Serena does not even need 23 slams to be GOAT over Graf

jm1980 said:
How about getting her name right, and then the counts?

Margaret Court's Grand Slam finals (Open Era):

  • Singles: 12 finals (11 titles, 1 runner-up)
  • Women's doubles: 15 finals (10 titles, 5 runners-up)
  • Mixed doubles: 9 finals (7 titles, 2 runners-up)
Click to expand...

That list is an all time list.

If you are gonna make a list of only the Open Era, then don't include players that played before that because it does not make justice for the player.

I guess then Emerson and Laver has a couple of slams then? what they won before doesn't count?
 
During the women's final, Court and Helen Moody(19 slams) name were never mentioned. You only heard them said Serena has past Chris and Martina's 18 slams and Graf is a slam record holder at 22. They don't considered slams in the 60s and before worth as much as the open era. Graf 22 is the benchmark, then comes Chris/Martina at 18 but now Serena moves ahead at 19. Although slam count alone doesn't stop there since there are other important criteria to factor.
 
TMF said:
During the women's final, Court and Helen Moody(19 slams) name were never mentioned. You only heard them said Serena has past Chris and Martina's 18 slams and Graf is a slam record holder at 22. They don't considered slams in the 60s and before worth as much as the open era. Graf 22 is the benchmark, then comes Chris/Martina at 18 but now Serena moves ahead at 19. Although slam count alone doesn't stop there since there are other important criteria to factor.
Click to expand...

If the benchmark is 22, then it makes Serena's chances to eclipse much more better, than if the benchmark was 24. I think it suits Serena...and she is steadily marching towards it.
 
heftylefty said:
Ah yes, TMF's List. This contains everything except one minor stat: winning percentage in Slam Finals. I wonder why?
Click to expand...

That's why irrelevant trivia lists mean nothing--other than ranting from one of the local bloodthirsty types. Like selecting (often contradictory) opinions from ex-pros on a puff piece cable channel, or switching goalposts for GOAT-hood when it no longer suits a favorite, there's no coherent thought behind such a cobbled list. Only hatred.
 
What are you talking about TMF? I'm watching the ceremony and the guy speaking said she is closing in onto Graf and Margarets record of slams. Also he said she is the third with most slam titles, assuming he means Graf and Margaret because they are the only two ahead of Serena.
 
Last edited:
Hitman said:
If the benchmark is 22, then it makes Serena's chances to eclipse much more better, than if the benchmark was 24. I think it suits Serena...and she is steadily marching towards it.
Click to expand...

Most people talk about Serena target is 22. Even Serena herself said she's aiming Graf slam count, and she's been mainly asked by reporters about catching Graf, not Court. Base on my observation, people view Graf is the record holder and is the benchmark, not Court.
 
TMF said:
Most people talk about Serena target is 22. Even Serena herself said she's aiming Graf slam count, and she's been mainly asked by reporters about catching Graf, not Court. Base on my observation, people view Graf is the record holder and is the benchmark, not Court.
Click to expand...

Even Nadal says the same thing about Federer, and then has a good laugh with Uncle Toni.
 
heftylefty said:
Ah yes, TMF's List. This contains everything except one minor stat: winning percentage in Slam Finals. I wonder why?
Click to expand...

But isn't tennis is about winning 7 consecutive matches. If you have a better record in the final but a poorer record in the previous rounds, that's even worse. Unless if you think it's better to lose in the early round than in the final then there's nothing to discuss.
 
TMF said:
Most people talk about Serena target is 22. Even Serena herself said she's aiming Graf slam count, and she's been mainly asked by reporters about catching Graf, not Court. Base on my observation, people view Graf is the record holder and is the benchmark, not Court.
Click to expand...

But why are you lying though that the announcers didn't mention Court?

Court is too far away and I assume thats why she isn't included cause she is uncatchable. Graaf was serenas target from the beginning.
 
Last edited:
RF-18 said:
What are you talking about TMF? I'm watching the ceremony and the guy speaking said she is closing in onto Graf and Margarets record of slams. Also he said she is the third with most slam titles, assuming he means Graf and Margaret because they are the only two ahead of Serena.
Click to expand...

Then he flat out lied to (once again) create his own fantasy about which tennis eras/players are recognized (which is actually designed to protect his favorite player).
 
RF-18 said:
But why are you lying though that the announcers didn't mention Court?

Court is too far away and I assume thats why she isn't included cause she is uncatchable.
Click to expand...

Well lets be honest, the next real target look very much attainable now to Serena...she is fully locked in on getting 22. Graf's record is under threat big time as of now. As for Court...need to get to Graf first.
 
Hitman said:
Well lets be honest, the next real target look very much attainable now to Serena...she is fully locked in on getting 22. Graf's record is under threat big time as of now. As for Court...need to get to Graf first.
Click to expand...

Yes I fully agree. I would too think about my next target instead of thinking two steps ahead.
 
RF-18 said:
But why are you lying though that the announcers didn't mention Court?

Court is too far away and I assume thats why she isn't included cause she is uncatchable. Graaf was serenas target from the beginning.
Click to expand...

They didn't mention Court slam count as a player to chase. The focus was on Chris/Martina 18 and Graf's 22. They don't consider Court 24 is the benchmark.
 
RF-18 said:
... Court is too far away and I assume thats why she isn't included cause she is uncatchable. Graaf was serenas target from the beginning.
Click to expand...

I assume that she is usually not included because a huge chunk of her slam wins came prior to the Open Era. Also, a huge % of slam wins were at the "AO" which is not comparable to the AO of today. It had a smaller draw (less than half?) and was primarily an Australian event, not international -- a very large % of the top players of the day did not play it.
 
Hehehe When I listen to all those who are giving theories about Serena not having rivals, not having Hingis (lol), Capriati and this and that, and questioning all the legendary stuff, I become sure that they hadn't witnessed her beginnings, they never saw her in 1999, because since that it was CLEAR that she was going to be a legend
 
SystemicAnomaly said:
I assume that she is usually not included because a huge chunk of her slam wins came prior to the Open Era. Also, a huge % of slam wins were at the "AO" which is not comparable to the AO of today. It had a smaller draw (less than half?) and was primarily an Australian event, not international -- a very large % of the top players of the day did not play it.
Click to expand...

It's the same with Helen Moody's 19 slams. If all slams are worth the same, how come Helen Moody doesn't get mention the way Chris and Martina get when they have one slam less? Serena was always compare to Chris and Martina open era slams. With Serena 19 slams, no one is questioning if Moody's 19 is in the same league as Serena, let alone who's higher in goat list.
 
TMF said:
They didn't mention Court slam count as a player to chase. The focus was on Chris/Martina 18 and Graf's 22. They don't consider Court 24 is the benchmark.
Click to expand...

They didn't mention Grafs slam count either. The announcer just said Serena has passed Chris and Martinas slam count and is closing in onto Graf and Margaret.

Here, for everyone to hear and see:

http://youtu.be/4-gW1oezGh0?t=6m52s
 
SystemicAnomaly said:
I assume that she is usually not included because a huge chunk of her slam wins came prior to the Open Era. Also, a huge % of slam wins were at the "AO" which is not comparable to the AO of today. It had a smaller draw (less than half?) and was primarily an Australian event, not international -- a very large % of the top players of the day did not play it.
Click to expand...

She is included. It's just some stupid journalists who ignores the history and judges by the Open Era.

In the earlier stages you are right that some of the best players of the world weren't included, but later they did and she still dominated the tournament.

And also, huge chunk? She won 13 slams outside of Australian Open and achieved the CYGS, also winning 3/4 slams for 4 seasons. Thats what there is to say really.

To not talk about her double- and mix doubles titles wich along with her single slams is the record holder of most slams overall.
 
Last edited:
TMF said:
But isn't tennis is about winning 7 consecutive matches. If you have a better record in the final but a poorer record in the previous rounds, that's even worse. Unless if you think it's better to lose in the early round than in the final then there's nothing to discuss.
Click to expand...

You must be joking. That's like saying the Buffalo Bills are better than the Seattle Seahawks because they been to more Super Bowls.

I get it. You putting Slam Finals Winning Percentage on your List would show just how clutch Serena is; and we can't have that.
 
RF-18 said:
They didn't mention Grafs slam count either. The announcer just said Serena has passed Chris and Martinas slam count and is closing in onto Graf and Margaret.

Here, for everyone to hear and see:

http://youtu.be/4-gW1oezGh0?t=6m52s
Click to expand...

RF, no matter what truth you post here, those who despise Serena will continue to spin what was an obvious lie--exposed by your link. If anyone tries to isolate the Open Era, Court was still celebrated--like Graf--for winning the Grand Slam in the Open Era (like Laver's 2nd distinction on the men's side), so there' no separating Court from the discussion. That is the reason a certain member always plays that game--so he can protect his favorite player from unattainable records by simply pretending they are not accepted. Graf and Court are the GOAT hallmarks always referred to as the next goal for Serena, and no true tennis fan and/or historian leaves them out of the public conversation.

...unless someone has a few, tired, clear-as-day agendas to post.
 
Last edited:
THUNDERVOLLEY said:
RF, no matter what truth you post here, those who despise Serena will continue to spin what was an obvious lie--exposed by your link. If anyone tries to isolate the Open Era, Court was still celebrated--like Graf--for winning the Grand Slam in the Open Era (like Laver's 2nd distinction on the men's side), so there' no separating Court from the discussion. That is the reason a certain member always plays that game--so he can protect his favorite player from unattainable records by simply pretending they are not accepted. Graf and Court are the GOAT hallmarks always referred to as the next goal for Serena, and no true tennis fan and/or historian leaves them out of the public conversation.

...unless someone has a few, tired, clear-as-day agendas to post.
Click to expand...

Can't agree more. I hear you.
 
snowwhite said:
Hehehe When I listen to all those who are giving theories about Serena not having rivals, not having Hingis (lol), Capriati and this and that, and questioning all the legendary stuff, I become sure that they hadn't witnessed her beginnings, they never saw her in 1999, because since that it was CLEAR that she was going to be a legend
Click to expand...

True--she was a force rarely seen before (or since). She has played through several generations of players--from the then-elder guard of Graf, Seles, Sanchez-Vicario, et al., through Hingis, Davenport, Capriati, Venus, to Henin, Mauresmo, Sharapova, Jankovic, Cljisters, Stosur, Ivanovic, and innumerable members of the younger generations.

As a continuing majors winner, she has (probably) faced more Hall of Fame / majors winning competition than anyone else in history.
 
Last edited:
Serena, 19-4 in singles finals, 13-0 in doubles finals, 1 Gold in singles and 3 Gold in doubles.

Steffi, 22-9 in singles, 1-10 in doubles, 1 Gold in singles, 1 bronze in doubles.

These are just the numbers, and they are dominant in Serenas favor.

The eye test, Serena has the best serve, the best ground strokes and the best defender in the history of the womans game. If they were born at the same time, Serena wipes the court with Graf. There is only one person in the history of the game that could hit with and serve with Serena and that is Venus.

Game, set and match.

Steffi is not even the GOAT over Martina. Martina, 18 singles, 31, doubles, 10 mixed.

Forget the Court comparisons, 45 of her GS were before 1970 and 18 of her slams were in Australia and before 1970.
 
jm1980 said:
How about getting her name right, and then the counts?

Margaret Court's Grand Slam finals (Open Era):

  • Singles: 12 finals (11 titles, 1 runner-up)
  • Women's doubles: 15 finals (10 titles, 5 runners-up)
  • Mixed doubles: 9 finals (7 titles, 2 runners-up)
Click to expand...

How about you stop posting lies?
 
heftylefty said:
You must be joking. That's like saying the Buffalo Bills are better than the Seattle Seahawks because they been to more Super Bowls.

I get it. You putting Slam Finals Winning Percentage on your List would show just how clutch Serena is; and we can't have that.
Click to expand...

No it's not the same comparison. Making the finals is better than losing early, there's no way to dispute that. Serena made fewer slam finals because she lost more in the early rounds. You value only slam final record but I value every 7 matches, because that's what it takes to win a slam by winning 7 straight matches.
 
Serena needs at least 25 slams to make it to Steffi's level [really needs to better Maggie Court's record of 24 to say the least]. Just imagine Evert and Navraralitova's competition, I hate to say the often blurted out, ''it's a weak era''. However, just think for a while how many World number 1s there were in Serena's time [the audacity to call it domination] who's just a one-slam wonder never mind those who has never won even one--says a lot!:-|
 
Thats the difference though.. Martina/Evert had to deal with each other.. Graf/Seles/ or Hingis had to deal with each other.


While Serena has it tougher early on but since Clijsters/Henin retirement.. She has to deal with NO TALENT Pushniaki, Sharapova or No Serve Azarenka?

Give Graf this field for most of her career and she walks away with 35 slams plus.. As would Court or Martina or Evert. Probably walking away with 25 plus

Serena has UNDERACHIEVED really.. She should be winning calendar slams every year vs. this field. We know Graf would.

Graf would probably have 4-5 calendar slams racked up already and they would have to shut the WTA Down due to lack of competition
 
Gorecki said:
How about you stop posting lies?
Click to expand...

Which part of what I posted was a lie?

She has 11 Slams in the Open Era, well behind Graf's 22.

Doubles Slams are a different matter entirely as well, which is why nobody ever mentions the Bryan bros' 16 Slams in any GOAT argument
 
Last edited:
90's clay, I agree except when you start speculating how much Graf would have won etc. and the last sentence is absurdly overblown. Serena has still surpassed all of her peers and several younger generations by a wide margins even if she isn't winning CYGS every year. But I agree this is a very weak era for women's tennis, possibly caused by the move to power.
 
90's Clay said:
Thats the difference though.. Martina/Evert had to deal with each other.. Graf/Seles/ or Hingis had to deal with each other.


While Serena has it tougher early on but since Clijsters/Henin retirement.. She has to deal with NO TALENT Pushniaki, Sharapova or No Serve Azarenka?
Click to expand...

Recall the larger field of majors winners over her years. As noted earlier, there was Graf, Seles, Sanchez-Vicario, Pierce, et al., then Hingis, Davenport, Capriati, Venus, to Henin, Mauresmo, Sharapova, Jankovic, Cljisters, Stosur, Ivanovic, and innumerable members of the younger generations. ...and Azarenka is no slouch.

Serena played through them all, and continues to excel. Who else has that kind of record against generations of majors winners?
 
THUNDERVOLLEY said:
Recall the larger field of majors winners over her years. As noted earlier, there was Graf, Seles, Sanchez-Vicario, Pierce, et al., then Hingis, Davenport, Capriati, Venus, to Henin, Mauresmo, Sharapova, Jankovic, Cljisters, Stosur, Ivanovic, and innumerable members of the younger generations. ...and Azarenka is no slouch.

Serena played through them all, and continues to excel. Who else has that kind of record against generations of majors winners?
Click to expand...

A lot easier to do when the innumerable members of the younger generation suck. It's freaking 2015 and the only Slam winner born in the 90s is Kvitova.
 
90's Clay said:
Thats the difference though.. Martina/Evert had to deal with each other.. Graf/Seles/ or Hingis had to deal with each other.


While Serena has it tougher early on but since Clijsters/Henin retirement.. She has to deal with NO TALENT Pushniaki, Sharapova or No Serve Azarenka?

Give Graf this field for most of her career and she walks away with 35 slams plus.. As would Court or Martina or Evert. Probably walking away with 25 plus

Serena has UNDERACHIEVED really.. She should be winning calendar slams every year vs. this field. We know Graf would.

Graf would probably have 4-5 calendar slams racked up already and they would have to shut the WTA Down due to lack of competition
Click to expand...

Serenas quality as a tennis player is the reason why people talks about the weak era stuff. She made it weak because she was/is too good!
 
Last edited:
90's Clay said:
Theres your proof that Serena has been playing in an elementary era. The fact she has won more despite being much worse from her prime self.
Click to expand...

Lol a lot more factors come into play....she had a way more personal problems to deal with when she was younger not to mention way more injuries. Notice all the slams she missed during her prime after her serious knee injury to her sisters death from 04-07....she was pretty non-existent in those years due to poor fitness/motivation/injuries. Since her embolism she hasn't missed a slam and is so much fitter than she was in 04-07.
 
THUNDERVOLLEY said:
Recall the larger field of majors winners over her years. As noted earlier, there was Graf, Seles, Sanchez-Vicario, Pierce, et al., then Hingis, Davenport, Capriati, Venus, to Henin, Mauresmo, Sharapova, Jankovic, Cljisters, Stosur, Ivanovic, and innumerable members of the younger generations. ...and Azarenka is no slouch.

