Who rates higher all time- Evert or Court

[BTURNER]

"1. Navratilova
2-4 would be Graf, Evert and Court in some order
5. Wills
6. Lenglen
7. Connolly"


Well reasoned post but I just can't go with Navratilova at #1 due to her less than glorious red clay record. Of the seven mentioned. The only one with worse cumulative record at the three longest running red clay events is Connolly who was injured mid career.

Lenglen, Wills and Connolly were all undefeated at RG. Evert has 7 wins, 2 RU; Graf 6 wins, 3 RU; Court 5 wins, 1 RU; Navratilova 2 wins, 4 RU;

Italian Open results Evert has 5 wins, 2 Ru; Court 3 wins, 1 RU; Graf 1 win, 0 Ru, Navratilova 0 wins, 4 RU, Connolly 1 win, 1 RU; Neither Wills nor Lenglen played it as it was a closed event in their era.

German Open results Graf 9 wins, 2 RU; Court 3 wins, 0 RU, Evert 2 wins, 0 RU, Navratilova 0 wins, 2 RU. Neither Wills nor Lenglen played it as it was a closed event in their era. Connolly did not play.

totals: Graf 16 wins, 5 RU; Evert 14 wins, 4 Ru; Court 11 wins 2 RU, Lenglen 6 wins (undefeated) Wills 4 wins ( undefeated), Connolly 3 wins, 1 RU; Navratilova only 2 wins, 10 RU.

I realize Martina's numbers are still good, and she has some impressive victories and its mighty hard to get lots of traction in this category, with Evert and Graf hanging around, but they weren't EVERYWHERE and if surface is a big part of the equation, 2 titles out of these three championships not good enough for number one, UNLESS you are one to include doubles as criteria.

 

[flying24]

I would go with Court here. She faced a tougher overall field and was still far more dominant and showed greater longevity as far as near peak play. Court is so very underrated and would get far more consideration as the female GOAT if she were an American, sorry if that sounds blunt, but it is true. Even Graf, Navratilova, and Seles for example now live in the U.S, and 2 of the 3 have U.S citizenship which gives them much stronger notoriety with the U.S public than Court has.

 

[egn]

I would go with Court here. She faced a tougher overall field and was still far more dominant and showed greater longevity as far as near peak play. Court is so very underrated and would get far more consideration as the female GOAT if she were an American, sorry if that sounds blunt, but it is true. Even Graf, Navratilova, and Seles for example now live in the U.S, and 2 of the 3 have U.S citizenship which gives them much stronger notoriety with the U.S public than Court has.

I am not sure if it is the american factor or the fact that she played so long ago.

 

[flying24]

I am not sure if it is the american factor or the fact that she played so long ago.

That is a good point, but someone like King played at almost the exact same time span. King emerged as a real force somewhat later true, moreso than the 1 year age difference between them, but still not that big a difference. Yet there are many casual tennis fans in the U.S who seem to think even King rates higher all time. While King is a truly great tennis player in her own right, in addition to being a great ambassador for the game and a great personality for the game (neither of which Court really is particularly the latter), anyone believing King rates higher than Court in history is a bit of a joke.

Yes you might be right that her not being recent is why she is underrated compared to Navratilova, Graf, Evert, and even Serena. I still think if she were an American she would get alot more consideration though.

 

[conway]

I think both are underrated these days. I think Court rates higher though. Evert is unlucky since had she played all the Australian and French Opens in the 70s she would probably be viewed as the GOAT today. She would have around 25 slams. However reality is she has 18, and Court even had the Australian Open been a real slam would have 20-22. Court was also generally more dominant, so many 3 slam years. Even had Evert played all the slams, it appears she would have only 2 or 3 different 3 slam years at most based on the results of slams she did play. Then you add in Court's doubles play (for those who care about that) and it makes her edge more apparent.

Meanwhile you could do the same what ifs for Court. Had she not taken a break 3 times to have babies, she would probably have over 30 slams and been even more the runaway GOAT today than Evert would have been, and even had everyone played the Australian Open for that matter. Court's heavy Christian beliefs are probably what kept her from having abortions and just continuing to play and win ever more slams.

 

[kiki]

I agree in premise. These are the only 7 names that can really be in the debate for GOAT taking all into account. The order I would respectfully disagree with though, mine would be:

1. Navratilova
2-4 would be Graf, Evert and Court in some order
5. Wills
6. Lenglen
7. Connolly

Even though these are the 7 names, Connolly is very far on the outside looking in, even taking into account her career changing accident. The other 6 are truly well ahead of her.

As for this poll. Court vs Evert is tough. It really depends on what you think in 2 areas, how much Courts Australians should be factored in, and what you think in regards to doubles. If you count the Australians as full and take the "she showed up you can't blame her" line then Court would probably win out. If you devalue her Australians and look at the rest it really becomes close. Court was able to hold all 4 slams simultaneously, something Evert was never able to do. Court also had several years winning at least 3 majors. Evert did not. Evert however has the highest Open Era exclusive win percentage, Court may have a higher one overall, depending on where you get you numbers(I have seen percentages for Court ranging from .88 to .91 for her win percentage in different places).

Evert won at least one slam a year for 13 years, had an amazing win %, and winning head to heads against quite a few quality women, with the exceptions of Graf, Nav, Austin (depending where you look). Her record 7 French Opens is in my opinion just as impressive as Court's 11 Australians, not to mention Evert's 125 match win streak on clay, followed by another lengthy winning streak after Austin broke the 1st one.

I however give Court a lot of credit, she came back after having a child and seemingly picked up right where she left off, winning majors and never breaking stride.

With these 2, like with Graf and Evert, it depends on what you value, both in terms of majors and whether you want to factor in doubles. I lean slightly in favor of Evert because of her 1 major a year for 13 years, for making at least the semi's of every slam she played from her debut up to Wimbledon in 1983 (arguably weakened by food poisoning in that loss.) In fact, only 4 times in Evert's career was she knocked out before the Semi's of a Grand Slam, after 1983 the next Instance was the 1987 US Open. That is an amazing mark of consistancy given the quality of opposition she faced for the duration of her career.

Court had similar consistancy, but Court should have won more Wimbledons, she was hailed as a grass court player, but I really feel she should have won Wimbledon a couple of more times than she did. Given her game and how well it was suited to grass, Wimbledon was her worst slam in terms of results. Evert made more finals than her there, and got the same number of titles. That is pretty impressive since Court had a more grass appropriate game.

All in all, its close between these two, but if I had to vote I give it to Evert by a very slim margin.

Which speaks volume about Bueno,don't you think?

 

[hoodjem]

Both are great players but I would pick Evert since Court is homophobic. Her anti-lesbian comments when Martina were coming up were disgusting and cruel.

I hate to say it, but as a tennis player (not a human being), Court probably ranks higher than Evert.

And I'd place Navratilova over Court.

 

[conway]

I think Court should rank higher than Navratilova and Evert. I probably would place Evert over Navratilova too.

My personal rankings are:

1. Graf
2. Wills Moody
3. Court
4. Evert
5. Navratilova
6. Serena
7. Connolly
8. Lenglen
9. Henin
10. Seles and Venus (tie)


Most peoples rankings though would be more like:

1. Graf
2. Serena (way overrated)
3. Navratilova
4. Court
5. Evert
6. Wills Moody (way underrated)
7. Lenglen
8. Connolly
9. King (overrated IMO)
10. Seles and Henin and Venus

 

[Arafel]

I would put Evert over Court. Evert was a tougher out for other players than Court, and her Slam totals would be a lot higher if the tours had put an equal value on all the Slams in the 70s the way they do now. Chris only played one Australian Open in the first 10 years of her career; the result was a loss in the finals to Evonne Goolagong. However, if Chris had played more Aussies, I'm sure she would have won 2-4.

For me, the big strike against Court is Wimbledon. Court was a grass court player for the most part. She grew up on on, and her game was tailored for hit. Court played the game's most prestigious event 12 times. Yet Court only won three Wimbledons, 1963, 1965, and 1970. To me, that's a big strike. That's the same number of Wimbledons as Chris Evert, whose game was far better suited for clay and hard courts than grass.

 

[conway]

I would put Evert over Court. Evert was a tougher out for other players than Court

What is your basis for saying this? I dont see anything in facts that would suggest this. Evert has a losing record vs two players of her own era- Navratilova and Austin. Court has a losing record vs 0 players of her own era (I dont count Evert of Court's era, just as I dont count Graf of Evert's). Court won 22 of the 38 slams she played from 1962-1973. That is a way better ratio than Evert managed over any similarily long stretch. Evert's best stretch is 11 of 19, which is the same ratio, but over only half as many slams, and began to fall off drastically after that.

Court had 5 years that she won atleast 3 slams, and Evert doesnt even have a single 3 slam year. Now granted Evert probably would have 1-3 years she won 3 slams had everyone played all 4 slams this period, but Evert would not likely matched Court's amazing run of doing it 5 times if everyone (not just Evert herself, but other top players) played all the slams each year (Evert has only 5 years she lost only 1 time or less in slams, and would have had to win all remaining slams she didnt play to match Court, very unlikely when some of those years she won 1 of 2 majors she played). Any year Court was playing well enough to win 2 of the 3 remaining slams she was never losing the Australian on her turf too, even had everyone played. Court btw had a year winning 3 slams at 19 and another at age 31. She dominated off and on from the time she was a teenager until her early 30s, over a 12 year period, most times she was actually playing tennis she dominated for 12 years.

,

and her Slam totals would be a lot higher if the tours had put an equal value on all the Slams in the 70s the way they do now. Chris only played one Australian Open in the first 10 years of her career; the result was a loss in the finals to Evonne Goolagong. However, if Chris had played more Aussies, I'm sure she would have won 2-4.

It is true had Evert (and the tour) played the Australian and French each year she would have 22 or more slams probably. However had Court not retired 3 times she would have well over 30 slams, and had everyone played the Australian and she still never retired, she would still likely be close to 30.

For me, the big strike against Court is Wimbledon. Court was a grass court player for the most part. She grew up on on, and her game was tailored for hit. Court played the game's most prestigious event 12 times. Yet Court only won three Wimbledons, 1963, 1965, and 1970. To me, that's a big strike. That's the same number of Wimbledons as Chris Evert, whose game was far better suited for clay and hard courts than grass.

This part I totally agree with 100% and is the biggest reason I dont pick Court as the GOAT, and IMO the only real case Evert has to possibly rank over Court. Nonetheless I still go with Court. I rate both Court and Evert above Navratilova and Serena though (contrary to most, who do the opposite), and rank both behind Graf and Wills (like everyone else when it comes to Graf, but contrary to most when it comes to Wills).

 

[Arafel]

What is your basis for saying this? I dont see anything in facts that would suggest this. Evert has a losing record vs two players of her own era- Navratilova and Austin. Court has a losing record vs 0 players of her own era (I dont count Evert of Court's era, just as I dont count Graf of Evert's). Court won 22 of the 38 slams she played from 1962-1973. That is a way better ratio than Evert managed over any similarily long stretch. Evert's best stretch is 11 of 19, which is the same ratio, but over only half as many slams, and began to fall off drastically after that.

My basis for saying that is simple. Evert first started playing Grand Slams at 16, in 1971. Starting with that first one, and going to 1987, Chris Evert made the semifinals or better at EVERY Slam she ever entered, except for the 1983 Wimbledon, when she was so hobbled by the flu that doctors recommended she not take the court. Kathy Jordan beat her, and didn't even celebrate because it was so obvious Chris shouldn't have even played.

Think about that stat: 48 of the first 49 Slams she played, she made AT LEAST the semis. Chris didn't beat herself, and she never had a letdown.

Pair that Slam stat with her career 90 percent winning percentage, highest ever in the women's game, and her amazing 189-1 eight year clay court record, and I think Chris Evert was probably the toughest player to beat in the history of the women's game, because she never beat herself.

 

[conway]

On the WTA tennis site it was stated by some who have done extensive research Court leads in both post War 11 win percentage (just ahead of Evert), and tournament titles (199, more than Navratilova's 167). Of course there are pre World 11 players like Lenglen, Wills Moody, and Connolly (maybe Marble as well) who have much better win percentages than both of them.

I see your point, but IMO the semifinal stat just shows that Evert is the most consistent player in modern tennis history, which is something already generally known. So back in the days everyone ranked outside the top 5 generally sucked (which is certainly true of both Court and Evert's era), she was tougher to beat than anyone for someone outside the top 5. However Court's much greater success at actually winning titles of events she got deep in, shows she was much tougher to beat than Evert for the very top people, which is more important to me.

 

[Arafel]

On the WTA tennis site it was stated by some who have done extensive research Court leads in both post War 11 win percentage (just ahead of Evert), and tournament titles (199, more than Navratilova's 167). Of course there are pre World 11 players like Lenglen, Wills Moody, and Connolly (maybe Marble as well) who have much better win percentages than both of them.

I see your point, but IMO the semifinal stat just shows that Evert is the most consistent player in modern tennis history, which is something already generally known. So back in the days everyone ranked outside the top 5 generally sucked (which is certainly true of both Court and Evert's era), she was tougher to beat than anyone for someone outside the top 5. However Court's much greater success at actually winning titles of events she got deep in, shows she was much tougher to beat than Evert for the very top people, which is more important to me.

Well, the official records still show Martina leading in tournament titles, with Chris second, so I go by those, and her winning percentage is also higher. Further, I don't know how you can say Court had much greater success than Evert at winning titles when the stats don't show that.

For instance, you cite Martina, who leads the head-to-head 43-37, but Martina benefits a lot in that stat by playing Chris on grass and carpet, her two worst surfaces, because Chris WAS consistent enough to get to the finals, whereas on clay and even hard until the mid-80s, Martina lost before even getting to play Chris.

Evert also holds the record for most French Opens and most U.S. Opens. Court only leads at her native Slam, Australia, where most of the best players didn't even enter.

As far as Tracy, most of Tracy's wins occurred during a one-year span right after Chris married John Lloyd and her career tanked. Chris had clearly turned the rivalry around by the 1980 U.S. Open.

 

[BTURNER]

On the WTA tennis site it was stated by some who have done extensive research Court leads in both post War 11 win percentage (just ahead of Evert), and tournament titles (199, more than Navratilova's 167). Of course there are pre World 11 players like Lenglen, Wills Moody, and Connolly (maybe Marble as well) who have much better win percentages than both of them.

I see your point, but IMO the semifinal stat just shows that Evert is the most consistent player in modern tennis history, which is something already generally known. So back in the days everyone ranked outside the top 5 generally sucked (which is certainly true of both Court and Evert's era), she was tougher to beat than anyone for someone outside the top 5. However Court's much greater success at actually winning titles of events she got deep in, shows she was much tougher to beat than Evert for the very top people, which is more important to me.

Ive' seen a list of these tournaments. My problem is that if you look at many of those 'titles', especially in early to mid 60's the events were very small often local. She beat Sara Salisbury in the New Zealand invitational in 1963, WHOOPEE( just hypothetical.) Its not her fault, anymore than the fact that the Aussie was poorly attended, but many of these events often had nobody worthy of reaching the QF at Wimbledon at all. Trust me Conway, a lot of the names of the list of finalists she beat, prior to like 1966, you will never have heard of.

Before the pro tour in 1968, you really have ask just how much competition were at events outside of the states and Europe. I have the same view of some of Bueno's titles from South America.

 

[conway]

Well, the official records still show Martina leading in tournament titles, with Chris second, so I go by those, and her winning percentage is also higher.

The stats for players who crossed over from before the Open Era to the Open Era are based on only the Open Era so are all completely false. Court's win percentage is slightly higher than Evert's and she won 199 tournaments. The people who have researched this are never wrong on these sort of things.

Further, I don't know how you can say Court had much greater success than Evert at winning titles when the stats don't show that.

I already said Court won 22 of 38 slams she won over a 12 year stretch. Evert does not come even close to that over a period of 40 slams played or any 12 year stretch. So yes Court was much better at winning titles when she played or got deep.

Evert also holds the record for most French Opens and most U.S. Opens. Court only leads at her native Slam, Australia, where most of the best players didn't even enter.

Molla Mallorey and Wills Moody have more U.S Opens. Mallorey's is a joke, but Wills Moody's mark of 7 is fully legit. Chris also had the U.S Open on clay (her best surface) for 3 years, for the only time in history it wasnt played on grass (as it was for almost 100 years), and today hard courts (almost 40 years and counting).

Court would have the Australian Open record easily even if everyone had played. If you analyze each year it is obvious she would still have likely won 7-9, and the next most is Serena with 5.

As far as Tracy, most of Tracy's wins occurred during a one-year span right after Chris married John Lloyd and her career tanked. Chris had clearly turned the rivalry around by the 1980 U.S. Open.

What a total joke. Tracy was 9-4 vs Evert in 79-81, the only period Tracy was able to play prime tennis (and while Chris was clearly in the midst of her long prime as well). Before that she was 15 or younger, and after that her body was too butchered to play at the top level anymore. Chris had totally turned the rivalry around? Is that why she lost 2 of their 3 meetings in 81, getting spanked badly in both losses and barely winning the other. I guess Tracy didnt get the memo. The rivalry only turned for good when Tracy's back went out and she was no longer a top level player.

 

[conway]

Ive' seen a list of these tournaments. My problem is that if you look at many of those 'titles', especially in early to mid 60's the events were very small often local. She beat Sara Salisbury in the New Zealand invitational in 1963, WHOOPEE( just hypothetical.) Its not her fault, anymore than the fact that the Aussie was poorly attended, but many of these events often had nobody worthy of reaching the QF at Wimbledon at all. Trust me Conway, a lot of the names of the list of finalists she beat, prior to like 1966, you will never have heard of.

Before the pro tour in 1968, you really have ask just how much competition were at events outside of the states and Europe. I have the same view of some of Bueno's titles from South America.

In the Navratilova-Evert era this was true too. Do you really think either Evert or Navratilova could dream of winning even 100 tournaments today, let alone 160 each? Of course not. In the era of Court, Evert, and Navratilova, there were tons of joke tournaments, some you had to play 3 matches to win. So no difference there.

 

[BTURNER]

In the Navratilova-Evert era this was true too. Do you really think either Evert or Navratilova could dream of winning even 100 tournaments today, let alone 160 each? Of course not. In the era of Court, Evert, and Navratilova, there were tons of joke tournaments, some you had to play 3 matches to win. So no difference there.

then why are you giving Credit to Court for winning big match 'finals', as though she was beating King or Bueno or Hard,without actually judging the quality of the event? the records of some of these tournaments in the 60's Down Under were so bare, you can't even figure out who was the semifinalist without checking the local rag . You can't have it both ways Conway, slamming the 'Major Down under as a bogus Major, but crediting the pipsqueak draws in South Queensland as a tournament and having more meaning than an Evert Semifinal at a major. You think that 199 actually means anything?

Conway if those Aussie's are bogus majors, every single record Court owns is compromised by her same propensity to acquire stats from the Aussie/ New Zealand tour. that means her W/L percentage is tainted, her percentage of finals won is tainted and her number of tournaments is tainted. 'Bogus' applies to the whole mess south of the equator. Only its a lot worse. Somebody might show up off the boat/ plane two week prior to The Australian, and stick around until it was over. That means the two events just beforehand might get someone without an australian accent. The rest of the year, Margaret walked off with the finals, the trophies and lots of 6-1,6-2 triumphs to pad her w/ loss percentage.

Now later on, as Margaret was allowed to travel more, and spent more and more time away from home, the percentage becomes smaller, but she always ended playing around 4 to 6 or more events each year, mostly to support the local tournaments, that supported Aussie tennis. She did not do it to pad numbers, but it has that effect. There were no 'points' to defend and it did nothing one way or the other to determine world ranking. It sure inflates some of the stats we are using now, post WTA to measure career patterns.

 

[Arafel]

What a total joke. Tracy was 9-4 vs Evert in 79-81, the only period Tracy was able to play prime tennis (and while Chris was clearly in the midst of her long prime as well). Before that she was 15 or younger, and after that her body was too butchered to play at the top level anymore. Chris had totally turned the rivalry around? Is that why she lost 2 of their 3 meetings in 81, getting spanked badly in both losses and barely winning the other. I guess Tracy didnt get the memo. The rivalry only turned for good when Tracy's back went out and she was no longer a top level player.

It's not as cut and dried as you make it. Chris won the first three. Tracy got her first win indoors in January 1979. They played four more times in 79, splitting the matches. Two went three sets, with each winning one.

Tracy took control of the rivalry with her win over Chris in the 1979 U.S. Open, the last of those aforementioned four matches. Tracy then beat Chris in Germany in fall 79, then got two wins over Chris in January 1980 in the same tournament, the Avon Tour Finals, winning both a round robin and semifinal encounter.

Tired of the tour, tired of losing to Tracy (four losses in a four month span, including two in a three day period), Chris took a sabbatical. She came back in the summer. Tracy resumed by beating Chris in Cincinnati. At this point, Tracy has racked up five wins in a 10-month span.

Chris then beat Tracy in the U.S. Open semifinal in September 1980. Tracy won in 81 in Ontario, they split two matches at the 81 finals (played December 1981) and Chris won their final encounter.

Tracy benefited from playing Chris at lot on her worst her surface, indoor carpet, and got most of her wins in a short span where Chris was distracted by a lot going on in her life. Given what happened later in the 80s with Martina, and that Martina at her peak was a far more devastating opponent than Tracy ever was, I see no reason to think that Chris, who was never mentally browbeaten by Tracy for as long as she was by Martina, wouldn't have resumed by beating Tracy even had Austin been healthy.

 

[conway]

then why are you giving Credit to Court for winning big match 'finals', as though she was beating King or Bueno or Hard,without actually judging the quality of the event? .

I was only referring to her conversion rate of winning big events and big finals with that particular comment, not all tournament finals (pointing out she won 199 tournament was a separate point I brought up, but was not what I was referring to when I talked about her conversion rate in winning big titles). And to win those big titles she almost always did beat someone like King, Bueno, and Hard, or on clay Richey, Jones, or Turner (the other great clay courters of that time, besides Court). Even at the Australian Open, contrary to popular belief she usually did beat someone like that en route to the title:

1960- beat #1 seed Bueno in the quarters as a 17 year old unknown en route to winning.
1965- beat Bueno in final
1969- beat King in final
1971- beat Goolagong in final
1973- beat Goolagong in final

6 of the 11 years she won the Australian Open the reigning Wimbledon champion played the event. She really faced didn't face a weak opponent in her Australian Open finals anymore that she won than Evert did at Roland Garros. Of Evert's 7 French Open titles over half of them were won against Morozova, Ruzica, Mima Jausovec, and Wendy Turnbull, which is no different than facing a second tier Australian like Melville, Lehane, or Hunt in some Australian Open finals like Court. In both their cases it wouldn't have mattered either, as they were the undisputed queens of those particular events (not just in their era, but all time).

I also only mentioned that Court won 199 tournaments since someone else pointed out Evert had won many more tournaments, but that is factucally incorrect. I didn't speak either way about the competition in most of the non slam tournaments, but since you insist on speaking about it then it was very easy in the eras of ALL of Court, Navratilova, and Evert to win a ton of tournaments, so in a Court-Evert discussion that point is a wash, and Court still won the most even though all 3 played in an era it was easy to win them. The fact is nobody today could dream of winning more than 100 tournaments, no matter how great they were, never mind the 160-200 Evert, Navratilova, and Court all won.

 

[PDJ]

Evert: why? Because it's my vote.

 

[Rochester]

I prefer Evert but this thread shows what others often do: favorites benefit from excuses while non favorites don't

 

[BTURNER]

I was only referring to her conversion rate of winning big events and big finals with that particular comment, not all tournament finals (pointing out she won 199 tournament was a separate point I brought up, but was not what I was referring to when I talked about her conversion rate in winning big titles). And to win those big titles she almost always did beat someone like King, Bueno, and Hard, or on clay Richey, Jones, or Turner (the other great clay courters of that time, besides Court). Even at the Australian Open, contrary to popular belief she usually did beat someone like that en route to the title:

1960- beat #1 seed Bueno in the quarters as a 17 year old unknown en route to winning.
1965- beat Bueno in final
1969- beat King in final
1971- beat Goolagong in final
1973- beat Goolagong in final

6 of the 11 years she won the Australian Open the reigning Wimbledon champion played the event. She really faced didn't face a weak opponent in her Australian Open finals anymore that she won than Evert did at Roland Garros. Of Evert's 7 French Open titles over half of them were won against Morozova, Ruzica, Mima Jausovec, and Wendy Turnbull, which is no different than facing a second tier Australian like Melville, Lehane, or Hunt in some Australian Open finals like Court. In both their cases it wouldn't have mattered either, as they were the undisputed queens of those particular events (not just in their era, but all time).

I also only mentioned that Court won 199 tournaments since someone else pointed out Evert had won many more tournaments, but that is factually incorrect. I didn't speak either way about the competition in most of the non slam tournaments, but since you insist on speaking about it then it was very easy in the eras of ALL of Court, Navratilova, and Evert to win a ton of tournaments, so in a Court-Evert discussion that point is a wash, and Court still won the most even though all 3 played in an era it was easy to win them. The fact is nobody today could dream of winning more than 100 tournaments, no matter how great they were, never mind the 160-200 Evert, Navratilova, and Court all won.

Accumulating tour 'title's, became considerably more difficult with each generation from the 50's forward as criteria were established to define a WTA sanctioned tour event and the unionized players gain a say in the seasonal schedule reducing the sheer volume of events ( stage one), as physical training and professional standards in coaching became strenuous and youth oriented and thus careers shortened with injuries/ burnout became more prominent (stage two), as the tour began to regulate how many tournaments minors could compete in (stage three). It was easier for Court than Evert (stage 1). Easier for Evert than Graf (stage two). Easier for Graf than Williams (stage three). That is the opposite of a 'wash' because Evert and Court did not play under the same circumstances in the same regions, and the tour was already changing with Open tennis in 1968 and with the unionization of the players. This was a process towards an end result. Evert and court came in at different points in the process.

 

[Rochester]

BTBurner I akways enjoy reading your posts. You clearly have done your research

 

[Steve132]

Accumulating tour 'title's, became considerably more difficult with each generation from the 50's forward as criteria were established to define a WTA sanctioned tour event and the unionized players gain a say in the seasonal schedule reducing the sheer volume of events ( stage one), as physical training and professional standards in coaching became strenuous and youth oriented and thus careers shortened with injuries/ burnout became more prominent (stage two), as the tour began to regulate how many tournaments minors could compete in (stage three). It was easier for Court than Evert (stage 1). Easier for Evert than Graf (stage two). Easier for Graf than Williams (stage three). That is the opposite of a 'wash' because Evert and Court did not play under the same circumstances in the same regions, and the tour was already changing with Open tennis in 1968 and with the unionization of the players. This was a process towards an end result. Evert and court came in at different points in the process.

BTurner: Great post. All too often people forget these considerations when comparing the number of titles won by players from different generations. I would add that as a result of these and other changes the leading players have increasingly tended to play in the SAME events, making it more difficult to win titles. Moreover, all of this applies as much to the men's tour as it does to the women's.

 

[pc1]

Accumulating tour 'title's, became considerably more difficult with each generation from the 50's forward as criteria were established to define a WTA sanctioned tour event and the unionized players gain a say in the seasonal schedule reducing the sheer volume of events ( stage one), as physical training and professional standards in coaching became strenuous and youth oriented and thus careers shortened with injuries/ burnout became more prominent (stage two), as the tour began to regulate how many tournaments minors could compete in (stage three). It was easier for Court than Evert (stage 1). Easier for Evert than Graf (stage two). Easier for Graf than Williams (stage three). That is the opposite of a 'wash' because Evert and Court did not play under the same circumstances in the same regions, and the tour was already changing with Open tennis in 1968 and with the unionization of the players. This was a process towards an end result. Evert and court came in at different points in the process.

Excellent post as always. I would like to point out however that because of the amateur/Pro divide for decades that it was quite different on the Men's side. And you easily argue it was tougher in many ways in for example the 1950s for the Pros than now. Not saying it is but an excellent argument can be made for it.

General stats
Tournaments won
Evert-154
Court-about 194
Lifetime winning %
Evert-90%
Court-92%
Grand Slams won
Evert-0
Court-1
Majors won
Evert-18
Court-24
Majors entered
Evert-56
Court-47

Several things should be noted-Court I believe left the tour one time to have a child. When she came back it took a while to get back in form. Evert didn't have children when she was on tour.

Court also retired in 1966 and did not play in 1967. She came back in 1968 and regained top form in 1969 winning three majors. The next year she won the Grand Slam.

I guess even in adjusting for era in looking at the info I would go with Court.

 

[Steve132]

If there is a case to be made that it is easier to win titles today than it was in the 1950's and 60's I would be most interested in reading it. In that period some of the best players were playing in the amateur ranks, although the majority were pros. Even among the pros the best players did not by any means always appear in the same events. Today's players schedule their calendar around the four majors and the WTF (no one misses any of those events unless he is injured). Almost everyone plays in the nine Masters tournaments, and even some ATP 500 events such as Dubai draw exceptionally strong fields. There are no rival pro tours, nor are there 4 or 8 man invitational events. Exhibitions are not counted among a player's list of titles. For all these reasons I don't see anyone today, however talented, amassing the number of titles that players in the 1950's and 60's could. Sampras and Nadal (to date) both have 64 titles. Federer has 80, and no one since Lendl and McEnroe has come close to that total. This parallels more or less precisely the decline in the number of titles won by the top women players over the same period.

On topic - I voted for Court over Evert, although this was a close contest. Court at her peak was simply more dominant than Evert ever was, and she sustained her excellence for at least as long.

 

[pc1]

If there is a case to be made that it was easier to win titles in the 1950's and 60's than it is today I would be most interested in reading it. In that period some of the best players were playing in the amateur ranks, although the majority were pros. Even among the pros the best players did not by any means always appear in the same events. Today's players schedule their calendar around the four majors and the WTF (no one misses any of those events unless he is injured). Almost everyone plays in the nine Masters tournaments, and even some ATP 500 events such as Dubai draw exceptionally strong fields. There are no rival pro tours, nor are there 4 or 8 man invitational events. Exhibitions are not counted among a player's list of titles. For all these reasons I don't see anyone today, however talented, amassing the number of titles that players in the 1950's and 60's could. Sampras and Nadal (to date) both have 64 titles. Federer has 80, and no one since Lendl and McEnroe has come close to that total. This parallels more or less precisely the decline in the number of titles won by the top women players over the same period.

On topic - I voted for Court over Evert, although this was a close contest. Court at her peak was simply more dominant than Evert ever was, and she sustained her excellence for at least as long.

Steve,

It's clear the main rivals for Court were King and Bueno. King mentioned that she, even in 1976 was beating Navratilova and Evert regularly in practice on grass. So I would tend to believe that Court in her prime would be exceptionally strong in the late 1970's also. Now of course this logic on if A beats B and B beats C, A must beat C doesn't always work in tennis but at least there is some evidence.

To be honest I have my doubts if you moved Navratilova or Evert to Court's time whether anyone can do as well as Court.

Always fun to speculate.

 

[BTURNER]

Excellent post as always. I would like to point out however that because of the amateur/Pro divide for decades that it was quite different on the Men's side. And you easily argue it was tougher in many ways in for example the 1950s for the Pros than now. Not saying it is but an excellent argument can be made for it.

General stats
Tournaments won
Evert-154
Court-about 194
Lifetime winning %
Evert-90%
Court-92%
Grand Slams won
Evert-0
Court-1
Majors won
Evert-18
Court-24
Majors entered
Evert-56
Court-47

Several things should be noted-Court I believe left the tour one time to have a child. When she came back it took a while to get back in form. Evert didn't have children when she was on tour.

Court also retired in 1966 and did not play in 1967. She came back in 1968 and regained top form in 1969 winning three majors. The next year she won the Grand Slam.

I guess even in adjusting for era in looking at the info I would go with Court.

I just want to be clear, that I am NOT trying to undermine the general case for Court rating higher because I think that it is entirely justified. Its just that I would get there in a different way than some of these stats do. I think Court's head to head vs virtually all her competition and her dominance of all surfaces is more telling than some of these stats that I think are inflated ( career w/ loss percentage and total titles/ finals) by some peculiarities in her career, namely the time she spent accruing victories in her 'sphere'. Of course using them in this specific thread is problematic, because Evert and Navratilova were unique, because two GOAT candidates were contemporaries, for so much of their prime years,competed for titles and wins even if the competition lower down the chain was decidedly less past each other.

That 'majors entered' stat is definitely worth noting in the comparison, I am shocked by the disparity and your comments on her tennis 'breaks' and comebacks are well taken, because her era was extremely competitive once we get her out of from Down-under and, outside of Wimbledon, she was seen as THE one to beat. Fact is, Court had extraordinarily few losses below the quarterfinal /semifinal stage at majors even if it isn't quite as astonishing as Evert's. its still right up there and she does have a better record converting major finals to wins than Evert.

I suspect I sound more argumentative than I mean to in this thread. I really don't have any problem with case you or Conway make, just those particular stats, because I remember seeing a list of those 'tournaments'and matches that were 'newly' discovered and added after more research. They may meet the definition and are worthy of inclusion, but they really don't add much stature. the bigger point is that Court does not need them to.

 

[pc1]

I just want to be clear, that I am NOT trying to undermine the general case for Court rating higher because I think that it is entirely justified. Its just that I would get there in a different way than some of these stats do. I think Court's head to head vs virtually all her competition and her dominance of all surfaces is more telling than some of these stats that I think are inflated ( career w/ loss percentage and total titles/ finals) by some peculiarities in her career, namely the time she spent accruing victories in her 'sphere'. Of course using them in this specific thread is problematic, because Evert and Navratilova were unique, because two GOAT candidates were contemporaries, for so much of their prime years,competed for titles and wins even if the competition lower down the chain was decidedly less past each other.

That 'majors entered' stat is definitely worth noting in the comparison, I am shocked by the disparity and your comments on her tennis 'breaks' and comebacks are well taken, because her era was extremely competitive once we get her out of from Down-under and, outside of Wimbledon, she was seen as THE one to beat. Fact is, Court had extraordinarily few losses below the quarterfinal /semifinal stage at majors even if it isn't quite as astonishing as Evert's. its still right up there and she does have a better record converting major finals to wins than Evert.

I suspect I sound more argumentative than I mean to in this thread. I really don't have any problem with case you or Conway make, just those particular stats, because I remember seeing a list of those 'tournaments'and matches that were 'newly' discovered and added after more research. They may meet the definition and are worthy of inclusion, but they really don't add much stature. the bigger point is that Court does not need them to.

Honestly I really wasn't making a case for Court. I was just throwing out the stats which are incredible for both players. Frankly I like Chris' game better overall. So don't worry about it.

To be honest I've been amazed on the number of female players who have been dominant in tennis history. You have players like Lenglen, Wills, Marble, Connolly, Court, Navratilova, Evert and Graf. I do feel that Court has been oddly enough overlooked and unappreciated.

 

[davidjaan1982]

Based on number of grand slams won and overall win/loss records, difficult to not go with Margaret Court as the greater player although I liked Evert's game better and do believe that Evert had figured out how to beat Margaret Court.

In my view, one reason why Margaret is not the obvious choice as the greater player despite her superior record overall is that she never seemed to really intimidate her opponents - despite her physical stature, and powerful serve and volley game. Maybe, it was her fragile nerves that sometimes got in her way. Evert on the other hand was Miss Intimidation. Even top players were reduced to wanting to win a few games rather than the match against her. And typically anyone not in the Top Four probably could never beat her and they knew it. It resulted in a feeling of hopelessness. Virginia Wade, Olga Morozova, Rosie Casals are names that come to mind in this regard. On Clay - players such as Navratilova and Billie Jean tried to avoid her!

That is the reason I believe that Evert, Graf, Serena and Navratilova stand out over the last 40-45 years... The effect they had on opponents.

 

[saintlaurent]

Court hands down. Makes no sense Evert is winning this poll, but already obvious to see any polls here are nothing but popularity contests with people voting whom they like more regardless the question anyway. Anyway to tennis experts Court ranks just behind Graf, and about equal to Martina, while Chris is seen as below those, and probably below Wills Moody too. I am not sure where Serena is perceived right now.

 

[BTURNER]

Court hands down. Makes no sense Evert is winning this poll, but already obvious to see any polls here are nothing but popularity contests with people voting whom they like more regardless the question anyway. Anyway to tennis experts Court ranks just behind Graf, and about equal to Martina, while Chris is seen as below those, and probably below Wills Moody too. I am not sure where Serena is perceived right now.

The question this begs, is whether you think you know enough about these women to have an opinion independent of 'experts'. I have no idea how 'tennis experts' poll, or whether what is fashionable in their circles is much more meritorious than a poll here.

I know there are several posters here who's opinion I respect as the equal or better than any 'tennis expert' you are likely to find outside and frankly I have a healthy respect for my own on this topic.

Its odd that in the paragraph above, you offered - nothing except a hands- down conclusion and a huge appeal to authority, without any evidence that the authority actually holds your position. Am I crazy to wonder what you think and why ?

I promise not to be an argumentative ***, if you tell me why you think Court has a better case and leave others in the forum or outside it, out of it.

 

[bluetrain4]

No-one said she wasn't talented - you've made that up yourself.

I specifically said 'players in their prime/at their peak'. Did you not read that or did you decide to ignore it?

Court gave birth to her second child at the end of 1973 and was physically 'done' by that point. That she won 3 of 4 majors in 73 is testament to her talent as, at age 31, she was well past her best. MOST IMPRESSSIVE is that she was actually pregnant when she won the French and US Opens that year. Regardless, when she played Evert she was well past her peak. Margaret Court's only crime was to not be born an American.

Billie Jean King was - again- well past her peak when Evert first played her. Up until King was 32 they split their matches 7-7 (not counting one retirement). Evert's dominance of King only occurred from 1977 onwards -when BJK was 34 and coming back from knee surgery. Soft wins in anyone's language.

As I pointed out, she dominated Goolagong. However, I also pointed out that Court and King did the same. Goolagong was an occasionally brilliant player and aesthetically more pleasing than all of those mentioned (something I believe has led to an overinflated reputation) but not in the truly elite class.

Austin won 8 of the last 12 matches she played against Evert and the last one was, as we all know, played under the duress of an injury which removed her from tennis for 6 years. In her peak years she dominated Evert.

Similarly, when Navratilova hit her peak she dominated Evert - plain and simple.

I am not trying to say that Evert wasn't a great player. Obviously she was. However, I believe that her reputation is hideously overinflated due to her cultural significance and her place of birth. You only need to read through this message board to realise that the praise for Evert is nothing more than cheap fanboy drool.

I just don't get it. She's physically "done" in 1973, yet wins 3 majors, and thus wins over her around that time aren't legit?

I can't stand TWs obsession with "primes". It's like a win over a player isn't legit, in any way, unless it happened to occur during that player's "prime."

A career is a career. The player chooses when to start and when to retire. Do you think these super-competitive players would dismiss wins against them simply because they weren't at the absolute top of their game when their opponent beat them. I'd bet "No" for every player.

I'm actually not answering the Evert-Court question, but just commenting on something I see over and over and over on TW. "Prime" wins seem to be the only wins that count, even though the bulk of nearly every player's career is non-prime, and those players are basically great throughout their careers. It's ridiculous.

 

[BTURNER]

I just don't get it. She's physically "done" in 1973, yet wins 3 majors, and thus wins over her around that time aren't legit?

I can't stand TWs obsession with "primes". It's like a win over a player isn't legit, in any way, unless it happened to occur during that player's "prime."

A career is a career. The player chooses when to start and when to retire. Do you think these super-competitive players would dismiss wins against them simply because they weren't at the absolute top of their game when their opponent beat them. I'd bet "No" for every player.

I'm actually not answering the Evert-Court question, but just commenting on something I see over and over and over on TW. "Prime" wins seem to be the only wins that count, even though the bulk of nearly every player's career is non-prime, and those players are basically great throughout their careers. It's ridiculous.

Oh I remember this answer. I asked Andrew this myself. See pregnancy has its ups and downs as the body and hormones change. Each major victory in 1973 coincided with a time when Margarets pregnancy was obviously not impacting her. Surrounding them were those days and times when her timing was thrown off. We can tell from the result what the impact was on her at that phase. Matter of fact we can tell from the scores in the sets. For example the wimbledon semifinal 6-1,1-6.1-6. Can you guess in which sets Margaret's pregnancy impacted her volleying?

I absolutely agree that defining the merit of the result, by the merits of the results, is silliness and that is what we do, in effect , when we cherry pick years or half years as 'peak' or 'prime' and throw the rest out as the wormy ones. If the player walks on the tour as a professional, we do not later dismiss the results. Court decided to come back post pregnancy, to train, to work and to be judged on the result as part of her legacy. No one gets to throw those aside as meaningless, when she clearly meant for them to mean something if she had won.

I have looked at the BJK-Evert rivalry. The pattern is the most obvious thing in the world. From day one very first match 1971 at St Petersburg through 1975 wimbledon SF, the result was entirely determined by surface. If it was carpet indoor or grass. King almost always won ( 1 exception when Evert won on carpet). If it was clay or hard court, it was always Evert's win. After King's hiatus, she did not win another match. On clay or hard King could not win no matter how green or young her opponent. On grass or carpet, Evert could not win no matter how bad the King knees or how old King felt that day.

 

[bluetrain4]

Oh I remember this answer. I asked Andrew this myself. See pregnancy has its ups and downs as the body and hormones change. Each major victory in 1973 coincided with a time when Margarets pregnancy was obviously not impacting her. Surrounding them were those days and times when her timing was thrown off. We can tell from the result what the impact was on her at that phase. Matter of fact we can tell from the scores in the sets. For example the wimbledon semifinal 6-1,1-6.1-6. Can you guess in which sets Margaret's pregnancy impacted her volleying?

I absolutely agree that defining the merit of the result, by the merits of the results, is silliness and that is what we do, in effect , when we cherry pick years or half years as 'peak' or 'prime' and throw the rest out as the wormy ones. If the player walks on the tour as a professional, we do not later dismiss the results. Court decided to come back post pregnancy, to train, to work and to be judged on the result as part of her legacy. No one gets to throw those aside as meaningless, when she clearly meant for them to mean something if she had won.

I have looked at the BJK-Evert rivalry. The pattern is the most obvious thing in the world. From day one very first match 1971 at St Petersburg through 1975 wimbledon SF, the result was entirely determined by surface. If it was carpet indoor or grass. King almost always won ( 1 exception when Evert won on carpet). If it was clay or hard court, it was always Evert's win. After King's hiatus, she did not win another match. On clay or hard King could not win no matter how green or young her opponent. On grass or carpet, Evert could not win no matter how bad the King knees or how old King felt that day.

Exactly. Everyone wants to dismiss wins vs. their favorite or preferred player if that player isn't in their prime. But, you can bet these same people would include wins in those matches as part of their favorite/preferred players' legacy.

 

[davidjaan1982]

All those confidently asserting that Court is greater need to compare how she did against Evert as compared to King, Goolagong, Wade, Casals and other top players in the early 70's. Court owned all the others. At this same time, against Evert, her game and confidence seemed to fall apart. Having seen many of those matches, I just cannot rank Court over Evert. Maybe a bit harsh and unfair to Court, but that is how I feel.

 

[saintlaurent]

Yeah that Court was 30 or older for all but 1 of their matches means nothing. Even 31 year old Court was 2-1 vs Evert in slams in 73, and 30-31 year old Court was 4-4 vs Evert overall. Evert was 18-19 which is hardly young for a female tennis phenom. If anything this would seem to suggest to favor Court, not Evert. Imagine 31 Evert going 2-1 in slams in a year vs 19 year old Graf, LOL! Better chance of winning a lottery. Evert only really pulled ahead in the head to head with her final matches vs a now 33-34 year old Court who came back after her 3rd baby, and to use those to beatdown Court is a joke.

There are some Evert fans who try to rank Evert over Graf that despite beginning when Evert was 31 and Graf was 16, Evert lost 8 matches in a row, winning only one set. This is another 3 levels beyond the ineptitude old Court showed vs an older teenage Evert. Evert only had wins over the truly baby Graf who had not even won a WTA tournament or gone past the round of 16 of a major yet. So if Court ranks below Evert due to head to head matches, then Evert must be planets below Graf by the same logic.

 

[BTURNER]

Yeah that Court was 30 or older for all but 1 of their matches means nothing. Even 31 year old Court was 2-1 vs Evert in slams in 73, and 30-31 year old Court was 4-4 vs Evert overall. Evert was 18-19 which is hardly young for a female tennis phenom. If anything this would seem to suggest to favor Court, not Evert. Imagine 31 Evert going 2-1 in slams in a year vs 19 year old Graf, LOL! Better chance of winning a lottery. Evert only really pulled ahead in the head to head with her final matches vs a now 33-34 year old Court who came back after her 3rd baby, and to use those to beatdown Court is a joke.

There are some Evert fans who try to rank Evert over Graf that despite beginning when Evert was 31 and Graf was 16, Evert lost 8 matches in a row, winning only one set. This is another 3 levels beyond the ineptitude old Court showed vs an older teenage Evert. Evert only had wins over the truly baby Graf who had not even won a WTA tournament or gone past the round of 16 of a major yet. So if Court ranks below Evert due to head to head matches, then Evert must be planets below Graf by the same logic.

You are smart enough to realize that if a player is winning 3 of 4 majors, that player must still be still in her prime, over another player who has yet to win her first and therefore cannot be in her prime. You are smart enough to realize that different players mature, peak, and age at very different timetables and that using a chronological number is far too simplistic a measure, so yes in fact being 30-31 years old does not matter when Court is the player we are talking about and she still had majors to win. And you have to know that veteran Court could not win a single set in the first three matches they played. It was 2 sets to 6 sets vs pony-tailed Evert, before she had yet to reach her first major final!

The fact remains that there was never a single millisecond, from their first meeting in Court's grand slam year in 1970 when 15 year old Evert first walked on a professional court, that Margaret had her head out in front of this rivalry. Not in matches, or sets, or games. It took Court 3 years to get to 4-4 and thereafter Court won 1 single solitary set in the last 11 sets they played. There was a big problem here for Court.


Its really not surprising that Court had 2-1 ratio in 1973 in slam match-ups when Evert was too green to have won a single major and Court was still winning them and 3 of the four majors were still played on grass. It is not a surprise when the number 1 player and 5 time RG champion beats a lower seeded girl who has never even played on red clay in any European tournament before. It is not a surprise when 4 time US national champion and number one seeded player beats a lower seeded girl at the US Open, who has never even reached her first final in any grass major. It is a surprise when that lower seeded girl who has never reached a single major final on grass, beats the number 1 seed and 3 time former Wimbledon champion in a semi by taking two 6-1 sets from the best player in the world.

I am not saying this is conclusive evidence of anything more than a bad match-up for Court, but it was a terrible match-up for Court, just as Graf was a terrible match-up for Evert.

 

[saintlaurent]

You are smart enough to realize that if a player is winning 3 of 4 majors, that player must still be still in her prime

OK so then Navratilova must still have been in her prime in 1989. After all 3 slams is what she probably would have won if Graf didn't exist.

Spin the Court-Evert matchup as you like but the fact is old Court did far better vs teenage Evert, then old Evert did vs a much younger teenage Graf (the one ranked higher than WTA #6, making it past round of 16 of slams, and winning WTA tournaments that is). So if you want to derive somehow from the Court-Evert matches that took place that they point to an obvious advantage for Evert, then it is the equivalent of admitting the Evert-Graf matches point to even prime Evert being dominated and bullied by prime Graf. Now I don't think Evert fans want to admit to this (even though it is probably true anyway), so I would think they would like to rethink their position on how they are potraying the implications of the Court-Evert matchup in 72-73 especialy.

 

[BTURNER]

OK so then Navratilova must still have been in her prime in 1989. After all 3 slams is what she probably would have won if Graf didn't exist.

Spin the Court-Evert matchup as you like but the fact is old Court did far better vs teenage Evert, then old Evert did vs a much younger teenage Graf (the one ranked higher than WTA #6, making it past round of 16 of slams, and winning WTA tournaments that is). So if you want to derive somehow from the Court-Evert matches that took place that they point to an obvious advantage for Evert, then it is the equivalent of admitting the Evert-Graf matches point to even prime Evert being dominated and bullied by prime Graf. Now I don't think Evert fans want to admit to this (even though it is probably true anyway), so I would think they would like to rethink their position on how they are potraying the implications of the Court-Evert matchup in 72-73 especialy.

I am not doing the 'fan' game here. I do not 'rethink' a position because it may or may not bite Evert in the *** later. Because, while I am an undeniable fan of chris Evert I work hard not to carry an agenda over into my interpretation of history

These careers are different. Graf was more precocious than Evert and frankly she had a lot more tournament experience at a younger age than Evert, because she started playing closer to a full schedule of majors younger than Evert. While Evert played her first major at the 1971 Open at 16 years of age, Graf had played no less than 7 majors before she reached her first semifinal at 15 years old at the Open. Graf had already played 2 Aussies, 3 Rg, 2 wimbledons and 2 US Opens before Evert had ever laid eyes on Forest Hills, Centre Court or Stade Roland Garros. Evert added one additional major each year to her schedule from 1971-1974 thus it was not until 1974 that she played them all. Thus its not surprising that Graf reached her first semifinal, and final a year younger than Evert did. And she began to win earlier.

Evert had absolutely no trouble with Graf before Graf turned 16 years old, while Court most definitely had trouble with Evert at 15. Once Graf hit her full height and strength, Evert got only one a single solitary set. But their respective strengths were different. Evert played more of a mental game whereas Graf's was so damn physical.

 

[davidjaan1982]

I agree with BTurner. Evert was a bad match-up for Court. So, in head to head clashes, at peak or otherwise, it is difficult to argue in favor of Court.

As has been mentioned in some of the posts, both Court and Evert are all time greats and superb players. We don't need to insult one player to prove a point in favor of the other. As far as the "greater" debate is concerned, it is a close call at the end of the day and naturally opinions vary. Both players deserve our respect no matter where we stand on the issue.

 

[saintlaurent]

The Evert-Court matchup isn't the only one that would exist in any era both were in though. I believe Court would do better vs Navratilova than Evert, she certainly wouldn't lose 13 maches in a row to peak Martina as Chris did. Put them later and Court would probably do better than Chris vs Graf, who I believe would have owned Evert even prime to prime. Put them in Court's time and Court would probably do do better vs King, especialy on grass (the dominant surface then anyway), and would have less trouble with Richey on clay than Evert would. I believe Evert has much more trouble with Goolagong than Court did too, if we are talking the 70s when Evert was most dominant.

So even if you are right on Evert having the matchup edge on Court, it wouldn't automatically equate to more success, unless it was a really really huge one.

And even if the matchup did favor Evert I would say still favor Court heavily at the Australian Open (even if Evert played it regularly which she wouldn't have). I would give Court even odds at the U.S Open when it was on grass, but make Evert the slight favorite once it moved to hard courts (and more than the slight favorite while it was on clay). At the French Evert would obviously be favored, but if 31 year old Court could beat 18 year old Evert in a final there, I am sure Court would have chances. At Wimbledon I would give them roughly even odds. Then when you factor in the other top players who Court would mostly do better against than Evert (unless anyone disputes Court would likely do better vs any of King, Navratilova, Graf, and a few other surface specialists than Evert) and I would see her still coming out favorably if they were in the same era. Then if they weren't in the same era, as is the case now, I would give Court equal or better chances to do as well in any era I wouldn't see Court totally dominated by anyone as Evert was for a stretch by Navratilova, Graf, even Austin.

 

[BTURNER]

The Evert-Court matchup isn't the only one that would exist in any era both were in though. I believe Court would do better vs Navratilova than Evert, she certainly wouldn't lose 13 maches in a row to peak Martina as Chris did. Put them later and Court would probably do better than Chris vs Graf, who I believe would have owned Evert even prime to prime. Put them in Court's time and Court would probably do do better vs King, especialy on grass (the dominant surface then anyway), and would have less trouble with Richey on clay than Evert would. I believe Evert has much more trouble with Goolagong than Court did too, if we are talking the 70s when Evert was most dominant.

So even if you are right on Evert having the matchup edge on Court, it wouldn't automatically equate to more success, unless it was a really really huge one.

And even if the matchup did favor Evert I would say still favor Court heavily at the Australian Open (even if Evert played it regularly which she wouldn't have). I would give Court even odds at the U.S Open when it was on grass, but make Evert the slight favorite once it moved to hard courts (and more than the slight favorite while it was on clay). At the French Evert would obviously be favored, but if 31 year old Court could beat 18 year old Evert in a final there, I am sure Court would have chances. At Wimbledon I would give them roughly even odds. Then when you factor in the other top players who Court would mostly do better against than Evert (unless anyone disputes Court would likely do better vs any of King, Navratilova, Graf, and a few other surface specialists than Evert) and I would see her still coming out favorably if they were in the same era. Then if they weren't in the same era, as is the case now, I would give Court equal or better chances to do as well in any era I wouldn't see Court totally dominated by anyone as Evert was for a stretch by Navratilova, Graf, even Austin.

I agree with a lot of this. Court had a winning record against every opponent in her era including Bueno, King. Navratilova was at times uncomfortable playing other s/ver's and I don't doubt Court would have given her a tough way to go, and I have no doubt she would have done well vs Austin or Seles. But Graf, no. I just don't Court causing Graf any trouble anywhere. I think that would be a worse match-up for court than Evert was.

 

[saintlaurent]

Hmm interesting. Could you explain why you think Court would be helpess against Graf. Graf did not like playing serve and volleyers. That is why she even had trouble with Lori McNeil, a third tier serve and volley player at best.

 

[davidjaan1982]

At the end of it all, Evert was 36-44 against Navratilova. Doubt that Court could have done much better against Navratilova. Navratilova was just a better "big occasion" player and had more self confidence than Court in my view.

Court dominated Goolagong more than Evert did (which is saying a lot as I believe Evert herself dominated Goolagong!) and I also agree that Court would have done better against Austin than Evert did.

Besides Goolagong, Court clearly dominated King, Wade and other top players too in the early '70's and that is why, to me, Evert's successes against Court during this same period stand out. Court was still good enough until 1973 at least to hold 3 of the 4 grand slams - the only exception being Wimbledon 1973 where Evert got in her way. That is why I do not agree when people diminish Evert's wins over Court through 1973 at least, when Evert herself was still some ways from her best.

Clearly, A beats B, B beats C And therefore A beats C does not hold all the time and we just need to accept that Court found Evert very difficult

 

[BTURNER]

Hmm interesting. Could you explain why you think Court would be helpess against Graf. Graf did not like playing serve and volleyers. That is why she even had trouble with Lori McNeil, a third tier serve and volley player at best.

I did not use the word 'helpless' or anything like that. You decided to put that in, to polarize this discussion. Please do not do that a second time, because a pattern of polarization is the kind of thing a troll does. I am hoping you are not one

Offhand I can't think of any s/vers who have a winning record off Graf - not Navratilova,Sukova, Mandlikova, Garrison, Mcneil, Novatna. Except for martina who is dead even at 9 apiece. They are all stuck with one, maybe two wins aren't they?. while players like Sanchez, Sabatini, and Seles, have multiple wins. I don't see the evidence for this problem you mention except S/vers could occasionally surprise her if her timing off her forehand was off.

I think Court is giving up too much of a speed deficit vs Graf. I don't think Court would be quick enough to run down the forehands time and again like Martina could and hang long enough to wait for the short ball, and I know that that Graf will be running down almost all those approaches and volleys. Margaret's forehand was her strength from the backcourt, and she won't be winning many of those exchanges and Graf's backhand slice was better than Court's imo. That leaves Court too dependent on her first serve to win points. I think Court beats her on Aussie grass more often than not, but otherwise....I think Court loses most of the matches.

 

[saintlaurent]

At the end of it all, Evert was 36-44 against Navratilova. Doubt that Court could have done much better against Navratilova. Navratilova was just a better "big occasion" player and had more self confidence than Court in my view.

Except Navratilova got to that point after going way down (21-4) early on. The thing to remember is pretty much every great was a way better player than Navratilova before she turned 25. That certainly includes Court who began winning slams at 17 and dominating at 19, vs Navratilova who won a mere 2 slams before her 25th birthday. So Court (like Evert) would take a monstrous lead against Navratilova in the head to head early. I do think prime Navratilova would have a winning record vs Court, even if they were the same age. However I suspect it would be less lopsided than Evert, who she even beat 13 times in a row at one point. Which would have enabled her to end up with a better final H2H, probably even a winning one, despite also losing more matches to prime Navratilova than winning.

 

[saintlaurent]

I did not use the word 'helpless' or anything like that. You decided to put that in, to polarize this discussion. Please do not do that a second time, because a pattern of polarization is the kind of thing a troll does. I am hoping you are not one

Offhand I can't think of any s/vers who have a winning record off Graf - not Navratilova,Sukova, Mandlikova, Garrison, Mcneil, Novatna. Except for martina who is dead even at 9 apiece. They are all stuck with one, maybe two wins aren't they?. while players like Sanchez, Sabatini, and Seles, have multiple wins. I don't see the evidence for this problem you mention except S/vers could occasionally surprise her if her timing off her forehand was off.

I think Court is giving up too much of a speed deficit vs Graf. I don't think Court would be quick enough to run down the forehands time and again like Martina could and hang long enough to wait for the short ball, and I know that that Graf will be running down almost all those approaches and volleys. Margaret's forehand was her strength from the backcourt, and she won't be winning many of those exchanges and Graf's backhand slice was better than Court's imo. That leaves Court too dependent on her first serve to win points. I think Court beats her on Aussie grass more often than not, but otherwise....I think Court loses most of the matches.

It is true no serve and volleyer has a winning record vs Steffi, but many have better ones than you expect.

McNeil and DeSwaardt had wins, and even beat (or seriously scared her) at Wimbledon, which you would not expect for such low caliber (relatively speaking) players but they play the serve and volley style, which Graf did not like to oppose, especialy on fast surfaces. Navratilova being 9-9 is not so surprising, but she is 4-1 vs Graf at the U.S Open, and nearly went 5-0 blowing a 6-3, 4-2 lead in the only loss, and that is with the final 2 matches being when Martina was past her prime and Graf now in her prime (even if the first 3 were the reverse, and Graf was having her worst year ever in the latter). Novotna became a thorn in Graf's side in 91-early 93, until the Wimbledon debacle, but then just gave up vs Graf after that. Patty Fendick, the true definition of a journeywomen on tour, took sets off Steffi in a couple matches, which given Graf's famed consistency (practically Evert like consistency through her prime) was pretty amazing for such a level player. She too was a serve and volleyer. Sabatini beat Graf 7 times out of 8 at one stretch when she added a real serve and volley/chip and charge attack to her already formidable (but not enough on its own against Steffi) baseline game.

Court liked to approach down the line. She had mastery of all of the forehand drive and backhand drive approaches down the line (both to Graf's forehand and backhand), and also the slice backhand and slice forehand down the line approaches from either side. Very few serve and volleyers approached Graf down the line. Even Navratilova who didn't even have a true forehand down the line when she played Graf, and rarely sliced her backhand down the line, could do so much. I don't think Steffi liked to pass off that approach, and that is an additional thing that would give her problems in the matchup.

Anyway I just don't see Evert doing well vs Graf prime to prime at all, so it wouldn't even be necessary to do that great to do better than Evert would IMHO. I am not implying I think Court would have a winning record vs Graf prime to prime, not even close to one in fact IMO, but Evert sure wouldn't as well, so the only question is which would do the better of the two. I think outside of probably clay and possibly very slow hard courts (which wouldnt have hardly existed if the hypothetical years were before 1988), Court would be a tougher opponent for Graf than Evert would, even if that isn't saying much.

 

[BTURNER]

It is true no serve and volleyer has a winning record vs Steffi, but many have better ones than you expect.

McNeil and DeSwaardt had wins, and even beat (or seriously scared her) at Wimbledon, which you would not expect for such low caliber (relatively speaking) players but they play the serve and volley style, which Graf did not like to oppose, especialy on fast surfaces. Navratilova being 9-9 is not so surprising, but she is 4-1 vs Graf at the U.S Open, and nearly went 5-0 blowing a 6-3, 4-2 lead in the only loss, and that is with the final 2 matches being when Martina was past her prime and Graf now in her prime (even if the first 3 were the reverse, and Graf was having her worst year ever in the latter). Novotna became a thorn in Graf's side in 91-early 93, until the Wimbledon debacle, but then just gave up vs Graf after that. Patty Fendick, the true definition of a journeywomen on tour, took sets off Steffi in a couple matches, which given Graf's famed consistency (practically Evert like consistency through her prime) was pretty amazing for such a level player. She too was a serve and volleyer. Sabatini beat Graf 7 times out of 8 at one stretch when she added a real serve and volley/chip and charge attack to her already formidable (but not enough on its own against Steffi) baseline game.

Court liked to approach down the line. She had mastery of all of the forehand drive and backhand drive approaches down the line (both to Graf's forehand and backhand), and also the slice backhand and slice forehand down the line approaches from either side. Very few serve and volleyers approached Graf down the line. Even Navratilova who didn't even have a true forehand down the line when she played Graf, and rarely sliced her backhand down the line, could do so much. I don't think Steffi liked to pass off that approach, and that is an additional thing that would give her problems in the matchup.

Anyway I just don't see Evert doing well vs Graf prime to prime at all, so it wouldn't even be necessary to do that great to do better than Evert would IMHO. I am not implying I think Court would have a winning record vs Graf prime to prime, not even close to one in fact IMO, but Evert sure wouldn't as well, so the only question is which would do the better of the two. I think outside of probably clay and possibly very slow hard courts (which wouldnt have hardly existed if the hypothetical years were before 1988), Court would be a tougher opponent for Graf than Evert would, even if that isn't saying much.

Okay I can accept most of this as reasonable - except Court, likeMaria Bueno did not have a 'backhand drive' at all. You read that right. Court never came over her backhand. King, Goolagong, Navratilova, Casals, Wade, Graf all had more variety off that wing with their one-handers than Court. She had an accurate and steady slice, just like Graf, which she used to pass with, except Graf could come over and through her backhand occasionally and she especially liked o pass people like Court with flat or topspin off the backhand wing.

Still, I see where you are coming from here.

 

[davidjaan1982]

Except Navratilova got to that point after going way down (21-4) early on. The thing to remember is pretty much every great was a way better player than Navratilova before she turned 25. That certainly includes Court who began winning slams at 17 and dominating at 19, vs Navratilova who won a mere 2 slams before her 25th birthday. So Court (like Evert) would take a monstrous lead against Navratilova in the head to head early. I do think prime Navratilova would have a winning record vs Court, even if they were the same age. However I suspect it would be less lopsided than Evert, who she even beat 13 times in a row at one point. Which would have enabled her to end up with a better final H2H, probably even a winning one, despite also losing more matches to prime Navratilova than winning.

We can cut all these numbers in various ways.... If the overall head to head is not a good enough measure, then the Evert-Navratilova head to head can be broken into 3: 30-18 for Evert before the 13 match losing streak and then 7-12 after the 13 straight losses making it 37:43 overall. Keeping the 13 match losing streak aside, I doubt Court could have led Martina 30-18 or bettered the losing 7-12 record of Evert. Of their last 19 matches, the last 3 losses for Evert came in 1988, when she was clearly past her best. Taking that away, it would really be 7-9 which is close against a "prime" Navratilova.

My point simply is that between Evert, Navratilova and Court, their head to head would be more like: Evert b Court, Navratilova b Evert, Navratilova b Court.