Who is the female Tennis GOAT?

[The-Champ]

like clijsters said: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrY9JkzNy3c

[TERRASTAR18]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

LOL most of them were basket cases......Dementieva never won a slam, Clijsters was a major choker until the 2005 US Open and then retired for a bit...Mauresmo was a headcase who only broke through in 2006 and was never a consistent challenger across all slams.....Kuznetsova won the US in 04 and did little else during this period...

Henin I will give you obviously and she dominated Serena for a while. Venus and Sharapova, yes.

But don't pretend it compares to 1999-2003 with peak Serena, peak Venus, close to peak Hingis, peak Davenport, peak Capriati, Henin, Graf (at the beginning of the period).

point1- dementieva is arguably the greatest player to never win a slam,it you doubt it just look at her legendary match at wimbly against serena. mauresmo was an all-court player who only choked at the french, kuzzy is an all-court player with two majors who was playing her best tennis at the time. clijsters the so called headcase only to serena,justine, and venus on their best surfaces in 03, 04 she lost to henin and was out the rest of the year, in 05 she lost twice to davenport and won the us open. if losing only to the best players most of the time on their best surface is a headcase then alot of alltime greats are too.

point2- i wasn't comparing the eras just emphasing that the competitive play extended after 2003.

[ctjpm]

I was interested in this because I was more of a fan of the womens game until 2003, I'm quite surprised Serena trails three of the aforementioned players between '04-'07.

2004-2007

Henin 1-3
Venus 0-2
Davenport 1-2
Sharapova 4-2
Kuznetsova 3-1
Mauresmo 3-1
Dementieva 3-1

Clijsters irrelevant as she didn't play Serena in those years.

I don't think a person could find many/any who think the game was more competitive between '04-'07 than '99-'03 but it wasn't uncompetitive.

[DropShotArtist]

Originally Posted by DropShotArtist

Prime Seles/Graf wouldn't even be facing prime Serena as she'd be losing to the likes of Razzano in early rounds, LOLLLLLLLLL

Yup, you pretty much called it you genius you

[mxmx]

Simply look at it this way:

If any of the players went head to head, who'd win? Who is "physically the best player of all time"?

probably Serena

She has the best woman serve ever, which would have dominated most woman in all eras. She "physically is the GOAT" even though maybe not on paper.
- at least in my opinion

It is also sad to say, that if Serena had maybe a more "popular" feminine appearance (or even race such as in my country, where many people hate her), she would have been judged far more objectively.

[merlinpinpin]

Originally Posted by TERRASTAR18

nav played like two ppl while serena had 6 to deal with. maybe all you watch is the final of tournaments.

She basically had Hénin to deal with once Hingis called it a day. And Hénin retired early, too. Considering that you obviously don't count competition unless they've won 15+ slams, you could also say that Serena had *no-one* to face. If you had some knowledge of tennis, you might review your 2 vs 6 assesment, and I'd be happy to help you with this, should you need me to.

[merlinpinpin]

Originally Posted by mxmx

Simply look at it this way:

If any of the players went head to head, who'd win? Who is "physically the best player of all time"?

probably Serena

I don't think this thread is about who is "the most augmented female tennis player of all-time", tennis ability (and record) are obviously part of the equation, too.

[mistik]

Serena just too many unexpected defeats compare to Navratilova and Graf. Only 1 RG title is just not enough on the women side as well.

[Fiji]

7654

I like this.

Agassi's wife.

[mxmx]

Originally Posted by merlinpinpin

I don't think this thread is about who is "the most augmented female tennis player of all-time", tennis ability (and record) are obviously part of the equation, too.

Well...yes...which is why "Who is the female Tennis GOAT?" can have various definitions.

Physically best player ever? : Serena?
On camera? :.....Kirsten Dunst?
On paper? : ______________
Or allround?

Realistically, I think everything needs to be taken into consideration. We could almost be considered lucky to have a very shallow(or should I say easy) answer in the form of Roger Federer when it comes to men tennis (no offence and just my opinion). He arguably has the best technique which I'd agree upon and physically on paper, the records. But is he really the best when you look into it deeper? Was his competition better than Sampras or Laver? Or, to dwell in it further, who is the second best MALE tennis player of all time? Sampras, Laver etc?
Federer got the GOAT title by certain criteria. What is that criteria for womans tennis? Is it the same?

for example would it be:
- results
- physical tennis ability
- duration of dominance
- popularity?
- sportsmanship
- looks?
- being married to someone famous?
- their competition of that time?

[ctjpm]

'Federer got the GOAT title'

Didn't realise he did. Beating his main rival 12% of the time to win 17 majors. Shame quality of major triumphs rarely comes into the equation.

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by ctjpm

'Federer got the GOAT title'

Didn't realise he did. Beating his main rival 12% of the time to win 17 majors. Shame quality of major triumphs rarely comes into the equation.

It certainly is a shame that no one cares about people personally devaluing majors because they are butthurt about who won them. What a shame.

Graf is the female GOAT, in my opinion.

[mxmx]

Originally Posted by ctjpm

'Federer got the GOAT title'

Didn't realise he did. Beating his main rival 12% of the time to win 17 majors. Shame quality of major triumphs rarely comes into the equation.

Well...everyone says it. Is there an official trophy for it?

[ctjpm]

'they are butthurt'
If this predictable insult was directed at me. I'm not butthurt about who won them nor am I going to bestow the title of greatest onto someone with a winning 12% against his main rival in majors.

'everyone says it.'
Oh well it must be the absolute truth. Billions of people have faith in religion, it doesn't mean it's anything but fairytales for adults.
'Is there an official trophy for it?'
You tell me, you're the one who stated - 'Federer got the GOAT title.'

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by ctjpm

'they are butthurt'
If this predictable insult was directed at me. I'm not butthurt about who won them nor am I going to bestow the title of greatest onto someone with a winning 12% against his main rival in majors.

'everyone says it.'
Oh well it must be the absolute truth. Billions of people have faith in religion, it doesn't mean it's anything but fairytales for adults.
'Is there an official trophy for it?'
You tell me, you're the one who stated - 'Federer got the GOAT title.'

Learn to use the quote button.

Thankfully, no one is seeking your infinite wisdom to know who to bestow the GOAT title upon.

[ctjpm]

'Learn to use the quote button.'
I'm going to go out of my way to please you.

'no one is seeking your infinite wisdom to know who to bestow the GOAT title upon.'
Nor yours.

Federer - 12%
As opposed to - Nadal (versus Federer) - 55%
Sampras - (versus Agassi) - 29%
Laver - (versus Emerson) 27%

All major play inclusive - Fed 12%, Nadal 73%, Sampras 36%, Laver 55%.

The 'greatest' has the poorest record in beating his main rival in the most important events. Only in tennis.

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by ctjpm

'Learn to use the quote button.'
I'm going to go out of my way to please you.

'no one is seeking your infinite wisdom to know who to bestow the GOAT title upon.'
Nor yours.

Federer - 12%
As opposed to - Nadal (versus Federer) - 55%
Sampras - (versus Agassi) - 29%
Laver - (versus Emerson) 27%

All major play inclusive - Fed 12%, Nadal 73%, Sampras 36%, Laver 55%.

The 'greatest' has the poorest record in beating his main rival in the most important events. Only in tennis.

Apparently you're not going out of your way to please me, but perhaps you just have trouble communicating/understanding.

Some players are willing to give it their all plus have the talent and consistency to challenge for titles on all surfaces, no matter if they have to face a clay court GOAT or not. Sampras bowed out at the French Open in the early rounds, and he didn't have to worry about someone like Nadal.

Nadal, an excellent player and the obvious choice for best clay courter of all time did what he was best at, winning on clay. Fed declines, Rafa ascends, and suddenly it is a huge deal to have an extra couple of losses on the resume against the best young players on the planet. Sampras started losing to chumps at an age much younger than Fed. Actually, Fed still is only consistently losing to the best players in the world. Remember, a young Federer beat an "old Sampras" (one who is younger than Fed currently is now) at Sampras' best slam.

Have fun being bitter and clinging to one stat so that you can sleep at night.

[ctjpm]

'Apparently you're not going out of your way to please me'
Definition of sarcasm is online.

I can't disagree with anything you wrote on Sampras, Laver missing twenty majors (his prime years) is another story entirely.

'did what he was best at, winning on clay.' Nadal also won on grass and hard.

Stats achieved by millionaire playboys do not help me sleep at night. I'm not bitter either, I just won't follow a crowd in forming an opinion.

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by ctjpm

'Apparently you're not going out of your way to please me'
Definition of sarcasm is online.

I can't disagree with anything you wrote on Sampras, Laver missing twenty majors (his prime years) is another story entirely.

'did what he was best at, winning on clay.' Nadal also won on grass and hard.

Stats achieved by millionaire playboys do not help me sleep at night. I'm not bitter either, I just won't follow a crowd in forming an opinion.

I'm not as upset with Laver fanatics as I am with Sampras *****. I loved watching Sampras play but the most vocal Sampras supporters here have just gone nutty watching his records fall.

Nadal was able to win on all surfaces, but not to the extent of players like Federer (all other surfaces) or Djokovic (on hard courts). Federer picked up four of his seventeen slams before Nadal won his first. Nadal was there and Federer was still able to win slams. There is no denying that there is an age difference and their peaks occurred at different times. This often happens in tennis, which is why we should look at overall achievements.

Fed owned his own generation, which is really the most you can ask of someone. You can then look at how a player was able to hold on against the younger guys, and Federer has done pretty damn well with that, much better than Sampras.

I really don't want to be rude or give you too hard of a time, but it gets old hearing the same bad arguments as to why Federer isn't great. I don't care if you think he is the GOAT or not, as that is a much tougher decision, and personal feelings will play a role.

[ctjpm]

'as to why Federer isn't great.'

Nowhere did I state Federer wasn't a great tennis player. I stated imo he isn't the greatest.

'Fed owned his own generation.' Completely disagree that Nadal & Federer aren't part of the same generation. Seles & Graf? McEnroe & Connors? Four years between the former, and 6+ yrs between the two Americans.