Musings on Equity and the French Open
"Equity has morphed from its original meaning of fairness to mean that all outcomes should be the same; in short, there should be no winners or losers."
I just finished watching the recorded 2025 French Open tennis tournament. My wife has been an avid, competitive tennis player all her adult life and never misses a major tournament. We attended one day of the French Open during a visit to Paris in 2009. Her dream is to attend all four majors someday.
It is next to impossible to avoid learning the outcome of a sports event if you record it to view later, and this was no exception. We knew the outcome, but the level of tennis and the intensity of the match were such that we had to watch how every point unfolded. We were mesmerized.
My ADHD brain never stops, and my mind reeled with observations and reflections as the match progressed.
First, the opponents. Jannick Sinner and Carlos Alcaraz were ranked No. 1 and 2 in the world, respectively, so the match up was anticipated as a classic. All too often, however, the reality fails to live up to the pre-game hype. One player is off their game or just worn out from previous matches. Not here. Both were at the top of their game. This match was the stuff of legends, an instant classic, and will stand among the best, if not the best, in the history of tennis. The level of play was the highest I have seen even after five plus hours of electric tennis. They made impossible shot after impossible shot. My wife and I kept up a running commentary of “Unbelievable!”, “Did you see that?!”, “How did he pull that off?!”, “Wow, just wow!”, and more of a similar vein.
I tried to think of a single sport in which two opponents face off without a team behind them, as in football, baseball, or basketball, as part of a team, as in gymnastics, or as part of a large group as in track and field. The only thing like this is fighting, e.g. boxing or MMA. The difference is that, instead of beating their brains out with fists, the rivals smash, and I mean smash, a ball back and forth over a net. A good tennis match is often described as a “slugfest.”
The ebb and flow of this match was a microcosm of life. There was drama, elation, anguish, desperation, and more. One player or another had the advantage at any one time. The first set alone lasted over an hour. Alcazar lost the first two fiercely contested sets, the second in a deflating tie-breaker. He had never come back from being two sets down. Despite this, he won the third set handily, 6-4. In the fourth set, Sinner once held the advantage with consecutive three championship points but was unable to convert and lost that set in another tie-breaker. The fifth and final set went to a tie-breaker as well, and Alcaraz won 10-2 against a clearly fatigued Sinner.
How did Alcaraz not fold after losing two consecutive sets at the start, knowing he had to win the next three consecutive sets? How did Sinner not fall apart mentally after losing three opportunities to finish the match in the fourth set? How did these two manage to maintain their focus and level of play for five and a half hours?
Sally and I, and everyone in that stadium knew we had just witnessed something special. Either player could have won; it just wasn’t Sinner’s day.
As I mused on the match, I reflected on equity and outcomes, an issue I have dealt with for over five years. Equity has morphed from its original meaning of fairness to mean that all outcomes should be the same; in short, there should be no winners or losers. When there are winners and losers, there must be some unfair advantage(s) and steps must be taken to “even the playing field.” Why did Alcaraz win? Did he have a better genetic makeup or better psychological and physical preparation? Did he have access to better food and better coaches? Are Spaniards naturally better tennis players than Italians?
We have come to a place in our culture where winning is viewed with suspicion, something to be investigated rather than celebrated. Losers, whether in tennis or life, are simply unacceptable and must be due to the winner somehow unfairly oppressing the loser. We must root out the cause and fix this.
Today, the root cause of disparities can be distilled down to one, two, or all of three immutable characteristics: skin color, country of origin, and chromosomes. Never mind the myriad other factors that allow some to excel over others in every human endeavor. Never mind that all attempts to achieve true equity in any society have failed. The prevailing mindset when there is any disparity is find a place to lay the blame. The easiest place is in external features and this is where the causality is assigned.
Winning has always been a goal in all competitions and winners are celebrated. The vanquished or, as they are better known- losers, are to be pitied. If necessary, standards need to be lowered to accommodate everyone so that no one will rise above someone else. This is a recipe for mediocrity and a disincentive for anyone to work hard to excel. In such a world we would never see a match like this one.
My reflections led me to conclude that we need to encourage hard work and reward merit and excellence, rather than lower the bar so that everyone is equally competitive and there are no losers. This is especially so in professions where the consequences of lowered standards could literally mean life and death, such as medicine and aviation.
Where would tennis or, for that matter, all professional sports, be if natural talent, hard work, merit, and excellence were to be sacrificed for equity? All athletes would be ranked on some intersectionality chart of disadvantages and allowances made for them so that everyone would be a winner. You would never see a match like this one.
And it was a hell of a match.
Richard T. Bosshardt, MD, FACS
There is no book quite like The Making of a Plastic Surgeon. The closest thing is the 1970 bestseller, The Making of a Surgeon, by William Nolan. It will give you a unique glimpse into the training of a plastic surgeon and this fascinating and largely misunderstood specialty.
Dr. Richard Bosshardt - With Deepest Respect and Fraternal Esteem,
Your reflections on the 2025 French Open struck with the precision of a well-aimed shot -concise, penetrating, and unflinching. You captured not only the kinetic artistry of high-level competition, but more importantly, the transcendent ethos that binds such moments to the broader human endeavor: the relentless pursuit of excellence. This resonated deeply with me—not as a mere admirer of sport, but as a retired Marine who, like you, has been shaped by disciplines where performance is not recreational, but consequential.
In combat, we do not entrust life-and-death decisions to those who meet ideological quotas. We entrust them to those who have proven, beyond reproach, that they are capable. The notion of assigning command based on equity rather than qualification is not only misguided - it is dangerous. In the operating theater, in the cockpit of a supersonic fighter, at the edge of a storm-tossed rescue mission, and in the crucible of battle, there is no room for pretense. Competence is not a virtue among many - it is the sine qua non.
Consider the fighter pilot. The training pipeline for an F-35 pilot demands over 1,000 flight hours, a level of cognitive resilience that rivals any academic field, and the ability to endure 9 G-forces in split-second decision environments. Or the United States Coast Guard Rescue Swimmer- whose preparation includes hypothermic water conditioning, breath-hold protocols under stress, and psychological resilience training that simulates the mental fog of drowning victims. Only about 50% pass the course. Why? Because when a crew is clinging to wreckage off the Alaskan coast in 45-degree seas, no one asks if their rescuer met demographic criteria—they ask if they can save a life.
These are professions in which meritocracy is not a luxury - it is a covenant. The same is true in your own operating room, where the scalpel must be wielded by steady hands sharpened through years of mastery - not by someone who merely satisfies bureaucratic constructs of equity.
Your observation - “How did Alcaraz not fold?” - touches a profound truth. The answer is not mystery, nor accident. It is forged in the obscurity of discipline. True excellence is not given; it is earned - in the repetitions no one sees, in the mental battles no one records, in the painful mastery of craft that demands everything and guarantees nothing. It is not cruelty to expect greatness. It is justice to honor it.
Today, however, we are watching the slow corrosion of that principle under the guise of “fairness.” The prevailing ethos insists that equality of outcome is more noble than equality of opportunity, even if it requires the erosion of standards that once safeguarded lives and elevated civilization. But fairness, misdefined, becomes the enemy of excellence. It is not just a cultural shift—it is an existential threat to professions that depend upon absolute standards: surgery, aviation, combat leadership, nuclear engineering, emergency response, and beyond.
You, as a surgeon, understand this more intuitively than most. In a crisis, your patient is not asking whether you’ve completed the right social training. They are entrusting their life to your competence. The public must be reminded: true compassion is not found in lowering standards to protect feelings - it is in upholding them to protect lives.
There is a term we used in Marine doctrine: violence of action. It means bringing overwhelming force to bear - quickly, decisively, and without hesitation. But it’s more than tactical. It’s philosophical. It speaks to the urgency of clear judgment and unimpeachable preparation. When we dull the edge of excellence to appease a cultural obsession with uniformity, we not only weaken the profession - we degrade the human spirit.
You saw it on that court in Paris: the evidence of effort, the supremacy of preparation, the nobility of resilience. That wasn’t just tennis. That was civilization, remembered in motion.
Lastly, I submit this uncomfortable truth: the battlefield - like the operating room, or a burning high-rise, or a rescue hoist over 30-foot waves - has no concern for skin color, gender, or identity politics. It cares only for capability. Either you can carry the weight, make the critical decision, lead under duress - or you cannot. To pretend otherwise is not inclusion. It is sabotage.
So yes, Dr. Bosshardt, your alarm is well-placed. But so is your hope. What we saw in Alcaraz - and what we still see in warriors, rescuers, surgeons, and professionals who uphold the ancient code of merit - is a light that must not be extinguished.
Thank you for defending that light.
Semper Fidelis,
With Admiration and Brotherhood in Purpose,
Hank
Major Henry R. Salmans III, USMC (Retired)
The whole concept of sports competition requires equality, not equity. In golf it is called a handicap. It makes competition “fair” and more exciting in friendly competitions. It is even used in betting, the spread or odds. In elite competitions all compete an “equal” basis. But, not really anymore.
In colleges they separate based on size, divisions 1, 2, 3, All in an effort to balance toward fair competition, same for high school , by ages in pewee leagues.
Not so in trans gender competition. It is falsely assumed that trans athletes are somehow equal in baseline abilities independent of skills. In reality, the athlete’s acquired skills are devalued by unfair physical attributes based on genetic sex.
Las Vegas odds makers could probably figure this out. For me, I would prefer one on one, not one on one+ a Y chromosome. .