Margaret Court and Serena Williams: A Comparative Discussion

WATCH: Tennis Channel Live discusses Serena Williams' final match of her illustrious career.

There once was an NFL quarterback named Fran Tarkenton. At the time of his retirement in 1978, Tarkenton held a number of passing records, perhaps the most notable being his mark of 342 touchdown passes.

But even as Tarkenton’s career ended, amid the ascent of such younger greats as Joe Montana, Dan Marino, John Elway, and Steve Young, the number “342” was not considered an accomplishment that conclusively proved Tarkenton was better than those quarterbacks. Nor was Tarkenton ever considered greater than prior all-timer Johnny Unitas, among others.

Tennis legend Margaret Court is probably not familiar with Fran Tarkenton. But her comments of late indicate an affinity with Tarkenton’s situation. Court is justifiably proud of winning a record 24 major singles titles. She also earned 19 women’s doubles majors and another 21 in mixed, a grand total of 64 that is the most all-time.

Court, Doris Hart, and Martina Navratilova are the only players to have taken the singles, doubles and mixed at every Grand Slam event. Court also stands alongside Maureen Connolly and Stefanie Graf as the only women to have won every singles major in a calendar year, a feat Court accomplished in 1970.

Unquestionably, she ranks among the greatest players in tennis history.

The No-GOAT Zones

At this point, my thoughts on the concept of a GOAT: Call me a conscientious objector.

I don’t believe that term is relevant in any field—sports, literature, music, science, business, medicine. Nor do I see value in the frequently stated “Mount Rushmore” notion. Why must massive excellence be confined to a quartet because of the desires of what a sculptor created in South Dakota more than 80 years ago? Better yet to let supreme greatness emerge over time and place those worthy of it on an A+ list.

Amid Serena Williams’ apparent retirement, it only made sense for an enterprising reporter to ask Court for her thoughts about the woman who has won 23 majors:

“Serena, I’ve admired her as a player,” Court said in a recent interview with Oliver Brown of The Telegraph. “But I don’t think she has ever admired me.”

Another aspect of the story addressed why Court is discussed less than other tennis greats, an occurrence likely due to her controversial religious views, including Court’s opposition to same sex marriage and other homophobic comments she’s made over the years.

“Serena, I’ve admired her as a player—but I don’t think she has ever admired me.” Margaret Court, to The Telegraph

Court also offered her views on contemporary tennis and Serena’s results. “I would love to have played in this era—I think it’s so much easier,” she said. “How I would love to have taken family or friends along with me. But I couldn’t, I had to go on my own or with the national team. People don’t see all that. As amateurs, we had to play every week, because we didn’t have any money. Now, they can take off whenever they want, fly back whenever they want. We would be away for ten months.”

Court also said, “Serena has played seven years more than I did... I got married, had a baby, but then had one of my best years, winning 24 out of 25 tournaments.”

From a tennis standpoint, what are we to make of Court’s comments? Where does she stand in the sport’s pantheon? How can we make sense of her results? How does one begin to examine how one champion may or not admire another? Must there be these eternal challenge matches over time?

Addressing the Amateur-Professional Schism and the Coming of Open Tennis

Let’s dive deeper and attempt to parse the nuances of Court’s 24 singles Slams—11 at the Australian, five at Roland Garros, three at Wimbledon, five at the US Championships.

Thirteen of Court’s 24 singles Slams came prior to Open tennis. Until the 1968 French Open, all of the majors were amateur events, offering no prize money. Meanwhile, players who turned pro were banned from those prestigious tournaments. But for many years, that competitive schism between amateur and pro was only applicable to the men’s game.

In 1962, for example, Laver won all four majors as an amateur. Laver knew that he was not the best player on the planet that year, that such pros as Ken Rosewall, Lew Hoad, and Pancho Gonzales were better. “Besides wanting to earn a legitimate living playing tennis,” Laver once told me, “I wanted to prove myself against the very best.” Laver’s awareness that there were better players was just one of many cases among male players from the ‘30s to the ‘60s.

As far as the women go, there’d only been intermittent small tours throughout the ‘40s and ‘50s. Participants included Alice Marble, Mary Hardwick, Pauline Betz, Sarah Palfrey, Gussie Moran, Althea Gibson, and Karol Fageros. But by the time Court commenced competing at the majors in 1960, even those opportunities had just about all dried up.

Given that there were no women barred from the big tournaments the way Laver’s peers were, it’s mostly (but, as shall be explained, not entirely) inaccurate to devalue the 13 Court singles Slams triumphs that took place in the pre-’68 amateur era. To put it bluntly, for most of the ‘60s, Margaret Court was the best women’s tennis player on earth.

A Tale of Two Majors: Appraising the Player Fields

The most significant factor in understanding the Australian Championships (it was not called the Australian Open until 1969) has to do with the quality and quantity of the playing field.

Court won her first singles major in 1960 and last in 1973. During those years, her primary rivals were Maria Bueno and Billie Jean King, Bueno in that time winning five of her seven career singles majors, King ten of a final total of 12. Other significant contenders during Court’s prime were Ann Haydon Jones (three), Nancy Richey (two), and Court’s compatriot, Lesley Turner (two).

Bueno played the Australian Championships two times. King, who first competed at the US Championships in 1959 and Wimbledon two years later, made her Aussie debut in 1965. She next played the event in 1968, beating Court in the final and losing at the same stage to Court in ’69. Jones and Richey competed Down Under twice, Richey beating Turner in the 1967 final. As you’d expect, Turner competed extensively at her homeland major, playing there 16 times.

If the Australian was shallow at the top of the entry list, it was also thin through the ranks. Not once from ’60-’73 did the draw even have 64 players in it. The 1964 edition featured 27 players, meaning that the first-seeded Court was given a bye into the round of 16 and needed to win just four matches to take the title.

If the Australian was shallow at the top of the entry list, it was also thin through the ranks. Not once from ’60-’73 did the draw even have 64 players in it.

It’s also revealing to explore the Australian Open’s significance throughout the Open era. Following that ’69 appearance, King did not return until 1982. Chrissie Evert reached the finals the first time she played it in 1974 and next completed Down Under in 1981, when she was runner-up to Navratilova. Navratilova, runner-up in her 1975 Australian Open debut, skipped the event four straight times in the late ‘70s. Evert and Navratilova each ended up with 18 major singles titles. It’s easy to envision their respective tallies being greater had either entered the Australian Open more often.

When it comes to Roland Garros, Wimbledon and the US, Court’s achievements require much less of a reassessment. While King only came to Paris for the first time in 1967, she’s often conceded that it took her several years to master the clay, so it’s hard to imagine the pre-’67 King challenging Court significantly on the dirt. Bueno, Richey, Jones, and Turner all competed frequently at Roland Garros, the latter three collectively winning five titles there. Court’s five US titles—including the 1970 victory that closed out her calendar Slam—were won versus full playing fields. Notably, every player Court beat in the finals ended up enshrined in the International Tennis Hall of Fame.

But just as the Australian Open was a second-tier Slam for many years, Roland Garros also struggled for legitimacy throughout much of the ‘60s and ‘70s, its progress hindered by economic and cultural factors. King at last won the title in ’72 and only came back to Paris in ‘80. Just as happened Down Under, Navratilova did not play Paris once from 1976-’80. Evert, winner of the title twice in ’74-’75, did not return until ’79. Instead, King, Navratilova and Evert through ’78 opted to compete in World Team Tennis, a competitive environment that was not only more financially lucrative, but also one that treated women as equals.

Many a woman who competed in Europe during the ‘60s and ‘70s has told me how poorly they were treated across the board, in everything from compensation to court assignments and even to booking practice courts and being issued practice balls. So here too, a chance for King, Evert and Navratilova to come closer to Court’s 24 singles Slam total.

Open Tennis Changed the Game from Top to Bottom

None of this deep dive into the Australian and French takes anything away from Court’s resume. But it does cast light on how the Slam totals of King, Evert and Navratilova might have been different had the sport in those years focused as heavily on those four majors as it does now and did in the pre-Open era.

As King has frequently said, “In those early Open years, we were trying to grow the tour.” In other words, a strong competitive focus from 1968 until approximately 1980 was on creating a sustainable livelihood for a great many tennis players—precisely the reasons why Laver and his mates had ditched the Slam-focused amateur world.

I mentioned earlier that distinguishing between pre-Open and Open era results was for the most part not relevant for women’s tennis, as there were no top pros absent from those fields. But there was one significant way Open tennis altered the environment: The lack of money in the game made it hard for many players to take the game seriously. Karen Susman won Wimbledon in 1962 at the age of 19, didn’t even bother to defend her title the next year and was pretty much gone from world class tennis for good by the end of 1964.

Even more telling was what was taking place down the ranks at non-Slam events. Talk to any Top 10 player and they will tell you that at a great many smaller tournaments, the early rounds of competition were exceptionally easy, the draw often filled with local players and even club members.

So in that sense, Court’s statement that upon returning to tennis she won 24 of 25 tournaments is hardly similar to more recent times of the Open era, when it’s often been possible to come across a player ranked 80 in the world who indeed has skills to knock off the top pros. If you might consider the gap in competitive depth between Serena’s time and the Evert-Navratilova years as several feet apart, the gap from the early ‘80s to Court’s prime is miles wide.

Talk to any Top 10 player and they will tell you that at a great many smaller tournaments, the early rounds of competition were exceptionally easy, the draw often filled with local players and even club members.

The Case of Graf

Then there is the case of Graf, winner of 22 singles majors. Graf’s Slam tally was rarely compared to Court’s, perhaps because the final Slam she won happened in 1999—nearly three years after Graf’s 21st. And Graf retired two months after Slam number 22. In other words, there was little dialogue in the tennis world then if Graf was even close to matching Court’s feat.

Graf’s quest for a spot on the A+ list was also aided by the fact that, like Court, she’d earned a calendar year Slam; and did so at the age of 19 (Court was 28). In Serena’s case, though, once she won her 23rd Slam—in Australia, no less—the concept of chasing Court was naturally front and center.

Now & Forever: How Champions Connect with One Another

As far as the matter of admiration goes, how does Court think Serena should admire her? What form should that take?

Certainly, Serena holds what Court has done in high regard. “I’d be lying if I said I didn’t want that record,” Serena said last month in Vogue. Years ago, on a panel with Court, she said, “I never dreamt I would be on a stage being next to Margaret Court, so it’s just really kind of a little bit surreal,” Williams said. “But it’s just really an honor to even be mentioned among such an amazing champion like her.”

Does Serena also know that Court once praised South Africa’s harsh apartheid regime? Or has Serena, who nearly died during childbirth, read this comment from Court’s recent interview? “After having the first baby, I won three out of the four Slams,” said Court. “And Serena hasn’t won a Slam since.” Ouch.

Unquestionably, Margaret Court has done a great many good things for the world, her spiritual powers and graciousness helping to shape and save many lives. But Court’s comments on Serena are reminiscent of another athletic legend who posted tremendous numbers: Wilt Chamberlain.

How does Court think Serena should admire her? What form should that take?

To the end of his life, Chamberlain never could grasp how all his statistical accomplishments paled in comparison to the sober reality that while he played on two NBA championship teams for two different franchises, Wilt’s greatest rival, Bill Russell, was on a single team that won 11 titles. In Court’s case, though, the numbers are indeed comparable to Russell’s.

Isn’t it enough for Court to let her great record speak for itself? After all, as much as Court’s comments make me cringe, there’s no denying how well she performed over an impressively long period. Still, based on all these factors, anyone who dares consider Serena less accomplished than Court for the lack of a single major has little understanding of tennis history.

There’s plenty of room for many greats on the tennis mountain. How do you get there? To borrow the trademark line from one of Fran Tarkenton’s fellow football Hall of Famers, Al Davis, “Just win, baby.”