Does Serena have a better career than Federer?

[MeatTornado]

I hate it, but I have to go with Serena for now. I don't want to argue about whose competition was tougher, because that's the same argument i dislike when Djokodal fans try to degrade Fed's 04-07 wins. Let's just look at the accomplishments (only singles, doubles makes it even worse).

Serena has 3 extra slams, and the triple career slam, with a gold medal on top of it. She's won 4 in a row, twice (both with the Channel Slam). She's probably the only player that has a leg up on Roger's longevity too. She won her first slam at 17 (4 years younger than Fed) and is still nearly matching what Fed's doing at 37. I'm pretty sure she has slightly more time at #1 too.

Roger has 2 main things in his favor: consistent dominance and being his own sport's GOAT.

He has less slams than Serena but still more than any man in history. That's worth something. And his dominance at multiple majors is unparalleled. He's won 5 in a row at 2 different slams. Serena's best is 3 in a row, once. She's much more streaky than Fed. His qf/sf/f streaks in his prime are unlike anything she's come close to pulling off.

 

[icedevil0289]

I hate it, but I have to go with Serena for now. I don't want to argue about whose competition was tougher, because that's the same argument i dislike when Djokodal fans try to degrade Fed's 04-07 wins. Let's just look at the accomplishments (only singles, doubles makes it even worse).

Serena has 3 extra slams, and the triple career slam, with a gold medal on top of it. She's won 4 in a row, twice (both with the Channel Slam). She's probably the only player that has a leg up on Roger's longevity too. She won her first slam at 17 (4 years younger than Fed) and is still nearly matching what Fed's doing at 37. I'm pretty sure she has slightly more time at #1 too.

Roger has 2 main things in his favor: consistent dominance and being his own sport's GOAT.

He has less slams than Serena but still more than any man in history. That's worth something. And his dominance at multiple majors is unparalleled. He's won 5 in a row at 2 different slams. Serena's best is 3 in a row, once. She's much more streaky than Fed. His qf/sf/f streaks in his prime are unlike anything she's come close to pulling off.

i dont know why one needs to hate acknowledging serena's greatness.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

Men's tennis is a higher division obviously. It's like F1 versus F2, F3, F3000 etc. One title in the higher division is worth several in the next one behind it, greatness-wise.

Is it when you compare women's tennis being more popular for women athletes than for men

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

tfw you know you can't compare bo3 with bo5

 

[DSH]

 

[Phoenix1983]

So I guess Laila Ali had a better career than Muhammad Ali based on records and dominance too? LOL

That comparison isn’t the same as that between Federer and Serena.

Women’s tennis is the leading female sport, has been for decades, and thus a comparison between its dominant figure, and the dominant figure in the men’s game, is a valid one.

What you are doing is comparing a champion in a relatively minor female sport against the biggest legend in a major male sport. (Plus there is the question of Muhammad Ali’s wider social significance, which makes a comparison of him vs. pretty much any other sportsperson a losing battle for his rival)

PS. No surprise that @AnOctorokForDinner liked your post though. He’s not the brightest light on this forum.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Men's tennis is a higher division obviously. It's like F1 versus F2, F3, F3000 etc. One title in the higher division is worth several in the next one behind it, greatness-wise.

Ah, you’re a misogynist. Makes sense.

 

[beard]

23>20

 

[MichaelNadal]

About even to me........

 

[lud]

Serena 23 >> Roger 40-15

 

[MeatTornado]

i dont know why one needs to hate acknowledging serena's greatness.

Because I don't like her and wish this wasn't even close.

Same way if Djokovic or Nadal passes Roger, I'll preface that with "I hate it, but..." too.

 

[Mike Sams]

That comparison isn’t the same as that between Federer and Serena.

Women’s tennis is the leading female sport, has been for decades, and thus a comparison between its dominant figure, and the dominant figure in the men’s game, is a valid one.

What you are doing is comparing a champion in a relatively minor female sport against the biggest legend in a major male sport. (Plus there is the question of Muhammad Ali’s wider social significance, which makes a comparison of him vs. pretty much any other sportsperson a losing battle for his rival)

PS. No surprise that @AnOctorokForDinner liked your post though. He’s not the brightest light on this forum.

