Which female GOAT candidate had the weakest competition

Which female GOAT contender had worst competition


  • Total voters
    28

illusions30

Banned
Which of the female GOAT candidate do you believe had the worst overall competition. For this one I can add Lenglen and Wills, who will probably dominate this poll. Although Navratilova was my choice as the 82-86 field was extremely weak, especialy 82-84, and that is where the bulk of her dominance and wins was. Even Evert became an easy opponent for her for quite awhile, and she was having more trouble for several years with Mandilikova, Sukova, and even Shriver than Chris.
 

CEvertFan

Hall of Fame
I voted Lenglen. When you always win matches that are so one sided that you only lose a game or two, and quite often no games at all, then you don't really have any worthy competition and Lenglen regularly won matches so easily that the only times during her career where she had a loss, if you can call it that, was when she defaulted due to illness or injury.

For the most part Wills did the same thing too but by that time she at least had a couple of big losses/tight 3 setters because the competition had gotten a bit stronger than it was for Lenglen.

I'm not knocking Lenglen at all - on the contrary she was so far above everyone else at the time that it was almost impossible for her to lose a match and she still is considered to be one of the best players of all time but her competition was weaker than anyone else's as well.

Also I would disagree with anyone who chose Navratilova, just like I wouldn't agree with anyone who chose Evert since she had Navratilova to deal with throughout her career and conversely Navratilova always had Evert to deal with as well - when one of the top 4 best of all time has another top 4 best of all time as their primary rival then one can never say they had weak competition.
 
Last edited:

illusions30

Banned
Also I would disagree with anyone who chose Navratilova, just like I wouldn't agree with anyone who chose Evert since she had Navratilova to deal with throughout her career and conversely Navratilova always had Evert to deal with as well - when one of the top 4 best of all time has another top 4 best of all time as their primary rival then one can never say they had weak competition.

To me there is a HUGE difference between the competition of Evert and Navratilova.

Evert won a lot in the 74-81 period when there was a lot more competition. Navratilova did not. The 82-87 period was nothing like the 74-81 period as far as depth. Around 1983 the press were even now ridiculing womens tennis, for the first time since King had gained respect for the newfound WTA in 73. Little wonder look at the 83 slam finals:

1983 French Open- Evert defeats Mima J. 6-1, 6-3
1983 Wimbledon- Navratilova defeats Jaeger 6-3, 6-0
1983 U.S Open- Navratilova defeats Evert 6-1, 6-3
1983 Australian Open- Navratilova defeats Jordan 6-3, 6-3

zzzzzzz

Evert was also dominating everyone but Navratilova at Navratilova's peak. Navratilova denied her a lot. When Evert was at her peak Navratilova was usually 3rd, 4th, 5th, even 6th best. Comparatively speaking Evert denied her little.

When Navratiliova was at her best, maybe part due to how great Martina was at that point, partly due to the matchup, partly due to Evert maybe stagnant for awhile, Evert wasn't even a very tough opponent for her awhile. Ultimately I look at 82-87 and I see a pretty easy ride for Martina overall. When I look at Chris's career and I look at the 70s/start of 80s people she faced, and then having to face peak god mode Martina for many years after that, it is night and day contrast.
 
Last edited:

PDJ

G.O.A.T.
None of the above. Williams has had it easy for quite a few years. At the beginning very tough, but sharapova & azerenka will never be considered great champions. I know, controversial.
 

illusions30

Banned
None of the above. Williams has had it easy for quite a few years. At the beginning very tough, but sharapova & azerenka will never be considered great champions. I know, controversial.

Williams (Serena) is on the poll if you want to vote her. Just letting you know in case you didn't notice. She is the 2nd bottom poll option, above Evert.
 
Last edited:

CEvertFan

Hall of Fame
None of the above. Williams has had it easy for quite a few years. At the beginning very tough, but sharapova & azerenka will never be considered great champions. I know, controversial.

I'd also agree that Serena has a joke field to deal with currently and has had such an easy time the past few years since all her real worthy rivals are now gone - and she still doesn't win everything in sight which is telling when it comes to considering her greatness.

Put any of the other best of all time women in this current field and hand them a racquet and they would COMPLETELY dominate, something Serena can't even do now although in her defense she does seem to be more dedicated than she ever has been but at her age it's too little, too late IMHO.
 

YaoPau

Rookie
Illusions I think you make an interesting point with the Evert/Navritilova difference. But I get the feeling you're penalizing Navratilova for dominating later in her career, while she too had to contend with prime Evert, Goolagong, and somewhat Wade and King. Let's not forget that, between 1975 and 1981, Martina made 14 Slam semifinals in 19 tries, and only won 3 of them. That's a huge negative effect!

On the other hand, you're right that '82-'86 were thin years apart from Evert, but that's just five years in a Navritilova career that had Finals appearances that spanned twenty years. IMO there's no way she deserves a "weak" field. At worst it's around average, and arguably a lot higher as just being born at the same time as one GOAT candidate can have such a damning effect on a career (think how lofty Federer's status would be if it Nadal played soccer instead, and Nadal only affected a fraction of Federer's career compared to the Evert/Navritilova rivalry).
 

illusions30

Banned
Put any of the other best of all time women in this current field and hand them a racquet and they would COMPLETELY dominate, something Serena can't even do now

I think it is unfair to say Serena hasn't totally dominated 2013. She is World #1 by something like 5000 points, won 2 slams (nobody else did), 9 or 10 tournaments already. That is dominance by any reasonable measure. She didn't dominate last year perhaps, but did dominate the biggest events, winning 4 out of the 6 biggest titles.

As for other all time greats, yeah any all time great in their prime would dominate todays field, but any doing it at 31 and 32? I wouldn't be so sure on that. Steffi wasn't even playing tennis at that age. Neither was Lenglen. Wills was only occasionally playing by then. The people who aged the best were probably Court and Navratilova. Yet Navratilova at 31 already lost 4 times in just one year to Natalia Zvereva, and stopped even playing the Australian and French Opens for good at 32.
 

CEvertFan

Hall of Fame
I think it is unfair to say Serena hasn't totally dominated 2013. She is World #1 by something like 5000 points, won 2 slams (nobody else did), 9 or 10 tournaments already. That is dominance by any reasonable measure. She didn't dominate last year perhaps, but did dominate the biggest events, winning 4 out of the 6 biggest titles.

As for other all time greats, yeah any all time great in their prime would dominate todays field, but any doing it at 31 and 32? I wouldn't be so sure on that. Steffi wasn't even playing tennis at that age. Neither was Lenglen. Wills was only occasionally playing by then. The people who aged the best were probably Court and Navratilova. Yet Navratilova at 31 already lost 4 times in just one year to Natalia Zvereva, and stopped even playing the Australian and French Opens for good at 32.

I did also say that Serena seems to be more dedicated than she ever has been...
 

illusions30

Banned
think how lofty Federer's status would be if it Nadal played soccer instead, and Nadal only affected a fraction of Federer's career compared to the Evert/Navritilova rivalry

The funny thing is I am pretty sure Nadal did a lot more damage to Federer's career than Evert did to Navratilova's. Nadal cost Federer 6 or 7 slams (he beat him in slams 8 times total). Evert probably only cost Navratilova 2-4 slams:

75 French Open- Navratilova maybe wins without Evert
82 Australian Open- Navratilova for sure wins without Evert
85 French Open- Navratilova for sure wins without Evert
86 French Open- Navratilova maybe wins without Evert

That is pretty much it. The only other slam Navratilova lost to Evert that I can think of her possibly winning otherwise is Wimbledon 1980, but Navratilova was badly overweight and at the start of a huge 12 month slump, so I doubt in that form she would have beaten both Austin and Goolagong (or necessarily even one) to win there. She barely beat nearly 40 year old King in the quarters as it was.


Now Navratilova to Evert, that is a whole different story. Navratilova did a ton of damage to Evert's career and probably cost her 8-10 more slams.
 

YaoPau

Rookie
Ok let's check it out. Navritilova lost to Evert 8 times in Slams. They are:

1975 French Open (Final)
1975 US Open (Semifinal)
1975 Wimbledon (Semifinal)
1980 Wimbledon (Semifinal)
1982 Australian Open (Final)
1985 French Open (Final)
1986 French Open (Final)
1988 Australian Open (Semifinal)

The questions with some of these are, (1) if it weren't for Evert, would the person replacing Evert have beaten Martina. And also, were King/Wade/Goolagong better than a typical field and, if they played instead of Evert, is that also the field costing Martina a Slam.

I don't know, but my guess is that with a typical field, 1975-1981 Martina wins at leas four more Slams. Which is a huge number considering she was playing two Slams a year for the most part.
 

illusions30

Banned
I am going to break down the slams Evert and Navratilova lost to each other and give a reasonable estimate to which they would have won by:

0- no chance
0.25- possible, but unlikely
0.5- maybe
0.75- probably
1- for sure

Navratilova

1975 U.S Open- lost to Evert in semis. Goolagong was the clear World #2 at the time, and far and away the 2nd best player in the World. She was by an even larger margin the 2nd best clay court player in the World. The U.S Open was on clay which wasnt even a good surface for Navratilova yet. Goolagong owned Navratilova in the 74-77 period, and crushed Navratiova in the Australian Open final that same year on Navratilova's beloved grass. Goolagong lost a terrific 3 setter to Chris in the final. No way Martina beats Evonne here. 0

1976 Wimbledon- lost to Navratilova in semis. Navratilova was out of shape and played her worst year of tennis ever perhaps. She did well to take Chris to 3 sets in the semis, but was lucky to even beat Sue Barker from down 4-1 in the 3rd. Goolagong we later learnt had become #1 over Evert for a brief part of this year, her only time ever spent at #1. She was in terrific form and crushed Wade in the semis, and it was actually an upset she lost to Chris 8-6 in the 3rd in the final. She had never lost to Chris on grass before. Again no way Martina beats Evonne here. 0

1975 French Open- lost to Evert in final. This event was a joke as almost nobody showed up to play. Navratilova wasnt even a particularly good clay courter yet but given the field she probably wins without Evert. 0.75

1980 Wimbledon- lost to Evert in semis. As already mentioned this was another big slump time for Martina, and she was nearly as pudgy as she was in 76. It showed in her results which in the 2nd half of the year were dreadfully bad, a long run of losses to Shriver, 15 year old Jaeger, teenaged Hana, and Turnbull. She even dropped to #5 at one point. I doubt she wins here over both Goolagong and Austin, even without Evert, but she would have a chance I guess. 0.25

1982 Australian- lost to Evert in final. No question she wins. 1

1985 French Open- lost to Evert in final. No question she wins. 1

1986 French Open- lost to Evert in final. With a rearranged draw and Evert out it is quite possible she loses here. She very nearly lost to Sukova in the semis, ekeing out the 2nd set in a tiebreaker before winning in 3. They play another round and the result could be reversed. Mandilikova was playing well, despite a deceivingly lopsided losing score to Evert in the semis, and beat pre tournament favorite Steffi in the quarters. Steffi was favored to win the title but lost to Hana in the quarters after having a big lead and match point. With a rearranged draw, especialy with Evert out, there is a very good chance she doesnt play Hana on the same day, and doesnt lose to anyone including Hana or Martina. I will be generous and give Martina a 0.5 here.

1988 Australian Open- lost to Evert in semis. Martina was 0-4 vs Steffi on her best surfaces in 88-89. On a slow bouncy hard court simply no chance. She wouldnt even post another win over Steffi anywhere for another almost 4 years. 0

So that comes to a 3.5 total. So based on that guesstimate lets say Martina wins 3 or 4 more slams without Evert. Significant, but not huge, and much less than the 6 or 7 more Federer would have without Nadal, which shows as I claimed that despite the long and historic rivalry which IMO is far greater than Nadal vs Federer, Nadal has in fact cost Federer more than Evert cost Martina (although in a more accurate comparision Nadal cost Federer less than Navratilova cost Evert, and Federer cost Nadal even less than Evert cost Martina).



Now Evert without Martina:

1978 Wimbledon- lost to Martina in final. Goolagong would have a chance in the final, but Evert would be favored. 0.75

1979 Wimbledon- lost to Martina in final. Tracy wasnt a good grass courter but was a tough matchup for Evert at the time. Evert still favored in that likely final, but not certain. 0.75

1981 U.S Open- lost to Martina in semis. Evert would have likely played Tracy in final. Tracy beat a choking Martina to win the final, in a much lower quality match than the 3 set semi between Evert and Navratilova, though horrid conditions had alot to do with that. Tracy was 2-1 vs Evert this year, and had spanked her badly just weeks before the U.S Open. I would say Tracy is the likely victor, but Evert has a chance. 0.25

1981 Australian- lost to Martina in finals. No question. 1

1982 Wimbledon- lost to Martina in finals. No question. 1

1983 U.S Open- lost to Martina in finals. Evert wasnt in great form at the time, but there was still nobody at this event who could have beaten her. 1

1984 French Open- lost to Martina in finals. Hana played Martina much closer in the semis than Evert would in the final, took Evert to 3 sets at the 83 French, and had beaten Evert at the French before in 81. She would have a chance, but Evert the likely winner. 0.75

1984 Wimbledon- lost to Martina in finals. Kathy Jordan who lost 6-4, 6-4 to Martina in the semis, had 3 wins over Evert from 83-85, and beat a very ill Evert at Wimbledon 83 would have an outside shot. 0.75

1984 U.S Open- lost to Martina in finals. No question. 1

1985 Wimbledon- lost to Martina in finals. Zina Garrison who lost a tight 2 set semi to Martina, and beat Chris in straight sets to win a big clay tournament earlier that year would have a small chance. 0.75

1985 Australian- lost to Martina in finals. Hana would have almost even odds vs Chris on grass given her tremendous form in the 2nd half of 85. 0.5

1987 French- lost to Martina in semis. Chris in awful form this event, and she was Steffi's pigeon by now anyway. Steffi also beat Martina in the finals, while Chris lost to her 6-2, 6-2. 0

1987 Wimbledon- lost to Martina in semis. As mentioned Chris was Steffi's pigeon from mid 86 onwards, and this is grass which would naturally favor Steffi and her power game and athleticsm vs Evert anyway. That said I give Chris an outside shot since she played much better in the semis vs Martina than Steffi's rather poor effort in the final vs Martina, and Steffi was still very raw on the surface and learning how to play on grass at this point. 0.25

1988 Wimbledon- lost to Martina in semis. No chance vs Steffi by then. 0

So that is an 8.75 for Evert so lets guesstimate 9 more majors for her without Martina, which is indeed a huge difference and shows how much more Martina likely cost Evert in her career, as opposed to vice versa.
 
Last edited:

DMP

Professional
The funny thing is I am pretty sure Nadal did a lot more damage to Federer's career than Evert did to Navratilova's. Nadal cost Federer 6 or 7 slams (he beat him in slams 8 times total). Evert probably only cost Navratilova 2-4 slams:

75 French Open- Navratilova maybe wins without Evert
82 Australian Open- Navratilova for sure wins without Evert
85 French Open- Navratilova for sure wins without Evert
86 French Open- Navratilova maybe wins without Evert

That is pretty much it. The only other slam Navratilova lost to Evert that I can think of her possibly winning otherwise is Wimbledon 1980, but Navratilova was badly overweight and at the start of a huge 12 month slump, so I doubt in that form she would have beaten both Austin and Goolagong (or necessarily even one) to win there. She barely beat nearly 40 year old King in the quarters as it was.


Now Navratilova to Evert, that is a whole different story. Navratilova did a ton of damage to Evert's career and probably cost her 8-10 more slams.

I don't normally swear, but the above is the biggest load of ******** I have ever read. Nadal has not damaged Federer's career, he has illuminated it. And vice versa.

And the same for Evert and Navratilova. And Borg/McEnroe/Coonors. And Rosewall and Laver.

Having a great opponent validates and enhances the memory of players, so they are discussed long after both (or in the case of BMC all three) have departed the scene.

The only 'damage' is to one-eyed fans who don't love tennis, but just love fandom. And damage is only seen by cretinous bean counters who think the only thing that matter is a simplistic total of titles won.

Well the sort of people who think like that don't matter in the long run. It is the fond memories of those who remember titanic battles that are the real prizes for the players involved in great rivalries.
 

PDJ

G.O.A.T.
Williams (Serena) is on the poll if you want to vote her. Just letting you know in case you didn't notice. She is the 2nd bottom poll option, above Evert.

Apols- I looked for Williams & didn't notice 'Serena'. I've voted. Cheers
 

YaoPau

Rookie
I don't normally swear, but the above is the biggest load of ******** I have ever read. Nadal has not damaged Federer's career, he has illuminated it. And vice versa.

Think about how Federer would be received by history if Nadal hadn't come around.

  • 2005 French - Federer loses to Nadal in the Semis. He would've faced Puerta in the Finals and very likely would've won.
  • 2006 French - Federer loses to Nadal in the Finals, very likely would've beaten the guy who lost to Nadal in the semis, Ivan Ljubicic.
  • 2007 French - Federer loses to Nadal in the Finals, very likely would've beaten the guy who lost to Nadal in the semis, a young (6th seeded) Djokovic.
Remember Federer won every other Slam in the interval from the 2005 French and the 2007 US Open. That is 11 straight Slams, with no rival in the world.

He would've finally been beaten by Djokovic in the 2008 Australian Open. But continuing on:

  • 2008 French - Federer loses to Nadal in the Finals, probably would've beaten the guy who lost to Nadal in the semis (Djokovic), although it's less of a sure thing at this point.
  • 2008 Wimbledon - Federer loses to Nadal in the Finals, very likely would've beaten the guy who lost to Nadal in the semis, Rainer Schuttler.
  • 2009 Australian Open - Federer loses to Nadal in the Finals, very likely would've beaten the guy who lost to Nadal in the semis, Fernando Verdasco.
And Federer finally loses again three tournaments later to DelPo in the finals of the '09 US Open.

COUNTING UP EVERYTHING

Before their meeting at the '05 French, Federer had won 4 of the previous seven Slams, including three Slam wins in 2004.

If Nadal is not around, I claim there's a good chance Federer wins 17 of the next 18 Slams (from the 2005 French until 2009 Wimbledon), including calendar Slams in both 2006 and 2007. And that's not even counting the Slams he won at 2010 AO, 2012 Wimbledon, or the 2011 FO final he lost to Nadal.

Without Nadal, Fed's expected Slam count right now is 23-24. We'd think of Djokovic as by far his biggest rival, but because Fed still has the H2H lead over him, and because Djokovic really started peaking when Federer was hitting his late 20s, popular opinion would claim Federer in his younger days would've crushed Djokovic.

Fed not only goes down in history as the biggest tennis star of his time, but the undoubted GOAT and arguable best athlete of all time, for any sport. Instead, there's a new thread popping up on here everyday wondering if Federer is even the best of his era, with some arguments saying Djokovic's best > Federer's best.

DMP, I think you're right that, in some sports, having a clear rival can help you. What is Ali without Frazier or Foreman? What is Russell without Chamberlain? But with the way tennis' style of play, and surfaces, and ranking systems, and technology keeps changing, you can't compare as easily, which right or wrong is why I think that's why so many people default to Slam counts, a metric that would've kept 23+ Slam Federer in the historical discussion for a long, long time.
 

BTURNER

Legend
Think about how Federer would be received by history if Nadal hadn't come around.

  • 2005 French - Federer loses to Nadal in the Semis. He would've faced Puerta in the Finals and very likely would've won.
  • 2006 French - Federer loses to Nadal in the Finals, very likely would've beaten the guy who lost to Nadal in the semis, Ivan Ljubicic.
  • 2007 French - Federer loses to Nadal in the Finals, very likely would've beaten the guy who lost to Nadal in the semis, a young (6th seeded) Djokovic.
Remember Federer won every other Slam in the interval from the 2005 French and the 2007 US Open. That is 11 straight Slams, with no rival in the world.

He would've finally been beaten by Djokovic in the 2008 Australian Open. But continuing on:

  • 2008 French - Federer loses to Nadal in the Finals, probably would've beaten the guy who lost to Nadal in the semis (Djokovic), although it's less of a sure thing at this point.
  • 2008 Wimbledon - Federer loses to Nadal in the Finals, very likely would've beaten the guy who lost to Nadal in the semis, Rainer Schuttler.
  • 2009 Australian Open - Federer loses to Nadal in the Finals, very likely would've beaten the guy who lost to Nadal in the semis, Fernando Verdasco.
And Federer finally loses again three tournaments later to DelPo in the finals of the '09 US Open.

COUNTING UP EVERYTHING

Before their meeting at the '05 French, Federer had won 4 of the previous seven Slams, including three Slam wins in 2004.

If Nadal is not around, I claim there's a good chance Federer wins 17 of the next 18 Slams (from the 2005 French until 2009 Wimbledon), including calendar Slams in both 2006 and 2007. And that's not even counting the Slams he won at 2010 AO, 2012 Wimbledon, or the 2011 FO final he lost to Nadal.

Without Nadal, Fed's expected Slam count right now is 23-24. We'd think of Djokovic as by far his biggest rival, but because Fed still has the H2H lead over him, and because Djokovic really started peaking when Federer was hitting his late 20s, popular opinion would claim Federer in his younger days would've crushed Djokovic.

Fed not only goes down in history as the biggest tennis star of his time, but the undoubted GOAT and arguable best athlete of all time, for any sport. Instead, there's a new thread popping up on here everyday wondering if Federer is even the best of his era, with some arguments saying Djokovic's best > Federer's best.

DMP, I think you're right that, in some sports, having a clear rival can help you. What is Ali without Frazier or Foreman? What is Russell without Chamberlain? But with the way tennis' style of play, and surfaces, and ranking systems, and technology keeps changing, you can't compare as easily, which right or wrong is why I think that's why so many people default to Slam counts, a metric that would've kept 23+ Slam Federer in the historical discussion for a long, long time.


History loathes a vacuum. Without a rival, another or two others will follow, gaining more confidence, better coaching, and enough money to hire the better trainers, physicians, etc once a little name recognition hits. You forget that someone ( we can't pretend to know the name) would have reached their first QF, but for Nadal in 2005 or Navratilova in 1975. Someone else would have reached their first and second RD of 16 appearance and the prize money contracts that follow in 2006 or 1978.... Whether they are more dangerous/ gifted or less three years hence, than the rivals we see, we dare not presume to predict.

The impact of champions like Nadal or Navratilova round after round, venue after venue, on literally hundreds of dominos in peoples lives are not to calculated by a listing of major finals.

How many people with real talent, went undiscovered, and after a few years of bad money, no personal life and a couple of burnt out parents who just could not afford more, ended up as cashiers in a Hotel Restaurant but for that one great result to keep hope flowing , when they were young enough. A young Nadal or Navratilova took that result away from more than a couple of people.
 
Last edited:

DMP

Professional
DMP, I think you're right that, in some sports, having a clear rival can help you. What is Ali without Frazier or Foreman? What is Russell without Chamberlain? But with the way tennis' style of play, and surfaces, and ranking systems, and technology keeps changing, you can't compare as easily, which right or wrong is why I think that's why so many people default to Slam counts, a metric that would've kept 23+ Slam Federer in the historical discussion for a long, long time.

I think you are flat out wrong. Margaret Court has 24 slams, yet I hear repeatedly that she cannot considered a GOAT candidate because her opposition was weak (this, by the way from people who in the main never saw her play). Rosewall has around 23 major amateur and pro titles, yet I hear (again from people who never saw him play) that he cannot be considered because the opposition was weak. Borg has 11 slam titles, less than half the mythical 23 you think Federer should have, yet he is in the discussion because his opposition is felt to be exceptional.

So even simple-minded bean counters have another metric, which is context - how tough was the opposition?

So I repeat, no Nadal has not 'damaged' Federer in the eyes of anyone who knows, understands, or cares about tennis. He has validated the quality of his achievements. And vice versa. And the same for all the other groups I mentioned.
 

Arafel

Professional
When Navratiliova was at her best, maybe part due to how great Martina was at that point, partly due to the matchup, partly due to Evert maybe stagnant for awhile, Evert wasn't even a very tough opponent for her awhile. Ultimately I look at 82-87 and I see a pretty easy ride for Martina overall. When I look at Chris's career and I look at the 70s/start of 80s people she faced, and then having to face peak god mode Martina for many years after that, it is night and day contrast.

Actually, a lot of people who just look at stats are missing a HUGE part of what swung the rivalry in Martina's favor. Martina switched to a midsize graphite frame after the 81 US Open. Much like when McEnroe switched to graphite in 84, the switch made Martina's serve and volley game much more effective. As late as the 83 US Open, Chris was still playing with a wood frame, and her passing shots didn't have quite enough zip. Evert switched to the Pro Staff in early 84, and you could see that once she got used to it, the matches became much more even. Evert took Martina to three at the US Open in 84, and then won the French in 85.
 

djnemo

Rookie
I'm going with Graf. Her biggest competition was Seles, and Seles owned her in the 18 months preceding Seles stabbing. After the stabbing, Seles was never the same and Graf lost her main competition. It would be similar to Martina getting a career ending injury just as she was starting to dominate Evert.
 

YaoPau

Rookie
I think you are flat out wrong. Margaret Court has 24 slams, yet I hear repeatedly that she cannot considered a GOAT candidate because her opposition was weak (this, by the way from people who in the main never saw her play). Rosewall has around 23 major amateur and pro titles, yet I hear (again from people who never saw him play) that he cannot be considered because the opposition was weak. Borg has 11 slam titles, less than half the mythical 23 you think Federer should have, yet he is in the discussion because his opposition is felt to be exceptional.

So even simple-minded bean counters have another metric, which is context - how tough was the opposition?

So I repeat, no Nadal has not 'damaged' Federer in the eyes of anyone who knows, understands, or cares about tennis. He has validated the quality of his achievements. And vice versa. And the same for all the other groups I mentioned.

I'm hardly an expert on pre-1970s female tennis, so I can't help you much with that reference.

Rosewall, though is not a good example IMO. Nobody from his era gets proper credit for Pro Slams. Tennis Channel (not a great source, but it's a leading tennis source that you'd think would have a clue) put Roy Emerson ahead of Rosewall and Gonzales on their GOAT list because very few people understand the quality of Pro Slams vs Amateur Slams at the time. Emerson had BY FAR the easier competition yet Tennis Channel rated him ahead of Rosewall because he had more Slams with familiar names. IMO that's as strong an argument as any that history will remember Slam counts above competition levels.
 

illusions30

Banned
I think you are flat out wrong. Margaret Court has 24 slams, yet I hear repeatedly that she cannot considered a GOAT candidate because her opposition was weak (this, by the way from people who in the main never saw her play). Rosewall has around 23 major amateur and pro titles, yet I hear (again from people who never saw him play) that he cannot be considered because the opposition was weak. Borg has 11 slam titles, less than half the mythical 23 you think Federer should have, yet he is in the discussion because his opposition is felt to be exceptional.

So even simple-minded bean counters have another metric, which is context - how tough was the opposition?

So I repeat, no Nadal has not 'damaged' Federer in the eyes of anyone who knows, understands, or cares about tennis. He has validated the quality of his achievements. And vice versa. And the same for all the other groups I mentioned.

Perhaps damaged isnt the right word, and I should have phrased it differently. Prevented or kept from winning would be more what I meant. Yes I agree it adds to ones legacy to have a great rival. In that sense IMO it is actually very fortunate for Navratilova atleast that Evert was around. The 82-87 field as already noted was very weak overall. So just imagine had Evert retired in 81. The field from 82-87 would now be a ghost town, apart from a good Hana in late 85-86 and a very young Steffi in 86-87 Martina would have literally faced nobody. Yet despite that she would have still failed to win the Grand Slam (she didnt beat everyone not named Chris in 4 slams in any given year), and people would have looked at young Steffi overthrowing her dominance, her barely winning any slams until she turned 25, and concluded she wasnt that great, and simply vultured a nothing era to win so many majors, capatilizing on the eras after Chris/Austin/Goolagong were all gone and before Graf arrived. Yet Chris being there that whole time and still strong validates Martina. That is why I totally disagree with YaoPau on what Evert cost Martina atleast. Martina with only about 21 slams and winning almost all of them in 82-87 with what the field would be without Chris <<<<<<< what her legacy currently is with her epic rivalry with Chris and winning all those slams in 82-87 facing Chris (and later young Graf). What Martina lost by Chris (which as already broken down is not even much in relative terms) isnt half what she would have lost by not having Chris validating her dominance and almost all her slam titles coming from age 25-30 in what was otherwise a very weak field. The perception of her if Chris wasnt around those years would be much less than it is now.

For Chris it is a little different as she already had great competition in winning most of her slams, even without Martina. Yet she lost to many slams to Martina. Had she played the Australian and French each year in the 70s and had there been no Martina in the 80s she would have about 32 slams and be the hands down slam dunk GOAT to this day. She had other great rivalries with Goolagong, King, and Austin. Yes her rivalry with Martina is epic, but it is her dominance at the hands of Martina that has people view her as the lesser player of the two and thus almost written out of GOAT debates entirely too. So I would say Martina gained greatly in her legacy from Chris and would be viewed as lesser than she currently is had there been no Chris, while Chris still lost more than she gained by viture of Martina even if Martina and her presence ultimately made her a better player as well.



Actually, a lot of people who just look at stats are missing a HUGE part of what swung the rivalry in Martina's favor. Martina switched to a midsize graphite frame after the 81 US Open. Much like when McEnroe switched to graphite in 84, the switch made Martina's serve and volley game much more effective. As late as the 83 US Open, Chris was still playing with a wood frame, and her passing shots didn't have quite enough zip. Evert switched to the Pro Staff in early 84, and you could see that once she got used to it, the matches became much more even. Evert took Martina to three at the US Open in 84, and then won the French in 85.

This is true. Evert made a huge mistake in switching to graphite so late. As her chunk of lopsided dominance at the hands of a GOATing Martina when she was still playing with wood and/or getting used to her new graphite racquet in 84/early 85 is a large part of the perception on how the two compare today. It is hard for people to just forget that 13 match losing streak, rightly or wrongly.

Martina did force Evert to also elevate her fitness and attacking mindset though, which to her credit she did with great aplomb.



I am pretty stunned to see Wills Moody doesnt have a vote yet. People probably arent voting for Wills or Connolly though as there are few that even are aware of the greats pre Court and who they faced, and of the very few who are most are going to vote for Lenglen who probably had weaker competition than even Wills.
 
Last edited:

BTURNER

Legend
When Navratiliova was at her best, maybe part due to how great Martina was at that point, partly due to the matchup, partly due to Evert maybe stagnant for awhile, Evert wasn't even a very tough opponent for her awhile. Ultimately I look at 82-87 and I see a pretty easy ride for Martina overall. When I look at Chris's career and I look at the 70s/start of 80s people she faced, and then having to face peak god mode Martina for many years after that, it is night and day contrast.



Here is the last leg of the rivalry, after Evert broke through the mental and physical barrier that Martina had become from late '82 through late '84 in Key Biscayne in the beginning of '85. through to their last match. I think it finally crystallizes and reflects the patterns and the totality of their rivalry in a way prior periods did not.
1985 Key Biscayne, FL F W 6-2, 6-4
1985 Lipton/Delray Beach, FL F L 6-2, 6-4
1985 Dallas, TX F L 6-3, 6-4
1985 French Open F W 6-3, 6-7, 7-5
1985 Wimbledon F L 4-6, 6-3, 6-2
1985 Australian Open F L 6-2, 4-6, 6-2
1986 Dallas, TX F L 6-2, 6-1
1986 French Open F W 2-6, 6-3, 6-3
1986 Los Angeles, CA F L 7-6, 6-3
1987 Houston, TX F W 3-6, 6-1, 7-6
1987 French Open SF L 6-2 6-2
1987 Wimbledon SF L 6-2, 5-7, 6-4
1987 Los Angeles, CA SF W 6-2, 6-1
1987 Filderstadt, Germany F L 7-5, 6-1
1988 Australian Open SF W 6-2, 7-5
1988 Houston, TX F W 6-0, 6-4
1988 Wimbledon SF L 6-1, 4-6, 7-5
1988 Filderstadt, Germany F L 6-2, 6-3
1988 Chicago, IL F L 6-2, 6-2

19 meetings 5 clay, 6 hard, 4 grass, 5 on indoor carpet

12 wins for Martina to 7 wins for Evert. Martina won the carpet meetings with ease all in straights. Martina won the grass meetings always being taken to three hard fought sets. On hard courts it is virtually a dead heat ( Evert has won one more here, but Martina has won one or two more throughout the full rivalry.Evert won the overwhelming number of clay meetings with Martina winning only one of 5 but driving her deep into the third more often than not.
 

kiki

Banned
Can´t believe ANYBODY voted Court

Margaret played two of the best players of anytime at their peak ( Bueno and King) as well as two of the best all time players when they were coming up and clearly contenders for slams (Goolagong and Evert)

plus Richey,Melville,Jones,Wade...she had top class competition, and still became the second woman to win the Gran Slam in 1970
 

ravelok

Banned
It was between Navratilova and Graf for me. Navratilova the late bloomer peaked at the absolute perfect time to capatilize on a very weak period 83-86 with Evert aging and past her prime, Mandilikova in a slump most of that period, Austin kaput, Jaeger soon to be kaput and already having peaked, and Graf and Sabatini far too young to seriously challenge at that point.

Graf capatilized on aging Navratilova and Evert once she began to enter her prime in her late teens, and capatilized on the Seles stabbing and overall decline/demise of many other top players- Sabatini, Capriati, Navratilova, Fernandez from mid 93 onwards. During periods the womens game was seen as strong she was never dominant, other than maybe 1989.
 

monfed

Banned
Serena Williams. Her big rivals Clijsters, Henin retired. Venus Williams isn't dominant at Wimbledon anymore. WTA is filled with mugs but of late it's picked up a bit.
 

YaoPau

Rookie
Again, not an expert on WTA history, but my thought is that the depth of top players during Serena's era is much deeper that it was in the 80s.

Sharapova for example is seen as a good but not elite historical talent here, but we're talking about a 6'2" player who reached #1 in the world as an 18yo, who started off as an elite grass court player but has since added so much to her defense that she's now the best clay court player in the world. She's not considered great competition?

Add in Henin, Venus, Clijsters, Azarenka, Mauresmo, Davenport, Hingis and Capriati at the beginning of Serena's career... that's a pretty strong list of high-peak players that I don't think another generation can match. Again, could be wrong.
 
Last edited:
Definitely Navratilova. The field she won almost all her slams in from 82-87 sucked. Nobody apart from a slumping or 30+ Evert in 82-86, a baby nowhere near prime Graf 85-87, an even younger Gaby, and Hana in late 85-86. Goolagong and Austin were totally done (as factors) by then. Jaeger and Shriver were never that good. Just look over the top 10 those years and it is unbelievable in a not good way- Durie, Potter, Bunge, Hanika, Rinaldi, Gadusek, 30+ Turnbull.

ROTFL at Serena winning this poll. Serena considering what she faced in 99-2008, and that the womens field even at a lower point now still has much more "depth" than the old timers ever had, has the toughest competition of anyone. The only one I would consider possibly having it tougher is Graf and Court, but the Seles stabbing and Australian Open factor swing it Serena's way. Proof of the # of biased Serena haters with no credibility that exist on this forum.
 
Top