Who rates higher all time- Evert or Court

[saintlaurent]

While I disagree. Court, like Evert, was a WAY better player than Martina ages 17-24. So for 8 years she would have built up a huge head to head lead without question (as big or bigger than Evert did IMO). While I concede prime Martina would have had a winning record vs Court if they were the same age as prime Martina was just scary good, I don't think she would have rendered Court as helpless as she did Evert to some extent (the 13 match losing streak especialy, even if Evert pulled it back to some respectability after that to her credit). So ultimately I would see Court ending up with a better record, and quite possibly a winning one due to being able to maintain the inevitable huge early lead, which Evert was not able to do, despite prime Martina having the edge over both of them. Maybe what you mean is since we concede prime Martina would have had a clear winning record over either one, it really doesn't even matter much either way, and in which case I agree.

I do agree in 87-89 Navratilova was still in her prime (without peak Graf she still would have been totally dominating after all) and Evert no longer was, so it was a particularly good effort for Evert to score some wins in that period. Especialy at one point while arguably still in her prime (late 82-early 85) having been so far owned by peak Navratilova. That was her efforts to rebuild her game and fitness level paying off for her, even in old age.

Ultimately we will never know so it is purely conjecture, just as the head to head between prime Court and prime Evert would have been.

 

[Xavier G]

Chris Evert had the h2h lead and an immaculate ground game. Great to watch. Maggie Court might be even greater considering she won an Open era calender year Grand Slam, won more Slams, had several years where she won 3 Slams, won more tournaments, often won in singles, doubles and mixed and interrupted her career for family. Splitting hairs choosing between these two so I won't. These two are Giants of the Game and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

 

[BTURNER]

While I disagree. Court, like Evert, was a WAY better player than Martina ages 17-24. So for 8 years she would have built up a huge head to head lead without question (as big or bigger than Evert did IMO). While I concede prime Martina would have had a winning record vs Court if they were the same age as prime Martina was just scary good, I don't think she would have rendered Court as helpless as she did Evert to some extent (the 13 match losing streak especialy, even if Evert pulled it back to some respectability after that to her credit). So ultimately I would see Court ending up with a better record, and quite possibly a winning one due to being able to maintain the inevitable huge early lead, which Evert was not able to do, despite prime Martina having the edge over both of them. Maybe what you mean is since we concede prime Martina would have had a clear winning record over either one, it really doesn't even matter much either way, and in which case I agree.

I do agree in 87-89 Navratilova was still in her prime (without peak Graf she still would have been totally dominating after all) and Evert no longer was, so it was a particularly good effort for Evert to score some wins in that period. Especialy at one point while arguably still in her prime (late 82-early 85) having been so far owned by peak Navratilova. That was her efforts to rebuild her game and fitness level paying off for her, even in old age.

Ultimately we will never know so it is purely conjecture, just as the head to head between prime Court and prime Evert would have been.

You have a problem here. Martina was having trouble winning any tournaments for long spells here. She was having motivation problems in anything other than majors, so that while she could play absolutely brillinant stuff at slams, things were sliding elsewhere. As Martina herself said, " my biggest problem is getting to meet Graf". I think it was in 1987 she only won two tournaments all year even if they were the right two: Wimbledon and the US Open. She was losing to Evert, Sukova, Mandlikova, Sabatini, Garrison, Maleeva, Zvereva. By '88 her second serve became suspect to the point that even best bud Evert called her ' definitely beatable' at wimbledon and predicted a Graf victory in the final. That arrogance of a champion she had from 83-86, had definitely started to slip once Graf overtook her and everyone knew martina was vulnerable.

 

[saintlaurent]

I think Martina went in a mini slump in 88, and 87 she focused just on the slams, but in 87 slam events and 89 she was as hard to beat as ever. Without Graf she wins 89 Wimbledon, 89 U.S Open, and 89 YEC for sure, and probably 89 Australian Open too since even though Sukova beat her 7-5 in the 3rd set of the quarters (just as she did vs peakest of peak Martina's in the 84 semis) you just know in a slam final she wouldn't get it done. Heck if Graf isn't around she probably plays the French and wins that too in 89 (it is a not so hidden secret, she began avoiding slow surfaces regularly simply to avoid likely losses to Graf on them). Without Graf she wins 3 of 4 slams (keeping in mind this year she only focused on slams) and runner up in the other in 87.

I actually watched peak Martina playing the 83 and 84 Wimbledon finals on tape recently and I don't think she was even hitting the ball hard enough to have stopped even a raw Graf the way she did in the 87 Wimbledon and U.S Open finals with seemingly further increased pace in all her shorts and serve (badly needed against Graf). If anything 87 slams was the highest level I saw her reach, despite her no longer producing that day in on tour. 89 not being far off, and unlike 87 she was producing it more on the regular tour too. 88 was an off year for her, but she produced spurts of real brilliance like the 88 clay season prior to Roland Garros.

 

[BTURNER]

I think Martina went in a mini slump in 88, and 87 she focused just on the slams, but in 87 slam events and 89 she was as hard to beat as ever. Without Graf she wins 89 Wimbledon, 89 U.S Open, and 89 YEC for sure, and probably 89 Australian Open too since even though Sukova beat her 7-5 in the 3rd set of the quarters (just as she did vs peakest of peak Martina's in the 84 semis) you just know in a slam final she wouldn't get it done. Heck if Graf isn't around she probably plays the French and wins that too in 89 (it is a not so hidden secret, she began avoiding slow surfaces regularly simply to avoid likely losses to Graf on them). Without Graf she wins 3 of 4 slams (keeping in mind this year she only focused on slams) and runner up in the other in 87.

I actually watched peak Martina playing the 83 and 84 Wimbledon finals on tape recently and I don't think she was even hitting the ball hard enough to have stopped even a raw Graf the way she did in the 87 Wimbledon and U.S Open finals with seemingly further increased pace in all her shorts and serve (badly needed against Graf). If anything 87 slams was the highest level I saw her reach, despite her no longer producing that day in on tour. 89 not being far off, and unlike 87 she was producing it more on the regular tour too. 88 was an off year for her, but she produced spurts of real brilliance like the 88 clay season prior to Ro

Oh come on! This one must be agenda-driven.