Discussion:
Serena Williams has 23 Slams in the Open Era, Margaret Court only has 11 Slams, post 1968.
(too old to reply)
Garvin Yee
2021-02-26 08:36:44 UTC
Permalink
Before 1968, only amateurs were allowed to compete in Grand Slam
tournaments.

So why would anyone think Serena has to match or beat Court's 24
Slam count, to be considered THE GOAT, if 13 of Court's Slams
were between amateurs only, and not professional tennis players?

And so Court must have been an amateur before 1968. So the
question is: Did she ever become a "professional" tennis player?

And how did they differentiate between the amateurs and the
professionals? Total yearly tournament earnings?

And why did they decide not to include professionals in Slams
before 1968, if the whole idea was to find out who the best players
were?
--
https://fineartamerica.com/art/garvin+yee
Whisper
2021-02-26 09:17:12 UTC
Permalink
    Before 1968, only amateurs were allowed to compete in Grand Slam
tournaments.
So why would anyone think Serena has to match or beat Court's 24
Slam count, to be considered THE GOAT, if 13 of Court's Slams
were between amateurs only, and not professional tennis players?
And so Court must have been an amateur before 1968.  So the
question is:  Did she ever become a "professional" tennis player?
And how did they differentiate between the amateurs and the
professionals?  Total yearly tournament earnings?
And why did they decide not to include professionals in Slams
before 1968, if the whole idea was to find out who the best players
were?
You can't be this stupid surely? Who were the pro women players barred
from slams?
Garvin Yee
2021-02-26 09:33:12 UTC
Permalink
     Before 1968, only amateurs were allowed to compete in Grand Slam
tournaments.
So why would anyone think Serena has to match or beat Court's 24
Slam count, to be considered THE GOAT, if 13 of Court's Slams
were between amateurs only, and not professional tennis players?
And so Court must have been an amateur before 1968.  So the
question is:  Did she ever become a "professional" tennis player?
And how did they differentiate between the amateurs and the
professionals?  Total yearly tournament earnings?
And why did they decide not to include professionals in Slams
before 1968, if the whole idea was to find out who the best players
were?
You can't be this stupid surely?  Who were the pro women players barred
from slams?
Hey Dip-Shit, if you do some research, you'll find "Before 1968,
only amateurs were allowed to compete in Grand Slam tournaments."

Do some reading before you open your pie-hole.

:/
--
https://fineartamerica.com/art/garvin+yee
Whisper
2021-02-26 10:56:44 UTC
Permalink
     Before 1968, only amateurs were allowed to compete in Grand Slam
tournaments.
So why would anyone think Serena has to match or beat Court's 24
Slam count, to be considered THE GOAT, if 13 of Court's Slams
were between amateurs only, and not professional tennis players?
And so Court must have been an amateur before 1968.  So the
question is:  Did she ever become a "professional" tennis player?
And how did they differentiate between the amateurs and the
professionals?  Total yearly tournament earnings?
And why did they decide not to include professionals in Slams
before 1968, if the whole idea was to find out who the best players
were?
You can't be this stupid surely?  Who were the pro women players
barred from slams?
     Hey Dip-Shit, if you do some research, you'll find "Before 1968,
only amateurs were allowed to compete in Grand Slam tournaments."
     Do some reading before you open your pie-hole.
     :/
So list some pro female players who couldn't compete for slams then?
Shouldn't be too hard for you right? I'm waiting.
*skriptis
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
On 26/02/2021 8:33 pm, Garvin Yee wrote:> On 2/26/2021 2:17 AM, Whisper wrote:>> On 26/02/2021 7:36 pm, Garvin Yee wrote:>>> Before 1968, only amateurs were allowed to compete in Grand Slam >>> tournaments.>>>>>> So why would anyone think Serena has to match or beat Court's 24>>> Slam count, to be considered THE GOAT, if 13 of Court's Slams>>> were between amateurs only, and not professional tennis players?>>>>>> And so Court must have been an amateur before 1968. So the>>> question is: Did she ever become a "professional" tennis player?>>>>>> And how did they differentiate between the amateurs and the>>> professionals? Total yearly tournament earnings?>>>>>> And why did they decide not to include professionals in Slams>>> before 1968, if the whole idea was to find out who the best players>>> were?>>>>>>> You can't be this stupid surely? Who were the pro women players >> barred from slams?>>> > Hey Dip-Shit, if you do some research, you'll find "Before 1968, > only amateurs were allowed to compete in Grand Slam tournaments."> > Do some reading before you open your pie-hole.> > :/> So list some pro female players who couldn't compete for slams then? Shouldn't be too hard for you right? I'm waiting.
I bet he won't do it.
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
Whisper
2021-02-26 12:25:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by *skriptis
On 26/02/2021 8:33 pm, Garvin Yee wrote:> On 2/26/2021 2:17 AM, Whisper wrote:>> On 26/02/2021 7:36 pm, Garvin Yee wrote:>>> Before 1968, only amateurs were allowed to compete in Grand Slam >>> tournaments.>>>>>> So why would anyone think Serena has to match or beat Court's 24>>> Slam count, to be considered THE GOAT, if 13 of Court's Slams>>> were between amateurs only, and not professional tennis players?>>>>>> And so Court must have been an amateur before 1968. So the>>> question is: Did she ever become a "professional" tennis player?>>>>>> And how did they differentiate between the amateurs and the>>> professionals? Total yearly tournament earnings?>>>>>> And why did they decide not to include professionals in Slams>>> before 1968, if the whole idea was to find out who the best players>>> were?>>>>>>> You can't be this stupid surely? Who were the pro women players >> barred from slams?>>> > Hey Dip-Shit, if you do some research, you'll find "Before 1968, > only amateurs were allowed to compete in Grand Slam tournaments."> > Do some reading before you open your pie-hole.> > :/> So list some pro female players who couldn't compete for slams then? Shouldn't be too hard for you right? I'm waiting.
I bet he won't do it.
He's busy googling. He'll either ignore or say something completely
The Iceberg
2021-02-26 14:42:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by *skriptis
On 26/02/2021 8:33 pm, Garvin Yee wrote:> On 2/26/2021 2:17 AM, Whisper wrote:>> On 26/02/2021 7:36 pm, Garvin Yee wrote:>>> Before 1968, only amateurs were allowed to compete in Grand Slam >>> tournaments.>>>>>> So why would anyone think Serena has to match or beat Court's 24>>> Slam count, to be considered THE GOAT, if 13 of Court's Slams>>> were between amateurs only, and not professional tennis players?>>>>>> And so Court must have been an amateur before 1968. So the>>> question is: Did she ever become a "professional" tennis player?>>>>>> And how did they differentiate between the amateurs and the>>> professionals? Total yearly tournament earnings?>>>>>> And why did they decide not to include professionals in Slams>>> before 1968, if the whole idea was to find out who the best players>>> were?>>>>>>> You can't be this stupid surely? Who were the pro women players >> barred from slams?>>> > Hey Dip-Shit, if you do some research, you'll find "Before 1968, > only amateurs were allowed to compete in Grand Slam tournaments."> > Do some reading before you open your pie-hole.> > :/> So list some pro female players who couldn't compete for slams then? Shouldn't be too hard for you right? I'm waiting.
I bet he won't do it.
He's busy googling. He'll either ignore or say something completely
unrelated. A real bore wasting bandwidth.
it amazing the lack of tennis knowledge from this Garvin maroon! looks like he another one that follows/does whatever CNN tells him, honestly poor guy absolutely loves Serena :D
MBDunc
2021-02-28 00:38:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Whisper
So list some pro female players who couldn't compete for slams then?
Shouldn't be too hard for you right? I'm waiting.
I think there was one (or max 2) female pros who had "name" and another one had a slam too.

But I think the case is clear as no one (including me) does not remember names: it is like Andres Gomez or Thomas Johansson were missing....

.mikko
Max's Hoemom
2021-02-26 17:06:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Garvin Yee
Before 1968, only amateurs were allowed to compete in Grand Slam
tournaments.
So why would anyone think Serena has to match or beat Court's 24
Slam count, to be considered THE GOAT, if 13 of Court's Slams
were between amateurs only, and not professional tennis players?
And so Court must have been an amateur before 1968. So the
question is: Did she ever become a "professional" tennis player?
And how did they differentiate between the amateurs and the
professionals? Total yearly tournament earnings?
And why did they decide not to include professionals in Slams
before 1968, if the whole idea was to find out who the best players
were?
It is good that you like Serena and have accepted her as the GOAT GODDESS... but you are not fooling anyone. You can't just take away slams from other GOAT contenders and say your favorite is undisputed GOAT.

Serena has played in 60 slams between her first and last slam wins to get to 23... Court got to 24 in 43 attempts and Steffi got to 22 in 42 attempts. She may win slam #24 and #25 too, but her haul will still be less impressive than Court and Graf.
Garvin Yee
2021-02-27 01:34:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Max's Hoemom
Post by Garvin Yee
Before 1968, only amateurs were allowed to compete in Grand Slam
tournaments.
So why would anyone think Serena has to match or beat Court's 24
Slam count, to be considered THE GOAT, if 13 of Court's Slams
were between amateurs only, and not professional tennis players?
And so Court must have been an amateur before 1968. So the
question is: Did she ever become a "professional" tennis player?
And how did they differentiate between the amateurs and the
professionals? Total yearly tournament earnings?
And why did they decide not to include professionals in Slams
before 1968, if the whole idea was to find out who the best players
were?
It is good that you like Serena and have accepted her as the GOAT GODDESS... but you are not fooling anyone. You can't just take away slams from other GOAT contenders and say your favorite is undisputed GOAT.
It's only in the Open Era, that professionals were allowed to
compete in Slams, so most people only look at 1968 and beyond:


https://www.statista.com/statistics/280390/female-tennis-players-with-the-most-victories-at-grand-slam-tournaments/#:~:text=Serena%20Williams%20has%20won%20the,Venus%20Williams%2C%20in%20the%20final.
Post by Max's Hoemom
Serena has played in 60 slams between her first and last slam wins to get to 23... Court got to 24 in 43 attempts and Steffi got to 22 in 42 attempts. She may win slam #24 and #25 too, but her haul will still be less impressive than Court and Graf.
B.S! Serena has 18 years between her first, and last Slam title,
which is surely a sign of at least one of the GOATs.

But all this jabber about Slam counts is a bit lame: Players
retire for all variety of reasons, and since the game and the rackets
have been changing so much through the decades, it's really futile
to compare champions from different eras!
--
https://fineartamerica.com/art/garvin+yee
Whisper
2021-02-27 09:25:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Max's Hoemom
Post by Garvin Yee
Before 1968, only amateurs were allowed to compete in Grand Slam
tournaments.
So why would anyone think Serena has to match or beat Court's 24
Slam count, to be considered THE GOAT, if 13 of Court's Slams
were between amateurs only, and not professional tennis players?
And so Court must have been an amateur before 1968. So the
question is: Did she ever become a "professional" tennis player?
And how did they differentiate between the amateurs and the
professionals? Total yearly tournament earnings?
And why did they decide not to include professionals in Slams
before 1968, if the whole idea was to find out who the best players
were?
It is good that you like Serena and have accepted her as the GOAT
GODDESS... but you are not fooling anyone. You can't just take away
slams from other GOAT contenders and say your favorite is undisputed
GOAT.
     It's only in the Open Era, that professionals were allowed to
That's men's tennis.

You still haven't listed a single female player who was badly affected
by this banning of pro female players? How come? I can list many men
who were eg Laver, Rosewall, Pancho, Hoad, etc etc
Garvin Yee
2021-02-27 10:38:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Whisper
Post by Max's Hoemom
Post by Garvin Yee
Before 1968, only amateurs were allowed to compete in Grand Slam
tournaments.
So why would anyone think Serena has to match or beat Court's 24
Slam count, to be considered THE GOAT, if 13 of Court's Slams
were between amateurs only, and not professional tennis players?
And so Court must have been an amateur before 1968. So the
question is: Did she ever become a "professional" tennis player?
And how did they differentiate between the amateurs and the
professionals? Total yearly tournament earnings?
And why did they decide not to include professionals in Slams
before 1968, if the whole idea was to find out who the best players
were?
It is good that you like Serena and have accepted her as the GOAT
GODDESS... but you are not fooling anyone. You can't just take away
slams from other GOAT contenders and say your favorite is undisputed
GOAT.
      It's only in the Open Era, that professionals were allowed to
That's men's tennis.
That applies to Women's tennis too, at the time.
Post by Whisper
You still haven't listed a single female player who was badly affected
by this banning of pro female players?  How come?  I can list many men
who were eg Laver, Rosewall, Pancho, Hoad, etc etc
From Wiki"

"Before the advent of the Open era of tennis competitions in April 1968,
only amateurs were allowed to compete in established tournaments,
including the four Majors. There was no prize money and players were
compensated for travel expenses only."

No prize money, eh? Then they surely didn't attract the best
tennis talent in the world!

The pre-Open Era wasn't organized, or established enough to really
matter. And anyways, peak Serena would tear peak Court a new asshole
in straight sets. That's not Court's fault; it's just that the game has
progress immensely since she was active!

Serena has the most Slams in the Open Era at 23, and the longest
period between first and last Slams, at 18 years!
--
https://fineartamerica.com/art/garvin+yee
Whisper
2021-02-27 10:55:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Whisper
Post by Max's Hoemom
Post by Garvin Yee
Before 1968, only amateurs were allowed to compete in Grand Slam
tournaments.
So why would anyone think Serena has to match or beat Court's 24
Slam count, to be considered THE GOAT, if 13 of Court's Slams
were between amateurs only, and not professional tennis players?
And so Court must have been an amateur before 1968. So the
question is: Did she ever become a "professional" tennis player?
And how did they differentiate between the amateurs and the
professionals? Total yearly tournament earnings?
And why did they decide not to include professionals in Slams
before 1968, if the whole idea was to find out who the best players
were?
It is good that you like Serena and have accepted her as the GOAT
GODDESS... but you are not fooling anyone. You can't just take away
slams from other GOAT contenders and say your favorite is undisputed
GOAT.
      It's only in the Open Era, that professionals were allowed to
That's men's tennis.
    That applies to Women's tennis too, at the time.
Post by Whisper
You still haven't listed a single female player who was badly affected
by this banning of pro female players?  How come?  I can list many men
who were eg Laver, Rosewall, Pancho, Hoad, etc etc
From Wiki"
"Before the advent of the Open era of tennis competitions in April 1968,
only amateurs were allowed to compete in established tournaments,
including the four Majors. There was no prize money and players were
compensated for travel expenses only."
     No prize money, eh?  Then they surely didn't attract the best
tennis talent in the world!
     The pre-Open Era wasn't organized, or established enough to really
matter.  And anyways, peak Serena would tear peak Court a new asshole
in straight sets.  That's not Court's fault; it's just that the game has
progress immensely since she was active!
      Serena has the most Slams in the Open Era at 23, and the longest
period between first and last Slams, at 18 years!
Don't take this personally but you really are dumb. Serena seems to
attract dumb fans?
Garvin Yee
2021-02-27 11:07:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Whisper
Post by Max's Hoemom
Post by Garvin Yee
Before 1968, only amateurs were allowed to compete in Grand Slam
tournaments.
So why would anyone think Serena has to match or beat Court's 24
Slam count, to be considered THE GOAT, if 13 of Court's Slams
were between amateurs only, and not professional tennis players?
And so Court must have been an amateur before 1968. So the
question is: Did she ever become a "professional" tennis player?
And how did they differentiate between the amateurs and the
professionals? Total yearly tournament earnings?
And why did they decide not to include professionals in Slams
before 1968, if the whole idea was to find out who the best players
were?
It is good that you like Serena and have accepted her as the GOAT
GODDESS... but you are not fooling anyone. You can't just take away
slams from other GOAT contenders and say your favorite is
undisputed GOAT.
      It's only in the Open Era, that professionals were allowed to
That's men's tennis.
     That applies to Women's tennis too, at the time.
Post by Whisper
You still haven't listed a single female player who was badly
affected by this banning of pro female players?  How come?  I can
list many men who were eg Laver, Rosewall, Pancho, Hoad, etc etc
 From Wiki"
"Before the advent of the Open era of tennis competitions in April
1968, only amateurs were allowed to compete in established
tournaments, including the four Majors. There was no prize money and
players were compensated for travel expenses only."
      No prize money, eh?  Then they surely didn't attract the best
tennis talent in the world!
      The pre-Open Era wasn't organized, or established enough to really
matter.  And anyways, peak Serena would tear peak Court a new asshole
in straight sets.  That's not Court's fault; it's just that the game has
progress immensely since she was active!
       Serena has the most Slams in the Open Era at 23, and the longest
period between first and last Slams, at 18 years!
Don't take this personally but you really are dumb.  Serena seems to
attract dumb fans?
Resorting to name-calling is what people do when they lose an
argument, or they have no logical facts to support their
point!

I don't even like Serena: Her unwillingness to give her
opponents credit, when they beat her, is well known.

Nevertheless, her tennis record is astounding. That is a
FACT.
--
https://fineartamerica.com/art/garvin+yee
The Iceberg
2021-02-27 11:20:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Garvin Yee
Post by Garvin Yee
Post by Whisper
Post by Garvin Yee
Post by Max's Hoemom
Post by Garvin Yee
Before 1968, only amateurs were allowed to compete in Grand Slam
tournaments.
So why would anyone think Serena has to match or beat Court's 24
Slam count, to be considered THE GOAT, if 13 of Court's Slams
were between amateurs only, and not professional tennis players?
And so Court must have been an amateur before 1968. So the
question is: Did she ever become a "professional" tennis player?
And how did they differentiate between the amateurs and the
professionals? Total yearly tournament earnings?
And why did they decide not to include professionals in Slams
before 1968, if the whole idea was to find out who the best players
were?
It is good that you like Serena and have accepted her as the GOAT
GODDESS... but you are not fooling anyone. You can't just take away
slams from other GOAT contenders and say your favorite is
undisputed GOAT.
It's only in the Open Era, that professionals were allowed to
That's men's tennis.
That applies to Women's tennis too, at the time.
Post by Whisper
You still haven't listed a single female player who was badly
affected by this banning of pro female players? How come? I can
list many men who were eg Laver, Rosewall, Pancho, Hoad, etc etc
From Wiki"
"Before the advent of the Open era of tennis competitions in April
1968, only amateurs were allowed to compete in established
tournaments, including the four Majors. There was no prize money and
players were compensated for travel expenses only."
No prize money, eh? Then they surely didn't attract the best
tennis talent in the world!
The pre-Open Era wasn't organized, or established enough to really
matter. And anyways, peak Serena would tear peak Court a new asshole
in straight sets. That's not Court's fault; it's just that the game has
progress immensely since she was active!
Serena has the most Slams in the Open Era at 23, and the longest
period between first and last Slams, at 18 years!
Don't take this personally but you really are dumb. Serena seems to
attract dumb fans?
Resorting to name-calling is what people do when they lose an
argument, or they have no logical facts to support their
point!
I don't even like Serena: Her unwillingness to give her
opponents credit, when they beat her, is well known.
Nevertheless, her tennis record is astounding. That is a
FACT.
oh please at least be honest, you posted a while ago about how wonderful it was that Osaka won just cos of the colour of her skin and since then you've "come out" about how much you love Serena, we dont mind that you're a big fan of hers.
Whisper
2021-02-27 11:40:40 UTC
Permalink
Don't take this personally but you really are dumb.  Serena seems to
attract dumb fans?
     Resorting to name-calling is what people do when they lose an
argument, or they have no logical facts to support their
point!
     I don't even like Serena:  Her unwillingness to give her
opponents credit, when they beat her, is well known.
     Nevertheless, her tennis record is astounding.  That is a
FACT.
She said a couple yrs ago the 24 was motivation for her to keep doing up
her laces & plugging away.

https://ausopen.com/articles/news/serenas-grand-slam-quest-continues-ao-2021


"Both Serena, and her coach Patrick Mouratoglou, admit she is chasing
the all-time record of 24 major singles titles, and hoping to pass it."

Send her an email to not bother as she's already got the record. Maybe
she's dumb & doesn't realize it?
Garvin Yee
2021-02-27 11:51:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Whisper
Don't take this personally but you really are dumb.  Serena seems to
attract dumb fans?
      Resorting to name-calling is what people do when they lose an
argument, or they have no logical facts to support their
point!
      I don't even like Serena:  Her unwillingness to give her
opponents credit, when they beat her, is well known.
      Nevertheless, her tennis record is astounding.  That is a
FACT.
She said a couple yrs ago the 24 was motivation for her to keep doing up
her laces & plugging away.
https://ausopen.com/articles/news/serenas-grand-slam-quest-continues-ao-2021
"Both Serena, and her coach Patrick Mouratoglou, admit she is chasing
the all-time record of 24 major singles titles, and hoping to pass it."
Send her an email to not bother as she's already got the record.  Maybe
she's dumb & doesn't realize it?
And yet from the article you posted:

"Yet Williams’ place in history is secure. “I don't have to win
another match as long as I live,” she said during the AO 2017 fortnight,
which ended with her most recent Grand Slam title."

I'd agree with her. Margaret Court's Slam wins against
non-professional amateurs, who got ZERO PRIZE MONEY pre-1968, don't
really count.
--
https://fineartamerica.com/art/garvin+yee
Whisper
2021-02-27 11:54:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Whisper
She said a couple yrs ago the 24 was motivation for her to keep doing
up her laces & plugging away.
https://ausopen.com/articles/news/serenas-grand-slam-quest-continues-ao-2021
"Both Serena, and her coach Patrick Mouratoglou, admit she is chasing
the all-time record of 24 major singles titles, and hoping to pass it."
Send her an email to not bother as she's already got the record.
Maybe she's dumb & doesn't realize it?
       "Yet Williams’ place in history is secure. “I don't have to win
another match as long as I live,” she said during the AO 2017 fortnight,
which ended with her most recent Grand Slam title."
   I'd agree with her.  Margaret Court's Slam wins against
non-professional amateurs, who got ZERO PRIZE MONEY pre-1968, don't
really count.
I give up on you. Come back in 10 yrs & you'll be embarrassed to read
your posts here.
Garvin Yee
2021-02-27 12:01:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Whisper
She said a couple yrs ago the 24 was motivation for her to keep doing
up her laces & plugging away.
https://ausopen.com/articles/news/serenas-grand-slam-quest-continues-ao-2021
"Both Serena, and her coach Patrick Mouratoglou, admit she is chasing
the all-time record of 24 major singles titles, and hoping to pass it."
Send her an email to not bother as she's already got the record.
Maybe she's dumb & doesn't realize it?
        "Yet Williams’ place in history is secure. “I don't have to
win another match as long as I live,” she said during the AO 2017
fortnight, which ended with her most recent Grand Slam title."
    I'd agree with her.  Margaret Court's Slam wins against
non-professional amateurs, who got ZERO PRIZE MONEY pre-1968, don't
really count.
I give up on you.  Come back in 10 yrs & you'll be embarrassed to read
your posts here.
"I give up on you" = "I don't have any logical points"!
--
https://fineartamerica.com/art/garvin+yee
*skriptis
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
On 2/27/2021 4:54 AM, Whisper wrote:> On 27/02/2021 10:51 pm, Garvin Yee wrote:>> On 2/27/2021 4:40 AM, Whisper wrote:> >>>>>> She said a couple yrs ago the 24 was motivation for her to keep doing >>> up her laces & plugging away.>>>>>> https://ausopen.com/articles/news/serenas-grand-slam-quest-continues-ao-2021 >>>>>>>>>>>> "Both Serena, and her coach Patrick Mouratoglou, admit she is chasing >>> the all-time record of 24 major singles titles, and hoping to pass it.">>>>>> Send her an email to not bother as she's already got the record. >>> Maybe she's dumb & doesn't realize it?>>>>>>> And yet from the article you posted:>>>> "Yet Williams’ place in history is secure. “I don't have to >> win another match as long as I live,” she said during the AO 2017 >> fortnight, which ended with her most recent Grand Slam title.">>>> I'd agree with her. Margaret Court's Slam wins against >> non-professional amateurs, who got ZERO PRIZE MONEY pre-1968, don't>> really count.>>>>> > I give up on you. Come back in 10 yrs & you'll be embarrassed to read > your posts here.> "I give up on you" = "I don't have any logical points"!-- https://fineartamerica.com/art/garvin+yee
What's logical in arguing Serena is undisputed goat?

I'd say Nadal has stronger claims for goathood in men's game. At least he shares all-time slam record and owns all-time FO record.

Serena doesn share or own all-time slam record, and doesn't share or own a single slam record, and doesn't have "special" stuff like CYGS, or best CGS.

It's ridiculous to put it this way, but in a way she "has nothing to her name", if you know what I mean?

She's tier 1 forever, pretty much like Sampras, and you can argue her best would top someone else's best, but you don't have the numbers to make her undisputed goat.
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
The Iceberg
2021-02-27 12:29:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Garvin Yee
Post by Garvin Yee
Post by Whisper
She said a couple yrs ago the 24 was motivation for her to keep doing
up her laces & plugging away.
https://ausopen.com/articles/news/serenas-grand-slam-quest-continues-ao-2021
"Both Serena, and her coach Patrick Mouratoglou, admit she is chasing
the all-time record of 24 major singles titles, and hoping to pass it."
Send her an email to not bother as she's already got the record.
Maybe she's dumb & doesn't realize it?
"Yet Williams’ place in history is secure. “I don't have to
win another match as long as I live,” she said during the AO 2017
fortnight, which ended with her most recent Grand Slam title."
I'd agree with her. Margaret Court's Slam wins against
non-professional amateurs, who got ZERO PRIZE MONEY pre-1968, don't
really count.
I give up on you. Come back in 10 yrs & you'll be embarrassed to read
your posts here.
"I give up on you" = "I don't have any logical points"!
no it just you refuse to get a clue outside of your CNN watching!
*skriptis
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
On 2/27/2021 4:40 AM, Whisper wrote:> On 27/02/2021 10:07 pm, Garvin Yee wrote:>> On 2/27/2021 3:55 AM, Whisper wrote:>>> On 27/02/2021 9:38 pm, Garvin Yee wrote:>>>> On 2/27/2021 2:25 AM, Whisper wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't take this personally but you really are dumb. Serena seems to >>> attract dumb fans?>>>>>>> Resorting to name-calling is what people do when they lose an >> argument, or they have no logical facts to support their>> point!>>>> I don't even like Serena: Her unwillingness to give her>> opponents credit, when they beat her, is well known.>>>> Nevertheless, her tennis record is astounding. That is a>> FACT.>>>>> > > > She said a couple yrs ago the 24 was motivation for her to keep doing up > her laces & plugging away.> > https://ausopen.com/articles/news/serenas-grand-slam-quest-continues-ao-2021 > > > > "Both Serena, and her coach Patrick Mouratoglou, admit she is chasing > the all-time record of 24 major singles titles, and hoping to pass it."> > Send her an email to not bother as she's already got the record. Maybe > she's dumb & doesn't realize it?> And yet from the article you posted: "Yet Williams’ place in history is secure. “I don't have to win another match as long as I live,” she said during the AO 2017 fortnight, which ended with her most recent Grand Slam title." I'd agree with her. Margaret Court's Slam wins against non-professional amateurs, who got ZERO PRIZE MONEY pre-1968, don'treally count.-- https://fineartamerica.com/art/garvin+yee
For me, slams without best of 5 matches don't really count.

Women are yet to start playing the same sport.

Best of 5 offers completely different dynamics from best of 3, and it's the real dynamics.
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
jlia...@gmail.com
2021-02-27 11:09:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Garvin Yee
Post by Whisper
Post by Garvin Yee
Post by Max's Hoemom
Post by Garvin Yee
Before 1968, only amateurs were allowed to compete in Grand Slam
tournaments.
So why would anyone think Serena has to match or beat Court's 24
Slam count, to be considered THE GOAT, if 13 of Court's Slams
were between amateurs only, and not professional tennis players?
And so Court must have been an amateur before 1968. So the
question is: Did she ever become a "professional" tennis player?
And how did they differentiate between the amateurs and the
professionals? Total yearly tournament earnings?
And why did they decide not to include professionals in Slams
before 1968, if the whole idea was to find out who the best players
were?
It is good that you like Serena and have accepted her as the GOAT
GODDESS... but you are not fooling anyone. You can't just take away
slams from other GOAT contenders and say your favorite is undisputed
GOAT.
It's only in the Open Era, that professionals were allowed to
That's men's tennis.
That applies to Women's tennis too, at the time.
Post by Whisper
You still haven't listed a single female player who was badly affected
by this banning of pro female players? How come? I can list many men
who were eg Laver, Rosewall, Pancho, Hoad, etc etc
From Wiki"
"Before the advent of the Open era of tennis competitions in April 1968,
only amateurs were allowed to compete in established tournaments,
including the four Majors. There was no prize money and players were
compensated for travel expenses only."
No prize money, eh? Then they surely didn't attract the best
tennis talent in the world!
The pre-Open Era wasn't organized, or established enough to really
matter. And anyways, peak Serena would tear peak Court a new asshole
in straight sets. That's not Court's fault; it's just that the game has
progress immensely since she was active!
Serena has the most Slams in the Open Era at 23, and the longest
period between first and last Slams, at 18 years!
Don't take this personally but you really are dumb. Serena seems to
attract dumb fans?
Garvin is not a fan of Serena. But don't take this personal but you are an asshole, Garvin comes across pretty level headed tennis fan.
Garvin Yee
2021-02-27 11:22:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Garvin Yee
Post by Whisper
Post by Garvin Yee
Post by Max's Hoemom
Post by Garvin Yee
Before 1968, only amateurs were allowed to compete in Grand Slam
tournaments.
So why would anyone think Serena has to match or beat Court's 24
Slam count, to be considered THE GOAT, if 13 of Court's Slams
were between amateurs only, and not professional tennis players?
And so Court must have been an amateur before 1968. So the
question is: Did she ever become a "professional" tennis player?
And how did they differentiate between the amateurs and the
professionals? Total yearly tournament earnings?
And why did they decide not to include professionals in Slams
before 1968, if the whole idea was to find out who the best players
were?
It is good that you like Serena and have accepted her as the GOAT
GODDESS... but you are not fooling anyone. You can't just take away
slams from other GOAT contenders and say your favorite is undisputed
GOAT.
It's only in the Open Era, that professionals were allowed to
That's men's tennis.
That applies to Women's tennis too, at the time.
Post by Whisper
You still haven't listed a single female player who was badly affected
by this banning of pro female players? How come? I can list many men
who were eg Laver, Rosewall, Pancho, Hoad, etc etc
From Wiki"
"Before the advent of the Open era of tennis competitions in April 1968,
only amateurs were allowed to compete in established tournaments,
including the four Majors. There was no prize money and players were
compensated for travel expenses only."
No prize money, eh? Then they surely didn't attract the best
tennis talent in the world!
The pre-Open Era wasn't organized, or established enough to really
matter. And anyways, peak Serena would tear peak Court a new asshole
in straight sets. That's not Court's fault; it's just that the game has
progress immensely since she was active!
Serena has the most Slams in the Open Era at 23, and the longest
period between first and last Slams, at 18 years!
Don't take this personally but you really are dumb. Serena seems to
attract dumb fans?
Garvin is not a fan of Serena. But don't take this personal but you are an asshole, Garvin comes across pretty level headed tennis fan.
That is correct.

I'm not really a fan of Serena, who should take lessons in the
demeanor of a champion, from someone who beats her: Naomi Osaka.

And Name-calling is what people do when they lose an argument!

:)
--
https://fineartamerica.com/art/garvin+yee
*skriptis
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
On Saturday, February 27, 2021 at 9:55:52 PM UTC+11, Whisper wrote:> On 27/02/2021 9:38 pm, Garvin Yee wrote: > > On 2/27/2021 2:25 AM, Whisper wrote: > >> On 27/02/2021 12:34 pm, Garvin Yee wrote: > >>> On 2/26/2021 10:06 AM, Max's Hoemom wrote: > >>>> On Friday, February 26, 2021 at 2:36:41 AM UTC-6, Garvin Yee wrote: > >>>>> Before 1968, only amateurs were allowed to compete in Grand Slam > >>>>> tournaments. > >>>>> > >>>>> So why would anyone think Serena has to match or beat Court's 24 > >>>>> Slam count, to be considered THE GOAT, if 13 of Court's Slams > >>>>> were between amateurs only, and not professional tennis players? > >>>>> > >>>>> And so Court must have been an amateur before 1968. So the > >>>>> question is: Did she ever become a "professional" tennis player? > >>>>> > >>>>> And how did they differentiate between the amateurs and the > >>>>> professionals? Total yearly tournament earnings? > >>>>> > >>>>> And why did they decide not to include professionals in Slams > >>>>> before 1968, if the whole idea was to find out who the best players > >>>>> were? > >>>> > >>>> It is good that you like Serena and have accepted her as the GOAT > >>>> GODDESS... but you are not fooling anyone. You can't just take away > >>>> slams from other GOAT contenders and say your favorite is undisputed > >>>> GOAT. > >>>> > >>> > >>> It's only in the Open Era, that professionals were allowed to > >>> compete in Slams, so most people only look at 1968 and beyond: > >>> > >>> > >> That's men's tennis. > > > > That applies to Women's tennis too, at the time. > > > >> > >> You still haven't listed a single female player who was badly affected > >> by this banning of pro female players? How come? I can list many men > >> who were eg Laver, Rosewall, Pancho, Hoad, etc etc > > > > > > From Wiki" > > > > "Before the advent of the Open era of tennis competitions in April 1968, > > only amateurs were allowed to compete in established tournaments, > > including the four Majors. There was no prize money and players were > > compensated for travel expenses only." > > > > No prize money, eh? Then they surely didn't attract the best > > tennis talent in the world! > > > > The pre-Open Era wasn't organized, or established enough to really > > matter. And anyways, peak Serena would tear peak Court a new asshole > > in straight sets. That's not Court's fault; it's just that the game has > > progress immensely since she was active! > > > > Serena has the most Slams in the Open Era at 23, and the longest > > period between first and last Slams, at 18 years! > >> Don't take this personally but you really are dumb. Serena seems to > attract dumb fans?Garvin is not a fan of Serena. But don't take this personal but you are an asshole, Garvin comes across pretty level headed tennis fan.
You only say that because he's yellow just as you are. 😃
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
jlia...@gmail.com
2021-02-27 11:55:59 UTC
Permalink
On Saturday, February 27, 2021 at 9:55:52 PM UTC+11, Whisper wrote:> On 27/02/2021 9:38 pm, Garvin Yee wrote: > > On 2/27/2021 2:25 AM, Whisper wrote: > >> On 27/02/2021 12:34 pm, Garvin Yee wrote: > >>> On 2/26/2021 10:06 AM, Max's Hoemom wrote: > >>>> On Friday, February 26, 2021 at 2:36:41 AM UTC-6, Garvin Yee wrote: > >>>>> Before 1968, only amateurs were allowed to compete in Grand Slam > >>>>> tournaments. > >>>>> > >>>>> So why would anyone think Serena has to match or beat Court's 24 > >>>>> Slam count, to be considered THE GOAT, if 13 of Court's Slams > >>>>> were between amateurs only, and not professional tennis players? > >>>>> > >>>>> And so Court must have been an amateur before 1968. So the > >>>>> question is: Did she ever become a "professional" tennis player? > >>>>> > >>>>> And how did they differentiate between the amateurs and the > >>>>> professionals? Total yearly tournament earnings? > >>>>> > >>>>> And why did they decide not to include professionals in Slams > >>>>> before 1968, if the whole idea was to find out who the best players > >>>>> were? > >>>> > >>>> It is good that you like Serena and have accepted her as the GOAT > >>>> GODDESS... but you are not fooling anyone. You can't just take away > >>>> slams from other GOAT contenders and say your favorite is undisputed > >>>> GOAT. > >>>> > >>> > >>> It's only in the Open Era, that professionals were allowed to > >>> compete in Slams, so most people only look at 1968 and beyond: > >>> > >>> > >> That's men's tennis. > > > > That applies to Women's tennis too, at the time. > > > >> > >> You still haven't listed a single female player who was badly affected > >> by this banning of pro female players? How come? I can list many men > >> who were eg Laver, Rosewall, Pancho, Hoad, etc etc > > > > > > From Wiki" > > > > "Before the advent of the Open era of tennis competitions in April 1968, > > only amateurs were allowed to compete in established tournaments, > > including the four Majors. There was no prize money and players were > > compensated for travel expenses only." > > > > No prize money, eh? Then they surely didn't attract the best > > tennis talent in the world! > > > > The pre-Open Era wasn't organized, or established enough to really > > matter. And anyways, peak Serena would tear peak Court a new asshole > > in straight sets. That's not Court's fault; it's just that the game has > > progress immensely since she was active! > > > > Serena has the most Slams in the Open Era at 23, and the longest > > period between first and last Slams, at 18 years! > >> Don't take this personally but you really are dumb. Serena seems to > attract dumb fans?Garvin is not a fan of Serena. But don't take this personal but you are an asshole, Garvin comes across pretty level headed tennis fan.
You only say that because he's yellow just as you are. 😃
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
You only say that because you are like Whisper.....a
The Iceberg
2021-02-27 11:24:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Garvin Yee
Post by Whisper
Post by Garvin Yee
Post by Max's Hoemom
Post by Garvin Yee
Before 1968, only amateurs were allowed to compete in Grand Slam
tournaments.
So why would anyone think Serena has to match or beat Court's 24
Slam count, to be considered THE GOAT, if 13 of Court's Slams
were between amateurs only, and not professional tennis players?
And so Court must have been an amateur before 1968. So the
question is: Did she ever become a "professional" tennis player?
And how did they differentiate between the amateurs and the
professionals? Total yearly tournament earnings?
And why did they decide not to include professionals in Slams
before 1968, if the whole idea was to find out who the best players
were?
It is good that you like Serena and have accepted her as the GOAT
GODDESS... but you are not fooling anyone. You can't just take away
slams from other GOAT contenders and say your favorite is undisputed
GOAT.
It's only in the Open Era, that professionals were allowed to
That's men's tennis.
That applies to Women's tennis too, at the time.
Post by Whisper
You still haven't listed a single female player who was badly affected
by this banning of pro female players? How come? I can list many men
who were eg Laver, Rosewall, Pancho, Hoad, etc etc
From Wiki"
"Before the advent of the Open era of tennis competitions in April 1968,
only amateurs were allowed to compete in established tournaments,
including the four Majors. There was no prize money and players were
compensated for travel expenses only."
No prize money, eh? Then they surely didn't attract the best
tennis talent in the world!
The pre-Open Era wasn't organized, or established enough to really
matter. And anyways, peak Serena would tear peak Court a new asshole
in straight sets. That's not Court's fault; it's just that the game has
progress immensely since she was active!
Serena has the most Slams in the Open Era at 23, and the longest
period between first and last Slams, at 18 years!
Don't take this personally but you really are dumb. Serena seems to
attract dumb fans?
Garvin is not a fan of Serena. But don't take this personal but you are an asshole, Garvin comes across pretty level headed tennis fan.
so it just coincidence he keeps hollering on about Serena being the GOAT with 23 slams, how Court only has 11 and how it was the best thing ever that Osaka won the USO solely cos of her skin colour?!
Whisper
2021-02-27 11:42:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Garvin Yee
"Before the advent of the Open era of tennis competitions in April 1968,
only amateurs were allowed to compete in established tournaments,
including the four Majors. There was no prize money and players were
compensated for travel expenses only."
No prize money, eh? Then they surely didn't attract the best
tennis talent in the world!
The pre-Open Era wasn't organized, or established enough to really
matter. And anyways, peak Serena would tear peak Court a new asshole
in straight sets. That's not Court's fault; it's just that the game has
progress immensely since she was active!
Serena has the most Slams in the Open Era at 23, and the longest
period between first and last Slams, at 18 years!
Don't take this personally but you really are dumb. Serena seems to
attract dumb fans?
Garvin is not a fan of Serena. But don't take this personal but you are an asshole, Garvin comes across pretty level headed tennis fan.
Sure, but in this thread his arguments are weak. Serena herself said
she's playing to get the record, & every Serena article you google
refers to her chasing Margaret.
bob
2021-02-27 19:52:53 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 21:55:46 +1100, Whisper
Post by Whisper
Post by Whisper
Post by Max's Hoemom
Post by Garvin Yee
Before 1968, only amateurs were allowed to compete in Grand Slam
tournaments.
So why would anyone think Serena has to match or beat Court's 24
Slam count, to be considered THE GOAT, if 13 of Court's Slams
were between amateurs only, and not professional tennis players?
And so Court must have been an amateur before 1968. So the
question is: Did she ever become a "professional" tennis player?
And how did they differentiate between the amateurs and the
professionals? Total yearly tournament earnings?
And why did they decide not to include professionals in Slams
before 1968, if the whole idea was to find out who the best players
were?
It is good that you like Serena and have accepted her as the GOAT
GODDESS... but you are not fooling anyone. You can't just take away
slams from other GOAT contenders and say your favorite is undisputed
GOAT.
      It's only in the Open Era, that professionals were allowed to
That's men's tennis.
    That applies to Women's tennis too, at the time.
Post by Whisper
You still haven't listed a single female player who was badly affected
by this banning of pro female players?  How come?  I can list many men
who were eg Laver, Rosewall, Pancho, Hoad, etc etc
From Wiki"
"Before the advent of the Open era of tennis competitions in April 1968,
only amateurs were allowed to compete in established tournaments,
including the four Majors. There was no prize money and players were
compensated for travel expenses only."
     No prize money, eh?  Then they surely didn't attract the best
tennis talent in the world!
     The pre-Open Era wasn't organized, or established enough to really
matter.  And anyways, peak Serena would tear peak Court a new asshole
in straight sets.  That's not Court's fault; it's just that the game has
progress immensely since she was active!
      Serena has the most Slams in the Open Era at 23, and the longest
period between first and last Slams, at 18 years!
Don't take this personally but you really are dumb. Serena seems to
attract dumb fans?
garvin's analysis in this thread is bottom tier. i mean, really.

bob
jlia...@gmail.com
2021-02-27 22:50:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob
On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 21:55:46 +1100, Whisper
Post by Garvin Yee
Post by Whisper
Post by Garvin Yee
Post by Max's Hoemom
Post by Garvin Yee
Before 1968, only amateurs were allowed to compete in Grand Slam
tournaments.
So why would anyone think Serena has to match or beat Court's 24
Slam count, to be considered THE GOAT, if 13 of Court's Slams
were between amateurs only, and not professional tennis players?
And so Court must have been an amateur before 1968. So the
question is: Did she ever become a "professional" tennis player?
And how did they differentiate between the amateurs and the
professionals? Total yearly tournament earnings?
And why did they decide not to include professionals in Slams
before 1968, if the whole idea was to find out who the best players
were?
It is good that you like Serena and have accepted her as the GOAT
GODDESS... but you are not fooling anyone. You can't just take away
slams from other GOAT contenders and say your favorite is undisputed
GOAT.
It's only in the Open Era, that professionals were allowed to
That's men's tennis.
That applies to Women's tennis too, at the time.
Post by Whisper
You still haven't listed a single female player who was badly affected
by this banning of pro female players? How come? I can list many men
who were eg Laver, Rosewall, Pancho, Hoad, etc etc
From Wiki"
"Before the advent of the Open era of tennis competitions in April 1968,
only amateurs were allowed to compete in established tournaments,
including the four Majors. There was no prize money and players were
compensated for travel expenses only."
No prize money, eh? Then they surely didn't attract the best
tennis talent in the world!
The pre-Open Era wasn't organized, or established enough to really
matter. And anyways, peak Serena would tear peak Court a new asshole
in straight sets. That's not Court's fault; it's just that the game has
progress immensely since she was active!
Serena has the most Slams in the Open Era at 23, and the longest
period between first and last Slams, at 18 years!
Don't take this personally but you really are dumb. Serena seems to
attract dumb fans?
garvin's analysis in this thread is bottom tier. i mean, really.
bob
Garvin's analysis is accurate. It is not the bottom tier stuff regularly coming out some of bob's tier 1 analysts.
bob
2021-02-28 13:23:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by bob
On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 21:55:46 +1100, Whisper
Post by Garvin Yee
Post by Whisper
Post by Garvin Yee
Post by Max's Hoemom
Post by Garvin Yee
Before 1968, only amateurs were allowed to compete in Grand Slam
tournaments.
So why would anyone think Serena has to match or beat Court's 24
Slam count, to be considered THE GOAT, if 13 of Court's Slams
were between amateurs only, and not professional tennis players?
And so Court must have been an amateur before 1968. So the
question is: Did she ever become a "professional" tennis player?
And how did they differentiate between the amateurs and the
professionals? Total yearly tournament earnings?
And why did they decide not to include professionals in Slams
before 1968, if the whole idea was to find out who the best players
were?
It is good that you like Serena and have accepted her as the GOAT
GODDESS... but you are not fooling anyone. You can't just take away
slams from other GOAT contenders and say your favorite is undisputed
GOAT.
It's only in the Open Era, that professionals were allowed to
That's men's tennis.
That applies to Women's tennis too, at the time.
Post by Whisper
You still haven't listed a single female player who was badly affected
by this banning of pro female players? How come? I can list many men
who were eg Laver, Rosewall, Pancho, Hoad, etc etc
From Wiki"
"Before the advent of the Open era of tennis competitions in April 1968,
only amateurs were allowed to compete in established tournaments,
including the four Majors. There was no prize money and players were
compensated for travel expenses only."
No prize money, eh? Then they surely didn't attract the best
tennis talent in the world!
The pre-Open Era wasn't organized, or established enough to really
matter. And anyways, peak Serena would tear peak Court a new asshole
in straight sets. That's not Court's fault; it's just that the game has
progress immensely since she was active!
Serena has the most Slams in the Open Era at 23, and the longest
period between first and last Slams, at 18 years!
Don't take this personally but you really are dumb. Serena seems to
attract dumb fans?
garvin's analysis in this thread is bottom tier. i mean, really.
bob
Garvin's analysis is accurate. It is not the bottom tier stuff regularly coming out some of bob's tier 1 analysts.
no john garvin is showing a very clear lack of understanding of the
dynamic that was pro VS amateur tennis in the 60s.

i'm sure as none of us were watching it then we also don't know the
intimate details, but a simple research of how "open" tennis came to
be would help. garvin doesn't seem to know anything about the
situation.


bob
The Iceberg
2021-02-27 11:19:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Garvin Yee
Post by Whisper
Post by Garvin Yee
Post by Max's Hoemom
Post by Garvin Yee
Before 1968, only amateurs were allowed to compete in Grand Slam
tournaments.
So why would anyone think Serena has to match or beat Court's 24
Slam count, to be considered THE GOAT, if 13 of Court's Slams
were between amateurs only, and not professional tennis players?
And so Court must have been an amateur before 1968. So the
question is: Did she ever become a "professional" tennis player?
And how did they differentiate between the amateurs and the
professionals? Total yearly tournament earnings?
And why did they decide not to include professionals in Slams
before 1968, if the whole idea was to find out who the best players
were?
It is good that you like Serena and have accepted her as the GOAT
GODDESS... but you are not fooling anyone. You can't just take away
slams from other GOAT contenders and say your favorite is undisputed
GOAT.
It's only in the Open Era, that professionals were allowed to
That's men's tennis.
That applies to Women's tennis too, at the time.
Post by Whisper
You still haven't listed a single female player who was badly affected
by this banning of pro female players? How come? I can list many men
who were eg Laver, Rosewall, Pancho, Hoad, etc etc
From Wiki"
"Before the advent of the Open era of tennis competitions in April 1968,
only amateurs were allowed to compete in established tournaments,
including the four Majors. There was no prize money and players were
compensated for travel expenses only."
No prize money, eh? Then they surely didn't attract the best
tennis talent in the world!
The pre-Open Era wasn't organized, or established enough to really
matter. And anyways, peak Serena would tear peak Court a new asshole
in straight sets. That's not Court's fault; it's just that the game has
progress immensely since she was active!
Serena has the most Slams in the Open Era at 23, and the longest
period between first and last Slams, at 18 years!
why did you leave out the Wiki bit that says "before 1967 there were virtually zero professional female players"?? LOL honestly, you love Serena that is fine, but go and learn some tennis history instead of what you're told about tennis on CNN "because she's a mother".
TT
2021-02-27 13:28:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Max's Hoemom
Serena has played in 60 slams between her first and last slam wins to get to 23... Court got to 24 in 43 attempts and Steffi got to 22 in 42 attempts. She may win slam #24 and #25 too, but her haul will still be less impressive than Court and Graf.
Well Federer & Nadal got to 20 slams with 56 and 54 attempts. Not
dominant enough?

Besides, Court's Aussie titles are against nobodies & Graf's goose was
cooked at 27.

Serena meanwhile proved with her record that she didn't win in weak era
but in any era & that she actually dominated her rivals.
--
'Keep yappin' man'
Whisper
2021-02-27 13:36:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by TT
Post by Max's Hoemom
Serena has played in 60 slams between her first and last slam wins to
get to 23... Court got to 24 in 43 attempts and Steffi got to 22 in 42
attempts. She may win slam #24 and #25 too, but her haul will still be
less impressive than Court and Graf.
Well Federer & Nadal got to 20 slams with 56 and 54 attempts. Not
dominant enough?
Besides, Court's Aussie titles are against nobodies & Graf's goose was
cooked at 27.
Serena meanwhile proved with her record that she didn't win in weak era
but in any era & that she actually dominated her rivals.
So Graf, Navratilova & Evert didn't dominate? Not to mention players
like Connolly, Moody and Lenglen who rarely lost any matches. Get some
history lessons.

Moody beat the no.8 American male player 63 64 & was twice on Time cover
1926 & 1929. As at 1950 she was ranked the greatest female player ever.

Just because you're not aware of the facst doesn't mean it didn't
happen. If nobody is talking about Serena in 50 yrs she still happened.
TT
2021-02-27 13:50:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by TT
Post by Max's Hoemom
Serena has played in 60 slams between her first and last slam wins to
get to 23... Court got to 24 in 43 attempts and Steffi got to 22 in
42 attempts. She may win slam #24 and #25 too, but her haul will
still be less impressive than Court and Graf.
Well Federer & Nadal got to 20 slams with 56 and 54 attempts. Not
dominant enough?
Besides, Court's Aussie titles are against nobodies & Graf's goose was
cooked at 27.
Serena meanwhile proved with her record that she didn't win in weak
era but in any era & that she actually dominated her rivals.
So Graf, Navratilova & Evert didn't dominate?  Not to mention players
like Connolly, Moody and Lenglen who rarely lost any matches.  Get some
history lessons.
Raja mentioned Court & Graf and not the other players. I refuted him on
those two...

Clearly Court's (AO) titles were no match for Serena's slam wins. And
Parche didn't stab Seles because Graf was so dominant...
guypers
2021-02-27 15:40:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by TT
Post by TT
Post by Max's Hoemom
Serena has played in 60 slams between her first and last slam wins to
get to 23... Court got to 24 in 43 attempts and Steffi got to 22 in
42 attempts. She may win slam #24 and #25 too, but her haul will
still be less impressive than Court and Graf.
Well Federer & Nadal got to 20 slams with 56 and 54 attempts. Not
dominant enough?
Besides, Court's Aussie titles are against nobodies & Graf's goose was
cooked at 27.
Serena meanwhile proved with her record that she didn't win in weak
era but in any era & that she actually dominated her rivals.
So Graf, Navratilova & Evert didn't dominate? Not to mention players
like Connolly, Moody and Lenglen who rarely lost any matches. Get some
history lessons.
Raja mentioned Court & Graf and not the other players. I refuted him on
those two...
Clearly Court's (AO) titles were no match for Serena's slam wins. And
Parche didn't stab Seles because Graf was so dominant...
My sister played Court, almostbeat her!!
Whisper
2021-02-27 21:40:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by TT
Post by TT
Post by Max's Hoemom
Serena has played in 60 slams between her first and last slam wins
to get to 23... Court got to 24 in 43 attempts and Steffi got to 22
in 42 attempts. She may win slam #24 and #25 too, but her haul will
still be less impressive than Court and Graf.
Well Federer & Nadal got to 20 slams with 56 and 54 attempts. Not
dominant enough?
Besides, Court's Aussie titles are against nobodies & Graf's goose
was cooked at 27.
Serena meanwhile proved with her record that she didn't win in weak
era but in any era & that she actually dominated her rivals.
So Graf, Navratilova & Evert didn't dominate?  Not to mention players
like Connolly, Moody and Lenglen who rarely lost any matches.  Get
some history lessons.
Raja mentioned Court & Graf and not the other players. I refuted him on
those two...
Clearly Court's (AO) titles were no match for Serena's slam wins. And
Parche didn't stab Seles because Graf was so dominant...
Court won 192 titles, calendar slams in singles & mixed, 5 yrs winning 3
slams a yr etc. Can't get more dominant.

Look ip her record you'll be stunned. Her obvious weakness was
Wimbledon. It says something about your overall record when 3 Wimbledon
titles looks like a major failure.
Max's Hoemom
2021-02-27 21:49:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Whisper
Post by TT
Post by TT
Post by Max's Hoemom
Serena has played in 60 slams between her first and last slam wins
to get to 23... Court got to 24 in 43 attempts and Steffi got to 22
in 42 attempts. She may win slam #24 and #25 too, but her haul will
still be less impressive than Court and Graf.
Well Federer & Nadal got to 20 slams with 56 and 54 attempts. Not
dominant enough?
Besides, Court's Aussie titles are against nobodies & Graf's goose
was cooked at 27.
Serena meanwhile proved with her record that she didn't win in weak
era but in any era & that she actually dominated her rivals.
So Graf, Navratilova & Evert didn't dominate? Not to mention players
like Connolly, Moody and Lenglen who rarely lost any matches. Get
some history lessons.
Raja mentioned Court & Graf and not the other players. I refuted him on
those two...
Clearly Court's (AO) titles were no match for Serena's slam wins. And
Parche didn't stab Seles because Graf was so dominant...
Court won 192 titles, calendar slams in singles & mixed, 5 yrs winning 3
slams a yr etc. Can't get more dominant.
Look ip her record you'll be stunned. Her obvious weakness was
Wimbledon. It says something about your overall record when 3 Wimbledon
titles looks like a major failure.
Yep, it seems like it is fashionable to shit on her, since she is anti-gay. She was one of the most dominant players ever and honestly above Serena types... she belongs to the Grand Slam club which has Connolly and Graf. I think she thoroughly deserved it. too bad Evert, Navratilova and Serena could not do it. Only the best seem to be able to do it. And Lenglen and Moody would have surely done it if they bothered to show up Australian Championships.... in the case of Lenglen she did not even play US Championships (except once).
*skriptis
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
On Saturday, February 27, 2021 at 3:40:17 PM UTC-6, Whisper wrote:> On 28/02/2021 12:50 am, TT wrote: > > Whisper kirjoitti 27.2.2021 klo 15:36: > >> On 28/02/2021 12:28 am, TT wrote: > >>> Max's Hoemom kirjoitti 26.2.2021 klo 19:06: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Serena has played in 60 slams between her first and last slam wins > >>>> to get to 23... Court got to 24 in 43 attempts and Steffi got to 22 > >>>> in 42 attempts. She may win slam #24 and #25 too, but her haul will > >>>> still be less impressive than Court and Graf. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Well Federer & Nadal got to 20 slams with 56 and 54 attempts. Not > >>> dominant enough? > >>> > >>> Besides, Court's Aussie titles are against nobodies & Graf's goose > >>> was cooked at 27. > >>> > >>> Serena meanwhile proved with her record that she didn't win in weak > >>> era but in any era & that she actually dominated her rivals. > >>> > >> > >> > >> So Graf, Navratilova & Evert didn't dominate? Not to mention players > >> like Connolly, Moody and Lenglen who rarely lost any matches. Get > >> some history lessons. > >> > > > > Raja mentioned Court & Graf and not the other players. I refuted him on > > those two... > > > > Clearly Court's (AO) titles were no match for Serena's slam wins. And > > Parche didn't stab Seles because Graf was so dominant... > >> Court won 192 titles, calendar slams in singles & mixed, 5 yrs winning 3 > slams a yr etc. Can't get more dominant. > > Look ip her record you'll be stunned. Her obvious weakness was > Wimbledon. It says something about your overall record when 3 Wimbledon > titles looks like a major failure.Yep, it seems like it is fashionable to shit on her, since she is anti-gay. She was one of the most dominant players ever and honestly above Serena types... she belongs to the Grand Slam club which has Connolly and Graf. I think she thoroughly deserved it. too bad Evert, Navratilova and Serena could not do it. Only the best seem to be able to do it. And Lenglen and Moody would have surely done it if they bothered to show up Australian Championships.... in the case of Lenglen she did not even play US Championships (except once).
You have never been born, except once.
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
bob
2021-02-28 13:27:57 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 13:49:12 -0800 (PST), "Max's Hoemom"
Post by Max's Hoemom
Post by Whisper
Post by TT
Post by TT
Post by Max's Hoemom
Serena has played in 60 slams between her first and last slam wins
to get to 23... Court got to 24 in 43 attempts and Steffi got to 22
in 42 attempts. She may win slam #24 and #25 too, but her haul will
still be less impressive than Court and Graf.
Well Federer & Nadal got to 20 slams with 56 and 54 attempts. Not
dominant enough?
Besides, Court's Aussie titles are against nobodies & Graf's goose
was cooked at 27.
Serena meanwhile proved with her record that she didn't win in weak
era but in any era & that she actually dominated her rivals.
So Graf, Navratilova & Evert didn't dominate? Not to mention players
like Connolly, Moody and Lenglen who rarely lost any matches. Get
some history lessons.
Raja mentioned Court & Graf and not the other players. I refuted him on
those two...
Clearly Court's (AO) titles were no match for Serena's slam wins. And
Parche didn't stab Seles because Graf was so dominant...
Court won 192 titles, calendar slams in singles & mixed, 5 yrs winning 3
slams a yr etc. Can't get more dominant.
Look ip her record you'll be stunned. Her obvious weakness was
Wimbledon. It says something about your overall record when 3 Wimbledon
titles looks like a major failure.
Yep, it seems like it is fashionable to shit on her, since she is anti-gay.
wow, raj earned a bingo! a 1st.

a conservative woman had no place as GOAT in the world of what used to
be billie-jean navratilova tennis which morphed into "me too BLM" and
"emotional women of color" tennis.

so court's accomplishments will always be poo-poo'd whenever possible
today, however myself, i don't really compare pre open tennis to open
tennis, even for the lavers and courts who crossed it. tennis changed
too much when $ entered so i just draw some lines there as to "pre
open goat" and "open goat."

whisp and some other purists & historians try to bridge that gap, and
more power to em, but i don't know how.
Post by Max's Hoemom
She was one of the most dominant players ever and honestly above Serena types... she belongs to the Grand Slam club which has Connolly and Graf. I think she thoroughly deserved it. too bad Evert, Navratilova and Serena could not do it. Only the best seem to be able to do it. And Lenglen and Moody would have surely done it if they bothered to show up Australian Championships.... in the case of Lenglen she did not even play US Championships (except once).
bob
Whisper
2021-03-01 05:22:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob
On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 13:49:12 -0800 (PST), "Max's Hoemom"
Post by Max's Hoemom
Post by Whisper
Post by TT
Post by TT
Post by Max's Hoemom
Serena has played in 60 slams between her first and last slam wins
to get to 23... Court got to 24 in 43 attempts and Steffi got to 22
in 42 attempts. She may win slam #24 and #25 too, but her haul will
still be less impressive than Court and Graf.
Well Federer & Nadal got to 20 slams with 56 and 54 attempts. Not
dominant enough?
Besides, Court's Aussie titles are against nobodies & Graf's goose
was cooked at 27.
Serena meanwhile proved with her record that she didn't win in weak
era but in any era & that she actually dominated her rivals.
So Graf, Navratilova & Evert didn't dominate? Not to mention players
like Connolly, Moody and Lenglen who rarely lost any matches. Get
some history lessons.
Raja mentioned Court & Graf and not the other players. I refuted him on
those two...
Clearly Court's (AO) titles were no match for Serena's slam wins. And
Parche didn't stab Seles because Graf was so dominant...
Court won 192 titles, calendar slams in singles & mixed, 5 yrs winning 3
slams a yr etc. Can't get more dominant.
Look ip her record you'll be stunned. Her obvious weakness was
Wimbledon. It says something about your overall record when 3 Wimbledon
titles looks like a major failure.
Yep, it seems like it is fashionable to shit on her, since she is anti-gay.
wow, raj earned a bingo! a 1st.
a conservative woman had no place as GOAT in the world of what used to
be billie-jean navratilova tennis which morphed into "me too BLM" and
"emotional women of color" tennis.
so court's accomplishments will always be poo-poo'd whenever possible
today, however myself, i don't really compare pre open tennis to open
tennis, even for the lavers and courts who crossed it. tennis changed
too much when $ entered so i just draw some lines there as to "pre
open goat" and "open goat."
whisp and some other purists & historians try to bridge that gap, and
more power to em, but i don't know how.
Post by Max's Hoemom
She was one of the most dominant players ever and honestly above Serena types... she belongs to the Grand Slam club which has Connolly and Graf. I think she thoroughly deserved it. too bad Evert, Navratilova and Serena could not do it. Only the best seem to be able to do it. And Lenglen and Moody would have surely done it if they bothered to show up Australian Championships.... in the case of Lenglen she did not even play US Championships (except once).
bob
Court is like Laver & kinda proves there is not much difference between
amateur & pro eras. Both dominated pre '68 but also won open era
calendar slams, the highest achievement possible in this game. Court's
numbers are too big to discount eg 192 titles & has best all time
winning match % in 3 of the 4 slams. It takes a truly great player to
consider 3 Wimbledons a colossal failure, but that's what it is in her
case. She always wanted Wimbledon too much & never played her best
stuff there.

People bag Emerson but he played Laver in 5 slam finals winning 2.
Max's Hoemom
2021-02-27 21:46:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by TT
Post by TT
Post by Max's Hoemom
Serena has played in 60 slams between her first and last slam wins to
get to 23... Court got to 24 in 43 attempts and Steffi got to 22 in
42 attempts. She may win slam #24 and #25 too, but her haul will
still be less impressive than Court and Graf.
Well Federer & Nadal got to 20 slams with 56 and 54 attempts. Not
dominant enough?
Besides, Court's Aussie titles are against nobodies & Graf's goose was
cooked at 27.
Serena meanwhile proved with her record that she didn't win in weak
era but in any era & that she actually dominated her rivals.
So Graf, Navratilova & Evert didn't dominate? Not to mention players
like Connolly, Moody and Lenglen who rarely lost any matches. Get some
history lessons.
Raja mentioned Court & Graf and not the other players. I refuted him on
those two...
Clearly Court's (AO) titles were no match for Serena's slam wins. And
Parche didn't stab Seles because Graf was so dominant...
Court did get some cheap wins early on... but then also took out the likes of Bueno, King and Goolagong when they played at the AO... it was not her fault that the Western world did not want to compete at the Australian championships back then. Between 1960 and 1973 she won it 11 times losing only once in final to King in 1968 and being absent in 1967 and 1972.
Max's Hoemom
2021-02-27 21:50:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by TT
Post by Max's Hoemom
Serena has played in 60 slams between her first and last slam wins to get to 23... Court got to 24 in 43 attempts and Steffi got to 22 in 42 attempts. She may win slam #24 and #25 too, but her haul will still be less impressive than Court and Graf.
Well Federer & Nadal got to 20 slams with 56 and 54 attempts. Not
dominant enough?
Can't compare men and women... men will take it longer to accumulate the same numbers as women... anyone with a brain bigger than a pea can see that.
Post by TT
Besides, Court's Aussie titles are against nobodies & Graf's goose was
cooked at 27.
Serena meanwhile proved with her record that she didn't win in weak era
but in any era & that she actually dominated her rivals.
--
'Keep yappin' man'
bob
2021-02-26 17:31:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Garvin Yee
Before 1968, only amateurs were allowed to compete in Grand Slam
tournaments.
So why would anyone think Serena has to match or beat Court's 24
Slam count, to be considered THE GOAT, if 13 of Court's Slams
were between amateurs only, and not professional tennis players?
And so Court must have been an amateur before 1968. So the
question is: Did she ever become a "professional" tennis player?
And how did they differentiate between the amateurs and the
professionals? Total yearly tournament earnings?
And why did they decide not to include professionals in Slams
before 1968, if the whole idea was to find out who the best players
were?
why indeed.

it might help to rekindle the discussion of the era where tennis
players were transitioning and trying to get paid for playing
tournaments, VS getting paid under the table for appearances, VS
playing only for the pride of being the best.

personally, i don't discuss much pre open era only because i wasn't
alive to watch it. i enjoy commenting more on that which i've seen,
and started watching around 75ish.

bu tgenerally:
amateurs play in amateur tournaments (for pride).

bob
*skriptis
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Then you might as well call Serena (and the big 3) amateurs as well.

None of them plays for money at this stage, no?
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
bob
2021-02-27 00:35:34 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 21:01:42 +0100 (GMT+01:00), *skriptis
much
pre open era only because i wasn'talive to watch it. i enjoy commenting more on that which i've seen,and started watching around 75ish.bu tgenerally:amateurs play in amateur tournaments (for pride).bob
Then you might as well call Serena (and the big 3) amateurs as well.
None of them plays for money at this stage, no?
sure about that skrip? :-)

bob
*skriptis
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Permalink
No. But everyone says it so I'm repeating what I hear. ;)


But Federer is worth 500+ millions I think?

Would he not swap 10 millions to stay slam king?
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
bob
2021-02-27 19:53:46 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 01:38:25 +0100 (GMT+01:00), *skriptis
VS getting paid under the table for appearances, VSplaying only for the pride of being the best.personally, i don't discussmuch>pre open era only because i wasn'talive to watch it. i enjoy commenting more on that which i've seen,and started watching around 75ish.bu tgenerally:amateurs play in amateur tournaments (for pride).bob>>>>Then you might as well call Serena (and the big 3) amateurs as well. >>None of them plays for money at this stage, no?sure about that skrip? :-)bob
No. But everyone says it so I'm repeating what I hear. ;)
But Federer is worth 500+ millions I think?
Would he not swap 10 millions to stay slam king?
surely he would.

bob
Whisper
2021-02-27 09:17:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob
On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 21:01:42 +0100 (GMT+01:00), *skriptis
much
pre open era only because i wasn'talive to watch it. i enjoy commenting more on that which i've seen,and started watching around 75ish.bu tgenerally:amateurs play in amateur tournaments (for pride).bob
Then you might as well call Serena (and the big 3) amateurs as well.
None of them plays for money at this stage, no?
sure about that skrip? :-)
bob
Players don't care about the prizemoney at slams. Navratilova said
she'd play Wimbledon for nothing back when she was no.1. The winner
prizemoney this year AO was reduced by about 1 million$ to give the
early rd losers more money due to covid. Nobody complained. The value
of a GS title is worth more than prizemoney as they leverage that
greater status of being a slam champion to more endorsement/app
Loading...