PDA

View Full Version : Who rates higher all time- Wade or Capriati


thalivest
04-11-2009, 02:58 PM
I know this is an unusual comparision but who do you believe ranks higher all time- Jennifer Capriati or Virginia Wade. Both have 3 slam titles which is why I thought it would be an interesting question. For me it is Wade by far. Capriati is the worst player in history to win 3 slams and one of the worst to even win 2 or more slams IMO.

Wade won Wimbledon and the U.S Open, the big 2 slams, and unlike Capriati she beat the best players to win her slams. Despite being owned by her biggest rivals her whole career- Court, Evert, Goolagong, and King, kind of similar to how Capriati is owned by the big guns of her day Wade was as well in truth, she still beat the best to win her biggest tournaments. King in the U.S Open final in 1968 when King was the dominant #1 that year, Evert in the Wimbledon semis of 1977 when Evert was the dominant #1 at the time, and Goolagong in the Australian Open final in 1972 when Evonne entered the year as the defacto World #1 after winning the French and Wimbledon titles in 1971. Capriati did not beat Venus to win any of her slams, and Venus was considered the best player in the world at the time of each of Capriati's 3 majors (and Capriati has also never beaten Venus). At the 2002 Australian Opens she also did not have to beat Davenport or Serena, the next 2 best players in the world at the time after Venus, and players Capriati generally does very poorly against. At the 2001 French Open she didnt have to play any of Seles, Pierce, Davenport, Venus, or Mauresmo, the players who were either the best players in the world at the time (Venus and Davenport) or the best players on that surface at the time (Seles, Pierce, Mauresmo). Wade was far more consistent throughout her career, and even showed more longevity. Neither was ever a dominant player, truly part of the biggest two players rivalry at the top of the womens game, and certainly never truly the defacto #1, so they cancel each other out there.

grafselesfan
04-11-2009, 03:11 PM
Wade. No contest. Wade was very unlucky to peak in perhaps the toughest era ever in womens tennis. She faced Evert, King, Court, Goolagong, and even Navratilova sometimes all at once in years they were playing well, even if not all absolute prime at once. She also faced opponents such other high quality players like Ann Jones, Nancy Richey, an aging Maria Bueno. Even the filler top players of her time like Stove, Morozova, Barker, Turnbull, Casals, Melville were very tough opponents capable of beating anyone on a given day.

Capriati is one of the most overrated players in womens tennis history, and yes probably the luckiest to ever win 3 slam titles especialy when one examines the overall things that happened during the 15 month period time period she somehow won all 3. A losing record vs atleast half the top 10, barely a .500 record vs top ten players during that period if that, terrible records vs her few toughest rivals, the perfect timing of certain opponents withdrawals and/or unusually poor performances coinciding for her, the flukish nature of the 2002 Australian Open final victory, you get the picture. Except for her dream 2001 Capriati was really only around the 6th to 8th best player in the World during all her other prime years (1991, 1992, 1993, 2002, 2003, 2004), well atleast if it werent for her fluke gifted Australian Open title in 2002 which pulled her ranking up and aided her draws the rest of that year. There are even many 1 time slam winners who are really better players than her- Clijsters, Sabatini, Novotna. Capriati's head to heads with those players and her tournament titles or tier 1 titles vs them would back up that opinion as well.

DMan
04-11-2009, 03:24 PM
For careers I rate Wade higher because she played more often, and was far more consistent than Capriati.

One interesting note is that they both reached 3 major finals, and both of them were undefeated in major finals.

Capriati had to defeat Hingis for each of her major wins. Hingis was #1 during two of those wins.

Wade beat King to win her US Open title. And she beat #1 and defending champ Chris Evert en route to her Wimbledon title.

Plus Virginia won many more singles titles in her career than did Capriati.

thalivest
04-11-2009, 03:30 PM
Capriati had to defeat Hingis for each of her major wins. Hingis was #1 during two of those wins.

Lets face it though absolutely nobody considered Hingis the true #1 at the time of Capriati's wins over computer ranked #1 Hingis. 1999 was the last time anyone could even seriously argue Hingis as the #1 player regardless what the computer said. At the time of those wins Hingis was #1 ranked but already hadnt won a slam event in 2+ years, which is exactly why her #1 ranking no longer held any true legitimacy.

