Major Count - Women

[Wuornos]

Based purely on major results in the open era and sorted on Titles, then losing finals, then losing semi finals and then losing quarter finals, the top women achievers of the open era are as follows:

Rank Player Titles L-Fs L-SFs L-QFs
1 Steffi Graf 22 9 6 5
2 Chris Evert 18 16 18 2
3 Martina Navratilova 18 14 12 9
4 Margaret Smith Court 11 1 4 4
5 Monica Seles 9 4 5 13
6 Billie Jean King 8 4 5 11
7 Serena Williams 8 2 2 9
8 Evonne Goolagong 7 11 4 4
9 Justine Henin 7 4 5 1
10 Venus Williams 6 6 4 10
11 Martina Hingis 5 7 7 5
12 Arantxa Sánchez Vicario 4 8 10 13
13 Hana Mandlíková 4 4 6 9
14 Lindsay Davenport 3 4 11 13
15 Jennifer Capriati 3 0 10 10
16 Virginia Wade 3 0 6 12
17 Mary Pierce 2 4 0 8
18 Maria Sharapova 2 1 6 2
19 Amélie Mauresmo 2 1 5 9
20 Tracy Austin 2 0 3 8
21 Kim Clijsters 1 4 7 2
22 Jana Novotná 1 3 5 13
23 Gabriela Sabatini 1 2 15 10
24 Conchita Martínez 1 2 9 11
25 Kerry Reid 1 2 6 10
26 Ann Jones 1 2 3 0
27 Mima Jaušovec 1 2 2 5
28 Svetlana Kuznetsova 1 2 0 5
29 Nancy Richey 1 1 4 4
30 Virginia Ruzici 1 1 1 8
31 Kathy Jordan 1 1 1 2
32 Sue Barker 1 0 3 2
33 Iva Majoli 1 0 0 5
33 Anastasia Myskina 1 0 0 5
35 Chris O'Neil 1 0 0 0
36 Helena Suková 0 4 3 11
37 Mary Joe Fernández 0 3 6 8
38 Wendy Turnbull 0 3 4 7
39 Andrea Jaeger 0 2 5 3
40 Rosemary Casals 0 2 4 10
41 Helen Gourlay 0 2 3 3
42 Yelena Dementieva 0 2 2 2
43 Olga Morozova 0 2 1 7
44 Renáta Tomanová 0 2 1 3
45 Pam Shriver 0 1 8 10
46 Zina Garrison 0 1 4 10
47 Helga Niessen Masthoff 0 1 3 6
48 Dianne Fromholtz 0 1 3 2
49 Anke Huber 0 1 2 4
50 Judy Tegart 0 1 1 6
50 Natasha Zvereva 0 1 1 6
52 Betty Stöve 0 1 1 1
52 Ana Ivanović 0 1 1 1
54 Florenta Mihai 0 1 1 0
55 Nathalie Tauziat 0 1 0 6
56 Sylvia Hanika 0 1 0 5
57 Sharon Walsh 0 1 0 2
58 Marion Bartoli 0 1 0 0
58 Betsy Nagelsen 0 1 0 0
60 Claudia Kohde-Kilsch 0 0 4 5
61 Karen Krantzcke 0 0 3 5
61 Françoise Durr 0 0 3 5
61 Julie Heldman 0 0 3 5
64 Amanda Coetzer 0 0 3 4
65 Kimiko Date 0 0 3 3
66 Manuela Maleeva 0 0 2 12
67 Regina Maršíková 0 0 3 1
68 Nadia Petrova 0 0 2 4
69 Catarina Lindqvist 0 0 2 3
70 Winnie Shaw 0 0 2 2
70 Jo Durie 0 0 2 2
70 Lori McNeil 0 0 2 2
70 Nicole Vaidišová 0 0 2 2
70 Janet Newberry 0 0 2 2
75 Jelena Janković 0 0 2 1
76 Lesley Hunt 0 0 1 7
