Serena vs. McEnroe Fantasy Match
- Thread starter MatsPhilander
- Start date
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
To repeat, the interview was arranged for the sake of publicity for Mac's book. But that the only purpose of Mac's remark was to stir controversy is too much of a stretch. You seem totally convinced about it. Fair enough, but I disagree and am unlikely to change my mind. It's not that I don't 'get' your point, but I disagree with it.
70後
Hall of Fame
To put it yet another way, was the purpose of Mac's remark a factually correct remark for the sake of being factually correct alone and no other reason, or was it about promoting himself by borrowing Serena?
If you say we can't know his mind or motives. I say we can know his intent by the reason for this interview.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
70後
Hall of Fame
I don't need to work in the media to know. This isn't about guessing. If his intent is not to promote his book, why the interview and the buy it through npr button? What is his intent here? There is no intent about anything at all? He is giving answers just out of his hat for no reason?
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
You are still being very reductive here. Yes, the interview is for promoting his book. But to conclude that he therefore said the piece about # 700 only to stir up a tempest in a tea cup is still a stretch. Maybe you don't think so, but I do. The book was already discussed in the interview without allusion to this aspect. You say that you don't necessarily think Mac set up the 'Rena question. In that case, you don't really have a strong basis to say that he put in that part about where she would rank in the ATP just to stir up controversy and promote his book. He may have answered it because, unlike you, he thought it relevant to the question. I on the other hand would not rule out that he inserted the question but between not ruling out and concluding it to be the case there is some gulf. I am not going to make that leap.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
He is there to promote his book. That doesn't mean every answer is framed ONLY to garner maximum attention for the book. Again, I would not rule out that the interviewer put her SJW hat on and stumped Mac and he said what he ended up saying. IF his later reaction on the Colbert show was honest, that is what may have happened. That he didn't consider how his remark would be received and later in the day received a call from a TV channel saying his services as a commentator would be suspended if not...And so he used the Colbert show to douse the flames. The more cynical interpretation is both the interview question and his subsequent apology were orchestrated. Both as well as other possibilities are on the table. One would have to be a close confidante of Mac to know just what happened.
70後
Hall of Fame
I do have a basis to say it because of his past track record in saying something similar on the Kimmel show. I am saying that in another way, he is just saying the same thing again this time.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
70後
Hall of Fame
So since you also agree he is there to promote his book, it isn't guesswork as to what his intent in doing the interview was. So each part of his interview, including 700, because that is part of his interview, is to this end, whether or not every answer was framed to get maximum attention. Can't remove one part of his interview and say it doesn't belong there.
70後
Hall of Fame
Or because he is still trying to get himself on the talkshow circuit by playing that game of getting airtime with Kimmel or Letterman in the past. Unlike his tennis, the McEnroe talk show is really awful.
He has been trying for years now.
Hence why I think McEnroe's intentions are so dubious.
I agree, it doesn't follow. Maybe Mac was naive in answering the question, maybe it would have been more politically correct to dodge the quesiton, but why should he have to tippy toe around the truth?
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Nope, sorry, I disagree again. If you said he orchestrated the interview down to every question, I would agree with this (while saying it is only a possibility that it was orchestrated). You say that is not necessarily the case. So it is entirely possible then that the interviewer based off her research decided to ask the question about Serena. And that Mac in an unguarded moment gave a tennis player's answer without realising how mainstream media would perceive it. Your supposition lacks any benefit of doubt to Mac. Again, this position would hold if you said he did orchestrate the interview. If that is not the case, it is entirely possible the answer was genuine and not composed with an eye on promoting the book. To give another example, a politician may hold a press conference to celebrate the inauguration of well idk some stupid flowerpot and a journalist may press him with an inconvenient question about some ongoing investigation of corruption charges against him. If he answered that question, would it still be made with the intent of promoting the flowerpot? No.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
70後
Hall of Fame
Haven't you heard politicians and high officials give interviews? If they know what they are doing, they will simply give the answer they want to give, that they want people to hear, regardless of what is being asked. You can ask them about their corruption charges, they will STILL turn it into an answer about the flowerpot, as if you hadn't asked at all. A politician or high official type who gets nailed down by actually answering the question, isn't a politician or high official at all.
Ultimately, McEnroe wants his own talk show. A tennis Letterman or Leno. This shouldn't be a question since he did have one, it failed totally. So he keeps gaming with these talkshow types to get himself on the circuit. And his playing shrink with Becker should tell you something about this guy. Nothing but self promotion after self promotion.
Why would somebody like this with years in the media get caught unguarded by some reporter?
70後
Hall of Fame
His answer of itself is not dubious. But what was his intent. That is where we are back to.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
70後
Hall of Fame
His intent does matter since his answer was made, in this case, within his interview about his book. So it is part of his interview and can't be separated from the whole of it.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
As far as I can tell, the over-reaction to this interview is both good for McEnroe's book sales and good for the general Serena hype machine. It's obvious that McEnroe believes the answer he gave was honest, and to be honest, I doubt he expected anything like this level of reaction, but I doubt his publisher is complaining.
On the other hand, those who are quick to judge him as being motivated by commercial interests, can I remind you that it's Nike who have been pushing Serena as the 'greatest' and she has been happily participating in promotion of herself in that light. She isn't doing that to get better at tennis, she's doing it because it's good for business. No-one would have thought to ask McEnroe the question if there hadn't been all of that recent hype about her, so IMO they are both equally to 'blame', although from a commercial point of view, they're both raking it in, and we're a bunch of mugs for falling for it.
On the other hand, those who are quick to judge him as being motivated by commercial interests, can I remind you that it's Nike who have been pushing Serena as the 'greatest' and she has been happily participating in promotion of herself in that light. She isn't doing that to get better at tennis, she's doing it because it's good for business. No-one would have thought to ask McEnroe the question if there hadn't been all of that recent hype about her, so IMO they are both equally to 'blame', although from a commercial point of view, they're both raking it in, and we're a bunch of mugs for falling for it.
70後
Hall of Fame
It doesn't negate the answer, which of itself is true. Never said it wasn't. What you are really against as you earlier made clear in post 875 was that something that is factually correct should not be prevented from being said (for its sake) just because "some" people may find it impolite, in this you and I are in agreement. So it does matter why McEnroe said it if this was not the intention.
Reason for the reporter to ask it was because it was McEnroe who talked about Serena in his book. Amongst other things. He has a go at people currently more important and famous than himself. This isn't of course limited to Serena.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lliams-meltdowns-Wimbledon.html#ixzz4kl0mnZfG
(another dm book promotion again)
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
No, still don't follow why it matters. Your emphasis (for its sake) is your own. I make no distinction. Even if somebody states something factually correct with some 'agenda', it doesn't change the fact itself and the rebuttal can only be on such grounds as he was being selective with the facts by not stating other facts that would have negated his argument, not on the grounds that his intent was malafide and therefore disqualifies his answer even if it was true. That in fact is the exact thing I am not comfortable with because it is possible in this way to carry out a witch hunt against people. I am seeing this live in my country where even if my former Prime Minister says something accurate, based on his sound judgment as an economist, it is trashed just because HE said it (and he carries the baggage of having presided over a corrupt regime). This means shutting one's eyes and ears to valuable insights (and thus helping the ruling party decimate the former PM's party and further their own agenda with all its flaws). So even though Mac himself doesn't need much if any 'protection', I reject this line of attack on principle. Even if he was saying it to excite the airwaves, the only question that ought to concern us is why did people get worked up about essentially nothing.
70後
Hall of Fame
But I personally haven't disqualified his answer at all. Simply why he made it, and that although true is also quite irrelevant. Not trashing McEnroe here for his tennis commentary actually, ONLY his trashy self promotion, which is different from trashing the PM's judgement as an economist just because the PM said it. Whether the PM's economic judgement as an economist is sound or not has to be heard on those grounds, him speaking as an economist, what McEnroe said in that interview has to be heard as him speaking as a self promoter.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
In point of fact, the former PM made the statement in the Upper House of Parliament. And just as our people therefore found it difficult to make a distinction between the PM as economist and the PM as a politician, you are finding it hard to distinguish Mac as tennis player/expert and Mac as self promoter. Since his answer passes muster in the former category, it doesn't matter that Mac said it in an interview to promote his book. Disqualifying his intent tantamounts to disqualifying his answer. You earlier said since the interview was intended to promote the book, every answer was as well; so you are essentially disqualifying his answers by disqualifying his intent. That's what I am saying. It doesn't matter at all that he was trying to promote his book when there is nothing wrong with the answer in question.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
If economic theory and practice supports his statement referring to the economy, it does not matter what hat he was hearing. Sorry, I completely part ways on this. In fact, this game of trying to guess people's motives and thereby paint them as devils is what has completely broken faith in democracy. Politicians have a field day polarising people. But if the people are gullible enough to fall for it, more fool them. I am interested first and foremost in what is said. Who said it and why he said it not only comes later but is much less relevant. Even more so when it only pertains to an observation about tennis.
70後
Hall of Fame
If McEnroe is testifying as a tennis expert, I will take that as expert testimony. That isn't the hat he is wearing atm, I don't have any difficulty distinguishing between that at all. All his answers could be factually true in of themselves, I am saying that this one is true and completely irrelevant. I am not disqualifying his intent if I am categorising it. I don't see either how disqualifying his intent means disqualifying his answer since I separated these two already.
70後
Hall of Fame
If theory practice and reason supports the PM's statement, then he is obviously speaking as an economist. He is not saying something which is true but totally irrelevant. But tennis practice doesn't support what McEnroe said since although it is true enough, it is completely meaningless too because the leagues are divided and men and women do not compete against each other.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Well, you may say you aren't but that's how it comes across when you only criticise McEnroe for trying to push his book and omit to mention, without being prompted to, that what he said is valid as such. And even if you did state that, once you have criticised his intent, it taints his opinion as well in the eyes of anyone who reads it. There is no testimony here. It is just an observation. Even if a rank nobody made it, the observation would still be valid. Of course, people would call his judgment into question but those who follow tennis seriously would point out that he is not off the mark.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Doesn't matter when the question itself was hypothetical. This the interviewer should have known and understood that her question is dumb. Mac did the best justice he could have to a dumb question. As a former pro, he has seen enough to judge where the ATP and WTA players stand vis-a-vis each other. Even if he can only guess, it's not a bad guess per se.
70後
Hall of Fame
I did not omit to mention that what he is saying is true, as such, I think I already said it several times before and in this thread. It is the obvious, men will win, Serena can't beat the men etc. Not about prompting. Nobody asked me, well do you think Serena will be ranked 700 or not or something like that. Whether his opinion is tainted or not in anybody's eyes isn't anything I have any interest in, that is a stretch and none of my business.
A rank nobody is not promoting his rank nobody book now, or is he?
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
70後
Hall of Fame
All the interviewer asked was, why qualify it, why say female player? Obviously it is because she only plays in the womens league. The educated guess work here is 700. No doubt correct. But the interviewer didn't ask him to guess a ranking if Serena played mens circuit.
What that comes across is it is as if Serena thought she could play the mens circuit and said so, which she didn't. Do not bring up Braasch since that is not the subject of McEnroe's interview and that is a prediction already proved false. Serena has made her position clear on this subject.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Doesn't make it a non valid answer to the question of why not best player when (arguably) her only competition in that regard is the men and not other women. Anyway, Serena is not so innocent and as Sparkle pointed out has been involved in a big campaign with Nike. Once when asked what she thought when she was called one of the greatest female ATHLETES, she said she would prefer one of the greatest athletes instead. Really? On what basis? As long as tennis competition is gender segregated, there is nothing unfair about adding the female prefix to such epithets contrary to Serena's position. You could say that perhaps Mac indirectly addressed this aspect and I don't think he was wrong to. It's a shame that he has backtracked because somebody needed to say it.
70後
Hall of Fame
I don't feel the need. I would prefer not to. The PM said something which is true and relevant and therefore what he said of itself has to be heard on those grounds. McEnroe said something which is true and irrelevant to tennis, only to his self promotion.
70後
Hall of Fame
It is wrong to say that arguably Serena's only competition is men. Serena has has 20 years of tough competition to overcome. For one thing, she was out-competed last year by Kerber. So that statement is already invalid. If she has no competition, that means there was no woman to compete with her, she would never have lost a match, or a set, or a game, or a point. Since she did compete and lose, there is competition.
Well it looks like Serena was just neutralising the gender there. She is one of the greatest athletes since all athletes greatest and not greatest include all men athletes and women athletes and she is just one of them.
Unless women athletes are not great just because they are women.
70後
Hall of Fame
How can an answer be valid to a question that wasn't asked?
The examiner asks you one thing in an exam, your answer is true of itself but about something else entirely.
A truthful, but non valid answer.
Thundergod
Hall of Fame
This is where you mistaken. The answer is not obvious since the interviewer and a surprising amount of people actually think that Serena can compete well against the men. Mac wanted to quantify how far off that line of thinking is and brought up a number to easily get the point across of how far away she is from competing with the men.
Some diplomatic answer like saying the ATP and WTA are like apples and oranges tells no one anything since people compare Serena to the ATP like apples and apples instead.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Nope and again you are misinterpreting what I said. In terms of level over an entire career, no current WTA pro rivals Serena. It's only the men. And she cannot insist on a gender neutral description as long as she plays in a gender segregated sport. Mac's point is absolutely valid on that count. If she thinks it is somehow discriminatory to be called greatest female, then she has to play in mixed-gender singles (which doesn't exist) to prove this. I am not saying it would be wrong to call her one of the greatest tennis players/athletes since that is also true. But neither is "one of the greatest female tennis players/athletes" sexist and she really needed/needs to be called out on that.
every7
Hall of Fame
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
Lol @ Murray remark. True!
RE: Mcenroe - he seems to say he thinks he could beat Serena every 2-3 years. I'm starting to think he does it promotionally. It would make more sense than him actually believing it. Here is an example of him saying it in HD in 2015:
Mac probably would like to play her, and get the kind of attention that kind of match would bring. But it sounds like he would want some big money for it, judging by his comments on Kimmel. I'm not personally thrilled with the idea of the match, although I would watch it, don't get me wrong. It just wouldn't prove anything. It would be good for tennis, surely. Anything that puts the spotlight on tennis in the US would have to be a good thing.
I'm in the minority apparently, because I think Serena would win, and I say that as a big Mac fan. I don't think he's consistent enough, I think he would make some mistakes that would cost him. I watch him on the Powershares tour, and it looks to me like his game has fallen off a lot just in the past year or two. I think the match would be a good one though, he could win if he serves really well.
I'm in the minority apparently, because I think Serena would win, and I say that as a big Mac fan. I don't think he's consistent enough, I think he would make some mistakes that would cost him. I watch him on the Powershares tour, and it looks to me like his game has fallen off a lot just in the past year or two. I think the match would be a good one though, he could win if he serves really well.
Nadalgaenger
G.O.A.T.
Surprised to see Mac leading the poll by such a large margin.
I really wish they would just make this happen. Maybe in a year or so. It would be an awesome Christmas time event. They could play an Expo in MSG or perhaps an even larger venue. They could donate 100% of the money to charity.
It would be good for tennis in the United States for sure, where the sport is just not given its due anymore.
I really wish they would just make this happen. Maybe in a year or so. It would be an awesome Christmas time event. They could play an Expo in MSG or perhaps an even larger venue. They could donate 100% of the money to charity.
It would be good for tennis in the United States for sure, where the sport is just not given its due anymore.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Translation: phantom backgrounds designed to create a defense against criticism or the need to support claims. You have consistently failed to counter by producing something as available as historical references.
i laugh at your constant misuse of the word logic, particularly when you present false equivalencies. Again, prize money differences never altered or created an official or public value separation of the achievement. No one ever said Graf's Grand Slam was of lesser value compared to males who also captured that greatest of all tennis achievements. It was never said or implied, despite the prize money differences in 1988. There was no official statement or treatment of Court's Grand Slam being of lesser value than Laver's, as it was always considered the same achievement of players who met the same standard: winning the same four majors in the calendar year.
Tap dance around that as much as you like, but history is not supporting your attempt to (in the grand scheme of things) stand on the crumbling side of an aged male (McEnroe) fearing his "side" lost, and with no successors to support who have even an ounce of Federer or Nadal's skill at the majors, it means Serena is and always will be the greatest player of the 21st century's three tennis generations up to this date, and for some time in the future. As a result, his male irrelevancy crisis has reached the overload point, leading to his rather gross, public act of self-destructive misogyny.
Translation: You cannot support your position with evidence (as expected), and wish anyone reading this to accept your rambling as fact, but I'm sure you will continue to flame, since that's the m most consistent element of your posts.
C
Chadillac
Guest
It wouldnt be close. 6-2 if mac misses some shots
My gut says Serena wins, but I do think it's entirely possible Mac serves her off the court.
C
Chadillac
Guest
What level do you play at? Id say 4.0 and below would think serena would have a shot.
Instead of insulting me, why don't you say why you think Mac would win? Mind you, I picked Serena as a big Mac fan who saw nothing whatsoever wrong with what he said. Nor do I think that this match would prove anything whatsoever. I'm not even sure I would say Serena is the greatest female player of all time.
The reason I picked Serena is because Mac is 58 years old. I watch him play Powershares and to my eyes, his game has fallen off a lot in recent years. He is very inconsistent, and he gets gassed easily. Also he's lost a lot of mobility. The main thing that still keeps him in matches is his serve. Billie Jean King beat Bobbie Riggs (who was younger than Mac is now). Mac is better than Riggs, but that shows that a female player can beat an old male player past his prime.
Why do you think Mac would win? Is it simply a matter of him overpowering her because she's a girl? Mac isn't exactly known for his power game.
I'm not saying there is no way he could win, it could go either way. But given a guess, I'll guess Serena.
