TennisForum.com - View Single Post - All Time Rankings 1884-2013

View Single Post

Old Jul 7th, 2010, 10:46 AM   #42
country flag iainmac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,782
iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold
Re: Womens All Time Rankings 1884-2009

Quote:
Originally Posted by daze11 View Post
I think its a great achievement but it represents the results of one year. What matters is proving you can win ALL SLAMS on all surfaces in your career. With the exception of Graf, all of the players who have won 'The Grand Slam' did so always winning essentially on one single surface: GRASS plus the 1 win in Paris on clay. So Margaret's quote is a testiment of the pressure of the consistency in 1 year, but doesnt say much about the variety that today's player would have to deal with to win a slam, proving they can win on a diversity of surfaces & conditions.

So steffi's slam is the only Grand Slam i should be completely impressed with (and give full credit to), and i'm not... because her competition at that time were 2 all-time greats who were at the very end of their powers in Chris & Martina in their 30s & both coming down from highs of years of dominance (chris marrying & retiring, Martina in self-proclaimed 'crisis'), and Gabriela who was not yet ready to fill the role Graf was pulling off. And monica not yet out of the crib.

Still, i'd F*A*R rather be martina in 1983 & NOT win the slam because martina in 83 was superior to graf in 88. that's just an opinion but i believe it from the top hair of my head to the outer-reaches of my toe.

there's a great quote i read a few weeks ago that relates...
"...why do we ascribe so much power to those who happen to be winning at this very moment? That's just what losers do, I guess." -heather havrilesky, salon

so in sports, i do think the micro-fascination with accomplishment in the moment is part of a culture of short-sightedness, and that its more about HYPE that fuels the business/industry end of sports, more than proof of something larger about a full career of accomplishment and capacity.
DazeThis is a great post for debate although I think it is a little short on being grounded in reality. You cant undermine the achievements of anyone who has won the GS. Great players- such as Evert and Navratilova failed to do so, although it is awful for Evert because I am sure she would have done it in 76 if she had been able to play the French Open instead of losing the title in abstentia to Sue Barker. Every sport needs its very pinnacle of achievement. The GS is what that equates to in tennis. Without the Holy Grail that the GS represents their would not be quite the same interest. And I totally salute Connolly, Court and Graf. They accomplished the greatest mission in their sport.
iainmac is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote