Today in History: Billie Jean King defeats Bobby Riggs in tennis's Battle of the Sexes, 1973

Following a summer of campy trash talk (Riggs: “I’ll tell you why I’ll win. She’s a woman and they don’t have the emotional stability.”), the "Battle of the Sexes" was ready for prime time. On September 20, 1973, more than 30,000 fans filed into the Houston Astrodome – itself something of a novelty, as one of the new indoor arenas that would become part of the American sporting landscape – with celebrities like Salvador Dalí mingling with what appeared to be aliens wearing tuxedos.
Embracing the spectacle, King entered the playing court on a gold litter carried by four shirtless members of the Rice University track team, while Riggs arrived via rickshaw, flocked by his bevy of "Bobby's bosom buddies." They then exchanged pregame gifts: A baby pig for the chauvinist Riggs, a giant Sugar Daddy lollipop for King.
While the carnival-like atmosphere continued in the stands, King got down to business on the court. After falling behind early, she broke Riggs's serve to pull even, and then continued her onslaught from the baseline. Riggs, meanwhile, realized he would have to work harder than intended, and shed his Sugar Daddy jacket after three games. Furthermore, his usual grab bag of tricks was yielding nothing of substance, and he uncharacteristically double-faulted to hand the first set to his opponent.
It was more of the same in the second and third sets, with King wearing out the older Riggs in key points as her supporters celebrated in the stands. The outcome, while not as one-sided as the Mother's Day Massacre, was nevertheless decisive in its own right, as King swept to a 6–4, 6–3, 6–3 victory. Riggs demanded a rematch (which he never received) but was also unusually humble in defeat, conceding that he had underestimated King's abilities.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

That Uplifting Tweet You Just Shared? A Russian Troll Sent It

Image
Here’s what Russia’s 2020 disinformation operations look like, according to two experts on social media and propaganda. By   DARREN LINVILL   &   PATRICK WARREN Internet trolls don’t troll. Not the professionals at least. Professional trolls don’t go on social media to antagonize liberals or belittle conservatives. They are not narrow minded, drunk or angry. They don’t lack basic English language skills. They certainly aren’t  “somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds,”  as the president once put it. Your stereotypical trolls do exist on social media, but the amateurs aren’t a threat to Western democracy. Professional trolls, on the other hand, are the tip of the spear in the new digital, ideological battleground. To combat the threat they pose, we must first understand them — and take them seriously. MORE: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/russia-troll-2020-election-interference-twitter-916482/ Posted by Jamie B.
Read more

The Nightmare Scenario That Keeps Election Lawyers Up At Night -- And Could Hand Trump A Second Term

Image
The Nightmare Scenario That Keeps Election Lawyers Up At Night -- And Could Hand Trump A Second Term   (Photo: Photos: Getty Images) Americans will almost certainly go to bed on Nov. 3 without knowing who won the presidential election. Since millions of people will vote by mail, constraints on time and resources will slow ballot counting into potentially a weeks-long process. Voting patterns suggest it’s likely that President  Donald Trump  could end Election Day in the lead in certain key states, only to be overtaken by Democratic opponent  Joe Biden  when more votes are tallied.  This could create a nightmare scenario during the three months stretching from Election Day to the Jan. 20 inauguration: a battle on the state and congressional level over who is the legitimate winner. This could include Congress reconvening on Jan. 6, presided over by Vice President  Mike Pence , with no consensus over its potential role in choosing the next president. This is arguably the most likely of th
Read more

Philosophical Question #14 – Lifestyle Choices

Image
Here is an interesting question in my list of philosophical questions: 1.) Should governments have penalties for those who live unhealthy lifestyles? A list of unhealthy lifestyles would include things like smoking, drinking, illegal drugs, prostitution, and other “vice” type activities. I guess the “government penalties” would be referring to monetary punishments, withholding medical treatments (insurance companies would love that), possibly imposing/regulating very high (exorbitant) prices on things considered unhealthy in order to cut down on their use, and other possibilities. 2.) Or, would you say that living an unhealthy lifestyle, likely resulting in a LOT of eventual personal pain and suffering, should be punishment enough for unhealthy lifestyles? When people make bad choices in life, often in their youth where ignorance and immediate gratification takes them over,  3.) Should a society be obligated to help "fix" them, by way of tax money?   Is that part of
Read more