By David Smith, M.Sc., CSCS., SDL (He/Him)
In my “Women in Sports” class, we recently had a presentation and discussion on Billie Jean King and the famous “Battle of the Sexes” tennis match between her and Bobby Riggs. In short, as a retired tennis pro, middle age, self-proclaimed “male chauvinist pig” challenged Billie Jean King, at the time ranked as one of the top female tennis players in the world to a tennis match to determine which gender was “superior.” Riggs had previously played against the other top ranked female tennis player at the time, Margaret Court and won. With Billie Jean King herself in the midst of standing up for women’s rights and equality, the stakes were higher than ever, she took on Rigg’s challenge.
In front of a packed crowd at the Astrodome, Riggs and King played on and on until King’s decisive win that cemented her place in history and represented a major step forward for women’s sports, and rights. The question is, how did King succeed where Court failed? It’s not so much a contest of “the sexes” or battling against gender supremacy, rather it’s who is the better athlete.
Reflecting back on the match itself and the performance of each athlete (Riggs, King, and Court). There are arguments that Riggs threw the match to satisfy gambling debt, for which we know that the match was a big show in which a huge prize purse was offered, sponsorships were had and everything. Regardless of the outcome, the whole spectacle was a huge ratings win, drawing out a massive audience playing on the premise of the battle of gender supremacy. As far as the allegations of Rigg’s throwing the match, if there is any truth to it, it’s less dependent upon Rigg’s performance in the match itself and more on his preparation for the match. We know that in training and preparation, Riggs did not take this match seriously and instead used it as an opportunity to show boat and express his male chauvinism. In contrast, King knew the match was nothing more than a publicity stunt but trained for the match more seriously. She felt the threat this match would have on her advocacy for equal representation of women in sport. Thus, her training and preparation focused on developing her athletic conditioning and tactical strategy with an analysis of Rigg’s playing style. She was playing to win.
During the match itself, King’s strategy gradually exerts itself as it shows Rigg’s putting forth a solid and intentional effort of play but finds himself increasingly fatigued and making mistakes. King is returning all of his shots and serving up difficult ones designed to make him move as much as possible around the court. Taking advantage of his age, and lack of conditioning, King’s strategy exploits these weaknesses to her advantage that she uses to come home with the win.
In the follow up, many have argued that if King at age 29 and in the prime of her career played against a younger Rigg’s at his prime, he would have beat her. Could have he? Possibly. But we can never know since, well, Riggs and King’s careers did not overlap that way. There was also differences in size, playing experience, motivations, and numerous other factors that showed inequalities between these two athletes. Inequalities that favor one athlete over the other in any number of ways. So as much as “age” may be a determinant of performance advantage, it is no different than gender also being a determinant of performance advantage. That’s the whole point of the match.
In any competitive match, each athlete has strengths and weaknesses that may put them at any advantage or disadvantage over their opponent. But what determines success in the performance outcome is how each athlete utilizes those strengths and weaknesses to shape their competitive strategy.
Since this match, there have been other “Battle of the Sexes” type matches as well with other athletes. But all that shows is who was the better athlete without proving much else. For example, when the “Mother’s Day Massacre” occurred, Bobby Riggs won decisively over Margart Court, who, at the time, was the only female tennis player ranked higher than Billie Jean King. Margaret Court played her style and game of tennis against Bobby Rigg’s for which she was hopelessly outmatched. Letting credence to his claim that the male gender was superior. This kind of imbalanced match up and style of play has been repeated in subsequent “Battle of the Sexes” type matches, for which the male athlete comes home with the win, such as Jimmy Connors and Martina Navratilova in 1992.
Men’s and women’s tennis involved different styles of play, different strategies and expectations that are unique to the rules and development of the game within those separate divisions. That’s a consequence of gender segregation in sport because even if the rules are the same, there are differences in the way that athletes strategize and employ tactics in their play. As a result, the “game” within its own self-contained division, evolves in a completely different way, like comparing apples to oranges. While they’re both “fruit” and even have the same shape, an apple is entirely different from an orange.
This is the main principle of “Game Theory” for which in any competitive situation, the outcome of a player’s choice of action depends critically upon the actions of other players. Thus, in a sport like tennis, in every match and tournament each athlete playing against each other shapes and develops their tactics accordingly. The more matches played, the more this evolution of strategic game play occurs. By having gender segregated sports, the women’s tennis “game” had developed entirely different than the men’s, especially with men’s tennis being more popular and well-funded, allowed for more matches to occur and stronger evolution of the game. Based on this principle, by the point of the Battle of the Sexes, male tennis players were stronger indeed stronger than women, as evidenced by the Mother’s Day Massacre.
Yet, despite all the male chauvinist showboating, when Rigg’s and King played together, King won. Billie Jean King won because rather than playing against opponents like Margaret Court, for whom she knew how to play against, she adapted her own tactics and strategy to match up against Bobby Riggs. That is, King directly applied the principles of Game Theory into her own training to adapt and play Bobby Riggs’ game. This is most certainly reflected by King herself in her own personality and motivations to push herself to her maximum capabilities as an athlete. Her personality and drive to constantly do better and become better is the kind of qualities that sets apart champions like Billie Jean King from the rest. This drive and willingness to adapt is what pushed King further than any female tennis player before her had gone. In a show of “Davina and Goliath”, she showed that yes, women athletes are just as strong, capable, and competitive against men.
King’s professional career continued for a few more seasons where she won another Wimbledon and US Open title as her playing career began to sunset. The tactics and style she developed to beat Bobby Rigg’s she continued to employ and helped her win the Wimbledon and US Open titles. As a result, to remain competitive, her opponents learned to adapt their strategies and tactics accordingly. Thus, in addition to the positive affect her win against Riggs had on women’s tennis and women’s liberation as a whole. she also elevated the game itself and pushed the standard of performance and competition much higher for all of women’s tennis since.
stonewallperformance.com 