doubles (19): 1961, 1962 Australian Chmps; 1963 Australian Chmps, US Open; 1964 French Open, Wimbledon; 1965 Australian Chmps, French Open; 1966 French Open; 1968 US Open; 1969 Australian Open, Wimbledon; 1970 Australian Open, US Open; 1971 Australian Open; 1973 Australian Open, French Open, US Open; 1975 US Open
Mixed (19): 1961, 1962 US Open; 1963 Australian Chmps, French Open, Wimbledon, US Open; 1964 Australian Chmps, French Open, US Open; 1965 Australian Chmps, French Open, Wimbledon, US Open; 1966, 1968 Wimbledon; 1969 Australian Open, French Open, US Open; 1970, 1972 US Open; 1975 Wimbledon
* the second player to have won the Grand Slam

SPERLING, Hilde (Germany) †
Singles (3): 1935-1937 French Open
Singles Finals (2): 1931, 1936 Wimbledon
Mixed (1): 1933 Wimbledon

SUKOVA, Helena (Czech Republic)
Singles Finals (4): 1984 Australian Open; 1986 US Open; 1989 Australian Open; 1993 US Open
Doubles (9): 1985 US Open; 1987, 1989 Wimbledon; 1990 Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon; 1993 Australian Open, US Open; 1996 Wimbledon
Mixed (5): 1991 French Open; 1993 US Open; 1994, 1996, 1997 Wimbledon
Olympics: Doubles Silver at Seoul-1988 and Atlanta-1996
* semifinalist at French Open; five-time quarterfinalist at Wimbledon

SUTTON-BUNDY, May (United States) †
Singles (3): 1904 US Chmps; 1905, 1907 Wimbledon
Singles Finals (1): 1906 Wimbledon
Doubles (1): 1904 US Chmps

TEGART, Judy (Australia)
Singles Finals (1): 1968 Wimbledon
Doubles (8): 1964 Australian Chmps; 1966 French Open; 1967 Australian Chmps; 1969 Australian Open, Wimbledon; 1970 Australian Open, US Open; 1971 US Open
Mixed (1): 1966 Australian Chmps
* semifinalist at Australian Chmps; two-time quarterfinalist at US Open

TODD, Patricia (United States)
Singles (1): 1947 French Open
Singles Finals (1): 1950 French Open
Doubles (2): 1947 Wimbledon; 1948 French Open
Mixed (1): 1948 French Open
* multiple semifinalist at Wimbledon and US Open

TRUMAN, Christine (Great Britain)
Singles (1): 1959 French Open
Singles Finals (2): 1959 US Open; 1961 Wimbledon
Doubles (1): 1960 Australian Chmps
* semifinalist at Australian Chmps

TURNBULL, Wendy (Australia)
Singles Finals (3): 1977 US Open; 1979 French Open; 1980 Australian Open
Doubles (4): 1978 Wimbledon; 1979 French Open, US Open; 1982 US Open
Mixed (5): 1979 French Open; 1980 US Open; 1982 French Open; 1983, 1984 Wimbledon
Olympics: Doubles Bronze at Seoul-1988
* three-time quarterfinalist at Wimbledon

TURNER-BOWREY, Lesley (Australia)
Singles (2): 1963, 1965 French Open
Singles Finals (4): 1962 French Open; 1964 Australian Chmps; 1967 Australian Chmps, French Open
Doubles (7): 1961 US Open; 1964 Australian Chmps, French Open, Wimbledon; 1965 Australian Chmps, French Open; 1967 Australain Chmps
Mixed (4): 1961 Wimbledon; 1962 Australian Chmps; 1964 Wimbledon; 1967 Australian Chmps
* semifinalist at Wimbledon and US Open

WADE, Virginia (Great Britain)
Singles (3): 1968 US Open; 1972 Australian Open; 1977 Wimbledon
Doubles (4): 1973 Australian Open, French Open, US Open; 1975 US Open

WATSON, Maud (Great Britain) †
Singles (2): 1884, 1885 Wimbledon
Singles Finals (1): 1886 Wimbledon
* The first Ladies Wimbledon champion

WILLS-MOODIE, Helen (United States) †
Singles (19): 1923-1925 US Open; 1927 Wimbledon, US Open; 1928, 1929 French Open, Wimbledon, US Open; 1930 French Open, Wimbledon; 1931 US Open; 1932 French Open, Wimbledon; 1933, 1935, 1938 Wimbledon
Singles Finals (3): 1922 US Open; 1924 Wimbledon; 1933 US Open
Doubles (9): 1922 US Open; 1924 Wimbledon, US Open; 1925 US Open; 1927 Wimbledon; 1928 US Open; 1930 French Open, Wimbledon; 1932 French Open
Mixed (3): 1924, 1928 US Open; 1929 Wimbledon
Olympics: Singles and Doubles Gold at Paris-1924
* reached finals at 22 out of 24 majors she competed

WYNNE-BOLTON, Nancye (Australia) †
Singles (6): 1937, 1940, 1946-1948, 1951 Australian Chmps
Singles Finals (3): 1936 Asutralian Chmps; 1938 US Open; 1949 Australian Chmps
Doubles (10): 1936-1940, 1947-1949, 1951, 1952 Australian Chmps
Mixed (4): 1940, 1946-1948 Australian Chmps
* quarterfialist at Wimbledon

ZINDERSTEIN JESSUP, Marion (United States) †
Singles Finals (2): 1919, 1920 US Open
Doubles (4): 1918-1920, 1922 US Open
Mixed (1): 1919 US Open
Olympics: Mixed Silver at Paris-1924

ZVEREVA, Natalia (Belarus)
Singles Finals (1): 1988 French Open
Doubles (18): 1989 French Open; 1991 Wimbledon, US Open; 1992 French Open, Wimbledon, US Open; 1993, 1994 Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon; 1995 French Open, US Open; 1996 US Open; 1997 Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon
Mixed (2): 1990, 1995 Australian Open
Olympics: Doubles Bronze at Barcelona-1992
* semifinalist at Wimbledon; quarterfinalist at US and Australian Opens

Serval
Jul 31st, 2007, 05:12 PM
Why must they have won one Wimbledon but not, say, a Roland Garros?

AnnaK_4ever
Jul 31st, 2007, 05:22 PM
Why must they have won one Wimbledon but not, say, a Roland Garros?

because it's Wimbledon. Like it or not but it's the Slam #1 and it traditionally (until the 1980s) had much better fields than Roland Garros and Australian Open.

Andy T
Jul 31st, 2007, 05:49 PM
because it's Wimbledon. Like it or not but it's the Slam #1 and it traditionally (until the 1980s) had much better fields than Roland Garros and Australian Open.

