Curiouser and curioser. The New York Times has started going into overdrive as the last grand slam tournament of the year begins tomorrow on its own turf. This past weekend The Gray Lady ran a faux breathless story about the significance of Roger Federer's "RF" monogram and on Sunday there was a front page story comparing the defending 5-time US Open champion to the last man who won the US Open six consecutive years, Bill Tilden, who besides being a great champion was also a well-known homosexual (and confirmed pedophile). This year is the 80th anniversary of Tilden's sixth consecutive US Open championship, which Federer could duplicate if he wins again in New York. The article conceded that Tilden's accomplishments are rarely acknowledged because the tennis icon was arrested multiple times for being caught in inappropriate (and illegal, at the time) sexual situations with teenage boys.
And yet, if not for Federer’s Open success reviving his memory, Tilden would remain largely forgotten, his tennis legacy overshadowed by his vices. He was attracted to young boys in his later years. Shunned by tennis, he died virtually penniless in 1953, at age 60.Interestingly, although Roger Federer's own sexual orientation used to be in doubt, those questions have mostly been silenced with his marriage and birth of his twin daughters in the last six months.
“There’s no question Tilden dominated his era more so than maybe anybody had except for Federer,” said Frank Deford, who wrote the definitive biography “Big Bill Tilden: The Triumphs and the Tragedy” while covering tennis in 1975 for Sports Illustrated.
But as a public figure, perhaps a more apt comparison for Tilden is to the pop star Michael Jackson, whose musical legacy, while unassailable, was mitigated for some by his conduct.
“I think that’s a very good analogy,” Deford said in a telephone interview, adding: “Tennis people tried to hush up Tilden’s personal life. They actually were afraid it would hurt the sport. I think that’s why nobody ever celebrates any of his achievements.”
I understand the New York Times trying to gin up support for locals to attend the Open (which when you really think about it is actually a bit bizarre or paranoid, since the tournament is quite often the most attended sporting event in North America most years) but it does seem a bit beyond the pale to be publishing two articles in three days which "sprinkle pink fairy dust" on the World #1 player by dissing his fashion sense (as "affected") and comparing him to a fashionista in one article and then comparing his tennis to the most famous (and controversial) men's tennis champion in history who happened to be firmly attracted to members of the same sex!
