BGod
G.O.A.T.
Was Barty #1 for longer than Hingis and Davenport?
Is your list a ranked one or not?
Unranked. Barty would be like last 2 spots though.
7th most total weeks, 4th most consecutive.
More weeks than Davenport, less than Hingis.
Was Barty #1 for longer than Hingis and Davenport?
Is your list a ranked one or not?
why?
Though I may not entirely agree with the top 7, their rankings are reasonable, My proglem is with the the lower list. IMO:co number 1 Graf/Navratilova
3. Serena
4. Evert
5. Court
6. King
7. Seles
8. Goolagong
9. Henin
10. Venus
11. Hingis
12. Sharapova
13. Vicario
14. Clijsters
15. Davenport or Mandlikova.....hard for me to pick between the 2
In retrospect, I am inclined to put Bueno above Venus as Bueno ended 2 years at #1, Venus-0. Also Bueno won the Italian 3 times, which I don't think Venust ever won an important clay court title?Though I may not entirely agree with the top 7, their rankings are reasonable, My proglem is with the the lower list. IMO:
8- Henin
9- Venus
10-Bueno
11-Hingis
12-Sharapova
13-Davenport
14-Vicaro
15-Clijsters
Maria would absolutely have been on my list but I adhered to Open Era only as requested in the OP.In retrospect, I am inclined to put Bueno above Venus as Bueno ended 2 years at #1, Venus-0. Also Bueno won the Italian 3 times, which I don't think Venust ever won an important clay court title?
Oops, old age catching up with me- LOL!Maria would absolutely have been on my list but I adhered to Open Era only as requested in the OP.
Also, Venus did win the Italian in 99.Oops, old age catching up with me- LOL!
I have been doing a little stat analysis on the 'Big Four' women of Pro tennis ( haven't done Court as she spans eras) and on a whim, I decided to do this with Evonne. See below.Court's are also questionable, but she atleast beat Bueno a couple times, King once or twice, Richey, Turner. And plus would have been the heavy favorite and probably won between 8-10 of the 11 even if everyone played.
Goolagong really only beat Evert once, and that is it. I don't even think beating a way before prime Navratilova in 75 is noteable. She couldn't even beat Wade (she skipped every other year) the only time they met there, and Wade is her pigeon overall. And while she would have a good chance in a full field even, as this is her best venue, it is by no means a foregone conclusion like Court.
The biggest thing against Goolagong in this comparision is not even the Aussie Open asterisk though. It is that she was almost never truly the #1. Some believe she was the #1 player of 71, but the expert sources are split between her, King, and Court, so even this isn't clear. Computer rankings began in the midst of her prime and she spent only 2 weeks at #1, and never had a year as best player even arguably except for maybe 71. Henin was arguably the best player 4 different years- 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, and official YE#1 in 2003, 2006, 2007. And had atleast one very dominant year in 2007, which Goolagong never had. 2003-2007 overall is probably the Henin era, despite that she wasn't the best at every single point. There definitely is no Goolagong era, not even close.
1. Serena WilliamsWho are the top 15 open era woman tennis players over the last 54 years or so.
1) Martina Navratilova
2) Serena Williams
3) Steffi Graff
4) Chris Evert
5) Margaret Court
6) Billy Jean King
7) Monica Seles
8) Evonne Goolagong
9) Venus Williams
10) Justin Henin
11) Arantxa Sánchez Vicario
12) Martina Hingis
13) Maria Sharapova
14) Hana Mandlikova
15) Kim Clijsters
That is my list, how would you historically rank based on 1968 - present?
Evonne was the greatest runner up in the history of the sport. Yes, she did win at Oz from 1974-1977, but she played a green Chrissie on grass in 1974, and an out of shape Martina in 1975. She was runner-up in 1971, 1972 and 1973. Two years she won simply by entering the tournament, beating Helen Gourlay Cawley and Renata Tomanova in the championship round. She won the Big W in 1971 (and remarkably again in 1980), but lost in 1972, 1975, & 1976. She lost the US Open final in 1973, 1974, 1975 and 1976. Champions rise to the occasion. Evonne lost far too many GS finals to be considered as the greatest of all time (or possibly even top ten of all time). That said, she was one of my absolute favorite players. It was pure joy just to watch her strike the ball with such grace and majesty.I have been doing a little stat analysis on the 'Big Four' women of Pro tennis ( haven't done Court as she spans eras) and on a whim, I decided to do this with Evonne. See below.
"
Goolagong entered 35 majors between 1967-1983 (17 years) and won 7 with an 82.5% win/loss match ratio.
she won 20 % of those 35 and reached the finals 51.4% of the time with a finals conversion rate of 39.9 %. Goolagong reached the semifinals 62.9% of the time she entered a slam with a SF conversion rate of 81.8% and the QFs 74.3% with a QF conversion rate of 84.6% ... Goolagong lost in Rds 1, 2, or 3 f a major 9 times or 25.7% of the time she played one, with no 1st Rd losses, 5 2nd Rd losses and 4 Rd 3 losses.
All of Evonne's numbers are lower because she loyally showed up at the Australian, when she really wasn't in a position to be competitive. 5 of her 9 early round losses happened at Kooyung because she was too immature, coming off a pregnancy, and once in December 1980 she was 5 months pregnant and lost in the second round ! In fact, despite her 4 wins and total of 7 finals, Goolagongs lowest career win/loss stat is in her own back yard with 80%. She did better by that stat at the US Open with 81.3% at Wimbledon with 84.5% and evenRG at 84.2% ( I could win a lot of bets with this little factoid! )
that semifinal conversion ( winning that semi to reach the final) rate of 81.8% is shocking. Its better than Evert at 65.4, Navratilova at 72.7 or Steffi Graf at 81.1%. So far, only Serena does a better job of winning the penultimate match. As for that finals conversion 39.9% rate, almost all of those finals she lost, had either Court, or King taking her down on grass, and Evert taking her down at the Open on clay. Goolagong was negatively impacted by French Tennis Federation's decision to ban her and Connors from competition in 1974 secondary to their participation in WTT. Goolagong chose to boycott RG for the next decade, despite her early successive finals there in 1971 and 1972. Certainly Evert would have had a more complicated final against Goolagong than she did against Morozova.
Open Era, ONLYHelen Wills ??
I like your Top 5 (although I would order differently albeit Graf would also be #3).1. Serena Williams
2. Martina Navratilova
3. Steffi Graf
4. Margaret Court
5. Chris Evert
6. Billie Jean King
7. Monica Seles
8. Hana Mandlikova
9. Venus Williams
10. Maria Sharapova
She looks great.Hingis is not pretty. She looks like Chucky.
Yeah, sure.Selez was better than Graff.
Writing both names wrong and expect that your opinion on that matter has any credibility.Selez was better than Graff.
Maybe Selez was better than Graff.Writing both names wrong and expect that your opinion on that matter has any credibility.
Could beMaybe Selez was better than Graff.
Maybe Selez and Graff are from a parallel universe where Seles wasn't stabbed.Maybe Selez was better than Graff.
You just proved my point Seles was better than Graf.Maybe Selez and Graff are from a parallel universe where Seles wasn't stabbed.
Where would you put Court and King?Not an area of strong knowledge for me - but giving a cursory look at some numbers and records I was somewhat familiar with, and some I wasn't at all - especially of the last decade - I would think it is something like this:
1 Graf (one less major than SW, but a year longer at #1 in weeks, and 3 futher YE1, plus 45 further titles)
2 Navratilova (even more titles than SW, and 50 more than Graf - may have the highest peak, but then not the highest competition)
3 S Williams (obviously legendary career, with lots of ups and downs...the thing I always come away with is, if she could win 3 majors in a year 13 years apart...but only average 1.2 a year in the intervening period...did she perhaps underachieve, even as great as she was?)
4 Evert
5 Seles
6 Hingis (personal favorite - I maintain the true 'greatest prodigy' of all time, male or female...and arguably the smartest player ever.)
7 Henin
8 Swiatek
9 Goolagong
10 V Williams (certainly beneath Hingis, yes she has the couple more majors - but in a career about 4x as long she barely won more titles, and was #1 an nearly-infinitely fewer number of weeks, let alone years. But peak for peak I would put her over Davenport, even as Davenport surpasses her in total titles, and has an astonishing 4 YE1.)
11 Davenport
12 Clijsters
13 Barty
14 Sharapova (also I think quite overrated by many. Career slam aside, she never finished YE1, only was #1 for 21 weeks)
15 Azarenka
Court won 10 GS singles titles in the Open era, and King had 9. This does not even count their doubles titles. To not have them on the list is an error.Where would you put Court and King?
Ah, well good call. I did forget to address those players. As with Laver and Rosewall in the men’s game, I consider Court and King to be pre-Open Era and so I left them off of here. In the men’s game I feel I can accommodate the differences in strategy, in technique, in skill etc pretty well across the eras. By that I mean I feel I can make a pretty convincing argument as to why Tilden or Vines or Budge is positioned over a Sampras or McEnroe or Connors etc. With the women’s game, I have a harder time with that. Maybe my lack of familiarity leads me to put more emphasis on the eye test as the primary means of judgement and in that manner I have difficulty buying that Court or King are ahead of any of my top 4, and perhaps even beyond that point. I will need to do some further evaluation to discern a more specific answer, but in general neither is any higher than #5 on this present list for me.Where would you put Court and King?
I would put Court at 4, Evert at 5, and King at 6.Ah, well good call. I did forget to address those players. As with Laver and Rosewall in the men’s game, I consider Court and King to be pre-Open Era and so I left them off of here. In the men’s game I feel I can accommodate the differences in strategy, in technique, in skill etc pretty well across the eras. By that I mean I feel I can make a pretty convincing argument as to why Tilden or Vines or Budge is positioned over a Sampras or McEnroe or Connors etc. With the women’s game, I have a harder time with that. Maybe my lack of familiarity leads me to put more emphasis on the eye test as the primary means of judgement and in that manner I have difficulty buying that Court or King are ahead of any of my top 4, and perhaps even beyond that point. I will need to do some further evaluation to discern a more specific answer, but in general neither is any higher than #5 on this present list for me.
But Court (and King) straddle both pre and Open Era. That said, Court was still a titan. I put her at 5, but appreciate it's subjective. An argument could be made for most who appear in the general concensus of top 5 Open Era. Alphabetically Court, Evert, Graf, Navratilova, Williams. If a person feels strongly enough.I would put Court at 4, Evert at 5, and King at 6.
Regardless, King needs to be listed among the top 15 players of the open era. Even if you toss her slam wins prior to 1968 into the ocean...But Court (and King) straddle both pre and Open Era. That said, Court was still a titan. I put her at 5, but appreciate it's subjective. An argument could be made for most who appear in the general concensus of top 5 Open Era. Alphabetically Court, Evert, Graf, Navratilova, Williams. If a person feels strongly enough.
Perhaps your "eye test" may need "eyeglasses". LOL!Ah, well good call. I did forget to address those players. As with Laver and Rosewall in the men’s game, I consider Court and King to be pre-Open Era and so I left them off of here. In the men’s game I feel I can accommodate the differences in strategy, in technique, in skill etc pretty well across the eras. By that I mean I feel I can make a pretty convincing argument as to why Tilden or Vines or Budge is positioned over a Sampras or McEnroe or Connors etc. With the women’s game, I have a harder time with that. Maybe my lack of familiarity leads me to put more emphasis on the eye test as the primary means of judgement and in that manner I have difficulty buying that Court or King are ahead of any of my top 4, and perhaps even beyond that point. I will need to do some further evaluation to discern a more specific answer, but in general neither is any higher than #5 on this present list for me.
Ah, well good call. I did forget to address those players. As with Laver and Rosewall in the men’s game, I consider Court and King to be pre-Open Era and so I left them off of here. In the men’s game I feel I can accommodate the differences in strategy, in technique, in skill etc pretty well across the eras. By that I mean I feel I can make a pretty convincing argument as to why Tilden or Vines or Budge is positioned over a Sampras or McEnroe or Connors etc. With the women’s game, I have a harder time with that. Maybe my lack of familiarity leads me to put more emphasis on the eye test as the primary means of judgement and in that manner I have difficulty buying that Court or King are ahead of any of my top 4, and perhaps even beyond that point. I will need to do some further evaluation to discern a more specific answer, but in general neither is any higher than #5 on this present list for me.
I agree 100% in the short term, when discussing King and Court, and to a lesser degree the next generation but Its more complex than this though. The impact of 'open tennis' in the womens game is the infusion of money, and some sense of equality with the men's tour. Just the idea that women's tennis is worth paying the women who play it, actual money that is related to success in the tournament was novel in those pre WTA years.I think that the women's game in the Pre-Open era is actually more comparable to the Open Era than the men's game.
with some notable exceptions, there usually was not a pro tour to speak of for the women. Unlike the men, the top women players were in the amateurs almost all of the time.
When King and Court were amateurs, they were competing against the best players in the world.
This isn't at all like Roy Emerson (as great as he was) winning all those tournaments when he was clearly not the best in the world. the regular "tour" was a bit different that the women's tour in the Open Era, but it was comparable.
And of course you have the Grand Slams to look at.
And course Court and King played for a long time in in the Open Era as well. They played Wade, Goolagong, Evert and Navratilova and many of their contemporaries.
Even excluding her the pre-Open Era, Court won more WTA tournaments than Williams.
Swiatek and barty were/are very strong. Safarova never was going to be the top of the tree... but she is a terrific person and role model. Sometimes that is more importantIn a thread where names such as Radwasnka, Swiatek, Barty & Safarova are placing among the top of a list of this kind, you know its going off of the rails.
Swiatek and barty were/are very strong. Safarova never was going to be the top of the tree... but she is a terrific person and role model. Sometimes that is more important
My amended top ten list...1. Graf
2. Navratilova
3. S. Williams
4. Evert
5. Court
6. King
7. Seles
8. V. Williams
9. Henin
10. Hingis
11. Sharapova
12. Davenport
13. Goolagong
14. Swiatek
15. Clijsters
@BTURNER purely singles.6-10 appears to be very subjective, but I'd definitely include Goolagong-Cawley.
Open Era
1. Evert
2. Navratilova
3. Graf
4. Williams
5. Court
Although they are all great and my personal rankings also reveal my personal criteria, as I think GOAT conversations are a tad silly. Too many different variables.
I know how to read but while the title is open to interpretation, all i said was that perennial number ones like barty and swiatek are not not worth ruling out. I praise safarova for something else but i never said she belonged on a traditional list. It was good to see her supporting her compatriot at the yec just gone.The topic is titled, "Who do you consider the top 15 woman players of the Open Era", not "who was/is the best role model", and the question cannot possibly be answered with players named Safarova, Barty or Swiatek.
Agreed. If you count doubles and mixed, the order would change drastically. I think the overwhelming # of posters are only counting singles.What are each of you doing with those doubles and mixed doubles records and rankings. Are these singles only lists, giving them partial credit, giving them equal credit with singles? Are you including Team events like fed cup, Wightman cup and Olympics records? I get so frustrated because I read all these ordered lists, and none of them tell me what the criteria are.
Its so much better if you include that information in your posts. I don't know what to make of any of this so I don't know what to debate or discuss
Graf only counted singles despite being clearly good at doubles. The real question is how fewer majors if she did compromise a bit like the willliams or a lot like martina(s)Agreed. If you count doubles and mixed, the order would change drastically. I think the overwhelming # of posters are only counting singles.
Yes i totally agree that it was better for the women to be making good money once Open Tennis came along.I agree 100% in the short term, when discussing King and Court, and to a lesser degree the next generation but Its more complex than this though. The impact of 'open tennis' in the womens game is the infusion of money, and some sense of equality with the men's tour. Just the idea that women's tennis is worth paying the women who play it, actual money that is related to success in the tournament was novel in those pre WTA years.
The exponential growth in the sport as prize money filtered downwards, feeding depth in the sport, which in turn lead to more publicity televised tournament coverage, and more celebrity, and more endorsement capital, and better funded coaching and training camps for younger talent. The cycle created extraordinary opportunities in parts of the globe where young girls never saw a tennis tournament before, and fed dreams never imagined. We tend to end the sentence after your point is made, and leave the impression Open tennis did not have an impact, when we mean it had a delayed impact over a couple of decades .
The women's 'tour' in Margaret Court, BGK and Maria Bueno's day included events with only three rounds. Everyone was a Quarterfinalist and either you came from money sufficient to sustain your travel and lodging costs, or you married a lawyer like Billie Jean did. Women simply could not expect self employment opportunities sufficient to remain independent of men ( fathers, brothers, husbands) prior to open tennis.
"Anyway, it seems very arbitrary to not include what happened in the Pre-Open Era. Subconsciously or not, seems more like an excuse to just rate players from our own time higher."Yes i totally agree that it was better for the women to be making good money once Open Tennis came along.
What I was referring to was that the structure was more similar in women's game from Pre-open to open than the men's game.
Never heard that that there were only 8 player tournaments. I think they often had fields much larger than that. Certainly the Grand Slams did and I know the Italian did. From reading various books about tennis, I saw that the fields were usually so small. If they were so small, court and King would have played mcuh more often as well.
Anyway, it seems very arbitrary to not include what happened in the Pre-Open Era. Subconsciously or not, seems more like an excuse to just rate players from our own time higher.
People want a 'dividing line' between 'modern tennis' and the stuff Mo Connolly, Althea Gibson, Louise Brough and Helen Wills played, and they don't know how to create that line so they use the same line as men's tennis. I agree with you it just does not work because all of your facts are right. Any line we create will be arbitrary and will cut through specific players careers. If we pick 1960, Its Bueno and Hard that get screwed. If we pick 1970, its still Court, and King. If we use wood racket v graphite you are literally dividing up finals because one will have one racket, the opponent the other.Yes i totally agree that it was better for the women to be making good money once Open Tennis came along.
What I was referring to was that the structure was more similar in women's game from Pre-open to open than the men's game.
Never heard that that there were only 8 player tournaments. I think they often had fields much larger than that. Certainly the Grand Slams did and I know the Italian did. From reading various books about tennis, I saw that the fields were usually so small. If they were so small, court and King would have played mcuh more often as well.
Anyway, it seems very arbitrary to not include what happened in the Pre-Open Era. Subconsciously or not, seems more like an excuse to just rate players from our own time higher.
Margaret won 12-13 Grand Slam singles titles (and I'm not even counting the doubles and mixed doubles GS events during that same time period) that Billie Jean did not even participate in for various reasons, such as going to college and having a part time job to help pay for her tuition, as well as numerous injuries including at least eight knee operations, as well as the US(L)TA not even allowing her to play at Roland Garros until 1967. Billie Jean was only a part-time player until 1965 for those reasons and many more. It would be like Chrissie or Martina not playing in the same GS event against each other 12 or 13 times. Imagine how many more titles each would have won had the other not participated in the same GS tournaments. Borg never won at Oz or at the US Open, which precludes him from being considered the best ever. He won six Roland Garros titles, and five Wimbledon titles. Djokovic, Nadal and Federer were an amazing trio, especially considering the fact that they all played simultaneously, and yet each managed to win 24, 22 and 20 GS singles titles each. Unbelievable! Connors, Borg and McEnroe pale in comparison to those three future legends.Open Era eliminates many people from way back which is really what some people want to do. You see it in other sports. People act like the NFL did not exist before the Super Bowl.
It the not-too-distant future, we will be hearing more and more about the best player in this century.
Some people really don't have interest in history. It is easy for them to just ignore what came before them. Modern is really when they became a fan. This has always been the case but it seems to have gotten worse.
If a statistic favors someone before their time, it either gets ignored or criticized.
i.e - How often do we hear that some of court's Grand Slams should not count because of "weak competition". Yet Serena Willaims always gets a free pass for all those Grand Slams that she won in the latter part of her career against a weak field. Often hear that Williams has won the most Grand Slams in the Open Era. Funny, I never heard anyone say that Borg had won the most in the Open Era before Sampras came along.
there is no way I can accept the basic premise here, that ANY one player is sooo important, that an entire major tournament is now deemed weak and substandard competitively by her absence. Monica Seles cannot have that power (more to the point Gunter Parsche can't) . Marguaret Court cannot have that power. BJK cannot have that power and neither Martina nor Chris have that power. Talk to me when 4 of the top ten players, or 8 of the top 20 are absent.Margaret won 12-13 Grand Slam singles titles (and I'm not even counting the doubles and mixed doubles GS events during that same time period) that Billie Jean did not even participate in for various reasons, such as going to college and having a part time job to help pay for her tuition, as well as numerous injuries including at least eight knee operations, as well as the US(L)TA not even allowing her to play at Roland Garros until 1967. Billie Jean was only a part-time player until 1965 for those reasons and many more. It would be like Chrissie or Martina not playing in the same GS event against each other 12 or 13 times. Imagine how many more titles each would have won had the other not participated in the same GS tournaments. Borg never won at Oz or at the US Open, which precludes him from being considered the best ever. He won six Roland Garros titles, and five Wimbledon titles. Djokovic, Nadal and Federer were an amazing trio, especially considering the fact that they all played simultaneously, and yet each managed to win 24, 22 and 20 GS singles titles each. Unbelievable! Connors, Borg and McEnroe pale in comparison to those three future legends.
In regard to OZ, more than four of the top ten players often did not participate.there is no way I can accept the basic premise here, that ANY one player is sooo important, that an entire major tournament is now deemed weak and substandard competitively by her absence. Monica Seles cannot have that power (more to the point Gunter Parsche can't) . Marguaret Court cannot have that power. BJK cannot have that power and neither Martina nor Chris have that power. Talk to me when 4 of the top ten players, or 8 of the top 20 are absent.
The prestige of the four majors on which our sport is based, are now to be taken hostage by the #1 or #2 players decisions to attend. The more you think about what your claim means about our sport, the worse it is. Its pretty damn insulting to the rest of the women on the tour.