Margaret Court Continues to Stay Ahead of the Pack at 24

chimneysweep

Semi-Pro
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
A win as a win, I could also say in 69-71 King was having massive knee problems and went through an 11 slam winless streak, which would probably have been 12 if Goolagong played the U.S Open in 71.

Yes Court has 24 slams, that is a fact, just like Emerson having 12 slams is a fact. Yet almost nobody rates Court as the GOAT, and most rate her only 4th or 5th in the Open Era, and most rate Emerson outside the top 20, since context is put around all Emerson's slams and half of Court's. I have also seen you saying context should be put around Graf's slam wins by the Seles stabbing, that is fine if you feel that way, but you cant do that though and not also put context around Court's Australian Open wins, otherwise you are being a hypocrite since you like Court and dislike Graf.
 

Dan Lobb

Legend
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.
It was not unusual for some top tennis players to avoid confrontations.

Why would they waste the money travelling to Australia just to lose? THAT would make no sense.
 
Last edited:

Dan Lobb

Legend
A win as a win, I could also say in 69-71 King was having massive knee problems and went through an 11 slam winless streak, which would probably have been 12 if Goolagong played the U.S Open in 71.

Yes Court has 24 slams, that is a fact, just like Emerson having 12 slams is a fact. Yet almost nobody rates Court as the GOAT, and most rate her only 4th or 5th in the Open Era, and most rate Emerson outside the top 20, since context is put around all Emerson's slams and half of Court's. I have also seen you saying context should be put around Graf's slam wins by the Seles stabbing, that is fine if you feel that way, but you cant do that though and not also put context around Court's Australian Open wins, otherwise you are being a hypocrite since you like Court and dislike Graf.
But you have to downgrade the amateur slams of Rosewall, Laver, and Newcombe also.
 
It is strange that Court was not invited to Wimbledon this year....I do not recall Serena making a big issue about Court's personal views.
I doubt that Serena would have been offended by Court being there.

And referring to the "24" record without mentioning just "who" holds the record is snobbery beyond belief. Or else it is simple fear of being "incorrect" and alienating viewers.

Does the word "integrity" mean anything today?
Margaret Court has been staying out of the public eye in recent months, she was not at Roland Garros either.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk
 

BTURNER

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.
You have not established which majors are real slams or not. You did not do the homework to find out which majors in her era even met your own standard mentioned above You'd have to prove any US national or French is actually a major by your definition or it does not really exist for comparison. We know that Both King (25 losses before the semis in 45 efforts for 44% success rate. That is not a typo! King as the absolute worst ratio of major entered to majors in late rounds of anyone I have done this stat on) and Bueno ( 17 losses before the semis in 37 efforts for a 54% success rate) are more likely statistically not to get the semis than Court ( 11 losses before the semis out of 47 entries for a 77% success rate) . We do know that Bueno showed up at the Aussie twice in her career. She was seeded #1 in the tournament, and lost in the QF. She was seeded number 2 when reached the finals in 1965. Guess who took her out? It was Maggie. No real surprise in 65 when Maggie was #1. But quite the upset in 1960 when Smith was ranked number 7 in this noncompetitive tournament, taking on the best player in the world. I don't see Bueno as much of a threat to Court here.

As for King, she lost to Court ( top seed) in the semis, in 65 seeded 4 , but won 1968 as top seed when Court was seeded 7 in the final post a year long sabbatical. Aging King (9) lost in 1982 to Evert (2) in the quarters, and in 1983(seeded7) was upset by unseeded Tanvier in the second round. King will always be a threat on any grasscourt, but she flourishes on softer wetter cooler turf at Forest Hills and Wimbledon, because nobody gets down to a ball like King does and she had incredible touch, Heavy conditions and wet grass is what she was born for,just as "The Arm" was born to play on fast dry high bouncing grass where her power volley was more effective. King is doubtless the greatest threat to Court, until Goolagong learns the game. I think she is the only person likely to take more than one from Court but not much more.
 

Dan Lobb

Legend
I and most others do. Nobody calls Rosewall the GOAT, most have Newcombe lower than Edberg or Becker. Most dont have Laver as the GOAT over Federer today. so already done for most people.
That's fine, but we need to get specific and start stroking out or at least asterisking those weak major wins which are still given to Rosewall and Laver in their career totals.

I volunteer to lead the asterisk brigade, I am so stimulated by this conversation.....I shall begin shortly on this thread with a "corrected" major count for such over-rated players as Rosewall and Laver.....let's see, where to begin.

I shall begin by stroking out the 1971 Forest Hills and 1972 Wimbledon titles, even though Smith was a worthy winner, the fields were weakened by business and politics. And 1973 Wimbledon is hereby GONE...good bye 1973 Wimbledon.....
 

BTURNER

Hall of Fame
That's fine, but we need to get specific and start stroking out or at least asterisking those weak major wins which are still given to Rosewall and Laver in their career totals.

I volunteer to lead the asterisk brigade, I am so stimulated by this conversation.....I shall begin shortly on this thread with a "corrected" major count for such over-rated players as Rosewall and Laver.....let's see, where to begin.

I shall begin by stroking out the 1971 Forest Hills and 1972 Wimbledon titles, even though Smith was a worthy winner, the fields were weakened by business and politics. And 1973 Wimbledon is hereby GONE...good bye 1973 Wimbledon.....
As I understand the standard suggested by Pro tennis, what he does is look at the Wimbledon seeds for the same year and see if they showed up at Slam X or Slam Y. That means by definition EVERY Wimbledon that has established a seeding and draw, pass the definition because it creates the standard then. So the 1973 seeding establishes the standard for that year's slams. If half the top ranked players boycott Wimbledon, then the standard for the entire year is depressed by 50%. What we do not know is how few of these 'seeds' can show up at the Open or RG and still meet the standard of a major. Can two Wimbledon seeds be absent without a demerit to a subslam, , or four, or six? If we establish a number, does it matter how high? Do we treat the lack of the #7 and #8 seeds, the same as we treat the lack of the #1 and #2 seeds?
 
Last edited:
As I understand the standard suggested by chimney, what he does is look at the Wimbledon seeds for the same year and see if they showed up at Slam X or Slam Y. That means by definition EVERY Wimbledon that has established a seeding and draw, pass the definition because it creates the standard then. So the 1973 seeding establishes the standard for that year's slams. If half the top ranked players boycott Wimbledon, then the standard for the entire year is depressed by 50%. What we do not know is how few of these 'seeds' can show up at the Open or RG and still meet the standard of a major. Can two Wimbledon seeds be absent without a demerit to a subslam, , or four, or six? If we establish a number, does it matter how high? Do we treat the lack of the #7 and #8 seeds, the same as we treat the lack of the #1 and #2 seeds?
I used the Wimbledon seeds because as a general rule more top players played at Wimbledon than the other slams (with the US close behind). But yes, there were the occassional exceptions such as men's draws at Wimbledon in 1972 and 1973. I think your idea of an end of year ranking was good, but there were no ATP rankings before 1973 and no WTA rankings before 1975, so before that a well respected source for end of year rankings should be used consistently. I take your point about 7 and 8 seeds being regarded the same as 1 and 2. A points system could be established as follows.

Each slam begins with a value of 100 points.
if no. 1 ranked player is absent deduct 16 points
if no. 2 ranked player is absent deduct 15 points
if no. 3 ranked player is absent deduct 14 points
if no. 4 ranked player is absent deduct 13 points
if no. 5 ranked player is absent deduct 12 points
if no. 6 ranked player is absent deduct 11 points
if no. 7 ranked player is absent deduct 10 points
if no. 8 ranked player is absent deduct 9 points
Each major now has a points total which accurately reflects the strength of the draw. 0 of top 8 playing = 0 points, 8 of top 8 playing = 100 points. Each slam title has a value and each player has a points total for each slam won.
 

BTURNER

Hall of Fame
I used the Wimbledon seeds because as a general rule more top players played at Wimbledon than the other slams (with the US close behind). But yes, there were the occassional exceptions such as men's draws at Wimbledon in 1972 and 1973. I think your idea of an end of year ranking was good, but there were no ATP rankings before 1973 and no WTA rankings before 1975, so before that a well respected source for end of year rankings should be used consistently. I take your point about 7 and 8 seeds being regarded the same as 1 and 2. A points system could be established as follows.

Each slam begins with a value of 100 points.
if no. 1 ranked player is absent deduct 16 points
if no. 2 ranked player is absent deduct 15 points
if no. 3 ranked player is absent deduct 14 points
if no. 4 ranked player is absent deduct 13 points
if no. 5 ranked player is absent deduct 12 points
if no. 6 ranked player is absent deduct 11 points
if no. 7 ranked player is absent deduct 10 points
if no. 8 ranked player is absent deduct 9 points
Each major now has a point s total which accurately reflects the strength of the draw. 0 of top 8 playing = 0 points, 8 of top 8 playing = 100 points. Each slam title has a value and each player has a points total for each slam won.
This I am liking much better. It captures a less black and white picture. There have been rankings that preceded professional tennis. I know that Bud Collins Tennis Encylepedia had such lists. As I vaguely recall, they were voted on by sports writers annually that covered Tennis . My problem is that I can't find them online. Our problem is that they are not as objective as some computer generated systen. I am sure a 'shout out' will provide us help finding them..
 
This I am liking much better. It captures a less black and white picture. There have been rankings that preceded professional tennis. I know that Bud Collins Tennis Encylepedia had such lists. As I vaguely recall, they were voted on by sports writers annually that covered Tennis . My problem is that I can't find them online. Our problem is that they are not as objective as some computer generated systen. I am sure a 'shout out' will provide us help finding them..
I have the Collins encyclopedia. I was thinking of possibly using the Collins rankings anyway, so glad to hear you mention them. I will start work on rankings using this system tomorrow. It may take a while. That is true that the rankings were not as objective before the ATP and WTA rankings began. We have to use the most reliable rankings available.
 

Dan Lobb

Legend
I used the Wimbledon seeds because as a general rule more top players played at Wimbledon than the other slams (with the US close behind). But yes, there were the occassional exceptions such as men's draws at Wimbledon in 1972 and 1973. I think your idea of an end of year ranking was good, but there were no ATP rankings before 1973 and no WTA rankings before 1975, so before that a well respected source for end of year rankings should be used consistently. I take your point about 7 and 8 seeds being regarded the same as 1 and 2. A points system could be established as follows.

Each slam begins with a value of 100 points.
if no. 1 ranked player is absent deduct 16 points
if no. 2 ranked player is absent deduct 15 points
if no. 3 ranked player is absent deduct 14 points
if no. 4 ranked player is absent deduct 13 points
if no. 5 ranked player is absent deduct 12 points
if no. 6 ranked player is absent deduct 11 points
if no. 7 ranked player is absent deduct 10 points
if no. 8 ranked player is absent deduct 9 points
Each major now has a points total which accurately reflects the strength of the draw. 0 of top 8 playing = 0 points, 8 of top 8 playing = 100 points. Each slam title has a value and each player has a points total for each slam won.
This system does not work at all before 1968....sorry, that era has no "well respected source" that can establish a coherent ranking, even in the pro ranks by themselves, let alone a comprehensive pro/amateur ranking.

And the "pro majors" before 1968 were often overshadowed in importance by other special tournaments, so there is no regular method of determining value.
Those special tournaments usually had stronger fields than the "regular" pro slams, and would rank higher as a result.

As important as those pre-1968 years were, there is a daunting task in evaluation of players and tournaments.
 

Dan Lobb

Legend
I have the Collins encyclopedia. I was thinking of possibly using the Collins rankings anyway, so glad to hear you mention them. I will start work on rankings using this system tomorrow. It may take a while. That is true that the rankings were not as objective before the ATP and WTA rankings began. We have to use the most reliable rankings available.
There were objective points rankings for 1942, 1946, 1959, 1964, and probably 1965 to 1968. Similar to the ATP system today.
 

BTURNER

Hall of Fame
This system does not work at all before 1968....sorry, that era has no "well respected source" that can establish a coherent ranking, even in the pro ranks by themselves, let alone a comprehensive pro/amateur ranking.

And the "pro majors" before 1968 were often overshadowed in importance by other special tournaments, so there is no regular method of determining value.
Those special tournaments usually had stronger fields than the "regular" pro slams, and would rank higher as a result.

As important as those pre-1968 years were, there is a daunting task in evaluation of players and tournaments.
My goal is so much more elemental. All I want is for posters to stop talking as though Maggies Aussies are the only weak majors worth even noticing in the record books when virtually all champions before the late 80's have the same exact problem to one degree as Smith does. Nobody seems to notice or care.

The exercise Protennis wants to engage in is worthwhile, because it gives us a broad picture , but the more he learns about the historical context, the more he will realize that this is all sooo much more complicated that showing who did and did not show up in the 1960s or the 2000's and what majors tested in terms of play quality changed. The number of rounds increased but top players got a lot more protection from upsets , secondary to doubling the numbers of seeds from 8 to 16 and then doubling it again to 32, and that meant they were more willing to play majors where the surface was unfriendly. Network coverage became big dollars for EVERYONE and that meant the tours needs the 'stars' to show up at the majors for better ratings. So they standardized and homogenized grand slam play to make the slams a 'fair' surface, as they pressured hard for attendence. Surfaces and balls where altered so that winning RG and Wimbledon just did not mean the same thing. Simultaniously, more and more players changed the nature of those slams by refusing to play mixed or doubles so those events virtually collapsed as players put less competitive hours into each slam they played. Those that did, got shorter sets. We are comparing slams without any of those extraordinary 9-7 or 11-9 set scores with those that carry 9 point tiebreakers.

Nevertheless this is a start to seeing this as more than Court's problem.
 
Last edited:

Dan Lobb

Legend
My goal is so much more elemental. All I want is for posters to stop talking as though Maggies Aussies are the only weak majors worth even noticing in the record books when virtually all champions before the late 80's have the same exact problem to one degree as Smith does. Nobody seems to notice or care.

The exercise Protennis wants to engage in is worthwhile, because it gives us a broad picture , but the more he learns about the historical context, the more he will realize that this is all sooo much more complicated that showing who did and did not show up in the 1960s or the 2000's and what majors tested in terms of play quality changed. The number of rounds increased but top players got a lot more protection from upsets , secondary to doubling the numbers of seeds from 8 to 16 and then doubling it again to 32, and that meant they were more willing to play majors where the surface was unfriendly. Network coverage became big dollars for EVERYONE and that meant the tours needs the 'stars' to show up at the majors for better ratings. So they standardized and homogenized grand slam play to make the slams a 'fair' surface, as they pressured hard for attendence. Surfaces and balls where altered so that winning RG and Wimbledon just did not mean the same thing. Simultaniously, more and more players changed the nature of those slams by refusing to play mixed or doubles so those events virtually collapsed as players put less competitive hours into each slam they played. Those that did, got shorter sets. We are comparing slams without any of those extraordinary 9-7 or 11-9 set scores with those that carry 9 point tiebreakers.

Nevertheless this is a start to seeing this as more than Court's problem.
Exactly.
 
This system does not work at all before 1968....sorry, that era has no "well respected source" that can establish a coherent ranking, even in the pro ranks by themselves, let alone a comprehensive pro/amateur ranking.

And the "pro majors" before 1968 were often overshadowed in importance by other special tournaments, so there is no regular method of determining value.
Those special tournaments usually had stronger fields than the "regular" pro slams, and would rank higher as a result.

As important as those pre-1968 years were, there is a daunting task in evaluation of players and tournaments.
I never said anything about applying this to the old pro tour. This is a slams only test. The rankings in Collins are amateur rankings before 1968.
 
Last edited:
My goal is so much more elemental. All I want is for posters to stop talking as though Maggies Aussies are the only weak majors worth even noticing in the record books when virtually all champions before the late 80's have the same exact problem to one degree as Smith does. Nobody seems to notice or care.

The exercise Protennis wants to engage in is worthwhile, because it gives us a broad picture , but the more he learns about the historical context, the more he will realize that this is all sooo much more complicated that showing who did and did not show up in the 1960s or the 2000's and what majors tested in terms of play quality changed. The number of rounds increased but top players got a lot more protection from upsets , secondary to doubling the numbers of seeds from 8 to 16 and then doubling it again to 32, and that meant they were more willing to play majors where the surface was unfriendly. Network coverage became big dollars for EVERYONE and that meant the tours needs the 'stars' to show up at the majors for better ratings. So they standardized and homogenized grand slam play to make the slams a 'fair' surface, as they pressured hard for attendence. Surfaces and balls where altered so that winning RG and Wimbledon just did not mean the same thing. Simultaniously, more and more players changed the nature of those slams by refusing to play mixed or doubles so those events virtually collapsed as players put less competitive hours into each slam they played. Those that did, got shorter sets. We are comparing slams without any of those extraordinary 9-7 or 11-9 set scores with those that carry 9 point tiebreakers.

Nevertheless this is a start to seeing this as more than Court's problem.
I never said that Court's Australian titles were the only weak majors, but they were consistently weaker than majors won by the other women's G. O. A. T. candidates. In Serena Williams' era, all the top players play all the slams unless injured. Comparing the difference in surfaces of the four majors is a seperate argument. Yes, there were no tie breaks in slams before 1970 US Open, but matches were a lot quicker in the past than they are today (there have been so many 5hour+ mens singles matches in the past 15 years in slams. This was rare in the era before tie breaks). Before 1975 three of the four slams were on grass. In the early days of the Australian/Australasian championships 100 years ago, this was often more like an Australian state championships, with few players travelling long distances to play in the event, yet those early champions are still listed on the champions roll. What will be interesting to see with this exercise is exactly where the fluctuations are. And there will be modern majors that fluctuate too. I can recall a few majors in recent years where a number of top players were absent through injury.
 

BTURNER

Hall of Fame
I never said that Court's Australian titles were the only weak majors, but they were consistently weaker than majors won by the other women's G. O. A. T. candidates. In Serena Williams' era, all the top players play all the slams unless injured. Comparing the difference in surfaces of the four majors is a seperate argument. Yes, there were no tie breaks in slams before 1970 US Open, but matches were a lot quicker in the past than they are today (there have been so many 5hour+ mens singles matches in the past 15 years in slams. This was rare in the era before tie breaks). Before 1975 three of the four slams were on grass. In the early days of the Australian/Australasian championships 100 years ago, this was often more like an Australian state championships, with few players travelling long distances to play in he event, yet those early champions are still listed on the champions roll. What will be interesting to see with this exercise is exactly where the fluctuations are. And there will be modern majors that fluctuate too. I can recall a few majors in recent years where a number of top players were absent through injury.
I think you will learn a lot about the French as well. And you haven't touched the problem of increased seedings. If Serena is better protected with a 32 seeds, than Court was with 8 seeds at the same US championship, how can you just add up the numbers and pretend they mean the same thing? You will need to change the equation to measure the protection level of each slam. Is a slam a slam, if Serena has either twice or three x as much protection from assassination in rds 1- rd 4 ,than any other GOAT candidate in almost every major she entered? The risk/ benefit of entry completely alters. Then there is the effect of real doubles competition on the entire major and on each champion and what she achieved in single.

Once you figure all that out, The next step is to make an effort to replace them with tournaments that did a better job using the same metric so that each year we have as close as we can to four major tournaments on which to compare champions of different eras. When you are ready to go there, the final reality is that you still haven't gotten anywhere if other eras did not measure greatness with just four tournaments in mind.

We are all trapped with a very long history and you be rewarded with that 'ah ha' moment that GOAT cannot be measured by simply counting numbers of the four most prestigious tournament, outside the historical context of its time. Serena is really neither more nor less handicapped by inadequacy of a single measuring stick ( in this case, dominance in four most prestigious events) Each champion has to be measured in proportion to the standards and expectations and challenges of her day.
 
Last edited:
I think you will learn a lot about the French as well. And you haven't touched the problem of increased seedings. If Serena is better protected with a 32 seeds, than Court was with 8 seeds at the same US championship, how can you just add up the numbers and pretend they mean the same thing. Then there is the effect of real doubles competition on the entire major and on each champion and what she achieved in single. Once you figure all that out, The next step is to make an effort to replace them with tournaments that did a better job using the same metric so that each year we have as close as we can to four major tournaments on which to compare champions of different eras.
Court only had to win 5 rounds to win each of her 11 Australian titles. Serena had 128 draw majors throughout her career (7 rounds). And I doubt Court was overly worried by there being only 8 seeds at the Australian, being that a player that would have been seeded 9 at the Australian would rarely have been among the top 16 best in the world.
 

BTURNER

Hall of Fame
Court only had to win 5 rounds to win each of her 11 Australian titles. Serena had 128 draw majors throughout her career (7 rounds). And I doubt Court was overly worried by there being only 8 seeds at the Australian, being that a player that would have been seeded 9 at the Australian would rarely have been among the top 16 best in the world.
You are fixating on proving your pro Serena agenda again. Oops the same held true with every Wimbledon that Serena won and every Open she won and every Wimbledon and Open that Margaret won . And guess what ,if you read my thread on when these changes happened, you will find that there is no consistent ratio between the size of the draws and the number of seeds. Wimbledon held their seedings to eight longer than any other major, while their draw went as high a 96, and a couple of US Opens had a 32 seed with 64 draws. These majors were experimenting even before open tennis hit. Its about developing a mathematical ratio of seeding protection, to the size of the draw, to measure difficulty, as much as it is that top ten list you are using. The tennis establishment has worked overtime to ensure that the TV cameras got to see who the fans expected to see, and that means protecting each generation's stars from early upsets.
 
You are fixating on proving your pro Serena agenda again. Oops the same held true with every Wimbledon that Serena won and every Open she won and every Wimbledon and Open that Margaret won . And guess what ,if you read my thread on when these changes happened, you will find that there is no consistent ratio between the size of the draws and the number of seeds. Wimbledon held their seedings to eight longer than any other major, while their draw went as high a 96, and a couple of US Opens had a 32 seed with 64 draws Its about developing a mathematical ratio of seeding protection, to the size of the draw, to measure difficulty, as much as it is that top ten list you are using.
I could use Graf as an example rather than Serena, only the early Australian titles Graf won were not quite at a 100% full strength draw (still much better than Court's draws though) and when Graf's name is mentioned, someone usually mentions Seles' absence from 1993-95. You talk about Court's other slam victories, but the problem is, Court won almost half her singles slam titles at the Australian. Everyone each has a different system of judging greatness and for each, the slam count may vary in importance in the calculation. I only entered this conversation in the first place because you were questioning why we always single out Court for special attention to the draw. I have seen you defend Court's draws/Court's record many times on this forum. The only other occassion I have discussed Serena (other than in debates with Court with you) on tennis warehouse is to condemn her behaviour in last year's US Open final. I am not a fan of Serena's, but I respect her for winning 23 singles slams against all the best players in the world. The same can not be said of Court's 11 Australian singles titles. This exercise will show how many top players entered each Grand slam event (men and women). And now I shall go away and do it. It will depend on how much free time I have as to how quickly it is done.
 

BTURNER

Hall of Fame
I could use Graf as an example rather than Serena, only the early Australian titles Graf won were not quite at a 100% full strength draw (still much better than Court's draws though) and when Graf's name is mentioned, someone usually mentions Seles' absence from 1993-95. You talk about Court's other slam victories, but the problem is, Court won almost half her singles slam titles at the Australian. Everyone each has a different system of judging greatness and for each, the slam count may vary in importance in the calculation. I only entered this conversation in the first place because you were questioning why we always single out Court for special attention to the draw. I have seen you defend Court's draws/Court's record many times on this forum. The only other occassion I have discussed Serena (other than in debates with Court with you) on tennis warehouse is to condemn her behaviour in last year's US Open final. I am not a fan of Serena's, but I respect her for winning 23 singles slams against all the best players in the world. The same can not be said of Court's 11 Australian singles titles. This exercise will show how many top players entered each Grand slam event (men and women). And now I shall go away and do it. It will depend on how much free time I have as to how quickly it is done.
It will tell us the obvious truth that really nobody disputes that beginning in the mid to late 80's, all the majors are getting far more consistent attendance than before , and it provides a baseline equation to compare how the French Championships in an era, compares with Wimbledon or Open to attract the top ten. It certainly does not 'target Margaret' because it provides objective criteria that can be used more broadly and that is what I like, But it won't tell us a full story about what it actually measures with respect to strength of the tournament until it also measure the ratio of seeding to draw.
 
Last edited:
But it won't tell us a full story about what it actually measures with respect to strength of the tournament until it also measure the ratio of seeding to draw.
8 seeds out of 32 entrants is 25% of the draw seeded. 16 seeds of 128 entrants is 12.5% seeded. 32 seeds out of 128 entrants is 25% of the draw seeded.
 

BTURNER

Hall of Fame
8 seeds out of 32 entrants is 25% of the draw seeded. 16 seeds of 128 entrants is 12.5% seeded. 32 seeds out of 128 entrants is 25% of the draw seeded.
Its fascinating how few of Courts Aussies actually had that 8/32 ratio. It was rocks solid in the 50's. The experimenting happened from 1961 forward. The range was literally all over the map even if the draws were small, , it was sometimes better, usually a little worse from my perspective. I don't think there were two years in a row with the same 8/32 ratio. We are learning!
 
Last edited:

newmark401

Professional
As a former Wimbledon champion she has club membership, so doesn't need an invite. But she has clearly been keeping away from tennis venues since making some highly offensive comments just over two years ago.

It is strange that Court was not invited to Wimbledon this year...
 
Ahead of the pack? Only in official slam count. Not in any other way, Court has not been considered the GOAT for years. I am not sure if she was ever widely regarded as GOAT, when she played or had just retired, I would not be surprised if people had someone like Connolly or Wills higher than her.
 
I could use Graf as an example rather than Serena, only the early Australian titles Graf won were not quite at a 100% full strength draw (still much better than Court's draws though) and when Graf's name is mentioned, someone usually mentions Seles' absence from 1993-95. You talk about Court's other slam victories, but the problem is, Court won almost half her singles slam titles at the Australian. Everyone each has a different system of judging greatness and for each, the slam count may vary in importance in the calculation. I only entered this conversation in the first place because you were questioning why we always single out Court for special attention to the draw. I have seen you defend Court's draws/Court's record many times on this forum. The only other occassion I have discussed Serena (other than in debates with Court with you) on tennis warehouse is to condemn her behaviour in last year's US Open final. I am not a fan of Serena's, but I respect her for winning 23 singles slams against all the best players in the world. The same can not be said of Court's 11 Australian singles titles. This exercise will show how many top players entered each Grand slam event (men and women). And now I shall go away and do it. It will depend on how much free time I have as to how quickly it is done.
Graf atleast was missing only 1 key rival for 6 of her slam wins, 2 of those Wimbledons were said key rival never had a hope in hell of beating her anyway so basically only 4. Court was missing all her key rivals minus the odd 1 out of say the top 5 who showed up sometimes for 11 of her slam wins.
 

Dan Lobb

Legend
As a former Wimbledon champion she has club membership, so doesn't need an invite. But she has clearly been keeping away from tennis venues since making some highly offensive comments just over two years ago.
No, she was REPORTED falsely as making some comments....the actual tapes show that no such comments were made....but people will create fantasies and believe what they want to believe and ignore the truth. So be it.
 

MarTennis

Semi-Pro
I think it is hilarious that Margaret continues to be the all time winningest woman at the majors. Serena has reached three major finals in the last 12 months and won 0 sets in those matches.
Nobody has ever thought Margaret Court was the greatest woman player ever. Nobody ever will. As though you guys are really like women's tennis? Y'all funny. get those tennis balls out of that 70s pressurized ball contraption and get them on that walker. Cranks.
.
 

Greatgatsby

Semi-Pro
Nobody has ever thought Margaret Court was the greatest woman player ever. Nobody ever will. As though you guys are really like women's tennis? Y'all funny. get those tennis balls out of that 70s pressurized ball contraption and get them on that walker. Cranks.
.
You are factually inaccurate and overstate your case. I assure you that in 1975 Chris Evert, Martina and BJK would all have honestly assessed that as of 1975 MC was the greatest woman player of all time. Clearly other women have risen and certainly challenged if not eclipsed Court's resume. I posted the original post because political correctness has no place in sports. Many of us out here are sick and tired of Court being lambasted because she is against the LGBT lifestyle. If I can look over the fact that she is a fallen away Catholic(a greater sin in my biased mind) then the PC crowd needs to get over the fact that Margaret doesn't celebrate Pride every June.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Professional
Graf atleast was missing only 1 key rival for 6 of her slam wins, 2 of those Wimbledons were said key rival never had a hope in hell of beating her anyway so basically only 4. Court was missing all her key rivals minus the odd 1 out of say the top 5 who showed up sometimes for 11 of her slam wins.
What should she have done then. Not play those Australians because some internet warriors 50 years later would try to undermine their wins? It is not Courts fault that her rivals decided to not playing. You guys would maybe have a point if she only had few achievements elsewhere but she won a CYGS and 13 slams outside of Australia on top of countless other achievements.
 

atatu

Hall of Fame
You are factually inaccurate and overstate your case. I assure you that in 1975 Chris Evert, Martina and BJK would all have honestly assessed that as of 1975 MC was the greatest woman player of all time. Clearly other women have risen and certainly challenged if not eclipsed Court's resume. I posted the original post because political correctness has no place in sports. Many of us out here are sick and tired of Court being lambasted because she is against the LGBT lifestyle. If I can look over the fact that she is a fallen away Catholic(a greater sin in my biased mind) then the PC crowd needs to get over the fact that Margaret doesn't celebrate Pride every June.
I'm not sure that what was said almost 45 years ago really holds up now. I mean there are lots of examples of players who said Bill Tilden was the greatest ever (talk about politically incorrect) or Jack Kramer was the greatest ever, but do we really believe that they are greater than the Big Three today ? My dad might have thought Bill Russell was the greatest player ever, but that was before Jordan or Lebron came around.
 

Dan Lobb

Legend
I'm not sure that what was said almost 45 years ago really holds up now. I mean there are lots of examples of players who said Bill Tilden was the greatest ever (talk about politically incorrect) or Jack Kramer was the greatest ever, but do we really believe that they are greater than the Big Three today ? My dad might have thought Bill Russell was the greatest player ever, but that was before Jordan or Lebron came around.
Jordan? Lebron? No, those are outdated now...today it's Kawai. Best ever....
 

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
No, she was REPORTED falsely as making some comments....the actual tapes show that no such comments were made....but people will create fantasies and believe what they want to believe and ignore the truth. So be it.
Yes, because an isolated group of people--fueled by absolute hatred of Court and her Christian faith--will post outright lies to keep their sick campaign going.


Nobody has ever thought Margaret Court was the greatest woman player ever. Nobody ever will.
.
Wrong. Court has been considered one of the GOAT players for decades--her winning the Grand Slam was the standard all others were judged against, and past her years, it was--of course--only matched by Graf. Beyond that, its also her majors count which is the other standard constantly referred to as the goal players (without the Grand Slam) had to reach to even be considered anywhere near her.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Professional
I'm not sure that what was said almost 45 years ago really holds up now. I mean there are lots of examples of players who said Bill Tilden was the greatest ever (talk about politically incorrect) or Jack Kramer was the greatest ever, but do we really believe that they are greater than the Big Three today ? My dad might have thought Bill Russell was the greatest player ever, but that was before Jordan or Lebron came around.
This also has a lot to do with recency bias. The fact that at some point there are not so many people around who saw the older player play and - even more important - the urge of the media to push the current champion and declare him GOAT in order to make fans believe that they are witnessing history and to generate viewership and money. There were also opinions that Kobe or LeBron are better than Jordan even though that was never true. I am sure in 20 years of time some new players will come around that most of the future generation will see as greater than Jordan or the big three even if this is not true.
 

Karma Tennis

Hall of Fame
Before 1975 three of the four slams were on grass.
Ah, this old chestnut yet again.

The Natural Grass Courts of Australia (Milton and Kooyong), Wimbledon, and the United States (Forest Hills) played completely differently in terms of traction, court speed, ball bounce, and wear and tear.

The sanitised courts at the Major Venues of the Modern Era are much easier to play on compared to those in the 1960s and 1970s.

The playing conditions in Australia were extremely harsh compared to those in Europe and North America. Anyone who has never played in Australia during Summer has no idea how difficult it is to play in. And there were no roofed tennis stadiums in Australia in those days.

Smith-Court's achievements on the Tennis Court (including a GRAND SLAM) are every bit the equal of any player in the history of the game - male or female. She reached the top in Singles, Doubles and Mixed Doubles. She led Australia to FIVE Federation Cup Titles during her career.

Pretty much every top female player of 1960's, 1970's, 1980's and 1990's considered Margaret one of the Top 3 Players of all time. And many considered her the Greatest of all.

24 Major Titles is 24 Major Titles no matter how much some one spins it as a lesser achievement than others.

And it is a very significant number for no other reason than Serena is struggling to reach it, let alone surpass it.

I also agree with the "Recency Bias" thing. Anyone who was not alive to see Margaret at her peak is not in any position to make comparisons. IMO, her game style would have put anyone else in the dark. Think of Margaret as a tall powerful version of Martina with the mental prowess of Chrissie and the finesse of Steffi. Consider how dominant Martina, Chrissie and Steffi were during their peaks. And imagine one player with those abilities. You end up with Margaret.

Serena is a huge hitter. But Margaret would have run Serena into the ground ... sort of like Simona did at Wimbledon this year.
 

mxmx

Professional
Ah, this old chestnut yet again.

The Natural Grass Courts of Australia (Milton and Kooyong), Wimbledon, and the United States (Forest Hills) played completely differently in terms of traction, court speed, ball bounce, and wear and tear.

The sanitised courts at the Major Venues of the Modern Era are much easier to play on compared to those in the 1960s and 1970s.

The playing conditions in Australia were extremely harsh compared to those in Europe and North America. Anyone who has never played in Australia during Summer has no idea how difficult it is to play in. And there were no roofed tennis stadiums in Australia in those days.

Smith-Court's achievements on the Tennis Court (including a GRAND SLAM) are every bit the equal of any player in the history of the game - male or female. She reached the top in Singles, Doubles and Mixed Doubles. She led Australia to FIVE Federation Cup Titles during her career.

Pretty much every top female player of 1960's, 1970's, 1980's and 1990's considered Margaret one of the Top 3 Players of all time. And many considered her the Greatest of all.

24 Major Titles is 24 Major Titles no matter how much some one spins it as a lesser achievement than others.

And it is a very significant number for no other reason than Serena is struggling to reach it, let alone surpass it.

I also agree with the "Recency Bias" thing. Anyone who was not alive to see Margaret at her peak is not in any position to make comparisons. IMO, her game style would have put anyone else in the dark. Think of Margaret as a tall powerful version of Martina with the mental prowess of Chrissie and the finesse of Steffi. Consider how dominant Martina, Chrissie and Steffi were during their peaks. And imagine one player with those abilities. You end up with Margaret.

Serena is a huge hitter. But Margaret would have run Serena into the ground ... sort of like Simona did at Wimbledon this year.
I agree with everything but the last part. Serena did not play well in the final at all and peaked too early. Simona to me was very lucky.
 
Last edited:

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
You are factually inaccurate
Yes.

I assure you that in 1975 Chris Evert, Martina and BJK would all have honestly assessed that as of 1975 MC was the greatest woman player of all time
That was the accepted assessment of that period--Court was THE greatest (until Graf joined that club)

Many of us out here are sick and tired of Court being lambasted because she is against the LGBT lifestyle. If I can look over the fact that she is a fallen away Catholic(a greater sin in my biased mind) then the PC crowd needs to get over the fact that Margaret doesn't celebrate Pride every June.
Agreed, but whether it was Court or not, certain people hate the very idea of her faith, that they spit venom into every thread where she is mentioned and by the usual suspects (or their posts are "liked" by like-minded types). Despicable, and hypocritical, for all of the hate they aim at others.
 

NonP

Hall of Fame
I posted the original post because political correctness has no place in sports. Many of us out here are sick and tired of Court being lambasted because she is against the LGBT lifestyle. If I can look over the fact that she is a fallen away Catholic(a greater sin in my biased mind) then the PC crowd needs to get over the fact that Margaret doesn't celebrate Pride every June.
Jezuz you and your fellow culture warriors actually believe this nonsense? I suppose I should give you some credit for finally coming clean about your actual motives, but you get none whatsoever for pretending that Court gets "lambasted because she is against the LGBT lifestyle" or "doesn't celebrate Pride every June." Plenty of evangelical Christians are guilty on both counts but they don't go around calling for boycotts of businesses that accept "the LGBT lifestyle" (whatever the hell that means) or endorsing a thoroughly discredited "medical" procedure that has irreparably harmed members of her own congregation among countless others.

Them degenerate gays and transvestites are NOT coming after you. All they ask is to be treated like everyone else and you're still by far the dominant majority who holds real power. Stop feeling so threatened by perceived dangers when you've never had to deal with real ones at least in this sphere of human activity.

I'm not sure that what was said almost 45 years ago really holds up now. I mean there are lots of examples of players who said Bill Tilden was the greatest ever (talk about politically incorrect) or Jack Kramer was the greatest ever, but do we really believe that they are greater than the Big Three today ? My dad might have thought Bill Russell was the greatest player ever, but that was before Jordan or Lebron came around.
Actually a handful of pros (whose names escape me at the moment) recently have said they still consider Kramer the GOAT. That's a fact, not a guess as to what they would say now.

And I can tell you for sure that there's something of a consensus among basketball cognoscenti that Russell was the best defensive big man ever and would still be a beast today. Besides comparing bigs to smalls like MJ and LBJ is silly to begin with as they've got such different roles and responsibilities. As I like to say it's almost like comparing cricket and baseball players, or better yet batsmen and pitchers in the latter sport.
 

Greatgatsby

Semi-Pro
Jezuz you and your fellow culture warriors actually believe this nonsense? I suppose I should give you some credit for finally coming clean about your actual motives, but you get none whatsoever for pretending that Court gets "lambasted because she is against the LGBT lifestyle" or "doesn't celebrate Pride every June." Plenty of evangelical Christians are guilty on both counts but they don't go around calling for boycotts of businesses that accept "the LGBT lifestyle" (whatever the hell that means) or endorsing a thoroughly discredited "medical" procedure that has irreparably harmed members of her own congregation among countless others.

Them degenerate gays and transvestites are NOT coming after you. All they ask is to be treated like everyone else and you're still by far the dominant majority who holds real power. Stop feeling so threatened by perceived dangers when you've never had to deal with real ones at least in this sphere of human activity.



Actually a handful of pros (whose names escape me at the moment) recently have said they still consider Kramer the GOAT. That's a fact, not a guess as to what they would say now.

And I can tell you for sure that there's something of a consensus among basketball cognoscenti that Russell was the best defensive big man ever and would still be a beast today. Besides comparing bigs to smalls like MJ and LBJ is silly to begin with as they've got such different roles and responsibilities. As I like to say it's almost like comparing cricket and baseball players, or better yet batsmen and pitchers in the latter sport.
I believe she said she would not fly Qantas if she could find other arrangments. Similar to an LGBT who eats KFC and avoids Chick-fil-a if they can. I don't recall that she said they no one should fly Qantas as clearly she is still willing to if there are no other flights. Just like I would hope a LGBT would rather each Chick-fil-a than starve to death.
 

BTURNER

Hall of Fame
I believe she said she would not fly Qantas if she could find other arrangements. Similar to an LGBT who eats KFC and avoids Chick-fil-a if they can. I don't recall that she said they no one should fly Qantas as clearly she is still willing to if there are no other flights. Just like I would hope a LGBT would rather each Chick-fil-a than starve to death.
She wrote and paid for, one hell of a page long description in an Aussie Newspaper of this personal preference and exactly why. I don't support economic boycotts in most circumstances involving free speech/ association rights, and I certainly don't support one of Chic-fil-a at all because of its CEO'S same sex marriage views, but its a lot harder to argue against refusing to play in or pay for a ticket to Margaret Court Arena, after her page long editorial. That was not a casual personal act after its circulation hit the streets.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ

THUNDERVOLLEY

G.O.A.T.
...and yet players do not hold their noses, burn photos of her, scream out in anger, or using every post match interview to complain when playing in Margaret Court Arena year after year, after year.

Some have invested every waking moment in hating Court and her Christian faith, but fall to their knees, worshipping a certain retired player with a sickening off-the-job life (predictably, they will never mention that), and never believe in attempting to erase that player from history and/or any public recognition.
 
...and yet players do not hold their noses, burn photos of her, scream out in anger, or using every post match interview to complain when playing in Margaret Court Arena year after year, after year.

Some have invested every waking moment in hating Court and her Christian faith, but fall to their knees, worshipping a certain retired player with a sickening off-the-job life (predictably, they will never mention that), and never believe in attempting to erase that player from history and/or any public recognition.
I'm genuinely intrigued to know who you're referring to here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ
Top