Steffi the only player (male or female) to have defended all the majors

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by Steffi-forever, Jun 30, 2012.

  1. BTURNER

    BTURNER Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,508
    Location:
    OREGON
    You are absolutely right. My original contention was based two measures, excluding the w/l percentage. It occurred to me later, to check those. Good thing to add new angles to the picture to get a complete perspective. Indeed the w/l record standing alone, can play mischief with reality, as can using just majors, or just total titles. We now have a three legged stool. Of course Martina deserves a ton of credit... for those three wins out of 11 over the course of 15 years, the greatest disparity in those numbers on any surface they played on. She had a fantastic clay court season in 1984. If s/vers have trouble winning consistently a lot more often than they loose, they are free to change their game. or ignore the problem. It wasn't one for Margaret Court though. It's very likely her career, from 1959-1977 w/l percentage record exceeds even Evert or Graf!

    There is nothing left to rest your case on. Martina doesn't have enough majors. she doesn't have enough titles, she undoubtedly have the worst w/l percentage of any of the 7 women who are GOAT candidates on clay. And the lowest w/l percentage on any single surface, of those in the professional era. Her record on clay, just does not stand up to the standards of the highest pinnacle in women's tennis. You decide if its a big deal to you, compared to her accomplishments.
     
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2012
  2. NonP

    NonP Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,082
    You know it's not that simple to change one's game that has taken a lifetime to perfect. What's really impressive about Navratilova is that she dominated even on clay with her standard (S&V) game. Few other GOAT candidates can claim the same.

    A very dubious statement.

    3rd only to Court and Graf, both of whom benefitted from circumstances beyond their control. And I keep repeating that the majors weren't always the most important/best-attended events in both Martina and Evert's heyday.

    No, she only has 167 titles to her credit, an Open-era record.

    I'd say that when looking at the W/L %'s a player's prime is a truer gauge of her greatness than her entire career.

    Also you missed Martina's doubles achievements, which have no equal in the history of tennis except perhaps Court's. That's a much bigger deal to me than her W/L % outside of her prime.
     
  3. BTURNER

    BTURNER Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,508
    Location:
    OREGON
    wow, She has fewer clay majors. Majors aren't the only thing.. She has fewer clay tournaments. small fry tournaments don't matter . She has a lower win loss percentage. Its cuz she is a s/v. What the hell measurable standard do you want to apply to her clay record. Just 1984 out of a twenty year career?

    First: There are those who include doubles in this calculation, and those who view it as a separate sport. I am one of the latter. If I weren't, I shove Martina in the top two in a heartbeat.

    Second: if a player walks on the court, their results are a part of their legacy as a professional. I won't pluck out their best years to showcase, and ignore the crap they played before and after. When Martina lost 6-0, 6-0 to Evert at the Italian, fans paid money to see her disgrace herself, just as they did in 1984 when Martina buried her in a cascade of winners in Amelia Island . Its all sitting in the career stats, no cherry picking or redefining 'peak' as we like.

    those stats you quoted above, I am talking CLAY majors, or CLAY tournaments or CLAY anything. Navratilova is one of the greatest players of all time with an unbelievable career. That career is lopsided towards indoors and grass too much for my comfort at the very top spot. ., The reverse is true of Evert who probably has the worse carpet record. Even in her hey days of consistency, she had bizarre losses on carpet. Doesn't mean the 18 major wins and 150+ tournaments they did get, don't count!
    .
    There are seven women I think in the running for GOAT. in chronological order: Lenglen, Wills, Connolly, Court, Evert, Navratilova, and Graf. We can debate the order from here to eternity But I will not put the woman with least amount of balance between fast and slow court achievement at the very top of that list because I think that surface balance is more important than you do. Won't put the woman with the second least amount of surface balance ( Evert) there either. I put them both in the top three to five ,although all of the women have superior surface balance, if the court surface was yet invented to do it on. No one is going to claim that Lenglen is a slow court player who lucked out on grass with those Wimbledons to her name. No one is going to claim Court is a just fast court specialist who got hot on the clay for a couple of years, with those RG and italian titles. Not saying Martina isn't in the top five or top three of all time. I am saving number one for those other women have have no blemish, however small, on either grass or clay. You gotta do better than the 'hostest with the mostest', especially if you refuse to balance the context with the losses, over the same period of time, however you choose to excuse those losses She won more tournaments and got more wins. She lost more often than others, to get there. And she lost earlier, more often than any other GOAT on clay . I won't discard those early round losses in '75, or '95 and keep all those wins in 83-84.
     
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2012
  4. NonP

    NonP Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    1,082
    BTURNER, I don't get what I did that you're so worked up about. All I did was to question some of your reasoning against Navratilova. No need to raise hell about nothing.

    Fair enough.

    The whole point of looking at W/L % is to see how well the player fared against her competition, to assess her excellence. I never said we should ignore the bad losses, but if we're to see how "great" a player was it only makes sense to pay close attention to her prime, especially when we're talking about a relatively late bloomer like Martina. That's all I'm trying to say. I wasn't trying to "excuse" anything.

    Anyway this has gotten more contentious than I expected. Let's leave it there.
     
  5. Vcore89

    Vcore89 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,902
    Location:
    The synapse
    Steffi is the best in the open era.
     

Share This Page