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

View Single Post

Old Jul 7th, 2010, 11:54 AM   #43
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 DennisFitz View Post
Somehow, me thinks Steffi is sure glad she's Steffi, with her official Grand Slam sweep (let's not even talk Golden Grand Slam!!), and yup it's infinitely more impressive than Navratilova's 1983 season.

Oh, and Martina won 2 grass slams in 1983.

Graf won on Rebound Ace, red clay, grass at Wimbledon, and hard courts at the US Open.

Yup, let's penalize Graf for beating all comers. Including dethroning Navratilova at Wimbledon. But naturally her Grand Slam is a *lesser* achievement because of who she didn't beat. Monica Seles circa 1992; Martina Navratilova circa 1984; Chris Evert circa 1980; Margaret Court circa 1970.

Hmmm.....the Grand Slam is a fascination with 'accomplishment in the moment' ? Methinks not. It can only happen to one player in one year.....and several things need to fall in line for it to happen. Slip up once, just once (see Navratilova, 1983 French Open) and the opportunity is lost for another year.

The Grand Slam is caught up in a culture of short-sightedness? Huh? If it were happening, oh, every year, one could see how it was a short-sighted view of what defined greatness.

And the HYPE that fuels the business of the sport? I'll say the Slams most certainly do. Did you ever pay attention to what happens every year at the Australian, French, Wimbledon and US Open? No one cares who won Eastbourne. Or San Diego. Or Dubai. Or Acapulco. Or Kazakhstan.

The Slams do matter more. There is more hype, and the hype is what keeps the professional sport going.

Oh, and again, that long view, of a full career of accomplishment and capacity. Methinks it's Steffi Graf' Golden Grand Slam that pushed her over the top, ahead of Navratilova (and just why oh why wasn't she good enough to win a Slam when 2 of 4 majors were on grass during her heyday??????????????????????????).
DennisI do think that the quality of the opposition in the Golden Slam for Steffi was less than it would have been in some other years. But it was still formidable players she had to defeat to take the Slam including Navratilova at Wimbledon. To question the worth of this achievement sounds like folly to me. And we could also go back to the Evert and Navratilova dominance. Im sure Chris or Martina would not like it if their 80s achievements were dismissed as being less important because there was no Austin and Jaeger around. In fact remove Evert and Navratilova from the mid 80s and the only player who could even look to have challenged Graf in her GS year was Mandlikova.
iainmac is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote