Surprising stats (1)

Condoleezza · Jan 12, 2007

While browsing through some tennis forums I found this gem:

1) Chris Evert's winning percentage in 12 months before her loss to 16-year-old Steffi Graf at Hilton Head Island on April 13th, 1986: 93.8 %.

2) Monica Seles's winning percentage in 12 months before the stabbing in Hamburg on April 30th, 1993: 92.1 %.

Seems that 31-year-old Chrissie was at least as good as peak Seles at age 19.
And we can't say that 1985/86 was a clown era. Because that would be denigrating Evert AND Navratilova. And 1992/93 could not be an extremely strong era because that would be admitting that Graf's competiton after the Seles stabbing must have been quite good, too.

Condi

python · Jan 12, 2007

And we can't say that 1985/86 was a clown era. Because that would be denigrating Evert AND Navratilova.

Quick, name any gram slam winners of that era other than Evert, Navratilova, or Mandlikova. Compare that to today: Williams(2), Henin, Clisters, Sharapova, Mauresmo, etc...

You get the picture.

Condoleezza · Jan 12, 2007

python said:
Quick, name any gram slam winners of that era other than Evert, Navratilova, or Mandlikova. Compare that to today: Williams(2), Henin, Clisters, Sharapova, Mauresmo, etc...

You get the picture.

Yes, how sad!
2.5 all-time greats then, a lot of clowns today ...

Condi

python · Jan 12, 2007

Plenty of clowns back then too, only they never won any grand slams OR even any tour titles. Those were monopolized by the usual 2 suspects.

Tell you what. I'd rather watch an opening round WTA match today than circa 1983.

Condoleezza · Jan 12, 2007

python said:
Plenty of clowns back then too, only they never won any grand slams OR even any tour titles. Those were monopolized by the usual 2 suspects.

Tell you what. I'd rather watch an opening round WTA match today than circa 1983.

So you think 1982-87 (when Navratilova won 15 of her 18 slams) was a clown era???

Condi

python · Jan 12, 2007

I don't think Martina was challenged in those days until the semis. The WTA was very weak until the last part of the nineties. Even in the days of Steffi Graf, I'm convinced she didn't face an opponent that could beat her until the finals.

Upsets are a lot more frequent today.

Condoleezza · Jan 12, 2007

python said:
I don't think Martina was challenged in those days until the semis. The WTA was very weak until the last part of the nineties. Even in the days of Steffi Graf, I'm convinced she didn't face an opponent that could beat her until the finals.

Upsets are a lot more frequent today.

But in the 80ies the #3 - #10 players were more often upset by lower-ranked players than today. Only the #1 and #2 almost never were upset.

Maybe the only difference is that we don't have all-time greats like Evert, Navratilova or Graf anymore?

Condi

python · Jan 12, 2007

Henin & Serena Williams have to go down in history as some of the all-time greats if you look at their achievements objectively. I don't know why you don't think the WTA Tour is deeper than ever. I think it clearly is by any measure.

Condoleezza · Jan 13, 2007

python said:
Henin & Serena Williams have to go down in history as some of the all-time greats if you look at their achievements objectively. I don't know why you don't think the WTA Tour is deeper than ever. I think it clearly is by any measure.

I don't think so.
Players from the Davenport, Mauresmo, Clijsters, Sharapova mould would not have been able to be #1 in, say, 1982-1996 on a constant basis.

Condi

python · Jan 16, 2007

Well, we'll have to disagree on this one. If you don't think the Serena Williams that held all 4 GS titles at one time wouldn't have pounded Ms. Evert or Ms. Navratilova, then we have radically different concepts of what winning tennis is.

It seems like you just like the 'classic' players and that's fine. Stefan Edberg and Henri Leconte are some of my favorites.

Condoleezza · Jan 16, 2007

python said:
Well, we'll have to disagree on this one. If you don't think the Serena Williams that held all 4 GS titles at one time wouldn't have pounded Ms. Evert or Ms. Navratilova, then we have radically different concepts of what winning tennis is.