...and the US Open. This was not true in the 1950s, when American women totally dominated world tennis but during the 1960s there is very little to choose between Roland Garros & the US Championships.

:worship: to each and every player on this list. I think you were absolutely right to include Betz, Jacobs and Marble, AK4ever.

sfselesfan
Jul 31st, 2007, 05:53 PM
Major titles is an unfair way to evaluate players, especially from the 20's. For instance. Wills-Moody never played the Aussie Championships, despite winning every slam she played for six years straight. She won 19 of the 25 slams she played.

Major titles have not been considered "major" for very long.

I suspect there are a lot of players who should qualify for that list who are not on it. Looking at major titles is a narrow way of evaluating the players of old.

SF

disco_rage
Jul 31st, 2007, 06:19 PM
It is unfair i think to include the Australian Open results up until the end of the 1970s/1980s really, because hardly any of the top players played their (except the Australians).

GracefulVenus
Jul 31st, 2007, 06:36 PM
Really is an unfair way to rate everyone. Not to have Lindsay Davenport on the list is an injustice to us all as fans of womens tennis!

DA FOREHAND
Jul 31st, 2007, 06:42 PM
Really is an unfair way to rate everyone. Not to have Lindsay Davenport on the list is an injustice to us all as fans of womens tennis!

is it? do you see any other three time champions on the list?

Geisha
Jul 31st, 2007, 07:02 PM
I'd pick Davenport's over Betz's. :s

AnnaK_4ever
Jul 31st, 2007, 07:07 PM
Major titles is an unfair way to evaluate players, especially from the 20's. For instance. Wills-Moody never played the Aussie Championships, despite winning every slam she played for six years straight. She won 19 of the 25 slams she played.

Major titles have not been considered "major" for very long.

I suspect there are a lot of players who should qualify for that list who are not on it. Looking at major titles is a narrow way of evaluating the players of old.

SF

And who are the truly great players of old I ignored in this list? I'm asking because I really want to know.

eugreene2
Jul 31st, 2007, 07:18 PM
I have to disagree on Lindsay ... I can't call you great when you admittedly gave up on so many matches. When you get down on yourself like she admittedly did - you say to me that you are not a fighter and a champion. A great champion rises to the occasion.

sfselesfan
Jul 31st, 2007, 07:29 PM
And who are the truly great players of old I ignored in this list? I'm asking because I really want to know.

TONS!

Two early Brits that come to mind from reading about them.

Lottie Dodd - Won 5 Wimbledons. Never played another major. Only lost 5 matches in her entire career. She was the Billie Jean King of her time, playing...and beating...male players.

Dorothea Chambers - Won 7 Wimbledon titles, but never played another major. WWI hit at the height of her career and she wasn't able to compete for four years or so.

SF

Pureracket
Jul 31st, 2007, 07:33 PM
I have to disagree on Lindsay ... I can't call you great when you admittedly gave up on so many matches. When you get down on yourself like she admittedly did - you say to me that you are not a fighter and a champion. A great champion rises to the occasion.
That's a rather individual assessment, though, isn't it? Others on that list had their own issues too.

misael
Jul 31st, 2007, 07:34 PM
Lyndsay has played 6 of these players and has a winning record on 4,she belongs on this list.

AnnaK_4ever
Jul 31st, 2007, 07:41 PM
TONS!

Two early Brits that come to mind from reading about them.

Lottie Dodd - Won 5 Wimbledons. Never played another major. Only lost 5 matches in her entire career. She was the Billie Jean King of her time, playing...and beating...male players.

Dorothea Chambers - Won 7 Wimbledon titles, but never played another major. WWI hit at the height of her career and she wasn't able to compete for four years or so.

SF

Oh, I know these two. And I thought you said Grand Slams mean nothing... yet you mentioned names of the two greatest pre-WWI Wimbledon champions who in fact had no competition, who played only challenge round to win some of their Wimbledon titles.
But maybe it's my fault as I should have added "post WWI Champions" in the thread's title. Cos I really don't think that 1880-1910s events had much to do with sport.

AnnaK_4ever
Jul 31st, 2007, 07:46 PM
Lyndsay has played 6 of these players and has a winning record on 4,she belongs on this list.

Weird logic.

sfselesfan
Jul 31st, 2007, 07:48 PM
Oh, I know these two. And I thought you said Grand Slams mean nothing... yet you mentioned names of the two greatest pre-WWI Wimbledon champions who in fact had no competition, who played only challenge round to win some of their Wimbledon titles.
But maybe it's my fault as I should have added "post WWI Champions" in the thread's title. Cos I really don't think that 1880-1910s events had much to do with sport.

Please show me where I said grand slam tournaments mean nothing.

I said it's unfair to base the "best of" off Grand Slam tournaments as the only criteria. Especially when you require winning multiple slams. Even post-WWI, tennis was not an international sport. Even into the 70s, players weren't necessarily focused on slams. Look at Billie Jean King, Evert, and even Navratilova...who...for a number of years skipped slams to play WTT.

Using "majors" as the sole criteria is short sighted.

SF

eugreene2
Jul 31st, 2007, 07:49 PM
Lyndsay has played 6 of these players and has a winning record on 4,she belongs on this list.

It's not always about winning records. What did you do on the biggest stages? Did you find that championship grit or did you melt away? Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Joe Montana, etc. didn't always play great in the regular season but during the playoffs, they brought a fire with them that they fought, kicked & screamed to keep alive. Lindsay melted too often for me.

And again, she's the one that admitted that she would get down on herself. I didn't say it, she did.

Pureracket
Jul 31st, 2007, 07:57 PM
I have to disagree on Lindsay ... I can't call you great when you admittedly gave up on so many matches. When you get down on yourself like she admittedly did - you say to me that you are not a fighter and a champion. A great champion rises to the occasion.
To further explain my point about this is that there are other players who could also fall under the same situation as you put LD under.

For instance, Serena J. Williams should have @ least 10-12 Slams by now, but her slow approach to the sport has only come in the last few years.(For the same reason, Venus Williams shouldn't be on the list, but neither should JH....not yet).

Chris Evert would certainly top the list right now if she'd have played more Austalian Open tourneys.

Martina Hingis should have more Slams too.

AnnaK_4ever
Jul 31st, 2007, 07:57 PM
Please show me where I said grand slam tournaments mean nothing.

I said it's unfair to base the "best of" off Grand Slam tournaments as the only criteria. Especially when you require winning multiple slams. Even post-WWI, tennis was not an international sport. Even into the 70s, players weren't necessarily focused on slams. Look at Billie Jean King, Evert, and even Navratilova...who...for a number of years skipped slams to play WTT.

Using "majors" as the sole criteria is short sighted.

