BorgTheGOAT
Legend
I mean this would be like arguing Murray > Lendl.
women GOAT lists
- Thread starter elegos7
- Start date
Also, in the two Wimbledon finals they played in, Court won both. Wimbledon, along with the Anglo-Saxon dominated USTA back then, were very good at promoting Wimbledon as the superior slam despite the fact that the top players who competed at Wimbledon also competed at the USO and French, except for some who had no chance of winning on grass or clay.
I think some confusion surfaced here. The 1999 AP Panel had BJK ahead of Evert, not Court. Their top 5 was 1. Steffi Graf 2. Martina Navratilova 3. Margaret Smith Court 4. Billie Jean King 5. Chris Evert.
I would have Evert ahead of BJK, but I just wanted to clarify that BJK wasn't put ahead of Court.
I would have Evert ahead of BJK, but I just wanted to clarify that BJK wasn't put ahead of Court.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
It is similarly wrong though,
Oh yeah, I agree. It just seemed like the last few posts were about how it was ridiculous to have BJK ahead of Court when that wasn't done (at least in this ranking).
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
But the reasoning with BJK > Evert was also Wimbledon?
pierceforehands
Rookie
That is also ridiculous however. Full credit for what King did for the womens game and womens tennis and womens sport in general, and her off court pursuits combined with her on court greatness. But she isn't even in the same league overall as Evert or Court. The only surface she is better than Evert on is grass. And I don't think there is a single surface she is better than Court on, she is better at Wimbledon, but not grass overall. Her head to heads with both are 10-22 vs Court and 7-19 I believe it is vs Evert.
It is funny too there was one gigantic troll who was insisting there isn't a chance Venus or Henin could be ranked above King in even a single year in his lame attempts to build up Goolagong while dumping on Venus, Henin, and Bueno, but come to think if it I am pretty sure if King and Venus were transported into the same era, Venus would have won more than King both in the 3 slams on grass era (imagine how much Venus wins in an era like that), and the slower court era with barely a grass season of today where someone like King would be lucky to manage 3 or 4 slams, all probably Wimbledons. Henin meanwhile would probably not eclipse King in a 3 grass slam era, but would easily win more than King in todays conditions. Of course with their actual careers King probably has to rank ahead due to acutal achievements, but just discussing King puts this even more in light.
pierceforehands
Rookie
A lot is made of King missing a lot of Australian and French Opens. However Court with home court advantage would be the clear favorite over King in Australia. Not saying King would have no chance vs Court, but overall she would almost certainly lose more often than win vs Court, even if she played every year. Now in fairness non Australians not playing Australia was atleast a legitimate thing in that period, but skipping the French Open was not. The only years that was common is the WTT years in the mid to late 70s, but not when Court and King were in their primes. King isn't that good a clay courter which is why she chose to skip so many even though that was in fact not a common thing those years, and likely already did as well as she was going to with her 1 title there already. She won that in her all time peak year (1972) which is probably what it would take for her to prevail on that surface. Every other year she would have had to likely beat multiple of Court, Jones, Richey, Turner, all superior clay courters. The only other years she would have a real chance were her other peakest years (besides 1972) in 1967 and 1968, but still would be a stretch to maybe win 1 of those 2 to go with her 72 title, at best.
This is another case of a player getting more credit for events they missed, than the actuality of how things are likely to turn out had they regularly played. Similar to Navratilova getting a lot of unmerited credit (from some) for missing a bunch of French Opens from 76-80 she was never going to win in a regular field anyhow.
Hard Court
Rookie
pierceforhands asks us to imagine how many Slams Venus would have won in King's era, and seems to think quite a few more. Well, lets think it through. there are two key points that seems to be overlooked here.
The grass that she would be playing on would be different than what she won most of her Wimbledon titles on. It was faster, the ball bounced lower, and there were more bad bounces. This made it much harder to return serve. Which gave the serve and volleyers a big advantage. (To a lesser degree, it also difficult for a baseliner when serving because they had to be especially careful with their groundstrokes and not give their opponents shot where they could make an approach shot with)
Which brings us the other important factor. The style of players. Who was the best serve and volleyer's that Willams faced? Anyone to compare to Court, King, Goolagong etc. ? No. The top players were all baseliners. It would be a complete different for Wiliams to beat those players on surfaces that favored them. She would be under a lot pressure to hit great returns and passing shots against a net player which she isn't used to.
In a nutshell it's a lot different playing another baseliner on a slower grass (with less bad bounces and balls that bounce higher) than against net players on the faster grass, as opposed to a serve and volleyer on the faster grass, more bad bounces, balls bouncing low.
Everything points to her not doing nearly as well.
The grass that she would be playing on would be different than what she won most of her Wimbledon titles on. It was faster, the ball bounced lower, and there were more bad bounces. This made it much harder to return serve. Which gave the serve and volleyers a big advantage. (To a lesser degree, it also difficult for a baseliner when serving because they had to be especially careful with their groundstrokes and not give their opponents shot where they could make an approach shot with)
Which brings us the other important factor. The style of players. Who was the best serve and volleyer's that Willams faced? Anyone to compare to Court, King, Goolagong etc. ? No. The top players were all baseliners. It would be a complete different for Wiliams to beat those players on surfaces that favored them. She would be under a lot pressure to hit great returns and passing shots against a net player which she isn't used to.
In a nutshell it's a lot different playing another baseliner on a slower grass (with less bad bounces and balls that bounce higher) than against net players on the faster grass, as opposed to a serve and volleyer on the faster grass, more bad bounces, balls bouncing low.
Everything points to her not doing nearly as well.
Just one quibble here. I know on their head to head from 1971-1975 before King retired for the first time, King definitely had the advantage in carpet. I haven't done a deep dive on Billie's career results, but I would put my money on King indoors if she was healthy. It certainly was the surface Evert struggled on throughout her career against second tier S/vers like Casals, Goolagong, Wade, Shriver, Jordan . King was not 'second tier' from the number of indoor carpet tournaments in her win column from 1968 forward. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billie_Jean_King_career_statistics. A lot of them were small events, but she was collecting them like baseball cards for awhile. Anytime you have a low skidding fast court in the 60's and 70's, King and Court were the ones to beat followed by Wade, Goolagong Ann Hayden and Casals. King was still winning tournaments on carpet in 1979 and 1980.
Last edited:
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Court is 22-10 against King and as you say with home court advantage I can’t really see losing her more than one or max two to King (this is when all stars align for BJK). It wouldn’t make much difference. On the other hand, if Court doesn’t retire twice at the peak of her powers due to baby breaks, and plays with the idea that the slam record is the be all end all, she probably sets the record close to 30 slams.
you are definitely a fan.
And if Bueno does not get a nearly lethal virus that puts her out of top contention for 18 month, and a serious shoulder injury for another 6 months, and King does not get bad knees and doesn't get distracted putting together a tour, and all three players believe the slams are the be all end all, Court does not get 30 slams.
All champions get lucky. All champions make other champions lucky.
Excellent post, and as you know, Court was pregnant in 72 so did not compete at the FO that year.
pierceforehands
Rookie
And Chris Evert skipped it that year too. And Evert had beat King 6-1, 6-0 in their only clay meeting that year. Plus Nancy Richey also withdrew just before the tournament. So if one is being real King is probably lucky to have her 1 French Open, not unlucky to not have more due to not playing it often. As I said she simply isnt that great a clay courter, something people who note her missing so many Australian and French Opens don't even note, along with as I said skipping the French wasn't really a thing those years, but just a thing for King. There is some point with the Australian Open for King, but not the French Open.
