Okay, serious question.

Why are Serena & Graf inarguably looked at as greater than Martina & Chrissy?

The argument against Graf was that she had no one of her calibre to stop her (since Seles was stabbed in 1993), so she ran riot.

But that also applies to Serena, since...

...she didn't have anyone of her calibre after the Belgians retired and Venus declined (not that Clijsters, Henin, & Venus were of her calibre).

She was unchallenged for most of the late 2000s/early 2010s, like Graf was unchallenged for most of the 1990s.

So it's natural....

...they both won more slams than Martina & Chrissy.

But if you look at Martina & Chrissy, they were basically slam-blockers to each other for a decade (late 1970s- early 1980s).

Both won more overall titles than Serena & Graf (50ish titles more!) and only didn't win more...

...slams due to the other stopping them (imagine Federer & Nadal having their rivalry from 1978-86, with Federer as Martina and Evert as Nadal).

That's basically stopping any one of the two of being at 22/23 slams like Graf/Serena.

I can see Serena would beat them all, due...

...to a superior serve and power, but that's not how the debate works, is it?

People throw out Laver & Borg in debates not because they think those two could beat the male Big 3, but because of their achievements.

That "If Serena was a man she'd win everything" person really got to me.

@Critical_Fail91 @nagori_shreyans @Topspin_righty @Nina201710 @Siddhantguru