Serena vs. McEnroe Fantasy Match

[Dolgopolov85]

I didn't insist on what he should or shouldn't say. I said "COULD", this is simply to point to a road McEnroe could have taken. If I said, McEnroe is not allowed to say this, must say that, then your point stands. I haven't build up any standard of respectfulness, I don't think it is horrifying, your word, I think it is pointless. Yes, so you agree McEnroe was just ranting, so you agree that with his whole response, he wasn't only responding to a question but ran with it and that his role wasn't passive but active.

No, no, of course you have - by criticising him for saying what he did and saying he stoked the controversy. The controversy itself is only stoked by the climate of political correctness reigning in the present day, not in what Mac said. Pray what is politically incorrect in what he said? So why should he not say it? So, attempting to elaborate an answer, from his position as a former player and commentator, is "running with it"? Again, just listen to yourself.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

I said nothing about disrespect or respect. You talked about how McEnroe was just answering honestly, when he was anything but. I gave you a chance to demonstrate just what kind of a response to that answer you consider an honest response, you can't come up with it except to tell me what you think I believe, which you aren't a position to say.

Prove that he was anything but honest. Oh wait, don't tell me you have planted a sensor in Mac's brain to decipher his intent.

 

[70後]

No, no, of course you have - by criticising him for saying what he did and saying he stoked the controversy. The controversy itself is only stoked by the climate of political correctness reigning in the present day, not in what Mac said. Pray what is politically incorrect in what he said? So why should he not say it? So, attempting to elaborate an answer, from his position as a former player and commentator, is "running with it"? Again, just listen to yourself.

You are saying that criticism of one thing means building up a standard? Impossible that you should believe that. Did I say it was politically incorrect? Read what I said, it is true, inconsequential whether the men can beat the women or not.

 

[70後]

Prove that he was anything but honest. Oh wait, don't tell me you have planted a sensor in Mac's brain to decipher his intent.

I said his reply was anything but honest since his reply was not limited to the question, but that he had ranted on about something not asked, which was what he wanted to say. Oh wait, don't tell me you insist that only planting sensors into people's brains can tell if they are being honest or not.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

You are saying that criticism of one thing means building up a standard? Impossible that you should believe that.

If it is criticised not for its lack of accuracy (which at least Aussie Darcy chose to criticise it for) but for supposedly sensationalising things, yes, you are trying to dictate what people say or shouldn't say. Because you are not saying what Mac said is wrong on merits but that it was inappropriate to say so. Which then means he shouldn't have said it. Of course you make it a 'could' because you don't have the power to stop him from saying it.



Did I say it was politically incorrect? Read what I said, it is true, inconsequential whether the men can beat the women or not.

So if it is inconsequential, why do you take Mac's case for 'stoking controversy'? You did that upthread, don't deny it. You can't have it both ways. Something cannot be both inconsequential and controversial at one and the same time. If it is so inconsequential, Mac's opinion on how she would fare in the ATP should be inconsequential too.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

I said his reply was anything but honest since his reply was not limited to the question, but that he had ranted on about something not asked, which was what he wanted to say. Oh wait, don't tell me you insist that only planting sensors into people's brains can tell if they are being honest or not.

That doesn't make it dishonest. That's what I said above, you think even elaborating on an answer is bad form when he is fully entitled to as a tennis expert. I said that part about planting sensors because the way you so categorically insist that he is anything but honest makes it sound like it's a factual assertion which it is anything but.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

Wow, ya'll still going on about this. Get a hobby or something..

 

[70後]

If it is criticised not for its lack of accuracy (which at least Aussie Darcy chose to criticise it for) but for supposedly sensationalising things, yes, you are trying to dictate what people say or shouldn't say. Because you are not saying what Mac said is wrong on merits but that it was inappropriate to say so. Which then means he shouldn't have said it. Of course you make it a 'could' because you don't have the power to stop him from saying it.



So if it is inconsequential, why do you take Mac's case for 'stoking controversy'? You did that upthread, don't deny it. You can't have it both ways. Something cannot be both inconsequential and controversial at one and the same time. If it is so inconsequential, Mac's opinion on how she would fare in the ATP should be inconsequential too.

I made it a "could" not because I don't have power to stop him, but because I was showing you the alternative route he "could" have taken. That doesn't mean dictating what people say. Find what I dictated precisely, since if you say I am trying to dictate, there must be a precise thing I dictated people should or should not say.

Something can be completely true, inconsequential, that is totally irrelevant, at once. As in this case. It can certainly be intended also to stoke up trouble.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

I made it a "could" not because I don't have power to stop him, but because I was showing you the alternative route he "could" have taken. That doesn't mean dictating what people say. Find what I dictated precisely, since if you say I am trying to dictate, there must be a precise thing I dictated people should or should not say.

That is the very definition of dictating. Writing up an alternative answer for Mac which would have passed muster with you, apparently. Gee, maybe he should hire you as his publicist.

Something can be completely true, inconsequential, that is totally irrelevant, at once. As in this case. It can certainly be intended also to stoke up trouble.

Whether it was intended to or not I cannot tell. But again, it would only stoke trouble in an environment where people prefer to bury their heads in the sand. That such an innocuous answer would stir up a storm can only be blamed on the environment of what is deemed acceptable or not acceptable to say, not on the answer itself.

 

[70後]

That doesn't make it dishonest. That's what I said above, you think even elaborating on an answer is bad form when he is fully entitled to as a tennis expert. I said that part about planting sensors because the way you so categorically insist that he is anything but honest makes it sound like it's a factual assertion which it is anything but.

He did not elaborate an answer. He was ranting about something else entirely. That is why his answer isn't honest.

As for McEnroe being a tennis expert, he may be so, he isn't necessarily always speaking as a tennis expert giving expert testimony.

Do you think, say, the trolling of Wilander, is the testimony of a tennis expert, when he is speaking in the capacity of what is just a tennis talk show host?

 

[70後]

That is the very definition of dictating. Writing up an alternative answer for Mac which would have passed muster with you, apparently. Gee, maybe he should hire you as his publicist.


Whether it was intended to or not I cannot tell. But again, it would only stoke trouble in an environment where people prefer to bury their heads in the sand. That such an innocuous answer would stir up a storm can only be blamed on the environment of what is deemed acceptable or not acceptable to say, not on the answer itself.

You've got the definition of dictating wrong. I said what he "could" have said in order to show you clearly what he didn't say.

If you really can't tell, then there should be nothing for you to comment about.

McEnroe answered a question that wasn't asked. Do you agree or not.

 

[Sysyphus]

While we are at it, I would like to use this occasion to air my deep grievances with the PC humanists – or shall we say, human@zis – who try to call Usain Bolt the fastest and/or greatest sprinter in the world full stop. As if there aren't hundreds of feline mammals out there that would destroy him to embarrassing extents. Greatest recorded sprinter of the h0m0 sapiens species more like it, thanks u.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

He did not elaborate an answer. He was ranting about something else entirely.

That is why his answer isn't honest.

It is NOT something else entirely. It is very much related to the question. Why can she not be the best tennis player? Because 'XYZ' is how she would fare on the ATP.

As for McEnroe being a tennis expert, he may be so, he isn't necessarily always speaking as a tennis expert giving expert testimony.

Do you think, say, the trolling of Wilander, is the testimony of a tennis expert, when he is speaking in the capacity of what is just a tennis talk show host?

Again, you are talking about something different. All of Mac's answers may not be him speaking with his tennis expert hat on. I am just saying this is not some nobody choosing to elaborate the answer. It's a former tennis player and a multi slam winner who said it. It's funny that you think he ought to keep his answers strictly to the point as if he is clueless about tennis.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

You've got the definition of dictating wrong. I said what he "could" have said in order to show you clearly what he didn't say.

No, no, that's your masquerade. You are just trying to demonstrate what an appropriate answer would look like. And I am saying we cannot be so absolutist in how we demand conversation to be. He's entitled to elaborate on an answer, none of your business to tell him he could have avoided it when there is nothing demonstrably avoidable about it.

If you really can't tell, then there should be nothing for you to comment about.

I mean, I am not so arrogant like you as to believe I can decipher the exact intent of a person from his words alone. So I will not guess either way. Maybe he wanted to stoke controversy or maybe he didn't want to, how do I know. What I do know is it is laughable that a mere observation like his should cause so much controversy.

McEnroe answered a question that wasn't asked. Do you agree or not.

No, the question by its answer demanded a rationale as to why she shouldn't be best player ever. YOU want him to say it's comparing apples or oranges, he chose a different rationale to justify his answer, that's all. It's not unrelated like you're making it out to be.

 

[70後]

It is NOT something else entirely. It is very much related to the question. Why can she not be the best tennis player? Because 'XYZ' is how she would fare on the ATP.


Again, you are talking about something different. All of Mac's answers may not be him speaking with his tennis expert hat on. I am just saying this is not some nobody choosing to elaborate the answer. It's a former tennis player and a multi slam winner who said it. It's funny that you think he ought to keep his answers strictly to the point as if he is clueless about tennis.

Now that is dictating an answer. The question didn't call for that answer "xyz is how she would fare". Nor was it the only possible answer unless the reporter had asked the specific question, which she hadn't.

What is funny here is you are choosing to rely on "former tennis player and a multi slam winner" as a defense when a "former tennis player and a multi slam winner" can and will talk utter nonsense, as proven over and over again by nearly all of them.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Now that is dictating an answer. The question didn't call for that answer "xyz is how she would fare". Nor was it the only possible answer unless the reporter had asked the specific question, which she hadn't.

Again, so ****ing what? You haven't shown what is so terrible about the answer he chose. You are trying to say he ranted on something irrelevant (which it is not) but that's the best complaint you have managed to come up with against it so far.

What is funny here is you are choosing to rely on "former tennis player and a multi slam winner" as a defense when a "former tennis player and a multi slam winner" can and will talk utter nonsense, as proven over and over again by nearly all of them.

So they may. But you haven't shown that it is nonsense and you cannot argue further that therefore they should always keep their lips sealed.

 

[70後]

No, no, that's your masquerade. You are just trying to demonstrate what an appropriate answer would look like. And I am saying we cannot be so absolutist in how we demand conversation to be. He's entitled to elaborate on an answer, none of your business to tell him he could have avoided it when there is nothing demonstrably avoidable about it.


I mean, I am not so arrogant like you as to believe I can decipher the exact intent of a person from his words alone. So I will not guess either way. Maybe he wanted to stoke controversy or maybe he didn't want to, how do I know. What I do know is it is laughable that a mere observation like his should cause so much controversy.

No, the question by its answer demanded a rationale as to why she shouldn't be best player ever. YOU want him to say it's comparing apples or oranges, he chose a different rationale to justify his answer, that's all. It's not unrelated like you're making it out to be.

Indeed, it is none of your business to tell me I believe in muzzling free speech. You are just trying over an over to accuse me of dictating "an appropriate answer" when I gave an example of an alternative route. He wasn't elaborating, he was ranting because the next part of it had nothing to do with the quetion being asked.

 

[rmontro]

Mac answered the question as he saw it, and everything he said was true. Some people have a problem with the truth.
He wasn't trashing Serena, it's well documented that he has been very complimentary of her.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Indeed, it is none of your business to tell me I believe in muzzling free speech. You are just trying over an over to accuse me of dictating "an appropriate answer" when I gave an example of an alternative route. He wasn't elaborating, he was ranting because the next part of it had nothing to do with the quetion being asked.

Why is an alternative required if the worst that can be said about Mac's answer is a part of it was allegedly irrelevant? If people get upset about an answer for being irrelevant, there is something seriously wrong.

 

[70後]

Again, so ****ing what? You haven't shown what is so terrible about the answer he chose. You are trying to say he ranted on something irrelevant (which it is not) but that's the best complaint you have managed to come up with against it so far.



So they may. But you haven't shown that it is nonsense and you cannot argue further that therefore they should always keep their lips sealed.

So you don't disagree or deny what I said. You haven't shown me either how it is relevant to the question being asked, why Serena isn't the best player in the world. I've told you why it is both true and completely irrelevant.

You mean to say you haven't also called out Wilander on his trollander mode? And that second statement proves what I mean about something which is completely true and completely irrelevant at the same time.

 

[70後]

Why is an alternative required if the worst that can be said about Mac's answer is a part of it was allegedly irrelevant? If people get upset about an answer for being irrelevant, there is something seriously wrong.

I think you are missing what he said, in all this talk, McEnroe went off on a complete tangent after his answer, which is where he wanted to go. If he did not intend to go there, why did he say that? Since the reporter didn't ask. So his intent is proved.

No, I don't get upset about a feeder like McEnroe. I am just sticking to responding to you atm.

 

[tennisaddict]

Serena fans should learn to deal with it. Like small girls they keep crying for this endlessly

John McEnroe is a tennis analyst and he can call as he sees it . He is not allowed to estimate what ranking a player could have if he or she competed in a tour ?

 

[Dolgopolov85]

While we are at it, I would like to use this occasion to air my deep grievances with the PC humanists – or shall we say, human@zis – who try to call Usain Bolt the fastest and/or greatest sprinter in the world full stop. As if there aren't hundreds of feline mammals out there that would destroy him to embarrassing extents. Greatest recorded sprinter of the h0m0 sapiens species more like it, thanks u.

I agree completely with this. But don't we only know it because there was fortunately no PC doctrine forbidding us from discovering and revealing this fact? I mean, when I was a child, I used to have this Dorling Kindersley encyclopedia with a beautiful diagram plotting **** sapiens and other mammals on a race track with **** sapiens faring as miserably as India usually does in track and field. If the level of WTA and ATP players were similarly plotted say along a slope, the PC crowd would be offended. Wait, that's what basically just happened. We are trying to say that it is disrespectful for somebody to make a claim that the top woman player would be ranked somewhere around 700 in the ATP...even if it was true. It is the latter part that I am very uncomfortable with. If we are saying something that is factually correct should not be pointed out because it is impolite, then I am sorry we are no better than creationists, scientologists and other religious fundamentalists of whatever hues there may be.

 

[70後]

And by the way, even after AO 2017, Serena isn't even the best womens player in the world, Kerber is, according to the ranking.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

So you don't disagree or deny what I said. You haven't shown me either how it is relevant to the question being asked, why Serena isn't the best player in the world. I've told you why it is both true and completely irrelevant.

You mean to say you haven't also called out Wilander on his trollander mode? And that second statement proves what I mean about something which is completely true and completely irrelevant at the same time.

Of course, I have called Wilander out...for the inaccuracy of what he said. You are not doing that at all here. You are trying to beat the bush about what you're really doing, but certainly you are not trying to debate the accuracy of what he (Mac) said. So what is your problem anyway? Irrelevancy is not such a big problem as you are trying to make it out.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

I think you are missing what he said, in all this talk, McEnroe went off on a complete tangent after his answer, which is where he wanted to go. If he did not intend to go there, why did he say that? Since the reporter didn't ask. So his intent is proved.

No, I don't get upset about a feeder like McEnroe. I am just sticking to responding to you atm.

He intended to say it but it doesn't follow that he intended to say it only to stir controversy. That is YOUR inference for which you have provided exactly ZERO proof. So if you are not upset about what he said, what are you even debating? So he said something irrelevant? So what, the sky won't fall on your head if he did.

 

[70後]

this Dorling Kindersley encyclopedia with a beautiful diagram plotting **** sapiens and other mammals on a race track with **** sapiens faring as miserably

to this point, no doubt the diagram is beautiful, true, completely irrelevant and also absurd. Because if you did put humans and mammals on the race track, you can imagine what will happen is not mammals beating humans, but wandering off to do their own business.

Humans and mammals aren't competing on a race track.

 

[tennisaddict]

What a whiny bunch !

It is ok to open endless threads about how Serena is better than Federer but it is difficult to hear what he hear what her ranking would be

 

[70後]

Of course, I have called Wilander out...for the inaccuracy of what he said. You are not doing that at all here. You are trying to beat the bush about what you're really doing, but certainly you are not trying to debate the accuracy of what he (Mac) said. So what is your problem anyway? Irrelevancy is not such a big problem as you are trying to make it out.

I have not beaten about the bush, I have repeated the same points to you over and over again. I have no problem with this.

 

[70後]

He intended to say it but it doesn't follow that he intended to say it only to stir controversy. That is YOUR inference for which you have provided exactly ZERO proof. So if you are not upset about what he said, what are you even debating? So he said something irrelevant? So what, the sky won't fall on your head if he did.

So you are now agreeing he did intend to say it. He does have a book about himself to promote by talking about it, which was the whole subject of the (npr) interview, as you know. No need to infer anything.

 

[70後]

I mean, I am not so arrogant like you as to believe I can decipher the exact intent of a person from his words alone. So I will not guess either way. Maybe he wanted to stoke controversy or maybe he didn't want to, how do I know. What I do know is it is laughable that a mere observation like his should cause so much controversy.

Please scroll down 1/4 page of that npr interview and click on that buy link to McEnroe's book which gives you a page and a purchase button where you can buy his book. Kind of the whole point.

To add, it isn't disrespectful at all to point out the simple truth - that women will not be ranked at 700 on the mens circuit. One fashion or another, I totally agreed. Your real concern, stated in your post #875, I can also completely concur with. However, McEnroe's words were not out of nowhere alone, they were coming from what is his book promotion. I hope you can also take my point. Thank you.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

I don't blame Mcenroe, who was at pains to mention that Serena is one of the greatest players ever, and in terms of mental toughness and competivieness may be the greatest ever. The only slight I will give Mcenroe is for his bizarre contention that he could still beat a fully fit tour-ready Serena Williams. Absolutely no chance of that. I would welcome some sort of exhibition series match between Mcenroe and a returned-to-tour Serena Williams so we could watch him being beaten like a drum under lights at Madison Square Garden.

When did he actually say he would beat her?

He ranked himself 1200 on the tour today and Serena 700.
Would Murray lose to a guy ranked 500 spots below him? Oh wait, he might actually in 2017

 

[Nadalgaenger]

I said his reply was anything but honest since his reply was not limited to the question, but that he had ranted on about something not asked, which was what he wanted to say. Oh wait, don't tell me you insist that only planting sensors into people's brains can tell if they are being honest or not.

It was not a "rant" at all.

McEnroe uttered one sentence basically. He basically just spoke his opinion without fear of reprisal from the PC Gestapo.

Anyway, hopefully everyone can move on with their lives now that Wimbledon is starting.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

So you are now agreeing he did intend to say it. He does have a book about himself to promote by talking about it, which was the whole subject of the (npr) interview, as you know. No need to infer anything.

No, I have done no such thing, not in the sense you mean. I mean that he intended to say it as a man of free will, duh, he wasn't led to say it. But I am not speculating on what the intent is, that's YOUR call. You may choose to if you wish but don't pretend it has any persuasive value.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

However, McEnroe's words were not out of nowhere alone, they were coming from what is his book promotion. I hope you can also take my point. Thank you.

No, I do not agree with this because this has not been established.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

to this point, no doubt the diagram is beautiful, true, completely irrelevant and also absurd. Because if you did put humans and mammals on the race track, you can imagine what will happen is not mammals beating humans, but wandering off to do their own business.

Humans and mammals aren't competing on a race track.

It's a kid's encyclopedia , like what do you expect?

 

[70後]

No, I do not agree with this because this has not been established.

Don't tell me you haven't seen the npr page and the buy button for his book?

 

[70後]

It is the latter part that I am very uncomfortable with. If we are saying something that is factually correct should not be pointed out because it is impolite

To be clear, this is where you are truly coming from. Isn't that right? Nothing I said should lead you to think I disagree.

 

[70後]

His npr interview, I mean.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Don't tell me you haven't seen the npr page and the buy button for his book?

Yes, I know the interview was intended to promote his book. But it doesn't necessarily follow that he expressly wanted to stoke a controversy and for that reason alone inserted the stuff about the #700. I maintain that that says more about the kind of discourse prevailing today than Mac himself. My contention is not that Mac is so innocent. It is that if he wanted to ignite controversy, he would have said something controversial. This wasn't, so it is amazing how easily people get offended these days that even what he said sufficed.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

To be clear, this is where you are truly coming from. Isn't that right? Nothing I said should lead you to think I disagree.

It does seem that way to me from your insistence that he could have said something different. But if you say you don't disagree, I accept it and would chalk it up more to your cynicism about Mac's motives. I share the cynicism but I continue to find it far less troubling or objectionable than the fact that this is all it took to stir up the social media et al. And to provoke ANOTHER stupid article from NPR.

 

[70後]

Yes, I know the interview was intended to promote his book. But it doesn't necessarily follow that he expressly wanted to stoke a controversy and for that reason alone inserted the stuff about the #700. I maintain that that says more about the kind of discourse prevailing today than Mac himself. My contention is not that Mac is so innocent. It is that if he wanted to ignite controversy, he would have said something controversial. This wasn't, so it is amazing how easily people get offended these days that even what he said sufficed.

Since the interview was intended to promote his book, it follows everything he said, and ranted about, in the interview, about his book, was also intended to this end. Otherwise does that mean only part of his interview was to promote his book, part of it was about something else?

 

[ojo rojo]

 

[70後]

Yes, I know the interview was intended to promote his book. But it doesn't necessarily follow that he expressly wanted to stoke a controversy and for that reason alone inserted the stuff about the #700. I maintain that that says more about the kind of discourse prevailing today than Mac himself. My contention is not that Mac is so innocent. It is that if he wanted to ignite controversy, he would have said something controversial. This wasn't, so it is amazing how easily people get offended these days that even what he said sufficed.

The general thing you said that I highlighted, I am with, basically that something that is factually correct should not be prevented from being said because "some" people may find it impolite. So simple. I don't care about pc either. Of itself though, that is not the reason why McEnroe ranted on what he was specifically ranting on about. The reason is his book promotion and the fact that npr is promoting it; "your purchase helps support NPR programming"! If otherwise, why is npr promoting it in the first place?

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Since the interview was intended to promote his book, it follows everything he said, and ranted about, in the interview, about his book, was also intended to this end. Otherwise does that mean only part of his interview was to promote his book, part of it was about something else?

No, does not follow. The interviewer need not have put it to him in that way as to why shouldn't Serena be called the best player. See, the interview discussed about other things and then she turned to women's tennis. Of all the things, this was the one talking point she picked up? I am not denying the possibility that Mac insisted on that question so that he could say his piece, but I would also not insist that that IS what happened. What actually happened between NPR and Mac, we don't really know.

 

[70後]

No, does not follow. The interviewer need not have put it to him in that way as to why shouldn't Serena be called the best player. See, the interview discussed about other things and then she turned to women's tennis. Of all the things, this was the one talking point she picked up? I am not denying the possibility that Mac insisted on that question so that he could say his piece, but I would also not insist that that IS what happened. What actually happened between NPR and Mac, we don't really know.

I am not saying that Mac insisted on that question to say his piece, but that it is more likely he would have said his piece about Serena 700 anyway, to stir it up, regardless of what the question was. This you can infer from his previous track record about making comments about Serena on the Kimmel show. He wants a chance to go off on this.

 

[rmontro]

Of course he wanted to promote the book. But it was the reporter who wasn't happy with his quote (from the book) that Serena was the greatest female tennis player of all time. She wanted him to say she was the greatest period. I wouldn't say that myself, and I don't have a book to promote.

 

[70後]

No, does not follow. The interviewer need not have put it to him in that way as to why shouldn't Serena be called the best player. See, the interview discussed about other things and then she turned to women's tennis.

It does follow. Why the buy button and basket?

 

[Mr.Lob]

Chris Evert said the same comments were made about Graf and Navratilova playing a man, and everyone shouldn't get all bent out of shape over what McEnroe said.

 

[Mr.Lob]

Shino should be the special line judge.