Talk:Bobby Riggs

No "Personal life" section

There should be mention of the fact he was married and had children. Personal life sections are standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:C5D4:1100:E0EC:3E57:E565:FEF4 (talk) 05:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Minor modifications

Hello mister Peirce.

When I read the first paragraph (before my changes) I had the impression that Riggs was in 1941 the co-No1 among the amateurs and in 1946/1947 the No1 or co-No1 among the pros while he was co-No1 or No1 of all the players, pros and amateurs together. Then I've made some minor text modifications. Carlo Colussi 15:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi! and Happy New Year and/or Bonne Année! I made a few minor changes to the first paragraph, mostly just to smooth out the style a little. I've been meaning to tell you: your work on the various tennis articles over the last couple of months has been fantastic! An enormous amount of work and research -- congratulations! I think I do have to caution you, however, that I think a lot of what you and your new friends have made as new contributions is at least arguably "original research" and/or non-"Neutral Point of View". I myself am certainly not going to try to delete any of it, or even to rewrite it, but it may well be that some other editor will come along someday who is fussier (or paranoid, or just grouchy) about this and who will start deleting. If he (or she) does, I will certainly consider his/her edits very carefully and see if there isn't a means of rewriting them so that your information (and conclusions) can be kept in. I think, for instance, that you're particularly vulnerable about some of the Rosewall conclusions you've drawn. I myself think that you are quite probably right about them but that they nudge very strongly up against the Original Research criteria. But, of course, I could quite easily be wrong about this as I've been wrong about other things in the past. In any case, there's no sense worrying about it now -- either someone will come along and edit it or they won't. In the meantime, all the best! Hayford Peirce 19:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"Champion". For instance, in French one can say, or write: "Bobby Bonds est un champion de baseball." Or "Sam Snead etait un grand champion de golfe." In English one never calls a baseball player a "champion" -- he is a "great player" or a "superstar" or something similar. And Sam Snead would have been the "PGA champion" for one particular year or another, because he won the PGA tournament that year, but even though he won 82 tournaments over his career he wouldn't be called, overall, a "champion". I remember the first time, 45 years or so ago, I read French newspapers and saw them referring to various people in various sports as "champions". How peculiar! I thought.... Hayford Peirce 19:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • • Bonne année cher monsieur.

I know I am a great fan of Rosewall's career so I am probably not always very neutral. But I have written other paragraphs in other articles and for instance "Tennis expert" has intelligently rewritten some of them and of course in a better English than mine. And as "Tennis expert" has recalled me, no article belongs to someone and therefore anyone can edit it.

Thank you for the congratulations.

I will try in the future not to use the term "champion" but if I can I won't use "superstar" or even "star" because the only ones are in the space far from the earth. Homo sapiens and in our case Homo sapiens "tennisticus" is just a bipedal primate belonging to the mammals (according to Carolus Linnaeus (Carl von Linné) and his successors) and therefore we are very very far from being stars : as science seemed to have proved we are just "star DUSTS".

Carlo Colussi 08:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone read this source?

Tom LeCompte wrote The Last Sure Thing: The Life & Times of Bobby Riggs. If anyone has read it, it would be a useful addition. comment of March 27, 2007

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.238.22.54 (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

• • • • Yes I have a little read it (I've written some comments in Talk:World_number_one_male_tennis_player_rankings and in World_number_one_male_tennis_player_rankings

Carlo Colussi 11:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

allegations of a handicap placed upon riggs

It is absolutely NOT true that Bobby Riggs had to defend the doubles court while Billie Jean King had to defend only the singles court during their 1973 match. Nor is it true that Bobby was given only one serve. Whoever keeps posting this information apparently is confusing the much later Martina Navratilova - Jimmy Connors match with the King - Riggs match.

I have no idea who posted that before, but I just found this page on gamesmanship that asserts the above after reading the term in a tennis post at the dilbert blog - 71.103.87.252 20:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It appears to be an urban legend that will probably never go away. I just went to the first site mentioned and it has *three* major errors about Riggs in a couple of hundred words. What an idiot! Hayford Peirce 21:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Bobby Riggs was no idiot. His tennis match with Billie Jean King was one of the biggest money-making schemes of his career. Don't get me wrong; I think she beat him fair and square. However, Riggs was 55 years old, so he was bound to know someone would clean his plow eventually. This whole thing was one gigantic publicity stunt. The only idiots are Riggs' critics.97.73.64.160 (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Surely this match is on video so it should be easy to confirm or deny? Exile 21:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Jenwa?

The article states that "Jenwa" died, but does not explain the meaning of that. I could not find Jenwa in the rest of the article. Is this a nickname, typo, or what? Thanks Jimaginator 18:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It's vandalism that I hadn't noticed -- thanks for the good eyes! I'll correct it. Hayford Peirce 19:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Match fixing claim

There was also widespread speculation that Riggs had purposely lost, in order to win large sums of money that he had bet against himself.

Surely such a match fixing attempt would have been investigated if there was any real evidence. Nil Einne 19:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

In September 2013, in coordination with the television broadcast of a PBS American Masters bio-documentary, Billie Jean King told NPR's "Fresh Air" that Riggs definitely did not fix, throw, or purposely lose the Battle of the Sexes match. The prize for the match was $100,000. Riggs and his promoter planned to win this match, and parlay the win one or more successive matches with other/better female players for even bigger prizes. The loss of this match not only dashed all hopes for both him and his promoter for future and bigger matches, but also effectively ended Riggs' career, according to King. Additionally, King emphatically states that she knows, as all professional athletes know, when an opponent is not trying; she states that Riggs' tried his best to win the match. King stated that Riggs was a tennis hero to her in her youth, that she accepted his role as a showman and promoter, and that she was friends with Riggs up until the day he died; in other words, she knew him well. Kathon (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Jack Kramer reference

I wouldn't give too much weight to one man's assessment...Ryoung122 02:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

$500 bet

I am questioning the math in this section and statement that he bet the "modest" sum of $500. I ran the numbers in an online inflation calculator. The equivalent of $1,000,000 in 1939 dollars is around $72,300, not the $100,000+ stated in the article. Around $1,400,000 appears to be more accurate equivalent. Also, $500 in 1939 is equal to approximately $6900 in 2006 dollars, which is not what I would term a "modest" bet, especially as he was not being paid to play as a professional yet. Can someone double check my math and perhaps include a line on how much the #1 professional male tennis player made in 1939, or how much the prize money for winning Wimbledon in 1939 was? It would give a better perspective on how much money Bobby had on the line and what having $105,000 in those days meant to an athlete. Volleygirl333 (talk) 08:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Riggs Newsweek Cover 1939.jpg

Image:Riggs Newsweek Cover 1939.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BobbyRiggs.jpg

Image:BobbyRiggs.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

the 1946 Riggs-Budge pro tour

If some are interested here are some details of the 1946 Riggs-Budge tour :

1946 R.L. Riggs - J.D. Budge US Pro tour = 24 - 22 + 1 tie

Unfortunately I have no precise date (just the year)

Source American Lawn Tennis July 15, 1946, page 34

Order City Winner Score Standing

1 Chicago, March 9, Riggs 36 63 64 68 63 1 - 0

2 Washington, D.C. Riggs 62 63 2 - 0

3 Baltimore Riggs 62 64 3 - 0

4 Hershey, Pa Riggs 61 62 4 - 0

5 Cincinatti Riggs 63 64 5 - 0

6 Troy, NY Riggs 57 64 62 6 - 0

7 New Haven, Conn. Riggs 26 63 75 7 - 0

8 New York (afternoon) Riggs 46 63 62 8 - 0

9 New York (evening) Budge 75 63 8 - 1

10 Pittsburgh Riggs 63 63 9 - 1

11 Boston Riggs 62 75 10 - 1

12 Providence Riggs 64 86 11 - 1

13 Philadelphia Riggs 68 64 60 12 - 1

14 Buffalo, April 1, 1946; Budge 64 16 75 (or 75 36 62 in New York Times); 12 - 2 12 - 2

15 Cleveland Riggs 62 62 13 - 2

16 Toledo Budge 64 26 62 13 - 3

17 Detroit Budge 06 86 75 13 - 4

18 Lansing, Mich. Riggs 63 75 14 - 4

19 Grand Rapids, Mich. Budge 64 46 62 14 - 5

20 St. Louis Budge 79 63 62 14 - 6

21 Kansas City, Mo. Budge 64 36 86 14 - 7

22 Topeka, Kan Budge 46 64 61 14 - 8

23 Minneapolis Riggs 26 75 108 15 - 8

24 Rochester, Minn. Riggs 64 75 16 - 8

25 Oshkosh, Wis. Budge 86 36 64 16 - 9

26 Milwaukee Budge 63 46 63 16 - 10

27 Winnetka, Ill. Budge 64 63 16 - 11

28 Champaign, Ill. Budge 64 63 16 - 12

29 Evansville, Ind. Budge 97 62 16 - 13

30 Louisville, Ky. Budge 60 63 16 - 14

31 Toronto, Canada Budge 64 62 16 - 15

32 Rochester, NY Riggs 64 62 17 - 15

33 Northampton, Mass Budge 64 61 17 - 16

34 Hartford, Conn. Riggs 62 97 18 - 16

35 Ithaca, NY Riggs 75 46 63 19 - 16

36 Elizabeth, NJ Riggs 75 16 97 20 - 16

37 Country Club of Richmond, VaSaturday and Sunday, May 11-12, 1946 Riggs 63 63 21 - 16

38 Lynchburg C. C. Budge 64 46 63 21 - 17

39 Chapel Hill, U of No Carolina Budge 63 75 21 - 18

40 Birmingham Budge 97,Riggs 63Rain interrupted play 21 - 18 + 1 tie

41 New Orleans Civic Auditorium Budge 46 62 64 21 - 19 + 1 tie

42 Houston, Texas Budge 64 61 21 - 20 + 1 tie

43 Waco, Texas Riggs 75 119 22 - 20 + 1 tie

44 Fort Worth Budge 46 63 64 22 - 21 + 1 tie

45 Memphis Riggs 64 57 63 23 - 21 + 1 tie

46 Nashville Riggs 61 57 75 24 - 21 + 1 tie

47 Dayton Budge 64 75 24 - 22 + 1 tie Carlo Colussi (talk) 08:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bobby Riggs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160329123808/http://variety.com/2015/film/news/battle-sexes-emma-stone-billie-jean-king-1201644084/ to http://variety.com/2015/film/news/battle-sexes-emma-stone-billie-jean-king-1201644084/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)