PDA

View Full Version : How were Margaret Court and Billie Jean King rivals?


justinehfan
Dec 18th, 2010, 12:02 PM
Margaret won 24 slams to Billie Jean's 12, and she led the H-2-H 22-10. How is that a rivalry?

tennisvideos
Dec 18th, 2010, 12:26 PM
They didn't meet as much as I would have expected for two of the top players from the early to mid 60s until the mid 70s. It was still a rivalry of sorts but of course nothing compared to the Navratilova/Evert rivalry. But no rivalry compares to that!

justinehfan
Dec 18th, 2010, 12:36 PM
They didn't meet as much as I would have expected for two of the top players from the early to mid 60s until the mid 70s. It was still a rivalry of sorts but of course nothing compared to the Navratilova/Evert rivalry. But no rivalry compares to that!

Was there even an area game-wise where Billie was better than Margaret?

tennisvideos
Dec 18th, 2010, 01:38 PM
Was there even an area game-wise where Billie was better than Margaret?

Well I think Billie-Jean had the better volleys. But Court had a stronger first and second serve, although flatter than King's and therefore also a little more vulnerable under pressure. I remember seeing one match (against Goolaong in the 75 Wimbledon SF) where Court double faults quite a lot and at crucial times in the match - and it probably cost her the match.

Court also had the stronger ground strokes and as Nancy Richey has mentioned, Court really had no weaknesses and was just as strong from the back of the court as she was at the net.

Of course King had the intimidation factor - I mean the way she glared across the net would have freaked me out too! :lol:

daze11
Dec 18th, 2010, 02:27 PM
Was there even an area game-wise where Billie was better than Margaret?Yes, in the area called 'playing Bobby Riggs'... she was much better. :drool:

chris whiteside
Dec 18th, 2010, 02:47 PM
Margaret won 24 slams to Billie Jean's 12, and she led the H-2-H 22-10. How is that a rivalry?

From austinrunner's figures I make the h2h 21-13 ifo Margaret.

laschutz
Dec 18th, 2010, 03:51 PM
billie jean had more variety as well,perhaps she HAD to have more since she couldn't overwhelm people just by power.

billie jean i think was also margaret's superior in strategy and mental toughness.

i think chris evert once said it best " if you want to bet your life you go with margaret for a lifetime, but if it came down to just 1 match she (evert) would put her money on billie jean!"

laschutz
Dec 18th, 2010, 03:53 PM
and i think it's perhaps these reason i just posted why billie jean always gave chrissie more trouble than margaret did.

although neither fares to well head to head with chrissie and we're talking a teenage wood racket wielding strict baseliner chrissie of 1970 to 1975 not the super chrissie of the mid to late 80's, mature womanhood, stronger, faster, harder hitting, more athletic, more variety, with her great mind also still intact!

tennisvideos
Dec 18th, 2010, 05:21 PM
and i think it's perhaps these reason i just posted why billie jean always gave chrissie more trouble than margaret did.

although neither fares to well head to head with chrissie and we're talking a teenage wood racket wielding strict baseliner chrissie of 1970 to 1975 not the super chrissie of the mid to late 80's, mature womanhood, stronger, faster, harder hitting, more athletic, more variety, with her great mind also still intact!

up until the end of 73 when Court retired for her 2nd child she was 3-3 with Chris. So I think she did give Chris as much if not more trouble than King. Evert also said at the end of 73 that they were both tough. Either King or Evert usually won easily but she said she almost always had long tough battles with Court. That was in the WITC match where she said that.

tennisvideos
Dec 18th, 2010, 05:25 PM
billie jean had more variety as well,perhaps she HAD to have more since she couldn't overwhelm people just by power.

billie jean i think was also margaret's superior in strategy and mental toughness.

i think chris evert once said it best " if you want to bet your life you go with margaret for a lifetime, but if it came down to just 1 match she (evert) would put her money on billie jean!"

king probably did have more variety eg. better with the touch shots etc. and court prob had to work on weights to develop her power as it would have been tougher to have the touch being a natural leftie and forced to play right handed by her coach. so yeah, the variety for king makes sense there.

as for betting your life, well one has to remember that court won more than half of the GS events she played and 24 of 29 GS finals - so i know who I would bet on!

laschutz
Dec 18th, 2010, 06:08 PM
no offense tennis video, but that is what chrissie said and "um, she's the one that played them both"

court vs chris 3-3, yeah, from 1970 to 1973, but um, aren't we talking about a margaret who was number 1 in the world in 1970 and number 1 again in 1973 and in her prime mature experienced womanhood against a 15 to 18 year old wooden racket wielding one dimensional teenage light years away from her best 10 to 15 years later chrissie?

no matter how you slice it, maggie comes off bad in a matchup against chrissie.

Rollo
Dec 18th, 2010, 07:48 PM
and i think it's perhaps these reason i just posted why billie jean always gave chrissie more trouble than margaret did.

What are the exact head to head numbers?

King and Evert never met in their prime, but I find it telling that Billie Jean always beat Evert on grass up to 1977, by which time King was clearly over the hill. And Evert never lost to King on clay. Their strengths were polar opposites. The best King-Evert matches would be on hard court surfaces. They had some real clashes on hard courts.

Court clearly could beat Evert on clay. Margaret had what King didn't, which was the ground strokes off both sides. From that standpoint one could argue it was Court that had more variety to give Evert trouble.

Conversely Evert clearly could beat Court on grass,something she couldn't accomplish vs King until years later. Even when Margaret beat Evert in the 1973 US Open semis on grass she stayed back to remarkable extent.

Thus in many ways the Court-Evert matches were more unpredicatable, wheareas King-Evert played more to form.



although neither fares to well head to head with chrissie and we're talking a teenage wood racket wielding strict baseliner chrissie of 1970 to 1975 not the super chrissie of the mid to late 80's, mature womanhood, stronger, faster, harder hitting, more athletic (http://www.tennisforum.com/showthread.php?t=424849#), more variety, with her great mind also still intact!


Sorry, but I still disagree with you on this. Your "super" Chrissie of the mid to late 80s wasn't winning nearly as many slams as teenage wood Chrissie. Any added oomph she had on her groundies and serve never made up for the loss in touch and consistency.

As for variety, she had that in aces and spades well before the mid 80s. Watch some of her matches from 1975 and 1976 and you'll be amazed at how often she comes to the net. I'd be willing to bet she came to the net more often vs Goolagong in the 76 Slims final than just about any other match I can recall.

Get a copy of the 1973 US Open semi Evert had with Court. Margaret won the match, but Evert hits the sweetest reaction volley she ever hit early in the match:)

Overall I think you're probably right about her game being seasoned-I'm just arguing she never really transformed her game becasue it worked for her.

Rollo
Dec 18th, 2010, 07:55 PM
Margaret won 24 slams to Billie Jean's 12, and she led (http://www.tennisforum.com/showthread.php?p=18875678&posted=1#) the H-2-H 22-10. How is that a rivalry?


It's a rivalry because King came the closest to challenging Court after Maria Bueno faded from the picture due to injuries. The other thing is that Court got in a lot of early wins before Billie Jean developed as a player. I won't say King is/was Court's equal overall, but Billie Jean significantly reduced Court's slam count. From the very first time they met at Wimbledon and little Miss Moffitt upset Smith (the first time a #1 seed had ever lost her opening match) an intense rivalry was born with Billie Jean as a thorn in Margaret's side.

Besides, the contrast and personal animus they had to each other only added spice to their contests:devil:

daze11
Dec 18th, 2010, 10:55 PM
Sorry, but I still disagree with you on this. Your "super" Chrissie of the mid to late 80s wasn't winning nearly as many slams as teenage wood Chrissie. Any added oomph she had on her groundies and serve never made up for the loss in touch and consistency.

As for variety, she had that in aces and spades well before the mid 80s. Watch some of her matches from 1975 and 1976 and you'll be amazed at how often she comes to the net. I'd be willing to bet she came to the net more often vs Goolagong in the 76 Slims final than just about any other match I can recall.So true, "Super Chrissie" is the one who was #1 in the world 6 or 7 times (depending how you see those years) certainly not the 30+ year old!!! :lol: She'd be the first one in history to have that be the case, male or female... in ANY sport!! But laschutz keeps insisting to himself that the graphite racket wasn't what changed the register of her play. :shrug: I guess it's anyone's prerogative to think so, but I think it is just preferring graphite tennis to wood!! (which is heartbreaking to hear any tennis fan say) Steve Flink thinks her best mental years were 74-78 with 80 & 81 holding a close second. But she never had more variety in her backcourt game than between 1980-1981 for sure... those were genius years.

