You're not really talking about tennis.

Welcome to this conversation. I see that you have finally arrived at My Point™️

Tennis is the only sport that I have even a passing interest in, so a chance to bullshit about it is fun. I wasn't trying to prove you wrong or "well actually" you; I was trying to talk about Serena Williams.

I do apologize as it’s clear now you were just itching to chit chat about Serena Williams. My apologies on that front. Like I said, I copied and pasted from another commenter that really did “well-actually” me, and the general thrust of your comments seemed similar in my tired state.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but whether or not you were misleading (not sure how, but w/e) is of no interest to me.

(Your previous comment - “Winning a point isn't the same as winning a match.”)

I thought that was relatively obvious, yes. Which is why I felt you were trying to say that I was misleading people into talking about a whole match.

That said I don't think I could score a point in a game against her, but if she played 8 games against 8 men and played with her usual intensity, it's very likely one of them would score a point.

Okay but the study is about how 12% of guys are confident that they would be able to get a point in a single match, not “I think I could win a point in one do 8 consecutive matches.” Was more my point there.

I don't understand about a third of what you wrote, which may be because my simple male brain is too full of testosterone and playboy magazines, but I suspect its because "have the audacity or wherein it would be unethical not to be explicit" just doesn't make sense.

......Of course it doesn’t make sense.... because you’ve literally only given about 1/3 of the complete sentence, which provides the context for it to make sense. It’s a long sentence, but it’s not glaringly ungrammatical. Of course a random chunk of it by itself doesn’t make any sense....