Originally Posted by Phoenix1983
Oh so because you did a breakdown, that means it is true?
People always throw out these hypotheticals and rank players based on what they think would have happened - even if these things sometimes contradict each other (i.e. saying that Borg is GOAT because he would have won all the AOs played in the 70s but then also saying Connors would have won all four slams if he'd played in the French in 1974 and would have taken more French titles off Borg throughout the 1970s - which would of course negate Borg's place as GOAT).
In any case I'm getting off the point, which is that the pre-Open Era (and yes I'm aware there was no pro-am split as in the men's, but the level of play and competition was still lower than in the professional era where women knew they were getting paid and thus dedicated themselves more to their sport, skill, fitness etc.) was weaker than the Open Era. Especially the AO.
Plus I love how you assume that Seles would have continued dominating after 1993 when we don't know that is the case. Let's assume McEnroe had been stabbed at the end of 1984 and had to retire, but everything else played out as it actually did. Lendl still ended up dominating the late 80s. In your world, Lendl could not possibly have done this if Mac hadn't been stabbed - but we all know he did anyway.
1999-2003, certainly - a golden age of womens' tennis.
I don't especially rate the womens' tour today but that is a matter of personal opinion.
from 2004-2007, she had henin,clijsters, kuzzy, mauresmo, sharapova,dementieva, venus still winning wimbly, and davenport.