Federev
G.O.A.T.
Correcting for height - no doubt.
Let’s see how Tiny C does though.
But for now Diego is the Greatest Of All Time.
Is Martina Navratilova the overall tennis greatest ever ??
- Thread starter ND-13
- Start date
Let’s see how Tiny C does though.
But for now Diego is the Greatest Of All Time.
Federev
G.O.A.T.
So why aren’t Wheel Chair Players or Special Olympians in the debate?
Why limit the accounting for other categories of disadvantage, but deny it for disabilities?
Or how about we just qualify Martina’s category as “greatest women’s player” and not act like women have a claim to being able to actually play the greatest / best tennis ever?
I don’t have a shot either, but I’m not correcting for “dad body” and “talent quotient”.
Pheasant
Legend
You brought up a great point. Usually, you can follow the money. If the prize money is massive, then the sport will draw a much larger chunk of the supreme talent out there. If not, then a lot of the talent in sports will go into other careers. Women's tennis has massive prize money. Wheel Chair tennis probably doesn't(I haven't checked, but I highly doubt that a major pays anywhere near 3 million to win the title).
Example: Major League Baseball. My dad as an engineer in the 1950s was making as much as the average MLB player. It made no sense financially for him to pursue a career as a pitcher(he was insanely good). He was basically set for life in his mid-20s, knowing that he'd put in his 32 years, then retire with a nice pension and top-of-the line benefits. But nowadays, league minimum is well over 500k a year and your average player is getting over 5 million a year. He said later on that he absolutely would have pursued baseball in the modern era with the massive lottery-type of paychecks.
TheFifthSet
Legend
Rationale offered in my other post:
It’s a disingenuous comparison, and if you follow these lines of thought to their logical ends, you can’t rank the likes of Mayweather or SRR highly in boxing (they lose to most mid-tier heavier guys) and players like Federer, Djokovic and Nadal get relegated to mere thimbles on the world sporting stage (footy and other sports have bigger, more impressive talent pools).
Almost no one does this, though. It’s usually only when comparing men and women that such an obstinate line is drawn. In some cases, I can understand why (eg basketball where, again, the relative talent pools are incomparable). In tennis, I can’t. Talent pool size relative to gender is comparable. Prize money is roughly comparable.
Last edited:
TheFifthSet
Legend
Sorry to multi-post for an edit, too lazy to edit my last one:
Again, no one really makes these qualifiers in certain other sports delineated by weight classes, yet it’s not some immovable sticking point.
Yes that’s a totally analogous comparison, thank you.
A better one: there is female UFC fighter I used to train with and would submit consistently in jiu-jitsu class. I would never, in a million years, compare myself to her. Just as Francis Ngannou would never, in a million years, compare himself favourably to Mayweather as a boxer (and no, I’m not comparing myself to Ngannou in some kind of roundabout way either, I trust you get the point I’m making).
Angrybirdstar
Semi-Pro
oh maybe i was too vague, i was referring to bo5 reinforcing the dominance of higher tier players while bo3 undermines it more with the greater variability of playing fewer sets. so a certain number of slams in bo3 is effectively worth a little bit more than the equivalent number in bo5
Federev
G.O.A.T.
Hmmm…
You say I’m making a “disingenuous comparison” …
But that’s according to you. I actually think your argument is disingenuous.
According to many people - like McEnroe and Serena - who’ve had the courage to say it like it is - it’s simply innacurate to assert that any woman is “the greatest tennis player ever”. As Serena herself said to Letterman - it’s not comparable, and she literally said she essentially considers it a different sport because - in her words - she would lose to Andy Murray 6-0, 6-0 in 5-6 minutes.
But you’re next sentence is spot on…
“follow these lines of thought to their logical ends, you can’t rank the likes of Mayweather or SRR highly in boxing (they lose to most mid-tier heavier guys)”
Exacty.
First - They are actually “logical” arguments - not arbitrary.
And Mayweather should never be lofted as the boxing GOAT exactly for the reasons you stated. He wouldn’t have a chance against peak Tyson, Holyfield, or Fury.
Call it women’s or youth or middleweight or disabled. But don’t call it “Greatest Ever” full stop. That’s disingenuous. Because neither flyweight boxers nor women have any chance at being the greatest athlete in their respective sport.
Because that’s the overall category:
Sports.
Athletics.
Physical performance.
That’s about who is strongest or fastest or quickest or limber or best in eye hand coordination or toughest, etc.
And - as much many in our current culture want to sublimate athletic performance to political thought and ever-shifting “gender” ideologies, physical performance is objective.
If you tell me you’re the greatest at your sport, and I beat you over and over when you’re at your very best physical shape, then your not.
Otherwise - what does it even mean to say “greatest” IN A SPORT??
Like - if you tell me Martina’s the greatest at tennis then show me how she actually has a valid shot at beating Djokovic at tennis.
Cause that’s what Greatest at a sport means.
It’s not about cultural impact or “did most for the game” or “most beloved”. Otherwise call it that.
Federev
G.O.A.T.
You’re appealing to “what people do” or don’t do.
1. That’s not how to make an objective argument. People shift the goal posts all the time, but that doesn’t establish what is true, unless the qualifications are transparently conscious to all. I.e., “a woman is the GOAT because I am correcting for lack of speed and strength and stamina and eye-hand coordination and precision amd endurance, etc. - so those metrics do not apply evenly to every candidate.”
2. People - all the time - reject the assertion that a woman could be the unqualified “greatest ever” in tennis. E.g. jMac and Serena have done so publicly.
Because - logically - women simply are not candidates for greatest sports person in any sport that includes men. In tennis, the best women lose to any of the top 100 men easily, as Serena herself commendably offered.
So why insist on calling a woman “best ever or greatest ever”
Why not just say “GOAT in women’s tennis”?
Why object to that? That - I think - is the real matter.
TheFifthSet
Legend
Well, we’ll see.
There’s no new ground to tread here, I already addressed the points undergirding these opinions. If you’d like, you can quote those points and respond to them directly. Otherwise we’ll just keep going in circles, for many pages probably.
Well, at least there’s a semblance of consistency here.
But that’s not how people treat these discussions elsewhere. Sugar Ray Robinson is the consensus boxing GOAT. Tyson, on the other hand, often fails to make the Top 50 in the eyes of most boxing historians.
Not really. You’re positioning your criteria as definitive, but it isn’t. I can credit you showing consistency (most people who balk at female tennis players would probably not be so consistent when assessing athletes in size-dependent sports), but that doesn’t make it definitive. It’s just as arbitrary as anyone else’s criteria, but several-fold less scrutinized.
You’re ironically succumbing to culture war brain-rot yourself, because that’s not what I (the person you’re talking to) is influenced by here. Just as the 92 year boxing historian bleating on about SRR’s greatness isn’t influenced by it either.
No, that’s what “best” (in absolute terms) might mean.
Another question to test your consistent: as athletes, who would you rate as greater - Martina Navratilova or a lower-ranked Div1 tennis player that will never come close to making the mens tour?
Never said it was. You’re arguing with phantoms.
Last edited:
TheFifthSet
Legend
Fully aware of the limits of argumentum ad populum. Don’t need schooling on that lmao.
The point I’m making is not that we need to blindly appeal to consensus in lieu of thinking for ourselves. It’s that these qualifiers only seem to matter when comparing men to women. Comparable qualifiers are almost never invoked when comparing smaller fighters to heavier ones, or geniuses from an earlier time to the one’s of today (“muh average physics undergrad knows more than Newton” - that kind of stuff). Wonder why. Huge mystery.
Why I think it’s not a definitive marker, without referencing consensus:
Federev
G.O.A.T.
Your argument is that the Greatest of All Time in a sport doesn’t actually have to be able to beat 100 other contemporary athlete in their respective sport. At least. Probably hundreds more.
It doesn’t work.
Whatever your motives come from for making such an argument - they don’t come from logic.
You simply have to introduce other and more and more subjective categories into your definition that have nothing to do with the actial playing of the sport.
That’s transparently nonsensical when making arguments about sports.
TheFifthSet
Legend
It doesn’t work to you, yes. It does for me, and I think I’ve explained why it does pretty well.
There’s no ironclad way to address utterly subjective questions like who the greatest in a sport is, and the counterfactuals demonstrate this.
Very much isn’t.
Federev
G.O.A.T.
I will just keep saying this because it’s really strong:
Your argument is that the Greatest of All Time in a sport doesn’t actually have to be able to beat 100 other contemporary athletes in their respective sport. And probably hundreds more contemporaries.
And yet to you they are “the greatest of all time”…full stop.
The GOAT and beatable by hundreds of their contemporaries in the sport.
It just doesn’t work.
I’ll probably get off the train at this point because I’m satisfied that my argument is pretty much unassailable.
TheFifthSet
Legend
All addressed, with specific points responding to specific quotes on your end. Again, going in circles.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
I’m still bitter about what happened to Seles, so no comment on Graf, but I agree with the rest of this.
Yes, about Graf, and no further comment from me on that!
I think that if one rates Navratilova above Williams and Court, it's hard not to also rate Evert above them, for two reasons. First, the overall record between Navratilova and Evert is really pretty similar, unless you count doubles (which, as per my reply to Aussie Darcy, I don't - rather, I do, but as a separate category. No doubt that in a doubles ranking of greatness, Navratilova and Court are way, way ahead of Evert or Graf, but that isn't relevant to their singles ranking, in my view). Second, part of the argument for ranking Navratilova above Williams or Court also applies to Evert, both because part of it is based on the overall resume - especially versus Williams - and because part of it is based on having a great competitor whose presence deflated the slam count. If anything, that is even more true of Evert than it is of Navratilova. Had Navratilova not become as great as she did in the 80s, Evert might well have ended up with 25+ slam titles. I'm not as sure the reverse is true of Navratilova.
RS
Bionic Poster
Tyson was ranked 72/80 P4P by HBO in 2002.
grandefrankie
Semi-Pro
I do think one reason some are willing to rank Navratilova above Court and Graf (moreso Court, as rightly or wrongly most people have Graf above her today) is because there is a perception of a lot of people that in a prime to prime series of matches Navratilova would come out ahead of both. And this even from many of the people who rank Graf would still think that, and most would think that regarding Court. Against Serena, not neccessarily as much but even on her there are some who speculate prime Martina could do well vs the best of Serena. I don't believe the same belief holds true of Evert at all. There are some who believe she would come out on top in a head to head series of matches vs Court since she troubled Court quite a bit when their careers crossed, but I don't think hardly anyone thinks she would come out on top of a hypothetical series of matches vs Graf, Serena, or of course Navratilova which isn't really even a hypothetical unlike the other two. Most believe in a series of prime to prime matches Evert would come out on the losing end vs all 3 of those, while there are differing opinions on Court. Not saying where they should rank but that is one big difference why some might be willing to rank Navratilova above certain people, but not Evert. Plus yes doubles for anyone who values that at all, where Navratilova eclipses all, rivaled only by Court, with Serena also having excellent doubles, and Graf and Evert both virtually none. Another reason.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
Yes, I suppose so. I already addressed the second point - doubles matters, but it should be a separate category.
As for the first, I think that H2H doesn't even matter very much when players did play each other and hypothetical H2H matters not at all (or perhaps less than that). So, while I take your point that many people would rank Navratilova above Court and Graf but not rank Evert above them for that reason, I'm not amongst said people.
All goes to show why I'm not really that interested in goat discussions, I guess.
Last edited:
King_olaf_the_hairy
Semi-Pro
grandefrankie
Semi-Pro
I actually prefer discussions comparing non GOAT calibre but still great players like the Vilas vs Murray ones, or the Becker vs Edberg vs Wilander ones, or the Kerber vs Halep debate that went on for years on another site. Maybe ATGs (some of those I just named are, some really aren't) but not ones in contention for GOAT status at all. As it is the only time these players get any appreciation at all or recognition, even though they were such great players. Theoretically you could still discuss them without comparing them and picking apart which should rank higher but we all know that is not likely to happen much, so whatever it takes. The GOAT discussions are dissecting people who already get praised and talked about enough anyway, and I agree it is not important who is GOAT anyway.
RS
Bionic Poster
Yeah to beat Tyson you have to be a certain size for sure
TheFifthSet
Legend
Good stats. MN was simply amazing during those peak years. How Chris was able to poke her head back in there and win a few more FO's was also telling re: her determination. If you consider Martina's entire career, singles, doubles, etc., it's pretty amazing. On that scale, I put her ahead of her contemporaries. Some might say the same for JMAC. It really depends on your view of things, what importance you put behind the various components, etc. Winning GS mixed dubs at 49? Pretty remarkable.
RS
Bionic Poster
They don't do old school rankings that anymore.
droliver
Professional
Yes, different rules. No ad scoring. Players returning from one side. A player only serving every 4th game, etc….
Doubles is only peripherally related to singles it’s so fundamentally different in tactics and skill/movement requirement
Ballmachine87
Rookie
When you talk about overall accomplishments, including doulbes and mixed, she is obviously the greatest tennis player by a huge margin.
Given her insane longevity in doubles and mixed, I have always felt that she could have been competitive in Wimbledon singles far beyond 1994.
Given her insane longevity in doubles and mixed, I have always felt that she could have been competitive in Wimbledon singles far beyond 1994.
AM75
Hall of Fame
So ITF juniors tour is not tennis then. No ad, no let, best of 3 till 4 games in each set.
Hard Court
Rookie
OK, how much is doubles supposed to count. It seems like we talk about all kinds of factors when comparing and rating players. All we talk about is singles. Then after a while, someone chimes in about doubles. Off of this Forum, when I discuss tennis, nobody talks doubles unless they are strictly taking about playing doubles. I never knew that considering doubles is a thing until I came onto this Forum, and even then it looks like most people don't put much stock in it.
So yeah, I think you can say that someone who only plays singles is the best. To me singles is one thing and doubles is another.
So yeah, I think you can say that someone who only plays singles is the best. To me singles is one thing and doubles is another.
droliver
Professional
Well, 3v3 is a type of basketball but it's not the same as 5v5 and we wouldn't use someone's accomplishments in it when discuss the best ballers of all time.
Similarly, doubles isn't particularly important when subjectively assessing individual ATP/WTA players
grandefrankie
Semi-Pro
Doubles matters when it is someone people want to look for excuses to build up further (eg Navratilova, sometimes Serena) and means squat when it is someone people don't want to be built up further (eg Court, Rosewall, Emerson). I agree with you it should be kept seperate since people have proven they a)don't know exactly how to define its value with any consistency, b)cherry pick who they want to use it to add value for, and who they don't even want to give full credit for their actual singles career, never mind have to give significantly more for a legendary doubles career too.
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
I don't consider her the female GOAT. My female GOAT list goes something like:
1. Serena
2. Graf
3. Court
4. Lenglen
5. Wills
6. Navratilova
7. Evert
8. Connolly
9. King
10. Seles
In that order. So definitely not the overall GOAT factoring in the far superior mens game.
1. Serena
2. Graf
3. Court
4. Lenglen
5. Wills
6. Navratilova
7. Evert
8. Connolly
9. King
10. Seles
In that order. So definitely not the overall GOAT factoring in the far superior mens game.
