Martina (167), Chris (154), Graf (107)...Serena (44)

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Quite correct. 1988 was not a case of some preciptous fall off from Martina due to advancing age. In fact she was up a set and 2-0 in that final.

Thank you. Some miss that point in trying to age 1988 Martina out of being a serious competitor to Graf on the latter's race to win the Grand Slam.

This was more of a case of Graf beginning in 1986 coming into her own as an all time great. Martina was again in finals of the US Open and Wimbledon in 1989 - again losing to Graf and again going to three sets in each. The idea that Martina was some Granny out there is revisionist and most likely made by people who did not see Martina and Graf play in 1988 and 1989 and are just going back and looking stuff up on the internet.

I believe you are correct.

Navratilova would also win Wimby in 1990, make the SF in 92 and 93 and again make the finals in 1994. She also made the 1991 US Open finals (beating Steffi in the semi's). Again, hardly over the hill. The biggest difference in her later years is she would lose her nerve easier.

All true. This goes a long way in erasing any notion of 1988 Martina being old (absolute Wimbledon master up to that point) or in other words, a suggestion of being past her prime, so Graf somehow had it "easier" on her road to the Grand Slam...easier than Federer during his failed GS attempt while facing a dominant clay court player at the French Open.

Martina turned 31 in 1987. That year she beat Graf at Wimby and the US Open, made all four Grand Slam finals and went 56-8 for the season. Clearly her insane fitness level paid dividends

Yes, her training (and talent, of course) kept her as one of the top contenders of the era.

 

[pmerk34]

Thank you. Some miss that point in trying to age 1988 Martina out of being a serious competitor to Graf on the latter's race to win the Grand Slam.



I believe you are correct.



All true. This goes a long way in erasing any notion of 1988 Martina being old (absolute Wimbledon master up to that point) or in other words, a suggestion of being past her prime, so Graf somehow had it "easier" on her road to the Grand Slam...easier than Federer during his failed GS attempt while facing a dominant clay court player at the French Open.




Yes, her training (and talent, of course) kept her as one of the top contenders of the era.

She's the Jimmy Connors of the women's side. To be a serious threat to win Grand Slams and have the number one ranking from the mid 70's right through the ENTIRE decade of the 1980's was a remarkable feat.

 

[TERRASTAR18]

Serena from US Open 2008-Wimbledon 2010 won 5 majors...and yet only won 1 title outside the majors during this time... 1. After her dominance in 2002-03 she was made nearly irrelevant from 2004-2008's US Open. She did win 3 majors in this period but after a time where she won 5 in a little over a year to then be reduced to just 3 in 5 years? Sorry but no that is not GOAT caliber. Yes injuries and personal issues are a part but those only go so far. Her consistency at the top has never been there.

Her game is explosive, arguably she is an underacheiver, but her numbers do not add up. When someone like Davenport has more titles than her...it says something. I know Serena is lightyears ahead of her all time..but still...it says something. She barely has more overall titles than her sister...whom she has twice as many majors as. She could have won many more...but she chose not to commit. You can say no one cares...fine...people do...just because Serena does not care does not mean no one does.

Point 1- i don't see why not playing small tournaments should be held against serena. in this day and age serena isn't hurting for money so she isn't as desperate for money like they were. you know that's the reason they played so much. and consistency is relative. graf played tomato cans after 93, so it's no wonder she won half her majors then. after seles' injury it was smooth sailing. heck before that she had past their prime evert and nav.

point2- you downplay injuries like it's a small issue. in the era we play in of slowed down courts and an overabundance of hardcourts, on both tours we've seen injuries to many of the top players: nadal, serena, del po, djoker, henin, clijsters,etc. not to mention it's a more physical game where players hit harder and rallies are longer. add to that larger more competitive fields and you can explain why the difference in titles. not mention nav won a lot of tier 5 events something that doesn't exist for players like serena today.

point3-committed? depends on what you mean by committed. last i checked nav is such a miserable person who even in her 60's is so obssesed with her records because she knows she dominated an era of scrubs. or graf, who her friend renae stubbs use to talk about locking herself in a blacked out room whenever she lost. i'm sure serena and peace of mind is willing to give up the 60 or so titles considering the alternative.

 

[TERRASTAR18]

She's the Jimmy Connors of the women's side. To be a serious threat to win Grand Slams and have the number one ranking from the mid 70's right through the ENTIRE decade of the 1980's was a remarkable feat.

but iron woman won all of 1 major after 87.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

... Connors use to be considered the greatest during his time, then borg, sampras and now federer. All of them except Federer have won a career slam, let alone the Grand Slam...

Is this really what you meant? Federer does have a career Slam with his FO win in 2009. He also has 3 years (2004, 2006, 2007) where he won 3 of the 4 Slam events. Twice he has won 3 in a row (2005/6 and 2006/7).

... Connors use to be considered the greatest during his time, then borg, sampras and now federer... Pancho who only won 4 slams(fewest of all the great players) is ahead of Budge by many experts, and some old-timers in here have considered him as a goat. If the universal acceptance that one must win a GS to be considered goat, then Budge should be right at the top, and the rest are behind him, no question asked.

Excellent point.

 

[TMF]

Is this really what you meant? Federer does have a career Slam with his FO win in 2009. He also has 3 years (2004, 2006, 2007) where he won 3 of the 4 Slam events. Twice he has won 3 in a row (2005/6 and 2006/7).

Right. I got the wording in reverse. Fixed.

Excellent point.

Thanks.

 

[Dedans Penthouse]

Martina (167), Chris (154), Graf (107)...Serena(44)


Enough of this silly ol' thread talk already--I'm bored--could we please talk about Federer's GS accomplishments instead?

thank you.

 

[pmerk34]

but iron woman won all of 1 major after 87.

Yes, mostly because Steffi denied her in 1988 and 1989 not because she fell off a cliff due to age.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Grass was also Steffi's best surface (clay is not Federer's), so that should be taken into account. And Martina was 31 in 1988.

I think Steffi was equally good on all surfaces. I dont think she was the best ever on any, but was top 5 all time on each. So what she won more on often depended on who she faced. If she was competing vs Seles she would win more on grass and faster courts, less on slower ones. Competing against a prime Navratilova she would have won more on rebound ace and clay, and less on grass and carpet. Competing against Serena she would have won alot on clay (unless Henin stopped her) and less at Wimbledon and the Australian Open. Competing against a prime Evert she would have again won less on clay and more on grass and faster courts.

In her era she was most dominant on grass but that is mostly because Seles and Sanchez Vicario arent that good on grass, but both can beat her on clay. In another era she might well be more dominant on clay.

 

[DRII]

I think Steffi was equally good on all surfaces. I dont think she was the best ever on any, but was top 5 all time on each. So what she won more on often depended on who she faced. If she was competing vs Seles she would win more on grass and faster courts, less on slower ones. Competing against a prime Navratilova she would have won more on rebound ace and clay, and less on grass and carpet. Competing against Serena she would have won alot on clay (unless Henin stopped her) and less at Wimbledon and the Australian Open. Competing against a prime Evert she would have again won less on clay and more on grass and faster courts.

In her era she was most dominant on grass but that is mostly because Seles and Sanchez Vicario arent that good on grass, but both can beat her on clay. In another era she might well be more dominant on clay.

This post is a huge compliment for Graf and basically describes overall GOAT...

 

[Chillaxer]

I'ma big believer that slams count. Thenprinciple applies to all of sport. Weeks at number whatever it is and all that, what does it mean? People say Murray better than these players that have won slams for example, but what is sport if not about delivering at the big points, big moments?

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

SystemicAnomaly, you have not responded to yesterday's replies:

Originally Posted by SystemicAnomaly:

As noteworthy as the Grand Slam achievements of Budge and Laver where, they are not as remarkable as achieving the same feat would be in modern times. As I pointed out, 3 of the 4 Slams were played on grass in the Laver and Budge eras. Also, there was no dominant "god of the clay", such as Borg or Nadal, to contend with during those eras.

Originally Posted by SystemicAnomaly: Winning 3 of 4 Slams in the modern era (since the 80s) is roughly equivalent to winning the Grand Slam of yesteryear given all the factors that I mentioned in my earlier post.

You have not crafted an acceptable justification for that, as irrelevant factors such as surface mean nothing to the central task of winning the four majors in a season (and since Laver's competition played under the same conditions, no one had an unfair advantage--the same as today), and as noted time and again (which you and others seem to skip over), Graf was able to win her Grand Slam on different surfaces, so there's no excuse for Federer failing to do the same, when he's playing under the generally same conditions as Graf.

But I need not bring surface up, as the issue is the how and why historic importance of the Grand Slam, and yes, there is a distinction recognized throughout the decades, hence the reason the worthless "personal slam" consolation prize was created to elevate the careers of those who were not capable of winning the GS.

Moreover:

Originally Posted by SystemicAnomaly: During 2 of Federer's dominant years ('06 and '07), Roger was denied the the Grand Slam by the same guy, Rafa Nadal. This individual is considered to be the best (or one of the top 2) clay-courters of all time. In 2011, Djokovic had the most dominant year in modern tennis. However, his chance for the Grand Slam was thwarted by Federer in a SF at the FO. Again, the FO for that year was won by the clay-court GOAT (Rafa has won 7 of the last 8 French Opens).

You are making my case with your own focus on surface: if Federer was the GOAT of certain member's opinion back in '06-'07 (yes, they were already saying it then), surely he would have overcome Nadal on the latter's best surface during the peak years you cite. Think of the parallel: in 1988, Martina was already being sold as a potential GOAT (before the year end results of Graf winning the Grand Slam) and the queen of her best surface--Wimbledon, (winning 8 up to that point) but Graf stripped that title away from Martina, and went on to win the USO--and the Grand Slam. What does that say about your Nadal/best surface theory when Federer was at his peak, yet Graf was able to overcome the same conditions?

Explain that, if you please.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

^ Brian already posted satisfactory answers to these. I did not find your counter-arguments all that convincing. I may post further on these questions a bit later.

Your comparison of Graf's Slam achivement to Federer's is a red herring. It would appear the you are saying that Graf, not Federer, is the GOAT. It is nonsense to compare the WTA to the ATP in this regard. Steffi was not playing the top men of her era. It is folly to claim that, since Graf was able to win the Grand Slam, Federer's failure to do so is somehow proof that he is not the GOAT.

The real question is, why has none of the great male players since the late 60s been able to win the Grand Slam? These greats include Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Becker, Sampras, and others. Djokovic in 2011, Wilander in 1988 and McEnroe in the early 80s have posted the most dominating W-L seasons of all time, yet failed to win the Grand Slam. Note that there has only been a handful of players since the 70s that have even been able to win 3 Slams out of 4. This includes Federer 3x (04, 06, 07), Nadal in '10, Djokovic in '11 and Wilander in '88. This is a testament to how difficult it is to win the Grand Slam in the modern era (even with several players who have had very dominant seasons).

It seems that you have also ignored my claim that the AO was a weaker Slam in the past than it has been in the past 2 decades or so. It was a much weaker Slam in the Laver and Budege eras. Many top players opted not to play the AO in the past. This diminishes the value of the Grand Slam compared to what it would be in the modern era.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

^ Brian already posted satisfactory answers to these. I did not find your counter-arguments all that convincing. I may post further on these questions a bit later.

Your comparison of Graf's Slam achivement to Federer's is a red herring. It would appear the you are saying that Graf, not Federer, is the GOAT. It is nonsense to compare the WTA to the ATP in this regard.

This is where evasion fails you. Tennis is a legitimate two-gender sport, so one cannot separate the two into demeaning catogories in the manner seen with the NBA and WNBA. To avoid the Graf accomplishment screams an attempt to protect Federer from the scrutiny he deserves for not being skilled enough to win the Grand Slam.

Thus, the rest of your post:

The real question is, why has none of the great male players since the late 60s been able to win the Grand Slam? These greats include Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Becker, Sampras, and others. Djokovic in 2011, Wilander in 1988 and McEnroe in the early 80s have posted the most dominating W-L seasons of all time, yet failed to win the Grand Slam. Note that there has only been a handful of players since the 70s that have even been able to win 3 Slams out of 4. This includes Federer 3x (04, 06, 07), Nadal in '10, Djokovic in '11 and Wilander in '88. This is a testament to how difficult it is to win the Grand Slam in the modern era (even with several players who have had very dominant seasons).

...must be disregarded as you have ignored half of the sport's history in order to focus on a certain set of events which protects Federer's inabilities.

It seems that you have also ignored my claim that the AO was a weaker Slam in the past than it has been in the past 2 decades or so. It was a much weaker Slam in the Laver and Budege eras. Many top players opted not to play the AO in the past. This diminishes the value of the Grand Slam compared to what it would be in the modern era.

Illogical. History has witnessed majors where certain players either failed to show up due to being poor on a surface, or gave less than eager performances while there. One could argue such circumstances means the random major may not be worth as much, if some players choose to skip, or half-ass their way to an early exit.

The major is still a major, and there's no evidence to suggest otherwise.

 

[Down_the_line]

The scary thing about Serena is she could very well continue to absolutely destroy the field for awhile. Nobody can challenge her for the time being. What I'm really hoping is that she has the willingness to stay focused on playing tennis year in and year out. It seems like she takes these sabbaticals every now and then, which is fine, she deserves to do whatever she wants, but it would be amazing to see the titles and Slams she would continue to rack up if she stayed in the game consistently.

I don't really like Serena the person but I love Serena the player. Am I the only one who finds her super entertaining to watch?

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

tagree with you that the Grand Slam is the ultimate achievement in tennis. There is nothing wrong with saying that. What I think is wrong is evaluating someone's entire career based on a single year within that career.

The calendar Grand Slam, even more than counting total Grand Slams, is problematic when discussing GOAT in that it is as much an indication of the lack of competition in a given year (luck) as it is about how amazing that Grand Slam winner is.

If Steffi had won the 1999 Wimbledon instead of the 1988 Wimbledon, she would be no less of a great player, in most people's eyes, though she wouldn't have the Grand Slam. In fact, going out with a bang like that would lead her to be perceived as even GOATer, I think. If Seles had been four years older, could she have taken a Slam final from Steffi that year? If the mental monster Seles had been allowed to grunt in the 92 Wimbledon final and somehow beaten Steffi, would she automatically be considered the second greatest female of all time, all things equal? Or if Hingis had beaten Majoli at the French in 97, would she be in the top 2 of all time, even though she only won 6 Slams total, based on that ONE match? Would they be higher than Navratilova and Evert?

Reducing an entire person's accomplishments to eight weeks of matches during a single year of his or her career seems a little myopic.

I think Steffi is the greatest female player ever, but it has about 2% to do with her '88 Grand Slam. It has more to do with her dominance (though not continual) over a long period of time, the beautiful aesthetic of her game and her place as an ambassador of the game. These are similar qualities that lead people to label Fed as the male GOAT. :

You still fail to comprehend: winning random majors over a period of years does not illustrate absolute, concentrated dominance over the field in the accepted frame of a season--a calendar year. That is Graf and Laver. There's a start and finish to a season--it does not bleed over into the next year as a continuing effort like a movie sequel plot. Every year, it begins again--from AO to USO. There's no rewriting the structure, and for that reason, those who have exhibited the aforementioned domination--something repeatedly proven incredibly difficult to do--are elevated to the GOAT status as they have essentially mastered their sport within the accepted structure, no matter what they do (or fail to do) going forward.

2 in a year does not cut it. He or she did not have the goods to take it all of the way over the field.

3 in a year does not cut it. Again, he or she did not have the goods to take it all of the way over the field.

If some seek to reject structure--and by implication the Grand Slam, then in the event Serena Williams passes Graf's total majors count, then this crowd--by their own criteria--must say she is the GOAT.

I doubt that will happen, but I will sit back and watch the spin jobs of how one standard of GOAT-ness does not apply to another.

 

[Brian11785]

You still fail to comprehend: winning random majors over a period of years does not illustrate absolute, concentrated dominance over the field in the accepted frame of a season--a calendar year. That is Graf and Laver. There's a start and finish to a season--it does not bleed over into the next year as a continuing effort like a movie sequel plot. Every year, it begins again--from AO to USO. There's no rewriting the structure, and for that reason, those who have exhibited the aforementioned domination--something repeatedly proven incredibly difficult to do--are elevated to the GOAT status as they have essentially mastered their sport within the accepted structure, no matter what they do (or fail to do) going forward.

2 in a year does not cut it. He or she did not have the goods to take it all of the way over the field.

3 in a year does not cut it. Again, he or she did not have the goods to take it all of the way over the field.

If some seek to reject structure--and by implication the Grand Slam, then in the event Serena Williams passes Graf's total majors count, then this crowd--by their own criteria--must say she is the GOAT.

I doubt that will happen, but I will sit back and watch the spin jobs of how one standard of GOAT-ness does not apply to another.

Thanks for responding, though you didn't really address anything in my post or say anything new. We get it; you value the calendar slam a lot more than just about anyone here (or anywhere) does. You have the right to your opinion, but we don't have to accept to accept your premise.

First off, I have no problem with people calling Serena the GOAT if she passes Graf's Slam count (or even if she doesn't.) I think, when she's on, she's unplayable. You keep arguing against these straw man that don't exist in the context of this debate. First, the Fed fan in denial. Now the blind Serena hater. I am neither.

PLEASE, answer this question: If Martina Hingis had won the Grand Slam in '97, which she could've (should've) done and then gone on to win only two more Australian Opens, would she be ahead of Serena Williams and Martina Navratilova in the GOAT list? I am trying to gauge how much you actually value the Slam. We've established that no one will be number one on your list without winning the calendar Slam. But does someone winning the calendar slam automatically move them ahead of everyone that hasn't?

 

[TMF]

I agree with you that the Grand Slam is the ultimate achievement in tennis. There is nothing wrong with saying that. What I think is wrong is evaluating someone's entire career based on a single year within that career.

The calendar Grand Slam, even more than counting total Grand Slams, is problematic when discussing GOAT in that it is as much an indication of the lack of competition in a given year (luck) as it is about how amazing that Grand Slam winner is.

If Steffi had won the 1999 Wimbledon instead of the 1988 Wimbledon, she would be no less of a great player, in most people's eyes, though she wouldn't have the Grand Slam. In fact, going out with a bang like that would lead her to be perceived as even GOATer, I think. If Seles had been four years older, could she have taken a Slam final from Steffi that year? If the mental monster Seles had been allowed to grunt in the 92 Wimbledon final and somehow beaten Steffi, would she automatically be considered the second greatest female of all time, all things equal? Or if Hingis had beaten Majoli at the French in 97, would she be in the top 2 of all time, even though she only won 6 Slams total, based on that ONE match? Would they be higher than Navratilova and Evert?

Reducing an entire person's accomplishments to eight weeks of matches during a single year of his or her career seems a little myopic.

I think Steffi is the greatest female player ever, but it has about 2% to do with her '88 Grand Slam. It has more to do with her dominance (though not continual) over a long period of time, the beautiful aesthetic of her game and her place as an ambassador of the game. These are similar qualities that lead people to label Fed as the male GOAT.

The GS is a great achievement but it still only one year, not a player’s entire career. It’s only one of many criteria to measure a player’s greatness. Laver’s 1969 should be compare to other player’s best year, that’s an apple to apple comparison. Tennis.com had an article that ranked top ten Greatest Men’s Seasons that includes Laver 1969, Fed 2006, Nole 2011, Mac 1984 and a few others. To compare Laver’s 1 year to a player’s entire career is completely wrong. When someone declared having a GS is required to be consider goat, that’s is saying GS alone is more achievement than a player full career, say Agassi for example, who played 20 yrs, won 60 titles, 8 slam titles. I mean really????...the GS which last 8 weeks of playing times is worthy to be the greatest of all time but not Agassi career achievement. Anyone in their right mind would never agree. Not to say that Andre is the goat, but his career has way more weight than Laver’s single year.

Laver’s 1969 competition wasn’t strong as today. I’ve mentioned before that the Australian Open draw had more than 50% of players are from Australia. Hardly a global sport. Even Laver acknowledge this and he said the GS today is worth twice as much as the GS in his heyday. This was conveniently ignored.

Also, Graf has nothing to do with Federer because they are NOT competing on the same tour. I mean this is getting ridiculous…Graf and Federer goatness is purely base on the history of players career playing on their respective sport. Does Lisa Leslie legacy must be based on Michael Jordan career achievement? Mia Hamm base on Pele/Maradona? It doesn’t make any sense. I suggest that you stop mention Graf’s name anymore, because it helps others to twist/muddle logic.

