Martina Navratilova played during an era before the homogenization of surfaces and at the beginning of the Open Era. She played at the US Open and Australian Open on different surfaces during her career. She did make more of an effort to play at the substandard event Australia offered pre-1988 than other players of previous generations (minus Margaret Court).
Both Martina and Serena hold their non-calendar year slam and both women changed the physicality of the sport, however Martina dominated women's tennis in a way that Serena has never been able to accomplish. Martina did this after age 25 and during the same era as her chief rival (Chris Evert) had also accumulated 18 grand slam singles. Serena Williams NEVER had to face a "Chris Evert-type" historical tennis figure consistently during her generation. The best Serena faced consistently was Venus and Justine who both hold seven grand slam singles titles. It is why I believe Serena's generation is historically weaker.
Having watched both Martina and Serena throughout their entire careers, Serena's dominance came in sporadic waves, whereas, Martina's was ever-present. Inside and outside the majors, Martina dominated. Serena dominated the majors, not as much outside.
If Serena ties Martina and Chris at 18, Martina and Chris have the career statistics to lay claim to a better position historically. However, once Serena wins number 19, there is a great argument that catapults her beyond Martina and Chris.
Beyond Martina and Chris, she has Helen Wills Moody, Steffi Graf and Margaret Court to contend with historically. And before the jabs begin, please consider this fact:
Helen Wills Moody won all of her 19 grand slam events never having played in Australia. Steffi Graf is the only other player to who have won the most outside of Australia with 18.
None of these ladies I've discussed dominated world tennis like Helen Wills Moody did. None of them.
And, exit.
AngieB
