Men & Women: Equal Prize Money [Merged]
- Thread starter barry
- Start date
35ft6
Legend
Great point. Nobody is getting screwed by this. In general, men still make more money than women for the same work, so the chauvinists here can take comfort in that.
And just watch, somebody else is going to say something about "equal pay for equal play" in about 3 seconds.
35ft6
Legend
Still, his point still stands. For the most part, the top female pros can beat any of us. There are probably only ten or so men here who are legitimately 5.5 and above. And the 5.5's I know -- I live in So Cal, and I'm talking about dudes who win 5.5 tournaments -- wouldn't stand a chance against a top 20 WTA pro. Maybe a 5.5 player with a 6.0 serve would stand a puncher's chance, especially if they can play a creative, spinny all court game, but for the most part female pros are more like upper tier male 6.0 players. Aside from the fact that how good they are compared to men is completely missing the point when it comes to talking about prize money anyway... A good high school team could probably beat the WNBA champs, but so what? It's simply a matter of economics.
Last edited:
35ft6
Legend
If you haven't noticed, there's about 200 hundred dead stinking horses being beat all over the place on these here boards. But we don't get to talk about tennis in every day life so let us have our fun. :-(
FedFan_2007
Banned
Screw this ****. I'm protesting SW19!
J011yroger
Talk Tennis Guru
I have a question.
For the seperate non-slam, non pacific life open type tournaments, where the men and women don't play together at the same event.
Are the purses higher for the men or the women?
Because that is the true barometer. If a mens and womens separate event pay the same, then that means each draws the same amount of interest, and each sponsor is willing to give the same amount. Then the slams should be the same. If men's tournaments generally have higher purses, or womens tournaments generally have higher purses, then that means that that tour draws more money, and at the slams and other equal pay events, one tour is getting over/under paid.
35ft6, I have never played/hit with any WTA top 20, or 200 players for that matter, most of my experience is with Sat/futures/open mens players. If/when I do play/hit with a WTA girl, I will report back, until then this line of thought is just speculation/pee pee waving, and is pointless. I am from the shut up and play school, and really don't like speculating, it was pretty out of character for me to say something like that.
J
For the seperate non-slam, non pacific life open type tournaments, where the men and women don't play together at the same event.
Are the purses higher for the men or the women?
Because that is the true barometer. If a mens and womens separate event pay the same, then that means each draws the same amount of interest, and each sponsor is willing to give the same amount. Then the slams should be the same. If men's tournaments generally have higher purses, or womens tournaments generally have higher purses, then that means that that tour draws more money, and at the slams and other equal pay events, one tour is getting over/under paid.
35ft6, I have never played/hit with any WTA top 20, or 200 players for that matter, most of my experience is with Sat/futures/open mens players. If/when I do play/hit with a WTA girl, I will report back, until then this line of thought is just speculation/pee pee waving, and is pointless. I am from the shut up and play school, and really don't like speculating, it was pretty out of character for me to say something like that.
J
J011yroger
Talk Tennis Guru
I am from NY so I don't really know how things work in So Cal, but here once you get to 5.0 you play Open, or you play age group tournaments. I dunno how the tennis budget is going to be looking, but right now I am saying I have a 50/50 chance at playing the hardcourt nats in san diego, I think that would be a blast, and let me see what you much balleyhooed (sp?) socal players are like. You know, you hear so much different stuff about NTRP around the country, a friend of mine told me that in florida former sat/futures players play 4.5. And I know a few D1 college kids that play 4.5, and I am not talking about lame in the weeds D1 schools.
35ft6
Legend
You could have just disengaged without announcing it but okay... Just know that most of this board is about speculation and opinion, so you might want to just never post. While I'm at it, since I feel like speculating, I've never played Federer but I'm pretty sure he'd kick my butt. It's pure speculation at this point, though, so who's to really say?
Yeah, there are 5.5 tournaments in So Cal. One guy I know who wins 5.5 tournaments quite regularly, would be ranked about 150, maybe lower, I would guess, in the Men's Open seeding list. He admitted he couldn't hang at the Open level. The top guys tend to be satellite players, former ATP pros, current college players, and former college players. They all come from high, national level tennis backgrounds. The number 1 for a while was Tyler Cleveland, who is 351 in the ATP. The current number 1 guy is Lester Cook, who is 420 in the ATP right now, and the number 2 guy was once ranked as high as 206. The number 100 guy plays number 3 singles for top 20 ranked UCSD, if that gives you an idea of how deep So Cal opens is.
So Cal tennis is brutal. It's hella deep, much deeper than, say, Eastern section. San Diego is a whole separate section I believe.
People cheat.
There's actually been a few threads about the whole man versus women thing. Some people here have actually played with women pros. The rap is that if you just hit with them, they'll never miss. They're machines on the groundstrokes, and they move well side to side. But they don't move well up and down the court, and they don't like extreme spins, like heavy heavy top spin and slinky little slices. And their biggest problem is with the male serve. But if you hit a nice flat ball into their wheelhouse, like I/they said, they're machines. Know a guy who played the number 1 girl at UCLA. He's a solid 5.5 player with a 6.0 serve. Tall guy. First time they played, he won 8-6 (her dad suggested they play it out, no tie-breaker), because, he said, his forehand was terrible. Next time they played, he won 6-2. And this girl, I believe is about 5'4", and this guy is about 6'2". Didn't ask him how hard he was trying. The consensus among coaches, writers, etc, is that a top WTA pro is about a strong 6.0 male. Of course, she's probably much more skillful, but in terms of win or lose, they're about a 6.0 male.
Last edited:
Pete.Sampras.
Semi-Pro
I voted no. I edited the rest of the post...
Last edited:
Warriorroger
Hall of Fame
4brotherdrive
Rookie
Results are results everybody, If women make more money for the tournament then they should get payed equal amount because even though they play less they still make the tournament more money than men do.
J011yroger
Talk Tennis Guru
Ya, that is what I was thinking, that the levels are close, ability wise, but the depth would be vastly greater in SoCal. The top guys in eastern are killers, but once you get past them, it softens up rather quickly. I mean it is easy to see how the top guys from each section do, because we have nationals to look at. So even if the top 3-5 players are close your #200 open player would blow our #30 player off the courts. And Eastern isn't exactly a candy section. Long Island, and NYC have some boys who can thump, I can imagine what it is like in some of the really soft sections.
J
Here's a thought: do you think that there is a danger here that two arguments are being rolled into one? Equal pay is certainly giving more than a few people here some raised blood pressure, but the equal play is in danger of being lumped in to the same pot. Surely the equal play is an easy thing to sort out and we can forget about the money?
I think one of your earlier replies was getting to some of the nitty-gritty, but no-one followed it much. I know that you mentioned injuries etc, but for me, fitness and the ability to judge how to use your body over 5 sets/2 weeks for these professionals is quite an intriguing thing to see develop when I watch. (I also think it's pointless having a best of 5 final in some tour events for the men when the early rounds are best of 3 - IMHO, they are different competitions.)
And here's another thought: if all matches were either 3 sets for men or 5 sets for women, how would this affect the strength and depth of play for either side? Would either change make the competition better in depth or would it be deleterious?
For all that I enjoy seeing the big names, I would rather that there was more depth so that I can't predict the winners as easily.
(For the record, I find myself watching slightly more WTA matches than ATP on the telly)
35ft6
Legend
When I first moved to LA -- from NYC -- the plan was to get into shape and start playing seriously again. For a while, I was hitting the ball well, but I never got into playing shape. The goal was originally to crack the top 75, but I would have to get into shape and play 4 or 5 times a week with quality hitters for about a year to get to that level. At this point, top 150 seems more realistic.
J011yroger
Talk Tennis Guru
Yea, I know what you are saying, I am gonna just play all year and see where I end up, since this is my first year playing open...If I end up in the top 10 I will be happy, if not, I will work harder next year. Bear in mind I am 24 and play about 20 hours a week in the warm weather (Young and stupid, I am sure you remember those days). My biggest problem is finding big servers to practice against.
J
J
35ft6
Legend
Equal pay for equal play, as presented by it's proponents, IS one argument. Not sure what you're getting at. Equal pay for equal play is about money, the rest of this posting is about injuries and...
So many injuries, though, and no real off season. Some of my favorite players have been lost to injury and I'm not so sure they were preventable if they only would have trained MORE. Guga and Rios, for example. Yeah, it's cool to see the fitness come into play, but I think needless injuries are far too prevalent on the tour.
Plus, it's not just injuries, I think making it best of 3 would make it more TV friendly, which might attract more fans, which would greatly help tennis in the long run especially in the USA. I'm probably in the minority in this one. For every classic 5 setter, there are 20 boring ones. When I'm at the US Open, I don't think I've ever sat for a whole 5 set match. I'll wander around looking for scores that suggest excitement. It's just too much. Maybe not for the super important later round matches featuring the top flight players, but I don't need to see 5 sets of Teimuraz Gabashvili versus Marcos Daniel.
35ft6
Legend
Just practice the serve. A lot. If you can just hold serve, you have a punchers chance against anybody. Hold serve, anything can happen in the tie breaker. In my experience, even if I don't practice returning per se, hitting a lot from the baseline prepares me returning. Sure, I might not be reading serves great, but practicing serves is far more important than practicing returns IMO.
I don't think I ever played 20 hours a day. Do you have a job? Yikes. 10 hours a week of quality hitting is fine with me. For a while I had a really good line up of partners. Former junior college players, 5.5 tournament players, and former highly ranked juniors. But now I just don't care as much.
Fair comment and I agree. In fact you've peaked a very interesting thought in my mind.
Perhaps an interesting compromise (for the slams only that is) would be best of three for all, but back to the good old days of a long-set, rather than a tie-break.
The excitement of those close sets getting to 8-6 and beyond would make for great TV and keep the Slams as the different challenge that makes them so exciting. If the Slams are the same as every other comp, they become, for me at least, less special.
D
Deleted member 6835
Guest
there isnt, its called ****ing politics. this is the beginning of the downfall of tennis as a global sport. the atp is being run by a bunch of bs'ers, and its all downhill from here
Last edited by a moderator:
J011yroger
Talk Tennis Guru
Yea, I am a european auto mechanic, I try to play 4 days a week after work, 2-3 hours, and sat/sun, I play anywhere from 3-6 hours, I play less if I teach more...It keeps me sane, plus I am stubborn, and it bothers me that I am playing so poorly, so I keep trying to get better better better, ya know? I have been back playing for a little over a year, and my good days keep getting better, and my bad days aren't as bad, and that is all I can ask.
J
35ft6
Legend
What I have going for me is that I can always hit decently. Even if I don't touch a racket for months, I can still go out and hit the ball well. After college, I was sort of obsessed with maintaining my form, but at this point...
J011yroger
Talk Tennis Guru
Here is the breakdown for memphis combined event.
http://www.rmkchampionships.com/4/event/
Kind of says it all.
J
http://www.rmkchampionships.com/4/event/
Kind of says it all.
J
35ft6
Legend
I like this idea. But maybe just no tie breaker in the 3rd set? Yeah, the Slams should be different.
Buckeye10s
Banned
Women aren't allowed to play 5 sets...if some lazy women chose to play 3 sets instead of 5 like the men then that would be a different story, but because women aren't given the opportunity to play 5 sets they should get the same amount of money as the men. The real discussion should be whether or not its fair that women only have to play 3 sets. Just don't make me watch women play 5 sets.
