women GOAT lists

[elegos7]

Here are some women GOAT lists I could find.

1924, George Hillyard (in his book ‘Forty years of first class lawn tennis, the best ladies in chronological order):
Maud Watson, Lottie Dod, Blanche Bingley (Hillyard), Louisa Martin, Charlotte Cooper (Sterry), Dorothea Douglass (Chambers), May Sutton.

1948, John Olliff (the best ladies in the 20th century):
1. Lenglen 2. Wills 3. Marble 4. Betz

1952, Mercer Beasley, one of the most outstanding tennis coaches:
1. Wills 2. Marble 3. Lenglen 4. Bjurtedt 5. Jacobs 6. Betz 7. Osborne 8. Hart 9. Round 10. Brough

1956, Norman Brookes (in his book "Crowded Galleries", the Top10 players he had seen play):
1. Lenglen 2. Wills 3. May Sutton 4. Dorothy Douglass Chambers 5. Marble 6. Round 7. Connolly 8. Brough 9. Hart 10. Wynne Bolton.

1963, Ned Potter (in his book ‘Kings of the court’ listed the 20 best tennis players all-time):
1. Lenglen, the other 19 in chronological order: Dod, Bingley, Douglass, Sutton, Hotchkiss, Ryan, Bjurstedt, Wills, Jacobs, Round, Mathieu, Marble, Betz, Wynne, Brough, Osborne, Connolly, Hart, Gibson

1979, Jack Kramer in his autobiography:
1. Wills 2. Betz 3. Connolly (plus possibly Lenglen whom he has not seen).

1999, Steve Flink (in his book The Greatest Tennis Matches of the Twentieth Century he ranked the Top 10 women in the 20th century):
1. Steffi Graf 2. Martina Navratilova 3. Chris Evert 4. Helen Wills Moody 5. Margaret Smith Court 6. Suzanne Lenglen 7. Maureen Connolly 8. Billie Jean King 9. Monica Seles and Martina Hingis

1999, a six-member panel of experts assembled by The Associated Press (Ted Schroeder, Fred Stolle, Barry MacKay, Pam Shriver, Wendy Turnbull and Virginia Wade) ranked the Top 10 women in the 20th century:
1. Steffi Graf 2. Martina Navratilova 3. Margaret Smith Court 4. Billie Jean King 5. Chris Evert 6. Suzanne Lenglen 7. Helen Wills Moody 8. Maureen Connolly 9. Monica Seles 10. (tie) Evonne Goolagong and Martina Hingis. Others receiving votes: Althea Gibson, Maria Bueno, Alice Marble, Tracy Austin, Lindsay Davenport, Helen Jacobs, Doris Hart.

If you are aware of another list by some expert, please share it.
I suspect Wallis Myers may have done another list in 1932 in his book ‘Memory's Parade’. Could someone check it and write that list if it exists?

 

[grafselesfan]

Here are some women GOAT lists I could find.

Hmmm a few interesting ones for me:

1952, Mercer Beasley, one of the most outstanding tennis coaches:
1. Wills 2. Marble 3. Lenglen 4. Bjurtedt 5. Jacobs 6. Betz 7. Osborne 8. Hart 9. Round 10. Brough

Marble over Lenglen? I am a bit surprised at that one. Also Dorothy Round over Brough?!? That one really stands out.

1956, Norman Brookes (in his book "Crowded Galleries", the Top10 players he had seen play):
1. Lenglen 2. Wills 3. May Sutton 4. Dorothy Douglass Chambers 5. Marble 6. Round 7. Connolly 8. Brough 9. Hart 10. Wynne Bolton.

and now not only Marble and Douglas Chambers, but even May Sutton and Dorothy Round both over Connolly on another list. Heck I cant even believe someone has May Sutton and Dorothy Round over Brough and Hart. Just wow at that one. What is with all the Dorothy Round love here. Dorothy Round was one of the so called rivals of Wills Moody during her reign but wasnt even as good as Helen Jacobs- who was Wills's regular whipping girl in big matches. Round once took a set off Wills during her dominance, that is her biggest feat. Many people rate Lenglen and/or Wills over Connolly (though some also rate Connolly higher than one or both, it is mixed) and Wills proved during her career she is on another planet from Dorothy Round.

1979, Jack Kramer in his autobiography:
1. Wills 2. Betz 3. Connolly (plus possibly Lenglen whom he has not seen).

Pauline Betz over Connolly!? Yet another intriguing choice. Never heard that one before.

1999, Steve Flink (in his book The Greatest Tennis Matches of the Twentieth Century he ranked the Top 10 women in the 20th century):
1. Steffi Graf 2. Martina Navratilova 3. Chris Evert 4. Helen Wills Moody 5. Margaret Smith Court 6. Suzanne Lenglen 7. Maureen Connolly 8. Billie Jean King 9. Monica Seles and Martina Hingis

I would be willing to bet he would no longer have Hingis tied with Seles. Funny how when you think if you continue to play your career can never get worse even if you win nothing else, it can only get better. Well in some cases
that isnt the case. Had Federer not won his recent 3 slams he would have been better off retiring at the end of 2007. Hingis probably would have been much better off retiring after the 1999 Australian Open, LOL!

1999, a six-member panel of experts assembled by The Associated Press (Ted Schroeder, Fred Stolle, Barry MacKay, Pam Shriver, Wendy Turnbull and Virginia Wade) ranked the Top 10 women in the 20th century:
1. Steffi Graf 2. Martina Navratilova 3. Margaret Smith Court 4. Billie Jean King 5. Chris Evert 6. Suzanne Lenglen 7. Helen Wills Moody 8. Maureen Connolly 9. Monica Seles 10. (tie) Evonne Goolagong and Martina Hingis. Others receiving votes: Althea Gibson, Maria Bueno, Alice Marble, Tracy Austin, Lindsay Davenport, Helen Jacobs, Doris Hart.

Quite interesting that Gibson, Austin, and Davenport would all receive votes but Brough, Osborne, Chambers, and even Fry (career slam, owned Gibson in big matches) received none.

 

[vkartikv]

1999, a six-member panel of experts assembled by The Associated Press (Ted Schroeder, Fred Stolle, Barry MacKay, Pam Shriver, Wendy Turnbull and Virginia Wade) ranked the Top 10 women in the 20th century:
1. Steffi Graf 2. Martina Navratilova 3. Margaret Smith Court 4. Billie Jean King 5. Chris Evert 6. Suzanne Lenglen 7. Helen Wills Moody 8. Maureen Connolly 9. Monica Seles 10. (tie) Evonne Goolagong and Martina Hingis. Others receiving votes: Althea Gibson, Maria Bueno, Alice Marble, Tracy Austin, Lindsay Davenport, Helen Jacobs, Doris Hart.

[/QUOTE]

Why are those two names even considered??

 

[pmerk34]

1999, a six-member panel of experts assembled by The Associated Press (Ted Schroeder, Fred Stolle, Barry MacKay, Pam Shriver, Wendy Turnbull and Virginia Wade) ranked the Top 10 women in the 20th century:
1. Steffi Graf 2. Martina Navratilova 3. Margaret Smith Court 4. Billie Jean King 5. Chris Evert 6. Suzanne Lenglen 7. Helen Wills Moody 8. Maureen Connolly 9. Monica Seles 10. (tie) Evonne Goolagong and Martina Hingis. Others receiving votes: Althea Gibson, Maria Bueno, Alice Marble, Tracy Austin, Lindsay Davenport, Helen Jacobs, Doris Hart.

Why are those two names even considered??[/QUOTE]

Why not? Why is Doris hart and Helen Jacobs considered? who are they? Are you going by the well I never saw them play so they must be good standard?

 

[grafselesfan]

Why not? Why is Doris hart and Helen Jacobs considered? who are they? Are you going by the well I never saw them play so they must be good standard?

Helen Jacobs was the only one to really push the great Wills Moody during her reign. She beat her in the U.S Open final of 1933 when Wills defaulted down 3-0 in the final set. She had a match point on Wills serve leading 5-3 in the 3rd set of the 1935 Wimbledon final and a gust of wind turned what would have been an easy smash winner difficult and she missed it, and Wills went on to come back and win.

Hart is one of only 9 women to complete the career Slam and did so along with winning 6 overall singles slams (and many doubles) in the very competitive 50s which featured the great Connolly, Hart, Brough, Osborne (those 3 all career 6 singles slam winners and doubles greats too), Fry (career slam and doubles great), and Gibson.

 

[pc1]

http://www.tennisserver.com/lines/lines_09_03_30.html

Excellent article by Ray Bowers.

Allison Danzig 1. Lenglen/Wills(Moody) 3. Connolly 4. Marble 5. Jacobs 6. Court 7. King 8. Bueno 9. Mallory 10. Brough

Harry Hopman 1. Wills (Moody) 2. Lenglen 3. Connolly 4. Lambert Chambers 5. Marble 6. Jacobs 7. Mallory 8. King 9. Court 10. Bueno/Brough

Lance Tingay 1. Lenglen 2. Wills (Moody) 3. Connolly 4. Court 5. King 6. duPont 7. Mallory 8. Betz 9. Marble 10. Lambert Chambers

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

 

[elegos7]

Thanks pc1 for those lilsts. It is great to have to opinions of such experts. Do you know in which year (or book) they were published?

If they published a men's Top10 list alongside the women's, please share it with us as well.

 

[urban]

Thanks Elegos and pc1.
Dan Maskell (From where i sit, 1988):
1. Navratilova, 2. Wills, 3. Court, 4. King, 5. Connolly, 6. Lenglen, 7. Evert, 8. Bueno, 9. Hart, 10. Cawley.
Maskell actually was the hitting partner of some of these including Wills and Connolly. Tinling, who was an intimate expert of womens tennis had a list end of th 80s in World Tennis, which i don't have at hand. I think, he preferred Graf. He always thought, that the best women had to be baseliners, because an allround style had too much court to cover by women.

In Norman Gillers Book of tennis lists (1985) there is a computer tournament of post war women:
final: Connolly-Navratilova
sf:Connolly-Bueno
Navratilova-Court
Qf: Connolly-Brough
Bueno-Gibson
Court-King
Navratilva-Lloyd

 

[urban]

Gillers complete lists of pre and post WWII women players:
Pre-war: Lenglen, Wills, Marble, Jacobs, Mallory, Lambert Chambers, Sutton Bundy, Round, Godfree, Coopers Sterry, Ryan, Alvarez.
Post-war: Connolly, Court, Navratilova, King, Evert Lloyd, Bueno, Brough, Cawley, Du Pont, Gibson, Betz, Hart.

 

[hoodjem]

Tracy Austin, Lindsay Davenport,

Why are those two names even considered??

It's the "Recent-Player Syndrome." People want to be part of history. They want to bask in the aura of present supposed "greats." They want to share the glory.

They want to believe that players of their time are among the best, thus they can associate with them. (Never exclude the present--if you do, you exclude yourself.) It's why Fed wins every poll ever posted here.

 

[pmerk34]

It's the "Recent-Player Syndrome." People want to be part of history. They want to bask in the aura of present supposed "greats." They want to share the glory.

They want to believe that players of their time are among the best, thus they can associate with them. (Never exclude the present--if you do, you exclude yourself.) It's why Fed wins every poll ever posted here.

It works in reverse too. Plenty of people here idolize players they never saw and rate them as GOATS

 

[hoodjem]

^^^True, but in those cases it's based on statistics in record books. I am talking about a "psychological bias" or knee-jerk response.

 

[Dedans Penthouse]

'le grande NEZ'

It works in reverse too. Plenty of people here idolize players they never saw and rate them as GOATS

True as was the case with Jack Kramer never having seen Suzanne Lenglen play.

That said, something tells me that this "leapin' lizzard" (with the face of a buzzard) even after having to deal with long skirts, and heavy wooden racquets nevertheless had "game" .... in any event, they're kinda fun to look at:

 

[pmerk34]

True as was the case with Jack Kramer never having seen Suzanne Lenglen play.

That said, something tells me that this "leapin' lizzard" (with the face of a buzzard) even after having to deal with long skirts, and heavy wooden racquets nevertheless had "game" .... in any event, they're kinda fun to look at:

Ha, those pictures are hilarious. It's obvious she was a great athlete and that form on the backhand volley on the bottom is prefect!

 

[urban]

Nice pictures. The woman with the big nose is the goddess. The other one is Bunny Ryan. The toughest of them all. When BJK challenged her overall record for Wimbledon titles after some 60 years, she simply died the night before King could better the record.

 

[grafselesfan]

You can tell Lenglen is just an amazing athlete. I have a feeling a rivalry between her and Wills would have been alot like Navratilova and Evert. The amazingly athletic and all court brilliance of Lenglen vs the incredibly steady, accurate, powerful, and focused baseline game of Wills. One difference is Wills had a much better serve than Evert, although her footwork was more clumsy.

 

[hoodjem]

I bet those racquets were at least 14 oz.!












"I feel like I am being swamped by *******s."
--You are. They're a cross between multiplying lemmings, and blind piranha.

 

[pc1]

It's the "Recent-Player Syndrome." People want to be part of history. They want to bask in the aura of present supposed "greats." They want to share the glory.

They want to believe that players of their time are among the best, thus they can associate with them. (Never exclude the present--if you do, you exclude yourself.) It's why Fed wins every poll ever posted here.

It's a psychological thing I believe. Everyone suffers from it. You have the vision of the current player so clearly in your mind and it overshadows everything else. Sometime in the future some guy is going to write that the supposed GOAT of the time will slaughter Federer without Federer winning a game and while I'm not a Federer fan I would think to myself, how typical and how wrong.

It works in reverse too. Plenty of people here idolize players they never saw and rate them as GOATS

Good point too but I would think it happens more the other way.

Incidentally since we had so many pictures of Lenglen, she was 5'6" tall with apparent lightning speed and a good serve plus she could volley. Sounds like a better version of Henin. I have a hunch she would have done very well today. Nice pictures of her. Great job Pmerk34 and Dedans Penthouse.

 

[Dedans Penthouse]

Ha, those pictures are hilarious. It's obvious she was a great athlete and that form on the backhand volley on the bottom is prefect!

(not trying to pull a Lenglen hi-jack of this thread but anyway, what the heck; "Le Flying Nose" doesn't get much props on TT):

pmerk34, check out the "form" on this backhand volley in photo contined in the attached link. This link itself features excerpts from an instructional book by Suzanne Lenglen entitled "Lawn Tennis - The Game of Nations."

quick sidebar: at the "Tenniseum" (the Roland Garros Museum), you can go downstairs and can view some "very old school" tennis clips via modern media. Old films would risk burning up if you tried to play it slo-mo, but in this the digital age, the museum now features fan-friendly inter-active "cleaned-up" films of match play and this "backhand volley" photo below is featured, and in slo-motion no less....and it is an absolute JOY to watch! Lenglen moves in...leaps....CRUNCH!...and nails, I mean she absolutely nails(!) a backhand volley with everything (balance, racquet positioning) coming together perfectly at the point of contact. This is a thing of beauty...er, well from a technical standpoint...lol
http://tennis.quickfound.net/training/suzanne_lenglen.html

 

[newmark401]

(not trying to pull a Lenglen hi-jack of this thread but anyway, what the heck; "Le Flying Nose" doesn't get much props on TT):

pmerk34, check out the "form" on this backhand volley in photo contined in the attached link. This link itself features excerpts from an instructional book by Suzanne Lenglen entitled "Lawn Tennis - The Game of Nations."

quick sidebar: at the "Tenniseum" (the Roland Garros Museum), you can go downstairs and can view some "very old school" tennis clips via modern media. Old films would risk burning up if you tried to play it slo-mo, but in this the digital age, the museum now features fan-friendly inter-active "cleaned-up" films of match play and this "backhand volley" photo below is featured, and in slo-motion no less....and it is an absolute JOY to watch! Lenglen moves in...leaps....CRUNCH!...and nails, I mean she absolutely nails(!) a backhand volley with everything (balance, racquet positioning) coming together perfectly at the point of contact. This is a thing of beauty...er, well from a technical standpoint...lol
http://tennis.quickfound.net/training/suzanne_lenglen.html

I find it difficult to argue against Suzanne Lenglen as the greatest player of all time (although I don't usually play that particular game). Certainly if losing no singles matches over an eight-year or so period is a criterion, then the vote should go to her, I think.

 

[grafselesfan]

"I feel like I am being swamped by *******s."
--You are. They're a cross between multiplying lemmings, and blind piranha.

Haha that is awesome, but so true. Thanks for that summarization.

 

[CEvertFan]

You can tell Lenglen is just an amazing athlete. I have a feeling a rivalry between her and Wills would have been alot like Navratilova and Evert. The amazingly athletic and all court brilliance of Lenglen vs the incredibly steady, accurate, powerful, and focused baseline game of Wills. One difference is Wills had a much better serve than Evert, although her footwork was more clumsy.

I agree with you on that. I think their rivalry would have been one of the all time best ones had it ever developed and would have rivaled the great Navratilova/Evert rivalry.

Lenglen was known for her leaping, balletic style of playing and those pictures show off some of what made her one of the all time greats.

 

[pmerk34]

I agree with you on that. I think their rivalry would have been one of the all time best ones had it ever developed and would have rivaled the great Navratilova/Evert rivalry.

Lenglen was known for her leaping, balletic style of playing and those pictures show off some of what made her one of the all time greats.

I fail to see where leaping in the air for backhand volleys would help you in today's game LOL

Did she ever NOT leap

 

[Lionheart392]

The 1999 list surprises me, putting King over Evert. I wonder what their reasons were.

 

[BTURNER]

that surprises me to, lion, I think they are enamored with Wimbledon titles and factor doubles in.

 

[CEvertFan]

I fail to see where leaping in the air for backhand volleys would help you in today's game LOL

Did she ever NOT leap

I didn't say it would work for just anyone but it seems to have worked quite well for her, wouldn't you say?

 

[CEvertFan]

that surprises me to, lion, I think they are enamored with Wimbledon titles and factor doubles in.

You are probably right about that. If you take those factors into account then I could see them ranking King over Evert, but in singles I couldn't ever justify that.

 

[Lionheart392]

You are probably right about that. If you take those factors into account then I could see them ranking King over Evert, but in singles I couldn't ever justify that.

Welcome back CEvertFan! You were gone for a while.
I'm sure you were devastated to discover that in your absence, JulesB was banned

 

[thalivest]

Welcome back CEvertFan! You were gone for a while.
I'm sure you were devastated to discover that in your absence, JulesB was banned

Dont forget gjules011.

 

[CEvertFan]

Welcome back CEvertFan! You were gone for a while.
I'm sure you were devastated to discover that in your absence, JulesB was banned

My PC died so I was out of commission for a couple of months while deciding what new one to get.


So sad to hear about JulesB (insert sarcastic tone).

 

[thrust]

http://www.tennisserver.com/lines/lines_09_03_30.html

Excellent article by Ray Bowers.

Allison Danzig 1. Lenglen/Wills(Moody) 3. Connolly 4. Marble 5. Jacobs 6. Court 7. King 8. Bueno 9. Mallory 10. Brough

Harry Hopman 1. Wills (Moody) 2. Lenglen 3. Connolly 4. Lambert Chambers 5. Marble 6. Jacobs 7. Mallory 8. King 9. Court 10. Bueno/Brough

Lance Tingay 1. Lenglen 2. Wills (Moody) 3. Connolly 4. Court 5. King 6. duPont 7. Mallory 8. Betz 9. Marble 10. Lambert Chambers

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

King over Court? Hopman was a biased jerk. Also, ranking players from distant eras is nonsense.

 

[pierceforehands]

LOL at King over Court. That is freaking hilarious. Anyway for the fun of it I will first do Hard Court's likely list, and my own.

Hard Courts:

1. Evert
2. Evert
3. Evert- Evert is so superior to all others she deserves the first 3 places.
4. Navratilova
5. Navratilova
6. Navratilova- Navratilova is so superior to all others but Evert she deserves the next 3 places
7. King
8. King
9. King- King is so superior to all others but Navratilova and Evert she deserves the next 3 spots.
10. Goolagong
11. Austin- top 3 player for a bit in the Evert era is worth atleast 20 slams.
12. Mandlikova- top 4 player for awhile in the Evert/Navratilova era is worth atleast 15 slams.
13. Shriver- often a top 5 player in the Navratilova/Evert era, so better than many 20+ slam winners
14. Turnbull- read above
15. Jaegar- read above
----a bunch of people
37. Court
38. Serena
---hundreds of people
210. Graf
211. Seles
-----thousands of people
2050. Venus
2051. Henin
2052. Sanchez Vicario
2053. Davenport

Now my own list:

1. Serena
2. Graf
3. Court- strong case for Court to be #1 however, the first 3 are interchangeable for me. If you give decent credit for doubles, rather than the minimal I give, she would be #1 or atleast #2 over Graf probably.
4. Navratilova- although singles alone I would have Evert barely ahead, giving her a bit of credit for her doubles
5. Evert
6. Connolly
7. Lenglen- if she crossed the ocean to win a few US Opens she would probably be top 3, even playing in the time of no competition at all in the game.
8. Wills- although record wise she could be top 3 or even #1. This is really a rare case we have to go into subjective territory a bit on competition without it just being biased fan boy stuff. That plus her peers all say Lenglen was the better player.
9. Pauline Betz- the more I learn about her she has to atleast be top 10, and she probably would have been the GOAT if her career were just allowed to play out naturally.
10. probably Seles or King. If you give Seles even a bit of credit for what happened to her, then it would be her.

honorable mentions- King or Seles (whichever doesn't make the cut), Venus, Henin, Bueno, Marble, Gibson.

 

[BTURNER]

Singles only
1. Graf
2. Court
3. Evert
4. Serena
5. Navratilova
6. Lenglen
7. Connoly
8. Wills
9. King
10. Seles

Giving Doubles 1/3 credit of a singles ? I am totally winging this list on like 1/2 hours research! LOL I can't justify/ defend this
1.Court
2. Navratilova
3. Serena
4. Graf
5. Lenglen (she was almost as dominant in doubles as singles)
6. Evert
8. King
9. Wills
10. Bueno

 

[pierceforehands]

Singles only
1. Graf
2. Court
3. Evert
4. Serena
5. Navratilova
6. Lenglen
7. Connoly
8. Wills
9. King
10. Seles

Giving Doubles 1/3 credit of a singles ? I am totally winging this list on like 1/2 hours research! LOL I can't justify/ defend this
1.Court
2. Navratilova
3. Serena
4. Graf
5. Lenglen (she was almost as dominant in doubles as singles)
6. Evert
8. King
9. Wills
10. Bueno

Those look quite accurate to me. I also agree if it is "singles only" Evert should be above Navratilova.

I guess the ultimate question is how much should doubles be valued in this type of discussion. Is 1/3 too much or about right? Should it either be 1/3 or 0 altogether? I am not sure the right answer to that.

If you are giving doubles 1/3 value would Venus not possibly make the bottom of the top 10 though? She has an excellent singles career, and an outstanding doubles career both in womens and mixed.

 

[BTURNER]

Those look quite accurate to me. I also agree if it is "singles only" Evert should be above Navratilova.

I guess the ultimate question is how much should doubles be valued in this type of discussion. Is 1/3 too much or about right? Should it either be 1/3 or 0 altogether? I am not sure the right answer to that.

If you are giving doubles 1/3 value would Venus not possibly make the bottom of the top 10 though? She has an excellent singles career, and an outstanding doubles career both in womens and mixed.

I will look. I precluded her because of a perceived lack of Clay success other than that RG final in singles. She did not reach another semi, but she did win some lesser tournaments on clay.

 

[buscemi]

Giving Doubles 1/3 credit of a singles ? I am totally winging this list on like 1/2 hours research! LOL I can't justify/ defend this
1.Court
2. Navratilova
3. Serena
4. Graf
5. Lenglen (she was almost as dominant in doubles as singles)
6. Evert
8. King
9. Wills
10. Bueno

I'd be interested in a comparison of Bueno with Brough and duPont. Bueno had 7 singles Majors + 11 Major doubles titles while Brough and duPont both had 6 singles Majors + 21 Major doubles titles.

Tennis Abstract 128 has Brough at #57, Bueno at #82, and duPont at #86.

Tennis Channel 100 Greatest of All Time has Bueno at #36, duPont at #59, and Brough at #69.

 

[buscemi]

I'd be interested in a comparison of Bueno with Brough and duPont. Bueno had 7 singles Majors + 11 Major doubles titles while Brough and duPont both had 6 singles Majors + 21 Major doubles titles.

Tennis Abstract 128 has Brough at #57, Bueno at #82, and duPont at #86.

Tennis Channel 100 Greatest of All Time has Bueno at #36, duPont at #59, and Brough at #69.

We should also probably add Doris Hart, who had 6 singles Majors + 13 doubles Majors.

Tennis Abstract has her at #41, and Tennis Channel 100 Greatest of All Time has her at #51.

 

[buscemi]

Giving Doubles 1/3 credit of a singles ? I am totally winging this list on like 1/2 hours research! LOL I can't justify/ defend this
1.Court
2. Navratilova
3. Serena
4. Graf
5. Lenglen (she was almost as dominant in doubles as singles)
6. Evert
8. King
9. Wills
10. Bueno

Just realized Venus wasn't on this, but she'd definitely be in the top 10 with 7 singles Majors + 14 doubles Majors, knocking Bueno out.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

LOL at King over Court. That is freaking hilarious. Anyway for the fun of it I will first do Hard Court's likely list, and my own.

Hard Courts:

1. Evert
2. Evert
3. Evert- Evert is so superior to all others she deserves the first 3 places.
4. Navratilova
5. Navratilova
6. Navratilova- Navratilova is so superior to all others but Evert she deserves the next 3 places
7. King
8. King
9. King- King is so superior to all others but Navratilova and Evert she deserves the next 3 spots.
10. Goolagong
11. Austin- top 3 player for a bit in the Evert era is worth atleast 20 slams.
12. Mandlikova- top 4 player for awhile in the Evert/Navratilova era is worth atleast 15 slams.
13. Shriver- often a top 5 player in the Navratilova/Evert era, so better than many 20+ slam winners
14. Turnbull- read above
15. Jaegar- read above
----a bunch of people
37. Court
38. Serena
---hundreds of people
210. Graf
211. Seles
-----thousands of people
2050. Venus
2051. Henin
2052. Sanchez Vicario
2053. Davenport

Now my own list:

1. Serena
2. Graf
3. Court- strong case for Court to be #1 however, the first 3 are interchangeable for me. If you give decent credit for doubles, rather than the minimal I give, she would be #1 or atleast #2 over Graf probably.
4. Navratilova- although singles alone I would have Evert barely ahead, giving her a bit of credit for her doubles
5. Evert
6. Connolly
7. Lenglen- if she crossed the ocean to win a few US Opens she would probably be top 3, even playing in the time of no competition at all in the game.
8. Wills- although record wise she could be top 3 or even #1. This is really a rare case we have to go into subjective territory a bit on competition without it just being biased fan boy stuff. That plus her peers all say Lenglen was the better player.
9. Pauline Betz- the more I learn about her she has to atleast be top 10, and she probably would have been the GOAT if her career were just allowed to play out naturally.
10. probably Seles or King. If you give Seles even a bit of credit for what happened to her, then it would be her.

honorable mentions- King or Seles (whichever doesn't make the cut), Venus, Henin, Bueno, Marble, Gibson.

Only a complete idiot or someone with an obvious agenda would put King over Court. Your list looks quite reasonable to me only I would have Court/Graf/Nav as interchangeable Co-GOATs with Serena and Evert sharing second. Curious in your take on Evert being above Nav if it is only singles. She trails in H2H weeks at No.1, YE#1 (one could argue though that rankings haven’t been around at the beginning of her career) and total tournament wins. I can still see a case for her based on how many slams she skipped (Nav did as well but I think Evert would have been more favored on average in the ones she skipped).

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I guess the ultimate question is how much should doubles be valued in this type of discussion. Is 1/3 too much or about right? Should it either be 1/3 or 0 altogether? I am not sure the right answer to that.

With doubles it is also tough as the significance changed a lot over time even more so than with singles (only in the other direction). During Court’s or (to a lesser extent) Nav’s time, many top single players still played doubles so I think you can give some credit here (1/3 might be reasonable). During Serena’s time however, most good singles players didn’t give a crap and on top of that she was very lucky with having an ATG sister as the ideal partner who she had played with all her life. I don’t give Serena’s double success much more credit than Kyrgios double slam tbh (ok that might be an exaggeration but you get what I mean).

 

[pierceforehands]

With doubles it is also tough as the significance changed a lot over time even more so than with singles (only in the other direction). During Court’s or (to a lesser extent) Nav’s time, many top single players still played doubles so I think you can give some credit here (1/3 might be reasonable). During Serena’s time however, most good singles players didn’t give a crap and on top of that she was very lucky with having an ATG sister as the ideal partner who she had played with all her life. I don’t give Serena’s double success much more credit than Kyrgios double slam tbh (ok that might be an exaggeration but you get what I mean).

Well a reason I give both Venus and Serena some credit for their doubles, to the extent I credit doubles at all, is both won in mixed too. Which obviously has nothing to do with having one another. Then again the mixed fields today are really rubbish. A 52 year old or something Navratilova won a mixed doubles at Wimbledon. So even that is iffy.

 

[pierceforehands]

I'd be interested in a comparison of Bueno with Brough and duPont. Bueno had 7 singles Majors + 11 Major doubles titles while Brough and duPont both had 6 singles Majors + 21 Major doubles titles.

Tennis Abstract 128 has Brough at #57, Bueno at #82, and duPont at #86.

Tennis Channel 100 Greatest of All Time has Bueno at #36, duPont at #59, and Brough at #69.

I wonder if they would still have Graf as #1 women, or if Serena would now have bumped Graf to #2 on their list. Or if they would have changed any of the other spots behind those two. And where they would have Federer, Djokovic, Nadal relative to each other.

'Brough 33 spots behind Bueno on one, and 25 spots ahead of her another is pretty hilarious, and shows how many different opinions their are out there, even amongst "experts". Personally I think Bueno comes out ahead of those two hands down, with all due respect to Brough. So would be more in line with the latter, although maybe not that many spots.

 

[BTURNER]

Just realized Venus wasn't on this, but she'd definitely be in the top 10 with 7 singles Majors + 14 doubles Majors, knocking Bueno out.

The reason I didn't add her was because I did not see enough clay success at RG other than that one RU. She never even got through the QF's. There may be more in smaller events. I did not do a real thorough job. Sorta winged it on the fly.

 

[pierceforehands]

Just realized Venus wasn't on this, but she'd definitely be in the top 10 with 7 singles Majors + 14 doubles Majors, knocking Bueno out.

Bueno actualy did win 11 womens doubles slams. She rarely played mixed, but still managed 1 title there. So I think factoring in doubles that strongly (like 25-33% value) both probably pass Seles, and maybe even Connolly, despite that Connolly has 3 doubles slams. I am not sure if Venus winds up over Bueno or not even then though. Bueno had a far more consistent singles career, despite that both won 7 slams, and Venus at her best was formidable. Bueno also won 7 singles slams that were by far the most important at the time- Wimbledon and the US Open. That is not the same as Venus winning all 7 of hers at Wimbledon and the US Open when all 4 slams are almost equally important, which is a failure of sorts, and showing a bit of her lack of versatility for the times she played in. Plus all Bueno's time at #1, which Venus failed to manage, even periods she was considered best in the world did not opt to play enough to get that validated in the rankings. It is still a close call between those two, even adding in the doubles, since Bueno did great in doubles.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Well a reason I give both Venus and Serena some credit for their doubles, to the extent I credit doubles at all, is both won in mixed too. Which obviously has nothing to do with having one another. Then again the mixed fields today are really rubbish. A 52 year old or something Navratilova won a mixed doubles at Wimbledon. So even that is iffy.

Yeah mixed is completely ridiculous. Hundred years old Leander Paes won slams here and he was never a great player to begin with. Mixed today shouldn’t add anything to a players legacy tbh. A top player deciding to enter mix with any half legitimate partner would make a mockery out of it. It would be like prime Djokovic playing challenger tournaments to pile up more tournament wins.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Singles only
1. Graf
2. Court
3. Evert
4. Serena
5. Navratilova
6. Lenglen
7. Connoly
8. Wills
9. King
10. Seles

Giving Doubles 1/3 credit of a singles ? I am totally winging this list on like 1/2 hours research! LOL I can't justify/ defend this
1.Court
2. Navratilova
3. Serena
4. Graf
5. Lenglen (she was almost as dominant in doubles as singles)
6. Evert
8. King
9. Wills
10. Bueno

What’s your reasoning for having Evert above Nav when only considering singles?

 

[BTURNER]

What’s your reasoning for having Evert above Nav when only considering singles?

Several. Here is a comparison of how each player did in slams, in virtually every round throughout their careers. Every match from the first they played to the last one they played against every player is included.

It compares Court, Evert, Martina, Graf and Serena .

Slam Career win/loss % 1.Tie Court & Graf 90% 3. Evert 89% 4. Serena 87% 5. Martina 86%
% of majors champ won 1. Court 51.1% 2 .Graf 40.7% 3. Evert 32.1% 4. Martina 29.9% 5. Serena 28.4%
% of majors reached final 1.Court 61.7% 2. Evert 60.7% 3. Graf 55.6% 4. Martina 47.8% 5. Serena 40%
Slam finals conversion 1.Court 83% 2.Graf 73.1% 3.Serena 71.9% 4. Martina 56.3% 5. Evert 52.9%
% of major reached SF's 1. Evert 92.9% 2.Court 83% 3. Graf 66% 4. Martina 65.7% 5. Serena 49.4%
Semifinals conversion 1.Court 86.6% 2.Serena 82.5% 3. Graf 81.1% 4. Martina 72.7% 5. Evert 65.4%
% of major Reached QF's 1. Evert 96.4% 2. Court 91.5% 3. Martina 79.1% 4. Graf 74.1% 5. Serena 66.7%
QFinals conversion rate 1. Evert 96.2 2. Graf 88.1% 3. Court 83.7% 4. Martina 83% 5.Serena 74.1%
*Here a low number is a better number
* % of slam losses - Rds1-3 1.Evert 3.6% 2. Court 6.4% 3. Graf 13% 4. Martina 13.4% 5. Serena 21%

There are nine stats here. Evert is in the top Three 7 times. Martina is in the top Three just 1 time. Martina is in the bottom two 8 times. Evert is in the bottom two 2 times. Martina does better than Evert in semifinal and final conversions, but in every other category, Evert is superior. They both won 18 slams, but Evert got into two more finals, reaching the finals 61% of the time compared to Martina's 49%, having entered 11 fewer slams than Martina. Evert did it all cleaner than Martina did.

With respect to their broader career including pro matches in other tournaments and international team play, Evert won 90% of her matches, while Martina had 86.4%. So in essence while Martina has more wins in both matches won, and tournaments won, she also has more losses she accrued to get them.

 

[thrust]

The 1999 list surprises me, putting King over Evert. I wonder what their reasons were.

Wimbledon, which is absurd, IMO.

 

[pierceforehands]

What’s your reasoning for having Evert above Nav when only considering singles?

Evert had a much more consistent career, and has a better balance of slam wins, has more slam finals and many more semis (granted that also means she lost in those late rounds a lot more). I would argue some of her biggest streaks like 125 straight wins on clay, 13 years winning atleast one slam, and 52 slam semis in a row, are beyond even Martina's best records. She also would have equal or more time at #1 had computer rankings began in 1973.

Evert has the best record in the Open Era at two seperate slams too- French and US Open, even if the US Open is probably aided by it being on clay 3 straight years.

 

[pierceforehands]

Wimbledon, which is absurd, IMO.

It isn't absurd to say Wimbledon was super important back then, and the most important tournament (probably still is today). And back then the only tournament that came close in importance was the US Open. So it is not wrong to note King outdid Court there. It just isn't anywhere near enough to overcome all of King's other deficits in comparision to Court.