Navratilova is way underrated these days, should be atleast #2 all time behind Serena

[brystone]

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.

Valid point, but the thing that throws me is Court is only 4-4 vs Evert for 70-73. IMO Court was definitely more prime overall that period than Evert, and should have been doing better than this, if she were really the GOAT or even better than Evert/Navratilova. JMO Then when the roles were reversed and fully prime Evert met post prime Court in 75-77, she didnt lose a single match.

Yes the 73 French Open was a big win. Chris is so bitter about it, she commentates how she choked the match away like 4 times every French Open.

 

[BTURNER]

Gunther Parche would be proud.

Gunther Parche would be proud.

I do not respond to that crap well. I don't give Parche the power to undermine or compromise an entire decade of professional tennis. Its not Graf's legacy you are demoting, its every player who reached a quarterfinal, a semifinal or a final and everyone who beat anyone else who did and gained in ranking or reputation because one player was not on the tour to bulldoze through. We did not cancel the tournaments or the tour because Seles was not there. With your thinking, I would prefer we had.

 

[brystone]

I do not respond to that crap well. I don't give Parche the power to undermine or compromise an entire decade of professional tennis. Its not Graf's legacy you are demoting, its every player who reached a quarterfinal, a semifinal or a final and everyone who beat anyone else who did because one player was not on the tour to bulldoze through. We did not cancel the tournaments or the tour because Seles was not there.

Well I believe all players in the 93-97 period atleast do have their achievements minimized by the Seles stabbing. Indeed not only Graf but Sanchez, Hingis, Martinez, and others who shone brighter. I dont blame these players, it isnt their fault, but it is the uncomfortable stain Parche unfortunately put over that period of the womens game.

And just of note I am far from a Seles fan, I am not one of those who believes Seles was destined to be GOAT (or even close to it) without the stabbing; and I in fact have ridiculed and mocked some of the other the top Seles fans. That does not mean certain people, Graf more than anyone, have an uncomfortable asterisk next to their achievements this period though.

 

[BTURNER]

Well I believe all players in the 93-97 period atleast do have their achievements minimized by the Seles stabbing. Indeed not only Graf but Sanchez, Hingis, Martinez, and others who shone brighter. I dont blame these players, it isnt their fault, but it is the uncomfortable stain Parche unfortunately put over that period of the womens game.

And just of note I am far from a Seles fan, I am not one of those who believes Seles was destined to be GOAT (or even close to it) without the stabbing; and I in fact have ridiculed and mocked some of the other the top Seles fans. That does not mean certain people, Graf more than anyone, have an uncomfortable asterisk next to their achievements this period though.

Did the horse, a couple of pregnancies a case of hepatitis, some bad knees, a sciatic nerve? You have to go through the history books, figure which championships lacked the presence of the number one player and do the same thing - but you don't. The stabbing did nothing to any tournament that a case of hepatitis or an injury or a spooked horse did not do. Either we decide that the tour and its competitive depth is bigger than any one player, or we decide it is not. I submit no one player or two players absence undermines the product provided throughout the tour sufficiently to weaken any era.

 

[brystone]

You have to go through the history books, figure which championships lacked the presence of the number one player and do the same thing - but you don't. The stabbing did nothing to any tournament that a case of hepatitis or an injury or a spooked horse did not do. Either we decide that the tour and its competitive depth is bigger than any one player, or we decide it is not. I submit no one player or two players absence undermines the product provided throughout the tour sufficiently to weaken any era.

First of all we use subjective arguments for the acheivements of players even in other cases. Just look at our and others discussing how many of Goolagong's Australian Opens should be questioned due to the Aussie Open status a the time; how many of Court's; how much extra credit Martina, Chris, Evonne, should get for slams they missed. I know you do this as well, as you were involved in all these discussions. Certainly the same can be done for a criminal activity which impacted things, which none of these even were. If you are saying we should go through all of tennis history and do that if we are going to talk about the Seles stabbing, I would be fine with that, I have no problems with trying to look at anyones achievements in context beyond the numbers.

And the Seles stabbing is unique to anything else that happened in the sport. As I just said it was a criminal activity designed to alter the course of tennis history.

 

[BTURNER]

First of all we use subjective arguments for the acheivements of players even in other cases. Just look at our and others discussing how many of Goolagong's Australian Opens should be questioned due to the Aussie Open status a the time; how many of Court's; how much extra credit Martina, Chris, Evonne, should get for slams they missed. Certainly the same can be done for a criminal activity which impacted things, which none of these even were.

And the Seles stabbing is unique to anything else that happened in the sport. As I just said it was a criminal activity designed to alter the course of tennis history.

The 'design' of a delusional man does not remotely interest me. If you want to allow it to control your rational thought process, as much as it did his, go for it.
a skittish horse, the testostone level of a man named Barry, a virus, and the impatience of a youthful champion in the face of injury all compromised the results of tennis eras in exactly the same practical way. History is full of 'unique' instances that recreate patterns. Our past pattern was not to allow the absence of a number one player from the tour, to compromise the legacies and accomplishments of the rest of the top ten, top twenty or top thirty players who played on. As I said above, it is you who magnify this man's power beyond historic proportions, not me. IParsche would be proud. I treat him like Hepatitis C.

Talk to me when 4 or five of the top ten players are lost in a plane crash. Then you will get your asterisk. Not one however highly ranked. .

 

[pat200]

someone sounds like a slightly refined version of a constantly banned user who keeps popping up under a new username everytime. people try hard to undermine graf but no matter what, most people still have her number 1 or 2 in the all time rankings as evidenced by the latest poll tennis.com took where a professional group placed her third, but the general public placed her 1st http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2018...rena-ten-went-one-way-you-went-another/78127/

 

[BTURNER]

someone sounds like a slightly refined version of a constantly banned user who keeps popping up under a new username everytime. people try hard to undermine graf but no matter what, most people still have her number 1 or 2 in the all time rankings as evidenced by the latest poll tennis.com took where a professional group placed her third, but the general public placed her 1st http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2018...rena-ten-went-one-way-you-went-another/78127/

This is all about priorities and criteria. I just think her legacy is the most balanced of all the candidates based on her singles, and that attracts me.

 

[BGod]

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.

Venus is basically halved by Serena and Serena alone. Henin was on fire and had immense competition in many of her runs then left prematurely.

The King vs. Court comparison stems from OE play, AO factor and peak performance.

But yeah my bad I haven't looked at King's record in a while she had a tendancy to underperform constantly losing to lesser players.

 

[brystone]

The biggest reason I would find it impossible to rank King over Court is the 10-22 head to head. I think head to head is overrated at times, but when you are looking to rank a 12 slam winner over a 24 slam winner who has a record 62 total slams regardless the circumstances there would really have to be ome sort of evidence of being the superior player. The head to head all but dismisses any such idea.

I wouldnt rank King far behind Court though. She actually has more titles at what were considered at the time by far the sports two biggest events (Wimbledon and the U.S Open).

 

[BGod]

The biggest reason I would find it impossible to rank King over Court is the 10-22 head to head. I think head to head is overrated at times, but when you are looking to rank a 12 slam winner over a 24 slam winner who has a record 62 total slams regardless the circumstances there would really have to be ome sort of evidence of being the superior player. The head to head all but dismisses any such idea.

I wouldnt rank King far behind Court though. She actually has more titles at what were considered at the time by far the sports two biggest events (Wimbledon and the U.S Open).

Well I conceded and changed my order.

Now with Venus/Henin fair or not I can't take the early WTA too seriously before Chris Evert. Players like Calas, Richey, Goolagong just don't translate well.

 

[brystone]

Well I conceded and changed my order.

Now with Venus/Henin fair or not I can't take the early WTA too seriously before Chris Evert. Players like Calas, Richey, Goolagong just don't translate well.

Another thing is just imagine Venus in an era 3 of the 4 slams were on grass and no Serena. She could be cleaning up slams, obviously players like Court and King would be some competition, especialy with wood racquets which would negate a lot of her power, but still.

 

[BTURNER]

The biggest reason I would find it impossible to rank King over Court is the 10-22 head to head. I think head to head is overrated at times, but when you are looking to rank a 12 slam winner over a 24 slam winner who has a record 62 total slams regardless the circumstances there would really have to be ome sort of evidence of being the superior player. The head to head all but dismisses any such idea.

I wouldnt rank King far behind Court though. She actually has more titles at what were considered at the time by far the sports two biggest events (Wimbledon and the U.S Open).

Say what you will about Billie Jean, she focused on what she really wanted in a way very few could. She saw it clearly, stared at it nonstop and achieved it. Her problem was her vision was a tad too narrow and without that vision to inspire her... the results were compromised.

 

[KG1965]

Say what you will about Billie Jean, she focused on what she really wanted in a way very few could. She saw it clearly, stared at it nonstop and achieved it. Her problem was her vision was a tad too narrow and without that vision to inspire her... the results were compromised.

What did Billie Jean really want ?

What do you mean when you write "a little too tight and without that vision"?

 

[BTURNER]

The biggest reason I would find it impossible to rank King over Court is the 10-22 head to head. I think head to head is overrated at times, but when you are looking to rank a 12 slam winner over a 24 slam winner who has a record 62 total slams regardless the circumstances there would really have to be ome sort of evidence of being the superior player. The head to head all but dismisses any such idea.

I wouldnt rank King far behind Court though. She actually has more titles at what were considered at the time by far the sports two biggest events (Wimbledon and the U.S Open).

I think there is a bigger difference. Its on slow surfaces. Court dominated the tour for years on clay with winning head to heads until Evert finally took hers over on clay.. King has her token RG win and some decent respectable wins on green clay. By the way they never played a single match on clay, and I think King can be very happy about that.

 

[brystone]

Yeah Court is definitely better on the slower surfaces, and a better all around player. King really specialized on the fast grass. King did win a French, beating Evonne in straight sets in the final, which is a great effort. I wonder if that was a case of King mastering clay, or just one of those days for Evonne.

 

[BTURNER]

What did Billie Jean really want ?

What do you mean when you write "a little too tight and without that vision"?

I wrote "Her problem was her vision was a tad too narrow and without that vision to inspire her... the results were compromised" She wanted Wimbledon and US Opens and to be ranked #1, and great fed cup results and those made her bring out her 'A' game and then that token Aussie and RG Title to fulfill the career slam and prove she could do it. She achieved those goals. Her vision was too narrow or she would have seen those token titles as fooling nobody. One RG title is simply not sufficient. One Aussie is not sufficient, and inconsistency in results everywhere else leads everyone on the tour to see her as a realistic target. Women could go out on the court hoping that King was not motivated enough to give 100% to stop them. That was not a hope in the locker room when Court, Graf or Evert was dominant.

 

[BTURNER]

Yeah Court is definitely better on the slower surfaces, and a better all around player. King really specialized on the fast grass. King did win a French, beating Evonne in straight sets in the final, which is a great effort. I wonder if that was a case of King mastering clay, or just one of those days for Evonne.

Maybe a bit of both? Evonne let King intimidate her and King was a master at gamesmanship. Evonne was oblivious to the concept. Its also true that with King's superior court sense, and her capacity to find kinks in amour, she should have plenty of game and variety on a slow courts if she could contain errors off her forehand and stay patient enough. I think she would have been one of those like Sampras who could come up with great wins and string enough together to win one week events on clay, but match after match there was too much depth, too many obstacles, the primary one being temperament, for great success.

 

[brystone]

It was pretty amazing King was so great at RG 72, also destroying Wade, after losing to Evert 6-1, 6-0 on clay not long before that. I imagine clay for her was touch and go, she didnt really have the game for it, so everything had to be working perfectly. I agree she was probably like Sampras in that she could post some big wins on the right day, but surviving a draw of having to beat 3 consecutive top clay courters would be very unlikely for her.

 

[The Safinator]

She has 18 GS titles, that's T-5th, not 2nd.

 

[The Safinator]

Martina won her last mixed doubles slam title in 2006 at the USO with Bob Bryan. She was born in October 1956.

Mixed doubles? That counts against her. Please.

 

[brystone]

She has 18 GS titles, that's T-5th, not 2nd.

So do you consider Court the GOAT then? She has the most slams. I know she is T-5 in slam titles, but I dont think that means she is only 5th best all time.

 

[BTURNER]

It was pretty amazing King was so great at RG 72, also destroying Wade, after losing to Evert 6-1, 6-0 on clay not long before that. I imagine clay for her was touch and go, she didnt really have the game for it, so everything had to be working perfectly. I agree she was probably like Sampras in that she could post some big wins on the right day, but surviving a draw of having to beat 3 consecutive top clay courters would be very unlikely for her.

Not sure beating Wade on red clay was much evidence.

 

[KG1965]

Evert and Navratilova were > Serena and Graf, but Court is even higher.

For slams? No, of course.

But because the woman dominated the circuit for a decade
- winning at Beckenham, Queen's, Sydney Mainly Seaside, Rome, French Ch., Australian Ch., Bristol, Philadelphia, Orange, Essex Ch. (Manchester), US National, Brisbane, Adelaide, Wimbledon, Edgbaston, Hamburg, Victorian Ch., Boston, Berkeley, London (Bristish Covered Court Ch.), Houston River Oaks, Bournemouth, New York (Vanderbilt MSG), Merion Pennsylvanya, Toronto, Virginia Slims Newport, Virginia Slims Albany, Cincinnati, 13 Virginia Slims in 1973,
- while the other top female dominated thinking of tennis, she dominated the circuit thinking of the family to her children.

What an incredible woman.

My GOAT female / male.

> Pancho Gonzalez, Fedr and Laver.

 

[hoodjem]

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.

Perhaps we should.

If two male players were close in singles slams and one continued to play doubles at the highest level for 15 more years even winning slam titles in doubles, then I would certainly use that as a tie-breaker and rank that player higher as a complete "tennis player" (not just a singles specialist).

(Are we too concerned with slams?
Are we too concerned with singles?)

 

[brystone]

Not sure beating Wade on red clay was much evidence.

Wade won the Italian Open. She wasnt that horrible on clay. King beating her was no surprise, but it was a very easy and destructive win from what I read. Of course beating Goolagong in straights in the final is more impressive. Just overall she seems surprisingly sharp at that event considering it wasnt long after losing to young Evert 6-1, 6-0 on clay (and while King getting crushed by any Evert on clay isnt surprising; from what I have read she was godawful that match; so it is amazing she was in sublime form at the French not long after).

 

[Boaty McBoatface]

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.

My point is that we shouldn't be bringing players private lives into a serious discussion about their tennis. Otherwise it just becomes a popularity contest.

 

[BTURNER]

Wade won the Italian Open. She wasnt that horrible on clay. King beating her was no surprise, but it was a very easy and destructive win from what I read. Of course beating Goolagong in straights in the final is more impressive. Just overall she seems surprisingly sharp at that event considering it wasnt long after losing to young Evert 6-1, 6-0 on clay (and while King getting crushed by any Evert on clay isnt surprising; from what I have read she was godawful that match; so it is amazing she was in sublime form at the French not long after).

Its not surprising to me. Its entirely consistent with what I have been saying. One match and title was a priority for her, the other was just another day at the office. This is a woman who openly confesses to tanking a slam match (although she refused to identify which one so that the victory is undiminished for her opponent)

If as Drysdale would put it diplomatically King was 'losing a little interest' then the last player anyone, wants to play is Evert on a clay court. That woman makes you run more, with less to gain from doing all that running, than anyone in the sport. Evert ran a sweatshop on a clay court and if your concentration was just a little off at the beginning of the first set, you were down and out before you started to do the sweating. Evert from 1971-1986 always got better, smarter, and more accurate throughout match. I can imagine King falling behind early and rushing through the rest of the set approaching on crap, just hoping to break back without putting in the real physical and mental work.

that will ALWAYS lead to the score you see in an Evert match on slow courts. Chris Evert does not hand over luck on a platter because her opponent needs a little to regain some inspiration.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Perhaps we should.

If two male players were close in singles slams and one continued to play doubles at the highest level for 15 more years even winning slam titles in doubles, then I would certainly use that as a tie-breaker and rank that player higher as a complete "tennis player" (not just a singles specialist).

(Are we too concerned with slams?
Are we too concerned with singles?)

Winning double majors on top to single majors has nothing to do with being complete or being a double “specialist”. The only reason there are some so called double “specialist” who enjoy success on the doubles tour even though they can’t do **** in singles is that the best single players do not play doubles. You can see this in olympics and in David cup. If Federer and wawrinka wanted they could team up and win tons of double majors. The only reason they don’t is that it is worthless legacy wise and it would exhaust them in singles.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

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.

Court's generation predates Navratilova's, and she won the Grand Slam, so Navratilova could not use that as an excuse, just as no man post-Laver's generation could if such an excuse was made for not winning the Grand Slam. Moreover, by that selective play schedule criteria, Navratlova was hating Graf for the most petty, wrongheaded reason of all: slaying the field to reach the height of the sport. Doing her job. If anyone has the desire to be the Greatest of All Time, relentless work toward that goal--and master level talent--is required, not projecting hate and jealousy at the player who did what she could not.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Winning double majors on top to single majors has nothing to do with being complete or being a double “specialist”. The only reason there are some so called double “specialist” who enjoy success on the doubles tour even though they can’t do **** in singles is that the best single players do not play doubles. You can see this in olympics and in David cup. If Federer and wawrinka wanted they could team up and win tons of double majors. The only reason they don’t is that it is worthless legacy wise and it would exhaust them in singles.

That's a case-by-case situation; Serena has 23 singles majors 1 Gold medal in singles, but she also has 14 doubles majors, and an additional 3 Gold Medals in that category. I doubt anyone would say doubles hurt her singes career. In fact, Serena's particular course of injuries, illness and other matters probably had more to do with her not passing Court in singles than any other issue, but she still soared past everyone else of her generation and the two which followed hers.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

That's a case-by-case situation; Serena has 23 singles majors 1 Gold medal in singles, but she also has 14 doubles majors, and an additional 3 Gold Medals in that category. I doubt anyone would say doubles hurt her singes career. In fact, Serena's particular course of injuries, illness and other matters probably had more to do with her not passing Court in singles than any other issue, but she still soared past everyone else of her generation and the two which followed hers.

Court has even more double majors than Serena and she also missed a lot of majors due to retiring twice. In WTA due to the best of three in slams it is maybe easier to play both singles and doubles. Anyways even on the women’s tour most top players don’t play doubles that should tell you all you need to know how they consider it legacy wise.

 

[brystone]

Lets be honest though, even transported to the same era with the same equipment I highly doubt Court could do much against Serena. The only women I could see giving Serena a real battle are Graf and Navratilova, Navratilova to a greater extent than Graf IMO, hence why I personally have them higher than Court in the GOAT race despite Court's impressive array of titles.

 

[hoodjem]

If Federer and Wawrinka wanted they could team up and win tons of double majors. The only reason they don’t is that it is worthless legacy-wise and it would exhaust them in singles.

Just like those wimps Mac, Laver, Emmo, Newk, Rosewall, and Hoad.

 

[brystone]

My point is that we shouldn't be bringing players private lives into a serious discussion about their tennis. Otherwise it just becomes a popularity contest.

I agree, but my whole point is I think Navratilova is underrated as a player since people judge her dicey personal life/issues and public arrogance and generally unlikeable personality, and it impacts their opinion of what a great tennis player she was.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I agree, but my whole point is I think Navratilova is underrated as a player since people judge her dicey personal life/issues and public arrogance and generally unlikeable personality, and it impacts their opinion of what a great tennis player she was.

Same with court and it is equally stupid. The problem is that many people are believing that sport heroa are some sort of angels and this stupid PR machinery which presents them as role models does not help either. They even managed to sell a first class jerk like Michael Jordan as a wonderful person. Sport stats have the same fair share of assholes as the average population maybe even more as you need to be a little sociopathic anyways to spend almost all your time in your childhood hitting a ball through a rim or over a net. But that should never influence the view on their sport achievements. If a complete jerk like Rios would have broken the slam record he would be in the GOAT conversation, same with Court, Navrátilová etc., their character or personality is meaningless for this question.

 

[brystone]

Same with court and it is equally stupid. The problem is that many people are believing that sport heroa are some sort of angels and this stupid PR machinery which presents them as role models does not help either. They even managed to sell a first class jerk like Michael Jordan as a wonderful person. Sport stats have the same fair share of assholes as the average population maybe even more as you need to be a little sociopathic anyways to spend almost all your time in your childhood hitting a ball through a rim or over a net. But that should never influence the view on their sport achievements. If a complete jerk like Rios would have broken the slam record he would be in the GOAT conversation, same with Court, Navrátilová etc., their character or personality is meaningless for this question.

Yes I do agree. You might think I underrate Court, which is fine, but it has absolutely nothing to do with her personality if I do; I am only trying to evaluate her record and her tennis from footage I have seen. I dont care whatsoever about her religious views or views on homosexuality when trying to rank her as a player. There are some who probably do hold her personality against her, which I think is wrong.

And even some today are saying Serena cant be GOAT since she isnt a lady or doesnt have the right etiquette or some other nonsense. People are free to believe Serena isnt the GOAT if they wish, she is my choice as GOAT but I can certainly see some legit points against her being GOAT. However it should not be based on nonsense like whether she is a great sportsperson or the classiest player ever.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Yes I do agree. You might think I underrate Court, which is fine, but it has absolutely nothing to do with her personality if I do; I am only trying to evaluate her record and her tennis from footage I have seen. I dont care whatsoever about her religious views or views on homosexuality when trying to rank her as a player. There are some who probably do hold her personality against her, which I think is wrong.

And even some today are saying Serena cant be GOAT since she isnt a lady or doesnt have the right etiquette or some other nonsense. People are free to believe Serena isnt the GOAT if they wish, she is my choice as GOAT but I can certainly see some legit points against her being GOAT. However it should not be based on nonsense like whether she is a great sportsperson or the classiest player ever.

That was not directed at you, sorry if it came across like that. We do not share the same opinion in Court which is fine as you are basing your opinion on her sports achievements. However, I have read things in this forum like “Court per se cannot be GOAT due to her religious views” which is outright stupid. Bobby Fischer is considered the greatest chess player of all time by many, I do not want to start with his views.

 

[brystone]

That was not directed at you, sorry if it came across like that. We do not share the same opinion in Court which is fine as you are basing your opinion on her sports achievements. However, I have read things in this forum like “Court per se cannot be GOAT due to her religious views” which is outright stupid. Bobby Fischer is considered the greatest chess player of all time by many, I do not want to start with his views.

Yeah an athlete should only be judged by the athletic part of their career IMO.

 

[jrepac]

And Evert was dominated by a young Graf so what. It is or better said was completely usual that the older players where kicked out of the game by some younger ATG. Only because today’s generation useless cannot get it done with the big three means nothing. Court did not do so bad against Evert anyways.

that's not quite true....it took some time for Steffi beat Chris...you are talking late 80's when Steffi got the upper hand over her...not long before she retired really

 

[brystone]

In fairness when Graf beat Evert for the first time ever she was still only 16. And she never took another loss. So if Graf arguably never beat prime Evert, Evert 100% for certain never actually beat prime Graf.

 

[BTURNER]

In fairness when Graf beat Evert for the first time ever she was still only 16. And she never took another loss. So if Graf arguably never beat prime Evert, Evert 100% for certain never actually beat prime Graf.

I personally define 'prime' as the years between the first major won, and the last major won. LOL, by that definition Graf beat Evert about a month before her prime ended. Graf's prime would start about a year later. I have no idea how to define 'peak', but if it means her most consistently best tennis ( as opposed to her most consistently dominant tennis mid 70's) Evert certainly was IMO, a year off from her 'peak' ( 1985ish?). It was in 1986 she began to have trouble with her concentration ebbing into strings of errors , double faults and slow starts but she was trying to get more free points on serve and going for more on her shots so winners and aces also increased. You could almost give her a wood racket peak and a graphite racket peak.

 

[brystone]

I personally define 'prime' as the years between the first major won, and the last major won. LOL, by that definition Graf beat Evert about a month before her prime ended. Graf's prime would start about a year later. I have no idea how to define 'peak', but if it means her most consistently best tennis ( as opposed to her most consistently dominant tennis mid 70's) Evert certainly was IMO, a year off from her 'peak' ( 1985ish?). It was in 1986 she began to have trouble with her concentration ebbing into strings of errors , double faults and slow starts but she was trying to get more free points on serve and going for more on her shots so winners and aces also increased. You could almost give her a wood racket peak and a graphite racket peak.

Yes that all sounds about right. It still all suggests if anything Graf was further from both her peak and prime than Evert was in 86 when Graf began her long win streak over Evert. So in that sense I would somewhat disagree Evert didnt have trouble with a young Graf, and certainly at the least it doesnt seem that it would be fair to say Graf struggled with an old Evert.

I still think Evert's success at a young age vs Court was more emphatic though.

 

[BTURNER]

Yes that all sounds about right. It still all suggests if anything Graf was further from both her peak and prime than Evert was in 86 when Graf began her long win streak over Evert. So in that sense I would somewhat disagree Evert didnt have trouble with a young Graf, and certainly at the least it doesnt seem that it would be fair to say Graf struggled with an old Evert.

I still think Evert's success at a young age vs Court was more emphatic though.

It sure as hell was more emphatic.

1970 Charlotte, NC SF W 7-6, 7-6
1972 Bonne Belle Cup W 6-3, 6-3
1972 Indianapolis, IN SF W 6-3, 7-6
1972 Newport, RI SF L 6-3, 6-0
1973 French Open F L 6-7, 7-6, 6-4
1973 Wimbledon SF W 6-1, 1-6, 6-1
1973 U.S. Open SF L 7-5, 2-6, 6-2
1973 Hilton Head, SC RR L 6-4, 6-7, 6-2

All but the Hilton Head was played before Her final US Open win. It was played the week after Court won the Open. Evert would not win her first major until next June I can't think of any precedent for this kind of domination of a great champion 1970-1972 during years prior to her last year at Number 1. Chris won 9 straight sets before Margaret got a breath of hope. Even in her victories, Margaret was struggling.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

In fairness when Graf beat Evert for the first time ever she was still only 16. And she never took another loss. So if Graf arguably never beat prime Evert, Evert 100% for certain never actually beat prime Graf.

Agreed, and Graf in 1988 was untouchable--there's no way to measure how far above Evert she was at that point.

Yeah an athlete should only be judged by the athletic part of their career IMO.

But they don't, or rather, they use selective outrage for certain players. for example, some on this board have treated certain former players as "angels" ( yet conveniently ignore their personal lives), yet in the case of other players (namely Serena), they have spent over a decade trying to analyze their off court life in a juvenile, would-be prosecutorial manner based on the extremes of hatred, which you see in nearly every thread where her name is mentioned.

 

[paolo2143]

Lets be honest though, even transported to the same era with the same equipment I highly doubt Court could do much against Serena. The only women I could see giving Serena a real battle are Graf and Navratilova, Navratilova to a greater extent than Graf IMO, hence why I personally have them higher than Court in the GOAT race despite Court's impressive array of titles.

Depends, if you were to transfer Serena back to the Court & Navratliova era where everyone played with the small wooden rackets, i think both these players would give her plenty of trouble.

I do agree that if you do the opposite and transfer Navratilova & Court to this era they would struggle against Serena, however i think Steffi with her powerful serve ,speed and forehand could really give her some tough battles.

 

[lobsterrush]

Navratilova should not rank any higher than 4th in the Open Era. She is 4-6 slams behind Court, Graf, Serena. While I agree it should not only be about slam wins, that is a huge gap, and one that couldnt really be overcome by anything. And it is not like she is superior in every other stat besides slam wins either. Ranking her above Serena, Court, or Graf, would be like ranking Sampras, Nadal, Djokovic above Federer today. That sounds ridiculous doesnt it, you get the point.

And even 4th in the Open Era would be a debate vs Evert, although most seem to favor Martina as being ahead. Some have Martina over Court, but I think that is only because of how unpopular Court is than any objective based reasoning. She probably would even have a better case for being over Graf than Court since Graf atleast played no doubles, and is far behind Martina in total tournament stats despite much of her career being in the 80s, unlike Court who is ahead of Martina in every singles and combined singles/doubles stat that exists. Graf isnt disliked the way Court is though.

 

[lobsterrush]

Depends, if you were to transfer Serena back to the Court & Navratliova era where everyone played with the small wooden rackets, i think both these players would give her plenty of trouble.

I do agree that if you do the opposite and transfer Navratilova & Court to this era they would struggle against Serena, however i think Steffi with her powerful serve ,speed and forehand could really give her some tough battles.

I think Navratilova might do better vs Serena than Graf. It is hard to say. I agree Court wouldnt be that effective against Serena, although she is the hardest as she is a player who peaked in the 60s to early 70s when modernized tennis had not even gotten started.

I think to beat a peak Serena you probably would have to attack her, come to the net a lot, and use lots of variety. Either that or have the rare ability against a peak Serena to outright overpower her (which IMO Graf can not do vs peak Serena). Things Martina would be much more likely to do than Graf given their games and playing styles.

 

[BTURNER]

I think Navratilova might do better vs Serena than Graf. It is hard to say. I agree Court wouldnt be that effective against Serena, although she is the hardest as she is a player who peaked in the 60s to early 70s when modernized tennis had not even gotten started.

I think to beat a peak Serena you probably would have to attack her, come to the net a lot, and use lots of variety. Either that or have the rare ability against a peak Serena to outright overpower her (which IMO Graf can not do vs peak Serena). Things Martina would be much more likely to do than Graf given their games and playing styles.

It matters what rackets we are using and the surface. How well does Serena do against lefties, and that lefty serve? I think that is always a vital question when thinking about Martina. On grass ( Martina's best), the grass and balls have changed a lot at Wimbledon, and that will also matter a lot. If the ball bounces a little higher, I think Serena can probably handle Martina's hook serve relatively well and drive through that return , but if its that skidding low slice serve on that low skidding grass, I think Serena's got more of a problem returning it. Serena simply does not have the same kind of experience handling that kind of S/v game as baseliners of earlier generations. I'd predict a tough first set, getting used to Martina's game, and easier time in the second and third sets. Martina played a lot of mixed doubles so she might be able to adapt to that first serve pace of Serena' but nothing can prepare Martina for those groundstrokes. She never had to face those in a rally.

 

[lobsterrush]

How well does Serena do against lefties, and that lefty serve? I think that is always a vital question when thinking about Martina. The grass and balls has changed a lot at Wimbledon, and that will also matter a lot. If the ball bounces a little higher, I think Serena can probably handle Martina's hook serve relatively well , but if its that skidding low slice serve on that low skidding grass, I think Serena's got a problem.

I agree, that is another reason I think Serena might have had more trouble with Navratilova than with Graf. She doesnt even play a lot of good lefties, but I seem to recall one from France (dont know her name first hand) who does pretty well vs Serena, and she doesnt even serve and volley or come in a lot, have a true hook or kick lefty serve into the ad side (I may not remember her name but have seen her play numerous times), and of course isnt even close to the caliber of player Navratilova is. Even more in the earlier 2000s when the courts were a lot faster still than they are today.