Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Under Carlos Moya
Robert1, if you did change your title to How Good was Tracy Austin at her peak and then changed your conclusion to "she was able to challenge Chris and then Martina, neither of whom were playing their best tennis for some of this period, but never really overtook both of them at the same for other than a fleeting moment or two at best", we'd be in full agreement.
I've been setting my sights on your stats for a while and i do have a few broadsides to fire but I think given the way you have made your calculations, one cannonball will do.
Please remember that I still don't buy the intial premise or really see what this is trying to prove.
Anyway, re point 3: although the series championships were important tournaments, I don't think they were ever considered as equal to Wimbledon, the US Open or the French Open by the tennis world or the general public. No player then (or now) would have traded a Wimbledon for an Avon title. Let us be generous and say they were equivalent to the Australian Opens of this time, however. In this case, we cannot accord the Avon Championships of 1980 the same weight as, say, the US Open of that year. How shall we split it 2pts for a Wimbledon-US-French and 1 point for an Aus Open-Avon-Colgate?
Martina's 1 Wimbledon, 1 Avon and 1 Colgate = 4points
Tracy's US = 2pts, as does Chrissie's French.
Martina is therefore #1 for 1979
Tracy wins the Avon and Colgate titles but no grand slam = 2points
Martina no grand slam and no series champs = zilcho
Chrissie wins the US and French titles = 4points
Evonne wins Wimbledon = 2 points
Hana wins in Oz = 1 point
Chris is therefore #1 in 1980
Tracy wins the US and Colgate titles in 81 = 3pts
Chris wins Wimbledon = 2 points
Martina wins the Avon and Australian titles = 2 points
Hana wins the French = 2 points
Tracy is #1 for 81
Martina 4 +0 +2 =6
Tracy 2+2+3 = 7
Chris 2+4+2 = 8
If we attack this problem from a different vantage point, we could say (again, I'm not saying I think so; this is just to drive the point home) that in the cases where the Avon, Colgate and Aussie opens did attract all three players, they should get 2 points too. In that case,
Martina gets 6 points
Same result only more emphatic.
Chris remains at #1
Chris 2 points
Tracy 4 points
Hana 2 points
Martina 3 points
Tracy stays #1
Overall totals 1979-81
Martina :9 points
Tracy: 9 points
Chris: 8 points
Hey presto - a completely different result! Chris goes from first to last with a simple bit of arithmetic.
Conclusion: your definition of "major" and equation of Wimbledon with the Colgate/Toyota Series Championships changes everything. Point 3 can therefore have almost any winner you want. If Chris comes top there, she then heads 3/6 categories and walks off with your "best player" award.
Which tournaments you included/excluded has a bearing on many of the other categories (1, 2, 4, 6) so it is hard to say too much about those for now.
Sorry if I sound ruthless but on this one I really do think the general perception is correct: she was squashed out by Martina and Chris; like lady jane grey, she was a claimant but she was never the rightful queen.
Traits Gandhi considered the most spiritually perilous to humanity.*Wealth without Work * Pleasure without Conscience
*Science without Humanity *Knowledge without Character
*Politics without Principle *Commerce without Morality
*Worship without Sacrifice