Navratilova had a better career than Court

Enceladus · Apr 15, 2018

It was because she got all her titles in a professional competition, while the Court played among amateurs (and at the beginning of the open era).
And the Court got the Grand Slam calendar? Is Don Budge considered to be a better player than Pete Sampras or Bjorn Borg?
Court numbers are inflated due to the amateur era and do not deserve to be ranked higher than Navratilova in the ATG ranking.

BTURNER · Apr 15, 2018

Enceladus said:
It was because she got all her titles in a professional competition, while the Court played among amateurs (and at the beginning of the open era).
And the Court got the Grand Slam calendar? Is Don Budge considered to be a better player than Pete Sampras or Bjorn Borg?
Court numbers are inflated due to the amateur era and do not deserve to be ranked higher than Navratilova in the ATG ranking.

You cannot compare the amateur days of the womans tour with that of the men. Men were divided by a co-existing pro tour for decades which siphoned off the best nd the brightest. That option really did not exist for women. So when Court competed at the US National or Wimbledon in the sixties she was competing against virtually all the top women. When Emmerson did so, he would not have been.

Enceladus · Apr 15, 2018

BTURNER said:
You cannot compare the amateur days of the womans tour with that of the men. Men were divided by a co-existing pro tour for decades which siphoned off the best nd the brightest. That option really did not exist for women. So when Court competed at the US National or Wimbledon in the sixties she was competing against virtually all the top women. When Emmerson did so, he would not have been.

Female amateur tennis also came about for its players, but in a different way. Tenants who did not have enough financial reserves with tennis finished. So did Althea Gibson or Darlen Hard.
The Open Era changed the situation even in women's tennis.

Enceladus · Apr 15, 2018

59 GS Navratilova titles are considered a more respectable success than 62 GS Court titles. Navratilova's triumphs had to develop in the environment of the profesionals, which Court can not say.

BTURNER · Apr 15, 2018

Enceladus said:
Female amateur tennis also came about for its players, but in a different way. Tenants who did not have enough financial reserves with tennis finished. So did Althea Gibson or Darlen Hard.
The Open Era changed the situation even in women's tennis.

Its more complicated than that. Broad social changes made a huge difference in the careers and financial structures of the respective tours in the sixties and seventies and the 80's. Money began to soar into the sport with increased visibility secondary to more and more television coverage. Travel expense and time reduced markedly as jet travel became the norm across the globe. The number of public courts increased as television coverage sold the sport to families and kids The women benefited from broad access to the 'pill' and abortion services so sex was not the career killer that it had been the generation before and the women's movement put pressure on high schools and colleges to provide increased choice in sports opportunities to girls and women.

Evert and Navratilova's generation just began to benefit from consistent money and it mostly showed up in the semifinals and finals. That was the generation where top level players got decent sponsorship deals as well . Nobody paid Court to wear a sneaker for a photo shoot or do a Lipton Tea Commercial. .

In some ways Evert and Martina's accomplishments were easier than Court's because those resources were there and the most blatant sexism was declining . Top women now could afford first class travel to the very best hotels, and convenient private access to clay, grass or indoor courts . Hell they could afford 'retreats' and second or third homes. Navratilova did not have to literally beg for time on courts after the men were 'done' . Martina could afford personal trainers and her own traveling coach, as well as better hitting partners, a improved diet, and nutrition education. The disparity in resources between the top five women in Court's day, and the top five women in Navratilova's day made for larger advantages over the tier two women trying to upset them.

those sports related injuries that really 'hamstrung' performance for weeks and weeks could more quickly be diagnosed accurately and treated appropriately with more modern medicine. In Court's era it was coaches that were 'diagnosing' this stuff, and the only answer was pain killers and ice or heat. Court and King were not taught when to stop playing and rest an injury. They were taught to 'play through the pain' . There were no MRI'S with improved imagery of those injuries from more angles and more precision. Its was an old fashioned x-ray or a scalpel that were your only options to see what was ripped or torn from what. There were no laparoscopic surgeries in the 1960's with recovery times in a week either. Disincentives to take care of that sports body were omni-present. 'Appearance fees' for top women were paltry sums compared to the men. So You needed to play through week after week. Cartilage, and joints were effectively ruined midway through their careers.

Even so, It was Graf/ Seles generation of players that saw a fully resourced cradle to grave women's sport

My point still stands. There were two men's tours in the fifties and sixties that divided the men, but only one women's tour.

BorgCash · Apr 15, 2018

BTURNER said:
Its more complicated than that. Broad social changes made a huge difference in the careers and financial structures of the respective tours in the sixties and seventies and the 80's. Money began to soar into the sport with increased visibility secondary to more and more television coverage. Travel expense and time reduced markedly as jet travel became the norm across the globe. The number of public courts increased as television coverage sold the sport to families and kids The women benefited from broad access to the 'pill' and abortion services so sex was not the career killer that it had been the generation before and the women's movement put pressure on high schools and colleges to provide increased choice in sports opportunities to girls and women. Evert and Navratilova's generation just began to benefit from consistent money . It was Graf/ Seles generation of players that saw a fully resourced cradle to grave women's sport.

In some ways Evert and Martina's accomplishments were easier than Court's because those resources were there. Top women now could afford first class travel to the very best hotels, and convenient private access to clay, grass or indoor courts . Hell they could afford 'retreats' and second or third homes. Navratilova did not have to literally beg for time on courts after the men were 'done'. The sexism was absolutely everywhere. Martina could afford personal trainers and her own traveling coach, as well as better hitting partners, a improved diet, and nutrition education. The disparity in resources between the top five women in Court's day, and the top five women in Navratilova's day made for larger advantages over the tier two women trying to upset them.

those sports related injuries that really 'hamstrung' performance for weeks and weeks could more quickly be diagnosed accurately and treated appropriately with more modern medicine. In Court's era it was coaches that were 'diagnosing' this stuff, and the only answer was pain killers and ice or heat. Court and King were not taught when to stop playing and rest an injury. They were taught to 'play through the pain' . There were no MRI'S with improved imagery of those injuries from more angles and more precision. Its was an old fashioned x-ray or a scalpel that were your only options to see what was ripped or torn from what. There were no laparoscopic surgeries in the 1960's with recovery times in a week either. Disincentives to take care of that sports body were omni-present. 'Appearance fees' for top women were paltry sums compared to the men. So You needed to play through week after week. Cartilage, and joints were effectively ruined midway through their careers.

My point still stands. There were two men's tours in the fifties and sixties that divided the men, but only one women's tour.

I liked your explanation very much.

Limpinhitter · Apr 15, 2018

Enceladus said:
It was because she got all her titles in a professional competition, while the Court played among amateurs (and at the beginning of the open era).
And the Court got the Grand Slam calendar? Is Don Budge considered to be a better player than Pete Sampras or Bjorn Borg?
Court numbers are inflated due to the amateur era and do not deserve to be ranked higher than Navratilova in the ATG ranking.

Unlike the men, there was no women's pro tour during Court's career. All of the top women players played all of the top women's amateur events. Further, FYI, Court's Grand Slam occurred in 1970, in the open era.

Enceladus · Apr 15, 2018

BTURNER said:
Its more complicated than that. Broad social changes made a huge difference in the careers and financial structures of the respective tours in the sixties and seventies and the 80's. Money began to soar into the sport with increased visibility secondary to more and more television coverage. Travel expense and time reduced markedly as jet travel became the norm across the globe. The number of public courts increased as television coverage sold the sport to families and kids The women benefited from broad access to the 'pill' and abortion services so sex was not the career killer that it had been the generation before and the women's movement put pressure on high schools and colleges to provide increased choice in sports opportunities to girls and women.

Evert and Navratilova's generation just began to benefit from consistent money and it mostly showed up in the semifinals and finals. That was the generation where top level players got decent sponsorship deals as well . Nobody paid Court to wear a sneaker for a photo shoot or do a Lipton Tea Commercial. .

In some ways Evert and Martina's accomplishments were easier than Court's because those resources were there. Top women now could afford first class travel to the very best hotels, and convenient private access to clay, grass or indoor courts . Hell they could afford 'retreats' and second or third homes. Navratilova did not have to literally beg for time on courts after the men were 'done'. The sexism was absolutely everywhere. Martina could afford personal trainers and her own traveling coach, as well as better hitting partners, a improved diet, and nutrition education. The disparity in resources between the top five women in Court's day, and the top five women in Navratilova's day made for larger advantages over the tier two women trying to upset them.

those sports related injuries that really 'hamstrung' performance for weeks and weeks could more quickly be diagnosed accurately and treated appropriately with more modern medicine. In Court's era it was coaches that were 'diagnosing' this stuff, and the only answer was pain killers and ice or heat. Court and King were not taught when to stop playing and rest an injury. They were taught to 'play through the pain' . There were no MRI'S with improved imagery of those injuries from more angles and more precision. Its was an old fashioned x-ray or a scalpel that were your only options to see what was ripped or torn from what. There were no laparoscopic surgeries in the 1960's with recovery times in a week either. Disincentives to take care of that sports body were omni-present. 'Appearance fees' for top women were paltry sums compared to the men. So You needed to play through week after week. Cartilage, and joints were effectively ruined midway through their careers.

Even so, It was Graf/ Seles generation of players that saw a fully resourced cradle to grave women's sport

My point still stands. There were two men's tours in the fifties and sixties that divided the men, but only one women's tour.

Men also have a better diet, better equipment, better training than their predecessors in the 1950s and 1960s. This argument you have used is inapplicable in this topic.
In Court's defense, you use the logic that shows that the amateur achievements before creating a paraler profi-circuit are just as valuable as those in the open era. And that is forgiving nonsense. Tennis players until 1968 did not have tennis as a job, but as a leisure game. Since tennis did not make money, players were recruited mostly from wealthy families. The competitiveness of tennis has been limited, whether or not there was a paraler group of professionals. The beginning of an open era represents a thick line behind this unfortunate past, which affects both male and female tennis.
It is true what I wrote - Navratilova achieved all his achievements in a professional competition, Court not.

Enceladus · Apr 15, 2018

Limpinhitter said:
Unlike the men, there was no women's pro tour during Court's career. All of the top women players played all of the top women's amateur events. Further, FYI, Court's Grand Slam occurred in 1970, in the open era.

In my previous comment, it is explained that the lack of female profi-circuit before 1968 is irrelevant.

Limpinhitter · Apr 15, 2018

Enceladus said:
In my previous comment, it is explained that the lack of female profi-circuit before 1968 is irrelevant.

OK. You make a colorable argument that wasn’t clear in your OP. However, I don’t think the absence of a women’s pro tour is completely irrelevant. Court competed against the best players in the World. And her GS occurred in the open era.

Don Budge’s Grand Slam did not include the two top pros, Ellsworth Vines And Fred Perry. However, when Budge turned pro the following year, he proved that he was the best player in the world with winning records over both of them.

Phoenix1983 · Apr 15, 2018

Court won almost half her slams in Australia, where the competition was laughable compared to Open Era slams.

Dan Lobb · Apr 15, 2018

Phoenix1983 said:
Court won almost half her slams in Australia, where the competition was laughable compared to Open Era slams.

How many of her major wins came after open tennis?

NonP · Apr 15, 2018

Reasonable people (not including the resident old farts) will disagree on this, but for me Court's vile off-court activities automatically disqualify her from the GOAT conversation. Navratilova OTOH was unafraid to challenge both the right and the left with her unapologetic advocacy of gay rights and opposition to Communism (both highly unfashionable stances at the time, in start contrast with King's frankly corporate-friendly LGBTQ activism of more recent vintage). Add to that her nearly unparalleled success in singles and doubles and the Open-era record of six straight majors. What more can you ask for?

BTURNER · Apr 15, 2018

Enceladus said:
Men also have a better diet, better equipment, better training than their predecessors in the 1950s and 1960s. This argument you have used is inapplicable in this topic.
In Court's defense, you use the logic that shows that the amateur achievements before creating a paraler profi-circuit are just as valuable as those in the open era. And that is forgiving nonsense. Tennis players until 1968 did not have tennis as a job, but as a leisure game. Since tennis did not make money, players were recruited mostly from wealthy families. The competitiveness of tennis has been limited, whether or not there was a paraler group of professionals. The beginning of an open era represents a thick line behind this unfortunate past, which affects both male and female tennis.
It is true what I wrote - Navratilova achieved all his achievements in a professional competition, Court not.

Clearly you are in some 'advocacy mode' for Navratilova over Court. I am not engaging in that. I have no stance on how this all balances out. I don't much care whether one sees Courts records as more impressive or Martina's. Both eras had very different challenges for women. Court had hers and Martina had hers. I am not so impressed with your 'amateur' era = country club wealth argument as you are, mostly because what you are comparing isn't even an entire generation apart. Martina actually played Court several times. The changes that professionalism brought which you describe, took a long time to reach young girls and their families. Its not like Martina or Evert saw this as a leisure sport for the well-to -do as girls starting to compete, and woke up in 1968 to see it as a way to bring home the bacon and feed a family. It sure as hell wasn't a distinction that was presented in Communist Prague media. Considering that the exact same women who were winning in 1965, 1966 and 1967, were the same women who dominated the sport in 1968 and 1969 and 1970 etc and Court was on top of both heaps, its pretty much irrelevant. She proved that she beat them all regardless. "Professionalism did not stop Court from winning tournaments. Age did.

timnz · Apr 15, 2018

Enceladus said:
It was because she got all her titles in a professional competition, while the Court played among amateurs (and at the beginning of the open era).
And the Court got the Grand Slam calendar? Is Don Budge considered to be a better player than Pete Sampras or Bjorn Borg?
Court numbers are inflated due to the amateur era and do not deserve to be ranked higher than Navratilova in the ATG ranking.

Here is a question too infrequently asked. In the 1960's (pre-open era) who were the professional women tennis players who were playing at a higher level than the amateur women? The answer was, there were none. Hence, the Amateur vs Professional era distinction for women is irrelevant.

timnz · Apr 15, 2018

Dan Lobb said:
How many of her major wins came after open tennis?

Is it relevant? Who were the professional women tennis players in the 1960's who were playing at a higher level than the Amateurs?

Dan Lobb · Apr 15, 2018

timnz said:
Is it relevant? Who were the professional women tennis players in the 1960's who were playing at a higher level than the Amateurs?

Did you read Pheonix' comment? He seemed to suggest that women's competition was much greater after open tennis arrived.
I was pointing out that Court won just as much, considering her time-outs for children, after open tennis arrived as before, probably more.

timnz · Apr 15, 2018

Dan Lobb said:
Did you read Pheonix' comment? He seemed to suggest that women's competition was much greater after open tennis arrived.
I was pointing out that Court won just as much, considering her time-outs for children, after open tennis arrived as before, probably more.

Yes, she had the greatest year of achievements in women’s tennis history in 1970 and won 3 slams in 1973. I am not at all convinced she would have won any less if the open era came 10 years earlier.

Deleted member 735320 · Apr 16, 2018

Being born in 1942 it can't be held against Mrs. Court that she played in both amateur and professional eras. Mrs King was born in 1943 and the same is true for her as well. Without a time machine we will never know who was "better". Appreciate the woman for what she accomplished and leave it at that. Ms. Navratilova, as far as I know has criticized Mrs. Court's personal beliefs and actions, but has never questioned her hard training and solid tennis results.

Phoenix1983 · Apr 16, 2018

NonP said:
Reasonable people (not including the resident old farts) will disagree on this, but for me Court's vile off-court activities automatically disqualify her from the GOAT conversation. Navratilova OTOH was unafraid to challenge both the right and the left with her unapologetic advocacy of gay rights and opposition to Communism (both highly unfashionable stances at the time, in start contrast with King's frankly corporate-friendly LGBTQ activism of more recent vintage). Add to that her nearly unparalleled success in singles and doubles and the Open-era record of six straight majors. What more can you ask for?

Agree that Navratilova is greater than Court, but I disagree on ranking tennis players based on how worthy they are off the court.

thrust · Apr 16, 2018

Enceladus said:
It was because she got all her titles in a professional competition, while the Court played among amateurs (and at the beginning of the open era).
And the Court got the Grand Slam calendar? Is Don Budge considered to be a better player than Pete Sampras or Bjorn Borg?
Court numbers are inflated due to the amateur era and do not deserve to be ranked higher than Navratilova in the ATG ranking.

Wake UP! Open tennis only applies to the Men's game. There was NO women's pro tour, therefore ALL the top women players competed in any tournament they wanted Before 1968.

Limpinhitter · Apr 16, 2018

thrust said:
Wake UP! Open tennis only applies to the Men's game. There was NO women's pro tour, therefore ALL the top women players competed in any tournament they wanted Before 1968.

I think the OP’s point is that, without money, the top athletes were not motivated to play tennis, and for those who were, some couldn’t afford to play or stay in the game for any extended period of time.

Phoenix1983 · Apr 16, 2018

thrust said:
Wake UP! Open tennis only applies to the Men's game. There was NO women's pro tour, therefore ALL the top women players competed in any tournament they wanted Before 1968.

This may be true, but it is also true that the global competitiveness of women's tennis has increased substantially since Court's era.

EloQuent · Apr 16, 2018

NonP said:
What more can you ask for?

That sports achievements be about sports. That's all. You can respect whoever you want as a person, but you can't claim that the person who aligns with your life values is the better player because of that. That's not facing reality.

thrust · Apr 16, 2018

Phoenix1983 said:
This may be true, but it is also true that the global competitiveness of women's tennis has increased substantially since Court's era.

Whatever, but Court had very tough competition throughout her entire career: Bueno, BJK, Haydon-Jones, Wade, Darlene Hard, Richey, Lesley Turner, Evert and Navratilova. Graf had Seles, for a few years, then ASV and not much else till Evert and Navratilova came along late in her career. Actually Evert was little competition for Graf but Navratilova gave her a tough time and had an even H-H. There is no doubt that Navratilova was one of the very greatest of all time, but so was Court, like her personally, or not.

BTURNER · Apr 16, 2018

Its not that there professional tennis did not increase the depth and staying potential f on the womens tour. No question about that, but that impact was more gradual that the OP suggests. The money filtered down to the lower rounds slowly and opportunities to earn increased as more and more tournaments were added onto the calender, and more sponsors signed on, as media began to cover more than just four or five events in a year. There just was not enough time for the impact of real money seep downwards to young gifted players trying to get coaching and support during Martina's heyday. In the states Title IX had barely begun to impact high schools and colleges and communism still contained any real value to the economic boon in a third of Europe and Asia.

kramer woodie · Apr 16, 2018

Enceladus said:
It was because she got all her titles in a professional competition, while the Court played among amateurs (and at the beginning of the open era).
And the Court got the Grand Slam calendar? Is Don Budge considered to be a better player than Pete Sampras or Bjorn Borg?
Court numbers are inflated due to the amateur era and do not deserve to be ranked higher than Navratilova in the ATG ranking.

Enceladus

You have to look at the fact that early professionals could not play in majors. You had to be an amateur to play in a major tournament.
Amateur and professional sports were separated from each other. Even the Olympics at one time would not allow professionals to compete,
you had to be an amateur.

Things change over the decades. It is very difficult to compare what past play would be like under current rules and equipment. It is
impossible to compare past versus present sensibly.

However, if you want Navratilova to be considered better than Court, it is OK with me. Just don't think I have much admiration for
mundane comparisons.

Aloha

urban · Apr 17, 2018

Maybe one could make a quality argument for Martina, who won 9 Wims, while Court won 11 Aussie champs. At Wim Margret often got nerves and lost pretty often as favorite. But Court had tough competition, Bueno, BJK, Turner, Tegart, Wade, Jones, Richey etc. And she did beat Evert on clay at RG 1973, maybe her best win over the ultimate clay courter. I saw the Wim revenge in 1973, when Evert beat her with teasing lobs. Sometimes there was a latent US bias against Court, even before those political statements. I never understood, that some US writers ranked comtemporary rival BJK ahead of Court.
I find it hard to compare all those womens champs, because several has built dominance records, which simply couldn't be better. Look at Lenglen, who virtually never lost as a grown person, only once to Molly Mallory and an illness. Wills has built a record, which is unparalleled and would be over 30 majors, if she had competed at all in Australia and more in France.

NonP · Apr 17, 2018

Phoenix1983 said:
Agree that Navratilova is greater than Court, but I disagree on ranking tennis players based on how worthy they are off the court.

EloQuent said:
That sports achievements be about sports. That's all. You can respect whoever you want as a person, but you can't claim that the person who aligns with your life values is the better player because of that. That's not facing reality.

That's a common retort to similar evaluations, namely that athletes aren't supposed to be saints and should instead be judged purely on their sports achievements, but once you dig deeper you can see that people don't actually believe it even though they claim otherwise.

First of all, implicit in this facile framing is that sports are nothing more than trifling entertainment and should be treated as such. Let's assume for a moment we all accept this as true. Then what does that make those of us who obviously spend way too much time on these disposable diversions, when there are far more important things that deserve more of our attention? Even if we grant that a certain level of diversion is necessary to make our lives bearable there's simply no way to justify the amount of time many of us spend talking about tennis or any other sport, or perhaps even playing it as recommended physical exercise.

So we either have our priorities seriously screwed up or don't really believe what we claim to believe. Of course the truth is likely a mixture of both, but if we concede that sports do play an important role in our lives then we're left with at least two further questions that demand our answers: 1) is our enthusiasm for sports so misplaced after all? and 2) why are some of us so eager to maintain this fiction that athletes are little more than entertainers that deserve our attention only with respect to their on-court exploits?

Let's tackle 1) first. When we talk about the greatest this or that in sports or just about any other field of human endeavor, we engage in such presumably idle talk not just to pass time or divert ourselves, but because of our universal pursuit of something more aspirational. Hence the umpteen videos and discussions of the latest Messi goal or Federer shot, or similar examples from the past, that transcends our abilities and defies our understanding, and which in turn drives many of us to try to emulate our sports heroes. And yes, when they speak out in favor of or against a cause in public despite considerable risks a la Ali, Navratilova and Kaepernick we tend to pay attention not only because because such vocal activism is rare regardless of one's social hierarchy (and especially among athletes who don't tend to be the worldliest bunch), but also because it speaks to our deeper aspirations that transcend our everyday concerns. Our desire to be the next Messi or Bolt (or at least be like them) and our desire to make a difference in the world aren't all that different in origin, despite the usual dichotomy that seeks to drive a wedge between them.

Which brings us to 2). If it's evident that our favorite athletes occupy a rather high place in our estimation then why are some of us so eager to deny it? The answer should be pretty obvious, but the fact of the matter is that none of us deny this reality wholesale. Rather we deny it only when acknowledging it challenges our deeply held beliefs. Like Ali and Navratilova before him Kaepernick has gotten fierce pushback for his kneeling in support of BLM from a significant segment of social conservatives, but I guarantee you they have spoken of, say, Joe Montana or their favorite athletes or celebrities in far more favorable terms that border on hero worship (in fact their disgraceful support for Trump is an irrefutable case in point). Likewise you may want to make light of Court's toxic homophobia on the basis that an athlete's on-court achievements trump any such off-court issues, but this convenient approach is seriously undermined by the fact that many of the posters here clearly don't regard tennis as a trifling diversion or their favorite players as mere entertainers, and especially by the fact that the older ones continue to idolize Court's (male) contemporaries as larger-than-life figures while dismissing her serious transgressions as irrelevant distractions.

Again I understand reasonable people can differ on this. Though sports may play a larger role in our lives than we like to admit they clearly have a lesser impact than politics and popular culture at large, and sports even at their most transcendent will never be as edifying and enlightening as the arts. But those who say we should focus on an athlete's accomplishments in her own sport owe it to the rest of us to explain how they can reconcile their professed stance with their actual beliefs and behavior, and the truth of the matter is that they don't even acknowledge this burden. After all why even try to justify yourself when you can just repeat your talking points and earn however many likes from your like-minded followers who like to keep their heads in the sand?

hoodjem · Apr 17, 2018

Navratilova had a better career than Court.

OK. Yes.

pc1 · Apr 17, 2018

hoodjem said:
Navratilova had a better career than Court.

OK. Yes.

Maybe, but we can also say that both had better careers than anyone...or maybe not.

EloQuent · Apr 17, 2018

NonP said:
That's a common retort to similar evaluations, namely that athletes aren't supposed to be saints and should instead be judged purely on their sports achievements, but once you dig deeper you can see that people don't actually believe it even though they claim otherwise.

First of all, implicit in this facile framing is that sports are nothing more than trifling entertainment and should be treated as such. Let's assume for a moment we all accept this as true. Then what does that make those of us who obviously spend way too much time on these disposable diversions, when there are far more important things that deserve more of our attention? Even if we grant that a certain level of diversion is necessary to make our lives bearable there's simply no way to justify the amount of time many of us spend talking about tennis or any other sport, or perhaps even playing it as recommended physical exercise.

So we either have our priorities seriously screwed up or don't really believe what we claim to believe. Of course the truth is likely a mixture of both, but if we concede that sports do play an important role in our lives then we're left with at least two further questions that demand our answers: 1) is our enthusiasm for sports so misplaced after all? and 2) why are some of us so eager to maintain this fiction that athletes are little more than entertainers that deserve our attention only with respect to their on-court exploits?

Let's tackle 1) first. When we talk about the greatest this or that in sports or just about any other field of human endeavor, we engage in such presumably idle talk not just to pass time or divert ourselves, but because of our universal pursuit of something more aspirational. Hence the umpteen videos and discussions of the latest Messi goal or Federer shot, or similar examples from the past, that transcends our abilities and defies our understanding, and which in turn drives many of us to try to emulate our sports heroes. And yes, when they speak out in favor of or against a cause in public despite considerable risks a la Ali, Navratilova and Kaepernick we tend to pay attention not only because because such vocal activism is rare regardless of one's social hierarchy (and especially among athletes who don't tend to be the worldliest bunch), but also because it speaks to our deeper aspirations that transcend our everyday concerns. Our desire to be the next Messi or Bolt (or at least be like them) and our desire to make a difference in the world aren't all that different in origin, despite the usual dichotomy that seeks to drive a wedge between them.

Which brings us to 2). If it's evident that our favorite athletes occupy a rather high place in our estimation then why are some of us so eager to deny it? The answer should be pretty obvious, but the fact of the matter is that none of us deny this reality wholesale. Rather we deny it only when acknowledging it challenges our deeply held beliefs. Like Ali and Navratilova before him Kaepernick has gotten fierce pushback for his kneeling in support of BLM from a significant segment of social conservatives, but I guarantee you they have spoken of, say, Joe Montana or their favorite athletes or celebrities in far more favorable terms that border on hero worship (in fact their disgraceful support for Trump is an irrefutable case in point). Likewise you may want to make light of Court's toxic homophobia on the basis that an athlete's on-court achievements trump any such off-court issues, but this convenient approach is seriously undermined by the fact that many of the posters here clearly don't regard tennis as a trifling diversion or their favorite players as mere entertainers, and especially by the fact that the older ones continue to idolize Court's (male) contemporaries as larger-than-life figures while dismissing her serious transgressions as irrelevant distractions.

Again I understand reasonable people can differ on this. Though sports may play a larger role in our lives than we like to admit they clearly have a lesser impact than politics and popular culture at large, and sports even at their most transcendent will never be as edifying and enlightening as the arts. But those who say we should focus on an athlete's accomplishments in her own sport owe it to the rest of us to explain how they can reconcile their professed stance with their actual beliefs and behavior, and the truth of the matter is that they don't even acknowledge this burden. After all why even try to justify yourself when you can just repeat your talking points and earn however many likes from your like-minded followers who like to keep their heads in the sand?

TL;DR. I didn't say that we should only focus on the sports achievements, just that you cannot say "A is better at sports than B" when its incorrect.

Enceladus · Apr 17, 2018

thrust said:
Wake UP! Open tennis only applies to the Men's game. There was NO women's pro tour, therefore ALL the top women players competed in any tournament they wanted Before 1968.

The open era, of course, also concerned women's tennis, claiming the opposite is a profound mistake. We could say then that titles from the early 20th century (when they were only amateurs) are as valuable as the end of the century (a fully professionalized field) which is, of course, nonsense.

Moose Malloy · Apr 17, 2018

NonP said:
Reasonable people (not including the resident old farts) will disagree on this, but for me Court's vile off-court activities automatically disqualify her from the GOAT conversation. Navratilova OTOH was unafraid to challenge both the right and the left with her unapologetic advocacy of gay rights and opposition to Communism (both highly unfashionable stances at the time, in start contrast with King's frankly corporate-friendly LGBTQ activism of more recent vintage). Add to that her nearly unparalleled success in singles and doubles and the Open-era record of six straight majors. What more can you ask for?

so are you ok with people disqualifying Kobe from any GOAT debates because he was charged with rape?

Btw Court also won 6 straight majors in the Open Era.

TahoeTennis · Apr 17, 2018

Moose Malloy said:
so are you ok with people disqualifying Kobe from any GOAT debates because he was charged with rape?

Btw Court also won 6 straight majors in the Open Era.

This isn't about Kobe, this is about Court, and she's a truly ugly person on the inside, a bigot and an embarrassment to tennis for her comments. Court's tennis career is an afterthought and will be pretty much remembered the same as Cosby's Comedy and Oj's Football achievements, namely an unimportant footnote on their "legacy."

navratilova-court.jpg.size.custom.crop.1086x640.jpg

EloQuent · Apr 17, 2018

TahoeTennis said:
This isn't about Kobe, this is about Court, and she's a truly ugly person on the inside, a bigot and an embarrassment to tennis for her comments. Court's tennis career is an afterthought and will be pretty much remembered the same as Cosby's Comedy and Oj's Football achievements, namely an unimportant footnote on their "legacy."

So to be clear, in your moral universe it's okay to mock women for their looks, and rape isn't disqualifying while having anti-LGBT views (like the pope does, btw) is the same thing as murder. Got it.

thrust · Apr 17, 2018

EloQuent said:
So to be clear, in your moral universe it's okay to mock women for their looks, and rape isn't disqualifying while having anti-LGBT views (like the pope does, btw) is the same thing as murder. Got it.

I suppose it is also highly moral to kill babies by aborting them like BJK and Evert did. Margret Court did not rape or physically abuse anyone. She is entitled to express her opinion whether anyone agrees with her or not.

TahoeTennis · Apr 17, 2018

EloQuent said:
So to be clear, in your moral universe it's okay to mock women for their looks, and rape isn't disqualifying while having anti-LGBT views (like the pope does, btw) is the same thing as murder. Got it.

Pay attention, I said ugly on the inside, which she is.

TahoeTennis · Apr 17, 2018

thrust said:
I suppose it is also highly moral to kill babies by aborting them like BJK and Evert did. Margret Court did not rape or physically abuse anyone. She is entitled to express her opinion whether anyone agrees with her or not.

yes she and the westboro baptist church can express their opinion all day long, but they must face the consequences of that hate speech.

EloQuent · Apr 17, 2018

TahoeTennis said:
Pay attention, I said ugly on the inside, which she is.

You said ugly on the inside and then posted an unflattering picture. Don't be coy. And you didn't respond to the rest of my point.

TahoeTennis said:
yes she and the westboro baptist church can express their opinion all day long, but they must face the consequences of that hate speech.

But see, what you are doing here isn't just "they must face consequences" but you seek to eliminate real achievement. You have the right to hold a negative opinion of Mrs. Court, but don't rewrite tennis history, that's all.

TahoeTennis · Apr 17, 2018

EloQuent said:
You said ugly on the inside and then posted an unflattering picture. Don't be coy. And you didn't respond to the rest of my point.

But see, what you are doing here isn't just "they must face consequences" but you seek to eliminate real achievement. You have the right to hold a negative opinion of Mrs. Court, but don't rewrite tennis history, that's all.

she's doing that all by herself, that's all.

Dan Lobb · Apr 17, 2018

NonP said:
That's a common retort to similar evaluations, namely that athletes aren't supposed to be saints and should instead be judged purely on their sports achievements, but once you dig deeper you can see that people don't actually believe it even though they claim otherwise.

First of all, implicit in this facile framing is that sports are nothing more than trifling entertainment and should be treated as such. Let's assume for a moment we all accept this as true. Then what does that make those of us who obviously spend way too much time on these disposable diversions, when there are far more important things that deserve more of our attention? Even if we grant that a certain level of diversion is necessary to make our lives bearable there's simply no way to justify the amount of time many of us spend talking about tennis or any other sport, or perhaps even playing it as recommended physical exercise.

So we either have our priorities seriously screwed up or don't really believe what we claim to believe. Of course the truth is likely a mixture of both, but if we concede that sports do play an important role in our lives then we're left with at least two further questions that demand our answers: 1) is our enthusiasm for sports so misplaced after all? and 2) why are some of us so eager to maintain this fiction that athletes are little more than entertainers that deserve our attention only with respect to their on-court exploits?

Let's tackle 1) first. When we talk about the greatest this or that in sports or just about any other field of human endeavor, we engage in such presumably idle talk not just to pass time or divert ourselves, but because of our universal pursuit of something more aspirational. Hence the umpteen videos and discussions of the latest Messi goal or Federer shot, or similar examples from the past, that transcends our abilities and defies our understanding, and which in turn drives many of us to try to emulate our sports heroes. And yes, when they speak out in favor of or against a cause in public despite considerable risks a la Ali, Navratilova and Kaepernick we tend to pay attention not only because because such vocal activism is rare regardless of one's social hierarchy (and especially among athletes who don't tend to be the worldliest bunch), but also because it speaks to our deeper aspirations that transcend our everyday concerns. Our desire to be the next Messi or Bolt (or at least be like them) and our desire to make a difference in the world aren't all that different in origin, despite the usual dichotomy that seeks to drive a wedge between them.

Which brings us to 2). If it's evident that our favorite athletes occupy a rather high place in our estimation then why are some of us so eager to deny it? The answer should be pretty obvious, but the fact of the matter is that none of us deny this reality wholesale. Rather we deny it only when acknowledging it challenges our deeply held beliefs. Like Ali and Navratilova before him Kaepernick has gotten fierce pushback for his kneeling in support of BLM from a significant segment of social conservatives, but I guarantee you they have spoken of, say, Joe Montana or their favorite athletes or celebrities in far more favorable terms that border on hero worship (in fact their disgraceful support for Trump is an irrefutable case in point). Likewise you may want to make light of Court's toxic homophobia on the basis that an athlete's on-court achievements trump any such off-court issues, but this convenient approach is seriously undermined by the fact that many of the posters here clearly don't regard tennis as a trifling diversion or their favorite players as mere entertainers, and especially by the fact that the older ones continue to idolize Court's (male) contemporaries as larger-than-life figures while dismissing her serious transgressions as irrelevant distractions.

Again I understand reasonable people can differ on this. Though sports may play a larger role in our lives than we like to admit they clearly have a lesser impact than politics and popular culture at large, and sports even at their most transcendent will never be as edifying and enlightening as the arts. But those who say we should focus on an athlete's accomplishments in her own sport owe it to the rest of us to explain how they can reconcile their professed stance with their actual beliefs and behavior, and the truth of the matter is that they don't even acknowledge this burden. After all why even try to justify yourself when you can just repeat your talking points and earn however many likes from your like-minded followers who like to keep their heads in the sand?

This is the old argument of positive versus normative research.

In the academic world, it is positive research, and not normative, which prevails.

Just establishing the facts, without passing any moral judgment on the subject, or positing norms or behavioural standards by which the individuals being studied should be judged.

There is a clear distinction in academic work between these categories, and I think that it is possible to study athletic performance on the field without discussing off-field life.

The problem emerges when we attempt to posit values and virtues from physical sporting achievements. This is more than about esthetic appreciation, and involves the assignment of moral values to sports accomplishment.

This is surely a logical fallacy, there is no reason to adduce moral value to a sports win, that makes no rational sense. We should always remember to maintain a dividing line there.

To put it crudely, sports is just what it claims to be...entertainment.

r2473 · Apr 17, 2018

Dan Lobb said:
This is the old argument of positive versus normative research.

In the academic world, it is positive research, and not normative, which prevails.

Just establishing the facts, without passing any moral judgment on the subject, or positing norms or behavioural standards by which the individuals being studied should be judged.

There is a clear distinction in academic work between these categories, and I think that it is possible to study athletic performance on the field without discussing off-field life.

The problem emerges when we attempt to posit values and virtues from physical sporting achievements. This is more than about esthetic appreciation, and involves the assignment of moral values to sports accomplishment.

This is surely a logical fallacy, there is no reason to adduce moral value to a sports win, that makes no rational sense. We should always remember to maintain a dividing line there.

To put it crudely, sports is just what it claims to be...entertainment.

Don't agree. I feel the history books should be rewritten to suit the prevailing moral and political climate of the current age.

For example, you probably think of Thomas Jefferson as one of the founding fathers. Not true. He was a slave owning racist who slept with his female slaves (misogynist) and has no record of supporting gay rights (homophobic) or transgender rights (trans-o-phobic). He did nothing to stop the unfair treatment of Native Americans. He wasn't at all concerned about how large his carbon footprint was. And there's more. Lot's more. In short, he's just another privileged white man who made his mark on the backs of those he oppressed.

And that is all the history books should say about him. At least for now.

It would also be OK to say he was 6 foot 2 inches tall. I guess.

pc1 · Apr 17, 2018

Dan Lobb said:
This is the old argument of positive versus normative research.

In the academic world, it is positive research, and not normative, which prevails.

Just establishing the facts, without passing any moral judgment on the subject, or positing norms or behavioural standards by which the individuals being studied should be judged.

There is a clear distinction in academic work between these categories, and I think that it is possible to study athletic performance on the field without discussing off-field life.

The problem emerges when we attempt to posit values and virtues from physical sporting achievements. This is more than about esthetic appreciation, and involves the assignment of moral values to sports accomplishment.

This is surely a logical fallacy, there is no reason to adduce moral value to a sports win, that makes no rational sense. We should always remember to maintain a dividing line there.

To put it crudely, sports is just what it claims to be...entertainment.

r2473 said:
Don't agree. I feel the history books should be rewritten to suit the prevailing moral and political climate of the current age.

For example, you probably think of Thomas Jefferson as one of the founding fathers. Not true. He was a slave owning racist who slept with his female slaves (misogynist) and has no record of supporting gay rights (homophobic) or transgender rights (trans-o-phobic). He's just another privileged white man who made his mark on the backs of those he oppressed.

And that is all the history books should say about him. At least for now.

It would also be OK to say he was 6 foot 2 inches tall. I guess.

To me it's rather silly to look at the viewpoints of a player when you evaluate the accomplishments of a player in a sport. There have been many people of questionable character in any occupation. Would we NOT say that Jonas Salk did invent a vaccine for polio or give him credit for that if we didn't like his views? Would Alexander Fleming not be given credit for discovering penicillin if he had controversial views?

If we had a contest to see who was taller and we had Yao Ming (who was 7'6" tall) in the contest, would we give it to the next player who was 7'3" tall if we didn't like Yao Ming's views?

This is an awful slippery slope that we have here if we continue to pass judgement on this matters.

Court was a great player who has some controversial views. What if we found out some players in the past used PEDs? Is that a better reason to lower those player's accomplishments than a controversial view? I never heard of Court cheating in a match. I have heard rumors of some players now and in the past of using PEDs which to me is cheating.

NonP · Apr 17, 2018

EloQuent said:
TL;DR. I didn't say that we should only focus on the sports achievements, just that you cannot say "A is better at sports than B" when its incorrect.

I never said Navratilova was better at tennis than Court, and if you're talking about adding up their number of trophies that's the kind of bean-counting GOAT talk I find thoroughly uninteresting. If you want to continue this line of discussion I suggest you look elsewhere.

Moose Malloy said:
so are you ok with people disqualifying Kobe from any GOAT debates because he was charged with rape?

Btw Court also won 6 straight majors in the Open Era.

Eh, being merely charged with a crime, especially in cases involving sex where explicit consent is rarely given (my biggest beef with the #MeToo movement, in fact), is a world removed from unequivocal and active discrimination against an entire group of people. But yes, if people do believe Kobe to be a rapist and find his basketball godhood too hard to stomach I'm fine with that.

Fair point about Court's own 6 straight majors, but Martina's streak impresses me more. So she's got her predecessor beat even there.

Dan Lobb said:
This is the old argument of positive versus normative research.

In the academic world, it is positive research, and not normative, which prevails.

Just establishing the facts, without passing any moral judgment on the subject, or positing norms or behavioural standards by which the individuals being studied should be judged.

There is a clear distinction in academic work between these categories, and I think that it is possible to study athletic performance on the field without discussing off-field life.

The problem emerges when we attempt to posit values and virtues from physical sporting achievements. This is more than about esthetic appreciation, and involves the assignment of moral values to sports accomplishment.

This is surely a logical fallacy, there is no reason to adduce moral value to a sports win, that makes no rational sense. We should always remember to maintain a dividing line there.

To put it crudely, sports is just what it claims to be...entertainment.

Says the genius that prefers to ignore a mountain of academic work in his quixotic attempt to discredit Stephen friggin' Hawking. Sometimes you must wonder if he's really this obtuse.

Of course what our resident doddering grandpa fails to understand is that no academic worth his salt would try to pass off his engagement in a parlor game (which is what all GOAT "discussions" practically boil down to) as serious research. Yet another airtight formulation by our one and only Dan Lobb.

r2473 said:
Don't agree. I feel the history books should be rewritten to suit the prevailing moral and political climate of the current age.

For example, you probably think of Thomas Jefferson as one of the founding fathers. Not true. He was a slave owning racist who slept with his female slaves (misogynist) and has no record of supporting gay rights (homophobic) or transgender rights (trans-o-phobic). He's just another privileged white man who made his mark on the backs of those he oppressed.

And that is all the history books should say about him. At least for now.

Oh look, now our resident philosopher is trying to play dumb with his typically bastardized Socratic method.

Does anyone seriously think anyone who's been dead for centuries should be judged by the same moral code, or at least subjected to the same unforgiving opprobrium, as a current public figure who's very much alive AND still using her bully pulpit to denigrate an entire community of people for their lifestyle? Maybe some campus activists who in their youthful overenthusiasm give the social reactionaries an easy way out, but that's it.

r2473 · Apr 17, 2018

NonP said:
I Oh look, now our resident philosopher is trying to play dumb with his typically bastardized Socratic method.

Does anyone seriously think anyone who's been dead for centuries should be judged by the same moral code, or at least subjected to the same unforgiving opprobrium, as a current public figure who's very much alive AND still using her bully pulpit to denigrate an group of people for their lifestyle? Maybe some campus activists who in their youthful over enthusiasm give the social reactionaries an easy way out, but that's it.

So by that logic, there was nothing wrong with Court's views until recently? Before that, her views were fine. Is that your position? And those that didn't hold Court's views 100 years ago were morally wrong (as hers were the opinion of the majority).

Further, if the prevailing moral and political climate should change back to views more in line with Court, we'd expect everyone to change their views or be branded morally inferior.

Am I correct?

The hard part I think is going to be saying Court is both morally inferior and morally superior (depending on what the prevailing view was at the time). I think this is going to get hard before it gets easy, but I'm willing to sort it all out in the name of justice.

Phoenix1983 · Apr 17, 2018

pc1 said:
To me it's rather silly to look at the viewpoints of a player when you evaluate the accomplishments of a player in a sport. There have been many people of questionable character in any occupation. Would we NOT say that Jonas Salk did invent a vaccine for polio or give him credit for that if we didn't like his views? Would Alexander Fleming not be given credit for discovering penicillin if he had controversial views?

Haha, I've often had thoughts very similar to this - like, what if it was discovered unequivocally that Shakespeare liked the company of underage boys? Would we then write his name out of the history books, and pretend he didn't exist? (Not that it would be possible to actually write him out of existence, even if we magically scrubbed his name from everywhere - such is his vast influence over all the English language and literature that has followed him)

I'm not sure why it's so hard for certain posters to separate a person's character from their work/art.

It's perfectly logically consistent to claim that Tilden and Court are the finest male and female tennis players to ever live, and simultaneously to abhor their morality.

NonP · Apr 17, 2018

pc1 said:
To me it's rather silly to look at the viewpoints of a player when you evaluate the accomplishments of a player in a sport. There have been many people of questionable character in any occupation. Would we NOT say that Jonas Salk did invent a vaccine for polio or give him credit for that if we didn't like his views? Would Alexander Fleming not be given credit for discovering penicillin if he had controversial views?

If we had a contest to see who was taller and we thought Yao Ming (who was 7'6" tall), would we give it to the next player who was 7'3" tall if we didn't like Yao Ming's views?

This is an awful slippery slope that we have here if we continue to pass judgement on this matters.

Court was a great player who has some controversial views. What if we found out some players in the past used PEDs? Is that a better reason to lower those player's accomplishments than a controversial view? I never heard of Court cheating in a match. I have heard rumors of some players now and in the past of using PEDs which to me is cheating.

pc1, you know I respect you as one of the most reasonable posters, but you're dead wrong here. Like I said Salk and Fleming are not living public figures that deserve our continued scrutiny, and height is simply a factual measure of distance that allows no room for qualitative or ethical considerations.

Again I understand we can disagree on this. Sports are a minor diversion in the grand scheme of things and if people choose to overlook an athlete's personal failings while evaluating her career that's fine by me. But to me the very term "greatest" implies something greater than a bunch of trophies. When I say X or Y is the greatest exponent of tennis or whatever that's somebody I want to represent the sport to the general public, and Court's strident homophobia is not something I'd like to see associated with tennis which happens to be one of the more egalitarian sports when it comes to gender. For that reason alone I say Navratilova or even BJK deserves the title more.

r2473 said:
So by that logic, there was nothing wrong with Court's views until recently? Before that, her views were fine.

Is that your position?

No, my position is that it's disingenuous to pretend a dead white male who has had no opportunity to rethink and improve his views and behavior since 1826 deserves to be judged by the current code of ethics that increasingly and rightly accepts the LGBTQ community as they are. Deep down you know this, despite your mystifying attempts to make light of Court's views.

Dan Lobb · Apr 17, 2018

r2473 said:
Don't agree. I feel the history books should be rewritten to suit the prevailing moral and political climate of the current age.

For example, you probably think of Thomas Jefferson as one of the founding fathers. Not true. He was a slave owning racist who slept with his female slaves (misogynist) and has no record of supporting gay rights (homophobic) or transgender rights (trans-o-phobic). He did nothing to stop the unfair treatment of Native Americans. He wasn't at all concerned about how large his carbon footprint was. And there's more. Lot's more. In short, he's just another privileged white man who made his mark on the backs of those he oppressed.

And that is all the history books should say about him. At least for now.

It would also be OK to say he was 6 foot 2 inches tall. I guess.

We live in a claustrophobic and myopic age.

Dan Lobb · Apr 17, 2018

NonP said:
I never said Navratilova was better at tennis than Court, and if you're talking about adding up their number of trophies that's the kind of bean-counting GOAT talk I find thoroughly uninteresting. If you want to continue this line of discussion I suggest you look elsewhere.

Eh, being merely charged with a crime, especially in cases involving sex where explicit consent is rarely given (my biggest beef with the #MeToo movement, in fact), is a world removed from unequivocal and active discrimination against an entire group of people. But yes, if people do believe Kobe to be a rapist and find his basketball godhood too hard to stomach I'm fine with that.

Fair point about Court's own 6 straight majors, but Martina's streak impresses me more. So she's got her predecessor beat even there.

Says the genius that prefers to ignore a mountain of academic work in his quixotic attempt to discredit Stephen friggin' Hawking. Sometimes you must wonder if he's really this obtuse.

Of course what our resident doddering grandpa fails to understand is that no academic worth his salt would try to pass off his engagement in a parlor game (which is what all GOAT "discussions" practically boil down to) as serious research. Yet another airtight formulation by our one and only Dan Lobb.

Oh look, now our resident philosopher is trying to play dumb with his typically bastardized Socratic method.

Does anyone seriously think anyone who's been dead for centuries should be judged by the same moral code, or at least subjected to the same unforgiving opprobrium, as a current public figure who's very much alive AND still using her bully pulpit to denigrate an entire community of people for their lifestyle? Maybe some campus activists who in their youthful overenthusiasm give the social reactionaries an easy way out, but that's it.

I think that we have given the Hawking arguments a good chew over...I have made my points about science fiction posing as science.

Now it is time to move on...some of my posts on Hawking were cancelled for being off topic, which is fine.

Time now to drop it....OK?

Navratilova had a better career than Court

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Deleted member 735320

Guest

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Legend

Legend

Professional

Legend

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Similar threads