Men, can you land a plane or score against Serena Williams?

I can't do either of those things, but I can spell nonbinary...

I guess any pro tennis player could hit a double fault, against any opponent.

nonbinery, is that like somebobody who doesn't use garbage cans

Gah apologies for bad spelling

I'd like to think that I could land a plane against Serena Williams

On what surface?

Put me and Sully on the court and it's game, set, match.

On what surface?

Tarmac.

Serena in her prime, or Serena right now? Probably wouldn't make a difference for me, but at a certain level of ability, it definitely would.

I probably could land a plane if I had received extensive training beforehand, but that's not the scenario in the article. Insane premise anyway, surely if no qualified pilots are onboard you might as well have a flight attendant give it a go, at least they'd be more familiar with the surroundings.

Don't think there's any level of training where I could beat Serena, or even, like, anyone several levels below her in talent. Too dyspraxic for that shit.

dogg, i can't tie a tie without consulting YouTube

I guess any pro tennis player could hit a double fault, against any opponent.

― LocalGarda, Monday, December 1, 2025 4:41 PM (forty-eight minutes ago)

I probably could land a plane if I had received extensive training beforehand, but that's not the scenario in the article. Insane premise anyway, surely if no qualified pilots are onboard you might as well have a flight attendant give it a go, at least they'd be more familiar with the surroundings.

Don't think there's any level of training where I could beat Serena, or even, like, anyone several levels below her in talent. Too dyspraxic for that shit.

― a ZX spectrum is haunting Europe (Daniel_Rf)

Ha, this was exactly my thinking, too. I'd like to imagine I could learn to land a plane given enough time and instruction, but I don't think there's any circumstance where I could score a point against Serena Williams. Unless her arms and legs were tied together. And even then I'd still probably need multiple tries.

1. fuck no
2. fuck no

pre clemenza's point, I could probably defeat a toddler Serena Williams at tennis, but I would give it even odds

dogg, i can't tie a tie without consulting YouTube

Back in high school I had to wear a tie every day for two years. I got to the point where I could tie it without looking while walking down a crowded hallway. 30+ years later I have zero confidence I could even get it around my neck on the first try.

the question does not specifically say you have to score a point against her _in tennis_, only that she is a tennis player

I could simply say "are you still married to that reddit founder dweeb?" and my insult would be worth at least one point

This podcast does a good job off addressing the plane question (ignore the url, it’s in a two-part episode): https://www.nosuchthing.show/p/do-audiobooks-count-as-reading.

Also the chapter on Serena Williams in Citizen by Claudia Rankine is a good account of the history of people thinking they’re above an objectively exceptional tennis player. I would definitely regard anyone that’s not an actually pro with serious suspicion if they said they could win a point.

I imagine many would picture landing a plane with the tower talking you through the controls?* This happens in films but I imagine I would screw it up - I can’t really tell left from right particularly when I’m in a flap and might even accidentally turn the radio off. There are a lot of buttons.

Serena lol no way. She’s not double faulting. She looks at me and knows she just has to give it a gentle tap half a yard from any of the lines and I won’t make it.

*Airplane! They’re picturing Airplane!

Again, if it's hit a shot that wins a point, no. If it's maybe they hit the net once or double fault then unlikely but could happen. Given the extremely hypothetical situation removes any ability to know how seriously anyone is taking the game it seems not really worth discussion. Is there a crowd there? Has the pro player been told the challenge is to deny the opponent a point? Also does this happen before I kill a plane full of people?

xpost

crashing the plane into the tennis court

Just to clarify: I'm convinced that Adam, the best player in my club, could win a point against 44-year-old Serena. I can win the occasional point against Adam--he'll make unforced errors now and again. But I don't think Adam could have won a point against Serena in her prime. It's a continuum.

Feel like landing the plane (and I also assume it's being coached by radio or whatever) would involve some skills whereas winning the point could only be an accident. But if everyone on this thread played the tennis match there'd prob be a double fault or a shot against the net eventually.

Yeah but why would they go for an ace at all in those circumstances, knowing that I'm cooked even if I manage to return the serve

hubris

also if you won one point there's a chance they could collapse mentally

could I score a goal if I were first choice striker for a top Premier League team for an entire season

no, is the answer. But i'd like to see the highlights

If it was in an amazing team you'd prob get one now and again, like if someone sets up a tap in.

I could score a point on Serena easily.

If i was serving
If she played with her other hand
If her right leg was taped to the court
If she took a muscle relaxer an hour before
If there were gators to her left amd right

Also of course i can land a plane. Ever heard of a crash landing?

can't score a tap-in when you're being resusicated on the half-way line

Rando guys thinking they could win a point off Serena are getting high off their own supply and that supply is misogyny.

So are rando surveys choosing Serena for this rando question

I could totally land Serena Williams.

you could probably land a plane if it has autopilot engaged + someone on the other end talks you through it. I’ve seen it done (on youtube) in simulators

no autopilot activated? very slim (to nil) chance imo - even with someone talking you through it

Can't land a plane with charm, but giving Serena Williams a big goofy smile as she sets up to serve...

I’ll clarify that it it were like in Thai zoos where they drug up tigers with tranquilizers so tourists can take photos with them, I could probably score a point on a heavily sedated Serena Williams

Rando guys thinking they could win a point off Serena are getting high off their own supply and that supply is misogyny.

― il lavoro mi rovina la giornata (PBKR)

I would say that treating "Serena" as an abstraction--that there's no difference between the 22-year-old force of nature and the 44-year-old mom--severly shortchanges the 22-year-old. I couldn't see, much less hit, a Sandy Koufax fastball in 1965; I might have been able to in 1995; I'm pretty sure I could today. So if all those guys who said 'yes' were thinking of the 22-year-old, yes, they're sadly deluded. If they're good club players, and they're thinking about today, I don't see any misogyny there. (Also matters: are you talking about a set or a match? A set would be 24 straight points; a match, either 48 or 72--much better chance of fluking into a point.)

Why are men trying to land a plane on Serena Williams to score points?

I feel theres some misogyny there because this sort of discussion seems to come up when bros are talking about womens sports

that said I still think there's an interesting discussion there, I love talking about how randos would fare against professional athletes, I love how sometimes these superhuman freaks can struggle to do routine things, idk I think its a fun thought experiment at least

(for me the answer is - I couldn't score a point in a match, but given 1000 tries? probably one. sometimes tennis balls can have freaky spin to them)

I don’t think it’s even a maybe, of course it is misogynistic.

I have just seen these two stats in the past two days and now want to know what other dumb stuff men have been asked.

I think part of what fueled the poker boom is the idea that you really could win a hand against Annie Duke or Phil Hellmuth or whoever, even if winning a whole tournament against them would be unlikely. I always compare that to playing one-on-one basketball against an NBA or WNBA pro, or playing chess against a pro, where the odds of winning anything would be ultra-slim..

Given the extremely hypothetical situation removes any ability to know how seriously anyone is taking the game it seems not really worth discussion. Is there a crowd there? Has the pro player been told the challenge is to deny the opponent a point? Also does this happen before I kill a plane full of people?

1) Yes, it's your respective families plus Noel Edmonds
2) No, they have only been given your first name and a photo of your childhood home
3) N/A, because you land the plane easy peasy

lemon squeezy

If you recast this in golf terms--could you win a hole against Tiger Woods?--I can see the exact same questions coming up. Do you mean Tiger in 1995, or Tiger today? In '95, beating him for even one hole (playing your local course that you're familar with, which would be significantly easier than the courses he played; he'd be chipping into every par 4) would be tough. It'd be tough today, too, but if you're a guy who shoots in the high 70s or low 80s, winning one out of 18 holes does not seem farfetched--you make a lot of pars, he's going to mis-hit a shot now and again.

xxxp you could definitely win a heads up match against those people, in fact I'd wager a decent amateur could beat the best poker players in a standard heads up tourney at least 40% of the time. and yeah that's absolutely the appeal. the whole poker boom started because of Chris Moneymaker winning the 2003 WSOP despite being a thoroughly mediocre player...all he had was a willingness to gamble. if Sam Farha had won it I don't think it would've happened to nearly the same extent.

maybe if he's wearing full marine uniform

xpost

yeah, golf is a good example of where a lot of players could prob take a hole or two off a pro? like especially if you're the local player and you know the course. albeit my dad tells a story of getting to play a round with bernhard langer before, years ago, and he said that they had a chat or a drink after and he realised that after one round langer seemed to know the course as well as my dad did having played it for 20 years.

By the way, recommend this to anyone interested in a closer look at Serena's struggles (both physical and mental) to win her 24th major--covers five or six years, just before and after the birth of her child. That may or may not be germane to this question; again, if you're talking Serena today, I think it matters the quality of the guy she'd be playing. (Who was surveyed? If it's a bunch of Joe Yahoos who've played tennis a few times in their lives, then of course the question is absurd--landing the airplane would be easier.)

https://i.postimg.cc/JzRh9yx5/serena.jpg

I’m thinking of a student pilot, nvm. according to wikipedia a talk-down landing of a commercial plane has never been done

xp

FGTI, there was a lot of that kind of thing in London in 2012. I was running a lot around that time, in Victoria Park which on my side is Bethnal Green but borders the Olympic village etc on the other side. There were some insanely fast runners in the park. Some of them a good bit older too so I figured coaches or ex-Olympians.

Thanks :) but I will never swim regulously again, and no, none of us could score a point against 40-something year old Serena

Gonna consult with my FIL tomorrow if significant hours at Microsoft Flight Simulator might’ve enabled me to land a plane but otherwise it’s “nonbinery” and no, no

Incredible story, jon_oh

Think I've only seen the "I can beat a professional woman tennis player at tennis" arguments because they always got equal billing at slams and then actually won out on getting equal prize money. Just so much misogyny and anger.

in a 3 set tennis match, SW will serve between 72 to 120 points. her career DF average is 4.5% - that would give you 3.2 to 5.4 points. of course, that’s based on her playing competitive tennis where her aggression and risk / reward calculus would be significantly different. if you discount her average significantly to 1%, you’d get 0.7 to 1.2 points. you’re unlikely to push her to the full three sets so she’d trend more towards the minimum 0.7. it’s def looking less promising lads

yeah if her goal was to not lose a point on her serve, she would just spin every serve in and it’s unlikely she’d DF

Just have to make sure she doesn't read YouGov first, though some of her comments about proper British binmen suggest it may be too late.

I think the double fault thing is a bit of a red herring. Pros only miss a second serve due to scoreboard pressure and taking a risk (a few exceptions, some pros do go through the "yips", but this is not happening on a park court vs Joe Schmo). They can also rally all day long at half speed so if they choose not to let you have a point, they will not let you have a point. They've probably sized you up in the warm-up and decided which gear to use. The only chance Joe Schmo has of getting anything off Serena or any other current or recently retired tour pro, is through boredom. Of course, if you're rather more than Joe Schmo, like USTA 4.5(?) recreational/competitive, then Serena/whoever will need to step up the pace a bit, and could spray the occasional shot, and you might get on the board. But it's still 0-6 0-6 unless you have a heck of a serve.

The Riggs/Court-BJK thing; Court is only a year older than BJK but it's true, she was past her peak and Billie Jean had Slams ahead of her, and was world class to the end of the decade. I think it was more discomfort with the concept that inhibited Court, and she UE'd her way to a lopsided defeat. BJK embraced the whole spectacle. One of those occasions when all the extra-curricular stuff had a material impact on performance, not just a straight match up of skill.

I never successfully landed a plane on the Acorn Atom back in the day, and I don't think I've improved.

It's folk psychology but I guess it's interesting to think about the reasons men are typically tempted to respond yes, while women don't see the point. Either men think they look good projecting confidence (even the goofy type) and an unverifiable claim seems like an opportunity, or they don't want to be caught admitting there are things they can't do, either personally, out of arrogance, or that men can't do in general out some principle that everything is possible. Maybe it's on the vague hope to instill doubt in the person asking (you don't know what I'm capable of) or they take the opportunity to evaluate their credibility (if it's a group convo). Finally, they see no danger in trying out a yes: Serena is not waiting in the garden, no one will ever ask you to personally take on a plane's commands, and it would be easy to retreat from the claim anyway. A woman would just say no, but clearly a man fears saying no, especially a straightforward no without explanation or trying to play with the parameters.

One more thought that is probably obvious: downplaying complexity. It seems like everyone can hold a racket and hit a ball, or push some big buttons. I think it's more surprising to have people think they can fight off a wild animal. If I remember the original set of questions, there was also the question can you fight off a dog with your bare hands. But for example, I don't think many men would claim they can win a game of chess against a GM, or some other equivalent feat where the mastery needed is more obvious, and the possibility of bluff is less.

Landing a plane definitely easier.

Lol. The only explanation I have for the plane is speculating on the fact that the plane can practically land itself, and you get to look like a hero on the front page of the newspaper by keeping your calm and pressing exactly one button at the right moment. For wild animals, I don't know, films? But I was just thinking that there are a million examples where people would back off from outlandish claims because the pay off / cockiness ratio is not right.

The biggest thing with tennis imo is the TV sort of anaesthetises the speed and brutality of it. Maybe there is stuff like this in other sports but I've never felt such dissonance watching football or rugby live. Tennis on the other hand, the first time you see it live, and every time, it's astonishing to realise how fast the ball moves and how much physical effort is involved.

Maybe it's the camera angle as seeing it side-on seems a big part of that perception.

A familiar one for me is alpine skiing. The front-end camera makes it look smooth. When the drone follows them from behind and you see the slope and the speed, it's already terrifying. And if they put the camera on the skier and you have the vibrations, the snow splashing and the lower visibility over the terrain, you think about mortality.

there was a viral conversation in certain corners of golf twitter this year around whether a scratch male golfer could beat an LPGA pro over 18 holes - sensible consensus seemed to be ‘not a chance’

Only one man can fight a bear

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maVufIw5fj8

Doesn't the golf example sort of happen sometimes? Like the local amateur hanging around the leaderboard in whatever pro tournament?

that local amateur is (1) not an average joe and (2) probably knows the course very well

average drive distance on the LPGA is 256 yards. average scratch golfer drive distance is 259 yards. that 3 yard upside is not enough to compensate for all the other skills an LPGA pro has over a scratch golfer

xpost sure, i made the latter point upthread about knowing a course.

i guess with golf isn't it a lot more normal for the best players in the world to shoot way over now and again, for whatever reason? doesn't seem outlandish that someone playing off zero would be able to beat them on a one-off day given that's the case. the reason they aren't pros afaict is more to do with lack of consistency?

I mean beat the men also obviously

xpost sure, i made the latter point upthread about knowing a course.

i guess with golf isn't it a lot more normal for the best players in the world to shoot way over now and again, for whatever reason? doesn't seem outlandish that someone playing off zero would be able to beat them on a one-off day given that's the case. the reason they aren't pros afaict is more to do with lack of consistency?

― LocalGarda, Tuesday, December 2, 2025 6:53 AM (one hour ago) bookmarkflaglink

that’s the general idea, yeah. this is part of the reason tournaments are 4 rounds, to decrease the variance and try to ensure the best players have the best chances of winning

They can also rally all day long at half speed so if they choose not to let you have a point, they will not let you have a point.

Thought the same thing last night: that there's a certain point along the continuum of her opponent's ability, and with anyone short of that, all Serena would have to do is keep the ball in play and wait for an unforced error. (A point that I am way on the wrong side of.) It the player is good enough that he can theoretically hit the occasional winner--a ball right down the line, a great drop shot, etc.--and she has to play more of a normal game, then that might then open up the possibility of an unforced error on her part. But playing Joe Schmo, if her goal is simply not to lose a point, she won't.

Serena wants to settle this once and for all:

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6855313/2025/12/02/serena-williams-tennis-testing-pool-reentry-competition-return/

of all threads to generate 100+ replies, shouldn't be surprised it was this one.

I have no depth perception and haven’t held a tennis racket since junior high gym. I’m not betting on winning a point from anyone on ILX.

The airplane is complex but things like up, down, left, right, fast, slow are comprehensible. The motions involved are not physically strenuous.

Playing tennis in a way that might be able to touch a top professional is not like that: I'm just not physically able to do it, let alone clever enough about tennis to succeed by trickery.

I gather the larger point is sexist dudes' level of delulu self-perception. But it seems like there are non-hypothetical situations people could be looking at instead of this. If you want to run experiments consensually you can. Nothing practically prevents a WNBA team from playing a high school boy's team for example. Of course the premise of the sport is that the WNBA teams are playing each other, and they should be judged by how well they do that, which is their actual job.

I could probably win a jumping contest where I was on the Moon, but I'm not on the Moon.

I totally agree that the Quora guy quoted above is sexist/misogynistic, and also the guy in jon_oh's great story--would love to have been there for that!--but I still think it's an interesting question that, if framed properly (why I keep nitpicking), doesn't lead in that direction at all. Start with Serena at 44 vs. Serena at 22, the year of her Serena slam--Kevin brushes that distinction aside, but I think it's huge--and proceed from there.

Let me recast the question with a male baseball hero. If it's 1985, and you're in your 30s and playing pick-up softball around town--a good player who maybe played a bit in college--you're not getting a hit off the 21-year-old Dwight Gooden; pretty sure he'd make you look foolish. But if it's 22 years later, and it's a different guy in his 30s with the same resume, and you give him 24 strikes against a 43-year-old Gooden (eight years retired)--24 being the minimum points to win a tennis set--I think he'd get a hit. He'd get lucky once and make some hard contact, or he'd get even luckier and bloop one in. If you gave him 48 strikes (two sets) or 72 strikes (three), his chances double and triple. One hit = one point. Maybe I'm misreading, but I think some people are treating the question like one point = actually beating Serena, even for a game.

I'm treating it like "a bunch of randos were asked if they could score a point against Serena Williams and lots of them said yes because they're sexist dickheads", you're treating it like "if you were a trained player and Serena Williams was not at the top of her game then you might be able to do this thing, so clearly nobody answering the initial question was sexist at all".

so clearly nobody answering the initial question was sexist at all

But I began my previous post by citing two people who clearly were!

you seem to be particularly insistent that it's possible to answer the question in a way that's not sexist, which as far as i can tell nobody has claimed otherwise. i don't think anybody opposes you going off to the races with the thought experiment aspect of this, you just continue to frame it in a weird and defensive way

It's just really interesting to me as someone who, late in life, has suddenly started playing a lot of tennis (and who just finished a book on Serena Williams).

imo they should have had some control questions to gauge what kind of stupids are taking the poll

"Could you dunk on Lebron James" followed by "Could you dunk on Caitlin Clark" and then throw in a wildcard like "Could you dunk on George Clooney?"

Wouldn't want to be the test case for landing a punch on present-day Mike Tyson.

I find it fascinating the idea that any regular person can dunk ridiculous. They put the basket really high up!

I think I can beat Mike Tyson--wait, now I'm thinking someone surreptitiously planted that idea in my mind.

clemenza, you've made your argument clear, but restating it won't convince those who remain unconvinced by it. it is simply an argument from probability and we can only gauge the probabilities by imagining the result. the only convincing argument would be to make the experiment and tabulate the results irl.

Definitely all conjecture. And honestly, I'm not trying to discount the misongyny of the original respondents (I should have read the post that send me down this road more closely, which emphasized the word "rando"). I just kind of instinctively looked past those yahoos and interpreted it more as a tennis player/fan.

The biggest thing with tennis imo is the TV sort of anaesthetises the speed and brutality of it.

Similar to pro hockey. I never really thought much about hockey until I saw a LA Kings/San Jose Sharks game and was floored at how fast/intense it was.

I've had enough flight training way back in my past that I'm relatively confident I could land a 40 year old Cessna 150. System managing a modern commercial passenger jet to the ground? yeah right.

As for tennis, I would have serious problems scoring a point against a concrete wall

I think this thread is full of people who don’t understand sports and would probably give themselves a concussion if they attempted to hit a serve. which again, doesn’t necessarily speak against the “average guy” case

Let’s see Shohei Ohtani rank Pet Shop Boys b-sides, buddy

Garu G had a hell of a serve iirc

If he was serving against his gran

*Sigh*

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/articles/cvgdn9ewg97o

oh nice it's in dubai

It's just really interesting to me as someone who, late in life, has suddenly started playing a lot of tennis (and who just finished a book on Serena Williams).

― clemenza, Tuesday, 2 December 2025 bookmarkflaglink

As someone who has watched a lot of slam tennis for 25+ years what's behind it is the notion that women should not be earning the money men do because they don't strike the ball as hard or whatever. I wouldn't entertain it as any kind of thought experiment.

what's behind it is yougov

(xpost) What's behind "it" may not line up with whatever interest the question has for me.