SF

No, it's not when we're talking about the bests among the bests. A player just cannot consider one of the all-time greats, one of the greatest champions ever if he/she didn't win solid number of GS titles. If player didn't care about Grand Slams much or failed to win "home" majors it's his/her problem. Apparently others were more aware about the importance of such tournaments.
And you still don't name Slamsless or "one Slam wonder" players who deserve to be in the list.

sfselesfan
Jul 31st, 2007, 08:00 PM
No, it's not when we're talking about the bests among the bests. A player just cannot consider one of the all-time greats, one of the greatest champions ever if he/she didn't win solid number of GS titles. If player didn't care about Grand Slams much it's his/her problem. Apparently others were more aware about the importance of such tournaments.
And you still don't name Slamsless or "one Slam wonder" players who deserve to be in the list.


Your placing a 21st century value on something which was considered non-prestigious at the time it was played.

SF

sfselesfan
Jul 31st, 2007, 08:02 PM
And you still don't name Slamsless or "one Slam wonder" players who deserve to be in the list.

BTW - I gave you two, and you moved the goal post.

SF

AnnaK_4ever
Jul 31st, 2007, 08:04 PM
BTW - I gave you two, and you moved the goal post.

SF

Slamless? They won 12 Wimbledon titles...

AnnaK_4ever
Jul 31st, 2007, 08:10 PM
Your placing a 21st century value on something which was considered non-prestigious at the time it was played.

SF

And how come Wills, and Lenglen, and Jacobs, and others played Grand Slams? Because they were smarter than other players who ignored these events? Well, being smarter or "foreseer" is what makes you a great champion too.
Wimbledon and US Open were prestigious titles even in 1920-1940s.

sfselesfan
Jul 31st, 2007, 08:11 PM
And how come Wills, and Lenglen, and Jacobs, and others played Grand Slams? Because they were smarter than other players who ignored these events? Well, being smarter or "foreseer" is what makes you a great champion too.
Wimbledon and US Open were prestigious titles even in 1920-1940s.

Then why didn't Lenglen play the US Open?

SF

Chrissie-fan
Jul 31st, 2007, 08:13 PM
I'd pick Davenport's over Betz's. :s
Pauline Betz may be the single most underrated player on this list. History hasn't given her a fair deal: In her early prime she won the US slam three times in a row, but none of the other slams were held because world war II was going on. In 1946 she won the first post-war Wimbledon and the US slam for a fourth time. In 1947 she was declared a professional and suspended. Taking into account the potentially five or six more years of great tennis taken away from her and add to that the above mentionned war years it's clear that Betz could have been one of the all time greats if faith had been a little bit kinder to her.

AnnaK_4ever
Jul 31st, 2007, 08:19 PM
Then why didn't Lenglen play the US Open?

SF

Lenglen played USO in 1921 (retired vs Mallory).
And even if she didn't she had played enough at Wimbledon and Roland Garros to win her 12 titles.

sfselesfan
Jul 31st, 2007, 08:38 PM
Lenglen played USO in 1921 (retired vs Mallory).
And even if she didn't she had played enough at Wimbledon and Roland Garros to win her 12 titles.


She played the US Open once, despite having every opportunity to do so. Goes to show that the US Open was not as important as you seem to think.

My point, which you are missing (or ignoring) is that tennis "majors" were not as major then as they are now. She played RG and Wimbledon because they were close to where she lived (as most players did).

SF

Chrissie-fan
Jul 31st, 2007, 08:56 PM
She played the US Open once, despite having every opportunity to do so. Goes to show that the US Open was not as important as you seem to think.

My point, which you are missing (or ignoring) is that tennis "majors" were not as major then as they are now. She played RG and Wimbledon because they were close to where she lived (as most players did).

SF
True, but if traveling circumstances were the same today as they were in the 1920's I bet that many of the top players wouldn't compete in all the slams either. ;)

sfselesfan
Jul 31st, 2007, 09:03 PM
True, but if traveling circumstances were the same today as they were in the 1920's I bet that many of the top players wouldn't compete in all the slams either. ;)

Very true. I only meant it to be one factor, not the only reason. Regardless, those four tournaments were never the measuring post in the past...only in recent times.

SF

sfselesfan
Jul 31st, 2007, 09:04 PM
Slamless? They won 12 Wimbledon titles...

You also said "one slam wonders" and each won one slam. Your criteria requires winning multiple tournaments (not just the same slam).

There you go moving the goal post again.

SF

Chrissie-fan
Jul 31st, 2007, 09:13 PM
Very true. I only meant it to be one factor, not the only reason. Regardless, those four tournaments were never the measuring post in the past...only in recent times.

SF
The problem with that though is that nobody comes up with an alternative measuring post for those older players. As a result when comparing recent players with the oldies (and especially the VERY old), the recent players usually get the nod (especially from the youngsters) because the older players wins in what are now the measuring posts of greatness are waved away as meaningless or at least less significant.

sfselesfan
Jul 31st, 2007, 09:18 PM
The problem with that though is that nobody comes up with an alternative measuring post for those older players. As a result when comparing recent players with the oldies (and especially the VERY old), the recent players usually get the nod (especially from the youngsters) because the older players wins in what are now the measuring posts of greatness are waved away as meaningless or at least less significant.

That's precisely why they shouldn't be compared.

SF

thrust
Jul 31st, 2007, 09:24 PM
Wimbledon did not have better competition than the USO or FO in recent times.Certainly not after the French became open to all players around 1925

Chrissie-fan
Jul 31st, 2007, 09:26 PM
That's precisely why they shouldn't be compared.

SF
I know, but it's human nature to do so.;) But at least there's a positive side to it: The history of the game is discussed and we learn from it. How would the average 16 year old ever get to know about Margaret Court if we wouldn't compare her to Steffi Graf? :lol: :drink:

sfselesfan
Jul 31st, 2007, 09:29 PM
I know, but it's human nature to do so.;) But at least there's a positive side to it: The history of the game is discussed and we learn from it. How would the average 16 year old ever get to know about Margaret Court if we wouldn't compare her to Steffi Graf? :lol: :drink:

True. I think it's an equally important thing though to point out to those who don't read about this stuff (like biographies etc...) that the "Majors" are a relatively new concept.

SF

Sir Stefwhit
Jul 31st, 2007, 09:54 PM
The problem with that though is that nobody comes up with an alternative measuring post for those older players. As a result when comparing recent players with the oldies (and especially the VERY old), the recent players usually get the nod (especially from the youngsters) because the older players wins in what are now the measuring posts of greatness are waved away as meaningless or at least less significant.