77 Lesley Turner Bowrey 0 0 1 4
77 Barbara Potter 0 0 1 4
77 Patty Schnyder 0 0 1 4
80 Carling Bassett-Seguso 0 0 1 3
80 Paola Suárez 0 0 1 3
80 Kazuko Sawamatsu 0 0 1 3
80 Chanda Rubin 0 0 1 3
84 Kathy Rinaldi 0 0 1 2
84 Maria Bueno 0 0 1 2
84 Anna Chakvetadze 0 0 1 2
84 Gigi Fernández 0 0 1 2
84 Jelena Dokić 0 0 1 2
84 Elena Likhovtseva 0 0 1 2
84 Christine Matison 0 0 1 2
84 Mary Sawyer 0 0 1 2
92 Claudia Porwik 0 0 1 1
92 Irina Spîrlea 0 0 1 1
92 Bettina Bunge 0 0 1 1
92 Natasha Chmyreva 0 0 1 1
92 Anna Kournikova 0 0 1 1
92 Kerry Harris 0 0 1 1
92 Raquel Giscafre 0 0 1 1
99 Belinda Cordwell 0 0 1 0
99 Camille Benjamin 0 0 1 0
99 Meredith McGrath 0 0 1 0
99 Fabiola Zuluaga 0 0 1 0
99 Marianne Werdel-Witmeyer 0 0 1 0
99 Yvonne Vermaak 0 0 1 0
99 Annette Du Plooy 0 0 1 0
99 Nicole Provis 0 0 1 0
99 Nathalie Dechy 0 0 1 0
99 Clarisa Fernandez 0 0 1 0
99 Alexandra Stevenson 0 0 1 0
99 Mirjana Lučić 0 0 1 0
99 Elisabeth Ekblom 0 0 1 0
99 Marijke Schaar 0 0 1 0
99 Diane Evers 0 0 1 0
99 Brigitte Simon 0 0 1 0
115 Katerina Maleeva 0 0 0 7
116 Katja Ebbinghaus 0 0 0 5
117 Daniela Hantuchová 0 0 0 3
117 Anne Smith 0 0 0 3
117 Julie Halard-Decugis 0 0 0 3
117 Ivanna Madruga 0 0 0 3
117 Kathy May 0 0 0 3
122 Judith Wiesner 0 0 0 2
122 Brenda Schultz-McCarthy 0 0 0 2
122 Rosalyn Fairbank 0 0 0 2
122 Gretchen Rush 0 0 0 2
122 Kathy Horvath 0 0 0 2
122 Sandrine Testud 0 0 0 2
122 Shahar Pe'er 0 0 0 2
122 Jane "Peaches" Bartkowicz 0 0 0 2
122 Gail Chanfreau 0 0 0 2
122 Dinara Safina 0 0 0 2
122 Bonnie Gadusek 0 0 0 2
122 Helen Kelesi 0 0 0 2
122 Larisa Neiland 0 0 0 2
122 Amy Frazier 0 0 0 2
122 Angélica Gavaldón 0 0 0 2
122 Greer Stevens 0 0 0 2
122 Vlasta Vopickova 0 0 0 2
122 Francesca Schiavone 0 0 0 2
122 Lisa Raymond 0 0 0 2
122 Virginia Ruano Pascual 0 0 0 2
122 Linky Boshoff 0 0 0 2
122 Dominique Monami 0 0 0 2
122 Ai Sugiyama 0 0 0 2
122 Pam Teeguarden 0 0 0 2
146 Cecilia Martinez 0 0 0 1
146 Patti Hogan 0 0 0 1
146 Dianne Balestrat 0 0 0 1
146 Pascale Paradis 0 0 0 1
146 Gretchen Magers 0 0 0 1
146 Laura Golarsa 0 0 0 1
146 Molly Van Nostrand 0 0 0 1
146 Anna-Maria Cecchini 0 0 0 1
146 Terry Phelps 0 0 0 1
146 Carina Karlsson 0 0 0 1
146 Patty Fendick 0 0 0 1
146 Lisa Bonder 0 0 0 1
146 Melissa Brown 0 0 0 1
146 Magdalena Maleeva 0 0 0 1
