PDA

View Full Version : Serena did win! Now ahead of Seles


DaMamaJama87
Sep 7th, 2008, 06:56 PM
She will have 9 slams so now be clear of Seles and competing with Evert, Navratilova and Graf.

Where do you think she will fit?

Babygirl did it! :bounce: :worship:

Destiny
Sep 7th, 2008, 06:59 PM
Let's see her win first :yeah:

Miss Amor
Sep 7th, 2008, 07:00 PM
If she wins, Serena will lead the pack of the players with slams in single digits

serena
seles
venus
a random fulffy bear
justin. so on..

hingisGOAT
Sep 7th, 2008, 07:00 PM
Almost @ Hingis-level

Thanx4nothin
Sep 7th, 2008, 07:03 PM
Almost @ Hingis-level

When I saw you had replied here I predicted something just like that :p

Anywhooo ahead of Seles and chasing the leading pack as the others have said...

Miss Amor
Sep 7th, 2008, 07:04 PM
Almost @ Hingis-level

you are funny :worship:

Bijoux0021
Sep 7th, 2008, 07:07 PM
Almost @ Hingis-level
What level is that?

ElusiveChanteuse
Sep 7th, 2008, 07:12 PM
Still would put her lower than Seles but definitely is the best among her generation.:worship:

Miss Amor
Sep 7th, 2008, 07:13 PM
Still would put her lower than Seles but definitely is the best among her generation.:worship:

she is already there..

In The Zone
Sep 7th, 2008, 07:15 PM
I'll let you know around 10:30pm after I see her win the title, first.

Dodoboy.
Sep 7th, 2008, 07:15 PM
A bit MORE higher than Seles :shrug:

Nothing too drastic though.

Geisha
Sep 7th, 2008, 07:17 PM
Still would put her lower than Seles but definitely is the best among her generation.:worship:

:tape::tape::tape:

Seles could use a Wimbledon, and then we'll talk.

Vamos.
Sep 7th, 2008, 07:21 PM
She really has to win first. I am nervous and not too confident at all. :help:

DaMamaJama87
Sep 7th, 2008, 07:26 PM
Still would put her lower than Seles but definitely is the best among her generation.:worship:

Why? Serena is already competitive with Seles. Has a winning h2h, more variety of slams, 4 slams in a row, more time at number 1, more doubles and mixed slams, more olympic medals etc. etc. etc. If Serena were to win tonight it would be no contest about who is better.

SVU
Sep 7th, 2008, 07:32 PM
Why? Serena is already competitive with Seles. Has a winning h2h, more variety of slams, 4 slams in a row, more time at number 1, more doubles and mixed slams, more olympic medals etc. etc. etc. If Serena were to win tonight it would be no contest about who is better.

:weirdo:

So why ask in the first place? :confused:

homogenius
Sep 7th, 2008, 07:34 PM
Why? Serena is already competitive with Seles. Has a winning h2h, more variety of slams, 4 slams in a row, more time at number 1, more doubles and mixed slams, more olympic medals etc. etc. etc. If Serena were to win tonight it would be no contest about who is better.

no

Dodoboy.
Sep 7th, 2008, 07:36 PM
:weirdo:

So why ask in the first place? :confused:

Read the question he asked ;)

Geisha
Sep 7th, 2008, 07:41 PM
Why? Serena is already competitive with Seles. Has a winning h2h, more variety of slams, 4 slams in a row, more time at number 1, more doubles and mixed slams, more olympic medals etc. etc. etc. If Serena were to win tonight it would be no contest about who is better.

Agreed. But, Seles had more weeks at #1.

baleineau
Sep 7th, 2008, 07:42 PM
it puts her above seles, even if they are tied on 9 singles slams each. serena has them all. plus she has the exceptional doubles record, and the fact that she won a non-caledar year slam. obviously seles would most probably have at least some more singles slam titles had she not been stabbed. but who knows for sure. something like 5 or 6 more might have been reasonable. but she didn't....

Thanx4nothin
Sep 7th, 2008, 07:55 PM
Why? Serena is already competitive with Seles. Has a winning h2h, more variety of slams, 4 slams in a row, more time at number 1, more doubles and mixed slams, more olympic medals etc. etc. etc. If Serena were to win tonight it would be no contest about who is better.


I think most people still reserve judgement on Seles due to the fact that she was stabbed etc etc, which had a catastrophic influence on her career. In my opinion Serena is not a lock for this title so I'm not too enthused discussing this but, Serena > Seles as a tennis player.

SoClose
Sep 7th, 2008, 07:57 PM
#1 in tennis history

Shvedbarilescu
Sep 7th, 2008, 08:04 PM
Err...with all due respect, exactly how would tying Monica Seles with nine Grand Slams put Serena Williams ahead of Monica Seles all time? Seles would still lead Williams in weeks ranked at number one by 178 weeks to 57 weeks. Seles would still lead Williams by 53 tournaments won compared to 32 tournaments won for Williams. Seles would still have competed in more Grand Slam finals (13 vs 12) than Williams and more Grand Slam semi finals as well (18 vs 14). Seles would have finished ranked in the top 10 for 13 years as opposed to 8 years for Williams.

Yes, in defense of Serena Williams one can of course mention that Williams has won all four Slams, and has a superior record in doubles. The H2H record would hardly be relevant however as the two were playing each other during very different parts of their careers.

In short one can make an argument that with a win tonight Serena Williams would pass Monica Seles in the alltime best career list but one can make just as strong, if not a stronger argument that she won't......at least not yet. The way Serena Williams is playing right now, it probably will be just a matter of time before she has overtaken Seles beyond any question or debate. But she hasn't yet.

Dodoboy.
Sep 7th, 2008, 08:10 PM
She has all 4 :shrug:

Shvedbarilescu
Sep 7th, 2008, 08:16 PM
She has all 4 :shrug:

And that is worth more than 120 addition weeks at number 1, more than 20 additional tournaments won and five more years in the top 10? :shrug:

DaMamaJama87
Sep 7th, 2008, 08:17 PM
Err...with all due respect, exactly how would tying Monica Seles with nine Grand Slams put Serena Williams ahead of Monica Seles all time? Seles would still lead Williams in weeks ranked at number one by 178 weeks to 57 weeks. Seles would still lead Williams by 53 tournaments won compared to 32 tournaments won for Williams. Seles would still have competed in more Grand Slam finals (13 vs 12) than Williams and more Grand Slam semi finals as well (18 vs 14). Seles would have finished ranked in the top 10 for 13 years as opposed to 8 years for Williams.


Sorry about the mistake on the weeks at number one. Other than that all the "measures" you bring up are largely irreelevant. 4 straight slams, olympic medals, doubles slams and career slam easily trump total titles or more semifinals and finals (really who pays attention to total semifinals :tape: ). It's about as useful as saying Seles probably spent more total time on a tennis court or had more pairs of tennis shoes :lol:


Yes, in defense of Serena Williams one can of course mention that Williams has won all four Slams, and has a superior record in doubles. The H2H record would hardly be relevant however as the two were playing each other during very different parts of their careers.

In short one can make an argument that with a win tonight Serena Williams would pass Monica Seles in the alltime best career list but one can make just as strong, if not a stronger argument that she won't......at least not yet. The way Serena Williams is playing right now, it probably will be just a matter of time before she has overtaken Seles beyond any question or debate. But she hasn't yet.

Not really. The argument for Seles is very weak right now. It's not as even as you seem to want to make it look. Serena will be clearly ahead if she wins tonight.

Dodoboy.
Sep 7th, 2008, 08:17 PM
Yes.

Wtrain
Sep 7th, 2008, 08:21 PM
And that is worth more than 120 addition weeks at number 1, more than 20 additional tournaments won and five more years in the top 10? :shrug:

Honestly... yes

Shvedbarilescu
Sep 7th, 2008, 08:32 PM
Sorry about the mistake on the weeks at number one. Other than that all the "measures" you bring up are largely irreelevant. 4 straight slams, olympic medals, doubles slams and career slam easily trump total titles or more semifinals and finals (really who pays attention to total semifinals :tape: ). It's about as useful as saying Seles probably spent more total time on a tennis court or had more pairs of tennis shoes :lol:



Not really. The argument for Seles is very weak right now. It's not as even as you seem to want to make it look. Serena will be clearly ahead if she wins tonight.

I wonder if non-biased neutral tennis fans will see things the same as you. :shrug:

Sammm
Sep 7th, 2008, 08:34 PM
She will have 9 slams so now be clear of Seles and competing with Evert, Navratilova and Graf.

Where do you think she will fit?


She's not going to get anywhere near Evert and Navratilova on 18 slams or Graf on 22. I guess the next she has to aim for is King.

And the whole Seles v Serena debate...

Chris, nice stats :worship: Monica also had a year where she got to the final of every tournament she played...92, I think, quite impressive. If Serena gets this slam then she's above Monica; if not then Monica's still ahead because of her wins in slams AND tournament wins, which imo outweighs doubles achievements.

Miss Amor
Sep 7th, 2008, 08:34 PM
I wonder if non-biased neutral tennis fans will see things the same as you. :shrug:

There is no such thing

Kworb
Sep 7th, 2008, 08:37 PM
She would finally pass Henin and Hingis, but not yet Seles.

DaMamaJama87
Sep 7th, 2008, 08:37 PM
I wonder if non-biased neutral tennis fans will see things the same as you. :shrug:

Coming from a poster who has Monica Seles in his avatar :tape: :lol:

stevos
Sep 7th, 2008, 08:39 PM
I wonder if non-biased neutral tennis fans will see things the same as you. :shrug:

I'm not sure you're completely unbiased.
Not saying I don't like your points, but we all have our bents.

I would put winning all four slams, and winning them all in a row, ahead of tournament wins and weeks at #1, yes.

Miss Amor
Sep 7th, 2008, 08:40 PM
She would finally pass Henin and Hingis, but not yet Seles.

another funny guy

stevos
Sep 7th, 2008, 08:40 PM
Coming from a poster who has Monica Seles in his avatar :tape: :lol:

...don't think that's Seles.

DaMamaJama87
Sep 7th, 2008, 08:41 PM
She's not going to get anywhere near Evert and Navratilova on 18 slams or Graf on 22. I guess the next she has to aim for is King.

And the whole Seles v Serena debate...

Chris, nice stats :worship: Monica also had a year where she got to the final of every tournament she played...92, I think, quite impressive. If Serena gets this slam then she's above Monica; if not then Monica's still ahead because of her wins in slams AND tournament wins, which imo outweighs doubles achievements.

This really reeks of grasping at straws. I could bring up that Serena took less time to win a slam after starting her career than Seles but it would be obvious that those things are not as important as total slams or the career slam. Sorry, Seles needs to come back and win Wimbledon if she wants to be competitive with Serena if Serena wins tonight. I'm sure she's happy in retirement so you Seles fans need to get over it.

BuTtErFrEnA
Sep 7th, 2008, 08:42 PM
i'd rather have all the slams than more weeks at #1...i'm sure lindsay would trade some of the weeks she spent at #1 for all the GS wins....jh might trade in some of those weeks for a wimbledon....by the logic that more weeks at #1 means you are better, would mean lindsay trumps serena simply because she spent a longer time there...the problem i see in that is that suppose you get a player like jj who never wins a slam but is a continous bridesmaid (not saying she will) and is #1 for a very long time because of her consistency, while those who win the big ones like masha have periods of big slam wins and sporadic losses, jj becomes #1 on consistency yet wins nothing and masha wins the big ones but nothing else....masha ends up with lets say 7 slams while jj has none.....jj has more weeks at #1 than masha...who is better??

Sammm
Sep 7th, 2008, 08:46 PM
This really reeks of grasping at straws. I could bring up that Serena took less time to win a slam after starting her career than Seles but it would be obvious that those things are not as important as total slams or the career slam. Sorry, Seles needs to come back and win Wimbledon if she wants to be competitive with Serena if Serena wins tonight. I'm sure she's happy in retirement so you Seles fans need to get over it.

:lol: I'm grasping at straws? You're accusing Chris of bias towards Seles because he has a Seles avatar and it's not even her :haha: :haha:

Anyway, for me the number of slams is the most important factor; when Monica and Serena are equal in slams - which will happen very soon, I'm sure- then I will consider Serena "greater" because she also has the full house.

I mentioned the 1992 stat because I thought it was interesting and Chris might not know about it. :sad:

SVU
Sep 7th, 2008, 08:48 PM
more time at number 1

:spit: :tape::tape:

homogenius
Sep 7th, 2008, 08:49 PM
i'd rather have all the slams than more weeks at #1...i'm sure lindsay would trade some of the weeks she spent at #1 for all the GS wins....jh might trade in some of those weeks for a wimbledon....by the logic that more weeks at #1 means you are better, would mean lindsay trumps serena simply because she spent a longer time there...the problem i see in that is that suppose you get a player like jj who never wins a slam but is a continous bridesmaid (not saying she will) and is #1 for a very long time because of her consistency, while those who win the big ones like masha have periods of big slam wins and sporadic losses, jj becomes #1 on consistency yet wins nothing and masha wins the big ones but nothing else....masha ends up with lets say 7 slams while jj has none.....jj has more weeks at #1 than masha...who is better??

The difference is that Monica hadn't "won nothing" in her career.If Serena wins tonight they'll be tied in slams's titles and Seles still leads in weeks at n°1, wins at YEC, consistency + the rivalry with Graf etc...

AcesHigh
Sep 7th, 2008, 08:53 PM
Seles>>Serena even if she wins tonight. Sorry, but it's just true. Seles had RIDICULOUS stats that Serena has never even come near. Just b/c she has one RG title (and 0 other finals btw) puts her above Seles who already has an asterisk b/c she was stabbed in her prime? No, it doesnt. IMHO, Serena needs 11 slams before she's clear of Seles unless she can win Roland Garros again.

SVU
Sep 7th, 2008, 08:54 PM
Coming from a poster who has Monica Seles in his avatar :tape: :lol:

:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:

Oh stop it ............ purleeeeeeeeeze!!!!!!!!!!!!! :help:

You are hysterical, you really are. How long have you been into tennis? :lol::tape:

AcesHigh
Sep 7th, 2008, 08:54 PM
Btw, Seles never really even got a chance to win Wimbledon, she only played there..what.. 3 times before getting stabbed? I'll have to look up the stats. And in her 3rd or 4th appearance, she made the final.

homogenius
Sep 7th, 2008, 08:56 PM
Coming from a poster who has Monica Seles in his avatar :tape: :lol:

:o

Shvedbarilescu
Sep 7th, 2008, 08:58 PM
Coming from a poster who has Monica Seles in his avatar :tape: :lol:

Err....I'm sorry, but for your own sake try not to make yourself look anymore foolish than you do already. That is Yaroslava Shvedova in my avatar. I'm not sure you would have heard of her but she is a tennis player too.

Olórin
Sep 7th, 2008, 08:59 PM
Seles>>Serena even if she wins tonight. Sorry, but it's just true. Seles had RIDICULOUS stats that Serena has never even come near. Just b/c she has one RG title (and 0 other finals btw) puts her above Seles who already has an asterisk b/c she was stabbed in her prime? No, it doesnt. IMHO, Serena needs 11 slams before she's clear of Seles unless she can win Roland Garros again.

Greatness is determined by acts of greatness not by stats. (My quote of the day :p )

But I agree inasmuch as I think it's debatable. What bumps Seles above Serena even if she wins tonight is that she dominated for longer. That and nothing else. I would say the Serena Slam puts Serena ahead, but Seles did go undefeated at Grand Slams in 1991, she just didn't have the fortune to win the big W instead of one of those Australian Titles.

And yes like it or not, not having the big W does hurt Seles in greatness debates, regardless of the stabbing asterik.

SoClose
Sep 7th, 2008, 09:00 PM
serena/venus>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Navratilova/Graf/Davenport>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Henin/sels ..............

Miss Amor
Sep 7th, 2008, 09:01 PM
:confused:

BuTtErFrEnA
Sep 7th, 2008, 09:01 PM
serena has never played a lot of tournies...she was never gonna get those sort of numbers...if you base seles on what she played you have to base serena on what she played :shrug: and still....all 4 slams and 4 in a row >>> seles imo :shrug:

G1Player2
Sep 7th, 2008, 09:01 PM
Seles>>Serena even if she wins tonight. Sorry, but it's just true. Seles had RIDICULOUS stats that Serena has never even come near. Just b/c she has one RG title (and 0 other finals btw) puts her above Seles who already has an asterisk b/c she was stabbed in her prime? No, it doesnt. IMHO, Serena needs 11 slams before she's clear of Seles unless she can win Roland Garros again.


What a load of crock. If Serena wins tonight, she surpasses Seles. Sorry. Serena won all 4 slams in a row and has won Wimbledon twice. Seles never won WImbledon, tennis biggest achievment, so therefore, she is immediately out of the running considering they'd both be at 9 majors each. And, what is your criteria based on Serena needing to win at least 11 slams to surpass Seles? If she wins tonight, she has. Serena winning all 4 slams in a row, having a career slam, surpasses Seles's 9 slams WITHOUT the lucrative Wimbledon title.

Thanx4nothin
Sep 7th, 2008, 09:03 PM
The reality is that Serena won all 4 slams and Seles didn't, that is the deal breaker here for the majority...

Miss Amor
Sep 7th, 2008, 09:03 PM
C'mon guys decide faster, Serena will call me anytime, I need to tell her if she can overtake seles or not, if she cant overtake she is going to let jj have her first gs

SoClose
Sep 7th, 2008, 09:03 PM
f.....n Seles s fans

Dodoboy.
Sep 7th, 2008, 09:06 PM
Greatness is determined by acts of greatness not by stats. (My quote of the day :p )

But I agree inasmuch as I think it's debatable. What bumps Seles above Serena even if she wins tonight is that she dominated for longer. That and nothing else. I would say the Serena Slam puts Serena ahead, but Seles did go undefeated at Grand Slams in 1991, she just didn't have the fortune to win the big W instead of one of those Australian Titles.

And yes like it or not, not having the big W does hurt Seles in greatness debates, regardless of the stabbing asterik.

4 in a row!

I mean come on. Does it get any better than that?

Maybe 5 in a row :p

Sammm
Sep 7th, 2008, 09:07 PM
Greatness is determined by acts of greatness not by stats. (My quote of the day :p )

But I agree inasmuch as I think it's debatable. What bumps Seles above Serena even if she wins tonight is that she dominated for longer. That and nothing else.


Well, if it's about acts of greatness then Seles is probably the greatest ever... coming back after two years and getting to a slam final and then winning one... wow. That's great. Learning from her ordeal, becoming a better person - that's an act of greatness. :worship:

Okay, I'm getting soppy now. But to all the serena fans (Not you serena~lover) who are acting like the consecutive years where Monica was winning 8/9/ 10 tournaments are nothing :help:


Sorry to contradict myself, but, Aces High? Have you been at the sherry tonight? :hug: Please elaborate why Serena need to win 11 slams to pass Monica :confused:

SoClose
Sep 7th, 2008, 09:09 PM
S.Williams leads 4-1
Rnk/Seed Year Event Surface Rnd Winner Score
1997 CHICAGO CARPET (I) Q S. WILLIAMS 4-6 6-1 6-1
1999 MIAMI HARD (O) R16 S. WILLIAMS 6-2 6-3
1999 US OPEN HARD (O) Q S. WILLIAMS 4-6 6-3 6-2
2001 LOS ANGELES HARD (O) Q M. SELES 6-2 3-6 7-6(2)
2001 TORONTO HARD (O) S S. WILLIAMS 7-5 7-6(5)

:lol:

AcesHigh
Sep 7th, 2008, 09:11 PM
Serena was the best player in the world for about a year. Around 365 days if that much. She won 5 of 6slams

Seles has about 3 times as many weeks at #1, about twice as many titles, MUCH harder competition, dominated for longer, had a perfect record at AO until 1999!!! Has three times as many YEC titles, won 3 consecutive AO's, 3 consecutive RG's, 2 consecutive USO's.

From jan 1991 until her stabbing, she had a winning percentage of around 93%(159-12 w/l). She accomplished in 4 years, what it has taken Serena 11 years to accomplish.

EDIT: she also reached 8 straight slam finals winning 7 including winning 5 contested slams in a row(she skipped Wimby in 1991).

Dodoboy.
Sep 7th, 2008, 09:13 PM
but what Serena accomplished in those 11 years is more than what Seles accomplished.

With all those great stats and amazing w/l she still couldn't do 4 in a row.

That's just how special that act is.

rolandg
Sep 7th, 2008, 09:14 PM
I still think Seles would be higher. It's more impressive to beat Graf, Navratilova and Sanchez Vicario to win slams then it is to beat Venus Williams, Maria Sharopova and Jelena Jankovic.

AcesHigh
Sep 7th, 2008, 09:15 PM
but what Serena accomplished in those 11 years is more than what Seles accomplished.

With all those great stats and amazing w/l she still couldn't do 4 in a row.

That's just how special that act is.

:lol: So all of that is thrown out the window just because of 4 in a row? Sorry, but that is ridiculous.

homogenius
Sep 7th, 2008, 09:15 PM
4 in a row!

I mean come on. Does it get any better than that?

Maybe 5 in a row :p

Between FO 90 and AO 93 Seles won 8 out of 12 slams (7 out of 9 and a final at Wimbledon between AO91 and AO93) + 3YEC.Even if having all 4 slams is really a great achievement, Seles achievements during this area are way more impressive than the year of Serena's domination in 02-03 (especially when Seles had to take it from Graf) imo.

rolandg
Sep 7th, 2008, 09:18 PM
but what Serena accomplished in those 11 years is more than what Seles accomplished.

With all those great stats and amazing w/l she still couldn't do 4 in a row.

That's just how special that act is.

Weaker era. Serena had no great grass court specialists or clay court specialists to beat. Venus is great, but she is no way near a Nav or Graf on grass, and she didn't have to beat any great clay courters to win RG.

Just my opinion though. I always put the older lot over the younger lot because the tennis was better. It may be harder to get to slam finals now, but it was much, much harder to win the semis and finals in those days.

Olórin
Sep 7th, 2008, 09:19 PM
Between FO 90 and AO 93 Seles won 8 out of 12 slams (7 out of 9 and a final at Wimbledon between AO91 and AO93) + 3YEC.Even if having all 4 slams is really a great achievement, Seles achievements during this area are way more impressive than the year of Serena's domination in 02-03 (especially when Seles had to take it from Graf) imo.

She didn't have take it from Graf. She didn't beat Steffi in a single slam when she started dominating in 1991. Graf wasn't dominating anymore when Seles started her domination. The whole magic switch over thing is a myth.

SoClose
Sep 7th, 2008, 09:20 PM
MIXED DOUBLES
Winner (2): 1998 - Wimbledon, US Open (both w/Mirnyi).
Finalist (2): 1999 - Australian Open (w/Mirnyi); 1998 - Roland Garros (w/Lobo

DOUBLES
Winner (13): 2008 - Wimbledon, Olympics (both w/V.Williams); 2003 - Australian Open (w/V.Williams); 2002 - Wimbledon (w/V.Williams), Leipzig (w/Stevenson); 2001 - Australian Open (w/V.Williams); 2000 - Wimbledon, Olympics (both w/V.Williams); 1999 - Hannover, Roland Garros, US Open (all w/V.Williams); 1998 - Oklahoma City, Zürich (both w/V.Williams).
Finalist (1): 1999 - San Diego (w/V.Williams).

Sammm
Sep 7th, 2008, 09:23 PM
MIXED DOUBLES
Winner (2): 1998 - Wimbledon, US Open (both w/Mirnyi).
Finalist (2): 1999 - Australian Open (w/Mirnyi); 1998 - Roland Garros (w/Lobo

DOUBLES
Winner (13): 2008 - Wimbledon, Olympics (both w/V.Williams); 2003 - Australian Open (w/V.Williams); 2002 - Wimbledon (w/V.Williams), Leipzig (w/Stevenson); 2001 - Australian Open (w/V.Williams); 2000 - Wimbledon, Olympics (both w/V.Williams); 1999 - Hannover, Roland Garros, US Open (all w/V.Williams); 1998 - Oklahoma City, Zürich (both w/V.Williams).
Finalist (1): 1999 - San Diego (w/V.Williams).

What's the point of stats copied and pasted from the wta tour website without any analysis? :shrug:

AcesHigh
Sep 7th, 2008, 09:24 PM
She didn't have take it from Graf. She didn't beat Steffi in a single slam when she started dominating in 1991. Graf wasn't dominating anymore when Seles started her domination. The whole magic switch over thing is a myth.

But she beat her in '90 and '92 and '93. It's not as if Steffi fell off the face of the Earth.

paranr
Sep 7th, 2008, 09:24 PM
Sorry about the mistake on the weeks at number one. Other than that all the "measures" you bring up are largely irreelevant. 4 straight slams, olympic medals, doubles slams and career slam easily trump total titles or more semifinals and finals (really who pays attention to total semifinals :tape: ). It's about as useful as saying Seles probably spent more total time on a tennis court or had more pairs of tennis shoes :lol:



Not really. The argument for Seles is very weak right now. It's not as even as you seem to want to make it look. Serena will be clearly ahead if she wins tonight.

well, I'm sorry but in my opinion Seles stabbing has surrey cost her at list 3 grand-slams by minimum of the minimums, so until Serena reaches 12 G-S there is absolutelly no contest. :angel:s

Dave.
Sep 7th, 2008, 09:30 PM
No way will she be greater than Seles in singles. Still a long way to go.

G1Player2
Sep 7th, 2008, 09:32 PM
Serena was the best player in the world for about a year. Around 365 days if that much. She won 5 of 6slams

Seles has about 3 times as many weeks at #1, about twice as many titles, MUCH harder competition, dominated for longer, had a perfect record at AO until 1999!!! Has three times as many YEC titles, won 3 consecutive AO's, 3 consecutive RG's, 2 consecutive USO's.

From jan 1991 until her stabbing, she had a winning percentage of around 93%(159-12 w/l). She accomplished in 4 years, what it has taken Serena 11 years to accomplish.

EDIT: she also reached 8 straight slam finals winning 7 including winning 5 contested slams in a row(she skipped Wimby in 1991).


This is another REALLY bad argument. The thing about being known as a tennis great is consistency and longevity. We've seen players like Martina Hingis, Kim Clijsters, Maureen Connoly, and Justine Henin-Hardenne all have brief moment of dominance. In fact, we use to believe these players would dominate for years to come. Whether it be due to injury, drug allegations, loss of interest, the fact remains that while they were good at the time, and showed some dominance, they left the sport for whatever reason.

Serena won her first slam in 1999. She is on course to winning another won in 2008. Sure, she has had lots of injuries and surgeries during those years, but if that doesn't indiacte a career of longevity and somewhat consistency, then I don't know what is. Chris Evert won 18 slams throughout her long career. She played on the pro tour for 20 years. That's an average of barely less than 1 slam per year. That's about on par with Serena now if we look at things that way, and Evert didn't have nearly the amount of years left from the tour due to surgeries and injuries. I am not going to argue that Serena will play as long as Evert or have her success, but I digress.

Now, that Serena is fit and healthy, she can more than make up for that deficit if she stays committed. The fact that Monica Seles accomplished more in 4 years than Serena did in 11 years is a terrible argument since tennis historians alike look at the longevity of someone's career. Seles, Henin, and Hingis won a bucket full of slams in a 3-4 year period and then burnt out although Seles situation is completely different and I sympathize. Serena is still on tour, still fit and healthy, and still contending for slams and arguably still the best player on tour.

The fact remains that this is saying something with all the injuries Serena has had to come back and still get near the top of tennis. She had knee surgery and a surgically repaired knee is never the same again and she has to work twice as hard with her movement as she did before. She could have easily thrown in the towel like others have. Anyway you slice it, no matter what Seles did in her brief period of dominance, the fact that she won her first slam in 1999 and is still contending for slams in 2008 and even in 2009 if she stays at this level, speaks volumes.

Olórin
Sep 7th, 2008, 09:35 PM
Weaker era. Serena had no great grass court specialists or clay court specialists to beat. Venus is great, but she is no way near a Nav or Graf on grass, and she didn't have to beat any great clay courters to win RG.

Just my opinion though. I always put the older lot over the younger lot because the tennis was better. It may be harder to get to slam finals now, but it was much, much harder to win the semis and finals in those days.

Are you for real?

1999-2003? were the most competitive, and hardest to win GS semis we've ever seen. I even read a translation from Steffi once, from a German book called Grand Slam where she said that she didn't think anyone else would do the Grand Slam again, because tennis is a lot tougher in the "modern era" as she called it. She said it was a good thing for women's tennis.

I normally try to be a bit more respectful of people's opinions. But you are just plain wrong in calling it a weaker era.

If you wanna go into beating grass court specialists, apart from her first two Wimbledons Graf only had to beat the two GOAT chokers and clay court specialists for her Wimbledons.

It was simply, and in no way, a weaker era. Nav wasn't playing her best tennis, or near it by the late 80's; beating a 21 year old Venus is slightly more impressive, than a thirty year old Navratilova imo. It's also a bit ridiculous of you to say Venus is no Graf on grass when she is a very doable two titles away from equalling her record there, that really stretches your credibility. The other thing that makes you look a bit silly is when you say Serena didn't have to beat any claycourters to win RG, she had to beat Mary Pierce and Capriati to win it, the two previous RG champions.

You've admitted your bias, and I think mine is evident too. In some ways I love the older matches as much as Rena vs. JCap, but let's not let nostalgia blind us. Steffi and the Seven Dwarves was by no means some golden era of perfect tennis. That was in the 70's with Chrissie, Ginnie, and Evonne :drool:

AcesHigh
Sep 7th, 2008, 09:37 PM
This is another REALLY bad argument. The thing about being known as a tennis great is consistency and longevity. We've seen players like Martina Hingis, Kim Clijsters, Maureen Connoly, and Justine Henin-Hardenne all have brief moment of dominance. In fact, we use to believe these players would dominate for years to come. Whether it be due to injury, drug allegations, loss of interest, the fact remains that while they were good at the time, and showed some dominance, they left the sport for whatever reason.