Sorry. But if women's Slams are best of 3 and men's Slams are best of 5, there is no debate to be had. Women's tennis and men's tennis are completely different sports

 

[Mike Sams]

It's always funny to see people never address the best of 3 compared to best of 5 discussion when it comes to men vs women in tennis. They just skip around it LOL
Serena won her Slams in best of 3 matches. Federer won his Slams in best of 5 matches. Therefore we aren't talking about the same sport.
If Serena won her Slams in best of 5 events, I'm putting her as the greatest of all time. But since she didn't win her Slams in best of 5, I'm afraid this discussion is pointless.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Sorry. But if women's Slams are best of 3 and men's Slams are best of 5, there is no debate to be had. Women's tennis and men's tennis are completely different sports

Er, so are tennis and golf - and yet people make comparisons between the dominators of those sports all the time.

At least you are going down the “fewer sets” route though, unlike @AnOctorokForDinner who makes no attempt to hide his obvious misogyny.

 

[Mike Sams]

Er, so are tennis and golf - and yet people make comparisons between the dominators of those sports all the time.

At least you are going down the “fewer sets” route though, unlike @AnOctorokForDinner who makes no attempt to hide his obvious misogyny.

If Serena won all her Slams in best of 5, she's the greatest tennis player who ever lived. No doubt about it.

 

[icedevil0289]

Because I don't like her and wish this wasn't even close.

Same way if Djokovic or Nadal passes Roger, I'll preface that with "I hate it, but..." too.

personally i feel like its a bit different with djokodal for me. nadal has quite a few holes even if he ties the gs count.

 

[a10best]

Tennis with wood racket with 65 sq inch head and gut is totally different from tennis today, but Federer still reveres Rod Laver, who with his height, would not have made it in the tour today.

What matters is achievement in your field, in your time, against your peers, and over a long period of time.

With Serena, the adversity she had to overcome puts her even more beyond the threshold of comparison.

I don't agree about the adversity part because Zina Garrison, Malivai, Katrina Adams, Yannick, Roger Smith, Ashe, and Bryan Shelton had the same thing. The Wms sisters brought some adversity to them by wearing corn-rolls and braids which symbolizes poor kids from the hood.
Add on the unfriendly demeanor like Iron Mike on the court and their dad who talked sh*t, you will have fans who won't like them.
In the end, the William sisters' successful results and fans was worth the fight and very impressive.
It was far more adverse for blacks in the 70s and 80s than 2000 to present. People who shout out racism or discrimination today have no idea compared to back then. I know firsthand but this is not the place.

 

[NoleFam]

Ask me after Saturday and we will see. If Serena pulls off winning the USO 20 years after she first won it then there wouldn't be much ever in tennis that can top that. Even Rosewall didn't quite pull that off since his difference was 19 years.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Ask me after Saturday and we will see. If Serena pulls off winning the USO 20 years after she first won it then there wouldn't be much ever in tennis that can top that. Even Rosewall didn't quite pull that off since his difference was 19 years.

Rosewall also played an all-time great in the making who ushered a new tennis era and style... that after beating world no.1/2 Newcombe.

 

[a10best]

Agree.

No one ever says when comparing, say, Federer/Nadal to Tiger Woods, “put them on a golf course with Tiger and let’s see who comes out on top”.

It’s the same with men’s and women’s tennis. No one is asking whether Serena would beat Federer if she played a match against him. They’re asking whether she is greater in her sport than he is in his.

And for the record - despite being much more of a Federer fan than a Serena one - I think she is.

Serena has had far inferior competition compared to Federer's competition.

 

[NoleFam]

Rosewall also played an all-time great in the making who ushered a new tennis era and style... that after beating world no.1/2 Newcombe.

That was the 1970 USO title. I'm talking about 1953-1972 Australian Opens. His 72 Australian Open run didn't consist of any ATG players and he only won 5 matches.

