- cross-posted to:
- 196@lemmy.blahaj.zone
- cross-posted to:
- 196@lemmy.blahaj.zone
You must log in or register to comment.
How many of these 8 men have seen her play? Or even know how to themselves?
Yes
Having played tennis for nearly a decade, I can say with some assurance that I would get served.
Winning a point is a very low bar. You don’t have to beat her. You don’t have to win a set or a game. You just have to score a single point. All it takes is a single mistake from your opponent to win a point. With enough time even the best will make a mistake, and tennis matches are long.
The shortest possible game is 4 points. A set without a tie breaker has 6 games. A women’s tournament match is best 2 sets of 3. So at minimum a match of tennis has 48 points. You only need one.
If you’re passible enough to return the ball some of the time, and do a valid serve you will probably win a point at some point. She may be one of the best tennis players of all time, but she’s not infallible. Its really unlikely she wouldn’t mess up at least once.
Specifically, in a match of minimum 48 points to have a chance of 80% of scoring a single point you need to be at least as good as 3.3% of her. Or in other words, she can be 30 times better than you. If your expectation is just a 50% chance to score a single point, it is enough to be 1.5% good as her, so she can be 67 times better than you.
Sex aside, i wouldn’t assume pro athletes to be 67x better than i am in many sports. Usain Bolt is not running 67x faster than i am, nor is Michael Phelps swimming 67x faster than i am.
In other words: This study is not a test for the arrogance of men, but rather a test for the statistical aptitude of humans. Which general is terrible.
Athletic skill:athletic feat isn’t a linear scale - Phelps might not be 67x faster than you but he is absolutely 67x(+++) more skilled. There’s pretty much zero chance you pick up a win vs him unless he dies mid race or something
You underestimate how much better experts are to everyone else. For chess, for example, the Elo rating for a beginner who knows the rules is about 500, a weak club player around 1200, a good club player around 1700, a master around 2200, and the world champion around 2800.
For each of these jumps the difference is about 70 times better, as in the person with the weaker rating is expected to win one out of 70 times.
So the world champion is not just 70 times better than a beginner, they are a few million times better.
I’m not saying tennis works exactly the same way as chess, but people really underestimate just how much better some people are at some things.
The idea that 67x better means a 67x linear increase in speed is nonsense. Usain Bolt does not need to be 67x faster than you, it’s enough to be somewhat faster in all 67 out of 67 races, which he would be.
don’t forget that it’s possible to have an entire classroom of people so utterly inept in the field of motor skills and hand eye coordination that not one of them could serve or return a serve in the whole 5 days dedicated to tennis.
Unless she kills you before you can score the point.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatalities_while_playing_tennis
blank page hmmmmm
It’s really hard to get the button presses in fast enough in a professional tennis match
Stefan Edberg’s errant shot contributed to the death of a linesman back in 1983.
Quick Google search got me that. Really easy. Literally exactly what the meme is saying: a tennis ball could make a lethal strike. You’re just full of shit all throughout this thread.
“contributed to” vs “killing me instantly”
I wish I had the reading comprehension to find the obvious difference between these two statements, but alas it is impossible no one is that comprehensive.
I feel like if the best reason one has for how they might be able to score a point on her is “but she could make a mistake” they’ve kind of conceded that it’s not actually possible.
Exactly. It’s basically some “infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters” shit.
“Well if I had enough time eventually they will make a mistake and I’d get a point on a technicality so yeah, I could totally do it!”
This person remembers they have to serve too, right? And actually return the ball. They won’t win just standing there and praying.
The survey is specifying one game though, not a set or a tournament. I don’t know the rules of tennis, but i don’t think Serena will let a single point through.
Do we know though if the survey clarified, that by game they mean a game in the Tennis sense, so up to 4 points, or if it means the typical way the game is played, which is in a match of 3?
E.g. when i talk about playing a round of counter-strike i also mean to play a game of 15/15 and not a single 3 minute round. Meanwhile in football the term is also a “match” but we call the halves halves and not “games”.
The way terms are used differ from popular language and specific language, so it needs to be clarified.
Fair. If I’m serving, maybe I wait until she falls asleep and that’s how I get my point
Whoa, there partner. You can’t read and understand the way the question was framed, this is the internet!
She is the kind of person that wouldn’t disrespect an opponent by playing a lazy game, so 100% this.
The question is “Could you win a point in a game of tennis…”. Technically it doesn’t specify that it has to be a single game. You could play a million games against her, and as long as you score one point, you still “won a point in a game of tennis”. Notably, it also says “could” rather than “would” so its just asking for a >0% possibility, under any circumstance. She is still human, so theres enough factors that something “could” allow a win. Is this completely overthinking this and going against the spirit of the question? Yes, but we’re already talking about the absurd hypothetical of putting a random non-athlete in a potentially infinite number of games against a professional athlete, so…
Tennis isn’t played one game at a time. It is played one match at a time. Any point is one point in a game.
And this is where reading comprehension is important. It doesn’t say what you want it to say. It says “game”. Not match, not set, not anything else.
wElL aKsHuLly…
No. Just no. You’re the 1 in 8 delusional person who thinks they could take on a top 1% athlete just because she’s a woman.
I’ve just gone and copied the wording from the link…
Do you think if you were playing your very best tennis, you could win a point off Serena Williams?
If you actually had the reading comprehension that you claim you would have noticed that only men were surveyed.
Not true either, someone has linked the survey question above 12% of men said yes, 3% of women
Are you really trying to fact check me because I used the 1 in 8 statistic and you’re not a guy? Talk about moving goal posts. Doesn’t change the fact that it’s one game. You’re a jackass not worth arguing with. Have a night as great as yourself.
You’re the one who decided to go with personal attacks. If you want to insult someone at least give them the courtesy of reading their username.
Also you’re on the silly meme community why are you taking this so seriously?
I don’t know if one in 8 men even play tennis. I guess I would hit the ball but would it get over the net?
I know when I did tennis in gym class in high school I struggled to figure out how to keep the ball in the court.
You know I didn’t consider this as a problem where games and time approach infinity.
You see, Serena Williams has a preset kill limit. Knowing her weakness, I sent wave after wave of my own men at her until she reached her limit and shut down.
She would whoop me, but Serena Williams would most likely lose against the top 200 male tennis players…
…and?
Explain why this comment is relevant.
If you can’t see how the number one woman losing against the 200th ranked man in a discussion about how 12 percent of men think they could score a point against Serena Williams, then you don’t want to see
I went and looked it up and both sisters did lose by a large margin against the man ranked 204th, back I “the battle of the sexes” in 1998.
I guess their point is that the gap between pro and amateur is as big as the gap between professional men and women, in Tennis at least.
Again, explain why is that relevant.
Only the other person can do that.
I offered my take for two reasons: trying be more active on Lemmy and because that comment had me learning something new today.
Reading that the top Womens tennis player couldn’t beat a man that is not even in the top 200 sounded fishy to me and I was surprised when I learned that is true.
Relearned also something today, I can’t tell what other people think,.speacilly on social media and shouldn’t try to guess what that is.
If they can’t see how the number one woman losing against the 200th ranked man in a discussion about how 12 percent of men think they could score a point against Serena Williams, then they don’t want to see