 

[Papa Doc]

PLEASE, answer this question: If Martina Hingis had won the Grand Slam in '97, which she could've (should've) done and then gone on to win only two more Australian Opens, would she be ahead of Serena Williams and Martina Navratilova in the GOAT list? I am trying to gauge how much you actually value the Slam. We've established that no one will be number one on your list without winning the calendar Slam. But does someone winning the calendar slam automatically move them ahead of everyone that hasn't?

Post #264 here http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=6022289
should answer your question and also show you why you should stop and not continue this any longer.

 

[Papa Doc]

I am not sure what I'm doing. Virtually everyone is on our side, and we're not going to convince TV of anything. Truly an exercise in futility.

Well that's just having read a little of that poster's history. He/she would actually values a 4 slam winner who won all their slams in one year over a player won has won 30 slams over a span of 10 years with no years with 4 slams. Clearly you are dealing with an insane person so discussion is futile.

 

[Brian11785]

Well that's just having read a little of that poster's history. He/she would actually values a 4 slam winner who won all their slams in one year over a player won has won 30 slams over a span of 10 years with no years with 4 slams. Clearly you are dealing with an insane person so discussion is futile.

Noted. Thanks for the head's up.

 

[sonicare]

How do you break serena when she is at her best? Outside of clay, she's basically Unbreakable at her best.

 

[TMF]

How do you break serena when she is at her best? Outside of clay, she's basically Unbreakable at her best.

You're basing her results on the the last 2 events? That was on grass.

Australian/USO would easier to return serve.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

It really doesn't make any sense to ignore the lack of variety in the surfaces in Slam events in the Laver and Budge eras. Sure, their opponents were dealing with the same surfaces in the Slam events. But this does not take into account that the playing style and skills of most players will favor some surfaces and conditions over others.

There is no question that Laver was an excellent grass court player and was dominant on the surface for a number of years. He also got quite a bit more experience on grass than modern players. Altho' his clay record was not quite as good as his grass record, he did manage to win the FO twice. However, this does not compare to what a modern player must accomplish to win the Grand Slam. They must excel on 4 different surfaces, not just their favorite 1 or 2 surfaces. The must adapt to a greater variety of surfaces to win the Slam events. Modern players must deal with clay specialists as well as players whose style/skill favor one of more of the other surfaces.

Like Brian, you resort to flames.

I will explain the reasons why:

1. Avoidance was your game. I rejected it.

2. Creating excuses while pretending the whole picture of history was inapplicable (Graf) was also your game. I rejected that.

3.You cannot make a sound argument based on half of the information, particularly a relevant comparison as in the Graf/Federer case. This should painfully apparent no matter the nature of the debate.

If you are not prepared--or as I suspect--unwilling to accept history as a meanss to avoid recognition of the GS, and why it holds the position accepted for decades for men and women, then you have no ground to stand on.

Finally, your sexist trashing of the WTA in cmparison to the ATP:


...is not only illogical, but hardly accepted where significant accomplishments are concerned.

One, this entire thread has named Graf and Laver--both individually compared to Federer, yet the only thing you managed to do was attack one with...sexism.

Not uncommon on this board.

For an example that should have prevented you from going down your self-destructive path, take one Pat Summit--former coach of the University of Tennessee's Lady Vols; despite the views of sexists such as yourself, she is universally recognized as having the greatest winning record in NCAA history--over all--including male counterparts, and is only second with the number of titles won, yet no one in their right mind attempts to separate her coaching accomplishments of women's basketball from that of male counterparts, as it is intellectually and historically bankrupt to do so. Why? It is the same field.

This applies to professional tennis, so there's no separating accomplishments no matter the gender, thus your dismissing of Graf winning the Grand Slam flushes your entire argument down the toilet.

Again, you cannot make a sound argument based on half of the information, particularly a relevant comparison as in the Graf/Federer case.

But your quote above is the time-worn trade of those who take the defense of Federer as a personal insult.

More inane rantings... no surprise! It is a shame that you feel a need to resort to these kind of tactics when your real arguments & rebuttals fall short.

Not a sexist at all and I have never trashed the WTA. This is an absurd accusation and a complete distortion of what I wrote. Your inability to recognize the difference between a sexist view and a non-sexist one is truly astounding and says something about you. This, and just about everything else in your replies to me, appears to be a twisted perspective of what I have posted. You accuse me of avoidance, yet is was you who failed to respond to my post (#75) until I posted it 2 more times. Can you spell hypocrisy? Perhaps you were too busy trashing other posters who disagreed with you to bother responding to my initial post.

I have never diminished the accomplishments of Graf. I have always maintained that she is one of the greatest female players, if not the greatest, of all time. However, she would not be able to compete in the ATP and she did not face the same competition as the ATP players have. Historically, the ATP tour has had much greater depth than the WTA tour. This is not a sexist statement -- this is what is. Quite often, in the WTA, there has been a very dominant player or there has been a small group of players who were head and shoulders above the rest. Not so much with the ATP. Even tho we currently have an anomaly with 4 dominant male players, the ATP still a good deal of depth.

I attempted to conduct a civil debate, but it appears that you are incapable of this. You have shown this quite a few times in this thread with other posters and now you turn your mindless bashing on me. You accuse me of sexism, but nothing could be further from the truth. Apparently, you find it easier to invent stuff like this rather that construct a real argument based on truth.

Congratulations! I've been posting here for more than 6 years and you are the first poster that I have even considered putting on an Ignore List. Do not bother with another long-winded rant reply. I won't be replying to it (or even be seeing it) now that I see what kind of person I am dealing with. Seriously dude, get help .

"I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man".

 

[merlinpinpin]

You still fail to comprehend: winning random majors over a period of years does not illustrate absolute, concentrated dominance over the field in the accepted frame of a season--a calendar year. That is Graf and Laver.

Tunnel vision, anyone?

If the one and only accomplishment that defines a tennis career in your eyes is the (calendar) grand slam, why did you repeatedly fail to mention the one who, according to your (admitedly twisted) logic, is the only possible GOAT, male and female players alike, ie Don Budge. Because, let's face it, if a tennis career *must* be summed up by a single achievement, what he did (win 1 1/2 GS) easily trumps what Graf and Laver did). So, if you actually pursue this line of reasoning, you are actively *diminishing* Graf's and Laver's achievements. I mean, putting them behind Budge? Come on.

And yet, that's what you just did. Congratulations.

 

[pmerk34]

I think Steffi was equally good on all surfaces. I dont think she was the best ever on any, but was top 5 all time on each. So what she won more on often depended on who she faced. If she was competing vs Seles she would win more on grass and faster courts, less on slower ones. Competing against a prime Navratilova she would have won more on rebound ace and clay, and less on grass and carpet. Competing against Serena she would have won alot on clay (unless Henin stopped her) and less at Wimbledon and the Australian Open. Competing against a prime Evert she would have again won less on clay and more on grass and faster courts.

In her era she was most dominant on grass but that is mostly because Seles and Sanchez Vicario arent that good on grass, but both can beat her on clay. In another era she might well be more dominant on clay.

I disagree on this a bit and I saw Graf play plenty. I think she was clearly at her best on grass and carpet. Faster surfaces suited her game better and she herself said Grass were her favorite/best surface after one of her Wimbledon triumphs.

 

[Chillaxer]

How do you break serena when she is at her best? Outside of clay, she's basically Unbreakable at her best.

I think Graf could have beat her..she was supreme and had a total game.

 

[pmerk34]

You're basing her results on the the last 2 events? That was on grass.

Australian/USO would easier to return serve.

There is no solid way to project but this is what GOAT talk is all about. It's almost a wild card in a sense in that we have never seen anything like Serena's serve since about 2010 on the women's side. We've never seen a female player come into a final having aced the number 1 player 17 times in the SF. Other matches having 20 aces and these are clean aces. I saw Seles at the hieght of her powers in the 1993 AO final fire 8 aces in defeating Graf and that was impressive back then. I think if Sles could ace graf 8 times on Rebound Ace in a GS final Serena wouldn't have many problems doubling that total. But again, it's just conjecture.

 

[pmerk34]

I think Graf could have beat her..she was supreme and had a total game.

Having seen both players many times I beleive Serena-Graf if they played 30 times would probably end up 15-15 or 16-14 but I still would give the edge to Serena in the GS matches due to her serve and the fact that she hits harder than Steffi or Seles did.

 

[NadalAgassi]

I disagree on this a bit and I saw Graf play plenty. I think she was clearly at her best on grass and carpet. Faster surfaces suited her game better and she herself said Grass were her favorite/best surface after one of her Wimbledon triumphs.

Yes but was this due to who her competition was. Obviously facing Seles who was a mug on grass even in her glory days she would look more dominant on grass and fast surfaces in general, while look like she was struggling on rebound ace and clay, especialy facing other great clay specialists like Sanchez, Sabatini, and others as well. What if she had peaked in the era of fast court specialists like Navratilova, King, Mandlikova, or even moreso today facing the Williams sisters. Would she still have looked like the fast court great who wasnt as dominant on slow courts.

Lets say her prime or the bulk of her playing career had been the last decade. She would probably have totally dominated the French, only Henin in the last 10 years could challenge her on clay and even she probably doesnt match up well with Graf on any surface, so would have won even more than her current 6 French Opens. At Wimbledon though she would struggle having to face both Williams for years, and also some competition from other huge hitters like Davenport, Sharapova, and others. She would probably win a few Wimbledons, but way less than the # of French Opens, and suddenly people would say she is a slow court specialist.

 

[pmerk34]

Yes but was this due to who her competition was. Obviously facing Seles who was a mug on grass even in her glory days she would look more dominant on grass and fast surfaces in general, while look like she was struggling on rebound ace and clay, especialy facing other great clay specialists like Sanchez, Sabatini, and others as well. What if she had peaked in the era of fast court specialists like Navratilova, King, Mandlikova, or even moreso today facing the Williams sisters. Would she still have looked like the fast court great who wasnt as dominant on slow courts.

Did you watch the matches? I did and she was virtually bullet proof on grass. NO ONE destroyed Martina on grass like she did after the first sets in 1988 and 1989. Those were amazing performances.

 

[Papa Doc]

Yes but was this due to who her competition was. Obviously facing Seles who was a mug on grass even in her glory days she would look more dominant on grass and fast surfaces in general, while look like she was struggling on rebound ace and clay, especialy facing other great clay specialists like Sanchez, Sabatini, and others as well. What if she had peaked in the era of fast court specialists like Navratilova, King, Mandlikova, or even moreso today facing the Williams sisters. Would she still have looked like the fast court great who wasnt as dominant on slow courts.

Lets say her prime or the bulk of her playing career had been the last decade. She would probably have totally dominated the French, only Henin in the last 10 years could challenge her on clay and even she probably doesnt match up well with Graf on any surface, so would have won even more than her current 6 French Opens. At Wimbledon though she would struggle having to face both Williams for years, and also some competition from other huge hitters like Davenport, Sharapova, and others. She would probably win a few Wimbledons, but way less than the # of French Opens, and suddenly people would say she is a slow court specialist.

What 'glory' days did Seles really have at Wimbledon? She played like 3 or 4 times there before she was stabbed. Not really fair to assess her grass court prowess after only a few years. How many times did Federer lose at Wimbledon before finally winning one? What about Graf?

 

[Brian11785]

What 'glory' days did Seles really have at Wimbledon? She played like 3 or 4 times there before she was stabbed. Not really fair to assess her grass court prowess after only a few years. How many times did Federer lose at Wimbledon before finally winning one? What about Graf?

I think he was referring to the '90-'93 years when Monica was winning almost everything else. "Glory days" for her generally speaking, not "glory days" on grass.

 

[Papa Doc]

I think he was referring to the '90-'93 years when Monica was winning almost everything else. "Glory days" for her generally speaking, not "glory days" on grass.

Yes I know, that's what I thought, he was referring to 'glory days' as pre-stabbing. But he's also calling her a grass court mug in her glory days when she only played at Wimbledon like 3 or 4 times! Even Graf didn't win Wimbledon until her 3rd or 4th attempt, and I think Federer won after 5!. So the point is what if Graf was sidelined after attempting Wimbledon for 4 times, would she also have been called a grass court mug? What about Federer. Who knows what would have happened had she not been stabbed.

 

[NadalAgassi]

What 'glory' days did Seles really have at Wimbledon? She played like 3 or 4 times there before she was stabbed. Not really fair to assess her grass court prowess after only a few years. How many times did Federer lose at Wimbledon before finally winning one? What about Graf?

As the dominant #1 she lost to Graf 6-2, 6-1 at Wimbledon. On a 36 match win streak she couldnt even beat Zina Garrison at Wimbledon. I think it is perfectly fair to assess her grass abilities as nothing stellar to put it mildly. Even post stabbing she was regularly making semis or quarters of all other slams, occasionaly finals, but at Wimbledon usually losing 2nd or 3rd rounds to mugs she destroyed every single time on other courts. Graf and Federer only did poorly at Wimbledon when they were poor players in general. Once they became great players they always excelled at Wimbledon, not so Monica.

Anyway even if your fantasy that Seles was going to become some grass court demon someday if she werent stabbed are somehow true, the fact is it didnt happen so it in no way relates to the competition Graf faced on grass vs other surfaces which was my only point. Maybe Graf looked like a fast court dominator more than slow courts since she didnt face anyone who could challenge her on fast courts, but faced a slew of other great clay courters, and a few dominant rebound ace players like Hingis and Seles. What if she played in the Williams era, where the French Open has become a mugfest apart from Henin, would she still have been way more successful on faster courts, especialy grass than slower courts.


pmerk I do give Graf big kudos for her two Wimbledon final wins over Navratilova when MN was still very strong in 88 and 89. Other than that though who did she face who could challenge her. Her top Wimbledon opponents in coming years were Seles, Sabatini, Sanchez, Fernandez, and Capriati, all mainly slow court players, none great grass courters. I am not saying she wouldnt have been very strong at Wimbledon in another era, just not as dominant, just like she wasnt as dominant at the Australian or French (I know she won 6 French Opens, but inflated a bit by the Seles stabbing, and took many hard losses or battles over the years by Seles and Sanchez both there over the years) in the era she played in but would have owned clay in this joke clay era probably.

 

[Papa Doc]

As the dominant #1 she lost to Graf 6-2, 6-1 at Wimbledon. On a 36 match win streak she couldnt even beat Zina Garrison at Wimbledon. I think it is perfectly fair to assess her grass abilities as nothing stellar to put it mildly. Even post stabbing she was regularly making semis or quarters of all other slams, occasionaly finals, but at Wimbledon usually losing 2nd or 3rd rounds to mugs she destroyed every single time on other courts. Graf and Federer only did poorly at Wimbledon when they were poor players in general. Once they became great players they always excelled at Wimbledon, not so Monica.

Anyway even if your fantasy that Seles was going to become some grass court demon someday if she werent stabbed are somehow true, the fact is it didnt happen so it in no way relates to the competition Graf faced on grass vs other surfaces which was my only point. Maybe Graf looked like a fast court dominator more than slow courts since she didnt face anyone who could challenge her on fast courts, but faced a slew of other great clay courters, and a few dominant rebound ace players like Hingis and Seles. What if she played in the Williams era, where the French Open has become a mugfest apart from Henin, would she still have been way more successful on faster courts, especialy grass than slower courts.

That means AT the end of 2008, you would HAD to have referred to Nadal as a HC mug. LOL. Ridiculous.

 

[NadalAgassi]

That means AT the end of 2008, you would HAD to have referred to Nadal as a HC mug. LOL. Ridiculous.

Again whatever fantasies you have about Seles being a 20 time Wimbledon Champion or whatever you think without the stabbing are meaningless to my argument. My argument was only about the competition Graf DID face on grass which after Navratilova in 89 was precisely nobody, and that includes Seles who atleast at the point she was stabbed was not yet a formidable opponent on the surface, and needless to say upon her return was not one either. For an extended argument on Seles start your own thread.

As for Nadal being that you are a Planet TW poster, it is safe to presume in 99% likelihood like 99% of the posters here you consider Nadal a hard court mug anyway so what is your point.

 

[Papa Doc]

Again whatever fantasies you have about Seles being a 20 time Wimbledon Champion or whatever you think without the stabbing are meaningless to my argument. My argument was only about the competition Graf DID face on grass which after Navratilova in 89 was precisely nobody, and that includes Seles who atleast at the point she was stabbed was not yet a formidable opponent on the surface, and needless to say upon her return was not one either. For an extended argument on Seles start your own thread.

As for Nadal being that you are a Planet TW poster, it is safe to presume in 99% likelihood like 99% of the posters here you consider Nadal a hard court mug anyway so what is your point.

I don't think Nadal is a HC mug at all. When he's healthy he's probably in the top 3 in the world today. Hardly a mug. I'm just pointing out that going by your reasoning on the facts, at the end of 2008 you would have to have referred to him as a HC mug. Like Seles Nadal won slams very early on in his career but didn't mature on HC till 4 or 5 years after he won his first slam. I'm just pointing out the fallacy in your calling someone a mug when they were denied a sufficient number of attempts on a surface at their best form.

What exactly are basing Seles' mugginess on? He better W-L record at Wimbledon over Graf after each of their 1st 4 attempts? Those are hard facts.

 

[Brian11785]

How does one add a poster to an Ignore List, out of curiosity?

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

How does one add a poster to an Ignore List, out of curiosity?

Looks like there a couple of ways to do it. One way is to go into your own User CP (User control Panel) and you will see the option listed under Miscellaneous. To get access to User CP, select the menu option near the top of this page (right above Post Reply).

The other way is to find a post of the poster that you wish to ignore. Left-click on their username. Select View User Profile from the resulting pull-down menu. You should now see Buddy List and Ignore List options below their username in their profile.

 

[mistik]

To compare Seles and Nadal rather silly.Sometimes people forget what a great athlete Rafa Nadal is.Seles was a great player but even in her best days she was never a great mover nor a great athlete.To beat Graf on grass is very high mountain to climb for Seles.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Thanks for responding, though you didn't really address anything in my post or say anything new. We get it; you value the calendar slam a lot more than just about anyone here (or anywhere) does. You have the right to your opinion, but we don't have to accept to accept your premise.

First off, I have no problem with people calling Serena the GOAT if she passes Graf's Slam count (or even if she doesn't.) I think, when she's on, she's unplayable. You keep arguing against these straw man that don't exist in the context of this debate. First, the Fed fan in denial.

It is in the context of my criteria. In a way, you seem to continue to operate from the notion that I must "crossover" or adhere to the nature of another view, when that was not my approach to this topic or any sub-topics to follow.

Now the blind Serena hater. I am neither.

Unless you were called that, do not say i'm implying that. The Sernea issue is just to get a heads-up on her future accomplishments, and how you--or others here--will crown her if she becomes the majors leader.

PLEASE, answer this question: If Martina Hingis had won the Grand Slam in '97, which she could've (should've) done and then gone on to win only two more Australian Opens, would she be ahead of Serena Williams and Martina Navratilova in the GOAT list? I am trying to gauge how much you actually value the Slam. We've established that no one will be number one on your list without winning the calendar Slam. But does someone winning the calendar slam automatically move them ahead of everyone that hasn't?

I'll counter with this question: Wilander won 3 majors in 1988. We already know about Laver's GS. If Laver never won another major--just the GS, would you consider Wilander's mere 3 majors superior to Laver's Grand Slam? Equal to it? Would you consider Serena's 3 majors from 2002 superior to Graf's Grand Slam if the latter never won another major, but Williams' career at the majors progressed as we have witnessed?

This is what you're getting at with the Hingis reference, and you must know what the answer is--yes, because Hingis would have illustrated a matery of the game that Martina and Serena have not in the concentrated structure of the season/calendar year.

 

[Chillaxer]

Having seen both players many times I beleive Serena-Graf if they played 30 times would probably end up 15-15 or 16-14 but I still would give the edge to Serena in the GS matches due to her serve and the fact that she hits harder than Steffi or Seles did.

Fair point. I think Graf's more complete though and is better mentally than Serena who may have a meltdown if Graf got her early. I dunno much about Serena tbh, only really watched a lot of Women's tennis the Graf era and think she was a much better player to watch, maybe that makes my veridct biased. She seemed to also have slightly better opposition though.