PDA

View Full Version : Is Martina Navratilova Objective?


supergrunt
Aug 26th, 2007, 10:52 PM
Vote

Wayn77
Aug 26th, 2007, 10:54 PM
What do you mean by "objective" exactly? :)

sfselesfan
Aug 26th, 2007, 10:54 PM
Unfortunately I have to say no. I used to think so, she was one of my favorite players back in the day. She's one of the most obnoxious commentators though. All of these people who like to rip on Carillo and I see Martina as 100x worse.

SF

tennis_fanno
Aug 26th, 2007, 10:56 PM
Vote I put no , cause I have the impression she doesn't like when the williamses win..for example the expression in her face when venus won wimbledon..but I'm not so sure though

Matt01
Aug 26th, 2007, 10:58 PM
Yes, of course, she is in my avatar so she must be always 100% objective :bowdown: :lol:

Seriously, of course she is not objective. Objectivity doesn't exist among people. We are all biased to some degree. That is a part of us which makes us human.

Jakeev
Aug 26th, 2007, 11:00 PM
I think when it comes to game tactics, player shots and etc Martina is very objective if not spot on about most players.

But she can be biased when it comes to certain topics such as a players devotion to the sport or how the game was "better" 25 years ago.

Xander
Aug 27th, 2007, 03:07 AM
Jakeev, I agree. I appreciate that Navratilova is blunt when discussing today's players. However, she does, as you said, get stuck in that "back in my day" mode. I understand why she says that but I don't think in those terms when dealing with present day tennis. I accept everything that's changed from technology to the money earned.

Shvedbarilescu
Aug 27th, 2007, 03:35 AM
Seriously, of course she is not objective. Objectivity doesn't exist among people. We are all biased to some degree. That is a part of us which makes us human.

Yup. Good post. Who is objective? I'm not. Supergrunt certainly isn't. Is anyone on this board objective? But I would say having been one the three best women players of the open era Martina Navratilova's opinions count for a little more than most people's.

supergrunt
Aug 27th, 2007, 03:38 AM
Yup. Good post. Who is objective? I'm not. Supergrunt certainly isn't. Is anyone on this board objective? But I would say having been one the three best women players of the open era Martina Navratilova's opinions count for a little more than most people's.

but I am not a commentator that says things that are broadcasted on national television all arounf the world :(

Jacey
Aug 27th, 2007, 04:31 AM
Objective :rolleyes: I don't think anyone of those commentators are objective. They all have there favorites, but who doesn't

starin
Aug 27th, 2007, 05:03 AM
she can be objective sometimes. She is generally a good commentator in that she provides insight in to the game. But I've seen her be extremely biased....cough.....Serena/Molik @ Wimbledon...cough.
No commentators are really objective but there should be at least an attempt to be fair.

guyinsf
Aug 27th, 2007, 05:20 AM
It seems that the only way to be completely "objective" is to be both positive at times and negative at times about a certain player. If you're a commentator and you're always criticizing a player in a negative way, they you're definitely biased and hate that player but if you're complimenting some player 100% of the time, they you're just kissing ass and that comes across is biased too. I like commentators that say nice things about certain players on certain days but on other days they criticize them for not doing something right. For the most part I think Martina and other top commenators do that but I think Mary Joe Fernandez is too nice to everyone all the freakin time, she's like the Paula Abdul of tennis but I do like her a lot too.

supergrunt
Aug 27th, 2007, 05:36 AM
she can be objective sometimes. She is generally a good commentator in that she provides insight in to the game. But I've seen her be extremely biased....cough.....Serena/Molik @ Wimbledon...cough.
No commentators are really objective but there should be at least an attempt to be fair.

I agree.

Tennisstar86
Aug 27th, 2007, 06:16 AM
Yes.... Martina is the most objective commentator we have... When the players are on the court she never writes them off.. She says the good and the bad of their games... Martina really didnt have an ugly look on her face when Venus won.... She wasnt fazed by it as after Venus beat Sharapova she picked her to win the title... She was the only one too. Everyone else was still looking to Serena/ Henin but Martina said it as soon as the match was over that Venus would win as Wimbledon is made for Athletes... The only time she plays favorites is when she gets distracted by say things like Venus' legs showing through those shorts. :drool:

Now that being said shes not objective when it comes to who was the greatest ever... or how shed be on the top of the game today if she still palyed. so as long as we stay away from those topics i think we're doing jsut fine.

meyerpl
Aug 27th, 2007, 07:00 AM
Nobody is objective but Martina is highly qualified to formulate informed opinions where tennis is concerned.

Dawn Marie
Aug 27th, 2007, 07:06 AM
NO. She seems to think that the game,the term,the play,the point contruction and the net game all started when she played and ended when she played. She thinks that tennis was born in her era and should end in her era. She still has yet to realize that before EVEN her grandma self was born that TENNIS ONCED LIVED!

HELL NO she isn't OBJECTIVE. She doesn't have a clue.

Lunaris
Aug 27th, 2007, 07:23 AM
Every single person is a subject therefore you can't expect an objective opinion. Unless you like contradictions.
Navratilova commentates because she is a tennis expert, thus her views on tennis (even if subjective) counts for far more than for example mine or yours.

guyinsf
Aug 27th, 2007, 09:41 AM
is it true that Martina picked Venus as her pick for Wimbledon? If yes, how come there was this thread about he "ugly" look after Venus won to suggest that she was disgusted by Venus' victory. I also commented on that topic in her defense saying that you can't judge her based on a look, we had no idea what she was think but hell if she picked Venus to win, then I'm sure she wasn't disgusted that she won. You put 2 and 2 together and you get 4, right? Have you ever heard of anyone being disappointed after their pick won?

Petersmiler
Aug 27th, 2007, 09:49 AM
So you're asking for my subjective opinion on whether someone else is objective?

Now, do you want me to answer objectively, or should I answer subjectively?

Ok, reading the thread, I realise that it's mostly subjective. In that case, yes, she is.

Tennisstar86
Aug 27th, 2007, 05:12 PM
is it true that Martina picked Venus as her pick for Wimbledon? If yes, how come there was this thread about he "ugly" look after Venus won to suggest that she was disgusted by Venus' victory. I also commented on that topic in her defense saying that you can't judge her based on a look, we had no idea what she was think but hell if she picked Venus to win, then I'm sure she wasn't disgusted that she won. You put 2 and 2 together and you get 4, right? Have you ever heard of anyone being disappointed after their pick won?

Yes, she picked Venus to win.... That thread was ridiculous... lol. She didnt have an ugly look on her face it was nonchalant. yeah Venus won like i said she would.