Kim vs Lindsay and Capriati if she wins 3rd U.S Open this year

[thalivest]

If Kim wins her 3rd US Open in a months time she will have the same # of slam titles as Davenport and Capriati. How would you rate her against those 2 if she does win her 3rd U.S Open this year.

 

[The-Champ]

1. Davenport slam variety
2. Capriati slam variety
3. Kim Jong Il USOs...nuclear weapons

 

[JeMar]

I would go Davenport ---> Clijsters due to longevity, then ---------------------------> Capriati because she was kind of a screw up that wasted talent and I think she actually got kinda lucky to win the slams she does have.

 

[Raiden]

If Kim wins a third slam she'll undoubtedly leapfrog over Davenport, Sharapova and Capriati in the GOAT pecking order.

The fact that some of these players may be a bigger "celebrity" than her in certain insular countries is a temporary and ultimately completely irrelevant matter in terms of historicity. After all, Kournikova is arguably still a bigger celeb than all of them.

And so, all Kim needs is one more slam. After all, she is already ahead of those three-major players in most if not all the other relevant factors, including the all important head-2-head stats.

Kim
|
|
Davenport, Sharapova
|
|
Capriati
|
|
Virginia Wade
.

 

[thalivest]

I actually should have mentioned Maria too. I forgot she has 3 slams, maybe since it seems like such a miracle she does.

 

[Ultra2HolyGrail]

Who cares ''if'' she wins. Does your record keeping actually make a difference to who you think are better players? Of course not. Right daisy?

I've never seen clisters play as well as capriati played against henin. Maybe she was playing that well against serena last us open, but i don't really put to much thought into womens game.

 

[thalivest]

I've never seen clisters play as well as capriati played against henin. Maybe she was playing that well against serena last us open, but i don't really put to much thought into womens game.

Well according to your typically ******** logic Serena is the undisputed GOAT so surely to beat the so called GOAT in straight sets in the U.S Open semis is a much bigger performance than losing to a cramping and injured Henin in the U.S Open semis.

I cant imagine you put much thought into anything although maybe for you that is a good thing as when you try you get things like my sig.

 

[Ultra2HolyGrail]

Well according to your typically ******** logic Serena is the undisputed GOAT so surely to beat the so called GOAT in straight sets in the U.S Open semis is a much bigger performance than losing to a cramping and injured Henin in the U.S Open semis.

Cramping and injured henin? She was playing the best she could. I didn't see no cramping or pain from henin. It's funny you know all these little injuries to go along with your statistics.
It's quite laughable. Just like you think navratilova is the goat and she would be able to serve and volley and win against the likes of serena etc. That's ******** logic. Your whole outlook is ******** imo with all the statistics you come up with. You are a noob face it.

I cant imagine you put much thought into anything although maybe for you that is a good thing as when you try you get things like my sig.

Again, sabatini did kick grafs azz. 11 times. Not once, not twice, but 11 times. Capriati also beat graf when she was only 16 playing for gold. Thanks.

 

[boredone3456]

Davenport
Clijsters
Sharapova
Capriati

 

[MotherMarjorie]

Mother Marjorie thinks this thread reminds her of someone that hasn't been around here in sometime. But she can't put her finger on it. She really can't.

Mother Marjorie Ann

 

[thalivest]

Cramping and injured henin? She was playing the best she could.

LOL you are right she wasnt cramping or injured. She was just writhing in pain and needing a trainer, and needing IVs to even play the final all for an act. And if Capriati is so good why didnt she win while playing the tennis of her life, regardless how you think Henin was or was playing.

It's quite laughable. Just like you think navratilova is the goat and she would be able to serve and volley and win against the likes of serena etc. That's ******** logic. Your whole outlook is ******** imo with all the statistics you come up with. You are a noob face it.

Yes you are right, Navratilova would be the World #30 today. She is nowhere near as talented as Wozniacki or Jankovic who have both been #2 this year, nor as Safina who spent almost all of last year at #1. Thanks to you for pumbble the information into me.