N
ne1410is
Guest
I think the difference in pay to men and women at Memphis is exacerbated by a difference in the tier of the tournament for the men versus women. For women its Tier III. For men its International Series Gold which is kinda like a Tier II. The whole issue is complicated by the fact that Women have Tier I,II,III,IV all under the season ending championship (4 levels excluding Championship). The men only have Masters Series, International Gold Series, and International Series (3 levels excluding Championship)
Haas critical of Wimbledon decision, Murray more supportive
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/6388351.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/6388351.stm
35ft6
Legend
This doesn't make any sense since nobody pays to watch the juniors play. Where would the money come from?
uxnaitoahz
Rookie
This has to be the most absurd change I have ever heard. Why should women get more for less tennis? They play best of 3 sets while men play best of 5. I have no problem with equal as long as women play best of 5 sets as well. But this is outrageous!
I can't believe some of Dedans posts (one in particular) in another forum made it through, a forum that shall remain nameless since I don't want to draw undue attention to it and have said post deleted in hindsight.
I really have no idea what is and is not deletable around here. I'm guessing the post I'm referring to was so far over people's heads that they didn't even realize how obscene it actually was, not unlike cursing in some foreign language. If no one knows what you're saying, you can say whatever you want.
While we're on the topic, explain this one to me, old wise man of the East: I use the "subscribe to this thread" feature, and every now and then I get an email containing a post that is nowhere to be found in the forum. The last example of this was the other day, when OO made a challenging statement to SoBad -- a statement about the moderators, actually -- that was apparently meant for CC's corner. It arrives in my inbox, I read it, and then I click on the link taking me to the thread -- and the post is not there. One minute later, it's gone and absolutely no trace of it is left. Like it never existed.
Anyone care to explain the phenemenon of the phantom post?
Last edited:
I'm no expert on this kind of stuff, Drak, but I'm pretty sure Maria Sharapova is still playing tennis, and it's even possible she's made it the finals of a Grand Slam. (I'll have to look that one up.) Perhaps you're thinking of Anna Kornholekovia?
I have not read the whole thread, so forgive me if this has been covered, but Billy Jean King's opinion on the best of 3 versus best of 5 question was something like: "We're happy to play best of 5 sets if that will give us equal pay." The implication here was that length of match was never the real reason women were paid less, and I agree with her on this. I'm sure women then and now would happily play longer matches if that meant more money. You think a 20 year old professional and fit female athlete would object to playing best of 5 sets instead of best of 3 if it meant more money?
Personally speaking and prize money aside, I wish the women would play best of 5 in the Grand Slams. More tennis, more drama. Best of 3 just isn't enough.
Last edited:
federer_nadal
Professional
I know about being different from men and everything but they want to be equal and everything but dont want to play 5 set matches? I mean the shortest mens match is the same length as the longest womens match in terms of scores. Also i dont see many overweight or unseeded players winning mens GS that is because the mens comp is much tougher.
I think this was a case of super-fast moderation, a couple of both mine and SB's posts disappeared at the same time. Perhaps moderators were already in the thread removing stuff when I made that post?
(On related matters, I was slightly confused / bemused at that pattern of play, which deleted everything but the original post on the said 'issue'. Nonetheless, I'm sure there were reasons....).
Okay, just read the whole thread. Some excellent posts in here, but some others that show people don't understand professional tennis.
Tennis is a business. It is a business that survives primarily on attendance and advertising revenues. It's never been about pure ability or length of work day. It doesn't matter that Radek Stepanek, for example, could beat Serena Williams and has to play more sets than her in his matches -- Serena generates big interest and big bucks, he doesn't. She should be entitled to more of the revenues generated by the sport than he is.
Let's look at another industry for a helpful analogy -- acting. Do you guys think it's fair that extremely talented stage actors you've never heard of spend six months doing a play off-Broadway every single night for 500 bucks a week, while a less talented Hollywood star makes a million dollars for a week's worth of work on a big budget film? If you aren't screaming and moaning about that disparity, then you shouldn't be complaining about men being able to serve harder than women or having to play a couple of more sets of tennis but still earning the same amount of money, which is a mere trifle of a difference when compared with acting, or music -- multimilllionaire rappers v. penniless violionists anyone? -- or many other industries. Blame capitalism for women making as much as the men at the majors, not political correctness.
