that a 30 year old woman could finally beat a 55 year old man who had already beat even younger women at the game?
2006-08-05 23:42:25 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Gender Studies
Sir, according to what I've learned, that matched was "payed off" anyway. Bobby Riggs was paid to lose. However, I cannot prove such an accusation.
2006-08-06 00:49:52 · answer #1 · answered by man_id_unknown 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It merely proved that on that day Billie Jean King was better than Bobby Riggs. Here's an interesting fact: when Chris Evert was at the top of her game, her brother wasn't even ranked in the top 100 men. She could never beat him. What does that indicate?
2006-08-05 23:50:52 · answer #2 · answered by canucklehead1951 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
come on bear. dont tell me you still beleive that **** do you? it was a put-on a show , it was a jest for billie jean the dyke to beat the old bastard. bobby riggs could have beaten her anytime it was a publicity show
2006-08-06 02:29:24 · answer #3 · answered by pisof49 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It doesn't prove anything. It was one match. It could have been that she was better, but it could have been a fluke. What difference does it make? They wer both excellent tennis players. There is no need go prove who is the most excellent of the excellent.
2006-08-06 15:24:39 · answer #4 · answered by Just Me 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If he could beat younger women at the game as you stated, why didn't he beat her too? You just contradicted your own argument.
Let it go! Get over it!
2006-08-06 08:26:59 · answer #5 · answered by nimbleminx 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If it proved anything, it's that people are people, and gender has little to do with skill. I know plenty of good women martial artists.
2006-08-06 09:07:53 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Given her sexual preferences, I would not consider BJK representative of her supposed gender.
2006-08-05 23:50:22 · answer #7 · answered by Hi y´all ! 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