D
Deleted member 60695
Guest
Strange Society in that people are willing to make excuses for a pedophile while hanging drawing and quartering somebody for having a opinion they don't happen to like.
Why is court so underrated?
- Thread starter Tristanwirtz
- Start date
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Many people don't consider abortion to be murder, so would take offence at the statement "deliberately kills her child".
D
Deleted member 60695
Guest
Incorrect opinions don't change reality.
NonP
Legend
These "people" don't need such "help," and the reason why a vanishingly small minority "ask for" it in the first place is because you and your ilk continue to view fluid gender identity as a sickness or worse a sin and the ostracized "people" try to conform despite their God-given (take that) biology. Not to mention you're completely confused about whose rights are at the risk of being violated whenever Court goes on her latest anti-LGBT rant.
I expected you to beat around the bush and give you credit for your candor, but aren't you one of those let's-stick-to-sports guys? Correct me if I'm wrong but if so it's not relevant at all what BJK or anyone decided to do with her pregnancy.
Besides it's not so clear that a woman who undergoes an abortion is necessarily less hampered on court than one who carries her fetus to full term, especially when you accept (and you do, given your pro-life stance) that the former woman may come to regret it and suffer profound psychological harm and particularly in this case where King was under undue pressure as a bisexual woman who knew, despite the obvious love between the two, that her marriage with Larry was a sham. You simply assumed that motherhood overrides such concerns because, most likely, your bias prevented you from considering them in the first place.
As to your questions abortion is indeed a very complex issue that deserves to be hashed out in a different forum. Let me just say that as a consistent pro-lifer myself I do think there's something in the argument that abortion is killing but not murder, and I don't think it helpful to shame the majority of women who carefully weigh all the options before making a very difficult choice. IMO the abortion war will need to be won on the cultural rather than legal front and the hardliners do more harm than good, especially when we've got a most golden opportunity at this moment as various polls suggest that the millennials surprisingly lean more pro-life than the boomers.
No beef here but that doesn't refute my main point that Court for all her dominance never reached Fischer's otherworldly peak. It's no accident that just about the highest superlative you can bestow on any player or achievement in chess is "Fischeresque."
That's certainly a popular myth, that serious fans are able to block out all the white noise when it comes to their favorite sport/game, but I've got news for you: nobody can, not even the most sophisticated connoisseurs, and those who claim otherwise are simply being disingenuous or fooling themselves. Hell, you implicitly acknowledge it yourself when you say "[t]the Cold War scenario gave him and chess a nice popularity boost." Just imagine how many budding and future players took up the game seriously after Fischer's historic triumph, and if you think their assessment of his legacy isn't in the slightest colored by the reverence they held for him I say you're dreaming.
I don't wanna get too sidetracked here but like you said Fischer has the results if not the long-term consistency to back up his GOAT candidacy. When you study his justly celebrated Game of the Century as a 13-year-old, his game 13 vs. Spassky in the '72 championship or his classic My 60 Memorable Games you can see that there was a singularly rare mind at work behind all the nuttiness. Certainly didn't hurt his romantic reputation as a lone-wolf genius in the popular imagination.
Venus I agree is going too far but BJK isn't far-fetched at all given all she has done for the sport. In fact it's quite arguable that she's the most important player in tennis history. (FYI she ain't my choice. I've long maintained that if there's a single GOAT in tennis her name is Martina Navratilova.)
Stretchy Man
Professional
When the hottest social issue was equal rights for women, she got humiliated by a 55 year old man with poor eye sight. She has never been forgiven for that. 
It is not up to anyone else to decide if they should get help, it is their decision alone...unbelievable that anyone should challenge this fundamental human right of self determination, incredible. And unacceptable in a free society.
