[S_Fahad]

Inspired by the "Is it better being a slamless no.1 or a one-time grandslam winner?" thread.
So which do you think is better.... winning two slams and removing the tag of a one slam wonder but never getting to No.1 OR winning one slam, but getting to No.1?
Its like Kuznetsova vs Ivanovic. But lets not compare the careers of these two players. I just want to know how people generally feel about this.

 

[Monica_Rules]

2 Slams. I think your name gets kept in the record books more with 2 slams.

People have already forgotten about Safina.

 

[TIEFSEE]

2 > 1

 

[KIG.]

2 > 1

Unless you are facing the Ryback.

And it depends. If a player has one good year and wins two majors because her half of the draw got food poisoning both times but never gets to the second week apart from those two times (hence never being number 1) or had two fluke runs years apart then she'd be considered a worse player than someone who was continually a contender for Majors, usually reaching the second week and beating other top players at Slams and Premier tournaments. Context matters.

 

[Potato]

I would want 2 slams.

 

[JeMa]

So are you saying would you rather be Ana or Sveta careerwise? That is tough. I will have to look up their monies won. You can argue that being #1 gives you more endorsements or prestige but you probably got to #1 when you won the slam so you probably would have gotten that with winning the slam.

I'm going to go with 2 slams. It's twice as good as 1.

Yup, Sveta for sure. She almost has earned twice as much $$, her career as wacky as it has been is more consistent that Ana's was. Ana goes down in history as a one-hit wonder no matter that she was number one. Of course she's likely earned more money off court than Sveta but had nothing to do with tennis.

 

[ElusiveChanteuse]

#1 + 1 slam

 

[young_gunner913]

Sexlana >>> Ivanovic

 

[Craig.]

Sexlana >>> Ivanovic

Yup.

 

[killerqueen]

Which slam is it? If someone offered me, say an AO and a Wimbledon, I'd take that over number 1.. If they offered me two of the same slams, I might take the number one...

I'd say in the historical sense though, a multi-slam winner will be held in higher respect than a one slam number one (unless that player had a ridiculous record out of slams).. Pierce will be remembered more fondly for Ivanovic for example.

 

[Potato]

Which slam is it? If someone offered me, say an AO and a Wimbledon, I'd take that over number 1.. If they offered me two of the same slams, I might take the number one...

I'd say in the historical sense though, a multi-slam winner will be held in higher respect than a one slam number one (unless that player had a ridiculous record out of slams).. Pierce will be remembered more fondly for Ivanovic for example.

Well.. Ana will be more remembered for reasons other than tennis.

 

[Cp6uja]

If this thread want to compare Ana Ivanovic and Svetlana Kuznetsova - poll question is actually very easy:
If Ana Ivanovic won two slams, and Sveta Kuznetsova won one slam and reach #1 - I'd say it's better to win two slams without #1 than reach #1 with one slam!
If Ana Ivanovic won slam and reach #1, and Sveta Kuznetsova won two slams and never get #1 - I'd say it's better to win one slam and #1 than two slams without #1!
But if question is not directed to Ana Ivanovic and Svetlana Kuznetsova, but just in general, it's much harder question, where most fair answer is "equal".

Same thing is if You want to compare Anna and Anna (Kournikova and Smashnova) and ask "Is it better to win 12 MM titles and never get to TOP-10 or never win any tournament and be TOP-10??"
Correct answer for sure is "It is by far better to be Anna "The Legend" Kournikova than Ana "Who" Smashnova!"
But if You asking this question not related to Anna and Anna - of course that is better to win 12 MM titles than just to reach TOP10.

This my answer is nothing against Sveta - simple Ana Ivanovic is female sports worlds phenom :shrug:

You can't equalize for example worlds sports phenom Maria Sharapova and great tennis player Hana Mandlikova just because they both won 4 GS titles.

 

[BlueTrees]

If this thread want to compare Ana Ivanovic and Svetlana Kuznetsova - poll question is actually very easy:
If Ana Ivanovic won two slams, and Sveta Kuznetsova won one slam and reach #1 - I'd say it's better to win two slams without #1 than reach #1 with one slam!
If Ana Ivanovic won slam and reach #1, and Sveta Kuznetsova won two slams and never get #1 - I'd say it's better to win one slam and #1 than two slams without #1!
But if question is not directed to Ana Ivanovic and Svetlana Kuznetsova, but just in general, it's much harder question, where most fair answer is "equal".

Same thing is if You want to compare Anna and Anna (Kournikova and Smashnova) and ask "Is it better to win 12 MM titles and never get to TOP-10 or never win any tournament and be TOP-10??"
Correct answer for sure is "It is by far better to be Anna "The Legend" Kournikova than Ana "Who" Smashnova!"
But if You asking this question not related to Anna and Anna - of course that is better to win 12 MM titles than just to reach TOP10.

This my answer is nothing against Sveta - simple Ana Ivanovic is female sports worlds phenom :shrug:

You can't equalize for example worlds sports phenom Maria Sharapova and great tennis player Hana Mandlikova just because they both won 4 GS titles.

NID

 

[oliviasmith]

2 slams for sure.

 

[Cajka]

2 slams. But it's really a shame that players like Pierce or Sveta never became #1.

 

[thegreendestiny]

Peak Pierce > Peak Sveta >>>>>>>>>> Fluke Ana. :shrug:

 

[Potato]

Honestly - if I were a tennis player, all I would want to do is win titles. Everything else will come naturally. (ranking, sponsors, fame)

Every great player - all they wanted to do is win slams - not increase their weeks at no. 1.

 

[The 2nd Law]

2 slams (sorry Ana!)


Although Sveta at number 1 would have been even more of a joke than Ana :spit: can you imagine!?

 

[JustSayDet]

2 slams easily. Being number 1 and holding a slam is prestigious definitely BUT having multiple slams puts you among the best players in whatever generation you played in because you were able to win on the biggest stage 2x. Much rather be Kuznetsova than Ivanovic at this moment in time, but I have a feeling Ana will find her game again and win another slam.

 

[justineheninfan]

Two slams. No contest. The #1 ranking is seriously getting overrated by some on this forum, especialy in this era where it has literally turned into a joke of late. It is one thing to argue two year end #1s in a row like Wozniacki might have close to the value of 1 slam win (especialy had 1 of the 2 not been an all time joke like Wozniacki's 2011 year end #1), but to just say so and so randomly reaching #1 at some point, not even ending a year there or spending much time there, is close to on par with an additional slam title. Please, give me a break.

2 slams also proves you are not a fluke, which in this era of mug #1s also has produced alot of 1 time winners out of blue that look almost flukish, unlike in the past where 1 slam winners were people who contended for so long, usually just beaten by the greater players in the end, but thankfully got that 1 slam atleast. So in that sense a 2nd slam is an enormous thing, way beyond the value of spending 10 weeks at #1 at some point in some year.

If Ivanovic is your example, well Sabatini, Novotna, Martinez >>>>>> Ivanovic both in careers and as overall players, and they all never reached the #1 ranking and also won only 1 slam. So I guess that emphatically answers the poll question. Holding the #1 ranking and 1 slam doesnt even automatically make you better than someone who only did one of those (well atleast the 1 slam part only), let alone as good as people that win 2.