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
Professional
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
Professional
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
Professional
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
Professional
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
Professional
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
Professional
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
Professional
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.....
I tired to be objective in my analysis...base it on certain criteria. I agree with your first four, although I have Chris ahead of Steffi. Why do you have Billie Jean ahead of Serena?
Dunlop300g
Semi-Pro
Serena ranked ... 1.
Earning 94.8 million prize money in your career should put you on top. All the other great accomplishments aside. Source: wiki.
Earning 94.8 million prize money in your career should put you on top. All the other great accomplishments aside. Source: wiki.
| US$94,816,730 |
Billie Jean had a winning percentage of 81%. Serena was 86%. Serena won 23 slams, BJ won 9 in the open era, 12 total. Serena had more total tournament wins in the open era than BJ. Billie Jean was the second best player of her time, Serena was the best for most of two decades.
insideoutforehanders
Professional
You do realize you are responding to a comment from freaking 2009, do you not? Meaning boredone's message about ranking King over Serena. I believe at that point they had roughly the same number of slams (I believe it was 12 all or 13 to 12) and with Serena's massive inconsistency at that point, lack of time with the official #1 ranking, and that King did even better than Serena in doubles, it would have been perfectly reasonable to rank King ahead. Of course today it would only be done by someone in the midst of an alcoholic binge or pill popping session (or Hard Court) but back then it was quite reasonable.
By that logic, Sinner is greater than Laver, since he won more prize money
boredone3456
G.O.A.T.
Exactly
At the time, King and Serena were close, but Serena was having injury issues, playing reduced schedules, and I weighted it in Kings favor due to Kings longevity and non major achievements at the time. Now of course there is no way objectively Serena is behind King. She put King pretty well in the rear view mirror by the end of 2015...but around 2009/10 I really ddint see what Serena did coming, especially after she stepped on that glass and missed a year
Hard Court
Semi-Pro
good post. You are considering things beside the usual: Slam count and then of course coming up with excuses to rate those before our times behind our time.
Of course we should look at these along with competition, and to some extent their records outside of the Slams. some people act as if it's not a Grand Slam then it was an exhibition that doesn't count at all.
These 5 are all close.
insideoutforehanders
Professional
Serena is someone I do struggle with ranking sometimes even today as many are calling her the GOAT (probably partly based on recency bias and Nationality) and while I agree she is certainly a contender for it, her career has some pretty major holes compared to some of the other of the very best of all time. Her career title count is shockingly low. Everyone in the 60s, 70s, and even 80s was winning more titles it seems pretty clear from all the stats, but even comparing her to someone like Graf who retired at 30, she is way behind in career tournament wins which is a bad look. Her playing so long and until so old, while impressive having the success she did at those ages which is unprecedented in history except for Djokovic, also creates some confusion as she had a large number of horrific early round slam defeats mixed in with all those slam wins and slam finals, and for people who evaluate consistency and the totality of your work, it is near impossible to just ignore that even with her age, as it was her choice to still be playing that long. In her case she got huge benefits out of playing that long, so many extra slams she impressive added at a very advanced age, but with all the good she got out of that, you can't ignore the bad that came with it and be remotedly fair, both must be evaluated with no excuses.
I am never quite sure what to do with her. I would never tell someone who has her #1 they are outright wrong, but my own ranking of one of the hardest the rare times I bother to make such a list which I generally don't enjoy doing in the first place.
I am never quite sure what to do with her. I would never tell someone who has her #1 they are outright wrong, but my own ranking of one of the hardest the rare times I bother to make such a list which I generally don't enjoy doing in the first place.
Literally half the time she played a slam, she did not even get into the semifinals. That is nowhere close to true for second from the bottom, Martina, let alone Evert, Margaret or Steffi. Its a very big gap between 65.7% and 49.4%.
Even more damning, she failed to reach the fourth round 21% she entered a major. That is almost twice the stat Martina has at 13.4% despite the longevity of the two
Not saying she isn't GOAT, its just these issues need to be looked at, and I don't mean 'excused away'. Nobody held a gun to her head in the locker room..
Last edited:
Dunlop300g
Semi-Pro
@Kiam Laver played mostly when there wasn't much prize money. So it's a good point you make; it is difficult to compare players from different eras and prize money now is much much better; and getting better every year. I mean every era is completely different; technology is different, strings are different, playing styles, strokes and technique are different, opponents are different; so I suspect the best thing to consider is groups of players in their own era and leave it at that. Or compare who won more majors, olympics etc throughout their entire career perhaps (even this only applies to the Open era) and it's also complicated because the majors were played on different surfaces over the decades. So many factors to consider. Yeah i was kind of joking around about the prize money ... it's probably the least important factor as you noted lol.
Nihhon_Joe
New User
Court:
64 GS titles/ S-24 / D-19 / MD-21
Calendar-year Grand Slam: 1970
192 tour titles in all eras.
1177-106 win/loss
80% against Top 10.
Year end Number 1: 7
Fed Cup: 4
Navratilova:
59 GStitles/ S-18 / D-31 / MD-10
162 tour titles.
1444-227 win/loss
86.2% against Top 10
Year end Number 1: 7
Fed Cup: 4
Serena isnt even close. Maybe 7th....
64 GS titles/ S-24 / D-19 / MD-21
Calendar-year Grand Slam: 1970
192 tour titles in all eras.
1177-106 win/loss
80% against Top 10.
Year end Number 1: 7
Fed Cup: 4
Navratilova:
59 GStitles/ S-18 / D-31 / MD-10
162 tour titles.
1444-227 win/loss
86.2% against Top 10
Year end Number 1: 7
Fed Cup: 4
Serena isnt even close. Maybe 7th....
. You are counting all 'GS slam titles won' and giving them equal billing with singles whether they represent shared accomplishments with a partner or not. I have no problem with 'doubles equality' but you stop right there with equality. Not a single stat refers to doubles otherwise. You could find out the win/ loss stats in doubles. You could find out how many doubles titles these women won but you don't.
Are we supposed to treat a singles slam win, and a doubles slam win as evidence of equal 'worth'? Should we be doing in on the WTA doubles tour as well?
Nihhon_Joe
New User
Ok, just singles then.
Court:
GS Titles: 24
Calendar-year GS: 1 (1970)
Win loss: 210-23
Win loss %: 90.12%
Against top 10: 80.8%
Career: 192 titles (Before/after open era WTA)
Fed Cup: 4
Serena:
GS Titles: 23
Calendar-year GS: 0
Win loss: 367-56
Win loss %: 86.6
Against top 10: 78%
Career: WTA titles 73
Fed cup: 1
Serena played 157 more singles matches in GS's, and still didn't surpass Court.
No matter how you want to bend the facts to fit a narative. Serena still comes up short.
Both Court & Navratilova destroy Serena in every aspect. But people will always find one reason or another to believe that she is the greatest
Court:
GS Titles: 24
Calendar-year GS: 1 (1970)
Win loss: 210-23
Win loss %: 90.12%
Against top 10: 80.8%
Career: 192 titles (Before/after open era WTA)
Fed Cup: 4
Serena:
GS Titles: 23
Calendar-year GS: 0
Win loss: 367-56
Win loss %: 86.6
Against top 10: 78%
Career: WTA titles 73
Fed cup: 1
Serena played 157 more singles matches in GS's, and still didn't surpass Court.
No matter how you want to bend the facts to fit a narative. Serena still comes up short.
Both Court & Navratilova destroy Serena in every aspect. But people will always find one reason or another to believe that she is the greatest
Ok, just singles then.
Court:
GS Titles: 24
Calendar-year GS: 1 (1970)
Win loss: 210-23
Win loss %: 90.12%
Against top 10: 80.8%
Career: 192 titles (Before/after open era WTA)
Fed Cup: 4
Serena:
GS Titles: 23
Calendar-year GS: 0
Win loss: 367-56
Win loss %: 86.6
Against top 10: 78%
Career: WTA titles 73
Fed cup: 1
Serena played 157 more singles matches in GS's, and still didn't surpass Court.
No matter how you want to bend the facts to fit a narative. Serena still comes up short.
Both Court & Navratilova destroy Serena in every aspect. But people will always find one reason or another to believe that she is the greatest
You are looking more like a troll, and less like a serious poster with this one. No player with 24 major singles titles, the most in the history of our sport, gets 'destroyed' by anyone else in the history of our sport, if you take doubles out of the equation.
Nihhon_Joe
New User
I guess some people dont like to let facts get in the way of a good story?
A troll? If you say so....
A troll? If you say so....
Again, No player with 24 major singles titles, the most in the history of our sport, gets 'destroyed' by anyone else in the history of our sport, if you take doubles out of the equation.I guess some people dont like to let facts get in the way of a good story?
A troll? If you say so....
Australian Open W (2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2015, 2017)
French Open W (2002, 2013, 2015)
Wimbledon W (2002, 2003, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2015, 2016)
US Open W (1999, 2002, 2008, 2012, 2013, 2014)
If you want Court and Navratilova to destroy her, you had better do the hard work of documenting doubles accross the board, and justifying its equal importance with singles success.
Nihhon_Joe
New User
Court:
Australian Open W (1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1969,1970,1971, 1973) =11
French Open W (1962, 1964, 1969, 1970, 1973) =5
Wimbledon W (1963, 1965, 1970) =3
US Open W (1962, 1965, 1969, 1970, 1973) =5
11+5+3+5 = 24
I am seriously not sure on what you are trying to get at here. But by the mere fact that Court won 1 more title than Serena. And did it with 157 less GS single matches tells me everything. She even had a better win loss % against her Top 10 in that time also. So please tell me why you think Serena is infact the GOAT?
You have kept refering to her GS singles record, as it is somehow an achievemnt? And no doubt I agree. 23 is worthy in itself. However. Just on pure numbers. She is simply not the greatest of all time.
The fact that you can then go to doubles, mixed doubles. Amount of tour titles won, and Fed Cup wins. Then although I love Serena and felt she was a "Great Player". She is not by any stretch of the imagination the GOAT..
Australian Open W (1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1969,1970,1971, 1973) =11
French Open W (1962, 1964, 1969, 1970, 1973) =5
Wimbledon W (1963, 1965, 1970) =3
US Open W (1962, 1965, 1969, 1970, 1973) =5
11+5+3+5 = 24
I am seriously not sure on what you are trying to get at here. But by the mere fact that Court won 1 more title than Serena. And did it with 157 less GS single matches tells me everything. She even had a better win loss % against her Top 10 in that time also. So please tell me why you think Serena is infact the GOAT?
You have kept refering to her GS singles record, as it is somehow an achievemnt? And no doubt I agree. 23 is worthy in itself. However. Just on pure numbers. She is simply not the greatest of all time.
The fact that you can then go to doubles, mixed doubles. Amount of tour titles won, and Fed Cup wins. Then although I love Serena and felt she was a "Great Player". She is not by any stretch of the imagination the GOAT..
Nihhon_Joe
New User
SIngles titles / Non open-Open era/ WTA
Court: 192
Navratilova: 167 (Highest of any player in Open era)
Serena: 73
Margaret Court singles stand alone facts:
Career tournament records
Court: 192
Navratilova: 167 (Highest of any player in Open era)
Serena: 73
Margaret Court singles stand alone facts:
Career tournament records
| 1958–1977 | All time women's record of 192 career singles titles | Stands alone |
| 1968–1976 | Open era record of 46 career grass court singles titles | Stands alone |
| 1968–1977 | Open era career singles match winning percentage (all surfaces) 91.17% (593–56) | Stands alone |
| 1968–1977 | Open era career singles match winning percentage (hard court) 91.73% (111–10) | Stands alone |
| 1968–1977 | Open era career singles match winning percentage (grass court) 93.01% (293–22) | Stands alone |
| 1970 | Open era record of 21 singles titles won in one year | Stands alone |
| 1973 | WTA Tour record of 18 singles titles won in one year | Stands alone |
LOL, I don't. I have concerns with Serena at the top of the pile (you haven't even mentioned mine yet) My problem is with absurd hyperbolic statements. Court, Evert, Navratilova, Graf, Serena are all credible nominees in the modern era. Nobody 'destroys' anyone else on that list . It's all about what criteria you prioritize. Certainly nobody destroys Serena Williams if you take doubles out of consideration. 23 singles slams in an era with one of the most consistent top ten attendance, and when the record is only one more. Nobody 'destroys' that record with more WTA titles, or one more slam, or even with four additional percentage points added to their career win percentage.
You have to want to seriously push someone's buttons to type that sentence into the post box
Nihhon_Joe
New User
Nothing I have said is hyperbolic. I have just given facts. You seem to be emotional about this. You said no one got 24? I said Court did. You then wanted to talk singles, so I gave you singles facts. I am not sure why you are so excited?
If you take away Serena's 23 "Singles Titles". And although she did well in doubles both GS and WTA. She simply drops down the list to the players I mentioned were better than her. You then alluded to her top 10 being harder. I say again that is not true. As in any era, a player cant control who their competition is, and can only play the oponant in front of them. Does that make their achievements any less? Only a dummy trying to win an internet argument will say that.
I am not emotional. Emotional people use language like 'destroyed' when it is completely inappropriate in context. Margaret Court and Martina Navratilova destroy Manuela Maleeva as GOAT, not Serena Williams. Of course the quality of opposition you face in any given tournament changes the nature of the accomplishment you achieve when you win it. If the best in the world were not there, then you simply did not compete against them to win and the victory looses some of its luster. That's true in any sport. The fact that you do not 'control' the metric, does not alter the brutal truth.
Only a dummy trying to win an internet argument would say it is irrelevant. How relevant in this context, depends on how determined you are to rely on those slams to produce the evidence you need. The evidence is not always in slam play. Your argument for Margaret, lies in a series of head to head stats that would suggest that Margaret would likely have dominated her era at those slams if top players had shown up then as consistently as they do now. Its not to suggest that Serena's slams don't accomplish the same goal today with better attendance at the four majors . Serena and Steffi, were fortunate that slam attendence by top ten players, made for more efficient and effective comparisons that are missing when such attendance was just not as high a priority.
My problem with Serena is not her peak play stats, its her lack of consistency, her underbelly stats.
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:
Nihhon_Joe
New User
That was truly a hard read. I personally think that maybe you are being the hyperbolic one in this now. I could care less who was the best. The fact is, I look at stats and the history of the sport. You again have made assertions that Court won so many AO's because it was under attended. However, as I will continue to say. The AO has been a slam since 1905. So it has always been there to be played and won. The fact that you suggest some players chose not to attend, and then win it, takes nothing from Court. You have to be in it, to win it, as they say.
I could then throw back an argument that 13 of Serena's slams were won on a true bouncing and evenly paced hard court. (Any nuffy can hit a ball from a "true" bounce)
Had her AO wins been on the Kooyong Grass. Or the US ones on grass/clay. Then Serena doesn't get the chocolats.
Although not in Slams, I could then debate that players in Courts era also played on wooden cork courts, cement courts, basketball courts in arena's, carpet courts, indoor, outdoor etc.. See how easily it is to conflate things and start arguments? Just because you want something to be true doesn't make it so...
I could then throw back an argument that 13 of Serena's slams were won on a true bouncing and evenly paced hard court. (Any nuffy can hit a ball from a "true" bounce)
Had her AO wins been on the Kooyong Grass. Or the US ones on grass/clay. Then Serena doesn't get the chocolats.
Although not in Slams, I could then debate that players in Courts era also played on wooden cork courts, cement courts, basketball courts in arena's, carpet courts, indoor, outdoor etc.. See how easily it is to conflate things and start arguments? Just because you want something to be true doesn't make it so...
Nihhon_Joe
New User
I have to offer an apology. I am on my work tablet and missed the second part of this post. However, I am now again lost on the argument you are trying to make? Are you saying that if Serena had of tried harder. Then she would be GOAT? And the fact that she didn't is why it annoys you?
"My problem with Serena is not her peak play stats, its her lack of consistency, her underbelly stats.
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."
This would explain why she played 157 more GS singles matches. ANd still didn't match Courts 24 singles titles.
NO. I am suggesting that comparing the four 'slams' from different eras, may not be a good way to measure greatness if the greatness never showed up in the draw! You cannot look at the history of the sport, and totally ignore that the Aussie was not as significant a measure of greatness with so few top attendees as it is today. So look somewhere else. With Margaret the evidence of her dominance is all over the place! You don't need the Aussie of 1962 on her resume where she beat Judy Tegart, Yola Ramirez and Jan Lehane to take a grand slam title.
Similar threads
- NadalAgassi
- Former Pro Player Talk