Serena played through them all, and continues to excel. Who else has that kind of record against generations of majors winners?
Click to expand...

TV, the point is Serena did not lose to the good ones of the younger generation.

She lost to the Makaraovas and Muguruzas. When she did not lose and made it to the finals, the Sharapovas and Azarenkas were the opponents and who are nothing like Venus/Henin.

Serena never got penalized for her inconsistency.

If she had a great competitor, would she have won as many majors ? We cannot conclude.

That said, Serena is doing her best to place herself at the top of the sport and if she can continue her form, she can definitely do that.
 
People (especially 90's clay) are thinking serena has been at peak physical condition throughout her career. She was nowhere near that in 04-07.
 
Man of steel said:
Lol a lot more factors come into play....she had a way more personal problems to deal with when she was younger not to mention way more injuries. Notice all the slams she missed during her prime after her serious knee injury to her sisters death from 04-07....she was pretty non-existent in those years due to poor fitness/motivation/injuries. Since her embolism she hasn't missed a slam and is so much fitter than she was in 04-07.
Click to expand...

Her sister died in 2003, but she missed the US Open that year and the subsequent AO in 2004 due to a knee surgery. It had nothing to do with her sister's death.

Fitness and injuries are part of the game. And personal problems too. Everyone has personal problems.
 
Amazing. First Serena sucks, now she underachieving.

At no point in the history of the WTA has been more than two players deep,any era. So, enough with the weak era BS. Graf was mowing down a post prime Chrissie and Martina and only true rival was Seles. Chrissie and Martina had each. The deepest era was Hingis, Henin, Clijsters and the Williams Sisters, hell, throw in Davenport.

Why not just use the eyeball test: Serena is great, but Graf is the tennis player that could not just stay with Serena but beat her. She had the shots, athletic ability, power,and temperament. I would give Graf a huge edge on clay. Even on grass. Slight edge to Serena on hard court and indoor.

Graf being a better tennis player doesn't deminish Serena place in history one bit.
 
Man of steel said:
People (especially 90's clay) are thinking serena has been at peak physical condition throughout her career. She was nowhere near that in 04-07.
Click to expand...

Serena has always been a great player.

She has won 6 of her 19 majors after age 31.

She started winning majors at age 18.

So, from age 18-31, she wins 13 majors and from 31-33, she wins 6 majors.

Do you attribute all these 14 years (1999-2012) to injury ?
 
heftylefty said:
Amazing. First Serena sucks, now she underachieving.

At no point in the history of the WTA has been more than two players deep,any era. So, enough with the weak era BS. Graf was mowing down a post prime Chrissie and Martina and only true rival was Seles. Chrissie and Martina had each. The deepest era was Hingis, Henin, Clijsters and the Williams Sisters, hell, throw in Davenport.

Why not just use the eyeball test: Serena is great, but Graf is the tennis player that could not just stay with Serena but beat her. She had the shots, athletic ability, power,and temperament. I would give Graf a huge edge on clay. Even on grass. Slight edge to Serena on hard court and indoor.

Graf being a better tennis player doesn't deminish Serena place in history one bit.
Click to expand...

If anything it is the other way.

Serena is likely the better tennis player, but Graf leads Serena in terms of achievements.
 
Out of 58 slam appearences, Serena has made 23 finals and 3 SF. About 12 QF.

On 20 occasions (which is 1 out of every 3 majors), she fails to make it to the second week.

Imagine if Graf or Chrissie or Martina had this level of consistency, how their title count would have gone down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

grafforehand
  • Poll Poll
How many slams does Serena need to be the GOAT
2
Replies
53
Views
5K
helterskelter
H
T
Even if Serena wins #24, Graf is still the GOAT until Serena reaches #25
Replies
3
Views
269
tylerbrisco
T
N
Would Serena be the real slam record holder if she reaches 20 slams
Replies
6
Views
1K
NadalAgassi
N
M
Serena vs Graf- both at 22
4 5 6
Replies
266
Views
15K
BGod
BGod
tennisaddict
Steffi Graf as graceful as ever about Serena
Replies
1
Views
777
snowwhite
snowwhite
Back
Top