PDA

View Full Version : Lindsay now the highest prize-money earner?


Steffica Greles
Nov 5th, 2007, 12:55 AM
One thing that might have been missed is that, unless I'm mistaken, Lindsay's career prize money haul will now have passed that of Steffi Graf, after her triumph in Quebec.

Obviously money isn't indicative of success, but it's a nice marker of how far Davenport has come, and a testament to her longevity.

It'll probably be only 12 months before Serena, or more likely Justine takes over at the top.

The Daviator
Nov 5th, 2007, 12:59 AM
She's still just under 50k short of Steffi's record.

Olórin
Nov 5th, 2007, 01:00 AM
It'll probably be only 12 months before Serena, or more likely Justine takes over at the top.

I'd say about 18/24 months. I don't think either will have passed Steffi or Lindsay by the end of next season.

darrinbaker00
Nov 5th, 2007, 01:21 AM
One thing that might have been missed is that, unless I'm mistaken, Lindsay's career prize money haul will now have passed that of Steffi Graf, after her triumph in Quebec.

Obviously money isn't indicative of success, but it's a nice marker of how far Davenport has come, and a testament to her longevity.

It'll probably be only 12 months before Serena, or more likely Justine takes over at the top.
How can money not be indicative of success when money is what they're playing for?

thrust
Nov 5th, 2007, 01:32 AM
53 tournament wins is more impressive. Even though tier 3 tournaments aren^t necessarily very impressive, the fact that she won them after giving birth, past 30, is very impressive! What a happy contrast to the Hingis situation.

Steffica Greles
Nov 5th, 2007, 01:33 AM
How can money not be indicative of success when money is what they're playing for?

Steffi Graf has 22 slams. Lindsay has 3.

Prize money increases rapidly, year on year. It's not necessarily an indication of standard, matches won, or titles. I think my point is fairly easy to see, so if you can't, then I'm wasting my time :)

Nonetheless, it's still a great marker of Lindsay's longevity, that she can earn more prize money than any other, at least for a time.

Steffica Greles
Nov 5th, 2007, 01:35 AM
I'd say about 18/24 months. I don't think either will have passed Steffi or Lindsay by the end of next season.

Yeah, maybe. Haven't both won just under 17 millions dollars? Lindsay's on almost 22 million. Perhaps another 18 months, because Justine won 4 million this season, has she not, and the YEC isn't even started.

Steffica Greles
Nov 5th, 2007, 01:39 AM
53 tournament wins is more impressive.

Is it? 45 or so of them, at a guess, are tier 2 or above.

53 titles is indeed impressive. But against Graf's 107, Evert's 157, or Navratilova's 167, it pales, whereas on the prize money rankings she is placed at the top. There are also several more women who have won more titles in the open era.

servenrichie
Nov 5th, 2007, 12:49 PM
Does anyone has a link to the career earnings. Have been looking for it and found only of the current year

Shepster
Nov 5th, 2007, 02:18 PM
How can money not be indicative of success when money is what they're playing for?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation

Olórin
Nov 5th, 2007, 02:21 PM
Does anyone has a link to the career earnings. Have been looking for it and found only of the current year

The WTA site is pretty good for money, have a look around in the stats section.

Olórin
Nov 5th, 2007, 02:22 PM
Yeah, maybe. Haven't both won just under 17 millions dollars? Lindsay's on almost 22 million. Perhaps another 18 months, because Justine won 4 million this season, has she not, and the YEC isn't even started.

Well if Justine wins 9/10 tournaments and another couple of slams next year sure. But I was just erring on the side of caution :p

Vlad Tepes
Nov 5th, 2007, 03:29 PM
Justine currently has 17,94 M and if she wins the YEC she'll be very close to 19 M. I'd say she has a good chance of taking over the top spot next year, even if she doesn't dominate that much.

Meelis
Nov 5th, 2007, 03:50 PM
Does anyone has a link to the career earnings. Have been looking for it and found only of the current year

http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/3/global/includes/TrackIt.asp?file=http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/global/pdfs/rankings/2007/all_career_prize_money.pdf

thrust
Nov 5th, 2007, 05:57 PM
Is it? 45 or so of them, at a guess, are tier 2 or above.

53 titles is indeed impressive. But against Graf's 107, Evert's 157, or Navratilova's 167, it pales, whereas on the prize money rankings she is placed at the top. There are also several more women who have won more titles in the open era.

She is tied with Seles at 53, Goolagong has 68,King has 67 + 37 pre Open Era, Wade has 55, Court has 92 Open Era and about 190 overall. Noone puts Lindsay in the same league with the top 5, but being in the top 10 is a great achievement. As I have said before women^s tournament wins before the Open Era should be counted as there was NO wonen^s pro tour before 1968.

Pheobo
Nov 5th, 2007, 06:31 PM
Obviously money isn't indicative of success

umm, what?

fufuqifuqishahah
Nov 5th, 2007, 06:42 PM
How can money not be indicative of success when money is what they're playing for?

:o

Pheobo
Nov 5th, 2007, 06:46 PM
Steffi Graf has 22 slams. Lindsay has 3.

Prize money increases rapidly, year on year. It's not necessarily an indication of standard, matches won, or titles. I think my point is fairly easy to see, so if you can't, then I'm wasting my time :)

Nonetheless, it's still a great marker of Lindsay's longevity, that she can earn more prize money than any other, at least for a time.

Sure, money isn't necessarily indicative of what kind of player they are/were, but it sure as hell is indicative of success.

If I won 22 million dollars as a tennis player I would say I had a pretty damn successful career, regardless of the amount of slams I had won.

missvarsha
Nov 5th, 2007, 07:12 PM
Well if you look at the all-time money winners list, you can see there is a very good correlation between the people at the top and success achieved in the sport. However, the fact that Davenport is ahead of Graf and Navratilova in that list should be taken with a grain of salt, since she is nowhere in the same orbit as those two in terms of Tennis achievements.

Prize money is what it is, an interesting statistic. But consider facts like clijsters getting $2.5 Million for her solitary USO title. Back in '91 when I first started watching tennis (eeek) Seles got 400,000 for her USO win. Does this mean that Clijsters title is worth 6x Seles ? Of course not.

gopher
Nov 15th, 2007, 11:49 AM
Comparing Graf, Seles, Navratilova directly to the current generation makes no sense. There was simply less fierce competition these days. Just look at the finals of those days and you will quickly realize. Both Graf and Seles were only briefly able to uphold their status at the entry of the Williams Sisters.

To go back to Court, King and Evert even makes less sense.