All-Time Great Slam Champions - TennisForum.com
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 69 (permalink) Old Oct 23rd, 2004, 07:35 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,551
                     
All-Time Great Slam Champions

There has been a lot of discussion regarding “The Greatest of All-Time” and “Hall of Fame” Criteria in this forum. I’ve listed all Grand Slam champions, finalists and semifinalists since 1900 and awarded points based on quality of competition and the status of the Slam for that era. Then I tallied the point totals for each player and have come up with the 50 top Slam players since 1900.

PreacherFan
preacherfan is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 69 (permalink) Old Oct 23rd, 2004, 07:37 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,551
                     
Here's how I tallied the points:
Wimbledon:
1900-1914: 12 for winner, 4 for runner up, 2 for semifinalists
1919-1980: 16, 6, 3 (became international and held higher status than other Slams)
1981-present: 12, 4, 2 (though still retains status, all slams are counted equal)

French (initially world hard Courts):
1912-1914: 2, 1, 0
1920-1937: 8, 3, 1
1938-1939: 5, 2, 0 (weaker fields)
1946-1973: 12, 4, 2
1974-1975: 8, 3, 1
1976-1978: 2, 1, 0
1979-1980: 8, 3, 1
1981-present: 12, 4, 2

PreacherFan
preacherfan is offline  
post #3 of 69 (permalink) Old Oct 23rd, 2004, 07:37 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,551
                     
US:
1900-1910: 3, 1, 0 (held in same time period as Wimbledon)
1911-1920: 5, 2, 1
1921-1930: 8, 3, 1 (Kitty McKane was first int’l star in final in 1925)
1931-present 12, 4, 2

Australian:
1922-1934: 1, 0, 0 (no int’l players of significance)
1935-1948: 2, 1, 0 (occasional foreigner – Round, Bundy)
1949-1959: 2, 1, 0 or 3, 1, 0 if strong int’l players present)
1960-1975: 8, 3, 1
1976-1977: 2, 1, 0
1978-1979: 0
1980-1983: 8, 3, 1
1984-present: 12, 4, 2

PreacherFan
preacherfan is offline  
 
post #4 of 69 (permalink) Old Oct 23rd, 2004, 07:40 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,551
                     
Numbers represent total points from French, Wimbledon, US, and Australian, then total respectively.

1. Chris Evert 80, 107, 98, 34, 319
2. Steffi Graf 88, 94, 78, 52, 312
3. Martina Navratilova 39, 140, 72, 43, 294
4. Margaret Smith Court 66, 63, 68, 91, 288
5. Helen Wills Moody 32, 134, 67, 0,233
6. Billie Jean King 14, 127, 58, 12, 211
7. Suzanne Lenglen 42, 102, 0, 0, 144
8. Louise Brough 6, 91, 42, 3, 142
9. Maria Bueno 12, 63, 58, 3, 136
10. Monica Seles 46, 4, 32, 52, 134
(tie) Doris Hart 38, 40, 52, 4, 134
12. Helen Jacobs 8, 52, 69, 0, 129
13. Evonne Goolagong Cawley 18, 59, 16, 29, 122
14. Maureen Connolly 24, 48, 36, 3, 111
15. Margaret Osborne duPont 28, 34, 48, 0, 110
16. Martina Hingis 14, 14, 26, 48, 102
17. Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario 56, 10, 18, 14, 98
18. Ann Haydon-Jones 40, 40, 14, 1, 95
19. Serena Williams 14, 28, 28, 12, 82
20. Hana Mandlikova 19, 10, 18, 22, 79

PreacherFan

Last edited by preacherfan; Oct 24th, 2004 at 10:15 PM.
preacherfan is offline  
post #5 of 69 (permalink) Old Oct 23rd, 2004, 07:41 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,551
                     