Also, why are so many people saying men's tennis is so much better and has more depth than women's tennis? On the men's side, I see Federer and then I see a bunch of other guys, while on the women's side there seems to about a half dozen or more women capable of winning any given grand slam at the moment. I like to watch BOTH men's and women's tennis and find them equally dramatic and fun to see. Morever, I was lot more interested in seeing the women's final than the men's final at the AO last month. Serena v. Sharapova was an exciting match up, but Federer v. um, er, whoever that was, generated zero entusiasm for me... It's ridiculous to think that men's matches are always more interesting than women's. It often depends on the specific players, not the gender. Also, as someone pointed out above, these things are cyclical, and different eras might produce more exciting tennis from one gender for awhile before swinging back the other way.
And that poster who complained that women never play exciting first round matches obviously missed a little tournament called the Australian Open recently, where an obscure player named Maria Sharapova almost fainted in the heat while coming within two points of being eliminated in a thrilling three setter that ended up something like 9-7 in the third.
Tennis is a business. It is a business that survives primarily on attendance and advertising revenues. It's never been about pure ability or length of work day. It doesn't matter that Radek Stepanek, for example, could beat Serena Williams and has to play more sets than her in his matches -- Serena generates big interest and big bucks, he doesn't. She should be entitled to more of the revenues generated by the sport than he is.
Let's look at another industry for a helpful analogy -- acting. Do you guys think it's fair that extremely talented stage actors you've never heard of spend six months doing a play off-Broadway every single night for 500 bucks a week, while a less talented Hollywood star makes a million dollars for a week's worth of work on a big budget film? If you aren't screaming and moaning about that disparity, then you shouldn't be complaining about men being able to serve harder than women or having to play a couple of more sets of tennis but still earning the same amount of money, which is a mere trifle of a difference when compared with acting, or music -- multimilllionaire rappers v. penniless violionists anyone? -- or many other industries. Blame capitalism for women making as much as the men at the majors, not political correctness.
Also, why are so many people saying men's tennis is so much better and has more depth than women's tennis? On the men's side, I see Federer and then I see a bunch of other guys, while on the women's side there seems to about a half dozen or more women capable of winning any given grand slam at the moment. I like to watch BOTH men's and women's tennis and find them equally dramatic and fun to see. Morever, I was lot more interested in seeing the women's final than the men's final at the AO last month. Serena v. Sharapova was an exciting match up, but Federer v. um, er, whoever that was, generated zero entusiasm for me... It's ridiculous to think that men's matches are always more interesting than women's. It often depends on the specific players, not the gender. Also, as someone pointed out above, these things are cyclical, and different eras might produce more exciting tennis from one gender for awhile before swinging back the other way.
And that poster who complained that women never play exciting first round matches obviously missed a little tournament called the Australian Open recently, where an obscure player named Maria Sharapova almost fainted in the heat while coming within two points of being eliminated in a thrilling three setter that ended up something like 9-7 in the third.
Last edited:
I noticed that little detail too, which to me perfectly illustrates the unpredictable and unreliable nature of it all.
Post of the week, or at least post of this thread. I've quoted the best bits for the sake of brevity, but the whole post explains it as it is....
Well, thanks, OO. I've always told anyone who will listen that "That OO is one smart fella"...
LOL. For the record, I really did like the post, it was one of those posts you read and think - yeah - I could have written that (and then you question yourself as to how you would have written it differently, or indeed, how much worse you'd have probably written it).
I was especially happy to read it given our opposite stances in other areas. I try wherever possible to reply on a post's merits, leaving out any bias to or from the poster based on collective opinions. I'm sure that fails sometimes, but on the whole...
Phil
Hall of Fame
I can't believe some of Dedans posts (one in particular) in another forum made it through, a forum that shall remain nameless since I don't want to draw undue attention to it and have said post deleted in hindsight.
I really have no idea what is and is not deletable around here. I'm guessing the post I'm referring to was so far over people's heads that they didn't even realize how obscene it actually was, not unlike cursing in some foreign language. If no one knows what you're saying, you can say whatever you want.
While we're on the topic, explain this one to me, old wise man of the East: I use the "subscribe to this thread" feature, and every now and then I get an email containing a post that is nowhere to be found in the forum. The last example of this was the other day, when OO made a challenging statement to SoBad -- a statement about the moderators, actually -- that was apparently meant for CC's corner. It arrives in my inbox, I read it, and then I click on the link taking me to the thread -- and the post is not there. One minute later, it's gone and absolutely no trace of it is left. Like it never existed.
Anyone care to explain the phenemenon of the phantom post?
Wait a second...I'm a (relatively) YOUNG man of the East, and I cannot explain this phenomenon of the disappearing posts-I don't use the "subscribe" function, so it doesn't affect me.
As for Dedans' post, I don't think anything he's posted (and you yourself said that his stuff is akin literature) can seriously be mentioned in the same sentence as the idiot called Fedfan and his post-you would hardly call what he wrote above "literature", would you?
I'm not comparing Fedfan and Dedans or interested in what's literature or not at the moment. I'm simply making the observation that one of Dedans posts in another thread was obscene in a myriad numbers of ways, yet escaped detection. That's all, old man of the East...
The subscribe to thread feature is a very interesting tool. It alerts you whenever someone posts something in a thread your following, and it often gives you an interesting glimpse of the first drafts of posts that are often changed or added to seconds or hours later (like my own, and yours too) when they appear in the actual forum.
If you don't use the feature, how do you know when someone posts something in a thread you're following or responds with a stinging retort to something you've written? Just by checking the site often?
Phil
Hall of Fame
I've noticed that the mods sometimes give a wider latitude to more "artful" posts and don't necessary enforce the letter of the "law". No one should be messin' with Dedans' posts, in my opinion.
I don't check the site often to find readable posts. When enter the site, those threads with the most recent posts appear at the top of the page...I may check those out, or whatever strikes my fancy. That is one of the advantages to being a Wise Man of the East-I am bound by NO thread. And besides, no one is REALLY capable of delivering a "stinging retort" to what I write. Flaccid retort, yes-that is probably the more apt term
e
That's a pluasible theory. But don't discount the "over their heads" theory as a possiblty as well, particularly with his posts, which can be as obscure and esoteric as they are off-color.
If that's so, you may want to branch out of those teenage Fed v. Nadal threads you so like to frequent and start tussling with the grownups over in some of the 'tough guy' threads like "tennis travel" and "shoes and apparel".
That's a pluasible theory. But don't discount the "over their heads" theory as a possiblty as well, particularly with his posts, which can be as obscure and esoteric as they are off-color.
If that's so, you may want to branch out of those teenage Fed v. Nadal threads you so like to frequent and start tussling with the grownups over in some of the 'tough guy' threads like "tennis travel" and "shoes and apparel".
Phil
Hall of Fame
I agree-the over-their-heads theory is quite plausible in this case.
I'm no match for the teenage Fed/Nadal posters...you can't "win" or at the very least, hope to get your point across to a pile of rocks. The rocks will beat you every time...
I don't visit the shoe forum very often, but when I had questions on footwear, I found that those who do "rule" over there, were extremely helpful.
Well, sure they may have treated an old guy with a question about orthopedic sneakers with kid gloves because he was new and took pity on him, but I recommend you NOT get into a debate with them over Fila shirt-sizing or one of the similar "marquee" issues. They will tear you limb from limb, and you'll be wishing you were back in Health and Fitness mixing it up with a nice guy like myself...
Last edited:
Phil
Hall of Fame
Fila shirt sizing...geez, never thought that could be an issue, let alone a MARQUEE issue, but thanks for the warning...as per your advice, I'm not gonna go near this topic.
Oh, yes, it's a major cause celebre over there. Vicious fights daily on that topic...
Actually, I don't know anything about that forum.
Haasquet
Rookie
Really? Damn, I'd been taking notes for future reference...
Similar threads
- Poll
