Big titles: comparison top 5 all-time female champions

#1
SERENA WILLIAMS

23 Slam
5 YEC
6 Premier Mandatory
(1 China Open + 3 Miami +1 Madrid)
7 Premier 5 (3 Rome + 2 Canada Open + 2 Cincinnati)
10 Tier I
(2 Indian Wells, 1 Canada Open + 1 Rome, 1 Charleston + 5 Miami)
11 Tier II (2 Paris + 2 Los Angeles + 1 Hannover + 2 Tokyo + 1 Scottsdale + 1 China Open + 1 Lipsia + 1 Bangalore)
1 Grand Slam Cup
----------
63
 
Last edited:
#2
GRAF

22 Slam
5 YEC
18 Tier I
(7 Berlin + 4 Key Biscayne + 1 Philadelphia + 1 Tokyo + 2 Canada Open + 1 Boca Raton + 1 Rome + 1 Indian Wells)
27 Tier II (1 Amelia Island + 1 Boca Raton + 3 Brighton + 3 Delray Beach + 2 Hamburg + 1 Hilton Head + 1 Houston + 1 Indian Wells + 2 Leipzig + 2 Philadelpphia +1 Paris + 1 New haven + 2 San Diego + 1 Tokyo + 1 Washington + 1 Worcester + 3 Zurich)
----------

72
 
Last edited:
#3
for the tourneys from 60s 70s and 80s, any tournament that is a 2 or 3 round tournament it should directly get disqualified.
 
#4
SERENA WILLIAMS vs GRAF

Slam
23-22


YEC
5-5


Tier I
16-18 (Premier Mandatory : 6-0 and Tier I: 10-18)


Tier II
18-27 (Premier 5: 7-0 and Tier II : 11-27)


Grand Slam Cup
1-0
----------
63-72
 
#8
SERENA WILLIAMS vs GRAF

Slam
23-22


YEC
5-5


Tier I
16-18 (Premier Mandatory : 6-0 and Tier I: 10-18)


Tier II
18-27 (Premier 5: 7-0 and Tier II : 11-27)


Grand Slam Cup
1-0
----------
63-72
The comparison between the two stars is awkward.
The one they won is really close and I can't identify one of them better than the other.
To declare that one is > of the other only for a slam is ridiculous. Especially if Steffi has won almost 10 more second level tournaments.

I will return to the results of the other 3 but later. It takes time and I don't have these days.
 
#9
you need to add the olympic gold for both. it is a huge title.
Serena also has Olympic doubles golds, 4 Olympic Gold total technically speaking I believe, but I think that should probably follow the context you give regular tour doubles (aka only given whatever credit you give to regular tour doubles, which is minimal to nil for most people, but if you are the minority who give big credit to regular tour doubles then fine in this case too). Both have 1 singles Olympic Gold, and Graf a silver as well.
 
#10
Olympics update:

SERENA WILLIAMS

23 Slam
5 YEC
6 Premier Mandatory
(1 China Open + 3 Indian Wells +1 Madrid)
7 Premier 5 (3 Rome + 2 Canada Open + 2 Cincinnati)
10 Tier I
(2 Indian Wells, 1 Canada Open + 1 Rome, 1 Charleston + 5 Miami)
11 Tier II (2 Paris + 2 Los Angeles + 1 Hannover + 2 Tokyo + 1 Scottsdale + 1 China Open + 1 Lipsia + 1 Bangalore)
1 Grand Slam Cup
----------
63
OLYMPICS - SERENA: 1 Singles Gold (2012 - London). 3 Doubles Gold (2000 - Sydney / 2008 - Beijing / 2012 - London).

GRAF

22 Slam
5 YEC
18 Tier I
(7 Berlin + 4 Key Biscayne + 1 Philadelphia + 1 Tokyo + 2 Canada Open + 1 Boca Raton + 1 Rome + 1 Indian Wells)
27 Tier II (1 Amelia Island + 1 Boca Raton + 3 Brighton + 3 Delray Beach + 2 Hamburg + 1 Hilton Head + 1 Houston + 1 Indian Wells + 2 Leipzig + 2 Philadelpphia +1 Paris + 1 New haven + 2 San Diego + 1 Tokyo + 1 Washington + 1 Worcester + 3 Zurich)
----------
72
OLYMPICS - GRAF: 1 Singles Gold (1988 - Seoul), 1 Doubles Bronze (1988 - Seoul), 1 Singles Silver (1992 - Barcelona).
 
