At the end of the day, how important are the Grand Slams?

897 Views 32 Replies 13 Participants Last post by Volcana, Aug 8, 2003

BCP

Discussion Starter · Aug 8, 2003

There has been much talk on the board about Kim becoming no.1 without a major. I think that obviously, you need to win one or a couple to be considered a great player, but after that, how important are they?

Three examples spring to mind

1. Many people consider that Steffi a greater player than Margaret Court, even though their respective singles titles total 22 and 24

2. i think that most people would agree that Gaby sabatini had a better career than say Mary Pierce, even though Mary won 2 GS and Gaby 1

3. Would we have felt different about Martina Nav and Chris Evert had Martina lost the 93 Wimbeldon final to Zina, and ended up with 17 GS compared to Chris's 18?

Reactions: 1

1 - 20 of 33 Posts

irma

· #2 · Aug 8, 2003

it's about the whole career but the margaret court less then steffi has to do with the fact that most didn't see her play.

in 30 years a lot (outside the historians under us) people have forgotten the steffi's, nav's and monica's, venus and serena's too

Sam L

· #3 · Aug 8, 2003

Not to mention the fact that Helen Wills Moody with her 19 grand slams hardly rates in the "greatest 5" of most fans' lists.

doloresc

· #4 · Aug 8, 2003

BCP said:
There has been much talk on the board about Kim becoming no.1 without a major. I think that obviously, you need to win one or a couple to be considered a great player, but after that, how important are they?

Three examples spring to mind

1. Many people consider that Steffi a greater player than Margaret Court, even though their respective singles titles total 22 and 24

2. i think that most people would agree that Gaby sabatini had a better career than say Mary Pierce, even though Mary won 2 GS and Gaby 1

3. Would we have felt different about Martina Nav and Chris Evert had Martina lost the 93 Wimbeldon final to Zina, and ended up with 17 GS compared to Chris's 18?

the grand slams are very important primarily because you have to win 7 matches under intense physical and mental pressure. playing a tier I final doesn't carry the same pressure. also, we need the grand slams in order for the players to set goals. otherwise, one tournament is indistinguishable from another one.

i agree about sabatini. despite her title drought in the latter stages of her career, she played consistently well throughout her slump.

just a correction: navratilova def. garrison in the 1990 wimbledon final.

BCP

Discussion Starter · #5 · Aug 8, 2003

So are we saying that the GS are no1? I still say that Gaby had a much better career than Mary Pierce, even though she won less GS. Also, say that Martina had lost to Zina, and ended up with 17 GS to Chris's 18, would we still think that Martina was greater than Chris?

BCP

Discussion Starter · #6 · Aug 8, 2003

Sorry. You are right about Wimbeldon. i always seem to think that it was 93.

doloresc

· #7 · Aug 8, 2003

BCP said:
So are we saying that the GS are no1? I still say that Gaby had a much better career than Mary Pierce, even though she won less GS. Also, say that Martina had lost to Zina, and ended up with 17 GS to Chris's 18, would we still think that Martina was greater than Chris?

it's all relative, depending on your perspective. there's no question that navratilova dominated evert in their final years but we could turn around and laud evert's clay court record and french open title tally and compare it to navratilova's. but to answer your question, overall i would say navratilova had the better career even if she had one less slam than evert because of her head-to-head with evert.

irma

· #8 · Aug 8, 2003

well grand slams are important but the rest counts too. see I don't think rankings on the other hand are so important mandlikova won 4 slams, so did asv. can you say then asv is greater because she was number one? I think mandlikova won also two slams in a year once (I keep it with singles since asv was probably way more succesfull in doubles)

doloresc

· #9 · Aug 8, 2003

irma said:
well grand slams are important but the rest counts too. see I don't think rankings on the other hand are so important mandlikova won 4 slams, so did asv. can you say then asv is greater because she was number one? I think mandlikova won also two slams in a year once (I keep it with singles since asv was probably way more succesfull in doubles)

sanchez vicario won two slams in 1994. i love mandlikova's game but sanchez vicario's heart and determination gives her a big edge over mandlikova in my book.

Darran

· #10 · Aug 8, 2003

I think Slams carry a certain amount of prestige and people are likely to remember who won them etc. However I think some people place too much importance on them. Some tier1s / tier 2s are far more difficult to win than a slam, as you have to play difficult players from round 1. In a slam 7 matches have to be played but especially nowadays with the advent of 32 seeds you can virtually walk yourself (if a top player) into the 2nd week.

Generally all the best players willl have a slam at the end of their careers. But by comparing the number that they have accumulated is pointless i feel.

The number 1 position is harder to achieve than a slam, as can be seen by the number of people holding it.

irma

· #11 · Aug 8, 2003

doloresc said:
sanchez vicario won two slams in 1994. i love mandlikova's game but sanchez vicario's heart and determination gives her a big edge over mandlikova in my book.

yeah I know she did in 94. mandlikova was a bit before I really got into tennis so I can't judge her tennis. I only base it on results

doloresc

· #12 · Aug 8, 2003

Darran said:
I think Slams carry a certain amount of prestige and people are likely to remember who won them etc. However I think some people place too much importance on them. Some tier1s / tier 2s are far more difficult to win than a slam, as you have to play difficult players from round 1. In a slam 7 matches have to be played but especially nowadays with the advent of 32 seeds you can virtually walk yourself (if a top player) into the 2nd week.

Generally all the best players willl have a slam at the end of their careers. But by comparing the number that they have accumulated is pointless i feel.

The number 1 position is harder to achieve than a slam, as can be seen by the number of people holding it.

re: the tier I and tier II, sometimes it's true that draws are tough and sometimes they're not. a habitual thing that occurs at the upper tier tournaments: top contenders pull out of them often (i'm sure a statistician can prevent some evidence), top seeds get byes, top seeds fall early and you'll get a surprise winner.. it's really a case of apples and oranges.

very good point about the #1 ranking.

BCP

Discussion Starter · #13 · Aug 8, 2003

I think that most recent dilema the tour encountered was the Hingis/Venus situation in 99/2000. Hingis probably won all of the tier 1's outside the GS, and was at the latter stages of all of the GS. her problem was that she just couldn't win one, but in the rankings, she was streets ahead of venus.

If we were to look at a palyer's career would we prioritise as follows:

1. GS
2. Highest ranking
3. no. of tourneys won?

irma

· #14 · Aug 8, 2003

but what if you win 30 tier 3's are you greater then when you win 10 tier 1's?

SJW

· #15 · Aug 8, 2003

also era is everything.

if Serena was to play another 10 years (improbable, not impossible) and was to win on average a slam a year in that time, i think i would have a claim to say its as impressive as Steffis 22 slams, based on competition.

also Courts slams were b4 the Open era right? so thats why Steffi's are more impressive

BCP

Discussion Starter · #16 · Aug 8, 2003

Sweets_SJW said:
also era is everything.

if Serena was to play another 10 years (improbable, not impossible) and was to win on average a slam a year in that time, i think i would have a claim to say its as impressive as Steffis 22 slams, based on competition.

also Courts slams were b4 the Open era right? so thats why Steffi's are more impressive

Do we have to go through this again........sigh..........

Sam L

· #17 · Aug 8, 2003

Open era/pre open era means nought.

The only situation that can have an effect is when some players turned professional and are no longer eligible to compete to win slams, but this happened mainly on the men's side.

I don't think there were any professionals who would've beaten the greats of the pre-open era anyway.

irma

· #18 · Aug 8, 2003

I think grand slams are the ice on the cake everybody wants to win them, number 1 is great since only 11 since 73 achieved. winning many titles means that you are simple good but as said there are many different levels of titles so it's third

I mean kim won more titles then cappy still kim doesn't come close to cappy achievements yet because of the three slam difference. jmho

SJW

· #19 · Aug 8, 2003

BCP said:
Do we have to go through this again........sigh..........

sorry but WHO created this topic?

"im gonna start a topic but dont say certain things that have relevance in it ok?" LMAO

u start topic-->i try to answer-->dont bring that shit up!

some people

........*SIGH*

doloresc

· #20 · Aug 8, 2003

it's times like this that i wish the rolleyes emoticon was eradicated.

1 - 20 of 33 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.