Navratilova had a better career than Court

#51
pc1, you know I respect you as one of the most reasonable posters, but you're dead wrong here. Like I said Salk and Fleming are not living public figures that deserve our continued scrutiny, and height is simply a factual measure of distance that allows no room for qualitative or ethical considerations.

Again I understand we can disagree on this. Sports are a minor diversion in the grand scheme of things and if people choose to overlook an athlete's personal failings while evaluating her career that's fine by me. But to me the very term "greatest" implies something greater than a bunch of trophies. When I say X or Y is the greatest exponent of tennis or whatever that's somebody I want to represent the sport to the general public, and Court's strident homophobia is not something I'd like to see associated with tennis which happens to be one of the more egalitarian sports when it comes to gender. For that reason alone I say Navratilova or even BJK deserves the title more.
I will also say that I respect you tremendously as a poster also. Your views are always thoughtful and reasonable. I can understand your viewpoint. Some posters have viewpoints which I can never understand.
 
#52
No, my position is that it's disingenuous to pretend a dead white male who has had no opportunity to rethink and improve his views and behavior since 1826 deserves to be judged by the current code of ethics that increasingly and rightly accepts the LGBTQ community as they are. Deep down you know this, despite your mystifying attempts to make light of Court's views.
Meh, I won't mess with you.

In truth what I find the most comical is this. If you were to place your average "middle class / bourgeois values (so, basically everyone you know) on a graph, the "left" and the "right' would be virtually indistinguishable (except as seen through the narrow lens of others with the same "middle class values"). But in a larger context, the strong views held by the two groups would be high comedy if they didn't' take themselves so seriously (which makes it rather sad to be honest).

Let's just say that "middle class values" aren't exactly particularly diverse or well thought out moral positions and leave it at that.
 
Last edited:
#53
Again I understand we can disagree on this. Sports are a minor diversion in the grand scheme of things and if people choose to overlook an athlete's personal failings while evaluating her career that's fine by me. But to me the very term "greatest" implies something greater than a bunch of trophies. When I say X or Y is the greatest exponent of tennis or whatever that's somebody I want to represent the sport to the general public, and Court's strident homophobia is not something I'd like to see associated with tennis which happens to be one of the more egalitarian sports when it comes to gender. For that reason alone I say Navratilova or even BJK deserves the title more.
I disagree with this, but understand where you are coming from.
 

NonP

Hall of Fame
#54
I think that we have given the Hawking arguments a good chew over...I have made my points about science fiction posing as science.

Now it is time to move on...some of my posts on Hawking were cancelled for being off topic, which is fine.

Time now to drop it....OK?
I've no wish to rehash the same old arguments. I just find it ironic that you cite "academic work" only when it suits your purpose.

Meh, I won't mess with you.

In truth what I find the most comical is this. If you were to place your average "middle class / bourgeois values (so, basically everyone you know) on a graph, the "left" and the "right' would be virtually indistinguishable (except as seen through the narrow lens of others with the same "middle class values"). But in a larger context, the strong views held by the two groups would be high comedy if they didn't' take themselves so seriously (which makes is rather sad to be honest).

Let's just say that "middle class values" aren't exactly particularly diverse or well thought out moral positions and leave it at that.
Eh, you're not very familiar with my posting history if you think I'm the dead serious type. I can get on the high horse as well as the next guy but you're unlikely to find me droning on and on about my fave player like my life depended on it.

Anyway since you brought it up, if the prevailing ethics/politics were to revert to an anti-LGBTQ climate more favorable to Court's views, then yes they would be more defensible, but that's likely to be a temporary blip only. Despite the ominous warnings seemingly everywhere these days liberal democracy is here to stay, and one of its unshakable tenets is equal rights (yes, as opposed to equal outcomes) for everyone. To roll back LGBTQ rights for good is to turn our back on our very form of government informed by the Enlightenment, and I doubt most of us even on the right would be willing to make that trade-off.

I will also say that I respect you tremendously as a poster also. Your views are always thoughtful and reasonable. I can understand your viewpoint. Some posters have viewpoints which I can never understand.
I disagree with this, but understand where you are coming from.
Cool.
 