#12
you need to add the olympic gold for both. it is a huge title.
I know I'll never convince people otherwise, but why? It's less than a Tier 1/masters and has only been around since 1988 (well, that is 30 years now). I get it - it has extreme resonance because it's the freaking Olympics - the most casual of fans, even non-fans will be impressed by a tennis player winning Olympic Gold because of the status the Olympics has in sports generally. But, just as a tennis tournament, meh. 64 draw with per country participant limitations creates a sub Masters/Tier 1 tournament.

But, if the OP is including Tier IIs (??), I guess it makes sense.
 
Last edited:
#13
I know I'll never convince people otherwise, but why? It's less than a Tier 1/masters and has only been around since 1988 (well, that is 30 years now). I get it - it has extreme resonance because it's the freaking Olympics - the most casual of fans, even non-fans will be impressed by a tennis player winning Olympic Gold because of the status the Olympics has in sports generally. But, just as a tennis tournament, meh. 64 draw with per country participant limitations creates a sub Masters/Tier 1 tournament.

But, if the OP is including Tier IIs (??), I guess it makes sense.
It is much bigger and more prestigious than a regular Tier 1 atleast. Lets be real. Who cares about ranking points value alloted, as that is flawed as heck anyway as proved by the joke #1s, especialy in WTA, in recent years.
 
#14
It is much bigger and more prestigious than a regular Tier 1 atleast. Lets be real. Who cares about ranking points value alloted, as that is flawed as heck anyway as proved by the joke #1s, especialy in WTA, in recent years.
The Olympics is the long lived pinnacle of the sports world overall. Within tennis, it can only hold a second place to the majors and above that, winning the Grand Slam. No Tier 1 event will ever be in that conversation.
 
#16
SERENA WILLIAMS vs GRAF

Slam
23-22


YEC
5-5


Tier I
16-18 (Premier Mandatory : 6-0 and Tier I: 10-18)


Tier II
18-27 (Premier 5: 7-0 and Tier II : 11-27)


Grand Slam Cup
1-0
----------

63-72
I still continue on the comparison between Serena and Steffi because I am not convinced.

Wikipedia reports
- 26 Tier 1
- while in a subsequent table that seems to me to be more reliable, there are 18 Tier 1 (and 27 Tier 2) but does not include any title in Tier 1 until 1987.
Going deeper into 26 Tier 1 I don't think it makes sense, I exclude the 27 Tier 2 of Steffi (and 18 of Serena) because they are closer to the Masters 500 (so not Big Titles) but I should add some titles won by Steffi in 1986-87.

Looking at the prize money of won tournaments I would therefore add 10 Big Titles Virginia Slims:
1986 Hilton Head Island
1986 Amelia Island
1986 Indianapolis
1986 Tokyo
1986 Brighton
1987 Boca Raton
1987 Key Biscayne
1987 Hilton Head Island
1987 Amelia Island
1987 Los Angeles

GRAF

22 Slam
5 YEC
18 Tier I
(7 Berlin + 4 Key Biscayne + 1 Philadelphia + 1 Tokyo + 2 Canada Open + 1 Boca Raton + 1 Rome + 1 Indian Wells)
10 Virginia Slims
----------
55
 
#17
SERENA WILLIAMS vs GRAF

Slam
23-22


YEC
5-5


Grand Slam Cup
1-0


Tier I (Premier Mandatory, Tier I, Virginia Slims "high prize money")
16-28
----------
45-55
 
#18
A few clarifications to support.

Personally I am against considering olympic gold as a Big Title, it seems to me that many think differently and I accept this: in this case the two Olympic golds won by the two stars should be added together.

Many consider only the slams, others only slam and YEC, others slam+YEC+olympic gold ... for me it's ok.
I think that the "Tier 1" instead have a very high value (like the Masters 1000 for men ).
 
#19
NAVRATILOVA

18 Slam
8 YEC
24 Tier I

------------
50 and counting…

1993 Tokyo
1990 Chicago
1990 Hilton Head
1989 Eastbourne
1989 Los Angeles
1989 Toronto
1989 Worcester
1988 Washington
1988 Amelia Island
1988 Hilton Head
1988 Worcester
1986 Los Angeles
1986 Worcester
1986 Dallas
1986 New York
1985 Orlando
1985 Worcester
1985 Dallas
1985 Boca Raton
1984 Amelia Island
1984 Orlando
1983 Hilton Head
1983 Orlando
1983 Toronto

Since 1982, going back in time, the situation is more complex because there are two circuits: Avon and Toyota.
 
Last edited:
#20
NAVRATILOVA

18 Slam
8 YEC
24 Tier I

------------
50 and counting…

1993 Tokyo
1990 Chicago
1990 Hilton Head
1989 Eastbourne
1989 Los Angeles
1989 Toronto
1989 Worcester
1988 Washington
1988 Amelia Island
1988 Hilton Head
1988 Worcester
1986 Los Angeles
1986 Worcester
1986 Dallas
1986 New York
1985 Orlando
1985 Worcester
1985 Dallas
1985 Boca Raton
1984 Amelia Island
1984 Orlando
1983 Hilton Head
1983 Orlando
1983 Toronto

Since 1982, going back in time, the situation is more complex because there are two circuits: Avon and Toyota.
1982 Washington (AVON)
1982 Montreal (TOYOTA)
1982 Hilton Head (TOYOTA)
1981 Orlando (TOYOTA)
1980 Chicago (AVON)
1980 Los Angeles (AVON)
1980 Oakland (AVON)
1980 Dallas (AVON)
1980 Orlando (TOYOTA)
1980 Tokyo (Lion's Cup) (not sanctioned)
1979 Atlanta
1978 Washington (VIRGINIA SLIMS)
1978 Houston (VIRGINIA SLIMS)
1978 Los Angeles (VIRGINIA SLIMS)
1978 Chicago (VIRGINIA SLIMS)
1978 Seattle (VIRGINIA SLIMS)
1978 Detroit (VIRGINIA SLIMS)
1978 Kansas City (VIRGINIA SLIMS)
1977 Washington (VIRGINIA SLIMS)
1977 Houston (VIRGINIA SLIMS)
1977 Minneapolis (VIRGINIA SLIMS)
1977 Detroit (VIRGINIA SLIMS)
1976 Houston (VIRGINIA SLIMS)
1975 Washington (VIRGINIA SLIMS)
1975 Boston (VIRGINIA SLIMS)

18 Slam
8 YEC
49 Tier I
------------
75
 
Last edited:
#21
SERENA WILLIAMS vs GRAF vs NAVRATILOVA

Slam
23-22-18


YEC
5-5-8


Grand Slam Cup
1-0-0


Tier I (Premier Mandatory, Tier I, Virginia Slims/Avon/Toyota "high prize money")
16-28-49
----------
45-55-75
 
#24
SERENA WILLIAMS vs GRAF vs NAVRATILOVA

Slam
23-22-18


YEC
5-5-8


Grand Slam Cup
1-0-0


Tier I (Premier Mandatory, Tier I, Virginia Slims/Avon/Toyota "high prize money")
16-28-49
----------
45-55-75
A few observations on these data.
I don't want to prove that the 3 old female champions are > Graf and Serena, what I want to do is compare the 5 stars as much as possible ... then everyone is free to think of it as they think (only slams are worth , only the slams are valid but not those of Margie Court, the Gold Olympic is also valid ...).

What you notice is that
- Graf has won some Tier 1 more than Serena and
- Martina has won an exorbitant number of Tier 1.

Serena was probably more interested in slams or Serena's competition was greater because there were all the great opponents while some of the Tier 1 tournaments won by Martina didn't see Evert's participation (the same could happen for Evert).
It seems quite clear that while
- Serena was focusedalmost on slams,
- Steffi focused on slams but also on Tier 1,
- Martina had the focus on Tier 1 and slams because... in Tier 1 she shoots like a machine gun.
 
#25
1982 Washington (AVON)
1982 Montreal (TOYOTA)
1982 Hilton Head (TOYOTA)
1981 Orlando (TOYOTA)
1980 Chicago (AVON)
1980 Los Angeles (AVON)
1980 Oakland (AVON)
1980 Dallas (AVON)
1980 Orlando (TOYOTA)
1980 Tokyo (Lion's Cup) (not sanctioned)
1979 Atlanta
1978 Washington (VIRGINIA SLIMS)
1978 Houston (VIRGINIA SLIMS)
1978 Los Angeles (VIRGINIA SLIMS)
1978 Chicago (VIRGINIA SLIMS)
1978 Seattle (VIRGINIA SLIMS)
1978 Detroit (VIRGINIA SLIMS)
1978 Kansas City (VIRGINIA SLIMS)
1977 Washington (VIRGINIA SLIMS)
1977 Houston (VIRGINIA SLIMS)
1977 Minneapolis (VIRGINIA SLIMS)
1977 Detroit (VIRGINIA SLIMS)
1976 Houston (VIRGINIA SLIMS)
1975 Washington (VIRGINIA SLIMS)
1975 Boston (VIRGINIA SLIMS)

18 Slam
8 YEC
49 Tier I
------------
75
I just checked 1975 and the prize money for both Boston and Washington is 75000$, just like countless other tournaments that year, which all of them were held in USA.
No way they were Tier 1 and no way Navratilova has 49 tier 1 titles.
 
Last edited:
#27
EVERT

18 Slam
4 YEC
?? Tier I
------------
??
Tier I
1988 LOS ANGELES
1987 HOUSTON
1987 DALLAS
1986 KEY BISCAYNE
1986 BOCA RATON
1985 HILTON HEAD
1985 TORONTO
1984 HILTON HEAD
1984 MONTREAL
1983 PALM BEACH
1983 AMELIA ISLAND
1982 AMELIA ISLAND
1981 BOSTON
1981 AMELIA ISLAND
1980 INDIANAPOLIS
1980 TORONTO
1979 LOS ANGELES
1979 CARLSBAD
1978 PHILADELPHIA
1978 HILTON HEAD
1978 ATLANTA
1978 MINNEAPOLIS
1978 TOKYO EMERON CUP
1977 PALM SPRINGS
1977 HOLLYWOOD
1977 SEATTLE
1977 CHICAGO
1977 LOS ANGELES
1977 PHILADELPHIA
1977 HILTON HEAD
1977 AUSTIN
1976 WASHINGTON
1976 DETROIT
1976 SAN FRANCISCO
1976 SARASOTA
1976 AMELIA ISLAND
1976 PHOENIX
1976 TOKYO GUNZE
1975 VS SAN FRANCISCO
1975 VS AKRON
1975 VS HOUSTON
1975 AMELIA ISLAND
1975 NEW YORK
1975 HILTON HEAD (NO WTA)
1975 ATLANTA
1975 MISSION VIEJO
1975 ORLANDO
1974 VS MISSION VIEJO
1974 VS FORT LAUNDERDAL
1974 VS DALLAS
1974 VS HOUSTON
1973 FORT LAUNDERDALE
1973 AKRON
1973 SARASOTA
1973 ST. PETERSBURG
1972 INDIANAPOLIS
1972 VS FORT LAUNDERDALE
1971 ST. PETERSBURG

18 Slam
4 YEC
58 Tier I
------------
80
 
Last edited:
#29
SERENA WILLIAMS vs GRAF vs NAVRATILOVA vs EVERT

Slam
23-22-18-18


YEC
5-5-8-4


Grand Slam Cup
1-0-0-0


Tier I (Premier Mandatory, Tier I, Virginia Slims/Avon/Toyota "high prize money")
16-28-49-58
----------
45-55-75-80
 
#31
SERENA WILLIAMS vs GRAF vs NAVRATILOVA

Slam
23-22-18


YEC
5-5-8


Grand Slam Cup
1-0-0


Tier I (Premier Mandatory, Tier I, Virginia Slims/Avon/Toyota "high prize money")
16-28-49
----------
45-55-75
I don't follow how you are coming up with 16 Big Titles for Serena outside of Slams when she has 23. She also has 8 Miami titles instead of 5. Then you are adding titles to Graf's totals that weren't even considered big titles. You also are adding the titles for Rome and Canada for Graf but subtracting Rome, Canada and Cincy titles from Serena's total. How can this be accurate? Also, Navratilova with 49 Tier 1 titles and Evert with 58? :unsure:
 
#32
I don't follow how you are coming up with 16 Big Titles for Serena outside of Slams when she has 23. She also has 8 Miami titles instead of 5. Then you are adding titles to Graf's totals that weren't even considered big titles. You also are adding the titles for Rome and Canada for Graf but subtracting Rome, Canada and Cincy titles from Serena's total. How can this be accurate? Also, Navratilova with 49 Tier 1 titles and Evert with 58? :unsure:
It may be that I was wrong but I can think of 16 Big titles for Serena outside of the Slams (and the YEC) because they are the ones that turn out to be analyzing all the years since 1999.
I repeat it may be that I am wrong but
- Serena has 8 Miami titles instead of 5 .... but I counted them 8 titles;
- Rome is not Tier I (except for a year);
- Canada is not Tier I.
It's not my fault if she deserted IW for so many years and if she focused more on slams.
 
#33
It may be that I was wrong but I can think of 16 Big titles for Serena outside of the Slams (and the YEC) because they are the ones that turn out to be analyzing all the years since 1999.
I repeat it may be that I am wrong but
- Serena has 8 Miami titles instead of 5 .... but I counted them 8 titles;
- Rome is not Tier I (except for a year);
- Canada is not Tier I.
It's not my fault if she deserted IW for so many years and if she focused more on slams.
Rome has been Tier 1 for decades. It was the biggest title outside of the Slams, and is still the biggest clay title outside of RG. I cannot see how this is not considered a tier 1 from your standpoint. Canada is also top tier. I think you are getting lost in Premier and Tier 1 namesakes.
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
#34
COURT

24 Slam
0 YEC
?? Tier I
------------
??
Court won 3 Italian Championships, which in that era was a near slam. She also won 2 amateur US championships in 68 and 69. Though they were called amateur most of the top pros played as well. Not sure what other tournaments back then would be considered tier 1. Many of the VS tournaments were important back then. I don't think the YEC was an event for most of her career.
 
#35
COURT

24 Slam
0 YEC
?? Tier I
------------
??
1961:
Beckenham
Queen’s


1962
Sydney Mainly Seaside (Sydney)
Rome
Bristol
Philadelphia
Orange
Essex Ch. (Manchester)
Brisbane
Adelaide
Sydney
Melbourne


1965:
Beckenham
Wimbledon
Edgbaston
Hamburg
Brisbane
Melbourne (Victorian Ch.)
Sydney


1966:
Hamburg

1968:
Boston
Berkeley
London (Bristish Covered Court Ch.)


1969:
Houston River Oaks
Bournemouth
Bristol
Philadelphia
Boston
Berkeley


1970:
New York (Vanderbilt MSG)
Philadelphia (US Pro Indoor)
Bournemouth
Bristol
Merion Pennsylvanya
Toronto


1971:
Bournemouth


1972:
Virginia Slims Newport
Virginia Slims Albany
Cincinnati


1973:
Virginia Slims Oakland
Virginia Slims Los Angeles
Virginia Slims Washington
Virginia Slims Miami
Virginia Slims Detroit
Virginia Slims Chicago
Virginia Slims Richmond
Virginia Slims Philadelphia
Virginia Slims Boston
Virginia Slims Jacksonville
Virginia Slims Nashville
Virginia Slims Allaire
Virginia Slims Newport


1975
Virginia Slims Chicago


24 Slam
0 YEC
53 Tier I
----------------
77
 
#36
SERENA WILLIAMS vs GRAF vs NAVRATILOVA vs EVERT vs COURT

Slam
23-22-18-18-24


YEC
5-5-8-4-0


Grand Slam Cup
1-0-0-0-0


Tier I (Premier Mandatory, Tier I, Virginia Slims/Avon/Toyota "high prize money")
16-28-49-58-53
-------------------
45-55-75-80-77
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
#37
SERENA WILLIAMS vs GRAF vs NAVRATILOVA vs EVERT vs COURT

Slam
23-22-18-18-24


YEC
5-5-8-4-0


Grand Slam Cup
1-0-0-0-0


Tier I (Premier Mandatory, Tier I, Virginia Slims/Avon/Toyota "high prize money")
16-28-49-58-53
-------------------
45-55-75-80-77
Chances are that Court won the highest % of these championships that she entered, as he lost at least 2 years of her peak due to retirement and 2 pregnancies.
 

BTURNER

Hall of Fame
#38
Its a fascinating effort, but I suspect a futile enterprise here. I think you will find the process of determining some historically sound representation of 'Tier 1' and Tier 2' over fifty years and then comparing careers is incredibly daunting and inherently flawed. To fairly compare records, you have find a roughly equal number of highly competitive international opportunities through women's tennis history, when there were eras in which they barely existed outside of majors and eras where they were nearly biweekly affairs. The sport had a period of slow growth in the early sixties until real money started showing up during the tennis boom and then more tournaments than viewer and corporate sponsorship could support long-term so tournaments began to falter as competitors on the international stage, in fairly large numbers. After a period of attrition, we have the current tour. Court and Bueno, Evert and Navratilova and Serena Williams did not have the same number of opportunities to compete with internationally competitive fields outside the majors.

So you have to forego either equity in opportunity which makes the data meaningless, or dilute then strengthen your standards for qualification to provide for equal opportunity over these careers which makes it equally meaningless. Its just impossible.

But it is equally silly to see counting the majors and YEC's as some way around this dilemma , because that takes them outside of the historical context of their times as well.
 
Last edited:
#39
i see there are years for the older champions where the number of tier 1 titles won is more than the standard 9 tier 1 tournaments per year graf and serena had during their times. for example 1973 had 17 tier 1 titles. something doesn't make sense, making the numbers of the 3 older goat candidates quite doubtful.
 
#40
Yeah there is simply no way to directly compare by sheer numbers. The closest is slam count but even that is slightly unfair to some of the older champions for reasons already explained (with exceptions like Court where it in fact favors her as she vultured the then illegit Australian Open). So called Tier 1s or tournament titles is far more unfair to the newer champions than slam count is the older ones. As pat 200 some years where a player won double the tier 1s in a year that even exist on tour today. And there were many tournaments with only 3 rounds back then. Maybe the most accurate comparision is years as the #1, but even that would cause lots of dispute. That is why GOAT debates will always be a mix of objective info and subjective interpretation and opinions.
 

BTURNER

Hall of Fame
#41
Yeah there is simply no way to directly compare by sheer numbers. The closest is slam count but even that is slightly unfair to some of the older champions for reasons already explained (with exceptions like Court where it in fact favors her as she vultured the then illegit Australian Open). So called Tier 1s or tournament titles is far more unfair to the newer champions than slam count is the older ones. As pat 200 some years where a player won double the tier 1s in a year that even exist on tour today. And there were many tournaments with only 3 rounds back then. Maybe the most accurate comparision is years as the #1, but even that would cause lots of dispute. That is why GOAT debates will always be a mix of objective info and subjective interpretation and opinions.
and that still begs a broader question of priorities. These eras prioritized doubles, mixed doubles and international or team play differently and that changes how they spent their time, energy and focus. If winning a doubles major mattered more to one's standing than being a runner up in a smaller event, then players will spend more time and focus on their doubles game, and playing some doubles tournaments ( and there were more top doubles events back then) which compromises attention on singles venues near majors. Many great doubles teams literally planned part of their calender as a team, traveling to the same venues at the same time to perfect their games. They missed other opportunities in singles just as they did for planned time off the tour. If there is a huge cultural expectation around Fed Cup performance, players of that era will willingly sacrifice parts of their calender to succeed. Similarly WTT was broadly seen as a major avenue for the future of the sport rather than some third rate expression. Nowadays the high celebrity profile of the modern sport, means Court and Evert's time doing interviews, talk shows fighting the tabloid nature of modern international coverage, as spokeswomen for the sport was decidedly less than Serena's.
 
Last edited:

thrust

Hall of Fame
#42
Making is simple, from 61-73 Court was the ATG player. From 75-86 Evert and Martina were the ATG. From 87-96, Graf was the ATG. From 2002 till now of a couple of years ago, Serena was the ATG. It really is almost impossible to single out any one of these ATG players as the GOAT. Arguments can be made for either, therefore, they are equally great, IMHO.
 
#43
I have never really watched a lot of women tennis but it blows my mind thinking that Evert won 18 Slams, just as much as Navratilova. Evert looked soft and slow, while Martina was like the only aggressive and modern athlete female player (especially in the 80s) and she still lost so many times to Evert. Same with Graf, she was arguably the fittest player ever, yet she did so poorly from 1990 to 1994 (considering most women then were either chubby or just not on the same level, except for Seles), which should have been her peak years.
 
#44
I have never really watched a lot of women tennis but it blows my mind thinking that Evert won 18 Slams, just as much as Navratilova. Evert looked soft and slow, while Martina was like the only aggressive and modern athlete female player (especially in the 80s) and she still lost so many times to Evert. Same with Graf, she was arguably the fittest player ever, yet she did so poorly from 1990 to 1994 (considering most women then were either chubby or just not on the same level, except for Seles), which should have been her peak years.
Evert was a very smart, deceptively fast player who used power only when needed. She almost always knew where her opponents shots were going and where to place her return shots to the most difficult area of her opponents side of the court.
 
