Would Serena be the real slam record holder if she reaches 20 slams

[NadalAgassi]

If Serena reaches 20 slams shouldnt be considered as the real Slam record holder for women.

The only ones with more would be Court with 24 and Graf with 22. However Court won 11 of hers at the Australian Open which back then was a depleted slam, especialy for women, and she won no more than 5 at each of the "real slams". If one is super generous and gives her 6 had everyone played (more than she managed at any of the 3 real slams) that would bring her down to 19 total slams. Graf gained atleast 3 slams by the Seles stabbing. So again being generous she wins only 19 slams without the Seles stabbing occuring.

I for one would consider Serena the real slam record holder at 20 if she reaches that mark, with basically a large group of womens at 18/19 with Evert, Navratilova, Wills, Graf, and Court behind her. That would only further cement her as what many are already now saying she is, the best female tennis player ever.

[kiki]

Since Hingis ( and her Sister) is longtime out of contest, Serena has no obstacle to win as many majors as she wants to.I think more than 20 is very reasonable.

[dangalak]

Considering Evert didn't even try to win everything....

If she doesn't at least win one more RG title, she will have to pass 22 I'm afraid.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by dangalak

Considering Evert didn't even try to win everything....

If she doesn't at least win one more RG title, she will have to pass 22 I'm afraid.

Yes but it was Evert's choice to not play more slams. However I do agree Evert should have won 24 or 25 slams, and should have made herself the real record holder rather than Court or Graf. She must be kicking herself. I wonder if she then would be considered better than Navratilova who only has 18 (and only would have 19 or 20 now even if she played the French and Australian through the 70s, if Chris also did, she wouldnt have benefited half as much0 or if MN would still be considered better because of her H2H ownage of Evert in the 80s. Peoples perceptions (often baised and unfairly slanted to MN IMO) of Chris vs Martina is why I laugh when Federer fans think the talk of the Federer-Nadal H2H and its impact is a unique case, people have always cared about major H2Hs between major rivals, even a bit too much at times.

I do expect if Serena reaches 20 or more slams, that will include atleast 1 more RG title.

[dangalak]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Yes but it was Evert's choice to not play more slams. However I do agree Evert should have won 24 or 25 slams, and should have made herself the real record holder rather than Court or Graf. She must be kicking herself. I wonder if she then would be considered better than Navratilova who only has 18 (and only would have 19 or 20 now even if she played the French and Australian through the 70s, if Chris also did, she wouldnt have benefited half as much0 or if MN would still be considered better because of her H2H ownage of Evert in the 80s. Peoples perceptions (often baised and unfairly slanted to MN IMO) of Chris vs Martina is why I laugh when Federer fans think the talk of the Federer-Nadal H2H and its impact is a unique case, people have always cared about major H2Hs between major rivals, even a bit too much at times.

I do expect if Serena reaches 20 or more slams, that will include atleast 1 more RG title.

With Federer I believe it is because of Federer's obvious weakness. I don't think that Martina had something that Evert couldn't handle. She just played better. I mean not match up wise, she would've been an equally big problem. No rock paper scissor type sh*t.

With Nadal, when you see him pepper Federer's BH, people know that the same trick wouldn't necessarily work on a guy like Djokovic or if we are talking 2006, Blake () Martina there looked unbeatable for any hypothetical opponent.

[forzamilan90]

20 slams would be great, but it'd be cool if she got the number 1 ranking back, and started winning titles all across, not just the slams. Then she'd really solidify her case.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by dangalak

With Federer I believe it is because of Federer's obvious weakness. I don't think that Martina had something that Evert couldn't handle. She just played better.

Martina catered her whole game around beating Chris and nothing else. She had the luxury to do so since the 1982-1984 field where her utter dominance of Chris all came was the worst in tennis history, yes even worse than 2009-2011 atleast outside the top 2, truly a dinosaur era with almost no talented players in the top 10. How else to explain how she had way more trouble with Mandilikova, who was even off form and in a major slump in the aforementioned years than Chris those few years, losing to Hana multiple times and having other 3 setters. How to explain how she could lose major matches to Hanika, baby Sukova, and even to Kathy Horvath, yet not once to Chris.