Obviously Graf, Court, Navratilova, Evert, Serena, King are way ahead. And that is even counting Court and King's Open Era career only, they still are far above.
Seles, Venus, Henin, Goolagong, are all far ahead as well. We are now up to 10 players already. These are 7 slam winners (Seles a 9 slam winner), so there is no discussion whatsoever against a 3 slam winner, regardless of 10 more weeks at #1 or whatever.
Sharapova has 5 slams and the Career Slam. No contest, she is ahead.
Hingis has 5 slams, more time at #1, 3 YE#1, a 3 slam year, a 3 repeat at the Australian Open, 2 YEC. Again no contest, ahead.
Davenport has 3 slams, like Barty, but 3 different ones like Barty too, but 55 career titles to Barty's 15. Played in a WAY stronger time for the womens game, if she played in any era other than her own peak coinciding with the Williams sisters which was the worst luck possible for her, as they are not only superior players (particularly Serena) but stylistically her ultimate worst match ups ever, even peaking jointly with Graf/Seles would have been far better for her. And still won as many slams, and almost quadruple the titles. By contrast as much as I like her, there are some eras Barty might win only 1 major (or even 0, but I will be generous and say she is talented enough she always manages to sneak 1 out, especialy as she probably plays longer if she still major less), and almost none she wins more than 3 except the exact one she played in, and choosing to play longer or not blowing that Aussie semi to Kenin. Both have a YEC but Davenport has an Olympic Gold as well. Yes Barty has 23 more weeks at #1, but Davenport has an extra YE#1, so that is a wash too. Some of Davenport's YE#1 are controversial, especialy 2001 when nobody considered her having even a case for best player or best year compared to people like Venus and Capriati that year, but a lot of Barty's time at #1 is Covid related and sort of silly, so that too is a wash. In short Davenport is easily ahead for the stronger era, and 55 titles to 15. Plus a ton more slam final, semi final, and quarter finals which I didn't even mention yet (7 slam finals to 3 just for starters).
Clijsters has 101 fewer weeks at #1 which is significant. However 1 more major, 1 more YEC, a legacy at the US Open where she won 3 straight times she played, 41 titles to only 15 for Barty, and a ton more slam final and semi final appearances (over twice as many of both) is enough for me to have her ahead. Anyway Barty's weeks at #1 are a bit asterisked by the Covid period as I already explained, and unlike Davenport's which is also inflated, Clijsters's is realistically deflated vs reality a bit. For instance she has only 20 weeks at #1, yet the WTA named her Player of the Year for both 2005 and 2010, and the ITF for 2005. Barty won the WTA twice and ITF twice, so almost no difference there. Without even factoring in Clijsters playing in a way tougher era, I would have Clijsters ahead personally as well.
We are now at 14.
Now onto Capriati. Both have 3 majors. Both have a similar low number of titles- 15 for Barty and 14 for Capriati. Barty has a lot more time at #1. Barty has a YEC which slightly beats Capriati's Olympic Gold. However Capriati has a ton more slam semis (13 to 4), a ton more slam quarters (23 to 6). Yes the huge difference is largely Barty's relatively short career, when she was a late bloomer to start with, but that was entirely her own choice. It is close but I think Capriati's much higher number of quality finishes in majors, which count for players with low slam counts, not just wins, and her longevity, unlikely comeback to greatness, and playing in a far tougher era her entire career put her ahead. Also worth noting 2 of Capriati's slam semi final losses- 2003 US Open semis vs Henin, 91 US Open semis vs Seles, are often referenced as 2 of the best matches in history, even though she lost. Both are still talked about today. The Henin-Capriati even has highlight reels done to music by numerous people on youtube. Austin and Shriver and Evert reference both matches all the time. She likely wins both if she won either match, both which she served for and had points to close out. Which was a bit of failure of nerve on her part both times, but nobody talks about any match of Barty's like that decades from now guaranteed, not even any of her slam wins. And I am a big Barty fan too, but being realitistic here.
The absolute highest she could ever be is 16th behind these 15, so out of the top 15 at best. You then could discuss her vs Mauresmo, Wade, Halep, Kerber, Sanchez Vicario, Mandlikova, Austin. and determine if she even belongs in the top 20. I suspect she would make the top 20 somewhere, but outside the top 15 IMO, as I already broke down 15 women minimum I think should be over her. Bottom line is she needed to play longer, achieve a lot more, and prove longevity to climb any higher than that.
