PDA

View Full Version : Lindsay Davenport - A Legend???


The Dav
02-18-2006, 06:14 AM
Alright, so she has only won 3 Grand Slams, but when we look at the whole picture is she qualified to be called a legend?

4 times she's ended a season ranked #1 (Only BJK, Navratilova and Graf have done it more than her)

51 titles, including the Olympics, Wimbledon and the YEC, also Fed Cup champ and Doubles GS Champ...

She is certainly one of the most consistent players the women's game has ever seen, she first entered the top 10 in 1994, and in 2006 she found herself as the world #1, and she has rarely been out of the elite group in-between that time...

So are Grand Slams the be all and end all, or should we consider all of her other achievements? Me? She's a LEGEND!!! :D

theace21
02-18-2006, 06:53 AM
This has been debating many times over the past 6 months...I consider her one of the greatest players of the last 10 years. Sure she would have liked to have won a couple of those Grand Slam finals she lost. An elite player, a Hall of Famer - but who do you put at the Legend status...Greatest players of all time...Billie Jean King - a legend for watch she has done for tennis and women sports...Rod Laver - winning all the grand slam events in a single year - Twice...

Legends, Borg, Tilden, Roy Emerson?, - go ahead and add to the list

I am a big Lindsey fan, but I don't but her in that status of one of the greatest players of all time...

The Dav
02-18-2006, 07:31 AM
This has been debating many times over the past 6 months...I consider her one of the greatest players of the last 10 years. Sure she would have liked to have won a couple of those Grand Slam finals she lost. An elite player, a Hall of Famer - but who do you put at the Legend status...Greatest players of all time...Billie Jean King - a legend for watch she has done for tennis and women sports...Rod Laver - winning all the grand slam events in a single year - Twice...

Legends, Borg, Tilden, Roy Emerson?, - go ahead and add to the list

I am a big Lindsey fan, but I don't but her in that status of one of the greatest players of all time...

Thanks for your reply theace, good point, what does constitute a 'legend'?

The question was also about whether Grand Slams are the only indication of greatness, would people consider the fact that she has won 51 titles? 2 less than Seles, even though Seles has 6 more Slams?

Anyway, as I say, she's a legend to me :D

Mr.Federer
02-18-2006, 07:42 AM
I believe she's a great player, and that she will always be remembered as a great player. Legend, I don't think so. Grand Slams are the most important things in tennis and sadly for Lindsay she doesn't have enough of them to be considered one.

ACE of Hearts
02-18-2006, 07:48 AM
She will be remember as an underachiever, she should have at least 6 or 7 slams.

Mr.Federer
02-18-2006, 07:50 AM
She will be remember as an underachiever, she should have at least 6 or 7 slams.

Yes, she will be remembered as an underachiever but a great player aswell.

The Dav
02-18-2006, 08:29 AM
She will be remember as an underachiever, she should have at least 6 or 7 slams.

No she won't! Lindsay is an OVERACHIEVER, she is not an athlete, she can be slow, clumsy and unfocused, and yet she has achieved so much...

She shouldn't have won anything, when Tracy Austin saw her as a child, Tracy said she would never have guessed that that overweight, clumsy girl would have won so much and would have become world #1, but she did!

She also happened to be in the era of the Williams sisters, indeed, every Slam final she has lost has been to a Williams, it's not like she lost to Majoli ;)

Kaptain Karl
02-18-2006, 08:52 AM
I believe she's a great player, and that she will always be remembered as a great player. Legend, I don't think so. Grand Slams are the most important things in tennis and sadly for Lindsay she doesn't have enough of them to be considered one.

She will be remember as an underachiever, she should have at least 6 or 7 slams.You're both right. She's a great player who could have been a "legend". She simply ... wigged-out ... in too many big matches for the "legend" label.

Nastase ... Goolagong ... Mac ... Austin ... Agassi ... Kournikova ... (etc.). I think they ALL "left titles on the table," like Davenport has.

- KK

Steve Dykstra
02-18-2006, 12:00 PM
Alright, so she has only won 3 Grand Slams, but when we look at the whole picture is she qualified to be called a legend?

Absolutely not. She will be remembered as a great player, but all those other accomplishments she has are trivial compared to the lack of Grand Slams.

Coria
02-18-2006, 12:40 PM
This has been debated quite a bit (by myself as well) in the last year. The bottom line is that Lindsay has had a great career and is a Hall of Famer.

She is NOT a legend. She has come up small so many times in majors it is kind of mind-boggling. I believe she has been in at least 28 quarters or better in grand slams. She has won but three. And they were within 18 months of each other. She has not won a slam in over six years and has CHOKED many, many, many, many, many times. Not all of her losses are chokes. But, there are at least 10 matches just in this decade alone that she should have won, or was winning, or gagged at the end, or whatever. Too much anxiety ridden play in big moments throughout her career to be even remotely considered a legend. Let's set the bar as it should be. Evert, Navratilova, Graf, Seles, Billie Jean, Margeret Court and even possibly Serena if she gets back in shape and wins a couple more--these ladies are legends. Lindsay is not. She plays her best tennis is the more meaningless matches. It's been that way just about her whole career.

knasty131
02-18-2006, 12:52 PM
kournikova??? wow...i never would have put her in a list with those other people

Grimjack
02-18-2006, 01:05 PM
I think if you're going to be a "legend," you've got to either be in the extreme upper class of even the HOF'ers, or you have to be not only HOF caliber, but also larger than life in some respect.