 

[Incognito]

Sorry. But if women's Slams are best of 3 and men's Slams are best of 5, there is no debate to be had. Women's tennis and men's tennis are completely different sports

You seem to have difficulties holding 2 concepts in your brain at the same time. People have dumbed it down for you several times, I hope they soon realize it’s useless.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Rosewall also played an all-time great in the making who ushered a new tennis era and style... that after beating world no.1/2 Newcombe.

...and lost. The person you quoted stated the scenario if Serena wins tomorrow, numbnuts.

By the way, are you going to apologise for your misogyny? We now have it on record that you consider male tennis players to be equivalent to F1 drivers, and female tennis players equivalent to F2 or below.

 

[Phoenix1983]

That was the 1970 Wimbledon title. I'm talking about 1953-1972 Australian Opens. His 72 Australian Open run didn't consist of any ATG players and he only won 5 matches.

I think he's talking about playing Connors in 1974.

 

[Chadalina]

17 tue > 0

 

[Phoenix1983]

Serena has had far inferior competition compared to Federer's competition.

Debatable.

Serena's initial glory period (1999-2007) featured the strongest women's field there has ever been.

Of course Federer's closest contenders are higher up the ATG list than Serena's.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

That was the 1970 USO title. I'm talking about 1953-1972 Australian Opens. His 72 Australian Open run didn't consist of any ATG players and he only won 5 matches.

I was talking about 1974 Wimbledon/USO. If only Rosewall could have faced such mugs as the untouchable one...

 

[CYGS]

Lets see if this Serena thread survives.

 

[NoleFam]

I think he's talking about playing Connors in 1974.

Oh well in that case Serena beat Clijsters, Martinez, Seles, Davenport and Hingis to win her first USO. I don't think Rosewall's draw can top that.

 

[Mike Sams]

You seem to have difficulties holding 2 concepts in your brain at the same time. People have dumbed it down for you several times, I hope they soon realize it’s useless.

Sorry. But it's just the way it has to be. Different rules, different sports. Can't compare one to the other. Doesn't matter how many limp wristed weaklings and ultra feminists post on here crying about it. Serena is inferior and her legacy isn't comparable to Federer's at all.

 

[skaj]

Fed is more respected and genuinely more of a champions character. Nubmers wise they are about the same I suppose.

What do you mean by "champions character"?

 

[NoleFam]

I was talking about 1974 Wimbledon/USO. If only Rosewall could have faced such mugs as the untouchable one...

He faced mugs in his 1972 AO title though...lol

 

[skaj]

No. Not even close. The only thing she has over him is majors, and extra longevity, though considering how much less she's probably played that doesn't mean much. The extra majors don't mean much either when you consider that if she had a Nadal and a Djokovic to compete with this deep into her career she might have about half the number she does now.

She had a tougher competition earlier in their career, for Federer it is just the other way around.
She also has the gold medal.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

He faced mugs in his 1972 AO title though...lol

We know that's not a real slam title, 1970-82 AO was very much a second tier tournament if not third in some years.

 

[Ice-Borg]

No she does not. Fed never hid in his "safe room" when the random drug tester came knocking on his door. Case closed.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

She had a tougher competition earlier in their career, for Federer it is just the other way around.
She also has the gold medal.

The cumpetishun argument seems faulty to me because SW's main cump(et) at her youthful peak was her sister, who routinely underperformed in their H2H matches every single time at the time.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Oh well in that case Serena beat Clijsters, Martinez, Seles, Davenport and Hingis to win her first USO. I don't think Rosewall's draw can top that.

Her first slam title was one of the most impressive firsts for sure.

 

[NoleFam]

We know that's not a real slam title, 1970-82 AO was very much a second tier tournament if not third in some years.

It counts as a Slam however.

 

[skaj]

The cumpetishun argument seems faulty to me because SW's main cump(et) at her youthful peak was her sister, who routinely underperformed in their H2H matches every single time at the time.

