WTA Grand Slam Singles Dominance: The Finals

AngieB

Banned
All-Time List of Consecutive Grand Slam Finals Played:

Helen Wills Moody (16)*
Martina Navratilova (14)*
Steffi Graf (13)*
Chris Evert (10)*
Monica Seles (10)
Maureen Connolly (9)
Chris Evert (8)
Evonne Goolagong (8)*
Paulene Betz (7)
Margaret Court (6)*
Steffi Graf (6)
Evonne Goolagong (6)
Althea Gibson (6)
Martina Hingis (6)
Margaret Osborne DuPont (6)
Margaret Court (5)
Steffi Graf (5)
Helen Wills Moody (5)
Serena Williams (5)
Billie Jean King (5)
Justine Henin (5)
Dorothea Douglass Lambert Chambers (5)
Hazel Hotchkiss Wightman (5)
Maria Bueno (5)
Martina Navratilova (4)
Suzanne Lenglen (4)*
Suzanne Lenglen (4)
Venus Williams (4)
Molla Mallory (4)
Maria Bueno (4)
Doris Hart (4)
Shirley Fry (4)
Alice Marble (4)
Arantxa Sanchez Vicario (4)

*also achieved more than one period of consecutive Grand Slam finals


All-Time Top Ten List of Grand Slam Singles Winners:

1. Margaret Court (24)**
2. Steffi Graf (22)
3. Helen Wills Moody 19**
4. Serena Williams 18**
5. Martina Navratilova 18
6. Chris Evert 18
7. Billie Jean King 12
8. Maureen Connolly 9
9. Monica Seles 9
10. Suzanne Lenglen 8

**only women to be in the top five of grand slam singles titles won and top five grand slam finals winning percentage.


Grand Slam Finals Winning Percentage of the Top Ten GS Singles Winners
:

1. Maureen Connolly 9-0 100%
1. Suzanne Lenglen 8-0 100%
2. Helen Wills Moody 19-3 86%**
3. Margaret Court 24-5 83%**
4. Serena Williams 18-4 82%**
5. Steffi Graf 22-9 71%
6. Monica Seles 9-4 69%
7. Billie Jean King 12-6 67%
8. Martina Navratilova 18-14 56%
9. Chris Evert 18-16 53%

**only women to be in the top five of grand slam singles titles won and top five grand slam finals winning percentage.

PTL ThankUGod4Tennis

AngieB
 
Last edited:

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
All-Time List of Consecutive Grand Slam Finals Played:

Helen Wills Moody (16)*
Martina Navratilova (14)*
Steffi Graf (13)*
Chris Evert (10)*
Monica Seles (10)
Maureen Connolly (9)
Chris Evert (8)
Evonne Goolagong (8)*
Paulene Betz (7)
Margaret Court (6)*
Steffi Graf (6)
Evonne Goolagong (6)
Althea Gibson (6)
Martina Hingis (6)
Margaret Osborne DuPont (6)
Margaret Court (5)
Steffi Graf (5)
Helen Wills Moody (5)
Serena Williams (5)
Billie Jean King (5)
Justine Henin (5)
Dorothea Douglass Lambert Chambers (5)
Hazel Hotchkiss Wightman (5)
Maria Bueno (5)
Martina Navratilova (4)
Suzanne Lenglen (4)*
Suzanne Lenglen (4)
Venus Williams (4)
Molla Mallory (4)
Maria Bueno (4)
Doris Hart (4)
Shirley Fry (4)
Alice Marble (4)
Arantxa Sanchez Vicario (4)

*also achieved more than one period of consecutive Grand Slam finals


All-Time Top Ten List of Grand Slam Singles Winners:

1. Margaret Court (24)**
2. Steffi Graf (22)
3. Helen Wills Moody 19**
4. Serena Williams 18**
5. Martina Navratilova 18
6. Chris Evert 18
7. Billie Jean King 12
8. Maureen Connolly 9
9. Monica Seles 9
10. Suzanne Lenglen 8

**only women to be in the top five of grand slam singles titles won and top five grand slam finals winning percentage.


Grand Slam Finals Winning Percentage of the Top Ten GS Singles Winners
:

1. Maureen Connolly 9-0 100%
1. Suzanne Lenglen 8-0 100%
2. Helen Wills Moody 19-3 86%**
3. Margaret Court 24-5 83%**
4. Serena Williams 18-4 82%**
5. Steffi Graf 22-9 71%
6. Monica Seles 9-4 69%
7. Billie Jean King 12-6 67%
8. Martina Navratilova 18-14 56%
9. Chris Evert 18-16 53%

**only women to be in the top five of grand slam singles titles won and top five grand slam finals winning percentage.

PTL ThankUGod4Tennis

AngieB

Why are you double posting?
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Because it's worthy of its own thread. Generally there could be more discussion here about the women's game anyway.