Serena won her first slam in 1999. She is on course to winning another won in 2008. Sure, she has had lots of injuries and surgeries during those years, but if that doesn't indiacte a career of longevity and somewhat consistency, then I don't know what is. Chris Evert won 18 slams throughout her long career. She played on the pro tour for 20 years. That's an average of barely less than 1 slam per year. That's about on par with Serena now if we look at things that way, and Evert didn't have nearly the amount of years left from the tour due to surgeries and injuries. I am not going to argue that Serena will play as long as Evert or have her success, but I digress.

Now, that Serena is fit and healthy, she can more than make up for that deficit if she stays committed. The fact that Monica Seles accomplished more in 4 years than Serena did in 11 years is a terrible argument since tennis historians alike look at the longevity of someone's career. Seles, Henin, and Hingis won a bucket full of slams in a 3-4 year period and then burnt out although Seles situation is completely different and I sympathize. Serena is still on tour, still fit and healthy, and still contending for slams and arguably still the best player on tour.

The fact remains that this is saying something with all the injuries Serena has had to come back and still get near the top of tennis. She had knee surgery and a surgically repaired knee is never the same again and she has to work twice as hard with her movement as she did before. She could have easily thrown in the towel like others have. Anyway you slice it, no matter what Seles did in her brief period of dominance, the fact that she won her first slam in 1999 and is still contending for slams in 2008 and even in 2009 if she stays at this level, speaks volumes.

Consistency is good if it's CONSISTENT GREATNESS. Something Serena doesnt have. She was only the best player for one year.. one year. 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002-pre Wimbledon, 2003-post Wimbledon, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008.. all of these years Serena has not been the best player.

If anything, what's taken her so long? She hasn't had to compete against Graf, Nav, ASV, etc.. and she wasn't stabbed. A lack of dedication and lack of fitness are a large part of why she hasn't pass Seles already and losing to Jankovic, Srebotnik, etc. are not helping her in this argument.

The ONLY thing that stopped Seles was her stabbing.. that's why she's a special case. Serena had knee surgery but everyone has injuries and surgeries.. it's not a good enough excuse.

Olórin
Sep 7th, 2008, 09:38 PM
But she beat her in '90 and '92 and '93. It's not as if Steffi fell off the face of the Earth.

Did I say she just left. Point is she didn't start dominating her in some dramatic switch over and re-coronation. It was a slow and gradaual transition. Seles came and laid down double flank power tennis in a tour that no-one was dominating.

rolandg
Sep 7th, 2008, 09:39 PM
This is another REALLY bad argument. The thing about being known as a tennis great is consistency and longevity. We've seen players like Martina Hingis, Kim Clijsters, Maureen Connoly, and Justine Henin-Hardenne all have brief moment of dominance. In fact, we use to believe these players would dominate for years to come. Whether it be due to injury, drug allegations, loss of interest, the fact remains that while they were good at the time, and showed some dominance, they left the sport for whatever reason.

Serena won her first slam in 1999. She is on course to winning another won in 2008. Sure, she has had lots of injuries and surgeries during those years, but if that doesn't indiacte a career of longevity and somewhat consistency, then I don't know what is. Chris Evert won 18 slams throughout her long career. She played on the pro tour for 20 years. That's an average of barely less than 1 slam per year. That's about on par with Serena now if we look at things that way, and Evert didn't have nearly the amount of years left from the tour due to surgeries and injuries. I am not going to argue that Serena will play as long as Evert or have her success, but I digress.

Now, that Serena is fit and healthy, she can more than make up for that deficit if she stays committed. The fact that Monica Seles accomplished more in 4 years than Serena did in 11 years is a terrible argument since tennis historians alike look at the longevity of someone's career. Seles, Henin, and Hingis won a bucket full of slams in a 3-4 year period and then burnt out although Seles situation is completely different and I sympathize. Serena is still on tour, still fit and healthy, and still contending for slams and arguably still the best player on tour.

The fact remains that this is saying something with all the injuries Serena has had to come back and still get near the top of tennis. She had knee surgery and a surgically repaired knee is never the same again and she has to work twice as hard with her movement as she did before. She could have easily thrown in the towel like others have. Anyway you slice it, no matter what Seles did in her brief period of dominance, the fact that she won her first slam in 1999 and is still contending for slams in 2008 and even in 2009 if she stays at this level, speaks volumes.

The only thing it speaks volumes about is how godawful womens tennis is now. Serena can only win slams now because there is no one around that is any good. At her best in 2002, she was unbelievable, phenomenal, perhaps the greatest of all time, but she can win slams as an overweight shadow of her former self simply because she is playing in a field that is the worst in tennis history.

G1Player2
Sep 7th, 2008, 09:39 PM
Weaker era. Serena had no great grass court specialists or clay court specialists to beat. Venus is great, but she is no way near a Nav or Graf on grass, and she didn't have to beat any great clay courters to win RG.

Just my opinion though. I always put the older lot over the younger lot because the tennis was better. It may be harder to get to slam finals now, but it was much, much harder to win the semis and finals in those days.

Weaker era? :lol: :weirdo: The era from about 1999-2003 was some of the best year's in women's tennis history. Everyone knows this.

G1Player2
Sep 7th, 2008, 09:42 PM
The only thing it speaks volumes about is how godawful womens tennis is now. Serena can only win slams now because there is no one around that is any good. At her best in 2002, she was unbelievable, phenomenal, perhaps the greatest of all time, but she can win slams as an overweight shadow of her former self simply because she is playing in a field that is the worst in tennis history.

Okay, there's nobody good enough around to keep Serena from winning slams? Are you saying this because Henin is gone? :rolleyes:

homogenius
Sep 7th, 2008, 09:42 PM
She didn't have take it from Graf. She didn't beat Steffi in a single slam when she started dominating in 1991. Graf wasn't dominating anymore when Seles started her domination. The whole magic switch over thing is a myth.

Yes, what I was thinking ?Graf wasn't even playing in the same area than Seles.
What about the point in my post : which period of dominance was the most impressive ?

Kenny
Sep 7th, 2008, 09:43 PM
What level is that?
Druggie level, i guess. LOL

Sammm
Sep 7th, 2008, 09:43 PM
The only thing it speaks volumes about is how godawful womens tennis is now. Serena can only win slams now because there is no one around that is any good. At her best in 2002, she was unbelievable, phenomenal, perhaps the greatest of all time, but she can win slams as an overweight shadow of her former self simply because she is playing in a field that is the worst in tennis history.

*Shudder* Please don't turn this in to another bitching thread about the state of the WTA tour :armed::explode:

rolandg
Sep 7th, 2008, 09:45 PM
Are you for real?

1999-2003? were the most competitive, and hardest to win GS semis we've ever seen. I even read a translation from Steffi once, from a German book called Grand Slam where she said that she didn't think anyone else would do the Grand Slam again, because tennis is a lot tougher in the "modern era" as she called it. She said it was a good thing for women's tennis.

I normally try to be a bit more respectful of people's opinions. But you are just plain wrong in calling it a weaker era.

If you wanna go into beating grass court specialists, apart from her first two Wimbledons Graf only had to beat the two GOAT chokers and clay court specialists for her Wimbledons.

It was simply, and in no way, a weaker era. Nav wasn't playing her best tennis, or near it by the late 80's; beating a 21 year old Venus is slightly more impressive, than a thirty year old Navratilova imo. It's also a bit ridiculous of you to say Venus is no Graf on grass when she is a very doable two titles away from equalling her record there, that really stretches your credibility. The other thing that makes you look a bit silly is when you say Serena didn't have to beat any claycourters to win RG, she had to beat Mary Pierce and Capriati to win it, the two previous RG champions.

You've admitted your bias, and I think mine is evident too. In some ways I love the older matches as much as Rena vs. JCap, but let's not let nostalgia blind us. Steffi and the Seven Dwarves was by no means some golden era of perfect tennis. That was in the 70's with Chrissie, Ginnie, and Evonne :drool:

Mary Pierce can beat anyone on any day, but she can also lose to anyone. Capriati is not a clay courter. In fact, she wasn't all that good on clay. God knows how she won a RG title.

The other stuff I stand by. It's 10 times harder to beat Sanchez Vicario on clay than it is Venus, and I would be more impressed with someone beating Graf on grass than Venus on grass.

Either way, Serena's great, but she is being helped by tennis being rubbish now. If Serena now could face Serena of 2002, she would probably lose in straight sets.

Kart
Sep 7th, 2008, 09:46 PM
I wonder if non-biased neutral tennis fans will see things the same as you. :shrug:
I've always found it pointless to debate where to put Monica and Serena with some Serena fans on this board because they frequently demean Seles' accomplishments as if they were nothing to make their point which does irritate me.

I expect that's partly time eroding people's memories but for some I expect they don't have any memories of Monica at all.

For what it's worth, I'm a die hard Monica Seles fan nowadays but if Serena wins tonight, I'd rank her ahead of Monica. I don't think Wimbledon titles are worth more than any other title but managing to have every title in your collection vs someone that doesn't seems hard to defend.

We can argue forever what Monica might have achieved had she not been stabbed but, irrespective, she still achieved a great deal and many things that Serena won't. Serena winning or not tonight won't change that :).

rolandg
Sep 7th, 2008, 09:48 PM
Okay, there's nobody good enough around to keep Serena from winning slams? Are you saying this because Henin is gone? :rolleyes:

God no. Henin is ridiculously overrated.

Shvedbarilescu
Sep 7th, 2008, 09:48 PM
This is another REALLY bad argument. The thing about being known as a tennis great is consistency and longevity. We've seen players like Martina Hingis, Kim Clijsters, Maureen Connoly, and Justine Henin-Hardenne all have brief moment of dominance. In fact, we use to believe these players would dominate for years to come. Whether it be due to injury, drug allegations, loss of interest, the fact remains that while they were good at the time, and showed some dominance, they left the sport for whatever reason.

Serena won her first slam in 1999. She is on course to winning another won in 2008. Sure, she has had lots of injuries and surgeries during those years, but if that doesn't indiacte a career of longevity and somewhat consistency, then I don't know what is. Chris Evert won 18 slams throughout her long career. She played on the pro tour for 20 years. That's an average of barely less than 1 slam per year. That's about on par with Serena now if we look at things that way, and Evert didn't have nearly the amount of years left from the tour due to surgeries and injuries. I am not going to argue that Serena will play as long as Evert or have her success, but I digress.

Now, that Serena is fit and healthy, she can more than make up for that deficit if she stays committed. The fact that Monica Seles accomplished more in 4 years than Serena did in 11 years is a terrible argument since tennis historians alike look at the longevity of someone's career. Seles, Henin, and Hingis won a bucket full of slams in a 3-4 year period and then burnt out although Seles situation is completely different and I sympathize. Serena is still on tour, still fit and healthy, and still contending for slams and arguably still the best player on tour.

The fact remains that this is saying something with all the injuries Serena has had to come back and still get near the top of tennis. She had knee surgery and a surgically repaired knee is never the same again and she has to work twice as hard with her movement as she did before. She could have easily thrown in the towel like others have. Anyway you slice it, no matter what Seles did in her brief period of dominance, the fact that she won her first slam in 1999 and is still contending for slams in 2008 and even in 2009 if she stays at this level, speaks volumes.

Yes. And Seles finished 13 years in the top 10 vs 8 years for Serena Williams. ;)

Look those who are arguing that Seles is still ahead of Serena aren't anti-Serena at all, AcesHigh for example is very big Williams fan as well as being one of the most knowledgable posters on this forum.

Serena is playing a very high standard of tennis right now. She has a very good chance to overtake Seles beyond debate. Right now however there is still a very strong case to be made that even once Serena has tied Monica at 9 slams she will still have some more work do do before surpassing her as an alltime great.

All that said, I do agree with your points that Serena deserves alot of credit for the way she has comeback this year to play her best tennis in more than 5 years.

Olórin
Sep 7th, 2008, 09:50 PM
Yes, what I was thinking ?Graf wasn't even playing in the same area than Seles.
What about the point in my post : which period of dominance was the most impressive ?

Does that translate as: yes you're right, but I'm going to be sarcastic to save a bit of face?

The point of my post was, it's not as if Seles came along and knocked Steffi off her perch as you made it seem. She was falling off of her own accord. So I think both had to dominate impressive fields, and they both dominated in a different way. What was your actual point?

Sammm
Sep 7th, 2008, 09:50 PM
Yes. And Seles finished 13 years in the top 10 vs 8 years for Serena Williams. ;)

Look those who are arguing that Seles is still ahead of Serena aren't anti-Serena at all, AcesHigh for example is very big Williams fan as well as being one of the most knowledgable posters on this forum.

Serena is playing a very high standard of tennis right now. She has a very good chance to overtake Seles beyond debate. Right now however there is still a very strong case to be made that even once Serena has tied Monica at 9 slams she will still have some more work do do before surpassing her as an alltime great.

All that said, I do agree with your points that Serena deserves alot of credit for the way she has comeback this year to play her best tennis in more than 5 years.

Can you also clarify who that is in your avatar? :wavey:

It's been the cause of some debate ;)

Matt01
Sep 7th, 2008, 09:50 PM
She didn't have take it from Graf. She didn't beat Steffi in a single slam when she started dominating in 1991. Graf wasn't dominating anymore when Seles started her domination. The whole magic switch over thing is a myth.


Bull crap! Seles beat Graf two times in a row in two sets in 1990 - that is when Seles' domination started. (Graf won AO earlier that year)

Later on, Seles beat Graf in two other Slam finals - once in 1992 and once in 1993.

DaMamaJama87
Sep 7th, 2008, 09:51 PM
Yes. And Seles finished 13 years in the top 10 vs 8 years for Serena Williams. ;)

Look those who are arguing that Seles is still ahead of Serena aren't anti-Serena at all, AcesHigh for example is very big Williams fan as well as being one of the most knowledgable posters on this forum.

Serena is playing a very high standard of tennis right now. She has a very good chance to overtake Seles beyond debate. Right now however there is still a very strong case to be made that even once Serena has tied Monica at 9 slams she will still have some more work do do before surpassing her as an alltime great.

All that said, I do agree with your points that Serena deserves alot of credit for the way she has comeback this year to play her best tennis in more than 5 years.


But the 8 vs 13 years in the top 10 is irrelevant compared to a career slam and 4 in a row. That much should be obvious to even you. :shrug: :help:

Olórin
Sep 7th, 2008, 09:53 PM
Mary Pierce can beat anyone on any day, but she can also lose to anyone. Capriati is not a clay courter. In fact, she wasn't all that good on clay. God knows how she won a RG title.

The other stuff I stand by. It's 10 times harder to beat Sanchez Vicario on clay than it is Venus, and I would be more impressed with someone beating Graf on grass than Venus on grass.

Either way, Serena's great, but she is being helped by tennis being rubbish now. If Serena now could face Serena of 2002, she would probably lose in straight sets.

LOL. Ok tennis is rubbish now!!11 [/1999] Go Serena Slam! :bounce:

DaMamaJama87
Sep 7th, 2008, 09:53 PM
Between FO 90 and AO 93 Seles won 8 out of 12 slams (7 out of 9 and a final at Wimbledon between AO91 and AO93) + 3YEC.Even if having all 4 slams is really a great achievement, Seles achievements during this area are way more impressive than the year of Serena's domination in 02-03 (especially when Seles had to take it from Graf) imo.

So what? Hingis won 3 slams and 13 tournaments in 1997. That still won't make her more impressive than Venus who has more slams. What people look at in the end is what was accomplished IN TOTAL, and not focus on some arbitrary periods of domination.

Olórin
Sep 7th, 2008, 09:54 PM
Bull crap! Seles beat Graf two times in a row in two sets in 1990 - that is when Seles' domination started. (Graf won AO earlier that year)

Later on, Seles beat Graf in two other Slam finals - once in 1992 and once in 1993.

It's not when Seles domination started actually.

DaMamaJama87
Sep 7th, 2008, 09:55 PM
I've always found it pointless to debate where to put Monica and Serena with some Serena fans on this board because they frequently demean Seles' accomplishments as if they were nothing to make their point which does irritate me.

I expect that's partly time eroding people's memories but for some I expect they don't have any memories of Monica at all.

For what it's worth, I'm a die hard Monica Seles fan nowadays but if Serena wins tonight, I'd rank her ahead of Monica. I don't think Wimbledon titles are worth more than any other title but managing to have every title in your collection vs someone that doesn't seems hard to defend.

We can argue forever what Monica might have achieved had she not been stabbed but, irrespective, she still achieved a great deal and many things that Serena won't. Serena winning or not tonight won't change that :).

LOL at your patronizing. If we Serena fans are so obviously beneath your esteemed opinions, why do you grace us at all with your presence? :lol: Talk about taking oneself too seriously.

rolandg
Sep 7th, 2008, 09:55 PM
LOL. Ok tennis is rubbish now!!11 [/1999] Go Serena Slam! :bounce:

It is. It really, really is.

G1Player2
Sep 7th, 2008, 09:56 PM
Consistency is good if it's CONSISTENT GREATNESS. Something Serena doesnt have. She was only the best player for one year.. one year. 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002-pre Wimbledon, 2003-post Wimbledon, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008.. all of these years Serena has not been the best player.

If anything, what's taken her so long? She hasn't had to compete against Graf, Nav, ASV, etc.. and she wasn't stabbed. A lack of dedication and lack of fitness are a large part of why she hasn't pass Seles already and losing to Jankovic, Srebotnik, etc. are not helping her in this argument.

The ONLY thing that stopped Seles was her stabbing.. that's why she's a special case. Serena had knee surgery but everyone has injuries and surgeries.. it's not a good enough excuse.

There is an argument that Serena was the best player in 1999. 5 titles and a US Open. She led Hingis 3-1 in the head-to-head Davenport 3-0, Seles 2-0 and Venus 1-1. Although, I could see the argument going to Davenport or even Hingis.


Anyway, NO consistency is not always consistency great. As I said before, Evert wasn't always consistently great. She averaged barely a slam a year and some of those yhears she didn't even win a slam. In fact, Evert didn't win more than 2 slams in one year at any point in her career and this is without the injuries and surgeries.

And not everyone has kn ee surgery. :rolleyes: It's a pretty rare surgery in tennis and you have no idea what you are talking about. Besides that, it was the time period of Serena's injury that made things so traumatic. She had just won Wimbledon, 5 of 6 slams won, and was No.1 in the World. It wasn't like she was Steffi Graf who was having surgery towards the end of her career. Not only that, when she was rehabbing, her sister was shot and killed which was a doulbe blow.

And, what about her not having to compete against ASV, Nav and Graf have to do with anything? She hs had to compete with Henin, Clijsters, Capriati, Venus, Hingis and Davenport which more than make up for it if you are arguing she hasn't had to face any stark competition throughout her career. I am sure Seles would have rather faced an ASV or Nav than the aforementioned players considering the amount of times she lost to them during her comeback.

And, you're argument about Serena's lack of fitness and dedication not being an excuse can be applied to Seles as well during her comeback. Face it, Seles never really got her self fit enough when she came back on tour and alot of people argued she was overweight throughout her comeback. Anyway, I know your Serena hate clouds your judegment, but I've never seen you this critical about Venus ever and if you think this :bs: about Serena and her career, I don't even want to hear you get started on Venus then. :lol: :help:

Olórin
Sep 7th, 2008, 09:56 PM
Serena is playing a very high standard of tennis right now. She has a very good chance to overtake Seles beyond debate. Right now however there is still a very strong case to be made that even once Serena has tied Monica at 9 slams she will still have some more work do do before surpassing her as an alltime great.



Ok great. Who could disagree with this? End of discussion.

Olórin
Sep 7th, 2008, 09:57 PM
It is. It really, really is.

Is that a chant?

Sammm
Sep 7th, 2008, 09:57 PM
Does that translate as: yes you're right, but I'm going to be sarcastic to save a bit of face?

The point of my post was, it's not as if Seles came along and knocked Steffi off her perch as you made it seem. She was falling off of her own accord. So I think both had to dominate impressive fields, and they both dominated in a different way. What was your actual point?

Don't you think you're doing Seles a disservice here? Graf never went below number 2 in the rankings and was still winning at least 8 titles a year, so we're not talking about a huge slump here. Of course, it's Seles's fault that graf was losing too early to face her?

Olórin
Sep 7th, 2008, 10:03 PM
Don't you think you're doing Seles a disservice here? Graf never went below number 2 in the rankings and was still winning at least 8 titles a year, so we're not talking about a huge slump here. Of course, it's Seles's fault that graf was losing too early to face her?

How am I doing Seles a disservice by stating the facts? No Graf wasn't in a huge slump. She was probably the best world number two ever :shrug: But I just don't think we should pretend that Steffi would have been winning three slams a year and that Seles came along and stopped all that while Graf was playing her best tennis. Which is what some posters seemed to be insinuating. I'm just trying to offer a little clarity to the rather vague statement that "Seles had to deal with Graf"

Shvedbarilescu
Sep 7th, 2008, 10:04 PM
But the 8 vs 13 years in the top 10 is irrelevant compared to a career slam and 4 in a row. That much should be obvious to even you. :shrug: :help:

Nope.

I should add unlike you I am open minded to at least acknowledge that a debate exists. Unlike you, I am perfectly happy to acknowledge that a case can also be made for Serena being put ahead of Seles. Personally, the 4 in a row argument doesn't sway me very much but it obviously sways some other people. For me I if I was going to argue in favour of Serena over Monica I would focus on Serena's substantially better career in doubles particularly at Slam level.

But for me a tennis career is about more than just slams. What you do between the Slams matters a bit too. For this I do still regard Monica as being ahead of Serena. 13 years of good tennis as opposed to 8 years is quite a difference.

I am open minded enough however to accept that we all have different values and perspectives and that they are close enough that a case can be made both ways. I do not believe the same can be said about you.

Nicolás89
Sep 7th, 2008, 10:05 PM
More accomplished on any level than Seles and close in singles with BJK. Great spot to be in.

Sammm
Sep 7th, 2008, 10:09 PM
More accomplished on any level than Seles and close in singles with BJK. Great spot to be in.


:confused:
On every level? :confused:
So Serena is a better clay-court player then Seles? So Serena was number one for longer? So Serena has more titles? Shut up and go away.

Olórin
Sep 7th, 2008, 10:12 PM
Serena was the best player in the world for about a year. Around 365 days if that much. She won 5 of 6slams


I really sometimes wonder if you consider how others perceive your fanship of Serena. You try to be objetive which is great and rare on this board. But statements like "if that much", I mean really. You almost look like you're trying to denigrate Serena's achievements sometimes.

FYI March 2002 to June 2003 thats 15/16 months of Serena domination. Well over a year in any case. Why do you always try to sell Serena short :sad:

Numerous debates like this, you're always on the other side of the fence, not even on it, and never giving Miss SJW the benefit of any doubt :shrug:

Kart
Sep 7th, 2008, 10:19 PM
LOL at your patronizing. If we Serena fans are so obviously beneath your esteemed opinions, why do you grace us at all with your presence? :lol:
Oh it's completely by chance that today's your lucky day.

I just click on random threads in here to read as I tend to find they're all much of the same.

Sammm
Sep 7th, 2008, 10:20 PM
Serena~Lover: the way you feel AcesHigh is selling Serena short is the way I feel about you and your attitude towards Seles. I think that if Graf wasn't playing as well 90-93 it was because of Seles and the way she got in to Graf's pysche at three of the four grand slams and took away the number one spot which Graf had owned for the previous two years. So if Graf wasn't playing well then that had a lot to do with Seles's tenacity and Seles deserves credit for it, not criticism for beating a weak field.

Olórin
Sep 7th, 2008, 10:21 PM
Anyway, the real question is where do you put Seles on the all time greats list? Is she really so far below Graf/Navratilova/Evert/Court/Wills, or could you argue she is up there.

Personally I find it hard to separate all of Graf, Navratilova, Evert, Court, Lenglen, Wills Moody, Connolly, Seles, King. It would be completely absurd to rank them: as Chris Evert said I hate it when people compare champions. They are all great in different ways and for different reasons.

As Serena fans we should just hope that Serena wins this match tonight and that whether it's tomorrow or in a few years that she's counted among these greatest of the greats.

AcesHigh
Sep 7th, 2008, 10:21 PM
I really sometimes wonder if you consider how others perceive your fanship of Serena. You try to be objetive which is great and rare on this board. But statements like "if that much", I mean really. You almost look like you're trying to denigrate Serena's achievements sometimes.

FYI March 2002 to June 2003 thats 15/16 months of Serena domination. Well over a year in any case. Why do you always try to sell Serena short :sad:

Numerous debates like this, you're always on the other side of the fence, not even on it, and never giving Miss SJW the benefit of any doubt :shrug:

Well.. i'm always trying to play devil's advocate and usually Serena has a majority of adamant fans arguing her point for her.

I've already said numerous times Serena exhibited a level of tennis we've never seen before in terms of unrivaled power, athleticm, speed, etc.

It's not about Serena's achievements being poor or average or less than stellar, it's just I consider Seles's acheivements THAT great. Many posters here are exaggerating Serena's domination.. it's the greatest since Graf, but let's not put it too high among the GOAT's.

DaMamaJama87
Sep 7th, 2008, 10:21 PM
Nope.

I should add unlike you I am open minded to at least acknowledge that a debate exists. Unlike you, I am perfectly happy to acknowledge that a case can also be made for Serena being put ahead of Seles. Personally, the 4 in a row argument doesn't sway me very much but it obviously sways some other people. For me I if I was going to argue in favour of Serena over Monica I would focus on Serena's substantially better career in doubles particularly at Slam level.

But for me a tennis career is about more than just slams. What you do between the Slams matters a bit too. For this I do still regard Monica as being ahead of Serena. 13 years of good tennis as opposed to 8 years is quite a difference.

I am open minded enough however to accept that we all have different values and perspectives and that they are close enough that a case can be made both ways. I do not believe the same can be said about you.


Sorry, people who know they're on shakey ground always say "it's debatable" as a crutch to support their weak arguments. Well a debate can ALWAYS exist whether it is warranted or not. I'm sure you could "debate" the existence of gravity too. The point here is that a serious debate is unwarranted because Serena would be clearly ahead of Seles if Serena won tonight.

LOL at you saying 4 in a row is not as important as "years of good tennis" :help: If 4 in a row isn't that special, how is it that only 4 players have ever accomplished it in women's tennis history? :lol: Far more players have had 13 years of good tennis.

Let's be honest. You're not open minded. The facade of open-mindedness is only used to serve the false premise that a case for Seles can be made in the first place, which is a non-starter. Rejecting that premise is not a sign of being "closed minded," it's just an acceptance of the obvious. Crazy conspiracy theorists are "open minded" too. They never rule out anything. :tape:

Matt01
Sep 7th, 2008, 10:21 PM
How am I doing Seles a disservice by stating the facts? No Graf wasn't in a huge slump. She was probably the best world number two ever :shrug: But I just don't think we should pretend that Steffi would have been winning three slams a year and that Seles came along and stopped all that while Graf was playing her best tennis. Which is what some posters seemed to be insinuating. I'm just trying to offer a little clarity to the rather vague statement that "Seles had to deal with Graf"


You're not ofering clarification, you're posting wrong and ridiculous things. And of course saying that Seles had to deal with Graf during her domination is perfectly correct.



FYI March 2002 to June 2003 thats 15/16 months of Serena domination. Well over a year in any case. Why do you always try to sell Serena short :sad:


June 2003? :lol: Care to explain which tournaments Serena did dominate in April, May or June 2003? :tape:

Nicolás89
Sep 7th, 2008, 10:22 PM
:confused:
On every level? :confused:
So Serena is a better clay-court player then Seles? So Serena was number one for longer? So Serena has more titles? Shut up and go away.

So you take all literally? :confused:
She would be still ahead of Seles. If you don't see that.....:shrug:

Olórin
Sep 7th, 2008, 10:23 PM
Serena~Lover: the way you feel AcesHigh is selling Serena short is the way I feel about you and your attitude towards Seles. I think that if Graf wasn't playing as well 90-93 it was because of Seles and the way she got in to Graf's pysche at three of the four grand slams and took away the number one spot which Graf had owned for the previous two years. So if Graf wasn't playing well then that had a lot to do with Seles's tenacity and Seles deserves credit for it, not criticism for beating a weak field.

I guess I got sucked into the trap of exaggerating my arguments to make a point. I am aware I wasn't really giving Seles the "benefit of the doubt" as it were. But I consider Steffi one of my favourite players of all time, so I'm bound to be biased towards her. It is the way it is with our favourites. It's hard to avoid I find :shrug:

Olórin
Sep 7th, 2008, 10:24 PM
You're not ofering clarification, you're posting wrong and ridiculous things. And of course saying that Seles had to deal with Graf during her domination is perfectly correct.

June 2003? :lol: Care to explain which tournaments Serena did dominate in April, May or June 2003? :tape:

I guess Serena didn't win Wimbledon in 2003 afterall. And of course when you finally learn to read, you will realise that I myself said that Seles had to deal with Graf during her period of domination. In fact, I called her the best world number two ever.

rolandg
Sep 7th, 2008, 10:25 PM
Is that a chant?

Yep, it's a chant. Good one.

I still think Seles' slam wins are more impressive than Serena's, but that's just me. I think a lot of Evonne Goolagong's slam wins are more impressive than Seles' etc

friendsita
Sep 7th, 2008, 10:26 PM
I think she's already better than Seles

Olórin
Sep 7th, 2008, 10:28 PM
Well.. i'm always trying to play devil's advocate and usually Serena has a majority of adamant fans arguing her point for her.

I've already said numerous times Serena exhibited a level of tennis we've never seen before in terms of unrivaled power, athleticm, speed, etc.

It's not about Serena's achievements being poor or average or less than stellar, it's just I consider Seles's acheivements THAT great. Many posters here are exaggerating Serena's domination.. it's the greatest since Graf, but let's not put it too high among the GOAT's.