I was just replying to that argument, I didn't propose it.
Anyways, Serena's generation was probably the best ever on WTA. It's not just her and her sister, but also Henin, Clijsters, Hingis, Davenport. Mauresmo, many solid Russians... also Capriati was still there for a while etc. The 2000s were the toughest decade to be a WTA player.

 

[Incognito]

Sorry. But if women's Slams are best of 3 and men's Slams are best of 5, there is no debate to be had. Women's tennis and men's tennis are completely different sports

Men have penises, women have vaginas. Your logic dictates one of these two groups does not belong in the human race.

 

[Phoenix1983]

The cumpetishun argument seems faulty to me because SW's main cump(et) at her youthful peak was her sister, who routinely underperformed in their H2H matches every single time at the time.

There were the following players at or near peak from 1999-2006 (some not for the whole period, obviously):

S Williams
Henin
V Williams
Hingis
Clijsters
Davenport
Capriati
Sharapova
Mauresmo
Pierce
Kuznetsova

Your argument falls flat on its face. This was the strongest period in women's tennis history, featuring classic matches which had nothing at all to do with Serena (2003 US Open SF, Capriati-Henin; 2005 Wimbledon F, V Williams - Davenport).

Attempts to mock the greatest female tennis player of all time due to your obvious dislike of the fairer sex shall not succeed.

 

[Deleted member 758560]

Her first slam title was one of the most impressive firsts for sure.

precisely 20 years btw

 

[icedevil0289]

I don't agree about the adversity part because Zina Garrison, Malivai, Katrina Adams, Yannick, Roger Smith, Ashe, and Bryan Shelton had the same thing. The Wms sisters brought some adversity to them by wearing corn-rolls and braids which symbolizes poor kids from the hood.
Add on the unfriendly demeanor like Iron Mike on the court and their dad who talked sh*t, you will have fans who won't like them.
In the end, the William sisters' successful results and fans was worth the fight and very impressive.
It was far more adverse for blacks in the 70s and 80s than 2000 to present. People who shout out racism or discrimination today have no idea compared to back then. I know firsthand but this is not the place.

what this is so silly to me, because it was way worse back then doesnt mean isnt prevalent now nor should it be removed from the narrative. to pretend racism doesnt exist or that it was easy for two black women to dominate a white sport is ridiculous

 

[Mike Sams]

Men have penises, women have vaginas. Your logic dictates one of these two groups does not belong in the human race.

If female athletes can run marathons without a problem, they can play best of 5 set matches in the Slams. They are more than capable. You shouldn't demand more money for doing less work. Women already get equal pay in the Slams so therefore do the work with it. Best of 5. That's real tennis. Not children's tennis.

 

[a10best]

what this is so silly to me, because it was way worse back then doesnt mean isnt prevalent now nor should it be removed from the narrative. to pretend racism doesnt exist or that it was easy for two black women to dominate a white sport is ridiculous

It is what it is. Who said it doesn't exist or is not relevant?

 

[a10best]

Debatable.

Serena's initial glory period (1999-2007) featured the strongest women's field there has ever been.

Of course Federer's closest contenders are higher up the ATG list than Serena's.

No disagreement there. Although, I recall the 2009 USO with Clijsters so was it 10 years?

 

[Mike Sams]

i dont know why one needs to hate acknowledging serena's greatness.

Nobody refused to acknowledge her greatness. They refuse to acknowledge her greatness in comparison to the greatness of Federer. Because other than a racquet and ball and net, there is no other comparison to be made. She doesn't play best of 5 in Slams.

 

[TennisLBC]

The US Open has been paying men and women equally since 1973. Are some crying about this in the 21st Century?

 

[Ice-Borg]

The US Open has been paying men and women equally since 1973. Are some crying about this in the 21st Century?

Women get paid the same money as men for doing 3/5ths of the exact same work?
This seems like a clear case of gender discrimination.
I wonder why no law suits have ever been brought.

 

[TennisLBC]

Women get paid the same money as men for doing 3/5ths of the exact same work?
This seems like a clear case of gender discrimination.
I wonder why no law suits have ever been brought.

Then why are actors and other athletes not paid the same amount?