I approve.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
Because it's worthy of its own thread. Generally there could be more discussion here about the women's game anyway.

I approve.
Agree, just did not understand the double post.

Statistics like this:

Chris Evert 18-16 53%

Show how misleading statistics are.

Note that Evert is actually shown to be weak, or below-average. 53% looks almost poor.

Statistics can lie unless there are other statistics to show why...
 

AngieB

Banned
Statistics like this:

Chris Evert 18-16 53%

Show how misleading statistics are.

Note that Evert is actually shown to be weak, or below-average. 53% looks almost poor.

Statistics can lie unless there are other statistics to show why
...

The statistic is not misleading because of its large sample size. 34 grand slam finals is enough to find out how great someone plays in grand slam finals.

Chris Evert, who won 89.6% of career matches (1309–146), only managed to win 53% of her grand slam finals matches. 11% of her total losses during her career came in grand slam finals. Such a statistical disparity begs scrutiny. 10 of Chris' 18 grand slam wins occurred on clay. Given Chris historic clay court career, it could be inferred that she struggled more on faster surfaces in grand slam finals. Her game was more tailored for clay and that is no "lie".

Helen Wills Moody, Margaret Court and Serena Williams, who won as many, if not more grand slam singles titles than Evert, won 82-86% of their grand slam finals. As much as Chris was celebrated as a mentally tough tennis player before the finals the grand slam tournaments, it unfortunately didn't always culminate during the finals.

If Chris played better outside of clay in grand slam finals, she coulda, woulda, shoulda been the GOAT.

Draw your own conclusions, but understand that in Chris' case, the numbers don't lie. Hint: The best of the bests greatness begins and ends on grass, not clay.

#PTL #Road2GOATnotThruClay

AngieB
 
Last edited:

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Inspite of such a weak era and playing tennis for 16 years , Serena still has a long way to catch up with the GOAT's of the game.

Contrast this with Graf who played for about 12 years and has 4 more majors.

If only Serena had the consistency, she could have had better stats.
 

AngieB

Banned
Inspite of such a weak era and playing tennis for 16 years , Serena still has a long way to catch up with the GOAT's of the game.

Contrast this with Graf who played for about 12 years and has 4 more majors.

If only Serena had the consistency, she could have had better stats.

Everything you state is incorrect.

The "Weak Era" myth in 21st century tennis has no basis of reality. Every Era of tennis provides the best tennis players available for competition at that time. There are players historically who ascend to win far more than others of the same generation. Serena Williams is one of those players. Before assigning "Weak Era" to any generation, you might first want to remove the hatchet from Monica's back before you assigning that myth again.

Of all the top ten who played full careers, only Steffi and Monica did not play into their 30's. In Steffi's case, her handlers shoved her onto the pro tour at age 13, which I think played a huge role as to why she wasn't physically able to play into her 30's like her counterparts. Serena is still playing professionally at 33 because her parents allowed her to physically mature while nurturing her talent during her youth before allowing her to play professionally full-time.

Of the three women who won the calendar-year grand slam, Steffi actually had a lower winning percentage in grand slam singles finals. Connolly 100%, Court 83%, Graf 71%. Serena's 82% winning percentage in grand slam singles finals places her with Wills Moody and Court as the only players in the top five of grand slam singles wins to have the highest winning percentage greater than 80% grand slam singles finals. Also, Serena is 13-0 in grand slam doubles finals 100%. In grand slam finals (singles and doubles), she is one of the most consistent in women's tennis history.

Of the top five women in grand slam singles history, only Margaret Court and Martina Navratilova have won more grand slam titles than Serena's 33. Serena doesn't have a long way to catch-up with the GOAT's of the game, she's already there. Given Serena is by far heads above the rest of women's tennis, the number one player in the world and still favored to win every grand slam singles event she plays, she will continue to win grand slam singles titles. She is the only woman on Earth who has the game, will and ability to challenge history 2015.

#PTL

AngieB
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
The statistic is not misleading because of its large sample size. 34 grand slam finals is enough to find out how great someone plays in grand slam finals.

Chris Evert, who won 89.6% of career matches (1309–146), only managed to win 53% of her grand slam finals matches. 11% of her total losses during her career came in grand slam finals.
Martina Navratilova 18-14 56%
Chris Evert 18-16 53%

36 slams won by two of the greatest ever only separated by 18 months in age with one of the most famous rivalries in tennis history.

Statistics, by themselves, do not show that.
Draw your own conclusions, but understand that in Chris' case, the numbers don't lie. Hint: The best of the bests greatness begins and ends on grass, not clay.
I don't agree.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
Everything you state is incorrect.

The "Weak Era" myth in 21st century tennis has no basis of reality. Every Era of tennis provides the best tennis players available for competition at that time.
That's a bit like saying every year we will be hit with the same amount of bad hurricanes, or that if you compare any decade to any decade it will be about the same.

It's not true for the weather, and it's not true in sports. Things go in cycles.
There are players historically who ascend to win far more than others of the same generation. Serena Williams is one of those players.
Yes. I agree with that. But there is no reason why we could not have had another player who was her match, and that simply has not happened. There is no one player going head to head with her, year after year.

I'm simply saying: imagine Federe without Nadal, or Nadal without Federer.

Imagine either Evert or Martina, without the other.

Or imagine Graf against a Seles who was not attacked.

There are historic rivalries. Serena doesn't have one. We can claim that this is because she is Superwoman, and no other woman on the planet is capable of playing that well. Or we can claim that it simply was not in the cards for someone else to rise to her level.

Maybe both things are partly true.

I have no dog in this hunt. I simply say that there are several amazing players we've seen since the open era, and Serena as good as any of the others.
 

AngieB

Banned
Everything you state is incorrect.

The "Weak Era" myth in 21st century tennis has no basis of reality. Every Era of tennis provides the best tennis players available for competition at that time.
That's a bit like saying every year we will be hit with the same amount of bad hurricanes, or that if you compare any decade to any decade it will be about the same.

It's not true for the weather, and it's not true in sports. Things go in cycles.
As my granddaughter would say, "Seriously?"

Guess what? There are four seasons of weather every year and four grand slam events played in tennis. Whether it's "good or bad" is determined in the subjective eyes of the beholder.

Never has there been a way to quantitatively determine strength or weakness of any Era. In fact, before you could even begin to tackle that quagmire, how are you defining Era? By decade, generational champion? The phrase "Weak Era" is just a label assigned to diminish the accomplishments of generational champions that someone has a bias against. "Weak Era" has no useful purpose during GOAT discussions other than to flame the fires of malcontent. You kids don't play nicely or honestly in this regard. History records actual accomplishments, not subjective blather and bias.
There are players who historically ascend to win far more than others of the same generation. Serena Williams is one of those players.
Yes. I agree with that. But there is no reason why we could not have had another player who was her match, and that simply has not happened. There is no one player going head to head with her, year after year.

Imagine either Evert or Martina, without the other.

Or imagine Graf against a Seles who was not attacked.
There are no "What ifs" in the sport of tennis. Game, set, and match determines history. Do you not realize that the Evert-Navratilova rivalry is an anomaly in tennis history? Never before or since has a rivalry of that length or depth occurred in tennis history. Ever.

The Graf-Seles rivalry has been largely overstated by scrupulous revisionists who attempt to usurp tennis history by diminishing Graf's documented accomplishments. Court-King and Brough-duPont was much more historically compelling than theirs.
There are historic rivalries. Serena doesn't have one. We can claim that this is because she is Superwoman, and no other woman on the planet is capable of playing that well. Or we can claim that it simply was not in the cards for someone else to rise to her level.

Maybe both things are partly true.

I have no dog in this hunt. I simply say that there are several amazing players we've seen since the open era, and Serena as good as any of the others.
I have read your novels in these forums about Chris Evert. They have been very positive about Chris historically. Your general tone has been that unless a generational champion has a primary rival, you consider the era weak. You then point to Serena not having an historic rival. Since 1999, Serena has had the best serve, most powerful groundstokes and exhibited athleticism that could be best described as a generation ahead of her opponents. No one has ever said that about Chris Evert. Whether or not Serena had a significant rival (it appears Venus and Justine were her primary rivals) her dominance in grand slam finals 18-4 is evidence of denying all new-comers. She is simply that much better than all her peers on the largest stages in tennis. Serena is so much stronger than her generational contemporaries that she makes them appear weak and dominated.

#PTL #WWJD

AngieB
 
Last edited:

MTF07

Semi-Pro
I'd take 18-16 in slam finals over 18-4 anyday. All that does is show that the person who was 18-4 in slam finals lost prior to the finals that much more often than the person that was in 12 more major finals.
 

AngieB

Banned
I'd take 18-16 in slam finals over 18-4 anyday. All that does is show that the person who was 18-4 in slam finals lost prior to the finals that much more often than the person that was in 12 more major finals.

Okay.

Chris Evert says, "I won 18 grand slam singles titles and lost in 16 finals."
Serena Williams says, "I won 18 grand slam singles titles and only lost in 4."

I don't know of too many folks who would brag about losing in 16 grand slam finals, unless they won exponentially more. In this instance, quality over quantity.

#PTL

AngieB
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
But it speaks well for Evert's great consistency in being dominant. Serena is far less consistent in reaching the Championship match and I doubt it was because of the time period she's played in but rather, it's down mostly to other factors. Serena was perfectly capable of showing greater consistency but anyway, she's making up for lost time and opportunities now by showing incredible longevity and unstoppable form when she does reach Championship matches.

As for quality over quantity, a lot of this is dependent on context. Ultimately though I can never imagine Serena letting even another extremely great (say double digit Slams) rival garner a H2H record of 10-4 against her in Slam finals.

Evert is more accomplished, Serena is actually already greater based on peak level of play IMO. Then again, I find it hard to truly declare Serena as being greater just based on what in my mind is simply a hypothetical imagining. Nonetheless, it's how I feel about it at the moment.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
There are historic rivalries. Serena doesn't have one.

I disagree, as I will address shortly...

We can claim that this is because she is Superwoman, and no other woman on the planet is capable of playing that well. Or we can claim that it simply was not in the cards for someone else to rise to her level.

Some players have several rivalries. For example, Connors had Borg, McEnroe and Lendl. Agassi had Sampras & Courier. Serena had Venus, Capriati (to a degree) and Henin, (though she played many majors winners before and after each) but as in every generation, rivals do not keep the same amount of years on tour. Other players, new threats emerge, so it is not a negative to have the one rival.

It has been argued that her astounding longevity through three generations of opponents--rivals & others--speaks to her legendary status. In other words, she survives, while others--including some very strong players have come and gone. That too, is not a negative, but proves how incredible a player Serena is no matter the generation faced.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
I disagree, as I will address shortly...



Some players have several rivalries. For example, Connors had Borg, McEnroe and Lendl. Agassi had Sampras & Courier. Serena had Venus, Capriati (to a degree) and Henin, (though she played many majors winners before and after each) but as in every generation, rivals do not keep the same amount of years on tour. Other players, new threats emerge, so it is not a negative to have the one rival.

It has been argued that her astounding longevity through three generations of opponents--rivals & others--speaks to her legendary status. In other words, she survives, while others--including some very strong players have come and gone. That too, is not a negative, but proves how incredible a player Serena is no matter the generation faced.

I think dominance is overrated.


I value longevity highly because it's direct proof that one can produce Championship winning form against numerous generations of players and many different styles. It shows that one has a game that can produce all the answers in a constantly changing landscape.

In this sense, Serena's tennis is absolute. It simply wins.
 

bluetrain4

G.O.A.T.
Finals win percentage doesn't matter to me when comparing players, unless the have the exact same number of Slam finals of course.

Say a male player was 8-0 in Slam finals, while Lendl is 8-11. The 8-0 player was a perfect 100 percent, while Lendl has a bad percentage, yet Lendl is actually more accomplished.

I mean, people like Anatasia Myskina and Iva Majoli are 100% in Slam finals at 1-0.
 

AngieB

Banned
Finals win percentage doesn't matter to me when comparing players, unless the have the exact same number of Slam finals of course.

Say a male player was 8-0 in Slam finals, while Lendl is 8-11. The 8-0 player was a perfect 100 percent, while Lendl has a bad percentage, yet Lendl is actually more accomplished.

