Navratilova had a better career than Court

[Dan Lobb]

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.

Subjectivity is okay as long as it is acknowledged and confessed.

Like the Wikipedia rankings per year, Wiki admits it is done on the basis of pure subjectivity, which is okay.

I prefer a ranking that has some objective standard and is applied without favour to all players.

 

[frodobaggins]

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.

To each their own. I respect your points, and they were wll writen, and I definitely see where you are coming from. I would have to disagree. Court not only has a ton more Australian Opens than Navratilova but a far better French Open record, and clearly a better overall U.S Open record despite only 1 more title. The only case I could see is the greater prestige of Wimbledon, but even that isnt enough, when Martina's big event record is clearly weaker everywhere but 1 place, and is clearly less balanced, even her RG record is clearly inferor to Court's dissapointing Wimbledon record, and even Court doesnt have half her slams (believe it or not over half her slams are not at the Australian Open for all the Court Australian Open talk) at just one venue as Martina does. Evert is a closer call, I could see your point on her with the Open Era records at both Roland Garros and U.S Open (shared with Serena) and in fact a slightly better Wimbledon record than Court considering the extra finals which really shouldnt be and is a legit knock on Court, not the overdone Australian Open thing.

IMO Navratilova gets overrated for being in the media so much hogging for attention and praise, and agressively/angrily pushing herself as GOAT in bitterness as she hates that more people rate Serena and Graf as GOAT today than her; and for being a lesbian in the time of a ridiculously liberalized society that being any kind of minority gets you extra praise and preferred treatment. Court gets dissed and the most underrating for the opposite reasons. On grass she might be the best ever, although even there Court and Graf have a good case as well, but taking into account all surfaces she definitely isnt the top. If it werent for her doubles I would probably even have Evert over her, I definitely prefer Everts singles career overall by a bit to hers but I do think doubles counts and both still have 18 slams and nearly identical singles stats in most things. I definitely have Serena, Graf, Court over her.

 

[Enceladus]

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.

You are wrong and you don't understand me, WTA recognizes for the recorder in number of WTA titles Navratilova, not Court, which is with 92 WTA titles up to 4th in the rankings. The other titles won by Court are not official, according to the WTA, Court has won outside the Virginia Slims circuit / Avon Series / Colgate Series etc., which is the precedors of today's WTA Tour, and titles from this mentioned circuits are recognized as WTA titles.

A similar situation is at ATP, Laver has won 200 titles, but only about a quarter of them recognize ATP as ATP titles. The recorder is Connors with 109 ATP titles, which won another 40, but outside the Grand Prix circuit, WCT circuit or Riodran circuit, titles from these circuits recognized ATP for ATP titles.

Even with today's tennis players, all titles are not counted together. Federer in Dubai won the 100th ATP title, but he gained 10 more outside the ATP Tour - 1 challenger, 5 ITF tournaments and 4 exhibition titles.

Titles that have not been won at the ATP / WTA Tour or their predecessors (Grand Prix, WCT, Riodran / Virginia Slims, Avon, Colgate) are not recognized as ATP / WTA titles! That's why Court has only 92 WTA singles titles!

 

[Enceladus]

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.

Unfortunately, you are blinded by the assumption, that Court is in the GOAT debates behind the triple Graf, Navratilova, Serena just because of their homophobia, it is hard to prove, that reasons, why Court is 4th in GOAT ranking of women's tennis, are different.
Tennis historians and fans familiar with tennis history, knows the names of Tilden, Wills, or Connolly. Every reasonable person but understands, that the titles before the Open Era are subordinaty. It's cruel, but it's a fact.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

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.

The expression on Blake's face as it was happening, and part of his careful presser afterward said it all. Denial is simply a weapon gifted to racists to continue their attacks (as used by another who likes racism denial posts in this thread).

Meanwhile, reality cannot be denied:

Russian tennis player is disqualified from Georgia tournament after going on racist rant accusing the umpire of siding with his opponent because they are both black

If those behind the Savannah Challenger see that Daniil Medvedev's racism demanded he be removed for the event--for making the exact kind accusation as Hewitt--then there's no excuse for Hewitt to have been allowed to continue playing at the USO, and in consideration of his blatant disregard for the history of where he was playing (the U.S.), he deserved to be banned from the sport. Ahh, but no matter how other events made the correct decision, we see to some, Hewitt's career is more important that stopping his embracing of the worst of human behavior being aimed at non-white players and officials.

Loud and clear.

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.