Ok, thanks for answering. That's fair enough :)

Sammm
Sep 7th, 2008, 10:29 PM
I guess I got sucked into the trap of exaggerating my arguments to make a point. I am aware I wasn't really giving Seles the "benefit of the doubt" as it were. But I consider Steffi one of my favourite players of all time, so I'm bound to be biased towards her. It is the way it is with our favourites. It's hard to avoid I find :shrug:

Tell me about it :bounce: :D

I'm gonna leave other people to argue Seles's side now...I need :zzz:

homogenius
Sep 7th, 2008, 10:29 PM
Does that translate as: yes you're right, but I'm going to be sarcastic to save a bit of face?

The point of my post was, it's not as if Seles came along and knocked Steffi off her perch as you made it seem. She was falling off of her own accord. So I think both had to dominate impressive fields, and they both dominated in a different way. What was your actual point?

No I don't think you were right (to be clear).We discuss this a long time ago I think.For me, it will always be more impressive to have 3 years like Seles had with Graf in the mix than dominating for a year beating...your sister.You have a different opinion and I'm fine with that.I just disagree on one thing particularly : Seles managed to have the edge MENTALLY against Graf (and it had consequences not only in their encounters but on Graf confidence in general), and she did beat her in the important matches.

I also think that even without considering the opposition, Seles achievements were just more impressive : 1 slam and YEC in 1990, 3 slams + YEC in 1991, 3 slams + YEC + final in Wimbledon in 1992, one last slam before geting stabbed >>> 3 slams + final of YEC in 2002, 2 slams in 2003.

Matt01
Sep 7th, 2008, 10:32 PM
I guess Serena didn't win Wimbledon in 2003 afterall.


I didn't know that Wimbledon was played over three months.

Olórin
Sep 7th, 2008, 10:33 PM
No I don't think you were right (to be clear).We discuss this a long time ago I think.For me, it will always be more impressive to have 3 years like Seles had with Graf in the mix than dominating for a year beating...your sister.You have a different opinion and I'm fine with that.I just disagree on one thing particularly : Seles managed to have the edge MENTALLY against Graf (and it had consequences not only in their encounters but on Graf confidence in general), and she did beat her in the important matches.

I also think that even without considering the opposition, Seles achievements were just more impressive : 1 slam and YEC in 1990, 3 slams + YEC in 1991, 3 slams + YEC + final in Wimbledon in 1992, one last slam before geting stabbed >>> 3 slams + final of YEC in 2002, 2 slams in 2003.

Ok yeah I remember the discussion now. Fair enough, guess our views are still the same ;)

Olórin
Sep 7th, 2008, 10:34 PM
I didn't know that Wimbledon was played over three months.

Well there are clearly a lot of things you don't know.

homogenius
Sep 7th, 2008, 11:53 PM
Ok yeah I remember the discussion now. Fair enough, guess our views are still the same ;)

yep.At least we're consistents lol

(and for the record, of course I think Serena will pass Seles in terms of achievements.Just not tonight, even if she wins :) )

Volcana
Sep 8th, 2008, 12:29 AM
After noting some interesting facts about the French chmpionships in the early 20C, the top seven players are pretty irrefutable. Court, Evert, Graf, King, Lenglen, Navratilova and Wills Moody.

After that, you drop down to the nine slam singles, title. Maureen Connolly has the calendar slam. Serena has the career slam, and nine slam doubles titles. Seles has, I believe, the most actual titles. Serena's two Olympic Golds in doubles could count in comparing her to Seles, but not Connolly, since Connolly didn't have the chance to play the Olympics. Before we call that the end of the conversation, I'd like to bring up three players from the 40's and 50's who were very good in singles, and HUGE in doubles.

Louise Brough - 6 slam singles titles, 21 doubles, 8 mixed
Margaret Osborne duPont - 6 slam singles titles, 21 doubles, 9 mixed
Doris Hart - 6 slam singles titles, 14 doubles, 10 mixed


I'm certainly not minded to say that Lousie Brough was a greater player than Monica Seles. But I like to give props to the players who built women's tennis. Abd when you start talking 29 or 30 slam doubles titles to go along with six slam singles titles, you're talking about an all-time great tennis player.


For the record, I think Serena is already #8 all-time. But if you only wanna say #10, the difference isn't worth arguing over.

Volcana
Sep 8th, 2008, 12:31 AM
dominating for a year beating...your sister.And all the other players on the tour.

Olórin
Sep 8th, 2008, 12:50 AM
After noting some interesting facts about the French chmpionships in the early 20C, the top seven players are pretty irrefutable. Court, Evert, Graf, King, Lenglen, Navratilova and Wills Moody.

After that, you drop down to the nine slam singles, title. Maureen Connolly has the calendar slam. Serena has the career slam, and nine slam doubles titles. Seles has, I believe, the most actual titles. Serena's two Olympic Golds in doubles could count in comparing her to Seles, but not Connolly, since Connolly didn't have the chance to play the Olympics. Before we call that the end of the conversation, I'd like to bring up three players from the 40's and 50's who were very good in singles, and HUGE in doubles.

Louise Brough - 6 slam singles titles, 21 doubles, 8 mixed
Margaret Osborne duPont - 6 slam singles titles, 21 doubles, 9 mixed
Doris Hart - 6 slam singles titles, 14 doubles, 10 mixed


I'm certainly not minded to say that Lousie Brough was a greater player than Monica Seles. But I like to give props to the players who built women's tennis. Abd when you start talking 29 or 30 slam doubles titles to go along with six slam singles titles, you're talking about an all-time great tennis player.


For the record, I think Serena is already #8 all-time. But if you only wanna say #10, the difference isn't worth arguing over.

I would have thought it would be fairer and simpler to include Seles and Connolly with the top seven regardless of their slightly lagging slam counts. They were both cut down in their primes :shrug:

And also a lot of people, even Serena fans, say Career Slam when referring to her having won all four. Why not Non-Calendar Slam, or Grand Slam? The Serena Slam was officially recognised by the International Tennis Federation as a Grand Slam of the Non-Calendar variety afterall.

Thanks for taking the effort to compile this post and include as many greats as possible.

Tennisstar86
Sep 8th, 2008, 12:52 AM
same place she was before she won it?

AnomyBC
Sep 8th, 2008, 12:57 AM
She will have 9 slams so now be clear of Seles and competing with Evert, Navratilova and Graf.

Where do you think she will fit?

How would she be clear of Seles? And how would she be competing with Evert, Navratilova and Graf? Neither of those comments make's any sense. If she wins tonight, she'll be tied with Seles, and you will still have rank Seles higher because of the stabbing and because it took her a much shorter amount of time to reach 9 slams. And Evert, Navratilova and Graf have 18, 18, and 22 slams, so she'd be nowhere near them (and honestly, there's really no way for her to catch up to them at this point.) Here's where she would stand on the all time list if she wins tonight........

1. Margaret Smith Court - 24 Majors
2. Steffi Graf - 22 Majors
3. Helen Wills Moody - 19 Majors
4. Martina Navratilova - 18 majors (I rank her above Evert because she has more overall titles)
5. Chris Evert - 18 majors
6. Billie Jean King - 12 Majors
7. Maureen Connolly - 9 Majors (I rank her higher than Seles and Serena because she won the last 9 majors she entered before a tragic accident ended her career at the age of 19. Had it not been for that, she would have likely had the most major titles of any female tennis player.)
8. Monica Seles - 9 Majors (I rank her above Serena because of the stabbing.)
9. Serena Williams - 9 Majors (if she wins, of course)
10. Suzanne Lenglen - 8+ Majors (some people give her credit for as many as 12 majors, but that includes 4 French Championship wins where the tournament was not open to non-French players. However, in some of those years she also won another French tournament that was open to non-French players, so that further complicates things. She also only had to play 1 match to win her 2nd Wimbledon title because at that time they used to give the previous years winner a bye to finals. So depending on which titles you count, there's a variety of different numbers you can come up with. Everyone seems to give her credit for at least 8 majors though.)

So yeah, I would put her at #9 on the all-time list if she wins tonight. If she wins a 10th major in 2009, then she would move up to #7. The highest she could ultimately go would be #6, and to do that she would have to win at least 12 majors (the number that Bill Jean King won.)

Olórin
Sep 8th, 2008, 01:01 AM
I personally think that ranking all time greats by the numbers of majors they won is a pretty lazy and ultimately inadequate way to determine their greatness.

Suzanne Lenglen has 12 Major Championship wins. Check Wikipedia, the WHCC wins are counted as majors during the period the French Open was only open to French Nationals. She is widely regarded in the tennis world as having won 12 Majors.

AnomyBC
Sep 8th, 2008, 01:12 AM
I personally think that ranking all time greats by the numbers of majors they won is a pretty lazy and ultimately inadequate way to determine their greatness.

Suzanne Lenglen has 12 Major Championship wins. Check Wikipedia, the WHCC wins are counted as majors during the period the French Open was only open to French Nationals. She is widely regarded in the tennis world as having won 12 Majors.

Wikipedia and the World Almanac both give her 12 (although they count different tournaments), but I'm going with the Tennis Hall of Fame, which I consider to be a better source, and they give her 8. In any case, I explained the debate in my post, so people can feel free to take that info into consideration and give her whatever number they feel is appropriate. Of course, if you give her credit for 12, then that means Serena would be 1 spot lower.

OsloErik
Sep 8th, 2008, 01:13 AM
Behind King, but not by much. And it always depends on how much of a boost you give Seles. I don't give her much of one, so I'm not your best source.

Shvedbarilescu
Sep 8th, 2008, 01:13 AM
I personally think that ranking all time greats by the numbers of majors they won is a pretty lazy and ultimately inadequate way to determine their greatness.

Suzanne Lenglen has 12 Major Championship wins. Check Wikipedia, the WHCC wins are counted as majors during the period the French Open was only open to French Nationals. She is widely regarded in the tennis world as having won 12 Majors.

I agree with you. There is more to it that how many Slams a player has won. I think that is primarily why I would still put Seles over Serena. But as Volcana says there isn't much difference between 8 and 10 and they are both very much in the same ballpark as alltime greats. Even for me it is still very close because of all Serena's doubles Slams. Those mean more to me than the 4 in a row achievement actually.

Olórin
Sep 8th, 2008, 01:17 AM
I agree with you. There is more to it that how many Slams a player has won. I think that is primarily why I would still put Seles over Serena. But as Volcana says there isn't much difference between 8 and 10 and they are both very much in the same ballpark as alltime greats. Even for me it is still very close because of all Serena's doubles Slams. Those mean more to me than the 4 in a row achievement actually.

If Serena won the Australian Opean and French Open Mixed Doubles, do you think that would enhance her legacy significantly?

It would obviously help, she would be one of three women to have completed the Boxed Set of all 12 Different Majors.

Olórin
Sep 8th, 2008, 01:19 AM
Wikipedia and the World Almanac both give her 12 (although they count different tournaments), but I'm going with the Tennis Hall of Fame, which I consider to be a better source, and they give her 8. In any case, I explained the debate in my post, so people can feel free to take that info into consideration and give her whatever number they feel is appropriate. Of course, if you give her credit for 12, then that means Serena would be 1 spot lower.

I did not realise that the Tennis Hall of Fame only credited her with 8. I do not credit it too highly however, because it's so American skewed.

Shvedbarilescu
Sep 8th, 2008, 01:38 AM
If Serena won the Australian Opean and French Open Mixed Doubles, do you think that would enhance her legacy significantly?

It would obviously help, she would be one of three women to have completed the Boxed Set of all 12 Different Majors.

I do actually, well for me it certainly would. Different people react to different things but to me getting the boxed set would be an amazing thing to accomplish. I believe only Navratilova and Court have done that. Yeah, Serena gets that and she definately goes ahead of Seles for me. Of course for others this would make little difference, but I love mixed doubles and the woman is almost always the player who has to carry the mixed doubles side as she gets the vast majority of the balls hit to her.

Actually I have for some time hoped Serena would start playing the Aussie Open and RG mixed doubles again. The opportunity to pull off the boxed set shouldn't be ignored.

thrust
Sep 8th, 2008, 01:40 AM
Why? Serena is already competitive with Seles. Has a winning h2h, more variety of slams, 4 slams in a row, more time at number 1, more doubles and mixed slams, more olympic medals etc. etc. etc. If Serena were to win tonight it would be no contest about who is better.

If Serena wins tonight, they both will have 9 Slams but Seles will have many more tournaments won- 53-32 and many more weeks at #1 178-58. When Seles played Serena, she was past her peak. Doubles, in today^s women^s tennis, are irrelevent as most of the top players do not compete. Close, but not a clear winner, IMO

Olórin
Sep 8th, 2008, 01:41 AM
I think she might start playing mixed again in a few years when the singles isn't quite so much of a priority. I hope so anyway.

Renalicious
Sep 8th, 2008, 02:59 AM
Almost @ Hingis-level

Somehow I don't think if Serena wins tonight she'll turn into a coke addict. :)

TheFifthAvocado
Sep 8th, 2008, 03:07 AM
:weirdo:

So why ask in the first place? :confused:

Because he wants to hear people talking about Serena.

Doesn't look so good right now. :lick:

ikarinokami
Sep 8th, 2008, 04:27 AM
i'd say this. venus and serena at thier best are better than any other female tennis players ever. as which sister at thier best is better, i have no idea.

faboozadoo15
Sep 8th, 2008, 04:59 AM
Anyway, NO consistency is not always consistency great. As I said before, Evert wasn't always consistently great. She averaged barely a slam a year and some of those yhears she didn't even win a slam. In fact, Evert didn't win more than 2 slams in one year at any point in her career and this is without the injuries and surgeries.


:tape: Evert won 2 slams in FIVE different years. And she "barely" won a slam per year-- for THIRTEEN years.

And your assessment of Evert's lack of being injured in a long, long career, where she played far more tennis than any contemporary players is pretty naive, if not foolish and irrational.

Honestly, these arguments are silly, esopecially when half the people on here haven't seen a tennis match played before 1997.

starin
Sep 8th, 2008, 05:03 AM
Serena > Monica > Justine

And I wonder if those delusional Hingis fans will still claim Hingis is greater than Serena. Does extra weeks at no.1 overcome 4 slams?? lol.

DOUBLEFIST
Sep 8th, 2008, 08:20 AM
A nose in front of Seles and a quarter mile behind Evert, Nav', Graf, respectively.

tennisvideos
Sep 8th, 2008, 08:42 AM
I personally think that ranking all time greats by the numbers of majors they won is a pretty lazy and ultimately inadequate way to determine their greatness.

Suzanne Lenglen has 12 Major Championship wins. Check Wikipedia, the WHCC wins are counted as majors during the period the French Open was only open to French Nationals. She is widely regarded in the tennis world as having won 12 Majors.

I agree that you cannot just count GS titles to determine greatness. You also have to factor in the player's overall career records as well and career singles W/L percentages etc. And in this stat Margaret Court & Chris Evert lead the modern era so they must get props for that.

Suzanne Lenglen was far greater than her GS tally shows, and you have to also give props to Connolly & Seles who were both cut down in their prime when seemingly headed for even greater feats.

Once again, it just shows how subjective the whole ranking thing is. You can only determine who were the greatest of each generation and that should be sufficient. The rest is an ego trip.

Shvedbarilescu
Sep 8th, 2008, 09:02 AM
Serena > Monica > Justine

And I wonder if those delusional Hingis fans will still claim Hingis is greater than Serena. Does extra weeks at no.1 overcome 4 slams?? lol.

Yes, Serena is ahead of Justine. I don't think that is in any question. Serena vs Monica is very debatable and has been very debated. But one thing....4 slams? Where did you come up with 4 slams from. Unless my records are wrong Serena leads Justine by 2 slams.

Lefty.
Sep 8th, 2008, 09:13 AM
Yes, Serena is ahead of Justine. I don't think that is in any question. Serena vs Monica is very debatable and has been very debated. But one thing....4 slams? Where did you come up with 4 slams from. Unless my records are wrong Serena leads Justine by 2 slams.

I believe that was in reference to Hingis, who has 4 fewer slams than Serena now.

Shvedbarilescu
Sep 8th, 2008, 09:57 AM
I believe that was in reference to Hingis, who has 4 fewer slams than Serena now.

That was dumb of me. No excuses. Somehow I managed to read "Henin" when manatee refered to "Hingis". To be honest the thought that anyone would put Hingis above Serena Williams now probably seemed so bizarre that I ended misreaded it. :o

DaMamaJama87
Sep 8th, 2008, 11:54 PM
The sky's the limit for Serena :worship:

VS Fan
Sep 9th, 2008, 01:30 AM
Didn't Monica win 9 Slams?? I think that is a tie!

Nicolás89
Sep 9th, 2008, 01:42 AM
Serena > Monica > Justine

And I wonder if those delusional Hingis fans will still claim Hingis is greater than Serena. Does extra weeks at no.1 overcome 4 slams?? lol.

That Hingis fan not those.

Fingon
Sep 9th, 2008, 02:48 AM
She will have 9 slams so now be clear of Seles and competing with Evert, Navratilova and Graf.

Where do you think she will fit?

Babygirl did it! :bounce: :worship:

hmmm, Monica won 9 grand slams.

9 by Serena > 9 by Seles?

I thought 9 was 9...

you know, if you write a little program

int SerenaSlams = 9;
int SelesSlams = 9;

And then you have

return SerenaSlams > SelesSlams;

you get a false, try it.

Evert: 18 GSs, Navratilova: 18 GS, Graf: 22 GSs.

22 > 18 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9.

let's try with the lower number.

EvertSlams = 18;
SerenaSlams = 9;

Difference = EvertSlams - SerenaSlams;

Console.WriteLine(Difference);

it will print 9.

DaMamaJama87
Sep 9th, 2008, 03:06 AM
hmmm, Monica won 9 grand slams.

9 by Serena > 9 by Seles?

I thought 9 was 9...

you know, if you write a little program

int SerenaSlams = 9;
int SelesSlams = 9;

And then you have

return SerenaSlams > SelesSlams;

you get a false, try it.

Evert: 18 GSs, Navratilova: 18 GS, Graf: 22 GSs.

22 > 18 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9.

let's try with the lower number.

EvertSlams = 18;
SerenaSlams = 9;

Difference = EvertSlams - SerenaSlams;

Console.WriteLine(Difference);

it will print 9.

Nice attempt but not really that clever. It's 9 + ( var x, y, z, etc. etc.)/100. Those variables count. Not enough to be more important than the slam count but important enough to break ties. But you knew that already. :help:

DaMamaJama87
Sep 9th, 2008, 03:08 AM
Serena also has the best career of any "modern" baseline power player. The game that Monica invented, Serena perfected. :worship: for both ladies.

OZTENNIS
Sep 9th, 2008, 03:22 AM
Seles > Serena
Why?
- More weeks at No.1
- More WTA singles titles
- Olympic singles medal
- More Grand Slam singles final

When most people talk about who is the greatest, they mean singles, so unless doubles is specified, always imagine it is singles.

AnomyBC
Sep 9th, 2008, 05:11 AM
Serena did win! Now ahead of SelesI pretty much covered this in my previous post, but how the hell is she ahead of Seles? Let's break this down once again.....

1. Seles and Serena have both won 9 slams, despite the fact that Seles took more than 2 years off at the height of her career after being stabbed. Had it not been for the stabbing, Seles would have certainly finished her career with at least 12 slams, and quite possibly many more than that.
2. Seles won more titles (so far.)
3. Seles spent more weeks at #1 (so far).
4. Seles won a bronze medal in singles at the Olympics, but Serena has never won an Olympic singles medal.
5. Seles has been to more GS finals (so far).
6. Seles had to contend with Stefi Graf, possibly the greatest women's tennis player of all time, whereas Serena never had a rival of anywhere near that caliber.

The only 2 things Serena has on Seles right now are the following:

1. Serena has won each of the 4 slams, but Seles never won Wimbledon.
2. Serena has a better doubles career.

So yeah, if Serena stops at 9 slams then I think Seles was definitely the better player. I don't think many tennis historians would disagree with that. But if Serena can win another slam or two---and more likely than not she probably will---then at that point you would have to consider her to be the better player. For now though, Seles is still the better of the two.

Miranda
Sep 9th, 2008, 05:44 AM
why ahead of Monica? both have the same slams and monica more titles :confused:

Dave.
Sep 9th, 2008, 01:44 PM
In Singles, Seles still leads Serena in most categories, and the slam count is only level. Sorry but no Serena is not ahead of Seles.