146 Patricia Hy-Boulais 0 0 0 1
146 Linda Wild 0 0 0 1
146 Elizabeth Smylie 0 0 0 1
146 Anne Minter 0 0 0 1
146 Karina Habšudová 0 0 0 1
146 Silvia Farina Elia 0 0 0 1
146 Raffaella Reggi 0 0 0 1
146 Laura Gildemeister 0 0 0 1
146 Leila Meskhi 0 0 0 1
146 Sophie Amiach 0 0 0 1
146 Zenda Liess 0 0 0 1
146 Manon Bollegraf 0 0 0 1
146 Jan Lehane 0 0 0 1
146 Norma Marsh 0 0 0 1
146 Meghann Shaughnessy 0 0 0 1
146 Joanne Russell 0 0 0 1
146 Eva Pfaff 0 0 0 1
146 Elena Bovina 0 0 0 1
146 Naoko Sawamatsu 0 0 0 1
146 Dája Bedáňová 0 0 0 1
146 Jennifer Mundel 0 0 0 1
146 Elena Subirats 0 0 0 1
146 Gail Sherriff 0 0 0 1
146 Bettina Fulco 0 0 0 1
146 Lucia Romanov 0 0 0 1
146 Alicia Molik 0 0 0 1
146 Christina Sandberg 0 0 0 1
146 Inés Gorrochategui 0 0 0 1
146 Petra Ritter 0 0 0 1
146 Sabine Hack 0 0 0 1
146 Maryna Godwin 0 0 0 1
146 Denisa Chladkova 0 0 0 1
146 Nany Basuki 0 0 0 1
146 Barbara Schwartz 0 0 0 1
146 Sylvia Plischke 0 0 0 1
146 Adriana Serra Zanetti 0 0 0 1
146 Ruxandra Dragomir 0 0 0 1
146 Karolina Šprem 0 0 0 1
146 Ágnes Szávay 0 0 0 1
146 Odile De Roubin 0 0 0 1
146 Li Na 0 0 0 1
146 Séverine Bremond 0 0 0 1
146 Joyce Williams 0 0 0 1
146 Laura Du Pont 0 0 0 1
146 Barbara Schett 0 0 0 1
146 Barbara Hallquist 0 0 0 1
146 Donna Ganz 0 0 0 1
146 Eva Szabo 0 0 0 1
146 Barbara Hawcroft 0 0 0 1
146 Patricia Coleman 0 0 0 1
146 Corinne Molesworth 0 0 0 1
146 Magüi Serna 0 0 0 1
146 Marise Kruger 0 0 0 1
146 Barbara Gerken 0 0 0 1
146 Tatiana Golovin 0 0 0 1
146 Heidi Eisterlehner 0 0 0 1
146 Marie Neumanova 0 0 0 1
146 Vera Zvonareva 0 0 0 1
146 Lucie Šafářová 0 0 0 1
146 Marta Marrero 0 0 0 1
146 Shinobu Asagoe 0 0 0 1
146 Linda Tuero 0 0 0 1
146 Anna-Lena Grönefeld 0 0 0 1
146 Michaëlla Krajicek 0 0 0 1
146 Lina Krasnoroutskaya 0 0 0 1
146 Petra Mandula 0 0 0 1
146 Sesil Karatantcheva 0 0 0 1
146 Ruta Gerulaitis 0 0 0 1
146 Kathy Kuykendall 0 0 0 1
146 Miroslava Holubova 0 0 0 1
146 Kathy Harter 0 0 0 1
146 Rayni Fox 0 0 0 1
146 Mona Guerrant 0 0 0 1
146 Naoko Sato 0 0 0 1
146 Jan Wilton 0 0 0 1
146 Kimberly Po 0 0 0 1
146 Sabine Appelmans 0 0 0 1
146 Candy Reynolds 0 0 0 1
146 Dorte Ekner 0 0 0 1
146 Fiorella Bonicelli 0 0 0 1
146 Miroslava Bendlova 0 0 0 1
146 Cynthia Doerner 0 0 0 1
146 Michele Gurdal 0 0 0 1

Let me know if you come across any mistakes as I like to try and keep my database up to date.

Regards

Tim

 

[BTURNER]

we don't have all the information that might be pertinent so I took off the ranking ,stopped at major 'winners' and added career winning percentage at majors and a column recording all the losses before the QF round. While it does not distinguish between a loss in RD 164 and Rd 16, it at least recognizes those early round losses existed on the record and the sum should reflect the total of all appearances in major.

On those players who transcended both amateur and pro years I added a cumulative number in parenthesis. There simply isn't a huge reason on the women's side not to, because the 'two tour' phenomena just did not happen among the ladies.
Player Titles L-Fs L-SFs L-QFs Early losses WP
Steffi Graf 22 9 6 5 12 89%
Serena Williams 19 4 3 13 19 87%
Chris Evert 18 16 18 2 02 88%
Martina Navratilova 18 14 12 9 14 85%
Margaret Court* 11 (24) 1(5) 4 (7) 4(7) 1 (02) (87%)
Monica Seles 9 4 5 13 09 85%
Billie Jean King* 8 (12) 4 (6) 5 (8) 11(14) 04(05) (83)
Evonne Goolagong 7 11 4 4 07 83%
Justine Henin 7 5 5 2 16 83%
Venus Williams 7 7 5 15 31 79%
Martina Hingis 5 7 7 5 13 82%
Maria Sharapova 5 5 9 3 24 80%
Arantxa Sanchez 4 8 10 13 23 79%
Hana Mandlikova 4 4 6 9 21 77%
Kim Clijsters 4 4 8 3 16 80%
Lindsay Davenport 3 4 11 13 24 79%
Jennifer Capriati 3 0 10 10 20 77%
Virginia Wade* 3(3) 0(0) 6 (6) 12 (14) (36) 70%
Ann Jones* 1 (3) 2 (6) 3(12) 0 (9) (4) (75%)
Mary Pierce 2 4 0 8 38 73%
Amelie Mauresmo 2 1 5 9 29 75%
Tracy Austin 2 0 3 8 04 80%
Svet'a Kuznetsova 2 2 0 10 35 73%
Li Na 2 2 2 4 22 74%
Victoria Azarenka 2 2 3 6 23 75%
Petra Kvitova 2 0 3 3 19 72%
Nancy Richey* 1(2) 1(4) 4(7) 4 (9) (15) (72%
Franc'a Schiovone 1 1 0 5 51 63%
Sam Stosur 1 1 2 2 41 60%
Jana Novotna 1 3 5 13 28 75%
Gabriela Sabatini 1 2 15 10 10 79%
Conchita Martinez 1 2 9 11 41 73%
Kerry Reid* 1 2 6(10) 10 (23) (72%)
Mima Jaušovec 1 2 2 5 10 65%
Marion Bartoli 1 1 1 3 41 63%
Barbara Jordan 1 0 0 0 21 43%
Virginia Ruzici 1 1 1 8 29 66%
Sue Barker 1 0 3 2 25 61%
Iva Majoli 1 0 0 5 28 62%
Anastasia Myskina 1 0 0 5 22 66%
Chris O'Neil 1 0 0 0 22 23%
Ana Ivanovic 1 2 1 3 34 70%

 

[kiki]

a true who is who

 

[BTURNER]

40

We can quickly learn what percentage of Graf's major appearances resulted in an early round loss (not reaching the QF) 54-42 / 54 =22% while 41% of the time she played a major, she won the event
Player Titles L-Fs L-SFs L-QFs Early losses WP
Steffi Graf 22 41% 9 6 5 12 22% 89%
Serena Williams 19 33% 4 3 13 19 33% 87%
Chris Evert 18 32% 16 18 2 02 3.6% 88%
Martina Navratilova 18 27% 14 12 9 14 21% 85%
Margaret Court* 11 (24 53%) 1(5) 4 (7) 4(7) 1 (2 4.4) (87%)
Monica Seles 9 23% 4 5 13 09 23% 85%
Billie Jean King* 8 (12 27%) 4 (6) 5 (eight) 11(14) 04(05 11%) (83%)
Evonne Goolagong 7 21% 11 4 4 07 21% 83%
Justine Henin 7 20% 5 5 2 16 46% 83%
Venus Williams 7 11% 7 5 15 31 48% 79%
Martina Hingis 5 14% 7 7 5 13 35% 82%
Maria Sharapova 5 11% 5 9 3 24 48% 80%
Arantxa Sanchez 4 7% 8 10 13 23 40% 79%
Hana Mandlikova 4 9% 4 6 9 21 48% 77%
Kim Clijsters 4 11% 4 8 3 16 16% 80%
Lindsay Davenport 3 5% 4 11 13 24 44% 79%
Jennifer Capriati 3 7% 0 10 10 20 47% 77%
Virginia Wade* 3(3 5% ) 0(0) 6 (6) 12 (14) (36 61%) 70%
Ann Jones* 1 (3 20%) 2 (6) 3(12) 0 (9) (4 12%) (75%)
Mary Pierce 2 4% 4 0 8 38 73% 73%
Amelie Mauresmo 2 4% 1 5 9 29 63% 75%
Tracy Austin 2 12% 0 3 8 04 24% 80%
Svet'a Kuznetsova 2 2 0 10 35 73%
Li Na 2 2 2 4 22 74%
Victoria Azarenka 2 2 3 6 23 75%
Petra Kvitova 2 0 3 3 19 72%
Nancy Richey* 1(2 17%) 1(4) 4(7) 4 (9) (15 59%) (72%
Franc'a Schiovone 1 1 0 5 51 63%
Sam Stosur 1 1 2 2 41 60%
Jana Novotna 1 2% 3 5 13 28 49% 75%
Gabriela Sabatini 1 3% 2 15 10 10 37% 79%
Conchita Martinez 1 2% 2 9 11 41 64% 73%
Kerry Reid* 1 3% 2 6(10) 10 (23 50%) (72%)
Mima Jaušovec 1 5% 2 2 5 10 50% 65%
Marion Bartoli 1 1 1 3 41 63%
Barbara Jordan 1 5% 0 0 0 21 95% 43%
Virginia Ruzici 1 3% 1 1 8 29 72% 66%
Sue Barker 1 3% 0 3 2 25 81% 61%
Iva Majoli 1 3% 0 0 5 28 82% 62%
Anastasia Myskina 1 0 0 5 22 66%
Chris O'Neil 1 0 0 0 22 23%
Ana Ivanovic 1 2 1 3 34 70%

see red additions above for percentages of appearances that resulted in a tournament win and percentages of appearances that resulted in a loss before the QF round

 

[kiki]

do those stats also reflect the Avon/Virginis Slims championships?


IMO, they are slam like events at least until the 1990´s.To me Tracy Austin won 4 majors and not just 2.Evonne also won two more majors as she took two VS final championships.

 

[70sHollywood]

see red additions above for percentages of appearances that resulted in a tournament win and percentages of appearances that resulted in a loss before the QF round

Some players had dominance, some had consistency, Margaret Court had both. Deserves more respect (for her tennis)...

 

[BTURNER]

do those stats also reflect the Avon/Virginis Slims championships?


IMO, they are slam like events at least until the 1990´s.To me Tracy Austin won 4 majors and not just 2.Evonne also won two more majors as she took two VS final championships.

These are the traditional four majors that reflect the seasonal grand slam in tennis.

 

[kiki]

These are the traditional four majors that reflect the seasonal grand slam in tennis.

depends on eras.

 

[Vanhool]

depends on eras.

Yes, but if you start counting those, you might as well throw in modern Miami, etc., which have as deep a draw as some of the earlier slams (which weren't always 128 and sometimes offered byes). I'm not saying one should, I'm just saying when you start adding non majors, it is a different discussion. I think it's best to have a separate discussion. I'm sure Angie would agree

 

[BTURNER]

depends on eras.

What part of 'traditional' or the 'seasonal grand slam' is variable? I did not pick the events. Wuornos did. I do not claim that they were the biggest, most well attended, best paying, or the most prestigious events of their era because I agree that sometimes they were not. They are the traditional majors that do make up the traditional seasonal grand slam in tennis.

If you propose we scrap that concept entirely, you are going to have to go to the trouble of assigning the four events every year ( if you have 5 or 6 majors sometimes assigned or 3 majors assigned at others, this loses any comparative value. Maybe edit out some Aussie or RG results, and insert your favorite events to equal the 'right' four annually, and then persuade the world that what it thought was traditional really never was ,and you can then get together with Wuornos and have him recreate all this. I got the remaining stats from scoreshelf.com/en/tennis/clbb

Austin only won two traditional majors for what that's worth. Whether or not others were better measures of stature and prestige is not a question this thread seeks to answer. If you do not like what I have done with my additional stats, or find it deceptive or ill advised, ignore them.

 

[BTURNER]

Some players had dominance, some had consistency, Margaret Court had both. Deserves more respect (for her tennis)...

Absolutely. The more I learn about Court's career the more impressed I am. She simply did not lose in early rounds. She was so physically dominating and that serve was so difficult to consistently return, I imagine few players outside the top ten or 15 had the ability to make any mark on her in two sets. Considering that she had some the best groundstrokes of all the s/vers of that era, even slow surfaces were no help to opponents.

 

[kiki]

What part of 'traditional' or the 'seasonal grand slam' is variable? I did not pick the events. Wuornos did. I do not claim that they were the biggest, most well attended, best paying, or the most prestigious events of their era because I agree that sometimes they were not. They are the traditional majors that do make up the traditional seasonal grand slam in tennis.

If you propose we scrap that concept entirely, you are going to have to go to the trouble of assigning the four events every year ( if you have 5 or 6 majors sometimes assigned or 3 majors assigned at others, this loses any comparative value. Maybe edit out some Aussie or RG results, and insert your favorite events to equal the 'right' four annually, and then persuade the world that what it thought was traditional really never was ,and you can then get together with Wuornos and have him recreate all this. I got the remaining stats from scoreshelf.com/en/tennis/clbb

Austin only won two traditional majors for what that's worth. Whether or not others were better measures of stature and prestige is not a question this thread seeks to answer. If you do not like what I have done with my additional stats, or find it deceptive or ill advised, ignore them.

the 70 and 80 top 5 were VS, Avon,French,US and Wimbledon

the 90´s onwards were WTA Finals,and the four traditional slams

Other way to look at is completely biassed

 

[Vanhool]

the 70 and 80 top 5 were VS, Avon,French,US and Wimbledon

the 90´s onwards were WTA Finals,and the four traditional slams

Other way to look at is completely biassed

Maybe you should start a thread with this premise. Could be interesting...

 

[BTURNER]

the 70 and 80 top 5 were VS, Avon,French,US and Wimbledon

the 90´s onwards were WTA Finals,and the four traditional slams

Other way to look at is completely biased

It is undoubtedly biased towards the traditional majors that Wuornos used but insofar as any change from the traditional view, will involve winners and losers, all the changes are equally biased. Mostly I care that we not add 'majors' without subtracting majors. I dislike 'slam inflation'. If the argument is that the four traditional majors were not actually the most prestigious or competitive events, then pick a different FOUR, but have the courage of your convictions. Let's not add a fifth or a sixth and dilute each. Start ripping those Aussies and RG titles away from major counts.

In any case this thread is about the traditional majors. I second the idea of you starting a thread for that discussion.