I think Lindsay has had a far better career than Arthur Ashe did, but I'd call him a legend. Not her.

On the flip side, I think Sanchez-Vicario had a better career than Lindsay, but I don't think she's a legend, either.

The Dav
02-18-2006, 01:29 PM
I think if you're going to be a "legend," you've got to either be in the extreme upper class of even the HOF'ers, or you have to be not only HOF caliber, but also larger than life in some respect.

I think Lindsay has had a far better career than Arthur Ashe did, but I'd call him a legend. Not her.

On the flip side, I think Sanchez-Vicario had a better career than Lindsay, but I don't think she's a legend, either.

No way, Davenport is superior to ASV, has ASV been at the top of the game for 12 years? Has she won 3/4 Slams? Has she won the Olympics?

Davenport has more titles and has been ranked #1 longer, just because ASV has won one more Slam doesn't mean she's better, I'm sorry, but you have to consider other achievements than Grand Slams, there's more to tennis than 4 events...

The Dav
02-18-2006, 01:33 PM
This has been debated quite a bit (by myself as well) in the last year. The bottom line is that Lindsay has had a great career and is a Hall of Famer.

She is NOT a legend. She has come up small so many times in majors it is kind of mind-boggling. I believe she has been in at least 28 quarters or better in grand slams. She has won but three. And they were within 18 months of each other. She has not won a slam in over six years and has CHOKED many, many, many, many, many times. Not all of her losses are chokes. But, there are at least 10 matches just in this decade alone that she should have won, or was winning, or gagged at the end, or whatever. Too much anxiety ridden play in big moments throughout her career to be even remotely considered a legend. Let's set the bar as it should be. Evert, Navratilova, Graf, Seles, Billie Jean, Margeret Court and even possibly Serena if she gets back in shape and wins a couple more--these ladies are legends. Lindsay is not. She plays her best tennis is the more meaningless matches. It's been that way just about her whole career.

I'm puzzled, matches that she 'should've won', how do you define these matches?

Davenport has only lost 4 Slam finals, and they have been to two people, both of them share the same last name - Williams...

The fact is she HAS won big titles on many occasions, Wimbledon, US Open, Australian Open, Olympics, YEC, Indian Wells twice, she has nothing to prove...

Anyone who can win a Grand Slam three times deserves more respect...

Grimjack
02-18-2006, 03:57 PM
No way, Davenport is superior to ASV, has ASV been at the top of the game for 12 years? Has she won 3/4 Slams? Has she won the Olympics?

Davenport has more titles and has been ranked #1 longer, just because ASV has won one more Slam doesn't mean she's better, I'm sorry, but you have to consider other achievements than Grand Slams, there's more to tennis than 4 events...

4 Grand Slam singles titles, and a 12 time finalist. Finalist in every GS twice. Runner up in 8 GS's, 7 of which saw her lose to either Steffi or Monica (which is to say, even her losses were more impressive than Lindsay's). 6 Grand Slam doubles titles.

Do I weigh her 1 extra GS singles, her 10 total GS titles overall, and her far superior resume in the slams as a whole as more important that Lindsay's year-in/year-out "pretty solid player" attributes and extra no-name tournament titles? #### yeah.

Indeed, it's the bolded part I really take issue with. There is "more to tennis than 4 events" only so these players can earn a nice living, and so sponsors can push product. These events are a pleasant diversion, but nothing more. These non-slam tournaments are utterly irrelevant to the history of the game. All of them. Every last one. Meaningless. I don't care if you stick the word "Masters" or the phrase "Tier 1" in front of it or not -- two weeks after the tournament, nobody gives a crap. (The only possible exception being the year-end men's event, but that has nothing to do with Lindsay and Arantxa.)

The history of tennis is the history of the Grand Slams -- nothing more, nothing less. Just as the history of track and field or gymnastics is the history of the Summer Olympics. Yes, they keep playing these sports even when the slams and the Olympics aren't in session -- but nobody cares. History will forget who wins the tournements this week before the ink is dry on the winners' checks.

4 tournaments a year ARE all that matters.

Grimjack
02-18-2006, 03:59 PM
(None of which, BTW, is meant to diminish what has been a remarkable, 3-slam career for Ms. Davenport. Merely to accentuate that Aranxta's accomplishments are more impressive, despite far fewer titles overall.)

maconick
02-18-2006, 04:03 PM
best woman

The Dav
02-18-2006, 04:42 PM
4 Grand Slam singles titles, and a 12 time finalist. Finalist in every GS twice. Runner up in 8 GS's, 7 of which saw her lose to either Steffi or Monica (which is to say, even her losses were more impressive than Lindsay's). 6 Grand Slam doubles titles.

