PDA

View Full Version : Tennis Channel's 100 Greatest Of All Time....


laschutz
Mar 20th, 2012, 07:46 PM
HI EVERYONE! IS ANYONE (OR EVERYONE) WATCHING THIS SPECIAL.. STARTED YESTERDAY ON TENNIS CHANNEL WITH THE LIST OF #71 TO 100 GREATEST PLAYERS....

I THINK TODAY/TONIGHT ( TUESDAY, MARCH 20TH) WILL HAVE THE PLAYERS LISTED FROM 40/41 TO 70...

seemed kind of loaded with male players as opposed to women, or maybe that was just my perception i didn't actually count how many men vs women there were between 71 to 100...

not exactly pleased with jack nicklaus being the "host" of this.. i mean why him? they couldn't find a tennis historian/dignity that could host the list? and no i'm not talking bud collins, mary carillo, cliff drysdale or the usual cast of characters.. heck, i could listen to steve flink.. of course he's not a "name" like nicklaus and all time great ( perhaps the greatest) in his individual sport..

the criteria is kind of mystery too! i mean.. who is judging and made up this list? they haven't said! all they said are historians, former and current players, and so on.. but who really and how many?..

and is it based on actual talent and play as well as titles and longevity or what.. i mean, they (the commentator voice over person) says it's both... but to what percentage is given to what? everything equal?

ann haydon jones at #99 started the women' list.. included in the list from 71 to 100 were shirly fry irvin ( good for her), pauline betz, sharapova, kutznetsova (?), mauresmo (?) and a few others...

of course this whole list and show will be a HUGE WELLSPRING OF DEBATE HEATED DEBATE I MIGHT ADD! perhaps this show should have just listed the top players the top 100 of all time in alphabetical order instead of actually TRYING to list them in order based on who was greater than the other..

it's impossible to do that as well on this board all know and kind of silly to try!...

i'm guessing the top women ( in no order) will be graf, navratilova, evert, court, king, serena williams, maureen connolly and who else? lenglen, wills, venus,seles?....

Rollo
Mar 21st, 2012, 05:28 AM
We will have to see the whole list before we get a full picture-but based on what I've seen so far it's as "bad" a list as I feared.

Once example: I love and adore Virginia Wade. but there's no way, and I mean NO way, she should be ranked above Louise Brough, for example. And ranking a man in the open era (Chang or Roddick) who has won 1 slam as 1 of the 50- greatest men of all time is just laughable.

Faults aside, at least it will bring some light to forgotten greats. And I've learned some neat info-such as Hana Mandlikova's mother dated Martina Navratilova's father, and that Maria Bueno's English sounds like it has little or no accent!

Rollo
Mar 21st, 2012, 05:39 AM
Here's the list so far

100 – Michael Chang, USA
99 – Ann Haydon Jones, GBR
98 – Henry Bunny Austin, GBR
97 – Pat Cash, AUS
96 – Manuel Orantes, ESP
95 – Thomas Muster, AUT
94 – Andy Roddick, USA
93 – Nicola Pietrangeli, ITA
92 – Svetlana Kuznetsova, RUS
91 – Shirley Fry Irvin, USA
90 – Bill Johnston, USA
89 – Dorothea Lambert Chambers, GBR
88 – Amelie Mauresmo, FRA
87 – Mary Pierce, FRA
86 – Tony Wilding, NZL
85 – Yannick Noah, FRA
84 – Norman Brookes, AUS
83 – Jan Kodes, CZE
82 – Yevgeny Kafelnikov, RUS
81 – Vic Seixas, USA
80 – Marat Safin, RUS
79 – Gabriela Sabatini, ARG
78 – Ashley Cooper, AUS
77 – Molla Mallory, USA
76 – William Renshaw, GBR
75 – Pauline Betz Addie, USA
74 – Tony Roche, AUS
73 – Jaroslav Drobny, CZE
72 – Gottfried Von Cramm, GER
71 – Maria Sharapova, RUS
70 - Patrick Rafter, AUS
69 - Louise Brough Clapp, USA
68 - Helen Hull Jacobs, USA
67 - Fred Stolle, AUS
66 - Bobby Riggs, USA
65 - Pancho Segura, ECU
64 - Ellsworth Vines, USA
63 - Lleyton Hewitt, AUS
62 - Hana Mandlikova, CZE
61 - Neale Fraser, AUS
60 - Virginia Wade, GBR
59 - Margaret Osborne DuPort, USA
58 - Alice Marble, USA
57 - Jennifer Capriati, USA
56 - Stan Smith, USA
55 - Gustavo Kuerten, BRA
54 - Manolo Santana, ESP
53 - Tracy Austin, USA
52 - Jack Crawford, AUS
51 - Doris Hart, USA
50 - Tony Trabert, USA
49 - Ilie Nastase, ROU
48 - Frank Sedgman, AUS
47 - Jean Borotra, FRA
46 - Henri Cochet, FRA
45 - Kim Clijsters, BEL
44 - Arantxa Sanchez-Vicario, ESP
43 - Lindsay Davenport, USA
42 - Jim Courier, USA
41 - Guillermo Vilas, ARG
40-Novak Djokovic-SER
39-Althea Gibson-USA
38-Maria Bueno-BRZ
37-Evonne Goolagong-AUS
36-Rene Lacoste-FRN
35-Pancho Gonzalez-USA
34-Jack Kramer-USA
33-Mats Wilander-SWD
32-Lew Hoad-AUS
31-John Newcombe-AUS
30-Martina Hings-SWT
29-Helen Wills Moody-USA
28-Arthur Ashe-USA
27-Maureen Connolly-USA
26-Justine Henin-BEL
25-Stefan Edberg-SWD
24-Suzanne Lenglen-FRN
23-Fred Pery-GB
22-Venus Williams-USA
21-Boris Becker-GER

alfajeffster
Mar 21st, 2012, 02:42 PM
I decided not to watch it at all, because it would just frustrate and cause me to start talking- no, screaming at the TV. There is no way to effectively compare champions who were not contemporaries across the net. It's just not possible. Accepting the fantasy that there could be such a comparison, there's no way it could ever be anything but biased toward "open era" and current players. After all, how many pre "open era" players actually have footage of them in action for anyone to evaluate, let alone the equipment & differences in rules, surface, etc. Tennis Channel, and the tennis community would be better served by calling it 100 Most Popular Tennis Stars of all time. At least that is somewhat quantifiable. Not every woman in tennis' history had the opportunity to parade around in the MOST hideous dress on Dancing With the Stars. I will say, I did enjoy the lesbian hatred seething underneath Martina's face when the one judge suggested (not in theses words) that she actually looked pretty with her makeup and hair done! Hey, there are a few ideas for TC right there- "Real Bitches of the WTA" or "Real Bulldykes of the WTA Locker Room". Shows like that would fill the seats!:lol:

daze11
Mar 21st, 2012, 04:34 PM
Not every woman in tennis' history had the opportunity to parade around in the MOST hideous dress on Dancing With the Stars. I will say, I did enjoy the lesbian hatred seething underneath Martina's face when the one judge suggested (not in theses words) that she actually looked pretty with her makeup and hair done! i sadly did not see the episode because i had a 'previous engagement' shall we say.... BUT that sounds hilariously funny, and wish i had seen it. I do think it takes guts to be a 'legend' for your movement, and then expose yourself to this kind of an environment, and where a totally different sense of movement is prized.

I decided not to watch it at all, because it would just frustrate and cause me to start talking- no, screaming at the TV. There is no way to effectively compare champions who were not contemporaries across the net. It's just not possible. Accepting the fantasy that there could be such a comparison, there's no way it could ever be anything but biased toward "open era" and current players. On this main topic, let's be clear.... especially as we are 'old guard' enough to know these things... NOTHING is done to QUANTIFY the past. They dont even bother cleaning up the WTA official records to provide the REAL FULL RESULTS of the 'open era' period, much less before that. Chris Evert & Martina Navratilova will both end up in the Top Dozen of this list...and THEIR RESULTS & RECORD is not even correctly tabulated by the governing bodies of tennis! So this point should be VERY CLEAR to all. It is NOT about understanding or even evaluating the realities of our sport's history.

It is a channel (or a paper or magazine or news program or store chain, etc) trying to create hype ~and people talking in disagreement is big fuel for the hype monster~ so that people TUNE IN and they get RATINGS that lead to ADVERTISERS. Things are done for numbers not for realities.

So when we know WHY something is done, we can better understand what factors determine what we see, how it is laid out, and hopefully, to have a sense of humor about it. Because it's all just noise, and at the least, helps young people to hear names from the past... and maybe see that what is "now" is not the all-time best just because they know the names. ;) NOT THAT THEY CARE, as all that gets thrown under the ageless label of "OLD"...

We who seek truth...must acknowledge that Capitalism has no interest in us. How many aspects of our realities have been perverted into a sideshow of illusion & temples of transience, with the only goal to just keep the dollar moving? Yes, from elementary school all the way up the chain... a terrible passing shot up the line to befuddle us all with triviality!!! :lol:

laschutz
Mar 21st, 2012, 10:41 PM
good post daze11! of course your right.. it seems like a 'waste of time" i mean, yeah, your (the tennis channel) is going to get people watching, increasing viewership for a short time and hence advertisers.. but it only the tennis fans that watch the tennis channel in the first place! i mean it's not this "special" is being shown on primetime network tv or even primetime espn...

some of the picks: osborne dupont higher than her doubles partner louise brough?

virginia wade higher than ann jones (way higher i might add)

and once again,like i posted when i started this topic thread WE THE VIEWER HAVE NO IDEA WHO IS JUDGING THIS AND HOW MUCH EACH CRITERIA AND FACTOR WERE GIVEN? was it all equal? talent, head to head, major wins, reputation, etcetera, etcetera.. usually at least when these silly shows of the greatest of all time is done in every sport they at least tell the viewer who the panel is and what not! and we know EXACTLY WHAT PERCENTAGE was given to each criteria... here all we get are former players and current players with their little 10 second spiel on whoever!

they should have just left it at 100 greatest players of all time! AND IN NO ORDER OR PREFERENCE! HECK, DO IT ALPHABETICALLY I SAY! by the way will it be 50 men and 50 women even? yes, i'll keep on watching only because like everyone else i'm a HUGE TENNIS HISTORY BUFF! and i like seeing old clips of the greats ( especially liked the alice marble and pauline betz and louise brough clips)..

would have been great if former and current players actually BOYCOTTED THIS SPECIAL knowing themselves it's silly and impossible and pointless to have such a list, much less make a '3 to 5 night special" on it!

gabybackhand
Mar 21st, 2012, 11:39 PM
i sadly did not see the episode because i had a 'previous engagement' shall we say.... BUT that sounds hilariously funny, and wish i had seen it. I do think it takes guts to be a 'legend' for your movement, and then expose yourself to this kind of an environment, and where a totally different sense of movement is prized.

On this main topic, let's be clear.... especially as we are 'old guard' enough to know these things... NOTHING is done to QUANTIFY the past. They dont even bother cleaning up the WTA official records to provide the REAL FULL RESULTS of the 'open era' period, much less before that. Chris Evert & Martina Navratilova will both end up in the Top Dozen of this list...and THEIR RESULTS & RECORD is not even correctly tabulated by the governing bodies of tennis! So this point should be VERY CLEAR to all. It is NOT about understanding or even evaluating the realities of our sport's history.

It is a channel (or a paper or magazine or news program or store chain, etc) trying to create hype ~and people talking in disagreement is big fuel for the hype monster~ so that people TUNE IN and they get RATINGS that lead to ADVERTISERS. Things are done for numbers not for realities.

So when we know WHY something is done, we can better understand what factors determine what we see, how it is laid out, and hopefully, to have a sense of humor about it. Because it's all just noise, and at the least, helps young people to hear names from the past... and maybe see that what is "now" is not the all-time best just because they know the names. ;) NOT THAT THEY CARE, as all that gets thrown under the ageless label of "OLD"...

We who seek truth...must acknowledge that Capitalism has no interest in us. How many aspects of our realities have been perverted into a sideshow of illusion & temples of transience, with the only goal to just keep the dollar moving? Yes, from elementary school all the way up the chain... a terrible passing shot up the line to befuddle us all with triviality!!! :lol:
Daze, spot on! And Alfa and the dykes :lol: that would be smth to watch!
All this capitalism stuff made me think how ugley the world can get when the marketing experts take over; and how everything is done to get money in the pockets no matter how, sad really. That explains how people as vulgar as the Kardashians can be so successful... sigh

daze11
Mar 22nd, 2012, 12:26 AM
good post daze11! of course your right.. it seems like a 'waste of time" i mean, yeah, your (the tennis channel) is going to get people watching, increasing viewership for a short time and hence advertisers.. but it only the tennis fans that watch the tennis channel in the first place! i mean it's not this "special" is being shown on primetime network tv or even primetime espn...yes & tennis channel is competing against all the other networks for those advertising dollars, so they need to prove viewership. And interest in tennis is way down in the US, where the channel is located & advertisers come from.

It's not about who the audience is... it's "IS ANYBODY watching". And thats why it wont be shown as 'top 100' by alphabet or discuss the evaluation process - they want to rile people up, keep people guessing, and to have the suspense of "WHO" will be #1 & who ahead of who(m)... "enquiring minds want to know!" ;)

but hey, keep watching ~ It still should be entertaining programming & I want the tennis channel to stay as long as they can make it.

thrust
Mar 22nd, 2012, 01:39 AM
Men and women should not be ranked together. Perhaps, 50 to men and 50 top women?

laschutz
Mar 22nd, 2012, 07:46 PM
i hate that i can't help watching this silly special! lol! it's like a drug to a tennis history buff like myself! guess since i've watched it this long i might as well watch it until the end.. although all the points i made are becoming more and more obvious each night..

arthur ashe at number #28?!! i wouldn't have put even put him in the top 100! yeah, ashe over kramer, perry, gonzales and a bunch of other is laughable if not just wrong... the players SHOULD ONLY BE BASED on their talent and their achievements ON THE COURT! for this ranking i don't care what he did off the court!

where are they going to place althea gibson then? the fact that she is now going to be in the top 20 is laughable too.. ahead of connolly? who whipped her easily every time they played and would have continue to do so if connolly hadn't retired at such a young age.. even connolly's achievements far outweigh gibsons... 9 grand slam titles, the grand slam, etcetera.. heck, gibson was lucky she won her 2 wimbys and her 2 u.s opens in 57 and 58 in the first place since she faced very week competition.. either a has been brough or never were's like mortimer and hard!...

if the objective of this show was to rile up true tennis history buffs whether amateur or pro historians, then with this viewer they have reached their goal..

this show even made mistakes.. last night when they listed helen wills (who by the way with lenglen i thought would have ranked higher) the voiceover guy made mention of their one match against each other and how it went to lenglen 8-6in the third?! EVERY TENNIS history buff KNOWS THAT it was 8-6 in the second set, the score being 6-3, 8-6! was this a mistake the voiceover guy made in recording or was it wrong when he read it! either way a gross mistake to a true tennis history buff... and a mistake that should not have gone unnoticed when this special aired last night!

this show is becoming ridiculous and a "hack job" but yes, i have to keep on watching it just for the old clips of former greats!

alfajeffster
Mar 23rd, 2012, 08:36 AM
i hate that i can't help watching this silly special! lol! it's like a drug to a tennis history buff like myself! guess since i've watched it this long i might as well watch it until the end.. although all the points i made are becoming more and more obvious each night..

arthur ashe at number #28?!! i wouldn't have put even put him in the top 100! yeah, ashe over kramer, perry, gonzales and a bunch of other is laughable if not just wrong... the players SHOULD ONLY BE BASED on their talent and their achievements ON THE COURT! for this ranking i don't care what he did off the court!

where are they going to place althea gibson then? the fact that she is now going to be in the top 20 is laughable too.. ahead of connolly? who whipped her easily every time they played and would have continue to do so if connolly hadn't retired at such a young age.. even connolly's achievements far outweigh gibsons... 9 grand slam titles, the grand slam, etcetera.. heck, gibson was lucky she won her 2 wimbys and her 2 u.s opens in 57 and 58 in the first place since she faced very week competition.. either a has been brough or never were's like mortimer and hard!...

if the objective of this show was to rile up true tennis history buffs whether amateur or pro historians, then with this viewer they have reached their goal..

this show even made mistakes.. last night when they listed helen wills (who by the way with lenglen i thought would have ranked higher) the voiceover guy made mention of their one match against each other and how it went to lenglen 8-6in the third?! EVERY TENNIS history buff KNOWS THAT it was 8-6 in the second set, the score being 6-3, 8-6! was this a mistake the voiceover guy made in recording or was it wrong when he read it! either way a gross mistake to a true tennis history buff... and a mistake that should not have gone unnoticed when this special aired last night!

this show is becoming ridiculous and a "hack job" but yes, i have to keep on watching it just for the old clips of former greats!

What? You're not watching and waiting for Patrick (I love Andy) McEnroe call the Aussie great Margaret Court Smith, and then hand the mike over to Tracy who will chirp the old BJKing adage "yeah, but 11 of those majors came in Australia when nobody else played". It's coming, once they get to the top ten and rank Margaret ridiculously low. I still can't watch it, and won't.

Sam L
Mar 23rd, 2012, 11:00 AM
Men and women should not be ranked together. Perhaps, 50 to men and 50 top women?
You know, you can still get a list of top 50 women from this list.

laschutz
Mar 23rd, 2012, 03:24 PM
well, we're done to the final 10.. obviously the last 10 will include: evert, graf, navratilova, court and king, sampras, federer,laver, borg, nadal.. in what order who knows and at this point, who cares! laugh!

like i said whose voting on this? what's the criteria? is all criteria given the same weight? etcetera, etcetera, etcetera....

every night so far i have a gripe! laugh! i for one would never put agassi over mcenroe or connors?

borg will be over mcenroe then too?

serena is lower than king although she passed billie jean in grand slam single titles, but then again king obviously had waaay more grand slam titles in doubles and mixed doubles, not to mentioned incredible longevity... so i'm okay with billie jean being ranked higher than serena.

the one thing i DO FIND INTERESTING is finding out the head to head records and even that makes me think.. laver couldn't beat lew hoad! for instance.

daze11
Mar 23rd, 2012, 04:17 PM
well, we're done to the final 10.. obviously the last 10 will include: evert, graf, navratilova, court and king, sampras, federer,laver, borg, nadal.. in what order who knows and at this point, who cares! laugh!

like i said whose voting on this? what's the criteria? is all criteria given the same weight? etcetera, etcetera, etcetera....

every night so far i have a gripe! laugh! i for one would never put agassi over mcenroe or connors?

borg will be over mcenroe then too?

serena is lower than king although she passed billie jean in grand slam single titles, but then again king obviously had waaay more grand slam titles in doubles and mixed doubles, not to mentioned incredible longevity... so i'm okay with billie jean being ranked higher than serena.

the one thing i DO FIND INTERESTING is finding out the head to head records and even that makes me think.. laver couldn't beat lew hoad! for instance.
Borg IS over McEnroe... he is one of the only real "legends" the game has ever known... so that can't be too surprising. I don't think McEnroe would disagree with that assessment.

But what IS surprising is I had never seen the 1992 french final between Seles & Graf!!!! :lol: I really enjoyed that match... so now I can say, I HAVE PARTICIPATED in the hype of the '100 Greatest' programming on the Tennis Channel... and found it beneficial!!! :) But I havent watched the list portion....

AjdeNate!
Mar 23rd, 2012, 04:50 PM
Monica at 19 is bullshit.

Rollo
Mar 23rd, 2012, 05:13 PM
But what IS surprising is I had never seen the 1992 french final between Seles & Graf!!!! :lol: I

Me too!

Spectacular game at 3-5 in the third with Steffi saving 4 match points by hitting hard. As Carillo once said, "She goes down with her boots on"-LOL.

And oh how tired looking did Monica look in the last few games. Like she often did though she painted lines herself and emerged victorious. Watching thid I was reminded about how fast and clever Monica was in some regards-she had NO net game to sepak of but mixed in moonballs and angles with her hard hitting. Along with the 1995 final this ranks as the best match in their rivalry.

Rollo
Mar 23rd, 2012, 05:22 PM
And Maria Bueno over Goolagong? C'mon-Evonne was #1 for 1 year, 1971-and Billie Jean might argue over that one.

Then there's Hingis at 5 slams next to Heln Wills-who had 19:fiery:

daze11
Mar 23rd, 2012, 05:38 PM
Me too!

Spectacular game at 3-5 in the third with Steffi saving 4 match points by hitting hard. As Carillo once said, "She goes down with her boots on"-LOL.

And oh how tired looking did Monica look in the last few games. Like she often did though she painted lines herself and emerged victorious. Watching thid I was reminded about how fast and clever Monica was in some regards-she had NO net game to sepak of but mixed in moonballs and angles with her hard hitting. Along with the 1995 final this ranks as the best match in their rivalry.
They really were like 2 attack dogs... I absolutely see them as that generation's Evert/Austin... Evert/Austin represented a war of the qualities of THEIR era (and in some ways, cut equally short), requiring great patience and steadfastness and strategy, mirroring each other. Graf/Seles were less mirrors in backcourt structure, but WERE mirrors in backcourt style, ie pummeling aggression, the qualities of the new era.

And there was a great balance in dynamics, where both had considerable fire-power with achilles heels that the RIGHT opponent could exploit. Seles' achilles heel was the movement due to the need for wrapping 2 hands around the racket on both sides, she found equal achilles heel to attack in the Graf slice backhand, which indeed determined the match point.

On the run, she couldnt put enough on the ball aggressively to make that backhand slice sting; and Monica was quite something with those laser-bullet strokes to keep Graf running just enough to stop her from using the backhand as an attack shot the way she often could.

gabybackhand
Mar 23rd, 2012, 06:56 PM
Me too!

Spectacular game at 3-5 in the third with Steffi saving 4 match points by hitting hard. As Carillo once said, "She goes down with her boots on"-LOL.

And oh how tired looking did Monica look in the last few games. Like she often did though she painted lines herself and emerged victorious. Watching thid I was reminded about how fast and clever Monica was in some regards-she had NO net game to sepak of but mixed in moonballs and angles with her hard hitting. Along with the 1995 final this ranks as the best match in their rivalry.
Great stuff in that match, and I remember the Carillo comment, it was interesting. I don't think the 1995 match was one of the two best matches between them though, Mónica was too behind fitness-wise by that time, I think the 1989 FO semi was incredible, especially set 2 AND 3, and the 1993 Aussie final was no dull match either.

gabybackhand
Mar 23rd, 2012, 07:06 PM
They really were like 2 attack dogs... I absolutely see them as that generation's Evert/Austin... Evert/Austin represented a war of the qualities of THEIR era (and in some ways, cut equally short), requiring great patience and steadfastness and strategy, mirroring each other. Graf/Seles were less mirrors in backcourt structure, but WERE mirrors in backcourt style, ie pummeling aggression, the qualities of the new era.

And there was a great balance in dynamics, where both had considerable fire-power with achilles heels that the RIGHT opponent could exploit. Seles' achilles heel was the movement due to the need for wrapping 2 hands around the racket on both sides, she found equal achilles heel to attack in the Graf slice backhand, which indeed determined the match point.

On the run, she couldnt put enough on the ball aggressively to make that backhand slice sting; and Monica was quite something with those laser-bullet strokes to keep Graf running just enough to stop her from using the backhand as an attack shot the way she often could.
I agree with most of this, I just want to add that, even if Mónica could force Steffi's shots with her own power and make Graf feel more uncomfortable on court that usual, I think Graf got kind of stuck mentally too frequently when playing Seles, sometimes attaching to wrong tactics or getting too stubborn in her shots, like trying to prove her power couldn't be surpassed or smth, it's not so apparente maybe or it's just an idea of me, but I do believe she used to play unwisely in some moments during her matches against Monica.

daze11
Mar 23rd, 2012, 07:41 PM
I think Graf got kind of stuck mentally too frequently when playing Seles, sometimes attaching to wrong tactics or getting too stubborn in her shots...but I do believe she used to play unwisely in some moments during her matches against Monica.funny you should say that, as i feel exactly the same about chris playing steffi in '86/'87... further proof that fear closes you down to see fewer options and stops you from fully believing in yourself from your core the same you would against a different opponent on the same day... that said, the fear or doubt one player can instill into another's head (see rafa/fed) is absolutely part of the sport.

nelslus
Mar 23rd, 2012, 10:31 PM
My man John just reminded me, gee, I wonder what your other tennis group is saying about the Tennis Channel countdown.

