Ridiculous. The men get recognition for pre-1968 tournament wins. Why not the women?
Navratilova had a better career than Court
- Thread starter Enceladus
- Start date
Actually, I see that the ATP does not count pre-1968 tournament wins, either, unless they are among the 4 majors.
But this is simply proprietorial choice by the ATP, in reality most tennis observers give credit to the pre-1968 men's titles in career counts, so the same approach
should apply to the women, especially so because the women's field was not split pre-1968, but unified in the amateur world.
On Rosewall's Wiki biography, Ken is given credit for 133 tournament wins in large print numerals, although in brackets in smaller numerals is indicated 35 ATP
titles.
For Gonzales, he is given 111 titles in the Wiki biography, with no mention (absolutely NO mention) that only 10 titles were recognized by the ATP.
For Hoad, he is simply given credit for 51 titles with no qualification. Hoad had only 4 ATP recognized titles.
For the ATP to give recognition only to the 4 slam titles of the pre-open era is arbitrary and unjustified, because those 4 slam events were also restricted to
amateur players, and therefore weakened to the same extent as all other amateur tournaments. To pretend that pre-1968 slam events were open tennis
tournaments is nonsensical.
Obviously, using the ATP recognition as a basis for evaluation is ridiculous, also the WTA list.
Last edited:
chimneysweep
Semi-Pro
Court probably had the better career. The Australian Open was a total joke but even giving Court what she probably would have won there (7 or 8, instead of 11) and giving her around 20 slams, she still has a better career than Navratilova. Navratilova would still be clearly inferior at 3 of the 4 slams, probably had less time at #1 than Court who was the #1 about 8 years, etc...She also did the Calendar Grand Slam Martina was not good enough to do, while also matching Navratilova winning 6 straight, also had an amazing and dominant doubles and mixed doubles career.
Navratilova is still the better player, far and away better at her best, and probably should be ranked higher all time just based on logic though. Better career is Court though even with rightful context given to the joke Australian Open.
Navratilova is still the better player, far and away better at her best, and probably should be ranked higher all time just based on logic though. Better career is Court though even with rightful context given to the joke Australian Open.
The Grand Slam means something special as long as there is variety in the surfaces, it should include clay, grass at least.
I don't see Navratilova winning a GS, it was never possible for her.
Court could win on any surface. To beat Evert on clay was something special.
chimneysweep
Semi-Pro
The thing against Court is she only won Wimbledon 3 times which is pretty bad, as Wimbledon is by far the most important event, even moreso back then than today. Navratilova won it 9 times. That makes even better career fairly close, despite Court having 6 more slams. It looks even worse for Court since grass was her best surface yet she flopped pretty bad in the biggest event of them all.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Yep, Court’s record at Wimbledon is comparatively poor. Her great rival King won twice as many times there as her (6 vs. 3), which is pretty damning, and does lend some credence to the view that Court only dominated so much on the Australian grass due to weak competition there.
I don't think you get a clear picture of Margaret's grass game from either the Aussie or Wimbledon. Remember she won 5 Opens and was a runner up in two others, out of the 11 she played. She only had one early round loss ( 4th RD in 1964) and only one QF loss, and those draws were certainly not weak. Most of her tennis will have been played on grass back then with three majors and Fed cup and Bonnie Bell in international play. She had a win loss percentage of 93% on grass in her professional years from 1968-1977 and that is still a record holding through today ( we don't have a stat including the amateur years, but I really don't see it dropping much as she played even more smaller venue / Down under grass events in the early 60's than later.
Considering that she had winning head to heads against virtually everyone throughout her era, and 93% win/ loss , it is unlikely opponents are going to do a whole lot better on drier higher bouncing Aussie grass with that heat, and wind to which they are less accustomed , I just don't see her losing very damn often either in early rounds or in those later ones, no matter who showed up. Just a guestimate but I'd say she'd have ended up with around 8 or 9 if it had more competitive draws.
When you look at how Court performed Down Under or in New Zealand , there were about as many 'upsets' as Evert had in Florida on Har Tru. Margaret played some serious ball in Koala Country.
Last edited:
So all the titles Court and King won before 1968 should not count?
Enceladus
Legend
No, there were no Grand Prix Tour, WCT and Riordan circuits (ATP Tour predecessors) and Virginia Slims, Avon Series or Colgate Series (WTA Tour predecessors) before the Open era began. Titles outside official circuits or their predecessors are not counted as sanctioned tournaments. This is also true of today's tennis players - Federer, Nadal, or Djokovic doesn't count titles from challenger events or exhibition tournaments (Abu Dhabi, etc.) between ATP career titles.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
True. The majority of players simply do not have game/court insight to win the Grand Slam. They might be great players in a "best of the rest" category, but winning the Grand Slam takes abilities that are beyond being rare. That was not Navratilova.
If anyone is suggesting Navratilova could have won the Grand Slam, its exactly that the "coulda/woulda" game--the same played by Seles fans who swear she had the game to win 30 majors and who knows how many Grand Slams along the way, without being truthful and analyzing her game at its (pre-attack) height.
Then the pre-open majors should not count, either, they were not part of a circuit.
Actually what he is saying is that 'real' tennis, does not exist as a viewing sport until 1968, and then only WTA sanctioned events matter. Suzanne Lenglen does not exist at all. Neither does Gibson, or Wills, or Connolly. Their tournament victories should be treated like my yearly Family Reunion' king of the mountain' events in the city park courts . Its ludicrous and absolutely nobody agrees, but it is a consistently held position that works especially well if you have a specific fan-based agenda post 1986.
They are spouting nonsense.
If you are a rabid manical fan of Graf or Serena, then marginalizing the accomplishments of all champions who collected anything prior to the mid and late 80's can become appealing.
IMO, the reason that the WTA does not recognize the women's tournament wins pre 68, is to glorify modern day players like: Graf, Evert, Navratilova and others.
chimneysweep
Semi-Pro
In fairness when it comes to the Grand Slam we know for certain there is only 1 year it was even possible for Navratilova or Evert and that was 1976 for Evert, as that is the only year both didnt lose at atleast 1 slam (despite the many they skipped). And as for Evert in 76 I would guess she likely loses at the January 76 Australian Open to Goolagong. After all she had never beaten her on grass at that point, Goolagong had home court, she owned that event this period, and Evert just barely beat her 8-6 in the 3rd at Wimbledon later that same year where her chances against Goolagong would be much better than Australia.
The Grand Slam and its importance is another matter of debate.
The Grand Slam and its importance is another matter of debate.
I sort of 'get' that it is philosophically inconsistent to claim the vital need of a union to improve the health of the sport and its players, and then 'count' the tennis events as though they accomplished the same goals regardless. The WTA has a 'messaging' problem on its hands. But tennis historians do not. We can see tennis history more objectively than the Union is obliged to. We can define what should be seen as a bone fide tournament, and we can define what qualifies as a major worthy slam in objective terms of our own.
