As always Naomi writes very well, but I am not sure it is as one sided as she makes out, increasingly there are comments about male athletes' shape and weight. Indeed on this forum I can remember a lot of discussion about one GB male player's weight...

It is also true that "sex sells", but this is  true for both men and women. I would not be surprised to find that Rafa's overall annual earnings are still higher than Novak's and no-one can say that David Beckham's earnings were purely down to his football skills.

I don't understand why both the ATP and WTA player profiles' include their weight, why is this considered important?

 

Coup Droit wrote:

---

Naomi's article has done an amazing job in spurring a whole slew of articles on the subject, this being just one:

time.com/3964758/body-shaming-black-female-athletes/

---

 That article was a fantastic read about Sharapova and Williams in particular. I actually find Serena more feminine and attractive than Sharapova for all the reasons sited against her and regularly sing her praises in all respects. I know it should be argued that these things shouldn't be discused when talking about sporting ability but because it annoys me how people seem to think Sharapova is the body beautiful I always like to counter that by fondness for Serena. Or Serene Williams as I like to call her. I find nothing whatsoever feminine in the Sharapova look it's very confusing which does suggest the racism element must still be underlying as well.

indiana wrote:

---

What a wonderful world when preferring a certain skin colour would be as uncontroversial as preferring a certain hair colour.

Of course for so very many historical and indeed current reasons it is totally unrealistic for any foreseeable future to state skin colour as a reason for preferring someone's look ( and it is I would say a very significant part of their look even if some would say they do not see / recognise colour ) without receiving some backlash.

If ever life visits us from another galaxy they will probably in general more instantly take to the brown / black humans rather than the white / pink humans or vice versa purely through preferring the look rather than our concept of racism, but humans themselves can't state it in these terms without accusations of conscious or subconscious racism. Pity how some species develop.

As it is indeed, some may even make racist inferences as to apparent general preferences re the look of one person over another without colour of skin ever being mentioned ( and they may or may not be right In this, probably both re different folk ).

-- Edited by indiana on Wednesday 22nd of July 2015 12:44:49 PM

---

Hear hear. Each individual's preference re: anything in terms of physical appearance is their own choice. It's sad that for somebody to generally prefer 'white girls' or 'black girls' (although not necessarily stated this way) seems to be deemed sufficient evidence to make said person a 'racist'. I always come back to what you mentioned about hair colour there Indy; skin colour, just like hair colour, eye colour, height and weight - among a myriad of other features - is a feature of someone's appearance and if as a society we crave race-neutrality in the same way we crave gender-neutrality it should be considered as that and nothing more. Therefore if somebody finds women or men with darker skin more physically attractive than those with lighter skin, that is their prerogative and they shouldn't be vilified for it the way they seem to be.

Of course, on the opposite side of this when insults start being thrown around, it is no longer about personal preference, and becomes something different altogether

-- Edited by thejester on Wednesday 22nd of July 2015 01:36:36 PM

When it comes to inspiring girls to take up tennis, they come in all shapes and sizes, the fact that even at the elite level there are a variety of players of different shape, size, race and sexual orientation means there are players that almost every youngster can associate with perhaps aspire to be. Pay equality and broad prime time exposure at GS level is another area where tennis stands head and shoulders above almost all other sports for women.

I am with Wozzi completely regarding the professional game, if you want to win and a big butt is going to do it for you, big butt it is. Conditioning ones body to be as good as it can be to play tennis should be the aim of all professional players, indeed it is part of the broader definition of professional. That can be a psychological challenge and a battle that not all players can win or perhaps not choose to have because of its more general impact on their game, health and wellbeing. I can accept completely that that is where Naomi may be.

Tennis is multifaceted interms of skill sets required to perform at the elite level, and even at that level there is the capacity to compensate, in sports where success is directly related to physiology there is no such luxury, unless Chris Froome is skeletal he is not going to get offered watches to wear, he is an elite athlete who chooses to win and does so through the aggregation of marginal gains, which is equally applicable to tennis.

Id say Roger trumps Rafa and Novak that way no?

goldfish wrote:

---

There is very good article by Neha Uberoi, former tennis player, in the Huffington Post - 'A journey from tennis to self-discovery'.

If someone can find and put up the link, it's a good read. (I've forgotten how to do this)

---

 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/neha-uberoi/a-journey-from-tennis-to-_b_7860006.html