Do I weigh her 1 extra GS singles, her 10 total GS titles overall, and her far superior resume in the slams as a whole as more important that Lindsay's year-in/year-out "pretty solid player" attributes and extra no-name tournament titles? #### yeah.

Indeed, it's the bolded part I really take issue with. There is "more to tennis than 4 events" only so these players can earn a nice living, and so sponsors can push product. These events are a pleasant diversion, but nothing more. These non-slam tournaments are utterly irrelevant to the history of the game. All of them. Every last one. Meaningless. I don't care if you stick the word "Masters" or the phrase "Tier 1" in front of it or not -- two weeks after the tournament, nobody gives a crap. (The only possible exception being the year-end men's event, but that has nothing to do with Lindsay and Arantxa.)

The history of tennis is the history of the Grand Slams -- nothing more, nothing less. Just as the history of track and field or gymnastics is the history of the Summer Olympics. Yes, they keep playing these sports even when the slams and the Olympics aren't in session -- but nobody cares. History will forget who wins the tournements this week before the ink is dry on the winners' checks.

4 tournaments a year ARE all that matters.

So basically, you've established that Arantxa is rather good at losing Slam finals...

Davenport has ended a season ranked #1 FOUR times! She has 51 titles to ASV's 29, she has won 3 of the 4 Slams, compared to ASV winning 2/4, her career win-loss ratio is better than ASV's, she has won the Olympics (beating ASV, I might add :D ), the YEC (why is the men's one important, and not the women's one? :confused: ), and she will soon become the highest earning female player of all time!

Those things may not be important to YOU, but they are important to many others, your scope may be limited to 4 events, but that is not the case for everyone, that's why we have statistics for how many weeks a player has spent at #1, or how many titles someone's won, or for how much money someone has earned, indeed, there is a thread about that on this fourm, so much for 'not giving a crap', these are IMPRESSIVE achievements, which reflect a player's abilities, their longevity, versatility, etc., please don't be so pompous to speak on behalf of everyone...

Sorry, but anyone can have two good weeks, but it is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to have 12 good years, only special players can say that about themselves, Davenport being one of the few...

Also, I'd hardly call 38 weeks out of the year a 'pleasant diversion' ;)

superman1
02-18-2006, 04:53 PM
Not a legend. Calling her a legend just doesn't feel right. She beats most of the players pretty badly but can never get the trophy. She's not so much about talent as about size and clean, powerful groundstrokes that make up for her terrible movement.

The Dav
02-18-2006, 04:56 PM
Not a legend. Calling her a legend just doesn't feel right. She beats most of the players pretty badly but can never get the trophy. She's not so much about talent as about size and clean, powerful groundstrokes that make up for her terrible movement.

According to John McEnroe, she is the cleanest striker of the ball the game has ever seen - male or female! That's quite a talent :D

Kaptain Karl
02-18-2006, 05:10 PM
kournikova??? wow...i never would have put her in a list with those other peopleSure. My list was of those who *should* have won more titles ... not a measure of "Greatness". (And it was a partial list.)

Kournikova, in her youth was *scary good.* She's an excellent Dubs player. For some reason she just didn't have the mental strength for Singles. (So she's not even acknowledged for how good a player she really was.)

- KK

superman1
02-18-2006, 05:40 PM
That's kind of a weird thing of McEnroe to say. Davenport is the cleanest striker I have seen, but that's because she doesn't have to deal with the pace that the men deal with. Put Agassi in the WTA, let the girls hit those flat, easy shots at him, and you'd have to call him the cleanest striker.

Kaptain Karl
02-18-2006, 11:22 PM
... please don't be so pompous to speak on behalf of everyone...I bet I'm not the only one who was thinking about The Pot and the Kettle on this....

- KK

West Coast Ace
02-18-2006, 11:42 PM
That's kind of a weird thing of McEnroe to say. Davenport is the cleanest striker I have seen, but that's because she doesn't have to deal with the pace that the men deal with. Put Agassi in the WTA, let the girls hit those flat, easy shots at him, and you'd have to call him the cleanest striker.Agree. At times, John just likes to hear the sound of his own voice. Like Charles Barkley, 'frequently wrong but never in doubt.'

No way Davenport is a legend. But I respect that she turned her career around by losing the weight, getting in shape, and thus able to get to #1, win 3 Slams, and compete with the best of her time.

Warriorroger
02-19-2006, 06:50 AM
Agree. At times, John just likes to hear the sound of his own voice. Like Charles Barkley, 'frequently wrong but never in doubt.'

No way Davenport is a legend. But I respect that she turned her career around by losing the weight, getting in shape, and thus able to get to #1, win 3 Slams, and compete with the best of her time.

Good post! I also respect the fact that she lost weight.She should have had a coach who could have made her a more positive player on the court. You can like/hate legends like the original Martina, awesome Steffi, never-say-die Monica, but they should have been a role model for Lindsay in terms of mentality. Especially the last two: from their faces you could never read if they were either match point up or down.

I don't believe Lindsay is a too nice girl like Kim Clijsters, but I think she has been lazy in putting the final punch in her career.

She will be remembered as a very good player IMO. And she is.