DO men and women deserve equal prize money at the Grand Slam Tennis events

[Gipper]

Perhaps that's because they are used to playing women. Maybe if they challenged themselves by competing equally against men, it would improve their game.

So you're saying that if a local high school team in Detroit tried hard enough, they could beat the Tigers?

 

[jonny5]

So you're saying that if a local high school team in Detroit tried hard enough, they could beat the Tigers?

No, Im saying that if professional women played baseball instead of softball, they could beat the Tigers.

 

[TurtleDude]

I'd have to see the rankings of matches between the top of both. If Serena was playing Vicki Azarenka and attracting as many eyes as a Nadal/Djokovic final, then sure - pay them the same.

Also, anyone who thinks that Serena could hang with even an average male player is worth laughing at. She played against Karsteen Braach (who wasn't even ranked in the men's top 200 at the time) and lost 6-1. Venus lost 6-2. This is on top of hybrid rules and him boasting (not sure if it's legit or not) that he didn't give it 100%.

Chris Evert was a great player-not as good as Serena but she could hang with Serena on clay. ANd she noted that when her little brother was the #3 18 year old in Florida he'd destroy her. And he wasn't even a collegiate All American let alone a top 500 player

BTW when Aaron Krickstein was a high school kid and ranked about 500 in 1983 and he took out Vitas Gerulaitis who was a top 10 player. anyone who could beat Vitas would obliterate Serena

 

[Middleground]

The US Open pays the same amount to men and women even though the men play best of five sets, while the women only play best of three. The pro equality argument is based on general views that men and women should be treated equally and the feeling that the top women draw as many fans as the top men. The counter argument is that the men's field is far deeper (Serena Williams beat her semi final opponent 6-0, 6-3 while the #1 male seed won an almost four hour slugfest with a lower ranked semi final foe) and the quality of play is far far higher (not just in terms of speed and power but there are less chokes and double faults at for the men)

Your counter is not even close to being a counter. The womens' field is much deeper than the mens. I can't believe you even think that being a tennis fan. When it comes to the mens in the last little while, it's pretty much a guarantee that #1 will meet #2 in a grand slam final. For the ladies, not so much. Look at the last 5 years:

2009
Serena Williams
Svetlana Kuznetsova
Serena Williams
Kim Clijsters

2010
Serena Williams
Francesca Schiavone
Serena Williams
Kim Clijsters

2011
Kim Clijsters
Li Na
Petra Kvitová
Samantha Stosur

2012
Victoria Azarenka
Maria Sharapova
Serena Williams
Serena Williams

2013
Victoria Azarenka
Serena Williams
Marion Bartoli
Serena Williams

Look at the mens:

2009
Rafael Nadal
Roger Federer
Roger Federer
Juan Martín del Potro

2010
Roger Federer
Rafael Nadal
Rafael Nadal
Rafael Nadal

2011
Novak Djokovic
Rafael Nadal
Novak Djokovic
Novak Djokovic

2012
Novak Djokovic
Rafael Nadal
Roger Federer
Andy Murray

2013
Novak Djokovic
Rafael Nadal
Andy Murray
Rafael Nadal



Aside from del Potro, It's either Nadal, Federer, Djokovic or Murray. In the ladies, aside from the dominant Serena (who still loses often enough), there are 9 other ladies who have won a grand slam, and some of them even doing so while either being unseeded or a high seed. Without a doubt, the womens' game is much more competitive and deeper than the mens. That's a fact, Jack.

 

[TurtleDude]

you are claiming depth based on the winners. That is not accurate. I am talking about the entire field. Look what Serena did in the Olympics. She gave up less games to the four last people she played than ND took off of Del Potro in the bronze medal match.

The US Open featured far more 6-0 sets in the women's game including Li Na getting beat 0 and 3 in the SEMIS

A girl from Ohio, Lauren Davis, was DOUBLE BAGELED in the first round of the open. She wasn't a qualifier but a direct entry

first round. Serena beat Schiavona 0 and 1

Shvedova beat Puchkova 0 and 1

Radwanska beat Begu 1 and 3

world #12 Flipkins loses to Venus 1 and 2

and that is just one quarter.

in the men's top quarter of the draw not one 6-0

several five setters

in fact in the entire first round there were less than 5 6-0 sets and one or two were injury retirements (Monaco retires down 3-0)

 

[Middleground]

you are claiming depth based on the winners. That is not accurate. I am talking about the entire field. Look what Serena did in the Olympics. She gave up less games to the four last people she played than ND took off of Del Potro in the bronze medal match.

The US Open featured far more 6-0 sets in the women's game including Li Na getting beat 0 and 3 in the SEMIS

A girl from Ohio, Lauren Davis, was DOUBLE BAGELED in the first round of the open. She wasn't a qualifier but a direct entry

first round. Serena beat Schiavona 0 and 1

Shvedova beat Puchkova 0 and 1

Radwanska beat Begu 1 and 3

world #12 Flipkins loses to Venus 1 and 2

and that is just one quarter.

in the men's top quarter of the draw not one 6-0

several five setters

in fact in the entire first round there were less than 5 6-0 sets and one or two were injury retirements (Monaco retires down 3-0)

Why are you just taking data from one grand slam??? And I just took a look at the men's US Open draw and see a lot of 3 setters and bagels! Face it, the women are much more competitive. It's not uncanny now to see someone unseeded make it to the quarters. In men's, it's rather rare.

Edit to add: 2 unseeded women made it to the quarters. For the men, a big ole bagel.

 

[Middleground]

Wimbledon 2013:

Womens' Semi finals: 15 vs 20 and 4 vs 23
Finals: 15 vs 23

Mens' semi-finals: 1 vs 8 and 2 vs 24
Finals: 1 vs 2

 

[TurtleDude]

Why are you just taking data from one grand slam??? And I just took a look at the men's US Open draw and see a lot of 3 setters and bagels! Face it, the women are much more competitive. It's not uncanny now to see someone unseeded make it to the quarters. In men's, it's rather rare.

Edit to add: 2 unseeded women made it to the quarters. For the men, a big ole bagel.

if you actually analyze the grand slams since some of the GS started giving equal prize money, you will find there are far more men's matches that go five sets vs 3 set matches for the women and far more bagels on the women's side

and here is another factor

the number of double faults for the top women is astronomical compared to the men. you can actually search that and remember the men are playing at least 3 sets (18 games) and the women only 12 (at least)

 

[Middleground]

if you actually analyze the grand slams since some of the GS started giving equal prize money, you will find there are far more men's matches that go five sets vs 3 set matches for the women and far more bagels on the women's side

and here is another factor

the number of double faults for the top women is astronomical compared to the men. you can actually search that and remember the men are playing at least 3 sets (18 games) and the women only 12 (at least)

Links or it's nonsense. Back it up, Turtle. I have been a tennis fan for many many years, and since the era of Seles, the womens' game has changed tremendously. They work just as hard as the men as absolutely deserve the same rewards. To think otherwise is asinine and backwards.

 

[TurtleDude]

Links or it's nonsense. Back it up, Turtle. I have been a tennis fan for many many years, and since the era of Seles, the womens' game has changed tremendously. They work just as hard as the men as absolutely deserve the same rewards. To think otherwise is asinine and backwards.

I coached division one college tennis (women). They do work as hard-Richard Krajcek's comment that most of the top women are fat pigs was hyperbolic when he said it 20 or so years ago, and totally untrue now. But I watched sloan stevens double fault THREE TIMES on match point against Shriekapova at the Cincinnati tournament Never seen that on the men's side.

women should play 3/5 at the majors. Then they would deserve the same prize money.

 

[TurtleDude]

an interesting article
Why are the women falling victim to double faults? - ESPN

 

[jimbo]

I'm not a huge tennis fan, but I watch occasionally. If women tennis players want equal treatment, and I agree they deserve it, then they should be paid the same for playing the same number of matches as the men. If they only play 3 when men must play 5, that is not equal and the prize money should reflect that.

IMO the group that brings in the most money gets the most money.

I have no idea which group that would be.

 

[Middleground]

an interesting article
Why are the women falling victim to double faults? - ESPN

But after witnessing the Australian Open this year, I couldn’t help but wind back the clock a decade and think that in January 2003, things were altogether more exciting for tennis fans. Back then, we had a whole host of players capable of lifting the game’s biggest titles. Lleyton Hewitt was world number one, but was by no means dominant. Andre Agassi was still winning Grand Slams, Andy Roddick was breaking onto the scene, Tim Henman was a genuine threat on grass, Marat Safin was up there in the rankings, Juan Carlos Ferrero ruled the clay, and in Federer, there was a mercurial young talent waiting to mature and blossom into a serial major winner.

Nowadays, the Grand Slams are dominated by a select elite group of four players. And it’s been the case for some time now since Juan Martin del Potro managed to break through and win the U.S. Open in 2009. Before del Potro’s triumph, you had to look back to Safin’s 2005 Australian Open win to find the last time someone not named Federer, Nadal or Djokovic won a ‘big one.’

Is Men's Tennis Too Predictable These Days? | Long Island Tennis Magazine

 

[Middleground]

an interesting article
Why are the women falling victim to double faults? - ESPN

I post articles that deal with the topic at hand and completely back-up my claims, while you post something about ****ing double faults.:roll:

From 2004 to this year’s Australian Open, 37 Grand Slams have taken place. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have won 33 titles between themselves. Predictability? Period.

Believe it or not, in the same period, women’s tennis has seen 14 different winners. Here’s the list: Justin Henin, Anastasia Myskina, Maria Sharapova, Svetlana Kuznetsova, Serena Williams, Venus Williams, Kim Clijsters, Amelie Mauresmo, Ana Ivanovic, Francesca Schiavone, Li Na, Petra Kvitova, Samantha Stosur and Victoria Azarenka. One doesn’t need more proof to comment on the unpredictability of women’s tennis.

The question then is, why is it so? There are no direct answers. One may see the predictability in men’s tennis in the positive light of consistency. But having said that, it doesn’t mean that so many winners on the women’s circuit point to a lack of quality. In fact, some may argue that having so many champions is actually a reflection of the depth that there is in the women’s game.

Predictability of men

 

[TurtleDude]

Is Men's Tennis Too Predictable These Days? | Long Island Tennis Magazine

its an interesting time when you have arguably the greatest grass court player ever (Federer) and the greatest clay court player (without a doubt) playing at the same time. 15-20 years ago all the top players had weaknesses. Safin was a head case, Agassi and Hewitt didn't have massive serves, Sampras wasn't a threat on clay, Edberg was extremely vulnerable to accurate passers like Chang and Agassi, and Courier could miss a bunch. THe top four of the last several years have no weaknesses.

 

[TurtleDude]

I post articles that deal with the topic at hand and completely back-up my claims, while you post something about ****ing double faults.:roll:



Predictability of men

you seem to think that establishes that the women's field at a Major is deeper than the men. Its not and no one who follows pro tennsi would claim that the women's field is deeper then the mens.

 

[TheGirlNextDoor]

Wait, wait, wait....what is it I have to do to get you to tell TGND on me?!?

You just told on yourself.

 

[clownboy]

I voted that they should. But then I'm an outlier who believes that all public school sports should be offerred coed too. Title IX is ignored more often than honored.

 

[Gipper]

I voted that they should. But then I'm an outlier who believes that all public school sports should be offerred coed too. Title IX is ignored more often than honored.

There are very good reasons why.

In a perfect world, they should rip Title IX up and open the avenues to pay players. As long as T9 exists, that won't happen.

 

[maquiscat]

You just told on yourself.

Uh....ummmm......Oh hey look at the time....