Tennis Forum banner
1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
251 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Well, well, well. I know for a fact that Martina was not ever given the credit she deserved. Since her leaving the #1 position, there have been 4 ladies that have held that title in a VERY short period for a SHORT period of time. I believe that in the 4 years Martina held her title, Lindsay was the only one that was able to remove it for 11 weeks from Martina before she gained it back.
Many will say " she played every tournament thats why she held it for so long". Truth is that she commited to play and completed her commitments, she worked for her #1 title.
I wonder what Pam Shriver, anti- Martina fans and the media that bashed Martina have to say to that.
Martina, it will be a long long time before anyone will come close to your record.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,472 Posts
Martina played in a different era. How many weeks would she have if these were her playing days. Answer.......none! :cool:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
251 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
TS, lets be fair now. Venus is older than Martina so the era time is crap. Serena is in the same era. For the past years, Martina has been playing against most of the top 20. By the way, what were the other players that Martina was playing against at your so called era? You sound like they were not worthy of being on the tour and not competitive. Lets be fair to thoes players and give them credit. She was #1 because she deserved it era or no era.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,697 Posts
Martina was playing in an era with even greater depth than there is today. While Martina was on top she had to contend with Graf, Seles, Davenport, Novotna, Martinez, Pierce, Huber, Sanchez-Vicario, Majoli(at her best), Tauziat(as high as #3), Mauresmo, Capriati, Clijsters, Henin, Serena and Venus. Only Clijsters and Henin did not achieve too much while she was on top(2001 GS finalists).

This opposed to Serena's era(Venus and Jennifer didn't stay long enough to have an era) where the top challengers were Venus, Monica(injured), Davenport(the "new" version), Kim, Justine, Jennifer(who's lost 8 straight matches to her now?), Mauresmo. Daniela, Myskina, Rubin, Dokic have failed to do anything too noteworthy. They would be included in the same category as players such as Testud when Hingis reigned.


GO MARTINA!!! :bounce:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,954 Posts
it just shows how much more depth there is on the tour now. it's actually a good thing.
 

·
R.I.P. Thank you!
Joined
·
25,735 Posts
I think Henin has a very good shot at it. Clijsters will have more than 700 points coming off the last event this year.

Hingis gets (and got) a lot of respect as #1 as long as she backed it up with slams. After failing to win a slam in 2000 she became a shallow #1 AT THAT POINT. People have short memories and forget 1997-99.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,430 Posts
Martina simply dominated... :bounce:

and yes, it was a different era, it was the "Hingis era"... :worship:

the following number ones simply proved not consistent enough to hold their position so far ( exept Serena to some point so far... )...

Martina did, despite her young age and particular depth of experienced and upcoming champions...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,472 Posts
I am amazed at how many posters are in denial. Hey Marti was great from 97 to 99. Yes that was a different era. After 99 the power game came into it's own. A weak serve and groundstrokes could no longer cut it. Petrova after defeating Marti at the Open called her game soft, which it was. Right now a hundred percent Marti could not cut it. Powerful Lindsay struggles at the #5 position and Capriati (who owned Marti) even lower. The level of tennis is now at an all time high level. Look at all the young powerful Russians, Belgians, and Americans, because I'm sure Martina did. :cool:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,697 Posts
TSequoia01 said:
I am amazed at how many posters are in denial. Hey Marti was great from 97 to 99. Yes that was a different era. After 99 the power game came into it's own. A weak serve and groundstrokes could no longer cut it. Petrova after defeating Marti at the Open called her game soft, which it was. Right now a hundred percent Marti could not cut it. Powerful Lindsay struggles at the #5 position and Capriati (who owned Marti) even lower. The level of tennis is now at an all time high level. Look at all the young powerful Russians, Belgians, and Americans, because I'm sure Martina did. :cool:
Which Open did Petrova beat Martina at?

Speaking of posters in denial.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,472 Posts
hingis-seles said:
Which Open did Petrova beat Martina at?

Speaking of posters in denial.....
I stand corrected it was not the U.S. Open it was Moscow :eek: where Petrova defeated Marti 6-2, 6-2. However my point is exactly the same. :angel:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47,657 Posts
Since Martina, only Serena proved that she can be a dominating no.1 and capable of winning multiple slams DURING her reign. Now let´s see how Kim will fare!!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
20,087 Posts
By far, Serena has been the most dominant #1 since Hingis.

Hingis was good during her era. She was kind of like a magician with her racquet. You don't find that quality now days, and while many attempt to compare Henin's game to Martina. There are simply NO comparisons.

Martina's game was a mixture of skills to get her opponents out of position. It was simply tactical tennis at it's best. However, you cannot compare Henin's big serve, one handed backhand which she goes for the winner with most of the time to Martina's finesse game.

Martina gets alot of credit for not giving up even when the power surge came into play. She did try to fight it, but she could not keep up. She is a great champion and should be respected as such. Regardless of how I felt about her scandalous personilty at times, I still will give her that much credit.
 
1 - 20 of 32 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.
Top