NadalandFedererfan
04-11-2009, 05:01 PM
Capriati. I am not a big Capriati fan but I am not sure why everyone is picking Wade.

Wade had terrible head to heads vs the top 5 women of her time- Court, King, Navratilova, Evert, and Goolagong. Embarassingly lopsided in fact. In the 1975 Wimbledon quarters she played the best match of her life even according to a British tennis magazine article I read (and British would be biased to Wade) and still lost to Goolagong on a day she was off and on, 9-7 in the 3rd. Goolagong is only the 5th greatest player of that time period and still Wade playing her best match ever couldnt beat Goolagong not consistently at her best in the match in the quarters of Wimbledon.

In addition to not being in the same league as those 5 great players Morozova, Stove, Richey, Casals, and Barker would all beat Wade on days both were at their best but were too inconsistent so the consistent Wade was able to beat them most times capatilizing on them not playing to their potential. So basically as it was even if she played her best she was certain to lose in the quarters of each slam unless something unusual happened, and if those unpredictable players I mentioned brought their A games she would lost maybe in the quarters or maybe the round of 16 depending on he rdraw.

Capriati did well vs some of the top players of her time. She did very well vs Hingis and Serena in the early 2000s. She didnt do as well vs Venus and Davenport. However Wade did horribly vs any of the greats of her time.

Wade's 1977 Wimbledon title was lucky. Court was almost retired and no factor, she avoided King since Evert took her out, Goolagong who owned her at Wimbledon and overall was off on maternity leave, Navratilova choked and lost to Betty Stove in the quarters. The crowd won Wade her semifinal over Evert, not her tennis. Evert playing her worst tennis ever because of the abusive crowd that day still took Wade playing her best match ever to 3 sets. In the final she was completely overpowered by big Betty Stove in the first set, and would have had no chance if Stove didnt start making errors and fall apart after the first set.

Capriati reached #1 in the World at times in both 2001 and 2002. Wade never did. Capriati was part of the biggest rivalry for the top of tennis first in 2001 with Capriati vs Venus, then in 2002 with Capriati vs Serena. Wade never was. She was never Court or King's biggest rival for the #1 ranking in the late 60s or early 70s. It was always each other, or Bueno and Jones ahead of her. She was never Evert's biggest rival for the #1 ranking in the mid 70s. It was always Goolagong or/and King. She was never even competitive enough with any of those greats to be called a true rival like Capriati was to Serena.

Capriati clearly.

pc1
04-11-2009, 07:03 PM
I have to pick Wade because she won as many majors and won far more tournaments than Jennifer.

When Wade was playing, despite her excellent record, very few considered her on the level of a Court, King, Goolagong, Evert or Navratilova. You got the feeling she could only win a major when all the top players were knocked out and she would sneak in to win.

Initially my gut feeling was that Jennifer, when she was good and her mind was into tennis was very competitive with the top players. That was true to a certain extent but only with Serena Williams, Clijsters and Hingis. Venus Williams, Henin and Davenport destroyed her when they played each other. So even there Jennifer is about even with Wade.

You can't measure talent and I'm sure a lot of people may think Wade had more talent than Capriati but Jennifer was such a great hitter of the ball. She could really blast it from both sides and she could move surprisingly well. I thought Capriati had more talent than Wade but it was unfulfilled.

I think what hurt her a lot was her ball toss, which was all over the place. She never seemed to be able to close out a big match easily.

grafrules
04-11-2009, 07:27 PM
Capriati didnt do well vs top players either, and there were not as many great top players as the Navratilova-Evert-Court-King-Goolagong fivesome that admitedly Wade fared very poorly overall against.

