Excuse me but to say that you will have to save your answer is totally disingenuous. Shane was asking if the EXACT SAME SITUATION applied to Serena as Capriati would we be asking whether her #1 ranking were hollow. In order to be consistent you MUST MUST answer yes. And anyone reading this thread knows that.
The point is that Serena has not been playing well enough to win 3 of the next 7 slams. If she eventually plays well enough to do so, I could see myself as calling her the true #1. Face it, Serena hasn't done it. Venus has and Jennifer has. Of those two players, Venus is the best so Jennifer must beat her.
So until I see Serena playing at the level she needs to to win 3 out of 7 consecutive slams, I'll have to reserve judgment.
Actually the grand slam cup was dropped for it's lack of credibility and is not included in the official wta head to head, so that victory is as important as a back yard hit out.
brightred, you just said that the last 4 are split between jen and williams and williams is the best , without rhtyme or reason...guess what I can use the same analogy. they have split the last 4 and Jen is the best, because Venus is a no hoper on rebound and clay.
VSFan1 - GS Cup wasn't a WTA event, it was an ITF one and was generally considered to be a glorified exhibition - if you count Serena's victory there you have to count Anna K's victory over Capriati over the winter in their exhibition.
If this happened to Serena, her #1 ranking would be as invalid as Capriati's is now. That is to say, not invalid.
when venus won her titles at the grand slam cup, on tv when they bring up "year to date" or "best of 1999", they included the grand slam cup. i remember seeing it on both the purple 'offcial' wta ones and also the ones done by the networks.
maybe if u look on the bio of venus and see if her title count counts her GS cup wins? I think that would sort it for me.
i am on the fence whether to say its hugely valid or not this second. just adding that little factoid.
but the other issue......
if serena won 3/7, i'd only count the ones in the last year, i.e. the ones that counted towards the ranking........ BUT...
I think all rankings are valid, cos they are the result of the system. is the system valid? i'd have to say yes to that as well.
I do sometimes think "hmm, she won a huge title, but venus/lindsay/jenn/martina/whoever wasn't there, so does it count?" - in the end, i have to say yes. its not their fault the others were not there, or that they lost early.
I am gonna say that Jen's rank is 100% valid, but that Venus is the better player. If you wanted to counmt GS only and ask who is better, I'd go with Venus, because although they both won 2/4 over the last year, Venus beat Jen when they met in those slams. Its not Jen's fault she didn't have to face venus in her wins, but the answer to that is that she should have beat her when they actually did meet.
A win is a win! Exhibition or not! Or do you imply that in an exhibition, top players just let their opponents win for fun?? Serena win over Venus counts as kournikova's over JCap!
And my opinion is that any player that wins 3 slams over the next 7, has a good credibility to become #1, losing or not systematically to Venus! We all know why Venus is not #1.......it's called LIMITED SHEDULE! Under the actual WTA rules, to become #1 you need to play well but also a lot! #1 means that in the last 52 weeks you have THE best results overall. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU ARE THE BEST, UNFORTUNATELY! Serena would have done what WTA asks to be #1 ... so she would deserve it! As JCap deserves to be #1 right now! There's always ifs.......but nobody becomes #1 with ifs!
I was not implying that one slam is better than the other. A slam is a slam imo. I was saying that of the two players who've recently won at least 3 of the last 7 slams (Jenn/Venus), Venus is the better of the two.