BO5 vs. BO3

srvnvly

Hall of Fame
In majors, men play best of 5; women best of 3. Why? This may be one of the oldest asked questions, but I don't remember a good answer for it.

In corporate America, men and women should get equal pay; the fact that there is not equal pay for "alleged" equal work if bogus.

But why should there be equal prize money for non-equal play?
 

Mikael

Professional
ATP players have more stamina than WTA players? I remember they used to play some best of 5 matches at the year end championships for the WTA, but the level wasn't really good enough by the 4th and 5th sets.
 
S

splink779

Guest
I'm pretty sure only the mens singles & doubles finals (olympics) were BO5. In the US Open it is BO3 for men and women, and in the other Grand Slams, I think it is BO5 for both.
 

Camilio Pascual

Hall of Fame
srvnvly said:
In corporate America, men and women should get equal pay; the fact that there is not equal pay for "alleged" equal work if bogus.

But why should there be equal prize money for non-equal play?

The vast majority of work pro tennis players do is not done during a tournament and is not shown on the TeeVee screen. I believe you meant to refer to a "performance" or "match play?"

You throw around the terms "work" and "play" rather indiscriminately, perhaps a better written description of your concept would clear the air?

To answer your question, as the result of negotiations. In your corporate America, the results of negotiations are often not viewed as being "fair", but that is our system at work with all its greatness and flaws.
 

The tennis guy

Hall of Fame
You want to be fair, how about players get payed by the hour. Even in men's Bo5, some of them only play 3 sets, others have to play 5 sets. Maussu should get payed more because he won in 5 rather than 3? Fish should get payed more becasue he lost in 5 rather than 3?

I guess you have to idea how coporate america works. You get payed by the result, not how long you spend your time to get the same rsult.
 

Kevin Patrick

Hall of Fame
I don't think it would be in the best interest of the WTA, it would expose the conditioning of many of its players. Plus the quality of play can be pretty spotty in the best of 3 format, imagine best of 5.
I've seen so many women's matches when the players are completely exhausted & cramping. Remember last year's Capriati-Henin US Open SF? or the '02 Hingis-Capriati Aussie Final? If they had to play more than 3 sets that day, they would have needed a wheelchair to get off the court.
 

srvnvly

Hall of Fame
Camilio - I probably need to clarify. In corporate American, there is a huge outcry, justly so, that women who at least have the same job title as a man, get unequal pay. It has also been argued that women in the same position have to work harder at the same job than a man. The issue is unequal pay for the same job. I believe in equal pay in this situation.

In professional tennis, though, men play best of 5 sets in the majors, and women play best of 3 sets. There has been a lot of discussion that prize money should be equal in these same tournaments, and I do not agree, because the men, in this case, put in more court time than women.

So that begs the overall question of why there is a difference in the first place. Who made the rule and will/ should it be changed? That's all. Thanks!
 

kooyah

Rookie
srvnvly said:
In professional tennis, though, men play best of 5 sets in the majors, and women play best of 3 sets. There has been a lot of discussion that prize money should be equal in these same tournaments, and I do not agree, because the men, in this case, put in more court time than women.

But sometimes a women's match will last longer then a men's match. So, if you're going to argue that players who put in more court time should get paid more, shouldn't players be paid by the hour?
 

mach1

Rookie
Ok so if players would be payed by the hour what would happen to players who play and lose a first round match but played a 5 hour match...they would get 5 hours worth of play right? so then what if someone who won the tournament only took 5 hours total time through all of his matches...they'd get paid the same amount and that doesn't seem right. Also i bet there would be people that would play for soo much longer than usual just to get paid more and just rally with each other haha.
 

C_Urala

Semi-Pro
srvnvly said:
Camilio - I probably need to clarify. In corporate American, there is a huge outcry, justly so, that women who at least have the same job title as a man, get unequal pay. It has also been argued that women in the same position have to work harder at the same job than a man. The issue is unequal pay for the same job. I believe in equal pay in this situation.

In professional tennis, though, men play best of 5 sets in the majors, and women play best of 3 sets. There has been a lot of discussion that prize money should be equal in these same tournaments, and I do not agree, because the men, in this case, put in more court time than women.

So that begs the overall question of why there is a difference in the first place. Who made the rule and will/ should it be changed? That's all. Thanks!

Agree.
I don't think that anybody seriously would argue against the fact that men are stronger than women. So, WTA tour and ATP tour are two different leagues. No wonder they get different money. Unite the tours and pay equal money for winners. Without that, these discussions will be endless, since nobody can count the precise amount of labour expended for the production of a commodity.
 

Camilio Pascual

Hall of Fame
Here is another fair way to base compensation. Viewership and attendance. Here we are talking about a player's effect on the income tennis receives. Many businesses base their compensation on how much an employee can earn for them. I remember some dubs matches featuring AnnaK taking precedence and being shown instead of some men's and women's singles matches.
 

C_Urala

Semi-Pro
Well, it's slippery. Anna is a good example of this slipperiness.
Maybe, next time Safin should take off not only his shorts but his underware too?
:wink:
It can rise incomes, but is it what we want?
 

Redflea

Hall of Fame
Agree.
I don't think that anybody seriously would argue against the fact that men are stronger than women. So, WTA tour and ATP tour are two different leagues. No wonder they get different money. Unite the tours and pay equal money for winners. Without that, these discussions will be endless, since nobody can count the precise amount of labour expended for the production of a commodity.

Strength and endurance are not the same thing...I am quite a bit stronger than a woman friend of mine who is a marathoner and can run circles around me.
 

Phil

Hall of Fame
Srvnvly:

Camilio - I probably need to clarify. In corporate American, there is a huge outcry, justly so, that women who at least have the same job title as a man, get unequal pay. It has also been argued that women in the same position have to work harder at the same job than a man. The issue is unequal pay for the same job. I believe in equal pay in this situation.

In professional tennis, though, men play best of 5 sets in the majors, and women play best of 3 sets. There has been a lot of discussion that prize money should be equal in these same tournaments, and I do not agree, because the men, in this case, put in more court time than women.

So that begs the overall question of why there is a difference in the first place. Who made the rule and will/ should it be changed? That's all. Thanks!

Wow, this subject has been beaten to death. You can't compare a job in corporate America with pro tennis. Men and women, as far as we KNOW, all things being equal, are close in brain power and abilities in the corporate world-that is, as long as women are given the same opportunities in work experience and job responsibilities. In tennis the differences are physical, and scientifically proven.

If tennis earnings were dependent on punching a clock, then clay courters should certainly earn more than grass court and hard court specialists-regardless of their gender. It's not as SIMPLEMINDED as money for time-and it will never be. But that's what you're saying-that it all comes down to time spent on the court. Bullshiat, I say...personally, I'd RATHER see a 2.5 hour match at Wimbledon than a 5 hour clay marathon.

The WTA generates equal, and sometimes superior television ratings than the ATP. It all comes down to how much money the players make for the sport, the sponsors and the networks. If the WTA is at or near equal to the men in that department, then prize money should reflect that. Not time spent on the court. Believe me, the networks DO NOT WANT 5 hour matches-they want to ATTRACT viewers, not turn them away. I'm not a big fan of the women's game, but I do think the players should be compensated according to how much dough they make for their corporate masters. But, not being such a fan, I would NOT want to see a Dementieva-Myskina or Sugiyama-Conchita Martinez match going 4 or 5 sets. Would you?
 

C_Urala

Semi-Pro
Phil said:
But, not being such a fan, I would NOT want to see a Dementieva-Myskina or Sugiyama-Conchita Martinez match going 4 or 5 sets. Would you?

Just one side remark:
I think that if they had the BO3 system, Dementieva could have a chance. Remember? First two sets of men's final were as lobsided as women's and only in the third set Gaudio was able to do something...
 
Top