Margaret Court Continues to Stay Ahead of the Pack at 24

[Dan Lobb]

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?

 

[NonP]

Enough with the sexual-orientation politics, w all due respect. We are all equal human beings and we should all be free. Full stop. This is a tennis thread, which happens to raise interesting issues about how to evaluate relative tennis careers among the top women in history.

Before you pen your next lecture masquerading as a paean to on-topicness maybe you should try to find out more about why we "got off track" in the first place.

Non P, I agree with your sentiments about the OP Serena-trolling (and that Court's "alternative lifestyle prejudice" is mean-spirited, backward-thinking b.s.)........however, you're no better when you play the race card (and in knee-jerk fashion no less) and by doing so illustrate why self-righteous SJW's in their own right have been tagged with the "snowflake" label (not to mention that making cynical assumption in an disingenuous attempt to frame a "not proven" narrative is intellectual sloth to begin with....and not to mention kinda douchy as well).

Heh, that was obviously meant to be a douchy smartass dig, and I think it was equally clear that I was using "white maiden" and "SJWs" with my tongue in both cheeks. I've never been a SJW (though anyone who sticks up for the little guys/gals seems to be labeled that these days) and never will be, especially when I have to deal with their nonstop intersectionality crap threatening to mutilate the very things that matter to me more than just about anything else.

Also I don't think you're very familiar with the OP's track record because this wasn't him "trolling" Serena. He really takes it as a win for his side that Court's 24 sits on top of Serena's 23, something to be weaponized against "them," and he's admitted as much. But at least he'd never devoted a whole thread to this, shall we say, SJWish endeavor (not that I know of, anyway). Until now. That's why I tailored my response accordingly. It's not us SJWs who are turning this into a not-so-implicitly political thread. It already was so in the first place, thanks to "them."

I've said before that reasonable people can disagree on Court's legacy, and though I've long considered Navratilova the greatest tennis player ever man or woman I don't care if some strangers agree with me or not. I suggest people take the same breezy approach when I say I will never hold Court in such esteem as long as she continues to abuse the considerable goodwill extended to her by her sport which continues to lead its peers in breaking down the arbitrary barriers she'd like to preserve to the detriment of its fans.

 

[ron schaap]

i belie

 

[KG1965]

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?

Considering that the media don't name Court but only the number of slams that Serena must reach and considering that the day Serena will reach Court they will write that Serena (only Serena) or Serena (but also an unmentionable australian woman) holds the record of 24 slams, I wonder if Serena hypothetically wins no more slams though
1) the slam record for women will be canceledor
2) however, Serena will be awarded as a record-woman, canceling the the unmentionable australian woman or
3) 24 slam will be written without a name or
4) other alternative.... the media are creative.

 

[KG1965]

Considering that the media don't name Court but only the number of slams that Serena must reach and considering that the day Serena will reach Court they will write that Serena (only Serena) or Serena (but also an unmentionable australian woman) holds the record of 24 slams, I wonder if Serena hypothetically wins no more slams though
1) the slam record for women will be canceledor
2) however, Serena will be awarded as a record-woman, canceling the the unmentionable australian woman or
3) 24 slam will be written without a name or
4) other alternative.... the media are creative.

....
Considering that Djokovic seems to be invisible to the media, maybe one day the Serbian will win the 24th slam and the media will have to ask the question also for the males (maybe with Federer and Nadal still at 22).

1) the slam record for men will be canceled
2) however, Fedr will be awarded as a recordman, canceling the the unmentionable serbian alien
3) 24 slam will be written without a name
4) other alternative.... the media are creative.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Even that response isn't an answer, now you're saying she is "among the greatest" which certainly makes sense. Saying she is the GOAT...that's a different thing.

You are playing games.

Its been said time and again that those who won the Grand Slam are the greatest, hence "among the greatest". Everyone else are rated in a different category, which includes Evert, Navratilova and any active player who could win it.

Get on with your point, if you have one.

