Editorial: Sports stars should study history of their own sports
Athletes should be encouraged to put aside their PlayStations, unhook their Ipod’s, halt their text-messaging and dip into the histories of their game, writes Rohit Brijnath.
Fifty years ago, a woman who was born to poverty on a cotton plantation and routinely tasted discrimination on her remarkable journey, won the US Open. Althea Gibson was tennis’ version of Jackie Robinson in a way, a black athlete hurdling prejudice to assert herself in a sport that was once reserved for whites.
The late Gibson, whose legacy was honoured at this year’s Open, is a great story. Roger Federer briefly became a story when he confessed he didn’t know who she was during his press conference.
Q: What do you know about Althea Gibson?
Federer: I don’t know. You’re putting me on the spot. I don’t know what you’re talking about.
In America, eyebrows leapt and words like “faux pas” and “gaffe” did the rounds. It was hard to open a blog without getting hit by indignation. How could Federer not know her? Even Serena Williams rapped Federer lightly on his knuckles, saying: “I can’t imagine he didn’t know who Althea Gibson was.”
But should Federer have known Gibson? Perhaps. And does it reveal something about him? Not really (only because HE does care about the game’s past). But should young players strive to be well-versed in the history of their sport? Definitely.
It is interesting that Lleyton Hewitt was not asked about Gibson in his opening press conference at the Open. Neither was Rafael Nadal. Nor Tim Henman. But perhaps Federer was asked because it was assumed he seems a fellow who might know.
In his manner (courteous) and dress (i.e. white coat at Wimbledon), Federer carries a sense of the old-fashioned with him. His heroes are men from a fading time, and he wept sweetly when Rod Laver presented him the Australian Open trophy last year. When it was announced this year after the final that he was the first since Ken Rosewall to win the Australian Open without dropping a set, he hailed the wrinkled champion in the stands. Tradition sits comfortably with the Swiss.
Federer will known Arthur Ashe and not merely because he was a more contemporary and celebrated figure. But because he was a man. Men’s players, in most sports, tend to be more aware of the accomplishments of their own sex, for it is men whose records they chase, and former male players who coach them and speak of the heroes of their time. Their oral histories, however limited, are full of tales of men.
Geography matters. Would Americans be as miffed with Federer if Gibson wasn’t American? Is Gibson’s relative anonymity partly because Americans themselves have not spoken and written about her widely enough?...
Read entire article at Editorial in Sportstar Weekly (publishers of The Hindu)
Fifty years ago, a woman who was born to poverty on a cotton plantation and routinely tasted discrimination on her remarkable journey, won the US Open. Althea Gibson was tennis’ version of Jackie Robinson in a way, a black athlete hurdling prejudice to assert herself in a sport that was once reserved for whites.
The late Gibson, whose legacy was honoured at this year’s Open, is a great story. Roger Federer briefly became a story when he confessed he didn’t know who she was during his press conference.
Q: What do you know about Althea Gibson?
Federer: I don’t know. You’re putting me on the spot. I don’t know what you’re talking about.
In America, eyebrows leapt and words like “faux pas” and “gaffe” did the rounds. It was hard to open a blog without getting hit by indignation. How could Federer not know her? Even Serena Williams rapped Federer lightly on his knuckles, saying: “I can’t imagine he didn’t know who Althea Gibson was.”
But should Federer have known Gibson? Perhaps. And does it reveal something about him? Not really (only because HE does care about the game’s past). But should young players strive to be well-versed in the history of their sport? Definitely.
It is interesting that Lleyton Hewitt was not asked about Gibson in his opening press conference at the Open. Neither was Rafael Nadal. Nor Tim Henman. But perhaps Federer was asked because it was assumed he seems a fellow who might know.
In his manner (courteous) and dress (i.e. white coat at Wimbledon), Federer carries a sense of the old-fashioned with him. His heroes are men from a fading time, and he wept sweetly when Rod Laver presented him the Australian Open trophy last year. When it was announced this year after the final that he was the first since Ken Rosewall to win the Australian Open without dropping a set, he hailed the wrinkled champion in the stands. Tradition sits comfortably with the Swiss.
Federer will known Arthur Ashe and not merely because he was a more contemporary and celebrated figure. But because he was a man. Men’s players, in most sports, tend to be more aware of the accomplishments of their own sex, for it is men whose records they chase, and former male players who coach them and speak of the heroes of their time. Their oral histories, however limited, are full of tales of men.
Geography matters. Would Americans be as miffed with Federer if Gibson wasn’t American? Is Gibson’s relative anonymity partly because Americans themselves have not spoken and written about her widely enough?...