One Slam Wonders vs. Slam-less #1s

[blueberry]

I would go for slamless no.1. These players had achieved a greater level of consistency than the one slam wonders which I think is worth more because it requires a lot more effort. Sure, winning a slam is a great achievement but it's only one tournament and after that the level of tennis one slam wonders displayed was usually a lot lower. So, basically they had an amazing two weeks but then returned back to their old level. On the other hand slamless no.1s sustained a high level of play during a long time and did not win a slam due to mental pressure that was put on them by the haters and media and mostly,themselves. Nevertheless, they made a bigger impact and have a bigger name in tennis world.

 

[Calvy]

I would go for slamless no.1. These players had achieved a greater level of consistency than the one slam wonders which I think is worth more because it requires a lot more effort.

This is not necessarily true. Sabatini, Conchita and Majoli played during the Graf, Seles and Hingis era. All had very consistent careers, just the players above then turned out to be all-time greats.

One could argue, both Gabriela and Conchita had greater season than say Jelena and Caroline, two players whom player 20 or more tournies in a year.

 

[jhar26]

I would go for slamless no.1. These players had achieved a greater level of consistency than the one slam wonders which I think is worth more because it requires a lot more effort.

This is not necessarily true. Sabatini, Conchita and Majoli played during the Graf, Seles and Hingis era. All had very consistent careers, just the players above then turned out to be all-time greats.

One could argue, both Gabriela and Conchita had greater season than say Jelena and Caroline, two players whom player 20 or more tournies in a year.

Well, Sabatini is probably the most accomplished "one slam wonder" in history. Conchita Martinez is a semi-great who's achievements are unfortunately a bit underrated or overlooked, I agree. Not to take anything away from Iva Majoli's achievements, but I would rank Wozniacki's, Jankovic's and Safina's careers a bit higher than hers.

 

[Calvy]

I would go for slamless no.1. These players had achieved a greater level of consistency than the one slam wonders which I think is worth more because it requires a lot more effort.

This is not necessarily true. Sabatini, Conchita and Majoli played during the Graf, Seles and Hingis era. All had very consistent careers, just the players above then turned out to be all-time greats.

One could argue, both Gabriela and Conchita had greater season than say Jelena and Caroline, two players whom player 20 or more tournies in a year.

Well, Sabatini is probably the most accomplished "one slam wonder" in history. Conchita Martinez is a semi-great who's achievements are unfortunately a bit underrated or overlooked, I agree. Not to take anything away from Iva Majoli's achievements, but I would rank Wozniacki's, Jankovic's and Safina's careers a bit higher than hers.

I agree about Majoli, this is why I didn't include her when mentioning Gabriela and Conchita had superior careers.

 

[jhar26]

I agree about Majoli, this is why I didn't include her when mentioning Gabriela and Conchita had superior careers.

I understand. I only included Majoli in my reply to add to my argument that the poll question, at least for me, can't be answered conclusively without considering a players' entire career.

 

[britbox]

I'd go for winning the slam. At that moment in time, on the biggest stage of all you could say you were the last woman standing. Most of the slamless #1s were never really the best player in the world even if their ranking suggested otherwise.

 

[Billie]

I voted for one slam wonder but...i can see the other point....if it comes to a really one time kind of a surprise slam win or being #1 for a while then I might consider #1 ranking...they will be always called former number 1 when talking about WTA and history whereas their name would come up only at the slam where they had one time ultimate success.

 

[Chelsia16]

Most go their whole career on tour winning very few events; even less win a slam.
Winning slams it the ultimate goal of all players and being #1 usually comes with that. The fact that Safina (3 slam finals), Jankovic (1 slam final) and Wozniacki (1 slam final) achieved #1 status without winning a slam is unfortunate.
Schiavone, Na and Stosur (only 3 titles her entire career) will at least retire with a slam winner. I guess Jankovic and Wozniacki still have a chance to possibly get a slam before they retire; Schiavone and Na did at 29 years old....

 

[tented]

I'd go with a slam. Fact is, there is no "wall of champions" for slamless number 1's. Players such as Woz, Jelena and Dinara are not getting invited to the roll call of champions that all of the slams have now and then.

Ask athlete, regarding any sport, except Lee Westwood, what would you rather have, a number 1 ranking or your sports biggest champion(s).

Ask Michelle Kwan, would she trade all those year of being ranked first in her sport, whether she'd give it up for that illusive Olympic Gold Medal. Ask Patrick Ewing, whether he's happier the Knicks finished with the best record, or whether he'd prefer to have won the NBA championship. Ask Dementieva had she accomplished one more thing in her career, would it have been number 1 or winning a major.

Someone wrote slams are easier to win that becoming number 1. Duh, of course they're easier to win, they're played four times a year.

Fact is, players like Iva Majoli, Sabatini, Li, Schiavone, Kvitova, O'neil, Jausovic, Ruzuci, Barker, Jordan and Martinez names will forever sitting on a wall with the greatest that ever played.

Anyone remember Marcelo Rios?

Hi, Calvy! I'm glad to see you found us here!

You make several great points. Mentioning Michelle Kwan and Dementieva, for example, made me nod my head in agreement. They demonstrate perfectly what these athletes really want: the Big Prize.

I, too, think Kwan would exchange her weeks at No. 1 for the Olympic Gold, and Dementieva would give anything to have won a Major.

They're the goals they thought about, and obsessed over, as kids. They saw the athletes receiving Gold Medals and lifting trophies. They did not see them receiving awards for being ranked No. 1.

 

[Correspondent Kiu]

Most go their whole career on tour winning very few events; even less win a slam.
....

Hi there,
Welcome!!

I agree with this first sentence, there are thousands out there that have 1, 2 or no titles to their name.
Look at Mirjana Lucic-Baroni, she is now 31, still has to play qualifying...2 titles to her name. She has never been better than #32

I disagree with this:

Sabatini, Conchita and Majoli played during the Graf, Seles and Hingis era. All had very consistent careers, just the players above then turned out to be all-time greats.

These are second rate players that never got close to the top position, they are like Sam Stosur, they will go down in Tennis history as a one slam wonder and no more.
Not consistent enough or good enough to beat the best! That's what makes them better than ordinary but nothing close to the best.

Even if some of us don't like it, players like JJ and Caro have their name written on more than a wall in one city! That's what a former #1 brings to the table.

I am sure these same discussions were abundant 10 years ago when Kimmy was in the same spot.

 

[Calvy]

Hi, Calvy! I'm glad to see you found us here!

You make several great points. Mentioning Michelle Kwan and Dementieva, for example, made me nod my head in agreement. They demonstrate perfectly what these athletes really want: the Big Prize.

I, too, think Kwan would exchange her weeks at No. 1 for the Olympic Gold, and Dementieva would give anything to have won a Major.

They're the goals they thought about, and obsessed over, as kids. They saw the athletes receiving Gold Medals and lifting trophies. They did not see them receiving awards for being ranked No. 1.

Exactly! When I was growing up and dreaming of becoming a GREAT tennis player, being number 1 was never the dream, it just the assumption that's what came with winning the REAL prize(s) which was a slam(s).

My friends and I played imaginary Wimbledon and US Open finals, not imaginary fight for number 1 this week without a slam. We wanted to be in the annals of tennis history, not trivial questions.

---

Most go their whole career on tour winning very few events; even less win a slam.
....

Hi there,
Welcome!!

I agree with this first sentence, there are thousands out there that have 1, 2 or no titles to their name.
Look at Mirjana Lucic-Baroni, she is now 31, still has to play qualifying...2 titles to her name. She has never been better than #32

I disagree with this:

Sabatini, Conchita and Majoli played during the Graf, Seles and Hingis era. All had very consistent careers, just the players above then turned out to be all-time greats.

These are second rate players that never got close to the top position, they are like Sam Stosur, they will go down in Tennis history as a one slam wonder and no more.
Not consistent enough or good enough to beat the best! That's what makes them better than ordinary but nothing close to the best.

Even if some of us don't like it, players like JJ and Caro have their name written on more than a wall in one city! That's what a former #1 brings to the table.

I am sure these same discussions were abundant 10 years ago when Kimmy was in the same spot.

First, I don't know what your definition of "second rate" is, but, Sabatini and Martinez were far from "second rate" players. Fact is, Sabatini was two match wins away from claiming number 1 in the world in 1992. Martinez highest rank was number 2 in October of 1995.

