PDA

View Full Version : Who had the more dominant year: Hingis 2000 or Venus 2000?


Volcana
Nov 18th, 2007, 09:55 PM
Hingis won nine tournaments in 2000, including the YEC plus five Tier I's. Venus didn't even win ONE Tier I tournament in 2000. But she won two slams.

So who was more 'dominant'?

Olórin
Nov 18th, 2007, 10:04 PM
Well this an intelligent thread worth taking the time to respond to, and it poses a very interesting question.

It's a tricky one for sure. Even though Venus had that amazing winning streak in 2000 and won 2/3 slams AND the Olympics, as opposed to 2/4 in 2001; I've always felt 2001 was perhaps a more dominant and generally a better year from Venus.

And the question really is did Martina dominate at all in 2000? I don't think she did, but she was the most consistent player in the top three, so she does hold certain claims to 2000. She certainly had a lot of big successes of her own also. But even if Venus didn't dominate for all of 2000, only really 3 months or so in fact, I do think that she was by and large the player to beat that year even if she missed large parts of it. It was her year really.

A travesty she didn't get ITF World Champion :fiery:

Geisha
Nov 18th, 2007, 10:20 PM
It is definitely Venus. The advantage Hingis had was that she played the first four months, while Venus didn't. In that four months, Hingis won Hamburg, Tokyo and Miami, I believe. She didn't really capitalize too much on Venus' absence. When Venus came back, they were on equal playing grounds - Venus defeated Hingis and Davenport throughout the second half. Two Grand Slams and the Olympics, plus three other tournaments, is sensational for one half of a tennis season.

Nicolás89
Nov 18th, 2007, 10:36 PM
pathetic attempt to vanish hingis career.
venus had the most dominant year, obviously.

Kworb
Nov 18th, 2007, 10:40 PM
Overall dominance I would say Hingis

But Venus accomplished more

DimaDinosaur
Nov 18th, 2007, 11:01 PM
Go Venus!

Tennisstar86
Nov 18th, 2007, 11:13 PM
hrmmm... let me see..... Venus vs. Hingis in 2000 Head to head venus 2-0......

If comparing same year to see whose was more dominant.... look at that stat.... Hingis also had a losing record against Davneport And was 50/50 with Serena.... it clear who was more dominant...

Dave.
Nov 19th, 2007, 12:37 AM
I voted for Venus because she had that great streak in the summer. But I still think 2000 was Davenport-Hingis territory. They both held number 1 for the year and in the first half, played all the big finals, and finished as numbers 1 and 2. Venus did achieve the most with 3 major wins, but Davenport and Hingis dominated better throughout the whole year.

Sam L
Nov 19th, 2007, 01:13 AM
What were their winning percentages for the year?

G1Player2
Nov 19th, 2007, 01:14 AM
What were their winning percentages for the year?

Venus was 44-4 I believe and Hingis was 77-10.

Sam L
Nov 19th, 2007, 01:24 AM
Venus was 44-4 I believe and Hingis was 77-10.

Thanks. Clearly, it's Venus then. Like I said in the other thread, it's all about winning percentages.

GoDominique
Nov 19th, 2007, 01:33 AM
This is sooo last century. :zzz:

Polikarpov
Nov 19th, 2007, 03:09 AM
Venus was 44-4 I believe and Hingis was 77-10.

Actually it's 41-4 (WTA results + Olympics) or 35-4 (WTA results only)

This is sooo last century. :zzz:

Yes and it makes me feel so damn old!

I would have to say that Venus dominated the second half of 2000 while Hingis was the more consistent overall. Yes, Venus didn't play in the first four months of that year but that doesn't necessarily mean that if she did play, she would dominate it the way she did at the second half of the year.

I believe that the Wimbledon QF win against Hingis was the pivotal match in Venus' 2000 season. After that, there was no stopping Venus.

DaMamaJama87
Nov 19th, 2007, 03:17 AM
Thanks. Clearly, it's Venus then. Like I said in the other thread, it's all about winning percentages.

Nope, it's about slams. Winning percentages can be misleading. Which matches you win and which matches you lose is much more important than how many you win out of all your matches. Venus could have been 44-10 and lost 10 matches in lots of smaller tournaments but she would have still had the better year.

RJWCapriati
Nov 19th, 2007, 03:25 AM
I'd say Hingis w/ the YEC - the many other titles of the year/ Finals in Melbourne/SF in Paris and a good showing in New York.

evan2907
Nov 19th, 2007, 05:32 AM
Venus didin't play enough to call her year "domination". She had a period of 3 months. Venus had maybe a better year but not dominant. She had a 9-4 record during the 7 others months of the season. She hadn't a dominant year.
Hingis, in 20 tournaments, she won 9, went in the final 12, went in semi 18 times. Hingis had a more dominant overall year even if she didn't win any slam.

faboozadoo15
Nov 19th, 2007, 05:40 AM
Why are we comparing Venus's best year with Martina's 3rd/4th/5th?

Clearly Venus's 2 slams, winning percent, olympics, and win streak give her the ad here.

égalité
Nov 19th, 2007, 07:22 AM
So Hingis had 6 good weeks at big tournaments (not counting AO F and two other GS SF) and Venus had 4, basically. :shrug:

Sam L
Nov 19th, 2007, 07:59 AM
Why are we comparing Venus's best year with Martina's 3rd/4th/5th?

