PDA

View Full Version : Justine Henin needs to win Wimbledon to become a "great" player


JeremySun
Aug 20th, 2007, 02:04 AM
As you all know, Wimbledon is the hallmark of "great" tennis players. No matter where in the world, if you are a professional (or not so professional) tennis player, people are gonna ask you, "Have you ever won Wimbledon?". Now, Justine needs to win Wimbledon to become a "great" tennis player. She's 25 now and I'll give her 2 years to accomplish it, if she ever could. Thoughts? :)

Tennisstar86
Aug 20th, 2007, 02:10 AM
As you all know, Wimbledon is the hallmark of "great" tennis players. No matter where in the world, if you are a professional (or not so professional) tennis player, people are gonna ask you, "Have you ever won Wimbledon?". Now, Justine needs to win Wimbledon to become a "great" tennis player. She's 25 now and I'll give her 2 years to accomplish it, if she ever could. Thoughts? :)

I disagree..... I do think Justine needs to win Wimbledon to at least attempt to be "remmebered" as she will be 1 of a few who has won all 4 majors..... But shes won the french 4 times so technically shes a great "clay courter"...

At this point for me Henin needs to do more than just win Wimbledon once.... she needs to win another major other than the french at least twice to improve on her status... Much like Venus needs to win a couple more other than wimbledon. At this point them winning there again is great.... but they are already known for winning those titles....

Forehand_Volley
Aug 20th, 2007, 02:10 AM
I think Monica Seles and her fans would disagree.

swissmr
Aug 20th, 2007, 02:12 AM
She already is a great player.

Kworb
Aug 20th, 2007, 02:29 AM
She already is a great player. Winning Wimbledon is nice but it's a surface that's barely played on. It's like winning a tournament on a court made of sand. It doesn't mean as much as the other Slams.

No Name Face
Aug 20th, 2007, 02:31 AM
Seles isn't considered a great player?

David55
Aug 20th, 2007, 02:38 AM
She already is a great player. Winning Wimbledon is nice but it's a surface that's barely played on. It's like winning a tournament on a court made of sand. It doesn't mean as much as the other Slams.
Let's not kid ourselves, Wimbledon is still VERY important. However, Justine is still a great player without it. And it's not like she is useless on it. She still get to semis and finals, she just hasn't broke through and won it.

DownTheLine21
Aug 20th, 2007, 02:45 AM
Let's not kid ourselves, Wimbledon is still VERY important. However, Justine is still a great player without it. And it's not like she is useless on it. She still get to semis and finals, she just hasn't broke through and won it.

I think she will win it eventually. In terms of Seles, she is a legend, regardless of her lack of a Wimbledon title. Although it's pointless to debate, I really think she would have won the '93 Wimbledon.

David55
Aug 20th, 2007, 02:47 AM
I think she will win it eventually. In terms of Seles, she is a legend, regardless of her lack of a Wimbledon title. Although it's pointless to debate, I really think she would have won the '93 Wimbledon.

If not '93, then '94 for sure. With Graf out, Seles was winning the damn thing! Hell or high water. :lol:

thetennisutopian
Aug 20th, 2007, 03:09 AM
IDK about having to WIN Wimbledon to be considered "great". But she does have to win all four to be great. That's the only reason why I agree with this. If she had won every GS except the AO then is would still be the same IMO. I do think she has it in her though. She can definitely pull it out if she keeps up this phenomenal form.

kiwifan
Aug 20th, 2007, 03:15 AM
While I think "not winning Wimbledon" is the biggest black eye you can have on your record, if you win enough of the other events (not just a whole bunch of one of them) greatness is inherent.

SIN DIOS NI LEY
Aug 20th, 2007, 03:18 AM
nooooo

She already is

eck
Aug 20th, 2007, 03:28 AM
I guess that means Roger Federer is not a great player yet.

I'm sorry, I don't see how Wimbledon is the most prestigious other than being the oldest tournament. Everything else says that Wimbledon = Other Grand Slams

danieln1
Aug 20th, 2007, 03:32 AM
Novotna won Wimbledon once, is she a "great" player?? Or she is, and Justine is not???

Volcana
Aug 20th, 2007, 03:37 AM
In the entire history of women's tennis, only 20 players have won six GS singles titles. In the Open Era, only ten. It's actually a pretty good measure of who actually IS a great player. At least who's a great singles player. It's also pretty cold. By this measure, Martina Hingis and Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario AREN'T great singles players.

And if you think they are/were great singles players, you have to concede Henin is as well.

Who's won MORE than six GS singles titles in the Open Era?

Graf, Navratilova, Evert, Court, King, Seles, Goolagong and Serena.

supergrunt
Aug 20th, 2007, 03:40 AM
I disagree

Donny
Aug 20th, 2007, 03:42 AM
To be in the "greatest ever" category, at least one of each is required, imo. but Justine is already a great player.

In The Zone
Aug 20th, 2007, 03:46 AM
Justine is already a great player. The missing title at Wimbledon separates her from the Serena level, and Graf, Evert and Navratilova but Henin is a superior, elite, legendary player.

selyoink
Aug 20th, 2007, 04:38 AM
She is a great player without or without a Wimbledon title. As others said adding that to her resume just puts her into the next echelon of greatness since few players have all four slams in their resume.

LoveFifteen
Aug 20th, 2007, 04:41 AM
Ivan Lendl would disagree. :o

baleineau
Aug 20th, 2007, 07:17 AM
Wimbledon is the premier tennis event. Whether you agree with that or not, it doesn't matter, because unless you win the thing, you just won't figure as highly in debates about who the all-time greats and legends are. Look at Lendl. Despite his huge achievements at the US Open and Roland Garros, as well as winning loads of Tour titles and being Number 1, he's always overlooked even now, just 15 years after retirement, when discussing the best players of the last 20-30 years. If you put everything into a computer, he'd come out top-3 or at least top-5, but in the minds of virtually all, you'll find that Borg, Sampras and Federer top the list, followed by McEnroe, Connors, Agassi, Becker and Edberg. And then people go, don't forget Lendl and Wilander. You will never hear people placing Kuerten in the list, simply because he never did anything remarkable at Wimbledon (or the US Open in fairness).

In the women's game, part of the reason why Martina and Steffi are usually rated higher than Evert is because she only won Wimbledon a couple of times. It's why ASV's status is disregarded. It's why Novotna and Martinez are remembered (had they only won one AO title their names would be more or less forgotten a la Iva Majoli).

So, whether we agree or not, Wimbledon is the prestige event and the players know it too. It's the one that any of them, deep down, would pick if they could only have one.

A Magicman
Aug 20th, 2007, 07:33 AM
Henin is the best player that has ever entered the courts. I used to deny that until I saw her in Berlin this year.

She doesn't need to win Wimbledon to prove anything like that.

Petersmiler
Aug 20th, 2007, 08:11 AM
A pleasant suprise reading this thread! Thanks to those who have been objective.

Oh, and I really don't see how you can compare Iva Majoli with Justine.

And besides, I remember her and Myskina.

Geisha
Aug 20th, 2007, 08:24 AM
Henin is the best player that has ever entered the courts. I used to deny that until I saw her in Berlin this year.

She doesn't need to win Wimbledon to prove anything like that.

:help: :tape:

RYNJ
Aug 20th, 2007, 08:27 AM
Justine not winning Wimbledon means nothing, yes Wimbledon has that "aura" of prestige surrounding it, but tennis today all Grand Slams are equal. If Roger Federer never wins the French Open will he still be considered a great player?

A Magicman
Aug 20th, 2007, 08:47 AM
:help: :tape:

Is there any possibility of putting your criticism of my post into some words rather than 2 smileys?

chloe-l
Aug 20th, 2007, 09:21 AM
Justine is already a great player. The missing title at Wimbledon separates her from the Serena level, and Graf, Evert and Navratilova but Henin is a superior, elite, legendary player.

:worship:

Uranus
Aug 20th, 2007, 10:13 AM
Oh, please, she already is a (more than) great player.

And after what happened the last 2 years, it will be very difficult for her to shine there.

