Like it or not, Court has won more slams, tournaments, highest winning % since 1960. Again, there was no women's pro tour. Therefore all top women were competing during the Court era too.
This is an important point often lost. The difference between the Open era and pre-Open era irrelevant for the women. Look at the years bracketing the beginning of Open tennis 1966-1970. Four players, Court, BJK, Richey, Haydon-Jones won slams in pre-Open tennis and Open tennis. The only player who won in the two years, prior, who didn't win in the Open era, was Francois Durr.
There are a couple other issues people overlook.
Doubles is NOT irrelevant. ALL the players in the GOAT debate played doubles at the slams. Some were just better at it than others. You can't ignore what Court and BJK and Navratilova and Wills-Moody accomplished in doubles and mixed, just because it complicates the argument.
Weeks-at-#1 is a stat of limited value, because how the #1 ranking was calculated changed fairly frequently. Also, how do you calculate weeks-at-#1 for players pre-computer rankings? YOu can just give them 52 weeks for each year they were voted #1 for the year,but it was
The Australian Open WAS a weak tournament many players skipped. Navratilova and Evert even skipped it often. Too much expense for not enough money. It's actually quite fair to argue Serena and Steffi Graf's numbers are somewhat inflated but OZ titles.
Seles being stabbed can only be more of a tie-breaker kind of thing than anything definitive. According to Seles herself, she had an eating disorder long before she got stabbed. Anything could have triggered her weight gain. So I can't assume she'd have won slams that should be subtracted from Graf's total. OTOH, the circumstancial evidence that Seles stabbing had SOME effect of Graf's slam totals is quite strong.
'Weak era'. Nonsense. Era look weak because of dominant champions. If you just look at slam singles titles, the 60's look weak, the eighties look weak, the current era looks weak, because 1 or 2 players dominated. But if you look closer, it's a lot more like, we know what kind of player Lindsay Davenport actually was, but most poeple on this forum saw her player. We know how good Hingis was, how good Mauresmo was. But the history of tennis is littered with players who's accomplishments were just as good. But 50 years later, we've forgotten them.
Martina Hingis and Maria Sharapova are tied for 21st on the list of all-tim slam singles winners. I defy any to name all the player ahead of them without looking them up.
There's a lot to balance if you want to say who's GOAT. In absolute terms, just talking singles, in a round-robin tournament, each with their own equipment and training, Serena probably wins easily. If you're arguing accomplishments, it's probably still Navrtilova vs Court. Serena's accomplishments outside the slams still fall short.
But if you want to argue Graf, hey, whatever.