I was surprised by the Venus are head and shoulder better than Evert and goolagong on grass statement as well. Venus was pretty much dealing with almost exclusively baseliners, and most of her career was on the slower grass at Wimbledon.
Don't see how a close loss to Graaf is supposed to be an argument on her behalf. Anybody that followed Graf's career could tell that she was well past her best by then. In her very next match after Williams, she barely beat a 17-year old that never really did a lot. The year before, Graf lost to Zvevera of all people.
It also never occurred to men that people would think that Henin or Williams would have been number 1 over Court, King, Evert, and Navratilova. In their primes, they were clearly better players than Henin or Williams ever were. We shouldn't have to argue about that.
The one year that Goolagong did not really have deal with at least two of those four was 1972, when Court didn't play much and Evert was still pretty early in her career. However, as luck would have it for Goolagong, King probably had the best year of her career in 1972. No way that Henin or Williams would have #1 over King that year.
As for Bueno, yes she reached number 1. However, that was before Court and King reached their best. Once that happened, Bueno never did it a gain.
Yes, you can argue that Bueno (0r Williams and Henin for that matter) had 7 GS titles that were more prestigious than Goolagong's. That's fair enough.
But Goolagong still won a lot more overall titles than Henin and Williams and even more than Bueno.
Goolagong also reached 18 GS finals; more than the other three.
Goolagong probably had the very worst luck of any great player as far as competition goes. She had 4 of the top 10 to deal with, and in their primes. Nobody else had to deal with that. Plus (except for 1972) she had at least 2 of them to deal with.
However, Goolagong was not dominated by them. she won five GS finals against one of them.
In 1971, Goolagong beat King in the SF, and Court in the Final at Wimbledon.
In 1972, Goolagong beat Evert in the SF, only to lose to King in the F at Wimbledon.
In 1974, Goolagong defeated Evert in the SF, only to lose to King in the F of the U.S. Open
In 1975, Goolagong beat Court, only to lose to King in the F at Wimbledon.
No, she was not as good as Court, King, Evert, or Navratilova. However, she won often enough to be considered a serious threat and a great player in her own right.
Goolagong has to be pretty close to Bueno, Williams, and Henin.
When we do these kind of comparisons, we all need to look at what helps a player's case, as well what hurts it.
As for the first part of your statement any all time best grass courters list would have Venus higher than Evert and Goolagong. Tennis Magazine which is mostly run by close personal friends of Evert, years ago had Venus 3 spots higher than Evert ranking the best grass courters of all time, and Goolagong lower than Venus. A more neutral publication would likely have an even bigger gap (to Evert) but I digress. Steve Flink who is not only an extremely close personal friend, but also is the biggest Evert worshipper on the planet, and was called out by Navratilova, Austin and others for his biased ITF rankings that always gave Evert the benefit of doubt, ranks Venus higher than Evert on grass; and while he never mentiond her I would strongly presume Goolagong as well. Now you are free to disagree as you want but I am very comfortable saying I believe, like virtualy every expert, and 90% of people, that Venus ranks higher than both of those women on grass. Venus btw played in an insanely hard grass court era full of huge hitters, playing against Serena, Sharapova, Davenport, Mauremso, Henin, and numerous others. Goolagong only faced Evert and an aging King, since as discussed in other threat she was hardly a true contemporary of Martina, probably even less than Martina was of say Graf, and still only could win 2 Wimbledons. Evert was stopped often by Navratilova, so unlucky in that, but beyond that (and Goolagong) faced a very weak field, and atleast 2 of her 3 draws to the Wimbledon title were a joke. I am not entirely sure what Venus accomplishes on grass in Goolagong's, but I am comfortable saying if you think Goolagong or Evert wins 5 or 6 Wimbledons in Venus's era, I have a large bridge for sale. As noted above hypotheticals are silly anyway, but you are the one who wanted to play that game so here we go.
Henin was #1 in a couple of years SERENA was in her prime. If she can do that it is stupid to just expect people to automatically agree with you that she (or Venus) could never be #1 in a year Court, King, or Evert were playing tennis. It clearly irritates you that is not the case as you thought everyone would just go along with you. Your thought logic is that of a complete novice and simpleton: "a 7 slam winner could never be #1 over an 18 slam winner, or even a 12 slam winner", yet we know 3 slam winner Murray was YE#1 in a year over peak Djokovic (2016), the 24 slam winner and GOAT, and nearly ranked above him in some other years in Djokovic's complete prime. Heck I have seen some ranking lists that had Venus or Henin higher than King, I personally disagree with that, but I have seen a few of them. So of course it isn't impossible for a player of that calibre to be #1 in a year over a player like King, when as you constantly point out in your attempts to mock Graf, Sanchez ended a year #1 over Graf (well she in fact didn't, but you clearly think she did and repeated it numerous times so lets go along with that) when the gap between Graf and Sanchez as players is WAY larger, like an ocean larger, than between King or either Venus or Henin. And for that matter even much bigger than the gap from Venus or Henin to Evert or Navratilova. Or for that matter the gap between Djokovic and Murray. Or either Venus or Henin and Serena, yet both have eclipsed her to be #1 in her prime numerous times. So your entire line of thinking and easy conclusions you want is flawed and completely wrong, and not the swaying argument you thought it would be. Especialy when as I said 3 of the 4 majors were on grass in those years, and to suggest Venus especialy could never be #1 in any of those years when she is (despite that you think) a better grass courter than both Goolagong and Evert, and atleast on par with someone like King, is completely wrong. If anything Venus would have a higher likliehood to be #1 in that era than her own which focused more on slower surfaces and a quantity over quality like ranking system. Lastly Austin was #1 or #2 for significant periods of time over Evert and/or Navratilova in their primes, yet it would be impossible for Henin or Venus!?!?!? Or are you going to argue Austin is better/greater than Venus or Henin, please do as I can always use a great laugh. As I said you want people to just assume none of these other women could do it simply since Evonne wasn't good enough to do it. Bueno btw was #1 in 1964 over a peak Court, along with winning 3 of the 4 US Opens/Wimbledons in 63 and 64, then even past her prime shared the #1 ranking with King in 66, a year Court was also played although she ended it a few months before its conclucsion. So we don't even have to speculate on her. She already did what Goolagong wasn't good enough to do, and there isn't even a made up hypothetical you can try and use against her to favor Evonne either, like you can attempt to do with Venus and Henin.
You are clearly biased to players of that era which literally all your posts make clear, so I won't indulge in you further. Looking at some of your other comments I wouldn't be surprised if you tried to argue King or even Goolagong should be ranked higher than Serena or Graf, in fact if the topic ever came up I am 100% sure you would fight for it. Except that nearly everyone disagrees with you in any of the comments so far, and there is probably good reason for that.
