I was 16 years old when Billie Jean beat the pants off Bobby Riggs. I was so proud of her! She proved that women were capable of doing great things. Not just in sports, but in every walk of life and gave women like myself the courage to try. Courage to be who we are and strive for what we wanted to be. Thank you, Billie Jean!
You're welcome to believe in lies. But I deal in facts. Most people don't know that the sports betting industry in the 1970s was 100% CONTROLLED BY THE MOB. All the Vegas Casinos and the Sports Books were run by the Mob and all of the illegal bookmaking operations throughout the nation were controlled by the Mob as well. The Riggs-King match was one of the most anticipated and heavily bet sports matches in history at the time. Even people who didn't normally bet on sports events bet on this one. And the Mob posted Riggs as the heavy favorite, taking advantage of the fact that Riggs easily beat Margaret Court in an earlier match. Even as a heavy favorite, the money poured in on Riggs as a "can't miss" game. But from the Mob perspective, it was easy money if Riggs lost. And Riggs was always in debt to the Mob from his Casino gambling. So, I'll ask you. What would you do if you were Bobby Riggs? Would you defeat Billie Jean King and cause the Mob to lose tens of millions of dollars? Or would you throw the match, make the Mob very happy and also get yourself 100% out of debt and earn a nice payday to boot? I rest my case.
ONE single solitary person made that claim (under quite controversial circumstances, I might add) and yet people don't like the fact that a woman beat a man. A lot of it was also because many men just did not like BJK because she was so outspoken. She was ahead of her time. NO ONE ELSE has come forward to verify this absolutely ridiculous claim in 50 years. NO ONE!@@ralphadamo1857
Equality? Women should play 5 sets at the U.S. Open, and at all Majors, or receive 3/5ths of the Men's prize money. Equal pay for equal work. Right Leftists? Women can run a marathon, but not play 5 sets? Common.
Uhmm... The women offered to play best of five sets, and the Australian Open agreed to it a few years back. But, once it became close to the time for the tournament to be played, they realized that if the women were also to play best of five sets, the tournament would have to be extended by at least one week to a three week tournament, not counting weather related delays, etc. So they went back to best of three for the women. Also, at three sets, the women draw as well as the men at the Slams. It is quality, not quantity, that matters. "The Wizard of Oz" is barely one and one half hours long. "Gone with the Wind" is over three and one half hours long. Both were released in 1939. Does that mean that, buy the length of each movie, that they should be judged accordingly. Absolutely not! The "Wizard of Oz" remains one of the most popular movies of all-time, even at less than half the time of "Gone With the Wind".
@@TheVerbalVolley Additionally, if prize money is derived in part from TV revenue, a formula should be used for prize money paid to men, women, doubles, and mixed doubles, based upon viewership. Meaning? Revenue. You know, like in the real world
@@TheVerbalVolley Please explain why extending women to 3 sets would make the tournament longer. I really don't get that. Also, don't compare movies/entertainment to sports, although BJK does that all the time. The quality of the entertainment value in a sport depends on the play of the sport. At the Slams, women draw as well as men because of the event itself. Don't tell me anyone really cares whether Iga Swiatek wins a Slam.
@@DianaMoon11428 Boy, I wrote what you are responding to over a year ago. It amazes me that posts that I have forgotten about making eventually get commented upon. First, making every match best of five sets would prolong ALL of the women's matches by least thirty minutes per match, and take up more court time than with the current "Best of Three" format. Multiply this by 64 matches in Round One, 32 Matches in Round 2, 16 matches in Round 3, 8 matches in Round four, 4 matches in the quarters, 2 matches in the semis, and 1 match in the championship round, and that adds up to a staggering 3,810 extra minutes of court time needed, or 635 EXTRA HOURS of play for the tournament. This means fewer matches being played per day, per week, etc... It would create a situation where the majors would have to be extended to three weeks to make up for all of the extra time that would now be played on the courts (not even counting weather delays). Nowadays, no one particularly cares about the women, and the men will soon follow. There are no "star quality" players who can draw strictly by their name appeal. But the men will soon have the same problem, what with Roger retiring and Novak and Rafa aging out of the sport. Tennis is in an extremely tenuous position right now. Even "Tennis Magazine" (which had been around for over SIX DECADES) has ceased publication, which means that there are no tennis publications AT ALL in the USA. Tennis is (once again) starting to be relegated to a minor league sport, which is sad.
I was on the front line for women's rights in the '70's so I'm familiar with the refrain, equal rights for women. What about equal rights for children? Lots of wives became full time workers in the '70's after women gave up being housewives because their husbands couldn't make enough to support families. Yes, that was the real reason women got jobs. There isn't a mother alive who would voluntarily leave her children all day to just any babysitter if it wasn't a financial necessity. Why didn't the states and/or federal government organize safe day care centers for the thousdands of children suddenly dumped on grandparents, friends or neighbors? because mothers were convinced they had to have jobs to be equal? That's because children have no rights. Think about it. When do you ever hear the phrase "children's rights?" Never. That's because children have been forgotten in the brainwashing of America. Women were liberated to become full time workers/mothers/housewives. What's the sense of that? Idiocy. I fell for it too because of financial need. My children paid a huge price and so did I. Wake up America. We've all been brainwashed by corporations while they rake in the billions. What fools we are, and it's still happening. That's the truly sad part. Equality will never be truly equal until our children are considered equal too.
And you blame whom? Two income households became a part of the American fabric after World War II, when men came home and "Rosie the Riveter" did not want to just be just a housewife any longer. They wanted to earn a living and contribute to their families financial security. One income was no longer good enough. Sadly, this has led to the NECESSITY of two income families (and subsequent rise in prices for almost everything), so I can partially understand what you are saying. I really can. But keeping a woman subservient is also wrong.
Equality , In every case. In case of military draft to defend our country, it’s very patriotic to see heterosexual, bisexual, gay, lesbian + 37 different shades of sexual variation to serve together with out excuses.
It’s not equal in the majors where women work 2/3rd less than the men for equal pay.Women run all the same lengths in track and field and are extremely watchable and talented.I’m not sure why they play so much less Tennis in majors for the same pay.
(sigh) and there you go again with the equality" bit... the US is NOT about "equality" (which is communism BTW), for no one is equal to anyone else! Former communist Pionero (communist youth), and Cuban Mariel Boatlift escapee here!! The United States is about Equal Opportunity! Meaning everyone has an equal shot at making it... but it is up to the INDIVIDUAL to make it, to do great things, NOT the state! And BTW, some will do great things and other won't, that is the human condition. So get off the equality bit, look in the mirror, and be honest of why you are not doing better in this great land of opportunity... if this communism refugee was able to make it nicely, after having to restart my life in this country all over again, I don't want to hear it from anyone born HERE not to be able to do, (at least)as well as I have... My book "Born Again, from communism to American Submariner," at Amazon Kindle, Paperback, and Audible narrated by the great voice of Harry Minot from WPKN Bridgeport CT.
Most people don't know that the sports betting industry in the 1970s was 100% CONTROLLED BY THE MOB. All the Vegas Casinos and the Sports Books were run by the Mob and all of the illegal bookmaking operations throughout the nation were controlled by the Mob as well. The Riggs-King match was one of the most anticipated and heavily bet sports matches in history at the time. Even people who didn't normally bet on sports events bet on this one. And the Mob posted Riggs as the heavy favorite, taking advantage of the fact that Riggs easily beat Margaret Court in an earlier match. Even as a heavy favorite, the money poured in on Riggs as a "can't miss" game. But from the Mob perspective, it was easy money if Riggs lost. And Riggs was always in debt to the Mob from his Casino gambling. So, I'll ask you. What would you do if you were Bobby Riggs? Would you defeat Billie Jean King and cause the Mob to lose tens of millions of dollars? Or would you throw the match, make the Mob very happy and also get yourself 100% out of debt and earn a nice payday to boot? I rest my case.
ONE single solitary person made that claim (under quite controversial circumstances, I might add) and yet people don't like the fact that a woman beat a man. A lot of it was also because many men just did not like BJK because she was so outspoken. She was ahead of her time. NO ONE ELSE has come forward to verify this absolutely ridiculous claim in 50 years. NO ONE!
@@TheVerbalVolley PT Barnum said, "There's a sucker born any minute." That was a long time ago. Now, you're just one of billions. You also want to believe that the Mob would gladly accept tens of millions of losses when they didn't have to. But let's put that part of your fantasy aside. Answer me this: How come there was no rematch between Riggs and King? Riggs loved money and hustling people. Why wouldn't he come back for a rematch as all plays do after a big match? Instead, he just went quietly away. I know you can't answer that question, so I will. Riggs got his payoff from the Mob for throwing the match, but Riggs's ridiculously "poor" performance wouldn't look good in a rerun match.
@@ralphadamo1857The reason for the fact that there was no rematch was because BJK told Bobby before the match was even played that it was "a one shot deal". There would be no rematch. Bobby kept trying to get her to agree to one, but Billie saw no need for it. Also, it was in Bobby's best interests to win that match because, had he defeated Billie, his next match would have been a $1,000,000.00 winner take all match against either Chris Evert or Evonne Goolagong. When he lost to BJK, his money train from inter-sex matches stopped immediately. Also there was not much money for so-called mobsters to be had in betting on this match. The odds were less than even money. In fact Riggs was only favored by 8:5 odds. They would have had to bet an exorbitant amount of money to make even a small financial gain from it.
I was 16 years old when Billie Jean beat the pants off Bobby Riggs. I was so proud of her! She proved that women were capable of doing great things. Not just in sports, but in every walk of life and gave women like myself the courage to try. Courage to be who we are and strive for what we wanted to be. Thank you, Billie Jean!
Who did she beat. Washed up tennis player. Connors borg Mac any of the best of that time would of smoked her
The match was rigged. Wake up. Riggs was in on it to pay off his gambling debts.
You're welcome to believe in lies. But I deal in facts. Most people don't know that the sports betting industry in the 1970s was 100% CONTROLLED BY THE MOB. All the Vegas Casinos and the Sports Books were run by the Mob and all of the illegal bookmaking operations throughout the nation were controlled by the Mob as well. The Riggs-King match was one of the most anticipated and heavily bet sports matches in history at the time. Even people who didn't normally bet on sports events bet on this one. And the Mob posted Riggs as the heavy favorite, taking advantage of the fact that Riggs easily beat Margaret Court in an earlier match. Even as a heavy favorite, the money poured in on Riggs as a "can't miss" game. But from the Mob perspective, it was easy money if Riggs lost. And Riggs was always in debt to the Mob from his Casino gambling. So, I'll ask you. What would you do if you were Bobby Riggs? Would you defeat Billie Jean King and cause the Mob to lose tens of millions of dollars? Or would you throw the match, make the Mob very happy and also get yourself 100% out of debt and earn a nice payday to boot? I rest my case.
ONE single solitary person made that claim (under quite controversial circumstances, I might add) and yet people don't like the fact that a woman beat a man. A lot of it was also because many men just did not like BJK because she was so outspoken. She was ahead of her time. NO ONE ELSE has come forward to verify this absolutely ridiculous claim in 50 years. NO ONE!@@ralphadamo1857
There will never be true equality.Theres always someone trying to be above the other.
Love and all good things to you, Billie Jean King!
What a hero!
We all bleed red!!!! Ben saying that for years!!! Wondering message she’s a great woman
There is a different chemical make up which is why blood transfusions don't work, are rejected between the races.
Well said
Equality?
Women should play 5 sets at the U.S. Open, and at all Majors,
or receive 3/5ths of the Men's prize money.
Equal pay for equal work.
Right Leftists?
Women can run a marathon, but not play 5 sets?
Common.
Uhmm... The women offered to play best of five sets, and the Australian Open agreed to it a few years back. But, once it became close to the time for the tournament to be played, they realized that if the women were also to play best of five sets, the tournament would have to be extended by at least one week to a three week tournament, not counting weather related delays, etc. So they went back to best of three for the women.
Also, at three sets, the women draw as well as the men at the Slams. It is quality, not quantity, that matters. "The Wizard of Oz" is barely one and one half hours long. "Gone with the Wind" is over three and one half hours long. Both were released in 1939. Does that mean that, buy the length of each movie, that they should be judged accordingly. Absolutely not! The "Wizard of Oz" remains one of the most popular movies of all-time, even at less than half the time of "Gone With the Wind".
@@TheVerbalVolley
Additionally, if prize money is derived in part from TV revenue, a formula should be used for prize money paid to men, women, doubles, and mixed doubles, based upon viewership.
Meaning?
Revenue.
You know, like in the real world
You are so right on, but seemingly Billie Jean doesn't get it. That is a big factor.
@@TheVerbalVolley Please explain why extending women to 3 sets would make the tournament longer. I really don't get that.
Also, don't compare movies/entertainment to sports, although BJK does that all the time. The quality of the entertainment value in a sport depends on the play of the sport. At the Slams, women draw as well as men because of the event itself. Don't tell me anyone really cares whether Iga Swiatek wins a Slam.
@@DianaMoon11428 Boy, I wrote what you are responding to over a year ago. It amazes me that posts that I have forgotten about making eventually get commented upon.
First, making every match best of five sets would prolong ALL of the women's matches by least thirty minutes per match, and take up more court time than with the current "Best of Three" format. Multiply this by 64 matches in Round One, 32 Matches in Round 2, 16 matches in Round 3, 8 matches in Round four, 4 matches in the quarters, 2 matches in the semis, and 1 match in the championship round, and that adds up to a staggering 3,810 extra minutes of court time needed, or 635 EXTRA HOURS of play for the tournament. This means fewer matches being played per day, per week, etc... It would create a situation where the majors would have to be extended to three weeks to make up for all of the extra time that would now be played on the courts (not even counting weather delays).
Nowadays, no one particularly cares about the women, and the men will soon follow. There are no "star quality" players who can draw strictly by their name appeal. But the men will soon have the same problem, what with Roger retiring and Novak and Rafa aging out of the sport.
Tennis is in an extremely tenuous position right now. Even "Tennis Magazine" (which had been around for over SIX DECADES) has ceased publication, which means that there are no tennis publications AT ALL in the USA. Tennis is (once again) starting to be relegated to a minor league sport, which is sad.
I remember her beating Bobby Riggs. It was awesome
He was like 60 when they played. No woman could beat ANY male top 100 player in the world.
It was rigged so Riggs could pay off his gambling debts. King was in on it. She is a dishonest vile liberal in her outlook.
I was on the front line for women's rights in the '70's so I'm familiar with the refrain, equal rights for women. What about equal rights for children? Lots of wives became full time workers in the '70's after women gave up being housewives because their husbands couldn't make enough to support families. Yes, that was the real reason women got jobs. There isn't a mother alive who would voluntarily leave her children all day to just any babysitter if it wasn't a financial necessity. Why didn't the states and/or federal government organize safe day care centers for the thousdands of children suddenly dumped on grandparents, friends or neighbors? because mothers were convinced they had to have jobs to be equal? That's because children have no rights. Think about it. When do you ever hear the phrase "children's rights?" Never. That's because children have been forgotten in the brainwashing of America. Women were liberated to become full time workers/mothers/housewives. What's the sense of that? Idiocy. I fell for it too because of financial need. My children paid a huge price and so did I. Wake up America. We've all been brainwashed by corporations while they rake in the billions. What fools we are, and it's still happening. That's the truly sad part. Equality will never be truly equal until our children are considered equal too.
And you blame whom? Two income households became a part of the American fabric after World War II, when men came home and "Rosie the Riveter" did not want to just be just a housewife any longer. They wanted to earn a living and contribute to their families financial security. One income was no longer good enough. Sadly, this has led to the NECESSITY of two income families (and subsequent rise in prices for almost everything), so I can partially understand what you are saying. I really can. But keeping a woman subservient is also wrong.
What about 5 sets in grand slams for woman since they get paid the same as men for playing 3 sets? Equality
“Next time you see a woman leading, don’t limit or underestimate her…show up, stand up, speak up!” Wow, bravo!
Is there a closed captioned version?
Pure equality would be there would be no difference in the physical expectations for women and men in the military, in the fire department, etc.
Equality , In every case.
In case of military draft to defend our country, it’s very patriotic to see heterosexual, bisexual, gay, lesbian + 37 different shades of sexual variation to serve together with out excuses.
I'm sure you'll agree that women should be drafted for combat positions.
Wise.
Nobody ever stopped anyone from buying a tennis racket. The only thing ever stopping anyone from doing anything is that person them self.
Yeah, Jammie Buss really had to struggle to get to where she could run the Lakers.
Love you Billie Jean
Christina Cascadilla I see you on here every week, for months. You must really like Sunday M. Is that you in the pic? Very pretty. Take care.
@@lewstone5430 yep…I watch this every Sunday. I like to call out the phonies.
Oh? True equality? Let's abolish gender segregated sports. We'll see how equal things are.
She beat the top male of her day.
@@Krazie-Ivan False.
@@williamtaylor5193 ...there's TV footage of it.
HEAR, HEAR!! 💜
It’s not equal in the majors where women work 2/3rd less than the men for equal pay.Women run all the same lengths in track and field and are extremely watchable and talented.I’m not sure why they play so much less Tennis in majors for the same pay.
I 💘you.
(sigh) and there you go again with the equality" bit... the US is NOT about "equality" (which is communism BTW), for no one is equal to anyone else! Former communist Pionero (communist youth), and Cuban Mariel Boatlift escapee here!! The United States is about Equal Opportunity! Meaning everyone has an equal shot at making it... but it is up to the INDIVIDUAL to make it, to do great things, NOT the state! And BTW, some will do great things and other won't, that is the human condition. So get off the equality bit, look in the mirror, and be honest of why you are not doing better in this great land of opportunity... if this communism refugee was able to make it nicely, after having to restart my life in this country all over again, I don't want to hear it from anyone born HERE not to be able to do, (at least)as well as I have...
My book "Born Again, from communism to American Submariner," at Amazon Kindle, Paperback, and Audible narrated by the great voice of Harry Minot from WPKN Bridgeport CT.
I'm with you.
2:24 So do horses
That’s that on that!🙏😘👍😝🥰
💙💗
Most people don't know that the sports betting industry in the 1970s was 100% CONTROLLED BY THE MOB. All the Vegas Casinos and the Sports Books were run by the Mob and all of the illegal bookmaking operations throughout the nation were controlled by the Mob as well. The Riggs-King match was one of the most anticipated and heavily bet sports matches in history at the time. Even people who didn't normally bet on sports events bet on this one. And the Mob posted Riggs as the heavy favorite, taking advantage of the fact that Riggs easily beat Margaret Court in an earlier match. Even as a heavy favorite, the money poured in on Riggs as a "can't miss" game. But from the Mob perspective, it was easy money if Riggs lost. And Riggs was always in debt to the Mob from his Casino gambling. So, I'll ask you. What would you do if you were Bobby Riggs? Would you defeat Billie Jean King and cause the Mob to lose tens of millions of dollars? Or would you throw the match, make the Mob very happy and also get yourself 100% out of debt and earn a nice payday to boot? I rest my case.
ONE single solitary person made that claim (under quite controversial circumstances, I might add) and yet people don't like the fact that a woman beat a man. A lot of it was also because many men just did not like BJK because she was so outspoken. She was ahead of her time. NO ONE ELSE has come forward to verify this absolutely ridiculous claim in 50 years. NO ONE!
@@TheVerbalVolley PT Barnum said, "There's a sucker born any minute." That was a long time ago. Now, you're just one of billions. You also want to believe that the Mob would gladly accept tens of millions of losses when they didn't have to. But let's put that part of your fantasy aside. Answer me this: How come there was no rematch between Riggs and King? Riggs loved money and hustling people. Why wouldn't he come back for a rematch as all plays do after a big match? Instead, he just went quietly away. I know you can't answer that question, so I will. Riggs got his payoff from the Mob for throwing the match, but Riggs's ridiculously "poor" performance wouldn't look good in a rerun match.
@@ralphadamo1857The reason for the fact that there was no rematch was because BJK told Bobby before the match was even played that it was "a one shot deal". There would be no rematch. Bobby kept trying to get her to agree to one, but Billie saw no need for it. Also, it was in Bobby's best interests to win that match because, had he defeated Billie, his next match would have been a $1,000,000.00 winner take all match against either Chris Evert or Evonne Goolagong. When he lost to BJK, his money train from inter-sex matches stopped immediately. Also there was not much money for so-called mobsters to be had in betting on this match. The odds were less than even money. In fact Riggs was only favored by 8:5 odds. They would have had to bet an exorbitant amount of money to make even a small financial gain from it.
No clue what's she's ranting about
Shut up and get me my beer
First?