"actually may have had a higher lifetime winning percentage than Chris at 92%." where are getting that 92% figure and what does it include. I had a lower stat on Court for lifetime win/loss, either 85 or 87% ? I have read from more than one source Evert's 90% was the highest, and Graf was second at 89%. My guess is it has to do with that 'modern era' definition. margaret's include pre open numbers?
I read it in a Tennisweek article online but the information is not official like Evert's since Court played a lot of years before 1968, the beginning of the Open Era.
It's an article called the Greatest Ever. Here's a copy of the lines I mentioned.
According to some sources which cannot be 100 percent verified Court has won 187 of 296 tournaments entered which comes out to an amazing .632 winning percentage. The last edition of Bud Collins’ Total Tennis has her at 194 total tournaments won.
Court’s won-lost record lifetime is 1158-103 which is a .918 winning percentage according to some unverified sources. These are numbers which simply boggle the mind. She was just consistently great. I had a lot of problems figuring out her best 5 years because it seemed every period was her best 5 years.
Slight edge to Evert, although some of Evert's competition was weak Court's Australian Open titles heh a lot of those were well extremely weak fields.
Some of Evert's opposition was weak?
Chris Evert was a genuinely great player BUT she's also the most overrated player in the history of the sport.
Name one great player she dominated while they were in their prime? The only one you can find is Goolagong and, as her record against King, Court and Evert shows, she was not, consistently, a player of the highest order.
Evert amassed her titles after Court had her second child, King devoted her energies to building the women's tour (King is also responsible for a great deal of the Evert mythos) and Navratilova hadn't hit her peak. The minute she came up against players of equal capacity playing at their best - Austin and Navratilova- she capitulated.
I'll agree that Court's Australian titles included a lot of weak fields. HOWEVER, at the time, a lot of the world's best players were Australian so they weren't all push-overs and her very greatest challenger, Billie Jean, was too scared to play her in Australia. The only time King was brave enough to play was when Court was coming back after her first child and had barely played any tennis for 12 months. You can hardly blame Court for being so dominate that her opponents didn't have the guts to challenge her at home.
I firmly believe that tennis followers can be divided into two camps. Those who think Chris Evert was as great as her press would have you believe and those who actually know something about tennis.
I think those stats are from me. Since that was written the stats have changed as more research found more tournament wins.
Tournaments Won: 197 (+1 shared)
Tournaments Played: 308
Matches Won-Loss 1180-107 (91.68%)
All the results can be found at the following link for the TennisForum Web site. Many people contributed to these results.
http://www.tennisforum.com/showthread.php?t=156313
The Forum has many discussions on women's tennis and greatest ever.
I would go with Court. She had 5 years winning 3 majors or more. Yeah Evert didnt win 3 mostly since she didnt play the French from 76-78 and the Australian from 75-80. However 1977 is the only year she won all 2 or 3 major events she entered, and as I doubt her beating Goolagong on grass twice in a slam final in the same year, when Goolagong owned her for the most part on grass back then, I very much doubt her winning the calender slam even that year.
Winning 3 slam events in the same year in 1962 and then again in 1973 at ages 19 and 31 is incredible. Her longevity atleast matches Evert's, and her dominance clearly surpasses. As for competition both faced very good competition and better than any of Navratilova, Graf, Seles, and certainly Serena. Evert faced more depth but Court faced a prime Bueno and prime King, harder than anything Evert faced during her reign.
Some of Evert's opposition was weak?
Chris Evert was a genuinely great player BUT she's also the most overrated player in the history of the sport.
Name one great player she dominated while they were in their prime? The only one you can find is Goolagong and, as her record against King, Court and Evert shows, she was not, consistently, a player of the highest order.
Evert amassed her titles after Court had her second child, King devoted her energies to building the women's tour (King is also responsible for a great deal of the Evert mythos) and Navratilova hadn't hit her peak. The minute she came up against players of equal capacity playing at their best - Austin and Navratilova- she capitulated.
I'll agree that Court's Australian titles included a lot of weak fields. HOWEVER, at the time, a lot of the world's best players were Australian so they weren't all push-overs and her very greatest challenger, Billie Jean, was too scared to play her in Australia. The only time King was brave enough to play was when Court was coming back after her first child and had barely played any tennis for 12 months. You can hardly blame Court for being so dominate that her opponents didn't have the guts to challenge her at home.
I firmly believe that tennis followers can be divided into two camps. Those who think Chris Evert was as great as her press would have you believe and those who actually know something about tennis.
Evert dominated Navratilova at a point in time it was not until 82 that Navratilova went ahead, but many could say Evert was no longer the top force. Evert did dominate King the head to head favors Chris 19-7..she is 9-4 against Margaret Court..She is 26-13 against Goolagong..There was a point in time where she was 20-5 against Navratilova and it was not until Navratilova was destroying everybody that the head to head was brought close but Evert and her became level towards the end and it is 37-43 favoring Martina but that is only 6 matches so that really is not huge domination by Martina they each had periods where they destroyed the other. Austin challenged her but they were pretty even and it is 8-9 favoring Tracy but it is close as they played each other well and Graf has a 6-8 lead but Graf did not score her first victory on Evert till she was 31 or 32 and the rest came as Evert was in her early to mid 30s while Graf was hitting her peak and dominating the circuit so it is unfair to really hold it against Evert there. Sure she has the losing record to Navratilova and Graf but considering those are the two names that come up all the time in GOAT discussion then what is there to do. It really is a toss up but to say Evert was not talented is wrong she at a point in time dominated all her rivals.
Evert was 9-4 vs Court when their final 5 matches was when Court came back to the tour one last time after having a 2nd baby, and was aged 33 to 35. They also played 4 matches in 1973 the year Court turned 31 and Evert began her prime.
Evert is 19-7 vs King with the benefit of winning their final 11 matches when King was returning to tour at a very advanced age after intiially retiring on very bad knees. Some believed she only returned in part at all since after her embarassing "outing" lawsuit she had to put herself back in the public spotlight again to mantain her marketability and endorsements given the homophobia in place at the time. She was aged 33 to 40 at the time of these final 11 matches. They also played 4 more of those 26 career matches when King was already 31 years old in 1975. The reason a young Evert won 5 of their 8 matches from 1971 to 1973 was because all 5 of these matches Chris won were on clay. It was basically Chris's luck to somehow keep playing King on clay, where King was never that strong a player at all (clay was her worst surface by a huge margin). Given that King had virtually all her big achievements outside of clay, including the 3 out of 4 majors not played on clay, Chris being aided to a decent early head to head based entirely on clay court meetings really tells us nothing about the big picture of how they would fare other than King wouldnt impede Chris's clay record any. Chris did not finally get her first win over King on a non-clay surface until 1974 when King was already 30 years old. Even from 1973-1975 when King was slowing down greatly with both her troubled knees and age, and Evert was starting her prime, King was 5-3 vs Evert on non clay surfaces. It is the combination of all the clay court meetings in 1971 and 1972, and the ridiculously huge amount of matches vs a mid-late 30s King making a bizarre return out of retirement which lead to this totally deceiving and essentialy meaningless head to head.
Graf's first victory over Evert came when Evert was 31 in 1986. Evert and her longtime foe Navratilova both claim Evert played her best tennis ever in 1985-1986. Given that Evert fared better vs Martina in 1985 and 1986 than she had in 1983 and 1984 by a long ways it is hard to argue. All of Evert's wins over Graf were when she was only 15 and 16 years old. Graf's first win (and Evert's last ever win just before that) were when Graf was only 16, ranked only #6 in the world, and had a losing head to head still with Pam Shriver at that point in time. Lastly you certainly cant knock Graf's complete dominance of Evert from age 31 to 33 if you are honestly impressed by Evert racking up a 19-7 head to head with King by first playing her on clay then playing 11 matches from ages 33 to 40 on majorly bad knees after coming out of retirement.
From 1979 to 1981 Evert was 4-9 vs Austin. She garnered 3 of her wins in 1977 and 1978 when Austin was only 14 and 15 years old. Her last win was a double bagel over Austin at the end of 1982 when Tracy was already wrecked by injuries and playing part time as a mere shadow of her old self in a deluded delaying of her imminent retirement.
Chris went 7-24 vs Martina during Martina's prime from 1983-1989. At one point during that stretch she lost 12 matches in a row.
She dominated Graf in 1985 and 1986 even when Graf was starting her prime and Evert was past hers.
.
Evert dominated Navratilova at a point in time it was not until 82 that Navratilova went ahead, but many could say Evert was no longer the top force. Evert did dominate King the head to head favors Chris 19-7..she is 9-4 against Margaret Court..She is 26-13 against Goolagong..There was a point in time where she was 20-5 against Navratilova and it was not until Navratilova was destroying everybody that the head to head was brought close but Evert and her became level towards the end and it is 37-43 favoring Martina but that is only 6 matches so that really is not huge domination by Martina they each had periods where they destroyed the other. Austin challenged her but they were pretty even and it is 8-9 favoring Tracy but it is close as they played each other well and Graf has a 6-8 lead but Graf did not score her first victory on Evert till she was 31 or 32 and the rest came as Evert was in her early to mid 30s while Graf was hitting her peak and dominating the circuit so it is unfair to really hold it against Evert there. Sure she has the losing record to Navratilova and Graf but considering those are the two names that come up all the time in GOAT discussion then what is there to do. It really is a toss up but to say Evert was not talented is wrong she at a point in time dominated all her rivals.
what's odd about these quality of field debates, is they are so one dimensional. These players King, court, Goolagong, Wade, Navraitlova were great GRASS courters on a tour in which three of four, then 2 of four slams at were on grass. The grand slam cards were stacked against Evert, through much of her career. She got lucky with some extra US clay opens and lost some RG ( thanks to WTT) which evens that out. Evert's era was shy of great clay courters! Its her clay record that is inflated by less that stellar competition, but the rest. These H to H stats being touted are not in a vacuum.
what's odd about these quality of field debates, is they are so one dimensional. These players King, court, Goolagong, Wade, Navraitlova were great GRASS courters on a tour in which three of four, then 2 of four slams at were on grass. The grand slam cards were stacked against Evert, through much of her career. She got lucky with some extra US clay opens and lost some RG ( thanks to WTT) which evens that out. Evert's era was shy of great clay courters! Its her clay record that is inflated by less that stellar competition, but the rest. These H to H stats being touted are not in a vacuum.
Bturner, I agree with you and I agree with egn. It's amazing to me that some of the people here are trying to cheapen the wonderful accomplishments of Chris Evert. First of all, here is a woman who won over 150 tournaments, 18 majors, 13 straight years in which she won at least 1 major and has the highest OFFICIAL winning percentage in the history of Women's Tennis. Higher than Graf, higher than Navratilova, higher than just about anyone. Evert won 90% of her matches for her career! While she won 18 majors she probably could have won more majors if she played the French and Australian more but due to various reasons like WTT she missed some of these tournaments.
Everyone's seems to be saying that the only person Evert ever beat were virtually on their deathbeds. This is NOT the case.
One person writes that Evert beat Court in 1973 because Court was well past her prime. If that's the case, it's just barely so since Court did win 3 of 4 majors that year. Evert beat Court at Wimbledon and lost to Court at the French after Evert was serving for the match in the third set. Evert was 18 in 1973 and not near her best year.
These people also leave out that a 15 year old Chris Evert defeated in 1970 in a tournament. Evert wasn't exactly at her prime either at age 15. Court may have been pregnant at that time but nevertheless you figure Court should defeat almost anyone, but Chris Evert was not a typical 15 year old tennis player. Evert did defeat Court two of three in 1972 when Court was making her come back from having a child.
Let's look at Chris versus Billie Jean King. I don't think there is any doubt that King at her peak would be a huge underdog to Chris before she reached her peak on clay. King would stand very little chance against an Evert on clay during her prime years as a player. Let's focus on the other surfaces.
In 1972 King may have had her best year, winning 3 of 3 majors played. They played a number of times that year and of course, according to WTA records (which can be inaccurate I admit but I don't have time to research super thoughly) Evert beat 3 of 4 but all 3 times were on clay. The one time King beat Evert was in the third set 7-5 on indoor carpet. A loss by Evert but clearly Evert was not overpowered by King. King was simply a better player at that time indoors.
In 1973 King crushed her at Wimbledon. Evert has admitted she was overwhelmed by the first experience in the final but still it was a big beating that King put on her. In 1974 and 1975 they played several times on hard court and Evert defeated her three times without a loss, never losing more than three sets in a set in the first two meeting and winning a close three setter in a tiebreak in the third match. King defeated Evert twice on carpet in those years. King was still great, winning the 74 U.S. Open and the 1975 Wimbledon and Evert was still improving as a player. Looking at this I would say Evert holds up very well against King. She's competitive on all surfaces, and clearly better on hard court, not as good on grass, indoors it's fairly close and King is not in her league on clay. Frankly if they both were all their peak and each played 25 matches against each other on grass, clay, indoor and hard, I believe Chris would have won the majority. Billie wasn't exactly a giant. She was 5'4". Chris was probably the most powerful player overall. She was a much more powerful hitter off the ground. Chris would be competitive on every surface and may win the majority on hard and indoor but at worst it would be close. I think Chris at her best would defeat King often on grass but King would win most of the matches. However on clay it would be a struggle for King to win 7 or 8 out of 25. Evert often wouldn't just defeat King on clay, King would have problems winning a game.
Tracy Austin won 9 of 16 against Evert according to the ITF website but most of those victories were in a span of about a year and admittedly Austin was a great player.
We all know she dominated Goolagong but all of you seen to make it seem like nothing. Evonne was a great player and a great clay court player and yet Chris defeated her several times in the U.S. Open final and overall in her career won the great majority of matches.
Martina was a great player and I think Martina at her best was better than Chris but all of you seem to make light of the fact Chris dominated Navratilova from Martina's teen years to her early twenties but Martina was a great player and part of greatness is consistency. Martina was NOT uniformly great throughout her career. However Martina was still a tremendous player at virtually any stage of her career. Martina has potholes in her career in which some people may have thought she was finished. Some people thought Navratilova was washed up after Chris defeated her without the loss of a game in a match in 1981 but Martina kept going and made herself a great champion. But do we forget about her other years? You can't leave that out for the point of argument. Chris and Martina are fairly close in age so their peak physical years are close.
Chris worked her on her game after Navratilova became better, forgot about her old wood racket and became very competitive with Navratilova again starting in 1985 when she defeated Navratilova in one of the all time great French Open final. They remain competitive for the rest of Evert's career. Evert's winning percentage and ratio of tournaments entered to tournaments won is better than Martina's. Martina won more tournaments and was better at her peak. They both won the same amount of majors at 18.
Evert's comparison with Graf is very interesting. I will say that I rooted for Graf when she played Evert. I enjoyed the Graf style but objectively, a very good case can be made for Evert. First of all Evert won about 50 more tournaments than Graf in her career. Evert won more than half the tournaments she entered and Graf a little less than half with 107 out of 222.
Graf won 22 majors, 4 more than Chris but Chris probably left a number of majors on the table when she didn't play the French (almost a guaranteed win in those days for her) and the Australian for a number of years in the 1970's. Chris probably would have had over 20 majors.
Graf won the Golden Slam. A super year and something Evert never did.
A lot of people seem to think because Graf dominated Evert later that Evert was never in Graf's league. I don't believe that's the case. In rivalries like this, a loss of a step or two can mean the difference between domination and a player being slightly better. I believe an Evert in her prime would be very competitive against Graf. Players who were far lesser than Evert like Amanda Coetzer, Sanchez-Vicario, Sabatini used to give Graf fits and even an old Martina Navratilova defeated Graf at the 1991 U.S. Open and the 1993 Tokyo indoors. Graf retired at age 30. If Graf continued to play she would have aged and would have probably been beaten often by players like Martina Hingis, Justine Henin and Jennifer Capriati. Her records against them would have been most likely very bad in this period and you make have looked at her at them in a different light. Yet you know that Graf at her best was probably better than Hingis at her best but some people may just remember Hingis beating up on Graf (hypothetically I mean if Graf played into her mid 30's) and forget what a young Graf was.
Well Chris played until she was almost 35. If Evert retired at 30, like Graf, she would have had a plus record against Steffi but the older Evert wasn't a match for the great Graf so she ended up with a final 6-8 record against Graf.
And I want to point out again I like Graf better than Evert.
I don't care if you rate all of these players ahead of Evert but don't diminish Evert's great accomplishments and victories. It's very disturbing to me when it seems that some are putting Evert down so their favorite looks better. That's incorrect and just not right. We often talk about the possible GOATs here, well Evert has everything there is to at least be in the running for the GOAT.
One person writes that Evert beat Court in 1973 because Court was well past her prime. If that's the case, it's just barely so since Court did win 3 of 4 majors that year. Evert beat Court at Wimbledon and lost to Court at the French after Evert was serving for the match in the third set. Evert was 18 in 1973 and not near her best year.
In 1973 King crushed her at Wimbledon. Evert has admitted she was overwhelmed by the first experience in the final but still it was a big beating that King put on her. In 1974 and 1975 they played several times on hard court and Evert defeated her three times without a loss, never losing more than three games in a set in the first two meeting and winning a close three setter in a tiebreak in the third match. King defeated Evert twice on carpet in those years. King was still great, winning the 74 U.S. Open and the 1975 Wimbledon and Evert was still improving as a player. Looking at this I would say Evert holds up very well against King. She's competitive on all surfaces, and clearly better on hard court, not as good on grass, indoors it's fairly close and King is not in her league on clay.
We all know she dominated Goolagong but all of you seen to make it seem like nothing. Evonne was a great player and a great clay court player and yet Chris defeated her several times in the U.S. Open final and overall in her career won the great majority of matches.
Martina was a great player and I think Martina at her best was better than Chris but all of you seem to make light of the fact Chris dominated Navratilova from Martina's teen years to her early twenties but Martina was a great player and part of greatness is consistency. Martina was NOT uniformly great throughout her career. However Martina was still a tremendous player at virtually any stage of her career. Martina has potholes in her career in which some people may have thought she was finished. Some people thought Navratilova was washed up after Chris defeated her without the loss of a game in a match in 1981 but Martina kept going and made herself a great champion. But do we forget about her other years? You can't leave that out for the point of argument. Chris and Martina are fairly close in age so their peak physical years are close.
Graf won 22 majors, 4 more than Chris but Chris probably left a number of majors on the table when she didn't play the French (almost a guaranteed win in those days for her) and the Australian for a number of years in the 1970's. Chris probably would have had over 20 majors.
A lot of people seem to think because Graf dominated Evert later that Evert was never in Graf's league. I don't believe that's the case. In rivalries like this, a loss of a step or two can mean the difference between domination and a player being slightly better. I believe an Evert in her prime would be very competitive against Graf. Players who were far lesser than Evert like Amanda Coetzer, Sanchez-Vicario, Sabatini used to give Graf fits and even an old Martina Navratilova defeated Graf at the 1991 U.S. Open and the 1993 Tokyo indoors.
Graf retired at age 30. If Graf continued to play she would have aged and would have probably been beaten often by players like Martina Hingis, Justine Henin and Jennifer Capriati. Her records against them would have been most likely very bad in this period and you make have looked at her at them in a different light. Yet you know that Graf at her best was probably better than Hingis at her best but some people may just remember Hingis beating up on Graf (hypothetically I mean if Graf played into her mid 30's) and forget what a young Graf was.
Well Chris played until she was almost 35. If Evert retired at 30, like Graf, she would have had a plus record against Steffi
Again, we keep talking as the the only variable was age. Surface matters just as much. I'd rather play a 'peak' King on clay than an older one on grass!
Well I think it time I repost my top players in order. with all this debate, with poster 'x' slaming player 'y', and poster 'c' racing to defame player 'd' I personally loose my own perspective. this was my order before coming in here
1. Graf
2. Wills
3. Court
4. Navratilova
5. Evert
6. Lenglen
7. Connolly
These are the only contenders for GOAT as of today . Am I sure this order is better than another? Not very and certainly less so as this debate goes forward. but no case is solid enough to refute this order either. I weigh slams heavily, I weigh variety of surfaces heavily. I weigh dominance over a lengthy period of time heavily. I weigh accomplishments over woulda, coulda, maybe accomplishments very lightly and do not attempt to over analyze the relative quality of their contemparies.
Interesting to have Lenglen and Wills so far apart. I am not sure exactly how to rank them vs the other all time greats as the time they played in was so different. However compared to each other I would think they would be almost exactly the same, so all time they would either be 6-7, 8-9, 4-5, 1-2, whichever with almost no difference between them. Wills came right after Lenglen, they both played at the time players just played whichever slams they felt like with Wimbledon the only one almost everyone played every year. They both went undefeated for about 7 straight years except for 1 questionable defeat where speculation is abound to whether they were really ill/injured or just sick of the thought of losing. They both played at a time of almost identicaly non existant competition levels.
If memory serves, most of the French championships Lenglen won were not open events excepting the last 2-3, while all of Wills were, obviously open to non french players. . My logic is Wills played against the best of the continent, England and the US, Lenglen basically stayed out of the states ( NO US nationals) and had protective draws in France through 1924. If I am wrong,correct me. I'll rethink it
I have a sneaking hunch, you are right. But that is in the realm of woulda/coulda/shoulda. If I were to hand over US nationals to Lenglen, I might as well hand over them RG titles to Evert she did not earn in 75,76,77. And throw some Australians at King, and some slams to Seles while I am at it - but then I guess I have to take those titles away from someone who's name is on the honor role.
Fair enough. Actually the RG titles for Evert would be 76, 77, 78 as she played won in in 75 but not 78, but I see what you are saying. Lenglen's opponents vs her were so helpess that even such obscure winners like Ruzici and Jausovec had more chance of upsetting Evert at the French (despite it being only about 0.01%) than anyone had of upsetting Lenglen at the French Open though.
Its not so much those closed French titles that is the big distinction between Lenglen and Wills. That's a more minor matter. The latter competed successfully over here against the gals in the states, some of whom were unable to go overseas, and beat them just as consistently.
ah but do you like the list?
1. Graf
2. Wills
3. Court
4. Navratilova
5. Evert
6. Lenglen
7. Connolly
I've often waivered between Navratilova, Graf, Lenglen and Court as number one and your list has players than if you picked any of them for number one it wouldn't be bad so yes I think the list is excellent.
Perhaps you should expand the criteria somewhat and take into account how a greatest player might be able to function in all forms of the game. Navratilova and Court proved, time and time again, that their effectiveness was not limited to singles and their ability to dominate a form of the our game (singles, doubles, mixed doubles) was not bound by gender. If you go over the record books I think you'll find that they were also the most dominant doubles players and mixed doubles players of their day (probably extends to 'of all time'). I think that is also where Connolly, Evert and even Graf suffer in comparison to the other elite players and where Lenglen and Moody (who you didn't mention) gain bonus points. Despite not being attacking players like Navratilova and Court they were still able to win the biggest titles when they moved over to doubles and mixed. In particular, I believe that their ability to thrive in mixed doubles is a genuine testament to their greatness as tennis players, not merely female tennis players.
I realise that someone like Graf might have chosen not to play doubles and mixed on any regular basis (something that can also be said about Henin but not the majority of the game's greatest women players even through to today) but I still believe it offers a valid point of distinction between several options and poses an interesting question or two.
Your point is valid. Is doubles a separate game from singles or not? I pick yes. but by doing so I end up ignoring a hell of a lot. by including, you end up having o figure out how much credit to give a player for the results of a team. It would change my list considerably.
I think those are definitely the top 7 in some order or another, no doubt about it. You can debate many ways amongst those 7. King right now is virtually a #8 lock, it is hard to put her any higher or any lower than that. Seles and Serena are a toss up at #9 for now.
Well I think it time I repost my top players in order. with all this debate, with poster 'x' slaming player 'y', and poster 'c' racing to defame player 'd' I personally loose my own perspective. this was my order before coming in here
1. Graf
2. Wills
3. Court
4. Navratilova
5. Evert
6. Lenglen
7. Connolly
These are the only contenders for GOAT as of today . Am I sure this order is better than another? Not very and certainly less so as this debate goes forward. but no case is solid enough to refute this order either. I weigh slams heavily, I weigh variety of surfaces heavily. I weigh dominance over a lengthy period of time heavily. I weigh accomplishments over woulda, coulda, maybe accomplishments very lightly and do not attempt to over analyze the relative quality of their contemparies.
I agree in premise. These are the only 7 names that can really be in the debate for GOAT taking all into account. The order I would respectfully disagree with though, mine would be:
1. Navratilova
2-4 would be Graf, Evert and Court in some order
5. Wills
6. Lenglen
7. Connolly
Even though these are the 7 names, Connolly is very far on the outside looking in, even taking into account her career changing accident. The other 6 are truly well ahead of her.
As for this poll. Court vs Evert is tough. It really depends on what you think in 2 areas, how much Courts Australians should be factored in, and what you think in regards to doubles. If you count the Australians as full and take the "she showed up you can't blame her" line then Court would probably win out. If you devalue her Australians and look at the rest it really becomes close. Court was able to hold all 4 slams simultaneously, something Evert was never able to do. Court also had several years winning at least 3 majors. Evert did not. Evert however has the highest Open Era exclusive win percentage, Court may have a higher one overall, depending on where you get you numbers(I have seen percentages for Court ranging from .88 to .91 for her win percentage in different places).
Evert won at least one slam a year for 13 years, had an amazing win %, and winning head to heads against quite a few quality women, with the exceptions of Graf, Nav, Austin (depending where you look). Her record 7 French Opens is in my opinion just as impressive as Court's 11 Australians, not to mention Evert's 125 match win streak on clay, followed by another lengthy winning streak after Austin broke the 1st one.
I however give Court a lot of credit, she came back after having a child and seemingly picked up right where she left off, winning majors and never breaking stride.
With these 2, like with Graf and Evert, it depends on what you value, both in terms of majors and whether you want to factor in doubles. I lean slightly in favor of Evert because of her 1 major a year for 13 years, for making at least the semi's of every slam she played from her debut up to Wimbledon in 1983 (arguably weakened by food poisoning in that loss.) In fact, only 4 times in Evert's career was she knocked out before the Semi's of a Grand Slam, after 1983 the next Instance was the 1987 US Open. That is an amazing mark of consistancy given the quality of opposition she faced for the duration of her career.
Court had similar consistancy, but Court should have won more Wimbledons, she was hailed as a grass court player, but I really feel she should have won Wimbledon a couple of more times than she did. Given her game and how well it was suited to grass, Wimbledon was her worst slam in terms of results. Evert made more finals than her there, and got the same number of titles. That is pretty impressive since Court had a more grass appropriate game.
All in all, its close between these two, but if I had to vote I give it to Evert by a very slim margin.
Well I think it time I repost my top players in order. with all this debate, with poster 'x' slaming player 'y', and poster 'c' racing to defame player 'd' I personally loose my own perspective. this was my order before coming in here
1. Graf
2. Wills
3. Court
4. Navratilova
5. Evert
6. Lenglen
7. Connolly
These are the only contenders for GOAT as of today . Am I sure this order is better than another? Not very and certainly less so as this debate goes forward. but no case is solid enough to refute this order either. I weigh slams heavily, I weigh variety of surfaces heavily. I weigh dominance over a lengthy period of time heavily. I weigh accomplishments over woulda, coulda, maybe accomplishments very lightly and do not attempt to over analyze the relative quality of their contemparies.
1. Graf
2. Seles
3. Court
4. Connoly
5. Navratilova
6. Evert
7. Lenglen
8. Wills Moody
9. King
10. Serena Williams
How is Seles #2 with no Wimbledon title?? Stabbing or or no stabbing, nothing suggests she would have definitely got one. And what about people like Graf, Navratilova, Evert, Court who can claim each major at least twice, and Seles can't claim one at SW19???
I just don't understand it. Seles was great and her career was robbed by the stabbing, but I just don't understand #2.