1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

When will they get it right?

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by ringer, Jul 1, 2009.

  1. ringer

    ringer Member

    Pisses me off... whenever there is a debate over whether Roger Federer is the greatest tennis player ever, why is it so hard to be accurate and qualify it by saying "male?"

    Federer has 14 Grand Slam singles titles, which is far fewer than:

    Margaret Court (24)
    Steffi Graf (22)
    Hellen Wills Moody (19)
    Chris Evert (18)
    Martina Navratilova (18)

    And if you add doubles, it's even more lopsided. Just looking at the men, Roy Emerson leads with 28 total Slam titles. (Although I suspect only a minority of us still consider versatility to be part of "greatness.")
  2. MCbamr

    MCbamr Member

    Federer would beat any of them. No qualification needed.
  3. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Because women are clearly inferior.
  4. MCbamr

    MCbamr Member

    No. Because he is better than they were. Period.
  5. SF_Express

    SF_Express Active Member

    I understand your point. Obviously, he'd be the greatest for his gender, but he wouldn't match the top women in terms of numbers.

    But if you're getting into everybody in the same hopper, the greatest male player WOULD beat the greatest female player every time, and without exception. So that case can be made.

    The Emerson argument is another one altogether.
  6. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    I'd say they are getting it right. Unless you want to put money on Court in a hypothetical "in their primes" match.
  7. mediaguy

    mediaguy Well-Known Member

    They're not wrong. They just have a different opinion than you. You can't equate Helen Wills Moody winning pre-WWII majors to what Federer is doing. Graf is in the modern era, yes, but even Court wasn't facing anything like today's level of elite players.
  8. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    Court won 11 of her Slam titles at the Australian Open, which other players rarely played during her career. Players just didn't jet off to Australia for 2 weeks around Christmas in those days (Billie Jean King played 5 Aussie Opens in her 25-year career).

    So Court basically feasted on her home turf against a horribly depleted field. Not her fault, but let's put those 24 Slams in perspective.

    55-year-old Bobby Riggs d. Court 6-2, 6-1. Enough said.
  9. MileHigh

    MileHigh Moderator Staff Member

    Exactly on Court. A pretty good player, but as mentioned, she feasted on playing the junior varsity in her home country.
  10. Football_Bat

    Football_Bat Well-Known Member

    Chris Evert was the cutest. Steffi would be right there with a good nose job.
  11. Mark2010

    Mark2010 Active Member

    Agreed. Up until the last decade, the depth of the field in women's tennis wasn't so great.
  12. zagoshe

    zagoshe Well-Known Member

    No need for blue font in the context of this discussion.

    I don't even think Billie Jean King would argue that Steffi Graf or Martina Navaralitova (sp?), Chris Evert, Monica Seles, the Williams sisters, Martina Hingas, Court or any other woman in their prime would stand a chance against the top men's players in the world.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page