Indeed. She pretty much owned Graf up to that point.
I always dock players who played in the pre open era. It just wasn't the same. It's like comparing Nolan Ryan to Cy Young. Just not even close to the same game.
Court at #8 is absurd, even if only concerning the open era. Top women did play the AO 5 years of Court's 11 wins. She won 4 of those and primarily lost the fifth to King, when she was just returning from a year off the tour. Therefore, Court should be credited for at least 8 or 9 of the Aussie majors, even if the top players came every year. Graf mostly had weak competition after Seles was attacked. Therefore, Court should be credited for at least 20 real slams, if not more. Also, in 68-60 the US had an amateur and open slam, with most of the top players competing. Court wont both amateur and one open slam in 68-69. The US amateur slams had tougher competition than several of Graf's slam wins, without Seles. Therefore, I would rank Court, Evert, Serena and Navratilova about equal. I put them over Graf due to their tougher competition throughout their careers. Serena's competition is somewhat varied. From 99-08, it was very tough, since 09 not so tough. Court had very tough competition throughout her entire career: Maria Bueno, BJK, Darlene Hard, Ann Jones, Angela Mortimer, Lesley Turner, Chris Evert, Martina Navratilova. True, Chris and Martina came late in her career, but Court had to beat Chris to win at least two slams.
Mostly true concerning their competiton, except for Austin for a short time. Manlikova, when on her game, was about the only real slam threat to Chris and Martina. Using modern equipment, I think Chris, and especially Martina, would give Serena a tough time.
I'm not sure if you can say that Graf had weak competition. Great champions make their competitors irrelevant. I'll admit that I never saw Court play and I am definitely biased against anyone who played the majority of their careers in the pre-open era. However I just can't imagine her playing against Graf or Serena and being able to handle the kind of power those women produce(d). When I watch those old matches they seem almost quaint compared to the slug fest that is the modern game. However her wins still speak for themselves. So where do you put Court then if higher than 8?
I actually think Serena would have a much tougher time against Evert due to her consistency and defense. I think Serena would blast passing shots past Martina all day.
Playing styles, conditions and especially rackets were much different in Court's era than in today's game. Court was the top player of her era, 60-73, then BJK and Bueno. I judge a players greatness by their accomplishments. Court had a strong ground game, serve and net game. She could move very well, as she could have competed in the Olympics as a runner. She had a better ground game than Navratilova or King and a stronger net game than Evert or Graf. Court won 24 slams, 190 tournaments, many doubles and mixed in slams-more than any other woman and 7 YE at #1 despite taking two prime years off for pregnancy and retirement. It is very difficult to compare players from distant eras, still it is obvious that Court was one of the very greatest players of all time against very tough competition throughout her entire career. I would rank her, at #1 or at least on the same level as Serena, Graf, Navratilova and Evert.
If you're going to drop someone due to poor sportsmanship then King should rate higher for founding the WTA and battle of sexes etc.
Serena is far from being the most gracious sportswoman, but hardly bad enough to drop her any ranking position. King lost 4 of 5 slam finals to Court, in which she most likely would have beat any other woman in those finals. Though she only has 12 slams, IMO, King is nearly on the same level as some of those with more slams as she played in the same very competitive era as Court did. King's biggest flaw was her less than great clay court record.
Actually, Court has the most titles. There was not women's pro tour, therefore, all the top women competed in slams and regular tournaments before 1968. Open Era should Only apply to Men's tennis.
I agree with most of this. King has one RG ( 72), one Italian (71) and one German title (70). She has no other finals to her credit in those venues. Now she actually played RG more often than I thought - 7 times! reached the semifinals exactly twice including her win in 1972. Most of the time she lost her quarterfinal. This is definitely a lower standard of success in any major than the other GOAT candidates in modern times and far worse on European clay than any others. Its worse than other s/vers like Bueno or Goolagong. This is more like Wade and Turnbull than Navratilova, or Court.
Had Court been in the 72 FO, chances are, King would not have won that year. The only woman who could beat Evert in a FO final in 73 was Margret Court. Evert was not at her very best, but could beat any other player, Court was a 31 year old mother, and probably just past her prime. The only other player who had some success against Evert on clay when Chris first came on the tour was Nancy Richey. At her best, Nancy had a very consistent game with flat deep shots that clipped the lines. Nancy could give Court a tough time on clay, but was no match for Margret on grass.
guess who beat Evert that same year on red clay about two weeks later with a love set! Evonne! She took a set from Evert in 1982, well past her peak as well! Goolagong was a real threat on clay reaching more finals than King on dirt with about half the entries. Court, Navratilova and Bueno were the best s/vers to play on red dirt in my opinion. I don't see King beating either of them . Goolagong was right underneath them though.
Either Evonne, who I loved, played out of her mind that day or Chris was a bit off her game. It seems as though Rome came after Paris that year, so that perhaps Chris was still depressed over her tough loss at the FO or really did not care. To beat Evert at love on clay seemed impossible for any female player at that time.
Nope. You are re-writing history from today's perspective. If you lose consecutive finals on red clay to two different women rather than win them, it is by definition not . Matter of fact, Miss Invincibility only won one set in those two finals. There would have been no reason to think otherwise. the year before she had lost two matches on clay to Richey in straight sets. People in the States knew her as a dangerous player because she had wins over Court and King, but hardly unbeatable. Nobody had ever played her in Europe, on red clay, or in any major final before that. She literally had not played a single European tournament. She did not really acquire a reputation for being unbeatable internationally until the 1975 season because she had gone through 1974 without a loss.
Well, in the 73 FO quarters Chris beat a clay court specialist, Helge Mastoff 3 and 3. In the semi's she lost a total of 1 game to Francoise Durr and nearly beat Court in the final. By the way, I was never an Evert fan but she was a truly great player, especially on clay. As I said before, Chris was not at her very best in 73, but still better than almost anyone else on clay that year.
Put that way, I agree. There was no doubt already that Evert was a serious contender to that title. She was seeded second and had wins over virtually everybody but Richey already, but she wasn't quite ready for prime time -yet. She really got rather lucky in 1974 to be meeting Olga Morazova in two consecutive major finals on clay and grass to break that grand slam ice. By 1975, she was in full control and there was nobody !
Certainly not in that order? Using the same equipment: Serena, Court, Graf, Navratilova, Venus, Evert, Henin, Seles, King. Connolly was practically unbeatable at peak, before her tragic accident, and also the game was much different in her era.
Nice list. Well formulated arguments. It's tough to rank players from such different eras. Especially given how much weight we put on major wins now which wasn't always the case.
Overall, good list. Perhaps the number of slams should be based on the % of slams played? For instance, Lenglen reached her near peak just before WW1 and won Wimbledon from 19-25, except for 24 when she defaulted to Kitty McKane who beat Wills in the final. The next year Lenglen played Kitty and did not lose a game. The French was not an official major till 25, as it was closed to foreign players. Had it been an official slam, chances are Lenglen would have won 7 French majors and not just the 2 she is credited with now. She did win 4 World Hard Court Championships which was on clay and basically the real French Championships, as the top players competed in that tournament. Evert chose to waste her time on the idiotic WTT, I suppose for extra money, which is why she did not compete in the FO for 3 years. Chances are she probably would have won those 3 had she competed. Connolly was practically unbeatable for several before her career ending accident. No doubt she would have won several more slams had she stayed healthy. Wills is perhaps the greatest of all, achievement wise, considering she did not compete ever in Australia and skipped other slams throughout her career.
You can't do that because slams were amateur. If you wanted to play tennis you had to quickly make a name for yourself and then cash in which meant no more slams for you. This meant that the draws were largely populated by players who at best played part time.
As there was no real women's pro tour all the top female players competed at Wimbledon, French and USO since 1925. Open tennis only really applies to the Men's game. For me also, modern tennis begins in 1960, which is when more top players began competing from more countries. Still though players can only be judged, accomplishment wise, by the competition of the era they played in. Players like: Court, King, Bueno, Evert, Navratilova, Serena, Venus, Justine, Seles and Graf would be great players in any era. The same is true of the top men players since 1960, especially Gonzalez. Laver, Hoad and Rosewall and a few others of the 50's-60's eras.
Not sure I agree. the way a player chooses to play, is not just about what suits their physical abilities, but also what suits their temperament, and what provides them gratification. I don't think all these former players would enjoy the modern power game and I don't think players of today would necessarily enjoy the tennis of yesteryear. They might just turn their energies elsewhere rather than be bored or frustrated.
Well, don't forget that incredible '75 US Clay Court semi she nearly lost to the great, but past-her-prime Richey. I think Richey had two match points in the second set... in the mid-west (Indianapolis?) in August... ugh.
