Margaret Court

[brystone]

No Martina 75 was a "nothing" she only reached the Aussie and French finals and the US semis. She also lost to Margaret Court at Wimbledon in the QF. Martina was well on her way to awesome in 75 and don't take that away from Evonne. Margaret btw is not a disliked bigot in my opinion but a fallen away Catholic.

Martina reached the finals of both of those slams only since they were both ghost slams that nobody played except for Goolagong and young Martina at the 75 Australian (and a near retired injured Court), and Evert and young Martina at the 75 French. Just look at the draws and list of semi final and quarter finals of both events. I think Janet Newburry was in the semis of both, ROTFL!

Martina wouldnt reach her next slam final for another 3 years.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Martina reached the finals of both of those slams only since they were both ghost slams that nobody played except for Goolagong and young Martina at the 75 Australian (and a near retired injured Court), and Evert and young Martina at the 75 French. Just look at the draws and list of semi final and quarter finals of both events. I think Janet Newburry was in the semis of both, ROTFL!

Martina wouldnt reach her next slam final for another 3 years.

So, what do we do?

Put an asterisk on those majors which have weak fields? That might make sense, like Wimbledon in 1972 and 1973, French in 1972 and 1973, and so on.

However, we would need to set some objective rules, and stick by them, so that it doesn't become a subjective exercise.

 

[brystone]

So, what do we do?

Put an asterisk on those majors which have weak fields? That might make sense, like Wimbledon in 1972 and 1973, French in 1972 and 1973, and so on.

However, we would need to set some objective rules, and stick by them, so that it doesn't become a subjective exercise.

It isnt an easy formula. One thing fairly clear though is Australian Open vulturers like Court, Goolagong, Vitas Gerulatis, and others who visibly benefitted from regularly playing in a depleted Australian Open event, and winning a visibly large ratio of their slams there, need their slam counts asterisked and devalued.

Beyond that yes there are other even more subjective and less clear criteria that could be used, especialy with what a mess the mens game was in the 70s with the various competing factions and tours, and even how World Team Tennis interfered with the French Open for women much of the 70s.

 

[Karma Tennis]

So let me get this straight.

Because certain players decided NOT to enter Major Tournaments, those that did and ended up winning them should have their achievements belittled and not treated in an equal manner as far as the Record Books are concerned.

OK, on that basis, Federer's early achievements should not be viewed with the same weight as those later on when Nadal and Djokovic came along. So let's asterisk Federer's first five or six Major Titles in the Record Book.

Or consider someone like Roy Emerson. Should his achievements in the Sport be viewed in a lesser manner because other players decided to turn Professional and were excluded from competing in the "Official" Events. Of course not. If anything, perhaps his achievements should be more highly valued because he chose the path he did

You can only play who you play. If you are good enough to beat them, you win the Title and get the Trophy.

IMO, "True Greatness" in Tennis is not simply measured by how many Trophies in the Trophy Cabinet. "True Greatness" is measured by what positive impact the player had on the Sport over the course of their career. On that basis, players like Smith-Court cannot be denied no matter what the numbers say.

 

[Dan Lobb]

So let me get this straight.

Because certain players decided NOT to enter Major Tournaments, those that did and ended up winning them should have their achievements belittled and not treated in an equal manner as far as the Record Books are concerned.

OK, on that basis, Federer's early achievements should not be viewed with the same weight as those later on when Nadal and Djokovic came along. So let's asterisk Federer's first five or six Major Titles in the Record Book.

Or consider someone like Roy Emerson. Should his achievements in the Sport be viewed in a lesser manner because other players decided to turn Professional and were excluded from competing in the "Official" Events. Of course not. If anything, perhaps his achievements should be more highly valued because he chose the path he did

You can only play who you play. If you are good enough to beat them, you win the Title and get the Trophy.

IMO, "True Greatness" in Tennis is not simply measured by how many Trophies in the Trophy Cabinet. "True Greatness" is measured by what positive impact the player had on the Sport over the course of their career. On that basis, players like Smith-Court cannot be denied no matter what the numbers say.

There is a certain logic in your approach.

Logically, players should not be penalized simply because some other players CHOOSE not to appear.

I think in particular of the 1959 Ampol season, where Gonzales skipped the final and determining event at Kooyong.

Does that devalue Hoad's win over Rosewall in the great final match of Kooyong?

No.

Possibly Gonzales was tired after a long season and did not feel up to another major effort.

Also, the 1939 U.S. Pro championship.....should Vines' win over Perry in the final be devalued because Budge skipped the event, claiming that he was over-

tennised, and too tired to make a major effort to win this event, the top pro tournament of the year?

No. Vines should get full credit.

Sometimes players skip events because they are not prepared or rested enough to make a top effort to win.

That is all part of the game.

There should be a cost to a top player in refusing to play.

 

[brystone]

So let me get this straight.

Because certain players decided NOT to enter Major Tournaments, those that did and ended up winning them should have their achievements belittled and not treated in an equal manner as far as the Record Books are concerned.

OK, on that basis, Federer's early achievements should not be viewed with the same weight as those later on when Nadal and Djokovic came along. So let's asterisk Federer's first five or six Major Titles in the Record Book.

Or consider someone like Roy Emerson. Should his achievements in the Sport be viewed in a lesser manner because other players decided to turn Professional and were excluded from competing in the "Official" Events. Of course not. If anything, perhaps his achievements should be more highly valued because he chose the path he did

You can only play who you play. If you are good enough to beat them, you win the Title and get the Trophy.

