Rank the 3 slam winners in the Open Era- men and women

There are 5 mens players in the Open Era with 3 majors. I will do the men first and how I would rank them.

1. Andy Murray- I do think he is a bit overrated by some of the people who trumpet the "he was so unlucky to be in the big 3, he should be a 12 slam winner" yada yada, crowd. Still I do think he has to be #1. He has a huge number of slam finals, slam semis, Masters titles, 2 Olympic Golds, a YE#1, a YEC title, very good longevity and great consistency over a long period of time in the game. I did consider putting Ashe over him but it would be difficult when Murray was so consistently performing as a top 3/4 player in the world for almost a whole decade.

2. Arthur Ashe- He has to be ranked her not only for his extremely high peak level of tennis (in fact probably higher than Murray's peak level) but for the intangible impact he had on the game in so many ways. 2 of his 3 slam titles were also won in very impressive fashion, beating the seemingly unbeatable Connors in the final for his Wimbledon title, and winning the first Open Era US Open in a stellar field. Actually considering he has 76 singles titles there is a possible case for him to be over Murray in fact, but I will let others make that. While majors then weren't the most important thing like today I do think 3 majors accurately reflects how he fit into the mens game in that period, unlike many other players (both women and men) whose number of majors way over or under reflects their true status/position in the game of the time.

3. Gustavo Kuerten- I did consider putting Wawrinka here as he is more of an all surface player, but Kuerten having such a legacy at one slam/one surface, having a YE#1, a YEC title (which wasn't on clay, and something Wawrinka couldn't manage or even make a final), and Wawrinka's lack of performance outside of slam wins, he has to be here.

4. Stanislav Wawrinka- His slam wins were impressive, but honestly he is the epitome of a slam only player. I still can't put him behind the far less talented Kodes though.

5. Jan Kodes- You know when I said major counts for players often didn't accuratley reflect their true status in the game. Kodes's 3 majors goes well beyond his true status in the game.

The women have 6 players in the Open Era with 3 majors- Virginia Wade, Lindsay Davenport, Jennifer Capriati, Angelique Kerber, Ashleigh Barty, Iga Swaitek. I won't rank Swiatek as her career is ongoing, so will just rank the other 5.

1. Lindsay Davenport- Her 4 YE#1, even if 1 or 2 of them were completely bogus, already cement her as easy #1 on this list, along with many other things. Super unlucky to have her peak coincide with the Williams sisters too.

2. Ash Barty- She was quite a solid #1 for awhile, so for that alone has to be above the others remaining in this group.

3. Virginia Wade- Like Ashe, she is a player whose majors count of 3, accurately reflects her position in the game of the time, despite that the focus back then was not around majors. She was a great player, but has lopsided losing records vs literally all the big guns of her time. Navratilova, Evert, Court, King, and even Goolagong. Her tournament title count is impressive, but even there it would not be much more of an argument vs say Davenport, who herself has over 50 at a time players play fewer tournaments. The biggest problem she faces is she was never close to being considered the #1 player, which back then was a more important thing to the player than the majors. Plus she never won a YEC type event, which back then was also bigger than many of the majors. This seems the right place for her, I think she still belongs over Capriati and for sure Kerber.

4. Jennifer Capriati- She was definitely more talented than Wade, but her career was ultimately not as good. Only 14 singles titles. Got to #1 very briefly, but never made a Wimbledon or US Open final. Don't see any arguments to even consider ranking her higher really.

5. Angelique Kerber- This seems obvious. A totally majors centric player, who didn't even win a Tier 1 title her entire career. Wawrinka who tanked most of his regular tour play, atleast managed this.
 

buscemi

Legend
I'd put Capriati above Barty b/c her Major wins are just so much more impressive:

Capriati:
-2001 Australian Open: beat Seles/Davenport/Hingis in QF/SF/F​
-2001 French Open: beat Serena/Hingis/Clijsters in QF/SF/F​
-2002 Australian Open: beat Mauresmo/Clijsters/Hingis in QF/SF/F​

Barty:
-2019 French Open: beat Keys/Animisova/Vondroušová in QF/SF/F​
-2021 Wimbledon: beat Tomljanović/Kerber/Plíšková in QF/S/F​
-2022 Australian Open: beat Pegula/Keys/Collins QF/SF/F​
That's like night and day in terms of quality of opponents in money rounds of Majors.
 
I'd put Capriati above Barty b/c her Major wins are just so much more impressive:

Capriati:
-2001 Australian Open: beat Seles/Davenport/Hingis in QF/SF/F​
-2001 French Open: beat Serena/Hingis/Clijsters in QF/SF/F​
-2002 Australian Open: beat Mauresmo/Clijsters/Hingis in QF/SF/F​

Barty:
-2019 French Open: beat Keys/Animisova/Vondroušová in QF/SF/F​
-2021 Wimbledon: beat Tomljanović/Kerber/Plíšková in QF/S/F​
-2022 Australian Open: beat Pegula/Keys/Collins QF/SF/F​
That's like night and day in terms of quality of opponents in money rounds of Majors.

Yeah come to think of it you have a good case. I try to balance subjectivity vs objectivity. I kind of feel giving it to Capriati over Barty goes too much into the subjectivity reason given Barty was a pretty solid #1 for awhile, which Capriati despite a brief stint being ranked #1 was never close to being (a solid #1 ever, let alone over any sort of a sustained period). Even being objective though it was in a pretty soft time for the womens game, a period affected by Covid too. And quality of wins en route to majors is objective too. Barty didn't beat anyone even close to the calibre of Martina Hingis or a prime-ish Davenport. Mauresmo and Clijsters in early 2002 were definitely not prime or that formidable (both were slamless at that point), and Serena on clay in 2001 is pretty much nothing too (she had not even gone past the quarters of a clay tournament yet), or Clijsters on clay in 2001 is not that impressive either even if the RG final wound up being an epic, but yeah overall the string of wins is still much stronger. Beating the extremely talented Martina Hingis for all 3 of her slams, even if Hingis was already starting to decline mentally, from burn out, and loss of confidence from some tough major losses that had already occured before then, is super impressive. And honestly not something I think Barty would be capable of at all.

However one huge thing for Barty is she won a major on every surface. I don't think Capriati was even capable of winning a Wimbledon honestly, unlike say Henin who didn't win one but atleast I could see was capable of it. Even the 2 years she made the semis, I can't imagine her having won the title in either one of them ever.

It is an interesting comparision.

Career titles is pretty similar, a fairly low count for both. Only 15 for Barty, 14 for Capriati. Not that good in either case for a 3 slam winner.

Capriati has an Olympic Gold, while Barty has the YEC title.

Comparing them by surface I think Barty is clearly better on grass, and is also better on indoor/carpets where Capriati never achived that much either. I think Capriati is better on clay probably, and definitely feel Capriati is stronger on hard courts. Hard courts is the most important surface in the modern era. So thinking of it that way maybe Capriati should be ahead.
 

buscemi

Legend
Yeah come to think of it you have a good case. I try to balance subjectivity vs objectivity. I kind of feel giving it to Capriati over Barty goes too much into the subjectivity reason given Barty was a pretty solid #1 for awhile, which Capriati despite a brief stint being ranked #1 was never close to being (a solid #1 ever, let alone over any sort of a sustained period). Even being objective though it was in a pretty soft time for the womens game, a period affected by Covid too. And quality of wins en route to majors is objective too. Barty didn't beat anyone even close to the calibre of Martina Hingis or a prime-ish Davenport. Mauresmo and Clijsters in early 2002 were definitely not prime or that formidable (both were slamless at that point), and Serena on clay in 2001 is pretty much nothing too (she had not even gone past the quarters of a clay tournament yet), or Clijsters on clay in 2001 is not that impressive either even if the RG final wound up being an epic, but yeah overall the string of wins is still much stronger. Beating the extremely talented Martina Hingis for all 3 of her slams, even if Hingis was already starting to decline mentally, from burn out, and loss of confidence from some tough major losses that had already occured before then, is super impressive. And honestly not something I think Barty would be capable of at all.

However one huge thing for Barty is she won a major on every surface. I don't think Capriati was even capable of winning a Wimbledon honestly, unlike say Henin who didn't win one but atleast I could see was capable of it. Even the 2 years she made the semis, I can't imagine her having won the title in either one of them ever.

It is an interesting comparision.

Career titles is pretty similar, a fairly low count for both. Only 15 for Barty, 14 for Capriati. Not that good in either case for a 3 slam winner.

Capriati has an Olympic Gold, while Barty has the YEC title.

