I always distrust of the righteous proclamations a bit. The application of Italian law – apart from Pietrangeli’s case – would avoid such cases. There has been a lot of luck so far, but if Nadal…
PARIS – I would like to go back to the Margaret Court case and the possibility of a name change for Melbourne Park’s third show court. It is a possibility that is loudly demanded by a movement composed of both male and especially female tennis players. Women’s players seem to be even more aggressive than men concerning this topic, as I noticed in the last few days in Paris.
I wrote about it the other day. And my article rightly caused a great deal of both consent and dissent. Frankly I didn’t count whether the former surpassed the latter or vice-versa. I decided to adopt a relative approach, because as much as our readers’ comments are important to me – today you can’t argue that interaction is not relevant – the ratio between the readers and their comments is usually 30 to 1 on Ubitennis. This means that, among 30,000 readers, approximately 1,000 post their comments. Those 1,000 comments should be given the weight that they deserve: The earned gratitude for contributing to the liveliness and uniqueness of the website, since in terms of writer-reader interaction other websites are objectively light years away, but also the consideration that a silent majority doesn’t deserve less respect than a more extroverted, outspoken and sometimes “aggressive” minority, if you allow me to use this term.
Everything gets published: Favorable and unfavorable opinions as well as appreciation and criticism addressed to the many reporters and writers (including myself), except for rude comments which unfortunately appear almost everywhere in such cases. Regarding the Margaret Court case and the proposal of removing her name from the Australian Open’s third show court, I have seen posts with very little evenness and at times a considerable amount of presumption and egocentrism.
Good and credible journalism is not as easy as it may seem, it doesn’t matter what audience you are writing for. The debate on the following question will not be easily dismissed: Should great champions in any sport that deserve to be honored with the award of a stadium or a court for their extraordinary results – i.e. objective facts – also enjoy permanent unanimity and consensus for expressing opinions in political, religious and ethical fields until the end of their days?
That great undisputed champion will then have to be careful when expressing unconventional opinions – whether they are revolutionary or conservative, strong and debatable – in order not to risk being overwhelmed by currents of thought that could be more or less widespread, the majority or the minority, politically correct or incorrect and will inevitably arise from subjective ideologies and thoughts?
The evolution of the human thought historically shows that the absolute and unmistakable Truth – the Word – is changeable when entrusted to human beings and different civilizations, such as ethical principles. Those who have never changed their mind on matters of principle cast the first stone.
Beyond tennis, an Italian law and a fascist law – an irony of fate – issued in 1927 would have solved any controversy if it had been universally applied. Law no. 1188 of June 23, 1927 provided – or shall I say, provides – that no street, square, monument, plaque, tombstone or other permanent memories may be dedicated to individuals who have died for less than ten years.
There were historical and political reasons for the above-mentioned law to be deliberated that way, even if the usual exceptional – and despicable – authorizations were put in place giving some authorities such as prefects and mayors the power to implement those provisions under extraordinary circumstances.
If such a law was universal, the Rod Laver Arena and the Margaret Court Arena in Melbourne would have never been born, in the same way as the Rafa Nadal Court in Barcelona, the “Pietrangeli” Arena at the Foro Italico, the “Guga Kuerten” Court in Brazil, the “Pat Rafter Center” in Brisbane and the Billie Jean King National Tennis Center at Flushing Meadows. If none of these individuals – before the recent Margaret Court case – have never aroused the slightest discussion about their right to have a stadium or a court named after them, I think it was good fortune in the end. What if tomorrow one of these individuals went crazy and said or did senseless things after having been an all-around great person for 70 years of their life?
Let me provide you with another example: Can you imagine if Paolo Galgani had thought of naming the center court at the Foro Italico after Adriano Panatta 35 years ago, in the same way as Angelo Binaghi succeeded in naming the former center court at the Foro Italico “The Pietrangeli Arena” in our Toyland?
I call our country “The Toyland” because that law is still in force even if we always find a way to circumvent any rule. We would have also found a way to “remove” Panatta’s name from the stadium using some politically correct censorship. Not necessarily a punishable verdict, a tax fraud or, even worse, a scam… to the good name of the Italian Tennis Federation for a matter of intellectual honesty. Do you know how many times I heard our politicians and executives – in sports or elsewhere – use that expression?
Kuerten had problems with tax authorities, but he eventually emerged unscathed. But if tomorrow one of the above-mentioned champions had problems with drugs, mafia, abuse, violence – such as O.J. Simpson – even more than expressing execrable opinions, it would not be embarrassing for everyone. And what champion would want to be Margaret Court’s successor because she was condemned for ignominy by the public that supports a massive and noisy current of thought.
I read about the name of Evonne Goolagong, who is a great tennis player, wonderful person and aboriginal. But if a change was to be proposed and I were Evonne, I would never accept that honor, even if the Anglican Reverend Margaret Court – who devoted herself to hundreds of less publicized works than her recent words, I suppose – was my worst enemy. How many of those people – who now seem ready to bury her – know how much good a champion like Margaret Court has done in her pastoral life dedicating herself to helping others, instead of enjoying herself and her popularity?
Perhaps what some of my critical readers regarded as “do-good attitude” originated from my natural propensity to resist the temptation to uncritically follow the impulses that are too often – but not always – demagogic and are initiated by groups that don’t convince me at all because of the excessive amount of eagerness that they use when collectively criticizing a situation and providing judgmental rulings.
A mistake occurs when names of currently living men and women are given to stadiums, courts or similar facilities. Only history, such as the sanctification of a great man, can tell if a human being deserves that honor for what they achieved during their life. “Posterity will judge,” one of my most clever readers wrote recently. It shouldn’t be decided by contemporaries who act as judges concerning facts or, even worse, opinions without knowing the background or experience of a person. It is clear that Court didn’t commit any unlawful act; they actually assured me that she has been very generous to the communities that she has taken care of.
The Margaret Court Arena was named so in 2003. No one knows if it will still be called with that name in 2018. As I wrote yesterday, I strongly doubt it. But I am not sure that this is the right thing to do. Maybe I am simply a dissonant voice. And I think that I am entitled to freely express my opinion, even if I understand that a stadium and its name also represent an iconic symbol. But do they have to be a sports or personal icon who must gather unanimous consensus all life long, rather than post-mortem – when a judgment would be more comprehensive?
I have initially wanted to write about Nadal, Djokovic, Fognini and Wawrinka, but my fingertips felt the urge to write about this topic and… I apologize. We will have more time to talk about the tournament. Please be patient.
(Article translation provided by T&L Global – Translation & Language Solutions – www.t-lglobal.com )
