Well Phil, this is the hot button topic about it, and it is just not realistic to think it should be any different. The first stumbling block to any debate is who doesn’t belong then?
The reasons I think women simply haven’t acheived enough to gain more accolade are numerous. First, women haven’t ben competeing seriously for very long, its a fact, and right or wrong thats the way it was. Second, if you want to really break it down and say who’s the best athlete, you need to get a definition. The simplest one is who would win in a match. Well its foolish for anyone to thing Martina could even contend with Aggasi or Sampras in their primes. The fact that Martina is so much higher than any other tennis player is cotraversial. The only arguement by which women belong on the list is considering popular opinion, and their influence on their sport and society as a whole. This is the most likely definition anyone would use in the debate, and under this criteria the women fit. But to think JJ Kersey belongs above anyone on that list is silly. Short of the couple of months every 4 years when she’s winning medals no one hears about her. Track isn’t a important sport in society, nor is any women sport to date, tennis being the closest competitor. Tennis on the whole isn’t important enough to warrant heavy consideration. Navitralova (sp) gains her respect less from the athletics, but more for the political influence.
What good arguement could there be for including more women on the list other than parity?