Is Margaret Court's record of 24 grand slams still inflated?

[TennisLBC]

But it's only 1 match against Graf who's way past her prime. Is Istomin > Nole at the AO just because he beat him there? This is exactly what you're trying to conclude with insufficient data.


The thing is many Serena fans believe she would hit Court off the court instead of believing that it would very competitive. On top of that, they compare Serena&Court shot-per-shot without considering the fact that Court was using an inferior racket while Serena was using a modern racket.

For a Guru, you struggle with the concept of how stroke production factors in shots produced. But being a guru here isn't predicated actually knowing anything about tennis. All is needed are not so well thought out "Hot Takes". If a Teenager Chris Evert could challenge Court, so can Serena...with a wooden racquet.

 

[TennisLBC]

What was Court using during this match?

And enough with the "she played with a antique wooden racquet". She beat BJK with an aluminum racquet, the best technology available at her time.

 

[ghostofMecir]

I recall her hitting them on passing shots as a teen. Your showing ignorance again, her slice creates more problems than waist lvl topspin...

A slice serve is only 100mph, it must suckk!!!, lmao, no concept of the game

BH slice and slice serves are two very different things. A player playinwith BH slice only now couldn’t win like Graf won when she dominated, it wouls be impossible, even WITH Graf’s FH and GOATy movement.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

Oh ya sure, Serena and Graf both have a claim to #2, no doubt about that.

Funny guy. There are a number of reasons why Margaret Court should be considered an ATG... perhaps one of the best ever to pick up a tennis racket. But her inflated singles slam count should, in no way, be the criteria for putting her ahead of Steffi and Serena.

Frankly, it makes no sense to compare her slam count (which includes very weak AC titles) to slam totals that include AO titles that are on par with other slams (both past & present).

Court was very dominant against the rest of the field in the 60s and early 70s. She had strong winning records against her top rivals: Bueno, BJKing, Casals and Goolagong. Not counting her AC/AO titles (which never should have been called slam events in the first place), Court still won nearly 40% of the other 13 singles slam events she entered. This was nearly equal to Graf's 41%. And way ahead of the corresponding % for Serena, Chrissy and Martina N.

So yes, Margaret Court was one of the very best female tennis players of all time -- for reasons other than her inflated slam count.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

@Midaso240 @r2473 @Chadalina

Margaret Court won titles for an overwhelming (& unbelievable) 78.6% (11/14) of the AC/AO singles events that she entered. This figure is about double the % she won for RG, Wimbledon and the US Open. She won 13 of 33 of those events which equates to 39.4%.

These numbers show that Court won a very respectable, even outstanding, % of the RG, Wimbledon & USO singles that she entered. But her numbers for the Aussie Championships is not in line with this at all. It is a very clear indication that she had very little competition in the Aussie events (where she was normally only required to play 4 rounds to reach the finals).

While MC might have still won quite a few of the 11 AC AO events if the draws were 3 to 4x larger (96-128 player draws rather than 30 to 43+), it is highly unlikely that she would have won all 11 if the draws included the same level of competition seen in the other (real) slam events. 40% of the 14 Aussie "slams" she entered would equate to 5 or 6 Aussie titles. Given a possible home court advantage, she might have easily won 6 or 7 (50%) of those titles.

 

[jeffmccrae]

Of course it is inflated for one simple reason. Australian Open was not even a real slam until mid 80s atleast. 11 of her 24 slam wins come there. Nobody vultured the non slam called the Australian Open more than Court. It tells you something that Graf had her biggest rival stabbed, still fell 2 slams short of Court, had no doubles career vs Court's legendary one, and is still rated higher than Court by nearly everyone, many by several places. That tells you everything to how disregarded Court's official stat of 24 slams is.

 

[jeffmccrae]

The thing is many Serena fans believe she would hit Court off the court instead of believing that it would very competitive. On top of that, they compare Serena&Court shot-per-shot without considering the fact that Court was using an inferior racket while Serena was using a modern racket.

Prime Court did not even do well against baby Evert, losing 4 of their first matches, including a loss to a 15 year old Evert in her Grand Slam year (LOL). That is already sufficient data to pretty much know she would do horribly against Serena.

 

[Raiden]

I don’t think the main argument here is about the era but about the tournament and level of competition there. Winning the Aussie Championships or Open in the 60s just wasn’t the same as winning Wimbledon, the USO or RG. The best players just weren’t there. It’s sort of like winning the Hall of Fame tournament in Rhode Island and declaring yourself to be an absolute force on grass.

That's a facetious argument as AO was regularly skipped even in the open era long after Court retired (well into the 1980s). Only in the late 80s when they moved to their current Flinders Park facilities and started dishing out big prize money that it became a "must go" place for everybody. But then also all slams, even Wimbledon was regularly skipped by a few top players back then.

It's just a fact that slams weren't this "end all be all" thing they are now, where no top pro skips any of them as a matter of routine. In the past other things (like money and surface spaciality) were much more decisive and relevant in determining where the best players showed up. So it is simply fraudulent to create a fake and arbitrary cut-off somewhere, especially with a deliberate intent to reduce one particular player's haul, so another playes stats are inflated. That's utterly ridiculous revisionism.

 

[Smasher08]

I feel like it is difficult to say that Court is the all time leader, as she played in an era, with much less competition.
Clearly Serena's pro career has spanned over 20 years, and she has faced much more stronger competition (Despite some notably weak patches along the way), whereas Margaret Court had little serious competition, which is perhaps the reason why she was able to accumulate so many slams.

Definitely a weak era.

Also, the AO was regularly skipped by non-Australian players on both tours until it moved its date from December to January the late 80s. That's the real reason she has 11 AOs (compared to 5 USOs and 4 SW19s) during a time when all three of those slams were held on grass.



. . . Oh and btw, to win the 1960 AO WS, she had to play only 5 matches, and in that draw of 32 women (total) only two were non-Australian. If that doesn't help to spell out "fortuitous slam inflation" I don't know what does. . . .

 

[jeffmccrae]

People are focusing on whether or not Court played in a weak era, but I think that is secondary to the fact the Australian Open was an illegit slam and should not even be fully recognized as such. A weak field is different than the field that exists not even being present (the Australian Open back then). Competition and weaker/stronger era arguments are regular and will go back and forth, be subjective, and their value in rating players, are always topics; but this is something altogether different than that. Graf post stabbing faced such a weak field some years, the draws and field might as well have been some of Court's Australian Opens, and unlike Court that was at every slam, but atleast the field that existed at the time was always present. Same with Serena in some of the recent years, and Navratilova in some of her dominant 80s years where the field got super weak with Shriver at #3. The Australian Open was about the 30th biggest event on tour in Court's day, so not a real slam. If her ratio of slam wins was not so heavily skewed to the Australian (11, but 5-3-5 elsewhere) it would not matter so much, but it is.

And what is most key about Court's slam record besides the skew to the illegit Australian Open is her best surface was grass, but she relatively speaking utterly failed at the biggest event on grass- Wimbledon, where she won a very dissapointing (given her talent and skill level) 3 Wimbledons, in fact half the distant 2nd best player of era Billie Jean King who won 6.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

That's a facetious argument as AO was regularly skipped even in the open era long after Court retired (well into the 1980s). Only in the late 80s when they moved to their current Flinders Park facilities and started dishing out big prize money that it became a "must go" place for everybody. But then also all slams, even Wimbledon was regularly skipped by a few top players back then.

It's just a fact that slams weren't this "end all be all" thing they are now, where no top pro skips any of them as a matter of routine. In the past other things (like money and surface spaciality) were much more decisive and relevant in determining where the best players showed up. So it is simply fraudulent to create a fake and arbitrary cut-off somewhere, especially with a deliberate intent to reduce one particular player's haul, so another playes stats are inflated. That's utterly ridiculous revisionism.

The Open era demarcation is somewhat arbitrary for the women but there is a HUGE difference in the draws of the early 80s, when Chrissie & Martina N started winning it, to the draws of the 60s and early 70s. Very few non-Aussie players attending during Margaret C's reign. And draws were small -- rarely larger that 32 (or 43).

While some (a few) top players were still skipping the AO in the 80s, the draws and seedlings had a very international flavor. The difference is like night and day -- all one needs is to look at the make-up of seeding (and draws) to see this obvious diff.

And draw sizes were larger. Starting at 56/64 in the early 80s; after '85 they grew to 96/128.

 

[jeffmccrae]

Raiden is right in part, but in fact players like Evert and Navratilova (especialy Evert) were hurt by this, not helped as Court was. Had everyone played the Australian and French Opens in the 70s Evert would probably have say 23 or 24 slams and be the slam record holder today, not have less than 18. Navratilova would also probably have 1 or 2 more in that case, adding an Australian or two in the late 70s, but losing nothing anywhere. Wills won 19 slams despite never playing the Australian, at the 3 non Australian Open slams she still has the most in history. Court is the only past great who majorly benefitted from the slam situation of days gone past in anyway. Which she should not be faulted for per say, and she should get some consideration for showing up and winning those slams, but some context of the Australian Open value at the time is important too.

For arguments sake look at where Court ranks in non Australian Open slams (although in the times of Graf and Serena the Australian Open was a fully legit slam):

Wills 19
Graf 18
Serena 16
Evert 16
Navratilova 15
Court 13
Lenglen 12
King 11

Paints a very different picture does it.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

@Smasher08

People are focusing on whether or not Court played in a weak era, but I think that is secondary to the fact the Australian Open was an illegit slam and should not even be fully recognized as such. A weak field is different than the field that exists not even being present (the Australian Open back then). Competition and weaker/stronger era arguments are regular and will go back and forth, be subjective, and their value in rating players, are always topics; but this is something altogether different than that. Graf post stabbing faced such a weak field some years, the draws and field might as well have been some of Court's Australian Opens, and unlike Court that was at every slam, but atleast the field that existed at the time was always present. Same with Serena in some of the recent years, and Navratilova in some of her dominant 80s years where the field got super weak with Shriver at #3. The Australian Open was about the 30th biggest event on tour in Court's day, so not a real slam. If her ratio of slam wins was not so heavily skewed to the Australian (11, but 5-3-5 elsewhere) it would not matter so much, but it is.

And what is most key about Court's slam record besides the skew to the illegit Australian Open is her best surface was grass, but she relatively speaking utterly failed at the biggest event on grass- Wimbledon, where she won a very dissapointing (given her talent and skill level) 3 Wimbledons, in fact half the distant 2nd best player of era Billie Jean King who won 6.

Not a weak era as a few here claim. But a very weak AC/AO during Court's reign. Disingenuous tho, to claim that Graf was facing a weak field after '93, comparable to draws in Court's Aussie titles. There is no reasonable comparison between the two -- either in size or makeup. Even tho Seles was out for 2 years, there were still plenty of top players at all the slam events in the 90s.

 

[KINGROGER]

I will always rate Graf higher regardless of whether Serena gets 25 slams or whatever. Playing until almost 40 to do what Graf had at 29,screw longevity. Consistency and dominance trumps it easily.

Serena has 1 extra slam over Graf.

Graf has time at number 1, better spread of slam wins, more tournament wins, higher win %, golden slam (all 4 slams + Olympics in one season)

 

[Smasher08]

Take the best scientist of 100 years ago. They knew half as much and were actually wrong much more and even took longer to figure things out. This does not mean those scientists lived in a weak era of science. Now take those same scientists and place them in our current society and they might blow away the current scientists in discovery... or they might not. That's my point.

Arguably a better way to assess what Court's uninflated singles accomplishments might be to note that her 11 AOs are clearly an outlier compared to her 5 RGs, 5 USOs, and 3 SW19s -- and acknowledge that this trend also holds up in her womens doubles accomplishments. Meaning ~6 of her AO WS titles are probably due to fortuitous inflation.

So if the AO had had similar player participation and draws as the other 3 slams when she played, she could very well have only 5 or so AO WS titles, or ~18 slams overall.

Which I think is a more accurate assessment of her.

 

[TMF]

Prime Court did not even do well against baby Evert, losing 4 of their first matches, including a loss to a 15 year old Evert in her Grand Slam year (LOL). That is already sufficient data to pretty much know she would do horribly against Serena.

Chris beat Court who was 35 in 1977. Both players are 12 years apart so it pointless to compare them when their peak/prime years period are way off. It's like comparing Nadal to Tsitsipas when they are also 12 years apart.

About who would win between Court and Serena given that they both access the same equipment and technologies, it's all subjective but I like Court chances more because of her complete game.

 

[jeffmccrae]

Chris beat Court who was 35 in 1977. Both players are 12 years apart so it pointless to compare them when their peak/prime years period are way off. It's like comparing Nadal to Tsitsipas when they are also 12 years apart.

About who would win between Court and Serena given that they both access the same equipment and technologies, it's all subjective but I like Court chances more because of her complete game.

