Who was better?

For some reason, people always say Martina. I can\'t see why! Sure, if we\'re talking doubles, Martina wins hands down. But who was the better SINGLES player?

IMO, they\'re just so evenly matched. Chrissy was better than Martina on clay, and Martina was better than Chrissy on grass. On hardcourt, it was anyone\'s match. Both won 18 Grand Slam titles, with Martina finishing runner-up in 14 Slams, Chrissy 16.

Martina wins in the domination category, eg, \'84, losing one match the whole, year=absolutely phenomonal.

Chrissy wins in the consistency category, winning at least one slam every year for 13 straight years, absolutely absurd.

Martina won about 10 more overall career titles, but played for more years than Chrissy.

For me, it\'s hard to decide who\'s better. Who do you you all think is? PLEASE NO BIAS!!

Who is better?, well there are different ways in which we could mean better.
I think there are two ways the look at this
1 who at their peak, playing their very best would beat the other on a neutral surface-say hardcourt. Using this criteria i'ld have to go for Navratilova to win, as she seemed so utterly dominant-not only over Chris but over other players too.
She didn't manage to maintain this degree of superiority throughout her career, but for a while she looked close to invincible.

2 Who's playing career as a whole was greater. This one it seems to me is much closer-they have the same amount of slams, though Martina won more singles titles. On that basis i'ld give it to Martina but there is little in it i admit.

For both Chris and Martina what also has to be remembered is that both would probably have won more slams if it were not for the other-they played each other 14 times in grandslam finals alone. It's the greatest rivalry in the history of Tennis.
Matina was more dominant for a few years but Chris was so consistent throughout her career.
While Graf was a truly great player, through no fault of her own her biggest rival Seles was taken out of the game. That lack of a real rivalry must inevitably hang over how we must judge Graf's own career.
The rivalry of Navratilova and Evert compunds their greatness, for both to achieve such greatness in the face of undoubted competition is exceptional.

For me Navratilova is the greatest for her utter peak domination of Chris and everyone.

Despite that though, it is close between them. But ultimately it is difficult to argue that Navratilova is not the greater singles player. When you take into account doubles as well, I suppose that's why Martina pops up so much more than Chris in the GOAT debate.

their battles were always the classic baseliner and the netplayer.Early part of their career was dominated by Chris but eventually it was Martina who got an upperhand.Martina was so dominant even in the doubles department and the years that she spent playing active tennis not withstanding her remarkable 9 Wimbeys would always put her head and shoulders above any woman in the history of the game.Of course Chris's 6 FO are no less an achievement.Nevertehless the Chris-Martina battles were the greatest in the game.

7 FO's :P

Probably would've been 8 or 9 if she hadn't skipped so many in the 70's!

yup,my mistake there-7 FO's.

I'm gonna stick my neck out and say that Chris was the better singles player, her baseline skills were incredible for the racquet technology that they had and although she wasn't as good on grass as Martina I feel that for her to dominate RG (a harder slam to dominate than Wimbledon, not harder to win, but harder to win many times on it) was more of an achievement than Martina's 9 Wimbledons....

Interesting post SG :ok: Nice to have someone who has courage in their convictions and put forth a case against the norm :)

Although I would add that her baseline skills were possibly enhanced by the racquet technology, rather than amazing in spite of it, which is what you meant? :unsure: Chris was such a clean striker of the ball the wooden racquets allowed her an extraordinary degree of control, that you just can´t obtain with graphite racquets imo.

As a Brit of a certain age (i.e. I grew up watching tennis when Navratilova was establishing her supremacy) it is difficult not to let Navratilova's Wimbledon successes overshadow Evert.

There are other extraordinary statistics about Evert:

Her 90% winning record 1,309-146

She won more than half the tournaments she entered and made the finals in 76% of them

She went through a run of making 48/49 GS semis

She did not play at RG in 1976, 1977, or 1978 when she was in the middle of a 125-match unbeaten run on clay between 1973 and 1979.

Consistency - Evert is the greatest
Best on a neutral surface on the best day - Navratilova

Rivalry: 43:37 in favour of Navratilova - 3 matches out of 80 the difference.

I don't think you can get a cigarette paper between them.

ooops didn't notcie the typo there, thanks for pointing that out :ok:

I was looking at both their career-stats yesterday and you can't deny that once Martina got her act together fitness-wise there was no stopping her. Evert was "naturally" fitter than Navratilova and blessed with an amazing talent for footwork, which meant Evert was overwhelming right from the start of her career. Navratilova was potentially the stronger and faster, but needed a much stricter regime to be able to use this potential.

I do feel, however, the biggest difference between them lies in the mental side. As can be judged from Evert's win/loss %, she almost never lost a match she should have won. She's absolutely incredible in that department.

Navratilova, despite her enourmous succes, has always been much more vulnerable in tight situations. Then again she has compensated this weakness by never ever taking it easy in practise and or in preparation. This was also a reason she was able to play well for as long as she has: always looking for improvement.

In conclusion: I feel Evert may have been the better matchplayer, but that Navratilova is the better tennis player.

That's what describes best their rivalry.

Tennis wise Martina pushed the level a gear up mostly through athletism.

This article I will have to say really is interesting.Theres not much between them.I have never seen a H2H that expanded.Its like they played at virtually every single tournament on earth at that time.

Steffi took it to the next level in the early Nineties with Hingis bringing it down a notch to Evert style then the Williams girls taking it through the roof!I still cant pick who is better thoughbetween Martina And Chrissie they are in my eyes evenly matched,but in terms of history I still think Martina is the best ever!

Chrissy had the mental edge. Martina was fun to watch because of her serve and volleys. (I prefer watching someone who can hit a variety of shots)

:ok: