@grote15 said:
I know very little about women's tennis but I'll take the side of a guy with tenniscoach as his username.
Can’t make a much better point than this 😂
To grote..
Because we all know you are a liberal...So of course you are going to side against me and Margaret Court. LOL...But nice try....
As i mentioned in years past, I am a former college tennis coach and i am a member of a HALL OF FAME in the sport of tennis. I would bet tenniscoach is not
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
@garnettstyle said:
The real reason why the media like ESPN, and the other liberal networks, dont recognize Margarat Court as the greatest, is because of her right-leaning religious/political beliefs. She is also a ordained Minister.
Nah, she's not recognized that way because: 1) Others have surpassed her; 2) Competition today is much tougher; 3) She hurt her own legacy by getting rolled by Bobby Riggs while ranked #1.
Thanks for letting us all know how little you know about tennis.
1. Please list what player/players who have surpassed her?
2. Prove it that competition is tougher today? You could be right here, but you can say the same thing in any other sport...The old timers are still considered the best ever in all other sports....Hello Babe Ruth? Ted Williams? Ty Cobb? Joe Montana? Jack Nicklaus?
3. Court was old and past her prime when she played Riggs. Was a exhibition so it meant zero....The match with Billie Jean was fixed.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Margaret Court.......Her open era singles career winning percentage of 91.37% (593–56) is UNEQUALLED, as is her Open Era winning percentage of 91.7% (11–1) in Grand Slam finals.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
@grote15 said:
I know very little about women's tennis but I'll take the side of a guy with tenniscoach as his username.
Can’t make a much better point than this 😂
To grote..
Because we all know you are a liberal...So of course you are going to side against me and Margaret Court. LOL...But nice try....
As i mentioned in years past, I am a former college tennis coach and i am a member of a HALL OF FAME in the sport of tennis. I would bet tenniscoach is not
You know nothing (as usual), but thanks for confirming as much.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Margaret Court could b anywhere from 1 to 5 on peoples list. Other great players include Navratilova, Serena Williams, Graf, Seles (career cut short). Each person is entitled to have those players in a number of configurations and a case could be made for doing so. Not everyone is going to agree.
Really, this doesn't even need explanation. Everyone knows the players and level of competition has gotten better through the years. If you talked to players as I have who played during those eras you learn real quick that getting through the early rounds of grand slams was much easier in the 60's than it was in the 70's and 80's. Players were fitter, hitting the ball much harder, playing with a lot more spin, lower ranked players were playing smarter tactically (better at point construction, taking the ball early, starting to run around more BHs and playing FHs from the AD court (expanding the court)). Lower ranked players were not as adept at doing these things consistently well until the more competitive eras of the 70's and 80's. You can watch tapes of their matches and its clear as day that players have improved in every aspect of the sport.
Margaret Court took that match against Bobby Riggs seriously enough when she decided she was a better player than King. Bobby Riggs was 55 years old at the time, Court should not have lost that match 6-2, 6-1. Riggs during the time of that match was not an active player, he was over the hill. Riggs was however hitting a variety of shots and with a level of spin not normally seen during the women's game in earlier eras. You had to be willing to move to your feet more and hustle to get better positioning for cleaner contact points and angles to work with.
It's sports, these kind of arguments happen all time. But you should be willing to admit when you're wrong and not revert to calling other people knuckleheads.
Family, Neighborhood, Community, make the World a better place.
@TennisCoach said:
1. Margaret Court could b anywhere from 1 to 5 on peoples list. Other great players include Navratilova, Serena Williams, Graf, Seles (career cut short). Each person is entitled to have those players in a number of configurations and a case could be made for doing so. Not everyone is going to agree.
2. Really, this doesn't even need explanation. Everyone knows the players and level of competition has gotten better through the years. If you talked to players as I have who played during those eras you learn real quick that getting through the early rounds of grand slams was much easier in the 60's than it was in the 70's and 80's. Players were fitter, hitting the ball much harder, playing with a lot more spin, lower ranked players were playing smarter tactically (better at point construction, taking the ball early, starting to run around more BHs and playing FHs from the AD court (expanding the court)). Lower ranked players were not as adept at doing these things consistently well until the more competitive eras of the 70's and 80's. You can watch tapes of their matches and its clear as day that players have improved in every aspect of the sport.
3. Margaret Court took that match against Bobby Riggs seriously. Bobby Riggs was 55 years old at the time, Court should not have lost that match 6-2, 6-1. Riggs during the time of that match was not an active player, he was over the hill. Riggs was however hitting a variety of shots and with a level of spin not normally seen during the women's game in earlier eras. You had to be willing to move to your feet more and hustle to get better positioning for cleaner contact points and angles to work with.
So many things wrong here, I dont know where to begin? You cant mention top 5 without listing Chris Evert. Many people put her ahead of Navratilova.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
There is just no getting through to you. How is this for a source, Chris Evert herself has said her and Martina Navratilova were equal in singles but she was no where near as good a doubles player. A comparison could be made in their singles accomplishments both winning 18 grand slam titles; but in doubles Chris Evert won 3 women's doubles and 0 mixed doubles.
Are you seriously placing Chris Evert as an almost equal doubles player when Martina Navratilova has who won 37 women's doubles grand slams and 10 mixed doubles grand slams. So when you combine the players overall accomplishments in singles and doubles, you are obviously wrong to have Chris Evert as a better player than Martina Navratilova.
I like Chris Evert, great player, but her accomplishments overall (especially doubles) do not equal that of Martina, no where near close. It's virtually like saying the Bryan Brothers are not good tennis players because all their success came in doubles. So because they play doubles we are just going to disregard what they accomplished. Those guys have done things no other player has ever done, to disregard that is a sign of disrespect. And one could make the claim that Martina Navratilova has accomplished more in doubles than perhaps the two greatest men's players in doubles history. That is in no way a slight at the Bryan's, it's just that Martina was the very best.
Family, Neighborhood, Community, make the World a better place.
Thanks for letting us all know how little you know about tennis.
1. Please list what player/players who have surpassed her?
Serena, Graf, and Martina would all blow her away. A little unfair because of their ages but Martina was 3-1 against Court.
Prove it that competition is tougher today? You could be right here, but you can say the same thing in any other sport...The old timers are still considered the best ever in all other sports....Hello Babe Ruth? Ted Williams? Ty Cobb? Joe Montana? Jack Nicklaus?
Newsflash - more people playing, better training, more money, more time spent training = better competition.
Court wasn't playing anybody with a 125mph serve (Serena) or near-sprinter-level speed (Graf).
Court was old and past her prime when she played Riggs. Was a exhibition so it meant zero....The match with Billie Jean was fixed.
Court was #1 in the world at the time. And 30. If she was "old and past her prime", you've just made your own argument for why the competition sucked in her era. She got blown out by an old man.
@garnettstyle said:
Lol most fans dont care about doubles and disregard doubles records when comparing the GOATs.
You can't combine the two, because one is a individual sport, and the other is a team sport.
Tennis is singles and doubles, it takes a great player to excel at both. To disrespect doubles is to deny players like the Bryan Brothers, Woodforde/Woodbridge. Navratilova/Shriver, McEnroe/Fleming, Newcome/Roche, Roy Emerson, Leander Paes, Jonas Bjorkman, and Fernandez/Zvereva their place in the sports history.
@grote15 said:
I know very little about women's tennis but I'll take the side of a guy with tenniscoach as his username.
Can’t make a much better point than this 😂
To grote..
Because we all know you are a liberal...So of course you are going to side against me and Margaret Court. LOL...But nice try....
As i mentioned in years past, I am a former college tennis coach and i am a member of a HALL OF FAME in the sport of tennis. I would bet tenniscoach is not
In this statement you are no longer debating you are attacking my credibility. I am only going to answer this once~ I have worked with ranked juniors as well as professional players. However It is hard to have a home life and maintain relationships when you are doing so much traveling. I usually enjoy talking sports and exchanging ideas with others that share the same passion. Statements such as these make it a lot less enjoyable, it is a sign of disrespect. Perhaps the best thing is to take some time off from these forums.
I wish you all well, and yes even you garnettstyle.
Family, Neighborhood, Community, make the World a better place.
Thanks for letting us all know how little you know about tennis.
1. Please list what player/players who have surpassed her?
Serena, Graf, and Martina would all blow her away. A little unfair because of their ages but Martina was 3-1 against Court.
Prove it that competition is tougher today? You could be right here, but you can say the same thing in any other sport...The old timers are still considered the best ever in all other sports....Hello Babe Ruth? Ted Williams? Ty Cobb? Joe Montana? Jack Nicklaus?
Newsflash - more people playing, better training, more money, more time spent training = better competition.
Court wasn't playing anybody with a 125mph serve (Serena) or near-sprinter-level speed (Graf).
Court was old and past her prime when she played Riggs. Was a exhibition so it meant zero....The match with Billie Jean was fixed.
Court was #1 in the world at the time. And 30. If she was "old and past her prime", you've just made your own argument for why the competition sucked in her era. She got blown out by an old man.
Today's game is an era in women’s tennis devoid of great players...If Court beat Martina, then she could beat Serena and Graf. Back in Court's playing days the tournaments were much different. Give serena a 65 inch wood racket and put her up against Court....who was a serve and volley player at a time when most of the surfaces were fast. They even played on wood surfaces which is very fast. For the past 15 -20 years surfaces have been slowed down at almost every tournament including Wimbledon. Thats why you dont see players serve and volleying anymore. Not even at Wimbledon. So because of that reason and the poly strings, tournaments have favored hard hitting baseliners like Serena and the reason for her high grand slam total.
People in their 50's can still play great tennis. McEnroe still plays on the senior tour at 60 and still has good movement and touch. Riggs is also a former Wimbledon champion and was ranked #1 in the World. And his match with Court was played in his home State so he had the home court advantage. Court was also a mother at the time and she did not take the match seriously because it was only an exhibition. Serena has yet to win a grand slam since becoming a mother.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
This is from a tennis writer from St Louis who has written about tennis since 1972 and was the Post-Dispatch tennis writer in the 1980s and 1990s.....
The Entirely Serena Promotions Network, aka ESPN, was in full swing last week, boosting the tennis player they love and discrediting the old woman from Australia who continues to be a thorn in their side.
The TV crew, headed by Chris Evert, dearly want Serena Williams to catch and pass 77-year-old Margaret Court in the number of Grand Slam singles titles. But the pesky preacher from Down Under just won’t go away.
Williams’ 6-2, 6-2 loss to Simona Halep in Saturday’s Wimbledon final kept her stuck on 23 major championships, one short of Court’s record 24. Williams hasn’t won a major since the Australian Open 2½ years ago. She is 37 now and eventually might win a 24th and 25th major, but the odds get worse with each Grand Slam tournament in which she fails to grab the big prize.
Williams’ inability to catch Court hasn’t prevented ESPN from proclaiming her as the unequivocal greatest player of all time. They’ve been doing it for years, even before Williams had passed Helen Wills’ 19 majors and Steffi Graf’s 22. Maybe they back Williams out of fear of her estimable wrath. Or they do it to boost ratings.
Regardless, how is it possible that Williams is the GOAT, considering that:
• She trails Court in Grand Slam singles titles, 24-23.
• She trails Court in Grand Slam doubles titles, 40-16.
• She trails Court in career singles titles, 192-72.
• She trails Graf in number of weeks ranked No. 1, 377-319.
• She has failed to achieve the hardest feat in tennis, the calendar year Grand Slam. Court and Graf have done it.
Undeterred, ESPN has adopted a strategy of proclaiming Williams’ greatness at every turn while spreading untruths about Court.
Court’s detractors love to point out that 11 of her 24 major titles were won in her home country, Australia. In the 1960s, when eight of Court’s Australian titles were won, the tournament was played relatively close to Christmas, and the long flight was enough to persuade some American and European players to stay home.
Here is what Evert said on ESPN last year:
“She won 11 Australian Opens when nobody was going down there, the top women, because it was during Christmas. Let’s just get that out there.”
Here is the truth. From 1960-1973, these were among the women who played in the Australian Championships during Court’s run of titles: Billie Jean King, Maria Bueno, Nancy Richey, Evonne Goolagong, Virginia Wade, Lesley Turner, Darlene Hard, Ann Haydon-Jones, Rosie Casals and Francoise Durr. All of those women now are in the International Tennis Hall of Fame.
ESPN tennis analyst Brad Gilbert repeated the smear last weekend after Williams’ defeat.
“I still have Williams as the all-time Slam winner,” he said, “because Margaret Court won 11 Australian Opens and a bunch of them were 48 (player) draws and they were basically just Australian tournaments.”
That, essentially, is the new mantra that ESPN’s crew broke out last weekend: Serena doesn’t have to catch Court to be the all-time Grand Slams champion.
You could replay ESPN’s broadcasts of the Grand Slam tournaments over the past five years and not find a single positive word spoken about Court, other than possibly this one by Chris Fowler, who responded to Evert’s take-down of Court last year: “The fields (in Australia) weren’t quite as strong, but you never want to take away from a champion’s achievements.”
It’s not as if Williams is facing a Murderer’s Row every time she plays in a major. At this month’s Wimbledon, she played a qualifier in the first two rounds, followed by players ranked No. 17, No. 31, No. 55 and No. 54 before finally facing a top-10 player in seventh-seeded Halep.
What does the ESPN tennis crew have against Court? You won’t hear the broadcasters say so on the telecasts, but their grudge all-but certainly is the same one held by some players in women’s tennis. They detest Court, a Pentecostal pastor based in Perth, for speaking out against gay marriage and allegedly suggesting homosexuality is the work of the devil. King and Martina Navratilova, both gay, have led the charge against Court, advocating that her name be removed from Margaret Court Arena, which is the second-largest stadium at the Australian Open.
King, who had a 10-22 career record against Court, has said she would refuse to play in Margaret Court Arena if she still was playing.
A British newspaper, The Telegraph, wrote last year, “Court denies she is homophobic but says she is a deeply religious person and follows the Scriptures.”
And so the campaign to coronate Williams continues unabated, even to absurd proportions. While hardly anyone would deny that Williams has the best serve ever in women’s tennis, ESPN’s Pam Shriver seemingly lost her mind when she blurted, “Serena has one of the top five serves in tennis history, men or women.”
Praise has been heaped on Williams over the past two years for playing while she was pregnant and then returning to tennis after the birth of her first child. What you won’t hear on ESPN is that Court had three children during her career and lost a Wimbledon final when she was pregnant.
While Williams, reportedly worth upwards of $100 million, has the luxury of flying in a private jet from her mansion in south Florida to the majors and concentrating almost solely on the Grand Slams, Court played to make a living as she and her husband flew on commercial aircraft from tournament to tournament with their children in tow.
Only Williams and maybe her inner circle know why she continues to play at age 37. One suspects she assesses the level of competition in women’s tennis today and determines that major titles are there for the taking. This is an era in women’s tennis devoid of great players, certainly weaker than what Graf faced in her day with the likes of Monica Seles, Lindsay Davenport, Jennifer Capriati, Navratilova, Arantxa Sanchez Vicario, Gabriela Sabatini and newly inducted Hall of Famer Mary Pierce.
A bigger question is why the only measure of greatness in tennis players today is the number of Grand Slam singles titles they win. In Court’s day, nearly all the top players played doubles, and it meant something. Now, Court’s 40 Grand Slam doubles titles account for nothing. Neither do her 192 career singles titles.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
@garnettstyle said:
Today's game is an era in women’s tennis devoid of great players...
Since I don't think Serena is great any longer, I might agree with you. Maybe if she actually spent a little time getting back in shap but I digress...
If Court beat Martina, then she could beat Serena and Graf.
Of course she COULD beat them. That doesn't make one player better than the other. Maria Sharapova has beaten Serena 3 times - does that make her better?
Back in Court's playing days the tournaments were much different.
Yep. Fewer players. Far lower talent level. Far less depth.
Give serena a 65 inch wood racket and put her up against Court....who was a serve and volley player at a time when most of the surfaces were fast.
A fair point. Equipment is far different today no question. However, given equal equipment, let's be real here - Serena is far stronger and faster than Court.
People in their 50's can still play great tennis.
No, no, they can't. They can play fine club-level tennis but "great"? No. "Great" tennis wins tournaments. No one in their 50s has even a remote shot at winning a regular tournament.
McEnroe still plays on the senior tour at 60 and still has good movement and touch.
Good movement for a 60-year old. Against other old guys. I'm sure he has great touch still. He also has much less stamina and power than he did when he was 30.
Riggs is also a former Wimbledon champion and was ranked #1 in the World.
Yeah. 34 years before the Court match was played.
And his match with Court was played in his home State so he had the home court advantage.
Yeaaaah...this is more than a bit of a stretch.
Court was also a mother at the time and she did not take the match seriously because it was only an exhibition.
Doesn't speak very highly of her then, does it? Takes the money and doesn't put forth a good effort? Surely, you're not implying she couldn't perform because she was a mother?
Keep in mind that every excuse you make for Court not performing is an indictment of women's tennis of the time in general since, again, she was #1 in the world at the time.
Serena has yet to win a grand slam since becoming a mother.
The fact she almost died giving birth and was 8 years older than Court when she gave birth might have something to do with that.
I'm not arguing that Court wasn't great. She was. But others are better.
Seriously who would have ever thought that a Tennis thread would turn into a combat zone like this one? It’s great even though I don’t care one little bit about the sport or even know much about it lol. Carry on fellas, carry on 😂👍
@perkdog said:
Seriously who would have ever thought that a Tennis thread would turn into a combat zone like this one? It’s great even though I don’t care one little bit about the sport or even know much about it lol. Carry on fellas, carry on 😂👍
Lol I know right. GOAT threads are very common though on tennis forums. Its even worse regarding the mens tour.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
@perkdog said:
Seriously who would have ever thought that a Tennis thread would turn into a combat zone like this one? It’s great even though I don’t care one little bit about the sport or even know much about it lol. Carry on fellas, carry on 😂👍
This is a good time to promote my new hashtag #dimeout
@perkdog said:
Seriously who would have ever thought that a Tennis thread would turn into a combat zone like this one? It’s great even though I don’t care one little bit about the sport or even know much about it lol. Carry on fellas, carry on 😂👍
This is a good time to promote my new hashtag #dimeout
@perkdog said:
Seriously who would have ever thought that a Tennis thread would turn into a combat zone like this one? It’s great even though I don’t care one little bit about the sport or even know much about it lol. Carry on fellas, carry on 😂👍
This is a good time to promote my new hashtag #dimeout
😂👍
I did a small focus group and 51% think a dimeout should be a ten day rest .
I'm not arguing that Court wasn't great. She was. But others are better.
In what World?????
• Serena trails Court in Grand Slam singles titles, 24-23.
• She trails Court in Grand Slam doubles titles, 40-16.....TENNISCOACH says doubles titles are important too
• She trails Court in career singles titles, 192-72.
• She has failed to achieve the hardest feat in tennis, the calendar year Grand Slam. Court done it.
Anyone can have an opinion on who's the GOAT. But if you go BY RECORD...No question Court is the GOAT.
And Cy Young has the most wins ever but no one considers him the greatest, do they?
Margaret Court won the Australian Open 11 times a remarkable field. She did it against fields of:
32, 44, 48, 39, 27, 52, 48, 32, 43, 30, 48
So small fields against lesser competition, including byes in early rounds.
And one of the 11 was a walk-over.
And 7 of them were before the Open era. Overall, 13 of her Grand Slam titles were before the Open era. So now we're comparing 11 professional Grand Slam titles to 23?
The calendar year Grand Slam is an amazing feat, no question. All credit to Court for that. But I don't put THAT much weight on it. Serena has been the champion of all four Grand Slams twice, the calendar year just wrapped around on them. Doesn't really matter to me if you win a tournament in June of 2015 or June of 2016.
You wanna make the case that Court was the most successful tennis player of all-time when you include amateur achievements? Go for it. But, as a pro, against professional competition, and by the eyeball test, Serena is better.
I'm not arguing that Court wasn't great. She was. But others are better.
In what World?????
• Serena trails Court in Grand Slam singles titles, 24-23.
• She trails Court in Grand Slam doubles titles, 40-16.....TENNISCOACH says doubles titles are important too
• She trails Court in career singles titles, 192-72.
• She has failed to achieve the hardest feat in tennis, the calendar year Grand Slam. Court done it.
Anyone can have an opinion on who's the GOAT. But if you go BY RECORD...No question Court is the GOAT.
And Cy Young has the most wins ever but no one considers him the greatest, do they?
Margaret Court won the Australian Open 11 times a remarkable field. She did it against fields of:
32, 44, 48, 39, 27, 52, 48, 32, 43, 30, 48
So small fields against lesser competition, including byes in early rounds.
And one of the 11 was a walk-over.
And 7 of them were before the Open era. Overall, 13 of her Grand Slam titles were before the Open era. So now we're comparing 11 professional Grand Slam titles to 23?
The calendar year Grand Slam is an amazing feat, no question. All credit to Court for that. But I don't put THAT much weight on it. Serena has been the champion of all four Grand Slams twice, the calendar year just wrapped around on them. Doesn't really matter to me if you win a tournament in June of 2015 or June of 2016.
You wanna make the case that Court was the most successful tennis player of all-time when you include amateur achievements? Go for it. But, as a pro, against professional competition, and by the eyeball test, Serena is better.
you are pulling out the the Ichiro card ,
Game .... Set..... and Match
2 of the people that would have argued the point are banned
And Cy Young has the most wins ever but no one considers him the greatest, do they?
The mens tennis player is....Same with Golf.
Margaret Court won the Australian Open 11 times a remarkable field. She did it against fields of:
32, 44, 48, 39, 27, 52, 48, 32, 43, 30, 48
So small fields against lesser competition, including byes in early rounds.
Quantity dont always equal quality. From 1960-1973, these were among the women who played in the Australian Championships during Court’s run of titles: Billie Jean King, Maria Bueno, Nancy Richey, Evonne Goolagong, Virginia Wade, Lesley Turner, Darlene Hard, Ann Haydon-Jones, Rosie Casals and Francoise Durr. All of those women now are in the International Tennis Hall of Fame....She won many Australians because the grass courts favored her serve and volley game. She had a long reach from her long arms, so she was very fast around the net. So, it wouldn't had mattered if she had to play five rounds or seven.
>
And 7 of them were before the Open era. Overall, 13 of her Grand Slam titles were before the Open era.
Makes no difference. All top female players were eligible to compete in Grand slams, and all the other tournaments before 1968, as there was NO women's pro tour as in the men's game.
There were NO top women playing on a pro tour before 1968, because there was NONE. ALL top women played in sanctioned tournaments and slams before the open era began. The only thing that changed for women players was that they could now legally play for money. In the men's game most of the best players were on the pro tour before 68, which is why the open era applies to the men's game because the top pro players could now play the slams, etc..
The calendar year Grand Slam is an amazing feat, no question. All credit to Court for that. But I don't put THAT much weight on it. Serena has been the champion of all four Grand Slams twice, the calendar year just wrapped around on them. Doesn't really matter to me if you win a tournament in June of 2015 or June of 2016.
Oh but it does matter. Because its much tougher to win four straight in a calendar year for many reasons. The biggest reason...all the pressure from the media it puts on a player after they win the first two or three...then going into the U.S. Open...Thats why very few have achieved.
You wanna make the case that Court was the most successful tennis player of all-time when you include amateur achievements? Go for it. But, as a pro, against professional competition, and by the eyeball test, Serena is better.
See above for the amateur/open history lesson. Eyeball test says Court wouldv'e had her way against any baseline player with the surfaces of the 60's....and 60's technology..
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Comments
To grote..
Because we all know you are a liberal...So of course you are going to side against me and Margaret Court. LOL...But nice try....
As i mentioned in years past, I am a former college tennis coach and i am a member of a HALL OF FAME in the sport of tennis. I would bet tenniscoach is not
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Thanks for letting us all know how little you know about tennis.
1. Please list what player/players who have surpassed her?
2. Prove it that competition is tougher today? You could be right here, but you can say the same thing in any other sport...The old timers are still considered the best ever in all other sports....Hello Babe Ruth? Ted Williams? Ty Cobb? Joe Montana? Jack Nicklaus?
3. Court was old and past her prime when she played Riggs. Was a exhibition so it meant zero....The match with Billie Jean was fixed.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
No surpassing here....
Margaret Court.......Her open era singles career winning percentage of 91.37% (593–56) is UNEQUALLED, as is her Open Era winning percentage of 91.7% (11–1) in Grand Slam finals.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
You know nothing (as usual), but thanks for confirming as much.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
It's sports, these kind of arguments happen all time. But you should be willing to admit when you're wrong and not revert to calling other people knuckleheads.
Family, Neighborhood, Community,
make the World a better place.
So many things wrong here, I dont know where to begin? You cant mention top 5 without listing Chris Evert. Many people put her ahead of Navratilova.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
There is just no getting through to you. How is this for a source, Chris Evert herself has said her and Martina Navratilova were equal in singles but she was no where near as good a doubles player. A comparison could be made in their singles accomplishments both winning 18 grand slam titles; but in doubles Chris Evert won 3 women's doubles and 0 mixed doubles.
Are you seriously placing Chris Evert as an almost equal doubles player when Martina Navratilova has who won 37 women's doubles grand slams and 10 mixed doubles grand slams. So when you combine the players overall accomplishments in singles and doubles, you are obviously wrong to have Chris Evert as a better player than Martina Navratilova.
I like Chris Evert, great player, but her accomplishments overall (especially doubles) do not equal that of Martina, no where near close. It's virtually like saying the Bryan Brothers are not good tennis players because all their success came in doubles. So because they play doubles we are just going to disregard what they accomplished. Those guys have done things no other player has ever done, to disregard that is a sign of disrespect. And one could make the claim that Martina Navratilova has accomplished more in doubles than perhaps the two greatest men's players in doubles history. That is in no way a slight at the Bryan's, it's just that Martina was the very best.
Family, Neighborhood, Community,
make the World a better place.
Lol most fans dont care about doubles and disregard doubles records when comparing the GOATs.
You can't combine the two, because one is a individual sport, and the other is a team sport.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Very entertaining thread. Hey hot dog vendor, I'll have two with no onions!
these two need to get a room
Serena, Graf, and Martina would all blow her away. A little unfair because of their ages but Martina was 3-1 against Court.
Newsflash - more people playing, better training, more money, more time spent training = better competition.
Court wasn't playing anybody with a 125mph serve (Serena) or near-sprinter-level speed (Graf).
Court was #1 in the world at the time. And 30. If she was "old and past her prime", you've just made your own argument for why the competition sucked in her era. She got blown out by an old man.
Tennis is singles and doubles, it takes a great player to excel at both. To disrespect doubles is to deny players like the Bryan Brothers, Woodforde/Woodbridge. Navratilova/Shriver, McEnroe/Fleming, Newcome/Roche, Roy Emerson, Leander Paes, Jonas Bjorkman, and Fernandez/Zvereva their place in the sports history.
In this statement you are no longer debating you are attacking my credibility. I am only going to answer this once~ I have worked with ranked juniors as well as professional players. However It is hard to have a home life and maintain relationships when you are doing so much traveling. I usually enjoy talking sports and exchanging ideas with others that share the same passion. Statements such as these make it a lot less enjoyable, it is a sign of disrespect. Perhaps the best thing is to take some time off from these forums.
I wish you all well, and yes even you garnettstyle.
Family, Neighborhood, Community,
make the World a better place.
Today's game is an era in women’s tennis devoid of great players...If Court beat Martina, then she could beat Serena and Graf. Back in Court's playing days the tournaments were much different. Give serena a 65 inch wood racket and put her up against Court....who was a serve and volley player at a time when most of the surfaces were fast. They even played on wood surfaces which is very fast. For the past 15 -20 years surfaces have been slowed down at almost every tournament including Wimbledon. Thats why you dont see players serve and volleying anymore. Not even at Wimbledon. So because of that reason and the poly strings, tournaments have favored hard hitting baseliners like Serena and the reason for her high grand slam total.
People in their 50's can still play great tennis. McEnroe still plays on the senior tour at 60 and still has good movement and touch. Riggs is also a former Wimbledon champion and was ranked #1 in the World. And his match with Court was played in his home State so he had the home court advantage. Court was also a mother at the time and she did not take the match seriously because it was only an exhibition. Serena has yet to win a grand slam since becoming a mother.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
This is from a tennis writer from St Louis who has written about tennis since 1972 and was the Post-Dispatch tennis writer in the 1980s and 1990s.....
The Entirely Serena Promotions Network, aka ESPN, was in full swing last week, boosting the tennis player they love and discrediting the old woman from Australia who continues to be a thorn in their side.
The TV crew, headed by Chris Evert, dearly want Serena Williams to catch and pass 77-year-old Margaret Court in the number of Grand Slam singles titles. But the pesky preacher from Down Under just won’t go away.
Williams’ 6-2, 6-2 loss to Simona Halep in Saturday’s Wimbledon final kept her stuck on 23 major championships, one short of Court’s record 24. Williams hasn’t won a major since the Australian Open 2½ years ago. She is 37 now and eventually might win a 24th and 25th major, but the odds get worse with each Grand Slam tournament in which she fails to grab the big prize.
Williams’ inability to catch Court hasn’t prevented ESPN from proclaiming her as the unequivocal greatest player of all time. They’ve been doing it for years, even before Williams had passed Helen Wills’ 19 majors and Steffi Graf’s 22. Maybe they back Williams out of fear of her estimable wrath. Or they do it to boost ratings.
Regardless, how is it possible that Williams is the GOAT, considering that:
• She trails Court in Grand Slam singles titles, 24-23.
• She trails Court in Grand Slam doubles titles, 40-16.
• She trails Court in career singles titles, 192-72.
• She trails Graf in number of weeks ranked No. 1, 377-319.
• She has failed to achieve the hardest feat in tennis, the calendar year Grand Slam. Court and Graf have done it.
Undeterred, ESPN has adopted a strategy of proclaiming Williams’ greatness at every turn while spreading untruths about Court.
Court’s detractors love to point out that 11 of her 24 major titles were won in her home country, Australia. In the 1960s, when eight of Court’s Australian titles were won, the tournament was played relatively close to Christmas, and the long flight was enough to persuade some American and European players to stay home.
Here is what Evert said on ESPN last year:
“She won 11 Australian Opens when nobody was going down there, the top women, because it was during Christmas. Let’s just get that out there.”
Here is the truth. From 1960-1973, these were among the women who played in the Australian Championships during Court’s run of titles: Billie Jean King, Maria Bueno, Nancy Richey, Evonne Goolagong, Virginia Wade, Lesley Turner, Darlene Hard, Ann Haydon-Jones, Rosie Casals and Francoise Durr. All of those women now are in the International Tennis Hall of Fame.
ESPN tennis analyst Brad Gilbert repeated the smear last weekend after Williams’ defeat.
“I still have Williams as the all-time Slam winner,” he said, “because Margaret Court won 11 Australian Opens and a bunch of them were 48 (player) draws and they were basically just Australian tournaments.”
That, essentially, is the new mantra that ESPN’s crew broke out last weekend: Serena doesn’t have to catch Court to be the all-time Grand Slams champion.
You could replay ESPN’s broadcasts of the Grand Slam tournaments over the past five years and not find a single positive word spoken about Court, other than possibly this one by Chris Fowler, who responded to Evert’s take-down of Court last year: “The fields (in Australia) weren’t quite as strong, but you never want to take away from a champion’s achievements.”
It’s not as if Williams is facing a Murderer’s Row every time she plays in a major. At this month’s Wimbledon, she played a qualifier in the first two rounds, followed by players ranked No. 17, No. 31, No. 55 and No. 54 before finally facing a top-10 player in seventh-seeded Halep.
What does the ESPN tennis crew have against Court? You won’t hear the broadcasters say so on the telecasts, but their grudge all-but certainly is the same one held by some players in women’s tennis. They detest Court, a Pentecostal pastor based in Perth, for speaking out against gay marriage and allegedly suggesting homosexuality is the work of the devil. King and Martina Navratilova, both gay, have led the charge against Court, advocating that her name be removed from Margaret Court Arena, which is the second-largest stadium at the Australian Open.
King, who had a 10-22 career record against Court, has said she would refuse to play in Margaret Court Arena if she still was playing.
A British newspaper, The Telegraph, wrote last year, “Court denies she is homophobic but says she is a deeply religious person and follows the Scriptures.”
And so the campaign to coronate Williams continues unabated, even to absurd proportions. While hardly anyone would deny that Williams has the best serve ever in women’s tennis, ESPN’s Pam Shriver seemingly lost her mind when she blurted, “Serena has one of the top five serves in tennis history, men or women.”
Praise has been heaped on Williams over the past two years for playing while she was pregnant and then returning to tennis after the birth of her first child. What you won’t hear on ESPN is that Court had three children during her career and lost a Wimbledon final when she was pregnant.
While Williams, reportedly worth upwards of $100 million, has the luxury of flying in a private jet from her mansion in south Florida to the majors and concentrating almost solely on the Grand Slams, Court played to make a living as she and her husband flew on commercial aircraft from tournament to tournament with their children in tow.
Only Williams and maybe her inner circle know why she continues to play at age 37. One suspects she assesses the level of competition in women’s tennis today and determines that major titles are there for the taking. This is an era in women’s tennis devoid of great players, certainly weaker than what Graf faced in her day with the likes of Monica Seles, Lindsay Davenport, Jennifer Capriati, Navratilova, Arantxa Sanchez Vicario, Gabriela Sabatini and newly inducted Hall of Famer Mary Pierce.
A bigger question is why the only measure of greatness in tennis players today is the number of Grand Slam singles titles they win. In Court’s day, nearly all the top players played doubles, and it meant something. Now, Court’s 40 Grand Slam doubles titles account for nothing. Neither do her 192 career singles titles.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Since I don't think Serena is great any longer, I might agree with you. Maybe if she actually spent a little time getting back in shap but I digress...
Of course she COULD beat them. That doesn't make one player better than the other. Maria Sharapova has beaten Serena 3 times - does that make her better?
Yep. Fewer players. Far lower talent level. Far less depth.
A fair point. Equipment is far different today no question. However, given equal equipment, let's be real here - Serena is far stronger and faster than Court.
No, no, they can't. They can play fine club-level tennis but "great"? No. "Great" tennis wins tournaments. No one in their 50s has even a remote shot at winning a regular tournament.
Good movement for a 60-year old. Against other old guys. I'm sure he has great touch still. He also has much less stamina and power than he did when he was 30.
Yeah. 34 years before the Court match was played.
Yeaaaah...this is more than a bit of a stretch.
Doesn't speak very highly of her then, does it? Takes the money and doesn't put forth a good effort? Surely, you're not implying she couldn't perform because she was a mother?
Keep in mind that every excuse you make for Court not performing is an indictment of women's tennis of the time in general since, again, she was #1 in the world at the time.
The fact she almost died giving birth and was 8 years older than Court when she gave birth might have something to do with that.
I'm not arguing that Court wasn't great. She was. But others are better.
In what World?????
• Serena trails Court in Grand Slam singles titles, 24-23.
• She trails Court in Grand Slam doubles titles, 40-16.....TENNISCOACH says doubles titles are important too
• She trails Court in career singles titles, 192-72.
• She has failed to achieve the hardest feat in tennis, the calendar year Grand Slam. Court done it.
Anyone can have an opinion on who's the GOAT. But if you go BY RECORD...No question Court is the GOAT.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
Seriously who would have ever thought that a Tennis thread would turn into a combat zone like this one? It’s great even though I don’t care one little bit about the sport or even know much about it lol. Carry on fellas, carry on 😂👍
Lol I know right. GOAT threads are very common though on tennis forums. Its even worse regarding the mens tour.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
This is a good time to promote my new hashtag #dimeout
I'm not going to mention any names, but it's easy to spot the married couples in this thread.
Every great thread needs one. Go ahead, grab a bag, you know you want one........
😂👍
I did a small focus group and 51% think a dimeout should be a ten day rest .
Advantage. Moderator.
@DIMEMAN - The message board does not need junk like you posted here. Totally inappropriate. Please do not do it again. - Todd Tobias
Double fault.
And Cy Young has the most wins ever but no one considers him the greatest, do they?
Margaret Court won the Australian Open 11 times a remarkable field. She did it against fields of:
32, 44, 48, 39, 27, 52, 48, 32, 43, 30, 48
So small fields against lesser competition, including byes in early rounds.
And one of the 11 was a walk-over.
And 7 of them were before the Open era. Overall, 13 of her Grand Slam titles were before the Open era. So now we're comparing 11 professional Grand Slam titles to 23?
The calendar year Grand Slam is an amazing feat, no question. All credit to Court for that. But I don't put THAT much weight on it. Serena has been the champion of all four Grand Slams twice, the calendar year just wrapped around on them. Doesn't really matter to me if you win a tournament in June of 2015 or June of 2016.
You wanna make the case that Court was the most successful tennis player of all-time when you include amateur achievements? Go for it. But, as a pro, against professional competition, and by the eyeball test, Serena is better.
you are pulling out the the Ichiro card ,
Game .... Set..... and Match
2 of the people that would have argued the point are banned
The mens tennis player is....Same with Golf.
Quantity dont always equal quality. From 1960-1973, these were among the women who played in the Australian Championships during Court’s run of titles: Billie Jean King, Maria Bueno, Nancy Richey, Evonne Goolagong, Virginia Wade, Lesley Turner, Darlene Hard, Ann Haydon-Jones, Rosie Casals and Francoise Durr. All of those women now are in the International Tennis Hall of Fame....She won many Australians because the grass courts favored her serve and volley game. She had a long reach from her long arms, so she was very fast around the net. So, it wouldn't had mattered if she had to play five rounds or seven.
>
Makes no difference. All top female players were eligible to compete in Grand slams, and all the other tournaments before 1968, as there was NO women's pro tour as in the men's game.
There were NO top women playing on a pro tour before 1968, because there was NONE. ALL top women played in sanctioned tournaments and slams before the open era began. The only thing that changed for women players was that they could now legally play for money. In the men's game most of the best players were on the pro tour before 68, which is why the open era applies to the men's game because the top pro players could now play the slams, etc..
Oh but it does matter. Because its much tougher to win four straight in a calendar year for many reasons. The biggest reason...all the pressure from the media it puts on a player after they win the first two or three...then going into the U.S. Open...Thats why very few have achieved.
See above for the amateur/open history lesson. Eyeball test says Court wouldv'e had her way against any baseline player with the surfaces of the 60's....and 60's technology..
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED