Of the various 3-5 slam winners what order would you rank them in. They are a very interesting group to compare. I think my order would ultimately go:
1. Hingis- 5 slams
2. Gibson- 5 slams
3. Marble- 3 slams
4. Davenport- 3 slams
5. Clijsters- 4 slams
6. Sharapova- 5 slams
7. Mandlikova- 4 slams
8. Jones- 3 slams
9. Sanchez Vicario- 4 slams
10. Fry- 4 slams
11. Wade- 3 slams
12. Capriati- 3 slams
13. Kerber- 3 slams
Had Kvitova won the Australian Open this year I would have slotted her in at 8th or 9th. I am not sure if she wins a 3rd slam now, as it might not come with the #1 ranking or a non Wimbledon as this years Australian Open would have come with, so it might not be as high.
My explanations for my rankings.
1. Hingis- Probably less impact on the game than Gibson or Marble but almost impossible to not rank her on top of this group. Many consider her greater than some 7 slam winners (eg- Goolagong, Venus)
2. Gibson- I put her this high since the impact she had on the game, and particularly inspiring young black women to take up the game and feel they belonged, cant be measured in pure numbers. Her numbers pretty darn good too though, defending both Wimbledon and U.S Open titles, and even winning a French.
3. Marble- The first originator of the true power all court game in womens game. Many said at her dominant best in 38-39 when she went unbeaten she was strong enough to have even toppled legends Lenglen or Wills had they been in their prime.
4. Davenport- This is probably going to be controversial as she is one of the women with only 3 slams. I have her here due to her over 50 career titles, having the misfortune of having her prime in a super strong era, her winning both Olympic Gold and the YEC and having 3 of the 4 slams, and her 4 YE#1s even taking into account 2 or 3 of them are dubious quality at best; but keep in mind she arguably could have ended a year like 99 or 2000, especialy 99, at #1 and didnt.
5. Clijsters- I put her here due to her U.S Open legacy, winning 3 in a row she played even with a big gap in between the 1st and 2nd titles, and how impressive she was on hard courts. Plus her 3 YECs, along with her 3 U.S Opens, and an Australian and many Tier 1s/Miamis/Indian Wells just show what a great player she was on that surface. I prefer a master of one trade over a jack of all but master of one. Which brings us to....
6. Sharapova- It was interesting when I started a thread on Maria's place in history every single poster agreed with my having her firmly behind Hingis, and many did have her behind Clijsters and/or Davenport, it was pretty much a split between all 3, so I dont think this rank will actually be controversial. Yes she has the Career Slam, but I dont think that is that big a deal in the womens game when players like Shirley Fry and Doris Hart have managed it. She was never even a semi dominant player which Davenport and Clijsters arguably were at one point. She never defended a slam, never won 2 slams in the same year, never even won slams in back to back years. Lindsay didnt do some of those things but atleast won 3 slams out of 6 at one point. She never ended a year #1, never had a year she won most of the Player of Year awards like Clijsters did twice despite never being computer YE#1. And the doping scandal gives her career an asterisk, I am being leaninent and giving her the benefit of doubt on that for now, otherwise I would be ranking her a lot lower. This is something else that might be reconsidered over time.
7. Mandlikova- I was tempted to rank her over Maria, but it was hard to do that with Maria's far more consistent career, and Hana never getting higher than #3, having 1 less slam, Maria's career slam. It would have to be almost entirely on subjective views on talent (and while Maria's game is far less pleasing to watch I concede she is extremely talented in her own way, unless the heavy doping made a big difference) and Maria's doping stain. I do believe she belongs over Sanchez due to the asterisk Sanchez has of the Seles stabbing which boosted her career, and higher peak levels of play. I guess credentials wise it should be Sanchez, more slam finals, got to #1, about same # of titles, much more consistent, but I do use some subjective elements in my rankings.
8. Jones- I could/maybe should even be putting her higher. She had the bad luck of 3 of the 4 majors being on grass as a clay specialist, and still wound up with 3 slams and beating King and Court back to back to win Wimbledon grass as a clay specialist. She is certainly superior to Wade who had the good luck of 3 of the 4 majors on grass as a grass specialist and wound up with only 3. I might still alter their rankings as 3 spots even seems too close as they are most directly comparable.
9. Sanchez- Pretty much already explained above. 12 slam finals, very impressive rivalry with Graf. The thing that I find unimpressive about her is some of her horrible head to heads with top players: 2-18 vs Hingis (LOL), 3-12 vs an old Navratilova, 3-17 vs Seles, and losing records vs Sabatini, Novotna, Pierce, a collection of 1/2 slam winners of her era. This IMO speaks to limitations of her abilities and showed she more or less slipped through the cracks in some ways in compiling her record, and had a fair bit of luck. I know I am ranking her below players like Mandlikova and Jones who on paper were less accomplished, but I asterisk her career due to the Seles stabbing, perhaps even more than Graf's career.
10. Fry- Career Slam, but as I already mentioned with Maria that doesnt impress me that much in the womens game. Basically waited out Hart, Brough, Connolly all retiring to win almost all her slams in a late 56-early 57 stretch. The only impressive thing was she beat Gibson in 2 slam finals.
11. Wade- Never a dominant player, never the best player in the world which all the above except Mandlikova and maybe Sharapova probably were at some point. 3 slams spread out over a long time, all on grass. Strong player in a tough era, owned by all the big guns.
12. Capriati- Amazing career comeback but still only 14 titles, no Wimbledon or U.S Open finals.
13. Kerber- Despite ending a year #1 and probably being the best player in the World in 2016, I find her body of work inferior to Wade or Capriati. Doesnt even have a Tier 1 title.
