Should Steffi Graf even be considered the 2nd best female player ever?

WestboroChe said:
So a win in Oz for Court just isn't the same as it is for Graf. That's not even getting into the whole pre-Open/amateur debate.
Click to expand...
Wrong, 24 > 23. Margaret Court is obviously the women's GOAT.

First, the pre-Open era/Open era argument does not count to dismiss Court's achievements. Why? There was no pro tour for women pre-1968 of players that were superior to the amateur players. Hence amateurs were the best and only players. The pre-Open/Open era distinction is less noticieable in women than men.
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...en-era-open-era-distinction-for-women.588358/

Second, all Grand Slams post-1950 have the same value (with the exception of Roy Emerson, who "vultured" most of his GS titles when Laver and Rosewall were forbidden to participate). It is not objective to say that Court's AO are less relevant than Graf's AO. The idea that the AO titles from Court had a weak competition is a myth.

To suggest that Court's 11 AO are irrelevant due to a "weak era" is equally ridiculous as saying that Federer's 12 GS in 2003-2007 are irrrelevant due to a "weak competition", since he didn't face any all-time great at his peak outside clay.

In fact, Court did face the best players of her time at the AO.

This is a list of multiple Grand Slam winners who participated at the Australian Open between 1960 and 1975:

Lesley Turner Bowrey (2 times Grand Slam winner): participated in 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974 and 1975.

Evonne Goolagong Cawley (14 times Grand Slam winner): participated in 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972 1973, 1974, and 1975.

Maria Bueno (7 times Grand Slam winner): participated in 1960 and 1965.

Billie Jean King (11 times Grand Slam winner): participated in 1965, 1968 and 1969.


This is Court's H2H at the Australian Open over other multiple Grand Slam winners of her time:

Court leads Bowley 2-0.

Court leads Goolagong 4-0.

Court leads Bueno 2-0.

Court leads Jean-King 2-1.

Total= Court leads 10-1 the H2H over multiple Grand Slam winners.


In sum, the best players of Court's time did participate at the AO. Court never participated at the AO without having at least one multiple Grand Slam winner in the draw. Court leads the H2H over multime Grand Slam winners 10-1. That's brutal domination and strongly suggest that is has nothing to do with a "weak competition". Court was simply the best. I repeat, she leads 10-1 the H2H over multiple Grand Slam winners.

In fact, Court faced at the AO 3 all-time greats at their peak: Bueno, Goolagong and Jean King. Federer did not face any single all-time great at his peak outside clay during his 12 2003-2007 Grand Slams. So Federer had arguably even weaker competition in Grand Slams than Court at the Australian Open.

Conclusion: stop with the "weak competition" excuses. Federer has 20 Grand Slams, and nobody cares about "weak competition" excuses, he is the GOAT. Analogously, Court has 24 Grand Slams and no serious person should dismiss her with "weak competition" excuses. She is the women's GOAT.
 
Last edited:
Sport said:
Wrong, 24 > 23. Margaret Court is obviously the women's GOAT.

First, the pre-Open era/Open era argument does not count to dismiss Court's achievements. Why? There was no pro tour for women pre-1968 of players that were superior to the amateur players. Hence amateurs were the best and only players.
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...en-era-open-era-distinction-for-women.588358/

Second, all Grand Slams post-1950 have the same value (with the exception of Roy Emerson, who "vultured" most of his GS titles when Laver and Rosewall were forbidden to participate). It is not objective to say that Court's AO are less relevant than Graf's AO. The idea that the AO titles from Court had a weak competition is a myth.

To suggest that Court's 11 AO are irrelevant due to a "weak era" is equally ridiculous as saying that Federer's 12 GS in 2003-2007 are irrrelevant due to a "weak competition", since he didn't face any all-time great at his peak outside clay.

In fact, Court did face the best players of her time at the AO.

This is a list of multiple Grand Slam winners who participated at the Australian Open between 1960 and 1975:

Lesley Turner Bowrey (2 times Grand Slam winner): participated in 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974 and 1975.

Evonne Goolagong Cawley (14 times Grand Slam winner): participated in 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972 1973, 1974, and 1975.

Maria Bueno (7 times Grand Slam winner): participated in 1960 and 1965.

Billie Jean King (11 times Grand Slam winner): participated in 1965, 1968 and 1969.


This is Court's H2H at the Australian Open over other multiple Grand Slam winners of her time:

Court leads Bowley 2-0.

Court leads Goolagong 4-0.

Court leads Bueno 2-0.

Court leads Jean-King 2-1.

Total= Court leads 10-1 the H2H over multiple Grand Slam winners.


In sum, the best players of Court's time did participate at the AO. Court never participated at the AO without having at least one multiple Grand Slam winner in the draw. Court leads the H2H over multime Grand Slam winners 10-1. That's brutal domination and strongly suggest that is has nothing to do with a "weak competition". Court was simply the best. I repeat, she leads 10-1 the H2H over multiple Grand Slam winners.

In fact, Court faced at the AO 3 all-time greats at their peak: Bueno, Goolagong and Jean King. Federer did not face any single all-time great at his peak outside clay during his 12 2003-2007 Grand Slams. So Federer had arguably even weaker competition in Grand Slams than Court at the Australian Open.

Conclusion: stop with the "weak competition" excuses. Federer has 20 Grand Slams, and nobody cares about "weak competition" excuses, he is the GOAT. Analogously, Court has 24 Grand Slams and no serious person should dismiss her with "weak competition" excuses. She is the women's GOAT.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't it matter when these players won their first major, or their last major and whether Court won major tournaments with them as major champions, and entered as opposed to any major? For example you can't sell Goolagong as '14 time major winner' in 1967, 1968, 1968, 1969, 1970 when she had yet to win any and call her serious competition for Court in those Aussies in those years. What she won after Court won her last title, is also not relevant because none of those in question. That means her single major wins in 1976,1977 and 1980 are not relevant. If we are concerned with the strength of Margaret's singles victories ( the 11 you are discussing among your 24) , counting Goolagongs doubles and mixed in her major count is also disingenuous. Goolagong won five majors from 1971-1977. She was serious competition for Court when they were both playing the Aussie and Goolagong was highly ranked as a singles player ONLY. Your post is full of disingenuous stretches like these all the way through it.

If you want to know if a specific Aussie is competitive, you ask yourself how many of the top five players in the world entered the draw. Then you ask yourself how many of the top 15 players in the world entered the draw. Then you know if there was any depth in the tournament in the Rd 16 or quarterfinals, and if there was any competitor of Courts caliber in the tournament in the semifinals or finals. It may not matter who actually reached those rounds, as long as whoever got there beat some serious players. To be fair we would have to ask the same questions of other all time greats like Evert, and Navratilova. You define a standard then apply it equally over the years, not just to Court.

by the way, meeting King, Bueno, and Goolagong, each once does not cut much mustard over 11 years and titles. It may mean those three years, had at least someone in them worthy of a single competitive match. That's only one round in three tournaments. You would have 8 more to go, assuming that single tough match is enough.
 
Last edited:
pat200 said:
I honestly dont care about their doubles careers as it is something that depends also on the luck of finding someone who can compliment you and win with and for you. Plus no historian really gives that a look when deciding who is the GOAT, or else Navratilova and Court would be the top 2 by a mile.
Click to expand...

agree
 
Sport said:
Wrong, 24 > 23. Margaret Court is obviously the women's GOAT.

First, the pre-Open era/Open era argument does not count to dismiss Court's achievements. Why? There was no pro tour for women pre-1968 of players that were superior to the amateur players. Hence amateurs were the best and only players. The pre-Open/Open era distinction is less noticieable in women than men.
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...en-era-open-era-distinction-for-women.588358/

Second, all Grand Slams post-1950 have the same value (with the exception of Roy Emerson, who "vultured" most of his GS titles when Laver and Rosewall were forbidden to participate). It is not objective to say that Court's AO are less relevant than Graf's AO. The idea that the AO titles from Court had a weak competition is a myth.

To suggest that Court's 11 AO are irrelevant due to a "weak era" is equally ridiculous as saying that Federer's 12 GS in 2003-2007 are irrrelevant due to a "weak competition", since he didn't face any all-time great at his peak outside clay.

In fact, Court did face the best players of her time at the AO.

This is a list of multiple Grand Slam winners who participated at the Australian Open between 1960 and 1975:

Lesley Turner Bowrey (2 times Grand Slam winner): participated in 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974 and 1975.

Evonne Goolagong Cawley (14 times Grand Slam winner): participated in 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972 1973, 1974, and 1975.

Maria Bueno (7 times Grand Slam winner): participated in 1960 and 1965.

Billie Jean King (11 times Grand Slam winner): participated in 1965, 1968 and 1969.


This is Court's H2H at the Australian Open over other multiple Grand Slam winners of her time:

Court leads Bowley 2-0.

Court leads Goolagong 4-0.

Court leads Bueno 2-0.

Court leads Jean-King 2-1.

Total= Court leads 10-1 the H2H over multiple Grand Slam winners.


In sum, the best players of Court's time did participate at the AO. Court never participated at the AO without having at least one multiple Grand Slam winner in the draw. Court leads the H2H over multime Grand Slam winners 10-1. That's brutal domination and strongly suggest that is has nothing to do with a "weak competition". Court was simply the best. I repeat, she leads 10-1 the H2H over multiple Grand Slam winners.

In fact, Court faced at the AO 3 all-time greats at their peak: Bueno, Goolagong and Jean King. Federer did not face any single all-time great at his peak outside clay during his 12 2003-2007 Grand Slams. So Federer had arguably even weaker competition in Grand Slams than Court at the Australian Open.

Conclusion: stop with the "weak competition" excuses. Federer has 20 Grand Slams, and nobody cares about "weak competition" excuses, he is the GOAT. Analogously, Court has 24 Grand Slams and no serious person should dismiss her with "weak competition" excuses. She is the women's GOAT.
Click to expand...
Excellent analysis my friend!
 
The ladies GOAT debate is, at its root, a 5 woman conversation at this point between Navaratilova, Graf, Serena, Evert and Court. Maybe you could throw in Wills Moody or Lenglen or Connolly as well for a candidate from before 1960. While that is the order in which I would rank them personally I could easily create an argument for all 5 to be the GOAT and it would be solid. Any of them could be argued as the best, however they all have holes/weaknesses in their resumes that also work against them. Yes...each and every one of the 5 has some clear reasons as to why they may not be the actual GOAT. The question is who's positives outweigh the negatives enough to take the top of the list? Everyone has their opinion and criteria. To sit here and say one is bar none the greatest is virtually impossible.
 
boredone3456 said:
The ladies GOAT debate is, at its root, a 5 woman conversation at this point between Navaratilova, Graf, Serena, Evert and Court. Maybe you could throw in Wills Moody or Lenglen or Connolly as well for a candidate from before 1960. While that is the order in which I would rank them personally I could easily create an argument for all 5 to be the GOAT and it would be solid. Any of them could be argued as the best, however they all have holes/weaknesses in their resumes that also work against them. Yes...each and every one of the 5 has some clear reasons as to why they may not be the actual GOAT. The question is who's positives outweigh the negatives enough to take the top of the list? Everyone has their opinion and criteria. To sit here and say one is bar none the greatest is virtually impossible.
Click to expand...

The facts are the strong consensus is Serena at #1 and Graf at #2. Yes there is the very odd person who might pick Navratilova, Evert, or even Court (like 1 out of 500 for Court, which is ridiculous, she is insanely underrated), the fact is that is the strong consensus. Just like it is beyond dispute Federer and Laver are the consensus GOATs on the mens side even if the very odd person might pick Gonzales, Hoad, Nadal, Djokovic, or even Sampras. So no it is not an even 5 or 6 person race as you imply, unless you live in a fantasy world. And again I am not expressing purely my own views, as I said I believe Court is insanely underrated the way Graf and Navratilova are overrated, but it is reality whether one likes it or not.

And that is where I take issue, Graf should not be the consensus #2. Serena is rightly the consensus GOAT, but Graf the consensus #2 behind Serena is vastly overrating her considering everything I and others have pointed out, and most of all the Seles stabbing which should be tainting her career which seems all but forgotten today.
 
redrover said:
No clown, singles are far more important than doubles so no Navratilova is not above Serena even including doubles, especialy when Serena has a legendary doubles career as well. Maybe you could make an argument for doubles putting her over Steffi, since Steffi unlike Serena achieved NOTHING in doubles, but even then it would be close as 40 doubles slams are probably worth about 4 or 5 singles slams. However when singles careers are similar, which Navratilova's is not relative to Serena and Graf (although likely would be similar to Graf without the Seles stabbing) the doubles further seperates them. Serena's singles career with more slams, more longevity, more overall dominance, equal surface versaility, more YEC titles, more Miami titles, more Olympic wins/medals, more Premier titles, more Premier Mandatory titles, and similar time at #1 and slam finals, with more slam semis and quarters, is superior to Steffi's anyway. However the fact Steffi is a mug at doubles who achieved nothing and Serena has a legendary doubles career just is one of many things that seperates them further.

My list was subjective? It is far more objective than your list which didnt state a single objective fact, just subjective guru like prettier footwork to bolster your deluded fantasy of Steffi being better than Serena, LOL! I atleast presented some stats, facts and numbers, you said Steffi is better since she has prettier footwork, since you believe her forehand is better, since her nose is bigger, and since you like her better.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I don't care about double when the debate is about greatest single player of all time. Graf was more dominant than Serena at their peak/prime. She has accumulate better/greater numbers despite retire at 30 while Serena is still active at 37. Serena playing in her 23rd season and still lag behind Graf in many area and may not match Graf even if she chose to play til she's 40. Yeah Serena has 23 slams but it's not like she's 4 ahead. I mean 22-23 is very close but Graf is still far ahead in other major stats. Longevity is good, but having achieved LESS than a player with a shorter career works against her.

Of course you'll say your list is objective, because you like Serena and hate Graf. This thread is your agenda to denigrate Graf . Being objective one would not create a thread to minimize other player. Other posters have already have expressed their POV about your biased list. My short list pointed out fact if you carefully read it.
 
pat200 said:
Serena's singles career with more slams, more longevity, more overall dominance, equal surface versaility, more YEC titles, more Miami titles, more Olympic wins/medals, more Premier titles, more Premier Mandatory titles, and similar time at #1 and slam finals, with more slam semis and quarters, is superior to Steffi's anyway.

You are a joke:
more overall dominance? Um no, numbers speak for themselves. 902-115 compared to 801–136
equal surface versaility? in what world? steffi has way more clay success than serena. their slams surface titles are (HC/G/C) 13/7/3 for Serena and 9/7/6 for Steffi. So NO they are not equally dominant on all surfaces.
more YEC titles? no they have 5 each
more Olympic wins/medals? Um again no since we are only talking singles!! Steffi has one gold and one silver compared to Serena's one gold.
similar time at #1? You've got to be kidding me. Steffi has 58 more weeks at number 1, meaning a whole year. if that makes them similar, then they have a similar amount of slam totals and anything else that serena is ahead. Oh and Steffi has 8 YE number one, compared to Serena's 5


STOP WITH THE FABRICATED LIES AND BENDING OF LOGIC TO MAKE YOUR FAVORITE LOOK BETTER. Thx ;)
Click to expand...

Thanks.
Some people only see and say what they want but it will never change the actual fact/numbers achieved by the ATG.


List of tennis achievements/feats/records held by ATG.

Most GS titles
player total
1 Serena Williams 23
2 Steffi Graf 22
3 Martina Navratilova 18
3 Chris Evert 18
5 Margaret Court 11
6 Monica Seles 9
7 Billie Jean King 8
8 Justine Henin 7
8 Evonne Goolagong Cawley 7
8 Venus Williams 7

Most GS finals
Rank Name Total
1 Chris Evert 34
2 Martina Navrátilová 32
3 Steffi Graf 31
= Serena Williams 31
5 Evonne Goolagong 18
6 Venus Williams 14
7 Monica Seles 13
8 Margaret Court 12
8 Martina Hingis 12
8 Billie Jean Moffitt 12

Calendar Slam
Margaret Court(1970)
Steffi Graf(1988)

Consecutive GS finals
1. Steffi Graf 13
2. Martina Navratilova 11
3. Margaret Court 6
3. Chris Evert 6
3. Monica Seles 6
6. Steffi Graf 5
6. Martina Hingis 5
8. Martina Navratilova 4
8. Chris Evert 4
8. Arantxa Sánchez 4
8. Serena Williams 4
8. Venus Williams 4
8. Justine Henin 4

Most single titles
Rank Player Singles
1 Martina Navratilova 167
2 Chris Evert 157
3 Steffi Graf 107
4 Margaret Court 101
5 Serena Williams 72
6 Evonne Goolagong Cawley 68
7 Billie Jean King 67
8 Virginia Wade 55
= Lindsay Davenport 55
10 Monica Seles 53

Most weeks at #1
Rank Player weeks
1 Steffi Graf 377
2 Martina Navratilova 332
3 Serena Williams 319
4 Chris Evert 260
5 Martina Hingis 209
6 Monica Seles 178
7 Justine Henin 117
8 Lindsay Davenport 98
9 Caroline Wozniacki 67
10 Victoria Azarenka 51

Consecutive weeks at #1
1 Steffi Graf 186
= Serena Williams 186
3 Martina Navratilova 156
4 Chris Evert 113
5 Monica Seles 91
6 Martina Navratilova 90
7 Steffi Graf 87
8 Martina Hingis 80
9 Chris Evert 76
10 Martina Hingis 73

Year end No. 1 players
player year
1 Steffi Graf 8
2 Martina Navratilova 7
3 Chris Evert 5
= Serena Williams 5
5 Lindsay Davenport 4
6 Justine Henin 3
6 Martina Hingis 3
6 Monica Seles 3
9 Caroline Wozniacki 2
10 Jelena Jankovic 1
10 Victoria Azarenka 1

Year-End Championships
1. Martina Navratilova 8
2. Steffi Graf 5
= Serena Williams 5
4. Chris Evert 4
5. Monica Seles 3
6. Kim Clijsters 3
7. Gabriela Sabatini 2
8. Martina Hingis 2
9. Evonne Goolagong Cawley 2
10. Justine Henin 2

All surface single winning percentage
Rank Player Wins-Losses Win %
1 Margaret Court 593-56 91.37
2 Chris Evert 1304-144 90.05
3 Steffi Graf 900-115 88.67
4 Martina Navratilova 1442-219 86.82
5 Serena Williams 801-136 85.49
6 Monica Seles 595-122 82.98
7 Justine Henin 525-115 82.03
8 Billie Jean King 695-155 81.76
9 Evonne Goolagong Cawley 704-165 81.01

Most singles matches won
Player Wins
1 Martina Navratilova 1442
2 Chris Evert 1304
3 Steffi Graf 900
4 Virginia Wade 839
5 Serena Williams 801
6 Venus Williams 763
7 Arantxa Sánchez Vicario 759
8 Lindsay Davenport 753
9 Conchita Martínez 739
10 Evonne Goolagong 704

Most match winning streak(all surfaces)
Rank Player Matches
1 Martina Navratilova 74
2 Steffi Graf 66
3 Martina Navratilova 58
4 Margaret Court 57
5 Chris Evert 55
6 Martina Navratilova 54
7 Steffi Graf 46
8 Steffi Graf 45
9 Steffi Graf 44
10 Martina Navratilova 41

Most consecutive singles titles
1. 13 - Martina Navratilova (1984)
2. 12 - Margaret Court (1972-1973)
3. 11 - Steffi Graf (1989-1990)
4. 10 - Chris Evert (1974)
5. 9 - Martina Navratilova (1986)
5. 9 - Margaret Court (1970)
7. 8 - Steffi Graf (1988 )
7. 8 - Martina Navratilova (1983)

Best annual singles winning percentage
1 Martina Navratilova 98.9
2 Steffi Graf 97.7
3 Martina Navratilova 97.5
4 Steffi Graf 97.4
5 Martina Navratilova 96.8
6 Martina Navratilova 96.7
7 Steffi Graf 96
8 Margaret Court 95.3
9 Serena Williams 95.1
10 Chris Evert 94.9

Winning Streaks
1. Martina Navratilova 74
2. Steffi Graf 66
3. Martina Navratilova 58
4. Chris Evert 56
5. Martina Navratilova 54
6. Steffi Graf 46
7. Steffi Graf 45
8. Martina Navratilova 41
9. Martina Navratilova 39
10. Martina Navratilova 38

Most consecutive years winning at least one singles title
1. 21 - Martina Navratilova (1974-1994)
2. 18 - Chris Evert (1971-1988 )
3. 14 - Steffi Graf (1986-1999)
4. 11 - Sharapova (2003-2013)
4. 11 - Evonne Goolagong Cawley (1970-1980)
4. 11 - Virginia Wade (1968-1978 )
7. 9 - Sandra Cecchini (1984-1992)
7. 9 - Margaret Court (1968-1976)
7. 9 - Lindsay Davenport (1993-2001)
7. 9 - Conchita Martinez (1988-1996)
7. 9 - Arantxa Sanchez Vicario (1988-1996)

Most singles titles won in a year
1. 21 - Margaret Court (1970)
2. 18 - Margaret Court (1969, 1973)
3. 17 - Billie Jean King (1971)
4. 16 - Chris Evert (1974, 1975)
4. 16 - Martina Navratilova (1983)
6. 15 - Evonne Goolagong Cawley (1970)
6. 15 - Martina Navratilova (1982)
8. 14 - Margaret Court (1968 )
8. 14 - Steffi Graf (1989)
8. 14 - Martina Navratilova (1986)
11. 13 - Martina Navratilova (1984)
12. 12 - Chris Evert (1973, 1976)
12. 12 - Evonne Goolagong Cawley (1971)
12. 12 - Martina Navratilova (1985)
12. 12 - Martina Hingis (1997)
16. 11 - Tracy Austin (1980)
16. 11 - Chris Evert (1977)
16. 11 - Steffi Graf (1987, 1988 )
16. 11 - Martina Navratilova (1978, 1979)
16. 11 - Serena Williams (2013)
 
I don’t see how Graf can ever be placed in the same top league as any of the greats I have listed.

In terms of tennis thought, Graf has no legacy at all.

In the women’s game, Graf isn’t a all court player in the lineage of Court, Billie Jean, Navratilova, Goolagong, Henin, Mandlikova. She is not a pioneer like Lenglen, Moody, Alice Marble, Little Mo, Althea Gibson, Doris Hart. She did not lead a style that encouraged and enabled thousands of girls with weak backhand wings to get started like Evert, whose legacy laid a foundation for a whole generation of women to play tennis. She did not campaign for equal prize money like Venus or equal rights like Billie Jean. She left no legacy like Seles whose mere prototype beta 0.9 code before the assassination of Seles was already superior to the best game Graf could muster.

The 2000’s decade was was an era of Seles 2.0/Serena 1.0 code, power ball striker players who modified, improved and built on the early Seles beta code. They constructed all the game infrastructure Seles herself didn’t or couldn’t manage in her time, were better athletes who did not have her weaknesses and added a huge amount of their own fresh code on top of it. And in turn came the whole rewritten Serena 2.0 power rallier code of 2012-2017 whose game style and her big and small changes that have influenced two generations and lineages. (Although I think now that a coach like Sascha had a lot to do with helping her work this out)

Graf has no code she left to the collective game. Nobody plays her obstinate, crude game because if you had her 24K physical capital to work with, you would build a superior OS on top of it, not a dumb and dumber one. Not even today’s German players like Petkovic, Lisicki, Kerber, Goerges, Siegmund, Mona Barthel …… have even a shadow of Graf’s game. If one had to pick a game from the 80’s to learn from, to model a young WTA player after today, I will choose Navratilova or Mandlikova. Those are in fact the best game I can think of to learn from. Not Graf. She wasn’t a complete player or even a complete baseliner. No professional coach would teach Graf’s game today, to teach a player to be dumber and not smarter, to be more obstinate and not more imaginative, to be more wasteful of her 24K athleticism and not more efficient with it by better deployment of game assets, to be stubborn in the face of obstacles instead of being more flexible to form solutions.

A true all courter like Henin, Navratilova, Mandlikova, Connors, McEnroe, Borg, Sampras, Federer takes time, patience to really mature and work out all the facets of the game, of the book of tennis. Nobody can just race and race to graduate, while skipping half the modules along the way.

Graf activists were once very insistent on promoting Graf = Federer in order to link the two. It was a scam. An insult to Federer. Graf is a grinder, a camper, she is nothing like Federer who again and again reinvented himself, who rose to challenges and took his knocks and gruel along the way. Nobody can begrudge him his 20 or his greatest of OE or even AT. And the real merit of Evert Martina’s rivalry is how they pushed each other to grow as players, Martina raising her game, her physical capital, Evert following suit and improving things she didn’t do well. A comment from Martina was like “hey, you weren’t supposed to be able to do that” As for Serena, she forced 2 entire generations to raise their game to chase her level. As a result, there are at least 30 people out of the top 50 who are equally capable of winning a major or a heavyweight event like a PM or P5. It is so tough that Serena herself isn’t winning anything at all now. She isn’t even winning an International, she should play those now. Out of the top 50 players at the next slam (AO2019), I can’t put her above the rank of 15th favourite or so level. There are too many people I have to favour over her.

Unlike Fed or Navratilova, Graf, by contrast, when faced with an innovative new young challenger Seles and a retooled levelled up Sabatini, retreated into her shell. Sabatini kept trouncing her for two years between 1990 and 1991with a new game of superior shotmaking, which she always possessed, and Graf had no answer for it. When asked by journalists whether she thought Graf “should change her game”, Sabatini replied, “That’s her problem”. There it is. That is why the Seles problem could only be taken out of the way by the assassination. Eventually the Sabatini problem also went away as Sabatini declined with injuries. All the players I listed above have advanced the overall game. In terms of watchability, there was little to Graf's post 1988 game which is unwatchable now especially her 90’s matches after the assassination of Seles. Graf raced and raced and raced to a quick, early and low peak in her tennis, and she couldn’t go back and relearn her whole course. What coach can tell a 10 slam champion otherwise?
 
Last edited:
To me, Graf is like a Sharapova, largely a self serving, self absorbed, take-the-loot-and-run kind of villainess. Graf’s only case to be in the top league is her CYGS of 1988. It was a great one time accomplishment in one year only. A CYGS is a CYGS. It cannot be called a NCYGS. It does not need any further embellishment. I reject and will not dignify the contrived, phoney, made up gxxxxn label that has since become deeply engrained, cooked into the books, even though one critical glance should see it has zero merit.

As for the line that Graf “used inferior technology”, that is nonsense, the Max200G of its day was so advanced so brilliant that even today I am not certain there is anything that performs like it with its grafil injection and dynamic stiffness. Her wide body racquet was so powerful and responsive that Navratilova was insisting that was the secret to Graf’s power. The Graf forehand was late, sloppy and loopy, but only seemed to work because 1) first wave technology 2) her sheer capital covered up her asset deficit temporarily.
 
In terms of records, I have said for years that 1991 Wimbledon should be regarded as Graf's last slam and her record compared to the other greats should be considered up to that point only. I am only <50% in favour of including the 1992 Wimbledon in the Graf record, considering how Seles was assassinated in the media in that tournament. I set aside Graf’s record after the 1993 assassination of Seles in all such all time lists, to be entirely fair to Graf’s record pre-1993 assassination of Seles. Should her actual record of 10-6 in slam finals be sufficient to make the top 10 league? That to me is the only way to give Graf a just assessment of her record that was still intact up to that point. However, I’d still say that all the players I listed above are more important to the game than her, although she has a CYGS which is not the one most important record.

Anybody who promotes the record of Steffi Graf without clearly including Parche’s contribution to her record by his assassination of Seles is concurring with Parche’s logic; “his Steffi” could only regain her rightful place as Number One by assassinating Seles, to get rid of her for Graf. Read what Seles wrote in her letter to the court, her words are poignant and agonising : “he has destroyed my life”. That is effectively murder. The victim’s real experience is all that is material. Nothing else matters, including all the remarks from the Graf activists over the years.

Even if the only voices who remain in the forums are the likes of oh, I don’t know, persons like GrafNumberOne, or JoeGraf, or GrafTheBest, or GrafGOAT or GrafPike, or whatever, Parche and his contribution to Graf’s record by his assassination of Seles will never go anywhere, pro Graf activists will HAVE to continually bring it up, even if nobody else does, if only in order to explain it all away. Hence Parche got exactly what he wanted. Because the Grafs gave him what he wanted. The Graf camp used the assassination of Seles to cynically establish facts in the power vacuum. I don’t know if it was an unintentional or intentional political blunder to overlook the fact that as a consequence, Parche would get exactly what he wanted. To be part of Graf’s legacy, forever, to be united with “his Steffi” forever in history.

If only Graf herself could have seen that this assassination affected her just as much as Seles. And that therefore she and Seles were in it together, like it or not. They had to coordinate a mutual support and mutual comeback together on court to relieve the poison of the assassination on BOTH their careers and the whole game itself.

Or maybe at that moment in the wake of the assassination of Seles, the Graf camp just didn’t care about anything else. Whatever they had to do was to just establish facts first and restore Graf’s rightful place at the top and winning again, history will be written by the victors afterwards, and thereafter all discussions about Graf’s record, no matter how heated and acrimonious were always going to go round in circles and end up in the same place where the facts were firmly established 25 years ago. No way to ever deny the Facts.
 
Last edited:
70後 said:
In terms of records, I have said for years that 1991 Wimbledon should be regarded as Graf's last slam and her record compared to the other greats should be considered up to that point only. I am only <50% in favour of including the 1992 Wimbledon in the Graf record, considering how Seles was assassinated in the media in that tournament. I set aside Graf’s record after the 1993 assassination of Seles in all such all time lists, to be entirely fair to Graf’s record pre-1993 assassination of Seles. Should her actual record of 10-6 in slam finals be sufficient to make the top 10 league? That to me is the only way to give Graf a just assessment of her record that was still intact up to that point. However, I’d still say that all the players I listed above are more important to the game than her, although she has a CYGS which is not the one most important record.

Anybody who promotes the record of Steffi Graf without clearly including Parche’s contribution to her record by his assassination of Seles is concurring with Parche’s logic; “his Steffi” could only regain her rightful place as Number One by assassinating Seles, to get rid of her for Graf. Read what Seles wrote in her letter to the court, her words are poignant and agonising : “he destroyed my life”. That is effectively murder. The victim’s real experience is all that is material. Nothing else matters, including all the remarks from the Graf activists over the years.

Even if the only voices who remain in the forums are the likes of oh, I don’t know, persons like GrafNumberOne, or JoeGraf, or GrafTheBest, or GrafGOAT or GrafPike, or whatever, Parche and his contribution to Graf’s record by his assassination of Seles will never go anywhere, pro Graf activists will HAVE to continually bring it up, even if nobody else does, if only in order to explain it all away. Hence Parche got exactly what he wanted. Because the Grafs gave him what he wanted. The Graf camp used the assassination of Seles to cynically establish facts in the power vacuum. I don’t know if it was an unintentional or intentional political blunder to overlook the fact that as a consequence, Parche would get exactly what he wanted. To be part of Graf’s legacy, forever, to be united with “his Steffi” forever in history.

If only Graf herself could have seen that this assassination affected her just as much as Seles. And that therefore she and Seles were in it together, like it or not. They had to coordinate a mutual support and mutual comeback together on court to relieve the poison of the assassination on BOTH their careers and the whole game itself.

Or maybe at that moment in the wake of the assassination of Seles, the Graf camp just didn’t care about anything else. Whatever they had to do was to just establish facts first and restore Graf’s rightful place at the top and winning again, history will be written by the victors afterwards, and thereafter all discussions about Graf’s record, no matter how heated and acrimonious were always going to go round in circles and end up in the same place where the facts were firmly established 25 years ago. No way to ever deny the Facts.
Click to expand...
I know I have read your posts, just like these three, but the name is unfamiliar. This sort and volume of content is pretty unforgettable.
 
70後 said:
In terms of records, I have said for years that 1991 Wimbledon should be regarded as Graf's last slam and her record compared to the other greats should be considered up to that point only. I am only <50% in favour of including the 1992 Wimbledon in the Graf record, considering how Seles was assassinated in the media in that tournament. I set aside Graf’s record after the 1993 assassination of Seles in all such all time lists, to be entirely fair to Graf’s record pre-1993 assassination of Seles. Should her actual record of 10-6 in slam finals be sufficient to make the top 10 league? That to me is the only way to give Graf a just assessment of her record that was still intact up to that point. However, I’d still say that all the players I listed above are more important to the game than her, although she has a CYGS which is not the one most important record.

Anybody who promotes the record of Steffi Graf without clearly including Parche’s contribution to her record by his assassination of Seles is concurring with Parche’s logic; “his Steffi” could only regain her rightful place as Number One by assassinating Seles, to get rid of her for Graf. Read what Seles wrote in her letter to the court, her words are poignant and agonising : “he has destroyed my life”. That is effectively murder. The victim’s real experience is all that is material. Nothing else matters, including all the remarks from the Graf activists over the years.

Even if the only voices who remain in the forums are the likes of oh, I don’t know, persons like GrafNumberOne, or JoeGraf, or GrafTheBest, or GrafGOAT or GrafPike, or whatever, Parche and his contribution to Graf’s record by his assassination of Seles will never go anywhere, pro Graf activists will HAVE to continually bring it up, even if nobody else does, if only in order to explain it all away. Hence Parche got exactly what he wanted. Because the Grafs gave him what he wanted. The Graf camp used the assassination of Seles to cynically establish facts in the power vacuum. I don’t know if it was an unintentional or intentional political blunder to overlook the fact that as a consequence, Parche would get exactly what he wanted. To be part of Graf’s legacy, forever, to be united with “his Steffi” forever in history.

If only Graf herself could have seen that this assassination affected her just as much as Seles. And that therefore she and Seles were in it together, like it or not. They had to coordinate a mutual support and mutual comeback together on court to relieve the poison of the assassination on BOTH their careers and the whole game itself.

Or maybe at that moment in the wake of the assassination of Seles, the Graf camp just didn’t care about anything else. Whatever they had to do was to just establish facts first and restore Graf’s rightful place at the top and winning again, history will be written by the victors afterwards, and thereafter all discussions about Graf’s record, no matter how heated and acrimonious were always going to go round in circles and end up in the same place where the facts were firmly established 25 years ago. No way to ever deny the Facts.
Click to expand...

You are writing this as if Graf would never had a chance to beat Seles again. But Graf was already beating Seles – especially on faster surfaces. it is true, that some of Grafs slams post 1991 might not have happened if not for the stabbing – but your theory about basically every single Graf slam post '91 is insane. Reading all this makes me question your sobriety.
 
redrover said:
The facts are the strong consensus is Serena at #1 and Graf at #2. Yes there is the very odd person who might pick Navratilova, Evert, or even Court (like 1 out of 500 for Court, which is ridiculous, she is insanely underrated), the fact is that is the strong consensus. Just like it is beyond dispute Federer and Laver are the consensus GOATs on the mens side even if the very odd person might pick Gonzales, Hoad, Nadal, Djokovic, or even Sampras. So no it is not an even 5 or 6 person race as you imply, unless you live in a fantasy world. And again I am not expressing purely my own views, as I said I believe Court is insanely underrated the way Graf and Navratilova are overrated, but it is reality whether one likes it or not.

And that is where I take issue, Graf should not be the consensus #2. Serena is rightly the consensus GOAT, but Graf the consensus #2 behind Serena is vastly overrating her considering everything I and others have pointed out, and most of all the Seles stabbing which should be tainting her career which seems all but forgotten today.
Click to expand...
Not facts.
consensus definition: 1. a generally accepted opinion or decision among a group of people: 2. a generally accepted opinion; wide agreement: 3. a generally accepted opinion among a group of people
 
hoodjem said:
Not facts.
consensus definition: 1. a generally accepted opinion or decision among a group of people: 2. a generally accepted opinion; wide agreement: 3. a generally accepted opinion among a group of people
Click to expand...

I think he's saying it's a fact that the majority consider Serena as GOAT, and Graf as 2nd.
 
70後 said:
In terms of records, I have said for years that 1991 Wimbledon should be regarded as Graf's last slam and her record compared to the other greats should be considered up to that point only. I am only <50% in favour of including the 1992 Wimbledon in the Graf record, considering how Seles was assassinated in the media in that tournament. I set aside Graf’s record after the 1993 assassination of Seles in all such all time lists, to be entirely fair to Graf’s record pre-1993 assassination of Seles. Should her actual record of 10-6 in slam finals be sufficient to make the top 10 league? That to me is the only way to give Graf a just assessment of her record that was still intact up to that point. However, I’d still say that all the players I listed above are more important to the game than her, although she has a CYGS which is not the one most important record.
Click to expand...
You can't honestly be serious? Discounting Graf's Wimbledon 1992 win is ludicrous. Of course Seles' stabbing had an effect on both of their totals but not nearly as much as some think. During Seles peak dominance from 1991 to 1993 AO, Graf led the H2h 3-2, Seles winning at RG and AO, Graf winning at Wimbledon. Sure Graf was overpowered at AO but their RG match was very close and Graf destroyed Seles at Wimbledon, in Seles' only final there. There's no evidence that Seles would have ever beaten Graf at Wimbledon and good evidence that Graf would have the upper hand at USO too. Likely wins at least 1 more RG too, probably more. 10 slams is a ridiculous proposed total of Graf's slam count
 
Phoenix1983 said:
I think he's saying it's a fact that the majority consider Serena as GOAT, and Graf as 2nd.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm. Seems suspect to me.


Well, I could say it's a "fact" that the majority of people I know don't.
So, I guess it depends on who one is paying attention to (or the sample group).
I believe it would be more correct to say "my perception is that the majority of persons consider X as GOAT."
 
Last edited:
Towny said:
You can't honestly be serious? Discounting Graf's Wimbledon 1992 win is ludicrous. Of course Seles' stabbing had an effect on both of their totals but not nearly as much as some think. During Seles peak dominance from 1991 to 1993 AO, Graf led the H2h 3-2, Seles winning at RG and AO, Graf winning at Wimbledon. Sure Graf was overpowered at AO but their RG match was very close and Graf destroyed Seles at Wimbledon, in Seles' only final there. There's no evidence that Seles would have ever beaten Graf at Wimbledon and good evidence that Graf would have the upper hand at USO too. Likely wins at least 1 more RG too, probably more. 10 slams is a ridiculous proposed total of Graf's slam count
Click to expand...

He is insufferably biased against Graf. Haven't the energy to engage him all over as I have had this same discussion before with him. But you carry on fighting the good fight.
 
BTURNER said:
Evert won her last major in 1986. Graf did not win her first until a year later. They only played one match in a slam major as serious contenders to take the title, in the 1988 Aussie final. They were bascially baseline batttleships passing each other in the night.
Click to expand...

Ok, I agree about Chris, but not about Martina.
 
redrover said:
Your perrogative. I disagree. Like I said I think if you count Martina and Chris for Steffi then you have to count Steffi and Monica for Serena, and have to count Court and King for Martina, but something tells me you dont.

Martina I could see to a degree, but you also cant pretend it was a prime Martina. Still a difficult Martina I could concede. Chris I cant see at all, she retired after 89, and was at the very end of her career and a total shadow of her old self, when Graf was on top.
Click to expand...

I agree about Chris, but certainly count Martina. They played five GS finals each other.
 
redrover said:
Yes, racist people only look at Serena's competition now, which admitedly isnt great, but ignore that she faced bar none the deepest womens field in history from 99-2008. And also ignore no women in history, be it Navratilova, Graf, Court, etc...would be having the level of success Serena is having aged 33-37 against any field, so in that sense Serena having a weak field the last 4 years or so doesnt even matter.

In terms of competition strength Serena, Court, and maybe Evert (due to the 74-81 field which was very deep) had it far harder than Navratilova, while Graf is further behind still than Martina. Of all the Open Era greats Graf competition wise had it easiest, even ignoring the stabbing, or rather the overall field was such that the stabbing ensured her having the weakest competition of all the greats. Yet she is still behind both Court and Serena in slams and most other areas.
Click to expand...
"Racist people". This immediately weakens your argument. It's lazy and uncalled for.

And as for the "consensus" that Williams is The Goat, that's simply not true. As evidenced by posts on here, and any thread debating the best ever. Which, personally, I find futile as there are far too many variables.
And, the majors count is also flawed given that the Australian, and to a lesser degree, the French have only been important since the mid to late 80s.
 
PDJ said:
And as for the "consensus" that Williams is The Goat, that's simply not true. As evidenced by posts on here, and any thread debating the best ever. Which, personally, I find futile as there are far too many variables.
Click to expand...
C'est vrai.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ
PDJ said:
"Racist people". This immediately weakens your argument. It's lazy and uncalled for.

And as for the "consensus" that Williams is The Goat, that's simply not true. As evidenced by posts on here, and any thread debating the best ever. Which, personally, I find futile as there are far too many variables.
And, the majors count is also flawed given that the Australian, and to a lesser degree, the French have only been important since the mid to late 80s.
Click to expand...
And yet, he cherishes all the moments when he trashes Graf's competition, but when someone do the same to Serena, he uses the race card.

Anyone who doesn't believe Serena is the goat and denounce all of her temper tantrums on court were wrong are "racist people".
 
redrover said:
The facts are the strong consensus is Serena at #1 and Graf at #2. Yes there is the very odd person who might pick Navratilova, Evert, or even Court (like 1 out of 500 for Court, which is ridiculous, she is insanely underrated), the fact is that is the strong consensus. Just like it is beyond dispute Federer and Laver are the consensus GOATs on the mens side even if the very odd person might pick Gonzales, Hoad, Nadal, Djokovic, or even Sampras. So no it is not an even 5 or 6 person race as you imply, unless you live in a fantasy world. And again I am not expressing purely my own views, as I said I believe Court is insanely underrated the way Graf and Navratilova are overrated, but it is reality whether one likes it or not.

And that is where I take issue, Graf should not be the consensus #2. Serena is rightly the consensus GOAT, but Graf the consensus #2 behind Serena is vastly overrating her considering everything I and others have pointed out, and most of all the Seles stabbing which should be tainting her career which seems all but forgotten today.
Click to expand...
If there is a consensus putting Williams at number 1 - I think it comes from the tendency many have of always considering the current as better than the past. Stepping back - Serena has less time as number 1, less year end number 1's - than some of these other candidates. Serena never had a calendar year with the accomplishments that Court had in 1970. Serena is definitely in the conversation for all time number 1, but it far from a completed conversation. Yes, Lenglen, Connelly, Wills Moody, Navratilova, Graf, Court are also in the conversation.
 
hoodjem said:
Hmmmm. Seems suspect to me.


Well, I could say it's a "fact" that the majority of people I know don't.
So, I guess it depends on who one is paying attention to (or the sample group).
I believe it would be more correct to say "my perception is that the majority of persons consider X as GOAT."
Click to expand...

I am the only poster on this board with the power and authority to declare 'fact'. It was granted to me by owner fiat when I arrived in 2007 as a condition of membership. I don't have to perceive. My credentials as Tennis Warehouse factfinder are on file.
 
BTURNER said:
I am the only poster on this board with the power and authority to declare 'fact'. It was granted to me by owner fiat when I arrived in 2007 as a condition of membership. I don't have to perceive. My credentials as Tennis Warehouse factfinder are on file.
Click to expand...
By your command.
 
PDJ said:
"Racist people". This immediately weakens your argument. It's lazy and uncalled for.

And as for the "consensus" that Williams is The Goat, that's simply not true. As evidenced by posts on here, and any thread debating the best ever. Which, personally, I find futile as there are far too many variables.
And, the majors count is also flawed given that the Australian, and to a lesser degree, the French have only been important since the mid to late 80s.
Click to expand...

Only Americans say that The French Open has not been important. It's always been a big deal in Europe and South America – and maybe the fact that no American men – and rather few American women (except Evert, she won lots) – have won it in the period 1956–1990 could be the reason for this stupid perception of its limited "importance".
 
Olli Jokinen said:
Only Americans say that The French Open has not been important. It's always been a big deal in Europe and South America – and maybe the fact that no American men – and rather few American women (except Evert, she won lots) – have won it in the period 1956–1990 could be the reason for this stupid perception of its limited "importance".
Click to expand...
Firstly, I'm not American.
Secondly, it's a well known fact that Wimbledon and the USO have consistently been more important than the AO or French in the Open Era and attendance of the top players. This changed, as previously stated, in the 80s.
 
Olli Jokinen said:
Only Americans say that The French Open has not been important. It's always been a big deal in Europe and South America – and maybe the fact that no American men – and rather few American women (except Evert, she won lots) – have won it in the period 1956–1990 could be the reason for this stupid perception of its limited "importance".
Click to expand...
And near as dammit all the top women, of any nationality, avoided the French in the mid 70s. I wish it were otherwise as Evert's major count would be considerably higher. As indeed it would be if she'd played the AO more than 6 times in a near 20 year career.
 
I dont think she should be, but I also dont believe she even is anyway so it is moot. Most have Navratilova 2nd behind Serena. I believe when Graf retired she was seen as neck and neck with Martina for 1st, but Martina has stood the time of test better with the general public than Serena has. I am not sure if Graf is even who most have 3rd anymore or not.
 
Navratilova should be atleast 2nd to Serena, maybe even 1st over Serena. She overcame so much, including lesbianism and homophobia. No women has ever played at a higher level than Martina of 82-86, including even Serena. Serena in her peak years is the only one who could even hang with that Martina. Graf, Court, Venus, would all be destroyed. That version of Martina won almost every match vs Evert for 5 years, including a 15 match win streak over her.
 
lewisgibson said:
Navratilova should be atleast 2nd to Serena, maybe even 1st over Serena. She overcame so much, including lesbianism and homophobia. No women has ever played at a higher level than Martina of 82-86, including even Serena. Serena in her peak years is the only one who could even hang with that Martina. Graf, Court, Venus, would all be destroyed. That version of Martina won almost every match vs Evert for 5 years, including a 15 match win streak over her.
Click to expand...
I think facts are not your friend. I suggest you do a little more research.
Happy New Year.
 
Sport said:
I am not discussing opinions, I am discussing facts. In the X century, most people believed that Earth was in the centre of the universe (Geocentrism), but they were obviously wrong. The opinion of the majority is not an indicative of truth.

To say that something is true just because most people believe it is a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad populum:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

I am talking about facts, not "opinions". 24 Grand Slams >>>>> 23 and 22.
Click to expand...
Taxi Driver you are wrong, Margaret Court won lot of cheap Australian Open
 
I don’t know how anyone can possibly think Steffi isn’t the overwhelming best, besides recency bias. She literally had more 90%+win seasons than ones she didn’t. She remained a dominant force for longer than anyone had up to that point and probably still had more wins left when she retired. She faced and beat Chrissie, Martina, Monica, ASV, Williams, etc.

(And as for the the “buT sElES” talking point…she was literally 9-4 against her. And even if you want to just count pre-stabbing, all her big losses to her were very close matches that got decided by a few points, and Steffi destroyed her at Wimbledon).
 
YellowFedBetter said:
I don’t know how anyone can possibly think Steffi isn’t the overwhelming best, besides recency bias. She literally had more 90%+win seasons than ones she didn’t.
Click to expand...
Graf's career winning percentage was 88.9%.

Evert's career winning percentage was 89.3%.

Court's career winning percentage was 90.9%.

So, if we're going just by winning percentage, which I don't think we should, Graf is in third among the GOAT candidates.
 
YellowFedBetter said:
I don’t know how anyone can possibly think Steffi isn’t the overwhelming best, besides recency bias. She literally had more 90%+win seasons than ones she didn’t. She remained a dominant force for longer than anyone had up to that point and probably still had more wins left when she retired. She faced and beat Chrissie, Martina, Monica, ASV, Williams, etc.

(And as for the the “buT sElES” talking point…she was literally 9-4 against her. And even if you want to just count pre-stabbing, all her big losses to her were very close matches that got decided by a few points, and Steffi destroyed her at Wimbledon).
Click to expand...
Huh?
 
BTURNER said:
based on the criteria set forth in your second sentence, Evert wins this category. Chris played 1,455 matches 1309 wins–146 losses (89.97%) averaged over her CAREER (none of this 'more seasons than she didn't stuff !') and that career was three years longer 1970-1989 (20 years) than Steffi's, who played 1015 matches over 17 years with 900–115 (88.67%). Chris played longer ago (recency bias my ass!), played over more years, and played more matches and won more matches

The difference between these two is 1.3% to Evert's credit.

In slam play, Graf did better exactly 0.689% better than Evert. Evert played 336 slam matches: 299 wins- 37 losses (88.988) over 19 years (no slams in 1970). Graf played 310 matches: 278 wins–32 losses 89.677% over 16 years (no slams in 1982). Evert played more matches, over more years, and won more matches, but did 0.689% worse that Steffi did.
Click to expand...
Christie absolutely is close. But Steffi had tougher overall competition:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

davey25
Just wanted to say Steffi Graf is in no way the best ever!
3 4 5
Replies
235
Views
32K
Polaris
Polaris
julesb
Frank Deford: "Graf most Overrated Tennis Player Ever"
2 3 4
Replies
166
Views
26K
grafselesfan
grafselesfan
S
Evert, Navratilova, Graf and their worst losses
2
Replies
77
Views
878
BTURNER
B
thalivest
Graf the greatest female player of all time on all surfaces
3 4 5
Replies
235
Views
22K
dannykl
D
grafforehand
  • Poll Poll
Is Graf the best female player ever on all surfaces
2 3 4
Replies
158
Views
19K
BTURNER
B
Back
Top