#55
Anyway since you brought it up, if the prevailing ethics/politics were to revert to an anti-LGBTQ climate more favorable to Court's views, then yes they would be more defensible, but that's likely to be a temporary blip only. Despite the ominous warnings seemingly everywhere these days liberal democracy is here to stay, and one of its unshakable tenets is equal rights (yes, as opposed to equal outcomes) for everyone. To roll back LGBTQ rights for good is to turn our back on our very form of government informed by the Enlightenment, and I doubt most of us even on the right would be willing to make that trade-off.
I'm happy to be living in such an enlightened age
 

NonP

Hall of Fame
#56
I'm happy to be living in such an enlightened age
Same here, believe it or not. (Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say I'm happy, but you get the idea.) Given the recent rise of noxious populism it's easy to forget we're living in more civilized times than our ancestors ever did. (I'm guessing you already know that's the very argument Steven Pinker has been making for a while, and quite convincingly I might add. Of course he's been taken to task for it by the Malthusian left.)
 
#57
Same here, believe it or not. (Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say I'm happy, but you get the idea.) Given the recent rise of noxious populism it's easy to forget we're living in more civilized times than our ancestors ever did. (I'm guessing you already know that's the very argument Steven Pinker has been making for a while, and quite convincingly I might add. Of course he's been taken to task for it by the Malthusian left.)
I'd be a bit closer to Allen Bloom on this actually.

Bloom critiques the contemporary American university and how he sees it as failing its students, criticizing modern movements in philosophy and the humanities. Throughout the book, he attacks the "moral relativism" that he claims has taken over American universities for the barrier it constructs to the notions of truth, critical thinking, and genuine knowledge. Bloom claims that students in the 1980s have prioritized the immediate, blind relegation of prejudice as inferiority of thought, and therefore have "closed" their mind, as the title suggests, to asking the right questions, so that prejudice may be eradicated through logic and critical thinking, as opposed to empty, baseless instinct. Bloom writes, "Prejudices, strong prejudices, are visions about the way things are... Error is indeed our enemy, but it alone points to the truth and therefore deserves our respectful treatment. The mind that has no prejudices at the outset is empty
 

NonP

Hall of Fame
#58
I'd be a bit closer to Allen Bloom on this actually.

Bloom critiques the contemporary American university and how he sees it as failing its students, criticizing modern movements in philosophy and the humanities. Throughout the book, he attacks the "moral relativism" that he claims has taken over American universities for the barrier it constructs to the notions of truth, critical thinking, and genuine knowledge. Bloom claims that students in the 1980s have prioritized the immediate, blind relegation of prejudice as inferiority of thought, and therefore have "closed" their mind, as the title suggests, to asking the right questions, so that prejudice may be eradicated through logic and critical thinking, as opposed to empty, baseless instinct. Bloom writes, "Prejudices, strong prejudices, are visions about the way things are... Error is indeed our enemy, but it alone points to the truth and therefore deserves our respectful treatment. The mind that has no prejudices at the outset is empty
Can't say I'm surprised. I'm somewhat sympathetic to Bloom's critique, considering all the nonsense about microagressions and safe spaces, but I disagree that the Western canon is in any serious danger of ceding ground to the moral relativism of campus activists (students and faculty alike). There seems to be a cottage industry on the right (The College Fix being the most prominent outlet) of documenting the most egregious and idiotic cases of the latter, but when I actually look at empirical studies such examples don't tend to reflect the university community at large. You'll be hard-pressed to find many elite universities in America where slogging through Shakespeare, Plato, Beethoven and/or Picasso isn't required of students at some level.

Anyway we're getting too off topic now. (Besides I still need to file an extension for my 1040. :oops:) Maybe another time and place.
 
#59
Can't say I'm surprised. I'm somewhat sympathetic to Bloom's critique, considering all the nonsense about microagressions and safe spaces, but I disagree that the Western canon is in any serious danger of ceding ground to the moral relativism of campus activists (students and faculty alike). There seems to be a cottage industry on the right (The College Fix being the most prominent outlet) of documenting the most egregious and idiotic cases of the latter, but when I actually look at empirical studies such examples don't tend to reflect the university community at large. You'll be hard-pressed to find many elite universities in America where slogging through Shakespeare, Plato, Beethoven and/or Picasso isn't required of students at some level.

Anyway we're getting too off topic now. (Besides I still need to file an extension for my 1040. :oops:) Maybe another time and place.
You miss Blooms point in my opinion. But of little consequence anyway.
 

NonP

Hall of Fame
#60
You miss Blooms point in my opinion. But of little consequence anyway.
I may be oversimplifying it (here I'll confess I've only skimmed through The Closing of the American Mind - just found too much of it a series of hackneyed right-wing talking points I didn't want to venture further) but an education centered around a defined (Western) canon was certainly one of his core arguments and I say the real threat to such an education today is the business-centric model of our institutions of supposedly higher learning, not the oft-mocked faction of diversity and intersectionality which still constitutes a relatively small part of our campus culture. Even the other Bloom, the redoubtable Harold, made a clearly more forceful case for the canon than Allan ever did despite being rather opposed politically.

Let me close by sharing some of my own college experience (think about 10 years ago). Like everyone else I had to take my share of required courses, and one of them was called Introduction to the Novel which didn't include a single book that I gather would've earned Bloom's (either one's) approval. (The closest ones were Richard Wright's Native Son and Alice Walker's The Color Purple.) But I can say the class discussions we had (at least the ones I attended) were often challenging and stimulating, including this particular one about Native Son that would've destroyed any idea of safe space when a white female student angrily protested that Bigger Thomas' decision to hide the body of the white woman he accidentally kills isn't excused by any element of structural racism, with no serious pushback on that uncomfortable truth from the rest of the class including African-American students. And get this: I found this other novel I read for (IIRC) a history course, a fine retelling of Romeo and Juliet called The River Between by Kenyan writer Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o, more rewarding than either the better-known Native Son or The Color Purple, which BTW turns the very idea of the canon upside down, and the best conversation I had about the book happened to be with a Kenyan immigrant student... in a physics class (another required elective, yes). And I was also lucky to take another elective in ethnomusicology taught by a former Harvard professor who had firsthand training in Korean pansori (one time he began the class being introduced by a TA as a surprise "special guest" before coming out with a pair of Korean drums in full traditional hanbok) and which introduced me to the beauties of Indian raga music, a lifelong love that continues to this day.

All that was in my very first 2-3 semesters of college, no doubt the best part of my campus experience despite my general contempt for formal education. None of these examples would be considered part of the generally accepted canon, but I can say they were at the very least no less rewarding than the usual course work I did in European history, Aristotle, Palladio (architecture was among the first choices for my major, but I ditched it after taking the intro ARCH course - just way too time-consuming for me to make it a living), etc. And even while I was working on my eventual business degree (I believe you're an accountant yourself) I was doing my minor in philosophy with courses on logic, the obscure Medieval philosophers and Wittgenstein after taking, you guessed it, Philosophy 200 (or whatever the course number was) as one of my required electives. And that's not including the boatload of reading I did on the side - mainly the Russians including Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Chekhov and, if I'm being honest, lesser writers like Mailer and Rimbaud - sometimes well into the morning in the dorm basement with nary a soul present, which really helped me get through many of the business courses which I found excruciatingly tedious (marketing was the worst).

But I digress. My point is that the kind of, yes, diverse intellectual environment that I found in my most rewarding time in college wouldn't have been possible had the Blooms of the world imposed their limited worldview on the college campus, and also that I was able to get my education DESPITE the coursework of my major which served as little more than a resume booster. To me the latter business requirements of corporate America are the real threat to our education today, not the supposedly closed mind of our universities where students can, pace the naysayers, readily partake in the (Western) canon and others' ideas regardless of one's origins or prejudices.
 
#64
I like Nav, but "kind and nice" aren't words that have often been used to describe her. Which is fine by the way. Those aren't necessarily positive qualities for a fierce competitor at the very top of the game.
I always thought she seemed like a nice person. She also wasn't a great competitor early in her career. She didn't become a dominate competitor until she became uber fit after working with Nancy Lieberman. I also don't see her as "fierce". Early in her career she was mentally fragile and even in her prime she could show some fragility on her court. But, if she was confident and flowing in her prime, she was a force - fantastic attacking tennis just flowed out of her.
 
#65
You said ugly on the inside and then posted an unflattering picture. Don't be coy. And you didn't respond to the rest of my point.

But see, what you are doing here isn't just "they must face consequences" but you seek to eliminate real achievement. You have the right to hold a negative opinion of Mrs. Court, but don't rewrite tennis history, that's all.
In fairness, try and find a flattering photo of Court in recent years. She rarely appears to smile. If you find a cheery photo of her I guarantee there's at least ten more of her looking miserable as sin...
 
#66
Court clearly SHOULD rank higher than Navratilova. It is downright insulting Navratilova is usually ranked 3rd or 4th best ever, while Court is usually ranked somewhere from 4th to 6th. Court's achievements trump Navratilova in every category outside of Wimbledon. Some like to focus on the Australian Open situation but Court's record also trumps Martina considerably at both the French Open (bigtime) and U.S Open (only 1 more title, but much more consistent). You cant even focus on doubles since Court soundly trumps Martina in both singles and combined singles/doubles achievements. Court also won the Grand Slam and won atleast 3 slams in 5 different years, which only Graf has done besides her, and which clearly isnt managed by just the Australian Open. She has 199 singles tournament wins and 62 combined slams, despite that she retired at 33 and didnt play until almost 60 desperately trying to pad her doubles/total stats as Martina did.

However due to being friends with all the high people in the tennis establishment, arrogantly parading herself as the female tennis GOAT on airwaves still to this day (delusional but still tries anyway), being American, and Court being a disliked bigot, who is anti gay which offends a lot of people, not being friends with the tennis people with most access to the mainstream media, and not being American, Court is unfairly left out of the GOAT debate, and ranked below an inferior and less accomplished player than Martina.

What is funny is while some conceded in my Venus thread that Venus should rank higher than Henin/Seles due to the higher prestige of Wimbledon, doubles success, and peak level play, some others dismissed it and still ranked her behind Henin and/or Seles. Those who rank Venus lower than Henin/Seles, AND also rank Navratilova higher than Court (which can only be done through arguing a much higher prestige of Wimbledon, subjective peak level play, and doubles although even doubles not much here as Court also owns doubles) are gigantic hypocrites and super biased for or against players they really like/dislike, not objective and fair minded like me and others who dont let bias infilterate their rankings and views.
 
#68
I don't think Court ever avoided half the year for years like Navratilova did.
She did that to preserve her head to heads with Evert and later Graf. It isnt exactly a secret. And rather than getting a downgrade for it as anyone else would, look at the bashing Nadal gets for slams he missed with a legitimate injury and is called a faker or scaredy cat for instance, it is invariably used to build her up, with comments like "wow she is 9-9 vs Graf despite being 13 years older". Never mind that 10 of the 18 matches were when Martina was in her prime (82-87) and Steffi wasnt AND she barely played Steffi after 89, largely due to avoiding slower courts completely. She only played the French Open from 81-88 for instance. Only played the Australian from 80-89.

What is most hilarious is some of her supporters even defend her only winning 2 French Opens by saying "think how often she plays if she plays outside those years". What a joke.

As you said Court wasnt afraid of anybody, anywhere. She took on all comers. She didnt duck Evert even after her poor early showings vs Evert, and turns things around completely in 73, even on Chris's favorite court at Roland Garros as a 31 year old pregnant women to boot.
 

Enceladus

Professional
#69
Court clearly SHOULD rank higher than Navratilova. It is downright insulting Navratilova is usually ranked 3rd or 4th best ever, while Court is usually ranked somewhere from 4th to 6th. Court's achievements trump Navratilova in every category outside of Wimbledon. Some like to focus on the Australian Open situation but Court's record also trumps Martina considerably at both the French Open (bigtime) and U.S Open (only 1 more title, but much more consistent). You cant even focus on doubles since Court soundly trumps Martina in both singles and combined singles/doubles achievements. Court also won the Grand Slam and won atleast 3 slams in 5 different years, which only Graf has done besides her, and which clearly isnt managed by just the Australian Open. She has 199 singles tournament wins and 62 combined slams, despite that she retired at 33 and didnt play until almost 60 desperately trying to pad her doubles/total stats as Martina did.

However due to being friends with all the high people in the tennis establishment, arrogantly parading herself as the female tennis GOAT on airwaves still to this day (delusional but still tries anyway), being American, and Court being a disliked bigot, who is anti gay which offends a lot of people, not being friends with the tennis people with most access to the mainstream media, and not being American, Court is unfairly left out of the GOAT debate, and ranked below an inferior and less accomplished player than Martina.

What is funny is while some conceded in my Venus thread that Venus should rank higher than Henin/Seles due to the higher prestige of Wimbledon, doubles success, and peak level play, some others dismissed it and still ranked her behind Henin and/or Seles. Those who rank Venus lower than Henin/Seles, AND also rank Navratilova higher than Court (which can only be done through arguing a much higher prestige of Wimbledon, subjective peak level play, and doubles although even doubles not much here as Court also owns doubles) are gigantic hypocrites and super biased for or against players they really like/dislike, not objective and fair minded like me and others who dont let bias infilterate their rankings and views.
The task is to get out of hand - Margaret Court will be a female tennis player if she reaches all her results in an open era. But her problem lies in the fact that most of her achievements were seen before the Open Era, which means she was have not as strong competition as Martina Navratilova or Steffi Graf. We can not say that, unlike the museum route, there was no group of professional women. The female tennis star came otherwise - they ended their career. For example, if Althea Gibson were financially secured, she could play for several years and take over several of the Court's titles.

The court is not underestimated, and even the fourth best after Navratilova, Graf and Serena Williams.
 

Enceladus

Professional
#70
Court clearly SHOULD rank higher than Navratilova. It is downright insulting Navratilova is usually ranked 3rd or 4th best ever, while Court is usually ranked somewhere from 4th to 6th. Court's achievements trump Navratilova in every category outside of Wimbledon. Some like to focus on the Australian Open situation but Court's record also trumps Martina considerably at both the French Open (bigtime) and U.S Open (only 1 more title, but much more consistent). You cant even focus on doubles since Court soundly trumps Martina in both singles and combined singles/doubles achievements. Court also won the Grand Slam and won atleast 3 slams in 5 different years, which only Graf has done besides her, and which clearly isnt managed by just the Australian Open. She has 199 singles tournament wins and 62 combined slams, despite that she retired at 33 and didnt play until almost 60 desperately trying to pad her doubles/total stats as Martina did.

However due to being friends with all the high people in the tennis establishment, arrogantly parading herself as the female tennis GOAT on airwaves still to this day (delusional but still tries anyway), being American, and Court being a disliked bigot, who is anti gay which offends a lot of people, not being friends with the tennis people with most access to the mainstream media, and not being American, Court is unfairly left out of the GOAT debate, and ranked below an inferior and less accomplished player than Martina.

What is funny is while some conceded in my Venus thread that Venus should rank higher than Henin/Seles due to the higher prestige of Wimbledon, doubles success, and peak level play, some others dismissed it and still ranked her behind Henin and/or Seles. Those who rank Venus lower than Henin/Seles, AND also rank Navratilova higher than Court (which can only be done through arguing a much higher prestige of Wimbledon, subjective peak level play, and doubles although even doubles not much here as Court also owns doubles) are gigantic hypocrites and super biased for or against players they really like/dislike, not objective and fair minded like me and others who dont let bias infilterate their rankings and views.
And this court won 199 tournaments - the WTA recognizes only 92 titles in full. After all, you can not seriously take a tournament where the winner played only two matches. This is exhibition.
 
#71
And this court won 199 tournaments - the WTA recognizes only 92 titles in full. After all, you can not seriously take a tournament where the winner played only two matches. This is exhibition.
Navratilova and Evert won lots of tournaments that required only 2 or 3 matches, yet their fans trumpet their tournament stat tally as their lone weak argument against Graf and Serena. There is a reason nobody today ever wins over 100 tournaments, yet tons of greats- men and women, did pre 1990. Again double standards. Fact is Court won 199 tournaments in singles, the WTA only recognizes 92 since they dont recognize pre Open Era tournaments, but it is still 199.
 
#72
The task is to get out of hand - Margaret Court will be a female tennis player if she reaches all her results in an open era. But her problem lies in the fact that most of her achievements were seen before the Open Era, which means she was have not as strong competition as Martina Navratilova or Steffi Graf. We can not say that, unlike the museum route, there was no group of professional women. The female tennis star came otherwise - they ended their career. For example, if Althea Gibson were financially secured, she could play for several years and take over several of the Court's titles.

The court is not underestimated, and even the fourth best after Navratilova, Graf and Serena Williams.
Open Era means NOTHING in reality in womens tennis since unlike mens tennis there was no real pro game for women, nothing substantial anyway. The best players played the "amateur" circuit and the slams until they were too old and retired. So this argument is meaningless, although due to Court's unpopularity is trotted out like all the other tried excuses to belittle her at the favor of more popular players like Navratilova, Evert, King and Seles.
 

Enceladus

Professional
#73
Open Era means NOTHING in reality in womens tennis since unlike mens tennis there was no real pro game for women, nothing substantial anyway. The best players played the "amateur" circuit and the slams until they were too old and retired. So this argument is meaningless, although due to Court's unpopularity is trotted out like all the other tried excuses to belittle her at the favor of more popular players like Navratilova, Evert, King and Seles.
Read once again what I wrote - it was not a parallel femal professional circle, I know that. But women's tennis players ended their career BEFORE! Althea Gibson could have taken several GS titles to the Court if she had not finished her career due to lack of finances. And those examples are more, Darlene Hard even returned to tennis when the open era began. Open era also applies to women's tennis.
 
#74
Read once again what I wrote - it was not a parallel femal professional circle, I know that. But women's tennis players ended their career BEFORE! Althea Gibson could have taken several GS titles to the Court if she had not finished her career due to lack of finances. And those examples are more, Darlene Hard even returned to tennis when the open era began. Open era also applies to women's tennis.
I guess it is possible but really it is an extreme stretch to say Althea at 35 or older would have been taking slams from Court. I assume she wouldnt have played the Australian like most Americans didnt (and Althea herself only did once) and those are the only slams Court won before 62. Court was already consistently beating Hard before her game had really developed.

I think it is still unlikely Court's number would have been marketdly affected by the Open Era situation. And if we get into what ifs, it is all the more amazing she achieved what she did taking a break for pregnancy or once a business opportunity 3 times and still did what she did. That far negates any extremely marginal gain she might have gotten from the Open Era situation.
 
#76
Navratilova is overrated by Americans.

24 >18.
Exactly. The top 2 all time should clearly be Serena and Court or Court and Serena, with nobody else close. Court is the only one as a Serena fan I can reasonably accept as having any merit to be over her in history, and I am not even a Court fan.

Graf should be a distant but clear 3rd, far behind those 2, but clearly above all others (in the Open Era anyway).

I honestly think Navratilova should be 5th in the Open Era unless we greatly credit her doubles career and the higher prestige of Wimbledon, which is a valid reason to rank her over Chris (but where others have those arguments like Venus vs the more popular Seles and Henin, or Hingis vs the more popular Sharapova, they are ignored, so again double standards). Otherwise Chris has the better overall career, with much greater consistency, better longevity (in the true sense, since Martina won 15 of her 18 slams in under a 5 year frame), clearly superior versatility, many more slam finals, the Open Era or a share of the Open Era record at 2 different slams, and she managed 18 slams despite missing a whole bunch of potential slams in the 70s by not playing the Australian and French which you can hardly say of Martina.

Martina is overrated due to a)being American, b)her whole self promoting propoganda campaign, c)being friends with the right people in tennis's elite which Court, Graf, and to some extent Serena are not. Yet inspite of those things nearly everyone still ranks Serena and Graf over her at this point.
 

Enceladus

Professional
#78
I guess it is possible but really it is an extreme stretch to say Althea at 35 or older would have been taking slams from Court. I assume she wouldnt have played the Australian like most Americans didnt (and Althea herself only did once) and those are the only slams Court won before 62. Court was already consistently beating Hard before her game had really developed.

I think it is still unlikely Court's number would have been marketdly affected by the Open Era situation. And if we get into what ifs, it is all the more amazing she achieved what she did taking a break for pregnancy or once a business opportunity 3 times and still did what she did. That far negates any extremely marginal gain she might have gotten from the Open Era situation.
It's not just Gibson and Hard, they're the top of the iceberg. Until the tennis players could make money playing tennis, they either had to be from a wealthy family (Court is the daughter of a factoryman) or have a job beside tennis. Until the start of the open era, the competitiveness of tennis was strangled. That is why the results of any tennis player before April 1968 are devalued. Regardless of whether it is Court, King, Bueno, Connolly or Wills Moody.
 

BTURNER

Hall of Fame
#79
It's not just Gibson and Hard, they're the top of the iceberg. Until the tennis players could make money playing tennis, they either had to be from a wealthy family (Court is the daughter of a factoryman) or have a job beside tennis. Until the start of the open era, the competitiveness of tennis was strangled. That is why the results of any tennis player before April 1968 are devalued. Regardless of whether it is Court, King, Bueno, Connolly or Wills Moody.
Not a lot changed for the first generation either. Only the very top tier of women got sufficient to make enough to pay for the travel anyway. If you did not reach QF, semis and finals consistently your pay was not paying your way for the travel, expenses and hotels let alone coaching, equipment etc any more than before the WTA was organised. Your parents or husband was paying your way, and they had better be able to afford it! Real money did not begin to flow downward sufficiently to support tennis until television and sponsorship deals were more pervasive, and the subsequent increased interest in local media, provided it, and that did not happen at many tournaments until the early 80's and nobody was thinking of making it a career choice for girls until then either. Tennis camps, coaching etc for girls began to become profitable ventures even later because before then our sport was not seen as a way to make a living for anyone not named Evert, Navratilova, or one of the other top ten players. If Martina and Chris's parents could not have anticipated BJK's tour pro tour and its growth in financial viability in order to make an investment in their kid and alter decisions, then nobody of their generation did either and Martina did not play against a much different 'pro' player in early rounds, than Court did.



The impact that you discuss, was in fact rather gradual and very relative.
 
Last edited:
#80
Exactly. The top 2 all time should clearly be Serena and Court or Court and Serena, with nobody else close. Court is the only one as a Serena fan I can reasonably accept as having any merit to be over her in history, and I am not even a Court fan.

Graf should be a distant but clear 3rd, far behind those 2, but clearly above all others (in the Open Era anyway).

I honestly think Navratilova should be 5th in the Open Era unless we greatly credit her doubles career and the higher prestige of Wimbledon, which is a valid reason to rank her over Chris (but where others have those arguments like Venus vs the more popular Seles and Henin, or Hingis vs the more popular Sharapova, they are ignored, so again double standards). Otherwise Chris has the better overall career, with much greater consistency, better longevity (in the true sense, since Martina won 15 of her 18 slams in under a 5 year frame), clearly superior versatility, many more slam finals, the Open Era or a share of the Open Era record at 2 different slams, and she managed 18 slams despite missing a whole bunch of potential slams in the 70s by not playing the Australian and French which you can hardly say of Martina.

Martina is overrated due to a)being American, b)her whole self promoting propoganda campaign, c)being friends with the right people in tennis's elite which Court, Graf, and to some extent Serena are not. Yet inspite of those things nearly everyone still ranks Serena and Graf over her at this point.
Why so bitterly anti-Navratilova? Did Martina sleep with your girlfriend?
 
#82
Martina's record from 1982-1986 is absolutely remarkable. The rest of her career is excellent as well with some noted screw ups; 1976 US Open 1R, 1983 French 4R to cite a pair. Clearly with 18 majors there are only 3 women that can definitely be considered above her; Court, Serena and Graf. Evert can make her case but H2H she herself admits that Martina was better on her best days than Evert was on her own. Doubles do count. Therefore, I think Martina and Court are in a place that Graf and Serena chose not to really bother with. That's their loss not Martina's nor Margaret's.

It is not completely fair to compare two women that are 14 years apart in age and did not play H2H at one another's prime. However the equipment changes that occurred in the early 80s leave a lingering memory of sheer athleticism from Martina that the 1970's films of Court do not. Martina is/was not cocky she was confident and rightfully so. I find her overbearing and alway cheered for her opponents. However, she was much more likely to win than to blow it esp aft 1981.

As far as nice goes I have heard from multiple people that Martina was very nice and much much more personable than Chris Evert. These people had first hand encounters with both ladies.
 
Last edited:
#83
Martina's record from 1982-1986 is absolutely remarkable. The rest of her career is excellent as well with some noted screw ups; 1976 US Open 1R, 1983 French 4R to cite a pair. Clearly with 18 majors there are only 3 women that can definitely be considered above her; Court, Serena and Graf. Evert can make her case but H2H she herself admits that Martina was better on her best days than Evert was on her own. Doubles do count. Therefore, I think Martina and Court are in a place that Graf and Serena chose not to really bother with. That's their loss not Martina's nor Margaret's.

It is not completely fair to compare two women that are 14 years apart in age and did not play H2H at one another's prime. However the equipment changes that occurred in the early 80s leave a lingering memory of sheer athleticism from Martina that the 1970's films of Court do not. Martina is/was not cocky she was confident and rightfully so. I find her overbearing and alway cheered for her opponents. However, she was much more likely to win than to blow it esp aft 1981.

As far as nice goes I have heard from multiple people that Martina was very nice and much much ore personable than Chris Evert. These people had first hand encounters with both ladies.
The "like" I gave this post is not necessarily to indicate agreement, but to acknowledge an interesting post.
 
#84
...
So this argument is meaningless, although due to Court's unpopularity is trotted out like all the other tried excuses to belittle her at the favor of more popular players like Navratilova, Evert, King and Seles.
Why do you think Navratilova, Evert, King and Seles are more popular than Court?
Purely rhetorical ..
 
#85
Being born in 1942 it can't be held against Mrs. Court that she played in both amateur and professional eras. Mrs King was born in 1943 and the same is true for her as well. Without a time machine we will never know who was "better". Appreciate the woman for what she accomplished and leave it at that. Ms. Navratilova, as far as I know has criticized Mrs. Court's personal beliefs and actions, but has never questioned her hard training and solid tennis results.
For women there was no difference between the amateur and professional eras. There was no separate group of women professionals different from the amateur players in the 1960's pre april 1968. Certainly no group that were playing at a higher standard than the amateurs.
 
#86
Navratilova is probably the better player but objectively speaking Court did have the better career results and performance wise. It is hard to say otherwise.
 
#87
Why do you think Navratilova, Evert, King and Seles are more popular than Court?
Purely rhetorical ..
You didnt ask me but they are Americans, they stay in the public and tennis spotlight, they are all fairly personable, and they arent homophobic bigoted hateable jerks like Mrs. Court. They are also more recent, apart from King to some degree, and she is famous for obvious reasons.
 
#88
You didnt ask me but they are Americans, they stay in the public and tennis spotlight, they are all fairly personable, and they arent homophobic bigoted hateable jerks like Mrs. Court. They are also more recent, apart from King to some degree, and she is famous for obvious reasons.
True. Although my cat isn't American and I'm sure he'd be more popular than Court to a wider audience ;)
 
Top