Why do many consider Navratilova to be better than Court?

drwood

Professional
I was wondering why to many it seems such a foregone conclusion that Martina Navratilova was better than Margaret Court. Court won 24 slams (6 more than Martina), and I don't believe that she faced a field as deficient as Navratilova did from 1982-1986 where she won 12 of her 18 slams.

This is not a trolling thread...I would be interested to hear logical reasons for the view that Navratilova is considered by many to be better than Court...unfortunately they never played H2H until Court was 32 years old and well past her prime.
 
I dont consider Navratilova greater than Court. My female GOAT list would go as follow:

1. Graf
2. Court
3. Wills Moody
4. Evert
5. Navratilova

I know most would disagree with me though so yes most do rate Navratilova over Court. The vast majority seem to have Graf and Navratilova 1-2 or 2-1 in one order or another and Court and Evert 3-4 or 4-3 in one order or another. Only the minority of fans or experts seem to have either Court or Evert above either Graf or Navratilova.

As for why I consider Court greater than Navratilova:

-Much superior longevity. She was dominant over an 11 year span, having 2 3 slam years 11 years apart. Martina was dominant over a 4 year span, despite getting lauded for her amazing longevity since she was still competitive into a very advanced age, in terms of longevity of great play she is clearly the wost of all 5 of the women I listed.

-Superior versatility. Despite that she won Wimbledon a dissapointing 3 times if we even assume she would have won only 7 Australian Opens (with the home court advantage she probably wins atleast that even if everyone plays) she averages 5 slams for each of the grass court slams and 5 at the French. Many feel hard courts would have been her best surface had it been more prominent then. Martina is weaker on clay then all other true GOAT contenders are on their weakest surface, and probably would have been on rebound ace too (actually I think she would have been less strong on rebound ace than on clay).

Martina's consistency is also inferior in that she had more bad upset losses in slams during her time near the top, dropped to year end #3 two years in a row after becoming year end #1 in both 1980 and 1981 (and was legitimately outperformed by both Austin and Evert both years) and even briefly as low as #5 at one point in that stretch.
 
Last edited:
I was wondering why to many it seems such a foregone conclusion that Martina Navratilova was better than Margaret Court. Court won 24 slams (6 more than Martina), and I don't believe that she faced a field as deficient as Navratilova did from 1982-1986 where she won 12 of her 18 slams.

This is not a trolling thread...I would be interested to hear logical reasons for the view that Navratilova is considered by many to be better than Court...unfortunately they never played H2H until Court was 32 years old and well past her prime.

I don't think it is a foregone conclusion. Court has a record that compares to any player in history. I don't think she was very well liked by players like Billie Jean King which didn't help.

They point out that Court won eleven Australian championships out of her twenty-four majors as a major weakness in her resume. Still she won the Grand Slam in 1970, won three of four majors a number of times plus close to 200 tournament victories in her great career.

Court won approximately 63% of the tournaments she enter over her career and about 92% of her matches. That is fantastic.

You also have to take into account she left the tour due to have a baby and because she decided to retire for a short time. To return to form had to gave her a number of losses that she wouldn't have gotten if she had stayed on the tour.

Navratilova won about 167 tournaments in her great career and Court won almost 30 more. Court won almost double the amount of tournaments Graf won. The numbers are staggering. You throw in the Grand Slam in 1970 and I can't figure out why people forget about her.
 
Last edited:
Another I see with Court (besides the eleven Australian titles) not being ranked with Navratilova is that Court is essentially of the time in which television tennis was not as popular as it was during Navratilova's peak. Also Martina is more in our memory being that she was still playing in the 1990's and even several years ago was winning doubles tournaments.
 
It seems to me that the main reason people rank Court lower than one might expect is because much of her career was before the open era and a whopping 11 of her 24 slams came in Australia when back then many top players didn't show up.
 
I don't think she was very well liked by players like Billie Jean King which didn't help.
BJK probably sensed that Court considered her immoral, both for having an abortion (BJK was married, but felt a baby would harm her tennis career) and for her lesbian affairs.
 
Navratilova versus Court

I was wondering why to many it seems such a foregone conclusion that Martina Navratilova was better than Margaret Court. Court won 24 slams (6 more than Martina), and I don't believe that she faced a field as deficient as Navratilova did from 1982-1986 where she won 12 of her 18 slams.

This is not a trolling thread...I would be interested to hear logical reasons for the view that Navratilova is considered by many to be better than Court...unfortunately they never played H2H until Court was 32 years old and well past her prime.

The main argument is that Navratilova defeated players which were better in terms of skill level than Smith Court. Most critics claim that Smith-Court's opponents in most of the Australian Open wins were below standard compared to those that Navratilova or Graf defeated in the 1980's and 1990's. Also people argue that Navratilova transcends the game with what she has achieved outside the tennis court.


A good article that compares Navratilova to Smith Court and also other greats was published on the TennisWeek website.

http://www.tennisweek.com/features/fullstory.sps?inewsid=6615906

In conclusion the author states:
"Maybe it’s best I break it up into different periods since .... I would go with Lenglen over Wills for those players who played totally in the Pre-Open Era. I would go with Court over King for those players who spanned the Pre-Open Era and the Open Era. I would go with Martina Navratilova (barely) over Chris Evert and Steffi Graf for people who played in just the Open Era."

