PDA

View Full Version : Who is greater, Evert or Navratilova?


davselescap
Aug 19th, 2007, 06:48 AM
This is only counting singles. Obviosuly Martina was a greater doubles player?

Who is greater in terms of singles.

I say Chris, marginally.

samn
Aug 19th, 2007, 04:39 PM
Are we talking "peak" Navratilova versus "peak" Evert-Lloyd-Mill here? If so, Navratilova is an easy pick. Navratilova at her best would beat Prissy Chrissie at her best probably seven or eight times out of ten.

DA FOREHAND
Aug 19th, 2007, 04:44 PM
I voted for Chris... her clay court streak is unbelievable

Dawn Marie
Aug 19th, 2007, 04:53 PM
I don't like either one of them personally but since Martina is this old women who refuses to stop talking about herself I voted for Chris.

Lets get these Chrissy votes a comin'. :)

danieln1
Aug 19th, 2007, 04:58 PM
Evert of course...

esdee
Aug 19th, 2007, 06:10 PM
Both greats, but Navratilova greater.

Helen Lawson
Aug 19th, 2007, 06:17 PM
Martina has been real annoying lately which will cost her in this poll.

Olórin
Aug 19th, 2007, 06:22 PM
Yes, a WTA World "we don't like Navratilova's commentating so she can't be as great as Evert" poll :lol:

tennisvideos
Aug 19th, 2007, 10:12 PM
As a singles player I would vote Evert because of of a few reasons:


her all surface record
her greater career winning singles stats, and
her incredible clay court run


I think Navratilova was the greatest grass court player, but as an all rounder I will give this vote to Chris.

Mark Spruce
Aug 19th, 2007, 10:27 PM
Evert

Matt01
Aug 19th, 2007, 10:40 PM
Navratilova, obviously :p

Scotso
Aug 20th, 2007, 02:25 AM
Navratilova.

And you can't exclude doubles because that's a part of how "great" a tennis player was. :shrug:

I think their H2H should settle this one.

David55
Aug 20th, 2007, 02:32 AM
Austin > Evert >>>> Navratilova.

Sam L
Aug 20th, 2007, 05:25 AM
As a singles all-courter - Evert.

And this has nothing to do with Navratilova playing too long or her commentating.

BCP
Aug 20th, 2007, 09:24 AM
I find it really hard to seperate them, and of course, it essentially comes down to personal preference, but I think there are 4 fundamental questions that need to be considered when deciding:

1. Is Chris's 125 claycourt winning streak greater than Martina's 74 match winning streak?

2. Is Chris's achievement of winning at least one grandslam for 13 consecutive years as good as Martina holding 6 GS titles in a row?

3. Is Chris's ability to beat Court, King, and Goolagong very early in her career equal to Martina being able to compete with Graf, Seles & Sabatini late in her career?


4. Does the H2H in Martina's favour make a difference?

Chris maintained a very high level through out her career, whereas Martina had more peaks and valleys- I guess you have to choose what you prefer.

I am glad though that people appreciate Chris's achievements more- I thought Martina would kill Chris in a poll like this.

serena_fan
Aug 20th, 2007, 01:12 PM
I think Evert

Thanx4nothin
Aug 20th, 2007, 01:15 PM
Evert I would say gets it for me, I think Martina beat Chris a lot later on because Chris was on the way out, generally I think Chris was a better singles player.

Wimbledon9
Aug 20th, 2007, 01:27 PM
Martina, unfortunately she lost a couple of years after her defection otherwise it would have been no contest. I hear you say you can't take that into account but then how about the stabbing of Monica Seles.

lecciones
Aug 20th, 2007, 01:34 PM
Chris Evert. Look at my signature :)

Chrissie-fan
Aug 20th, 2007, 02:02 PM
I find it really hard to seperate them, and of course, it essentially comes down to personal preference, but I think there are 4 fundamental questions that need to be considered when deciding:

1. Is Chris's 125 claycourt winning streak greater than Martina's 74 match winning streak?

2. Is Chris's achievement of winning at least one grandslam for 13 consecutive years as good as Martina holding 6 GS titles in a row?

3. Is Chris's ability to beat Court, King, and Goolagong very early in her career equal to Martina being able to compete with Graf, Seles & Sabatini late in her career?


4. Does the H2H in Martina's favour make a difference?

Chris maintained a very high level through out her career, whereas Martina had more peaks and valleys- I guess you have to choose what you prefer.

I am glad though that people appreciate Chris's achievements more- I thought Martina would kill Chris in a poll like this.
I've done my duty as an Evert fan and voted for Chris.;) But objectively speaking I think it's a bit unfair to have to choose between them. Both have a long list of incredible achievements that fans of either player could use to prove that she's the best. Truth is that they are equals. But yeah, I'm happy that Chris is appreciated.:yeah:

The H2H is 37-43 for Martina, but a difference of six victories is almost negligible over an 80 match series. Especially when you consider that they played the least number of matches against each other on Chris' best surface - they "only" played each other 14 times on clay. And they played the most number of matches on Chris' least favorite surface - they played each other 35 times on indoor carpet. Martina was able to beat Chris on her best surface (clay) 3 times out of 14 matches. Chris was able to beat Martina 5 times out of 15 matches on Martina's best surface (grass).

Mudbone
Aug 20th, 2007, 02:25 PM
Evert never resorted to illegal performance enhancers.....nuff said...All of her numbers are legit

thrust
Aug 20th, 2007, 02:41 PM
Very close call. Martina was the Queen of grass, Chris queen of clay. It would be interesting to see their stats and H-H on hard courts. Probably the slight edge should go to Martina.

Errinella
Aug 20th, 2007, 03:37 PM
As a sportswoman, role model, tennis icon and champion I'd have to go for Chris.

She inspired several generations of wannabes.

Lunaris
Aug 20th, 2007, 03:54 PM
Navratilova

6 Wimbledon's in a row plus two times she was able to win RG and Wimby in the same season (1982 and 1984), which is for me the greatest feat a tennis player can accomplish as the transition from clay to grass probably is the most difficult thing a pro player can face (or at least it was at that time because grass used to be faster than it is now), whereas Evert achieved that only in 1974.

samn
Aug 21st, 2007, 03:31 PM
Martina was able to beat Chris on her best surface (clay) 3 times out of 14 matches. Chris was able to beat Martina 5 times out of 15 matches on Martina's best surface (grass).

Yeah, but not all of the five wins Evert had over Navratilova on grass count as legitimate wins, do they?

1976 Wimbledon - Martina's "Fatalova" phase during which she was completely out of shape and no match for Evert, the reigning #1.

1979 Eastbourne - A good win for Chrissie, but we must remember that Martina was likely very excited and nervous about seeing her mother for the first time in four years and probably wasn't concentrating on the match as much as she needed to. Besides Martina won the match that really mattered (Wimbledon final), so this can be ignored as a case of "tuneupitis".

1980 Wimbledon - bang in the middle of Martina's slump caused by L'affaire Brown, so a decent win for Chris, but not really an example of a matchup between two players at their very best.

1981 Sydney - Martina was obviously still recovering from a turbulent summer in which she became a US citizen and then suffered a heartbreaking loss to Austin in the US finals. Besides Martina won the match that really mattered (Australian Open final), so this can be ignored as a case of "tuneupitis".

1982 Australian Open - I would consider this Evert's only legitimate win over a "peak" Navratilova on grass.

Besides, let's not forget the scorelines, shall we?

Evert d. Navratilova on grass:
6-3 4-6 6-4
7-5 5-7 13-11
4-6 6-4 6-2
6-4 2-6 6-1
6-3 2-6 6-3

Navratilova d. Evert on clay:
6-2 6-0
6-3 6-1
6-2 6-2

:lol: :devil: :nerner:

misael
Aug 21st, 2007, 03:43 PM
Yeah, but not all of the five wins Evert had over Navratilova on grass count as legitimate wins, do they?

1976 Wimbledon - Martina's "Fatalova" phase during which she was completely out of shape and no match for Evert, the reigning #1.

1979 Eastbourne - A good win for Chrissie, but we must remember that Martina was likely very excited and nervous about seeing her mother for the first time in four years and probably wasn't concentrating on the match as much as she needed to. Besides Martina won the match that really mattered (Wimbledon final), so this can be ignored as a case of "tuneupitis".

1980 Wimbledon - bang in the middle of Martina's slump caused by L'affaire Brown, so a decent win for Chris, but not really an example of a matchup between two players at their very best.

1981 Sydney - Martina was obviously still recovering from a turbulent summer in which she became a US citizen and then suffered a heartbreaking loss to Austin in the US finals. Besides Martina won the match that really mattered (Australian Open final), so this can be ignored as a case of "tuneupitis".

1982 Australian Open - I would consider this Evert's only legitimate win over a "peak" Navratilova on grass.

Besides, let's not forget the scorelines, shall we?

Evert d. Navratilova on grass:
6-3 4-6 6-4
7-5 5-7 13-11
4-6 6-4 6-2
6-4 2-6 6-1
6-3 2-6 6-3

Navratilova d. Evert on clay:
6-2 6-0
6-3 6-1
6-2 6-2

:lol: :devil: :nerner:

Jesus, Escuses ,escuses!!!!!

all_slam_andre
Aug 21st, 2007, 04:00 PM
It is very close, but in my opinion, Navratilova winning 6 grand slam titles in a row from 1983-1984 has to give her the edge over Evert.
Evert isn't that far behind, but I personally think that if two players have won the same number of grand slams, but player A has held all 4 grand slams simultaneously (an absolutely amazing achievement which represents the ultimate level of tennis dominance) during her career, and Player B hasn't, then Player A is the great of the two.

Chrissie-fan
Aug 21st, 2007, 04:02 PM
Yeah, but not all of the five wins Evert had over Navratilova on grass count as legitimate wins, do they?
None of Evert's wins over Navratilova count, period. On the other hand, every time Navratilova won - Evert was ready to rock'n'roll and beaten at her absolute peak. :rolleyes:

BCP
Aug 21st, 2007, 04:13 PM
Yeah, but not all of the five wins Evert had over Navratilova on grass count as legitimate wins, do they?

1976 Wimbledon - Martina's "Fatalova" phase during which she was completely out of shape and no match for Evert, the reigning #1.

1979 Eastbourne - A good win for Chrissie, but we must remember that Martina was likely very excited and nervous about seeing her mother for the first time in four years and probably wasn't concentrating on the match as much as she needed to. Besides Martina won the match that really mattered (Wimbledon final), so this can be ignored as a case of "tuneupitis".

1980 Wimbledon - bang in the middle of Martina's slump caused by L'affaire Brown, so a decent win for Chris, but not really an example of a matchup between two players at their very best.

1981 Sydney - Martina was obviously still recovering from a turbulent summer in which she became a US citizen and then suffered a heartbreaking loss to Austin in the US finals. Besides Martina won the match that really mattered (Australian Open final), so this can be ignored as a case of "tuneupitis".

1982 Australian Open - I would consider this Evert's only legitimate win over a "peak" Navratilova on grass.

Besides, let's not forget the scorelines, shall we?

Evert d. Navratilova on grass:
6-3 4-6 6-4
7-5 5-7 13-11
4-6 6-4 6-2
6-4 2-6 6-1
6-3 2-6 6-3

Navratilova d. Evert on clay:
6-2 6-0
6-3 6-1
6-2 6-2

:lol: :devil: :nerner:

Equally, I think that Navratilova's only "legit" win over Chris on clay was the 84 French Open. That 6-2, 6-0 win was in the middle of a slump as the cracks in her marriage were getting bigger, and in any case, Chris gave Martina double bagel thumping as revenge. The 87 FO win Chris was coming off injury and poor form. She played terribly that match. Hardly a satisfying win for Martina......................

samn
Aug 21st, 2007, 04:28 PM
None of Evert's wins over Navratilova count, period. On the other hand, every time Navratilova won - Evert was ready to rock'n'roll and beaten at her absolute peak. :rolleyes:

Finally, some sense in GM! Glad to see that you completely get "peak" Navratilova's absolute superiority over "peak" Evert. You forgot to add that Martina was able to beat Chris playing with her left hand! (Did I mention the time Martina felt sorry for her good friend, Chris, and let her win the final in Paris in '85 and '86 so that she wouldn't be shut out at the Slams? <ducking>)

Yeesh, my post was meant to be a joke illustrating how one could make a case for any player as long as one was creative with excuses; I had no idea people were going to take it seriously

Philbo
Aug 21st, 2007, 04:39 PM
I think their head to head tells the story. Their rivalry is really a tale of 2 halves..

Prior to Martina fully committing to being the best she could be, Evert was the better player. Once Martina got fully into shape and committed, Martina won 2 out of every 3 matches they played..end of story..

Really if you look at their matches, once Martina had transformed herself, Evert had to hope that Martina was a bit 'off' to have any hope of winning - kind of like Hingis against the power hitters who have too much game for her, but if the power hitters are a bit off, Hingis has enough game to beat them.

Its an incredibly close call, but I think both players would agree that from the early 80's onward, Martina really was the heavy favourite in all their matches not played on clay..

Also back in the 80's, Wimbledon really was viewed as the most important slam.. These days the slams are more equal, but 20 years ago, Wimbledon was the world championship of tennis, so some credit needs to be given to martina for winning it 9 times..

In relation to their head to head, Martina once won 12 times in a row.. COmpletely dominant and people at the time wondered whether Chris would ever be able to beat Martina again..

I just did a quick tally (could be slightly wrong) but broke their head to head down into pre 1980, and post 1980.. The tally ended up something close to this:

Pre 1980 - Martina won 10 matches, Chris won 25 matches

Post 1980 - Martina won 33 matches, Chris won 12 matches

So the rivalry really is a tale of 2 halves.. I would also argue that through most of the 80's, til Graf came along, Chris was still closer to her peak than Martina was in the 70's when she really was wasting her potential..

Having said all that, its an extremely close call, the best rivalry in sports history, but I think Martina deserves the edge.. (even though she'll lose this poll due to her commentating and being critical of current posters fave players lol)

LudwigDvorak
Aug 21st, 2007, 04:43 PM
It's tough. I like both but I like watching Navratilova more. :shrug:

thrust
Aug 21st, 2007, 04:51 PM
Czechfan- I totally agree with you. Very well stated.

Chrissie-fan
Aug 21st, 2007, 05:19 PM
I think their head to head tells the story. Their rivalry is really a tale of 2 halves..

Prior to Martina fully committing to being the best she could be, Evert was the better player. Once Martina got fully into shape and committed, Martina won 2 out of every 3 matches they played..end of story..
I hate that sort of argument. Every time Evert wins it's because Navratilova wasn't in shape or had an off day and every time she loses - even late in her career - Evert was still at her peak. It takes away from Evert because it suggests that Evert didn't win her matches because she was so good but only because Navratilova was below par (which isn't your intention, I know).

A lot of what you say in your post is true, but the other half of the story (which is just as credible IMO) is that Martina was definitely helped by the new technology. Generalizing a bit here, but Chris had the edge in the "wooden racquet half" and Martina had the edge in the "graphite era half" (and Chris made the switch much later than Martina). I'm not saying that Chris would have dominated the rivalry in the 80's if they had stayed with wood, but things like Martina winning 13 in a row never would have happened, I'm sure. Be that as it may, it doesn't take anything at all away from Martina's achievement, but it's another element to consider.

Chrissie-fan
Aug 21st, 2007, 05:27 PM
Yeesh, my post was meant to be a joke illustrating how one could make a case for any player as long as one was creative with excuses; I had no idea people were going to take it seriously
Surely, you don't think that my response was serious, do you.:p ;)

die_wahrheit
Aug 21st, 2007, 06:03 PM
Nonsense poll,
The Navratilova is greater. Look at the records.

Ceri
Aug 21st, 2007, 06:28 PM
Navratilova!

Topspin2
Aug 21st, 2007, 06:29 PM
Navra of course

sfselesfan
Aug 21st, 2007, 06:41 PM
Chrissy is 10 times better as a commentator. As far as I'm concerned, they're tied as players. I think there's probably a slight edge to Evert though. You can't just go off slams, because slams weren't the measure until relatively recently. She missed so many French Opens due to WTT being so popular. She also barely played the AO. Also, she had a higher winning percentage throughout her career. Finally, she won a slam (despite not playing them all by choice) for 13 years straight and made the semis of at least one slam EVERY YEAR she played...from the first to the last.

Like I said, it's only a slight edge. I'd have to say that overall...given the H2H, they're even.

SF

guyinsf
Aug 21st, 2007, 06:58 PM
I think that it's quite amazing that Martina was able to come away with a slight edge over Chris in their 80 matches when you consider that pretty much through most or all of their matches, the spectators were brutally against Martina and cheered wildly for Chris. I know I wouldn't be able to beat my opponent 43 times out of 80 if everytime I stepped out on the court, they verbalized their disdain for me. Another telling fact is that the grass wins for Chris are all tough 3 setters and the clay wins for Martina were so easy! It has been said by many that when Chris was number 2 behind Martina in the 80's, she was a better player being no 2 than she was a no 1 player in the 70's because Martina really pushed Chris and vice versa too. I just think that Martina's 9 Wimbledon titles, 6 straight slams, a non-calendar slam, 74 match winning streak, more weeks at no 1 than Chris, an edge on their H2H and 167 singles titles most in the open era all contribute to Martina not just being greater than Chris but the GREATEST OF ALL TIME. I'm actually very surprised that Chris is leading in the poll but I have a feeling that's just a sentimental thing for most people voting for Chris. I do think that Chris does remain the greatest tennis icon of all time but Martina is the greatest player of all time.

thrust
Aug 21st, 2007, 07:40 PM
Women^s tennis was always OPEN as there was never a women^s Pro Tour. The Open Era is appropriate to Men^s tennis as there was a Men Pro Tour before 1968.

The Dawntreader
Aug 21st, 2007, 07:59 PM
I actually think chris was the better singles player. People forget Chris won( apart from Wimby), more titles in the slams than martina. People just think because martina won 9 Wimby's, she's automatically the better singles player. Apart from Wimby, these were the two's GS tally's.

Aussie Open: chris 2, Martina 3.

French Open: Chris 7, martina 2.

Us Open: Chris 6, Martina 4.

So apart from Wimby, Chris had the more Slams. Obviously winning the 9 Wimby titles is amazing, but i always feel Chris was the more all-rounded Slam performer. However in terms of definitive greatness, Martina's 59 Slam titles eclipses Chris's overall.

guyinsf
Aug 21st, 2007, 08:30 PM
I actually think chris was the better singles player. People forget Chris won( apart from Wimby), more titles in the slams than martina. People just think because martina won 9 Wimby's, she's automatically the better singles player. Apart from Wimby, these were the two's GS tally's.

Aussie Open: chris 2, Martina 3.

French Open: Chris 7, martina 2.

Us Open: Chris 6, Martina 4.

So apart from Wimby, Chris had the more Slams. Obviously winning the 9 Wimby titles is amazing, but i always feel Chris was the more all-rounded Slam performer. However in terms of definitive greatness, Martina's 59 Slam titles eclipses Chris's overall.

"So apart from Wimby, Chris had the more Slams"
This is a lame statement because you can easily say that apart from the French Open, Martina had more slams. Come on, you can argue better than that can't you?

Calypso
Aug 21st, 2007, 08:32 PM
Yeah, but not all of the five wins Evert had over Navratilova on grass count as legitimate wins, do they?

1976 Wimbledon - Martina's "Fatalova" phase during which she was completely out of shape and no match for Evert, the reigning #1.

1979 Eastbourne - A good win for Chrissie, but we must remember that Martina was likely very excited and nervous about seeing her mother for the first time in four years and probably wasn't concentrating on the match as much as she needed to. Besides Martina won the match that really mattered (Wimbledon final), so this can be ignored as a case of "tuneupitis".

1980 Wimbledon - bang in the middle of Martina's slump caused by L'affaire Brown, so a decent win for Chris, but not really an example of a matchup between two players at their very best.

1981 Sydney - Martina was obviously still recovering from a turbulent summer in which she became a US citizen and then suffered a heartbreaking loss to Austin in the US finals. Besides Martina won the match that really mattered (Australian Open final), so this can be ignored as a case of "tuneupitis".

1982 Australian Open - I would consider this Evert's only legitimate win over a "peak" Navratilova on grass.

Besides, let's not forget the scorelines, shall we?

Evert d. Navratilova on grass:
6-3 4-6 6-4
7-5 5-7 13-11
4-6 6-4 6-2
6-4 2-6 6-1
6-3 2-6 6-3

Navratilova d. Evert on clay:
6-2 6-0
6-3 6-1
6-2 6-2

:lol: :devil: :nerner:
I voted Navratilova but the above post just made me:lol: . Another reason I love WTAWorld! Thy favorite
shall be defended at all costs and be made to look good from any angle:lol: !

The Dawntreader
Aug 21st, 2007, 08:35 PM
"So apart from Wimby, Chris had the more Slams"
This is a lame statement because you can easily say that apart from the French Open, Martina had more slams. Come on, you can argue better than that can't you?

But it showed that chris performed better overall at the other 3 Slams, thus making her one of the best GS singles players.

I can argue better, but i'm tired:lol:

Sund7101
Aug 21st, 2007, 08:40 PM
The Tennis Icon and girl next door gets my vote.

She was a more all-around singles player and had a higher winning percentage.

I also agree that back then slams weren't as important as they are now--Chrissie skipped the A.O. ana French a lot early in her career.

My vote goes for Chrissie.

guyinsf
Aug 21st, 2007, 08:52 PM
But it showed that chris performed better overall at the other 3 Slams, thus making her one of the best GS singles players.

I can argue better, but i'm tired:lol:

But she didn't and your own stats show that. Martina has more Australian and Wimbies and Chris has more FO and US so how did Chris perform better at 3 other slams? That makes absolutely no sense to me.

Matt01
Aug 21st, 2007, 10:06 PM
But she didn't and your own stats show that. Martina has more Australian and Wimbies and Chris has more FO and US so how did Chris perform better at 3 other slams? That makes absolutely no sense to me.

Agreed. That makes no sense. Navi had the advantage at AO and WI, Chrissie at FO and US, so on this aspect they are, like in so many other aspects, practically equal.

I voted for Martina (not only because she's on my avatar :p ), because she won more singles tournaments and was no.1 for a longer period of time. And while I don't think that the head-to-head is usually very important when detertming who is greater...in this case, since both players are so close together in achievements...I'd consider it, and again it speaks for Martina :p

For me, personally, though, Chrissie and Martina are both the 2 greatest players, and I don't have strong feelings about in which order that would be. They totally changed women's tennis, they probably had the best rivalry ever in women's tennis, they were both great players, both so diffeent in they style of tennis and personality, such an intense rivalry and yet they were respecting one another...for me, they are the 2 best female tennis players, probably of all time. :)

(And yes, I'd consider them greater than Graf or Court, but that would the topic of another thread :wavey: :p )

alfajeffster
Aug 21st, 2007, 10:10 PM
Are we talking "peak" Navratilova versus "peak" Evert-Lloyd-Mill here? If so, Navratilova is an easy pick. Navratilova at her best would beat Prissy Chrissie at her best probably seven or eight times out of ten.

With both using a standard size frame, I think the outcome is much less predictable, and it even might surprise quite a few pundits.

Kart
Aug 21st, 2007, 10:14 PM
Yeah, but not all of the five wins Evert had over Navratilova on grass count as legitimate wins, do they?

1976 Wimbledon - Martina's "Fatalova" phase during which she was completely out of shape and no match for Evert, the reigning #1.

1979 Eastbourne - A good win for Chrissie, but we must remember that Martina was likely very excited and nervous about seeing her mother for the first time in four years and probably wasn't concentrating on the match as much as she needed to. Besides Martina won the match that really mattered (Wimbledon final), so this can be ignored as a case of "tuneupitis".

1980 Wimbledon - bang in the middle of Martina's slump caused by L'affaire Brown, so a decent win for Chris, but not really an example of a matchup between two players at their very best.

1981 Sydney - Martina was obviously still recovering from a turbulent summer in which she became a US citizen and then suffered a heartbreaking loss to Austin in the US finals. Besides Martina won the match that really mattered (Australian Open final), so this can be ignored as a case of "tuneupitis".

1982 Australian Open - I would consider this Evert's only legitimate win over a "peak" Navratilova on grass.

Besides, let's not forget the scorelines, shall we?

Evert d. Navratilova on grass:
6-3 4-6 6-4
7-5 5-7 13-11
4-6 6-4 6-2
6-4 2-6 6-1
6-3 2-6 6-3

Navratilova d. Evert on clay:
6-2 6-0
6-3 6-1
6-2 6-2

:lol: :devil: :nerner:

Here was I thinking that tuneupitis only affected Sabatini in all her losses against Graf.

BCP
Aug 22nd, 2007, 07:17 AM
Navratilova

6 Wimbledon's in a row plus two times she was able to win RG and Wimby in the same season (1982 and 1984), which is for me the greatest feat a tennis player can accomplish as the transition from clay to grass probably is the most difficult thing a pro player can face (or at least it was at that time because grass used to be faster than it is now), whereas Evert achieved that only in 1974.

This is lightly misleading, as the French Open was not a highly regarded tournament in the 70s. Chris did not play the 76 French Open (the year she won Wimbeldon for the second time). Had she played, I have no doubt that she would have won, given she was in the middle of her 125 claycourt winning streak.

samn
Aug 22nd, 2007, 07:30 AM
Here was I thinking that tuneupitis only affected Sabatini in all her losses against Graf.

No, no, tuneupitis affected Graf, not Sabatini. You know, the affliction that causes you lose matches in tuneups but win the ones against the same opponent in Slams. :p

Of course in Graf's case it was a mutant strain of the tuneupitis virus, the correct medical term for which is, I believe, Floridaitis.

BCP
Aug 22nd, 2007, 08:21 AM
I think their head to head tells the story. Their rivalry is really a tale of 2 halves..

Prior to Martina fully committing to being the best she could be, Evert was the better player. Once Martina got fully into shape and committed, Martina won 2 out of every 3 matches they played..end of story..

Really if you look at their matches, once Martina had transformed herself, Evert had to hope that Martina was a bit 'off' to have any hope of winning - kind of like Hingis against the power hitters who have too much game for her, but if the power hitters are a bit off, Hingis has enough game to beat them.

Its an incredibly close call, but I think both players would agree that from the early 80's onward, Martina really was the heavy favourite in all their matches not played on clay..

Also back in the 80's, Wimbledon really was viewed as the most important slam.. These days the slams are more equal, but 20 years ago, Wimbledon was the world championship of tennis, so some credit needs to be given to martina for winning it 9 times..

In relation to their head to head, Martina once won 12 times in a row.. COmpletely dominant and people at the time wondered whether Chris would ever be able to beat Martina again..

I just did a quick tally (could be slightly wrong) but broke their head to head down into pre 1980, and post 1980.. The tally ended up something close to this:

Pre 1980 - Martina won 10 matches, Chris won 25 matches

Post 1980 - Martina won 33 matches, Chris won 12 matches

So the rivalry really is a tale of 2 halves.. I would also argue that through most of the 80's, til Graf came along, Chris was still closer to her peak than Martina was in the 70's when she really was wasting her potential..

Having said all that, its an extremely close call, the best rivalry in sports history, but I think Martina deserves the edge.. (even though she'll lose this poll due to her commentating and being critical of current posters fave players lol)

Who can argue? Maybe it does come down to the H2H. I think in regards to singles career achievements, they are more or less equal. At their very best, I think outside of clay, Martina would start favourite, with Martina winning 6 out of 10 times on a hardcourt and seven out of ten times on grass and indoors.

BCP
Aug 22nd, 2007, 08:27 AM
But she didn't and your own stats show that. Martina has more Australian and Wimbies and Chris has more FO and US so how did Chris perform better at 3 other slams? That makes absolutely no sense to me.

Chris played fewer Australian Opens. She only played 74, 81, 82, 84, 85, 88, and got to the final each time, winning two of them, losing to Goolagong in 74, Martina in 81 & 85 , and to Graf in 88.

I'm not sure how many AO's Martina played in the 70s, but she lost in the QF to Turnbull in 80, won 81, lost to Evert in the 82 final, won 83, lost to Sukova in the SF in 84, won 85, lost to Mandlikova in the final in 87, and lost to Evert in the SF in 88.

BCP
Aug 22nd, 2007, 08:33 AM
Agreed. That makes no sense. Navi had the advantage at AO and WI, Chrissie at FO and US, so on this aspect they are, like in so many other aspects, practically equal.

I voted for Martina (not only because she's on my avatar :p ), because she won more singles tournaments and was no.1 for a longer period of time. And while I don't think that the head-to-head is usually very important when detertming who is greater...in this case, since both players are so close together in achievements...I'd consider it, and again it speaks for Martina :p

For me, personally, though, Chrissie and Martina are both the 2 greatest players, and I don't have strong feelings about in which order that would be. They totally changed women's tennis, they probably had the best rivalry ever in women's tennis, they were both great players, both so diffeent in they style of tennis and personality, such an intense rivalry and yet they were respecting one another...for me, they are the 2 best female tennis players, probably of all time. :)

(And yes, I'd consider them greater than Graf or Court, but that would the topic of another thread :wavey: :p )

Using the weeks at number 1 is a little misleading. Official rankings did not start until the mid to late 70s (76? 77?) a couple of years into Chris's reign. Before then, tennis commentators and writers used to complile year end lists.

Chrissie-fan
Aug 22nd, 2007, 08:43 AM
Using the weeks at number 1 is a little misleading. Official rankings did not start until the mid to late 70s (76? 77?) a couple of years into Chris's reign. Before then, tennis commentators and writers used to complile year end lists.
Weekly computer rankings started in November 1975 which as you say cost Chris a bit in that statistic. Even so, Navratilova would have had more weeks at No.1 anyway, albeit by a smaller margin. Having said that, 12 years as the No1 or No.2 ranked player, 18 (!!!) years in the top 4 is at least as impressive a statistic (if not more so) as any other IMO. In terms of consistency Evert is without rival in the open era.

samn
Aug 22nd, 2007, 09:56 AM
Chris played fewer Australian Opens. She only played 74, 81, 82, 84, 85, 88, and got to the final each time, winning two of them, losing to Goolagong in 74, Martina in 81 & 85 , and to Graf in 88.

I'm not sure how many AO's Martina played in the 70s, but she lost in the QF to Turnbull in 80, won 81, lost to Evert in the 82 final, won 83, lost to Sukova in the SF in 84, won 85, lost to Mandlikova in the final in 87, and lost to Evert in the SF in 88.

1975 r/u (lost to Goolagong)
1980 SF (lost to Turnbull)
1981 won (d. Evert)
1982 r/u (lost to Evert)
1983 won (d. Jordan)
1984 SF (lost to Sukova)
1985 won (d. Evert)
1987 r/u (lost to Mandlikova)
1988 SF (lost to Evert)
1989 QF (lost to Sukova)

The Kaz
Aug 22nd, 2007, 10:10 AM
Evert :worship:

BCP
Aug 22nd, 2007, 10:10 AM
1975 r/u (lost to Goolagong)
1980 SF (lost to Turnbull)
1981 won (d. Evert)
1982 r/u (lost to Evert)
1983 won (d. Jordan)
1984 SF (lost to Sukova)
1985 won (d. Evert)
1987 r/u (lost to Mandlikova)
1988 SF (lost to Evert)
1989 QF (lost to Sukova)


Thanks Samn! Always reliable with the stats..................:)

Olórin
Aug 22nd, 2007, 11:29 AM
First of all let me say that Chris Evert is my favourite player pre Serena, with Steffi Graf being my second favourite.

I do think it's close between them in terms of singles, however overall I would say Navratilova had the better singles career. A lot of people even thought so back in the 80's even when Martina was 2 or 3 slams short of Chris' total and had only just eclipsed her in titles.

I think basically, statistically is the only way you can look at it if you want to be at all objective.

So it's a matter of 74 match all surface winning streak vs. 128 match clay winning streak. Chris gets my vote here.

6 Grand Slams in a row vs. a Grand Slam every year for 13 years. Martina gets my vote here.

Who was more unbeatable on their favourite surface. Impossible to call - tie.

Navratilova's 82, 83, 84, 85, 86 seasons of absolute dominance (highlighted by her multiple Grand Slam wins and W/L record for those years vs. Chris' 18 years in the top 4 and 12 years in the top 2, and general career of consistency. Navratilova gets this for me.

But what really puts the nail in the coffin, in Martina's favour, is that streak where she won 14 straight sets against Chris and 13 striaght matches. True it might not have happened with wooden racquets, but still, it was sheer dominance, and Chris' sole objective when she went out onto the court wasn't to win but not embarass herself. In terms of singles greatness, to have ever, if only for a month had this kind of hold over someone, it counts.

alfajeffster
Aug 22nd, 2007, 12:58 PM
But Margaret Court was pregnant in 1971, and would've never lost that Wimbledon final to Evonne Goolagong if she'd have had her normal timing and accuracy...:lol:

Kart
Aug 22nd, 2007, 01:12 PM
No, no, tuneupitis affected Graf, not Sabatini. You know, the affliction that causes you lose matches in tuneups but win the ones against the same opponent in Slams. :p


:lol:


Of course in Graf's case it was a mutant strain of the tuneupitis virus, the correct medical term for which is, I believe, Floridaitis.

I always attributed that to 'Sabatinijustbeingbetteritis.'

Still, you may well be right - I've often read theories about Graf and mutation.

Thanx4nothin
Aug 22nd, 2007, 02:26 PM
What does it for me are the slam results, Chris has 2 more finals.

BCP
Aug 22nd, 2007, 03:07 PM
This article appeared a few years ago. The stats on curreent players are a little out of date, but the comparisons between Martina, Steffi and Chris are still valid. I like to wheel it out on occassions like this, because I think people don't appreciate that Chris was just as dominant at her peak as Martina and Steffi were in theirs. So here it is for what it's worth- it's just another point of view:

http://www.sportsmediainc.net/tennisweek/index.cfm?func=showarticle&newsid=9855

I've only copied the bit on the top 4 below:

The Best Of The Best
http://www.sportsmediainc.net/tennisweek/Navra.jpg
Photo By Art Seitz By Raymond Lee
11/06/2003

Eight of the world's best players converge in Los Angeles this week to compete in the WTA Tour Championships and strive for supremacy as the season-ending No. 1 player. As the competition to contest the top spot unfolds, I've conducted my own championship to crown the greatest woman player of the Open Era.

As I wrote in my first feature for Tennis Week.com Numbers Reveal The No. 1 Player Of The Open Era, (http://www.sportsmediainc.net/tennisweek/index.cfm?func=showarticle&newsid=9427)tennis is a tough sport to evaluate. We have a tendency to judge players based solely on observation rather than on careful statistical scrutiny. As we all know, appearances can be deceiving. Some players may look like world beaters on some days yet ultimately find a way to lose a match, while other players may look like they wouldn't take a game off their 99-year-old grandmother still wielding a wood racquet, yet they seem to find a way to win.
Ultimately, champions produce results and results are what should be used in assessing the greatest champions — not speculation, not opinions, not the style of someone's forehand.
I compared the nine greatest women of the Open Era — Lindsay Davenport, Chris Evert, Steffi Graf, Martina Hingis, Martina Navratilova, Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario, Monica Seles, Serena Williams and Venus Williams — using the following statistical criteria:

Career winning percentage
Best winning percentage for a five-year period
Career tournament titles
Tournament titles in a best five-year period
Career percentage of tournaments won
Percentage of tournaments won in a best five year period
Career Grand Slam titles
Career percentage of Slams won
Total Grand Slams won in a best five year period
Percentage of Grand Slams won in a best five-year periodQuite honestly, before I began my research for this story, I truly believed Martina Navratilova and Steffi Graf would resume the rivalry they shared on court in competing for the unofficial title as the game's greatest player with Chris Evert settling in the third spot. However, as I began research on this statistical study, I soon realized the remarkable record Chris Evert had amassed and it quickly became clear the Fort Lauderdale native with the impeccably immaculate strokes was in the running to take the title as the game's greatest player of the Open Era.
Ultimately, it was a very, very close battle between Navratilova, Evert and Graf, but after careful consideration of all the stats (I used Hall of Fame tennis writer Bud Collins' Total Tennis as well as the work of esteemed tennis historian Robert Geist) I am ready to announce one player as the greatest of the Open Era: Martina Navratilova!
The legendary lefthander finished first in five of the 10 categories I established and did not place lower than third in any one category. The greatness of Navratilova is a given, but what was absolutely astonishing was Navratilova's comprehensive domination of women's tennis from 1982 to 1986. In that stunning span of five years, Navratilova produced a 427-14 record for a wondrous winning percentage of .968. Losing only 14 matches is regarded as a great year for most players, but Navratilova's 14 losses in five years is an average of just under three losses per year! In that spectacular five-year span, the serve-and-volleyer won 70 of 84 tournaments she entered and 12 of the 19 Grand Slams she played. No woman in the Open Era was as dominant during any five-year period as Navratilova. Her official record of 167 singles titles may well prove to be one of the toughest tennis records to break. In 1984, Navratilova set the Open Era record for most consecutive wins with 74 straight victories.
The owner of 58 Grand Slam titles overall, Navratilova's numbers are mind-boggling. As Tennis Week senior feature writer Bud Collins writes in Total Tennis: "As a pro since 1973, Navratilova played the most singles tournaments (383) and matches (1,653), and won the most titles and matches (1,440) with a won-loss mark of 1,440-213."
The 16-year rivalry between Navratilova and Evert is one of the most storied in sports history. The pair first met in 1973 in Akron, Ohio with Evert scoring a 7-6, 6-3 victory. Evert won 21 of the pair's first 25 meetings, but Navratilova would rally to win 39 of their final 55 matches to conclude the career rivalry with a 43-37 edge over Evert.
A winner of 154 career singles titles, Evert finished a very close second to Navratilova in my study. Evert claimed the top spot in two of the 10 categories, and like her archrival, she did not place lower than third in any single category. The brilliant baseliner was so consistently great for so many years, her achievements are almost beyond belief when the records are viewed in retrospect. Two stats stand out in Evert's remarkable resume:

Her career record of 1,309-146 is an astounding .8996 winning percentage — the best in the history of professional tennis.
She won more than half of the tournaments she entered and was a runner-up in 72 tournaments, which means she reached the finals in 76 percent of the 303 tournaments she entered, according to Collins' Total Tennis.As great as Navratilova was from 1982 to 1986, Evert's record from 1974 to 1978 is almost as impressive. During that five-year period, Evert registered a 325-21, capturing 61 of the 84 tournaments she entered, including eight of the 13 Grand Slams she played. Entering 13 majors in a five-year span is not much by today's standards, but in Evert's era many of the top American players seldom played the Australian Open. In fact, Evert only played the Australian Open once in the first 10 years of her career, reaching the final in 1974. Had Evert entered more majors during that time she very well could have threatened Margaret Court's record of 24 Grand Slam singles titles.
In retrospect, it's truly amazing that two of the greatest players of all time played basically at the same time. How many majors did each prevent the other from winning? How many more majors would Navratilova or Evert had won without the presence of her primary rival? Then again, both women have said repeatedly that the rivalry pushed them to produce their best tennis. They played 22 times in majors with Navratilova holding a 14-8 edge in those Grand Slam showdowns.
Even in my research, the rivalry between the pair produced a very close result. For example, had Evert beaten Navratilova in the 1978 Wimbledon final (Navratilova won 2-6, 6-4, 7-5), Evert would have been No. 1 in my statistical study. It was that close. On a side note, my research shows Hall of Famers Rod Laver and Ken Rosewall played each other approximately 140 times with Laver holding the edge in one of the greatest men's rivalries in history.
The great Steffi Graf, who will join Navratilova and Evert in the International Tennis Hall of Fame when she's inducted in the summer of 2004, held the No. 1 rank for 377 weeks — the longest streak in the Open Era. Graf produced possibly the greatest single season in Open Era history by sweeping the Grand Slam and an Olympic gold medal in 1988. This awesome accomplishment — dubbed "The Golden Slam" — has never been matched. In that Grand Slam season, Graf compiled a record of 72-3, winning 11 of the 14 tournaments she entered. In terms of winning percentage, Graf's best season came the year after her Golden Slam when she won 86 of 88 matches, captured 14 of 16 tournaments she entered and three of the four majors losing only Roland Garros to Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario. Had Graf beaten Sanchez-Vicario in the French Open final she would have swept successive Grand Slams. The native of Bruhl, Germany was first in two of the 10 categories in this study. Of course, if there were a study the most successful family in the Open Era, Graf and husband Andre Agassi would clearly top the list.
Monica Seles placed a distant fourth in my study. At one point, in the early 1990s it appeared Seles was on pace to produce historic career records. The two-handed titan won seven of the eight majors she played at one point and was clearly the premier player in women's tennis. At that point, Seles appeared poised to challenge for a prominent place as the greatest player of all time. It took a demented man plunging a knife in her back to derail what seemed to be an unstoppable tennis power. Prior to her stabbing, who would have believed the Seles of the early 1990s would have amassed "only" 53 tournament titles, including nine majors? Undoubtedly, these are Hall of Fame credentials, but the numbers pale in comparison to the career path Seles was on before she was stabbed. Sadly, a the sharp steel of a madman's knife robbed Monica of what may have been her peak years and leaves us wondering what she would have accomplished had she played in her prime.

tennisvideos
Aug 22nd, 2007, 11:01 PM
I compared the nine greatest women of the Open Era — Lindsay Davenport, Chris Evert, Steffi Graf, Martina Hingis, Martina Navratilova, Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario, Monica Seles, Serena Williams and Venus Williams — using the following statistical criteria:

Career winning percentage
Best winning percentage for a five-year period
Career tournament titles
Tournament titles in a best five-year period
Career percentage of tournaments won
Percentage of tournaments won in a best five year period
Career Grand Slam titles
Career percentage of Slams won
Total Grand Slams won in a best five year period
Percentage of Grand Slams won in a best five-year periodThanks BCP - This is the sort of data I wanted to produce in the thread about Graf v Court and I did compile a lot of information similar to this on Court. So it would be great if we could compare all of this sort of data on all the greats since 1960 including those above as well as Maria Bueno, Margaret Court, Billie-Jean King etc.

alfajeffster
Aug 22nd, 2007, 11:21 PM
...I compared the nine greatest women of the Open Era — Lindsay Davenport, Chris Evert, Steffi Graf, Martina Hingis, Martina Navratilova, Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario, Monica Seles, Serena Williams and Venus Williams...

Still (and not to stray from the subject at hand, but it bears mentioning) amazes me how a woman who won 11 singles majors, including the Grand Slam IN THE OPEN ERA didn't make the list.

tennisboi
Aug 22nd, 2007, 11:32 PM
I voted for Chris her winning percentage was amazing...it was like over 90% for her career