Is it Inevitable that Men's Slams Will Eventually Switch to Bo3?

[Mike Sams]

No one wants 16 seed draws. People want to see better matches at the far end. So this is never going to happen. 32 seeds at slams is what makes slams bigger than other tournaments.

Purists fine. They are not only ones who watch tennis. Young fans don't want to sit through 4 hrs matches even if they accept 5 set legendary status.

There's no real evidence to support this. Nowadays, there are so many mediums for people to spend their time on. Everything from video games to tik tok to youtube to netflix, etc, etc, etc.
I believe if people don't want to sit through something, it's because they don't have much interest in the first place. There's a huge huge risk in shortening to BO3. Nobody's gonna care as much seeing Nadal beat Medvedev in a 3 set AO final. But 5 sets is what made it legendary and epic. I can't ever see tennis changing this format. But I can see them throwing in more commercial breaks. Like when a player takes 30 seconds to get ready for the next serve, the networks can easily throw in a couple of 15 second commercials. More money for the sport and beneficial to the advertisers.

 

[Pablo1989]

And the "pay women equal prize money" brigade either go quiet or suggest that men's tennis go to best of 3 in the majors when you suggest that women go to best of 5 in the majors. That political correctness and corner cutting is probably behind the attacks on the best of 5 format.

Absolutely right. Nu-males and social justice warriors like Ben Rothenberg are against B05 only because of that. You can be sure of that

 

[insideguy]

There's no real evidence to support this. Nowadays, there are so many mediums for people to spend their time on. Everything from video games to tik tok to youtube to netflix, etc, etc, etc.
I believe if people don't want to sit through something, it's because they don't have much interest in the first place. There's a huge huge risk in shortening to BO3. Nobody's gonna care as much seeing Nadal beat Medvedev in a 3 set AO final. But 5 sets is what made it legendary and epic. I can't ever see tennis changing this format. But I can see them throwing in more commercial breaks. Like when a player takes 30 seconds to get ready for the next serve, the networks can easily throw in a couple of 15 second commercials. More money for the sport and beneficial to the advertisers.

See you say this and it sounds like it makes sense. On the other hand like other posters have said they have gotten rid of 5 sets matches all across the tour. And in Davis Cup. If they felt like it was worse for the sport they would not have done that.

 

[Mustard]

What the ITF and Gerard Pique have done with the Davis Cup has been a disaster.

 

[Mike Sams]

See you say this and it sounds like it makes sense. On the other hand like other posters have said they have gotten rid of 5 sets matches all across the tour. And in Davis Cup. If they felt like it was worse for the sport they would not have done that.

Who even watches David Cup these days? The majors stand alone. I can't see it ever going best of 3. If it does, I don't know if I will be watching the sport any longer.

 

[insideguy]

Who even watches David Cup these days? The majors stand alone. I can't see it ever going best of 3. If it does, I don't know if I will be watching the sport any longer.

Well I dont know Mike. What I do know is they dropped 5 setters all across the tour in the last 30 years. They did it for a variety of reasons. The Majors are the last ones. I have stated that I dont really know if it will happen, however I cant really disagree with the OPs premise that it possibly could.

I dont think the OPs premise was he thought it was a good idea. He is just asking the question based on what he has observed. And then everyone chimes in with their personal opinions about 5 sets matches. The ATP/WTA is going to do what they think is best for the tour business wise. If that's going to 3 sets they will. If its not then they won't.

 

[Mike Sams]

Well I dont know Mike. What I do know is they dropped 5 setters all across the tour in the last 30 years. They did it for a variety of reasons. The Majors are the last ones. I have stated that I dont really know if it will happen, however I cant really disagree with the OPs premise that it possibly could.

I dont think the OPs premise was he thought it was a good idea. He is just asking the question based on what he has observed. And then everyone chimes in with their personal opinions about 5 sets matches. The ATP/WTA is going to do what they think is best for the tour business wise. If that's going to 3 sets they will. If its not then they won't.

I remember the near 5 hour epic that Federer and Nadal played in Rome 2006. They both pulled out of the next event which cause the ATP to rethink 5 set Masters finals. And it got changed to best of 3. Maybe Major finals will stay best of 5 but all other matches will be best of 3?

 

[Mustard]

I remember the near 5 hour epic that Federer and Nadal played in Rome 2006. They both pulled out of the next event which cause the ATP to rethink 5 set Masters finals. And it got changed to best of 3. Maybe Major finals will stay best of 5 but all other matches will be best of 3?

I don't know why it bothered them so much that Nadal and Federer pulled out of Hamburg after such an epic Rome final. Did Nadal and Federer have to play every event? The ATP seemed to go for the business model that would help Nadal and Federer dominance across all events, but that shouldn't have been their job at all. The sport of tennis should be the ATP's job and what's in the interests of all professional tennis players.

 

[insideguy]

I remember the near 5 hour epic that Federer and Nadal played in Rome 2006. They both pulled out of the next event which cause the ATP to rethink 5 set Masters finals. And it got changed to best of 3. Maybe Major finals will stay best of 5 but all other matches will be best of 3?

Possibly? I really dont know. I get that the tennis fans on a board like this would not be in favor of it. But what happens in these types of debates is the people on the board only see their side of it and dont even want to look at the other side. Which is understandable. I see this on debates about all sports when they change things. It wasn't that long ago that boxers use to fight 15 round fights. They dont anymore. They are literally limited to a max of 12. So things do change.

 

[optic yellow]

Well I have no further argument to make.

Tell me why you think women should/can play 5 setters at the slams ?

Perhaps they can......maybe they should put it to a test.....see how it goes.

Because it's absurd to think there is any limitation to human physiology that prevents them from doing so.

 

[Mustard]

Possibly? I really dont know. I get that the tennis fans on a board like this would not be in favor of it. But what happens in these types of debates is the people on the board only see their side of it and dont even want to look at the other side. Which is understandable. I see this on debates about all sports when they change things. It wasn't that long ago that boxers use to fight 15 round fights. They dont anymore. They are literally limited to a max of 12. So things do change.

That damaged boxing. All World Championship fights, and only World Championship fights, should be scheduled for 15 rounds. Fights scheduled for 12 rounds should be all title fights below world level and any big marquee non-title fights, including number 1 contender matches for a world title shot. All other professional fights should be either 10, 8, 6 or 4 rounds.

 

[insideguy]

That damaged boxing. All World Championship fights, and only World Championship fights, should be scheduled for 15 rounds. Fights scheduled for 12 rounds should be all title fights below world level and any big marquee non-title fights, including number 1 contender matches for a world title shot. All other professional fights should be either 10, 8, 6 or 4 rounds.

Im not arguing either way. If you think it damaged boxing then that's your opinion. My point was it changed. And its also possible tennis will change. Again the OP asked the question. He didnt support it or not support it. Its a valid question to ask.

 

[Mustard]

Im not arguing either way. If you think it damaged boxing then that's your opinion. My point was it changed. And its also possible tennis will change. Again the OP asked the question. He didnt support it or not support it. Its a valid question to ask.

Fair enough. But boxing now is a laughing stock. Too many exhibition stuff and celebrity Jake Paul fights and Conor McGregor nonsense, and all the Saudi stuff, the Kinahan stuff, not to mention Eddie Hearn just brushing a failed drug test from Conor Benn aside and insisting his fight with a severely weight drained Chris Eubank Jr. should go ahead anyway.

It starts when you do things like get rid of 15 round World Championship fights, and have an alphabet soup of "World Championships".

 

[Bambooman]

Because it's absurd to think there is any limitation to human physiology that prevents them from doing so.

Women should insist on this change and go on strike if it is not done. Enough is enough.

 

[ND-13]

All those thinking tennis will not change majors to BO3 are so mistaken. I am 100% sure that slams are going to go with BO3 format much more sooner than we expect. It could happen in 2 phases - first BO3 until R3/R4 and then all the way through...

The optimal length is around 2-2.5 hours. This has been tried across different sports with increased viewership.

 

[insideguy]

Fair enough. But boxing now is a laughing stock. Too many exhibition stuff and celebrity Jake Paul fights and Conor McGregor nonsense, and all the Saudi stuff, the Kinahan stuff, not to mention Eddie Hearn just brushing a failed drug test from Conor Benn aside and insisting his fight with a severely weight drained Chris Eubank Jr. should go ahead anyway.

It starts when do you things like get rid of 15 round World Championship fights, and have an alphabet soup of "World Championships".

I haven't paid attention to boxing for at least 30 years. All I know is tennis in general is moving in a particular direction. Now whether that line in the sand is 5 sets at slams I dont know. My guess is a casual fan probably won't give a crap if it did change. Hardcore fans would of course. But hardcore fans hate any change to any sport they are fans of.

 

[SonnyT]

The big difference is that, in slams, they play every other day. And with Bo5, the chances of upsets are lower. I'd think the top men rather play bo5, especially with the day off.

Most outstanding Slam matches were bo5!

 

[Mustard]

I haven't paid attention to boxing for at least 30 years. All I know is tennis in general is moving in a particular direction. Now whether that line in the sand is 5 sets at slams I dont know. My guess is a casual fan probably won't give a crap if it did change. Hardcore fans would of course. But hardcore fans hate any change to any sport they are fans of.

The tennis authorities and media in the future would try to claim that the new records are on a par with the old records, perhaps even suggest that they are better than previous eras, when the reality is that they will have made the format far easier for the champions to win.

 

[insideguy]

The tennis authorities and media in the future would try to claim that the new records are on a par with the old records, perhaps even suggest that they are better than previous eras, when the reality is that they will have made the format far easier for the champions to win.

We have talked about this before. In reality the records are all tainted anyway. Unless you are basically talking tennis after 1985 or something. Even then as you have said they had 16 seeded players, and everyone on tour had to play many more 5 set matches. There were no byes. The differences in surfaces was greater ect ect.

 

[Mustard]

The big difference is that, in slams, they play every other day. And with Bo5, the chances of upsets are lower. I'd think the top men rather play bo5, especially with the day off.

Most outstanding Slam matches were bo5!

If you want to increase the chance of upsets, 16 seeds instead of 32. But this also makes it more dangerous for the top 16 too, as they could face players ranked 17-32 in the first two rounds as well as any subsequent rounds.

 

[Ruark]

Hard to say. I think in Bo5, stamina comes into play as the match wears on. But I can see the attraction on TV. Look at football, for example. CONSTANT variety: long passes, short passes, rushing, tackles, interceptions, fumbles, field goals, quarterback sacks, flags, touchdowns, punt returns, you never know what will happen next. People, especially non-players, get really bored with TV tennis, just two people hitting a ball back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, back and forth...... and the standard TV angle from the end of the court makes the ball look like it's barely moving. To a lot of people, including some players, it's about as interesting as watching paint dry. There's a point to be made there.

 

[insideguy]

Hard to say. I think in Bo5, stamina comes into play as the match wears on. But I can see the attraction on TV. Look at football, in comparison. CONSTANT variety: long passes, short passes, rushing, tackles, interceptions, fumbles, field goals, quarterback sacks, flags, touchdowns, punt returns, you never know what will happen next. People, especially non-players, get really bored with TV tennis, just two people hitting a ball back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, back and forth...... there's a point to be made there.

It’s not comparable but back in 2000 or so they completely changed the scoring system in volleyball. Unless people actually paid attention no one cared. Changes happen in all sports.

 

[Bartelby]

Bo5 has become the USP of slams, so it's a bit like suggesting to shorten the length of a marathon.

 

[optic yellow]

Women should insist on this change and go on strike if it is not done. Enough is enough.

That's the most disappointing thing, that they don't. I blame the epidemic of tennis parents making it a fundamentally unfun game for their children.

 

[optic yellow]

Hard to say. I think in Bo5, stamina comes into play as the match wears on. But I can see the attraction on TV. Look at football, for example. CONSTANT variety: long passes, short passes, rushing, tackles, interceptions, fumbles, field goals, quarterback sacks, flags, touchdowns, punt returns, you never know what will happen next. People, especially non-players, get really bored with TV tennis, just two people hitting a ball back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, back and forth...... and the standard TV angle from the end of the court makes the ball look like it's barely moving. To a lot of people, including some players, it's about as interesting as watching paint dry. There's a point to be made there.

If that's the case you either improve the product of TV tennis or you cater to the core of people who actually play the game.

 

[nolefam_2024]

This is actually inevitable. Pickleball has already taken over tennis recently. And tennis will have to go BO3

 

[bigbadboaz]

The key is that it's only the Slams that are BO5, and all four Slams remain gangbusters successful. Even the USO, with the sad state of US tennis in general, has only continued to grow as far as I can tell. Say what you will about the general state of the game, pickleball, or the needs of the casual viewer - the four independent entities that are the Slams have precisely zero incentive to change anything about their format.

 

[Enceladus]

I hope not, but the future is never certain. However, the fact that there are 4 Grand Slams and no Grand Slam tournament doesn't dare himself to introduce Bo3, alone works in favor of maintaining Bo5 format at Grand Slams. Either everyone will make the change or no one will.

 

[nawoo]

BO3 is for pussies that want matches to end in 1.5 hours. Please don't degrade to that level

First, coaching is allowed from the stands, next only BO3? This sport is catering more and more to the ***** gen Zs

 

[Ruark]

Kind of a bottom line is that stuff will appeal to people who are personally interested in it, or who regularly participate in it. Same with tennis. NO WAY a non-player is going to sit for 3 hours staring at a TV watching two people hit a ball back and forth, while a serious player might sit there and watch every second of it. Some other things have the same issue, such as pool or bowling; fans will be glued to the screen, while others will just change channels. I think and hope at least the Grand Slams will stay with Bo5; it really needs to be a test. Going to Bo3 would be like playing the Super Bowl with 2 quarters.

 

[DSH]

If slams switch to BO3, I'll be done watching tennis.

It will be the final blow to an elite sport.

 

[ElChivoEspañol]

Sports are a reflection of the societies that play them.

Look around you, what do you think?