Peter Fleming was a better doubles than singles player, and he didn’t get the attention she did (and he won a lot more than 16 doubles titles - and two major doubles titles). So did Pam Shriver. Nobody questions their accomplishments cuz they weren’t inundated with their visages at seemingly every turn for a good number of years.

She accomplished more in her career than I will (um, duh) - but she still got far too much attention relative to her accomplishments. Nothing wrong with that, she is (or was) an attractive young female athlete. Indeed many in the tennis know insisted she had plenty of talent - and lamented that tennis was just not a priority (as is necessary at that level) for her to come close to achieving her potential.

Without checking, who’s the 8th-ranked player on tour - either men’s or women’s - right now? What about last month? Last year? You don’t know, and either do I. Eighth-ranked is very good, and indicates a level of success in the sport - but Anna was getting far more attention than players who *accomplished* far more than her in the sport. We all know why - and kudos for her for doing what she wanted to do… use the exposure of an underachieving tennis career to further a modeling career. But let’s not pretend she came anywhere close to earning the exposure she get given her career accomplishment (or lack thereof).

Back to Danica… she has appeared in some men’s magazines - nothing wrong with that. She’s an attractive young female athlete and should use her assets for financial gain, and to a lesser extent, to help promote interest in her sport. The clear difference between Danica and Anna (and my initial point) is that Danica obviously takes her athletic career seriously - far more than Kournikova - and as a result has achieved success that validates (at least some) of the exposure and attention she’s received for being in the sport.

Moreover, all the scorn heaped on her ignores the fact that Miss Kournikova was a better doubles than singles player, and in fact was ranked #1 in doubles, in which milieu she won 16 titles including the Australian Open twice.

I agree that there is a strong case for tournament victories as a significant measure of accomplishment in one’s tennis career, but to define it as the only legitimate measure - and to then narrow it further to singles tournament victories - just seems to me an unjustifiably narrow measure of professional success.

She was not without talent, so indeed she won some tournament matches and thus attained a respectable ranking (I’ll take your word for it on that) - but how come she couldn’t win *a* tournament? The abuse was well-deserved. It’s like saying the Red Sox didn’t deserve abuse from 1918-2004 cuz… after all, they had high rankings some of those years. Two differences in this analogy: (1) No Red Sox ever looked as good in a tennis skirt as Anna, and (2) She never came as close to ultimate victory as the Red Sox. Other than that? Same difference - and thus, abuse well-deserved.