Of course it is a double standard, as the issue of homosexuality is--for certain people--the issue of world (and also act as if its the issue of professional tennis judging from this board's usual Court-related threads), when that could not be more removed from truth, history, and certainly not in relation Court's actions while on tour--but again, some resent not only Court, but her faith (clearly), and are on the warpath to erase her from a sport she did not use as her sociopolitical platform. Hewitt--like Danill Medvedev--did turn the court...the sport into their platform of the worst of all human behavior, yet no one is saying Hewitt should be stripped of anything.

As always, the protection of the Hewitts of the sport while damning Court is telling.

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.

Yes, but some seem to think players who did not bother to play events when they should have need to be protected, then elevated to positions they did not earn, and if they did not earn it, they are forever undeserving of any career reconsideration.

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.

..and that's the difference between the players you mentioned and the Hewitt case: Court is being attacked as a person in her life having nothing to do with the sport they're trying to rewrite--remove her from the history she made/earned, while Hewitt soiled the actual sport, and its "wha--? Hewitt who? Nope--not bad at all."

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.

Court had superior talent--something Evert, the ever bitter Navratilova, and others did not possess at their respective career highs, and that boils down to their personal failings as athletes. Trying to use sociopolitical issues to one--continue a campaign of hate and two--erase superior records to elevate lesser players who never had supreme talent is head-to-toe corruption at work.[/QUOTE]

 

[BTURNER]

The expression on Blake's face as it was happening, and part of his careful presser afterward said it all. Denial is simply a weapon gifted to racists to continue their attacks (as used by another who likes racism denial posts in this thread).

Meanwhile, reality cannot be denied:

Russian tennis player is disqualified from Georgia tournament after going on racist rant accusing the umpire of siding with his opponent because they are both black

If those behind the Savannah Challenger see that Daniil Medvedev's racism demanded he be removed for the event--for making the exact kind accusation as Hewitt--then there's no excuse for Hewitt to have been allowed to continue playing at the USO, and in consideration of his blatant disregard for the history of where he was playing (the U.S.), he deserved to be banned from the sport. Ahh, but no matter how other events made the correct decision, we see to some, Hewitt's career is more important that stopping his embracing of the worst of human behavior being aimed at non-white players and officials.

Loud and clear.




Of course it is a double standard, as the issue of homosexuality is--for certain people--the issue of world (and also act as if its the issue of professional tennis judging from this board's usual Court-related threads), when that could not be more removed from truth, history, and certainly not in relation Court's actions while on tour--but again, some resent not only Court, but her faith (clearly), and are on the warpath to erase her from a sport she did not use as her sociopolitical platform. Hewitt--like Danill Medvedev--did turn the court...the sport into their platform of the worst of all human behavior, yet no one is saying Hewitt should be stripped of anything.

As always, the protection of the Hewitts of the sport while damning Court is telling.



Yes, but some seem to think players who did not bother to play events when they should have need to be protected, then elevated to positions they did not earn, and if they did not earn it, they are forever undeserving of any career reconsideration.



..and that's the difference between the players you mentioned and the Hewitt case: Court is being attacked as a person in her life having nothing to do with the sport they're trying to rewrite--remove her from the history she made/earned, while Hewitt soiled the actual sport, and its "wha--? Hewitt who? Nope--not bad at all."



Court had superior talent--something Evert, the ever bitter Navratilova, and others did not possess at their respective career highs, and that boils down to their personal failings as athletes. Trying to use sociopolitical issues to one--continue a campaign of hate and two--erase superior records to elevate lesser players who never had supreme talent is head-to-toe corruption at work.

[/QUOTE]

We agree racism should be called out. Here is the difference between you and I. I did the work to find out what James Blake thought. I paid attention to what James Black, who was actually there, was the purported 'target' and spoke directly after the match said. You ignore him, invalidate his own words and marginalize their meaning, for your agenda. I guess you don't think his interpretation of the event, is nearly as important as your reinterpretation. We can wonder why you would do that to this man but only you can know for sure. Food for thought for you.

 

[hoodjem]

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.

Very interesting.

Does anyone know the story of women's professional tennis before the WTA?
Was there a women's professional tour before 1968?

 

[BTURNER]

Very interesting.

Does anyone know the story of women's professional tennis before the WTA?
Was there a women's professional tour before 1968?

No. There weren't enough women of the fame of a Lenglen or Marble or Connolly to carry a tour. What you had was a few women performing as second bananas to a one of the very few players who developed a 'star' persona outside the sport. They were more like exhibition matches hoping to cash in on a tennis diva after she was done with the amateur tour. Trying to make a buck while they could . That was very rare in tennis history. Jnlike the men, the amateur women simply weren't getting enough media coverage before the finals so that top ten or fifteen players would get any name familiarity to create any buzz or fan base for rivalries. There was only one tour. The best and brightest stayed amateur.

 

[hoodjem]

No. There weren't enough women of the fame of a Lenglen or Marble or Connolly to carry a tour. What you had was a few women performing as second bananas to a one of the very few players who developed a 'star' persona outside the sport. They were more like exhibition matches hoping to cash in on a tennis diva after she was done with the amateur tour. Trying to make a buck while they could . That was very rare in tennis history. Jnlike the men, the amateur women simply weren't getting enough media coverage before the finals so that top ten or fifteen players would get any name familiarity to create any buzz or fan base for rivalries. There was only one tour. The best and brightest stayed amateur.

OK. Thanks.

I was always puzzled by the following statement about Mo Connolly: "She had intended to turn professional after the 1954 U.S. National Championships."

 

[frodobaggins]

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.

Nobody would ever lie about being gay. That is like lying about being a drug addict or something.

 

[BTURNER]

OK. Thanks.

I was always puzzled by the following statement about Mo Connolly: "She had intended to turn professional after the 1954 U.S. National Championships."

I always assumed that normally these 'matches' were anticipated as part of the mens pro tour much like an opening stand-up comic, would precede the headliner act.

Here is an interesting paragraph from Wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanne_Lenglen#Professional_career
"
As the first major female tennis star to turn professional, Lenglen was paid US$50,000 by American entrepreneur Charles C. Pyle to tour the United States in a series of matches against Mary K. Browne. Browne, winner of the US Championships from 1912 to 1914, was 35 and considered to be past her prime, although she had reached the French final earlier that year (losing to Lenglen 6–1, 6–0).
For the first time in tennis history, the women's match was the headline event of a tour which also featured male players. In their first match in New York City, Lenglen put on a performance that New York Times writer Allison Danzig lauded as "one of the most masterly exhibitions of court generalship that has been seen in this country." When the tour ended in February 1927, Lenglen had defeated Browne, 38 matches to 0. She was exhausted from the lengthy tour, and a physician advised Lenglen that she needed a lengthy period away from the game to recover.
Instead, Lenglen chose to retire from competitive tennis to run a Paris tennis school, which she set up with the help and money of her lover Jean Tillier. The school, located next to the courts of Roland Garros, slowly expanded and was recognised as a federal training centre by the French tennis federation in 1936. During this period, Lenglen also wrote several books on tennis.
Lenglen was criticised widely for her decision to turn professional, and the All England Club at Wimbledon even revoked her honorary membership. Lenglen, however, described her decision as "an escape from bondage and slavery" and said in the tour programme, "In the twelve years I have been champion I have earned literally millions of francs for tennis and have paid thousands of francs in entrance fees to be allowed to do so.... I have worked as hard at my career as any man or woman has worked at any career. And in my whole lifetime I have not earned $5,000 – not one cent of that by my specialty, my life study – tennis.... I am twenty-seven and not wealthy – should I embark on any other career and leave the one for which I have what people call genius? Or should I smile at the prospect of actual poverty and continue to earn a fortune – for whom?" As for the amateur tennis system, Lenglen said, "Under these absurd and antiquated amateur rulings, only a wealthy person can compete, and the fact of the matter is that only wealthy people do compete. Is that fair? Does it advance the sport? Does it make tennis more popular – or does it tend to suppress and hinder an enormous amount of tennis talent lying dormant in the bodies of young men and women whose names are not in the social register?"[14]

Here's a one liner from Marble's wikis bio "After capping a stellar amateur career in 1940, Marble turned professional and earned more than $100,000, travelling around playing exhibition tournaments.[1] " I have come across virtually nothing about these kinds of events but what I find probably deserves its own thread. I will start one.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

We agree racism should be called out. Here is the difference between you and I. I did the work to find out what James Blake thought. I paid attention to what James Black, who was actually there, was the purported 'target' and spoke directly after the match said. You ignore him, invalidate his own words and marginalize their meaning, for your agenda. I guess you don't think his interpretation of the event, is nearly as important as your reinterpretation. We can wonder why you would do that to this man but only you can know for sure. Food for thought for you.

Nice try, but you are shifting the essential point in a most dishonest, trolling manner: for all of the screaming desire for Court's name--her professional identity--to be ripped from history (yes that what removing her name and other radical calls mean), this group seems to have no trouble wanting tennis officials to act on behalf of their agenda. Yet the hypocrisy is that this same, anti-Court group never demanded officials to ban Hewitt from the USO (or the sport in general). They make excuses, and remove all responsibility from tennis officials (where the argument centered all along), who had--like those who kicked Daniil Medvedev out of the Savannah Challenger--a job to act on the abominable belief / use of racism in the sport, but USO/ATP, etc., did not. That's the point--one you are not going to turn into some half-assed flame / deflection session. If Daniil Medvedev was kicked out for the same act, Hewitt--at the very least--should have been, too, and the officials did not need Young's approval. Racism is recognizable even if someone chooses to pretend it does not exist.

Again, that's all fine--Hewitt is still protected, but Court is treated like the worst thing ever to walk the earth. Utter nonsense couched in the selective outrage.

 

[BTURNER]

Nice try, but you are shifting the essential point in a most dishonest, trolling manner: for all of the screaming desire for Court's name--her professional identity--to be ripped from history (yes that what removing her name and other radical calls mean), this group seems to have no trouble wanting tennis officials to act on behalf of their agenda. Yet the hypocrisy is that this same, anti-Court group never demanded officials to ban Hewitt from the USO (or the sport in general). They make excuses, and remove all responsibility from tennis officials (where the argument centered all along), who had--like those who kicked Daniil Medvedev out of the Savannah Challenger--a job to act on the abominable belief / use of racism in the sport, but USO/ATP, etc., did not. That's the point--one you are not going to turn into some half-assed flame / deflection session. If Daniil Medvedev was kicked out for the same act, Hewitt--at the very least--should have been, too, and the officials did not need Young's approval. Racism is recognizable even if someone chooses to pretend it does not exist.

Again, that's all fine--Hewitt is still protected, but Court is treated like the worst thing ever to walk the earth. Utter nonsense couched in the selective outrage.

You may not have read the post you quoted. Here it is again. "We agree racism should be called out. Here is the difference between you and I. I did the work to find out what James Blake thought. I paid attention to what James Black, who was actually there, was the purported 'target' and spoke directly after the match said. You ignore him, invalidate his own words and marginalize their meaning, for your agenda. I guess you don't think his interpretation of the event, is nearly as important as your reinterpretation. We can wonder why you would do that to this man but only you can know for sure. Food for thought for you."

Notice that neither Medvedev not Court is named in the post. That is because I was wondering why you literally dismissed James Blake's opinion when you brought this subject up in this thread as evidence of racism. Again, Blake was the target of what you claim is 'racism and yet you appear to believe you know better what Hewitt was thinking, than the black man who was standing right there, who undoubtedly knows Hewitt and his reputation better than you do. He's on the tour, sharing the locker room and hearing the gossip. Yest he does not call for the man to be banned from tennis or for him to be suspended. Now someone as sensitive about the subject of racism as you evidently are, ought to be willing to ask yourself the tough questions here.

Here is what you said when faced with Blakes quotes "The expression on Blake's face as it was happening, and part of his careful presser afterward said it all..." Do you make it a habit of marginalizing the opinion of black men for your own agenda? Do their words mean less to you than your interpretation of their facial expressions? Can you get more patronizing than that? Its just something for you to think about.

 

[timnz]

It was because she got all her titles in a professional competition, while the Court played among amateurs (and at the beginning of the open era).
And the Court got the Grand Slam calendar? Is Don Budge considered to be a better player than Pete Sampras or Bjorn Borg?
Court numbers are inflated due to the amateur era and do not deserve to be ranked higher than Navratilova in the ATG ranking.

Back in the 1960s who were the professional women who were better than the amateurs? Answer: no one. The amateur / open era distinction is irrelevant because all of the best women were amateurs. Note that Court won her calendar grand slam in the open era anyway (1970).

 

[thrust]

Back in the 1960s who were the professional women who were better than the amateurs? Answer: no one. The amateur / open era distinction is irrelevant because all of the best women were amateurs. Note that Court won her calendar grand slam in the open era anyway (1970).

Excellent Post, shot and to an accurate point!

 

[mxmx]

The fact that there was no women’s tour before open tennis is indeed very much relevant. If there is no money to be made the most players will not continue to play elite level tennis like Court did. They were expected to have their fun and then get married and have babies. Furthermore only independently wealthy people could maintain amateur status while training and playing at such a high level.

Court stands as an ATG despite this but I will always rank a player who played in the open modern era over one from the 60s when the game was much less global and more elitist.

Furthermore off court activity absolutely comes into play. Perhaps you don’t care about gay rights but imagine if Federer was blatantly racist or if Nadal turned out to be murderer (look up Aaron Hernandez for an example of this) that would definitely change the way we see them

It would not make them less better players.

 

[WestboroChe]

It would not make them less better players.

Sure. Their trophies are still theirs. But when you evaluate their careers and consider their greatness the persons characyer matters at least a little. I’m sorry but racking up Aussie Championships in an era win almost no one outside the continent actually played in the tournament combined with being a blatant bigot means you can’t be the GOAT. Especially when there is someone who played the global professional game and has similar if not better career acheivements. Court may be an ATG in the history of the game. But the game has completely passed her by in more ways than one.

 

[tudwell]

Her position is not unusual, but part of her religious commitment, nothing personal.

I don't care what her personal beliefs are, but devoting significant portions of her time, money, and energy in campaigns to deny certain rights to a minority population that are conferred to the majority... that's pretty personal.

But I do agree that her personal views and non-tennis life don't really affect the objective facts of her achievements, whatever those happen to be. Tilden is still one of the greatest in the men's game, no matter what he did off the court.

 

[Dan Lobb]

I don't care what her personal beliefs are, but devoting significant portions of her time, money, and energy in campaigns to deny certain rights to a minority population that are conferred to the majority... that's pretty personal.

But I do agree that her personal views and non-tennis life don't really affect the objective facts of her achievements, whatever those happen to be. Tilden is still one of the greatest in the men's game, no matter what he did off the court.

How far do you go on that? Margaret Court is unique?

There are not many millions of other Australians, Americans, Canadians, British, French, German, Russians, Koreans, etc. who agree with her?

Do we remove any players from our personal "respect" list because they belong to a certain type of religious group? That is where we would be heading with

such an approach.

That amounts to anger directed against a religious group, which is also against universal norms, so you end up in a stalemate.

 

[trailgraves]

She didnt really have a better career. 24 slams >>>> 18 slams, and Court even has more combind doubles/singles slams than Martina, more tournament titles, more everything. Most rate Martina as the better player it seems, rightly or wrongly, but no way by any objective measure she had the better career. In fact it could be strongly argued that nobody had a better career than Court, although Graf and Serena with almost as many slams and the imbalance of Court's to the less prestigious Australian Open would have a case, but not Martina.

 

[Enceladus]

Spoiler: From another thread

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...cord-of-24-grand-slams-still-inflated.642791/

This comment is consistent with my view of why Court is not considered to be GOAT of female tennis - because big part of her GS titles are not full-fledged. That is why Court is not rated as a greater tennis player than Navratilova in various GOAT rankings:

Dan Wolken is a well-respected, award-winning national sports columnist. Here is what Wolken had to say on the subject:

With all due respect to Court, who was clearly one of the great players of any era, the Grand Slam record she holds is neither relevant nor translatable to the game as we know it. Of her 24 major titles, 13 of them came prior to the so-called “Open Era,” a line of demarcation in tennis history that skews a lot of the records...

Moreover, Court won the Australian Open 11 times in her home country at a time when the field there was mostly made up of Australian players, as very few others made an effort due to the distance and the paltry prize money the tournament used to offer.

Billie Jean King, for example, only played the Australian three times during her prime years, beating Court in the 1968 finals and losing to her the next year. Other top players of that era like Maria Bueno, Ann Jones and Virginia Wade just did not bother going to Australia more than a couple times during their careers...

 

[Dan Lobb]

Spoiler: From another thread

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...cord-of-24-grand-slams-still-inflated.642791/

This comment is consistent with my view of why Court is not considered to be GOAT of female tennis - because big part of her GS titles are not full-fledged. That is why Court is not rated as a greater tennis player than Navratilova in various GOAT rankings:

Every great player has weak field wins on their record, nothing unusual about that.

That is not a disqualification, the greats can only beat the players they meet.

The "open era' Line of Demarcation meant nothing to women's tennis, there was never a split. A non sequitor point.

 

[WestboroChe]

Every great player has weak field wins on their record, nothing unusual about that.

That is not a disqualification, the greats can only beat the players they meet.

The "open era' Line of Demarcation meant nothing to women's tennis, there was never a split. A non sequitor point.

Of course it does. You think the women’s tour just happened to arrive shortly after the advent of open tennis? Or is it just too much to admit that Court benefited from the being the best player among a relatively small pool of talented Australian women who happened to be wealthy enough to train and play elite level tennis for free?

 

[Dan Lobb]

You mean, the only developed women players before 1968 were Australians? That's news to me.

 

[WestboroChe]

You mean, the only developed women players before 1968 were Australians? That's news to me.

Uh no. But it’s already been discussed how many of her Aussie titles were 4 round tournaments composed of very few top international players. excuse my hyperbole

 

[Dan Lobb]

Uh no. But it’s already been discussed how many of her Aussie titles were 4 round tournaments composed of very few top international players. excuse my hyperbole

Sure, there are occasionally weak majors on the resume of every great player, nothing new about that.
Check Court's Australian wins, and see how many of them had zero tough competition.

 

[WestboroChe]

Sure, there are occasionally weak majors on the resume of every great player, nothing new about that.
Check Court's Australian wins, and see how many of them had zero tough competition.

This isn’t just about a “weak era”. This was a fundamentally massive change in the way the game was played. And the fact that she was competitive in the early open era doesn’t really help. It took a few years for the consequences to be felt. But by 1980 tennis had already become completely professionalized and both tours were stocked with eager young players the likes of whom Court would never have had to even think about as she waltzed through her Aussie tournaments.

So Courts record is sort of like Cy Young’s. A record that on its own is impressive until you look a little deeper into the game. Then you realize it doesn’t mean anything in the modern game and doesn’t tell you anything about how good they would really be against modern professional athletes. Her record regardless of whether or not Serena breaks it means nothing to me.

 

[Dan Lobb]

This isn’t just about a “weak era”. This was a fundamentally massive change in the way the game was played. And the fact that she was competitive in the early open era doesn’t really help. It took a few years for the consequences to be felt. But by 1980 tennis had already become completely professionalized and both tours were stocked with eager young players the likes of whom Court would never have had to even think about as she waltzed through her Aussie tournaments.

So Courts record is sort of like Cy Young’s. A record that on its own is impressive until you look a little deeper into the game. Then you realize it doesn’t mean anything in the modern game and doesn’t tell you anything about how good they would really be against modern professional athletes. Her record regardless of whether or not Serena breaks it means nothing to me.

So, who were those hidden talents of the women's game who failed to get their chances in the 1960-1975 era? Some hidden superstar players who just didn't get their chance to develop?

I would be interested in knowing who they were.

 

[jeffmccrae]

Even had everyone played the Australian Open Court would likely have won 20-22 there. Navratilova would probably still have only 18 slams even if she and everyone had played the Australian Open in the 70, maybe 19. Court has more tournament wins, and more time at #1. So on paper Court has the better career.

However Navratilova winning 9 Wimbledons and incredible longevity arguably leaves a bigger legacy so in that sense it could be her.

Better career is a tough call. Better player is easy, Navratilova by a country mile.

 

[mxmx]

And peak Serena vs peak Navratilova?

 

[PDJ]

And peak Serena vs peak Navratilova?

With racquets Navratilova used? Navratilova.

 

[mxmx]

Edit: I do not believe old graphite rackets will be that much worse for Serena than modern ones...

 

[PDJ]

Edit: I do not believe old graphite rackets will be that much worse for Serena than modern ones...

How about with wood?
Also the strings were very different.

And would Serena have been able to play a schedule similar to Navratilova?
And all those doubles tournaments.

Maybe Serena Williams would have done ok but her body would have given out much earlier.

 

[mxmx]

Based on what you're saying is it not only making Court look greater and proves that she was? It shows that she consistently could deal with these situations. Perhaps she would have even been better in modern times?

 

[PDJ]

Based on what you're saying is it not only making Court look greater and proves that she was? It shows that she consistently could deal with these situations. Perhaps she would have even been better in modern times?

Possibly given her superior training. But she did have similar racquets, strings etc to those who challenged her i.e. Evert who would only improve as Court got older.

 

[PDJ]

And thinking about it, I'd say Navratilova (and Evert) are both in better shape currently than Williams. That said, I appreciate Williams has previously been out of shape and winning. But, as it stands, not now.
And I allow for her having a child, but Court, Goolagong-Cawley and Cljsters were in better shape when they returned to the game. And all three still won majors, something, as yet, that has alluded Williams. Heck, she's not even won a single tournament.

 

[mxmx]

And thinking about it, I'd say Navratilova (and Evert) are both in better shape currently than Williams. That said, I appreciate Williams has previously been out of shape and winning. But, as it stands, not now.
And I allow for her having a child, but Court, Goolagong-Cawley and Cljsters were in better shape when they returned to the game. And all three still won majors, something, as yet, that has alluded Williams. Heck, she's not even won a single tournament.

I think Serena is fitter than most would expect. She may not look it...but her body type etc does not make it easy to be lean. Imagine if she had to lose some of that weight. She would move even faster. She'd revive her career and probably extend it. It's as if her weight is buffering her true potential.

 

[PDJ]

I think Serena is fitter than most would expect. She may not look it...but her body type etc does not make it easy to be lean. Imagine if she had to lose some of that weight. She would move even faster. She'd revive her career and probably extend it. It's as if her weight is buffering her true potential.

She didn't look fit chasing down Kenin's dropshots...
And I stand by my comment that Navratilova and Evert look in better shape generally.
And Serena Williams has looked in much better shape in periods of her career. But I agree, her body shape is prown to being on the larger size. Her tennis playing sister favours her father's build.

 

[mxmx]

I haven't seen her play in a while so perhaps she is in worse shape now...

 

[PDJ]

I haven't seen her play in a while so perhaps she is in worse shape now...

Serena?
A couple of days ago.

2004

 

[thrust]

You are wrong and you don't understand me, WTA recognizes for the recorder in number of WTA titles Navratilova, not Court, which is with 92 WTA titles up to 4th in the rankings. The other titles won by Court are not official, according to the WTA, Court has won outside the Virginia Slims circuit / Avon Series / Colgate Series etc., which is the precedors of today's WTA Tour, and titles from this mentioned circuits are recognized as WTA titles.

A similar situation is at ATP, Laver has won 200 titles, but only about a quarter of them recognize ATP as ATP titles. The recorder is Connors with 109 ATP titles, which won another 40, but outside the Grand Prix circuit, WCT circuit or Riodran circuit, titles from these circuits recognized ATP for ATP titles.

Even with today's tennis players, all titles are not counted together. Federer in Dubai won the 100th ATP title, but he gained 10 more outside the ATP Tour - 1 challenger, 5 ITF tournaments and 4 exhibition titles.

Titles that have not been won at the ATP / WTA Tour or their predecessors (Grand Prix, WCT, Riodran / Virginia Slims, Avon, Colgate) are not recognized as ATP / WTA titles! That's why Court has only 92 WTA singles titles!

What is really weird and unfair about the WTA tournament wins count is they count the slams won before the open era, but not the other sanctioned tournaments before the open era. As there was NO women's pro tour ALL sanctioned tournaments should be credited to Court, King and other women who won tournaments before 1968. Fact is Court won over 190 sanctioned tournaments, BJK won over 100.

 

[BTURNER]

What is really weird and unfair about the WTA tournament wins count is they count the slams won before the open era, but not the other sanctioned tournaments before the open era. As there was NO women's pro tour ALL sanctioned tournaments should be credited to Court, King and other women who won tournaments before 1968. Fact is Court won over 190 sanctioned tournaments, BJK won over 100.

Excuse my ignorant question. What constitutes a 'sanctioned' tournament, by whom, and how has the definition changed? I suspect this will answer will end up framing a thread subject I have in mind.

 

[thrust]

Excuse my ignorant question. What constitutes a 'sanctioned' tournament, by whom, and how has the definition changed? I suspect this will answer will end up framing a thread subject I have in mind.

I assume by the WTA or whatever organization was in charge of the women's tour before the open era. According to the Bud Collins book, Court won 194 total tournaments in the combined amateur and open eras.

 

[BTURNER]

I assume by the WTA or whatever organization was in charge of the women's tour before the open era. According to the Bud Collins book, Court won 194 total tournaments in the combined amateur and open eras.

In other words, you and I are in the same boat, we don't have a friggin clue who did the 'sanctioning', that we want to acknowledge, by what criteria were these tournaments sanctioned , and how might the criteria have changed with the eras? Next question. Why use the word at all when we don't know what it actually entails? I have wanted a workable definition of a tournament for years. Thank you! Now its time to start a thread.

 

[thrust]

Very interesting.

Does anyone know the story of women's professional tennis before the WTA?
Was there a women's professional tour before 1968?

NO! ALL top women players competed in the slams and any other tournament they wished to play. Open Era only applies to Men's tennis

 

[hoodjem]

^^^
C'est vrai.

Where is that discussion of the occasional, intermittent pro women's matches?

 

[thrust]

^^^
C'est vrai.

Where is that discussion of the occasional, intermittent pro women's matches?

There were NO serious women's pro matches before 1968. Althea Gibson toured with Karol Fageros, a third rate player, usually as a warm up for basketball games. Lenglen destroyed an American player, Marble did the same with another player. These were one night stand exhibitions. There were no women's pro tournaments, as far as I know of. The top players, in the prime of their careers, played the amateur tour.

 

[Enceladus]

Excuse my ignorant question. What constitutes a 'sanctioned' tournament, by whom, and how has the definition changed? I suspect this will answer will end up framing a thread subject I have in mind.

Sanctioned tournaments are tournaments that are recognized by ATP or WTA, governing bodies of circuits. Tournaments that are not recognized as ATP or WTA tournaments are either lower level (challengers, futures, ITF events) or exhibition events.

What is really weird and unfair about the WTA tournament wins count is they count the slams won before the open era, but not the other sanctioned tournaments before the open era. As there was NO women's pro tour ALL sanctioned tournaments should be credited to Court, King and other women who won tournaments before 1968. Fact is Court won over 190 sanctioned tournaments, BJK won over 100.

As I said, WTA recognizes titles from circuits Virginia Slims, Avon Series or Colgate Series, which were the forerunners of today's WTA Tour. Tournaments that were out of the mentioned circuits are not recognized as WTA tournaments. Therefore, MC has 'only' 92 approved / official titles.

 

[thrust]

Sanctioned tournaments are tournaments that are recognized by ATP or WTA, governing bodies of circuits. Tournaments that are not recognized as ATP or WTA tournaments are either lower level (challengers, futures, ITF events) or exhibition events.


As I said, WTA recognizes titles from circuits Virginia Slims, Avon Series or Colgate Series, which were the forerunners of today's WTA Tour. Tournaments that were out of the mentioned circuits are not recognized as WTA tournaments. Therefore, MC has 'only' 92 approved / official titles.

So then all tournaments played before 68 should not count? Women's tennis existed before 68. Between 68 though 73 Court won 92 tournaments, despite being on pregnant leave from just after Wimbledon 71 till USO 72. She was 31 in 73. She began playing the tour in 60 and won another 90+ tournaments between 60-through 67 against the other top women on the amateur tour despite being absent from the tour in 67. Obviously some governing body must have approved those tournaments pre 68, otherwise, why would most experts credit her with 190 or so tournament wins and BJK about 120 wins?

 

[Enceladus]

So then all tournaments played before 68 should not count? Women's tennis existed before 68. Between 68 though 73 Court won 92 tournaments, despite being on pregnant leave from just after Wimbledon 71 till USO 72. She was 31 in 73. She began playing the tour in 60 and won another 90+ tournaments between 60-through 67 against the other top women on the amateur tour despite being absent from the tour in 67. Obviously some governing body must have approved those tournaments pre 68, otherwise, why would most experts credit her with 190 or so tournament wins and BJK about 120 wins?

WTA recognizes only 92 Court' titles and 67 King' titles, titles before the Open Era are not included into official WTA statistics. Also today's tennis players don't count all their titles, ATP Challengers or WTA 125k tournaments or exhibition events are not included into official statistics.

Spoiler: These B. J. King' titles are recognized as WTA titles

SINGLES
Winner (67): 1968 - Wimbledon; 1969 - Pacific Southwest, South African Open, Natal, Dublin, Stockholm; 1970 - Rome, Sydney, Durban, London Indoors, VS Richmond; 1971 - US Open, San Francisco, Long Beach, Milwaukee, Oklahoma City, Chattanooga, US Indoors-Detroit, Boston, San Diego, Hamburg [German Open], Hoylake, Kitzbuhel, Houston, US Clay Courts, Louisville, Phoenix, London Indoors; 1972 - Roland Garros, US Open, Wimbledon, Phoenix, Richmond, Indianapolis, San Francisco, Tucson, Charlotte, Bristol; 1973 - Wimbledon, Phoenix, Indianapolis, Denver, Nottingham, VS Hawaii, Tokyo [Toray]; 1974 - US Open, San Francisco, Washington DC, Detroit, Akron, US Indoors-New York; 1975 - Wimbledon, Sarasota; 1977 - Lionel San Antonio, Phoenix, San Paulo, San Juan, Japan Invitational, London Indoors; 1979 - Tokyo Sillook, Stockholm; 1980 - Detroit, Houston, Tokyo Sillook; 1982 - Birmingham; 1983 - Birmingham.