Originally Posted by Goosehead
they both won 18 majors..
Evert beat Navratilova 8 times at the buisiness end of majors..(4F, 4SF).
The times one lost in the semis very rarely would the loser have won the title. There is a reason they were playing in the semis, it is because those times they were playing in the semis they were not the 2 best at the moment, the way they were 77-79 and 82-86. Especialy the ones where Evert beat Navratilova, which were always well outside of Martina`s peak periods.
Times Evert beat Navratilova in semis:
1975 U.S Open and 1976 Wimbledon- Goolagong was a much better player than Navratilova at the time, and their H2H around that period bears that out, as well as their general results and ranking. Goolagong would have won the title had Evert not been there.
1980 Wimbledon- Navratilova was in horrible shape around then, and by the end of 1980 was losing regularly to Shriver, Turnbull, 17 year old Mandlikova, everyone, and dropped to number 5 in the World at one point. Cant imagine her winning Wimbledon this year with any draw, unless she played Ruzica in the final or something.
1988 Australian- No chance on earth Navratilova comes close to beating Graf in the final on rebound ace, this is the most obvious one of all.
So Evert denied Navratilova at absolute most 4 slams, the 4 she lost to her in the finals. Navratilova beat Evert in 10 slams and Evert probably would have won atleast 8 of those 10 without Martina, so Martina cost Chris much more. This also shows how silly the remove so and so arguments are anyway though, as based on that Evert would be much better than Navratilova as she wins way more without Martina, than Martina does without Chris, yet it is Martina`s ownage of Evert in slam finals (10-4) which is why people clearly rate her better and often have them multiple spots apart.