Whats your top 10 all time now (women)

[granddog29]

I felt there should be a seperate thread for the men and women since the initial thread dwarfed out the ladies altogether. Mine at this point would be:

1. Graf
2. Navratilova
3. Evert
4. Serena Williams
5. Court
6. Wills Moody
7. Lenglen
8. Connolly
9. King
10. Seles


Graf is pretty much undisputed #1 and Navratilova pretty much undisputed #2. Places 3-6 are all debateable. Places 8-13 with people like Goolagong, Henin, Venus, and Bueno to consider as well are all interchangeable.

 

[kiki]

I felt there should be a seperate thread for the men and women since the initial thread dwarfed out the ladies altogether. Mine at this point would be:

1. Graf
2. Navratilova
3. Evert
4. Serena Williams
5. Court
6. Wills Moody
7. Lenglen
8. Connolly
9. King
10. Seles


Graf is pretty much undisputed #1 and Navratilova pretty much undisputed #2. Places 3-6 are all debateable. Places 8-13 with people like Goolagong, Henin, Venus, and Bueno to consider as well are all interchangeable.

Bueno and Marble be there, too as well as Hochkins in terms of
Results
Another thing is talent but I guess your list is about achieving
I cannot see Evert that high.Top ten, definitely but top 3, not quite

 

[granddog29]

Well it is about achieving mostly. Had I made a more subjective list I would put Evert alot lower as ability wise I dont think is even top 6, but it is hard to deny her career.

Who would you bump out for Bueno, Marble, Hochkins, and possibly Douglas Chambers? I feel like they should be included but I am not sure who to drop. I guess King and Seles could be dropped from the top 10 though. Hard to drop any of the other 8.

 

[kiki]

Well it is about achieving mostly. Had I made a more subjective list I would put Evert alot lower as ability wise I dont think is even top 6, but it is hard to deny her career.

Who would you bump out for Bueno, Marble, Hochkins, and possibly Douglas Chambers? I feel like they should be included but I am not sure who to drop. I guess King and Seles could be dropped from the top 10 though. Hard to drop any of the other 8.

To be true both deserve it but moreso King who won a bunch of W titles while Seles no
As great as Monica is, I do not think a non Wimbly champion can be top ten all time albeit Gonzales has the excuse of not being allowed

 

[granddog29]

True so my putting Seles top 10 was probably too high. I guess I do take into consideration a bit what happened to her though. Still Bueno and Marble probably should be top 10 atleast. There arent enough places in the top 10 for everyone who deserves it.

 

[kiki]

True so my putting Seles top 10 was probably too high. I guess I do take into consideration a bit what happened to her though. Still Bueno and Marble probably should be top 10 atleast. There arent enough places in the top 10 for everyone who deserves it.

Maybe ( and just for overall record and not just peak play)
Preopen Tennis

1 Connolly
2 Wills
3Lenglen
4Lambert
5Marble
6Bueno
7Hochzliss
8Dupont
9Betz
10Gibson/Hart

Open Era
1Navratilova
2Graf
3Court
4S Williams
5King/Evert
7Seles
8Hingis
9V Williams
10 Goolagong
But Clijters,Capriati,Henin and ASV could also make it

 

[granddog29]

I would maybe put Venus over Seles and Hingis due to her amazing doubles career, only 2 fewer singles slams than Seles and 2 more than Hingis, her amazing Wimbledon record at the Worlds most prestigious event vs the relatively modest records at Wimbledon of the other two (despite that Hingis does have a WImbledon title), and her Olympic sucess.

I agree with your other rankings. Navratilova could be over Graf if we weigh doubles heavily, otherwise it would be Graf. Both had poor competition so no real difference there, but both have huge peak level play despite the poor competition.

 

[Phoenix1983]

1. Graf
2. Navratilova
3. Evert
4. S Williams
5. Court
6. King
7. Wills Moody
8. Connolly
9. Seles
10. Lenglen

 

[kiki]

If Mo Connolly didn´t go through what she went, I wonder ( and also for Seles but less) what place would she stand.

 

[Arafel]

Bueno and Marble be there, too as well as Hochkins in terms of
Results
Another thing is talent but I guess your list is about achieving
I cannot see Evert that high.Top ten, definitely but top 3, not quite

Evert records:

-189-1 on clay over an 8-year period; during that period, she skipped three French Opens, titles she would have won, to play Team Tennis.
-Only player with a career winning percentage above .900 (1,309 wins and 146 losses)
-At least one Slam for 13 consecutive years (a record)
-Six US Opens (most by a female player)
-Most US Open wins (101)
-Most French Opens (7)
-Career finals percentage of 76 percent (making 76 percent finals of tournaments entered.
-lowest career ranking: No. 4
-Semis or better in 48 of her first 49 Slams entered; the lone loss was in the third round of 1983 Wimbledon when she was so sick from food poisoning she could barely stand up. Overall, she made 52 semis in 56 Slams played.

Sorry, how can you not rate Evert at least no. 3 overall? You could easily make a case for her as best ever. Certainly no one was ever as consistent. If you read "The Rivals," several of Martina's coaches make the point that though it appeared Chris might not be hitting hard, she was, in fact, "hitting bombs."

In her last US Open, at the age of 34, she beat Monica Seles 6-0, 6-2.

 

[kiki]

Evert records:

-189-1 on clay over an 8-year period; during that period, she skipped three French Opens, titles she would have won, to play Team Tennis.
-Only player with a career winning percentage above .900 (1,309 wins and 146 losses)
-At least one Slam for 13 consecutive years (a record)
-Six US Opens (most by a female player)
-Most US Open wins (101)
-Most French Opens (7)
-Career finals percentage of 76 percent (making 76 percent finals of tournaments entered.
-lowest career ranking: No. 4
-Semis or better in 48 of her first 49 Slams entered; the lone loss was in the third round of 1983 Wimbledon when she was so sick from food poisoning she could barely stand up. Overall, she made 52 semis in 56 Slams played.

Sorry, how can you not rate Evert at least no. 3 overall? You could easily make a case for her as best ever. Certainly no one was ever as consistent. If you read "The Rivals," several of Martina's coaches make the point that though it appeared Chris might not be hitting hard, she was, in fact, "hitting bombs."

In her last US Open, at the age of 34, she beat Monica Seles 6-0, 6-2.

Evert was a big champion, but she was a bit of a transitional champion between two of the four most dominant women ever: Court and Navratilova.I have admired her as a tennis player but she had it easy with Austin injuries, Goolagong,Mandlikova and Wade inconsistency, King being an old woman and young martina with all her serious problems.Of course, it is due to her credit that she managed to make it work into her favour and dominate the way she really did.

 

[Arafel]

Evert was a big champion, but she was a bit of a transitional champion between two of the four most dominant women ever: Court and Navratilova.I have admired her as a tennis player but she had it easy with Austin injuries, Goolagong,Mandlikova and Wade inconsistency, King being an old woman and young martina with all her serious problems.Of course, it is due to her credit that she managed to make it work into her favour and dominate the way she really did.

Seriously? I'll give you Navratilova, but Evert has a 9-4 record against Court, and beat her in the first three matches she played. A 15-year-old Evert beat Court in 1970, the same year Court won the calendar year Slam. Court's Slam record is greatly inflated by winning 11 Australians when most of the top women skipped it. Evert is also a far better player than Hana could ever hope to be. I know; I watched them play a lot. As far as Austin, Evert had turned the tide even before Tracy got hurt, so no on that. And Evert had a winning record against King even before King got old, so no on that one as well.

 

[granddog29]

I guess Evert has to be #5 all time minimum. One could make a case for putting Court or Wills Moody above her so I wouldnt say #3 all time minimum. More like #3 all time maximum, as there is virtually no case to put her over Graf and Navratilova, and pretty much not a single expert does.

As for the matchups with Court and Austin. Court was 30 or older in all but that first match. Chris beating Court at 15 was amazing, but one match in a tiny tournament. I wouldnt read too much into that. In 72-73 they played 8 times when Court was 30 and 31 years old and Evert was 18. They split 4-4 and Court won 2 of their 3 slam meetings. Only with a series of victories over a 33 year old Court in Court's pointless final comeback to tennis did she pull out a big head to head lead. By contrast, Evert at 31 and 32 no longer could beat a 16 and 17 year old Graf once Graf won her first pro tournament and was starting to get spanked hard in some matches, so at similar or more advantageous ages Evert was fareing much much worse vs Graf than Court vs Evert.

Then Austin. She was 9-4 vs Chris from 79-81 only ages 16-18. These are the only years even worth considering as she was 14-15 before that and done as a player after 81 due to injury, but even with those years factored in she leads 9-8. Evert did not figure Tracy out for good at the 1980 U.S Open. She proceeded to lose 3 of their next 4 matches, and needed to come from a set and break down for the only win.

 

[granddog29]

Court also would have likely won atleast 9 of the 11 Australian Opens she won even if everyone played so the dissing of her record there everyone does is completely unfair. Dont believe me, lets do a breakdown shall we:

1960 Australian Open- beat Bueno, the clear World #1 at the time. 1

1961 Australian Open- OK for arguments sake lets say she loses her if everyone plays, despite that a younger Court had already bested the thens Worlds best the year before.

1962 Australian Open- Won 3 of the 4 slams that year anyway. 2

1963 Australian Open- dominant #1 at the time, and in the midst of a period she would win 5 of 7 majors. 3

1964 Australian Open- Since she lost both Wimbledon and the U.S Open this year lets just say for arguments sake she loses.

1965 Australian Open- Beat main rival Bueno in final. 4

1966 Australian Open- Who was going to beat her this year. Bueno was already on heavy decline and King hadnt even won a slam yet at this point. 5

1969 Australian Open- Beat King, chief rival and queen of tennis from 66-68 in Court's absence, by lopsided score in final. 6

1970 Australian Open- Won Grand Slam t his year. 7

1971 Australian Open- Totally dominated this 18 month period, and beat Goolagong that years French and Wimbledon Champion in final. 8

1973 Australian Open- Won 3 of 4 slams that year anyway. 9


So there you have it. Realistically only 2 Australian Opens she even might have lost at had everyone played, which would still leave her with 22, equal tied with Graf who probably gained atleast 2 by the Seles stabbing herself and probably should still trail Court's record total by atleast 2 even then in that case. Feel free to even attempt to argue otherwise given the examples I have given.

 

[BTURNER]

We can debate this for eons. We can debate where to put Graf or Martina, or Court as much as we'd like. But wherever you put Martina, Evert sits either besides or just underneath. She's not four spots down the list from Navratilova. She had to worry over Margaret, Goolagong and King stalling her a year or two more more than Martina. Martina had to worry more over Graf, Seles, coming up and driving her out early.

Here's mine.

1. Graf
2. Court
3. Navratilova
4 Evert
5 Serena
6. Wills
7. Connolly
8. Lenglen.
9. King
10. Bueno/ Seles

Margaret had a serious problem with young Evert. This is the first 8 matches they played. I am paying no mind to the matches after 1973. Margaret was the winner of three of the four majors by the time these matches were over in 1973. Obviously this #1 player on a walker, had well oiled wheels to win RG, the Australian, and The US national. 31 years isn't any older for Court than it was for Evert in 1985, or is for Serena now.. Evert took the first six sets they played 1970-1972. Margaret taught her a lesson on the grass of Newport, won a tough 3 setter at RG, lost on grass at Wimbledon, and beat Evert again on the grass at the Open. They were 1-1 on clay. 2-1 on hard courts with Evert leading, and 1-2 on grass with Court having the edge. Frankly Evert was having trouble beating any really top players on grass at that stage . She hadn't beaten King, or Goolagong on grass and had split some meeting vs Wade. I suspect Court was having a lot of trouble reading Evert's passes/ lobs in those first few matches, and caught her flatfooted, while Chrissie evidently had far less trouble reading the big serve than a lot of players. Margaret adjusted by 1973, for one rip roaring rivalry for one year.

1970 Charlotte, NC SF W 7-6, 7-6 (clay)
1972 Bonne Belle Cup W 6-3, 6-3 (hard)
1972 Indianapolis, IN SF W 6-3, 7-6 (hard)
1972 Newport, RI SF L 6-3, 6-0 (grass)
1973 French Open F L 6-7, 7-6, 6-4 (Clay)
1973 Wimbledon SF W 6-1, 1-6, 6-19 (Grass)
1973 U.S. Open SF L 7-5, 2-6, 6-2 (Grass)
1973 Hilton Head, SC RR L 6-4, 6-7, 6-2 (hard)

 

[granddog29]

Navratilova is widely accepted by almost all to have proven herself the better player between her and Evert with her total dominance of Evert once she hit her stride. So it is perfectly reasonable to have them more than 1 placement apart. I know I have them #2 and #3 on my list, but I am in fact in the minority even putting them that close. Most lists I have seen have them atleast 2 placements apart. Tennis Magazine had Navratilova #1 and Evert #4. Tennis World about ten years compiled a list that had Navratilova #1 and Evert #4. Tennis Channel had Navratilova #2 (behind Graf) and Evert #4. A list voted on about a year ago by Wade, Turnbull, Drysdale, and a few others had Navratilova #2 (behind Graf) and Evert #5.

The only expert or major list I have seen that even has them only 1 placing apart is Steve Flink (a close personal friend of Evert) who has Navratilova #2 (behind Graf) and Evert #3. Who knows if by now he might even have Serena between them for all we know. He was heavy in his praise of Serena in his recent book.


Thank you for your breakdown of the Evert vs Court rivarly. That just shows 18 year old Evert was fairly evenly matched with 31 year old Court, but with Court coming out ahead more often when it mattered most. I dont see how this is exactly some hugely favorable argument for Evert though. Is an 18 year old typically considered less prime than a 31 year old in womens tennis? The reverse is usually true. Alot more players 18 and younger have won slams than women 31 or older, especialy Open Era, that is for sure. Do we consider 18 year old Graf was less in her prime in 1988 than 31 year old Navratilova when Graf completed the Golden Slam, and humiliated Navratilova by winning 12 of the last 13 years games on her beloved Wimbledon grass. I already pointed out how a 17 year old Graf did far better and far more thoroughly owned a 31-32 year old Evert than 18 year old Evert could manage vs a 30-31 year old Court. Even if we concede the point Graf is superior to both Evert and Navratilova, this still wouldnt suggest Evert should have been disadvantaged playing Court in late 72-73 by any means.

 

[Eltoro]

As great as Monica is, I do not think a non Wimbly champion can be top ten all time albeit Gonzales has the excuse of not being allowed

Doesn't Seles have the excuse of being stabbed? No denying that derailed her career.

 

[granddog29]

For her lack of a Wimbledon not totally. Her results on grass were terrible even considering the stabbing upon her return. Made only a couple quarterfinals where she lost to really weak opponents, and other times went out early rounds to nobodies. Everywhere else she was still making lots of semis and finals, and winning the occasional slam even post stabbing. Add to that and the royal thumping she received in her only impressive pre stabbing or career showing there (by Graf in the 92 final) and there is little reason to just "assume" she would have won a Wimbledon even if it werent for the stabbing. She might have, but it is probably less likely than likely.

 

[josofo]

martina
graf
serena
justine

 

[BTURNER]

Navratilova is widely accepted by almost all to have proven herself the better player between her and Evert with her total dominance of Evert once she hit her stride. So it is perfectly reasonable to have them more than 1 placement apart. I know I have them #2 and #3 on my list, but I am in fact in the minority even putting them that close. Most lists I have seen have them atleast 2 placements apart. Tennis Magazine had Navratilova #1 and Evert #4. Tennis World about ten years compiled a list that had Navratilova #1 and Evert #4. Tennis Channel had Navratilova #2 (behind Graf) and Evert #4. A list voted on about a year ago by Wade, Turnbull, Drysdale, and a few others had Navratilova #2 (behind Graf) and Evert #5.

The only expert or major list I have seen that even has them only 1 placing apart is Steve Flink (a close personal friend of Evert) who has Navratilova #2 (behind Graf) and Evert #3. Who knows if by now he might even have Serena between them for all we know. He was heavy in his praise of Serena in his recent book.


Thank you for your breakdown of the Evert vs Court rivarly. That just shows 18 year old Evert was fairly evenly matched with 31 year old Court, but with Court coming out ahead more often when it mattered most. I dont see how this is exactly some hugely favorable argument for Evert though. Is an 18 year old typically considered less prime than a 31 year old in womens tennis? The reverse is usually true. Alot more players 18 and younger have won slams than women 31 or older, especialy Open Era, that is for sure. Do we consider 18 year old Graf was less in her prime in 1988 than 31 year old Navratilova when Graf completed the Golden Slam, and humiliated Navratilova by winning 12 of the last 13 years games on her beloved Wimbledon grass. I already pointed out how a 17 year old Graf did far better and far more thoroughly owned a 31-32 year old Evert than 18 year old Evert could manage vs a 30-31 year old Court. Even if we concede the point Graf is superior to both Evert and Navratilova, this still wouldnt suggest Evert should have been disadvantaged playing Court in late 72-73 by any means.

I will not entertain this kind of silliness. Court is not Evert. Evert is not Graf and drawing conclusions about the impact of chronological age on their respective bodies, minds and games is so full of logical holes as to be ludicrous. We know that some champs are precocious, some burn-out, some mature late, some show inconsistent greatness. Some get injury prone, some do not. I have shown that several players had been #1 winning majors including Serena just as late as Court in '73, so lets not pretend it is beyond your imagination that 31 years in most players, was not 31 years in Court.

If the age is not impeding victories, then it is not a relevant factor in comparing these two players. I think the evidence shows that Court was playing consistent great tennis in 73 whatever her age, if she was winning slams left and right and still the best player in the world, and higher ranked than her opponent. She was beating everybody in'73 and had winning records to prove it. That she never established any dominance over Evert, from the age of 15 forward, had serious trouble winning a set when Evert was most vulnerable. Your evidence of 'supremacy' is dependent on one extra semifinal win out of 3 meetings in one year . The difference you are lauding amounts to just one set in the US national . This shows shows a very serious problem in this match-up.

And that is all I think it proves. It is not evidence that Evert was a greater player than Court. It has nothing to say about Evert and Navratilova or Evert and Graf. It says Court had a horrible time adjusting to this two-fisted baseliner and her game and Evert had every reason to prefer seeing Court in her draw over a lot of others she had less confidence playing. These things get in player's heads.

Now frankly I could care less about other 'experts'. I am not interested in how they 'poll' on any of these issues so appealing to their authority gets us nowhere. These questions are as much about how much we weigh specific attributes in a champion ( peak vs longevity, consistency vs versatility, surface dominance vs slam dominance, # 1 status vs disparity over the tour) as what those attributes are in these women, or what evidence we require to get there. These are the issues that drive the debate at the highest levels between those first 7 -8 players. You and I put slightly different weight on what we want a champion to be, and show. How you weigh things, puts a lot of space between Graf and Martina and everyone else. I put more space between Graf and then Court/ Martina/Evert. Maybe we'd be smarter to find out why and what we are weighing than quote Tennis Magazine panels. Here's a clue. I put a hell of a lot of weight being able to master all the surfaces available for the sport. To be as dominating whether the surface is slow or fast matters is a big deal. Consistency matters to me as much as peak levels of play and I look at the whole career rather than just the dominant years. I look at the up-and coming, the injured and declining champions holding on to old glory.

 

[kiki]

Doesn't Seles have the excuse of being stabbed? No denying that derailed her career.

I heard same arguments for Rosewall
He cannot be GOAT because lost all his finals
He has the excuse of being a pro during his prime and forbidden to play

 

[DMP]

I felt there should be a seperate thread for the men and women since the initial thread dwarfed out the ladies altogether. Mine at this point would be:

1. Graf
2. Navratilova
3. Evert
4. Serena Williams
5. Court
6. Wills Moody
7. Lenglen
8. Connolly
9. King
10. Seles


Graf is pretty much undisputed #1 and Navratilova pretty much undisputed #2. Places 3-6 are all debateable. Places 8-13 with people like Goolagong, Henin, Venus, and Bueno to consider as well are all interchangeable.

In my watching lifetime

1= Court, Navratilova, Graf.
2 Evert (just behind)
3 Williams (a long way behind)

Court, Navratilova, and Graf all have huge, but different records. I don't see how you can choose between them. I can see the arguments for Evert joining them, but I always felt when push came to shove she could be beaten by the better athlete.

Williams I just don't see as being in the same league. She has been absent too often from the coal face. Just winning slams doesn't cut it for me in comparison with being present on all surfaces at all times. The weeks at #1 tell it all.