Again, sabatini did kick grafs azz. 11 times. Not once, not twice, but 11 times. Capriati also beat graf when she was only 16 playing for gold. Thanks.

Capriati is 1-10 lifetime vs Graf and lost their final meeting to a 30 year old Graf 6-1, 6-0. In 5 slam meetings she managed 0 sets. Sabatini is 1-11 vs Graf in slams, and you are still the only individual on the planet dumb enough to once believe she had a 29-11 head to head with Graf. Thanks.

 

[soyizgood]

Davenport has 3 different slams, 4 year end #1's, olympic gold, and a YEC title. She trumps the others and has 55 titles to go with it. Oh and actually played doubles with great success unlike those others.

 

[egn]

Davenport will still edge Kim in my mind. Davenport doesn't get the respect she deserves. Though Kim is ahead of Capriati easily and possibly now.

 

[Tanya]

Davenport is lightyears ahead of Clijsters. Kim is above Capriati though.

 

[MotherMarjorie]

Davenport will still edge Kim in my mind. Davenport doesn't get the respect she deserves. Though Kim is ahead of Capriati easily and possibly now.

Mother Marjorie here. Let me cook on this......

Lindsay Davenport is the poster child of why Big Babe Tennis died post-Graf Era.

Lindsay was in the top two of her generation week-in, week-out. She played incredibly consistent throughout the year in regular tour events...however, her career became very anemic in the majors.

For someone of her stature, Lindsay should have won at least ten majors during her career, however, she didn't have the mental make-up reserved for the true greats in the sport.

Mother Marjorie would easily place Lindsay above Kim and Jennifer from a career standpoint. However, like most from this under-performing Big Babe Era (the worst in tennis history), the game never quite held the expectations.

There is a lot to celebrate about Lindsay's career, however, Mother Marjorie finds it extremely challenging talking about her, Kim or Jennifer's career in respect to the greats of the sport. As tennis fans, haven't we all suffered enough enduring the omni-present lowered-expectations of this Big Babe Era without trying to make lower-tiered historical players greater than they really are???


Mother Marjorie Ann has it on lock.

So Forth and Being So,

Mother Marjorie Ann

 

[soyizgood]

Mother Marjorie here. Let me cook on this......

Lindsay Davenport is the poster child of why Big Babe Tennis died post-Graf Era.

Lindsay was in the top two of her generation week-in, week-out. She played incredibly consistent throughout the year in regular tour events...however, her career became very anemic in the majors.

For someone of her stature, Lindsay should have won at least ten majors during her career, however, she didn't have the mental make-up reserved for the true greats in the sport.

Mother Marjorie would easily place Lindsay above Kim and Jennifer from a career standpoint. However, like most from this under-performing Big Babe Era (the worst in tennis history), the game never quite held the expectations.

There is a lot to celebrate about Lindsay's career, however, Mother Marjorie finds it extremely challenging talking about her, Kim or Jennifer's career in respect to the greats of the sport. As tennis fans, haven't we all suffered enough enduring the omni-present lowered-expectations of this Big Babe Era without trying to make lower-tiered historical players greater than they really are???


Mother Marjorie Ann has it on lock.

So Forth and Being So,

Mother Marjorie Ann

Of the "big babes" only Serena and Venus have done better than Davenport. Even then Lindsay has more tier-1s than Venus and roughly the same as Serena iirc.

Davenport was never going to dominate the tour anyway. She was really tall (almost 6'3"), big-boned, not that agile, injury-prone, and HAD to dictate play in order to win matches. I consider her to be both an over and underachiever. If it wasn't for Venus, Davenport could have as many as 6 slams. Add maybe two more if she hadn't gotten injured at the USO in 2004 and her Wimby 2004 SF vs Sharapova being rain-delayed. She was primarily a hard-court queen who had a knack for grass.

 

[TomatoSoup]

Davenport > Clijsters > Capriati is the way I'd put it.

And i'd appreciate some posters/trolls actually sticking to the topic and not stirring up some unnecessary debate.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Davenport will still edge Kim in my mind. Davenport doesn't get the respect she deserves. Though Kim is ahead of Capriati easily and possibly now.

Since the thread OP judges based on slam count, if Kim wins another USO, I would place her in a tied position with Capriati over the rest, as they would be the only players on the list to actually defend one of their titles. Davenport and Sharapova were clearly incapable of doing that, so Davenport drops to #2, Sharapova lands in the #3 spot.

 

[lonux]

Clijsters > Davenport > Capriati.

Capriati is last, no doubt, but as for the other two: I'd also count in the fact Kim won her second major while being a mother and after a lengthy break, with only, what 2 tourneys preparation?

 

[Raiden]

^ Exactly

Clijsters' overall career has already been aptly judged recently (at the end of last year/beginning of this year she was officially chosen as the 4th best player of the decade (the last full decade, i.e. 2000-2009) and that without yet having a third slam.

Imagine where she would be in the coming future when she keeps collecting more important prizes (grand slams & premier tour titles to which she added one just last week)
.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

^ Exactly

Clijsters' overall career

The OP is talking about slam titles, not "overall" career, and only using the slam performances, at the moment, Clijsters does not have a better standing than Capriati--who was able to defend one (indicating a brief dominance there), while Davenport and Sharapova failed to defend any of their slam titles.

 

[Gizo]

Clijsters is already ahead of Capriati at the moment.

However I don't see how winning the US Open title this year would propel her above Davenport. Winning 3 different slams is more impressive than winning the slam 3 times. Also Davenport would still have 16 more WTA titles and 79 more weeks as world no. 1 than Clijsters. Also Clijsters has never as ended a season as the year end no. 1, while Davenport has done so 4 times.

 

[Raiden]

^ Not as relevant as other stuff. Nadal has less matches than Federer yet their H2H doesn't indicate that.

Same thing with Serena who, like Kim, has less career titles than Davenport.

What matters more is how important the titles are that you've won

And how you fared when you bumped into your big rivals.

 

[Gizo]

Weeks spent as world no. 1 and total titles are more important than h2h records in my opinion, as they are against the field, while h2h records are just against one particular player.

As far as important titles go, Davenport won an olympic gold medal, 1 YEC title, 11 tier I titles and 26 tier II titles. Clijsters has won 2 YEC titles, 7 tier I titles and 19 tier II titles. It's a bit tricky with the recent shift from Tier I/II events to Premier and International ones, but I'm classing Cincinnati as a Tier I title and Brisbane as a Tier II one. So Davenport has clearly won more important titles than Clijsters.

Again I can't stress just how important Clijsters's failure to win more than one different slam is compared to other multi-slam champions. Sure against players like Capriati, her overall results on the tour are enough to be ranked above her, but not against Davenport who has won more important non-slam titles and a significantly better ranking history. In the last 50 years or so, Clijsters and Austin are the only female multi-slam champs that have failed to win more than one different slam event, and Austin had her career cut short by a string of chronic injuries.

 

[thalivest]

Here is how I see each:

Davenport- yes a whole lot of titles and 3 different slams. I guess you could say she established herself as a somewhat dominant player briefly winning 3 out of 6 slams. However that she remained a top contender so long and failed to add to her slam collection IMO is a negative for her in comparision to others of similar achievements. And as TV said she never defended a slam title. An Olympic singles Gold which I consider a pretty big achievement too though.

Capriati- only 14 titles. 3 slams and Olympic singles gold like Davenport. In a sense her career doesnt measure up to Davenport but in another sense it is more impressive. Despite throwing away so much of her career she still managed to win the same # of slams as Davenport with only 2 fairly short prime many years apart, achieving all hers in the 2nd one during a period Davenport won nothing. As TV said she defended a slam title unlike Davenport. Won 3 slams out of 5 over only a 13 month stretch showing even slightly more dominance than Davenport. On the other hand overall head to head vs other top players including Davenport wasnt so strong.

Sharapova- was a consistent force in the womens game only in 2005 and 2006 really. 2004 and 2007 her year was down to only 2 really big events (Wimbledon and YEC 2004, Australian Open and YEC 2007) where she either won or finalled, and the rest of the year was mostly slop. 2008 her year was only down to winning the Australian Open. So while I had thought she was a consistent top player in the womens game this was only true of late 04-early 07 really with only spurts otherwise. She has 3 slams like the others. Unlike Capriati and Davenport who won slams lumped in a fairly brief period, Sharapova won her 3 slams over a 15 slam period with many other very good showings of semis especialy in between but just falling short. This shows inability to dominate at the level of either of the other 2, and while normally I might say it shows more longevity this is not really true either as Davenport remained a top player for about a decade, and Capriati was a top player 2 different periods a decade apart that in whole even removing the gaint hole between still totalled more than Maria's time as a bonafide top 5 player. I agree with TV she is the weakest of these three.


I actually could see Clijsters being above Maria already. If she wins the U.S Open again I would put her at the top of these 4 probably.

 

[Gizo]

Also Serena-Davenport comparisons are hardly similar to Clijsters-Davenport ones.

Serena has 10 more slams and 18 (and counting) more weeks as world no. 1 than Davenport, and has held all 4 slams at the same time while no other player of her generation has even completed the career grand slam.

Even if she wins another US Open title, Clijsters has failed to win 3 out of the 4 slam events and will still have way less weeks at no. 1, important titles and total titles than Davenport.

 

[thalivest]

Clijsters is already ahead of Capriati at the moment.

Why? Capriati has won 3 slams, the Olympic singles Gold, was the AP Athlete of the Year in 2001, has defended a slam title as TV said, and owned Kim head to head in big matches. I could certainly see Kim ahead if she defends her U.S Open title based on her overall title count, the prestige of such dominance at an event like the U.S Open, and her YEC titles, but not now.

 

[Gizo]

Why? Capriati has won 3 slams, the Olympic singles Gold, was the AP Athlete of the Year in 2001, has defended a slam title as TV said, and owned Kim head to head in big matches. I could certainly see Kim ahead if she defends her U.S Open title based on her overall title count, the prestige of such dominance at an event like the U.S Open, and her YEC titles, but not now.

Because Clijsters has won 24 more WTA titles than Capriati, 5 more Tier I titles and 15 more tier II titles (again counting her Cincinnati title last week as a Tier I event and her Brisbane title in January as a Tier II one). She has also spent slightly longer at world no. 1, although I can understand if people don't put too much emphasis on those 2 extra weeks.

Also while in my opinion an olympic gold medal is worth more than one YEC title, 2 YEC titles is better than an olympic gold medal.

Kim's Indian Wells-Miami double in 2005 also gives her some bonus points IMO. All this outweighs one extra slam title I would say.

Capriati's 2001 Australian Open title was impressive, but she had Serena and Davenport's injury enforced absences to thank for retaining her title in 2002.

And as far as the AP athlete of the year award goes, I don't follow other women's sports, but in tennis Venus was clearly better than Capriati in 2001.

 

[thalivest]

Because Clijsters has won 24 more WTA titles than Capriati, 5 more Tier I titles and 15 more tier II titles (again counting her Cincinnati title last week as a Tier I event and her Brisbane title in January as a Tier II one). She has also spent slightly longer at world no. 1, although I can understand if people don't put too much emphasis on those 2 extra weeks.

Also while in my opinion an olympic gold medal is worth more than one YEC title, 2 YEC titles is better than an olympic gold medal.

Kim's Indian Wells-Miami double in 2005 also gives her some bonus points IMO. All this outweighs one extra slam title I would say.

Capriati's 2001 Australian Open title was impressive, but she had Serena and Davenport's injury enforced absences to thank for retaining her title in 2002.

And as far as the AP athlete of the year award goes, I don't follow other women's sports, but in tennis Venus was clearly better than Capriati in 2001.

Fair enough. I see how you rank Kim above Capriati then.

Regarding the 2002 Australian Open title defense though, Capriati beat Davenport there in 2001, and Capriati had a decent record vs Serena from 2001-2004. Who is to say she might not have won with them in the draw. It is not like she wasnt capable of beign either.

Capriati wasnt just named AP athlete of the year in 2001 but won the Laureus Athlete of the Year, and I believe WTA Player of the Year and ITF Player of the Year. So there are obviously many who felt she was the best that year.

 

[Gizo]

True Capriati could have won the 2002 Australian Open even with a full field, although she played at a much higher level there in 2001 than 2002. Davenport played one of her worst ever matches in that 2001 semi-final, and certainly her worst ever grand slam semi-final or final match. I'm not sure she would have been so generous and error prone in a rematch.

While Capriati gave peak Serena a much tougher time than Venus did, Serena came into 2002 full of confidence after winning 3 big titles in 2001, and had already started her 8 match winning streak against Capriati at Toronto in 2001. Plus she went unbeaten in slams in 2002.

Davenport for instance would most likely have would have defended her Wimbledon title in 2000 had Venus been forced to withdraw through injury. Despite Clijsters's loss of motivation in 2006, she would have been one of the major title favourites and stood a good chance of defending her US Open title had she been able to play at the event that year. Then again I've strayed dangerously into 'would have, could have, should have' territory there.

Capriati did deserve the ITF award in 2001 as she had a better record than Venus in the ITF officiated events, reaching all 4 slams semis while Venus lost in the 1st round of the French. However as far as the other awards go, I'd imagine that sentimentality came into play and she won them because of her whole career revival story. Venus winning 6 titles across 3 different surfaces was more impressive than Capriati winning 3 across 2 surfaces, plus Venus won all 3 of their matches that year.

 

[powerangle]

I'd put Davenport > Clijsters (if she wins the USO again) > Capriati

Even now, I put Kim above Jennifer, for basically the reasons that Gizo gave. Kim has many other stats that compensate for her one less slam than Jen, imo.


As for Lindsay, she'd still have several stats over Kim even if Kim wins the USO again.

 

[thalivest]

Davenport really should have won more than 3 majors. It is amazing the # of majors she blew or lost through bad luck- 2004 Wimbledon, 2004 U.S Open, 2005 Australian Open, to some degree 2005 Wimbledon (though that was an amazing match all the same so she has nothing to be ashamed of here), even 99 Australian Open or/and 2001 Australian Open where as Gizo said she stunk it up majorly and inexplicably vs Capriati in the semis.

It is a shame Capriati did not have the right guidance and people around her to allow her to develop properly in her very important young and adolescent years. She might have been an amazing champion if she had. She really seemed to plateau at 15 in 1991. In 1992 and 1993 she remained a top 8 player and contender on tour, and had some high points (Olympic Gold by beating Sanchez and Graf on clay) but showed no improvement from her 1991 level really. That made no sense, at the level she was reaching by late 1991 at only 15 she looked like she could be #1 in the World in a year or two but never really got close to that good (atleast not in her first career). Then of course she was off tour for so long after age 17 and took forever to get back to proper playing shape and proper training, really only reaching that point I think in 1999. As it was she really did get a bit fortunate in a way to win some of the slams she won, especialy the 2002 Austrailan Open, but she still deserves credit for each, she fought her butt off and took advantage of situations through draws, others poor performances, choking, whatever was presented to her. And she really didnt have many missed opportunities to win slams either, the 91 and 2003 U.S Opens she played amazingly but couldnt quite finish off a greater player in classic matches both times. I would say her biggest blown chance was the 2002 French Open if anything.

It is almost interesting to wonder where both Kim and Maria will go from here. Kim convincingly won both her slams though and probably should have won more. Maria did well to win what she has I think, although she has had some really bad luck to have the shoulder problems.

 

[Raiden]

If Kim wins a third slam she'll undoubtedly leapfrog over Davenport, Sharapova and Capriati in the GOAT pecking order...

Mission Accomplished

 

[phoenicks]

If Kim wins a third slam she'll undoubtedly leapfrog over Davenport, Sharapova and Capriati in the GOAT pecking order.

The fact that some of these players may be a bigger "celebrity" than her in certain insular countries is a temporary and ultimately completely irrelevant matter in terms of historicity. After all, Kournikova is arguably still a bigger celeb than all of them.

And so, all Kim needs is one more slam. After all, she is already ahead of those three-major players in most if not all the other relevant factors, including the all important head-2-head stats.

Kim
|
|
Davenport, Sharapova
|
|
Capriati
|
|
Virginia Wade
.

correct order should be Davenport, Shapova >>>>> Kim >>>>Capriati

Kim got it bcoz of the Joke WTA field. It's like an established WTA playing in Girls junior championship. On the other hand, Davenport and Sharapova actually play against a tougher competition.

 

[thalivest]

Kim got it bcoz of the Joke WTA field. It's like an established WTA playing in Girls junior championship. On the other hand, Davenport and Sharapova actually play against a tougher competition.

Davenport won all 3 of her slams before the Williams dominance began. Kim won her 1st U.S Open by beating a strong Venus, prime Maria, and a hot Pierce. She won her 2nd by beating both Williams sisters who had just played the Wimbledon final. Maria was lucky as heck to win her first Wimbledon, a joke draw to the semis (Sugiyama in the quarters, LOL) and she still nearly lost a few times, then the rain delay while getting killed by Davenport, and Serena playing one of her worst matches ever in the final.

 

[phoenicks]

Davenport won all 3 of her slams before the Williams dominance began. Kim won her 1st U.S Open by beating a strong Venus, prime Maria, and a hot Pierce. She won her 2nd by beating both Williams sisters who had just played the Wimbledon final. Maria was lucky as heck to win her first Wimbledon, a joke draw to the semis (Sugiyama in the quarters, LOL) and she still nearly lost a few times, then the rain delay while getting killed by Davenport, and Serena playing one of her worst matches ever in the final.

Are you smoking pot? Maria win against Serena in wimbly 04, Prime henin in 06, but Kim retired meekly after 4 consecutibe SF run against a strong WTA field and come back to win 2 more agsint weak WTA field.

 

[Raiden]

correct order should be Davenport, Shapova >>>>> Kim >>>>Capriati

Kim got it bcoz of the Joke WTA field. It's like an established WTA playing in Girls junior championship. On the other hand, Davenport and Sharapova actually play against a tougher competition.

Nope!

Those players are already Kim's whippin girls - her b*tches

And now she has the same amount of slams as them and that pretty much puts the final seal the debate (for those who were sitting on the fence) for the experts she was already ahead of at least two of those (Jen-Cap and Pova)

You can't be better than someone if you are that someone b*tch - Case closed

 

[fedhingis515]

Kim> Capriati, Sharapova. I'm still on the fence with Davenport though.

 

[Raiden]

Davenport won all 3 of her slams before the Williams dominance began. Kim won her 1st U.S Open by beating a strong Venus, prime Maria, and a hot Pierce. She won her 2nd by beating both Williams sisters who had just played the Wimbledon final. Maria was lucky as heck to win her first Wimbledon, a joke draw to the semis (Sugiyama in the quarters, LOL) and she still nearly lost a few times, then the rain delay while getting killed by Davenport, and Serena playing one of her worst matches ever in the final.

Amen.

Kim beat one or two Williamses in ALL three of her slam wins, ergo she beat the number one and two best players of her era in order to get ALL of her slams.

Davenport has only one thing on Kim: her longevity. She basically ran for two decades while most only last a decade or less on average

Other than that although I'd understand if others put her ahead of kim, objectively one could assert that Kim is already equal to her (one's longevity balanced by the other's better H2H). Lindsay quietly nicked her slams during the "strength/quality gap" between the decline of Graf and the rise of the Williamses. Kim on the other hand went thru the "best of all time" contenders during their prime and reached multiples of finals and eventually won
.

 

[phoenicks]

Nope!

Those players are already Kim's whippin girls - her b*tches

And now she has the same amount of slams as them and that pretty much puts the final seal the debate (for those who were sitting on the fence) for the experts she was already ahead of at least two of those (Jen-Cap and Pova)

You can't be better than someone if you are that someone b*tch - Case closed

Clijsters slam has less weihgt than Sharapova slam because 2 out of 3 of clijsters slam are achieved against a jokingly weak WTA field, it's like an adult fighting with a kids.

 

[Tempestuous]

1) Seles
2) Evert/Navratilova
3) Graf
4) Serena
10) Clijsters

 

[phoenicks]

Nope!

Those players are already Kim's whippin girls - her b*tches

And now she has the same amount of slams as them and that pretty much puts the final seal the debate (for those who were sitting on the fence) for the experts she was already ahead of at least two of those (Jen-Cap and Pova)

You can't be better than someone if you are that someone b*tch - Case closed

Clijsters slam has less weihgt than Sharapova slam because 2 out of 3 of Clijsters slam are achieved against a jokingly weak WTA field, it's like an adult fighting with a kids.

 

[thalivest]

1) Seles
2) Evert/Navratilova
3) Graf
4) Serena
10) Clijsters

Monica "Mrs. No Wimbledons" Seles is not even in the same league as Evert, Navratilova, or Graf. And I ensure you Clijsters is not a top 10 player of all time at this moment.

 

[Raiden]

Clijsters slam has less weihgt than Sharapova slam because 2 out of 3 of clijsters are achieved against a jokingly weak WTA field, it's like an adult fighting with a kids.

Rubbish

Not in a thousand years would Kimke be regarded as the lesser of her whipping girl

And that's not all, Kim is miles ahead not only in terms of head-2-head stats, but also in the number of tournaments won, number of GS finals reached, number of weeks at number one, number of Year End Championships, number of doubles won, etc etc

And to focus on that last fact: Kim is indeed a doubles slams winner - and since people count Navratilova's doubles record as an achievement - there's no reason not to count Kim's... which brings us to the fact that Kim is a FIVE times grand slam champion while Sharapova is stuck with her 3 singles titles.

Numbers don't lie

5 > 3

Kim > Pova

Case closed
.

 

[thalivest]

Are you smoking pot? Maria win against Serena in wimbly 04, Prime henin in 06, but Kim retired meekly after 4 consecutibe SF run against a strong WTA field and come back to win 2 more agsint weak WTA field.

I already explained the circumstances of her 2004 Wimbledon title. Joke draw to the semis even by WTA standards. Sugiyama in the quarters was her toughest opponent to that point and she even nearly lost to her, having to go 3 sets. Then was getting killed by Davenport before the rain hit, she was never coming back in that match otherwise. And 2004-2006 Serena was in the worst slump of her career, it was nothing like 99-2003 or 2007-current Serena, which even you are aware of hence no "prime Serena" reference. And that Wimbledon final was maybe Serena's worst match ever.

Lets compare who each beat for their slam titles:

Maria Wimbledon 2004- Sugiyama, Davenport, slumping Serena
Kim U.S Open 2005- Venus, Sharapova, Pierce.
Tougher competition- Clijsters since even a 30 year old Pierce is better than Sugiyama and Venus who had just won Wimbledon is tougher than an out of form Serena.

Maria U.S Open 2006- Golovin, Mauresmo, Henin
Kim U.S Open 2009- Venus, Serena, Wozniacki
Tougher competition- Clijsters since Wozniacki is better than Golovin, and Mauresmo who never make a big part at the U.S Open is not even close to either Williams.

Maria Australian Open 2008- Henin, Jankovic, Ivanovic
Kim U.S Open 2010- Stosur, past her prime Venus, Zvonareva
Toughe rcompetition- OK I will give this one to Sharapova

Overall Maria has not had tougher competition to her 3 slam wins than Kim at all. And Kim's overall career is better. Maria was never dominant vs strong opposition either. She lost 5 slam semifinals in a row in between her 1st and 2nd slams at Wimbledon 2004 and the 2006 U.S Open, so much for mocking Kim for losing in semis. And Kim lost her motivation for awhile after winning the 2005 U.S Open, she even went coachless, and was already planning her retirement. Maria has losing head to heads vs all of Serena, Henin, Clijsters and Mauresmo. I think she has a winning head to head with Venus but so does Clijsters so who cares.

The ultimate toughest time in womens tennis was the early 2000s when you had Venus, Serena, Capriati, Henin, and Clijsters all at their best. Maria would not have won a single slam vs that group, and wouldnt have even reached as many finals as Kim did.

 

[thalivest]

Clijsters slam has less weihgt than Sharapova slam because 2 out of 3 of clijsters slam are achieved against a jokingly weak WTA field, it's like an adult fighting with a kids.

The field was already weak in 2008 when Maria won her 3rd slam. Henin was burnt out and close to retiring, Mauresmo was done, Kim was retired, Serena was just coming back to form. Ivanovic and Jankovic both reached #1 that year and JJ ended the year #1.

And 2006 had both Williams basically out of it the entire year, and Mauresmo as #1 most of the year. Henin was the biggest name at the top by far. How is that a stronger field than 2009 with both Williams as major forces.

 

[phoenicks]

Maria U.S Open 2006- Golovin, Mauresmo, Henin
Kim U.S Open 2009- Venus, Serena, Wozniacki
Tougher competition- Clijsters since Wozniacki is better than Golovin, and Mauresmo who never make a big part at the U.S Open is not even close to either Williams.

WTF??? how can you compare a a QF opponent VS a SF oppoent? Perhaps you also realized how louzy the field is since Wozniacki at 09 final is at the same level as 06 QF Golovin ? Venus is off-colored, Wozniacki just got lucky, their level is similar to golovin and mauresmo at 06. While Henin nearly wins evrything in 06 but Serena only got to QF and SF in FO and USO.

So, Sharapova 06 USO >>>>> Clijsters 09 USO

 

[phoenicks]

The field was already weak in 2008 when Maria won her 3rd slam. Henin was burnt out and close to retiring, Mauresmo was done, Kim was retired, Serena was just coming back to form. Ivanovic and Jankovic both reached #1 that year and JJ ended the year #1.

And 2006 had both Williams basically out of it the entire year, and Mauresmo as #1 most of the year. Henin was the biggest name at the top by far. How is that a stronger field than 2009 with both Williams as major forces.

true, BUT Kim's field in USO10 is not even weak, compared to 2008, it's as good as dead, Serena absent and Venus past her prime. Vera basically hand her the championship while Ivanovic actually fights hard and gave Maria a run for her money.

 

[thalivest]

WTF??? how can you compare a a QF opponent VS a SF oppoent? Perhaps you also realized how louzy the field is since Wozniacki at 09 final is at the same level as 06 QF Golovin ? Venus is off-colored, Wozniacki just got lucky, their level is similar to golovin and mauresmo at 06. While Henin nearly wins evrything in 06 but Serena only got to QF and SF in FO and USO.

So, Sharapova 06 USO >>>>> Clijsters 09 USO

I compared their 3rd, 2nd, and 1st toughest opponents directly in case you hadnt noticed. If you want to compare them directly by round though (substituting 4th rounder Venus for a quarterfinal for obvious reasons) then fine.

Clijsters 2009 U.S Open 4th round opponent Venus >>>> Maria 2006 U.S Open quarterfinal opponent Golovin

Clijsters 2009 U.S Open semifinal opponent Serena >>>> Maria 2006 U.S Open semifinal opponent Mauresmo

Clijsters 2009 U.S Open final opponent Wozniacki <<<< Maria 2006 U.S Open final opponent Henin

Only someone on crack would suggest beating both Williams soon after they met at the Wimbledon final is easier than beating Henin and Mauresmo, when Mauresmo has never made a final at the U.S Open and isnt in the league of those other 3 players nor Maria or Kim on a fast hard court.

 

[thalivest]

true, BUT Kim's field in USO10 is not even weak, compared to 2008, it's as good as dead, Serena absent and Venus past her prime. Vera basically hand her the championship while Ivanovic actually fights hard and gave Maria a run for her money.

Ivanovic is a one shot pony whose limitations were quickly exposed and crashed down to earth, probably never to return to the elite again. Vera has a good chance of atleast matching or surpassing Ana's achievements as a player in the next couple years.

I agree about Kim's 2010 U.S Open win, but her other 2 U.S Open wins were against tougher competition than any of Maria's slams.