All Time Rankings 1884-2013 - Page 3 - TennisForum.com
TennisForum.com   Wagerline.com MensTennisForums.com TennisUniverse.com
TennisForum.com is the premier Women's Tennis forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.Please Register - It's Free!
Reply

Old Jun 30th, 2010, 07:26 AM   #31
country flag iainmac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,782
iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold
Re: Womens All Time Rankings 1884-2009

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris whiteside View Post
Rightly or wrongly the professional matches as part of the McCall Group were not regarded as relevant in terms of h2hs.

I take it that the overall score was 29-9 (for BJ, of course!)

That would leave the professional scores as 11-2 for BJ but it has always been hard to get access to their professional results and it would seem to me that there are some missing. Would they have played as few as 13 times plus some would have been professional sets?

I know Jones won at Madison Square Garden and Fort Worth so that makes the 2 wins but I have also read in several sources that Jones won twice during a tour of France so that immediately makes me doubt the figures - other than that they were heavily in BJ's favour.
ChrisI think here as well we are talking how matches played out and what the scores were. BJK herself always has said that Ann was one of the toughest opponents she ever played, fighting never giving in etc. I suppose the professional results should be included but there would be so many missing that it seems that it is best to stick to official tournaments. If you cant include all of the pro results it seems a little inconsistent to include any really. Just know from my own perspective that seeing them play against each other in the Wimbledon and Wembley finals of 69 show that Jones was more than a match for BJK. She really was her main rival after Court, post Bueno and pre Goolagong and Evert.
iainmac is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 

Old Jun 30th, 2010, 07:28 AM   #32
country flag iainmac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,782
iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold
Re: Womens All Time Rankings 1884-2009

Quote:
Originally Posted by the computer View Post
Can't add much on King v Jones data just the results I have of them opposing each other in finals which has King 5-3

1967

WIMBLEDON GS Billie Jean King bt Ann Jones 6-3 6-4
US OPEN GS Billie Jean King bt Ann Jones 11-9 6-4

1969

WIMBLEDON GS Ann Jones bt Billie Jean King 3-6 6-3 6-2
LOS ANGELES A Billie Jean King bt Ann Jones 6-2 6-3
QUEENS COVERED B Ann Jones bt Billie Jean King 9-11 6-2 9-7

1970

WEMBLEY B Billie Jean King bt Ann Jones 8-6 3-6 6-1

1971

CHATTANOOGA B Billie Jean King bt Ann Jones 6-4 6-1
LAS VEGAS B Ann Jones bt Billie Jean King 7-5 6-4

Computer
Thanks for that, love the Las Vegas one!!! Were was that match played and dont any comedians say Las Vegas!!!
iainmac is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 30th, 2010, 11:45 AM   #33
country flag chris whiteside
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,620
chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold
Re: Womens All Time Rankings 1884-2009

Quote:
Originally Posted by iainmac View Post
ChrisI think here as well we are talking how matches played out and what the scores were. BJK herself always has said that Ann was one of the toughest opponents she ever played, fighting never giving in etc. I suppose the professional results should be included but there would be so many missing that it seems that it is best to stick to official tournaments. If you cant include all of the pro results it seems a little inconsistent to include any really. Just know from my own perspective that seeing them play against each other in the Wimbledon and Wembley finals of 69 show that Jones was more than a match for BJK. She really was her main rival after Court, post Bueno and pre Goolagong and Evert.
What about our own Nancy who led 7-1 in h2hs at the end of 1968?
__________________
Margaret Thatcher - Michele Bachmann two strong women of our time.
chris whiteside is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 30th, 2010, 12:04 PM   #34
country flag iainmac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,782
iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold
Re: Womens All Time Rankings 1884-2009

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris whiteside View Post
What about our own Nancy who led 7-1 in h2hs at the end of 1968?
ChrisOMG lets hope that the great Nancy never sees this one. If you do forgive me Nancy. I knew that Nancy had superiority over BJK in this period but I had no idea that the dominance was so complete.I take it you mean that up to and including 68 and not just that year? It is remarkable and no wonder that Nancy was the USA number one over that period. Do you know how the career H2HS finished between Nancy and BJK? I would imagine by the end BJK caught up, as Nancy was not really a major force post 76??
iainmac is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 30th, 2010, 12:15 PM   #35
country flag chris whiteside
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,620
chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold chris whiteside is a splendid one to behold
Re: Womens All Time Rankings 1884-2009

Quote:
Originally Posted by iainmac View Post
ChrisOMG lets hope that the great Nancy never sees this one. If you do forgive me Nancy. I knew that Nancy had superiority over BJK in this period but I had no idea that the dominance was so complete.I take it you mean that up to and including 68 and not just that year? It is remarkable and no wonder that Nancy was the USA number one over that period. Do you know how the career H2HS finished between Nancy and BJK? I would imagine by the end BJK caught up, as Nancy was not really a major force post 76??
Think Nancy still led 13-8 at end of 1972 but don't know the finalh2h.

The 7-1 figure at end of 1968 was overall career.
__________________
Margaret Thatcher - Michele Bachmann two strong women of our time.
chris whiteside is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 30th, 2010, 12:17 PM   #36
country flag iainmac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,782
iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold
Re: Womens All Time Rankings 1884-2009

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris whiteside View Post
Think Nancy still led 13-8 at end of 1972 but don't know the finalh2h.

The 7-1 figure at end of 1968 was overall career.
ChrisSo in the peak years, Nancy remained the dominant party. And I mean BJKS peak years too. Not many players could equal that apart from Court.
iainmac is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 6th, 2010, 10:50 PM   #37
country flag daze11
Senior Member
 
daze11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: BrOoKLyN, NY
Posts: 3,076
daze11 is a splendid one to behold daze11 is a splendid one to behold daze11 is a splendid one to behold daze11 is a splendid one to behold daze11 is a splendid one to behold daze11 is a splendid one to behold daze11 is a splendid one to behold daze11 is a splendid one to behold daze11 is a splendid one to behold daze11 is a splendid one to behold daze11 is a splendid one to behold
Re: Womens All Time Rankings 1884-2009

Quote:
Originally Posted by tennisvideos View Post
Have to agree ... those who did win the calendar Grand Slam did all have remarkable careers so these weren't flash in the pans. And you are right, the pressure of a calendar GS is enormous - even Court admitted as much back in 1970 as she was heading towards the US Open.
I think its a great achievement but it represents the results of one year. What matters is proving you can win ALL SLAMS on all surfaces in your career. With the exception of Graf, all of the players who have won 'The Grand Slam' did so always winning essentially on one single surface: GRASS plus the 1 win in Paris on clay. So Margaret's quote is a testiment of the pressure of the consistency in 1 year, but doesnt say much about the variety that today's player would have to deal with to win a slam, proving they can win on a diversity of surfaces & conditions.

So steffi's slam is the only Grand Slam i should be completely impressed with (and give full credit to), and i'm not... because her competition at that time were 2 all-time greats who were at the very end of their powers in Chris & Martina in their 30s & both coming down from highs of years of dominance (chris marrying & retiring, Martina in self-proclaimed 'crisis'), and Gabriela who was not yet ready to fill the role Graf was pulling off. And monica not yet out of the crib.

Still, i'd F*A*R rather be martina in 1983 & NOT win the slam because martina in 83 was superior to graf in 88. that's just an opinion but i believe it from the top hair of my head to the outer-reaches of my toe.

there's a great quote i read a few weeks ago that relates...
"...why do we ascribe so much power to those who happen to be winning at this very moment? That's just what losers do, I guess." -heather havrilesky, salon

so in sports, i do think the micro-fascination with accomplishment in the moment is part of a culture of short-sightedness, and that its more about HYPE that fuels the business/industry end of sports, more than proof of something larger about a full career of accomplishment and capacity.

Last edited by daze11 : Jul 7th, 2010 at 01:06 AM.
daze11 is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 7th, 2010, 06:12 AM   #38
country flag DennisFitz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 556
DennisFitz is a name known to all DennisFitz is a name known to all DennisFitz is a name known to all DennisFitz is a name known to all DennisFitz is a name known to all DennisFitz is a name known to all DennisFitz is a name known to all DennisFitz is a name known to all DennisFitz is a name known to all DennisFitz is a name known to all DennisFitz is a name known to all
Re: Womens All Time Rankings 1884-2009

Quote:
Originally Posted by daze11 View Post
I think its a great achievement but it represents the results of one year. What matters is proving you can win ALL SLAMS on all surfaces in your career. With the exception of Graf, all of the players who have won 'The Grand Slam' did so always winning essentially on one single surface: GRASS plus the 1 win in Paris on clay. So Margaret's quote is a testiment of the pressure of the consistency in 1 year, but doesnt say much about the variety that today's player would have to deal with to win a slam, proving they can win on a diversity of surfaces & conditions.

So steffi's slam is the only Grand Slam i should be completely impressed with (and give full credit to), and i'm not... because her competition at that time were 2 all-time greats who were at the very end of their powers in Chris & Martina in their 30s & both coming down from highs of years of dominance (chris marrying & retiring, Martina in self-proclaimed 'crisis'), and Gabriela who was not yet ready to fill the role Graf was pulling off. And monica not yet out of the crib.

Still, i'd F*A*R rather be martina in 1983 & NOT win the slam because martina in 83 was superior to graf in 88. that's just an opinion but i believe it from the top hair of my head to the outer-reaches of my toe.

there's a great quote i read a few weeks ago that relates...
"...why do we ascribe so much power to those who happen to be winning at this very moment? That's just what losers do, I guess." -heather havrilesky, salon

so in sports, i do think the micro-fascination with accomplishment in the moment is part of a culture of short-sightedness, and that its more about HYPE that fuels the business/industry end of sports, more than proof of something larger about a full career of accomplishment and capacity.
Somehow, me thinks Steffi is sure glad she's Steffi, with her official Grand Slam sweep (let's not even talk Golden Grand Slam!!), and yup it's infinitely more impressive than Navratilova's 1983 season.

Oh, and Martina won 2 grass slams in 1983.

Graf won on Rebound Ace, red clay, grass at Wimbledon, and hard courts at the US Open.

Yup, let's penalize Graf for beating all comers. Including dethroning Navratilova at Wimbledon. But naturally her Grand Slam is a *lesser* achievement because of who she didn't beat. Monica Seles circa 1992; Martina Navratilova circa 1984; Chris Evert circa 1980; Margaret Court circa 1970.

Hmmm.....the Grand Slam is a fascination with 'accomplishment in the moment' ? Methinks not. It can only happen to one player in one year.....and several things need to fall in line for it to happen. Slip up once, just once (see Navratilova, 1983 French Open) and the opportunity is lost for another year.

The Grand Slam is caught up in a culture of short-sightedness? Huh? If it were happening, oh, every year, one could see how it was a short-sighted view of what defined greatness.

And the HYPE that fuels the business of the sport? I'll say the Slams most certainly do. Did you ever pay attention to what happens every year at the Australian, French, Wimbledon and US Open? No one cares who won Eastbourne. Or San Diego. Or Dubai. Or Acapulco. Or Kazakhstan.

The Slams do matter more. There is more hype, and the hype is what keeps the professional sport going.

Oh, and again, that long view, of a full career of accomplishment and capacity. Methinks it's Steffi Graf' Golden Grand Slam that pushed her over the top, ahead of Navratilova (and just why oh why wasn't she good enough to win a Slam when 2 of 4 majors were on grass during her heyday??????????????????????????).
DennisFitz is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 7th, 2010, 06:49 AM   #39
country flag austinrunner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 1,402
austinrunner has disabled reputation
Re: Womens All Time Rankings 1884-2009

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris whiteside View Post
Rightly or wrongly the professional matches as part of the McCall Group were not regarded as relevant in terms of h2hs.

I take it that the overall score was 29-9 (for BJ, of course!)

That would leave the professional scores as 11-2 for BJ but it has always been hard to get access to their professional results and it would seem to me that there are some missing. Would they have played as few as 13 times plus some would have been professional sets?

I know Jones won at Madison Square Garden and Fort Worth so that makes the 2 wins but I have also read in several sources that Jones won twice during a tour of France so that immediately makes me doubt the figures - other than that they were heavily in BJ's favour.
I have it 10-2 in favor of King on McCall's tour. Otherwise, King led 30-9.
austinrunner is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 7th, 2010, 06:51 AM   #40
country flag austinrunner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 1,402
austinrunner has disabled reputation
Re: Womens All Time Rankings 1884-2009

Quote:
Originally Posted by iainmac View Post
Do you know how the career H2HS finished between Nancy and BJK? I would imagine by the end BJK caught up, as Nancy was not really a major force post 76??
King 18, Richey 12. From 1970 through the end of their careers, it was King 15, Richey 4.

Players that King was undefeated against (minimum 7 matches):
Kathy Harter 13-0
Lesley Hunt 12-0
Helen Gourlay Cawley 11-0
Kristen Kemmer Shaw 10-0
Cecilia Martinez 9-0
Pam Teeguarden 9-0
Tory Fretz 8-0
Sharon Walsh 7-0

King's losing records were against:
Margaret Court 13-21
Dianne Fromholtz Balestrat 7-8
Chris Evert 7-20
Martina Navratilova 6-11
Karen Hantze Susman 3-5
Hana Mandlikova 2-3
Victoria Palmer 1-2
Darlene Hard 1-3
Dorothy Bundy Cheney 1-4
Tracy Austin 1-5
Margaret Osborne duPont 0-1
Manuela Maleeva Fragniere 0-1
Renee Schuurman Haygarth 0-1
Dorothy Head Knode 0-1
Catherine Tanvier 0-1
Rita Bentley 0-2

Last edited by austinrunner : Jul 7th, 2010 at 07:02 AM.
austinrunner is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 7th, 2010, 08:42 AM   #41
country flag daze11
Senior Member
 
daze11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: BrOoKLyN, NY
Posts: 3,076
daze11 is a splendid one to behold daze11 is a splendid one to behold daze11 is a splendid one to behold daze11 is a splendid one to behold daze11 is a splendid one to behold daze11 is a splendid one to behold daze11 is a splendid one to behold daze11 is a splendid one to behold daze11 is a splendid one to behold daze11 is a splendid one to behold daze11 is a splendid one to behold
Re: Womens All Time Rankings 1884-2009

Quote:
Originally Posted by DennisFitz View Post
Somehow, me thinks Steffi is sure glad she's Steffi, with her official Grand Slam sweep (let's not even talk Golden Grand Slam!!), and yup it's infinitely more impressive than Navratilova's 1983 season.
...

And the HYPE that fuels the business of the sport? I'll say the Slams most certainly do. Did you ever pay attention to what happens every year at the Australian, French, Wimbledon and US Open? No one cares who won Eastbourne. Or San Diego. Or Dubai. Or Acapulco. Or Kazakhstan.

The Slams do matter more. There is more hype, and the hype is what keeps the professional sport going.

Methinks it's Steffi Graf' Golden Grand Slam that pushed her over the top, ahead of Navratilova (and just why oh why wasn't she good enough to win a Slam when 2 of 4 majors were on grass during her heyday??????????????????????????).
glad u mentioned it... 'the golden slam' is the #1 'great pretension' of the steffi graf fan world. there WAS no golden slam throughout the history of our sport. '88 was the first year of something that now happens only every 4 years... so while no one prior to '88 won a golden slam, one never existed before! a small thing to overlook. and one must be lucky indeed to happen to hit stride on a year when the olympics just happen to occur.

i definitely prefer a classic at eastbourne to a dud at wimbledon. i think this issue comes down to who loves TENNIS (ie, the art of the sport and how it is played) and who loves the sheen of status symbols & what the flock gathers around.

I love players who say, "I play every match like its the finals of wimbledon" versus those who say, "I dont really try all year unless it's a slam because thats what people remember." (which current player has basically said that? ) Reason being that only one of those approaches has integrity.

there's a world of difference between playing for the history books and playing for greatness. Greatness is an every day affair...it is about every moment, not just the ones when others are looking. But this is an issue the entire globe is struggling with. If they don't have their hype to accompany their moment, they fail to know if the moment had value.

But back to the original point.... Why O Why couldnt Martina win that slam? Because there was another champion balancing out her career results named chris evert who won a slam every year for 13 years straight.

Somehow chris & martina's slam count must be added to one another, so that they each have 36 in order to show the true comparison to graf's 22. Due to significant circumstances, steffi played in a single-champion era whereas chris & martina shared the winnings.

These are the kind of calculations that statisticians cant make, and point to how complicated it really is to compare great champions, as each era has its own variables. But it does suggest people should stop over-simplifying to 'slam totals' as a way of measuring a player's worth. Thinking is FUN and should not be hammered down to the default mode of 'paint by numbers'! (Why o why do people hate gray areas that stand in the way of over-simplified results???)

Last edited by daze11 : Jul 7th, 2010 at 08:49 AM.
daze11 is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 7th, 2010, 10:46 AM   #42
country flag iainmac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,782
iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold
Re: Womens All Time Rankings 1884-2009

Quote:
Originally Posted by daze11 View Post
I think its a great achievement but it represents the results of one year. What matters is proving you can win ALL SLAMS on all surfaces in your career. With the exception of Graf, all of the players who have won 'The Grand Slam' did so always winning essentially on one single surface: GRASS plus the 1 win in Paris on clay. So Margaret's quote is a testiment of the pressure of the consistency in 1 year, but doesnt say much about the variety that today's player would have to deal with to win a slam, proving they can win on a diversity of surfaces & conditions.

So steffi's slam is the only Grand Slam i should be completely impressed with (and give full credit to), and i'm not... because her competition at that time were 2 all-time greats who were at the very end of their powers in Chris & Martina in their 30s & both coming down from highs of years of dominance (chris marrying & retiring, Martina in self-proclaimed 'crisis'), and Gabriela who was not yet ready to fill the role Graf was pulling off. And monica not yet out of the crib.

Still, i'd F*A*R rather be martina in 1983 & NOT win the slam because martina in 83 was superior to graf in 88. that's just an opinion but i believe it from the top hair of my head to the outer-reaches of my toe.

there's a great quote i read a few weeks ago that relates...
"...why do we ascribe so much power to those who happen to be winning at this very moment? That's just what losers do, I guess." -heather havrilesky, salon

so in sports, i do think the micro-fascination with accomplishment in the moment is part of a culture of short-sightedness, and that its more about HYPE that fuels the business/industry end of sports, more than proof of something larger about a full career of accomplishment and capacity.
DazeThis is a great post for debate although I think it is a little short on being grounded in reality. You cant undermine the achievements of anyone who has won the GS. Great players- such as Evert and Navratilova failed to do so, although it is awful for Evert because I am sure she would have done it in 76 if she had been able to play the French Open instead of losing the title in abstentia to Sue Barker. Every sport needs its very pinnacle of achievement. The GS is what that equates to in tennis. Without the Holy Grail that the GS represents their would not be quite the same interest. And I totally salute Connolly, Court and Graf. They accomplished the greatest mission in their sport.
iainmac is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 7th, 2010, 10:54 AM   #43
country flag iainmac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,782
iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold
Re: Womens All Time Rankings 1884-2009

Quote:
Originally Posted by DennisFitz View Post
Somehow, me thinks Steffi is sure glad she's Steffi, with her official Grand Slam sweep (let's not even talk Golden Grand Slam!!), and yup it's infinitely more impressive than Navratilova's 1983 season.

Oh, and Martina won 2 grass slams in 1983.

Graf won on Rebound Ace, red clay, grass at Wimbledon, and hard courts at the US Open.

Yup, let's penalize Graf for beating all comers. Including dethroning Navratilova at Wimbledon. But naturally her Grand Slam is a *lesser* achievement because of who she didn't beat. Monica Seles circa 1992; Martina Navratilova circa 1984; Chris Evert circa 1980; Margaret Court circa 1970.

Hmmm.....the Grand Slam is a fascination with 'accomplishment in the moment' ? Methinks not. It can only happen to one player in one year.....and several things need to fall in line for it to happen. Slip up once, just once (see Navratilova, 1983 French Open) and the opportunity is lost for another year.

The Grand Slam is caught up in a culture of short-sightedness? Huh? If it were happening, oh, every year, one could see how it was a short-sighted view of what defined greatness.

And the HYPE that fuels the business of the sport? I'll say the Slams most certainly do. Did you ever pay attention to what happens every year at the Australian, French, Wimbledon and US Open? No one cares who won Eastbourne. Or San Diego. Or Dubai. Or Acapulco. Or Kazakhstan.

The Slams do matter more. There is more hype, and the hype is what keeps the professional sport going.

Oh, and again, that long view, of a full career of accomplishment and capacity. Methinks it's Steffi Graf' Golden Grand Slam that pushed her over the top, ahead of Navratilova (and just why oh why wasn't she good enough to win a Slam when 2 of 4 majors were on grass during her heyday??????????????????????????).
DennisI do think that the quality of the opposition in the Golden Slam for Steffi was less than it would have been in some other years. But it was still formidable players she had to defeat to take the Slam including Navratilova at Wimbledon. To question the worth of this achievement sounds like folly to me. And we could also go back to the Evert and Navratilova dominance. Im sure Chris or Martina would not like it if their 80s achievements were dismissed as being less important because there was no Austin and Jaeger around. In fact remove Evert and Navratilova from the mid 80s and the only player who could even look to have challenged Graf in her GS year was Mandlikova.
iainmac is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 7th, 2010, 10:55 AM   #44
country flag iainmac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,782
iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold
Re: Womens All Time Rankings 1884-2009

Quote:
Originally Posted by austinrunner View Post
I have it 10-2 in favor of King on McCall's tour. Otherwise, King led 30-9.
Thanks for the information, and not many people could say they have defeated BJK 10 times!!!!!
iainmac is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 7th, 2010, 10:59 AM   #45
country flag iainmac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,782
iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold iainmac is a splendid one to behold
Re: Womens All Time Rankings 1884-2009

Quote:
Originally Posted by austinrunner View Post
King 18, Richey 12. From 1970 through the end of their careers, it was King 15, Richey 4.

Players that King was undefeated against (minimum 7 matches):
Kathy Harter 13-0
Lesley Hunt 12-0
Helen Gourlay Cawley 11-0
Kristen Kemmer Shaw 10-0
Cecilia Martinez 9-0
Pam Teeguarden 9-0
Tory Fretz 8-0
Sharon Walsh 7-0

King's losing records were against:
Margaret Court 13-21
Dianne Fromholtz Balestrat 7-8
Chris Evert 7-20
Martina Navratilova 6-11
Karen Hantze Susman 3-5
Hana Mandlikova 2-3
Victoria Palmer 1-2
Darlene Hard 1-3
Dorothy Bundy Cheney 1-4
Tracy Austin 1-5
Margaret Osborne duPont 0-1
Manuela Maleeva Fragniere 0-1
Renee Schuurman Haygarth 0-1
Dorothy Head Knode 0-1
Catherine Tanvier 0-1
Rita Bentley 0-2
Sooooo interesting thanks,wasnt she 0-1 against Michelle Tyler as well??
And she didnt have get her own back on our Nancy in the 70s.
iainmac is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Copyright (C) Verticalscope Inc
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBCredits v1.4 Copyright ©2007, PixelFX Studios