59-yr-old John McEnroe says he can still beat Serena Williams

Tyrone ReXXXing wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

Tennis is a whole lot different (than running) because it involves upper body strength.

......running is not tennis, or weightlifting, or other upper-body focused sports where women are more disadvantaged anatomically.

lol. So let me get this straight, when it comes to strength/power, women are less naturally disadvantaged with leg muscles compared to men than they are with upper body muscles?

Is that your position? Why is that? Do their boobs get in the way?

(can't wait for his explanation, this oughta be good)

(oh, and one for more thing: pssst, leg muscles are heavily involved in tennis, ya know, all the sprinting, stopping, jumping, and planting for shots)

You are kidding, right?

1) It is widely known that the difference in upper body strength between a man and a woman is far greater than the difference in lower body strength between a man and a woman.

2) One can speculate about the reasons but not being certain of the evolutionary reasons for this or the specific physiological differences down to the microscopic level is not necessary in order to be aware of this relative strength differential. The implication of your question is like saying that one needs to understand how the pyramids were built in order to say that the Great Pyramid is larger than the average 2 bedroom house.

3) I will nonetheless speculate that evolutionary pressures involving hunting large prey and especially battling other males have something to do with the upper vs lower body differential between men and women.

Try to take off your PC colored glasses for a few minutes and look at reality.

This is awesome, thanks, you made my day. "Widely known", huh? Seriously, that was an all time "I think I am really smart and am going to prove it to everyone.....and then fall flat on my face" answer if I ever saw one. I was hoping Wiggins would bite first, but, since you jumped in, I will humiliate you instead:

Using Wigin's very own link to weight-lifting records, let's make a comparison.

In the 132 lb weight category, the men's and women's WR's for-

SQUAT- (by the way, that's a leg lift smart guy)

Women: 600.0 lb Heidi Howar

Men: 755.1 lb Gerry McNamara

BENCH PRESS (upper body, my friend)

Women: 402.3 lb Tina Rinehart

Men: 501.6 lb Eric Head

In both instances, the women's record is almost exactly 80% of the men's record (and in fact, the bench record is slightly closer than the squat).

BOOM.

But thanks for your "evolutionary theory", that was very really brilliant.

(now let's see you and/or wigins try to come up with some incredibly lame reasons on why you are still correct

And nice touch with the "PC" idiocy. Yes, it's PC to point out wigins is a moron, and a 60 y.o. man would unlikely beat the best woman in the world in tennis ).

Cocaine is a powerful drug

No Profit In Pain wrote:

well,, wrote:

When Björn Borg retired he had won more GS titles than Federer had done at the same age.

Plus Borg never actually bothered with the Australian Open. He only took part once.

Not sure if was a common viewpoint at the time but it seems Borg never really treated it as a true major.

Most players didn´t care about Australian Open in the mid-70s to early 80s.

well,, wrote:

Most players didn´t care about Australian Open in the mid-70s to early 80s.

top player like Connors, Villas, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg cared enough to enter many times and win.

rod laver wrote:

well,, wrote:

Most players didn´t care about Australian Open in the mid-70s to early 80s.

top player like Connors, Villas, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg cared enough to enter many times and win.

Borg always won Wimbledon and the French, and then would proceed to lose the US Open and thereby lose the chance at the grand slam, so he never bothered to go to Australia. That’s a bit of a hike. As I recall that may be the reason the organizers moved the tourney to early in the calendar year, to try and upgrade the importance of the tournament

Is this jamin's longest lasting thread ever? Over 100 posts.

rod laver wrote:

well,, wrote:

Most players didn´t care about Australian Open in the mid-70s to early 80s.

top player like Connors, Villas, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg cared enough to enter many times and win.

You obviously didn´t read what I just wrote. I was talking about the "Björn Borg years" and why he didn´t play in the Australian Open. It didnt have the status like the other GS tournaments had. Look at the finals:

1976: Mark Edmondson-John Newcombe

1977: Roscoe Tanner-Guillermo Vilas

1977 (2): Vitas Gerulaitis-John Lloyd

1978: Vilas-John Marks

1979: Vilas-John Sadri

1980: Brian Teacher Kim Warwick

1981: Johan Kriek-Steve Denton

1982: Johan Kriek-Steve Denton

The only players who were really at the top at the time was Tanner, Vilas and Gerulaitis and Vilas wasn´t a grass player (he wasn´t a factor in Wimbledon). Newcombe was past his prime in 1976, and Edmondson was ranked 212th when he won.

The reason for this was mainly because the prize money wasn´t anywhere near those of the other GS tournaments and many players didn´t think it was worth the trouble to travel all the way to Australia around christmas/new year.

This changed in 1983 when Wilander, Lendl and Mac all entered the tournament.

A forty-five to fifty year old male former elite athlete who never broke down is about the same as an elite woman, T&F. Same in tennis. A fifty-nine year old former elite man who stays active like McEnroe will not beat an elite woman. EOT

Aahhh yes. Who can ever forget John Sadri.

not that complicated wrote:

A forty-five to fifty year old male former elite athlete who never broke down is about the same as an elite woman, T&F. Same in tennis. A fifty-nine year old former elite man who stays active like McEnroe will not beat an elite woman. EOT

It will take Serena a set just to figure out McEnroe's dinky game.