IMO, "True Greatness" in Tennis is not simply measured by how many Trophies in the Trophy Cabinet. "True Greatness" is measured by what positive impact the player had on the Sport over the course of their career. On that basis, players like Smith-Court cannot be denied no matter what the numbers say.

You are confusing quality of competition arguments which are never ending and subjective and the context of the competition not even being there. The Australian Open simply put was a Tier 3 event that was somehow falsely allowed to be called a slam through the 60s and 70s. Probably atleast 30 touranaments on both the womens and mens side each year had stronger fields than the Australian Open did, so it was 1 of the 4 majors in name only. So this is entirely different from just the usual competition arguments which go back and forth and people always try to skew towards their favorites. The Australian Open should not be regarded as a true and real slam on par with Wimbledon or the U.S Open this period, and it is a lie to consider it as such.

Obviously most agree as basically nobody considers Court the GOAT even with her 24 slams. Now why is that? Pretty much nobody puts Goolagong on a par with people like Venus, Henin, Seles, Connolly, who also have 7-9 majors despite her 7 majors. Again why is that? Also nobody considers Vilas an equal to someone like Courier who also has 4 majors, and most consider him even clearly inferior to someone like Murray who only has 3 majors. You know the reason in each case.

 

[Dan Lobb]

You are confusing quality of competition arguments which are never ending and subjective and the context of the competition not even being there. The Australian Open simply put was a Tier 3 event that was somehow falsely allowed to be called a slam through the 60s and 70s. Probably atleast 30 touranaments on both the womens and mens side each year had stronger fields than the Australian Open did, so it was 1 of the 4 majors in name only. So this is entirely different from just the usual competition arguments which go back and forth and people always try to skew towards their favorites. The Australian Open should not be regarded as a true and real slam on par with Wimbledon or the U.S Open this period, and it is a lie to consider it as such.

Obviously most agree as basically nobody considers Court the GOAT even with her 24 slams. Now why is that? Pretty much nobody puts Goolagong on a par with people like Venus, Henin, Seles, Connolly, who also have 7-9 majors despite her 7 majors. Again why is that? Also nobody considers Vilas an equal to someone like Courier who also has 4 majors, and most consider him even clearly inferior to someone like Murray who only has 3 majors. You know the reason in each case.

You have to be even-handed about it....some Wimbledon and RG titles were won over very weak fields in the early 1970's, sometimes the top challengers were injured, and so on.
If you are using a "weak field" argument to downgrade some majors, you have to do it for ALL majors, not just some.

And if the women players of the 1950-90 era often refused to take the trip down under, they have to be willing to pay the price, of not winning a major.

Tilden paid that price for not travelling to Wimbledon in the mid 1920's. It cost him.

 

[Karma Tennis]

If you are using a "weak field" argument to downgrade some majors, you have to do it for ALL majors, not just some.

@Dan Lobb,

Thanks Dan! I can't say it better than that!

Cheers

 

[BTURNER]

You have to be even-handed about it....some Wimbledon and RG titles were won over very weak fields in the early 1970's, sometimes the top challengers were injured, and so on.
If you are using a "weak field" argument to downgrade some majors, you have to do it for ALL majors, not just some.

And if the women players of the 1950-90 era often refused to take the trip down under, they have to be willing to pay the price, of not winning a major.

Tilden paid that price for not travelling to Wimbledon in the mid 1920's. It cost him.

The problem is even more basic. Nobody will define what comprises a 'weak field' or a 'strong field' How weak does weak have to be, to be downgraded? How strong does strong have to be to avoid being downgraded? They just point at specific events, won by specific champions and say, 'That is what weak looks like'. We need to know a minimum of top 15 that attend, and a minimum of top five seeds that attend so that there will be some measure of minimum strength likely represented in rounds 16- semifinals, and some measure of likely minimum strength represented in the final. Nobody wants to invite the work of doing the research to establish whether each given major in an era meets a standard sufficient to merit that stature. Its either laziness or agenda-driven.

 

[Joseph_K]

Margaret Court definitely underperformed at Wimbledon and not because of any pregnancy (she had her first child in 1972). She won the singles title at Wimbledon three times, which is the same amount as Chris Evert, but with Court's skill at the net, she might have been expected to win Wimbledon at least six times, like Billie Jean King or Martina Navratilova. Even Louise Brough, who could suffer from nerves, won four Wimbledon singles titles.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Margaret Court definitely underperformed at Wimbledon and not because of any pregnancy (she had her first child in 1972). She won the singles title at Wimbledon three times, which is the same amount as Chris Evert, but with Court's skill at the net, she might have been expected to win Wimbledon at least six times, like Billie Jean King or Martina Navratilova. Even Louise Brough, who could suffer from nerves, won four Wimbledon singles titles.

Although, the three W's that she actually won were memorable tournament wins, over tough opposition.

Court has mentioned that she felt less comfortable at Wimbledon than elsewhere.

 

[brystone]

Court was a massive underperformer at Wimbledon, I so agree on that. I do wonder if that is one reason she doesnt get stronger GOAT consideration than she does. I dont t hink it is just the Australian Open factor because even with a full field there she probably wins 20-21 slams (that would always be her best slam for a variety of reason, she probably wins 7-8 as opposed to 11 if King, Bueno, Wade, Jones, Richey, and everyone else played every year) which is more than Evert and Navratilova and just behind an asterisked Graf. So I think people hold her record at Wimbledon where with her game she should have dominated against her.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Court was a massive underperformer at Wimbledon, I so agree on that. I do wonder if that is one reason she doesnt get stronger GOAT consideration than she does. I dont t hink it is just the Australian Open factor because even with a full field there she probably wins 20-21 slams (that would always be her best slam for a variety of reason, she probably wins 7-8 as opposed to 11 if King, Bueno, Wade, Jones, Richey, and everyone else played every year) which is more than Evert and Navratilova and just behind an asterisked Graf. So I think people hold her record at Wimbledon where with her game she should have dominated against her.

Court herself has admitted that all the hoopla surrounding Wimbledon, the presence of royalty, the ceremony, distracted her from actually playing tennis.

But her three wins were very strong showings, probably enough to erase the "monkey on the back".

Anything less than three wins would be problematic.

Her marriage and pregnancies probably cost another W, maybe two.

Some other women players did not have to worry about the marriage angle, and were single.

 

[BTURNER]

Court was a massive underperformer at Wimbledon, I so agree on that. I do wonder if that is one reason she doesnt get stronger GOAT consideration than she does. I dont t hink it is just the Australian Open factor because even with a full field there she probably wins 20-21 slams (that would always be her best slam for a variety of reason, she probably wins 7-8 as opposed to 11 if King, Bueno, Wade, Jones, Richey, and everyone else played every year) which is more than Evert and Navratilova and just behind an asterisked Graf. So I think people hold her record at Wimbledon where with her game she should have dominated against her.

She sure as hell knew how to win her share on American grass on the American side of the pond. Those US championships represented the who's who of tennis.

 

[KG1965]

Evert and Navratilova were > Serena and Graf, but Court is even higher.

For slams? No, of course.

But because the woman dominated the circuit for a decade
- winning at Beckenham, Queen's, Sydney Mainly Seaside, Rome, French Ch., Australian Ch., Bristol, Philadelphia, Orange, Essex Ch. (Manchester), US National, Brisbane, Adelaide, Wimbledon, Edgbaston, Hamburg, Victorian Ch., Boston, Berkeley, London (Bristish Covered Court Ch.), Houston River Oaks, Bournemouth, New York (Vanderbilt MSG), Merion Pennsylvanya, Toronto, Virginia Slims Newport, Virginia Slims Albany, Cincinnati, 13 Virginia Slims in 1973,
- while the other top female dominated thinking of tennis, she dominated the circuit thinking of the family to her children.

What an incredible woman.

My GOAT female / male.

> Pancho Gonzalez, Fedr and Laver.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Court herself has admitted that all the hoopla surrounding Wimbledon, the presence of royalty, the ceremony, distracted her from actually playing tennis.

But her three wins were very strong showings, probably enough to erase the "monkey on the back".

Anything less than three wins would be problematic.

Her marriage and pregnancies probably cost another W, maybe two.

Some other women players did not have to worry about the marriage angle, and were single.

Court allegedly suffered from hay fever at Wimbledon, like Ken Rosewall....probably cost some Wimby's.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Court's 24 major wins came in only 29 opportunities, 83%.

 

[brystone]

Court's 24 major wins came in only 29 opportunities, 83%.

So you are giving her credit for failing to reach more finals now? That logic is silly. It is like penalizing Lendl for reaching more slam finals than Connors, McEnroe, Agassi, since he has a much poorer slam final win %.

 

[BTURNER]

So you are giving her credit for failing to reach more finals now? That logic is silly. It is like penalizing Lendl for reaching more slam finals than Connors, McEnroe, Agassi, since he has a much poorer slam final win %.

It says she converts in the finals at an extraordinary level with remarkable consistency. In the biggest matches, when the chips are really on the line, against the best player in the draw ( in theory) this woman comes through. It tells me that the notion of Margaret being mentally fragile has to be more myth than reality.

 

[Dan Lobb]

So you are giving her credit for failing to reach more finals now? That logic is silly. It is like penalizing Lendl for reaching more slam finals than Connors, McEnroe, Agassi, since he has a much poorer slam final win %.

Hey, that last match is the big one....when the chips are down.

 

[suwanee4712]

What you read about Margaret Court either as a player or a person is entirely different, depending on when it was written. Take a look at stuff written in the 70's and early 80's. Her image and legacy are defined completely differently by tennis writers. They talk about Court as a trailblazer of sorts, as a great role model for women athletes. Much like Martina, a decade later, Margaret refused to allow stereotypes of what a woman tennis player was supposed to be, to impede on her drive to become the best athlete she could using many of the same training methods her male counterparts used to improve performance. Her fight for autonomy from the male dominated Australian Tennis Association and the influential Hopmans, was lauded as courageous and groundbreaking before King began to organize resistance.

Nobody writes about any of that anymore. I maintain once you separate the pastor with all that baggage, from the tennis player, Court was seen as an absolute legend, who's character and behavior on and off court, was virtually without blemish. While she was no firebrand, like King was, in her own quiet unassuming fashion, she made a bit of feminist statement of her own before the concept was popularized by modern culture. There is a great deal to admire about the way she carried herself in the public eye - back then.

I think this is very fair to Margaret. No, she wasn't what BJK was to the game, but she made her own way in the tennis world. Her game was remarkably complete and enjoyable to watch.

As for how to judge her record, I think it's best to give her full credit for the 24 slam singles titles that she won, weak fields of not. She showed up. And frankly, I would rather people speculate about weak fields than have people wonder "what if" I had simply shown up.

Marge has no excuses to make nor anything to apologize about.

 

[BTURNER]

I think this is very fair to Margaret. No, she wasn't what BJK was to the game, but she made her own way in the tennis world. Her game was remarkably complete and enjoyable to watch.

As for how to judge her record, I think it's best to give her full credit for the 24 slam singles titles that she won, weak fields of not. She showed up. And frankly, I would rather people speculate about weak fields than have people wonder "what if" I had simply shown up.

Marge has no excuses to make nor anything to apologize about.

I don't mind so much distinguishing between a major with a weak field and a highly competitive one, as long as there is some definition supplied for parameters and that definition is applied to the event not the player, and is not subjectively applied. What people are normally trying to say here is that either there was zero depth to the field (only a few of the seeds worth noticing) , was or that there was no real competition at the top end ( only Bueno ). So for a standard, maybe expect 8 of top 15 players be in a draw, and 4 of top 7 players in the draw, and then note the majors that did not acquire those numbers sufficient to truly show that the win represented a truly competitive measure that we expect of a slam major. Its just an example.

Nobody wants to do that. Its work and its objective. They want to say Court's Aussies were weak and call it a day.

 

[Joseph_K]

By all accounts Reverend Margaret's second serve is still as vicious as ever.
-

From The Sydney Morning Herald, May 31, 2017

'The devil's after our kids': Margaret Court's second serve

By Greg Baum

Far from modifying her denouncement of gay marriage, tennis champion Margaret Court has broadened it, saying that it was causing huge problems in countries where it was legalised, that homosexuality was an ungodly "lust for the flesh" and that LGBT tendencies in young people were "all the devil".

"That's what Hitler did. That's what communism did," Court said, "get in the minds of the children. There's a whole plot in our nation and in the nations of the world to get in the minds of the children."

In the face of polls that show 65 per cent of Australians support gay marriage, Court said: "We know the statistics are very, very wrong. They're after our young ones, that's what they're after."

Court was speaking on Vision Christian Radio, elaborating on a previous letter to the West Australian and an appearance on The Project in which she said she would boycott Qantas from now on because of chief executive Alan Joyce's backing for gay marriage.

Court's issue has become Tennis Australia's problem. Calls for her name to be removed from the No.3 stadium at Melbourne Park after her first broadside had seemed excessive. But a series of players, when asked at the French Open, have criticised Court and Sam Stosur, Australia's No.1-ranked woman, has raised the possibility of a player boycott of Margaret Court Arena. Andy Murray, the world No.1-ranked man, said Tennis Australia would be wise to sort it out long before January's Australian Open.

Court, 74, is pastor at the Victory Life Centre in Perth. She said she was driven to speak out by an open, but little-publicised letter written by Queensland businessman Stuart Ballantyne, also condemning Qantas and Joyce for his gay marriage stance, linking it to Qantas' decline as a business on Joyce's watch, affecting "customer franchise and investor returns".

"This week, I have come off a Qantas flight from the US, and the plane is best described as old and shabby," Ballantyne wrote. "It needs to be clear that the personal crusade of the CEO has not impacted on the extraordinarily poor performance of the national carrier during his tenure."

Court's radio elaboration was rambling and syncopated. "It's very sad that they would use my tennis for something that is a now thing," she said, overlooking that it was her tennis that gained her a public platform in the first instance and that she was repeatedly acclaimed by the interviewer as "the greatest tennis player in history".

She said the gay lobby was a minority, yet somehow was bullying the majority. She said she had nothing against gay people, who could do as they pleased, except marry in the Christian tradition. But she also said homosexuality was a sin. "So is adultery. So is fornication," she said. "All those things are a lust for the flesh. We know it's not God. They know it, too."

In America, she said "92 per cent were abused sexually or emotionally when they were young even to be this way".

Tennis was full of lesbians, she said. In her day, there were only "a couple", but they were disproportionately influential. "They took the young ones to parties and things," she said. Schoolchildren who struggled with their sexual identities must have been raised by parents who "don't care", surmised Court. She said she was a tomboy who liked to wear shorts and could kick a footy, prompting her mother to say: "You should have been a boy." But she never had any doubt.

"If you feel like being a girl, you can dress like a girl," mused Court. "What confusion to a child. I get confused talking about it. You can think, 'I'm a boy', and it affects your emotions and feelings and everything else. That's all the devil." In her tennis-playing day, there was Renee Richards, a man who became a woman, "not a very good player".

Court said God's law on gay marriage was as clear and unambiguous as a policeman flagging down a car. "You pray there is enough people who will stand up and flag this nation down," she said. "And say, no, we are not going the way of some other nations, because they are having so many problems."

A caller hailed Court as "a prophetess, a judge", anointed by God.

To link same-sex marriage champions to Nazism and the Holocaust is "profoundly offensive, betrays an utter lack of understanding of the historical truth and only fans the flames of hatred and demonisation", says Dr Dvir Abramovich, chairman of civil rights group the Anti-Defamation commission.

"This absolute lack of compassion also insults the memory of the victims, which included gay people, as well as survivors and all those Diggers who fought against the Nazis," he said. "We urge Margaret Court to apologise for appalling and hurtful rhetoric."
-

 

[Karma Tennis]

Oh Dear.

Looks like we have another Rip Van Winkle who has just awoken from their slumber.

Welcome back. Your about two years out of date. But good to hear from you after all this time

BTW, you will probably be very happy to here that SSM is now legal in Australia. Hooray !!!

 

[Dan Lobb]

By all accounts Reverend Margaret's second serve is still as vicious as ever.
-

From The Sydney Morning Herald, May 31, 2017

'The devil's after our kids': Margaret Court's second serve

By Greg Baum

Far from modifying her denouncement of gay marriage, tennis champion Margaret Court has broadened it, saying that it was causing huge problems in countries where it was legalised, that homosexuality was an ungodly "lust for the flesh" and that LGBT tendencies in young people were "all the devil".

"That's what Hitler did. That's what communism did," Court said, "get in the minds of the children. There's a whole plot in our nation and in the nations of the world to get in the minds of the children."

In the face of polls that show 65 per cent of Australians support gay marriage, Court said: "We know the statistics are very, very wrong. They're after our young ones, that's what they're after."

Court was speaking on Vision Christian Radio, elaborating on a previous letter to the West Australian and an appearance on The Project in which she said she would boycott Qantas from now on because of chief executive Alan Joyce's backing for gay marriage.

Court's issue has become Tennis Australia's problem. Calls for her name to be removed from the No.3 stadium at Melbourne Park after her first broadside had seemed excessive. But a series of players, when asked at the French Open, have criticised Court and Sam Stosur, Australia's No.1-ranked woman, has raised the possibility of a player boycott of Margaret Court Arena. Andy Murray, the world No.1-ranked man, said Tennis Australia would be wise to sort it out long before January's Australian Open.

Court, 74, is pastor at the Victory Life Centre in Perth. She said she was driven to speak out by an open, but little-publicised letter written by Queensland businessman Stuart Ballantyne, also condemning Qantas and Joyce for his gay marriage stance, linking it to Qantas' decline as a business on Joyce's watch, affecting "customer franchise and investor returns".

"This week, I have come off a Qantas flight from the US, and the plane is best described as old and shabby," Ballantyne wrote. "It needs to be clear that the personal crusade of the CEO has not impacted on the extraordinarily poor performance of the national carrier during his tenure."

Court's radio elaboration was rambling and syncopated. "It's very sad that they would use my tennis for something that is a now thing," she said, overlooking that it was her tennis that gained her a public platform in the first instance and that she was repeatedly acclaimed by the interviewer as "the greatest tennis player in history".

She said the gay lobby was a minority, yet somehow was bullying the majority. She said she had nothing against gay people, who could do as they pleased, except marry in the Christian tradition. But she also said homosexuality was a sin. "So is adultery. So is fornication," she said. "All those things are a lust for the flesh. We know it's not God. They know it, too."

In America, she said "92 per cent were abused sexually or emotionally when they were young even to be this way".

Tennis was full of lesbians, she said. In her day, there were only "a couple", but they were disproportionately influential. "They took the young ones to parties and things," she said. Schoolchildren who struggled with their sexual identities must have been raised by parents who "don't care", surmised Court. She said she was a tomboy who liked to wear shorts and could kick a footy, prompting her mother to say: "You should have been a boy." But she never had any doubt.

"If you feel like being a girl, you can dress like a girl," mused Court. "What confusion to a child. I get confused talking about it. You can think, 'I'm a boy', and it affects your emotions and feelings and everything else. That's all the devil."
In her tennis-playing day, there was Renee Richards, a man who became a woman, "not a very good player".

Court said God's law on gay marriage was as clear and unambiguous as a policeman flagging down a car. "You pray there is enough people who will stand up and flag this nation down," she said. "And say, no, we are not going the way of some other nations, because they are having so many problems."

A caller hailed Court as "a prophetess, a judge", anointed by God.

To link same-sex marriage champions to Nazism and the Holocaust is "profoundly offensive, betrays an utter lack of understanding of the historical truth and only fans the flames of hatred and demonisation", says Dr Dvir Abramovich, chairman of civil rights group the Anti-Defamation commission.

"This absolute lack of compassion also insults the memory of the victims, which included gay people, as well as survivors and all those Diggers who fought against the Nazis," he said. "We urge Margaret Court to apologise for appalling and hurtful rhetoric."
-

I believe that Barry Court, Court's husband, has denied the accuracy of this report.

 

[BTURNER]

I suppose it is asking a lot to separate the posts about her politics and her religious views in a thread apart from those about her tennis career, but it sure would be the prudent thing for us all to do here.

 

[Karma Tennis]

I suppose it is asking a lot to separate the posts about her politics and her religious views in a thread apart from those about her tennis career, but it sure would be the prudent thing for us all to do here.

I don't think it's asking a lot at all.

This is a TENNIS related thread, in a TENNIS forum, on a TENNIS board, established and run by one of the largest TENNIS retailers on the planet.

No doubt there are plenty of other places on the Web where people can freely discuss any non-tennis related stuff. They are probably much better off making their contributions there.

 

[Ivan69]

1961:
Adelaide
Australian Ch. (Melbourne)
Monte Carlo
Nice
Aix-en-Provence
Paris (Not is the French Ch.)
Beckenham
Queen’s
Rockdale
Adelaide
Perth
Melbourne
Sydney

1960:
Australian Ch. (Melbourne)
Victorian HC Ch. (Melbourne)
Brisbane

Hi KG! I am pleased that you are interested in female tennis too. Accidentally I came across this thread and read your posts.
Margaret Court is one of the few top standards of the women tennis. Next to Navratilova, Evert and King. Having won more than 350 titles she was the big machine in female tennis analogically to Laver and Rosewall in the men's.
I like your analytical approach, it is basically similar to mine. The only difference is maybe that I consider not only all titles and big titles but also finals, semis, quarters etc. as a part of the player's achievements.

Now I would like to add some remarks to your data. I think you will enjoy more data about Margaret.
1960 and 1961 are ok for me.
1962 - it is not Luzerne but Lugano; it is not Phila but Haverford;
1963 - the title in Albury is in fact in 1964 - 8 draw, held b/w 27 and 29 March
1964 - missing are the titles in Beckenham and Glen Iris (Melbourne)
1965 and 66 - ok
1968 - missing title in Perth (Perth ch.); Western Aus was a different tournament
1969 - do you have any details about the title in Eastbourne? I have that Krantzcke won the title and Margaret didn't play there.
1970 - missing title in Dallas;
1971 - missing titles in Sydney (NSW) and Nottingham
1972 - 6 missing titles
1973 - 4 missing titles
1975 - missing title in Tokyo

 

[Ivan69]

This brings up a broader point on Court. She is actually now seen as the 'winningest champion' superseding Navratilova in numbers of singles tournaments won. I would like a link to this list of the '191' tournaments Court won from 1959 through 1975. I have to wonder how many over the course of her career, are highly localized and isolated tournaments like the Hobert event in Tasmania, or Auckland that are ballooning that number.

To your question - 20 out of 193 titles of Court were scrappy (weak competition or small draw). Not bad.

 

[Enceladus]

Tennis Australia will be celebrates the 50th anniversary of Court's CYGS, despite differences of opinions at marriage of same-sex persons and homosexuality:

Margaret Court: Tennis Australia reiterates stance against views amid anniversary plans

Margaret Court's 1970 Grand Slam will be "recognised" at January's Australian Open despite her personal views, says Tennis Australia.

www.bbc.com

National - 10 News First - Network Ten

All the latest National news with 10 News First.

10daily.com.au

Margaret Court accepts Australian Open invitation to mark 50th anniversary of grand slam sweep

The tennis legend, who has aroused furious opposition with her views on homosexuality, has agreed to attend the Open in January

www.theguardian.com

 

[BTURNER]

To your question - 20 out of 193 titles of Court were scrappy (weak competition or small draw). Not bad.

Now if we could only be sure that your definition of what a 'real' tournament is, is like, to what mine might be or more aptly the modern WTA standards of a sanctioned tournament is, that would be fantastic.

 

[KG1965]

Hi KG! I am pleased that you are interested in female tennis too. Accidentally I came across this thread and read your posts.
Margaret Court is one of the few top standards of the women tennis. Next to Navratilova, Evert and King. Having won more than 350 titles she was the big machine in female tennis analogically to Laver and Rosewall in the men's.
I like your analytical approach, it is basically similar to mine. The only difference is maybe that I consider not only all titles and big titles but also finals, semis, quarters etc. as a part of the player's achievements.

Hi Ivan. How are you ?
I've seen you write a little lately .... me too.

I have never adequately followed women's tennis.

I was interested to Margie Court because was the player had a bad press, a bad storytelling, and was mocked by almost all the fans (almost only fans of Serena, not female tennis fans, but of Serena, I don't know if I explain myself ...) and the media that did not know 1/100 of the australian player career.

We live in a world where the experts write on subjects that they know by 1/100.
But you know too well.

Yes, we have similar approaches. I have always considered the runner-ups.. little, I don't know the exact reason.
I consider them little when I analyze a single year.
I don't consider them when I analyze a whole career.
But it's likely that I'm wrong.
Perhaps it is to avoid further reasoning .....

Now I would like to add some remarks to your data. I think you will enjoy more data about Margaret.
1960 and 1961 are ok for me.
1962 - it is not Luzerne but Lugano; it is not Phila but Haverford;
1963 - the title in Albury is in fact in 1964 - 8 draw, held b/w 27 and 29 March
1964 - missing are the titles in Beckenham and Glen Iris (Melbourne)
1965 and 66 - ok
1968 - missing title in Perth (Perth ch.); Western Aus was a different tournament
1969 - do you have any details about the title in Eastbourne? I have that Krantzcke won the title and Margaret didn't play there.
1970 - missing title in Dallas;
1971 - missing titles in Sydney (NSW) and Nottingham
1972 - 6 missing titles
1973 - 4 missing titles
1975 - missing title in Tokyo

As far as the missing data is concerned, I trust you, my source (Wikipedia) was quite precise but certainly not exact .

 

[BTURNER]

Tennis Australia will be celebrates the 50th anniversary of Court's CYGS, despite differences of opinions at marriage of same-sex persons and homosexuality:

Margaret Court: Tennis Australia reiterates stance against views amid anniversary plans

Margaret Court's 1970 Grand Slam will be "recognised" at January's Australian Open despite her personal views, says Tennis Australia.

www.bbc.com

National - 10 News First - Network Ten

All the latest National news with 10 News First.

10daily.com.au

Margaret Court accepts Australian Open invitation to mark 50th anniversary of grand slam sweep

The tennis legend, who has aroused furious opposition with her views on homosexuality, has agreed to attend the Open in January

www.theguardian.com

I think this is the right call to make but the WTA and Tennis Australia have to look for opportunity after opportunity to ensure nobody mistakes this for ANY endorsement of anti LBGTQ bias. Our sport is inclusive, and accepting and young women and girls need to know it, just as they need to know how our sport stands in the face of racism.
but the trick is not to turn this specific event into a political rally for anyone. There is no point to inviting Court to an event that will be used intentionally to make her feel uncomfortable. I think the player should be treated with all reverence for her achievement while she is there. Likewise there must be a clear understanding with the honoree that she is there to accept a tennis award, and her remarks should reflect that intent only. This is not the time to revisit her past comments as a pastor, or Martina Navratilovas, or Billie Jean Kings in rebuttal. People are presumably capable of restraint and both sides should try for a couple of days.

She should show class and appreciation and so should everyone else. The inevitable protestors and media who do not share this goal, can be both respected in the abstract, and ignored in practice.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Every player has some relatively weak wins on their resume, even Rosewall has a few depleted field "major" wins on his (I think of the 1958 French Pro, 1953 Australian, 1972 Australian) and many of the old pro tournaments had small fields of players with only one or two players having a chance to win.

Court always had to beat some strong players.

 

[Karma Tennis]

She should show class and appreciation and so should everyone else. The inevitable protestors and media who do not share this goal, can be both respected in the abstract, and ignored in practice.

WELL SAID !!!

And perhaps many people need to be reminded ... the Australian Open is a TENNIS TOURNAMENT, a SPORTING EVENT.

As a rule people pay money and go to the Australian Open Tennis to enjoy and appreciate the SPORT OF TENNIS.

I trust Tennis Australia will keep this in mind at the actual event.

 

[Karma Tennis]

I consider not only all titles and big titles but also finals, semis, quarters etc. as a part of the player's achievements.

With due respect ... this does not consider the point that Tournament Draws are random in nature.

Players do not really have control over the impact of the Draw on their success .. unless they keep winning of course

 

[BTURNER]

With due respect ... this does not consider the point that Tournament Draws are random in nature.

Players do not really have control over the impact of the Draw on their success .. unless they keep winning of course

I don't think there is a claim that players get to take credit for their draws, but that they deserve to for what they accomplished on the court with whoever the draw provided.

 

[Karma Tennis]

@Ivan69 said this ..

I consider not only all titles and big titles but also finals, semis, quarters etc. as a part of the player's achievements.

I don't have a problem with that approach. I'm just pointing out that the only real control a player has over anything is their own game. You can only play who you are presented with. You can only beat who you play.

I have often wondered what the history of Tennis would look like if Seeding Systems did not exist. You could still have a Ranking System based on Match wins. I still think we would have the Great Players being great ... but perhaps the sport would be a bit more even, and only the true true Greats would dominate.

 

[ttbrowne]

Thing is if she's going the route of people of same sex not marrying and being stoned the death...then she's got to go with the slavery thing in Exodus 21. Then she's caught in the mixed fabrics thing also. I'd like to hear her square all of those. The slavery thing would be a perfect trap for her. Christian's usually start tap-dancing when they get into that.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Thing is if she's going the route of people of same sex not marrying and being stoned the death...then she's got to go with the slavery thing in Exodus 21. Then she's caught in the mixed fabrics thing also. I'd like to hear her square all of those. The slavery thing would be a perfect trap for her. Christian's usually start tap-dancing when they get into that.

She would not have any trouble with those issues.

 

[Ivan69]

Now if we could only be sure that your definition of what a 'real' tournament is, is like, to what mine might be or more aptly the modern WTA standards of a sanctioned tournament is, that would be fantastic.

Yep, I have definitely logical criteria for the tournaments of the past. In fact, you are raising the eternal question of the quality implementing a slight hint of doubts. My approach is different. I don't go with doubts, I go with a conservative analysis of the tournaments and the players. I point at the word "conservative" because the tour was not well structured and stable. But anyway they were regularly 15-20 top tournaments in these times. Let's clear it one by one.

1. Such a definition of a "real" or "non-real" tournament is fully irrelevant for me. All the tournaments are real when they are organised by someone and players play.

2. Sorry to say it but applying modern standards to the past is the biggest mistake when judging the tennis history. Many people ignore the main factor - THE natural evolution. Of everything, not only of sport. The multiple discussions in this forum like "who would beat if (for example) the young Laver faces Nadal or Fed or Djok" are absurd. Like every historical analysis we need to assess the accomplishments of the players during their times and to compare the best vs the best. We can't compare 1950 Mercedes with 2019 Mercedes. We are able to compare whether 1950 Mer was among the best brands and where the 2019 Mer stands.

3. It's a public thinking of many tennis fans that practically no tennis was played before Sampras, Borg and especially before the Open era. And that's too sad. Many fans are too lazy to hail only the current heroes and not to read what is beyond. Going in this wrong way I am afraid that after 50 years the fans will totally forget Borg, Mac, Connors and probably Nad, Fed, Djok. That's too too sad.

4. Re my criteria of evaluation they are the same valid in the different times - roll of honor, prestige, prize money (where available), draw, competition. I know we need a lot a lot of time to comprehend and analyse tons of info but it's possible.

 

[Ivan69]

Hi Ivan. How are you ?
I've seen you write a little lately .... me too.

I have never adequately followed women's tennis.

I was interested to Margie Court because was the player had a bad press, a bad storytelling, and was mocked by almost all the fans (almost only fans of Serena, not female tennis fans, but of Serena, I don't know if I explain myself ...) and the media that did not know 1/100 of the australian player career.

We live in a world where the experts write on subjects that they know by 1/100.
But you know too well.

Yes, we have similar approaches. I have always considered the runner-ups.. little, I don't know the exact reason.
I consider them little when I analyze a single year.
I don't consider them when I analyze a whole career.
But it's likely that I'm wrong.
Perhaps it is to avoid further reasoning .....

Hmm, all these stories about Court are too exaggregated. The people easily forget that every human being has a right of opinion. Unfortunately, the gender theme goes beyond the normal discussions.
Margaret was a big tennis machine. And most of the fans don't know that. Because they don't read.

As far as the missing data is concerned, I trust you, my source (Wikipedia) was quite precise but certainly not exact .

Yeah. Wiki is not quite precise and not full.

 

[Ivan69]

With due respect ... this does not consider the point that Tournament Draws are random in nature.

Players do not really have control over the impact of the Draw on their success .. unless they keep winning of course

Hmmm, I disagree that the draws were / are random in nature. Also the players in the past knew very well where tournaments will be held, what is the number of the draw and in many cases which top players will participate. Most of the tournaments were well advertised.

Sure, players don't have a direct impact on the draw. But for sure they are very happy if top players are missing in the draw.

 

[Karma Tennis]

I disagree that the draws were / are random in nature.

Are you suggesting that (all) draws are "Fixed"?

But for sure they are very happy if top players are missing in the draw.

Every player regardless of their status, would be likely happy with that. Doesn't change anything though. They still have to beat their opponent if they want to be successful.

 

[Ivan69]

I don't have a problem with that approach. I'm just pointing out that the only real control a player has over anything is their own game. You can only play who you are presented with. You can only beat who you play.

My point was different. Most fans consider only the titles as an accomplishment. Which I disagree. To have finals and semis in your career means a lot for me and for every single player.

 

[Ivan69]

Are you suggesting that (all) draws are "Fixed"?

What do you mean by "fixed"?

Every player regardless of their status, would be likely happy with that. Doesn't change anything though. They still have to beat their opponent if they want to be successful.

The "little" change is that you can beat No 50 but you can't beat No 5.

 

[BTURNER]

Yep, I have definitely logical criteria for the tournaments of the past. In fact, you are raising the eternal question of the quality implementing a slight hint of doubts. My approach is different. I don't go with doubts, I go with a conservative analysis of the tournaments and the players. I point at the word "conservative" because the tour was not well structured and stable. But anyway they were regularly 15-20 top tournaments in these times. Let's clear it one by one.

1. Such a definition of a "real" or "non-real" tournament is fully irrelevant for me. All the tournaments are real when they are organised by someone and players play.

2. Sorry to say it but applying modern standards to the past is the biggest mistake when judging the tennis history. Many people ignore the main factor - THE natural evolution. Of everything, not only of sport. The multiple discussions in this forum like "who would beat if (for example) the young Laver faces Nadal or Fed or Djok" are absurd. Like every historical analysis we need to assess the accomplishments of the players during their times and to compare the best vs the best. We can't compare 1950 Mercedes with 2019 Mercedes. We are able to compare whether 1950 Mer was among the best brands and where the 2019 Mer stands.

3. It's a public thinking of many tennis fans that practically no tennis was played before Sampras, Borg and especially before the Open era. And that's too sad. Many fans are too lazy to hail only the current heroes and not to read what is beyond. Going in this wrong way I am afraid that after 50 years the fans will totally forget Borg, Mac, Connors and probably Nad, Fed, Djok. That's too too sad.

4. Re my criteria of evaluation they are the same valid in the different times - roll of honor, prestige, prize money (where available), draw, competition. I know we need a lot a lot of time to comprehend and analyse tons of info but it's possible.

Let's cut through all this . You cannot assert that you have any clue how many tournaments or titles Court won, without knowing what constitutes a tournament or title. Every term requires some definition, some boundaries, so we are on the same page. Please define 'tennis tournament' so I know what you mean when you claim What are the necessary elements regardless of era? Presumably more than one match gets played with more than two people entering, otherwise we call it a 'tennis match;. Is there a minimum of matches? Do tournaments require more than one round of play? How many is the minimum?

 

[Ivan69]

Let's cut through all this . You cannot assert that you have any clue how many tournaments or titles Court won, without knowing what constitutes a tournament or title. Every term requires some definition, some boundaries, so we are on the same page. Please define 'tennis tournament' so I know what you mean when you claim What are the necessary elements regardless of era? Presumably more than one match gets played with more than two people entering, otherwise we call it a 'tennis match;. Is there a minimum of matches? Do tournaments require more than one round of play? How many is the minimum?

It seems to me that your last questions slide somewhat on a different path. Starting a discussion about the basics of the sport tennis is wondering me but let me respond in the name of the good will.
1. A tournament is every organised tennis event where players play for every win and for a title. NO MATTER what is draw and the number of players. NO MATTER if a prize money was given or not. You are probably aware that they were many tournaments in the past with 4, 6, 8 players. Even they were tournaments with 2 players (very rarely).

2. I think that the people mix the existing of a tournament with the value of the tournament. And that's wrong. The tournaments in the past are a pure fact. Currently we have a lot of info and proof for them. In terms of the tennis history they are valuable by themselves. They are valuable for observing the development, building of prestige, building of honor of roll of many different tournaments. They are valuable for observing the potential, grow up and development of the players.

It's absolutely a different issue what is the value of tournaments. And here is the job of the researchers, historians etc. in order to evaluate adequately the value. Please don't think that the experts, journalists, sponsors and the public in the past didn't know what was the prestige (value) of the tournaments. All this was well presented by the advertising and newspapers. The players and the public knew pretty well that they were some 10-15 tournaments which were most prestigious after the slams. They knew that they were another X tournaments which were not as prestigious as these 10-15 but are valuable for playing. And of course they were also low valuable tournaments which were usually skipped by the top guns. That's what it was. Additionally to this based on my conservative approach I consider 2-men and 4-men (knock-out) tournaments in the lowest value group no matter if the players were top or not. It's my believe that 1 or 2 wins are not enough for building a value.

Turning to the initial theme about the Court's titles that's why I am claiming - Court won 193 titles (at least I have discovered so) and ... 20 of them were scrappy (lowest value). These are the correct figures for the statistics and for the history. In other words, when discussing all titles we should mention ALL. When it goes to regular (valuable) titles then we can go with the reduced number (if such).

 

[Tshooter]

 

[Tshooter]

With due respect ...

Red flag that you're about to be insulted.