revisionist history

Remember, his 100+ win team as victimized. Outclassed, really.

I'm as sexy a neurobiologist as you're ever likely to meet dammit!

Show yourself then.

Physician, reveal thyself?

the Red Sox had been on the short list of favorites for the World Series for several seasons, it wasn't a matter of if they were going to do it, but when.

The Red Sox winning the World Series was a good story, but it wasn't as good a story as them coming back from down 0-3 to their biggest rivals, who were also the most successful franchise in the history of the game. There's a reason people talk more about the 2004 ALCS than the 2004 World Series.

it wasn't a matter of if they were going to do it, but when

I think I see what's going on here, besides the "Cards as victims therefore its not a big deal angle".
CFB and others are asking themselves how they, themselves, view it. That's not the point. In fact, its a good
example of Relativism run amok. The point is not whether you think its big, its whether the country/world think its big.
Whether its generally viewed as a huge sports story. Obviously, if the Cubs win the WS it'll be huge. Giant. Only somebody infused full of Relativistic
nonsense from Grade 1 thru his BA would approach it CFB's way.

Andy's just full of sh1t and painted himself into a corner, as usual.

Remember, his 100+ win team as victimized. Outclassed, really.

Wow, I'm glad you are able to read into my mind. Go back and find the game threads from those years. I wasn't upset at the slightest AT THE TIME even.


Listen, it was a good accomplishment. It was not, and I can't stress this enough, the greatest anything, other than the "greatest comeback in a 7 game post season series involving two MLB teams"...beyond that, it was really not that big of a deal outside of the historical significance of the drought. Jeez, you Red Sox fans are the most self centered the universe revolves around us people on the ####### planet. Get over yourselves, you'll have a longer and healthier life.


I know it's funny to think, that someone could be a fan of a team and actually be reasonable in their approach on losses, but I'm not saying any of this because the Cardinals lost. I'm saying this because it's THE ####### TRUTH. It was not, remotely close to the greatest team victory in American history.

It was not, remotely close to the greatest team victory in American history

What examples would you put higher?

I don't think it was THE GREATEST, but it was one of the greatest ever.

This goes back to Jolly St. Nick's point about age and the individual. I was too young for '86 to matter to me as much as '03. Likewise, it is plausible that some Ranger fan out there was more wounded by them losing in 1996 in their first playoff appearance than by the 2011 world series.

And if he had simply said that those Yankees disappointments from his childhood had caused him more pain than '04 and even maybe sprinkled in some modern WS losses, no one would have disputed it. But it was including 4-game LDS losses from directly before and after 2004, as well as pretty much every other Yankees non-WS win in the last 50 years (we don't know what else would have appeared on the list of half a hundred) that revealed it as a laughable pretension.

I see you've finally caught on to the age part. Maybe by this time next week you'll have figured out the part about the individual.

Maybe this'll help you figure it out, though I doubt it...

Teams I've always loathed: any team from the Sunbelt (Florida, Georgia, Texas, Arizona, SoCal); any 90's expansion teams; nearly any team with a clown uniform (the A's being the one exception)

Teams I've kind of liked since I got out of junior high school: Tigers, Red Sox, Orioles, KC, Indians (once they ditched those clown uniforms); Pirates (see Indians), Nats; A's; Blue Jays; Twins;

You might note that this list includes nearly every non-Sun Belt AL team. That is not a coincidence. I'm not Richard Nixon, and I don't need an all-encompassing enemies list to make it through the day.

Teams I loathed prior to that: Any team that beat the Yanks (54 Indians; 55 Dodgers; 57 Braves)

Temporary allies during that period: 54 Giants; 56 Dodgers in the pennant race; 59 Dodgers;

Teams I have mixed feelings about: Cardinals (love Stan, hate Whiteyball); White Sox (hated the 50's and 60's small ball versions, kind of like the ones after that); Seattle (liked the 95 Cinderella team, got somewhat tired of the hype surrounding the overrated 01 version, like the King Felix/Jesus edition)

Defeats that particularly get to me: Any at the hands of the first and third categories.

Defeats that don't particularly get to me: Those where the better team (IMHO) beat them, as long as they come from the second category.

And so on. I suppose it's not 100% "consistent", but so what?

I'd bet there are basically two types of team sports fans: Those who build up similar multi-layered views like the above as they age, as rosters and team character change over the years; and those who are basically in the "USA! USA! WE'RE NUMBER ONE!" category, who actually take all this silliness as seriously as they take their religion and politics. I'm sure that the second category gets a lot more thrills out of their teams' wins and suffers a lot more when their teams lose, but guess what? They're not the only type of fan there is. no matter how often or how loudly some people here try to pretend otherwise.

--------------------------------------

I think I see what's going on here, besides the "Cards as victims therefore its not a big deal angle".
CFB and others are asking themselves how they, themselves, view it. That's not the point. In fact, its a good
example of Relativism run amok. The point is not whether you think its big, its whether the country/world think its big.

If you weren't such a clueless wonder you'd realize that your "point" is not necessarily everyone else's point. I've never doubted that a good part of "the country/world" holds 2004 up as the greatest sporting event they can think of, and I've never questioned their belief, since it's totally subjective and not subject to "proof" one way or the other.

Andy's just full of sh1t and painted himself into a corner, as usual.

You keep this up and I'm going to have to ask you to return our engagement ring. Don't say you weren't warned.

Obviously, if the Cubs win the WS it'll be huge. Giant.

If the Cubs reach the WS it'll be huge- hell that first playoff victory would be bigger than any subsequent WS victory

Historically it was monumental, due to the combination of the breaking of The Curse and the unprecedented nature of the comeback. In those terms, it probably won't be surpassed until the Cubs win the World Series sometime in the 22nd century. If you think I'm denying that, you're mistaken.

Some of your other posts on this subject are not consistent with this view.

It was not, remotely close to the greatest team victory in American history

What examples would you put higher?

Easy. The 2007 Super Bowl. What part of beating an 18 and 0 team is hard to understand? It's a no-brainer.

And if any Patriots fan dares to disagree, then they're obviously lying through their gold crowned defensive teeth.

What examples would you put higher?

I don't think it was THE GREATEST, but it was one of the greatest ever.

I've already said the 1980 Hockey(and I don't think it's particularly close) along with Jets of Super Bowl 3. but in baseball terms I've pointed out 1960 Pirates, Reds over the A's, Miracle Mets, 1906 Cubs, 1926 Cardinals, 1954 Giants. And of course the 1927 Yankees. And that is ignoring great overall series like 1975 and 1991 World Series.

Note:If I'm basing is solely from my point of view, then I would put 1982 Cardinals on the list. But...and this is where I'm different from Red Sox fans, I recognize that the world doesn't revolve around my point of view, so I'm attempting to separate my personal perception from the bigger picture.

I'd guess off the top of my head that 2003 pained most Red Sox fans more than 1986

Come one, blowing the ALCS hurts, but losing the WS when you are one out away? Um, no

I worked with 2 Sox fans so I asked them-
one said 1986 was worse
one said 2003 seemed worse at the time, but 2004 erased 2003, so 1986 was the worse
I suspect that for most of those old enough to remember 1986- it was the worst

It was not, remotely close to the greatest team victory in American history.

To you, perhaps, yes. That is if I take at face value your claim that you yourself don't believe it is.

But the truth is, the vast majority of the sports and news world, the public, thought it was. There is no such thing as
"CFB's truth" and "tfbg9's and the rest of sensible mankind's truth". There's just the truth. And the truth is, by every measure
of how one might logically measure the general truth of the hugeness of Boston's 2004 ALCS/WS, aside from the personal opinion of CFB,
it was gigantic. The cover of every single mag, the lead story in other countries, etc.

This is what really happened. This is the truth. It was treated like the biggest sports story in many many years. You know why?
Because is was. Its called the truth.

Game 4 was a tremendous deal, and game five had to be somewhat painful, but by the time game six rolled around, it had to feel like it was inevitable that the Sox were going to win and that probably dulled the pain.

Do you know any real life Yankee Fans?
Yankee Fans do not regard any loss as "inevitable"
They assumed after game 4 that they were gonna win
They assumed after game 5 that they were gonna win (maybe a few bandwagoners who'd previously rooted for lsoers were nervous)
They assumed after game 6 that they were gonna win (maybe a few more bandwagoners who'd previously rooted for losers were nervous)
After game 7 there were a lot of absolutely shocked Yankee Fans in this city

it was gigantic. The cover of every single mag, the lead story in other countries, etc.

And it has faded into oblivion inside of a decade. Sorry, don't see it as being that big, if for the most part, nobody really cares about it anymore. 1986 has a more sustained story. 1991, 1975...those are the historical performances that are going to remain for future generations.

I suspect that for most of those old enough to remember 1986- it was the worst

Yes, it was. It was 18 years until I got redemption. But boy did I!

If the Cubs reach the WS it'll be huge- hell that first playoff victory would be bigger than any subsequent WS victory

Was it?

And it has faded into oblivion inside of a decade. Sorry, don't see it as being that big, if for the most part, nobody really cares about it anymore.

What sporting event from 2001-2010 do people care about more now?

After game 7 there were a lot of absolutely shocked Yankee Fans in this city

I maid a point to wear my Sox cap for many days afterwwards, and would sidle past anybody wearing a Yankee hat(there weren't many, trust me). I'd glance over at them as I went
past on the sidewalk. Not a one would look over at me. It was fun.

Easy. The 2007 Super Bowl. What part of beating an 18 and 0 team is hard to understand? It's a no-brainer.

I'd seen both teams several times that year - 2007 (I assume you meant the 2008 Superbowl?)

The Giants weren't that good
The Patriots were (the times I'd watched them)

The Super Bowl came around and... neither team showed up... imposters took the field, that's the way I saw it-
A friend of mine watching the game commented early on how the whole Patriot Team seemed off somehow- but just couldn't describe it specifically- uptight? nerves? collectively flat?
whatever, the regular season team just didn't show up.

And it has faded into oblivion inside of a decade. Sorry, don't see it as being that big, if for the most part, nobody really cares about it anymore. 1986 has a more sustained story. 1991, 1975...those are the historical performances that are going to remain for future generations.

Quick! Name a big African river that runs north!

Was it?

I meant playoff series victory to reach the WS

Quick! Name a big African river that runs north!

ooh I know this one, the Congo?
the Amazon? ooops, wrong continent...

Quick! Name a big African river that runs north!

ooh I know this one, the Congo?
the Amazon? ooops, wrong continent...

The Patriots were (the times I'd watched them)

IIRC, by Footballreference's SRS rating, that Pats team was the best ever. They kinda slowed up a bit as the year dragged on, winning by 7-15 rather than 28-35, OTTOMH.

And it has faded into oblivion inside of a decade. Sorry, don't see it as being that big, if for the most part, nobody really cares about it anymore.

You are just making this part up out of thin air.

You are just making this part up out of thin air.

Its true for him!

You are just making this part up out of thin air.

It really hasn't aged well, particularly with the steroid revelations that have followed, and wider knowledge of the scope of the Steroid Era.

Which can't be much of a surprise -- there was never much there to begin with. The LCS was dramatic in a bizarre way; the World Series was a complete snorefest.

The cover of every single mag,

"Every single" is a huge stretch. They were on the cover of Time; haven't been able to confirm Newsweek. (I do recall that Joe Montana made the cover of Time and Newsweek the week before the 1981 Super Bowl, the first person to have that honor since Springsteen released Born to Run.)

And, hey, guess what? I bet they babbled a lot about it in the pages of The New Yorker, too. Why? Because Time and Newsweek and The New Yorker are publications run by the Eastern Establishment, and the Red Sox/Yankee "rivalry" is the rivalry of the Eastern Establishment.(*)

People babble and bloviate and pontificate and run their mouths about the Red Sox more than any other franchise on the planet, and more than three-quarters of them combined. The problem is that Red Sox fans confuse that with actual substance, and always have.

(*) That said, it's hard to quibble with Updike's opinion that Fenway was a lyric little bandbox of a ballpark.

What sporting event from 2001-2010 do people care about more now?

Why do we have to limit to that time frame, when we are talking about greatest EvaaH!! ?

with the steroid revelations that have followed

Manny. That's it for "steroids revelations." The Ortiz PED story a smear, 1000% nonsense. MLB/MLBPA called a presser/released statements that as much as said so.
Do the research. Here's one link: http://www.cantstopthebleeding.com/no-smearing-in-the-press-box-iii-big-papi-vindicates-cstb-blowhard-michael-s-schmidt-commences-damage-control

That's it for "steroids revelations."

How about A-Rod? How about Giambi? How about Bonds? How about the Mitchell Report? How about all the revelations that postdate October 2004?

The 2003/04 ALCS's were a roiders paradise. Only a naif would think otherwise.

Again, its not if it was important to you, its if it was important to the world, as a news story. It was.

The 2003/04 ALCS's were a roiders paradise

For the NYY's perhaps. Bah. This thread is dead. I'm gonna go stir up trouble elsewhere.

The LCS was dramatic in a bizarre way; the World Series was a complete snorefest.

It certainly was. I'm a nominal Red Sox fan, certainly more than I am of any other team, but the Series was pretty much the definition of anticlimactic.

The cover of every single mag,

Definitely an exaggeration. Rue Morgue? Maximum Rocknroll? Car & Driver? Fate? The Comic Buyers Guide?

#378: Thanks for boldfacing the "most", as for this Bosox fan, 1986 was worse by several orders of magnitude than 2003. As I watched Stanley's low-and-away slider fly past an unmoving Gedman, allowing the tying run to score, I knew it was all over for the Sox; G7 was an expected anticlimax. 1978, not just the Bucky Dent game but the whole collapse, the Boston Massacre, also out-hurts 2003. For the latter, my disgust at Grady sending out a clearly gassed Pedro was the infuriating part.