#45
Evert was a very smart, deceptively fast player who used power only when needed. She almost always knew where her opponents shots were going and where to place her return shots to the most difficult area of her opponents side of the court.
I see. Would you call her the female version of Wilander? I have huge respect for Wilander because he seemed to be "perfect" while not having any lethal weapon yet no real weaknesses at all.
 
#47
I see. Would you call her the female version of Wilander? I have huge respect for Wilander because he seemed to be "perfect" while not having any lethal weapon yet no real weaknesses at all.
Wilander and Rosewall would be good examples. Power and great serving are not all that matters, though they can help-LOL!
 
#48
I have never really watched a lot of women tennis but it blows my mind thinking that Evert won 18 Slams, just as much as Navratilova. Evert looked soft and slow, while Martina was like the only aggressive and modern athlete female player (especially in the 80s) and she still lost so many times to Evert. Same with Graf, she was arguably the fittest player ever, yet she did so poorly from 1990 to 1994 (considering most women then were either chubby or just not on the same level, except for Seles), which should have been her peak years.
Evert gets a bum rap on 'power': Shriver said that in the wooden racquet era only Austin hit harder than Evert. Shriver also said that Evert had much harder groundstrokes than Navratilova in the mid-late 80s when BOTH were using metal/graphite racquets.
 
#49
Taking into consideration only the 5 female champions (without recovering the unbeatables Lenglen or Connolly or the phenomenal Seles amputated by a blade) the question summing up seems to me quite clear and easy in the end.

Court demolished everyone, won more big titles of all (except perhaps Martina and Chrissie), has 24 slams, the GS (1970) dominated, stopped playing, dominated, stopped playing, dominated, stopped definitely. The only negative aspect I find is that the real opponent (Bueno) may have had some serious problems, King was very strong but not of Level 1.

Navratilova and Evert have only won 18 slams (especially Chrissie has missed so many, some at the RG in a safe) but have won more than all the other three in terms of big titles.
They did not interrupt their career as a Court but had a level 1 opponent for many years (Chrissie for Martina and the opposite). And this IMHO weighs so much.

Graf has 22 slams, one less than Serena. But he won more Big Titles. And he won a GS (1988). She had the misfortune of having an opponent of Level 1 who massacred her for a while then she was lucky that a razor got her out of the way.

Serena has won an incredible amount of slam. But it's not the record for now. Did not make the GS. He won few Big titles compared to the others 4.
He did not have King or Evert, Navratilova or Seles as his opponents.

Without the media push Serena is 5th.
 
Last edited:
#50
Taking into consideration only the 5 female champions (without recovering the unbeatable Lenglen or Connolly or the phenomenal Seles amputated by a blade) the question summing up seems to me quite clear and easy in the end.

Court demolished everyone, won more big titles of all (except perhaps Martina and Chrissie), has 24 slams, the GS (1970) dominated, stopped playing, dominated, stopped playing, dominated, stopped definitely. The only negative aspect I find is that the real opponent (Bueno) may have had some serious problems, King was very strong but not of Level 1.

Navratilova and Evert have only won 18 slams (especially Chrissie has missed so many, some at the RG in a safe) but have won more than all the other three in terms of big titles.
They did not interrupt their career as a Court but had a level 1 opponent for many years (Chrissie for Martina and the opposite). And this IMHO weighs so much.

Graf has 22 slams, one less than Serena. But he won more Big Titles. And he won a GS (1988). She had the misfortune of having an opponent of Level 1 who massacred her for a while then she was lucky that a razor got her out of the way.

Serena has won an incredible amount of slam. But it's not the record for now. Did not make the GS. He won few Big titles compared to the others 4.
He did not have King or Evert, Navratilova or Seles as his opponents.

Without the media push Serena is 5th.
At her best, Bueno was awesome but somewhat inconsistent. One year in the early sixties she had hepatitis and was out of the game for several months. From the mid sixties her body became weaker and weaker with various injuries. Court was a more powerful version of Evert, with a better net game but not quite as good a baseliner as Chris. Until Chris came along, I doubt Court played many or any players with two handed backhands. Chris and Connors, I think, changed the nature of the game with their two handed backhands.
 
Top