Who does she think she is?

Never been into Serena man, she is disgusting. 

I like a piece piece of half-chocolate booty, time to time for a color change 

lol it's easy.  What's the argument about?  Time for males and females to compete against one another.  We all want diversity and fairness and equality, right?  Well, then, there you go.  Stop being sexist people!

Diversity, equality, 2 most useless cliches on feminist conferences.

Until you actually tell them that they'll compete against men.  Then suddenly YOU are the one being sexist.  The mentally ill lemons.

Jahu wrote:Never been into Serena man, she is disgusting. 

I like a piece piece of half-chocolate booty, time to time for a color change 

the pics really put you off eh? 
have you seen seeing pictures kim kardashians unphotoshoped ass?? 
and women actually have surgeries to look like that 

Hahaha, I'm not after whales and fake asses  
Lots of natural booties and chests all around us  

Though I would not protest at having all 3 Kardashians on bed for a weekend, then leak/sell the tape, same way Kim's moms did it  

Ok stop pulling my tongue now and extracting my words 

Too many similes!!! 

Jahu wrote:Hahaha, I'm not after whales and fake asses  
Lots of natural booties and chests all around us  

Though I would not protest at having all 3 Kardashians on bed for a weekend, then leak/sell the tape, same way Kim's moms did it  

Ok stop pulling my tongue now and extracting my words 

Too many similes!!! 

no thanks,not for me
have you ever heard them speak?? in the same mundane monotonous tone...now imagine that noise yelping in bed!!!

I'll choke them good, join and see how to shut up a fake lady, not a sound anywhere 

Stop it now, act your age...

Veejay wrote:even in the age of the internet? but even then not necessarily,it could also mean that your opinion is factually wrong
i experience that a lot too
call it whatever you want to BB,not a "proper" grand slam or whatever...its 23 more then youll ever have

I'm sure you do experience being wrong a great deal, in fact I'd suggest you're probably the forum expert on the subject.

Ah, the old "my hero has more trophies than you" argument. Devastating, truly devastating!

bogbrush wrote:

Veejay wrote:even in the age of the internet? but even then not necessarily,it could also mean that your opinion is factually wrong
i experience that a lot too
call it whatever you want to BB,not a "proper" grand slam or whatever...its 23 more then youll ever have

I'm sure you do experience being wrong a great deal, in fact I'd suggest you're probably the forum expert on the subject.

Ah, the old "my hero has more trophies than you" argument. Devastating, truly devastating!

i know the truth can sometimes be very devastating,but the point you seem to miss is that no matter what you say,it will never ever change anything..
brutal eh??
i am like everyone else on this planet can be wrong at times,but at least im man enough to own up to it and admit it rather then arrogantly claim that " im ahead of my time " 
ironically you do seem to get ahead of yourself...

Jahu wrote:I'll choke them good, join and see how to shut up a fake lady, not a sound anywhere 

Stop it now, act your age...

i think i'll sit this one out jahu...

Traitor 

Jahu wrote:Traitor 

ahaha!! ok ill watch but no touch!! 

Tenez wrote:
I saw this guy play v Rublev in the Wimbledon qualy. McMillan....or something like that. 

McMillan is actually the coach of one of our junior so we were really surprised he managed to make it to the main draw.

Sorry for your coach, but glad he lost!

@ slippy 
here it is:

Let it be noted that McEnroe called Williams “arguably the greatest athlete of the last 100 years” when she won Wimbledon in 2015 and also that he didn’t qualify that based on gender. On “CBS This Morning,” he was pressed to say where, at 58, he would rank. “About 1,200 in the world.”
its nice to know where he would rank himself at 58,but what about the women
as you can see the proof is in the pudding
one minute he is saying serena is the greatest athlete in the last 100 years,now he is basically saying that "in the real world" shed only be ranked around 700
who can take what this plonker says seriously ( no pun intended) 
his comments somehow seemed to conveniently generate one hell of a lot of media interest ahead of his latest book 
maybe he is just a pr genius and we all fell straight into it 
im certainly not going to let that happen again 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2017/06/28/it-didnt-go-over-big-with-my-daughters-john-mcenroe-scolded-for-serena-williams-comment/?utm_term=.b317157a41e5

Use some common sense. He means "for the women's side of things". He isn't going to add that tag on the end every time just to be super clear, is he? If you ask him who is more of an athlete including the men, she wouldn't rank anywhere.  Esp not with that fat ass of hers.

Daniel wrote:Use some common sense. He means "for the women's side of things". He isn't going to add that tag on the end every time just to be super clear, is he? If you ask him who is more of an athlete including the men, she wouldn't rank anywhere.  Esp not with that fat ass of hers.

maybe he should start doing it as its getting him into all sorts of trouble especially in his own house lol
the person who wrote the article clearly heard him say it in a way that he that he didnt qualify his comment based in gender 
i saw the same thing ,hence the reason why i thought it to be the most ridiculous thing he ever said
you dont have to believe me,reread what the person who wrote the article said above 
dont you think if the person who write the article used some common sense,they would realise what you were saying and include it in their article? 
read the whole article,its pretty fair and well balanced 
if this was the first time that mac said something contradictory,then i would give him the benefit of the doubt,but the guy has a history of talking out his anus...today federer is the GOAT,tomorrow Nadal will be the GOAT...next week Djokovic is the GOAT...the following week serena is the GOEATest of them all!!
Let it be noted that McEnroe called Williams “arguably the greatest athlete of the last 100 years” when she won Wimbledon in 2015 and also that he didn’t qualify that based on gender. 

I suspect he actually meant "greatest sportsperson" and he is right. Her achievements put her right up there as one of the greatest sportspeople of all time - male or female. 

However, that's very different to being the best current tennis player - male or female - which is the question he was asked in the interview. He, correctly, explained that there would be a lot of male players who could beat her. 

Ignoring doping suggestions, one could argue that Flo-Jo's 100m and 200m women's world records make her one of the greatest athletes of all time. No woman gets near them 30 years later and they are remarkable times for a woman. However, they wouldn't be good enough to be a professional athlete for a man. 

If someone had suggested Flo-Jo was the best 100m runner - male or female - it would have been equally as ridiculous as the interviewer's suggestion to McEnroe about Serena. The difference would only be that there would be hard evidence - the comparative slowness of her time - to prove it.

Slippy wrote:I suspect he actually meant "greatest sportsperson" and he is right. Her achievements put her right up there as one of the greatest sportspeople of all time - male or female. 

However, that's very different to being the best current tennis player - male or female - which is the question he was asked in the interview. He, correctly, explained that there would be a lot of male players who could beat her. 

Ignoring doping suggestions, one could argue that Flo-Jo's 100m and 200m women's world records make her one of the greatest athletes of all time. No woman gets near them 30 years later and they are remarkable times for a woman. However, they wouldn't be good enough to be a professional athlete for a man. 

If someone had suggested Flo-Jo was the best 100m runner - male or female - it would have been equally as ridiculous as the interviewer's suggestion to McEnroe about Serena. The difference would only be that there would be hard evidence - the comparative slowness of her time - to prove it.

mac said arguable the greatest,not arguable one of the greatest..to me thats quite a big difference 
because in the first instance its arguably 1 person who is the greatest and in the second its arguably 1 person who is a part of a group who are the greatest 

mac just needs to stop giving his GOAT opinions,who can forget what he said about the upcoming blockbuster AO final earlier this year
how did that work out for him? 

I noticed this word "arguably" is used a lot these days.

I can't work out its purpose.

You either are or are not the best, greatest etc...what's there to argue about!

It's like people don't believe what they are saying so it's kind of a crutch.

Ok officially tired of Serena and Mac.

Thread closed, then she goes and gets nude, useless!!!

... wrote:I noticed this word "arguably" is used a lot these days.

I can't work out its purpose.

You either are or are not the best, greatest etc...what's there to argue about!

It's like people don't believe what they are saying so it's kind of a crutch.

it just means its debatable because things arent quite as black and white as we would like it to be
but i completely agree with you,all this discussion  defeats the purpose the greatest should be undisputed,not argued which is why i dont personally believe that such a thing exist 
i think that you can be the best or greatest of the era you compete in,because thats your only competition,youre not able and never were able to compete against the athletes who preceded you
once you retire you then join a list of all time greats of the game
thats the way i see it

Veejay wrote:

... wrote:I noticed this word "arguably" is used a lot these days.

I can't work out its purpose.

You either are or are not the best, greatest etc...what's there to argue about!

It's like people don't believe what they are saying so it's kind of a crutch.

it just means its debatable because things arent quite as black and white as we would like it to be
but i completely agree with you,all this discussion  defeats the purpose the greatest should be undisputed,not argued which is why i dont personally believe that such a thing exist 
i think that you can be the best or greatest of the era you compete in,because thats your only competition,youre not able and never were able to compete against the athletes who preceded you
once you retire you then join a list of all time greats of the game
thats the way i see it

I agree partly...most sports are like that.

But in tennis there really is no arguing, Federer stands out so much it's silly to even compare him to anyone let alone engage in a duscussion.

I think only that fake canadian Rusedsky says it Fed is GOAT, Becker a few times too, with no "arguably" attached to it.

Veejay wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Veejay wrote:even in the age of the internet? but even then not necessarily,it could also mean that your opinion is factually wrong
i experience that a lot too
call it whatever you want to BB,not a "proper" grand slam or whatever...its 23 more then youll ever have

I'm sure you do experience being wrong a great deal, in fact I'd suggest you're probably the forum expert on the subject.

Ah, the old "my hero has more trophies than you" argument. Devastating, truly devastating!

i know the truth can sometimes be very devastating,but the point you seem to miss is that no matter what you say,it will never ever change anything..
brutal eh??
i am like everyone else on this planet can be wrong at times,but at least im man enough to own up to it and admit it rather then arrogantly claim that " im ahead of my time " 
ironically you do seem to get ahead of yourself...

I don't seek to change anything, I just correctly identify facts and bring them to the forum.

These facts are unarguable, as you accept.

... wrote:

Veejay wrote:

... wrote:I noticed this word "arguably" is used a lot these days.

I can't work out its purpose.

You either are or are not the best, greatest etc...what's there to argue about!

It's like people don't believe what they are saying so it's kind of a crutch.

it just means its debatable because things arent quite as black and white as we would like it to be
but i completely agree with you,all this discussion  defeats the purpose the greatest should be undisputed,not argued which is why i dont personally believe that such a thing exist 
i think that you can be the best or greatest of the era you compete in,because thats your only competition,youre not able and never were able to compete against the athletes who preceded you
once you retire you then join a list of all time greats of the game
thats the way i see it

I agree partly...most sports are like that.

But in tennis there really is no arguing, Federer stands out so much it's silly to even compare him to anyone let alone engage in a duscussion.

Don't be ridiculous. He has the best CV but it's certainly arguable that Laver is just as great. Federer is no more clearly the GOAT tennis player than a number of other sportsmen in their own fields.

Jahu wrote:I think only that fake canadian Rusedsky says it Fed is GOAT, Becker a few times too, with no "arguably" attached to it.

did becker really say that?
i know the fake candian says it on sky all the time

An older one here http://theultimatetennisblog.com/becker-federer-is-the-g-o-a-t-he-showed-it-again/

But said it when coaching Djoko too, and Djoko fans were not happy, though somehow they hate Nadal more, and quite love Fed 

Slippy wrote:

... wrote:
I agree partly...most sports are like that.
But in tennis there really is no arguing, Federer stands out so much it's silly to even compare him to anyone let alone engage in a duscussion.

Don't be ridiculous. He has the best CV but it's certainly arguable that Laver is just as great. Federer is no more clearly the GOAT tennis player than a number of other sportsmen in their own fields.

I am not ridiculous.

I even think Federer is the best athlete of all time.

What he is able to do is mindblowing.

He has so much talent plus is a superb natural athlete gifted with a sharp mind...he is simply a genius.


When his tennis clicks in and he starts flooding the court it's breath-taking.

I am really not exhaggerating.

bogbrush wrote:

Veejay wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Veejay wrote:even in the age of the internet? but even then not necessarily,it could also mean that your opinion is factually wrong
i experience that a lot too
call it whatever you want to BB,not a "proper" grand slam or whatever...its 23 more then youll ever have

I'm sure you do experience being wrong a great deal, in fact I'd suggest you're probably the forum expert on the subject.

Ah, the old "my hero has more trophies than you" argument. Devastating, truly devastating!

i know the truth can sometimes be very devastating,but the point you seem to miss is that no matter what you say,it will never ever change anything..
brutal eh??
i am like everyone else on this planet can be wrong at times,but at least im man enough to own up to it and admit it rather then arrogantly claim that " im ahead of my time " 
ironically you do seem to get ahead of yourself...

I don't seek to change anything, I just correctly identify facts and bring them to the forum.

These facts are unarguable, as you accept.

youre seeking to change my opinion,possibly others on here too if they dont agree with what youre saying 
youre right the facts are unarguable : serena williams has 23 grand slam titles to her name,nothing you can say or do will ever change that

Veejay wrote:

Jahu wrote:I think only that fake canadian Rusedsky says it Fed is GOAT, Becker a few times too, with no "arguably" attached to it.

did becker really say that?
i know the fake candian says it on sky all the time

Everyone who has played the game knows Federer is above all.
They just have to make fans happy in order to get their "pundit" paycheque.

No, not trying to change your mind.

Just stating facts. Like she has 23 "Slams" but no unqualified ones.

Jahu wrote:An older one here http://theultimatetennisblog.com/becker-federer-is-the-g-o-a-t-he-showed-it-again/

But said it when coaching Djoko too, and Djoko fans were not happy, though somehow they hate Nadal more, and quite love Fed 

file not found jahu 
but yeah thats quite something for becker to say especially while he is coaching djokovic
i can totally respect what he says,he is so much more consistent in his opinion

bogbrush wrote:No, not trying to change your mind.

Just stating facts. Like she has 23 "Slams" but no unqualified ones.

it doesnt matter

Veejay wrote:

Slippy wrote:I suspect he actually meant "greatest sportsperson" and he is right. Her achievements put her right up there as one of the greatest sportspeople of all time - male or female. 

However, that's very different to being the best current tennis player - male or female - which is the question he was asked in the interview. He, correctly, explained that there would be a lot of male players who could beat her. 

Ignoring doping suggestions, one could argue that Flo-Jo's 100m and 200m women's world records make her one of the greatest athletes of all time. No woman gets near them 30 years later and they are remarkable times for a woman. However, they wouldn't be good enough to be a professional athlete for a man. 

If someone had suggested Flo-Jo was the best 100m runner - male or female - it would have been equally as ridiculous as the interviewer's suggestion to McEnroe about Serena. The difference would only be that there would be hard evidence - the comparative slowness of her time - to prove it.

mac said arguable the greatest,not arguable one of the greatest..to me thats quite a big difference 
because in the first instance its arguably 1 person who is the greatest and in the second its arguably 1 person who is a part of a group who are the greatest 

mac just needs to stop giving his GOAT opinions,who can forget what he said about the upcoming blockbuster AO final earlier this year
how did that work out for him? 

Oh, he definitely says some ridiculous things. I just disagree that this is one of those times!

Slippy wrote:

Veejay wrote:

Slippy wrote:I suspect he actually meant "greatest sportsperson" and he is right. Her achievements put her right up there as one of the greatest sportspeople of all time - male or female. 

However, that's very different to being the best current tennis player - male or female - which is the question he was asked in the interview. He, correctly, explained that there would be a lot of male players who could beat her. 

Ignoring doping suggestions, one could argue that Flo-Jo's 100m and 200m women's world records make her one of the greatest athletes of all time. No woman gets near them 30 years later and they are remarkable times for a woman. However, they wouldn't be good enough to be a professional athlete for a man. 

If someone had suggested Flo-Jo was the best 100m runner - male or female - it would have been equally as ridiculous as the interviewer's suggestion to McEnroe about Serena. The difference would only be that there would be hard evidence - the comparative slowness of her time - to prove it.

mac said arguable the greatest,not arguable one of the greatest..to me thats quite a big difference 
because in the first instance its arguably 1 person who is the greatest and in the second its arguably 1 person who is a part of a group who are the greatest 

mac just needs to stop giving his GOAT opinions,who can forget what he said about the upcoming blockbuster AO final earlier this year
how did that work out for him? 

Oh, he definitely says some ridiculous things. I just disagree that this is one of those times!

i get your point slippy,no one is disputing what he is saying,but its a very unfair comparison because serena is female 
its true that she cant compete with the big boys,she even said so herself in that article above so there is no reason for him to say it,what he basically is saying is that in the "real world" shed only be ranked 700th
but the mens draw isnt her real world,the womans draw is 
it also makes the womans game look inferior  to the mens game when its not,the womans game holds it own just like the mens game does 
thats really my issue with making such a comparison

But Vee,

women's game is really inferior to men's. 

It's a cat fight at best.

Though there have been a few players through history that could make it watchable.

With women, it's more about the personality than the skill.

I for example loved watching Marion Bartoli although she was anti-elegance in every way.

I now love watching Ostapenko, she is quite similar...fearless.

Henin was just a priperly great player, she played men's game.

The rest are grunters, screamers, bashers and inconsistent crybabies.

Serena is good, but too many anticis now she's become a diva and a real turn-off.

... wrote:But Vee,

women's game is really inferior to men's. 

It's a cat fight at best.

Though there have been a few players through history that could make it watchable.

With women, it's more about the personality than the skill.

I for example loved watching Marion Bartoli although she was anti-elegance in every way.

I now love watching Ostapenko, she is quite similar...fearless.

Henin was just a priperly great player, she played men's game.

The rest are grunters, screamers, bashers and inconsistent crybabies.

Serena is good, but too many anticis now she's become a diva and a real turn-off.

saying the womens game is inferior to the mens is the same as saying women are inferior to men,
women are not inferior to men
the main difference between the two is sex 
one is the "stronger" sex the other is the "weaker" sex but weaker doesnt = inferior 
it means that they arent compatible in comparison because of the natural physical difference 
women should be treated as equal citizens but neither sex can ever be on an equal or even playing field,they are too different,physically,emotionally etc
i also disagree with you that the womans game is more about personality then skill
i think that if you said that to anyone of the female players,that many would find such a comment really offensive as they all work damn hard to hone their skill 
tennis is about tennis its not a popularity contest,not for the men or women
sure its nice to have fans who adore you but its your tennis that gets you to the top of the game not your personality 
once youve made it to the top personality counts in your favour,but you first need to get there
take serena for example where would she be today if womans tennis was more about personality then skill
she certainly would not be called the greatest female tennis player ever if this was a personality competition
its not fair to use the mens game as a bench mark for the womans game

I am afraid we women are inferior in most sports: tennis, football, basketball, golf, athletics....tennis probably the least as it's least contact sport (plus they tag off men's tour) and women wear nice dresses that can show off their figure (if they have one)

Also ice-skating and gymnastics as that is more ballet and dance.

Really, Vee who is paying to go and watch women's sports events...

Just get real!

... wrote:I am afraid we women are inferior in most sports: tennis, football, basketball, golf, athletics....tennis probably the least as it's least contact sport (plus they tag off men's tour) and women wear nice dresses that can show off their figure (if they have one)

Also ice-skating and gymnastics as that is more ballet and dance.

Really, Vee who is paying to go and watch women's sports events...

Just get real!

inferior is the wrong word to use 
female sport is not lower in prestige to mens sport 
its not a second class sport 
mens sport competes at much a higher level in almost every sport out there,by that doesnt make female sport inferior or any lesser of a sport 
winning a gold medal in womens sport at the olympics is not a lower status or lesser gold medal then winning a gold medal in mens sport,its the same as winning a grand slam,its a pretigious title,its not any less prestigious for the women who win the title simply because they are women
winning the wimbledon title is the pinnacle of of the womens game just as much as its the pinnacle of the mens game
womens sport is a sport in its own right,that is what you cant seem to uderstand and it shouldnt be compared to mens sport because its not an even playing field 

you cant use the fact that there is more interest in the mens game to degrade the womens game and say that its inferior 
it only means that there is more interest in the mens game,that doesnt take anything away from the prestige of the womans game
but for the sake of the argument
which sport is more inferior and which sport is more superior?
boxing or tennis?

Slippy wrote:I suspect he actually meant "greatest sportsperson" and he is right. Her achievements put her right up there as one of the greatest sportspeople of all time - male or female. 

No.  That's just nonsense. The top 500 male players alone are far better athletes than she is.  It's no good comparing to men because you;re on to a loser straight away.  You are having your cake and eating it.  You want to say she is up there with the men because of her achievements but ignore that her achievements are based on playing only women.

Daniel wrote:

Slippy wrote:I suspect he actually meant "greatest sportsperson" and he is right. Her achievements put her right up there as one of the greatest sportspeople of all time - male or female. 

No.  That's just nonsense. The top 500 male players alone are far better athletes than she is.  It's no good comparing to men because you;re on to a loser straight away.  You are having your cake and eating it.  You want to say she is up there with the men because of her achievements but ignore that her achievements are based on playing only women.

Sure, we agree that she isn't as good an athlete as most male athletes - she's a woman, so she isn't going to be. However, there are the same, if not more, women on the planet than men so being the best female player is just as much of an achievement as being the best male player. Her achievements don't count any less than Federer's - even though she  is not as good a player.

Daniel wrote:

Slippy wrote:I suspect he actually meant "greatest sportsperson" and he is right. Her achievements put her right up there as one of the greatest sportspeople of all time - male or female. 

No.  That's just nonsense. The top 500 male players alone are far better athletes than she is.  It's no good comparing to men because you;re on to a loser straight away.  You are having your cake and eating it.  You want to say she is up there with the men because of her achievements but ignore that her achievements are based on playing only women.

precisely daniel!
her achievements were against women,which not only makes mac's comparison ridiculous but his opinion of her  being the  the greatest in the last 100 yeas also ridiculous 
comparing a female athlete in the mens draw is raising the bar in and unfair and negative way,when that was never the bar to begin with
the bar,or benchmark by which female athletes are judged by in womens sports is set by women not men
so why then place a female athlete unfairly against male athletes and judge her by the benchmark or bar thats been set by male athletes not female athletes? 
the bar or benchmark in womens sport has and always will be set by the women who play the game,not by the men who play the game,just as the benchmark or bar which male athletes are judged by has always and will always be set by male 
athletes not female athletes 
the womans game should not be judged by the benchmark or bar set by the mens game as they compete against women not men

Who ever is complaining there is no equality, just saw new Spiderman trailer, Peter has a black GF now 

Slippy wrote:

Daniel wrote:

Slippy wrote:I suspect he actually meant "greatest sportsperson" and he is right. Her achievements put her right up there as one of the greatest sportspeople of all time - male or female. 

No.  That's just nonsense. The top 500 male players alone are far better athletes than she is.  It's no good comparing to men because you;re on to a loser straight away.  You are having your cake and eating it.  You want to say she is up there with the men because of her achievements but ignore that her achievements are based on playing only women.

Sure, we agree that she isn't as good an athlete as most male athletes - she's a woman, so she isn't going to be. However, there are the same, if not more, women on the planet than men so being the best female player is just as much of an achievement as being the best male player. Her achievements don't count any less than Federer's - even though she  is not as good a player.

totally agree with that,they dont count any less simply because she is a female athlete
this is the point i was trying to make with NITB,the womens game is a recognised sport in its own right,it has its own valued prestige,no more or less then the prestige of the mens game 
just because it may not generate as much interest as the mens game,by no means takes anything away from it being its own recognised prestigious sport

Jahu wrote:Who ever is complaining there is no equality, just saw new Spiderman trailer, Peter has a black GF now 

serena's fiance must feel like a super hero now...

Hahaha yeah he can feel "normal" I guess, as others now have black GF's too 

Jahu wrote:Who ever is complaining there is no equality, just saw new Spiderman trailer, Peter has a black GF now 

serena's fiance must feel like super hero now!! " i also bagged one!! " 

Jahu wrote:Hahaha yeah he can feel "normal" I guess, as others now have black GF's too 

he is in fashion...in fact he must be feeling like he is setting some kind of new trend 
that wouldnt be unusual for someone from silicone valley

Agree, also a trend of quick love, quick illegal pregnancies without being married!!

No babies without marrying moron