The 2007 NYG were a fairly good team that got hot in the PS. The Pats that year were unbelievingly awesome for about 10 games, then survived some stumbles to reach the SB 18-0. It was still a huge upset, but not, IMO, to compare with SB3. The Jets probably should've lost the AFC championship game to the Raiders, though neither QB could hit receivers consistently in the wind, while the Colts had steamrolled everybody in the PS. I think they were 19-pt favorites (the Giants were 12-13 pt 'dogs, IIRC), and it was a whole conference perception - NFC>>>AFC.

Oh, and the 04 WS was a snorefest for everybody EXCEPT the Sox fans, who were waiting for the homeboys to once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, even late in G4 up 3-0 in both runs and games.

It was not, remotely close to the greatest team victory in American history

What examples would you put higher?

Easy. The 2007 Super Bowl. What part of beating an 18 and 0 team is hard to understand? It's a no-brainer.

And if any Patriots fan dares to disagree, then they're obviously lying through their gold crowned defensive teeth.

I'd seen both teams several times that year - 2007 (I assume you meant the 2008 Superbowl?)

Correct. I was thinking of the season, not the date of the actual game.

The Giants weren't that good
The Patriots were (the times I'd watched them)

The Super Bowl came around and... neither team showed up... imposters took the field, that's the way I saw it-
A friend of mine watching the game commented early on how the whole Patriot Team seemed off somehow- but just couldn't describe it specifically- uptight? nerves? collectively flat?
whatever, the regular season team just didn't show up.

I'm not saying it was the greatest NFL championship game ever. It was tightly contested and had an exciting finish, but it probably would barely make it into a top 10 overall. Certainly it would rank below 1945, 1950, 1958, the Ice Bowl, and the Super Bowls of the 1988, 1999, 2001 and 2012 seasons. And that's just a subjective list off the top of my head.

But just like the 2004 ALCS, it was the context of the game that made it the greatest Super Bowl.

1. A 6 loss wild card team that had swept through the entire season unbeaten on the road.

2. A rematch of a hotly contested regular season finale shootout that wound up closer than expected.

3. An 18 and 0 team that many people justifiably were calling the greatest team ever.

4. A defensive battle for the first three quarters, and then a quick succession of scoring drives, capped by a miracle catch for the ages after a desperation scramble.

For a Giants fan, it didn't have the satisfaction of breaking an 86 year drought, or even a 40 year drought, which the Patriots broke in that great 2001 Super Bowl. And nobody's pretending that the rivalry there was comparable to that of the Yanks and the Sox. The Giants and the Pats only play once ever 4 years under normal circumstances.

And obviously the comeback part wasn't as big a factor. Several teams a week come back from 4 points down in the final minutes to win by 3 points, and you'd have to go back to the 1937 Newark Bears** to find a comparable comeback in a postseason baseball series.

But OTOH objectively speaking, the 2004 Red Sox were at least as good a team as the 2004 Yankees, so the shock of the win lay exclusively in the comeback. And you have to go back to 1942 to find the last unbeaten NFL team to lose a championship game, but the team that pulled that upset (the Redskins) were a much better credentialed team than the 13-6 2007 Giants.

Apples and oranges. Football and baseball. It all depends on which set of laundry you care about more. But especially if you consider the ho-hum nature of those final 2004 games, the 2008 Super Bowl was the better team victory in the context of a single year.

What sporting event from 2001-2010 do people care about more now?

Not taking a side in this "debate," but I'd say:
Phelps 2008
Bolt 2008
2008 Federer-Nadal Wimbeldon final
2001 WS (maybe)

And a little earlier: Tiger '97 Masters.

The 2007 NYG were a fairly good team that got hot in the PS. The Pats that year were unbelievingly awesome for about 10 games, then survived some stumbles to reach the SB 18-0. It was still a huge upset, but not, IMO, to compare with SB3. The Jets probably should've lost the AFC championship game to the Raiders, though neither QB could hit receivers consistently in the wind, while the Colts had steamrolled everybody in the PS. I think they were 19-pt favorites (the Giants were 12-13 pt 'dogs, IIRC), and it was a whole conference perception - NFC>>>AFC.

The shock value of the actual game result was probably a bit more for that SBIII, in great part because the 15-1 Colts at the time were practically considered on the level of what the Patriots were in 2008. But the game itself was a total snoozer, nowhere near as exciting as 2008. What amazed me was that even though the Jets had convincingly punctured the NFL supremacy myth, the oddsmakers and the public swallowed the same hype the next year when the Vikings were made something like a 16 point favorites over a clearly superior Chiefs team. I've seldom bet on sports, but that was the easiest bet I've ever won in my life.

Not taking a side in this "debate," but I'd say:
Phelps 2008
Bolt 2008
2008 Federer-Nadal Wimbeldon final
2001 WS (maybe)

And a little earlier: Tiger '97 Masters.

And in 1999 Pete Rose and Nolan Ryan were voted on the all-century team, but not Stan Musial and Grover Cleveland Alexander. The collective sports memory seldom extends back further than the 10th or 12th birthday of the lowest common denominator, and it's not likely ever to change.

If Danica Patrick wins at Daytona -- she won the pole position -- it's probably the sports story of the 21st century, though I don't expect the nation's babblers to see it as such.

It would make King over Riggs look like my sister beating me at tiddlywinks BITD.

It would make King over Riggs look like my sister beating me at tiddlywinks BITD.

I still don't see how this is a victory for King to brag about. The rules of the event were decidedly one sided, and basically they were playing two different games. It's like a soccer game where one goal is the size of an indoor goal, and the other is the size of outdoor.

I still don't see how this is a victory for King to brag about.

It's not. I'm trying to play along.

The premise that the 2004 ALCS loss was less painful than the time Stan Bahnsen gave up three unearned runs in the 7th that time is, shall we say, unconvincing-- but now we're getting silly the other way. As for "the world" caring about the Red Sox comeback, note this obituary of Stan Musial in London's Daily Telegraph, which includes this in its second paragraph:

Baseball is a sport obsessed with statistics, and in his 10,972 “at-bats”, he amassed 3,630 “hits” (denoting the times he reached at least first base), the fourth best record in Major League baseball after Pete Rose, Ty Cobb and Hank Aaron. He also “drove in” 1,951 runs (making hits that allowed team-mates to get home), and had a career batting average (hits divided by at-bats) of .331.

Musial's obituary is about half the length the Telegraph generally accords to BBC television producers and former RAF pilots. BBC Radio's 2004 broadcast of the World Series was carried on a secondary signal and had an announcer saying things like "So-and-So just got a single, which means he has advanced to first base and not past." The end of "The Curse" was reported in the BBC's "Other Sports" section.

Though it was obviously gigantic news to baseball expatriates from London to the Himalayas to the Great Coral Reef to the island on "Lost," I'd venture a guess that there have been a dozen soccer transfers in the past ten years that aroused more international interest than the 2004 Red Sox.

I still don't see how this is a victory for King to brag about.

Wikipedia: "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."

I don't know how old you are, but the impact of this event was huge: 50 million people watched on TV, and I bet 80% of the men watching expected a Riggs victory (and probably a lot of women feared the same). It may be hard to believe today, but at the time a lot of people didn't thing King would have a prayer. And the outcome made King a heroine to many.

I agree this shouldn't be counted as a great "sporting event" per se. But it was a gigantic cultural event. (Even bigger, perhaps, than the 2004 ALCS.)

And in 1999 Pete Rose and Nolan Ryan were voted on the all-century team, but not Stan Musial and Grover Cleveland Alexander. The collective sports memory seldom extends back further than the 10th or 12th birthday of the lowest common denominator, and it's not likely ever to change.

Andy, the question posed was "What sporting event from 2001-2010 do people care about more now?

I'd venture a guess that there have been a dozen soccer transfers in the past ten years that aroused more international interest than the 2004 Red Sox.

A dozen is almost certainly on the low side.

But when you think about tiny handful of European soccer stories that actually break into US media for a moment - Liverpool's Champions League final comeback, maybe - it's on par with them.

Wikipedia: "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."

It's weird that it's considered an internet rumor. I think I've been under the impression that he had to play the whole court(doubles) while she had to play the single court, since I was a kid(I'm 42 now). Not sure where that came from though.

Andy, the question posed was "What sporting event from 2001-2010 do people care about more now?

And the right answer is "For starters, every World Cup and every Super Bowl." If you want to limit it to just resident Americans, the right answer is, "For starters, every Super Bowl."

It goes without saying that more people cared about the Ravens/Niners Super Bowl than cared about the 2004 World Series, right? There isn't a single objective criterion that would suggest otherwise.

EDIT: And if one is seeking true regional sporting passion in America, there's this, regarding Game 6 of the 1977 NBA Finals, courtesy of David Halberstam's The Breaks of the Game: "The television ratings for the final game in the state of Oregon, an area known for its love of the outdoors rather than for its love of indoor sports such as basketball on television were 96 percent. No one in the history of television had any memory of one event so dominating a single television market."

And the right answer is "For starters, every World Cup and every Super Bowl." If you want to limit it to just resident Americans, the right answer is, "For starters, every Super Bowl."

It goes without saying that more people cared about the Ravens/Niners Super Bowl than cared about the 2004 World Series, right? There isn't a single objective criterion that would suggest otherwise.

We're kind of switching back and forth between the 2004 World Series itself and the ALCS (with or without subsequent championship included). The 0-3 comeback ALCS is certainly better remembered and considered more notable than some of those super bowls.

It's weird that it's considered an internet rumor. I think I've been under the impression that he had to play the whole court(doubles) while she had to play the single court, since I was a kid(I'm 42 now). Not sure where that came from though.

Whereas this is the first I've head any of that. I remember watching at least part of the match. Last & only time I ever paid the slightest attention to tennis, I'm pretty sure.

Does "American Idol" count as a sporting event? Because that would shake up the list.

I don't understand this thread at all. It seems like everyone is arguing over something that is completely subjective by definition as though there were any objective way to quantify/categorize it. I could list the most important sporting events to me from the last couple of years, and not a single person here would have heard of them or any of the athletes participating, nor would they care.

As I watched Stanley's low-and-away slider

Low and in; Mookie had to jump over it.

I don't understand this thread at all

Amen.

It's weird that it's considered an internet rumor. I think I've been under the impression that he had to play the whole court(doubles) while she had to play the single court, since I was a kid(I'm 42 now). Not sure where that came from though.

Twenty years later there was a match between Connors and Navratilova that had the kind of asymmetrical rules you are talking about.

#453 is correct, of course - Mookie batted left, my bad. However, he didn't have to jump far. The pitch looked only 6-8" off the plate to me, and not in the dirt. Gedman should have caught it cleanly, unless Stanley had crossed him up.

The Ortiz PED story a smear, 1000% nonsense.

The Ortiz PED story has more "evidence" than many of the PED stories. Very difficult to exonerate him without doing the same for many others.

It's weird that it's considered an internet rumor.

I had never heard of it until this thread.

@457-########. Just read the info in my link. It was a false positive or a suppliment, if anything. Baseball as much as said so.

Riggs was near 60, no?

I think Riggs was in his mid 50's. (Billie Jean was around 30ish.)

I'm too young to have seen the match, but certainly in retrospect it seems silly to think that Riggs could win. By age 55, men have lost significant muscle mass. Combine that with the lack of activity and a woman closer to her prime would probably have superior lower body strength and possibly comparable upper body strength.

Baseball as much as said so.

And David Ortiz "as much as" admitted it with his milkshake comments. Each of which has more to do with "as much as saying" than actually saying.

Your link, which convincingly includes "smearing," "vindicates," "blowhard" and "damage control" in a single headline, randomly speculates that Ortiz's name was only thrown in to make it a publishable story, and that the NY Times reporter is probably being "played" by his sources, who are maybe government officials pissed off that they lost to Barry Bonds, or maybe union double agents out to cleanse and purify the game with tough love, or maybe unknown leakers who could have an anti-Latino bias or might be "getting some kind of petty payback." The union statement (linked in the link) says that the accusations are unfair without specifically denying any one of them, which isn't even 100% for Ortiz, let alone 1000%. That as much as clears it up, which is nearly the same except not at all. It helps to factor in "posturing," "assumptions" and "agendas unknown," none of which are available.

But hey, this is only the court of public opinion. If I want to consider Ortiz clean, or drugged, or a flowering plant found in New Zealand, what more evidence of his innocence, or guilt, or photosynthesis do I need?

I wasn't even born when it happened, but the Battle of the Sexes tennis match has to be one of the most overrated sporting events of all time. King was 29. Riggs was 55 and had been retired for 14 years. 'Nuff said. That Riggs was being cocky and saying he was going to win despite his severe age disadvantage doesn't change the fact that he DID have a severe age disadvantage.

By that logic, lets resolve the Jordan or LeBron GOAT debate once and for all by having them play 1 on 1 today. Nevermind that LBJ is 28 and at the top of his game while MJ is 50 and has been retired for 10 years. Winner takes the title forever.

riggs was 55 at the time of the match. i don't think its silly at all to suppose he could have won. earlier that year he had creamed margaret court in straight sets.

riggs was a formidable tennis player, former no. 1, wimbledon champ etc. the game in the 70s was pretty much the same as it had been in his day. the rackets were not the huge rugbeaters that players use today, so shotmaking was more important than just pounding the ball from the baseline. riggs could still make shots. it was sufficient for him to have declined to the level of low ranking pro player for him to be better than just about any woman on the planet. i remember reading that evonne goolagong would practice against her husband to elevate her game, and he was just a club pro or something.

this wasn't a tournament that riggs had to grind through. it was one match. bill tilden was able to play and beat younger players in single set exhibitions when he was well past his prime.

factor in that the women's game was still pretty underdeveloped, too. riggs was no pushover and king knew it. she prepared like crazy and put together a helluva match.

booey, see my 463. tennis is one of those sports that vividly demonstrates how far women have to go to compete with men in the same sport at the elite level. the worst players on the men's tour can mop the floor with the top women, even today. the men are just too strong.

i'm not denying women's sports have drama, competitiveness, etc. ... they just can't beat the men yet.

riggs went 1-1 against two of the best women in tennis history when he was a quarter century older than both of them.

no easy way to test this, but i'd say that john mcenroe, who is about 54 now, would not be able to beat serena williams. the women have advanced somewhat. but he'd still give her a real match, i don't doubt.

It's weird that it's considered an internet rumor. I think I've been under the impression that he had to play the whole court(doubles) while she had to play the single court, since I was a kid(I'm 42 now). Not sure where that came from though.

Embittered low-status males.

Anyone going to watch Rhonda Rousey in the UFC's first all-female main event tomorrow? She's pretty amazing.

I think Riggs could have beaten King had he taken preparation for actually playing the match more seriously. He was more into driving all the media folderol, and not so much on physically and mentally getting ready for the match. If McEnroe played S. Williams, you better believe he'd undergo some serious physical conditioning. And I think right now some guys in their fifties (andnot just ex-champions) could beat the best women. Not only that, there are some young male amateurs who could beat the best women. It's not about intelligence or smarts or character or soul, it's about biology.

Navratilova v Connors

A third "Battle of the Sexes" match, entitled Battle of Champions, was played at Caesars Palace in Paradise, Nevada, in September 1992 between Jimmy Connors and Martina Navratilova. Navratilova had previously turned down invites to take on John McEnroe and Ilie N?stase, as she considered them undignified.[13] Connors said before the match that this was 'war.' Navratilova, on the other hand, said this was a battle of egos.[16] For this match, Connors was allowed only one serve per point, and Navratilova was allowed to hit into half the doubles court.[17] Connors won 7–5, 6–2.[18] The match was on PPV, and the promoters were hoping to get the match as a battle of the world's number ones, Connors and Monica Seles. Seles was 19 at the time, whilst Connors and Navratilova were 40 and 35, respectively. Navratilova made 8 double faults and 36 unforced errors. Connors, too, was nervous and there was a rumor that he had bet on himself to win at 4:1 and had placed a large amount of cash on it.

I don't know how old you are, but the impact of this event was huge: 50 million people watched on TV,

50 million out of a population of 212 million. By contrast, the average for the 2004 ALCS was 18.5 million out of a population of 294 million, with game 7 at 31.5 million.

The numbers don't lie. Call it a sporting event, a cultural event, or a tennis equivalent of a circus (in fact it was a bit of each), it was followed with much more interest than any baseball game in memory.

and I bet 80% of the men watching expected a Riggs victory (and probably a lot of women feared the same). It may be hard to believe today, but at the time a lot of people didn't thing King would have a prayer.

That was in great part because Riggs had beaten Margaret Court so easily just a few months before meeting King.

And the outcome made King a heroine to many.

That's the understatement of the year. It's not that much of an exaggeration to say that her impact on women's collective pride was the equivalent of the impact on blacks of Louis's KO of Max Schmeling. Of course King's actual sporting accomplishment couldn't hold a candle to Louis (or obviously to Danica Patrick's feats), but to harp on that totally misses the impact of that event.

I agree this shouldn't be counted as a great "sporting event" per se. But it was a gigantic cultural event. (Even bigger, perhaps, than the 2004 ALCS.)

It's not even a contest. It was much bigger than any baseball World Series or playoff.

-------------------------------------------

I think Riggs could have beaten King had he taken preparation for actually playing the match more seriously. He was more into driving all the media folderol, and not so much on physically and mentally getting ready for the match. If McEnroe played S. Williams, you better believe he'd undergo some serious physical conditioning.

Maybe and maybe not. Don't forget that Margaret Court prepared no more for her match with Riggs than Riggs did for his match with King. Once King got over her pre-match jitters, it wasn't really a contest.

And I think right now some guys in their fifties (andnot just ex-champions) could beat the best women. Not only that, there are some young male amateurs who could beat the best women. It's not about intelligence or smarts or character or soul, it's about biology.

I agree that the best young male amateurs could likely beat Serena Williams, but I also think both a young gun and Serena---at least the Serena of a few years ago---would beat a 50-something John McEnroe, and absolutely crush 99% of the rest of the male Quinquagenarian population. For Christ's sake, the woman has had serves recorded as high as 130 MPH, and she isn't likely to be intimidated for a second by someone in their 50's.

I realize that running and tennis rely on different muscles, but consider these two records:

Fastest mile run by a woman: 4:12:56
Fastest mile run by a 50 year old man: 4:52

The point is that "biology", or the limits of athletic accomplishment, is affected by age just as much, or more, than it is by gender. Past a certain age a man is no longer a "man", at least if you're talking about sports. Even Nolan Ryan had to call it quits at 46. If you want to see a sport where the best men in their 50's can beat the best women in their 20's, I'd suggest you stick to sports like football, basketball or pool, where either size is an insurmountable advantage or age isn't an insurmountable handicap.

RE: Navritalova vs Connors.

40 vs 35 isn't 55 vs 25 or 30. Only those who haven't yet made it to 55 would ever doubt this.

OTOH I'd imagine that a 40 year old Connors would likely have beaten Seles as well as Martina, though not as easily. Although in a grunting contest Seles probably would have more than held her own.

I wasn't even born when it happened, but the Battle of the Sexes tennis match has to be one of the most overrated sporting events of all time. King was 29. Riggs was 55 and had been retired for 14 years. 'Nuff said. That Riggs was being cocky and saying he was going to win despite his severe age disadvantage doesn't change the fact that he DID have a severe age disadvantage.

At the time the match was a very, very big deal. I don't know what 'overrated' in this context means, but given Riggs' earlier win against Margaret Court, it wasn't a given that King was going to win. That a top female star could beat even a has been like Riggs meant a great deal to a lot of people. This was also in the day of three network channels, and another four local stations, tops, if you lived in or near NYC. It probably got as much attention in the US then as the Super Bowl does now.

Not only that, there are some young male amateurs who could beat the best women. It's not about intelligence or smarts or character or soul, it's about biology.

So, what do we all think about women in active combat roles, aside from no one should serve in active combat roles? I've worked with women in physical jobs and it can be a drag at times, what with having to work around their limitations. I imagine when you're being shot at, the drawbacks can be greater than mere irritation.

Connors, too, was nervous and there was a rumor that he had bet on himself to win at 4:1 and had placed a large amount of cash on it.

All sporting events should require the participants to put up sizable chunks of their own cash.

Edit: and what nick said in 468.

So, what do we all think about women in active combat roles, aside from no one should serve in active combat roles? I've worked with women in physical jobs and it can be a drag at times, what with having to work around their limitations. I imagine when you're being shot at, the drawbacks can be greater than mere irritation.

I'm a relatively small guy (5'7" 140 pounds when I served) and I was more than capable of serving in an active combat role, I don't see any reason a women in good condition couldn't serve in that role. Your primary skills are to carry a gun, endurance, and occasionally high stress. Beyond that it's more about attitude than actual physical ability. You have to be willing to work 20 hours a day if necessary, you have to follow orders regardless of the annoyance or idiocy of those giving those orders etc.

So, what do we all think about women in active combat roles, aside from no one should serve in active combat roles?

Every official I've seen discuss the issue has insisted that the physical requirements for serving in active combat roles will not vary by gender.

Others have insisted that it will be impossible to achieve any level of diversity absent lowering the physical standards.

My feeling is that the goal of the change isn't diversity, and thus the goal can be served even if active combat roles are predominantly (98%+) filled by men. The point is to allow those women who can hack it the same opportunities as men.

btw, YR ate everybody's lunch in the OT schilling thread, imho.

By nattering endlessly on about selling babies?

The thread broadly had two camps. One understood the rights aspect and spoke cogently and in detail to that; the other babbled a thousand posts worth of "penis in vagina, youse a whinuh." Truly pitiful. It was like trying to discuss a Picasso with a pack of squalling infants. "But uh hass two nosses!!"

YR is a vicious anti-catholic bigot...

he hates the catholic church? are you sure?

Yes.

We can give him credit, here. I'm certain it's possible to loathe the Catholic Church entirely as a matter of principle. Bigotry need not have anything to do with it.

re 471 and 472: cfb--when was this? I'm not sure 140 lbs. was always an acceptable weight. Had you been a woman, that would have made you pretty sizable for a fit female, but your muscle mass would be only that of a man weighing something like 125 lbs. I'll venture that to have the same strength as a man your size, a woman would have to run a very fit 5'-10, 160 lbs. Maybe more.***

Which does suggest that if we're not going to lower standards, as Steve mentions, the number of women in active combat is going to be very small.

Would firefighting be comparable? Dangerous activity where the strength of your fellows (so to speak, here) directly affects your survival chances?

***Even though you mention primarily endurance, there are plenty of situations, though, that require cooperative effort, meaning that when your compatriots are not strong, the work doesn't get done, or gets done only incompletely. Also, a infantryman's pack is often at about the limit of what he can carry. I don't know how you'd compensate in the case of women who simply can't carry the same amount (without lowering standards, that is).

I'll be interested to find out whether endurance involving strength is something women can compare favorably in. They're better at long distance swimming, but how about digging or assembling cover, or hauling heavy packs, or building impromptu bridges...?

My feeling is that the goal of the change isn't diversity, and thus the goal can be served even if active combat roles are predominantly (98%+) filled by men. The point is to allow those women who can hack it the same opportunities as men.

This sounds right. I also think that the bigots will find it very convenient and useful to hold the line at, 'all right, but only if we maintain standards' which still gives them an all but de facto segregation. I don't think standards should change, but not for discriminatory reasons, but rather reasons of safety. Women should be able to do any stupid thing men do as long as their physical limitations don't endanger others.

...well, any more than mens' physical limitations do.

I thought Democrats were in favor of (a) safe sex.

Seriously, though, isn't it a step back for our culture to send women into battle? That's a barbaric thing to do. Sending men into battle is barbaric enough. On the other hand, looking at it purely politically, maybe if women can be sent into combat, the government will use the military less cavalierly. I can't imagine that there won't be a great deal more backlash if women start getting killed in wars and "police actions" than when men do.

My life has moved on, and I didn't realize until I read this thread how much I liked this place. I've learned a ton here, and my relationship with baseball hasn't been the same since I stopped reading here regularly.

Matt, I don't give a flying #### that Pedro was throwing at batters, but I am amused at anyone who tries to say that "that's different" than Joba or Clemens in so many ways. I'm just pointing out the obvious disconnect between the reaction of Red Sox fans to Pedro's admitted actions and the persecution complexes they exhibited whenever Joba threw high and inside to one of their heroes.

If a pitcher exhibits a pattern of throwing behind a batter's front shoulder, then he arguably deserves a reputation as a headhunter. Because that's the most proven way of actually bringing home a trophy. But neither Pedro nor Joba nor Clemens ever exhibited any such pattern of behavior, which is why I don't feel any particular indignation towards any of them. AFAIC if anyone tries to make some sort of moral distinctions among those three, their fanboy colors are showing.

I think you are missing some nuance here, Andy. I despise the Red Sox--probably more than the Yankees for a number of reasons--but I feel the same way as many on this one.

For me, it's for a couple of reasons. Call me foolish, but I honestly believe that a pitcher with Pedro's command was far less likely in injuring a batter with a pitched ball.

But more than that, Pedro is just a wonderful human being. He babysat for my cousin when she was a kid, and he was with the Dukes, and he's really that quirky and loving and if he was placed on this earth for anything, more than throwing a baseball it was interacting with kids. He and his wife's charity worth has helped hundreds of kids directly (not in a "here's some money sort of way". Now life and relationships are complex, and I can't speak for his own children, but I believe in him and that impacts my judgment of his actions.

I understand that this can be dangerous--the JoePa analogy is not really appropriate here, but the idea that those we look up to can do monstrous things is a worthwhile caution--but it is also dangerous to not evaluate people in the context of their life's work.

Hope everyone is well.

Seriously, though, isn't it a step back for our culture to send women into battle? That's a barbaric thing to do. Sending men into battle is barbaric enough. On the other hand, looking at it purely politically, maybe if women can be sent into combat, the government will use the military less cavalierly. I can't imagine that there won't be a great deal more backlash if women start getting killed in wars and "police actions" than when men do.

At this point about 2.2% of the U.S. service casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan have been women. If the physical standards for combat aren't lowered in order to goose the numbers---which would be a disaster on many levels---that percentage would likely rise relatively little.

Whether female soldiers in combat positions is a "step back" or a "step forward" is a wholly subjective question on which I'm torn both ways, but I do think this: The real test of public acceptance would come if and when they re-instituted the military draft and opened in up to women on a non-discriminatory basis, and without all those easy deferments and exemptions that enabled so many young men to avoid service during Vietnam. Given political realities, such a development is extremely unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future, but if the #### were ever going to hit the fan about women in active combat roles, that would be the most likely way for it to start flying.

E-X, I've never said a word against Pedro as a human being, for the same reason I don't think I've ever said a word against Joba. I don't know either of them beyond what I've seen on the baseball diamond.

I'll leave aside the question of Pedro's control vs Joba's "intent" to maim (not your words, I know), and repeat what I've said before: I seriously doubt if either of them were ever engaging in anything beyond the age-old strategy of inducing fear / caution in the minds of batters. And while Pedro obviously has better control, Joba has actually hit far fewer batters, so I'm not seeing any particular reason for any sort of moral distinctions between the two.

btw, YR ate everybody's lunch in the OT schilling thread, imho.

By nattering endlessly on about selling babies?

Not selling babies, actualizing the value of a commodity. Perhaps you were too distracted with the whining on behalf of low-status males to recognize the clear and obvious solutions to their pathetic plight I'd offered. While I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the cries of Loser-Americans I'm primarily interested in addressing concerns for all parties. Better to light a candle than curse the darkness and all that.

We can give him credit, here. I'm certain it's possible to loathe the Catholic Church entirely as a matter of principle. Bigotry need not have anything to do with it.

Greatest force for good in human history and all that:

The Italian media is reporting that Pope Benedict XVI resigned after receiving the results of an internal investigation, delivered in a 300-page, two-volume dossier, that laid bare a sordid tale of blackmail, corruption and gay sex at the Vatican.

By that logic, lets resolve the Jordan or LeBron GOAT debate once and for all by having them play 1 on 1 today. Nevermind that LBJ is 28 and at the top of his game while MJ is 50 and has been retired for 10 years. Winner takes the title forever.

Are the referees playing under "Jordan Rules"? That would make it close.

All sporting events should require the participants to put up sizable chunks of their own cash.

Back when boxing was a quasi-legal spectacle appealing mainly to gamblers and sadists this was how business was typically conducted. When the sport became more codified and champions more readily acknowledged, the ability to come up with the appropriate "side bet" created a clear barrier to entry for any fighter not sufficiently capitalized by their backers, a situation fraught with all sorts of perils as I'm sure you could imagine. It created some perverse situations to be sure, especially in the early era when elite prizefighters could make as much money in touring exhibitions as they could actually competing. "Gentleman" Jim Corbett only received his title shot against John L. Sullivan because he was sufficiently capitalized to be the first man to meet Sullivan's insisted $10,000 side bet - $250,000 in today's money - despite Corbett being the clear top contender.

The practice of the "side bet" comprising a significant portion of the overall take continued well into the early 20th century. One of the reasons the practice disappeared was the prominence of legendary promoter Tex Rickard (the man who spent the 19-aughst as the greatest proponent of Negro fighters in the sport and then spent the 1920s freezing Negro fighters out of the heavyweight title scene). Rickard hated the practice as it made matchmaking potentially difficult and introduced dangerous elements into each fighter's camp. Tex contributed to the demise of the "side bet" by offering larger guaranteed purses and, in a shocking display of generosity the likes of which the boxing world had never seen, presenting fighters with cash bonuses at the time of signing, as well as additional monies to fund their training camps.

Don't forget that Margaret Court prepared no more for her match with Riggs than Riggs did for his match with King.

Court was an active tennis player. (As was King.) Riggs had been retired for 15 years.


Pedro has admitted now to having committed criminal assault and battery something like 135 times. If that doesn't render him ineligible, well, at least he should be forced to have that smirking mustache removed--by tweezer.

btw, YR ate everybody's lunch in the OT schilling thread, imho.

Gold--absolute gold.

That 135 doesn't count the times he only committed assault.

Don't forget that Margaret Court prepared no more for her match with Riggs than Riggs did for his match with King.

Court was an active tennis player. (As was King.) Riggs had been retired for 15 years.

But while Riggs trained as never before** for that match against Court, Court took Riggs lightly and had absolutely no idea of what was at stake.*** She was set up for humiliation just as surely as Riggs set himself up for a loss to King. The simple truth is that while Court was totally unprepared for Riggs, King didn't fall into that trap.

**

"Call it the Match of the Century," Bobby spouted at a news conference in March to announce his match with Margaret on Mother's Day.

It was hyperbole with a purpose. Bobby was already applying pressure on Margaret's suspect nerves. This was Bobby's moment, and he didn't want to squander it by taking Margaret lightly. He worked out relentlessly. Bobby ran at least a mile a day around a school track near his Newport Beach digs.

Bobby's son Larry, the only one of his children who had excelled as a tennis player, teamed with Bobby's best friend, Lornie Kuhle, to oversee his father's diligent preparation for the match with Margaret.

"For three or four months, we're talking running every day, playing six hours of tennis a day," Larry says. "Train, train, train. He was playing the best tennis of his life."

Training by itself, though, couldn't push back the clock fast or far enough to suit Bobby. He needed a youth potion to match up with the 30-year-old Margaret. At 55, he sought out Rheo Blair, Hollywood's top nutritional guru. Under Blair's supervision, Bobby adopted a diet of protein, dairy products and 415 vitamins a day. "No Booze, No Broads, Vows Bobby," the headlines read.

***

A large, malleable national television audience was expected to watch Margaret's match against Bobby. Billie knew this was no time for a woman to fall apart. The problem was, several early-round losses in the late sixties had earned Margaret a reputation for emotional fragility. Whether it was justified or not, nearly every player on the tour thought of Margaret as someone who collapsed under pressure - a choker.

"Our reputation is at stake, and I'm afraid Bobby will win," Billie told the press days before the match. "Here is an old jerk who dyes his hair, waddles like a duck and has trouble seeing. We have nothing to gain."....

His strategy worked right from the start. Bobby immediately rendered the circuit's most dominating female force into a weekend hacker by dinking his serves, punching drop shots and lobbing the ball into the afternoon sun. Flummoxed in the face of Bobby's underwhelming attack, her confidence evaporated as the pressure on her built.

She tumbled into Bobby's trap. He had made a career out of waiting for an opponent's mistake. Connecting on just 18 of 37 first serves, Court's collapse happened at flashbulb speed....

Tennis's Other 'Battle of the Sexes,' Before King-Riggs

Boo hoo. Big bad man intimidated poor sweet mother.

The simple truth is that while Court was totally unprepared for Riggs, King didn't fall into that trap.

No, the simple truth is King had the advantage of having Court as a cautionary tale not to follow.

The wiki entry on Riggs is, btw, highly readable. He was a great champion who became a champion hustler (I had forgotten about his handicapping himself by using a frying pan instead of a racket), and he excelled in his age group into his '60s and '70s.

I wasn't even born when it happened, but the Battle of the Sexes tennis match has to be one of the most overrated sporting events of all time. King was 29. Riggs was 55 and had been retired for 14 years. 'Nuff said. That Riggs was being cocky and saying he was going to win despite his severe age disadvantage doesn't change the fact that he DID have a severe age disadvantage.

The most important part of your statement is the first five words -- you kinda had to be there. The attitudes about women's capabilities really were very different. Just a couple of years earlier, a famous episode of All in The Family had been built around a "riddle" that perplexed the nation. And the riddle only works if it never occurs to you that a doctor might be a woman. It would be ridiculous today, but it stumped an entire nation in 1972.

No, the simple truth is King had the advantage of having Court as a cautionary tale not to follow.

But if Riggs' advantage were physical strength, or speed, the lessons of the Court match wouldn't have mattered much. The point is that Riggs' first win had nothing to do with "male" superiority, but with a bunch of unorthodox and gimmicky tactics. It was an inherently unrepeatable victory.

Boo hoo. Big bad man intimidated poor sweet mother.

Nobody's boo-hooing, but the idea that a better prepared Court would've lost to Riggs is questionable. She'd more than held her own in practice sessions with the much younger and better conditioned Tony Trabert.

The simple truth is that while Court was totally unprepared for Riggs, King didn't fall into that trap.

No, the simple truth is King had the advantage of having Court as a cautionary tale not to follow.

That's just another way of saying the same thing. Court had expected Riggs to play a normal game of tennis, and was totally unprepared when Riggs started channeling Rip Sewell's eephus pitches. King, knowing that, prepared herself for all contingencies, and the result was a mismatch. Riggs simply ran out of gimmicks and the element of surprise, which were the only two things he ever had going for him in the first place. (EDIT: coke to Guy)

All that said, Bobby Riggs was a hell of a showman who probably inadvertently did as much to advance women's tennis as Billy Jean King herself. You might remember that his initial motivation for challenging King (who'd brushed off his first challenges) was to draw attention to the relative lack of prize money in the men's seniors tour. At the time, equal prize money for women was King's big crusade, and Riggs used his challenge to her as a way to latch onto that. It made perfect sense, and it turned out great for everyone except Margaret Court. (EDIT: and here, a coke to Morty. IMO Riggs was a classic American type, and I mean that in a good sense. Many of his hustling gimmicks mirrored those of some of the great names in that noble genre.)

The Italian media is reporting that Pope Benedict XVI resigned after receiving the results of an internal investigation, delivered in a 300-page, two-volume dossier, that laid bare a sordid tale of blackmail, corruption and gay sex at the Vatican.

Now, now ... Italy is a notoriously anti-Catholic nation.

btw, YR ate everybody's lunch in the OT schilling thread, imho.


By nattering endlessly on about selling babies?

The thread broadly had two camps. One understood the rights aspect and spoke cogently and in detail to that;

... says the main advocate for one of the two camps. look, jack, your arguments were well spoken, i'll stipulate to that. so what. in the run up to the civil war, the conservative side had all kinds of strong arguments for 'rights' and such that made the keeping of slaves sound like a moral imperative.

i'll also stipulate to not being much of an internet poster/arguer, so i don't get deeply involved in most of the OT stuff. i'm no debater (andy, feel free to cut these words out of context and say something snarky). and you can shut me up or shout me down, but i'm not stupid. the wailing your side did was ultimately unconvincing.

that YR could be clownish and still poke holes in your side's positions speaks to his skill and the strength of his counters.

i say that as an observer without much of a stake in what went down ... except maybe being one of the only observers who has had to raise a child on his own.

If McEnroe played S. Williams, you better believe he'd undergo some serious physical conditioning. And I think right now some guys in their fifties (andnot just ex-champions) could beat the best women.

thinking about this some more, i may have to amend my earlier statement. depending on who we are talking about, i might not bet on williams. like i said, the game has changed, and maybe the top women of today would be much more competitive against a given 50+ player who was elite in his prime. ilie nastase looks like he's let himself go. mcenroe looks a little more fit. i dunno.

cfb--when was this? I'm not sure 140 lbs. was always an acceptable weight

Desert Storm.

Would firefighting be comparable? Dangerous activity where the strength of your fellows (so to speak, here) directly affects your survival chances?

.....Also, a infantryman's pack is often at about the limit of what he can carry. I don't know how you'd compensate in the case of women who simply can't carry the same amount (without lowering standards, that is).

I think the physical requirements for a firefighter should be higher than for a current day combat unit. At least as it goes in regards to raw physical strength.


For boot camp training the pack aspect was a big part, but after boot camp, it's not such a big deal. You have vehicles that transport most of your gear to where you are going, in a real world sense, the physical requirements for military combat are somewhat exaggerated. You have to be in shape, but you don't have to be superman. Now of course it's different for elite units. And I'm not saying that they can be weak, but the biggest aspect of it, is the determination to not fail, to not slow down, to not stop.

I know plenty of people in the military who don't care for women, because the military has made exceptions to accommodate women, and lower the standards to reach certain goals.(If you are in a meritorious promotion board, and there is a women you are going up against, she is going to get the promotion. That type of thing) But the physical requirements of the job, in today's military, is within the range of female soldiers, it's all about finding the ones with the right mental makeup, and not lowering the standards of acceptance to accommodate the female soldier. If they maintain the standards, then I don't see a problem with it.

I know plenty of people in the military who don't care for women

Thank you "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

I think Riggs's life and character is ample fodder for a good movie--a comedy, of course.

That wiki entry on him says he and King became friends. Says something about both of them, I think.

King didn't exactly run over Riggs. Indeed, the first set was 6-4. Had he spent more time physically getting in shape for a tennis match it could have been even closer.

By the way, both Williams sisters were administered a drubbing by Karsten Braasch, ranked 203rd at the time. Granted, they were 16 and 17 at the time, but they claimed they could easily beat any male ranked 200 or worse.

"Braasch was 15 years older than Serena and Venus, and had drunk 2 beers and played one round of golf that morning.[22] Braasch said afterwards, "500 and above, no chance" as he claimed he had played like someone ranked 600 in order to keep the game "fun."[23]"

Battle of the Sexes

481 proves my point, of course, but 483 is one of the reasons I hang out here. Thanks for the history lesson, YR. Fascinating stuff. I loved to fight when I was young, albeit... informally. It had some of the elements of chess, but you got to hit people. Sort of speaking of which, The Harder They Fall is on TMC. Bogie's last role. Seems he thought Stieger was ruthlessly overacting so Bogie went the other way, which also suited his dwindling energy.

Bobby adopted a diet of protein, dairy products and 415 vitamins a day. "No Booze, No Broads, Vows Bobby," the headlines read.

How is this necessary? What 415 vitamins could you possibly be taking?

The most important part of your statement is the first five words -- you kinda had to be there. The attitudes about women's capabilities really were very different.

They sure were. Women were widely looked at--by people favoring legal equality--as you'd look at your sweet, just-not-quite-as-bright and able relative: needing a little help and indulgence to make it. Perhaps along the lines of having a true talent level around 90% of mens', and where moving towards equality was simply the right thing to do despite the 'obvious' differences in ability. The change in 45 years has been dramatic.

... says the main advocate for one of the two camps. look, jack, your arguments were well spoken, i'll stipulate to that. so what. in the run up to the civil war, the conservative side had all kinds of strong arguments for 'rights' and such that made the keeping of slaves sound like a moral imperative.

At this point I'll just pat you on the head and encourage you to take your nap.

It's SugarBearBlanks. He is perhaps the single most dishonest data handler on the site. You may know him from the Jack Morris threads.

I don't get this. Accusations like this should at least have some meat to them, or be in response to a specific post; otherwise they have a slimy quality to them. I find SBB's opinion on Morris completely wrongheaded, but I can't recall him ever treating data dishonestly.

edit: thanks, cfb. Interesting post.

All sporting events should require the participants to put up sizable chunks of their own cash.

Back when boxing was a quasi-legal spectacle appealing mainly to gamblers and sadists this was how business was typically conducted.

Slightly off sub-topic, but in addition to all the great movies made about professional boxing, one of my favorite fight films is Charles Bronson's Hard Times, which is about a bareknuckled street fighter in New Orleans (I think) during the Depression who made his living in the underground fight scene. I have no idea how much of it's based on reality and how much of it's blown up, but it's one hell of an entertaining movie.

I don't know anything about underground bare knuckle boxing during that period but there's still an underground scene in America today - that's what made Kimbo Slice famous. There's also some good documentaries on the underground bare-knuckle and unlicensed gloved boxing scene in Britain, one called "Knuckle" and another whose name I can't recall at the moment but contains footage (and interviews) with notorious brawler Lenny McLean, whose work can be viewed here.