I am ALMOST certain the comment about career-wise margaret vs one-match BJK was something she said in reference to battle of the sexes... and either way, the comment also clearly means she thought Court was a better player. EVERYONE knows Mags could get 'the elbow' ... so in certain match scenerios she was perhaps more vulnerable. But I think this perspective on Court was the one Billie Jean offered up herself!! Isn't she the one who said she felt she had a chance if she could get Margaret tight & start to overthink?

daze11
Dec 18th, 2010, 10:58 PM
as for betting your life, well one has to remember that court won more than half of the GS events she played and 24 of 19 GS finals - so i know who I would bet on!
this is the thing... you'd have to bet your life on court because she's the one who came through more often! she was clearly superior to BJK as a player... but again, i think the chris comment was looking back in hindsight to battle of the sexes (she CERTAINLY didnt say it b4 the riggs match, since she thought billie was going to lose)

daze11
Dec 18th, 2010, 11:02 PM
no offense tennis video, but that is what chrissie said and "um, she's the one that played them both"
i feel you mistake a player for a tennis analyst. Chris would at the least agree that steve flink knows quite a bit more about tennis and even her own game than she.... and he didn't play tennis and didn't play those players.

This common mis-conception is why we now have so many ex-players (who are not good tennis analysts) in the booth today INSTEAD of better tennis thinkers like Flink or Bud Collins in the booth. The industry has bought into the illusion that players know better and it has made broadcasts not so good. How many tennis matches did John Barrett play?? He's a much better tennis analyst than Mary Joe Fernandez.

laschutz
Dec 19th, 2010, 12:37 AM
didn't mean to offend you tennisvideos, by my suggestion! i just figured that the actual person playing the other person would know better?! you are right in that just because you played tennis at a pro level doesnt' necessarily make you a great commentator, but then again, perhaps that's just about not being able to translate your opinions, not being able to talk and express yourself coherently or just not being able to dissect other's games. which still doesn't necessarily make you less of a expert if you ( the player) plays a rival they have played over and over again!

i also think some of you get too caught up in the fact that chrissie won the majority of her slams in the 70's and early 80's and when she was number 1......

granted, the game had changed and chrissie had to change with it, meaning less touch and consistentcy, but yet more power and variety and athleticism. also, it wasn't like chrissie became a bludgeing groudstroking hitting winners all over the place player from the backcourt, she still used strategy and touch, it just wasn't as "obvious" as it was with a wood racket!

it's wood vs graphite and apples and oranges, all i know is that you put a chrissie when she was clearly number 1 in the world in the mid 70's to early 80's and her ability and style of play with the wood racket, against graf, seles, and she would have been creamed! overpowered off the court. chrissie of the mid 1980's with graphite and with her revved up style of game could at least compete and play almost even with the emerging power game brought on by graf, seles and likewise.

now, does that make it to where she was "better" with graphite than wood". does that make it to where even in full grown womanhood and much more experience and more stronger, faster, athletic and what not a "better" player even as a number 3 and 4 in the world than she was when she was number 1?


those are the questions i cannot answer, although i will always side with chris was better in the 1980's than she ever was in the 1970's. i also believe a mid 1980's chrissie would have beaten herself in the mid 1970's. oh sure, mid 70's chrissie never missed a ball, but i think mid 80's chrissie would have moved mid 70's chrissie around and jerked her around to where she would be outhit, if not overpowered, also i think mid 80's chrissie was vastly more in shape than her mid 70'self in case it became a long wearing match.

true to a point that king and evert never faced each other when BOTH were in their prime, although the fact that king from the first meeting in 1971 to the mid 70's was way closer to her prime than chrissie was, and chrissie besides grass had the head to head edge, and i believe that chrissie in the mid 80's if she was able to almost handle martina on grass, the greatest grass court player ever, then she would still have the edge over billie jean if a time machine could have put billie in her prime in the mid 80's.

likewise with margaret. margaret was at or pretty darn close to her prime when she was playing teenage chrissie and they were almost even, now take chrissie with 10 plus more years of experience, growing into womanhood, having competed with all the various top players from the 70's and 80s and i don't think it looks very good at all for maggie vs chris.

i've seen the 75/76 matches of chris when she comes to the net and volleys, but anyone even with an untrained eye could see the difference between a net charging chris in the mid 70's and the same one in the mid 80's, she was faster, more athletic, stronger, etc. that is a fact.

as far as what i personally prefer to watch chrissie with wood or with graphite, mid 70's or mid 80's. it depends i love both actually.

i love watching chrissie's mind at work with wood and i love watching chrissie nailing those groundies and being more aggressive with graphite!

laschutz
Dec 19th, 2010, 12:39 AM
in regard to billie jean vs margaret as rivals, well if margaret didnt' win a major it was usually billie jean,one of the other was usually number 1, both were considered serve and volleyers (although margaret yes, had the more complete game and could win from the baseline)and their personalities were so different on court that it made a great contrast and there you have a "rivalry".

DennisFitz
Dec 19th, 2010, 02:24 AM
What are the exact head to head numbers?

King and Evert never met in their prime, but I find it telling that Billie Jean always beat Evert on grass up to 1977, by which time King was clearly over the hill.

I don't know if I agree that it was telling that King always beat Evert on grass, pre-1977. I think these were their grass court matches:
1971 US Open, King d Evert
1973 Wimbledon, King def Evert
1975 Wimbledon King def Evert

In their 1971 Open match, King was heavily favored in Evert's first ever appearance in a major.
The 1973 Wimbledon final was Chris' first ever appearance in a major final. King was defending champ, and clearly the superior grass court player, as well as higher ranked played.

The 1975 Wimbledon match was an upset. King taking full advantage of her grass court prowess, and her ability to turn on the "intimidation factor" in her come from behind win.

So I think pre-1977 it should certainly have been expected BJ would beat Chris on grass.
And Evert never lost to King on clay. Their strengths were polar opposites. The best King-Evert matches would be on hard court surfaces. They had some real clashes on hard courts.

Apart from their 1975 L'Eggs final set tie break clash, which was a great clash - did they play on hard courts before BJ retired in 1975? Chris slaughtered BJ in their post-1975 hard court matches. They had some close battles indoors. But I am not sure if they played much on hard courts. I do agree they would be great battles, because I think hard courts offered both of them an opportunity to use their strengths.

Court clearly could beat Evert on clay. Margaret had what King didn't, which was the ground strokes off both sides. From that standpoint one could argue it was Court that had more variety to give Evert trouble.

Conversely Evert clearly could beat Court on grass,something she couldn't accomplish vs King until years later. Even when Margaret beat Evert in the 1973 US Open semis on grass she stayed back to remarkable extent.

Chris beat Court once on grass, Wimbledon 1973. A great win for Chris, but Margaret was always somewhat vulnerable at Wimbledon. I would find it hard to believe Chris would have ever been able to beat Court on Australian grass.

Thus in many ways the Court-Evert matches were more unpredicatable, wheareas King-Evert played more to form.

Agree Court-Evert matches were more unpredictable. And that King beat Evert, on a number of occasions, when she should have. Psychologically, I think that 1970 Evert win over Court really boosted Chris' confidence against Margaret. And also made Margaret, even in her dominant position, vulnerable against Chris. Evert has sort of admitted it, but she felt intimidated by King's presence on court, and that may have influenced some of their early matches. Even though Chris did a darn good job of blocking out that intimidation issue in their encounters.

Also concur Court overall had a stronger game, and better groundies. With both women playing serve and volley, you would think ground strokes wouldn't matter as much. I believe Court's reach at that net helped her out. I think they played on clay a few items. Those would be interesting battles, since clay was not a favorite surface for either, although they could both play on it.

austinrunner
Dec 19th, 2010, 10:21 AM
Court vs Evert (started by justineheninfan)
http://www.tennisforum.com/showthread.php?t=417484

Court vs. King
http://www.tennisforum.com/showthread.php?t=206844

King won their first match. Court won the next nine. They were 12-12 after that (1966-73).
Overall: Court 21-13.
Clay: Tied 1-1.
Grass: Court 14-7.
Hard (outdoors): King 4-2.
Indoors: Court 4-1.

Overall King versus Evert: Evert 20-7.
Clay: Evert 6-0.
Grass: Evert 4-3.
Hard (outdoors): Evert 5-0 (3-0 before 1976).
Indoors: Tied 4-4.
Unknown surface: Evert 1-0.

daze11
Dec 19th, 2010, 02:51 PM
King won their first match. Court won the next nine. They were 12-12 after that (1966-73).

fantastic point!!!! ....and it answers the question of the thread. :worship:

justinehfan
Dec 19th, 2010, 04:30 PM
Court vs Evert (started by justineheninfan)
http://www.tennisforum.com/showthread.php?t=417484

Court vs. King
http://www.tennisforum.com/showthread.php?t=206844

King won their first match. Court won the next nine. They were 12-12 after that (1966-73).
Overall: Court 21-13.
Clay: King 1-0.
Grass: Court 14-7.
Hard (outdoors): King 4-3.
Indoors: Court 3-1.
Unknown surface: Court 1-0.

Overall King versus Evert: Evert 20-7.
Clay: Evert 6-0.
Grass: Evert 4-3.
Hard (outdoors): Evert 5-0 (3-0 before 1976).
Indoors: Tied 4-4.
Unknown surface: Evert 1-0.

Then why did the site that I read say 22-10? :confused:

Also, because I never saw them play, could someone here please tell me how they matched up against each other? Are there any videos online?

tennisvideos
Dec 20th, 2010, 03:23 AM
Then why did the site that I read say 22-10? :confused:

Also, because I never saw them play, could someone here please tell me how they matched up against each other? Are there any videos online?
The matches I have (but I can't post online due to copyright reasons) include:

63 Wimbledon Final Court
69 Aussie Final Court
70 Wimbledon Final Court
72 USO SF King

Essentially both girls S&V most of the time. Except the latter half of the 2nd set of the 70 Wimbledon final when King has trouble running in so decides to stay back. And to devastating effect, esp when she drop shots Court about 6 times in succession followed up by lobs etc.
It's unfortunate that more footage is not available of the two competing against each other and that we can't get to see them playing against each other on hard court or clay where we would no doubt have been treated to more all court play than just the S&V strategy.
It was much the same when King and Court played Bueno. All three were great S&V players. But to their credit, they were also very good with their passing shots and lobs, having to hone those shots by coming up against lots of S&V players in the day (eg. Hard, Wade, Casals, Tegart, Goolagong etc).

austinrunner
Dec 20th, 2010, 05:42 AM
Then why did the site that I read say 22-10?

Maybe you should direct that question to the site owners.

HanaFanGA
Dec 20th, 2010, 02:32 PM
I appreciate what TV said about Court's serve (and game in general) being flatter which gives higher rewards but also greater risks. When your serve is off that day a flat serve almost becomes a liability. But in watching some of Court's matches I'm always impressed with her groundstrokes. They penetrated more than any other female player's strokes probably until Chris came along. So when you serve and volley behind a huge serve and then can blast away from the baseline too, that's an awesome combo to have to deal with.

But I'm still so impressed with what BJK could bring to a match in terms of the mental part of the game. You can have all the strokes and movement but at the very top most players win with their mind. That's why her forehand could be such an eyesore but it didn't stop her from being a great champion.

And I don't think that a series record has to necessarily be within just a few matches for it to be a rivalry. Every player had opponents that she felt was more than just another match. It could be for a multitude of reasons from similar age to similar background to just desperately not wanting to lose to a particular person. But it usually had something to do with that player having proven that they can beat you on the big occasion. Obviously, the closer the rivalry, the bigger it is.

I think the Court/King rivalry was a great one. I'm sure there are many players that Court would've rather lost to than King. And I think we all know how King felt about Court.

laschutz
Dec 20th, 2010, 02:54 PM
yeah, over the years i've only seen snippets of matches between the two. i do remember watching a bit of the last set of the mammoth 1970 wimbledon match that margaret won something like 14-12, 11-9! wow, what a great score betweeen these 2 champions. however...

the match itself was a HUGE disappointment in regard to the actual play quality. both were basically almost crippled out there. court had calf muscle tears which required cortisone shots before and during the match and king had such bad knees and such severe pain, that right after this tournament she would have to have knee surgery.

so, i would still want to see a match when both were in their prime and playing their best? perhaps i'm guessing a 1973 match?

would love to have seen a later end of their careers ( well at least for margaret) match like circa 1977! that would have been fun to watch these 2 "old" prideful champions going at it and seeing how and if their tactics changed and/or stayed the same against each other due to their age.

Rollo
Dec 20th, 2010, 03:49 PM
Posted by Hanafan I appreciate what TV said about Court's serve (and game in general) being flatter which gives higher rewards but also greater risks.

Interesting post Hanafan.

Maybe that one technical flaw explains why a "nervous" Court could be so off at times? Of course most women don't really have a lot of spin on their second serves. When Margaret's nerves got the better of her the serve was one shot that really suffered. By contrast King had a better second delivery-it pulled to victory in close matches like the 1974 US Open final, where King's second serve held up and Evonne's went to pieces.

Posted by laschultz i think chris evert once said it best " if you want to bet your life you go with margaret for a lifetime, but if it came down to just 1 match she (evert) would put her money on billie jean!"

Don't die of shock Laschultz-I agree with both you and Chris on this one. The quote probably does come around the time of King-Riggs, but it nonetheless points out a truth, namely, that Margaret Court was prone to what some called "center court nerves." In a long series I'd go with Court too, but tell both Court and King that the score was 10-10 in the third, on center court, and by the way, your life depends on it, and I'd go with King.

austinrunner
Dec 20th, 2010, 07:28 PM
the match itself was a HUGE disappointment in regard to the actual play quality. both were basically almost crippled out there. court had calf muscle tears which required cortisone shots before and during the match and king had such bad knees and such severe pain, that right after this tournament she would have to have knee surgery.
No shots during the match. King's right knee was the problem. Surgery was on July 22. The Wimbledon final was roughly July 2nd. Two months later, King was back on the tour.

so, i would still want to see a match when both were in their prime and playing their best? perhaps i'm guessing a 1973 match?

King's matches versus Court in 1973:

Week of February 19
Virginia Slims, Indiana Convention-Exposition Center, Indianapolis, Indiana
Indoor carpet
King was seeded [4]
SF d. Margaret Court [1] 6-7, 7-6, 6-3

Week of March 5
Virginia Slims, Chicago, Illinois
Indoor carpet
King was seeded [1]
F lost to Margaret Court [2] 6-2, 4-6, 6-4

Week of April 9
Virginia Slims of Massachusetts, Boston Harbor Marina, Quincy, Massachusetts
Indoor
King was seeded [3]
F lost to Margaret Court [1] 6-2, 6-4

Week of August 6
Commerce Union Bank Classic (Virginia Slims), Centennial Park Tennis Center, Nashville, Tennessee
Clay
King was seeded [2]
F lost to Margaret Court [1] 6-3, 4-6, 6-2

would love to have seen a later end of their careers ( well at least for margaret) match like circa 1977! that would have been fun to watch these 2 "old" prideful champions going at it and seeing how and if their tactics changed and/or stayed the same against each other due to their age.
They did not play each other after 1973.

trivfun
Dec 21st, 2010, 04:10 AM
In this "matchup" I look for who sets tempo instead of strokes or power. With the exception of Wimbledon, Court set better tempo than Billie in everything else. Strong on the backcourt and then the net.

That is one thing I noticed in her losses, if she can't set tempo, she has a tendency to go unbalanced. Some of them were due to pregnancy but some were her own like the Bobby Riggs match.

HanaFanGA
Dec 21st, 2010, 02:15 PM
Interesting post Hanafan.

Maybe that one technical flaw explains why a "nervous" Court could be so off at times? Of course most women don't really have a lot of spin on their second serves. When Margaret's nerves got the better of her the serve was one shot that really suffered. By contrast King had a better second delivery-it pulled to victory in close matches like the 1974 US Open final, where King's second serve held up and Evonne's went to pieces.


Did you ever see Laura Gildemeister hit her second serve? It's the most harrowing experience I've ever seen in tennis. That chick hit the flattest strokes I've ever seen including serve. Lethal strokes when they go in but utterly useless when she's off.

I think a lot of the second serve is the mental part of it in a big match against certain opponents. I'm sure BJK didn't like having to resort to her second serve. But I think we all saw her put in some gutsy second serves that became offensive instead of defensive. Not everyone could do that on the big occasion. I love her mantra, "Pressure is a priviledge." Makes me wonder if she was telling herself that on Center Court in a big match trying to put in a crucial second serve. Attitude makes a big difference.

The second serve was also something that I admired about Steffi so much. Some players thought that her topspin second serve out wide was harder to handle than her flatter serve.

justineheninfan
Dec 22nd, 2010, 02:05 PM
I agree that Court- Evert matches were far more interesting than Evert-King. Court-Evert were very competitive with each other on all surfaces. Evert would always crush King on clay even as a very young girl, while King would always win on grass until she was entering her mid 30s on wonky knees and coming back from already having been retired.

thrust
Dec 23rd, 2010, 02:21 AM
this is the thing... you'd have to bet your life on court because she's the one who came through more often! she was clearly superior to BJK as a player... but again, i think the chris comment was looking back in hindsight to battle of the sexes (she CERTAINLY didnt say it b4 the riggs match, since she thought billie was going to lose)

Court and King played in 5 Slam finals, with Margreat winning 4 of them. Court was 2-0 in Wimbledon finals, 2-0 in US finals, and 1-1 in Aussie finals. The Aussie final that King won was when Court had just come back from a year's absence. Chris, was a very mature and advanced tennis player at 17. In the FO final that Court won, she was a 31 YO mother, while Chris was in her youthful prime able to run forever on slow clay. I do think King was the better volleyer, but that was probably the only advantage she had over Court. Whatever, Court and Evert were two of the very greatest players of all-time. BJK was just slightly below the very top champions.

austinrunner
Dec 23rd, 2010, 07:51 AM
Court and King played each other in 10 Grand Slam singles matches, with Court winning 6.
Wimbledon: Court 3-2
Australian: Court 2-1
French: None
U.S.: Tied 1-1

From 1966 through the end of their careers, they were 12-12 overall. But King won 3 of their 5 Grand Slam singles matches.
Wimbledon: Tied 1-1
Australian: Tied 1-1
French: None
U.S.: King 1-0

austinrunner
Dec 27th, 2010, 10:09 AM
Evert would always crush King on clay even as a very young girl, while King would always win on grass until she was entering her mid 30s on wonky knees and coming back from already having been retired.

King's first age-related loss to Evert on grass was at Wimbledon in 1982, when she was 38. She was still recovering from knee surgery at Wimbledon in 1977 and had a painful heal spur that limited her mobility at Wimbledon in 1978. The spur necessitated major surgery later in the year. King's other age-related loss to Evert on grass was at the 1982 Australian Open.

austinrunner
Dec 28th, 2010, 07:40 AM
As I said earlier in this thread, Court and King played each other only 10 times in Grand Slam singles tournaments. They both entered the same Grand Slam singles tournament 26 times. Which player most often lost a match that prevented a King-Court match in the very next round? Court, by a 4-2 margin.

King and Court played each other all three times that King entered the Australian Championships/Open from 1959 through 1975.

King and Court both played the French Open only in 1969 and 1970. Court won the title both years. King lost in the quarterfinals both years, to Lesley Turner Bowrey and Helga Niessen Masthoff, respectively. Had King won those matches, she would NOT have played Court in the semifinals because they were in opposite halves of the draw.

King and Court both played Wimbledon 12 years (1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1973, and 1975). They played each other 5 times (1962, 1963, 1964, 1966, 1970). In 1965 and 1971, King lost semifinals to prevent final round match-ups with Court. In 1969, 1973, and 1975, Court lost semifinals to prevent final round match-ups with King.

King and Court both played the U.S. Championships/Open 9 years (1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1968, 1969, 1972, and 1973). They played each other 2 times (1965 and 1972). In 1968, Court lost a quarterfinal that prevented a semifinal match with King.

austinrunner
Dec 28th, 2010, 07:49 AM
In the 26 Grand Slam singles tournaments that both King and Court played, which did better?

Overall: Court 16-10 (Court 10-6 if we don't count the tournaments they played each other)
Australia: Court 2-1
French: Court 2-0
Wimbledon: Tied 6-6
U.S.: Court 6-3

Andy T
May 13th, 2011, 04:00 PM
As I said earlier in this thread, Court and King played each other only 10 times in Grand Slam singles tournaments. They both entered the same Grand Slam singles tournament 26 times. Which player most often lost a match that prevented a King-Court match in the very next round? Court, by a 4-2 margin.

King and Court played each other all three times that King entered the Australian Championships/Open from 1959 through 1975.

King and Court both played the French Open only in 1969 and 1970. Court won the title both years. King lost in the quarterfinals both years, to Lesley Turner Bowrey and Helga Niessen Masthoff, respectively. Had King won those matches, she would NOT have played Court in the semifinals because they were in opposite halves of the draw.

King and Court both played Wimbledon 12 years (1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1973, and 1975). They played each other 5 times (1962, 1963, 1964, 1966, 1970). In 1965 and 1971, King lost semifinals to prevent final round match-ups with Court. In 1969, 1973, and 1975, Court lost semifinals to prevent final round match-ups with King.

King and Court both played the U.S. Championships/Open 9 years (1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1968, 1969, 1972, and 1973). They played each other 2 times (1965 and 1972). In 1968, Court lost a quarterfinal that prevented a semifinal match with King.

If you look at years in which they were seeded to meet in the next round, Court came up short three times whereas King failed to keep the date only once.

I look at Wimbledon 65 and think that King's loss to Bueno in the SF was logical as King was not seeded in the top four. However, in 71, one would have expected King to make it to the final as she was seeded 2, so she came up short. Similarly, in 69 and 73, Court was expected to make the final, so came up short, whereas in 75 she was seeded lower than Goolagong, her semi-final opponent and, like King in 65, had already surpassed her #5 seeding. At the US Open in 68, Court was seeded to meet King in the SF but lost to 5th-seeded Bueno, so again came up short.

Rollo
May 13th, 2011, 09:46 PM
If you look at years in which they were seeded to meet in the next round, Court came up short three times whereas King failed to keep the date only once.

I look at Wimbledon 65 and think that King's loss to Bueno in the SF was logical as King was not seeded in the top four. However, in 71, one would have expected King to make it to the final as she was seeded 2, so she came up short. Similarly, in 69 and 73, Court was expected to make the final, so came up short, whereas in 75 she was seeded lower than Goolagong, her semi-final opponent and, like King in 65, had already surpassed her #5 seeding. At the US Open in 68, Court was seeded to meet King in the SF but lost to 5th-seeded Bueno, so again came up short.

Coming up short against the lot they lost to is certainly no shame-Bueno, Evert, and Goolagong were all top class. It sort of confirms for me what a tough era King and Court played in.

alfajeffster
May 30th, 2011, 05:10 PM
Coming up short against the lot they lost to is certainly no shame-Bueno, Evert, and Goolagong were all top class. It sort of confirms for me what a tough era King and Court played in.

Kind of like this years' field at Roland Garros- chock full of top class, all-court players, all capable of being the new #1 at any given moment...

DennisFitz
May 30th, 2011, 05:41 PM
Kind of like this years' field at Roland Garros- chock full of top class, all-court players, all capable of being the new #1 at any given moment...

Hmmm....have to say I disagree. The King/Court era was a very tough one.

The current field in women's tennis? Not even close.

justineheninfan
May 30th, 2011, 05:52 PM
Kind of like this years' field at Roland Garros- chock full of top class, all-court players, all capable of being the new #1 at any given moment...

I take it you were joking here.

alfajeffster
May 30th, 2011, 10:25 PM
I take it you were joking here.

I even laughed when I was writing it. In truth, I'm one of those people who actually scream at the TV when the girls hit what is a perfect approach, one that will illicit a weak reply that's easy pickings for a volley, and they just stay back there at the baseline and play starts all over again. It also irks me to see this mentality that on the rare occasion they do hit an approach shot, it's obviously with the mind to hit a winner and not have to volley. A well struck slice approach to most of these girls western or semi-western forehand grips would reap tons of points. Hell, Billie Jean and Margaret were hitting chip forehand approach shots on a regular basis!

MurrayState84
Jun 4th, 2011, 04:21 AM
I remember BJK saying that Margaret was just better before '65, and that after that she felt she played her evenly. She went on to say that they never played each other when they were both at their best because she was either injured or Margaret would get pregnant. Evert handled the Court serve better because it was flat whereas BJ sliced hers wide and pulled Chrissie off the court. Unfortunately, Court retired the year I began playing so I never had an opportunity to see her in person. Too bad because I think she gets overlooked for her accomplishments.

alfajeffster
Jun 5th, 2011, 12:24 AM
I watched the first set of an seniors tour match between Stefan Edberg and Marat Safin today- so good to see Edberg's volley again. Wouldn't it be great if Margaret and Billie Jean would do at least a doubles exhibition at one of these majors? I mean, it was nice to see Francesca Schiavone at the net more than most girls during the French, but she still doesn't hold a candle to either Court or King at the net.