PDA

View Full Version : Why was Lindsay a tougher match up for Martina than Venus was?


rimon
Jul 4th, 2011, 10:38 AM
Lindsay led Martina 14-11, and Martina led Venus 11-10. Lindsay was 3-1 against Martina in slams, Venus was 2-4. Lindsay gave Martina more beatdowns than Venus ever did.

http://www.wtatennis.com/headtohead/martina-hingis_2255881_3491/0,,12781~3491~1836,00.html

http://www.wtatennis.com/headtohead/venus-williams_2255881_9027/0,,12781~9027~3491,00.html

tennnisfannn
Jul 4th, 2011, 10:55 AM
perhaps ypu might want to focus on when the bulk of those beat downs happen. venus and martina are of the same age but Venus only started playing professionally after martina was established. Kinda like the h2h of Venus and Justine can be misleading. History will always show a far superior Venus but once Justine got established she had one more victory, too bad they didn't play often enough.

VeeJJ
Jul 4th, 2011, 10:56 AM
Martina could give Venus junk and would force her to create her own pace. Venus absolutely hates that. Lindsay's strokes allowed her to hit throw the ball cleanly and beautifully whenever. And her balls were much heavier than Venus' flat shits.

Venus doesn't do well against opponents who are well at mixing it up. She loves hard hitters and pace, which explains her wins against Davenport.

Mixal
Jul 4th, 2011, 11:25 AM
Martina & Lindsay played 16 finals in a row? :eek:

justineheninfan
Jul 4th, 2011, 11:30 AM
Prime Venus owned Hingis. From 2000 onwards she lost to her only twice, once on rebound ace and once on clay. If Hingis had continued her head to head vs alot of players, Venus included, would have kept getting worse. Granted alot of that was Hingis was a super early bloomer who was already past her prime by 2001, thus her wise decision to retire.

Lindsay was a better player than Venus in years from 97-99. So it is little surprise she did better vs Hingis and most other top players than Venus did those years. And that is the period Hingis was playing the top players most along with 2000, and to a lesser degree 2001.

justineheninfan
Jul 4th, 2011, 11:33 AM
perhaps ypu might want to focus on when the bulk of those beat downs happen. venus and martina are of the same age but Venus only started playing professionally after martina was established. Kinda like the h2h of Venus and Justine can be misleading. History will always show a far superior Venus but once Justine got established she had one more victory, too bad they didn't play often enough.

Head to heads are often misleading. Like Nadal's head to head with Federer the media loves to run away with when it is almost entirely based on a 12-2 head to head on clay. Heck Steffi Graf trails Jo Durie 4-3 in head to head, but lets be real to how that came about. :lol:

AdeyC
Jul 4th, 2011, 11:43 AM
Head to heads are often misleading. Like Nadal's head to head with Federer the media loves to run away with when it is almost entirely based on a 12-2 head to head on clay. Heck Steffi Graf trails Jo Durie 4-3 in head to head, but lets be real to how that came about. :lol:

Jo Durie was a class act - well for 1983 anyway :)

bandabou
Jul 4th, 2011, 11:46 AM
Different match-up...history shows that Vee HATES playing players who don't give her rythm....Pironkova, Jankovic, etc..whereas she does well against players who either wanna make it a hard-hitting contest or a track meet.

Matt01
Jul 4th, 2011, 11:47 AM
Against Hingis, who doesn't make a lot of errors herself, you have to be consistant. Venus was only really consistant 2000-2002 and in that timeframe she leads Hingis 4:1.
Davenport had as much power as Venus (but not qute the movement), but was more consistant, hence her better H2H with Hingis.

Sammo
Jul 4th, 2011, 01:17 PM
Venus' shots aren't as heavy as Lindsay's and I think she makes more errors than her, and Martina definately benefits from powerful erratic players, that's why she's always pwned mediocre players (top 50) who were much more powerful than her, or even good players with these characteristics, such as Schett (11-0)

thrust
Jul 4th, 2011, 01:47 PM
perhaps ypu might want to focus on when the bulk of those beat downs happen. venus and martina are of the same age but Venus only started playing professionally after martina was established. Kinda like the h2h of Venus and Justine can be misleading. History will always show a far superior Venus but once Justine got established she had one more victory, too bad they didn't play often enough.

Good post! Prime Venus was superior to Hingis and Davenport. Prime Davenport was superior to Hingis. Prime Venus and Henin, too close to call. Prime Henin is superior to Davenport and Hingis.

KBdoubleu
Jul 4th, 2011, 02:03 PM
Their first 14 matches came during Hingis' peak (1997-1999). In those matches Hingis led the head to head 9-5. From 2000 on Venus was 5-2 against her. It's just a matter of when their matches took place.

Sammo
Jul 4th, 2011, 02:06 PM
Good post! Prime Venus was superior to Hingis and Davenport. Prime Davenport was superior to Hingis. Prime Venus and Henin, too close to call. Prime Henin is superior to Davenport and Hingis.

Prime Hingis >>> everybody :o

Alejandrawrrr
Jul 4th, 2011, 02:10 PM
Prime Venus owned Hingis. From 2000 onwards she lost to her only twice, once on rebound ace and once on clay. If Hingis had continued her head to head vs alot of players, Venus included, would have kept getting worse. Granted alot of that was Hingis was a super early bloomer who was already past her prime by 2001, thus her wise decision to retire.

Lindsay was a better player than Venus in years from 97-99. So it is little surprise she did better vs Hingis and most other top players than Venus did those years. And that is the period Hingis was playing the top players most along with 2000, and to a lesser degree 2001.

All of this.

sammy01
Jul 4th, 2011, 02:26 PM
davenport has the better technique, thus was better able to cope with all the spins and trickery hingis would throw at her. venus is a million times better athlete than davenport, but if you look at the H2H it tells you how good davenport was to give such an adavntage to her opponents as she did with her lack of movement.

if davenport hadn't been such a mental midget she would have 6 or 7 slams. the rest of her numbers, weeks at number 1, titles won, H2H's with all the greats of her generation ect put her up their with venus and henin. sadly even now she down plays how good she was even when commentating, a bit more belief and mental stick and she would have been a true great.

Beat
Jul 4th, 2011, 02:28 PM
Lindsay led Martina 14-11, and Martina led Venus 11-10.

not much of a difference, really, taking into account the amount of matches.

Sombrerero loco
Jul 4th, 2011, 02:39 PM
Prime Hingis >>> everybody :o

i agree so much :worship:

Olórin
Jul 4th, 2011, 02:44 PM
Well both Lindsay and Venus were too overwhelming for Hingis when they were at their best. The H2H is not dominated in either case and reflects that the Swiss Miss was able to get her share of wins against both.

But if you actually looks at the H2Hs both Venus and Lindsay have lovely long sprees of wins when they hit golden veins of form. The rest of the time is was pretty much even or ADV Martina.

Vlover
Jul 4th, 2011, 02:58 PM
Prime Venus owned Hingis. From 2000 onwards she lost to her only twice, once on rebound ace and once on clay. If Hingis had continued her head to head vs alot of players, Venus included, would have kept getting worse. Granted alot of that was Hingis was a super early bloomer who was already past her prime by 2001, thus her wise decision to retire.
OMG, expect to be taken to task for this bit of reality and truth by the members of the Venus envy club primarily made up Hingis fanatics.:devil: Most people seem to ignore the fact that Venus started playing full time on the WTA after '97 after she graduated high school and skipping juniors totally. Venus was a true raw talent without much match practice therefore she needed some time to develop like everyone else and once she did, she was kicking ass mercilessly.:hearts: God, I miss those days. Venus' health is the main thing that prevented her from achieving more, not her ability to play tennis The damn ab injury was the beginning of her injury woes.:sad:

hingisGOAT
Jul 4th, 2011, 03:22 PM
Venus never owned Hingis, get out of here with that shit please :rolleyes: Almost all of her wins were long three set struggles where Hingis choked, while Hingis' wins were straight-set ass whoopings. Hingis crushed her right in the middle of her "peak" and also won the last match they ever played. She leads the h2h, leads the h2h in Slams, and really the only reason Venus made the h2h close is because Hingis' decline from 1999 to 2002 when she retired was so long and drawn-out. If Hingis had a chance to play Venus in 2003, 2004, or 2005 she would have crushed her anywhere but Wimbledon.

hingisGOAT
Jul 4th, 2011, 03:24 PM
BTW we are looking at a difference of 11-10 and 11-13, it's barely ANY difference at all. When Hingis was playing well she was better than both of them. Against Lindsay she some mental problems in 1999/2000 but stopped that nonsense with a crushing 6-3 6-2 beat-down on Davenport's beloved outdoor American hard courts.