It seems like you just like the 'classic' players and that's fine. Stefan Edberg and Henri Leconte are some of my favorites.

Serena won her 4 GS titles in 2002/03.
In those years she lost to Rubin, Schnyder, Shaughessy.

And now tell me with a straight face that peak Navratilova would have lost matches to journeywomen like them ......

Condi

travlerajm · Jan 16, 2007

I think women's tennis is much stronger and deeper today than it was in the '80s. However, I still think an in-her-prime Navratilova with a modern racquet would be dominating today's gals.

python · Jan 16, 2007

And now tell me with a straight face that peak Navratilova would have lost matches to journeywomen like them

I'm actually convinced Chanda Rubin (much less Serena or JHH or Mauresmo or Hingis) transported back to the eighties would be a daunting challenge for Martina N. The game was just different back then - less topspin, less velocity, less physical fit players, pretty much less of everything. You ever wonder why few women on the WTA ever came to net? They couldn't volley OR hit any overhead.

How did an old Martina fair against a 14 year Jennifer Capriati? Not well as I recall. Yeah, I bet Serena is quaking in her sequined dress at the thought of playing the likes of Sukova or Carling Bassett. And she'd probably love to beat a young Martina bloody.

Condoleezza · Jan 16, 2007

python said:
You ever wonder why few women on the WTA ever came to net? They couldn't volley OR hit any overhead. ...

Yes, we all know that today's players are far better at the net than in the 80ies ......

python said:
How did an old Martina fair against a 14 year Jennifer Capriati? Not well as I recall. ...

No, she only won 6-4 6-2 on Hilton Head's clay.
That is an extremely close result. And clay is Martina's favourite surface ....

(OMG, why do I still discuss with people like that??)

Condi

python · Jan 16, 2007

Yes, we all know that today's players are far better at the net than in the 80ies

Come on, man. The swinging volley has changed women's tennis. Lots of WTA players play this shot (and well at that) now.

Forget it. You're not sincere in discussing this issue, and I won't change your mind so let's drop it.

python · Jan 16, 2007

Condoleezza said:
Yes, we all know that today's players are far better at the net than in the 80ies ......

No, she only won 6-4 6-2 on Hilton Head's clay.
That is an extremely close result. And clay is Martina's favourite surface ....

(OMG, why do I still discuss with people like that??)

Condi

By the way, I was actually referring to the Wimbledon match where Capriati ousted MN from the quarters.

Like, really, OMG, gosh.

Condoleezza · Jan 16, 2007

python said:
By the way, I was actually referring to the Wimbledon match where Capriati ousted MN from the quarters.

Like, really, OMG, gosh.

A 14-year-old Capriati never ousted Navratilova in Wimbledon.

Condi

python · Jan 16, 2007

You're right. She was 15 when the Wimbledon match occurred. Your memory starts to go when you are old.

How about addressing my other examples or do you just selectively pick points to nitpick about? If the latter, I won't bother checking this thread anymore.

Condoleezza · Jan 16, 2007

python said:
You're right. She was 15 when the Wimbledon match occurred. Your memory starts to go when you are old.

How about addressing my other examples or do you just selectively pick points to nitpick about? If the latter, I won't bother checking this thread anymore.

I select the most obvious points at first (factual errors - which usually lead to deluded opinions).

The fitness issue (today's players allegedly being so fit)?
Yeah, those unfit gals back in the 80ies. No wonder half of the top players were injured all the time - contrary to today. Oh, wait ....

Serena shaking in her boots?
No, I think Sukova would be shaking in her boots at the thought how Serena would whip her ass with 1984ish equipment ......

Rubin troubling Navratilova?
Maybe. But not Graf. Who is 6-0 H2H against Chanda and had no trouble at all.

Condi

python · Jan 16, 2007

Fitness: Do you really follow the WTA at all, or are you just trolling? No one keeps stats on percentage of body fat on the tour as a longitudinal number, but it's still true that the WTA players today are much more fit than they were in the past. Chubby players are much less common now than then, and I say that as someone who attends a major tournament every year. Reading your comments, I don't even see an honest attempt to deflect this one. Facts are facts.

