Bobby Riggs Threw The Match Against Billy Jeam King?

http://espn.go.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/9589625/the-match-maker

I saw the match. Riggs certainly didn't look anything like when he beat Margaret Court.

 

Well duh. Everyone who watched it live knew that. Except the younger manhaters, who criticized him for years after that.

 

The reason is that Billie Jean King was a much better player than Margaret Court.

 

Not even close:

Their rivalry resumed in the final of the Virginia Slims of Nashville tournament, where Court won for the third time in four matches against King in 1973. (This was the last ever singles match between those players, with Court winning 21 and King 13 of their 34 matches.)

 

You have never been so wrong.

 

After reading that article I would have to say I think there is a better than not chance the match was thrown.

 

The OTL segment was outstanding (as always) I know my dad had no doubts EVER that the match was thrown. I remember him screaming about it as it was on.

 

I remember my dad screaming about Game 7, 2000 WCF being thrown.

 

i just remember screaming and throwing things

 

I never saw it, but now doubt everything.

 

What a surprise, decades later, men are lining up to say the match was thrown.

 

i wonder who would win between the #1 men and women players right now

just looked it up, riggs was 55 years old? jeebersh

 

In her New York Times column, Gail Collins blows some serious holes in this "story". A tale based solely on the supposed recollections of a 70+ year old of what he claims to have overheard 40 years ago is not terribly credible, unless you REALLY REALLY want it to be true.

 

And vise versa if you REALLY REALLY want it NOT to be true

 

yes. But given the fact that no one except this 79 year old claims to have heard of this remarkable fact, That there is no evidence but his word, that he said nothing for 40 years (what headlines it would have made at the time!), that he claims to have seen two people together who reportedly were never together, and that he claims a very talkative person neglected to mention this interesting "fact", also throw in the fact that Riggs was hardly closemouthed, then or to the end of his life, yet he never said a word. Going by Occam's razor, that the simplest explanation is generally correct, I'd say by far the simplest explanation is Riggs was overconfident and cocky, King was superbly prepared, and she beat him fair and square. Anyone who watched the match, which I did, might recall that King placed her shots all over the court, taking advantage of Riggs' loss of speed.

 

The burden of proof is on the assertion that counters the establishment. King beating Riggs fair and square is the establishment, in case any fedora-wearing neckbeards here forgot.

 

Blazer Caravan nailed it. If you want to claim Oswald did not assassinate Kennedy, or that the moon landing was faked, or that Riggs threw the match, it's up to the claimaint to provide evidence. If some codger comes forward and says 45 years ago he/she was mopping floors in the White House and overheard Nixon and Neil Armstrong planning a fake moon landing to divert attention from the Vietnam War, frankly, I'd need a lot more than that to believe it was true. And so would any semi-responsible journalist.

The more you look at it the fishier this fish story looks. The match was viewed by millions and millions more watched re-broadcasts over the years. This includes numerous sports media who have covered hundreds of tennis matches, including those played by Riggs and King. In all these decades no one had any suspicion at all that the match was anything other than fairly won by King. No one saw anything amiss.

But we are supposed to believe that this individual was in the EXACT right place at the EXACT right time to be the only person to overhear this unlikely conversation?

I will also point out this was a $100,000 winner take all match. So IF Riggs owed $100,000 in gambling debts (I have no idea if that is true, but take it for the sake of argument), then winning the match was clearly in his interest and in the interest of those to whom he owed the money. In fact it would have made more sense to bribe King to throw the match.

Finally, motive. What earthly motive would these Mafia types have in seeing King win? It's not like they were great supporters of feminism or opportunity for female athletes, in fact, more likely the opposite.

What is saddest is that a supposedly flagship sports media like ESPN, instead of treating this like a story from the Onion, actually gave it credibility. Anything for a site-hit controversy, even something so transparently fraudulent.

 

Your gambling logic is a bit flawed. If it was winner take all at 100k, and that's what he owed the mafia, then he wins and the mafia gets 100k and whatever they bet for Riggs (ASSUMING HE WINS)

Or they can fix the match, knowing full well that They will win and bet on King to earn a crap load more money. They can do this BECAUSE Riggs owes them money.

I'm not saying the match was or wasn't fixed, but I know my dad sure thought so at the time, and this guys story makes a lot of sense.

 

Why do you hate the elderly?