Vlover
Jul 4th, 2011, 03:28 PM
Venus never owned Hingis, get out of here with that shit please :rolleyes: Almost all of her wins were long three set struggles where Hingis choked, while Hingis' wins were straight-set ass whoopings. Hingis crushed her right in the middle of her "peak" and also won the last match they ever played. She leads the h2h, leads the h2h in Slams, and really the only reason Venus made the h2h close is because Hingis' decline from 1999 to 2002 when she retired was so long and drawn-out. If Hingis had a chance to play Venus in 2003, 2004, or 2005 she would have crushed her anywhere but Wimbledon.
See exhibit A :bs::facepalm:

Olórin
Jul 4th, 2011, 03:32 PM
Venus never owned Hingis, get out of here with that shit please :rolleyes: Almost all of her wins were long three set struggles where Hingis choked, while Hingis' wins were straight-set ass whoopings. Hingis crushed her right in the middle of her "peak" and also won the last match they ever played. She leads the h2h, leads the h2h in Slams, and really the only reason Venus made the h2h close is because Hingis' decline from 1999 to 2002 when she retired was so long and drawn-out. If Hingis had a chance to play Venus in 2003, 2004, or 2005 she would have crushed her anywhere but Wimbledon.

This is the funniest part :lol::lol:

Uranium
Jul 4th, 2011, 03:34 PM
If we include 1999 to the "2000 onward" period some of you are using, Venus leads 8-5. Hingis leads simply because she took advantage of an inexperienced, weak, inconsistent, newcomer Venus in 1997 and 1998. She ripped Venus apart because Venus just hit "ran and hit the ball". As years progressed, Venus got better and so did her H2H against Hingis.

hingisGOAT
Jul 4th, 2011, 03:40 PM
LMAO @ Venus fans :help: What kind of world do you live in where ONLY VEENAS gets better or worse? Please. Hingis was nowhere near the player she was in 1997 by 2000 or 2001. Despite this Hingis leads h2h and Slam h2h. More importantly you could actually WATCH some of their matches to see that it was Hingis controlling the tempo and Hingis either winning easily or blowing a big lead. All Martina, that rivalry :worship:

hingisGOAT
Jul 4th, 2011, 03:41 PM
This is the funniest part :lol::lol:

Considering Venus didn't beat a top 10 player outside of Wimbledon for a couple of years, except slumping Myskina once, I don't think Hingis would have had any problems :)

hingisGOAT
Jul 4th, 2011, 03:46 PM
I think the problem for Venus fans is not only is Serena, her own sister, CLEARLY superior, but she also has these losing records against the next set of champions from her generation such as Hingis, Davenport, Clijsters... if it weren't for Wimbledon Venus would be on a Kuznetsova level.

Vlover
Jul 4th, 2011, 05:01 PM
if it weren't for ...
This is your problem, you have to qualify every thing with IFs instead of accepting the REALITY as it now stands. Venus fans all wish she didn't have to deal with all the injuries and illnesses that plagued her throughout her career like her ab strain, wrist and knee problems, anemia and asthma. What is admirable about her is that she didn't quit when things got tough but kept persevering and have outlasted most of her contemporaries. She was just a tiebreak from the USO finals last year while playing with a bad knee therefore she is still competitive with the present field while Hingis can only watch and play exhibitions.

Kworb
Jul 4th, 2011, 05:10 PM
Venus never owned Hingis, get out of here with that shit please :rolleyes: Almost all of her wins were long three set struggles where Hingis choked, while Hingis' wins were straight-set ass whoopings. Hingis crushed her right in the middle of her "peak" and also won the last match they ever played. She leads the h2h, leads the h2h in Slams, and really the only reason Venus made the h2h close is because Hingis' decline from 1999 to 2002 when she retired was so long and drawn-out. If Hingis had a chance to play Venus in 2003, 2004, or 2005 she would have crushed her anywhere but Wimbledon.

BTW we are looking at a difference of 11-10 and 11-13, it's barely ANY difference at all. When Hingis was playing well she was better than both of them. Against Lindsay she some mental problems in 1999/2000 but stopped that nonsense with a crushing 6-3 6-2 beat-down on Davenport's beloved outdoor American hard courts.

LMAO @ Venus fans :help: What kind of world do you live in where ONLY VEENAS gets better or worse? Please. Hingis was nowhere near the player she was in 1997 by 2000 or 2001. Despite this Hingis leads h2h and Slam h2h. More importantly you could actually WATCH some of their matches to see that it was Hingis controlling the tempo and Hingis either winning easily or blowing a big lead. All Martina, that rivalry :worship:

Considering Venus didn't beat a top 10 player outside of Wimbledon for a couple of years, except slumping Myskina once, I don't think Hingis would have had any problems :)

I think the problem for Venus fans is not only is Serena, her own sister, CLEARLY superior, but she also has these losing records against the next set of champions from her generation such as Hingis, Davenport, Clijsters... if it weren't for Wimbledon Venus would be on a Kuznetsova level.

Preach :worship:

This is your problem, you have to qualify every thing with IFs instead of accepting the REALITY as it now stands. Venus fans all wish she didn't have to deal with all the injuries and illnesses that plagued her throughout her career like her ab strain, wrist and knee problems, anemia and asthma. What is admirable about her is that she didn't quit when things got tough but kept persevering and have outlasted most of her contemporaries. She was just a tiebreak from the USO finals last year while playing with a bad knee therefore she is still competitive with the present field while Hingis can only watch and play exhibitions.

REALITY is Hingis owns Venus wholly and completely. You guys are the ones reaching for Venus's "inexperience" and finding other silly excuses. Part of the reason why Serena is a much greater tennis player than Venus is because she learned from Hingis and adapted her game. Venus is still playing exactly the same as when she was 17 years old.

Alejandrawrrr
Jul 4th, 2011, 05:12 PM
Hot mess.

Olórin
Jul 4th, 2011, 05:14 PM
REALITY is Hingis owns Venus wholly and completely.

No it isn't, actually.

Sombrerero loco
Jul 4th, 2011, 05:23 PM
hingis is way better player than vinas...

The Daviator
Jul 4th, 2011, 05:26 PM
BTW we are looking at a difference of 11-10 and 11-13, it's barely ANY difference at all. When Hingis was playing well she was better than both of them. Against Lindsay she some mental problems in 1999/2000 but stopped that nonsense with a crushing 6-3 6-2 beat-down on Davenport's beloved outdoor American hard courts.

Lindsay felt bad for her inferior friend after 5 straight crushings, so she spared Hingy that one. You can say a lot about Legendport, but she sure wasn't greedy :D

PLP
Jul 4th, 2011, 05:29 PM
@ my favorite match-ups. :drool::drool:

Lindsay had every shot, power, and was consistent.
Winner after winner when she was on.

I also think she got into Martina's head a bit, sort of like Capriati after AO 2001.
I think Martina always thought she should beat Venus so her attitude was generally better when she played her.

it-girl
Jul 4th, 2011, 05:32 PM
Venus's shots were as heavy as Davenports if not heavier. Even Lindsay said during this 2011 Wimbledon that Venus's ball was the heaviest she ever faced of any player. But I don't think heaviness of the ball has anything to do with the head to head advantage because Venus and Lindsay both were clearly more powerful than Hingis.

Vlover
Jul 4th, 2011, 05:40 PM
BTW we are looking at a difference of 11-10 and 11-13, it's barely ANY difference at all...

Preach :worship:
REALITY is Hingis owns Venus wholly and completely...
After you agreed with the above statements from your Venus envy club member how do you logically explain this :bs::cuckoo:

dsanders06
Jul 4th, 2011, 05:42 PM
This is the funniest part :lol::lol:

What's so funny about that? Did Venus EVER beat top 10 players outside of Wimbledon between 2003 and 2007? How would she have beaten Hingis (assuming she kept up her pre-retirement form, making AO finals) if she couldn't beat a late-20s Davenport?

Raiden
Jul 4th, 2011, 05:44 PM
not much of a difference, really, taking into account the amount of matches.Excellent point.

The three h2hs Davenport-Hingis (14-11), Davenport-Venus 14-13) and Hingis-Venus (11-10) H2Hs are too close to determine who was better.

There needs to be other variables, like when the matchups occured and in what consecutive manner the wins and losses are arranged.

Spring Pools
Jul 4th, 2011, 05:46 PM
Head to heads are often misleading. Like Nadal's head to head with Federer the media loves to run away with when it is almost entirely based on a 12-2 head to head on clay. Heck Steffi Graf trails Jo Durie 4-3 in head to head, but lets be real to how that came about. :lol:
Or how Serena Williams has a negative H2H record against Bammer...

justineheninfan
Jul 4th, 2011, 05:50 PM
OMG, expect to be taken to task for this bit of reality and truth by the members of the Venus envy club primarily made up Hingis fanatics.:devil: Most people seem to ignore the fact that Venus started playing full time on the WTA after '97 after she graduated high school and skipping juniors totally. Venus was a true raw talent without much match practice therefore she needed some time to develop like everyone else and once she did, she was kicking ass mercilessly.:hearts: God, I miss those days. Venus' health is the main thing that prevented her from achieving more, not her ability to play tennis The damn ab injury was the beginning of her injury woes.:sad:

Yeah Hingis and Venus took totally different paths. Venus was obviously kept out of junior tennis which is why it took a few years to refine her amazing raw talent. She just had the bad luck that Serena hit her scary peak soon after Venus's maturation, costing her alot of slams. And injures like you said, major stomach, thigh, and knee injuries at various points after 2002.

Hingis by contrast played some of her best ever tennis at 16 and even 15, basically stopped improving at 16 except for maybe a brief spurt in early 99, and then began going downhill at 18. I dont know what to make of that other then perhaps she got too confident with her early success and wasnt willing to put in enough work to keep improving once she became that good. It is really telling that Lindsay Davenport who is over 5 years older than Hingis hit her peak around the same time or a bit later.

kiwifan
Jul 4th, 2011, 06:30 PM
OMG, expect to be taken to task for this bit of reality and truth by the members of the Venus envy club primarily made up Hingis fanatics.:devil: Most people seem to ignore the fact that Venus started playing full time on the WTA after '97 after she graduated high school and skipping juniors totally. Venus was a true raw talent without much match practice therefore she needed some time to develop like everyone else and once she did, she was kicking ass mercilessly.:hearts: God, I miss those days. Venus' health is the main thing that prevented her from achieving more, not her ability to play tennis The damn ab injury was the beginning of her injury woes.:sad:

Yeah Hingis and Venus took totally different paths. Venus was obviously kept out of junior tennis which is why it took a few years to refine her amazing raw talent. She just had the bad luck that Serena hit her scary peak soon after Venus's maturation, costing her alot of slams. And injures like you said, major stomach, thigh, and knee injuries at various points after 2002.

Hingis by contrast played some of her best ever tennis at 16 and even 15, basically stopped improving at 16 except for maybe a brief spurt in early 99, and then began going downhill at 18. I dont know what to make of that other then perhaps she got too confident with her early success and wasnt willing to put in enough work to keep improving once she became that good. It is really telling that Lindsay Davenport who is over 5 years older than Hingis hit her peak around the same time or a bit later.

Seems like a lot of posters are just taking a few numbers and adding dumb generalizations when they really just need to read these two posts...

...end of story. :cool:

Smitten
Jul 4th, 2011, 07:50 PM
There are a lot of contributing factors but the most important thing was Davenport's RoS maybe Hingis pay for the shit she put in the service box.

Smitten
Jul 4th, 2011, 07:52 PM
Hingis came back to tennis in 2006 and still beat Venus when she was the current Wimbledon title holder.

Vlover
Jul 4th, 2011, 08:13 PM
Hingis came back to tennis in 2006 and still beat Venus when she was the current Wimbledon title holder.
Yea, I guess you can take comfort in that fact while ignoring that Venus had beaten her in a recent match and led 6:0 on clay in the first set before Venus started spraying balls all over the place.:rolleyes: Venus was so bad in '06 anyway due to her wrist that she eventually had to do the surgery on it. Anyway a win is a win regardless so enjoy the extra win while I enjoy the 2 extra majors and still looking forward for more.:cool:

dsanders06
Jul 4th, 2011, 08:42 PM
Yea, I guess you can take comfort in that fact while ignoring that Venus had beaten her in a recent match and led 6:0 on clay in the first set before Venus started spraying balls all over the place.:rolleyes: Venus was so bad in '06 anyway due to her wrist that she eventually had to do the surgery on it. Anyway a win is a win regardless so enjoy the extra win while I enjoy the 2 extra majors and still looking forward for more.:cool:

:spit:

Good luck with that.

Ryan
Jul 4th, 2011, 09:11 PM
Venus's shots were as heavy as Davenports if not heavier. Even Lindsay said during this 2011 Wimbledon that Venus's ball was the heaviest she ever faced of any player. But I don't think heaviness of the ball has anything to do with the head to head advantage because Venus and Lindsay both were clearly more powerful than Hingis.



Well Lindsay could hardly FACE herself. :lol: Her shots were not as hard as Venus', but were definitely heavier.


Hingis beat pre-peak Venus; Venus beat post-peak Hingis. :shrug: They never REALLY faced when they were both PEAK, except maybe the 2 US Open Semifinals. It's not like Hingis was winning Slams post 1999, or Venus was winning any before 2000 - so no one DOMINATED that rivalry either way.

Polikarpov
Jul 4th, 2011, 09:32 PM
Because Davenport had the more consistent superior serve and ROS that forced Martina on the back foot from the start. Vinas' can get shaky and exploited. Not to mention, Martina reads it very well.

Vinas struggles against players who moves the ball around well, and don't give her enough pace to work with, as shown by her records against Hingis, Jankovic, and Pironkova.

It's also interesting to note that the VasTly SUPErioR!!, m0aR P0werFUL, and FASTURR!1 Venus only has three straight sets wins against Hingis out of her 10.

Kworb
Jul 4th, 2011, 10:12 PM
It's also interesting to note that the VasTly SUPErioR!!, m0aR P0werFUL, and FASTURR!1 Venus only has three straight sets wins against Hingis out of her 10.

Yep Hingis leads 29-23 in sets. 263-229 in games. It's quite a difference. If Martina weren't such a choker from 1999 onward it would've been even more embarrassing for Venus. Give all of Martina's chokes to the better player (1999 Rome, 1999 Grand Slam Cup, 2000 Wimbledon & US Open, 2006 Warsaw) and suddenly it's a 16-5 H2H for Hingis. Venus owes half her career to Hingis choking.

TSequoia01
Jul 4th, 2011, 10:26 PM
LMAO @ Venus fans :help: What kind of world do you live in where ONLY VEENAS gets better or worse? Please. Hingis was nowhere near the player she was in 1997 by 2000 or 2001. Despite this Hingis leads h2h and Slam h2h. More importantly you could actually WATCH some of their matches to see that it was Hingis controlling the tempo and Hingis either winning easily or blowing a big lead. All Martina, that rivalry :worship:
I Tend to disagree with this assessment. Hingis in 97 was overweight and did not have muscle tone. Hingis in 2000 never hit harder, or was fitter, had such movement, nor as physically strong. Hingis played the best tennis ever. True she did not win as much but her competition was greater by far.

Olórin
Jul 4th, 2011, 10:41 PM
Because Davenport had the more consistent superior serve and ROS that forced Martina on the back foot from the start. Vinas' can get shaky and exploited. Not to mention, Martina reads it very well.

Vinas struggles against players who moves the ball around well, and don't give her enough pace to work with, as shown by her records against Hingis, Jankovic, and Pironkova.

It's also interesting to note that the VasTly SUPErioR!!, m0aR P0werFUL, and FASTURR!1 Venus only has three straight sets wins against Hingis out of her 10.

All the legends Venus has played and you seriously use Pironkova as an example of a player who moves the ball around well? :lol: Clearly shows how much the Hingis fans in this thread are reaching. Pironkova is not a crafty or brilliant player in any respect and their H2H where her wins have come against a miserable an uninspired Venus is irrelevant in discussing Venus' game. Venus has routinely beat many players that don't give her pace, like Schiavone, Peer etc. who are all perfectly adequate at moving the ball around, at least as much as Pironkova :lol: We can all name drop a few players to prove our points see.

I don't agree with your analysis really. Watch their matches and Martina so often hits down the middle of the court, which is clever in its simplicity because this is the perfect way to jam up Venus in rallies and break her rhythm and timing. Venus is a rhythym player. Martina broke Venus' rhythm, and never really gave her any. That's the difference. Venus' ROS may not be as good as Lindsay's but it was more than adequate to deal with Martina's serves, that was not the decisive factor. Lindsay had better footwork, a more compact game and wouldn't get jammed up in the same way.

Almost Martina was as hopeless at returning Venus' 1st serve as anyone during Venus' peak in the early 2000's. It wasn't so much a question of her read on the serve as hoping Venus hit enough 2nds.

Sammo
Jul 5th, 2011, 02:27 PM
Venus could never thrash Hingis, on the other hand Hingis... :oh:

homogenius
Jul 5th, 2011, 02:40 PM
Much better technic so even pressured her game had less chances to break down.I also think that Venus accepted too often to play long points with Martina (to prove a point ?)and it was probably an error.Lindsay simply hadn't the athleticism/speed etc... of Venus so she had no other choice than really go for her shots earlier in the rallies.

serenafan08
Jul 5th, 2011, 02:48 PM
:lol: This thread...:o

Beat
Jul 5th, 2011, 03:05 PM
god, this thread has seriously derailed. :weirdo: why do people on this board always try to *prove* that their favourite is better than other people's favourites?

rimon
Jul 7th, 2011, 11:30 AM
LMAO @ Venus fans :help: What kind of world do you live in where ONLY VEENAS gets better or worse? Please. Hingis was nowhere near the player she was in 1997 by 2000 or 2001. Despite this Hingis leads h2h and Slam h2h. More importantly you could actually WATCH some of their matches to see that it was Hingis controlling the tempo and Hingis either winning easily or blowing a big lead. All Martina, that rivalry :worship:

:worship: And here lies the double standard. Venus fans don't seem to want to acknowledge that Martina's form dropped dramatically when Venus's rose. All things considered, I think that it is a very representative H-2-H. Very much indeed. Also, look at the slam meetings:

1997 USO - Martina wins 6-0, 6-4.
1998 RG - Martina wins 6-3, 6-4.
1999 USO - Martina wins 6-1, 4-6, 6-3.
2000 W - Venus wins 6-3, 4-6, 6-4.
2000 USO - Venus wins 4-6, 6-3, 7-5.
2001 AO - Martina wins 6-1, 6-1.

