John McEnroe has recently stated that while he believes Serena Williams is the greatest women's tennis player ever, she wouldn't be able to compete on the men's circuit. He has further stated, "if she played the men's circuit she'd be like 700 in the world."

McEnroe qualified his comments by suggesting Williams could beat some men's players because of her mental fortitude, but that he doesn't think she's athletic enough to beat the majority of men on the professional circuit. He also offered this remark: "Maybe at some point a women's tennis player can be better than anybody. I just haven't seen it in any other sport, and I haven't seen it in tennis. I suppose anything's possible at some stage."

On previous occasions, McEnroe has called Serena "arguably the greatest athlete of the last 100 years" and "the greatest player to ever play the game."

Is there any truth to John McEnroe's statements? Is there anything wrong with what he said apart from whether or not the statements are true? What were his motivations and are those motivations relevant to judgments about the propriety of making such statements? — geospiza

Is there any truth to John's statements?: Yes.

Is there anything wrong with what he said apart from whether or not the statements are true?: No.

What were his motivations and are those motivations relevant to judgments about the propriety of making such statements?: What?

Are you suggesting that he has some hidden motivation for pointing out the difference between male and female tennis athletes?

Are you suggesting that his statements are somehow improper because of his motivations?

It's uncontroversially true that male athletes have a rather large advantage in just about any sport which requires physical strength to play at a high level.

If women weren't vastly inferior to their male counterparts in almost every sport, we wouldn't have gendered sporting events in the first place. That we do separate the men from the women only serves to underline the fact that women would get steamrolled in most competitions if they weren't gated by their gender. Then again, we now have male transgender athletes who now get to compete in women's competitions, and guess what? They dominate the field because sex, not gender, ought to be the determinate for who can compete.

Bottom line, if people want to screech and holler about how women are just as "good" as men in most sports, then do away with the male/female distinction. Combine everyone all in one pool. But see, nobody wants that because then the truth will sit out for all to see. The horror!

Perhaps they intend to demonstrate the breath taking beauty of the form of a pregnant woman's body. Demi Moore's photo in Vanity Fair was thought to be very scandalous at the time, and it was displayed in a white paper wrapper. Far fewer will be scandalized by Williams photo, but there are some as demonstrated in this thread.

Looks ugly to me, does that make me sexist and/or racist?

Looks ugly to me, does that make me sexist and/or racist? — Heister Eggcart

I actually second this. It does look ugly. The purpose of art is to depict beauty and ideals, not ugliness. The fact these "artists" create "art" for political purposes is simply a defilement of art. You can say something ugly looks beautiful till you're blue in the face, it ain't going to make it true. I'm never going to think that image is beautiful. You can force me to say it is for political reasons, but I'll never think so, regardless of what you do.

Now such "art" also objectifies the pregnant body, as if it was SUPPOSED to be beautiful in the first place :s Really, it's fucked up. Women don't get pregnant to look beautiful, so this is absurd beyond measure. Should pregnant women be ashamed of going around naked? Well probably yes actually, I don't see why they shouldn't. The pregnant body isn't to show off to everyone, that seems grotesque and absurd.

You're projecting all the sass. The point has to do with off-limit trivialities stifling broader discussion. I do understand that you don't see my point, but you've made it for me to anyone who does.

As I've said, I've only seen evaluations. I'm not doing it right, rather than actually being mistake or counter-factual in any way. I'm a bad boy. So so sassy. Doubly sassy.

Not as ugly as this:

I think it has more to do with who it is. Neither of Williams sisters are upstanding human beings, really they're quite nasty. I mean, depictions of pregnant women are probably the oldest expressions of art in human history, but I'd rather consider a 5,000 year old mother goddesses carved from stone instead of tennis player. *shrug*

Not as ugly as this: — Cavacava

Actually, I think just about as ugly as that. Both of them have no place in the public arena as far as I'm concerned, and neither are art. I think such "art" should be shunned.

The human body is the most beautiful thing in existence. Lets be grown ups, and criticize people on substantial, rather than superficial and self-centered fronts.

Should I be critiquing Sapientia, TimeLine, Baden, or Mongrel? Oh, you mean McTrumpus? Hmm, tough call :P

I mean, depictions of pregnant women are probably the oldest expressions of art in human history, but I'd rather consider a 5,000 year old mother goddesses carved from stone instead of tennis player. *shrug* — Heister Eggcart

Yes, but those depictions certainly did not mean to illustrate beauty. The pregnant woman's body is not supposed to be beautiful, but rather nourishing, protective and other qualities. That Serena picture actually wants to tell us that she's proud of her body - as if anyone gave a damn. She is indeed quite smug, and the idiots are paying money for this.

The human body is the most beautiful thing in existence. Lets me grown ups, and criticize people on substantial, rather than superficial and self-centered fronts. — Wosret

I remember you saying that you have a big nose, as I do.

I bet my big nose is far more beautious.

Oh, oh, I'm so triggered and harmed. Got me back for being such a big meanie. My big ugly ass nose. Oh nose!

I don't think men or women are physically that much different, but the culture of physical training has changed them dramatically. — Cavacava

As opposed to hominid evolution over the past 2 million years? I don't see what the athletic training would have been for most males prior to the late 19th century. Would it have been military? Or perhaps physical labor?

Anyway, tennis is relatively recent. I don't believe Serena or her sister Venus were lacking in opportunity to get on a tennis court growing up.

When I grew up, females had the same opportunity to participate in athletics as the males did, and we often played sports together on the playground. There was still an athletic gap between males and females.

The idea that men must fight wars, or do dangerous stuff because they're more physically capable may be something you would want to believe, but it's because males are less biologically valuable. Losing a single female reduces population growth, but not true of losing a male, because a single male can impregnate more than one female, but not true of the reverse.

It would never make biological sense to make the females more risk taking, regardless of any gaps in competence.

My point is that a woman's top time today would have won a big margin against top male runners back in the day, look at the time difference.

It would never make biological sense to make the females more risk taking, regardless of any gaps in competence. — Wosret

Makes sense. I'm only arguing that there is a physical difference that can often be seen in athletic events. This isn't a value judgement, just that it exists. It's not universal, and it varies among individuals, obviously.

My point is that a woman's top time today would have won a big margin against top male runners back in the day, look at the time difference. — Cavacava

True, which isn't as true for shorter distances, which lends support to there being less of a gap over longer distances.

Pretty much all athletic performances have improved since the 50s across genders.

The physical difference is one between explosive power, and stamina. Weight, and endurance. Not in every conceivable way, in every single physical competition imaginable, and not without some significant reasons that don't reduce to biology.

It's far from just a hard truth that softies and sjw just won't admit or something...

And 2:17 in the marathon is almost inhumanely fast. How many people out of 7+ billion could realistically run that fast (with any amount of training) over 26.2 miles?

In the animal kingdom, different species can have different degrees of what is called "sexual dimorphism"...

Sexual dimorphism is the degree to which the males and females of a given species exhibit different biological characteristics (I.E: color, size, strength, horns, etc...)...

For example, deer species tend to display high degrees of sexual dimorphism with the males generally being bigger (almost universally true for deer) and also the possession of antlers. (the male and female deer do lead somewhat different kinds of lives, with the male fighting against other males, and the females rearing the children).

A pair of crows however exhibit almost no sexual dimorphism whatsoever, which suits them well because they both lead the exact same kind of lives. (they "pair bond" and then both share the duties of child-rearing equally, which has caused both the males and females of the species to converge toward the same ideal parental form).

Pair-bonding species tend to have low sexual dimorphism and "tournament species" tend to have high degrees of sexual dimorphism...

Humans are both a pair-bonding AND tournament species. In some individuals there can be seen a high degree of sexual dimorphism, and in some individuals almost no sexual dimorphism is visible.

As such, there are many men who have less physical strength than many women, but when we look at the extreme ends of the spectrum of dimorphism, we see women being geared toward child rearing on one end, and males being geared toward competition on the other end.

Men and women with low degrees of sexual dimorphism will generally have an equal distribution of traits and characteristics (like a pair-bonding species which shares the responsibility of child rearing), but the outlying women will somehow be more geared toward child-rearing, while the outlying men will be geared toward competition with other men.

These outliers fill the top echelons of sporting prowess (and in beauty magazines) and explains why many men have physically bigger and stronger bodies than many women... It's all genetic!

I really hate it when fat old women on bicycles pass me. It's just intolerable.

They only pass you out of spite because your outfits are likely better color coordinated than theirs. It's like you're slapping them in the face XD.

Are you suggesting that he has some hidden motivation for pointing out the difference between male and female tennis athletes?

Are you suggesting that his statements are somehow improper because of his motivations?

It's uncontroversially true that male athletes have a rather large advantage in just about any sport which requires physical strength to play at a high level. — VagabondSpectre

I don't know what his motivations were. I don't know that even he understands his motivations. I do think it is a strange thing for him to be so opinionated about. Although I have to admit that the interviewer's questions were very leading. Maybe it springs from an ultra-competitive mindset, or perhaps he was just being cheeky (although to me he appears to be earnest).

I'm not exactly saying that his statements were improper, but I do think that there are understandable reasons why certain people (e.g. female athletes in general, and Serena Williams in particular) would be annoyed by them.

Serena very graciously tweeted this reply:

Yes, but those depictions certainly did not mean to illustrate beauty. The pregnant woman's body is not supposed to be beautiful, but rather nourishing, protective and other qualities. That Serena picture actually wants to tell us that she's proud of her body - as if anyone gave a damn. She is indeed quite smug, and the idiots are paying money for this. — Agustino

The beauty in the photo, to me, is found in its candour about the female body. Most published photos of women depict an airbrushed, photoshopped distortion of reality.

I can tell you his statements were made in earnest. Tennis has very very competitive cultures which surround it, and while this is a part of where the "controversy" originates (the human desire to competitively compare and contrast, and the resulting dilemma when the top men are compared to the top women), it's also why there is such a clear divide in the first place (concerning tennis specifically at least).

Professional athletes in this sport pretty much get maxed out in terms of physical conditioning and the relevant skill set/mentality required to compete and win. Serena Williams certainly seems maxed out in these categories, but what limits her compared to some males is her upper limit on arm-strength.

The thing that makes Serena so dominant among women (her absolutely incredible body/strength) is the same thing that leaves her disadvantaged in a pool of the best men (many of them have stronger arms/serves/returns).

EDIT: Essentially what John said is entirely factual. Serena might do a bit better than the top 600, but likely not much.

The beauty in the photo, to me, is found in its candour about the female body. — geospiza

>:O - this must win bullshit of the day. Let me guess, you're a progressive who voted Clinton - you're with HER? :D

Why do I give a damn about candour when it's ugly?! Can someone please explain this to me? How does honestly expressing something ugly suddenly make it beautiful? :s

"Oh the candour with which he talked about his open marriage, ahhh so beautiful". WTF? :s I think the brain has gone missing...

Pair-bonding species tend to have low sexual dimorphism and "tournament species" tend to have high degrees of sexual dimorphism. — VagabondSpectre

Sexual selection is only one factor contributing to sexual dimorphism. Consider most bird-of-prey species: the female is significantly larger than the male, and they both contribute to the rearing of young. The adaptive significance of this difference in size appears to be unrelated to sexual selection, but instead related to a division of labor between the parents. Research suggests that the difference in size permits each sex to specialize in different prey items thus ensuring a broader pool of food items in times of scarcity.