lobsterrush
New User
It seems fairly common consensus that Navratilova rates above Evert all time. I am not sure if that is right or wrong, I could see arguments both ways.
I think the reason most side with Martina is her 13 match win streak against a still primeish Chris showed she was flat out the better player when she was playing well. I can agree on that. I have no doubt Martina at her very best is a better tennis player than Chris at her very best, except maybe on clay. Still when you break down their careers Chris's is equal in many ways, and more impressive in many ways. The Open Era record (now shared with Serena at the U.S Open) at both the French and U.S Opens. 10 finals at her worst surface at Wimbledon. She has to be placed over Martina in consistency (by a country mile) and surface versatility. Arguably in longevity too since while people praise Navratilova's longevity, the fact is all her 9 non Wimbledons were from 82-87 and 15 of her 18 slams. Compare that to Chris who won atleast 1 slam for 13 straight years. Had the ranking system been in place starting in 74, Chris would be ahead in weeks at #1, and is already tied/ahead in years at #1 as it is. Chris is well behind in WTC titles though, they are virtually tied in overall singles titles.
Another factor people seem to cherry pick and overlook is I see it brought up in defense of both Chris and Martina when comparing them to Court, Serena, or Graf is they only have way less slams since they didnt play the Australian and French each year. Well if you want to look at it that way and if this hypothetical what if REALLY matters and is what people should be judging then the reality is Chris likely has 24 or 25 slams if everyone had played the Australian and French in the 70s, while Martina probably only has 19 with only 1 Australian win the 2 years she won Wimbledon. So if that is truly relevant logic then Chris should be ranked higher than Martina for that alone. The fact most rank Martina higher as I already said, shows that isnt even truly relevant logic to most people as they apparently only care about it when it suits them, and is simply cherry picking as I said.
Chris is far ahead in slam finals and semis which should count for something in comparision to Martina, but part of that is what some hold against her, her fairly bad (for a legend) record in slam finals, and so so record in slam semis.
The reason I probably side with Martina slightly is doubles. I believe doubles should be relevant, especialy when the singles is very close as it is in this case. I am not sure if doubles would be enough to catch Martina up to the people who have a ton more singles slams and success in singles like Court, Serena, Graf, but in the case vs Chris where both have 18 slams and very close careers in singles, it probably makes the difference for me and trumps it for Martina. However in singles alone I think Chris would have a good case to be over Martina.
I think the reason most side with Martina is her 13 match win streak against a still primeish Chris showed she was flat out the better player when she was playing well. I can agree on that. I have no doubt Martina at her very best is a better tennis player than Chris at her very best, except maybe on clay. Still when you break down their careers Chris's is equal in many ways, and more impressive in many ways. The Open Era record (now shared with Serena at the U.S Open) at both the French and U.S Opens. 10 finals at her worst surface at Wimbledon. She has to be placed over Martina in consistency (by a country mile) and surface versatility. Arguably in longevity too since while people praise Navratilova's longevity, the fact is all her 9 non Wimbledons were from 82-87 and 15 of her 18 slams. Compare that to Chris who won atleast 1 slam for 13 straight years. Had the ranking system been in place starting in 74, Chris would be ahead in weeks at #1, and is already tied/ahead in years at #1 as it is. Chris is well behind in WTC titles though, they are virtually tied in overall singles titles.
Another factor people seem to cherry pick and overlook is I see it brought up in defense of both Chris and Martina when comparing them to Court, Serena, or Graf is they only have way less slams since they didnt play the Australian and French each year. Well if you want to look at it that way and if this hypothetical what if REALLY matters and is what people should be judging then the reality is Chris likely has 24 or 25 slams if everyone had played the Australian and French in the 70s, while Martina probably only has 19 with only 1 Australian win the 2 years she won Wimbledon. So if that is truly relevant logic then Chris should be ranked higher than Martina for that alone. The fact most rank Martina higher as I already said, shows that isnt even truly relevant logic to most people as they apparently only care about it when it suits them, and is simply cherry picking as I said.
Chris is far ahead in slam finals and semis which should count for something in comparision to Martina, but part of that is what some hold against her, her fairly bad (for a legend) record in slam finals, and so so record in slam semis.
The reason I probably side with Martina slightly is doubles. I believe doubles should be relevant, especialy when the singles is very close as it is in this case. I am not sure if doubles would be enough to catch Martina up to the people who have a ton more singles slams and success in singles like Court, Serena, Graf, but in the case vs Chris where both have 18 slams and very close careers in singles, it probably makes the difference for me and trumps it for Martina. However in singles alone I think Chris would have a good case to be over Martina.