I mean, people like Anatasia Myskina and Iva Majoli are 100% in Slam finals at 1-0.
Odd that you would mention Ivan Lendl who is largely overlooked during GOAT discussions in spite of his consistent play and weeks at number one. Part of that reason is because of his missed opportunities in grand slam finals and his inability to win Wimbledon. That is where an 8-11 record in grand slam finals diminishes a player historically. Again, the weight of performance in grand slam singles finals is imperative. Grass...grass...grass.

Using Myskina and Majoli as examples of winning percentages in grand slam singles finals is intellectually dishonest when discussing all-time winners of grand slam singles events (best-of-the-best).

#PTL

AngieB
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Odd that you would mention Ivan Lendl who is largely overlooked during GOAT discussions in spite of his consistent play and weeks at number one. Part of that reason is because of his missed opportunities in grand slam finals and his inability to win Wimbledon. That is where an 8-11 record in grand slam finals diminishes a player historically. Again, the weight of performance in grand slam singles finals is imperative. Grass...grass...grass.

Using Myskina and Majoli as examples of winning percentages in grand slam singles finals is intellectually dishonest when discussing all-time winners of grand slam singles events (best-of-the-best).

#PTL

AngieB

So you think 8-0 is better than 8-11 Angie, even if the player with the perfect conversion rate in finals had crashed out in the first round the other eleven times she played, rather than reaching the final?
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Odd that you would mention Ivan Lendl who is largely overlooked during GOAT discussions in spite of his consistent play and weeks at number one. Part of that reason is because of his missed opportunities in grand slam finals and his inability to win Wimbledon. That is where an 8-11 record in grand slam finals diminishes a player historically. Again, the weight of performance in grand slam singles finals is imperative. Grass...grass...grass.

Using Myskina and Majoli as examples of winning percentages in grand slam singles finals is intellectually dishonest when discussing all-time winners of grand slam singles events (best-of-the-best).

#PTL

AngieB

Davenport is 3-4 , rated much higher than Capriati who is 3-0.

Hingis at 5-7, rated higher than Sharapova who is 5-4.

Murray is 2-5, Safin, Hewitt, Rafter have 2-2 are rated higher than Brugera with 2-1.
 
Last edited:

Man of steel

Hall of Fame
Davenport is 3-4 , rated much higher than Capriati who is 3-0.

Hingis at 5-7, rated higher than Sharapova who is 5-4.

Safin, Hewitt, Rafter have 2-2, rated higher than Brugera with 2-1.

People seem to think serena has consistently lost at 1st or second rounds.
Compared to chrissy martina and steffi serena has lost once in her career in the first round. Chrissy is the best with no losses but graf and martina have have 3 or more losses in their career.
A lot of serena's losses are in quarterfinal stages. Where do you think the name quarterena came from. Graf, chrissy and martina have better win percentages when reaching quaterfinals but serena has better win percentages in both semi's and finals.
They all have to lose at some stage in a slam seeing as they can't win all the time. So most of their losses will be at a particular stage.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
People seem to think serena has consistently lost at 1st or second rounds.
Compared to chrissy martina and steffi serena has lost once in her career in the first round. Chrissy is the best with no losses but graf and martina have have 3 or more losses in their career.
A lot of serena's losses are in quarterfinal stages. Where do you think the name quarterena came from. Graf, chrissy and martina have better win percentages when reaching quaterfinals but serena has better win percentages in both semi's and finals.
They all have to lose at some stage in a slam seeing as they can't win all the time. So most of their losses will be at a particular stage.

Not sure what your point is. Losing many times in a Slam final is still better than losing many times in the QF.
 

Man of steel

Hall of Fame
Not sure what your point is. Losing many times in a Slam final is still better than losing many times in the QF.

My point was you were kind of making it out that serena was losing way to early in 1st-2nd round a lot of the time which isn't the case. Obviously losing in a final may seem better than losing in quarterfinals.
 

AngieB

Banned
Davenport is 3-4 , rated much higher than Capriati who is 3-0.

Hingis at 5-7, rated higher than Sharapova who is 5-4.

Murray is 2-5, Safin, Hewitt, Rafter have 2-2 are rated higher than Brugera with 2-1.

My first error was responding to a post about Ivan Lendl. I did it reluctantly. I will no long discuss men's tennis in this thread because they are irrelevant to WTA grand slam history.

Second, I don't major in minors. When discussing dominance in grand slam singles events, Hingis, Davenport, Capriati and Sharapova don't come to mind. Although, Maria is by far the most accomplished of the four in grand slam competition by having won the career grand slam. Their grand slam finals records are irrelevant in comparison with the Top Ten Women's Grand Slam Champions.

Of the 209 weeks Martina Hingis was ranked number one, 108 of those weeks she didn't hold a grand slam singles title. Hingis and Davenport were great at the tour events, but not historic at the grand slam events. Again, I don't major in minors.

#PTL

AngieB
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
My first error was responding to a post about Ivan Lendl. I did it reluctantly. I will no long discuss men's tennis in this thread because they are irrelevant to WTA grand slam history.

Second, I don't major in minors. When discussing dominance in grand slam singles events, Hingis, Davenport, Capriati and Sharapova don't come to mind. Although, Maria is by far the most accomplished of the four in grand slam competition by having won the career grand slam. Their grand slam finals records are irrelevant in comparison with the Top Ten Women's Grand Slam Champions.

Of the 209 weeks Martina Hingis was ranked number one, 108 of those weeks she didn't hold a grand slam singles title. Hingis and Davenport were great at the tour events, but not historic at the grand slam events. Again, I don't major in minors.



#PTL

AngieB

LOL, it makes no difference if you don't "major in the minors", the principal is still the same. 18-16 is still a helluva lot better than 18-4.
And even bigger LOL @ Sharapova's career being far more accomplished. I'll take Hingis' over hers any day of the week and Davenport's ain't too far behind either.
You need to stop this obsession with the Slams Angie, they're not the be all and end all otherwise we wouldn't see so many other tournaments being played throughout the year. Basically ALL tournaments matter whether you like it or not!
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
When is losing ever considered better when describing the greats of tennis in grand slam history?

#PTL

AngieB

Losing is never considered better but losing in the final is always considered better than losing in the earlier rounds. It ain't exactly rocket science Angie.

#PTL

Djokovic2011
 

AngieB

Banned
So you think 8-0 is better than 8-11 Angie, even if the player with the perfect conversion rate in finals had crashed out in the first round the other eleven times she played, rather than reaching the final?
I'm trying to duplicate a scenario by which something like that has occurred in WTA history among the greats. I don't think there is one. Maybe someone else could enlighten us. Suzanne Lenglen and Maureen Connolly were perfect, but abbreviated. None of their rivals or emerging threats had a comparable amount of wins but exponentially more losses.

Maureen Connolly was perfect in grand slam finals 9-0, being the first woman to win the calendar year grand slam. Her career was cut short at 19 after a horse-riding accident post-Wimbledon win 1954. She was never able to regain her prior form or play regularly again. Her abbreviated career was outstanding. Serena at 18-4 in grand slam finals has a lesser winning percentage, but greater number of wins and is historically-favored because of longevity.

I don't know of many times that an 8 time or more grand slam winner was ever a multiple first round loser in grand slam history.

#PTL

AngieB
 

AngieB

Banned
Losing is never considered better but losing in the final is always considered better than losing in the earlier rounds. It ain't exactly rocket science Angie.

#PTL

Djokovic2011

What value does losing in multiple grand slam singles finals have when discussing dominance in women's tennis?

Chris Evert went years as the number two player in the world, losing in multiple grand slam finals, but the only woman in women's tennis that was dominating winning grand slam events at the time was Martina Navratilova. Chris Evert wasn't inducted into the ITHOF because she lost 16 grand slam singles finals. She was inducted because she won 18 grand slam singles titles. Martina Navratilova wasn't inducted into the ITHOP because she lost 14 grand slam finals. She was inducted because she won 18 grand slam singles titles and multiple doubles titles.


#PTL

AngieB
 
Last edited:

AngieB

Banned
LOL, it makes no difference if you don't "major in the minors", the principal is still the same. 18-16 is still a helluva lot better than 18-4.
In your world, 53% is > 83%. I don't want you balancing my checkbook.
And even bigger LOL @ Sharapova's career being far more accomplished. I'll take Hingis' over hers any day of the week and Davenport's ain't too far behind either.
Martina Hingis was a temporary, transitional champion in WTA history who had tons of variety, but couldn't withstand the stronger, bigger hitters of the modern game. Martina played an exponential number of tour-level events to keep her number one ranking during a time when she could no longer win grand slam singles events. She was year-end number one ranked during one year she was not the holder of a grand slam event. Once Martina figured out she could no longer win grand slam singles events (see Venus, Serena and Jennifer), she retired from tennis due to "foot/ankle problems" and sued her footwear manufacturer, saying their shoes ruined her career. She lost that lawsuit. She returned to tennis and was banned for testing positive for an illegal substance. She denied ingesting any illegal substance and retired once again. Martina Hingis was privileged and delusional.

