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.
Is Martina Navratilova the overall tennis greatest ever ??
- Thread starter ND-13
- Start date
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
Professional
Doubles is a hell of a lot more than "zero" exercise, especially at the pro level. Get real, FFS.
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
So did Martina.
And as we later learnt Sharapova (who still went something like 2-100 vs Serena).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.
Last edited:
mental midget
Hall of Fame
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
Talk Tennis Guru
Razer
G.O.A.T.
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
Hall of Fame
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!
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
ductrung3993
Hall of Fame
She had to deal with both Evert and Graff. Serena's competition wasnt like that
ductrung3993
Hall of Fame
dp
Serena had to deal with: Henin, Clijsters, Capriati, Hingis, Venus, and Davenport- all multi slam winners. At first Martina had young pre peak Graf and later, older Evert. Also, Court and Evert had considerably higher winning percentages than Navratilova. Court was as least a great doubles and mixed doubles player with stronger competition.
ductrung3993
Hall of Fame
it's a stretch because no direct comparison that's like dealing with 2 of the big 3 vs Berdych, Tsonga, Wawrinka, Nishikori, Zverev, Davydenko. you can put Murray in there too
Not exactly the same
insideoutforehanders
Hall of Fame
Per that logic Federer and Djokovic would not even be GOAT candidates either.Graf was not a well-rounded tennis player.
What did she bring to the table in doubles slams?
BorgTheGOAT
G.O.A.T.
Serena for her last 10 slams had historically weak competition. At the beginning of her career her competition was strong, but her two biggest rivals on paper, Venus and Pova, one was a special situation with the sister dynamic and the other was her certified pigeon. Henin, Clijsters, Davenport, Hingis all fine and well but none of them was close to Evert or Graf not even remotely.
Not sure what you are implying but of the players you mentioned, by name, only Stan and Murray have won a slam-3 each, while the others won 0 slams combined. Henin and Venus won 7 each, Hingis- 5 Sharapova won 5, Capriati and Davenport-3 and Clijsters-4
pierceforehands
Professional
Navratilova has a case for GOAT of course but LMFAO at those arguing it is based on her "strong competition". At the 83 US Open Navratilova stormed out of a press conference since the press were harassing her about the terrible field. That tells you all you need to know. These were the 83 (Navratilova's best year) slam finals:
83 French Open- Evert vs Mima J.
83 Wimbledon- Navratilova vs an already past her prime/soon to retire Jaeger
83 US Open- Navratilova vs Evert (ok this on paper was strong but Evert was playing some of her all time worst tennis)
83 Australian- Navratilova vs Jordan
3 of the 4 were a total joke obviously, and then the first 3 were jokes as far as the finals themselves, with 10 games only won by the loser in 6 sets combined. The only decent final and performance by a losing finalist was up to Kathy Jordan of all people, very good player but just a typical top 10 player in any era at best, who got 8 games vs Navratilova in the 83 Australian Open final, almost matching the other 3 combined, including the worst ever version of Evert, got in the other 3 finals. There was even an article in Tennis Magazine at the end of 83 walking back agreeing with King on women deserving equal pay given how abysmal the womens game had become, bemoaning it as the worst in about a century, and saying the womens game had gotten so bad if it didn't improve it should be cancelled. I have a copy of that particular magazine at home if anyone wants it mailed to borrow just to read it for themselves. And the only player to beat Martina that year was Kathy Horvath, which also speaks very poorly to the field, when the only player who can beat you is someone that mediocre, not someone atleast semi noteable. Compare that to say Graf who in 87-89 only losses were to legit opponents like Navratilova, Sabatini, Sanchez Vicario, the 7 total.
Shriver was #3 or #4 almost the entire 82-86 period. That tells you all you need to know. A player like Shriver briefly reaching #3 or #4 is fine but constantly being there. And Graf haters make fun of her era because of Sanchez Vicario or Sabatini being top players when both are light years better players in singles than Shriver is, as Sabatini already proved by baby Sabatini regularly beating peak Shriver, often crushing her.
Serena's competition at the end of her career was weak no doubt, but winning a ton of slams in your 30s is impressive no matter how crummy the field is, which I apply to Djokovic today as well. As Navratilova herself shows as she played at a super high level for her age in her 30s, amongst the highest ever after Djokovic and Serena, and still managed only 1 slam after her 31st birthday, and wouldn't be a lot more even if remove Graf and Seles (a few more most likely but wouldn't be raking them in clearly, and the field without Graf and Seles sucks, especialy according to Navratilova bots who claim Sanchez and Sabatini and Martinez are supposably terrible players). And even the weak field she played at the end of her career had a ton more depth than any field Navratilova faced, so was still better than what Navratilova faced in 82-86 which was both super weak as well in top end competition (minus only Evert the 2-3 years of that Evert was actualy playing fairly well, and the 1-2 Mandlikova was) and something below the levels of non existent in both short field and deep field depth. And of course the field Serena faced in 99-2008 was light years beyond anything Navratilova ever faced overall, even counting the periods she was barely winning, never mind focusing on the entire of 82-86 which was never strong, and only decent in 85-86. If you want to add 87, even though it was Graf, not Martina, who was #1 that year, that year was also weak, as proven by 17 year old Steffi Graf, who was nowhere near as good yet as 88 and 89 losing only 2 matches the entire year.
And saying Navratilova had Graf is silly when their primes didn't intersect, the only years they were both somewhat close to their primes in the same year was 87, where Navratilova per always had the experience advantage in slam finals, with Graf despite being atleast as far from her prime as Navratilova totally dominating the rest of the year where that older player age in initial slam finals was not present. Graf is not given credit for having Navratilova as competition ever that I see, so why on earth should the reverse be true. So many games are always played by Navratlova fans to advance her credit others don't get. And the total baby Graf that Navratilova played while dominating in 84-86 was of course light years inferior to any of Venus, Henin, Sharapova, Clijsters, Davenport, etc...An older Graf would have been a tougher opponent than any of those (although not than all those combined still) but we already know Navratilova would not have even been dominating in the first place had she faced an older Graf those years.
I will say Navratilova's most amazing feat is winning 13 times in a row against the great Chris Evert. That is amazing, even if some of that period of 13 (but not all, just some) was Evert playing some of her worst ever tennis, like around the time of the 83 US Open where she looked abysmal even in her matches to reach the final which she still reached in that godawful field at the time. Still amazing even considering, a legit GOAT contender and winning 13 in a row. She is perhaps the only player in history who could have managed that against a fellow GOAT, given that Graf is a horrible match up for Evert I could see her coming close to 13 maybe had they been in their primes together, but probably not reaching 13. I don't see Court beating any ATG, let alone a GOAT, 13 times in a row. I don't see Graf or Seles ever beating each other 13 times in a row, well I am sure @Mustard and @buscemi will be here to chirp in they are sure Seles would have had a 13 match win streak vs Graf had she not been stabbed, but they can continue that fantasy, the 99.999% of everyone else will concede that never happens for either one in a trillion years, LOL! So that is an amazing feat by Martina, and one of many things that gives her a possible case for GOAT. However Evert is often used to gloss over the overall terrible field of nearly the entire Navratilova reign, no Evert alone does not make a good field, and does not change that the overall field totally sucked. This is literally the only place I ever see "strong competition" brought up as an argument for Martina. I see many others (many legitimate) brought up to argue her as GOAT, and against her major weaknesses in the argument, such as only 18 slams, and winning only 3 slams outside a 5 year period, but NEVER competition, only here does that bizarre idea seem to exist.
On that note would add Serena going on a 16 year unbeaten streak vs Sharapova including I forget how many matches is also amazing. Sharapova is a legit ATG, not a GOAT contender, but a legit ATG who has a Career Slam. I would bet a million dollars transported to time none of Navratilova, Evert, Court, Graf, Seles, anyone you name would come anywhere near matching that kind of win streak vs a player of Maria's groundstroke quality, firepower, and mental toughness. So that is an amazing feat too, even if Maria is not near Evert as a player, almost equally amazing as the 13 match win streak vs Evert. A super impressive feat by both.
83 French Open- Evert vs Mima J.
83 Wimbledon- Navratilova vs an already past her prime/soon to retire Jaeger
83 US Open- Navratilova vs Evert (ok this on paper was strong but Evert was playing some of her all time worst tennis)
83 Australian- Navratilova vs Jordan
3 of the 4 were a total joke obviously, and then the first 3 were jokes as far as the finals themselves, with 10 games only won by the loser in 6 sets combined. The only decent final and performance by a losing finalist was up to Kathy Jordan of all people, very good player but just a typical top 10 player in any era at best, who got 8 games vs Navratilova in the 83 Australian Open final, almost matching the other 3 combined, including the worst ever version of Evert, got in the other 3 finals. There was even an article in Tennis Magazine at the end of 83 walking back agreeing with King on women deserving equal pay given how abysmal the womens game had become, bemoaning it as the worst in about a century, and saying the womens game had gotten so bad if it didn't improve it should be cancelled. I have a copy of that particular magazine at home if anyone wants it mailed to borrow just to read it for themselves. And the only player to beat Martina that year was Kathy Horvath, which also speaks very poorly to the field, when the only player who can beat you is someone that mediocre, not someone atleast semi noteable. Compare that to say Graf who in 87-89 only losses were to legit opponents like Navratilova, Sabatini, Sanchez Vicario, the 7 total.
Shriver was #3 or #4 almost the entire 82-86 period. That tells you all you need to know. A player like Shriver briefly reaching #3 or #4 is fine but constantly being there.
And Graf haters make fun of her era because of Sanchez Vicario or Sabatini being top players when both are light years better players in singles than Shriver is, as Sabatini already proved by baby Sabatini regularly beating peak Shriver, often crushing her.Serena's competition at the end of her career was weak no doubt, but winning a ton of slams in your 30s is impressive no matter how crummy the field is, which I apply to Djokovic today as well. As Navratilova herself shows as she played at a super high level for her age in her 30s, amongst the highest ever after Djokovic and Serena, and still managed only 1 slam after her 31st birthday, and wouldn't be a lot more even if remove Graf and Seles (a few more most likely but wouldn't be raking them in clearly, and the field without Graf and Seles sucks, especialy according to Navratilova bots who claim Sanchez and Sabatini and Martinez are supposably terrible players). And even the weak field she played at the end of her career had a ton more depth than any field Navratilova faced, so was still better than what Navratilova faced in 82-86 which was both super weak as well in top end competition (minus only Evert the 2-3 years of that Evert was actualy playing fairly well, and the 1-2 Mandlikova was) and something below the levels of non existent in both short field and deep field depth. And of course the field Serena faced in 99-2008 was light years beyond anything Navratilova ever faced overall, even counting the periods she was barely winning, never mind focusing on the entire of 82-86 which was never strong, and only decent in 85-86. If you want to add 87, even though it was Graf, not Martina, who was #1 that year, that year was also weak, as proven by 17 year old Steffi Graf, who was nowhere near as good yet as 88 and 89 losing only 2 matches the entire year.
And saying Navratilova had Graf is silly when their primes didn't intersect, the only years they were both somewhat close to their primes in the same year was 87, where Navratilova per always had the experience advantage in slam finals, with Graf despite being atleast as far from her prime as Navratilova totally dominating the rest of the year where that older player age in initial slam finals was not present. Graf is not given credit for having Navratilova as competition ever that I see, so why on earth should the reverse be true. So many games are always played by Navratlova fans to advance her credit others don't get. And the total baby Graf that Navratilova played while dominating in 84-86 was of course light years inferior to any of Venus, Henin, Sharapova, Clijsters, Davenport, etc...An older Graf would have been a tougher opponent than any of those (although not than all those combined still) but we already know Navratilova would not have even been dominating in the first place had she faced an older Graf those years.
I will say Navratilova's most amazing feat is winning 13 times in a row against the great Chris Evert. That is amazing, even if some of that period of 13 (but not all, just some) was Evert playing some of her worst ever tennis, like around the time of the 83 US Open where she looked abysmal even in her matches to reach the final which she still reached in that godawful field at the time. Still amazing even considering, a legit GOAT contender and winning 13 in a row. She is perhaps the only player in history who could have managed that against a fellow GOAT, given that Graf is a horrible match up for Evert I could see her coming close to 13 maybe had they been in their primes together, but probably not reaching 13. I don't see Court beating any ATG, let alone a GOAT, 13 times in a row. I don't see Graf or Seles ever beating each other 13 times in a row, well I am sure @Mustard and @buscemi will be here to chirp in they are sure Seles would have had a 13 match win streak vs Graf had she not been stabbed, but they can continue that fantasy, the 99.999% of everyone else will concede that never happens for either one in a trillion years, LOL! So that is an amazing feat by Martina, and one of many things that gives her a possible case for GOAT. However Evert is often used to gloss over the overall terrible field of nearly the entire Navratilova reign, no Evert alone does not make a good field, and does not change that the overall field totally sucked. This is literally the only place I ever see "strong competition" brought up as an argument for Martina. I see many others (many legitimate) brought up to argue her as GOAT, and against her major weaknesses in the argument, such as only 18 slams, and winning only 3 slams outside a 5 year period, but NEVER competition, only here does that bizarre idea seem to exist.
On that note would add Serena going on a 16 year unbeaten streak vs Sharapova including I forget how many matches is also amazing. Sharapova is a legit ATG, not a GOAT contender, but a legit ATG who has a Career Slam. I would bet a million dollars transported to time none of Navratilova, Evert, Court, Graf, Seles, anyone you name would come anywhere near matching that kind of win streak vs a player of Maria's groundstroke quality, firepower, and mental toughness. So that is an amazing feat too, even if Maria is not near Evert as a player, almost equally amazing as the 13 match win streak vs Evert. A super impressive feat by both.
Last edited:
Mark-Touch
G.O.A.T.
You missed my smile?
It was a tongue-in-cheek post.
I am singularly unimpressed with Martina's numbers below.
Slam Career win/loss % : 1. Tie Court & Graf 90% 3. Evert 89% 4. Serena 87% 5. Martina 86%
% of major champs won: 1.Court 51.1% 2. Graf 40.7% 3. Evert 32.1% 4. Martina 29.9% 5. Serena 28.4%
% of majors reaching final: 1. Court 61.7% 2. Evert 60.7% 3. Graf 55.6% 4. Martina 47.8% 5. Serena 40%
Slam finals conversion rate: 1. Court 83% 2. Graf 73.1% 3. Serena 71.9% 4. Martina 56.3% 5. Evert 52.9%
% of majors reaching SF's: 1. Evert 92.9% 2. Court 83% 3. Graf 66% 4. Martina 65.7% 5. Serena 49.4%
Semifinals conversion rate: 1. Court 86.6% 2. Serena 82.5% 3. Graf 81.1% 4. Martina 72.7% 5. Evert 65.4%
% of major reaching QF's: 1. Evert 96.4% 2. Court 91.5% 3. Martina 79.1% 4. Graf 74.1% 5. Serena 66.7%
QFinals conversion rate: 1. Evert 96.2 2. Graf 88.1% 3. Court 83.7% 4. Martina 83% 5. Serena 74.1%
*Here a low number is a better number
* % of slam losses between Rds1-3 in a major: 1.Evert 3.6% 2. Court 6.4% 3. Graf 13% 4. Martina 13.4% 5. Serena 21%
Martina is NEVER in the top two in any of these categories. Martina does not excel in any of these stats. Matter of fact she is either the lowest or second lowest in every category except % of major reaching QF's where she moves to #3. That is her very best showing.
What surprises me, is despite the fact that she won so many finals against Evert, she is only a few points from Chris's majors finals conversion rate: 56.3% to 52.9. Evert took 4. Graf took 4. Mandlikova took 2. Goolagong, Austin, Martinez, Seles each took 1 as well.
You absolutely have to use her doubles victories, and her other tournament accomplishments or she just isn't in the running.
Slam Career win/loss % : 1. Tie Court & Graf 90% 3. Evert 89% 4. Serena 87% 5. Martina 86%
% of major champs won: 1.Court 51.1% 2. Graf 40.7% 3. Evert 32.1% 4. Martina 29.9% 5. Serena 28.4%
% of majors reaching final: 1. Court 61.7% 2. Evert 60.7% 3. Graf 55.6% 4. Martina 47.8% 5. Serena 40%
Slam finals conversion rate: 1. Court 83% 2. Graf 73.1% 3. Serena 71.9% 4. Martina 56.3% 5. Evert 52.9%
% of majors reaching SF's: 1. Evert 92.9% 2. Court 83% 3. Graf 66% 4. Martina 65.7% 5. Serena 49.4%
Semifinals conversion rate: 1. Court 86.6% 2. Serena 82.5% 3. Graf 81.1% 4. Martina 72.7% 5. Evert 65.4%
% of major reaching QF's: 1. Evert 96.4% 2. Court 91.5% 3. Martina 79.1% 4. Graf 74.1% 5. Serena 66.7%
QFinals conversion rate: 1. Evert 96.2 2. Graf 88.1% 3. Court 83.7% 4. Martina 83% 5. Serena 74.1%
*Here a low number is a better number
* % of slam losses between Rds1-3 in a major: 1.Evert 3.6% 2. Court 6.4% 3. Graf 13% 4. Martina 13.4% 5. Serena 21%
Martina is NEVER in the top two in any of these categories. Martina does not excel in any of these stats. Matter of fact she is either the lowest or second lowest in every category except % of major reaching QF's where she moves to #3. That is her very best showing.
What surprises me, is despite the fact that she won so many finals against Evert, she is only a few points from Chris's majors finals conversion rate: 56.3% to 52.9. Evert took 4. Graf took 4. Mandlikova took 2. Goolagong, Austin, Martinez, Seles each took 1 as well.
You absolutely have to use her doubles victories, and her other tournament accomplishments or she just isn't in the running.
Pheasant
Legend
I’ve said for 30 years now that Navratilova is the best singles players of all time. And I placed a lot of emphasis on Martina’s insane 1982-86 run.
For slams only, I will use Court’s best 5 year run in the Open Era vs Martina’s stellar 1982-86 run, just to see how they stack up.
Martina:
12 slams titles in 19 played
113-7, .942 overall
Court 11 slam titles in 16 played
81-5, .942 overall
In slams, Court is actually holding up well peak-for-peak. And she was pregnant at the 1971 Wimbledon tourney. And she missed the next 4 slam tourneys after that. Her rebound after having a kid was mind-blowing. Both won 6 straight slam titles, which is incredible. But Court has the elusive CYGS. Slam-wise, this is much closer than I realized. One could argue that Court’s was more impressive, due winning a higher percentage of slam titles that she played than Martina did. Martina can still brag that 12>11 here, despite Court’s pregnancy.
Martina pulls ahead when looking at their overall body of work for these time spans
Overall record during the aforementioned 5-year span:
Martina: 436-15, .967
Court: 443-30, .937
Of course, Court is being handicapped by excluding all of those other years, which include 13 slam titles to Martina’s 6. Court also had an 88-2 season, which is stellar.
I am starting to realize that Court has a strong case vs Martina. I might end up changing my mind here. And of course, I haven’t forgotten about Steffi, Evert, and Serena either. They are all awesome.
For slams only, I will use Court’s best 5 year run in the Open Era vs Martina’s stellar 1982-86 run, just to see how they stack up.
Martina:
12 slams titles in 19 played
113-7, .942 overall
Court 11 slam titles in 16 played
81-5, .942 overall
In slams, Court is actually holding up well peak-for-peak. And she was pregnant at the 1971 Wimbledon tourney. And she missed the next 4 slam tourneys after that. Her rebound after having a kid was mind-blowing. Both won 6 straight slam titles, which is incredible. But Court has the elusive CYGS. Slam-wise, this is much closer than I realized. One could argue that Court’s was more impressive, due winning a higher percentage of slam titles that she played than Martina did. Martina can still brag that 12>11 here, despite Court’s pregnancy.
Martina pulls ahead when looking at their overall body of work for these time spans
Overall record during the aforementioned 5-year span:
Martina: 436-15, .967
Court: 443-30, .937
Of course, Court is being handicapped by excluding all of those other years, which include 13 slam titles to Martina’s 6. Court also had an 88-2 season, which is stellar.
I am starting to realize that Court has a strong case vs Martina. I might end up changing my mind here. And of course, I haven’t forgotten about Steffi, Evert, and Serena either. They are all awesome.
insideoutforehanders
Hall of Fame
It depends if you think judging a player by only their 5 best years makes more sense or their entire career makes more sense. If it is their entire careers Martina while still one of the greatest ever comes up a loser or atleast definitely not #1 when against Graf, Serena, Evert, Court as BTURNER broke down pretty clearly. Atleast in singles. Limiting it to best 5 years yes there is a hold case, but is that really the proper way to evaluate someone. And in that case is it consecutive or 5 total. Since for instance Graf's 5 best years- 87, 88, 89, 95, 96 combined better Navratilova's 82-86 in virtually every stat but were not consecutive, but if we are limiting it to 5, why would it need to be consecutive in the first place.
Anyway for me personally Martina is for sure not the best ever in singles as 18 slams (only tied for 5th all time. 4-6 behind 3 in the Open Era), and inferior performances at all the Slams minus Wimbledon compared to Graf, Serena, Court, Evert already are enough for me. And for those who want to play if everyone played the French and Australian in the 70s game, Evert would now be way ahead of Martina in slams, not tied, and Martina is still far behind Serena, Graf, Court in slams, so is just worse off now if you want to go there. No slams aren't everything but still by far the most important thing and she isn't even close to tops there. Second most important is #1 ranking stats and she is only even or behind all of Graf, Serena, Court, Evert there too. And for overall best ever, if you want to incorporate doubles strongly Court and even Serena (due to her large edge in singles) still have her beat.
Last edited:
Pheasant
Legend
Those are all good points. I’m a huge peak guy(consecutive 5-6 year span). But with my last writeup on Court vs Martina, I might have shot myself in the foot defending Martina. Court was arguably as impressive(at least at slams) as Martina was. Some might say that her CYGS might offset 12>11, or the fact that she missed 4 slams from her pregnancy.
insideoutforehanders
Hall of Fame
In terms of Court the Australian being weaker is a valid point against her but in fairness to Court by a peaking/best 5 year peak metric does anyone really think Court was ever losing in Australia to ANYONE (King, Bueno, Goolagong, whoever) in any stretch she was winning more than half of non Australian Open slams (including Wimbledon where she had huge psyche problems with), LOL. If so keep dreaming.
An IMO much bigger argument against Court (and in contrast an argument for Martina, for those arguing for her) is her lack of performance at Wimbledon. Wimbledon is still the most important event, even today. For Court to have only won 3 with a game tailor made from grass is not good enough. Does not take her out of the running but is an argument against her. There is no way to accurately reflect the impact of that in your stats.
Last edited:
My problem is that 'peak' is cherry picked number when you choose '5' and when you do that, you have to exclude everything outside it. You get to pick the size of the picture and crop it to fit the frame that best suits Martina. We could pick two years, 7 years, ten years or 15 years, depending on our preferred champion. If I want to crop a slightly smaller picture to frame that works better for my fave, whats inherently wrong with my call? FYI, You don't have to take anything away from Maureen Connolly. Virtually her entire career was 'peak'. Want to check on her losses in those five years? Curious about Lenglen's best 5 years too.
its particularly illogical, once the tour turns pro under the WTAs union-management contract . It makes zero sense to chop off professional tennis matches that players got paid to perform under that same contract as the matches you selected as 'peak'. No excuse to say Martina was a Pro in 1981, and in 1987, got paid to play her very best as a pro, but the results do not count as an equal slice of her colletive work product because she failed to produce a longer ideal 'peak'. Martina cashed those checks she received based on the assumption that all those professional results were her job, and part of her professional resume. Every one of them from 1973 through 2005.
Last edited:
Angrybirdstar
Professional
eh couldn't you chalk this up to having greater longevity than the others besides Serena, and then note her significantly outperforming Serena in these stats?
It's not 'great longevity' in singles if she wins only one slam in the last 8 years she played on the singles tour. But you are absolutely right that she was more consistent than Serena.
Serena, as great as she was did not seem to be as obsessed with tennis as Martina was, at least for part of her career.
Serena cared enough to enter the tournament and walk on the court,, but not enough to win the matches once she got there?
Of course, Serena wanted to win every match she played but if I recall correctly, there were times when tennis did not seem to be her main concern. I was never a Serena fan, but the fact is, that she won 23 slams and Martina won 18 which makes Serena at least as great of an ATG as Martina, Evert and Graf were.
pierceforehands
Professional
Longevity can be subjective too. Some praise Navratilova for amazing longevity simply for playing so long. However considering 15 of her 18 slams came in only a 6 year stretch and 17 of 18 (all but 1) came over a 9 year year period, I would say that makes her longevity inferior to all of Graf, Serena, Court, Evert, particularly those latter 3, in most regards.
"Serena, as great as she was did not seem to be as obsessed with tennis as Martina was, at least for part of her career." If you can't even get out of your
3rd match in the most important tournaments more than 1 in 5 times, a little more 'obsession' is probably called for.
21% a lot of embarrassment to explain away. Its a long list of early round losses. And then there is this stat
And then there is this: QFinals conversion rate: 1. Evert 96.2 2. Graf 88.1% 3. Court 83.7% 4. Martina 83% 5. Serena 74.1%
Last edited:
Pheasant
Legend
Evert’s record of making the semis in 92% of the slams that she participated is arguably the most ridiculous stat in the history of the sport. That QF conversion rate is insane as well
Serena WON 23 slams, Martina and Evert won 18. IF you were a professional tennis player, which stat would you prefer? I am not saying Serena is the GOAT but certainly is in the GOAT tier, whether you like it or not.
Parquet addicted
New User
Yes,double is important.And win 6 slam consecutivly is more impressive than calendar grand slam.And played vs a great atg (evert).Also in 1983 is record was 86-1, crazy
insideoutforehanders
Hall of Fame
Yeah no, LOL. Especialy not when those who did CYGS also won 5 in a row and 8 of 9 (Graf) or also 6 in a row, plus the CYGS as part of the 6 in a row (Court) or 9 in a row played (Connolly). Are you now saying Martina's 6 in a row with no CYGS is better than Court's 6 in a row with a CYGS?!?! Or Graf and Connolly both doing the CYGS as teenagers.
She is absolutely in the tier. No question she belongs in the conversation but that 24 number is not decisive for me. . My rule of thumb is no single number is better than the same information expressed as a percentage. Every 'win' should be measured against the failures accrued to get that win. So its not enough information to say 'Martina won 9 Wimbledons' or 'Serena won 24 singles slams'. There is no context to the information. I need to know how many times they failed and when those failures happened . I need a career win/loss percentage of any stat as well.
Like this stat which does impress me more:
Semifinals conversion rate: 1. Court 86.6% 2. Serena 82.5% 3. Graf 81.1% 4. Martina 72.7% 5. Evert 65.4%
Ideally, I need to know who those losses were to, what round, and what each player was seeded. For example If Martina loses to Billie Jean King at Wimbledon, I need to know what round it happened, and what their respective rankings were when they played the match.. The names alone mean very little.
Now this is a right moment to bring up Margaret's Aussie semifinal opponents and the names and rankings of those opponents to show lack of depth impacts these candidates and therein is the case for Serena!
Last edited:
MissileBackHand99
Professional
The problem with using Slams as the measuring stick is that it completely removes context. Martina wasn't playing 4 Slams a year, every year like Graf, Serena, and later players have (and even Court in the 60s and early 70s). She played Australia only once before 1980 (Finals in '75) and the French only once before what, '81 (Finals in '75)?? And then never played Australia again after '89, and stopped playing the French after '88 (she came back for one swan song during her retirement year in '94). That effected her Slam totals (as it did her great rival Evert's), in terms of being #1 on the list of total Slam titles. Also, the WTA Tour Finals was far more prestigious than Australia for most of Martina's career, and she absolutely dominated that event from '78-'86...winning 7x and being the runner up on 2 other occasions
Therein lies the advantages of my stats. They are condensed to a percentage, rather than just a number. It does not matter if Martina and Chris entered more or less often than Graf or Serena. They can all acquire the same percentage with 10 entries as with 20 entries.
insideoutforehanders
Hall of Fame
Yes but the problem with that in Martina's case is if we assume everyone plays the French and Australian Opens in the 70s she is only WORSE off, not better off. Chris now has anywhere from 23-26 slams most likely, and is probably now the unquestioned GOAT, even if she still has her 13 match losing streak to Martina later on. Martina by contrast has only about 19 slams, or anywhere from 18-20. She isn't winning a French in the 70s if it is fully attended, and anyone who I need to explain that to is not worth discussing with. That leaves the Australian. Wimbledon was always by far her better grass slam compared to the Australian, for instance she won 7 Wimbledons from December 80-87 and only 3 Australians despite playing them all (out of 7 of both). So it is unlikely she even matches her 2 Wimbledons in Australian Opens, forget ever bettering it. So 0-2 there, most likely 1 in either 78 or 79 or something.
So now Martina no longer has an excuse or any sort of "context", still has way fewer slams than Serena, Court, or Graf (in Court's case even if everyone plays Australia as she wins almost all of those anyway most likely as others have discussed, King and Bueno are almost never winning a single match against her there other than a crummy year for her like 68 where King already did), and is now way behind Evert too, vs being tied as now.
So off goes that defense for Martina. I love typing that out everytime a Martina uber (I am not accusing you of being one, you are quite reasonable, but I am referring to other more obnoxious types here who use this argument ad nauseum) go there, and even act like Martina were a bigger victim than Chris (LMFAO) of this. So to these more obnoxious types, if you want to go for context of slams then, go right ahead, and now concede in your new reality Chris >>>>>>> Martina in singles atleast. Or stick with things as they are, your choice, but you can't have it both ways.
Parquet addicted
New User
Yes, also Atp Finals for man in 70' and maybe 80' are more important than A0.And Graf probably could win less slam vs Seles at 100%
Parquet addicted
New User
yes also Evert is very underatted
I happen to think MN is easily one of the greatest players I've ever seen, right up there w/Serena and Graf and Evert a lot closer than people care to believe. Your post once again reminds us that context matters. When a whole generation of players attends at most 3 of the GS events, usually 2, it makes these GS count comparisons pretty worthless. If Chris had played every GS event in the 70's when she was at her youthful peak, you are right, she would have cleaned up.
insideoutforehanders
Hall of Fame
Yes MN is most definitely a GOAT candidate, and I have no problems with any who pick her, especialy those combining doubles, and even those who choose to just for singles. She isn't my pick personally, but she is definitely a valid choice and there are many justifiably reasons to pick her. However the particular topic of context of the slams value in the 70s, which yes was a real thing, hurt Chris a lot more than it hurt Martina.
I think you can get there without doubles if you broaden the focus to the WTA tour tournaments especially focused on those end of season championships. She was without peer at collecting the 'stuff' we should expect champions to collect. We do a real disservice when we equate the slams with greatness, because we are denying so many variables that actually make the sport healthy. Focusing on 4 tournaments and a year end ranking, (or number of weeks) to determine greatness in our sport is very anemic. We need our players to be seen in person , so we need to reward them for been seen in person.
Last edited:
Similar threads