Ceri
Aug 20th, 2007, 10:22 AM
It'd be nice for her to get Wimbledon obviously - the cherry on the cake. but it isn't the be-all and end-all. she's already got 6 right, she's up there with the best, and she'll win a couple more before she retires I imagine.

darice
Aug 20th, 2007, 10:35 AM
As you all know, Wimbledon is the hallmark of "great" tennis players. No matter where in the world, if you are a professional (or not so professional) tennis player, people are gonna ask you, "Have you ever won Wimbledon?". Now, Justine needs to win Wimbledon to become a "great" tennis player. She's 25 now and I'll give her 2 years to accomplish it, if she ever could. Thoughts? :)

i don't think she needs to win it. it would be awesome if she did but you can't take away from juju's greatness because she at least made the final twice. i wonder if ppl think the same about venus. what if she never wins the french? all the great players in tennis history won the french. i wonder if ppl would say venus needs to win roland garros to become a great player. :shrug:

ikemstar
Aug 20th, 2007, 11:03 AM
but tennis today all Grand Slams are equal.

Some Slams are more "equal" than others. Laughable. It's Wimbledon, and every player knows it.

faste5683
Aug 20th, 2007, 11:30 AM
It's a freak event with a freak surface and freak weather. What's the grass court season, anyway - two or three weeks? I'm sorry, but Wimbledon's a circus which has lost any relevance to "real" tennis years ago...

:wavey:

sheyna
Aug 20th, 2007, 11:39 AM
Henin is the best player that has ever entered the courts. I used to deny that until I saw her in Berlin this year.

She doesn't need to win Wimbledon to prove anything like that.

So what was it that changed your mind? :)

ikemstar
Aug 20th, 2007, 11:39 AM
Get this: Wimbledon has culture and history. I know some Americans find that harder to understand as to why that might be important. It has tradition. You don't just throw money, dancing girls and fireworks into an event, call it a "slam" and tell everybody we're all equal, now.

jonny84
Aug 20th, 2007, 11:48 AM
Henin is a great player already - she's won multiple slam titles, won the YEC, reached #1 in the world.

But Wimbledon is missing from her collection as of 2007, If she wins here, then she will be considered an even greater great.

Carsten
Aug 20th, 2007, 11:52 AM
She doesn't need to win it. Sampras never won French Open and still he is the best who ever played :)

All Grand Slams are worth the same. Propably Wimbledon is the easiest to win because there aren't as many good players on grass as on HC fpr example ;)

Helen Lawson
Aug 20th, 2007, 11:57 AM
Justine is "great" already. Was Monica not a "great"? That being said, a Wimbledon title for Justine would tremendously add to her legacy. It is a hole in an otherwise superb career. I think we got spoiled with the likes of Steffi, etc., who won career slams and racked up titles at all the majors like today's Hollywood strarlets rack up DUIs and drug charges. Very few women have been able to do that in tennis history. Serena has her career slam but she's not racking them up right and left either.

Slutiana
Aug 20th, 2007, 11:59 AM
Henin is the best player that has ever entered the courts. I used to deny that until I saw her in Berlin this year.

She doesn't need to win Wimbledon to prove anything like that.

:spit:

It's a freak event with a freak surface and freak weather. What's the grass court season, anyway - two or three weeks? I'm sorry, but Wimbledon's a circus which has lost any relevance to "real" tennis years ago...

:wavey:

:help::tape:

She doesn't need to win it. Sampras never won French Open and still he is the best who ever played :)

All Grand Slams are worth the same. Propably Wimbledon is the easiest to win because there aren't as many good players on grass as on HC fpr example ;)

:bs: The easiest to win would be the FO because the only even decent(yes shes great on it) clay courter is Justine

stefi62
Aug 20th, 2007, 12:01 PM
Hénin is a great player and will be remembered for years after she stops, no matter what happens for her in the next Wimbledon tournaments! :wavey:

Carsten
Aug 20th, 2007, 12:02 PM
:bs: The easiest to win would be the FO because the only even decent(yes shes great on it) clay courter is Justine

I wouldn't say so b'cause it's physically harder to play on clay than on grass, you have to work more to win points.

jujufreak
Aug 20th, 2007, 12:03 PM
In the entire history of women's tennis, only 20 players have won six GS singles titles. In the Open Era, only ten. It's actually a pretty good measure of who actually IS a great player. At least who's a great singles player. It's also pretty cold. By this measure, Martina Hingis and Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario AREN'T great singles players.

And if you think they are/were great singles players, you have to concede Henin is as well.

Who's won MORE than six GS singles titles in the Open Era?

Graf, Navratilova, Evert, Court, King, Seles, Goolagong and Serena.

:yeah: so that would mean none of the other players were great :tape:

she already is a great champion :cool:

Petersmiler
Aug 20th, 2007, 12:05 PM
:spit:



:help::tape:



:bs: The easiest to win would be the FO because the only even decent(yes shes great on it) clay courter is Justine

Easy for Justine, maybe. Doesn't that make it more difficult for everyone else then?

Whatzup
Aug 20th, 2007, 12:07 PM
What a nonsense! Justine Henin is already a great player, she's even already a tennis super star! She has achieved already so much in her tenniscareer. She has already 6 Grand Slam titles, and even 2 Wimbledon finals. It would be great for her if she can win Wimbledon once, but for me she's already a superstar!

Bijoux0021
Aug 20th, 2007, 12:09 PM
Wimbledon is the premier tennis event. Whether you agree with that or not, it doesn't matter, because unless you win the thing, you just won't figure as highly in debates about who the all-time greats and legends are. Look at Lendl. Despite his huge achievements at the US Open and Roland Garros, as well as winning loads of Tour titles and being Number 1, he's always overlooked even now, just 15 years after retirement, when discussing the best players of the last 20-30 years. If you put everything into a computer, he'd come out top-3 or at least top-5, but in the minds of virtually all, you'll find that Borg, Sampras and Federer top the list, followed by McEnroe, Connors, Agassi, Becker and Edberg. And then people go, don't forget Lendl and Wilander. You will never hear people placing Kuerten in the list, simply because he never did anything remarkable at Wimbledon (or the US Open in fairness).

In the women's game, part of the reason why Martina and Steffi are usually rated higher than Evert is because she only won Wimbledon a couple of times. It's why ASV's status is disregarded. It's why Novotna and Martinez are remembered (had they only won one AO title their names would be more or less forgotten a la Iva Majoli).

So, whether we agree or not, Wimbledon is the prestige event and the players know it too. It's the one that any of them, deep down, would pick if they could only have one.
:worship: :worship: :worship:

Very well said!

jujufreak
Aug 20th, 2007, 12:18 PM
Wimbledon is the premier tennis event. Whether you agree with that or not, it doesn't matter, because unless you win the thing, you just won't figure as highly in debates about who the all-time greats and legends are. Look at Lendl. Despite his huge achievements at the US Open and Roland Garros, as well as winning loads of Tour titles and being Number 1, he's always overlooked even now, just 15 years after retirement, when discussing the best players of the last 20-30 years. If you put everything into a computer, he'd come out top-3 or at least top-5, but in the minds of virtually all, you'll find that Borg, Sampras and Federer top the list, followed by McEnroe, Connors, Agassi, Becker and Edberg. And then people go, don't forget Lendl and Wilander. You will never hear people placing Kuerten in the list, simply because he never did anything remarkable at Wimbledon (or the US Open in fairness).

In the women's game, part of the reason why Martina and Steffi are usually rated higher than Evert is because she only won Wimbledon a couple of times. It's why ASV's status is disregarded. It's why Novotna and Martinez are remembered (had they only won one AO title their names would be more or less forgotten a la Iva Majoli).

So, whether we agree or not, Wimbledon is the prestige event and the players know it too. It's the one that any of them, deep down, would pick if they could only have one.

Justine would never trade a French Open title for a victory at Wimbledon and DEFINITELY not if she had only won one !!!

Monica is an all-time great :), that proves you don't have to win Wimbledon to be on that level

darice
Aug 20th, 2007, 12:22 PM
So, whether we agree or not, Wimbledon is the prestige event and the players know it too. It's the one that any of them, deep down, would pick if they could only have one.

i just don't understand why with all its prestige that there is no grass court season. it didn't give ppl a chance to improve on the surface which is why the same ppl won wimby year after year compared to the other slams. i don't know about if they only could pick one. a lot of players from both tours love roland garros with a passion and couldn't care less about wimbledon or the ao or uso. :shrug:

Petersmiler
Aug 20th, 2007, 12:27 PM
Does anyone else get the feeling that even if she won Wimbledon for the next five years running, there would still be someone here saying she cannot be considered great because she can't hit a 130mph serve.

Donny
Aug 20th, 2007, 12:28 PM
Does anyone else get the feeling that even if she won Wimbledon for the next five years running, there would still be someone here saying she cannot be considered great because she can't hit a 130mph serve.

I don't.

Donny
Aug 20th, 2007, 12:29 PM
i just don't understand why with all its prestige that there is no grass court season. it didn't give ppl a chance to improve on the surface which is why the same ppl won wimby year after year compared to the other slams. i don't know about if they only could pick one. a lot of players from both tours love roland garros with a passion and couldn't care less about wimbledon or the ao or uso. :shrug:

Nadal has openly admitted that he wants Wimbledon more than any slam. And Federer in an interview today stated point blank that his one goal for 200 was to win Wimbledon.

Thanx4nothin
Aug 20th, 2007, 12:36 PM
I think she is already a great player, but without Wimbledon she will never transcend the greatness of a solid player with all those titles, she's still a league behing the women who won all 4. Every year people say that this is Henin's year to win Wimbledon, the importance her fans give to it during the tournament is such a contrast to how they treat it afterwards, like as they say it's just another slam. She needs to win Wimbledon to be great - No. She needs to win it to be AS great as those who have won all 4 - Yes. The same could be said for Venus.

darice
Aug 20th, 2007, 12:37 PM
Nadal has openly admitted that he wants Wimbledon more than any slam. And Federer in an interview today stated point blank that his one goal for 200 was to win Wimbledon.

i'm not doubting that they think that but those are just 2 players. to a lot of the europeans and south americans who grew up on clay roland garros was the big one they always wanted to win.

Thanx4nothin
Aug 20th, 2007, 12:38 PM
Does anyone else get the feeling that even if she won Wimbledon for the next five years running, there would still be someone here saying she cannot be considered great because she can't hit a 130mph serve.

No, you're simply being over dramatic. As an Henin fan you want her to be considered great so when she isn't you indicate that there is some sort of conspiracy theory going on against her. Wimbledon is the last feather in her bow if you will, the last jewel in the crown. She already is great, but i can see where the poster is coming from, she is lacking the biggest and best of all tennis tournaments.

Thanx4nothin
Aug 20th, 2007, 12:38 PM
i'm not doubting that they think that but those are just 2 players. to a lot of the europeans and south americans who grew up on clay roland garros was the big one they always wanted to win.

A shame tennis experts don't believe that.

darice
Aug 20th, 2007, 12:43 PM
A shame tennis experts don't believe that.

i respect the wimbledon tradition but winning roland garros is not that easy either. ask vee, ask marti, ask kuzzy, even ask kim+conchi.

Petersmiler
Aug 20th, 2007, 12:48 PM
No, you're simply being over dramatic. As an Henin fan you want her to be considered great so when she isn't you indicate that there is some sort of conspiracy theory going on against her. Wimbledon is the last feather in her bow if you will, the last jewel in the crown. She already is great, but i can see where the poster is coming from, she is lacking the biggest and best of all tennis tournaments.

Ok, you got me. I am being very over dramatic.

I do agree with you, she is certainly a 'great' already. A Wimbledon win would vastly improve her legacy simply because it is the 'missing link'. A similar situation to the Martina story and that elusive Roland Garros trophy.

chloe-l
Aug 20th, 2007, 01:29 PM
Does anyone else get the feeling that even if she won Wimbledon for the next five years running, there would still be someone here saying she cannot be considered great because she can't hit a 130mph serve.

For sure.:tape: :lol:

chloe-l
Aug 20th, 2007, 01:33 PM
Justine is "great" already. Was Monica not a "great"? That being said, a Wimbledon title for Justine would tremendously add to her legacy. It is a hole in an otherwise superb career. I think we got spoiled with the likes of Steffi, etc., who won career slams and racked up titles at all the majors like today's Hollywood strarlets rack up DUIs and drug charges. Very few women have been able to do that in tennis history. Serena has her career slam but she's not racking them up right and left either.

:yeah:

thrust
Aug 20th, 2007, 01:58 PM
Justine is not yet an all-time great, but she is a great player already. To deny this one has to be ignorant or a Justine hater. In my tennis HOF Justine, Venus, Serena, would be in my tier II just behind the all-time greats: Court, Graf, Wills-Moody, Evert, Navratilova, Connolly, King, Seles, Lenglen-not necessarily in that order. I would include Seles because I think that if she hadn^t been stabbed, she would have have won more Slams.

JeremySun
Aug 20th, 2007, 02:34 PM
Oops, I didn't know Monica never won Wimbledon. I thought she must have won at least 1 Wimbledon considering she has won 9 "majors". :o You guys have been following tennis for wayyyyyyyyyy longer than I have. I was still a 5 year old kid when Monica was at her best times of her career.

Anyway, back on topic. As you know, more than 90 percent of humans on earth do NOT watch tennis and more than 80 percent of humans on earth (including me way before I started watching tennis) have heard about and thus know about Wimbledon and those same people do NOT know any other tennis tournament. In their minds, every other tournament is at least a level below Wimbledon.

That being said, even though for you tennis maniacs (er... or fans if you want to call yourselves), who account for way less than 10 percent of humans on earth, consider all "slams" to be equal, you cannot generalize this idea for the majority of people on earth, because they simply don't know about the "slams". If they did know about the "slams", they might have thought Wimbledon is not THAT special, but the fact is they don't, and we can't blame them because they don't watch tennis.

That being said, wherever Justine goes, except when she meets a tennis maniac (er.... or "fan"), who are a very few minority (less than 10 or even 5 percent of people on earth), that person would likely be from the majority of humans (who never watch tennis), and that person would ask Justine, "Have you ever won Wimbledon?", and, if Justine has never won Wimbledon, she would feel embarassed, because, if the eyes of tennis "fans", the minority, she would be considered great, but, in the eyes of the majority, she would be considered "not" so great.

Get it? Because tennis fans are the minority and people who only know about Wimbledon are the majority, Justine needs to win Wimbledon to become "great" in the eyes of humans on earth.

Hope that clears any misunderstandings. :)

ambare
Aug 20th, 2007, 02:36 PM
I would have to agree with the thread starter. As much as her fans might argue otherwise, it is what seperates her from people like serena, hingis, venus and any other number of people who've won it. Even though she may have a better head2head, more slams better game etc etc untill she wins the big one she wont be considered a true great. This is not to say that she is not a good player and i can imagine there are thousands of others who would give their arms and legs (head etc etc LOL) for henin's career (including my all time fave Kimi). But you have to admit, the legacy of say someone like hingis would receive a much bigger dent if the gaping hole was wimbledon rather than RG or any other slam.

P.S. for all those Monica analogies - please she's just on another level. isn't she like the most successful tennis teenager all time? - i think she won all her slams bar 1 before her 20th birthday, AMAZING!!!!!

harloo
Aug 20th, 2007, 02:41 PM
I think it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. Monica never won Wimbledon and she's considered one of the greats. At times you do hear chatter about how Monica never won Wimbledon but for the most part it's not a big issue. Justine has already reached the finals of Wimbledon twice. She wasn't going to beat Venus in 2000 because that was her first slam final, but in 2006 she was the heavy favorite against Amelie. That match was very important in a sense because it would of proved she was the undisputed #1 player. And this year I think even if she reached the final, Venus would of defeated her. When you think about it Justine has been very close to taking the Wimbledon crown and she still has plenty of time left to achieve that goal. I think her greatness will be questioned until she wins the most prestigious slam in tennis but in the eyes of many she doesn't really need to win it.

JeremySun
Aug 20th, 2007, 02:47 PM
In China, for example, Martina Hingis holds way more prestige in the eyes of Chinese people than Monica Seles. Why? Because Martina has won Wimbledon and Monica has not (which I just found out this morning). We Chinese people only know about and recognize the importance of Wimbledon, nothing else. That is why, if Justine wants to be "great" in the eyes of people on earth and not just tennis "fans", she needs to win Wimbledon.

DA FOREHAND
Aug 20th, 2007, 02:53 PM
I think she will win it eventually. In terms of Seles, she is a legend, regardless of her lack of a Wimbledon title. Although it's pointless to debate, I really think she would have won the '93 Wimbledon.

too bad thinking it is miles away from actually Winning Wimbledon!

Justine is a great player, but she hasn't won enough slams or Wimbledon to be mentioned among the all time greats:wavey:

JeremySun
Aug 20th, 2007, 02:55 PM
Justine has won 4 Roland Garros. She is a "good" player, but not a "great" player as of now, IMO.

terjw
Aug 20th, 2007, 03:00 PM
Wimbledon is the premier tennis event. Whether you agree with that or not, it doesn't matter, because unless you win the thing, you just won't figure as highly in debates about who the all-time greats and legends are. Look at Lendl. Despite his huge achievements at the US Open and Roland Garros, as well as winning loads of Tour titles and being Number 1, he's always overlooked even now, just 15 years after retirement, when discussing the best players of the last 20-30 years. If you put everything into a computer, he'd come out top-3 or at least top-5, but in the minds of virtually all, you'll find that Borg, Sampras and Federer top the list, followed by McEnroe, Connors, Agassi, Becker and Edberg. And then people go, don't forget Lendl and Wilander. You will never hear people placing Kuerten in the list, simply because he never did anything remarkable at Wimbledon (or the US Open in fairness).

In the women's game, part of the reason why Martina and Steffi are usually rated higher than Evert is because she only won Wimbledon a couple of times. It's why ASV's status is disregarded. It's why Novotna and Martinez are remembered (had they only won one AO title their names would be more or less forgotten a la Iva Majoli).

So, whether we agree or not, Wimbledon is the prestige event and the players know it too. It's the one that any of them, deep down, would pick if they could only have one.

:rolleyes: Do your homework and get your facts right.
Chrissie won Wimbledon 3 times - 74, 76 & 81

DA FOREHAND
Aug 20th, 2007, 03:08 PM
She doesn't need to win it. Sampras never won French Open and still he is the best who ever played :)

All Grand Slams are worth the same. Propably Wimbledon is the easiest to win because there aren't as many good players on grass as on HC fpr example ;)

If it were the easiest you'd see many diff players winning there, fact is you don't. Wimbledon has produced the least flukey winners esp. on the womens side.


Only a fan of someone who hasn't won at Wimbledon would say it's lost any relevance. YOu obviously don't know your tennis history.

A lil history lesson.

In 1877, the All England Club held the first Wimbledon tournament, and its tournament committee came up with a rectangular court and a set of rules that are essentially the game we know today. The net was still five feet high at the sides, a carryover from the game's indoor ancestor, and the service boxes were 26 feet deep, but by 1882, the specifications had evolved to their current form.


Tennis was born on the lawn, not clay, not rebound ace, and certainly not on concrete!...

purplerain
Aug 20th, 2007, 03:11 PM
In China, for example, Martina Hingis holds way more prestige in the eyes of Chinese people than Monica Seles. Why? Because Martina has won Wimbledon and Monica has not (which I just found out this morning). We Chinese people only know about and recognize the importance of Wimbledon, nothing else. That is why, if Justine wants to be "great" in the eyes of people on earth and not just tennis "fans", she needs to win Wimbledon.

I don't think so.

As for Hingis and Seles, I am not sure how most chinese compare them. But for me, as I became to know something about tennis after 1995, after that horrible incidence happened on Seles and when Hingis began to rise, I surely was much more impressed by Hingis and remained a big fan until now. I guess tennis had more impact in china in 1997-now than in 1990-1992 or older days, so that is why we remember hingis better. The same why most my non-fan friends know WS but not Graf, although they are old enough to know Graf.

But again that is my opinion, I really can't say i know well how chinese fans's opinion as a whole. I would say there are chinese fans supporting different players and have mixed idea about wimbledon or Hingis VS Seles.

JeremySun
Aug 20th, 2007, 03:19 PM
I don't think so.

As for Hingis and Seles, I am not sure how most chinese compare them. But for me, as I became to know something about tennis after 1995, after that horrible incidence happened on Seles and when Hingis began to rise, I surely was much more impressed by Hingis and remained a big fan until now. I guess tennis had more impact in china in 1997-now than in 1990-1992 or older days, so that is why we remember hingis better. The same why most my non-fan friends know WS but not Graf, although they are old enough to know Graf.

But again that is my opinion, I really can't say i know well how chinese fans's opinion as a whole. I would say there are chinese fans supporting different players and have mixed idea about wimbledon or Hingis VS Seles.

I did NOT talk about the opinion of Chinese fans. They account for less than 1 percent of the Chinese population. I was talking about the opinion of the Chinese general public.

Please read my posts before jumping to conclusions. (No harshness intended).

Chrissie-fan
Aug 20th, 2007, 03:32 PM
I did NOT talk about the opinion of Chinese fans. They account for less than 1 percent of the Chinese population. I was talking about the opinion of the Chinese general public.
Yes, but you talk about public perception as opposed to reality. Winning one Wimbledon may bring Justine more fame among the Chinese people, but winning four French Open titles is by far the greater achievement. Players who are competing in the FO, US Open or AO are just as motivated to win as they are at Wimbledon.

Justine is already a great player IMO, top 20 all time great at the very least. Winning Wimbledon would put her on equal footing with Serena as the best player of the decade for me.

Expat
Aug 20th, 2007, 03:35 PM
i am no justine fan but she doesnt need to win wimbledon to be great
her french open record is enough
though she will win wimbledon one day
every year venus and serena cant be fit to compete
she will get her chance definitely

JeremySun
Aug 20th, 2007, 03:35 PM
Yes, but you talk about public perception as opposed to reality. Winning one Wimbledon may bring Justine more fame among the Chinese people, but winning four French Open titles is by far the greater achievement. Players who are competing in the FO, US Open or AO are just as motivated to win as they are at Wimbledon.

Justine is already a great player IMO, top 20 all time great at the very least. Winning Wimbledon would put her on equal footing with Serena as the best player of the decade for me.

What I meant is, she needs to win Wimbledon to be "great" in the eyes of people of the world, and not just in the eyes of tennis fans.

JeremySun
Aug 20th, 2007, 03:36 PM
i am no justine fan but she doesnt need to win wimbledon to be great
her french open record is enough
though she will win wimbledon one day
every year venus and serena cant be fit to compete
she will get her chance definitely

Never say "will" and never say "never". :)

Expat
Aug 20th, 2007, 03:40 PM
Never say "will" and never say "never". :)
given the current state of WTA players and their quality
all she needs is to stay fit
"will" seems more appropriate
she is the most consistent player in an era where all the big players of the golden era have retired or are perennially injured

Petersmiler
Aug 20th, 2007, 03:41 PM
What I meant is, she needs to win Wimbledon to be "great" in the eyes of people of the world, and not just in the eyes of tennis fans.

So are we talking about fame or tennis skills?

Surely it is those who know about tennis who are better to judge who is 'great'?

JeremySun
Aug 20th, 2007, 03:44 PM
So are we talking about fame or tennis skills?

Surely it is those who know about tennis who are better to judge who is 'great'?

1. We are talking about fame.

2. Perhaps you are right. Perhaps it should be left to the fans to judge greatness. For example, we should leave talks of ice hockey greatness to ice hockey fans since we never watch ice hockey. :) Except we all heard of Stanley Cup.

PS: In case you haven't noticed, I was being a bit sarcastic in point 2.

DA FOREHAND
Aug 20th, 2007, 03:45 PM
Justine is good.. Not great and winning Wimbledon will elevate her status.


How many Grand slam titles has she won beating the top three seeds?

Petersmiler
Aug 20th, 2007, 04:04 PM
1. We are talking about fame.

2. Perhaps you are right. Perhaps it should be left to the fans to judge greatness. For example, we should leave talks of ice hockey greatness to ice hockey fans since we never watch ice hockey. :) Except we all heard of Stanley Cup.

PS: In case you haven't noticed, I was being a bit sarcastic in point 2.


I don't really understand your point here. So you're saying that it is the general public who judge greatness in all sports and therefore, if people have never heard of them, they are obviously not 'great' players?

Oh, and who is Stanley Cup?

AllezH1
Aug 20th, 2007, 04:32 PM
She will win it. Mark my words.

DA FOREHAND
Aug 20th, 2007, 04:40 PM
She will win it. Mark my words.

those words were marked in 06, and 07, but she was beaten by two stalwarts of the tour Amelie and Bartoli

thrust
Aug 20th, 2007, 04:40 PM
Jeremy- Fame does not necessarily make a player great. Is Sharapove a better TENNIS player than Jusitne, of course NOT, and certainly Kournakova is nowhere as good a player as Justine is but she may be more famous. If the Chinese think that only Wimbledon is important its because they are ignorant of tennis history.

Mina Vagante
Aug 20th, 2007, 04:45 PM
She already is a great player. Winning Wimbledon is nice but it's a surface that's barely played on. It's like winning a tournament on a court made of sand. It doesn't mean as much as the other Slams.

if any-thing winning wimbledon means more than winnning any other slam

sonnys
Aug 20th, 2007, 04:57 PM
I think she will win it eventually. In terms of Seles, she is a legend, regardless of her lack of a Wimbledon title. Although it's pointless to debate, I really think she would have won the '93 Wimbledon.

:worship: :worship:

sonnys
Aug 20th, 2007, 05:02 PM
Justine is already great, its really a silly question:confused: ...And she already has taken her place in the legends & as one of the best ever, thank you!!!!:drool:

JeremySun
Aug 20th, 2007, 05:06 PM
Think about what happens in 400 years. By then, how many WTA players would have won at least 6 "majors"? Likely at least 100. If Justine does not win Wimbledon, what will her place be then? :o

DA FOREHAND
Aug 20th, 2007, 05:10 PM
Justine is already great, its really a silly question:confused: ...And she already has taken her place in the legends & as one of the best ever, thank you!!!!:drool:

fraid not she has a ways to go to be considered a legend. or even one of the best ever

Kart
Aug 20th, 2007, 05:15 PM
How many 'great' players have won the French open in the last decade ?

sportywoman
Aug 20th, 2007, 05:18 PM
She already won 3/4 of them (same as Hingis while Vee has 2/4) and reached 2 finals. She is 25 years old has like 3 to 5 years of active playing ahead of her, she has better chances of fulfilling the slam than any other active player of her generation and equals Rena.

She is already a great player and if she keeps the same intensity at consitency, she will win Wimbly and probably ends up with more than 50 tournaments wins before she reaches 30 years old !

Chrissie-fan
Aug 20th, 2007, 07:27 PM
Think about what happens in 400 years. By then, how many WTA players would have won at least 6 "majors"? Likely at least 100. If Justine does not win Wimbledon, what will her place be then? :o
One of the top 100 best players in the history of a sport that goes back more than 500 years....not bad. ;)

Forehand_Volley
Aug 20th, 2007, 07:29 PM
How many 'great' players have won the French open in the last decade ?
Steffi Graf.
.
.
.
Serena Williams
.
.
.
Justine Henin
.
.
.
Mary Pierce
.
.
.
All of these players will likely be inducted into the International Tennis Hall of Fame, where winning Wimbledon is not a requirement for inclusion.

treufreund
Aug 20th, 2007, 07:33 PM
Wow the number of smart-assed answers that I could give to slap down this troll thread are countless. However, there is no need to do that because regardless of Justine's incredible career these people will never be convinced. Basically you are talking to an irrational person if they feel that a player with tons of singles titles, an Olympic gold, 6 slams, a YEC championship and many weeks at #1 with wins over every top player is not a great. End of story.

Justine is brave, incredibly athletic, talented and creative. Digest that.

laurie
Aug 20th, 2007, 07:39 PM
As you all know, Wimbledon is the hallmark of "great" tennis players. No matter where in the world, if you are a professional (or not so professional) tennis player, people are gonna ask you, "Have you ever won Wimbledon?". Now, Justine needs to win Wimbledon to become a "great" tennis player. She's 25 now and I'll give her 2 years to accomplish it, if she ever could. Thoughts? :)

Henin is a great Tennis player

BuTtErFrEnA
Aug 20th, 2007, 07:46 PM
Wow the number of smart-assed answers that I could give to slap down this troll thread are countless. However, there is no need to do that because regardless of Justine's incredible career these people will never be convinced. Basically you are talking to an irrational person if they feel that a player with tons of singles titles, an Olympic gold, 6 slams, a YEC championship and many weeks at #1 with wins over every top player is not a great. End of story.

Justine is brave, incredibly athletic, talented and creative. Digest that.

Justine is missing a Wimby title....digest that!

Wimby just means so0o0o0 much more that all the other GS titles.....even though Venus has only won 2/4 GS and 4/6 at wimby and jh has 3/4 but 4/6 at RG most players would want to win wimby rather than the FO....even all the critics that you admire for criticising Serena put Wimbledon ahead of RG...it's why you will find Lendl and other non-wimby winners (although other multiple slam winners) missing from discussions as greatest ever

Forehand_Volley
Aug 20th, 2007, 07:49 PM
Anyone that makes it into the International Tennis Hall of Fame is "Great" in the sport of tennis. Its the only measure of true greatness the sport has once a player has finished their career. And guess what? You don't have to win Wimbledon to do that.;)

And until The ITHF makes winning Wimbledon a requirement for inclusion, it means that this thread is really silly and unnecessary.

I agree with Truefreund. Its a troll thread designed to diminish Henin's accomplishments over the past five years. Funny thing is, Henin will most definitely be inducted in the International Tennis Hall of Fame, even if she never makes it to another Wimbledon final.

DA FOREHAND
Aug 20th, 2007, 09:03 PM
Anyone that makes it into the International Tennis Hall of Fame is "Great" in the sport of tennis. Its the only measure of true greatness the sport has once a player has finished their career. And guess what? You don't have to win Wimbledon to do that.;)

And until The ITHF makes winning Wimbledon a requirement for inclusion, it means that this thread is really silly and unnecessary.

I agree with Truefreund. Its a troll thread designed to diminish Henin's accomplishments over the past five years. Funny thing is, Henin will most definitely be inducted in the International Tennis Hall of Fame, even if she never makes it to another Wimbledon final.


Sorry but the hall of fame isn't only for great players. It's been watered down more than the number one ranking.

Dawn Marie
Aug 20th, 2007, 09:08 PM
This is really a laughable thread if you follow the WTA tour.

Forehand_Volley
Aug 20th, 2007, 09:22 PM
Sorry but the hall of fame isn't only for great players. It's been watered down more than the number one ranking.
Could you explain how the ITHF has been "watered down?" My guess is that you've never been to Newport and probably never made the online trip to visit the website.

If you are going to make demeaning rebuttal statements regarding the International Tennis Hall of Fame, it should at least accompany objective rebuttal or some type of factual information to support your statement.

You've attacked Henin similarly in many other threads. My guess is that your acute disdain for the ITHF is born out of your dislike of Henin.

The ITHF is the pennacle of the sport of tennis. It houses over a century of memorabilia and honors the greats of the game. If you make it to Newport, you are forever enshrined as a great of the sport. Something combative and irrational fans don't seem to understand.

moon
Aug 20th, 2007, 09:28 PM
I don't think comparing Justine to Monica is a good comparison.
Monica won other slams MORE THAN ONCE. That's why she is considered a legend, not to mention ushering in a new era of power.

Justine has never won another slam more than once. She is a good player, and one of the best of her generation. But she is not "a great". She won't even be thought along those lines until she wins Wimbledon.

Forehand_Volley
Aug 20th, 2007, 09:46 PM
I don't think comparing Justine to Monica is a good comparison.
Monica won other slams MORE THAN ONCE. That's why she is considered a legend, not to mention ushering in a new era of power.

Justine has never won another slam more than once. She is a good player, and one of the best of her generation. But she is not "a great". She won't even be thought along those lines until she wins Wimbledon.
The standard set by the creation of this thread is pretty straight-forward. You have to win Wimbledon to be considered a great of the sport. Based on that standard, you cannot call Monica Seles great either. You cannot apply double-standards in this instance regarding Henin.

Inclusion into the ITHF ultimately settles the debate on who is great and who is not in the sport of tennis. You do not have to win Wimbledon to be inducted into the ITHF, which answers the questions of whether or not you have to win Wimbledon to be considered great in tennis.

To exclude Henin or any other tennis professional that hasn't won Wimbledon, who will undoubtedly be inducted into the ITHF, is not rational nor is it historically accurate.

moon
Aug 20th, 2007, 09:54 PM
The standard set in this thread is pretty straight-forward. You have to win Wimbledon to be considered a great of the sport. Based on that standard, you cannot call Monica Seles great either. You cannot apply double-standards in this instance regarding Henin.

Inclusion into the ITHF ultimately settles the debate on who is great and who is not in the sport of tennis. You do not have to win Wimbledon to be inducted into the ITHF, which answers the questions of whether or not you have to win Wimbledon to be considered great in tennis.

To exclude Henin, who will undoubtedly be inducted into the ITHF, is not rational nor is it historically accurate.

so Pam Shriver is "great"? :lol:
She is a good doubles player, but no way in hell is she a great.

btw--i am not denying that Henin will be included in the HOF. Any player who won multiple slams probably will be.

And I don't see any double standard here. It is possible for someone to be a great without winning Wimbledon. All Justine has to do is win some other slams besides RG. But as great as Monica was, not winning Wimbledon is still a hole in her resume.

thrust
Aug 20th, 2007, 09:55 PM
Forehand Volley- I agree with you concerning Henin. She is a Hall of Famer. But I also agree with DA FOREHAND that the Tennis HOF has been diluted by the inclusion of the likes of Sabatini, Shriver, or anyone who has won less than 4 Slams. There is nothing wrong with the HOF itself, but there are too many in there who really do not belong. Those who claim that Wimbledon should be the main criteria for entering the HOF are mainly fanatical fans of players who have done well there.

Forehand_Volley
Aug 20th, 2007, 10:02 PM
so Pam Shriver is "great"? :lol:
She is a good doubles player, but no way in hell is she a great.
Not sure if you are aware, but you don't have to be a great singles in order to be a great tennis player in the sport of tennis. The ITHF recognizes that. And I trust the ITHF's jdugement over yours anyday.

But to answer your question. Pam Shriver is a great tennis player and will forever be remembered as one of the greatest women's doubles player to play the sport. She won 21 Grand Slam doubles titles including the Calendar year grand slam in doubles.

Forehand_Volley
Aug 20th, 2007, 10:05 PM
Forehand Volley- I agree with you concerning Henin. She is a Hall of Famer. But I also agree with DA FOREHAND that the Tennis HOF has been diluted by the inclusion of the likes of Sabatini, Shriver, or anyone who has won less than 4 Slams. There is nothing wrong with the HOF itself, but there are too many in there who really do not belong. Those who claim that Wimbledon should be the main criteria for entering the HOF are mainly fanatical fans of players who have done well there.
The sport of tennis isn't just singles play. Its why there is doubles competition in every tournament played today. The ITHF recognizes that. Doubles competitors shouldn't be excluded just because its not singles.

To exclude doubles players from the ITHF would be a travesty and not a true representation of the sport of tennis.

sheyna
Aug 20th, 2007, 10:13 PM
Why do I get the feeling that if Venus & Serena had not won Wimbledon but had won the French 4 times and twice respectively and Justine had won 4 Wimbledon titles, that certain posters would be saying that Justine was not a great because she hasn't won the French Open? :scratch:

moon
Aug 20th, 2007, 10:28 PM
Not sure if you are aware, but you don't have to be a great singles in order to be a great tennis player in the sport of tennis. The ITHF recognizes that. And I trust the ITHF's jdugement over yours anyday.

But to answer your question. Pam Shriver is a great tennis player and will forever be remembered as one of the greatest women's doubles player to play the sport. She won 21 Grand Slam doubles titles including the Calendar year grand slam in doubles.

I'm not sure I like the tone of your response, young man (or woman). :p
I am perfectly aware of Pam's record in singles, and in doubles. I am also perfectly aware that Pam's major doubles partner, just happened to be one of the best doubles tennis players ever created. Maybe you think Pam would be put into the HOF with or without Nav as her partner. I don't.
I'm sorry if you misinterpreted my question as me asking you for advice. I wasn't. I just think it's laughable that you really think that the HOF is the end all be all when it comes to deciding who is the best in tennis. You clearly have your point of view and that's fine. But there is no need to be condescending just because someon'e opinion differs from yours.

thrust
Aug 20th, 2007, 10:37 PM
A great tennis player has to be a great singles player. If a great singles player is also a great doubles player, that would add to the players overall greatnenss. Pam Shriver was a very good singles player, but certainly not great like her doubles partner Martina Navratilova, without whom Pam would have won far fewer doubles titles. I do like Pam as well as Sabatini, but they do not belong in the HOF.

thrust
Aug 20th, 2007, 10:55 PM
Moon- Few players have won all 4 Slams: Court, King, Evert, Navratilova, Connolly, and I think Doris Hart. But there is more to being a great tennis player: #of tournaments won, different slams won, weeks at #1 etc.. Venus never won the FO or the AO yet one has to consider her a great player, the same is true for Seles. Though she did not win Wimbledon, her overall carrer more than compensates for her lack of a Wimbledon title. The same would be true with Henin if she were never to win Wimbledon.

DA FOREHAND
Aug 20th, 2007, 10:56 PM
The standard set by the creation of this thread is pretty straight-forward. You have to win Wimbledon to be considered a great of the sport. Based on that standard, you cannot call Monica Seles great either. You cannot apply double-standards in this instance regarding Henin.

Inclusion into the ITHF ultimately settles the debate on who is great and who is not in the sport of tennis. You do not have to win Wimbledon to be inducted into the ITHF, which answers the questions of whether or not you have to win Wimbledon to be considered great in tennis.

To exclude Henin or any other tennis professional that hasn't won Wimbledon, who will undoubtedly be inducted into the ITHF, is not rational nor is it historically accurate.


Sabitini was many things one of the all time greats is not one of them. the Standards for getting in are a trifle low. Yet Pete Rose hasn't been inducted into baseballs hall of fame.hmmmm>

tennistuff
Aug 20th, 2007, 11:27 PM
As you all know, Wimbledon is the hallmark of "great" tennis players. No matter where in the world, if you are a professional (or not so professional) tennis player, people are gonna ask you, "Have you ever won Wimbledon?". Now, Justine needs to win Wimbledon to become a "great" tennis player. She's 25 now and I'll give her 2 years to accomplish it, if she ever could. Thoughts? :)

She will need to do a few more things than just win Wimbeldon There have been some super women ahead of her and with her.

Forehand_Volley
Aug 20th, 2007, 11:29 PM
Yet Pete Rose hasn't been inducted into baseballs hall of fame.hmmmm>
He shouldn't have bet on baseball while being an active player.

Donny
Aug 20th, 2007, 11:32 PM
He shouldn't have bet on baseball while being an active player.

So what? Since when did integrity become a criteria for admittance into the hall? Ty Cobb, a Grade A jerk and racist, is in the HOF.

sheyna
Aug 20th, 2007, 11:35 PM
She will need to do a few more things than just win Wimbeldon

Like what? :confused:

tennistuff
Aug 20th, 2007, 11:56 PM
Like what? :confused:

Like win as many slams as some of the greats.

sheyna
Aug 20th, 2007, 11:57 PM
Like win as many slams as some of the greats.

How many are you talking about and which greats are you talking about?

tennistuff
Aug 21st, 2007, 12:00 AM
How many are you talking about and which greats are you talking about?

Martina, Stefi, Billie Jean, Or even Win all four slams in the same year. Or a Serena Slam.

sheyna
Aug 21st, 2007, 12:02 AM
Martina, Stefi, Billie Jean, Or even Win all four slams in the same year. Or a Serena Slam.

So are you saying that even if she wins Wimbledon and has all four slams, it's not enough in your opinion?

tennistuff
Aug 21st, 2007, 12:09 AM
So are you saying that even if she wins Wimbledon and has all four slams, it's not enough in your opinion?
For sure enough to one of the top players of today. But when you speak about joining the greatest. That is the next level. She is a Very high level but there is another level.

Forehand_Volley
Aug 21st, 2007, 12:13 AM
So what? Since when did integrity become a criteria for admittance into the hall? Ty Cobb, a Grade A jerk and racist, is in the HOF.
Pete Rose broke the law regarding active betting on a sport that he actively participated in as a player and manager. His exclusion needs no further explanation.

sheyna
Aug 21st, 2007, 12:13 AM
For sure enough to one of the top players of today. But when you speak about joining the greatest. That is the next level. She is a Very high level but there is another level.

I understand that, but if she wins Wimbledon surely she'll be at the same level as Serena with all four slams. Wimbledon is the only other major tournament that she needs to win - what else does she need to do in your opinion. She's won everything else there is to win hasn't she? Apart from Wimbledon, what major trophy hasn't she won? :confused:

Donny
Aug 21st, 2007, 12:20 AM
Pete Rose broke the law regarding active betting on a sport that he actively participated in as a player and manager. His exclusion needs no further explanation.

Yes, it does.HOF means performance. If he performed while a player, and performed well, very well, then he deserves a spot in the HOF, just like Mcgwire and Bonds, imo.

tennistuff
Aug 21st, 2007, 12:21 AM
I understand that, but if she wins Wimbledon surely she'll be at the same level as Serena with all four slams. Wimbledon is the only other major tournament that she needs to win - what else does she need to do in your opinion. She's won everything else there is to win hasn't she? Apart from Wimbledon, what major trophy hasn't she won? :confused:

It makes you very special to over a career win them all. But to be next level because the bar has been set so high you must.. Win all four in a row or win all four many times. We have already had other women who have over a career won them all but they are not talked of when the greats are mentioned.

Donny
Aug 21st, 2007, 12:21 AM
I understand that, but if she wins Wimbledon surely she'll be at the same level as Serena with all four slams. Wimbledon is the only other major tournament that she needs to win - what else does she need to do in your opinion. She's won everything else there is to win hasn't she? Apart from Wimbledon, what major trophy hasn't she won? :confused:

She was never as dominant as Serena. She also didn't hold all four at the same time. That's just a level of greatness that a handful of players achieve.

Forehand_Volley
Aug 21st, 2007, 12:28 AM
Yes, it does.HOF means performance. If he performed while a player, and performed well, very well, then he deserves a spot in the HOF, just like Mcgwire and Bonds, imo.
Even if that performance was arguably "enhanced?" Interesting analogy. Very interesting.

tennistuff
Aug 21st, 2007, 12:29 AM
She was never as dominant as Serena. She also didn't hold all four at the same time. That's just a level of greatness that a handful of players achieve.

My point. For sure;)

Donny
Aug 21st, 2007, 12:34 AM
Even if that performance was arguably "enhanced?" Interesting analogy. Very interesting.

Bnds was never caught doping. Unless the MLB is going to ban EVERY single player who played before they began testing from the HOF, there's no reason to not allow Bonds in. He's simply the greatest hiter of all time.


Way off topic though.

Forehand_Volley
Aug 21st, 2007, 12:37 AM
Bnds was never caught doping.
The Grand Jury is still out on that one.

I agree, this is way off-topic.

tennistuff
Aug 21st, 2007, 12:43 AM
I think Justine will be on the same level as her but. MS. is a sentimental fav because of how her career was cut short. And that is hard to over come. That's just life.

Chrissie-fan
Aug 21st, 2007, 01:10 AM
It makes you very special to over a career win them all. But to be next level because the bar has been set so high you must.. Win all four in a row or win all four many times. We have already had other women who have over a career won them all but they are not talked of when the greats are mentioned.
Well, Justine is already in the all time top 20 for me (probably higher)and climbing. That qualifies her as a great player. Greater than any current player except for Serena Williams. And she has made her mark with a comparitively frail physique in the age of the big girls with superior power which makes her achievements even more remarkable.

yohaneuano4
Aug 21st, 2007, 03:23 AM
I don't think the OP meant she isn't great at playing tennis, just that people wouldn't look back in retrospect and say she was great. Maybe.

I don't think she needs to, she has already accomplished so much and is revered in Belgium along with Clijsters. And the backhand is already legendary :worship:

Petersmiler
Aug 21st, 2007, 08:36 AM
Well, Justine is already in the all time top 20 for me (probably higher)and climbing. That qualifies her as a great player. Greater than any current player except for Serena Williams. And she has made her mark with a comparitively frail physique in the age of the big girls with superior power which makes her achievements even more remarkable.

Couldn't agree with you more.

Some people are just blinded by hatred.

all_slam_andre
Aug 21st, 2007, 09:36 AM
As many people have said, all 4 grand slams are equally important nowadays. Sure we all have our favourite slams, but it is anglocentric nonsense to say that Wimbledon is the biggest tournament when it is clearly no bigger than the other 3 grand slams.
Justine is already a great player, and her 6 grand slam titles offer proof of that. However as has been said numerous times on this thread, for Justine, or any player, to become a GOAT contender or top tier great, they have to win all 4 grand slams. Graf, Navratilova, Evert and Court have all won each grand on multiple occasions.

Kart
Aug 21st, 2007, 04:58 PM
Steffi Graf.
.
.
.
Serena Williams
.
.
.
Justine Henin
.
.
.
Mary Pierce
.
.
.
All of these players will likely be inducted into the International Tennis Hall of Fame, where winning Wimbledon is not a requirement for inclusion.

If induction to the Hall of Fame is your benchmark then you missed out ASV who won it in 1998.

Anyway, the point I was making is that Justine has shut out all the competition at the French open since 2003.

That speaks volumes more to me than her lack of a Wimbledon title - particularly in an era where all the other grand slams are hotly contested.

Mina Vagante
Aug 21st, 2007, 05:06 PM
If induction to the Hall of Fame is your benchmark then you missed out ASV who won it in 1998.

Anyway, the point I was making is that Justine has shut out all the competition at the French open since 2003.

That speaks volumes more to me than her lack of a Wimbledon title - particularly in an era where all the other grand slams are hotly contested.

wasn't she inducted recently?

Kart
Aug 21st, 2007, 05:10 PM
Yep.

Donny
Aug 21st, 2007, 05:14 PM
If induction to the Hall of Fame is your benchmark then you missed out ASV who won it in 1998.

Anyway, the point I was making is that Justine has shut out all the competition at the French open since 2003.

That speaks volumes more to me than her lack of a Wimbledon title - particularly in an era where all the other grand slams are hotly contested.


She lost in the first week in 2004.

darice
Aug 21st, 2007, 05:20 PM
didn't realize that justine had that many haters on here. maybe it isn't hating and i'm totally misunnderstanding stuff but it sometimes it looks lik ppl are trying to disguise their hating by making some point that looks valid but isn't.

:scratch:

jellybelly
Aug 21st, 2007, 05:22 PM
Look, even clay court specialists can be rememberred like Sue Barker and Sergei Brugera but they cannot be great until they win in "the cathedral of tennis" at wimbledon. Arancha Sanchez is known as an 'also-ran' of her time, same with Ivan Lendel. Only 1 or 2 players from each generation can be considered great and when it is obvious that in this generation we already have 2 players in Venus and Serena who have won at least as many grandslams as Henin and also dominated Wimbledon, Henin is left in the cold. Even Hingis has 1 Wimbledon. The French Open is good for claycourt specialists but even the greatest one of all Chris Evert skipped it many years because it was not important enough. She never skipped Wimbledon like that.

Kart
Aug 21st, 2007, 05:42 PM
She lost in the first week in 2004.

It's widely accepted she was sick/injured that year - as I'm sure you know.

Look, even clay court specialists can be rememberred like Sue Barker and Sergei Brugera but they cannot be great until they win in "the cathedral of tennis" at wimbledon. Arancha Sanchez is known as an 'also-ran' of her time, same with Ivan Lendel. Only 1 or 2 players from each generation can be considered great and when it is obvious that in this generation we already have 2 players in Venus and Serena who have won at least as many grandslams as Henin and also dominated Wimbledon, Henin is left in the cold. Even Hingis has 1 Wimbledon. The French Open is good for claycourt specialists but even the greatest one of all Chris Evert skipped it many years because it was not important enough. She never skipped Wimbledon like that.

Just remind me how many French open titles have Venus, Serena and Hingis between them ?

darice
Aug 21st, 2007, 05:46 PM
Just remind me how many French open titles have Venus, Serena and Hingis between them ?

:tape:

Donny
Aug 21st, 2007, 05:46 PM
It's widely accepted she was sick/injured that year - as I'm sure you know.



Just remind me how many French open titles have Venus, Serena and Hingis between them ?

I know she was sick that year, and she probably would have won it again had she been well. But that stil doesn't make what you said any more true.

Kart
Aug 21st, 2007, 05:49 PM
I know she was sick that year, and she probably would have won it again had she been well. But that stil doesn't make what you said any more true.

Your point being what exactly ?

Donny
Aug 21st, 2007, 05:56 PM
Your point being what exactly ?

You said something that was factually inaccurate. I was simply correcting you. I didn't really have a point.

Apoleb
Aug 21st, 2007, 05:58 PM
You said something that was factually inaccurate. I was simply correcting you. I didn't really have a point.

It isn't factually inaccurate that she has domianted the FO since 2003. 2004 was a year she was sick, so it doesn't count in the assessment.

Donny
Aug 21st, 2007, 06:02 PM
It isn't factually inaccurate that she has domianted the FO since 2003. 2004 was a year she was sick, so it doesn't count in the assessment.

I must have a different interpretation of what shutting out competition means.

Petersmiler
Aug 21st, 2007, 06:04 PM
I must have a different interpretation of what shutting out competition means.

So how about, 'Apart from the year she was ill with a terrible disease, she has dominated Roland Garros'?

Happy now?