There's a lot of truth in your post, and as a result, a lot of the older players who deserve to be recognized are lost along the way. The thing about it though, is that tennis is sport with such a long history- we're talking over a hundred years! A lot of the criteria we now use to define greatness wasn't used when the older players were around. It's only been within the last 20 years that the Australian Open has raised it's profile enough to be right alongside the other 3 majors with regards to it's significance. Prior to that Roland Garros wasn't even on par with Wimbledon and the US Open. As I'm sure you're aware, the two premeire events were both Wimby and the Open. A lot of people might be surprised by that, Roland Garros has come a long way. I think having the open era as a cutoff is the only way going forward that we can make the most fair comparisons.

When comparing generations, it's not always the younger generations that gets the benefits of having an inflated "measuring stick". There are times when older players do get the benefit of things being the way the were back then. Margaret Court is the most obvious and best example of this. Say what you will, at the end of the day she's still the one to chase for total number of slams won. When Steffi was getting close to breaking the record 'they' rightfully, made a big deal about it- so it must have meant something. Even when we make a point to always include the footnote that the other players didn't travel to Australia like they do now, she's still the one everyone will forever chase in the history books.

In addition to "things being different" or "new technology" I also think time itself, does its natural job at chipping away at the significance of things through the passing years. What's important today wont be as important 20 years from now...

We can't help but wonder how present champs compare to former ones. It's all fun and it makes for good conversation. The comparisons and the criteria used for those comparisons will alway be flawed- and therefore meaningless. The only true comparisons we can make are of players playing in the same generation.

sfselesfan
Jul 31st, 2007, 09:57 PM
When comparing generations, it's not always the younger generations that gets the benefits of having an inflated "measuring stick". There are times when older players do get the benefit of things being the way the were back then. Margaret Court is the most obvious and best example of this. Say what you will, at the end of the day she's still the one to chase for total number of slams won. When Steffi was getting close to breaking the record 'they' rightfully, made a big deal about it- so it must have meant something. Even when we make a point to always include the footnote that the other players didn't travel to Australia like they do now, she's still the one everyone will forever chase in the history books.


Excellent point. If the Australian "Championships" titles she won were considered Tier II titles (as they would be in today's terms), her total would not be so high.

I think there are good and bad things from newer and older players' perspectives.

SF

Donny
Jul 31st, 2007, 10:08 PM
There was a thread on another tennis forum which basically try to list the "slams for each year, going back to the 20's- that is, the four most prestigious annual events for any given year. It was for the men, and I don't know if those evtns were for women also, but it does give a more accurate reflection of greatness.

Chrissie-fan
Jul 31st, 2007, 10:16 PM
There's a lot of truth in your post, and as a result, a lot of the older players who deserve to be recognized are lost along the way. The thing about it though, is that tennis is sport with such a long history- we're talking over a hundred years! A lot of the criteria we now use to define greatness wasn't used when the older players were around. It's only been within the last 20 years that the Australian Open has raised it's profile enough to be right alongside the other 3 majors with regards to it's significance. Prior to that Roland Garros wasn't even on par with Wimbledon and the US Open. As I'm sure you're aware, the two premeire events were both Wimby and the Open. A lot of people might be surprised by that, Roland Garros has come a long way. I think having the open era as a cutoff is the only way going forward that we can make the most fair comparisons.

When comparing generations, it's not always the younger generations that gets the benefits of having an inflated "measuring stick". There are times when older players do get the benefit of things being the way the were back then. Margaret Court is the most obvious and best example of this. Say what you will, at the end of the day she's still the one to chase for total number of slams won. When Steffi was getting close to breaking the record 'they' rightfully, made a big deal about it- so it must have meant something. Even when we make a point to always include the footnote that the other players didn't travel to Australia like they do now, she's still the one everyone will forever chase in the history books.

In addition to "things being different" or "new technology" I also think time itself, does its natural job at chipping away at the significance of things through the passing years. What's important today wont be as important 20 years from now...

We can't help but wonder how present champs compare to former ones. It's all fun and it makes for good conversation. The comparisons and the criteria used for those comparisons will alway be flawed- and therefore meaningless. The only true comparisons we can make are of players playing in the same generation.
I agree, and that's why in my opinion there's no such thing as a single best player in history. I believe though in a select list of all time greats who should be considered equals, and the way to make that list is to be impressive in your own era competing against your contemporaries who play with the same material and under the same set of circumstances.

AnnaK_4ever
Jul 31st, 2007, 10:41 PM
And still, sfselesfan, I'm asking you once again to name players who deserve to be on the list and who they should replace there. From your point of you. Please.

P.S.
I'm looking through Tennis Hall of Fame profiles and who am I finding there?
Nancy Bolton who won only Australian Championships when it wasn't major event and never was ranked higher than No.4
Rosie Casals whose main achievement was playing like thousand matches per year (Jankovic, :wavey: )
Dorothy Cheney who was somewhat affected by WWII but never was great champion anyway
Francoise Durr who was a very good player but still not the greatest one
Darlene Hard... well she is questionable but she played in the times when Grand Slams already were rather important events and never won Wimbledon
...

sfselesfan
Jul 31st, 2007, 10:53 PM
And still, sfselesfan, I'm asking you once again to name players who deserve to be on the list and who they should replace there. From your point of you. Please.

P.S.
I'm looking through Tennis Hall of Fame profiles and who am I finding there?
Nancy Bolton who won only Australian Championships when it wasn't major event and never was ranked higher than No.4
Rosie Casals whose main achievement was playing like thousand matches per year (Jankovic, :wavey: )
Dorothy Cheney who was somewhat affected by WWII but never was great champion anyway
Francoise Durr who was a very good player but still not the greatest one
Darlene Hard... well she is questionable but she played in the times when Grand Slams already were rather important events and never won Wimbledon
...

See my post on this thread at 2:18. :wavey:

SF

AnnaK_4ever
Jul 31st, 2007, 11:14 PM
See my post on this thread at 2:18. :wavey:

SF

Well, I don't compare Lenglen with Serena (for example), it's impossible. But it's possible to compare Lenglen with her contemporaries and Serena with her contemporaries to decide who are the greatest champions of their respective generations. That's what I was thinkg about while compiling the list.

ZeroSOFInfinity
Aug 1st, 2007, 01:41 AM
2) at least one Wimbledon won or all other Slams won

Why Wimbledon? :tape:

At the end of the day, people won't remember whether you win Wimbledon or not... but how many Slams did you win.

Your list is flawed in this area. It's like listing down the greatest golfers in the world, but must have won the Green Jacket before. Or putting down the best footballers ever, but haven't won the World Cup in their lifetime.

Remove that criteria / requirement and then you'll have truly great list.

AnnaK_4ever
Aug 1st, 2007, 02:09 AM
Why Wimbledon? :tape:

At the end of the day, people won't remember whether you win Wimbledon or not... but how many Slams did you win.


You are sooo wrong about this. Wimbledon is a must-win Slam for the all-time greats. Had Sampras won 7 RG and reached only SF at Wimbledon nobody would have considered him the GOAT. Had Navratilova won 9 RG and only 2 Wimbledons there would've been less talks about her being "greater" than Graf. Had Court won 11 Wimbledons and 3 Australian Opens she would've been proclaimed the best ever player without a doubt.

Barrie_Dude
Aug 1st, 2007, 02:03 PM
Criteria:
1) minimum 5 Grand Slam titles won or each of Grand Slams won
2) at least one Wimbledon won or all other Slams won
3) at least two different Slams won


The list of players in alphabetical order:

Pauline BETZ ----------------- 5 GS --- US Open - 4 (1942-1944, 1946); Wimbledon - 1 (1946) -- Finalist at Roland Garros (1946)
Louise BROUGH ------------- 6 GS --- Wimbledon - 4 (1948-1950, 1955); US Open - 1 (1947); Australian Open - 1 (1950)
Maria BUENO ---------------- 7 GS --- US Open - 4 (1959, 1963, 1964, 1966); Wimbledon - 3 (1959, 1960, 1964) -- Finalist at Roland Garros (1964) and Australian Open (1965)
Maureen CONNOLY -------- 9 GS --- US Open - 3 (1951-1953); Wimbledon - 3 (1952-1954); Roland Garros - 2 (1953, 1954); Australian Open - 1 (1953) - won the Grand Slam in 1953 (the first player in history to do so)
Margaret COURT ---------- 24 GS --- Australian Open - 11 (1960-1966, 1969-1971, 1973); Roland Garros - 5 (1962, 1964, 1969, 1970, 1973); US Open - 5 (1962, 1965, 1969, 1970, 1973); Wimbledon - 3 (1963, 1965, 1970) - won the Grand Slam in 1970 (the second player in history to do so); won the most AO titles in history
Margaret DuPONT ---------- 6 GS --- US Open - 3 (1948-1950); Roland Garros - 2 (1946, 1949); Wimbledon - 1 (1947)
Chris EVERT ---------------- 18 GS --- Roland Garros - 7 (1974, 1975, 1979, 1980, 1983, 1985, 1986); US Open - 6 (1975-1978, 1980, 1982); Wimbledon - 3 (1974, 1976, 1981); Australian Open - 2 (1982, 1984) - won the most RG titles in history
Shirley FRY ------------------- 4 GS --- Roland Garros - 1 (1951); Wimbledon - 1 (1956); US Open - 1 (1956); Australian Open - 1 (1957)
Althea GIBSON -------------- 5 GS --- Wimbledon - 2 (1957, 1958); US Open - 2 (1957, 1958); Roland Garros - 1 (1956) -- Finalist at Australian Open (1957)
Evonne GOOLAGONG ------ 7 GS --- Australian Open - 4 (1974-1977); Wimbledon - 2 (1971, 1980); Roland Garros - 1 (1971) -- Finalist at US Open (1973-1976)
Steffi GRAF ------------------ 22 GS --- Wimbledon - 7 (1988, 1989, 1991-1993, 1995, 1996); Roland Garros - 6 (1987, 1988, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1999); US Open - 5 (1988, 1989, 1993, 1995, 1996); Australian Open - 4 (1988-1990, 1994) - won the Grand Slam in 1988 (the third and the last player so far to do so)
Doris HART ------------------- 6 GS --- Roland Garros - 2 (1950, 1952); US Open (1954, 1955); Australian Open (1949); Wimbledon (1951)
Justine HENIN --------------- 6 GS --- Roland Garros - 4 (2003, 2005-2007); US Open (2003); Australian Open (2004) -- Finalist at Wimbledon (2001, 2006)
Martina HINGIS ------------- 5 GS --- Australian Open - 3 (1997-1999); Wimbledon - 1 (1997); US Open - 1 (1997) -- Finalist at Roland Garros (1997, 1999)
Helen JACOBS --------------- 5 GS --- US Open - 4 (1932-1935, 1936); Wimbledon - 1 (1937) -- Finalist at Roland Garros (1930, 1934)
Billie Jean KING ----------- 12 GS --- Wimbledon - 6 (1966-1968, 1972, 1973, 1975); US Open - 4 (1967, 1971, 1972, 1974); Australian Open - 1 (1968), Roland Garros - 1 (1972)
Suzanne LENGLEN -------- 12 GS --- Wimbledon - 6 (1919-1923, 1925); Roland Garros - 6 (1920-1923, 1925, 1926) - was the first player to win two different Slams; the only player in history to win Roland Garros and Wimbledon back-to-back four straight years
Alice MARBLE ---------------- 5 GS --- US Open - 4 (1936, 1938-1940); Wimbledon - 1 (1939)
Martina NAVRATILOVA -- 18 GS --- Wimbledon - 9 (1978, 1979, 1982-1987, 1990); US Open - 4 (1983, 1984, 1986, 1987); Australian Open - 3 (1981, 1983, 1985); Roland Garros - 2 (1982, 1984) - won the most Wimbledon titles in history
Monica SELES---------------- 9 GS --- Australian Open - 4 (1991-1993, 1996); Roland Garros - 3 (1990-1992); US Open - 2 (1991, 1992) -- Finalist at Wimbledon (1992)
Serena WILLIAMS --------- 8 GS --- Australian Open - 3 (2003, 2005, 2007); US Open - 2 (1999, 2002); Wimbledon - 2 (2002, 2003); Roland Garros - 1 (2002)
Venus WILLIAMS ----------- 6 GS --- Wimbledon - 4 (2000, 2001, 2005, 2007); US Open - 2 (2000, 2001) -- Finalist at Roland Garros (2002) and Australian Open (2003)
Helen WILLS-MOODIE -- 19 GS --- Wimbledon - 8 (1927-1930, 1932, 1933, 1938); US Open - 7 (1923-1925, 1927-1929, 1931); Roland Garros - 4 (1928-1930, 1932) - was the first player to win three different Slams


Initially I wanted to leave Betz, Jacobs, and Marble aside so it would be *The Best 20* :rolleyes: :lol: list.
But Betz was forced to quit amateur sport when she was at her prime; Jacobs reached 16 singles GS finals but was very unfortunate to play during Wills-Moodie era. As for Marble she was on the roll in 1939-1940 but WWII most probably deprived her of winning more Wimbledon titles.
Therefore all of them were included to the list they rightfully belong.

Any thoughts, guys?
You need to be clear on one point. You are saying GS "SINGLES" Titles or do you mean GS tiles, period? I know that BJK has about 20 Wimby titles if you include the doubles and this is why I ask.

