Comparing the 7 slam winners- Goolagong, Venus, Henin

[Hard Court]

This is factually untrue. There were no computer rankings back then but the vast majority of people deciding the rankings for the year in those days had Bueno #1 over peak Court for the year 1964.

An over the hill Bueno had split support for the #1 vs a prime King (and Court played that year too) for 1966. Although I feel King was #1 for that year it is still a fact the authorities that gave out official rankings some picked Bueno. And more importantly nearly all did for 1964, already disproving your claim.

Well, the rankings that I was going by had Court #1 and Bueno #2 in 1964.
For 1966, it was King #1, Court #2, and Bueno #3. Bueno turned 27 in 1966, so you can't use the "over the hill" excuse for that year.

I am sure both years were close. Similar to 1971, where the rankings I have seen have it as King #1, Goolagong #2, and Court #3, with all three being very close.

- As for your point about Court usually being behind Williams, Graf, and Navratilova. This is mostly due to court playing much longer ago then the other three. (Over time, Navratilova's support will keep slipping.) Most people can't fathom the thought that the best player played before their time. It is incomprehensible to many people.
What usually happens in sports when someone from way back had better statistics? the statistics get ignored.
The Australian Open is the perfect excuse.
Lets just not include Court's 11 titles there. That leaves her behind the other three. Nothing more to see here right?

Well of course there is. Some of Court's Australian Open titles were against weak fields. However, some were not. King, Bueno, Goolagong etc did play them from time to time. You have to look at each of them on a case-by-case basis.
Same with Goolagong's four Australian titles. A couple had weak fields but not all of them.

Something else to consider is this: even if you complete discount a player form way back's Australian open are you going to make some kind of adjustment when comparing them to a more modern players who played in an era Australian Open titles do count? If you do, you are not being fair. You can't count the top 4 tournaments of one player's career against the top 3 of another's.

And are we giving Williams a free pass for all of those titles she won after Henin, Davenport, Clijster's etc. had left?
How about Graf cashing in after Seles got stabbed? - Lastly, the small titles have to count for something. How many more titles would Venus Williams and Henin had won if they had to play one less round. Maybe a few more, but they certainly would still be behind Goolagong. And again, Goolagong did win a few more than even Bueno.
The non-Grand slam tournaments have to be a factor in rating players. The players are playing for prize money, rankings, reputation and their pride.

 

[BTURNER]

Well, the rankings that I was going by had Court #1 and Bueno #2 in 1964.
For 1966, it was King #1, Court #2, and Bueno #3. Bueno turned 27 in 1966, so you can't use the "over the hill" excuse for that year.

I am sure both years were close. Similar to 1971, where the rankings I have seen have it as King #1, Goolagong #2, and Court #3, with all three being very close.

- As for your point about Court usually being behind Williams, Graf, and Navratilova. This is mostly due to court playing much longer ago then the other three. (Over time, Navratilova's support will keep slipping.) Most people can't fathom the thought that the best player played before their time. It is incomprehensible to many people.
What usually happens in sports when someone from way back had better statistics? the statistics get ignored.
The Australian Open is the perfect excuse.
Lets just not include Court's 11 titles there. That leaves her behind the other three. Nothing more to see here right?

Well of course there is. Some of Court's Australian Open titles were against weak fields. However, some were not. King, Bueno, Goolagong etc did play them from time to time. You have to look at each of them on a case-by-case basis.
Same with Goolagong's four Australian titles. A couple had weak fields but not all of them.

Something else to consider is this: even if you complete discount a player form way back's Australian open are you going to make some kind of adjustment when comparing them to a more modern players who played in an era Australian Open titles do count? If you do, you are not being fair. You can't count the top 4 tournaments of one player's career against the top 3 of another's.

And are we giving Williams a free pass for all of those titles she won after Henin, Davenport, Clijster's etc. had left?
How about Graf cashing in after Seles got stabbed? - Lastly, the small titles have to count for something. How many more titles would Venus Williams and Henin had won if they had to play one less round. Maybe a few more, but they certainly would still be behind Goolagong. And again, Goolagong did win a few more than even Bueno.
The non-Grand slam tournaments have to be a factor in rating players. The players are playing for prize money, rankings, reputation and their pride.

I agree with most of this. Her problem is not the Aussies she won (she would have won most of those anyway), its the Wimbledons she did not win. Its those 5 QF and SF losses out of 12 entries, which is more of a problem.

 

[insideoutforehanders]

I agree with most of this. Her problem is not the Aussies she won (she would have won most of those anyway), its the Wimbledons she did not win. Its those 5 QF and SF losses out of 12 entries, which is more of a problem.

Yes a grass court ultra great who won only 3 Wimbledons for whatever inexplicable reason. That is the main reason she is capped at 3rd or 4th at best in GOAT talks by most, not so many of her slams being in Australia. And it has nothing to do with recency bias as most still have Laver as mens GOAT, Nicklaus as the golf GOAT, etc... Just as Goolagong seen as the weakest of the 7 slam winners is not recency bias, it is since she is obviously the worst of these, and Bueno is far less recent than her anyway but seen as superior since she is.

 

[insideoutforehanders]

Well, the rankings that I was going by had Court #1 and Bueno #2 in 1964.
For 1966, it was King #1, Court #2, and Bueno #3. Bueno turned 27 in 1966, so you can't use the "over the hill" excuse for that year.

I am sure both years were close. Similar to 1971, where the rankings I have seen have it as King #1, Goolagong #2, and Court #3, with all three being very close.

- As for your point about Court usually being behind Williams, Graf, and Navratilova. This is mostly due to court playing much longer ago then the other three. (Over time, Navratilova's support will keep slipping.) Most people can't fathom the thought that the best player played before their time. It is incomprehensible to many people.
What usually happens in sports when someone from way back had better statistics? the statistics get ignored.
The Australian Open is the perfect excuse.
Lets just not include Court's 11 titles there. That leaves her behind the other three. Nothing more to see here right?

Well of course there is. Some of Court's Australian Open titles were against weak fields. However, some were not. King, Bueno, Goolagong etc did play them from time to time. You have to look at each of them on a case-by-case basis.
Same with Goolagong's four Australian titles. A couple had weak fields but not all of them.

Something else to consider is this: even if you complete discount a player form way back's Australian open are you going to make some kind of adjustment when comparing them to a more modern players who played in an era Australian Open titles do count? If you do, you are not being fair. You can't count the top 4 tournaments of one player's career against the top 3 of another's.

And are we giving Williams a free pass for all of those titles she won after Henin, Davenport, Clijster's etc. had left?
How about Graf cashing in after Seles got stabbed? - Lastly, the small titles have to count for something. How many more titles would Venus Williams and Henin had won if they had to play one less round. Maybe a few more, but they certainly would still be behind Goolagong. And again, Goolagong did win a few more than even Bueno.
The non-Grand slam tournaments have to be a factor in rating players. The players are playing for prize money, rankings, reputation and their pride.

There was a list on both wikipedia and Bud Collins encyclopedia that had a list of the expert #1s per year, especialy pre computer rankings. 9 out of 11 picked Bueno and only 2 picked Court for 64. Plus Bueno won both Wimbledon and the US Open that year which makes it pretty automatic. The only one in history who won Wimbledon and US Open and wasnt seen by nearly all as #1 for the year is Navratilova and Graf, where she won less than half the tournaments of Graf and had by an enormous margin a worse win percentage; and even then many argued for Martina. You can try lying but you know full well Bueno was clear #1 of 64, a year during one of Court's peak periods of 62-65, the other 69-mid 71; but are bending over to downplay Bueno, Henin, Venus, in everyway possible to try and brainwash people Goolagong who you must be related to or something to keep pushing this hard on, should be ranked #1 of these women. You are trying to tell people who disagree with you they are simpletons who don't understand tennis history like you supposably. Yet Bud Collins even had a ranking list come out before he died and Goolagong was lowest of these 4. Tennis Channel has her far below Venus and Henin, but virtually tied (37 and 38) with Bueno, which I think shows recency bias favoring Goolagong, Venus, Henin, and against Bueno. Tennis Magazine has her lowest of the 3 who are Open Era which did not include Bueno. John Barrett ranked Goolagong several spots below Bueno on his ranking list from the 90s. I guess they are also simpletons without your super advanced tennis knowledge to see Goolagong is the best 7 slam winner, some random nobody on a message board. LMFAO. And I agree we should form our own opinions and not just follow real experts but am answering to someone snobbish, self righteous and talking down to anyone who disagrees with him/ her, saying they don't understand tennis history and it is why they don't have Goolagong best of these like him/her when actual experts and 90 year old historians, some who are now dead, almost all don't even agree with his/her insisted "you are dumb if you don't get it" opinion.

 

[Hard Court]

Meant to respond to this sooner.
First of all, no reason to be hostile.
I know full well that Bueno was Bueno was #1 in 1964? well I just went of a book by Bud Collins. It had Court #1. Obviously, Bueno had a great year. Court did as well. Court won the Australian, the French, and the Italian as well. It had to have been pretty close. Just like in 1971 with Goolagong and Court and King. If you want to go with Bueno for 1964, fine. Doesn't make her much better than Goolagong. She was behind Court for the rest of Court's prime except for one year as was Goolagong.

I was not bending over to downplay Bueno, Williams and Henin or "brainwash" anyone. I use the same criteria to rate everyone. Grand Slams are the most important thing, but I also look at other tournaments, winning percentages, and happen to think it makes a difference if you were a runner up in a tournament or if you lost in the first round. That isn't downplaying anyone. I am just stating facts. and the facts are that Goolagong's record is very comparable to other three.

I certainly am willing to see what tennis historians have to say. but I also think for myself and I think everyone should. Sometimes some players are overrated or underrated. Happens in all sports.
Have never even said that Goolagong was better than the other three. I have just said that all four are very close.
This is not being self-righteous at all.
Never said anyone is 'dumb if they don't get it" or anything like that at all.

As for bias, well I can barely even remember Goolagong playing. I was a very casual fan and can faintly remember her winning Wimbledon in 1980. That's about it. I do love sports history. sometimes the players that I have seen a lot of are better than someone mostly or entirely before my time and sometimes not. In this case, I think that a player before my time (Bueno) a player mostly before my time (Goolagong) and two much more recent players (Henin and Willaims) are all pretty close, and I have said why.

 

[martinezownsclay]

Best singles career:

1. Henin
2. Bueno
3. Venus
4. Goolagong

Best combined singles/doubles career:

1. Venus
2. Bueno/Henin
4. Goolagong

Best actual player (for their time)

1. Venus
2. Henin
3. Bueno
4. Goolagong

 

[PDJ]

Best singles career:

1. Henin
2. Bueno
3. Venus
4. Goolagong

Best combined singles/doubles career:

1. Venus
2. Bueno/Henin
4. Goolagong

Best actual player (for their time)

1. Venus
2. Henin
3. Bueno
4. Goolagong

I didn't realise Henin even played doubles? What did she win? I know both Bueno and Goolagong-Cawley have quite a few doubles titles. Indeed the latter achieved a Grand Slam.

 

[martinezownsclay]

I didn't realise Henin even played doubles? What did she win? I know both Bueno and Goolagong-Cawley have quite a few doubles titles. Indeed the latter achieved a Grand Slam.

I know she did squat all in doubles, that is why I dropped her from 1st in singles to joint 2nd adding doubles. Singles is still far more important than doubles mind you, so even giving some credit to doubles, so clearly having the best singles career of these 4 it makes sense she still wouldn't drop to outright last even in a combined singles/doubles list, just no longer the clear 1st she would be evaluating only their careers in singles. Just as Federer would still be far above McEnroe even in a combined singles/doubles list, despite that his doubles career is nada, and McEnroe having a great career in both.

 

[pierceforehands]

I didn't realise Henin even played doubles? What did she win? I know both Bueno and Goolagong-Cawley have quite a few doubles titles. Indeed the latter achieved a Grand Slam.

Nobody who matters plays doubles anymore. It is pretty irrelevant in todays game, sadly as I enjoy watching doubles and even playing it myself, but that is reality. Venus and Serena only play it due to being sisters and it being so fun to play together, otherwise they barely ever would too.