PDA

View Full Version : Does Margaret Court have 24 or 26 slams?


rimon
Sep 11th, 2011, 10:17 PM
Just to clarify, is it 24 or 26?

alfajeffster
Sep 12th, 2011, 01:29 AM
In 1968, the tennis world was going through an upheaval during the move to "open" tennis. Two US Championships were held that year- the amateur, I believe, was held in Boston at Longwood Cricket Club, and the newly crowned US Open at Forest Hills. Margaret Court won the amateur title in Boston, defeating Maria Bueno in the final. Virginia Wade defeated Billie Jean King at Forest Hills for the inaugural US Open title. Most pundits don't count the amateur title in Court's major record, but some do, which gives her 25 majors. Even Margaret says in her biography that she won the US Championships in 1968, but, in her words, "unfortunately, I won the wrong one". I think I got my facts right, but please (anyone) correct me if I'm wrong with anything.

Sam L
Sep 12th, 2011, 04:53 AM
It's 24.

That's right. She won US amateurs in 1968 and 1969 which are not recognised.

It's like the World Hard Court Championships and the French National Championships. They are separate events and you can't count both of them.

alfajeffster
Sep 12th, 2011, 09:15 AM
It's 24.

That's right. She won US amateurs in 1968 and 1969 which are not recognised.

It's like the World Hard Court Championships and the French National Championships. They are separate events and you can't count both of them.

I think Ann Jones and Arantxa Sanchez Vicario should get together and compare spoiler notes. Margaret won both the amateur and professional US titles in 1969. In fact, were it not for Jones' fantastic effort in taking Court out in the semis of Wimbledon, we be talking two real Grand Slams in a row for Margaret. Arantxa, as we all know, threw a monkey wrench into Steffi Graf's plans at the 1989 French.

laschutz
Sep 13th, 2011, 01:17 PM
it's 24.. she is the all time singles record holder of grand slam titles,... with graf at 22 and martina and chrissie tied at 18....

did anyone catch at the recently completed u.s. open how the commentators during serena's final match made note of who had the most grand slam singles titles in the open era?...

they listed graf at 22, evert and martina at 18 and serena at 13... no mentioned was made of margaret court AT ALL? then i thought " oh wait, they meant the open era, so i guess they don't count margaret's wins before 1968....

still think the commentators should have included something like "margaret court has the all time record of 24 but some of her grand slam singles titles occured before 1968, the open era.... etcetera"...

of course that is if the commentators knew their tennis history which i highly doubt ( mcenroe? enberg? LOL! carillo?!)... like i've said it many times before the true tennis fans know more about the game than the commentators!....

alfajeffster
Sep 14th, 2011, 01:49 AM
it's 24.. she is the all time singles record holder of grand slam titles,... with graf at 22 and martina and chrissie tied at 18....

did anyone catch at the recently completed u.s. open how the commentators during serena's final match made note of who had the most grand slam singles titles in the open era?...

they listed graf at 22, evert and martina at 18 and serena at 13... no mentioned was made of margaret court AT ALL? then i thought " oh wait, they meant the open era, so i guess they don't count margaret's wins before 1968....

still think the commentators should have included something like "margaret court has the all time record of 24 but some of her grand slam singles titles occured before 1968, the open era.... etcetera"...

of course that is if the commentators knew their tennis history which i highly doubt ( mcenroe? enberg? LOL! carillo?!)... like i've said it many times before the true tennis fans know more about the game than the commentators!....

They do the same thing when chirping the virtues of Martina Navratilova having the "most titles". Margaret Court is close to, if not holder of more than 200 tourney titles. Billie Jean King's numbers are also subject to this "open era" deceptive banter. You can bring up Dodo Cheney and take the argument even further. I know for a fact that Martina is a terrific student to women's tennis history and statistics, but I can't recall ever hearing her correct anyone regarding the real stats. Billie Jean just plain doesn't live in the past or even think about stats. Social change is more important to her, and much like Chris Evert, you get the feeling she doesn't even like talking about what happened in the past. Chris actually forgets most of it!

austinrunner
Sep 14th, 2011, 03:19 AM
did anyone catch at the recently completed u.s. open how the commentators during serena's final match made note of who had the most grand slam singles titles in the open era?...

they listed graf at 22, evert and martina at 18 and serena at 13... no mentioned was made of margaret court AT ALL? then i thought " oh wait, they meant the open era, so i guess they don't count margaret's wins before 1968....

still think the commentators should have included something like "margaret court has the all time record of 24 but some of her grand slam singles titles occured before 1968, the open era.... etcetera"...

Dick Enberg DID note Margaret Court's record.

justineheninfan
Sep 14th, 2011, 06:08 AM
it's 24.. she is the all time singles record holder of grand slam titles,... with graf at 22 and martina and chrissie tied at 18....

did anyone catch at the recently completed u.s. open how the commentators during serena's final match made note of who had the most grand slam singles titles in the open era?...

they listed graf at 22, evert and martina at 18 and serena at 13... no mentioned was made of margaret court AT ALL? then i thought " oh wait, they meant the open era, so i guess they don't count margaret's wins before 1968....

still think the commentators should have included something like "margaret court has the all time record of 24 but some of her grand slam singles titles occured before 1968, the open era.... etcetera"...

of course that is if the commentators knew their tennis history which i highly doubt ( mcenroe? enberg? LOL! carillo?!)... like i've said it many times before the true tennis fans know more about the game than the commentators!....

Commentators like Navratilova, Evert, Shriver, Austin, and Carillo are all part of the Navratilova/King clique which is not fond of Court (and to a lesser extent Graf), and thus try and unfairly sweep her under the rug as if she never existed. Many Americans are probably deluded into believing Court wasnt event the best player of that era, and that King was, LOL!

Mcenroe doesnt even care about womens tennis much, especialy players any earlier on than Evert or Navratilova.

Enberg is the most knowledgable and balanced of the group.

Sam L
Sep 14th, 2011, 09:26 AM
I think Ann Jones and Arantxa Sanchez Vicario should get together and compare spoiler notes. Margaret won both the amateur and professional US titles in 1969. In fact, were it not for Jones' fantastic effort in taking Court out in the semis of Wimbledon, we be talking two real Grand Slams in a row for Margaret. Arantxa, as we all know, threw a monkey wrench into Steffi Graf's plans at the 1989 French.

That's true. Not really a big fan of ASV but I'm glad she existed and won that match. Otherwise, we will never stop hearing about the 9 slams in a row.

Commentators like Navratilova, Evert, Shriver, Austin, and Carillo are all part of the Navratilova/King clique which is not fond of Court (and to a lesser extent Graf), and thus try and unfairly sweep her under the rug as if she never existed. Many Americans are probably deluded into believing Court wasnt event the best player of that era, and that King was, LOL!

Mcenroe doesnt even care about womens tennis much, especialy players any earlier on than Evert or Navratilova.

Enberg is the most knowledgable and balanced of the group.

That's true but on the other hand, numbers aren't everything. You can't just say that a player is greater or better because they have more slams. I think they are perhaps considering other factors.

alfajeffster
Sep 14th, 2011, 10:35 AM
To Martina's credit, she has (and I've sat up each time it happens) on several occasions had very good things to say about Margaret Court's serve. The latest was a pretty good observation on Court's second serve, which Martina said was hit nearly as hard as the first, but with a slight twist to it. She also pointed to that as the reason she double faulted so much- because the first and second were pretty much the same pace without much spin.

alfajeffster
Sep 14th, 2011, 10:43 AM
P.S.- I tend to agree with Rod Laver and Pete Sampras. Margaret has 24 majors, but only one Slam, and it's all 4 majors in one calendar year. I know, semantics, but it's true. Novak didn't win 3 slams this year- 3 majors. Had he stopped Roger at the French, he most probably would have joined Laver and Budge. It's an elite, short list, and IMO should be revered as the game's ultimate achievement Court won 3 majors in the same year 4 other times outside of her Grand Slam!

Sam L
Sep 14th, 2011, 11:31 AM
P.S.- I tend to agree with Rod Laver and Pete Sampras. Margaret has 24 majors, but only one Slam, and it's all 4 majors in one calendar year. I know, semantics, but it's true. Novak didn't win 3 slams this year- 3 majors. Had he stopped Roger at the French, he most probably would have joined Laver and Budge. It's an elite, short list, and IMO should be revered as the game's ultimate achievement Court won 3 majors in the same year 4 other times outside of her Grand Slam!
In a way, yes. But I find Martina's 45 consecutive grand slam matches in 1983/84 more impressive than The Grand Slams won by Connolly, Court and Graf. :shrug:

And Federer is greater than Laver and Budge imo.

It's special but it isn't the game's ultimate achievement.

justineheninfan
Sep 14th, 2011, 08:26 PM
That's true but on the other hand, numbers aren't everything. You can't just say that a player is greater or better because they have more slams. I think they are perhaps considering other factors.

That is true also. However they take things to an extreme. As I said most American casual fans are probably led to believe even King was better than Court.

alfajeffster
Sep 14th, 2011, 10:02 PM
...It's special but it isn't the game's ultimate achievement.

If only everyone could float like Federer, Goolagong and Edberg at their best. There was a time when I could float across the tennis court, but, like most of the decade of the 80s, I just can't seem to remember much of it.

laschutz
Sep 15th, 2011, 04:38 PM
true, most people the casual public that is probably haven't even heard of margaret court! much less know that she was better than billie jean in terms of ability and winning.... of course this is nothing new in our society and culture today, not just america but the world.... takes too much time... they don't care enough to know and find out.... etcetera could be said about any subject matter... it just sucks for us tennis experts/fans/ amateur historians that we love the game so much and want people to know the reality and truth of tennis history and it's champions and we're shouting to a public that doesn't and won't hear.... i guess that's why i get upset and mad when so called "tennis commentators/experts" don't know themselves or won't clarify and explain and give the right information to the masses when tennis is on television, which isn't that much in the first darn place... they have the eyes and ears of the public a few times of the year.. and because of their own bias, stupidity or like daze11 said in another post.... they HAVE to say what the network and producers want them to say and omit other things to get ratings.... guess that is why CBS showed serena's little temper tantrum what 3 times and lame carillo had to bring it up yet again after the match on court during the post match interview! all about controversy negativity getting ratings... sad that is this what america wants to see and know and hear about?!

Jem
Sep 16th, 2011, 01:50 PM
[quote=justineheninfan;20239110]Commentators like Navratilova, Evert, Shriver, Austin, and Carillo are all part of the Navratilova/King clique which is not fond of Court (and to a lesser extent Graf), and thus try and unfairly sweep her under the rug as if she never existed. Many Americans are probably deluded into believing Court wasnt event the best player of that era, and that King was, LOL!
/quote]

You might want to check your thoughts about Evert's views on both Court and Navratilova. Evert, in the past, has said that Graf was the best she ever played, and she generally ranks Navratilova-Graf as the two best ever. Chris has never tried to sweep Graf under the rug, so I'm not sure what would give you that opinion of her.
Likewise, Evert has always praised Margaret Court as well and seemingly had nothing but the utmost respect from her. I've heard Chris talk about how solid Court was in every phase of the game. However, I would guess Evert found King more of a challenge to beat, and the records would seem to confirm that.
Likewise, I've never heard Martina Navratilova be anything but respectful of Margaret Court's oncourt attributes and achievements. Navratilova has never said -- that I've heard -- that BJK was a better player or that Court's accomplishments were marred in some way. In fact, I would guess most of the people who might scoff at Court's records -- which King does at some times -- are dissing her for not supporting the women's tour in its early stages. The same way they ridiculed Chris Evert, Evonne Goolagong and Virginia Wade when they opted to support a USTA tour rather than the tougher VS tour in 73.
As for Americans' views on whether Court or King was the best of that era, you may be right when it comes to casual fans. Unless you're over 50 and a great student of the game, it's very unlikely that you've ever heard of Margaret Court -- it's been almost 40 years since she played professional tennis. I don't say that to dinigrate her tennis -- I think she was one of THE all-time greats and I absolutely love watching old tennis matches with her. But since she played her last match in early 1977, no one has heard anything about her relatively speaking, so she's virtually an unknown unless you're a long-time fan -- again, older 50 -- or a student of teh game. I'm not sure how old you are, but let me take you back to the 1975 U.S. Open. Margaret was well past her prime by then, but I remember American commentators saying she would Wimbledon that year. And when Martina Navratilova beat her at the U.S. Open that year, it was considered an upset -- even though Navratilova was the higher seed if I recall correctly. Likewise, she was frequently considered the player to beat most of the time until 1974 by most American commentators. So if Americans concluded King was the best player of her era in those days, it was because they came to that conclusion on their own -- not that they were swayed by the media.
Tennis was a blip on the screen until 1968 in many ways. Whether people like to believe it or not, BJK, Gladys Heldman and a few others laid the groundwork for today's game by creating the Virginia Slims tour. Throw in the fact that BJK beat Riggs in an amazing TV spectacle -- something Court could not do -- and it's no wonder Americans -- and I would wager many others regardless of nationality -- might think BJK made more of an impact.
As for those of us who truly follow the game, we know that Court had a better record than BJK, and I personally respect her for all that she accomplished. In my mind, I rank Graf, Navratilova, Evert and Court in the top four of all-time. I personally think Graf's accomplishments benefitted from the Seles' stabbing, and Evert and Navratilova suffered because the French and Australian were not really majors for the women -- even for the men in Australia -- for much of the 1970s and no one played them. But that's another story!

Andy T
Sep 16th, 2011, 02:55 PM
[quote=justineheninfan;20239110]
In my mind, I rank Graf, Navratilova, Evert and Court in the top four of all-time. I personally think Graf's accomplishments benefitted from the Seles' stabbing, and Evert and Navratilova suffered because the French and Australian were not really majors for the women -- even for the men in Australia -- for much of the 1970s and no one played them. But that's another story!

:worship: I agree totally with the points Jem made in the entire post and particularly the view of the all-time greats summed up in this final paragraph. In almost every category of records covering the last 50 years, you find the four names, Court, Evert, Navratilova and Graf, at the top of the list, in varying orders depending on the record, granted, but almost always the same names. Within this group, all had relative tennis strengths and weaknesses, be they technical, intellectual, emotional or physical, but time and time again they come out on top - most slams, most tournaments, longest win streaks, year-ending number 1, consistency, dominance, et cetera et cetera. Goolagong and Bueno had more poetic genius than any of them, Billie Jean has undoubtedly advanced women's tennis more than any of them but as tennis champions they are outstanding. People might have issues with one or another on a personal level but that is "another story" too.

Sam L
Sep 17th, 2011, 03:00 AM
[quote=justineheninfan;20239110]Commentators like Navratilova, Evert, Shriver, Austin, and Carillo are all part of the Navratilova/King clique which is not fond of Court (and to a lesser extent Graf), and thus try and unfairly sweep her under the rug as if she never existed. Many Americans are probably deluded into believing Court wasnt event the best player of that era, and that King was, LOL!
/quote]

You might want to check your thoughts about Evert's views on both Court and Navratilova. Evert, in the past, has said that Graf was the best she ever played, and she generally ranks Navratilova-Graf as the two best ever. Chris has never tried to sweep Graf under the rug, so I'm not sure what would give you that opinion of her.
Likewise, Evert has always praised Margaret Court as well and seemingly had nothing but the utmost respect from her. I've heard Chris talk about how solid Court was in every phase of the game. However, I would guess Evert found King more of a challenge to beat, and the records would seem to confirm that.
Likewise, I've never heard Martina Navratilova be anything but respectful of Margaret Court's oncourt attributes and achievements. Navratilova has never said -- that I've heard -- that BJK was a better player or that Court's accomplishments were marred in some way. In fact, I would guess most of the people who might scoff at Court's records -- which King does at some times -- are dissing her for not supporting the women's tour in its early stages. The same way they ridiculed Chris Evert, Evonne Goolagong and Virginia Wade when they opted to support a USTA tour rather than the tougher VS tour in 73.
As for Americans' views on whether Court or King was the best of that era, you may be right when it comes to casual fans. Unless you're over 50 and a great student of the game, it's very unlikely that you've ever heard of Margaret Court -- it's been almost 40 years since she played professional tennis. I don't say that to dinigrate her tennis -- I think she was one of THE all-time greats and I absolutely love watching old tennis matches with her. But since she played her last match in early 1977, no one has heard anything about her relatively speaking, so she's virtually an unknown unless you're a long-time fan -- again, older 50 -- or a student of teh game. I'm not sure how old you are, but let me take you back to the 1975 U.S. Open. Margaret was well past her prime by then, but I remember American commentators saying she would Wimbledon that year. And when Martina Navratilova beat her at the U.S. Open that year, it was considered an upset -- even though Navratilova was the higher seed if I recall correctly. Likewise, she was frequently considered the player to beat most of the time until 1974 by most American commentators. So if Americans concluded King was the best player of her era in those days, it was because they came to that conclusion on their own -- not that they were swayed by the media.
Tennis was a blip on the screen until 1968 in many ways. Whether people like to believe it or not, BJK, Gladys Heldman and a few others laid the groundwork for today's game by creating the Virginia Slims tour. Throw in the fact that BJK beat Riggs in an amazing TV spectacle -- something Court could not do -- and it's no wonder Americans -- and I would wager many others regardless of nationality -- might think BJK made more of an impact.
As for those of us who truly follow the game, we know that Court had a better record than BJK, and I personally respect her for all that she accomplished. In my mind, I rank Graf, Navratilova, Evert and Court in the top four of all-time. I personally think Graf's accomplishments benefitted from the Seles' stabbing, and Evert and Navratilova suffered because the French and Australian were not really majors for the women -- even for the men in Australia -- for much of the 1970s and no one played them. But that's another story!

That was a great read. Thanks.

tennisvideos
Sep 17th, 2011, 03:24 AM
[quote=justineheninfan;20239110]even for the men in Australia -- for much of the 1970s and no one played them. But that's another story!

A great post Jem but I tend disagree with this point. Australia was THE leading nation from the mid 50s until the early to mid 70s. We dominated the sport, especially the mens game ...what with players like Laver, Rosewall, Hoad, Newcombe, Emerson, Stolle, and a host of others. So the Aussie Open was not as weak a tournament as people make out. The entire 4 Slams were compromised on the mens side by the pro/amateur split prior to 68. So IMO few of them at all were relevant prior to that year and I think the results of the mens pro tour really defined greatness. But after 68 until the mid 70s the Aussie Open was chock a block full of the best players around (the Aussies). We also had the greatest depth in womens tennis around the world in the 60s and early 70s with Court, Turner, Tegart, Goolagong, Melville, Ebbern, Lehane and a host of others.

I just hate that Billie-Jean King phrase that no one played them. Granted, it was compromised by the vast distance to travel there but Australia had the best players around ... so that in itself should explode that myth.

Anyway, the rest of your post was very insightful and on the money esp about the leading 4 players of the modern era.

Raiden
Sep 17th, 2011, 03:57 AM
[quote=justineheninfan;20239110]Likewise, I've never heard Martina Navratilova be anything but respectful of Margaret Court's oncourt attributes and achievements. Navratilova has never said -- that I've heard -- that BJK was a better player or that Court's accomplishments were marred in some way. In fact, I would guess most of the people who might scoff at Court's records -- which King does at some times -- are dissing her for not supporting the women's tour in its early stages. The same way they ridiculed Chris Evert, Evonne Goolagong and Virginia Wade when they opted to support a USTA tour rather than the tougher VS tour in 73.
As for Americans' views on whether Court or King was the best of that era, you may be right when it comes to casual fans. Unless you're over 50 and a great student of the game, it's very unlikely that you've ever heard of Margaret Court -- it's been almost 40 years since she played professional tennis. I don't say that to dinigrate her tennis -- I think she was one of THE all-time greats and I absolutely love watching old tennis matches with her. But since she played her last match in early 1977, no one has heard anything about her relatively speaking, so she's virtually an unknown unless you're a long-time fan -- again, older 50 -- or a student of teh game. I'm not sure how old you are, but let me take you back to the 1975 U.S. Open. Margaret was well past her prime by then, but I remember American commentators saying she would Wimbledon that year. And when Martina Navratilova beat her at the U.S. Open that year, it was considered an upset -- even though Navratilova was the higher seed if I recall correctly. Likewise, she was frequently considered the player to beat most of the time until 1974 by most American commentators. So if Americans concluded King was the best player of her era in those days, it was because they came to that conclusion on their own -- not that they were swayed by the media.Irrelevant.

The issue is not how Court was regarded in her 70s as there is no evidence that AT THAT TIME she was widely underestimated or regarded as undeserving of her twenty something slams and her other off-the-chart accomplishments.

The issue is what happenes later on. And later on it is obvious that this consensus was altered, at least in America, after Margaret AND BJK retired.

And that of course coincides with BJK's rise of fame as a result of her off-court celebrity status in the States. Americans have a long history of being completely "patriotically" biased when it comes to athlete assessment. I remember McEnroe was portrayed as the greatest player ever until Sampras came along even though his ass was constantly getting whipped first by Borg, then by Lendl. Same thing regarding how Connors was regarded as better than the Australian goats that preceded him. Likewise not coincidentally Borg, Lendl and Court were all foreigners.

It's not a coincedence that only recently (after the decline of American tennis) has American tennis opinion started to be in the same wavelength with worldwide opinion as to who was and is good/better/best, bad and ugly.

tennisvideos
Sep 17th, 2011, 04:33 AM
Irrelevant.

The issue is not how Court was regarded in her 70s as there is no evidence that AT THAT TIME she was widely underestimated or regarded as undeserving of her twenty something slams and her other off-the-chart accomplishments.

The issue is what happenes later on. And later on it is obvious that this consensus was altered, at least in America, after Margaret AND BJK retired.

And that of course coincides with BJK's rise of fame as a result of her off-court celebrity status in the States. Americans have a long history of being completely "patriotically" biased when it comes to athlete assessment. I remember McEnroe was portrayed as the greatest player ever until Sampras came along even though his ass was constantly getting whipped first by Borg, then by Lendl. Same thing regarding how Connors was regarded as better than the Australian goats that preceded him. Likewise not coincidentally Borg, Lendl and Court were all foreigners.

It's not a coincedence that only recently (after the decline of American tennis) has American tennis opinion started to be in the same wavelength with worldwide opinion as to who was and is good/better/best, bad and ugly.

Absolutely spot on. When you watch the old 60s and 70s videos the commentators all talk about Court's domination and greatness. And she was seeded #1 in just about every event she entered for most of her career post 62 or so. So your assessment about how King & Court etc are portrayed since retirement is too true.

austinrunner
Sep 17th, 2011, 07:47 AM
I'm not sure how old you are, but let me take you back to the 1975 U.S. Open. Margaret was well past her prime by then, but I remember American commentators saying she would Wimbledon that year. And when Martina Navratilova beat her at the U.S. Open that year, it was considered an upset -- even though Navratilova was the higher seed if I recall correctly.

Margaret Court was seeded #5 while Martina Navratilova was #3. The news media did not call that result an "upset."

Chrissie-fan
Sep 17th, 2011, 02:48 PM
I think that the main reason why Court is (somewhat) underrated by the casual tennis fan is not so much the result of commentators trying to ignore her achievements or her comments about gays. I think it has more to do with the fact that her career happened before tennis really broke through as a big television sport. Evert and Navratilova hit the big time right in the middle of the tennis boom and they played until deep in the Graf era. As a result most people witnessed their (and Steffi's) major truimphs and have vivid pictures in their minds of them. But Court achievements are something most people only know about as a statistic. Even BJK who still played in the early 80's benefitted more from television than Court.

alfajeffster
Sep 17th, 2011, 03:22 PM
[QUOTE=Jem;20246710]

A great post Jem but I tend disagree with this point. Australia was THE leading nation from the mid 50s until the early to mid 70s. We dominated the sport, especially the mens game ...what with players like Laver, Rosewall, Hoad, Newcombe, Emerson, Stolle, and a host of others. So the Aussie Open was not as weak a tournament as people make out. The entire 4 Slams were compromised on the mens side by the pro/amateur split prior to 68. So IMO few of them at all were relevant prior to that year and I think the results of the mens pro tour really defined greatness. But after 68 until the mid 70s the Aussie Open was chock a block full of the best players around (the Aussies). We also had the greatest depth in womens tennis around the world in the 60s and early 70s with Court, Turner, Tegart, Goolagong, Melville, Ebbern, Lehane and a host of others.

I just hate that Billie-Jean King phrase that no one played them. Granted, it was compromised by the vast distance to travel there but Australia had the best players around ... so that in itself should explode that myth.

Anyway, the rest of your post was very insightful and on the money esp about the leading 4 players of the modern era.

Here we go again. I believe the BJK line is "when nobody played" in reference to Court's 11 Australian titles. I think the single most notable influence on the demise of Margaret Court's greatness estimation, or consideration for the top player conversation in the USA is a direct result of the "Mother's Day Massacre" she suffered at the hands of a very fit Bobby Riggs in the Spring of 1973 in San Diego. CBS televised the event in hopes of the women's #1 upsetting the male player during the height of the Womens' Lib movement here in the USA. Margaret lost badly, and even though Court was never a "Libber" by any stretch of the imagination, it didn't stop entrepreneur Bobby Riggs from spouting his Archie Bunker rhetoric at Court's and Womens' Lib expense. Being a cigar-smoking helpless gambler and womanizer, he blew his winnings in Vegas that summer, and fattened up while beautiful women fed him like Caesar. Still, he persisted in his efforts to trap activist Billie Jean into a battle of the sexes circus, and she eventually signed the contract, with millions of bra-less American women on her back to teach the pig a lesson. When, in September, she defeated an out-of-shape Riggs for all women, Margaret's legacy was almost completely forgotten, if not denigrated by furry-legged feminists who couldn't stand Court's quips like "I've no wish to wear the pants", etc. The fact that she won nearly everything there was to win except for the San Diego debacle and Wimbledon in 1973 was irrelevant here in the USA. Gloria Steinem (sp?) Margaret was not, and she was swept under the rug, and has been ever since. Still, in 2003 when Margaret Court Arena was dedicated, King crassly commented that the new arena was obviously smaller and less important than the bigger, more impressive Rod Laver Arena. Needless to say, neither Rocket nor Madge harbored any such thoughts.:lol:

austinrunner
Sep 17th, 2011, 11:16 PM
Still, in 2003 when Margaret Court Arena was dedicated, King crassly commented that the new arena was obviously smaller and less important than the bigger, more impressive Rod Laver Arena. Needless to say, neither Rocket nor Madge harbored any such thoughts.:lol:

Wow. A lot of historical revisionism in that post.

Maybe you should read this:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/11/27/1038386206539.html

Pat Bateman
Sep 18th, 2011, 12:07 AM
[quote=justineheninfan;20239110]Commentators like Navratilova, Evert, Shriver, Austin, and Carillo are all part of the Navratilova/King clique which is not fond of Court (and to a lesser extent Graf), and thus try and unfairly sweep her under the rug as if she never existed. Many Americans are probably deluded into believing Court wasnt event the best player of that era, and that King was, LOL!
/quote]

You might want to check your thoughts about Evert's views on both Court and Navratilova. Evert, in the past, has said that Graf was the best she ever played, and she generally ranks Navratilova-Graf as the two best ever. Chris has never tried to sweep Graf under the rug, so I'm not sure what would give you that opinion of her.
Likewise, Evert has always praised Margaret Court as well and seemingly had nothing but the utmost respect from her. I've heard Chris talk about how solid Court was in every phase of the game. However, I would guess Evert found King more of a challenge to beat, and the records would seem to confirm that.
Likewise, I've never heard Martina Navratilova be anything but respectful of Margaret Court's oncourt attributes and achievements. Navratilova has never said -- that I've heard -- that BJK was a better player or that Court's accomplishments were marred in some way. In fact, I would guess most of the people who might scoff at Court's records -- which King does at some times -- are dissing her for not supporting the women's tour in its early stages. The same way they ridiculed Chris Evert, Evonne Goolagong and Virginia Wade when they opted to support a USTA tour rather than the tougher VS tour in 73.
As for Americans' views on whether Court or King was the best of that era, you may be right when it comes to casual fans. Unless you're over 50 and a great student of the game, it's very unlikely that you've ever heard of Margaret Court -- it's been almost 40 years since she played professional tennis. I don't say that to dinigrate her tennis -- I think she was one of THE all-time greats and I absolutely love watching old tennis matches with her. But since she played her last match in early 1977, no one has heard anything about her relatively speaking, so she's virtually an unknown unless you're a long-time fan -- again, older 50 -- or a student of teh game. I'm not sure how old you are, but let me take you back to the 1975 U.S. Open. Margaret was well past her prime by then, but I remember American commentators saying she would Wimbledon that year. And when Martina Navratilova beat her at the U.S. Open that year, it was considered an upset -- even though Navratilova was the higher seed if I recall correctly. Likewise, she was frequently considered the player to beat most of the time until 1974 by most American commentators. So if Americans concluded King was the best player of her era in those days, it was because they came to that conclusion on their own -- not that they were swayed by the media.
Tennis was a blip on the screen until 1968 in many ways. Whether people like to believe it or not, BJK, Gladys Heldman and a few others laid the groundwork for today's game by creating the Virginia Slims tour. Throw in the fact that BJK beat Riggs in an amazing TV spectacle -- something Court could not do -- and it's no wonder Americans -- and I would wager many others regardless of nationality -- might think BJK made more of an impact.
As for those of us who truly follow the game, we know that Court had a better record than BJK, and I personally respect her for all that she accomplished. In my mind, I rank Graf, Navratilova, Evert and Court in the top four of all-time. I personally think Graf's accomplishments benefitted from the Seles' stabbing, and Evert and Navratilova suffered because the French and Australian were not really majors for the women -- even for the men in Australia -- for much of the 1970s and no one played them. But that's another story!

This is true.

Martina has never said anything hateful or disrespectful about Margaret.

It's just a shame that Margaret doesn't give Martina that same respect in return.

alfajeffster
Sep 18th, 2011, 11:30 AM
Wow. A lot of historical revisionism in that post.

Maybe you should read this:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/11/27/1038386206539.html

Well, then. Start with one thing you view as revisionist, and we'll go from there. I learn so much from people here- especially from people who were adults when all of this was happening- I was still in school, and living in a home where Dad was a former baseball player, and no one knew much about tennis outside of Wimbledon. We all gathered in the living room to watch the Battle of the Sexes, and my mother and I were the only ones actually rooting for Billie Jean. I eventually got my first pro tennis lesson as a result (Dad was desperate to see me interested in any sport, as I was fast becoming a spoiled little mama's boy). Anyway- let's make a conversation of it- I'm listening! Oh, and by the way- that article reads like a lot of fluff (to me).

Sumarokov-Elston
Sep 18th, 2011, 12:05 PM
I have to confess that, before I read BJK's autobiography, I had not even heard of the "Battle of the Sexes."

I realise it was quite a big deal in the States, maybe the biggest event in woman's tennis in the 1970s over there, no?

Everyone really knows, of course, that the most important event in women's tennis in the 1970s (indeed, in the Open era), was Our Ginny's simply scrumptious win at Wimbledon in 1977 - the Queen's Silver Jubilee!! And did I mention that she had to beat Chris Evert on the way to winning that title?

austinrunner
Sep 19th, 2011, 07:27 AM
Well, then. Start with one thing you view as revisionist, and we'll go from there.

Hopefully, you can see exactly what is revisionist by reading my revised post (quoting you) and then re-reading the article I cited. You will see that your crassness remark about King is unsupported by the facts, as is your assumption that Court was wholly satisfied with getting the third largest court named after herself.

alfajeffster
Sep 19th, 2011, 11:02 PM
I must admit that I don't pay much attention to what Geoff Pollard says. It's kind of like listening to the USTA President pontificate during the trophy presentation. I've never read those remarks attributed to Court, so you've got me on that one. What I do remember is King making such remarks from the commentary booth and during a press conference, and also remember hearing nothing but grateful appreciation from Margaret in the many interviews she gave to the press at the time. Come to think of it, Margaret does have a history of bucking the Australian authorities going all the way back to Nell Hopman and the Aussie traveling team. She's such a firebrand!:lol:

Raiden
Sep 30th, 2011, 10:17 PM
Just to clarify, is it 24 or 26?Both.

Nowadays whenever Rod Laver's record comes up commentators add Laver's pre-open-era pro-slams to his total, or at the very least they mention it as a sidenote. Same thing is done whenever Ken Rosewall's record comes up for discussion. Ken tards are quick to remind everyone that "Ken has won 23 majors".

In light of that it is fully legitimate to regard Margaret Court as having 26 in total (the Professional Championships a.k.a "pro slams" are counted as majors (the word major is more inclusive than the word "grand slam".

So quite literally Margaret has got 24 grand slams and 26 majors.

alfajeffster
Oct 1st, 2011, 09:03 AM
Both.

Nowadays whenever Rod Laver's record comes up commentators add Laver's pre-open-era pro-slams to his total, or at the very least they mention it as a sidenote. Same thing is done whenever Ken Rosewall's record comes up for discussion. Ken tards are quick to remind everyone that "Ken has won 23 majors".