21. Venus Williams 4, 32, 36, 6, 78
(tie) Dorothea Douglass Chambers 0, 78, 0, 0, 78
23. Pauline Betz 4, 16, 56, 0, 76
24. Shirley Fry 22, 28, 22, 3, 75
25. Althea Gibson 12, 32, 28, 1, 73
26. Alice Marble 0, 22, 48, 0, 70
(tie) Molla Bjurstedt Mallory 3, 9, 58, 0, 70
28. Lindsay Davenport 2, 20, 26, 18, 66
29. Darlene Hard 12, 12, 38, 0, 62
30. Jennifer Capriati 18, 4, 8, 26, 56
31. Kitty McKane Godfree 7, 41, 3, 0, 51
32. Nancy Richey 22, 3, 14, 11, 50
33. Virginia Wade 0, 25, 16, 8, 49
(tie) Gabriela Sabatini 10, 10, 22, 7, 49
(tie) Lesley Turner Bowrey 36, 3, 2, 8, 49

PreacherFan
preacherfan is offline  
post #6 of 69 (permalink) Old Oct 23rd, 2004, 07:42 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,551
                     
36. Justine Henin-Hardenne 14, 8, 12, 14, 48
37. Hilde Krahwinkel Sperling 26, 21, 0, 0, 47
(tie) Simone Mathieu 29, 18, 0, 0, 47
39. Angela Mortimer 16, 25, 2, 3, 46
40. Dorothy Round 0, 38, 2, 2, 42
41. Conchita Martinez 10, 16, 4, 8, 38
42. Sarah Palfrey Fabyan Cooke 0, 3, 34, 0, 37
43. Charlotte Sterry 0, 36, 0, 0, 36
(tie) Christine Truman 14, 15, 6, 1, 36
45. Jana Novotna 4, 22, 4, 4, 34
(tie)Pat Todd 18, 12, 4, 0 34
47. May Sutton Bundy 0, 28, 5, 0, 33
48. Tracy Austin 0, 6, 26, 0, 32
(tie) Mary Pierce 16, 0, 0, 16, 32
(tie) Elizabeth Ryan 3, 26, 3, 0, 32

PreacherFan
preacherfan is offline  
post #7 of 69 (permalink) Old Oct 23rd, 2004, 08:09 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,551
                     
Sorry about the separate posts. My computer won't let me make long posts.

I learned a lot doing this research. I decided all the point values before analyzing the stats to try to take any personal bias out. Evert wouldn't come out on top if SF and F results didn't help. Her consistency is unparallelled in tennis history. She came out on top even with 4 of her FO wins and 1 AO win getting less value. The devalued AO's of the 60's hurt Court.

PreacherFan
preacherfan is offline  
post #8 of 69 (permalink) Old Oct 23rd, 2004, 09:00 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,551
                     
Those listed in my top 50 who are not in the Hall of Fame include:
#33 - Gabriela Sabatini - 1990 USO winner
#37 - Hilde Krahwinkel Sperling - 1935-1937 French winner
#37 - Simone Mathieu - 1938-1939 French winner plus 6 French and 3 Wimb doubles
#43 - Charlotte Sterry - 2 time Wimbledon champ
#43 - Christine Truman - 1959 French Winner
#45 - Pat Todd - 1947 French winner

*Todd, Truman and Novotna are on this year's ballot

PreacherFan
preacherfan is offline  
post #9 of 69 (permalink) Old Oct 23rd, 2004, 09:29 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,619
                     
It doesn't affect overall position but Jones US. R/U 1961, 1967. SF 1959, 1963, 1968 =14pts.

P/F What was your thinking on not awarding points from quarters onwards?

Initial thoughts. IMO too big a difference between champion and runner-up and not enough between r/u and semi-finalist.
chris whiteside is offline  
post #10 of 69 (permalink) Old Oct 23rd, 2004, 10:14 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,551
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris whiteside
P/F What was your thinking on not awarding points from quarters onwards?

Initial thoughts. IMO too big a difference between champion and runner-up and not enough between r/u and semi-finalist.
Too many names to weed through with the qf included. Just picked sf as the measuring stick. could have done anything.

I intentionally made the gap large between champ and r/u. IMO, 2 r/u finishes are not equal to one championship. It's a good run to get to the sf or f, but finishing the job is much harder. I wanted to measure all-time champions, not simply consistency. If I had gone 12,6,3, Evert would be further ahead.

PreacherFan
preacherfan is offline  
post #11 of 69 (permalink) Old Oct 24th, 2004, 12:39 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Tallahassee,FL
Posts: 674
                     
Preacherfan: Thanks for your hard work on this; I found these latest stats to be particularly insightful, especially in regards to your own personal attempt at total objectivity. Your data is consistant with Evert's overall career leading win-loss record, which also holds up rather well when tallying up only GS singles results (Is she #2 to M. Court?). I also agree with your basic point-by-point breakdown - although unscientific - the gaps btwn each round as well as your historical considerations do a fine job at measuring such players GS records vs fellow legends in the game.

Does this mean Evert's the undisputed best in GS singles history? Of course not necessarily, but for those who might occassionally slight her as a player, it is certainly good food for thought and grounds for further research.

As an aside, it was interesting to hear Evert recently touch upon how players in her era didn't consider the slams as important or vital as the players and public do today. Clearly they've evolved into being all-important, while many other tourneys (Italian Open for one) are now much less so. This makes it all the more challenging for future statisticians to specifically measure overall historical rankings, though IMO, Preacherfan's attempt does as good a job as any
Santorofan is offline  
post #12 of 69 (permalink) Old Oct 24th, 2004, 07:44 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,619
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by Santorofan
As an aside, it was interesting to hear Evert recently touch upon how players in her era didn't consider the slams as important or vital as the players and public do today.

I wonder if this is more related to the 70s when big money offered at other events as well as politics lured players away from the Slams particularly the French?

Certainly, my perception of the period before this is that the Slams were the be all and end all. Throughout the world THE thing was to be Wimbledon champion with the second most prestigious event Forest Hills although Americans themselves liked to think it on a par. Everyone agreed that the French was the third most important although it wasn't regarded as highly in the US as throughout the rest of the world. It was accepted that Australia made up the "big four" but it was with somethiong of a sarcastic roll of the eyes attitude. The events outside these, apart from perhaps the Italian, did not really carry the same prestige both among the players and the public.

It would be interesting to see how Pepetaco perceives this.

And my recollections of the 80s is that they were still the most important events.
chris whiteside is offline  
post #13 of 69 (permalink) Old Oct 25th, 2004, 05:59 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,619
                     
Your points allocation for the various Slams at different times are interesting and look to be pretty fair, P/F. Did you use fixed criteria such as the number of top 10 players competing etc or was it just a balanced opinion?

A few players lost out through WWII. Hart, Brough and Osborne might have done a bit better although there is a massive gap between BJK at #6 and Lenglen at #7. The one player who would probably have finished considerably higher and probably in the top 10 would be Pauline Betz.
chris whiteside is offline  
post #14 of 69 (permalink) Old Oct 25th, 2004, 06:10 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,551
                     
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris whiteside
Your points allocation for the various Slams at different times are interesting and look to be pretty fair, P/F. Did you use fixed criteria such as the number of top 10 players competing etc or was it just a balanced opinion?
I didn't use a fixed criteria but I did examine each draw for top players. I thought it important to keep consistency with point values as much as possible. A Slam shouldn't be devalued because a couple of top players were injured. I only changed the values when a trend in participation seemed evident. See '38-'39 French. Top players had all played the French throughout the 30's and then didn't compete in '38-'39. Don't know why. Impending war? Player participation in the 70's is well documented, though don't you know Chrissie wishes she'd played more French and Aussie opens?

PreacherFan
preacherfan is offline  
post #15 of 69 (permalink) Old Oct 25th, 2004, 06:23 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,551
                     
I, too, wondered about the opportunities lost by some of these players. Everyone comments about the shortened careers of Seles and Connolly, but what about those shortened by war? Marble and Betz were the most hurt by WW2, though Osborne, Hart and Brough would've won some of those Slams. Sperling and Mathieu had shared 5 French titles going into the war. I find the 1946-1959 period interesting. Only Connolly dominated for any period of time there. Though there were several strong players, Connolly pushed them aside and the same players appeared after she left. Seems a period devoid of a great champion (exception of Gibson's brief reign). But also seems to be a period of great depth.

All WWI seemed to do (from a women's tennis perspective) was to shorten Lenglen's domination. She was clearly arriving at the top as a teen prior to the war and would've probably won every French title and started her Wimbledon run 2-3 years earlier. You mention the gap between BJK and Lenglen. Lenglen's total is incredible. Can you imagine if she played the US Champs at the time?

PreacherFan
preacherfan is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TennisForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome