Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Martin Navratilova - Did she ever beat a Man

At tennis and by that I mean someone like McEnroe in a charity game. I am certain she did and some whippersnapper at work reckons I am losing my marbles.

PLEASE HELP

Or was it Billie Jean King
«1

Comments

  • ..In a fight maybe...
  • Martin Navratilova - Did she ever be a Man?
  • It was Billie Jean King :

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Riggs

    Suddenly in the national limelight, Riggs taunted all female tennis players, prompting Billie Jean King to accept a lucrative financial offer to play Riggs in a nationally televised match that the promoters dubbed as The Battle of the Sexes. On September 20th, at the Astrodome in Houston, Texas, King entered the arena in Cleopatra style, carried aloft in a chair held by four bare-chested muscle men dressed in the garb of ancient slaves. Riggs followed in a rickshaw drawn by a bevy of gorgeous scantily-clad models.

    When the match began, King had learned from Margaret Court's humiliation and was ready for Riggs's game. Rather than playing her own usual aggressive game, she stayed back for the most part, handling Riggs's lobs and soft shots easily, making Riggs cover the entire court as she ran him from side to side, beating him at his own defensive game. After quickly falling behind from the baseline, where he had intended to play, Riggs was forced to change to a serve-and-volley game. Even from the net, the result was the same: King defeated him handily, 6–4, 6–3, 6–3. According to Kramer, "I don't think Billie Jean played all that well. She hit a lot of short balls which Bobby could have taken advantage of had he been in shape. I would never take anything away from Billie Jean — because she was smart enough to prepare herself properly — but it might have been different if Riggs hadn't kept running around. It was more than one woman who took care of Bobby Riggs in Houston." After the match, Pancho Segura declared disgustedly that Riggs was only the third best senior player, behind himself and Gardnar Mulloy, and challenged King to another match. King refused.

    In recent years a persistent urban legend has arisen, particularly on the Internet, that the rules were modified for the match so that Riggs had only one serve for King's two, and that King was allowed to hit into the doubles court area. This is false; the match was played under the normal rules of tennis.

    There was also widespread speculation that Riggs had purposely lost, in order to win large sums of money that he had bet against himself. As Kramer writes, however, "Billie Jean beat him fair and square. A lot of men — especially around our age — were so stunned when he lost that they figured he must have tanked. Budge is convinced of that. But what motive would Riggs have for that? Bobby Riggs, the biggest ham in the world, gets his greatest audience — and purposely looks bad? There's no way. If he had beaten Billie Jean, he could have kept the act going indefinitely. Next they would have had him play Chrissy on clay."

    Nearly thirty years later, a 2001 ABC television docudrama entitled When Billie Beat Bobby recounted the match and the lead-up to it.

    These two matches, instigated solely by the consummate showmanship of Riggs, did more to increase interest in the game of tennis, especially women's tennis, than any prior championship or other competition had been able to do up to that time. In 1985, at age 67, Riggs returned to the tennis spotlight when he partnered with Vitas Gerulaitis to launch another challenge to female players. His return to the public eye was short lived, however, when they lost their doubles match against Martina Navratilova and Pam Shriver.
  • Billie Jean King played Bobby Riggs and beat him in the early seventies. She was in the top 3 or so women in the world at the time and Riggs, who won Wimbledon in the thirties, was in his fifties. He bad mouthed womens tennis and said something like he could beat them now even though he hadn't played in years.

    Not sure about Martina.
  • Was he about 10 when he won Wimbledon?....
  • Has been diagnosed with breast cancer - good luck with the fight Martina.
  • edited April 2010
    Oh Jeez....just seen that....sorry everyone, yes a somewhat inapropriate joke at such a time...good luck Martina.
  • [cite]Posted By: SoundAsa£[/cite]I heard she was going to play Wimbledon again next year...................she reckons she could lick every c***!!!
    Deary dear...
  • Martina played a singles match against Jimmy Connors, who got only one serve. Martina also got to hit into the doubles alleys.
    Connors still won. Rather easily, in fact.

    Billie Jean King's straight sets win over Bobby Riggs was historic for the boost in attention it gave to the women's movement, equal rights, Title IX (in the States about equal funding for male & female sports programs), tennis and women's tennis.

    What people also fail to remember is that Riggs easily beat Margaret Court a few months earlier on Mother's Day. And Court was a better player than King at the time.

    There has been a lot of talk about the Williams sisters playing against McEnroe individually, or maybe a doubles match against the McEnroe brothers. As much as John is a loathsome bore, he and Patrick would beat them easily. So I'm glad it hasn't happened.

    To get a true perspective on the battle of the sexes in tennis at the highest level, Chris Evert, when she was No. 1 in the world, couldn't beat her brother Drew, who was a very good college player but wasn't even on the pro tour.

    Women's tennis should be compared to women's tennis. How they would do against the men doesn't matter in the overall scheme of things.
  • [cite]Posted By: American_Addick[/cite] As much as John is a loathsome bore

    Really? Doesn't come across that way.
    Maybe when he was a player?
  • Sponsored links:


  • [cite]Posted By: Six-a-bag-of-nuts[/cite]
    [cite aria-level=0 aria-posinset=0 aria-setsize=0]Posted By: American_Addick[/cite]As much as John is a loathsome bore

    Really? Doesn't come across that way.
    Maybe when he was a player?

    I've met him several times since the late '70s as a player, journalist and tennis administrator.
    Calling him a "loathsome bore" is being kind.
  • hang on a top ranked woman plays a ageing ex pro ,why not play a 500th ranked man and see how they got on.make that 1000th
  • [cite]Posted By: American_Addick[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: Six-a-bag-of-nuts[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: American_Addick[/cite]As much as John is a loathsome bore

    Really? Doesn't come across that way.
    Maybe when he was a player?

    I've met him several times since the late '70s as a player, journalist and tennis administrator.
    Calling him a "loathsome bore" is being kind.

    That's interesting AA.
    He certainly puts across a fairly benign and humorous demeanor on the box these days.
    Without wishing to appear a gossipmonger, I would be interested to know what kind of stuff has clouded your view of him.
  • Story in the paper that Martina Navratilova has breast cancer.
  • [cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]Story in the paper that Martina Navratilova has breast cancer.

    Erm........... you're a bit late with that news BFR.
  • [cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite]Story in the paper that Martina Navratilova has breast cancer.

    That's why this was bumped.

    John was funny in Curb Your Enthusiasm
  • Must say I'm dissapointed to hear AA's comments...didn't like him too much when he was a player (I was in the Borg camp) but I've quite warmed to him as a commentator over the ensuing years.
  • [cite]Posted By: Oracle[/cite]Was he about 10 when he won Wimbledon?....

    No, 21 actually.
    In 1939, was 55 in 1973. Born 1918.
    You do the math...........
  • [cite]Posted By: Chirpy Red[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: Oracle[/cite]Was he about 10 when he won Wimbledon?....

    No, 21 actually.
    In 1939, was 55 in 1973. Born 1918.
    You do the maths...........
  • [cite]Posted By: Six-a-bag-of-nuts[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: Chirpy Red[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: Oracle[/cite]Was he about 10 when he won Wimbledon?....

    No, 21 actually.
    In 1939, was 55 in 1973. Born 1918.
    You do themaths...........

    Whooooossshhhhhhh!
  • Sponsored links:


  • [cite]Posted By: Six-a-bag-of-nuts[/cite]
    [cite aria-level=0 aria-posinset=0 aria-setsize=0]Posted By: American_Addick[/cite]
    [cite aria-level=0 aria-posinset=0 aria-setsize=0]Posted By: Six-a-bag-of-nuts[/cite]
    [cite aria-level=0 aria-posinset=0 aria-setsize=0]Posted By: American_Addick[/cite]As much as John is a loathsome bore

    Really? Doesn't come across that way.
    Maybe when he was a player?

    I've met him several times since the late '70s as a player, journalist and tennis administrator.
    Calling him a "loathsome bore" is being kind.

    That's interesting AA.
    He certainly puts across a fairly benign and humorous demeanor on the box these days.
    Without wishing to appear a gossipmonger, I would be interested to know what kind of stuff has clouded your view of him.

    For tournament staff and volunteers, he is the most difficult person to deal with. His difficulty is legendary in the world tennis community. LEGENDARY!
  • the most gifted exciting player ever,maybe agassi entertained as much to,joy to watch
  • Borg V McEnroe...played 14.....ended up 7 apiece.
    However for much of their playing time on the circuit Borg was coming towards the end of his career and had reached burn out.....in finals Borg did McEnroe 4-1.
    No question who was the finer player.
  • your view mate,wimbledon and the us are held in the higher esteem than ausralian and french,and borg never done much in the us,i would wager most people came to see mcenroe than borg,bit like people come to see ronnie in the snooker,something quite amazing about the player.
  • borg lost two us open finals to mcenroe so dont no where you got 4-1
  • [cite]Posted By: nolly[/cite]borg lost two us open finals to mcenroe so dont no where you got 4-1

    OK 4-2 then.....and at the end of his career.
    Borg was more of a favourite at Wimbledon than McEnroe....I can assure you of that.
  • nope,i think borg beat him in one final,the Wimbledon one,you could argue that borg one more and also played it alot fairer,both were tremdous players who have nothing but respect for each other,and borg is charlton i guess.i would agree borg was more liked at wimbledon,but people came to see mcenroe for the man he was.
  • [cite]Posted By: nolly[/cite]nope,i think borg beat him in one final,the Wimbledon one,you could argue that borg one more and also played it alot fairer,both were tremdous players who have nothing but respect for each other,and borg is charlton i guess.i would agree borg was more liked at wimbledon,but people came to see mcenroe for the man he was.

    I think Wimbledon was 2-1 to Borg...and all three meetings were finals.
    There has never been a greater time in tennis than for those few golden years when those two were at each others throats.
    Their differing styles and personalities took the games beyond sport and into the realms of theatre and high drama.....I can tell you just about everyone in The UK who was into sport (whether they were tennis afficionados or not) were spell bound by those three Wimbledon finals....they were breathtaking and in my opinion will 'never' be bettered.
    Sadly, for me at least, I've never quite had the same interest, though I still love to watch a good game of tennis to this day....but those days were simply magical for the world of tennis and will never be surpassed , at least in my lifetime.
  • edited April 2010
    Federer v Nadal 2008 was epic to be fair.
  • No it was 1-1 in finals at Wimbledon and 2-0 to Mac at the US Open.
Sign In or Register to comment.