Controversial Takes (present or historic)

[El Dude]

Sorry, I just don't think you can diminish Graf because of Capriati, which is mostly based on conjecture. Unlike Seles, Capriati was mostly promise - she never established anything close to the level of greatness that Seles displayed in 91-92 (when Capriati stepped out in '94, she hadn't won a Slam or finished in the top 5). She was a very good player with the promise to be great, but she didn't actualize it. Things finally came together for her in 2001-02, but we can't just fill in a hypothetical 1995-2000 of greatness, let along take away from Graf.

People who downplay Graf's seem to do so by A) Not realizing, or forgetting, how overwhelmingly great she was in 1987-89 (and again in 93-96), and B) How her "struggles" in 1990-92 weren't just about Seles...she was losing to a lot of players. Her surge in 1993-96 was a revival, not a reaction to Seles being sub-par. Meaning, as Britbox and I discussed in another thread, there's a narrative that's been built up over the years that doesn't hold up all that well when you actually look into in any degree of depth. This is not to say that she wouldn't have taken some of those Slams from Graf, but probably not as many as people think. Chances are they would have split everything between the two of them, and other players would have missed out on Slam titles.

The Seles story is about...Seles. We probably missed out on half the prime of a player who would have been mentioned in the same breadth as Evert, Navratilova, Graf, and Serena.

 

[El Dude]

Grand Slam titles are Overvalued by (most) fans.

They're obviously important - and the most important tournaments in terms of weighing legacy. Slam-centrism is one of the main ways people get a distorted view of tennis history. The "normie" fan pretty much looks only at Slams and ignores everything else, so confuses how much greater a career Andy Murray had than Stan Wawrinka, or falsely believes that Andre Agassi was in the same class as Connors and Lendl.

There's a reason the ATP gives "only" 2000 points for a Slam, vs. up to 1500 for a TF and 1000 for a Masters - that's roughly how difficult they feel it is to earen the title. Now I personally value a Slam title a bit more than twice a Masters, in terms of assessing legacy, which is why I give Slams 10 points and Masters 4 points in my system. But the way some people talk about them, a Slam is worth 10-20x or more than a Masters.

Furthermore, I think you could argue that winning the Tour Finals is more difficult because you're playing five matches against top 10 opponents, where at a Slam it is usually 2-3, and sometimes just 1.

 

[Jelenafan]

…The Seles story is about...Seles. We probably missed out on half the prime of a player who would have been mentioned in the same breadth as Evert, Navratilova, Graf, and Serena.

Life is unfair.

The stabbing was unfair to Seles.

It is also unfair that Graff’s overall record is intertwined with the stabbing.

But they are.

 

[mrzz]

But the way some people talk about them, a Slam is worth 10-20x or more than a Masters.

Actually, it could be worst than that. In general people think of it as a tie-breaker at best. If one guy has five majors and another four, for some it will be completely irrelevant if the one with four has 15 masters against a single one of the guy with five. Actually, some would hold his high number of master titles against the guy (why didn't he win more majors?). Only if they are tied the number of masters becomes relevant.

In the real world masters give a lot of money and a lot of points, so they are important, period. But in this pub talk about accomplishments that we like to have, it is borderline irrelevant (not that I agree with that).

Extremely difficult things like winning all clay masters and the sunshine double are mentioned here and there, and that's it.