All Time Rankings 1884-2013 - Page 2 - TennisForum.com
TennisForum.com   Wagerline.com MensTennisForums.com TennisUniverse.com
TennisForum.com is the premier Women's Tennis forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.Please Register - It's Free!
Reply

Old Jun 12th, 2010, 11:44 AM   #16
Rollo
Moderator - BFTP
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 17,827
Rollo has a reputation beyond repute Rollo has a reputation beyond repute Rollo has a reputation beyond repute Rollo has a reputation beyond repute Rollo has a reputation beyond repute Rollo has a reputation beyond repute Rollo has a reputation beyond repute Rollo has a reputation beyond repute Rollo has a reputation beyond repute Rollo has a reputation beyond repute Rollo has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Womens All Time Rankings 1884-2009

Hi Computer: I edited in links to make it easier for people. Editing is pretty easy-just click on the button that says "edit" on the lower right hand side.
Rollo is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 

Old Jun 12th, 2010, 12:15 PM   #17
country flag chris whiteside
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,620
chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold
Re: Womens All Time Rankings 1884-2009

Winnie Shaw #147!!

One of the noticeable things about these sort of statistical lists is how Ann Jones always comes out well in them. She surely is one of the most under-rated players in tennis.

While she was not of the calibre of Margaret Smith, Maria Buno or Billie-Jean King she was snapping at their heels and was able to beat them all several times. Her 3 Slam victories were all gained in strong fields and over the leading players of the day.

I think one telling fact of her calibre is that in the 11 Slam semi-finals she reached before 1966 over half of them were from a seeding position outside the top 4.
__________________
Margaret Thatcher - Michele Bachmann two strong women of our time.
chris whiteside is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 12th, 2010, 01:16 PM   #18
country flag the computer
Senior Member
 
the computer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 491
the computer is a glorious beacon of light the computer is a glorious beacon of light the computer is a glorious beacon of light the computer is a glorious beacon of light the computer is a glorious beacon of light the computer is a glorious beacon of light the computer is a glorious beacon of light the computer is a glorious beacon of light the computer is a glorious beacon of light the computer is a glorious beacon of light the computer is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Womens All Time Rankings 1884-2009

Ann Jones isnt underrated - everyone knows she was fabulous!

Last edited by the computer : Dec 14th, 2012 at 09:54 AM.
the computer is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 22nd, 2010, 08:16 PM   #19
country flag daze11
Senior Member
 
daze11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: BrOoKLyN, NY
Posts: 3,076
daze11 is a splendid one to behold daze11 is a splendid one to behold daze11 is a splendid one to behold daze11 is a splendid one to behold daze11 is a splendid one to behold daze11 is a splendid one to behold daze11 is a splendid one to behold daze11 is a splendid one to behold daze11 is a splendid one to behold daze11 is a splendid one to behold daze11 is a splendid one to behold
Re: Womens All Time Rankings 1884-2009

I would think when considering a CAREER, the value of a single calendar grand slam is not necessarily more impressive than simply winning all 4 slams in a year. If a player is a stand out for 2 or 3 years but has many years where they are not a stand out, they shouldnt be getting bonus points because they had a great year. A career view is different from an individual year view for that reason.

To me, a grand slam is a cute ego boost & side note to a player's career, but i've never quite gotten why it matters ... what matters long-view is being able to perform on all surfaces against a variety of competition... which happens over the course of a career far more than having 1 spectacular year. So there's at least an alternative view on the subject.
daze11 is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 23rd, 2010, 08:08 AM   #20
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 would think when considering a CAREER, the value of a single calendar grand slam is not necessarily more impressive than simply winning all 4 slams in a year. If a player is a stand out for 2 or 3 years but has many years where they are not a stand out, they shouldnt be getting bonus points because they had a great year. A career view is different from an individual year view for that reason.

To me, a grand slam is a cute ego boost & side note to a player's career, but i've never quite gotten why it matters ... what matters long-view is being able to perform on all surfaces against a variety of competition... which happens over the course of a career far more than having 1 spectacular year. So there's at least an alternative view on the subject.
DazeWhere have you been hiding? Hope all is well. I kind of agree with you, yes the GS events are the most important and yes they determine for ever your place in the games history. But if we are talking rankings, as opposed to subjective perceptions of who was the greatest, then we have to take into account the consistency and record over all tournaments of a player. I mean when Navratilova won Wimbledon and the US Open in 87, it was fantastic. But it did not obscure the fact that she was very much the number two to Graf by the end of the year.
iainmac is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 23rd, 2010, 01:33 PM   #21
country flag the computer
Senior Member
 
the computer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 491
the computer is a glorious beacon of light the computer is a glorious beacon of light the computer is a glorious beacon of light the computer is a glorious beacon of light the computer is a glorious beacon of light the computer is a glorious beacon of light the computer is a glorious beacon of light the computer is a glorious beacon of light the computer is a glorious beacon of light the computer is a glorious beacon of light the computer is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Womens All Time Rankings 1884-2009

Why do people call every slam 'a grand slam' - people are confused and confusing

Last edited by the computer : Dec 14th, 2012 at 09:57 AM.
the computer is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24th, 2010, 08:59 AM   #22
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 the computer View Post
Yes Daze - I have said in one of the rankings thread that the Grand Slam achievement is only relevant to that one year's rankings - Dennis suggests an additional bonus for achieving this and I'm not all out against this suggestion - I'd just point out that they're already getting 28192 bonus points in winning all slams for achieving this.

Ian - you say re 87 Navratilova was very much the number 2 to Graf by the end of the year - but I hope you agree that in determining the rankings for any year you have to take the whole year's results into consideration.

Computer
Of course I agree with you and I am in awe of your labour of love with this. For that you are welcome here in Scotland at any time!!!!
iainmac is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 29th, 2010, 02:47 AM   #23
country flag austinrunner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 1,398
austinrunner has disabled reputation
Re: Womens All Time Rankings 1884-2009

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris whiteside View Post
One of the noticeable things about these sort of statistical lists is how Ann Jones always comes out well in them. She surely is one of the most under-rated players in tennis.

While she was not of the calibre of Margaret Smith, Maria Buno or Billie-Jean King she was snapping at their heels and was able to beat them all several times. Her 3 Slam victories were all gained in strong fields and over the leading players of the day.
By my count, Jones beat King 11 times in 51 attempts.
austinrunner is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 29th, 2010, 05:47 AM   #24
country flag DennisFitz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 556
DennisFitz is a name known to all DennisFitz is a name known to all DennisFitz is a name known to all DennisFitz is a name known to all DennisFitz is a name known to all DennisFitz is a name known to all DennisFitz is a name known to all DennisFitz is a name known to all DennisFitz is a name known to all DennisFitz is a name known to all DennisFitz is a name known to all
Re: Womens All Time Rankings 1884-2009

Quote:
Originally Posted by daze11 View Post
I would think when considering a CAREER, the value of a single calendar grand slam is not necessarily more impressive than simply winning all 4 slams in a year.
But Daze, isn't winning a calendar Grand Slam the same as winning all 4 slams in a year?

Quote:
Originally Posted by daze11 View Post
If a player is a stand out for 2 or 3 years but has many years where they are not a stand out, they shouldnt be getting bonus points because they had a great year. A career view is different from an individual year view for that reason.
I guess it depends on the system one uses to rank players' career, and in comparison with other players. I certainly think a bonus would be warranted for sweeping all 4 in one year. So few have done it, it does mean that it is a pretty unique achievement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by daze11 View Post
To me, a grand slam is a cute ego boost & side note to a player's career, but i've never quite gotten why it matters ... what matters long-view is being able to perform on all surfaces against a variety of competition... which happens over the course of a career far more than having 1 spectacular year. So there's at least an alternative view on the subject.
Kind of ironic, because the 5 who have won a Slam: Budge, Connolly, Laver, Court, and Graf are all at the top of the sport when ranking players all time, with the exception of Budge, and that really had to do with the structure of the game when he played. I absolutely don't agree that winning THE Grand Slam is a side note to these player's legacy. It is the the definitive statement, and a measure against which all players will be compared against, and which every player now would absolutely love to emulate.

I agree that in a career review, it is what is achieved over the course of a career, and not just one year. And again, those who have won the Grand Slam have had amazing careers. Connolly's was tragically cut short, Budge went into the pros right away. Laver is still #4 all-time in terms of majors won (and many would speculate he might be in the lead had he been able to play in majors from 1963-1968). And Court and Graf are #1 and #2. So again, those who won the Grand Slam did pretty well for themselves in the long run.

And when looking at the players who won career Slams, it's a pretty impressive list too. And while there are notable exceptions on that list, tennis is a game where you can't win 'em all. So those who have achieved the distinction of winning all 4majors in a career, and especially in one year, where the pressure is enormous, I think it reflects true greatness.
DennisFitz is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 29th, 2010, 11:19 AM   #25
tennisvideos
Love the Legends of Tennis
 
tennisvideos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 4,429
tennisvideos has a reputation beyond repute tennisvideos has a reputation beyond repute tennisvideos has a reputation beyond repute tennisvideos has a reputation beyond repute tennisvideos has a reputation beyond repute tennisvideos has a reputation beyond repute tennisvideos has a reputation beyond repute tennisvideos has a reputation beyond repute tennisvideos has a reputation beyond repute tennisvideos has a reputation beyond repute tennisvideos has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Womens All Time Rankings 1884-2009

Quote:
Originally Posted by DennisFitz View Post
But Daze, isn't winning a calendar Grand Slam the same as winning all 4 slams in a year?



I guess it depends on the system one uses to rank players' career, and in comparison with other players. I certainly think a bonus would be warranted for sweeping all 4 in one year. So few have done it, it does mean that it is a pretty unique achievement.



Kind of ironic, because the 5 who have won a Slam: Budge, Connolly, Laver, Court, and Graf are all at the top of the sport when ranking players all time, with the exception of Budge, and that really had to do with the structure of the game when he played. I absolutely don't agree that winning THE Grand Slam is a side note to these player's legacy. It is the the definitive statement, and a measure against which all players will be compared against, and which every player now would absolutely love to emulate.

I agree that in a career review, it is what is achieved over the course of a career, and not just one year. And again, those who have won the Grand Slam have had amazing careers. Connolly's was tragically cut short, Budge went into the pros right away. Laver is still #4 all-time in terms of majors won (and many would speculate he might be in the lead had he been able to play in majors from 1963-1968). And Court and Graf are #1 and #2. So again, those who won the Grand Slam did pretty well for themselves in the long run.

And when looking at the players who won career Slams, it's a pretty impressive list too. And while there are notable exceptions on that list, tennis is a game where you can't win 'em all. So those who have achieved the distinction of winning all 4majors in a career, and especially in one year, where the pressure is enormous, I think it reflects true greatness.
Have to agree ... those who did win the calendar Grand Slam did all have remarkable careers so these weren't flash in the pans. And you are right, the pressure of a calendar GS is enormous - even Court admitted as much back in 1970 as she was heading towards the US Open.
__________________
Fave recent players: .. Seles .. Hingis .. Serena .. Venus .. Federer .. Roddick .. Hewitt .. Haas .. Rafter .. Safin .. Radwanska ..
60s/70s: Evonne Goolagong .. Francoise Durr .. Chris Evert .. Margaret Court .. Nancy Richey .. Maria Bueno .. Billie-Jean King .. Lesley Turner .. Virginia Wade .. Ken Rosewall .. Rod Laver .. Bjorn Borg ..
Entertainers: .. Diana Ross .. Dionne Warwick .. Shirley Bassey .. Randy Crawford .. Burt Bacharach .. ABBA .. Woody Allen .. Maggie Smith .. Gena Rowlands .. Judy Davis .. Heath Ledger .. Little Britain ..
Inspiration: .. Jeshua Ben Josepth .. Conversations with God .. Abraham with Esther & Jerry Hicks .. P'taah ..
tennisvideos is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 29th, 2010, 11:57 AM   #26
country flag chris whiteside
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,620
chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold
Re: Womens All Time Rankings 1884-2009

Quote:
Originally Posted by austinrunner View Post
By my count, Jones beat King 11 times in 51 attempts.
Rightly or wrongly the professional matches as part of the McCall Group were not regarded as relevant in terms of h2hs.

I take it that the overall score was 29-9 (for BJ, of course!)

That would leave the professional scores as 11-2 for BJ but it has always been hard to get access to their professional results and it would seem to me that there are some missing. Would they have played as few as 13 times plus some would have been professional sets?

I know Jones won at Madison Square Garden and Fort Worth so that makes the 2 wins but I have also read in several sources that Jones won twice during a tour of France so that immediately makes me doubt the figures - other than that they were heavily in BJ's favour.
__________________
Margaret Thatcher - Michele Bachmann two strong women of our time.
chris whiteside is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 29th, 2010, 06:31 PM   #27
country flag the computer
Senior Member
 
the computer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 491
the computer is a glorious beacon of light the computer is a glorious beacon of light the computer is a glorious beacon of light the computer is a glorious beacon of light the computer is a glorious beacon of light the computer is a glorious beacon of light the computer is a glorious beacon of light the computer is a glorious beacon of light the computer is a glorious beacon of light the computer is a glorious beacon of light the computer is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Womens All Time Rankings 1884-2009

Wait till I do my profiles

Last edited by the computer : Dec 14th, 2012 at 09:58 AM.
the computer is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 30th, 2010, 07:12 AM   #28
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 austinrunner View Post
By my count, Jones beat King 11 times in 51 attempts.
And though inummerable matches were she was close to and should have beaten BJK more.
iainmac is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 30th, 2010, 07:20 AM   #29
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
But Daze, isn't winning a calendar Grand Slam the same as winning all 4 slams in a year?



I guess it depends on the system one uses to rank players' career, and in comparison with other players. I certainly think a bonus would be warranted for sweeping all 4 in one year. So few have done it, it does mean that it is a pretty unique achievement.



Kind of ironic, because the 5 who have won a Slam: Budge, Connolly, Laver, Court, and Graf are all at the top of the sport when ranking players all time, with the exception of Budge, and that really had to do with the structure of the game when he played. I absolutely don't agree that winning THE Grand Slam is a side note to these player's legacy. It is the the definitive statement, and a measure against which all players will be compared against, and which every player now would absolutely love to emulate.

I agree that in a career review, it is what is achieved over the course of a career, and not just one year. And again, those who have won the Grand Slam have had amazing careers. Connolly's was tragically cut short, Budge went into the pros right away. Laver is still #4 all-time in terms of majors won (and many would speculate he might be in the lead had he been able to play in majors from 1963-1968). And Court and Graf are #1 and #2. So again, those who won the Grand Slam did pretty well for themselves in the long run.

And when looking at the players who won career Slams, it's a pretty impressive list too. And while there are notable exceptions on that list, tennis is a game where you can't win 'em all. So those who have achieved the distinction of winning all 4majors in a career, and especially in one year, where the pressure is enormous, I think it reflects true greatness.
DennisI am kind of puzzled how anyone could question the magnificent achievement that winning a Grand Slam represents. It is truly one of the great achievements in world sport. From a subjective analysis, it could be that Daze is viewing it a little from the viewpoint of Evert who was one, if not the, greatest exponent of consistent brilliance ever. She never achieved a slam, and the non appearance at the French in 76 was the most obvious case of a year she likely would have won the slam. But to me Connolly, Graf and Court are absolute legends for what they achieved,and the history books will always reflect that.
iainmac is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 30th, 2010, 07:22 AM   #30
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 tennisvideos View Post
Have to agree ... those who did win the calendar Grand Slam did all have remarkable careers so these weren't flash in the pans. And you are right, the pressure of a calendar GS is enormous - even Court admitted as much back in 1970 as she was heading towards the US Open.
CraigOne of the Holy Grails of sport, the tennis GS. It must have been so much pressure for all those who achieved it. As Graf approached the US Open in 88 the pressure on her was unbelievable. It was all people wanted to talk about. Of course Margaret was older and more experienced than Graf in 88, when she did her slam in 70. But it must have took nerves of steel to finish the GS off. And against a Casals in the final who fought tooth and nail.
iainmac is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Copyright (C) Verticalscope Inc
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBCredits v1.4 Copyright ©2007, PixelFX Studios