Ironically, Martina's biggest win (and what a pounding it was too :tape:), came in Venus's peak, and it was far from Martina's peak. 2/2 of Venus's slam wins were very, very close. 3/4 of Martina's wins were thumpings, 1/4 quite close.

rimon
Jul 7th, 2011, 11:36 AM
Yea, I guess you can take comfort in that fact while ignoring that Venus had beaten her in a recent match and led 6:0 on clay in the first set before Venus started spraying balls all over the place.:rolleyes: Venus was so bad in '06 anyway due to her wrist that she eventually had to do the surgery on it. Anyway a win is a win regardless so enjoy the extra win while I enjoy the 2 extra majors and still looking forward for more.:cool:



:lol: Good one. I will enjoy the fact that Martina won 3/4 and had a much greater record across all 4 slams.

bandabou
Jul 7th, 2011, 12:12 PM
Same age...yet they couldn't be more differnt. :lol:

Kvitova vs Wozniacki..reminds me a bit of Vee vs Hingis. Explosive big game vs consistent counterpunching.

borrowedheaven
Jul 7th, 2011, 12:24 PM
Same age...yet they couldn't be more differnt. :lol:

Kvitova vs Wozniacki..reminds me a bit of Vee vs Hingis. Explosive big game vs consistent counterpunching.

Wozniacki isn't a counterpuncher 'though. Counterpunchers redirect the balls using the pace of the opponent, Wozniacki absorbs the pace.

Vlover
Jul 7th, 2011, 01:10 PM
:spit:
Good luck with that.
Venus' fans are accustom to this attitude from the Venus envy club since '03 after her ab strain. They were all jumping up and down pronouncing she would never win another major with the hope that she would never equal or surpass Hingis.:lol: :hah:Every year preceding that they have been praying and hoping she would retire but Vee has denied them the pleasure and continue to prove them wrong while they watched Hingis failed miserably at a comeback.

As history shows, tennis is a game of longevity. You have to be in it to stand a chance and I give Venus a much stronger chance of winning than majority of the players on tour right now.

Sammo
Jul 7th, 2011, 01:16 PM
Venus' fans are accustom to this attitude from the Venus envy club since '03 after her ab strain. They were all jumping up and down pronouncing she would never win another major with the hope that she would never equal or surpass Hingis.:lol: :hah:Every year preceding that they have been praying and hoping she would retire but Vee has denied them the pleasure and continue to prove them wrong while they watched Hingis failed miserably at a comeback.

As history shows, tennis is a game of longevity. You have to be in it to stand a chance and I give Venus a much stronger chance of winning than majority of the players on tour right now.

I'm sorry but you don't fail miserably at a comeback when you already have an excellent career and don't need more to be already considered a legend. And by the way, Venus' got a lot of crap in her 43 titles, Hingis hasn't even won a Tier IV title and she also has 43 titles, Venus has like 7 Tier I's and Hingis has 17, Hingis might have played less years than Williams but she was more consistent than her, there were times (including now) when it was absolutely pathetic to watch Venus whereas I can just remember 2 or 3 matches where Hingis was pathetic.

MiiMo
Jul 7th, 2011, 01:17 PM
Could we just focus on nowadays women's tennis which is really exciting as nobody is really taking the leader spot :) ?

VishaalMaria
Jul 7th, 2011, 01:18 PM
This thread.........

All I have to say is 7 > 5 > 3

Sammo
Jul 7th, 2011, 01:20 PM
This thread.........

All I have to say is 7 > 5 > 3

209 > 98 > 11 :lol:

VishaalMaria
Jul 7th, 2011, 01:21 PM
209 > 98 > 11 :lol:

I'm sure Lindsay and Martina would trade in those numbers for another slam.

Sammo
Jul 7th, 2011, 01:25 PM
I'm sure Lindsay and Martina would trade in those numbers for another slam.

Still the weeks at number 1 are the only prove of consistency between multiple Grand Slam champions :shrug:

bandabou
Jul 7th, 2011, 01:27 PM
Wozniacki isn't a counterpuncher 'though. Counterpunchers redirect the balls using the pace of the opponent, Wozniacki absorbs the pace.

Okay..I meant more in that Kvitova is aggressive, while Caro's more waiting for the opponent to make an error-type of player.

dsanders06
Jul 7th, 2011, 01:33 PM
Venus' fans are accustom to this attitude from the Venus envy club since '03 after her ab strain. They were all jumping up and down pronouncing she would never win another major with the hope that she would never equal or surpass Hingis.:lol: :hah:Every year preceding that they have been praying and hoping she would retire but Vee has denied them the pleasure and continue to prove them wrong while they watched Hingis failed miserably at a comeback.

As history shows, tennis is a game of longevity. You have to be in it to stand a chance and I give Venus a much stronger chance of winning than majority of the players on tour right now.

In 2005, Venus wasn't in her 30s and hadn't gone 3 years without a Slam final.

Vlover
Jul 7th, 2011, 01:33 PM
209 > 98 > 11 :lol:
In the end this is far less significant than the majors tally in order to determine your place in tennis history even more so in recent years with slamless #1s. Venus' legacy will be far more remembered than any of the other two.

Sammo
Jul 7th, 2011, 01:34 PM
In the end this is far less significant than the majors tally in order to determine your place in tennis history even more so in recent years with slamless #1s. Venus' legacy will be far more remembered than any of the other two.

Venus' game will be easily forgotten whereas Hingis' unique style won't.

VishaalMaria
Jul 7th, 2011, 01:48 PM
Still the weeks at number 1 are the only prove of consistency between multiple Grand Slam champions :shrug:

Consistency means nothing when you do not win the KEY matches.

KBlade
Jul 7th, 2011, 01:54 PM
Venus' game will be easily forgotten whereas Hingis' unique style won't.

Venus pioneered the modern power game. She was the first real player to hit big off both wings, serve huge, and move like an athlete all at once. Venus is a far more important and significant figure in the history of the sport than Martina.

homogenius
Jul 7th, 2011, 01:58 PM
Venus pioneered the modern power game. She was the first real player to hit big off both wings, serve huge, and move like an athlete all at once. Venus is a far more important and significant figure in the history of the sport than Martina.

He is right though.Martina's game was and will always be unique while Venus and Serena brought to another level what had already been implemented by Monica, Mary, JCap, Lindsay etc...They mostly added much better athleticism, but the power game was not a unique style of play and Venus will be seen as one amongst others to have played this kind of game.

Alejandrawrrr
Jul 7th, 2011, 01:58 PM
Venus pioneered the modern power game. She was the first real player to hit big off both wings, serve huge, and move like an athlete all at once. Venus is a far more important and significant figure in the history of the sport than Martina.

Consistency means nothing when you do not win the KEY matches.

It's okay guys, let them have this. If they have to keep stating how great Hingis was in order to believe it, let them do that. At the end of the day, we all know which measure of success people look at the most(And if weeks at #1 don't count for Woziacki they don't count here.)

theFutureisNow
Jul 7th, 2011, 02:04 PM
In the end this is far less significant than the majors tally in order to determine your place in tennis history even more so in recent years with slamless #1s. Venus' legacy will be far more remembered than any of the other two.

According to you. There is no official way to determine tennis greatness.

I think that many people would consider 200 weeks at #1 and 5 slams to be more impressive than 10 weeks at #1 and 7 slams. Of course we can't do that poll here since everyone would associate those numbers with the specific players and vote for Venus out of fandom. Also, to point out what should be beyond obvious- weeks at #1 with multiple slams is a lot different than weeks at #1 with zero slams.

What I can guarantee you though is that thanks in part to those 11 weeks at #1 that Venus will be seen as a career underachiever by most.

justineheninfan
Jul 7th, 2011, 02:37 PM
Venus pioneered the modern power game. She was the first real player to hit big off both wings, serve huge, and move like an athlete all at once. Venus is a far more important and significant figure in the history of the sport than Martina.

Exactly. Hingis didnt do anything that hadnt been seen before. At her best she is a poor womens Evonne Goolagong.

Sammo
Jul 7th, 2011, 03:25 PM
Exactly. Hingis didnt do anything that hadnt been seen before. At her best she is a poor womens Evonne Goolagong.

I'm sorry but just for saying that about Hingis you should be marginated forever from the tennis world :help:

Sammo
Jul 7th, 2011, 03:26 PM
According to you. There is no official way to determine tennis greatness.

I think that many people would consider 200 weeks at #1 and 5 slams to be more impressive than 10 weeks at #1 and 7 slams. Of course we can't do that poll here since everyone would associate those numbers with the specific players and vote for Venus out of fandom. Also, to point out what should be beyond obvious- weeks at #1 with multiple slams is a lot different than weeks at #1 with zero slams.

What I can guarantee you though is that thanks in part to those 11 weeks at #1 that Venus will be seen as a career underachiever by most.

