Margaret Court Continues to Stay Ahead of the Pack at 24

BorgTheGOAT

Professional
Oh ok, I misread your post, I thought you were saying it's ridiculous to say that its ridiculous for anyone to say Martina or Serena were the GOAT women players, I agree that you can't compare men vs. women in this argument. So you put Borg ahead of the Big three and Laver as well ?
I do not really believe in GOAT arguments in general as there are arguments against each and every player and you can argue this topic to death (maybe I should change my user name). I would not necessarily put Borg over big three or Laver but given the time he played in I simply find his achievements the most impressive. What is obviously a knock on him is his lack of longevity due to his early retirement.
 

Dan Lobb

Legend
I agree with you regarding Graf. But the reason Margaret Court is rightly singled out is due to the very poor quality of her opposition in winning many of her Australian singles titles. Court is the only player in contention to be the women's G.O.A.T. who won over 2 Australian singles titles before 1980 (she won a massive total of 11 Australian singles titles). The majority of her Australian wins were missing a great many top players (some years it was more like the Australian closed championships). This is why many people do not consider Margaret Court to be the G. O. A. T.
But we have to rejig so many other players' majors for weak fields....tough to do.
 
But we have to rejig so many other players' majors for weak fields....tough to do.
Margaret Court is the only women's player who is a G. O. A. T. candidate to win such a large amount of her singles majors in the 32draw-MainlyAussieFields era of the Australian (assuming that most would not consider Evonne Goolagong Cawley a candidate for G. O. A. T.). That is the reason she is singled out. There were women's singles draws at the other 3 slams that in certain years were weaker than others, but the Australian before the 1980s had a poor standard that was always below the other majors. It is not a coincidence that Court did not win more than five singles titles at any of the other three slams. Serena is one behind Court's slam singles tally of 24, but in my mind already the women's G. O. A. T.
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
^ ...and why do you rate Serena as the women's GOAT, when the stats you've posted about Court are never really mentioned by anyone when they name her as one of the GOAT players--and above Williams?
 

Chadalina

Hall of Fame
Serena's only claim to fame is 24 grand slams. Martina has twice the titles, graf has the gcygs and chrissy has the highest winning percentage.

If you declare Serena the goat because she may lead the gs titles, then you have to delcare court as the current goat. Its pretty basic logic
 

r2473

G.O.A.T.
Serena's only claim to fame is 24 grand slams. Martina has twice the titles, graf has the gcygs and chrissy has the highest winning percentage.

If you declare Serena the goat because she may lead the gs titles, then you have to delcare court as the current goat. Its pretty basic logic
By that logic, Renshaw must be considered the second best of all time to ever play Wimbledon
 

Chadalina

Hall of Fame
By that logic, Renshaw must be considered the second best of all time to ever play Wimbledon
If you think the # of grand slam titles is the end all, then id agree.

I put nothing on womens grand slams, they are 2 out 3 like the rest of the tournaments. Thats why i put martina as #1, 61 grand slams doesnt hurt either

Martina also had to play chrissy and graf (2 of the other top 5). People dont realize how many times steffi played martin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ

r2473

G.O.A.T.
If you think the # of grand slam titles is the end all, then id agree.

I put nothing on womens grand slams, they are 2 out 3 like the rest of the tournaments. Thats why i put martina as #1, 61 grand slams doesnt hurt either

Martina also had to play chrissy and graf (2 of the other top 5). People dont realize how many times steffi played martin.
Problem is, Renshaw was racist, homophobic, misogynistic and probably anti Semitic.

This is also why Aristotle can’t be in the GOAT conversation
 

Chadalina

Hall of Fame
Problem is, Renshaw was racist, homophobic, misogynistic and probably anti Semitic.

This is also why Aristotle can’t be in the GOAT conversation
Heard he ate bacon as well, those things certainly outweigh his achievements on court
 

r2473

G.O.A.T.
Heard he ate bacon as well, those things certainly outweigh his achievements on court
What we need is a GOAT that everybody can love. So we have to have her keep quiet about her religious beliefs, and take great risk in fighting for justice and what is right.

It also wouldn’t hurt if she’s half decent at tennis, but that’s not really important
 

BTURNER

Hall of Fame
I agree with you regarding Graf. But the reason Margaret Court is rightly singled out is due to the very poor quality of her opposition in winning many of her Australian singles titles. Court is the only player in contention to be the women's G.O.A.T. who won over 2 Australian singles titles before 1980 (she won a massive total of 11 Australian singles titles). The majority of her Australian wins were missing a great many top players (some years it was more like the Australian closed championships). This is why many people do not consider Margaret Court to be the G. O. A. T.
But you are going about this ass backwards and it invites agenda driven speculation. There is no standard on which to decide what majors are sufficiently competitive and what majors are not, and nobody is interested in defining that standard and applying it to all majors. I might be convinced if you, Pro tennis historian, said "a competitive major has at least 2 of the top 5 players entered, and at least 6 of the top 12 players. By that standard, the following majors are competitively substandard" Then you make out a list, and you go back and see just who's record is unduly inflated. But that is not what anyone does. They single out Court's Aussies, and talk about Courts Aussies without any measurable and quantifiable benchmark. They make no effort to do the work of finding which of her Aussies meet this benchmark and which do not. They make no effort to find out if all of Everts majors, or Kings majors, or Connolly's majors, or Louise Brough's or Mandlikova's majors meet that benchmark. Nobody has that discussion.
 
Last edited:

Dan Lobb

Legend
Margaret Court is the only women's player who is a G. O. A. T. candidate to win such a large amount of her singles majors in the 32draw-MainlyAussieFields era of the Australian (assuming that most would not consider Evonne Goolagong Cawley a candidate for G. O. A. T.). That is the reason she is singled out. There were women's singles draws at the other 3 slams that in certain years were weaker than others, but the Australian before the 1980s had a poor standard that was always below the other majors. It is not a coincidence that Court did not win more than five singles titles at any of the other three slams. Serena is one behind Court's slam singles tally of 24, but in my mind already the women's G. O. A. T.
It is what it is...there are no asterisks for weak field majors, and that is one of the problems with simply counting slams.

Today the mens' fields in the slams are weak with only three contenders. Very weak...should we asterisk them? Maybe yes.
 

mxmx

Professional
What we need is a GOAT that everybody can love. So we have to have her keep quiet about her religious beliefs, and take great risk in fighting for justice and what is right.

It also wouldn’t hurt if she’s half decent at tennis, but that’s not really important
Then mother Theresa needed to have played just one tennis match to be considered GOAT.

It's ridiculous to not just look at the tennis on its own...
 

PDJ

G.O.A.T.
Then mother Theresa needed to have played just one tennis match to be considered GOAT.

It's ridiculous to not just look at the tennis on its own...
This may appear silly, but do you consider a player to be measured by their on-court actions/achievements alone?
 

mxmx

Professional
This may appear silly, but do you consider a player to be measured by their on-court actions/achievements alone?
Yes. There are players I dislike. But I do not discount that they are deserved of their results.

Now, I'm sure Court was not a cheater. Nor did she treat people as badly as some other players may have, yet people try to discount her tennis abilities and achievements. This will not ever be possible no matter how hard they try. The same for Serena, are her records unworthy?

Now if this was a miss teen USA contest, perhaps both would lose. If it was a morality and people pleasing sport, they would or could lose. Djokovic tries very hard that people should like him. But does or should his achievements suffer if he is disliked or even hated?

To me, no, it shouldn't matter. The same it doesn't matter to churches if a tennis player failed to win tennis matches. There morality or truth matters, so should their members be judged on something irrelevant? Court could have been judged if she won the most popular awards that Federer always wins.

But she did not win these awards to my knowledge. If she did, take those trophies away.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ

PDJ

G.O.A.T.
Yes. There are players I dislike. But I do not discount that they are deserved of their results.

Now, I'm sure Court was not a cheater. Nor did she treat people as badly as some other players may have, yet people try to discount her tennis abilities and achievements. This will not ever be possible no matter how hard they try. The same for Serena, are her records unworthy?

Now if this was a miss teen USA contest, perhaps both would lose. If it was a morality and people pleasing sport, they would or could lose. Djokovic tries very hard that people should like him. But does or should his achievements suffer if he is disliked or even hated?

To me, no, it shouldn't matter. The same it doesn't matter to churches if a tennis player failed to win tennis matches. There morality or truth matters, so should their members be judged on something irrelevant? Court could have been judged if she won the most popular awards that Federer always wins.

But she did not win these awards to my knowledge. If she did, take those trophies away.
I agree - yes they won. Fact.

However, I don't think the fact a player has won more majors makes them the best ever as there are too many variables. It's why I don't buy in to the whole GOAT argument. It's now largely based on majors won which I don't believe is in context with the history/evolution of tennis.

In terms of players I've always preferred sporting players that shy away from histrionics on court.

In terms of off court, there are definitely players I dislike - ranging from tiresome to out right disgust. However, I appreciate this is based on my own personal values.
 
Last edited:
But you are going about this ass backwards and it invites agenda driven speculation. There is no standard on which to decide what majors are sufficiently competitive and what majors are not, and nobody is interested in defining that standard and applying it to all majors. I might be convinced if you, Pro tennis historian, said "a competitive major has at least 2 of the top 5 players entered, and at least 6 of the top 12 players. By that standard, the following majors are competitively substandard" Then you make out a list, and you go back and see just who's record is unduly inflated. But that is not what anyone does. They single out Court's Aussies, and talk about Courts Aussies without any measurable and quantifiable benchmark. They make no effort to do the work of finding which of her Aussies meet this benchmark and which do not. They make no effort to find out if all of Everts majors, or Kings majors, or Connolly's majors, or Louise Brough's or Mandlikova's majors meet that benchmark. Nobody has that discussion.
Yes I have looked at the draws of all Court's Australian championships and yes a great many were very poor indeed. You would like some proof regarding my statements, so here it is. A good way of comparing draws is comparing the top 8 seeds list for the same years Wimbledon championships with the top 8 seeds at the Australian. Smith-Court is listed in bold. These are the seed lists for Australian and Wimbledon for every year that Court won the Australian.

1960 Australian 1 Bueno 2 Truman 3 Lehane 4 Carter Reitano 5 Coghlan 6 Rae 7 SMITH 8 Holstein
1960 Wimbledon 1 Bueno 2 Hard 3 Truman 4 Haydon 5 Mortimer 6 Kormoczy 7 Lehane 8 Reynolds (5 of the 8 seeds did not play Australian).

1961 Australian 1 SMITH 2 Lehane 3 Turner 4 Carter Reitano 5 Bevis Hawton 6 Pratt 7 Coghlan 8 Rae (all the players in last 32 Australian).
1961 Wimbledon 1 Reynolds 2 SMITH 3 Haydon 4 Turner 5 Ramirez 6 Truman 7 Mortimer 8 Hantze (6 of the 8 seeds did not play Australian).

1962 Australian 1 SMITH 2 Hard 3 Ramirez 4 Turner 5 Lehane 6 Carter Reitano 7 Ebbern 8 Schacht
1962 Wimbledon 1 SMITH 2 Hard 3 Bueno 4 Schuurman 5 Haydon 6 Mortimer 7 Turner 8 Hantze Susman (5 of the 8 seeds did not play Australian).

1963 Australian 1 SMITH 2 Turner 3 Lehane 4 Truman 5 Ebbern 6 Starkie 7 Lauder 8 Schacht
1963 Wimbledon 1 SMITH 2 Turner 3 Haydon-Jones 4 Hard 5 Lehane 6 Sukova 7 Bueno 8 Schuurman (5 of the 8 seeds did not play Australian).

1964 Australian 1 SMITH 2 Turner 3 Lehane 4 Ebbern 5 Tegart 6 Schacht 7 Blackman 8 Lauder
1964 Wimbledon 1 SMITH 2 Bueno 3 Moffitt 4 Turner 5 Richey 6 Haydon-Jones 7 Lehane 8 Ebbern (4 of the 8 seeds did not play Australian).

1965 Australian 1 SMITH 2 Bueno 3 Turner 4 Moffitt 5 Tegart 6 Graebner 7 Ebbern 8 Haydon-Jones
1965 Wimbledon 1 Bueno 2 SMITH 3 Turner 4 Richey 5 Moffitt 6 Graebner 7 Van Zyl 8 Durr (1 of the 8 seeds did not play Australian. Much better draw than normal this year).

1966 Australian 1 SMITH 2 Richey 3 Turner 4 Graebner 5 Tegart 6 Sherriff 7 Lehane 8 Schacht
1966 Wimbledon 1 SMITH 2 Bueno 3 Haydon-Jones 4 Moffitt-King 5 Richey 6 Van Zyl 7 Durr 8 Baylon (6 of the 8 seeds did not play Australian).

1969 Australian 1 Moffitt-King 2 SMITH-COURT 3 Haydon-Jones 4 Melville 5 Casals 6 Krantzcke 7 Hunt 8 Tegart-Dalton
1969 Wimbledon 1 SMITH-COURT 2 Moffitt-King 3 Wade 4 Haydon-Jones 5 Richey 6 Melville 7 Heldman 8 Tegart-Dalton (3 of the 8 seeds did not play Australian. Like the men's event, a good field entered the first open Australian championships. Unfortunately the draw standards did not maintain in the 1970s).

1970 Australian 1 SMITH-COURT 2 Melville 3 Shaw 4 Krantzcke 5 Tegart-Dalton 6 Sandberg 7 Hunt 8 Harris
1970 Wimbledon 1 SMITH-COURT 2 Moffitt-King 3 Wade 4 Melville 5 Casals 6 Heldman 7 Krantzcke 8 Niessen (5 of the 8 seeds did not play Australian).

1971 Australian 1 SMITH-COURT 2 Goolagong 3 Turner-Bowrey 4 Chanfreau 5 Hogan 6 Harris 7 Shaw 8 Gourlay
1971 Wimbledon 1 SMITH-COURT 2 Moffitt-King 3 Goolagong 4 Casals 5 Wade 6 Richey 7 Durr 8 Niessen-Masthoff (6 of 8 seeds did not play Australian).

1973 Australian 1 SMITH-COURT 2 Goolagong 3 Wade 4 Melville 5 Coleman 6 Sawamatsu 7 Harris 8 Krantzcke
1973 Wimbledon 1 SMITH-COURT 2 Moffitt-King 3 Goolagong 4 Evert 5 Casals 6 Wade 7 Melville 8 Morozova (4 of 8 seeds did not play Australian).



Talk to me when half the top 12 don't show up, or less than three of the top 6 That is a compromised major.
That is why I am talking to you, to show you the poor standard of Court's draws
 
Last edited:

PDJ

G.O.A.T.
Yes I have looked at the draws of all Court's Australian championships and yes a great many were very poor indeed. You would like some proof regarding my statements, so here it is. A good way of comparing draws is comparing the top 8 seeds list for the same years Wimbledon championships with the top 8 seeds at the Australian. Smith-Court is listed in bold. These are the seed lists for Australian and Wimbledon for every year that Court won the Australian.

1960 Australian 1 Bueno 2 Truman 3 Lehane 4 Carter Reitano 5 Coghlan 6 Rae 7 SMITH 8 Holstein
1960 Wimbledon 1 Bueno 2 Hard 3 Truman 4 Haydon 5 Mortimer 6 Kormoczy 7 Lehane 8 Reynolds (5 of the 8 seeds did not play Australian).

1961 Australian 1 SMITH 2 Lehane 3 Turner 4 Carter Reitano 5 Bevis Hawton 6 Pratt 7 Coghlan 8 Rae (all the players in last 32 Australian).
1961 Wimbledon 1 Reynolds 2 SMITH 3 Haydon 4 Turner 5 Ramirez 6 Truman 7 Mortimer 8 Hantze (6 of the 8 seeds did not play Australian).

1962 Australian 1 SMITH 2 Hard 3 Ramirez 4 Turner 5 Lehane 6 Carter Reitano 7 Ebbern 8 Schacht
1962 Wimbledon 1 SMITH 2 Hard 3 Bueno 4 Schuurman 5 Haydon 6 Mortimer 7 Turner 8 Hantze Susman (5 of the 8 seeds did not play Australian).

1963 Australian 1 SMITH 2 Turner 3 Lehane 4 Truman 5 Ebbern 6 Starkie 7 Lauder 8 Schacht
1963 Wimbledon 1 SMITH 2 Turner 3 Haydon-Jones 4 Hard 5 Lehane 6 Sukova 7 Bueno 8 Schuurman (5 of the 8 seeds did not play Australian).

1964 Australian 1 SMITH 2 Turner 3 Lehane 4 Ebbern 5 Tegart 6 Schacht 7 Blackman 8 Lauder
1964 Wimbledon 1 SMITH 2 Bueno 3 Moffitt 4 Turner 5 Richey 6 Haydon-Jones 7 Lehane 8 Ebbern (4 of the 8 seeds did not play Australian).

1965 Australian 1 SMITH 2 Bueno 3 Turner 4 Moffitt 5 Tegart 6 Graebner 7 Ebbern 8 Haydon-Jones
1965 Wimbledon 1 Bueno 2 SMITH 3 Turner 4 Richey 5 Moffitt 6 Graebner 7 Van Zyl 8 Durr (1 of the 8 seeds did not play Australian. Much better draw than normal this year).

1966 Australian 1 SMITH 2 Richey 3 Turner 4 Graebner 5 Tegart 6 Sherriff 7 Lehane 8 Schacht
1966 Wimbledon 1 SMITH 2 Bueno 3 Haydon-Jones 4 Moffitt-King 5 Richey 6 Van Zyl 7 Durr 8 Baylon (6 of the 8 seeds did not play Australian).

1969 Australian 1 Moffitt-King 2 SMITH-COURT 3 Haydon-Jones 4 Melville 5 Casals 6 Krantzcke 7 Hunt 8 Tegart-Dalton
1969 Wimbledon 1 SMITH-COURT 2 Moffitt-King 3 Wade 4 Haydon-Jones 5 Richey 6 Melville 7 Heldman 8 Tegart-Dalton (3 of the 8 seeds did not play Australian. Like the men's event, a good field entered the first open Australian championships. Unfortunately the draw standards did not maintain in the 1970s).

1970 Australian 1 SMITH-COURT 2 Melville 3 Shaw 4 Krantzcke 5 Tegart-Dalton 6 Sandberg 7 Hunt 8 Harris
1970 Wimbledon 1 SMITH-COURT 2 Moffitt-King 3 Wade 4 Melville 5 Casals 6 Heldman 7 Krantzcke 8 Niessen (5 of the 8 seeds did not play Australian).

1971 Australian 1 SMITH-COURT 2 Goolagong 3 Turner-Bowrey 4 Chanfreau 5 Hogan 6 Harris 7 Shaw 8 Gourlay
1971 Wimbledon 1 SMITH-COURT 2 Moffitt-King 3 Goolagong 4 Casals 5 Wade 6 Richey 7 Durr 8 Niessen-Masthoff (6 of 8 seeds did not play Australian).

1973 Australian 1 SMITH-COURT 2 Goolagong 3 Wade 4 Melville 5 Coleman 6 Sawamatsu 7 Harris 8 Krantzcke
1973 Wimbledon 1 SMITH-COURT 2 Moffitt-King 3 Goolagong 4 Evert 5 Casals 6 Wade 7 Melville 8 Morozova (4 of 8 seeds did not play Australian).




That is why I am talking to you, to show you the poor standard of Court's draws
Fascinating. And the effort is appreciated.
I love lists!
I knew Bueno and BJK seldom played the AO, but was surprised how rarely Ann Jones and Virginia Wade played. The former only twice in her whole career!
 
It is what it is...there are no asterisks for weak field majors, and that is one of the problems with simply counting slams.

Today the mens' fields in the slams are weak with only three contenders. Very weak...should we asterisk them? Maybe yes.
All of the top male players play in the Grand Slam singles events of 2019 (except when injured). All of the top women players of Court's era did not play in the Australian, as I have illustrated with my post above. I agree with you that apart from Djokovic, Nadal and Federer, the standard of men's tennis now is very poor, but comparing relative standards of eras is another debate and one which I don't intend to get involved with on this thread, as this is a thread on Margaret Court.
 

BTURNER

Hall of Fame
Yes I have looked at the draws of all Court's Australian championships and yes a great many were very poor indeed. You would like some proof regarding my statements, so here it is. A good way of comparing draws is comparing the top 8 seeds list for the same years Wimbledon championships with the top 8 seeds at the Australian. Smith-Court is listed in bold. These are the seed lists for Australian and Wimbledon for every year that Court won the Australian.

1960 Australian 1 Bueno 2 Truman 3 Lehane 4 Carter Reitano 5 Coghlan 6 Rae 7 SMITH 8 Holstein
1960 Wimbledon 1 Bueno 2 Hard 3 Truman 4 Haydon 5 Mortimer 6 Kormoczy 7 Lehane 8 Reynolds (5 of the 8 seeds did not play Australian).

1961 Australian 1 SMITH 2 Lehane 3 Turner 4 Carter Reitano 5 Bevis Hawton 6 Pratt 7 Coghlan 8 Rae (all the players in last 32 Australian).
1961 Wimbledon 1 Reynolds 2 SMITH 3 Haydon 4 Turner 5 Ramirez 6 Truman 7 Mortimer 8 Hantze (6 of the 8 seeds did not play Australian).

1962 Australian 1 SMITH 2 Hard 3 Ramirez 4 Turner 5 Lehane 6 Carter Reitano 7 Ebbern 8 Schacht
1962 Wimbledon 1 SMITH 2 Hard 3 Bueno 4 Schuurman 5 Haydon 6 Mortimer 7 Turner 8 Hantze Susman (5 of the 8 seeds did not play Australian).

1963 Australian 1 SMITH 2 Turner 3 Lehane 4 Truman 5 Ebbern 6 Starkie 7 Lauder 8 Schacht
1963 Wimbledon 1 SMITH 2 Turner 3 Haydon-Jones 4 Hard 5 Lehane 6 Sukova 7 Bueno 8 Schuurman (5 of the 8 seeds did not play Australian).

1964 Australian 1 SMITH 2 Turner 3 Lehane 4 Ebbern 5 Tegart 6 Schacht 7 Blackman 8 Lauder
1964 Wimbledon 1 SMITH 2 Bueno 3 Moffitt 4 Turner 5 Richey 6 Haydon-Jones 7 Lehane 8 Ebbern (4 of the 8 seeds did not play Australian).

1965 Australian 1 SMITH 2 Bueno 3 Turner 4 Moffitt 5 Tegart 6 Graebner 7 Ebbern 8 Haydon-Jones
1965 Wimbledon 1 Bueno 2 SMITH 3 Turner 4 Richey 5 Moffitt 6 Graebner 7 Van Zyl 8 Durr (1 of the 8 seeds did not play Australian. Much better draw than normal this year).

1966 Australian 1 SMITH 2 Richey 3 Turner 4 Graebner 5 Tegart 6 Sherriff 7 Lehane 8 Schacht
1966 Wimbledon 1 SMITH 2 Bueno 3 Haydon-Jones 4 Moffitt-King 5 Richey 6 Van Zyl 7 Durr 8 Baylon (6 of the 8 seeds did not play Australian).

1969 Australian 1 Moffitt-King 2 SMITH-COURT 3 Haydon-Jones 4 Melville 5 Casals 6 Krantzcke 7 Hunt 8 Tegart-Dalton
1969 Wimbledon 1 SMITH-COURT 2 Moffitt-King 3 Wade 4 Haydon-Jones 5 Richey 6 Melville 7 Heldman 8 Tegart-Dalton (3 of the 8 seeds did not play Australian. Like the men's event, a good field entered the first open Australian championships. Unfortunately the draw standards did not maintain in the 1970s).

1970 Australian 1 SMITH-COURT 2 Melville 3 Shaw 4 Krantzcke 5 Tegart-Dalton 6 Sandberg 7 Hunt 8 Harris
1970 Wimbledon 1 SMITH-COURT 2 Moffitt-King 3 Wade 4 Melville 5 Casals 6 Heldman 7 Krantzcke 8 Niessen (5 of the 8 seeds did not play Australian).

1971 Australian 1 SMITH-COURT 2 Goolagong 3 Turner-Bowrey 4 Chanfreau 5 Hogan 6 Harris 7 Shaw 8 Gourlay
1971 Wimbledon 1 SMITH-COURT 2 Moffitt-King 3 Goolagong 4 Casals 5 Wade 6 Richey 7 Durr 8 Niessen-Masthoff (6 of 8 seeds did not play Australian).

1973 Australian 1 SMITH-COURT 2 Goolagong 3 Wade 4 Melville 5 Coleman 6 Sawamatsu 7 Harris 8 Krantzcke
1973 Wimbledon 1 SMITH-COURT 2 Moffitt-King 3 Goolagong 4 Evert 5 Casals 6 Wade 7 Melville 8 Morozova (4 of 8 seeds did not play Australian).




That is why I am talking to you, to show you the poor standard of Court's draws
its still assbackwards. The whole idea is that You don't target the draws of one champion and her slams. You have to define THE STANDARD that you applying to every major. All you did is a specific report that each years Wimbledon met some magical standard( don't know what that is, but it is self contained in its own tournament seedings), and that year's Aussie did not. How many of the top players are there supposed to be, for a RG or a Wimbledon, or a US National or an Aussie, to be worthy of 'slam status'?



There must be at least ___ players of the top 5 world ranked players, using that seasons end rankings, who entered a given major.

There must be at least___ players of the top 15 world ranked players, using that seasons end rankings who entered a given major.

Then we just look up the top 20 ranked tennis players of that year and see how many showed up in the seedings of each major that year to determine how strong that draw in each major, compared to how strong it could have been in all 15 showed up.
 
Last edited:

mxmx

Professional
Court convincingly did well against her rivals outside of the Aus Open. We do not know that Court would not have beat the rest even if they showed up.

Perhaps one could argue that it was pointless for some flying all the way to Australia knowing that one will probably not win against Court anyways?
 
Assbackwards. You don't target the draws of one champion and her slams, and you have to define THE STANDARD that you applying to every major. All you did is a specific report that each years Wimbledon met some magical standard( don't know what that is, but it is self contained in its own tournament seedings), and that year's Aussie did not. How did, say - the 1977 RG do when you applied this internal seeding Wimbledon standard from 1963?? How about the 1954 US National? Nobody knows because you have not provided an objective standard we can apply whether top 5 or top 10 or top 15 players in the world showed up. It can't be in another tournament's seedings, because that will change every single year.
The reason I chose the Wimbledon seedings is because the top players played at Wimbledon (if you have a better system, then please state what it is). You mention Roland Garros 1977, but that is just one event. And if you want me to set criterea, I will set criterea. If 4 or more of the top 8 seeds at that year's Wimbledon championships did not play in another major of the same year, that major event is compromised. 9 of Court's 11 Australian championships are compromised. So I invite you to look at all Evert's singles majors and Navratilova's and Graf's and Serena's and tell me how many of them are compromised. Then deduct the compromised majors from their list of total Grand Slam singles titles. I guarantee you that Serena would be miles ahead of Court!
 
There must be at least ___ players of the top 5 world ranked players, using that seasons end rankings, who entered a given major.

There must be at least___ players of the top 12 world ranked players, using that seasons end rankings who entered a given major.

Then we just look up the top 20 ranked tennis players of that year and see how many showed up in the seedings of each major that year to determine how strong that draw was compared to how strong it could have been in all 20 showed up.
My system was top 8 because I feel that is a good system to determine standard. Using my system Serena finishes well above Court. All of the top players played in singles Grand slams of Serena's era (except when injured), whereas 9 of Court's 11 Australian titles had weak draws going by my criterea. If you wish to use an end of year ranking, then that seems fair. A comparison between the end of year ranking of the previous year with every Grand Slam draw of the following year. Every major title for every G.O. A. T. candidate investigated. I will be interested to hear the results of your research if you choose to undertake this.
 

chimneysweep

Semi-Pro
Court convincingly did well against her rivals outside of the Aus Open. We do not know that Court would not have beat the rest even if they showed up.

Perhaps one could argue that it was pointless for some flying all the way to Australia knowing that one will probably not win against Court anyways?
Well she did not manage to win more than 5 times at any of the 3 slams everyone showed up, but magically 11 (over twice as many as any of the others) at the one nobody played at. It isnt about just one player, but the field collectively would have taken wins off her without question.
 

chimneysweep

Semi-Pro
Yes I have looked at the draws of all Court's Australian championships and yes a great many were very poor indeed. You would like some proof regarding my statements, so here it is. A good way of comparing draws is comparing the top 8 seeds list for the same years Wimbledon championships with the top 8 seeds at the Australian. Smith-Court is listed in bold. These are the seed lists for Australian and Wimbledon for every year that Court won the Australian.

1960 Australian 1 Bueno 2 Truman 3 Lehane 4 Carter Reitano 5 Coghlan 6 Rae 7 SMITH 8 Holstein
1960 Wimbledon 1 Bueno 2 Hard 3 Truman 4 Haydon 5 Mortimer 6 Kormoczy 7 Lehane 8 Reynolds (5 of the 8 seeds did not play Australian).

1961 Australian 1 SMITH 2 Lehane 3 Turner 4 Carter Reitano 5 Bevis Hawton 6 Pratt 7 Coghlan 8 Rae (all the players in last 32 Australian).
1961 Wimbledon 1 Reynolds 2 SMITH 3 Haydon 4 Turner 5 Ramirez 6 Truman 7 Mortimer 8 Hantze (6 of the 8 seeds did not play Australian).

1962 Australian 1 SMITH 2 Hard 3 Ramirez 4 Turner 5 Lehane 6 Carter Reitano 7 Ebbern 8 Schacht
1962 Wimbledon 1 SMITH 2 Hard 3 Bueno 4 Schuurman 5 Haydon 6 Mortimer 7 Turner 8 Hantze Susman (5 of the 8 seeds did not play Australian).

1963 Australian 1 SMITH 2 Turner 3 Lehane 4 Truman 5 Ebbern 6 Starkie 7 Lauder 8 Schacht
1963 Wimbledon 1 SMITH 2 Turner 3 Haydon-Jones 4 Hard 5 Lehane 6 Sukova 7 Bueno 8 Schuurman (5 of the 8 seeds did not play Australian).

1964 Australian 1 SMITH 2 Turner 3 Lehane 4 Ebbern 5 Tegart 6 Schacht 7 Blackman 8 Lauder
1964 Wimbledon 1 SMITH 2 Bueno 3 Moffitt 4 Turner 5 Richey 6 Haydon-Jones 7 Lehane 8 Ebbern (4 of the 8 seeds did not play Australian).

1965 Australian 1 SMITH 2 Bueno 3 Turner 4 Moffitt 5 Tegart 6 Graebner 7 Ebbern 8 Haydon-Jones
1965 Wimbledon 1 Bueno 2 SMITH 3 Turner 4 Richey 5 Moffitt 6 Graebner 7 Van Zyl 8 Durr (1 of the 8 seeds did not play Australian. Much better draw than normal this year).

1966 Australian 1 SMITH 2 Richey 3 Turner 4 Graebner 5 Tegart 6 Sherriff 7 Lehane 8 Schacht
1966 Wimbledon 1 SMITH 2 Bueno 3 Haydon-Jones 4 Moffitt-King 5 Richey 6 Van Zyl 7 Durr 8 Baylon (6 of the 8 seeds did not play Australian).

1969 Australian 1 Moffitt-King 2 SMITH-COURT 3 Haydon-Jones 4 Melville 5 Casals 6 Krantzcke 7 Hunt 8 Tegart-Dalton
1969 Wimbledon 1 SMITH-COURT 2 Moffitt-King 3 Wade 4 Haydon-Jones 5 Richey 6 Melville 7 Heldman 8 Tegart-Dalton (3 of the 8 seeds did not play Australian. Like the men's event, a good field entered the first open Australian championships. Unfortunately the draw standards did not maintain in the 1970s).

1970 Australian 1 SMITH-COURT 2 Melville 3 Shaw 4 Krantzcke 5 Tegart-Dalton 6 Sandberg 7 Hunt 8 Harris
1970 Wimbledon 1 SMITH-COURT 2 Moffitt-King 3 Wade 4 Melville 5 Casals 6 Heldman 7 Krantzcke 8 Niessen (5 of the 8 seeds did not play Australian).

1971 Australian 1 SMITH-COURT 2 Goolagong 3 Turner-Bowrey 4 Chanfreau 5 Hogan 6 Harris 7 Shaw 8 Gourlay
1971 Wimbledon 1 SMITH-COURT 2 Moffitt-King 3 Goolagong 4 Casals 5 Wade 6 Richey 7 Durr 8 Niessen-Masthoff (6 of 8 seeds did not play Australian).

1973 Australian 1 SMITH-COURT 2 Goolagong 3 Wade 4 Melville 5 Coleman 6 Sawamatsu 7 Harris 8 Krantzcke
1973 Wimbledon 1 SMITH-COURT 2 Moffitt-King 3 Goolagong 4 Evert 5 Casals 6 Wade 7 Melville 8 Morozova (4 of 8 seeds did not play Australian).




That is why I am talking to you, to show you the poor standard of Court's draws
Thanks for the breakdown. Really puts things in perspective.
 

Dan Lobb

Legend
All of the top male players play in the Grand Slam singles events of 2019 (except when injured). All of the top women players of Court's era did not play in the Australian, as I have illustrated with my post above. I agree with you that apart from Djokovic, Nadal and Federer, the standard of men's tennis now is very poor, but comparing relative standards of eras is another debate and one which I don't intend to get involved with on this thread, as this is a thread on Margaret Court.
If the world field is weak, then it becomes the same argument, weak field slams. You cannot isolate Court from the general consideration.

Sure, she had some weak field slams, but today we see that as a routine. I would agree that some downgrading of both should happen, although exactly how we do that is difficult to decide.
 

chimneysweep

Semi-Pro
If the world field is weak, then it becomes the same argument, weak field slams. You cannot isolate Court from the general consideration.

Sure, she had some weak field slams, but today we see that as a routine. I would agree that some downgrading of both should happen, although exactly how we do that is difficult to decide.
There is a difference between a weak field, which is a subjective argument that exists even at fully attended events for all of Serena, Graf, Navratilova, Evert, and Court at different points in time, and the field not even being there. There were probably atleast 20 events on tour each year during Court's day that had stronger fields than the Australian Open. Thus it was not actually 1 of the big 4 tournaments of the day. It was the equivalent of a Tier 2 tournament (at best) today, maybe even a Tier 3.
 

Dan Lobb

Legend
There is a difference between a weak field, which is a subjective argument that exists even at fully attended events for all of Serena, Graf, Navratilova, Evert, and Court at different points in time, and the field not even being there. There were probably atleast 20 events on tour each year during Court's day that had stronger fields than the Australian Open. Thus it was not actually 1 of the big 4 tournaments of the day. It was the equivalent of a Tier 2 tournament (at best) today, maybe even a Tier 3.
I see that, however, the media and tennis historians have established the Aussie as a slam event, for better or worse.
That does not mean that we cannot point out weak field wins at the Aussie and elsewhere, and we should do that in evaluating players.

Perhaps Court "frightened off" many foreign players, it was their choice not to fly to Australia, not Court's.
 

chimneysweep

Semi-Pro
I see that, however, the media and tennis historians have established the Aussie as a slam event, for better or worse.
That does not mean that we cannot point out weak field wins at the Aussie and elsewhere, and we should do that in evaluating players.

Perhaps Court "frightened off" many foreign players, it was their choice not to fly to Australia, not Court's.
I see your point but context is always going to be used when evaluating the greats and their numbers. To put an extreme example if there is no context Emerson is a 12 time slam winner and a top 8 or so all time. Obviously that doesnt work well for anyone. That is it documented with evidence the Australian Open was not well attended at that point, most people are bound to factor that into their evaluation of Court and her ranking.
 

Dan Lobb

Legend
I see your point but context is always going to be used when evaluating the greats and their numbers. To put an extreme example if there is no context Emerson is a 12 time slam winner and a top 8 or so all time. Obviously that doesnt work well for anyone. That is it documented with evidence the Australian Open was not well attended at that point, most people are bound to factor that into their evaluation of Court and her ranking.
Yes, all the amateur slams have this same problem, not just Emerson, but also Rosewall and Laver, whose amateur slams must be discounted.

I think that we should remember that the amateurs were not independent but required assistance to travel to Australia, they needed to convince their national teams that they should be sent to Australia to further their progress. The amateur czars were not apparently agreeable to that, and Court herself would frighten off attempts to "invade" Australia.
 
I see that, however, the media and tennis historians have established the Aussie as a slam event, for better or worse.
That does not mean that we cannot point out weak field wins at the Aussie and elsewhere, and we should do that in evaluating players.

Perhaps Court "frightened off" many foreign players, it was their choice not to fly to Australia, not Court's.
Court did not "frighten off" foreign players from playing in the Australian. Top foreign players didn't play in the Australian before her time either, just as the top male foreign players didn't play in the Australian before the 1980s either. As you are interested in the issue, I suggest doing one of these 2 things 1: compare the top 8 seeds at every slam event apart from Wimbledon to the top 8 Wimbledon seeds of that year or 2: if you believe some of the top players didn't play at Wimbledon (for men at Wimbledon in 1972 there was a WCT ban and a boycott in 1973), count the number of top 8 seeds in each slam that were listed in the previous year's end of year ranking top 8 (using a consistent source). You will find the Australian had consistently poorer fields than the other slams before the 1980s. I have nothing more to say on this for now. If more research is forthcoming, I will discuss it further.
 

Dan Lobb

Legend
Court did not "frighten off" foreign players from playing in the Australian. Top foreign players didn't play in the Australian before her time either, just as the top male foreign players didn't play in the Australian before the 1980s either. As you are interested in the issue, I suggest doing one of these 2 things 1: compare the top 8 seeds at every slam event apart from Wimbledon to the top 8 Wimbledon seeds of that year or 2: if you believe some of the top players didn't play at Wimbledon (for men at Wimbledon in 1972 there was a WCT ban and a boycott in 1973), count the number of top 8 seeds in each slam that were listed in the previous year's end of year ranking top 8 (using a consistent source). You will find the Australian had consistently poorer fields than the other slams before the 1980s. I have nothing more to say on this for now. If more research is forthcoming, I will discuss it further.
If there was a ban or boycott, frankly, it doesn't matter, that is a weak slam. The business and politics of tennis dictated that some slams were weak, we should just accept that and move on.

Court is not the only player with weak slams, also Emerson, Rosewall, Laver had weak slams on their record, and they should be severely discounted. I think that you should acknowledge that.

Not their fault, it was just how the game was arranged, with divided pro/am ranks, weak slams were part of how the game was played.
Court was not the only player in this mix.
 
If there was a ban or boycott, frankly, it doesn't matter, that is a weak slam. The business and politics of tennis dictated that some slams were weak, we should just accept that and move on.

Court is not the only player with weak slams, also Emerson, Rosewall, Laver had weak slams on their record, and they should be severely discounted. I think that you should acknowledge that.

Not their fault, it was just how the game was arranged, with divided pro/am ranks, weak slams were part of how the game was played.
Court was not the only player in this mix.
Court is the only women's G. O. A. T. candidate to have won such a high proportion of her slams against weak fields. You are correct in that Emerson, Laver and Rosewall all won Australian titles against weak fields, plus there was the amateur-pro split which further complicated men's tennis. I have talked before about the weak fields in slams Emerson won. But we were talking about women's tennis on this thread.
 

BTURNER

Hall of Fame
Well she did not manage to win more than 5 times at any of the 3 slams everyone showed up, but magically 11 (over twice as many as any of the others) at the one nobody played at. It isnt about just one player, but the field collectively would have taken wins off her without question.
I think had the field been stronger, she still would been incredibly dominant. Think about it. She has a superior head to head vs all of her contemporaries anyway, Court-King 23-13 Court- Bueno 17-6 Court -Casals 30-3 Can't put my finger on actual stats for Court-Wade but I read it was not pretty for Wade. Other than Evert, she has the best consistency stats winning 91% of her matches on the tour, 93% of her Open era matches on grass, and she won 95% of her matches at the Aussie, so you can be damn sure she's not getting upset in early rounds before1973. That 'home court' (pun intended ) advantage will be impressive as well. She is used to the Down Under heat and wind and the ball actually bounces fast and high on that hard dry lawn than on other grass courts. Its right in her comfort zone and provides plenty of zip for those serves. . If everyone shows up, I still think she comes away with 8-9 Aussies.
 
Last edited:

chimneysweep

Semi-Pro
I think had the field been stronger, she still would been incredibly dominant. Think about it. She has a superior head to head vs all of her contemporaries anyway, Court-King 23-13 Court- Bueno 17-6 Court -Casals 30-3
Like I said it isnt about one player, it is about the collective field. At the other 3 slams the field was able to take victory from her way over half the time. King beat her 1 of 3 times they played (proabbly higher than that on grass, King's best surface), and Bueno has beaten her in U.S Open and Wimbledon finals, so the two of them alone would be likely to cut into her totals, even before getting into the other challengers. There is no reason to think she would magically be that far superior at the Australian Open which is on the same surface as 2 other grass slams she won only 3 or 5 times.
 

chimneysweep

Semi-Pro
A 37 yr old overweight woman made the final of wimbledon and Courts era was weak??
It isnt about the era, it is about a tier 3 tournament that was allowed to be called a slam. It would be like if Geneva were a slam today, even though the players looked at it as a little tournament that mostly only Swiss players played, and Serena were Swiss and won it 12 times which padded her slam count.

And Navratilova was reaching slam finals at 37 too btw.
 

BTURNER

Hall of Fame
Like I said it isnt about one player, it is about the collective field. At the other 3 slams the field was able to take victory from her way over half the time. King beat her 1 of 3 times they played probably higher than that on grass, King's best surface), and Bueno has beaten her in U.S Open and Wimbledon finals, so the two of them alone would be likely to cut into her totals, even before getting into the other challengers. There is no reason to think she would magically be that far superior at the Australian Open which is on the same surface as 2 other grass slams she won only 3 or 5 times.
Oh I get the theory. Each of the women with losing records against Court, both on the tour, and in slam meetings, were going to grab one of Courts on Court's best surface, Australian grass. Bueno would grab hers, King would grab hers, Wade would take another, Casals will take her fourth victory out of 30, and who knows maybe Nancy Richey might take one and that still leaves Frankie Durr with a shot at greatness Down under!
 
Last edited:

Dan Lobb

Legend
Court is the only women's G. O. A. T. candidate to have won such a high proportion of her slams against weak fields. You are correct in that Emerson, Laver and Rosewall all won Australian titles against weak fields, plus there was the amateur-pro split which further complicated men's tennis. I have talked before about the weak fields in slams Emerson won. But we were talking about women's tennis on this thread.
Well, tennis is tennis, so all players have to accept the realities. Including Rosewall and Laver.

With Court, the other women had the opportunity to play in Australia, at least the top women did, so Court should get credit for making the prospects of anyone beating her there so slim or even non-existent that they threw in the towel.
 

Dan Lobb

Legend
Oh I get the theory. Each of the women with losing records against Court, both on the tour, and in slam meetings, were going to grab one of Courts on Court's best surface, Australian grass. Bueno would grab hers, King would grab hers, Wade would take another, Casals will take her fourth victory out of 30, and who knows maybe Nancy Richey might take one and that still leaves Frankie Durr with a shot at greatness Down under!
Court would have been practically unbeatable by any women's player who was brave enough to travel to Australia....could that be why so many women chose not to take the slim chance of winning there? That makes sense.
 

BTURNER

Hall of Fame
Court would have been practically unbeatable by any women's player who was brave enough to travel to Australia....could that be why so many women chose not to take the slim chance of winning there? That makes sense.
It may have been a factor for some. It was hell of a long way to travel (relatively speaking) if personal success is defined as winning the tournament. But it was hell of a long way to travel, regardless, especially in December before Christmas, or in January when most players are taking their seasonal sabbatical and it did not even pay especially well when Court was playing. The biggest names in the sport have that eternally optimistic belief in their game ( ego) or they would not be in the top tier. They just keep believing in their chances, rational or not, because that is what all top tier athletes do. I don't mean to be dismissive of your premise, I honestly don't think your theory represents a primary motivator for people of the caliber of King, or Bueno . Getting to the very top of the sport tends to weed out the self doubters. We do agree that Court would not have lost many no matter how many great players showed up,
 
Last edited:
Court should get credit for making the prospects of anyone beating her there so slim or even non-existent that they threw in the towel.
You know yourself that this statement is wrong, because you know that for decades top foreign players men and women did not often play in the Australian. Absurd statement by Dan Lobb number 63246. Nothing more to be said.
 

Raul_SJ

Legend
On-court behavior is what matters most; everyone is free to have the personal political views and religious beliefs that she has.
Margaret Court probably conducted herself on court far better than Serena. Never physically threatened an umpire or threw a tantrum.
It is fitting that Court continues to holds the record.
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
It was hell of a long way to travel (relatively speaking) if personal success is defined as winning the tournament. But it was hell of a long way to travel, regardless, especially in December before Christmas, or in January when most players are taking their seasonal sabbatical
Absolutely.
You know yourself that this statement is wrong, because you know that for decades top foreign players men and women did not often play in the Australian.
Yes. I believe travel time (as above) also played a large part in making the trip to Australia seem to be not worth it.
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
The reason I chose the Wimbledon seedings is because the top players played at Wimbledon (if you have a better system, then please state what it is). You mention Roland Garros 1977, but that is just one event. And if you want me to set criterea, I will set criterea. If 4 or more of the top 8 seeds at that year's Wimbledon championships did not play in another major of the same year, that major event is compromised. 9 of Court's 11 Australian championships are compromised. So I invite you to look at all Evert's singles majors and Navratilova's and Graf's and Serena's and tell me how many of them are compromised. Then deduct the compromised majors from their list of total Grand Slam singles titles. I guarantee you that Serena would be miles ahead of Court!
Fact is though, Court beat Bueno in two Australian, one in a quarter, the other in the final. She also beat BJK in two others, one in a semi, the other in a final. It was Court's home tournament, so she was very familiar with the surface and would be nearly impossible for anyone to beat her there.
 

chimneysweep

Semi-Pro
Oh I get the theory. Each of the women with losing records against Court, both on the tour, and in slam meetings, were going to grab one of Courts on Court's best surface, Australian grass. Bueno would grab hers, King would grab hers, Wade would take another, Casals will take her fourth victory out of 30, and who knows maybe Nancy Richey might take one and that still leaves Frankie Durr with a shot at greatness Down under!
All I know is at the 3 slams everyone played (aka real slams) she didnt win more than 5 at any of them despite her overall winning records against everyone you speak of, but miracelously 11 at the slam nobody plays. Speaking of King she already did beat Court in Australia, destroying her in straight sets in 1 of their 2 meetings in the final. Court won their other encounter, also in easy straight sets, but obviously the thought of King beating Court in Australia isnt far fetched, it already happened. Given how poor the fields at the Australian Open are King and Court would probably play every year if King alone played every year, giving her another 12 chances or so, and she won 1 out of only 2 chances already. Nor is the thought of Bueno who has beaten her in both Wimbledon and U .S Open finals doing it if she played regularly. And I am sure the head to heads on grass involving players like Court, King, and most of the top players minus Richey and Jones are better on grass than the overall head to head as most of these have grass as by far their best surface, while Court is an all courter who probably wins nearly every clay or even hard court meeting against these others minus the clay courters like Richey, Turner, and Jones.
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
All I know is at the 3 slams everyone played (aka real slams) she didnt win more than 5 at any of them despite her overall winning records against everyone you speak of, but miracelously 11 at the slam nobody plays. Speaking of King she already did beat Court in Australia, destroying her in straight sets in 1 of their 2 meetings in the final. Court won their other encounter, also in easy straight sets, but obviously the thought of King beating Court in Australia isnt far fetched, it already happened. Given how poor the fields at the Australian Open are King and Court would probably play every year if King alone played every year, giving her another 12 chances or so, and she won 1 out of only 2 chances already. Nor is the thought of Bueno who has beaten her in both Wimbledon and U .S Open finals doing it if she played regularly. And I am sure the head to heads on grass involving players like Court, King, and most of the top players minus Richey and Jones are better on grass than the overall head to head as most of these have grass as by far their best surface, while Court is an all courter who probably wins nearly every clay or even hard court meeting against these others minus the clay courters like Richey, Turner, and Jones.
King beat Court in the 68 final, with Court just coming back from a year off the tour. In 69, at her near best she easily beat King in the final. Whatever, Court is credited with 24 slams and had a strong H-H against all her top rivals from 61-73
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
If you think the # of grand slam titles is the end all, then id agree.
.
Some do. When Sampras held the top majors count, some of this fans claimed he was the GOAT, despite never coming close to winning the Grand Slam. The same applies to Federer, hence the reason his fans are either frightened of Djokovic and/or Nadal matching or surpassing him--its all about the majors count, which they are now moving the goal posts to suggest a player needs a sea of random factors to be a GOAT, when that was not part of their criteria when crowning Federer.


Yes. There are players I dislike. But I do not discount that they are deserved of their results.
You are rare, as we see how much Serena is downgraded all due to beliefs and world views having nothing to do with tennis. This board is a library of such posts.

Now, I'm sure Court was not a cheater. Nor did she treat people as badly as some other players may have, yet people try to discount her tennis abilities and achievements. This will not ever be possible no matter how hard they try. The same for Serena, are her records unworthy?
Agreed. Court is one of the GOAT players, and no matter how much her pitchfork critics despise her and her Christian faith, there's no way to erase or rewrite history to take her well earned status away from her, and its world wide recognition in sports history.
 
Top