Sukova and Serena even with old graphite racquets would still result in a Sukova whipping, or did you totally forget how unathletic Helena really was. (Assuming you've actually seen her play.) Besides in any hypothetical matchup, why on earth would you assume the players would be using old equipment? Serena grooved her strokes using modern equipment. If she played with a woodie, she would hit differently and her game could be different from the banger game it is. Your assumption is rather silly to start with at all.

So now you're using Graf as your champion instead of Martina or Chris? Good choice. At least you've got some solid ground there. A healthy MODERN Rubin would eat Martina's lunch and we both know that deep down inside. Martina does too, which is why she stuck to doubles in her latter years. Heck when she made her comeback initially in singles, it didn't last too long at all. Her opponents were destroying her with heavy topspin and she just couldn't attack at all with any great consistency.

Condoleezza · Jan 16, 2007

python said:
.... A healthy MODERN Rubin would eat Martina's lunch and we both know that deep down inside. Martina does too, which is why she stuck to doubles in her latter years. Heck when she made her comeback initially in singles, it didn't last too long at all. Her opponents were destroying her with heavy topspin and she just couldn't attack at all with any great consistency.

Rubin perhaps would have beaten a 45/47-year-old Martina.
But when Martina returned to the game in 2002 (at age 45) she beat #22 Panova and lost a hard-fought three-setter to #13 Hantuchova.
Two years later she was able to beat two top-100 players still.
At age 47 ....

BTW, 35-year-old Brenda Schultz-McCarthy hopped from the couch last year (after being retired for years) and hit a new service speed record (with 130 mph).

Graf lost to then #15 Likhovtseva only in the tie-break in an exhibition match in 2004. After having played tennis maybe for 20 hours in the 5 years before.

So much about the strength of today's tennis ....

Condi

VikingSamurai · Jan 16, 2007

Condoleezza said:
Rubin perhaps would have beaten a 45/47-year-old Martina.
But when Martina returned to the game in 2002 (at age 45) she beat #22 Panova and lost a hard-fought three-setter to #13 Hantuchova.
Two years later she was able to beat two top-100 players still.
At age 47 ....

BTW, 35-year-old Brenda Schultz-McCarthy hopped from the couch last year (after being retired for years) and hit a new service speed record (with 130 mph).

Graf lost to then #15 Likhovtseva only in the tie-break in an exhibition match in 2004. After having played tennis maybe for 20 hours in the 5 years before.

So much about the strength of today's tennis ....

Condi

Weirdo!!

All these stats and what could and should have beens is kinda pointless. You have way too much time on your hands?

Condoleezza · Jan 16, 2007

chris_in_japan said:
Weirdo!!

All these stats and what could and should have beens is kinda pointless. You have way too much time on your hands?

Pointless in a discussion among adults about whether today's women's tennis really is far superior to 80ies women's tennis?
Care to elaborate?

OK, I can understand - stats are "pointless" of course when they contradict your own gut feelings ....

Condi

VikingSamurai · Jan 16, 2007

It was 15 or more years ago.. Who cares?

I am not a big fan of the women to today either. But I dont have a time machine, and so dont live in the past!

python · Jan 17, 2007

Condoleezza said:
Rubin perhaps would have beaten a 45/47-year-old Martina.
But when Martina returned to the game in 2002 (at age 45) she beat #22 Panova and lost a hard-fought three-setter to #13 Hantuchova.
Two years later she was able to beat two top-100 players still.
At age 47 ....

BTW, 35-year-old Brenda Schultz-McCarthy hopped from the couch last year (after being retired for years) and hit a new service speed record (with 130 mph).

Graf lost to then #15 Likhovtseva only in the tie-break in an exhibition match in 2004. After having played tennis maybe for 20 hours in the 5 years before.

So much about the strength of today's tennis ....