You like Court's chances more since you hate Serena. Dont even try and kid yourself. I am sure you would say peak Seles, peak Henin, and peak Goolagong all win most of their matches against a peak Serena too, LOL!

Yes Chris beat a 35 year old Court once, but a 15 year old Evert also beat a peak 28 year old Court who had just done the Grand Slam in 1970 in straight sets in their first ever meeting. And won 4 of their first 5 matches when Evert was only 15-17 and Court was in her prime. Again dont even try and plead ignorant to what I was referring to. I never even once referenced Chris's wins over an over the hill Court in 75-77, but their initial matches with baby Evert.

There is a reason most experts rate Court only 5th all time behind Serena, Graf, Navratilova, and Evert.

 

[Raiden]

The Open era demarcation is somewhat arbitrary for the women but there is a HUGE difference in the draws of the early 80s, when Chrissie & Martina N started winning it, to the draws of the 60s and early 70s. Very few non-Aussie players attending during Margaret C's reign. And draws were small -- rarely larger that 32 (or 43).

While some (a few) top players were still skipping the AO in the 80s, the draws and seedlings had a very international flavor. The difference is like night and day -- all one needs is to look at the make-up of seeding (and draws) to see this obvious diff.

And draw sizes were larger. Starting at 56/64 in the early 80s; after '85 they grew to 96/128.

That too is a fraudulent cutoff.

There is no monotonous "60s and early 70s" either. The Australian slam was better attended by top players the late 60s than early 60s. Court had to go thru the likes of Bueno and BJK to haul some Aussie slams.

So what you did EXACTLY demonstrates my point. You surgically split the 80s between early and what-not, yet lumped together a whopping two decades together (60s and 70s) that Court participated in... as if casually overlooking that Court has had longest span of winning at slams (between her frist and last) until Serena. There is no similarty between Court's early AOs and the later ones in terms of draws or the caliber of participants as clearly as the years went by more and more top players went down under.

 

[jeffmccrae]

That too is a fraudulent cutoff.

There is no monotonous "60s and early 70s" either. The Australian slam was better attended by top players the late 60s than early 60s. Court had to go thru the likes of Bueno and BJK to haul some Aussie slams.

So what you did EXACTLY demonstrates my point. You surgically split the 80s between early and what-not, yet lumped together a whopping two decades together (60s and 70s) that Court participated in... as if casually overlooking that Court has had longest span of winning at slams (between her frist and last) until Serena. There is no similarty between Court's early AOs and the later ones... as more and more players participated in.

Again Navratilova and Evert were in fact victimized in their final totals, Evert even moreso, by the Australian and to a degree French Open status in the 70s when they both skipped often. In the 80s both played every Australian and French Open, so did Hana their only viable challenger, so nothing applies there regardless either. They did not benefit from it as Court did bigtime at the Australian Open. So while your point is mostly accurate, it does not apply in the same way to Court, as it does to Navratilova and Evert by a long shot, and their context is totally different.

 

[TMF]

You like Court's chances more since you hate Serena. Dont even try and kid yourself. I am sure you would say peak Seles, peak Henin, and peak Goolagong all win most of their matches against a peak Serena too, LOL!

Yes Chris beat a 35 year old Court once, but a 15 year old Evert also beat a peak 28 year old Court who had just done the Grand Slam in 1970 in straight sets in their first ever meeting. And won 4 of their first 5 matches when Evert was only 15-17 and Court was in her prime. Again dont even try and plead ignorant to what I was referring to. I never even once referenced Chris's wins over an over the hill Court in 75-77, but their initial matches with baby Evert.

There is a reason most experts rate Court only 5th all time behind Serena, Graf, Navratilova, and Evert.

Just because I disagree with you doesn't equate I hate Serena. I could say the same to you for having a different POV.

It makes no sense whatsoever to compare players when they are 12 years apart. Even Federer vs Nole comparison doesn't make any sense when they are 6 years apart, let alone 12.

Court won the Grand Slam in 1970 but you posted her losses in 1977. That's 7 years apart! Court was WAY out of her prime and already had 2 kids.

This is not about GOAT thread. It's about the total Grand Slam single titles in which Court is the record holder at 24. Serena's target is 25 if she wants to join Federer for the biggest achievement in tennis.


And another thing, why do you keep on creating new userID every week NadalAgassi?

 

[jeffmccrae]

Your very language is nonsensical.

Evert was not "victimized".

She voluntarily skipped the French open -- it was a deliberate snub on her part (she was invited to play for money at some domestic US event) and back then there was a bit of a war between the tour and the slams as they were pulling players away from each other and the tour calendar was not yet well integrated and structured like it is today. Players like Evert and Connors regularly snubbed slams and in the "opposing camp" were players like Arthur Ashe, who were trying to harmonze the tour and slams and eventually pioneered the current tour as we know it.

Evert did what most players at the time did. Navratilova as well. Court did not only for one simple reason, she was Australian, and only Australian Open players played the Australian Open more than once or twice a decade in the 60s and 70s since to the players it was not even one of the 15 biggest events on tour. It is similar to how Federer is the only top player to play Basel most years, except Basel is not being given slam status. As you said yourself the sport was not slam centric back then as it is today, so the fact it was technically a Grand Slam did not even mean much to the players, probably Court included, just played it since it was convenient for her being Australian and a special event for her being her home tournament like Basel is for Federer and Barcelona for Nadal.

 

[TMF]

It is not known you hate Serena for having a different point of view, it is a known fact you hate Serena, and any opinion you have regarding her has the validity of a toilet plunger. Every single poster on this site would agree on that. That is even if you were a semi intelligent person whose opinions on the sport of tennis had any valididity to begin with which is LOL.

I also never mentioned a loss of Court in 1977 to Evert in my initial post, or anything close to that. Here is my statement again, where is the reference to a 1977 match: "Prime Court did not even do well against baby Evert, losing 4 of their first matches, including a loss to a 15 year old Evert in her Grand Slam year". Of course you are so dumb and clueless to all tennis history I would not be surprised if you genuinely thought Evert was 15 in 1977 and/or Court's Calendar Grand Slam came in the year 1977, which would be even worse. You are literally so dumb I swear your Mom dropped you on the ground as a baby, there is no other possible explanation. Cant even read simple English my 3 year niece can read with ease.

Reported.

 

[dunlop1975]

Serena isn’t the GOAT. Graf’s superior domination + CYGS/Olympics 1988 + better spread of slams won makes her the GOAT, with Court having the GS record too.

She needs 25 slams to be the GOAT. The 3 extra slams will overrule Graf’s 1988. 1 isn’t enough.

Edit: even more so with women’s slams being BO3. Graf has way more titles, time at number 1, won each slam 4 times so was more versatile. 1 extra slam title doesn’t compensate for all of the above. Serena would need 25 so be clear GOAT imo. 24 and I’d tie her with Graf.

Except for the fact that an asshat from her country decided to take out Seles violently. Seles won 3 of 4 slam matches against Steffi before the incident. Slam comparison after the stabbing (or any titles during that period) is not equitable for this reason.

 

[EloQuent]

To all the people saying AO wasn't a real slam... do you say that for Laver and Rosewall too?

 

[jeffmccrae]

To all the people saying AO wasn't a real slam... do you say that for Laver and Rosewall too?

Laver and Rosewall's greatness or numbers are not fostered upon the Australian Open like Court. In a variety of ways; they didnt even have most of their slams there, their greatness was mostly dominating the pro game more than the Slams anyway, apart from Laver's 69 Grand Slam, etc..

 

[EloQuent]

Laver and Rosewall's greatness or numbers are not fostered upon the Australian Open like Court. In a variety of ways; they didnt even have most of their slams there, their greatness was mostly dominating the pro game more than the Slams anyway, apart from Laver's 69 Grand Slam, etc..

Court didn't have most of her slams at AO either...

 

[KINGROGER]

Except for the fact that an asshat from her country decided to take out Seles violently. Seles won 3 of 4 slam matches against Steffi before the incident. Slam comparison after the stabbing (or any titles during that period) is not equitable for this reason.

Graf still beat some strong opponents regardless so this is just speculation.

Serena beat up a bunch of mugs from around 2010 to present once likes of Henin and Clijsters retired so she had weak competition too.

 

[EloQuent]

Except for the fact that an asshat from her country decided to take out Seles violently. Seles won 3 of 4 slam matches against Steffi before the incident. Slam comparison after the stabbing (or any titles during that period) is not equitable for this reason.

It sounds like you are blaming Graf for the Seles stabbing. Do you mean to do that?

 

[jeffmccrae]

Court didn't have most of her slams at AO either...

She has roughly half (11 of 24) meaning she won nearly as much at 1 so called slam as the other 3 combined, and she has over twice as much (11) there as her next highest at another (5). There is nothing comparable to her, certainly nothing whatsoever about Rosewall and Laver.

 

[serveandvolley_]

Serena beat up a bunch of mugs from around 2010 to present once likes of Henin and Clijsters retired so she had weak competition too.

Wrong way to look at it.
2005-2009 wasn't exactly prime Serena, which is when Henin peaked. If anything Serena was a much better player 2012-2016, Henin and Clijsters would have been no trouble.

 

[jeffmccrae]

Graf still beat some strong opponents regardless so this is just speculation.

Serena beat up a bunch of mugs from around 2010 to present once likes of Henin and Clijsters retired so she had weak competition too.

No she didnt, her best competition at that point was Sanchez. The womens game was super weak from 93-97, and not just due to the Seles stabbing. Everyone of note fell off badly (Seles, Sabatini, Capriati, Fernandez, Navratilova) in some way or another for various reasons except for Graf and Sanchez. It was so weak 16 year old Hingis super easily dominated 1997 in a way no 16 year old in tennis history has, and nearly won the Grand Slam.

 

[EloQuent]

She has roughly half (11 of 24) meaning she won nearly as much at 1 so called slam as the other 3 combined, and she has over twice as much (11) there as her next highest at another (5). There is nothing comparable to her, certainly nothing whatsoever about Rosewall and Laver.

Rosewall has 4/8 at AO. Not counting pros ofc.

"Roughly half" is a creative way to backtrack from "most" but I guess math is hard.

 

[jeffmccrae]

Rosewall has 4/8 at AO. Not counting pros ofc.

"Roughly half" is a creative way to backtrack from "most" but I guess math is hard.

The point is neither Rosewall or Laver have a legacy based around the Australian Open the way Court does. They are not comparable. And nobody sane says or ever would say Rosewall is the mens GOAT anyway, maybe someone super retar-ed like TMF might, but nobody else.

 

[EloQuent]

The point is neither Rosewall or Laver have a legacy based around the Australian Open the way Court does. They are not comparable. And nobody sane says or ever would say Rosewall is the mens GOAT anyway, maybe someone super retar-ed like TMF might, but nobody else.

But Laver's legacy is based on the CYGS, is it not? Does that really count if AO isn't a thing?

I also don't agree that her record is based on AO, since her slam count, ratio, and H2H is pretty darm impressive outside it. But that's another discussion.

 

[jeffmccrae]

But Laver's legacy is based on the CYGS, is it not? Does that really count if AO isn't a thing?

I also don't agree that her record is based on AO, since her slam count, ratio, and H2H is pretty darm impressive outside it. But that's another discussion.

Of course it is based on the AO. Atleast as far as any GOAT talk goes. I already listed she sits only SIXTH in slam titles discounting the Australian Open, and is barely over Billie Jean King, the #2 person of her era. And Billie Jean King has double the Wimbledon titles.

And if the AO didnt count (which is not what I am outright saying anyway, just that some massive context is needed for Court's grossly bloated Australian Open count which her entire slam record is founded upon) Laver would still be considered to do the Grand Slam with the 3 real slams of the time anyway, so it makes no difference regardless.

 

[NoleFam]

But Laver's legacy is based on the CYGS, is it not? Does that really count if AO isn't a thing?

I also don't agree that her record is based on AO, since her slam count, ratio, and H2H is pretty darm impressive outside it. But that's another discussion.

Laver beat Emerson, Stolle, Roche and Gimeno to win his '69 AO which is much tougher than any draw Court ever faced in any AO win. Yea Laver's earlier AO wins were easier but he didn't pad his Slam count at AO like Court did and actually won one with a difficult draw. How is her record not based on AO? She won 46% of her Slams there.

 

[EloQuent]

Of course it is based on the AO. Atleast as far as any GOAT talk goes. I already listed she sits only SIXTH in slam titles discounting the Australian Open, and is barely over Billie Jean King, the #2 person of her era. And Billie Jean King has double the Wimbledon titles.

And if the AO didnt count (which is not what I am outright saying anyway, just that some massive context is needed for Court's grossly bloated Australian Open count which her entire slam record is founded upon) Laver would still be considered to do the Grand Slam with the 3 real slams of the time anyway, so it makes no difference regardless.

