Does Chris Evert have a legitimate case to be the GOAT

illusions30

Banned
I know most dont believe Chris Evert is the GOAT. Most these days believe it is Graf, with some believing Navratilova or Serena (ridiculously in Serena's case at this point). Hardly anyone seems to believe Wills Moody, Court or Evert even is the possible GOAT anymore, maybe top 3, but almost nobody has them #1.

However even though you probably dont think Chris is the GOAT my question is would there be a possible case that she is. Even if you like most believe it is Graf or Navratilova, do you believe a valid argument could be made that it is Chris Evert, and if so based on what.

Personally I think Evert, Wills, and Court are all underrated in GOAT talks these days, especialy Evert and Wills, and that you could legitimately make a case for each as the GOAT as well.

For Evert her case would be:

-Only player to hold 2 Open Era Slam records.
-All time best consistency marks.
-Only player to win a slam 13 straight years.
-While the slam marks of Court (especialy) and to a lesser degree perhaps Graf are boosted by a unique circumstance, Evert probably lost out on atleast an additional 5 majors by not playing the Australian and French Opens in the 70s. Court should probably have 18 slams at most, Graf 20 at most, and Evert 22 or more.
-Making 10 finals on her worst surface. Only Graf in the 3 surface era possibly surpasses her in versatility.
-In terms of longevity only Court and Serena possibly surpass her.
-Probably faced the toughest competition of any all time great player ever, peaking in the golden age in the 70s, then past her prime dealing with peak Navratilova in the 80s.


I am not neccessarily saying I believe Evert is the GOAT, but I do believe you could make the argument she is and not be crazy, but these days I get the impression if you said flat out you thought Chris was the greatest ever people would laugh at you. I do think you could legitimately argue Evert as the greatest ever, even if you dont neccessarily believe she is.
 

BTURNER

Legend
Here's her case.

34 major finals in her career more than any woman

1971 US Open -1987 Wimbledon Championships semifinalist or better in 48 of all 49 Grand Slams she entered during her first 16 years on the tennis circuit, ( only upset loss was to K Jordan in '83 wimbledon) this includes her 34 consecutive semifinal appearances in her first 34 majors)

13 consecutive years of winning 1+ title Stands alone

Reached 52 semi-finals (92.8%) and 54 quarterfinals (96.4%) out of 56 Grand Slams entered Stands alone

Only player male or female, to reach singles semi-final or better in each of first six Majors entered First 6 RG, First 6 Wimb, First 6 US Open, First 6 Australian

First player to reach five consecutive singles finals of each Major Stands alone

First and only woman to gain 7 RG singles titles, and tied w/ Graf for most RG finals

Only woman to win 6 US Open singles titles or 4 consecutive titles.

Only woman to win 31 consecutive matches and 46 consecutive sets at the US Open

Only person to gain 101 singles victories at the Open and 16 consecutive semifinal appearances and the highest win loss percentage at 89.38% matches won

More runner up finishes at Wimbledon than anyone (7 times) alongside her three wins for 10 finals reached

Only person to reach the finals of every aussie she entered. (6 entries = 6 finals) and a 14 year gap between her first and last final

125 consecutive clay court match victories from '73 RG final loss to Court to '79 Italian loss to Austin almost 4 years later, longest such surface streak by either gender , followed by third longest winning streak on clay by any man or women in the Open Era, winning 64 matches straight. She didn't lose again until the '81 French Open, for 189-1 match record on clay surface court. (Rafael Nadal won 81 in a row in 2007!) Chris still has the top 2 longest streaks of the women however. She ends with a 94.03% w/l career record on clay, the highest such career percentage on any surface.

From 1971-1989 she left the game with a 90.05 career w/l record including all professional, tournament and fed cup matches the highest in the modern professional era of any man or woman. (There are claims that Court was closer to 95% but that includes her amateur years and Pro years and both Wills and Lenglen have damn close to 98%.) Graf actually has a highest professional career w/l record in the 4 Majors at 89% matches won. Evert is at 88% of career major matches won.

1972-1988 17 consecutive years ranked inside the top four Stands alone

Evert was the first woman to reach over 1000 match victories, 150 career tournament wins, and a 1,000,000.00 in tournament prize money.

Evert won more than half of the tournaments she entered throughout her 20 year career, made the finals in 76% of them, and made at least the semifinals in 90% of all the events she entered.

Evert was never ranked lower than either #1 or #2 during the entire years span of 1974 through 1986 in the year-end rankings

Not saying she was GOAT (She sure is on the short list), but she was undoubtedly the most consistent champion from day one in 1971, until she retired after the Open in 1989. She rarely played a bad match and very rarely lost to someone outside the top ten from the time she was 16 years old, through 34 years old.

Oh I definitely think Evert has a fine GOAT record. Its all about how you weigh your criteria and what priorities you set as to whether you like Martina Records over Everts. It is especially important to be clear what you do with doubles. I am real big on looking at the whole career rather than 'peak play' but I suspect I am in the minority There are two reasons I put martina over Evert. 1. Evert failed to win a big match over Martina at Wimbledon since 1981 while Martina got two over Evert at RG. 2. I'd be accused of blatant favoritism and its not worth the argument.

I do get testy when folks pretend there is this chasm between Evert and Martina when in fact they have the same number of majors, played mostly in the same era, against the same the same opponents etc. usually those folks are worshipers of the Goddess Wimbledon.

Neither Evert nor Navratilova make the final leap over Graf because each is a little too top-heavy on slow/ fast surfaces compared to Steffi. It just would not make any difference if the tournament was on grass, clay or marbles. That is a big deal to me too.
 
Last edited:

illusions30

Banned
I guess in a certain sense you could say both the most consistent (even more than Evert) and most dominant (ever more than Graf and Navratilova) over a very long career were Lenglen and Wills who went almost their whole careers losing 1 match each, but that was in such a different time it is hard to accurately compare them.
 

BTURNER

Legend
I guess in a certain sense you could say both the most consistent (even more than Evert) and most dominant (ever more than Graf and Navratilova) over a very long career were Lenglen and Wills who went almost their whole careers losing 1 match each, but that was in such a different time it is hard to accurately compare them.

Wills lost the following matches.
1922 vs Molla Mallory at Forest Hills
1924 vs Kitty McKane at Wimbledon
1926 vs Suzanne lenglen at Carlton Club Cannes
1933 Helen Jacobs at Forest Hills

There is also a second loss mentioned vs Kitty Mckane and a loss to Elizabeth Ryan but no specifics are offered by Wiki.

Lenglen lost the following matches
1914 to Marguerite Broquedis at RG (closed event)
1914 to Elizabeth Ryan at Monte Carlo
1921 t0 Mallory at Forest Hills
 
Last edited:

illusions30

Banned
Wills lost the following matches.
1922 vs Molla Mallory at Forest Hills
1924 vs Kitty McKane at Wimbledon
1926 vs Suzanne lenglen at Carlton Club Cannes
1933 Helen Jacobs at Forest Hills

There is also a second loss mentioned vs Kitty Mckane and a loss to Elizabeth Ryan but no specifics are offered by Wiki.

Lenglen lost the following matches
1914 to Marguerite Broquedis at RG (closed event)
1921 t0 Mallory at Forest Hills

Wow only 6 losses in slams for both combined their whole careers. Pretty incredible, even if the competition in womens tennis was somewhat dire back then (especialy when Lenglen played, womens tennis was beginning to gain a footing by the 2nd half of the Wills era I believe).
 

Indio

Semi-Pro
Illusions 30, I see that you've named Novotna as one of your favorites. Was she a serve-and-volleyer? If so, that would probably make her the last successful one among the women.
 

CEvertFan

Hall of Fame
She has a legitimate case to be considered GOAT, along with Navratilova (my pick), Graf and Court. You could argue a legitimate case for any of these four ladies because all their records are astounding in their own ways.

The reason I don't have Evert over Navratilova is the same reason that BTurner has - she couldn't beat Navratilova in a Wimbledon or US Open final in the 80s and got taken down twice at the French by Martina. If she had won even one of those Wimbledon or US Open finals over Navratilova then it would be a different story. I also focus on results rather than peak play - anyone can play one match where they are "in the zone" but consistent results are the backbone to a great career.

To say Serena is a GOAT candidate does a disservice to the truly greatest women champions the game has ever seen but that's an argument for another thread...
 

CEvertFan

Hall of Fame
Illusions 30, I see that you've named Novotna as one of your favorites. Was she a serve-and-volleyer? If so, that would probably make her the last successful one among the women.

I'd have to say that Novotna was the last pure serve/volley player among the women that we've seen. There is just too much power in the women's game these days, plus it's harder to learn how to be a successful net rusher.
 

illusions30

Banned
She has a legitimate case to be considered GOAT, along with Navratilova (my pick), Graf and Court. You could argue a legitimate case for any of these four ladies because all their records are astounding in their own ways.

The reason I don't have Evert over Navratilova is the same reason that BTurner has - she couldn't beat Navratilova in a Wimbledon or US Open final in the 80s and got taken down twice at the French by Martina. If she had won even one of those Wimbledon or US Open finals over Navratilova then it would be a different story. I also focus on results rather than peak play - anyone can play one match where they are "in the zone" but consistent results are the backbone to a great career.

To say Serena is a GOAT candidate does a disservice to the truly greatest women champions the game has ever seen but that's an argument for another thread...

My order of the top 4 is different than the consensus too. The consensus at this point I believe is:

1. Graf
2. Navratilova (although for every 6 people that have Graf as GOAT 4 or 5 would have Navratilova, so not a big difference in consensus)
3. Court
4. Evert

My personal order though is probably:

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

I agree you could argue the top 4 in any order though. You could argue Wills Moody as the GOAT or atleast top 4 also if you wanted, but most leave her out due to her era.

The reason I have Navratilova last of those 4 is I believe her record is a bit Wimbledon heavy, and not as balanced as the other 3. I also dont believe she mantained a top level of play (I mean a fairly regular slam winning or dominant 1 or 2 in the World level) as long as the other 3 did.


I agree Serena shouldnt be a GOAT candidate yet, but some are talking about her in that vein. Whether they really believe that or it is hype to draw in viewers, who knows.
 

YaoPau

Rookie
illusions, I thought you made a good case in another thread that Evert's quality of competition was more difficult than Navritilova's, in that when Evert was truly dominant there were a handful of strong players at the top. With similar stats overall to Navritilova, while dominating against harder competition, I'd think it would be reasonable to put her ahead of her rival. Navritilova has the slight H2H edge, but she really packed it on late in their careers.

Here's another way to look at it: if Evert retired at the end of 1978, she would've retired with a 24-6 H2H record vs Navritilova, with 5 straight years at #1, while winning 8 of her last 12 Slams against a field that spanned parts of the primes of King, Navritilova, Goolagong, and Wade. With that alone, Evert would have Borg-esque career, dominant but short. Navritilova likely would've gone on to rack up an ungoldy number of Slams and be #1 on most GOAT lists. But many would say that Evert was the better player.

Instead, Evert keeps playing, and plays at a historically good level for that age range - arguably better than anybody in history besides Navritilova. Over the next 8 years, she finished #1 in world twice, #2 in the world six times, then for good measure finished 3rd in years 8 and 9. She won 10 more majors, reached 22 more Slam finals, and from 1971 to 1987 she lost before the SFs of Slam one time. Yeah Navritilova turned the tide hard in the H2H, but she didn't start dominating Evert until 1982 when Evert was 27, which is the same year Steffi Graf stopped dominating. If Graf kept playing as Long as Evert and got thoroughly dominated by a rival, would that hurt Graf? And does that make sense?

IMO Evert and Navritilova are neck and neck. If you want to put Graf, or Serena, or Lenglen ahead of them for some reason then I think that's legitimate too, but I think any of them are viable GOATs depending on your definition.
 

illusions30

Banned
Oddly enough I think Navratilova wouldnt even be considered a strong GOAT candidate at all had Evert retired say after Wimbledon 81. Navratilova was only denied 2 or 3 slams by Evert past that point- 82 Australian, 85 French, and maybe but not for sure 86 French. However with 20 or 21 slams, no Grand Slam still, and no Evert while she racked up almost all her slams she would be seen as literally having no competition at all, and packing almost all her career into a 6 year window after Evert, King, Goolagong, Austin were ALL gone, and before Graf emerged. Remember she could only win 2 slams for herself before turning 25, and before now hypothetically Evert retires at the same time Austin flames out with injury and soon retires, and when Graf emerged Navratilova won almost no more slams, so naturally what would people have concluded (although thanks to Evert and seeing how great Nav. was those years to do what she did to even the great Evert we know with the benefit of hindsight and reality would have been wrong). She wouldnt even be considered in the same league as Graf, Court, Wills, and probably even Evert despite Evert retiring with only 12 slams.

Evert greatly boosts Navratilova's legacy, and Martina should be incredibly thankful Evert did play all those years, which she didnt have to do.
 

chjtennis

G.O.A.T.
I really feel for Seles whenever this topic is raised. My favorite female player in the 80s and 90s was Graf and I actually hated Seles for all her antics, but looking back, she could've been really special player in the history of women's tennis and nowadays I really feel sorry for her.

On the topic though, I think Evert is one of the greatest players ever, but I must go with the general consensus and rate Graf at the top, then Navratilova, then Court, then Evert.
 

AngieB

Banned
I'd have to say that Novotna was the last pure serve/volley player among the women that we've seen.
Never truer words.
There is just too much power in the women's game these days, plus it's harder to learn how to be a successful net rusher.
Serve and volley tennis requires a great deal of service consistency and precision. It also requires strategic thinking. Both are largly absent from the women's game today.

AngieB
 

PDJ

G.O.A.T.
Personally, I've always rated Evert the best of my living memory. I think her achievements are incredible, but (again IMO) what sets her apart is her sheer class on court. No histrionics. She let her racket do the talking aside from the odd steely glance. That said, I would not argue against the cases for the other women mentioned. Exception being Williams which I can't, at this moment in time, take seriously.
I was interested to read that Evert is the only player to make 5 consecutive slam finals in each major. that I did not know and thought was inaccurate until I totted the years/event in my head. Impressive.
 

DMP

Professional
She has a legitimate case to be considered GOAT, along with Navratilova (my pick), Graf and Court. You could argue a legitimate case for any of these four ladies because all their records are astounding in their own ways.

The reason I don't have Evert over Navratilova is the same reason that BTurner has - she couldn't beat Navratilova in a Wimbledon or US Open final in the 80s and got taken down twice at the French by Martina. If she had won even one of those Wimbledon or US Open finals over Navratilova then it would be a different story. I also focus on results rather than peak play - anyone can play one match where they are "in the zone" but consistent results are the backbone to a great career.

To say Serena is a GOAT candidate does a disservice to the truly greatest women champions the game has ever seen but that's an argument for another thread...

Agree with virtually all of what you write. I always say that personally I cannot split Court, Graf, and Navratilova because all have huge but different achievements. I put Evert very slightly behind those three because when push came to shove I thought she could be beaten by the better athlete (a bit like athletes who set world records, but then get beaten in important finals). But I completely understand why someone would pick her.
 

Xavier G

Hall of Fame
Chris Evert is probably the champion with the greatest consistency ever from a young age to finishing. She is most certainly one of the best women players ever and has the goods to be in the running for 'GOAT'. I give best ever to Martina, narrowly, but really, there's not much between them.
 

illusions30

Banned
I actually hated Seles for all her antics, but looking back, she could've been really special player in the history of women's tennis and nowadays I really feel sorry for her.

I think the best Seles would have ever reached is roughly 5th or 6th. I could only see her winning Wimbledon once at best, and atleast 3 Wimbledons would be required to be any kind of GOAT candidate. The womens game is totally different than the mens where someone can win only once at some venue and still be the possible GOAT.

I feel sorry for her in the sense that would be an awful thing to happen to anyone, but I was never on the Seles on her way to GOAT bandwagon.
 

jrepac

Hall of Fame
Here's her case.

34 major finals in her career more than any woman



13 consecutive years of winning 1+ title Stands alone

Reached 52 semi-finals (92.8%) and 54 quarterfinals (96.4%) out of 56 Grand Slams entered Stands alone

O

125 consecutive clay court match victories from '73 RG final loss to Court to '79 Italian loss to Austin almost 4 years later, longest such surface streak by either gender , followed by third longest winning streak on clay by any man or women in the Open Era, winning 64 matches straight. She didn't lose again until the '81 French Open, for 189-1 match record on clay surface court. (Rafael Nadal won 81 in a row in 2007!) Chris still has the top 2 longest streaks of the women however. She ends with a 94.03% w/l career record on clay, the highest such career percentage on any surface.


1972-1988 17 consecutive years ranked inside the top four Stands alone

Evert was the first woman to reach over 1000 match victories, 150 career tournament wins, and a 1,000,000.00 in tournament prize money.

Evert won more than half of the tournaments she entered throughout her 20 year career, made the finals in 76% of them, and made at least the semifinals in 90% of all the events she entered.

Evert was never ranked lower than either #1 or #2 during the entire years span of 1974 through 1986 in the year-end rankings


Oh I definitely think Evert has a fine GOAT record. Its all about how you weigh your criteria and what priorities you set as to whether you like Martina Records over Everts. It is especially important to be clear what you do with doubles. I am real big on looking at the whole career rather than 'peak play' but I suspect I am in the minority There are two reasons I put martina over Evert. 1. Evert failed to win a big match over Martina at Wimbledon since 1981 while Martina got two over Evert at RG. 2. I'd be accused of blatant favoritism and its not worth the argument.

When you lay out all the numbers, Evert's accomplishments are tremendous. I've never really seen Steffi as being "head and shoulders" above her. I tend to put Martina on top, considering her amazing record in doubles and overall longevity. Certainly, Chris has a record worthy of GOAT consideration. I think Serena will ultimately wind up somewhere in that fantastic "Group of 4" when all is said and done.
 

illusions30

Banned
I think Serena would need atleast 22 slams to even be included amongst Graf, Navratilova, Evert, and Court, and 25 to have a real case as the GOAT above all 4. This given the holes in other areas of her career which she is trying to close up in her 30s.
 

jrepac

Hall of Fame
Never truer words.

Serve and volley tennis requires a great deal of service consistency and precision. It also requires strategic thinking. Both are largly absent from the women's game today.

AngieB

This is true; the girls today play "hit as hard as you can" tennis. I do wonder how Chris would cope with this style. Would she fold like Hingis did or find a way to counter it? I tend to think the latter.....
 

bluetrain4

G.O.A.T.
Here's her case.

34 major finals in her career more than any woman

1971 US Open -1987 Wimbledon Championships semifinalist or better in 48 of all 49 Grand Slams she entered during her first 16 years on the tennis circuit, ( only upset loss was to K Jordan in '83 wimbledon) this includes her 34 consecutive semifinal appearances in her first 34 majors)

13 consecutive years of winning 1+ title Stands alone

Reached 52 semi-finals (92.8%) and 54 quarterfinals (96.4%) out of 56 Grand Slams entered Stands alone

Only player male or female, to reach singles semi-final or better in each of first six Majors entered First 6 RG, First 6 Wimb, First 6 US Open, First 6 Australian

First player to reach five consecutive singles finals of each Major Stands alone

First and only woman to gain 7 RG singles titles, and tied w/ Graf for most RG finals

Only woman to win 6 US Open singles titles or 4 consecutive titles.

Only woman to win 31 consecutive matches and 46 consecutive sets at the US Open

Only person to gain 101 singles victories at the Open and 16 consecutive semifinal appearances and the highest win loss percentage at 89.38% matches won

More runner up finishes at Wimbledon than anyone (7 times) alongside her three wins for 10 finals reached

Only person to reach the finals of every aussie she entered. (6 entries = 6 finals) and a 14 year gap between her first and last final

125 consecutive clay court match victories from '73 RG final loss to Court to '79 Italian loss to Austin almost 4 years later, longest such surface streak by either gender , followed by third longest winning streak on clay by any man or women in the Open Era, winning 64 matches straight. She didn't lose again until the '81 French Open, for 189-1 match record on clay surface court. (Rafael Nadal won 81 in a row in 2007!) Chris still has the top 2 longest streaks of the women however. She ends with a 94.03% w/l career record on clay, the highest such career percentage on any surface.

From 1971-1989 she left the game with a 90.05 career w/l record including all professional, tournament and fed cup matches the highest in the modern professional era of any man or woman. (There are claims that Court was closer to 95% but that includes her amateur years and Pro years and both Wills and Lenglen have damn close to 98%.) Graf actually has a highest professional career w/l record in the 4 Majors at 89% matches won. Evert is at 88% of career major matches won.

1972-1988 17 consecutive years ranked inside the top four Stands alone

Evert was the first woman to reach over 1000 match victories, 150 career tournament wins, and a 1,000,000.00 in tournament prize money.

Evert won more than half of the tournaments she entered throughout her 20 year career, made the finals in 76% of them, and made at least the semifinals in 90% of all the events she entered.

Evert was never ranked lower than either #1 or #2 during the entire years span of 1974 through 1986 in the year-end rankings

Not saying she was GOAT (She sure is on the short list), but she was undoubtedly the most consistent champion from day one in 1971, until she retired after the Open in 1989. She rarely played a bad match and very rarely lost to someone outside the top ten from the time she was 16 years old, through 34 years old.

Oh I definitely think Evert has a fine GOAT record. Its all about how you weigh your criteria and what priorities you set as to whether you like Martina Records over Everts. It is especially important to be clear what you do with doubles. I am real big on looking at the whole career rather than 'peak play' but I suspect I am in the minority There are two reasons I put martina over Evert. 1. Evert failed to win a big match over Martina at Wimbledon since 1981 while Martina got two over Evert at RG. 2. I'd be accused of blatant favoritism and its not worth the argument.

I do get testy when folks pretend there is this chasm between Evert and Martina when in fact they have the same number of majors, played mostly in the same era, against the same the same opponents etc. usually those folks are worshipers of the Goddess Wimbledon.

Neither Evert nor Navratilova make the final leap over Graf because each is a little too top-heavy on slow/ fast surfaces compared to Steffi. It just would not make any difference if the tournament was on grass, clay or marbles. That is a big deal to me too.


I honestly think the view of a "chasm" comes from a very narrow variable - Evert's 4-10 record in Slam finals against Martina.

I'm not saying that this is right or wrong or that other factors shouldn't be considered when comparing their GOATness, but I do understand why many people naturally focus on this stat. When you have two players with equal number of majors, played many of the same players, overall have a fairly equal h2h, it's easy to look at major final h2h as a legit stat that really separates the players.
 

SCRAP IRON

Professional
A sad thing for me to witness was an aging Evert lose to Graff in the inaugural Women's Finals at Key Biscayne (Fl) in just 40 minutes.
 

muddlehead

Professional
13 straight yrs with a major is more notable because...

(I posted this before)
We all know Evert won at least one major for 13 straight years 1974 - 1986. Truly one of the best all time sports achievements. While watching Aussie Open this past week, someone brought up the feat is even more off the charts remarkable because in many years she only played two majors. Hmm. Had to check that. In five years she played all 4 majors. In five years she played 3 majors. In three years she played 2. There ya go...
She's my modern era singles goat.
Billie Jean - 39 total majors and Martina N - 59 total majors beat her in the overall modern goat category.
(special mention Little Mo who was 9/9 majors played between 1951 and 1954)
 
Last edited:

YaoPau

Rookie
I honestly think the view of a "chasm" comes from a very narrow variable - Evert's 4-10 record in Slam finals against Martina.

I'm not saying that this is right or wrong or that other factors shouldn't be considered when comparing their GOATness, but I do understand why many people naturally focus on this stat. When you have two players with equal number of majors, played many of the same players, overall have a fairly equal h2h, it's easy to look at major final h2h as a legit stat that really separates the players.

It doesn't really separate the players if their peaks came at different times. Evert had a normal prime, while Navritilova had such an extreme game that she was able to last longer. The H2H in Slam finals was essentially even until 1983.
 

bluetrain4

G.O.A.T.
It doesn't really separate the players if their peaks came at different times. Evert had a normal prime, while Navritilova had such an extreme game that she was able to last longer. The H2H in Slam finals was essentially even until 1983.

I agree, but I'm simply acknowledging that not everyone sees it this way. I understand why people focus on this stat. Not everyone takes such a nuanced view of things. Many people consider any match played during a player's career to have just as much value as any other match. Thus, things like a player's "prime" (which we talk about endlessly on TW to qualify records, results, h2hs, etc.) doesn't really come into play in their mind.
 

chicagodude

Hall of Fame
I'm guessing you're talking about singles play only, right?

For me, there is a case to be made for Evert as the goat in singles play, although it would be close with Graf and Navratilova imo. For overall goat, nobody imo comes close to Navratilova, her longevity and versatility combined with playing everything and winning everything there is, makes her almost unsurpassable for me. Serena would have to win 6-8 more single GSs to come close, and that is mainly because Serena has a fantastic doubles record.
 

BTURNER

Legend
I honestly think the view of a "chasm" comes from a very narrow variable - Evert's 4-10 record in Slam finals against Martina.

I'm not saying that this is right or wrong or that other factors shouldn't be considered when comparing their GOATness, but I do understand why many people naturally focus on this stat. When you have two players with equal number of majors, played many of the same players, overall have a fairly equal h2h, it's easy to look at major final h2h as a legit stat that really separates the players.

I see your point but it leads to a logic whereby Evert would have done better had she not reached as many Wimbledon finals or not showed up for the tournament. That's how Martina got away with those kinds of numbers. She reached the finals of the Open only once before 1983 (1981) whther it was played on Har-t
tru or hard courts, and reached the finals in RG only once (1975) before 1982. Martina wasn't showing up for her appointments when Evert did (34 finals is a record). The only place Evert had a chance to see her was on grass majors and the very consistency that was her trademark regardless of surface ends up becoming a ball and chain on her record.
 
Last edited:

BTURNER

Legend
I'm guessing you're talking about singles play only, right?

For me, there is a case to be made for Evert as the goat in singles play, although it would be close with Graf and Navratilova imo. For overall goat, nobody imo comes close to Navratilova, her longevity and versatility combined with playing everything and winning everything there is, makes her almost unsurpassable for me. Serena would have to win 6-8 more single GSs to come close, and that is mainly because Serena has a fantastic doubles record.

If you start including doubles and mixed the whole ranking changes. You've got Martina and Margaret, and then folks like Ever and Graf have to worry about folks like King, Louise Brough, and Margaret Dupont, and Shriver starts looking as good as Seles. It changes the whole complexion.
 

Readers

Professional
I feel Evert was wood goat without any doubt, had the tech stayed the same, she would have a better record than anyone. 25-30 slam I would say.

But the things is, unlucky for her that the biggest break though ever for tennis frame was right in middle of her career.
 

BTURNER

Legend
I am amazed at how much support she is getting. Someone needs to somehow make the case her record is better than Graf's. I have not heard it.
 

timnz

Legend
Here's an interesting question

Chris Evert was WTA number 1 for 260 weeks. That places her third in the WTA all time list.

The issue is that the WTA didn't start the rankings until Nov 3rd, 1975, but Evert was in most people's eyes number 1 for a lot of 1974 (World Tennis magazine (U.S.); Lance Tingay, The Daily Telegraph (London); John Barrett; Rino Tommasi; Tennis magazine (U.S.) - all rated her number 1 for 1974) and most of 1975 (44 weeks of the number 1 ranking she missed out on because they didn't start it until November).

So what would her true number 1 total weeks be? I think she would have had a good chance of being close to Navratilova's total of 332 weeks. (say 26 weeks for 1/2 of 1974 + 44 weeks for the first 10 months of 1975 + 260 weeks = 330 weeks).
 
Last edited:

YaoPau

Rookie
I am amazed at how much support she is getting. Someone needs to somehow make the case her record is better than Graf's. I have not heard it.