And they were good enough to beat the best, Conchita beat Martina N in the Wimby final, and Sabatini beat Graf in the US Open final and wasthisclose to beating Graf again in the Wimby final. So, you assertion they were not good enough to beat the best is a little absurd. They just weren't great enough to beat the best consistently on the biggest stages.

Both Sabatini and Martinez were in multiple slam finals and quite a few slam semi's, and their records trump that of both Caroline and Jelena.

As far of Jelena and Caroline having their names written on a tournament of champions wall, I'm sorry,having ones names on the tournament roll of Indian Wells is not the same as having it on Roland Garros or Flushing Meadows...

When was the time you saw Marcelo Rios?

 

[Correspondent Kiu]

This is the reason I didn't want to bring retired player in this discussion, it broadens the subject too far.

If you compare JJ or Caro to current crop of one slam wonders, there isn't a whole lotta difference, all are considered second rate players because they were never considered the best(at least by most). Although I can argue more for former #1s than one slam wonders.

Keep the discussion going.

 

[kskate2]

Kiu,

You had to know the discussion would go there when you created this poll.

 

[jhar26]

This is the reason I didn't want to bring retired player in this discussion, it broadens the subject too far.

If you compare JJ or Caro to current crop of one slam wonders, there isn't a whole lotta difference, all are considered second rate players because they were never considered the best(at least by most). Although I can argue more for former #1s than one slam wonders.

Keep the discussion going.

Well, no slam winners or former #1's (slamless or not) are second rate players. I mean, if they are second rate anyone ranked outside of the top 50 must be 10th rate or something.

But yeah, I suppose that the danger of bringing retired players into the discussion is that we start comparing the career of someone like a, say, Wozniacki who is only 22 years old with the complete careers of someone like a Sabatini or Martinez. But it's an inevitable by-product of us trying to make our case for however we ended up voting.

 

[Correspondent Kiu]

Kiu,

You had to know the discussion would go there when you created this poll.

Yes I did. That's why I tried to limit the field of discussion.

But it's OK to veer off, it's just a lively debate. That's what these threads are for.

As for rating players, How can Conchita be rated tops when one looks at Graff?
It's the same today, Caro and jj are not rated as Serena or Masha.

Also, one has to consider this #1 ranking stuff was not even around before 1970's(open era), as a result, it's a fairly new achivement in the Tennis world, compare that to Slams which date back 100 years or more.

 

[britbox]

Slamless #1's are often talked about because they haven't won a slam when #1, not necessarily because they are #1.

Woz gets a pass for now because she's young and may go onto win a major. But, I'm with calvy on this - would you prefer the glory of winning Wimbledon on centre court, hoisting that plate aloft to a cheering crowd with cameras clicking ten to the dozen or logging onto a computer and seeing by virtue of points over the last twelve months you've accumulated more than anyone else... knowing full well you've never sat at the top table of a champions dinner?

If it was me, I'd feel almost fraudelent being #1 without winning a major... unless I regarded it as a stepping stone to greater glories.

 

[Calvy]

Slamless #1's are often talked about because they haven't won a slam when #1, not necessarily because they are #1.

Woz gets a pass for now because she's young and may go onto win a major. But, I'm with calvy on this - would you prefer the glory of winning Wimbledon on centre court, hoisting that plate aloft to a cheering crowd with cameras clicking ten to the dozen or logging onto a computer and seeing by virtue of points over the last twelve months you've accumulated more than anyone else... knowing full well you've never sat at the top table of a champions dinner?

If it was me, I'd feel almost fraudelent being #1 without winning a major... unless I regarded it as a stepping stone to greater glories.

Perfect!!

And to add, I'd bet any one slam wonder would prefer to win a second and third slam over becoming number one.


Fact is, what inspires masses to take up the game and train to become potential champs is not those whom are slamless number 1's, but those whom bring home the MAJOR hardware.

 

[jhar26]

Slamless #1's are often talked about because they haven't won a slam when #1, not necessarily because they are #1.

Woz gets a pass for now because she's young and may go onto win a major. But, I'm with calvy on this - would you prefer the glory of winning Wimbledon on centre court, hoisting that plate aloft to a cheering crowd with cameras clicking ten to the dozen or logging onto a computer and seeing by virtue of points over the last twelve months you've accumulated more than anyone else... knowing full well you've never sat at the top table of a champions dinner?

If it was me, I'd feel almost fraudelent being #1 without winning a major... unless I regarded it as a stepping stone to greater glories.

Well, how about Chris O'Neil, the 1978 AO champion? That AO title is the ONLY tournament she ever won and her career high ranking was #80. One could just as easily say that she is a fraudelent slam champion. I would rather be a slamless #1 than a hero for a week and a nobody for the rest of my career. That's an extreme example, I know. But it's no more extreme than using Sabatini as an example that it's better to win a major than be a slamless #1. Of course it's better to be Sabatini than Wozniacki, Jankovic or Safina. But not all one slam wonders have had a career like Sabatini.

Earlier you said that the slamless #1's were #1 without being the best players. True, but were all, say, FO champions really the best claycourt players? Barker? Ruzici? Jausovec? Ivanovic? Weren't Evert and Henin better claycourters when these players won their FO? Yet nobody calls them fraudelent FO champions.

---

Also, one has to consider this #1 ranking stuff was not even around before 1970's(open era), as a result, it's a fairly new achivement in the Tennis world, compare that to Slams which date back 100 years or more.

There were year end rankings though, although not computerized. They were put together by tennis journalists at the end of each year and they were pretty much accepted as 'the real' top 10 for any given year until the computer took over.

 

[Calvy]

Slamless #1's are often talked about because they haven't won a slam when #1, not necessarily because they are #1.

Woz gets a pass for now because she's young and may go onto win a major. But, I'm with calvy on this - would you prefer the glory of winning Wimbledon on centre court, hoisting that plate aloft to a cheering crowd with cameras clicking ten to the dozen or logging onto a computer and seeing by virtue of points over the last twelve months you've accumulated more than anyone else... knowing full well you've never sat at the top table of a champions dinner?

If it was me, I'd feel almost fraudelent being #1 without winning a major... unless I regarded it as a stepping stone to greater glories.

Well, how about Chris O'Neil, the 1978 AO champion? That AO title is the ONLY tournament she ever won and her career high ranking was #80. One could just as easily say that she is a fraudelent slam champion. I would rather be a slamless #1 than a hero for a week and a nobody for the rest of my career. That's an extreme example, I know. But it's no more extreme than using Sabatini as an example that it's better to win a major than be a slamless #1. Of course it's better to be Sabatini than Wozniacki, Jankovic or Safina. But not all one slam wonders have had a career like Sabatini.

Earlier you said that the slamless #1's were #1 without being the best players. True, but were all, say, FO champions really the best claycourt players? Barker? Ruzici? Jausovec? Ivanovic? Weren't Evert and Henin better claycourters when these players won their FO? Yet nobody calls them fraudelent FO champions.

Chris O'Neill had an abysmal career record, but, ya I rather my career highlight be that of a slam winner than that of number 1 without a slam. Also, you can not call O'Neill a fraudelent slam champion, than one can refer to Caroline as a fraudelent number 1. Remember she only got there because Serena got injured and Kim played a abbreviate schedule.

The thing about slamless # 1, you don't even have to make a slam final during that tenure, whereas with a one slam wonder, you've reached the apex of your sport.

And the debate wasn't about who was the best on a particular surface, but, what would u rather have accomplished.

Just for the record, Henin wasn't playing (retired) when Ivanovic won her French, so, an argument can be made she was the best clay courter at the time.

 

[SingleBackhand]

So this imaginary tennis player Mindy has played a few years and maybe won a couple of tournaments and to her own surprise she wins a slam someday. After that she never wins anything of significance anymore. She reaches quarters, semis and finals but no more additional titles of any sort during the rest of her career.

Then we've this other player Sandy who wins many tournaments every year but never manages to win a slam. She is the #1 for 2 or 3 months at the time under various years throughout her career

What do you think the tennis community will say about Mindy and her single slam title after she has ended her career and what do you think they'll say about Sandy?

Personally I think that Sandy will be remembered in a more respectful way than Mindy but that's only my personal humble opinion. I also think that the question could not be answered properly due to lack of information about the one slam wonder