PDA

View Full Version : How many GS's do current players need to win for consideration to be greatest ever??


Knizzle
Oct 4th, 2003, 10:22 PM
I'd say around 15 GS and about 80 titles. Is that too little for this day and age?? What do you think.

Martian Willow
Oct 4th, 2003, 10:33 PM
...I don't really understand the question...surely the logical answer would be more than 22...because that's the most anybody has won...unless you're accepting other factors can be used to judge who is the best ever...in which case the question becomes irrelevant... :)

Knizzle
Oct 4th, 2003, 10:35 PM
...I don't really understand the question...surely the logical answer would be more than 22...because that's the most anybody has won...unless you're accepting other factors can be used to judge who is the best ever...in which case the question becomes irrelevant... :)

How uniformed you are. The most anyone has won is 24. Anyway I am obviously accepting other factors into the equation seeing as the game changes over the years.

Dava
Oct 4th, 2003, 10:38 PM
I think if you win 4, or win one of each then you are remembered. People like Henin may not be remembered as well as Serena, as she won all 4. Venus probably would not be rememered as well as Serena.

Martian Willow
Oct 4th, 2003, 10:47 PM
How uniformed you are. The most anyone has won is 24. Anyway I am obviously accepting other factors into the equation seeing as the game changes over the years.

...well exceeeeeeoooooose me for not remembering that...if the game changes then the number is irrelevant, is it not...? :)

Trish101
Oct 4th, 2003, 11:00 PM
Serena
Venus
Jennifer
Monica
Hingis
...Anna

They will ALL be remembered 50 years from now....for different reasons obviously (the belgians in europe, but not in N.America)

bandabou
Oct 4th, 2003, 11:14 PM
Yeah, I think if you end up with around 15 GS...in this age, you must have been pretty serious!

Joana
Oct 4th, 2003, 11:21 PM
IMO, anyone from this generation with more than 10 GS titles is one of the greatest.

Kart
Oct 5th, 2003, 12:00 AM
...well exceeeeeeoooooose me for not remembering that...if the game changes then the number is irrelevant, is it not...? :)

LOL.

To be one of the greatest ever, I'd think probably you need longevity rather than numbers.

fammmmedspin
Oct 5th, 2003, 01:30 AM
Single player? 23 or 25 depending how you regard Margaret Court.
Its difficult to argue Court, Navratilova, Evert, Graf etc faced less competitive times when they overlapped each other and you look at the uncompetitive finals of recent years. The problem is if power tennis shortens careers and leaves it impossible to win teens of GS - you can't use GS wins as a criteria then and all the alternatives are subjective.

disposablehero
Oct 5th, 2003, 02:10 AM
Monica needs 8. She didn't need the 96 Australian to prove anything. Anyone else needs 12.

CJ07
Oct 5th, 2003, 02:18 AM
It depends

If Monica Seles had ended her career, she could be, like dh said considered the greatest ever only at 8.

but under normal circumstances, 18

alexusjonesfan
Oct 5th, 2003, 04:33 AM
where are you people coming up with these numbers from? 12, 18, 15...?! :confused:

dreamgoddess099
Oct 5th, 2003, 05:40 AM
I'd say you would have to do something remarkable that Steffi nor Martina ever did like win seven granslams in a row or go undeated for a year with at least 60 or 70 matches. Anyway, there will always be different opinions on who is the absolute greatest. Some people measure quantity and say Steffi, other people say Martina Navi because of her singles plus doubles tittles as well. But I think just being mentioned as one of the greatest is a more realistic goal for todays players. There are a certain two who have already made history and will probably make the tennis hall of fame for that feat alone.

Elitist
Oct 5th, 2003, 05:50 AM
I'd say around 15 GS and about 80 titles. Is that too little for this day and age?? What do you think.

Or, more appropriately:

Look, Venus and Serena will never catch Graf in the number of Slams or titles, so how much longer before I can say they're better than her?

Knizzle
Oct 5th, 2003, 06:17 AM
Or, more appropriately:

I'd appreciate it if you didn't quote me on things I never said. My post is about current players and how many GS they have to win to be considered for being the greatest ever because none of them will beat Court's 24 or even get close to Graf's 22 because Henin, Clijsters, The WS, and eventually some of the Russians will all be in contention for the slams and will split them up. So how many will one of them have to win to be on par with the greats.

P.S. If you want to know, I'll tell you. IMHO the sisters ARE better than Graf, but they are NOT GREATER than Graf.

Elitist
Oct 5th, 2003, 06:25 AM
HAHAHAHA! Despite the fact that Graf whupped up on the sisters, when Graf was grandma-age.

Knizzle
Oct 5th, 2003, 06:32 AM
HAHAHAHA! Despite the fact that Graf whupped up on the sisters, when Graf was grandma-age.

Just like she had a 7-2 record over Hingis who had the nerve to call her old and slow.

Graf was 1-1 against Serena and 3-2 against Venus. Her only straight set victory against the sisters was way back in 96 in Toronto against Venus 6-4, 6-4. All other matches were close 3 setters besides when Venus beat Steffi 6-2, 6-4 at Miami SF in 99. The way the sisters are today. Graf wouldn't win too many times against them.

Elitist
Oct 5th, 2003, 06:38 AM
The sisters are no stronger or faster, in fact, Venus is worse today than she was when she played Graf. It's just that the competition is weaker and all the top players play the same game these days.

Knizzle
Oct 5th, 2003, 06:44 AM
The sisters are no stronger or faster, in fact, Venus is worse today than she was when she played Graf. It's just that the competition is weaker and all the top players play the same game these days.

I happen to know that Venus is 100% better than she was in 99. She may not be stronger or faster, but she is more consistent, smarter, more experienced, and has a more complete game then she did back then. The competition is definitely different, I wouldn't say weaker necessarily, but the WS and now the Belgians have taken the game to a higher level and the competition hasn't caught up yet.

tennisjam
Oct 5th, 2003, 11:07 AM
Tennis is a little more than just "summerised" numbers...

nygirl
Oct 6th, 2003, 09:01 AM
[QUOTE=Knizzle]I'd appreciate it if you didn't quote me on things I never said. My post is about current players and how many GS they have to win to be considered for being the greatest ever because none of them will beat Court's 24 or even get close to Graf's 22 because Henin, Clijsters, The WS, and eventually some of the Russians will all be in contention for the slams and will split them up. So how many will one of them have to win to be on par with the greats.[QUOTE]


I don't think they need to win as many as Graf or Court did to be considered one of the greatest ever. Tennis has changed too much and I can't see anyone even remotely approching Graf's number of slam victories. That said, I honestly think Serena is already up there as one of the best ever. Knowing she will problaby play for many more years she will only reinforce that status by winning a few more slams. Venus has a way to go if she wants to catch up with her sister. Although I think Venus will probably end up in the Hall of Fame if she were to retire as of now I personnaly don't see her as one the greatest ever at this point because of her constant losses against Serena lately. About the Belgians: personnaly I think if Justine could win a few more slams she will definitely deserve to be remembered as one of the greatest ever. And in my opinion she will probably then be remembered as one of the smallest topplayers to succeed in 'the power era'. That on itself is actually already a huge feat. And I hope Clijsters starts winning slams otherwise she will go down in history as the greatest choker...the Jana Novotna of her generation if you will. Honestly I don't think you have to win a great number of slams to be remembered in some way in tennis history. Hingis 'only' won 5 slams but in my eyes she belongs in that list of greatest ever. She was barely 16 when she hit #1!! Nowadays people already start drooling over a girl that won her first WTA title at 16.5 years...

bandabou
Oct 6th, 2003, 09:51 AM
[QUOTE=Knizzle]I'd appreciate it if you didn't quote me on things I never said. My post is about current players and how many GS they have to win to be considered for being the greatest ever because none of them will beat Court's 24 or even get close to Graf's 22 because Henin, Clijsters, The WS, and eventually some of the Russians will all be in contention for the slams and will split them up. So how many will one of them have to win to be on par with the greats.[QUOTE]


I don't think they need to win as many as Graf or Court did to be considered one of the greatest ever. Tennis has changed too much and I can't see anyone even remotely approching Graf's number of slam victories. That said, I honestly think Serena is already up there as one of the best ever. Knowing she will problaby play for many more years she will only reinforce that status by winning a few more slams. Venus has a way to go if she wants to catch up with her sister. Although I think Venus will probably end up in the Hall of Fame if she were to retire as of now I personnaly don't see her as one the greatest ever at this point because of her constant losses against Serena lately. About the Belgians: personnaly I think if Justine could win a few more slams she will definitely deserve to be remembered as one of the greatest ever. And in my opinion she will probably then be remembered as one of the smallest topplayers to succeed in 'the power era'. That on itself is actually already a huge feat. And I hope Clijsters starts winning slams otherwise she will go down in history as the greatest choker...the Jana Novotna of her generation if you will. Honestly I don't think you have to win a great number of slams to be remembered in some way in tennis history. Hingis 'only' won 5 slams but in my eyes she belongs in that list of greatest ever. She was barely 16 when she hit #1!! Nowadays people already start drooling over a girl that won her first WTA title at 16.5 years...

:lol: It ain´t even a big tournament! A tier III with the field of a tier IV! Wonder what Anna´s thinking now?!

nygirl
Oct 6th, 2003, 11:09 AM
:lol: It ain´t even a big tournament! A tier III with the field of a tier IV! Wonder what Anna´s thinking now?!

I know :rolleyes: I'm curious to what she's going to do next year, she'll be 17 then. The age on which most present big names have had their breakthroughs. IMO she will need to at least reach the semis of one grand slam to have lived up to her hype.