PDA

View Full Version : Navratilova just overstepped the mark


Sha_ra_po_va
Sep 3rd, 2006, 12:39 AM
The praise everyone has been heaping on her, including the stuff we had to endure in BJK ceremony, seems to have totally gone to martina...this is what she had to say about volleying today:
I'm the greatest volleyer that's ever played, and I would have a hard time serve-volleying in today's game, so something is wrong.

"The courts are too slow, the rackets are too powerful, so you're going to see much more one dimensional tennis. It takes a genius to play really well at the net.

"Even Federer, he used to serve and volley. Now he's staying back more because it's safer."

hmm, excuse me...?

VeeReeDavJCap81
Sep 3rd, 2006, 12:41 AM
The more she talks, the less I like her.

iPatty
Sep 3rd, 2006, 12:43 AM
now i remember why i was glad she was retiring...finally.

tennisbum79
Sep 3rd, 2006, 12:45 AM
The praise everyone has been heaping on her, including the stuff we had to endure in BJK ceremony, seems to have totally gone to martina...this is what she had to say about volleying today:
I'm the greatest volleyer that's ever played, and I would have a hard time serve-volleying in today's game, so something is wrong.

"The courts are too slow, the rackets are too powerful, so you're going to see much more one dimensional tennis. It takes a genius to play really well at the net.

"Even Federer, he used to serve and volley. Now he's staying back more because it's safer."

hmm, excuse me...?
I think by coming back and constantly trying to compete for the spotlight with today's generation, she has done a diservice to herself.
Why does she just follows Chris and Steffi example and have a quiet, dignified retirement. She has accomplished so much that she will be remembered for a long time, if that what she is afraid of.

GoDominique
Sep 3rd, 2006, 12:45 AM
Leave her alone! If she wants to destroy her legacy by being an arrogant and bitter old cow, more power to her! :worship:

tennisbum79
Sep 3rd, 2006, 12:52 AM
Leave her alone! If she wants to destroy her legacy by being an arrogant and bitter old cow, more power to her! :worship:

Of course we do not want her to destroy her legacy. She has given a lot to tennis on both side of the Atlantic.

She defected to the west to flee communist collectivism and develop her talent in the free world, And she did really well, and people appreciated that and earned a lot of respect for that.

But lately, she has become self-destrcutive by clinging to the spotlight

cellophane
Sep 3rd, 2006, 01:01 AM
When I watched her volleys in Rosmalen last year against Claudine Schaul, I must say I was :confused: as to why she is the greatest volleyer.

Marcus Jordan
Sep 3rd, 2006, 01:07 AM
The praise everyone has been heaping on her, including the stuff we had to endure in BJK ceremony, seems to have totally gone to martina...this is what she had to say about volleying today:
I'm the greatest volleyer that's ever played, and I would have a hard time serve-volleying in today's game, so something is wrong.

"The courts are too slow, the rackets are too powerful, so you're going to see much more one dimensional tennis. It takes a genius to play really well at the net.

"Even Federer, he used to serve and volley. Now he's staying back more because it's safer."

hmm, excuse me...?

I agree 100% with Martina N.

Dani12
Sep 3rd, 2006, 01:07 AM
She annoys me, but I'm not going to start bashing herself because she wants to be bitter.

tennisbum79
Sep 3rd, 2006, 01:09 AM
When I watched her volleys in Rosmalen last year against Claudine Schaul, I must say I was :confused: as to why she is the greatest volleyer.

Yes, she is great volleyer, and fans like you and I have been saying it for years.
But apparently that is not enough for her. She wants to make sure that not
only we know how great she is, but how much better she is against today's generation.

ZAK
Sep 3rd, 2006, 01:11 AM
Yes, she is great volleyer, and fans like you and I have been saying it for years.
But apparently that is not enough for her. She wants to make sure that not
only we know how great she is, but how much better she is against today's generation.

Thats not her point at though. She is saying the courts are too slow

cellophane
Sep 3rd, 2006, 01:12 AM
Yes, she is great volleyer, and fans like you and I have been saying it for years.
But apparently that is not enough for her. She wants to make sure that not
only we know how great she is, but how much better she is against today's generation.

I was honestly not impressed by her volleys in that match. She netted so many of them.

Dawn Marie
Sep 3rd, 2006, 01:14 AM
"and I would have a hard time serve-volleying in today's game, so something is wrong."


Martina just because you would have a hard time volleying in today's game doesn't make today's game WRONG! This women is such a narcissist.

Really it's time she shut the hell on up and let tennis evolve.

I don't hear Jack Nicholas or Palmer getting all pissy because the clubs are made to hit the golf ball harder. Shut it. :kiss:

tennisbum79
Sep 3rd, 2006, 01:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tennisbum79
Yes, she is great volleyer, and fans like you and I have been saying it for years.
But apparently that is not enough for her. She wants to make sure that not
only we know how great she is, but how much better she is against today's generation.



I was honestly not impressed by her cuvolleys in that match. She netted so many of them.

But we should not judge her by her current volley making ability.
And by making statements like this, she is oppening the door to be judged that way

Dawn Marie
Sep 3rd, 2006, 01:21 AM
Thats not her point at though. She is saying the courts are too slow

What she really is saying is that the she is not fast enough anymore.

treufreund
Sep 3rd, 2006, 01:21 AM
Please read the entire interview. There is NOTHING WRONG with what she said. She is saying that the racquets are allowing players to win based solely on banging away at the ball. Talent matters less. She is trying to save the sport from boring, one-dimensional baseline tennis. If you are against what she is trying to do, then perhaps it is your agenda to see 1-dimensional, power tennis winning out???

UncleZeke
Sep 3rd, 2006, 01:22 AM
Martina speaks the truth..

treufreund
Sep 3rd, 2006, 01:23 AM
And, yes, she is the greatest volleyer (and yet would not be able at all to play her style.)

Tennis Fool
Sep 3rd, 2006, 01:25 AM
Boy, people are really bored due to the rain :rolleyes:

hablo
Sep 3rd, 2006, 01:27 AM
Please read the entire interview. There is NOTHING WRONG with what she said. She is saying that the racquets are allowing players to win based solely on banging away at the ball. Talent matters less. She is trying to save the sport from boring, one-dimensional baseline tennis. If you are against what she is trying to do, then perhaps it is your agenda to see 1-dimensional, power tennis winning out???
Exactly, doesn't an all-court player requires one to also be able to volley ? And she's saying that the courts now being slower just favours the baseliners. I see nothing wrong with what she's saying either.

ceiling_fan
Sep 3rd, 2006, 01:27 AM
Her point is valid.

Joana
Sep 3rd, 2006, 01:34 AM
And, yes, she is the greatest volleyer (and yet would not be able at all to play her style.)

Yes, and so what? The entire game needs to change just to suit her style?

Kart
Sep 3rd, 2006, 01:34 AM
Some context would be helpful.

tennisbum79
Sep 3rd, 2006, 01:37 AM
No body is saying she dos not have a valid point.

What we (poster who object to Martina's statement) object is the way she says it. She is legend, she can say anything she likes.
But there is a responsible way for a legend like her, to get her point accross.

I think it was uncessary to state "I'm the greatest volleyer that's ever played"

A self-deprecating form would have made her point more appealing abd receptive. We know how goof she is, she need not re-state that each time.
Modesty and humilty are a geat vehicle to one's point across

terjw
Sep 3rd, 2006, 01:37 AM
Please read the entire interview. There is NOTHING WRONG with what she said. She is saying that the racquets are allowing players to win based solely on banging away at the ball. Talent matters less. She is trying to save the sport from boring, one-dimensional baseline tennis. If you are against what she is trying to do, then perhaps it is your agenda to see 1-dimensional, power tennis winning out???

Exactly - I for one think there was more excitement and variety when we had serve & volleyers vs baseliners. What we get nowadays is lots of 1-dimensional power play coupled with loads of injuries. Martina is spot on.

supergrunt
Sep 3rd, 2006, 01:38 AM
Gee, I guess everyone is kissing Federer's ass; even the very opinionated Navratolova. I don't recall Federer ever coming to net that much unless he needed to. :rolleyes:

Marshmallow
Sep 3rd, 2006, 01:40 AM
Her point is VALID. A lot of up and coming players are one dimensional. For example, just look at Maria S. She only comes to the net, when there is simply no alternative, her drop shots are moon balls, her volleys... well HAVE YOU SEEN THEM?

I digress... but you don't have to agree with her point, but her point does have substance. It's just that arrogant remark the seems to ruin it, making people focus on why they dislike Martina, instead of the very real issue, worthy of discussion.

Fingon
Sep 3rd, 2006, 01:44 AM
I partially agree with her.

Partially because I do agree that one-dimensional tennis is hurting the sport. Personally I prefer serve and volley but it's not a matter of preference, why were Agassi vs Sampras matches great? because they had contrasting styles, that doesn't happen anymore.

The courts ARE slower, Federer said that last year at Wimbledon, that he preferred to stay back because the court was too slow, grass courts are supposed to be fast.

And new racquets do contribute to that, anyone can get great power with no much effort, all they need to do is to learn to keep the ball in.

However, I am not sure that's the cause-effect, I blame more the tennis academies.

It's quite simple, they get new tennis prospects when they are 8-9 years old or even earlier, they don't know if they will succeed or not, but it's a safer bet to pick big, strong girls (or guys) that will smack the shit out of the ball and will run fast, at least they will win some matches.

to develop a serve and volleyers is a lot riskier, it takes year, they won't see the results until probably 5-7 years and they might find out they wasted their time, and if a serve and volleyer isn't good, she will simply get killed on the court. A big girl with power can still do something even if she isn't that good, won't get to # 1 but can win something.

So, I don't think racquet technology set the trend, it rather followed the trend, tennis academies, particulary in the United States set the trend, business set the trend.

Other sports have taken measures to make their games more interesting, the NBA has, the FIFA has, every time the ITF, WTA or ATP have attempted anything they blew it, so what can we do? :help:

GrandSlam05
Sep 3rd, 2006, 01:46 AM
I agree with what many of you are saying. She has a great point but her message is lost because of way she said it.

NyCPsU
Sep 3rd, 2006, 01:46 AM
i agree with what she is saying
just not in the manner that shes saying it
perhaps a more humble tone would get her message across better :shrug:

bmwofoz
Sep 3rd, 2006, 01:48 AM
I think Martina has the best net game ever, not the best serve thou.

I think she is correct to say that the Women's game is being dominated by power hitters whom hit winners of both sides, but guess what, that's been that way now for nearly the last 20 years.

Federer stays back that is true, but give me that backhand and I wouldn't be wasting my time at the net either.

supergrunt
Sep 3rd, 2006, 01:52 AM
Just another old perosn complaining about today's power game. :rolleyes: If you go to a tennis club, you will hear a bunch of old people complaing about the same thing. :)

selking
Sep 3rd, 2006, 02:59 AM
please tell me one better volleyer. Try and name one

!<blocparty>!
Sep 3rd, 2006, 03:04 AM
I agree with her. :shrug:

SelesFan70
Sep 3rd, 2006, 03:05 AM
"and I would have a hard time serve-volleying in today's game, so something is wrong."


Martina just because you would have a hard time volleying in today's game doesn't make today's game WRONG! This women is such a narcissist.

Really it's time she shut the hell on up and let tennis evolve.

I don't hear Jack Nicholas or Palmer getting all pissy because the clubs are made to hit the golf ball harder. Shut it. :kiss:

Hell has frozen over...I agree with Dawn Marie! :lol:

harloo
Sep 3rd, 2006, 03:11 AM
Once again Martina proves why she needs to sit down somewhere and retire. If she really wanted to make a difference talking to the tennis academies about teaching effective serve and volley techniques should be her goal. Why not start your own academy and develop all around players?

How high minded she is to call herself "the best volleyer ever". The woman should exercise a bit of decorum if she want's people to take her seriously. I imagine that's never going to happen though.:o

Paneru
Sep 3rd, 2006, 03:13 AM
:tape: :tape: :tape:

her time has come and gone and yet she
still feels the need to talk! I sense some
insecurity or the fact that she's last centuries news.

I saw a piece on either ABC or CBS yesterday about
BJK & her impact on women's sports. When young girls
from various sports were asked about her they knew nothing
more than that she was a tennis player to which BJK responded,
"I like it that way". Meaning, these girls have never known a time
when girls couldn't play sports and so on.

My point is, BJK doesn't feel the need to continually talk
herself up of all of whom she is and what she's done unlike
Martina who seems to not only talk herself up, but continually
making bitchy comments towards the game and various players today.
When i think of her or hear her speak it often sounds so bitter.

Hmmm...Oh well. :cool:

IceHock
Sep 3rd, 2006, 03:14 AM
Well....she is.

Lapin
Sep 3rd, 2006, 03:19 AM
Well....she is.

Quite possibly, but she shouldn't say it! :p IMHO, that's for other people to say..... ;)

IceHock
Sep 3rd, 2006, 03:21 AM
Quite possibly, but she shouldn't say it! :p IMHO, that's for other people to say..... ;)


So should she say she is a crappy volleyer??I know what you mean though it is kinda cocky,but I mean it's not like she's lying.

bis2806
Sep 3rd, 2006, 03:24 AM
Well Martina, the game HAS changed over time so you have to learn how to adapt. Don't blame it on technology because if it hadn't existed then you wouldn't be playing on hardcourts :rolleyes:

supermann
Sep 3rd, 2006, 03:33 AM
please tell me one better volleyer. Try and name one

Exactly. I think shes trying to say that the serve and volley game wouldn't work with all these power players. I agree with her statement.

supermann
Sep 3rd, 2006, 03:39 AM
Martina speaks the truth..


Martina — uncompromising, bold, confident, intelligent — has always worn her heart on her sleeve. But she is most of all fiercely authentic and loyal, those who know her say. She once refused to participate in an ad sponsored by the milk industry because she doesn't drink milk and doesn't consume a lot of dairy products.

"I'm not going to blow smoke up somebody's you-know-what just to sell something so that I can, what, live in a bigger house? That's not what life is about," she says.

Volcana
Sep 3rd, 2006, 04:07 AM
The praise everyone has been heaping on her, including the stuff we had to endure in BJK ceremony, seems to have totally gone to martina...this is what she had to say about volleying today:
I'm the greatest volleyer that's ever played, and I would have a hard time serve-volleying in today's game, so something is wrong.

"The courts are too slow, the rackets are too powerful, so you're going to see much more one dimensional tennis. It takes a genius to play really well at the net.

"Even Federer, he used to serve and volley. Now he's staying back more because it's safer."

hmm, excuse me...?EVERYTHING Navratilova said is completely true. Right down to Federer staying back a lot more, instead of playing serve-and-volley.

Also, Navratilova isn't just the the best volleyer of all time on the women's tour. She's the best volleyer on the WTA tour NOW. Watch her play doubles. She can get off volleys no one else can come close too.

Dawn Marie
Sep 3rd, 2006, 04:15 AM
Martina imho feels that the tennis era that she played in is the way tennis should always be until forever. Tennis evolves. The game evolved when she was in her prime.

She's like a lost Dinosaur in downtown 2006 Manhattan or better yet Queens,Flushing Meadows. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Poor Lost Dino.


Martina is a great player but she has to LET GO. Just LET IT GO. You can't stop the hands of time.

MrSerenaWilliams
Sep 3rd, 2006, 04:16 AM
Yes, and so what? The entire game needs to change just to suit her style?

*death* :haha: your avatar just added SO much life to your post. And like a lot of posters have said, it's not what she said, it's HOW she said it. It's VERY true, but she could have chosen her words better.

junlee_vee
Sep 3rd, 2006, 04:18 AM
The more she talks, the less I like her.

You aint jokin'!

darrinbaker00
Sep 3rd, 2006, 04:21 AM
Is Navratilova calling press conferences to make these statements? No. Reporters come to her, and she answers whatever questions they ask her. Judging from the responses in this thread and others like it, it's quite clear to me that quite a few people are interested in what Navratilova has to say.

IceHock
Sep 3rd, 2006, 04:26 AM
Is Navratilova calling press conferences to make these statements? No. Reporters come to her, and she answers whatever questions they ask her. Judging from the responses in this thread and others like it, it's quite clear to me that quite a few people are interested in what Navratilova has to say.


I think Navritilova should take Larry Scott's position,she would do wonders for tennis.

mboyle
Sep 3rd, 2006, 04:35 AM
I'm the greatest volleyer that's ever played,

As the old saying goes,

"It ain't bragging if it's the truth."

She is the best volleyer that has played.

Scotso
Sep 3rd, 2006, 04:38 AM
She is the greatest volleyer.

LDVTennis
Sep 3rd, 2006, 05:15 AM
The praise everyone has been heaping on her, including the stuff we had to endure in BJK ceremony, seems to have totally gone to martina...this is what she had to say about volleying today:
I'm the greatest volleyer that's ever played, and I would have a hard time serve-volleying in today's game, so something is wrong.

"The courts are too slow, the rackets are too powerful, so you're going to see much more one dimensional tennis. It takes a genius to play really well at the net.

"Even Federer, he used to serve and volley. Now he's staying back more because it's safer."

hmm, excuse me...?

Martina as deluded about her own abilities as ever.

Martina is not the "greatest volleyer that's ever played." BJK had a much better net game than Martina.

Martina's game no long works for three simple reasons: (1) Martina does not have the technique on her serve or her groundstrokes to harness the potential of the new technology. (2) Martina is a short woman. She would need the racquet speed and technique of a Henin-Hardenne to be effective in today's game. She has neither. (3) Martina was never as fast as Steffi. Without that kind of speed, Martina just doesn't have much chance at the net against the increased pace in the women's game.

As for Federer. He never played like Martina at all. If he is going to the net less these days, it is only because he is maximizing on the potential of his serve and forehand to win points. Martina never had a forehand like Federer's. Therefore, she never had this option.

supermann
Sep 3rd, 2006, 05:22 AM
Martina as deluded about her own abilities as ever.

Martina is not the "greatest volleyer that's ever played." BJK had a much better net game than Martina.

Martina's game no long works for three simple reasons: (1) Martina does not have the technique on her serve or her groundstrokes to harness the potential of the new technology. (2) Martina is a short woman. She would need the racquet speed and technique of a Henin-Hardenne to be effective in today's game. She has neither. (3) Martina was never as fast as Steffi. Without that kind of speed, Martina just doesn't have much chance at the net against the increased pace in the women's game.



Navratilova won an all-time record 9 Wimbledon singles titles without a knife in the back of Evert or Graf.

Navratilova won an all-time record 8 WTA Tour Championships without a knife in the back of Evert or Graf.

Navratilova won an all-time record 167 WTA Tour singles titles without a knife in the back of Evert or Graf.

Navratilova won a record 6 Wimbledon singles titles -- she got to the final round of Wimbledon in 9 consecutive years vs. 3 years in a row for Graf -- she got to the quarters or better in 20 consecutive Wimbledons vs. 10 years in a row for Graf.

Navratilova had a tremendous career with some all-time records at some of the biggest events in the world and in both singles and doubles -- and she accomplished these without a knife in the back of Evert or Graf.

trivfun
Sep 3rd, 2006, 05:27 AM
The Girls are bigger and faster now than in Martina's time. They are bonafide athletes from 3rd round and forward. You can blame raquets and courts but it won't mean a thing. Martina, you are too small to play singles and not quick enough.

Fingon
Sep 3rd, 2006, 05:28 AM
I think Navritilova should take Larry Scott's position,she would do wonders for tennis.


actually, a dog could take Larry Scott's position and would do a better job.

abayen
Sep 3rd, 2006, 05:29 AM
Right, I wonder if that was why Martina was beating Steffi and Monica in their prime while she herself was well past her own.

At 5'8" and with her build, I think she's better built than a lot of current players. Besides, height = power is such a fallacy. Obviously you dont watch a lot of tennis. Given how Martina continuously adjusted her game, I wouldn't be surprised to see Martina to have a very effective game with modern racquet( which arguably she already did to an extent)if she cared too.


Talking about speed, watch the Wimbledon top 10 points. Watch the number 3 point in particular.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=kLAuQ5K1qyo


Those of you who are cribbing about her outspokenness, remember it was this very outspokenness which got her and some might even say tennis to where it is now. If all of us were as muted as, let's say, LDVTennis' idol, womens' tennis would still be what it was in the 30s.


Martina as deluded about her own abilities as ever.

Martina is not the "greatest volleyer that's ever played." BJK had a much better net game than Martina.

Martina's game no long works for three simple reasons: (1) Martina does not have the technique on her serve or her groundstrokes to harness the potential of the new technology. (2) Martina is a short woman. She would need the racquet speed and technique of a Henin-Hardenne to be effective in today's game. She has neither. (3) Martina was never as fast as Steffi. Without that kind of speed, Martina just doesn't have much chance at the net against the increased pace in the women's game.

As for Federer. He never played like Martina at all. If he is going to the net less these days, it is only because he is maximizing on the potential of his serve and forehand to win points. Martina never had a forehand like Federer's. Therefore, she never had this option.

Fingon
Sep 3rd, 2006, 05:32 AM
Martina's game no long works for three simple reasons: (1) Martina does not have the technique on her serve or her groundstrokes to harness the potential of the new technology. (2) Martina is a short woman. She would need the racquet speed and technique of a Henin-Hardenne to be effective in today's game. She has neither. (3) Martina was never as fast as Steffi. Without that kind of speed, Martina just doesn't have much chance at the net against the increased pace in the women's game.

Martina's game not longer works for three simple reasons: (1) she is too old. (2) she is too old. (3) she is too old.

supermann
Sep 3rd, 2006, 05:37 AM
Martina Navratilova is the most physically gifted female tennis player of all time. In the early to mid 1980s she was lean and mean and nobody since Navratilova has been as dominant in winning percentages in a given year or in several years.

254-6 in the 3 years 1982-1984 while winning 44 singles titles in that 3 year span?

She is in the Top 20 in women's tennis doubles today 20 years past her prime. There is no way any other woman player in the Open Era could achieve this.

Nobody else in the Open Era even comes close.

bmwofoz
Sep 3rd, 2006, 05:41 AM
Martina Navratilova is the most physically gifted female tennis player of all time. In the early to mid 1980s she was lean and mean and nobody since Navratilova has been as dominant in winning percentages in a given year or in several years.

254-6 in the 3 years 1982-1984 while winning 44 singles titles in that 3 year span?
She is in the Top 20 in women's tennis doubles today 20 years past her prime. There is no way any other woman player in the Open Era could achieve this.

Nobody else in the Open Era even comes close.

I have bolded the comment which gives her the right to say what she thinks.

Drake1980
Sep 3rd, 2006, 05:42 AM
Martina has earned the right to speak like that I think. I mean she's amazing!!! She does have the best volley of all time so lets cut her some slack.

LDVTennis
Sep 3rd, 2006, 06:06 AM
Those of you who are cribbing about her outspokenness, remember it was this very outspokenness which got her and some might even say tennis to where it is now. If all of us were as muted as, let's say, LDVTennis' idol, womens' tennis would still be what it was in the 30s.

Martina's outspokenness is as overrated as her game.

For all her outspokenness, how little of an impression she managed to have in the end on those who play the sport today. Even if no one could quite play like her today, there was still nothing stopping any of today's players from having admired her as a person and champion in their formative years. Yet, her name hardly ever comes up in response to the question, Who did you grow up admiring?

I know what you are going to say. It is the Lesbian thing, stupid. If that is the case, what explains the fact that Mauresmo grew up admiring Steffi and Gaby, NOT Martina.

So Disrespectful
Sep 3rd, 2006, 06:07 AM
The sport has progressed. In her day, she wouldn't have been able to hit today's groundstrokes, even with the right equipment. The human race has developed, not gone backwards. Same reason sprinters are faster than they were 30 years ago, every generation is better than the last.

abayen
Sep 3rd, 2006, 06:15 AM
Martina's outspokenness is as overrated as her game.

For all her outspokenness, how little of an impression she managed to have in the end on those who play the sport today. Even if no one could quite play like her today, there was still nothing stopping any of today's players from having admired her as a person and champion in their formative years. Yet, her name hardly ever comes up in response to the question, Who did you grow up admiring?

I know what you are going to say. It is the Lesbian thing, stupid. If that is the case, what explains the fact that Mauresmo grew up admiring Steffi and Gaby, NOT Martina.

Surely even you would know what Martina has done for tennis.

As for Amelie:
Idols: Admires Yannick Noah - his great performance at the French Open 1983 was the main reason that inspired her to take up the game
Liked Stefan Edberg's serve-and-volley style

Now, unlesss I missed something, Yannick and Stefan are not Gaby and Steffi. stop perpetrating lies.

Martina is not the kind of person who a lot of people will idolize(or mention explicitly even if they did) just like a lot of folks would never idolize Lendl. Sadly, that's how our world is.
But you are kidding yourself if you think she didn't have a significant impact on tennis.

GoDominique
Sep 3rd, 2006, 06:21 AM
Steffi Graf probably had the best forehand ever but I don't remember her commenting on it.

That's the point. :)

supermann
Sep 3rd, 2006, 06:22 AM
Martina's outspokenness is as overrated as her game.

For all her outspokenness, how little of an impression she managed to have in the end on those who play the sport today. Even if no one could quite play like her today, there was still nothing stopping any of today's players from having admired her as a person and champion in their formative years. Yet, her name hardly ever comes up in response to the question, Who did you grow up admiring?

I know what you are going to say. It is the Lesbian thing, stupid. If that is the case, what explains the fact that Mauresmo grew up admiring Steffi and Gaby, NOT Martina.

In the Aug. 27, 2001 issue, Sports Illustrated dug deep to uncover the most overrated people, places and things in sports -- and celebrate the most underrated ones.


Tennis Player

Overrated
Steffi Graf

Underrated
Jack Kramer

If you don't appreciate the champion that Martina Navratilova was ... then, you are even more limited in your tennis knowledge (how can someone be more limited in tennis knowledge than LDVTennis??? :lol: ) than I had originally thought.

LDVTennis
Sep 3rd, 2006, 06:26 AM
Martina Navratilova is the most physically gifted female tennis player of all time.

In the 1988 Wimbledon Final, the most "physically gifted female tennis player" wasn't fast enough to cover the net. Heck, on most points she wasn't even fast enough to get to the net. She was being past at the service box line and even at the baseline.

That was 1988. Steffi would not reach her physical and technical peak until 1996. If in 1988 Martina could only stay with Steffi on guile alone, she would by 1996 had only as good a chance of beating Steffi as Jana Novotna or Natalie Tauziat. That is NOT a very good chance at all.

If Martina is finding it hard today to cope with all the power, perhaps, she should take a look at that 1988 Wimbledon Final. That is where it all started going wrong. The only difference between then and now is that more women can hit with that kind of power, perhaps not the same precision, but certainly the same level of power.

supermann
Sep 3rd, 2006, 06:33 AM
In the 1988 Wimbledon Final, the most "physically gifted female tennis player" wasn't fast enough to cover the net. Heck, on most points she wasn't even fast enough to get to the net. She was being past at the service box line and even at the baseline.




The DIFFERENCE, again, is that Navratilova was in her 30s after 1986 and yet during the 1990s Navratilova had a winning record vs. Graf in Grand Slam events AND for the years 1990-1993 Navratilova had a winning record vs. Graf overall.

supermann
Sep 3rd, 2006, 06:35 AM
That was 1988. Steffi would not reach her physical and technical peak until 1996. If in 1988 Martina could only stay with Steffi on guile alone, she would by 1996 had only as good a chance of beating Steffi as Jana Novotna or Natalie Tauziat. That is NOT a very good chance at all.




The years that made Navratilova the greatest tennis player in women's tennis history were 1980-1986 when she turned 30 ... and then, in the years 1990-1993 when she in her mid 30s had a winning record vs. Graf (including a winning record vs. Graf in Grand Slam events) ... and, then, in the years 2003 and 2004, when Navratilova in her mid to upper 40s ranked in the top 5 to 10 in women's tennis in doubles and won even more Grand Slam titles.

Yeah, during the years that Graf and Navratilova played the only span when Graf had the true edge on Navratilova was in the years 1987 or 1988 through 1989. Other than that it was either Navratilova with the edge or it was even .... of course, we did not see Graf in those years 1973-1984 ... we did not see Graf playing singles and doubles ... and, we did not see Graf ranked in the top 10 during the years 2003 and 2004 in singles or doubles.

bionic71
Sep 3rd, 2006, 06:39 AM
As someone who has grown up watching and playing tennis from the late 70s to the present I have to say that Martina is spot on the money with her statements here....I can see nothing controversial in her statements whatsoever.
She was indeed the greatest, most complete net player I have ever seen (BJK was close, but Navratilova at her peak was a more intimidating presence at the net), the courts are indeed slower, the racquets allow all players to hit harder and it is almost a waste of time to serve volley today. There is no arrogance in the statements....

LDVTennis
Sep 3rd, 2006, 06:44 AM
As for Amelie:
Idols: Admires Yannick Noah - his great performance at the French Open 1983 was the main reason that inspired her to take up the game
Liked Stefan Edberg's serve-and-volley style

Now, unlesss I missed something, Yannick and Stefan are not Gaby and Steffi. stop perpetrating lies.

I am lying, am I?

From Amelie Mauresmo's post match press conference on Day 4 of the French Open:

Q. Can you talk about who were your role models when you were a little girl and do you feel comfortable being a role model and such a public face?

AMÉLIE MAURESMO: I don't know if I'm a role model. If I can give them a good example, it's great for me. As far as my role model when I was a kid, everybody know I started to play tennis watching Yannick Noah. I really don't know if I had really somebody I was admiring a lot or whatever. I liked Steffi Graf a lot. I liked Sabatini a lot. I was following all the French guys, Leconte, Forget, Yannick Noah.

:p

ToeTag
Sep 3rd, 2006, 06:47 AM
Surely even you would know what Martina has done for tennis.

As for Amelie:
Idols: Admires Yannick Noah - his great performance at the French Open 1983 was the main reason that inspired her to take up the game
Liked Stefan Edberg's serve-and-volley style

Now, unlesss I missed something, Yannick and Stefan are not Gaby and Steffi. stop perpetrating lies.


Amelie has said in the past that she was an admirer of Sabatini when she was growing up. I've never heard of her mentioning Graf or Edberg.

abayen
Sep 3rd, 2006, 07:02 AM
Wasn't aware of this. Very different from what Mauresmo had said earlier. But come on, which lesbian wouldn't find Steffi and Gaby hotter than Martina N. So what?
Surely this is not the only criterion for judging contribution to tennis?

And even if it were, for the record, Monica Seles has said umpteen times that she grew up admiring Martina Navratilova. So your point is largely moot.

I am lying, am I?

From Amelie Mauresmo's post match press conference on Day 4 of the French Open:

Q. Can you talk about who were your role models when you were a little girl and do you feel comfortable being a role model and such a public face?

AMÉLIE MAURESMO: I don't know if I'm a role model. If I can give them a good example, it's great for me. As far as my role model when I was a kid, everybody know I started to play tennis watching Yannick Noah. I really don't know if I had really somebody I was admiring a lot or whatever. I liked Steffi Graf a lot. I liked Sabatini a lot. I was following all the French guys, Leconte, Forget, Yannick Noah.

:p

LDVTennis
Sep 3rd, 2006, 07:15 AM
The DIFFERENCE, again, is that Navratilova was in her 30s after 1986 and yet during the 1990s Navratilova had a winning record vs. Graf in Grand Slam events AND for the years 1990-1993 Navratilova had a winning record vs. Graf overall.

You are so full of it. To make your point, you have to leave out the year 1994. Add that year and there is NO winning record at the end of Martina's singles career.

As it is, their head to head record ends up being 9-9. How could that be? Didn't Martina have 2.5 years before Steffi was 18 to defeat Steffi as many times as she could? Yet, Steffi defeats Martina in the fourth match of the series. From 1985 to June of 1987 (before Steffi turns 18), the head to head record is 5-3, Martina N.. Steffi is nowhere near her peak, yet she's only 2 matches behind in their head to head record. How could that be? Wasn't Martina at her best from 1980 -1987. In 1987, Martina won Wimbledon and the US Open. Now, why did you forget that?

Perhaps, the most telling head to head statistic is this one. At Wimbledon, the head to head record between Steffi and the "greatest Wimbledon Champion of All-Time" is 2-1 for Steffi Graf.

supermann
Sep 3rd, 2006, 07:37 AM
You are so full of it. To make your point, you have to leave out the year 1994. Add that year and there is NO winning record at the end of Martina's singles career.

As it is, their head to head record ends up being 9-9.


Martina Navratilova is the greatest player of all time in women's tennis -- her DOMINANCE in the 1980s during her prime ... her record vs. Graf in the 1990s when Navratilova was well past her prime and into her mid to late 30s ... her being the only player in tennis history to win 160 titles in both singles and doubles ... her being the only woman in tennis history to have the all-time record for most singles titles at 2 of the 5 biggest events in women's tennis.

Navratilova being better historically than Graf is so obvious. Steffi Graf had some pretty good results, though, for a couple of years in the late 1980s and then after the top player of the first half of the 1990s was stabbed in the back with a knife.

LDVTennis
Sep 3rd, 2006, 07:40 AM
Wasn't aware of this. Very different from what Mauresmo had said earlier. But come on, which lesbian wouldn't find Steffi and Gaby hotter than Martina N. So what?
Surely this is not the only criterion for judging contribution to tennis?

And even if it were, for the record, Monica Seles has said umpteen times that she grew up admiring Martina Navratilova. So your point is largely moot.

So, what exactly is moot? You began by arguing that following Steffi's example would have caused women's tennis to regress back to what it was in the 30's.

I countered that claim by challenging your assumption that Martina's example was so impressive. Your claim now that Monica grew up admiring Martina does not make my argument moot. She is just one person. Hardly much of an impression.

Hardly much of an impression, you ask. As compared to what? Compared to this --- Mauresmo, Clijsters, Henin-Hardenne, Vaidisova, Mirza, and Radwanska, all of whom have answered the question, Who did you grow up admiring, with the same name. Two of these players are considered to represent the future of the sport. Regressing back to the 30's? I don't think so.

Mr_Molik
Sep 3rd, 2006, 07:45 AM
please tell me one better volleyer. Try and name one
i can think of dozens of men and her comment wasnt gender specific..

supermann
Sep 3rd, 2006, 07:45 AM
You are so full of it. To make your point, you have to leave out the year 1994. Add that year and there is NO winning record at the end of Martina's singles career.

As it is, their head to head record ends up being 9-9. How could that be? Didn't Martina have 2.5 years before Steffi was 18 to defeat Steffi as many times as she could? Yet, Steffi defeats Martina in the fourth match of the series. From 1985 to June of 1987 (before Steffi turns 18), the head to head record is 5-3, Martina N.. Steffi is nowhere near her peak, yet she's only 2 matches behind in their head to head record. How could that be? Wasn't Martina at her best from 1980 -1987. In 1987, Martina won Wimbledon and the US Open. Now, why did you forget that?




Navratilova and Graf played 3 matches on grass with the only one not going 3 sets won by Navratilova (1987 Wimbledon final). Then, Graf won the 1988 and the 1989 Wimbledon finals in 3 sets over Martina Navratilova to win her first 2 after Navratilova had already won over the 10 previous years with the exception of Goolagong and Evert both winning one.

From the beginning of 1987 (as Graf hit her best 3 years 1987-1989 just as Navratilova had done 5 years earlier in 1982-1984) they were TIED on hardcourts (2-2 and Navratilova led in Grand Slam singles matches on hardcourts in those years 2-1 with wins over Graf in their 1987 U.S. Open final and in their 1991 U.S. Open semifinal) ... they only played one match on clay ... and then they had the 3 Wimbledon finals in Graf's prime years of 1987, 1988 and 1989 with Navratilova winning the one in 1987 and Graf winning the ones in 1988 and 1989.

Except for the 4 match wins by Graf in her best years of 1988 and 1989 (all were in split set matches) ... Navratilova led 9-5 and they split the last 4 in the 1990s with, again, Navratilova winning the only one in a Grand Slam event.

supermann
Sep 3rd, 2006, 07:48 AM
Perhaps, the most telling head to head statistic is this one. At Wimbledon, the head to head record between Steffi and the "greatest Wimbledon Champion of All-Time" is 2-1 for Steffi Graf.

2-1 against PAST HER PRIME Navratilova is the most telling head to head statistic?:lol:

Navratilova was 8 to 10 years past her prime and still they went 2-2 in the 1990s with Navratilova winning their only match during the 1990s in a Grand Slam event.

Navratilova won 5 out of 7 on hardcourts vs. Graf (including 4 out of 5 a the U.S. Open) .. with Navratilova beating Graf in the 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1991 U.S. Open events while only losing once -- the 1989 U.S. Open final -- and her only loss to Graf at the U.S. Open was in 3 sets.

Navratilova and Graf were 3-3 indoors. In their 3 matches at the biggest indoor event in the world (the WTA Tour Championships) Navratilova won twice in straight sets and Graf won once in split sets.

LDVTennis
Sep 3rd, 2006, 07:53 AM
Martina Navratilova is the greatest player of all time in women's tennis -- her DOMINANCE in the 1980s during her prime ... her record vs. Graf in the 1990s when Navratilova was well past her prime and into her mid to late 30s ... her being the only player in tennis history to win 160 titles in both singles and doubles ... her being the only woman in tennis history to have the all-time record for most singles titles at 2 of the 5 biggest events in women's tennis.

Her never having completed a Grand Slam, all four majors in the same calendar year.

Her not having a winning record against Steffi Graf at Wimbledon.

Her not holding the record for most consecutive weeks at No. 1.

Her never having won the French Open almost as many times as Wimbledon.

Her inability to compete in the new power generation.

Which brings us full circle back to her claim "I am the greatest serve and volley player."

supermann
Sep 3rd, 2006, 07:55 AM
As it is, their head to head record ends up being 9-9.

9-9 overall ... and Navratilova leads 5-2 :lol: on hardcourts (including 4-1 at the U.S. Open).

LDVTennis
Sep 3rd, 2006, 07:59 AM
Except for the 4 match wins by Graf in her best years of 1988 and 1989 (all were in split set matches) ... Navratilova led 9-5 and they split the last 4 in the 1990s with, again, Navratilova winning the only one in a Grand Slam event.

Except for the 4 matches?

This must be the biggest exception in tennis history.

After all, as a result of winning the first of these four matches, Steffi Graf would set herself up to complete the Grand Slam later that year.

Only three women have completed the Grand Slam. Martina IS NOT one of them.

supermann
Sep 3rd, 2006, 08:00 AM
Her inability to compete in the new power generation.



Where were their biggest matches? Grand Slam events and the WTA Tour Championships.

Martina Navratilova had the winning edge vs. Steffi Graf at Grand Slam events ... Navratilova also had the winning edge vs. Graf in the WTA Tour Championships.

Navratilova had a winning record vs. Graf where it counted most -- the biggest events in the world.

supermann
Sep 3rd, 2006, 08:02 AM
Except for the 4 matches?

This must be the biggest exception in tennis history.

After all, as a result of winning the first of these four matches, Steffi Graf .

Well, let's COUNT them then:

GRAND SLAM EVENTS

First, we will start with the Grand Slam events --- let's limit the results to the Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon and U.S. Open Championships --- since these actually are the Grand Slam events:

1985-08-26 U.S. Open Hardcourt SF Navratilova won 6-2 6-3
1986-08-25 U.S. Open Hardcourt SF Navratilova won 6-1 6-7 7-6
1987-05-25 French Open Clay F Steffi Graf won 6-4 4-6 8-6
1987-06-22 Wimbledon Grass F Navratilova won 7-5 6-3
1987-08-31 U.S. Open Hardcourt F Navratilova won 7-6 6-1
1988-06-22 Wimbledon Grass F Steffi Graf won 5-7 6-2 6-1
1989-06-26 Wimbledon Grass F Steffi Graf won 6-2 6-7 6-1
1989-08-28 U.S. Open Hardcourt F Steffi Graf won 3-6 7-5 6-1
1991-08-26 U.S. Open Hardcourt SF Navratilova won 7-6 6-7 6-4

Not only a winning record for Navratilova vs. Graf in the Grand Slam events ... Navratilova won their only matches at the Grand Slam events that were won in straight sets ... 3 of Navratilova's 5 match wins vs. Graf in Grand Slam events were won in straight sets ... Graf never beat Navratilova in straight sets in a Grand Slam event --- but then, Graf only won 4 matches against Navratilova in Grand Slam events to begin with.


TOUR CHAMPIONSHIPS

Next, we will look at the Tour Championships --- let's limit the results to the singles since Steffi Graf did not play doubles -- even with Gunther Parche.

1986-03-17 Virginia Slims Championships SF Navratilova won 6-2 6-2
1986-11-17 Virginia Slims Championships F Navratilova won 7-6 6-3 6-2
1989-11-13 Virginia Slims Championships F Steffi Graf won 6-4 7-5 2-6 6-2

Not only a winning record for Navratilova vs. Graf in the Tour Championships ... Navratilova won their only matches at the Tour Championships that were won in straight sets ... both of Navratilova's 2 match wins vs. Graf in the WTA Tour Championships were won in straight sets ... Graf never beat Navratilova in straight sets the WTA Tour Championships --- but then, Graf only won 1 match against Navratilova at the WTA Tour Championships to begin with.

I can count. Why can't you?

supermann
Sep 3rd, 2006, 08:07 AM
This must be the biggest exception in tennis history.




Did you know that during their rivalry (Navratilova's 13th through 22nd year on the WTA Tour) Navratilova won 5 of 6 of her semifinal matches vs. Graf?

Did you know that Graf never led in her head-to-head rivalry vs. Navratilova even though they were 7-7 in the 1980s and 2-2 in the 1990s? :lol:

abayen
Sep 3rd, 2006, 08:09 AM
Dude you don't get it, do you? When people say they grew up admiring someone, that's hardly the ONLY criteria for judging one's contribution to tennis. (And for suckers like you who think that should be the only criteria, I said even there Martina has her own set of admirers just like Steffi does. Comeon, Melanie named her daughter after Martina.. Surely that's huge!)

There are other things such as promoting the sports explicitly, fighting for women's equality (in this case), bringing new style and techniques to the game, etc.

If all tennis players just stayed quiet and played their game, would it help popularize the sport?

And I am not going to list Martina's contribution here coz it's been done several times and it will only spark another round of the same useless debate.

And yeah, please don't compare the Mirza's and Radwanska's with Seles. I wouldn't have minded the comparison but your sentences like " Hardly much of an impression" make me shudder. I seriously question your tennis knowledge now.


So, what exactly is moot? You began by arguing that following Steffi's example would have caused women's tennis to regress back to what it was in the 30's.

I countered that claim by challenging your assumption that Martina's example was so impressive. Your claim now that Monica grew up admiring Martina does not make my argument moot. She is just one person. Hardly much of an impression.

Hardly much of an impression, you ask. As compared to what? Compared to this --- Mauresmo, Clijsters, Henin-Hardenne, Vaidisova, Mirza, and Radwanska, all of whom have answered the question, Who did you grow up admiring, with the same name. Two of these players are considered to represent the future of the sport. Regressing back to the 30's? I don't think so.

LDVTennis
Sep 3rd, 2006, 08:10 AM
9-9 overall

You got that right, 9-9 overall by 1994.

Two very humbling facts for Martina:

Only 2 of those matches were ever played on clay, none after 1987. On clay, Martina's head to head record vs. Steffi is 0-2.

Steffi reaches her physical and technical peak in 1996. If the best Martina could do is a routine straight set loss to Steffi in 1994 on Carpet, a surface well-suited to the "greatest serve and volley player of all time," Martina was lucky she retired when she did.

supermann
Sep 3rd, 2006, 08:12 AM
Which brings us full circle back to her claim "I am the greatest serve and volley player."


330 WTA titles in singles and doubles (more than 160 in BOTH singles and doubles) ... and witout Evert, King or Graf being stabbed in the back with a knife.

How many WTA singles and doubles titles did Graf win -- come on, even with Seles stabbed in the back with a knife ... how many total singles and doubles titles did Graf win?

supermann
Sep 3rd, 2006, 08:16 AM
You got that right, 9-9 overall by 1994.

Two very humbling facts for Martina:

Only 2 of those matches were ever played on clay, none after 1987. On clay, Martina's head to head record vs. Steffi is 0-2.




Navratilova had a singles career of essentially 20 years ... she NEVER had a losing record in her career vs. Graf ... and Graf only had those 2 or 3 years in the late 1980s with a better record head to head vs. Navratilova ... Navratilova had the edge early in their rivalry ... Graf had those 2 or 3 good years ... then, in the 1990s when Navratilova was in her mid to upper 30s Navratilova had the edge in 1990-1993 until Graf got that one last win in during 1994 to draw herself even with Navratilova finally.

supermann
Sep 3rd, 2006, 08:20 AM
If the best Martina could do is a routine straight set loss to Steffi in 1994 on Carpet, a surface well-suited to the "greatest serve and volley player of all time," Martina was lucky she retired when she did.

Steffi's wins over Navratilova were either in Navratilova's 30s or in the year she turned 30. Of course, Navratilova had 7 wins out of those 16 matches vs. Graf during those years when Navratilova was in her 30s or in the year in which Navratilova turned 30.

What is impressive for Navratilova is the fact that when the ONLY Grand Slam match played between Navratilova and Graf during the 1990s (Navratilova was turning 35 years of age that year) was won by Navratilova ... and that in the years when Navratilova was turning 35, 36, 37 and 38 in those years 1990-1994 and she NEVER had a losing record during the 1990s to Graf. :lol:

supermann
Sep 3rd, 2006, 08:23 AM
Her inability to compete in the new power generation.




I wonder how Graf would have done against Justine Henin-Hardenne and Serena Williams in the years 2000-2004 .... you think Graf would have had the winning edge in her 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th on the WTA Tour as Navratilova did in her 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th year on the WTA Tour vs. Graf?:lol:

supermann
Sep 3rd, 2006, 08:28 AM
After all, as a result of winning the first of these four matches, Steffi Graf would set herself up to complete the Grand Slam later that year.




It is true that Navratilova won an all-time record 9 singles titles at Wimbledon.

It is also true that Navratilova had a winning record vs. Graf in Grand Slam singles matches played (overall AND during the 1990s when Navratilova was in her mid 30s).

It is also true that Navratilova had a winning record at the 5th biggest event in women's tennis, the WTA Tour Championships.

Seems Navratilova had a 4-1 winning edge vs. Graf at the U.S. Open as well.

Wasn't Wimbledon suppsoed to be the one tournament in which Graf excelled at ??

The all-time record 9 singles titles to go with an 11 doubles titles for 20 Wimbledon titles ... how many titles did Graf win at Wimbledon?

But, of course, this was not the ONLY tournament in which Navratilova excelled at ... Navratilova also has the all-time record for most singles titles at the WTA Championships.

How many of the 5 majors -- Wimbledon, U.S. Open, French Open, Australian Open and WTA Championships -- does Graf have the all-time record in for most singles titles?

Navratilova has the all-time record in 2 of these 5 events -- most singles titles (and probably most overall titles including singles and doubles) at Wimbledon and the WTA Tour Championships.

How about Graf? Even with the stabbing of Monica Seles, I don't think Graf has the all-time record for most singles titles at ANY of the 5 biggest events in women's tennis.

supermann
Sep 3rd, 2006, 08:36 AM
To make your point, you have to leave out the year 1994.

LOL ... you are going to add that last one in from 1994. Regardless, Navratilova in the 1990s had the ONLY win vs. Graf in any match they played at a Grand Slam event and here Navratilova was in her mid to upper 30s. Again, Steffi Graf NEVER had a winning record in her career against Navratilova -- they ended tied at 9-9 but Navratilova never trailed Graf head to head in their careers.

supermann
Sep 3rd, 2006, 08:41 AM
Her not holding the record for most consecutive weeks at No. 1.



Not so amazing especially when you consider that the #1 player in women's tennis was never stabbed in the back with a knife when Evert or Navratilova were ranked #2.

supermann
Sep 3rd, 2006, 08:49 AM
Dude you don't get it, do you? When people say they grew up admiring someone, that's hardly the ONLY criteria for judging one's contribution to tennis. (And for suckers like you who think that should be the only criteria, I said even there Martina has her own set of admirers just like Steffi does. Comeon, Melanie named her daughter after Martina.. Surely that's huge!)

There are other things such as promoting the sports explicitly, fighting for women's equality (in this case), bringing new style and techniques to the game, etc.

If all tennis players just stayed quiet and played their game, would it help popularize the sport?

And I am not going to list Martina's contribution here coz it's been done several times and it will only spark another round of the same useless debate.

And yeah, please don't compare the Mirza's and Radwanska's with Seles. I wouldn't have minded the comparison but your sentences like " Hardly much of an impression" make me shudder. I seriously question your tennis knowledge now.

LOL ... you got that right.

LDVTennis LOVES losing .... he LIVES for it on here .... it has become a big part of his persona.

LDVTennis
Sep 3rd, 2006, 08:53 AM
Dude you don't get it, do you? When people say they grew up admiring someone, that's hardly the ONLY criteria for judging one's contribution to tennis. (And for suckers like you who think that should be the only criteria, I said even there Martina has her own set of admirers just like Steffi does. Comeon, Melanie named her daughter after Martina.. Surely that's huge!)

There are other things such as promoting the sports explicitly, fighting for women's equality (in this case), bringing new style and techniques to the game, etc.

If all tennis players just stayed quiet and played their game, would it help popularize the sport?

And I am not going to list Martina's contribution here coz it's been done several times and it will only spark another round of the same useless debate.

And yeah, please don't compare the Mirza's and Radwanska's with Seles. I wouldn't have minded the comparison but your sentences like " Hardly much of an impression" make me shudder. I seriously question your tennis knowledge now.

Seriously question my tennis knowledge? Remind me again who didn't know what Mauresmo said about Steffi Graf. Was that you, dude?

So, why am not surprised that you have never heard Martina Hingis' response to the question, What does it mean to be named after Martina Navratilova? The gist of her answer was this --- "That was really my mother's thing. I really didn't pattern myself after her." So much for all the inspiration.

As to the rest, exactly how has Martina promoted the sport? By attending tennis clinics or charity events and being a good sport? Perhaps, you are mistaking her with Chris Evert. By starting her own tennis academy? Again, you are mistaking her with Chris Evert. By mentoring today's top players? Perhaps, you should get yourself a copy of the French magazine in which Mauresmo said she found Martina to be quite domineering.

Oh well, there is always as you said "fighting for women's equality." So, how did Martina do this? By trying to sue her female business partners in the Rainbow Card venture when those business partners started advertising on the "L Word"? According to court documents, the disagreement between Martina and her business partners began when the three disagreed over the merits of the show the "L word." The "L word" may have done nothing to advance women's rights, but neither did Martina's public cat fight with her female partners over a venture that should have taken precedence over her opinion of a television show.

So, I guess that leaves us "with bringing [a] new style and techniques to the game." So, what exactly is new about the serve and volley game. In her own mind, she may be the "greatest serve and volley player," but in principle her technique was not any better or any different than that of BJK.

As to the new style, do you mean how she looked on the court? You are joking, right? What was so inspirational to women about Martina's early days as the "Great Wide Hope" (Bud Collins' term, not mine)? What was so inspirational about Martina's "I don't care how I look" look of the late 80's? Many people, myself included, stopped watching women's tennis around the time that Martina started beating Chris all the time. Martina was brutish and manish. Chris was graceful and feminine. If Mauresmo, Henin, et al., tuned back in, as the rest of us did, when Graf displaced Martina, no wonder they never grew up admiring Martina.

It is paradoxical that you should fault Graf for not popularizing the sport because all she supposedly did was stay quiet and play the game. In the mid to late 80's that is all Martina could do because she just wasn't very popular with the people who now jump at the chance to have Sharapova promote one of their products. Back then, Chris was the Sharapova of her day. Completely locked out of those deals, Martina's only recourse was to stay quiet and play her game against Chris.

Even back then, Martina was never comfortable with that role. She thought she deserved more. Hence, she would whine from time to time in one press conference or another. Her whining didn't do much to popularize the sport back then. It just gave people another reason not to like her. So many years later, not much has changed.

CooCooCachoo
Sep 3rd, 2006, 08:54 AM
Navratilova never had class.

Even if what she is saying is true, there are different ways of going about saying it.

rrfnpump
Sep 3rd, 2006, 09:02 AM
I am happy the courts are slower and the racquets allow you to dictate points from the baseline, because in this way a 50year old granny wont win a singles match any more :)

Still, some truth in her statements, however, presented in the way like she knows it all

LDVTennis
Sep 3rd, 2006, 09:08 AM
Navratilova had a singles career of essentially 20 years

You mean to tell me that Martina played 3 more years than Steffi Graf, YET in all those 20 years she never completed the Grand Slam.

WHEREAS Steffi in less than 6 years as a pro completes the Grand Slam, the holy grail of tennis.

How absolutely embarrassing for Martina! Let me get this absolutely right. Martina would have 14 more years do the thing that Steffi did in 6 years and she still came up short with nothing, nada, zilch.

No wonder she keeps telling us she is the "greatest serve and volley player." Better we remember that than the fact that she couldn't do in 20 years what Steffi did in 6.

supermann
Sep 3rd, 2006, 09:19 AM
You mean to tell me that Martina played 3 more years than Steffi Graf, YET in all those 20 years she never completed the Grand Slam.

WHEREAS Steffi in less than 6 years as a pro completes the Grand Slam, the holy grail of tennis.



Here we are a decade later remembering that Navratilova has the ALL-TIME record for most singles titles at 2 of the 5 biggest events in women's tennis. No other player in women's tennis can claim this --- the all-time record for most singles titles at 2 of the 5 biggest events in women's tennis.

Australian ------------- Margaret Court
French ----------------- Chris Evert
Wimbledon ------------ Martina Navratilova
U.S. Open -------------- Molla Bjurstedt Mallory
WTA Championships --- Martina Navratilova

The French, US Open, and Australian Opens ARE Grand Slam titles that attract worldwide attention, and hold prestige...

Yet, Graf does not hold the singles record at ANY of these even with #1 Seles being stabbed in the back by one of Steffi's fans.

Year after year, attendance records are broken at these events

Year after year, the all-time records of these biggest events will NOT be held by Steffi Graf.

... they are the most IMPORTANT tournaments in tennis...

Yet Steffi Graf does not have the all-time record for most singles titles at ANY of them.

supermann
Sep 3rd, 2006, 09:25 AM
You mean to tell me that Martina played 3 more years than Steffi Graf, YET in all those 20 years she never completed the Grand Slam.



It is called LONGEVITY (Navratilova and Evert) and LACK OF (Graf).

Don't forget that there are 3 components to greatness in tennis --- DOMINANCE ... CONSISTENCY ... LONGEVITY.

Some players have all 3 ... some have 2 of the 3 ... and some have to rely on a fan stabbing another player to even have 2 of the 3.

supermann
Sep 3rd, 2006, 09:30 AM
No wonder she keeps telling us she is the "greatest serve and volley player."


LOL ... You are the one who insists that Steffi Graf is the best of all time when in the middle of her career she was not even the best player because of a teenage girl with 2 hands off both sides who won 10 of the 12 biggest events in a 2.5 year period between October 1990 and April 1993 when a jealous Graf fan resorted to stabbing the young Seles in the back with a knife because she was so dominant in women's tennis as the teenage #1.

To be the best, you have to be the best -- the most dominant -- in the middle of your career. If you are not CLEARLY the very, very best of your era (the small 10% or so of the entire 130 year history of the sport) ... then HOW can you be the best of all time?

You have to be the undisputed best player of your era -- and in the MIDDLE of your career (which Steffi Graf most obviously was not in the 30 months running from October 1990 through April 1993 when the #1 teenager was stabbed in the back with a sharp knife by a Graf fan) -- if you want to even be in the running for consideration as the all-time greatest.

Graf is ineligible for consideration as the all-time greatest in women's tennis due to the dominance of the teenage Seles in the 30 months between October 1990 and April 1993 when a Graf supporter stabbed the #1 (teenage Monica Seles) in the back with a sharp knife.
-----------

rrfnpump
Sep 3rd, 2006, 09:38 AM
I miss Calimero :awww:

supermann
Sep 3rd, 2006, 09:46 AM
If the best Martina could do is a routine straight set loss to Steffi in 1994 on Carpet, a surface well-suited to the "greatest serve and volley player of all time," Martina was lucky she retired when she did.


EXCEPT FOR THE TIMES Navratilova was thrashing Graf.

Navratilova leads in straight sets wins 5-3.

supermann
Sep 3rd, 2006, 09:51 AM
WHEREAS Steffi in less than 6 years as a pro completes the Grand Slam, the holy grail of tennis.



Navratilova won 6 consecutive Grand Slam singles events (Wimbledon 1983 through U.S. Open 1984).

Steffi Graf never won 6 consecutive Grand Slam singles titles on the calendar as Navratilova did in 1983 and 1984.

supermann
Sep 3rd, 2006, 09:58 AM
Only 2 of those matches were ever played on clay, none after 1987. On clay, Martina's head to head record vs. Steffi is 0-2.



In your little dream world, maybe ... Navratilova and Graf were 9-9 for their careers and Navratilova had the edge head-to-head in the years 1990-1993 well past Navratilova's prime and in the years that Graf SHOULD have been winning as easily vs. Navratilova was beating Graf before 1988.

Sha_ra_po_va
Sep 3rd, 2006, 11:43 AM
Supermann, you need to get over it! This is not a Nav vs Graf debate...as far as I remember, Steffi wasn't much for the volley, so they can't be compared here! I took exception to the way martina said what she did. Firstly, her remarks weren't specifically about women, so there is room for argument there. Secondly, even if it was just about women, I like BJK at the net and Evonne Goolagong's technique was nicer to watch than Martina's. Thirdly, even, EVEN if she is right, how ungracious of her to point it out! Can you imagine Graf saying "I had the greatest forehand in tennis" or Agassi saying "My return of serve is the best" etc. People are adversely affected when players do stuff like this, as you can see from the comments (excluding yours!) in this thread. I also resent the fact that she (and many others) are so quick to say that serve-and-volley is the right way to play tennis, as if it were in the rulebook or something. My favs over the years, from evert, graf, seles, davenport, sharapova, did just fine without it!

crazillo
Sep 3rd, 2006, 12:14 PM
She is right with her statement IMO.

Prizeidiot
Sep 3rd, 2006, 12:29 PM
It reeks of arrogance, but I really can't argue with that statement.

terjw
Sep 3rd, 2006, 01:27 PM
Supermann, you need to get over it! This is not a Nav vs Graf debate...as far as I remember, Steffi wasn't much for the volley, so they can't be compared here!

Yeah - but LDV needs to get over it too. This whole silly squabble between the merits of the two greatest women players ever started because LDV started dissing Nav and saying no current player has Nav as their inspiration. Well - quess what. That kinda proves Nav is right. She's not the inspiration because noone plays S&V nowadays for precisely the reasons Nav stated. In any case players inspirations are invariably the most recent players. The next generation will not have Graf as their inspiration (except in Germany). In USA it will be Venus & Serena. In Belgium it will be Justine & Kim. That has nothing to do with who were the all time best players or who had the best volley.

I'm not pro S&V over everything else. I'd just like to see balance and variety with S&V players, all court players, power players and baseliners.

mykarma
Sep 3rd, 2006, 01:38 PM
:tape: :tape: :tape:

her time has come and gone and yet she
still feels the need to talk! I sense some
insecurity or the fact that she's last centuries news.

I saw a piece on either ABC or CBS yesterday about
BJK & her impact on women's sports. When young girls
from various sports were asked about her they knew nothing
more than that she was a tennis player to which BJK responded,
"I like it that way". Meaning, these girls have never known a time
when girls couldn't play sports and so on.

My point is, BJK doesn't feel the need to continually talk
herself up of all of whom she is and what she's done unlike
Martina who seems to not only talk herself up, but continually
making bitchy comments towards the game and various players today.
When i think of her or hear her speak it often sounds so bitter.

Hmmm...Oh well. :cool:
:worship::worship::worship:

janko
Sep 3rd, 2006, 02:51 PM
The praise everyone has been heaping on her, including the stuff we had to endure in BJK ceremony, seems to have totally gone to martina...this is what she had to say about volleying today:
I'm the greatest volleyer that's ever played, and I would have a hard time serve-volleying in today's game, so something is wrong.

"The courts are too slow, the rackets are too powerful, so you're going to see much more one dimensional tennis. It takes a genius to play really well at the net.

"Even Federer, he used to serve and volley. Now he's staying back more because it's safer."
hmm, excuse me...?

Quite relevant quote actually, she s not wrong

To be annoying at 50 is normal :p , Martina's attitude is quite funny, she says what she thinks...She would be so boring if she was saying "I love the new girls, they re so talented and better than I" :devil: ;) :lol:

switz
Sep 3rd, 2006, 02:57 PM
greatest female....yes. greatest ever.....far from it.

there is no doubt Navratilova is full of herself.

thrust
Sep 3rd, 2006, 03:25 PM
I agree with her, because of the larger more powerful racquets, the game has become more one dinensional. Young people today only know one sort of slam bam ground stroke tennis. Unfortunately today only Roger, Justine and Amelie are capable of playing all court tennis. Martina is also correct in stating that Roger^s game has become more of a baseline game. The game, due to technology, has become too fast, IMHO. To each, his own!

partbrit
Sep 3rd, 2006, 03:46 PM
As is usually the case, the quotation was taken out of context. I read the entire thing and I agree with everything Martina said.

RenaSlam.
Sep 3rd, 2006, 03:53 PM
Shut the fuck up, Martina. Just retire. Jesus.

rockmyworld
Sep 3rd, 2006, 03:57 PM
Martina's outspokenness is as overrated as her game.

For all her outspokenness, how little of an impression she managed to have in the end on those who play the sport today. Even if no one could quite play like her today, there was still nothing stopping any of today's players from having admired her as a person and champion in their formative years. Yet, her name hardly ever comes up in response to the question, Who did you grow up admiring?



Your dislike for Navratilova seems based completely on your own biases and insecurities, not hers.

Ellery
Sep 3rd, 2006, 04:26 PM
Martina :worship:

morningglory
Sep 3rd, 2006, 05:10 PM
hmm she does have a point... ever since they changed to Tretorn balls I'm noticing a decrease in the pace of the ball... and namely cuz it inflicted Maria with that injury :o

karin1492
Sep 3rd, 2006, 05:15 PM
Technically Martina Navratilova did win the Calendar Grand Slam. However, since the Aussie Open was played in December of that year, it wasn't considered a Grand Slam tournament. (There was no February Aussie Open, it wasn't until 1987 that it moved back to the beginning of the year, there was no Aussie Open in 1986.) It's the biggest sham ever to say that she didn't win the calendar slam.

LDVTennis
Sep 3rd, 2006, 05:40 PM
Your dislike for Navratilova seems based completely on your own biases and insecurities, not hers.

My own biases and insecurities?

I may dislike Martina, but it has nothing to do with whatever insecurities I may or may not have.

When I first heard of her in the 80's, she could have appealed to me as much as Chris Evert.

Why didn't she?

As it turns out, I don't like players whose games are brutish and their playing style mannish.

I don't like arrogant players who can't wait to tell the tennis public how good they are.

I don't like players who whine and complain when things aren't going their way.

I may be biased in this way. But, I don't see anything wrong with having such standards. Tennis can be a beautiful sport when played by graceful athletes. Tennis can be an honorable sport when players let their tennis do all the talking.

rockmyworld
Sep 3rd, 2006, 05:45 PM
My own biases and insecurities?

I may dislike Martina, but it has nothing to do with whatever insecurities I may or may not have.

When I first heard of her in the 80's, she could have appealed to me as much as Chris Evert.

Why didn't she?

As it turns out, I don't like players whose games are brutish and their playing style mannish.

I don't like arrogant players who can't wait to tell the tennis public how good they are.

I don't like players who whine and complain when things aren't going their way.

I may be biased in this way. But, I don't see anything wrong with having such standards. Tennis can be a beautiful sport when played by graceful athletes. Tennis can be an honorable sport when players let their tennis do all the talking.


Take your eyes off others and turn the scanner within. Find the seeds of your jealousy, clear the old voices and experiences. Put all the energy into building your personal and emotional security. Then you will be the one others envy, and you can remember the pain and reach out to them.

LDVTennis
Sep 3rd, 2006, 06:18 PM
Take your eyes off others and turn the scanner within. Find the seeds of your jealousy, clear the old voices and experiences. Put all the energy into building your personal and emotional security. Then you will be the one others envy, and you can remember the pain and reach out to them.

Spare me the psychobabble.

It means nothing to me.

If you are trying to appear witty and smart, you are going to have to try harder. Turn the scanner within? :help: :lol: :lol:

Steffica Greles
Sep 3rd, 2006, 06:26 PM
While I hardly worship Martina Navratilova -- I think she's been wrong on many issues -- I think her basic point here makes perfect sense.

I don't understand people's problem, but then, I rarely do on this board;) ;)

LDVTennis
Sep 3rd, 2006, 08:18 PM
Take your eyes off others and turn the scanner within. Find the seeds of your jealousy, clear the old voices and experiences. Put all the energy into building your personal and emotional security. Then you will be the one others envy, and you can remember the pain and reach out to them.

Looks like Martina could use your advice.

Here is what she had to say about Agassi's retirement:

NEW YORK (AP) -- On the verge of her second retirement, Martina Navratilova sounds as though she feels overshadowed by Andre Agassi's impending exit.

Asked Saturday if she's going through the emotional turmoil Agassi's discussed at length at the U.S. Open, Navratilova responded: "Oh, I am going through all of that. It's just that the whole world doesn't know it."

:eek:

Sinnet
Sep 3rd, 2006, 08:23 PM
Nobody cares that Martina is retiring because she hasn't been a contendor at majors for YEARS, not to mention because of comments like "I'm the greatest volleyer that's ever played." She's criticizing the game that made her famous because it has evolved. DUH it has evolved, Martina.

LOL, what's funny is it's almost like she's trying to find an excuse for HERSELF. It's as if she thinks she could win against the top players today if the racquets weren't so technologically advanced: she wouldn't.

tennislover
Sep 3rd, 2006, 09:21 PM
she is totally right about herself and about Federer

serve&volleyers simply disappeared.....

Sally Struthers
Sep 3rd, 2006, 10:12 PM
when you're Martina Navratilova you can say these things! She has the hardware to back it up. I'm sure 90% of you are too young to have even seen her play in her prime. Kids. :rolleyes: Good grief.

henmanhill
Sep 3rd, 2006, 11:03 PM
Nobody cares that Martina is retiring because she hasn't been a contendor at majors for YEARS, not to mention because of comments like "I'm the greatest volleyer that's ever played." She's criticizing the game that made her famous because it has evolved. DUH it has evolved, Martina.

LOL, what's funny is it's almost like she's trying to find an excuse for HERSELF. It's as if she thinks she could win against the top players today if the racquets weren't so technologically advanced: she wouldn't.


Ahem. She won a tier 1 only 2 weeks ago.......

Strange how so many on here who have won jack shit playing tennis feel they can say whatever they want in which ever way they want but when Martina, who has won just about everything, says something they don't like the sky falls in. The word hypocracy springs to mind.

Steffica Greles
Sep 4th, 2006, 05:19 PM
Can we get one thing straight.

Time does not = evolution.

Martina makes a point that there is less variety in women's tennis these days, and that it is because of the balls. This is a problem that cuts across men's and women's tennis. I doubt that there'll ever be another Edberg, Sampras, Navratilova, Novotna, Mandlikova. Is this a good thing? Surely not. Nathalie Tauziat (bless her) was warning about this many years ago.

Someone was making the point in another thread a few days ago that serve and volleying is boring to watch. And to some degree, I concur. At one time I also was tired of seeing net rushers. But variety is good. And that's one thing the game is increasingly missing.

As for Martina crowning herself the best volleyer ever (I assume she was talking about women's tennis only), well, it may be a little narcissistic, but can anybody rebuff her argument?

There's mountains of trophy evidence and visual testimony over her long, illustrious career to suggest that that assertion is correct. What's all the fuss about?

sfselesfan
Sep 4th, 2006, 05:22 PM
I think she's right.

The truth hurts.

SF

LDVTennis
Sep 4th, 2006, 05:29 PM
As for Martina crowning herself the best volleyer ever (I assume she was talking about women's tennis only), well, it may be a little narcissistic, but can anybody rebuff her argument?

Yes.

However, there is no point in making the case here. It would be a waste of time.