Of female Open era all time greats which had strongest competition overall?

[grafselesfan]

Which open era all time great female player do you believe had the strongest overall competion during her "reign". Here are the players and their unofficial reigns during the Open era period:

Chris Evert- 1974 to 1981
Martina Navratilova- 1982 to 1986
Steffi Graf- 1987 to 1990, 1993 to 1996
Monica Seles- 1991 to 1992
Serena Williams- 2002 to 2003, 2008 to 2009
Billie Jean King- 1968, 1972
Margaret Court- 1969 to 1970, 1973
Justine Henin- 2003 to 2007
Venus Williams- 2000 to 2001

My vote went to Evert as the 1974 to 1981 period had a very strong and diverse group of women.

 

[thalivest]

I voted Graf. I laugh that someone actually voted for Serena. How ridiculous.

 

[boredone3456]

I voted Graf. I laugh that someone actually voted for Serena. How ridiculous.

Yeah you can laugh at me...I saw both polls and thought this was the one for the weakest poll for a moment and when I realized it was after I voted...my mistake, Serena is my vote for the other one. In terms of Strongest, tough call, I would lean toward Graf of 1988 & 1989. although King in 1968 had her hands full with Court.

 

[navratilovafan]

I would have to go with Chris Evert.

 

[CEvertFan]

I voted for Evert. When you have to face the likes of Court, King, Goolagong, Austin, Navratilova, Mandlikova, Wade and Graf during your career, that speaks for itself.

 

[pc1]

I voted for Evert. When you have to face the likes of Court, King, Goolagong, Austin, Navratilova, Mandlikova, Wade and Graf during your career, that speaks for itself.

Evert's a great choice. I definitely would go with Chris as number one.

Seles in 1991 and 1992 is pretty good too since she had a Graf at her peak and Navratilova was still great, plus Sanchez-Vicario and Sabatini.

 

[egn]

Evert she dealt with 5 of the other people in the poll that alone shows it. Tack on Tracy Austin, the other 2-5 slam winners that were around in the 80s and you have yourself quite a tough situation.

 

[suwanee4712]

I would say Evert. While the others all had their strong points, I don't think any of them even come close to 1974-1981.

Court, King, Goolagong, Navratilova, Wade, Austin, Mandlikova.......that's a tough lineup.

 

[Warriorroger]

Steffi Graf

First you have to chase and dethrone two of tennis' biggest giants Martina and Chris, then tennistalent (mentally not strong) Gabriela Sabatini, then another supertalent Seles comes along, good players like Sanchez Vicario, Novotna, and the end of your reign tennis chessplayer Hingis followed by the power of Davenport and the Williams sisters. Pretty tough match up.

 

[flying24]

It is Graf or Evert. The top 10 were full of all pretty good quality players when they were on top, even those 0 or 1 time slam winners. I cant believe anyone voted for Navratilova. The top 10 was full of so many misfit no talents from 82-85 especialy it isnt even funny.

 

[flying24]

Good gawd I just noticed 3 votes for Serena, that is even worse than the only 1 vote for Navratilova. The one player who has faced an even worse field than Navratilova when she was on top (except the very end) has been Serena the last couple years especialy.

 

[gj011]

Good gawd I just noticed 3 votes for Serena, that is even worse than the only 1 vote for Navratilova. The one player who has faced an even worse field than Navratilova when she was on top (except the very end) has been Serena the last couple years especialy.

7 votes for Graf are the worst.

 

[NadalandFedererfan]

Monica Seles. She had to Graf, one of the all time greats in her prime, Sabatini playing her best ever tennis, Navratilova clearly past her prime but still an extremely formidable player, Sanchez Vicario a great player playing well. Add to that dangerous and legit contenders like Capriati, Novotna, Fernandez, Martinez, Garrison, Maleeva, Zvereva, and Sukova. Then the top 20 rounded out by dangerous players like Tauziat, Frazier, Meshki, Fairbank-Nidifier, Weisner, Paulus, Maleeva #2, Maleeva #3.

 

[CEvertFan]

7 votes for Graf are the worst.

LOL, agreed.

Until Monica came along there wasn't anyone who could really consistently challenge Steffi and then before their rivalry really started to get super competitive Monica was taken out. I don't see how anyone else that was left, even Arantxa, could be considered to be a major challenge for Steffi which is part of the reason why she would up with her 22 majors. Players like Evert, King and Court had much harder fields to deal with.

 

[hewittboy]

LOL, agreed.

Until Monica came along there wasn't anyone who could really consistently challenge Steffi and then before their rivalry really started to get super competitive Monica was taken out. I don't see how anyone else that was left, even Arantxa, could be considered to be a major challenge for Steffi which is part of the reason why she would up with her 22 majors. Players like Evert, King and Court had much harder fields to deal with.

Get real. Evert didnt face anyone at her level in their primes from 74-81 when she was on top and won 2/3 of her slam titles. Court and King were not in their primes by then at all. Navratilova was not in her prime those years. Austin is not an all time great and only lasted a few years at her best where she pretty much dominated her head to head with Chris. Goolagong is a great player but definitely not a top 10 player all time and not really a consistent challenge to Chris. Her 7 slam tally is inflated by the Australian Open status then. She didnt win any slam outside the Australian Open between 1971 to 1980 in fact.

Navratilova in the late 80s (definitely alot closer to her prime than Court or King from 74 onwards) and Seles in the early 90s were still better players during that point in time than anyone Evert faced from 74-81, and Graf won 1/2 of her slam titles those years. Sanchez Vicario in the mid 90s was probably about the same as Goolagong considering her horrible problems with consistency, focus, and other issues, despite that Goolagong is definitely more talented.

The reason nobody seemed to challenge Steffi that closely was she was simply that great. Do you call Evert weak since she was like a fly on the wall for Martina in the mid 80s for awhile.

 

[egn]

Get real. Evert didnt face anyone at her level in their primes from 74-81 when she was on top and won 2/3 of her slam titles. Court and King were not in their primes by then at all. Navratilova was not in her prime those years. Austin is not an all time great and only lasted a few years at her best where she pretty much dominated her head to head with Chris. Goolagong is a great player but definitely not a top 10 player all time and not really a consistent challenge to Chris. Her 7 slam tally is inflated by the Australian Open status then. She didnt win any slam outside the Australian Open between 1971 to 1980 in fact.

Navratilova in the late 80s (definitely alot closer to her prime than Court or King from 74 onwards) and Seles in the early 90s were still better players during that point in time than anyone Evert faced from 74-81, and Graf won 1/2 of her slam titles those years. Sanchez Vicario in the mid 90s was probably about the same as Goolagong considering her horrible problems with consistency, focus, and other issues, despite that Goolagong is definitely more talented.

The reason nobody seemed to challenge Steffi that closely was she was simply that great. Do you call Evert weak since she was like a fly on the wall for Martina in the mid 80s for awhile.

Navra 78-81 closer in prime than Navra 88-90..not to be mean to Martina but those last two slam titles were cakewalks as the field had been sucked dry. Graf in 88's only real threat was a 30+ year old Martina. At least Evert had two 30+ year old King and Court, Court who just came off a 3 slam year. Sure they were not close to prime but to say they were not the same level of challenge as Martina was to Graf is ridiculous. Evert also had an in prime Goolagong and Martina who was in her prime but not peaking due to lack of fitness. Martina in 78-81 was rising and in 82 the two were playing at their best it was only really 83-85 that Martina dominated Evert. Graf's only real challenge was a 30+ year old who could only bring the heat on the fast surfaces. I don't deny Steffi being good, but then I can apply the same logic for Evert from 75-82 was she really just that great that nobody could challenge her? Graf's best competition got a knife in the back. It is not just incidiental that Graf's 3 slam years came back when Seles disappeared. Oh go ahead and point out the losing head to head Seles had against Graf then, but Seles was turning that around even. She was 3-1 against Graf in slam finals prior to the stabbing. Seles was winning on the big stage. The head to head at the stabbing was by the way only 4-6 favoring Graf. Seles was not getting crushed by Graf either, 3 of those loses came in 1989 when Seles was 15 and Graf was at top form. Seles was on her way to her third year as number 1..if this was not true a crazy Graf fan would not have ran out and stabbed her in the back...

 

[flying24]

Navra 78-81 closer in prime than Navra 88-90..

So Martina was closer to her prime when she losing multiple matches to all of Pam Shriver, Wendy Turnbull, and 15 year old Andrea Jaeger than when she was dominating Gabriela Sabatini, Sanchez Vicario, Helena Sukova, and basically every top player except Graf? Yes this is very logical. She was also closer to her prime according to you when she was destroyed twice by a 35 and 36 year old busted knees King on carpet and grass (winning only 3 and 4 games in these two losses), and when she was consistently ranked below Tracy Austin when she was 17 and 18? Hey arent you supposed to be someone who considered Martina the GOAT. :twisted:

Martina won 67 of 70 matches at one stretch from April 1989 until April 1990. The only 3 losses were to Steffi Graf. Take Graf away and she is still completely dominating at this point, something she never would have done from 1978 to 1981 even if you take Evert and Austin away.

not to be mean to Martina but those last two slam titles were cakewalks as the field had been sucked dry.

First of all I am not sure which last two slam titles you are referring to as Martina only won 1 slam from 1988 onwards. Martina's last slam was Wimbledon 1990. The field had been sucked dry? So a field that included Graf, Seles, Sabatini, Sanchez Vicario, Sukova (who had a couple big wins even over prime Martina), was sucked dry? I wonder what you think of the mid 80s field where Shriver was the perennial #4, and early 30s Turnbull was the perennial #5 then.

Graf in 88's only real threat was a 30+ year old Martina.

Martina the super late bloomer on her 25th birthday had only 2 slam titles so this 30+ Martina does not fly for her, sorry. There is zero excuse for her to not be at close to her peak in only her early 30s considering how late she really got started being a great player at all. Unless you are then implying her longevity of near peak/great play was downright pathetic for a GOAT contender.

At least Evert had two 30+ year old King and Court, Court who just came off a 3 slam year. Sure they were not close to prime but to say they were not the same level of challenge as Martina was to Graf is ridiculous.

You are the one being ridiculous here. Evert's first slam title was not until 1974. Court did not even play 1974 so forget this year. Now 1975 Court is already 33 years old and is coming back one final time to play from having a second child. Court was not a late bloomer like Martina at all. In 1962 at age 19 she won 3 of 4 slams. If Court was really as much prime by 1975 as Martina by even as late as 1989 then we should automaticaly put Court above Martina in the GOAT discussion then. After all Court by that logic was close to her prime twice as long as Navratilova and of course was pretty much just as dominant.

King in 1974 was 30 and 31 but playing on granny knees that were so bad they had her initialy retire midway through 1975 at only 31, and she too was not an extremely late developer like Martina either. King is also not quite as great a player as Martina, Court, or Graf to begin with.

Martina was indeed much more of a challenge to Graf in the late 80s than either Court or King were to Evert from 1974 onwards. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.

Evert also had an in prime Goolagong and Martina who was in her prime but not peaking due to lack of fitness.

As hewittboy mentioned Goolagong is a 7-time slam winner whose slam tally is inflated by 4 Australian Opens, where other than Evert in 1974 she did not face any of her toughest opponents. Since I have seen you downgrade Court's record based on this the same certainly has to apply to Evonne as well. As hewittboy also mentioned she failed to even win a single non Australian Open anytime from 1971-1980. Another player who is overrated based on potential as opposed to actual achievement.

So Martina can now be deemed "prime but not peaking due to lack of fitness". OK I will remember this when we have another of our Serena Williams debates then. After all by this silly twist of reasoning we can now say Serena has really been in her prime every year since 2002 and was merely "prime but not peaking due to lack of fitness". Oh well you are the one now arguing (not I but you) that a "prime" Navratilova could get destroyed, not just beaten, but destroyed by a mid 30s King on occasion, could lose 3 matches in a row to a 15 year old Jaeger, and had alot of trouble with Wendy Turnbull. I will just keep that in mind for future references now.

Graf's only real challenge was a 30+ year old who could only bring the heat on the fast surfaces.

Martina already couldnt even beat a pre-prime Graf on clay. In 1986 she was murdered by a 16 year old Graf who was ranked #6 in the world in a tier 1 final. Then the next year she couldnt even hold off a subpar and nervous Graf at only 17 to win their French Open final. No wonder once Graf's prime began in 1988 she mostly avoided clay, when it was going to take all her effort to even combat her on the faster surfaces she prefers.

Rebound ace probably would have been Martina's worst surface even in her prime had it existed, I am pretty sure even over clay. High and true bouncing hard courts with sticky hot conditions are not exactly the haven of an all out serve/volley player.

I don't deny Steffi being good, but then I can apply the same logic for Evert from 75-82 was she really just that great that nobody could challenge her?

Of course this is also true. That is true of all the greatest players during their peaks.

Graf's best competition got a knife in the back. It is not just incidiental that Graf's 3 slam years came back when Seles disappeared. Oh go ahead and point out the losing head to head Seles had against Graf then, but Seles was turning that around even. She was 3-1 against Graf in slam finals prior to the stabbing. Seles was winning on the big stage. The head to head at the stabbing was by the way only 4-6 favoring Graf. Seles was not getting crushed by Graf either, 3 of those loses came in 1989 when Seles was 15 and Graf was at top form. Seles was on her way to her third year as number 1..if this was not true a crazy Graf fan would not have ran out and stabbed her in the back...

Seles in the early 90s was a great great player of course. She would have been a handful for any female player in history in her early 90s form, not just Graf. As it was during the Seles's dominance in 1991-early 1993 Seles still lost 3 of her 5 matches with Graf. This despite the benefit of 4 of their 5 matches on slower surfaces which favor Seles in the matchup but Graf even won 2 out of 4 of those, and their one meeting on a faster surface Seles was thumped brutally. Seles was probably fortunate to never had to play Graf in a U.S Open or year end Championships final as Graf, who was arguably in a slump in the early 90s, was upset before the final in each of them. Graf would not have had 3 slam years in 91-92 even without Seles as she wasnt even frequently enough making finals without even playing Seles. It would have been interesting indeed to see how Seles would have fared having to play Graf more frequently from 1993-1995.

 

[egn]

So Martina was closer to her prime when she losing multiple matches to all of Pam Shriver, Wendy Turnbull, and 15 year old Andrea Jaeger than when she was dominating Gabriela Sabatini, Sanchez Vicario, Helena Sukova, and basically every top player except Graf? Yes this is very logical. She was also closer to her prime according to you when she was destroyed twice by a 35 and 36 year old busted knees King on carpet and grass (winning only 3 and 4 games in these two losses), and when she was consistently ranked below Tracy Austin when she was 17 and 18? Hey arent you supposed to be someone who considered Martina the GOAT. :twisted:

Good points on the first part..I did consider Martina GOAT..however I feel 78-81 Martina had more than 88-90? Tracy Austin was a force to be reckoned with? YOu make it sound like someone who was nothing. Tracy was a great player at 17 and 18. She got injuried and it ruined her career. You speak of her like she was nothing but a lucky one slam wonder?

Martina won 67 of 70 matches at one stretch from April 1989 until April 1990. The only 3 losses were to Steffi Graf. Take Graf away and she is still completely dominating at this point, something she never would have done from 1978 to 1981 even if you take Evert and Austin away.

Could that simply have been because the players from 78-80 were better? I would like to believe that.

First of all I am not sure which last two slam titles you are referring to as Martina only won 1 slam from 1988 onwards. Martina's last slam was Wimbledon 1990. The field had been sucked dry? So a field that included Graf, Seles, Sabatini, Sanchez Vicario, Sukova (who had a couple big wins even over prime Martina), was sucked dry? I wonder what you think of the mid 80s field where Shriver was the perennial #4, and early 30s Turnbull was the perennial #5 then.

Outside of Graf who was known for grass court tennis in that group? I like how you use age to hurt Martina's filed but yet won't use age to hurt Grafs. Yet I was not talking about mid 80s I was talking about late 70s to early 80s with Evert, Austin, Mandilkova, Turnbull, Goolagong, Wade that Martina was facing as I was comparing 88-90 to 78-81..

Martina the super late bloomer on her 25th birthday had only 2 slam titles so this 30+ Martina does not fly for her like it does almost everyone else sorry. There is zero excuse for her to not be at close to her peak in her early 30s. Unless you are then implying her longevity of near peak/great play was downright pathetic for a GOAT contender.

Age catches up fast. If you are going to say 30 yr old Martina was the same as 25 fine, but her performance and results show not. She had 7 years as number 1? That is not longevity than what is?

You are the one being ridiculous here. Evert's first slam title was not until 1974. Court did not even play 1974 so forget this year. Now 1975 Court is already 33 years old and is coming back one final time to play from having a second child. Court was not a late bloomer like Martina at all. In 1962 at age 19 she won 3 of 4 slams. If Court was really as much prime by 1975 as Martina by 1989 even then we should automaticaly put Court above Martina in the GOAT discussion then. After all Court by that logic was close to her peak twice as long as Navratilova and of course was pretty much just as dominant.

Valid points.

King in 1974 was 30 and 31 but playing on granny knees that were so bad they had her initialy retire midway through 1975 at only 31, and she too was not an extremely late developer like Martina either. King is also not quite as great a player as Martina, Court, or Graf to begin with.

Granny knees King was still winning slams until 75 when Goolagong and EVert rose to take her down..sure it was age more or less but it was not like she was not there and still posing a challenge to them.

Martina was indeed much more of a challenge to Graf in the late 80s than either Court or King were to Evert from 1974 onwards. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.

It was them plus a bunch more that I was saying helped it yet that is true, but adding the the rest of the people I think it weights it over.

As hewittboy mentioned Goolagong is a 7-time slam winner whose slam tally is inflated by 4 Australian Opens, where other than Evert in 1974 she did not face any of her toughest opponents. Since I have seen you downgrade Court's record based on this the same certainly has to apply to Evonne as well. As hewittboy also mentioned she failed to even win a single non Australian Open anytime from 1971-1980. Another player who is overrated based on potential as opposed to actual achievement.

1980 Wimbledon check who won that? Goolagong. Also she beat Evert and Martina for 2 Australian Open titles. I admit those 7 are inflated as the field was drained but Goolagong was going deep in other slams and was not no threat to the field. She has 11 runner ups and could win titles.

So Martina can now be deemed "prime but not peaking due to lack of fitness". OK I will remember this when we have another of our Serena Williams debates then. After all by this silly twist of reasoning we can now say Serena has really been in her prime every year since 2002 and was merely "prime but not peaking due to lack of fitness". Oh well you are the one now arguing (not I but you) that a "prime" Navratilova could get destroyed, not just beaten, but destroyed by a mid 30s King on occasion, could lose 3 matches in a row to a 15 year old Jaeger, and had alot of trouble with Wendy Turnbull. I will just keep that in mind for future references now.

Wow you really don't know anything about Martina from 78-81. She was overweight, and out of shape. Do some research on the time, many were frustrated as she was supposed to be challenging the top but was underperforming because of her lack of fitness. She spent one whole summer with a female basketball star Nancy Libererman in the summer of 81 who helped her get in to top shape. Ironically her best year than came in 82 which she would than best in 83, 84 etc, yet you are now going to say her getting in to shape had nothing to do with it. Martina had been known for downing burger king meals and living such a luscious life, half to due with being deprived in Czechoslovakia (sp?) It is way different than the Serena Willliams. Oh yea don't I constantly say Serena would do better if she got into shape..Martina from start of 81 to end of 81 progressed and she has credited it to Nancy Libererman. Nancy put her under a brutal fitness regime..you can find otu about it on the internet it also in her biography, the book The Rivals etc. So really the argument is quite different, because it happened and she wound up dominating. Ready she gets on her regime makes semis at Wimbledon, finals at US Open then goes on to win the Aussie, and one of the biggest reasons that was cited at the time was she had dropped the weight and become stronger. Go look it up her skills were there, she did not win two wimbledons prior to that for no reason and finish off the year no.1 twice, she just was far out of shape.

Martina already couldnt even beat a pre-prime Graf on clay. In 1986 she was murdered by a 16 year old Graf who was ranked #6 in the world in a tier 1 final. Then the next year she couldnt even hold off a subpar and nervous Graf at only 17 to win their French Open final. No wonder once Graf's prime began in 1988 she mostly avoided clay, when it was going to take all her effort to even combat her on the faster surfaces she prefers.

Graf subpar in 1987? She was the only other player on the tour doing damage besides Martina in 87..she was ranked number 1. Graf 17 lost two times all YEAR TO MARTINA. You call me crazy for saying Martina was not that good in 89 yet you call GRAF IN 87 SUBPAR? Graf was not subpar in 87, she suffered from typical young kid facing champion syndrome, but to say she was subpar is ridiculous. I still don't know how come nobody holds it against Graf for losing both US and Wimbledon she should have won one of those. Martina in 87 had 8 losses compared to Graf's 2. Graf was far from subpar..

Rebound ace probably would have been Martina's worst surface even in her prime had it existed, I am pretty sure even over clay. High and true bouncing hard courts with sticky hot conditions are not exactly the haven of an all out serve/volley player.

That I agree with.


Yet throughout this whole post you did not argue the fact that from 88-89 there was nobody other than Martina. When more people hit their prime in the 90s Seles, Sabatini, Mary Joe, Vicario etc. her performance dropped until Seles was stabbed and she rose back to the top. Even then 94 she was not the best player on the tour yet wound up with the number 1 ranking as Vicario was etc. and 95-96 Seles was back and out of form and most her competition was no longer top form. Sabatini was done, her real competition was now clay courter Vicario..and Conchita Marnitez the fluke one slam winner.

 

[flying24]

Tracy Austin was a force to be reckoned with? YOu make it sound like someone who was nothing. Tracy was a great player at 17 and 18.

Yes but she wasnt just challenging Martina, she was consistently ranked over her for over two full years. This despite that she wasnt yet even in her hypothetical prime yet had she stayed healthy.

She got injuried and it ruined her career. You speak of her like she was nothing but a lucky one slam wonder?

No she isnt a one slam wonder. She isnt an all time great but she was an extremely talented young player. However she wasnt even really in her hypothetical prime yet had she stayed healthy when she was doing as well vs Martina and in general as I spoke of. In 1979 and 1980 she was only 16 and 17. Then in 1981 when she reached 18 she already missed almost half the year by injuries. By 1982 she was pretty much done as far as playing at the level she had earlier, and by 1983 she was barely playing anymore.

Could that simply have been because the players from 78-80 were better? I would like to believe that.

Sure if you are really willing to believe or argue that Pam Shriver, Wendy Turnbull, Sylvia Hanika, and Andrea Jaeger are better than Gabriela Sabatini, Sanchez Vicario, and Helena Sukova than be my guest. I certainly wont agree with you though. Likewise I am not even really certain that a very out of shape Navratilova and Austin at 16 and 17 is better than Martina in her early 30s either.

Outside of Graf who was known for grass court tennis in that group?

Sabatini, Sukova, Garrison, Zvereva, were all major contenders around 1990 and were all quality grass courters too. The latter 3 all play their best tennis on grass, Sabatini is an all courter.

I like how you use age to hurt Martina's filed but yet won't use age to hurt Grafs.

I do acknowledge Martina was in her early 30s. I already explained why I think she should have been and was very strong still even in her early 30s, and moreso than Court or King in their early 30s. I did not even mention Evert much when talking of the late 80s much at all, so obviously I do acknowledge age when it comes to Graf's field.

Yet I was not talking about mid 80s I was talking about late 70s to early 80s with Evert, Austin, Mandilkova, Turnbull, Goolagong, Wade that Martina was facing as I was comparing 88-90 to 78-81..

Point taken.

Age catches up fast. If you are going to say 30 yr old Martina was the same as 25 fine, but her performance and results show not. She had 7 years as number 1? That is not longevity than what is?

Her first multi slam year was 1982, and her last multi slam year was 1987. For a female GOAT contender that isnt that impressive longevity of great play. Also you are the one arguing her prime only lasted from 1982 to 1987, again for a female GOAT contender not that impressive if that is the case.

Granny knees King was still winning slams until 75 when Goolagong and EVert rose to take her down..sure it was age more or less but it was not like she was not there and still posing a challenge to them.

Maybe that says more about Goolagong not being as great a player as you seem to think, or Evert's abilities on grass not being all that great as some might think.

In anycase there is no reason King in 1975 when considering her physical state and being only 1 year older, should have been better than Navratilova in 1989, in fact she should have been worse. So maybe Evert on her less strong surfaces was just an easier and more vurnerable opponent than Graf is on any particular surface.

It was them plus a bunch more that I was saying helped it yet that is true, but adding the the rest of the people I think it weights it over.

1975 field:

33 year old Court coming out of retirement after 2 pregnancies

31 year old King soon to retire prematurely (although would later return) due to chronically bad knees that have gotten worse for a few years now

Evonne Goolagong

Virginia Wade

160 pound Navratilova 3 years before her first slam, and atleast 6 years before her prime


1989 field:

34 year old Evert

32 year old Navratilova

Sabatini in her prime

Sanchez Vicario in year of first slam title

Sukova in her prime

Sorry I dont see a big difference. I dont think 33 year old Court after her 2nd baby was better than 34 year old Evert. I certainly dont think 31 year old King soon to retire on her bad knees was better than 32 year old late blooming Navratilova. Goolagong is better than Sabatini, Sanchez, or Sukova of course. Wade is more debateable vs some of those. Navratilova at the point she was at in 1975 was in fact IMO not any better than those players. If Navratilova in 4 of her 6 Wimbledon and U.S Opens from 75-77 was losing to 33 year old Court, 31 year old Betty Stove, Wendy Turnbull, and even Janet Newbury than she would have a very hard time beating Sabatini, Sukova, or teenage Sanchez Vicario IMO.

1980 Wimbledon check who won that? Goolagong.

Yes good for her. Finally winning another non-Australian Open title a full nine years later.

Also she beat Evert and Martina for 2 Australian Open titles.

Read above on Martina in 1975. Evert in 1974 was her only big win in that run of 4 Australian Opens.

I admit those 7 are inflated as the field was drained but Goolagong was going deep in other slams and was not no threat to the field. She has 11 runner ups and could win titles.

So a perennial almost type. Sounds like another Sabatini or Novotna in a sense, except of course more successful and a superior player to them, but still essentialy the same mantra. I doubt prime Graf would have been too fearful of this kind of underachieving almost type talent. Her era are full of "almost" type players, granted Goolagong is greater than them still, but still that same kind of player in a large way.

Wow you really don't know anything about Martina from 78-81. She was overweight, and out of shape.

Please, I am fully aware that Martina was grossly out of shape until she hooked up with Nancy Lieberman in late 1981. That is why I was sarcastically making light of your suggestion she was somehow "prime but out of shape" so many years. You arent in your prime when you are almost twice the size you were during your 4-5 year reign. Martina took a very long to actually get in shape and get into her prime, which is why I am not as impressed with her as a member of the Evert reign as you are.

It is way different than the Serena Willliams.

Not really. Serena is the same hefty dump truck that Martina was from 1975-mid 1981. My temptation at this moment is to take another shot at the current field Serena faces which you defend so vigorously but as to not take this off topic I will contain myself. You are the one who started this with your bizarre "in her prime but just way out of shape" type comment, not me.

Graf subpar in 1987? She was the only other player on the tour doing damage besides Martina in 87..she was ranked number 1. Graf 17 lost two times all YEAR TO MARTINA. You call me crazy for saying Martina was not that good in 89 yet you call GRAF IN 87 SUBPAR? Graf was not subpar in 87, she suffered from typical young kid facing champion syndrome, but to say she was subpar is ridiculous.

When I said subpar I meant in that particular match. In the French Open final she played a subpar match for the standards on clay by then, and Martina still couldnt finish her off. I never once said or implied she played a subpar year in 1987.

I still don't know how come nobody holds it against Graf for losing both US and Wimbledon she should have won one of those. Martina in 87 had 8 losses compared to Graf's 2. Graf was far from subpar..

Likewise we could say the same about Chris's failure to win even one slam title in 1972 and 1973. As was pointed out in another thread she was already forming good head to heads with Court and King by that point yet couldnt even win one major those two years despite that. She was able to beat a prime Court on clay in Court's Grand Slam year at only 15, but now at 18 in a year she wins 10 tournament titles, cant even beat a 31 year old pregnant Court on clay. Why is that now? The grand slam finals typically favor the older and more experienced player who has been there before. That is no surprise.

 

[egn]

1975 field:

33 year old Court coming out of retirement after 2 pregnancies

31 year old King soon to retire prematurely (although would later return) due to chronically bad knees that have gotten worse for a few years now

Evonne Goolagong

Virginia Wade

160 pound Navratilova 3 years before her first slam, and atleast 6 years before her prime


1989 field:

34 year old Evert

32 year old Navratilova

Sabatini in her prime

Sanchez Vicario in year of first slam title

Sukova in her prime

I only quoted that because I see the rest of the arguements not really ending because it is of personal preference and for every counter we make we will probably direct it with another one because as you pointed out it is personal preference. I quoted that though because you make a very good point with that and it really highlights the competition of each player at time. The fields are close and as we have been arguing it is basically out of personal preference as in to which field is tougher and that we differ on opinions on prime. Yet I see where your arguement is coming from on various points. Guess this simply proves it is one of personal preference as in to which set of players as you highlighted is better.

 

[suwanee4712]

I guess this won't shock anyone. But Sukova in her prime in 1989? Sukova's best years by far were from 1984-1987, with 1986 being a year in which she did everything but win a slam. 1989 Sukova was already past her prime despite the Aussie r/u - which came by way of eeking out a SF win over the foregettable Belinda Cordwell. She did have the win over Martina. But 1989 Martina isn't exactly 1984 Martina, or even 1987 Martina. That's far from her best days when she was beating players like a prime Martina and a player like Evert in grand slam semis.

Sabatini, Garrison, Sukova, and Zvereva great grass court players in 1989/1990? For all of the grief that players like Shriver and Turnbull take on this board, I'm surprised that those 4 players in 1990 would be taken seriously as some kind of proof of depth. Maybe on specific surfaces.

Years like 1980 and 1981 had far, far more depth than a year like 1989 did. In fact, those two years are probably 2 of the best for womens tennis of all time.

Or even 1990 which seems more like a default year to me. Evert was retired, Martina had bad knees, Graf was sick and otherwise distracted, and Seles was just emerging. It's not like Gaby even played that well to win the US Open that year. At least not until the final. Considering that was her one and only slam win, it's hard not to notice that it came in one of Graf's worst years as a pro.

 

[flying24]

But Sukova in her prime in 1989? Sukova's best years by far were from 1984-1987, with 1986 being a year in which she did everything but win a slam. 1989 Sukova was already past her prime despite the Aussie r/u - which came by way of eeking out a SF win over the foregettable Belinda Cordwell.

Yes that all makes complete sense. An only 24 year old women with no major health or personal problems, who reached her 3rd of only 4 slam finals she would ever reach that year, and whose 14-4 record in slams ties her 14-4 from 1987 was suddenly "past her prime". Why was I not so clever to realize this obvious truth. Forgive me.

Also it makes perfect sense to think of 1984 as so much more her prime than 1984 when she didnt win her first WTA tournament until November of that year, and nobody had even heard of her until her big Australian Open semifinal upset. Her 1 titles and 1 slam final from 1989 matches 1984. Her win % and GS W-L ratio for 1989 is better than 1984. Again how could I miss the obviousness to how her prime was suddenly 1984 much more than 1989. Actually my apologies, it was the amazingly deep field that featured Pam Shriver yet again as world #4, 32 year old Wendy Turnbull as world #5, and 17 year old Manuela Maleeva as world #6 which caused Sukova to not have superior results in 1984.

She did have the win over Martina. But 1989 Martina isn't exactly 1984 Martina, or even 1987 Martina. That's far from her best days when she was beating players like a prime Martina and a player like Evert in grand slam semis.

Perhaps Graf should have just let Sukova beat her in a grand slam semi or final that year the way prime Martina and Evert each once did. That way she would suddenly look stronger again by that logic.

Sabatini, Garrison, Sukova, and Zvereva great grass court players in 1989/1990? For all of the grief that players like Shriver and Turnbull take on this board, I'm surprised that those 4 players in 1990 would be taken seriously as some kind of proof of depth. Maybe on specific surfaces.

Umm what is so strange here. Sabatini is clearly a superior singles player to Shriver. Sukova is a more dangerous player than Shriver, albeit less consistent. Garrison and Zvereva are atleast better players than an early 30s Wendy Turnbull.

Or even 1990 which seems more like a default year to me. Evert was retired, Martina had bad knees, Graf was sick and otherwise distracted, and Seles was just emerging. It's not like Gaby even played that well to win the US Open that year. At least not until the final. Considering that was her one and only slam win, it's hard not to notice that it came in one of Graf's worst years as a pro.

Yet didnt Evert have amazing competition when she faced 33 year old Court after her 2nd pregnancy in 1975, or 33 year old King returning to tennis to play on knees 4x worse than 1990 Martina in 1977? I seem to remember several of you suggesting this. Court and King were not late bloomers who won 15 of their 18 slams from age 25 to 31 either. Didnt Evert have such tough competition facing a 16 year old Austin in 1979? Or should a 16 year old Austin now be viewed as "tougher competition" than a 16 year old Seles, LOL! Funny how players of such extreme ages are suddenly hopeless in the Graf era, yet such "strong competition" in someone elses.

 

[AndrewD]

Serena Williams
Venus Williams and
Justine Henin

The very simple fact that all three of those players were at or near the absolute peak of their game at the same time and that it also coincided with the peak years of Davenport and Hingis (plus some competition from Capriati and, later, Mauresmo) SHOULD make this the easiest poll to answer.

That 37.5% have voted for Steffi Graf and and 21.88% voted for Chris Evert illustrates perfectly WHY these polls and these threads (about female tennis players) are pointless. Essentially, the people who dominate the voting are fixated on the person, not the player. They aren't 'tennis fans' or 'sports fans', they're simply (and simple is the operative word) fans of a particular individual and, as such, they are always going to give that person credit that they don't necessarily deserve.

 

[julesb]

Serena Williams
Venus Williams and
Justine Henin

The very simple fact that all three of those players were at or near the absolute peak of their game at the same time and that it also coincided with the peak years of Davenport and Hingis (plus some competition from Capriati and, later, Mauresmo) SHOULD make this the easiest poll to answer.

All 3 are poll options though. So how would that make it easy as you can only vote for 1 of those 3.

 

[CEvertFan]

Serena Williams
Venus Williams and
Justine Henin

The very simple fact that all three of those players were at or near the absolute peak of their game at the same time and that it also coincided with the peak years of Davenport and Hingis (plus some competition from Capriati and, later, Mauresmo) SHOULD make this the easiest poll to answer.

That 37.5% have voted for Steffi Graf and and 21.88% voted for Chris Evert illustrates perfectly WHY these polls and these threads (about female tennis players) are pointless. Essentially, the people who dominate the voting are fixated on the person, not the player. They aren't 'tennis fans' or 'sports fans', they're simply (and simple is the operative word) fans of a particular individual and, as such, they are always going to give that person credit that they don't necessarily deserve.

King > Venus or Serena or Henin or Hingis or Davenport
Court > Venus or Serena or Henin or Hingis or Davenport
Goolagong > Henin, Davenport, Hingis or Venus - Serena is better though
Navratilova > Everyone


With just those 4 alone playing in the Evert era it should be a no brainer as to what the right answer should be.

The GOAT Navratilova alone accounts for denying Evert 10 Grand Slam singles titles - 5 of them at Wimbledon alone. Like I said, a no brainer.

 

[NadalandFedererfan]

King > Venus or Serena or Henin or Hingis or Davenport
Court > Venus or Serena or Henin or Hingis or Davenport
Goolagong > Henin, Davenport, Hingis or Venus - Serena is better though
Navratilova > Everyone


With just those 4 alone playing in the Evert era it should be a no brainer as to what the right answer should be.

The GOAT Navratilova alone accounts for denying Evert 10 Grand Slam singles titles - 5 of them at Wimbledon alone. Like I said, a no brainer.

Court- did not even play in 1974 when Evert won her first 2 slams. Was 33 by the time 1975 rolled around and far past her best days.

King- Evert didnt even play King to win any of her 3 1974/1975 slams, 2 of which were French Opens were King would be hopeless vs any great clay courter anyway. King returned to tennis in 1977 at 33 years old on badly damaged knees.

Goolagong- she won 4 of her 7 slam titles in Australia which means her count of 7 slam titles is inflated. Her being superior to Henin and Venus is your opinion, it is far from undisputable and I for one disagree. Henin and Venus > Goolagong for me.

Navratilova- did not start her prime until 1982, Evert had won 12 of her 18 slam titles by then. By the way Navratilova being the GOAT is likewise only your opinion, far from an undisputable or consensus fact. Just as with Goolagong, I disagree here too and do not consider Navratilova the GOAT in the first place.

You are right it is a no brainer in a certain sense. Evert didnt have even close to the toughest competition of all these women and I cant believe she has as many votes as she does. Graf also has too many, although her competition was atleast tougher than Evert.

 

[suwanee4712]

Yes that all makes complete sense. An only 24 year old women with no major health or personal problems, who reached her 3rd of only 4 slam finals she would ever reach that year, and whose 14-4 record in slams ties her 14-4 from 1987 was suddenly "past her prime". Why was I not so clever to realize this obvious truth. Forgive me.

Also it makes perfect sense to think of 1984 as so much more her prime than 1984 when she didnt win her first WTA tournament until November of that year, and nobody had even heard of her until her big Australian Open semifinal upset. Her 1 titles and 1 slam final from 1989 matches 1984. Her win % and GS W-L ratio for 1989 is better than 1984. Again how could I miss the obviousness to how her prime was suddenly 1984 much more than 1989. Actually my apologies, it was the amazingly deep field that featured Pam Shriver yet again as world #4, 32 year old Wendy Turnbull as world #5, and 17 year old Manuela Maleeva as world #6 which caused Sukova to not have superior results in 1984.



Perhaps Graf should have just let Sukova beat her in a grand slam semi or final that year the way prime Martina and Evert each once did. That way she would suddenly look stronger again by that logic.



Umm what is so strange here. Sabatini is clearly a superior singles player to Shriver. Sukova is a more dangerous player than Shriver, albeit less consistent. Garrison and Zvereva are atleast better players than an early 30s Wendy Turnbull.



Yet didnt Evert have amazing competition when she faced 33 year old Court after her 2nd pregnancy in 1975, or 33 year old King returning to tennis to play on knees 4x worse than 1990 Martina in 1977? I seem to remember several of you suggesting this. Court and King were not late bloomers who won 15 of their 18 slams from age 25 to 31 either. Didnt Evert have such tough competition facing a 16 year old Austin in 1979? Or should a 16 year old Austin now be viewed as "tougher competition" than a 16 year old Seles, LOL! Funny how players of such extreme ages are suddenly hopeless in the Graf era, yet such "strong competition" in someone elses.

In 1984, Sukova had already qualified for the V.S. tournament in March for the 1983 season. So if you're under the impression that no one had ever heard of her, then you might want to sit out discussions about early 80's tennis and read up a bit. After all, she was a US Open QF in 1983. And it was probably 1981 when I first heard about her.

I suppose Sukova's peak could be extended to 1988 since she was a QF at all 4 slams, although her ranking did drop and she had fewer close matches with those ranked above her.

It's convenient for you to emphasize 1984 when 1986 was her absolute peak. That year, she came within 4 points of beating Martina in the 1986 French semis, 3 pionts of defeating Chris in the Wimbledon QF, and defeated Chris to reach the 1986 US Open F. She also won the biggest title of her career that year, the Canadian Open.

Now you can talk about mid 80's competition and say that's why her results were better than they were later, but that's a bit like having your cake and eating it too since you have cited her as an example of Graf's tough competition. And you're definitely glossing over the fact that Sukova was absolutely owned by Pam Shriver 9-3, and only won 7 singles titles to Pam's 21. By the way, Pam defeated Helena 5 of 6 times after 1987 and as late as 1994, with 4 of those 5 wins being in straight sets. Maleeva, another oft maligned 1980's player went 5-2 vs. Sukova and won more titles as well.

You go overboard with your Shriver comparisons to Sabatini too. Up until the 1990 US Open, Sabatini's record was no better than Shriver's had been at her peak. Both had been to a slam final, and both had made a lot of slam SF and QF. However, Shriver had already beaten Martina twice in slam play. Gaby was still waiting on her first big singles win in a slam tournament over a top player. Take nothing away from Gaby, but if the 1990 US Open had never happened, she would've finished with 0 wins vs. all time greats in slam play in her career. And her record would've been hard to distinguish from Shriver's. So while Gaby should be rated higher than Pam, it's mostly on the strength of one two week period of play.

Your comparisons of Garrison's and Zvereva's careers to Turnbull too are overdone. Zvereva and Garrison each have one slam F in their careers, while Turnbull had 3. I think Zvereva was the most talented out of the 3, and I believe that Garrison was the most consistent for the longest, but I don't think there's a huge difference in the quality of competition that Turnbull provided the top players of her era compared to what Garrison and Zvereva achieved.

I just find it odd that you point to Garrison, Zvereva, Sabatini, and Sukova as such great competition for Graf. Yet there's not much in that group of players that seperates them from Martina and Chris faced in the early to mid 80's. I think some Graf fans are fooling themselves and making assumptions about an era of tennis they aren't that familiar with.

 

[flying24]

In 1984, Sukova had already qualified for the V.S. tournament in March for the 1983 season. So if you're under the impression that no one had ever heard of her, then you might want to sit out discussions about early 80's tennis and read up a bit. After all, she was a US Open QF in 1983. And it was probably 1981 when I first heard about her.

Actually I began to follow tennis in the mid 70s and I hardly took any note of her until late 1984. She was never in the U.S Open quarterfinals in 1983 by the way. Her first slam quarterfinal was the 1984 U.S Open.

I suppose Sukova's peak could be extended to 1988 since she was a QF at all 4 slams, although her ranking did drop and she had fewer close matches with those ranked above her.

If I recall correctly she lost in the 4th round of the U.S Open in 1988, so not quite all 4 quarterfinals.

It's convenient for you to emphasize 1984 when 1986 was her absolute peak. That year, she came within 4 points of beating Martina in the 1986 French semis, 3 pionts of defeating Chris in the Wimbledon QF, and defeated Chris to reach the 1986 US Open F. She also won the biggest title of her career that year, the Canadian Open.

Sorry my mistake. Evert and Navratilova competition are considered strong for atleast a 15 year period, even when they have busted knees, are pregnant, are fat as a blimp, or are in their mid 30s, or are 15 and 16. However a player can only count towards Graf competition if they are in their "1 year peak". Too bad Graf didnt win the French or/and U.S Open in 1986 as she had the potential to do despite not pulling it off in the end, you would have to assign Sukova a new peak year then. Anyway it really doesnt matter as apparently Sukova at her "peak" according to you couldnt even do once beat a 16 and 17 year old pre prime Graf in 1986 and 1987:

http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/....asp?PlayerID=190110&x=13&y=7&Player1ID=70044

Now you can talk about mid 80's competition and say that's why her results were better than they were later, but that's a bit like having your cake and eating it too since you have cited her as an example of Graf's tough competition.

Actually Sukova was part of both the Martina era and the Graf era. Her best results were from 1984 to 1989. So however weak or strong she is applies to both anyway. I was only mocking your potrayal of her being so much stronger during the latter part of the Martina era, while being so washed up in the early part of the Graf era while producing basically the same sort of results and still in her early-mid 20s.

And you're definitely glossing over the fact that Sukova was absolutely owned by Pam Shriver 9-3, and only won 7 singles titles to Pam's 21.

Note I said more dangerous to the top players but less consistent. I am fully aware of the head to head between the two as contrary to your belief I am fully aware of 80s tennis despite that I am not in awe of Evert and Navratilova competition and everything about them vs all women in history as you are (it must shock you to hear that is possible from someone who followed tennis while they played). It doesnt even really surprise me as Shriver is so much more consistent a player I would expect her to lead the head to head. I just personally think Sukova is a bigger threat to very best players as she has a higher peak level of play than does Shriver. It is not like there are no facts to back up this opinion. If you want some examples of this there is here 1984 Australian Open semifinal win over Navratilova you refer to. I could never imagine Shriver beating Martina in a slam semi or slam final in her two best years of 83 and 84. The closer Shriver came to something like this was her quarterfinal win over Martina at the 1982 U.S Open, which as I am sure you know was based on a virus she picked up that left her devoid of any energy in the last set and a half when she had been dominating the match up to then (kind of similar to asterix you and others have assigned Sanchez's 94 U.S Open title over Graf when Graf's back went wonky halfway through the final which she had been dominating until then). Another would be Sukova beating Evert in the 1986 U.S Opens, and even taking Evert to 3 sets in the 1984 Australian Open final and 1986 Wimbledon quarters. Shriver went on a 17 match losing streak with Chris which she didnt break until late 1987 when Chris was really going downhill bigtime, and I dont recall her taking any sets off Chris in grand slam meetings ever.

Also not noted in their head to head is Shriver avoided clay where she was completely hopeless. Granted clay is not the best surface of Sukova either but had they played a reasonable # of matches on clay I am pretty sure Sukova would have won every single one of them, bringing their head to head closer. Actually I believe they have only played once on hard courts, which Sukova won in straight sets, and which based on results seems to be Sukova's best surface by far. Almost every match they have played are indoors or on grass, where Sukova is very good but which are Shriver's best surfaces by a huge margin. Really the one sided head to head is quite skewed by their hardly being any matches on Shriver's worst surface by far (clay) and Sukova's best surface by far (hard courts).

By the way, Pam defeated Helena 5 of 6 times after 1987 and as late as 1994, with 4 of those 5 wins being in straight sets.

Read above. By the way Shriver is only 2.5 years older than Sukova so not that huge a difference. Even if Sukova's prime only lasted until 1989, which you even deny, lasting until age 24 she didnt last that long at a prime level of performance anyway, even for just a very good player. Shriver was having some of her best results ever as late as 1987 and 1988, and as early as 1978, so obvously her longevity was on another planet from Sukova's. So basically comparing the two I give longevity and consistency both to Shriver a long way over Sukova, I give Sukova peak level of play potential by a long way over Shriver. Given the combination of the first two things I mentioned, and the skewed surface distribution they played on, their head to head alone hardly disproves anything I said. Sukova also wasnt the perennial #4 of the Graf era like Shriver was in the Martina era anyway.

Maleeva, another oft maligned 1980's player went 5-2 vs. Sukova and won more titles as well.

You seem to forget Maleeva was a top 10 player in the late 80s and early 90s sa well. Again she was a crossover player of both the Martina eras and Graf eras. She had impressive longevity and good results from 1984-1993 so in fact she was an even bigger part of the Graf era than the Marina era in terms of length of time, albeit in another sense not as in the Graf era there were more players superior to her than the Martina era. Ironically she was able to have more success overall in the Martina era as a teenager than the Graf era as a mature women, despite being a regular top 10 player in both.
I suppose you will now argue her entire prime was as a teenager though.

 

[flying24]

You go overboard with your Shriver comparisons to Sabatini too. Up until the 1990 US Open, Sabatini's record was no better than Shriver's had been at her peak. Both had been to a slam final, and both had made a lot of slam SF and QF. However, Shriver had already beaten Martina twice in slam play. Gaby was still waiting on her first big singles win in a slam tournament over a top player. Take nothing away from Gaby, but if the 1990 US Open had never happened, she would've finished with 0 wins vs. all time greats in slam play in her career. And her record would've been hard to distinguish from Shriver's. So while Gaby should be rated higher than Pam, it's mostly on the strength of one two week period of play.

Sorry but I couldnt disagree with you more here. Sabatini has it over Shriver in everyway if we are just talking about singles tennis. There is a much bigger gap between the two than the 1 slam title difference indicates if anything. Gaby has been in 3 slam finals on 3 different surfaces. Shriver has been in only 1. Gaby has been in twice the # of slam semis as Shriver. Gaby has many more tier 1 titles than Shriver. Gaby was a threat on all surfaces, Shriver was completely hopeless on clay. Gaby won the year end Championships twice which is the biggest non slam event which Shriver never won, and to win 1 of the 2 in 1988 an 18 year old Gaby easily beat a 26 year old Shriver who had one of her career wins over Graf to reach the final. Sabatini has more singles titles, fairly close 27 to 21, but Gaby retired at 26 of course. Sabatini's record and constant challenge vs Graf and Seles is so far superior to Shriver's vs say Navratilova and Evert. The two do not even come close.

I find it funny how you chastise me for underrating 80s players, who contrary to your earlier comments I am very familiar with, yet you seem to constantly underrate all the 90s players:

Sanchez Vicario
Sabatini apparently
Novotna based on many of your comments I read
even Martinez, given how she seems to be a favorite punching bag of yours and yet you constantly try to build up the likes of Maleeva who is a by far inferior players based on career achievements atleast.

Your comparisons of Garrison's and Zvereva's careers to Turnbull too are overdone. Zvereva and Garrison each have one slam F in their careers, while Turnbull had 3. I think Zvereva was the most talented out of the 3, and I believe that Garrison was the most consistent for the longest, but I don't think there's a huge difference in the quality of competition that Turnbull provided the top players of her era compared to what Garrison and Zvereva achieved.

You see you are not even realizing where you are completely off base here. If we are talking about all 3 players in their primes I would agree, all good players of a similar caliber, some differences in how they either didnt live up to talent (Zvereva), maximized it (Turnbull), were reliable over a good time span (Garrison). I dont disagree with any of that. However you ignored that I noted it was an early 30s Turnbull since that is what she was during the Martina dominance, yet was still a top 5 player inspite of that. Oh I forgot though, very good players who had to face Graf were washed up by their mid 20s (or sooner) while all good players who faced Martina or Chris are all still "prime" and as formidable as always into their 30s. Funny how Martina the supposed GOAT who didnt even win her 3rd slam title until age 25 cant be in her prime anymore in her mid 30s when Graf enjoyed a few years of dominance over Martina and the womens game, yet given that you completely ignored my early 30s reference to Turnbull I suppose Turnbull can be reasonably expected to be prime at the same ages poor Martina, the so called GOAT, so called queen of longevity, and ultimate late developer, of all people cant be. Please.

I just find it odd that you point to Garrison, Zvereva, Sabatini, and Sukova as such great competition for Graf. Yet there's not much in that group of players that seperates them from Martina and Chris faced in the early to mid 80's. I think some Graf fans are fooling themselves and making assumptions about an era of tennis they aren't that familiar with.

I brought up Garrison, Zvereva, Sabatini, and Sukova when bringing up grass specifically and 1990 specifically only in reference to what someone else was saying. When one brings up other players from the Graf era that were below Graf, Navratilova, Seles, Sanchez Vicario, Sabatini, such as Novotna, Pierce, Martinez, even Fernandez than Garrison, Zvereva, Sukova get pushed back even deeper to the places that were occupied by the Bettina Bunges and Barbara Potters of the World in the Navratilova era. I am not surprised you completely ignore what I mentioned those players in response to though and take it completely out of context however, similar to how you ignored I was referring to an early 30s Turnbull earlier.

 

[Moose Malloy]

Actually I began to follow tennis in the mid 70s and I hardly took any note of her until late 1984

I just lol'd at that. I hope I'm not the only one who's noticed the eerily similar writing style of several posters in this thread(& several other threads in this section recently)?

 

[suwanee4712]

Flying, I'm pretty critical of players of Graf's era such as Sanchez, Martinez, Hingis, Majoli (who is very Ruzici-like by the way) etc. But I don't think that I have ever failed to acknowledge any of these players as accomplished in their own right. The only time I tend to be really critical of them is usually in response to Graf fans who act as if womens tennis post 1992 was some bonanza of talent, skill, and somehow a proving ground of Graf's greatness.

Frankly, any one that wants to speak to Graf's greatness or her claim as the GOAT has lots of positives that can be relied upon. Her best argument isn't tearing down the records of others. But that so often seems to be what we get. Now if I've taken part in that, then I'm just as wrong. But having watched tennis for 30 years now, I honestly do feel just the way I've stated it.

Also, I'm not a fanatic of Martina, Chris, or any of the other players that I've defended recently. I loved watching them, just as I loved watching Steffi, BJK, and so many others. My favorites tend to be a lot of players that are thrown under the bus in all of these debates. Players like Ruzici, Fromholtz, Barker, Wade, Mandlikova, Bunge, Rinaldi, Shriver, Sukova, Lindqvist, Jaeger, Sabatini, Zvereva, Savchenko, Novotna, and McNeil. There probably isn't a single occasion in which I rooted for Martina, Chris, or Steffi over any of those players. I suppose that's why I feel the need to defend the competition of Martina and Chris. Because these ladies were wonderful players in their own right. And, in my opinion, they stack up well vs. the competition at any time after 1992.

Not that this has a lot to do with what we've been talking about. But in the interest of full disclosure, this is where my general point of view comes from. And I'm saying this because I don't really feel up to participating in the kind of arguments that we used to have on this forum a couple of years ago. It wasn't fair to anyone including Steffi, whom I do admire.

 

[CEvertFan]

Navratilova and Evert are two of my favorite players but they weren't the beginning and end of tennis for me either. I have many other favorite players both men and women and really enjoyed watching them play but I'll just list some of the women here - Shriver, Sabatini, Sukova, Mandlikova, Zvereva, Patty Fendick, Barbara Potter, Andrea Tesesvari, Carling Bassett, M.J. Fernandez, Kelesi, Amanda Coetzer, Hingis, Capriati, Garrison, Austin, Jaeger, Tauziat, Testud, Gigi Fernandez, Robin White, Ai Sugiyama, Reggi, Manuela Maleeva, Applemans, Amy Frazier, Rubin, Lindsay Davenport, Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario, Seles, Graf. The list goes on and on.


I too have been watching (and playing) tennis for over 25 years now and I wouldn't ever try to tear down any player to the extent that some on here seem to love to do. Even if a player isn't a personal favorite, I still admire them and their accomplishments and give them the credit they are due. I also don't have a problem with being constructively critical of a player either, because in the end no one on here can change history and it's all just subjective opinion anyway. Someone picking on Graf won't change her marvelous career, someone picking on Navratilova or Evert or King or Court won't change their marvelous careers either.

 

[BTURNER]

My favorite is Evert. Do I put her at #1 or 2 or even 3? No, if anything I am tougher on her and Navratilova. I refuse to overly minimize the slams earned by Court on one end or Graf at the other end of their eras. And actually the posts in these rooms have changed my mind on some my preconceived notions of theirr place in history. Again Evert is better than faster surfaces than we credit and not so unimaginably superior on the slower ones. We have to look at patterns, and records and not get caught up in specific match-ups or matches and their dynamics. We have to credit the champions who had the kind crushing dominance that squeezes the confidence and life out of perspective competition in its crib, before we even knew it existed. Instead, we say they lived in a 'convenient' era.

 

[boredone3456]

My favorite is Evert. Do I put her at #1 or 2 or even 3? No, if anything I am tougher on her and Navratilova. I refuse to overly minimize the slams earned by Court on one end or Graf at the other end of their eras. And actually the posts in these rooms have changed my mind on some my preconceived notions of theirr place in history. Again Evert is better than faster surfaces than we credit and not so unimaginably superior on the slower ones. We have to look at patterns, and records and not get caught up in specific match-ups or matches and their dynamics. We have to credit the champions who had the kind crushing dominance that squeezes the confidence and life out of perspective competition in its crib, before we even knew it existed. Instead, we say they lived in a 'convenient' era.

Well said, Evert is probably my favorite player, ironic because I never got to see her play live and only have seen a ton of tapes and youtube clips since I am only 21, but I just really enjoy her style of game. But would my considering her my favorite mean I put her at number 1 all time, definitely not. Top 4 all time yes, number 1, no. I have quite a few other favorites that I enjoy so she is not the be all end all for me. some of the other players I enjoy/enjoyed watching would be: Navratilova, Graf, Seles, Davenport, Vicario, Coetzer, Rubin, Shriver, Sabatini, Henin, Hingis (her game not her attitude), Sugiyama, Testud, Decugis, 2002/2003 Serena when she was in top shape and had the technique as well as the power, and Clijsters, just to name a few, but I don't delude myself on some of them being all time greats either.

I have no problem being critical of other players and some of their achievements here, but I will also give credit where credit is due. At the end of the day players may have had poor competition, but a player can only play who is around and across the net and make due with what they have. To Bash a player for dominating during a time when competition wasn't up to a personal standard or par based on opinion is crazy. Some get so wrapped up in defending their favorite player that it comes down to name calling and flat out rudeness, which really has no place in the discussion. You only really measure a player and their accomplishment vs their contemporaries, because many other ways delve it coulda and woulda's and while those are interesting, they cannot be proven one way or the other.

 

[BTURNER]

What really gets me is those posters in here who make it a point of pride to belittle the legacies of specific players because they don't like the poster who is routing against one of theirs. Not much pride to take to bed after letting yourself be pushed by emotions, to offer up utter idiocy on these rankings in the name of winning a flame war during the day. Folks are saying some real stupid things and being forced to defend them until they are laughed at.

 

[CEvertFan]

My favorite is Evert. Do I put her at #1 or 2 or even 3? No, if anything I am tougher on her and Navratilova. I refuse to overly minimize the slams earned by Court on one end or Graf at the other end of their eras. And actually the posts in these rooms have changed my mind on some my preconceived notions of theirr place in history. Again Evert is better than faster surfaces than we credit and not so unimaginably superior on the slower ones. We have to look at patterns, and records and not get caught up in specific match-ups or matches and their dynamics. We have to credit the champions who had the kind crushing dominance that squeezes the confidence and life out of perspective competition in its crib, before we even knew it existed. Instead, we say they lived in a 'convenient' era.

My only small problem with what you said is that you seem to imply that Navratilova and Evert slightly underachieved. There hasn't been another rivalry like theirs ever in the sport of tennis and they do sort of cancel one another out a bit because they were both two of the greatest ever, squaring off against one another AND denying each other majors for over 15 years. If one or the other hadn't ever been a tennis pro the one who was would easily have over 25 majors to their name and there would be no doubt whatsoever that she would be considered the GOAT. That's why I pick Navratilova and Evert as #1 and #2 respectively. You have to give credit where it's due and take their rivalry of 80 matches into account and how competetive they were against each other for so long.

 

[BTURNER]

My only small problem with what you said is that you seem to imply that Navratilova and Evert slightly underachieved. There hasn't been another rivalry like theirs ever in the sport of tennis and they do sort of cancel one another out a bit because they were both two of the greatest ever, squaring off against one another AND denying each other majors for over 15 years. If one or the other hadn't ever been a tennis pro the one who was would easily have over 25 majors to their name and there would be no doubt whatsoever that she would be considered the GOAT. That's why I pick Navratilova and Evert as #1 and #2 respectively. You have to give credit where it's due and take their rivalry of 80 matches into account and how competetive they were against each other for so long.

I am not sure what you mean by 'underachieved' they have 18 slams what more could I want from them ? This game we are playing about GOAT is ours not theirs. they are just fine with their legacy and so am I.

I cannot put Martina ahead of a Graf or a Court or Wills with two French titles, and almost no Italians or Germans and not many Hilton head or US clay courts to balance that shortcoming, no matter how many great matches or finals, or sets she played. I am not going to give her slams she didn't earn on hypotheticals .

I cannot put Evert as #1 over Court or Wills or Graf without suggesting that their slams were compromised by lucky circumstance, or less than top of the line compettion and ignore Mimi Jausovec and Wendy Turnbull but this is just me. I recognise that a good case can be made for any and all as GOAT just as you do.

I am one of those 'nature abhors a vacuum' kind of guys. If Martina had not been around, maybe it simply means Hana or some young baseliner, even an almost unknown might have gotten into a first final and changed the course of her personal history, got access to better coaching, and knowledgable trainers and gotten more confidence, more iinspiration and taken some of those finals and become a real contender. Had Chris not been there, who knows who would have filled that gap in, first all those slims finals and then those slams finals . That' s what I mean by strangling the infants in the crib. I am sure you are right about that rivalry being unique. but who knows who could have come through such gaping holes as those two greats filled. Maybe someone better? we just don't know. We do know that Evert has said she might well have quit the sport from early burnout in the early or mid eighties had Martina not come along to offer a unique challenge . That leaves her with maybe 14 to 16 slams !

 

[AndrewD]

All 3 are poll options though. So how would that make it easy as you can only vote for 1 of those 3.

You can take your pick of the three - that isn't too hard, is it?

King
Court
Goolagong
Navratilova
With just those 4 alone playing in the Evert era it should be a no brainer as to what the right answer should be.

If you picked Evert then it indicates that YOU have no brain. Congratulations on being two IQ points shy of an imbecile.

 

[BTURNER]

Oh Andrew that competition is extraordinarily deep and dangerous, if your slam is held on a grass court and you are a Fort Lauderdale clay courter I don't care how old they are. From 1971 through 1975 three of 0f four and from 1975 through 1987 two of the 3 were grass.

 

[CEvertFan]

You can take your pick of the three - that isn't too hard, is it?



If you picked Evert then it indicates that YOU have no brain. Congratulations on being two IQ points shy of an imbecile.

If you didn't pick Evert then YOU are the one with no brain. Congratulations.


You're dislike for Evert is showing. Nothing more.

 

[grafselesfan]

I am surprised King has no votes. She faced Court in her prime, Bueno in some of her prime, Evert and Goolagong in their primes first at the tail end of her own prime, then when she was getting older and past her own. She also faced Wade, Richey, Jones. She even had some success vs Navratilova and Austin at the end of her carer when she was still trying to make some late runs at glory. She really ought to atleast have some votes I would have thought.

 

[CEvertFan]

I am surprised King has no votes. She faced Court in her prime, Bueno in some of her prime, Evert and Goolagong in their primes first at the tail end of her own prime, then when she was getting older and past her own. She also faced Wade, Richey, Jones. She even had some success vs Navratilova and Austin at the end of her carer when she was still trying to make some late runs at glory. She really ought to atleast have some votes I would have thought.

Good point and I agree with you. King would be my second choice.

 

[boredone3456]

I am surprised King has no votes. She faced Court in her prime, Bueno in some of her prime, Evert and Goolagong in their primes first at the tail end of her own prime, then when she was getting older and past her own. She also faced Wade, Richey, Jones. She even had some success vs Navratilova and Austin at the end of her carer when she was still trying to make some late runs at glory. She really ought to atleast have some votes I would have thought.

King was going to be my vote but I confused the poll titles in my head ad voted for Serena in the wrong one. King truly had tough competition, Court was her big rival and gave her all she could handle, and all those other women she had to play along with trying to set up a tour for the women. She had to deal with Court who was phenominal, Bueno, Richey, Jones, and Wade. Then you had outside looking in Casals, who was also extremely talented just not as much so as others around her, along with personal pain Dorothy Cheney who seemed to be a giant crick in her neck throughout her career. Then Later Goolagong, Evert, and then pre-prime but still good Navratilova. King had a tough go, nothing against the others but Kings Competition I think has been underrated.

 

[NadalandFedererfan]

I dont understand all the votes for Graf and Evert. Both have "overrated" competition on this forum. Serena with 3 votes is even funnier. Nobody on this whole list had worse competition than Serena. Venus has 0 votes, I would even vote for her over Serena considering she had her best years overall from 1999-2001 where there was more competition than 2002-2003 and way more than there is now.

 

[CEvertFan]

I dont understand all the votes for Graf and Evert. Both have "overrated" competition on this forum. Serena with 3 votes is even funnier. Nobody on this whole list had worse competition than Serena. Venus has 0 votes, I would even vote for her over Serena considering she had her best years overall from 1999-2001 where there was more competition than 2002-2003 and way more than there is now.

Is King overrated? Court? Austin? Goolagong? Navratilova? Graf?


I didn't think so...

 

[gj011]

Graf is extremely overrated. This poll is yet another proof.

 

[NadalandFedererfan]

Is King overrated? Court? Austin? Goolagong? Navratilova? Graf?


I didn't think so...

What you are not getting which is completely ridiculous is that you arent even acknowledging what point in their careers those players were when Evert was on top and had to face then. If we completely ignore what point in a players career someone was at, how long they faced them, the circumstances, then we could say the following players had the following competition then:

Graf- Navratilova, Evert, Seles, Mandlikova, Hingis, Venus Williams, Serena Williams, Venus Williams, Sanchez Vicario, Davenport. Oh yeah Graf played Tracy Austin in 1982 and 1994 so by your way of thinking we should add her in to.

Serena- Venus, Graf, Seles, Sanchez Vicario, Davenport, Henin, Hingis, Novotna

Court- Navratilova, Evert, King, Bueno, Ann Jones, Goolagong, Wade. Might as well add Tracy Austin since they were on tour together in 1977 right.

King- Navratilova, Evert, Court, Bueno, Ann Jones, Goolagong, Austin, Mandlikova, Jaeger, Wade. Might as well add Graf in since they were on tour together in 1982 and 1983.

Do you see how ridiculous that looks. Now back to realism lets look what Evert really faced from 1974-1981 when she was on top of the womens game and her "era" roughly speaking:

Court- Court did not even play any tennis in 1974 when Evert won her first slams. She returned in 1975 at 33 years old, so Court was not part of Evert's era of reign until 33. Court is 12 and a half years older than Evert, the exact same age difference as between Navratilova and Graf, and Court was not a late developer as Martina was either.

King- As mentioned Evert did not her first slam title until 1974. Evert did not face King at any of the grand slam events in 1974 and 1975, except for Wimbledon 1975 where she lost to 31 year old King on her butchered knees that would cause her to retire at first. King shocked everyone by returning to tennis in 1977 and by now was 33 years old. So King was not a direct opponent of Evert's era of reign, except for one match at Wimbledon (won by 31 year old King) until age 33 as well. King and Evert are 11 years apart in age.

Austin- Due to Austin not even playing the French Open from 1979-1981 and how Wimbledon panned out, Evert only had to play Austin at the 1979 and 1980 U.S Opens in any slam events. They each won 1. A blip on the radar opponent for Evert all things considered.

Graf- Graf won her first slam in 1987, Evert her last slam in 1986. The two women are 14 and a half years apart in age.

Navratilova- yes Navratilova I will concede. Although she didnt face the start of the real Navratilova until 1982 by which time Evert had won 2/3rds of her slams.

Goolagong- yes as well. However slam count is inflated by 1960s and 1970s Aussie Open status as she won 4 of her 7 slams there. Contrary to your earlier statement the sparatic Goolagong is definitely not superior to Venus, Henin, or possibly even Hingis or Davenport. Did not win a slam title outside the Australian Open anytime between 1971 and 1980.

If we want a true measure of Evert's true competition of the 18 slams she won these were some 7 out of her 18 final opponents- Olga Morozova (twice), Wendy Turnbull (twice), Pam Shriver, Virginia Ruzici, Mima Jausovec. Evert defeated Navratilova, Graf, Court, or King in only 4 of her 18 slam final wins, and 1 of those 4 was the 1975 version of Navratilova.

 

[BTURNER]

your problems are twofold. One is that the reason Evert's competitive slam years are what you claim them to be is BECAUSE those other great champs played and by doing so helped define those year's success and failures for Evert. Had King and Court and Graf not beaten her, we would be defining her era differently, not 1974 through 1986. Court took her down twice in slams in 1973 alone and King once. And Graf took the 1988 Australian. Second, again its not all about age or injury. Its about surface and style of play. S&V's tend to mature later and stay competitive later, particularly in a time when first 3 of 4, then 2 of 4 slams are on grass. It extends their prime and stalls Evert's.

 

[gj011]

Monica Seles. She had to Graf, one of the all time greats in her prime, Sabatini playing her best ever tennis, Navratilova clearly past her prime but still an extremely formidable player, Sanchez Vicario a great player playing well. Add to that dangerous and legit contenders like Capriati, Novotna, Fernandez, Martinez, Garrison, Maleeva, Zvereva, and Sukova. Then the top 20 rounded out by dangerous players like Tauziat, Frazier, Meshki, Fairbank-Nidifier, Weisner, Paulus, Maleeva #2, Maleeva #3.

Agreed. And add Gunther Parche on top of all those.

 

[CyBorg]

Agreed. And add Gunther Parche on top of all those.

Gunther Parche double-bageled Monica.