PDA

View Full Version : Who had the Better year? Venus or Capriati


calabar
Dec 19th, 2002, 11:10 PM
Now before you all say I'm nuts for even asking this question, bear in mind that slam titles carries THE MOST weight in defining greatness as a tennis player. So from that perspective who had the better or more "rewarding" year, Venus or Capriati?

Elleke
Dec 19th, 2002, 11:13 PM
Venus

Tratree
Dec 19th, 2002, 11:18 PM
I'd take the slam any day over multiple other tournaments.

darren cahill
Dec 19th, 2002, 11:19 PM
me too.

sartrista7
Dec 19th, 2002, 11:22 PM
I'd take Capriati's year... and so would Venus.

tennisIlove09
Dec 19th, 2002, 11:23 PM
Capriati:
Titles--1
Slams--1
Outside Slams--None
Slam Results: W SF QF QF


Venus
Titles: 7
Slams: 0
Outside Slams- 7
Slam Results: QF F F F

I pick Venus. No Slams, but much more consistent week in week out then Capriati.

leslie
Dec 19th, 2002, 11:23 PM
Venus.

Fingon
Dec 19th, 2002, 11:23 PM
Capriati, she had IMO a better year than any other player except Serena, the Grand Slams are the important thing

Jericho
Dec 19th, 2002, 11:30 PM
though venus didnt win a slam, she was more consistent than jennifer, who got worse towards the end of the year...

i'll go for the #2 player in the world (venus) who is ahead of the #3 (capriati) by more than a thousand points...

Tratree
Dec 19th, 2002, 11:30 PM
Yes, Venus was more consistent, but who wants to be the bridesmaid every time? Years from now no one is gonna give two hoots who won the Acura Classic or Pilot Pen in 2002, but they will see that Jennifer won the Australian Open. Yes, Venus played better, but if you go by what most players say, the slams are the most important, then you have to give it to Jen.

Fuji
Dec 19th, 2002, 11:31 PM
As most of us would know---- The history book doesn't care how many tournaments a player wins if none of them is a slam.

england_rules
Dec 19th, 2002, 11:32 PM
Over all I'd have to say that Jenny edges out Venus, but if you broke down the year into two halves, than Capriati was better the first half and Venus the second!

calabar
Dec 19th, 2002, 11:36 PM
Qualitatively, I'd give it to Venus, however, historically Capriati got the better deal. If you ask 100 players who have NEVER won a slam, I bet almost ALL of them would take Jen's year over Venus', however, if you ask 100 players who have all won at least ONE slam, I bet they would overwhelmingly choose Venus' performance. It's all a matter of perspective.

darren cahill
Dec 19th, 2002, 11:36 PM
I never know why one persons year HAS to be better than anothers....why one player has to be better than another, whos the best of all time...whos better Mary or Conchita. Both Venus and Jennifer had years to be proud of...but if each player looked at it themselves...Jennifers year was good for her...its not like shes always been a slam winner...shes on par pretty much for what shes shown she can do...Venus has to be disappointed in her year somewhat....shes shown she can win at the very least 2 majors a year and this year was skunked. Jen wins this argument in my book for what its worth...and that aint much :D

Gowza
Dec 19th, 2002, 11:37 PM
who wouldn't take the slam? even though venus made it to 3 slam finals she didn't win any so i'd take capriati's year.

Jericho
Dec 19th, 2002, 11:39 PM
Originally posted by calabar
Qualitatively, I'd give it to Venus, however, historically Capriati got the better deal. If you ask 100 players who have NEVER won a slam, I bet almost ALL of them would take Jen's year over Venus', however, if you ask 100 players who have all won at least ONE slam, I bet they would overwhelmingly choose Venus' performance. It's all a matter of perspective.

ditto;)

harloo
Dec 19th, 2002, 11:43 PM
I think Venus's year was better beating alot of top players. Jen won the AO and no titles for the rest of the year.

AgassiGirl16
Dec 19th, 2002, 11:43 PM
Well, in my opinion, I would rather be Capriati with that Grand Slam title, instead of Venus with the 7 other titles. Venus did make it to the final of 3 grand slams though, but I'll say Capriati. I don't think Venus thinks she had a good year at all. I mean, she couldn't defend Wimbledon or the US Open, so.

Mary Kate

Infiniti2001
Dec 20th, 2002, 12:19 AM
Of course the one winning a slam is consider having the better year. I am laughing my ass off at "some" who have responded here... Remember when Martina Hingis was in Venus's position in 2000?? ??? Heehee! Happy Holidays Everyone!

Celeste
Dec 20th, 2002, 12:56 AM
It depends what you value as a player. Venus made more prize money and won more points. Jennifer got her name on a Grand Slam trophy, held it close to her face, and kissed it. Only two woman can claim this in the last 12 months. I think Venus and Jennifer both make silly money, so actuallty I would go with Jennifer. Venus made more money, but both made loads of money, so I go with history. Who cares who won all of Venus' tournments this year, Jennifer won a big one, and of course Jennifer made some pretty good dough otherwise!

Monica@53
Dec 20th, 2002, 12:57 AM
I'd take the slam any day over the seven or eight tier II tournaments, but Venus has definitely had the better year, without a doubt

-Sonic-
Dec 20th, 2002, 01:11 AM
I'd prob take Venus's year.... I'm not much for history, i'm very much a now person... and if I was into history I'd say "I already have four". If I had a title drought for 11 months and a 3 or 4 match losing streak i'd be so PO'ed.

lizchris
Dec 20th, 2002, 01:28 AM
If you based it on the Slams only, then Jennifer had the better year, but if you look it on the total year, then Venus had the better year. Though Venus didn't win a Slam, she made it to number one, finished ranked higher than in 2001 and went over $10,0000,000 in career prize money. On the other hand, Jennifer went from number one to number three and is in danger of going down to number four if she can't defend her AO title in a few weeks, saw Serena blow right past her in career prize money and weeks ranked at number one and get her butt kicked by players ranked well below her (Alexandra Stevenson, 6-1, 6-1 nad Conchita Martinez, 6-0, 6-3).

kiwifan
Dec 20th, 2002, 01:45 AM
If neither had ever won a slam before, than J Cap's year would be better than Venus' IMO.

But since they've both won them before, I'd take 3 finals over one win.

I do agree that slam performaces are the only thing history will remember.

tennischick
Dec 20th, 2002, 02:12 AM
wow! what a question! it certainly challenges folks to remember everything they said about the importance of a Slam and why winning one is ALL that matters! :o :o

considering that BOTH women melted down once Serena was on the other side of the net, my vote is that they both had terrible years -- just in different ways. Venus lost three Slam finals to Serena, while Jen actually won a Slam but consistently lost to Serena whenever they played.

which is the more important? neither. both women suck IMO.

2002 has been all Serena, all the time...;) ;)

Volcana
Dec 20th, 2002, 02:15 AM
Jenn

spencercarlos
Dec 20th, 2002, 03:07 AM
This is where there is such a big diference on being Runner Up of a slam and being a Grand Slam Champion, i think Jennifer would rather her slam win than being runner up in the other 3

Havok
Dec 20th, 2002, 03:25 AM
i say it's a toss-up. it can go either way! im confused?????????????

PhoenixStorm
Dec 20th, 2002, 03:27 AM
I think jen, despite winning a slam, does not think she had a good year. yes she won a slam but then for THE REST OF THE YEAR SHE SUCKED. Dont you think she feels she's better than that? Dont you think she feels she should have won more tournaments? And for anyone to say only the grandslams matter you're obviously a fool. EVERY tournament matters despite the fact the grandslams mean more. If the tournaments didnt matter the players wouldn't play them. If the tournaments didn't matter they wouldn't care if they lost. They care. Period.

No its not about money. At this point for the top ten it will never be about money because all these girls are weatlhy. They could all retire now and live comfortable lives.

I think venus, despite winning seven titles, feels she did not have a great year. She didn't win a slam. However if we are judging people by whether they won a slam or not then everyone except serena and jen had a BAD YEAR. EVERYONE!!!

So really its all about perspective. It falls on the players shoudlers to decide if they had a bad year or not.

Pureracket
Dec 20th, 2002, 03:33 AM
Casual tennis fans would pick JenCap everytime. Most enthusiasts like ourselves, barring bias, would make a thorough case for Venus.

calabar
Dec 20th, 2002, 03:33 AM
So really its all about perspective. It falls on the players shoudlers to decide if they had a bad year or not

My sentiment exactly.

joao
Dec 20th, 2002, 03:38 AM
2002 singles earnings (not counting bonus):

VENUS WILLIAMS----$2,123,316
JENNIFER CAPRIATI--$1,617,409

It's pretty obvious don't you think?:p

Venus Forever
Dec 20th, 2002, 03:56 AM
VENUS!!

She is ranked higher with even less tourneys than Jen. Her record was better, her record against the top 10 was better, and a lot more titles. I would think one GS title equals about 7 smaller titles.;)

Mark43
Dec 20th, 2002, 04:42 AM
Jennifer. Slams over ride all.

persond
Dec 20th, 2002, 08:09 AM
Originally posted by Mark35
Jennifer. Slams over ride all.

:D If you're already the holder of multiple slams, does that change your perspective about not having won one???:confused: :confused:

tennisIlove09
Dec 20th, 2002, 08:47 AM
God Bless the person who mentioned 2000 Hingis/Venus.

Venus was clearly the better player, but history will remember HINIGS as the player who ended #1.

Similar situation this year.

TSequoia01
Dec 20th, 2002, 10:10 AM
One win in a year is not a good year even if it is a Slam. Makes one think it was a fluke. Circumstances, may have determined the win. A slam is very important, but it makes little sense to say it makes up for everything else in a 52 week period. Overall, Venus had the better year by any reasonable measure. :cool:

nuriboy
Dec 20th, 2002, 10:25 AM
I have to agree with Tennischick. The only person who can claim she had a great year is Serena. Venus fell against her, Capriati choked, fell against her. But I think history will remember Capriatiīs year more than Venus, because of the Auz Open and due the fact that she survived 4 matchpoints to win it.

geoepee
Dec 20th, 2002, 10:41 AM
better overall year, Venus Williams
bigger overall result, Jennifer Capriati

Experimentee
Dec 20th, 2002, 12:08 PM
I think its even. Capriati won a Slam but didnt do well the rest of the year, and lost to many low ranked players like Stevenson and Martinez. Venus made 3 Slam finals and 7 titles, and was clearly the second best player on tour. History will remember Capriati, but most people know Venus played better throughout the year.

spencercarlos
Dec 20th, 2002, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by VeNuS FoReVeR
VENUS!!

She is ranked higher with even less tourneys than Jen. Her record was better, her record against the top 10 was better, and a lot more titles. I would think one GS title equals about 7 smaller titles.;)


Ask Martina Hingis is she would change her 12 titles in 2000 for a Slam that year.
Grand Slam events are the most important ones. Venus for sure was the second best ranked player for 2002, but NONE slam wins must be hurting her, especially having 4 in the previous two years.

Keith
Dec 20th, 2002, 02:55 PM
As a Jen fan, I will say Jen. But If I switched the results of both of them...I would much rather Jen win a slam than be runner up 3 times. A slam truly means more to me as a fan than 3 runner ups!

As far as the the argument about players that already won slams...Why didnt Steffi just stop after her first one? Or after she the grand slam? That is a dumb argument. I seriously doubt that high quality players like Venus and Jen are just happy with their handful of GS titles. They play because they want to win more of them. Victory in tennis is very shortlived.

Venus had a more consistent year and played great, but Venus did not win a slam and that is really what will matter in the history books, and everyone knows it.

Jen won a slam, and for what it's worth - it's worth more than 8(?) Tier II titles or less.

NJjeff
Dec 20th, 2002, 05:45 PM
Slams are what matters. We've heard all the great players say it time and again.

If next year the tables are turned and Venus only wins a Slam and Jen wins multiple non-GS titles, I will say the same thing- only slams matter.

Question though for everyone who feels Venus had a better year... would it make a difference if the one slam Jen won was Wimbledon or the US Open??

wongqks
Dec 20th, 2002, 05:46 PM
who had a better year? venus

If I am a player, which year I prefer? Jennifer

Mrs. Peel
Dec 20th, 2002, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by wongqks
who had a better year? venus

If I am a player, which year I prefer? Jennifer

Perfectly put...:wavey:

Jennifer had some moments this year where she just looked bad.. got outplayed in the strangeset of situations...

jenny161185
Dec 20th, 2002, 06:44 PM
i thought capriati earned over $2 million and Venus earned couple hundred thousand more? i think Venus played better though as everyone said capriati had the better year(slam) whos going to say in ten years remember when Venus Williams won Gold Coast

MLF
Dec 20th, 2002, 07:15 PM
I think Venus had the consistently better performances but she, Jen, all the players and myself would rather have Jennifer's one Slam title than all the tour titles Venus picked up. So I'd pick Jennifer's year!!

lizchris
Dec 20th, 2002, 07:23 PM
Jennifer's Slam win is going to get lost in what the real tennis stories were in 2002:

Venus became number one on February 25
Serena won three Grand Slams, became number one on July 8 and ended the year at number one
Pete Sampras won his first tournament (US Open) in two years

yoyo
Dec 20th, 2002, 08:04 PM
Everybody has a different feeling about this. There is no DOUDT in my mind that Venus has a better year. If there wasn't this post I would have forgotten if Jennifer won the AO. This chapter in the history book does not seem appealing to me (I don't know why). My overall opinion about Jennifer is that she has a weak year !

I rather be the bridsmaid 3 times than not being invited to the wedding at all !

NJjeff
Dec 20th, 2002, 08:44 PM
Venus reaching (only holding) #1 for a few months is a "real" tennis story of 2002 and Jen's AO is victory not?? Jen's "real" record setting performance of saving 4 match points in a GS final will not be forgotten too quickly.

tennisIlove09
Dec 20th, 2002, 09:27 PM
I think the year 2002 will be seen as Williams domination.

Many people have claimed that people don't remember the runner ups in slams, but I find that hard to believe. people will remember 2002 as Williams domination.

It's not every year that we have two black sisters meeting in 3 of the 4 Slam finals, both becoming #1. Being #1, #2 in the sport.


That's how 2002 will be remember. Not by Jennifer winning the slam. People may look at Jennifer and say..."and then what happened?"

Venus, Serena will be remember, therefore Venus had the better year, IMO.

NJjeff
Dec 20th, 2002, 09:34 PM
So Venus had a better year than Jen because her sister won 3 GSs??? This has nothing to do with Serena.

If Venus didn't win all the other non-GS titles would Venus still have had a better year than Jen by losing 3 finals to her sister?

JCAP
Dec 20th, 2002, 09:38 PM
WOW, this is a tough one!! Though i do think Venus played the better tennis over the year,but she also lost three finals,and Jen won one,so I'll deffintley say "JEN"!:p

Venus Forever
Dec 20th, 2002, 09:40 PM
Let's put it this way:

Better Year: Venus

More Rememberable Year: Jennifer

tennisIlove09
Dec 20th, 2002, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by NJjeff
So Venus had a better year than Jen because her sister won 3 GSs??? This has nothing to do with Serena.

If Venus didn't win all the other non-GS titles would Venus still have had a better year than Jen by losing 3 finals to her sister?

In a way yes. People were saying "history will remember Jennifer", but I beg to differ. I think History will remember 2002 as Williams domination.

Add in the fact that Jen didn't beat a sister, and only one 1 title.

BasicTennis
Dec 21st, 2002, 04:38 AM
The truth is history will remember that both Jenny and Venus were BIG LOSERS in 2002 to none other the tennis diva----SERENA.;):p

persond
Dec 21st, 2002, 08:16 AM
Originally posted by Keith
As a Jen fan, I will say Jen. But If I switched the results of both of them...I would much rather Jen win a slam than be runner up 3 times. A slam truly means more to me as a fan than 3 runner ups!

As far as the the argument about players that already won slams...Why didnt Steffi just stop after her first one? Or after she the grand slam? That is a dumb argument. I seriously doubt that high quality players like Venus and Jen are just happy with their handful of GS titles. They play because they want to win more of them. Victory in tennis is very shortlived.

Venus had a more consistent year and played great, but Venus did not win a slam and that is really what will matter in the history books, and everyone knows it.

Jen won a slam, and for what it's worth - it's worth more than 8(?) Tier II titles or less.


:) The fact that Venus has already 4 Slam titles to her credit merely means she's not under the pressure of "not having won a slam". So, a year with no slam, but other victories and slam finals shows her consistency. This is the same argument advanced by the Hingis fans when she was slamless. In no way am I saying Venus still doesn't want slam titles, but that she's under less pressure than say Henin or Clijsters, who have yet to win their first grand slam.

So the argument holds, that comparatively speaking, Venus' year was certainly as productive as Jenns. And history will also record Venus' victories as the total title count (28 @ present) to Jenns (13 total titles).

BasicTennis
Dec 21st, 2002, 08:20 AM
Originally posted by persond
:) The fact that Venus has already 4 Slam titles to her credit merely means she's not under the pressure of "not having won a slam".

LOL! yeah get real.:o

the truth is Venus' path is like the New Year stocks tumbling down...a "nightmarish" year for her.

tennisIlove09
Dec 21st, 2002, 08:24 AM
Originally posted by BasicTennis
The truth is history will remember that both Jenny and Venus were BIG LOSERS in 2002 to none other the tennis diva----SERENA.;):p

maybe you can't read...we weren't asking about Serena. :rolleyes:

BasicTennis
Dec 21st, 2002, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by tennisIlove09
maybe you can't read...we weren't asking about Serena. :rolleyes:

maybe you can't comprehend.....Serena is a part of Venus & Jenny's lives on the tennis scene.:p their loses to the tennis diva have given them the worst year of their careers.:eek:

tennisIlove09
Dec 21st, 2002, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by BasicTennis
maybe you can't comprehend.....Serena is a part of Venus & Jenny's lives on the tennis scene.:p their loses to the tennis diva have given them the worst year of their careers.:eek:

Hmmm...I'm sure Venus would say pre-2000 were worse then this year ;)

I'm sure Jennie would pick the mid-90's as the worst of her career ;)

Robbie.
Dec 21st, 2002, 08:59 AM
As much as I love Jenn, I think Venus had a better year. I mean after Scottsdale Jenn was totally dominated by Serena, and after Roland Garros she was virtually a non-factor until the season ending champs :sad:

This is a different situation to the Martina/Venus situation of 2000. In 2000 Venus won 2 slams and four other titles- in 6 months - not one slam and nothing else for 9 months. Her year in 2000 was light years ahead of Jenn's 2002. Venus was actually dominant in 2000, and Jenn never was at any stage this year. Its not a comparable situation. Martina's 2000 was also better than Venus' 2002, but that's not really the question.

The greatest single achievement by either of these two players in 2002, was unquestionably Jenn's Oz Open win. However when ranking the year in totality Venus edges her out. If we were gonna rate these players performances over 2002 out of ten it would be something like this.

Jenn scores a 10 for her Oz Open Victory. However she scores in the lower regions of the 10, around 1's or 2's when being thumped in early rounds by players like Conchita and Alex and around 6's when losing in quarterfinals to Mauresmo. Her average would probably be around 6/7. Venus' performances would most likely rate in the 7/8 region in most tournaments and she would probably be at an 8 plateau for the year.

rhz
Dec 21st, 2002, 09:06 AM
Venus did, but if it were to compared 2001! venus were not playing as good, but still better then Jen

BasicTennis
Dec 21st, 2002, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by tennisIlove09
Hmmm...I'm sure Venus would say pre-2000 were worse then this year ;)

I'm sure Jennie would pick the mid-90's as the worst of her career ;)

LOL they're not expected to win GRANDSLAM TITLES during their early careers just yet.;):p

treufreund
Dec 21st, 2002, 12:08 PM
JENNIFER CAPRIATI for winning a slam and taking at least three sets off of Serena, something Venus could not do in 8 sets.

BasicTennis
Dec 21st, 2002, 12:18 PM
Considering their LEVEL both Venus & Jenny had a bad year and nobody could change that.:o

nuriboy
Dec 21st, 2002, 12:28 PM
I have to agree with Tennis love. I donīt think it really matters. People will recall the year 2002 as the Venus domination year. First sisters to reach no.1 and be ranked no1. and no.2., reach 3 STRAIGHT and 4 of the last 5 GS finals!! Incredible!!!

TennisToriTerrificTwosome
Dec 21st, 2002, 02:12 PM
Easy.

Jenny.

She won a Slam.

Venus didn't.

BasicTennis
Dec 22nd, 2002, 04:15 AM
Originally posted by nuriboy
I have to agree with Tennis love. I donīt think it really matters. People will recall the year 2002 as the Venus domination year. First sisters to reach no.1 and be ranked no1. and no.2., reach 3 STRAIGHT and 4 of the last 5 GS finals!! Incredible!!!

Yeah....losing 3 GS titles in a row is absolutely an incredible achievement.:o Venus should be proud of this.:rolleyes:

Kiswana
Dec 22nd, 2002, 04:44 AM
I would love to say Venus but I can't. Cappy won the major. Venus did not.

Like Venus this year - in '95 ASV was #1 and played in 3 GS finals and she lost them all.

Pierce won the Aus Open that year and Steffi swept the other 3.

Like Venus - ASV was more consistent but like Cappy - Pierce had the better year.