LOL, let's face it- we were all doomed to get our Gussie Moran panties in a bunch about all of this. I say, seriously- who cares? I'm not wasting one second worrying about all of this. I'm fine with all the live tennis Tennis Channel brings- and that's all that matters to me concerning Tennis Channel. I mean, of COURSE the likes of Wills Moody and Lenglen were going to get shafted. Not to mention of course that our Nancy Richey didn't make the list- because of course Michael Chang's legacy is so much greater. :rolleyes: Those of us who truly know our tennis history do know better. We know the records, we know how great these players from the past were. Clearly, popularity, perceived cultural influence and currency were factors in their choices. (I WILL add to be fair btw that I'm pretty good with who's in their Top 10. AND no doubt I will disagree with the order.)

Sam L
Mar 24th, 2012, 12:21 AM
Me too!

Spectacular game at 3-5 in the third with Steffi saving 4 match points by hitting hard. As Carillo once said, "She goes down with her boots on"-LOL.

And oh how tired looking did Monica look in the last few games. Like she often did though she painted lines herself and emerged victorious. Watching thid I was reminded about how fast and clever Monica was in some regards-she had NO net game to sepak of but mixed in moonballs and angles with her hard hitting. Along with the 1995 final this ranks as the best match in their rivalry.

Actually, technically speaking the '93 AO final was their best match. As far as shot making goes, it had everything.

alfajeffster
Mar 24th, 2012, 04:40 PM
Me too!

Spectacular game at 3-5 in the third with Steffi saving 4 match points by hitting hard. As Carillo once said, "She goes down with her boots on"-LOL.

And oh how tired looking did Monica look in the last few games. Like she often did though she painted lines herself and emerged victorious. Watching thid I was reminded about how fast and clever Monica was in some regards-she had NO net game to sepak of but mixed in moonballs and angles with her hard hitting. Along with the 1995 final this ranks as the best match in their rivalry.

I can't watch that match, and I'm not usually that way about matches. Both players played off and on tennis, trading momentum so many times in the first two sets, but Graf had a big chance to come back and grab that third set, but (forgive me here) displayed an ugly example of how a stubborned German German attitude can get to even the best Krauts on a big occasion. Boris Becker was much more famous for this. Steffi stuck with running outside the ad court doubles alley time and time again, trying to hit that forehand down the line. She missed so many of them (including match point), and as Bud Collins pointed out, had so many opportunities screaming at her to come to the net and finish the point- Oh, I can't stand it to this day!

gabybackhand
Mar 24th, 2012, 06:52 PM
That's why I said that Steffi could get unwisely stubborn sometimes against Mónica, as Daze also mentioned. Yet there's credit to Seles for having the tools to get Graf to that state of mind as probably no other could to that extent, yet Steffi got into "bubbles" like this to a lesser degree with other players, as you could see in the famous 11th game IIRC of 1995 Wimbledon final, when she kept coming in with a down-the-line forehand from the BH doubles alley and I wanted to YELL at her:"Arantxa is going cross-court!!! (on her passing-shot)"... oh, those were the times...

alfajeffster
Mar 24th, 2012, 09:35 PM
That's why I said that Steffi could get unwisely stubborn sometimes against Mónica, as Daze also mentioned. Yet there's credit to Seles for having the tools to get Graf to that state of mind as probably no other could to that extent, yet Steffi got into "bubbles" like this to a lesser degree with other players, as you could see in the famous 11th game IIRC of 1995 Wimbledon final, when she kept coming in with a down-the-line forehand from the BH doubles alley and I wanted to YELL at her:"Arantxa is going cross-court!!! (on her passing-shot)"... oh, those were the times...

I never liked that match-up. Even if Graf destroyed Sanchez Vicario, the style of play Arantxa used (loopy backboard pusher fishing for an error) drove me crazy. That, coupled with all the line-call questioning and finger pointing gesturing balls out was very annoying. Steffi never did adjust her game much at all for any opponent. In fact, it can be said her greatest opponent throughout her career was herself, which is why she was rarely smiling or looking happy on court- she knew what she was capable of, and I'd imagine that could be torture at times.

Pat Bateman
Mar 25th, 2012, 02:47 AM
We will have to see the whole list before we get a full picture-but based on what I've seen so far it's as "bad" a list as I feared.

Once example: I love and adore Virginia Wade. but there's no way, and I mean NO way, she should be ranked above Louise Brough, for example. And ranking a man in the open era (Chang or Roddick) who has won 1 slam as 1 of the 50- greatest men of all time is just laughable.

Faults aside, at least it will bring some light to forgotten greats. And I've learned some neat info-such as Hana Mandlikova's mother dated Martina Navratilova's father, and that Maria Bueno's English sounds like it has little or no accent!

WTF? Where did this come from? If true, it would explain a lot, I guess. But are we talking about Martina's stepfather or her natural father (who was reputed to be a very emotional, highly-strung ladies man...yes, sounds like somebody we know, doesn't it ;))

Rollo
Mar 25th, 2012, 05:11 AM
WTF? Where did this come from? If true, it would explain a lot, I guess. But are we talking about Martina's stepfather or her natural father (who was reputed to be a very emotional, highly-strung ladies man...yes, sounds like somebody we know, doesn't it ;))

LOL-that was my reaction too Pat!

It came straight from Martina's lips in the segment on Mandlikova. She didn't specify.

Even stranger (to me anyway) was the Evert-Connors connection. Jimmy Evert and Gloria Connors breifly dated each other before going thier separate ways. And of course Jimmy and Chris-well.....

LDVTennis
Mar 26th, 2012, 04:56 PM
I never liked that match-up. Even if Graf destroyed Sanchez Vicario, the style of play Arantxa used (loopy backboard pusher fishing for an error) drove me crazy. That, coupled with all the line-call questioning and finger pointing gesturing balls out was very annoying. Steffi never did adjust her game much at all for any opponent. In fact, it can be said her greatest opponent throughout her career was herself, which is why she was rarely smiling or looking happy on court- she knew what she was capable of, and I'd imagine that could be torture at times.

On clay, ASV forced Steffi to be creative to win points. Between the surface and ASV, it was just too tough to win most points with forehands. I still consider their 1996 French Final the best women's match ever.

As to the subject at hand, has everyone here abandoned this thread because Steffi was named the GOAT? :lol: Overall, Steffi made the Top 3 of all time, man or woman, with only Laver and Federer ahead of her. So, I guess the question should now be, Is Steffi greater than Laver and/or Federer?

BTW, in Steffi's segment on the show, it was nice to hear Lindsay Davenport say that Steffi was the most amazing mover on the court. From her footwork to her speed, Lindsay said Steffi just flowed gracefully into her shots. I always had this suspicion that Lindsay didn't like Steffi. But that was quite a compliment.

alfajeffster
Mar 26th, 2012, 06:03 PM
On clay, ASV forced Steffi to be creative to win points. Between the surface and ASV, it was just too tough to win most points with forehands. I still consider their 1996 French Final the best women's match ever.

As to the subject at hand, has everyone here abandoned this thread because Steffi was named the GOAT? :lol: Overall, Steffi made the Top 3 of all time, man or woman, with only Laver and Federer ahead of her. So, I guess the question should now be, Is Steffi greater than Laver and/or Federer?

BTW, in Steffi's segment on the show, it was nice to hear Lindsay Davenport say that Steffi was the most amazing mover on the court. From her footwork to her speed, Lindsay said Steffi just flowed gracefully into her shots. I always had this suspicion that Lindsay didn't like Steffi. But that was quite a compliment.

Nice to see you back, LDV. Believe it or not, I've missed your posts. I for one was surprised she was ranked at #3, because there still are people out there weeping for Monica as if Graf's incredible career is tarnished and anything post-1993 shouldn't be considered legitimate. I won't go there again, but it was great just seeing her move again. It was striking, actually, because I've been watching quite a bit of women's tennis this year, and to be reminded how effortlessly Steffi flew about the court and juxtapose it against Azarenka, Sharapova or anything out there today is a stark contrast, to say the least. Oh, and if you haven't seen it, I recommend the trophy presentation from the Advanta Philadelphia 1998 tournament, which I believe was Steffi's last win over Davenport. It was a hard-fought 3-setter which Graf pulled off relying on that movement, and when the Advanta CEO (name escapes me) is giving the trophy to Steffi, he remarks about her being the greatest champion and how he looks forward to her coming back the next year to win again. You need to see the daggers in the background coming from Lindsay's eyes- it's very funny!

daze11
Mar 26th, 2012, 06:41 PM
As to the subject at hand, has everyone here abandoned this thread because Steffi was named the GOAT? :lol: Overall, Steffi made the Top 3 of all time, man or woman, with only Laver and Federer ahead of her. I think it may have been abandoned when Nadal was put ahead of Borg. :lol:

Steve Flink sensibly kept him out of the top 10 all together, as well as BJK:

Federer at No. 1, Graf at No. 2, Sampras at No. 3, Laver at No. 4, and Navratilova at No. 5, Evert at No. 6, Jack Kramer at No. 7, Helen Wills Moody Roark at No. 8, Bill Tilden at No. 9, and Court at No. 10.

alfajeffster
Mar 26th, 2012, 08:44 PM
I didn't really want to go here, but for Margaret Court's achievements to be so completely ignored speaks volumes for just how unpopular she is to this day. What was I expecting, a 200+ number of tournament titles listing, dropping Navratilova's "open era" stat down on the real list?

daze11
Mar 26th, 2012, 09:20 PM
As stated at the start, on seeing Nadal at 6 & both Williams sisters in the top 20 alone confirms for all that the list is a marketing gimmick to promote watching today's game (preferably while tuned to The Tennis Channel TM) because, well, these players today, they're the best EVER aren't they? :lol:

DON'T YOU FRET ALFAJEFFSTER!!!! :cat:

(Steve did point out what a popularity contest this was, with Ashe ranked @ #28... "I was one of his most ardent admirers, and I watched many Ashe matches at both Wimbledon and the U.S. Open as a young reporter in the making. He was a great tennis player, and an even more impressive man. But how he ended up ahead of Kramer, Gonzales, Lew Hoad (No. 32), John Newcombe (No. 31) and Tony Trabert (No. 50) is beyond me.")

samn
Mar 26th, 2012, 09:28 PM
I don't agree with a lot of the final rankings and find the order somewhat random, but someone suggested that it was ludicrous ranking Nadal ahead of Borg, and I'd have to say that isn't as clear cut between them. Borg won 11 Grand Slams and Nadal has 10 so far. Granted, the Australian Open was a piddly Tier 3 event in Borg's heyday, but the fact remains that he never won the US Open, which was arguably the second biggest tournament in the 70s behind Wimbledon, whereas Nadal is one of a select group of players who have won every one of the biggest events in the sport. Also, I believe that Federer has been rather overrated in being anointed the greatest player of all time. I mean, if one ranks Federer as the greatest of all time, and Nadal doesn't even make the Top 10, what does it say about the sport that its so-called greatest of all time has a significant losing record against his top rival?

Nadal v. Federer
Overall: Nadal leads 18-10
Grand Slams: Nadal leads 8-2
Grand Slam finals: Nadal leads 6-2
All finals: Nadal leads 13-6

Clay: Nadal leads 12-2
Indoor: Federer leads 4-0
Outdoor Hard: Nadal leads 5-2
Grass: Federer leads 2-1

Besides a narrow 2-1 lead on grass, the only stat where Federer comes out ahead in their personal rivalry is their indoor matchup. Shouldn't the GOAT be a lot closer in his/her personal rivalry with his/her greatest rival? Jeez, Chris Evert played Martina Navratilova to a near tie in an 80-match series, and she gets overlooked most of the time due to Navratilova's glittering accomplishments.

I just don't get what sort of objective criteria one would possibly apply in producing a combined ranking list for men and women. For instance, what criteria would one use to determine that Rod Laver > Steffi Graf > Pete Sampras > Martina Navratilova > Bjorn Borg? At the end of the day, I think that it remains nothing more than a "my fave is better than your fave" exercise. Hmm, I wonder if this Top 100 business was inspired by all the "Peak Margaret Court vs Peak Agnieska Radwanska" threads in GM. :lol:

alfajeffster
Mar 27th, 2012, 09:59 AM
As stated at the start, on seeing Williams & Nadal at 6 & 7 alone confirms for all that the list is a marketing gimmick to promote watching today's game (preferably while tuned to The Tennis Channel TM) because, well, they're the best EVER aren't they? :lol:

DON'T YOU FRET ALFAJEFFSTER!!!! :cat:

(Steve did point out what a popularity contest this was, with Ashe ranked @ #28... "I was one of his most ardent admirers, and I watched many Ashe matches at both Wimbledon and the U.S. Open as a young reporter in the making. He was a great tennis player, and an even more impressive man. But how he ended up ahead of Kramer, Gonzales, Lew Hoad (No. 32), John Newcombe (No. 31) and Tony Trabert (No. 50) is beyond me.")

Ken "muscles" Rosewall had a winning h2h against both Hoad and Laver, and despite (with Laver, Gonzales and Kramer) being banned from playing for major titles, racked up an outstanding career considering he played during what was arguably the greatest crop of tennis players ever. Me fret? No, no. I prefer wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth- it's much more graphic in the biblical sense, and quite often draws blood...

gabybackhand
Mar 27th, 2012, 03:39 PM
I know this is all a meangingless list made up for not publicized reasons, but you can't help make some commments after seeing the list:
how come Capriati is above Mandlikova? I like Jennifer and I accept her two Slams in a row in 2001 as important, but Hana did that too and reache more finals back-to-back and beat two of the four GOATs for her wins, Jennifer was ranked as Nº1 but I don't think that alone is as big as to erase Hana's clearly higher accomplishments. Also, I don't think ASV or Clijsters should be ABOVE Tracy Austin (no matter how much I can't warm up to her): Tracy reached the top spot by dominanting, if briefly, again two of the probable four GOATs in history, got dominant even mental-wise over Evert! and she won as many majors (2 Slams and a much more prestigious back then 2 YECs), compared to a ASV who had big wins but was never THE dominant player, only when an injured Graf couldn't compete in her full form after Wimbledon 94 until March 95, and obviously no one felt Arantxa was the top dog over Graf. The same as Kim never really could dominate the people above her (the Williamses, Henin) in big matches, only occassionally (her 2 YECs for instance), which ir remarkable but nor over Austin IMHO, and had to wait for a weaker field to win big.
I agree is absolutely stupid to put men and women together, and even more stupid to have two men on the top when clearly, in terms of accomplishments, the top women won bigger than any men, but both games are esentially uncomparable. Even so, Ashe so high???? Give me a break, lot of respect for him but tennis-wise he's NO WAY that high. Agassi over Seles? Give TWO breaks! She has no Wimbledon and Andre one, but still! Nadal or Sampras over Evert!!! As they did a joint list, HOW COME!
This list doesn't deserve any more comments, really.

daze11
Mar 27th, 2012, 03:58 PM
Borg won the French & Wimbledon back to back 4 years in a row (Wimbledon 5 years in a row)... there is no more stunning tennis accomplishment. He won 41% of the slams he participated in...

The tennis establishment is still politically upset with him, arguably to put even Sampras ahead of him (who won 3 more slams in twice as many years, all while Borg skipped the AO on GRASS~ note: Borg's grass winning percentage @ wimbledon: 93%) & definitely to place Nadal above him.

An even greater point being that Rafael has no standing against Chris Evert in any area of tennis statistics or accomplishments. She is dominant over him in every category imaginable. So if they ARE going to mix men & women, how can he be at 6 & she at 9?

But as I keep saying, it's all about numbers... Tennis Channel wants a spike in "interaction" on their pages - which is all free advertising for one thing, as we see here:
http://www.tennischannel.com/goat/gallery4.aspx
"JOIN THE CONVERSATION"!!! :lol:

samn
Mar 27th, 2012, 04:44 PM
Borg won the French & Wimbledon back to back 4 years in a row (Wimbledon 5 years in a row)... there is no more stunning tennis accomplishment. He won 41% of the slams he participated in...



Actually Borg did the FO/Wimbledon double "only" three times - 1978, 1979, and 1980. While this is undoubtedly a great accomplishment, Nadal has also pulled off this rare double twice in his career so far - 2008 and 2010. Nadal also pulled off the Wimbledon/USO double in 2010, which Borg never did. My point is that if Federer is supposedly the greatest player of all time, how can one then deny a Top 10 rank to a man who has dominated this alleged GOAT in virtually every aspect of their personal rivalry? I guess what I'm trying to get at is that I don't think Federer is the GOAT (well, I don't think there's any such thing as the GOAT, but that's a different discussion), but if I were to accept this as a given, the question I keep coming back to is, "If he's the GOAT and his nearest and closest rival isn't even in the Top 10 of all time, why did he lose a majority of his matches across a variety of surfaces to this rival?" I guess I expect a so-called GOAT to have respectable head-to-heads against his/her peak competition, with exceptions made for cases like Evert vs Seles, where their careers overlapped very briefly.


The tennis establishment is still politically upset with him, arguably to put even Sampras ahead of him (who won 3 more slams in twice as many years, all while Borg skipped the AO on GRASS~ note: Borg's grass winning percentage @ wimbledon: 93%) & definitely to place Nadal above him.



I guess we'll just have to disagree about Borg. In my book, if you fail to win one of the premier events of your sport even once, you get penalised for it. By this token, both Sampras (who never won the French) and Borg (who never won the US) get dropped down the list. Their positions in the list relative to the other players is then based on how many of the other titles I think the missing title is worth.


An even greater point being that Rafael has no standing against Chris Evert in any area of tennis statistics or accomplishments. She is dominant over him in every category imaginable. So if they ARE going to mix men & women, how can he be at 6 & she at 9?



Well, I agree with that part. In my opinion, it's too difficult to even produce a list for men only or a list for women only because of the challenges associated with comparing players across eras. And almost always the great players from earlier eras get overlooked. I have to say, though, that I'm shocked Margaret Court even made the top ten. I fully expected a "no one played Australia in those days" adjustment to be applied to her tally resulting in the Reverend being ranked behind Monica Seles and Serena Williams. :lol:

daze11
Mar 27th, 2012, 08:13 PM
I guess we'll just have to disagree about Borg. In my book, if you fail to win one of the premier events of your sport even once, you get penalised for it. By this token, both Sampras (who never won the French) and Borg (who never won the US) get dropped down the list. Their positions in the list relative to the other players is then based on how many of the other titles I think the missing title is worth.

i can appreciate that angle samn, but you're also making my point... Sampras is in the same boat, but isnt penalized. And being unable to do better than ONE french open final appearance (during a not-so competitive, relatively, clay court time period), means you have serious holes in the skill-area of your tennis game. Can't just win with a great serve anymore, you better be able to back it up. In that regard, albeit IMHO, really separates the poser from the player in a way nothing else can. Borg at least had a remarkably strong record on hard courts, and great success at the madison sq garden championships too.

But larger point being, Sampras should not have any brownie points over Borg... but Sampras is American and so is the Tennis Channel. In fairness to your point for Nadal though, I also conceed Borg did not have a Federer to play against (though Connors, McEnroe, Nastase, Lendl, Vilas etc are tremendous all-time greats)

Sumarokov-Elston
Mar 28th, 2012, 06:57 PM
An even greater point being that Rafael has no standing against Chris Evert in any area of tennis statistics or accomplishments. She is dominant over him in every category imaginable. So if they ARE going to mix men & women, how can he be at 6 & she at 9?

It is just laughable. And how many first rounds would Nadal have got past playing with a wooden racket? :lol:

tennisvideos
Mar 29th, 2012, 07:56 AM
The day I see Ken Rosewall and Margaret Court up at the top echelon of all time greats is the day I take one of these lists seriously.

Rosewall, IMO, has the greatest collection of Slam titles in history (if you include his pro-equivilent titles) plus he has the greatest career in terms of longevity. Of course others were hindered eg. Gonzales, Laver, Tilden etc. But Rosewall definitely shone the brightest/longest of all of these during his amateur and pro years.

As for Anne Jones being 98 and Ginny being 20 odd places above her that says it all. :roll eyes:

Anyway, I guess it's a fun show for the casual observer ... just doesn't interest me.

alfajeffster
Mar 29th, 2012, 09:05 AM
Well, since it's open game to read whatever we think or feel into a player's career, I would submit that the reason that Bjorn Borg stayed away from Australia was because during his career, the Australian Open was held in December, and was the last major you had to win in order to complete the Grand Slam. He would win the French and Wimbledon, but never did get that coveted USO title, he had no interest in making the arduous trek for a tournament that (at that time) was not considered all that big a prize by most players.

DennisFitz
Mar 30th, 2012, 08:12 AM
I think Graf got kind of stuck mentally too frequently when playing Seles, sometimes attaching to wrong tactics or getting too stubborn in her shots, like trying to prove her power couldn't be surpassed or smth, it's not so apparente maybe or it's just an idea of me, but I do believe she used to play unwisely in some moments during her matches against Monica.

Seles beat Graf exactly 5 times in a 10 year period. Graf beat Seles 10 times. Sounds to me like Graf knew exactly how to play Seles. Unwise moments from Steffi against Monica were few and far between. Don't forget that 3 of the 5 wins by Graf came when Seles was ranked higher than Graf.

Every player, competing against their toughest rival, will not always play the right tactics. Both Graf and Seles were stubborn with their games. That's what made them both great! Graf had to use her slice backhand against Seles. It enabled her to keep the ball low, and force Seles to move up and hit up on the ball. But at times the slice backhand would fall short or not be as penetrating, and thus it could be attacked. But if attacking Graf's backhand were the key to success against Steffi, then Graf would have never won a major title in her career. She had other strengths which enabled her to dictate most of her matches.

Graf and Seles did not have the longevity or history that Evert and Navratilova did. We didn't get to see Graf and Seles play on a regular basis on indoor carpet, or consistently in major finals. Their 3 match rivalry at the 1992 French-Wimbledon and 1993 Australian was the only time they played in major matches so close to each other. Evert and Navratilova played so often against each other, some considered it boring.

The 1992 French final was a classic. Too bad they didn't have mroe of those types of matches.

DennisFitz
Mar 30th, 2012, 08:24 AM
I think it may have been abandoned when Nadal was put ahead of Borg. :lol:

Steve Flink sensibly kept him out of the top 10 all together, as well as BJK:

Federer at No. 1, Graf at No. 2, Sampras at No. 3, Laver at No. 4, and Navratilova at No. 5, Evert at No. 6, Jack Kramer at No. 7, Helen Wills Moody Roark at No. 8, Bill Tilden at No. 9, and Court at No. 10.

Agree on the whole farce of TC's "Top 100 list". I just wished they called it what it really was: Tennis Channel's 100 most popular players, with a prejudiced towards recent players. Mixing men and women together on one list? It's hard enough comparing players across era. Couldn't they have come up with a separate list? Would have given them 2 shows!

Nadal ahead of Evert was really pathetic though! And I bet even Chrissie was peeved about that! :lol: :fiery: ;)

Furthermore, I really am unimpressed with TC. Nice they are starting to televise more tennis these days. But watching the same 5 dreadful, dated, and decidedly low tech commercials is demeaning. And oh, how many times do they need to televise the semis of the Auckland men's semis matches? Could they have more of the segments they used to have years ago? Interviews, historical shows, etc.

DennisFitz
Mar 30th, 2012, 08:32 AM
I think I might start a TC Top 100 list of my own. It would be "My top 100 reasons how Tennis Channel got the Top 100 players of all time wrong!"

At the top of the list: They decided to rank the men and women together in one list.
Nadal at #6 ? You CANNOT be serious?!
Speaking of NOT being serious: Agassi ahead of McEnroe?!
Borg ahead of Evert ?
Nadal ahead of Evert ?
Jack Kramer at #34?

Well, there's a start!

laschutz
Mar 30th, 2012, 02:45 PM
well said dennis fritz! both of your last posts!

granted, it must be i guess difficult to fill in 24/7 tennis on a tennis channel.. but do we really need to see the first round or the semis of a tournament in bangladesh or whatever? laugh! i mean, casual tennis fans won't watch and here even the most ardent tennis fans and amateur historians don't want to watch at least i don't!

i think tennis channel needs to do a really deep in depth market research campaign to REALLY FIND OUT who their viewers are!

i would think off the top of my head it would be a "older" demographic, i.e. baby boomers and up... with the smaller group of the supposedly coveted 18 to 35 age group...

i personally would prefer them showing more classic matches of the classic greats including those fun to watch world team tennis matches from the 70's! heck, while their at they if they could find footage should show black and white footage of past greats from 30 plus years ago....

it would be totally awesome if they would show those old world championship tennis matches from the 70's and virginia slims and avon tournaments.. but i doubt it.. supposedly alot of those tournaments on video were discarded and destroyed for future generations... i mean who wouldn't on this forum want to see for example evert vs goolagong at the 76 virginia slims of wherever or connors vs laver,etcetera.. and i don't mean to watch it on youtube.com either! of course, those "great minds" at tennis channel think showing this stuff is TOTALLY IN THE WRONG DIRECTION... THEY WANT THOSE YOUNG VIEWERS, NOT SOME OLD FUDDY DUDDIES AND BABY BOOMERS! in that respect tennis channel is like every other darn channel and network! like i said they MAY WANT YOUNGER VIEWERS BUT THEIR NOT GOING TO GET THEM! FACE REALITY I SAY AND WORK FROM THERE!

i think they should also do more specials like a day in the life of whoever whether current top players or even past greats.

getting so tired of seeing what's their name maylan ramey doing her little around the world tennis shows... "bag check" segments, etcetera....

lastly, on this list of greatest players of course anyone who has even the slightest bit of tennis history knows this whole program was a JOKE! i would be embarassed for myself and my sport personally if i was a all time great and my little comments and videotaped segment was on this hack job.. of course perhaps some don't care, as long as their on the list anywhere!...

hmm, like i first mentioned funny how we the viewer were never told 1) who is judging and 2) what are the criteria.. i'm sure that was just a SIMPLE OVERLOOKED BIT! NOT!!!!!!!!!....

daze11
Mar 30th, 2012, 04:07 PM
Furthermore, I really am unimpressed with TC. Nice they are starting to televise more tennis these days. But watching the same 5 dreadful, dated, and decidedly low tech commercials is demeaning.
and there you have your answer...as to why they are desperately trying to drum up viewership on the channel and 'activity' on their sites. Look who is "spending advertising" dollars keeping them afloat. Not exactly a ringing endorsement from the financial sector.

daze11
Mar 30th, 2012, 07:29 PM
Best Billie Jean King commentary ever, on this topic.... especially that last part. ;)
http://www.tennischannel.com/goat/index.aspx#ooid=NkN2ZnMzrZ50a3IF_wPoZWCAHr3v8L4c,Z 4YmdmMzqrMHv-jmQrtKe17WnUGr4uHG

gabybackhand
Mar 30th, 2012, 07:51 PM
Dennis, I see your point about Graf-Seles H2H, I didn't mean that Graf due to the stubborness I mentioned got the worst side of their rivalry or anything, I just mentioned as it was very rare to see Steffi play like that against any other player. My point was how she got stucked especially in matches she could have won as the 92 French or 93 Australian finals, as she could have taken both titles if she had changed some of her tactics that's probably why that feeling kept in my mind. And I'm especially talking of their matches with the best Monica, the one who firmly took the top spot in her hands, and you see that their H2H pre-stabbing is around 6-4 for Graf, much closer than the final 10-5 for Graf.

alfajeffster
Mar 30th, 2012, 08:45 PM
Best Billie Jean King commentary ever, on this topic.... especially that last part. ;)
http://www.tennischannel.com/goat/index.aspx#ooid=NkN2ZnMzrZ50a3IF_wPoZWCAHr3v8L4c,Z 4YmdmMzqrMHv-jmQrtKe17WnUGr4uHG

John (Mr. Ego) McEnroe once said Billie Jean is the only commentator he'll actually stop and listen to when passing the booth on his way somewhere at a major. She is an incredible tennis mind, and deserves her accolades IMO. I had the chance to see her speak twice when I was active in tennis in the 90s, and when she got up behind the microphone, you really could hear a pin drop- and she didn't disappoint either time. Interestingly, I've had the good fortune of being able to talk to her briefly a few times, and she doesn't even really care about the majors. She's much more in tune to social change. Great Lady.

tennisvideos
Mar 31st, 2012, 09:38 AM
John (Mr. Ego) McEnroe once said Billie Jean is the only commentator he'll actually stop and listen to when passing the booth on his way somewhere at a major. She is an incredible tennis mind, and deserves her accolades IMO. I had the chance to see her speak twice when I was active in tennis in the 90s, and when she got up behind the microphone, you really could hear a pin drop- and she didn't disappoint either time. Interestingly, I've had the good fortune of being able to talk to her briefly a few times, and she doesn't even really care about the majors. She's much more in tune to social change. Great Lady.

Billie-Jean is more in touch than most. I too had the pleasure of meeting her, but only once, and she was very charming indeed and actually went out of her way to go and grab a pen and paper from one of the offices at Tennis Australia (this was back in the early 80s) and make the trek back out especially to get my name and number so she could pass it onto Frankie Durr for me. And when we finished chatting (all about Frankie) she was so sweet she gave me a kiss goodbye (much to my shock and the shock of my friends watching on from a distance). She truly was lovely.

And to think she actually pauses and pays particular homage to the greats of the 40s, 50s and 60s who played the pro ranks (in mens tennis) and she mentions they were the best around. And that definitely goes for Gonzales, Rosewall and Laver in particular IMO.

She is also right about another thing ... the champions DO get better with each passing generation as does the depth etc. That is something that is part of life and evolution. And so she had another point which is spot on in that regard - at the beginning she says something along the lines of picking the best from each generation. And that is the only guide we truly have about greatness. The greats of each generation is all that can truly measure with any degree of confidence. The rest is pure speculation and totally subjective.

Kudos to Billie-Jean on these points.

alfajeffster
Mar 31st, 2012, 05:54 PM
...She is also right about another thing ... the champions DO get better with each passing generation as does the depth etc. That is something that is part of life and evolution. And so she had another point which is spot on in that regard...

I also heard the most clear and sensible analysis in what she said about champions. Something to the effect that great athletes are a dime a dozen, but a champion has a rare combination of emotional and mental strength that can't be taught that separates them from everyone else, and truly makes them all-time greats (not the exact words she used, but the gist is there). From 35+ years of observing pro tennis players, I couldn't agree with her more. It is true, however, that the athletes are better now than ever.

thrust
Apr 3rd, 2012, 02:39 AM
I was especially gratified by what BJK and Bud Collins had to say about Rosewall. I also admire the fact that she is generous in her praise of earlier champions. She is correct that you can't compare players of different eras, only by their accomplishments in their era. I also liked her comments on Justine Henin, probably my all-time favorite female player. I think it is true that players of her and earlier eras did not only care about winning slams. The major slam issue, IMO, started when Sampras was trying to surpass Emerson's slam total. With all due respects to Roy, his slam count is inflated becaust the best players were on the Pro Tour. I think it was unfair to the Pros that their accomplishments on that tour were ignored by the Tennis Channel. Otherwise Federer would not have been #1, as his overall slam count and tournament wins would have been surpassed by Laver and Rosewall. Slam wise, Rosewall would have more than Laver or Federer.

mistymore
Apr 13th, 2012, 04:55 PM
Billie Jean King spoke very high of Gonzales. She said on HBO coverage just after his death in 1995 that he would have won 6 Wimbledons or so had the pros been allowed to play Wimbledon. She said he had the best serve ever and might have been the best player ever.

mistymore
Apr 13th, 2012, 04:56 PM
Wasnt Billie Jean King a good personal friend of Gonzales though?

mistymore
Apr 13th, 2012, 04:58 PM
I didn't really want to go here, but for Margaret Court's achievements to be so completely ignored speaks volumes for just how unpopular she is to this day. What was I expecting, a 200+ number of tournament titles listing, dropping Navratilova's "open era" stat down on the real list?

She was rated as the 3rd highest women, over Evert. That doesnt seem bad or insulting? Most dont see her at #1, I didnt think that was a surprise to anyone.

mistymore
Apr 13th, 2012, 05:01 PM
I think it may have been abandoned when Nadal was put ahead of Borg. :lol:

Steve Flink sensibly kept him out of the top 10 all together, as well as BJK:


Billie Jean King was seen mocking Nadal during a match at Wimbledon last year. She is not an unbiased source when it comes to him I suspect.

Nadal could be out of the top 10, but if you put Federer at #1 you have to put Nadal in the top 10 really. Not to mention if you put Agassi way up at #12, Nadal is way better than Agassi. Nadal can easily be put top 10 as well. The only men for sure over him are Federer, Sampras, and Laver. Borg, Gonzales, Rosewall, maybe Tilden or Budge, are only debateable at most depending on your criteria.

Nadal could very easily be put over Borg. Many now consider Nadal the clay court GOAT over Borg, and Nadal won the U.S Open and Australian Open, Borg didnt win either one and he tried very hard to win the U.S Open. Borg has more achievements on grass and indoors, but Nadal still has many Wimbledon finals and a couple titles. It is already a toss up and subjective which to put higher between the two. If Nadal wins anymore slams he will for sure go over Borg.

alfajeffster
Apr 16th, 2012, 08:53 PM
She was rated as the 3rd highest women, over Evert. That doesnt seem bad or insulting? Most dont see her at #1, I didnt think that was a surprise to anyone.

Oh, I'm not surprised. It's like taking two politicians, one one left-wing liberal, the other a conservative right wing pundit who just happens to have the better record- guess who the media is going to vote for on all the major media outlets?;)

Since I've converted to being a disciple of Margaret Court Ministries, it's been my mission in life to right all wrongs, and condemn those of us who are less equal than others... I guess I should actually look at the list!:tape:

HanaFanGA
Apr 17th, 2012, 11:26 PM
Not surprisingly I wasn't satisfied with Hana's ranking at 62. I thought she would fall in the 40-50 range. I wasn't surprised to see her ranked behind a few players that I feel could not have done as well as Hana did had they had to face two uninjured all time greats at once. But thats just my biased opinion.

I don't expect much from Tennis Channel as its rarely informative and extremely repetitive. But I took it all for what its worth and have to say that they deserve credit for the attempt and it was enjoyable.

laschutz
Apr 18th, 2012, 12:22 AM
glad i started this thread but not so much in other ways.. i think it's obvious without all of us being too high and mighty that we know waaaaaaaay more about tennis than any of the so called tennis pundits including the tennis channel execs! i wonder speaking in that regard who these masterminds at the tennis channel are? what is their background besides obvious television programming/production exec experience in regard to tennis?

in regards to court vs evert... we'll never know what Percentage each element was given and if they were all considered the same weight in the criteria ( i.e. major championships, longevity, consistency, head to head, head to head against other top players, etcetera.) i
can see maybe margaret's record being a bit a head of chrissie but in terms of actual head to head match-up.. i have to go all the way with chrissie over margaret...

if teenage wood racket one dimensional wielding chrissie could go toe to toe with a fully grown, very experienced still during her prime margaret then obviously what would a fully grown way stronger, faster, fitter, smarter, all around court playing chrissie do to margaret then?

tennisvideos
Apr 18th, 2012, 03:21 AM
if teenage wood racket one dimensional wielding chrissie could go toe to toe with a fully grown, very experienced still during her prime margaret then obviously what would a fully grown way stronger, faster, fitter, smarter, all around court playing chrissie do to margaret then?

It's true to a degree. But Evert was still having nightmares on grass against a 40ish woman named Billie-Jean in the early 80s. So did she really morph that much?

Evert was Court's nightmare matchup I imagine ... Evert also had trouble against a young whippersnapper called Graf. All the older players seem to have trouble against the new phenom of their era. It's just an evolutionary thing.

Rather than just looking at H2H, I prefer to look at all around exploits in all tournaments against all comers. And there you get a broader more balanced perspective. And there is not too much to separate Evert and Court in singles. Both phenomenal winning % (ahead of all the other modern day greats) and great success on all surfaces they competed on.

alfajeffster
Apr 18th, 2012, 01:08 PM
I seem to remember Court remarking in her autobiography that immediately after she had achieved her lifelong dream of a Grand Slam, she felt strangely flat. The exhibition in North Carolina was played just a few days after Margaret won the U.S. Open, on grass, and I submit on American green clay, Court wasn't at her best agains a clay court terror like Evert. No excuses (and she never made them), but Court was known as a player who went to where the money was and made a great deal of appearance money in her career. Billie Jean has saltier words for it, but Margaret did chase the dollar. Good for her. I'd put on a skirt and get out there on a hot day in the middle of nowhere as long as the cash was good, and I'm sure it'd be great ratings too with me not wearing underwear...

tennisvideos
Apr 18th, 2012, 01:10 PM
I seem to remember Court remarking in her autobiography that immediately after she had achieved her lifelong dream of a Grand Slam, she felt strangely flat. The exhibition in North Carolina was played just a few days after Margaret won the U.S. Open, on grass, and I submit on American green clay, Court wasn't at her best agains a clay court terror like Evert. No excuses (and she never made them), but Court was known as a player who went to where the money was and made a great deal of appearance money in her career. Billie Jean has saltier words for it, but Margaret did chase the dollar. Good for her. I'd put on a skirt and get out there on a hot day in the middle of nowhere as long as the cash was good, and I'm sure it'd be great ratings too with me not wearing underwear...

:bounce::lol::lol::bounce:

Rollo
Apr 18th, 2012, 04:53 PM
To me the Evert win vs Court in 1970 has 80% to do with timing. Court basically had acheived all she wanted for the year and was probably out to lunch.

if teenage wood racket one dimensional wielding chrissie could go toe to toe with a fully grown, very experienced still during her prime margaret then obviously what would a fully grown way stronger, faster, fitter, smarter, all around court playing chrissie do to margaret then?

I think the Evert as "one dimensional" tag was always taken a bit far. The Evert as all court player takes too far in the other direction IMO. Did Chrissy ever serve and volley consistenly (or even 10%:tape:) in a singles?

Me thinks not. Me thinks she was just that good at what she did (percentage tennis) and knew how to tinker with and adjust her game to win. She wasn't as technically flexible as a Hana Mandlikova ( a true all courter) or Court however.

So I don't buy into the more developed Evert would crush Court theory. Or the gosh if she can beat Court at 15 she would have never lost to Court on clay again except for a choke at the 1973 French thoery (sorry Daze!;)).

What I will but into was that Evert could beat Court on any surface.

Relative greatness aside the two present an intriguing head to head because of their abilty to beat each other on the other's "better" surface. If Court wasn't at her peak in 1973 she was darn close to it, yet Evert gave her fits at the US Open in the semis for a set and beat her at Wimbledon. Why? I'm thinking it's her lob. Even at the US Open Court stayed back a LOT in winning on grass.

But flip that around and I;m confident Court could beat Evert on any surface, including clay-regularly. I'm noy saying Mags would win even half her clay matches vs Evert in a "peak" vs "peak" situation. Court had a sort of all court confidence about her though. She could often hang with Evert long enough to produce an opening to attack or get Evert to make an error.

I think if we could substitute Court in Navratilova's place time-wise you would see Evert with more Wimbledon's but less French titles. Great as the Evert-Navratilova rivalry was surface counted for a lot-much like Federer-Nadal. With Court-Evert the surface factor diminishes.

Sumarokov-Elston
Apr 18th, 2012, 05:43 PM
Yes, I agree that the Evert lob was the key to her win over Madge at Wimbledon in 1973. But I do think her win over Court in 1970 was won fair and square. In 1970, Evert had already come of age on clay. She had pushed Nancy Richey all the way (3-6, 6-4, 2-6) earlier that year and, as I wrote above, slaughtered Françoise Durr 6-0, 6-1 in the round before she met Court. I think it was probably 1/3 Madge's letdown, 1/3 the surface of American green clay, 1/3 Chrissie's prowess. Also, Chris in 1969-71 only played at carefully selected claycourt tournaments, so she hardly ever lost, and going into the match against Madge, beside being loose and having nothing to lose, she probably felt invincible, having almost forgotten what it was to lose. But it was an interesting match-up of two such opposite players, and these three 1973 clashes in the GS semifinals contain some incredible shot-making from both girls.

alfajeffster
Apr 18th, 2012, 09:59 PM
I always loved watching Chris, and how she drove the ball and worked opponents with incredible angles that almost seemed scripted. The one thing I couldn't stand is when she dropped the second ball behind her after serving. That would drive me crazy, and I'm glad she stopped it.

laschutz
Apr 19th, 2012, 01:13 AM
hmm who to address first? laugh!

alfajeffster: the reason why chrissie dropped the second ball after her first serve in the first place was that it was so routine and tradition for decades to toss the player 2 balls with the first serve and wimby and the u.s. open and other tourneys were not used to a double handed backhand player.. of course i guess chrissie knowing this could have just had pockets put into her dresses... but she diddn't only when evert was a regular champion and contender did they "wake up" to stop throwing her 2 balls for her first service.. and of course as the clones came more and more on the scene this practice was stopped altogether.

tennisvideo: yes, chrissie had quite a tussle with a 38 year old billie jean in the wimby semis.. but that was a TOTAL APPARATION!.. chrissie played horribly and quite frankly was playing below par for the first half of 1982 remember she had lethargically lost 3 and 1 to jaeger! at the french semi only a couple of weeks beforehand... 2) billie jean was playing out of her mind on her best surface and also add in the fact that billie jean was beating austin and giving chrissie fits based on her tactics and her mind... i.e. slowballing, off pace, spins, junk balling,serve and volleying very wisely and at opportunistic times, etcetera... things that gave chrissie and other baseliners far more trouble than a powerful hitting player like margaret played like.. i doubt very very much doubt a 38 year old margaret could have given chrissie any trouble unlike a 38 year old billie jean just based on their styles of play and tactics wise...

chrissie footnote killed billie jean on grass later that year 2 and 2 and then in their last official match walked over billie jean on indoor carpet 1 and 1 early in 1983.... and your talking a 1982/1983 chrissie i was referring to her faster, stronger, harder hitting, more variety and yes more all court chrissie from 1984 to 1988 version.... sure chrissie wasn't a serve and volley during her mid 1980's self.. that doesn't take away the fact that she had more variety on her groundstrokes, even her serve she managed to hit harder and with topspin and kick, she moved faster, had better endurance, seemed more confortable than ever when she did come to net, etcetera.. to me, that means that yes, she was a all court player.. in fact, i tend to think if chrissie had changed to graphite and upped her training regimen in her mid 20's instead of when she was pushing 30, that she might have well at least once in a awhile served and volleyed...

rollo: i think chrissie would have had a waay better chance at beating margaret on grass, then margaret had beating chrissie on clay... once again, you cannot take the FACT that they were even when chrissie was a teenager! and margaret was a champion of 26 to 28.. you mentioned chrissie losing to steffi.. well, that was different.. chris started losing to steffi her first loss in 1986 and then from then on with varied success albeit still losing to steffi, meaning sometimes she was getting thrashed in 1987 and then other times in 1988 and 1989 she played her tough like 4 and 4 or the 3 set match in early 1989.. anyway.. chrissie while playing still top tennis from 1986 to 1989 was still starting her downward spiral in terms of losing to people she had no business losing to while still playing inspired tennis as well...

1970 to 1973 when margaret was playing teenage chrissie SHE WAS STILL IN HER PRIME, she wasn't losing to people she never lost to before or had any business losing to, unlike chrissie experienced from 1986 to 1989...

so the whole relation of court vs evert and evert vs graf is different... and yes, once again i submit that a fully grown mature chris would have taken margaret down regularly that is the margaret of the 1960's and early 70's.. perhaps if margaret was in her 20's and early 30's in the 1980's and with a graphite racket,and even better conditioned we might have different story?

hmm, that raises a question of margaret was young in her 20's in the 1980's how she would fared against super martina? i mean who really was the better athlete, stronger, faster, better reflexes,etcetera.. i tend to go with martina on this one.. i mean, margaret in her day was known as the queen of strength, agility, endurance, etcetera.. i doubt that from let's say the 1970's until the 1980's fitness changed that much? so i don't think a margaret in the 1980's and young could have improved that much if at all from the margaret in the 1970's in terms of fitness..

tennisvideos
Apr 19th, 2012, 04:39 AM
To me the Evert win vs Court in 1970 has 80% to do with timing. Court basically had acheived all she wanted for the year and was probably out to lunch.



I think the Evert as "one dimensional" tag was always taken a bit far. The Evert as all court player takes too far in the other direction IMO. Did Chrissy ever serve and volley consistenly (or even 10%:tape:) in a singles?

Me thinks not. Me thinks she was just that good at what she did (percentage tennis) and knew how to tinker with and adjust her game to win. She wasn't as technically flexible as a Hana Mandlikova ( a true all courter) or Court however.

So I don't buy into the more developed Evert would crush Court theory. Or the gosh if she can beat Court at 15 she would have never lost to Court on clay again except for a choke at the 1973 French thoery (sorry Daze!;)).

What I will but into was that Evert could beat Court on any surface.

Relative greatness aside the two present an intriguing head to head because of their abilty to beat each other on the other's "better" surface. If Court wasn't at her peak in 1973 she was darn close to it, yet Evert gave her fits at the US Open in the semis for a set and beat her at Wimbledon. Why? I'm thinking it's her lob. Even at the US Open Court stayed back a LOT in winning on grass.

But flip that around and I;m confident Court could beat Evert on any surface, including clay-regularly. I'm noy saying Mags would win even half her clay matches vs Evert in a "peak" vs "peak" situation. Court had a sort of all court confidence about her though. She could often hang with Evert long enough to produce an opening to attack or get Evert to make an error.

I think if we could substitute Court in Navratilova's place time-wise you would see Evert with more Wimbledon's but less French titles. Great as the Evert-Navratilova rivalry was surface counted for a lot-much like Federer-Nadal. With Court-Evert the surface factor diminishes.

A great post and I do agree on many levels esp the surface factor. I think these two made for an exciting match up ... look at all of their great 3 set clashes in 1973 - Wimbledon, French, US and WITC. All fascinating struggles and a contrast in styles. I just wished we got to see more of them in 74 and 75 except Barry got carried away :lol:

justineheninfan
Apr 20th, 2012, 02:53 AM
The Court-Evert rivalry could have been the most exciting ever if both were in their primes. That is because all indications from the few years their careers crossed indicates both would be fully capable of challenging and beating the other on ANY surface; that neithers game would have completely overwhelmed on rendered the other almost useless on any of the major surfaces. That is not really true of any of the others. I dont know what to think exactly of a hypothetical Court-Navratilova rivalry. Court-King was dominated except at Wimbledon by Court. Graf-Seles was very surface dependent, Graf won easily on grass, Seles owned on rebound ace, clay was very close overall but peak Seles always won their most important meetings there, Seles never won on fast hard courts or indoors either but they never met during Seles's peak on those surfaces creating a sense of forever untold what if there. Evert vs Navratilova was also very surface dependent, and Navratilova benefited greatly in it from their not a 2nd slam on grass rather than one on rebound ace during their prime years, along with their being more carpet/indoor events and generally faster courts than later years. Venus-Serena is troubled by the obvious, and all the injury layoffs of both. Henin and Serena never peaked at the same time. Lenglen vs Wills Moody practically never existed, for all of one hour long match it lasted.

Lastly the indications of the Graf-Navratilova rivalry if it had occured in their mutual primes, is that like their various meetings that did take place at various points of their careers, is it would have been very serve oriented, moreso than any other two players vs each other including the Williams despite the Williams having superior serves. Graf if she served well and Martina didnt serve well enough, would keep Martina off the net with her overall serving and baseline power and pretty certainly win as Martina would not prevail in an all baseline duel. Martina if she served very well and Graf didnt serve well enough, would be able to attack persistently, which would leave Graf with her predictable passing game and slice backhand returns little chance to win. Apart from days where one served much better than the other, leading to the already mentioned scenarios, it also would also have been surface oriented with Graf dominating clay, rebound, slower hard courts like Miami, and based on Martina's 4-1 edge at the U.S Open, Martina probably dominating on any of the faster courts that Graf ironically excelled more at vs her contemporary rivals like Seles and Sanchez.

alfajeffster
Apr 20th, 2012, 12:11 PM
Graf-Seles was very surface dependent, Graf won easily on grass, Seles owned on rebound ace, clay was very close overall but peak Seles always won their most important meetings there, Seles never won on fast hard courts or indoors either but they never met during Seles's peak on those surfaces

At the risk of inciting a riot (again), they did. In 1991 #2 Graf played then peak #1 Seles on a fast outdoor hardcourt at San Antonio just a week after Seles won at Key Biscayne (defeating Sabatini I think). It's a great match, as both were in good form. There's a terrible glare on the court and from where the camera is positioned (I don't know why they do this- is no one actually looking at the match?), but there are some really terrific points and I recommend it to anyone who hasn't seen it.

gabybackhand
Apr 20th, 2012, 07:12 PM
Yeah, there are!
BTW, it's a joy to read this thread when some older (:wavey:) knowledgeable people speak about facts and the game of champions I never really watched much as Court and BJK, or the young Evert and Navratilova, so I can learn and enjoy the information about them from those who really lived the thrill of those matches. Keep going like this!

alfajeffster
Apr 20th, 2012, 08:10 PM
Yeah, there are!
BTW, it's a joy to read this thread when some older (:wavey:) knowledgeable people speak about facts and the game of champions I never really watched much as Court and BJK, or the young Evert and Navratilova, so I can learn and enjoy the information about them from those who really lived the thrill of those matches. Keep going like this!

WHAT DO YOU MEAN- OLDER? WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY? :fiery: I'm still not 50 yet, if that means anything. Okay, it's going to happen this year, and when I do, I intend to forget everything and start life over as nun. Think they'll have me? I already have my habits...

gabybackhand
Apr 21st, 2012, 04:50 PM
:lol: And what kind of use have you got from those habits????
Well, don't get mad at my word, remember I'm not a native English speaker, and I barely understand most of your words :rolleyes: So maybe I should have written elder instead...
And nevermind about the fifties issue, you're the perfect age to become a daddy to some youngster seeking affection...

alfajeffster
Apr 22nd, 2012, 07:14 AM
:lol: And what kind of use have you got from those habits????
Well, don't get mad at my word, remember I'm not a native English speaker, and I barely understand most of your words :rolleyes: So maybe I should have written elder instead...
And nevermind about the fifties issue, you're the perfect age to become a daddy to some youngster seeking affection...

I'm just joking around, bud. Don't take me seriously! I've always enjoyed your posts. Keep them coming. You understand English much better than I understand Spanish!:kiss:

gabybackhand
Apr 22nd, 2012, 06:36 PM
Oh thanx :o I know you were kidding, and I enjoy your posts too, we are old (againd the word :lol:) pals here, as Rollo, Daze, HanaFan (who's been a little absent lately), and so many others.
And to improve your Spanish, then get some papi to teach you a couple of two about the use of a tongue (a language, I mean, che!)

alfajeffster
Apr 22nd, 2012, 07:09 PM
Oh thanx :o I know you were kidding, and I enjoy your posts too, we are old (againd the word :lol:) pals here, as Rollo, Daze, HanaFan (who's been a little absent lately), and so many others.
And to improve your Spanish, then get some papi to teach you a couple of two about the use of a tongue (a language, I mean, che!)

I am considering very seriously taking language lessons, but I want to learn French first. Talk about a language that uses the tongue. When Novak began his runner-up speech at Monte Carlo in French this morning, I just about melted off my chair. Oh l'amore! He could be calling me a tired old queen, but if he says it in French, let's just say my glasses would be fogged.

gabybackhand
Apr 22nd, 2012, 09:11 PM
:lol: The glasses fogged just made my day!
And that Nole, while not that good-looking, is charming as he is funny, and I still remember how he abused his winning position :fiery: and surprised Gabriela by hugging her WAY too warmly when he won the Italian Open in 2008! That boy!

DennisFitz
Apr 27th, 2012, 07:53 AM
To me the Evert win vs Court in 1970 has 80% to do with timing. Court basically had acheived all she wanted for the year and was probably out to lunch.
Definitely agree with this statement. Still a phenomenal win by Chris. But had it been in the middle of the summer, when Margaret was still in the midst of her slam winning season, not sure she would have lost to Evert.

But I also think that initial win gave Evert an enormous boost of confidence, particularly against Court. I imagine Chris would have felt like she should hardly ever lose to Court. I think Chris was always more mentally intimidated by King.



So I don't buy into the more developed Evert would crush Court theory. Or the gosh if she can beat Court at 15 she would have never lost to Court on clay again except for a choke at the 1973 French thoery (sorry Daze!;)).

I don't know what the theory was that a "more developed" Evert would crush Court. But I do believe Chris was a mentally and tactically better player than Court. And that will always lead to more victories than defeat.


Relative greatness aside the two present an intriguing head to head because of their abilty to beat each other on the other's "better" surface. If Court wasn't at her peak in 1973 she was darn close to it, yet Evert gave her fits at the US Open in the semis for a set and beat her at Wimbledon. Why? I'm thinking it's her lob. Even at the US Open Court stayed back a LOT in winning on grass.

True, but Court beat Evert on clay once. In 1973, when Evert was in her first major final, and Court was the#1 player in the world. And I still think Chris choked that match, but kudos to Margaret for not folding in the end either.

But flip that around and I;m confident Court could beat Evert on any surface, including clay-regularly. I'm noy saying Mags would win even half her clay matches vs Evert in a "peak" vs "peak" situation. Court had a sort of all court confidence about her though. She could often hang with Evert long enough to produce an opening to attack or get Evert to make an error.

Hmmm...I don't agree that Court would have beaten Evert on clay regularly. Nobody beat Evert on clay regularly. Not even Navratilova, and I think she had more weapons than Margaret.

I think if we could substitute Court in Navratilova's place time-wise you would see Evert with more Wimbledon's but less French titles. Great as the Evert-Navratilova rivalry was surface counted for a lot-much like Federer-Nadal. With Court-Evert the surface factor diminishes.

Agree about the surfaces being a factor in rivalries. And if there was a way to switch Court with Navratilova, I'll say Court takes of one Chris' French wins. But I say Chris gets at least two more Wimbledons, and maybe even three. Not sure Court would have been in every final the way Navratilova was.

alfajeffster
Apr 27th, 2012, 01:08 PM
I have to disagree with your assertion that Navratilova had more weapons than Court. Even Virginia Wade commented to me personally (I had the opportunity to pick her up at the airport once) that Margaret was better than Martina from the backcourt. Navratilova was one of the (if not the) greatest net rushers ever. Her forehand, in particular, was suspect as she often hit loopy rolled shots because she had no confidence in it. Margaret had a killer backhand driving slice that she hit very flat, and her forehand, with those long sweeping arms, was devastating. It was the side she made more errors on, but it was a real weapon for her. She was a pretty good (if not natural) volleyer, and difficult to pass because of her reach. People always seem to sell her short, largely (IMO) because they've never seen video of her playing, much less live and in her prime.

thrust
Apr 28th, 2012, 03:13 AM
I have to disagree with your assertion that Navratilova had more weapons than Court. Even Virginia Wade commented to me personally (I had the opportunity to pick her up at the airport once) that Margaret was better than Martina from the backcourt. Navratilova was one of the (if not the) greatest net rushers ever. Her forehand, in particular, was suspect as she often hit loopy rolled shots because she had no confidence in it. Margaret had a killer backhand driving slice that she hit very flat, and her forehand, with those long sweeping arms, was devastating. It was the side she made more errors on, but it was a real weapon for her. She was a pretty good (if not natural) volleyer, and difficult to pass because of her reach. People always seem to sell her short, largely (IMO) because they've never seen video of her playing, much less live and in her prime.

People who sell Court short are basically haters or ignorant. The fact is that since 1960 she has, overall, the best winning % of any female player, won more tournaments, and winning H-H against all her best competition. People downgrade her slam count because about half of them were not against top players at the AO. Still, she did beat King and Bueno twice as well as Hard, Turner, Wade and Goolagong to win he AO titles. Considering her winning record, against BJK in Slam finals, chances are she would have won most of the other titles with tougher competition.

mistymore
Apr 28th, 2012, 03:24 AM
All players who won a proportionally high number of Australians vs other slams before 1980 or so should have them downgraded. That means players of all different levels. Players like Court, players like Goolagong, players like Turner, players like Turner, then the bottom of the barrel and players like O Neill. Everyone. It isnt their fault but to just treat their victories like any other slam win is inaccurate, misleading, an ineffective evaluation, and plain dishonest. The Australians were the biggest beneficiaries as the event wasnt even big enough for any non Australians to want to bother to fly to play more than once in awhile, especialy when women pros werent even payed that much back then. Is it any coincidence the biggest gainers in the 60s and 70s for instance were all Australians:

Court- 11 Australian Opens, 5 French Opens, 3 Wimbledons, 5 U.S Opens
Goolagong- 4 Australian Opens, 1 French Open, 2 Wimbledon, 0 U.S Open
Melville- 1 Australian Open, 0 French Opens, 0 Wimbledons, 0 U.S Opens
O Neill- 1 Australian Open, 0 other WTA tournament titles
Jan Lehane- 4 Australian Open finals, 0 French Open finals, 0 Wimbledon finals, 0 U.S Open finals

So Court averaged 4.33 wins at the other 3 slams but won a whopping 11 at the Australian Open.
Goolagong averaged 1 win at the other 3 slams, and none from 1972-1979, but managed 4 at the Australian Open.
O Neill was ranked outside the top 100 and didnt make it past the 2nd round of any other slam.

See a pattern. Dont be clueless and say it is just coincidence, that they would have amazingly won all those anyway when they couldnt come close to that count in the other slams, or something like that. The Australians especialy all benefited from the events and its joke status back then. All of them will have that factored when evaluating their record, be it GOAT candidates like Court, the bottom feeders like O Neill, or all those in between. Just accept it.

Also beating 1 other top player at the event means nothing. A Grand Slam is supposed to have all the top players, except the injured ones present. If it doesnt year after year then it isnt a normal Slam.

mistymore
Apr 28th, 2012, 03:32 AM
Definitely agree with this statement. Still a phenomenal win by Chris. But had it been in the middle of the summer, when Margaret was still in the midst of her slam winning season, not sure she would have lost to Evert.

But I also think that initial win gave Evert an enormous boost of confidence, particularly against Court. I imagine Chris would have felt like she should hardly ever lose to Court. I think Chris was always more mentally intimidated by King.





I don't know what the theory was that a "more developed" Evert would crush Court. But I do believe Chris was a mentally and tactically better player than Court. And that will always lead to more victories than defeat.




True, but Court beat Evert on clay once. In 1973, when Evert was in her first major final, and Court was the#1 player in the world. And I still think Chris choked that match, but kudos to Margaret for not folding in the end either.



Hmmm...I don't agree that Court would have beaten Evert on clay regularly. Nobody beat Evert on clay regularly. Not even Navratilova, and I think she had more weapons than Margaret.



Agree about the surfaces being a factor in rivalries. And if there was a way to switch Court with Navratilova, I'll say Court takes of one Chris' French wins. But I say Chris gets at least two more Wimbledons, and maybe even three. Not sure Court would have been in every final the way Navratilova was.

From their matches against one another, even considering what phase of their careers they were in it seems clear that if these players all met at their peaks that Navratilova >> Evert > Court > King > Goolagong >>> Wade. The ones I dont know where to put in to that are Hana and Tracy Austin. Hana at her best was incredible, some would say as good as Martina and Chris, even if she was 5% as consistent and mentally strong. Tracy at her brief best was very formidable on a hard court atleast. There is more than that to consider of course. Players like Evert and Court mantained their top levels way longer than Navratilova did. They also didnt have as many inexplicable bad days and losses as even prime Navratilova, like her losses to some journeywomen named Kathy Horvath and a teenage Sukova which cost her the 83 and 84 Grand Slams.

People in this thread underrate Navratilova's ground game. From 1978-1988 she was rallying with Evert from the baseline successful, sometimes even outplaying her from the backcourt. One reason she could get to the net so effectively is that Evert couldnt dominate her from the baseline and keep her there. If she could do that vs prime Evert, arguably the all time baseline queen, prime Navratilova's ground game is atleast as good as Court's, probably better. No disrespect to Court who is a true great, but seeing what Navratilova did to Evert from 1982-1986, in 1983 and 1984 especialy when she rendered her to virtual humilation, I dont think Court who was already losing half her matches to baby Evert in 1970-1973 while still dominating the womens game, would want any piece of that Navratilova.

alfajeffster
Apr 28th, 2012, 01:20 PM
All players who won a proportionally high number of Australians vs other slams before 1980 or so should have them downgraded. That means players of all different levels. Players like Court, players like Goolagong, players like Turner, players like Turner, then the bottom of the barrel and players like O Neill. Everyone. It isnt their fault but to just treat their victories like any other slam win is inaccurate, misleading, an ineffective evaluation, and plain dishonest. The Australians were the biggest beneficiaries as the event wasnt even big enough for any non Australians to want to bother to fly to play more than once in awhile, especialy when women pros werent even payed that much back then. Is it any coincidence the biggest gainers in the 60s and 70s for instance were all Australians:

Court- 11 Australian Opens, 5 French Opens, 3 Wimbledons, 5 U.S Opens
Goolagong- 4 Australian Opens, 1 French Open, 2 Wimbledon, 0 U.S Open
Melville- 1 Australian Open, 0 French Opens, 0 Wimbledons, 0 U.S Opens
O Neill- 1 Australian Open, 0 other WTA tournament titles
Jan Lehane- 4 Australian Open finals, 0 French Open finals, 0 Wimbledon finals, 0 U.S Open finals

So Court averaged 4.33 wins at the other 3 slams but won a whopping 11 at the Australian Open.
Goolagong averaged 1 win at the other 3 slams, and none from 1972-1979, but managed 4 at the Australian Open.
O Neill was ranked outside the top 100 and didnt make it past the 2nd round of any other slam.

See a pattern. Dont be clueless and say it is just coincidence, that they would have amazingly won all those anyway when they couldnt come close to that count in the other slams, or something like that. The Australians especialy all benefited from the events and its joke status back then. All of them will have that factored when evaluating their record, be it GOAT candidates like Court, the bottom feeders like O Neill, or all those in between. Just accept it.

Also beating 1 other top player at the event means nothing. A Grand Slam is supposed to have all the top players, except the injured ones present. If it doesnt year after year then it isnt a normal Slam.

I have to take umbrage to this post. From the mid-50s all throughout the 60s and early 70s, the Australian players, both men and women, were the top players in the world. For Margaret as well as Evonne, winning at home was a big thing, even if it wasn't for Billie Jean. Margaret defeated both BJK and Maria Bueno in Australia- beating Court at home was tantamount to scaling Everest (not Evert). The fact that many players didn't (or couldn't) make the long trip down under doesn't render it inconsequential. Yes, it was definitely fourth on the important majors list, it's still pretty impressive for a country with a then population of about 6 million, and the size of the US. Australia produced quite a legacy of great players for such a sparsely populated country.

Sam L
Apr 28th, 2012, 01:27 PM
All players who won a proportionally high number of Australians vs other slams before 1980 or so should have them downgraded. That means players of all different levels. Players like Court, players like Goolagong, players like Turner, players like Turner, then the bottom of the barrel and players like O Neill. Everyone. It isnt their fault but to just treat their victories like any other slam win is inaccurate, misleading, an ineffective evaluation, and plain dishonest. The Australians were the biggest beneficiaries as the event wasnt even big enough for any non Australians to want to bother to fly to play more than once in awhile, especialy when women pros werent even payed that much back then. Is it any coincidence the biggest gainers in the 60s and 70s for instance were all Australians:

Court- 11 Australian Opens, 5 French Opens, 3 Wimbledons, 5 U.S Opens
Goolagong- 4 Australian Opens, 1 French Open, 2 Wimbledon, 0 U.S Open
Melville- 1 Australian Open, 0 French Opens, 0 Wimbledons, 0 U.S Opens
O Neill- 1 Australian Open, 0 other WTA tournament titles
Jan Lehane- 4 Australian Open finals, 0 French Open finals, 0 Wimbledon finals, 0 U.S Open finals

So Court averaged 4.33 wins at the other 3 slams but won a whopping 11 at the Australian Open.
Goolagong averaged 1 win at the other 3 slams, and none from 1972-1979, but managed 4 at the Australian Open.
O Neill was ranked outside the top 100 and didnt make it past the 2nd round of any other slam.

See a pattern. Dont be clueless and say it is just coincidence, that they would have amazingly won all those anyway when they couldnt come close to that count in the other slams, or something like that. The Australians especialy all benefited from the events and its joke status back then. All of them will have that factored when evaluating their record, be it GOAT candidates like Court, the bottom feeders like O Neill, or all those in between. Just accept it.

Also beating 1 other top player at the event means nothing. A Grand Slam is supposed to have all the top players, except the injured ones present. If it doesnt year after year then it isnt a normal Slam.

The only pattern I see is a poster who posts like another infamous poster and spewing stupid rhetoric about how Court's slams should be downgraded so that someone else can up. Only clueless BFTPers are buying your act.

tennisvideos
Apr 28th, 2012, 02:39 PM
All players who won a proportionally high number of Australians vs other slams before 1980 or so should have them downgraded. That means players of all different levels. Players like Court, players like Goolagong, players like Turner, players like Turner, then the bottom of the barrel and players like O Neill. Everyone. It isnt their fault but to just treat their victories like any other slam win is inaccurate, misleading, an ineffective evaluation, and plain dishonest. The Australians were the biggest beneficiaries as the event wasnt even big enough for any non Australians to want to bother to fly to play more than once in awhile, especialy when women pros werent even payed that much back then. Is it any coincidence the biggest gainers in the 60s and 70s for instance were all Australians:

Court- 11 Australian Opens, 5 French Opens, 3 Wimbledons, 5 U.S Opens
Goolagong- 4 Australian Opens, 1 French Open, 2 Wimbledon, 0 U.S Open
Melville- 1 Australian Open, 0 French Opens, 0 Wimbledons, 0 U.S Opens
O Neill- 1 Australian Open, 0 other WTA tournament titles
Jan Lehane- 4 Australian Open finals, 0 French Open finals, 0 Wimbledon finals, 0 U.S Open finals

So Court averaged 4.33 wins at the other 3 slams but won a whopping 11 at the Australian Open.
Goolagong averaged 1 win at the other 3 slams, and none from 1972-1979, but managed 4 at the Australian Open.
O Neill was ranked outside the top 100 and didnt make it past the 2nd round of any other slam.

See a pattern. Dont be clueless and say it is just coincidence, that they would have amazingly won all those anyway when they couldnt come close to that count in the other slams, or something like that. The Australians especialy all benefited from the events and its joke status back then. All of them will have that factored when evaluating their record, be it GOAT candidates like Court, the bottom feeders like O Neill, or all those in between. Just accept it.

Also beating 1 other top player at the event means nothing. A Grand Slam is supposed to have all the top players, except the injured ones present. If it doesnt year after year then it isnt a normal Slam.

Court had a 92% career win/loss record and was very comfortable on the grass courts in Australia which played more like a hard court than the soft grass of Wimbledon. Her baseline shots were just as effective on the Aussie courts as she was at the net ... so IMO she was at her best down under. Hello - it was her home turf and she grew up on these courts. Considering her world wide dominance of the tour it isn't surprising she was dominant at home. And your stats are misleading. Court won HALF of the French Opens she contested and almost HALF of the USO titles she contested. The only Slam where she won 25% of the time she entered was Wimbledon - and that can be attributed to a few factors - the softer grass which wasn't as conducive to suit her free swinging forehands, illness and injuries during a few critical years as well as a few inopportune retirements.

So I think your argument is just desperate. Sorry. You can only beat whoever shows up and a Slam is a slam. Even more important in the GOAT debate IMO though, are not the total number of slams, but career singles win/loss - and probably Slam winning percentage. And Court is up there regardless. :worship:

Rollo
Apr 28th, 2012, 03:28 PM
It's a nice debate lords and lassies. Keep it nice:)

mistymore
Apr 28th, 2012, 05:27 PM
The only pattern I see is a poster who posts like another infamous poster and spewing stupid rhetoric about how Court's slams should be downgraded so that someone else can up. Only clueless BFTPers are buying your act.

Who is this someone else. Almost nobody considers Court the GOAT as it is, Tennis Channel rated her only the #8 player all time, far below two other women. So whether you are referring to Navratilova, Graf, or even Evert who was rated equal to Court, I dont need to do anything to build any of them up in comparision to Court. They already are in the eyes of anyone who matters. So as much as you wish it were only clueless BFTPers who agree with my points (a category you more than almost any other poster here would fall under, so it the equivalent of saying only someone like you buys it, haha) it is clear the vast majority of people do.

Likewise Goolagong was rated far below people like Henin and Venus who also have 7 slams. The reason is obvious, they won 7 real slams, she didnt. So there is no bias in the evaluation of Court's 24 slams via all the Australian Opens, they applied the exact same standards to Goolagong and rightfully lowered her status as a result. She didnt win 7 slams by dominating a surface like Henin (clay) and Venus (grass) did. She did it by winning alot of "slams" at an event Evert played once before 1981 and King never played after Goolagong even first emerged in 1971.

Turner who won 2 slams, one of them at the Australian Open, didnt make the list, while many 1 slam winners did. The same standards were no doubt considered.

O Neill is famous today as the most infamous slam winner in history.

Sorry to break your theory but my points are generally accepted by all. Chris Evert, Martina Navratilova, John McEnroe, Billie Jean King, Tracy Austin, some of the greatest of all time have all said the exact same things I just said ON AIR repeatedly. If one wants to understand things they need to also be realistic about them as well.

Nobody was able to explain how all the Australians coincidentally had so much more success at the Australian Open than the other slams either. I wonder why. I am not attacking Court specifically, nor even attacking any player, just pointing out everyones record at the Australian Open before 1980 will be put into perspective, and it seems alot of Australians take the most offense as it is their players who benefitted the most. That is not a diss on Australians, just that it so happened that way as it was easiest for them to travel to what was then seen as a relatively minor event by the players (the fields which are weaker than atleast 10 regular WTA non slam events at the time are proof of that). So sorry that is just how it is, whether one likes it or not, and is backed both in words of past players, experts, writers, and this very list.

Sumarokov-Elston
Apr 28th, 2012, 07:28 PM
I'm sorry, but logically who else was going to win all those Australian Opens in the 1960s and 1970s, except Court and Goolagong? BJK played the Australian Open in the late 1960s - she beat Court in the 1968 final and Court beat her in the 1969 final. The same goes for Goolagong in the 1970s - in 1974 she beat Evert, who was the holder of two of the previous three Grand Slams, including Wimbledon. The next year she beat Navratilova.

It is interesting to also note that in 1973, Court beat Evert once on clay, while Goolagong actually beat Evert twice. And after that Chris only lost one match on clay in eight years - and that was in a final set tie-break against her nemesis Tracy Austin!

I am sure that the home advantage would have helped Court to win these AO titles - no matter who she played against, whether it be Billie Jean King or Helen Wills Moody! She was that good. If Evonne had faced Chris Evert in the 1976 final, not Renata Tomanova, would she have lost? I don't necessarily think so! After losing to Wimbledon to Chris 8-6 in the final set, she would probably have gone out and cleaned her clock (she had many other wonderful wins against her in 1976 and was even #1 on the computer briefly on the back of them). All AO wins by Court and Goolagong are legitimate, in my opinion. If we start getting into that, who is to say that Chris's 1974 FO win is legitimate, over Morozova, when Goolagong was not allowed to play?!?

mistymore
Apr 28th, 2012, 07:48 PM
I'm sorry, but logically who else was going to win all those Australian Opens in the 1960s and 1970s, except Court and Goolagong?

In the case of Goolagong she won ZERO non Australian Opens from 1972-1979 so regarding her that is a silly question. King owned Goolagong so obviously would have been heavily favored over her anytime they play, anywhere, anytime. Evert was 4-4 vs Goolagong on grass, but 3 of those 4 wins were 1974 and earlier, and in any big match from 1975 onwards you bet on Chris over Evonne, any surface. If you are putting on the spot to pick most likely winners I would say King in 1974 (obviously more likely than Evonne if she played, she owned Evonne for years by then, and even on fire Evonne couldnt beat her at the U.S Open this year), King or Evert in 1975, Evert in 1976, Evert or even Wade in 1977 (Goolagong was just back from pregnancy leave and not at her best and was even losing most of her matches to Wade when first coming back, including losing to her more than once on clay, eek). Her best chance would be in 1975 though. Your point on Goolagong and the 1976 Australian Open is baffling. Evonne would clean Chris's clock after losing to her in the Wimbledon final?!? What on earth is your basis for that. Evonne couldnt even beat Chris at Wimbledon when she was on a hot streak and playing some of the best tennis of her life, yet already pregnant and about to start her maternity leave she was going to clean the clock of dominant #1 Chris who by then had the clear mental edge over Evonne. Incomprehensible logic. While Goolagong would usually be favored over anyone besides Evert, King, or Court, there were numerous other potential threats too, especialy considering how erratic Goolagong was and that she can lose to any decent opponent on an off day. If she is lucky maybe she wins 1 of her Australian Opens if everyone plays, generous considering she won 0 other slams from 1972-1979, a large chunk of time around and extending beyond her 4 Australian titles from 1974-1977. Maybe be super generous and give Evonne 2 Australian Opens if everyone played (and this is really super generous indeed considering her 0-7 record in Wimbledon and U.S Open finals vs real opposition this 8 year stretch) that still bumps her down to 5 slams overall.

Regarding Court it would be a variety of players. Bueno has beaten her 3 times at Wimbledon and the U.S Open combined. Ann Jones has beaten her at Wimbledon. King has beaten her 3 times at Wimbledon and the U.S Open combined. Young Evert played Court twice in grass slams in 1973, beating her soundly in the 3rd set of one, and narrowly losing the other. Yet all these players combined, along with everyone else, wouldnt have managed to take away any of Court's Australian Open titles, if they all played annually. Dont make me laugh. Obviously Court would be the one to beat most of the time, but that doesnt mean she wins every year.

Lastly is your pointing out Court beat King once in an Australian Open final and Goolagong beat Evert once in an Australian Open final your basis for indisputably qualifying 110% all their Australian Open wins as being just like any other slam. Seriously.

It is obvious fans of certain players dont like what I have to do, but those that matter in the sport agree with me. The list and their rankings, especialy the rankings of Court, Goolagong, Turner, down from their # of slam wins is proof of that. The commentary of a slew of past players and champions and their references to the Australian Open are proof of that, along with the actions of many of these who bypassed it annually. I am just explaining to those who seem confused why these players were ranked as they were, somewhat in contrast to their slam wins total, but it seems some dont want to hear it. Oh well, not my problem. It seems some want all the Australian Open titles before the 1980s be they of Court, Goolagong, Turner, Melville, or even the journeywomen pros like O Neill and Barbara Jordan to be treated like any other slam, like there is no difference to them at all. Sorry people it isnt going to happen ever, and that isnt based on my opinion but 95% or more of the tennis viewing population.

If we start getting into that, who is to say that Chris's 1974 FO win is legitimate, over Morozova, when Goolagong was not allowed to play?!?

Evonne never beat Chris on clay again after 1973.

Sam L
Apr 29th, 2012, 12:17 AM
Who is this someone else. Almost nobody considers Court the GOAT as it is, Tennis Channel rated her only the #8 player all time, far below two other women. So whether you are referring to Navratilova, Graf, or even Evert who was rated equal to Court, I dont need to do anything to build any of them up in comparision to Court. They already are in the eyes of anyone who matters. So as much as you wish it were only clueless BFTPers who agree with my points (a category you more than almost any other poster here would fall under, so it the equivalent of saying only someone like you buys it, haha) it is clear the vast majority of people do.

Likewise Goolagong was rated far below people like Henin and Venus who also have 7 slams. The reason is obvious, they won 7 real slams, she didnt. So there is no bias in the evaluation of Court's 24 slams via all the Australian Opens, they applied the exact same standards to Goolagong and rightfully lowered her status as a result. She didnt win 7 slams by dominating a surface like Henin (clay) and Venus (grass) did. She did it by winning alot of "slams" at an event Evert played once before 1981 and King never played after Goolagong even first emerged in 1971.

Turner who won 2 slams, one of them at the Australian Open, didnt make the list, while many 1 slam winners did. The same standards were no doubt considered.

O Neill is famous today as the most infamous slam winner in history.

Sorry to break your theory but my points are generally accepted by all. Chris Evert, Martina Navratilova, John McEnroe, Billie Jean King, Tracy Austin, some of the greatest of all time have all said the exact same things I just said ON AIR repeatedly. If one wants to understand things they need to also be realistic about them as well.

Nobody was able to explain how all the Australians coincidentally had so much more success at the Australian Open than the other slams either. I wonder why. I am not attacking Court specifically, nor even attacking any player, just pointing out everyones record at the Australian Open before 1980 will be put into perspective, and it seems alot of Australians take the most offense as it is their players who benefitted the most. That is not a diss on Australians, just that it so happened that way as it was easiest for them to travel to what was then seen as a relatively minor event by the players (the fields which are weaker than atleast 10 regular WTA non slam events at the time are proof of that). So sorry that is just how it is, whether one likes it or not, and is backed both in words of past players, experts, writers, and this very list.

Anyone can have opinions and opinions change over time. Back in the 1940s critics and audiences hated Citizen Kane. Now, it's considered one of the greatest films of all-time.

Facts speak far better and without bias. Court has the most singles Grand Slams at 24 and has the best winning percentage out of all. She is the greatest.

Just because your opinion is backed up by many others doesn't make it right. Nazism was accepted by many, doesn't mean it's right.

Facts are facts. 24 Grand slam singles titles 92 W-L percentage. GOAT.

tennisvideos
Apr 29th, 2012, 10:29 AM
Turner who won 2 slams, one of them at the Australian Open, didnt make the list, while many 1 slam winners did. The same standards were no doubt considered.

Nobody was able to explain how all the Australians coincidentally had so much more success at the Australian Open than the other slams either. I wonder why. I am not attacking Court specifically, nor even attacking any player, just pointing out everyones record at the Australian Open before 1980 will be put into perspective, and it seems alot of Australians take the most offense as it is their players who benefitted the most. That is not a diss on Australians, just that it so happened that way as it was easiest for them to travel to what was then seen as a relatively minor event by the players (the fields which are weaker than atleast 10 regular WTA non slam events at the time are proof of that). So sorry that is just how it is, whether one likes it or not, and is backed both in words of past players, experts, writers, and this very list.

Fact - Lesley Turner won 2 French Open singles titles, and was at one stage was world #2 and a regular top 5 player for a number of seasons. She was also runner up in 2 x French Open singles finals. She was a mighty fine player and a great clay courter. She NEVER won the Australian Open.

Secondly, the Australians had the greatest depth in the world during the 60s and up until the mid 70s when Court retired. So it's not surprising at all that the Aussies dominated at their home slam. :)

tennisvideos
Apr 29th, 2012, 10:58 AM
Miatymore .. your argument about GOATS seems to be trying to downplay the Aussies. But the results of tournament does not a GOAT make methinks. Nor IMO do the solitary results of the 4 slams. It's also about entire career success - and Court has that in spades. So people can downplay her success (based on the Aussie strength or whatever) but you cannot take away the fact that she had the greatest career singles win/loss percentage of all the modern day players at 92%. Surely that alone makes her worthy to stand alongside those she has a superior record to?

Anyway, Goolagong was pretty awesome from 1971-1976. I think I once recall a stat where she made 16 of 19 GS finals or something like that. Not bad IMO. Also Goolagong almost beat Court in the 71 Aussie Final, did beat Evert in the 74 Final (very easily indeed) and also beat Navratilova in the 75 final. These efforts are nothing to sneeze at! Obviously Evonne felt VERY COMFORTABLE on her home courts - as did Margaret before her. What is so surprising about that?

I think you have tried to strip away at their legacy's enough for now. They deserve more respect than that IMO. Also Chris O'Neil is a very good friend of mine who has been battling demons since winning her Aussie Title .. i pray she never reads your posts. She beat those who turned up. Just a small dose of respect. Had you have won a title, would you like people tearing your win to shreds?

alfajeffster
Apr 29th, 2012, 12:48 PM
Miatymore .. your argument about GOATS seems to be trying to downplay the Aussies. But the results of tournament does not a GOAT make methinks. Nor IMO do the solitary results of the 4 slams. It's also about entire career success - and Court has that in spades. So people can downplay her success (based on the Aussie strength or whatever) but you cannot take away the fact that she had the greatest career singles win/loss percentage of all the modern day players at 92%. Surely that alone makes her worthy to stand alongside those she has a superior record to?

Anyway, Goolagong was pretty awesome from 1971-1976. I think I once recall a stat where she made 16 of 19 GS finals or something like that. Not bad IMO. Also Goolagong almost beat Court in the 71 Aussie Final, did beat Evert in the 74 Final (very easily indeed) and also beat Navratilova in the 75 final. These efforts are nothing to sneeze at! Obviously Evonne felt VERY COMFORTABLE on her home courts - as did Margaret before her. What is so surprising about that?

I think you have tried to strip away at their legacy's enough for now. They deserve more respect than that IMO. Also Chris O'Neil is a very good friend of mine who has been battling demons since winning her Aussie Title .. i pray she never reads your posts. She beat those who turned up. Just a small dose of respect. Had you have won a title, would you like people tearing your win to shreds?

Thank you, TV. I was starting to see red, but thought the better of arguing with someone who obviously hasn't seen them on video. I still get chills watching Madge charging the net like a freight train. You can just feel the fear in the opponent (yes, even Evert) knowing they're going to have to come up with something great or lose the point. Only a few players could stop her charge when she was on (and she was on more than any of her contemporaries). Tennis lost out on some great contests when Court and King rarely got to play each other 1970-1975. One of them was always out with injury or bearing children.

Regarding Evonne- all one has to do is read my footnote to see what I think of Gooley in motion. Nothing more beautiful in tennis, male or female. She just happened to come up with Court, King, and Evert to contend with. Much more depth than a predictable Evert/Navratilova challenge.

Sumarokov-Elston
Apr 29th, 2012, 05:39 PM
Regarding Evonne- all one has to do is read my footnote to see what I think of Gooley in motion. Nothing more beautiful in tennis, male or female. She just happened to come up with Court, King, and Evert to contend with. Much more depth than a predictable Evert/Navratilova challenge.

I agree with that and I disagree with the claim that Evonne was flaky. I think there is a myth that she was like Hana Mandlikova, which she was in a way, but there was an important difference. You just never knew "which Hana" was going to show up, but Evonne was a very consistent and a very concentrated competitor. Her only shortcoming was to sometimes go "walkabout" in the second set. I think all of us who grew up watching tennis in the 1970s know that Evert was one cool, tough bitch on court, but Goolagong was never afraid of her and used to play all out for victory (Goolagong won their first encounter, in Dallas, I think). Evonne did not just fluff around and try to hit dream shots, as you might think if you watch the highlight videos now up on You Tube. She had a very vicious, biting backhand slice, a hard and very accurate first serve on which she won easy points, and when she volleyed she made sure she put the ball away. That is without even getting into the best backhand overhead ever! She always made her seeding at Grand Slams, unlike Hana - the only time in the whole 1970s when she did not, I think, was Wimbledon 1974, but then neither did BJK. Wimbledon 1978, after she had her first child, was a three-horse race with Martina losing her semi-final to Evonne until the latter was horribly injured, and even then she pressed Martina as much as Chrissie did in the final. Two years later, she beat the top two players in the world, Austin and Evert, back-to-back to win Wimbledon. In fact, she beat Evert in the final in straight sets for the loss of only seven games - something Navratilova never did! BJK may have been strong in the first half of the 1970s and Navratilova in the second half, but when we are talking about consistency throughout the decade, it was a tale of Evert and the player who won the first Wimbledon of the decade and the last Wimbledon of the decade, Goolagong. She was not flaky, except possibly against BJK in the USA; she got into Evert's head probably more than Chris got into hers.

alfajeffster
Apr 29th, 2012, 06:57 PM
I agree with that and I disagree with the claim that Evonne was flaky. I think there is a myth that she was like Hana Mandlikova, which she was in a way, but there was an important difference. You just never knew "which Hana" was going to show up, but Evonne was a very consistent and a very concentrated competitor. Her only shortcoming was to sometimes go "walkabout" in the second set. I think all of us who grew up watching tennis in the 1970s know that Evert was one cool, tough bitch on court, but Goolagong was never afraid of her and used to play all out for victory (Goolagong won their first encounter, in Dallas, I think). Evonne did not just fluff around and try to hit dream shots, as you might think if you watch the highlight videos now up on You Tube. She had a very vicious, biting backhand slice, a hard and very accurate first serve on which she won easy points, and when she volleyed she made sure she put the ball away. That is without even getting into the best backhand overhead ever! She always made her seeding at Grand Slams, unlike Hana - the only time in the whole 1970s when she did not, I think, was Wimbledon 1974, but then neither did BJK. Wimbledon 1978, after she had her first child, was a three-horse race with Martina losing her semi-final to Evonne until the latter was horribly injured, and even then she pressed Martina as much as Chrissie did in the final. Two years later, she beat the top two players in the world, Austin and Evert, back-to-back to win Wimbledon. In fact, she beat Evert in the final in straight sets for the loss of only seven games - something Navratilova never did! BJK may have been strong in the first half of the 1970s and Navratilova in the second half, but when we are talking about consistency throughout the decade, it was a tale of Evert and the player who won the first Wimbledon of the decade and the last Wimbledon of the decade, Goolagong. She was not flaky, except possibly against BJK in the USA; she got into Evert's head probably more than Chris got into hers.

I assume you're referring to another poster's words, as I've never said or thought Evonne was "flaky". My favorite quote about her comes from none other than Billie Jean: "Winning never consumed Evonne. She played tennis as though just being out there was the greatest joy in the world". I don't think anyone could've said it better- and why both players and fans liked her, and felt it so keenly when her quality of play dropped.

mistymore
Apr 29th, 2012, 07:08 PM
Miatymore .. your argument about GOATS seems to be trying to downplay the Aussies. But the results of tournament does not a GOAT make methinks. Nor IMO do the solitary results of the 4 slams. It's also about entire career success - and Court has that in spades. So people can downplay her success (based on the Aussie strength or whatever) but you cannot take away the fact that she had the greatest career singles win/loss percentage of all the modern day players at 92%. Surely that alone makes her worthy to stand alongside those she has a superior record to?

Anyway, Goolagong was pretty awesome from 1971-1976. I think I once recall a stat where she made 16 of 19 GS finals or something like that. Not bad IMO. Also Goolagong almost beat Court in the 71 Aussie Final, did beat Evert in the 74 Final (very easily indeed) and also beat Navratilova in the 75 final. These efforts are nothing to sneeze at! Obviously Evonne felt VERY COMFORTABLE on her home courts - as did Margaret before her. What is so surprising about that?

I think you have tried to strip away at their legacy's enough for now. They deserve more respect than that IMO. Also Chris O'Neil is a very good friend of mine who has been battling demons since winning her Aussie Title .. i pray she never reads your posts. She beat those who turned up. Just a small dose of respect. Had you have won a title, would you like people tearing your win to shreds?

I agree greatness should not just be based upon slam count. However we both know it is largely based on slam count. I was responding to some of the griping in this thread of how a few of the Australian players, especialy Court and Goolagong were ranked. Well I was pointing out WHY they were ranked where they were. You may not like it but Court's 24 majors with 11 Australian Opens and Goolagong's 7 majors with 4 Australian Opens will NOT be evaluated by 95% of people the same way Graf's 22 majors, Navratilova's 18 majors, or Henin and Venus's 7 majors will. It doesnt even matter what I think, I could come around to your side and 95% of the tennis viewing population would still regard the Australian Open of the 60s and 70s (and all the years before) as a lesser slam whose wins carry far less value.

Are you honestly denying the Australian Open had much weaker fields with so many top players skipping each year? Would you like me to post out the draws in comparision to say the Wimbledon draws for you, as I could easily do so and there wouldnt be any debate about the fact (and it is a fact) then.
Are you honestly saying all the Australian Opens Court and Goolagong won had nothing to do with the weaker fields of the Australian Opens, that if EVERYONE played each year like Wimbledon and the U.S Open Court still wins 11 and Goolagong still wins 4, that is was all coincidence and home court advantage and nothing else. Seriously.

You are also saying nobody should question the wins of even people like O Neill who lets face it are not anywhere near slam caliber players, yet are saying nobody should question the wins of Court or Goolagong since they were top players. Whose wins should be questioned then, are you really expecting people to rate Australian Open titles before 1981 or so as exactly the same as a U.S Open or Wimbledon title today? Are you really expecting people to just ignore in many years only 2 or 3 of the Worlds top 10 (again I would be happy to post all the draws if you like) showed up, as if it didnt matter one iota.

No it is not an attack specifically on Australians, it is completely NATURAL the Australians would be by far the most likely to play their home event even at a time it wasnt seen as an important event on tour. Just like if it were the Belgian Open today instead, and the Williams, Sharapova, other Russians and ex Soviets, all skipped each year, Henin would have won 11 and Clijsters 4 or 5 and boosted their overall numbers too probably. Or for an actual example the French Open before 1925 which was banned to non French players. Max Decugis won 8 French Opens during that time I believe, but only played French players to do it. Should that be rated the same was as Borg and Nadal's 6 French Opens.

gabybackhand
Apr 29th, 2012, 07:54 PM
I see your point Misty, and I agree that the number of Slams of both Goolagong and above all Court shouldn't be regarded under the same light than Graf's or Evertilova's: Court's eleven AOs are no nearly as remarkable as 11 Wimbledons or US Open would be, I think most people would agree on that. If Court has arguments to be the GOAT, it's no only because of her number of Slams, as she should be regarded as though she had won around 18 undisputably respected Slams maybe, but she does have another facts to back up her claims, such as her H2H overall record or her winning the calendar Slam.
The Belgian Open hipothesis is a good way to describe the Australian Open significance before the 80s I think.

mistymore
Apr 29th, 2012, 07:54 PM
Yet another example is the French Open from 1974-1978. The fields those years for both men and women were severely depleted. For the women it was due to WTT. For the men it was due to the WCT and NLT players (the contracted pros) being banned from the event. A player like Borg who was virtually 100% untouchable on clay from 1977 onwards, or Evert who was 110% unbeatable on clay from 1974 to 1978 (which Court as great as she was wasnt ever on grass, let alone Goolagong) might not have their wins questioned. However what about all the others. Barker, Ruzica, and Jausovec were the winners from 1976 to 1978 when Chris and virtually everyone else that mattered did not play. None of those has even made a dent on Chris on clay, only Barker on fast/indoor type courts occasionaly made a big of challenge to Chris, but her worst surface was probably clay. Vilas won in 1977 over a super weak field, which was missing his Master Borg. Should these players wins not be put into context too. As for if I would like my wins questioned if it were me, Barker all but called her own French Open title a joke right after she won it, saying she didnt feel like she won the French Open but that it was an easy ride and there was no great players to play next and that it was boring. I am sure the quote is probably still online somewhere too. Even Borg's wins in 1974 and 1975 could be questioned, after all Connors owned him so completely those years, that even on red clay Borg would have had a tough time winning had they met. Connors never got to play the French on red clay during his best years, so nobody knows what he is capable of, well past his clay court best he made the semis or quarters every year for years once he started playing in 1979 though.

Should the French Open winners of these years wins not be put into context as well? Well I am not sure what your answer will be, but if you read the evaluations of tennis during this time and these players careers evaluation they are, so it isnt a bias towards the Australians by any stretch.

hingis-seles
Apr 30th, 2012, 01:40 PM
Devaluing Slam records is a slippery slope to go down - once you do it for one player, you open Pandora's box. Margaret won because the AO had weak fields. Fine, but then you can also say Evert only won because Margaret and BJK were on their way out and Navratilova hadn't come into her own. Navratilova only rose to the top once Evert burnt out and a whole generation of players collapsed (Austin, Jaegar, etc). Graf only took the top mantle because Evert and Navratilova were old. Seles only took over because Graf had personal issues. Graf only regained the top mantle because Seles got stabbed. Hingis only took over because Graf was injured and Seles was never the same player. Serena rose to the top only after Hingis & Davenport were out injured. Justine only took over because Serena was out with injury. The WTA became a mess for a couple of years. Justine retired and Serena took over again but got injured and the WTA's been a mess ever since.

Where does this insanity stop?

Rollo
Apr 30th, 2012, 01:53 PM
Devaluing Slam records is a slippery slope to go down - once you do it for one player, you open Pandora's box. Margaret won because the AO had weak fields. Fine, but then you can also say Evert only won because Margaret and BJK were on their way out and Navratilova hadn't come into her own. Navratilova only rose to the top once Evert burnt out and a whole generation of players collapsed (Austin, Jaegar, etc). Graf only took the top mantle because Evert and Navratilova were old. Seles only took over because Graf had personal issues. Graf only regained the top mantle because Seles got stabbed. Hingis only took over because Graf was injured and Seles was never the same player. Serena rose to the top only after Hingis & Davenport were out injured. Justine only took over because Serena was out with injury. The WTA became a mess for a couple of years. Justine retired and Serena took over again but got injured and the WTA's been a mess ever since.

Where does this insanity stop?


:worship:

Exactly. You either count them or "weight" them. And if you "weight" them it should be done impartially.

Sam L
Apr 30th, 2012, 01:54 PM
Are you honestly saying all the Australian Opens Court and Goolagong won had nothing to do with the weaker fields of the Australian Opens, that if EVERYONE played each year like Wimbledon and the U.S Open Court still wins 11 and Goolagong still wins 4, that is was all coincidence and home court advantage and nothing else. Seriously.


That is a "what if". You either open ALL what ifs or open none. If you're not going to credit Court because the top competition didn't play in Australia for some of the years she won, then you must also not credit Graf that won despite the absence of a two or three time defending champion Seles in 1993 French, US Opens and 1994 Australian Open.

Again, what everyone thinks is irrelevant. This is a sport, not an art form. In sport, it is about facts and facts point to Court with 24 Grand Slam singles titles and 92% winning percentage. These greatness lists are nothing about attempts to create debate and discussion and remind people of the great players of the past.

That fact that a player wins a list like this is not any more relevant than an actress or singer winning a list like this. Katharine Hepburn won the AFI list of Best Actresses, therefore she must be? If you allow yourself to be dictated by the opinions and tastes of others, it says more about your intelligence and capability in life than anything else. :tape:

alfajeffster
Apr 30th, 2012, 03:16 PM
...Katharine Hepburn won the AFI list of Best Actresses, therefore she must be? If you allow yourself to be dictated by the opinions and tastes of others, it says more about your intelligence and capability in life than anything else. :tape:

Besides, Bette Davis was the greatest film actress of all time (although Meryl is making a good go of it). I don't see how anyone can question this. Just having the most statues and the most nominations does not the greatest of all time make one. Davis dominated the competition from 1938-1945. I seem to recall Hepburn being labelled "box office poison" around that time. She practically had to beg Phillip Barry for the part in The Philadelphia Story (which Stewart and Grant carried her in), and then basically stalked Spencer Tracy on the lot in order to make films until the next time an offer of substance came around. I like Kate, but let's be serious, her nominations and best films came when nobody else played.

gabybackhand
Apr 30th, 2012, 07:29 PM
I don't think that the mention of the weak fields at the Australian Open back then is opening the door for what HingisSeles describes (I'm not with you this time, buddy!), those are much subjective assumptions than pointing out the fact that the Aussie Open had a period when it was hardly what is considered a Slam, that's common knowledge and should be taken into consideration and just the results aren't the ONLY relevant thing, if we want to get rigorous about hipothesis, facts and conclusions here. Anyway, if someone counts the 24 Slams won by Margaret Court or her H2H record to label her the best player ever, another poster could look into Graf's years of dominance and her incredible effectivity on ALL the surfaces, as she was not the evident underdog against the so-called best-ever players either it be on grass or hard or clay, and with just 2 Slams less than The Reverend she could be easily considered THE GOAT. Or you could see Evert's fantastic longevity at the highest level for so long, winning at least a Slam for 18 straight years and being always Nº1 or 2, and how she only lost 3 or 4 times before the SFs in around 50 Slams, and her H2H record, and you could choose her as the greatest ever. Or take Martina's Golden Run and her unmatched dominance both in singles and in doubles, and the new physical level that she brought to the game, and she also can be THE GOAT. In the end, there are 3 or 4 players probably equally deserving, and the one you consider the best ends up being subjective IMHO.

laschutz
May 1st, 2012, 12:31 AM
actually first ever battle between goolagong and evert was the 72 wimbledom semi.. goolagong winning in a nail biter 4-6,6-3,6-4 what a great score and close score to start off this intriguing rivalry of the "new stars" of that era.. evert by the way was leading 6-4, 3-0!

as far as goolagong getting into evert's head more than vice versa.. not sure about that.. oh sure goolagong's style of play and unpredictably might have worried chrissie, but then again with chrissie having a huge head to head edge over goolagong,, evert's "mind" game battle with goolagong, evert had to know and did know for the majority of their matches she would (and did) come out on top...

mistymore
May 1st, 2012, 12:36 AM
Goolagong was probably more talented than Evert, and despite that Evert owned Evonne and had a lopsided H2H lead at all times except for 1974 when they were 4-4. Evonne despite being a quality clay courter, and having enough game to compete with Chris even on clay, never beat Chris on clay after 1973, and often received humiliating beatdowns. Of course all the mental advantages both in the matchup and in general were in Evert's favor. I am amazed anyone would say otherwise, just as I am amazed anyone would dispute the Australian Open being a commonly known by all lesser slam at the time where players wins should be and are by the masses put into proper context.

mistymore
May 1st, 2012, 01:24 AM
Devaluing Slam records is a slippery slope to go down - once you do it for one player, you open Pandora's box. Margaret won because the AO had weak fields. Fine, but then you can also say Evert only won because Margaret and BJK were on their way out and Navratilova hadn't come into her own. Navratilova only rose to the top once Evert burnt out and a whole generation of players collapsed (Austin, Jaegar, etc). Graf only took the top mantle because Evert and Navratilova were old. Seles only took over because Graf had personal issues. Graf only regained the top mantle because Seles got stabbed. Hingis only took over because Graf was injured and Seles was never the same player. Serena rose to the top only after Hingis & Davenport were out injured. Justine only took over because Serena was out with injury. The WTA became a mess for a couple of years. Justine retired and Serena took over again but got injured and the WTA's been a mess ever since.

Where does this insanity stop?

Apart from the Seles stabbing which is a unique case, and which people are entitled to make their own judgements on regarding the non Wimbledon wins of Graf from 93-95, all the others are nothing more than normalcy and have nothing whatsoever to do with the Australian Open argument. Players to through slumps, players get old, players get lucky, players get unlucky, players rise because others fall, players fall because others rise, players have personal issues, players get injured and sick. Things like that happened at some point to Court herself (she got pregnant multiple times, took time off, took time off due to burnout in the late 60s at one point) which benefited her opponents, and to her opponents (King had major knee problems at the turn of the decade, Bueno had major health problems, King had to sacrifice some of her own tennis ambition to try and create the WTA) which benefited Court. I never said any of that matters though, as that is just par per course, just like all the other things you mentioned. The Australian Open being basically a non slam before 1980, and not even being one of the 10 most important events with the best quality fields on tour in the 60s and 70s as other events besides the Australian rose, is just a commonly known situation of the sport of tennis, and has nothing to do with players seperate injury cases or slumps that impacted between players.

Anyway it would be easy to dispute each invidual case you said:

Evert only won because Margaret and BJK were on their way out

Evert was 5-3 vs King and 4-4 vs Court from 1970-1973 when she was not in her primes and they were. Maturing Chris would have had no problem taking over. The only thing one could say is she might not have been able to dominate Wimbledon if King were in her prime or win much at the Australian Open if Court were. Well she went 3-7 in Wimbledon finals and didnt win her first Australian Open until age 28, so no need anyway.

Navratilova only rose to the top once Evert burnt out

Chris was making the finals of almost every tournament. She would have totally dominated tennis still if it werent for Martina.

and a whole generation of players collapsed (Austin, Jaegar, etc)

A bunch of overhyped kids. Jaeger was playing her best tennis in 1982-1983, and Martina and Chris were just way better than her. Austin was pretty darn good when healthy but only a threat to Chris and Martina on hard courts or indoors, and her game was one dimensional and showed little capacity for growth which is why by 1982 she was already losing significant ground.

Graf only took the top mantle because Evert and Navratilova were old

Chris in 1986 lost to 16 year old 0 titles Graf for the first time, and never beat her again. Chris herself claims her best ever tennis was 1984-1986. Graf aged her alot faster as she was excitedly talking about wanting to play another 6 years in early 1986, then she started losing to Graf over and over, and was talking about retiring by 1987. Navratilova played top level tennis consistently until atleast early 1993, and would have dominated 1987-1989 if Graf did not exist, much more than Graf would have ever dominated 1991-1992 without Seles in years Selestials insist Graf was in her best ever form.

Seles only took over because Graf had personal issues

Graf was in a major slump in the early 90s but it is wrong to put it down to personal issues. Sometimes players just dont play their best, and it is silly fans have to always fish around for a reason for it. Why did Navratilova play like crap most of 1980 and 1981 for instance. It is acknowledged that she did, but there isnt an obvious reason for it. Graf had bigger personal issues in 1995 and 1996 and it didnt affect her play so I doubt your assertion this was the reason for her generally poor play much of 1990-1992.

As it was while Graf was in a major slump, hence why she made the finals of only 3 of the 12 major events in 1991/1992 while playing and regularly losing to all the same people minus Seles (never an opponent before finals) she completely dominated from 1987-1990 and 1993-1996, Seles did manage to beat her in 3 slam finals from 1990-1993, suggesting even had Graf been in much better form she was so strong at the time she might have still been able to handle Graf, outside of grass where she would be always hopeless vs Graf.

Graf only regained the top mantle because Seles got stabbed

Graf won only 6 majors while Seles was out. There were 3 Wimbledons during that time, new draw and no way Graf draws McNeil 1st round in 94 and the 94 event is thrown in a free for all. We have already gone from 6 to 3, and we have barely gotten started with explaining how Seles was going to keep winning every non Wimbledon every year for several more years when the final 7 years of her career she managed 0 majors, how Graf even on rebound ace vs Seles was ever going to lose with her godly form at the 94 Australian Open, how Graf was going to win 0 U.S Opens when Seles has never beaten her on a court that fast, how Seles was going to win 5 or more French Opens in a row when even Chris Evert could not do it, etc......

As for the #1 ranking, Graf didnt want to play anymore than 8 events a year if she could with her back by that point. Seles might have been doing her a favor. The WTA promoters behind the scenes probably begged her to play more than she felt physically up to outside the 6 major events, to prevent the possible atrocity in the days one did not know #1s like Wozniacki, Jankovic, Safina, et al would one day exist, of the 90s version of Mickey Mouse event and ranking system hogger Conchita Martinez of reaching #1.


Hingis only took over because Graf was injured and Seles was never the same player

A 15 year old Hingis beat Graf on clay, and a 16 year old Hingis took Graf to 5 sets on fast indoor court at the 1996 WTA Championships. Had set points vs her at the U.S Open too. She was clearly ready to challenge and overtook Graf in 1997 as she matured. Seles was owned by Hingis, and IIRC thumped brutally in over half their matches, the worst coming in their first couple ones. Graf and Seles would have always taken atleast a full year to figure out Hingis's clever and unique game once she reached a new level heading into 1997, the same way it took the power hitters more than a year to figure out how to approach, attack, and beat the Hingis game, with Hingis's lazyness and stagnation once she reached the top making that posssible for them to do.


Serena rose to the top only after Hingis & Davenport were out injured

Serena Williams won most of her matches with Hingis and Davenport in 1999-2000 when they were at their best and she was still an immmature player. No version of Hingis and Davenport would have wanted anything to do with GoatRena of 2002-2003, and given her final results of 2002 the early blooming Hingis did not want anything to do with the WTA tour anymore, and with good reason.


Justine only took over because Serena was out with injury

During the worst slump and most inactive time of Serena's career which I presume you are referring to- 2005 and 2006, Henin only won:

-2 French Opens. As if Serena would make any difference to that. :lol:

-The 2006 year end #1. A healthy and form Serena didnt even care enough about the regular tour to prevent Safina, 40% the player Henin is, from holding #1 most of 2009.

-The 2006 WTA Championships. An event Serena has won 2 times in her 15 year career, and 0 times between between 2001 and 2009.

Maybe Henin would have played Serena in all those 2006 slam finals rather than Sharapova and Mauresmo if she had been healthy. Given how she fared vs Serena in both 2003 and 2007, and how she fared vs Mauresmo in 2006, and Sharapova on hard courts from late 2006-early 2008, she probably would have been better off and more likely to have more majors in this case, so it seems Serena's inactivity was a determiment to Henin, not a hinderance. :lol:


Justine retired and Serena took over again

Serena has only lost to Justine twice ever on non clay surfaces. Once on grass and once on hard courts. Justine had already peaked in 2007, saw it in early 2008, and cowardly ducked out rather than continue in less than her career peak form, when she still could have easily continued and been one of the top. Serena won no more French Opens of course. Henin would likely have made minimal or no impact to Serena's slam wins had she not retired.

As for the #1 ranking, Serena even active and playing well post 2003 all but begs others to take that mantle instead, and with the increasingly sorry state of the WTA has to take heat for allowing the likes of Safina and Wozniacki taking it with her non interest in the non major events part of the WTA tour. Thus an active Henin would just be fulfilling her wishes, and removing the scrutiny Serena would otherwise get for allowing mediocre players to be illegit #1s in her place.


The WTA became a mess
WTA's been a mess ever since

Dont blame Serena and Henin and their 1980-1983 WTA generation, which are probably collectively the deepest and strongest in history. They managed to amass a combined 39 majors:

Sserena- 13 slams
Venus- 7 slams
Henin- 7 slams
Hingis- 5 slams
Clijsters- 4 slams
Myskina- 1 slam
Schiavone- 1 slam
Na- 1 slam


Collectively they began their damage even on strong generations holding the fort previously, chased Graf into retirement at 30, Seles into second tierdom by 23, Sanchez Vicario into obscurity by 27, relegated the majority of the hard hitting and capable Davenport/Pierce generation to a blip, did the same to the majority of the Kuznetsova led 1984-1986 generation, and have held Generation Suck in check for years, even sending out their 4th liners to plug up the holes (Schiavone and Na). There is only so long they can mask the failures of Generation Lost (1984-1986) and Generation Suck (1988-1991).

tennisvideos
May 1st, 2012, 02:40 AM
Oh dear. Too much information for me to bother reading LOL. Facts are facts. Twist and modify them all you like.

mistymore
May 1st, 2012, 03:40 AM
Oh dear. Too much information for me to bother reading LOL. Facts are facts. Twist and modify them all you like.

I agree. Facts are facts, and facts are a team of highly versed experts ranked Graf is #1 all time women and Navratilova #2, obviously far ahead of all other women as there were a group of men seperating them from Court and Evert. That is no surprise those are facts also are virtually all experts, past players, writers, have either called Graf 1, Navratilova 2 or Navratilova 1, Graf 2, for years now. It has been a two horse only race since 1996 now. Those are the facts, and I like Evert especialy and dont even like Navratilova.

# of slam wins with no context or consideration are one fact, and fact is Roy Emerson is #3 all time for men in slam wins. Case in point in the end some facts dont mean much.

tennisvideos
May 1st, 2012, 05:48 AM
I agree. Facts are facts, and facts are a team of highly versed experts ranked Graf is #1 all time women and Navratilova #2, obviously far ahead of all other women as there were a group of men seperating them from Court and Evert. That is no surprise those are facts also are virtually all experts, past players, writers, have either called Graf 1, Navratilova 2 or Navratilova 1, Graf 2, for years now. It has been a two horse only race since 1996 now. Those are the facts, and I like Evert especialy and dont even like Navratilova.

# of slam wins with no context or consideration are one fact, and fact is Roy Emerson is #3 all time for men in slam wins. Case in point in the end some facts dont mean much.

Fact is most tennis journalists and media etc have no idea that Margaret Court, for example, won 199 singles titles and has a career singles win/loss of 92%. This sort of information is not in the public domain.

You can't compare the womens slams to the men - when Roy Emerson won his Slams, most of the top men were professional. There were 2 separate tours. It's like comparing apples and oranges.

Ultimately, I don't care anymore. In my mind players like Ken Rosewall, Rod Laver, Pancho Gonzales, Bill Tilden are up there with Roger Federer for GOATS and there are cases for others.

In my mind the top women are Lenglen, Wills, Connolly, Court, Evert, Navratilova, Graf, Seles, Serena Williams. That's good enough for me.

hingis-seles
May 1st, 2012, 09:08 AM
Apart from the Seles stabbing which is a unique case, and which people are entitled to make their own judgements on regarding the non Wimbledon wins of Graf from 93-95, all the others are nothing more than normalcy and have nothing whatsoever to do with the Australian Open argument. Players to through slumps, players get old, players get lucky, players get unlucky, players rise because others fall, players fall because others rise, players have personal issues, players get injured and sick. Things like that happened at some point to Court herself (she got pregnant multiple times, took time off, took time off due to burnout in the late 60s at one point) which benefited her opponents, and to her opponents (King had major knee problems at the turn of the decade, Bueno had major health problems, King had to sacrifice some of her own tennis ambition to try and create the WTA) which benefited Court. I never said any of that matters though, as that is just par per course, just like all the other things you mentioned. The Australian Open being basically a non slam before 1980, and not even being one of the 10 most important events with the best quality fields on tour in the 60s and 70s as other events besides the Australian rose, is just a commonly known situation of the sport of tennis, and has nothing to do with players seperate injury cases or slumps that impacted between players.

Anyway it would be easy to dispute each invidual case you said:

Evert only won because Margaret and BJK were on their way out

Evert was 5-3 vs King and 4-4 vs Court from 1970-1973 when she was not in her primes and they were. Maturing Chris would have had no problem taking over. The only thing one could say is she might not have been able to dominate Wimbledon if King were in her prime or win much at the Australian Open if Court were. Well she went 3-7 in Wimbledon finals and didnt win her first Australian Open until age 28, so no need anyway.

Navratilova only rose to the top once Evert burnt out

Chris was making the finals of almost every tournament. She would have totally dominated tennis still if it werent for Martina.

and a whole generation of players collapsed (Austin, Jaegar, etc)

A bunch of overhyped kids. Jaeger was playing her best tennis in 1982-1983, and Martina and Chris were just way better than her. Austin was pretty darn good when healthy but only a threat to Chris and Martina on hard courts or indoors, and her game was one dimensional and showed little capacity for growth which is why by 1982 she was already losing significant ground.

Graf only took the top mantle because Evert and Navratilova were old

Chris in 1986 lost to 16 year old 0 titles Graf for the first time, and never beat her again. Chris herself claims her best ever tennis was 1984-1986. Graf aged her alot faster as she was excitedly talking about wanting to play another 6 years in early 1986, then she started losing to Graf over and over, and was talking about retiring by 1987. Navratilova played top level tennis consistently until atleast early 1993, and would have dominated 1987-1989 if Graf did not exist, much more than Graf would have ever dominated 1991-1992 without Seles in years Selestials insist Graf was in her best ever form.

Seles only took over because Graf had personal issues

Graf was in a major slump in the early 90s but it is wrong to put it down to personal issues. Sometimes players just dont play their best, and it is silly fans have to always fish around for a reason for it. Why did Navratilova play like crap most of 1980 and 1981 for instance. It is acknowledged that she did, but there isnt an obvious reason for it. Graf had bigger personal issues in 1995 and 1996 and it didnt affect her play so I doubt your assertion this was the reason for her generally poor play much of 1990-1992.

As it was while Graf was in a major slump, hence why she made the finals of only 3 of the 12 major events in 1991/1992 while playing and regularly losing to all the same people minus Seles (never an opponent before finals) she completely dominated from 1987-1990 and 1993-1996, Seles did manage to beat her in 3 slam finals from 1990-1993, suggesting even had Graf been in much better form she was so strong at the time she might have still been able to handle Graf, outside of grass where she would be always hopeless vs Graf.

Graf only regained the top mantle because Seles got stabbed

Graf won only 6 majors while Seles was out. There were 3 Wimbledons during that time, new draw and no way Graf draws McNeil 1st round in 94 and the 94 event is thrown in a free for all. We have already gone from 6 to 3, and we have barely gotten started with explaining how Seles was going to keep winning every non Wimbledon every year for several more years when the final 7 years of her career she managed 0 majors, how Graf even on rebound ace vs Seles was ever going to lose with her godly form at the 94 Australian Open, how Graf was going to win 0 U.S Opens when Seles has never beaten her on a court that fast, how Seles was going to win 5 or more French Opens in a row when even Chris Evert could not do it, etc......

As for the #1 ranking, Graf didnt want to play anymore than 8 events a year if she could with her back by that point. Seles might have been doing her a favor. The WTA promoters behind the scenes probably begged her to play more than she felt physically up to outside the 6 major events, to prevent the possible atrocity in the days one did not know #1s like Wozniacki, Jankovic, Safina, et al would one day exist, of the 90s version of Mickey Mouse event and ranking system hogger Conchita Martinez of reaching #1.


Hingis only took over because Graf was injured and Seles was never the same player

A 15 year old Hingis beat Graf on clay, and a 16 year old Hingis took Graf to 5 sets on fast indoor court at the 1996 WTA Championships. Had set points vs her at the U.S Open too. She was clearly ready to challenge and overtook Graf in 1997 as she matured. Seles was owned by Hingis, and IIRC thumped brutally in over half their matches, the worst coming in their first couple ones. Graf and Seles would have always taken atleast a full year to figure out Hingis's clever and unique game once she reached a new level heading into 1997, the same way it took the power hitters more than a year to figure out how to approach, attack, and beat the Hingis game, with Hingis's lazyness and stagnation once she reached the top making that posssible for them to do.


Serena rose to the top only after Hingis & Davenport were out injured

Serena Williams won most of her matches with Hingis and Davenport in 1999-2000 when they were at their best and she was still an immmature player. No version of Hingis and Davenport would have wanted anything to do with GoatRena of 2002-2003, and given her final results of 2002 the early blooming Hingis did not want anything to do with the WTA tour anymore, and with good reason.


Justine only took over because Serena was out with injury

During the worst slump and most inactive time of Serena's career which I presume you are referring to- 2005 and 2006, Henin only won:

-2 French Opens. As if Serena would make any difference to that. :lol:

-The 2006 year end #1. A healthy and form Serena didnt even care enough about the regular tour to prevent Safina, 40% the player Henin is, from holding #1 most of 2009.

-The 2006 WTA Championships. An event Serena has won 2 times in her 15 year career, and 0 times between between 2001 and 2009.

Maybe Henin would have played Serena in all those 2006 slam finals rather than Sharapova and Mauresmo if she had been healthy. Given how she fared vs Serena in both 2003 and 2007, and how she fared vs Mauresmo in 2006, and Sharapova on hard courts from late 2006-early 2008, she probably would have been better off and more likely to have more majors in this case, so it seems Serena's inactivity was a determiment to Henin, not a hinderance. :lol:


Justine retired and Serena took over again

Serena has only lost to Justine twice ever on non clay surfaces. Once on grass and once on hard courts. Justine had already peaked in 2007, saw it in early 2008, and cowardly ducked out rather than continue in less than her career peak form, when she still could have easily continued and been one of the top. Serena won no more French Opens of course. Henin would likely have made minimal or no impact to Serena's slam wins had she not retired.

As for the #1 ranking, Serena even active and playing well post 2003 all but begs others to take that mantle instead, and with the increasingly sorry state of the WTA has to take heat for allowing the likes of Safina and Wozniacki taking it with her non interest in the non major events part of the WTA tour. Thus an active Henin would just be fulfilling her wishes, and removing the scrutiny Serena would otherwise get for allowing mediocre players to be illegit #1s in her place.





Dont blame Serena and Henin and their 1980-1983 WTA generation, which are probably collectively the deepest and strongest in history. They managed to amass a combined 39 majors:

Sserena- 13 slams
Venus- 7 slams
Henin- 7 slams
Hingis- 5 slams
Clijsters- 4 slams
Myskina- 1 slam
Schiavone- 1 slam
Na- 1 slam


Collectively they began their damage even on strong generations holding the fort previously, chased Graf into retirement at 30, Seles into second tierdom by 23, Sanchez Vicario into obscurity by 27, relegated the majority of the hard hitting and capable Davenport/Pierce generation to a blip, did the same to the majority of the Kuznetsova led 1984-1986 generation, and have held Generation Suck in check for years, even sending out their 4th liners to plug up the holes (Schiavone and Na). There is only so long they can mask the failures of Generation Lost (1984-1986) and Generation Suck (1988-1991).

My original point was that once you open one player's record open for scrutiny, you do the same for all others. You presented one point of view and just as easily someone can turn around and say that those players (in the cases I originally pointed out to which you responded individually) won Slams in depleted fields just like you are saying Court did. Seles gets stabbed and Graf magically recovers from her "slump" and wins her first RG title in 5 years and her first AO title in 4 years. Graf is out tending to her knee and Hingis miraculously wins her first Wimbledon title, a year after being blown away by Graf with minimal fuss. Those fields were no less depleted with the absence of Seles and Graf, respectively, than the ones in which Court won her AO because a couple of top players couldn't be bothered flying all the way to Australia to compete.

Sam L
May 1st, 2012, 10:04 AM
have either called Graf 1, Navratilova 2 or Navratilova 1, Graf 2, for years now.

They can't even agree on who is No. 1. But there is a clear No. 1 in statistics.

Most Grand Slam singles won - Court
Most Grand Slam titles won - Court
Most tournament titles won - Court
Best win/loss percentage - Court

That's the good thing about sport, no matter what anyone thinks and no matter who hates whom or who likes whom, it doesn't matter because one way to objectively measure greatness is numbers, not just in one thing but in a variety of categories and Court comes out on top on all the major cateogories.

Winning a "Greatest of all time" list from Tennis Channel is like I said Katharine Hepburn winning AFI Greatest list. It's subjective and it's opinion. Not a fact.

Sam L
May 1st, 2012, 10:07 AM
Besides, Bette Davis was the greatest film actress of all time (although Meryl is making a good go of it). I don't see how anyone can question this. Just having the most statues and the most nominations does not the greatest of all time make one. Davis dominated the competition from 1938-1945. I seem to recall Hepburn being labelled "box office poison" around that time. She practically had to beg Phillip Barry for the part in The Philadelphia Story (which Stewart and Grant carried her in), and then basically stalked Spencer Tracy on the lot in order to make films until the next time an offer of substance came around. I like Kate, but let's be serious, her nominations and best films came when nobody else played.

Vivien Leigh would be my number one. Who has created not one but two unforgettable, legendary performances based on fictional characters and a role "the quintessential Southern Belle" that will forever be the standard set by her? :p Bette will be a close second though. She was great. :)

alfajeffster
May 1st, 2012, 12:05 PM
Vivien Leigh would be my number one. Who has created not one but two unforgettable, legendary performances based on fictional characters and a role "the quintessential Southern Belle" that will forever be the standard set by her? :p Bette will be a close second though. She was great. :)

The first line in Margaret Mitchell's book is "Scarlett O'Hara was not a beautiful woman, but men seldom realized this when captured by her eyes". This line screams for Bette Davis, and I think (see Jezebel) she would have put in the performance to end all performances in that role. She walked out on the role, and Warner Bros. (who opted the part for her), and regretted that decision for the rest of her career. MGM was touting Vivien as Scarlett (after all, nobody really knew who she was at the time), and even got Mitchell to declare she was the perfect Scarlett. I totally agree with Leigh's interpretation of Blanche DuBois, but it wasn't a real stretch for her. She was already certifiable by then. Ah but we could go on and stay off topic, so best not continue.

Sam L
May 1st, 2012, 12:23 PM
The first line in Margaret Mitchell's book is "Scarlett O'Hara was not a beautiful woman, but men seldom realized this when captured by her eyes". This line screams for Bette Davis, and I think (see Jezebel) she would have put in the performance to end all performances in that role. She walked out on the role, and Warner Bros. (who opted the part for her), and regretted that decision for the rest of her career. MGM was touting Vivien as Scarlett (after all, nobody really knew who she was at the time), and even got Mitchell to declare she was the perfect Scarlett. I totally agree with Leigh's interpretation of Blanche DuBois, but it wasn't a real stretch for her. She was already certifiable by then. Ah but we could go on and stay off topic, so best not continue.

I have Jezebel on DVD. One of my all time favourites. But I haven't seen it for a long while. I love the way she first appeared on the screen in Jezebel riding on the horse and when she entered the ballroom in that red dress. Julie Marsden and Scarlett O'Hara are actually very similar characters. I love them both so much. And yes, Vivien Leigh is too beautiful to be "not a beautiful woman". But it's almost blasphemous to say anyone but Vivien should've played Scarlett. It is, it just is. :p But, I still can't believe Bette Davis walked out on GWTW.

I agree but it's fun nevertheless. We should totally talk about this in Non-Tennis. :p

Rollo
May 1st, 2012, 02:27 PM
I totally agree with Leigh's interpretation of Blanche DuBois, but it wasn't a real stretch for her. She was already certifiable by then. Ah but we could go on and stay off topic, so best not continue.

I dunno-some of the over the top performances in favor of this or that player remind me very much of Blanche Dubois-it's not too off topic!:lol:

Rollo
May 1st, 2012, 02:41 PM
I agree. Facts are facts, and facts are a team of highly versed experts ranked Graf is #1 all time women and Navratilova #2, obviously far ahead of all other women as there were a group of men seperating them from Court and Evert.

Highly versed? We wern't given the names of all those who voted or how many votes they were given, etc. And the fact that the men were given more top slots makes it suspect when we are talking about the women. Would someone like Pete Sampras give Suzanne Lenglen (or even Bill Tilden) two seconds thought?

That is no surprise those are facts also are virtually all experts, past players, writers, have either called Graf 1, Navratilova 2 or Navratilova 1, Graf 2, for years now. It has been a two horse only race since 1996 now. Those are the facts, and I like Evert especialy and dont even like Navratilova.

And that's because-surprise!-those two are most recent superstars. If Serena tops out the next Tennis Channel poll among women it would be due to the same reasons.

"Allexperts and past players?". A lot of them are dead. What I saw on Tennis Channel was a lot of relatively recent past players. No one trotted out Doris Hart or Louise Brough.

A lot of Americans of course, as it's an American channel. Look, when Michael Chang makes the list of the top 100 players of all time it's a joke. He's not even among the top 100 men of all time.

# of slam wins with no context or consideration are one fact, and fact is Roy Emerson is #3 all time for men in slam wins. Case in point in the end some facts dont mean much.

Yes, but it's not the same for women, as they did not have players turning pro as the men did in Emmo's era. As far as I'm concenred Laver is still the best male ever. To top him IMO one has to at least win the THE Grand Slam once.

But of course Fed got the nod. And Steffi for the women. Which is fine-he's a great player,she is too, and perhaps the best of all time. But let's get real. They got the nod becasue they are of todays generation-not yesterdays.

Cite their stats to impress-not that godawful list.

Rollo
May 1st, 2012, 02:56 PM
Things like that happened at some point to Court herself (she got pregnant multiple times, took time off, took time off due to burnout in the late 60s at one point) which benefited her opponents, and to her opponents (King had major knee problems at the turn of the decade, Bueno had major health problems, King had to sacrifice some of her own tennis ambition to try and create the WTA) which benefited Court. I never said any of that matters though, as that is just par per course, just like all the other things you mentioned. The Australian Open being basically a non slam before 1980, and not even being one of the 10 most important events with the best quality fields on tour in the 60s and 70s as other events besides the Australian rose, is just a commonly known situation of the sport of tennis, and has nothing to do with players seperate injury cases or slumps that impacted between players.


Don't die of shock Misty-I agree with you on a lot of this. The Aussie WAS by far the weakest of the 4 slams. It counted for a lot more than you are giving it credit for IMO, but that, and the fact that she won "only" 3 Wimbledon's-are the Achilles heel in the Court as all time #1 argument.

Of course the flip side is like it or not she's won the most majors. Even taking away 6 or so Aussies (we can agree she would have won 5 had everyone played-yes?) leaves her with 18 slams-the same as Chris and Martina-the difference being she has the grand slam.

And Steffi's Achilles Heel is equally evident. Like it or not Seles was taken out unwillingly-throwing a good number of her slam count into doubt as well. But what can't be altered is Graf also won THE Grand Slam.

Argue for whomever you want. But to pretend the margin is anything less than razor thin is a laugh to me.

and my vote still goes to Helen Wills!:hearts:

alfajeffster
May 1st, 2012, 07:21 PM
...and my vote still goes to Helen Wills!:hearts:

You should know, you were around to see her play live. :lol:

Rollo
May 1st, 2012, 07:49 PM
You should know, you were around to see her play live. :lol:

That's right. And I saw Helen Lawson on the other side of 30-and I'm not talkin about the number of martinis she downed!

laschutz
May 1st, 2012, 11:59 PM
goolagong had more talent than evert? that's hard to really say.. i mean what is the definition of "talent" does that mean physical talent only? even that is hard to pinpoint,, oh sure, evonne was more "athletic" than chrissie, but what about the physical talent of hand to eye coordination,, the physical ability of footwork and anticipation, the physical ability of endurance and stamina,, ALL THAT CHRISSIE WAS IN VERY RARIFIED AIR.. so she was evonne's "better in physical talent" as well in some areas if you break it down in the various components of "talent in regard to physical talent" beside the obvious apparent basic physicality of evonne being a athlete and faster and what not...

goolagong had more physical talent than evert in some regards and likewise in other physical talent attributes evert was evonne's better...

mentally, of course it was a different apparent story...

mistymore
May 2nd, 2012, 12:05 AM
I think Goolagong had more variety, more finesse, more overall athletic ability, more speed of foot, more all court skills, obviously a better serve and better overhead. So based on that I would say she was more talented overall than Evert. Not that Evert wasnt also extremely talented with her incredible ball striking skills from the baseline, impeccable accuracy, and her and keen understanding and ability of how to construct points and play the game, all of which had to be somewhat natural. However many experts say Evonne was one of the most talented players ever. Chris mentally was in a whole different stratosphere than Evonne though, and that is what made her the much better player.

mistymore
May 2nd, 2012, 12:10 AM
Another thing about Evonne is she could do it all but she seemed to want to play to her opponents greatest strength. When she played King she seemed to want to serve and volley with her and beat her at her own game, make it a race to the net. When she played Chris she seemed to want to play predominantly from the baseline, and beat Chris at her own baseline game, even on clay. I am not sure if this was the wisest strategy. She might have been better off playing to their weakness rather than their strength.

gabybackhand
May 2nd, 2012, 05:20 AM
Besides, Bette Davis was the greatest film actress of all time (although Meryl is making a good go of it). I don't see how anyone can question this. Just having the most statues and the most nominations does not the greatest of all time make one. Davis dominated the competition from 1938-1945. I seem to recall Hepburn being labelled "box office poison" around that time. She practically had to beg Phillip Barry for the part in The Philadelphia Story (which Stewart and Grant carried her in), and then basically stalked Spencer Tracy on the lot in order to make films until the next time an offer of substance came around. I like Kate, but let's be serious, her nominations and best films came when nobody else played.
I forgot to mention about this Oscar "comparison" and how unfair life can be, as one of the best actresses ever IMHO and one of my personal favorites (the other ones are basically Meryl Streep, Helena Bonham-Carter and Julia Roberts)hasn't won ONE yet while others like Hillary Swank,who I don't dislike, has won already two. I'm talking about evil and intriguing Marquise the Merteuil,or mad stalker Alex, Cruella de Vil herself, Glenn Close!

Sam L
May 2nd, 2012, 10:34 AM
Of course the flip side is like it or not she's won the most majors.

This is the bottom line. Plus, she also has the best winning percentage and most tournaments.

Like, tennisvideos said, there are a handful of women who should be considered amongst the greatest and I agree with his group.

If we went a single GOAT assoluta, the only way would be to go down the numbers route and Court has all the numbers.

So we have to either accept Court as the statistical GOAT assoluta or accept a group of women that are widely considered to be GOATs.

I don't follow many sports. Tennis and figure skating of yesteryear is just about it, but in the realms of the arts, there is no GOAT, it's always XXX is considered one of the greatest XXX of all-time. And usually that's how people describe tennis players too. And that is probably how it should be.

tennisvideos
May 2nd, 2012, 11:02 AM
I don't follow many sports. Tennis and figure skating of yesteryear is just about it, but in the realms of the arts, there is no GOAT, it's always XXX is considered one of the greatest XXX of all-time. And usually that's how people describe tennis players too. And that is probably how it should be.

I concur with your statement Sam L. Nicely put. The rest is an exercise in favouritism, and ultimately, futility.

Sam L
May 2nd, 2012, 02:42 PM
I don't follow many sports. Tennis and figure skating of yesteryear is just about it, but in the realms of the arts, there is no GOAT, it's always XXX is considered one of the greatest XXX of all-time. And usually that's how people describe tennis players too. And that is probably how it should be.

I concur with your statement Sam L. Nicely put. The rest is an exercise in favouritism, and ultimately, futility.

I don't know why you were even bothering with that trash. Did you see this post? http://www.tennisforum.com/showpost.php?p=21226670&postcount=107

:lol:

tennisvideos
May 3rd, 2012, 04:40 AM
[quote=tennisvideos;21352964]

I don't know why you were even bothering with that trash. Did you see this post? http://www.tennisforum.com/showpost.php?p=21226670&postcount=107

:lol:

Oh dear ... some people just are filled with negatives and hate. Best to focus on more positive things and attract more positive experiences. Laughter is another good antidote :lol:

mistymore
May 3rd, 2012, 05:06 AM
I don't know why you were even bothering with that trash. Did you see this post? http://www.tennisforum.com/showpost.php?p=21226670&postcount=107


That post makes more sense than 99% of the nonsense you post. Thrash is a good word to describe your posts, there is never anything but. Just look at your posts bitching about Stosur throughout Charleston this year since you were apparently pissed she won the U.S Open over one of your beloved Williams this year, boo hoo, get over it loser, and I am supposably the anti Aussie, LOL! Many would concur Court isnt top 5 all time on grass. Navratilova, Graf, Venus, Wills Moody, Lenglen, possibly King and Serena, there are already 5 to 7 many would rank better. How terrible to suggest someone with only 3 Wimbledons and a worse Wimbledon record than Evert might not even be top 5 all time on grass. Likewise most would laugh at your ranking of Venus at #2 all time on grass over all of Graf, Wills, and Lenglen, now that is funny. Someone who is their arch grass rival's (Serena) puppy in their own era, #2 all time on clay, ROTFL, nice joke that.

BTW you must have no life if you have time to keep spreading out so many reps to bad rep me every 2 days. :lol: Get a hobby or something.

tennisvideos
May 4th, 2012, 03:46 AM
All I can say in response is that Court won 5 of the 11 USO titles she contested, 11 of 13 Aussie Opens and 3 of 12 Wimbledons. As well as dominating most of the grass court tournaments around the world. So she is in contention for one of the greatest ever on grass IMO.

Her aberration at WImbledon was just that, an aberration IMO. She was unfortunately sick, injured or coming back from retirement in a number where she fell short. Otherwise, she had an astonishing career on grass.

alfajeffster
May 4th, 2012, 01:02 PM
And let's face it, she struggled mightily with her nerves at Wimbledon. The Championships were so much bigger when she played-it was THE tournament to win for everyone throughout the world. The media attention, coupled with the tradition and starchy rules and proper regulations were obviously things that, in combination, did a number on her confidence. To put it into perspective (and I really do believe this)- had she had a huge lefty serve to get her out of nervous situations (like Martina did throughout her career), you'd see a much larger number next to her name at Wimbledon.

mistymore
May 4th, 2012, 05:26 PM
As Wimbledon and the U.S Open are the only two major grass court events that you can accurately evaluate back then Court averaged 4 majors at the 2 real grass slams then. Not bad at all. However King averaged 5, which is actually higher, and suggests even King could be ranked over Court on grass, although factoring in clay and other surfaces Court is definitely ahead as an overall player. Even Bueno won nearly as many combined Wimbledon and U.S Opens as Court, 7 to 8, and has beaten Court in her prime in both Wimbledon and U.S Open finals.

Navratilova, Wills, and Graf all rank over Court on grass, they are the no brainers. Like it or not Wimbledon will always be the biggest measuring stick for comparing players on grass, so Court cannot even be argued against players who won over twice as many Wimbledons as she. After that you could argue all of Venus, Serena, Court, King, Lenglen, to what order they should be in, so she could be anywhere from 4th to 8th really. Sam L has ranked Venus the #2 grass courter all time though (hahaha for someone who even pretends to be versed on tennis history), so by the perpetrators own logic even harder to find a spot for Court in top 5.

I am also not evaluating just Wimbledon, as if it were just Wimbledon, Court wouldnt even rank top 10.

tennisvideos
May 4th, 2012, 06:24 PM
Well as much as anyone can spout off about their importance, Wimbledon and the USO were NOT the only grass court tournaments back in the day. They were 2 events out of about 20-28 that Court used to average playing. As important as they were, I don't think counting 6-10% of a player's results is indicative of their performance in a season. As I have mentioned many times, I prefer to look at overall performance and consistency. Hence why I also regard Evert so highly. Anyway, we can go around in circles forever.

thrust
May 5th, 2012, 01:10 AM
All I can say in response is that Court won 5 of the 11 USO titles she contested, 11 of 13 Aussie Opens and 3 of 12 Wimbledons. As well as dominating most of the grass court tournaments around the world. So she is in contention for one of the greatest ever on grass IMO.

Her aberration at WImbledon was just that, an aberration IMO. She was unfortunately sick, injured or coming back from retirement in a number where she fell short. Otherwise, she had an astonishing career on grass.

SO TRUE! Court beat King in 4 of the 5 Grass Court Slam Finals they played. 2of2 at Wimbledon, 2of2 at USO, 1-1 at the AO. At least 6 of Court's AO wins were against top international competition. Court was indeed one of the greatest grass court players of all time. Graf's Wimby wins are inflated, due to a weak grass court era. The same can be said of the Williams wins. The Court-King era was a very tough grass court era primarily because most tournaments were played on grass, therfore more player were able to play well on that surface. Today the top players play 2 or 3 grass tournaments each year, at most. Grass court tennis today, is a joke.

tennisvideos
May 5th, 2012, 12:09 PM
SO TRUE! Court beat King in 4 of the 5 Grass Court Slam Finals they played. 2of2 at Wimbledon, 2of2 at USO, 1-1 at the AO. At least 6 of Court's AO wins were against top international competition. Court was indeed one of the greatest grass court players of all time. Graf's Wimby wins are inflated, due to a weak grass court era. The same can be said of the Williams wins. The Court-King era was a very tough grass court era primarily because most tournaments were played on grass, therfore more player were able to play well on that surface. Today the top players play 2 or 3 grass tournaments each year, at most. Grass court tennis today, is a joke.

So true ... as you say, most of the tour was on grass so it abounded with grass court specialists, with a number of great claycourters as well. Definitely until the mid/late 70s the standard of grass court play was unsurpassed IMO.

samo
May 5th, 2012, 12:56 PM
i know there are many who discard goolagong - and reading some of these post upsets me as she was a force in the 70s and yes i understand the Oz open was less than full strenght in the mid 70s but as pointed out here eariler she did beat Evert and navratilova to win 2 of her oz opens.....2 points i would like to add....apart from martina no one else ever beat evert more than 10 times except for evonne who triumphed 13 times i think....so not king , not court not austin not jaeger not mandlikova....evonne did....and 2...while the oz open was less than full strenght at times the viginia slims champs were cosidered the 3rd major in the mid 70s and evonne won twice beating king and evert in straigt sets in 74 and then navtratilova and evert in the 76 slims championships - add that 68 other tournaments including 2 wimbledons and evonne rightly should be remebered as one of the best in the 70s

alfajeffster
May 5th, 2012, 01:20 PM
i know there are many who discard goolagong - and reading some of these post upsets me as she was a force in the 70s and yes i understand the Oz open was less than full strenght in the mid 70s but as pointed out here eariler she did beat Evert and navratilova to win 2 of her oz opens.....2 points i would like to add....apart from martina no one else ever beat evert more than 10 times except for evonne who triumphed 13 times i think....so not king , not court not austin not jaeger not mandlikova....evonne did....and 2...while the oz open was less than full strenght at times the viginia slims champs were cosidered the 3rd major in the mid 70s and evonne won twice beating king and evert in straigt sets in 74 and then navtratilova and evert in the 76 slims championships - add that 68 other tournaments including 2 wimbledons and evonne rightly should be remebered as one of the best in the 70s

I think Evert hit the nail on the head when she said (not verbatim) that Evonne was the only player she'd actually stop to watch play at a tournament they were both in. She was in such awe of the natural seemingly effortless grace and beauty her tennis brought to the game. I like watching the Goolagong/Evert matches much better than the truck driver vs. ice maiden Navratilova/Evert contests. As you can tell from my signature, there was nothing more beautiful to watch. It's easy to see why she beat all the top players of her day. When she was on, there was no one who could touch her.

tennisvideos
May 5th, 2012, 01:54 PM
I think Evert hit the nail on the head when she said (not verbatim) that Evonne was the only player she'd actually stop to watch play at a tournament they were both in. She was in such awe of the natural seemingly effortless grace and beauty her tennis brought to the game. I like watching the Goolagong/Evert matches much better than the truck driver vs. ice maiden Navratilova/Evert contests. As you can tell from my signature, there was nothing more beautiful to watch. It's easy to see why she beat all the top players of her day. When she was on, there was no one who could touch her.

Here here. And I just located that astonishing fact about Evonne - between 1971 and 1976 she made the final of 17 out of the 21 Grand Slam tournaments she contested - that is absolutely astonishing IMO :worship:

She certainly WAS one of the greats of the 70s. Especially all the more remarkable when you consider it wasn't life and death for Evonne - she played for the pure joy of running around and hitting the ball. Evonne is the closest thing the universe has seen of an angel incarnating on earth and playing tennis. :bounce:

alfajeffster
May 5th, 2012, 05:51 PM
Here here. And I just located that astonishing fact about Evonne - between 1971 and 1976 she made the final of 17 out of the 21 Grand Slam tournaments she contested - that is absolutely astonishing IMO :worship:

She certainly WAS one of the greats of the 70s. Especially all the more remarkable when you consider it wasn't life and death for Evonne - she played for the pure joy of running around and hitting the ball. Evonne is the closest thing the universe has seen of an angel incarnating on earth and playing tennis. :bounce:

The only other tennis player I've seen in the 40+ years I've been watching players who approaches Evonne's beautiful brand of tennis is Roger Federer. All the shots, and hits them all so smoothly and effortlessly, as if it were the game it really is, and he's won. If only Evonne could've had that direction and dedication, but then again, she wouldn't have been that free spirited, refreshing girl that she was. She tells a story in her autobiography "HOME" about the Dallas tournament where Evert had lost a tough match, and Evonne found her slumped on the floor sobbing in the locker room afterward. She comforted her, but couldn't understand how someone could get so upset about losing a tennis match.

tennisvideos
May 6th, 2012, 05:44 AM
The only other tennis player I've seen in the 40+ years I've been watching players who approaches Evonne's beautiful brand of tennis is Roger Federer. All the shots, and hits them all so smoothly and effortlessly, as if it were the game it really is, and he's won. If only Evonne could've had that direction and dedication, but then again, she wouldn't have been that free spirited, refreshing girl that she was. She tells a story in her autobiography "HOME" about the Dallas tournament where Evert had lost a tough match, and Evonne found her slumped on the floor sobbing in the locker room afterward. She comforted her, but couldn't understand how someone could get so upset about losing a tennis match.

Yes Roger is the closest thing for sure. But I guess the thing about Evonne is that most of her shots looked incredibly delicate and effortless ... she looked more like she was caressing the ball. Roger is an artiste in a similar vein, and so was Maria Bueno of course, but Evonne was the most graceful of them all IMO. And her personality matched her game. I had the honour of meeting her once and she was so down to earth and friendly.

It's interesting that Roger is able to play an artistic game despite the dominance of the power game with modern technology, so one can only hope we can see another Goolagong type of player emerge from the ashes, so to speak.

alfajeffster
May 6th, 2012, 01:15 PM
Yes Roger is the closest thing for sure. But I guess the thing about Evonne is that most of her shots looked incredibly delicate and effortless ... she looked more like she was caressing the ball. Roger is an artiste in a similar vein, and so was Maria Bueno of course, but Evonne was the most graceful of them all IMO. And her personality matched her game. I had the honour of meeting her once and she was so down to earth and friendly.

It's interesting that Roger is able to play an artistic game despite the dominance of the power game with modern technology, so one can only hope we can see another Goolagong type of player emerge from the ashes, so to speak.

Well, it's easy to imagine how much more supple Fed's game would be with a standard frame (wood or whatever- just standard size). Regarding Maria Bueno, I've seen a few of her matches (thank you), and I have to admit I now agree with Billie Jean King when she said Maria's game was overrated. She had all the shots, and beautiful strokes and execution, but she moved like a duck about the court (had a gait much like Pam Shriver), and despite being lavishly dressed throughout her career, wasn't all she was hyped up to be in the grace department. When she was in mid-execution of a shot, she was downright balletic in form, but wasn't (IMO) anywhere near as quick or graceful in court movement as were Goolagong and Federer. Another player who I really loved watching was Edberg. If you ignore the chicken-wing forehand and look at the rest of his game- there wasn't a more beautiful player in motion during his era, and that backhand, oh that backhand!

Sumarokov-Elston
May 6th, 2012, 06:39 PM
Don't forget Henri Leconte! If you want to explain to someone what the word "panache" means, just say: Henri Leconte.

But back to Evonne. Yes, in terms of mastery, she was the equal of Federer. But in many ways I think she was even better in what she could do with the ball. Roger is more classical, more all-round perfect, I would say, but even some of the shots that Evonne could hit, just out of the blue, I do not know if even Roger could. Well, of course, he could, but I do not know if he would just decide to hit them in the middle of a rally, maybe just as the concluding shot. There is a shot in her 1980 Wimbledon match against Evert: they have a long really and Evert belts a ball that lands near the baseline, Evonne reaches from behind herself on the backhand, retrieves the ball, and somehow manages to not only send it crosscourt at an unbelievable angle, but somehow plays the ball so that it stops dead the minute it crosses the net! :bounce:

Evonne's 1971-76 statistics are incredible - and would have continued had it not been for stopping to have a child, then there was the period when Martina was also thrown into the mix. Her 1980 Wimbledon triumph was just like a dream...

alfajeffster
May 6th, 2012, 08:39 PM
Don't forget Henri Leconte! If you want to explain to someone what the word "panache" means, just say: Henri Leconte.

But back to Evonne. Yes, in terms of mastery, she was the equal of Federer. But in many ways I think she was even better in what she could do with the ball. Roger is more classical, more all-round perfect, I would say, but even some of the shots that Evonne could hit, just out of the blue, I do not know if even Roger could. Well, of course, he could, but I do not know if he would just decide to hit them in the middle of a rally, maybe just as the concluding shot. There is a shot in her 1980 Wimbledon match against Evert: they have a long really and Evert belts a ball that lands near the baseline, Evonne reaches from behind herself on the backhand, retrieves the ball, and somehow manages to not only send it crosscourt at an unbelievable angle, but somehow plays the ball so that it stops dead the minute it crosses the net! :bounce:

Evonne's 1971-76 statistics are incredible - and would have continued had it not been for stopping to have a child, then there was the period when Martina was also thrown into the mix. Her 1980 Wimbledon triumph was just like a dream...

I'm going to be frank with you, so don't be offended. I actually considered mentioning Henri Leconte in my last post, but the only thing that stopped me was his butt was so flat (to the point of non-existent), his neck was unusually short (again, almost non-existent), and he generally moved around the court in a clownish manner. His groundstrokes and volleys were exquisite, but he carried himself like a goofy prankster most of the time, and it ruined the experience for me. I was one of those rare Americans rooting for him to get it together every time I watched him play. You could say many of the same things about Petr Korda.

gabybackhand
May 7th, 2012, 12:54 AM
I agree Leconte was a very talented player and his shots were delicious, but his appearance and mostly his attitude (too much of a clown for may taste) ruined the grace. In the men's side, I've always loved Roger Federer's game (from the very beginning of his career I must say) because of its beauty and its grace before he became the monster champion he is now. Edberg was one of my favorites for that very reason, as usually my favorite players are those whose games I find the most artistic.
I've seen too little of Evonne but she is one of the most graceful players ever, no doubt. You could just enjoy tennis when she was playing nice and enjoying herself, the closest thing to pure pleasure on a tennis court you could probably find.
I don't think that Graf was a truck nor a ballerina, she cannot be the best in everything and she is not the GOAT in the grace department, but it's not that she didn't have any. I find her grace that of the lightning: so fast, so to the point, and yet with a beauty of its own. I love the way she moves her free hand when she is about to hit a ball: so feminine if you take the time to observe, especially in slow motion, and yet the contrast with the ferocious power of the shot itself was striking.
Jana Novotna and Gabriela Sabatini are two graceful players, Jana more athletic and Gabriela, well her entire persona was kind of graceful, her hair, her nose, her eyes, her movements on the backhand and volleys especially. As most things about her, she could also play beautifully.

gabybackhand
May 7th, 2012, 12:57 AM
I forgot to mention another male player whose game was beautiful to watch (when on): Cedric Pioline.

mistymore
May 7th, 2012, 01:07 AM
Here here. And I just located that astonishing fact about Evonne - between 1971 and 1976 she made the final of 17 out of the 21 Grand Slam tournaments she contested - that is absolutely astonishing IMO :worship:


Given that she won 0 non Australian Opens from 1972 to 1979 that just shows she was extremely excellent at losing slam finals to Court, Evert, King, for many many years. Unfortunately ultimate greatness is based upon winning slam finals. Goolagong in that sense falls more into the Mandlikova and Sanchez Vicario category of player, still excellent and outstanding players in their own right, but just a cut below the very cream of the crop.

Contrast to other 7 slam winners like Henin and Venus who win nearly every slam final they reach, and if it is a French Open final for Henin or a non Serena slam final for Venus (which is more indicative of her inability to cope with the sibling emotions than to beat a great opponent), you could bet the house on them winning. Even Maria Bueno has a winning record in slam finals. This despite that Bueno had to play Court in 5 of her 12 slam finals, King in another, and either a multi slam champion or Wimbledon champion in 5 of her remaining 6. That IMO makes these 3 women a notch above. I was surprised at Bueno's ranking. Goolagong's ranking on this list was exactly right IMO, but Bueno should not have been around Goolagong's rank, but instead been up with Venus and Henin. An unfortunate oversight to rank the wonderful Bueno so low, much lower than she deserved.

gabybackhand
May 7th, 2012, 01:15 AM
As I cannot send PMs, I just want to say thanx for your kind (and private, sorry!) words or the good rep, mistymore, Rollo, and justineheninfan!

tennisvideos
May 7th, 2012, 11:28 AM
Given that she won 0 non Australian Opens from 1972 to 1979 that just shows she was extremely excellent at losing slam finals to Court, Evert, King, for many many years. Unfortunately ultimate greatness is based upon winning slam finals. Goolagong in that sense falls more into the Mandlikova and Sanchez Vicario category of player, still excellent and outstanding players in their own right, but just a cut below the very cream of the crop.

Contrast to other 7 slam winners like Henin and Venus who win nearly every slam final they reach, and if it is a French Open final for Henin or a non Serena slam final for Venus (which is more indicative of her inability to cope with the sibling emotions than to beat a great opponent), you could bet the house on them winning. Even Maria Bueno has a winning record in slam finals. This despite that Bueno had to play Court in 5 of her 12 slam finals, King in another, and either a multi slam champion or Wimbledon champion in 5 of her remaining 6. That IMO makes these 3 women a notch above. I was surprised at Bueno's ranking. Goolagong's ranking on this list was exactly right IMO, but Bueno should not have been around Goolagong's rank, but instead been up with Venus and Henin. An unfortunate oversight to rank the wonderful Bueno so low, much lower than she deserved.

I wasn't commenting on Evonne's overall ranking in terms of greatness. I was making a statement about her incredible performance to make 17 GS finals from 21 attempts between 1971 and 1976. It is astonishing and something to be praised. I wasn't expecting such a wonderful achievement to be spoilt with comparisons to others but there you have it. I am not suggesting Evonne is in the same league as Court, Evert, Navratilova, Graf etc. I am just praising what she did achieve without a real killer instinct that the others had. Throw in the fact she won 2 of the biggest events during that period - the end of year Vriginia Slims Championships and it just shows that she was certainly a great force in that period before she got pregnant. And she was never the same again after having her baby or I think she would have still been a contender. She suffered a bout of injuries post 77 and as Sumarokov-Elston rightly intimated, it was heaven sent that Evonne won Wimbledon in 1980 to crown her career and bring so much joy to millions of tennis fans all around the world. :worship:

A few other points I want to add ... so from those 17 Finals Evonne won 6 and went damn close to winning a number of those others.

She almost pipped the legendary Margaret Court in the 71 Aussie Open final, leading 5-2 3rd. And there was nothing much in 3 of the USO losses to Court in 73 (a great match in windy conditions), 74 to King (an all time classic match) and pushed Evert to the limit in the 75 final on clay! Had the USO remained on grass I think Evonne would have been the favourite for both 75 & 76 - fate wasn't kind to her in the change of surface - it definitely benefitted Chris there. And in the 76 Wimbledon Final Evonne I feel should have taken that one but she faltered briefly. She just didn't have the killer instinct which I think cost her potentially those 5 or 6 close battles. But they were incredibly close battles all the same and just a few points in the results either way.

I don't agree with her Aussie wins being belittled when 2 of them featured final wins over Evert and Navratilova. The girl was great ... and IMO, up until her pregnancy, a superstar of the early to mid 70s. I don't think Mandlikova or Sanchez are anywhere in the same league as Evonne, but that's just my opinion. I mean 7 GS Singles titles, 18 GS Finals, 2 x Virgnia Slims Championships far exceeds the records of those two girls. I actually think she is underrated in this list.

tennisvideos
May 7th, 2012, 11:31 AM
But back to Evonne. Yes, in terms of mastery, she was the equal of Federer. But in many ways I think she was even better in what she could do with the ball. Roger is more classical, more all-round perfect, I would say, but even some of the shots that Evonne could hit, just out of the blue, I do not know if even Roger could. Well, of course, he could, but I do not know if he would just decide to hit them in the middle of a rally, maybe just as the concluding shot. There is a shot in her 1980 Wimbledon match against Evert: they have a long really and Evert belts a ball that lands near the baseline, Evonne reaches from behind herself on the backhand, retrieves the ball, and somehow manages to not only send it crosscourt at an unbelievable angle, but somehow plays the ball so that it stops dead the minute it crosses the net! :bounce:

Evonne's 1971-76 statistics are incredible - and would have continued had it not been for stopping to have a child, then there was the period when Martina was also thrown into the mix. Her 1980 Wimbledon triumph was just like a dream...

I love this post! And don't forget the 2 x End Of Season Virginia Slims Championships in that same period. And you are right, she was never the same after stopping to have her child. Such a shame. But 1980 Wimbledon was a tournament to treasure for me and millions of other fans. :)

alfajeffster
May 7th, 2012, 01:00 PM
I love this post! And don't forget the 2 x End Of Season Virginia Slims Championships in that same period. And you are right, she was never the same after stopping to have her child. Such a shame. But 1980 Wimbledon was a tournament to treasure for me and millions of other fans. :)

I remember watching that match with my dad, as it had become a tradition for us to watch the Wimbledon finals every year- the only tennis I could get in, as my dad, having played baseball, had that on all the time. Neither of us thought she had a chance, and truth be told, she was noticeably slower and took her time, which was odd for her. He used to goad me by mis-pronouncing her name (it was different every time he said it). That was the last match we watched together before I joined the Navy.

tennisvideos
May 7th, 2012, 01:27 PM
I remember watching that match with my dad, as it had become a tradition for us to watch the Wimbledon finals every year- the only tennis I could get in, as my dad, having played baseball, had that on all the time. Neither of us thought she had a chance, and truth be told, she was noticeably slower and took her time, which was odd for her. He used to goad me by mis-pronouncing her name (it was different every time he said it). That was the last match we watched together before I joined the Navy.

What a wonderful match to share with someone you love.

I remember going across the road to watch the Semi final win over Austin and the Final over Evert with my best friend in our tiny country town of Narrandera. They were two of the most exhilarating nights of my life as we went through the full emotional spectrum ending with unbridled joy! I don't think any result thrilled me as much as this one did. :)

Rollo
May 7th, 2012, 02:20 PM
I've seen too little of Evonne but she is one of the most graceful players ever, no doubt. You could just enjoy tennis when she was playing nice and enjoying herself, the closest thing to pure pleasure on a tennis court you could probably find.

I'd bet on Lenglen as being the most graceful if I could claim to have seen more of her in action. Despite what Alfa says I wasn't around in those days:p
I have seen the Gonger though. Anyone who has seen her hit a backhand overhead about a dozen times just hands over the grace award to her.


I don't think that Graf was a truck nor a ballerina, she cannot be the best in everything and she is not the GOAT in the grace department, but it's not that she didn't have any.

Me too-her movement was beautiful to watch-as was that sliced backhand. The forehand was not graceful. Give me the winners and I'll sacrifice the grace!


Jana Novotna and Gabriela Sabatini are two graceful players, Jana more athletic and Gabriela, well her entire persona was kind of graceful, her hair, her nose, her eyes, her movements on the backhand and volleys especially. As most things about her, she could also play beautifully.

Gaby's hand motions were poetry in motion when she was flipping a topsin shot past someone or at net. Rodin would love those hands:hearts:

I'm on board with you on Jana too. She had every shot in the book. I've often wondered how she would have looked with wood racquets.

Mandlikova, Goolagong, Bueno, and Novotna would be a cool semi lineup.

alfajeffster
May 7th, 2012, 06:21 PM
I'm not sure, Rollo, but I think you're referring to Jana having every shot in the book, and if so, I'd have to disagree with you. I never saw her hit a topspin backhand, and only rarely (I'd say about three times that I saw) actually hit a flat, hard backhand that usually either missed badly or went sailing way over the baseline. It was very similar to King or Court, neither of whom came over the ball on that side with topspin- always flat hard drives when and if they hit the shot. Jana had the perfect game (IMO) for standard racquet tennis. If she had been born 10 years earlier, she would've given Martina and Chris fits.

P.S.- Gaby walked like a truck driver, or as if she'd just gotten off her horse after a long ride.

mistymore
May 7th, 2012, 06:41 PM
Some other problems I have with the list is Capriati ranking so high. Did my eyes deceive me or is she ranked much higher than Sharapova. That is insanity. Maria is already much better. Considering overall careers she would rank below most 2 slam winners, and even some 1 slam winners like Sabatini, Novotna, or Martinez. Does even 2 extra slams overcome about 15 fewer tournament wins, all played in the modern era taking into account realistic amounts of tournaments entered for the more physical game of today.

Why is Venus Williams ranked higher than Justine Henin. Three year end #1s to 0, 2 WTA Championships to 1, both won Olympic singles gold, both have 7 slams, Justine won 3 of the 4 to 2 of the 4 for Venus. In terms of dominance, consistency, total achievement, versatility across surfaces, Henin has the edge in all. Venus only has the longevity edge. Maybe they credited her doubles play, but that isnt consistent with many of their other rankings and creates further problems with some of the others then. Especialy someone like Capriati who was vastly overrated even based on just everyones singles play, and now there might be implication they factor in doubles too, when Capriati also did squat all in doubles making her even more insanely overranked.

Sumarokov-Elston
May 8th, 2012, 08:51 PM
Bitch please, Court is not even top 5 all time on grass.

Wow! I didn't know that Madge even had a losing H2H against anyone on grass!! But I have to admit it is funny to sometimes read the comments on the General Messages board. You hear things like "would Martina Navratilova have been able to return Nadia Petrova's serve?" or "would Chris Evert have won a game against peak Anastasia Myskina on clay?" !! :lol:

mistymore
May 8th, 2012, 11:40 PM
Wow! I didn't know that Madge even had a losing H2H against anyone on grass!!

Court had a losing record vs Navratilova on grass. Players who have losing records vs nobody they have played multiple times on grass are Suzanne Lenglen, Helen Wills Moody, Maureen Connolly, Serena Williams, and Steffi Graf, so if that were the barometer that would be your top 5 (in itself showing what a silly barometer it is as leaving Martina off the top 5 on grass is purely impossible).

Rollo
May 9th, 2012, 12:03 AM
I'd put Mags up there on grass-as long I knew the venue wasn't Centre Court, Wimbledon!

If her only losing record on grass is to Navatilova at 1-2 she isn't doing too bad. Certainly no worse than Steffi at 01 vs Davenport.

HanaFanGA
May 9th, 2012, 02:12 AM
I love this post! And don't forget the 2 x End Of Season Virginia Slims Championships in that same period. And you are right, she was never the same after stopping to have her child. Such a shame. But 1980 Wimbledon was a tournament to treasure for me and millions of other fans. :)

For me, the 1980 Wimbledon was the greatest women's grand slam event ever. Great players, great matches, and Evonne was the star that burned the brightest.

I also agree with TV that Evonne is underated both in this list and in general. She is almost patronizingly dismissed as graceful and pleasant (which she was) but her record is tremendous.

HanaFanGA
May 9th, 2012, 02:17 AM
I'm not sure, Rollo, but I think you're referring to Jana having every shot in the book, and if so, I'd have to disagree with you. I never saw her hit a topspin backhand, and only rarely (I'd say about three times that I saw) actually hit a flat, hard backhand that usually either missed badly or went sailing way over the baseline. It was very similar to King or Court, neither of whom came over the ball on that side with topspin- always flat hard drives when and if they hit the shot. Jana had the perfect game (IMO) for standard racquet tennis. If she had been born 10 years earlier, she would've given Martina and Chris fits.

P.S.- Gaby walked like a truck driver, or as if she'd just gotten off her horse after a long ride.

Agree with Alpha on Jana. She had some of the best volleys ever but she couldn't. hit a true forehand volley down the line and she couldn't come over the ball on the backhand. This left her very vulnerable to other serve and volleyers.

tennisvideos
May 9th, 2012, 04:02 AM
I'd put Mags up there on grass-as long I knew the venue wasn't Centre Court, Wimbledon!

If her only losing record on grass is to Navatilova at 1-2 she isn't doing too bad. Certainly no worse than Steffi at 01 vs Davenport.

Very well pointed out ... :)

alfajeffster
May 9th, 2012, 12:26 PM
Agree with Alpha on Jana. She had some of the best volleys ever but she couldn't. hit a true forehand volley down the line and she couldn't come over the ball on the backhand. This left her very vulnerable to other serve and volleyers.

Years ago I heard Bud Collins during commentating on a Navratilova match remarking "serve and volleyers don't generally like playing other serve and volleyers". Jana's game was serviceable, and worked just fine for her because her driving slice was so good- more pace than Steffi's, and a great approach. There were those occasions when she was pinned to the baseline and the opponent at the net, where the shot to hit was a topspin backhand pass, and she usually lost those points. I didn't notice about the forehand volley down the line- I'll have to look for it on tapes I have. It makes sense though, because of her forehand grip, unless she changed it at the net- never noticed this.

Good to hear from you again HanaFanGA! I missed talking with you. This post is the perfect segway into discussing the all-the-shots diva herself- Mandlikova.

gabybackhand
May 10th, 2012, 03:29 AM
Yeah, we all forgot to mention Hana!
I remember the match Jana lost to Sabatini at the 1994 Australian and how Gabriela took the net pretty frequently and she won most points especially on Novotna's backhand, Jana only won one point on that side when hitting a passing-shot and that was because Gaby's approach touched the net and the ball was a sitter for Jana, IIRC.

mistymore
May 10th, 2012, 04:58 AM
Jana cant pass off the backhand side at all. That side in a baseline rally or even more as an approach shot is quite good, she slices it well and moves it around when moving forward into it. However when someone attacks her backhand, especialy coming in off a hard and deep shots or a very effectively sliced one that forces her to catch it late, she seems clueless what to, usually throwing up a weak lob or floaty slice. Which is why players who are willing to come in alot like Navratilova, Sabatini, and to some degree Graf had it pretty easy with her. She is lucky she played in an era there werent many people coming to the net or she would have been lucky to be a top 30 player. Or perhaps she would have been better off as it would have forced her to change. Even Davenport who is not a serve and volleyer crunches the ball to Jana's backhand on many short balls and charges in, and if Jana even gets to it she also puts up a weak shot for Davenport to overhead or swing volley away, one of many reasons Davenport owned that matchup too.

alfajeffster
May 10th, 2012, 11:12 AM
Yeah, we all forgot to mention Hana!
I remember the match Jana lost to Sabatini at the 1994 Australian and how Gabriela took the net pretty frequently and she won most points especially on Novotna's backhand, Jana only won one point on that side when hitting a passing-shot and that was because Gaby's approach touched the net and the ball was a sitter for Jana, IIRC.

I forgot about that match! Gaby did attack the net, which I loved to see because she seemed to have lost that attack just after her USO win (when Graf destroyed her in Zurich despite Sabatini's attack). I kind of liked the Sabatini/Novotna match-up. Jana was obviously bothered by Gabriela's large topspin shots, and it was a real struggle for her sometimes to hit attacking balls off of them. Gaby's dipping return of serve didn't do Jana any favors either, but their contests were very interesting. I don't know what their head to head was- do you?

Rollo
May 10th, 2012, 02:29 PM
I'm not sure, Rollo, but I think you're referring to Jana having every shot in the book, and if so, I'd have to disagree with you. I never saw her hit a topspin backhand, and only rarely (I'd say about three times that I saw) actually hit a flat, hard backhand that usually either missed badly or went sailing way over the baseline. It was very similar to King or Court, neither of whom came over the ball on that side with topspin- always flat hard drives when and if they hit the shot. Jana had the perfect game (IMO) for standard racquet tennis. If she had been born 10 years earlier, she would've given Martina and Chris fits.



Rewatched a couple of her matches last night after reading this. Most of her backhand passing shots vs Hingis in their 1998 Wimbledon semi were hit with topspin. Maybe that was atypical.

Other than that though I'll concede she had no where near the variety of a Mandlikova. Everything from the baseline was a topspin forehand and slice backhand.

Rollo
May 10th, 2012, 02:43 PM
Jana cant pass off the backhand side at all. That side in a baseline rally or even more as an approach shot is quite good, she slices it well and moves it around when moving forward into it. However when someone attacks her backhand, especialy coming in off a hard and deep shots or a very effectively sliced one that forces her to catch it late, she seems clueless what to, usually throwing up a weak lob or floaty slice. Which is why players who are willing to come in alot like Navratilova, Sabatini, and to some degree Graf had it pretty easy with her. She is lucky she played in an era there werent many people coming to the net or she would have been lucky to be a top 30 player. Or perhaps she would have been better off as it would have forced her to change. Even Davenport who is not a serve and volleyer crunches the ball to Jana's backhand on many short balls and charges in, and if Jana even gets to it she also puts up a weak shot for Davenport to overhead or swing volley away, one of many reasons Davenport owned that matchup too.


She was doing a lot of that in the other match I watched a bit of last night-the 1994 US Open semi vs Graf. Steffi repeatedly comes in to the backhand and puts away lobs...

And as good an explanation as any for her failure vs Davenport.

Disagree about the top 30 remark though, mainly because players have come to net less and less as the power quotient from the strings and racquets goes up and up. Serve and volley died with Navratilova, and hybrid Jana was the last of her type as well.

No one comes to net these days compared to the 60s (it's heydey) the 70s, or even the 80-90s. As Alfa wrote, neither King nor Court hit topspin all that much off the backhand, though I think they and Jana used it more often than we're crediting them for.

If anything I think she might have won more slams in the era when 3 slams were on grass.

Of course those nerves would still jangle....

nat75
May 10th, 2012, 03:30 PM
I'm not sure, Rollo, but I think you're referring to Jana having every shot in the book, and if so, I'd have to disagree with you. I never saw her hit a topspin backhand, and only rarely (I'd say about three times that I saw) actually hit a flat, hard backhand that usually either missed badly or went sailing way over the baseline. It was very similar to King or Court, neither of whom came over the ball on that side with topspin- always flat hard drives when and if they hit the shot. Jana had the perfect game (IMO) for standard racquet tennis. If she had been born 10 years earlier, she would've given Martina and Chris fits.

P.S.- Gaby walked like a truck driver, or as if she'd just gotten off her horse after a long ride.

True dat about the walk which was such a contrast with the rest of her. To this day her walk makes me giggle eventhough I adore her! Even with her "flaws" (Apart from the broad shoulders Gaby has big hands and feet) I always found her game, looks and even her shy but kind persona abaolutely beautiful to watch.
Steffi's footwork was a thing of beauty, her forehand not so much but it was killer.

gabybackhand
May 10th, 2012, 06:21 PM
I forgot about that match! Gaby did attack the net, which I loved to see because she seemed to have lost that attack just after her USO win (when Graf destroyed her in Zurich despite Sabatini's attack). I kind of liked the Sabatini/Novotna match-up. Jana was obviously bothered by Gabriela's large topspin shots, and it was a real struggle for her sometimes to hit attacking balls off of them. Gaby's dipping return of serve didn't do Jana any favors either, but their contests were very interesting. I don't know what their head to head was- do you?
Yeah (I know most of her most important H2Hs by heart :o), Gabriela leads 10-3, yet a couple of her wins came after facing match-points. Nice match to watch between these two, as they were both talented players who could produce some unseen shots.

alfajeffster
May 10th, 2012, 06:52 PM
Yeah (I know most of her most important H2Hs by heart :o), Gabriela leads 10-3, yet a couple of her wins came after facing match-points. Nice match to watch between these two, as they were both talented players who could produce some unseen shots.

I don't know about you, but I always felt that Gaby could be having a mediocre day, and still get through it because of all that topspin- kind of a safety measure if she was off her game. If she was clearly off, she could still hit bit loopy strokes that cleared the net by 15 feet, and the spin brought the ball down in. With Jana, she either had to play well and have everything working, or she was toast, even with lesser ranked players. She wasn't strong enough mentally to work her way through it, and often just kept making the same mistakes over and over in an awful self-destruction.

alfajeffster
May 12th, 2012, 08:48 AM
The inimitable Lenglen in flight.

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a223/alfajeffster/SuzanneFV.jpg

alfajeffster
May 12th, 2012, 01:27 PM
And while we're on grace in movement, nobody did it better.

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a223/alfajeffster/Evonneinflight.jpg

alfajeffster
May 12th, 2012, 01:37 PM
And finally, from the grace department, none other than La Bueno:

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a223/alfajeffster/Buenoballerina.jpg

alfajeffster
May 12th, 2012, 01:58 PM
Just had to post this in honor of Mother's Day. It's a little grainy, but she's really high on my list of top 100 of all time. Love and miss you, Mom.

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a223/alfajeffster/MomCollege.jpg

tennisvideos
May 12th, 2012, 03:36 PM
Beautiful pics Alfa. And your mum is a beautiful woman. I say is because I am certain she still IS -just in another space where we will all be reunited. I am sure we will have a laugh about the roles we played here in this game called life on earth.

gabybackhand
May 12th, 2012, 03:47 PM
Great pics Alfa, and thanx 4 sharing that of Mom... beautiful woman...
I have mine, but you see, I don't even go to visit her in October in our Mother's Day, we rarely talk when I go to see my father, she doesn't visit me either and this has been so for the last few years... we all live different lives, and I'm glad that you loved yours so much as to still miss her, you'll see her again and I agree with tennisvideos. Best wishes for your moms!

alfajeffster
May 12th, 2012, 07:18 PM
Thanks both TV and Gaby. This particular photo is a college pic somewhere around 1949-1950 time frame. I'm sure she was wearing bobby sox and saddle shoes. Her passing was the hardest thing for me- took me a few years to get on with life, quite frankly. I was very close to her, and spoke to her every weekend when I was in the Navy and then living in San Francisco.

gabybackhand
May 12th, 2012, 07:35 PM
Thanx for sharing. It's funny how different people can think depending on their cultural frame. In my country you won't look so close if you talk to her every weekend, that would be just normal or regular, if you're close you talk to her every day! Interesting I guess.

nat75
May 12th, 2012, 09:43 PM
Your mom was beautiful, Alfa. I guess you've got the tennis passion from her. :)

alfajeffster
May 13th, 2012, 01:28 AM
Your mom was beautiful, Alfa. I guess you've got the tennis passion from her. :)

No, Mom was a standout basketball player for the small Georgia christian college she attended. I still have her yearbook. Tennis was not big anywhere back then except in all-white blue-blooded clubs. My Dad was a pro baseball player in the 50s, and always said tennis was a sissy sport when he was coming up through athletics in school. Nobody played. I do credit him, though, because he just knew I had hand-eye coordination for a stick ball sport, and he took me for lessons just after the BJK/Riggs fiasco (which the whole family watched together).

hingis-seles
May 13th, 2012, 07:48 AM
That's a beautiful picture of your mom, Alfa. :)

alfajeffster
May 13th, 2012, 01:00 PM
That's a beautiful picture of your mom, Alfa. :)

Thanks.