Why did Hingis and Graf hate each other

Seles loved Hingis?
"I don't know actually how I won this match. Maybe because I always beat her."
– Hingis on beating Monica Seles for the fifth straight time
Seles won 5 out of 20 matches against Hingis, so 20% (edit 25%) of their matches. I think their 1998 French Open semi final was Seles' best win over Hingis, 6-3, 6-2. Interestingly, that was their sixth career match.

Of Seles' 5 wins over Hingis, Seles twice had 2 wins in a row and then had another win with their last match against each other at the 2002 US Open.
 
Last edited:
Seles won 5 out of 20 matches against Hingis, so 20% of their matches. I think their 1998 French Open semi final was Seles' best win over Hingis, 6-3, 6-2. Interestingly, that was their sixth career match.

Of Seles' 5 wins over Hingis, Seles twice had 2 wins in a row and then had another win with their last match against each other at the 2002 US Open.
25 %!
 
Why is SwissPsycho81 obsessed with who is "greater" and who is "ahead" of who? That's all subjective, hence meaningless...
And why would SwissPsycho81 think doubles and mixed doubles are not professional tennis? And why compare junior titles to professional titles?
Sounds like SwissPsycho81 can't read .... as all I'm saying is Hingis won 25 slams, which is a FACT you will never escape.
mh2002.jpg
 
Why is SwissPsycho81 obsessed with who is "greater" and who is "ahead" of who? That's all subjective, hence meaningless...
And why would SwissPsycho81 think doubles and mixed doubles are not professional tennis? And why compare junior titles to professional titles?
Sounds like SwissPsycho81 can't read .... as all I'm saying is Hingis won 25 slams, which is a FACT you will never escape.
mh2002.jpg
Yeah, discussions about which player is greater than other players is very rare among fans. Especially in tennis forums.

Anyway, who ever said that doubles and mixed doubles is not professional tennis?
But who cares about it except fans of players who sucked in singles? Fans like PSYCHOWON?
 
Steffi cold and unapproachable??

"Curiously, while golfer Jan Stephenson touched off a controversy when she posed for pinup shots several years ago, reaction to Graf's modeling debut has been uniformly positive. "It's because everyone likes her so much," says one respected tour watcher. "People had been waiting for her to bust loose, and now that she has, they only wish her the best.""
- Sports Illustrated, April 23, 1990


Novotna loved Hingis?
“She is old and slow.“
- Hingis on Novotna, after ending their doubles partnership

Seles loved Hingis?
"I don't know actually how I won this match. Maybe because I always beat her."
– Hingis on beating Monica Seles for the fifth straight time

Davenport loved Hingis?
"Do you want me to break your serve first or hold?"
– to Lindsay Davenport before the coin toss

Hingis was one of the most hated players of all time on the tour.
And rightfully so.

Agreed--that is the History of Hingis (we do not need to get into her violent, criminal off-court actions partnered with her mother) and let us not forget the historically racist dog-whistled crap she said about the Williams sisters' hair, her homophobia in referring to Mauresmo as looking "like a man" and other slurs. It is little wonder Hingis is one of the most despised players in the sport's history. If only she worked on a winning strategy in singles, she might have squeezed out one more major in singles. She lacked the talent to do that.

Yes Alcarazwon is referencing players who did great and won a lot in both singles and doubles

Except he is not. To do so sends a number of players far above Hingis (such as Serena, who was far superior to Hingis as a player even without her stellar doubles career), thus his attempt to pad Hingis' singles career is a fanboyish scheme that fails on its face.


You are in the minority, thank God.
You know that you have lost if you need to bring up doubles in order to prop up your fave.

Well put. That wraps up ALCARAZWON's paper-thin agenda quite well.
 
THUNDERVOLLEY I couldn't care LESS where Hingis is ranked all-time, since I don't rank players all-time, so you can rank Hingis as Top 100 player all-time or Top 200 or whatever you want (y)
I've been saying this for many months, that I have exactly the same thought process as Michael Jordan, because in 1996 Michael Jordan was asked whether he considered himself the GOAT=

"No. I think that's something that I really can't say can be established," Jordan said. "You know, being that Magic Johnson, Wilt Chamberlain, and all the guys before me were the artists of this game of basketball, and we've all learned from them, and we've improved the picture to a certain extent and to say that one improvement is better than all of it? It's an unfair assessment."

I'm just stating facts, Hingis won 25 slams.
That's a fact, and you shouldn't short-change Hingis, when she earned those 25 slams.

mh98fedcup.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ
THUNDERVOLLEY I couldn't care else where Hingis is ranked all-time, since I don't rank players all-time, so you can rank Hingis as Top 100 player all-time or Top 200 or whatever you want (y)
I've been saying this for many months, that I have exactly the same thought process as Michael Jordan, because in 1996 Michael Jordan was asked whether he considered himself the GOAT=

"No. I think that's something that I really can't say can be established," Jordan said. "You know, being that Magic Johnson, Wilt Chamberlain, and all the guys before me were the artists of this game of basketball, and we've all learned from them, and we've improved the picture to a certain extent and to say that one improvement is better than all of it? It's an unfair assessment."

I'm just stating facts, Hingis won 25 slams.
That's a fact, no matter how upset you get...
You are confusing things.
Hingis won 5 slams. Period.
Plus 20 more trophies in some consolation competitions at the four venues where the slams are played. Those competitions were played in the same weeks as the slams themselves.
And Martina needed a lot of consolation apparently!
 
You are confusing things.
Hingis won 5 slams. Period.
Plus 20 more trophies in some consolation competitions at the four venues where the slams are played. Those competitions were played in the same weeks as the slams themselves.
And Martina needed a lot of consolation apparently!
I don't know why you're so hung up on it. Her total is 25. How you break them down is up to you. But her total remains 25.
 
I don't know why you're so hung up on it. Her total is 25. How you break them down is up to you. But her total remains 25.

I don't know why you're so hung up on it. Her total is 25. How you break them down is up to you. But her total remains 25.
Only if you add her doubles and mixed doubles titles.
No one does that except some anal retentive fans of hers.
 
Actually, that's not a fact. That's an opinion.
No, it is two facts:
1) Hingis has only then "25 slams" if you add her doubles and mixed doubles titles.
2) No one does that except some anal retentive fans of hers.
OK, #2 might have to get amended by including also anal retentive tennis fans who are NOT explicitly also Hingis fans.
 
No, it is two facts:
1) Hingis has only then "25 slams" if you add her doubles and mixed doubles titles.
2) No one does that except some anal retentive fans of hers.
OK, #2 might have to get amended by including also anal retentive tennis fans who are NOT explicitly also Hingis fans.
Does Hingis have 25 major titles or not?
 
She has 7 - 5 slams and 2 YECs.
Doubles and Mixed Doubles titles surely are no "major titles"; to claim that would be ridiculous!
Wait! You are just plain wrong here. Any title won in any of the four major tournaments (it's a synonym for the 4 'slams' meaning the Australian Championship, The French Championship, Wimbledon, or the US Championships) is by strict definition of major title. If you want to delineate the ones you think are 'most important' via the lack of a partner, the proper modifier is 'singles major' or singles slam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_(tennis)

"The individual Grand Slam tournaments consist of the four majors: Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon, and the US Open. These four individual tournaments are sometimes shortened to Grand Slams, or even just slams"

Yes if you and your partner won the Australian Mixed Doubles tournament in 1987, you both have a major title to your credit.

Whether winning that particular major title, is also a big deal, may be up to dispute. They are two different meanings.
 
She has 7 - 5 slams and 2 YECs.

Wait! You are just plain wrong here. Any title won in any of the four major tournaments (it's a synonym for the 4 'slams' meaning the Australian Championship, The French Championship, Wimbledon, or the US Championships) is by strict definition of major title. If you want to delineate the ones you think are 'most important' via the lack of a partner, the proper modifier is 'singles major' or singles slam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_(tennis)

"The individual Grand Slam tournaments consist of the four majors: Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon, and the US Open. These four individual tournaments are sometimes shortened to Grand Slams, or even just slams"

Yes if you and your partner won the Australian Mixed Doubles tournament in 1987, you both have a major title to your credit.

Whether winning that particular major title, is also a big deal, may be up to dispute. They are two different meanings.
That Wikipedia entry surely must have been written by an American.
"Majors" is a golf term, golf has four Majors.
However, winning a mixed doubles competition during a slam tournament surely is not a major achievement.

No one includes doubles and mixed doubles slam titles in a ranking of which player has the most slams.
That would be asinine.
 
That Wikipedia entry surely must have been written by an American.
"Majors" is a golf term, golf has four Majors.
However, winning a mixed doubles competition during a slam tournament surely is not a major achievement.

No one includes doubles and mixed doubles slam titles in a ranking of which player has the most slams.
That would be asinine.
No. the term 'majors' applies to tennis, because it precedes 'slam' in use historically to apply to the exact same four tournaments. It identifies the tennis tournament, not the event in the tournament or the 'packaged collection. . 'Slam' is an abreviated colloquialism of the phrase 'Grand slam tournament' describing the same four coined decades later.

Notwithstanding your personal opinion conflating two different meanings, its actually more accurate historically. These were the 'four major tournaments', before anyone thought to create this 'seasonal grand slam' out of them.

It just requires you have the smarts to ask ONE clarification question. Practice this sentence, Swiss. 'How many of them were for singles play?' then you can discard the majors you don't feel are actually 'major enough' for you. Trust me, we have other people that try to define out Australian singles Championships in the 40s-70's using the same logic. They call the event a 'non-major Major' It's inevitably about putting first the linguistic cart you want to ride in, instead the 4 horses that drove the vehicle before your cart was built.

I am one American who prefers to use the word 'major', once I learned from posters on this very site the distinction I bring to you now but I try to add the modifiers 'singles' or singles and doubles included unless its already clear from the context. Sometimes I find I use the shorthand informal 'slam' too.
 
Last edited:
Hingis beat Graf in 1996, and Graf claimed it was the worst she (Graf) ever played despite that clearly being untrue, so Hingis had no reason to respect Graf after that.

They were both competitive people, but Graf was cold and unapproachable, while Hingis was loved by almost everyone on tour, including rivals Jana Novotna, Monica Seles, Lindsay Davenport and Anna Kournikova.

Even Venus and Serena were commonly seen laughing and smiling with Hingis, even in trophy ceremonies, including when Hingis lost to Serena in the 1999 US Open Final and Hingis can be seen laughing and smiling with Serena.

Hingis was always a gracious loser, always reacted very well to being the runner-up, including those devastating AO Finals losses vs. Capriati (2001, 2002) and Davenport (2000).

The difference with Graf, is that Hingis had no way of becoming friends with Graf, because Graf wasn't approachable, so their relationship was only via the press.

wta1996finals.jpg
I didn`t realize that April`s fools day is also a day for writing satire.
 
No. the term 'majors' applies to tennis, because it precedes 'slam' in use historically to apply to the exact same four tournaments. It identifies the tennis tournament, not the event in the tournament or the 'packaged collection. . 'Slam' is an abreviated colloquialism of the phrase 'Grand slam tournament' describing the same four coined decades later.

Notwithstanding your personal opinion conflating two different meanings, its actually more accurate historically. These were the 'four major tournaments', before anyone thought to create this 'seasonal grand slam' out of them.

It just requires you have the smarts to ask ONE clarification question. Practice this sentence, Swiss. 'How many of them were for singles play?' then you can discard the majors you don't feel are actually 'major enough' for you. Trust me, we have other people that try to define out Australian singles Championships in the 40s-70's using the same logic. They call the event a 'non-major Major' It's inevitably about putting first the linguistic cart you want to ride in, instead the 4 horses that drove the vehicle before your cart was built.

I am one American who prefers to use the word 'major', once I learned from posters on this very site the distinction I bring to you now but I try to add the modifiers 'singles' or singles and doubles included unless its already clear from the context. Sometimes I find I use the shorthand informal 'slam' too.
I looked it up on the website of ESPN, America's most trusted Sports channel:

They don't mention doubles or mix doubles in their list of the slam winners!
 
I looked it up on the website of ESPN, America's most trusted Sports channel:

They don't mention doubles or mix doubles in their list of the slam winners!
Lol. I can do better than that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_(tennis)

The Grand Slam in tennis is the achievement of winning all four major championships in one discipline in a calendar year. In doubles, a Grand Slam may be achieved as a team or as an individual with different partners. Winning all four major championships consecutively but not within the same calendar year is referred to as a "non-calendar-year Grand Slam", while winning the four majors at any point during the course of a career is known as a "Career Grand Slam".

The term Grand Slam is also attributed to the Grand Slam tournaments, referred to as Majors, and they are the world's four most important annual professional tennis tournaments. They offer the most ranking points, prize money, public and media attention, the greatest strength and size of the field and, in recent years, the longest matches for men (best of five sets, best of three for the women). The tournaments are overseen by the International Tennis Federation (ITF), rather than the separate men's and women's tour organizing bodies, the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) and Women's Tennis Association (WTA), but both the ATP and WTA award ranking points based on players' performances in them.


The way I have learned to handle this problem you have dug for yourself over my 6 decades, is to say. "You know that actually makes historical sense. Thanks for clarifying!"
 
No. the term 'majors' applies to tennis, because it precedes 'slam' in use historically to apply to the exact same four tournaments. It identifies the tennis tournament, not the event in the tournament or the 'packaged collection. . 'Slam' is an abreviated colloquialism of the phrase 'Grand slam tournament' describing the same four coined decades later.

Notwithstanding your personal opinion conflating two different meanings, its actually more accurate historically. These were the 'four major tournaments', before anyone thought to create this 'seasonal grand slam' out of them.

It just requires you have the smarts to ask ONE clarification question. Practice this sentence, Swiss. 'How many of them were for singles play?' then you can discard the majors you don't feel are actually 'major enough' for you. Trust me, we have other people that try to define out Australian singles Championships in the 40s-70's using the same logic. They call the event a 'non-major Major' It's inevitably about putting first the linguistic cart you want to ride in, instead the 4 horses that drove the vehicle before your cart was built.

I am one American who prefers to use the word 'major', once I learned from posters on this very site the distinction I bring to you now but I try to add the modifiers 'singles' or singles and doubles included unless its already clear from the context. Sometimes I find I use the shorthand informal 'slam' too.
I'm English and use 'majors'. I only use 'slam' in the context of a Grand Slam.
 
I'm English and use 'majors'. I only use 'slam' in the context of a Grand Slam.
I think your term is more precise for history and clarity's sake and I try to do the same, but it's been dying out in favor of 'slam' in popular usage in media coverage. Even here a bastion of tennis tradition, its been losing steam.

its really hard to stop the tides of language usage and popularity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ
Lol. I can do better than that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_(tennis)

The Grand Slam in tennis is the achievement of winning all four major championships in one discipline in a calendar year. In doubles, a Grand Slam may be achieved as a team or as an individual with different partners. Winning all four major championships consecutively but not within the same calendar year is referred to as a "non-calendar-year Grand Slam", while winning the four majors at any point during the course of a career is known as a "Career Grand Slam".

The term Grand Slam is also attributed to the Grand Slam tournaments, referred to as Majors, and they are the world's four most important annual professional tennis tournaments. They offer the most ranking points, prize money, public and media attention, the greatest strength and size of the field and, in recent years, the longest matches for men (best of five sets, best of three for the women). The tournaments are overseen by the International Tennis Federation (ITF), rather than the separate men's and women's tour organizing bodies, the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) and Women's Tennis Association (WTA), but both the ATP and WTA award ranking points based on players' performances in them.


The way I have learned to handle this problem you have dug for yourself over my 6 decades, is to say. "You know that actually makes historical sense. Thanks for clarifying!"
Take Chris Evert for example - everybody says she won 18 slams.
I have heard anyone say she won 21 slams just because she won the doubles competition at the FO in 74 & 75 and in Wimbledon 76.

What PSYCHOWON says about Hingis and her "25 slams" reminds me of my uncle who always get excited when he wants to explain that the year 2000 was a part of the 20th century. Anal retentive.....
 
THUNDERVOLLEY I couldn't care LESS where Hingis is ranked all-time

I've never said that, so you are posting crap only an idiot would agree with.

I'm just stating facts, Hingis won 25 slams.
That's a fact, and you shouldn't short-change Hingis, when she earned those 25 slams.

No, you are pushing a feeble agenda that is not how those who were primarily a singles player are judged, otherwise--as noted before--Serena's 14 doubles and 2 mixed doubles titles to her 23 singles would have her recognized for winning 39 majors, or John McEnroe's 9 doubles & 1 mixed double majors to his 7 singles majors, would have him commonly referred to as the winner of 17.

Serena and McEnroe--are considered singles players first, which is the reason why any accounting of their record only lists the singles majors, not doubles. Cry as much as you desire, but Hingis only has five majors because she was never going win more than that. She could not handle the superior competition.

You are confusing things.
Hingis won 5 slams. Period.

Quite correct. That is the way history sees it. No one is counting her doubles as part of a imaginary collective to bolster a majors career she failed to earn.

Plus 20 more trophies in some consolation competitions at the four venues where the slams are played. Those competitions were played in the same weeks as the slams themselves.
And Martina needed a lot of consolation apparently!

Indeed, as her...skills...were not enough to rise above aging players or those of her generation to dominate in the specific category of singles in the majors.

I didn`t realize that April`s fools day is also a day for writing satire.

It would be amusing (somewhat) if it were not the product of an aggressive attempt at a historically false agenda.
 
Take Chris Evert for example - everybody says she won 18 slams.
I have heard anyone say she won 21 slams just because she won the doubles competition at the FO in 74 & 75 and in Wimbledon 76.

What PSYCHOWON says about Hingis and her "25 slams" reminds me of my uncle who always get excited when he wants to explain that the year 2000 was a part of the 20th century. Anal retentive.....
Those that say Chirs won 18 slams, are technicallly wrong and they always were. Technically, she won 21 slams: 18 singles slams and 3 doubles. So when someone who you believe is being anal retentive claims Hingis won 25 slams or majors, that person is not wrong, but because it can be misleading to those who do not know enough about the sport and the terms to ask the clarifying question, YOU break it down for the record so there is no misunderstanding.

We just need everyone to be on the same page and to keep people honest.
 
Back
Top