Ok I'll do the short version of it.

Federer made a ton of headlines for reaching 23 straight semifinals... he would've needed to essentially double that achievement to accomplish what Evert did. Over an 18 year period, Evert made the semifinals or better in 49 of the 50 Slams she entered. That's the most impressive record in tennis IMO.

Steffi's prime lasted only 10 years. And if you're into Slam counts, Steffi's was helped by her entering all but three Slams during her 10 year prime. Evert was arguably a top-3 player in the world from 1972-1988 (17 years), but she missed fifteen Slams over that time period. Considering most of those misses occurred during her period of dominance when she was winning half the Slams she entered, she could've left 5-10 Slams on the table had Slam counts been as important in her time as they are today.
 
Last edited:

BTURNER

Legend
Ok I'll do the short version of it.

Federer made a ton of headlines for reaching 23 straight semifinals... he would've needed to essentially double that achievement to accomplish what Evert did. Over an 18 year period, Evert made the semifinals or better in 49 of the 50 Slams she entered. That's the most impressive record in tennis IMO.

Steffi's prime lasted only 10 years. And if you're into Slam counts, Steffi's was helped by her entering all but three Slams during her 10 year prime. Evert was arguably a top-3 player in the world from 1972-1988 (17 years), but she missed fifteen Slams over that time period. Considering most of those misses occurred during her period of dominance when she was winning half the Slams she entered, she could've left 5-10 Slams on the table had Slam counts been as important in her time as they are today.

Here's one problem. Champions and would-be champions playing in majors is a good thing that should be rewarded. Evert chose not to participate in those 15 majors and thus accepted the risk. Here's the other. I'd have to take those majors away from the folks who won them, and engage in speculation, then hand the majors over to someone who did not show up, in order to get the number up. No can do. It is true that her consistency records including that 17 years and 13 years records are unequalled.
 

YaoPau

Rookie
Here's one problem. Champions and would-be champions playing in majors is a good thing that should be rewarded. Evert chose not to participate in those 15 majors and thus accepted the risk. Here's the other. I'd have to take those majors away from the folks who won them, and engage in speculation, then hand the majors over to someone who did not show up, in order to get the number up. No can do. It is true that her consistency records including that 17 years and 13 years records are unequalled.

Ridiculous argument IMO. You can only judge a player based on what players cared about in their time, and not only Evert but Martina and Goolagong were missing Slams every year too during that time. I mean, I guess you can decide to heavily weigh a modern metric and then penalize players of past generations who cared about other things, but that's pretty unfair don't you think?

A better option IMO is to not add Slams or take Slams away from anybody... just put things in context. How did Evert do in the tournaments she entered and cared about, and how did Graf do in the tournaments she entered and cared about? Both players were great, Evert was the best ever by some legitimate metrics, Graf the best ever by other legitimate metrics, and that's all the evidence we need to put Evert in the GOAT discussion. Each person has their own definition of GOAT, and if you consider longevity and consistency very important then Evert's a great choice.
 

BTURNER

Legend
Ridiculous argument IMO. You can only judge a player based on what players cared about in their time, and not only Evert but Martina and Goolagong were missing Slams every year too during that time. I mean, I guess you can decide to heavily weigh a modern metric and then penalize players of past generations who cared about other things, but that's pretty unfair don't you think?

A better option IMO is to not add Slams or take Slams away from anybody... just put things in context. How did Evert do in the tournaments she entered and cared about, and how did Graf do in the tournaments she entered and cared about? Both players were great, Evert was the best ever by some legitimate metrics, Graf the best ever by other legitimate metrics, and that's all the evidence we need to put Evert in the GOAT discussion. Each person has their own definition of GOAT, and if you consider longevity and consistency very important then Evert's a great choice.

I sort of see your point if you are actually redefining what was seen collectively as important with an eye for the time period, but I could care less what the individual player thought was important. Otherwise if Sally Smith decides the Virginia Slims of Oklahoma City was important and attends it every year and wins 6 of them with 1 other top ten player in the draw, well then its as good as Wimbledon.

Evert knew what constituted a 'grand slam' and a major and she started after it late in the game. She definitely cared because she talked about it as a part of her legacy. That is why she started to show up in the Aussie in the eighties. It was just too late for her. and it was a risk she took by not doing it earlier. That other champions did the same is not very relevant. Players often start to realize their sport shelf -life is finite in their mid twenties.

By the way while Evert has a slightly better career W/ L record than Graf. Graf's career w/ loss record at majors is the best in modern history with Evert a close second. They were both very consistent. The real difference was in their start date. Evert basically started at 16. Graf at 14. Had she waited a few years when she was physically able to compete with the big girls,her numbers would look better.
 
Last edited:

boredone3456

G.O.A.T.
She isn't considered GOAT for the following reasons:

Graf won 22 slams- many don't count Courts 24 because of the weak Aussie argument, so Grafs 22 is seen by most as the top mark.

Her losing record to Martina in major finals and the fact that she ended up with a losing h2h overall against Martina despite leading it 22-4 at one point. Plus Martina has beaten her ateast once in every major final. They have similar stats overall so those 2 things usually kill Chris.
 

Xavier G

Hall of Fame
boredone3456, you make some good points. Margaret Court's Australian total can be seen as inflated, and to a certain extent I agree. However, Court was a great player anyway, so I give her a lot of benefit of the doubt, and especially once the game went Open, that was a new era. Everyone knew it. If people didn't turn up, that's their problem. Court won 3 Wimbledon, 5 US and 5 French apart from her Australian. 4 of her AO were won in the Open era, 69, 70, 71 and 73 and she won a calender year Grand Slam in 1970. She won 6 GS in a row from the 69 US to the 71 AO AND she won three of the four Slams in 1969 and again in 1973.
All of this while usually playing doubles and mixed doubles too. Court won 190+ singles tournaments by some counts AND she took breaks from the game as well. Amazing winning percentage stats too. Court is Grand Slam singles leader and all these players records can be looked at, including Steffi's, who took charge again after the events of April 1993...

As for Chrissie, well, still an amazingly consistent and competitive player who might have won 25+ Slams if no World Team Tennis and if the AO hadn't taken a further dip in prestige in the mid to late 70's. She did win 18 and won 157 singles titles overall.
 
Last edited:

boredone3456

G.O.A.T.
boredone3456, you make some good points. Margaret Court's Australian total can be seen as inflated, and to a certain extent I agree. However, Court was a great player anyway, so I give her a lot of benefit of the doubt, and especially once the game went Open, that was a new era. Everyone knew it. If people didn't turn up, that's their problem. Court won 3 Wimbledon, 5 US and 5 French apart from her Australian. 4 of her AO were won in the Open era, 69, 70, 71 and 73 and she won a calender year Grand Slam in 1970. She won 6 GS in a row from the 69 US to the 71 AO AND she won three of the four Slams in 1969 and again in 1973.
All of this while usually playing doubles and mixed doubles too. Court won 190+ singles tournaments by some counts AND she took breaks from the game as well. Amazing winning percentage stats too. Court is Grand Slam singles leader and all these players records can be looked at, including Steffi's, who took charge again after the events of April 1993...

As for Chrissie, well, still an amazingly consistent and competitive player who might have won 25+ Slams if no World Team Tennis and if the AO hadn't taken a further dip in prestige in the mid to late 70's. She did win 18 and won 157 singles titles overall.

Oh I meant no disrespect to either Court or Chris. But the general consensus of many around Herr boil it down to that. Either could be called GOAT.
 

YaoPau

Rookie
To BTURNER (for some reason the Quote button isn't working for me right now)...

I sort of see your point if you are actually redefining what was seen collectively as important with an eye for the time period, but I could care less what the individual player thought was important. Otherwise if Sally Smith decides the Virginia Slims of Oklahoma City was important and attends it every year and wins 6 of them with 1 other top ten player in the draw, well then its as good as Wimbledon.

Totally agree.

But during Evert's time, Slam counts were not collectively important. Evert's period of dominance was 1975-1980. Here are the top players of that time range, the # of Australians, Frenches, Wimbledons, and US Opens they each played during that span.

0, 3, 6, 6 <- Evert. Total = 15/24
0, 1, 5, 2 <- King. Total = 8/24
0, 3, 6, 6 <- Wade. Total = 15/24
0, 1, 6, 6 <- Navritilova. Total = 13/24
5, 0, 5, 3 <- Goolagong. Total = 13/24

Graf during her prime played 36/39 majors, and obviously today Slam attendance is usually near-perfect for the top players.
 

kiki

Banned
I sort of see your point if you are actually redefining what was seen collectively as important with an eye for the time period, but I could care less what the individual player thought was important. Otherwise if Sally Smith decides the Virginia Slims of Oklahoma City was important and attends it every year and wins 6 of them with 1 other top ten player in the draw, well then its as good as Wimbledon.

Evert knew what constituted a 'grand slam' and a major and she started after it late in the game. She definitely cared because she talked about it as a part of her legacy. That is why she started to show up in the Aussie in the eighties. It was just too late for her. and it was a risk she took by not doing it earlier. That other champions did the same is not very relevant. Players often start to realize their sport shelf -life is finite in their mid twenties.

By the way while Evert has a slightly better career W/ L record than Graf. Graf's career w/ loss record at majors is the best in modern history with Evert a close second. They were both very consistent. The real difference was in their start date. Evert basically started at 16. Graf at 14. Had she waited a few years when she was physically able to compete with the big girls,her numbers would look better.

I agree with your assesement about what a player thinks or not of the importance of any tournament.

But it is also true that the main events may change from time to time.
 

BTURNER

Legend
She isn't considered GOAT for the following reasons:

Graf won 22 slams- many don't count Courts 24 because of the weak Aussie argument, so Grafs 22 is seen by most as the top mark.

Her losing record to Martina in major finals and the fact that she ended up with a losing h2h overall against Martina despite leading it 22-4 at one point. Plus Martina has beaten her ateast once in every major final. They have similar stats overall so those 2 things usually kill Chris.

Boredon I really don't see those stats as all that similar Martina has more matches, titles etc but she has a lot more early/late losses absorbed in those numbers. Martina was a better and more dominant 'peak' champion (82-87) while Evert was a better career champion . Martina was a late bloomer and hung around too long to collect her goodies. Evert stayed at #1,2, or #3 from 73 through 1988. I addressed the major final argument earlier I'll quote myself,

"...it leads to a logic whereby Evert would have done better had she not reached as many Wimbledon finals or not showed up for the tournament. That's how Martina got away with those kinds of numbers. They were only a year and 1/2 apart in age and Navratilova started to play in'73 rather than 71. She reached the finals of the Open only once before 1983 (1981) whether it was played on Har-tru or hard courts, and reached the finals in RG only once (1975) before 1982. Martina wasn't showing up for her appointments when Evert did (34 finals is a record). The only place Evert had a chance to see her was on grass majors and the very consistency that was her trademark regardless of surface ends up becoming a ball and chain on her record vs Martina."
 
Last edited:

BTURNER

Legend
To BTURNER (for some reason the Quote button isn't working for me right now)...



Totally agree.

But during Evert's time, Slam counts were not collectively important. Evert's period of dominance was 1975-1980. Here are the top players of that time range, the # of Australians, Frenches, Wimbledons, and US Opens they each played during that span.

0, 3, 6, 6 <- Evert. Total = 15/24
0, 1, 5, 2 <- King. Total = 8/24
0, 3, 6, 6 <- Wade. Total = 15/24
0, 1, 6, 6 <- Navritilova. Total = 13/24
5, 0, 5, 3 <- Goolagong. Total = 13/24

Graf during her prime played 36/39 majors, and obviously today Slam attendance is usually near-perfect for the top players.

You got me thinking, not conceding necessarily, but really thinking. (See Yaopau, I am a great Evert fan. Maybe I am overcompensating. bending over backwards not to jump to a conclusion I like)
 

PDJ

G.O.A.T.
Navratilova had some shocking results earlier in her career. And by shocking, I mean she was seeded, and her various opponents were not. Evert rarely lost before a semi final. I fail to see why Evert's h2h with Navratilova when meeting in major tournaments should be such a factor when she couldnt always play her as she was already knocked out! I appreciate this changed from the early 80s, but Evert was still, mostly, making finals.
 

kiki

Banned
Just exactly like men, since the circuit was structured much like the male´s one, there were two very big indoor majors that, in the 70´s and 80´s had slam like status: The Avon Finals ( equivalent of WCT Finals) and the VS /Toyota Series Championships ( equivalent to the GP Masters).Both have to be very well considered and powndered in this never ending debate.In fact, except some years when the AO ( again like men) was at the level of the other three traditional GS tournaments, I´d tend to rank players basing on their results at FO,USO,W , Avon and VS Finals.Once again, much like I do with the men of the 1970´s and 1980´s.In fact, like men, some FO would even be behind the two indoor championships...
 

Chico

Banned
Chris Evert is way more legitimate GOAT than Graf. But I would put Navratilova and Court ahead of her.

I know most dont believe Chris Evert is the GOAT. Most these days believe it is Graf, with some believing Navratilova or Serena (ridiculously in Serena's case at this point). Hardly anyone seems to believe Wills Moody, Court or Evert even is the possible GOAT anymore, maybe top 3, but almost nobody has them #1.

However even though you probably dont think Chris is the GOAT my question is would there be a possible case that she is. Even if you like most believe it is Graf or Navratilova, do you believe a valid argument could be made that it is Chris Evert, and if so based on what.

Personally I think Evert, Wills, and Court are all underrated in GOAT talks these days, especialy Evert and Wills, and that you could legitimately make a case for each as the GOAT as well.

For Evert her case would be:

-Only player to hold 2 Open Era Slam records.
-All time best consistency marks.
-Only player to win a slam 13 straight years.
-While the slam marks of Court (especialy) and to a lesser degree perhaps Graf are boosted by a unique circumstance, Evert probably lost out on atleast an additional 5 majors by not playing the Australian and French Opens in the 70s. Court should probably have 18 slams at most, Graf 20 at most, and Evert 22 or more.
-Making 10 finals on her worst surface. Only Graf in the 3 surface era possibly surpasses her in versatility.
-In terms of longevity only Court and Serena possibly surpass her.
-Probably faced the toughest competition of any all time great player ever, peaking in the golden age in the 70s, then past her prime dealing with peak Navratilova in the 80s.


I am not neccessarily saying I believe Evert is the GOAT, but I do believe you could make the argument she is and not be crazy, but these days I get the impression if you said flat out you thought Chris was the greatest ever people would laugh at you. I do think you could legitimately argue Evert as the greatest ever, even if you dont neccessarily believe she is.
 

PDJ

G.O.A.T.
I think, that this thread has revisited the many plus arguments to say there is a very good case to say Evert is the GOAT. There are also some sensible arguments to say she is not. On balance, I would say to see her accomplishments listed its perfectly acceptable to be of the opinion that she is the GOAT. However, where she is not helped is by Evert herself who doesnt always remember her own accomplishments, and speaks maybe too highly of her 'rivals' both past and present. I'm not saying that Evert doesn't realise how good she was, of course she does, but I think that same tenacity and awareness of her own ability whilst playing has not translated upon retirement over the years. Navratilova appears to take exception to not being singled out and Graf rarely comments full stop. I hope the above makes sense.
 

CEvertFan

Hall of Fame
I think, that this thread has revisited the many plus arguments to say there is a very good case to say Evert is the GOAT. There are also some sensible arguments to say she is not. On balance, I would say to see her accomplishments listed its perfectly acceptable to be of the opinion that she is the GOAT. However, where she is not helped is by Evert herself who doesnt always remember her own accomplishments, and speaks maybe too highly of her 'rivals' both past and present. I'm not saying that Evert doesn't realise how good she was, of course she does, but I think that same tenacity and awareness of her own ability whilst playing has not translated upon retirement over the years. Navratilova appears to take exception to not being singled out and Graf rarely comments full stop. I hope the above makes sense.

I look at it that she's just being gracious when talking about the younger players. Serena may or may not be better than Evert, but Serena's records aren't even in the same league as Evert's, except for majors won where Serena only has one less right now. In every other area Evert has far superior records.

I think she feels like it would be in bad taste and kind of tacky to just come out and say that she was the best ever or to even throw her name out there for consideration. Not her style.
 

PDJ

G.O.A.T.
I look at it that she's just being gracious when talking about the younger players. Serena may or may not be better than Evert, but Serena's records aren't even in the same league as Evert's, except for majors won where Serena only has one less right now. In every other area Evert has far superior records.

I think she feels like it would be in bad taste and kind of tacky to just come out and say that she was the best ever or to even throw her name out there for consideration. Not her style.

And that for me, is why she is the most gracious champion of the open era, GOAT or not.
 
M

monfed

Guest
Certainly the hottest GOAT candidate, has aged very well, love those legs!
 
Top