AnnaK_4ever
Aug 1st, 2007, 03:05 PM
You need to be clear on one point. You are saying GS "SINGLES" Titles or do you mean GS tiles, period? I know that BJK has about 20 Wimby titles if you include the doubles and this is why I ask.

Yes of course I mentioned singles GS titles only. Tennis is an individual sport.
It's just my opinion but I don't think doubles titles mean anything. At least they don't mean anything nowadays.

lecciones
Aug 1st, 2007, 03:36 PM
Thanks for the list!

Chrissie-fan
Aug 1st, 2007, 03:41 PM
You are sooo wrong about this. Wimbledon is a must-win Slam for the all-time greats. Had Sampras won 7 RG and reached only SF at Wimbledon nobody would have considered him the GOAT. Had Navratilova won 9 RG and only 2 Wimbledons there would've been less talks about her being "greater" than Graf. Had Court won 11 Wimbledons and 3 Australian Opens she would've been proclaimed the best ever player without a doubt.
I agree that the lack of a Wimbledon singles title is a serious gap in ones cv when we're discussing the great players. Having said that, a players number of Wimbledon titles is definitely not the only standard by which to determine her or his greatness. On the contrary, if Sampras had won four Wimbledons and three French Opens instead of seven Wimbledons he would be rated even higher than he already is. And even without a Wimbledon title it's possible to make it up to the top of tennis' Mount Olympus. It's difficult, but not impossible. Seles hasn't got a Wimbledon title, but many people rank her in the top 10 of all time great female champs anyway.

AnnaK_4ever
Aug 1st, 2007, 03:48 PM
I agree that the lack of a Wimbledon singles title is a serious gap in ones cv when we're discussing the great players. Having said that, a players number of Wimbledon titles is definitely not the only standard by which to determine her or his greatness. On the contrary, if Sampras had won four Wimbledons and three French Opens instead of seven Wimbledons he would be rated even higher than he already is. And even without a Wimbledon title it's possible to make it up to the top of tennis' Mount Olympus. It's difficult, but not impossible. Seles hasn't got a Wimbledon title, but many people rank her in the top 10 of all time great female champs anyway.

Yes, I agree. That's what I basically mean.

P.S.
I just checked my User CP, thank you very much! :)

Rollo
Aug 1st, 2007, 04:34 PM
Great thread AnnaK_4ever:)


You list is pitch perfect IMO.

If you added in players before 1919 I'd add Chambers, Dod, Hillyard, and Sterry.

If there would be one person I'd include it would be Molla Mallory.-whose 8 US Opens is still a record I think.

sfselesfan-in another thread I disagreed with your idea about "majors", but after reading your posts I see your point better.

Clearly Wimbledon has always been "major" for everyone-after that it depended on the player and the era.

Rollo
Aug 1st, 2007, 04:45 PM
The majors from player's perspectives.

In her book "Gallery of Champions" 1930's champ Helen Jacobs ranked the top women of all time based on their performance in "the big 3"---the French, Wimbledon, and the US Nationals. Winning all 3 was "The Triple Crown".

So while Wimbledon was the crown jewel, the French and US were established as major events by the 1930s.

When I interviewed Pauline Betz and Louise Brough about Grand slams they both smiled wryly. As sfselesfan was hinting, the rules were different in those days.

* Wimbledon was THE event to win.
* Forest Hills was next as Americans (as the French would be for Europeans)
* Roland Garros was a major event but not as important (as the US was less
important for Europeans). Pauline laughed about missing an overhead on match point in 1946 (it was the only time she played the French) saying something like "I would have paid more attention if I'd only known!"

The Aussie was a major solely due to the Australians winning the Davis Cup (which didn't exist for women). By the 30s only 4 nations had won the Cup, hence the "Grand Slam" tag someone used in 1938 to describe Don Budge's feat of winning all 4.

For women like Betz and Brough it was impossible to go to Oz unless they were "invited"-a trip that would be weeks and maybe even months long.

sfselesfan
Aug 1st, 2007, 05:11 PM
The majors from player's perspectives.

In her book "Gallery of Champions" 1930's champ Helen Jacobs ranked the top women of all time based on their performance in "the big 3"---the French, Wimbledon, and the US Nationals. Winning all 3 was "The Triple Crown".

So while Wimbledon was the crown jewel, the French and US were established as major events by the 1930s.

When I interviewed Pauline Betz and Louise Brough about Grand slams they both smiled wryly. As sfselesfan was hinting, the rules were different in those days.

* Wimbledon was THE event to win.
* Forest Hills was next as Americans (as the French would be for Europeans)
* Roland Garros was a major event but not as important (as the US was less
important for Europeans). Pauline laughed about missing an overhead on match point in 1946 (it was the only time she played the French) saying something like "I would have paid more attention if I'd only known!"

The Aussie was a major solely due to the Australians winning the Davis Cup (which didn't exist for women). By the 30s only 4 nations had won the Cup, hence the "Grand Slam" tag someone used in 1938 to describe Don Budge's feat of winning all 4.

For women like Betz and Brough it was impossible to go to Oz unless they were "invited"-a trip that would be weeks and maybe even months long.

True. Let's make an analogy.

It would be as if suddenly twenty years from now, the powers that be decide, that suddenly the French Open will no longer count as a Slam and they substitute the Italian Open. Suddenly Hingis has a career clam, Sabatini and Conchita each have four more slams, Jelena Dokic is a slam champion. And Justine would be PISSED! (having never won it)

You have to look at the events in the perspective of the time they were played.

SF

die_wahrheit
Aug 1st, 2007, 05:19 PM
* Wimbledon was THE event to win.


Everybody who knows a litte bit about tennis knows that.
Only fans try to deny it but are not successfull in ignoring the reality.

And it didn't really change.

die_wahrheit
Aug 1st, 2007, 05:33 PM
. On the contrary, if Sampras had won four Wimbledons and three French Opens instead of seven Wimbledons he would be rated even higher than he already is.

He wouldn't. He wouldn't have the Wimbledon record for modern tennis.

Chrissie-fan
Aug 1st, 2007, 05:36 PM
True. Let's make an analogy.

It would be as if suddenly twenty years from now, the powers that be decide, that suddenly the French Open will no longer count as a Slam and they substitute the Italian Open. Suddenly Hingis has a career clam, Sabatini and Conchita each have four more slams, Jelena Dokic is a slam champion. And Justine would be PISSED! (having never won it)

You have to look at the events in the perspective of the time they were played.

SF
Very unlikely scenario, I must say.;) Nowadays the four slams have more or less the same prestige whereas in the days of old this was not the case, I agree. But I wouldn't go as far as saying that the French and Australian weren't important events at all either. Winning all four slams in a single season has been regarded as the ultimate achievement in the game for a very long time. That wouldn't have been the case if there were a multitude of tournaments out there that were regarded as more important than the French or even the Australian. Although they weren't equally as important, all four of them were nevertheless regarded as the most important event taking place in that part of the world.

sfselesfan
Aug 1st, 2007, 05:41 PM
Very unlikely scenario, I must say.;) Nowadays the four slams have more or less the same prestige whereas in the days of old this was not the case, I agree. But I wouldn't go as far as saying that the French and Australian weren't important events at all either. Winning all four slams in a single season has been regarded as the ultimate achievement in the game for a very long time. That wouldn't have been the case if there were a multitude of tournaments out there that were regarded as more important than the French or even the Australian. Although they weren't equally as important, all four of them were nevertheless regarded as the most important event taking place in that part of the world.

I'm not saying that would happen, I'm saying that's like what HAS HAPPENED...particularly with the Aussie. It's an analogy. No one knew it was important at the time.

SF

Chrissie-fan
Aug 1st, 2007, 05:41 PM
He wouldn't. He wouldn't have the Wimbledon record for modern tennis.
No, but he would have won the most important claycourt tournament in the world three times, would have had a career grand slam and he would have proved himself to be the best player of his time on every surface.

Chrissie-fan
Aug 1st, 2007, 05:46 PM
I'm not saying that would happen. It's an analogy.
SF
I know. That's why I ;) -ed.

AnnaK_4ever
Aug 2nd, 2007, 12:47 AM
Seven more players added to the list.

thrust
Aug 2nd, 2007, 01:31 AM
I agree with Chrissie-Fan that Pete would have been ranked higher among the all-time greats had he won two FO and two less Wimbledons. For Pete though, Wimbledon was the one he wanted most. I think that Justine, as much as she wants to win Wimbledon, has the same attitude towards the FO which is the one she always wanted most to win. I would be thrilled with one lousy AO-lol!! Just kidding, I regard the AO of equal importance among the Slams.

sfselesfan
Aug 2nd, 2007, 01:35 AM
Wouldn't the gold medal be a prized as a Wimbledon Championship. Under that scenario Capriati would qualify. Not that I think she belongs, but it's something to think about. They years they played the Olympics, it was seen as equally important to Wimbledon. For instance...they had it in lieu of the French Open (Championships) one year because the Olympics were in Paris. They just canceled the French Championships all together.

SF

brayster87
Aug 2nd, 2007, 08:16 AM
It's not always about winning records. What did you do on the biggest stages? Did you find that championship grit or did you melt away? Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Joe Montana, etc. didn't always play great in the regular season but during the playoffs, they brought a fire with them that they fought, kicked & screamed to keep alive. Lindsay melted too often for me.

And again, she's the one that admitted that she would get down on herself. I didn't say it, she did.

Lindsay has the best groundstrokes out of any player on the list....She uses depth and clean, flat strokes the most effectively!!

Mainly due to her timing, this automatically puts her on the list!

AnnaK_4ever
Aug 2nd, 2007, 12:33 PM
Wouldn't the gold medal be a prized as a Wimbledon Championship. Under that scenario Capriati would qualify. Not that I think she belongs, but it's something to think about.

SF

Neither do I.
The only players without Wimbledon title on the list are Seles, Henin, Sanchez, Hard, Mallory and Mandlikova. And all of them (except Seles) reached Wimbledon finals twice and all played at least 7 major finals. They achieved so much more than Jennifer it would be unfair to put her on the list only because she won Olympics (on clay, btw).
Besides, I believe Wimbledon is more prestigious event than Olympics (in tennis of course).

AnnaK_4ever
Aug 21st, 2007, 05:28 PM
I revised the list, expanded it and decided not to pay attention only to Grand Slams. I hope the current version is more balanced and better reflects players achievements.
No restricitions on certain majors won now; pre-WWI players uncluded too.

Non-majors titles for some (okay, many) players to be added later.

P.S.
I also changed thread's title for "most notable players" as word "great" has been overused on WTAWorld lately...

Donny
Aug 21st, 2007, 05:37 PM
50 "great" players in 150 years of tennis history?

That's one "great" player every three years, on average. Which doesn't add up to me.

hablo
Aug 21st, 2007, 06:18 PM
Tennis has evolved quite a bit, it seems. So it's very subjective thing to determine who was the best of all time. That's what makes the discussion so interesting to read.

I always love reading such types of threads. It's refreshing and more informative than the ones that concern who has the best outfits, for instance. So thanks for making it, AnnaK_4ever.

spiceboy
Aug 21st, 2007, 07:03 PM
I'm still figuring out what Lili de Alvarez is doing in this list and not Conchita :tape:

A player included in The 50 Most Notable Tennis Players *in Singles* list who hasn't won a single Grand Slam is pretty stupid IMO...

AnnaK_4ever
Aug 21st, 2007, 07:26 PM
I'm still figuring out what Lili de Alvarez is doing in this list and not Conchita :tape:

A player included in The 50 Most Notable Tennis Players *in Singles* list who hasn't won a single Grand Slam is pretty stupid IMO...

Not only was Alvarez the first world-level Spanish tennis player who basically opened the door for her countrywomen, she was a bright personality both on and off court. Helen Wills described Lili's game as "unusually daring one" (the quote taken from the wikipedia article).
So yes, she was a very notable player.

spiceboy
Aug 21st, 2007, 07:48 PM
Nobody is saying she wasn't a notable player, but in an all-time Top 50 players list to find a player (yeah I know, with a daring game) who's got no Grand Slam singles titles is pretty weird (at the very least).

And please, which door was opened? :haha:
Between her (who was a megaposh rich girl who lived most of the time outside Spain) and Arantxa & Conchita there's like half a century gap and a Civil War in the country so please get your facts straight...

AnnaK_4ever
Aug 21st, 2007, 07:56 PM
Nobody is saying she wasn't a notable player, but in an all-time Top 50 players list to find a player (yeah I know, with a daring game) who's got no Grand Slam singles titles is pretty weird (at the very least).

And please, which door was opened? :haha:
Between her (who was a megaposh rich girl who lived most of the time outside Spain) and Arantxa & Conchita there's like half a century gap and a Civil War in the country so please get your facts straight...

now that is an insult :o

Alvarez was the first top-level player from Spain. She proved Spanish girls could play tennis too. Was it her fault no-one (until Sanchez and Martinez) could match her achievements? Was she resposible for the Civil War? I don't think so.
And accusing her of being rich is so lame argument...

She was the first, she was the pioneer. That's why I believe she belongs the list.