Well, if you just look at the Open era and focus on singles, maybe it's a simpler conversation? Despite 23 slams I still struggle with putting Serena at the top...her other non-slam results were not as good as some of the others. And how to weight the different aspects of their careers? I don't think it's so easy. you can pick who is best on a given surface, pretty quickly. After that it gets hard, fast. And, I"ve not seen much of Court, let alone the others from pre-open, so must rely on the stats presented. But MN is in the conversation....her career accomplishments are tremendous.
Doubles and Davis Cup seem to come into the mix when the overall career accomplishments are considered. But, some might say it muddies the waters, no doubt. For someone like Mac, I think you roll those two things in and he shoots ahead of Connors and Lendl. Without it, not so much. Martina was a superb doubles player....that would elevate her standing as well. It's all about how you define the parameters and the weight you give them.
Counting for height, Rosewall at 5-7, was far greater than Schwarzman.
Federev
G.O.A.T.
Fine, be all serious!
While it's of course incredibly silly to judge past players based on 21st century conditions (only focus on slam counting, distributions and the like), it's also incredibly unfair to judge more recent players like Serena per 70s, 80s etc. conditions, when it was normal to enter more tournaments and take more of those tournaments incredibly seriously, both to make a good financial living out of the sport, and because of the lower levels of physicality. Clearly a crucial reason why slam counting has become a bigger deal over time, is because the slams have continually increased their prize money relative to other tournaments over time.
And Serena won most of the biggest tournaments available to her outside the slams (and Olympics and YEC) multiple times:
Miami x 8
Indian Wells x 2
Canada x 2
Cincinnati x 2
Rome x 4
Madrid x 2
Beijing x 2 (she also won it in 2004 beating recently crowned US Open champion and world no. 5 Kuznetsova in the final)
Charleston x 3
She also won quite a lot of Tier 2 / Premier / WTA 500 (the tier system in place until 2009 was the best and clearest one IMO) events, with strong fields. For example in 2002 she beat Hingis and Capriati back to back to win a title in Scottsdale, while in 2014 she beat Sharapova and Azarenka back to back to win a title in Brisbane (and Petkovic was a strong opponent to face in the 2nd round).
Also for what it’s worth, I think it’s obvious that she faced a stronger standard of competition in the early rounds of majors and tournaments in general compared to those previous all-time greats. It was blatant to me that the overall depth in women’s tennis (and by depth I mean outside the top 10 / 20, throughout the top 100 and beyond), was clearly far stronger in the 21st century than in any previous decade / era, when depth-wise it was essentially a ‘forming division’. John Feinstein and John Wertheim wrote books covering women’s (also men’s in Feinstein’s case) seasons 10 years apart, and they talked about how in women’s majors the early rounds were often a waste of time with things generally only properly starting in the latter rounds (that was clear to me as a fan) due to the relative lack of depth.
Of course people like James Blake from inside the tennis world (when it's casual observers from outside the tennis world, it’s not as significant or as surprising), taking offence at the suggestion that anyone other than Serena could be the greatest, is farcical though.
And Serena won most of the biggest tournaments available to her outside the slams (and Olympics and YEC) multiple times:
Miami x 8
Indian Wells x 2
Canada x 2
Cincinnati x 2
Rome x 4
Madrid x 2
Beijing x 2 (she also won it in 2004 beating recently crowned US Open champion and world no. 5 Kuznetsova in the final)
Charleston x 3
She also won quite a lot of Tier 2 / Premier / WTA 500 (the tier system in place until 2009 was the best and clearest one IMO) events, with strong fields. For example in 2002 she beat Hingis and Capriati back to back to win a title in Scottsdale, while in 2014 she beat Sharapova and Azarenka back to back to win a title in Brisbane (and Petkovic was a strong opponent to face in the 2nd round).
