But they are part of ours. That's why we should refuse to try to compromise or marginalize the accomplishments of Margaret Court because this born again Pastor ten years later, has decided that repurposing biblical passages to justify cruel disregard for gays is a message from God. The more we try to turn either version of Margaret Court into a stereotype for more efficient neutralizing, the more we undermine our own strengths as thinking people.
Agreed.
But should there be a lasting memmorial to her? Surely that's a slippery slope? She's a figure of the present. Don't we have a duty to say, no, your views are abhorent and obsolete. Or, at least, they should be.
Its a complicated question. I think both the Melbourne & Olympic Parks Precinct and WTA can and should find ways to express support for inclusion and diversity and distance themselves from her views at every opportunity, but that does not mean that I would personally insist that the name be changed, nor would I be terribly affronted if it was changed. I I think most people can differentiate between what celebrates her tennis career, and what glorifies her views, but if Melbourne & Olympic Parks Precinct or the Aussie taxpayers who subsidize it and live nearby , feel that her name undermines their image or their values of inclusion and tolerance, they are entitled to rectify the problem. I guess I would rephrase the question like this. Is there a duty to keep her name on the arena?. Margaret Court is not 'owed' an arena in her name just because it was placed there in the 1980's. Times change, values change, tastes change and the owners of the property and the Arena have every right to decide what plaques, what art, or who's name should adorn their property. If they are comfortable with Margaret Court Arena, then that is the name it should retain.
Thank you. Fair and balanced.
If they haven't found a way to recognize Goolagong in that arena, yet, they have lost an opportunity. As much as Court has changed over the years, Evonne has not. Considering that Margaret Court Arena was in part, an effort to equalize the lionization of Aussie men and the neglect of its women, over the years in Australian tennis, a second female champion is overdue.
I think they shouldn't glorify Navratilova or King because they are discriminating against straight people with their own beliefs. If everyone or half the globe followed their beliefs, what is natural dies out and the human species would soon be extinct. Men would not find straight woman and straight women would not find straight men...at least their options would become more and more severely limited. Do we really want that? Would we be okay if 10% of the globe was same sex orientated? How about 50% or 90%? Is a little okay but a lot not okay?
Okay. Whatever. I was asked a direct question about 'lasting memorials to Court by PDJ , and provided a response. Court was an incredibly powerful and effective player, who not only spanned both the amateur and professional eras, she dominated them. As such, Margaret is well deserving of the recognition accorded her, as the best player of her era . We can concentrate on that here , because this thread is about her tennis legacy and Martina's tennis legacy. As tennis players, who are both members of the International Hall of Fame, they both provided tennis fans with an inspiring roll model of self discipline, hard work and sacrifice.
Thank you for a sensible post. And I fully agree.
If you're asking me if I find Court's views on sexuality abhorent. Yes. Does that make her a wonderful person. No.
Many people look different than what they are on the inside, including me.
I think that's a simplistic, noble view.
Jesus himself was crucified because people didn't like what he said. I guess there's no way around that. No one will ever please everyone at once. Some believes she should be held accountable, others do not. Others are in the middle. Just as much as people offend her, she will eventually offend others.
I also agree.
I agree, we are all accountable.
You only to have read posts on this thread to get a measure of a person's character, and the world we live in.
It takes all kinds to make a world. Just, to my mind, some add more than others.
How do you know what I think about Hewitt?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/usopen/3011926/US-Open-Crowd-chide-racist-Hewitt.html I'll go with Blake's view over yours.
I agrre with some of this, however, some points are a tad simplistic:
Err....ok.
Its not her opposition to specific policies of Australia including same sex marriage, which is the measure here. I could care less about her opposition to same sex marriage. Its the impact on the lives of her congregants and other 'faithful' to which I refer. She's not having a huge impact on atheist, unless they get their asses kicked by thugs, or denied employment or jobs by 'christians' who use a religious excuse as cover to justify repugnant behavior either in Australia or anywhere else her sermons are sent via the internet. Otherwise they can laugh her off. Its how it impacts Christians who either are gay or are related to someone who is gay. Reread my post.
I have zero interests in your claims on orientation over the internet. They provide you no cover. I have no interest in your claims about Martina's personal life choices whether they include promiscuity, infidelity or orgies three times a day. She can't embarrass me or reflect on me. None of my business. I can divide Martina's statements on Court between those I agree with, and those that I don't. I don't care about Court's personal choices either. I care what she says from the pulpit or in public as a cleric.
WTA recognized only 92 Court's titles. Martina also won several titles outside the WTA Tour, but the official number is 167 and that's a record.
How did Court's titles get downgraded? That sounds weird beyond belief.
It gives off a bad vibration.
I understand how a career with 24 majors can be deemed less valued than one with 18. I understand how one may conclude that Martina is closer to GOAT than Court. I dismiss your method getting to either conclusion. No matter how many times you emphasize what was a professionally acquired title in the womens game, validated by the WTA, from one that was acquired under amateur status sans such a sanction, you will convince next to nobody around here. We know how incredibly small any impact was on the depth of the womens game until well over a generation had gone by. We know that Margaret dominated both tours with equal ease and continued to gather titles at the same clip until pregnancy and age took a toll. The paychecks had little impact on her competition outside the top ten she was already dominating in her H to H's until the money and resources made their way downward below the semifinals, quarterfinals so young players, coaches and tournament organizers outside the top ten, were able to anticipate and predict the revenue would be available to cover costs of training, traveling, and pay their share of household bills. That really did not begin to happen until Steffi Graf's generation hit the tour with advertisers dollars and media revenue contracts . It is no coincidence that was also the generation where virtually all players of merit, showed up to all majors of merit. With prior hit and miss efforts in Evert and Navratilova's day, these same players ranked from number 60 to number 15, had no way to pursue their dream for long enough to become a real threat as pros, until they knew their efforts could sustain them financially and provide career 'investment' dollars to advance their performance level more than what they were doing last year. A couple of semis and a final in a year, was not going to cut it unless your parents could afford to totally subsidize your career. This stuff took time. Margaret's amateur titles were not noticeably worse than her professional ones as a collection. You have to look at each individual draw to find patterns and that is harder work than you will want to do.
