I am already so tired of people saying that Roger Federer has won more Grand Slam tennis titles than anyone else. That he is, statistically, undoubtably the greatest tennis player of all time, with 15 major titles, and one of only six players to complete a career 'Grand Slam' by winning all four Grand Slam titles - Wimbledon, the US Open, the Australian Open and the French Open.
Roger Federer has NOT won more Grand Slam titles than any other player, just any other MALE player. Martina Navratilova won 18, plus another 31 major doubles titles. Margaret Court won 24 Grand Slam singles titles, 19 women's doubles titles and 19 mixed doubles titles, for a total of 62 Grand Slam titles!
Why is women's tennis so readily forgotten? There is no doubt that Federer is one of the greats, but in my eyes, Court and Navratilova should be considered on the same level, if not even greater because they both so successfully played doubles at the same time. Navratilova even won the women's singles, women's doubles AND mixed doubles titles at the 1987 US open, all at the same time.
And many women have not only equalled Federer's Career Grand Slam (winning all four titles), but have done one better. Steffi Graf won all four plus an Olympic gold medal. Navratilova won all four in singles, doubles AND mixed doubles. And several female players have won all four in the same year in the past.
There has been progress in Tennis - at least women's champions now earn the same prize money as men's champions at a Grand Slam - but clearly many people still see men's tennis as superior to women's tennis. And I'm tired of female athletes not having their dues.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The Greatest Tennis Player Ever?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14775
The only way to settle this is to have Roger Federer play the Top Woman.
I wouldn't bet against Roger.
And of course it should be over 5 sets.
That won't help me. I say Rod Laver was the greatest. He won 11 majors, but wasn't allowed to play in them for 4 years in his prime because he went professional before most other players.
Interestingly wikipedia notes that Navratilova won 177 titles and says that this is a record for men and women but also indicates that Laver won 198 titles. Go figure.
I see it the same way as smiley said it. It is a bit like complaining if someone says "Usain Bolt is the fastest human". He is and Federer probably is the best tennis player....no doubt about it.
There has got to be a way to actually calculate who would be better. Someone who is an expert in tennis would know what stats matter most: probably speed of serve/volley/etc, errors/faults (is that what you call them?), average deviation from "normal/mean" performance (who is more likely to have a "bad day"), stuff like that.
Fantasy baseball fanatics do this all the time and it's usually pretty concise.
While there is no way to know for sure I am certain that some kind of reasonable system of measurement could be arrived at.
There's a big difference between giving athletes their dues and crowning people the "best ever". Roger Federer is, no doubt about it, the best tennis player in the world right now. He plays against tougher competition, he has an astounding career, and his wins come in five-set matches where he needs to win at least as many sets as women play IN TOTAL.
The differences in serve speed, lateral movement, power, and game duration make male and female tennis very, very different, with male tennis being specifically more demanding. If you put Federer up against any of the top women on the planet in tennis he would not only win, he'd win decisively.
Is Michael Jordan not the best basketball player ever? Does that do anything to deride the UConn womens' team's accomplishment this year?
You're straying into off the wall territory when you start comparing things like this. There are real biological differences in people that we have to take into account when comparing peak athletes.
And in regard to your Steffi Graff example, Federer also has the Grand Slam plus a gold medal (2008 for Switzerland for Doubles).
Minor quibble: Jordan's record wouldn't be so great if the stripes actually enforced traveling penalties.
I blame David Stern.
Reminds me of what was said when Billy beat Bobby. You sound very insecure. Talk of athletics and women always brings up the desperation and fear in people, particularly men.
Come on, Riggs was two decades past his prime then.
That's a completely silly comparison.
Yeah, you got me. I fielded a question of athletic skill and all of a sudden I'm desperate and fearful.
The Billy-Bobby comparison is a good one, given that Riggs previously beat Margaret Court decisively, besting the #1 woman in the world when he was 55 years old and out of tennis for a while.
If Riggs beat Court at 55 what would Federer do in his prime against Venus or Serena or Dinara Safina?
You didn't address a single thing in my post, nor could you even cite a line that sounded fearful or insecure. Taking potshots like that is not a good way to make your point.
I enjoy talking tennis. What I don't enjoy is someone going borderline ad hominem on me for whatever reason.
I still think Martina Navratilova is the best tennis player of all time. That's my opinion. And that's what is so annoying about everybody who's been talking about Federer as "the greatest". They state that as if it's a fact. There's no quantifiable amount of "greatness", it's subjective. Nor is it a fact that women's tennis is less demanding. Yes, the men hit the ball harder and faster. But it's easier for them to do so because they naturally have more upper body strength, so the women may be working just as hard.
Yes the women play 3 sets. But, many of the female players have said they would happily play 5 sets in Grand Slam matches, but that's not going to happen because of the chauvinism in tennis as a whole. But, I think winning the singles, doubles AND mixed doubles in the same grand slam is more than equivalent. That's 63 sets, versus the 35 which is the maximum a men's singles player would play in a Grand Slam, assuming he doesn't play doubles. And personally I think the Williams sisters would have a decent shot at beating some of the top-10 men's players.
But all that is not really relevant. What annoys me most is that so many people are getting the basic information wrong and claiming that Federer has won more titles than any other player. That just completely ignores the facts, and dismisses an entire gender. That I do NOT agree with.
But what criteria are you using to define "best"? If "best" means accomplishments within one's sport then sure, there are women with more trophies than Federer, but that's not necessarily going to make someone the best ever. If by best we mean the all-time best tennis player, the guy or gal who would win the most matches against any other guy or gal, then you really have to take into account that the physical differences and rules differences make men's and women's tennis very different sports.
The singles and doubles argument doesn't completely pass muster, though, because though the set total is higher the match length is shorter, and there are breaks between matches. A five set match is more of an endurance competition than a three set match is. There's a big difference in sustaining competition over five sets.
I agree that the Williams' could stand a shot at beating some folks in or near the top ten, and they're excellent players, some of the best in the world, because of their power serves and shots, but it'd be very, very difficult for them, and I sincerely doubt they'd come close against folks like Federer and Nadal. It wouldn't be a real competition there.
I hate when announcers get their facts wrong, too, and I certainly don't agree with dismissing the accomplishments within women's tennis by acting like Federer has more titles than ANYONE, but that's not the same as arguing who the best player is.
Federer's the best player in the world, and Nadal's a close second. Doesn't mean I don't want to watch women's tennis, because it's still really, really good, but that's a separate argument.
"Greatness" is subjective, but if we define "best" as the ability to beat anyone else more often than not it's really not fair to compare women's and men's tennis. There's a reason the sports are separated to begin with.
Ok, ignore the fact that I obviously chose a poor title. What annoys me is that during the BBC's Wimbledon broadcasts, on the news, and in the newspapers, when they talk about "the greats" in the history of tennis, they don't mention any women. And regardless of the differences between the men's and women's game, I think it's a shame that people forget the great female players.
The BBC news did get it right. They pointed out that Federer's record was winning more Grand Slams than any other man, and that there are women who have won more. I think that's all it takes, you know? If you're going to list the 'great' tennis players, you should include men AND women. Otherwise, just talk about the great players of the men's game, or of the women's game.
What has made me more angry is that when I have commented on newspaper articles which have got thier facts wrong (i.e. stated that Federer has won more than any other player, or that he is "one of only 6 players ever" to complete a career Grand Slam, I've been met with all sorts of ridiculously chauvinistic comments, by people who clearly think the women's game is inferior.
Women's tennis is very different, and maybe the top women's players couldn't beat the top men's, like you say, that is why they are separated in the first place. But I dont think it follows that the women's game is inferior. Different is not always bad.
Anyway I'll shut up about it now.
Top 10?
------------------------------------------------
How to... beat both Williams sisters in one afternoon
Karsten Braasch is the German tennis player who did just that in 1998
It was the 1998 Australian Open and the Williams sisters, Venus and Serena, had seen some of the male players practising. On the basis of what they saw, they were convinced that they could beat a man ranked around 200 in the world and wanted to set up a game. At the time I was ranked 203 so the men's tour manager mentioned the possibility of a challenge to me, thinking that I was the perfect candidate. I didn't take much persuading, it seemed like a fun thing to do.
[..]
In the end I won my game against Serena 6-1 but by the time we were at the net shaking hands, Venus was on court, ready to have a go against me as well. The game against Venus was very similar. I ended up winning 6-2.
Both sisters are great tennis players and hit the ball extremely well. However, if you've been playing on the men's tour there are certain shots you can play that are going to put them in difficulty. Try and put a lot spin on the ball - I was hitting the ball with a degree of spin they don't face week-in, week-out. Another key is to chase down every shot. In our match, they were putting shots into the corners that on the women's tour would be winners but I was able to return them.
In the end I won, but neither myself, nor Venus or Serena took the game too seriously - we were just having a bit of fun.
Apparently, after the game, Serena and Venus immediately told the press they wanted to challenge a male player again. This time they revised the ranking of the man they wanted to face, to 350 in the world. I informed the journalist who told me this that in the next week I was set to lose a lot of ATP points and drop down to 350 in the rankings. I told him that if Venus and Serena waited just one week they could challenge me all over again!
That never came about, but when I saw Venus a few months later at the French Open she came up to me with a big smile on her face and said, 'You know that thing in Australia - it never happened!'
from here -> http://observer.guardian.co.uk/osm/story/0,,543962,00.html
Oh more infos from Wiki:
Braasch competed in a 'Battle of the Sexes' contest against Venus Williams and Serena Williams at the 1998 Australian Open when he was ranked 203. A decade and a half older than the sisters, Braasch "was a man whose training regime centred around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple bottles of ice cold lager."[1] He nonetheless handily defeated the sisters in an individual set, 6–1 on Serena, 6–2 on Venus, while rubbing it in by smoking cigarettes during the changeover.[2][3]
from here -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karsten_Braasch
"Yes the women play 3 sets. But, many of the female players have said they would happily play 5 sets in Grand Slam matches, but that's not going to happen because of the chauvinism in tennis as a whole."
Not true. The Australian Open has tried to introduce 5 sets for women on more than one occasion, the first in 1994 I believe. At the time Geoff Pollard, the president of Tennis Australia, said, 'Given the athleticism and professionalism of the elite women players today, the time is right.' At the time, and the second time they tried to introduce it, it was the players themselves who rebelled. The organisers wanted 5 sets, at least for the final, but the players themselves refused to play. Graff in particular was very vocal.
Meh.
How did you come up with this idea that the best is the one who can beat more people, period? Sports are divided in cathegories for a reason, and these "(insert male player here) could beat (insert female player here) anytime, so he's the best" little arguments are so productive as discussing if Wolverine could beat Godzilla. It's not gonna happen in a serious competition.
It's all done in a way that implies that women's competitions aren't as important. "Sure, that female player won more titles than anyone, BUT SHE COULDN'T BEAT A MALE SO SHE CAN'T BE THE BEST, OK?". And, by this logic, no woman can ever be the best in any sport, no matter how good she is, because of innate biological differences.
It's just telling that men are intrinsecaly better than women. It's telling that what a woman accomplishes hasn't the same value of what is accomplished by a man. And this, my fellows, is the old, sick, twisted logic that's the reason for the existence of Feminism.
Now flame me and post Wikipedia links at will. =D
To Tenko Kitsune - I agree with most of the things you say in your comment, however I would take issue with the phrase 'innate biological differences'. I want to express a couple of points here but don't wish you to think this is a personal attack.
It's a bit problematic to sat that women are "naturally" smaller/weaker/etc than men.
Firstly there is a significant overlap between men and women of the absolute numbers in terms of height, weight and so on. And I don't always agree that those numbers are the be all and end all of "strength" measurements anyway.
Secondly, bodies are socially constructed. Sports are socially constructed. The upbringing, training in childhood, all sorts of things about a girl's early life might contribute to her "strength" and also her experiences in sport. Girls are often told that sports are for boys, even with a female-acceptable sport such as tennis. This might have all sorts of influences on them, like not playing/training so often, feeling inferior, not being confident of their abilities, and this has an effect on their playing skills, strength, etc.
Social factors and the constructions of gender affect "strength" so much that we simply cannot know whether a man is stronger than a woman, because gender differentiation in socialisation have such an effect from a young age on the abilities of boys and girls. Most sports science studies are short term and could not measure the long term (ie. lifetime) impacts of socialisation v. equal training of a woman compared to a man. We simply cannot know what is biological and what is social. Therefore the best thing is to avoid all essentialist phrases like "innate biology".
Only when boys and girls are brought up the same, with no "gender appropriate" nonsense and socialisation, will there be any chance of even measuring the gender difference in strength of physical male and female bodies. And who cares anyway? Any battle of the sexes is only as good as the capabilities two sports people you choose to compete against each other. OK, so our societies divide sports competitions into men's and women's. The only other main division is by age. The best thing to do is support all sports people and give everyone support and inclusiveness in their choice of physical activities.
(I'm a doctoral researcher in gender and physical education)
I work out a lot. I'm lean and muscular. Yet, my sedentary male workmates who spend all their free time playing videogames are still stronger than me.
Please explain how this is socially constructed.
What exactly do you mean by strength, out of curiosity? Based on your comment, I don't think anyone could say whether the difference in strength between you and your male coworkers is due to "innate gender differences" or some other physical but not necessarily sex-based factor(s).
I mean, I've known *other women* who were much less active than me but also a head taller and fifty or sixty pounds heavier, and maybe I could lift more than them, but they could have knocked me on my ass easily - or done the same to a guy my height and weight. Who would you call "stronger" in that situation?
Testosterone has anabolica like effects, that is why it is used for doping as well. Apparently nature is a sexist.
Not quite true. Men's competitions are usually open (i.e. women can compete if they wish), I can think of women players who have played in the NBA, and a woman competing recently in a men's professional golfing tournament. Women's competitions are exclusive though - men are not allowed to compete.
Plus there are sports where men and women do compete against each other: a woman was runner up in the WRC (Michelle Moulon for Audi (I think in '79 from memory) Kleindschmidt won the Paris-Dakkar Rally, supposedly the toughest motor race on Earth. There have been women world champions in Long distance swimming, and freediving. Equestrian events at the Olympics often have female champions.
The thing about sport is that it is a biological competition. Men and women do have, on average and at the highest level physical biological differences that in most cases gives men the edge in most popular sports. That isn't always the case, women's biology gives them advantages in long distance swimming for instance.
I don't say women only events aren't valuable nor that we shouldn't laud the victors but to suggest that the victors in restricted entry events are greater players than those who compete in truly open competitions of the same type doesn't sit well with me.
Tenko,
In one-on-one sports, a direct confrontation does say who is the best. Unlike for example team sports (he or she might be great but the teammates might be only average).
I am not surprised if a sport which lays great emphasis on power and muscle will have men 'at the top'. Only the tail-end of the distribution will provide Olympians, and the tail-ends of overlapping men/women distributions will include more men. Therefore the fastest sprinters will tend to be men. Weightlifters too. Etc.
Now, why women-only competitions? I suspect if the competitions were merged, to become 'open' (no restrictions based on sex), then men would monopolise the top places. Women would not show up on the radar - I'm wondering if that would help women competitors? Probably not. Certainly, very few women would survive the first rounds of Wimbledon, for example, and the average income of women tennis players would plummet. And that of men will increase.
Maybe *that* is the reason '[mixed competitions] will not happen', and not any perceived mysoginy.
Tenko,
In one-on-one sports, a direct confrontation does say who is the best. Unlike for example team sports (he or she might be great but the teammates might be only average).
I am not surprised if a sport which lays great emphasis on power and muscle will have men 'at the top'. Only the tail-end of the distribution will provide Olympians, and the tail-ends of overlapping men/women distributions will include more men. Therefore the fastest sprinters will tend to be men. Weightlifters too. Etc.
Now, why women-only competitions? I suspect if the competitions were merged, to become 'open' (no restrictions based on sex), then men would monopolise the top places. Women would not show up on the radar - I'm wondering if that would help women competitors? Probably not. Certainly, very few women would survive the first rounds of Wimbledon, for example, and the average income of women tennis players would plummet. And that of men will increase.
Maybe *that* is the reason '[mixed competitions] will not happen', and not any perceived mysoginy.
As Smiley has stated, in single player sports the best player is considered to be the player who could beat anyone else in a head to head competition. The best player is the player with the highest degree of ability in the sport, he or she who could win every competition they participated in.
Therefore if player x can beat player y on a consistent basis player y is not the best player. It's pretty simple.
Now, arguing who has had the best CAREER is very different. But given that men's and women's tennis are different events and therefore players within those sports have their own separate career paths we can compare accomplishments within a limited field of competition.
The natural biological differences between men and women offer different advantages and disadvantages in different sports. Men certainly have a sizable edge in competitions with a component of strength, which is an innate part of a lot of different sports. Test of strength are almost ubiquitous in sports, from hitting a golf ball to serving a tennis ball, to throwing a baseball, etc. Since pro athletes are such a small group they're going to be selected from the very tip of any distribution of people, and are going to be judged, in part, based on strength. Since men have natural advantages in adding muscle mass, upper body strength, and are generally bigger than women the upper distribution here is likely to be overwhelmingly male.
This is not true in all sports, however. Gymnastics' biggest component is flexibility, in which women at the edge of the distribution have a clear biological advantage. Several other sports, like long-distance swimming, favor female biology.
This shouldn't be surprising. Most sports were created for men and by men, with women being an afterthought. It's no shock that they cater to male biological advantages, as part of the psychology of sport is using artificial competition as a sort of preening and performing in a society where demonstrations of power and athletic prowess were reduced or eliminated by the formation of agriculture and society.
This doesn't mean women are bad, it just means that women happen to be disadvantaged in systems that were created for and by men, something feminism doesn't dispute.
The reason female-only sports exist is to give women the opportunity to perform in sports without competition against men, who are usually advantaged in regard to sport, at least on a very general level.
Mixed competitions are fine for fun, but on any higher level they'll overwhelmingly favor men, because the sports were created to favor male athletic prowess.
What you and smiley said is quite obvious, isn't it?
First, just tell me WHERE I'm advocating for mixed competitions. I believe I just said they would be completely pointless. I don't know what could I have written that lead to such a misunderstood.
And I still disagree with you guys. Sorry, valuing brute strenght over skill adquired by training doesn't sit well with me. Males being, in the average, stronger than women is biological. The ability to hit a ball with a racket is not. It's an adquired skill. I believe the best is the most skilled and not the one who can beat everybody else due to natural advantages. Unfortunately, we live in a culture that values the end result over the effort, which I also think is wrong. From sports to school to work to everything else, what you achieve is more important than how you achieved it.
You may not mean anything bad by your arguments, but these same arguments are being consistently used by sports players, coaches, managers and so to diminish the importance of women in sports. Yes, they were created by males, for males, but would any sport created by a woman, for women, be treated seriously in a society like ours? Do we really have a chance?
It probably would be considered "faggy". You know, just like gymnastics.
It's not brute strength that sport values, rather it is strength that is controlled and applied in a skillful way.
The problem is that skill is only part of what it takes to be good at sports. Are the Williams sisters the most skillful players on the Women's circuit at the moment, probably not, but they are the best players. The objective measure of greatness in sport is results. In cricket sometimes a batsman is said to be good because they have an aesthetically pleasing array of shots, but unless they can maintain concentration they can't be great.
The difficulty in comparing men and women in the same sport with separate competitions for both is that you can't compare their results. Because while women may compete in men's events, the reverse is not true. Their results don't mean the same thing.
Actually one of the popular sports that women are potentially the best at is probably the least "faggy." Women are potentially very good at motor racing. There have been some prominent examples of women who have won at the highest levels (I mentioned some above). I believe the reason we don't see many more women competing in car racing is to do with socialisation. There were, I'm lead to believe, more women in motor racing between the wars than there are now. However, the belief that speed and mechanical aptitude are somehow male domains has had a negative influence.
Why does it have to sit well with you to be the truth? You can have your personal definition of best, but society values the end result, because it's the only objective way to measure stuff.
There are plenty of extremely skillful male and female tennis players who never grace the top 10 because they simply don't have the power game to get there. There are probably a few folks out there better with the racquet that we'll never even see, because the strength and skill aspects of the sport are inextricably linked. A good serve isn't just technically sound, it's also fast.
This ignores, of course, that the skill and an able body are interrelated. A person with one arm may have a beautiful swing for their body type, but it won't be the socially acceptable tennis swing. Ditto if you have bad knees, or a bad back. It's not purely arm strength, or even purely strength. It's partially health and strength in many different muscle groups. What you call skill is too closely tied to strength to be truly distinguishable.
Strength isn't the only thing that's valued, but sport values the manipulation of strength and agility. What you're calling skill is actually, at least partially, strength.
This in no way diminishes female accomplishments. We all strive for our personal best, but we also value the overall best result. Most sports are built to ensure that the overall best result comes from a male. The best female basketball player arguably in history may not be able to play in the NBA, but that alone doesn't devalue her accomplishments. That her brother is a better basketball player doesn't make her a bad basketball player, she just isn't as good as her brother. Only when you demand that we rank accomplishments does anything get diminished, and that's an issue of competitive sport versus pure appreciation of sport.
What devalues things is trying to put those accomplishments in the context of folks for whom the system is in favor of. We don't compare those who are institutionally disadvantaged in any other way, so why ought we do so with sports?
That there are no popular female created sports is simply an issue of sexism that won't disappear overnight. You're not going to be able to take thousands of years of social tradition and destroy them in a generation or two. Even if a sport were created it would be radical and new. And sports have become synonymous with feats of strength to many people, men and women, who expect that of them. A lot of folks might not even consider this theoretical construct to be a sport at all so deeply ingrained are these concept.
So no, you don't really have a chance, and no, that's not fair, but it is the world we live in. Sports are biased towards men, and if we try to create overall lists of greats, instead of separating lists into male and female greats, female accomplishments will be pushed far to the bottom. If we compare careers it's a different thing altogether, but pure player comparisons will favor men in nearly every sport.
I like your post very much. I think you are spot on with many things. Just to answer your question though, the reason it doesn't sit well with me is the concept that 'to be the best you need to compete against the best.' Sport is about testing your limits as a player. The women are entitled to test themselves against the men but the men are not entitled to test themselves against the women. It is a little bit like saying that the top amateur is the best player, if the professionals aren't entitled to test themselves against the amateurs, and the top amateur never challenges them self against the professionals then it is improper to claim the amateur is the better player. The truly open competitions, where all comers can qualify, are those with greatest prestige and the ones that mark their winners as great players.
Oh I agree, my comment wasn't a reply to yours, but rather Tenko's, specifically the part where Tenko said it doesn't sit well to define best as he or she who demonstrates proficiency at the highest level.
And that's a good comparison. There have been great amateur players throughout history, but they're not ever considered the best ever, or even in the running, because they didn't compete on the highest level.
Women can compete in leagues that are dominated by males. So yes, the open competition applies here.
That said, there's a difference between open and fair. Sports in general have been created by and for men, and this maximizes the odds of a winner being male.
Ok, sorry, I thought because you referenced the turn of phrase, it was directed at my comment.
We seem in good agreement.
Out of interest, I can think of two sports that have been designed essentially for women; both team sports though: Netball and Synchronised swimming.
Netball is an attempt to emphasise team work over individual ability. In netball the court is divided up into sections that only certain players on the field are permitted into. The players can't run with the ball or dribble, so passing and player position is paramount. Netball is very big in Australia and New Zealand (it's on free to air TV in Australia) and is played almost exclusively by women. It's the second most populous junior sport in Australia after soccer.
In synchronised swimming the emphasis is on timing, economy and grace of movement as well as lung capacity. Strength and speed are de-emphasised. It too is more popular amongst women than men.
Oh, I wanted to add one thing: you gain strength by training, too. It's partially natural, but training plays a huge aspect at the highest level of sports.
I know some hoops players at my school who are lifting all the time and doing a ton of training to get stronger. Strength is acquired through training, the ceiling is just higher for men due to biology.