It’s a bit of a challenge. What really is the most remarkable thing about Martina Navratilova? Incredibly, when many a 48-year-old is thinking about grandkids “MN”, as I call her, is thinking about grandbackhands. When most athletes are hesitant to share their opinions on anything but the ball game, MN shares her view on everything from war and freedom to the latest ballot initiative. For generations, players based their careers on their stroke production. MN transformed her body from a not-too-trim (“Big Macs welcome”) vehicle to a ripped (where’s the body fat?) machine. While McEnroe was into the Haagen-Dazs diet, MN’s use of the Haas brought nutritional awareness to a sport that previously had nary a clue. The feisty, emotional, in-your-grill and ultimately triumphant half of arguably the most storied rivalry in all sports, she brought the serve ‘n’ volley game to lofty heights.

Athletic and determined, she smashed the Wimbledon record book, won a record 167 singles crowns, 174 doubles titles and has collected a title in each of her 22 years on the circuit. Aside from all her records and breakthroughs and long before Lendl, Seles and almost every Slovakian teen with a forehand left her homeland for the daunting cauldron of America, she dared to do it her way. Courageous and prickly, outspoken and out of the closet, she speaks her mind and bares her heart.

INSIDE TENNIS: Arguably, with Billie Jean, you’re the greatest risk-taker in our game. Is there an art to risk-taking? Is it something you can learn, or is it just something that’s within you?
MARTINA NAVRATILOVA: It comes from within, doing the right thing, being fair and standing up for what you believe in. It’s very simple. I just don’t understand how people don’t do it more often.
IT: So why not?
MN: Because they are too worried about offending somebody, so they can go on and get product endorsements. Have you seen Michael Jordan make a statement about anything? Have you seen Tiger Woods make a statement about anything? No, ‘cause they want to be marketable to everybody. They don’t want to offend anybody, which is fine. But that’s not how I live my life. If I believe in something, I’m going to stand up for it. If I have an opinion, I better back it up. If I have a belief, then I’m going to say so, because I’m not ashamed of it. I’m not embarrassed. I don’t have any ax to grind. Am I a risk-taker? I guess I am. It’s about holding on to your own self and not being a coward. There have been times where I didn’t say something because I was scared of the consequences. But most of the time I speak my mind. That’s the end of that.
IT: August 21, 1968, you’re an 11-year-old kid in the Czech countryside. What is on your mind when you’re getting the news of the Soviet invasion?
MT: Well, it was 7 in the morning when my best friend’s father called us to tell us not to go outside. Then, of course, it’s like, OK, let’s go outside because there were tanks there. So we threw some rocks and apples at them. We thought we were doing our bit in the revolution.
IT: So somewhere there’s an old Soviet tank with a dent in it? On another August afternoon in New York, you’re going up a dusty Manhattan freight elevator to have a clandestine meeting with the FBI as you were about to defect. They confiscated your passport. The whole thing must have been incredibly frightening.
MN: No. It wasn’t; it was kind of funny. When I went to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, I was questioned for 3 hours. I had to profess my noncommunist beliefs, etc. Finally, I left there at 10 o’clock at night and they said, “Don’t say anything to anybody.” But it was a classic example of how our government works — our government at its worst — because the next morning it was all over The Washington Post [newspaper].
IT: We now know who Deep Throat was. But you still don’t know who leaked out the news that you were defecting?
MN: Oh, I never tried to find out. Who cares? It doesn’t matter.
IT: Was it daunting to face a huge press conference the very next day?
MN: No. I wasn’t worried about the press conference. I was worried about the Russians yanking me back into Czechoslovakia. That’s what frightened me. Talking to the press was a piece of cake. They can’t hurt me.
IT: You recently spoke about a dream you would have about Chris where you’d been in a ravine, trying to get out of it. What was that about?
MN: I have so many dreams. I don’t remember what that dream was.
IT: What was the toughest thing about Chris? Her mental intensity, her will to win, her ...?
MN: It was the fact that she didn’t miss much. You had to earn it; you had to win the point. She wasn’t going to lose ‘em. You had to work the point. Back with the wooden rackets, it wasn’t so easy, so I had to really play a pattern in order to work my way to net. That was the tough part. People talk about how she was mentally tough. That’s why she didn’t miss. But the bottom line is, I don’t play against the mental bit, I play the ball. And she didn’t miss.
IT: Your former coach, Nancy Lieberman, said, “Look, you’ve got to totally change your approach when you play against Chris and see her as if she’s taking something from you.”
MN: What was important was that it’s OK to take it back. You have to want it. You just can’t be nice, nice, nice, and say, “Oh, yeah, you’re such a great player. Go ahead, you beat me. Oh, well, too good.” You’ve got to get out there and want to take it back. It was an attitude that it was OK to want to take something away from somebody. But I was brought up to be polite, and that wasn’t polite.
IT: No offense, but how did you deal with the situation where she was the apple pie, girl next door? Was that something that you came to peace with or ...?
MN: That’s just how things were. I was never going to be the darling. But look who’s smiling now. Who’s the darling now

“Have you seen Michael Jordan make a statement about anything? Have you seen Tiger Woods make a statement about anything? No, ‘cause they want to be marketable to everybody, they don’t want to offend anybody.”
“I was never going to be the darling. But look who’s smiling now. Who’s the darling now?”
“It’s not going to happen if you put it up for a referendum. ...If that were the case, black people would still not be allowed to marry white people.”

IT: It must give you a lot of pride that you basically introduced Chris to her husband Andy Mill, who’s she’s been with for so long now [since ‘88].
MN: I’m sure that was in the cards anyway. I was just the protagonist.
IT: If you had to point to one or two of your sweetest on-court moments — winning your first Grand Slam title, breaking the Wimbledon record or maybe ...?
MN: It was always talking to the Duchess [of Kent at Wimbledon]. She was so lovely. She made you feel so good. I won the first six or seven times before I finally lost one. Then she just said...Well, she had just has a way about her. She’s such a class act. That was always so special.
IT: After you came to America, you went for so many years without seeing your mom, whom you had been so close with. Then this English Duchess arranged for your mom to come to see you at Wimbledon.
MN: She put pressure on the Czechs.
IT: That must have been an incredible moment.
MN: She didn’t have to do that. It’s pretty unusual for people to put themselves out like that. But she’s an amazing woman. What she’s done for all kinds of charities really made a difference. She’s a special person.
IT: You’ve had so many extraordinary moments off court. You returned to Prague as a member of the Fed Cup and you visited your hometown Village. You addressed about 100,000 admiring folks at a gay rights rally in D.C., there was the the poignant farewell the WTA orchestrated at Madison Square Garden, when they presented you with a motorcycle and ...
MN: There’re so many, so many great moments. I think I need to write another book, actually. The last one I wrote was in ‘84.
IT: This game is so simple. It’s just played on a rectangle. So what is it that you love most about tennis?
MN: The evolution of it. I mean I now hold the racket differently. My stroke production is completely different. And now, even in doubles, you have to play differently because they’re not coming to the net. It’s just the evolution of it, having to adapt, having to change and learn new things. Forever having to be an apprentice of the game. It’s magic.
IT: Can we imagine how some of the great stars of yesteryear — say Margaret Court or Evonne Goolagong — would do in today’s context?
MN: That’s the thing. What I mean is that, if they played now like they did then, they probably would get beat. Although on grass I still like Margaret’s chances against just about anybody. She had a big serve and a big reach. Nobody came to the net like she did. But on a slower court she’d be toast, because everybody hits the ball so hard now. If she was playing now, she would have different technique. So you can’t compare eras, because the technique is so much better now. And so — because of the rackets these days, the livelier balls and the strings — it’s a different time. But if Margaret Court was born 20 years ago, she’d be a great champion now. There’s no doubt about it.
IT: Was it disappointing when, just after you set the all-time Wimbledon record for singles titles, Margaret [who’s now a minister in Australia] made the comment about you [saying that you were not an appropriate role model]?
MN: Oh, I don’t want to go into that. Let’s not go there.
IT: From Billie Jean King to Monica Seles, women’s tennis has been blessed with so many tough competitors. Chris Evert had her incredible record of reaching 33 straight Grand Slam semis and Steffi Graf has such a singular intensity. Can you make any distinctions between them?
MN: They’re all different. How do you compare champions? It’s like, here’s a Ferrari and there’s a Lamborghini. When push came to shove, they were all tough. They played their best tennis under pressure.
IT: [Maria] Sharapova has done a tremendous amount for the sport. Still, all being said, she’s won just one major, plus the WTA Championships, and then poof, all of a sudden, she began to get huge, over-the-top endorsement dollars [about $25 million.]
MN: Well, at least she won Wimbledon. What did Anna Kournikova ever win?
IT: Awhile ago there were many scenes on TV from the same-sex marriage ceremonies in San Francisco and other places. Some felt they were poignant and expressed great love. Others found them deeply repugnant. Your thoughts on those scenes?
MN: Oh, it’s just a beginning. It’s going to happen. There’s no question. One day, probably within the next 10 years, we’ll have equal rights as far as marriage — or whatever you want to call it — and have the same protections under the law. That’s what it’s about, legal protection under the law, equal to that of heterosexual couples. It’s just a question of time. And the reason the protests [calling for equal rights for gays] are getting louder is because we’re getting closer to that.
IT: So why would you say there is so much resistance to that in our culture?
MN: It’s a resistance to anything that’s new. I mean, when was the last time civil rights legislation was passed by the majority of people? Legislation like that has to come from the courts, the Senate and the Congress. It’s not going to happen if you put it up for a referendum. It’s never going to pass. If that were the case, black people would still not be allowed to marry white people. There wouldn’t be interracial marriage. That only happened 1967.
IT: What is the greatest fear the American culture has of gay culture, the biggest misunderstanding?
MN: It’s fear of the unknown. It goes back to what they always said: “You’re going to convert our children.” But I say, when was the last time a gay person knocked on your door and said, “Would you be interested in being a homosexual?” No, it’s the Christians that knock on your door and ask, “Would you like to belong to our church? Would you like to convert?” No, no, no. It really cracks me up. But the bottom line is that it amazes me that straight couples, for some reason, feel put upon if gay couples have the same rights, as if it affected them in any way. It has nothing to do with them. Yet they want to talk about family. And for children, they talk about having a mother and father. Well, children of gays don’t have a mother and a father. They have two mothers or two fathers. What are you going to do about it? Are you going to make them feel unwanted and unappreciated, just the way they made kids feel who were born bastards? Those kids had that mark on them. They were spat on. Is that what you want to do to kids? What does it have to do with anything? This is about supporting the family, not bringing it down.
IT: On the one hand, some say, “We don’t want the government involved in this issue,” while others ...
MN: You have to have the government involved; otherwise, change happens too slowly. The government has to protect all the people. It’s supposed to be about freedom. How does the Bill of Rights go? Pursuit of happiness for all? Hello!
IT: The Declaration of Independence ...
MN: Do you want to exclude somebody?