Should women play the same format at grand slams?

[35ft6]

^ Actually, if women played best of 5 in the Grand Slams, and always had, I wonder how the records would be different now. For instance, I wonder if Lindsay Davenport would have won more than one Wimbledon. I think Graf would have won just as much, if not more. Martina would have probably done even better. I would think taller girls like Maria, Venus, and Lindsay would suffer more than the shorter girls. And I wonder if we would see better conditioned players on the WTA.

Best of 5 in the slams would really change the WTA.

 

[Kaptain Karl]

nswelshman - You are confusing "athlete" and "endorsement". Maria *already* earns more in endorsement fees. (As Anna already demonstrates) being an advertising icon has no direct correlation with athletic prowess.

laurie - To clarify my "Please don't *kill* tennis by having the girls play 5 sets. A colosally idiotic idea...!" post, 5 set women's tennis would *kill* tennis by boring TV audiences so much, they'd turn to the ESPN Scrabble Tournament for some excitement.

[Yuck!!!]

- KK

 

[laurie]

Kaptain. Whats wrong with two fit athletes playing a best of five final? It was enjoyable during the Masters days in New York. A lot of players enjoyed it. Seles said she enjoyed it in her book.

It would only happen four times a year. Four slam finals and Masters matches. Five matches in all. I think women are paid enough and fit enough to be able to do this. Many slam finals pass to quick and then women get criticized for not producing a good product.

 

[spinbalz]

Kaptain. Whats wrong with two fit athletes playing a best of five final?

Nothing wrong with it, the problem is that true fit athletes are so rares on the Women pro tennis circuit...

 

[spinbalz]

So no best of five for the women during the early rounds, but I would agree with a best of five for the final.

 

[LendlFan]

nswelshman - You are confusing "athlete" and "endorsement". Maria *already* earns more in endorsement fees. (As Anna already demonstrates) being an advertising icon has no direct correlation with athletic prowess.

laurie - To clarify my "Please don't *kill* tennis by having the girls play 5 sets. A colosally idiotic idea...!" post, 5 set women's tennis would *kill* tennis by boring TV audiences so much, they'd turn to the ESPN Scrabble Tournament for some excitement.

[Yuck!!!]

- KK

clap clap clap clap clap .. and the crowd is roaring !!! IMO you are right on the money !!!

 

[jhhachamp]

One of the little secrets about the womens game is that it probably easier for a top women player to win a slam than a tier 1 tournament. In a slam, women are expected to win 7 best of 3 set matches in 14 days. In a tier 1 tournament, they are expected to win 5 best of 3 set matches in 7 days. Given that the top women don't get tested till the quarter finals, the comparison becomes even more stark. In a slam they're expected to win the final 3 rounds over 5 days. In a tier 1 tournament, this shrinks to 3 days. So physically a slam is much easier on the body than a regular tournament.

good point

 

[LendlFan]

good point

Only gliche to that is the field .. Lyndsay D. won New Haven against who again?

The field was pretty thin .. no Venus, no Serena, no Sharapova, no Kim .. get my point?

 

[nswelshman]

nswelshman - You are confusing "athlete" and "endorsement". Maria *already* earns more in endorsement fees. (As Anna already demonstrates) being an advertising icon has no direct correlation with athletic prowess.

Again, i've directly said Roger is the far better athlete. (Hell, he's a better tennis player than almost every guy on tour!) I'm not confusing the two. There is a huge difference to being an "Athlete" and a "Professional Athlete". The best professional athletes don't just maintain high levels of sporting competition, but maximise all opportunities for the people that pay them- including individual, tour and tournament sponsors. Now Roger isn't a poor professional athlete at all- but he hasn't taken steps to become a global icon from a position of play that he could (outside of tennis) which makes him less of an ideal professional athlete than Maria, because Fed doesn't maximise what all the people who are paying the dollars can get in return.

 

[nswelshman]

There are some cases where I would be happy to see a 5 setter on the women's side. Some of the fittest players on the WTA tour are often not the tallest, or power players like a large proportion of the top 20. And 3 sets really sets them at a disadvantage because the power players simply blast away for an hour without getting tired. I'd like to see Nicole Pratt play someone like Ana Ivanovic in a five setter...on clay...Pratt is arguably one of the fittest players on the WTA tour, whilst Ana is still developing her fitness- but has made huge ranking leaps due to powering over all her opponents. I would find that pretty interesting.

 

[Safinite]

What if 3 sets for women is the equivalent in effort as 5 sets for men. What I mean is you could have a world class weight lifter lift 250 pounds, no effort. Then you have a child lift 100 pounds, strains himself over the load, sweating, all that, now who is working harder?

 

[jhhachamp]

What if 3 sets for women is the equivalent in effort as 5 sets for men. What I mean is you could have a world class weight lifter lift 250 pounds, no effort. Then you have a child lift 100 pounds, strains himself over the load, sweating, all that, now who is working harder?

There is any way you can possibly show that a 3 set effort for women is the equivalent of a 5 effort for men. I would argue that the men play tougher points. The ball is moving faster and there is less time between shots which is very tiring.

I have played against many different players. When I play against someone of my level, I am used to the pace of the ball. I once played with one of the top players on my college team, this kid much better than anyone I have ever played. I played very well, but it was extremely tiring. It was not tiring because the points were long or the match was long. The match was about an hour and the points were relatively short. However, it was extremely tiring because I had less "rest" time between shots in any point. I believe that it is this factor in men's tennis that offsets the argument that women exert more effort than men in the same length match. I am not so sure I explained it too well however, perhaps someone else could expand on it.

 

[jhhachamp]

Only gliche to that is the field .. Lyndsay D. won New Haven against who again?

The field was pretty thin .. no Venus, no Serena, no Sharapova, no Kim .. get my point?

Ok, maybe for that tourny there wasn't the top competition. But I am sure some of the non slam events have drawn a top field. In my opinion, it is really messed up that winning a slam could often be less physically demanding than winning a non-slam event.

 

[Kaptain Karl]

There is a huge difference to being an "Athlete" and a "Professional Athlete".

Your 'professional athlete" definition is unique to your own mindset. I wish you wouldn't speak about *your* understanding of the phrase as if it is a universally accepted understanding. (Because it isn't....)

- KK

 

[nswelshman]

funny how many more endorsements fed has after he signed with img

 

[Kaptain Karl]

I've unfortunately being corrupted ... a sister who works for octagon and her hubbie ... my 'professional athlete' definition is not unique singularly to my own mindset, but is rather something that was passed on to me by them which I have since adopted. You are correct that it is not a universally accepted understanding....[/QUOTE]Okay. Thanks for clearing that up. (Those must be some *fascinating* family reunions...!)

- KK

 

[araghava]

Only gliche to that is the field .. Lyndsay D. won New Haven against who again?

The field was pretty thin .. no Venus, no Serena, no Sharapova, no Kim .. get my point?

That's why i said "tier 1". Given the number of injury withdrawals, i should amend that to tier1 where most of the top 10 play. Indian wells and miami come to mind.