Tennis Random, Random (On Court)

[Suliso]

Also one should note that nobody is doing anything to her (not even removing that stadium name). We merely advocate not bestowing even more honor and recognition to her.

[mmmm8]

Regarding Margaret Court: since I'm from former Soviet Union - for a long time I was deprived of wide variety of information, so IDK how her views evolved. The information I had in the past were tennis results and occasionally some short footage. And those results were commanding respect. In tennis you can't hide behind the team or officials (latter is not 100% true, but the friendly officials can impact the result only to limited degree). It is one-on-one and she earned all those wins by herself. I think these results in individual sport cannot be achieved without high mark of personal integrity. Also what I personally resent is a gang mentality when everyone starts targeting certain individual or group in an orchestrated manner. This is in a creepy way resembles how during the worst Stalin times the "enemies of the people" were vilified...

Mick, I'm also from the former Soviet Union. A country that, at its best, strongly opposed Apartheid, which Court supported, for example (talk about targeting a group in an orchestrated manner). Moreover, that country hasn't existed for 30 years, so one's had 30 years to get more context for Margaret Court and the views she espoused while she was at the height of her success and relevance and hasn't really backed down from. Personal integrity really just means being true to one's self. If one's self is a racist homophobe, it doesn't necessarily command the respect of others. When one is so abhorrent and outspoken in their views, criticizing them isn't "targeting," it's legitmate outrage.

[dmforever]

Regarding Margaret Court: since I'm from former Soviet Union - for a long time I was deprived of wide variety of information, so IDK how her views evolved. The information I had in the past were tennis results and occasionally some short footage. And those results were commanding respect. In tennis you can't hide behind the team or officials (latter is not 100% true, but the friendly officials can impact the result only to limited degree). It is one-on-one and she earned all those wins by herself. I think these results in individual sport cannot be achieved without high mark of personal integrity. Also what I personally resent is a gang mentality when everyone starts targeting certain individual or group in an orchestrated manner. This is in a creepy way resembles how during the worst Stalin times the "enemies of the people" were vilified...

You can google her views. It will take you a minute or two. Her views haven't evolved. They have stayed the same. That's kind of the point. I don't think anyone here is saying her tennis creds are lacking. What we are saying is that someone who repeatedly takes highly homophobic positions doesn't deserve to have an arena named after her.

If you want to say that famous people's achievements should not be diminished because of what they say or do outside of their arena (pun intended), that's one thing. I don't agree with that argument, but some people do, and I think it's an interesting discussion.

If you want to say that what she has said doesn't warrant changing the name of the arena, then that's an entirely different argument which I think won't get much support here.

Perhaps I'm misreading your post, and if so, by all means, correct me, but it sounds to me like you're saying she's a person of integrity (by virtue of her tennis achievements) and that she is being unjustly vilified by people, and the state, both of which are ganging up on her "in an orchestrated manner", all of which is creepy and harkens back to Stalin. That basically sounds like you are defending her and what she said. Are you?

Kevin

[ponchi101]

As, I believe, the sole citizen of a dictatorship at the moment, I agree with you, Mick, that "gang mentality" is a terrible thing, and I would not like it applied to anybody.
I am, maybe with you, the sole person that defends Court's record on court. For example, I do not agree that her Aussie Open's are diluted; she won six of those against multiple slams winners somewhere else (and it is a good tennis topic, I believe).
And if somebody were to propose some sort of punishment for Court, I would disagree. Her appalling opinions are hers, and as long as they are not actionable the best course is to ignore her.
But those same statements and opinions make her a very unsavory character. Remember, we were talking hypothetics; nobody is remotely considering a female version of the Laver Cup. Granting her the honor of naming such an event after her would be myopic to the fullest.
I still say The Navratilova Cup. A woman of integrity, that deeply changed tennis. And has always spoken her mind, progressively.

[meganfernandez]

As, I believe, the sole citizen of a dictatorship at the moment, I agree with you, Mick, that "gang mentality" is a terrible thing, and I would not like it applied to anybody.
I am, maybe with you, the sole person that defends Court's record on court. For example, I do not agree that her Aussie Open's are diluted; she won six of those against multiple slams winners somewhere else (and it is a good tennis topic, I believe).
And if somebody were to propose some sort of punishment for Court, I would disagree. Her appalling opinions are hers, and as long as they are not actionable the best course is to ignore her.
But those same statements and opinions make her a very unsavory character. Remember, we were talking hypothetics; nobody is remotely considering a female version of the Laver Cup. Granting her the honor of naming such an event after her would be myopic to the fullest.
I still say The Navratilova Cup. A woman of integrity, that deeply changed tennis. And has always spoken her mind, progressively.

I'm with you on Court's tennis record. Her heinous views don't affect her wins. She won those titles fair and square, as far as I know.

But it makes no sense to confer any honors on her from this point on. I don't think a widely held belief equals gang mentality.

I support removing her name from the Australian Open court. If an arena was named after a staunch racist who was actively and publicly working in that direction, I doubt there would be a question about it.

[Suliso]

Evert cup wouldn't be a horrible choice either. If want to be completely neutral name it after someone dead.

[dmforever]

As, I believe, the sole citizen of a dictatorship at the moment, I agree with you, Mick, that "gang mentality" is a terrible thing, and I would not like it applied to anybody.
I am, maybe with you, the sole person that defends Court's record on court. For example, I do not agree that her Aussie Open's are diluted; she won six of those against multiple slams winners somewhere else (and it is a good tennis topic, I believe).
And if somebody were to propose some sort of punishment for Court, I would disagree. Her appalling opinions are hers, and as long as they are not actionable the best course is to ignore her.
But those same statements and opinions make her a very unsavory character. Remember, we were talking hypothetics; nobody is remotely considering a female version of the Laver Cup. Granting her the honor of naming such and event after her would be myopic to the fullest.
I still say The Navratilova Cup. A woman of integrity, that deeply changed tennis. And has always spoken her mind, progressively.

I'm with you on Court's tennis record. Her heinous views don't affect her wins. She won those titles fair and square, as far as I know.

But it makes no sense to confer any honors on her from this point on. I don't think a widely held belief equals gang mentality.

I support removing her name from the Australian Open court. If an arena was named after a staunch racist who was actively and publicly working in that direction, I doubt there would be a question about it.

Word. Homophobia, especially when it's wrapped in a soft-spoken religious package, often gets a pass that it doesn't deserve.

Kevin

[meganfernandez]

Evert cup wouldn't be a horrible choice either. If want to be completely neutral name it after someone dead.

The Gibson Cup.

Serena would make sense - or both Williams, the Williams Cup - after they both retire, but it would be weird if they didn't give their blessing. I have a feeling they wouldn't unless they were in charge. wouldn't take a ceremonial, honorary role.

[Suliso]

No, that's way too recent. Sampras cup would also not be appropriate for the same reason.

[JazzNU]

Evert cup wouldn't be a horrible choice either. If want to be completely neutral name it after someone dead.

The Gibson Cup.

Love the idea of calling it the Gibson Cup.

Disregarding the name being used before, I think Evert Cup only makes sense if the tournament will be held yearly on clay, at least to start. Passing up too many options to get to her unless she's the one who is organizing the event. And I think clay would be a great idea personally, I've never been a fan of so many of these Year End titles and Cups being played on hard courts all the damn time and then dragging successful clay court players for not doing as well at those tournaments. Davis and Fed Cup would've been considerably more boring if it was limited to one surface.

[ponchi101]

Evert cup wouldn't be a horrible choice either. If want to be completely neutral name it after someone dead.

The Gibson Cup.

...

If this would ever happen, it would be completely lovely to call it that way.
The greatest player ever that has been completely forgotten by everybody except hard core fans. And that went through hell for her entire career. Talk about an example.

[JTContinental]

I'm holding out for the Viele or Karatantcheva Cup

[ponchi101]

^^ And now... Something completely different

[mick1303]

Regarding Margaret Court: since I'm from former Soviet Union - for a long time I was deprived of wide variety of information, so IDK how her views evolved. The information I had in the past were tennis results and occasionally some short footage. And those results were commanding respect. In tennis you can't hide behind the team or officials (latter is not 100% true, but the friendly officials can impact the result only to limited degree). It is one-on-one and she earned all those wins by herself. I think these results in individual sport cannot be achieved without high mark of personal integrity. Also what I personally resent is a gang mentality when everyone starts targeting certain individual or group in an orchestrated manner. This is in a creepy way resembles how during the worst Stalin times the "enemies of the people" were vilified...

Mick, I'm also from the former Soviet Union. A country that, at its best, strongly opposed Apartheid, which Court supported, for example (talk about targeting a group in an orchestrated manner). Moreover, that country hasn't existed for 30 years, so one's had 30 years to get more context for Margaret Court and the views she espoused while she was at the height of her success and relevance and hasn't really backed down from. Personal integrity really just means being true to one's self. If one's self is a racist homophobe, it doesn't necessarily command the respect of others. When one is so abhorrent and outspoken in their views, criticizing them isn't "targeting," it's legitmate outrage.

I did try to google "Margaret Court racist". And you know how google works - when you start typing - it gives you hints - possible conclusion of your search string. In this case it was nothing. And in the search results there were accusation against Court for being homophobic, but nothing about her being racist. More precisely - the title says that Navratilova accuses Court for being racist and homophobic, but when you read further - nothing specific about being a racist. I could not follow all links, because some of them insisted on me disabling Ad Blocker, which I would not do.

If we to discuss the possibility of such Cup on ladies side - that would be a very intriguing competition, because the result is harder to predict. How to name it - I don't have a strong opinion. To me it is better to have such a competition regardless of how you name it.

[Deuce]

I did try to google "Margaret Court racist". And you know how google works - when you start typing - it gives you hints - possible conclusion of your search string. In this case it was nothing. And in the search results there were accusation against Court for being homophobic, but nothing about her being racist. More precisely - the title says that Navratilova accuses Court for being racist and homophobic, but when you read further - nothing specific about being a racist. I could not follow all links, because some of them insisted on me disabling Ad Blocker, which I would not do.

Ironically (and hypocritically), the people who claim to be against labelling the most are very often the ones who label others the most. There are examples of this everywhere - it happens over and over and over. Just as those who claim to be very open and tolerant are the ones who are the least tolerant of any opinion or perspective which differs from their own.

Unfortunately today, it takes very little for someone to be labelled. I suppose it provides those who label with a sense of ‘victory’ - if a rather hollow one - when someone is vilified. They need to create a villain - and if it’s based on conjecture and exaggeration - both of which the internet is obviously full of -, then that’s fine. As long as the villain is created, it matters not how.
As far as the Margaret Court issue goes, I think that most are simply regurgitating what Navratilova said; simply adopting a perspective rather than doing any profound research of their own - perhaps partially for fear that their research may show that the truth may not align with their agenda as well as they hoped it would.

And the label ‘racist’ seems to be a very popular one now. No longer is it reserved for proven racists (who deserve the label), but it is tossed around today far too easily and flippantly. Those tossing around a word like ‘racist’ left and right do not seem to realize that, by so doing, they are actually minimizing the meaning of the word in the same way that the boy who cried wolf lessened the value of his claim.
And comparing naming something for Margaret Court to naming something for the leader of the KKK? Seriously?? I don’t believe any leader of the KKK ever won a Grand Slam tournament (let alone 24 of them). Nor do I think Margaret Court ever burned any crosses. This is an example of what I’m referring to in saying that people exaggerate because they need to justify their labelling of someone as some sort of ‘villain’.

And, yes, there is definitely a lot of ‘gang mentality’ involved, as people pile onto whatever is ‘trending’ and popular at the moment - even if its foundation is less than solid. Anyone who has studied sociology to any degree will tell you the same. The vast majority of people want to belong to, and be associated with, whatever is ‘popular’ at any given moment.

I’m a firm believer in holding people accountable for their actions. But I don’t see that Margaret Court performed any actual actions. She said some words - that’s all, as far as I know. She stated her opinion on something - and everyone is permitted to do that, whether a million people agree with it or none do. And the words she spoke were surely misconstrued and exaggerated to some degree - because that’s what the internet (and much of the media) does. People are free to disagree - and that’s fine. But today, it seems that people no longer know how to disagree. They jump right over the disagreement stage and go straight to labelling and vilifying and creating villains. It’s rather disconcerting.

Frankly, I really don’t understand all of this vilifying of Margaret Court. I suppose she makes for a convenient villain in tennis circles. Even if she is the things that some people are claiming, giving her all of this attention serves only to get her message out to more people. Do people honestly believe that Margaret Court alone today, at almost 80 years old, without all of this exposure, has a significant influence on people? I don’t believe for a moment that she has anywhere near a significant influence. And so why does what a 79 year old Australian former tennis player whom you’ve never met, and who doesn’t know you at all - why does what she says mean anything at all to you? Why does it have any importance at all?
Once you allow yourself to be affected by it, you are only ‘empowering’ the person who said it. If their words have no effect, then they are talking into a vacuum. Why do people insist on being ‘offended’, or affected? Why isn’t it all simply ‘water off a ducks back’ as people ignore it because it’s not worth being affected by? What good does it really accomplish to be affected by it and to give so much attention to it?

And before people begin saying that I don’t know how it feels because I’m not a member of any minority... I’ve been a member of more than one minority plenty of times in my life. Plenty of times in several different circumstances. And any criticism of the minority group I’ve found myself part of has never affected me in the least. Whether the criticism was founded in ignorance or in ‘hate’, I’ve never been affected by it. Because I knew that the instant I allow it to ‘offend’ me, and/or to affect me negatively, then the party uttering the criticism has won the battle, because then they will have accomplished precisely what they set out to accomplish.