Navratilova had a better career than Court

Yes Graf and Court have 24 and 22 slams vs Martina's 18, and both did the Grand Slam which Martina couldnt do. It isnt even really close. Martina knows it too, it is why she dumps all over Graf whenever she commentated on her, and is doing the same to Serena too. Jealous is as jealous does.
Yep. Pure jealousy & hatred. Tennis is most of what she rested her life on, so for weaker personality such as Navratilova's, her years of hating Graf and Serena is not technically unexpected (though it is still abnormal). She believed her own hype to the degree that she was shocked by yet another (Graf) passing her after already having to "suffer" with the knowledge that one who came before her--Court--reached zenith of the sport, and she could not.
 
I dont hate Martina. It is just an observation (which everyone with a brain would have noticed) that Martina has a visible hate-on for Graf, especialy when she commentated on her.
Expect continued fits of denial.

When even people as insanely stupid as Mitch Albom and Mike Lupica notice it and mention noticing it in their writings, then it couldnt be more obvious.
They are not the only journalists or fans who noticed this disturbing trend with Navratilova over the years.

And today even for Serena, although that is a bit more restrained (probably for fears or racism accusations, even if in reality it would be born out of jealousy and not racism as I dont believe for a moment Martina is racist or bigoted). There must be a reason for that. Court is the other one she often hates on and downplays, although in their case there could be other things at hand like Court's open homophobia and disdain for lesbians, but not for those other two. Of course it could be sheer and amazing coincidence she seems to hate on only those players who are generally perceived to be better than her in history. It could be, but not likely. She also hated on Seles bigtime before she got stabbed, then became her biggest fan when Seles got stabbed and was no longer a potential threat to her future legacy, again amazing coincidences, LOL!
Yes, and this is key:

Of course it could be sheer and amazing coincidence she seems to hate on only those players who are generally perceived to be better than her in history. It could be, but not likely.
There's no coincidences there--Navratilova rested most of her life on tennis, and the idea that she was greater than she was, but to totality of greater players was (apparently) too much, hence her long years of trashing her superiors.
 
Tolerance, generosity, or altruism are not part of the conservative philosophy, e.g. The Virtue of Selfishness.
But they are part of ours. That's why we should refuse to try to compromise or marginalize the accomplishments of Margaret Court because this born again Pastor ten years later, has decided that repurposing biblical passages to justify cruel disregard for gays is a message from God. The more we try to turn either version of Margaret Court into a stereotype for more efficient neutralizing, the more we undermine our own strengths as thinking people.
 
Last edited:
That's why we should refuse to try to compromise or marginalize the accomplishments of Margaret Court because this born again Pastor ten years later, has decided that repurposing biblical passages to justify cruel disregard for gays is a message from God.
Agreed.

(I call this the "Wagner Syndrome". Can we still listen appreciatively to Wagner's music knowing of his rampant anti-semitism? I try.)
And Tilden.
 
But they are part of ours. That's why we should refuse to try to compromise or marginalize the accomplishments of Margaret Court because this born again Pastor ten years later, has decided that repurposing biblical passages to justify cruel disregard for gays is a message from God. The more we try to turn either version of Margaret Court into a stereotype for more efficient neutralizing, the more we undermine our own strengths as thinking people.
But should there be a lasting memmorial to her? Surely that's a slippery slope? She's a figure of the present. Don't we have a duty to say, no, your views are abhorent and obsolete. Or, at least, they should be.
 
But should there be a lasting memmorial to her? Surely that's a slippery slope? She's a figure of the present. Don't we have a duty to say, no, your views are abhorent and obsolete. Or, at least, they should be.
Its a complicated question. I think both the Melbourne & Olympic Parks Precinct and WTA can and should find ways to express support for inclusion and diversity and distance themselves from her views at every opportunity, but that does not mean that I would personally insist that the name be changed, nor would I be terribly affronted if it was changed. I I think most people can differentiate between what celebrates her tennis career, and what glorifies her views, but if Melbourne & Olympic Parks Precinct or the Aussie taxpayers who subsidize it and live nearby , feel that her name undermines their image or their values of inclusion and tolerance, they are entitled to rectify the problem. I guess I would rephrase the question like this. Is there a duty to keep her name on the arena?. Margaret Court is not 'owed' an arena in her name just because it was placed there in the 1980's. Times change, values change, tastes change and the owners of the property and the Arena have every right to decide what plaques, what art, or who's name should adorn their property. If they are comfortable with Margaret Court Arena, then that is the name it should retain.

Me, I'd be tempted to put two statues on either side of the entrance proclaiming Margaret Court Arena. One of Billie Jean King and the other of Martina Navratilova, and their engraved placques proclaiming their trailblazing contribution to women's tennis and the years they won the Aussie Open. I think that sends a message. Margaret can ask to have her association with the Arena dissolved if these statues offend her.
 
Last edited:
Its a complicated question. I think both the Melbourne & Olympic Parks Precinct and WTA can and should find ways to express support for inclusion and diversity and distance themselves from her views at every opportunity, but that does not mean that I would personally insist that the name be changed, nor would I be terribly affronted if it was changed. I I think most people can differentiate between what celebrates her tennis career, and what glorifies her views, but if Melbourne & Olympic Parks Precinct or the Aussie taxpayers who subsidize it and live nearby , feel that her name undermines their image or their values of inclusion and tolerance, they are entitled to rectify the problem. I guess I would rephrase the question like this. Is there a duty to keep her name on the arena?. Margaret Court is not 'owed' an arena in her name just because it was placed there in the 1980's. Times change, values change, tastes change and the owners of the property and the Arena have every right to decide what plaques, what art, or who's name should adorn their property. If they are comfortable with Margaret Court Arena, then that is the name it should retain.

Me, I'd be tempted to put two statues on either side of the entrance proclaiming Margaret Court Arena. One of Billie Jean King and the other of Martina Navratilova, and their engraved placques proclaiming their trailblazing contribution to women's tennis and the years they won the Aussie Open. I think that sends a message. Margaret can ask to have her association with the Arena dissolved if these statues offend her.
Thank you. Fair and balanced.
I'd love the statues!
Although I'd like to see recognition for Evonne Goolagong-Cawley. A class act.
 
Thank you. Fair and balanced.
I'd love the statues!
Although I'd like to see recognition for Evonne Goolagong-Cawley. A class act.
If they haven't found a way to recognize Goolagong in that arena, yet, they have lost an opportunity. As much as Court has changed over the years, Evonne has not. Considering that Margaret Court Arena was in part, an effort to equalize the lionization of Aussie men and the neglect of its women, over the years in Australian tennis, a second female champion is overdue.
 
Last edited:
If they haven't found a way to recognize Goolagong in that arena, yet, they have lost an opportunity. As much as Court has changed over the years, Evonne has not. Considering that Margaret Court Arena was in part, an effort to equalize the lionization of Aussie men and the neglect of its women, over the years in Australian tennis, a second female champion is overdue.

Absolutely! Evonne should be honored there, and she's a name not mentioned enough in Europe or the U.S.
 

mxmx

Professional
Its a complicated question. I think both the Melbourne & Olympic Parks Precinct and WTA can and should find ways to express support for inclusion and diversity and distance themselves from her views at every opportunity, but that does not mean that I would personally insist that the name be changed, nor would I be terribly affronted if it was changed. I I think most people can differentiate between what celebrates her tennis career, and what glorifies her views, but if Melbourne & Olympic Parks Precinct or the Aussie taxpayers who subsidize it and live nearby , feel that her name undermines their image or their values of inclusion and tolerance, they are entitled to rectify the problem. I guess I would rephrase the question like this. Is there a duty to keep her name on the arena?. Margaret Court is not 'owed' an arena in her name just because it was placed there in the 1980's. Times change, values change, tastes change and the owners of the property and the Arena have every right to decide what plaques, what art, or who's name should adorn their property. If they are comfortable with Margaret Court Arena, then that is the name it should retain.

Me, I'd be tempted to put two statues on either side of the entrance proclaiming Margaret Court Arena. One of Billie Jean King and the other of Martina Navratilova, and their engraved placques proclaiming their trailblazing contribution to women's tennis and the years they won the Aussie Open. I think that sends a message. Margaret can ask to have her association with the Arena dissolved if these statues offend her.
I think they shouldn't glorify Navratilova or King because they are discriminating against straight people with their own beliefs. If everyone or half the globe followed their beliefs, what is natural dies out and the human species would soon be extinct. Men would not find straight woman and straight women would not find straight men...at least their options would become more and more severely limited. Do we really want that? Would we be okay if 10% of the globe was same sex orientated? How about 50% or 90%? Is a little okay but a lot not okay?
 
I think they shouldn't glorify Navratilova or King because they are discriminating against straight people with their own beliefs. If everyone or half the globe followed their beliefs, what is natural dies out and the human species would soon be extinct. Men would not find straight woman and straight women would not find straight men...at least their options would become more and more severely limited. Do we really want that? Would we be okay if 10% of the globe was same sex orientated? How about 50% or 90%? Is a little okay but a lot not okay?
Okay. Whatever. I was asked a direct question about 'lasting memorials to Court by PDJ , and provided a response. Court was an incredibly powerful and effective player, who not only spanned both the amateur and professional eras, she dominated them. As such, Margaret is well deserving of the recognition accorded her, as the best player of her era . We can concentrate on that here , because this thread is about her tennis legacy and Martina's tennis legacy. As tennis players, who are both members of the International Hall of Fame, they both provided tennis fans with an inspiring roll model of self discipline, hard work and sacrifice.
 
Last edited:
Margaret Court is not 'owed' an arena in her name just because it was placed there in the 1980's. Times change, values change, tastes change and the owners of the property and the Arena have every right to decide what plaques, what art, or who's name should adorn their property. If they are comfortable with Margaret Court Arena, then that is the name it should retain.
There's a universe of hypocrisy at work among those who claim to be ever-so-moral and "tolerant" about all things with their narrow beating on Court while revelaing their conscious avoidance of other controversies: if this same group did not demand the USO--and by association, the ATP and ITF to permanently ban Hewitt from the sport for his 2001 racist attack against James Blake and a linesperson--an attack that happened in the game (as opposed to something outside the sport), then I find their breathless call to carve Court out of tennis memory the height of hypocritical ********--selective outrage, which says much about the anti-Court gang.

Either they hold to some soaring moral code or they do not. apparently, they do not, and in fact, I've noticed a number of Talk Tennis members on the "hate Court" bandwagon arguing that Hewitt was misunderstood, or they attack anyone who believed he should have been banned from the USO and the sport at large. Again, there's that selective outrage and selective, soaring moral code.

Court's on-court feat is a matter of record and helped define the sport and its greatest achievement / example of superior talent, and should never be erased--in record or tribute, particularly since she--unlike Hewitt--did not use her position while in the game to commit any act against another. Such actions hurt the sport, but in Hewitt's case, he was free to not only finish participating in that USO, but to maintain his career...and there's no outcry about that, especially from those who constantly try to paint Court as a demon.
 
Court is a wonderful person overall. She has raised lots of money for childen, for victims of natural disaesters, for poorer communities. I do not agree on her religious views or views on homosexuals, but she also should be allowed them. I also laugh how someone like Navratilova potrays herself as some kind of role model when she has broken up atleast 3 marriages, helped commit adultery, had numerous cheating affairs on her partners, and been involved in many lawsuits. She has had many actions in her life far more deplorable than anything Court has done, and if anything she is someone who reinfores some of the negative stereotypes and beliefs Court and others have of homosexuals, and helps prove them sort of right.
 
Martina Navratilova and Margaret Court are both flawed individuals.
They are, but the problem is people are only seeing Court as a flawed individual and potraying her as some devil for only one reason, she does not agree with homosexuality. As if that is now some satanic sin. While Navratilova is held up some amazing humanitarian and LGBT activist when she is the one who has broken up numerous marriages, commited and helped commit adultery numerous times, been involved with numerous lawsuits agianst some of her exes who she allegedly scammed out of money. It is pretty much a joke of twisted double standards.

I agree though, lets stick to the tennis. Court has won a lot more than Martina. The only reason Martina is often seen above is popularity and media hype. Her numbers are nothing on Court's anywhere, even taking away 2-4 of Court's Australian Opens.
 
They are, but the problem is people are only seeing Court as a flawed individual and potraying her as some devil for only one reason, she does not agree with homosexuality. As if that is now some satanic sin. While Navratilova is held up some amazing humanitarian and LGBT activist when she is the one who has broken up numerous marriages, commited and helped commit adultery numerous times, been involved with numerous lawsuits agianst some of her exes who she allegedly scammed out of money. It is pretty much a joke of twisted double standards.

I agree though, lets stick to the tennis. Court has won a lot more than Martina. The only reason Martina is often seen above is popularity and media hype. Her numbers are nothing on Court's anywhere, even taking away 2-4 of Court's Australian Opens.
...and notice how in any other case, having a number of any one major is seen as a mark of dominance (well, there's another exception in the WTA)--no matter the era, but in Court's case, the usual "moral authority" suspects on boards like this one try to make it a sign of a career to be reduced to a lesser status. Not working. History is the final and only word. Court not only has more majors than Navratilova, but won the Grand Slam--the zenith of the sport Navratilova was never going to win on her best day. Only those playing a game having nothing to do with tennis (and certainly nothing to do with anything committed by Court in the performance of her job as a player) continue to make the failed attempt to edit and/or reduce the value of Court's historic career, or erase her from it. That's the agenda.
 
Last edited:

mxmx

Professional
Court is a wonderful person overall. She has raised lots of money for childen, for victims of natural disaesters, for poorer communities. I do not agree on her religious views or views on homosexuals, but she also should be allowed them. I also laugh how someone like Navratilova potrays herself as some kind of role model when she has broken up atleast 3 marriages, helped commit adultery, had numerous cheating affairs on her partners, and been involved in many lawsuits. She has had many actions in her life far more deplorable than anything Court has done, and if anything she is someone who reinfores some of the negative stereotypes and beliefs Court and others have of homosexuals, and helps prove them sort of right.
Thank you for a sensible post. And I fully agree.

Unfortunately more and more people are being told by society and governments (often the minority) what they should believe. Freedom of speech and religion is being attacked, yet its okay to allow satanic churches by the same people in power. The same could be said of pornography which makes teenagers and younger become drug addicts, sex slaves or even being trafficked?

Court probably believes when marraige as an institution is being attacked, households fall apart...and so forth. Are the same people attacking her (who probably feeds the poor and has many other good traits) placing the same amount of effort against other injustices of this world?

We all have fallen short of perfection and should perhaps see what we can do to improve instead of what others cannot.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for a sensible post. And I fully agree.

Unfortunately more and more people are being told by society and governments (often the minority) what they should believe. Freedom of speech and religion is being attacked, yet its okay to allow satanic churches by the same people in power. The same could be said of pornography which makes teenagers and younger become drug addicts, sex slaves or even being trafficked?

Court probably believes when marraige as an institution is being attacked, households fall apart...and so forth. Are the same people attacking her (who probably feeds the poor and has many other good traits) placing the same amount of effort against other injustices of this world?

We all have fallen short of perfection and should perhaps see what we can do to improve instead of what others cannot.
If you're asking me if I find Court's views on sexuality abhorent. Yes. Does that make her a wonderful person. No.
Her name is now synonymous with her views. Her choice.
And if she's so wonderful, why does she always look so miserable?
Do l find the extreme views of others that seek to cause misery and hardship (in any area) abhorent. Yes.
 

mxmx

Professional
If you're asking me if I find Court's views on sexuality abhorent. Yes. Does that make her a wonderful person. No.
Her name is now synonymous with her views. Her choice.
And if she's so wonderful, why does she always look so miserable?
Do l find the extreme views of others that seek to cause misery and hardship (in any area) abhorent. Yes.
Many people look different than what they are on the inside, including me.

How about the views of those who focus on the "self". Somehow the world is celebrating those who worship themselves, want to "find" themselves and "be" themselves. "Just be yourself" no matter the cost.

Court believes, as far as I know, in a faith that requires "self denial". Mother Theresa also did. This to me is far more noble and unselfish inspite of her human "shortcomings". You are judging her as much as she perhaps are judging others. It's wrong to be homophobic yet okay for freedom of beliefs of expression to be taken from people?
 
Many people look different than what they are on the inside, including me.

How about the views of those who focus on the "self". Somehow the world is celebrating those who worship themselves, want to "find" themselves and "be" themselves. "Just be yourself" no matter the cost.

Court believes, as far as I know, in a faith that requires "self denial". Mother Theresa also did. This to me is far more noble and unselfish inspite of her human "shortcomings". You are judging her as much as she perhaps are judging others. It's wrong to be homophobic yet okay for freedom of beliefs of expression to be taken from people?
I think that's a simplistic, noble view.
History has proved time and time again that actually some points of view have been expressed (and blindly followed) with dire consequences.
There should be checks and balances.
Court has used her fame to air some acidic, inhumane views. And for that, she is accountable.
 

mxmx

Professional
I think that's a simplistic, noble view.
History has proved time and time again that actually some points of view have been expressed (and blindly followed) with dire consequences.
There should be checks and balances.
Court has used her fame to air some acidic, inhumane views. And for that, she is accountable.
Jesus himself was crucified because people didn't like what he said. I guess there's no way around that. No one will ever please everyone at once. Some believes she should be held accountable, others do not. Others are in the middle. Just as much as people offend her, she will eventually offend others.

Fame however is overrated and we will all die and eventually be held accountable. Also, we all use toilet paper for you know what.
 
Jesus himself was crucified because people didn't like what he said. I guess there's no way around that. No one will ever please everyone at once. Some believes she should be held accountable, others do not. Others are in the middle. Just as much as people offend her, she will eventually offend others.

Fame however is overrated and we will all die and eventually be held accountable. Also, we all use toilet paper for you know what.
:)
I agree, we are all accountable.
You only to have read posts on this thread to get a measure of a person's character, and the world we live in.
It takes all kinds to make a world. Just, to my mind, some add more than others.
 

mxmx

Professional
:)
I agree, we are all accountable.
You only to have read posts on this thread to get a measure of a person's character, and the world we live in.
It takes all kinds to make a world. Just, to my mind, some add more than others.
I also agree.

I just feel that one should be able to share what one believes but that grace and love should be a part of it more and judgement less. Personally, I have a lot that can be improved upon...so just by that, it is wrong of me to focus on others' shortcomings, especially if I struggle with the same things or worse. But saying that, I just want people to find hope and faith. It is just hard in a world that does not focus on that anymore.
 
A rather extreme viewpoint, even if one considers Hewitt to have been racist in that incident.
You (and the one who liked your post) prove my point. This thread is full of members damning Court for her religious beliefs, yet have never believed Hewitt should have been banned from the sport for the most repugnant, destructive behavior/beliefs the world has and ever will ever know. I find the lack of clarity about what is truly worthy of this thread's level of condemnation telling.
 
You (and the one who liked your post) prove my point. This thread is full of members damning Court for her religious beliefs, yet have never believed Hewitt should have been banned from the sport for the most repugnant, destructive behavior/beliefs the world has and ever will ever know. I find the lack of clarity about what is truly worthy of this thread's level of condemnation telling.
The part in bold is hyperbole beyond belief, as a description of Hewitt's actions.
 
You (and the one who liked your post) prove my point. This thread is full of members damning Court for her religious beliefs, yet have never believed Hewitt should have been banned from the sport for the most repugnant, destructive behavior/beliefs the world has and ever will ever know. I find the lack of clarity about what is truly worthy of this thread's level of condemnation telling.
How do you know what I think about Hewitt?
I find that telling.
 
The part in bold is hyperbole beyond belief, as a description of Hewitt's actions.

That you cannot recognize racism as the most repugnant, destructive behavior/belief in human history says you are ignorant of history to shocking degrees, or you are attempting to soft sell it for certain reasons. Moreover, that you think its"extreme" to think Hewitt should have been permanently banned for that racist attack--

A rather extreme viewpoint,
--yet you're in a thread where Court is attacked for her religious views, with some advocating removing her name/recognition from stadiums (essentially trying to erase her from history),--views which were never expressed while on tour / did it hurt anyone while there--yet see the idea of banning Hewitt's on-court racist attack on Blake and the linesperson as "extreme." Its is all one need to know about how some place one issue as some crucial matter above all else, while downgrading something far worse by any rational, historical standard.
 
Last edited:
That you cannot recognize racism as the most repugnant, destructive behavior/belief in human history says you are ignorant of history to shocking degrees, or you are attempting to soft sell it for certain reasons. Moreover, that you think its"extreme" to think Hewitt should have been permanently banned for that racist attack--



--yet you're in a thread where Court is attacked for her religious views, with some advocating removing her name/recognition from stadiums (essentially trying to erase her from history),--views which were never expressed while on tour / did it hurt anyone while there--yet see the idea of banning Hewitt's on-court racist attack on Blake and the linesperson as "extreme." Its is all one need to know about how some place one issue as some crucial matter above all else, while downgrading something far worse by any rational, historical standard.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/usopen/3011926/US-Open-Crowd-chide-racist-Hewitt.html I'll go with Blake's view over yours.
'To his credit, the 21-year-old Blake, born of a mixed marriage with a black father and white mother, gave Hewitt a fairer hearing than he probably deserved.
"It probably didn't even occur to Hewitt that I heard it," said Blake. "My reaction was to try to win the match. I didn't want anything to cloud my thought processes, I was just intent on playing my game.
"I'm generally a positive thinker. I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. If you feel you have a couple of bad calls, it can really frustrate you. When you do bad things on the court, you look back and feel it's not really who you are." If Blake was not interested in turning this episode into a career-ender, I sure am not.
 
Last edited:
I do not think Hewitt is a gigantic racist nor should he have been banned from the sport but TV is correct that is as big an offense as anything Court has said or done, and unlike Court is came on the battle field/playing field so to speak while Court get her views to herself in the sporting field, and instead chose to air them in the appropriate place- the ministery and the political field. It is extreme double standards.

Lets face it, a lot just dont like that Court who is not American, was never popular or charismatic, wasnt part of King's campaign to start the WTA tour (if there is anything I would harshly criticize Court for it would be this, and not her religious and views on homosexuality which IMO she is perfectly entitled to), was in anyway part of the popular feminist movement in the 60s and 70s, and has all but dissapeared from tennis view which even quiet housewife Graf is still part of to some extent, while people like Evert, Navatilova, King, Seles, Austin, and even someone like Shriver hog it like their life depended on it. A lot also resent that she won 11 Australian Opens, when it is not her fault she showed up and won at an actual Grand Slam, and maybe was the one who foreshadowed people would someday mostly tabulating be slams when comparing players someday, which if Chris or Martina did not is their own fault and problem. Granted Court herself did not give her all to win all the slams she could, she retired 3 times in the midst of her prime, something people conveniently forget while every excuse is at hand for more popular players like Chris and Martina, and Seles with the never ending "wuz robbed by stabbing" conspiracies to why they didnt win more. So while people are probably legitimately upset about her anti homosexuality comments, many, especialy her non friendly rivals like Navratilova and King, are looking for an excuse to diminish her further, and all but erase her name from tennis history and mark her as inferior to them based on things that have nothing to do with her tennis career. Unfortunately for them this will never happen. 24 slams and 62 total slams, the Grand Slam, and 199 singles titles, all records, speak for itself. The fact someone as great as Serena Williams is struggling so hard to try and tie her slam record and playing until nearly 40 in an effort to do it, and the great Steffi Graf failed to do it even with the Seles stabbing, shows what a truly great player Court was.
 
Last edited:
I do not think Hewitt is a gigantic racist nor should he have been banned from the sport but TV is correct that is as big an offense as anything Court has said or done, and unlike Court is came on the battle field/playing field so to speak while Court get her views to herself in the sporting field, and instead chose to air them in the appropriate place- the ministery and the political field. It is extreme double standards.

Lets face it, a lot just dont like that Court who is not American, was never popular or charismatic, wasnt part of King's campaign to start the WTA tour (if there is anything I would harshly criticize Court for it would be this, and not her religious and views on homosexuality which IMO she is perfectly entitled to), was in anyway part of the popular feminist movement in the 60s and 70s, and has all but dissapeared from tennis view which even quiet housewife Graf is still part of to some extent, while people like Evert, Navatilova, King, Seles, Austin, and even someone like Shriver hog it like their life depended on it. A lot also resent that she won 11 Australian Opens, when it is not her fault she showed up and won at an actual Grand Slam, and maybe was the one who foreshadowed people would someday mostly tabulating be slams when comparing players someday, which if Chris or Martina did not is their own fault and problem. Granted Court herself did not give her all to win all the slams she could, she retired 3 times in the midst of her prime, something people conveniently forget while every excuse is at hand for more popular players like Chris and Martina, and Seles with the never ending "wuz robbed by stabbing" conspiracies to why they didnt win more. So while people are probably legitimately upset about her anti homosexuality comments, many, especialy her non friendly rivals like Navratilova and King, are looking for an excuse to diminish her further, and all but erase her name from tennis history and mark her as inferior to them based on things that have nothing to do with her tennis career. Unfortunately for them this will never happen. 24 slams and 62 total slams, the Grand Slam, and 199 singles titles, all records, speak for itself. The fact someone as great as Serena Williams is struggling so hard to try and tie her slam record and playing until nearly 40 in an effort to do it, and the great Steffi Graf failed to do it even with the Seles stabbing, shows what a truly great player Court was.
I agrre with some of this, however, some points are a tad simplistic:
Court and Hewitt are indeed entitled to their views. However, it doesn't mean we have to agree.
I also think that the Hewitt example (not yours initially) is not especially relevant because point me to a single post on this thread justifying his behaviour. At best, it's deflection. At worst, suggesting two wrongs do make a right.
I also disagree re Evert and Navratilova playing the AO. It simply wasn't a priority until late in their careers. Much like the top non Australian men.
I do agree, however, that Court's AO titles count. Absolutely.
 
I am trying to tread carefully here because there are so many good points raised in support of Margaret Court the player, but what I cannot leave unchallenged, is any notion that this pastor or any other cleric has had some marginal or innocuous impact on the lives of gays and their families especially one that preaches hell, fire and damnation, guilt, sin, and the 'value' of conversion therapy for kids who's parents are desperate to prevent the eternal torture of their damned children. Pastor Court may be 'entitled' to preach her gospel of hate, but lets not fool ourselves that she is not literally endangering lives when what she preaches at her Victory Life Centre, ends up going viral throughout the English speaking world on youtube. Lets just assume for a moment, that she is good at what she does, and what she justifies and is effective at communicating her religious vision of homosexuals and homosexuality. That s lot of terror and bigotry in a lot of people including youths and their parents, as they adopt the stereotypes she sells over the course of decades. Some of them are gay or trans youth. Some of them are parents or loved ones. Some of them are nasty petty or angry people who are looking for excuses and targets. Her words on this topic are truly social toxins making society much sicker.

Let's not sugarcoat what she is doing now in order to preserve her tennis legacy from yesterday.
I believe everyone is entitled their own religious views and views on things like homosexuality. If we are accepting of the Muslims and their ridiculous cult rituals including beheadings, rapes, regularly wearing silly halloween costumes, etc.. we can certainly accept Court's heavily Christian and Cathlic views and being against homosexuality, whether we agree with it or not.

And Court's anti gay work is being dwarfed out and having no real impact in Australia anyway which continues to move forward with extremely pro liberalized pro gay policies, in fact to the point gay people are being excessively treated with kid gloves like all minority types these days, so it is a bunch of much ado about nothing at this point.
 
I believe everyone is entitled their own religious views and views on things like homosexuality. If we are accepting of the Muslims and their ridiculous cult rituals including beheadings, rapes, regularly wearing silly halloween costumes, etc.. we can certainly accept Court's heavily Christian and Cathlic views and being against homosexuality, whether we agree with it or not.

And Court's anti gay work is being dwarfed out and having no real impact in Australia anyway which continues to move forward with extremely pro liberalized pro gay policies, in fact to the point gay people are being excessively treated with kid gloves like all minority types these days, so it is a bunch of much ado about nothing at this point.
Err....ok.
Stepping away.......
 
I agrre with some of this, however, some points are a tad simplistic:
Court and Hewitt are indeed entitled to their views. However, it doesn't mean we have to agree.
I also think that the Hewitt example (not yours initially) is not especially relevant because point me to a single post on this thread justifying his behaviour. At best, it's deflection. At worst, suggesting two wrongs do make a right.
I also disagree re Evert and Navratilova playing the AO. It simply wasn't a priority until late in their careers. Much like the top non Australian men.
I do agree, however, that Court's AO titles count. Absolutely.
I do not agree with Court's views on homosexuality and some of her other views. It does not mean she is some demon, and whiny babies like Navratilova slinging her name through the mud constantly, and loudly protesting her name be removed from a stadium court at her home slam, are in fact more bullying than Court's own behavior and openly anti homosexual views. Yes absolutely you do not have to agree with her views, I do not even agree with her views in that area, but that does not mean she is entitled to them, or people are entitled to paint her as some evil demonic presence and harass about her having a court named after her just for her religioius views, which is fact more slanderous than anything Court herself is doing.

Evert and Navatilova and the Australian Open. Well I see it like this. While all 3 are legends and GOATs in the games history, atleast compared to Court, they have less slams than her, and were significantly less successful. Anything else is an excuse. Court played those Australians, the ones who didnt it is their problem. Navratilova only missed it like 1 year she would have ever won it anyway (78 or 79 I guess) so it is a pointless what if for her anyhow. She wouldnt ever be beating Goolagong there in the mid 70s when Goolagong was clearly a superior player at the time, and would have had the home court advantage on top of that. She wasnt even on tour before that, and she played every year from 81-89, and LOL at her beating Graf or Seles on slow bouncy hard court after that. Even if she played the Australian Open every year it is 100% certain she would have a ton less slams than Court still. Evert is the only one you could debate had she played all the Australians and French Opens in the 70s when she was dominant, especialy on clay. Also if we do what ifs what if Court didnt retire 3 times in her prime, she probably has over 30 slams. Case over.
 
Actually I should point out I am a gay man, and I do not have any real problems with Court and her views on homosexuality and her right to her own religious beliefs. I think the ridiculous overreaction is a combination of the A)overly liberalized, overly PR, crybaby society of today, where everyone has super thin skin and an agenda, and a pathetic need to force their own views on everyone else which whiners like Navratilova and some others are complaining Court is doing, when in fact they are doing it far more in a harassing and bullying way to the reverse. B)probably even moreso than that as I already said the desire to diminish Court since she has commited the crime to have more slams than Serena, Graf, Navratilova, Evert, and people hate that fact.

I would also add as a gay man, I find Navratilova's general behavior and lifestyle disgraceful, and an embarassment to other gays and lesbians, and to the perception of the gay culture. If anything should be looking in the mirror it is her. People like her are what further promote the perception Court and some others probably have of gay/ lesbians, they essentialy prove her right, there is no reason she should question her views when Navratilova types are out there behaving as they do.
 
I believe everyone is entitled their own religious views and views on things like homosexuality. If we are accepting of the Muslims and their ridiculous cult rituals including beheadings, rapes, regularly wearing silly halloween costumes, etc.. we can certainly accept Court's heavily Christian and Cathlic views and being against homosexuality, whether we agree with it or not.

And Court's anti gay work is being dwarfed out and having no real impact in Australia anyway which continues to move forward with extremely pro liberalized pro gay policies, in fact to the point gay people are being excessively treated with kid gloves like all minority types these days, so it is a bunch of much ado about nothing at this point.
Its not her opposition to specific policies of Australia including same sex marriage, which is the measure here. I could care less about her opposition to same sex marriage. Its the impact on the lives of her congregants and other 'faithful' to which I refer. She's not having a huge impact on atheist, unless they get their asses kicked by thugs, or denied employment or jobs by 'christians' who use a religious excuse as cover to justify repugnant behavior either in Australia or anywhere else her sermons are sent via the internet. Otherwise they can laugh her off. Its how it impacts Christians who either are gay or are related to someone who is gay. Reread my post.
 
Actually I should point out I am a gay man, and I do not have any real problems with Court and her views on homosexuality and her right to her own religious beliefs. I think the ridiculous overreaction is a combination of the A)overly liberalized, overly PR, crybaby society of today, where everyone has super thin skin and an agenda, and a pathetic need to force their own views on everyone else which whiners like Navratilova and some others are complaining Court is doing, when in fact they are doing it far more in a harassing and bullying way to the reverse. B)probably even moreso than that as I already said the desire to diminish Court since she has commited the crime to have more slams than Serena, Graf, Navratilova, Evert, and people hate that fact.

I would also add as a gay man, I find Navratilova's general behavior and lifestyle disgraceful, and an embarassment to other gays and lesbians, and to the perception of the gay culture. If anything should be looking in the mirror it is her. People like her are what further promote the perception Court and some others probably have of gay/ lesbians, they essentialy prove her right, there is no reason she should question her views when Navratilova types are out there behaving as they do.
I have zero interests in your claims on orientation over the internet. They provide you no cover. I have no interest in your claims about Martina's personal life choices whether they include promiscuity, infidelity or orgies three times a day. She can't embarrass me or reflect on me. None of my business. I can divide Martina's statements on Court between those I agree with, and those that I don't. I don't care about Court's personal choices either. I care what she says from the pulpit or in public as a cleric.
 
Last edited:
Actually I should point out I am a gay man, and I do not have any real problems with Court and her views on homosexuality and her right to her own religious beliefs. I think the ridiculous overreaction is a combination of the A)overly liberalized, overly PR, crybaby society of today, where everyone has super thin skin and an agenda, and a pathetic need to force their own views on everyone else which whiners like Navratilova and some others are complaining Court is doing, when in fact they are doing it far more in a harassing and bullying way to the reverse. B)probably even moreso than that as I already said the desire to diminish Court since she has commited the crime to have more slams than Serena, Graf, Navratilova, Evert, and people hate that fact.

I would also add as a gay man, I find Navratilova's general behavior and lifestyle disgraceful, and an embarassment to other gays and lesbians, and to the perception of the gay culture. If anything should be looking in the mirror it is her. People like her are what further promote the perception Court and some others probably have of gay/ lesbians, they essentialy prove her right, there is no reason she should question her views when Navratilova types are out there behaving as they do.
Actually I should point out that you're NadalAgassi, and, despite your valid points on many tennis issues, we cannot have any trust in what you say your sexuality is. After all, you claimed to be a reality TV star in one of your previous personae.
 
Several posters do not understand how a career with 18 GS titles can be more valuable than a career with 24 GS titles. I have already argued that Navratilova won its titles at a time when tennis was professionalized, while most Court's major titles was achieved before the professionalization of tennis, so Court's titles before 1968 are subordinate. Maybe a lot of members will help me when I explain it mathematically:

Martina has 18 GS titles and since she has all won in a professional age, she earns 18 bonus points
Margaret has 24 GS titles, but only 11 of them earned in a professional age, so it has 11 bonus points

Now we summarize GS titles and bonus points.
Result: Martina 36, Margaret 35

You already understand, why in the GOAT debates is Martina > Marge?

Court is not the only ATG tennis player, which to weakens the fact, that all / most titles have won before open era. Helen Wills has 19 GS titles, more than Evert or Navratilova, but in GOAT debates, Helen is not rated as a bigger player than Martina or Chris. Unlike the Court, against Wills we can not use the argument of a weak AO, since Wills has never played on AO. Similarly, Connolly, won CYGS in 1953 but is not in the same league as Martina or Steffi. She played in the amateur era.
 
Last edited:
I think it is beyond dispute Court had a better career. 24 slams >>>>>>>>>>>> 18 slams, it isnt even close in the most important stat. Court even beats Navratilova in total slams though, 62 > 59, and this is the thing usually brought up by Martina supporters, her best stat and Court beats her even in that stat. Total tournament titles in singles is 199 to 167 for Court. I am not sure if there is a single stat Martina beats Court in except a way better Wimbledon record.

Now who is the better player or should rank higher all time is debateable. Many would say Martina for that, but it isnt because she has better stats, she simply doesnt.

By the way even if everyone had played the Australian Open then Margaret still probably has more slams than Martina. Analyzing it, it seems pretty clear Court still winds up with 20-22 slams and Martina only 18 or 19 (winning 1 of 78 or 79 maybe) even in that scenario. So even in that hypothetical what if scenario Martina doesnt likely have the better career. And if Court had not retired 3 times she probably wins close to 30 slams even with everyone playing every Australian Open anyway.
WTA recognized only 92 Court's titles. Martina also won several titles outside the WTA Tour, but the official number is 167 and that's a record.
The rest I explained in message # 192.
 
You already understand, why in the GOAT debates is Martina > Marge?
Yes since Margaret is a hated homophobe who dissapeared from tennis, was never that charismatic, popular, or with that interesting a story, and does not have numerous close friends in the inner circles of tennis the way people like Serena and Martina do. It has nothing to do with actual tennis achievements, where Martina pales in comparision to Court. If anyone else had Court's achievements they would be universally ranked higher than Martina the way Steffi and Serena are which does show it is all about slams mostly otherwise people would rank Martina or Chris over Serena or/and Steffi which almost nobody does. The only exception is if you are a unique case where everyone hates you and you also have an asterisk for people who already dislike you to latch onto (the weak Australian Open). And if Court had Martina's achievements instead given how hated she is, she would probably be ranked outside the top 10 with people talking about how weak the 80s were, how she faced no depth, and only had a past her best Evert, and was badly lacking in slam performance outside Wimbledon, (an exagerration of truth, but it is meant to be, since it is Court and that is what people would always do with her). I am aware many rank Court behind not only Serena and Graf (reasonable although I disagree on Graf probably), but quite a few behind Martina too, and some even behind Evert, but in her case it is meaningless since most would never give her credit. The fact some even argue King for best player of their generation over Court shows the extreme bias against Court and why I dont take any arguments to how people generally rank her seriously.

And the Open Era thing means nothing in the womens game. It only means something in the mens game. The best women players were always in the amateur game and playing the slams. The only legitimate case that can be raised against Court is the Australian Open factor, that is it. If you want to diminish Court point out the Australian Open, but the Open Era point in womens tennis means nothing since the womens game never had the lucrative pro game where all the best players went in their early 20s or sooner like the mens.

As for Wills I already explained her, she played in the 20s, nobody these days respects players from the 20s and 30s. She is a flat out dumb example to try and prove your point, since unless you are really stupid I am sure you know this. Nobody talks about Tilden these days either, even though he should be up with Federer and Laver given his long term dominance of the sport.
 
Last edited:
WTA recognized only 92 Court's titles. Martina also won several titles outside the WTA Tour, but the official number is 167 and that's a record.
The rest I explained in message # 192.
Court did win 199 WTA titles, that is a fact. The WTA also only recognizes Court as winning 13 slams, so what they recognize is meaningless. Fact is Court won 24 slams, 62 total slams, 199 singles titles, all records. Martina's only record is at Wimbedon, and even that would have gone if Graf had not busted her knee up in late 96 (even without the Seles stabbing btw as Seles was never beating Graf at Wimbledon anyhow).

Although speaking of the Seles stabbing, while I generally ignore that topic altogether as it is mostly Seles loonies and their fantasies replacing truth, and I am not a fan of those kind of what if topics anyhow, it also reflects the bias against Court she has an enormous asterisk given for the Australian Open factor, but Graf is given virtually none for the Seles stabbing. If either of those things were worthy of an asterisk the latter would be more worth it than the former. However people like Graf and do not like Court, so there you have it.
 
Last edited:
The "adjustment" process to reduce Court's major title records is completely arbitrary and subjective.....no rationale.

And just when, precisely, did this so-called "adjustment" take place?
 
The "adjustment" process to reduce Court's major title records is completely arbitrary and subjective.....no rationale.

And just when, precisely, did this so-called "adjustment" take place?
It is so political and agenda driven. Like much of the real world these days. Like I said if anyone else had the exact same achievements as Court these discussions would either not take place or take place in a much more limited frame.
 
Several posters do not understand how a career with 18 GS titles can be more valuable than a career with 24 GS titles. I have already argued that Navratilova won its titles at a time when tennis was professionalized, while most Court's major titles was achieved before the professionalization of tennis, so Court's titles before 1968 are subordinate. Maybe a lot of members will help me when I explain it mathematically:

Martina has 18 GS titles and since she has all won in a professional age, she earns 18 bonus points
Margaret has 24 GS titles, but only 11 of them earned in a professional age, so it has 11 bonus points

Now we summarize GS titles and bonus points.
Result: Martina 36, Margaret 35

You already understand, why in the GOAT debates is Martina > Marge?

Court is not the only ATG tennis player, which to weakens the fact, that all / most titles have won before open era. Helen Wills has 19 GS titles, more than Evert or Navratilova, but in GOAT debates, Helen is not rated as a bigger player than Martina or Chris. Unlike the Court, against Wills we can not use the argument of a weak AO, since Wills has never played on AO. Similarly, Connolly, won CYGS in 1953 but is not in the same league as Martina or Steffi. She played in the amateur era.
I understand how a career with 24 majors can be deemed less valued than one with 18. I understand how one may conclude that Martina is closer to GOAT than Court. I dismiss your method getting to either conclusion. No matter how many times you emphasize what was a professionally acquired title in the womens game, validated by the WTA, from one that was acquired under amateur status sans such a sanction, you will convince next to nobody around here. We know how incredibly small any impact was on the depth of the womens game until well over a generation had gone by. We know that Margaret dominated both tours with equal ease and continued to gather titles at the same clip until pregnancy and age took a toll. The paychecks had little impact on her competition outside the top ten she was already dominating in her H to H's until the money and resources made their way downward below the semifinals, quarterfinals so young players, coaches and tournament organizers outside the top ten, were able to anticipate and predict the revenue would be available to cover costs of training, traveling, and pay their share of household bills. That really did not begin to happen until Steffi Graf's generation hit the tour with advertisers dollars and media revenue contracts . It is no coincidence that was also the generation where virtually all players of merit, showed up to all majors of merit. With prior hit and miss efforts in Evert and Navratilova's day, these same players ranked from number 60 to number 15, had no way to pursue their dream for long enough to become a real threat as pros, until they knew their efforts could sustain them financially and provide career 'investment' dollars to advance their performance level more than what they were doing last year. A couple of semis and a final in a year, was not going to cut it unless your parents could afford to totally subsidize your career. This stuff took time. Margaret's amateur titles were not noticeably worse than her professional ones as a collection. You have to look at each individual draw to find patterns and that is harder work than you will want to do.
 
Last edited:
I really do place a high value on slams, perhaps even too much. But the way I judge the all time greats is by trying to decide whose illustrious record I would rather have. Even though I find Court's French Open and doubles record really, really impressive, I'd rather have Martina's record which includes 9 Wimbledon singles titles. Plus when I think of huge matches, I can't think of anyone being involved in more of them than Martina.

My head to head comparisons are also why Evert's record becomes more and more impressive the older that I get. Her combo of 7 French and 6 U.S. Open titles is ridiculously great. Throw in her 10 Wimbledon finals and record of NEVER losing before the final in Australia which is almost as impressive.

I would take either record over Court's despite less slams.

Contradictory? Maybe. Subjective? Absolutely.

But honestly, it's all like picking which child is your favorite.
 
Top