No, these people would not approach her looking for assistance if they were perfectly happy with someone else's idea of what is right for them...
ttwarrior1
Hall of Fame
7. Navratilova, this guy a troll
Whatever 'social' significance others place on this match or the subsequent King/ Riggs match, in effect it was nothing more than an a very hyped exhibition match and it deserves as much serious attention as we provide other exhibition matches. That means almost nil. Courts standing as a professional women's tennis player is not determined by how she handles a spectacle involving an aging attention-seeking has-been. It is determined by how she handles other women on the women's tournament tour and in Federation cup, just like every other GOAT candidate.When the hottest social issue was equal rights for women, she got humiliated by a 55 year old man with poor eye sight. She has never been forgiven for that.
BorgTheGOAT
G.O.A.T.
Sorry but no way. Court is light years above King. There isn’t even a question. And even if we somehow (which I definitely don’t) exclude Court from the debate because we dont like her opinions, there are several others who are light years ahead of King (Serena, Graf, Evert, Navratilova). King has no business being in any female GOAT debate as Jim Courier has no business being in any GOAT debate.
BorgTheGOAT
G.O.A.T.
Completely agreed. Society has gone absolutely mad. I never understand why people get so outraged about Court. Just ignore her and keep on with your life. It is not that Court had any power to do some real harm. There are a lot of stupid hateful people out there but you will never change their thinking anyways and in the end we have freedom of speech.
I like and respect Court as a player, but I simply cannot let this post slide unanswered. Court, who as a Pastor endorses and promotes 'conversion therapy' for gay youth and their parents, not only has the power to do some real harm, she undoubtedly already has! There are reasons why every reputable professional and clinical organisation from the AMA, to the APA, has taken a formal position against this form of 'treatment' for minors. There is no room for vacillating or equivocating here. It is just plain irresponsible to send any qualified or mixed signals on this issue contrary to so many professional voices when parents in her flock actively seek her counsel on how to handle this issue in a young Christian teen or preteen.
Last edited:
This is not about parents "in her flock", but individuals approaching her for assistance themselves.
People have a right to self determination, although personal freedom is a right which some people are offended by, in some "flocks".
Last edited:
NonP
Legend
Nobody's right of self-determination is being violated here except in your addled mind, as anyone is free to get whatever kind of "help" he/she needs. Your tiny problem is that even in the US free speech isn't an absolute right, as the First Amendment doesn't protect you from being tried for engaging in outright fraud. And outright fraud is exactly what your and Pastor Court's favorite "conversion therapy" is, despite your quixotically tireless efforts to contradict the overwhelming consensus within the scientific community (gee I'm feeling deja vu here).
And you still don't get the difference between legal force and social sanction. I'd bother to elaborate if I had the slightest hope of changing your sclerotic mind, but I know better.
I agree that's a lame attempt on their part but their sentiment is valid. That said I actually think they don't go far enough, or fail to see the forest for the trees at any rate. As we saw in the recent fallout from human rights icon Aung San Suu Kyi's thoroughly contemptible refusal to stand up for her country's Rohingya minorities while they are being persecuted on her own watch, it's highly unwise to hold up any individual as worthy of our reverence. And here we can take our cue from, of all places, the stodgy All-England Club.
Wimbledon may have its share of flaws but I absolutely love the fact that none of its courts are dedicated to anyone. (That, and its being free of ads. Hell, I even like the all-white rule to an extent.) After all why do we have these dedications in the first place? "Centre Court" is a perfectly fine name for the most hallowed grounds in tennis. So are the nondescript descriptors of No. 1 Court, No. 2, etc. Is anyone seriously bothered by the fact that none of these courts bear the names of Perry, Wade or, for the love of gawd, Henman? If not why not go this perfectly reasonable and noncontroversial route for the remaining tennis tournaments and leave the vanity legacies to the corporate world (which of course includes the so-called nonprofits)?
Our point of disagreement is that you think these rankings should be based on tangible achievements only while I prefer to take a more all-encompassing view. To me the kind of bean counting used in most GOAT rankings is utterly uninteresting and a complete waste of time.
I'll also add that King's got a decent collection of hardware herself, certainly not comparable to the like of Courier or even Venus (with all due respect to both).
That's the stock retort to any valid criticism of Court's off-court activities, that she's about as relevant as the Westboro Baptist Church to our society. Of course the difference between the two is that one has a major stadium at one of her sport's four major tournaments named in her honor while the other is roundly denounced as an extreme fringe group. (That's not counting the serious harm she has inflicted on an admittedly small yet real flock of followers and their associates, as BTURNER has already pointed out.) In short the tennis community cannot possibly claim to support inclusivity with a straight face while they continue to ignore this inconvenient truth.
BTW Megan Phelps-Roper, a grandchild of the late WBC leader Fred Phelps, has left the "church" along with three of her siblings and shared in public how some of her previous targets managed to disarm her with humor and compassion and eventually allow her to see the error of her ways. I say we should focus our efforts on persuading these members of our community and less on defending the indefensible like Court's retrograde views.
No, no, no, you don't understand. Instead of supporting everyone's right to be treated equally we're "hanging drawing and quartering somebody for having a opinion they don't happen to like" (an early candidate for Hysterical Rhetoric of the Year) while eviscerating the LGBT community's "right to self determination." Time to live and let live, bro!
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Whose opinion is incorrect?
BorgTheGOAT
G.O.A.T.
Even if I don’t agree I can see your point. But even taking other things than pure achievements into account a difference of 12 slams is just way to much to overcome. This is basically a Djokovic career and also Serena and Graf are way above her. Besides I fail to understand what off-court achievements make King so special? The battle of sexes was a circus exhibition which most likely was rigged. Even if it wasn’t, what exactly is proven if the best female player in the world at the peak of her powers is beating a 55 year old has-been? I never found King being a particularly nice person who should be praised by everyone. Agassi was way more popular than Sampras for most of his career. After his career he did a lot for charity while sampras mostly stayed away from the public. Regardless nobody in his right mind would ever consider Agassi being the greater tennis player of the two.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
I agree with this. BJK is too far away from the true female GOAT contenders in achievements to be ranked ahead of them as a tennis player due to her additional formidable social accomplishments. It's almost like stating that Arthur Ashe is a male GOAT candidate due to his pioneering work for racial equality in tennis (not quite that extreme, but you get my point).
No one should be criticized for exercising their inherent rights of personal self determination...and they do not need others to tell them what they should be doing.
Court has stated that she has performed marriage ceremonies for former gays...so this offends some pseudo-scientific ramblings of some literature...so what?
People have to stand up for themselves and demand their rights to self-determination, and not be distracted by overwrought hyperbole from bystanders.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
I don't even know what "former gays" means. Do they go to 12 step programs and admit they are powerless over gay feelings?
I have not seen an explication of Court's program, assuming that she uses one.
Tristanwirtz
New User
Totally agree. And these are the kind of double standards I see constantly applied to someone like Court while conversely not applied in anywhere near the same way to a far more popular player (eg- Navratilova, King, even Serena). I have already noted Court's doubles success is ignored too by the same people who build up Navratilova through doubles. Peoples agendas are plainly obvious.
Tristanwirtz
New User
Well most today have her 3rd or 4th. 7th is almost the same distance from that as 1st like you probably have her, so by even that logic you are as much a troll as me automatically. I am one the only ones who rates Navratilova properly (somewhere from 5th to 8th) while most overrate her (mainly putting her 3rd or 4th best ever) due to her self promoting propoganda campaign since her retirement, the number of close friends she has high in tennis's elite circle of influence (Mary Man-rillo, Hagela Shriver, King, McEnroe, Austin, even the modest and constant self lowballing Evert) who work tirelessly to twist every narrative they can to build her up further and lowball those who spurned them or who they dislike (eg- Court, Graf), and the purposely overrating her for political correctness purposes in the liberalized modern society due to her being a lesbian. That and lastly since the 13 win streak vs Evert sticks in peoples minds a lot and tends to inflate her. When people forget: a)greatness and overall quality as a player isnt just about peak level play, where Martina is probably top 4, but overall careers. b)Evert was far from her career best level in 83-84, while Martina was hands down at hers, and even more importantly Chris was still playing with a wood racquet vs Martina with a graphite for about 10 of those 13 matches, LOL! c)Evert is naturally an extremely good match up for Navratilova, which both admit. In fact as I already noted Martina said herself at her peak form, young Graf, Mandlikova, and even Sukova (yes Sukova believe it or not) are tougher opponents for her than Evert just due to Chris's playing style fitting right into her game. That and one legitimate reason, that she is probably the GOAT of one place- Wimbledon, and Wimbledon prestige tends to overwhelm all else in the public eye.
The more amazing feat is not Martina's 13 match win streak, but Evert managing a 37-43 lifetime record vs Martina as the older player, when they met far more often on faster surfaces which favored Martina and far less on slower surfaces where Martina was either losing pre finals 70% of her career or avoiding playing altogether outside of usually showing up for RG, and with the bad match up against her.
Last edited:
BorgTheGOAT
G.O.A.T.
Martina’s double success is mostly brought up to somehow give her an edge over Graf as it is otherwise really difficult to argue against the latter having four more slams, more weeks at No.1, golden slam etc. Since Graf played roughly in the same era the attempt of discrediting slams due to allegedly weak competition (as it is tried with Court’s AO), doesn’t work so well either. However, as you already said Court’s success in doubles and mixed doubles is every bit as impressive as Martina’s but conveniently ignored by the usual suspects. Anyways, in my opinion when talking about the GOAT we should only talk single achievements. Doubles is a complete different competition and to few players took it seriously to really make a difference here. In any case, based on achievements, Martina cannot be GOAT with or without doubles.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
I guess I mildly disagree.
Whereas I believe that working for social issues or humanitarian causes, or conversely doing “evil” things or working to promote negative, repressive ideologies is a separate matter, and thus should not be taken into consideration when ranking players, tennis is . . . tennis. Tennis accomplishments are tennis accomplishments. Doubles is tennis, IMO.
I think one can discuss a singles GOAT, then one should bring in only singles accomplishments.
But one can also discuss a doubles GOAT, then doubles is relevant. Doubles is certainly a different competition, but not a different game.
If one wishes to conclude a sole, ultimate THE GOAT, then any and all tennis playing accomplishments are relevant, IMHO.
Last edited:
BorgTheGOAT
G.O.A.T.
Fair point and I can completely understand. However what I find difficult is how to value doubles then. Martina had 31 doubles slams which if you translate this 1:1 into singles would be out if this world. On the other hand many players never bothered playing doubles and especially today almost no great single player ever participates in it let alone mixed doubles (Serena being the exception here). So how do we have to take doubles success into account? Shall we value doubles slams half as important as singles? Shall we only use them as a tie breaker if single achievements are the same? Another problem I have is that in doubles and mixed doubles things can depend to a high extent on the Partner you are playing with such that we move a little in the direction of team sport where winning or loosing does not depend solely on you anymore (the same problem I have when rating Davis Cup titles in GOAT debates). What for example if Federer loved to play doubles but cannot find a good partner who is willing to play with him (best he can convince would be a guy around No 100 in the world), while at the same time Murray and Djokovic who are good friends would team up and play in the doubles competition. In such scenario, Federer wouldn’t get much success in doubles but it would be difficult to hold that against him. Anyways, no matter how we value doubles or not, there is no way to put Martina ahead of Court in any GOAT debate as their success in doubles is roughly the same.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Yes. Translating (measuring, evaluating) is not easy.
One thing I find discouraging and unpersuasive (this is not directed at you per se), is that because doubles is not popular or fashionable among current players (most of whom want to concentrate on singles), it is discounted, ignored, or devalued.
I don’t believe in letting present fashion or current popularity dictate objective thinking.
Last edited:
BorgTheGOAT
G.O.A.T.
It is indeed to bad that nobody plays doubles anymore. However we put emphasis on it, it has to be applied consistently between players. If we rate Navrátilová higher because of doubles we have to do the same for Court and Serena. I sometimes observe that the very same people who use doubles to argue Martina > Graf at the same time claim that Graf > Serena because she leads her in every category apart from slams (deliberately and conveniently ignoring Serena’s double slams as in this particular case it suits their agenda).
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
True. And very true.
davidjaan1982
New User
I do think that Margaret Court is an all time great based on her grand slam record and overall achievements. I also rate her ahead of Billie Jean King in any all time list. I am not a big fan though because of some bad losses - the one against Riggs and several against a young Chris Evert in particular. Evert always said that she found Court predictable and yet Court didn’t try too many variations against Evert.
BorgTheGOAT
G.O.A.T.
An ATG goes without saying, even Venus is close to an ATG. As for bad losses, the loss against Riggs is not really a bad loss. It was one single match and it was just a glorified exhibition with nothing at stake. This would be like undermining Fed’s career for his loss against Nadal on the half grass half clay surface. Apart from that in the match against Riggs Court wasn’t the favourite to win, so nothing bad about that loss. As for Evert, she is considerably younger than Court.
SeeItHitIt
Professional
When the hottest social issue was equal rights for women, she got humiliated by a 55 year old man with poor eye sight. She has never been forgiven for that.
...and had Bobby not been given enough $, BJK would have been flamed too. Looks like solid 3.5 tennis though.
D
Deleted member 60695
Guest
Quite simple. It means they were practicing homosexuals, and now are not.
Legend of Borg
G.O.A.T.
how can one become a former "practicing homosexual"?
it doesnt work like that, its not a decision like what ice cream flavor to get
D
Deleted member 60695
Guest
Of course it's a decision. Exactly like being heterosexual is a decision. Some people are celibate. They are not practicing either.
C
Chadillac
Guest
Court>martina>graf>evert>serena
justinjay
Rookie
Serena >>> Court = Graf >>> Evert >= Navratilova
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Maybe in your “reality” you decided to be heterosexual and decided to be un-celibate.
Or maybe you decided to become homosexual and decided to be non-practicing.
Not in mine.
In my “reality” I did not decide to be heterosexual and did not decide to practice.
Last edited:
Do we create our own realities? Some people think that we do.
Legend of Borg
G.O.A.T.
i think i may have entered the twilight zone
i can't quite believe what i'm reading right now
On this issue, people tend to inhabit alternative universes.
Its a little simplistic.
Here is the Evert-Court head to head.
MARGARET COURT (Australia) 9:4
1970 Charlotte, NC SF W 7-6, 7-6
1972 Bonne Belle Cup W 6-3, 6-3
1972 Indianapolis, IN SF W 6-3, 7-6
1972 Newport, RI SF L 6-3, 6-0
1973 French Open F L 6-7, 7-6, 6-4
1973 Wimbledon SF W 6-1, 1-6, 6-1
1973 U.S. Open SF L 7-5, 2-6, 6-2
1973 Hilton Head, SC RR L 6-4, 6-7, 6-2
1975 Akron, OH F W 6-4, 3-6, 6-3
1975 Houston, TX F W 6-3, 6-2
1975 Rye, NY SF W 6-3, 6-3
1977 Hollywood, FL F W 6-3, 6-4
1977 Chicago, IL F W 6-1, 6-3
You can see there are three distinct phases to this rivalry. From 1970-1972 Evert had near total dominance. Clearly Court had no idea what hit her with this new phenom with the inscrutable strokes and uncanny anticipation. Court made her breakthrough at Newport late in 1972 and dominated all through 1973 winning 4 of the 5 matches. Evert was having the problem finding answers in that third set. Court was rolling over her with 6-1 or 6-2 in final sets. Matter of fact, of their five three set matches, Evert only won that Wimbledon semifinal! According to Margaret ( I paraphrase here), the trick to beating Chris, was to be very choosy on what and when she approached and concentrating especially well on executing the volley/ keeping out any bouts of sloppy play.
Personally, I think either physical or mental stamina has to explain some of this as well. Margaret was the best athlete of that era but the Chrissie of 1973 was definitely not.
Then Court takes another year off for 'family time'. She simply was no longer a serious threat at very top thereafter. Her best result in a major after her return in November of 1974 was a very lonely semifinal in Wimbledon 1975 and only won a single set against Evert for the rest of her career. But then she wasn't beating anyone else much either. Her career 'highlights' in 1975-1977 were pretty much non-existent.
When Court executes her best tennis, it does not matter how 'predictable' her shots are, Margaret hit them so solidly and powerfully you can't do much anyway. But if she loses just a little stick on her serve and volleys, or allows nerves to make her tentative, then her game's predictability matters a lot. Court was definitely a confidence player. She could bulldoze just like Martina, but if doubts crept in... and she pulled back her throddle….
Evert had a nasty habit of seeding a hell of a lot of doubt in s/vers over the years. Court was the first a long line.
Last edited:
justinjay
Rookie
I have heard from some people that how an older Court did vs young Evert is one reason people downplay her greatness. For me that is silly and hypocritical, especialy when many of these tout (or once touted) Navratilova as the female GOAT and an older Navratilova did even worse vs a very young Graf. And dont even get me started on how an older Evert did vs a young Graf. It seems people find double standards to suit whatever argument they want to support which in the case of reclusive/ homophobic/out of the tennis spotlight/not charismatic/not popular/not friends with the importants in the tennis community is always a biasedly negative one.
Being homosexual or heterosexual is not a decision or a lifestyle choice. Its an orientation. Having sex or not, and how frequently you do it, and who you do it with, are decision and can represent a 'lifestyle choices'. .
Last edited:
I consistently hold that every match one plays is part of ones record. They all matter. Court owns her results from 1975-1977, and Evert owns hers from 1987-1988. Courts lack of success against Evert in the last five matches is very like Evert's lack against Graf in her last six. Both ended up with only one set. What is astonishing in Court-Evert rivalry, between two greats of different generations, was at the beginning. I cannot recall anything like the total control of a reigning great, by an up and comer like those first three matches represent. Court did not manage a set in three matches against this complete unknown while she was still the best player in the world with three more majors on the way! I give Court great credit for not folding and doing the work to find the answers to the Evert dilemma. Court came back and grabbed the reigns for awhile, just as Evert successfully did against Austin and Navratilova. Evert just ran out of time with Graf.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 60695
Guest
I can't believe this is even controversial. What a very odd world we live in, that a simple neutral response is considered shocking.
D
Deleted member 60695
Guest
We are arguing semantics. You're viewing this as a noun, who one is. I'm viewing this as a verb, what one does.
Everything is a choice...
davidjaan1982
New User
Good posts. I also give Court a lot of credit for not folding against Evert. I always use it as an counter example when i hear people talk about Margaret’s “nerves”. The “nerves” let her down against Riggs, but on the other hand, she showed mental toughness against Evert who read her well and whom she just could not read at all. I guess i am biased against Court for being “totally controlled” as you put it by an up and coming Evert. While Margaret did not fold, i also think Evert was not quite ready physically or mentally and so Court got the opening she needed. Even in the matches Evert lost in 1973 there were stretches where Evert was in compete command and running Margaret all over. She often had a let down in the 3rd set, and often against the run of play. I felt Evert lost rather than Court won in those matches, and that Evert was farther away from her peak than Court during that 1970-1973 period and still managed to control Margaret as much as she did. On the one hand i respect Evert for that, but on the other it also biased me unfavorably against Court.
Similar threads