Kart
Aug 21st, 2007, 06:06 PM
You said something that was factually inaccurate. I was simply correcting you. I didn't really have a point.

In that case, as I've not seen you correcting all factual inaccuracies on WTAworld I'm be honoured to be singled out I guess.

Though it's arguably completely irrelevant as I got my point across - acknowledged by your good self when you stated that Justine would probably have won in 2004 had she been fit - I thank you for reading my posts.

Donny
Aug 21st, 2007, 06:11 PM
So how about, 'Apart from the year she was ill with a terrible disease, she has dominated Roland Garros'?

Happy now?

She's dominated Roland garros even IF you include the year she was sick. Winning four of five is clearly domination.

Shutting out competition is on a whole other level from domination though.

JeremySun
Aug 21st, 2007, 06:42 PM
What defines a great player? I guess that's a tough question. I guess all tennis players are great. They work hard and they play hard. They entertain the crowd. There shouldn't be any "great" players. That's just unfair bias in my opinion. :)

maximus82
Aug 21st, 2007, 07:08 PM
Justine is a great player - Wimbledon or not. Just like Venus is a great player, despite not owning an AO or FO title. Neither Justine or Venus are in the Serena "super-great" category, because they haven't won all four and possess fewer total slam titles.

jellybelly
Aug 21st, 2007, 07:10 PM
Just remind me how many French open titles have Venus, Serena and Hingis between them ?

The point is it does not matter as they have won Wimbledon. You can be great without winning the French Open like Sampras, but you cannot be considered great (that is in the best one or two players of your generation) if others have as many slams as you AND you have never won Wimbledon.

Keaka
Aug 21st, 2007, 07:25 PM
She will.

thrust
Aug 21st, 2007, 08:33 PM
Jellybelly- Your hysterical obsessiion with Wimbledon is pathetic! To be a great clay court palyer takes just as much skill as being a great grass court player. Many would argue that clay takes more skill, as just clobbering the ball on clay usually doesn^t work against a very good or great clay court player. All Slams are of equal importance, whether you like it or not.

Kart
Aug 21st, 2007, 09:19 PM
The point is it does not matter as they have won Wimbledon.

That was your point, not mine.

No one intentionally skips the French open nowadays like they did in the years that Evert et al did.

The fact is that those top Wimbledon winners you mentioned just aren't any good on the clay.

Hardly a sign of greatness.

Meanwhile those clay court specialists you're referring to are competing for the bigger titles on all surfaces, even the grass courts.

all_slam_andre
Aug 21st, 2007, 09:28 PM
The point is it does not matter as they have won Wimbledon. You can be great without winning the French Open like Sampras, but you cannot be considered great (that is in the best one or two players of your generation) if others have as many slams as you AND you have never won Wimbledon.

That's not true at all. All 4 grand slams are equally important nowadays, and that's a fact. In the 70s/early 80s possibly Wimbledon was the biggest tournament in tennis, but currently it is no bigger than the other 3 grand slams. Despite Justine not having won the Wimbledon, she is slightly greater than Venus at the moment in time anyway, as she has won 3 out of the 4 grand slams while Venus has won 2 out of the 4, plus she has a better record at Wimbledon than Venus does at both the Australian or French Opens. Therefore Justine is the 2nd greatest player of this generation behind Serena, and not Venus who is in 3rd place.

Matt01
Aug 21st, 2007, 09:30 PM
That's not true at all. All 4 grand slams are equally important nowadays, and that's a fact. In the 70s/early 80s possibly Wimbledon was the biggest tournament in tennis, but currently it is no bigger than the other 3 grand slams. Despite Justine not having won the Wimbledon, she is slightly greater than Venus at the moment in time anyway, as she has won 3 out of the 4 grand slams while Venus has won 2 out of the 4, plus she has a better record at Wimbledon than Venus does at both the Australian or French Opens. Therefore Justine is the 2nd greatest player of this generation behind Serena, and not Venus who is in 3rd place.

I agree with everything :)

moon
Aug 21st, 2007, 10:19 PM
Wimbledon is the event of tennis. There is no other tournament that creates as much buzz and excitement worldwide. In the US the Open is big, to the clay courters RG is probably their favorite., etc in Australia. But..people who don't even like tennis start to talk about it during Wimbledon. All the slams are important, but Wimbledon is a cut above the rest.

all_slam_andre
Aug 21st, 2007, 10:56 PM
All the slams are important, but Wimbledon is a cut above the rest.

Nope. Wimbledon USED to be a cut above the rest, but the other 3 grand slams caught up with it years ago (the last being the Australian Open in 1988). No grand slam is any bigger or more important than the other 3 in this day and age.

Bruno71
Aug 21st, 2007, 11:03 PM
There is nothing inherently more challenging or "greater" about winning Wimbledon than the other 3 slams these days, as they are all populated with a draw that carries the same level of difficulty. Some players will have more difficulty winning certain ones than others, but that's neither here nor there.

There is, however, something "greater" about winning a career slam (and of course a grand slam). Justine is definitely great, but she could be greater.

jellybelly
Aug 21st, 2007, 11:48 PM
uh hello Tchakvatadze has won more Moscow tournaments than Hingis, Venus & Serena. Sometimes the Moscow draw can be as hard as an easy grandslam (like the ones Henin won while Serena and Venus were injured). Does that mean Tcak is better than the others? Of course not. Wimbledon = 1.2xotherslams. Actually I can say Wimbledon is 1.2x French and US Open is 1.1x French and Aussie is 0.9x French. Add it up and it is obvious that the true greats of the game are wimbledon winners.

all_slam_andre
Aug 22nd, 2007, 07:13 AM
uh hello Tchakvatadze has won more Moscow tournaments than Hingis, Venus & Serena. Sometimes the Moscow draw can be as hard as an easy grandslam (like the ones Henin won while Serena and Venus were injured). Does that mean Tcak is better than the others? Of course not. Wimbledon = 1.2xotherslams. Actually I can say Wimbledon is 1.2x French and US Open is 1.1x French and Aussie is 0.9x French. Add it up and it is obvious that the true greats of the game are wimbledon winners.

A laughably weak argument that has no basis to it. It amazes me how many people are foolish enough to the buy this whole outdated and silly argument that Wimbledon is on a seperate platform to other tournaments. All 4 grand slams have a draw of 128 players, and to win the title at any of them, a player needs to win 7 matches and 14 sets. 1 Australian Open Title = 1 French Open Title = 1 Wimbledon Title = 1 US Open Title. Learn it and live with it :)

Petersmiler
Aug 22nd, 2007, 07:19 AM
uh hello Tchakvatadze has won more Moscow tournaments than Hingis, Venus & Serena. Sometimes the Moscow draw can be as hard as an easy grandslam (like the ones Henin won while Serena and Venus were injured). Does that mean Tcak is better than the others? Of course not. Wimbledon = 1.2xotherslams. Actually I can say Wimbledon is 1.2x French and US Open is 1.1x French and Aussie is 0.9x French. Add it up and it is obvious that the true greats of the game are wimbledon winners.


You're hilarious.

Chrissie-fan
Aug 22nd, 2007, 08:12 AM
Nope. Wimbledon USED to be a cut above the rest, but the other 3 grand slams caught up with it years ago (the last being the Australian Open in 1988). No grand slam is any bigger or more important than the other 3 in this day and age.
And truth be told, although there was a clear ranking order in the past (1.Wimbledon 2.US 3.French 4.Australian) they have nevertheless been considered the four most important tournaments for a very, very, very long time. Ask a player from sixty years ago what the four majors were, and she/he would have mentionned those four and winning all of them has always been regarded as the ultimate achievement in tennis. Nobody ever won the grand slam by winning Wimbledon, The Italian, The Canadian and the German.

Miranda
Aug 22nd, 2007, 08:33 AM
ishe already is a great player, and she was closed to winnning it, its not that she always lost in first round, but that she got to the final twice :angel:

sheyna
Aug 22nd, 2007, 08:52 AM
uh hello Tchakvatadze has won more Moscow tournaments than Hingis, Venus & Serena. Sometimes the Moscow draw can be as hard as an easy grandslam (like the ones Henin won while Serena and Venus were injured). Does that mean Tcak is better than the others? Of course not. Wimbledon = 1.2xotherslams. Actually I can say Wimbledon is 1.2x French and US Open is 1.1x French and Aussie is 0.9x French. Add it up and it is obvious that the true greats of the game are wimbledon winners.

:haha: :haha: You are funny :D