 

[Chadalina]

More like you're relieved at your politically incorrect white maiden maintaining her lead for now. I suggest you get out more instead of obsessing over such insignificant things. Who knows, you may even learn something from those SJWs that annoy you so much.

Always the same Do you realize you make racist statements while calling others racists?

Your like that rapper in cali who was arrested by the chinese police officer, lol

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Considering that the media don't name Court but only the number of slams that Serena must reach and considering that the day Serena will reach Court they will write that Serena (only Serena) or Serena (but also an unmentionable australian woman) holds the record of 24 slams, I wonder if Serena hypothetically wins no more slams though
1) the slam record for women will be canceledor
2) however, Serena will be awarded as a record-woman, canceling the the unmentionable australian woman or
3) 24 slam will be written without a name or
4) other alternative.... the media are creative.

Responsible media free of agendas will always recognize Court's majors count. In fact, the conversation at every major since Serena reached 23 has been "will she tie Court?" Despite those who despise Court (and her faith), they will never erase her from her earned place in sports history, even if Serena matches her majors count.

 

[atatu]

You are playing games.

Its been said time and again that those who won the Grand Slam are the greatest, hence "among the greatest". Everyone else are rated in a different category, which includes Evert, Navratilova and any active player who could win it.

Get on with your point, if you have one.

My point is simply this, if you seriously believe that Court is the Greatest of all time, that's pretty ridiculous. If you believe that she an all time great and should be accorded the appropriate level of respect, then that makes sense to me. I don't understand why you can't answer this simple question - do you consider her the GOAT or not ?

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

My point is simply this, if you seriously believe that Court is the Greatest of all time, that's pretty ridiculous. If you believe that she an all time great and should be accorded the appropriate level of respect, then that makes sense to me. I don't understand why you can't answer this simple question - do you consider her the GOAT or not ?

Still paying games, or you are suffering from reading comprehension issues.

The ranking is clear. If you wish to ignore that in order to continue playing games, you will have to do that elsewhere.

 

[atatu]

So interesting the way this guy can't answer a simple question !

 

[Dan Lobb]

It's a complicated subject, to put it mildly.

 

[PDJ]

You are playing games.

Its been said time and again that those who won the Grand Slam are the greatest, hence "among the greatest". Everyone else are rated in a different category, which includes Evert, Navratilova and any active player who could win it.

Get on with your point, if you have one.

@atatu is repeatedly asking you a question that you refuse to answer - choosing to deflect, and insult what appears to be a perfectly valid question.
It's that simple.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Not simple.

 

[PDJ]

Not simple.

If it's not simple - and seems as such to me- why not answer saying it's not simple and give a reason why?
That seems straightforward. Instead TV deflects.

 

[PDJ]

It's a complicated subject, to put it mildly.

It's only complicated if you (a person generally) believes there is a GOAT.
I don't as there are too many variables- therefore, it would be simple for me to answer "no I don't believe her to be the GOAT. BUT, I do believe her to be one of the greatest to ever play tennis."
That seems straightforward.
No?

 

[mxmx]

Forgive my rant to follow.

To me it is funny that certain minorities of this world tries to "force" everyone to believe a specific notion, where the actual majority of this world's thoughts are probably closer to what Court believes (or at least share some freedom for expression to their own ideals). It is as if the few are bullying the rest to conform to their "enlightened opinions". Media and hollywood especially has quite a few of these "activists", which is very strategic to promote and enforce these notions. One may deny it, but it can be seen everywhere.

We live in a so called world of "freedom of speech", so when someone like Court believes what she does, it is considered "hate speech".
These minorities will not just tell and force us to accept certain gender ideas, they will "educate" (or brainwash) our children to be corrupted with these same ideals. If we agree with these ideals, we are "lucky". What happens when ideals come along we disagree with?

Now some claim these ideals are innocent and even noble. But what if society disagrees? What happens to the right to disagree? If certain groups can tell us to believe x, they can tell us to believe y and z. This is why freedom of speech and beliefs are important. Or else this world will become Totalitarian. Look whats happening in China as we speak.

It is one thing to believe certain things...but another to enforce it.

Some may argue that religion also "forces us to believe"...but to me this is not true. We have the freedom to choose to believe or not. Most people on this globe want faith as part of their lives, and history proves this, yet the minority of "faithless" want to deny them that, again as in the past, history has proven.
The problem for the activists is not just what Court believes about gender, it is that she "believes" in the first place. So it starts with persecution of beliefs about gender, but soon it will be persecution of our faith. Some powers want to control society in what they should believe or shouldn't believe. These powers have more control over society than one would suspect. In the end only the brave will be able to stick to their beliefs even though the pressures will be greatly against it.

End of rant.

Tennis wise, how is it fair for Wimbledon etc. to discriminate against Court? Are they not just picking up the same stone and throwing it back? How will that ever encourage some form of reconciliation? Are they truly being any better?

Simple. Ignore her beliefs, they have the right to believe their own beliefs and so does Court. What is the factual matter at hand? The tennis speaks for itself. What if Federer did something some may frown upon (doping aside)? Will his records and greatness still stand?

 

[PDJ]

Why is every one assuming Court wasn't invited by the AELTC to attend Wimbledon?
Do we know this for a fact?
Also Court is a member so can go when ever she wants.
Knowing a recently deceased multiple Wimbledon (and USO) champion pretty well, she always had nothing but praise for the AELTC in that they treated former (although she never used 'former' as she believed once a Wimbledon champion, always a Wimbledon champion) champions with great respect and was invited every year to attend in the Royal Box.

 

[mxmx]

Why is every one assuming Court wasn't invited by the AELTC to attend Wimbledon?
Do we know this for a fact?
Also Court is a member so can go when ever she wants.
Knowing a recently deceased multiple Wimbledon (and USO) champion pretty well, she always had nothing but praise for the AELTC in that they treated former (although she never used 'former' as she believed once a Wimbledon champion, always a Wimbledon champion) champions with great respect and was invited every year to attend in the Royal Box.

I didn't know this.

 

[PDJ]

I didn't know this.

I've just searched Google to see if there is any article on Court specifically being requested not to attend. There's nothing. As I suspected.

 

[mxmx]

I've just searched Google to see if there is any article on Court specifically being requested not to attend. There's nothing. As I suspected.

Okay, but was she invited or encouraged to attend as much as other greats?

 

[PDJ]

Okay, but was she invited or encouraged to attend as much as other greats?

She would simply receive a written invitation. I can't think for one second that the AELTC would become embroiled in snubbing a member and champion. And from a PR point of view it would be less than sensible to get involved.

I can't comment on advice given to her by say, the WTA or her own national association. Or friends and family.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

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.

Agreed, and I've never heard Serena board the anti-Court propaganda ship, as some player have in recent years.

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?

No, integrity means nothing today. It is a selective for some. As noted earlier, Court is an unquestioned GOAT player, but some hate her and her faith to the degree that they refuse to mention her name, and if they do, it always framed with a childish attack her as a person. Also mentioned before, some of the same people damning Court for her life/views outside of her former job also celebrate players who have committed unforgivably sickening acts off court, and litter forums such as this one, attempting to rewrite history to lift that kind of player to a GOAT status they never earned.

Neverending hypocrisy.

 

[BTURNER]

Okay, but was she invited or encouraged to attend as much as other greats?

Even Court has to be aware of how tennis players, the tennis establishment and fans feel about her these days, and there will always be plenty of people to remind her she is unwelcome. The tennis establishment can send a formal invitation, and still make damn sure she knows they'd prefer her profile stay very low. . She is not being invited to anything more than stand around or sit in a sit. Court is not presenting trophies, and I am fine with that. If literally every other champion is extended an invitation, she should be as well as one of them , anything more than that is social 'gravy', and that ladel can be properly withheld in a democracy as the consequence for extremely offensive and unpopular speech.

The trick in dealing with very unpopular speech, is to provide its social or cultural consequence, but draw the line at serious economic consequence. No pink slips or boycotts, but plenty of other opportunity for society to get its pound of flesh .

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

My point is simply this, if you seriously believe that Court is the Greatest of all time, that's pretty ridiculous. If you believe that she an all time great and should be accorded the appropriate level of respect, then that makes sense to me. I don't understand why you can't answer this simple question - do you consider her the GOAT or not ?

I believe Court is the female GOAT. What exactly makes this ridiculous? It is far more ridiculous to consider Navratilova or Serena overall GOAT male or female as some have stated here.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Here is the foremost Mozart pianist of the current era playing the most relaxing and profoundly meditative of concertos,

More evidence of who is the G.O.A.T. Mozart player of the keyboard. Piano Concerto 23, another central work.
Clean lines, crystalline clarity, athletic execution, not typical Mozart playing, just better. This is not Mozart played as if it were Chopin or Liszt (as often happens).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0006mt0

 

[milk of amnesia]

Why is every one assuming Court wasn't invited by the AELTC to attend Wimbledon?
Do we know this for a fact?

I was wondering this as well. Was Court at the US Open? I honestly don't know. Maybe she was invited to both and simple chose not to attend. I understand that some people would like to see a "passing of the torch," kind of ceremony but maybe Court doesn't want to travel all over the place preparing for an event that might never take place - Serena has had three chances now. Also, Serena is no saint herself. Imagine if Court attended the US Open last year and Serena behaved exactly as she did during the final but she won instead of losing. How would it have looked if there was a ceremony celebrating Serena while completely ignoring how awful she was to Osaka and the umpire. I don't blame anyone for wanting to avoid such a scenario.

 

[BTURNER]

I was wondering this as well. Was Court at the US Open? I honestly don't know. Maybe she was invited to both and simple chose not to attend. I understand that some people would like to see a "passing of the torch," kind of ceremony but maybe Court doesn't want to travel all over the place preparing for an event that might never take place - Serena has had three chances now. Also, Serena is no saint herself. Imagine if Court attended the US Open last year and Serena behaved exactly as she did during the final but she won instead of losing. How would it have looked if there was a ceremony celebrating Serena while completely ignoring how awful she was to Osaka and the umpire. I don't blame anyone for wanting to avoid such a scenario.

I will bet a lot of money that no one asked Court to do any 'passing of the torch' She'd be heartily and resoundingly booed in New York and neither she, nor the tournament, nor Serena wants any part of that. And that same risk exists all over the tour these days. Unless she sits down and shuts up, she will gain unwanted attention, not adoration of her many accomplishments. This is what happens when someone says offensive or politically unpopular things in sufficient number to cause civilized society to react.

 

[PDJ]

I was wondering this as well. Was Court at the US Open? I honestly don't know. Maybe she was invited to both and simple chose not to attend. I understand that some people would like to see a "passing of the torch," kind of ceremony but maybe Court doesn't want to travel all over the place preparing for an event that might never take place - Serena has had three chances now. Also, Serena is no saint herself. Imagine if Court attended the US Open last year and Serena behaved exactly as she did during the final but she won instead of losing. How would it have looked if there was a ceremony celebrating Serena while completely ignoring how awful she was to Osaka and the umpire. I don't blame anyone for wanting to avoid such a scenario.

But Margaret Court wouldn't present the womens singles trophy at Wimbledon. I can only think of one non royal, and that was Kitty Godfree, an elderly British Wimbledon champion (l want to say 1924 and 1926?) presenting to Navratilova one year.
Non royals have presented other trophies- I recall Ann Jones presenting the Ladies Doubles trophy one year, but it was on No.1 court. And, not only is Jones also a British champion, but a serving member of the AELTC committee.
Also, was Graf on hand for number 22 or whatever it was? I think not.
BJK/Evert and Navratilova are still involved in the tennis world and readily on hand at the majors. Indeed Evert has now presented the women's trophy at RG quite a few times.

Edit: Kitty Godfree presented the winner's trophy to Martina Navratilova in 1986, in honor of the centenary year of play at Wimbledon.
Godfree was inducted into the International Tennis Hall of Fame in 1978.

 

[milk of amnesia]

I will bet a lot of money that no one asked Court to do any 'passing of the torch' She'd be heartily and resoundingly booed in New York and neither she, nor the tournament, nor Serena wants any part of that. And that same risk exists all over the tour these days. Unless she sits down and shuts up, she will gain unwanted attention, not adoration of her many accomplishments. This is what happens when someone says offensive or politically unpopular things in sufficient number to cause civilized society to react.

As an American used to PC behavior, I would agree with your assessment as to how the crowd in New York would react. But do you really think that crowd behavior would be that bad at the AO, FO, and Wimbledon? Civilized people should be able to put their differences aside for the five or ten minutes such a presentation would take.

 

[milk of amnesia]

But Margaret Court wouldn't present the womens singles trophy at Wimbledon.

I wasn't thinking that Court would present the women's singles trophy at Wimbledon or anywhere else for that matter. I was thinking that Serena, if she ties Court's record (or perhaps they'll wait until she breaks it) would be receiving an additional trophy or plate marking the event - it would be quite an achievement after all.

 

[BTURNER]

As an American used to PC behavior, I would agree with your assessment as to how the crowd in New York would react. But do you really think that crowd behavior would be that bad at the AO, FO, and Wimbledon? Civilized people should be able to put their differences aside for the five or ten minutes such a presentation would take.

Not sure about RG or Wimbledon, but she is not reaching for adoration status in Australia. Civilized people understand that blatant and unrepentent bigotry and discrimination has no place of honor in society. Not all speech is equal. If your speech is divisive and outragious, you can't be shocked when you are greeted with division and outrage. I can imagine some players might not want to be a part of that ceremony that you have planned whether they deserve that plaque or not.

 

[Dan Lobb]

I will bet a lot of money that no one asked Court to do any 'passing of the torch' She'd be heartily and resoundingly booed in New York and neither she, nor the tournament, nor Serena wants any part of that. And that same risk exists all over the tour these days. Unless she sits down and shuts up, she will gain unwanted attention, not adoration of her many accomplishments. This is what happens when someone says offensive or politically unpopular things in sufficient number to cause civilized society to react.

Don't hold your breath, there is no sign of Court keeping silent....but this whole fuss started with a misleading and deceptive press report, and the "inaccurate" use of quotation marks for remarks Court supposedly made, but which she did not.

 

[BTURNER]

Don't hold your breath, there is no sign of Court keeping silent....but this whole fuss started with a misleading and deceptive press report, and the "inaccurate" use of quotation marks for remarks Court supposedly made, but which she did not.

No, I am under no misapprehension about Court suddenly feeling chaste on the topic of homosexuality. She has God's word as her sword and shield now. But she might occasionally choose to attend a tennis match or two sitting quietly in a the former champion's section. There are too many such 'quotes' many of which are unedited and on tape that produced this result. You will not convince me that she is not an avid and uncompromising purveyor of verbal homophobia of the most destructive kind. And trust me, I know exactly which kinds do the worst damage.

 

[Dan Lobb]

No, I am under no misapprehension about Court suddenly feeling chaste on the topic of homosexuality. She has God's word as her sword and shield now. But she might occasionally choose to attend a tennis match or two sitting quietly in a the former champion's section. There are too many such 'quotes' many of which are unedited and on tape that produced this result. You will not convince me that she is not an avid and uncompromising purveyor of verbal homophobia of the most destructive kind. And trust me, I know exactly which kinds do the worst damage.

Actually, Barry Court reviewed the tapes themselves, and stated that the offending remarks were NOT there, those quotation marks were inaccurate.

The writer himself has now gone silent on the affair and refuses to answer Barry Court's allegations....I wish that the media writer had the inner compulsion to speak up and clear up the issue.....I guess "integrity" is now becoming a dirty word, at least in the press.

 

[BTURNER]

Actually, Barry Court reviewed the tapes themselves, and stated that the offending remarks were NOT there, those quotation marks were inaccurate.

The writer himself has now gone silent on the affair and refuses to answer Barry Court's allegations....I wish that the media writer had the inner compulsion to speak up and clear up the issue.....I guess "integrity" is now becoming a dirty word, at least in the press.

Stop talking about 'a ' bad quote or 'a' tape. Its a bit of a dodge. I am not interested in 'a' quote or what her husband did or did not find. . I never determine who is or who is not a homophobe or racist on the basis of an issue or a speech or a comment. It takes a pervasive pattern over an extended time. Pastor Court has that pervasive pattern for an extended period of time and it is exactly the sort of attack on gays that has devastated lives, induced suicide and destroyed families for not just decades but centuries. It can no longer be cloaked safely in faith as a shield. Civilized people should not tolerate or contenence it.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Stop talking about 'a ' bad quote or 'a' tape. Its a bit of a dodge. I am not interested in 'a' quote or what her husband did or did not find. . I never determine who is or who is not a homophobe or racist on the basis of an issue or a speech or a comment. It takes a pervasive pattern over an extended time. Pastor Court has that pervasive pattern for an extended period of time and it is exactly the sort of attack on gays that has devastated lives, induced suicide and destroyed families for not just decades but centuries. It can no longer be cloaked safely in faith as a shield. Civilized people should not tolerate or contenence it.

"Civilized" behaviour is a product of the value system promoted by Court, respect for others, which is easy to say, not easy to do.

It's good that your own judgment was not formed by this one misrepresentation of Court, but the opinions of many others have been, and that misquotation, attempt to put words into Court's mouth, was responsible for the recent fuss.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

As an American used to PC behavior, I would agree with your assessment as to how the crowd in New York would react. But do you really think that crowd behavior would be that bad at the AO, FO, and Wimbledon? Civilized people should be able to put their differences aside for the five or ten minutes such a presentation would take.

No, because some are under the impression that they are in some sort of "revolution" which means adopting autocratic, threatening behavior and actions to silence, then bury anyone who does not submit to their agenda. You see it on this board regarding Court.

Actually, Barry Court reviewed the tapes themselves, and stated that the offending remarks were NOT there, those quotation marks were inaccurate.

The writer himself has now gone silent on the affair and refuses to answer Barry Court's allegations....I wish that the media writer had the inner compulsion to speak up and clear up the issue.....I guess "integrity" is now becoming a dirty word, at least in the press.

Of course the "writer" will not address Barry Court's allegations--the "writer" is completely unethical--a propagandist who will say and do anything to play his part in damning an individual, just as we see on tennis boards like this one. Again, they attack Court, but ignore actual horrible acts committed by other tennis players in order to worship them.

 

[mxmx]

I will bet a lot of money that no one asked Court to do any 'passing of the torch' She'd be heartily and resoundingly booed in New York and neither she, nor the tournament, nor Serena wants any part of that. And that same risk exists all over the tour these days. Unless she sits down and shuts up, she will gain unwanted attention, not adoration of her many accomplishments. This is what happens when someone says offensive or politically unpopular things in sufficient number to cause civilized society to react.

I doubt she will be booed. Heck, people are so conformist that they would have clapped even if the president of NK showed up.

In my opinion she deserves a standing ovation.

 

[mxmx]

Not sure about RG or Wimbledon, but she is not reaching for adoration status in Australia. Civilized people understand that blatant and unrepentent bigotry and discrimination has no place of honor in society. Not all speech is equal. If your speech is divisive and outragious, you can't be shocked when you are greeted with division and outrage. I can imagine some players might not want to be a part of that ceremony that you have planned whether they deserve that plaque or not.

But there must be good reason billions of people (not just Christians) are strongly against these ideals. It is NOT the general democratic agreed consensus that it is okay to live out these ideals. They want us to believe that to justify these ideals. But it is simply not true.
Court is not the only one who believes what she does.

Strange how many protest against her and her beliefs, but it's okay to have a satanic church in the US. Where I come from these likes kidnap and murder kids. It's okay to have a sex change but one may not say Jesus at schools. Airports have prayer rooms for other religions as long as they're not Christian. See the trend? Anything that the truth of Christ brings, will eventually be persecuted. This is so that the corrupt (whatever that may be) can continue in their evil ways.

 

[Dan Lobb]

But there must be good reason billions of people (not just Christians) are strongly against these ideals. It is NOT the general democratic agreed consensus that it is okay to live out these ideals. They want us to believe that to justify these ideals. But it is simply not true.
Court is not the only one who believes what she does.

Strange how many protest against her and her beliefs, but it's okay to have a satanic church in the US. Where I come from these likes kidnap and murder kids. It's okay to have a sex change but one may not say Jesus at schools. Airports have prayer rooms for other religions as long as they're not Christian. See the trend? Anything that the truth of Christ brings, will eventually be persecuted. This is so that the corrupt (whatever that may be) can continue in their evil ways.

There is a clash of loyalties and values in this controversy.

 

[Tennis_dude101]

There has been much publicity recently regarding Margaret Court’s Record of 24 Grand Slam Singles Titles and Serena Williams 23 Titles.
But there is so much more to Margaret’s incredible career than you think. Margaret has won more Grand Slam Titles than any other man or woman in the history of our sport.
64 GRAND SLAM TITLES
Grand Slam Singles Titles - 24
Grand Slam Doubles Titles - 19
Grand Slam Mixed Doubles Titles - 21
1970 - GOLDEN GRAND SLAM - SINGLES
1963 - GOLDEN GRAND SLAM - MIXED
1965 - GOLDEN GRAND SLAM - MIXED
World Number 1 - 1963, 64, 65, 69, 70, 73
Federation Cup Wins - 1964, 65, 68, 71
Margaret played 22 Singles rubbers for her country, winning all 22.

 

[BTURNER]

There has been much publicity recently regarding Margaret Court’s Record of 24 Grand Slam Singles Titles and Serena Williams 23 Titles.
But there is so much more to Margaret’s incredible career than you think. Margaret has won more Grand Slam Titles than any other man or woman in the history of our sport.
64 GRAND SLAM TITLES
Grand Slam Singles Titles - 24
Grand Slam Doubles Titles - 19
Grand Slam Mixed Doubles Titles - 21
1970 - GOLDEN GRAND SLAM - SINGLES
1963 - GOLDEN GRAND SLAM - MIXED
1965 - GOLDEN GRAND SLAM - MIXED
World Number 1 - 1963, 64, 65, 69, 70, 73
Federation Cup Wins - 1964, 65, 68, 71
Margaret played 22 Singles rubbers for her country, winning all 22.

The thing to keep in mind here, is that in Margaret's day, EVERYBODY played doubles or mixed. When the Willams sisters win a slam, they may represent half of the total number of top ten women to play doubles. In Margarets day, maybe 3 of the top ten did not play. Playing doubles was just part of the job, so the crème de la crème of the tour were all still sitting in the both the singles and doubles draws from the QFs forward. These were extremely competitive fields she was beating.

 

[mxmx]

I think her domination in all areas of tennis basically speaks for itsself. It is not far fetched to consider her a/the GOAT. She is to me in more contention at least than BJK and Graff.

 

[BTURNER]

I think her domination in all areas of tennis basically speaks for itsself. It is not far fetched to consider her a/the GOAT. She is to me in more contention at least than BJK and Graff.

BJK isn't even among the top tier in my view. Graf definitely is in the running. I refuse to take any notice of whether any single specific player is or is not playing in a major for any reason. No single player is important enough to compromise the validity or depthof a tournament or the sport. 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, but not just one. Plenty of majors have been played and their victor honored without the number 1 or number 2 player attending. Why do we always single out Court and Graf's career for extra 'attention' to the draw?

 

[Stretchy Man]

Anything that the truth of Christ brings, will eventually be persecuted. This is so that the corrupt (whatever that may be) can continue in their evil ways.

Probably not much of a stretch to imagine the Bible and the Qoran becoming banned publications.

 

[Pro tennis historian]

BJK isn't even among the top tier in my view. Graf definitely is in the running. I refuse to take any notice of whether any single specific player is or is not playing in a major for any reason. No single player is important enough to compromise the validity or depthof a tournament or the sport. 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, but not just one. Plenty of majors have been played and their victor honored without the number 1 or number 2 player attending. Why do we always single out Court and Graf's career for extra 'attention' to the draw?

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.

 

[atatu]

I believe Court is the female GOAT. What exactly makes this ridiculous? It is far more ridiculous to consider Navratilova or Serena overall GOAT male or female as some have stated here.

Is it ? Interesting that you also consider Borg the GOAT, he was one of my favorite players growing up but I would never call him the GOAT either.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Is it ? Interesting that you also consider Borg the GOAT, he was one of my favorite players growing up but I would never call him the GOAT either.

Because it is ridiculous to compare men tennis with women tennis in the first place. To say Serena is overall GOAT meaning male and female is so ridiculous there is absolutely no way to logically argue this. To say she was more dominant in the women’s tour than Federer/Nadal/laver on the men’s tour is childish argumentation because the simple fact that she played the women’s tour means she did not play the best competition on the planet. It is the same as a guy winning 100 challengers can never be better/greater than a guy who wins only one slam. One could say Serena was more dominant against HER competition but same could be said for some wheelchair players. Imagine I won the internal tournament of my local club 15 times in a row without dropping a set (I did not but for the sake of argument), would you say that I can be called tennis GOAT because against MY respective competition I was more dominant than any pro against his. Sure it is not Serena’s fault that she was born a woman and therefore would never be able to compete with the top men, but neither is it my fault that I simply wasn’t born talented enough to make it to the pros. With Navratilova it gets even more stupid. Even if we say women slams and men slams should be considered completely equal Federer is two ahead of her.
As for Borg. He has a lot of records that would most likely never be broken and even though he played in a time where nobody cared about total number of slams he had more slams than anybody else had at the respective age he retired (all this with only playing three per year).

 

[atatu]

Because it is ridiculous to compare men tennis with women tennis in the first place. To say Serena is overall GOAT meaning male and female is so ridiculous there is absolutely no way to logically argue this. To say she was more dominant in the women’s tour than Federer/Nadal/laver on the men’s tour is childish argumentation because the simple fact that she played the women’s tour means she did not play the best competition on the planet. It is the same as a guy winning 100 challengers can never be better/greater than a guy who wins only one slam. One could say Serena was more dominant against HER competition but same could be said for some wheelchair players. Imagine I won the internal tournament of my local club 15 times in a row without dropping a set (I did not but for the sake of argument), would you say that I can be called tennis GOAT because against MY respective competition I was more dominant than any pro against his. Sure it is not Serena’s fault that she was born a woman and therefore would never be able to compete with the top men, but neither is it my fault that I simply wasn’t born talented enough to make it to the pros. With Navratilova it gets even more stupid. Even if we say women slams and men slams should be considered completely equal Federer is two ahead of her.
As for Borg. He has a lot of records that would most likely never be broken and even though he played in a time where nobody cared about total number of slams he had more slams than anybody else had at the respective age he retired (all this with only playing three per year).

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 ?