By watching this highlight reel, you'd think Martina was beating him. Amazing what intentional editing can do. Jimmy was 40 years old, Martina 35 and Martina was allowed to use the doubles lanes and Jimmy was only allowed 1 serve, Martina was allowed 2. And Jimmy still won 7-5 6-2.
But the doubles lanes were cut down noticeably from their regular width. He should've won by more. The serve thing is not such a big deal. It's not as if he wasn't allowed to serve and volley or could only hit to her forehand.
She was actually outplaying him for much of the first set, the conditions caught and frustrated Connors but Connors held on, then Connors got his second wind and at the same time Martina imploded.
Mostly because it was a joke and everyone knew it. Tennis magazine openly was sarcastic in their coverage, and everyone knew jimmy made the first set “close” before pulling away. The tennis was not great. Martina did seem to take it very seriously (she once argued she might be able to beat a man on the right surface - but rival Chris Everett said she had no chance lol). It was seen as a big money grab exhibition to dupe casual fans into the man vs woman hype.... no knowledgeable people ever thought Martina could get even a fluke win.
Chocolatetown Forever I have zero doubt he threw it. I was a pretty good coach, analyst, player and I knew it within a few points. I remember watching Seles and Davenport watching the match for the first time while being recorded and at one point, one blurted put to the other quickly “oh, he gave it to her!” And then they looked at each other and covered their mouths giggling. It was obvious to a good eye. Of course add to that the destruction bobby had just given court and it’s all the more obvious. Bobby was said to have tried for years and years to get a rematch but king adamantly refused. She knew. He knew. I am certain he wanted a big money rematch.... she knew she should quit while ahead. One writer even intimated in an article that bobby came to accept his role and realize how much benefit it had to women’s sport. On his deathbed king came to see him and his words to her were “We did it didn’t we?”
@@datacipher Interesting take. 100k back in the 70s is a ton of dough though. Do you think he bet or had others bet against himself somewhere? Hard to believe he would throw the match just to help womens tennis.
Serena was asked on a talk show if she wanted to participate in such a tennis match between her and Djokovic. She said the sets would not last more than 5 minutes.
dan16000 Serena and Venus Williams competed in 1998 and they clearly lost to Braasch, then ranked at #203; before his duels agaisnt the Williams' sisters, he stopped competing because of an injury and he was still healing. Furthermore, a few hours before his sets against the sisters, he was caught smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol and was still doing so between changeovers. The Williams had big month: they said they could beat any 200 or below male tennis player; they seemed lost on the court even if Braasch was easy on them. According to him, he played like a 600th player in order to keep the game "fun"...
Legend33Larry It's important to consider that Serena and Venus were 16 and 17 years old...that time her Best service was 170 km not 209. However my opinion is that the best female player woul lose against the best 25 male players of 25-30 countries. So basically i do believe Braasch was ABSOLUTELY right.
+cerbero905, I get that. My problem is they claimed they could beat anyone ranked 200 and bellow at the time. Braasch showed the world the huge gap between men and women game! Mr. Braasch was clear on the subject; at 17/16 years old, the sisters would have never beaten anyone ranked around 600! He was injured, he smoked cigarettes and drank beer between changeovers. Even he wasn't 100%, he put both of Williams at their places. At 16-17 years old, the sisters could competed against the best women in the world, but against men... 'Against anyone in the top 500, they have no chance, because I was playing like No. 600 today.' -- said Braasch after his matches. They were arrogant and they deserved their beating!
Agreed. If we could get over the stupidity about equality-over-reality, it would be great to see older male players playing young women in competitive matches.
Oliver McCall wrong. That’s exactly how Trump supporters talk about the media. “Fake News.” Trump supporters are destroying every institution in this country. Now they’re destroying the US Post Office. Trump supporters are disloyal scumbags.
Badmintonforall you can’t even spell Clinton correctly, jackass. You can’t call anyone a moron.There are many Republicans who care about the United States so they despise Trump.
No one is considering the fact that at the time of the match Navratilova was still in the Top 5 and had reached a slam final recently, whereas Connors was outside the Top 50 with his last slam final 8 years ago!
I remember in an interview that it was suggested to Chris Evert that Martina reckoned she might challenge and beat a top 100 player in the men's game, to which Evert retorted that she didn't think that she'd be able to beat any man in the top 1000, as she couldn't beat her, then husband, John Lloyd. Both Connors and Navratliova were great champions and being a "leftie" always loved watching them play. But, no matter what anyone says and I pride myself on being a feminist, there are physical differences between men and women which means that, the best of the best of the male gender is going beat the best of best of the female gender.
Jimmy was such a sport playing Martina even with all the advantage she was given. Most male pros wouldn’t go for it. McEnroe said 750th ranked man can beat Serena. Believe it!
Rofl!! Lots of players would do it if offered the money jimmy got. It was also claimed jimmy put an enormous wager on himself. It was a joke to him and everyone knew it.
No you and McEnroe are both wrong. I played the 1,998th world ranked male tennis player in college he would have beaten Serena Williams 6-0,6-1 in 45mins. The gap between an actual male and female professional tennis players is huge and when you get into the top 2,000 it's not even close.
If you see the complete match or read the rules of it you'll see that he beat Martina having just one service instead of two and giving her extra space (he could use only the singles court while she could use an extra space, half the lenght of the doubles one, at its right and left so she could play a lot more angles)
If they're going to bend the rules like that, then isn't it admitting from the get-go that the man is superior in the first place? Then what's the point of all this? I can understand the novelty value, and they obviously sold a lotta tickets. But everyone knows Martina's dick was bigger than Jimmy's anyway.
IMHO- The greatest rivalry in Sports History was the classic matches between Martina and Chris Evert. Early Chris dominated winning 70% of the time. Then later Navratilova dominated their later matches. They faced each other about 80 times including 22 GS Finals with. Martina winning 14 of them.
@Zoran The fact that he beat her even with the rules against him not only proves that he has a natural physical advantage because he is a man (which proves that your statement about men and women being equal in strength is wrong) it also demonstrates that he is an amazing player, probably better skilled than Martina. Apart from that, you can clearly see both played an amazing game.
@@matiasdimter619 And the underdog Martina is doing also humanitarian work.quoted.. "for women people of color or other underrepresented groups, and for animals" so its not about gender but about helping underreresented anybody...... So maybe he does only job of which he is gifted naturally as a man... She does also a jobs that dont require natural gifts of manly muscless, or manly gifts.... Maybe if he would use something else than his natural "muscle" advantage...
I was at this match. It was a lot of fun. But, even in this short version, you can see how Martina took full advantage of the extra space and how it was giving Jimmy trouble. He actually said after the match that, if he ever did it again, he wouldn’t give the extra space. Also, only having the one serve, forced him to go easy on it. He routinely served at around 75 mph to make sure he got it in. That being said, during the first set, you couldn’t tell how it would go. Then, in the second, Jimmy put it into a higher gear. Again, it was all for fun and you could tell if you were there. But they are both great competitors and both were trying to win. Great night and a lot of fun.
I do want you to write me on email 📧 so will keep the conversation going It’s will mean great love and joy to me in starting a happy moment shared with my fans
Both players are so great personalities, the result should be not important. For me it is so nice to see the heroes of my youth again here on youtube. And of course today they play faster, but the 80´s got soul!
Martina Navratilova was scarily good!! Touch, agility and imagination. That's why she played at the highest level for so long. I loved watching her play.
Thank you for providing this. This battle of the sexes was way better than the famous Bobby Riggs and Billy Jean King match. Much more worthy opponents. I do wish this match was in full.
it was ridiculous when all the silly womens libbers would go all weird every time Navratilova won a point. Conners' disadvantage was all but impossible for him He had to play near perfect tennis to win this match. Most folks don't realize how significant Navratilovas' advantage really was. In spite of that she had almost nothing to lose and it really was a NO-WIN situation for Connors. Funny how after Connors won the match against all odds no one (especially feminists) ever talked about it again.
g0dlike308 Apparently you don't know much about tennis. In normal singles play the ball is played between the outer edges of the singles sidelines which measures 13' 6". The doubles alleys are an additional 4' 6" on each side for a total of 9 additional feet across the width of the court. This amounts to an extra 67% playing area in which Navratilova was able to play her shots. Jimmy Connors had to keep his shots inside the traditional singles lines - Martina was able to use the doubles alleys. She also had one other huge advantage - namely with the serve. Jimmy only got one chance to get the ball in play on every serve - If he missed the service box it was a point for Martina. This effectively caused Connors to hit his serves with a LOT less pace and a LOT more use of spin than he normally would have done. Martina was allowed to have the traditional "two tries" to get her serves into play allowing her to go for much heavier pace on the first serve. This is also HUGE advantage. Connors won the match against extremely high odds and he got very little praise for his accomplishment. I don't remember the year this event took place but I believe Connors was nearing the end of his career and Martina was still one of the most dominant players on the womens circuit. I dare say that most of the women who did all the whooping and hollering were not tennis fans per se' and knew very little about the game because it was obvious they really did not understand what it was that they were watching. They just wanted to see a "woman beat a man" - if Martina had come out on top there would never have been much mention of her huge advantages in the match and when Connors finally won the match it was like the event never happened...
51Dss "Apparently you don't know much about tennis." lol what? I play pretty damn well, pretty sure better than you. I was just wondering what the rules were for this particular match, I could've been Roger Federer and not know them. But yeah everybody knows men>women even in games like chess, which don't require ANY physical aspect.
g0dlike308 sorry for assuming from your comments that you didn't know much about the sport. The video is there for the viewing and since you commented I had to assume that you had watched it and if you did watch it and still did not understand Martinas' advantages in the match then it seemed fairly apparent that you didn't know much about the game of tennis. So apparently you commented on a video that you had not watched...go figure. You might well be a better player than I...My USTA rating fluctuated for most of my working years (I am retired) between 3.5 and just below 4.0 (it's been a few years but I think it was 3.7 or some such after I had a particularly good season). I have played quite a few women over the years and have lost sets to some of them many times...one of my sisters is included in that and it really irks me to this day! LOL I haven't played in USTA sanctioned events for over 10 years so I really don't know how I would stack up today (I'm 64) but I just had a nice 30 minute hit tonight with a guy 20 years my junior and we kept a very good pace and fairly long rallys going for that 30 minutes. I think mostly I've lost some stamina but I still hit ok - my mobility isn't good enough to compete really because I have a bad case of plantar faciaitis in my right foot and my right hip has a bit of arthritis - but for social/casual tennis I pretty much stick to doubles and mixed doubles. Unless like this evening I find a good practice partner who is willing to stand back at the base line and trade groundies with me...I love doing that! Come to Kansas City area sometime and I'll be glad to hit with you...
51Dss I am not in USA unfortunately. I am trying to get in shape and get over my arm soreness and I think if I can do that I can be top 10 in my province (adult rating) no probs. I'd say I'm about a 6.0 player atm.
I'm sure Martina got some points - as witnessed here- through her skills, but one point doesn't win a game. It looks like Connors allows her to win quite a few points, but once she got to 7 games - he took over. He had the measure of the match from the start
@@joemarshall4226 You don't understand much about tennis, do you? Connors was serving first in the first set (and in the second but that is less relevant) and was never even close to being broken (Navratilova had only 1 break point overall in the match). And even if she miraculously managed to break him, she still needed to confirm the break which was an impossible task when you play against someone that is deliberately letting you win points. Essentially, whenever he needed the break, Connors broke Navratilova, which is a good indication that if he needed to win the match with maximum 2 lost games he would still do it.
I really enjoyed watching this. Once the points got started I was surprised at how hard Jimmy had to work. Martina's strokes were solid and she had great versatility.
By watching this highlight reel, you'd think Martina was beating him. Amazing what intentional editing can do. Jimmy was 40 years old, Martina 35 and Martina was allowed to use the doubles lanes and Jimmy was only allowed 1 serve, Martina was allowed 2. And Jimmy still won 7-5 6-2.
Connors at 40 gets just one serve and Navratilova uses half the doubles alley. LOL! And still Jimmy won easily. it would have been 6-0 6-0 in a real match. Having said that Navratilov played some great points no doubt.
@@KnickKnack07 She wasnt fair past her prime. Her prime was 1982 to 1989, so she was only 3 years past the end of her prime. Connors prime was 1974 to 1982 so he was 10 years past the end of his.
What the hell? Do you REALLY not realize what three years means in terms of a TENNIS player's career? I can tell you have never played a sport in your life. Or are a child. REGARDLESS of the sort, and regardless of your level, 3 years at the end of your prime is HUGE. this is not even a debate. She was well past her prime. Which, by the way, was early to mid 80s...not the 1986-1989 period that you seem to think. You know...when she won 9 out of 10 Grand slams that she entered. Why would you extend that to 1989 when she hadn't won ANY Grand Slams in two years before then? Oh...I know. Because you thought it would back up your point. The funny part is...even using your silly extra 3 years of prime-ness, it still didn't for the aforementioned 3 years past being a huge deal.
@@KnickKnack07 She didnt win as many slams in the late 80s since Graf who is arguably even better than her came along. Graf is also a much tougher match up for her than Evert who couldnt overpower her, Navratilova admits she hates playing people who can overpower her, Evert couldnt, Graf could. Either way the main point is Connors was much further past his prime than Navratilova was. In addition to the ridiculous series of advantages Navratilova was given. This match was a cheesefest and a flat out stupid attempt to try and show equality for women, it was far worse than Kings vs riggs which is saying something.
@@KnickKnack07 Early to mid 80s, LOL! So you think 80 and 81 when she was losing a whole bunch of matches to Jaeger (who is a much poorer player than anyone she was losing to regularly in the late 80s), lost on grass to Betsy Nagelsen, and took 2 harsh beatdowns where she only got a few games from a nearly 40 year old King was her prime when the late 80s wasnt.
In 1998 this scenario was repeated, with the Williams sisters playing against the #203-ranked men's player. He defeated them both, 6-1 over Serena, 6-2 over Venus.
Players today in 2022 ..hit the ball so much harder with pace and spin...the athletes are stronger and fitter today....I will give the mental edge to the old timers since they had less physical ability...
Yes, Martina was given a larger court, Conners was limited to just one serve, and Jimmy was 40 years old at this point. But this is still some damn good tennis with amazing shots by both players.
Man Martina was a very good player. I can see why she dominated the women's game. If she came over that backhand more her game would've been even better
Aww...you are one of the gullible people that thinks that Tyson was invincible? All because his early career was like Rocky III, fighting nothing but set ups? The fact remains that EVERY time Tyson fought a top fighter in his prime (and some in which he didn't) he not only lost, but lost BADLY. That would be why he would refuse mandatory title defenses against Holyfield and Lewis for as long as possible.
What everybody didn't know was, Connors had a side bet going for $1 million that Martina would win no more than 8 games. In fact, she won 7 (it was 6-5, 6-2), so Connors must have been a bit worried at the end of set #1 with 5 losses so far. Truth was, Martina's loss was more her own fault, than Connors' -- literally, she had 8 double faults, including one on set point (ouch!), and 36 unforced errors. If she'd erred at more her normal level this match would have been a lot closer. Meanwhile Connors had only 6 double faults despite the rules which were: him getting a single fault, counted as a double fault. (That rule forced Connors to take something off his serve, or whenever he served at full power he was taking a lot of risk. Also Connors' side of the court was wider by half the doubles alleys to make him cover more court - an advantage Martina failed to exploit enough.) In short, she psyched herself out, whereas Connors actually put more pressure on himself with the side bet, and that worked for him, he was good at handling mental pressure, she wasn't as good at that.
interesting, I don't recall this match taking place back then. But having watched a lot of Connors matches growing up, I can tell you that he is playing down to the competition. MAYBE giving about 50% effort.
I watched a lot of tennis back then and I don't remember it either. There's a simple reason: Connors won decisively even after giving Martina 2 advantages--bad for the feminist narrative.
His ground strokes were much slower than normal, but his 1 serve only and her playing in the doubles alleys was a big advantage, connors was 40 martina was 35, all rules equal with him going all out, she wouldn't win a game.
By watching this highlight reel, you'd think Martina was beating him. Amazing what intentional editing can do. Jimmy was 40 years old, Martina 35 and Martina was allowed to use the doubles lanes and Jimmy was only allowed 1 serve, Martina was allowed 2. And Jimmy still won 7-5 6-2.
A close match? a 40 year old semi-retired Connors 97-years from his last grand slam won) beat her in straight sets, the 7 games won by Martina was more related to the bet he had, not because she won them.
Not only did jimmy only get one serve and Martina two , but Martina got to use the entire court including the doubles alleys, which takes a lot of pressure off of her when she’s going for angled shots. If this had been a straight up tennis match Connors would’ve beaten her 6-1, 6-1 or worse.
+Gregoryt700 --I agree this is a very interesting match. The changes made it quite competitive to the degree either could have won. TO me, its a cool matchup because MArtina was probably the greatest women's serve-n-volleyer ever, Jimmy was one of the great all-time returners, yet Jimmy did't have crazy power. The match was up for grabs! It would be hard to do this these days as the men-women gap in tennis seems to have widened. The men have gotten soo much better, yet the women might have gone backwards a bit! Chris
Jimmy was a semifinalist at US OPEN a year before,and was able to beat top-5(Stich) and top-15(Ferreyra) the same year,so even if she was top-3 o 5 female player,there weren't absolutely no chances for her,even with those rules,he would have beaten her even if he was 45.
Originally Connors was to play Monica Seles in that "battle of the sexes", who back then was in her prime. I don´t know why that match never happened, it was a year or so before that maniac stabbed Seles. I guess young Seles would have made Jimbo work hard for the money.
It basically depends on how well the female player makes use of the doubles alleys. That advantage is massive, it's like having the bumpers in bowling. Navratilova's serve and volley game is probably the harder one to play against with those rules. She can just volley ridiculous angles that are impossible for even Usain Bolt to get to.
I do see your point but on the other hand Connors ran down a lot of Navratilova´s volleys, shots from the baseline and even overheads when he decided to make more of an effort in the second set. The aforementioned Monica Seles was by far the hardest hitting female player in her prime in the early 90´s while Navratilova wasn´t. Connors himself was blown away in his semifinals at the ´91 US Open by hard hitting youngster Jim Courier. Navratilova´s serve was better than Seles´, though, and Connors would have taken advantage of that weakness in Seles´ game for sure.
not really.....JC faced down McEnroe's volleys. Martini is not that scary in comparison. I actually thought she played pretty well. The handicap they gave Connors at least made it interesting. If standard rules applied, forget it. JC was still way too good for her at 40yrs old.
Connors run the year before was a fluke. He was WELL past his prime. Aside from that one magical week, he hadn't made it past the 4th round in a grand slam event in 5 years.
Martina was ranked around 5 in the world then. Jimbo was about 80 in the world in the mens I think. A fairer match would have been vs Boris Becker (around world number 5 then), best of 5 sets, no tram lines for Martina and Boris would have his second serve (i.e. same as Martina). Or Monica Seles vs Jim Courier - both world number 1 back in 1992 I think. Would have been 6-0. 6-0. 6-0 to the guy if he played as hard as he would have on tour. Still Martina is a legend in the womens game - amazing accomplishments.
from Wiki... A third "Battle of the Sexes" match, entitled Battle of Champions, was played at Caesars Palace in Paradise, Nevada on September 25, 1992 between Jimmy Connors and Martina Navratilova aged 40 and 35 respectively. Navratilova had previously turned down invitations to take on John McEnroe and Ilie Năstase as she considered them undignified.[22] The promoters initially tried to match Connors with the then top ranked female player, Monica Seles. Connors called the match 'war'. Navratilova, on the other hand, called it a battle of egos.[23] The match was played under hybrid rules to make it more competitive; Connors was allowed only one serve per point, and Navratilova was allowed to hit into half the doubles court. Each player received a $650,000 guarantee, with a further $500,000 for the winner.[24] Connors won 7-5, 6-2.[25] Navratilova made 8 double faults and 36 unforced errors. Connors, too, was nervous and there was a rumor that he had placed a bet on himself to win at 4:1.[26] According to Connors' book The Outsider, he placed a million-dollar bet that he would lose no more than 8 games.
This is very "lefty" indeed. Women play by different rules and call it equality. And then when they lose they claim it is oppression. In fact, this couldn't really get more "lefty".
It's interesting to watch women play men because it's such a rare sight. Martina has a hard time with the speed of the ball which causes her to hesitate and miss hit the ball.
Rules and editing aside, some of these rallies are a lot of fun to watch. At one time, both were considered power players but by this point, I'm guessing not so much.
With the advantage of having the doubles alley being good, Martina played great. I thought the difference was when an excellent male player plays an excellent female player, (in any sport, really) both about the same age, the male should win because of superior quickness, speed, and strength. And 13 games to 7 indicates that.
Maybe love and love... for 90% of the women...but... we are talking about Martina Navratilova here, the best woman of her day, and maybe all-time, who out-trained everyone on the tour. and played like a guy anyway. I'm not surprised she won 7 games here. And even without special conditions she still wouldn't get double-bageled. @@tomsd8656
Even though she had the advantage of wider lines and 2 serves, I still think it’s amazing how well Martina did considering there was only a 5 year age difference.
Although Martina had the alleys she didn't use them that much. It was amazing to see her serve and volley against the best returner in the game at the time and be so successful. She was incredible.
Love the equality , Connors had only one serve to Martina's two , she got to hit into the doubles alley , plus I believe he was retired over 40 years old , they played 2 out of 3 sets instead of 3 out of 5 and he still won convincingly mainly in the second set .
This was nothing like Riggs vs. King. These players were both playing some serious tennis. Jimmy was only 5 years older than Martina and he was still in good shape having made the U.S. Open semis just one year earlier. And yet Martina was playing great against him. (Yeah, they showed more of her winning points but even though he won she was definitely competitive with him). You can see how she completely dominated the women's game in her prime if she could play like this at age 35. I loved how she went after it by serving and volleying. Players don't serve and volley like that anymore. The women of her day had no chance, especially on grass, which is obviously why she won Wimbledon NINE times and why she was 86-1 one season and 424-14 in her 5 best years. Not even Serena can come close to that record.
7:53 .. "It's more Martina that's beating Martina than it is Jimmy who's beating Martina..." One of the first things you find out in tennis is that you can let the other person beat themselves. So, it's Jimmy who's beating Martina. Period.
I think the point of any tennis match is to make it competitive and fun to watch. This match, regardless of gender or the change in rules, satisfied both criteria.
Talk about being sexist. I would just play it like a normal tennis match. The fact they make it disadvantageous to Connors is basically saying male players are definitely stronger, faster, and overall better than female players.
@@grendlsma This match was made on the premise claimed by Martina that she could beat a top100 male. Why did then she accept those advantages in first place? Don´t you see the irony? You either can or can´t, but you don´t see a man vs another man with such advantages.
@@grendlsma It was made to push the fem agenda, as usual, out of false premises and just to make them stop whining. Useless for anyone with some logic but it worked for them in the end, as always.
Both of them such incredible athletes. Given the funky rules that favored Navratilova, this isn't a real competition but it is absolutely GREAT tennis, both of them an incredible game. Spectacular tennis by two greats of the game.
+JordanjamesX ; that's true. Supposedly, she wanted the entire doubles alley, but Jimmy would not agree. So, the one serve idea came up. Connors "weak" serve is a little exaggerated...he was usually at or past 100mph on his 1st serve...which against a woman is more than enough.
apparently you have no clue of how tennis works.. she was younger, could take the risk on her first serve AND had extra space with the alley.. that is a huge advantage. navratilova, is still in my opinion maybe the best women's athlete to play the sports. so how is pointing out the fact of the one serve rule not of significance, it wasn't pointed out in the video..?
I watched this match when it happened, and, as the announcer indicated, the first set seemed to be on Martina's racquet. She really lost it due to unforced errors. If I remember correctly, she led 5-4 (I don't remember if she was up a break, but I do think she had been up a break earlier in the set.) In the second set, she kind of folded, and Jimmy hit with more authority. Remember, JImmy was still on the tour, giving the best players in the world a tough time (he took the first set of his second round match at the US Open that year from Ivan Lendl 6-3) Martina might have done well to serve and volley less, since Jimmy had the best service return in the world at that point. She had such an advantage in the rallies due to that extra four feet of court, it might have been more wise to come in behind a good wide shot, rather than her serve,. and of course, long rallies would wear Jimmy out. Some famous tennis guy bet a fortune on Jimmy to win the first set, and was panicking when Jimmy got down 5-4. Can't remember where I read that....it was a funny story, though....maybe it was Riggs.....
God asked Adam, "What is wrong with you?" Adam said he didn't have anyone to talk to. God said that He was going to make Adam a companion and that it would be a woman. God said, "This person will gather food for you, cook for you, and when you discover clothing she'll wash it for you. She will always agree with everything you say. She will bear your children and never ask you to get up in the middle of the night to take care of them. She will not nag you and will always be the first to admit she was wrong when you've had a disagreement. She will never have a headache and will freely give you love and passion whenever you need it." Adam asked God, "What will a woman like this cost?" God replied, "An arm and a leg." Then Adam asked, "What can I get for a rib?" The rest is history...
***** A reaction typical for guys like you... a majority at UA-cam: No sense of humor, don't know what the word "irony" means. Sad... but fortunately not my problem.
No ones saying women are competitive with men in tennis -- that's decisively untrue. But Navratilova needs to be given serious credit here -- she was past her prime like Connors was, and 40 isn't that old, so it's not like Connors was playing tennis like a 55 year old. She was serving to stay in the set but doubled, but 7-5 suggests there was a real possibility of her winning. Which is astonishing, given mens advantages.
Connors had all kinds of handicaps, but still won the match. Definitely was a entertaining match to watch and both players had some great shots. Oh, I always loved the way Martina walked, real sexy and great looking legs.😁
"The match was played under hybrid rules to make it more competitive; Connors was allowed only one serve per point, and Navratilova was allowed to hit into half the doubles court." So she had more than just 4 years advantage. ;)
Jimmy was nowhere near an elite male player at this point, but Martina was still a force in women’s tennis. So we are still talking about a top shelf woman getting beaten by a pedestrian male opponent, even with handicaps placed on him.
She gave him a good run for his money (literally)...but she did well enough that I wish they hadn't given her the extra space in the alley. She didn't seem to purposely take advantage of that, but only a few times where she missed did she just happen to benefit.
Jimmy wasn´t even trying. He bet on himself a million and conceded her 7 games to win the bet. That´s all. If they didn´t give her any of those advantages the match would have ended double 6-0 in less than 30 min.
Martina is incredible she always looked in great physical shape and I heard she really took fitness training very serious,she plays a lot like Macenroe sure of play,and I noticed Jim always seemed to feed off opponents power and she hit his shot back to him chopping the pace off the ball,smart,I got to meet her years ago,she's cool I always liked her,as a tennis player you can't not respect someone who put in all the work and more,and gets the job done...I didn't know this match happened...
If u notice one thing about both of these players they are both great at move the opponent around and using the whole court to their advantage,both of them are masters of that aspect....
Such a biased statement, this match was just before he had that magical run reaching the US open semifinals. He was also one of the greatest players of all time, despite his age.
Ridiculousediting. Unequal battle grounds in favor of Navratilova and still Conners beat her with little effort. Great editing, to make it look asif she was putting him under constznt pressure.
Venus Williams took on the number 200 ranked male player early in her career and got smoked. I think it was 6-1, 6-2. Connors, here, was at the end of his career.
+Scott Reed IIRC Steffi Graf once played a male German player ranked around 1,000 and lost the one set played (this was close to the end of her career but when she still played at top level). Could also be the player was ranked 500 and said she couldn't beat a 1,000 ranked player. This was just a 2 minute segment on regional German TV back then.
Both here are at the end of their career is Connors is not ranked 200, he's one of the all time greats and Martina is only 4 years younger so the scoreline says a lot more about her greatness than his.
By watching this highlight reel, you'd think Martina was beating him. Amazing what intentional editing can do. Jimmy was 40 years old, Martina 35 and Martina was allowed to use the doubles lanes and Jimmy was only allowed 1 serve, Martina was allowed 2. And Jimmy still won 7-5 6-2.
Not totally the doubles lanes: if i remember right 70 cm each side..
But the doubles lanes were cut down noticeably from their regular width. He should've won by more. The serve thing is not such a big deal. It's not as if he wasn't allowed to serve and volley or could only hit to her forehand.
Tanner Armstrong you are lying tu urselve
to not get two serves is a helluva big deal...he had to bunt it in after losing several points on his one and only serve
@Jody Vance
'Serve thing' is not such a big deal?
Ahahahahahah :))))))
Weird how most of the highlights show Martina winning points, yet she lost the match decisively.
they never show the score...because FEMINISM
The 2nd part of the highlight shows mostly Jimmy points... I guess they had no choice because Martina didn't win many with a 6-2.
She was actually outplaying him for much of the first set, the conditions caught and frustrated Connors
but Connors held on, then Connors got his second wind and at the same time Martina imploded.
Was looking for this match for quite a while. Strangely there was hardly any press coverage after Jimmy won
Mostly because it was a joke and everyone knew it. Tennis magazine openly was sarcastic in their coverage, and everyone knew jimmy made the first set “close” before pulling away. The tennis was not great. Martina did seem to take it very seriously (she once argued she might be able to beat a man on the right surface - but rival Chris Everett said she had no chance lol). It was seen as a big money grab exhibition to dupe casual fans into the man vs woman hype.... no knowledgeable people ever thought Martina could get even a fluke win.
@@datacipher So this leads to a logical question.
Did Bobby Riggs throw the match against Billie Jean King in 1973?
Chocolatetown Forever I have zero doubt he threw it. I was a pretty good coach, analyst, player and I knew it within a few points. I remember watching Seles and Davenport watching the match for the first time while being recorded and at one point, one blurted put to the other quickly “oh, he gave it to her!” And then they looked at each other and covered their mouths giggling.
It was obvious to a good eye. Of course add to that the destruction bobby had just given court and it’s all the more obvious.
Bobby was said to have tried for years and years to get a rematch but king adamantly refused. She knew. He knew. I am certain he wanted a big money rematch.... she knew she should quit while ahead. One writer even intimated in an article that bobby came to accept his role and realize how much benefit it had to women’s sport. On his deathbed king came to see him and his words to her were “We did it didn’t we?”
@@datacipher Interesting take. 100k back in the 70s is a ton of dough though. Do you think he bet or had others bet against himself somewhere? Hard to believe he would throw the match just to help womens tennis.
It didn't meet the agenda.
The match is stupid Martina got to serve twice and Jimmy only once. If you want real equality have a tennis match with the same rules.
Serena was asked on a talk show if she wanted to participate in such a tennis match between her and Djokovic. She said the sets would not last more than 5 minutes.
dan16000 True...
dan16000
Serena and Venus Williams competed in 1998 and they clearly lost to Braasch, then ranked at #203; before his duels agaisnt the Williams' sisters, he stopped competing because of an injury and he was still healing. Furthermore, a few hours before his sets against the sisters, he was caught smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol and was still doing so between changeovers.
The Williams had big month: they said they could beat any 200 or below male tennis player; they seemed lost on the court even if Braasch was easy on them. According to him, he played like a 600th player in order to keep the game "fun"...
Legend33Larry It's important to consider that Serena and Venus were 16 and 17 years old...that time her Best service was 170 km not 209. However my opinion is that the best female player woul lose against the best 25 male players of 25-30 countries. So basically i do believe Braasch was ABSOLUTELY right.
+cerbero905,
I get that. My problem is they claimed they could beat anyone ranked 200 and bellow at the time. Braasch showed the world the huge gap between men and women game! Mr. Braasch was clear on the subject; at 17/16 years old, the sisters would have never beaten anyone ranked around 600!
He was injured, he smoked cigarettes and drank beer between changeovers. Even he wasn't 100%, he put both of Williams at their places. At 16-17 years old, the sisters could competed against the best women in the world, but against men...
'Against anyone in the top 500, they have no chance, because I was playing like No. 600 today.' -- said Braasch after his matches.
They were arrogant and they deserved their beating!
The advantage Martina held in the rules was real, but I just loved watching these two play. What exciting tennis by two great champions!
Agreed. If we could get over the stupidity about equality-over-reality, it would be great to see older male players playing young women in competitive matches.
So Jimmy wins the match but 90% of your highlights are Martina winning. And you wonder why no one trusts the media?
No one trusts the media because of highlights on a UA-cam video. Has to be another moron Trump supporter.
Oliver McCall Trump supporters: “Information that makes Trump look good is always true. Information that makes Trump look bad is always false.”
Oliver McCall wrong. That’s exactly how Trump supporters talk about the media. “Fake News.” Trump supporters are destroying every institution in this country. Now they’re destroying the US Post Office. Trump supporters are disloyal scumbags.
@@mangoglounge7977 from a moron cliton supporter ?
Badmintonforall you can’t even spell Clinton correctly, jackass. You can’t call anyone a moron.There are many Republicans who care about the United States so they despise Trump.
No one is considering the fact that at the time of the match Navratilova was still in the Top 5 and had reached a slam final recently, whereas Connors was outside the Top 50 with his last slam final 8 years ago!
True but the numbers of females players is very little compared to men!
I don't think she got the entire doubles court; looks like about half.
So what? It was a fun match.
In June 22nd 2020, I watched these images of this match again. This was one of the greatest shows of tennis. Greetings from Brazil
It was very entertaining.
I remember in an interview that it was suggested to Chris Evert that Martina reckoned she might challenge and beat a top 100 player in the men's game, to which Evert retorted that she didn't think that she'd be able to beat any man in the top 1000, as she couldn't beat her, then husband, John Lloyd.
Both Connors and Navratliova were great champions and being a "leftie" always loved watching them play.
But, no matter what anyone says and I pride myself on being a feminist, there are physical differences between men and women which means that, the best of the best of the male gender is going beat the best of best of the female gender.
the only way is for the best male athlete to identify as a female then compete against the male.
.....and the least of the best male players will beat the best of the best female players
You’re not wrong but I wish people would stop taking away from it that women’s tennis is less fun to watch or that their athletes are less good
@@Aaronthegreatest I for one didn't stop watching women's tennis because of their skills - I stopped because of the moaning and sometimes screaming.
you're a kkk genderist
Jimmy in a no win situation. He won match with tougher rules.
At least it was a financial win situation for him ;-)
that's the way men live life
it sucks, but shows who is the better of the two (male or female)
Who is better... in tennis?... You don't have a single clue of what's the way women live life, do you?..
Jimmy was such a sport playing Martina even with all the advantage she was given. Most male pros wouldn’t go for it. McEnroe said 750th ranked man can beat Serena. Believe it!
Rofl!! Lots of players would do it if offered the money jimmy got. It was also claimed jimmy put an enormous wager on himself. It was a joke to him and everyone knew it.
Top junior college men would beat top women pros, period!
Most men WOULD do it. It's the women who have shied away from it in the past.
No you and McEnroe are both wrong. I played the 1,998th world ranked male tennis player in college he would have beaten Serena Williams 6-0,6-1 in 45mins. The gap between an actual male and female professional tennis players is huge and when you get into the top 2,000 it's not even close.
@@StopAsianHateSC 100% agree I played the 1,998th world ranked male tennis player in junior college.
Jimmy Corner is one of the best player of all times. Even when he is 40 years old he still delivered a great shot .
Thanks for the love and support you show me as a loyal fan of mine not withstanding how long have you been a fan of mine
If you see the complete match or read the rules of it you'll see that he
beat Martina having just one service instead of two and giving her
extra space (he could use only the singles court while she could use an extra space, half the lenght of the doubles one, at its right and left so she could play a lot more angles)
If they're going to bend the rules like that, then isn't it admitting from the get-go that the man is superior in the first place? Then what's the point of all this? I can understand the novelty value, and they obviously sold a lotta tickets. But everyone knows Martina's dick was bigger than Jimmy's anyway.
The purpose was to see if she could have the skill to make up for the physical superiority.
Also Connors was 5 years older
If they did that it would have been 6-0, 6-0 Connors.
The point? You said it yourself: Sell a lot of tickets
Excellent display of skills from both legends. Phenomenal mastery of shotmaking.
IAMMOVIN4WARD! Yes I like both of them
Connors can hit winners in his sleep. He is so consistent! It is amazing.
IMHO- The greatest rivalry in Sports History was the classic matches between Martina and Chris Evert. Early Chris dominated winning 70% of the time. Then later Navratilova dominated their later matches. They faced each other about 80 times including 22 GS Finals with. Martina winning 14 of them.
Changing the rules in her favor wasnt cheating considering he is a man and he has an obvious physical advantage, stop crying
@Zoran The fact that he beat her even with the rules against him not only proves that he has a natural physical advantage because he is a man (which proves that your statement about men and women being equal in strength is wrong) it also demonstrates that he is an amazing player, probably better skilled than Martina.
Apart from that, you can clearly see both played an amazing game.
Even the commentators are a pair of creeps. Praising all Navratilova does...and minimising Connors.
That happens because women are always watched as the underdog whenever they compete against men in sports. For Connors to win points was expected.
@@matiasdimter619 And the underdog Martina is doing also humanitarian work.quoted.. "for women people of color or other underrepresented groups, and for animals" so its not about gender but about helping underreresented anybody...... So maybe he does only job of which he is gifted naturally as a man... She does also a jobs that dont require natural gifts of manly muscless, or manly gifts.... Maybe if he would use something else than his natural "muscle" advantage...
They should do these matches again, so fun!
Wow stop talking, no one cares :)
Lol, you cared enough to comment!
not with the current racket technology. women could not handle serves, and flat forehands and backhands from top 100 male players
Hell no. The stupid woke press will take advantage of this and make it “gender equality “ bs.
I was at this match. It was a lot of fun. But, even in this short version, you can see how Martina took full advantage of the extra space and how it was giving Jimmy trouble. He actually said after the match that, if he ever did it again, he wouldn’t give the extra space. Also, only having the one serve, forced him to go easy on it. He routinely served at around 75 mph to make sure he got it in. That being said, during the first set, you couldn’t tell how it would go. Then, in the second, Jimmy put it into a higher gear. Again, it was all for fun and you could tell if you were there. But they are both great competitors and both were trying to win. Great night and a lot of fun.
In Connors' autobiography he says he bet 1 million he wouldn't lose more than 8 games total. So he definitely was serious out there.
Jimmy was having fun too--Martina was her usual HIGHLY grouchy self
Loved watching connors play. such a tireless & relentless hard-worker!
Connors is a legend!!
Both are a legend
This is a real fun match to watch actually.
Great match. Both players showed just how amazing their skills were.
Thanks for the love and support you show me as a loyal fan of mine not withstanding how long have you been a fan of mine
@@JimmyConnors-cy2xt Since the 70's. Always rooted for you cause you were funny and looked cool. Wimbledon final 1982 was the best.
@@toddubow2599 that’s is actually great 👍 and much lovely 😊 thanks so much for the love and support….
I do want you to write me on email 📧 so will keep the conversation going
It’s will mean great love and joy to me in starting a happy moment shared with my fans
@@toddubow2599 jimmyconnors534
Both players are so great personalities, the result should be not important. For me it is so nice to see the heroes of my youth again here on youtube. And of course today they play faster, but the 80´s got soul!
Martina Navratilova was scarily good!! Touch, agility and imagination. That's why she played at the highest level for so long. I loved watching her play.
In this game she sure wasn't scarily good - especially not with the different sets of rules for her vs Connors.
She was quite good... for a woman.
But she still could not beat a past his prime Jimmy conners despite huge rule advantages.
Thank you for providing this. This battle of the sexes was way better than the famous Bobby Riggs and Billy Jean King match. Much more worthy opponents. I do wish this match was in full.
it was ridiculous when all the silly womens libbers would go all weird every time Navratilova won a point. Conners' disadvantage was all but impossible for him He had to play near perfect tennis to win this match. Most folks don't realize how significant Navratilovas' advantage really was. In spite of that she had almost nothing to lose and it really was a NO-WIN situation for Connors. Funny how after Connors won the match against all odds no one (especially feminists) ever talked about it again.
51Dss wait a sec, what advantage did martina have? I am not a feminist who is trying to argue I just don't know the details of this match lol.
g0dlike308 Apparently you don't know much about tennis. In normal singles play the ball is played between the outer edges of the singles sidelines which measures 13' 6". The doubles alleys are an additional 4' 6" on each side for a total of 9 additional feet across the width of the court. This amounts to an extra 67% playing area in which Navratilova was able to play her shots. Jimmy Connors had to keep his shots inside the traditional singles lines - Martina was able to use the doubles alleys. She also had one other huge advantage - namely with the serve. Jimmy only got one chance to get the ball in play on every serve - If he missed the service box it was a point for Martina. This effectively caused Connors to hit his serves with a LOT less pace and a LOT more use of spin than he normally would have done. Martina was allowed to have the traditional "two tries" to get her serves into play allowing her to go for much heavier pace on the first serve. This is also HUGE advantage. Connors won the match against extremely high odds and he got very little praise for his accomplishment. I don't remember the year this event took place but I believe Connors was nearing the end of his career and Martina was still one of the most dominant players on the womens circuit. I dare say that most of the women who did all the whooping and hollering were not tennis fans per se' and knew very little about the game because it was obvious they really did not understand what it was that they were watching. They just wanted to see a "woman beat a man" - if Martina had come out on top there would never have been much mention of her huge advantages in the match and when Connors finally won the match it was like the event never happened...
51Dss
"Apparently you don't know much about tennis."
lol what? I play pretty damn well, pretty sure better than you. I was just wondering what the rules were for this particular match, I could've been Roger Federer and not know them. But yeah everybody knows men>women even in games like chess, which don't require ANY physical aspect.
g0dlike308 sorry for assuming from your comments that you didn't know much about the sport. The video is there for the viewing and since you commented I had to assume that you had watched it and if you did watch it and still did not understand Martinas' advantages in the match then it seemed fairly apparent that you didn't know much about the game of tennis. So apparently you commented on a video that you had not watched...go figure. You might well be a better player than I...My USTA rating fluctuated for most of my working years (I am retired) between 3.5 and just below 4.0 (it's been a few years but I think it was 3.7 or some such after I had a particularly good season). I have played quite a few women over the years and have lost sets to some of them many times...one of my sisters is included in that and it really irks me to this day! LOL I haven't played in USTA sanctioned events for over 10 years so I really don't know how I would stack up today (I'm 64) but I just had a nice 30 minute hit tonight with a guy 20 years my junior and we kept a very good pace and fairly long rallys going for that 30 minutes. I think mostly I've lost some stamina but I still hit ok - my mobility isn't good enough to compete really because I have a bad case of plantar faciaitis in my right foot and my right hip has a bit of arthritis - but for social/casual tennis I pretty much stick to doubles and mixed doubles. Unless like this evening I find a good practice partner who is willing to stand back at the base line and trade groundies with me...I love doing that! Come to Kansas City area sometime and I'll be glad to hit with you...
51Dss
I am not in USA unfortunately. I am trying to get in shape and get over my arm soreness and I think if I can do that I can be top 10 in my province (adult rating) no probs.
I'd say I'm about a 6.0 player atm.
And Connors wins the Handicap Match. Hurray for men!
Connors claimed in his book that he bet $1 million on himself to win this match while holding Navratilova to winning 7 games total.
I'm sure Martina got some points - as witnessed here- through her skills, but one point doesn't win a game. It looks like Connors allows her to win quite a few points, but once she got to 7 games - he took over. He had the measure of the match from the start
Randy Bailin That is awesome.
@@michaelleacy , des maanst a blous du😂😂😂
@@michaelleacy NO he didn't...she almost won the first set.
@@joemarshall4226 You don't understand much about tennis, do you? Connors was serving first in the first set (and in the second but that is less relevant) and was never even close to being broken (Navratilova had only 1 break point overall in the match). And even if she miraculously managed to break him, she still needed to confirm the break which was an impossible task when you play against someone that is deliberately letting you win points.
Essentially, whenever he needed the break, Connors broke Navratilova, which is a good indication that if he needed to win the match with maximum 2 lost games he would still do it.
I really enjoyed watching this. Once the points got started I was surprised at how hard Jimmy had to work. Martina's strokes were solid and she had great versatility.
By watching this highlight reel, you'd think Martina was beating him. Amazing what intentional editing can do. Jimmy was 40 years old, Martina 35 and Martina was allowed to use the doubles lanes and Jimmy was only allowed 1 serve, Martina was allowed 2. And Jimmy still won 7-5 6-2.
Connors at 40 gets just one serve and Navratilova uses
half the doubles alley. LOL! And still Jimmy won easily. it would have been 6-0 6-0 in a real match. Having said that Navratilov played some great points no doubt.
You act as if Martina was in her 20s. She was well past the prime of her career as well.
@@KnickKnack07 She wasnt fair past her prime. Her prime was 1982 to 1989, so she was only 3 years past the end of her prime. Connors prime was 1974 to 1982 so he was 10 years past the end of his.
What the hell? Do you REALLY not realize what three years means in terms of a TENNIS player's career? I can tell you have never played a sport in your life. Or are a child. REGARDLESS of the sort, and regardless of your level, 3 years at the end of your prime is HUGE.
this is not even a debate. She was well past her prime. Which, by the way, was early to mid 80s...not the 1986-1989 period that you seem to think. You know...when she won 9 out of 10 Grand slams that she entered. Why would you extend that to 1989 when she hadn't won ANY Grand Slams in two years before then? Oh...I know. Because you thought it would back up your point. The funny part is...even using your silly extra 3 years of prime-ness, it still didn't for the aforementioned 3 years past being a huge deal.
@@KnickKnack07 She didnt win as many slams in the late 80s since Graf who is arguably even better than her came along. Graf is also a much tougher match up for her than Evert who couldnt overpower her, Navratilova admits she hates playing people who can overpower her, Evert couldnt, Graf could.
Either way the main point is Connors was much further past his prime than Navratilova was. In addition to the ridiculous series of advantages Navratilova was given. This match was a cheesefest and a flat out stupid attempt to try and show equality for women, it was far worse than Kings vs riggs which is saying something.
@@KnickKnack07 Early to mid 80s, LOL! So you think 80 and 81 when she was losing a whole bunch of matches to Jaeger (who is a much poorer player than anyone she was losing to regularly in the late 80s), lost on grass to Betsy Nagelsen, and took 2 harsh beatdowns where she only got a few games from a nearly 40 year old King was her prime when the late 80s wasnt.
My two favorite Tennis players of all time.
In 1998 this scenario was repeated, with the Williams sisters playing against the #203-ranked men's player. He defeated them both, 6-1 over Serena, 6-2 over Venus.
Yeah and that guy's ranking dropped to #350 exactly 1 week later.
42 and hungover. Said he served his teaching serve and played like 600 just to show friendliness. Interview on YT. Karsten Braach..
Players today in 2022 ..hit the ball so much harder with pace and spin...the athletes are stronger and fitter today....I will give the mental edge to the old timers since they had less physical ability...
Fierce effort by Martina, Jimmy Connors still made the SFs at the US Open at the age he was there, 39
Connors got better with age 😂
Having the doubles lanes is like Christmas and your Birthday at once
Yes, Martina was given a larger court, Conners was limited to just one serve, and Jimmy was 40 years old at this point. But this is still some damn good tennis with amazing shots by both players.
Thanks for the love and support you show me as a loyal fan of mine not withstanding how long have you been a fan of mine
Man Martina was a very good player. I can see why she dominated the women's game. If she came over that backhand more her game would've been even better
Futbol?😂😂😂
I want to see Serena Williams vs vintage Mike Tyson in a fight.
Lol
Aww...you are one of the gullible people that thinks that Tyson was invincible? All because his early career was like Rocky III, fighting nothing but set ups?
The fact remains that EVERY time Tyson fought a top fighter in his prime (and some in which he didn't) he not only lost, but lost BADLY. That would be why he would refuse mandatory title defenses against Holyfield and Lewis for as long as possible.
Oh, she'll beat the shit out of him. She probably would when he was in his prime too:)
ncf1
Now that would be nice!
I want to see Serena Williams vs Donald Trump in a debate on economics and U.S. foreign policy.
What everybody didn't know was, Connors had a side bet going for $1 million that Martina would win no more than 8 games. In fact, she won 7 (it was 6-5, 6-2), so Connors must have been a bit worried at the end of set #1 with 5 losses so far. Truth was, Martina's loss was more her own fault, than Connors' -- literally, she had 8 double faults, including one on set point (ouch!), and 36 unforced errors. If she'd erred at more her normal level this match would have been a lot closer. Meanwhile Connors had only 6 double faults despite the rules which were: him getting a single fault, counted as a double fault. (That rule forced Connors to take something off his serve, or whenever he served at full power he was taking a lot of risk. Also Connors' side of the court was wider by half the doubles alleys to make him cover more court - an advantage Martina failed to exploit enough.) In short, she psyched herself out, whereas Connors actually put more pressure on himself with the side bet, and that worked for him, he was good at handling mental pressure, she wasn't as good at that.
interesting, I don't recall this match taking place back then. But having watched a lot of Connors matches growing up, I can tell you that he is playing down to the competition. MAYBE giving about 50% effort.
I watched a lot of tennis back then and I don't remember it either. There's a simple reason: Connors won decisively even after giving Martina 2 advantages--bad for the feminist narrative.
His ground strokes were much slower than normal, but his 1 serve only and her playing in the doubles alleys was a big advantage, connors was 40 martina was 35, all rules equal with him going all out, she wouldn't win a game.
Very nice but do we have to have it in the wrong aspect ratio? With out of sync sound?
So, why is it Connors won the match, yet, they seem to show all of Martina's highlights ?
because...FEMINISM. notice they never show the score, tyou get the impression that she won
The male announcer said that it wasn't really Jimmy who was beating Martina, it was Martina herself. HE WAS BLOWING HER OFF THE FUCKIN' COURT.
Martina was the best female player of her day and in this match she showed it. Great to see both players excel
By watching this highlight reel, you'd think Martina was beating him. Amazing what intentional editing can do. Jimmy was 40 years old, Martina 35 and Martina was allowed to use the doubles lanes and Jimmy was only allowed 1 serve, Martina was allowed 2. And Jimmy still won 7-5 6-2.
Love seeing Martina serve an volley wish the baseline game hadn't taken over as it has - fantastic.
Damn, I love the way Martina serve and volley....
best ever at that
the match was stupid why did martina only get two serves yet jimmy only got one. if you want equality should have been regular tennis match.
+JordanjamesX --X, I think we know why. Jimmy still won but it was a close match. So there you go.
Chris
Martina is a man!
Actually ... it wasn't close at all.
A close match? a 40 year old semi-retired Connors 97-years from his last grand slam won) beat her in straight sets, the 7 games won by Martina was more related to the bet he had, not because she won them.
Not only did jimmy only get one serve and Martina two , but Martina got to use the entire court including the doubles alleys, which takes a lot of pressure off of her when she’s going for angled shots. If this had been a straight up tennis match Connors would’ve beaten her 6-1, 6-1 or worse.
This was interesting, and fun to watch! How did I miss this? What year was it?
+Gregoryt700 --I agree this is a very interesting match. The changes made it quite competitive to the degree either could have won. TO me, its a cool matchup because MArtina was probably the greatest women's serve-n-volleyer ever, Jimmy was one of the great all-time returners, yet Jimmy did't have crazy power. The match was up for grabs!
It would be hard to do this these days as the men-women gap in tennis seems to have widened. The men have gotten soo much better, yet the women might have gone backwards a bit!
Chris
Jimmy was a semifinalist at US OPEN a year before,and was able to beat top-5(Stich) and top-15(Ferreyra) the same year,so even if she was top-3 o 5 female player,there weren't absolutely no chances for her,even with those rules,he would have beaten her even if he was 45.
Originally Connors was to play Monica Seles in that "battle of the sexes", who back then was in her prime. I don´t know why that match never happened, it was a year or so before that maniac stabbed Seles. I guess young Seles would have made Jimbo work hard for the money.
It basically depends on how well the female player makes use of the doubles alleys. That advantage is massive, it's like having the bumpers in bowling. Navratilova's serve and volley game is probably the harder one to play against with those rules. She can just volley ridiculous angles that are impossible for even Usain Bolt to get to.
I do see your point but on the other hand Connors ran down a lot of Navratilova´s volleys, shots from the baseline and even overheads when he decided to make more of an effort in the second set. The aforementioned Monica Seles was by far the hardest hitting female player in her prime in the early 90´s while Navratilova wasn´t. Connors himself was blown away in his semifinals at the ´91 US Open by hard hitting youngster Jim Courier. Navratilova´s serve was better than Seles´, though, and Connors would have taken advantage of that weakness in Seles´ game for sure.
not really.....JC faced down McEnroe's volleys. Martini is not that scary in comparison. I actually thought she played pretty well. The handicap they gave Connors at least made it interesting. If standard rules applied, forget it. JC was still way too good for her at 40yrs old.
Connors run the year before was a fluke. He was WELL past his prime. Aside from that one magical week, he hadn't made it past the 4th round in a grand slam event in 5 years.
would have been nice if you had included the year , I had to look it up for this match
Connors was returning the balls to Navratilova's corner rather than making her run around. That shows he really isn't being serious here
Connors played with her the whole match. He could have won 6-0. 6-0. But he is a showman.
Martina was ranked around 5 in the world then. Jimbo was about 80 in the world in the mens I think. A fairer match would have been vs Boris Becker (around world number 5 then), best of 5 sets, no tram lines for Martina and Boris would have his second serve (i.e. same as Martina).
Or Monica Seles vs Jim Courier - both world number 1 back in 1992 I think.
Would have been 6-0. 6-0. 6-0 to the guy if he played as hard as he would have on tour. Still Martina is a legend in the womens game - amazing accomplishments.
from Wiki... A third "Battle of the Sexes" match, entitled Battle of Champions, was played at Caesars Palace in Paradise, Nevada on September 25, 1992 between Jimmy Connors and Martina Navratilova aged 40 and 35 respectively. Navratilova had previously turned down invitations to take on John McEnroe and Ilie Năstase as she considered them undignified.[22] The promoters initially tried to match Connors with the then top ranked female player, Monica Seles. Connors called the match 'war'. Navratilova, on the other hand, called it a battle of egos.[23]
The match was played under hybrid rules to make it more competitive; Connors was allowed only one serve per point, and Navratilova was allowed to hit into half the doubles court. Each player received a $650,000 guarantee, with a further $500,000 for the winner.[24] Connors won 7-5, 6-2.[25] Navratilova made 8 double faults and 36 unforced errors. Connors, too, was nervous and there was a rumor that he had placed a bet on himself to win at 4:1.[26] According to Connors' book The Outsider, he placed a million-dollar bet that he would lose no more than 8 games.
I call this one Battle of the Lefties! This is the great tennis I love to see!!!!
This is very "lefty" indeed.
Women play by different rules and call it equality.
And then when they lose they claim it is oppression.
In fact, this couldn't really get more "lefty".
Is that tennis or badminton?
If SERENA played RAFA NADAL on CLAY😂😂😂
I would bet whether she gets a single point 😂
It's interesting to watch women play men because it's such a rare sight. Martina has a hard time with the speed of the ball which causes her to hesitate and miss hit the ball.
This was pretty much the last time such a match could have been played!
Here is a question....who would have won if they wrestled??
Chris
both
@@joemarshall4226 Why "both"?
@@chrisg.475 When men and women "wrestle", it's usually a win-win situation.
@@joemarshall4226 Aahhh. Yes, true!
In 1998 Serena and Venus Williams both played a match against the #203-ranked men's player. He beat Serena 6-1 and Venus 6-2.
Rules and editing aside, some of these rallies are a lot of fun to watch. At one time, both were considered power players but by this point, I'm guessing not so much.
I never knew these two ever played against each other. It doesn't really look like Connors is playing at 100% effort.
That's why I like both of these player they were fighters never give up or let up...because they don't good match...thanks for sharing
Connors was one of the greatest. He always gave 100%. He was a real Champion.
With the advantage of having the doubles alley being good, Martina played great. I thought the difference was when an excellent male player plays an excellent female player, (in any sport, really) both about the same age, the male should win because of superior quickness, speed, and strength. And 13 games to 7 indicates that.
If it were real competition between male and female without any special condition, the score would 6-0 6-0.
Maybe love and love... for 90% of the women...but... we are talking about Martina Navratilova here, the best woman of her day, and maybe all-time, who out-trained everyone on the tour. and played like a guy anyway. I'm not surprised she won 7 games here. And even without special conditions she still wouldn't get double-bageled. @@tomsd8656
Even though she had the advantage of wider lines and 2 serves, I still think it’s amazing how well Martina did considering there was only a 5 year age difference.
Very true. I'm quite surprised. But can't tell how serious Jimmy was with his game that day.
i want to know if Jimmy had those advantages... Would Martina lose 6-0 6-0?
Although Martina had the alleys she didn't use them that much. It was amazing to see her serve and volley against the best returner in the game at the time and be so successful. She was incredible.
You gotta give Martina a lot of credit - she did MUCH better than I was expecting. A truly great ex-champion, she was clarly aided by the extra alley.
TRUE She really competed
Martina had such great hands and was great athletically
Love the equality , Connors had only one serve to Martina's two , she got to hit into the doubles alley , plus I believe he was retired over 40 years old , they played 2 out of 3 sets instead of 3 out of 5 and he still won convincingly mainly in the second set .
This was nothing like Riggs vs. King. These players were both playing some serious tennis. Jimmy was only 5 years older than Martina and he was still in good shape having made the U.S. Open semis just one year earlier. And yet Martina was playing great against him. (Yeah, they showed more of her winning points but even though he won she was definitely competitive with him). You can see how she completely dominated the women's game in her prime if she could play like this at age 35. I loved how she went after it by serving and volleying. Players don't serve and volley like that anymore. The women of her day had no chance, especially on grass, which is obviously why she won Wimbledon NINE times and why she was 86-1 one season and 424-14 in her 5 best years. Not even Serena can come close to that record.
Thanks for the love and support you show me as a loyal fan of mine not withstanding how long have you been a fan of mine 😊
Technically Martina was far superior, but Connors's power made him win....
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
7:53 .. "It's more Martina that's beating Martina than it is Jimmy who's beating Martina..." One of the first things you find out in tennis is that you can let the other person beat themselves. So, it's Jimmy who's beating Martina. Period.
She was still pretty bad ass.Interesting editing nonetheless.
it wouldn't be that close had the played by rules.
I think the point of any tennis match is to make it competitive and fun to watch. This match, regardless of gender or the change in rules, satisfied both criteria.
Talk about being sexist. I would just play it like a normal tennis match. The fact they make it disadvantageous to Connors is basically saying male players are definitely stronger, faster, and overall better than female players.
Aren't males faster and stronger than females though....?
That's just basic physiology.
Kind of the point of the handicap...
@@grendlsma This match was made on the premise claimed by Martina that she could beat a top100 male. Why did then she accept those advantages in first place? Don´t you see the irony? You either can or can´t, but you don´t see a man vs another man with such advantages.
@@jackbombay1423 Personally, I think the whole thing is pointless.
@@grendlsma It was made to push the fem agenda, as usual, out of false premises and just to make them stop whining. Useless for anyone with some logic but it worked for them in the end, as always.
Both of them such incredible athletes. Given the funky rules that favored Navratilova, this isn't a real competition but it is absolutely GREAT tennis, both of them an incredible game. Spectacular tennis by two greats of the game.
I can't believe I've never heard of this match! Great highlights! Looked like good quality tennis.
Are you fucking stupid
@@scotthamilton3314 Not compared to you.
@@nathangayner7592 .....obviously you are.....calling that shit show quality tennis.... LMFAO.....he wiped the floor with her
In fact it was boring as hell and it looked like a joke. But glad if you enjoyed it!
A fun match. 2 great players for sure.
The feminists need to shut up the match was NOT FAIR! Jimmy only got 1 serve while martina got two.
+JordanjamesX ; that's true. Supposedly, she wanted the entire doubles alley, but Jimmy would not agree. So, the one serve idea came up. Connors "weak" serve is a little exaggerated...he was usually at or past 100mph on his 1st serve...which against a woman is more than enough.
+Jeffrey Repace Martina does have the doubles alley (at least half of it) and used it more than once in the clip here.
What a whiny bitch you are. So, that's really not a huge deal for a grand slam champion level player like Connors.
apparently you have no clue of how tennis works..
she was younger, could take the risk on her first serve AND had extra space with the alley.. that is a huge advantage.
navratilova, is still in my opinion maybe the best women's athlete to play the sports.
so how is pointing out the fact of the one serve rule not of significance, it wasn't pointed out in the video..?
Martina didn't take a single point without giving it her all so all this 'it was just for fun', especially for Navratilova is a crock
He's hardly going full tilt. It's always hard to play someone a level below you. You try to hold back and you can't play naturally that way.
I watched this match when it happened, and, as the announcer indicated, the first set seemed to be on Martina's racquet. She really lost it due to unforced errors. If I remember correctly, she led 5-4 (I don't remember if she was up a break, but I do think she had been up a break earlier in the set.) In the second set, she kind of folded, and Jimmy hit with more authority. Remember, JImmy was still on the tour, giving the best players in the world a tough time (he took the first set of his second round match at the US Open that year from Ivan Lendl 6-3) Martina might have done well to serve and volley less, since Jimmy had the best service return in the world at that point. She had such an advantage in the rallies due to that extra four feet of court, it might have been more wise to come in behind a good wide shot, rather than her serve,. and of course, long rallies would wear Jimmy out.
Some famous tennis guy bet a fortune on Jimmy to win the first set, and was panicking when Jimmy got down 5-4. Can't remember where I read that....it was a funny story, though....maybe it was Riggs.....
Bobby Riggs
Jimmy was going easy.
@@zeddeka not with all that money on the line. He had his hands full.
That was fun . Shame the clarity wasn't better. Ahhh the old serve and volley. I miss it.
God asked Adam, "What is wrong with you?" Adam said he didn't have anyone to talk to. God said that He was going to make Adam a companion and that it would be a woman. God said, "This person will gather food for you, cook for you, and when you discover clothing she'll wash it for you. She will always agree with everything you say. She will bear your children and never ask you to get up in the middle of the night to take care of them. She will not nag you and will always be the first to admit she was wrong when you've had a disagreement. She will never have a headache and will freely give you love and passion whenever you need it." Adam asked God, "What will a woman like this cost?" God replied, "An arm and a leg." Then Adam asked, "What can I get for a rib?" The rest is history...
Most people are neglecting the rules for this match: Connors had only one serve, and Navratilova could hit into the first half of the doubles alley.
The two best male tennis players of all time!
chettee your a jerk
chettee i love this humour
***** A reaction typical for guys like you... a majority at UA-cam: No sense of humor, don't know what the word "irony" means. Sad... but fortunately not my problem.
*****
no, it's mr. pc police officer
Timothy Smith why do you think this?
I want a serena murray exhibition ! They spoke about it like three years ago but it ddidn't happen :(
+Andrea Williams For sure it didn't because there would have been too much audience interested...
She stated that she doubted if she was score a point in that case.
I Was There 1992 Las Vegas Caesars Palace 👍
No ones saying women are competitive with men in tennis -- that's decisively untrue. But Navratilova needs to be given serious credit here -- she was past her prime like Connors was, and 40 isn't that old, so it's not like Connors was playing tennis like a 55 year old. She was serving to stay in the set but doubled, but 7-5 suggests there was a real possibility of her winning. Which is astonishing, given mens advantages.
Yes she did amazingly well, I am genuinely impressed, this is the best a woman has competed with a man
I'm surprised Martina didn't take more advantage of the doubles lanes.
Connors had all kinds of handicaps, but still won the match. Definitely was a entertaining match to watch and both players had some great shots. Oh, I always loved the way Martina walked, real sexy and great looking legs.😁
yes
Martina is only 4 years younger than Jimmy and they were both in their old age here so this score line is very respectable for her!
"The match was played under hybrid rules to make it more competitive; Connors was allowed only one serve per point, and Navratilova was allowed to hit into half the doubles court."
So she had more than just 4 years advantage. ;)
Jimmy was nowhere near an elite male player at this point, but Martina was still a force in women’s tennis. So we are still talking about a top shelf woman getting beaten by a pedestrian male opponent, even with handicaps placed on him.
Well, he had made it to the US Open semi-finals just months before, so he wasn't ready for the glue factory.
Jimmy was carrying her for a show. He put a $1,000,000 bet on himself. Don't be fooled. Easily could have been 6-0 both sets.
Eric..he had a fluke showing in a grand slam for the first time in YEARS.
She gave him a good run for his money (literally)...but she did well enough that I wish they hadn't given her the extra space in the alley. She didn't seem to purposely take advantage of that, but only a few times where she missed did she just happen to benefit.
Jimmy wasn´t even trying. He bet on himself a million and conceded her 7 games to win the bet. That´s all. If they didn´t give her any of those advantages the match would have ended double 6-0 in less than 30 min.
Martina is incredible she always looked in great physical shape and I heard she really took fitness training very serious,she plays a lot like Macenroe sure of play,and I noticed Jim always seemed to feed off opponents power and she hit his shot back to him chopping the pace off the ball,smart,I got to meet her years ago,she's cool I always liked her,as a tennis player you can't not respect someone who put in all the work and more,and gets the job done...I didn't know this match happened...
If u notice one thing about both of these players they are both great at move the opponent around and using the whole court to their advantage,both of them are masters of that aspect....
this was all in fun, so relax folks. (I always wanted to squeeze her thigh muscles but other than that I'm perfectly normal.)
Why are they playing doubles court?
Connors was at the end of his career during this match and wasn't even a force in men's tennis at that point.
Not true. He was in the semi finals at the US Open at 39 years of age.
Just months before he made it to the US Open semi-finals.
Such a biased statement, this match was just before he had that magical run reaching the US open semifinals. He was also one of the greatest players of all time, despite his age.
Does anybody know what Navratilova's ranking was at this time?
@Antonio Sapienza - thanks Antonio.
Ridiculousediting. Unequal battle grounds in favor of Navratilova and still Conners beat her with little effort. Great editing, to make it look asif she was putting him under constznt pressure.
Really enjoyed watching this vintage men's match
Venus Williams took on the number 200 ranked male player early in her career and got smoked. I think it was 6-1, 6-2.
Connors, here, was at the end of his career.
+Scott Reed IIRC Steffi Graf once played a male German player ranked around 1,000 and lost the one set played (this was close to the end of her career but when she still played at top level). Could also be the player was ranked 500 and said she couldn't beat a 1,000 ranked player. This was just a 2 minute segment on regional German TV back then.
+Egyptian_Thoth
Are you a homosexual? You keep bringing up the male anatomy.
+Egyptian_Thoth Oh man, days ago? Shit, it's like people don't have lives and have to reply to UA-cam comments straight away. Nob cheese.
Both here are at the end of their career is Connors is not ranked 200, he's one of the all time greats and Martina is only 4 years younger so the scoreline says a lot more about her greatness than his.
And the guy went into the game after playing a round of golf and having a few beers, it's not like he took that game very serious.