Talk:Chris Evert/Archive 1

Initial text
We need a picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.236.63 (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2005 (UTC)

Infobox
I'm adding an infobox, as seen in most of the tennis player pages. Someone feel free to add a picture!--Flute138 17:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Evert in the French Open
Right in the middle of her 125-game winning streak, Chris Evert didn't even enter the French Open for three consecutive years (76-78). Why didn't she? She was even the defending champ in 1976! It seems like this cheapens the 125-game streak if she wasn't playing in the most prominent clay-court tournament during much of it. --Dantheox 23:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * She didn't enter the French Open during those years because she played World Team Tennis instead. And her streak is not cheapened by not entering the event because none of the top females entered that tournament during those years, either.  In fact, if Evert had entered the tournament, she would have won easily because of the lack of competition.  Now THAT would have cheapened her streak. Tennis expert 17:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * How interesting that this fact is discounted by some and yet the suggestion in the main article is left intact, i.e., that had she entered the tournament more often she would have won it more often and ended up with an even more distinguished career. The same suggestion was made in the main article about Navratilova but in that case was removed by the person above with the comment "it was her choice not to enter the tournament". Montydad (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Nitpick
The text says that Evert was born in December 1954 and also that "by 1969" she was the top player under 14. But she turned 14 in December of 1968 and therefore was not under 14 at any point in 1969. It may be that "under 14" is a technical term in junior tennis that extends slightly past one's 14th birthday, but surely this can be reworded so as to be less confusing for those who do mental arithmetic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.99.250 (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone should address this question. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 00:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Greatest ever??
Yeah may be if all the Grand Slams where on slower court or better still if Martina Navaratilova was never born Chris Evert would have been the best ever. How about this angle for an argument. I think this section is badly written and looks more out of frustration than fact presentation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.66.49.133 (talk) 09:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It is an OPINION that violates NPOV to say that only reason Graf won more Grand Slams is because Seles was stabbed. Who knows that? If Barry Sanders hadn't retired, he might have broken Walter Payton's record - of course, he might also have been killed in a plane crash, too, right? Who's to say that Graf wouldn't have won just as many? It needs severely rewritten, sounding more like a list of excuses. 71.170.223.180 00:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Maestroh

This whole section is biased and opinionated. It overlooks the fact that Navratilova handed Evert her WORST EVER loss on clay at the WITA championships in 1984 (6-2, 6-0). Navratilova also pasted Evert a month later in the 1984 French Open final on clay (6-3, 6-1). During that French Open final, Evert was so outplayed that she did not win a single point on her own serve in the second set. Navratilova again defeated Evert on clay in the SF of the French Open in 1987, again in single sets (6-2, 6-2). Regardless of the above, the whole argument about "greatest ever" is moot to begin with because players with "record numbers" of tournament titles over the decades did not face the same opponents, with the same equipment and on the same surfaces. In addition, the surfaces have changed numerous times (i.e., the US open was on grass, clay and now hard court; the Aussie Open was on grass, changed surface in 1988 and again this year) and the equipment has changed so dramatically that a teenager can now hit winners from all over the court. So comparing results from different eras is pure nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montydad (talk • contribs) 18:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

We should also add to this section the fact that in terms of grand slam singles matches the record between Evert and Navratilova is as follows: Australian Open: Tied 2-2; French Open: Evert 3-2; Wimbledon: Navratilova 7-2; US Open: Navratilova 3-1. In short, the argument that had they played more on clay, the results would have been much different is hardly borne out by the results. The real difference in results can be better accounted for with factors such as player maturity, fitness and dedication to the game rather than just the surface on which the matches were played. If we examine the results prior to 1979, which was the point after which Navratilova began to dominate the rivalry, we see that Evert had won 24 of the 30 matches played (including one walk-over). She dominated Navratilova on Hard courts (13-2), Indoor Carpet (5-2), and Clay (5-0). The only surface prior to 1979 in Navratilova's favour was grass where she led 2-1. The contention that Evert "would have won more if more tournaments had not been offered on faster surfaces such as carpet and hard courts" is untenable and is not bourne out by the results from the earlier part of the rivalry. Once Navratilova rededicated herself to the sport, hired a coach and improved her fitness, the table turned and she dominated Evert on the same surfaces where Evert had previously held the edge. Those includes "faster surfaces" such as carpet and hard courts. Montydad (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

All the section is heavily NPOV. It needs to be rewritten accurately. (talk) 14:35, 11 june 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.13.30.213 (talk)


 * I'm sorry, but this section of "greatest ever" needs to go. This is Wikipedia, not a blog. First of all, this section does not cite any references. 2nd of all, it is way too long. And 3rd of all, while I don't doubt there is and has been a debate about whether Ms. Evert is the greatest, that does not fall under WP:Notability. I'm sure die-hard fans (who put this section here in the first place) can argue and argue how it should be included here so as to leave a mark for Chris Evert history on Wikipedia, but it's not what Wikipedia should be used for, and just a regular guy/gal reading this article will be like what? Is this a blog now? Wikipedia is not the place for comparisons to other players.
 * Just in case, no I am not a hater, I have no preference for greatest player - I'm just observing the article and it would not be anywhere near good article status with this trivia section in it. That kind of thing should be in blogs (and is of course). If it is still here in 2 months, or at least not hugely downsized and cleaned up (even with POV), I will remove it and have administrators observe the page so edit wars do not begin. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

GoldenGoose100, I couldn't agree more with you about this section needing to go - so please, do remove it and let the administrators decide, based on validity and factual evidence instead of biased opinion. As you can see, I have pointed out on this talk page the total lack of fact-based validity with regard to "whether Evert would have won more overall against Navratilova if the surfaces had been slower". In fact, as I have pointed out above, Evert dominated over Navratilova on all surfaces - but only in the early part of their rivalry (pre-1979). A much more plausible explanation for the reversal of the dominance in the rivalry is, as I pointed out above, player maturity. Even matches on clay, which had been the 'slow' surface on which Evert had maintained the best results against Navratilova, became increasingly more difficult for Evert to win in the later stages of the rivalry. For example, post 1984, they played seven matches on clay with Evert winning only 4 of the 7 matches and Navratilova defeated Evert soundly in the two matches on clay in 1984 and again in 1987. I am a huge fan of Evert, Navratilova and (also) Graf but I find it interesting that there is no such "greatest ever" section in the Wikipedia articles on Navratilova or Graf, both of which had careers that were equal if not even more stellar than Evert's. Montydad (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, non-wikipedic pov stuff needs extensive rewrite and only comparative claims of greatness from reputable referencable sources. Good luck. Autodidactyl (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Right.... but see Autodidactyl, even you are bringing your own opinion, saying a more plausible explanation of player maturity? These kinds of statements don't belong in Wikipedia at all. But yes, you are right, obviously an Evert enthusiast put this greatest ever section here, not following wikipedia policy thus, and will fight anyone who following the policy wants to remove it. All that is required is for these people to make their own blog for it. I'm sure some of this banter about greatest ever is sourced, and that's all well and good and what wikipedia requires, but also there is WP:Notability - it's not everything that just goes on here pertaining to Chris Evert. And I repeat this is not a place to compare to other players. There are too many opinions to have that stuff here. So yeah I will remove it - making it hidden and asking future editors to greatly shorten it and clean it up with more references so that it can be a section in the future about maybe "Evert's legacy" or something. Sound good yes? ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 21:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok done. See that section under "Playing Style" - I hid the section, and put a long note. I'm guessing resistance will come, hopefully not, and admins might have to get involved, but I think I have a pretty strong case that this is not a BLOG, and this section does not belong on wikipedia. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi GoldenGoose, actually it was me, 'Montydad', who added the information about a possible "more plausible explanation being player maturity". In order to avoid this suggestion being interpreted as just my opinion, I provided an analysis of the win/loss record, by surface, between the two players prior to 1979, which is the acknowledged turning point in the rivalry. The claim in the main article, namely, that the edge gained in the rivalry by Navratilova was due to the majority of the matches being played on faster surfaces was based by the author solely on the final tally of wins, per surface, when the rivalry ended in 1988 with Evert's retirement. The author had made no mention of the fact that Evert had dominated Navratilova on faster surfaces as well as slower ones, but only during the early years of the rivalry - specifically between 1973 and 1979. This is clearly proven by the stats and not just my opinion. For example, prior to 1979, Evert held a 5-2 edge on indoor carpet over Navratilova and a 13-2 edge on hard courts; these are both considered 'fast surfaces'. The tables turned dramatically in matches played post 1979 after which Navratilova held a 9-4 edge on hard courts and a 16-1 edge on indoor carpet. She also started beating Evert on clay - a slower surface on which she had never been able to beat Evert prior to 1984. In sum, I totally concur with you that opinion-based information doesn't belong in the main article. Statements need to be backed up with facts, statistics and/or quotes from reputable sources. Montydad (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * MMM... still though I don't think that on wikipedia we should be talking about who is the greatest. It suffices to say she and Navratilova and others and even of today's generation like The Williams Sisters and Henin are each considered one of the best of their times. And I repeat what another editor said: this "greatest ever" thing is not on Navratilova's or Graf's pages. So why here? I still think it comes down to supporters of Evert wanting to glorify her on this page, as neutrally as possible - but hey I should not speculate as WP:Assume Good Faith says. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 03:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for wider input on discussion at WikiProject Tennis
There is a long, ongoing discussion at WP:Tennis about the tournament tables found in tennis articles on English-language Wikipedia (e.g., this type of table). The discussion is about whether the "official sponsored name" of a tournament - such as Pacific Life Open - or another tournament name without the sponsor - such as Indian Wells Masters - must be used in those articles. Please join the discussion here. Thanks. Tennis expert (talk) 09:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