Comparing them by surface I think Barty is clearly better on grass, and is also better on indoor/carpets where Capriati never achived that much either. I think Capriati is better on clay probably, and definitely feel Capriati is stronger on hard courts. Hard courts is the most important surface in the modern era. So thinking of it that way maybe Capriati should be ahead.
It's definitely a close call. I prefer Capriati's Olympic gold to Barty's YEC title.

In terms of Capriati never being able to win Wimbledon, it might depend on what you're saying. She obviously didn't play in 1994, but I think she would have had a good shot had she been playing at the same level for the past few years there before she took her break. And I also think that if we could teleport her to 2021 and give her Barty's draw, she'd have a shot.
 
It's definitely a close call. I prefer Capriati's Olympic gold to Barty's YEC title.

In terms of Capriati never being able to win Wimbledon, it might depend on what you're saying. She obviously didn't play in 1994, but I think she would have had a good shot had she been playing at the same level for the past few years there before she took her break. And I also think that if we could teleport her to 2021 and give her Barty's draw, she'd have a shot.

I prefer the YEC title simply since Olympics was not even that big an event in 1992. Yes beating Graf in the final is super impressive, especialy right after Graf destroyed Seles and Sabatini to win Wimbledon, and given her record vs Graf is horrible, her worst head to head (I say even over Venus who she only played 4 times and had match points in 1). Absolute nobody would called that result. Still doesn't change that Olympics in 92 nowhere near on par with the YEC today. Even today when the Olympics is far bigger people debate if it is on par with a YEC or not.

No I absolutely don't thinks he wins in 94. People do this with Seles too, and say if she wasn't stabbed obviously she wins Wimbledon 94, blah blah, and they just look at Martinez winning, which is silly as it ignores the variables of luck and chance at play. For instance Martinez herself was very lucky since even in this draw if she meets any of Sanchez, Novotna, or even Navratilova before the final which was her worst match, she doesn't win, even with Graf (who she never beats) being taken out for her. Even if we assume the same wide open draw, there are a bunch of players who would have had atleast a plausible chance of beating her on grass- Navraitlova who was in better form at that Wimbledon (particularly before the final) than she was in 91 when she lost to Capriati, who was playing better in mid-late 91 when she beat MN at Wimbledon than she was by the time of leaving the tour in late 93 anyway. Novotna obviously probably beats her on grass if they play as Capriati is not a player she has the psychological issues with she had vs Navratilova or Graf. Garrison, Martinez, young Davenport, Sanchez if they play of course, a hot McNeil, even Fernandez and Neiland, all would have a plausible shot to beat Capriati if they played, unless she was in truly excellent form and better than anything she showed her last year and half before leaving tour. She would have some chance vs most of those too, but they would have vs her as well . Even in the open and weak draw, if we still assume Graf going out and all else reamining the same, given her non outstanding grass abilities, she would probably have to win 3 or 4 straight matches going in at roughly 50/50 sort of odds, plus surviving the early rounds before that. Keeping in mind she didn't leave the tour in great form or improving in anyway, despite still being ranked in the top 8. If that is her best ever chance at a Wimbledon, and I agree it probably is, it just speaks to her never winning a Wimbledon is very likely, and much more unlikely than Henin winning a Wimbledon. Heck I would say Seles was more likely to win a Wimbledon than Capriati, which says something.

And no I don't think she wins in 2021 with Barty's draw unless maybe it coincides with the year of her best ever Wimbledon form, which would have to be 1 of 2 years only- 91 or 2002, and even in those years would be 40% shot at best, even with Barty's draw. The odds of her best ever form at Wimbledon coinciding with that draw is unlikely to begin with though.
 

buscemi

Legend
I prefer the YEC title simply since Olympics was not even that big an event in 1992. Yes beating Graf in the final is super impressive, especialy right after Graf destroyed Seles and Sabatini to win Wimbledon, and given her record vs Graf is horrible, her worst head to head (I say even over Venus who she only played 4 times and had match points in 1). Absolute nobody would called that result. Still doesn't change that Olympics in 92 nowhere near on par with the YEC today. Even today when the Olympics is far bigger people debate if it is on par with a YEC or not.

No I absolutely don't thinks he wins in 94. People do this with Seles too, and say if she wasn't stabbed obviously she wins Wimbledon 94, blah blah, and they just look at Martinez winning, which is silly as it ignores the variables of luck and chance at play. For instance Martinez herself was very lucky since even in this draw if she meets any of Sanchez, Novotna, or even Navratilova before the final which was her worst match, she doesn't win, even with Graf (who she never beats) being taken out for her. Even if we assume the same wide open draw, there are a bunch of players who would have had atleast a plausible chance of beating her on grass- Navraitlova who was in better form at that Wimbledon (particularly before the final) than she was in 91 when she lost to Capriati, who was playing better in mid-late 91 when she beat MN at Wimbledon than she was by the time of leaving the tour in late 93 anyway. Novotna obviously probably beats her on grass if they play as Capriati is not a player she has the psychological issues with she had vs Navratilova or Graf. Garrison, Martinez, young Davenport, Sanchez if they play of course, a hot McNeil, even Fernandez and Neiland, all would have a plausible shot to beat Capriati if they played, unless she was in truly excellent form and better than anything she showed her last year and half before leaving tour. She would have some chance vs most of those too, but they would have vs her as well . Even in the open and weak draw, if we still assume Graf going out and all else reamining the same, given her non outstanding grass abilities, she would probably have to win 3 or 4 straight matches going in at roughly 50/50 sort of odds, plus surviving the early rounds before that. Keeping in mind she didn't leave the tour in great form or improving in anyway, despite still being ranked in the top 8. If that is her best ever chance at a Wimbledon, and I agree it probably is, it just speaks to her never winning a Wimbledon is very likely, and much more unlikely than Henin winning a Wimbledon. Heck I would say Seles was more likely to win a Wimbledon than Capriati, which says something.

And no I don't think she wins in 2021 with Barty's draw unless maybe it coincides with the year of her best ever Wimbledon form, which would have to be 1 of 2 years only- 91 or 2002, and even in those years would be 40% shot at best, even with Barty's draw. The odds of her best ever form at Wimbledon coinciding with that draw is unlikely to begin with though.
I agree that the YEC is > 1992 Olympics in stature, but:

1992 Olympics: Capriati beats Huber/ASV/Graf in QF/SF/F
2019 YEC: Barty loses to Mertens and beats Kvitova/Bencic/Plíšková/Svitolina

I have to go w/Capriati there, or at worst it's a draw. IMO, anyway.
 
I agree that the YEC is > 1992 Olympics in stature, but:

1992 Olympics: Capriati beats Huber/ASV/Graf in QF/SF/F
2019 YEC: Barty loses to Mertens and beats Kvitova/Bencic/Plíšková/Svitolina

I have to go w/Capriati there, or at worst it's a draw. IMO, anyway.

OK I see your point there. If we go by draws rather than statue of course it would be Capriati.

However this is the issue of how much we delve too far from the subjective and into the objective. We agree YEC in 2019 was much higher status event than Olympics in 1992. Anyway I called them negating each other mostly, so wasn't even including it an edge for Barty per say, just not one for Capriati either.

Back on Wimbledon and grass though, just curious are you disputing that Barty is a superior grass player to Capriati? Would disagree for sure if you do, but curious if that is what you think.
 
Barty had the potential to go higher but the retirement.

True but in comparision to Capriati, obviously Capriati has many more what ifs that extend over her whole career than Barty has by her retirement. I agree if Barty didn't retire she could have easily reached atleast 6 or 7 slams with the current womens field, which is why it was kind of shocking. Obviously she values life overall, and isn't obsessed with whatever her tennis legacy could be. Good for her.
 
Yeah I am not disputing the ranking. Just that she will be a what if kinda case.

For sure. Reminds me of Lorena Ochoa in golf. For years people will be wondering what Barty or Ochoa would have done if they didn't retire out of nowhere at their peak, solidly at #1, still fairly young.
 

thrust

Legend
I'd put Capriati above Barty b/c her Major wins are just so much more impressive:

Capriati:
-2001 Australian Open: beat Seles/Davenport/Hingis in QF/SF/F​
-2001 French Open: beat Serena/Hingis/Clijsters in QF/SF/F​
-2002 Australian Open: beat Mauresmo/Clijsters/Hingis in QF/SF/F​

Barty:
-2019 French Open: beat Keys/Animisova/Vondroušová in QF/SF/F​
-2021 Wimbledon: beat Tomljanović/Kerber/Plíšková in QF/S/F​
-2022 Australian Open: beat Pegula/Keys/Collins QF/SF/F​
That's like night and day in terms of quality of opponents in money rounds of Majors.
TRUE! Capriati was a mentally disturbed person. Had she not gone off the rails for a few year, she probably would have won several more slams. All her talent and mental fragility was on full display in her 03 USO semi against Justine Henin, a younger but more mentally stable person.
 
TRUE! Capriati was a mentally disturbed person. Had she not gone off the rails for a few year, she probably would have won several more slams. All her talent and mental fragility was on full display in her 03 USO semi against Justine Henin, a younger but more mentally stable person.

And Henin was cramping hard. She should have tried more drop shots and angles rather than just hitting hard, which given Henin's painful in movement at that point, was the best case scenario for her, despite that it probably made sense as a good game plan vs normal Henin. It was an epic match but the way she purposely played once Henin began cramping of trying to blast through her, rather than making a concerted effort to make her move and lengthening points, was like watching a real life brain fart on display.

And don't even get me started of the end of the Dementieva match in the US semis the next year.
 
I'd put Capriati above Barty b/c her Major wins are just so much more impressive:

Capriati:
-2001 Australian Open: beat Seles/Davenport/Hingis in QF/SF/F​
-2001 French Open: beat Serena/Hingis/Clijsters in QF/SF/F​
-2002 Australian Open: beat Mauresmo/Clijsters/Hingis in QF/SF/F​

Barty:
-2019 French Open: beat Keys/Animisova/Vondroušová in QF/SF/F​
-2021 Wimbledon: beat Tomljanović/Kerber/Plíšková in QF/S/F​
-2022 Australian Open: beat Pegula/Keys/Collins QF/SF/F​
That's like night and day in terms of quality of opponents in money rounds of Majors.

Plus prime to prime Capriati would be too strong for Barty. I like Barty but she definitely peaked at the right time for success in the womens game. Capriati by contrast had some of the worst timing, going up against sharks like Graf, Seles, Venus, Serena, Henin.
 

thrust

Legend
I'd put Capriati above Barty b/c her Major wins are just so much more impressive:

Capriati:
-2001 Australian Open: beat Seles/Davenport/Hingis in QF/SF/F​
-2001 French Open: beat Serena/Hingis/Clijsters in QF/SF/F​
-2002 Australian Open: beat Mauresmo/Clijsters/Hingis in QF/SF/F​

Barty:
-2019 French Open: beat Keys/Animisova/Vondroušová in QF/SF/F​
-2021 Wimbledon: beat Tomljanović/Kerber/Plíšková in QF/S/F​
-2022 Australian Open: beat Pegula/Keys/Collins QF/SF/F​
That's like night and day in terms of quality of opponents in money rounds of Majors.
I AGREE!
 

jrepac

Hall of Fame
I agree that the YEC is > 1992 Olympics in stature, but:

1992 Olympics: Capriati beats Huber/ASV/Graf in QF/SF/F
2019 YEC: Barty loses to Mertens and beats Kvitova/Bencic/Plíšková/Svitolina

I have to go w/Capriati there, or at worst it's a draw. IMO, anyway.
Jen's win over Graf on red clay was pretty darn impressive, IMHO. And had forgotten she knocked out ASV as well.
 

Drob

Hall of Fame
While majors then weren't the most important thing like today I do think 3 majors accurately reflects how he fit into the mens game in that period

I see what you mean, but not entirely in agreement. As you say, the USO and Wimbledon were renowned victories. The Australian was in a rather weak field. However, you leave off the WCT Finals. Did you mean strictly "Slams", or did you mean Majors? The WCT Finals was a Major in 1975 (one of its last years as such). Also, in terms of overall fit, we should recognize as "Major" his 11 straight Davis Cup singles victories to lead USA to regaining the Cup after several years of frustration. (Arthur lost the 12th match, but it was a dead rubber after the Cup had been won). I would put it at five Majors, one of which is a weak field.

I do think Ashe is often overrated, maybe mostly overrated, and certainly by the casual fan. Yet he also was the effective world No. 1 for 1975, and was a very strong No. 2 for 1968. He was No. 4 in 1970, which was an intense, competitive year.

Ashe was uneven. Maddeningly so. And while he did pretty well against the likes of Rosewall and Newcombe in the early years of the Open era, he could not touch Laver. Virtually never. Never in a key match. Only once in a while gave Rod a scare.

Kodes's 3 majors goes well beyond his true status in the game.

Agreed.

Is ashe actually open era?


All of these main accomplishments mentioned came in the Open era. He played a number of years before the Open era but was finding his game. He probably won like 30 or so amateur tournaments, but no Majors. Two Aussie finals losses to Emerson pre-Open.

Ashe was not eligible for the money prize at the 1968 U.S. Open, which went to Okker even though Okker lost the final.

Maybe this is why some view him as pre-Open - because he was an amateur in 1968.
 

thrust

Legend
I'd put Capriati above Barty b/c her Major wins are just so much more impressive:

Capriati:
-2001 Australian Open: beat Seles/Davenport/Hingis in QF/SF/F​
-2001 French Open: beat Serena/Hingis/Clijsters in QF/SF/F​
-2002 Australian Open: beat Mauresmo/Clijsters/Hingis in QF/SF/F​

Barty:
-2019 French Open: beat Keys/Animisova/Vondroušová in QF/SF/F​
-2021 Wimbledon: beat Tomljanović/Kerber/Plíšková in QF/S/F​
-2022 Australian Open: beat Pegula/Keys/Collins QF/SF/F​
T​
That's like night and day in terms of quality of opponents in money rounds of Majors.
TRUE! If only Jennifer were mentally stable, she would have had a much greater career. Overall, I would rank Davenport at the top of the 3 slam winners, then Wade, then Capriati. As for Ashe, had he not been a Black Man, he would have done much better sooner and career wise. The same was true for Althea Gibslo.
 

thrust

Legend
I agree that the YEC is > 1992 Olympics in stature, but:

1992 Olympics: Capriati beats Huber/ASV/Graf in QF/SF/F
2019 YEC: Barty loses to Mertens and beats Kvitova/Bencic/Plíšková/Svitolina

I have to go w/Capriati there, or at worst it's a draw. IMO, anyway.
Capriati wins in 92 Olympics are far superior to Barty's competition in 2019
 

martinezownsclay

Hall of Fame
TRUE! If only Jennifer were mentally stable, she would have had a much greater career. Overall, I would rank Davenport at the top of the 3 slam winners, then Wade, then Capriati. As for Ashe, had he not been a Black Man, he would have done much better sooner and career wise. The same was true for Althea Gibslo.

I would put Capriati over Wade. I guess resume wise it would be Wade just for winning many more tournaments, but I can't see Wade having a very competitive head to head with Serena Williams for instance, like Capriati did. Granted Capriati's head to heads vs most of the best are quite bad, just like Wade's are (1-10 vs Graf for instance) but atleast she has one very competitive head to head vs one of the GOATs, which Wade doesn't have against a single of her toughest opponents- Court, King, Evert, Navratilova, or even Goolagong. And Capriati just was more imposing and felt like a bigger threat in her time than I am pretty sure Wade seemed in hers. Also even some of Capriati's big losing efforts, the 2003 US Open semis vs Henin, the 91 US Open semis vs Seles, are still regarded as some of the best matches of all time, the Henin-Capriati semi is even full of youtube specialized clips and tributes on major tennis networks. Wade certainly never had a losing big match memorialized like that, and the only winning one (her Wimbledon final win vs Stove) is not really related to the quality of tennis, purely the moment.

Ann Jones is superior to Wade too if we are talking about 3 slam winners there. Think of her, her worst surface was grass, while Wade's best was grass, in an era 3 of the 4 majors were on grass, and both still won 3 majors. Or imagine if 3 of the 4 majors were on clay (Jones's best surface) instead of grass, Wade would probably be slamless and Jones would have something like 7 or 8 slams probably, but with 3 of the 4 on grass instead Jones is still tied. If it was a tour like today with 2 hard court majors, and barely a grass circuit, I am sure Wade's winnings are nowhere near Jones's. And even Jones's Wimbledon win by beating peak Court and peak King back to back is easily more impressive than beating Evert in the semis but then Betty Stove in the final.
 
Last edited:

martinezownsclay

Hall of Fame
I don't recall Jones being in the original list. I agree she probably should be ranked above Wade.

On ok. I was briefly forgeting the Open Era part.

I still maintain I think Capriati should be over Wade too, although I see the arguments for Wade. And in fact most of the stats favor Wade, this is a case I am going more with logic.

Jones is clearly superior to Wade though IMO.
 

thrust

Legend
On ok. I was briefly forgeting the Open Era part.

I still maintain I think Capriati should be over Wade too, although I see the arguments for Wade. And in fact most of the stats favor Wade, this is a case I am going more with logic.

Jones is clearly superior to Wade though IMO.
I agree, but one should remember that the open era ONLY applies to Men's tennis as ALL top women were able to compete in slams and all other sanctioned tournaments before 1968
 

martinezownsclay

Hall of Fame
I agree, but one should remember that the open era ONLY applies to Men's tennis as ALL top women were able to compete in slams and all other sanctioned tournaments before 1968

Yeah and as most of Jones's career was pre Open Era (even if her glorious Wimbledon title, beating peak King and peak Court back to back, as a clay court specialist, was Open Era) it would make sense to not include her here.
 

BTURNER

Legend
Yeah and as most of Jones's career was pre Open Era (even if her glorious Wimbledon title, beating peak King and peak Court back to back, as a clay court specialist, was Open Era) it would make sense to not include her here.
The point that thrust makes, is that the distinction you want to make between open era or not , should not be made because its not especially relevant in the women's game. The exact same women were competing. Jones is beating the same players, or failing to beat the same players in 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969. That demarcation among the women really isn't one.
 
Last edited:

buscemi

Legend
On ok. I was briefly forgeting the Open Era part.

I still maintain I think Capriati should be over Wade too, although I see the arguments for Wade. And in fact most of the stats favor Wade, this is a case I am going more with logic.

Jones is clearly superior to Wade though IMO.
Yeah, I'm going to Capriati over Wade. Reaching #1 in 2001 during the strongest era of women's tennis puts her over the top for me.
 

martinezownsclay

Hall of Fame
Yeah, I'm going to Capriati over Wade. Reaching #1 in 2001 during the strongest era of women's tennis puts her over the top for me.

Agreed, and Wade was a punching bag of all the big guns of her era. She was kind of the best of the rest after the actual big guns, and she had wins over all of them, but there also isn't a single one she wasn't completely owned by- Court, Evert, King, Goolagong, Navratilova. Evert called her Wimbledon semi final defeat to Wade embarassing at the time, which is kind of an example how the true big guns of that era saw Wade, which is not the same true big guns of Capriati's era saw her which was with more respect. Capriati was also a punching bag for many of the big guns of her era- Graf, Venus, and Davenport for instance, but not all of them. Her rivalry and head to head with Serena is super impressive. She did well vs Hingis (only down 4-5). She was a tough opponent for Seles, still a one sided losing head to head (4-9) but I wouldn't say quite completely owned either the way Wade was by everyone of note. She is 3-3 vs Clijsters, up and coming but she was already a formidable player. 2-5 vs Henin but lost that US Open epic. So based on that too I would say Capriati is better. And there is no planet Wade goes 7-10 vs freaking Serena Williams, or reaches #1 in I agree the strongest era in womens tennis history, even briefly. For the record I like Wade and she is an excellent player too, but I have little doubt just by logic, more than stats, Capriati is stronger.

I just realized we agreed on something. Miracles do happen. When was the last time that happened, 7 months ago, LOL!
 

martinezownsclay

Hall of Fame
As for Barty she is super weird to rank in general. 3 slams on 3 different surfaces, impressive by any metric, and a pretty good run at #1, definitely impressive by any metric. BUT her #1 time is somewhat tainted as a lot of it was during the weird Covid period where anyones time at #1 is questionable, no matter who it is. Not a large number of tournament wins, mostly due to a short career where she retired shockingly early at her peak. And benefited bigtime from being in a wide open transition time in the womens game. All around she is one of the hardest and most confusing people to rank.

In a sense she is a bit like Lorena Ochoa in golf, but I do think Lorena was a more bonofide dominant player than Barty at the time both retired, and Ochoa didn't do it at a time her tour was largely regarded as bad, as Barty did.
 

Richie

New User
I agree that the YEC is > 1992 Olympics in stature, but:

1992 Olympics: Capriati beats Huber/ASV/Graf in QF/SF/F
2019 YEC: Barty loses to Mertens and beats Kvitova/Bencic/Plíšková/Svitolina

I have to go w/Capriati there, or at worst it's a draw. IMO, anyway.
Not Ash Bartys fault that she was in a weaker period of wta players,
It would have being interesting to see if Covid hadnt happened would she have
won a lot more Slam titles,We will never know of course,I prefered Ash as a player but
Jennifer did play in a stronger era.
 

BauerAlmeida

Hall of Fame
Seems fair. Kuerten-Stan is a very interesting debate because their achievements are so different, depends on what you value more. I give the edge to Guga because of that YEC win beating Sampras and Agassi back to back. If not, he'd be too much of a one-surface pony despite how great and dominant he was on that surface. I value more great consistency across surfaces than surface domination.
 
Top