Also for what it’s worth, I think it’s obvious that she faced a stronger standard of competition in the early rounds of majors and tournaments in general compared to those previous all-time greats. It was blatant to me that the overall depth in women’s tennis (and by depth I mean outside the top 10 / 20, throughout the top 100 and beyond), was clearly far stronger in the 21st century than in any previous decade / era, when depth-wise it was essentially a ‘forming division’. John Feinstein and John Wertheim wrote books covering women’s (also men’s in Feinstein’s case) seasons 10 years apart, and they talked about how in women’s majors the early rounds were often a waste of time with things generally only properly starting in the latter rounds (that was clear to me as a fan) due to the relative lack of depth.
Of course people like James Blake from inside the tennis world (when it's casual observers from outside the tennis world, it’s not as significant or as surprising), taking offence at the suggestion that anyone other than Serena could be the greatest, is farcical though.
Last edited:
What was not serious about my Rosewall fact?
grandefrankie
Semi-Pro
I am not a big Serena fan but it is clear her overall competition across most of her career is by far the strongest of all the female GOAT contender. That does not automatically make her the GOAT mind you, but considering she won 23 slams against by far the strongest overall field of anyone gives her a strong case. She did face a weaker field her final years only, but that is negated by winning so much in her mid to late 30s is already so amazing it doesn't matter much, similar to Djokovic today. No female player in history would win as much as Serena did in her 30s vs any field, but by the same token she did not dominate in her 20s as regularly as some others, and that is entirely her own fault.
Navratilova and Evert fans point out they faced each other which is true, but the rest of the field was mostly a total joke back then, especialy most of the 80s. A young Monica Seles even said "I thought they were the only 2 players on tour". You can hear it here at 1:48
Graf faced an old Navratilova, then Seles got stabbed, then she went down with injuries when the next generation emerged. She first dominated in the late 80s, and as already noted nearly the entire 80s was a joke competition and overall depth wise, then totally dominated again after the Seles stabbing.
Court has the whole Australian Open thing, although it is blown way out of proportion by her delusional haters, and the depth was not great in general then either. That said I would still say Court had the 2nd best competition overall of these, after only Serena. And she still won 24 singles slams and 62 overall slams.
Navratilova and Evert fans point out they faced each other which is true, but the rest of the field was mostly a total joke back then, especialy most of the 80s. A young Monica Seles even said "I thought they were the only 2 players on tour". You can hear it here at 1:48
Graf faced an old Navratilova, then Seles got stabbed, then she went down with injuries when the next generation emerged. She first dominated in the late 80s, and as already noted nearly the entire 80s was a joke competition and overall depth wise, then totally dominated again after the Seles stabbing.
Court has the whole Australian Open thing, although it is blown way out of proportion by her delusional haters, and the depth was not great in general then either. That said I would still say Court had the 2nd best competition overall of these, after only Serena. And she still won 24 singles slams and 62 overall slams.
Last edited:
Throughout her career Court had: Bueno, BJK, Ann Jones, Darlene Hard, Virginia Wade. Lesley Turner, Nancy Richey, Goolagong, then Evert and Navratilova to deal with. From 200-211 Serena had tough competition: Henin, Hingis, Sharapova, Davenport. After that her competition was rather weal. Graf was sort of in the late Evert-Navratilova era and the beginning of the Serena era
grandefrankie
Semi-Pro
I agree with all that but the competition Serena had during this tough competition period is so far superior to anyone else, including Court, and then adding in the Australian Open element, she is still clearly #1 in competition overall IMO, but Court I would have #2 in that. And as I said the period where Serena indeed had weaker competition (but even there more depth outside the top 20 than any of these others, Court included) was when she was way into her 30s, and winning so much at that age is super impressive in any field, which partly negates that.
In reality, it is unfair to compare players of distant eras. The game, indeed, was much different in the Court and Serena eras. There may have been more good players in the Serena era, but that doesn't mean that the top 5-10 of the Court eras, with modern equipment and playing conditions wouldn't be as good as the top players today.
Serena won quite a few slam doubles titles with her sister. In her era tennis was more physical, which made it difficult for a top player to play doubles as often as Martina did.
Similar threads
