The Greatest Female Tennis Player of All Time

[WTA-rocks]

I will nominate JUSTINE HENIN

Tiny physical frame with a magnificent all-court game in the era of all-out power tennis.

 

[kskate2]

Giving it a bump. Don't know what happened to rest of this thread. This thread had discussions running to at least six pages.
I put out a lot of arguments claiming that a) Serena is the GOATESS of open era and b) Helen Wills Moody is the GOATESS if we
don't restrict to open era. All those are not to be found.

Remember when you are looking for old threads we merged with another site so there are possibly dupes out there. You also have to dig a little deeper and go back further in your search. I found the other thread and merged it.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Remember when you are looking for old threads we merged with another site so there are possibly dupes out there. You also have to dig a little deeper and go back further in your search. I found the other thread and merged it.

Thanks, I will try to search harder in the future.

 

[atttomole]

No doubt Serena Williams.

 

[Fiero425]

No doubt Serena Williams.

A little doubt has to be expressed with another player who has 167 singles titles, 177 doubles titles, won 6 majors in a row, owned grass and indoor comps, in the top 10 for 20 years, and 7 as #1!

 

[atttomole]

A little doubt has to be expressed with another player who has 167 singles titles, 177 doubles titles, won 6 majors in a row, owned grass and indoor comps, in the top 10 for 20 years, and 7 as #1!

Only the singles slams matter. One can choose to play doubles together with singles, and the other can choose to play for 25 years instead of 20. Slams are the equalizer.

 

[Fiero425]

Only the singles slams matter. One can choose to play doubles together with singles, and the other can choose to play for 25 years instead of 20. Slams are the equalizer.

With the numbers that extreme, we'd have to be a mental midgets to think all that record can be ignored! What was ridiculous were the people who instantly determined Nadal was the GOAT because he owned Federer! It didn't seem to matter to them that Rafa has only 1 AO, 2 Wimbledons, & 2 USO with 10 FO's compared to 12 wins alone at the 2 biggies, Wimbl/USO! Even John McEnroe was on that bandwagon til recently! Navratilova still rules the rec. book, just like Fed regardless of where people want to place her on the ATG list!

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Only the singles slams matter. One can choose to play doubles together with singles, and the other can choose to play for 25 years instead of 20. Slams are the equalizer.

I agree with you that only singles results should play a role in determining who is the Goatess, unless there is a tie. However, I believe HWM is the Goatess. See my extended argument in this thread. She is unbelievable. She almost practically never lost. That level of dominance is nothing compared to Serena's.

 

[Fiero425]

I agree with you that only singles results should play a role in determining who is the Goatess, unless there is a tie. However, I believe HWM is the Goatess. See my extended argument in this thread. She is unbelievable. She almost practically never lost. That level of dominance is nothing compared to Serena's.

What dominance? She had patchy periods dropping quite a few contests to Justine Henin! Hingis was no slouch and Kerber legitimately surpassed her last season making 3 major finals and winning 2! Right now, IMO, she gets the honorable mention for longevity; extending her career with more extended breaks than any top player in memory!

 

[GameSetAndMath]

What dominance? She had patchy periods dropping quite a few contests to Justine Henin! Hingis was no slouch and Kerber legitimately surpassed her last season making 3 major finals and winning 2! Right now, IMO, she gets the honorable mention for longevity; extending her career with more extended breaks than any top player in memory!

Can't you read. I was talking about dominance of Helen Wills Moddy (HWM), who did not even lose one match for a period of six years.

 

[atttomole]

I agree with you that only singles results should play a role in determining who is the Goatess, unless there is a tie. However, I believe HWM is the Goatess. See my extended argument in this thread. She is unbelievable. She almost practically never lost. That level of dominance is nothing compared to Serena's.

In which era did Helen Moddy play? How many GS singles titles did she win?

 

[GameSetAndMath]

In which era did Helen Moddy play? How many GS singles titles did she win?

Helen Wills Moody did not lose a set from 1927 to 1933 in a streak that lasted 180 matches. She has 19 GS wins and only 5 GS losses (she never played at AO and she often missed other slams too). Of the five GS losses, three were in finals.

See my post #190 and few more after that for further information.

 

[Fiero425]

In which era did Helen Moddy play? How many GS singles titles did she win?

Not enough to make me care! If people want to discount Margaret Court who straddled the amateur and Open eras with a CYGS and was queen in her day, why would Moody's name come up? Moody was only invoked due to her Wimbledon record being surpassed or tied by BJK & Navratilova respectively! One by one, players were regarded "greater;" Evert, Navratilova, Graf, S. Williams! So forgive us who really don't regard Moody as influential; more in line with Lenglen who dominated, nary losing a set, much less a match! The greatest today loses to a doubles' specialist when going for a CYGS 2 years ago! You have to say the level of athleticism is obviously superior to past eras!

 

[britbox]

Agree with Fiero - can't really put Helen Wills Moody above Margaret Court. One of the criticisms levelled at Court being a pick is the era... maybe a tad unfair, as there never really was the impact of a split pro/amateur tour in the womens game like there was in the mens. Court was the indisputably the best player of her era.

Moody?



This looks more like a knock around at a church garden party. I couldn't have her as the greatest of all time in my list because the era was so weak.

Steffi Graf was always the GOAT for me, until Serena won her last major. It's close, but I'd edge toward Serena now.

1. Serena Williams
2. Steffi Graf
3. Martina Navratilova
4. Chris Evert
5. Margaret Court

Court and Evert are interchangeable depending on what mood I'm in, but these 5 are the Tier 1 elite IMO... you can make an argument for either of them. I don't think anyone else warrant serious consideration.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Sure, the style of tennis being played at that time is kind of lame. Having said that it was the same for all the players of that era. However, the degree of dominance achieved by HWM is unprecedented. See my multiple posts beginning at #190 in this thread. If you calculate the number of GSs she won as a percentage of the number of GSs played, it is simply mind blogging. Finally, if you use the same ratio and make her play all GSs (during the period from her first GS to last GS), the number of GSs that would have been won by her is higher that of Graff or Serena. The woman almost simply never lost unlike Graff or Serena.

 

[Federberg]

I see both points. I guess 'weak' wasn't the right wording but perhaps you can look at it as 'did you have a challenged GOAT status or unchallenged GOAT status'.
Serena can retire tomorrow and will be the unchallenged GOAT as there's no one breathing down her neck and there won't be for a WHILE. Roger, in a way is driven to keep competing 1. because he loves the game. 2. every GOAT wants to be unchallenged and Rafa is too close for comfort. Just my opinion.

It's not clear to me that Serena is an unchallenged GOAT. Folks try to have their cake an eat it on these forums (not you). But lets say for example Roger matches Serena's singles slam stats. There'll still be those who say she surpasses him because of her doubles slams. I have no problem with that. But then how on earth can she be unchallenged when she's never going to come close to Navratilova's numbers for slam wins? And she's no where close when you look at titles. No.. in my book she's challenged

 

[golds girl]

It's not clear to me that Serena is an unchallenged GOAT. Folks try to have their cake an eat it on these forums (not you). But lets say for example Roger matches Serena's singles slam stats. There'll still be those who say she surpasses him because of her doubles slams. I have no problem with that. But then how on earth can she be unchallenged when she's never going to come close to Navratilova's numbers for slam wins? And she's no where close when you look at titles. No.. in my book she's challenged

Thanks for your response Berg
Hear you on doubles...all for the equality, but I'm fine with a male and female GOAT, so I wasn't thinking about comparing Serena and Roger.
I'll take your word on the Navratilova data as I'm at work (not doing work) but here's that old-age question again: what constitutes a GOAT...the debate rages on in other sports as well, is it just the championships (i.e. basketball/tennis) or lesser titles or some other intangibles (competition or lack thereof). It's subjective, perhaps?

 

[Front242]

I see both points. I guess 'weak' wasn't the right wording but perhaps you can look at it as 'did you have a challenged GOAT status or unchallenged GOAT status'.
Serena can retire tomorrow and will be the unchallenged GOAT as there's no one breathing down her neck and there won't be for a WHILE. Roger, in a way is driven to keep competing 1. because he loves the game. 2. every GOAT wants to be unchallenged and Rafa is too close for comfort. Just my opinion.

True, except I don't consider Serena the GOAT and never will.

 

[Federberg]

Thanks for your response Berg
Hear you on doubles...all for the equality, but I'm fine with a male and female GOAT, so I wasn't thinking about comparing Serena and Roger.
I'll take your word on the Navratilova data as I'm at work (not doing work) but here's that old-age question again: what constitutes a GOAT...the debate rages on in other sports as well, is it just the championships (i.e. basketball/tennis) or lesser titles or some other intangibles (competition or lack thereof). It's subjective, perhaps?

Indeed it is. I'll start off by saying I have a real problem with the concept of GOAT. Once you put the time component into it you have to come up with a comparison that makes sense across eras. Personally I ask myself the question what motivated players across eras to strive for greatness? In some eras it's clearly money, not slams, so how can we possibly use slams as the main comparison? For years very few of the top guys went to Australia, so either we diminish the weighting we give to titles won there in recent years or we accept its a fools errand right from the start. In addition to that, in the past, players in their prime often skipped slams, as they earned more money playing in other tournaments. It therefore makes no sense to me, to compare what guys are doing now, to what was done in the 70s as an example. Motivations were completely different.

The things that are consistent across eras are winning titles and some metric that shows who the number 1 ranked player is at any given time. I therefore place a much great weight to the number 1 ranking and titles won than most do on this forum

 

[Federberg]

Thanks for your response Berg
Hear you on doubles...all for the equality, but I'm fine with a male and female GOAT, so I wasn't thinking about comparing Serena and Roger.
I'll take your word on the Navratilova data as I'm at work (not doing work) but here's that old-age question again: what constitutes a GOAT...the debate rages on in other sports as well, is it just the championships (i.e. basketball/tennis) or lesser titles or some other intangibles (competition or lack thereof). It's subjective, perhaps?

here's some data...

WTA singles titles...

1. / Martina Navratilova 167[1]
2. Chris Evert 157
3. Steffi Graf 107
4. Evonne Goolagong 84
5. Serena Williams 72
6. Billie Jean King 67
7. Lindsay Davenport 55
8. / Monica Seles 53
9. Venus Williams 49
10. Martina Hingis 43
10. Justine Henin 43

Looking at Martina, she won 18 singles slams, 31 doubles slams, 10 mixed slams. A total of 59 slam titles. That's crazy..