Agree Agree:  215
Likes Likes:  376
Page 331 of 331 FirstFirst ... 81231281306321327328329330331
Results 4,951 to 4,959 of 4959
  1. #4951

    Re: Talk about Rankings (TAR :))

    Sampras took extreme measures to get his 6th straight year end #1 ranking. The only meaningful record he still holds.
    Roger forever

  2. #4952

    Re: Talk about Rankings (TAR :))

    Indeed. Sampras went for so much to get that #1 in 1998 that remember he did not play the Aussie in '99. He was too burnt out.
    I think Novak is doing all he can because there is a chance that the big 3 will end up clustered around the 20 Slams mark and then it will be details like this that will separate them. Novak's "all 9 MS1000's" will come into the discussion. Rafa's "13 at one single slam" will too. Roger's "3 years winning 3 slams". And remember that until Sampras came along, Roy Emerson had the record for more slams yet nobody considered him even closer to being the GOAT.
    I know that Novak's dad does not speak for him, but remember that the man's prediction was that by the USO he would be tied with Roger, having a calendar Slam. Well, not close. So these guys really push themselves to these limits.
    I have written this before: they are driven, but it is "good driven". They may be difficult at times, sometimes they may say the "not perfect" thing. But I don't think anybody can deny that this three guys really love the sport, and love what they do. Otherwise, at the $100MM and 10 slams they could have said "yep, this is good enough. Time to go fishing/skiing/vacationing for life".
    Face it. It's the apocalypse.

  3. #4953

    Re: Talk about Rankings (TAR :))

    Quote Originally Posted by ponchi101 View Post
    Indeed. Sampras went for so much to get that #1 in 1998 that remember he did not play the Aussie in '99. He was too burnt out.
    I think Novak is doing all he can because there is a chance that the big 3 will end up clustered around the 20 Slams mark and then it will be details like this that will separate them. Novak's "all 9 MS1000's" will come into the discussion. Rafa's "13 at one single slam" will too. Roger's "3 years winning 3 slams". And remember that until Sampras came along, Roy Emerson had the record for more slams yet nobody considered him even closer to being the GOAT.
    I know that Novak's dad does not speak for him, but remember that the man's prediction was that by the USO he would be tied with Roger, having a calendar Slam. Well, not close. So these guys really push themselves to these limits.
    I have written this before: they are driven, but it is "good driven". They may be difficult at times, sometimes they may say the "not perfect" thing. But I don't think anybody can deny that this three guys really love the sport, and love what they do. Otherwise, at the $100MM and 10 slams they could have said "yep, this is good enough. Time to go fishing/skiing/vacationing for life".
    I get that, but my point is that nobody talks about the difference in Serenaís weeks at number 1 compared to Court and Steffi, or how many YECís they won, or how many premier titles. Itís all about the slam count

  4. #4954

    Re: Talk about Rankings (TAR :))

    That is a mistake, they should really take into account other factors too. Particularly considering the numerous "fake" slams Court has on her list.
    Roger forever

  5. #4955
    Grand Slam Champion
    Awards Showcase

    omess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    London, Canada
    Posts
    8,902

    Re: Talk about Rankings (TAR :))

    Quote Originally Posted by liam_valid View Post
    I get that, but my point is that nobody talks about the difference in Serenaís weeks at number 1 compared to Court and Steffi, or how many YECís they won, or how many premier titles. Itís all about the slam count
    May be because the WTA failed with their tournament structure/ name change . So it is hard to debate titles when they are so different


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  6. #4956

    Re: Talk about Rankings (TAR :))

    Quote Originally Posted by liam_valid View Post
    I get that, but my point is that nobody talks about the difference in Serena’s weeks at number 1 compared to Court and Steffi, or how many YEC’s they won, or how many premier titles. It’s all about the slam count
    Oh, but I did!
    http://www.talkabouttennis.com/forum...rena-vs-Steffi

    I also blogged about all the women that are usually considered for the GOAT conversation, but that blog has been erased from the forum.
    This was my take on Court:
    ---0---
    A player that is seldom mentioned when talking about GOAT’s is Margaret Smith Court, the Australian powerhouse of the 60’s and early 70’s. This is odd in view of her achievements: 24 Grand Slam titles, a Calendar year Slam (1970), 192 total single tournaments, a career winning percentage of 91.74% (1,177-106) and over 80% of victories against top 10 players (297-73). She was the top ranked player at the end of the year 7 times. So why is she seldom mentioned as a possible GOAT?
    For starters, she played roughly half- and- half between the amateur and the professional era. But that argument is non-sense. Rod Laver won 6 of his Grand Slam titles before the pro era and he is never taken out of the GOAT conversation for men. That argument simply does not cut it, especially on the women’s side as there was no professional women’s tour at the time. The tennis stage on the women’s side was amateur, and there was no other set up where Court could play her tennis (as opposed to Laver, who left the amateur circuit in 1962 and went professional, depriving the world of a proper tally of how many Grand Slams he would have won if he had not been forced to skip them all from 1963 through 1967).
    The second complaint about Court is that of her 24 slams, 11 came at her native Australian Open. Numerically, it also makes no sense. Nobody mentions that Navratilova captured half her loot at Wimbledon, mainly because The Championships are the most important tennis tournament in the world. However, Court’s 11 Aussies still leave her with 13 Slams at the other three, something that is not too shabby. The Australian open, people say, was filled with local Aussie talent, making it an “easy” slam because people think that nobody traveled there unless sponsored by The National Geographic Society.
    Again, this line of reasoning is not watertight. At the time, Australia was one of the two tennis superpowers (the USA being the other). Complaining that you won an event at Australia at the time because it was only Australians playing there is the same as disregarding a victory at an Ice Hockey event in Canada, or deriding a Soccer Player of the Year award in Brazil. The Sheilas down under could play.
    But let’s assume that it was indeed a depleted field. Was it? Of the 11 finals she won at the Aussie Open, one was a walkover, four were against Jan Lehane O’Neill and the other 6 were against players that won Slams AND made multiple finals at the other big three. She topped Billie Jean King, Evonne Goolagong, Maria Bueno and Lesley Turner Bowery, all multiple slam winners, at the Aussie. And if you wonder about O’Neill’s accomplishments, the woman was not a complete pushover: she made the quarters at all the other Slams. So claiming that Court was winning the Australian open against the tennis equivalent of Helen Keller is not quite accurate.
    Perhaps Court’s star has been dimmed because of her truly outdated, prehistoric and homophobic views towards the LBGT community (singling out Navratilova, for example) but we are looking at the Greatest Tennis player of all time, not a candidate for sainthood. To put things in perspective about how good this woman was on a tennis court, Court did lose the 1971 Wimbledon championship to Goolagong, but did so while pregnant. Think about that one for a while understanding that she made the finals of a tournament with her personal version of playing TWO AGAINST ONE, and you have to curb your opinion and agree that shutting Court out of the GOAT conversation is not something that can be done easily.
    ---0---

    So indeed, you are right. Defining the GOAT in such a simplistic fashion as "who won more slams" is shallow. The sport is too rich in history and numbers to go just for one metric.

    And, as if it matters at all: The women's GOAT for me is Navratilova. She had Evert to fight for slams all of her career, and then had Graf. So the "shabby" 18 slams are indeed the wrong metric, in my opinion.
    Last edited by ponchi101; 10-24-2020 at 08:21 AM.
    Face it. It's the apocalypse.

  7. #4957

    Re: Talk about Rankings (TAR :))

    Serena has spent more than 6 years ranked #1 during her career, including a stretch of 186 weeks, and that's not consistent?
    This is not the bouquet you toss

  8. #4958

    Re: Talk about Rankings (TAR :))

    You lost me. I went back and read my blog, plus what we have said, and I can't find where anybody has said Serena has not been consistent. I did mention that she is third in weeks at #1 and she has been #1 at year's end 5 times. But claiming she has not been consistent would be foolish indeed, and I don't see anybody here saying that.
    Face it. It's the apocalypse.

  9. #4959

    Re: Talk about Rankings (TAR :))

    Quote Originally Posted by ponchi101 View Post
    You lost me. I went back and read my blog, plus what we have said, and I can't find where anybody has said Serena has not been consistent. I did mention that she is third in weeks at #1 and she has been #1 at year's end 5 times. But claiming she has not been consistent would be foolish indeed, and I don't see anybody here saying that.
    Sorry, that response was to suliso's post a page back or so
    Last edited by JTContinental; 10-24-2020 at 01:24 PM.
    This is not the bouquet you toss

Page 331 of 331 FirstFirst ... 81231281306321327328329330331

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •