Some Thoughts on WTA Bashing

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
Well speaking of 21st century and equal pay, would you like to be earning the same salary as your female co-workers (if you're a man), but have to work twice as hard? Would you like to be earning the same salary, yet you're the one pulling in more revenues?
Again . . . what is this business about men working twice as hard? How hard you work does not determine your compensation for anyone in our economic system except for hourly workers. To pick one example, take a law firm (or medical practice). The lower-level professional often works much harder than the top dog person who brings in the business.

Who are the top dogs in tennis right now? Who puts butts in the seats? Federer, Nadal, Williams, Williams, Clijsters, Ouidin, Sharapova. You will notice that this list has a lot of women on it.

Besides, women's tennis is not as exciting as men's tennis, even female viewers say so.
I beg your pardon?

I think women's tennis is just as exciting as men's tennis. In some ways and in some matches, it is more exciting. As I have said many times before, some viewers (perhaps most viewers) do not watch tennis to marvel at the speed of Gonzo's FH or the kick of Isner's serve or the RPM's of Nadal's ball. They watch for drama. They watch for Serena cramping and rolling around on the grass of Wimbledon. They watch for the possibility of Ouidin knocking off top players one by one.

And if they are anything like me, they *love* a first-rate meltdown. I will take Zvonereva on the ground smacking her knees and ripping tape off of her legs between points over Andy Murray or Gael Monfils patrolling the baseline any day.

Cindy -- who thinks we may have reached new lows of homogeneity in men's tennis when Verdasco and Djokovic played their QF match wearing the same bright orange shirt and then played as though they were recently separated Siamese twins
 

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
Just one thing.

I've been keeping up with that wheelchair player, Esther Vergeer (she's Dutch), and i'm not saying that they should get the same money as the WTA or ATP players, but the amount she gets for a Grand Slam win is just stupid. I can't believe she's managed to keep her career going for just 6-7000 bucks for a Grand Slam.
By the logic of many on this board, she shouldn't get anything.

Doesn't feel quite right, does it?

[edit: There is something else at work here besides pure economics. Like many of you, I am old enough to remember the days when women didn't participate in sports at nearly the same rates as men. I remember when women's collegiate basketball started to make inroads and began to receive some television coverage. Oh, the derision heaped on those female players long ago! Not to mention the struggles of female tennis players hoping to receive decent compensation and appropriate respect for women's tennis.

But what happened over time? We began to appreciate the women's game, even though it is different. Because of that appreciation and the money that came with it, the sport attracted more women. Think of it as "If you pay them, they will come." Now we have robust women's sport in tennis, basketball, track and field, you name it.

What will likely happen if we begin to pay disabled athletes in parity with able-bodied athletes? Experience tells us that viewers will come to respect these athletes and appreciate their differences. I am not an advocate for the rights of the disabled -- I simply don't know much about the issues one way or the other. But I have no problem with this Dutch player receiving $100,000 (or more) for winning the US Open, even though there is perhaps no economic argument that could be made to justify it. Or maybe the justification is simply that this Dutch player is the best in the world at what she does, and parity is appropriate for that reason alone. Perhaps our early efforts to pay disabled athletes more than their viewership numbers might justify will result in some social good, and that is reason enough for me.]
 
Last edited:

cknobman

Legend
Wheelchair players are handicapped. They know it, admit it, and deal with it. They dont ask for or expect equal pay or treatment. They dont claim to want equality and then expect to only get equal treatment when its to their benefit.

In this regard wheelchair players are the polar opposite of the WTA.
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
Well, let's not get carried away.

Oudin did not "torch the field." She won enough close matches to make the QF, and then she buckled. The list of top women she probably could not beat is quite long.

Yes, Clijsters came back and has done well in her first major. Can she beat Serena? Probably not.

Let's not forget another comeback that flamed out: Davenport. What does her lack of success mean? Nothing. Just as Clijsters success means nothing about the state of the women's game.

And of course, let's remember that some men have come back or managed improbable runs at majors (Dent, Connors). Does that mean that men's tennis stinks? No. It means that people can make comebacks, and some will be successful while others will not. It all adds to the drama, and that is good for the sport.


The women's field currently is weak no matter how you spin it. There is no man on the face of the planet today who can leave the game for over 2 years, and then come back and make the SF of a major (while beating multiple top players in concession, with absolutely dominating performances). Not Federer, not Nadal, not Roddick, no one.
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
Again . . . what is this business about men working twice as hard? How hard you work does not determine your compensation for anyone in our economic system except for hourly workers. To pick one example, take a law firm (or medical practice). The lower-level professional often works much harder than the top dog person who brings in the business.

Who are the top dogs in tennis right now? Who puts butts in the seats? Federer, Nadal, Williams, Williams, Clijsters, Ouidin, Sharapova. You will notice that this list has a lot of women on it.



I beg your pardon?

I think women's tennis is just as exciting as men's tennis. In some ways and in some matches, it is more exciting. As I have said many times before, some viewers (perhaps most viewers) do not watch tennis to marvel at the speed of Gonzo's FH or the kick of Isner's serve or the RPM's of Nadal's ball. They watch for drama. They watch for Serena cramping and rolling around on the grass of Wimbledon. They watch for the possibility of Ouidin knocking off top players one by one.

And if they are anything like me, they *love* a first-rate meltdown. I will take Zvonereva on the ground smacking her knees and ripping tape off of her legs between points over Andy Murray or Gael Monfils patrolling the baseline any day.

Cindy -- who thinks we may have reached new lows of homogeneity in men's tennis when Verdasco and Djokovic played their QF match wearing the same bright orange shirt and then played as though they were recently separated Siamese twins


Terrible logic. You are not comparing fairly. Doctors of both genders get equal pay because they do equal amounts of work. What you are doing is basically comparing two separate jobs. Men and women's tennis is not a "separate job". They are both PROFESSIONAL TENNIS PLAYERS.



Both men and women play the same sport. There is no difference. (other then the fact that men are superior athletes) It's just that men do more work yet get paid the same amount as women do. That's total bull.




And yes in our economy the harder worker gets paid more. You think Bill Gates got to where he was by being a lazy ass? He is the most cutthroat, ruthless, and one of the most savvy businessmen in the world.
 
Last edited:

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
Wheelchair players are handicapped. They know it, admit it, and deal with it. They dont ask for or expect equal pay or treatment. They dont claim to want equality and then expect to only get equal treatment when its to their benefit.

In this regard wheelchair players are the polar opposite of the WTA.
Really?

You think this Dutch lady isn't interested in receiving compensation on par with the men's and women's singles winners?

I dunno. I didn't watch a lot of her match, but she didn't strike me as *stupid.*
 

rocket

Hall of Fame
Again . . . what is this business about men working twice as hard? How hard you work does not determine your compensation for anyone in our economic system except for hourly workers. To pick one example, take a law firm (or medical practice). The lower-level professional often works much harder than the top dog person who brings in the business.
That is called "paying their dues" my dear. It applies to both men and women.
:)

In a slam tournament, many guys won 2 sets in a row but lost in 5. It just shows how hard it is to hang in there for the entire 5-set match.

Who are the top dogs in tennis right now? Who puts butts in the seats? Federer, Nadal, Williams, Williams, Clijsters, Ouidin, Sharapova. You will notice that this list has a lot of women on it.
You forgot Murray, Djoker, Del Potro, Roddick, etc. Whether you like their playing styles or not, these guys sell tickets, and lots of them.


I think women's tennis is just as exciting as men's tennis. In some ways and in some matches, it is more exciting. As I have said many times before, some viewers (perhaps most viewers) do not watch tennis to marvel at the speed of Gonzo's FH or the kick of Isner's serve or the RPM's of Nadal's ball. They watch for drama..
If it's a Fed/Nadal showdown this sunday, the number of viewers will skyrocket, a lot more than the women's final. You don't have to bebieve me, you just have to go with the ratings.

They watch for Serena cramping and rolling around on the grass of Wimbledon. They watch for the possibility of Ouidin knocking off top players one by one..
Oudin is a new sensation, I give you that. Clijsters is more one a player to watch recently, because of her amazing come-back. Other than that, I'd give up the women's final to watch the men's semis in a heartbeat.
 

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
The women's field currently is weak no matter how you spin it. There is no man on the face of the planet today who can leave the game for over 2 years, and then come back and make the SF of a major (while beating multiple top players in concession, with absolutely dominating performances). Not Federer, not Nadal, not Roddick, no one.
Two words:

Taylor

Dent.

He had is back surgery in 2007 and was doing press work at the US Open in 2008. He made the round of 16 this year.

Maybe if his game style weren't hopeless antiquated -- nobody can get very far with S&V being their Plan A and having no Plan B -- he would have gone a bit farther.

Had Federer taken two years off at his peak, I believe he could have returned and quickly dominated the field. Clijsters was no hack. She was No. 1 in the world, and the types of skills she brings to the table don't atrophy in two years.

So how is any of that an indictment of women's tennis?
 

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
You forgot Murray, Djoker, Del Potro, Roddick, etc. Whether you like their playing styles or not, these guys sell tickets, and lots of them.
No, I didn't forget them, and my list was never meant to be comprehensive. (Although I'd never put Del Potro on this list). The point is that men *and women* are viewership draws and sell tickets.

As far as whether I'd want to see a Fed/Nadal showdown . . . sure. All of their matches haven't been scintillating, although many have. But there are women's matches I'd like to see very much also.

Will the women's or the men's final create more buzz this year? It could have gone either way, and Nadal could have been bounced in the opening round. It was impossible to say at the beginning of the tournament. And the beginning of the tournament is when the prize money is announced.

Anyway, I gotta roll out of here. Thanks to all who considered and offered some interesting and mature ideas on this thread.
 

cknobman

Legend
Really?

You think this Dutch lady isn't interested in receiving compensation on par with the men's and women's singles winners?

I dunno. I didn't watch a lot of her match, but she didn't strike me as *stupid.*
Dont be so foolish of course shes not stupid but she nor any other wheelchair player EXPECTS the same payout as the mens and womens singles.

If Im wrong please post a direct quote from one of the players using a reliable and traceable source and I will retract my statements.
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
Two words:

Taylor

Dent.

He had is back surgery in 2007 and was doing press work at the US Open in 2008. He made the round of 16 this year.

Maybe if his game style weren't hopeless antiquated -- nobody can get very far with S&V being their Plan A and having no Plan B -- he would have gone a bit farther.

Had Federer taken two years off at his peak, I believe he could have returned and quickly dominated the field. Clijsters was no hack. She was No. 1 in the world, and the types of skills she brings to the table don't atrophy in two years.

So how is any of that an indictment of women's tennis?



Taylor Dent didn't make the SFs beating multiple top 20 players in a row, meanwhile bageling the #3 player in the world. Oh, and he only got to the 3rd round.



There is no way Federer could come back after a 2 year layoff and proceed to dominate like Clijsters is. The level of play in the ATP is at a significantly higher level; people improve dramatically every year. The WTA has been dropping of in level of play since 2005.



No matter how you spin it, every WTA commentator says the WTA field is WEAK. It is a total mess and you know it. That is an indisputable fact.
 

drakulie

Talk Tennis Guru
No matter how you spin it, every WTA commentator says the WTA field is WEAK. It is a total mess and you know it. That is an indisputable fact.

agreed. Cindy, and some of the others, are as delusional as the 3.5's on this board saying they could compete, and beat WTA pros.

fact is, the WTA is an amazing joke. sharapova hits 20+ double faults, and loses to oudin. You would think she would at some point take a little off her first serve,,,,, but no,,,,, she has nothing between the ears other than,,,,, "let me hit it as hard as I can, and squeel like a pig in heat". This is a perfect example and reflection of the WTA..... no brains, no all-around game, just hit it hard and often.

Perhaps the WTA should be replaced with wheelchair tennis, or just go off on thier own, and stop depending on the men's tour to keep them alive.
 

shrakkie

Semi-Pro
This thread is so fail. (and I hate using that term)

Sometimes things are so fail, and the logic used by certain people (in this case the OP) is so terrible that you just have to ignore and be on your way.

I mean seriously.
 

pmerk34

Legend
There are a few threads at TT, just now and then mind you, that seem to express dismay with women's tennis. And that is an understatement.

We get threads saying women should not receive equal prize money as the men, and the posters holding this view like to hijack threads to beat on this particular drum again and again and again.

We get posts explaining that women suck, that they are not worth watching.

We get threads where league players claim they could whip this or that female pro.

We get threads where male league players boast of the time they gave a beatdown to a female league player.

And we get threads from posters (who must have only recently arrived on this planet) professing to have no idea why female pros serve slower than male pros. Or do not hit as hard as men. Or run slower than men.

Today, ESPN broadcast a bit of a wheelchair tennis match. I had never seen wheelchair tennis before, so I paused to catch a bit of it. One player is ranked No. 1 in the world. She has won some insane number of consecutive matches -- something like 368. The rules were explained -- players get two bounces.

I watched part of this wheelchair match. I noticed some things. The serves were very slow, probably owing to the height of the players. The No. 1 player in the world seemed to be missing a lot of first serves. The groundstroke speed did not seem especially fast. I didn't see any S&V. And of course, the players got two bounces.

I checked the US Open web site, and there are 20 players in the wheelchair draw, and they are competing for $100,000 in prize money. The site boasts that this represents an increase of 25% over last year and is the highest prize money of any of the slams.

Yet I don't see threads here at TT bashing wheelchair tennis players.

I mean, you'd think that the same logic used to trash women's tennis and women in general could be used to attack wheelchair tennis. Why are wheelchair players getting a big increase in prize money? They don't play best of five. They get *two* bounces. And why would anyone want to watch a wheelchair tennis match if they aren't serving, moving or hitting groundies as well as the top male pros? How come we don't see threads positing that male league players could snap that lady's 368-match win streak? If the day comes when wheelchair tennis receives prize money equal to that of able-bodied players (currently the US Open Mixed Doubles champ receives $150,000, so the wheelchair players are awfully close now), will there be howls of protest at TT?

How come no one makes these arguments?

Is it because we realize that wheelchair tennis, like women's tennis, is different from men's tennis for rather obvious reasons *but is still worthy of our respect?*
We need more Melanie Oudin's _ plays aggressive, better fH than Bh and can also chip the BH, and less a) pushers like Wozniaki and b) hit it as hard you can and screech - Sharapova's

We need more Serena's - GREAT serves punishing power off the ground BUT plays the transition game to finish off points.
 

pmerk34

Legend
agreed. Cindy, and some of the others, are as delusional as the 3.5's on this board saying they could compete, and beat WTA pros.

fact is, the WTA is an amazing joke. sharapova hits 20+ double faults, and loses to oudin. You would think she would at some point take a little off her first serve,,,,, but no,,,,, she has nothing between the ears other than,,,,, "let me hit it as hard as I can, and squeel like a pig in heat". This is a perfect example and reflection of the WTA..... no brains, no all-around game, just hit it hard and often.

Perhaps the WTA should be replaced with wheelchair tennis, or just go off on thier own, and stop depending on the men's tour to keep them alive.
That was perfect.
 

crazylevity

Hall of Fame
But Lindsay's comeback started off hot...with wins against top players (Jankovic, Hantuchova at the time) and tournament wins (Bali, I think?).

Hopefully Kim's will sustain a bit longer.
And Davenport didn't exactly flame out. She got pregnant again, didn't she?

I agree with the OP that women's tennis should be evaluated on its own. However, I have to say that even then, the current WTA is nowhere near what it should be. My highlight for women's tennis this year was Graf and Clijsters at the Wimbledon Centre Court exo. That was far more entertaining than any other match I've seen.
 

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
There is no way Federer could come back after a 2 year layoff and proceed to dominate like Clijsters is. The level of play in the ATP is at a significantly higher level; people improve dramatically every year. The WTA has been dropping of in level of play since 2005.
There are so many what-ifs, aren't there?

Maybe we should look for a real-life example to see if the premise here (if a gifted athlete takes two years off and comes back to dominate the field, this means that the field is weak, substandard, should take a pay cut, or whatever folks who make that argument are trying to prove) can survive.

Let's talk briefly about cyclist Lance Armstrong.

Before his cancer diagnosis at age 25 in 1996, Lance was a gifted cyclist. He had won stages of the Tour de France, won various international road races, and he had respectable finishes at the 1992 and 1996 Olympics.

He returned to cycling in 1998 (a layoff of two years) and won his first Tour de France in 1999 while two of his main rivals were absent. He then went on to dominate the event, as we all know.

He won his seventh Tour in 2005, leaving the sport entirely thereafter. He returned to the sport again in 2009, finishing third and becoming the second-oldest rider to stand on the podium.

Now. Does Armstrong's comebacks mean that men's cycling is a crap sport with no depth? Does his dominance after not one but two long layoffs mean we should all disrespect the sport of cycling? Of course not. That would be a ridiculous thing to say.

What it means is that a gifted and superior athlete -- someone who is at the top of their sport -- can take time off and can return to dominate their sport again.

Namranger, the reason I am taking the time to say all of this is because I think that the argument you are making -- that Clijsters' return means that the field in women's tennis is weak -- is factually incorrect and illogical at its core. It has been repeated here at TT so much that is has taken on a life of its own, but few have stopped to actually think it through. I thought it was high time we did so.

There is much that can be said about the state of women's tennis, and there can be room for legitimate differences of opinion. Some of the broad brush arguments such as those based on Clijster's return don't hold up and merely cloud the thinking of many.

The "Clijsters argument" should be taken out back, shot in the head, and buried in a shallow grave where it belongs. Who wants to do the honors? :)
 

ubermeyer

Hall of Fame
There are a few threads at TT, just now and then mind you, that seem to express dismay with women's tennis. And that is an understatement.

We get threads saying women should not receive equal prize money as the men, and the posters holding this view like to hijack threads to beat on this particular drum again and again and again.

We get posts explaining that women suck, that they are not worth watching.

We get threads where league players claim they could whip this or that female pro.

We get threads where male league players boast of the time they gave a beatdown to a female league player.

And we get threads from posters (who must have only recently arrived on this planet) professing to have no idea why female pros serve slower than male pros. Or do not hit as hard as men. Or run slower than men.

Today, ESPN broadcast a bit of a wheelchair tennis match. I had never seen wheelchair tennis before, so I paused to catch a bit of it. One player is ranked No. 1 in the world. She has won some insane number of consecutive matches -- something like 368. The rules were explained -- players get two bounces.

I watched part of this wheelchair match. I noticed some things. The serves were very slow, probably owing to the height of the players. The No. 1 player in the world seemed to be missing a lot of first serves. The groundstroke speed did not seem especially fast. I didn't see any S&V. And of course, the players got two bounces.

I checked the US Open web site, and there are 20 players in the wheelchair draw, and they are competing for $100,000 in prize money. The site boasts that this represents an increase of 25% over last year and is the highest prize money of any of the slams.

Yet I don't see threads here at TT bashing wheelchair tennis players.

I mean, you'd think that the same logic used to trash women's tennis and women in general could be used to attack wheelchair tennis. Why are wheelchair players getting a big increase in prize money? They don't play best of five. They get *two* bounces. And why would anyone want to watch a wheelchair tennis match if they aren't serving, moving or hitting groundies as well as the top male pros? How come we don't see threads positing that male league players could snap that lady's 368-match win streak? If the day comes when wheelchair tennis receives prize money equal to that of able-bodied players (currently the US Open Mixed Doubles champ receives $150,000, so the wheelchair players are awfully close now), will there be howls of protest at TT?

How come no one makes these arguments?

Is it because we realize that wheelchair tennis, like women's tennis, is different from men's tennis for rather obvious reasons *but is still worthy of our respect?*
The pay should be based on how much they play. Women play best of 3, while men play best of 5. Therefore, men deserve more prize money. Wheelchair tennis players also play best of 3. Therefore, the able-bodied men should get more prize money, and they do.

IT'S NOT THAT HARD TO UNDERSTAND!

post fail
 
There are a few threads at TT, just now and then mind you, that seem to express dismay with women's tennis. And that is an understatement.

We get threads saying women should not receive equal prize money as the men, and the posters holding this view like to hijack threads to beat on this particular drum again and again and again.

We get posts explaining that women suck, that they are not worth watching.

We get threads where league players claim they could whip this or that female pro.

We get threads where male league players boast of the time they gave a beatdown to a female league player.

And we get threads from posters (who must have only recently arrived on this planet) professing to have no idea why female pros serve slower than male pros. Or do not hit as hard as men. Or run slower than men.

Today, ESPN broadcast a bit of a wheelchair tennis match. I had never seen wheelchair tennis before, so I paused to catch a bit of it. One player is ranked No. 1 in the world. She has won some insane number of consecutive matches -- something like 368. The rules were explained -- players get two bounces.

I watched part of this wheelchair match. I noticed some things. The serves were very slow, probably owing to the height of the players. The No. 1 player in the world seemed to be missing a lot of first serves. The groundstroke speed did not seem especially fast. I didn't see any S&V. And of course, the players got two bounces.

I checked the US Open web site, and there are 20 players in the wheelchair draw, and they are competing for $100,000 in prize money. The site boasts that this represents an increase of 25% over last year and is the highest prize money of any of the slams.

Yet I don't see threads here at TT bashing wheelchair tennis players.

I mean, you'd think that the same logic used to trash women's tennis and women in general could be used to attack wheelchair tennis. Why are wheelchair players getting a big increase in prize money? They don't play best of five. They get *two* bounces. And why would anyone want to watch a wheelchair tennis match if they aren't serving, moving or hitting groundies as well as the top male pros? How come we don't see threads positing that male league players could snap that lady's 368-match win streak? If the day comes when wheelchair tennis receives prize money equal to that of able-bodied players (currently the US Open Mixed Doubles champ receives $150,000, so the wheelchair players are awfully close now), will there be howls of protest at TT?

How come no one makes these arguments?

Is it because we realize that wheelchair tennis, like women's tennis, is different from men's tennis for rather obvious reasons *but is still worthy of our respect?*
What a terrible comparison. :( Wheelchair tennis has no bearing on the "Why the WTA sucks" debate (or fact by now) nor lends any crdibility to the WTA.
 

Terr

Semi-Pro
Well speaking of 21st century and equal pay, would you like to be earning the same salary as your female co-workers (if you're a man), but have to work twice as hard? Would you like to be earning the same salary, yet you're the one pulling in more revenues?

Besides, women's tennis is not as exciting as men's tennis, even female viewers say so.
Well I didn't say anything about salary, but since you brought it up...

All things being relative, the argument that most WTA bashers put forward is that WTA players are nowhere near as skilled as ATP players, oui?

ATP players, having a higher standard of play, compete against each other on a relative level. WTA players can't be compared against ATP because they play at a lesser level. Right? So what you're saying that all ATP players are of a higher standard. And all WTA players are of a lower standard. These standards are relative, not to each other, but to the players within these individual organisations.

So how does it make any sense that ATP players work twice as hard to make the same amount of money as WTA players? A 3.5 playing against another 3.5 is the equivalent of a 6.0 playing against another 6.0 in terms of how hard they are working.

And excitement is subjective. I find golf, soccer and cricket mind numbingly boring. But those pros make just as much money as my favourite players in tennis, football and baseball.
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
There are so many what-ifs, aren't there?

Maybe we should look for a real-life example to see if the premise here (if a gifted athlete takes two years off and comes back to dominate the field, this means that the field is weak, substandard, should take a pay cut, or whatever folks who make that argument are trying to prove) can survive.

Let's talk briefly about cyclist Lance Armstrong.

Before his cancer diagnosis at age 25 in 1996, Lance was a gifted cyclist. He had won stages of the Tour de France, won various international road races, and he had respectable finishes at the 1992 and 1996 Olympics.

He returned to cycling in 1998 (a layoff of two years) and won his first Tour de France in 1999 while two of his main rivals were absent. He then went on to dominate the event, as we all know.

He won his seventh Tour in 2005, leaving the sport entirely thereafter. He returned to the sport again in 2009, finishing third and becoming the second-oldest rider to stand on the podium.

Now. Does Armstrong's comebacks mean that men's cycling is a crap sport with no depth? Does his dominance after not one but two long layoffs mean we should all disrespect the sport of cycling? Of course not. That would be a ridiculous thing to say.

What it means is that a gifted and superior athlete -- someone who is at the top of their sport -- can take time off and can return to dominate their sport again.

Namranger, the reason I am taking the time to say all of this is because I think that the argument you are making -- that Clijsters' return means that the field in women's tennis is weak -- is factually incorrect and illogical at its core. It has been repeated here at TT so much that is has taken on a life of its own, but few have stopped to actually think it through. I thought it was high time we did so.

There is much that can be said about the state of women's tennis, and there can be room for legitimate differences of opinion. Some of the broad brush arguments such as those based on Clijster's return don't hold up and merely cloud the thinking of many.

The "Clijsters argument" should be taken out back, shot in the head, and buried in a shallow grave where it belongs. Who wants to do the honors? :)



CYCLING DOES NOT = ATP TENNIS OR THE WTA TOUR. WHAT KIND OF A BULLCRAP ILLOGICAL ARGUMENT IS THIS? HONESTLY.




Wow.



Clijsters has played THREE tournaments so far, beating big name players all along the way, meanwhile BAGELING the #3 player in the world (you know, VENUS WILLIAMS) at Venus' home tournament basically.




If the jokes by Mary Carillo and Pam Shriver about Steffi Graf, Navratilova, and Seles comebacks doesn't get to you, I don't know what will. I bet you Steffi Graf TODAY could come back and be top 10. I can't say the same for Courier, Edberg, Sampras or other retired ATP players.
 
Last edited:

kanamit

Hall of Fame
There are a few threads at TT, just now and then mind you, that seem to express dismay with women's tennis. And that is an understatement.

We get threads saying women should not receive equal prize money as the men, and the posters holding this view like to hijack threads to beat on this particular drum again and again and again.

We get posts explaining that women suck, that they are not worth watching.

We get threads where league players claim they could whip this or that female pro.

We get threads where male league players boast of the time they gave a beatdown to a female league player.

And we get threads from posters (who must have only recently arrived on this planet) professing to have no idea why female pros serve slower than male pros. Or do not hit as hard as men. Or run slower than men.

Today, ESPN broadcast a bit of a wheelchair tennis match. I had never seen wheelchair tennis before, so I paused to catch a bit of it. One player is ranked No. 1 in the world. She has won some insane number of consecutive matches -- something like 368. The rules were explained -- players get two bounces.

I watched part of this wheelchair match. I noticed some things. The serves were very slow, probably owing to the height of the players. The No. 1 player in the world seemed to be missing a lot of first serves. The groundstroke speed did not seem especially fast. I didn't see any S&V. And of course, the players got two bounces.

I checked the US Open web site, and there are 20 players in the wheelchair draw, and they are competing for $100,000 in prize money. The site boasts that this represents an increase of 25% over last year and is the highest prize money of any of the slams.

Yet I don't see threads here at TT bashing wheelchair tennis players.

I mean, you'd think that the same logic used to trash women's tennis and women in general could be used to attack wheelchair tennis. Why are wheelchair players getting a big increase in prize money? They don't play best of five. They get *two* bounces. And why would anyone want to watch a wheelchair tennis match if they aren't serving, moving or hitting groundies as well as the top male pros? How come we don't see threads positing that male league players could snap that lady's 368-match win streak? If the day comes when wheelchair tennis receives prize money equal to that of able-bodied players (currently the US Open Mixed Doubles champ receives $150,000, so the wheelchair players are awfully close now), will there be howls of protest at TT?

How come no one makes these arguments?

Is it because we realize that wheelchair tennis, like women's tennis, is different from men's tennis for rather obvious reasons *but is still worthy of our respect?*
What you're asking us to do here is to treat being a woman the same as being handicapped. Okay.
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
Pay has nothing to do with quality. It's based on revenue generated (or at least should be).


Quality generates revenue. Therefore, in a way, pay and quality are related to one another (though not always).



It is clear however which tour attracts more viewers and more revenue overall.
 

kanamit

Hall of Fame
I don't understand why if the WTA is so incredibly weak, bad, painful to watch, whatever, so many posters watch it so often. No one has nailed your butt to the couch, change the channel.
Instead of watching horrible women's tennis, and then rushing here to post about it, wouldn't your time be better spent on the court improving your own games?
I guess the question is, why is it on TV so often?
 

Rippy

Hall of Fame
Quality generates revenue. Therefore, in a way, pay and quality are related to one another (though not always).



It is clear however which tour attracts more viewers and more revenue overall.
Bad things can be popular though, and what makes "quality" is subjective. But anyway, I think male tennis players deserve higher prize money, as they bring in greater revenue (well, that's what I assume based on what I've read about viewing figures etc, but I could be wrong).
 

dozu

Banned
wheelchair tennis is not a sport - just to make the handicapped feel better
mixed double is not a sport - just a side kick show
woman's tennis is a not a sport - just a parasite on the ATP

all 3 above deserves about the same amount of prize money, say $100k to 200k to the champ.

ATP is the only real sport, so $1m is fair.
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
Bad things can be popular though, and what makes "quality" is subjective. But anyway, I think male tennis players deserve higher prize money, as they bring in greater revenue (well, that's what I assume based on what I've read about viewing figures etc, but I could be wrong).


Well just by watching men's 1st round matches and women's 1st round matches and it is clear who brings in more crowds. Heck, even Andy Murray and Del Potro bring in crowds similar to the Williams sisters.
 

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
CYCLING DOES NOT = ATP TENNIS OR THE WTA TOUR. WHAT KIND OF A BULLCRAP ILLOGICAL ARGUMENT IS THIS? HONESTLY.
:chuckle:

It's posts like this that make me question the adequacy of the American educational system! :)

Yup, ya got me. Tennis players use rackets whereas cyclists ride bikes. That settles it. You win, dude!
 

NamRanger

G.O.A.T.
:chuckle:

It's posts like this that make me question the adequacy of the American educational system! :)

Yup, ya got me. Tennis players use rackets whereas cyclists ride bikes. That settles it. You win, dude!

No, it's clear you do not even understand what even separates cycling from tennis.



1. Tennis is an anaerobic based sport. Sprinting, changing directions, and intense short bursts.


2. Cycling (when related to Lance Armstrong), is an aerobic sport.




Because of this, it's much harder for a person to go on a lay away for 2 years and come back to tennis, because anaerobic stamina and skills degrade much faster than aerobic stamina and skills. Not to mention the fact that you are dealing with high speed moving objects, while in cycling, you aren't.






Yes, the American educational system failed. It clearly failed with you.
 
I think women's tennis is just as exciting as men's tennis. In some ways and in some matches, it is more exciting. As I have said many times before, some viewers (perhaps most viewers) do not watch tennis to marvel at the speed of Gonzo's FH or the kick of Isner's serve or the RPM's of Nadal's ball. They watch for drama. They watch for Serena cramping and rolling around on the grass of Wimbledon. They watch for the possibility of Ouidin knocking off top players one by one.
Agreed. It's the competition that counts. The WTA sucks right now because there is no competition. Serena/Venus has become one-sided (in my opinion), Henin is gone, and every other top-ranked or once top-ranked player has found a way to choke in seemingly every conceivable circumstance. Oudin is just as likely to disappear for good as she is to compete for a major next year. Her run, and its fame, mainly stemmed from lapses in her opponents' game.

In my opinion, the men's tour isn't much better. Other than Federer/Nadal, the ATP is stale. There isn't a single player on tour that even comes close to matching their skill level and mental toughness. Seemingly every match that isn't Federer/Nadal is either irrelevant (in the case of matches where neither player is present) or lopsided (in the case of matches where one is present but not the other). If someone with the inside scoop told me two weeks ago that this year's US Open final wouldn't feature those two, I probably wouldn't watch a single ATP match during the tournament.

All things being relative, the argument that most WTA bashers put forward is that WTA players are nowhere near as skilled as ATP players, oui?
I would certainly hope not. Is the NBA less popular than college basketball because its players aren't nearly as skilled as NCAA players?

Yes, skill level factors into why we watch men's tennis more. But I would hardly call it the primary factor.
 

ChanceEncounter

Hall of Fame
I checked the US Open web site, and there are 20 players in the wheelchair draw, and they are competing for $100,000 in prize money. The site boasts that this represents an increase of 25% over last year and is the highest prize money of any of the slams.

Yet I don't see threads here at TT bashing wheelchair tennis players.

I mean, you'd think that the same logic used to trash women's tennis and women in general could be used to attack wheelchair tennis. Why are wheelchair players getting a big increase in prize money? They don't play best of five. They get *two* bounces. And why would anyone want to watch a wheelchair tennis match if they aren't serving, moving or hitting groundies as well as the top male pros? How come we don't see threads positing that male league players could snap that lady's 368-match win streak? If the day comes when wheelchair tennis receives prize money equal to that of able-bodied players (currently the US Open Mixed Doubles champ receives $150,000, so the wheelchair players are awfully close now), will there be howls of protest at TT?

How come no one makes these arguments?

Is it because we realize that wheelchair tennis, like women's tennis, is different from men's tennis for rather obvious reasons *but is still worthy of our respect?*
Uhh.... what the **** kind of post is this?

Your argument is precisely the reason why no one bashes wheelchair tennis. Everyone knows that the players in wheelchairs don't play as well as the top players in the world. It rarely ever preempts more exciting tennis, people don't go see it often, and it doesn't receive equal prize money. None of these arguments apply to WTA tennis, which, despite inferior play and weaker audiences, they receive the same pay as ATP players who work harder, longer, and put on a better show. And they receive this not because of some fundamental reasoning in logic, but because of a sense of entitlement and bureaucracy.

It has nothing to do with bashing women or women's tennis at all. It has everything to do with paying people what they're worth. Men's tennis is worth more than women's tennis; the market says so.
 

rocket

Hall of Fame
All things being relative, the argument that most WTA bashers put forward is that WTA players are nowhere near as skilled as ATP players, oui?
That's not my argument. Some ppl think that, but my argument is WTA is not as exciting as ATP. ATP generates a lot more revenues. They hand out equal prizes to WTA in slams just to be PC.

So how does it make any sense that ATP players work twice as hard to make the same amount of money as WTA players? A 3.5 playing against another 3.5 is the equivalent of a 6.0 playing against another 6.0 in terms of how hard they are working.
Ever tried to play a 5-setter? In a slam, many guys won 2 sets in a row, or at least were 2 sets up, but still lost in 5. It's incredibly demanding. WTA won't be able to handle 5-setters.

And excitement is subjective. I find golf, soccer and cricket mind numbingly boring. But those pros make just as much money as my favourite players in tennis, football and baseball.
Excitement within the same sport please. Let's not mix apples and oranges here. :)
 

ChanceEncounter

Hall of Fame
Well I didn't say anything about salary, but since you brought it up...

All things being relative, the argument that most WTA bashers put forward is that WTA players are nowhere near as skilled as ATP players, oui?
No. Pay attention.

ATP players, having a higher standard of play, compete against each other on a relative level. WTA players can't be compared against ATP because they play at a lesser level. Right? So what you're saying that all ATP players are of a higher standard. And all WTA players are of a lower standard. These standards are relative, not to each other, but to the players within these individual organisations.

So how does it make any sense that ATP players work twice as hard to make the same amount of money as WTA players? A 3.5 playing against another 3.5 is the equivalent of a 6.0 playing against another 6.0 in terms of how hard they are working.
You've clearly never played tennis. 6.0 players when playing other 6.0 players will run around the court far more than 3.5 players. Don't even kid yourself.

And excitement is subjective. I find golf, soccer and cricket mind numbingly boring. But those pros make just as much money as my favourite players in tennis, football and baseball.
Yeah.

Let me know when you comprise the majority of the market and revenue for these sports.
 

Topaz

Legend
We need more Melanie Oudin's _ plays aggressive, better fH than Bh and can also chip the BH, and less a) pushers like Wozniaki and b) hit it as hard you can and screech - Sharapova's

We need more Serena's - GREAT serves punishing power off the ground BUT plays the transition game to finish off points.
I'll drink to this post!

And Davenport didn't exactly flame out. She got pregnant again, didn't she?
Yes, she did get pregnant again, but she was also starting to experience chronic injuries again (namely back and knees). Which was too bad...I loved having her back.

I agree with the OP that women's tennis should be evaluated on its own. However, I have to say that even then, the current WTA is nowhere near what it should be. My highlight for women's tennis this year was Graf and Clijsters at the Wimbledon Centre Court exo. That was far more entertaining than any other match I've seen.
This is really what we (the people who are tired of the bashing) are looking for here. Though, I've never seen so many people disrespect both male and female professional athletes as I have on this board.

Clijsters has played THREE tournaments so far, beating big name players all along the way, meanwhile BAGELING the #3 player in the world (you know, VENUS WILLIAMS) at Venus' home tournament basically.
.
Funny, how you left out the fact that Clijsters was then bageled herself in that same match.

The Clijsters argument is moot! She left to have a family. Women have a certain timetable they need to stick to for this. She has also candidly said that she worked her tail off to get back in shape for her comeback. She also clearly has things that she has to improve to stay at the top. And I saw this as a huge fan of hers (see avatar).

You can keep bringing her up, but her play has more to do with her than anything else!!!

That is what so many of you fail to understand. These women work HARD to get where they are. When one has good results (daring to upset another) the bashers blame 'weak women's tennis', when in fact it is the exact opposite! Here is Wickmayer, here is Oudin, giving us exactly what the bashers say they want say to see in women's tennis (mental toughness, a great serve in Wickmayer, wonderful movement and construction of points), but STILL the bashers are not happy.

And they never will be.

To show so much blind and hateful disrespect toward others is a sign of much deeper issues, IMO.

Ever tried to play a 5-setter? In a slam, many guys won 2 sets in a row, or at least were 2 sets up, but still lost in 5. It's incredibly demanding. WTA won't be able to handle 5-setters.

Excitement within the same sport please. Let's not mix apples and oranges here. :)
Well, you know it has been done, right? Women playing five setters (Hingis vs. Graf YEC, don't remember year).

Though, honestly, women (with their physiological differences, namely, higher average body fat) are better suited to endurance. I'm not sure what would happen if today's women tried it...I think some would be fine, and others (the less fit) would get bageled to death.

And, that is just what people do when they compare men's to women's tennis. Apples and oranges. They expect the women to serve and play like the men, and when some try (and make a bunch of errors) it isn't good enough. And when others don't (relying on court coverage and movement with less pace) it still isn't good enough.

You've clearly never played tennis. 6.0 players when playing other 6.0 players will run around the court far more than 3.5 players. Don't even kid yourself.
Naw, I'm calling BS. And I play lots of tennis. Just got off the court actually.

Tennis, even within the same level, is about match-ups. You put two good female 3.5 moonballers against each other, you're going to be running all night. How much you run or work during a match is not dependent on level. We see it in the pros, on both sides, all the time.

Let me know when you comprise the majority of the market and revenue for these sports.
You know, some people are now bringing revenue. A few days ago, I posted a link to an article about how the WTA tour is doing VERY WELL financially. I got treated pretty badly in that thread. It also didn't get many quality replies.

My point is this...the WTA tour is bringing in the revenue...that is not subjective...it is a fact. I'll dig up my post if I have to. So, if they are doing well, revenue wise...then *somebody* must be going to watch, right?

So, as someone else so adeptly pointed out earlier in this thread, if you don't like it (and not directly at YOU Chance Encounter, but everyone here in this thread), change the channel. If you're waiting for the men to come on, maybe check back in from time to time, or check online to see if they are on.

But before you run to your computers and post really disrespectful and, in some cases, really ugly stuff, ask yourself *why*? Why do you need to do that? Just go watch someone else if you don't like it.
 

ChanceEncounter

Hall of Fame
Naw, I'm calling BS. And I play lots of tennis. Just got off the court actually.

Tennis, even within the same level, is about match-ups. You put two good female 3.5 moonballers against each other, you're going to be running all night. How much you run or work during a match is not dependent on level. We see it in the pros, on both sides, all the time.
And if you take 2 good 6.0 moonballers, I guarantee they'd run more than the two 3.5 moonballers, simply because there would be less errors on the rallies.

You know, some people are now bringing revenue. A few days ago, I posted a link to an article about how the WTA tour is doing VERY WELL financially. I got treated pretty badly in that thread. It also didn't get many quality replies.

My point is this...the WTA tour is bringing in the revenue...that is not subjective...it is a fact. I'll dig up my post if I have to. So, if they are doing well, revenue wise...then *somebody* must be going to watch, right?

So, as someone else so adeptly pointed out earlier in this thread, if you don't like it (and not directly at YOU Chance Encounter, but everyone here in this thread), change the channel. If you're waiting for the men to come on, maybe check back in from time to time, or check online to see if they are on.

But before you run to your computers and post really disrespectful and, in some cases, really ugly stuff, ask yourself *why*? Why do you need to do that? Just go watch someone else if you don't like it.
Yes, the WTA is doing fine financially. Does this have anything to do with the ATP?

If not, why is it that the WTA purses are the same as the ATP's? Why is it that they insist on equal payment when their own finances have nothing to do with the ATP's? How, in any sense, is that 'fair'?

Until you respond to that point, you're just intentionally regurgitating the same stuff over and over without regard of logic or reason. I've already exposed you as a mindless troll who's run away from two separate topics after I've rebutted your broken points.
 

Topaz

Legend
And if you take 2 good 6.0 moonballers, I guarantee they'd run more than the two 3.5 moonballers, simply because there would be less errors on the rallies.
I totally agree on this...and you can also have short rallies, depending on playing styles and matchups.

Yes, the WTA is doing fine financially. Does this have anything to do with the ATP?
No, it doesn't. We're not talking about the ATP. Check the title of the thread. Revenue of the WTA was brought up, which is why I'm bringing up the financial soundness of the WTA. Got it? Didn't realize that it was you again, though...so sorry for not recognizing that you were the one treating me badly.

If not, why is it that the WTA purses are the same as the ATP's? Why is it that they insist on equal payment when their own finances have nothing to do with the ATP's? How, in any sense, is that 'fair'?
Because...*some* people think that the women's game stands up against the men's game in merit. Again, you're not one of those people...I got it. But others are, and they buy the tickets, and support the tour. In turn, at the GS, the money and revenue is there to pay the women equally.

Do the women's efforts deserve less? I don't think so. They asked for it, and they got it. Sounds like you are more upset that other people agreed with them.

Until you respond to that point, you're just intentionally regurgitating the same stuff over and over without regard of logic or reason. I've already exposed you as a mindless troll who's run away from two separate topics after I've rebutted your broken points.
Oh you got me! Yup, I'm a troll. Nothing but a troll. :roll: Boy, you got me good. I'm so sorry I don't have the time during the day to give you and every single one of your posts the attention you are so sorely wanting, but just because someone is *patiently* trying to explain their point of view and you're not seeing it doesn't mean they're a troll.

How is it that I'm the one mindlessly regurgitating, yet you are this ******* of truth and knowledge? How do we know YOU aren't the troll, hunh?

You know, I've always treated you with a fair amount of respect in my posts...even though we don't see eye to eye. Too bad you can't do the same.

Edit: asterisks are para-gon.

Another edit: Can I please be a troll with the pink spiky hair? I'm asking you since you seem to be THE MAN. :roll:

One more edit: I'm gonna go to bed now so I can get up and go play in the morning, so if I don't answer anything you post, just sit tight, ok???
 
Last edited:

JeMar

Legend
There are a few threads at TT, just now and then mind you, that seem to express dismay with women's tennis. And that is an understatement.

We get threads saying women should not receive equal prize money as the men, and the posters holding this view like to hijack threads to beat on this particular drum again and again and again.

We get posts explaining that women suck, that they are not worth watching.

We get threads where league players claim they could whip this or that female pro.

We get threads where male league players boast of the time they gave a beatdown to a female league player.

And we get threads from posters (who must have only recently arrived on this planet) professing to have no idea why female pros serve slower than male pros. Or do not hit as hard as men. Or run slower than men.

Today, ESPN broadcast a bit of a wheelchair tennis match. I had never seen wheelchair tennis before, so I paused to catch a bit of it. One player is ranked No. 1 in the world. She has won some insane number of consecutive matches -- something like 368. The rules were explained -- players get two bounces.

I watched part of this wheelchair match. I noticed some things. The serves were very slow, probably owing to the height of the players. The No. 1 player in the world seemed to be missing a lot of first serves. The groundstroke speed did not seem especially fast. I didn't see any S&V. And of course, the players got two bounces.

I checked the US Open web site, and there are 20 players in the wheelchair draw, and they are competing for $100,000 in prize money. The site boasts that this represents an increase of 25% over last year and is the highest prize money of any of the slams.

Yet I don't see threads here at TT bashing wheelchair tennis players.

I mean, you'd think that the same logic used to trash women's tennis and women in general could be used to attack wheelchair tennis. Why are wheelchair players getting a big increase in prize money? They don't play best of five. They get *two* bounces. And why would anyone want to watch a wheelchair tennis match if they aren't serving, moving or hitting groundies as well as the top male pros? How come we don't see threads positing that male league players could snap that lady's 368-match win streak? If the day comes when wheelchair tennis receives prize money equal to that of able-bodied players (currently the US Open Mixed Doubles champ receives $150,000, so the wheelchair players are awfully close now), will there be howls of protest at TT?

How come no one makes these arguments?

Is it because we realize that wheelchair tennis, like women's tennis, is different from men's tennis for rather obvious reasons *but is still worthy of our respect?*
So, according to your logic, the WTA is to the ATP what handicapped people are to non-handicapped people? Being female is a handicap?
 

Mkie7

Rookie
There are a few threads at TT, just now and then mind you, that seem to express dismay with women's tennis. And that is an understatement.

We get threads saying women should not receive equal prize money as the men, and the posters holding this view like to hijack threads to beat on this particular drum again and again and again.

We get posts explaining that women suck, that they are not worth watching.

We get threads where league players claim they could whip this or that female pro.

We get threads where male league players boast of the time they gave a beatdown to a female league player.

And we get threads from posters (who must have only recently arrived on this planet) professing to have no idea why female pros serve slower than male pros. Or do not hit as hard as men. Or run slower than men.

Today, ESPN broadcast a bit of a wheelchair tennis match. I had never seen wheelchair tennis before, so I paused to catch a bit of it. One player is ranked No. 1 in the world. She has won some insane number of consecutive matches -- something like 368. The rules were explained -- players get two bounces.

I watched part of this wheelchair match. I noticed some things. The serves were very slow, probably owing to the height of the players. The No. 1 player in the world seemed to be missing a lot of first serves. The groundstroke speed did not seem especially fast. I didn't see any S&V. And of course, the players got two bounces.

I checked the US Open web site, and there are 20 players in the wheelchair draw, and they are competing for $100,000 in prize money. The site boasts that this represents an increase of 25% over last year and is the highest prize money of any of the slams.

Yet I don't see threads here at TT bashing wheelchair tennis players.

I mean, you'd think that the same logic used to trash women's tennis and women in general could be used to attack wheelchair tennis. Why are wheelchair players getting a big increase in prize money? They don't play best of five. They get *two* bounces. And why would anyone want to watch a wheelchair tennis match if they aren't serving, moving or hitting groundies as well as the top male pros? How come we don't see threads positing that male league players could snap that lady's 368-match win streak? If the day comes when wheelchair tennis receives prize money equal to that of able-bodied players (currently the US Open Mixed Doubles champ receives $150,000, so the wheelchair players are awfully close now), will there be howls of protest at TT?

How come no one makes these arguments?

Is it because we realize that wheelchair tennis, like women's tennis, is different from men's tennis for rather obvious reasons *but is still worthy of our respect?*
Simply not making any sense. Way off!!!
 

ChanceEncounter

Hall of Fame
I totally agree on this...and you can also have short rallies, depending on playing styles and matchups.
So then you agree that, given equivalent playing style, that more advanced players will have longer rallies and thus, by definition, need to expend more energy? Because that's the point in the first place.

No, it doesn't. We're not talking about the ATP. Check the title of the thread. Revenue of the WTA was brought up, which is why I'm bringing up the financial soundness of the WTA. Got it? Didn't realize that it was you again, though...so sorry for not recognizing that you were the one treating me badly.
Yes, exactly. We're not talking about the ATP at all. The financial stability of the WTA has nothing to do with the financial stability of the ATP. The money the WTA makes has nothing to do with the money the ATP makes.

So, why then, are the grand slams (and many other joint-venue tournaments) pressured and bureaucratically forced to offer the same level of prize money for the women than the men, even if the men's tournaments and matches get consistently higher ratings and attendance?

Because...*some* people think that the women's game stands up against the men's game in merit. Again, you're not one of those people...I got it. But others are, and they buy the tickets, and support the tour. In turn, at the GS, the money and revenue is there to pay the women equally.

Do the women's efforts deserve less? I don't think so. They asked for it, and they got it. Sounds like you are more upset that other people agreed with them.
I'm not upset that the girls are getting paid. I'm upset that the girls feel entitled to the same pay the men are getting when they don't economically deserve it, especially when the men are structurally obligated to put in more work. That's sexism in its own right, specifically against men.

Is the WTA doing fine financially? Yes. Is it doing as well as the ATP? Do the women draw as much of an audience or following as the ATP? No. It isn't and it doesn't.

So why do they demand to be paid as if they are equal to the ATP? I don't demand that male models should be paid the same as female models. The income discrepancy in that industry is absolutely enormous. But I feel it's perfectly fair. Why? Because women in the fashion industry generate more revenue then men, thus they deserve to be paid more.

You, on the other hand, want to turn this into a 'sexism' debate and pull the 'sexist card' whenever someone makes the perfectly valid economic argument.

Oh you got me! Yup, I'm a troll. Nothing but a troll. :roll: Boy, you got me good. I'm so sorry I don't have the time during the day to give you and every single one of your posts the attention you are so sorely wanting, but just because someone is *patiently* trying to explain their point of view and you're not seeing it doesn't mean they're a troll.

How is it that I'm the one mindlessly regurgitating, yet you are this ******* of truth and knowledge? How do we know YOU aren't the troll, hunh?
Because I follow valid logical principles. I posed you several questions (see above) that you never once answered. Instead, you deflected and ran away from several topics, only once again to rear your head in another thread with the same unsubstantiated points.

It's like all those times I pinned gj011 (and his various incarnations) in a logical bind. Instead of trying to explain himself or conceding, he simply disregards it and goes on to troll the next thread with the same opinion. Guess what? That's exactly what you're doing here!

You know, I've always treated you with a fair amount of respect in my posts...even though we don't see eye to eye. Too bad you can't do the same.

Edit: asterisks are para-gon.

Another edit: Can I please be a troll with the pink spiky hair? I'm asking you since you seem to be THE MAN. :roll:

One more edit: I'm gonna go to bed now so I can get up and go play in the morning, so if I don't answer anything you post, just sit tight, ok???
I treat people with the amount of respect they deserve. Someone people may disagree with me entirely. I'll respect them if they're capable of following the rules of logic. Those rules haven't changed for centuries, and they're not subjective.

Feel free to post with actual reason (or concede that you have no response) instead of non sequitur and irrelevant misdirection, and I'll be happy to respect you.
 

Topaz

Legend
Isn't it funny that the defenders of women's tennis happen to be women that also play tennis?
Actually, I don't think that is so unusual at all. Because we play tennis, we have what I think would be a better understanding of the game and what goes into it.
***************
requoting this, as I think some of you need to read it again, especially the bold...you're missing Cindy's point in the OP:

I don't think Cindysphinx is making a comparison that everyone that's posted seems to think she is. The way I read her (I'm assuming you're female) comments is that women's tennis should stand on it's own merit. You cannot compare mens tennis to womens tennis and expect that it's the same product - if you will. I would never bash the WTA for the apparent differences in the physicality between the ATP and WTA. Nor would I ever bash wheelchair tennis for the same reasons. I get that and I don't expect women pros to produce the same type of game. However, I can explain why I personally do not watch the WTA and the two main reasons that it doesn't appeal to me:

1. The similarity in games of so many of the top players. Many are drawn to take sides in sports and tennis is no different. People pick and love to pick sides: Connors/McEnroe, Sampras/Agassi, Federer/Nadal. They pick because they identify or prefer someone's game or personality. I have a hard time finding two players (outside of the Williams sisters) that have that kind of contrast and can pull my interest. Most of the WTA players play a baseline game that offers little versatility. Yes, I know that many of the top men have similar games as well - See rivalries above.

2. The lack of contenders. After Venus and Serena there is a serious vacuum of talent that captivates us. Dinara Safina? No, shrinks in the big moments. Jelena? No, shrinks in the big moments. Ivanovic? No, shrank after her big moment. Sharapova? Not right now with her shoulder and service problems. Kuznetzova? Maybe, but not a consistent presence in the slams and has virtually no exposure when she is playing. Clijsters? We'll have to wait and see if her health problems resurface. I loved watching in the days that Graf, Seles, Capriati and Hingis were contending. I also watched with great interest as the Williams sisters were just coming on the scene along with a crop of young talent that were really bringing the power game into its own on the WTA. There were enough different styles and personalities contending that it kept me interested.

Keep in mind that this is just my opinion and while there are those that simply bash the WTA for no other reason than to bash it there are those of us who don't watch simply because it's not appealing. It's simply a matter of opinion...
One of the best contributions on this thread. Someone who can read, comprehend, even disagree, but does it in a mature manner.

we hold women doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists to the same standards as their male counterparts.
And, are they paid the same as their male counterparts, even when accomplishing the same standard? It is Terr's previous posts that made this pop into my mind.

**********
PS...my darling ChanceEncounter, please meet my Ignore List. Have fun. I'm not wasting anymore time on you.
 
Last edited:

ChanceEncounter

Hall of Fame
PS...my darling ChanceEncounter, please meet my Ignore List. Have fun. I'm not wasting anymore time on you.
Because I follow valid logical principles. I posed you several questions (see above) that you never once answered. Instead, you deflected and ran away from several topics, only once again to rear your head in another thread with the same unsubstantiated points.

[...]

I treat people with the amount of respect they deserve. Someone people may disagree with me entirely. I'll respect them if they're capable of following the rules of logic. Those rules haven't changed for centuries, and they're not subjective.

Feel free to post with actual reason (or concede that you have no response) instead of non sequitur and irrelevant misdirection, and I'll be happy to respect you.
I rest my case.

Troll. You should go on everyone's ignore list.
 

rocket

Hall of Fame
Well, you know it has been done, right? Women playing five setters (Hingis vs. Graf YEC, don't remember year).

Though, honestly, women (with their physiological differences, namely, higher average body fat) are better suited to endurance. I'm not sure what would happen if today's women tried it...I think some would be fine, and others (the less fit) would get bageled to death.
Then why did they stop? Because it's just not a pretty sight. Even Shriekapova said so recently when asked.

Women are better suited to pain, but I'm not so sure about endurance. Skinny & light ppl cover far more distance than bulky types. Body fat is the enemy of endurance, as it gives you extra weight to carry.

Naw, I'm calling BS. And I play lots of tennis. Just got off the court actually.

Tennis, even within the same level, is about match-ups. You put two good female 3.5 moonballers against each other, you're going to be running all night. How much you run or work during a match is not dependent on level. We see it in the pros, on both sides, all the time..
Higher level players hit the ball with a lot more pace & spin. Balls come back quicker & are much heavier. You'll have to run much faster to cover the court, get into position quicker & swing harder. Try & do everything in acceleration and with power, you'll see what I mean.

You know, some people are now bringing revenue. A few days ago, I posted a link to an article about how the WTA tour is doing VERY WELL financially. I got treated pretty badly in that thread. It also didn't get many quality replies.

My point is this...the WTA tour is bringing in the revenue...that is not subjective...it is a fact. I'll dig up my post if I have to. So, if they are doing well, revenue wise...then *somebody* must be going to watch, right?
Your article talked about some sponsors not leaving the WTA. Perhaps the investments are less than those to ATP?

Just go watch someone else if you don't like it.
Yes, that's why the ratings & revenues are lower.
 

Topaz

Legend
Then why did they stop? Because it's just not a pretty sight. Even Shriekapova said so recently when asked.

Women are better suited to pain, but I'm not so sure about endurance. Skinny & light ppl cover far more distance than bulky types. Body fat is the enemy of endurance, as it gives you extra weight to carry.
I'm not talking about body fat as in too much fat and extra weight. Even the most fit women have more body fat than the most fit men. It is a biological difference between the sexes (women's body must have more body fat to sustain reproduction), and having more body fat (which is also the body's first choice for fuel before protein but after carbohydrates...again, this is biological fact) will give you more fuel over the long run than someone that has less 'fuel in the tank'. Do a bit of research into human biology, and you will see that yes, generally speaking, women on average have more body fat. There are other factors, though, that go into endurance issues. Just brought it up as a talking point.

And since you brought up the amount of sets...these days, even watching the men play 5 is very often not that pretty. (totally off topic, but I'm in the camp of thinking men should also play best of 3 given today's much more physical game. Yes, there have been some great 5 setters, especially in the last year, but seeing them come back out and have nothing left for the next match is not fun at all. It would also help solve the constant complaints about the grueling nature of the tour and the schedule and constant injuries.)

Higher level players hit the ball with a lot more pace & spin. Balls come back quicker & are much heavier. You'll have to run much faster to cover the court, get into position quicker & swing harder. Try & do everything in acceleration and with power, you'll see what I mean.
Maybe I need to qualify my statements with this: I've hit against higher level players (5.0s) of BOTH sexes (in matches in tournaments). I know what I'm talking about, 'kay?

Still, tennis is about matchups. We saw perfect examples of this with the last two Wimby finals. Fed/Nadal - five sets, long points, lots of running (even with the rain breaks). Fed/Roddick - five sets, more games played, shorter match. Because the points were different.

I'm saying (boy, if people would read with some thought the first time, I wouldn't have to keep explaining) that you can't say automatically that at certain level plays longer matches or runs more than other levels. And I think you know that, too, just some people have trouble admitting when they have thrown out something that makes no sense.

Your article talked about some sponsors not leaving the WTA. Perhaps the investments are less than those to ATP?

Yes, that's why the ratings & revenues are lower.
Well, I believe ChanceEncounter brought up revenues. And I referred to an article that said the WTA revenues are doing just fine. So, why do you say they are lower? Can you back this up with some facts? Lower than what...the ATP?

Why do you guys keep trying to compare it with the ATP? I'm not talking about the ATP revenues, or even the ATP. We are trying to talk about why the women's game is so disrespected on this board. Why is this conversation not possible by some of you without comparisons to the ATP when we've ALL agreed that the women are never going to play like the men? Talk about the women, and *just* the women...see if you can do that, while showing respect.

And, why does the equal pay bother people SO MUCH? Again, you may think that the women aren't earning it, but maybe, just maybe you are wrong? And the fact that the people with the money think the women are earning it (whether through revenues, sponsors, or whatever) simply seems to be something that infuriates so many men on this board.

WHY?

You can point fingers at specific bad matches, and for everyone in the WTA, we can find one just as bad in the ATP. So please, don't even go there.

My last statement on this:

The women play and train hard. They are professional athletes whose game (or product, if you will) stands ALONE on its merit without needing to be compared to the men. If you are not a fan, fine. But, WHY must some of you feel the need to be disrespectful and downright misogynist toward the athletes of the WTA? And yes, they *are* athletes.
 
Last edited:

thetheorist

New User
Wheelchair tennis players do not receive equal money for obviously weaker skills, less effort exerted (if i'm not mistaken, it's also best-of-5) and lack of popularity, is it? TV stations are not pretending that it is equal to men's tennis in terms of scheduling and broadcasting, is it? I hope you get the drift.
 

shell

Professional
I personally don't care what any tennis players are paid, men or women, and am befuddled why anyone on these boards care.

I just like to watch tennis. And I like to watch both tours.
 

Cindysphinx

G.O.A.T.
I personally don't care what any tennis players are paid, men or women, and am befuddled why anyone on these boards care.
I know! For all the flipping out some boys here are doing, you would think WTA compensation is coming out of their pockets.

Geez, when these boys go to a doctor's office, do they concern themselves with whether the radiologist is being paid as much as the orthopedic surgeon? :)

Actually . . .

:lowers voice:

There's a reason why the boys around here get so hot and bothered about the compensation issue in tennis. You wanna know what it is?

It's the most poisonous cocktail there is: A shot of Envy with a chaser of Insecurity.

Consider the case of Russians Anna Kournikova v. Nicolay Davydenko.

Anna Kournikova never won a WTA tournament and only made one final. She reached No. 8 in the world. Career winnings about $3.5 million.

Davydenko has been as high as No. 4 and has been a steady presence in the top ten since 3005. He has 16 career ATP titles. Career winnings about $10.5 million.

Does anyone think Davydenko has made more money in tennis than Kournikova? Nah. She probably could buy and sell him, although his tennis career has been far more successful than hers. We all know the reasons for this. Even when a particular male tennis player is bigger, faster, stronger, more talented, plays longer matches and wins more titles, the female still can make more money. Ouch.

I think what bothers the boys here at TT is that they feel men on the tour don't receive enough respect and attention (or conversely that the women on tour receive too much respect and attention). Being male also, the boys at TT take this personally -- by extension their tennis is not receiving enough respect.

So the boys at TT suddenly care deeply who gets what compensation, although this has nothing whatever to do with them. Since they can't do anything about it, they get on the Internet and hurl insults and make all kinds of arguments that defy logic. The more they are challenged, the more emotional and hot-headed they get. Before you know it, they are typing in all caps.

Are the insults because the boys at TT hate women? Probably not. Most of them probably would be *thrilled* to have a girlfriend for a change. :)

They just can't deal with the fact that the *male standard of performance is no longer the only standard that matters.* Worse, the male standard is often not even the standard that is most rewarded financially -- which is what really stings.
 
Top