Originally Posted by pc1
You can't just forget about the other tournaments. Serena's record outside of the majors is not what it should have been. So if Serena reaches 20 majors and let's say she won 60 total tournaments. Is two extra majors better than Martina Navratilova's extra 107 tournaments won? And Navratilova faced Evert, King, Court, Goolagong, Graf, Seles, Sabatini, Sanchez-Vicario, Wade and did extremely well. It was very tough competition.
Navratilova had 90% of her career greatness achieved in 82-87. She did NOT have remotedly tough competition most of this period. 1983 is still probably the worst year in womens tennis history, yes even worse than 2009-2011, well apart from Martina's historic brilliance itself. The 4 slam finals this year were Evert-Jacouvec, Navratilova-Jaeger, Navratilova-slumping Evert, Navratilova-Jordan. The first 3 slam finals saw the loser win an average of 3 games, by far the best slam final of the year was actually Jordan vs Navratilova, lol! During this whole stretch of time her only competition was Chris who was in a major slump 82-early 84, and who was in her 30s late 84-86, Mandlikova in late 85-early 87 as from 82-early 85 she was mostly outside the top 5 even in a field with literally no depth, a 16 and 17 year old Graf in late 86-87, and the best of the rest was Shriver who was the perennial #3 or #4 of the Navratilova era, and Jaeger for a couple years. The way you say it one would think she faced that field all at once, someone like Court was retired from pro tennis 12 years before Seles turned pro, LOL, a large number of those players were never even on tour together, let alone semi prime rivals of a prime Martina at any point, and Martina's glory days in the game in no way involved the majority of people you listed, especialy not people like Court or Seles.
This is nothing like Serena who has had a period of weaker competition, but from 99-2007 won her slams in a field that included Henin and Venus in their primes for many years alongside Serena, two top 15 players of all time, Sharapova, Clijsters, Davenport, Hingis, Mauresmo ,all numerous slam winners and sure hall of famers, Seles and Pierce for awhile still as major contenders.
Now I do agree even considering the times Serenas tournament total count sucks, and could be a mark against her. However you need to stop comparing tournament totals to current players exactly. Players from the past ALWAYS have many more tournament wins than players of today, why do you think that is, it cant be they are all miracelously so much better. The game today is far more physical (I did not say better, in fact I dont like the overly physical aspect of the game today in many ways) making it virtually impossible to play virtually every week as players of the distant past did. Injuries are much more rampant, especialy for those who dare to try. Virginia Wade has won many more tournaments than Justine Henin, a women who did play very regular schedules for current WTA standards, do you think for a moment Wade who was the regular whooping girl of every legend of her era, and who basically won atleast 2 of her 3 slams by slipping in the cracks when numerous people were absent, is anywhere near the player Henin is. You have mentioned many times how many more tournaments Lendl and Connors have won than Federer, do you really believe they are much better players though. The examples could go on forever. A women could come around who could win 30 slams and I still doubt she would win 199 tournaments as Court did, or even around 160 as Evert and Navratilova did. It simply isnt feasible today.