Lindsay Davenport also won a ton of tour level events but couldn't translate that success into winning the best tournaments in the world consistently. She enjoyed year-end number one ranking three years during periods she was not a holder of grand slam events.

Lindsay and Martina didn't have the mental or physical fortitude to challenge tennis history by winning more grand slam singles events because they played during the era of Venus/Serena Williams and Justine Henin.

Maria's (5) grand slam singles titles and career grand slam place her above Lindsay and Martina in grand slam singles tennis history. Maria is greater than Lindsay and Martina for the same reasons Venus and Justine are (poor sentence structure).

Again, I don't major in minors. I won't be discussing Martina Hingis, Lindsay Davenport or Maria Sharapova when referencing greats in grand slam tennis history.
You need to stop this obsession with the Slams Angie, they're not the be all and end all otherwise we wouldn't see so many other tournaments being played throughout the year. Basically ALL tournaments matter whether you like it or not!
When assessing the best in tennis history, playing in London, New York, Melbourne and Paris is always weighted favorably than that of New Haven, Connecticut. There is a reason they call them "Grand Slam" events. They are the biggest and the best tournaments in tennis history that every tennis player aspires to win. Not Cincinnati, Ohio. I would venture if you asked any of the top ten, they would say winning grand slam events is always more important than holding the number one ranking or winning in Charleston, South Carolina.

#PTL

AngieB
 
Last edited:

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Yes Angie- 53% is better than 83% if it means reaching 12 more finals in the process.
As for your essay on Hingis and Davenport's careers(all of which I already knew) all I can do is reiterate once more that Slams aren't the only tournaments around. Between 99-01 both Martina and Lindsay won a helluva lot of mandatory premier 1 tournies as well as End of Year Championships and it's not like they weren't consistently going deep in the Slams they weren't winning either.
I could understand your point more if you were talking about someone like Wozniacki or Safina who both got to #1 without winning a major but this was never the case with the late '90s girls so IMO they were both very worthy number ones at the time.
 
Last edited:

PDJ

G.O.A.T.
When assessing history you also have to remember the prestige of the tournament throughout it's own history. RG and AO have had periods where they were not considered any where as important as Wimbledon or The US- well covered on this Forum.
 

ScottleeSV

Hall of Fame
Of the 209 weeks Martina Hingis was ranked number one, 108 of those weeks she didn't hold a grand slam singles title. Hingis and Davenport were great at the tour events, but not historic at the grand slam events. Again, I don't major in minors.

#PTL

AngieB

Although Hingis was 5-7 when she retired, if she'd had a full length career, you'd have to think she would have at least doubled up to 10 wins at the absolute minimum (with a win/loss finals record a bit like Evert's, maybe).

Hingis had won 39 WTA tour events when she wasn't even yet 22 years old. Absolutely staggering. I think it's easy to forget just how special she was before the injuries. Consider that Williams has played more than a decade longer is on about 65 wins.
 

PDJ

G.O.A.T.
Although Hingis was 5-7 when she retired, if she'd had a full length career, you'd have to think she would have at least doubled up to 10 wins at the absolute minimum (with a win/loss finals record a bit like Evert's, maybe).

Hingis had won 39 WTA tour events when she wasn't even yet 22 years old. Absolutely staggering. I think it's easy to forget just how special she was before the injuries. Consider that Williams has played more than a decade longer is on about 65 wins.

Yes, Hingis was, and is, a special talent. A joy to watch.
 

Man of steel

Hall of Fame
Where do people think hingis would have gotten those 5 extra slam wins.
I have no idea. She wasn't going to be taking slams off of venus, serena, henin and multiple other GS champion.
 

ScottleeSV

Hall of Fame
Where do people think hingis would have gotten those 5 extra slam wins.
I have no idea. She wasn't going to be taking slams off of venus, serena, henin and multiple other GS champion.

Hingis' head to head against the Williams sisters is 17-17 combined, a dead tie. At the age she retired for the first time, she'd achieved more in the game than each William sister at that age.
 

Vanhool

Hall of Fame
Hingis' head to head against the Williams sisters is 17-17 combined, a dead tie. At the age she retired for the first time, she'd achieved more in the game than each William sister at that age.

Big deal. Jankovic could have had a pretty good head to head with Serena if she would have retired early. Lol so could Sharapova.

Hingis is peer age group with WS. Yes she has had injuries, but so have they. Serena has evolved her game quite a bit since Hingis retired. If Hingis was still playing, her h2h would be much less even. SW already leads h2h 7-6 and one of Hingis' wins was a retirement. Serena won the last 3 matches. The last time Hingis beat her was 2001 and Serena hadn't even reached her first peak. I'm not saying Hingis wasn't a good player, I just don't think she would have won more slams at Serena's expense. I think she maxed her potential as a young person and didn't have a lot more to add, whereas Serena had a lot of room to improve at the same age and she did.

Edit: with the right draw, maybe she could have picked up 1-3 more, especially during the time when so many of the top players were injured or retired, but I don't see double digits.
 
Last edited:

AngieB

Banned
Although Hingis was 5-7 when she retired, if she'd had a full length career, you'd have to think she would have at least doubled up to 10 wins at the absolute minimum (with a win/loss finals record a bit like Evert's, maybe).

Hingis had won 39 WTA tour events when she wasn't even yet 22 years old. Absolutely staggering. I think it's easy to forget just how special she was before the injuries. Consider that Williams has played more than a decade longer is on about 65 wins.

The same sense of entitlement Hingis enjoyed in her youth is the same entitlement her fans continue to emulate in describing what Hingis "could have" been. Enjoying success during your youth does not guarantee future success if your game cannot evolve in the climate of a more powerful, modern game. In the presence of Venus Williams, Serena Williams and Justine Henin, (and to large degree, Lindsay Davenport), Hingis was never going to double her grand slam wins because her game was dated and weak.

Hingis' initial retirement in 2003 was solidified by her inability to compete with the strongest players in women's tennis. At that time of Hingis' 1st retirement, Serena was in the midst of her "Serena Slam". Martina left tennis for the same reason Bjorn Borg left...they both knew they could never be as great as they once were. Hingis NEVER experienced a career-ending injury. We know this because of her return to the sport in 2005, then unceremonial 2-year doping ban from tennis in 2007 that she never appealed.

It is laughable attempting to compare Martina Hingis with Chris Evert's career, then attempt to disparage Serena's 65-win career (33 grand slam wins). It is evidence of the abject denial and delusion Hingis fans have white-knuckled about her abbreviated career. Hingis feigned "career-ending" injury and role in her doping ban. I'm frankly surprised she was inducted into the ITHOF given her doping ban. Anyone banned from the sport shouldn't be allowed into the Hall of Fame.

#PTL

AngieB
 
Last edited:

Man of steel

Hall of Fame
Hingis' head to head against the Williams sisters is 17-17 combined, a dead tie. At the age she retired for the first time, she'd achieved more in the game than each William sister at that age.

Big deal. Jankovic could have had a pretty good head to head with Serena if she would have retired early. Lol so could Sharapova.

Hingis is peer age group with WS. Yes she has had injuries, but so have they. Serena has evolved her game quite a bit since Hingis retired. If Hingis was still playing, her h2h would be much less even. SW already leads h2h 7-6 and one of Hingis' wins was a retirement. Serena won the last 3 matches. The last time Hingis beat her was 2001 and Serena hadn't even reached her first peak. I'm not saying Hingis wasn't a good player, I just don't think she would have won more slams at Serena's expense. I think she maxed her potential as a young person and didn't have a lot more to add, whereas Serena had a lot of room to improve at the same age and she did.

This. Even look at her failed attempt of a comeback in 2006 when she was 24-25 Don't get me wrong scottie. She was a great player at such a young age but the problem with that is when your peers who are of the same age physically and mentally become better in every aspect of the game there is nothing hingis could have done. If she stayed during 2002 and after she would have gotten owned by a number of players.
 

Vanhool

Hall of Fame
We'll never know

That is true. It would have been nice to see. I also wish Graf would have played a couple more years so we could all have even more to argue about :) There are so many tantalizing parallel universes in tennis. I would love to know what Serena could have done without injuries, depression, outside interests, but only her fans care about such things, record books don't.
 

PDJ

G.O.A.T.
I think there was something rather elegant about Graf's departure- she went out practically at the top: a memorable RG and finalist at Wimbledon which included probably the women's match of the tournament against Venus Williams. I'm not a huge fan of Graf, but I really get that some people are.
 
Top