Week 26 - Wimbledon men's qualifying singles, Roehampton, Great Britain (grass)

JonH · All-time great

RE: Week 26 - Wimbledon men's qualifying singles, Roehampton, Great Britain (grass)

Jiwan · Club Coach

Helen40 wrote:
jb288 wrote:
Disappointed to still hear Dan calling himself a f**got when he's upset...not, apparently, worthy of a code violation, but when you're playing in front of kids, not ideal.
Dan't always been homophobic, which is one reason I've never taken a liking to him despite disliking the Wimbledon's decision to punish him twice. Not great, but then if that is the only way it shows up these days in public, then I guess he's entitled to his views.

I retract my 'well behaved' statement from yesterday. I didn't hear him say that and he should have been given a warning. Other sports are actively doing stuff to stamp out homophobia / raise LGBT awareness. I don't see Tennis doing anything

A131 · Intermediate Club Player

''Needing a loo break after only 6 games is odd, but it was exactly the right thing to do, and it was sufficient to disrupt Bachinger's rhythm''

Ok - it was academic in the end but I just wander whether it would have been the right thing to do if it was the other way round.

christ · Futures level

edit: apparently offensive. Gone.

-- Edited by christ on Wednesday 27th of June 2018 11:21:13 PM

Stircrazy · Tennis legend

indiana wrote:
The AELTC keeps to its principles though

... of rank stupidity.

It's all that & a helluva lot more besides, but at least the Seeding Committee had the gumption to seed Serena 25th!

Jiwan · Club Coach

christ wrote:
I'm not sure that I understand the "homophobia" part of the issue.
I get that using offensive words is offensive. Naughty. But if Mr Evans was calling himself a "faggot", I fail to see the "homophobia". I would guess that he has a limited selection of terms for self-abuse, and he may well choose them inappropriately, but I fail to see how that, of itself, implies any sort of -phobia or -ism.
... now if he were directing the term at someone else - his opponent, a match official, or a member of the crowd, then sure: hang him for his phobia - but what have we come to when we infer -isms from an obvious attempt at self-harm/ motivation?
On the other hand I never understood why it is allowed to say "naff off" in polite company, when "f*** off" is not deemed appropriate: they are both meaningless four letter sounds that are intended to express exactly the same sentiment. To riff on the same theme why is that a newspaper can print f***, when everyone reading knows exactly what is represented - how is replacing some of the letters with asterisks any more acceptable? Would Mr Evans have still been homophobic if he called himself a f*****? (which introduces an interesting issue: would he say "eff-star-star-star-star-star", or "eff-five-stars"?)

It's contextual. He's using a minority group to signify how rubbish his play /shot was. Essentially saying LGBT=rubbish. He used the word in a derogatory way that does cause offence to this community and people that support this community. It's similar to people saying 'that's so gay' to mean that's stupid. Bigoted people say bigoted things whether it's meant as intent or not.

Apart from the fact that someone else heard a whole conversation with him being homophobic doesn't lighten it or make it defendable

-- Edited by Jiwan on Wednesday 27th of June 2018 11:34:16 AM

flamingowings · All-time great

Helen40 wrote:
I think there's probably a lot of inappropriate behavior out there, especially at lower levels. The thing is that there are sportspeople, and they get thrust into the public eye and then get judged by their outward appearance. They all have their own personalities and opinions (which they are entitled to, whether I/we agree with them or not). Then they have to learn to be PC, which takes time. I have less patience for the likes of Gulbis though as he's that bit older and has been around for long enough to know better. Hope Dan gets there too, but I bet that they're not alone, it's just that we probably don't get to hear about most of it.

Gulbis is only a year older than Dan...

Gulbis has form for being a bit of a dafty anyway. Maybe he thinks he is funny or entertaining

Born2WinTennis · Club Coach

Stircrazy wrote:
indiana wrote:
The AELTC keeps to its principles though

... of rank stupidity.
It's all that & a helluva lot more besides, but at least the Seeding Committee had the gumption to seed Serena 25th!

So Serena can be bumped up the seedings but Andy Murray cannot! Why would the rules be different for men vs ladies. Apparently the men need to be inside the top 32, whereas the women don't....makes zero sense.

the addict · Tennis legend

They don't have rules for the women - yet. It's left to discretion. They say they are going to review it.

indiana · Tennis legend

Born2WinTennis wrote:
Stircrazy wrote:
indiana wrote:
The AELTC keeps to its principles though

... of rank stupidity.
It's all that & a helluva lot more besides, but at least the Seeding Committee had the gumption to seed Serena 25th!
So Serena can be bumped up the seedings but Andy Murray cannot! Why would the rules be different for men vs ladies. Apparently the men need to be inside the top 32, whereas the women don't....makes zero sense.

There is an agreed objective formula for the men applying to the top 32 so they certainly can't and shouldn't vary from that. Given it is written down I'd probably sue if I was bumped out of the seeds by Andy, however much we may varyingly think he might be worth a seeding. So that's the men's position.

The women's position is less satisfactory for being so subjective in that they say they go by the rankings but reserve the right to make changes for a balanced draw. No objective basis, apparently just how they feel whether they change from the rankings at all ( normally they just leave as is ) and to what seeding.

I agree that it is unsatisfactory so pleased to hear that them say they are going to review the women's situation. Serena would remain unseeded if the same rules applied as the overriding issue with her, just as with Andy, would remain her low ranking ( outside the top 32 participants ) due to absence from the tour.

An in-between for both might be to apply the formula to everyone. Andy would get a seeding if the formula applied to him with his Wimbledon record of the last 2 years ( at #20 ) and Serena would be seeded too with her Wimbledon 2016 title. I think though they only managed to agree with the ATP having a grass court formula if all top 32 ranked retained the right to some sort of seeding. It will be interesting to see how they adjust the men's rules next year with the reversion to just 16 seeds. Simply bring the formula down to applying to the top 16 or what.

-- Edited by indiana on Wednesday 27th of June 2018 01:21:38 PM

christ · Futures level

edit: apparently offensive. Gone.

-- Edited by christ on Wednesday 27th of June 2018 11:21:57 PM

JonH · All-time great

indiana wrote:
Born2WinTennis wrote:
Stircrazy wrote:
indiana wrote:
The AELTC keeps to its principles though

... of rank stupidity.
It's all that & a helluva lot more besides, but at least the Seeding Committee had the gumption to seed Serena 25th!
So Serena can be bumped up the seedings but Andy Murray cannot! Why would the rules be different for men vs ladies. Apparently the men need to be inside the top 32, whereas the women don't....makes zero sense.
There is an agreed objective formula for the men applying to the top 32 so they certainly can't and shouldn't vary from that. Given it is written down I'd probably sue if I was bumped out of the seeds by Andy, however much we may varyingly think he might be worth a seeding. So that's the men's position.
The women's position is less satisfactory for being so subjective in that they say they go by the rankings but reserve the right to make changes for a balanced draw. No objective basis, apparently just how they feel whether they change from the rankings at all ( normally they just leave as is ) and to what seeding.
I agree that it is unsatisfactory so pleased to hear that them say they are going to review the women's situation. Serena would remain unseeded if the same rules applied as the overriding issue with her, just as with Andy, would remain her low ranking ( outside the top 32 participants ) due to absence from the tour.
An in-between for both might be to apply the formula to everyone. Andy would get a seeding if the formula applied to him with his Wimbledon record of the last 2 years ( at #20 ) and Serena would be seeded too with her Wimbledon 2016 title. I think though they only managed to agree with the ATP having a grass court formula if all top 32 ranked retained the right to some sort of seeding. It will be interesting to see how they adjust the men's rules next year with the reversion to just 16 seeds. Simply bring the formula down to applying to the top 16 or what.

-- Edited by indiana on Wednesday 27th of June 2018 01:21:38 PM

Once theyd decided on giving her a seeding, the 2nd question is how on earth they decided on 25th ? Why not 24th or 28th or 15th or whatever.

Highly unsatisfactory and what about Cibulkova missing out. I hope she draws Serena round one and they can battle it out.

Helen40 · Grand Slam Champion

flamingowings wrote:
Helen40 wrote:
I think there's probably a lot of inappropriate behavior out there, especially at lower levels. The thing is that there are sportspeople, and they get thrust into the public eye and then get judged by their outward appearance. They all have their own personalities and opinions (which they are entitled to, whether I/we agree with them or not). Then they have to learn to be PC, which takes time. I have less patience for the likes of Gulbis though as he's that bit older and has been around for long enough to know better. Hope Dan gets there too, but I bet that they're not alone, it's just that we probably don't get to hear about most of it.
Gulbis is only a year older than Dan...
Gulbis has form for being a bit of a dafty anyway. Maybe he thinks he is funny or entertaining

Didn't realise that, I had in my head that he was an old timer. confuse

Jiwan · Club Coach

christ wrote:
Jiwan wrote:
It's contextual. He's using a minority group to signify how rubbish his play /shot was.
Is there any way to insult yourself without upsetting some sort of minority? (... or, more likely, some group of people on behalf of said minority?)
"Oh you sad panda" is obviously ailuropodaphobic, after all.

The dictionary is a big book of words which you can read and learn without insulting people. He used a homophobic slur and you defending him it is also offensive.

BTW why do I have to be part of a minority to be offended by homophobia. As it is, I am part of that minority group and I do find your comments and defense of Evans around this issue has personally caused me offence. Does that answer your question? Can a moderator please step in?

-- Edited by Jiwan on Wednesday 27th of June 2018 05:24:02 PM

Jajon · Club Coach

Jiwan wrote:
Helen40 wrote:
jb288 wrote:
Disappointed to still hear Dan calling himself a f**got when he's upset...not, apparently, worthy of a code violation, but when you're playing in front of kids, not ideal.
Dan't always been homophobic, which is one reason I've never taken a liking to him despite disliking the Wimbledon's decision to punish him twice. Not great, but then if that is the only way it shows up these days in public, then I guess he's entitled to his views.
I retract my 'well behaved' statement from yesterday. I didn't hear him say that and he should have been given a warning. Other sports are actively doing stuff to stamp out homophobia / raise LGBT awareness. I don't see Tennis doing anything

Sounds like someone who isnt in a minority group and has never faced abuse just because of their identity xxxx

There is nuance to this though, if Dan was a homosexual man saying it to himself it takes on a whole other meaning, in that way its similar to how black people are allowed to say certain words white people cannot. However, Dan, as far as Im aware is not a homosexual male so it Is offensive, as pointed out by Jiwan, it emphasises the idea of homosexuality being a bad thing. (I mean this may be your view but that would make you dim).

While Dans use of language isnt in itself particularly harmful, it does highlight the constant minor homophobic things in society and it can lead to LGBT people feeling they have to alter their behaviour etc. Not a big deal but its never a one off from just one guy that one time, so I would say its more than just PC gone mad!!

I mean I still like Dan and not going to wish him badly because of it but it is disappointing to have negative things about you reinforced, especially when you least expect it.

Either way come on Mr Ward, I put him as favourite for this one so I hope he can sneak through!

-- Edited by Jajon on Thursday 28th of June 2018 10:33:51 AM