Who Rates higher all time- Hingis or Gibson

who rates higher all time?


  • Total voters
    9

boredone3456

G.O.A.T.
Since we just had the thread regarding Becker and Edberg bumped up, I thought this would be a nice female counterpart to it. Both Women have 5 slams and for a short time were arguably the most dominant player in their times (Hingis in 1997, Gibson in 1957-58 ). Both also were well accomplished doubles players, each having a career slam in doubles. Hingis won 3 straight Australian Opens and made 6 straight finals, made 5 consecutive slam finals starting with the 1997 Australian, winning 4 of them. Gibson won the last 4 grand slam tournaments she played, winning Wimby and the US Open in 1957 and defending both in 1958. Both were 1 win away from a career slam in singles. Hingis has a multitude of non slam singles titles to her credit and one of the highest total weeks @ number 1 ever, Gibson made the finals of 7 of the last 8 slams she played, winning 5 of those finals. Who does everyone think rates higher on the all time list?
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
I really like this comparison because it compares two players who played many decades apart. I'll try to do a little more research and give an answer later.
 

davey25

Banned
Gibson had all her biggest achievements after Brough, Osborne Du Pont, Fry, and Hart were either retired or old and fairly washed up, and just before Bueno and others began to really emerge. Hingis had nearly all her biggest achievements when Graf, Seles, Sanchez, and Martinez were all on the way down, leaving only Novotna of the principal old gaurd still at her best, and before any of Davenport, Venus, Serena, began to enter their primes, leaving only Hingis and Pierce amongst the principal newer gaurd already at their best. Gibson though was a trailblazer for black women and came up at a time when racism was at an extremely high point and had to overcome alot on her way to being a champion.

Still I would go with Hingis. She was ranked #1 for parts of 5 years. I dont feel she ever really deserved to be ranked #1 at years end in 2000, or nearly all of 2001, but she still continued to excel overall in regular tournaments as well as slams enough to be there. She reached slam finals over a 6 year span which is also impressive. She set many youngest ever records that still stand today. She had great success in tier 1 events and at the WTA Championships as well. She also IMO was somewhat unlucky to not win anymore slams after the 99 AO as she had many close calls, just as she was lucky to scalp off such an extremely weak field in 97 and early 98.
 

boredone3456

G.O.A.T.
I actually have a hard time picking between the two players. Hingis was a teen phenom and set records, dominated the tour for 1997 and early 1998, but then slipped from the dominant level on the biggest stages and never got back there. After her Wimbledon and US Open wins in 1997 she never won another non australian slam, partially because the women around her improved there level and she really didn't. She was an amazing player outside the slams and could go deep at them, but once the Williams and Davenport hit their strides she really struggled. Her comeback, even though she won a couple of titles and made the top 10, was in many ways a flop, she went out with not even a fizzle on the back of drug use charges (not that she was really a favorite to win any slams during her comeback). She benefitted from a changing of the guard much like Gibson did, but she never was able to continue to raise her game, which I think she could have had she really applied herself.

Gibson was sort of the middle ground between Dupont, Hart, Connolly, and that whole generation and the crew of the 60's. When she was winning her slams it was really her and Shirley Fry who were at their bests. She did beat Brough to win the 1957 US Open, and Darlene Hard who was a pretty decent player was one of her rivals to. Although its hard to say how Fry, an aged Brough, Angela Mortimer Barrett and Hard compare to Novotna, Pierce and an aged Vicario and Seles. Gibson had other players around, Truman Janes, Knode, among others, but I don't know enough about them to really comment on them. Barret won 3 slams, Hard won 2, the competition is sort of comparable as they were arguably each the best during the transition of the guard, so to speak.

In the end I went with Gibson, based on what I know I think Gibson had slightly better competition. Hingis's 2 main rivals at their best were mentally inconsistent players who between them had 3 slams. Vicario was not as big a threat off clay, Seles was a threat but Hingis had her number for the most part. Gibson had to deal with a slightly more competitive group with a few more competitive (competitive with her anyway) multiple slam champions. Maybe Hingis was just that much better during her brief domination, but I think the crew that Gibson was that much better than is slightly stronger than Hingis's crew during 1997-early 1998 before the emergence of davenport over the summer.
 

davey25

Banned
Gibson did not win any of her slams vs Fry. She won a French Open which Fry didnt play then after losing to Fry at 3 straight slams (all which Fry won) Fry retired and she then won her 4 combined Wimbledon and U.S Opens. So Fry should not be included as her competition, not while she was winning anyway.
 

BTURNER

Legend
Sadly it is close. It should not have been. Althea's race meant almost no junior experience, access to competition (evidently there were many who would not practice with her or play her) or the best coaching. She was limited in a thousand ways from developing her potential fully and early enough.
 

davey25

Banned
Sadly it is close. It should not have been. Althea's race meant almost no junior experience, access to competition (evidently there were many who would not practice with her or play her) or the best coaching. She was limited in a thousand ways from developing her potential fully and early enough.
Yeah if the Williams sisters think they have had it hard it is nothing compared to what Gibson faced. They should be greatful for her, as she helped break down alot of barriers for others to come in the future like them.
 

boredone3456

G.O.A.T.
Yeah if the Williams sisters think they have had it hard it is nothing compared to what Gibson faced. They should be greatful for her, as she helped break down alot of barriers for others to come in the future like them.
Well Said, Gibson went through a ton of red tape so to speak in her day. She couldn't compete in many tournaments due to her race and eventually it led to a letter drive by several of the pros and former pros on the tour in a major tennis magazine (can't remember which one), to put her case out there and basically tell the tour to open up and let her in or look like your afraid to face her on the courts. If she had equal access to all the opportunities say, Connolly did, Gibsons career could have gone very differently. Know I am not saying she would have been clobbering Connolly, but things definitely could have been different. She also had the pressure of being, how to put this, the representative of her race? Robinson had that pressure to succeed, and I think she had it to early on after all the fighting to get in the door. She broke down a lot of barriers, and the pressure early on after she got in must have been enormous. Thats sort of why I tip things in her favor. Don't get me wrong, Hingis deserves a lot of credit for what she did when she was so young to be dominating like she did, but Gibson's story coupled with her achievements...well it just gets my vote.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Sadly it is close. It should not have been. Althea's race meant almost no junior experience, access to competition (evidently there were many who would not practice with her or play her) or the best coaching. She was limited in a thousand ways from developing her potential fully and early enough.
I agree. Unfortunately because of her race Gibson was not allowed to compete for years. I think there was a great chance she would have been number one for years if she had been allowed to play top competition.

So my answer is two fold. I think Hingis, because she played longer in top level competition would have to be ranked as having the better career. Hingis, aside from the majors, won many tier 1 tournaments.

I do believe if Gibson was allowed to play earlier in her career that she probably would have had a superior career to Hingis.

I suppose you could argue she was the equivalent of Ellsworth Vines on the female side. Gibson competed in the 1960 on the LPGA tour but she was not that successful.
 

davey25

Banned
I think Hingis underachieved too in many ways but it was due to things within her control more than Gibson. I know the sob song about how she was undersized, but IMO she was overall more talented than Henin who still managed to achieve more vs superior competition since she was actually willing to work murderously hard to overcome her size deficit. Henin naturally has more power and athletic ability I think, but not nearly to the extent when it comes to power as their actual abilities turned out due to Henin's willingess to work herself to near breakdown of her body to get better, and Hingis is clearly more talented in quite a few other areas IMO. Hingis was so lazy about improving things like her serve, her forehand, all things she was capable of improving to some extent if she had wanted it badly enough. That plus she missed out on several slams after the 99 AO with some bad and untimely choking IMO (99 French Open, 2002 Australian Open, to a lesser degree 2000 U.S Open) and because of that it appears she could hardly win any slams vs the tougher competition that came in from mid 98 onwards, when in fact she really ought to have given the times she had it at her fingertips. Certainly she was never going to dominate the field with all the big hitters, atleast not without work ethic and determination that was atleast on par with a Justine Henin, but she still should have won some slams during this period.
 
Last edited:
Top