If so it is only a big respect to them, never heard that Serena told the same about other players.
Navratilova is way underrated these days, should be atleast #2 all time behind Serena
- Thread starter brystone
- Start date
If so it is only a big respect to them, never heard that Serena told the same about other players.
Boaty McBoatface
Rookie
These remarks are a bit uncalled for.
You know Martina's been married for 4 years, right? To a woman she's been with for 12 years altogether? And it's not like Chris Evert or Serena or Steffi Graf haven't had their share of 'failed relationships' either.
boredone3456
G.O.A.T.
my top 10 is as follow
1. Navratilova
2. Graf
3. Serena
4. Evert
5. Court
6/7 Wills/Lenglen as a virtual tie
8. connolly
9. King
10 Seles
Any of the top 5 can be argued easily as the GOAT...you could even probably make arguments for Wills and Lenglen as well come to think of it. I tend to back Navratilova but any of the top 5 are arguable. They are also all disputable which makes the debate interesting
1. Navratilova
2. Graf
3. Serena
4. Evert
5. Court
6/7 Wills/Lenglen as a virtual tie
8. connolly
9. King
10 Seles
Any of the top 5 can be argued easily as the GOAT...you could even probably make arguments for Wills and Lenglen as well come to think of it. I tend to back Navratilova but any of the top 5 are arguable. They are also all disputable which makes the debate interesting
PDJ
G.O.A.T.
It does make debate interesting, but for me a tad pointless (with all due respect, as I greatly respect your opinion).
There is no level playing field: all majors were not prioritised on a regular basis until at least the late 80s; RG suffered in the mid 70s due to Team Tennis; the last decade of the WTA has been so up and down in terms of consistent players. Probably a reason why womens tennis is far less popular than it used to be. Maybe the rise of Osaka may change that?
It's probably why I tend to argue against any one player being the GOAT.
These remarks are a bit uncalled for.
I predict that will end in another horrible break up. Like her previous ones.
Anyway I should not have gotten into that territory, but my point is Martina seems more tennis obssesed for life than any past greats. Which I think hurts how she is perceived as her pandering to people to still be called GOAT irritates people, and has led to people being biased against her if anything (the opposite of the desired effect).
Those are fair and actually good rankings. I personally find Graf a bit too high, but nothing horrible.
My point is though nearly everyone has Serena and Graf over her, and most seem to have Court and some even have Evert over her which IMO is underrating her. Of those I personally think only Serena should maybe be over her. I already explained why I wouldnt have Graf or especialy Court over her, and as for Evert I will just say 13 match losing streak, despite the good points some others make for Evert regarding her consistency via Martina's.
18/56 0,32% - 22 skipped EVERT
18/67 0,27% -23 skipped NAVRATILOVA
24/47 0,51% - 21 skipped COURT
22/54 0,41% -11 skipped GRAF
23/70 0,33% - 15 skipped WILLIAMS
Court, Evert, Navratilova did not participate at 21, 22, 23 slam tournaments, Williams and Graf at 15 and 11 ... almost half.
The percentage of Graf and Court claims is mind-blowing.
Good Williams and Evert, slightly less Navratilova.
But the main consideration is this: if we want to compare only the slam tournaments (as I think you want to do here) must consider that Court, Navratilova and Evert could win many other slams.
The sensation (feeling) is that Court, Evert and Navratilova could win another 9-10 slam and Graf and Williams maybe 4-5.
24 + 10 = 34 Court
18 + 10 = 28 Evert
18 + 9 = 27 Navratilova
23 + 4 = 27 Williams
22 + 4 = 26 Graf
Ultimately if we proceed (for laziness rather than for convenience) to compare female champions only on the basis of the slam count, we must proceed to a speculation adding additional slam for Court, Evert and Navratilova.
This moves Court to be clearly GOAT, and Evert and Navratilova on the same level as Williams and Graf.
But if, to seriously compare the careers (what it should do a specific thread that deals with tennis, not a simple and commonplace media) we also consider the other big titles.
Williams and Graf have won significantly less than the three ancient champions (23 Prime Mandatory + 5 WTF and 18 Prime Mandatory + 5 WTF), good numbers but insignificant compared to Court (at least double) and Evert and Navratilova (it is necessary to study, but indicatively on the same level as Court).
So for me the ranking is this:
1) Court
2) Evert or Navratilova
4) Williams
5) Graf
18/67 0,27% -23 skipped NAVRATILOVA
24/47 0,51% - 21 skipped COURT
22/54 0,41% -11 skipped GRAF
23/70 0,33% - 15 skipped WILLIAMS
Court, Evert, Navratilova did not participate at 21, 22, 23 slam tournaments, Williams and Graf at 15 and 11 ... almost half.
The percentage of Graf and Court claims is mind-blowing.
Good Williams and Evert, slightly less Navratilova.
But the main consideration is this: if we want to compare only the slam tournaments (as I think you want to do here) must consider that Court, Navratilova and Evert could win many other slams.
The sensation (feeling) is that Court, Evert and Navratilova could win another 9-10 slam and Graf and Williams maybe 4-5.
24 + 10 = 34 Court
18 + 10 = 28 Evert
18 + 9 = 27 Navratilova
23 + 4 = 27 Williams
22 + 4 = 26 Graf
Ultimately if we proceed (for laziness rather than for convenience) to compare female champions only on the basis of the slam count, we must proceed to a speculation adding additional slam for Court, Evert and Navratilova.
This moves Court to be clearly GOAT, and Evert and Navratilova on the same level as Williams and Graf.
But if, to seriously compare the careers (what it should do a specific thread that deals with tennis, not a simple and commonplace media) we also consider the other big titles.
Williams and Graf have won significantly less than the three ancient champions (23 Prime Mandatory + 5 WTF and 18 Prime Mandatory + 5 WTF), good numbers but insignificant compared to Court (at least double) and Evert and Navratilova (it is necessary to study, but indicatively on the same level as Court).
So for me the ranking is this:
1) Court
2) Evert or Navratilova
4) Williams
5) Graf
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Martina and Evert suffered from that; before Serena reached 18 majors to tie them, they were sitting on their perch, trying to pick apart everything about Serena, then Serena tied them, and they had to acknowledge--in public--that she was their equal, and not long after that, their superior. That kind of hit to inflated egos was never a good look in the sport and forever colors how people judge them--and their inability (for some time) to accept the truth.
Her record compared to Grand Slam winners Court and Graf is what leads to her lower historical ranking; Graf winning that GOAT-defining Grand slam was the reason Navratilova spent years criticizing Graf on-air, in print and anywhere anyone would listen, and observers knew she was boiling over with anger because she had to acknowledge the accepted fact of Graf (and Court) being true GOAT players, while she (Navratilova) likely counted her own numbers over and over again, only concluding with bitter realization that she was not, nor would she ever be the GOAT.
Personally, I see this GOAT thing as far more complex than just looking at majors, and historical context matters a great deal. To treat the rest of the tennis tour as virtually irrelevant is extremely short-sighted and counterproductive. Players in the 60's and 70's would have been astonished to see how RG and the Aussie have turned their reputations around to become MUST events on the tennis calendar while the indoor carpet circuit on which so much of their credibility lay, completely disintegrated. They would never have imagined how far doubles would sink in importance and the virtual death of mixed doubles. As for team play, The fed cup is on oxygen, and both the Bonnie Bell and Wightman Cup have both died, but the Olympics is a medal winning event.
There is a limit to have far we can impose what we value as our measures of greatness, on generations that proceeded.
There is a limit to have far we can impose what we value as our measures of greatness, on generations that proceeded.
This is true. And that is what makes the all time ranking lists so complicated, the things that were important today then arent as important now, and vice versa. However the bias some have to todays players in terms of majors could be turned around. Some act like past players are all better since they won 150-200 tournaments when back then all the greats won that, and nobody even wins more than 100 tournaments today. There is a reason for that.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Its Navaratilova's view, as she was aware that the reason the world considered Graf the GOAT was her winning the Grand Slam and majors icing on the cake afterward, and her (Navratilova's) failure to capture that made her spend years resenting and badmouthing Graf, which would not have happened at all if Navratilova believed than an accumulation of various titles was the standard for being crowned a GOAT player.
Boaty McBoatface
Rookie
Girl please
You are no mind-reader so you don't know what the heck 'Navaratilova' was thinking or feeling.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Girl please
One does not have to be a mind reader where Navratilova is concerned because she spat her Graf jealousy and hatred in public well over a generation. She would not have been so hostile toward Graf if the latter had not reached the zenith with the Grand Slam--something Navratilova (or anyone from her generation) could not achieve on their best day.
I do have to agree with THUNDERVOLLEY here. There must be something about Navratilova's hatred towards Graf. She obviously does feel insecure and believe Graf is above her or atleast commonly viewed as above her. What other motivation would she have for her non subtle hatred and bias against Graf in her commentary for many years. Unless something happened between them in private life none of us know about, but that seems unlikely.
The only other possible explanation I can see is Navratilova has become close friends with Seles and she hates Graf for the whole Seles thing.
The only other possible explanation I can see is Navratilova has become close friends with Seles and she hates Graf for the whole Seles thing.
PDJ
G.O.A.T.
How often did those of Martina's generation play all four majors in one year?
Her biggest rival Evert, only played all 4 majors just 6 times in a calender year.
I'm not sure how often other rivals, until Graf, played the AO regularly.
Evonne Goolagong-Cawley only played all 4 majors in a calendar year TWICE in her entire career.
As you well know, priorities were very different.
You're being disingenuous at best.
Interesting you even mention her since Goolagong in fact benefitted from the Australian Open situation and the whole not everyone playing all 4 majors things. Her 7 slams is only due to an inflated 4 Australian Opens in depleted fields. Had it been like today with everyone playing all 4 majors, she probably has only 4 or 5 total majors which I have pointed out regarding her in numerous other threads. She is far from a victim when it comes to the modern day trend of counting slam count.
Graf did miss 4 Australian Opens in her prime- 87, 92, 95, 96.
PDJ
G.O.A.T.
I never said Goolagong-Cawley was a victim. I'm just pointing out that those of the Navratilova era simply weren't playing all 4 majors regularly. Unless you can show evidence to contrary? To win the Grand Slam you have to play them all.
My point is that it wasn't until the late 80s that ALL the top women showed up on a regular basis.
For example, how often Tracey Austin play the AO, or indeed the French.
Mandlikova possibly played it more often?
King? Bueno?
On no level am l denigrating those that won the AO, but it just didn't have the importance pre Graf really. It certainly wasn't that important to Evert. Therefore, majors count isn't the only reflection on a players record.
I would add that when the AO changed to being the first major of the year helped it's cause.
And why did Graf miss those years? I can't imagine it was simply because she didn't think them important, as was the case for most non Australian players up until the 80s.
I will look it up, but l would have thought it was because of injuries?
EDIT
Graf missed AO:
1987: no reason given.
1992: Rubella
1995: strained calf muscle
1996: recovering from surgery
Last edited:
Goolagong showed up in 14 Aussies, 11 Wimbledons, 6 Us Opens, and 4 RG. We should be taking a closer look at those years she competed at Wimbledon, but failed to compete at RG or the Open because that is where some titles might be found. She was a fine clay courter, no doubt. Not a lot of women have two victories over Evert at whatever age, who weren't! I honestly don't see her grabbing any from a mature Evert though so she probably was shut out from the French championships that Evert attended or the 1977 Open on Har tru . She certainly could have beaten the likes of Barker or Jausovic or Ruzici, maybe even Navratilova Mandlikova or Jaeger on clay if her stars were aligned, and grabbed a couple there with consistent attendance. There may have been a couple real missed opportunities at the Open in 1971, or 1978, possibly 1980. One could never know with Evonne.
True, but in this presumed hypothetical shouldnt we be imagining EVERYONE playing the French. In which case it would be hard/impossible for Evonne to win another French simply since as good as she was on clay she posted an exact 0 wins over Evert on clay after 1973. And the first year someone else took out/probably ever would have taken out Evert at the French for her was Hana in 81, with 1980 being the last of her semi prime and contending years, so even that seems moot. She did play the French in each of 71, 72, 73, only winning in 71, and was an unknown before 1971, so that pretty much covers it. Only those who actually play the depleted slams won by likes of Ruzici, Jausovec, or O Neill get to reap the benefits, or without needing to go through the complete picture of any imagined hypothetical before getting any benefit of doubt.
Now the U.S Open yes I could see, and more likely than the French. Although she wouldnt neccessarily be favored any of the years mentioned except for maybe 1971.
While you make some good points here bottom line is I still see an imagined hypothetical of all women playing all 4 slams, Evonne winding up with fewer than 7 slams now, certainly not more. Losing 2 or 3 Australians, maybe gaining a U.S Open somewhere, and if lucky maybe a French at some point, so in a generous guesstimation maybe she comes in at 6 instead of 7. Quite possibly she isnt even this fortunate.
Last edited:
So you think missing Australians in 4 of your peak years for bad luck with injuries should get less consideration than missing about 4 Australian Opens (Navratilova) in your non peak years (76-79) since you just didnt give a sh1t. Hilarious. And I am overall arguing for Navratilova over Graf in this thread, as my OP made clear, just this particular spin on things is flat out bizarre.
Which Aussies do you think she would lose and to whom? She won those at the height of her game and I suspect that she would have a distinct advantage n Australian grass against almost anyone except King once Court declines. I don't think Wade beats her Down under, or Evert or Navratilova. King has a great h to h over Evonne, but she has a very up/down record under the subcontinents conditions. She first goes down in 1964 and loses early in two of the three small tournaments she played, getting to the final of the New South Wales. The next year she loses in the first rd of the Southern then reaches the final of the Western. It was constantly like that whenever she went there.
PDJ
G.O.A.T.
I'm quite simply saying that if the onus on playing ALL the majors was the same for Navratilova (and her generation, and all those that went before) as it was for Graf and subsequent generations, then there is more chance of a Grand Slam.
I'm sorry you find that "hilarious".
You, are easily amused. No bad thing.
Boaty McBoatface
Rookie
Girl, you really should examine your own hatred and jealousy for Navratilova first.
You can't even post in a thread like this without spitting your Navratilova hatred.I would honestly favor Evert over her everywhere and on any surface from 75 to 77. Of course on grass (and in Australia) she would atleast have a decent shot vs Evert, but that doesnt mean it would ever be easy.
King owns her, her being favored over Evonne everywhere and on any surface is much stronger than even Evert. You might be right on your subcontinents comments, but she really hasnt played enough on it for me to judge. 2 years she went to Australia in 67 and 68 (2 of the only ones) she won the title beating Court, and lost the final to Court th e other time.
Wade already beat her down under in 72 in straight sets when Evonne was the reigning Wimbledon and French Champion, so it obviously wouldnt be impossible for her to do it again. Even if in contrast to Evert and King she isnt favored over Evonne.
And as Evonne's slam history shows she is vurnerable to a loss to any decent top 20/top 30 player when she is having a bad or disinterested day. Which she might have had in the Australian some of those years for all we know, just the draws are so weak you dont even play a top 20 player until the semis atleast.
In 74 there is a good shot she loses to King had she played, even if her win over Evert was great. She couldnt even beat King at the U.S Open that year when she was on fire. In 75 she would have a hard time beating King and Evert back to back (as she would likely now have to) if both had played. In 77, well this was the end of 77 when she was badly under par, as she was just returning from a leave. She had lost to Wade on CLAY (LOL) soon before the Australian. I think her chances of winning over any of Evert, Navratilova, old King, or even Wade at this point would probably be slim. 76 she would have a good shot, but she lost to Evert at Wimbledon even in the midst of some of her best ever form in mid 76. Lets be generous though and say she likely wins 76, that still leaves me at my 1 or 2 guesstimate, as I dont have her as the likely winner in either 74 or 75, although she would be a contender in both, so lets say she wins in 76, and "maybe" wins 1 of 74 or 75. No way in hell she wins 77 if it were a normal slam, I think she does well to win 1 or 2 out of the 3 of 74, 75, 76, none which would be easy for her even if she would be a good contender for each, as I originally guesstimated.
Last edited:
silentkman
Hall of Fame
These remarks are a bit uncalled for.
Especially Evert. everyone knows the Evert joke correct?
Yes to a degree on Evert, but Graf is the last one who can be said to have had her share of failed relationships, and anyone who even includes her name in that is obviously LOL levels of ill informed. This is the women who had a serious steady boyfriend for 9 years before Agassi (some Bartels guy, a race car driver), and then soon after married Agassi, and now having been married close to 20 years. If anything her lack of failed relationships makes her close to the most boring champion (on a personal level) either, along with her already rather boring game and personality.
We may disagreeing about Goolagong at the Aussie, so I will put that aside. But what I was checking was King's record to see how well she performed on Australian grass and in that oppressive heat and the wind and the helicopter size mosquitos etc. Guess what. She played a lot more in Australia, New Zealand and Tazmania that either of us may have guessed. You are not stuck with just two brief seasons which climaxed at the Australian championships she entered. She first went down there to be coached by one of the Aussie men in the early sixties. There are a lot of small tournaments and Billie Jean sampled a lot of them in at least two other seasons One year she played the season, and chose not to play the major because she just wasn't interested. She had a lot of lackluster or poor results in rounds that do not serve to impress as well as some real dominating ones. The problem is diagnosing a why and with King is really hard to know. I definitely think that she lost a bit of her incentive to give 100% once she had her requisite Aussie, , and some of her innate advantage on the soggy English and American turf, because her center of gravity was lower than taller women, and nobody was better at staying low with the flight of the ball on a low Slice bounce than King was! She was scaping her knees on the blades in photo after photos, textbook volleying form before the textbooks had even been written. Some of that advantage will disappear of the ball bounces to a more comfortable height for the competition. Off on a tangent I guess.
Last edited:
BGod
G.O.A.T.
The American media has been pumpimg Serena up more than anything. On an English forum that's going to stick out.
I don't even have Serena Top 3 with that joke of competition. It is all-time laughable.
By that same metric Court is nowhere near my top list either. For just singles I have:
1. Graf
2. Evert
3. Navratilova
4. Serena
5. Seles
6. Venus
7. Henin
8. Court
9. King
Overall though it's gotta be Navratilova. Her Doubles record is insane.
I don't even have Serena Top 3 with that joke of competition. It is all-time laughable.
By that same metric Court is nowhere near my top list either. For just singles I have:
1. Graf
2. Evert
3. Navratilova
4. Serena
5. Seles
6. Venus
7. Henin
8. Court
9. King
Overall though it's gotta be Navratilova. Her Doubles record is insane.
Last edited:
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Court behind King alone is a good joke. Behind Venus and Henin even more ridiculous.
I agree that Court cant be behind King, Venus, and Henin. Although as I said I think Court and King are a lot closer than some think, but I dont think King can actually be outright ahead. She actually has a 22-10 head to head in singles vs King btw. Atleast Venus and Henin are subjective as they were from a completely different era so someone who likes to evaluate just by level of play or peak play, might come to that conclusion somehow. Court and King though are from the exact same era and Court was better and regularly beat King.
Last edited:
Tennis_Hands
Banned
How can the female GOAT be "underrated"?
How can the female GOAT be "underrated"?
Well if you see her as the GOAT that would make her even more underrated since very few mention her as the GOAT these days. That would just reinforce the title even more.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Martina won her last mixed doubles slam title in 2006 at the USO with Bob Bryan. She was born in October 1956.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
So, this thread is for those that are not convinced that she is?
Haha maybe, or atleast those who have her behind Court and Graf which I dont get at all. Prime Court was struggling with baby Evert, I respect her record but nobody can really believe she was a better player than Navratilova, or that Martina wouldnt crush her in their primes most likely.
Sport
G.O.A.T.
1. Margaret Court 24 Grand Slams in singles
2. Serena Williams 23 Grand Slams in singles
3. Steffi Graff 22 Grand Slams in singles
4. Navratilova 18 Grand Slams in singles.
Only Americans cite Navratilova in the GOAT conversation. She is top 4 at most. Grand Slams in doubles are irrelevant for the GOAT conversation, otherwise the Bryan brothers would be in the GOAT conversation, since they have won 16 Grand Slams in doubles. However, we get to see how the Bryan brothers are never mentioned in the GOAT conversation. Don't know why should we judge the value of GS in doubles differently for women than men.
2. Serena Williams 23 Grand Slams in singles
3. Steffi Graff 22 Grand Slams in singles
4. Navratilova 18 Grand Slams in singles.
Only Americans cite Navratilova in the GOAT conversation. She is top 4 at most. Grand Slams in doubles are irrelevant for the GOAT conversation, otherwise the Bryan brothers would be in the GOAT conversation, since they have won 16 Grand Slams in doubles. However, we get to see how the Bryan brothers are never mentioned in the GOAT conversation. Don't know why should we judge the value of GS in doubles differently for women than men.
Last edited:
Navratilova has more non Australian Open titles than Court, as does Graf, Serena, Wills Moody, and Evert.
Sport
G.O.A.T.
Irrelevant. The Australian Open is a Grand Slam.
In the 50s, 60s, and 70s it was simply a tier 3 event that was allowed to masquerade as a slam.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
This.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Different eras might be subjective but there is a limit to this. Venus > Court is completely ridiculous, we might as well say that Wawrinka > Borg or Murray > Laver is subjective as they are from different eras. Venus never comes close to Court in any relevant metric. Same for Henin. You can compare Court to Graf or Serena or if you like to Navratilova or Evert but to Venus????
I agree but I know BGod likes to rank by personal views on peak play and level of play, so I am not going to get into it so much in his/her case.
I do think Venus at her best can beat almost every women in history on medium to fast hard courts, grass, or indoors, and if it werent for Serena at her height of powers/play in 2002-2003 she probably adds another 4-5 slams there alone, but it isnt ultimately enough to overcome her lack of achievements. I also think the same of Henin of 2007 able to beat almost all women in history, including the GOATs, but not enough to overcome her lack of achievements.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Prime or close to prime Sampras struggled with Baby Hewitt, Prime Federer struggled with Baby Nadal etc. Evert and Navratilova are 12 and 14 years younger than Court how they fared against each other is not very relevant. Most modern players would crush former players in their respective primes, being the better player prime for prime does not always mean being greater, even less when we are talking different eras.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
True that. But peak level comparisons are too difficult in my opinion. First we must define what we consider as peak? Peak level over a certain period, one match, one tournament etc. Guys like Nalbandian, Soderling, Safin etc. can also beat almost everybody in history on their best days and favourite surfaces. We can't however rank them ahead of double digit slam winners from the past.
Well I think Venus of the whole 2000-2003 period would beat almost every women in history apart from clay and maybe very slow/high bouncing hard courts. Just unlucky for her she ran into peak Serena who IMO probably doesnt lose to anyone, in 2002 and 2003, and the whole sister factor is against her in the match up it seems. Even with all equal in equipment and other factors. That is a period of several years, so is a far cry from people like Soderling or Safin or Nalbandian who produce it the other match or tournament here or there. Of course that is subjective and unproveable, not everyone will agree with me on that which is understandable; and still doesnt even come close to overcoming her lack of more achievements on a historical level. I couldnt rank either her or Henin in the top 10 probably, maybe just outside it in 11th and 12th. For those who disregard players of 1940 or earlier, maybe just inside the top 10, but that is it.
Last edited:
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Back to the topic and discussions about Court aside, I cannot see how we can seriously rank Navratilova ahead of Graf. Steffi has 4 more slams more weeks at No 1 has the Golden Slam etc. Ok Martina has 6 slams in a row which cancels out CYGS or is arguably even better. But is this enough to overcome a 4 slam deficit? The only possible reasons I can think about why anyone ranks Martina ahead of Steffi is if he either value doubles very high (which we should not) or holds the Seles stabbing against Graf.
Well your final point is a big one IMO. I DO hold the Seles stabbing against Graf and I have no problems admitting that, and I feel it should be when comparing her to Navratilova, Serena, or anyone else. I just dont feel that is something you can throw away and dismiss given its nature and I am not usually a big fan of these what if arguments, but this is an extreme and unique case I feel. In Court's case the Australian Open factor more than negates it pretty much, so still makes it a close debate IMO. I agree if Graf had 22 slams under normal circumstances, even with weak competition, it would be hard to not put her over Navratilova. That is not the case though, it was a criminal act that essentialy lifted her numbers in a few things above Martina's.
The other factor for me though is who I think wins prime to prime or is just flat out better. Achievements have to atleast be relatively close for that to matter, but I think this qualifies as that, even with a 4 slam difference. Martina is 4-1 vs Graf at the U.S Open, despite being 30 or older 4 of the 5 matches (86, 87, 89, 91), and Graf being in her prime for 3 of the 5 (87, 89, 91). Even in the 1 loss in 89 Martina led 6-3, 4-2 and had to have a bad choke, although Steffi did also raise her game and fight hard, to lose. I think this is closest to their most neutral meeting point, as grass and carpet would favor Martina in the sense those are her favorite surfaces by an even bigger margin than more balanced all surface player Graf; and clay and slower hard courts favoring Graf in the opposite sense. Martina was still scoring wins over Graf in her mid 30s. Based on all this it is hard to believe she wouldnt have the edge on Graf prime to prime.
The other factor was she had another all time great like Evert her whole career. Some lowball Serena for this, which is fair, but the same would then have to apply to Graf. Seles was stabbed, Navratilova was 13 years older, neither of these can count as her consistent career rival. That would have to be Sanchez, a player of nowhere near her stature. Court atleast had King, not the same as Evert-Navratilova, especialy by your vantage point which we discussed on the other thread where you have King even lower and further away from Court; but certainly far beyond what Graf had. Even Serena has Venus and Henin (to a degree, early retirement, but still a lot closer than Seles) as her top career rivals who are far superior players to Sanchez Vicario, or for a real laugh Sabatini.
And I do believe doubles counts to a degree. If you give each doubles slam say 20% of the value of a singles Martina would be tied with Serena in slams (she is 5 behind in singles, 25 ahead in doubles), and far ahead of Graf. Now if you drop that to say 10% which might be more reasonable, she is 2.5 slams behind Serena still, but dead tied with Graf. So factoring in doubles she is atleast very competitive with Graf already unless you are one of those who thinks doubles merits no value.
for me, its which slams. I am big on establishing some dominance on all available surfaces, peak performance and consistency for my singles top spot. GRAF does all three to my satisfaction better than anyone. Decisions on doubles and mixed pending examination. I discard the Seles issue outright as I do almost all 'weak or weakened era' arguments.
Gunther Parche would be proud.
It Is true that Evert had the overall better H-H vs Court, but in 73 when Court was 31 she did beat Chris in the FO final and at USO. Evert was a very mature 17 year old, and IMO, Court was the only player who could beat Evert in that FO final.
Similar threads
- NadalAgassi
- Former Pro Player Talk