You're counting it as zero for Court but as an undefined something for Laver?

Nobody considers 3 slams the Slam. Just not how it works. But if you value slams more when there's 3 then 13*1.33=17.33.

 

[EloQuent]

Laver beat Emerson, Stolle, Roche and Gimeno to win his '69 AO which is much tougher than any draw Court ever faced in any AO win. Yea Laver's earlier AO wins were easier but he didn't pad his Slam count at AO like Court did and actually won one with a difficult draw.

None of them? I'll trust you on that but doesn't that really reflect more on the WTA of the time than on the AO? Did BJK skip AO?

 

[NoleFam]

None of them? I'll trust you on that but doesn't that really reflect more on the WTA of the time than on the AO? Did BJK skip AO?

No it says that top women's players didn't care about AO, even less so than the men. BJK played the AO 3 times during Court's time and beat Court in the final in '68 and loss to her in '69.

 

[jeffmccrae]

You're counting it as zero for Court but as an undefined something for Laver?

Nobody considers 3 slams the Slam. Just not how it works. But if you value slams more when there's 3 then 13*1.33=17.33.

Let me ask you this straight up, why does almost nobody consider Court the female GOAT? In fact most have her no higher than 4th or 5th. And even someone like Graf who has 2 less slams, had her biggest rival stabbed, played no doubles (unlike Court who was exceptional in doubles) and won about half the tournaments is almost always rated higher. I think you know the answer. This isnt really worth debating further, most people view the Australian Open the time a certain way, and if you do not that is your right and perrogative.

And no I definitely do not count the Australian Open as zero for Court. If I did I would likely rank King over her considering King would only be 2 behind in slams, won twice the Wimbledons which was by far the most important event then, and won 10 combined Wimbledon/U.S Open to 8 for Court, by far the 2 most important events then. As it is I rank Court clearly over King. I definitely do not just blindly credit her with 11 and 24 with no context either though.

 

[EloQuent]

Let me ask you this straight up, why does almost nobody consider Court the female GOAT? In fact most have her no higher than 4th or 5th. And even someone like Graf who has 2 less slams, had her biggest rival stabbed, played no doubles (unlike Court who was exceptional in doubles) and won about half the tournaments is almost always rated higher. I think you know the answer. This isnt really worth debating further, most people view the Australian Open the time a certain way, and if you do not that is your right and perrogative.

And no I definitely do not count the Australian Open as zero for Court. If I did I would likely rank King over her considering King would only be 2 behind in slams, won twice the Wimbledons which was by far the most important event then, and won 10 combined Wimbledon/U.S Open to 8 for Court, by far the 2 most important events then. As it is I rank Court clearly over King. I definitely do not just blindly credit her with 11 and 24 with no context either though.

I think the difference is mainly because of the different era - women's tennis not having anything near the competition it has in more modern times.

 

[jeffmccrae]

I think the difference is mainly because of the different era - women's tennis not having anything near the competition it has in more modern times.

Perhaps, but at the time Court retired there were many who fancied Connolly (who only 9 slams due to a tragic accident), Lenglen, and Wills over her. She wasnt widely regarded as the GOAT even then, which is very odd given her 24 slams if people did not think there was something unusual about how she arrived at that number. Of course that trio has been mostly forgotten today, which does emphasize your point about recency bias, but Evert was almost the same era as Court, as is rated higher than her by a lot of people despite having only 18 slams.

 

[EloQuent]

Perhaps, but at the time Court retired there were many who fancied Connolly (who only 9 slams due to a tragic accident), Lenglen, and Wills over her. She wasnt widely regarded as the GOAT even then, which is very odd given her 24 slams if people did not think there was something unusual about how she arrived at that number. Of course that trio has been mostly forgotten today, which does emphasize your point about recency bias, but Evert was almost the same era as Court, as is rated higher than her by a lot of people despite having only 18 slams.

Rated "by a lot of people" doesn't sway me. I don't know, all 4 of those are legends in their own right. Not sure how to rank them given the different eras. I value consistency and give Court a bump for winning so many non AOs despite childbirth absences.

I would mot consider Chrissy Evert the same gen as Court. She's a 12 years younger, but more than just age, the open era started when she was 13 and her entire generation could suddenly actually make money out of playing, and have a career. Not to mention cultural attitudes towards women having careers were changing fast.

Also in Evert's favor is her rivalry with Martina. Both players would easily have been at 25+ if they hadn't been in the same era.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

That too is a fraudulent cutoff.

There is no monotonous "60s and early 70s" either. The Australian slam was better attended by top players the late 60s than early 60s. Court had to go thru the likes of Bueno and BJK to haul some Aussie slams.

So what you did EXACTLY demonstrates my point. You surgically split the 80s between early and what-not, yet lumped together a whopping two decades together (60s and 70s) that Court participated in... as if casually overlooking that Court has had longest span of winning at slams (between her frist and last) until Serena. There is no similarty between Court's early AOs and the later ones in terms of draws or the caliber of participants as clearly as the years went by more and more top players went down under.

Fraudulent cutoff? I didn't actually specify any distinct or precise cutoff.

You misinterpreted what I was trying to say.

I'm sticking with my assessment of the AC & AO of the 60s thru the 80s. I have not concerned myself with the AO in the mid to late 70s since none of the players we've been discussing won the AO after '73 or before '81. I suggest that you take a closer look at the draws and seedings of the Aussie events the 60s and early 70s.

Bueno only played the Down Under championships 2x, once in '60 (QF finish) & '65 (Finalist). BJK only played the AO/AO a total of 3x prior to the 1980s. She won it, over MC, in '68. Court got her revenge in the final the following year against BJK. Even with these 2 players in the mix, the AC/AO draws were still pretty weak for most of the period from '60 to '73.

Still, the draws of the 60s & early 70s were much smaller than most of the draws of the 80s. There were 2 blips in this period -- where the draws were greater than 43 and included more non-Aussie players (but still has a large % of Aussie players). One blip was in 1965 where the draw was 52 players. Bueno, BJK & a number of the other 16 seeds were non-Aussie. MC earned this one. Still, Court only needed to play 4 rounds to reach the final.

The other blip came in '68 with a draw size of 62. More of an international turnout that most of AO draws prior to the '80s. BJK won this one. In '69, the draw was back down to 32. BJK, Anne Jones & Rosy Casals were there but most of the 10 seeded players Aussies. MC and BJK only needed to win 4 rounds to meet in the final. MC won this one.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

@Raiden

As mentioned above, '65 & '68 had the largest draws and the most diverse seeding (not quite as heavily populated with Aussie players). Still not at the level of the other slams of the time tho. After '68 participation dropped off again. Smaller draws and fewer non-Aussies again. The draw in '69 was down to was 32 again.

The draw in '70 was 43 but 6 of the 8 seeds were Aussie players (no big names except for Court). In '71 the draw was down to 30 players. Court needed to win only THREE rounds to reach the final. It was a bit better in '73 -- the next time (and last time) that Court won the AO. The draw was 48 and included Goolagong and V Wade. But 9 of 12 seeds were Aussie players.

Compare these to AO '81 and '82 and afterward, when Chrissie and Martina N grabbed their 1st AO titles. Larger draws and more top players in attendance.

 

[KG1965]

THE TWO GOATS

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

None of them? I'll trust you on that but doesn't that really reflect more on the WTA of the time than on the AO? Did BJK skip AO?

It could be that the monetary incentive for the women to travel Down Under was considerably less than it was for the men. BJK played the AC in '65 and the AO in '68 (which she won) and in '69 (runner up). She did didn't play again until the early '80s (better money?).

 

[KINGROGER]

No she didnt, her best competition at that point was Sanchez. The womens game was super weak from 93-97, and not just due to the Seles stabbing. Everyone of note fell off badly (Seles, Sabatini, Capriati, Fernandez, Navratilova) in some way or another for various reasons except for Graf and Sanchez. It was so weak 16 year old Hingis super easily dominated 1997 in a way no 16 year old in tennis history has, and nearly won the Grand Slam.

Fair enough.

So which titans did Serena beat from 2010 to present? Must have been a strong era???

 

[TMF]

Fair enough.

So which titans did Serena beat from 2010 to present? Must have been a strong era???

If Graf's era was weak according to NadalAgassi, then Serena was playing in a mug era since 2010. It's a pointless assertion to belittled Graf when someone can do the same for Serena. The only objective evaluation the player's ATG is through their entire career achievements.

 

[jasonbrown]

Chris Evert sure thinks so:

Evert: 'Margaret Court won 11 Australian Opens when nobody went there'