What a Style?!
Evert's graceful appearance, conventional good looks, quiet demeanor, outward appearance of gracious sportsmanship, and carefully manipulated sex appeal and public image made her a favorite with the media and fans.

This sentence should go!!! What's that got to do with her playing style? Very much a derogative phrase in my eyes: ''graceful appearance, outward appearance of .., conventional good looks, sex appeal, .. '' Nobody would talk about sex appeal if she was a man. This is simply uncalled-for, wouldn't you agree? And completely subjective, just by the way. May well be I (for a start) might not even agree. Please stick to the facts, and, if well known sources are cited that refer to a person's public image, reference what you write. I am not a native English speaker and therefore shall not edit the article itself. Regards, --194.246.46.15 (talk) 10:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree and I've removed it. Extremely inappropriate. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 11:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Change of main picture
The main picture is lame. First, it's a digital zoom of an already zoomed in photo. Second, it's from the freaking 90s. Third, the net is in the way of half the photo. Fourth, it's already used in the article.

This is from SFgate.com, but it highlights what SHOULD be the main picture: http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2009/09/11/sp-open12_ph_eve_0500583911.jpg Yeah she doesn't have a tennis racquet but honestly, I think people would rather know what she looks like, than have a blurry, 90s picture of her where you can hardly see her face.

--76.21.167.194 (talk) 01:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Tennis Bracelet
The Bracelet page claims the "Tennis Bracelet" was named due to an incident with Chris Evert's bracelet. Perhaps a mention is warranted here as well if true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.3.148 (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Abortion of Jimmy Connor's Child???
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/youthful-passion-left-chris-evert-pregnant-jimmy-connors-love-child-article-1.1332476

She has not commented on it, but he contends it's true. Fair game???User:JCHeverly 03:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm currently reading Jimmy's new autobiog. I could provide a citation if needed. --El Ingles (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The gutless wonder/s of both the Connors and Evert articles have not mentioned it.  (Hope you didn't pay for the book, BTW)  I think it is highly relevant as Chris Evert is a "devout Roman Catholic."  It would be useful if you would put the citation/s verbatim alon with the page number.  That way, the primary editor/s of both articles can no longer run away from Connors's claim.  I have only read and seen media accounts of Connors's statements, but in those interviews he stated that Evert was definitely with child during their 1974 romance and "decisions had to be made."User:JCHeverly 08:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * There are enough verifiable sources. Jimmy Connors has asserted in both print and on television that Chris Evert ABORTED THEIR unborn child.  Time to BOLDLY EDIT.

http://www.today.com/news/jimmy-connors-chris-evert-abortion-we-were-young-1C9872997

Here's Connors -- "Listen, an issue had arisen as a result of youthful passion and a decision had to be made as a couple. I was staying in an apartment and Nasty [Ilie Nastase] was there when Chrissie called to say she was coming out to LA to take care of that 'issue.' I was perfectly happy to let nature take its course and accept responsibility for what was to come. Chrissie, however, had already made up her mind that the timing was bad and too much was riding on her future. She asked me to handle the details. I said something like 'Well, thanks for letting me know. Since I don't have any say in the matter, then I guess I'm just here to help.'"The Outsider by Jimmy Connors. Bantam/HarperCollins, 2013. ISBN 9780593069271. pp. 132-3User:JCHeverly 00:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Add that information yourself if you have Connors' book and other credible sources. But it's not a major news event so a short insert is enough (no need to add a lengthy multi-sentence paragraph. --Loginnigol 06:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes it is, dude. As a baptized and confirmed Roman Catholic, I can tell you that Chrissie Evert should have been excommunicated by her bishop for a willful abortion with no mitigating reason such as rape, the life of the mother, or child.  Do you want me to hammer you with the _Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church_ of the matter.  I will.  Also, the bitch has been married and divorced 3xs.  I'm sure she paid hefty annulment tributes to her diocese.  IT MATTERS, DUDE.  Not to mention, DOESN'T JIMMY CONNORS HAVE ANY RIGHTS AS THE FATHER OF THAT CHILD?User:JCHeverly 15:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

HERE IS WIKIPEDIA'S SUMMARIZATION OF THE _CCC_ ON THE MATTER OF ABORTION: The Roman Catholic Church opposes all forms of abortion procedures whose direct purpose is to destroy an embryo, blastocyst, zygote or foetus, since it holds that "human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life."[1] However, it does recognize as morally legitimate certain acts which indirectly result in the death of the fetus, as when the direct purpose is removal of a cancerous womb. Canon 1398 of the Code of Canon Law imposes automatic excommunication on Latin Rite Catholics who procure a completed abortion,[2] if they fulfil the conditions for being subject to such a sanction.[3] Eastern Catholics are not subject to automatic excommunication, but they are to be excommunicated by decree if found guilty of the same action,[4] and they may be absolved of the sin only by the eparchial bishop.[5] In addition to saying that abortion is immoral, the Catholic Church also makes statements and takes actions in opposition to its legality. Many, or in some countries most, Catholics disagree with the official position promulgated by the Church; the views of these people range from allowing exceptions in a generally pro-life position to complete acceptance of abortion.[6][7][8][9][10][11]
 * There is a distinction between practicing Catholics and non-practicing Catholics on the issue; practicing Catholics are far more likely to be pro-life, while non-practicing Catholics are more likely to be pro-choice.[8][9][11][12]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_abortionUser:JCHeverly 15:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It was not time to boldly edit. This is a minor blip in her biography and we are not a gossip sheet or collection of trivia. We have to be careful of WP:UNDUE also. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * CAREFUL, SCHMAREFUL. If you truly believe that, here is a link to the Mai Lai Massacre article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mai_Lai_Massacre  Edit it down to a stub if you truly believe what you're stating.User:JCHeverly 02:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't there a Twitter account set up to track her commentating gaffes???
Wasn't there a Twitter account set up to track her commentating gaffes??? Shouldn't that be in here? I know it has been taken down, but would be nice to have a link to places where the quotes are still available on the internet. Thanks to anybody who can provide the link and put it in her bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betathetapi545 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Error in lead
"Evert's career winning percentage in singles matches of 90.00% (1309–146) is the highest in the history of tennis, for men or women".

Wrong. Not even the highest in just Open Era.

Highest all-time, women (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-time_tennis_records_%E2%80%93_women%27s_singles#Winning_percentage_by_surface):
 * 1) Suzanne Lenglen 	341–7 	(97.99%)
 * 2) Helen Wills 	398–35 	(91.91%)
 * 3) Margaret Court 	1180–107 	(91.68%)
 * 4) Chris Evert 	1309–146 	(89.96%)

Highest in Open Era, women (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Era_tennis_records_%E2%80%93_women%27s_singles#Match_record_by_court_type):
 * 1) Margaret Court 	593–56 (91.37%)
 * 2) Chris Evert 	1309–146 (89.97%)
 * 3) Steffi Graf 	902–115 (88.69%)

Plus on the men's side there's Anthony Wilding, 636–57 (91.77%) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.192.148 (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Sadly, Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source for references Billsmith60 (talk) 11:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

In other words, use non-Wikipedia sources to make your point Billsmith60 (talk) 11:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Both (https://db4tennis.com/players/female/margaret-smith-court) and (https://sportslumo.com/tennis/margaret-court-an-unparalleled-legend-who-set-the-benchmark/) confirm Court's >91% OE win rate, and are more reliable than chrisevert.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.79.50 (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)