Is Navratilova Underrated? Why?

...and for Serena--at the point she won her most recent major--still achieved that at her age, (35 at the time, as opposed to Evert at 32 when she won her final major) easily elevates her over the likes of a Evert, who ran out of gas even before the next generation asserted themselves, indicating that Evert was never as versatile as Serena in facing changing players/new challenges.
Ha ha.
You really do have the talent to amuse.
Evert only played all 4 majors in a year, six times in her long career. Not because she was injured, but because tournament priorities were very different as I'm sure you well know. Who's to say how many majors Evert would have if the tennis calender was as it is now with majors being of equal importance AND careers seemingly defined by the current obsession with majors won.
And whilst Williams does indeed have more majors, Evert can be admired for her on-court behaviour - win or lose she behaved like a champion. And Williams..... not so much.... case in point, they both have 6 USO singles titles but only one of them is mostly remembered, at this event, for the matches she lost....
 
Who's to say how many majors Evert would have if the tennis calender was as it is now with majors being of equal importance AND careers seemingly defined by the current obsession with majors won.
One, "who's to say..." is the same, pointless game the hardcore Seles dreamers love to play. History is history. Evert won to the best of her capacity, like any player.

Two, it is patently false to claim there's a "current obsession with majors won." The defining value of majors was always there. I recall old interviews with a young McEnroe talking about wanting to win majors because he--like most sensible players--knew that is what the sport is represented by: the majors. There's an early interview with Sampras asking his coach how many majors other players won. Not random events. Majors. That is just scratching the surface of how many players of the past expressed similar sentiments/interests.

And whilst Williams does indeed have more majors, Evert can be admired for her on-court behaviour
Please. Evert's arrogant, prissy country club mask was her calling card, only torn to shreds when Navratilova finally turned the tables on her. And if we're being honest, you (who lives to criticize Serena as a person) cannot cherry pick behavior, because the world knows what kind of person Evert is off court as well. Its not the model of perfection the worst of her fans convinced themselves she represented. Not by any stretch of the imagination....

they both have 6 USO singles titles but only one of them is mostly remembered, at this event, for the matches she lost....
Serena's 1st USO title in 1999 was one of the most memorable moments at the event (greater than any Evert moment there) and a historic breakthrough after no black woman had won a singles major since Gibson 43 years earlier. Serena would continue to build on her legendary status as one of the sport's finest, no matter how much some wish that was not true. She is and will always be known as one of the greatest, sport advancing players in tennis history, while transcending the sport to become an icon--another staus far beyond Evert.

I wait for the attempt to flip these statements into another fantasy "negative."
 
Last edited:
One, "who's to say..." is the same, pointless game the hardcore Seles dreamers love to play. History is history. Evert won to the best of her capacity, like any player.

Two, it is patently false to claim there's a "current obsession with majors won." The defining value of majors was always there. I recall old interviews with a young McEnroe talking about wanting to win majors because he--like most sensible players--knew that is what the sport is represented by: the majors. There's an early interview with Sampras asking his coach how many majors other players won. Not random events. Majors. That is just scratching the surface of how many players of the past expressed similar sentiments/interests.



Please. Evert's arrogant, prissy country club mask was her calling card, only torn to shreds when Navratilova finally turned the tables on her. And if we're being honest, you (who lives to criticize Serena as a person) cannot cherry pick behavior, because the world knows what kind of person Evert is off court as well. Its not the model of perfection the worst of her fans convinced themselves she represented. Not by any stretch of the imagination....



Serena's 1st USO title in 1999 was one of the most memorable moments at the event (greater than any Evert moment there) and a historic breakthrough after no black woman had won a singles major since Gibson 43 years earlier. Serena would continue to build on her legendary status as one of the sport's finest, no matter how much some wish that was not true. She is and will always be known as one of the greatest, sport advancing players in tennis history, while transcending the sport to become an icon--another staus far beyond Evert.

I wait for the attempt to flip these statements into another fantasy "negative."
Your wait won't last long.
Evert is "prissy".
Ha ha. "Prissy" compared to Serena's multiple breakdowns at said US Open.
I guess "prissy" isn't so bad.
And I suspect Evert's initial run to the semi-finals gleaned far more coverage than Williams winning.
And, it's not "cherry picking" to state as fact that the majors carried an unequal weight/attendance during the bulk of Evert's career. And thank you for using McEnroe as an example: Possibly not the best choice to back up your point, but perfect for my own - in 15 years he played the AO .... shouldn't take long, I only need the one hand...5 times.
AND it gets kinda worse for your example, of those 5 times, 3 are 1989, 1990 and 1992. All years when the AO was definitely of equal merit of the other three.
I could go on but seems a tad silly given your lack of basic research.
You do seem prone to lengthy posts that really say so little.
Less is more my friend :)
 
Ha ha. "Prissy" compared to Serena's multiple breakdowns at said US Open.
I guess "prissy" isn't so bad.
Prissy and arrogant only illustrated her generally sh*tty behavior, and again, this is not limited to what happened on-court, but of course, you will sidestep that.


And I suspect Evert's initial run to the semi-finals gleaned far more coverage than Williams winning.
On what planet, because here in the real world, that was not the case. Serena's first USO victory was historic in several ways and was news around the world. Evert's semifinal run was not. I was there to see the coverage, and to even suggest it was covered more only shows the depth of your hatred of Serena (and everyone on this board knows the reason why), since no one in their right mind would ever makes such a reaching, fantasy-soaked claim.

And, it's not "cherry picking" to state as fact that the majors carried an unequal weight/attendance during the bulk of Evert's career.
Stop posting outright lies. The "cherry picking" line:

And if we're being honest, you (who lives to criticize Serena as a person) cannot cherry pick behavior
...was a reference to behavior, not the majors and we know where behavior goes with Evert on and off court.

And thank you for using McEnroe as an example: Possibly not the best choice to back up your point, but perfect for my own - in 15 years he played the AO .... shouldn't take long, I only need the one hand...5 times.
Again, trying--and failing--to spin comments, while ignoring that which you cannot address. I pointed out the value of majors is not new and McEnroe (arguably had a greater impact of the sport than Evert), Sampras and others of past generations shared the same beliefs about the majors, so your lie about "current obsession with majors won" is just that--a lie. Of course, unless you are digging in Evert's back yard for trinkets, you have proven time and time again that tennis history is alien to you (unless you're channeling Wikipedia), since any real tennis fan would have seen the numerous interviews with players from past decades all making their focus on winning majors undeniably clear.
 
I have no problems with people pointing out the hypothetical what if of if Evert and Navratilova played more Australian and French Opens. The problem though, particularly regarding Navratilova, is what many Navratilova fans either dont recognize or fail to acknowledge, is this would hypothetically give Evert many more probable slam wins than Navratilova. Think about it, with everyone playing the French in the 70s, Evert almost certainly wins 76, 77, and 78, with only an outside shot of say Goolagong stopping her one of those years. No way on gods green earth Navratilova wins RG any of those years, even if Evert loses any of those years Goolagong or an aging Richey or either the ones to do it or win it instead. Navratilova wasnt even contending on clay on tour yet, she only reached the RG final in 75 since nobody (besides Evert and Martina) played. Heck even if Navratilova played the super depleted French Opens that existed I am not sure if she beats Barker, Ruzica, Jausovec, the 3 winners, and the rest of the field, to win any of those years. Maybe she wins 1 of those 3 then, I would say that is a best case scenario.

Then at the Australian Open, well based on her Wimbledon results it is safe to say Martina isnt winning in any of 74-January 77 versions. And even in the fields that were present in their depleted state she probably never beats Goolagong, a better player at the time, who dominated the event from 74-77. She didnt even make a Wimbledon final, and she was much better at Wimbledon than the Australian in her prime. She has 3 potential shots of ones she missed, late 77, 78, 79. Assuming a full field she probably wins 1 of the 3, she wasnt even dominant at Wimbledon yet despite winning 2 of the 4 from 77-80, let alone on tour. In the depleted field that existed she probably wins both 78 and 79, and loses to Goolagong in 77. By contrast Evert would have a good shot against Goolagong even on grass by 76-77, when she was starting to really own the match up. And the early 77 version was won by Melville with Goolagong out due to pregnancy. Evert probably wins atleast 2 of the 3, maybe losing to Goolagong in 1 of her 2 wins. 78-80 I would guesstimate 1 of 3, similar to the odds I am giving Navratilova in the 77-79 period. That is assuming a full field.

Evert would have roughly 24 slams and Navratilova only roughly 19. Evert would now almost certainly rank higher than Navratilova all time on almost everyones list. I know many rank Court behind Navratilova, but that is a totally different situation. A non popular non U.S player, who has the stigma of the then lesser regarded Australian Open and a huge proportion of her titles coming there. Navratilova's exact contemporary of almost the same age with 5 more slams than her, Evert would clearly be ranked above Navratilova on almost every list.

So if you are going to get into what ifs about the Australian and French Opens in this period, you can not ignore this element, and it probably ultimately hurts Navratilova more than it helps her. It does not help her much, or any, in a comparision with Graf and Serena, and likely just lifts Evert further above her and in fact makes Evert the potential GOAT now and Martina a fairly distant #2 in her own time, rather than the perceived #1 in her own time slightly over Evert as she is seen now. In fact it might make it more clear Court now belongs her too, as even with playing the so called weaker slams Navratilova is now still probably far behind Court in total slams, so much so the perception might be now Court would still be ahead even with stronger Australian Open fields in her day.

Not surprisingly suppporters of MN consistently ignore this reality, either through ignorance, (more likely) desire to not acknowledge this inconvient truth, or convenient cherry picking. And if that is going to be the case, there is no point into even getting into the Australian and French Open what if scenarios at all, atleast while MN is concerned. As already noted, even when forgetting Evert, it doesnt even help Martina much in the first place, as she did not excel much in the 70s, was a nothing on clay in the 70s, and does not even in a probable breakdown benefit much anyhow. Now Evert supporters, it is different, they do have a very valid case to lift her up through this argument, without being inconsistent.
 
Prissy and arrogant only illustrated her generally sh*tty behavior, and again, this is not limited to what happened on-court, but of course, you will sidestep that.




On what planet, because here in the real world, that was not the case. Serena's first USO victory was historic in several ways and was news around the world. Evert's semifinal run was not. I was there to see the coverage, and to even suggest it was covered more only shows the depth of your hatred of Serena (and everyone on this board knows the reason why), since no one in their right mind would ever makes such a reaching, fantasy-soaked claim.



Stop posting outright lies. The "cherry picking" line:



...was a reference to behavior, not the majors and we know where behavior goes with Evert on and off court.



Again, trying--and failing--to spin comments, while ignoring that which you cannot address. I pointed out the value of majors is not new and McEnroe (arguably had a greater impact of the sport than Evert), Sampras and others of past generations shared the same beliefs about the majors, so your lie about "current obsession with majors won" is just that--a lie. Of course, unless you are digging in Evert's back yard for trinkets, you have proven time and time again that tennis history is alien to you (unless you're channeling Wikipedia), since any real tennis fan would have seen the numerous interviews with players from past decades all making their focus on winning majors undeniably clear.
And yet if McEnroe was chasing majors... you think he'd play the AO more than 5 times
... and yet...
I appreciate your attempt to justify your arguments... pity facts got in the way.
And Evert. Her on court record speaks for its self. And Serena Williams always the consumate champion....
But don't let that stop you.... you're an endless source of amusement. For which l thank you.
 
Evert is so interesting as a commentator since she is the complete opposite of Navratilova. While Navratilova goes overboard in almost self promoting herself, Evert far too underplays herself. It was a bit frustrating when she kept saying Hingis was a much better version of her in the late 90s, and it came back to look even worse when Hingis did not have close to the career that was expected, and only won 5 slams. In fairness to her many thought then Hingis was one of the future GOATs, and a sure bet double digit slam winner. I dont know if she really believes those things or is purposely being overly modest (I think it is the latter, you cant be such a successful champion and be truly that humble to your core), but unfortunately it leads to many underrating her as a player.

On another note I find her a far superior commentator since coming back this decade to what she was when she last left in the second half of the 90s. She was a good commentator the first half of the 90s, but became an annoying and cliched commentator in the second half of the 90s. Probably some of that NBC's influence, as they typically produce horrendous commentary, no matter the sport, so I am sure the network has a lot to do with it. Since coming back she is refreshing and much improved, she definitely needed a break from the booth.
 
And yet if McEnroe was chasing majors... you think he'd play the AO more than 5 times
... and yet...
I appreciate your attempt to justify your arguments... pity facts got in the way.
And Evert. Her on court record speaks for its self. And Serena Williams always the consumate champion....
But don't let that stop you.... you're an endless source of amusement. For which l thank you.
^ This is what's called a dodge. Your previous posts were picked apart for your usual lies, absolutely no awareness of history and failed attempts to shift statements to arguments no one is making, all to defend the indefensible Evert.

McEnroe not playing the AO often would not prevent him from collecting more majors, just as Sampras had a large number of majors, yet half were won at Wimbledon, so once again, your AO argument is a limp as the rest of your attempts to clean up Evert and her terrible behavior on court and darker acts off court. But please continue going from one thread to another posting rants and false statements about Serena Williams. Everyone around her knows why you're doing it, so its rather pathetic for you to pretend you (and others of your ilk on this board) are not obsessing on her for anything other than one reason, a reason you will undoubtedly attempt to push away, but that's not going to work.
 
^ This is what's called a dodge. Your previous posts were picked apart for your usual lies, absolutely no awareness of history and failed attempts to shift statements to arguments no one is making, all to defend the indefensible Evert.

McEnroe not playing the AO often would not prevent him from collecting more majors, just as Sampras had a large number of majors, yet half were won at Wimbledon, so once again, your AO argument is a limp as the rest of your attempts to clean up Evert and her terrible behavior on court and darker acts off court. But please continue going from one thread to another posting rants and false statements about Serena Williams. Everyone around her knows why you're doing it, so its rather pathetic for you to pretend you (and others of your ilk on this board) are not obsessing on her for anything other than one reason, a reason you will undoubtedly attempt to push away, but that's not going to work.
And a jolly good morning to you to :)
So lets just be clear: You are saying that the 4 majors have ALWAYS been of equal importance and attended by all the best players?
Yes?
It's a straight forward question.
 
Not so fast.

I'm still waitng for the hard evidence to support:

And I suspect Evert's initial run to the semi-finals gleaned far more coverage than Williams winning.
Enough of the sidestepping. Cough it up, as the true answer rests at the heart of your well-known campaign against Serena Williams, even in the face of history about that moment which transcended the sport.
 
Not so fast.

I'm still waitng for the hard evidence to support:



Enough of the sidestepping. Cough it up, as the true answer rests at the heart of your well-known campaign against Serena Williams, even in the face of history about that moment which transcended the sport.
And yet you refuse to answer the question: that you believe all 4 majors to have been weighted/attended equally throughout history.
Why would that be.... hmmmm....

Deflect all you like about my dislike for Serena Williams. It's well documented. It's only you "and your ilk" that attempt to turn my dislike in to something more sinister. Which just amuses me as it's such a lazy approach.
But dear TV, you never fail to disappoint. For which, l thank you :)
 
And yet you refuse to answer the question: that you believe all 4 majors to have been weighted/attended equally throughout history.
Why would that be.... hmmmm....
The Grand Slam was identified and celebrated for decades by player and fan alike for a reason. Figure it out. Your "different priorities" line is more smoke and mirrors BS to defend Evert's many shortcomings as a player, but remove said shortcomings, and she was never in the running for winning the Grand Slam under any circumstances. Court before her, Graf after her had a game she did not on her "best" day.

Deflect all you like about my dislike for Serena Williams.
Its a "deflection" if someone else brought Serena into this. Typical of many threads, you are the one who brought her into this to make the statement:

And I suspect Evert's initial run to the semi-finals gleaned far more coverage than Williams winning.
Where is the hard evidence for this statement? You have spent several posts not backing this up at all. Time to produce it.

It's only you "and your ilk" that attempt to turn my dislike in to something more sinister. Which just amuses me as it's such a lazy approach.
Your recent attempt to act as if you are joking your way through this board has not and never will work. Your investment in going from thread to thread trying to damn Serena--even in threads where she was not part of the discussion--only proves what you are. You can continue trying to play the "ohh, its sooooo amusing" routine, but its a stunt employed by sheet-wearing types of the world, as they cannot go a single month without attacking the object of their obsessive hate, for the same reason you constantly attack Serena Williams.
 
The Grand Slam was identified and celebrated for decades by player and fan alike for a reason. Figure it out. Your "different priorities" line is more smoke and mirrors BS to defend Evert's many shortcomings as a player, but remove said shortcomings, and she was never in the running for winning the Grand Slam under any circumstances. Court before her, Graf after her had a game she did not on her "best" day.



Its a "deflection" if someone else brought Serena into this. Typical of many threads, you are the one who brought her into this to make the statement:



Where is the hard evidence for this statement? You have spent several posts not backing this up at all. Time to produce it.



Your recent attempt to act as if you are joking your way through this board has not and never will work. Your investment in going from thread to thread trying to damn Serena--even in threads where she was not part of the discussion--only proves what you are. You can continue trying to play the "ohh, its sooooo amusing" routine, but its a stunt employed by sheet-wearing types of the world, as they cannot go a single month without attacking the object of their obsessive hate, for the same reason you constantly attack Serena Williams.
I appreciate humour is lost on you... funny that, given you constantly amuse me. :)
First things first: You write that I brought Serena Williams in to the conversation.
Hmmm..... I suggest you go back to the... err....oh yeah, the ORIGINAL POST.... ;)
 
I do think although most seem to rate Navratilova 3rd or lower today, she does have possible legit GOAT claims. Her 83-84 was probably the most dominant ever, and 82-86 ever the most dominant 5 year stretch. Graf's 88-89 and even 93-96 are "greater" due to the greater monopoly of slam and major wins, but W-L and tour dominance nobody was better than Navratilova. And of course if you value doubles she gets points on nearly everyone.

I do think as I said evaluating the what ifs of the era, those only marginally help her compared to Graf or Serena, and in fact hurt her significantly against Evert and Wills (who never even played Australia and rarely played the French but still compiled 19 slams; weak era arguments aside), and to some extent Lenglen and Connolly. So while that is a valid argument for past era players, it isnt really one that helps her much. Of course it would help her bigtime against Court, but nearly everyone unfairly and excessively lowballs Court, so that isnt even worth noting.

And @PDJ, just so you know someone has an agenda to exagerrate the value of the Grand Slam and shut out anyone who hasnt won it, in order to shut Federer out of any GOAT arguments. And is even willing to shut out his/her own favorite player (Serena) a the possible womens GOAT by extension in doing so. So there is a very extensive agenda, that stretches out from the mens game at play there. So there is no point arguing against the importance of Navratilova not doing the Grand Slam, or the differences in that era, they will go nowhere, since there is a seperate agenda that cant be budged on it, which mostly relates to Federer, and has nothing to do with Navratilova.
 
Last edited:
I do think although most seem to rate Navratilova 3rd or lower today, she does have possible legit GOAT claims. Her 83-84 was probably the most dominant ever, and 82-86 ever the most dominant 5 year stretch. Graf's 88-89 and even 93-96 are "greater" due to the greater monopoly of slam and major wins, but W-L and tour dominance nobody was better than Navratilova. And of course if you value doubles she gets points on nearly everyone.

I do think as I said evaluating the what ifs of the era, those only marginally help her compared to Graf or Serena, and in fact hurt her significantly against Evert and Wills (who never even played Australia and rarely played the French but still compiled 19 slams; weak era arguments aside), and to some extent Lenglen and Connolly. So while that is a valid argument for past era players, it isnt really one that helps her much. Of course it would help her bigtime against Court, but nearly everyone unfairly and excessively lowballs Court, so that isnt even worth noting.

And @PDJ, just so you know someone has an agenda to exagerrate the value of the Grand Slam and shut out anyone who hasnt won it, in order to shut Federer out of any GOAT arguments. And is even willing to shut out his/her own favorite player (Serena) a the possible womens GOAT by extension in doing so. So there is a very extensive agenda, that stretches out from the mens game at play there. So there is no point arguing against the importance of Navratilova not doing the Grand Slam, or the differences in that era, they will go nowhere, since there is a seperate agenda that cant be budged on it, which mostly relates to Federer, and has nothing to do with Navratilova.
Great post.
And I appreciate your personal points addressed to me.
Just a little backstory: TV (definitely a 'she')and I are the best of pals and regularly meet at Madame Guillotine to knit, swap pleasantries and watch the executions. High jinks
:)
 
Great post.
And I appreciate your personal points addressed to me.
Just a little backstory: TV (definitely a 'she')and I are the best of pals and regularly meet at Madame Guillotine to knit, swap pleasantries and watch the executions. High jinks
:)
Oh wow that is awesome. Great to hear that. Good you can be friends despite your obviously vastly differing views on some of the tennis greats.
 
I do think although most seem to rate Navratilova 3rd or lower today, she does have possible legit GOAT claims. Her 83-84 was probably the most dominant ever, and 82-86 ever the most dominant 5 year stretch. Graf's 88-89 and even 93-96 are "greater" due to the greater monopoly of slam and major wins, but W-L and tour dominance nobody was better than Navratilova. And of course if you value doubles she gets points on nearly everyone.
No one rates a GOAT distinction in that manner, which is why you will ever be hard pressed to find a large group of sports writers, tennis historian and commentators that ever rate Navratilova above Graf. That's not happening no for the same reason it did not happen in 1988.


And @PDJ, just so you know someone has an agenda to exagerrate the value of the Grand Slam and shut out anyone who hasnt won it, in order to shut Federer out of any GOAT arguments. And is even willing to shut out his/her own favorite player (Serena) a the possible womens GOAT by extension in doing so.
Translated: In your view, if one does not crown Federer as your imagined GOAT, there must be an agenda at work. That is some deep fanboy self-deception and a subconscious protective mentality at work to avoid facing the truth of the historical record.

You post is simply a stream of nonsense. Laver has always been my favorite male player, with Graf as my favorite female player. Their mastery of the sport is the sport at the very best it can be, and unlike others on this board, I do not play the following games:

1. "W--what if ______played______in that match/year? He/She would have won another/more majors!!"

2. "T-t-they did not value that major back then" (The existence and celebration of Laver and Court back at the time they won the Grand Slam--to name just two--shatters that paper-thin fantasy) .

3. "She/He won/played m-m-m-more matches, so she's/he's the GOAT? Right? Right?!?"

So there is a very extensive agenda, that stretches out from the mens game at play there. So there is no point arguing against the importance of Navratilova not doing the Grand Slam, or the differences in that era, they will go nowhere, since there is a seperate agenda that cant be budged on it, which mostly relates to Federer, and has nothing to do with Navratilova.
^ The Burj Khalifa of piled-up, bulls*** posts.

Federer is your obvious obsession, since you repeatedly refer to him. This thread is about Navratilova, and I and other members know she is not underrated, and recognize her for what she was as a player--which was not the GOAT, as she could not do what Graf did: win the Grand Slam (the very reason Navratilova spent years as a commentator bitterly criticizing Graf at every turn). So, you can continue to pretend you are not hypersensitive to the idea that Federer (your real reason for being here) not being a GOAT player, but the records do not lie about him, or Navratilova.

Chin up!

...and for PDJ--the lone cheerleader for Evert, he's forever angry and dismissive of players who left her records in the dust. He will try to deny and/or spin that, but his attempt to sell her as the prize of professional tennis is a matter of TTW-archived posts while he acts as the mirror of another three-lettered member sharing the same sociopolitical beliefs, topped off by an absolute hatred of Serena Williams.
 
Discussing GOAT contenders observing only the majors reminds me of blind people in one eye, but if we really have to do we have to do the necessary speculation ... and Evert is the only one who could get the Court (while Martina would get to 20, but with so many Wimbly ... and the slams are not all the same but the importance must be assessed).

If we look at the whole career Court, Evert and Martina >> Williams & Graf.
 
No one rates a GOAT distinction in that manner, which is why you will ever be hard pressed to find a large group of sports writers, tennis historian and commentators that ever rate Navratilova above Graf. That's not happening no for the same reason it did not happen in 1988.




Translated: In your view, if one does not crown Federer as your imagined GOAT, there must be an agenda at work. That is some deep fanboy self-deception and a subconscious protective mentality at work to avoid facing the truth of the historical record.

You post is simply a stream of nonsense. Laver has always been my favorite male player, with Graf as my favorite female player. Their mastery of the sport is the sport at the very best it can be, and unlike others on this board, I do not play the following games:

1. "W--what if ______played______in that match/year? He/She would have won another/more majors!!"

2. "T-t-they did not value that major back then" (The existence and celebration of Laver and Court back at the time they won the Grand Slam--to name just two--shatters that paper-thin fantasy) .

3. "She/He won/played m-m-m-more matches, so she's/he's the GOAT? Right? Right?!?"



^ The Burj Khalifa of piled-up, bulls*** posts.

Federer is your obvious obsession, since you repeatedly refer to him. This thread is about Navratilova, and I and other members know she is not underrated, and recognize her for what she was as a player--which was not the GOAT, as she could not do what Graf did: win the Grand Slam (the very reason Navratilova spent years as a commentator bitterly criticizing Graf at every turn). So, you can continue to pretend you are not hypersensitive to the idea that Federer (your real reason for being here) not being a GOAT player, but the records do not lie about him, or Navratilova.

Chin up!

...and for PDJ--the lone cheerleader for Evert, he's forever angry and dismissive of players who left her records in the dust. He will try to deny and/or spin that, but his attempt to sell her as the prize of professional tennis is a matter of TTW-archived posts while he acts as the mirror of another three-lettered member sharing the same sociopolitical beliefs, topped off by an absolute hatred of Serena Williams.
I'm "angry". Tee hee. Lord knows what that makes you!
I don't feel the need to defend Evert's accomplishments- her record speaks for itself, as do the many stand alone accomplishments she still holds the records for. Although I'm more than happy to quote Wikipedia if you'd like?
Would that make you happy?
Oh.... looks like I'm not "the sole cheerleader " for Evert ...

:)
 
No one rates a GOAT distinction in that manner, which is why you will ever be hard pressed to find a large group of sports writers, tennis historian and commentators that ever rate Navratilova above Graf. That's not happening no for the same reason it did not happen in 1988.
Come on, we both know Navratilova was still ranked above Graf all time easily at the end of 1988. Now probably not, but it isnt just due to the famed Grand Slam. :laughing: Or in other words the Grand Slam might help put Graf (for many)above now, but it wouldnt mean squat if she had won 15 slams or less as opposed to over 20.

Just so you know there are valid reasons to argue against Federer being the mens GOAT besides just the lack of the Grand Slam; although that is a potential additional point against him. Such as significantly less time at #1 than Gonzales and even Laver. You dont have to hang everything on just the Grand Slam.
 
I'm "angry". Tee hee. Lord knows what that makes you!
I don't feel the need to defend Evert's accomplishments- her record speaks for itself,
...yet you have a habit of entering many threads defending her record, or trying to add her to GOAT discussions, when her record--like Navratilova's--disqualifies her.

as do the many stand alone accomplishments she still holds the records for. Although I'm more than happy to quote Wikipedia if you'd like?
You mean like players who won the Grand Slam? Oh....
 
...yet you have a habit of entering many threads defending her record, or trying to add her to GOAT discussions, when her record--like Navratilova's--disqualifies her.



You mean like players who won the Grand Slam? Oh....
Chris Evert
Wikipedia
Records
These records were attained in Open Era of tennis.
As Evert elected not to participate in a number of Grand Slam tournaments, the term "consecutive" is inexact. In 19 seasons of professional tennis, Evert competed in all four Grand Slam tournaments in the same year only six times.

1973 French Open —1988 Australian Open
34 finals overall
Stands alone

1971 US Open —1983 French Open
34 consecutive semifinals in tournaments played
Stands alone

1974 French Open —1986 French Open
13 consecutive years of winning 1+ title Stands alone

1974 French Open —1981 Wimbledon
3 different Grand Slam titles won without losing a set
Matched by Steffi Graf, Lindsay Davenport, Serena Williams

1984 French Open —1984 Australian Open
Reached all four finals in a calendar year matched by Margaret Court, Martina Navratilova, Steffi Graf, Monica Seles, Martina Hingis, Justine Henin

1971 US Open —1989 US Open Reached 52 semi-finals (92.8%) and 54 quarterfinals (96.4%) out of 56 Grand Slams entered.
Stands alone

1971 US Open —1989 US Open
Only player to reach singles semi-final or better in each of first six Majors entered Stands alone

1974 Australian Open —1985 US Open
Only player to reach singles semi-finals of all four Majors in the same calendar year five times
Stands alone
1973 French Open —1988 Australian Open
Only player to reach five consecutive finals of each Major
Stands alone


Grand Slam tournaments
Records at each Grand Slam tournament
French Open 1974–1986
7 titles overall
Stands alone

French Open 1973–1986
9 finals overall
matched by Steffi Graf

French Open 1983–1986
four consecutive finals
Matched by Martina Navratilova & Steffi Graf

Wimbledon
1973, 1978–1980,
1982, 1984, 1985 7 runner-up finishes Stands alone

US Open 1975–1982 6 titles overall[39] Serena Williams
US Open 1975–1978
Four consecutive titles
Stands alone

US Open 1975–1979
31 consecutive match wins
Stands alone

US Open 1975–1979
46 consecutive sets won
Stands alone

US Open 1975–1977 Won US Open on clay
Stands alone

US Open 1975–1978 Only female player to win titles on two different surfaces
Stands alone

US Open 1975–1984
9 finals overall
Matched by Serena Williams

US Open 1975–1980
6 consecutive finals
Stands alone

US Open 1971–1986
16 consecutive semi-finals
Stands alone

US Open 1971–1989 101 match wins Stands alone

US Open 1976–1978
3 titles won without losing a set
Matched by Serena Williams

US Open 1971–1989
89.38% (101–12) match winning percentage
Stands alone

Australian Open 1984, 1988
Won title on grass and reached final on hard
Stands alone

Australian Open 1974–1988
14 year gap between first and last finals Stands alone

Other selected records

1971–1988
122 titles outdoor (Open era)
Stands alone

1971–1988
70 clay court titles (Open era)
Stands alone

1974–1979
125 consecutive clay court match victories Stands alone

1972–1988
17 consecutive years ranked inside the top 3
Stands alone

1976–1986
8 Fed Cup titles
Stands alone

1972–1989
94.28% (316–20) clay court match percentage
Stands alone

1971–1984
First player to reach 1000 career match wins
Stands alone

1971–1989
First player to reach 150 career tournament wins
Stands alone

1971–1976
First female to reach one million dollars in career prize money
Stands alone
------

And Evert will always be in a GOAT conversation, as futile as I believe them to be.
 
Chris Evert
Wikipedia
Records
These records were attained in Open Era of tennis.
As Evert elected not to participate in a number of Grand Slam tournaments, the term "consecutive" is inexact. In 19 seasons of professional tennis, Evert competed in all four Grand Slam tournaments in the same year only six times.

1973 French Open —1988 Australian Open
34 finals overall
Stands alone

1971 US Open —1983 French Open
34 consecutive semifinals in tournaments played
Stands alone

1974 French Open —1986 French Open
13 consecutive years of winning 1+ title Stands alone

1974 French Open —1981 Wimbledon
3 different Grand Slam titles won without losing a set
Matched by Steffi Graf, Lindsay Davenport, Serena Williams

1984 French Open —1984 Australian Open
Reached all four finals in a calendar year matched by Margaret Court, Martina Navratilova, Steffi Graf, Monica Seles, Martina Hingis, Justine Henin

1971 US Open —1989 US Open Reached 52 semi-finals (92.8%) and 54 quarterfinals (96.4%) out of 56 Grand Slams entered.
Stands alone

1971 US Open —1989 US Open
Only player to reach singles semi-final or better in each of first six Majors entered Stands alone

1974 Australian Open —1985 US Open
Only player to reach singles semi-finals of all four Majors in the same calendar year five times
Stands alone
1973 French Open —1988 Australian Open
Only player to reach five consecutive finals of each Major
Stands alone



Grand Slam tournaments
Records at each Grand Slam tournament
French Open 1974–1986
7 titles overall
Stands alone


French Open 1973–1986
9 finals overall
matched by Steffi Graf


French Open 1983–1986
four consecutive finals
Matched by Martina Navratilova & Steffi Graf


Wimbledon
1973, 1978–1980,
1982, 1984, 1985 7 runner-up finishes Stands alone


US Open 1975–1982 6 titles overall[39] Serena Williams
US Open 1975–1978
Four consecutive titles
Stands alone


US Open 1975–1979
31 consecutive match wins
Stands alone


US Open 1975–1979
46 consecutive sets won
Stands alone


US Open 1975–1977 Won US Open on clay
Stands alone


US Open 1975–1978 Only female player to win titles on two different surfaces
Stands alone


US Open 1975–1984
9 finals overall
Matched by Serena Williams


US Open 1975–1980
6 consecutive finals
Stands alone


US Open 1971–1986
16 consecutive semi-finals
Stands alone


US Open 1971–1989 101 match wins Stands alone

US Open 1976–1978
3 titles won without losing a set
Matched by Serena Williams


US Open 1971–1989
89.38% (101–12) match winning percentage
Stands alone


Australian Open 1984, 1988
Won title on grass and reached final on hard
Stands alone


Australian Open 1974–1988
14 year gap between first and last finals Stands alone


Other selected records

1971–1988
122 titles outdoor (Open era)
Stands alone


1971–1988
70 clay court titles (Open era)
Stands alone


1974–1979
125 consecutive clay court match victories Stands alone


1972–1988
17 consecutive years ranked inside the top 3
Stands alone


1976–1986
8 Fed Cup titles
Stands alone


1972–1989
94.28% (316–20) clay court match percentage
Stands alone


1971–1984
First player to reach 1000 career match wins
Stands alone


1971–1989
First player to reach 150 career tournament wins
Stands alone


1971–1976
First female to reach one million dollars in career prize money
Stands alone
------


And Evert will always be in a GOAT conversation, as futile as I believe them to be.
First of all, I look at GOAT debates with the same interest as debates about which color of unicorns is most beautiful. ;)

But for Evert's record, it would be wise to look at slams between USO 75 and RG 77. Evert was the same kind of monster on clay that Nadal is now, and Borg. If you didn't live back then, you would not appreciate it fully. Obviously the USO from 75-77 was perfect for her - it was the same surface she grew up practicing on in South Florida. But winning it again in 78 showed she could do it also on HC. 76 was an incredibly dominant year for her, and you have to figure she would have had a great chance that year at RG and also the next, so she really only needed to snag on AO to have a pretty good chance at an Evert slam. She probably could kick herself today for not going for it.

People don't understand how different tennis was then.

If you are looking at female ATGs in tennis, you have to look at her seriously.
 
Navratilova underrated? Yes. Evert too. Both played in an era where winning majors was not the top priority. If they had focused solely on majors, play a limited schedule and cherry pick their tournaments, like Serena has, their slam count would be much higher. Given the fact that each goat contender had to play against the other throughout their career, makes their accomplishments that much more impressive. What would Serena 's slam count be if she had to compete against a player like Graf throughout her career? Serena has had the luxury of going thru the vast majority of her career without having to compete against a goat contender, or a tier 1 or tier 2 great.

So, Serena has more slams? Evert's and Navratilova 's records are more impressive. AND, more importantly Evert and Navratilova conducted themselves like champions. Their sportsmanship, respect of the game, fellow players and game officials is something Serena should have tried to emulate. Instead , Serena has acted like a fool most of her career... Connors, McEnroe and Nastase rolled into one....except they never physically threatened game officials.

Evert is my favorite player of all time, in the women's division. Such intense focus, competitiveness, consistency and mental toughness is rarely seen in the game today. A class act all the way. She handled defeat with class and dignity, giving full credit to her opponent, unlike Serena, who says her opponent played out of her mind, or she had a bad day.

I have both Evert and Navratilova over Serena in the goat discussion. Serena has been the Mike Tyson of tennis... a great player, but a disgrace as an example of sportsmanship and to how the game should be played.
 
First of all, I look at GOAT debates with the same interest as debates about which color of unicorns is most beautiful. ;)

But for Evert's record, it would be wise to look at slams between USO 75 and RG 77. Evert was the same kind of monster on clay that Nadal is now, and Borg. If you didn't live back then, you would not appreciate it fully. Obviously the USO from 75-77 was perfect for her - it was the same surface she grew up practicing on in South Florida. But winning it again in 78 showed she could do it also on HC. 76 was an incredibly dominant year for her, and you have to figure she would have had a great chance that year at RG and also the next, so she really only needed to snag on AO to have a pretty good chance at an Evert slam. She probably could kick herself today for not going for it.

People don't understand how different tennis was then.

If you are looking at female ATGs in tennis, you have to look at her seriously.
To see the real greatness of Evert, you really have to turn her career upside down and look from the bottom up, rather than top down, like everyone else. Its about what didn't happen in rounds 1- 5 in majors when she was not at her peak, and her dominant best, rather than what happened in the final when she was. Its about what did not happen to her ranking throughout her professional career, rather than what did happen from 1974-1978. Its about the losses, she did not acquire in the heretofore norms of a career, rather that the wins she did acquire.
 
Navratilova underrated? Yes. Evert too. Both played in an era where winning majors was not the top priority. If they had focused solely on majors, play a limited schedule and cherry pick their tournaments, like Serena has, their slam count would be much higher. Given the fact that each goat contender had to play against the other throughout their career, makes their accomplishments that much more impressive. What would Serena 's slam count be if she had to compete against a player like Graf throughout her career? Serena has had the luxury of going thru the vast majority of her career without having to compete against a goat contender, or a tier 1 or tier 2 great.

So, Serena has more slams? Evert's and Navratilova 's records are more impressive. AND, more importantly Evert and Navratilova conducted themselves like champions. Their sportsmanship, respect of the game, fellow players and game officials is something Serena should have tried to emulate. Instead , Serena has acted like a fool most of her career... Connors, McEnroe and Nastase rolled into one....except they never physically threatened game officials.

Evert is my favorite player of all time, in the women's division. Such intense focus, competitiveness, consistency and mental toughness is rarely seen in the game today. A class act all the way. She handled defeat with class and dignity, giving full credit to her opponent, unlike Serena, who says her opponent played out of her mind, or she had a bad day.

I have both Evert and Navratilova over Serena in the goat discussion. Serena has been the Mike Tyson of tennis... a great player, but a disgrace as an example of sportsmanship and to how the game should be played.
I think the criticism of Serena as a person is a bit over the top. She is not been and never has been the Antichrist, but younger players did not step up for a very long time and I lost interest in the women's game some time ago.

BJK, Martina and others floated around the court, and Goolagong was legendary for her movement and grace. Graf did not appeal to me as much because she was more of a baseline player, but her movement was also absolutely beautiful.

I have never enjoyed watching Serena play. To me her game is utterly ugly and I believe her dominance was/is so great because she had no competitors most of the time, just like the Big Three right now. A huge vacuum under her.

Evert was the most efficient mover I've ever seen on the women's side, perhaps the most solid tactician ever. Never terribly fast but incredible anticipation and court position, and she made it all look easy. At the time she was playing I thought the average male player would be better off using her for a model than most of the men because of the simplicity of her strokes.
 
I think the criticism of Serena as a person is a bit over the top. She is not been and never has been the Antichrist, but younger players did not step up for a very long time and I lost interest in the women's game some time ago.

BJK, Martina and others floated around the court, and Goolagong was legendary for her movement and grace. Graf did not appeal to me as much because she was more of a baseline player, but her movement was also absolutely beautiful.

I have never enjoyed watching Serena play. To me her game is utterly ugly and I believe her dominance was/is so great because she had no competitors most of the time, just like the Big Three right now. A huge vacuum under her.

Evert was the most efficient mover I've ever seen on the women's side, perhaps the most solid tactician ever. Never terribly fast but incredible anticipation and court position, and she made it all look easy. At the time she was playing I thought the average male player would be better off using her for a model than most of the men because of the simplicity of her strokes.
Hmmm...the "Antichrist"? I think you may be onto something. ;)

What kind of person Serena is off the court, away from the cameras, is kept relatively confidential. I would think if you're overly temperamental with periods of out of contro! and hostile behavior... in front of millions of people, you're probably the same way in private. Her inner circle sure aren't talking.

Serena has not been able to take advantage of the weak competition. With being waaay overweight, and feeling the pressure to top Court's slam record, the shadow of her recent on court meltdowns, it will be difficult.
 
Serena's competition is a paradox. Recent years isnt strong but 1999-2007 is probably the toughest ever.

All the greats had weak competition at some point. Graf's post stabbing competition was no great shakes to put it mildly. Most of Navratilova's dominant period of 82-86 was abysmal competition wise, most of the top 10 were mugs, and she claimed herself Sukova was a tougher opponent than Evert match up wise for her at one point so even the Evert factor is marginal (plus Evert turned 30 halfway through that period and had her worst year of tennis ever in 83 before that). Evert's clay competition was non existing except for peak Martina in 84-86, and that is where over half her slams came. As for Court, the Australian Open has been bandied about for eternity now.

Serena is 37, soon 38 now. Navratilova at that age in tip top physical shape couldnt even beat Conchita Martinez on grass, get past journeywomen in early rounds of many tournaments she played, or win a 1st round against a chubby grass courter at the French Open. Evert, Graf, and Court were long retired by then. I wouldnt judge anything Serena does at this point against her.
 
Serena's competition is a paradox. Recent years isnt strong but 1999-2007 is probably the toughest ever.

All the greats had weak competition at some point. Graf's post stabbing competition was no great shakes to put it mildly. Most of Navratilova's dominant period of 82-86 was abysmal competition wise, most of the top 10 were mugs, and she claimed herself Sukova was a tougher opponent than Evert match up wise for her at one point so even the Evert factor is marginal (plus Evert turned 30 halfway through that period and had her worst year of tennis ever in 83 before that). Evert's clay competition was non existing except for peak Martina in 84-86, and that is where over half her slams came. As for Court, the Australian Open has been bandied about for eternity now.

Serena is 37, soon 38 now. Navratilova at that age in tip top physical shape couldnt even beat Conchita Martinez on grass, get past journeywomen in early rounds of many tournaments she played, or win a 1st round against a chubby grass courter at the French Open. Evert, Graf, and Court were long retired by then. I wouldnt judge anything Serena does at this point against her.
Just one little pet peeve in this well thought through post. I judge Ser ena for every professional match she plays. She chose when she entered tournaments and she chooses when she will retire, thus she is in complete control of when we stop judging. The fans pay the same price for the tickets regardless of the age of the players, or their state of health and they expect a professional standard, suggested by the ranking and reputation of the player, not their age. I am a member of the 'no excuses' club. Serena sure as hell will be taking credit if she wins Wimbledon. Then she deserves the repuke for every loss to some journeywoman she accrues throughout the year as well. Its her reputation, she risks by continuing to play in the hopes of another major. Well I intend to let her actually risk it.
 
Last edited:
Serena's competition is a paradox. Recent years isnt strong but 1999-2007 is probably the toughest ever.

All the greats had weak competition at some point. Graf's post stabbing competition was no great shakes to put it mildly. Most of Navratilova's dominant period of 82-86 was abysmal competition wise, most of the top 10 were mugs, and she claimed herself Sukova was a tougher opponent than Evert match up wise for her at one point so even the Evert factor is marginal (plus Evert turned 30 halfway through that period and had her worst year of tennis ever in 83 before that). Evert's clay competition was non existing except for peak Martina in 84-86, and that is where over half her slams came. As for Court, the Australian Open has been bandied about for eternity now.

Serena is 37, soon 38 now. Navratilova at that age in tip top physical shape couldnt even beat Conchita Martinez on grass, get past journeywomen in early rounds of many tournaments she played, or win a 1st round against a chubby grass courter at the French Open. Evert, Graf, and Court were long retired by then. I wouldnt judge anything Serena does at this point against her.
I'm not quite sure what your last paragraph means? Do you mean that Navratilova at 37 couldn't get past Martinez at Wimbledon? In the Wimbledon Final? You mean like Williams couldn't get past Kerber in last years final?
And Martinez was freaking amazing in that final (randomly I watched it only a few days ago, and it still went 3 sets).
I'm confused. Are you comparing both players at a similar age? If so, Navratilova may have faded, but has Williams done much better since she came back? Yes made 2 finals (is it more?). Blown a 5-1 final set lead at the AO and dropped out of a few tournaments. And taken a few losses. Was Navratilova really that bad at 36/37 that Williams now is significantly better?
Genuine question.
 
I'm not quite sure what your last paragraph means? Do you mean that Navratilova at 37 couldn't get past Martinez at Wimbledon? In the Wimbledon Final? You mean like Williams couldn't get past Kerber in last years final?
And Martinez was freaking amazing in that final (randomly I watched it only a few days ago, and it still went 3 sets).
I'm confused. Are you comparing both players at a similar age? If so, Navratilova may have faded, but has Williams done much better since she came back? Yes made 2 finals (is it more?). Blown a 5-1 final set lead at the AO and dropped out of a few tournaments. And taken a few losses. Was Navratilova really that bad at 36/37 that Williams now is significantly better?
Genuine question.
Yes I am referring to both at 37. Both are struggling, as would anyone at that age. I am saying Serena's performance at 37 cant really be held against her, Navratilova wasnt any better at that age (I didnt neccessarily imply Serena was signicantly better at that age either), and most of the other greats were long retired.
 
Hmmm...the "Antichrist"? I think you may be onto something. ;)

What kind of person Serena is off the court, away from the cameras, is kept relatively confidential. I would think if you're overly temperamental with periods of out of contro! and hostile behavior... in front of millions of people, you're probably the same way in private. Her inner circle sure aren't talking.

Serena has not been able to take advantage of the weak competition. With being waaay overweight, and feeling the pressure to top Court's slam record, the shadow of her recent on court meltdowns, it will be difficult.
I won't try to guess what Serena or anyone else is like in private vs in public. But I will say that Evert's behavior on court was beyond reproach, and I feel the same way about guys like Laver, Ashe and others. Borg's behavior was also above reproach. There have been others, but not enough.
 
Last edited:
Yes I am referring to both at 37. Both are struggling, as would anyone at that age. I am saying Serena's performance at 37 cant really be held against her, Navratilova wasnt any better at that age (I didnt neccessarily imply Serena was signicantly better at that age either), and most of the other greats were long retired.
I agree, to a point, re her age/tennis. But, she's choosing to compete (some of the time) so it's a level playing field. I'm certainly not rushing her in to retirement: it's her choice, as it's also her choice re her legacy. And, I enjoy the soap opera that is Serena Williams on Tour.
However, I'm well documented as preferring my champions to behave on-court as champions.
 
I agree, to a point, re her age/tennis. But, she's choosing to compete (some of the time) so it's a level playing field. I'm certainly not rushing her in to retirement: it's her choice, as it's also her choice re her legacy. And, I enjoy the soap opera that is Serena Williams on Tour.
However, I'm well documented as preferring my champions to behave on-court as champions.
I am a big Serena fan but I also totally get how she rubs some people the wrong way. I think some of it is even her fathers fault. In the sense he brought them up telling them anyone who faulted them it was because they were automatically racist. Which in a way was to make them extra tough to combat the inevitable factors against them, since particularly in the 90 and early 2000s there still was some lingering racism on tour and in general. However it also created a sense of entitlement and feeling the rules sometimes dont apply to them. Venus seems to have moved past that, Serena not so much.
 
Chris Evert
Wikipedia
Records


And Evert will always be in a GOAT conversation, as futile as I believe them to be.
None of that list qualifies Evert as anyone worthy of the GOAT distinction, hence the reason the accepted record names the players who were/are...and Evert is not one of that group.

..and for the predictable members who brought Serena Williams into this should pay close attention to history--the majors in particular; in the past, I've posted a list of the competition players such as Evert and Serena had faced to win their majors, and there's a number of players she defeated who ultimately never won a major (or just one), so any claims of "weak competition" goes right to Evert, when Morozova (no singles majors), Turnbull (no singles majors), Ruzici (1 singles major) Jausovec (1 singles major), Sukova (no singles majors) & Shriver (no singles majors) who must be considered as a marker of her record as much as Evonne, Martina and Hana in any conclusions reached about competition value and overall career. Yet the usual, hooded suspects attack Serena and her era(s). Evert met no-major Turnbull & Morozova 2 times each in majors finals (4)--again both winning none of their own. Was it weak competition because no-slam wonders made it finals more than one time, but failed to reach the ultimate level? What about Sukova, Shriver, Ruzici and Jausovec? Does that sound like the battle of a lifetime against the cream of the crop? Not to any objective mind.

I'm sensing a "you can only play who is on the other side of the net" defense (or other expected tears 'n' spin jobs) might spit its way into the thread, when that is never allowed for Serena, and the world knows the one reason why that is the case.


Serena's competition is a paradox. Recent years isnt strong but 1999-2007 is probably the toughest ever.
A period rarely matched by any player, on the women's or men's side.

Serena is 37, soon 38 now. Navratilova at that age in tip top physical shape couldnt even beat Conchita Martinez on grass, get past journeywomen in early rounds of many tournaments she played, or win a 1st round against a chubby grass courter at the French Open. Evert, Graf, and Court were long retired by then. I wouldnt judge anything Serena does at this point against her.
But they are. Every day, every week. Its all they have, because they cannot erase her legendary achievements from history, so its the typical lies, selective lists and spin jobs. Not an ounce of objectivity among them.
 
Last edited:
Top