[Monzanator]

Originally Posted by Anthony.

Only 3 players have, and probably ever will, win the Marbella slam. It's the stuff of legends.

I'd take 5 slams. Only having one on each surface is rather telling, and I really would be shocked if Maria didn't win another slam.

Finally someone who understands that Marbella is the only important thing in WTA. Career Grand Slam is a random excuse for wimps unless of course your first name is Serena

Originally Posted by NashaMasha

Lindsay Davenport on the Wertheim tweet ("what unites the likes of Davenport, Seles, Henin, Hingis - they've never won CGS") answered

Lindsay Davenport ‏@LDavenport76

I believe winning a career grand slam puts her at a higher level in history books even though (so far) she's 'only' won 4 slams.

It's competent opinion.....

Davenport never won Marbella. So much for being "competent"

[ShiftyFella]

Originally Posted by NashaMasha

absolutely wrong, because player who could win 4 Slams on clay may suck on hard and grass and considered to be a clay warm and not taken seriously anywhere except Roland Garros ....

Actually better player is the one who can win more titles, win on all surfaces , be competitive on all Majors. Lindsay Davenport was a much better player than Kuerten , same for Capriati

That's my point

If in your opinion Kuerten is better than these 2 , nobody should take your posts serious anymore

I never said that because you can't compare ATP to WTA players, Linsday has other intangibles that solidify her career and her place in HOF.

Your point only works when you count "being competitive" stuff, I'd rather be considered one of the greatest grass players with few Wimbledon titles behind my belt then "be competitive all year"

BTW, You can't diminish Gustavo's achievements because he proved that he's great clay player and only one who managed to beat Agassi and Sampras on route to the title, it's like beating Martina and Steffi to get YEC title in WTA

[Natural Joe]

My favorite quote on this topic is still this one:

Originally Posted by Sgt.Timmykinz

She's proved that she can only win a slam once on each surface...that to me is a fluke, she's never been able to repeat her success at a slam more than once. The fact that 4 slams were on in 8 years suggests a vulture to me.

Until she has won 3 of those slams again I'll remain unconvinced.

To bad he's banned so we'll have to live on without his insightful comments.

[NashaMasha]

Your point only works when you count "being competitive" stuff, I'd rather be considered one of the greatest grass players with few Wimbledon titles behind my belt then "be competitive all year"

so you really think that player who wins 5 Wimbledons and who is always beaten everywhere except grass in early rounds and considered to be hardcourt and claycourt mug is a greater player than all-surface players?

Venus Williams was in all Finals and won Slams on 2 surfaces, so her 5 Wimbledons are not diminished by sucking on all other surfaces , that's why she is great ....

To bad he's banned so we'll have to live on without his insightful comments

his reincarnation is already posting in this thread ,

[Monzanator]

Originally Posted by NashaMasha

so you really think that player who wins 5 Wimbledons and who is always beaten everywhere except grass in early rounds and considered to be hardcourt and claycourt mug is a greater player than all-surface players?

Venus Williams was in all Finals and won Slams on 2 surfaces, so her 5 Wimbledons are not diminished by sucking on all other surfaces , that's why she is great ....

You can't possibly win 5 Wimbledons and suck everywhere else (even Pironkova isn't that bad ). It would be most possible with FO, but still a long shot. Sometimes it's not all about the surface

[Mixal]

Originally Posted by acetoace

Ever heard of drawing conclusions by implication? Since pova won FO, I have never seen career slam mentioned in TF than anytime in the annals of the forum.

True. But we can also have normal discussion about this topic if we want. It's a legit question.

[saint2]

5>4.

And generally I find ranking more important than slams...

[NashaMasha]

Originally Posted by Monzanator

You can't possibly win 5 Wimbledons and suck everywhere else (even Pironkova isn't that bad ). It would be most possible with FO, but still a long shot. Sometimes it's not all about the surface

Kuerten managed to win 3 Roland Garros titles and never was in SF at any other Major

[ShiftyFella]

Originally Posted by NashaMasha

so you really think that player who wins 5 Wimbledons and who is always beaten everywhere except grass in early rounds and considered to be hardcourt and claycourt mug is a greater player than all-surface players?

Venus Williams was in all Finals and won Slams on 2 surfaces, so her 5 Wimbledons are not diminished by sucking on all other surfaces , that's why she is great ....

IF outside of slam wins everything is equal between them i.e number of titles, weeks at #1, YEC titles, OG medals, FC trophies, h2h then yes but if not the player who got better resume on top of slam wins is better. it's all about numbers at the end, simple as that

[SV_Fan]

I would rather have 5 of the same.

[NashaMasha]

Originally Posted by ShiftyFella

IF outside of slam wins everything is equal between them i.e number of titles, weeks at #1, YEC titles, OG medals, FC trophies, h2h then yes but if not the player who get better resume on top of slam wins is better. it's all about numbers at the end, simple as that

in this case i agree , if player has 5 Slams and was very close to CGS (Like Hingis) she is slightly better than player with CGS and just 4 Slams

but for instance Clijsters with her 3 Us Open+ AO isn't better than Sharapova's All-4 , because she wasn't anywhere near to CGS

[jrollaneres25]

If it's Wimbledon, then I'd rather have 5 Wimbledons!

[StoneRose]

5 > 4.

[Sharapowerr]

Venus is much older so Maria has still time

[Joelina]

Originally Posted by ShiftyFella

5 slam titles >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4 slam titles

Career Slam is overrated, it was created to say nicely that you're not good at any particular surface but somehow managed to get 4 fluke slam wins. On the other hand Calendar Career Slams(or Calendar Career Golden Slam) shows that player was GOAT all year and beat everyone.

damn, i voted for CS by mistake

you know that your post has no logic at all, don´t you?

it mean then that Serena´s FO is fluke, Justine´s AO is fluke, Clijsters´s AO is fluke,...