Wimbledon and Bias

With certain posters on this board though, any bias (real or not) against a black person means that something racist is involved.

WIMBLEDON, England (AP)—Serena Williams is expected to fill in for an injured Justine Henin and play against Kim Clijsters in an exhibition match at a 40,000-seat stadium in Brussels next week.

Organizers have been hoping to break the record for highest attendance at a tennis match—the 30,492 at the 1973 “Battle of the Sexes” between Billie Jean King and Bobby Riggs at the Houston Astrodome.

Henin pulled out of next Thursday’s match against Belgian rival Clijsters after injuring her right elbow at Wimbledon.

Asked Friday by a Belgian journalist at Wimbledon whether she’ll be in Belgium next week, Williams replied, “Yeah, I think I’ll come if you guys want me to.”

I think there's an unfortunate tendency not to give black athletes credit for being strategists, but rather to attribute everything to some kind of accidental freak brute force.

snood wrote:

I think there's an unfortunate tendency not to give black athletes credit for being strategists, but rather to attribute everything to some kind of accidental freak brute force.

I'm way late to this...but

a. What's wrong with athleticism?

b. Why (if this is what yopu are doing) do you equate it to freak brute force?

Sure, there's some genetic component to athleticism, I suppose...but I don't see it as meaning innate freak thing...I see athleticism as including massive amounts of practice and fitness to make it useful.

Sharapova's points are displays of her "ability" and "talent" and "skill", but Serena's are "physicality" and "athleticism".

Snood wrote:

Sharapova's points are displays of her "ability" and "talent" and "skill", but Serena's are "physicality" and "athleticism".

I would agree with you if the Williams Sisters and their Wimbledon competition were like two black pebbles among otherwise identical white pebbles. But they're not. When you compare the players' physiques, you will find that the Williams Sisters stand out. They stand out because they are much more muscular, serve much faster, and are, just in general, much more athletic than their competition. It isn't racism for reporters to observe that. Even if they make that the only thread in their storyline, that makes them lazy, but still not racist.

In all friendship, I still think you're a bit too attached to the role of being racially persecuted. I believe I said something like that to you years ago, early in Sozobe's Obama thread, when you said Obama didn't have a chance, I said you were wrong and that he did, and you suggested that I was being polyannish about American racism. Two years on, with Obama firmly in office, your attachment to the role seems to stand essentially unchanged.

"In all friendship" Thomas, we're not friends, and never have been.

Snood wrote:

Sharapova's points are displays of her "ability" and "talent" and "skill", but Serena's are "physicality" and "athleticism".

I would agree with you if the Williams Sisters and their Wimbledon competition were like two black pebbles among otherwise identical white pebbles. But they're not. When you compare the players' physiques, you will find that the Williams Sisters stand out. They stand out because they are much more muscular, serve much faster, and are, just in general, much more athletic than their competition. It isn't racism for reporters to observe that. Even if they make that the only thread in their storyline, that makes them lazy, but still not racist.

BRUSSELS -- A world record tennis crowd has watched Kim Clijsters defeat Wimbledon champion Serena Williams 6-3, 6-2 in an exhibition in Brussels.

The crowd of 35,681 at King Baudouin Stadium on Thursday surpassed the previous record of 30,472 set in 1973 at the Houston Astrodome in the Battle of the Sexes match between Billie Jean King and Bobby Riggs.

Clijsters was originally scheduled to play Belgian Justine Henin, but Henin withdrew after injuring her elbow at Wimbledon. Top-ranked Williams agreed to replace Henin despite a foot injury.

Read more: http://www.thesunnews.com/2010/07/08/1576966/world-record-crowd-watches-clijsters.html?storylink=mirelated#ixzz0tTBCfARG

Serena has the most fearsome serve -- i.e. the most important stroke -- in women's tennis history, and it would be the case even if everyone used the same technology. (She uses natural gut strings by the way.) She is the best athlete in women's tennis history, likely the fastest and the strongest. And she competes as well as any athlete -- not tennis player; athlete -- you'll ever come across.

But here's where I really feel strongly: Head-to-head, on a neutral surface (i.e. hard courts), everyone at their best, I can't help feeling that she crushes the other legends. Sacrilege, I know. But spark up of video of other players, watch where their balls land in the court or how hard they serve or how they move and then consider Serena's game. She would blow through Evert. She wouldn't allow Navratilova (who looks like a pixie next to Serena) a chance to attack. She would tee off on Graf's slice. Again, this isn't to disrespect the others; it's progress. But I think it counts for a lot that no one has ever played tennis at a higher level than Serena has. (It's the same reason, incidentally, that I was early to pronounce Federer the male GOAT. You just know watching him that no one has played better tennis qualitatively and surely that has to count for something.)

The big knock on Serena is her wavering commitment and sparse schedule. But that, too, needs to be reassessed. At a time when tennis has never been a) more physical and b) more global, it's not realistic to expect her to play 18 events a year. And considering the fate of her contemporaries (leaving aside the one who was hospitalized for an OD, we've had retirements, unretirements, burnouts and fast fades), Serena's approach to scheduling and "outside interests" made a lot of sense in retrospect.

Just out of interest, did you just see that bias at Wimbledon, and were they English or US commentators that you listened to?

"In all friendship" Thomas, we're not friends, and never have been. But you're certainly entitled to your opinion of me and the "role" I'm "clinging" to (even in spite of a black president for two years, imagine!!). We're even. The opinion I've gotten from reading your posts over time is also unflattering.

...and just for the record...
At the time I was thoroughly convinced that Obama didn't have a chance, and that his race was going to be a disability at the polls, every black person I knew (how many do you know?) were very dubious about his chances. they came around after Iowa - as did I.

rejecting what white people had to say about Obama's chances.

most of us white people who'd lived in America our entire lives

Quote:

rejecting what white people had to say about Obama's chances.

What white people?
The way I remember the situation, speaking with my mostly white friends and family in all facets of my life, there was a lot of hope, but also quite a lot of trepidation at the thought that we might be sacrificing the election by having nominated Obama, because although we all believed he was the best candidate, most of us white people who'd lived in America our entire lives didn't dare believe that the time had yet arrived when a black man could be elected. I know there were HUGE celebrations and a lot of tears of happiness, precisely because it DID seem so miraculous that the time had really arrived.

I don't remember any white people thinking this was any sort of sure thing or slam dunk. I know I kept vacillating back and forth wondering whether I should vote for Hilary, although I wanted Obama, because I truly thought Hilary had the better chance of winning the election and I didn't want McCain.