Last edited:
pierceforehands
Rookie
I think in singles the count stays the same almost for sure. She was clearly past her prime even when she first returned in 75. There wasn't another singles slam coming. She could maybe win one of the weak/depleted Australian or French Opens in 78 or 79 if she plays them i guess, more likely an Australian since I am not sure she would be able at that age, after 3 pregnancies, and even much further past her prime (in all likelihood) than 75, to even beat Ruzica or Barker for instance on clay.
Doubles though? That is more interesting, I am sure she still had some potential of winning there.
RS
Bionic Poster
So perhaps 1 more singles slam and 3-4 more doubles slams?
I'm equally interested in how Althea Gibson would have done if she played past age 31.
Gibson won the final four Majors she played from 1957-1958, winning Wimbledon and the U.S. National Championships twice, dropping only one set across the four finals.
That final U.S. National Championships title came over Darlene Hard just after Gibson had just turned 31 on August 25th. Gibson ended her career 10-0 against Hard.
After that, due to the absence of money in amateur tennis, Gibson turned pro and played exhibition tennis matches before Harlem Globetrotters games, then joined the LPGA to try to make more money.
With Gibson gone, Hard (3), Maria Bueno (6), and Margaret Court (9) won the lion's share of women's Majors from 1959-1964 when I think Gibson would have been very competitive (up to age 36ish) due to lack of mileage. As noted, she was 10-0 against Hard, and she was also 3-0 against Bueno, with all three matches in 1958, just before Bueno won Wimbledon and the U.S. National Championships in 1959.
Unfortunately, Gibson and Court never played against each other.
Last edited:
pierceforehands
Rookie
Yeah but only 1 or 2 more singles if she vultures the Australian Open in the late 70s. And I mean true vulturing, not what Court did for most of her actual Australian Opens which contrary to what some claim still mostly had decent fields but Court was just that formidable there anywhere near her prime, but the late 70s would be true vulturing, as you can tell looking at the actual winners (eg Chris O Neill, Barbara Jordan, etc..)
pierceforehands
Rookie
Court did not really mature until 62 though, so I think she could have done well against her in 60 and 61 anyway. By 62 Court really becoming strong, and Gibson by now being pretty old, I think Court would have been overtaking her, but up until then she possibly could have remained as the top dog. Bueno would definitely challenge her, but she had health problems her whole career. I doubt Hard would have made too much dent in Gibson.
On the flip side there is the question if Gibson ever emerges as a dominant player, maybe not a slam winner at all, without what happened to Connolly. Given the extreme racism she faced her, and all the other obstacles though, what she achieved is remarkable.
Starting to a deep dive on Alice Marble after seeing she was ahead of Lenglen in Mercer Beasley's rankings.
She goes 45-5 in 1933 when she's 19/20 (turning 20 on September 28th).
Then, she contracts tuberculosis and pleurisy in 1934 and doesn't do much from 1934-1935.
In 1936, she goes 39-3, winning the U.S. National Championships, the only Major she plays.
1937 to mid-1938 is solid, but not spectacular, culminating in SF loss to Helen Jacobs at Wimbledon.
And then...Marble wins 128 straight matches to close out her amateur career, winning the U.S. National Championships from 1938-1940 and Wimbledon in 1940.
Facing no amateur competition, Marble turns pro and even becomes a ****-fighting spy during World War II.
Looks like she had a pretty powerful serve & volley game. I'm excited to learn more about her.
She goes 45-5 in 1933 when she's 19/20 (turning 20 on September 28th).
Then, she contracts tuberculosis and pleurisy in 1934 and doesn't do much from 1934-1935.
In 1936, she goes 39-3, winning the U.S. National Championships, the only Major she plays.
1937 to mid-1938 is solid, but not spectacular, culminating in SF loss to Helen Jacobs at Wimbledon.
And then...Marble wins 128 straight matches to close out her amateur career, winning the U.S. National Championships from 1938-1940 and Wimbledon in 1940.
Facing no amateur competition, Marble turns pro and even becomes a ****-fighting spy during World War II.
Looks like she had a pretty powerful serve & volley game. I'm excited to learn more about her.
That sounds about right to me. If Gibson stays amateur, she likely stays at the top of the game from 1959-1961 and then has a tussle with Court for a couple of years of back-and-forth as Court eventually takes the reins away from her.
pierceforehands
Rookie
She is another of the great unknown greats. Most experts say she would have taken down Wills on her own even if Wills had continued (granted Wills would be well into her 30s by then anyway). She likely could have remained virtually unbeatable awhile longer had it not been for the war.
insideoutforehanders
Rookie
My top 20 in order:
1. Seles
2. Serena
3 Graf
4. Connolly
5. Court
6. Lenglen
7. Wills Moody
8. Evert
9. Navratilova
10.Venus
11. Betz
12. Marble
13. Gibson
14. Henin
15. Bueno
16. Hart
17. Brough
18. Du Pont
19. King
20. Fry
1. Seles
2. Serena
3 Graf
4. Connolly
5. Court
6. Lenglen
7. Wills Moody
8. Evert
9. Navratilova
10.Venus
11. Betz
12. Marble
13. Gibson
14. Henin
15. Bueno
16. Hart
17. Brough
18. Du Pont
19. King
20. Fry
insideoutforehanders
Rookie
I put Seles #1 since without the stabbing she wins atleast 25 and maybe 30 or more slams. Easily making her GOAT.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
No way. 15 it is most likely. If all stars align 1-2 more but that’s it.
insideoutforehanders
Rookie
I respect your opinion. Mine is based on my projection, which others don't have to agree with.
That sounds about right, and a few less for Graf as well.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Fair. I also respect yours.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Graf 18 Seles 15 would be my guess.
Only 16-17 Majors for Seles if all stars align? I think most people would say that's a huge underestimate. In a "stars align" scenario, Seles beats Graf in the finals of the 1993 French Open, the 1993 U.S. Open, and the 1994 Australian Open, followed by Graf's injury struggles for the rest of 1994 into 1995, with Seles dominating and no Graf resurgence in 1995/1996.
Now, I'm not saying all the stars would have aligned. But, if they did, the sky would have been the limit for Seles.
Last edited:
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
That j
Seles, even without the stabbing would at some point struggle due to her father’s illness and with the advent of Hingis and later the Williams she wouldn’t win much anymore. 16-17 are still 8-9 more than she had at the point of the stabbing. Even if we assume she wins 2 more in 93 and 3 in 94, winning 3 in 95 I can’t see tbh. I think at the USO 95 she was actually close to her best, given how she played leading to it. So most likely Graf would have beaten her anyways (side effects of Seles maybe having gotten into her head in this hypothetical). If you want to assume absolutely everything goes perfectly for her then maybe give her 18. In absolutely no scenario though she wins 25 let alone 30.
insideoutforehanders
Rookie
Seles and Graf combining for 33 is way too low. They have to combine for more than that. If Seles wins only 15 which I don't agree with but accept the opinion of Graf would win atleast 20. I don't see a universe they combine for less than 35 considering they are at 31 even with the stabbing. Personally I project 25-27 for Seles and about 18- 21 for Graf, hence my rankings.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
insideoutforehanders
Rookie
For starters I believe the other women can combine for 1 major at most in 93-96 with both Graf and Seles playing. Won by either Sanchez or Pierce. That is already 3 more majors than the 31 before considering post 96.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Why should they win so many more combined if the stabbing doesn’t happen? Out of the 10 slams Monica missed after the stabbing, Graf won 6, so whatever Monica wins more, Graf logically wins less.
The 94 Wimbledon, Seles most likely doesn’t win anyways, the FO 94, USO 94 and AO 95 she is a big favorite so I give her 2 out if those which then basically are the two more either Graf or Seles win on top, if the stabbing doesn’t happen (making it 33 instead of 31). In 1996, Seles wins of course the AO, and the three others were won by Graf so the combined number will stay same even if Seles steals few from Steffi. In 1997 Hingis takes over who is a nightmare matchup for Seles. She doesn’t win a slam that year, even at the FO I find it highly unlikely and at that point her decline, also due to the situation with her father, will kick-in. All in all I find the numbers quite reasonable. Seles wins two out of FO 94, Wimbledon 94, USO 94 and AO 95, and steals four more from Graf which gives Seles 15 and Graf 18 in the end.
There were 29 Majors between the 1993 French Open and the 2000 French Open (right before Venus won her first Wimbledon).
Seles had 8 Majors entering the 1993 French Open, having won 7 of the last 9. In agree that 25+ Majors, which would require Seles winning 21/29 Majors during this stretch, is too much.
My own projection is that Seles wins about 11/29 to end up with 19 Majors, but in a best case scenario, I could see her getting around 20-22 Majors.
Somehow, my posting was partially combined to the one I was responding to. My thought was that if Seles had not been stabbed and out of the game for so long, she would have done much better vs Hingis than she did. Having been out of the game for so long, Monica was prone to various injuries and was out of physical and mental shape when she returned. Athletes, of any sport, have such problems having been away from their sport for a long period of time. The shame is that the Seles stabbing denied fans of a great slam rivalry between Seles and Graf, so we will never know who would have come out on top in the end.
Why do you think this (other than the possibility of Graf winning with a different draw)? Most people would have Seles as a clear favorite over Martinez, she'd already beaten Navratilova at Wimbledon in 1992, and she was making clear improvements to her serve, net game, and court positioning at the time of the stabbing. The other semifinalists were Gigi Fernandez and past-her-prime McNeil making one last push.
insideoutforehanders
Rookie
The draw for wimbledon 94 is redone and Graf 99% likely wins that now. I think there is actually a good shot she ties or breaks the Wimbledon record without the stabbing as I think she paces herself better with Seles playing and is also A LOT hungrier in the 99 final going for atleast #9.
I think they combine for 9 of 10 majors vs the 6. Giving Seles 2 majors in 97-98 (being conservative) and the pair is up to 36 minimum already.
I think they combine for 9 of 10 majors vs the 6. Giving Seles 2 majors in 97-98 (being conservative) and the pair is up to 36 minimum already.
Lots of "butterfly effect" scenarios that can come into play with different draws. For example, a big part of Novotna choking away the 1993 Wimbledon final was it being the final. If Seles isn't stabbed, Graf in 1993 might play Novotna in the QF or SF, where Jana's nerves would be less on display (their 1991 AO QF being an example).
As for 1994, again, the possibilities are endless. With a new draw Graf might still play McNeil at some point and lose. After all, Lori made the SF and lost a tight three setter to Martinez. If McNeil were in Graf's half of the draw, they probably end up playing. Or Graf could lose to any number of other players. In the WTA Championships later that year, she got straight setted by Pierce in the QF on carpet. That's not to say that Pierce would beat her on grass; it's just to say that she was susceptible to upsets in 1994 due to her health issues.
But, I think the overall point is that it's highly likely that one of Graf or Seles wins Wimbledon in 1993 and 1994 w/out the stabbing.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Can’t see it. Even, if building on my prior assumption, she steals 6 instead of 4 from Graf between 93 and 96 (which is basically her completely dominating Graf outside Wimbledon, something which their H2H neither before nor after the stabbing suggests), she would still only end up with 17. Not really seeing how she can win two more let alone five more after 96 with Hingis breaking through and Seles declining.
insideoutforehanders
Rookie
I mean of we are going to the alternate scenarios of one losing Seles is WAY more likely to lose to someone else in the overall draw but Graf, than Graf is to anyone but Seles. In addition to Graf being heavy favorite if they play there It is still grass. And I very much doubt McNeil beating Graf in a late round. For a lot of reasons but it was also a super windy day which was part of the result and upset.
I also favor Graf over Jana any random day, even on grass, Jana best surface. As their overall head to head plus grass head to head indicates. She is much more likely to beat Seles too anyway than Graf as Seles is a far weaker grass courter (than Graf, probably than Jana too) and Seles is an easier opponent for her than Graf anyway. So in your proposed scenario which I doubt as i dont see Jana taking out Graf pre final, Jana more likely wins Wimbledon 93 anyway.
She doesn't have to just steal them from Graf. 1994 French Open, 1994 Wimbledon, 1994 U.S. Open, and 1995 Australian Open are all in play. And then, after 1996, even setting aside Hingis, you still have events like the French Open in 1997 and 1998 as two clear examples.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
I already factored in 1994 FO, 1994 USO and 1995 AO (see my previous post) she wins 2 of them and 6 more from Graf which would make her end with 17 until the end of 1996. After that she doesn’t win much more imho, especially not 5 more slams.
All fair points. OTOH, I wonder what Graf's mental state would have been like had she lost yet again to Seles in the 1993 French final.
In 1992, she played Seles really tough in the French final before losing 10-8 in the fifth. Despite playing pretty well, Graf came into Wimbledon lacking confidence after the loss, almost losing to De Swardt and dropping the first set against Fendick.
In the 1993 Australian Open final, Graf looked more frustrated than ever against Seles. If she lost to her again to Seles in the French final, she could have been susceptible to early upsets again and might not have had the confidence to come back against Novotna, especially if they played before the final.
insideoutforehanders
Rookie
Still can't believe Hingis blew a historic Grand Slam in 97 to Majoli. I know she wasnt her best after the horse accudent, and it showed in her play often there, but she still was able to make the final beating peeps like Seles and Sanchez and then hot rising star Kournikova so even rusty Majoli should be no problem. Her alpha Mom probably beat the sh1t out of her backstage after that!
I don't know, it just seems weird that you're saying a best case scenario for Seles is not "win[ning] much more" after age 22 (Seles turned 23 in December 1996) when she had won 17 Majors between the ages of 16-22 (in this hypo).
Based on a variety of factors, that very well could have ended up being the case, but I don't see Seles winning very little after age 23 if there's no stabbing, she stays healthy, and she stacks Majors from 1991-1996. Again, any number of things could have derailed her career, but, in your scenario, we're asking what happens with Seles if "all stars align."
Last edited:
insideoutforehanders
Rookie
One reason my projection for Seles is so high is she was still contending as late as 2001 and 2002 in slams. Now I don't think her actual tennis (apart from maybe slightly better fitness, and even that is 50/50) is magically that different way that far into the future from her 92-93 height then but people overlook the mental factor of everything. For one thing she is now possibly the GOAT people are facing or atleast a GOAT candidate ala Graf, Feder, Djokovic, Nadal, Serena, rather than just a 2nd tier all time great nowhere near GOAT contention as she is commonly seen now. That alone can turn many of those big 3 set losses into wins. Why do you think people choke vs Djokovic, Graf, and Serena so often. I don't think she outright dominates any future years post 92 as much as 91-92, apart from a chance of one or both of 93 & 94, but even that I am not convinced. She doesn't have to though. If she wins even 6 total slams from 93-96 (a very cautious, probably too low estimate), 3 in 97 and 98, 2 total 99 to 2001, 1 lucky one post 2002, that takes her to 20 already. She ain't beating say Venus st a US open or Wimbledon 99 onwards, or probably peak Rena in any slam as late as 2002 onwards, and I don't think she even totally dominates Graf or Hingis but she doesn't need to in order to reach being a strong GOAT contender. Especialy as adding facing Graf to later facing the toughest womens field in history 98-2003 her competition is now overall probably the toughest ever too.
Similar threads