In the early 90s Capriati had losing head to heads with Graf, Seles, Sabatini, and Sanchez Vicario. Her head to heads with the first 3 were not remotedly close. She hardly played the aging Navratilova but occupied a lower place in the game than her in her first stint as a top player in the early 90s (rankings, results, etc..). She also hardly played Fernandez in the early 90s but had the clearly weaker slam results with Fernandez's 2 slam finals and many additional semis those years. She only played Novotna from 96-98 when she was down and out and went 0-4, but Novotna too had the clearly better slam results even in the early 90s with her 2 slam finals to Capriati's 0. Lastly against even someone like Conchita Martinez she leads only 6-4 despite 7 of the 10 matches being in the early 90s and 2001-onwards when she was much more in her prime than Martinez who peaked from 93-2000 (well 94-96 even more specifically).

Then in the early 2000s the only one she ultimately had a winning head to head with was Hingis (not career wise, just during this period). Clijsters she did well with in 2001-2002 when Kim wasnt in her prime yet then began losing regularly in 2003 once Kim began her prime. Serena she had some success with in 2001 and 2004 but overall a the losing head to head still. Really she surprised me by how well she did vs Hingis, Clijsters, and Serena as it was. Of course as you noted Davenport, Henin, Venus owned her. However Mauresmo also owned her, and even a past her prime Seles still had the edge on her pretty much.

Wade beat King in the final to win her U.S Open title, Evert in the semis to win her Wimbledon title, and Goolagong in the final to win her Australian Open title so I wouldnt say she just snuck majors out when all the top players were knocked out. It seems she only beat 1 of them though, to beat 2 or 3 in a row would probably have been too much for her, and those times the draws worked out she only really had to beat 1.

thalivest
04-11-2009, 08:02 PM
Another interesting stat of Capriati's is during the 17 month stretch from January 2001-April 2002 when she spent any of her time at #1 and won 3 out of 5 majors she went only 14-14 vs players then ranked in the top 10. That is in addition to as already pointed out only winning 1 other tournament outside those 3 slams during those 17 months.

She went a combined 16-14 from January 2001-May 2002 vs the other top 9 women and 11-10 in 2001 alone. Some of those head to heads:

vs Venus: 0-3 in 2001
vs Serena: 3-1 in 2001 (3-4 adding up until May 2002)
vs Davenport: 1-2 in 2001
vs Seles: 1-2 in 2001 (2-2 adding up until May 2002)
vs Hingis: 3-0 in 2001 (4-0 adding up until May 2002)
vs Henin: 1-1 in 2001 (1-2 adding up until May 2002)
vs Mauresmo: 1-1 in 2001 (3-1 adding up until May 2002)
vs Clijsters: 1-0 in 2001 (2-0 adding up until May 2002)

I wonder if any player won that many majors in such a short stretch with such relatively average overall records vs other top players, and such little overall success in tournament play. Now anyone who wonders why so many people talk about the extreme luck Capriati got to win 3 slams from 2001-early 2002 can see what that is based upon.

egn
04-11-2009, 08:41 PM
Wade. No contest. Wade was very unlucky to peak in perhaps the toughest era ever in womens tennis. She faced Evert, King, Court, Goolagong, and even Navratilova sometimes all at once in years they were playing well, even if not all absolute prime at once. She also faced opponents such other high quality players like Ann Jones, Nancy Richey, an aging Maria Bueno. Even the filler top players of her time like Stove, Morozova, Barker, Turnbull, Casals, Melville were very tough opponents capable of beating anyone on a given day.

Capriati is one of the most overrated players in womens tennis history, and yes probably the luckiest to ever win 3 slam titles especialy when one examines the overall things that happened during the 15 month period time period she somehow won all 3. A losing record vs atleast half the top 10, barely a .500 record vs top ten players during that period if that, terrible records vs her few toughest rivals, the perfect timing of certain opponents withdrawals and/or unusually poor performances coinciding for her, the flukish nature of the 2002 Australian Open final victory, you get the picture. Except for her dream 2001 Capriati was really only around the 6th to 8th best player in the World during all her other prime years (1991, 1992, 1993, 2002, 2003, 2004), well atleast if it werent for her fluke gifted Australian Open title in 2002 which pulled her ranking up and aided her draws the rest of that year. There are even many 1 time slam winners who are really better players than her- Clijsters, Sabatini, Novotna. Capriati's head to heads with those players and her tournament titles or tier 1 titles vs them would back up that opinion as well.

Wade for all the resons mentioned in this post. Even in 2001 Capriati had great luck. She won 3 TITLES all year. She was such a fluke it was not even funny. Hingis was far from her best by 2001 and she was given a clay court slam because she got lucky that Clijsters was such a choker. Clijsters destroyed her in the first set and then something happened, that happened so many times to Clijsters. 2002 Australian Open I don't know how Hingis lost to her again and the draw lacked Serena Williams who probably would have won it who creamed Capriati in the first two events of the year and she would go 0-5 against her that whole year. Capriati is a luck 3 slam winner. Virgina Wade she stayed around for 10+ years and struggled through tough draws to get those 3 slams beating King, Goolagong and on the road to her 77 title she beat Evert.

Oh yea Wade 55 titles...Capriati 14.

Oh yea Wade also won 4 doubles slams.

flying24
04-11-2009, 09:10 PM
Wade for all the resons mentioned in this post. Even in 2001 Capriati had great luck. She won 3 TITLES all year. She was such a fluke it was not even funny. Hingis was far from her best by 2001 and she was given a clay court slam because she got lucky that Clijsters was such a choker. Clijsters destroyed her in the first set and then something happened, that happened so many times to Clijsters. 2002 Australian Open I don't know how Hingis lost to her again and the draw lacked Serena Williams who probably would have won it who creamed Capriati in the first two events of the year and she would go 0-5 against her that whole year. Capriati is a luck 3 slam winner. Virgina Wade she stayed around for 10+ years and struggled through tough draws to get those 3 slams beating King, Goolagong and on the road to her 77 title she beat Evert.

Oh yea Wade 55 titles...Capriati 14.

Oh yea Wade also won 4 doubles slams.

Yeah I agree with all that.

Wade >>>> Capriati. It isnt even close.

I also feel sorry for Davenport who often was stopped by the Williams at their best but owned Capriati. Yet she had the bad luck to play her worst slam semifinal/final ever in the 2001 Australian Open semis vs Capriati, to miss the 2001 French Open which would have been her golden shot at the career slam as it turned out which again Capriati won, then to miss the 2002 Australian Open where I am sure she would have smashed Capriati this time. Her and Capriati ending up with the same # of slams is just criminally unfair almost. Also Capriati somehow ending up with 3 from in 2001/2002 to Davenport's 0 from 2001-2006 when Davenport was the better player really that entire time is hard to fathom.

Seles too one has to feel sorry for. She played some very good tennis in the post stabbing years still and never got a break to win more than 1 major. She choked away a big lead vs Capriati in the 2001 Australian Open quarters and would have probably won the title over a badly off form Davenport in the semis and a mentally unstable Hingis in the final. She would have crushed Capriati on clay to win the 2001 French Open had she not had to miss it with injury. Then at the 2002 Australian Open Hingis makes 7 unforced errors in a near perfect performance to edge Seles, then makes like 60+ in the final vs Capriati and still chokes away a bunch of match points. What the heck, and Seles probably would have beaten Jen in the final there too.

Clijsters blew huge chances to beat Capriati in both the 2001 French Open and 2002 Australian Open. Those slams could have and should have been hers instead as well.

Hingis mentally just fell apart playing Capriati in 2001-early 2002. I dont really understand it as Capriati unlike the Williams and Davenport isnt explosive enough or doing anything that overwhelms her or takes her out of her game. I think her pysche was just shot by then, and Capriati got lucky when she played her in those 3 slams since Hingis should have been able to beat her and win instead. I saw all of Capriati's wins and it was all Hingis being completely off her game each time, Capriati really had little to do with the victories. The 2002 Australian Open was the luckiest of all though as Hingis had that match in the bag and still goofed it up somehow.

Serena had this bizarre mental block with Capriati in 2001 that I dont get either. I can see Capriati beating her on clay in 2001 or even in 2002 (Serena was able to gut out some tough wins over Capriati on clay it turned out in 2002 anyway). However on other surfaces dont understand at all. Still she would have definitely taken Capriati at the 2003 Australian Open as well.

Capriati is so lucky beyond words since really Davenport (all 3), Seles (all 3), Hingis (all 3), Clijsters (2 of 3), Serena (1 of 3), should have all been able to take those slams away from her and win them instead and through crazy circumstances she somehow won them instead.

egn
04-11-2009, 09:36 PM
where is capriatifanatic the ban on her/him is up and we could use some entertainment in this thread right about now.

capriatifanatic
04-11-2009, 09:46 PM
Wade looks like a little old lady with that stupid bun she wears in her head and how she crouches like a gopher when serving. Capriati's groundstrokes would blow the weaponless Wade off the court. No contest, Capriati would kill her. Capriati would win 20 slams if she played when Wade did instead. Wade even lost to someone like Evonne Goolagong almost everytime they played, and she didnt win Wimbledon until she was almost like 40 years old.

egn
04-11-2009, 09:49 PM
Wade looks like a little old lady with that stupid bun she wears in her head and how she crouches like a gopher when serving. Capriati's groundstrokes would blow the weaponless Wade off the court. No contest, Capriati would kill her. Capriati would win 20 slams if she played when Wade did instead. Wade even lost to someone like Evonne Goolagong almost everytime they played, and she didnt win Wimbledon until she was almost like 40 years old.

Do you mean to say Chris Evert, King, Court and Bueno would be no match for Capriati?

capriatifanatic
04-11-2009, 09:52 PM
Do you mean to say Chris Evert, King, Court and Bueno would be no match for Capriati?

Yeah I think so. King was just a womens libber, that is her fame more than a tennis player. She won most of her slams when Court was pregnant or just coming back from a pregnancy. Court was already old and starting her run of having babies when Wade emerged. Bueno was injured and pretty much done by the time Wade emerged. Evert hit moonballs and played a boring generic baseline game.

Wade sucked. Like I said even someone like Goolagong owned her. Capriati's groundstrokes would blow Wade off the court. What were Wade's weapons? Obviously nothing that impressive if all the great players of her time owned her ***.

egn
04-11-2009, 10:03 PM
Yeah I think so. King was just a womens libber, that is her fame more than a tennis player. She won most of her slams when Court was pregnant or just coming back from a pregnancy. Court was already old and starting her run of having babies when Wade emerged. Bueno was injured and pretty much done by the time Wade emerged. Evert hit moonballs and played a boring generic baseline game.

Wade sucked. Like I said even someone like Goolagong owned her. Capriati's groundstrokes would blow Wade off the court. What were Wade's weapons? Obviously nothing that impressive if all the great players of her time owned her ***.

Capriati couldnt handle most of her two eras...who were probably lesser greats than some of the ones in that era. Capriati lost to both williams, davenport, couldn't maintain a winning record on klijisters, losing record to henin, mauresmo, seles, graf, davenport, hingis, kournikova, sabtini and vicario.

capriatifanatic
04-11-2009, 10:06 PM
Capriati couldnt handle most of her two eras...who were probably lesser greats than some of the ones in that era. Capriati lost to both williams, davenport, couldn't maintain a winning record on klijisters, losing record to henin, mauresmo, seles, graf, davenport, hingis, kournikova, sabtini and vicario.

Capriati was only a teenager when she was losing to Sabatini and Vicario. She was in a huge slump when she was losing to Kournikova and Hingis. She was past her prime when losing to Henin and Mauresmo. Seles did well against her but was lucky Capriati choked in the 91 U.S Open semis. Graf did well vs her but Capriati beat her when it mattered most in the Olympic Gold medal game. Davenport did well since she played Capriati mostly in small tournaments, not big slam events where it really mattered where the superior player like Capriati comes through as she proved at the 2001 Aussie when they played.

You still didnt comment on the fact Wade was so weak that even Evonne Goolagong who is not an all time great player owned her. To finally win Wimbledon when she was in her 30s she took 3 sets to beat some fat slow Dutch women who was in her only ever slam final.

egn
04-11-2009, 10:14 PM
Capriati was only a teenager when she was losing to Sabatini and Vicario. She was in a huge slump when she was losing to Kournikova and Hingis. She was past her prime when losing to Henin and Mauresmo. Seles did well against her but was lucky Capriati choked in the 91 U.S Open semis. Graf did well vs her but Capriati beat her when it mattered most in the Olympic Gold medal game. Davenport did well since she played Capriati mostly in small tournaments, not big slam events where it really mattered where the superior player like Capriati comes through as she proved at the 2001 Aussie when they played.

You still didnt comment on the fact Wade was so weak that even Evonne Goolagong who is not an all time great player owned her. To finally win Wimbledon when she was in her 30s she took 3 sets to beat some fat slow Dutch women who was in her only ever slam final.

goolagong has 4 more slams than both wade and capriati and made a hell lot more slam finals losing to better quality players.

What about all the slams graf beat capriati in? those don't matter. Also if capriati came through in all those slams she would have more than 3 no? It took capriati 3 sets to beat clijsters the choker whose one slam came against mary pierce way past her best years and capriati won her other two slams on a struggling hingis..

So according to you capriati had this short two year prime and other than that she was struggling and bad or to young for it to matter except when she scored those few victories that truly demonstrate her true potential.

pc1
04-11-2009, 10:24 PM
Goolagong was an incredible player who could beat anyone. Last time I checked she won about 68 tournaments in her career. She had every shot and was probably the smoothest female player I've ever seen. Her only major weakness was her second serve. She reached the U.S. Open finals for what seemed like a billion years in a row but faced Evert who was invincible on clay at the time and lost. Don't underrate Goolagong. She was terrific.

And King wasn't just a women's libber. She won Wimbledon many times plus every major title. She was second only to Margaret Court where their careers overlapped.

I rooted for Capriati when she played. I liked the idea that she could back from nowhere to be number one but objectively, there really isn't any case here for Capriati to rank over Wade. But as I wrote before, I do like Capriati's talent over Wade's talent.

capriatifanatic
04-11-2009, 10:27 PM
Despite what you say of Goolagong's ability, Goolagong had lopsided losing head to heads with all of Court, King, and Evert. Yes despite that she still had a lopsided winning head to head with Wade which just shows how far Wade must have been down the totem poll during her time.

The Olympics are the biggest event in sports. That is where it matters most and Capriati overpowered Graf to win the biggest event in sports. Graf's wins over Capriati in slams were in 1990 when Jennifer was 14 or 1993 when she was already burning out and on drugs. They never played in slams in 1991 or 1992, lucky for Steffi.

Hingis played incredible tennis at the 2001 Australian Open to knock off both Williams, she was so desperate to win a slam title again, and Capriati still stopped her cold. In the French Open final Clijsters played the match of her life and still wasnt enough to get past a determined Jennifer. Then at the Australian Open Jennifer navigated through a tough of Mauresmo, Clijsters, Hingis all in a row to defend her title despite being far below her best form. Just an incredible champion.

Yes pretty much all matches other than 2001-2002 for Capriati mean nothing since she was either too young, in a slump, or past her prime. What is so hard to understand about that. Well in 1991-1992 her matches count some too I guess. She was unlucky to keep losing to Seles in slams otherwise she would have dominated those 2 years probably.

DMan
04-11-2009, 11:20 PM
Despite what you say of Goolagong's ability, Goolagong had lopsided losing head to heads with all of Court, King, and Evert. Yes despite that she still had a lopsided winning head to head with Wade which just shows how far Wade must have been down the totem poll during her time.

The Olympics are the biggest event in sports. That is where it matters most and Capriati overpowered Graf to win the biggest event in sports. Graf's wins over Capriati in slams were in 1990 when Jennifer was 14 or 1993 when she was already burning out and on drugs. They never played in slams in 1991 or 1992, lucky for Steffi.

Hingis played incredible tennis at the 2001 Australian Open to knock off both Williams, she was so desperate to win a slam title again, and Capriati still stopped her cold. In the French Open final Clijsters played the match of her life and still wasnt enough to get past a determined Jennifer. Then at the Australian Open Jennifer navigated through a tough of Mauresmo, Clijsters, Hingis all in a row to defend her title despite being far below her best form. Just an incredible champion.

Yes pretty much all matches other than 2001-2002 for Capriati mean nothing since she was either too young, in a slump, or past her prime. What is so hard to understand about that. Well in 1991-1992 her matches count some too I guess. She was unlucky to keep losing to Seles in slams otherwise she would have dominated those 2 years probably.

Capriatifanatics are just like Selestials.

It's always the same formulas: "woulda coulda shoulda talk," "and of course she was unlucky because of blah-blah-blah", and then it's always "Jen (or Mons for selestials) opponents always played 'the match of their life' only to lose" to Jen (Mons).....and then my favorite part: "we only count a very narrow period of time when Jenny (or Mons for Selestials) won anything. Nothing else counts. And so presto, change-o, like magic, she is the greatest of all-time. Bar none! No, I mean it. ROFLMAO at the Capriatifanatics (and Selestials!)

egn
04-12-2009, 06:22 AM
Despite what you say of Goolagong's ability, Goolagong had lopsided losing head to heads with all of Court, King, and Evert. Yes despite that she still had a lopsided winning head to head with Wade which just shows how far Wade must have been down the totem poll during her time.

The Olympics are the biggest event in sports. That is where it matters most and Capriati overpowered Graf to win the biggest event in sports. Graf's wins over Capriati in slams were in 1990 when Jennifer was 14 or 1993 when she was already burning out and on drugs. They never played in slams in 1991 or 1992, lucky for Steffi.

Hingis played incredible tennis at the 2001 Australian Open to knock off both Williams, she was so desperate to win a slam title again, and Capriati still stopped her cold. In the French Open final Clijsters played the match of her life and still wasnt enough to get past a determined Jennifer. Then at the Australian Open Jennifer navigated through a tough of Mauresmo, Clijsters, Hingis all in a row to defend her title despite being far below her best form. Just an incredible champion.

Yes pretty much all matches other than 2001-2002 for Capriati mean nothing since she was either too young, in a slump, or past her prime. What is so hard to understand about that. Well in 1991-1992 her matches count some too I guess. She was unlucky to keep losing to Seles in slams otherwise she would have dominated those 2 years probably.

I am not doubting that but Capriati has some lopsided losing head to heads vs players that are not of the caliber of King, Court or Evert

I will give you sure when she was 14 it was too young, but 1993 we are going to count her out because she got arrested for drugs in 1994? Shouldn't 1993 been her year considering Seles was gone now. Didn't she burn out because she was struggling and couldn't cope with the pressure. Graf took her out in 3 straight slams in 1993. She was 17..Graf won slams at 17 there have been women to succeed at 17.

So if only 01-02 count and 91-92 count you are giving her a four year peak in which she managed 3 slams.

She was "unlucky" to lose to Seles or she would have dominated. How about Seles was the better player. What about Grafs 2 wins against Capriati in 1992 outside of the olympics. I would admit on clay Capriati gave Graf troubles but outside of that it wasn't competition. There were two times out of all their fast surface matches that she gave Graf trouble but wait those don't count because it was not from 91-92 or 01-02. How about when Graf handed her a 6-1, 6-0 beating in 92 that counts it is in your range. Or Graf beating her at Berlin. There is no way Capriati would have dominated without Seles..she would have been lucky to score a slam.

suwanee4712
04-12-2009, 07:11 AM
Wade and it's not even close. Wade's slams are far more impressive than Capriati's. Overall, she's more of an accomplished player in every way that counts. Especially when you compare their records in slams and how many "greats" they beat in slam play.

I'm always amused by people that will look at Wade's head to head with the greatest players of the open era and make some kind of summary judgement. Uhhh, that's why players like Court, King, Evert, and Goolagong are where they are in tennis history.

boredone3456
04-12-2009, 08:30 AM
Wade by a country mile. Capriati is incredibly lucky to have 3 majors, she should have won just the one and can thank a choking clijsters and Hingis for her other 2. Wade also overall had tougher competition during her best years, won Wimbledon, which for her would be the toughest major as your home major is probably where you are most nervous. Capriati doesn't even come close. The more interesting poll in my opinion would be Wade vs Davenport, there at least you could have a discussion. Capriati is the luckiest player to win more than 2 majors in tennis history. Remove the horseshoe and she only gets 1 major. Had Capriati not delved into drugs and shoplifting...well she may have done more and ended up different, but as she didn't Wade is higher by quite a few places.

capriatifanatic
04-12-2009, 11:05 AM
Wade and it's not even close. Wade's slams are far more impressive than Capriati's. Overall, she's more of an accomplished player in every way that counts. Especially when you compare their records in slams and how many "greats" they beat in slam play.

I'm always amused by people that will look at Wade's head to head with the greatest players of the open era and make some kind of summary judgement. Uhhh, that's why players like Court, King, Evert, and Goolagong are where they are in tennis history.

Where they are in tennis history? Goolagong is not a top 10 player all time and even she still owns Wade. Also if people assume Court would have won only 18 slams had the Australian Open been a true slam then, then shouldnt people also assume Goolagong would have won only 4 instead of 7 if the same were true. After all it seems people are limiting Court to her average from the average 3, so the same should be done to Goolagong in that case. Both were Australians who played Australia when only Australian top players and other Australians played it pretty much and have their slam tally inflated by that. So really Goolagong is more like a 4 time slam winner than a 7, which is almost the same as Wade anyway, yet she still owns Wade.

capriatifanatic
04-12-2009, 11:06 AM
The more interesting poll in my opinion would be Wade vs Davenport, there at least you could have a discussion.

You make it sound like Davenport is greater than Capriati. Please. Capriati achieved the same # of slams doing drugs and being in a slump almost her whole career than Davenport did having a full career.

egn
04-12-2009, 11:11 AM
You make it sound like Davenport is greater than Capriati. Please. Capriati achieved the same # of slams doing drugs and being in a slump almost her whole career than Davenport did having a full career.

Davenport was far better week in a week out and she has 55 titles. She was year end no.1 4 times..although not really deserving of all 4 years she was a consistent top 5 player and comparing careers hers blows Capriati's out of the water.

flying24
04-12-2009, 11:22 AM
Capriati might be the worst player to even win atleast 2 slams, never mind the worst to ever win 3 slams. There are many 1 time slam winners who are better players than her but didnt her luck. Wade played in such a deep era overall, there is no comparsion. Of course Wade didnt fare well vs Court, King, Evert, Navratilova, or even Goolagong. They were greater players than her. She still held her own and got her share of wins vs all of them though.

boredone3456
04-12-2009, 02:16 PM
You make it sound like Davenport is greater than Capriati. Please. Capriati achieved the same # of slams doing drugs and being in a slump almost her whole career than Davenport did having a full career.

Davenport won 3 different slam titles (1 each at Wimbledon, Australia, and the US Open),made more slam finals, won more career titles, ended 4 years as world number 1, is considered by some to be one of the best ball strikers ever, and dominated Capriati in their H2H. Davenport also has an Olympic gold medal in singles, just like Jennifer does. And Capriati is no where close in the rest. Davenport was hampered by injuries as well as Prime Venus Williams, or else she to may have won more then she did.

flying24
04-12-2009, 03:37 PM
So wasting alot of her career doing drugs and whatever else she was doing is suddenly an argument in Capriati's defense or even favor. Truly amusing. The huge hole that took up over half of her career is merely yet another argument against her when compared to other players with 1-3 majors (a 3 time major winner like Davenport or Wade I compared to other 3-5 major winners, Capriati I instead compare to other 1-3 major winners and still comes near the bottom even of that group).

navratilovafan
04-12-2009, 05:10 PM
No contest. Wade by a huge margin. I also agree with boredone, thalivest and earlier posters. Capriati is by far the best the worst female player to win 3 slam titles, arguably the worst to even win 2 slam titles, and is weaker than probably over half who have won 1 slam title. I like the comment about the horseshoe she must have had to win those 3 slam titles for anyone who followed tennis while she won them. I dont think I have ever seen a player win so much over such a short time span 80% through sheer luck.