Honestly, if you ask someone about the battle of the sexes in tennis, they usually picture one thing. It's Billie Jean King in that iconic blue-and-white outfit, being carried into the Houston Astrodome like Cleopatra on a litter. Or maybe they remember Bobby Riggs, that self-proclaimed "male chauvinist pig," wearing a yellow "Sugar Daddy" jacket and generally acting like a cartoon villain.
It was a spectacle. A circus. A cultural explosion.
But here's the thing: most people treat that 1973 match as the beginning and the end of the story. They think it was just a one-off stunt. In reality, the history of men and women facing off on a tennis court is a weird, messy, and surprisingly frequent occurrence that stretches from the 1880s all the way to a controversial exhibition in Dubai just a few months ago.
The Mother’s Day Massacre Everyone Forgets
Before Billie Jean King saved the day, there was Margaret Court. And it didn't go well.
In May 1973, Bobby Riggs wasn't just some random 55-year-old; he was a former world number one with a massive ego and a gambling habit. He spent months badgering the top women players, claiming they didn't have the "emotional stability" to handle a man’s game. Court, who is arguably the greatest player ever by the numbers (24 Grand Slam singles titles!), finally took the bait.
It was a disaster.
Riggs didn't use power to beat her. He used "junk." He hit lobs that hung in the air forever. He used slices, drop shots, and weird spins that sucked the rhythm right out of the match. Court was visibly rattled. She lost 6-2, 6-1 in what the press immediately dubbed the "Mother's Day Massacre."
This is the part most people get wrong: if Riggs hadn't crushed Court, the match against King might never have happened. King had actually turned him down several times. But after Court lost, King realized that if she didn't step up and win, women’s tennis would be seen as a joke for the next fifty years.
What Really Happened in the Astrodome
September 20, 1973. Over 30,000 people in the stands and 90 million watching on TV.
👉 See also: Why the Marlins Won World Series Titles Twice and Then Disappeared
Riggs entered on a rickshaw surrounded by models. King gave him a literal baby pig as a gift. It was peak 70s camp. But once the match started, King did something brilliant. She didn't play her usual aggressive serve-and-volley style. Instead, she stayed at the baseline and ran the 55-year-old Riggs from corner to corner.
She beat him at his own defensive game.
Riggs took off that "Sugar Daddy" jacket after three games because he was already sweating. He looked gapped. King won in straight sets: 6-4, 6-3, 6-3.
The Mafia Theory
You can't talk about this match without mentioning the "fix" rumors. In 2013, an ESPN investigative report suggested that Riggs might have thrown the match to settle a massive gambling debt with the Mob. A witness claimed to have heard Mafia figures discussing the plan in Florida.
Is it true? Hard to say. Riggs was a legendary hustler. But King has always dismissed it, pointing out that Riggs was genuinely devastated afterward. He spent hours locked in his hotel room after the loss. Whether he tanked or not, the social impact was real. Title IX had just passed in 1972, and King’s win gave the movement the cultural teeth it needed.
The 1992 Hybrid: Connors vs. Navratilova
Fast forward nearly twenty years. We get "The Battle of Champions" in Las Vegas. This one was different because both players, Jimmy Connors and Martina Navratilova, were much closer in age (40 and 35, respectively).
To make it "fair," they used hybrid rules:
- Connors only got one serve per point.
- Navratilova could hit into the doubles alleys.
Despite the advantages, Connors won 7-5, 6-2. Interestingly, Connors later admitted in his book The Outsider that he had bet $1 million on himself to win in straight sets and not lose more than eight games. Talk about pressure.
✨ Don't miss: Why Funny Fantasy Football Names Actually Win Leagues
Navratilova later said the mental aspect was the hardest part. She wasn't just playing Connors; she was playing the ghost of Billie Jean King’s legacy. She felt like she was carrying the weight of her entire gender again, and that kind of pressure makes your arm feel like lead.
Smoking Cigarettes and Beating the Williams Sisters
One of the most hilarious and humbling stories in this saga happened at the 1998 Australian Open. Venus and Serena Williams, then just teenagers with a ton of confidence, claimed they could beat any man ranked outside the top 200.
Karsten Braasch, a German player ranked 203rd, said, "Okay."
Braasch was the opposite of an elite athlete. He reportedly prepared for the match by playing a round of golf and drinking a few beers. He was a heavy smoker who would light up during changeovers on the practice courts.
He played a single set against each sister. He beat Serena 6-1 and Venus 6-2.
Afterward, the sisters revised their claim, saying they could beat any man ranked outside the top 500. It was a reality check on the massive gap in physical speed and ball spin between the tours. Braasch later joked that his "training regime" of shandies and cigarettes was the secret to his success.
The Modern Gimmick: Sabalenka vs. Kyrgios
Even in late 2025 and early 2026, the battle of the sexes remains a massive draw. Just recently, Aryna Sabalenka faced off against Nick Kyrgios in an exhibition that left many fans frustrated.
The organizers tried to level the field by shrinking Sabalenka's defensive area by 9% and giving Kyrgios only one serve. It didn't work. Kyrgios, who barely trains and spends most of his time gaming or partying, still won comfortably.
🔗 Read more: Heisman Trophy Nominees 2024: The Year the System Almost Broke
The match sparked a lot of debate. World number one Iga Swiatek was pretty blunt about it, saying she doesn't watch "stuff like that" because women's tennis stands on its own. She's right, honestly. When we frame these matches as "tests" of which gender is better, we're using a male physical yardstick to measure a female sport. It ignores the tactical depth and variety that makes the WTA so compelling.
Why We’re Still Obsessed
Why do we keep doing this?
Money, mostly. These exhibitions are massive "get-rich-quick" schemes for promoters. But there’s also a lingering curiosity about the "what if."
What most people get wrong is thinking these matches prove who is a "better" tennis player. They don't. They prove that biological differences in speed, lung capacity, and explosive power are real. A man ranked 200th can serve at a speed and with a heavy topspin that most women simply never see on their tour. It’s a different game.
If you're a fan looking to understand the real value of the battle of the sexes, look past the scoreboards. Look at the prize money.
In 1970, the gap was insulting. Ilie Nastase won $3,500 for a title while Billie Jean King got $600. King used the 1973 match as leverage to demand equal pay. Because of her win—and her subsequent forming of the WTA—the U.S. Open became the first major to offer equal prize money that same year.
That’s the real win. Not a trophy, but a paycheck.
Actionable Takeaways for Tennis Fans
If you want to dive deeper into this history without falling for the "gimmick" trap, here is what you should do:
- Watch the 2017 film Battle of the Sexes: Emma Stone and Steve Carell actually do a great job of showing the psychological toll the match took on both players. It’s more accurate than you'd expect.
- Study the "Original 9": Research the nine women who risked their careers to start their own tour in 1970. The match against Riggs was just the marketing campaign; the Original 9 were the actual revolution.
- Compare the stats, not the scores: Look at the RPM (rotations per minute) on a men's forehand versus a women's. Understanding the physics of the spin helps explain why "lower-ranked" men can still dominate in these crossovers.
- Follow the equal pay timeline: Note that while the U.S. Open went equal in 1973, Wimbledon didn't follow suit until 2007. It took 34 years to finish what Billie Jean King started in the Astrodome.
The battle of the sexes isn't about proving women can play like men. It’s about proving they shouldn't have to in order to be respected. Next time an exhibition pops up on your feed, remember: the spectacle is for the cameras, but the struggle for the "crumbs" was very, very real.