1. Hingis- 5 slams
2. Gibson- 5 slams
3. Marble- 3 slams
4. Davenport- 3 slams
5. Clijsters- 4 slams
6. Sharapova- 5 slams
7. Mandlikova- 4 slams
8. Jones- 3 slams
9. Sanchez Vicario- 4 slams
10. Fry- 4 slams
11. Wade- 3 slams
12. Capriati- 3 slams
13. Kerber- 3 slams
Had Kvitova won the Australian Open this year I would have slotted her in at 8th or 9th. I am not sure if she wins a 3rd slam now, as it might not come with the #1 ranking or a non Wimbledon as this years Australian Open would have come with, so it might not be as high.
My explanations for my rankings.
1. Hingis- Probably less impact on the game than Gibson or Marble but almost impossible to not rank her on top of this group. Many consider her greater than some 7 slam winners (eg- Goolagong, Venus)
2. Gibson- I put her this high since the impact she had on the game, and particularly inspiring young black women to take up the game and feel they belonged, cant be measured in pure numbers. Her numbers pretty darn good too though, defending both Wimbledon and U.S Open titles, and even winning a French.
3. Marble- The first originator of the true power all court game in womens game. Many said at her dominant best in 38-39 when she went unbeaten she was strong enough to have even toppled legends Lenglen or Wills had they been in their prime.
4. Davenport- This is probably going to be controversial as she is one of the women with only 3 slams. I have her here due to her over 50 career titles, having the misfortune of having her prime in a super strong era, her winning both Olympic Gold and the YEC and having 3 of the 4 slams, and her 4 YE#1s even taking into account 2 or 3 of them are dubious quality at best; but keep in mind she arguably could have ended a year like 99 or 2000, especialy 99, at #1 and didnt.
5. Clijsters- I put her here due to her U.S Open legacy, winning 3 in a row she played even with a big gap in between the 1st and 2nd titles, and how impressive she was on hard courts. Plus her 3 YECs, along with her 3 U.S Opens, and an Australian and many Tier 1s/Miamis/Indian Wells just show what a great player she was on that surface. I prefer a master of one trade over a jack of all but master of one. Which brings us to....
6. Sharapova- It was interesting when I started a thread on Maria's place in history every single poster agreed with my having her firmly behind Hingis, and many did have her behind Clijsters and/or Davenport, it was pretty much a split between all 3, so I dont think this rank will actually be controversial. Yes she has the Career Slam, but I dont think that is that big a deal in the womens game when players like Shirley Fry and Doris Hart have managed it. She was never even a semi dominant player which Davenport and Clijsters arguably were at one point. She never defended a slam, never won 2 slams in the same year, never even won slams in back to back years. Lindsay didnt do some of those things but atleast won 3 slams out of 6 at one point. She never ended a year #1, never had a year she won most of the Player of Year awards like Clijsters did twice despite never being computer YE#1. And the doping scandal gives her career an asterisk, I am being leaninent and giving her the benefit of doubt on that for now, otherwise I would be ranking her a lot lower. This is something else that might be reconsidered over time.
7. Mandlikova- I was tempted to rank her over Maria, but it was hard to do that with Maria's far more consistent career, and Hana never getting higher than #3, having 1 less slam, Maria's career slam. It would have to be almost entirely on subjective views on talent (and while Maria's game is far less pleasing to watch I concede she is extremely talented in her own way, unless the heavy doping made a big difference) and Maria's doping stain. I do believe she belongs over Sanchez due to the asterisk Sanchez has of the Seles stabbing which boosted her career, and higher peak levels of play. I guess credentials wise it should be Sanchez, more slam finals, got to #1, about same # of titles, much more consistent, but I do use some subjective elements in my rankings.
8. Jones- I could/maybe should even be putting her higher. She had the bad luck of 3 of the 4 majors being on grass as a clay specialist, and still wound up with 3 slams and beating King and Court back to back to win Wimbledon grass as a clay specialist. She is certainly superior to Wade who had the good luck of 3 of the 4 majors on grass as a grass specialist and wound up with only 3. I might still alter their rankings as 3 spots even seems too close as they are most directly comparable.
9. Sanchez- Pretty much already explained above. 12 slam finals, very impressive rivalry with Graf. The thing that I find unimpressive about her is some of her horrible head to heads with top players: 2-18 vs Hingis (LOL), 3-12 vs an old Navratilova, 3-17 vs Seles, and losing records vs Sabatini, Novotna, Pierce, a collection of 1/2 slam winners of her era. This IMO speaks to limitations of her abilities and showed she more or less slipped through the cracks in some ways in compiling her record, and had a fair bit of luck. I know I am ranking her below players like Mandlikova and Jones who on paper were less accomplished, but I asterisk her career due to the Seles stabbing, perhaps even more than Graf's career.
10. Fry- Career Slam, but as I already mentioned with Maria that doesnt impress me that much in the womens game. Basically waited out Hart, Brough, Connolly all retiring to win almost all her slams in a late 56-early 57 stretch. The only impressive thing was she beat Gibson in 2 slam finals.
11. Wade- Never a dominant player, never the best player in the world which all the above except Mandlikova and maybe Sharapova probably were at some point. 3 slams spread out over a long time, all on grass. Strong player in a tough era, owned by all the big guns.
12. Capriati- Amazing career comeback but still only 14 titles, no Wimbledon or U.S Open finals.
13. Kerber- Despite ending a year #1 and probably being the best player in the World in 2016, I find her body of work inferior to Wade or Capriati. Doesnt even have a Tier 1 title.
Last edited:
) and Capriati higher than Sanchez Vicario.
