Tennis Forum banner
1 - 20 of 106 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,222 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
First of all, does anybody remember Margaret Court? And secondly, why do TV tennis commentators like Mary Carillo, Pam Shriver, Billie Jean King, Tracy Austin, Chris Evert, and many others continually dismiss Margaret Court's accomplishments?

She won more majors than any woman OR MAN in the history of the sport!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rollo

·
Chionophile
Joined
·
40,214 Posts
Almost half of her slams (11/24) came from the Australian, which was a Tier II at best at that stage.

She only won 3 Wimbledon singles which was by far the most prestigious tournament at that stage and even now it still is.

She's a great but NOT the greatest, no way. I don't doubt her doubles and mixed doubles accomplishments though. They're up there with Martina N.
 

·
Chionophile
Joined
·
40,214 Posts
I would easily put Helen Wills Moody or Steffi Graf's singles records before her.

Why?

Helen Wills Moody: won at least 4 singles titles at French, Wimbledon and US. She never played in the Australian. At one stage she was the holder of the last 3 titles at French, Wimbledon and US. Nobody has done that in singles.

Steffi Graf: won at least 4 titles at all slams. Won the GS (4 in a row) twice.

With honourable mentions to Martina N. We all know what she's done.

Those are my big 3.

A step below them is:

Court, Evert, Connolly and Serena (when she ends her career).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,222 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
This Australian argument is a myth. Yes, 11 of the 24 singles titles came in her native Australia. The rest of that sentence is: Australian women were the best tennis players in the world when she won all those titles in the 1960s- just look at the FedCup record. Margaret won the Grand Slam in 1970, but she also won 3 of the 4 majors in the same year 4 other times during her career. Nobody else comes close. Another myth is the record for tournament titles. Martina Navratilova heads the list we always see, but the 79 titles Margaret shows on the list doesn't even count tournaments she won prior to 1968 (open-era).

Yes, her doubles and mixed accomplishments are the greatest, but she also won 5 French titles and 5 U.S. Championships.

All this from a natural lefty taught to play right-handed!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,222 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Steffi Graf: won at least 4 titles at all slams. Won the GS (4 in a row) twice.

Unfortunately, Graf only won the Grand Slam once. She lost to Arantxa Sanchez Vicario at the French in 1989, otherwise it would have been 2
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,222 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Navratilova didn't have a contemporary serve-and-volley player to face when she won all those titles at Wimbledon. The Navratilova-Evert match-up was about as predictable as a Sampras-Agassi match.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,880 Posts
Ryan16 said:
Just because Court didn't face the likes of Evert, Navratilova, and Graf her entire career I would put her below Martina and Steffi, but above Evert. I'd also put her above Wills Moody.
how does that make things any more fair? Next you'll be putting Graf down a notch for Monica's stabbing and think less of Martina and Chrissy because they never played Serena...:confused:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,575 Posts
alfajeffster said:
Steffi Graf: won at least 4 titles at all slams. Won the GS (4 in a row) twice.

Unfortunately, Graf only won the Grand Slam once. She lost to Arantxa Sanchez Vicario at the French in 1989, otherwise it would have been 2
Steffi "only" won the Grand Slam once, but she also won 4 slams in a row from 93-94, to which I think Sam refers. So it was the "Steffi Slam" before it was the "Serena Slam". And before Steffi, Martina had achieved that feat as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,052 Posts
alfajeffster said:
Navratilova didn't have a contemporary serve-and-volley player to face when she won all those titles at Wimbledon. The Navratilova-Evert match-up was about as predictable as a Sampras-Agassi match.
umm, havent you ever heard of Evonne Goolagong? Hana Mandlikova? Pretty much half of the players in Martina's day were serve volleyers.

Anyway, Graf won the Grandslam twice and also - in 1995-1996 she won 6 grandslams in a row as she had to miss the Aussie Open in noth 95 and 96 due to injury or else im ertain she woulda won the grandslam another twice - but 6 in a row (6 out of 6 played) is awsome.

I rank Court behind Steffi, Martina, Chris and now come to think about it, Wills moody, since the Aussie was, as Sam said, like a tier II in those days.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,056 Posts
I think many of the commentatators dismiss her because of her questionable political/humanistic views.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,052 Posts
It's funny how Graf fans say "oh Margaret Court won many of her slams when the competition was low at the Australian", yet they get angry when others say that "Graf won many of her slams when Seles was stabbed after dominating the slams for years". Either put down BOTH of their accomplishements or shut up about both. If "steffi earned her 22 even though the no.1 dominant player was destroyed", then "margaret also earned her AO slams". A big :rolleyes: @ graf fans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: F-R-E-A-K

·
Chionophile
Joined
·
40,214 Posts
I'm sorry but someone with 3 Wimbledon singles titles cannot be the greatest player ever especially when we have women who own 7, 8 or 9 Wimbledon titles with plenty of other major titles to boot.

Wimbledon is the tournament of tournaments, and a place where the greatest are determined.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
20,718 Posts
Sam L said:
I'm sorry but someone with 3 Wimbledon singles titles cannot be the greatest player ever especially when we have women who own 7, 8 or 9 Wimbledon titles with plenty of other major titles to boot.

Wimbledon is the tournament of tournaments, and a place where the greatest are determined.
Its just not about the 1 GS, its about ALL 4!!!!, Court is obviously the best female player in the WTA tour's history, no doubt about it, regardless if she won ONLY 3 Wimbledon thats still a great effort.

Court has won 24 GS titles for singles, that hasn't been beaten yet and probably never will be.
 

·
NeverWoz
Joined
·
25,696 Posts
Sam L said:
I'm sorry but someone with 3 Wimbledon singles titles cannot be the greatest player ever especially when we have women who own 7, 8 or 9 Wimbledon titles with plenty of other major titles to boot.

Wimbledon is the tournament of tournaments, and a place where the greatest are determined.

No. Wimbledon should not and does not decide your fate in the "greatest of all time" discussions. Weren't 3 of the 4 slams played on grass back then? It's not like Court couldn't win on it, she just didn't win many Wimbledons. She leads the records in EVERYthing else relevant, cementing her place as one of THE best ever.
 

·
Chionophile
Joined
·
40,214 Posts
Ryan16 said:
No. Wimbledon should not and does not decide your fate in the "greatest of all time" discussions. Weren't 3 of the 4 slams played on grass back then? It's not like Court couldn't win on it, she just didn't win many Wimbledons. She leads the records in EVERYthing else relevant, cementing her place as one of THE best ever.
Yes that's right 3/4 slams were played on grass. So obviously she can play on grass. But yes, Court couldn't win at Wimbledon as many times as she could at the other two. What does that say?

Simple.

The competition was the toughest at Wimbledon where you had your Billie Jeans, Maria Buenos and everyone else. They didn't come down to Australia. That's why Margaret won 11 there.
 

·
NeverWoz
Joined
·
25,696 Posts
Sam L said:
Yes that's right 3/4 slams were played on grass. So obviously she can play on grass. But yes, Court couldn't win at Wimbledon as many times as she could at the other two. What does that say?

Simple.

The competition was the toughest at Wimbledon where you had your Billie Jeans, Maria Buenos and everyone else. They didn't come down to Australia. That's why Margaret won 11 there.
Winning 11 events at one tournament is a feat for anyone. Lets not mention that several Aussies were in the top 10 aside from Court. Or that she won 13 other Grand Slams.


And incase you haven't noticed, Wimbledon will never be the "be all and end all" of tennis. Court won there 3 times, which is impressive. Not as impressive as Billie or Martina, but it's still 3 times she won the thing.


Lets say Court didn't play the AO like the other "top players". Then in all logical assumptions she owuld have more energy to win more events outside of the AO, and may have won more Wimbledons. If Wills Moody had played the AO, logic points to her being more tired for other events and not winning as many slams, right?
 

·
Chionophile
Joined
·
40,214 Posts
No Ryan I don't think that works.

Firstly, here's a little info. Daphne Akhurst the 5 times Australian Champ in the 1930's played at Wimbledon a few times and the best she ever managed was a QF. Which means that Wills would've won the Australian easily if she played.

The reason she didn't go to Australia was because it took too long by boat (the only way to go) and the Australian was too insignificant a tournament to go that far for.

I'm not sure what you been having more energe to win events outside of AO cause by Court's time (1960's) travel was better, people could catch planes, they no longer had to sail by boat anymore. So Court was able to access the Australian as well as the other championships. But still many other top players didn't bother with the Australian because it wasn't a prestigious tournament.

Wimbledon is not the "be all and end all" of tennis, for sure, I know that. But it is, when you're talking about the greatest ever. For which, Court is not, simply because as much as she won else where, she couldn't win the most at the place where the competition was the toughest.
 
1 - 20 of 106 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top