 

[kiki]

It is undoubtedly biased towards the traditional majors that Wuornos used but insofar as any change from the traditional view, will involve winners and losers, all the changes are equally biased. Mostly I care that we not add 'majors' without subtracting majors. I dislike 'slam inflation'. If the argument is that the four traditional majors were not actually the most prestigious or competitive events, then pick a different FOUR, but have the courage of your convictions. Let's not add a fifth or a sixth and dilute each. Start ripping those Aussies and RG titles away from major counts.

In any case this thread is about the traditional majors. I second the idea of you starting a thread for that discussion.

No, I stated clearly there were five majors for either men and women in the 70´s and 80´s that clearly and blattantly diffeer from those from the 1990´s.

Life is like that, not a perfect world..but truth should stay above your personal preferences...

 

[kiki]

Maybe you should start a thread with this premise. Could be interesting...

I have done it so often, I don´t think I´ll open a new thread.

 

[BTURNER]

I have done it so often, I don´t think I´ll open a new thread.

you could just bump up one of those old ones so we could have the advantage of one those previous discussions on the women's side of things. I am not unopposed or closed minded. Personally I have always separated the notion of the traditional 'major' and seasonal grand slam, from the notion of the most 'prestigious', 'influential', lucrative or representative of events in any particular era.

I never thought of the grand slam major events as flexible or up for negotiations any more than we could chisel out the visages on Mt Rushmore and carve in new ones. We just needed to understand that the 'traditional four majors in the seasonal slam was of a limited use to understanding the eras or the history.

 

[kiki]

you could just bump up one of those old ones so we could have the advantage of one those previous discussions on the women's side of things. I am not unopposed or closed minded. Personally I have always separated the notion of the traditional 'major' and seasonal grand slam, from the notion of the most 'prestigious', 'influential', lucrative or representative of events in any particular era.

I never thought of the grand slam major events as flexible or up for negotiations any more than we could chisel out the visages on Mt Rushmore and carve in new ones. We just needed to understand that the 'traditional four majors in the seasonal slam was of a limited use to understanding the eras or the history.

I know.Just that tou use GS as the only rol for greatness is wrong for many parts of tennis history

 

[DMan]

do those stats also reflect the Avon/Virginis Slims championships?


IMO, they are slam like events at least until the 1990´s.To me Tracy Austin won 4 majors and not just 2.Evonne also won two more majors as she took two VS final championships.

Just a random question, mind you!

Should stupidity and ignorance be rewarded?

OK, now back to the topic at hand.

The major championships in tennis have ALWAYS been:
Australian
French
Wimbledon
U.S.

They have NEVER included the Avon or Virginia Slims Championships.

Only desperate and pathetic folks, desperate and pathetic to prop up far less accomplished players, would even post such a message asking if the Avon/VS Championships were part of the original poster's list.

 

[DMan]

No, I stated clearly there were five majors for either men and women in the 70´s and 80´s that clearly and blattantly diffeer from those from the 1990´s.

Life is like that, not a perfect world..but truth should stay above your personal preferences...

There are FACTS.

And then there are the delusional ramblings of protestations by those who can't seem to twist the facts to their advantage, without being caught. :twisted:

 

[kiki]

Just a random question, mind you!

Should stupidity and ignorance be rewarded?

OK, now back to the topic at hand.

The major championships in tennis have ALWAYS been:
Australian
French
Wimbledon
U.S.

They have NEVER included the Avon or Virginia Slims Championships.

Only desperate and pathetic folks, desperate and pathetic to prop up far less accomplished players, would even post such a message asking if the Avon/VS Championships were part of the original poster's list.

Come back to reality and leave your record books aside, man.Everybody who lived the era knows the Aussie doesn´t belong to Avon or VS finals...unless , once again, there is an anti Austin hidden agenda here.

Those blattant wins vs Evert at the indoor majors left a deep mark on Evert´s historical results.their last match was a mere exo.