hewittfan3
Rookie
hmmmmmmmm?
forget who the best was, who was the worst?
- Thread starter hewittfan3
- Start date
grafrules
Banned
Chris O Neill is the worst since such a career nobody (for pro standards I mean of course) winning what is deemed a "grand slam title" is just so horrible it makes me cringe. Of course that was possible because of what the Australian Open really was around that time.
Monique Viele is the another worst since she campaigned herself as a future superstar whom the age restrictions were unfair to keep her off tour, when she was a complete nobody, only played a bit on the pro tour and was a complete bust.
That French guy who lost to Sampras in the 1st round of the French Open in 2001 is the worst since he couldnt even get his own country fans to cheer for him in the biggest match of his life as they rallied Sampras to a win to delay his inevitable early departure from Roland Garros only one more match, and the only time he will ever be heard of again.
Monique Viele is the another worst since she campaigned herself as a future superstar whom the age restrictions were unfair to keep her off tour, when she was a complete nobody, only played a bit on the pro tour and was a complete bust.
That French guy who lost to Sampras in the 1st round of the French Open in 2001 is the worst since he couldnt even get his own country fans to cheer for him in the biggest match of his life as they rallied Sampras to a win to delay his inevitable early departure from Roland Garros only one more match, and the only time he will ever be heard of again.
Last edited:
boredone3456
G.O.A.T.
I am not sure what you mean by worst...but worst players to win a grand slam title for me would be the following:
Iva Majoli- She beat Hingis...spoiling her big for the calender slam...than fizzles out slowly for the rest of her career until fading into the background, she for me is the definition of lucky slam winner...like mauresmo with her austrailian open win.
Chris O'Neil- Really...who was she again? as ranked like...70 or something when she won the austrailian then never did anything after that. Kinda a no name slam winner in Grand Slam winner History.
Anastasia Myskina- ok...she won the french..then lost inthe first round there the following year. other than that major she never made a major impact at any other slam. she won a few small titles but suffer major losses to lower ranked players and now she is injured and apparently pregnant...never a big name among slam winners...least not to me.
I am sure I could come up with others if I thought about it, but those are off the top of my head
Iva Majoli- She beat Hingis...spoiling her big for the calender slam...than fizzles out slowly for the rest of her career until fading into the background, she for me is the definition of lucky slam winner...like mauresmo with her austrailian open win.
Chris O'Neil- Really...who was she again? as ranked like...70 or something when she won the austrailian then never did anything after that. Kinda a no name slam winner in Grand Slam winner History.
Anastasia Myskina- ok...she won the french..then lost inthe first round there the following year. other than that major she never made a major impact at any other slam. she won a few small titles but suffer major losses to lower ranked players and now she is injured and apparently pregnant...never a big name among slam winners...least not to me.
I am sure I could come up with others if I thought about it, but those are off the top of my head
my_forehand
Professional
If he won a grand slam, how could he be the worst?
You can't really have the worst player...either in the world or in the ATP (I suppose you were talking about the ATP)
In terms of rankings, there are about 350-360 players (357 if I'm correct-just did a search) who have 1 ATP point.
Last edited:
spiritdragon
Rookie
well, if ur asking for the worst, u could just say some random kid that sux at tennis? u need to be more specific.
grafrules
Banned
Chris O' Neil is a "she", not a "he". :twisted: The fact many a tennis fan might not even know that pretty much says it all right there.
my_forehand
Professional
You owned me right there.
CEvertFan
Hall of Fame
LOL, I knew who she was.
And you are probably right about her being the worst player ever to win a Slam title.
grafrules
Banned
Although I shouldnt go beating a dead horse, the fact this victory occured at the Australian Open as 1978, is a perfect example to what we mean when we suggest there is legitimacy to how Court's Australian Open titles are devalued by many people.
CEvertFan
Hall of Fame
Even tennis experts like Steve Flink devalue Court's 11 Australian Open titles.
And I quote:
"Court’s percentage is greatly inflated by the weak fields she played against at the Australian Championships/Open which she won 11 times. Court could have made it to the final of many of those events blindfolded because the competition was so weak along the way." - Steve Flink
IanRichardson
Semi-Pro
no brainer: roger federer, of course
followed by a close second, andy roddick, rafael nadal... i think that covers all of the major hater groups on here
this thread needs more of a criteria insofar as I couldnt win a point off of any of the "worst pro's" but at the same time there are plenty of people who are worse at tennis than me. Also if you want to talk about the worst pro of all time, you need to specify what qualifies you as a pro. For example, some college players play tournaments and get ranking points while in college, but it never pans out. So does that make those players the worst players of all time? I think you should say something like "who was the worst player to ever be in the top 100" or something like that.
followed by a close second, andy roddick, rafael nadal... i think that covers all of the major hater groups on here
this thread needs more of a criteria insofar as I couldnt win a point off of any of the "worst pro's" but at the same time there are plenty of people who are worse at tennis than me. Also if you want to talk about the worst pro of all time, you need to specify what qualifies you as a pro. For example, some college players play tournaments and get ranking points while in college, but it never pans out. So does that make those players the worst players of all time? I think you should say something like "who was the worst player to ever be in the top 100" or something like that.
slice bh compliment
G.O.A.T.
[B said:
Hewitt, Lleyton ;-)
suwanee4712
Professional
Now Steve Flink isn't exactly the most unbiased historian around. He's Chris' personal historian and was close enough to her that he got family box seats at the US Open and MSG. Not that he isn't a fine writer and decent guy. I'm just sayin.......
Margaret did win 4 Aussie titles while defeating Bueno, King, and Goolagong in the finals. So it's not like all of her Aussie titles were won against nobodys. Even if you took away 7 of her Aussie titles she would still only have one less slam than Chris and Martina. But to be fair, you'd also have to take away at least 2 of Chris' French titles that were won against similar fields.
Me personally, I wouldn't discount any of Margaret's Aussie titles nor any of Chris' French titles. Because who was going to beat them in those years anyway?
Margaret dominated Bueno and King. And Goolagong was a step down from those players. And if Chris and Martina lost Aussie finals to Goolagong, they surely would've lost finals to Marge too.
Same with Chris and the French titles. Chris was the runaway #1 clay court player in the world. She would've most likely beaten any other player in Paris from 1974-1980, except perhaps Austin had she played the French.
Speaking of which, wouldn't it have been great to see Chris vs. Tracy in Paris for a title? It might've been just the right place and right time for Chrissie to beat Tracy for a slam title.
anointedone
Banned
Margaret never won more then 5 slam titles out of any of the French, Wimbledon, or U.S Open where full fields attended (especialy the latter two). At the Australian in a depleted field she won 11, coincidence? The Australian was played on grass, presumably Margaret's best surface, but she still managed only 5 U.S Opens on grass, and actually only 3 Wimbledons on grass (although she probably underperformed at Wimbledon for whatever reason). While it is true she had the upper hand on all her generation rivals including Bueno and King, not surprising given that she is the greatest player of her generation, they still had a fair # of wins over her in grand slams all the same. So I totally disagree with an assumption they would have taken none of her Australian Open titles away, and even Goolagong has beaten Court in a grand slam (just hammered her in the 71 Wimbledon final) and stretched her hard other times even in their relatively short period of playing near the top level together. Then you add the second tier of challengers who would very rarely beat Court but who have once in awhile beaten her in a slam, and you get maybe an upset here, maybe one there, and quite probably you are down around the 5 max she is at for each of the other 3 slams.
Last edited:
anointedone
Banned
I am thinking more likely it might have been just the right place for Tracy to add another slam or two outside the U.S Open, which it is a shame she never did. There was a point Chris was paralyzed with fear of Austin, and Austin was the one who broke her long clay court streak in early 1979 when her rise was just starting. I have a hard time thinking Tracy wouldnt have won atleast one of those years, maybe twice.
It's a perfect example if you're a complete and utter moron. Attempting to de-value Margaret Court's success at the Australian Open is merely a display of ignorance and bias that speaks volumes for a person's severely limited capacity for reason.
The very simple truth is that, if Court faced weaker opposition during a number of her Australian Open titles it's because certain of the other top players, most notably Billie Jean King, were too gutless to face her on her home courts. It's no coincidence that when King did decide to play the Aus Open (the year she won) it was only when she knew that Court would be playing her first tournament in 18 months. Any other time she just didn't have the guts to go all the way to Australia and face the best player in the world. She waited until the only home court advantage was in her favour, and still lost.
Margaret Court deserves every one of her 11 Australian Opens because she not only beat, through the quality of her play, all of the players who turned up, she beat the ones who wouldn't show, through sheer intimidation.
As I've said before, if Margaret Court were American we'd never be having this discussion and she'd be recognised, along with Graf, as one of the two best female singles players in the history of the game and the best all-around player ever to pick up a racquet.
anointedone
Banned
Dream on. Court's record is devalued to the Australian Open and Graf's is devalued due to the stabbing. Thus Evert and Navratilova are very much in the discussion for best ever, and would be even if all 4 players were American. Of course if Court were an American instead of Australian she would almost certainly not have played the Australian Open in the 60s and 70s like everyone else and not come anywhere near her 24 slams anyway.
King could only beat Court on her own home court? I guess you forgot about King's victories over Court at Wimbledon. Only the guts to show up in Australia when Court was just coming back from a layoff? She came back the very next year and lost to Court in the final when Court had been back over a year by then so that claim is also completely unfair on your part.
So do you consider such respected individuals as Steve Flink, Fred Stolle, Mary Carillo, Tracy Austin, Pam Shriver, to all merely display ignorance and bias that speaks volumes for of their severely limited capacity for reason. Since they have all said the same thing as well. Oh yeah Stolle is an Australian as I am sure you know.
Who else are you including in the charge of gutless, specifically?
This is not a good example, because by 1978 the Australian Open had moved to December and was at an alltime low in terms of quality. Margaret Court beat some fine players to win those titles, far, far better players than Chris O'Neill.
boredone3456
G.O.A.T.
it was not that king and others were gutless...it was for them a long and out of the way trek to play in austrailia all the time when the austrailian open was the only tournament down there of real signifigance. its not like today where you have tournies in mondial, auckland, sydney and the hopman cup, which make going down there worth it point wise and money wise. but for one tournament going down there and adjusting just wasn't worth it to the top players. court however knew it was worth traveling everywhere else to prove herself and gain prestige...whereas the rest of the world didn't see it as noteworthy to go down there
Moose Malloy
G.O.A.T.
I think it's pretty harsh to label King 'gutless' considering what she did for the womens' game(& tennis period). She was a tireless promoter, constantly fighting for the women to receive more prize money in the early years of the Open era(& she was doing this way before she played Riggs), her concern was not only her own career, but the overall health & future of the WTA. can the same be said for Court? I wonder how much less $ Court would have banked in her career, if King didn't fight so much for the prize money that the women got in those years.
And I have no problem with anyone that considers Court the GOAT, she certainly did more than enough to be considered for that title, but it is misleading to imply that the AO in her time attracted just as many great players at the USO & W did.
Here are some of the great non-American womens' players that missed the AO during Court's reign there:
Maria Bueno: '60,'61,'62,'63,'64,'66
Ann Haydon-Jones: '60,'61,'62,'63,'64,'66,'70
Virginia Wade: '69,'70,'71
Francoise Durr: '66,'70,'71
I have the lists of the the Womens top 10 year by year in the 60s & 70s(I think it was the London Telegraph rankings, since there was no computer rankings pre '75)
All this is found in Rino Tommassi or Bud Collins' books I believe, if you want to confirm this.
Here were the amount of top 10 players that were entered in the AO the years Court won it:
'60: 2
'61: 1
'62: 2
'63: 3
'64: 4
'65: 7
'66: 3
'69: 5
'70: 4 (#2-5 not entered)
'71: 3 (#3-8 not entered)
'73: 4
So it it really just biased American reporting that causes so many writers to put her below Navratilova, Graf, & Evert partly due to the majority of her 11 AO wins being played vs less than stellar competition? And by that logic(since this always seems to come back to the 'American' thing with some people) why do so many of them yet consider Graf & Laver to the be the GOAT? are they American players?
And Wuornos' work drew some interesting conclusions in a thread he made a while back(unfortunately deleted because of some some criticisms by other posters)
I think his data was able to prove that the womens game did see a notable increase in their depth from the 60s to the 80s, 90s etc. While the mens game in contrast always seemed to show a high level of depth, even in the 50s, 60s.
And I have no problem with anyone that considers Court the GOAT, she certainly did more than enough to be considered for that title, but it is misleading to imply that the AO in her time attracted just as many great players at the USO & W did.
Here are some of the great non-American womens' players that missed the AO during Court's reign there:
Maria Bueno: '60,'61,'62,'63,'64,'66
Ann Haydon-Jones: '60,'61,'62,'63,'64,'66,'70
Virginia Wade: '69,'70,'71
Francoise Durr: '66,'70,'71
I have the lists of the the Womens top 10 year by year in the 60s & 70s(I think it was the London Telegraph rankings, since there was no computer rankings pre '75)
All this is found in Rino Tommassi or Bud Collins' books I believe, if you want to confirm this.
Here were the amount of top 10 players that were entered in the AO the years Court won it:
'60: 2
'61: 1
'62: 2
'63: 3
'64: 4
'65: 7
'66: 3
'69: 5
'70: 4 (#2-5 not entered)
'71: 3 (#3-8 not entered)
'73: 4
So it it really just biased American reporting that causes so many writers to put her below Navratilova, Graf, & Evert partly due to the majority of her 11 AO wins being played vs less than stellar competition? And by that logic(since this always seems to come back to the 'American' thing with some people) why do so many of them yet consider Graf & Laver to the be the GOAT? are they American players?
And Wuornos' work drew some interesting conclusions in a thread he made a while back(unfortunately deleted because of some some criticisms by other posters)
I think his data was able to prove that the womens game did see a notable increase in their depth from the 60s to the 80s, 90s etc. While the mens game in contrast always seemed to show a high level of depth, even in the 50s, 60s.
Last edited:
Nope...It's John Valente.
He's the guy with the dreadlocks that travels to every futures event and has that old deisel mercedes. I'm pretty sure he's never won a match in a main draw and probably not even in the qualifying.
I don't know how he even gets in the qualies in these tournies.
People always like to talk about pros NTRP's and such, but this guy legitmately is a "decent" 4.5 player.
I'm sure he wins this award...errr.. I mean loses.
He's the guy with the dreadlocks that travels to every futures event and has that old deisel mercedes. I'm pretty sure he's never won a match in a main draw and probably not even in the qualifying.
I don't know how he even gets in the qualies in these tournies.
People always like to talk about pros NTRP's and such, but this guy legitmately is a "decent" 4.5 player.
I'm sure he wins this award...errr.. I mean loses.
Similar threads
