Is Martina Navratilova the overall tennis greatest ever ??

[jimmy8]

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.

First question: how was it more physical?

2. Doubles is not physical at all. Doubles is almost zero exercise. Doubles is just standing around most of the time.

 

[thrust]

First question: how was it more physical?

2. Doubles is not physical at all. Doubles is almost zero exercise. Doubles is just standing around most of the time.

It was more physical because the players hit with more power than in the Chris-Martina era, with matches lasting longer than in the past. All you have to do is watch some of the Chris-Martina matches to see the difference in playing styles. Your description of doubles is nonsense. True, there is not as much running but there is a lot of quick net movement with the ball coming very fast.

 

[bigbadboaz]

Doubles is a hell of a lot more than "zero" exercise, especially at the pro level. Get real, FFS.

 

[martinezownsclay]

It's not Serena. She had a frequent buyer card at BALCO.

So did Martina. And as we later learnt Sharapova (who still went something like 2-100 vs Serena).

 

[BTURNER]

Women and men aside of course but in terms of women her stake to the title is insane. Don’t even need to go into the stats but it’s between herself, Graf, Evert and Serena.

Anyone who mentions Court doesn’t understand tennis history or how like 5 of Margarets slams she played 4 matches against only Australians.

I am all in favor of looking at depth of field here, but if we are going to look at the lack depths of those Aussies and singles, you have to look at the greater depth of fields in doubles and mixed. Not many top players consistently competed in doubles and mixed in Martina's day and even fewer now. Doubles and mixed was a very very big deal in Margaret's day. It was an absolute expectation in the 60's to team up and get on those courts, chiefly to supply ticketholders with enough time watching the relatively few 'name' players to warrant a day's time and ticket price in the pre television days, especially with those smaller draws which meant fewer matches. In Martina's day, more tennis was televised, more tennis players had some celebrity, more rounds to play means there was more to see in singles. There were no Ivan Lendls, Bjorn Borg's, Chris Everts, or Steffi Graf's in the 1960.s

Tennis was a real three ring circus in the amateur days and early pro years. That was the cheapest way to keep the fans entertained for the price of a ticket before television contracts ballooned costs and revenue, but that meant the clowns had to double as jugglers and the lion tamers had to walk the tightrope too.

 

[mental midget]

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.

true. all comes down to a 'what weighs more?' analysis, hence the endless debate. there is certainly a case to rank martina at the top or very close to it, some of her record are extraordinary.

i put mac above connors and lendl for those reasons, along with the 'eye test,' an even more subjective variable of course...he was just more...special, imo, than either of those greats.

 

[travlerajm]

The strongest Dog in the world is still weaker than the average lion/ tiger ..... Doesn't matter if it is the GOAT DOG and a MUG LION / MUG TIGER

Hope that gives you logic ?

If any human being has the claim of being the best then that person cannot be getting straight setted to any gender or any human.

Navratilova is nothing... she isn't even better than an average player like Yannik Noah of her time, let alone superior athletes like Djokovic or Federer or Nadal.

 

[Razer]

LOL

Still it won't beat a Lion / Tiger though

 

[thrust]

true. all comes down to a 'what weighs more?' analysis, hence the endless debate. there is certainly a case to rank martina at the top or very close to it, some of her record are extraordinary.

i put mac above connors and lendl for those reasons, along with the 'eye test,' an even more subjective variable of course...he was just more...special, imo, than either of those greats.

Singles IS what counts most, especially today. In the distant past, doubles were very important, more so than today, but still not as important as singles. While a player's style of play may be more enjoyable to watch, it is the results that count much more.

 

[martinezownsclay]

Singles IS what counts most, especially today. In the distant past, doubles were very important, more so than today, but still not as important as singles. While a player's style of play may be more enjoyable to watch, it is the results that count much more.

People have to be clear what they are doing. Keeping singles and doubles seperate. Or give some realistic value to doubles when joining with singles. Both are reasonable stances I won't argue with anyone having, but atleast be clear what your particular one is. And if you combine them exactly how much value you give to doubles which is complicated to pin point, but again make a personal call on that and try and be conssitent. The Hall of Fame is a good indicator of this for people who choose the latter as you typically need a minimum of 14 doubles slams for consideration of inclusion and only 2 singles majors to almost automatically make it in, with many singles only specialists getting in with only 1 depending on their impact and overall career. Not make it up as you go along pending when it is convenient to players you like or don't like, or who you are trying to argue for in a debate.

 

[BTURNER]

People have to be clear what they are doing. Keeping singles and doubles seperate. Or give some realistic value to doubles when joining with singles. Both are reasonable stances I won't argue with anyone having, but atleast be clear what your particular one is. And if you combine them exactly how much value you give to doubles which is complicated to pin point, but again make a personal call on that and try and be conssitent. The Hall of Fame is a good indicator of this for people who choose the latter as you typically need a minimum of 14 doubles slams for consideration of inclusion and only 2 singles majors to almost automatically make it in, with many singles only specialists getting in with only 1 depending on their impact and overall career. Not make it up as you go along pending when it is convenient to players you like or don't like, or who you are trying to argue for in a debate.

I know what I do with this. Normally I don't consider doubles in GOAT debates, but if I do include it per request, I decide that there are two doubles players, and both deserve equal credit. Martina can't have more than 1/2 credit for each doubles slam or mixed , because Pam Or Heinz (or Paul) walked away with the other half!

 

[safin2hbh]

she has more slams than novak

 

[jrepac]

It was more physical because the players hit with more power than in the Chris-Martina era, with matches lasting longer than in the past. All you have to do is watch some of the Chris-Martina matches to see the difference in playing styles. Your description of doubles is nonsense. True, there is not as much running but there is a lot of quick net movement with the ball coming very fast.

And, in the Chris/MN era, there was a lot more serve & volleying too, so they were certainly moving around. Not as physical as singles...less court to cover, but they surely weren't just standing there. It's a shame that many of the top players moved away from it. Connors & Chrissie played a fair amount of dubs early in their careers...I don't recall if Borg ever did, nor did Lendl.
Novak has played with his brother, right? If just a few of the top players joined in, it would heighten interest. Mixed too. I used to enjoy watching the W mixed dubs final, which was usually the last match shown on TV. Now, you're lucky if it is even mentioned

 

[Crocodile]

Martina is certainly up there.