So you’d agree with the hypothetical claim that Tim Tebow is one of the greatest QBs of all time? He certainly was at the college level, he just happened to be mediocre at the top level. Which is what Serena would be.
Greatest implies most skilled. You’re asserting most accomplished, which is a different thing altogether and is an almost inarguable title for Serena. (I can’t think of an argument against, but I suppose somebody could try to mount one.)
In a similar way, champions in lower weight classes for boxing are given the “pound for pound” qualifier. You don’t find that demeaning for them, do you?
It’s entirely different when comparing men and women. There is a history of denigrating women athletes.
Objectively, Serena’s accomplishments are as impressive as any athlete living. That doesn’t mean she’s anywhere close in the absolute sense to as good a tennis player as Federer, but her accomplishments are just as impressive.
No argument there. But again, “one of the greatest” is not the same thing as “one of the most accomplished.” They are, in fact, two very different things.
As far as demeaning / diminishing, I think it’s far preferable to say she’s “one of the greatest female athletes ever” than to say she doesn’t even play tennis because her sport is women’s tennis. I think that’s more insulting.
At least I’m saying she’s playing the same actual sport as the men.
One of the (if not the) greatest female athletes ever, sure. But men are athletes too, so “one of the greatest athletes ever” by definition includes men. When you include men, she’s not even in the conversation.
Once again, it’s different with men and women athletes. Just like so many other issues, there is a history, and it’s reasonable to take that history into account.
You know, when I first saw the Serena quote, I thought it was a smart thing to say - equality and all that. I have no wish to denigrate her achievements. But Novelty Bobble makes some valid points. As does iiandyiiii.
Do I think Serena is one of the greatest athletes of all time, without further qualification? Actually, I think I do (and I’m not really a fan of hers). I think it makes more sense to compare her athletic ability and achievements with her peers, not with the entire sphere of human endeavour. Otherwise we might as well say that Michael Schumacher is a much greater athlete than Usain Bolt because he can complete a lap of Silverstone far more quickly (not a totally accurate comparison, I know, but I think it’s a valid point to make). It is notoriously difficult to compare across sports. However, I do think for this argument to stand up, you have to accept that male tennis and female tennis are different sports. I think you can even extend it to sports where the physical element is almost irrelevant, such as snooker. As in, you could say Allison Fisher is one of the greatest snooker players ever, because she dominated her peers (even though she was never competitive against top male players). Judit Polgar is one of the greatest chess players ever.
I’m now not entirely sure this post makes sense, so I’ll leave that for others to judge.
In actual tennis news, great win for GB at the weekend in the quarter-final of the Davis Cup against Serbia. Neither Andy Murray nor Djokovic played, which left Kyle Edmund to lead GB to victory with two excellent singles wins. I recognised some of Andy Murray’s play in Kyle, no doubt he has been getting a few tips. His forehand is probably better than Murray’s and he served exceptionally well. Tennis in the UK certainly seems to be a lot healthier than it was a few years ago.
Not sure why Novak and Andy were absent, I think they are both resting ahead of the Olympics. I assume the rules are such that Novak couldn’t have changed his mind at the last moment and decided to play the reverse singles?!
If we’re going to buy into the idea that Serena isn’t even playing tennis, she’s playing women’s tennis, then I concede the point. I’ll just stipulate that I find that more demeaning than labeling Serena “best female athlete ever,” and by a pretty wide margin.
I’m not sure that stands up though - the greatest tennis players are a subset of the greatest athletes. Ergo, if you are a tennis player who wants to be considered one of the greatest athletes, you need to be one of the greatest tennis players.
That notwithstanding, I think I’ve come to the conclusion that I do believe Serena is one of the greatest tennis players ever (and because her accomplishments in this field are so impressive, deserves to further be considered one of the greatest athletes ever, moreso than, say, McEnroe or Borg. Never mind that McEnroe would probably run her close if they played tomorrow). Which means her riposte which sparked this discussion is a valid comment. I don’t think the journalist intended to belittle her (likewise the other participants in this debate), he (I’m assuming it was a he :)) just didn’t think about it properly.
You really must clarify what exactly you mean by athlete, because the merit of your argument stands and falls entirely on the definition you intend.
By athlete, do you mean simply “one who participates in sports”, in the same sense that one would use, say, “sportsperson”? Because if so, I agree entirely with you. Serena Williams is among the greatest sportspersons the game of tennis has ever seen.
However, if you mean athlete in the sense of “one who possesses athletic prowess”, in the sense of being able to run fast, jump high, etc, then claiming Serena Williams is among the greatest athletes is spurious nonsense. If you were to compare her athletic measurables to just about any male player throughout the ages, she would be readily and completely trounced. If you are using the word “athlete” in this sense, the qualifier “female” is patently uninsulting, but rather acknowledges that sexual dimorphism is real, and that a man and a woman are not competing in the same physical bracket, in the same way that a welterweight boxer and a superheavyweight boxer are not. One does not seriously compare Floyd Mayweather Jr to Wladimir Klitschko, and in the same fashion, comparions between Roger Federer and Serena Williams make very little sense.
Ultimately, I suspect that you intend the former definition, and that much of the disagreement in this thread lies in differing interpretations of what “athlete” connotes.
I definitely mean “sportsperson” – if I was purely talking about physical prowess, then she wouldn’t even enter the conversation. But then, if it were just a conversation about physical prowess, then who would? Maybe some of the best middleweight boxers in history, who have an incredible and near-superhuman blend of strength, speed, agility, and stamina? But who else? If that were the discussion, many sports that don’t require the absolute top of some physical attribute like strength or stamina (i.e. the very best weightlifters and sprinters have incredible combinations of strength, agility, and speed, but stamina? Not so much) would be entirely disqualified.
I think if your definition of “one of the greatest athletes in the world” would necessarily disqualify Usain Bolt, among many other absolutely amazing sports-people, then the definition probably isn’t the best one, IMO.
It really depends on what purpose you intend with the term “athlete”. The fact that it disqualifies Usain Bolt as one of the greatest athletes is not necessarily a point against it, so much as it points to the specificity of the term. Usain Bolt is incontestably one of the greatest sprinters of all time, and in that sense he certainly excels in one specific athletic discipline - but that, to me, does not necessarily make him a great athlete. If he cannot jump high, throw far, etc (which I do not doubt that he can, mind you), then he is “merely” a great sprinter, but no great athlete.
Ultimately I think I view the term “athlete” as very much akin to the term “writer”. There are, to me, plenty of tremendous sportspersons who are not similarly tremendous athletes, much like there are a great many tremendous intellects who are turgid and tepid writers at best. Insisting that athlete must be an all-encompassing term waters down the specificity of language, as I see it.
Well, we all know what happens when you assume. The journalist who asked the question was a woman.
I think “athlete” is the wrong term, since it generally means “anyone who competes in a sport.” Which would include everyone: men, women, children, professionals, amateurs, and everyone in between. Serena is definitely not one of the best compared to everyone who plays tennis, because men play tennis. And if it’s anybody in any sport, I’d be thinking of names like LeBron James and Lawrence Taylor.
“Competitor” would be a better term. I think it’s inarguable that Serena is one of the best competitors of all time, no qualifier needed, because the term itself implies “in comparison to those you compete against directly.”