Well said. I agree with it all. Chris did have a tremendous peak. If you include the year she dominated before the computer rankin system came into being, she has more than 310 weeks at number one, right up there with Serena and Martina. Then she had to face the toughest challenge any female player ever faced…..a dedicated Martina N, Using every psychological, nutritional, fitness, and training method she could find. Chris took the challenge, and was able to play tennis at the very highest levels until she was 35, and quit at number four. N good luck!
Serena Williams -- where does she ranked compared to the other greats of the open era
- Thread starter Henry Kaspar
- Start date
Agreed. There is an argument for all five. Usually the younger player eventually wins the h2h, coming from behind, once they figured out their nemesis….same thing with Roger vs Novak….Chris and Martina…..Chris had the 90 percent winning percentage, and the amazing consistency. Martina had the record for matches and tournament wins, and the unrivaled peak. I have them rated as the top 2, with apologies to Margaret.
I checked out the h2h between Martina and Chris. They were 8-8 on hardcourt, 11-3 Evert on clay, 10-5 Martina on grass, and a whopping 22-13 Martina on carpet! Who would have thought they would have played 35 matches on that surface, which favored Martina’s game…..
jl809
Legend
She’s in tier 1 with Navratilova, Evert and Graf. Would include Court too but it’s much more complex to judge because of the difference in the tour at the time.
For overall “women’s tennis”, Navratilova is clearly the GOAT given her achievements in the two doubles events alongside her singles. She basically excelled at 3 different jobs. Plus her singles career puts her in contention all by itself tbh (see below)
I would probably put Serena 2nd for overall “women’s tennis” given that she too had an incredible women’s career winning the double career golden slam. Graf and Evert don’t come close (again this is where Court would come in).
“Women’s singles” is much harder. It basically boils down to how much you care about era strength and stuff like that. Again I’d be tempted to put Evert or Navratilova top because they had to deal with each other for so long and then Graf too (plus Navratilova competed insanely well with Graf despite the age disparity) and still got 18 slams. Graf is ahead of Serena based on weeks at number 1, win % and the fact she got the QCGS and Calendar Slam; even though her career is heavily asterisked by the Seles stabbing, I don’t think Serena really had a tough tour at all after Henin retired and she inflated her slam count a fair bit. So either Chrissie and Martina at #1 and #2 (order is a pick’em) followed by Steffi then Serena, or flip the pairs
She’s either 2nd or 4th basically
For overall “women’s tennis”, Navratilova is clearly the GOAT given her achievements in the two doubles events alongside her singles. She basically excelled at 3 different jobs. Plus her singles career puts her in contention all by itself tbh (see below)
I would probably put Serena 2nd for overall “women’s tennis” given that she too had an incredible women’s career winning the double career golden slam. Graf and Evert don’t come close (again this is where Court would come in).
“Women’s singles” is much harder. It basically boils down to how much you care about era strength and stuff like that. Again I’d be tempted to put Evert or Navratilova top because they had to deal with each other for so long and then Graf too (plus Navratilova competed insanely well with Graf despite the age disparity) and still got 18 slams. Graf is ahead of Serena based on weeks at number 1, win % and the fact she got the QCGS and Calendar Slam; even though her career is heavily asterisked by the Seles stabbing, I don’t think Serena really had a tough tour at all after Henin retired and she inflated her slam count a fair bit. So either Chrissie and Martina at #1 and #2 (order is a pick’em) followed by Steffi then Serena, or flip the pairs
She’s either 2nd or 4th basically
Last edited:
As I keep telling folks, every single win Martina got at Evert's expense, is calculated in their career stats TWICE - as a loss for Evert, and a win for Martina, and still Evert singles slam stats and career w/loss percentage is still better than Martina's. Its not as though those Wimbledon victories aren't baked into career and slam stats. Its just all the rest of the matches are baked in too.
Last edited:
Only Court has a better semifinal conversion ratio, than Serena. Can you imagine winning 82.5% of your semifinal matches in the major tournaments?
1.Court 86.6%
2.Serena 82.5%
3. Graf 81.1%
4. Martina 72.7%
5. Evert 65.4%
Here's the damning slam stat for Serena. 21% of the times she entered a singles slam event, she failed to get out of the third Rd! That's far worse than the others.
* % of slam losses - Rds1-3
1.Evert 03.6%
2. Court 06.4%
3. Graf 13.0%
4. Martina 13.4%
5. Serena 21.0%
Serena reached the semifinals of a slam less than 50% of the time.
That compares with these stats.
1. Evert 92.9%
2. Court 83%
3. Graf 66%
4. Martina 65.7%
5. Serena 49.4%
Last edited:
pierceforehands
Semi-Pro
Court was one of the 4 I was referring to. My top 4 all time would be Graf, Serena, Court, Connolly. Probably in that order. People say Seles would possibly be the GOAT if she weren't stabbed, and I partly agree, but Connolly would be the hands down slam dunk, no brainer GOAT, way beyond what Seles or anyone else might have been, without her horse accident. I am pretty sure she wins atleast 35 slams, including atleast 4 or 5 Calendar Grand Slam, LOL! GOAT discussions would be boring and dead without Connolly's accident. Seles meanwhile probably wins 1 Wimbledon maximum, if even that, so even if she wins 25 slams (PS- I definitely don't think she wins that many, but I am talking best case scenario for those who do believe that) the female GOAT discussion would still not be completely closed given all the other women winning numerous times at each major, and the importance of Wimbledon. The best case in the what if scenario for Seles without the stabbing is having a strong case as GOAT (aka not neccessarily what I think would have happened but best case) and maybe being the most consensus GOAT, aka think of Djokovic and Serena today. The worst case in the what if for Connolly seems being the Michael Phelps of tennis, and being in a stratosphere above all others. Which is why I still put her as high as 4th even as it is.
pierceforehands
Semi-Pro
I don't know that much about Betz honestly, only that her career was cut short by breaking some silly violation, plus being impacted by world war 11. Given what she achieved despite that, you are probably right.
As much as I like Evonne she is pretty overrated. I have seen some rank her above Henin, Venus, or Seles which IMO is silly. I even saw a couple people rank her above King, which is even more silly considering King is a literal contemporary, so there is no hypothetical about eras to speak of, and her achievements drawf Goolagong, and in one of Goolagong's peak years she lost 6-1, 6-0 in a Wimbledon final to a 32 year old King, LOL! 4 of her 7 majors were Australian Opens which were by far the weakest slam at the time. My only defense of her there is she probably wins all 4 even if everyone played, only King in 74 and 75, and to a lesser extent Evert in 76 and 77, would have a real chance against her, but with home court advantage she probably wins atleast 3 of the 4. I do rate Goolagong very highly on grass, almost for sure top 10 in the Open Era, which I spoke of on my other post, but overall not so much. She really is only elite on grass, not on any of carpet, clay, hard (very good to varying degrees on all of those, but only one of the true elite on grass, and even there she is no Venus Williams for instance). She spent no time at #1 other than 2 weeks given years after the fact. People mock Venus for her limited time at #1, rightfully given the calibre of player she was, she should have done way better there. Yet even she has more than Goolagong, and that isn't taking into account the majorly flawed ranking system at the time, without which Venus almost certainly ends 2001 (possibly 2000, but for sure 2001) ranked #1, and holds #1 with her 2001 points carried over until probably Serena's US Open title in 2002.
So I don't know as much about Betz as you do, but I highly suspect she would belong over Goolagong as well. It seems Betz was considered the worlds best player atleast a couple years, which Goolagong sort of never was (maybe 1971?).
I also don't see Goolagong winning more than a couple majors in the power era that Venus and Henin excelled in, or even the start of the power era Seles did. Hingis's decline shows how far extreme talent (which both Hingis and Goolagong have in spades), but with a deficit in power, can take you in that era, and Goolagong is like a way less consistent and stable version of Hingis. While by contrast Venus and Henin I could both see still winning a lot and having similar careers, even in an era like Goolagong's.
Betz is generally considered the world's best player in 1943, 1944, 1945, and 1946. She's also #1 in ELO in 1947 while playing a limited schedule due to her being banned for declaring a possible intention to turn pro. After turning pro, Betz went on a barnstorming pro tour with Sarah Palfrey Cooke, previously the #2 player behind Betz, who was herself banned after winning the 1945 U.S. National Championships. Betz went 27-7 against her.
After playing more pro matches over the next few years, Betz played Doris Hart twice in 1956, right after Hart had won the U.S. National Championships in 1954 and 1955 (and 6 Majors from 1949-1955). Betz won both matches.
Given this, I wouldn't be surprised if Betz was the best women's tennis player in the world from 1943-1956. The one big question is Connolly, whom she was supposed to play in a series of exhibitions before Little Mo's horse accident.
Even in 1960, at age 40-41, Betz played two matches against Althea Gibson, who had won 4 Majors from 1957-1958. They split the matches, with Gibson winning one match, 7-5, 2-6, 7-5 and Betz winning the other one, 6-2, 6-3.
pierceforehands
Semi-Pro
Given how dominant and great Connolly is I would be amazed if she could have been better than her 52-56. I mentioned this on another post but Connolly comes across as an even better and more dominant version of teenage Seles for the time. If she could have she would have had to be really unbelievably good. And it is even more amazing than it already is that she is rarely mentioned then, meaning Betz.
I really wish it were a rivalry that we got to see play out.
Connolly's toughest opponent by far was Doris Hart, who beat her at South Orange and the U.S. National Championships in 1950, the U.S. National Championships in 1951, Orange in 1952, and Rome in 1953. The H2H ended at 7-5 for Little Mo.
Betz was 21-2 against Hart, including the two wins in 1956 on the heels of Hart winning back-to-back U.S. National Championships in 1954 & 1955.
I figure that Little Mo would have eventually gotten the better of Betz when she hit her 20s, but I'm not at all sure she could have taken her as a teenager.
pierceforehands
Semi-Pro
If Betz would have been the worlds best player until 1956 I dare say she would be a strong candidate for womens tennis GOAT today.
And if she were that great, a rivalry with Connolly, who also very likely would be GOAT without her accident, would have been incredibly epic, especialy if we now imagine Connolly no longer having her accident too.
Betz's last Major before she was banned was the 1946 U.S National Championships.
From 1947-1956, the multiple Major winners were:
Maureen Connolly (won 9 Majors): Betz never played her
Doris Hart (won 6 Majors): Betz was 21-2 against her, beating her twice in 1956 after Hart won back-to-back U.S. National Championships in 1954 & 1955
Margaret Osborne duPont (won 6 Majors): Betz was 18-8 against her
Louise Brough (won 6 Majors): Betz was 16-4 against her
Shirley Fry (won 3 Majors): Betz was 3-0 against her
Nancye Wynne Bolton (won 3 Australian Opens): Betz never played her
So, Betz was 58-14 against the best players from 1947-1956, aside from Little Mo and Bolton, who she never played. Meanwhile, Sarah Palfrey Cooke, whom Betz beat 27-7 in their pro barnstorming tour, was 4-2 against Hart, 8-2 against Osborne duPont, 6-2 against Brough, and 1-1 against Fry.
I would say Betz was the best player in the world from at least 1943-1956, other than the period when Little Mo was dominating (and even that's debatable).
pierceforehands
Semi-Pro
Best player in the world 14 years would be a strong candidate for womens tennis GOAT. That is much longer than any of Graf, Court, Navratilova, Evert, or even Serena were worlds best player after all. I think every single one of those top out at 8 max, Serena's is more complicated by going over her career I don't think you get higher than 8 either. Which is a hilarious thing to realize, since most peoples top 20 lists probably wouldn't even have Betz on it. Biggest great unknown in almost any sport?
Yeah, here's a thread I started about her semi-recently.
I agree, except I put Margaret 4th, ahead of Serena. Margaret's career winning percentage in both the amateur and pro ranks is unbelievable....roughly 91.5 percent in each. And she had more doubles slam wins than Martina!
Starting in 1974......her yearly won-loss records: 103-7, 96-6, 75-5, 70-4, 56-3. That's pretty close to Federer's best five years. In fact, it's probably better. Martina dominated Chris in the 80s because Martina was two years younger, and Chris was past her prime. Also, the serve and volley game takes longer to develop, but lasts longer than a baseline game. The younger player usually wins the career h2h if two players are evenly matched, because once junior figures out senior, he has youth on his side.......Fed vs Djoker is a good example.
Why didn't Betz play Little Mo?
Wow. I've seen this same argument made for Pancho Gonzales.....that he should be the GOAT (at least before the big 3 came along). The argument was that Pancho was the best player from 1949 until at least 1963. After Laver won the grand slam in 62, he went on tour with Pancho and Lew Hoad. The former beat him something like 81-29, and Hoad beat him 56-28.....numbers close to that....Rod said, "It's nice to know where you really stand in the world....". Pancho beat 19 year old Jimmy Connors when he was 41 and Jimmy was 19. Jimmy said it was like playing a tiger....fire came out of his eyes....the toughest competitor he ever faced. Pancho got to the semis of at least one slam that year, and maybe two. It's really unsettling that Billy Jean King and Arthur Ashe have the USOpen named after them, and Pancho and Jack Kramer, who suffered and sacrificed so much to create the professional tour, are not remembered. Without them, and others, there is no pro women's tour or a US Open....it's still an amateur sport for elites.
Tomas Muster might have been an all time great had he not been in a terrible car accident at 21. Getting stabbed by a rival's fan and doing something risky on your own are two different scenarios, IMHO. Little Mo was amazing, no doubt. Her training for a match included a diet of steak and chocolate, I read. That was thought to be healthy and Invigorating. When she died young of cancer, I thought the diet certainly didn't help.....
pierceforehands
Semi-Pro
I agree there is a difference, but they are still both what if cases, and I just don't do what ifs. I can only justify possibly ranking Connolly that high as she was insanely dominant from 16 to 19. Winning all 9 slams she played, barely losing matches. Seles while doing outstanding too for a teenager, was not that level of dominance, never winning Wimbledon, losing to 5 different players in her best year ever (1992). It isn't enough to supercede winning only 9 slams. Connolly is the only one who might be, and even that is iffy.
I agree on Muster.
Basic chronology:
1942-1947: Betz is the best player in the world, but World War II limits the Majors she can play. Betz wins her last Major at the 1946 U.S. National Championships, beating Doris Hart in the final. In 1947, Betz states she's exploring the possibility of turning pro and is banned from amateur tennis. Betz is 19-2 against Hart at this point. Betz embarks on a pro career, most notably going 27-7 against Sarah Palfrey Cooke, the #2 player behind Betz before Cooke herself turned pro.
1948-1952 French Open: Margaret Osborne duPont, Louise Brough, and Doris Hart battle for supremacy at the top of women's tennis. Betz was 18-8 against duPont, 16-4 against Brough, and, as noted, 19-2 against Hart. Hart eventually emerges as the queen of women's amateur tennis, winning Wimbledon in 1951 and the French Open in 1952.
Wimbledon 1952-Wimbledon 1954: Maureen “Little Mo” Connolly takes the tennis world by storm, winning 8 straight Majors she plays (skipping the 1954 Australian Open). Connolly wins the Grand Slam in 1953, beating Doris Hart in the final of every Major except for the Australian Open, which Hart didn’t play. Hart is Connolly’s fiercest competition, starting out 3-0 against Little Mo before Connolly wins seven of their last nine matches (losing in Orange in 1952 and the Italian Open in 1953) to finish the H2H at 7-5.
July 1954: In the wake of the Wimbledon win, Connolly plans to turn pro. The plan is to have her play a series of matches against Betz as part of Jack Kramer’s Pro Tour, which Betz has dominated for years. But Connolly has her horse riding accident on July 20, 1954, knocking her out of the game for good.
August 1954-1955: With Connolly out of the game, Doris Hart returns to her position at the top of the women’s amateur game, winning back-to-back U.S. National Championships in 1954 and 1955.
1956: Hart turns pro and faces Betz twice, in Cleveland and Milwaukee. The Cleveland match is close, with Betz winning, 21-16, 19-21, 21-12. The Milwaukee match is more routine, with Betz winning, 6-3, 6-3. Betz finishes the H2H 21-2 against Hart.
So, to answer your question, Betz didn’t play Connolly because (1) Betz was banned from the amateur game when Connolly ruled the roost; and (2) Connolly had her horse riding accident in July 1954, just as she was about to play a series of pro matches against Betz.
Last edited:
pierceforehands
Semi-Pro
Betz and Connolly never even once played each other?
Great job. Thanks. You make a great case for Ms. Betz. Imagine being banned for "exploring the possibility".....What a snooty world it was! I think that the pros, in general, were probably better than the amateurs. I read that she died in her sleep at 91, hopefully dreaming about her slam victories. She had a long marriage and gave birth to four kids, one of whom made a name for herself as a poet, and there was a granddaughter who is a noted actress.....