Another writer picked Navratilova as the player of the last century.
http://www.tennisserver.com/lines/lines_00_12_23.html

I have to correct you though as Court and Navratilova met 7 times at the end of Court's career. Navratilova has a 5-2 win-loss record. Here are their matches.

1975 AUSTRALIAN QF NAVRATILOVA 64 63
1975 BOSTON SF NAVRATILOVA 36 61 64
1975 US OPEN QF NAVRATILOVA 62 64
1975 CHICAGO F COURT 63 36 62
1975 WIMBLEDON SF COURT 63 64
1976 SYDNEY QF NAVRATILOVA 63 64
1977 LOS ANGELES SF NAVRATILOVA 57 64 64
 
I don't think it is a foregone conclusion. Court has a record that compares to any player in history. I don't think she was very well liked by players like Billie Jean King which didn't help.

They point out that Court won eleven Australian championships out of her twenty-four majors as a major weakness in her resume. Still she won the Grand Slam in 1970, won three of four majors a number of times plus close to 200 tournament victories in her great career.

Court won approximately 63% of the tournaments she enter over her career and about 92% of her matches. That is fantastic.

You also have to take into account she left the tour due to have a baby and because she decided to retire for a short time. To return to form had to gave her a number of losses that she wouldn't have gotten if she had stayed on the tour.

Navratilova won about 167 tournaments in her great career and Court won almost 30 more. Court won almost double the amount of tournaments Graf won. The numbers are staggering. You throw in the Grand Slam in 1970 and I can't figure out why people forget about her.

I've said it before and I'll say it until I'm blue in the face - if Margaret Court had been American there would be no doubt that she was the greatest female player in the game's history.

You also have to question the motives of people like BJK when they don't defend Court's Australian Open wins. Yes, without any doubt in the world, they were achieved against inferior opposition. Yes, without any doubt in the world, the best of the rest (and the gap between them and Court was huge) didn't play the Australian Open. HOWEVER, you have to ask the question - Why didn't they play. It wasn't because of money - there wasn't any to be had for the women until 1970 (by which time Court had won 9 Aus Opens). The very real and very simple answer is that none of them - especially BJK - were willing to travel all the way to Australia just to get thrashed by Court. The worst offender was Billie Jean. She simply refused to play Court until the odds were decidely in her favour. So she waited until 1968 when Court was playing her first event for 12 months (she retired after getting married in 67).

The reality is that, were Court American and playing her home tournament at Forest Hills, she'd have won 11 times there instead of in Australia. That the other players were scared to face her shouldn't be lessen her achievements.

That's a large part of the history that people omit, isn't it? The reason why? The people who write history make history - not the other way around. Margaret Court never says anything to defend her record and never says anything to publicise it. As a result, players like King, Evert and Navratilova, as well as the dominant media have been able to diminish it. They can't take away the matches she won but they can choose not to mention her. Or, in the case of Tennis magazine, they can find a way to rank her far lower than she deserves (not surprising given that Evert is editor).

The second problem is that Court, despite her wonderful record, is, thanks to her religious beliefs, appallingly and embarrassingly homophobic. Now, how in the hell can you reconcile that with BJK and Martina ? Is it any wonder they don't want to elevate her achievements and is it any wonder they would prefer to diminish them? How could the press keep the two of them on side if they lionised Court as the greatest of all time?

End of the day, I think you've got a choice between Court and Graf as the best of all time. Personally, I think Court's record in every single form of the game (singles, doubles, mixed) is infinitely superior (Grand Slam in singles, 2 Grand Slams in mixed).

(As to Navratilova's winning record over Court, you just can't pay much attention to it. By the time they first played Court was 33, the mother of two children and very much a part-time player. She only played 4 singles matches in 77 for one loss to Navratilova. She only played 1 singles match in 76 when Navratilova snagged another win. She played 9 events in 75 for a 2-3 record against Martina. All that proves is that you need to play more than 4 matches in a year if you want to beat a quality player )
 
I've said it before and I'll say it until I'm blue in the face - if Margaret Court had been American there would be no doubt that she was the greatest female player in the game's history.

You also have to question the motives of people like BJK when they don't defend Court's Australian Open wins. Yes, without any doubt in the world, they were achieved against inferior opposition. Yes, without any doubt in the world, the best of the rest (and the gap between them and Court was huge) didn't play the Australian Open. HOWEVER, you have to ask the question - Why didn't they play. It wasn't because of money - there wasn't any to be had for the women until 1970 (by which time Court had won 9 Aus Opens). The very real and very simple answer is that none of them - especially BJK - were willing to travel all the way to Australia just to get thrashed by Court. The worst offender was Billie Jean. She simply refused to play Court until the odds were decidely in her favour. So she waited until 1968 when Court was playing her first event for 12 months (she retired after getting married in 67).

The reality is that, were Court American and playing her home tournament at Forest Hills, she'd have won 11 times there instead of in Australia. That the other players were scared to face her shouldn't be lessen her achievements.

That's a large part of the history that people omit, isn't it? The reason why? The people who write history make history - not the other way around. Margaret Court never says anything to defend her record and never says anything to publicise it. As a result, players like King, Evert and Navratilova, as well as the dominant media have been able to diminish it. They can't take away the matches she won but they can choose not to mention her. Or, in the case of Tennis magazine, they can find a way to rank her far lower than she deserves (not surprising given that Evert is editor).

The second problem is that Court, despite her wonderful record, is, thanks to her religious beliefs, appallingly and embarrassingly homophobic. Now, how in the hell can you reconcile that with BJK and Martina ? Is it any wonder they don't want to elevate her achievements and is it any wonder they would prefer to diminish them? How could the press keep the two of them on side if they lionised Court as the greatest of all time?

End of the day, I think you've got a choice between Court and Graf as the best of all time. Personally, I think Court's record in every single form of the game (singles, doubles, mixed) is infinitely superior (Grand Slam in singles, 2 Grand Slams in mixed).

(As to Navratilova's winning record over Court, you just can't pay much attention to it. By the time they first played Court was 33, the mother of two children and very much a part-time player. She only played 4 singles matches in 77 for one loss to Navratilova. She only played 1 singles match in 76 when Navratilova snagged another win. She played 9 events in 75 for a 2-3 record against Martina. All that proves is that you need to play more than 4 matches in a year if you want to beat a quality player )

Navratilova, Evert, and King also go out of their way to try to diminish Graf also. I have no doubt the hating article of Frank DeFord was lobbied for by the Navratilova, Evert, King, Shriver, et al clique. When Graf was coming up that group would usually gather in the players box of one another whenever one played Graf, as much to root for Graf to lose as for each other to win. The Americans indeed like to keep their own players in the forefront and try and push the best foreigners aside. You see that even today with how much less attention Henin gets than a Williams, or even before Capriati and the Americanalized Sharapova.
 
I've said it before and I'll say it until I'm blue in the face - if Margaret Court had been American there would be no doubt that she was the greatest female player in the game's history.

Opinion that you really cannot prove, Agassi was American, Sampras is American, and yet so many people say either Laver, an Australian or Fed, a Swiss, is the GOAT for the men, or is this a belief that only applies to women?

The reality is that, were Court American and playing her home tournament at Forest Hills, she'd have won 11 times there instead of in Australia. That the other players were scared to face her shouldn't be lessen her achievements.

Since when does where you are born determine whether you win or not when you play someplace? Court had she been an American suddenly wins twice as many US Opens as she did otherwise? Sorry that is completely unrealistic, talent, not place of birth, determines match wins and tournament victories. As for the others being scared, can't really prove that, but if they were truly scared to face her why show up anyplace she was playing to begin with? Court won 11 Australians but only 3 Wimbledons....people didn't seem to terrified of her in London. Would she have won 11 Wimbledons if she was born in london? 11 Frenches if she was born in France? Sorry but that is a crazy statement.
 
Opinion that you really cannot prove, Agassi was American, Sampras is American, and yet so many people say either Laver, an Australian or Fed, a Swiss, is the GOAT for the men, or is this a belief that only applies to women?

Agassi is too far off GOAT candidancy to even come into play, even for any atleast semi knowledgable Americans. A surprisingly high # of Americans rated Sampras over Laver when his career was over. Federer benefits from another form of bias, the here and now one.

Since when does where you are born determine whether you win or not when you play someplace? Court had she been an American suddenly wins twice as many US Opens as she did otherwise? Sorry that is completely unrealistic, talent, not place of birth, determines match wins and tournament victories. As for the others being scared, can't really prove that, but if they were truly scared to face her why show up anyplace she was playing to begin with? Court won 11 Australians but only 3 Wimbledons....people didn't seem to terrified of her in London. Would she have won 11 Wimbledons if she was born in london? 11 Frenches if she was born in France? Sorry but that is a crazy statement.

Now this I agree with.
 
I am a fan of Court but Geez, Andrew, I don't think they scared to loose. These are players who love to compete, love a challenge. Its not like loosing in the finals of an event to Court is some shame to be avoided. It happened to them at other events they did not avoid. And frankly they were almost promised a semifinal/ final just by being in other half of the draw! What they don't like is disappearing from home to train and compete thousands of miles away at Christmas time or directly afterwords for one tournament smack in their off-season. It wasn't viewed as a make/break event for their legacy, just a damn inconvenient one for their family and personal lives. Its a long drive to the grocery store when there are Walmarts two blocks away.

Usually if you want to know why player X does not play event Y. Don't look at whther a specific opponent is playing, look at practicalities and how the event works into player X's private and professional life. Playing the Australian was a pain in the azz, with traveling pre-jet age an even bigger pain in the azz.
 
Last edited:
Navratilova, Evert, and King also go out of their way to try to diminish Graf also. I have no doubt the hating article of Frank DeFord was lobbied for by the Navratilova, Evert, King, Shriver, et al clique. When Graf was coming up that group would usually gather in the players box of one another whenever one played Graf, as much to root for Graf to lose as for each other to win. The Americans indeed like to keep their own players in the forefront and try and push the best foreigners aside. You see that even today with how much less attention Henin gets than a Williams, or even before Capriati and the Americanalized Sharapova.

grafselesfan,
Do you have a link to that article by Frank DeFord?
 
I've said it before and I'll say it until I'm blue in the face - if Margaret Court had been American there would be no doubt that she was the greatest female player in the game's history.

You also have to question the motives of people like BJK when they don't defend Court's Australian Open wins. Yes, without any doubt in the world, they were achieved against inferior opposition. Yes, without any doubt in the world, the best of the rest (and the gap between them and Court was huge) didn't play the Australian Open. HOWEVER, you have to ask the question - Why didn't they play. It wasn't because of money - there wasn't any to be had for the women until 1970 (by which time Court had won 9 Aus Opens). The very real and very simple answer is that none of them - especially BJK - were willing to travel all the way to Australia just to get thrashed by Court. The worst offender was Billie Jean. She simply refused to play Court until the odds were decidely in her favour. So she waited until 1968 when Court was playing her first event for 12 months (she retired after getting married in 67).

The reality is that, were Court American and playing her home tournament at Forest Hills, she'd have won 11 times there instead of in Australia. That the other players were scared to face her shouldn't be lessen her achievements.

That's a large part of the history that people omit, isn't it? The reason why? The people who write history make history - not the other way around. Margaret Court never says anything to defend her record and never says anything to publicise it. As a result, players like King, Evert and Navratilova, as well as the dominant media have been able to diminish it. They can't take away the matches she won but they can choose not to mention her. Or, in the case of Tennis magazine, they can find a way to rank her far lower than she deserves (not surprising given that Evert is editor).

The second problem is that Court, despite her wonderful record, is, thanks to her religious beliefs, appallingly and embarrassingly homophobic. Now, how in the hell can you reconcile that with BJK and Martina ? Is it any wonder they don't want to elevate her achievements and is it any wonder they would prefer to diminish them? How could the press keep the two of them on side if they lionised Court as the greatest of all time?

End of the day, I think you've got a choice between Court and Graf as the best of all time. Personally, I think Court's record in every single form of the game (singles, doubles, mixed) is infinitely superior (Grand Slam in singles, 2 Grand Slams in mixed).

(As to Navratilova's winning record over Court, you just can't pay much attention to it. By the time they first played Court was 33, the mother of two children and very much a part-time player. She only played 4 singles matches in 77 for one loss to Navratilova. She only played 1 singles match in 76 when Navratilova snagged another win. She played 9 events in 75 for a 2-3 record against Martina. All that proves is that you need to play more than 4 matches in a year if you want to beat a quality player )

Maybe Martina didn't start playing Court until Court was only part time, but 15 year old Chris Evert beat 28 year old Court who had just the Grand Slam the first time they met in 1970 in straight sets, and has a 9-4 record against her (4-4 through 73, Court's last big year). The only loss Chris might regret was the 73 French final, where Court's experience won it for her in three sets (it was Evert's first Slam final). Court also got two of her four wins against Evert on grass.

As for your assertion that BJK and Evert and Martina were scared to play Court, it's laughable. As has been pointed out, they didn't want to travel all the way to Australia to play what was a second rate tournament. The fact is 11 of Court's 24 Slams were in Australia, and many were against inferior competition, and one was even a walkover win in the final. Court only won three Wimbledons, the tournament ALL the top players entered, so if she was so good, why didn't she win more there? She won five US Open/Championships on grass, a healthy number to be sure, but not the overwhelming number she got in Australia.

What does impress me about Court is that she won five French Open/Championships, though to be fair to Martina the surface specialization hadn't really crept into the women's game at that point the way it did during Martina's career.
 
What does impress me about Court is that she won five French Open/Championships, though to be fair to Martina the surface specialization hadn't really crept into the women's game at that point the way it did during Martina's career.

Evonne Goolagong, Sylvia Hanika, and Kathleen Horvath were clay court specialists?
 
I've said it before and I'll say it until I'm blue in the face - if Margaret Court had been American there would be no doubt that she was the greatest female player in the game's history.

You also have to question the motives of people like BJK when they don't defend Court's Australian Open wins. Yes, without any doubt in the world, they were achieved against inferior opposition. Yes, without any doubt in the world, the best of the rest (and the gap between them and Court was huge) didn't play the Australian Open. HOWEVER, you have to ask the question - Why didn't they play. It wasn't because of money - there wasn't any to be had for the women until 1970 (by which time Court had won 9 Aus Opens). The very real and very simple answer is that none of them - especially BJK - were willing to travel all the way to Australia just to get thrashed by Court. The worst offender was Billie Jean. She simply refused to play Court until the odds were decidely in her favour. So she waited until 1968 when Court was playing her first event for 12 months (she retired after getting married in 67).

The reality is that, were Court American and playing her home tournament at Forest Hills, she'd have won 11 times there instead of in Australia. That the other players were scared to face her shouldn't be lessen her achievements.

That's a large part of the history that people omit, isn't it? The reason why? The people who write history make history - not the other way around. Margaret Court never says anything to defend her record and never says anything to publicise it. As a result, players like King, Evert and Navratilova, as well as the dominant media have been able to diminish it. They can't take away the matches she won but they can choose not to mention her. Or, in the case of Tennis magazine, they can find a way to rank her far lower than she deserves (not surprising given that Evert is editor).

The second problem is that Court, despite her wonderful record, is, thanks to her religious beliefs, appallingly and embarrassingly homophobic. Now, how in the hell can you reconcile that with BJK and Martina ? Is it any wonder they don't want to elevate her achievements and is it any wonder they would prefer to diminish them? How could the press keep the two of them on side if they lionised Court as the greatest of all time?

End of the day, I think you've got a choice between Court and Graf as the best of all time. Personally, I think Court's record in every single form of the game (singles, doubles, mixed) is infinitely superior (Grand Slam in singles, 2 Grand Slams in mixed).

(As to Navratilova's winning record over Court, you just can't pay much attention to it. By the time they first played Court was 33, the mother of two children and very much a part-time player. She only played 4 singles matches in 77 for one loss to Navratilova. She only played 1 singles match in 76 when Navratilova snagged another win. She played 9 events in 75 for a 2-3 record against Martina. All that proves is that you need to play more than 4 matches in a year if you want to beat a quality player )

So anyone who doesn't publicly endorse Martina's and Kings sexual preferences are "homophobic". I take it as a compliment.
 
Evonne Goolagong, Sylvia Hanika, and Kathleen Horvath were clay court specialists?

No, but you might argue that Evert was. There were also some other very good clay court players like Graf, Jaeger etc., women who had the patience to wear Martina down and take advantage of clay's characteristics. What I mean was the Court mainly faced other attacking players like herself.
 
So anyone who doesn't publicly endorse Martina's and Kings sexual preferences are "homophobic". I take it as a compliment.

It's not just that she doesn't endorse it; it's that she endorses ridiculous things like "reparative therapy" as something that works.
 
It's not just that she doesn't endorse it; it's that she endorses ridiculous things like "reparative therapy" as something that works.

Why wouldn't it? Homosexuality is a choice not an inborn trait. What's so ridiculous about stopping that behavior?
 
There is no proof it's an inborn trait. Margaret Court isn't a jerk. BJ King is for wanting everyone to endorse her behavior. Good for Margaret.

I don't know about BJ King but I'm gay and it is in no way something you choose, it's just who you are. If it's a choice why do many young gay people commit suicide because they've been convinced that their feelings which they cannot control are 'wrong'? I NEVER made any kind of choice.
Anyone who believes that being gay is a choice is either brainwashed by religion or simply ignorant/uneducated/unintelligent, or both.
 
I don't know about BJ King but I'm gay and it is in no way something you choose, it's just who you are. If it's a choice why do many young gay people commit suicide because they've been convinced that their feelings which they cannot control are 'wrong'? I NEVER made any kind of choice.
Anyone who believes that being gay is a choice is either brainwashed by religion or simply ignorant/uneducated/unintelligent, or both.

You're entitled to your opinion. Unfortunately you fail to respect others.
 
You're entitled to your opinion. Unfortunately you fail to respect others.

Assuming you're heterosexual, when did you make the conscious decision to be physically attracted to girls instead of guys? I, for one, don't remember making a choice, I've always had the urge for girls. And since I've been heterosexual, I can't remember once even considering that it was a decision...just not attracted to guys in that way. In short, it ain't a conscious decision that folks make.

That's just like saying folks choose to be left-handed.
 
No, but you might argue that Evert was. There were also some other very good clay court players like Graf, Jaeger etc., women who had the patience to wear Martina down and take advantage of clay's characteristics. What I mean was the Court mainly faced other attacking players like herself.

On clay, Graf played like she played on other surfaces, an aggressive all-court game. Plus, Martina only faced her once at the French Open.

As for Andrea, she wasn't a clay court specialist. Her loopy groundstrokes do not a clay court specialist make.

Yes, you could argue that Evert was a clay court specialist. But, if you're going to argue that, why not argue that Martina was just a grass court specialist.

The concept of "clay court specialist" only really makes sense in the men's game where there are players who spend most of year playing clay court events (less so now I think) and thus develop games that are not fully competitive on other surfaces. Think the years of Muster, Brugera, and Coria/Gaudio.

On the women's side, one can't really tell the difference because one type of game works just as easily on any surface with a few adjustments. If there was ever a period when there were clay court specialists on the women's tour, it was not Martina's era, but Steffi's with Sabatini, the early Sanchez, and Martinez.
 
Last edited:
Why wouldn't it? Homosexuality is a choice not an inborn trait. What's so ridiculous about stopping that behavior?

Why do you assume Heterosexuality is an inborn trait?

Ever heard of the Kinsey scale?

Kinsey showed that there was no such thing as absolute heterosexuality.
 
No, but you might argue that Evert was. There were also some other very good clay court players like Graf, Jaeger etc., women who had the patience to wear Martina down and take advantage of clay's characteristics. What I mean was the Court mainly faced other attacking players like herself.

Court faced Nancy Richey, Ann Jones, and Lesley Turner for many years on clay. These were players who definitely specialized on clay and were darn good on it. Richey was even owning a young Evert on clay then at 33 years old nearly snapped Evert's long clay streak when she led her 7-6, 5-1, 40-15 at a clay court event in the U.S before Evert rallies so she especialy was no slouch. Ann Jones was considered much better on clay than grass yet was still good enough to beat King and Court back to back once to win Wimbledon even on grass. I would venture to suggest these women were easily better than the likes of Jaeger on clay or even a pre pubescent Graf (other than 87 and 88, the last 2 years Martina even played the French other than 94). Yeah Evert was an outstanding clay courter of course but other than her Martina faced hardly any on clay, Hana I guess was pretty good on clay too. If one counts Graf and Sabatini than you might as well count Evert and Goolagong for Court then also.

The only way Martina was quite unlucky on clay was to face the great Evert on it. That is it. Other than that she faced an overall very shallow clay court field and at times shot herself in the foot by losing to people like Hanika and Horvath there in her prime years, and by not even playing it in years like 79 and 80 when people were starting to play the French again.
 
Last edited:
Oh, Baloney. No one has a monopoly on this board. If you want to agree with King/Navratilova it's your right to say so. I agree with Margaret Court.

Riiiiiiight, well you seem to like the Williams sisters, so if I posted on these boards saying that the 'immoral' Williams sisters and their black existence should be stopped, you'd say to me 'that's your right to say so'. I don't think so.
BTW that is in no way my real viewpoint, just being hypothetical. And both are things that you cannot change and are just part of who you are.
"Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood. This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group." - Coretta Scott King
 
Riiiiiiight, well you seem to like the Williams sisters, so if I posted on these boards saying that the 'immoral' Williams sisters and their black existence should be stopped, you'd say to me 'that's your right to say so'. I don't think so.
BTW that is in no way my real viewpoint, just being hypothetical. And both are things that you cannot change and are just part of who you are.
"Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood. This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group." - Coretta Scott King

Once again your opinion and you are entitled to it
 
The 3 female GOATS are Graf, Serena, and Venus. Who cares who is better between Court and Navratilova, it is battling amongst minnows anyway.
 
I am a heterosexual male and I am very disturbed by Court's stance on the homosexual issue -- and think she's absolutely crazy and wrong in all her thoughts and actions regarding this.

If 99% of the human race became homosexual, like a plague suddenly we might have that discussion about what's going on with that. Now I only see problems with this silly debate to say the least.

I have several gay friends and I find questioning their sexual orientation to be none of my business and discriminating if I would. I have absolutely no problem with homosexuals. I have a problem with people who try to make homosexuality a problem.

Logically -- everything is not proven yet -- so to aggressively propagate against homosexuality is presuming it is wrong and that that fact is proven -- which it isn't. End of story. If you're convinced of something that's not been proven beyond reasonable doubt -- YOU ARE UNREASONABLE and therefore dangerous and harmful to society.

Homosexuality is in practically every life-form. It's natural. AND no swans are extinct yet.

There's an overwhelming amount of biological, scientific proof in existence of the thesis that homosexuality IS NOT A CHOICE WHATSOEVER.

Among other things:

Biological differences in gay men and lesbians

[edit]Physiological
Recent studies have found notable differences between the physiology of gay people and non-gay people. There is evidence that:

The VIP SCN nucleus of the hypothalmus is larger in men than in women, and larger in gay men than in heterosexual men.[47]
Gay men and straight women have, on average, larger right brain hemispheres. Lesbian women and straight men have, on average, larger left brain hemispheres. [48]
The average size of the INAH-3 in the brains of gay men is approximately the same size as INAH 3 in women, which is significantly smaller, and the cells more densely packed, than in heterosexual men's brains.[5]
The suprachiasmatic nucleus was found by Swaab and Hopffman to be larger in gay men than in non-gay men,[49] the suprachiasmatic nucleus is also known to be larger in men than in women.[50]
The anterior commissure is larger in women than men and was reported to be larger in gay men than in non-gay men,[51] but a subsequent study found no such difference.[52]
Gay men report, on an average, slightly longer and thicker penises than non-gay men.[53][54]
Gay men's brains respond differently to fluoxetine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor.[55]
The functioning of the inner ear and the central auditory system in lesbians and bisexual women are more like the functional properties found in men than in non-gay women (the researchers argued this finding was consistent with the prenatal hormonal theory of sexual orientation).[56]
The startle response (eyeblink following a loud sound) is similarly masculinized in lesbians and bisexual women.[57]
Three regions of the brain (medial prefrontal cortex, left hippocampus, and right amygdala) are more active in gay men than non-gay men when exposed to sexually arousing material.[58]
Gay and non-gay people emit different underarm odors.[59]
Gay and non-gay people's brains respond differently to two human sex pheromones (AND, found in male armpit secretions, and EST, found in female urine).[60][61][62]
Finger length ratios between the index and ring fingers may be different between non-gay and lesbian women.[56][63][64][65][66][67]
Gay men and lesbians are significantly more likely to be left-handed or ambidextrous than are non-gay men and women;[68][69][70] Simon LeVay argues that because "[h]and preference is observable before birth[71]... [t]he observation of increased non-right-handness in gay people is therefore consistent with the idea that sexual orientation is influenced by prenatal processes," perhaps heredity.[5]
A study of 50 gay men found 23% had counterclockwise hair whirl, as opposed to 8% in the general population. This may correlate with left-handedness.[72]
Gay men have increase ridge densitiy in the fingerprints on their left thumbs and pinkies.[72]
Length of limbs and hands of gay men is smaller compared to height than the general population, but only among white men.[72]
[edit]Cognitive
Recent studies suggest the presence of subtle differences in the way gay people and non-gay people process certain kinds of information. Researchers have found that:

Gay men[73] and lesbians are more verbally fluent than heterosexuals of the same sex[74][75][76] (but two studies did not find this result).[77][78]
Gay men may receive higher scores than non-gay men on tests of object location memory (no difference was found between lesbians and non-gay women).[79]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Pheromone_studies
 
Last edited:
That said -- with regard to Margret Court's personal opinions on homosexuality and as repulsive as I do think her views are -- I am proud of the fact that it doesn't for second influence me in my views that I think she was an amazingly wonderful tennis-player who's prowess on the famous rectangle was hypnotically great and I do enjoy watching her matches immensely -- and IMO she could very well be the GOAT...
 
Last edited:
Martina had to deal with Evert. How many GS's martina would have had if Evert wasn't in the way is anyones guess. Same could be said for Evert's total.

The whole ERA doesn't have to be strong, you need only one person to get in the way, like a Martina and Evert rivalry.
 
That said -- with regard to Margret Court's personal opinions on homosexuality and as repulsive as I do think her views are -- I am proud of the fact that it doesn't for second influence me in my views that I think she was an amazingly wonderful tennis-player who's prowess on the famous rectangle was hypnotically great and I do enjoy watching her matches immensely -- and IMO she could very well be the GOAT...

I embrace her opinions and am glad she has voiced them at the expense of her reputation.
 
Martina had to deal with Evert. How many GS's martina would have had if Evert wasn't in the way is anyones guess. Same could be said for Evert's total.

The whole ERA doesn't have to be strong, you need only one person to get in the way, like a Martina and Evert rivalry.

Which is why I rate Evert above Graf in the GOAT debate and generally flip flop between Evert and Navratilova as the best ever.
 
I embrace her opinions and am glad she has voiced them at the expense of her reputation.

Yeah we get it, you now love Margaret Court and can hate gay people together. I'm very happy for you.

That said -- with regard to Margret Court's personal opinions on homosexuality and as repulsive as I do think her views are -- I am proud of the fact that it doesn't for second influence me in my views that I think she was an amazingly wonderful tennis-player who's prowess on the famous rectangle was hypnotically great and I do enjoy watching her matches immensely -- and IMO she could very well be the GOAT...

I agree with you, her personality is a reflection on Margaret Court the person, which is a separate issue. This thread is about Margaret Court the tennis player. I still think Graf is GOAT and Navratilova 2nd... I always put Evert 3rd but there's definitely an argument for ranking Court higher. I think a better title of this thread would be 'Why do many consider Evert to be better than Court' because I think that really could stir some interesting debates.
 
I agree with you, her personality is a reflection on Margaret Court the person, which is a separate issue. This thread is about Margaret Court the tennis player. I still think Graf is GOAT and Navratilova 2nd... I always put Evert 3rd but there's definitely an argument for ranking Court higher. I think a better title of this thread would be 'Why do many consider Evert to be better than Court' because I think that really could stir some interesting debates.

We actually had a poll a while back debating that very thing...I tried searching for it but I can't find it for some reason...unless I am just failing at using the search option today lol.
 
1. I find it difficult to choose between Graf, Court, and Navratilova; all three had such impressive careers that it probably comes down to one's specific definition of "greatest". One factor that I don't think has been mentioned in the thread was the influence that Navratilova's total commitment to maximizing her potential had on the rest of the WTA; it would certainly be a factor in her favor.

2. I'm pretty sure that outside of a few radical circles in which published research has traditionally been burned rather than read, the question of whether homosexuality was an individual choice was settled a long time ago.

The real cutting-edge psych research these days is on the correlation between homophobia and thread-jacking...
 
Martina had to deal with Evert. How many GS's martina would have had if Evert wasn't in the way is anyones guess. Same could be said for Evert's total.

Martina only lost out on 4 grand slams to Evert. Even with the stabbing to the unfortunate Seles, Graf lost out on nearly as many to Seles alone (3) or a prime Martina alone when Graf wasnt yet in her prime (3). Even without Evert ever existing Martina would only have 22 slams, the same as Graf, and her competition would really be a joke now during her 82-86 reign which dr.wood referred to. That argument is a far better one for Evert than Navratilova who did actually lose out on alot more slams to Martina. When Martina was the best, Evert herself was still so good that almost always only Martina could stop Evert (until Graf began to emerge as a threat in 86). When Evert was the best Goolagong at first, later Austin, and for awhile even aging King and Wade, were better players at the time than Navratilova while many others could upset her in slams.
 
Last edited:
Martina only lost out on 4 grand slams to Evert. Even with the stabbing to the unfortunate Seles, Graf lost out on nearly as many to Seles alone (3) or a prime Martina alone when Graf wasnt yet in her prime (3). Even without Evert ever existing Martina would only have 22 slams, the same as Graf, and her competition would really be a joke now during her 82-86 reign which dr.wood referred to. That argument is a far better one for Evert than Navratilova who did actually lose out on alot more slams to Martina. When Martina was the best, Evert herself was still so good that almost always only Martina could stop Evert (until Graf began to emerge as a threat in 86). When Evert was the best Goolagong at first, later Austin, and for awhile even aging King and Wade, were better players at the time than Navratilova while many others could upset her in slams.

Hmm. Well, Chris lost to Martina in the following Slams:

78 Wimbledon F
79 Wimbledon F
81 US Open SF
81 Australian F
82 Wimbledon F
83 US Open F
84 French F
84 Wimbledon F
84 US Open F
85 Wimbledon F
85 Australian F
87 French SF
87 Wimbledon SF
88 Wimbledon SF

That's 10 finals and 4 semis. Of those 10 finals, I think Martina was the only one who could have stopped Chris. Tracy might have been able to stop Chris at the 81 US Open if Chris had beaten Martina, but it was 50-50. The 87 French against Graf would have been tough, as would the Wimbledon. However, by 88 Graf was clearly the better player. Let's call that 11 more possible Slams for Chris without Martina.

Now, while Chris didn't beat Martina in as many finals, she did beat Martina quite often, and stopped Martina from winning.

75 French F
75 US Open SF
76 Wimbledon SF
80 Wimbledon SF
82 Australian F
85 French F
86 French F
88 Australian SF

Of those, Martina would probably have won the French in 75, had a good chance at Wimbledon in 76 and 80, and would have won the Aussie in 82 and French in 85-86. That's six more possible Slams for Martina without Chris.
 
Hmm. Well, Chris lost to Martina in the following Slams:

78 Wimbledon F
79 Wimbledon F
81 US Open SF
81 Australian F
82 Wimbledon F
83 US Open F
84 French F
84 Wimbledon F
84 US Open F
85 Wimbledon F
85 Australian F
87 French SF
87 Wimbledon SF
88 Wimbledon SF

That's 10 finals and 4 semis. Of those 10 finals, I think Martina was the only one who could have stopped Chris. Tracy might have been able to stop Chris at the 81 US Open if Chris had beaten Martina, but it was 50-50. The 87 French against Graf would have been tough, as would the Wimbledon. However, by 88 Graf was clearly the better player. Let's call that 11 more possible Slams for Chris without Martina.

Now, while Chris didn't beat Martina in as many finals, she did beat Martina quite often, and stopped Martina from winning.

75 French F
75 US Open SF
76 Wimbledon SF
80 Wimbledon SF
82 Australian F
85 French F
86 French F
88 Australian SF

Of those, Martina would probably have won the French in 75, had a good chance at Wimbledon in 76 and 80, and would have won the Aussie in 82 and French in 85-86. That's six more possible Slams for Martina without Chris.

I dont think Martina had a good chance of winning Wimbledon 76 without Chris at all. Goolagong was a very strong World #2 at the time, a better player than Martina at the time, owned Martina head to head at the time, and of course also a grass courter. The head to head between Martina and Goolagong was 10-4 for Goolagong and Goolagong went 4-0 vs Martina in 1976. Their only previous slam meeting in the 75 Australian Open final Marina was slammed by Goolagong 6-3, 6-2, and Martina was probably playing better in 75 than she was in 76. Evert actually played a pretty poor semifinal vs Martina, even Chris herself said so, and still managed to win in 3 sets. Martina had to come from 4-1 in the 3rd set to beat Sue Barker in the quarters. Many even favored Goolagong to beat Evert on grass at the time but Evert was able to pull out the final 8-6 in the 3rd for her first ever win over Evonne on grass. Martina wasnt even in as good a shape in 76 as 75 and 77, and in those years she lost 33 year old Court and Betty Stove at Wimbledon. Two years later Martina beat Goolagong in the 78 Wimbledon semis in 3 tough sets with Evonne injured at the end when Evonne was nowhere near the player she was in 76 and Martina was far better than she was in 76. Martina's chance to beat Goolagong in the 76 Wimbledon final if she even reached it without Evert? Probably 15% at most, and she was not even completely certain at the time to beat Wade, Barker (as their quarterfinal showed), and perhaps 1 or 2 others.

Wimbledon 1980 is much more possible of course. However Martina was badly out of shape in 1980 in midst of her Rita Mae slump so who knows. Who knows what the draw looks like with Evert out but any of Goolagong, Austin, or Mandlikova would have been a threat to beat her in her shape at the time. At the Australian Open later that year on grass she went out to Wendy Turnbull in the quarters, an event won by young Hana, and young Hana took Martina out at the U.S Open in the round of 16. At Wimbledon itself Martina had to go to 10-8 in the 3rd to beat a 36 year old Billie Jean King, and just before Wimbledon had lost on grass at Eastborne to a 34 year old Betty Stove. All things considered I would still guess it was more unlikely than likely she wins that years Wimbledon without Chris.

I also dont think it is certain she would have won the 86 French without Chris. With Chris out the draw changes and the big upset of Graf going out to Hana (now a top 4 seed) in the quarters doesnt happen. It is very possible Graf wins the title now. She thrashed Martina on clay that year, and nearly beat her in the U.S Open on hard courts later that year, so she was certainly a big threat to Martina at that years French if they played. Remember Graf came into that years French on a 4 tournament win streak on clay including straight set wins over both Martina and Chris in tournament finals. Sukova was points from beating Martina in the semis also. Hana always seemed to play Martina tough in the big events if they met head to head.

So no way do I see 6 more slams for Martina without Chris. Somewhere from 3 to 5, 4 seems like a good estimate though.

As for Chris I dont think Chris was ever going to beat Steffi in a slam final in 87. Graf never lost to Chris after her first win over her in Spring 86 and only lost one more set. Austin overall still owned Evert around the time of the 81 U.S Open despite Chris beating Tracy in the 1980 U.S Open. Still that is the only one she had a shot of her semifinal losses IMO. I agree that all the final losses to Martina it was hard to see anyone else beating Martina in those 10 though.

Either way you see my point. Evert suffered alot more by being stopped by Martina at her peak much more than vice versa. Hence why I said that applies to Chris much more than it does to Martina.
 
Last edited:
1. I find it difficult to choose between Graf, Court, and Navratilova; all three had such impressive careers that it probably comes down to one's specific definition of "greatest". One factor that I don't think has been mentioned in the thread was the influence that Navratilova's total commitment to maximizing her potential had on the rest of the WTA; it would certainly be a factor in her favor.

2. I'm pretty sure that outside of a few radical circles in which published research has traditionally been burned rather than read, the question of whether homosexuality was an individual choice was settled a long time ago.

The real cutting-edge psych research these days is on the correlation between homophobia and thread-jacking...

Wrong.....
 
Back
Top