Tennis

[Champ]

Probably more in the early part of her career when she was miles faster and fitter than anyone else. Maybe a few less in the later part of her career where she relies more on smacking the ball hard and doesn't move around so well.

So evens out I reckon.

 

My son was ranting after the final about the prize parity issue and that she would never have done so well had she had to play 5 sets due to her 'physique'. Although that's not to say she wouldnt have worked on her fitness had that been the situation

[Jose Jones]

Champ, on 01 Feb 2017 - 1:14 PM, said:

 

My son was ranting after the final about the prize parity issue and that she would never have done so well had she had to play 5 sets due to her 'physique'. Although that's not to say she wouldnt have worked on her fitness had that been the situation

I would wager that Serena is pretty damn fit, she just has a big ol' black arse.

So basically your boy is sexist and racist.

[Champ]

I would wager that Serena is pretty damn fit, she just has a big ol' black arse.

So basically your boy is sexist and racist.

 

Oh, come now, Mr Jones, is there another player, male or female on the circuit with her build? She is built for power, not stamina

[Jose Jones]

Oh, come now, Mr Jones, is there another player, male or female on the circuit with her build? She is built for power, not stamina

I was only messing.

Agreed that she probably would carry less muscle if required to play 5 sets.

She does have a big Ol' black arse though.

[Naz17]

I don't get the argument that female Tennis players won't or can't have the fitness for 5 sets. Women run marathons and Triathlons so why not play five sets?

 

I think the real reason they don't play 5 sets is down to the logistical headaches in the organisation of the tournament, trying to find the extra time in the schedule for longer matches. I think it is more realistic that men will player fewer sets rather than women pay more due to this (though still unlikely).

 

The other misnomer is prize money. Ultimately it is only part of a Tennis players earnings, they make more from sponsorship, which is even less fair. I read somewhere that Li Na makes more than Andy Murray & Serena Williams.

 

I think you're right about the logistical issues. But that's a lame excuse. Can you imagine working for a firm who make women work 3 days a week compared to men's 5 days and don't provide equality because of capacity issues? Not good enough.

 

On the sponsorship component I've personally got no issue with that. That's a two-way trade and the market makes it "fair". As long as the tennis player is providing a return on investment to the sponsor they will be willing to pay for it. If Li Na makes more than Andy Murray then good for her, she is obviously of more value from a sponsorship perspective - presumably because of the affinity Chinese people have for her. It isn't so much to do about quality/quantity of tennis, although there is an indirect link of course.

[Remmie]

So how is it accounted for, for say Wimbledon? Extend the tournament? No, that affects other tournaments. Bump juniors, mixed doubles or disabled tennis off the schedule?

[Jose Jones]

It's only the grand slams anyway that the men play 5 sets. All the other tournaments they play 3 sets and get paid more than the women do.

[Naz17]

So how is it accounted for, for say Wimbledon? Extend the tournament? No, that affects other tournaments. Bump juniors, mixed doubles or disabled tennis off the schedule?

I'm sure there is a way. How much extra are we likely to need? Another week's worth of tennis max I'd say. I'd need to see the court utilisation rates and other stats to think of how it could be done. But to be honest i think it would have to involve reviewing the tour as a whole because it should be for all majors.

[razor]

I just care about fairness. Quality, quantity and value should all be taken into account when determining pay. At the moment, the men's game wins on all these factors. But if ever the women's game does, I'm happy for them to get paid more. Djokovic, Murray, Federer, Nadal, Wawrinka are players well above any calibre in the women's game at the moment. 

 

But anyway, as you say, opinions. I feel so honoured to watch matches like Federer Nadal whilst they occur. Federer the greatest ever.

 

I agree that some of those Federer / Nadal games were of the best quality you can get, but I strongly disagree about your broader point around quality.  Women's tennis is much better in terms of quality, if you define quality as excellent, entertaining sport.

 

Some 6'8 goon smashing ace after ace is not entertaining in my view.  It's a "quality" shot, but it's not quality entertainment.

 

There is a greater variety of shots in women's tennis, who rely on skill over power.

[VladimirIlyich]

Just make all the women's tournaments exactly the same format as men and I'd say parity is absolutely fair. What is usually taken into account,I guess, is that the tournament sponsors get an input and whatever they say has to go.

[Naz17]

I agree that some of those Federer / Nadal games were of the best quality you can get, but I strongly disagree about your broader point around quality.  Women's tennis is much better in terms of quality, if you define quality as excellent, entertaining sport.

 

Some 6'8 goon smashing ace after ace is not entertaining in my view.  It's a "quality" shot, but it's not quality entertainment.

 

There is a greater variety of shots in women's tennis, who rely on skill over power.

 

I guess we probably define quality differently. It is subjective after all. The best men's tennis players in the world in my opinion are (in no order): Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka, Raonic, Dimitrov, Nishikori

 

The only player I don't particularly enjoy watching out of those players is Raonic - for similar reasons you mention. Not a fan of endless aces, but, at least he serves and volleys which I do enjoy watching. The other players have much more variety in their shots than the women's. Three of those players have beautiful one-handed backhands which, for me, is a genuine joy to watch. Djokovic and Murray display feats of stamina and defensive tennis I've never seen in my life. Federer is a magician. I could go on. For me, there's no guile, subtlety and it's just a brand of tennis I don't enjoy watching in the women's game. It's a game of who can hit the hardest with Serena and co (and relative to men's it's not that powerful anyway). I really enjoyed watching Henin-hardenne and Martina Hingis. I can't even remember the last time I saw a drop shot in a women's match.

[Moo]

I guess we probably define quality differently. It is subjective after all. The best men's tennis players in the world in my opinion are (in no order): Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka, Raonic, Dimitrov, Nishikori

 

The only player I don't particularly enjoy watching out of those players is Raonic - for similar reasons you mention. Not a fan of endless aces, but, at least he serves and volleys which I do enjoy watching. The other players have much more variety in their shots than the women's. Three of those players have beautiful one-handed backhands which, for me, is a genuine joy to watch. Djokovic and Murray display feats of stamina and defensive tennis I've never seen in my life. Federer is a magician. I could go on. For me, there's no guile, subtlety and it's just a brand of tennis I don't enjoy watching in the women's game. It's a game of who can hit the hardest with Serena and co (and relative to men's it's not that powerful anyway). I really enjoyed watching Henin-hardenne and Martina Hingis. I can't even remember the last time I saw a drop shot in a women's match.

I'd absolutely agree with this in terms of the quality of women's tennis at the moment, however 15 years ago the names you mention were playing and the women's game was in much better shape all round than the men's and I suspect at that time then men still had higher prize money. So what do you do, go backwards because the same quality is not there at present? And would the same happen to the men when things switch around, drop their money? They're obviously two silly suggestions but realistically what else can you do? You can request the women play five sets, and countless times the women offered but it was rebuffed, probably because someone else somewhere along the chain will suffer. Whether that's the older groups, the doubles, the wheelchair players, or other tournaments dropped from the schedule, someone will lose out.

[Moo]

I'd absolutely agree with this in terms of the quality of women's tennis at the moment, however 15 years ago the names you mention were playing and the women's game was in much better shape all round than the men's...

A thousand apologies for quoting myself but just want to add that the above is also why I don't personally rank Williams as the greatest women's player, her competition has been very poor for the majority of her career/Grand Slam winning streak.

[Naz17]

I'd absolutely agree with this in terms of the quality of women's tennis at the moment, however 15 years ago the names you mention were playing and the women's game was in much better shape all round than the men's and I suspect at that time then men still had higher prize money. So what do you do, go backwards because the same quality is not there at present? And would the same happen to the men when things switch around, drop their money? They're obviously two silly suggestions but realistically what else can you do? You can request the women play five sets, and countless times the women offered but it was rebuffed, probably because someone else somewhere along the chain will suffer. Whether that's the older groups, the doubles, the wheelchair players, or other tournaments dropped from the schedule, someone will lose out.

 

Good question. Personally, I would index prize money to popularity each year. My assumption is that better quality => more demand => worth more to the public. How to measure popularity? I guess there are few ways and, as an economist by profession, I can think of various methods to estimate it so that it is transparent and understandable. I'd be completely happy with this as it allows the winners to be paid an amount aligned with demand for their services...which is how markets usually work. It also gives flexibility to pay men/women more than the other depending on the quality that year.

[Moo]

Good question. Personally, I would index prize money to popularity each year. My assumption is that better quality => more demand => worth more to the public. How to measure popularity? I guess there are few ways and, as an economist by profession, I can think of various methods to estimate it so that it is transparent and understandable. I'd be completely happy with this as it allows the winners to be paid an amount aligned with demand for their services...which is how markets usually work. It also gives flexibility to pay men/women more than the other depending on the quality that year.

Except that there's no guarantee that quality = demand.

Look at that sport on the "other forum", demand is highest (as is the cash pumped in) for the English version of that sport but that's not because of the quality of play, it's because of the hype.

[Naz17]

Except that there's no guarantee that quality = demand.

Look at that sport on the "other forum", demand is highest (as is the cash pumped in) for the English version of that sport but that's not because of the quality of play, it's because of the hype.

 

There's no guarantee about a lot of things. But some form of indexing would get closest to a fair outcome - and at least fairer than providing the same pay for sub-standard work.

[Moo]

There's no guarantee about a lot of things. But some form of indexing would get closest to a fair outcome - and at least fairer than providing the same pay for sub-standard work.

I disagree. At the end of the day these tournaments are obviously still making huge profits of which the players deserve their share, and as the main attraction of a Grand Slam is that it's for both men and women then their prize money should be equal.

[Naz17]

I disagree. At the end of the day these tournaments are obviously still making huge profits of which the players deserve their share, and as the main attraction of a Grand Slam is that it's for both men and women then their prize money should be equal.

 

I don't see that as fair but let's agree to disagree.

[Tony Moanero]

McVitie's Gold bars are boss.

[sir roger]

Looking forward to the women's final at Miami with my two favourite female players.

 

Konta seems to have a lot more grit than the usual Brits this side of Murray & Wozniacki is a fantastic red , so may the best lady win.

[Stickman]

Looking forward to the women's final at Miami with my two favourite female players.

 

Konta seems to have a lot more grit than the usual Brits this side of Murray & Wozniacki is a fantastic red , so may the best lady win.

Probably because she's Australian

[sir roger]

Probably because she's Australian

 

She's been here since she was 14 and has only made great strides since she was 23, so not sure that is fair , particularly as Australian tennis probably has more cranks per top player than any other country at present.

[Stickman]

She's been here since she was 14 and has only made great strides since she was 23, so not sure that is fair , particularly as Australian tennis probably has more cranks per top player than any other country at present.

I thought she represented Australia up to 2012.

 

Although to be fair she has done a lot better since she switched her alligence to the UK. I think her improvement is more to do with her rather than becoming a Brit as Watson and Robson aren't great examples

[sir roger]

Well done Johanna and good to see Wozniacki making a return to form

[Guest Pistonbroke]

I'd fuck her.