mattosgrant
Banned
One interesting thing is it seems virtually everyone ranks Navratilova higher than Evert in tennis history. Is that so clear cut though? Both have 18 slams. I have seen many Navratilova fans argue she missed the Australian and French Opens often in the 70s, but frankly this is silly since this applies to Evert much more than it does Martina. I don't think it needs to be explained Chris was the queen of womens tennis the vast majority of the 70s, not Martina. The French was also played on clay, where Martina wasn't even a real contender in a full field until 82 and where Chris from 73-81 lost 1 match. Chris in fact probably lost atleast 6 slams by this vs Martina who probably lost about 1 (the Australian Open in either 78 or 79 if I had to guess).
Another thing Martina fans trumpet is all the slams she lost due to Chris. While this does have some merit, this again applies much more to Chris than vice versa. Martina lost to Chris in 4 slam finals. Chris lost to Martina in 10 slam finals. Easy to see who was denied more slams by the other. However this is also reflecting why many rank Martina ahead, that she has such a large edge on Chris in the most important matches despite their close (43-37) overall head to head, and that I do understand.
Chris is the most consistent player in history, while Martina would rank behind all the other Open Era greats except for obviously Serena in that area. People say Martina is ahead in longevity but is she really? While making a Wimbledon final at 37 is remarkable, both won their slams over a 12 year stretch, 74-86 for Chris and 78-90 for Martina. The difference is Martina won 15 of her 18 slams, and all 9 of her non Wimbledons from 82-87. Chris had hers quite evenly spread out over a whole 13 year span, and in fact won atleast 1 slam for 13 straight years. Chris claims her best ever tennis was in 85-early 86 at age 31, yet she was a teen phenom dominating tennis at 19. Martina was a late bloomer who didn't have her first multi slam or decisive #1 year until age 25/26, and claims herself she was already going downhill at age 30 when losing #1 to young Steffi Graf. I would give Chris the overall edge in longevity honestly, although I can see arguments both ways, and both are very strong in that department.
Obviously in dominance Martina is ahead. In peak level play it is pretty obvious she is ahead too.
In versatility I would put Chris ahead again. She reached 10 Wimbledon finals, won 3 Wimbledon titles despite losing 5 finals to Martina, arguably the grass and undisputably the Wimbledon GOAT. Martina won 2 Roland Garros titles, and did lose 3 finals to Chris but one of those was in one of those dead years (1975) when they were the only 2 top players who played and Martina would not have been a finalist otherwise. Martina's slam record is telling, 9 Wimbledons, 4 U.S Opens, 3 Australian Opens (despite it being on slow grass quite awhile and her playing nearly every year of her prime), 2 French Opens. She is not the most versatile, and was more heavily dominant on grass and indoors. Great on other surfaces, but moreso only in her peak-iest years.
I do think there are real arguments Chris had the better career in singles anyway. I am one who believes doubles should be factored into a players greatness, which would obviously favor Martina in this comparision. However I know many who feel doubles should be completely disregarded, and still see Martina as clearly in front of Chris.
One thing I think Martina is judged so favorably vs Chris in is that when she was at her very best she was for awhile really crushing on Chris when Chris was still near her best. However Chris still came back from that and became very competitive with Martina again. The main thing is Chris for about 15 years was the best or 2nd best in the world. This is not true of Martina who over a 15 year span was often the 3rd, 4th, or 5th best. She was in fact rarely 2nd best to Chris, she was either the top person, or not 2nd best. She was 2nd best to Graf longer than she was to Chris in fact. Which can be interpreted too on why she is seen ahead of Chris too, in that it is perceived when she was playing well she was always head. It is a circular argument in many regards, but people seem to really lean heavily towards Martina, and what is most frusterating is the arguments used to try and bolster Martina I referenced in the initial paragraphs, which in fact would build up Chris much more than they would Martina, yet are somehow completely ignored in the Chris-Martina comparision. I find that aspect hypocritical.
Another thing Martina fans trumpet is all the slams she lost due to Chris. While this does have some merit, this again applies much more to Chris than vice versa. Martina lost to Chris in 4 slam finals. Chris lost to Martina in 10 slam finals. Easy to see who was denied more slams by the other. However this is also reflecting why many rank Martina ahead, that she has such a large edge on Chris in the most important matches despite their close (43-37) overall head to head, and that I do understand.
Chris is the most consistent player in history, while Martina would rank behind all the other Open Era greats except for obviously Serena in that area. People say Martina is ahead in longevity but is she really? While making a Wimbledon final at 37 is remarkable, both won their slams over a 12 year stretch, 74-86 for Chris and 78-90 for Martina. The difference is Martina won 15 of her 18 slams, and all 9 of her non Wimbledons from 82-87. Chris had hers quite evenly spread out over a whole 13 year span, and in fact won atleast 1 slam for 13 straight years. Chris claims her best ever tennis was in 85-early 86 at age 31, yet she was a teen phenom dominating tennis at 19. Martina was a late bloomer who didn't have her first multi slam or decisive #1 year until age 25/26, and claims herself she was already going downhill at age 30 when losing #1 to young Steffi Graf. I would give Chris the overall edge in longevity honestly, although I can see arguments both ways, and both are very strong in that department.
Obviously in dominance Martina is ahead. In peak level play it is pretty obvious she is ahead too.
In versatility I would put Chris ahead again. She reached 10 Wimbledon finals, won 3 Wimbledon titles despite losing 5 finals to Martina, arguably the grass and undisputably the Wimbledon GOAT. Martina won 2 Roland Garros titles, and did lose 3 finals to Chris but one of those was in one of those dead years (1975) when they were the only 2 top players who played and Martina would not have been a finalist otherwise. Martina's slam record is telling, 9 Wimbledons, 4 U.S Opens, 3 Australian Opens (despite it being on slow grass quite awhile and her playing nearly every year of her prime), 2 French Opens. She is not the most versatile, and was more heavily dominant on grass and indoors. Great on other surfaces, but moreso only in her peak-iest years.
I do think there are real arguments Chris had the better career in singles anyway. I am one who believes doubles should be factored into a players greatness, which would obviously favor Martina in this comparision. However I know many who feel doubles should be completely disregarded, and still see Martina as clearly in front of Chris.
One thing I think Martina is judged so favorably vs Chris in is that when she was at her very best she was for awhile really crushing on Chris when Chris was still near her best. However Chris still came back from that and became very competitive with Martina again. The main thing is Chris for about 15 years was the best or 2nd best in the world. This is not true of Martina who over a 15 year span was often the 3rd, 4th, or 5th best. She was in fact rarely 2nd best to Chris, she was either the top person, or not 2nd best. She was 2nd best to Graf longer than she was to Chris in fact. Which can be interpreted too on why she is seen ahead of Chris too, in that it is perceived when she was playing well she was always head. It is a circular argument in many regards, but people seem to really lean heavily towards Martina, and what is most frusterating is the arguments used to try and bolster Martina I referenced in the initial paragraphs, which in fact would build up Chris much more than they would Martina, yet are somehow completely ignored in the Chris-Martina comparision. I find that aspect hypocritical.