Condi

Nice job abandoning the rest of my argument. My job is done here. All talk, no substance despite your fondness for 'stats'.

Condoleezza · Jan 17, 2007

python said:
Nice job abandoning the rest of my argument. My job is done here. All talk, no substance despite your fondness for 'stats'.

Was there a "rest of your argument" left?

IMO, I shreddered everything throughly. Except your gut feeling maybe ....

Condi

python · Jan 17, 2007

LOL. Your debating skills are renowned...in kindergarten.

You don't address the improvement in fitness in women's tennis, nor the change the swinging volley has made in the willingness of players to approach the net. You shift around examples looking for the best matchup you can, even making and then dropping an argument about racquets when it went badly for you. Instead you just declare victory as if you can change reality according to whim.

You should change your handle. Condoleezza Rice was a respected academic before arriving in Washington. You display none of the traits that led her to her achievements.

Condoleezza · Jan 17, 2007

python said:
LOL. Your debating skills are renowned...in kindergarten.

You don't address the improvement in fitness in women's tennis, nor the change the swinging volley has made in the willingness of players to approach the net. You shift around examples looking for the best matchup you can, even making and then dropping an argument about racquets when it went badly for you. Instead you just declare victory as if you can change reality according to whim.

You should change your handle. Condoleezza Rice was a respected academic before arriving in Washington. You display none of the traits that led her to her achievements.

I have addressed the allegedly "improved fitness". I told you that it can be seen at the number of top players being injured again and again ....

I addressed that today's players definitely approach the net less than 20 years ago. Everybody who says otherwise simply doesn't know what they are talking of.

The swinging volley is the last resort of players who never have learned to volley properly. The rate of unforced errors at volleying has reached record numbers today. To bring up the VOLLEY as a sign of improved tennis is perhaps the best joke I ever read in TTW. And that says a lot really.

Condi

python · Jan 17, 2007

You know not what you speak.

Fitness != lack of injuries. Fitness = strength and endurance. You can be fit but still be injured. You can be unfit and also be injured.

Twenty years ago was 1987. The baseline game was in vogue then as it is now, only the players now actually have a midcourt and net game thanks to the swinging volley. If you do not understand this, you clearly haven't thought about how WTA tennis has changed across the board. You seem to want to think of Martina N. and then use that as evidence that players volleyed more back then. Wrong! MORE volleys are hit now than even before, primarily thanks to the swinging volley. But stick to your way of thinking that a volley is only a volley if you use a continental grip and punch the ball if you want. Myopia is anyone's prerogative.

Troll.

Condoleezza · Jan 17, 2007

python said:
.... Twenty years ago was 1987. The baseline game was in vogue then as it is now, only the players now actually have a midcourt and net game thanks to the swinging volley. If you do not understand this, you clearly haven't thought about how WTA tennis has changed across the board. You seem to want to think of Martina N. and then use that as evidence that players volleyed more back then. Wrong! MORE volleys are hit now than even before, primarily thanks to the swinging volley. ....

In January 1987 we had those S&V players in the top 7 of the WTA rankings:

#1 Navratilova
#4 Mandlilova
#5 Shriver
#6 Sukova
#7 Kohde-Kilsch

Thanks.

("Swinging volley"! OMG!!

)

Condi

python · Jan 17, 2007

Just goes to show that you can manipulate factoids to say anything:

The year end rankings of 1987 were

Graf
Navratilova
Evert
Shriver
Mandlikova
Sabatini
Sukova
M. Maleeva
Z. Garrison
Kohde-Kilsch

Out of those, Graf, Evert, Sabatina, Maleeva were obvious baseliners. Mandlikova contrary to what you post was an all-courter.

Big deal. We can take selective months out of the ATP tour as well and come up with an arbritary list of players and try to use that to argue that S&V tennis was at its zenith in 1987, even if we know simply by watching the matches that it was not true.

As for the swinging volley jabs, I gather you've never played a match against a player with 'modern' strokes, else you wouldn't be making fun of them. The swinging volley is an excellent stroke for high velocity baseliners who attack as a base methodology. And no, I don't have that type of game myself, but I can see more than a foot ahead of my face, Valley Girl.

Condoleezza · Jan 17, 2007

python said:
Just goes to show that you can manipulate factoids to say anything:
.....

ROTFL!
YOU brought up "20 years ago" and when I post the top 7 of January 2007 you speak of "manipulation"!!!!

python said:
....
The year end rankings of 1987 were

Graf
Navratilova
Evert
Shriver
Mandlikova
Sabatini
Sukova
M. Maleeva
Z. Garrison
Kohde-Kilsch

Out of those, Graf, Evert, Sabatina, Maleeva were obvious baseliners. Mandlikova contrary to what you post was an all-courter.

Big deal. We can take selective months out of the ATP tour as well and come up with an arbritary list of players and try to use that to argue that S&V tennis was at its zenith in 1987, even if we know simply by watching the matches that it was not true. ...

No one said that in 1987 S&V tennis was at its zenit. But there was of course far - faaar - more volleying in 1987's women's tennis than today.
And Mandlikova - your "all-courter" - definitely volleyed far more than ANY of today's top ten. Everybody who says otherwise never saw Mandlikova play.

python said:
.... As for the swinging volley jabs, I gather you've never played a match against a player with 'modern' strokes, else you wouldn't be making fun of them. The swinging volley is an excellent stroke for high velocity baseliners who attack as a base methodology. And no, I don't have that type of game myself, but I can see more than a foot ahead of my face, Valley Girl.

You are so way of base that it is really funny.
Go with your idea to a real tennis forum (what about usenet's "rec.sport.tennis"?) and you will be laughed off the forum.

Man, did you ever play tennis yourself? Ever watched Navratilova, Mandlikova live?

Condi

python · Jan 18, 2007

Actually you brought up the 20 year benchmark yourself first. Losing track of all your misrepresentations?

I also like how you have tried to move the debate from whether someone like Rubin could thrash someone like Navratilova into a discussion of whether more volleys are hit then or now, all because I noted that the swinging volley has greatly improved the level of netplay in the women's game. Dodge and weave, dodge and weave. You should take up boxing instead of tennis.

Your appeal to a different authority ('if you were talking to the real big boys on rec.sport.tennis instead of a neophyte like me') is laughable. Yeah, well my dad can beat up your dad. How's that?

Did I even watch Mandlikova? Do I even play tennis? No, I don't. I just talk out my **** like you do.

I'll let you have the last reply. There's little merit in discussing anything with you since you can't respond rationally without getting snippy in return, and I'm afraid I let you annoy me enough to retaliate. ("OMG, why do I even discuss with people like this")

Later, Valley Girl. OMG, Gosh, LOL, Really, Like, Whatever.

PimpMyGame · Jan 18, 2007

Python, it's a bit like banging your head against a brick wall, isn't it? I've got a similar situation on another thread, the one about 4 consecutive grand slams. Just compare both threads and see how she changes the rules to suit her line of attack.

Condoleezza · Jan 18, 2007

PimpMyGame said:
Python, it's a bit like banging your head against a brick wall, isn't it? I've got a similar situation on another thread, the one about 4 consecutive grand slams. Just compare both threads and see how she changes the rules to suit her line of attack.

What about

"In only 3 of 14 cases a woman player managed to win a 4th consecutive slam title (at the same venue) post-WW2."

you didn't understand there, Pimp?

Condi

Surprising stats (1)

Banned

Semi-Pro

Banned

Semi-Pro

Banned

Semi-Pro

Banned

Semi-Pro

Banned

Semi-Pro

Banned

Talk Tennis Guru

Semi-Pro

Banned

Semi-Pro

Semi-Pro

Banned

Semi-Pro

Banned

Semi-Pro

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Semi-Pro

Banned

Semi-Pro

Banned

Semi-Pro

Banned

Semi-Pro

Banned

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame

Banned

Similar threads