Exactly.

justineheninfan
Jul 7th, 2011, 04:16 PM
I'm sorry but just for saying that about Hingis you should be marginated forever from the tennis world :help:

The fact is others like Evert, Goolagong, Bueno, played a similar tactical all court game as Hingis, and did it better and won more with it. Hingis did not introduce anything new or never seen before to the womens game. She only stood out in the era she came up in since it was a contrast to that particular crop. As KBlade said what Venus introduced was unique since there had never been such a tall women who moved so well, served that hard, and hit so hard off both sides off the ground, all at once. Others then followed in her footsteps trying to emulate her. Who has tried to emulate Hingis's game style since? Or if one does try and play that way they say Chris is their idol, they never mention Hingis. Henin coming up was said to be a Hingis lite type player but she had no interest in continuing in that vein, and went on a rigorous fitness program to tried to play more like the modern power game of Venus and ended up winning slams once she did.

You are the one who needs a reality check since I see you continously in threads building up Hingis as if she were the best ever. If you are a fan of hers fine. And she did have a great career in her own right. Still her last slam title was at age 18, she was a bit of a flash in the pan. She came up during a soft spell and capatilized, then was bullied out of the game barely into her 20s once the power players emerged. Heck Hingis couldnt even handle a prime Capriati, Capriati went 3-0 vs Hingis in slams and 4-0 overall once she became a real player again. By her final full year on tour of her first career in 2002 she was regularly being thrashed by B-level power hitters like Myskina, Dementieva, and Dokic. And in her first year back on tour she got thrashed by Dementieva 6-0, 6-2 in her first final back too.

Stamp Paid
Jul 7th, 2011, 06:34 PM
Much better technic so even pressured her game had less chances to break down.I also think that Venus accepted too often to play long points with Martina (to prove a point ?)and it was probably an error.Lindsay simply hadn't the athleticism/speed etc... of Venus so she had no other choice than really go for her shots earlier in the rallies.Exactly. :lol:
Martina had a tendency of making Venus look like a dumb jock. Venus wasn't consistent enough/didnt have enough court sense to add to her immense power, so she was never able to dominate Martina.

Vlover
Jul 7th, 2011, 07:23 PM
According to you. There is no official way to determine tennis greatness.
You don't have to take my word for it but go look it up yourself and present empirical proof of anyone of tennis noteworthy where # of weeks at #1 takes precedence over # of majors.:rolleyes: With that logic then people like Diana, Jelena and Caro would be considered "greater" over Venus and even the most casual and non tennis fan would look at you :cuckoo::silly: for even considering such a thing.


The fact is others like Evert, Goolagong, Bueno, played a similar tactical all court game as Hingis, and did it better and won more with it. Hingis did not introduce anything new or never seen before to the womens game. She only stood out in the era she came up in since it was a contrast to that particular crop. As KBlade said what Venus introduced was unique since there had never been such a tall women who moved so well, served that hard, and hit so hard off both sides off the ground, all at once. Others then followed in her footsteps trying to emulate her. Who has tried to emulate Hingis's game style since? Or if one does try and play that way they say Chris is their idol, they never mention Hingis. Henin coming up was said to be a Hingis lite type player but she had no interest in continuing in that vein, and went on a rigorous fitness program to tried to play more like the modern power game of Venus and ended up winning slams once she did.

You are the one who needs a reality check since I see you continously in threads building up Hingis as if she were the best ever. If you are a fan of hers fine. And she did have a great career in her own right. Still her last slam title was at age 18, she was a bit of a flash in the pan. She came up during a soft spell and capatilized, then was bullied out of the game barely into her 20s once the power players emerged. Heck Hingis couldnt even handle a prime Capriati, Capriati went 3-0 vs Hingis in slams and 4-0 overall once she became a real player again. By her final full year on tour of her first career in 2002 she was regularly being thrashed by B-level power hitters like Myskina, Dementieva, and Dokic. And in her first year back on tour she got thrashed by Dementieva 6-0, 6-2 in her first final back too.
You've got this!:hi5:

Sammo
Jul 7th, 2011, 09:49 PM
The fact is others like Evert, Goolagong, Bueno, played a similar tactical all court game as Hingis, and did it better and won more with it. Hingis did not introduce anything new or never seen before to the womens game. She only stood out in the era she came up in since it was a contrast to that particular crop. As KBlade said what Venus introduced was unique since there had never been such a tall women who moved so well, served that hard, and hit so hard off both sides off the ground, all at once. Others then followed in her footsteps trying to emulate her. Who has tried to emulate Hingis's game style since? Or if one does try and play that way they say Chris is their idol, they never mention Hingis. Henin coming up was said to be a Hingis lite type player but she had no interest in continuing in that vein, and went on a rigorous fitness program to tried to play more like the modern power game of Venus and ended up winning slams once she did.

You are the one who needs a reality check since I see you continously in threads building up Hingis as if she were the best ever. If you are a fan of hers fine. And she did have a great career in her own right. Still her last slam title was at age 18, she was a bit of a flash in the pan. She came up during a soft spell and capatilized, then was bullied out of the game barely into her 20s once the power players emerged. Heck Hingis couldnt even handle a prime Capriati, Capriati went 3-0 vs Hingis in slams and 4-0 overall once she became a real player again. By her final full year on tour of her first career in 2002 she was regularly being thrashed by B-level power hitters like Myskina, Dementieva, and Dokic. And in her first year back on tour she got thrashed by Dementieva 6-0, 6-2 in her first final back too.

Wozniacki, and as a failed attempt at emulating Hingis' game she's number 1 now :lol:

LOL, Hingis is the 2nd most mentioned childhood tennis hero by the tennis players (Robson, Casanova, Wozniacki, Goerges, etc.) after Steffi Graf. On the other hand only a couple of black players liked Venus :lol: Well right now the only player I can recall that liked Venus was Sloane Stephens :scratch:

LCS
Jul 7th, 2011, 09:53 PM
The fact is others like Evert, Goolagong, Bueno, played a similar tactical all court game as Hingis, and did it better and won more with it. Hingis did not introduce anything new or never seen before to the womens game. She only stood out in the era she came up in since it was a contrast to that particular crop. As KBlade said what Venus introduced was unique since there had never been such a tall women who moved so well, served that hard, and hit so hard off both sides off the ground, all at once. Others then followed in her footsteps trying to emulate her. Who has tried to emulate Hingis's game style since? Or if one does try and play that way they say Chris is their idol, they never mention Hingis. Henin coming up was said to be a Hingis lite type player but she had no interest in continuing in that vein, and went on a rigorous fitness program to tried to play more like the modern power game of Venus and ended up winning slams once she did.

You are the one who needs a reality check since I see you continously in threads building up Hingis as if she were the best ever. If you are a fan of hers fine. And she did have a great career in her own right. Still her last slam title was at age 18, she was a bit of a flash in the pan. She came up during a soft spell and capatilized, then was bullied out of the game barely into her 20s once the power players emerged. Heck Hingis couldnt even handle a prime Capriati, Capriati went 3-0 vs Hingis in slams and 4-0 overall once she became a real player again. By her final full year on tour of her first career in 2002 she was regularly being thrashed by B-level power hitters like Myskina, Dementieva, and Dokic. And in her first year back on tour she got thrashed by Dementieva 6-0, 6-2 in her first final back too.

Venus is being beaten by C-level power players like Pironkova on a yearly basis now :confused: Your point?

Smitten
Jul 7th, 2011, 10:18 PM
Hingis is mentioned as an icon to many players. The problem is that no one is talented or clever enough to actually properly emulate the Hingis game.

:lol: @ the shame in Hingis losing 6-0 6-2 in a Tier I final two months into her comeback. Do we even need to go into the myriad of embarrassing, pathetic, disgraceful, and horrible Venus losses? One just happened about two weeks ago....

Hingis is a legend and that winning H2H will remain unchanged.

Alejandrawrrr
Jul 7th, 2011, 11:00 PM
You don't have to take my word for it but go look it up yourself and present empirical proof of anyone of tennis noteworthy where # of weeks at #1 takes precedence over # of majors.:rolleyes: With that logic then people like Diana, Jelena and Caro would be considered "greater" over Venus and even the most casual and non tennis fan would look at you :cuckoo::silly: for even considering such a thing.



You've got this!:hi5:

:sobbing: Diana Sanowa :sobbing:

Wozniacki, and as a failed attempt at emulating Hingis' game she's number 1 now :lol:

LOL, Hingis is the 2nd most mentioned childhood tennis hero by the tennis players (Robson, Casanova, Wozniacki, Goerges, etc.) after Steffi Graf. On the other hand only a couple of black players liked Venus :lol: Well right now the only player I can recall that liked Venus was Sloane Stephens :scratch:

What does that have to do with anything?

Sammo
Jul 7th, 2011, 11:04 PM
:sobbing: Diana Sanowa :sobbing:



What does that have to do with anything?

That Hingis was a rolemodel for lots of current players, and that in the other hand Venus...

DOUBLEFIST
Jul 8th, 2011, 01:12 AM
Venus missed more. :shrug:

justineheninfan
Jul 8th, 2011, 01:24 AM
Hingis is mentioned as an icon to many players. The problem is that no one is talented or clever enough to actually properly emulate the Hingis game.

:lol: @ the shame in Hingis losing 6-0 6-2 in a Tier I final two months into her comeback. Do we even need to go into the myriad of embarrassing, pathetic, disgraceful, and horrible Venus losses? One just happened about two weeks ago....

Hingis is a legend and that winning H2H will remain unchanged.

Venus played tennis into her 30s. She had many more years to put up horrible losses than Hingis who quit at 21. Given the trajectory of Hingis's career at only 21 in 2002, and that in her comeback in her mid 20s she lost in 4 out of her 7 slams to the likes of Sugiyama, Razanno, 16 year old Vaidisova, and Granville in early rounds, she saved herself ALOT of embarassing losses by retiring at 21 rather than 31 and counting.

As for your last comment Venus is a legend too and a bigger one than Hingis. 10 years from now Venus will be far more famous than Hingis is.

Matt01
Jul 8th, 2011, 02:18 AM
Venus played tennis into her 30s. She had many more years to put up horrible losses than Hingis who quit at 21. Given the trajectory of Hingis's career at only 21 in 2002, and that in her comeback in her mid 20s she lost in 4 out of her 7 slams to the likes of Sugiyama, Razanno, 16 year old Vaidisova, and Granville in early rounds, she saved herself ALOT of embarassing losses by retiring at 21 rather than 31 and counting.

As for your last comment Venus is a legend too and a bigger one than Hingis. 10 years from now Venus will be far more famous than Hingis is.


All speculation and :bs:

Venus lost to the likes of Karatancheva, Pironkova, Vaidisova, Raymond, Suarez-Navarro, Schwartz, Szavay in Slams; how is it worse than Hingis' losses?

rimon
Jul 8th, 2011, 02:22 AM
This thread.........

All I have to say is 7 > 5 > 3

And this is relevant how exactly? :confused:

I find it funny, however, that Martina has 5, Lindsay 3 and Venus 7, yet Martina and Lindsay have the slams that Venus does; Wimbledon and the US Open. In contrast, Venus has no Australian Open title, unlike them. 3/4>2/4.

Again though, this is irrelevant to this thread.

Craig.
Jul 8th, 2011, 02:23 AM
All speculation and :bs:

Venus lost to the likes of Karatancheva, Pironkova, Vaidisova, Raymond, Suarez-Navarro, Schwartz, Szavay in Slams; how is it worse than Hingis' losses?

Why do you hate Venus so much? :lol: I'm really curious.

rimon
Jul 8th, 2011, 02:25 AM
It's okay guys, let them have this. If they have to keep stating how great Hingis was in order to believe it, let them do that. At the end of the day, we all know which measure of success people look at the most(And if weeks at #1 don't count for Woziacki they don't count here.)

Okay, if it's all about slams, then no need for any debate. Margaret Court is the GOAT, Steffir Graf second, and Helen Wills third.

rimon
Jul 8th, 2011, 02:28 AM
Exactly. Hingis didnt do anything that hadnt been seen before. At her best she is a poor womens Evonne Goolagong.

:lol: :tape: Venus plays a game VERY similar to other women. Evonne Goolagong and Martina Hingis did not really play the same game.

rimon
Jul 8th, 2011, 02:34 AM
Venus played tennis into her 30s. She had many more years to put up horrible losses than Hingis who quit at 21. Given the trajectory of Hingis's career at only 21 in 2002, and that in her comeback in her mid 20s she lost in 4 out of her 7 slams to the likes of Sugiyama, Razanno, 16 year old Vaidisova, and Granville in early rounds, she saved herself ALOT of embarassing losses by retiring at 21 rather than 31 and counting.

As for your last comment Venus is a legend too and a bigger one than Hingis. 10 years from now Venus will be far more famous than Hingis is.

In America. Also, when did Martina lose to Vaidisova in a slam? :confused:

LeonHart
Jul 8th, 2011, 03:54 AM
Davenport was taller and was able to kill Martina's junk balls, whereas Venus could kill Martina's junkballs every now and then but mostly just rolls it back into play. That's why Venus and Martina always have the long rallies :hearts:

justineheninfan
Jul 8th, 2011, 03:56 AM
All speculation and :bs:

Venus lost to the likes of Karatancheva, Pironkova, Vaidisova, Raymond, Suarez-Navarro, Schwartz, Szavay in Slams; how is it worse than Hingis' losses?

Dont respond to a post you dont even read properly. I noted Venus is still playing at 31, while Hingis retired at 21 so of course Venus should have more bad losses, she gave herself many more years to have them. And Hingis wisely retired just when she was beginning to really suck and saved herself a slew more bad losses had she continued.

Funny too how Henin gets so much shit for retiring at 25, and Venus and Serena get so much for not playing every tournament on Calendar, while Hingis get a free pass for retiring at 21. Shows the frequent double standards of this forum.

justineheninfan
Jul 8th, 2011, 04:00 AM
[/B]

In America. Also, when did Martina lose to Vaidisova in a slam? :confused:

My bad it was a 41st ranked Azarenka who was still an unknown at that point. No improvement really.

LeonHart
Jul 8th, 2011, 04:06 AM
Venus played tennis into her 30s. She had many more years to put up horrible losses than Hingis who quit at 21. Given the trajectory of Hingis's career at only 21 in 2002, and that in her comeback in her mid 20s she lost in 4 out of her 7 slams to the likes of Sugiyama, Razanno, 16 year old Vaidisova, and Granville in early rounds, she saved herself ALOT of embarassing losses by retiring at 21 rather than 31 and counting.

As for your last comment Venus is a legend too and a bigger one than Hingis. 10 years from now Venus will be far more famous than Hingis is.

10 years from now, when a player plays a smart shot commentators will still bring up Hingis. 10 years from now when a player has anticipation they will still bring up Hingis. 10 years from now when that new prodigy comes up the rankings they will still bring up Hingis. When are they going to bring up Venus? For her power...speed? If anything they will bring up Serena. Venus will be the forgotten sister, sorry to say.

LeonHart
Jul 8th, 2011, 04:07 AM
My bad it was a 41st ranked Azarenka who was still an unknown at that point. No improvement really.

Azarenka was unknown at that point? Bullshit. I remember specifically thinking Hingis would lose to Azarenka that year because she was the next big thing next to Wozniacki and Radwanska.

spencercarlos
Jul 8th, 2011, 07:03 AM
My bad it was a 41st ranked Azarenka who was still an unknown at that point. No improvement really.
The Hingis-Capriati hater strikes again. :facepalm:

In 2007 Azarenka beat Sharapova, Petrova, Radwanska, Schiavone, Medina, Bartoli and Hingis of course.

She reached her first final in 2007 early in the clay court season. Ended the year in the top 30.

And lastly she was not 16 then she was 18.

Your ridiculous posts come over and over.

PD. Hingis brought to the game a classful game, thinking game and strategy. Sure that was not enough over the time, but when ON, even with her bad serve or no power game, she gave the very best players run for their money. Hingis was the last teenager champion tennis has seen.

:wavey:

Apoleb
Jul 8th, 2011, 07:13 AM
Venus will be remembered for her incredible athleticism and Hingis will be remembered for her court sense and tennis maturity at such a young age.

Still, Stinkis is incredibly overrated.

rimon
Jul 8th, 2011, 07:17 AM
Venus will be remembered for her incredible athleticism and Hingis will be remembered for her court sense and tennis maturity at such a young age.

Still, Stinkis is incredibly overrated.

And Venus isn't? Just look at her results at the AO and RG. For a multi-slam champion, it's worse than mediocre. Martina has a good record at all 4 slams.

Apoleb
Jul 8th, 2011, 07:20 AM
[/b]

And Venus isn't? Just look at her results at the AO and RG. For a multi-slam champion, it's worse than mediocre. Martina has a good record at all 4 slams.

As justineheninfan astutely said: Hingis tuck away its tail and ran when the tough got going and when she knew her game will just not cut it. Look at the list of players she lost to on her brief comeback before she quit again: Granville, Sugiyama, Mirza(!!), Razzano..etc. OTOH, Venus' span of winning majors is 8 years, compared to Stinkis' TWO! Hingis shouldn't get any brownie points for running away.

Venus > Hingis, and it's not even close.

spencercarlos
Jul 8th, 2011, 07:26 AM
As justineheninfan astutely said: Hingis tuck away its tail and ran when the tough got going and when she knew her game will just not cut it. Look at the list of players she lost to on her brief comeback before she quit again: Granville, Sugiyama, Mirza(!!), Razzano..etc. OTOH, Venus' span of winning majors is 8 years, compared to Stinkis' TWO! Hingis shouldn't get any brownie points for running away.

Venus > Hingis, and it's not even close.
Hingis got a severe hip injury. If you did not watch her from Miami 2007 til the rest of the year, then don´t talk about her losing to the likes of Granville, Mirza, etc or you are balantly lying.

And yes Venus > Hingis but is really close, as Martina owns Venus in important categories like.
-3 different slam wins vs 2 for Venus.
-Weeks at number one
-Most dominating season by far 3 slams and 12 tournaments wins.

Venus is ahead but its close.

Apoleb
Jul 8th, 2011, 07:57 AM
Hingis got a severe hip injury. If you did not watch her from Miami 2007 til the rest of the year, then don´t talk about her losing to the likes of Granville, Mirza, etc or you are balantly lying.

And yes Venus > Hingis but is really close, as Martina owns Venus in important categories like.
-3 different slam wins vs 2 for Venus.
-Weeks at number one
-Most dominating season by far 3 slams and 12 tournaments wins.

Venus is ahead but its close.

I will avoid to provoke all kinds of Hingis stans, but these stats are useless in front of the fact that Hingis got pretty much all of those achievements in the midst of a transitional period, while Venus got hers in the thick of the modern game that took the game into a whole new level.

Alejandrawrrr
Jul 8th, 2011, 08:30 AM
Okay, if it's all about slams, then no need for any debate. Margaret Court is the GOAT, Steffir Graf second, and Helen Wills third.

In regards to players of the same generation, pretty much.

hingis-seles
Jul 8th, 2011, 09:08 AM
I will avoid to provoke all kinds of Hingis stans, but these stats are useless in front of the fact that Hingis got pretty much all of those achievements in the midst of a transitional period, while Venus got hers in the thick of the modern game that took the game into a whole new level.

I thought you could only play whoever is in front of you. If we go by your logic, Steffi won 10 of her last 11 Slams in a transitional period when the only player better than her was taken out so she could start winning again. And the list of excuses could be made for every player before and since.

rimon
Jul 8th, 2011, 09:11 AM
As justineheninfan astutely said: Hingis tuck away its tail and ran when the tough got going and when she knew her game will just not cut it. Look at the list of players she lost to on her brief comeback before she quit again: Granville, Sugiyama, Mirza(!!), Razzano..etc. OTOH, Venus' span of winning majors is 8 years, compared to Stinkis' TWO! Hingis shouldn't get any brownie points for running away.

Venus > Hingis, and it's not even close.

I can only judge from what's happened, not WHAT IFS??. Who knows what would happen? Did anyone here really think that Kim would win 3 slams in the short time that she's been back, before she returned?

At the end of the day, Martina won 5 slams, Venus 7, Martina 3/4, Venus 2/4. It doesn't matter WHEN. Why haven't you addressed the fact that Martina has a good record at all slams, and Venus only two? :scratch:

rimon
Jul 8th, 2011, 09:13 AM
Hingis got a severe hip injury. If you did not watch her from Miami 2007 til the rest of the year, then don´t talk about her losing to the likes of Granville, Mirza, etc or you are balantly lying.

And yes Venus > Hingis but is really close, as Martina owns Venus in important categories like.
-3 different slam wins vs 2 for Venus.
-Weeks at number one
-Most dominating season by far 3 slams and 12 tournaments wins.

Venus is ahead but its close.

I agree, except that I don't think that Venus is ahead. Her record at AO and RG is just too bad for me to ignore.

rimon
Jul 8th, 2011, 09:16 AM
I will avoid to provoke all kinds of Hingis stans, but these stats are useless in front of the fact that Hingis got pretty much all of those achievements in the midst of a transitional period, while Venus got hers in the thick of the modern game that took the game into a whole new level.

She won 4/7 before she became Serena's bitch. After 20004, she has been a non entity at the AO and USO, and has always been a non entity at RG.

rimon
Jul 8th, 2011, 09:17 AM
In regards to players of the same generation, pretty much.

I don't agree.

bandabou
Jul 8th, 2011, 09:55 AM
I don't agree.

:lol: Of course you won't. When it's about Court..only majors matter.
When it's everybody else, it's record at all majors, blah blah.. If it was about record at all majors, then Graf clearly's the best player of time..'cause she's the only one to win all 4, at least 4 times.

rimon
Jul 8th, 2011, 10:11 AM
:lol: Of course you won't. When it's about Court..only majors matter.
When it's everybody else, it's record at all majors, blah blah.. If it was about record at all majors, then Graf clearly's the best player of time..'cause she's the only one to win all 4, at least 4 times.

When did I ever say that? Link please.

Alejandrawrrr
Jul 8th, 2011, 11:04 AM
I don't agree.

You wouldn't.

bandabou
Jul 8th, 2011, 11:20 AM
When did I ever say that? Link please.

It's your own words..Hingis is greater than Vee, because she did better at the AO and RG, no? Your own words.

Alejandrawrrr
Jul 8th, 2011, 11:22 AM
She won 4/7 before she became Serena's bitch. After 20004, she has been a non entity at the AO and USO, and has always been a non entity at RG.

As a "non-entity" she made the semis and the quarters twice each, losing to the eventual champion in extemely difficult matches. Do not even try it. I agree at AO and FO she was never going to win those post 2003.

I agree, except that I don't think that Venus is ahead. Her record at AO and RG is just too bad for me to ignore.

At AO/FO/Wim/USO Hingis has W(x3)/F(x2)/W(x1)/W(x1). Venus has F(x1)/F(x1)/W(x5)/W(x2). The difference is that Venus had to play a prime Serena in her lone French Open final, while Hingis got Majoli(And past-it Graf and still lost.) At the end of the day this doesn't matter, as you can't change the past, but do not act as though Martina has done vastly better. I'm sure MOST people who could look at things impartially (ie: not you,) would choose Seven majors with five at their best venue and two at another, over five majors with their at the best venue, and 1 each and two others. This might be different if say, Hingis had a French WIN rather than one of her hardcourt slams, as you could then say she has won all all three major surfaces(Grass/Clay/Hard.) As it stands, she's only won on grass and hardcourts, the difference between Rebound Ace and whatever the US Open was played on at the time is far less impressive.

rimon
Jul 8th, 2011, 11:42 AM
You wouldn't.

As is my right.

rimon
Jul 8th, 2011, 11:44 AM
It's your own words..Hingis is greater than Vee, because she did better at the AO and RG, no? Your own words.

That's funny, because I never once said that I think that Martina is greater. I think that they're about equal. I think that Martin'a 3/4 slams, far more weeks at number 1 and tier 1 titles make up for the two less slams and one Olympic gold medal.

Margaret and Steffi both have 4/4.

bandabou
Jul 8th, 2011, 11:50 AM
That's funny, because I never once said that I think that Martina is greater. I think that they're about equal. I think that Martin'a 3/4 slams, far more weeks at number 1 and tier 1 titles make up for the two less slams and one Olympic gold medal.

Margaret and Steffi both have 4/4.

:rolls: :haha: sure, sure...as somebody said..so now Oz open and u.S. open suddenly become two seperate surfaces, while basically they're both hardcourts?! OMG! :facepalm:

Yeah..but Steffi has 4x 4! How's that for multi-surface? :eek:

rimon
Jul 8th, 2011, 11:53 AM
As a "non-entity" she made the semis and the quarters twice each, losing to the eventual champion in extemely difficult matches. Do not even try it. I agree at AO and FO she was never going to win those post 2003.



At AO/FO/Wim/USO Hingis has W(x3)/F(x2)/W(x1)/W(x1). Venus has F(x1)/F(x1)/W(x5)/W(x2). The difference is that Venus had to play a prime Serena in her lone French Open final, while Hingis got Majoli(And past-it Graf and still lost.) At the end of the day this doesn't matter, as you can't change the past, but do not act as though Martina has done vastly better. I'm sure MOST people who could look at things impartially (ie: not you,) would choose Seven majors with five at their best venue and two at another, over five majors with their at the best venue, and 1 each and two others. This might be different if say, Hingis had a French WIN rather than one of her hardcourt slams, as you could then say she has won all all three major surfaces(Grass/Clay/Hard.) As it stands, she's only won on grass and hardcourts, the difference between Rebound Ace and whatever the US Open was played on at the time is far less impressive.

I am impartial, and very fair. I call it how I see it. The fact is that Venus has never won either the AO or RG, and has made the finals only once. Martina has never won RG, and reached the final twice. So, in conclusion, of the 2 slams that Venus has never won, she made the final only once at each. Of the 1 slam that Martina has never won, she reached the final twice. Martina was 3 points away from a career slam. Venus has been nowhere near the close.

As for your other point, I admit that it was harsh. She hasn't been a non entity at the USO, losing to the eventual winner every time (except 2004, when Lindsay would have won if not for that freak accident). I just had in mind the pathetic way that she choked to Serena in 2008, and that woeful tiebreak last year. 6/7 of Kim's points were unforced errors by Venus. :tape:

rimon
Jul 8th, 2011, 11:57 AM
:rolls: :haha: sure, sure...as somebody said..so now Oz open and u.S. open suddenly become two seperate surfaces, while basically they're both hardcourts?! OMG! :facepalm:

Yeah..but Steffi has 4x 4! How's that for multi-surface? :eek:

They're both hard courts, but they are different. Why are Martina and Serena more beatable at the USO than AO? Why has Venus consistently sucked at the AO, but always does well at the USO? Why is Kim more beatable at the AO than USO?

bandabou
Jul 8th, 2011, 12:16 PM
They're both hard courts, but they are different. Why are Martina and Serena more beatable at the USO than AO? Why has Venus consistently sucked at the AO, but always does well at the USO? Why is Kim more beatable at the AO than USO?

I see...just like Court being more beatable at Wimbledon than the Oz open..despite they both being grass. Naahhh, that was due to the better competition of course. ;) Hmmm...interesting.

Two more majors are two majors...and Venus has more finals overall than Hingis as well.

rimon
Jul 8th, 2011, 12:27 PM
I see...just like Court being more beatable at Wimbledon than the Oz open..despite they both being grass. Naahhh, that was due to the better competition of course. ;) Hmmm...interesting.

Two more majors are two majors...and Venus has more finals overall than Hingis as well.

Maybe one was faster, I don't know. What I do know is that Margaret beat the likes of Bueno, BJK and Goolagong in her AO wins. Again, relevance??

You have your opinion, I have mine. Venus has under performed way too much at the AO and RG for me to put her above Martina.

bandabou
Jul 8th, 2011, 12:45 PM
Maybe one was faster, I don't know. What I do know is that Margaret beat the likes of Bueno, BJK and Goolagong in her AO wins. Again, relevance??

You have your opinion, I have mine. Venus has under performed way too much at the AO and RG for me to put her above Martina.

:lol: Of course..

The problem isn't your opinion..it's the incosistency of your arguments. Sometimes it's all about the majors, then it becomes..noooo, success on other surfaces matter too, nooooo then it's this, then it's that.

Be consistent. Either it's all about the majors or it ain't. Court is greater than Graf because she won more majors? Fine! Then Venus is greater than Hingis because she won more majors as well.. a man a man, a word a word.

rimon
Jul 8th, 2011, 12:52 PM
:lol: Of course..

The problem isn't your opinion..it's the incosistency of your arguments. Sometimes it's all about the majors, then it becomes..noooo, success on other surfaces matter too, nooooo then it's this, then it's that.

Be consistent. Either it's all about the majors or it ain't. Court is greater than Graf because she won more majors? Fine! Then Venus is greater than Hingis because she won more majors as well.. a man a man, a word a word.

Please direct me to where I said that it was all about the majors?

Chrissie-fan
Jul 8th, 2011, 01:08 PM
:lol: Of course..

The problem isn't your opinion..it's the incosistency of your arguments. Sometimes it's all about the majors, then it becomes..noooo, success on other surfaces matter too, nooooo then it's this, then it's that.

Be consistent. Either it's all about the majors or it ain't. Court is greater than Graf because she won more majors? Fine! Then Venus is greater than Hingis because she won more majors as well.. a man a man, a word a word.
I think that some of these one player vs another player comparisons are too close to call, and of course people are likely to accentuate the stats and achievements that favor their favourite and disregard or minimize the importance of those that favor the other player.

As for the importance of slam titles in all this, I don't think that they are the ONLY things that matter (and no, I'm not saying this because Caro doesn't have any ;)). They ARE however the most important titles in tennis, no doubt about that. But people disregarding everything else just isn't fair in my opinion and it makes me wonder why they even bother having all those other tournaments, a ranking list and so on.

bandabou
Jul 8th, 2011, 01:09 PM
Please direct me to where I said that it was all about the majors?

I'm sure the "Why is Court so underrated'-thread would help you a lot..look it up. Don't have that much time on my hands, really.

bandabou
Jul 8th, 2011, 01:18 PM
I think that some of these one player vs another player comparisons are too close to call, and of course people are likely to accentuate the stats and achievements that favor their favourite and disregard or minimize the importance of those that favor the other player.

As for the importance of slam titles in all this, I don't think that they are the ONLY things that matter (and no, I'm not saying this because Caro doesn't have any ;)). They ARE however the most important titles in tennis, no doubt about that. But people disregarding everything else just isn't fair in my opinion and it makes me wonder why they even bother having all those other tournaments, a ranking list and so on.

First criteria is majors...then if the other stats become tiebreakers. In the end it'll even out. You won't find a player with 50+ titles, but no majors..or 13 majors and no other titles ( well only if you're Serena...;) ).

rimon
Jul 8th, 2011, 01:35 PM
I'm sure the "Why is Court so underrated'-thread would help you a lot..look it up. Don't have that much time on my hands, really.

Perhaps you would be wise to read it, because I never once said that. I think that Margaret is GOAT because she won more overall titles than anyone else, winning the CYGs, AND the most slam titles. In future, please do not put words in my mouth.

Chrissie-fan
Jul 8th, 2011, 01:35 PM
First criteria is majors...then if the other stats become tiebreakers. In the end it'll even out. You has 8 slam titles, 25 tournament titles overall and a career high ranking of #3, and
find a player with 50+ titles, but no majors..or 13 majors and no other titles ( well only if you're Serena...;) ).
Majors are the most important criteria, I agree. But in my opinion the other stats can be more than just tiebreakers if the slam count is reasonably close. If (for the sake of argument)......

....player A has 8 slam titles, 25 tournament titles overall and a career high ranking of #3, and.....
....player B has 6 slam titles, 50 tournament titles overall, was the #1 ranked player for two years and leads her h2h with player A 8-5.....
....I think a very good case can be made in favor of player B as the better of the two.

theFutureisNow
Jul 8th, 2011, 01:42 PM
Hingis had better career accomplishments than Venus.

19 Tier 1/WTA Ch/Medals vs 10 and 209 weeks at #1 vs 11 is incredibly lopsided and more than makes up for 2 more slams.

I would rank Venus slightly ahead though since she did it against much tougher competition.

Chrissie-fan
Jul 8th, 2011, 02:03 PM
Hingis had better career accomplishments than Venus.

19 Tier 1/WTA Ch/Medals vs 10 and 209 weeks at #1 vs 11 is incredibly lopsided and more than makes up for 2 more slams.

I would rank Venus slightly ahead though since she did it against much tougher competition.
Although Venus has two more slams I would rank them even for the reasons you mention. If you would put a gun to my head and force me to choose I'd be tempted to say Hingis because she's one of my faves, but if I would let my objective side get the better of me I'd reluctantly give the nod to Venus for her longevity.

Vlover
Jul 8th, 2011, 02:07 PM
I can only judge from what's happened, not WHAT IFS??.
At the end of the day, Martina won 5 slams, Venus 7,
So accept the reality and quit the rest of the :bs:. As justineheninfan already stated they both took different paths to achieve the present results and in the end results take precedence. Obviously Venus' choices of delaying the start of her career in order to prolong it worked out better for her over Martina's early success but short lived career. Regardless of how Venus earned her 2 extra major it is ridiculous that it should be viewed as a lesser accomplishment to Hingis 5.:rolleyes:

Hingis is now considered to be ancient history, her last major was '99 and only mentioned when the camera shows her in the stands with other retirees while Venus' focus is getting healthier to win another major. It is understandable that the Venus envy crowd are praying and hoping that Venus doesn't win any more majors but that is not going to change the realities that Venus is and will be above Hingis in the tennis ranking even as things stands presently.:hearts: It was Hingis' choice to retire early while Venus decides to play for as long as she wants.:bounce:

Vlover
Jul 8th, 2011, 02:25 PM
force me to choose I'd be tempted to say Hingis because she's one of my faves, but if I would let my objective side get the better of me I'd reluctantly give the nod to Venus for her longevity.
Therein lies the problem with the Venus envy crowd, they are totally void of objectivity. For the rest of us who are more reasonable and possess objectivity, Venus is the obvious choice.:shrug: I'm curious to know if these Hingis fans think Hingis is also better than Justine also.:tape: Watching for a host of contradictions as many of the Hingis fans jumped on the Justine bandwagon when Hingis abandoned them and Justine followed suit shortly after.:lol:

dsanders06
Jul 8th, 2011, 02:31 PM
Therein lies the problem with the Venus envy crowd, they are totally void of objectivity. For the rest of us who are more reasonable and possess objectivity, Venus is the obvious choice.:shrug: I'm curious to know if these Hingis fans think Hingis is also better than Justine also.:tape: Watching for a host of contradictions as many of the Hingis fans jumped on the Justine bandwagon when Hingis abandoned them and Justine followed suit shortly after.:lol:

Henin is greater than Venus to those of us who "are more reasonable and possess objectivity", so it's entirely feasible to say Hingis is greater than Venus but not greater than Henin. :)

Imo, Henin > Venus > Hingis.

Kworb
Jul 8th, 2011, 02:35 PM
Yep Henin > Hingis > Venus, that has been the general consensus, and it will only change if Venus wins AO or RG, or two more of Wimbledon/US Open.

Chrissie-fan
Jul 8th, 2011, 02:38 PM
Therein lies the problem with the Venus envy crowd, they are totally void of objectivity. For the rest of us who are more reasonable and possess objectivity, Venus is the obvious choice.:shrug:
I'll go no further than to reluctantly admit that I would (if forced to choose, I really think they are about even) rank Venus just ahead of Hingis. For a Hingis fan that is already a bitter enough pill to swallow. ;) But since I'm also a Caroline fan who regularly visits GM I get lots of practice swallowing bitter pills, taking it on the chin and banging my head against the wall. :lol:

Vlover
Jul 8th, 2011, 03:22 PM
Henin is greater than Venus to those of us who are :cuckoo:, so it's entirely feasible to say Hingis is greater than Venus but not greater than Henin. :)

Yep Henin > Hingis > Venus, that has been the general consensus, and it will only change if Venus wins AO or RG, or two more of Wimbledon/US Open.
That is the only way all the :bs: makes sense to the rest of us.:devil: Trying to be rational with an irrational person is hopeless so I'll have to leave at that.:facepalm:

Sammo
Jul 8th, 2011, 09:20 PM
QHz_6qks0eg

'A poor man's Evonne Goolangong' My God :facepalm: :lol: