Better Singles Career: Evert or Navratilova

Borgforever said:

Please, forgive me -- I don't comment on women's tennis since I don't know so much about it (although I'm a casual fan -- and admire great women's tennis) but you must talk more about Suzanne Lenglen. The talk about her is astonishing. Her records are beyond belief. You Wills-Moody fans -- every one who played both Wills-Moody and Lenglen were absolutely certain Suzanne was the stronger in every respect. In every respect.

Click to expand...

Good post. During the Wimbledon women's centenary tournament (1984) I had the opportunity to watch film of all the great women players from the First World War onwards. Navratilova was then at her absolute best, and I remember thinking that she could easily beat all of her predecessors - except for Lenglen.

Virtually everyone who saw both Lenglen and Wills Moody at their best regarded Lenglen as the superior player. She may not have won as many majors, but that is a result of the fact that she had fewer opportunities in the conditions of the early 20's than were subsequently available to Wills Moody.

I don't quite buy that. Wills played three slams. No reason Lenglen could not have played over here more. Lenglen beat the folks in Europe and the folks in England and the Americans that traveled to her except one year. We all know that the grass of the US championship played differently than Wimbledon. Wills did it here more too..

BTURNER said:

I don't quite buy that. Wills played three slams. No reason Lenglen could not have played over here more. Lenglen beat the folks in Europe and the folks in England and the Americans that traveled to her except one year. We all know that the grass of the US championship played differently than Wimbledon. Wills did it here more too..

Click to expand...

Lenglen did play the U.S Open in 1921. Didnt go so well though as I am sure you know. I give her the benefit of the doubt that she was sick, and maybe her experience and how she was treated alienated her to return, but still it is interesting what happened that year and how she avoided the tournament like a plague in the future. Maybe I give her too much benefit of doubt on that.

thalivest said:

Lenglen did play the U.S Open in 1921. Didnt go so well though as I am sure you know. I give her the benefit of the doubt that she was sick, and maybe her experience and how she was treated alienated her to return, but still it is interesting what happened that year and how she avoided the tournament like a plague in the future. Maybe I give her too much benefit of doubt on that.

Click to expand...

From what I've read Lenglen was the type of person who couldn't easily handle a loss - perhaps she was truly ill (her health was never the best anyway from what I've read) because of the long boat trip over to the US but she defaulted rather than actually having to face losing to Molla Mallory, who she incidentally crushed at their next meeting at Wimbledon - I think the score was love and 1. Lenglen did play tennis like a chessmaster though - she had all the shots and pinpoint accuracy and was very graceful on court.

You really have to take her record (and Wills for that matter) into context because there weren't any other players at the time who were anywhere near their level. They also played much less and there was no depth in women's tennis. Lenglen did beat a young Wills in their one match though, but I suspect that Wills was the more mentally tough of the two and would have gotten the better of Lenglen if they had kept playing one another.

BTURNER said:

I don't quite buy that. Wills played three slams. No reason Lenglen could not have played over here more. Lenglen beat the folks in Europe and the folks in England and the Americans that traveled to her except one year. We all know that the grass of the US championship played differently than Wimbledon. Wills did it here more too..

Click to expand...

Just a question, as I may be misinterpreting your words here, but are you saying Lenglen was afraid of Wills? If you are, well Lenglen would not have played the one match against Wills that she did, which she played against the wishes of her father and won in straight sets. Lenglen eventually went pro the following year because she wanted to make money and was sick of paying entry fees and earning other people money for her talent, so she put her talent into action to make money playing exhibitions. After that Fiasco of a mess at the US Open (which from what I have read was completely mishandled by the officials) and the complete disrespect shown her by the american fans in her mind she probably felt to disrespected to go back, sort of like the Williams and Indian Wells. I am not saying I agree, but we cannot change others minds for them, and like the williams say...why go and support a tournament they feel is against them. Again I am not saying I agree...and if I am misinterpreting you I fully apologize.

Please keep on track with Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova and their career comparisons.

I think this rivalry was extended because of Austin's burnout. Jaeger is often mentioned but Han had actually won 2 majors by the end of 1981 while as of 1983 Jaeger had not. I know Jaeger was younger but would she have won a major? (rhetorical answer on another thread)

I think Evert is career valedictorian over Navratilova because her results were excellent and consistent over more than 15 years. Navratilova's "GPA" would suffe with poor results at the start and middle of her career. Sometimes a rash of 100s saves a grade but here she is not playing herself but another woman. Evert made have been humbled in the 13 match losing streak but she end it and at one point late in the career was 3 out of the last 4; 1987 LA(MN was just back from injury), 1988 Aussie SF in straight sets 1 and 5 I think and then 0 and 4 in Houston. Those late results show that even late in their careers Evert was a champ. Granted MN won the last three on grass and indoors but as a career grade I think Evert gets it. It is a marathon. Just because you had a set of great splits does not win the race.

It all comes down to preference.

Do you prefer Evert's excellent unparalleled consistency over such a long period of time?

Do you prefer Navratilova's higher peak play?


I go with Evert by a hair. Navratilova is the better player and I would always rank her just above Evert in any GOAT discussion, but overall I think Evert had the slightly better career across the board as a whole. Right from the beginning of Evert's career she was already contending for majors and beating the top women of the time and she never stopped throughout her long career and Navratilova just can't say the same.

Neither one of them is the female GOAT anyway.

NadalandFedererfan said:

Neither one of them is the female GOAT anyway.

Click to expand...

Yes, they are both over Steffi, simply because they had to go through each other to win 18 Slam each. I put them over Court too, because Court racked up a lot of wins in really weak Aussie fields.

Consider this:

Aussie 1981-1988 (when they were playing it): one or the other was in the final, and except for the last two years, they won it. For four of five years, ending in 85, it was Chris vs. Martina in the final.

French: Between 79-87, either Chris or Martina was in the final every year but 81. From 84-86, they played each other in the final. In 87, Steffi beat Martina.

Wimbledon: From 76-90, either Chris or Martina was in the final every year but 77. They faced each other in five of those finals, with three of them going three sets. Chris lost to Goolagong in 80 in the final, and Martina lost in 88-89 to Steffi.

US Open: From 75-89, either Chris or Martina was in the final every year but one, in 88. Of those finals that neither one won, Chris lost to Tracy in 79, Martina to Tracy in 81, and Martina to Hana in 85. Chris faced Martina in 83 and 84, with Martina winning both.

Finally, from 75-88, they played each other in Slams 22 times, either the semis or finals. Neither Steffi nor Margaret had another GOAT pushing them like the so consistently over their career.

Arafel said:

Yes, they are both over Steffi

Click to expand...

Unfortunately you are living in dream land. There is hardly a single expert that puts Evert over Graf at this point. Even the most biased expert Evert backer- Steve Flink, ranks Graf 1st, Navratilova 2nd, and his longtime close personal friend Evert only 3rd. That alone says enough. Martina gets some consideration yes, the womens GOAT race is really only Martina and Graf and they are the only ones any serious expert even considers at this point. Evert at best is a distant 3rd, maybe even 4th behind Court.

Oh yeah I voted for Martina of course.

The quality of your competition btw cannot be determined by just one opponent. Court overall had more competition than any of Evert, Navratilova, or Graf apart from the Australian Opens status which has already been factored into her career evaluation by most anyway.

From

navratilova.tripod.com/GS.html

These are MN's major results from 1973-1981. I deleted the players I did not know that she beat. Obviously her results caused the Wimbledon committee to drop her seeding in the 70s so they should drop her overall "seeding" for the career. Mind you in this same period Evert made at least the SF or better.

1973
French Open,Unseeded
3R def. Nancy Richey-Gunter (US) 6-3 6-3
QF l/t. Evonne Goolagong (Aus) 6-7 3-6

Wimbledon,Unseeded
3R l/t. Patricia Hogan (US) 4-6 4-6

US Open,Unseeded
1R l/t. Veronica Burton (Gbr) 7-5 1-6 3-6

1974
French Open,No.5 seed
3R def. Dianne Fromholtz (Aus) 6-2 3-6 6-3
QF l/t. Helga Niessen-Masthoff (FRG) 6-7 3-6

Wimbledon,Unseeded
1R l/t. Mima Jausovec (Yug) 4-6 6-3

US Open,Unseeded
2R def. Betty Stove (Ned) 6-2 6-2
3R l/t. Julie Heldman (US) 4-6 4-6

1975
Australian Open,No.8 seed
QF def. Margaret Court (Aus) 6-4 6-3
SF def. Natasha Chmyreva (USSR) 6-4 6-4
F l/t. Evonne Goolagong (Aus) 3-6 2-6

French Open,No.2 seed
SF def. Janet Newberry (US) 6-2 6-3
F l/t. Chris Evert (US) 6-2 2-6 1-6

Wimbledon,No.2 seed
1R def. Wendy Turnbull (Aus) 6-2 8-6
2R def. Sue Mappin (Gbr) 6-1 6-2
3R def. Greer Stevens (SA) 6-4 6-3
4R def. Natasha Chmyreva (USSR) 6-1 6-0
QF l/t. Margaret Court (Aus) 3-6 4-6

US Open,No.3 seed
QF def. Margaret Court (Aus) 6-2 6-4
SF l/t. Chris Evert (US) 4-6 4-6

1976
Wimbledon,No.4 seed
4R def. Francoise Durr (Fra) 2-6 6-3 7-5
QF def. Sue Barker (Gbr) 6-3 3-6 7-5
SF l/t. Chris Evert (US) 3-6 6-4 4-6

US Open,No.3 seed
1R l/t. Janet Newberry (US) 6-1 4-6 3-6

1977
Wimbledon,No.2 seed
QF l/t. Betty Stove (Ned) 8-9 6-3 1-6

US Open,No.2 seed
QF def. Mima Jausovec (Yug) 6-4 6-1
SF l/t. Wendy Turnbull (Aus) 6-2 5-7 4-6

1978
Wimbledon,No.2 seed
3R def. Barbara Jordan (US) 3-6 6-1 6-4
4R def. Tracy Austin (US) 6-2 6-3
QF def. Marise Kruger (SA) 6-2 6-4
SF def. Evonne Goolagong-Cawley (Aus) 2-6 6-4 6-4
F def. Chris Evert (US) 2-6 6-4 7-5

US Open,No.1 seed
QF def. Virginia Ruzici (Rom) 6-3 6-2
SF l/t. Pam Shriver (US) 6-7 6-7






1979
Wimbledon,No.1 seed
2R def. Jo Durie (Gbr) 6-4 6-1
3R def. Rosie Casals (US) 6-3 6-3
4R def. Greer Stevens (SA) 7-6 6-7 6-3
QF def. Dianne Fromholtz (Aus) 2-6 6-3 6-0
SF def. Tracy Austin (US) 7-5 6-1
F def. Chris Evert-Lloyd (US) 6-4 6-4

US Open,No.2 seed
QF def. Kerry Melville-Reid (Aus) 6-4 6-1
SF l/t. Tracy Austin (US) 5-7 5-7

1980
Wimbledon,No.1 seed
4R def. Kathy Jordan (US) 6-4 6-2
QF def. Billie Jean King (US) 7-6 1-6 10-8
SF l/t. Chris Evert-Lloyd (US) 6-4 4-6 2-6

US Open,No.2 seed
4R l/t. Hana Mandlikova (Tch) 6-7 4-6

Australian Open,No.1 seed
3R def. Betsy Nagelsen (US) 6-2 6-2
QF def. Greer Stevens (SA) 4-6 6-1 7-6
SF l/t. Wendy Turnbull (Aus) 4-6 5-7

1981


French Open,No.2 seed
QF l/t. Sylvia Hanika (FRG) 2-6 4-6

Wimbledon,No.4 seed
4R def. Betsy Nagelsen (US) 6-3 6-1
QF def. Virginia Ruzici (Rom) 6-2 6-3
SF l/t. Hana Mandlikova (Tch) 5-7 6-4 1-6

US Open,No.4 seed
1R def. Nerida Gregory (Aus) 6-0 6-1
2R def. Anne White (US) 6-2 6-3
3R def. Joanne Russell (US) 6-2 6-1
4R def. Kathy Jordan (US) 6-0 6-1
QF def. Anne Smith (US) 7-5 6-4
SF def. Chris Evert-Lloyd (US) 7-5 4-6 6-4
F l/t. Tracy Austin (US) 6-1 6-7 6-7

Australian Open,No.3 seed
3R def. Kathy Jordan (US) 7-5 3-6 6-2
QF def. Evonne Goolagong-Cawley (Aus) 6-3 6-1
SF def. Pam Shriver (US) 6-3 7-5
F def. Chris Evert-Lloyd (US) 6-7 6-4 7-5

From 1971-1981 Chris Evert played 29 majors and won 12, was runner up at 8 and semifinaled 9.

From 1973-1981, Martina Navratilova played 25 majors and won 3, was runner up 3 times, SF 8, QF 5, 4R once, 3R twice and 1R 3 times.

MN was awesome from 1982-1987 but Evert's numbers totally eclipse MN's as a whole when you account for the 1970s. Good for MN that she pulled it together but CE had a better CAREER.

As a comparison CE made 29 semis and lost only 9. She made 20 finals. She won more than half of those. MN made 14 semis and lost 8. She won only 6 semis and then won only 3/6 finals or 50%.

Navratilova's aura over Chris comes becomes she beat Chris from 1982-1988. If Chris had retired and started a family she would be given more respect but since she kept playing and lost mostly to MN at majors then she is scored down. That does not make sense to me that one woman was top 4 forever and the other was great for a smaller window.

Greatest female singles players of all time:

1. Graf
2. Navratilova
3. Court
4. Evert

Thus Navratilova had the better singles career.

CEvertFan said:

Martina with graphite vs Evert with wood should be an easy win for Navratilova - '83 US Open. And Evert had made the difficult decision to switch to a graphite racquet and was still getting used to it when they met at the '84 French. .

Click to expand...

Boo hoo. Everyone was transitioning from wood to composite during those years. Any more pathetic excuses?

Lefty78 said:

Boo hoo. Everyone was transitioning from wood to composite during those years. Any more pathetic excuses?

Click to expand...

CEvertFan has many forms of astounding logic when it comes to Evert. I recall too another thread that Navratilova the latest bloomer in womens tennis history somehow didnt count as Graf competition in her very early 30s since she was supposably "past her prime", but former teenage phenom Court in her mid 30s after two pregnancies and King even in her late 30 somehow were part of what made up the "best ever" womens field Evert faced, LOL!

Navratilova chose to switch to graphite when she did. Evert did likewise. In hindsight it looks like Martina probably made the better choice to do it earlier. Good for her, it is similar to guessing whether a player is aiming at your forehand or better, whoever makes the better call wins. Martina might have still been getting used to graphite and had that as a disadvantage while Chris was still playing with wood as her disadvantage. I dont think the racquet makes much difference as Chris had to complete retool her body and game to even hang with Martina again.

NadalandFedererfan said:

CEvertFan has many forms of astounding logic when it comes to Evert. I recall too another thread that Navratilova the latest bloomer in womens tennis history somehow didnt count as Graf competition in her very early 30s since she was supposably "past her prime", but former teenage phenom Court in her mid 30s after two pregnancies and King even in her late 30 somehow were part of what made up the "best ever" womens field Evert faced, LOL!

Navratilova chose to switch to graphite when she did. Evert did likewise. In hindsight it looks like Martina probably made the better choice to do it earlier. Good for her, it is similar to guessing whether a player is aiming at your forehand or better, whoever makes the better call wins. Martina might have still been getting used to graphite and had that as a disadvantage while Chris was still playing with wood as her disadvantage. I dont think the racquet makes much difference as Chris had to complete retool her body and game to even hang with Martina again.

Click to expand...

You don't even know what you are talking about - go troll somewhere else. Please.

CEvertFan said:

You don't even know what you are talking about - go troll somewhere else. Please.

Click to expand...

I know perfectly well what I am talking about:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=3344222#post3344222

Predictable cop out response from someone who cant stand people who can easily prove them wrong time and time again. I shouldnt have mentioned anything though, as I saved you having to respond to Lefty78's question.

I won't enter any discussion here as regards to Evert or Navratilova since I lack the knowledge about that -- but I know about wood vs graphite and its transition. Go from wood to graphite goes fast. You're a lot better immediately. Just take a wood racquet and play with it for ten minutes. How does that feel? Then go back. That's the thing. And the more time you spend with the graphite the finer nuances in the bat you find. Peak level with the new tool is estimated to be reached, on average, in around six months to one year. Call every racquet expert there is or any racquet producing company there is -- they'll tell you.

In the early 1980's you got about 20% (conservatively speaking -- at the least) better control and precision and about 5-10% better power. But with the better control and precision you can go for your shots more which in turn enhances the power to, well -- you're not un-intelligent I think....

NadalandFedererfan said:

I know perfectly well what I am talking about:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=3344222#post3344222

Predictable cop out response from someone who cant stand people who can easily prove them wrong time and time again. I shouldnt have mentioned anything though, as I saved you having to respond to Lefty78's question.

Click to expand...

Read what I wrote again. You obviously didn't understand it the first time. Low intellect perhaps?

Borgforever said:

I won't enter any discussion here as regards to Evert or Navratilova since I lack the knowledge about that -- but I know about wood vs graphite and its transition. Go from wood to graphite goes fast. You're a lot better immediately. Just take a wood racquet and play with it for ten minutes. How does that feel? Then go back. That's the thing. And the more time you spend with the graphite the finer nuances in the bat you find. Peak level with the new tool is estimated to be reached, on average, in around six months to one year. Call every racquet expert there is or any racquet producing company there is -- they'll tell you.

In the early 1980's you got about 20% (conservatively speaking -- at the least) better control and precision and about 5-10% better power. But with the better control and precision you can go for your shots more which in turn enhances the power to, well -- you're not un-intelligent I think....

Click to expand...

My point exactly - it did take Evert around a year to play to her full potential with graphite.

CEvertFan said:

Read what I wrote again. You obviously didn't understand it the first time. Low intellect perhaps?

Click to expand...

Low intellect would be a more suitable claim for someone who resorts to insults and trolling accusations on anyone who disagrees with them or calls them out on some of their biased reasoning. Now whom who might that be.

I understood perfectly well what you said each time and when I finally had you cornered you just resorted to a cop out line such as:

I'd rather face Sanchez-Vicario and Sabatini (Graf) than Court and King and Navratilova (Evert) who are three of the very best ever. That's just me though.

Click to expand...

Of course completely unable to address the fact that Court and King were even older and much further form their best during Evert's reign than Navratilova (or even Evert) was during Graf's.

Anyway this thread is comparing Evert and Navratilova and it is really pretty simple:

1. When both were close to their best Navratilova was clearly the better player.

2. Navratilova won her most of her titles with Evert still close to her best and at the top of the game. Evert did not do likewise.

I don't want to face Court, King, Goolagong, Wade, Casals, if I am a young baseline clay courter from Fort Lauderdale with three of the four slams on a grass court. I don't care how old they are. Not a good plan. I don't want to face Sabatini, Seles, Sanchez etc on a clay court if I am Graf.

BTURNER said:

I don't want to face Court, King, Goolagong, Wade, Casals, if I am a young baseline clay courter from Fort Lauderdale with three of the four slams on a grass court. I don't care how old they are. Not a good plan. I don't want to face Sabatini, Seles, Sanchez etc on a clay court if I am Graf.

Click to expand...

I agree with that other than I dont think spunky little Rosie Casals is someone any of the big guns broke much sweat about facing.

NadalandFedererfan said:

Low intellect would be a more suitable claim for someone who resorts to insults and trolling accusations on anyone who disagrees with them or calls them out on some of their biased reasoning. Now whom who might that be.

I understood perfectly well what you said each time and when I finally had you cornered you just resorted to a cop out line such as:



Of course completely unable to address the fact that Court and King were even older and much further form their best during Evert's reign than Navratilova (or even Evert) was during Graf's.

Anyway this thread is comparing Evert and Navratilova and it is really pretty simple:

1. When both were close to their best Navratilova was clearly the better player.

2. Navratilova won her most of her titles with Evert still close to her best and at the top of the game. Evert did not do likewise.

Click to expand...

Again, go back and reread my posts - I never once said Evert was a better player than Navratilova. If Evert was then I would rank her as the GOAT. I picked Navratilova as the GOAT and will always pick her as the GOAT, at least for the time being.


And for the record King wasn't in her late 30s until the very late 70s. Same with Court. Evert started playing with the big girls in 1970 and beat Court when she was only 15.

It is almost hard to compare the players of then to now since back then 3 of the 4 slams were on grass with 0 slams and minimal # of tournaments on hard courts, and now 2 of the 4 slams but the majority of the tour on both mens and womens is on hard courts with this tiny little grass season. Clay remains a reasonable entity both then and now, although never the dominant surface of tour still a sufficient portion of it. The kind of players that are effective today vs then varies quite a bit in some cases.

Somewhere else on the site a poster mentioned that switching to graphite did not help Evert the same as it did Navratilova. It would be interesting to see them play tomorrow at Wimbledon with the rackets they used in the 1978 final. Does anyone really believe that MN would beat CE?

I trust that Evert's fine tuned strokes are still there and without the larger sweet spot and generous extra power from the graphite MN's age would show far more than CE's even though CE is almost two years older and had 3 sons.

I would eve goes as far to suggest that she could handle quite a few of the post-MN Wimbledon champs like Graf, Hingis and Novotna if playing with wooden rackets from 1978.

That would be a set of matches to raise money for a good cause.

obanaghan said:

I would eve goes as far to suggest that she could handle quite a few of the post-MN Wimbledon champs like Graf, Hingis and Novotna if playing with wooden rackets from 1978.

That would be a set of matches to raise money for a good cause.

Click to expand...

Actually of those 3 you mentioned Graf is the one who would also have greatly benefitted from graphite. Hingis and Novotna are both finesse players, despite Novotna's attacking style, and would have been very comfortable as well with wood IMO.

The original poster said who had a better career. I liken this also to the decathalon. In 1976 when Bruce Jenner won he did not win the last event just the overall which is the whole point in that competition. One need not win any of the events and could still win the gold.

The term career in this comparison means everything counts and as head and shoulders above MN's results were in 1982-1987, Evert played better and kept it closer than MN did to CE's run in 1974-1981.

CE MN
1974 2 Zero
1975 2 Zero
1976 2 Zero
1977 1 Zero
1978 1 1
1979 1 1
1980 2 Zero
1981 1 1
1982 2 2
1983 1 3
1984 1 3
1985 1 2
1986 1 2
1987 Zero 2
1990 Retired 1

I think the sticking point for people is that MN got to a great level of play that CE did not. However, CE was a better athlete than we give her credit for especially since MN is so gifted. A lesser athlete would have never been able to get a semblance of competition back in the rivalry after 1983 but Evert did by the end of 1984 and beat MN several times between 1985-1988.

My main beef is not that Evert was "better" but that her whole career was better and that after the 1981 US Open and 8 years on the tour Martina had the same number of majors won as BOTH Hana and Tracy who are six years younger than she is. Those 8 years seem to have been expunged from her record while all of Evert's bridesmaid appearances in the 1980s are fully counted. They should count against both and since at the end of the day they each won 18 majors, CE gets the better singles career ribbon.

Add in doubles and no one touches MN.

obanaghan said:

Somewhere else on the site a poster mentioned that switching to graphite did not help Evert the same as it did Navratilova. It would be interesting to see them play tomorrow at Wimbledon with the rackets they used in the 1978 final. Does anyone really believe that MN would beat CE?

I trust that Evert's fine tuned strokes are still there and without the larger sweet spot and generous extra power from the graphite MN's age would show far more than CE's even though CE is almost two years older and had 3 sons.

I would eve goes as far to suggest that she could handle quite a few of the post-MN Wimbledon champs like Graf, Hingis and Novotna if playing with wooden rackets from 1978.

That would be a set of matches to raise money for a good cause.

Click to expand...

If Martina and Chris faced off tomorrow at Wimbledon with wood I would absolutely favor Martina to win. Martina won a match at the french when she was almost 50 years old, if she was in good enough shape to beat a player about half her age on her own worst surface I would give her very good odds against Evert now no matter what shape Evert is in. As I do not know how much tennis Evert has played recently...based on the fact that Martina was still in competitive shape (even if it was just doubles) 5 years ago I would expect her to more than be able to hold her own with Evert...especially since based on recent exhibitions she is still capable of holding her own against Graf. If you really think Chris today would annihilate Martina today on grass...I am sorry but I think you are quite wrong.

What difference does it make if they played now. Some people are more interesting and continuing to play tennis and some form and continuing to practice than others. Graf has kept in great shape but she hasnt been involved in any form of tennis- even exhibition or some silly league of any kind until very recently. Date and Graf are almost the same age and Date spanked Graf in an exhibition recently so I guess that means Date > Graf. Date beat both Graf and Navratilova in the exhibitions, so do we say Date > Graf and Navratilova, Date the new female GOAT now, LOL! Navratilova and Date both have kept up playing and practicing in some form more than Graf have, Navratilova playing tons of doubles and that silly World Team Tennis league, while Date has obviously been training hard for a comeback to actual WTA tennis. If Evert and Martina played now with a wood racquet it would depend more on what kind of playing and practicing either have done lately than anything else.

Navratilova beat Evert twice in a Wimbledon final with a wood racquet and this was prime Evert and pre-prime Martina. Martina also beat Evert at the U.S Open on hard courts in 1981 both playing with wood, even at the tail end of a bad slump year for her. So safe to say in their competitive days Martina could have been very competitive with Evert with wood, and both in their primes probably would have still done very well vs Evert overall.

sry guys but I think they were both crap, i would beat them lefthanded.
evert was jsut moonballing, no power at all, serving like the biggest mug.
WTA today still sucks but those 2 wouldn`t even rank in the top100.

these type of posts make no sense to me, who cares??? these forums should be used to exchange information of value

austintennis2005 said:

these type of posts make no sense to me, who cares??? these forums should be used to exchange information of value

Click to expand...

I am just saying that the quality of tennis especially on the womans side was extremely poor back then. Ans its no wonder Evert made 40 or what consecutive semis in Grandslams, the early rounds back then were all no professionals, price money was way lower and professionalism also.
The fact the Evert got beaten by moonballers and couldnt smash and highballs nor attack them says it all really about the poor standard of play back then.

coriafan said:

I am just saying that the quality of tennis especially on the womans side was extremely poor back then. Ans its no wonder Evert made 40 or what consecutive semis in Grandslams, the early rounds back then were all no professionals, price money was way lower and professionalism also.
The fact the Evert got beaten by moonballers and couldnt smash and highballs nor attack them says it all really about the poor standard of play back then.

Click to expand...

As opposed to now, with matches full of chokes, 10 consecutive breaks of serve and 1-dimensional ball bashing with absolutely no variety?

Lionheart392 said:

As opposed to now, with matches full of chokes, 10 consecutive breaks of serve and 1-dimensional ball bashing with absolutely no variety?

Click to expand...

Yeah the womens field since 2005 has been the worst in womens tennis history bar none.

coriafan said:

I am just saying that the quality of tennis especially on the womans side was extremely poor back then. Ans its no wonder Evert made 40 or what consecutive semis in Grandslams, the early rounds back then were all no professionals, price money was way lower and professionalism also.
The fact the Evert got beaten by moonballers and couldnt smash and highballs nor attack them says it all really about the poor standard of play back then.

Click to expand...

LOL you probably never even saw any matches from the period you are disparaging.

coriafan said:

I am just saying that the quality of tennis especially on the womans side was extremely poor back then. Ans its no wonder Evert made 40 or what consecutive semis in Grandslams, the early rounds back then were all no professionals, price money was way lower and professionalism also.
The fact the Evert got beaten by moonballers and couldnt smash and highballs nor attack them says it all really about the poor standard of play back then.

Click to expand...

Martina at near 50 years old won a main draw match at the french open several years back and pushed Gisela Dulko, who at the time was in the top 50, to 3 sets at the following wimbledon, and acording to you if she was 30 years younger she wouldn't even be ranked in the top 100. yeah ok I don't think so. As for Evert not being able to smash...she really didn't need to, she was a baseliner who didn't come to net near as often as her contemporaries and therefore was not as vulnerable to lobs...therefore the necessity for her to smash at all was something like 1 in every 20 or 30 points played. you obviously don't know what your talking about.

oh come on, chris evert evens said when she retired that she was tired of playing moonballers and she couldnt handle them. Just look at this video for example, crap serve, absolutely no power in the groundstrokes, and she cant handle a highball that is so slow that every decent player nowadays would smash them for a winner or at least play them agressively. But she? Get lobbed by the bouncy of a moonball and can only return the moonball very lose or with another moonball. Pathetic quality of tennis. Just look at this i can only laugh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfrUVH6MBwk

coriafan said:

oh come on, chris evert evens said when she retired that she was tired of playing moonballers and she couldnt handle them. Just look at this video for example, crap serve, absolutely no power in the groundstrokes, and she cant handle a highball that is so slow that every decent player nowadays would smash them for a winner or at least play them agressively. But she? Get lobbed by the bouncy of a moonball and can only return the moonball very lose or with another moonball. Pathetic quality of tennis. Just look at this i can only laugh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfrUVH6MBwk

Click to expand...

Lol you laugh but Chris Evert won this match in straight sets so get real. one point and you want to crucify Chris especially since she retired at the end of 1989 after the Fed Cup finals, where she won her last match against one of the biggest moonballers ever, Conchita Martinez. Again...you really have no clue what your talking about so please stop trying.

boredone3456 said:

Lol you laugh but Chris Evert won this match in straight sets so get real. one point and you want to crucify Chris especially since she retired at the end of 1989 after the Fed Cup finals, where she won her last match against one of the biggest moonballers ever, Conchita Martinez. Again...you really have no clue what your talking about so please stop trying.

Click to expand...

just look at this you cant say with a straight face it owuld be competetive today, better rackets yes or no, the tennis just sucked back then.

coriafan said:

just look at this you cant say with a straight face it owuld be competetive today, better rackets yes or no, the tennis just sucked back then.

Click to expand...

More power doesn't always mean better quality. I bet Navratilova or Evert could still play and beat YOU (since you claimed you could beat them lefthanded) without the loss of even a single game and they would probably only lose a point if they made an unforced error. And they are both over the age of 50.

You know he's trolling don't you? Each word you type is spilled crack jack.

How can anyone who is a fan of Coria the chump be taken seriously.

silly question. Martina was better for longer, and still competitive years after any normal person would have given up

navratilova, more versatile, but evert was a good number two and she was a ''focus'' role model player for players like Steffi and Seles who also had that steely look.

boredone3456 said:

Martina won a match at the french when she was almost 50 years old.

Click to expand...

boredone3456 said:

Martina at near 50 years old won a main draw match at the french open.

Click to expand...

I am sorry boredone, but the last time Martina won a match at the French is in 1988. She did win a match at Wimbledon in 2004 against Catalina Castano who had almost no experience on grass in that time.

I voted for Navratilova many months ago, but I would vote for Evert today. Martina was a better player but Chris had the better career.

Martina or Chris?

If I am considering singles only, I think it is something of a toss-up....add dubs in there and you have to give martina the nod.

Some of the simply idiotic comments here re: poor quality of play from Chris (or Martina) are beyond absurd.

Power does not equal skill....seems like few on these boards "get" that....
Martina was still a fine doubles player at 50 freaking years old!

Plus, Martina and Chris did play the next generation of "kids" who hit harder...like Graf and Seles. While Evert had mixed results against those two, certainly Martina had a number of good wins in big settings.

Prime Chris vs. Serena, I would love to see, frankly. Chris was (is) a model of ground stroking consistency and used the entire court superbly...

Would also like to see prime Martina vs. Venus on grass...now that would be a real fun one to watch.

Yes, Martina and Chris were somewhat lacking in terms of having strong competition for some time...only Tracy and Hana cut into their dominance for short periods....but, they really were a cut above the others.

Navratilova definitely by far ...
9 wimbledons the most important GS .. record will never be broken
more weeks at no. 1
more no. 1 ranking year end

CEvertFan said:

LOL you probably never even saw any matches from the period you are disparaging.

Click to expand...

I did and the quality sucked then too

Renee Richards stated that Evert did not play patsy tennis and "hit bombs". I agree that the power game would give both MN and CE fits today even if they were 25 again. However, I wish someone would organize a Jack Kramer Woodies only tournament. People would be surprised to see how far the old ladies advanced and who lost early. For charity of course.