And about winning a Slam. Yes, it's a "duty" for Open Era "great" players but back in 1920s? (oops... missing part here) It was not about Slams. Even later Slam wins didn't measure player's level, at least not always:
O'Neil's got a Slam, so did Jordan, so did Majoli, so did Myskina, so did Kuznetsova, so did Reid, so did Barker, Jausovec, Ruzici... Somehow I think Alvarez achieved much more than these players despite not winning a Slam.

And what probably matters most, I didn't compare today's players with 1910-1920s' players. Basically, I was choosing several players (the best ones, how I thought) from each decade.

CarlaValenti
Aug 21st, 2007, 08:46 PM
I agree with you, Anna_Kever but I would add Gabriela Sabatini (ARG) (she was one of the few players that knew how to beat Steffi Graf):

Major Titles: 1990 - US Open. 1994, 1988 - Virginia Slims Championship.

Other Titles: Winner (27): 1995 - Sydney; 1992 - Sydney, Pan Pacific, Hilton Head, Amelia Island, Rome; 1991 - Pan Pacific, Boca Raton, Hilton Head, Amelia Island, Rome; 1990 - Boca Raton; 1989 - Miami, Amelia Island, Rome, Filderstadt; 1988 - Boca Raton, Rome, Canadian Open; 1987 - Brighton, Pan Pacific, Argentinian Open; 1986 - Argentinian Open; 1985 - Tokyo [Japan Open].

C.MARTINEZ
Aug 21st, 2007, 10:46 PM
Conchita out of the list :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

AnnaK_4ever
Aug 21st, 2007, 10:57 PM
To be honest, I never even thought about including Martinez in this list. I mean I had (and still have) my doubts about Atkinson, Browne, Hartigan, Long, Austin, Clijsters, Mauresmo and Pierce... but Martinez? :shrug:

thrust
Aug 21st, 2007, 11:16 PM
The French championships became open to non French players about 1925. Since then their field of players have been just as strong as Wimbledon and the US Championships. Get over the Wimbledon propoganda and face facts!

AnnaK_4ever
Aug 21st, 2007, 11:21 PM
The French championships became open to non French players about 1925. Since then their field of players have been just as strong as Wimbledon and the US Championships. Get over the Wimbledon propoganda and face facts!

Are you talking to me?..

Cos there are no restrictions on minimum number of Wimbledon titles or even finals in my new list, so...

danieln1
Aug 21st, 2007, 11:33 PM
Where´s Mary Pierce?? I think she belongs to that list...

AnnaK_4ever
Aug 21st, 2007, 11:53 PM
That's how I defined best players by decades:

1890-1900s - Hillyard, Dod, Cooper, Chambers, Sutton
1910-20s - Hotchkiss, Mallory, Lenglen, Akhurst, Boyd, Wills, McKane, Aussem, Alvarez, Ryan
1930s - Jacobs, Round, Sperling, Mathieu, Marble
1940s - Betz, Brough, Osborne, Bolton
1950s - Connolly, Mortimer, Hart, Hard, Fry, Gibson
1960s - Court, Jones, Turner, Bueno, Richey, King
1970s - Evert, Goolagong, Wade
1980s - Navratilova, Graf, Mandlikova
1990s - Seles, Sanchez, Hingis, Davenport
2000s - Serena, Venus, Henin, Capriati

switz
Aug 22nd, 2007, 12:36 AM
should the title be most highly achieved? Somebody like Kournikova is a more notable "tennis player" than most of that list.

AnnaK_4ever
Aug 22nd, 2007, 12:45 AM
should the title be most highly achieved? Somebody like Kournikova is a more notable "tennis player" than most of that list.

Nope. Kournikova'd rather fall into "most notable walking tennis ad" category.

Chrissie-fan
Aug 22nd, 2007, 12:51 AM
To be honest, I never even thought about including Martinez in this list. I mean I had (and still have) my doubts about Atkinson, Browne, Hartigan, Long, Austin, Clijsters, Mauresmo and Pierce... but Martinez? :shrug:
Everyone will have issues with this or that player not being on the list and they will all argue that she or they should be included at the expense of this or that - usually older - player. But if you follow their advise it won't be long before you will have a list of the 50 most notable players of the past 20 years instead of one of all time. No one will agree completely with your list, but I think it's a good effort. ;)

homogenius
Aug 22nd, 2007, 03:53 AM
Good list but I would put players like Mauresmo or Pierce (for different reasons for each) instead of someone like Alvarez (???) for example.Still, this kind of list will never satisfy everyone so...

lecciones
Aug 22nd, 2007, 01:33 PM
SOOOOO Interesting thanks so much!!!!

lecciones
Aug 22nd, 2007, 01:35 PM
That's how I defined best players by decades:

1890-1900s - Hillyard, Dod, Cooper, Chambers, Sutton
1910-20s - Hotchkiss, Mallory, Lenglen, Akhurst, Boyd, Wills, McKane, Aussem, Alvarez, Ryan
1930s - Jacobs, Round, Sperling, Mathieu, Marble
1940s - Betz, Brough, Osborne, Bolton
1950s - Connolly, Mortimer, Hart, Hard, Fry, Gibson
1960s - Court, Jones, Turner, Bueno, Richey, King
1970s - Evert, Goolagong, Wade
1980s - Navratilova, Graf, Mandlikova
1990s - Seles, Sanchez, Hingis, Davenport
2000s - Serena, Venus, Henin, Capriati


TOTALLY Agree !!!! Thanks again!

AnnaK_4ever
Aug 22nd, 2007, 02:41 PM
Good list but I would put players like Mauresmo or Pierce (for different reasons for each) instead of someone like Alvarez (???) for example.Still, this kind of list will never satisfy everyone so...

I've been thinking a bit and decided:
Mary Pierce comes in for Alvarez.

It's not because I've changed my opinion on Lili: she is a great player who achieved much in her career. I just feel there are too many players of 1920s in my list and I think it would be right to replace one of them (and Alvarez is the least accomplished among 1920s "generation") with a modern day player. I was chosing between Pierce, Mauresmo and Clijsters and picked Mary not only because of the most Slam final appearances but also because of her career's longevity and her charismatic personality.

Wuornos
Dec 17th, 2007, 12:53 PM
This really is the most beautiful output format.

Would it be OK if I borrow it for future outputs of my DOT Ratings.

Regards

Tim

AnnaK_4ever
Mar 19th, 2008, 11:04 PM
Bump.
The opening post has been re-made.

Cakeisgood
Mar 19th, 2008, 11:13 PM
Novotna?

Doubtful.

Dave.
Mar 19th, 2008, 11:48 PM
Good to see some doubles in there as I know in your opinion it isn't important. I personally would definetely have Gigi Fernandez in there at least but it is your opinion.