Look at who started the thread. :haha:

Sam L
Nov 19th, 2007, 08:01 AM
Nope, it's about slams. Winning percentages can be misleading. Which matches you win and which matches you lose is much more important than how many you win out of all your matches. Venus could have been 44-10 and lost 10 matches in lots of smaller tournaments but she would have still had the better year.

Better year doesn't mean more dominant year.

Steffi Graf had a better year in 1988 (it looks better) than 1989 but the latter was her more dominant year with a better winning percentage.

Renalicious
Nov 19th, 2007, 08:12 AM
Venus.

Juju4ever
Nov 19th, 2007, 08:40 AM
Venus, for sure. 2 slams+Olympics is huge. Plus the winning precentage...It's clearly Venus was the best player that year.

Kworb
Nov 19th, 2007, 08:46 AM
Venus, for sure. 2 slams+Olympics is huge. Plus the winning precentage...It's clearly Venus was the best player that year.
Obviously Venus was the best player, but the question is who was more dominant, who was present at the top throughout the entire year and won tons of matches? The answer is Hingis.

Juju4ever
Nov 19th, 2007, 08:50 AM
Obviously Venus was the best player, but the question is who was more dominant, who was present at the top throughout the entire year and won tons of matches? The answer is Hingis.

Well, I have my opinion, and obviously, you have yours. :)

faboozadoo15
Nov 19th, 2007, 08:57 AM
When it comes to tennis, dominance and slam wins go hand in hand.
Unless we're restricting it to WTA tour event domination, which excludes majors.

9 titles in a year is phenominal, but if none of them are majors, that's not dominance.

Lunaris
Nov 19th, 2007, 12:51 PM
Neither of them. Venus despite being successful at big tournaments didn't play enough to fit the criteria and Hingis while having a very good year wasn't good enough to be called dominant. If she won at least one or rather two majors I would consider it.

Matt01
Nov 19th, 2007, 01:00 PM
Neither of them. Venus despite being successful at big tournaments didn't play enough to fit the criteria and Hingis while having a very good year wasn't good enough to be called dominant. If she won at least one or rather two majors I would consider it.


I totally agree.

thrust
Nov 19th, 2007, 01:08 PM
I would say Venus. I am not a Slam freak, but winning two and the Olympics has to top no Salms and a bunch of tier 1 tournaments. Also, if Venus was 2-0 H-H against Martina, that is icing on the cake. The year belonged to Venus.

barmaid
Nov 19th, 2007, 01:30 PM
I would have to say that neither one had a "dominant year"...Venus had the most "prominent year" winning her two slams plus all the headlines therefore beating the best of the rest of the WTA field two times over.:hearts: While Hingis accomplished much more in the victory column, its always the "biggie's" that count in tennis. Look at Roger, some were questioning his game as he entered this ATP Year-end Championship but came out a resounding winner (and also captured 3 GS's) along the way! Total dominance!:worship:


barmaid:wavey:

chuvack
Nov 19th, 2007, 01:39 PM
Hingis.

If you would ask, "who had the better year" I would say Venus. But as phrased, the answer is Martina. She dominated the Tier 1s. Venus won 2 Slams and nothing else, she did not dominate the year.

hingis-seles
Nov 19th, 2007, 02:20 PM
Venus gets the nod, obviously. Simply put, she beat Hingis in both their encounters that year which more or less sealed the deal. If Hingis had won one of those matches (put away that overhead at the Open or been less passive at Wimbledon), this would've been a really interesting discussion.

Venus' win over Hingis at Wimbledon is what made her year. Martina was Venus' nemesis and biggest obstacle (someone she had always come up short against in the big matches), but finally, Venus overcame the huge hurdle in the form of Hingis, and unfortunately (for us Hingis fans), Hingis no longer owned property inside the head of Venus Williams.

williams.i.am
Nov 19th, 2007, 02:32 PM
coulda woulda shoulda :rolleyes:

Tennisstar86
Nov 19th, 2007, 02:57 PM
Hingis.

If you would ask, "who had the better year" I would say Venus. But as phrased, the answer is Martina. She dominated the Tier 1s. Venus won 2 Slams and nothing else, she did not dominate the year.

Venus also won the olympics and 3 Tier II's which generally have the same if not better competition that tier I's....

azinna
Nov 19th, 2007, 03:03 PM
I liked the prominent versus dominant answer at first, but checked and saw that Venus was pretty much out there on the tour from early May to late October. A lot of matches during the heart of the season; a lot of opportunities to get beaten (which she did) and to assert herself as the player to beat for the year.

Highlandman
Nov 19th, 2007, 03:04 PM
In 2000 it was Venus, especially after winning so many matches in a row. Too bad she played just 10 events in this year and started in May in the season, otherwise she probably became #1 already there.

égalité
Nov 19th, 2007, 03:37 PM
Why are we comparing Venus's best year with Martina's 3rd/4th/5th?

:haha:

Seriously. And even then, you can make an argument for both. :tape:

But I change my mind. I'll give the edge to Venus. I forgot about the Olympics when I first responded.