In light of that it is fully legitimate to regard Margaret Court as having 26 in total (the Professional Championships a.k.a "pro slams" are counted as majors (the word major is more inclusive than the word "grand slam".

So quite literally Margaret has got 24 grand slams and 26 majors.

Oh hell, lets not be shy. Let's count the Italian, South African, and German Championships as "majors" as well. Throw in her mixed and doubles records at all of the "majors", and you've really got a big number to work with!:lol: I heard she won a title in Antarctica once, but critics are cold to the idea of counting it as an official tournament since the competition was only open to penguins and Mrs. Court.

Raiden
Oct 1st, 2011, 11:40 AM
Oh hell, lets not be shy. Let's count the Italian, South African, and German Championships as "majors" as well.No, there's no need to make up your own stuff.

There is no dispute as to which one of the Championships were majors and which ones were not. The 4 "tennis majors" countries were US, UK, France and Aus. This is a settled matter by the 1920s and THAT also is the basis on which the majors of Laver and Rosewall... etc are judged by.

Needless to say that should also be the basis on which Margaret should be judged. Nothing more, nothing less. There's no need to invent a new rule. The "measuring sticks" are already there, we just have to apply and measure everyone with that stick without being shifty wishy-washy hypocrite haters with a selective agenda.

What's good enough for Laver is good enough for Rosewall is good enough for Court :p

Sam L
Oct 1st, 2011, 01:26 PM
No, there's no need to make up your own stuff.

There is no dispute as to which one of the Championships were majors and which ones were not. The 4 "tennis majors" countries were US, UK, France and Aus. This is a settled matter by the 1920s and THAT also is the basis on which the majors of Laver and Rosewall... etc are judged by.

Needless to say that should also be the basis on which Margaret should be judged. Nothing more, nothing less. There's no need to invent a new rule. The "measuring sticks" are already there, we just have to apply and measure everyone with that stick without being shifty wishy-washy hypocrite haters with a selective agenda.

What's good enough for Laver is good enough for Rosewall is good enough for Court :p

It wasn't the 1920s. It was the 1930s after Jack Crawford almost won the Australian, French, Wimbledon and US. :rolleyes: The concept didn't exist in the 1920s at all.

Just because you count a tournament as a major doesn't mean you can count it twice.

The classic examples are in 1968 and 1969 when the US Open was held as well as the US Amateurs. Or between 1912-1923 when the French Championships and the World Hard Court Championships (which some view as the true precursors to the French Internationals that follow from 1925) were held. In BOTH cases, you are dealing with two separate events.

You either count one or the other. But not both. That's why Court cannot have 24 and 26. Logically, that doesn't even make sense at all. :rolleyes:

Raiden
Oct 1st, 2011, 10:15 PM
^ So what if there is two majors in one year? You know damn wel that that can happen in exceptional circumstances (transitional periods). For example there were two Australian opens in 1977. So if it's OK to count Goolagong's "5th slam" of the year 1977, then it's OK to count both the 1968 US Championships and also both the 1969 US Championships. It's all a matter of being fair and balanced :p

PS: The double French situation in the 1910s is different because that was before the time when grand slams existed (this thread is about slams/majors).
In fact one of the reasons why the French Championships became a major/slam was precisely BECAUSE it finally became one single united event in Paris.

Helen Lawson
Oct 2nd, 2011, 12:31 AM
Does it matter? 24 is pretty invincible at this time.

alfajeffster
Oct 2nd, 2011, 12:36 AM
No, there's no need to make up your own stuff. p

Oh but there is a need- a need for me to have a little sarcasm and fun with overly serious people here. Do you really think I was suggesting making up new rules for majors? If you do, you may have been the only other human in that Antarctic draw. You know, the long lost original ice maiden wondering why there are no polar bears to prey on penguins in Antarctica.:lol:

Sam L
Oct 2nd, 2011, 01:59 AM
^ So what if there is two majors in one year? You know damn wel that that can happen in exceptional circumstances (transitional periods). For example there were two Australian opens in 1977. So if it's OK to count Goolagong's "5th slam" of the year 1977, then it's OK to count both the 1968 US Championships and also both the 1969 US Championships. It's all a matter of being fair and balanced :p

PS: The double French situation in the 1910s is different because that was before the time when grand slams existed (this thread is about slams/majors).
In fact one of the reasons why the French Championships became a major/slam was precisely BECAUSE it finally became one single united event in Paris.

That's not an extra slam. All it is that the Aussie was played in Dec rather than Jan. Therefore 1977 (Dec) Aussie was really the 1978 Aussie. Likewise, 1985 Aussie was really the 1986 Aussie. Not that the Aussie was not held in 1986 at all.

Which is why Martina actually won these slams:

1983 Wimbledon
1983 US
1984 Aussie (held in Dec 1983)
1984 French
1984 Wimbledon
1984 US

IF we're to be honest and not be like dishonest Graf fans who try to claim what she achieved wasn't a Grand Slam. :rolleyes: She's a victim of circumstance. Not her fault that the Aussie moved their slam a month earlier. If it was forever moved a month earlier, then yes, they might have a point. But no, it's a temporary situation and therefore were were no two Aussies in 1975.

Anyway, that's an entirely different situation to that of 1968-1969 where there WERE two separate events. The point is you can't count both of them. When the tennis tournaments made the switch to professional status and installed the new name US Open, that is the direct continuation of the former US National Championship from 1967. NOT the 1968 US amateur.

That's why everybody accepts that she was 24 and everybody despite knowing about it ignores her US amateur results. You can't count twice.

alfajeffster
Oct 2nd, 2011, 11:31 AM
That's not an extra slam. All it is that the Aussie was played in Dec rather than Jan. Therefore 1977 (Dec) Aussie was really the 1978 Aussie. Likewise, 1985 Aussie was really the 1986 Aussie. Not that the Aussie was not held in 1986 at all.

Which is why Martina actually won these slams:

1983 Wimbledon
1983 US
1984 Aussie (held in Dec 1983)
1984 French
1984 Wimbledon
1984 US

IF we're to be honest and not be like dishonest Graf fans who try to claim what she achieved wasn't a Grand Slam. :rolleyes: She's a victim of circumstance. Not her fault that the Aussie moved their slam a month earlier. If it was forever moved a month earlier, then yes, they might have a point. But no, it's a temporary situation and therefore were were no two Aussies in 1975.

Anyway, that's an entirely different situation to that of 1968-1969 where there WERE two separate events. The point is you can't count both of them. When the tennis tournaments made the switch to professional status and installed the new name US Open, that is the direct continuation of the former US National Championship from 1967. NOT the 1968 US amateur.

That's why everybody accepts that she was 24 and everybody despite knowing about it ignores her US amateur results. You can't count twice.

But, wasn't the Australian Open held in December of 1984? Didn't Helena Sukova defeat Martina in the semis "preventing Martina from winning the Grand Slam"? Isn't that one loss a terrible memory that haunts Martina to this day? How you can count the 1983 Australian as a 1984 tournament escapes me. Chris took apart Sukova (in 3 sets in the 1984 final, the only Australian Open held in 1984. Chris won in the 1984 final to win the title, then went on the win the 1985 French Open and regain the #1 ranking from Martina. I don't think the concept of the Grand Slam can be tinkered with in that way. Winning 4 straight majors is incredible- no phenomenal, but, as Serena Williams knows all too well, it must be done in the same calendar year to qualify as THE Grand Slam. That's what makes achieving it so difficult. There are still only 3 women who've done it- Maureen Connolly, Margaret Court, and Steffi Graf.

alfajeffster
Oct 2nd, 2011, 04:25 PM
P.S.- the December 1985 tournament (which was won by Evert over Navratilova if memory serves) was the last December tournament. Instead of playing again a month later in January, Australian Tennis decided to abandon the tournament entirely in 1986 while the new complex was being built. Again, the notion that the 1985 December tourney somehow also covers 1986 is ridiculous. It robbed Martina of an opportunity for another major title, that's for sure, but there was no tournament held until January 1987 at Kooyong, this being the last Aussie Open on grass, and Navratilova lost to Hana Mandlikova in the final. The December time slot had ceased to exist. Those couple of years from December 1984 onward weren't kind to Martina, in Australia, and she eventually stopped playing there altogether.

Sumarokov-Elston
Oct 2nd, 2011, 07:14 PM
P.S.- the December 1985 tournament (which was won by Evert over Navratilova if memory serves) was the last December tournament. Instead of playing again a month later in January, Australian Tennis decided to abandon the tournament entirely in 1986 while the new complex was being built. Again, the notion that the 1985 December tourney somehow also covers 1986 is ridiculous. It robbed Martina of an opportunity for another major title, that's for sure, but there was no tournament held until January 1987 at Kooyong, this being the last Aussie Open on grass, and Navratilova lost to Hana Mandlikova in the final. The December time slot had ceased to exist. Those couple of years from December 1984 onward weren't kind to Martina, in Australia, and she eventually stopped playing there altogether.

I was just thinking the other day that Australia was really not so kind to Martina. She actually has an equal head-to-head on grass to Chris Evert in Australia (2-2) and a losing H2H on hard (0-1). Then she did not make her seeding in 1988, which was about the first time that had happened to her in ages. I think Martina had to be the favourite to win an AO 1986, but then Hana could also have won then - or even Graf!!

Evert lost in the 1985 final to Navratilova, in a three-set match that was to decide the ranking for that year, as both girls had won one slam and had quite even months at #1. Your memory is a bit like that of Evert herself: there is an interview on You Tube, in which Evert reminiscenses about winning the AO in 1984, beating Sukova in the final, because she remembered how she, Evert, had beaten Martina in the semis (yes, of course you would have been seeded to meet her in the semis in the mid-1980s!) and how that was only the second time she had beaten her on grass (going into that match, Evert had actually beaten Navratilova five times on grass). It is like the Prince Regent, who used to describe to people how he led the charge at the Battle of Waterloo!

alfajeffster
Oct 2nd, 2011, 08:57 PM
...Your memory is a bit like that of Evert herself: there is an interview on You Tube, in which Evert reminiscenses about winning the AO in 1984, beating Sukova in the final, because she remembered how she, Evert, had beaten Martina in the semis (yes, of course you would have been seeded to meet her in the semis in the mid-1980s!) and how that was only the second time she had beaten her on grass (going into that match, Evert had actually beaten Navratilova five times on grass). It is like the Prince Regent, who used to describe to people how he led the charge at the Battle of Waterloo!

:lol:That's so true. I usually preface what I write with "if memory serves' just in case. I'm usually okay, but unlike several stat-hounds here, I don't have little spiral notebooks full of obscure results, nor can I stand looking through and actually reading such a thread. I'm glad they're into it- it really does provide historical detail that otherwise gets overlooked. I personally think that, hypothetically, Martina would've won both the 1984 and non-existent 1986 Australian Open finals. She was on top of the world in 1984, and simply got beaten at her own game by Sukova, who took over the net and made Martina pass. She didn't just have a good day- she had a career match and got lucky. I would've liked to have seen Martina win the Grand Slam. She was that good.

alfajeffster
Oct 3rd, 2011, 02:08 AM
Does it matter? 24 is pretty invincible at this time.

Hey! I missed your short little post! How've you been Aunt Helen? I'm sure married life agrees with you, but you simply must make a few more public appearances. You know- never let them forget!

Sam L
Oct 3rd, 2011, 02:22 AM
But, wasn't the Australian Open held in December of 1984? Didn't Helena Sukova defeat Martina in the semis "preventing Martina from winning the Grand Slam"? Isn't that one loss a terrible memory that haunts Martina to this day? How you can count the 1983 Australian as a 1984 tournament escapes me. Chris took apart Sukova (in 3 sets in the 1984 final, the only Australian Open held in 1984. Chris won in the 1984 final to win the title, then went on the win the 1985 French Open and regain the #1 ranking from Martina. I don't think the concept of the Grand Slam can be tinkered with in that way. Winning 4 straight majors is incredible- no phenomenal, but, as Serena Williams knows all too well, it must be done in the same calendar year to qualify as THE Grand Slam. That's what makes achieving it so difficult. There are still only 3 women who've done it- Maureen Connolly, Margaret Court, and Steffi Graf.

Well funnily enough the man who coined the term Grand Slam never said you had to do it in the same calendar year. Plus, it's NOT harder to do it in the same calendar since more people have won calendar slams than non-calendar slams.

Whilst what Serena won is a true non-calendar slam, what Martina won is a calendar slam when you think about the fact that it was only because the Aussie was played in Dec rather than Jan. It's not her fault. Chronologically, what she achieved was the same as what Maureen Connolly did. Same slams in exact same order except, for her the Aussie was in Dec rather than Jan. You think that makes a difference? Come on now.

Hey! I missed your short little post! How've you been Aunt Helen? I'm sure married life agrees with you, but you simply must make a few more public appearances. You know- never let them forget!

Well she was forgettable in I want to live! But anyway... :lol:

alfajeffster
Oct 3rd, 2011, 11:17 AM
Well funnily enough the man who coined the term Grand Slam never said you had to do it in the same calendar year. Plus, it's NOT harder to do it in the same calendar since more people have won calendar slams than non-calendar slams.

Whilst what Serena won is a true non-calendar slam, what Martina won is a calendar slam when you think about the fact that it was only because the Aussie was played in Dec rather than Jan. It's not her fault. Chronologically, what she achieved was the same as what Maureen Connolly did. Same slams in exact same order except, for her the Aussie was in Dec rather than Jan. You think that makes a difference? Come on now...:

Come on now? You are living in a Martina fantasy which I'm not so sure even she shares with you. When the Australian Open was moved to December in 1977 and Goolagong won, there was a follow-up the next year in December. I believe it was Chris O'Neill who won the 1978 title, and Barbara Jordan the 1979 title and so on until it was Martina's turn to win the December 1984 title, which she failed to do. But, if you want to continue your fantasy that the 1983 tournament also counts as a 1984 title, you go ahead and be happy in your little world. I certainly wouldn't want you calling my lines.

Don Budge made the (then unheard of) effort to play the Australian Championships in order to win the Grand Slam- all four majors in the same calendar year. Maureen Connolly did so all in one year in 1954, as did Rod Laver in 1962 and 1969, Margaret Court in 1970, and Steffi Graf in 1988, but you can't count the 1988 Australian Open for Graf because the 1987 tournament, which was really the 1988 tournament, didn't count- it wasn't on grass any more. But I guess that missed the boat on your argument, because Martina lost in both of them.:rolleyes:

Raiden
Oct 3rd, 2011, 12:22 PM
what Martina won is a calendar slam when you think about the fact that it was only because the Aussie was played in Dec rather than Jan.LMAO

Well if you start fiddling with Martina's stats to the point of inventing a non-existent calender where December and January become united (and therefore two years merge and become one) then I'm afraid we have to show the same "flexibility" to Margaret Court and her stats. And when we apply that fair principle, what do we discover? Lo and behold: another Calendar Year Grand Slam!

Here it is:
the 1969 Aus open,
the 1969 French open,
the 1969 US open and
the 1969 US Championships :wavey:And since the two CYGSs came consecutively, in 1969 and 1970, it means we have right before us, an amazing super double whammy tweener calendar year grand slam!

Philbo
Oct 3rd, 2011, 12:30 PM
Martina may not have a calendar year slam, its the ITF themselves that have gone back and forth in terms of defining what a 'grand slam' is and in 1984 when Martina won the French Open, which was her 4th consecutive slam, they paid her a $1 million bonus for that achivement, which in the mid 80's was HUGE money.

It was only when Graf won the calendar year slam 4 years later that the definition went back to strictly calenday year only.

The argument doesnt matter a lot to me anyway, because in my opinion, winning 6 slams in a row is a better achievment than winning 4 or 5 in a row.... Martina and Court are the only ones to have won 6 in a row, so Ill happily live with that :)

Sam L
Oct 3rd, 2011, 12:57 PM
Come on now? You are living in a Martina fantasy which I'm not so sure even she shares with you. When the Australian Open was moved to December in 1977 and Goolagong won, there was a follow-up the next year in December. I believe it was Chris O'Neill who won the 1978 title, and Barbara Jordan the 1979 title and so on until it was Martina's turn to win the December 1984 title, which she failed to do. But, if you want to continue your fantasy that the 1983 tournament also counts as a 1984 title, you go ahead and be happy in your little world. I certainly wouldn't want you calling my lines.

Don Budge made the (then unheard of) effort to play the Australian Championships in order to win the Grand Slam- all four majors in the same calendar year. Maureen Connolly did so all in one year in 1954, as did Rod Laver in 1962 and 1969, Margaret Court in 1970, and Steffi Graf in 1988, but you can't count the 1988 Australian Open for Graf because the 1987 tournament, which was really the 1988 tournament, didn't count- it wasn't on grass any more. But I guess that missed the boat on your argument, because Martina lost in both of them.:rolleyes:

Ok. So let's pretend that someone won 1977 Australian, French, Wimbledon and US Open. Would say that he/she also would've had to win the 1977 (Dec) Australian Open to complete the Grand Slam or would you say that they have already completed their Grand Slam.

Keeping in mind that a calendar Grand Slam means winning all the majors in that said calendar year according to this definition.

Sam L
Oct 3rd, 2011, 01:02 PM
LMAO

Well if you start fiddling with Martina's stats to the point of inventing a non-existent calender where December and January become united (and therefore two years merge and become one) then I'm afraid we have to show the same "flexibility" to Margaret Court and her stats. And when we apply that fair principle, what do we discover? Lo and behold: another Calendar Year Grand Slam!

Here it is:
the 1969 Aus open,
the 1969 French open,
the 1969 Wimbledon and
the 1969 US Championships :wavey:And since the two CYGSs came consecutively, in 1969 and 1970, it means we have right before us, an amazing super double whammy tweener calendar year grand slam!

Two years merging into one? What the hell are you drinking? How did Court win 1969 Wimbledon? In what alternate universe?

This post is non-sense.

All I'm suggesting is that once chronologically considered, Martina's 6 consecutive Grand Slams is the same as Connolly's. The only difference being that the Australian Open was played in Dec rather than Jan.

That's quite different from having two winners of the same tournament. That doesn't happen because they weren't the same tournament.

The 1967 US National C'ship became the 1968 US Open. NOT the 1968 US Amateur.

Please stop smoking whatever you're smoking.

alfajeffster
Oct 3rd, 2011, 10:38 PM
Ok. So let's pretend that someone won 1977 Australian, French, Wimbledon and US Open. Would say that he/she also would've had to win the 1977 (Dec) Australian Open to complete the Grand Slam or would you say that they have already completed their Grand Slam.

Keeping in mind that a calendar Grand Slam means winning all the majors in that said calendar year according to this definition.

(I hope you're sitting). I agree with you, it would be a true Grand Slam since all 4 were won in the same calendar year. 1984 doesn't compare- there was no January tournament. That's a pretty simple concept. Besides, Evonne Goolagong (bless her) took care of any controversy by winning both tournaments in 1977, so no possibility for anyone else to whine about it. She beat Martina in the 1975 final by making Navratilova pass her at the net. The court at Kooyong actually sloped upwards toward the net, and passing was pretty tough. By the way, since that match was held on New Years Day in 1976, does that mean it's really the first of two Australian Opens that count for 1976?

thrust
Oct 4th, 2011, 02:30 AM
it's 24.. she is the all time singles record holder of grand slam titles,... with graf at 22 and martina and chrissie tied at 18....

did anyone catch at the recently completed u.s. open how the commentators during serena's final match made note of who had the most grand slam singles titles in the open era?...

they listed graf at 22, evert and martina at 18 and serena at 13... no mentioned was made of margaret court AT ALL? then i thought " oh wait, they meant the open era, so i guess they don't count margaret's wins before 1968....

still think the commentators should have included something like "margaret court has the all time record of 24 but some of her grand slam singles titles occured before 1968, the open era.... etcetera"...

of course that is if the commentators knew their tennis history which i highly doubt ( mcenroe? enberg? LOL! carillo?!)... like i've said it many times before the true tennis fans know more about the game than the commentators!....

Most of the commentators in the US are anti Court and up BJK's ass. Women's tennis was always OPEN, as there was no women's pro tour. Open tennis only applys to the Men's game, which did have the best players on the Pro Tour. These same announcers should know that too

thrust
Oct 4th, 2011, 02:41 AM
Both.

Nowadays whenever Rod Laver's record comes up commentators add Laver's pre-open-era pro-slams to his total, or at the very least they mention it as a sidenote. Same thing is done whenever Ken Rosewall's record comes up for discussion. Ken tards are quick to remind everyone that "Ken has won 23 majors".

In light of that it is fully legitimate to regard Margaret Court as having 26 in total (the Professional Championships a.k.a "pro slams" are counted as majors (the word major is more inclusive than the word "grand slam".

So quite literally Margaret has got 24 grand slams and 26 majors.

My solution is to take away Ken's 4 amateur slams and Rod's 5. Then, Ken would have 19 Slams and Rod would have 14. Margreat's 2 US amateur wins in 68-69 had basically the same competition as the Open tournaments, so there is a legitimate argument to add 2 slams to her official total, IMO, which does not count-LOL!!

austinrunner
Oct 5th, 2011, 12:45 PM
Margreat's 2 US amateur wins in 68-69 had basically the same competition as the Open tournaments, so there is a legitimate argument to add 2 slams to her official total....

Really? Were Billie Jean King, Ann Haydon Jones, Francoise Durr, and Rosemary Casals at the 1968 U.S. Amateur Championships in Longwood? What legendary players did Margaret Smith Court defeat in the semifinals and quarterfinals? Court, Virginia Wade, and Maria Bueno were the top 3 foreign seeds. The top domestic seed was the redoubtable Mary Ann Eisel Curtis Beattie.

alfajeffster
Oct 5th, 2011, 01:26 PM
Really? Were Billie Jean King, Ann Haydon Jones, Francoise Durr, and Rosemary Casals at the 1968 U.S. Amateur Championships in Longwood? What legendary players did Margaret Smith Court defeat in the semifinals and quarterfinals? Court, Virginia Wade, and Maria Bueno were the top 3 foreign seeds. The top domestic seed was the redoubtable Mary Ann Eisel Curtis Beattie.

Even Margaret herself doesn't count this win as a legitimate major. In her autobiography, she says "I won the U.S. Championships of 1968, but unfortunately, I won the wrong one", or words to that effect.

Raiden
Oct 5th, 2011, 02:54 PM
How did Court win 1969 Wimbledon?Sorry that was posting error. I obviously meant the 1969 US Open.

Two years merging into one?

This post is non-sense.

All I'm suggesting is that once chronologically considered, Martina's 6 consecutive Grand Slams is the same as Connolly's. The only difference being that the Australian Open was played in Dec rather than Jan.

That's quite different from having two winners of the same tournament. That doesn't happen because they weren't the same tournament.Irrelevant.

The fact remains (and that's my whole point) you transferred one particular Australian open tournament from one year to another in order to artificially construct a calendar year grand slam for Martina. I reacted to your artificial construct by adding all 4 majors that Margaret won in 1969. After all the original definition of a grand slam (as in Golf) is simple: 1 grand slam = 4 majors in a year. AFAIK: a major is a major forever. So this practice of retroactively downgrading of majors (for bureaucratic/political/whatever convenient purposes) is is a dishonest fraud. Anyway it doesn't change the fact that it was a major and therefore is STILL a major.

The 1967 US National C'ship became the 1968 US Open. NOT the 1968 US Amateur.Bullshit (that separate terminology is not original but ex-post-facto spin).

At that time not one but both of them were regarded, named and registered as National Championship majors.


https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-5VA2TC--fFA/ToxdYxfr-lI/AAAAAAAAErc/qDLNUzGcLFY/USTAyearbook.png

Raiden
Oct 5th, 2011, 03:03 PM
My solution is to take away Ken's 4 amateur slams and Rod's 5. Then, Ken would have 19 Slams and Rod would have 14. Margreat's 2 US amateur wins in 68-69 had basically the same competition as the Open tournaments, so there is a legitimate argument to add 2 slams to her official total, IMO, which does not count-LOL!!No the simple issue is this: some of us don't like (and therefore don't have any obligation to accept) the Stalinistic practice of the current tennis establishment of retroactively "erasing history" for propaganda purposes. They should learn to live with the fact that what has happened has happened.


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_bZKvg1YyBWk/SdOYgzvnx9I/AAAAAAAABhc/vGH60n-wAN8/s437/stalin_retoque_03.jpg http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/small/1007/joseph-stalin-joseph-stalin-photoshop-uncle-joe-demotivational-poster-1280636992.jpg

thrust
Oct 6th, 2011, 01:40 AM
Really? Were Billie Jean King, Ann Haydon Jones, Francoise Durr, and Rosemary Casals at the 1968 U.S. Amateur Championships in Longwood? What legendary players did Margaret Smith Court defeat in the semifinals and quarterfinals? Court, Virginia Wade, and Maria Bueno were the top 3 foreign seeds. The top domestic seed was the redoubtable Mary Ann Eisel Curtis Beattie.

Virginia Wade won the USO in 68 over BJK. Court almost always beat Cassals, Richey, Wade, Bueno, and even King.

justineheninfan
Oct 6th, 2011, 05:43 AM
Virginia Wade won the USO in 68 over BJK. Court almost always beat Cassals, Richey, Wade, Bueno, and even King.

Not in 1968 though. 1968 is the worst full year of Courts career. She got slaughtered in the Australian Open final by King, lost in the quarters to Judy Tegart at Wimbledon, and then in the quarters to a past her prime Bueno at the U.S Open (the Open one). There is virtually no way she would have won any slam with a full draw this year.

Sam L
Oct 6th, 2011, 09:17 AM
Sorry that was posting error. I obviously meant the 1969 US Open.

Irrelevant.

The fact remains (and that's my whole point) you transferred one particular Australian open tournament from one year to another in order to artificially construct a calendar year grand slam for Martina. I reacted to your artificial construct by adding all 4 majors that Margaret won in 1969. After all the original definition of a grand slam (as in Golf) is simple: 1 grand slam = 4 majors in a year. AFAIK: a major is a major forever. So this practice of retroactively downgrading of majors (for bureaucratic/political/whatever convenient purposes) is is a dishonest fraud. Anyway it doesn't change the fact that it was a major and therefore is STILL a major.

Bullshit (that separate terminology is not original but ex-post-facto spin).

At that time not one but both of them were regarded, named and registered as National Championship majors.


https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-5VA2TC--fFA/ToxdYxfr-lI/AAAAAAAAErc/qDLNUzGcLFY/USTAyearbook.png

You can't even deal with simple logic. A year is 52 weeks, a calendar is a year that's defined to have started at a specific point and ended at a specific point in the western world according to the Julian calendar. Other societies have different calendars that start and end at different points. The fact that someone won all majors in a Julian calendar year doesn't mean that it's more special than another who won all over a 52-week period.

Besides that:

1. When the term Grand Slam was coined in relation to tennis (NOT Golf, not any other sport but tennis) it was referring to Jack Crawford and his potential achievement of holding the championships of the four nations that won Davis Cup up to that point. Was there any mention that it had to be in the same calendar year?

2. As I had already posed before, if a player won the 1977 Australian to US Opens, has he/she completed the Grand Slam or would they also have to win the 1977 (Dec) Australian Open to complete the Grand Slam IF the definition is as you said all majors in the same calendar year?

3. Likewise and further to point 3, if a player won all three majors in 1986 did they complete the Grand Slam? What if they won 1985 (Dec) Australian Open? What if they won 1987 Australian Open? Should a player be penalised simply because one of the majors decided to play around with their schedule?

4. These are simple logical questions with simple logical answers. Not my problem that you can deal with facts. I'm not artificially constructing anything. I simply posed a question, what is the difference between Connolly and Navratilova's 6 major streak? The only difference is that during Navratilova's time the Australian Open was played in December rather than in January. I dare you to prove me wrong in that regard and dare you to prove how Connolly's achievement is more special in any way.

As for US Amateurs. Are you for real? So what if that tournament is continued, the point is that the US National Championship of 1967 became the 1968 US Open. If Open tennis didn't continue and amateur tennis continued then people would count the US Amateur titles but Open tennis prevailed and therefore that is the tournament that US Nationals became.

It's like saying you're going to count the French National Championships from 1925 onwards because they still existed. What? You can only have one form of the tournament in a given year. That is logic. You can't have two champions of the same tournament. And if you want, go straight to the US Open past champions list on its official website: http://www.usopen.org/en_US/about/history/wschamps.html

Champion in '68, Wade. Champion in '69 Court. One winner.

newmark401
Oct 6th, 2011, 10:28 AM
I think the meaning of the term "calendar year" is quite clear. It wasn't any player's fault that the Australian Championships/Open were shifted around a bit. If I'm not mistaken, Maureen Connolly won the South Australian Championships in Adelaide in early 1953, just after she had won the Australian Championships tournament, her first leg on that year's Grand Slam. In 1953, the Australian Championships were held in early January. It would seem silly to claim that that particular tournament was part of the 1952 tennis season.

Sam L
Oct 6th, 2011, 11:34 AM
I think the meaning of the term "calendar year" is quite clear.

Yes and Martina Navratilova doesn't have a calendar year Grand Slam but that doesn't mean that what she achieved isn't comparable to Connolly's.

I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a good reason as to why Connolly's achievement is more difficult and therefore should be held in higher regard than Martina's achievements.

Martina Navratilova actually has 45 consecutive grand slam matches. More than any string of matches Graf, Connolly or Court could put together.

Sorry I'm someone who likes to dig deeper than facts and analyse things rather than just accepting things for face value like a dummy.

Philbo
Oct 6th, 2011, 12:47 PM
2. As I had already posed before, if a player won the 1977 Australian to US Opens, has he/she completed the Grand Slam or would they also have to win the 1977 (Dec) Australian Open to complete the Grand Slam IF the definition is as you said all majors in the same calendar year?

3. Likewise and further to point 3, if a player won all three majors in 1986 did they complete the Grand Slam? What if they won 1985 (Dec) Australian Open? What if they won 1987 Australian Open? Should a player be penalised simply because one of the majors decided to play around with their schedule?

Very good questions Sam!

Andy T
Oct 6th, 2011, 02:54 PM
She didn't win a calendar yzear grand slam but Martina won 6 majors in a row. Noone has done better. :worship:

She didn't win a calendar year grand slam but she won not only singles but doubles too at said 6 consecutive majors. Noone else has done that. Ever. :worship:

She didn't win a calendar year grand slam but in winning Australia 83, RG84, W84 and US 84, she did win the four majors consecutively and in exactly the same order as Connolly and Court.:worship:

All of a sudden, this "calendar year grand slam" fixation seems somehow less significant ;)

Raiden
Oct 6th, 2011, 04:28 PM
1. When the term Grand Slam was coined in relation to tennis (NOT Golf, not any other sport but tennis) it was referring to Jack Crawford and his potential achievement of holding the championships of the four nations that won Davis Cup up to that point. Was there any mention that it had to be in the same calendar year?Obviously yes. The talk started after he won three of the majors of the year and he then went to the US that year to complete the grand slam of that year. Not any other year. And golf does matter because that's where the inspiration came from. They were using that term in that exact context at the time. And so this concept of grand slam being 4 in a row in one swoop (read that as one season one whatever, which in tennis becomes one year) this idea already existed. It wasn't just suddenly invented out of thin air in the 1980s in order to screw Navratilova, which is what you basically are indirectly insinuating with your tendentious cynical questions.

2. As I had already posed before, if a player won the 1977 Australian to US Opens, has he/she completed the Grand Slam or would they also have to win the 1977 (Dec) Australian Open to complete the Grand Slam IF the definition is as you said all majors in the same calendar year?No the player doesn't have to win 5 majors. The term grand slam is directly associeated with the number 4 (just like the world "hattrick" is associated with winning or scoring 3 in a row in the same span of whatever sports activity).

3. Likewise and further to point 3, if a player won all three majors in 1986 did they complete the Grand Slam?Unfortunately No. Because as already stated the term "grand slam" originally and inherently implies something that comes in four. Not three, not five but four. So if you want you can name the 1986 achievement a three-peat or a hat-trick or whatever else you want, but a literal slam it ain't. Language matters. You can't just call anything whatever you like. There are conventions and traditions out there that you will have to deal with.

What if they won 1985 (Dec) Australian Open? What if they won 1987 Australian Open? Should a player be penalised simply because one of the majors decided to play around with their schedule?Grand slam is not a "right" that players have. So no one is "penalised". Of course that could in theory change: if you have power then you CAN in theory re-write the rules of international tennis and give Navratilova some status. That's what Serena did. She felt powerful enough to give herself a status when she found out that her 4-in-a-row win was not gonna be officially designated as "grand slam" (she decided to give it her own name). Martina chose not to do that when her "status" was revised and she was no longer in the books as having a "grand slam".

4. These are simple logical questions with simple logical answers. Not my problem that you can deal with facts. I'm not artificially constructing anything. I simply posed a question, what is the difference between Connolly and Navratilova's 6 major streak? The only difference is that during Navratilova's time the Australian Open was played in December rather than in January. I dare you to prove me wrong in that regard and dare you to prove how Connolly's achievement is more special in any way. There was lots of fun time in between (Christmas and New Year :lol:

You can only have one form of the tournament in a given year. That is logic. You can't have two champions of the same tournament. You missed the point. The men also had double situation when Emmerson was scooping the official championships while Rosewall and Laver were winning the "pro slams". The whole argument with Margaret Court is that she should be treated like Laver and Rosewall. They get credit for their "alternative slams" despite the fact that Emmerson and others were the ones winning the "official" slams. Likewise if we count all pro and amateur majors as majors for men then we have no choice but do the exact same thing for women and that means Margaret Court has won 26 majors.

We're not asking anything more than what's already given for others: what's good for the goose (Laver, Rosewall... etc) is good for the gander (M. Court) :p

alfajeffster
Oct 7th, 2011, 11:23 AM
I got this visual of the goose from E.B. White's "Charlotte's Web" on that last one. You know "probably-obably-obably"!

tennisvideos
Oct 7th, 2011, 09:23 PM
Hell, I would just be happy if people graciously allowed Margaret to 'own' the 24 Grand Slam titles she did win without her record being denigrated because of who did or didn't turn up at the Aussie Open.

The other players don't seem to get bashed and have slams discounted even though a number of other winners benefitted from other scenarios. And nor should they. A slam is a slam is a slam. A win is a win is a win. A player shouldn't be penalised because of who didn't turn up. I once won the Australian Gay Gaymes Open Singles championship when the top gay player in the country didn't play - it's still my title and one I will treasure until the day I transition to the next adventure.

And, anyway, it's not as though Court didn't prove herself around the world in all the premier tournaments of the day regardless of the strength of the Aussie. Remember she won the German, Italian, South African and every leading tournament of the day and racked up 92% wins all up as well as 24/29 GS finals. She knew how to win that woman.

As an aside, I am off to play a tournament this weekend so that will be fun. This Mlle Francoise Durr is still going strong at 51 against the youngens. :)

tennisvideos
Oct 7th, 2011, 09:26 PM
As for the mens pre open tour - I give the pro tournament results Grand Slam status and NOT the regular Grand Slams. Definately. The best players of the pre-68 mens tour were the Pro players - by a long shot. Which means that Gonzales, Laver & Rosewall definately were the greats of the late 50s and 60s. And not players like Emerson etc.

I reckon Rosewall would have abput 20 slams, Laver about 16 and Gonzales close by. These guys deserve to be revered along with any of the pther male all time greats.

But that's another story and another site I guess. Still, I don't go to the mens site much so it's interesting to chat about here ...

alfajeffster
Oct 7th, 2011, 10:06 PM
As for the mens pre open tour - I give the pro tournament results Grand Slam status and NOT the regular Grand Slams. Definately. The best players of the pre-68 mens tour were the Pro players - by a long shot. Which means that Gonzales, Laver & Rosewall definately were the greats of the late 50s and 60s. And not players like Emerson etc.

I reckon Rosewall would have abput 20 slams, Laver about 16 and Gonzales close by. These guys deserve to be revered along with any of the pther male all time greats.

But that's another story and another site I guess. Still, I don't go to the mens site much so it's interesting to chat about here ...

"If Lew Hoad was on, you may as well have stayed home that day, and any of the others will tell you that."- Fred Stolle during a "greatest ever" conversation. I see pictures of him in his prime, and hear music, that's all I can say. Margaret just doesn't do it for me that way, but I'm sure she respected Lew that way. I don't know. TV, have you heard of or can you dig anything up about Margaret and Lew crossing paths? There's plenty on Court and Laver, but I've never heard her say a word about Hoadie.

tennisvideos
Oct 8th, 2011, 12:32 AM
"If Lew Hoad was on, you may as well have stayed home that day, and any of the others will tell you that."- Fred Stolle during a "greatest ever" conversation. I see pictures of him in his prime, and hear music, that's all I can say. Margaret just doesn't do it for me that way, but I'm sure she respected Lew that way. I don't know. TV, have you heard of or can you dig anything up about Margaret and Lew crossing paths? There's plenty on Court and Laver, but I've never heard her say a word about Hoadie.

Oh you are right - at his best Hoad was just about unbeatable but he was much more flashy than Rosewall and Laver and of course he didn't have the same desire as the other two and so his love of the bottle probably bought about his undoing.

I will have to look to see if i can find anything court says about lew - but I am sure it would be all good.

alfajeffster
Oct 8th, 2011, 11:19 PM
Oh you are right - at his best Hoad was just about unbeatable but he was much more flashy than Rosewall and Laver and of course he didn't have the same desire as the other two and so his love of the bottle probably bought about his undoing.

I will have to look to see if i can find anything court says about lew - but I am sure it would be all good.

I'll have to dig out my copy of "Court on Court" and re-read it to brush up on a few things. It has a pretty good glossary on players mentioned in the book. I'm in the middle of Bill O'Reilly's "Killing Lincoln" which is very, very good and very hard to put down. Hey, my sclerosis can tell you about loving the bottle. I got to the point where I couldn't function without my morning vodka, ended up in the hospital and doctor said I had 2-4 months if I didn't quit NOW. I quit February 2nd and really haven't missed it a bit. The hospital was the perfect place for that first few weeks. I'm not so sure the tennis ranch in southern Spain (let alone the Spanish women) was as good for Hoad. On another front- 37 days without a cigarette! That one was much harder, surprisingly.:eek:

Helen Lawson
Oct 9th, 2011, 12:11 PM
I used booze to get off cigarettes, cigarettes are a lot harder to kick. 4 years with no cigarettes on January 13!

When was Margaret's book published and any good dish on her contemporaries?

justineheninfan
Oct 9th, 2011, 03:14 PM
And, anyway, it's not as though Court didn't prove herself around the world in all the premier tournaments of the day regardless of the strength of the Aussie. Remember she won the German, Italian, South African and every leading tournament of the day and racked up 92% wins all up as well as 24/29 GS finals. She knew how to win that woman.

As an aside, I am off to play a tournament this weekend so that will be fun. This Mlle Francoise Durr is still going strong at 51 against the youngens. :)

The biggest strike against Court (in talks amongst the other very greatest in history) is her dissapointing record at Wimbledon however. Especialy given that grass was considered her best surface. To only win the Premier tournament on her best surface 3 times, half as many as the 2nd best player of her era- Billie Jean King, and less than half as many times as Navratilova and Graf is something that is hard to completely ignore. It doesnt mean it should disqualify her from any greatest ever talk.

Sumarokov-Elston
Oct 9th, 2011, 06:34 PM
I think Wimbledon is actually a bit of an anomaly among Grand Slams. Margaret only won it thrice, just like Chris Evert, while Evonne Cawley has only two titles. They were all champions who could, quite conceivably, have won double that number. Go through the history of Wimbledon, and I honestly think that a good half of the time the title was won by the player who was not the top player of that time. I think Wimbledon has its own dynamics. Court has often talked about the reasons why she had such a relatively poor record there, her problems with the English press, etc. Sometimes I think there are places where you just do not have a good record, for various reasons, even something about the location. Other players overperform there, eg. Martina was not the favourite to win in 1978, 1987 or 1990, but she still added to her overall total in those years. Even John McEnroe, in the men's, only won three singles titles; Connors only won two...

justineheninfan
Oct 9th, 2011, 07:58 PM
Goolagong never won the U.S Open, and only won the French once. She is not a top 10 player all time, heck it wasnt learnt until many years later she reached #1 for a couple weeks, so winning "only" 2 Wimbledons is not an underachievement for her. Wimbledon is on Evert's worst surface so in fact winning 3 Wimbledons and reaching 10 finals is outstanding for her, especialy considering she lost 5 finals to Navratilova. The only years Evert was considered the clear #1 at the time of Wimbledon and lost were to people considered better grass courters anyway like King in 75, Navratilova in 78, and even Goolagong in 1980. The only real exception was Wade in 77. Court is the only anomaly who did much worse than expected that I see. Seles and Henin perhaps to some degree, but it is well known they are not especialy stellar on grass.

Also I totally disagree Wimbledon is usually won by players who werent the top players at the time. In fact of all the slams it is the one where the cream usually rises to the top more than any other, which makes Courts lack of success (relatively speaking) there all the more surprising. Lets just go through the Open Era alone:

1968- King won. Clearly the top player at the time.
1969- Ann Jones won. OK a surprise but from the 3rd best player at the time.
1970- Court won. Clearly the top player at the time.
1971- Goolagong won. A surprise but cemented Goolagong as the best player of 71 as it was her 2nd straight major and 3rd straight slam final.
1972- King won. Clearly the top player at the time.
1973- King won. Clearly one of the top 2 players at the time along with Court.
1974- Evert won. The #1 player of 74.
1975- King won. Clearly one of the top 2 players along with Evert at time.
1976- Evert won. Dominant #1 at time.
1977- Wade won. A surprise, but an overdue one.
1978- Navratilova won. Martina was on her way to #1 rank this year.
1979- Navratilova won. World #1 at the time.
1980- Goolagong won. OK a surprise (if anything the breakdown indicates Goolagong if anything did better than expected winning 2 Wimbledons in years nobody expected her to win).
1981- Evert won. #1 player at time.
1982-1987- Navratilova won. Clearly expected all these years.
1988-1993- Graf wins every year except 1990 when Navratilova wins another. No surprises any of these years.
1994- Martinez wins. Probably biggest surprise winner ever, and it still was from World #3 at time.
1995 and 1996- Graf wins. Clear #1 at time.
1997- Hingis wins. Clear #1 at time.
1998- Novotna wins. No surprise, World #2 at time and arguably better grass courter than Hingis.
1999- Davenport wins. The dominant #1 or #2 player at time.
2000- Venus wins. Best player of 2000.
2001- Venus wins. Best player of 2001.
2002- Serena wins. Dominant player of 2002.
2003- Serena wins. Best player at time.
2004- Sharapova wins. A surprise, but not much of one in hindsight, the first of 3 slams and many other major success over next several years.
2005- Venus wins. Lower ranked at time but dominant player (along with Serena) of Wimbledon in 2000s. No surprise.
2006- Mauresmo wins. #1 player in World at time.
2007- Venus wins.
2008- Venus wins.
2009- Serena wins.
2010- Serena wins.
2011- Petra Kvitova wins. Somewhat expected first slam.

Of all the 4 slams Wimbledon has had the fewest big surprise winners of any.

alfajeffster
Oct 9th, 2011, 10:44 PM
Very comprehensive list there, and pretty accurate by most accounts. Nearly every year or other year has some kind of situation like the winner not playing their closest rival or the favorite to win, but you could say that about the French and some U.S. titles. Only Australia features Margaret's name so many years in a row, and she did beat the closest best in a couple of those years. Traditionally, the fast Wimbledon grass favored the net rusher, which makes Margaret's 3 titles glare in the record books even more.

austinrunner
Oct 10th, 2011, 12:37 AM
There's a lot of post facto, subjective analysis in that list. Here's the performance of top women's singles seeds at Wimbledon. The top seed has won the tournament 41 out of 79 attempts.

2011: #1 Caroline Wozniacki lost fourth round. #8 Petra Kvitova won the title.
2010: #1 Serena Williams won the title.
2009: #1 Dinara Safina lost semifinals. #2 Serena Williams won the title.
2008: #1 Ana Ivanovic lost third round. #7 Venus Williams won the title.
2007: #1 Justine Henin lost semifinals. #23 Venus Williams won the title.
2006: #1 Amelie Mauresmo won the title.
2005: #1 Lindsay Davenport lost final. #14 Venus Williams won the title.
2004: #1 Serena Williams lost final. #13 Maria Sharapova won the title.
2003: #1 Serena Williams won the title.
2002: #1 Venus Williams lost final. #2 Serena Williams won the title.
2001: #1 Martina Hingis lost first round. #2 Venus Williams won the title.
2000: #1 Martina Hingis lost quarterfinals. #5 Venus Williams won the title.
1999: #1 Martina Hingis lost first round. #3 Lindsay Davenport won the title.
1998: #1 Martina Hingis lost semifinals. #3 Jana Novotna won the title.
1997: #1 Martina Hingis won the title.
1996: #1 Steffi Graf won the title.
1995: #1 Steffi Graf won the title.
1994: #1 Steffi Graf lost first round. #3 Conchita Martinez won the title.
1993: #1 Steffi Graf won the title.
1992: #1 Monica Seles lost final. #2 Steffi Graf won the title.
1991: #1 Steffi Graf won the title.
1990: #1 Steffi Graf lost semifinals. #2 Martina Navratilova won the title.
1989: #1 Steffi Graf won the title.
1988: #1 Steffi Graf won the title.
1987: #1 Martina Navratilova won the title.
1986: #1 Martina Navratilova won the title.
1985: co-#1 Martina Navratilova won the title.
1984: #1 Martina Navratilova won the title.
1983: #1 Martina Navratilova won the title.
1982: #1 Martina Navratilova won the title.
1981: #1 Christ Evert won the title.
1980: #1 Martina Navratilova lost semifinals. #4 Evonne Goolagong Cawley won the title.
1979: #1 Martina Navratilova won the title.
1978: #1 Chris Evert lost final. #2 Martina Navratilova won the title.
1977: #1 Chris Evert lost semifinals. #3 Virginia Wade won the title.
1976: #1 Chris Evert won the title.
1975: #1 Chris Evert lost semifinals. #3 Billie Jean King won the title.
1974: #1 Billie Jean King lost quarterfinals. #2 Chris Evert won the title.
1973: #1 Margaret Smith Court lost semifinals. #2 Billie Jean King won the title.
1972: #1 Evonne Goolagong Cawley lost final. #2 Billie Jean King won the title.
1971: #1 Margaret Smith Court lost final. #3 Evonne Goolagong Cawley won the title.
1970: #1 Margaret Smith Court won the title.
1969: #1 Margaret Smith Court lost semifinals. #4 Ann Haydon Jones won the title.
1968: #1 Billie Jean King won the title.
1967: #1 Billie Jean King won the title.
1966: #1 Margaret Smith Court lost semifinals. #4 Billie Jean King won the title.
1965: #1 Maria Bueno lost final. #2 Margaret Smith Court won the title.
1964: #1 Margaret Smith Court lost final. #2 Maria Bueno won the title.
1963: #1 Margaret Smith Court won the title.
1962: #1 Margaret Smith Court lost second round. #8 Karen Hantze Susman won the title.
1961: #1 Sandra Reynolds Price lost semifinals. #7 Angela Mortimer Barrett won the title.
1960: #1 Maria Bueno won the title.
1959: #1 Christine Truman Janes lost fourth round. #6 Maria Bueno won the title.
1958: #1 Althea Gibson won the title.
1957: #1 Althea Gibson won the title.
1956: #1 Louise Brough Clapp lost semifinals. #5 Shirley Fry Irvin won the title.
1955: #1 Doris Hart lost semifinals. #2 Louise Brough Clapp won the title.
1954: #1 Maureen Connolly Brinker won the title.
1953: #1 Maureen Connolly Brinker won the title.
1952: #1 Doris Hart lost quarterfinals. #2 Maureen Connolly Brinker won the title.
1951: #1 Louise Brough Clapp lost semifinals. #3 Doris Hart won the title.
1950: #1 Louise Brough Clapp won the title.
1949: #1 Louise Brough Clapp won the title.
1948: #1 Margaret Osborne DuPont lost semifinals. #1 Louise Brough Clapp won the title.
1947: #1 Margaret Osborne DuPont won the title.
1946: #1 Pauline Betz Addie won the title.
1939: #1 Alice Marble won the title.
1938: #1 Helen Wills Moody won the title.
1937: #1 Helen Jacobs lost quarterfinals. #7 Dorothy Round Little won the title.
1936: #1 Dorothy Round Little lost quarterfinals. #2 Helen Jacobs won the title.
1935: #1 Dorothy Round Little lost quarterfinals. #4 Helen Wills Moody won the title.
1934: #1 Helen Jacobs lost final. #2 Dorothy Round Little won the title.
1933: #1 Helen Wills Moody won the title.
1932: #1 Helen Wills Moody won the title.
1931: #1 Cilly Aussem won the title.
1930: #1 Helen Wills Moody won the title.
1929: #1 Helen Wills Moody won the title.
1928: #1 Helen Wills Moody won the title.
1927: #1 Helen Wills Moody won the title.

tennisvideos
Oct 10th, 2011, 09:27 AM
Also I totally disagree Wimbledon is usually won by players who werent the top players at the time. In fact of all the slams it is the one where the cream usually rises to the top more than any other, which makes Courts lack of success (relatively speaking) there all the more surprising. Lets just go through the Open Era alone:

1968- King won. Clearly the top player at the time.
1969- Ann Jones won. OK a surprise but from the 3rd best player at the time.
1970- Court won. Clearly the top player at the time.
1971- Goolagong won. A surprise but cemented Goolagong as the best player of 71 as it was her 2nd straight major and 3rd straight slam final.
1972- King won. Clearly the top player at the time.
1973- King won. Clearly one of the top 2 players at the time along with Court.
1974- Evert won. The #1 player of 74.
1975- King won. Clearly one of the top 2 players along with Evert at time.


As for Court, the second half of her Wimbledon career was marred by a number of factors which restricted her opportunities there greatly.

1967 - She was retired in 67. Would have been a contender for sure.

1968 - she was just coming back to the tour after a year off so she wasn't at her best as she tried to get back to form.

1969 - Court was back to her best, winning 3/4 slams and only losing to Jones in the Wimb semi in one of Jones' greatest ever performances. She beat King in a dull final compared to that epic SF.

1970 - Court was at her best and won all 4 slams

1971 - Court would have been odds on favourite but was suffering morning sickness and off her game in the Wimbledon Final.

1972 - Court was retired. Once again would have been a contender.

1973 - Court at her best and won 3/4 slams. However, she was recovering from the flu and had a bad back and did well to even win a set off Evert in SF but ran out of steam in the final set.

1974 - Court retired for 2nd child. Of course she would have been a contender except for this.

1975 - Court now a 2 time mum. Did well to even make the Semis and except for her double faults at crucial times she could well have won over Evonne in this match

So there you have it. Court's Wimbledon championships in the latter half of her career were marred by retirements (3 full years) time to get back to form (68 and 75) and illness (71 and 73).

I have no doubt Court could have easily racked up 6 Wimbledon titles had she not have stopped to have kids and been unwell - effectively 5 attempts she had no chance to win when she was at her peak. Mrs. King on the other hand, did benefit from Court's retirements and time to get back to form in 68 and 72. So it was just one of those events that Court didn't have as many fully fit opportunities as all the other greats.

alfajeffster
Oct 10th, 2011, 12:05 PM
And all this time I was thinking it was because of her refusal to "wear the pants" and join the feminist movement spawned by the 60s sexual revolution. I can just see Margaret coming out on court not wearing a bra, unshaven legs, and suckling a newborn in public. It might have been a good tactic for her.

austinrunner
Oct 10th, 2011, 07:43 PM
So it was just one of those events that Court didn't have as many fully fit opportunities as all the other greats.
Neither did Billie Jean King. She was a part-timer from 1962 through 1964. She was just starting to play full time and was distracted by her upcoming marriage in 1965. She was not fully recovered from knee surgery in 1969. She had obvious knee problems in 1970. She played too much and was distracted by having to work so hard to support the Virginia Slims Tour in 1971. Olga Morozova played a great match in 1974, as did Chris Evert in 1977. She was temporarily retired in 1976. She had terrible heal pain that severely limited her mobility in 1978. She wasn't fully recovered from major foot surgery in 1979. She would have beaten Martina Navratilova had it not rained in the first set and had her eyeglasses not broken late in the third set in 1980. She didn't play in 1981 because of the Marilyn Barnett distractions. She was way past her prime in 1982 and 1983.

Excuses can be made for any player, great or not.

Margaret Smith Court was the top seed at Wimbledon 8 times (1973, 1971, 1970, 1969, 1966, 1964, 1963, 1962). How many of those did she win? That's right, a mere 2 (1970 and 1963). (Her other title was when she was the second seed in 1965.) But she almost always had a good excuse for not winning, so let's administratively give her all 8 titles. We'll assume that she had good excuses for 1962, 1964, and 1966.

As a top seed, Helen Wills Moody went 7-0. Maureen Connolly Brinker was 2-0. Martina Navratilova was 7-1. Steffi Graf was 6-2. Billie Jean King was 2-1. Serena Williams is 2-1. Louise Brough Clapp was 2-2. The sub-50 percenters include Chris Evert 2-3, Smith Court 2-6 (a record in top seed futility), Martina Hingis 1-4, Dorothy Round Little 0-2, Doris Hart 0-2, and Helen Jacobs 0-2.

thrust
Oct 11th, 2011, 02:48 AM
Neither did Billie Jean King. She was a part-timer from 1962 through 1964. She was just starting to play full time and was distracted by her upcoming marriage in 1965. She was not fully recovered from knee surgery in 1969. She had obvious knee problems in 1970. She played too much and was distracted by having to work so hard to support the Virginia Slims Tour in 1971. Olga Morozova played a great match in 1974, as did Chris Evert in 1977. She was temporarily retired in 1976. She had terrible heal pain that severely limited her mobility in 1978. She wasn't fully recovered from major foot surgery in 1979. She would have beaten Martina Navratilova had it not rained in the first set and had her eyeglasses not broken late in the third set in 1980. She didn't play in 1981 because of the Marilyn Barnett distractions. She was way past her prime in 1982 and 1983.

Excuses can be made for any player, great or not.

Margaret Smith Court was the top seed at Wimbledon 8 times (1973, 1971, 1970, 1969, 1966, 1964, 1963, 1962). How many of those did she win? That's right, a mere 2 (1970 and 1963). (Her other title was when she was the second seed in 1965.) But she almost always had a good excuse for not winning, so let's administratively give her all 8 titles. We'll assume that she had good excuses for 1962, 1963, and 1964.

As a top seed, Helen Wills Moody went 7-0. Maureen Connolly Brinker was 2-0. Martina Navratilova was 7-1. Steffi Graf was 6-2. Billie Jean King was 2-1. Serena Williams is 2-1. Louise Brough Clapp was 2-2. The sub-50 percenters include Chris Evert 2-3, Smith Court 2-6 (a record in top seed futility), Martina Hingis 1-4, Dorothy Round Little 0-2, Doris Hart 0-2, and Helen Jacobs 0-2.

I have read that Margreat, like Rosewall, had allergy problems which were exaggerated at Wimbledon that time of year. Whatever, Wimbledon was not her best Major for whatever reason. However, the fact is, that she did very well at the US which was on grass against the same top players who were at Wimbledon and also did very well at the French on clay. She was definitely the top player of a very competitive era that included: King, Bueno, Hard, Wade, Jones, and Turner among others. She also did well at the Australian Championships and other Aussie tournaments against top competition, whenever they came Down Under.

thrust
Oct 11th, 2011, 03:06 AM
It just so happens that Navratilova and Graf won their Wimbledon titles against weak grass court competition. Evert was very good on grass but not a natural like Martina, King, Court, Hard, Bueno or Goolagong. Graf had practically no great competition on grass, mentally or physically. Much of this is due to the decline of grass court tournaments from 75, to the present.

justineheninfan
Oct 11th, 2011, 04:13 AM
It just so happens that Navratilova and Graf won their Wimbledon titles against weak grass court competition. Evert was very good on grass but not a natural like Martina, King, Court, Hard, Bueno or Goolagong. Graf had practically no great competition on grass, mentally or physically. Much of this is due to the decline of grass court tournaments from 75, to the present.

Going 5-0 vs Evert in Wimbledon finals is still incredible and should be given an enormous amount of credit. One can already safely say from Court's Wimbledon record she definitely wouldnt have managed this. In the case of Graf I guess it is possible she might have, but somehow I doubt it (more likely 4-1 or 3-2). Navratilova also faced Mandlikova, probably the best grass court player to never win Wimbledon, as well as Goolagong.

Evert may not be best suited to grass but she is still a superior grass court player to any of Goolagong, Bueno, or Hard. I dont see how this can be seriously questioned based on her record alone. She is 4-4 vs Goolagong on grass, but Evonne had only one victory after 1974. She would not be an easy grass court opponent for Court. Their matches in 73 when Chris was definitely not in her prime (even if Court arguably wasnt either, but how far could she have been when she won 3 slams that year) clearly indicate this.

Anyway I am not implying Court's dissapointing (relatively) Wimbledon record should eliminate her from GOAT contention (it does to many actually which is unfairly harsh IMO) or that it is the be all and end all of everything. However it is also understandable it isnt completely overlooked that she won less than half the Wimbledons of Steffi Graf, a third of Navratilova, and that even Evert the so called suspect grass courter had a superior Wimbledon record. It is also understandably more important to most people than her Australian Open record, which truthfully just wasnt that important an event back in the 60s and 70s, certainly nowhere near as important as Wimbledon (which is in sharp contrast to today where the 4 slams are virtually equal).

tennisvideos
Oct 11th, 2011, 09:57 AM
Hi JustineHeninfan - I would dispute that Evert was a greater grass court player than either Bueno or Goolagong. Also not sure how Evert has a superior Wimbledon record to Court when Court won 25% of the time she played there and WAS sick at Wimbledon in 71 & 73 (two of her greatest seasons on tour). Both very arguable points there.

As for AustinRunner or whatever the name is, he/she is simply a negative Court hater. So I shan't even bother to respond to that disparaging post.

Personally, I agree with Thrust. Court has truly great grass court opponents in her era -Hard, King, Bueno, Goolagong etc. Players who were schooled on grass. After all, it was the predominant surface of the day. But not only that, on clay she had some of the greatest claycourters to contend with in winning her 5 /10 French Titles - Richey, Turner, Jones, Evert. Certainly the most versatile champion of the modern era even if she did fall a little short by some standards with ONLY 3 Wimbledon titles. Like I said earlier, had she have not retired for 3 full years, took time on the comeback trail, and been sick for 2 championships there, I know she would have won some more. But she didn't, so she ONLY has 24 Grand Slam titles. LOL

newmark401
Oct 11th, 2011, 10:27 AM
I think Wimbledon inspired Billie Jean to play her best, while it made Margaret a little nervous and sometimes prevented her from playing her consistent best, e.g. in 1961 and 1962. Given what Margaret achieved elsewhere, she definitely underperformed on the biggest stage in tennis.

austinrunner
Oct 11th, 2011, 12:16 PM
As for AustinRunner or whatever the name is, he/she is simply a negative Court hater. So I shan't even bother to respond to that disparaging post.

I'm sorry you can't deal with the cold, hard facts, whether it's my name or Mrs. Court's record of futility at Wimbledon.

I'm still waiting to hear your rationalizations for her failures in 1962, 1964, and 1966. She said that nerves caused her historic loss to Billie Jean King in her first match of 1962. She said that waking up late and bad serving caused the 1964 debacle. And in 1966, she simply wasn't motivated and didn't care. Of course, none of those excuses are worthy of a Great Champion. So, maybe you have other theories you'd like to propose.

tennisvideos
Oct 11th, 2011, 12:48 PM
I'm sorry you can't deal with the cold, hard facts, whether it's my name or Mrs. Court's record of futility at Wimbledon.

I'm still waiting to hear your rationalizations for her failures in 1962, 1964, and 1966. She said that nerves caused her historic loss to Billie Jean King in her first match of 1962. She said that waking up late and bad serving caused the 1964 debacle. And in 1966, she simply wasn't motivated and didn't care. Of course, none of those excuses are worthy of a Great Champion. So, maybe you have other theories you'd like to propose.

Winning Wimbledon 3 times is not a record of futility. It is an astonishing achievement for anyone. Do you always see the glass as half full, or even empty?

I mentioned in my posts that Court experienced extenuating circumstances which in some way attributed to her not being a contender when she could have been in the latter half of her career eg. 3 years of retirements (67, 72 & 74), 2 sick Wimbledons (71 & 73) and 2 years trying to find form after being off for a year (68 & 75). Of course she wasn't going to have great success with the odds stacked against her.

I can only agree with you on the early losses, but none of those are surprising losses at all:

1962 - it was her first time as #1 seed and she comes up against a grass court hot shot in none other than Billie-Jean King. It would have been enough to give any top seed a nightmare so the fact she lost is not that big a shock. And I am sure nerves came into play in this clash - not surprising at all.

1964 she lost fair and square to the legendary grass court queen Maria Bueno. It was a very close battle and both girls were in great form IMO and both would have been worth champions. But Maria was too good on that day. Of course Court got her revenge the next year in straight sets ;)

In 1966 I think Court said herself she had lost interest in the game to a large degree. What more can I say. Nothing? It speaks for itself.

I can certainly deal with cold hard facts. And the cold hard FACT is that Court holds many of the key records in the history of the sport. So yes, I can handle cold hard facts.

Sumarokov-Elston
Oct 11th, 2011, 05:34 PM
Going 5-0 vs Evert in Wimbledon finals is still incredible and should be given an enormous amount of credit. One can already safely say from Court's Wimbledon record she definitely wouldnt have managed this.

Don't forget that Martina also lost her first Wimbledon semi-final to Evert (1976)... in fact, she lost her second semi-final (1980) as well - and just squeaked through the other two (1987, 1988)!

justineheninfan
Oct 11th, 2011, 06:41 PM
Hi JustineHeninfan - I would dispute that Evert was a greater grass court player than either Bueno or Goolagong. Also not sure how Evert has a superior Wimbledon record to Court when Court won 25% of the time she played there and WAS sick at Wimbledon in 71 & 73 (two of her greatest seasons on tour). Both very arguable points there.


Evert reached 10 Wimbledon finals! From 1972 to 1989 she only lost before the semis of Wimbledon once. I would say that is easily sufficient to place her above Goolagong or even Bueno on grass, atleast for me it is. The only argument I could see for Goolagong is she won more Australian Opens on grass, and because of that has 1 more grass slam (Evert has her beat in Wimbledon titles by 1 and by far in all other stats at Wimbledon). Really though that isnt comparable when Goolagong won 4 when she played the event every single year, often winning vs depleted or non existent competition (her only big win was Evert in the 74 Aussie final, and maybe at a stretch a way before prime Navratilova in the 75 final), while Chris skipped it for many years straight in the 70s as the dominant player and still won it twice during the Martina period of grass dominance. It is not like Evonne is Court and you can oh she might have still won all or most of those if everyone played. Evonne didnt win Wimbledon any of those years she won 4 Australians in a row, not a chance she wins that many if Billie Jean King and Evert had played regularly (maybe 2 if one made a very generous guess), while Chris would win alot more than 2 had she played in the 70s (and almost certainly more overall there too than Evonne adding in her 2 wins after 81). Evonne didnt even win the U.S Open on grass in some of her best years as well.

As for how her Wimbledon record is better than Court, both have won 3 Wimbledons and as I just mentioned 10 Wimbledon finals (Court reached 5), and only 1 time losing before the semis in a 17 year span. Of course Court still has by far the better overall grass court record, but at Wimbledon Evert surprisingly outdoes her slightly.

justineheninfan
Oct 11th, 2011, 07:16 PM
I forgot to mention Bueno with her 4 U.S Open titles on grass has more grass court slams than Evert as well. Considering Chris only had the possible opportunity to play a U.S Open on grass in 1 of her 13 slam winning years though, that is even less of a consideration than the Australian Open comparision between Goolagong and Evert. Not that Bueno's U.S Open titles werent all well deserved, just that there is hardly any point of a comparision that can be used with Chris who didnt get to play her U.S Open career on grass (barring an early career blip).

thrust
Oct 11th, 2011, 09:41 PM
I think Wimbledon inspired Billie Jean to play her best, while it made Margaret a little nervous and sometimes prevented her from playing her consistent best, e.g. in 1961 and 1962. Given what Margaret achieved elsewhere, she definitely underperformed on the biggest stage in tennis.

But then, Court and King played two Wimbledon finals, with Margreat winning both of them. The US was also on grass and had the same top competition as Wimbledon from the 50's on. Court also beat King in the two finals they played there.

alfajeffster
Oct 11th, 2011, 09:50 PM
The 73 semi loss to Court was a terrific match from both players. I still watch it now and again. Didn't Chris lose to Goolagong on Evonne's way to that spectacular 74 final? You know me- memory does not always serve.

thrust
Oct 11th, 2011, 09:53 PM
I forgot to mention Bueno with her 4 U.S Open titles on grass has more grass court slams than Evert as well. Considering Chris only had the possible opportunity to play a U.S Open on grass in 1 of her 13 slam winning years though, that is even less of a consideration than the Australian Open comparision between Goolagong and Evert. Not that Bueno's U.S Open titles werent all well deserved, just that there is hardly any point of a comparision that can be used with Chris who didnt get to play her U.S Open career on grass (barring an early career blip).

Chris was lucky when the US went from grass to clay, then hard courts. Court, King, Navratilova and Bueno were Great grass court players. Goolagong, at times, was a great grass court player. Her problems were mental consistancy, on any surface. Evert and Court were great players on any surface. Court better on grass, Chris on clay.

austinrunner
Oct 12th, 2011, 02:53 AM
1962 - it was her first time as #1 seed and she comes up against a grass court hot shot in none other than Billie-Jean King.

Grass court "hot shot"? That's ridiculous. King was 1-3 on grass in 1962 before Wimbledon. She lost to Ann Haydon Jones and the legends Lorna Cornell Cawthorne and Caroline Yates-Bell. Her only win was against the equally legendary Mary Muncaster. In 1961, King went 3-3 on English grass. Mrs. Court choked in 1962. You can read all about it here: http://www.tennisforum.com/showpost.php?p=19032757&postcount=237

In 1966 I think Court said herself she had lost interest in the game to a large degree. What more can I say. Nothing? It speaks for itself.

About 6 years ago, you refused to make excuses for Mrs. Court's losses. http://www.tennisforum.com/showpost.php?p=6813830&postcount=40 Now you do.

austinrunner
Oct 12th, 2011, 03:24 AM
But then, Court and King played two Wimbledon finals, with Margreat winning both of them. The US was also on grass and had the same top competition as Wimbledon from the 50's on. Court also beat King in the two finals they played there.

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, to wit:
Wimbledon: Tied 1-1
Australian: Tied 1-1
French: None
U.S.: King 1-0

GeeTee
Oct 12th, 2011, 04:31 AM
Court is 4-1 over King in GS finals (plus 2-0 in Fed Cup finals).

No-one has a winning h2h record over Court in GS finals and of course she never lost a Fed Cup singles match.

austinrunner
Oct 12th, 2011, 04:45 AM
Court is 4-1 over King in GS finals (plus 2-0 in Fed Cup finals)

But 2-3 in other Grand Slam singles matches. And those Federation Cup matches were in 1964 and 1965, before King was a full-time player. What was Mrs. Court's Federation Cup record against King in doubles?

tennisvideos
Oct 12th, 2011, 05:26 AM
But then, Court and King played two Wimbledon finals, with Margreat winning both of them. The US was also on grass and had the same top competition as Wimbledon from the 50's on. Court also beat King in the two finals they played there.

Well there you go. So much for everyone saying that in the clutch matches they would put their money on King to beat Court. I don't think you would have gotten two bigger stages in the 60s and early 70s than Wimbledon and USO (except French on a comparison). And Court won all of those 4 finals they played in.

As I mentioned, if it wasn't for retirements and illness and working her way back to form after those retirements, Court would have been a big chance to win more Wimbledon titles. It was just unfortunate for her that other things hampered that opportunity.

tennisvideos
Oct 12th, 2011, 05:33 AM
But 2-3 in other Grand Slam singles matches. And those Federation Cup matches were in 1964 and 1965, before King was a full-time player. What was Mrs. Court's Federation Cup record against King in doubles?

This question about Court's doubles record against King in Fed Cup reeks of desperation. It doesn't take into account their partners form. And if you want to go down that path, what was King's doubles record against Court at the USO? LOL.

King also won 68 Aussie Open against Court when Court was just coming back from a year off, and the same at the 72 USO SF. So these two losses were most understandable. But I think the GS Finals have more meaning do they not? After all, your great big list of #1 seeds and who won seems to indicate that WINNING is everything. You are full of double standards.

As for King playing part time before 65, she was probably still playing just as many tournaments as a lot of the girls of that era. And probably as many as the girls do today. And she was probably practising every day anyway.

tennisvideos
Oct 12th, 2011, 05:38 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, to wit:
Wimbledon: Tied 1-1
Australian: Tied 1-1
French: None
U.S.: King 1-0


Funny how you try to twist facts by removing King's worst years. And yet Court's worst years were when she was coming back from 3 seperate years off the tour - and yet you don't take those into account. And that is when King took advantage of a rusty Mags in beating her in the 68 Aussie Final and 72 USO SF.

If you want to use your logic we could take away Court's results from her first couple of part time seasons and she might end up with a 95% careers singles win/loss LOLOL. Too silly for words.

You asked me a question earlier "if I could handle facts". And you conveniently omit them to make your beloved Mrs. King look better. LOL

justineheninfan
Oct 12th, 2011, 06:28 AM
Court and King rarely were at their best together, if ever. King was definitely better in 66-68 and 71-73 regardless of Court. She had serious knee problems in 69 and 1970 which impeded her a great deal. Court was at her best in 62-65, 69-70 and possibly 73. 66, 67, 71, 72, were years she didnt even play the whole year and was getting ready for a (temporary) retirement, or just coming back from one. 1968 was just a very down year in general for her standards. 1973 is probably the year both were really strong in the same year, but they didnt play in any major finals still. 1965 as well both were quite strong, with King just coming into her own.

Of course Court is overall the better player though. Their respective records leave no doubt to that. King did herself a disservice by not playing the Australian Open much more frequently. Regardless of the attitude towards the Australian Open back then, players should know it is still a grand slam, and have the foresight to know the perception of it back then could well change. Even if she didnt beat Court another time besides that 68 final (and she probably would have at some point if she attempted it annually), she certainly still could have won in some of the years Goolagong won or when others like Richey and Wade won. She should have been able to win a considerable # of titles there either way, and she deprived herself and her record of that on her own accord. King should have fully capatilized on the incredibly good fortune to play in an era where 3 of the 4 slams were played on her favorite surface by far.

justineheninfan
Oct 12th, 2011, 06:31 AM
Chris was lucky when the US went from grass to clay, then hard courts. Court, King, Navratilova and Bueno were Great grass court players. Goolagong, at times, was a great grass court player. Her problems were mental consistancy, on any surface. Evert and Court were great players on any surface. Court better on grass, Chris on clay.

Yes this is true. I doubt Chris would have won 6 U.S opens on grass. Based on her Wimbledon performance (and her Australian Open performance in limited attempts, and missing out on virtually all her best years) she would have still done quite well I am sure.

GeeTee
Oct 12th, 2011, 06:39 AM
And those Federation Cup matches were in 1964 and 1965, before King was a full-time player.
Well, King was playing much more regularly in 1963-1965 than Court was in 1967-1968, mid1971-1972 and 1974-75 so perhaps any Court/King clashes in these later periods also need to be removed from the equation.

That would subtract 2 King victories over Court (inc 1 Slam win) from early 1968 and negate a 3-2 advantage to King (inc 1 Slam win) from late 1972.

So we need to remove 5 wins from King and 2 from Court and in Slams, we need to remove 2 from King.

Adjusting your post-65 GS h2h from above, that makes it 2-1 to Marg:
Wimbledon: Tied 1-1
Australian: Court 1-0
French: None
U.S.: None

and in all matches post-65, that would make it 10-7 to Marg :)

What was Mrs. Court's Federation Cup record against King in doubles?Perhaps there should be another thread about doubles (and mixed) for them, but I'm sure BJK was ahead in the ladies doubles.

austinrunner
Oct 12th, 2011, 06:55 AM
Their respective records leave no doubt to that. King did herself a disservice by not playing the Australian Open much more frequently. Regardless of the attitude towards the Australian Open back then, players should know it is still a grand slam, and have the foresight to know the perception of it back then could well change.

Which players can predict the future? You really like to engage in ex post facto analysis, what many would call woulda, coulda, shoulda.

austinrunner
Oct 12th, 2011, 06:57 AM
If you want to use your logic we could take away Court's results from her first couple of part time seasons and she might end up with a 95% careers singles win/loss LOLOL.

You asked me a question earlier "if I could handle facts".

Can you? Do the analysis and we'll talk. Her complete results are on this forum.

And yet Court's worst years were when she was coming back from 3 seperate years off the tour - and yet you don't take those into account. And that is when King took advantage of a rusty Mags in beating her in the 68 Aussie Final and 72 USO SF.

Yeah, King should have gone really easy on Mrs. Court in those matches. Intentionally lowered her standard of play. Took pity on Court's rustiness. Maybe given her a couple points each game just to make it interesting. Served left handed. Never gone to net. Allowed Court to hit in the doubles alleys and three chances to get her serve in, because we all know that Court was prone to hitting nervous double faults.

justineheninfan
Oct 12th, 2011, 07:04 AM
Which players can predict the future? You really like to engage in post ex facto analysis, what many would call woulda, coulda, shoulda.

The fact is the Australian Open was a Grand Slam back then. That is not a woulda, coulda, shoulda. King being a grass court specialist SHOULD have played it more often and capatilized on her grass court expertise. A player like her who is clearly much more suited to grass than any other surface should have milked her situation of having 3 of the 4 majors on grass, not skipped one of them almost every year.

She almost looks stupid being one of the biggest campaigners against Court's Australian Open titles today by saying things like "if we had all played there." It is one thing for say Tracy Austin or Pam Shriver who were maybe on tour with Court for 2 months to do so, or people like Evert and Navratilova who are a decade and half younger than Court and only spent a few full years on tour with her. Hello Mrs. King, there was absolutely nothing stopping you from playing, and knowing that it is an official Grand Slam, you should know full well it will still count in your final slam tally, and everyone wont neccessarily look at it like a non major (which I know back then is how some perceived it). The way she talks in woe about Court's tally there you would think she had been barred from entering Australia or something. It was simply her choice to not play the event more, she almost seems to regret it now. However that was HER choice and thus her loss, and she as a contemporary of Court and the one who had the biggest opportunity to do something about Court's dominance there and chose not to even attempt is the last one who should be speaking out about Court's record there.

austinrunner
Oct 12th, 2011, 07:28 AM
Well, King was playing much more regularly in 1963-1965 than Court was in 1967-1968, mid1971-1972 and 1974-75 so perhaps any Court/King clashes in these later periods also need to be removed from the equation.

King's singles record for 1963-65 was 148-27 (175 total matches) (0 Grand Slam singles titles).
Court's singles record for 1966-68 was 153-18 (171 matches) (1 Grand Slam singles title).

Let's exclude all 6 years when one or the other was not at her best. Court won 7 of their 11 matches those years. Excluding them narrows her career singles lead to 14-9. In Grand Slam singles tournaments, they were tied 2-2.

When Court was off the tour for her 1971-72 pregnancy, she obviously didn't play King. They didn't play each other in singles after 1973.

austinrunner
Oct 12th, 2011, 07:33 AM
King being a grass court specialist.... A player like her who is clearly much more suited to grass than any other surface....

Jeez, you really do know nothing about King.

For her career, she was 408-81 (83.4%) on grass, 202-44 (82.1%) on outdoor hard courts, 301-74 (80.3%) on indoor courts (not including indoor clay), and 144-42 (77.4%) on indoor and outdoor clay. Only 8 players managed to beat King more than once on clay. (Neither Court nor Nancy Richey were in this group.) 13.8% of her career singles matches were on clay, spread over 57 events. She was 35-8 (81.4%) on unknown court surfaces (matches verified by myself) and 12-1 (92.3%) in matches credited by either the USTA or the International Tennis Hall of Fame (matches that I have not yet verified).

The fact is the Australian Open was a Grand Slam back then. ... She almost looks stupid being one of the biggest campaigners against Court's Australian Open titles today by saying things like "if we had all played there." ... knowing that it is an official Grand Slam.... The way she talks in woe about Court's tally there you would think she had been barred from entering Australia or something. It was simply her choice to not play the event more....

Who or what at the time bestowed "official Grand Slam tournament" on any tournament of that era?

Do you have any idea how players were chosen to play overseas tournaments back then? Or how their trips were financed? Or how American players were disciplined by the USTA for taking foreign trips that the USTA did not authorize? The USTA even had a special committee for this purpose.

Surely you can source where King actually said "if we had all played there." Sounds like a bunch of wishful thinking on your part.

newmark401
Oct 12th, 2011, 09:40 AM
But then, Court and King played two Wimbledon finals, with Margreat winning both of them. The US was also on grass and had the same top competition as Wimbledon from the 50's on. Court also beat King in the two finals they played there.

Yes, when Margaret Smith/Court got to the final of one of the four majors, she almost always won, her record being 24 major singles finals won out of 29.

GeeTee
Oct 12th, 2011, 10:27 AM
What was Mrs. Court's Federation Cup record against King in doubles?
Mrs Court never played Mrs King in Fed Cup! :)


















But I think Miss Moffat's pairings had a 1-0 advantage over Miss Smith's (3-0 if you include dead rubbers). :)

tennisvideos
Oct 12th, 2011, 11:34 AM
King's singles record for 1963-65 was 148-27 (175 total matches) (0 Grand Slam singles titles).
Court's singles record for 1966-68 was 153-18 (171 matches) (1 Grand Slam singles title).

Let's exclude all 6 years, when Court won 7 of their 11 matches. That narrows her career singles lead to 14-9. In Grand Slam singles tournaments, they were tied 2-2.

When Court was off the tour for her 1971-72 pregnancy, she obviously didn't play King. They didn't play each other in singles after 1973.

Your just being juvenile now. You were the one who lists their H2H from 65 onwards all the time, as though King's losses before then don't matter - despite the fact that King won their first Wimbledon clash in 62. Just shows that she was a force from then .. she even won the Wimbledon Doubles crown a few times in the very early 60s and made the singles final in 63. Of course she was a force before 65.

austinrunner
Oct 12th, 2011, 11:38 AM
A force like a Dinara Safina or Jelena Jankovic. Watch the name calling, OK?

alfajeffster
Oct 12th, 2011, 11:46 AM
I still want to see some of those 1973 VS indoor clashes like Nashville, Boston, Indianapolis and Chicago. Something tells me it was great tennis between Court and King. A shame that apparently no footage survived.

austinrunner
Oct 12th, 2011, 11:49 AM
Nashville was outdoors on clay. The stadium court still exists at Centennial Park Tennis Center.

chris whiteside
Oct 12th, 2011, 12:15 PM
Winning Wimbledon 3 times is not a record of futility. It is an astonishing achievement for anyone. Do you always see the glass as half full, or even empty?

I mentioned in my posts that Court experienced extenuating circumstances which in some way attributed to her not being a contender when she could have been in the latter half of her career eg. 3 years of retirements (67, 72 & 74), 2 sick Wimbledons (71 & 73) and 2 years trying to find form after being off for a year (68 & 75). Of course she wasn't going to have great success with the odds stacked against her.

I can only agree with you on the early losses, but none of those are surprising losses at all:

In 1966 I think Court said herself she had lost interest in the game to a large degree. What more can I say. Nothing? It speaks for itself.



What seems to be largely overlooked in 1966 is that Margaret injured her wrist during the South African Championships (Mar/Apr) affecting her serve and a contributory factor in her loss to BJK there.

She was then out of the game for 6 weeks missing the Federation Cup, returning for the French Champs with no match practice.

Nancy Richey was of course a great player and capable of beating Margaret on clay but the score 6-1 6-3 would indicate there were probably ubderkying factors at work.

She never recovered her true form until the German Champonships in August.

Raiden
Oct 12th, 2011, 09:52 PM
Wait a minute, Winning THREE is now liability against being a goat? Haha! I mean so far we have these laughable "arguments" against why Margaret is not a GOAT contender:

1) Court ≠ GOAT cuz she didn't win a minimum of 4 Wimbledons :bs:

2) Court ≠ GOAT cuz she didn't win a hard court slam :cuckoo:

3) Court ≠ GOAT cuz she hates women who lick pussy :ras:

4) Court ≠ GOAT cuz she won too much Australian :lol:

Now since some of us are objective, let's apply the same criteria against the other contenders, shall we? Navratilova has got how much French? Oh yea that's right: 2. LMAO!

And recently Serena despite the fact that she only has 1 slam) has nevertheless become a goat contender.

And to borrow an example from the ATP we've got Rod Laver who at 3 of the 4 majors got only three or two majors.

And last but not least we have Pete Sampras a.k.a. "monsieur zero clay slam"
In other words, get real guys: I don't buy this nonsense BS argument that Margaret Court's FRIGGIN THREE Wimbledons are somehow a liability against calling a tennis player a goat. They are not. But at the same time I myself am humble enough to not be presumptuous and disqualify myself from declaring anyone and therefore also Court as the undisputed GOAT, only because her playing days were before I started following tennis (kinda difficult to follow tennis when you aren't even born). However I am able and willing to look at the case for or against Margaret presented by others and examine it and see if they have any merit.

And so far none of them have any merit at all. I'm not in the least impressed by all that pathetic and laughable cherrypicking and "bean counting" of the number of victories based on some selective criteria that coincidentally never applies to others. Hello? Is there any single Court-critic out there that has any legitimacy and brings forth any credible case? Anyone out there that can present any equitable, unprejudiced unbiased arguments (i.e. anyone other than a devout fan of some other goat contender? Cuz let's face it: so far, all the Margaret critics are first and foremost other-player-stans, and therefore have shown that they have as much credibility as the mother of a criminal that has gone into hiding
.

alfajeffster
Oct 12th, 2011, 09:55 PM
What seems to be largely overlooked in 1966 is that Margaret injured her wrist during the South African Championships (Mar/Apr) affecting her serve and a contributory factor in her loss to BJK there.

She was then out of the game for 6 weeks missing the Federation Cup, returning for the French Champs with no match practice.

Nancy Richey was of course a great player and capable of beating Margaret on clay but the score 6-1 6-3 would indicate there were probably ubderkying factors at work.

She never recovered her true form until the German Champonships in August.

I did not know this, thanks. Court had the type of game that required hitting lots of balls to develop her consistent, attacking play. Though a baseliner, Ivan Lendl had this same problem- he needed lots of match play to sharpen his weapons, and wasn't one of those naturals (Goolagong, Edberg, McEnroe) who could just step out on court and play really spectacular tennis.

austinrunner
Oct 12th, 2011, 10:08 PM
Wait a minute, Winning THREE is now liability against being a goat? Haha! I mean so far we have these laughable "arguments" against why Margaret is not a GOAT contender:
You've been hanging out in General Discussion too long. You're projecting the juvenile / teenage crap that goes on there to this forum. No one in this thread has said that Mrs. Court is not among the best of all time. Understand?

Raiden
Oct 12th, 2011, 10:21 PM
I did not know this, thanks. Court had the type of game that required hitting lots of balls to develop her consistent, attacking play. Though a baseliner, Ivan Lendl had this same problem- he needed lots of match play to sharpen his weapons, and wasn't one of those naturals (Goolagong, Edberg, McEnroe) who could just step out on court and play really spectacular tennis.I think you are rushing to imaginary conclusions based on tendentious posts and posters with an agenda.

I suggest you delay your judgement and watch some of those grainy black and white/poor-colored old video clips. I was struck by Margaret's natural instinctive tennis and her ability to fluidly move around with ease despite her height. Keep that in mind. Kind of like Kvitova except one handed. I mean the girl was pirouetting and ripping 1HBHs while her head is facing not the opponent and the net but the back of the court!and scoring points!

That's Federer, not Lendl stuff, alfajeffster :lol:

Raiden
Oct 12th, 2011, 10:43 PM
You've been hanging out in General Discussion too long. You're projecting the juvenile / teenage crap that goes on there to this forum. No one in this thread has said that Mrs. Court is not among the best of all time. Understand?I concede my english is indeed a bit GM-ish (not my native tongue but I'll make more effort to do it in the hoity toity manner as is customary here) but I do understand what's written here. So in other words make no mistake about it, I do get the nuances and read between the lines and so yes there are some who do implicitly if not explicitly, claim that Court is not among the best of all time. And so I respond and talk straight, especially when setting the record straight

tennisvideos
Oct 12th, 2011, 11:32 PM
What seems to be largely overlooked in 1966 is that Margaret injured her wrist during the South African Championships (Mar/Apr) affecting her serve and a contributory factor in her loss to BJK there.

She was then out of the game for 6 weeks missing the Federation Cup, returning for the French Champs with no match practice.

Nancy Richey was of course a great player and capable of beating Margaret on clay but the score 6-1 6-3 would indicate there were probably ubderkying factors at work.

She never recovered her true form until the German Champonships in August.
Thanks Chris. I also had no idea about this, probably read about it but you tend to forget these things.

alfajeffster
Oct 13th, 2011, 01:07 AM
I think you are rushing to imaginary conclusions based on tendentious posts and posters with an agenda.

I suggest you delay your judgement and watch some of those grainy black and white/poor-colored old video clips. I was struck by Margaret's natural instinctive tennis and her ability to fluidly move around with ease despite her height. Keep that in mind. Kind of like Kvitova except one handed. I mean the girl was pirouetting and ripping 1HBHs while her head is facing not the opponent and the net but the back of the court!and scoring points!

That's Federer, not Lendl stuff, alfajeffster :lol:

I do happen to have a nice collection of Margaret in action from matches with Bueno, King, Goolagong, Casals, and Evert. I don't think it's a stretch to say her strokes and somewhat mechanical in comparison, but have always chalked this up to her being a natural lefty taught to play tennis right-handed. I've never questioned her movement- most of the greats I've had the privilege of speaking with (King, Wade) about Margaret cite her quickness and in Virginia's words "she was soooo competitive"! I like that. Chris Evert has gone on record more than once saying Margaret had a great backhand and the best overhead in the game. I don't have an agenda of any sort, but still maintain she needed matches to marshall her power and accuracy. It's not an imaginary conclusion, but one backed up with seeing video of her playing each of the above players. Her consistent attack and long arms made her tough for anyone to beat, but her game was one of power, not finesse. Billie Jean once said about Margaret's net play, "she doesn't have good hands". Again, imagine if she'd learned to play with her left arm.

alfajeffster
Oct 13th, 2011, 01:11 AM
P.S.- as far as imaginary offspring, can you imagine a Goolagong/Federer combination (given they were contemporaries)?

tennisvideos
Oct 13th, 2011, 09:12 AM
I do happen to have a nice collection of Margaret in action from matches with Bueno, King, Goolagong, Casals, and Evert. I don't think it's a stretch to say her strokes and somewhat mechanical in comparison, but have always chalked this up to her being a natural lefty taught to play tennis right-handed. I've never questioned her movement- most of the greats I've had the privilege of speaking with (King, Wade) about Margaret cite her quickness and in Virginia's words "she was soooo competitive"! I like that. Chris Evert has gone on record more than once saying Margaret had a great backhand and the best overhead in the game. I don't have an agenda of any sort, but still maintain she needed matches to marshall her power and accuracy. It's not an imaginary conclusion, but one backed up with seeing video of her playing each of the above players. Her consistent attack and long arms made her tough for anyone to beat, but her game was one of power, not finesse. Billie Jean once said about Margaret's net play, "she doesn't have good hands". Again, imagine if she'd learned to play with her left arm.

I think you summed up Court pretty well Alfa. And I agree with King, Court didn't have good hands or a touch. And like you, I attribute that to her being a natural lefty but taught to play right handed.

LOL about Ginny saying Court was soooo competitive. So was Ginny, she would get very worked up in the heat of play ... much more than Court ever did IMO. And the differences in grace and humility when they lost was one of polar opposites.

alfajeffster
Oct 13th, 2011, 12:08 PM
I think you summed up Court pretty well Alfa. And I agree with King, she didn't have good hands or a touch. And like you, I attribute that to her being a natural lefty but taught to play right handed.

LOL about Ginny saying Court was soooo competitive. So was Ginny, she would get very worked up in the heat of play ... much more than Court ever did IMO. And the differences in grace and humility when they lost was one of polar opposites.

:lol: I used to wait during a Virginia match for the point where she yelled "oh wretch!". She was definitely not as concerned with ladylike decorum as Court, but I chalk that up to her being a lesbian (NO! I didn't go there):tape: I still sometimes cringe watching video of Margaret hitting volleys. While King or Bueno (or Goolie for that matter) had beautiful hands up there and often-times hit biting angles, Margaret's generally came off her racquet deep, but with nothing on them- screaming to be hit for passing shots. I picture myself trying to volley with my left hand and totally understand. Most of the girls today volley as if they're afraid of the ball, and frequently back up to the service line or further after hitting the first volley, so give me Margaret's hands any day over a retreating, timid volleyer.

tennisvideos
Oct 13th, 2011, 02:24 PM
:lol: I used to wait during a Virginia match for the point where she yelled "oh wretch!". She was definitely not as concerned with ladylike decorum as Court, but I chalk that up to her being a lesbian (NO! I didn't go there):tape: I still sometimes cringe watching video of Margaret hitting volleys. While King or Bueno (or Goolie for that matter) had beautiful hands up there and often-times hit biting angles, Margaret's generally came off her racquet deep, but with nothing on them- screaming to be hit for passing shots. I picture myself trying to volley with my left hand and totally understand. Most of the girls today volley as if they're afraid of the ball, and frequently back up to the service line or further after hitting the first volley, so give me Margaret's hands any day over a retreating, timid volleyer.

Oh yes, I know what you mean. The glorious touch on the King, Navratilova, Bueno & Goolagong volleys were just sublime - and they could all produce delicate drop shots. Court had no such touch and it is interesting to watch. Of course, I too have tried to play left handed a number of times and yes, your game does become totally mechanical doesn't it. Little wonder she had to build up her strength to be able to play right handed so well.

As for Ginny - I adore that girl. Not only a great personality, who let it all out, but also very funny. Very tempestuous and fiery that is for sure. And that made me love her all the more. :lol: about the lesbian comment!

I do love a drama on court so I am attracted to the flamboyant personalities - hence my love of Frankie who was always swearing, screaming and hitting herself with her racket - as well as smashing them at times!

Jem
Oct 16th, 2011, 04:00 AM
Margaret Court was seeded #5 while Martina Navratilova was #3. The news media did not call that result an "upset."

I guess we'll have to disagree then. I clearly remember the highlights show from this match - they showed a lot of clips and there was genuine surprise that Navratilova won this, especially as convincingly as she did and on the heels of Court's win at Wimbledon.

Jem
Oct 16th, 2011, 04:11 AM
[quote=Jem;20246710]

A great post Jem but I tend disagree with this point. Australia was THE leading nation from the mid 50s until the early to mid 70s. We dominated the sport, especially the mens game ...what with players like Laver, Rosewall, Hoad, Newcombe, Emerson, Stolle, and a host of others. So the Aussie Open was not as weak a tournament as people make out. The entire 4 Slams were compromised on the mens side by the pro/amateur split prior to 68. So IMO few of them at all were relevant prior to that year and I think the results of the mens pro tour really defined greatness. But after 68 until the mid 70s the Aussie Open was chock a block full of the best players around (the Aussies). We also had the greatest depth in womens tennis around the world in the 60s and early 70s with Court, Turner, Tegart, Goolagong, Melville, Ebbern, Lehane and a host of others.



OK, tennisvideos, I'll amend my point to from 1976-1979. I've got no issues with the Australian at all and will agree with your points completely. A slam is slam is a slam in my mind, although, in general, I think too much is made of them. I guess it's my workhorse mentality! In fact, when I did my rankings in the 1970s, I weighed the Aussie and French equally with Wimbledon and the U.S. Open, even though fo many of those years, the first two did not have the same quality of fields. Nevertheless, I do think the Aussie suffered from 76-79 from lack of quality fields for both the men and women. Just look at the list of winners, and it seems clear to me. The top women simply did not deign to play it, because the prize money was so poor and they did not want to make the long trip. I remember even in the early 80s, the prize money was such that players contemplated making the trip because it could be a losing proposition financially And even most of the top men opted not to play -- did Connors ever go back after 75 or 76? Borg played it maybe once in his career. It doesn't diminish the tournament any in my mind, but it is what it is!

PS: Boy, did I lose track of this thread!

Jem
Oct 16th, 2011, 04:23 AM
As for the mens pre open tour - I give the pro tournament results Grand Slam status and NOT the regular Grand Slams. Definately. The best players of the pre-68 mens tour were the Pro players - by a long shot. Which means that Gonzales, Laver & Rosewall definately were the greats of the late 50s and 60s. And not players like Emerson etc.

I reckon Rosewall would have abput 20 slams, Laver about 16 and Gonzales close by. These guys deserve to be revered along with any of the pther male all time greats.

But that's another story and another site I guess. Still, I don't go to the mens site much so it's interesting to chat about here ...

Here, here! And well said.

tennisvideos
Oct 16th, 2011, 06:51 AM
[quote=tennisvideos;20248964]

OK, tennisvideos, I'll amend my point to from 1976-1979. I've got no issues with the Australian at all and will agree with your points completely. A slam is slam is a slam in my mind, although, in general, I think too much is made of them. I guess it's my workhorse mentality! In fact, when I did my rankings in the 1970s, I weighed the Aussie and French equally with Wimbledon and the U.S. Open, even though fo many of those years, the first two did not have the same quality of fields. Nevertheless, I do think the Aussie suffered from 76-79 from lack of quality fields for both the men and women. Just look at the list of winners, and it seems clear to me. The top women simply did not deign to play it, because the prize money was so poor and they did not want to make the long trip. I remember even in the early 80s, the prize money was such that players contemplated making the trip because it could be a losing proposition financially And even most of the top men opted not to play -- did Connors ever go back after 75 or 76? Borg played it maybe once in his career. It doesn't diminish the tournament any in my mind, but it is what it is!

PS: Boy, did I lose track of this thread!

Yes agree with you totally on those points Jem :)

austinrunner
Oct 16th, 2011, 08:38 AM
I clearly remember the highlights show from this match - they showed a lot of clips and there was genuine surprise that Navratilova won this, especially as convincingly as she did and on the heels of Court's win at Wimbledon.

I also saw that highlights show. And I remember them referring to Court as "aging" and I don't remember any "surprise" comments from the commentators. Also, none of the newspapers of the time referred to the match as an "upset."

alfajeffster
Oct 16th, 2011, 11:47 AM
...As for Ginny - I adore that girl. Not only a great personality, who let it all out, but also very funny. Very tempestuous and fiery that is for sure. And that made me love her all the more. :lol: about the lesbian comment!

I do love a drama on court so I am attracted to the flamboyant personalities - hence my love of Frankie who was always swearing, screaming and hitting herself with her racket - as well as smashing them at times!

I think I mentioned this a while ago in another thread, but in Virginia's 'Courting Triumph' she tells a short little Frankie Durr story and how she was one of the characters on tour that Virginia really laughed at, with, and respected that same temperament. As Billie Jean would say with mirth "the French is flying!" in reference to Frankie (or Nathalie Tauziat) berating herself.

tennisvideos
Oct 16th, 2011, 11:22 PM
I think I mentioned this a while ago in another thread, but in Virginia's 'Courting Triumph' she tells a short little Frankie Durr story and how she was one of the characters on tour that Virginia really laughed at, with, and respected that same temperament. As Billie Jean would say with mirth "the French is flying!" in reference to Frankie (or Nathalie Tauziat) berating herself.
LOL and sorry to be off topic but there is a classic 72 Wimbledon Womens Doubles match on video where Billie Jean is smashing her racket by the side of the court at one stage with Frankie giving her a roll of the eyes. Only to be followed up soon after with Frankie ranting and raving and belting a ball out of court and storming off the court in frustration with Judy looking perplexed and strolling over to King and Stove for a laugh. I will have to watch it again to see all the drama again as it is very funny. :lol:

alfajeffster
Oct 17th, 2011, 11:48 AM
LOL and sorry to be off topic but there is a classic 72 Wimbledon Womens Doubles match on video where Billie Jean is smashing her racket by the side of the court at one stage with Frankie giving her a roll of the eyes. Only to be followed up soon after with Frankie ranting and raving and belting a ball out of court and storming off the court in frustration with Judy looking perplexed and strolling over to King and Stove for a laugh. I will have to watch it again to see all the drama again as it is very funny. :lol:

I think it's okay, as Margaret seems to have liked Frankie as well. You must ask her and tell me what she says. I've only ever seen Frankie play once- doubles WTT (circa 1975-1977) in Philadelphia. Her partner was Virginia Wade, and they played BJK (not sure who her partner was). Unfortunately, I've never seen Margaret Court play as she was on the way out when I was just learning tennis.

tennisvideos
Oct 17th, 2011, 12:57 PM
I think it's okay, as Margaret seems to have liked Frankie as well. You must ask her and tell me what she says. I've only ever seen Frankie play once- doubles WTT (circa 1975-1977) in Philadelphia. Her partner was Virginia Wade, and they played BJK (not sure who her partner was). Unfortunately, I've never seen Margaret Court play as she was on the way out when I was just learning tennis.

Well I am sure Mags would approve as she did play doubles once with Frankie Durr - much to my glee! And they took King/Casals to 10-8 in the 3rd or something like that. :bounce:

I never got to see Court play live either unfortunately, but like you, have had the pleasure to meet her.

alfajeffster
Oct 18th, 2011, 12:05 AM
Well I am sure Mags would approve as she did play doubles once with Frankie Durr - much to my glee! And they took King/Casals to 10-8 in the 3rd or something like that. :bounce:

I never got to see Court play live either unfortunately, but like you, have had the pleasure to meet her.

She didn't have much time to chat, as she was on her way to a press conference about the naming of Margaret Court Arena, but she was cordial and found out I was from Pennsylvania. My American accent must have stuck out like a sore thumb! If I ever get the chance again, I have a lot more questions now-same with Virginia Wade, regrettably. King I've met on several occasions, and can say from personal experience that you never know what you're going to get with her. I remember asking her at a WTT regional about the majors, thinking I'd get some good info. Her response was simply "it's not about the Grand Slams for me". Talk about a deflated feeling.:lol: