PDA

View Full Version : who's greater, LD or Kim?


ns_Henin
Sep 7th, 2012, 01:11 PM
I still think LD is better than Kim, because LD won 3 different slams.

Discuss.

Imperfect Angel
Sep 7th, 2012, 01:17 PM
I thought LD was Lena Dementieva.:lol:

Jajaloo
Sep 7th, 2012, 01:21 PM
I thought LD was Lena Dementieva.:lol:

:lol: So did I! My next thought was Lourdes Dominguez :tape:

Geisha
Sep 7th, 2012, 01:27 PM
Personally, it's very close. Both have just about 80% winning percentage. Kim has one more Grand Slam, but Lindsay has the Olympic Gold. Both had around a ten year stretch of consistently advancing deep into the draw at Majors. Kim's three YEC help her out, a lot. Lindsay has fourteen more overall titles than Kim, which helps her a lot. Lindsay really played peak-Hingis, peak-Venus, and peak-Serena throughout her career, and she had to beat almost all of them to win her titles, so I think her competition was consistently tougher. Kim's two best years were kind of lacking in the competition department. Clijsters leads the head-to-head by one match. Davenport finished #1 four times.

I pick Lindsay.

thrust
Sep 7th, 2012, 01:29 PM
I still think LD is better than Kim, because LD won 3 different slams.

Discuss.

VERY CLOSE, but I give Lindsay the slight advantage.

siempreneltenis
Sep 7th, 2012, 01:30 PM
I thought it was Lourdes Dominguez :help:

pierce85
Sep 7th, 2012, 01:32 PM
For me, they're even. They had such great games and were so close accomplishment wise it would be unfair to pick one over the other

ns_Henin
Sep 7th, 2012, 01:33 PM
how i miss the good old days, when women's tennis was competitive and fun

Uranus
Sep 7th, 2012, 01:43 PM
Close, but 4 slams > 3. Suddenly it doesn't get any consideration? :lol:

Tenis Srbija
Sep 7th, 2012, 01:49 PM
Close, but 4 slams > 3. Suddenly it doesn't get any consideration? :lol:

Well, that's really not "the factor" when it comes to who is greater :shrug:

Linguae^
Sep 7th, 2012, 01:51 PM
I really thought it was Lino. :help:
I'm not sure with this one, maybe I would give the advantage to Clijsters. :)

Sammo
Sep 7th, 2012, 02:08 PM
I thought LD was Lena Dementieva.:lol:

:lol: So did I! My next thought was Lourdes Dominguez :tape:

This :hysteric: In this order :sobbing:

Vamos Feńa
Sep 7th, 2012, 02:10 PM
:lol: So did I! My next thought was Lourdes Dominguez :tape:

Same here... ;)

Anyway it's Davenport. Clijsters won her slams during generation suck and with Safina/Wozniacki being #1. With the only exception in 2005.
Davenport won when Seles, Hingis, Graff were active and when being in top 10 meant something.
Plus she won more tournaments I think?

ns_Henin
Sep 7th, 2012, 02:12 PM
Same here... ;)

Anyway it's Davenport. Clijsters won her slams during generation suck and with Safina/Wozniacki being #1. Davenport won when Seles, Hingis, Graff were active and when being in top 10 meant something.
Plus she won more tournaments I think?

Can't agree more.

Fabulous post. Thank you.

Mattographer
Sep 7th, 2012, 02:19 PM
Same here... ;)

Anyway it's Davenport. Clijsters won her slams during generation suck and with Safina/Wozniacki being #1. With the only exception in 2005.
Davenport won when Seles, Hingis, Graff were active and when being in top 10 meant something.
Plus she won more tournaments I think?
This.

Mr.Sharapova
Sep 7th, 2012, 02:53 PM
A tough call. I will go with Clijsters, because of her slam count and how consistent she was during her golden years.

NashaMasha
Sep 7th, 2012, 02:56 PM
Lindsay Davenport with a big margin . Overall she had much better career in highly competitive WTA, whereas Kim's main achievements happened when she was a part-timer in the time of nobodies

mistymore
Sep 7th, 2012, 03:12 PM
Clijsters. Not only does she have 1 more slam but she has 2 more WTA Championships which is a huge event. She has many Miami titles while Lindsay has none, that is the next biggest. Also surface to surface Lindsay is only better on grass. Kim is better on hard courts by a considerable margin, and obviously better on clay by default vs Lindsay who sucked. As for excelling vs tough competition Lindsay won 0 slams once the Williams began their era.

Juju Nostalgique
Sep 7th, 2012, 06:32 PM
Lindsay is a legend, you can't compare these two. LD excels in so many ways that I can't see the comparison... :shrug:

young_gunner913
Sep 7th, 2012, 06:35 PM
Lindsay and it's not even close. Comparing her with the likes of Clijsters is insulting and vulgar.

pierce85
Sep 7th, 2012, 06:41 PM
Lindsay and it's not even close. Comparing her with the likes of Clijsters is insulting and vulgar.

Calm down :rolleyes:

Volcana
Sep 7th, 2012, 06:45 PM
Davenport won her slams in a very tight window, about 18 months. Clijsters won her's over a five plus year span, with a two year layoff. It's fair to say Clijsters was a slam winner for a far longer period of time, and that isn't a small thing.

There's not a heckuva lot to choose between them. They went about their careers in different ways, matured at different times.

BTW, the whole 'generation suck' thing is BS. The ranking system has a purpose. So-called 'fans' choose to use it for another purpose, and then insult the players.

*Jool*
Sep 7th, 2012, 06:51 PM
Lindsay for me

Wiggly
Sep 7th, 2012, 07:07 PM
Davenport.

Kim did very well during her comeback but beating Wozniacki and Zvonareva in Slam finals isn't that hard for an elite player.

Rolling-Thunder
Sep 7th, 2012, 07:07 PM
Its close, but I would say Lindsay when you consider the doubles career as well.

Smitten
Sep 7th, 2012, 07:16 PM
Kim.

danieln1
Sep 7th, 2012, 07:20 PM
Same here... ;)

Anyway it's Davenport. Clijsters won her slams during generation suck and with Safina/Wozniacki being #1. With the only exception in 2005.
Davenport won when Seles, Hingis, Graff were active and when being in top 10 meant something.
Plus she won more tournaments I think?

This.

Also Davenport was many more weeks number 1 and finished 4 times as year end number 1

And 3 diferent slams including Wimbledon + Gold Medal >>> 3 us open + australian open

kyk710
Sep 7th, 2012, 07:46 PM
:lol: So did I! My next thought was Lourdes Dominguez :tape:

I thought the same two but in opposite order :o. My mind is going. Definitely Davenport for me, but it is close.

KV
Sep 7th, 2012, 07:54 PM
I agree with posters Vamos Fena and Thrust.

Stonerpova
Sep 7th, 2012, 08:20 PM
Lindsay. She got chokey at the tail-end of slams in 04-05 but even so she is still greater than Kim.

Sammo
Sep 7th, 2012, 08:43 PM
Lindsay, without a doubt

Sombrerero loco
Sep 7th, 2012, 09:29 PM
Same here... ;)

Anyway it's Davenport. Clijsters won her slams during generation suck and with Safina/Wozniacki being #1. With the only exception in 2005.
Davenport won when Seles, Hingis, Graff were active and when being in top 10 meant something.
Plus she won more tournaments I think?

this

Gawain
Sep 7th, 2012, 09:51 PM
Kim beating Venus and Serena on her way to the US open 2009 final. :worship:

Sammo
Sep 7th, 2012, 10:02 PM
Same here... ;)

Anyway it's Davenport. Clijsters won her slams during generation suck and with Safina/Wozniacki being #1. With the only exception in 2005.
Davenport won when Seles, Hingis, Graff were active and when being in top 10 meant something.
Plus she won more tournaments I think?

14 more tournaments to be exact

spencercarlos
Sep 7th, 2012, 10:11 PM
This.

Also Davenport was many more weeks number 1 and finished 4 times as year end number 1

And 3 diferent slams including Wimbledon + Gold Medal >>> 3 us open + australian open
Sorry but a lot of Davenport´s weeks at number one were post 2000, when she won her last slam, if anything she benefited from the flawed ranking system that rewards quantity vs quality. Not that Kim did not profited from this in 2003, but still, Davenport gets a lot of credit from the weeks at number one and she was not number one for that much time between 98-2000 when she won her slams..

More to that Kim won 3 of her slams having to go throught the Williams sisters, and she basically just won the Australian Open 2011 over the generation suck players.

This is a super difficult question, i think think the slam win tops everything else, here is no different ...
Kim also leads their head to head 9-8 just as barely her carreer over Lindsay... This is so tough..

Otherwise we should assume that players like Conchita, Sabatini > Peak Mary :oh:

dencod16
Sep 7th, 2012, 11:23 PM
Davernport, they are not in the same league. BTW i really though it was Dominguez Lino and said to myself why the hell does he compare Dominguez Lino and Clijsters, did they play the same opponent.

Lachy
Sep 7th, 2012, 11:29 PM
lourdes dominguez

young_gunner913
Sep 7th, 2012, 11:38 PM
More to that Kim won 3 of her slams having to go throught the Williams sisters, and she basically just won the Australian Open 2011 over the generation suck players.


Way to distort facts. She only won ONE slam going through them both. The other two times she beat Venus which isn't saying much.

NashaMasha
Sep 7th, 2012, 11:43 PM
those voting for Kim are not aware what draw has to face Davenport at all Slams.... like this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Wimbledon_Championships_%E2%80%93_Women%27s_S ingles

MH0861
Sep 8th, 2012, 12:54 AM
LD leads the H2H in slams 5-1 :p Kim was a bad matchup for Lindsay, but a lot of her wins came in 2003 when Lindsay was really struggling before rebounding 2004-2005 in form.

Very close, but I obviously pick Lindsay :lol: Kim was a great player but she benefited from really great timing, Lindsay would have cleaned up a lot more slams if she were a few years younger.

Shivank17
Sep 8th, 2012, 02:25 AM
I thought it was Lourdes Dominguez :help:

Me too. :sobbing: