Serena Williams ties Navratilova's Slam final tally

[helterskelter]

They are both at 32. Serena moves ahead of Graf's 31. Evert still ahead at 34. Court left trailing behind at 29 (24-5 in Slam finals is an extraordinary record!)

 

[chimneysweep]

Serena will probably break the mark.

 

[chimneysweep]

Just realized Evert has a pretty mediocre (for a great) slam final mark of 18-16. In her defense she almost always played an all time great.

 

[chimneysweep]

@helterskelter, are you busy these days. I wish you would be on this forum more. You are one of the smartest people on the sport I know. Of course the current field (on both genders) probably interests you a lot less.

 

[helterskelter]

Just realized Evert has a pretty mediocre (for a great) slam final mark of 18-16. In her defense she almost always played an all time great.

Navratilova's record isn't much better either at 18-14. But they both had tough opponents. Even Austin and Mandlikova - Austin beat them once each. The thread about asterisks isn't totally absurd. I do still think there's a case for Evert and Navratilova as being as good as Graf or Williams, as they would both have a lot more than 18 Slams if it weren't for the other, and neither Graf nor Williams had an Evert or a Navratilova across their whole career.

 

[BTURNER]

Navratilova's record isn't much better either at 18-14. But they both had tough opponents. Even Austin and Mandlikova - Austin beat them once each. The thread about asterisks isn't totally absurd. I do still think there's a case for Evert and Navratilova as being as good as Graf or Williams, as they would both have a lot more than 18 Slams if it weren't for the other, and neither Graf nor Williams had an Evert or a Navratilova across their whole career.

Its the only time in the history of women's tennis where two GOAT players competed in virtually the same years and same venues. They could not possibly have as high a major count as Court or Graf, or Connolly or Lenglen or Wills or Serena. Their legacies and much of their true greatness is defined by that unique rivalry in the sport. It came closest to duplication with Rosewall and Laver.

 

[helterskelter]

Its the only time in the history of women's tennis where two GOAT players competed in virtually the same years and same venues. They cannot possibly have as high a major count as Court or Graf, or Connolly or Lenglen or Wills or Serena.

Non-injured Connolly, that is - they have twice her major count as things stand! [I think it'd have ended up the same for Graf and Seles were it not for Gunther Parche].

 

[BTURNER]

Non-injured Connolly, that is - they have twice her major count as things stand! [I think it'd have ended up the same for Graf and Seles were it not for Gunther Parche].

I personally don't think anyone can be legitimately seen as a GOAT, unless they also conquer all four surfaces . So there is still that unanswered question mark for Seles.

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

Navratilova's record isn't much better either at 18-14. But they both had tough opponents. Even Austin and Mandlikova - Austin beat them once each. The thread about asterisks isn't totally absurd. I do still think there's a case for Evert and Navratilova as being as good as Graf or Williams, as they would both have a lot more than 18 Slams if it weren't for the other, and neither Graf nor Williams had an Evert or a Navratilova across their whole career.

agree about Graf to some extent but williams already had a one hell of multi competition Hingis, Davenport, capriati, Venus, Henin, Kerber, Sharapova, Clister,Azerenka

 

[heftylefty]

Just realized Evert has a pretty mediocre (for a great) slam final mark of 18-16. In her defense she almost always played an all time great.

If Evert would have won a third of the Slams she lost, she would be sitting your 23 Slam. But I am sure someone will make an excuse for this lack of clutch-ness.

 

[chimneysweep]

Navratilova's record isn't much better either at 18-14. But they both had tough opponents. Even Austin and Mandlikova - Austin beat them once each. The thread about asterisks isn't totally absurd. I do still think there's a case for Evert and Navratilova as being as good as Graf or Williams, as they would both have a lot more than 18 Slams if it weren't for the other, and neither Graf nor Williams had an Evert or a Navratilova across their whole career.

I agree with that partly, but I already broke down my more specific views on that, and the problems with the rational I find on some that choose to go that route.

Also in fairness comparing Navratilova to Graf for instance. Navratilova of 87-89 is probably atleast as good as Evert of 82-84. IMO Navratilova would win almost everytime at Wimbledon, U.S Open and YEC. Then Seles of 90-92 is probably better than Evert of 85-86 and still developing Graf (much weaker than 88 and 89) Graf of 87. And the depth of 82-87 is easily poorer than 87-92. And that is covering 6 years of Graf's competition vs 6 years of Martina. Not sure 93-96 suffers much in comparision to say 77-81 either; maybe a bit weaker at worst.

I have no doubt whether she faced a true GOAT or not Serena in 1999-2008 faced a tougher field than Graf or Navratilova ever did hands down. That is balanced some by her poorer field in later years, but many in very old age when it is hard to win against any opposition. And regardless who is GOAT I think Graf, Navratilova, Serena would all say they would rather face Evert or Seles at Wimbledon or the U.S Open than prime Venus, let alone a field of Venus, Davenport, Henin, Clijsters, and other big hitters and strong fast court players. Serena's most questionable competition is at the French where she doesnt have that many titles anyway and where she faced Henin who is a top 5 all time on the surface. And this is during the post stabbing period which all acknowledge was the weakest period (not just due to Seles being out) of the entire Graf prime.

Fans of the Navratilova-Evert era dismiss depth but even a player like Sukova proves the difference depth makes. She took Martina and Chris, even in their primes, out of a couple big events. She was probably the best or atleast most dangeorus player of that period for awhile after ChrisMartina/Hana, post Austin and pre Graf. The modern eras have many players like Sukova or better. The regular top 10 of the Navratilova-Evert era after the top 3 didnt even have players like Pierce and Novotna who could take out any of the best on a given day, or destroy Graf 6-2, 6-2 in a slam semi like Pierce did. Could you imagine Bettina Bunge, Wendy Turnbull, Jo Durie, or even Pam Shriver ever doing that.

I think Evert overall had harder competition than Martina atleast. Facing a deeper field than Martina during her dominance in 74-81, then facing peak of peaks Martina who is probably better than anyone Martina ever faced (since yes absolute peak Martina is better than any version of Chris, and a much tougher match up for Chris than vice versa) 82 onwards.

Fascinating debate all around though.

 

[helterskelter]

I personally don't think anyone can be legitimately seen as a GOAT, unless they also conquer all four surfaces . So there is still that unanswered question mark for Seles.

I take your point on Seles's Wimbledon record, which is why I said "would have ended up the same" not "was briefly the same." But she was only 19 in April 1993, so I think the odds were in her favor.

By the way, what do you mean by four surfaces? Grass, hard, clay, and carpet? If so, then there won't be another GOAT unless they bring back carpet, and there was no GOAT until the 1970s or so. Or did you just mean the four major titles?

 

[helterskelter]

agree about Graf to some extent but williams already had a one hell of multi competition Hingis, Davenport, capriati, Venus, Henin, Kerber, Sharapova, Clister,Azerenka

True, but at that time her major titles haul wasn't that great. Anyway, I don't want to say that Williams isn't as great as Navratilova or Evert but that it's close and a lot closer than most now think (which is partly recency bias).

 

[helterskelter]

I agree with that partly, but I already broke down my more specific views on that, and the problems with the rational I find on some that choose to go that route.

Also in fairness comparing Navratilova to Graf for instance. Navratilova of 87-89 is probably atleast as good as Evert of 82-84. IMO Navratilova would win almost everytime at Wimbledon, U.S Open and YEC. Then Seles of 90-92 is probably better than Evert of 85-86 and still developing Graf (much weaker than 88 and 89) Graf of 87. And the depth of 82-87 is easily poorer than 87-92. And that is covering 6 years of Graf's competition vs 6 years of Martina. Not sure 93-96 suffers much in comparision to say 77-81 either; maybe a bit weaker at worst.

I have no doubt whether she faced a true GOAT or not Serena in 1999-2008 faced a tougher field than Graf or Navratilova ever did hands down. That is balanced some by her poorer field in later years, but many in very old age when it is hard to win against any opposition. And regardless who is GOAT I think Graf, Navratilova, Serena would all say they would rather face Evert or Seles at Wimbledon or the U.S Open than prime Venus, let alone a field of Venus, Davenport, Henin, Clijsters, and other big hitters and strong fast court players. Serena's most questionable competition is at the French where she doesnt have that many titles anyway and where she faced Henin who is a top 5 all time on the surface. And this is during the post stabbing period which all acknowledge was the weakest period (not just due to Seles being out) of the entire Graf prime.

Fans of the Navratilova-Evert era dismiss depth but even a player like Sukova proves the difference depth makes. She took Martina and Chris, even in their primes, out of a couple big events. She was probably the best or atleast most dangeorus player of that period for awhile after ChrisMartina/Hana, post Austin and pre Graf. The modern eras have many players like Sukova or better. The regular top 10 of the Navratilova-Evert era after the top 3 didnt even have players like Pierce and Novotna who could take out any of the best on a given day, or destroy Graf 6-2, 6-2 in a slam semi like Pierce did. Could you imagine Bettina Bunge, Wendy Turnbull, Jo Durie, or even Pam Shriver ever doing that.

I think Evert overall had harder competition than Martina atleast. Facing a deeper field than Martina during her dominance in 74-81, then facing peak of peaks Martina who is probably better than anyone Martina ever faced (since yes absolute peak Martina is better than any version of Chris, and a much tougher match up for Chris than vice versa) 82 onwards.

Fascinating debate all around though.

I think Navratilova of the period 82-86 has a very solid claim for the best five-year run of any woman, at least in the past 50 years or so. I don't know enough about Lenglen or Moody to compare. I agree about Sukova - by the way, the reason I said Evert would have beaten Sukova had Navratilova not played Wimbledon 85 is because Graf beat Fernandez at Roland Garros 93. I was comparing Sukova to Fernandez, but Sukova is certainly more dangerous. Had Graf played Sabatini or Sanchez in the 93 final, I'd have said Evert would have beaten Mandlikova.

Interesting thing about Graf is that in 95 and 96, she found form that she hadn't consistently shown since 1989. Graf won a Steffi Slam in the four Slams after the Seles stabbing, but her form in the three Slams in 93 was pretty mediocre. She did play excellently at the Australian Open 94, and I can imagine a real battle to the death with Seles on the surface that most favored Seles. But the Graf of Roland Garros 93 just wouldn't have got the job done against Seles. That said, we don't know for sure whether Graf's form didn't take a dip because of the stabbing - she may have felt bad about it, or felt under pressure to step up in Seles's absence, and so underperformed. Yet if Seles had played Roland Garros 93 against the Graf who did play it, Seles's form would have had to take a significant dip from her 90-92 Roland Garros form for her to lose that match. I also think that Seles would have been all Graf could handle at the 93 US Open on the form Graf showed. Wimbledon is hard to judge, because of the 92 final, and Graf's slice really taking Seles out of her comfort zone on grass, but a Graf playing poorly enough to rely on a Novotna choke and who lost 10 out of 12 games and almost 11 out of 13 is not a Graf who, on the face of it, is impossible for Seles to compete against. Anyway, we'll never know.

 

[chimneysweep]

True, but at that time her major titles haul wasn't that great. Anyway, I don't want to say that Williams isn't as great as Navratilova or Evert but that it's close and a lot closer than most now think (which is partly recency bias).

Very much recency bias. It is why Court and to a degree Evert are so underrated. I dismiss the people with an alterior agenda who ignore the Australian Open situation in Court's time without even any context, but even with that taken into account her record is astonishing. She won 3 of 4 slams in 5 different years (Graf is the other who did that).

Serena being most recent and Graf 2nd most recent is probably a large reason, although not the only one), most seem to probably have Serena 1st and Graf 2nd all time though.

 

[helterskelter]

Very much recency bias. It is why Court and to a degree Evert are so underrated. I dismiss the people with an alterior agenda who ignore the Australian Open situation in Court's time without even any context, but even with that taken into account her record is astonishing. She won 3 of 4 slams in 5 different years (Graf is the other who did that).

Serena being most recent and Graf 2nd most recent is probably a large reason, although not the only one), most seem to probably have Serena 1st and Graf 2nd all time though.

Honestly, I am not that interested in GOAT discussions, because I think that they are just statements of what people want to believe most of the time. I especially don't like cross-era comparisons, where there are real problems of commensurability - judging by standards that are fair to both eras. I am much more interested in talking about the past events and matches as a harking back to yesteryear than I am in ranking things. I don't know why we always have to rank everything.

 

[chimneysweep]

I think Navratilova of the period 82-86 has a very solid claim for the best five-year run of any woman, at least in the past 50 years or so. I don't know enough about Lenglen or Moody to compare. I agree about Sukova - by the way, the reason I said Evert would have beaten Sukova had Navratilova not played Wimbledon 85 is because Graf beat Fernandez at Roland Garros 93. I was comparing Sukova to Fernandez, but Sukova is certainly more dangerous. Had Graf played Sabatini or Sanchez in the 93 final, I'd have said Evert would have beaten Mandlikova.

Interesting thing about Graf is that in 95 and 96, she found form that she hadn't consistently shown since 1989. Graf won a Steffi Slam in the four Slams after the Seles stabbing, but her form in the three Slams in 93 was pretty mediocre. She did play excellently at the Australian Open 94, and I can imagine a real battle to the death with Seles on the surface that most favored Seles. But the Graf of Roland Garros 93 just wouldn't have got the job done against Seles. That said, we don't know for sure whether Graf's form didn't take a dip because of the stabbing - she may have felt bad about it, or felt under pressure to step up in Seles's absence, and so underperformed. Yet if Seles had played Roland Garros 93 against the Graf who did play it, Seles's form would have had to take a significant dip from her 90-92 Roland Garros form for her to lose that match. I also think that Seles would have been all Graf could handle at the 93 US Open on the form Graf showed. Wimbledon is hard to judge, because of the 92 final, and Graf's slice really taking Seles out of her comfort zone on grass, but a Graf playing poorly enough to rely on a Novotna choke and who lost 10 out of 12 games and almost 11 out of 13 is not a Graf who, on the face of it, is impossible for Seles to compete against. Anyway, we'll never know.

I agree with most of what you said and with the Sukova and Fernandez parallel (but prime Sukova is better). Just of note though Fernandez did play excellent from the middle of her quarter final vs Sabatini onwards. She even crushed Sanchez Vicario 6-2, 6-2 in the semis which is very impressive and shocked most people. someone who beats prime Sanchez 6-2, 6-2 on clay is not going to be a pushover. And while she regularly lost to Graf and Seles it is not like she never gave Seles battles, including in slams. She lost to Seles 7-5 in the 3rd of the 97 French (yes post stabbing) and 9-7 in the 3rd after winning a bagel set and having match point (which she choked on, she had numerous short balls she could have finished the point or moved forward on, and ended with an error) in the 91 Australian Open semis. So I dont totally follow the logic of "oh she went 3 sets with Fernandez, automatic loss to Seles". Graf lost a 6-0 set to Sanchez at the 92 French and still nearly beat Seles.

People are also assuming everything would ahve went as perfectly for Seles in all respects, health wise, and all other areas as it did in 91-92. That is almost impossible, and highly unlikely. It isnt surprising soon before the stabbing she had her first ever serious illness that took her off tour for 6 weeks as she was long overdue. She had perfect luck with health and every other element of luck for 3 years, that would not continue for good, it doesnt for anyone. And FWIW she didnt even look great in the Maleeva match she got stabbed in, down 2 breaks in the 2nd set at one point to one of her pigeons and by far the least talented of the 3 Maleevas (although she had come back from that in the 2nd set). Not surprising as she was coming back from illness. Who knows if she would even be back in top form for French or Wimbledon.

 

[chimneysweep]

Honestly, I am not that interested in GOAT discussions, because I think that they are just statements of what people want to believe most of the time. I especially don't like cross-era comparisons, where there are real problems of commensurability - judging by standards that are fair to both eras. I am much more interested in talking about the past events and matches as a harking back to yesteryear than I am in ranking things. I don't know why we always have to rank everything.

I am sick of GOAT discussions on the mens side especialy. The women I dont mind as much as they atleast dont dominate all conversation, especialy of the current tour. And it atleast carries to discussion of some past greats and their fields (which leads to discussions that carry even to the merely good players like Sukova and Fernandez as we see here), when one tries to compare them to Serena. Which is enjoyable in a sense. Unlike the mens where it rarely leads to discussion on Laver or Sampras, but just more nauseating "big 3" talk of the 3 players who already dominate every conversation here along with the pissing wars of their ubers.

GOAT is an overrated concept that is almost impossible to determine,a nd not nearly as important as some make it to be though. There is a pantheon of greats, that is good enough. With the goal to be in the first tier which Serena, Graf, Djokovic, Nadal, Navratlova, Federer, Evert, all are in anyway.

 

[chimneysweep]

I think Navratilova of the period 82-86 has a very solid claim for the best five-year run of any woman, at least in the past 50 years or so. I don't know enough about Lenglen or Moody to compare.

Navratilova of 82-86 is easily the best 5 year run in the Open Era. Graf could never keep total dominance or top form that long, neither could Serena. Serena's best run is probably 2012-2016 with 2014 not being a great year even though she kept the #1 ranking all year and won the U.S Open, and losing #1 in 2016 to an amazing year by Kerber even though Serena's year was quite strong but easily weaker than any of Navratilova's 5. The closest is probably Court who had a comparable 62-65, but a not so great 66 even though she won the Australian Open, in a year she didnt even finish and temporarily quit tennis right after losing at Wimbledon. 69-73 would be close too except she skipped almost all of 72.

Lenglen and Wills both had a 7 year run of losing only 1 match, but with limited play and limited competition. Especialy Lenglen. On paper that is the most dominant long stretch though of course.

 

[helterskelter]

I agree with most of what you said and with the Sukova and Fernandez parallel (but prime Sukova is better). Just of note though Fernandez did play excellent from the middle of her quarter final vs Sabatini onwards. She even crushed Sanchez Vicario 6-2, 6-2 in the semis which is very impressive and shocked most people. someone who beats prime Sanchez 6-2, 6-2 on clay is not going to be a pushover. And while she regularly lost to Graf and Seles it is not like she never gave Seles battles, including in slams. She lost to Seles 7-5 in the 3rd of the 97 French (yes post stabbing) and 9-7 in the 3rd after winning a bagel set and having match point (which she choked on, she had numerous short balls she could have finished the point or moved forward on, and ended with an error) in the 91 Australian Open semis. So I dont totally follow the logic of "oh she went 3 sets with Fernandez, automatic loss to Seles". Graf lost a 6-0 set to Sanchez at the 92 French and still nearly beat Seles.

People are also assuming everything would ahve went as perfectly for Seles in all respects, health wise, and all other areas as it did in 91-92. That is almost impossible, and highly unlikely. It isnt surprising soon before the stabbing she had her first ever serious illness that took her off tour for 6 weeks as she was long overdue. She had perfect luck with health and every other element of luck for 3 years, that would not continue for good, it doesnt for anyone. And FWIW she didnt even look great in the Maleeva match she got stabbed in, down 2 breaks in the 2nd set at one point to one of her pigeons and by far the least talented of the 3 Maleevas (although she had come back from that in the 2nd set). Not surprising as she was coming back from illness. Who knows if she would even be back in top form for French or Wimbledon.

Seles would of course have dips in form and health, too, as do all players over a long career. I mention the 93 Roland Garros just as the parallel to Evert in the absence of Navratilova. Perhaps Graf would have beaten Seles, but Evert would have won many events if Navratilova hadn't competed in them.

Anyway, I'm not sure Magdalena Maleeva is less talented than Katerina - talent is another slippery concept. But if I recall correctly, Magdalena was a top ten player for a while longer than Katerina.

 

[chimneysweep]

Seles would of course have dips in form and health, too, as do all players over a long career. I mention the 93 Roland Garros just as the parallel to Evert in the absence of Navratilova. Perhaps Graf would have beaten Seles, but Evert would have won many events if Navratilova hadn't competed in them.

Anyway, I'm not sure Magdalena Maleeva is less talented than Katerina - talent is another slippery concept. But if I recall correctly, Magdalena was a top ten player for a while longer than Katerina.

Well I found Maggie to be a B or even C+ one dimensional basher. Basically she played essentialy the same game as Seles, Pierce, Huber, Davenport, Majoli, Rubin, Capriati (with slight style differences) and obviously was well down that list at it, below even Huber and Majoli.

Katerina like Manuela was atleast a smart player with a more complete game, which each of them needed to be as none could blow people off the court, although that is the game Maggie insisted on playing most of her career even though she wasnt even close to the best at it. I saw all her matches with Seles and she did nothing but try and outslug her from the ground in each, there was no variety. You are right results wise there isnt much between Maggie and Katerina. I dont think either lasted long in the top 10 though, would have to check the data on that. I thnk Katerina had better slam results and won more tournaments though, better slam results for sure. Maggie made only 1 quarterfinal I believe. So even on paper Katerina could be better, and I sure appreciated her game a lot more.

 

[BTURNER]

I take your point on Seles's Wimbledon record, which is why I said "would have ended up the same" not "was briefly the same." But she was only 19 in April 1993, so I think the odds were in her favor.

By the way, what do you mean by four surfaces? Grass, hard, clay, and carpet? If so, then there won't be another GOAT unless they bring back carpet, and there was no GOAT until the 1970s or so. Or did you just mean the four major titles?

Lol. I could lie but I did mean 4 surfaces. Oops. I will replace it with 3. You are way off on carpet dying in the 1970's though. Graf Sabatini and Seles played an indoor carpet 'season' climaxing in the YEC in Madison Square Garden on carpet.

 

[helterskelter]

Lol. I could lie but I did mean 4 surfaces. Oops. I will replace it with 3. You are way off on carpet dying in the 1970's though. Graf Sabatini and Seles played an indoor carpet 'season' climaxing in the YEC in Madison Square Garden on carpet.

Didn't mean carpet died in the 1970s - I've followed since the late 80s and I remember those matches. I meant that there were no Slams on hard courts until the 1970s.

 

[Cashman]

WTA still has carpet at Tournoi de Québec.

EDIT: Just realised that TdQ has been taken off the tour to expand the Chinese swing. What the ****?

 

[DSH]

Oldest female to reach the final in a Major in the Open Era.
Williams surpass the record of Navratilova of 25 years ago.

 

[PDJ]

They are both at 32. Serena moves ahead of Graf's 31. Evert still ahead at 34. Court left trailing behind at 29 (24-5 in Slam finals is an extraordinary record!)

Has no one mentioned the AO, and the French to a lesser extent BUT in the mid 70s when Evert was peerless on clay, just weren't the priority they became near enough dammit to Graf's rise to the top.
So Evert's major finals appearances (let alone semi finals 52/56) are to be admired not diminished. Especially given she NEVER lost in a final to someone not named King, Court, Goolagong-Cawley, Austin, Navratilova or Graf - 3 of whom are acknowledged as all time greats. All achieved multiple majors and the no.1 ranking.
And Williams has 32 appearances and 9 runner up finishes. Which is great. ***But how many times has she fallen early? Probably not many, but I'm pretty sure it's considerably more than Evert. Her worse showing being a third round at Wimbledon, fourth round at the French (in her last year there) and 2 QFs at the USO - again towards the end of her career.
You can't buy that level of consistency.
No one comes close.
Edit: Evert only got the old faster grass at Wimbledon, and 5 of her 6 AO finals were on grass. I'm sure the count would be different if the Wimbledon grass was as it is now. And the AO was always on a hard court.
That said, Evert won the only 3 USO tournaments played on her favoured clay.
Edit 2: ***l looked it up.
Wikipedia has Williams losing 35 times, from 72, before the semi-finals.
Not so "clutch".

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Serena will probably break the mark.

No one should be surprised if it happens. After all, where majors count is concerned, she passed Graf and left Evert & Navratilova in the dust years ago.

Just realized Evert has a pretty mediocre (for a great) slam final mark of 18-16. In her defense she almost always played an all time great.

Several of Evert's opponents in the majors finals she won were players who never won a major.

 

[PDJ]

No one should be surprised if it happens. After all, where majors count is concerned, she passed Graf and left Evert & Navratilova in the dust years ago.



Several of Evert's opponents in the majors finals she won were players who never won a major.

Several? Name them.
I can only recall Morozova, Turnbull, Sukova and Shriver. All of whom won major doubles titles (so have pedigree). And only Shriver reached just one major final.
But, you said "several" of her opponents never won a major. So.... name them.

EDIT: Serena Williams & Navratilova have beaten 4 non major winners in finals.
Court and Graf each beat 3 non major winners.

 

[thrust]

They are both at 32. Serena moves ahead of Graf's 31. Evert still ahead at 34. Court left trailing behind at 29 (24-5 in Slam finals is an extraordinary record!)

I am pretty sure Court played in considerably fewer slams than: Serena, Navratilova, Evert or Graf.

 

[PDJ]

I am pretty sure Court played in considerably fewer slams than: Serena, Navratilova, Evert or Graf.

Court played 47.
Evert 56
Williams 72
Not sure about Graf and Navratilova, but will check.
Navratilova 66
Graf 54
I think the numbers above are accurate but may have miscounted.

 

[KG1965]

Court played 47.
Evert 56
Williams 72

A very indicative data: Serena participated in twice the slams of the Court.

 

[PDJ]

A very indicative data: Serena participated in twice the slams of the Court.

Not quite twice, but more than I realised.
I was surprised how often SW had been beaten prior to the SF.

 

[KG1965]

Not quite twice, but more than I realised.
I was surprised how often SW had been beaten prior to the SF.

The dates are given. SW has lost several times in the preliminary rounds. Court participated in a rather significant amount of slam less. And he almost always won. A little less but Evert is there near Court.
In fact, they are my top 2 all time.

I understand that media and fans are rather united in this "holy alliance" in defining Serena the GOAT, then Graf, Martina, Chrissie and Court.
Here ... I think the exact opposite:
1) Court
2) Evert
3) Navratilova
4) Graf
5) Serena

 

[KG1965]

Not quite twice, but more than I realised.
I was surprised how often SW had been beaten prior to the SF.

Reasoning aside: in the 70s I really liked Chrissie but Martina's game was the top all time I saw, so I was always undecided about who to cheer even though I might have cheered Martina slightly in my heart. They were young girl but Evert always won.
Then one year Martina became too sturdy.
Thanks to that escalation of muscles Martina has become unbeatable for Evert. But Martina lost my cheering. Nothing important, but I have many doubts about her, I can put it up high but never first, for this reason.
If I were sure that this excessive musculature was the result of training in the gym, I'd probably put she in first place.

 

[ron schaap]

They are both at 32. Serena moves ahead of Graf's 31. Evert still ahead at 34. Court left trailing behind at 29 (24-5 in Slam finals is an extraordinary record!)

why mention court whole time? She had only to defend her titles meaning only had to play finals, besides during her time there was a lot less competition too!

 

[Chadalina]

Just realized Evert has a pretty mediocre (for a great) slam final mark of 18-16. In her defense she almost always played an all time great.

Yet she still had a 89.97 winning percentage. I think she is the goat in %'s, did anyone win 90%?

why mention court whole time? She had only to defend her titles meaning only had to play finals, besides during her time there was a lot less competition too!

After last weeks wimbledon you cant say Courts competition was weak.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Navratilova of 82-86 is easily the best 5 year run in the Open Era. Graf could never keep total dominance or top form that long,

Navratilova could not match Graf's concentrated, absolute dominance in winning the Grand Slam in 1988. There's no scenario (using her real history) one can create where Navratilova ever wins it (not to mention the Olympic Gold in singles Graf won that same year). You mentioned the Open Era, and with that, Graf's 1988 mastery of the sport, along with Court before her in 1970, are the supreme achievements / textbook examples of mastering the sport. Absolute dominance.

 

[thrust]

No one should be surprised if it happens. After all, where majors count is concerned, she passed Graf and left Evert & Navratilova in the dust years ago.



Several of Evert's opponents in the majors finals she won were players who never won a major.

TRUE!

why mention court whole time? She had only to defend her titles meaning only had to play finals, besides during her time there was a lot less competition too!

You are either totally ignorant or lying. You should know that in Court's era there was no such thing as a challenge round, so she had to play every round to reach a final. The challenge round ended in the early 1920's. I thought I had heard every reason to belittle Court's record, but You made up a new one.

 

[PDJ]

TRUE!

You are either totally ignorant or lying. You should know that in Court's era there was no such thing as a challenge round, so she had to play every round to reach a final. The challenge round ended in the early 1920's. I thought I had heard every reason to belittle Court's record, but You made up a new one.

Are you saying it's "true" in agreement with @THUNDERVOLLEY that "several" of Evert's opponents in major finals NEVER won a major?
If so, perhaps you or @THUNDERVOLLEY could name these seven plus players.
I only know of four but please tell me who I've missed?

 

[thrust]

Are you saying it's "true" in agreement with @THUNDERVOLLEY that "several" of Evert's opponents in major finals NEVER won a major?
If so, perhaps you or @THUNDERVOLLEY could name these seven plus players.
I only know of four but please tell me who I've missed?

THRNDERVOLLEY stated there were SEVERAL players who never won a slam who Evert beat in slam finals, not Seven.

 

[PDJ]

THRNDERVOLLEY stated there were SEVERAL players who never won a slam who Evert beat in slam finals, not Seven.

Ok, name them.
I only have 4 - the same amount as Serena Williams and Navratilova.

 

[chimneysweep]

Navratilova could not match Graf's concentrated, absolute dominance in winning the Grand Slam in 1988. There's no scenario (using her real history) one can create where Navratilova ever wins it (not to mention the Olympic Gold in singles Graf won that same year). You mentioned the Open Era, and with that, Graf's 1988 mastery of the sport, along with Court before her in 1970, are the supreme achievements / textbook examples of mastering the sport. Absolute dominance.

Yes, but I didnt say Navratilova had the best year in tennis history, I said she had the best 5 year stretch.

 

[chimneysweep]

Yet she still had a 89.97 winning percentage. I think she is the goat in %'s, did anyone win 90%?

I have heard contradicting claims to whether Evert or Court has the best winning percentage in the Open Era. It could be either one, they are definitely the top two in that though. Graf is third, Navratilova I think fourth, and Serena probably fifth. Navratilova and Serena played until older age than the others though.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Yes, but I didnt say Navratilova had the best year in tennis history, I said she had the best 5 year stretch.

But that 5-year stretch is not even total dominations at the majors, otherwise, she would have won the Grand Slam. A 5-year stretch is in no way comparable to absolute dominance in winning the Grand Slam. Navratilova never reached that level, nor could she even win as many majors as Graf. So, in both significant cases, Navratilova (and anyone else in her era) falls beneath Graf and Court--incapable in the kind of mastery of the sport they achieved.

 

[BTURNER]

But that 5-year stretch is not even total dominations at the majors, otherwise, she would have won the Grand Slam. A 5-year stretch is in no way comparable to absolute dominance in winning the Grand Slam. Navratilova never reached that level, nor could she even win as many majors as Graf. So, in both significant cases, Navratilova (and anyone else in her era) falls beneath Graf and Court--incapable in the kind of mastery of the sport they achieved.

Wow you don't know the difference between a seasonal grand slam and five years.

 

[helterskelter]

Yes. After all, that hopeless mediocrity Martina Navratilova only won six major titles in a row. That's an achievement for which it's not even worth getting out of bed. And, to be honest, she shouldn't even have played the first three of them - after all, they all came after she lost in the first major of that year (1983), which meant that the calendar grand slam was impossible. There's really no point playing a pro tennis match if it isn't going to contribute towards your winning the calendar grand slam. Only that shows mastery of the sport.

 

[PDJ]

Yes. After all, that hopeless mediocrity Martina Navratilova only won six major titles in a row. That's an achievement for which it's not even worth getting out of bed. And, to be honest, she shouldn't even have played the first three of them - after all, they all came after she lost in the first major of that year (1983), which meant that the calendar grand slam was impossible. There's really no point playing a pro tennis match if it isn't going to contribute towards your winning the calendar grand slam. Only that shows mastery of the sport.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

THRNDERVOLLEY stated there were SEVERAL players who never won a slam who Evert beat in slam finals, not Seven.

You're wasting your time on someone who will attempt to lower the achievements of superior players to raise the status of those who were not on that level. Mind you, for that person it is not about Navratilova, but trying to elevate Evert to some GOAT status she never had the ability to reach.

Wow you don't know the difference between a seasonal grand slam and five years.

Wow, you don't know that assembling 5 years as some overall, GOAT-level of achievement fails when any player can string random events together. Navratilova (and her central rival) never reached the supreme level in the sport, whether some fail (or refuse) to understand that or not.

 

[BTURNER]

Yes. After all, that hopeless mediocrity Martina Navratilova only won six major titles in a row. That's an achievement for which it's not even worth getting out of bed. And, to be honest, she shouldn't even have played the first three of them - after all, they all came after she lost in the first major of that year (1983), which meant that the calendar grand slam was impossible. There's really no point playing a pro tennis match if it isn't going to contribute towards your winning the calendar grand slam. Only that shows mastery of the sport.

Graf should never have played on past January in1987, 91,92,93, 95 and 98. Evert should have only played through the end of July in 1974. (It makes a big difference whether the Aussie is in January or December) I feel bad for the US Open. Its only got the occasional player, but she likely wins her RD 164 and the final from one Default!

 

[PDJ]

You're wasting your time on someone who will attempt to lower the achievements of superior players to raise the status of those who were not on that level. Mind you, for that person it is not about Navratilova, but trying to elevate Evert to some GOAT status she never had the ability to reach.




Wow, you don't know that assembling 5 years as some overall, GOAT-level of achievement fails when any player can string random events together. Navratilova (and her central rival) never reached the supreme level in the sport, whether some fail (or refuse) to understand that or not.

So, simply tell me the people that Evert beat in a major who never won a major themselves.
You wrote it's "several ". Simply list them.
It's not rocket science.