Hi All,
I recently had an "animated discussion" with a (dedicated) Graf fan who definitively stated that Graf should be considered the all-time GS champ, reason being that nearly all of Court's Oz titles meant "nothing" (!!), due to weak opposition.
I suggested that line of thinking is illogical - one can only beat whoever is on the other side of the net and at the end of play, if you are the Champion, well, that's that and whether the field was considered "weak" is neither here nor there.
I also suggested that possibly Graf's record would probably not be quite so stellar if Seles had been able to continue her career uninterrupted, and no prizes for guessing the response I got for uttering that particular heresy!
For the record, I am not a real fan of Mrs Court, nor of Steffi Graf: Court beat who she beat during her Oz wins and, post-Hamburg '93, Steffi won against all comers (including a Seles who was just a shadow of player she had been), and kudos to both of them.
So I'm turning this topic over to the knowledgable posters here for your thoughts. Should Court's record be discounted? Should Grafs? And just so I can play Devil's Advocate....
Evert has 7 French titles - I suggest 4 (74/75/79/80) were won against very mediocre fields, so should there be an asterisk against her record? Or was it a case that she was so dominant on clay, it wouldn't make any difference.
Also, BJK went on GS sprees a couple of times when Court was out: 1967/68 and from US Open 71 thru 72. I think the Court/King relationship most relevant as they were the "Chrissie and Martina" act of their day and most definitely head and shoulders above everyone else during most of the 60's and early 70's. BJK did beat Court at Oz 68, but she had just returned to the circuit (first retirement) and she also beat her in the SF of US 72 when Court returned again (from first baby), but as far as her record is concerned, does it matter that she didn't face Court anywhere near top form during those periods?
Your thoughts???
I recently had an "animated discussion" with a (dedicated) Graf fan who definitively stated that Graf should be considered the all-time GS champ, reason being that nearly all of Court's Oz titles meant "nothing" (!!), due to weak opposition.
I suggested that line of thinking is illogical - one can only beat whoever is on the other side of the net and at the end of play, if you are the Champion, well, that's that and whether the field was considered "weak" is neither here nor there.
I also suggested that possibly Graf's record would probably not be quite so stellar if Seles had been able to continue her career uninterrupted, and no prizes for guessing the response I got for uttering that particular heresy!
For the record, I am not a real fan of Mrs Court, nor of Steffi Graf: Court beat who she beat during her Oz wins and, post-Hamburg '93, Steffi won against all comers (including a Seles who was just a shadow of player she had been), and kudos to both of them.
So I'm turning this topic over to the knowledgable posters here for your thoughts. Should Court's record be discounted? Should Grafs? And just so I can play Devil's Advocate....
Evert has 7 French titles - I suggest 4 (74/75/79/80) were won against very mediocre fields, so should there be an asterisk against her record? Or was it a case that she was so dominant on clay, it wouldn't make any difference.
Also, BJK went on GS sprees a couple of times when Court was out: 1967/68 and from US Open 71 thru 72. I think the Court/King relationship most relevant as they were the "Chrissie and Martina" act of their day and most definitely head and shoulders above everyone else during most of the 60's and early 70's. BJK did beat Court at Oz 68, but she had just returned to the circuit (first retirement) and she also beat her in the SF of US 72 when Court returned again (from first baby), but as far as her record is concerned, does it matter that she didn't face Court anywhere near top form during those periods?
Your thoughts???