Nostradamus
Bionic Poster
Can Steve Johnson crush Serena Williams ?
Tipsarevic: " Junior Boy will crush Serena Williams"
- Thread starter kishnabe
- Start date
TennisNinja
Hall of Fame
Depends on your definition of "crush", but he would win without a doubt.
Last edited:
Bowtiesarecool
Rookie
Um, I assume you're referring to the "Battle of the Sexes" match, at which, BJK was 30 and Riggs was 55 years old. Poor comparison to this discussion.
But do you think that there would be as much interest in the men's finals if the events were separated as there currently is? I don't think that there is any doubt that women and men participating at the same events increases interest overall. Thats why I don't have any problem with it if the women get paid equally for grand slams.
Tournament Player
Banned
okay lets make it simple, who would people rather pay money to see serena and azarenka or Federer and djokovic, the answer is obvious. 99 percent of atp players train harder than wta players, men also play 5 sets against a match deeper a tougher field, women play 3 sets.
Lets make this simple, who would people rather pay money to see? Serena and Sharapova or Almagro and Juan Monaco? The answer is obvious.
This makes about as much sense as comparing some noname WTA match against Fed vs Nadal.
The point is the majority of WTA matches are filler, whereas almost every single mens match has the potential to be exciting and attract a crowd.
WTA is boring, period.
Juan Monaco and Almagro is still a matchup of 2 top 10 men. The point is just that even though the women might get killed by the number 200 man in the world, Serena and Sharapova would draw a MUCH larger crowd and they do deserve to be paid accordingly. The people who act like the fact that the women aren't as good as men is the end of the story are just not taking reality into account. Guys would prefer to watch Serena and Sharapova even though Monaco and Almagro are significantly better players.
Last edited:
ChanceEncounter
Professional
Who would you rather see? Federer/Nadal or Errani/Kerber?
mellowyellow
Legend
Yes, its obvious that marketing has mind f-ED you into thinking the women are the better match to watch LOL! Keep drinking the koolaid that is WTA/ATP/ITF marketing. Now if you want to exclude the quality of the match angle then you have a solid argument.
mellowyellow
Legend
This sounds like an American statement or point of view.
Don't kid yourself, if their was equal TV time for all players and they were all promoted equally this would not even be close to true. How is this a fair assessment when that aspect is taken into consideration? Clearly the organizations only care about the top of the mens/womens and more importantly in the US if you are an american takes precedence over any player including Fed at times. Like asking if a top college player draws more than a top 100 female, one has no exposure at all but probably plays 10 times better the other has had probably some tv exposure and people would watch the woman even though the tennis is a joke at that level on the womens.
Why on earth would this alternate reality matter at all? Maybe the WTA is just better at marketing but despite the disparity in talent there is no question that Serena and Sharapova are much bigger draws than Monaco and Almagro. Maybe it pisses you off that this is true- but people would MUCH rather pay to watch Sharapova and and Serena. Tennis players get paid off of their popularity- not off of their ability. It is absolutely irrelevant that Almagro could double bagel Sharapova if people would rather watch Sharapova.
Tournament Player
Banned
that is not an argument all, you are comparing the best wta players with players who are not the best of the atp, people would see federer or djokovic over those 2 any day
The point is that people do not care AT ALL that Almagro would kill Sharapova. People are making the argument that because the guys are better they deserve more money and thats ridiculous. People don't care that Almagro is better- they would rather see Sharapova despite that. Popularity is all that matters.
6-0 6-0 Johnson. Serena would get a few points on serve and errors.
mellowyellow
Legend
Popularity is by not a reasonable assessment. Not when the marketing clearly is biased. Has nothing to do with better marketing. It pisses me off that its thought to be fair to pay them equal. Nothing equal about it, money should not be. To typical morons, top womens gets the nod, only because of the W T&A gets their marketing slot pushing good tennis to the side.
mellowyellow
Legend
Get a clue, when you do anything better to earn a living,
usually you are rewarded for it, especially if it is a consistent quality.
The point that is over your head is that these people are in the entertainment business. Some players just understand this better than others. If people find the women more entertaining to watch and are willing to pay to see them play then they should get paid accordingly. No one cares that Almagro and Juan Monaco are better than Serena and Sharapova even though Almagro and Juan Monaco are top 10 rated players in the world. People find Sharapova and Serena more entertaining to watch.
Tournament Player
Banned
true but that is only because they are always on the biggest stadiums, eventually they get popular, if almagro were on centre court as well as other players who are not top 5, then they will become popular too, they train harder, the mens field has much more depth and they def train harder and at slams they have to play 5 sets
No one cares how much people train. If a player could drink beers on teh changeover and still win grandslams then they would be even more popular. It doesn't matter that one person works his ass off while another is just blessed with immense talent- people will watch the player they find more entertaining and it has nothing AT ALL to do with how hard they work off the court.
Almagro and Juan Monaco don't often play on center court because no one cares about watching them play. Maybe it just pisses you off that people do want to watch Serena and Sharapova but thats just what people want to see. Maybe you thkn that its unfair that the WTA does a great job of marketing their stars- but the fact of the matter is that they do have stars.
TennisNinja
Hall of Fame
If anything, compare Alamagro/Monaco with Sharapova and some player whose last name isn't Williams.
Roddick/Harrison is probably going to draw a bigger crowd than Almagro/Monaco simply because they're American.
Roddick/Harrison is probably going to draw a bigger crowd than Almagro/Monaco simply because they're American.
Last edited:
Your earlier message.
Your line of reasoning is that if it were fair remuneration for all, then more popular players should also be remunerated more from tournament winnings.
So I take it that you have no problem then with unfair remuneration in tennis? I don't think that's your actual stance, but that your true stance is more in line with achievement theory.
As outlined earlier, an implication of achievement theory is that the passing of qualitative judgment over different forms of the game is comparing apples and oranges, hence equal compensation for all forms of the game (this would include doubles, wheelchair, juniors etc). Please see my earlier post for why.
The point is simply that no one cares that Almagro and Monaco are far superior players- they would rather watch Sharapova and Serena. These people are paid to be entertainers. If people find it more entertaining to watch Sharapova and Serena they have decided that they DO NOT CARE that the men are significantly better.
The point is that it is a ridiculous argument that the women shouldn't get equal money because they wouldn't make the top 200 men. If female tennis players are easier to market and people want to watch then thats all that matters. Its jsut funny that people are whining here that the WTA has just done too good of a job marketing its stars and how unfair that is.
IF people want to say that the men should get more money because the ratings are higher then that is a legitimate argument whereas talking about the different level of play is ridiculous. If the women's final lasts 2 hours and the men's final lasts 4 hours and there is a million dollars of extra advertising generated then I have no problem with the men getting a cut of that. But as I have said several times in this thread I think that the women should get paid equally to men for majors because I think that the interest in the majors is dramatically higher for the men because the women are part of a joint event. If the men had a separate event then I don't think that people would care nearly as much. A ton of women watch tennis and go to the matches- it simply wouldn't be worth it to go back to paying the men and women different amounts of money when the risk of backlash from tennis fans is so great.
I've also said that I think for early rounds that the Men should be playing best of 3 sets just because I think it would make it more TV friendly. No one really wants to watch a 5.5 hour match to get to the quarterfinals.
Andreas1965
Rookie
wrong. I would always prefer watching some random men's tennis match than any crappy "tennis" match between two women. And if I had the choice to watch some shrieker like Sharapova or Godzilla Williams or Almagro vs. anybody... Well I guess you know the answer.
Wrong. I love my 5 hour matches.
db10s
Hall of Fame
Kaptain Karl
Hall Of Fame
You guys are letting spot get away with several *unsupported* assertions that she cannot defend. And you are not even pointing out her deficient argument.
spot, where's the data to support your claims that:
... professional tennis players are in the "entertainment" business?
... Serena/Shriekapova are a bigger draw than Almagro/Monaco?
The second assertion *may* be true in New York. But I bet it wouldn't be true in ... Rome, Mexico City or Paris. (But that's just my guess; I'm not pretending my guess is fact, as you are.)
I have marveled for years at the marketing genius behind Shriekapova's career. And at the lack of dimension in her game, which the other girls seem unable to exploit (save for Henin). Her agent really hit the jackpot....
- KK
spot, where's the data to support your claims that:
... professional tennis players are in the "entertainment" business?
... Serena/Shriekapova are a bigger draw than Almagro/Monaco?
The second assertion *may* be true in New York. But I bet it wouldn't be true in ... Rome, Mexico City or Paris. (But that's just my guess; I'm not pretending my guess is fact, as you are.)
I have marveled for years at the marketing genius behind Shriekapova's career. And at the lack of dimension in her game, which the other girls seem unable to exploit (save for Henin). Her agent really hit the jackpot....
- KK
That's ridiculous. They don't become popular because they play in the big stadiums. They play in the big stadiums because they are winners who win at the biggest occasions (slams. Sometimes old favorites and homegrown players get that opportunity as well). Serena and Maria would be playing on the outer courts with all the obscure players if they weren't winners. Nobody cares that Almagro or Monaco or Tipsarevic would beat Serena or Maria silly because they don't compete against them. Heavyweight boxers would smash welterweight boxers but who cares. They don't compete against each other. Winners are winners and they draw fans to them like moths to a flame. Serena and Maria are winners on the WTA tour and people who love them or hate them have strong reactions for them hence they have people who will come to watch them win or lose.
Almalgro, Monaco and Tipsarevic are very good players but until they win some big matches (ATP 250s aren't the big stage) or take out some good players they will only make it to the big stadium when they play the Big 4. Look at Tsonga. Very few people knew who he was until he beat Rafa at the AO. Now he is a very popular player and a big draw. Del Po won the US Open and has legions of fans. Even Dolgo, who hasn't won anything but took out 2 top players at the same slam, has gotten popular because of his exciting play and quirkiness.
Secretariat, a horse, is still discussed 40 years after winning the Triple Crown because he was a winner. A Horse! So until the men take that extra step and become winners, they'll be playing on courts 13-20. Last night, Berdych took step #1 and beat Federer. If he can take the next two steps and take out Murray and likely Djokovic his popularity will take a huge step forward.
The 20 million dollars in endorsements that Sharapova earned last season despite not being in the best 1000 players in the world is my data to support the fact that they are in the entertainment business. I am astounded that anyone would even bother to argue this. When the money comes from getting people to want to watch they are in the entertainment business.
You have to be kidding me. What do you think that the most watched match between Almagro/Monaco would be? They have played at least once a year for the last 5 years. Now what do you think that the most watched match between Serena and Sharapova would be? You can't think that the ratings, attendance, or ticket prices were anywhere in the same ballpark. No one cares that Almagro and Monaco are far superior players. They would rather watch Serena and Sharapova.
Last edited:
jamesblakefan#1
G.O.A.T.
Except for Henin? Serena dominates Sharapova on a regular basis. Masha usually wins bc of her mental strength, which Serena has over her as well as being FAR more talented. But keep drinking the Henin koolaid.
I was bringing it up as a counterpoint. I don't think that players should be paid based on who plays on the big courts, but that would certainly be more fair than arbitrarily paying men who play on court 18 more than women who play on Center Court and help draw large audiences to the tourneys. THat's part of why equal pay came to be, it was when the men's tour was lackluster and starved for big names post Sampras/Agassi while the women's tour was in arguably it's greatest period. I didn't see anyone argue the women should've been paid more than the men back then.
The Serena vs. Sharapova against Almagro vs. Monaco reasoning is completely flawed. That match would be 1 of 127 women's singles matches in a Grand Slam event (128 draw). Same with Almagro vs. Monaco, 1 match out of 127 Men's singles matches over the course of the tournament. The combined interest in the 127 Men's matches compared to the 127 Women's matches is staggering.
The fact is that the WTA is just slightly more popular than the WNBA or the LPGA (admittedly the gap in tennis is not as great as golf or basketball, but it is still quite large). The popularity and marketability of the WTA makes it a second class sport compared to the ATP, despite ESPN's best efforts at force feeding us women's matches.
The fact is that the WTA is just slightly more popular than the WNBA or the LPGA (admittedly the gap in tennis is not as great as golf or basketball, but it is still quite large). The popularity and marketability of the WTA makes it a second class sport compared to the ATP, despite ESPN's best efforts at force feeding us women's matches.
Last edited:
I have never claimed that the women's tour is more popular than the men's tour. Only that the popularity has nothing at all to do with the level of play as evidenced by the fact that the last match between Sharapova and Serena Williams was likely watched by more people than have watched Almagro play in all matches in his life combined. It is irrelevant that Almagro is a top 10 player in the world and that Sharapova isn't in the top 1000 players in the world. People would rather watch Sharapova.
Last edited:
No. Serena v Maria would be 1/127 match that would show up in the semifinals or finals on Arthur Ashe stadium while Almalgro v Monaco would be 1/127 match that would be shown in the round of 16 that would be lucky to make it onto the Grandstand.
And WTA is wildly more popular than the WNBA. It's not even close. The WTA is the most successful women's sport league ever. The women of tennis make more prize money on average than in any other women's sport. They make more money in endorsements than any other women's sport. Tennis is the best sport for women who want to play sports professionally. You may find the play of women inferior, lacking quality, boring, etc but there are plenty of men and women throughout the world who disagree with you. So you guys may cry and whine about women getting prize money that is not coming out of your pocket, but it's all for naught. It's not going to change.
All the whining that Tipsarevic and Simon are doing is because they suck when they play in the tournaments where the big money is won. (Tipsy made it to the QF- $237,500. Maybe that will shut him up.) Beat Fed, Djokovic, Murray or Nadal, then you can earn some more money. Just because they can't do that regularly doesn't mean that you can take the money out of the pockets of the women who are training just as much, spending just as much on expenses that they do.
chrischris
G.O.A.T.
Yes thats true. In fact i think he was even slightly 'tipsy' when he did it. German beer, you know..
Tcbtennis
You are right, each one of the 127 matches on both sides do not have the same weight, however the macro picture remains - the combined interest in the 127 men's matches far outweigh that of the 127 women's matches. The disparity in interest is even greater when you go to smaller events. Whether you want to accept it or not NBA > WNBA, PGA > LPGA, ATP > WTA - plain and simple. As others have noted, compare the interest in your Serena vs. Sharapova example and (apples to apples) compare that to Federer vs. Nadal or Djokovic. Easy math.
You are right, each one of the 127 matches on both sides do not have the same weight, however the macro picture remains - the combined interest in the 127 men's matches far outweigh that of the 127 women's matches. The disparity in interest is even greater when you go to smaller events. Whether you want to accept it or not NBA > WNBA, PGA > LPGA, ATP > WTA - plain and simple. As others have noted, compare the interest in your Serena vs. Sharapova example and (apples to apples) compare that to Federer vs. Nadal or Djokovic. Easy math.
The point that has repeatedly gone over your head is that no one is arguing that Women's tennis is more popular than Men's tennis.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Pro sports--and their ancillary markets of (to name only a few) online, DVD and video game media is entertainment. Clothing, print, dinnerware, food promotions, guest appearances and sponsoring of non-sports productions/events are a recognized part of the entertainment business. The days of pro sports only being some competition died in the 1930s the second individuals such as the late Buster Crabbe and Johnny Weissmuller traded on their athletics to become movie stars and subjects of products.
On that note, the tennis players--who sign contracts to appear on or in entertainment products/events trading on their personalities and/or appearance are promoted as more than mere player, but celebrities--entertainers who entered that end of the business through the conduit of professional tennis.
I suggest you look up the biggest ad agencies in the world, TV ratings for the biggest events (the majors) and see which tennis players appear more or take the lion's share of ratings--Sharapova/Serena or blink-and-you-missed-them Almagro/Monaco.
Spot
I fully understand you point that the an inferior women's match (qualitative) could grab more interest than a better quality men's match. But let's go over the basis or rationale for pay: it's not quality of play, it's not length of play (I agree that 2 out of 3 vs. 3 out of 5 is irrelevant), it's not popularity (?), it's not ticket sales, it's not TV interest - I do forget, what should the basis for pay be? I think most of the consternation here is that the pay at the Slams violates the basic principles of free market economics and that the Men's side does monetarily subsidize the Women's at joint events (please, do run the events seperately for the proof). I do agree that "market demand" is not based on length of match, or even necessarily quality of match (even though it irks BJK to no end, the marketability of women's tennis is tied to its femininity/sexuality and not quality of play, hence the diminished advertising opportunities for Navratilova, one of the all-time greats, even in her hey day). Do people want to watch Anna Ivanovic or Svetlana Kuznetsova play? There was only a brief period of time when Women's tennis could justify equal pay (or even greater pay), when you had the Williams sisters, the Belgian girls, Hingis, Davenport, Capriati, etc. - Women's Tennis brought more to the table (but even then, it was only for the quarterfinals on in any given event). That time was an abberation in the history of tennis, long gone.
I fully understand you point that the an inferior women's match (qualitative) could grab more interest than a better quality men's match. But let's go over the basis or rationale for pay: it's not quality of play, it's not length of play (I agree that 2 out of 3 vs. 3 out of 5 is irrelevant), it's not popularity (?), it's not ticket sales, it's not TV interest - I do forget, what should the basis for pay be? I think most of the consternation here is that the pay at the Slams violates the basic principles of free market economics and that the Men's side does monetarily subsidize the Women's at joint events (please, do run the events seperately for the proof). I do agree that "market demand" is not based on length of match, or even necessarily quality of match (even though it irks BJK to no end, the marketability of women's tennis is tied to its femininity/sexuality and not quality of play, hence the diminished advertising opportunities for Navratilova, one of the all-time greats, even in her hey day). Do people want to watch Anna Ivanovic or Svetlana Kuznetsova play? There was only a brief period of time when Women's tennis could justify equal pay (or even greater pay), when you had the Williams sisters, the Belgian girls, Hingis, Davenport, Capriati, etc. - Women's Tennis brought more to the table (but even then, it was only for the quarterfinals on in any given event). That time was an abberation in the history of tennis, long gone.
As I have said I think that pay for majors should be equal because I think that there would be significantly less interest in the men's final if there were separate events for the men and women. I think that tennis fans care more when both are included. More people go to the event, watch the event, and follow the event all week because both are involved. So while cosmically the men might deserve a larger piece right now, they would be getting a larger piece of a smaller pie which would completely defeat the purpose. Even trying to give the women less money would cause such a backlash among fans of the women's game that I think the actual difference that the men get would be more than offset by the dollars they would lose by people being put off by the inequality.
These things are cyclical. The men have been riding the coat tails of Nadal and Federer for popularity. I think there is a good chance that the women get better ratings than the men in the final this year.
These things are cyclical. The men have been riding the coat tails of Nadal and Federer for popularity. I think there is a good chance that the women get better ratings than the men in the final this year.
Last edited:
I'm not disputing your assertion that on the whole the ATP performs at a higher level than the WTA or that men's sports is at a higher level than women's sports. Male athletes are bigger, stronger, faster and more aggressive than women athletes. Men are more interested in sports than women so they are more likely to play competitively thus the number of high level athletic men playing sports is greater than the number of athletic women playing sports.
If you look at the numbers, over the course of the year the Top 10 men make more money than the Top 10 women. The tours are separate and the money earned is adjusted accordingly. In 2011 the Top 10 men made $45,824,480 in prize money. The Top 10 women made $29,045,898. The men made 58% more than the women. It is only in the slams where the prize money is equal. The pinnacle tournaments of the sport where the best of the best compete to win the most coveted titles. The powers that be have determined (rightly so) that regardless of gender the best of the best, those who rise to the occasion will be monetarily rewarded. The whole world watches these 4 events each year. Big names drive the individual sports like tennis. Federer, Nadal, Serena and Maria are names well-known to the casual sports fans. Advertisers pay the events money so their brands are highlighted. They don't care if Tipsarevic is playing. Actually they probably prefer that Diokovic, Nadal or Fed are playing. Just because Tipsarevic and Simon think that they offer a better product doesn't really mean anything.
Spot
Just noticed you are from Atlanta (Alpharetta myself). Do you ever play at Sandy Springs Tennis Center (formerly North Fulton TC)? I guess we just disagree in that I do NOT think that there would be significantly less interest in the Men's game or Final without the Women running concurrently at these events. I would be skeptical of claims that they are creating a larger pie until I saw the evidence to support it. And even if the pie were larger, taking a smaller percentage of that pie could still result in the men recieving an overall smaller slice, if the pie's radius didn't grow enough (which I suspect to be the case here). Either way your point is taken and understood if not entirely agree with!
Just noticed you are from Atlanta (Alpharetta myself). Do you ever play at Sandy Springs Tennis Center (formerly North Fulton TC)? I guess we just disagree in that I do NOT think that there would be significantly less interest in the Men's game or Final without the Women running concurrently at these events. I would be skeptical of claims that they are creating a larger pie until I saw the evidence to support it. And even if the pie were larger, taking a smaller percentage of that pie could still result in the men recieving an overall smaller slice, if the pie's radius didn't grow enough (which I suspect to be the case here). Either way your point is taken and understood if not entirely agree with!
Last edited:
Tcbtennis
Agreed, this is what the powers to be have decided - the "rightly so" part is up to opinion, which I guess is where all this is coming from. If Tipsy and Simon want to go on record as disagreeing they are free to do so (and to pay the PC Police price for doing so). I do respect your opinion even though I can't necessarily go along with it. It is great we have a forum to think aloud and discuss the differences.
Agreed, this is what the powers to be have decided - the "rightly so" part is up to opinion, which I guess is where all this is coming from. If Tipsy and Simon want to go on record as disagreeing they are free to do so (and to pay the PC Police price for doing so). I do respect your opinion even though I can't necessarily go along with it. It is great we have a forum to think aloud and discuss the differences.
Last edited:
I play out of Dekalb Tennis Center but yeah- we do play at Sandy Springs quite a bit. Actually I think Eddie Olmuedo is a pro out of there and he plays on one of my teams.
All I know is that the women on our team follow tennis the closest- they would not pay half as much attention as they would if the women were not involved. They take a trip up to the Open every couple years and I don't think they would do it if the women weren't involved. Maybe your friend circle doesn't much care about the women's side of things but for our group they definitely do pay attention and they would be pissed about it if the women got paid less. Whats the point of alienating a significant portion of the fan base? Particularly for majors where the US open sells TV rights as a package I think its perfectly reasonable to have the men and women paid equally.
And its really funny to say that the women not being there wouldn't decrease the size of the pie at all when there is a decent chance the women's final would get larger ratings than the mens final this year. I suppose I should be cheering for Tipsarevic because this thread woudl be even funnier if the women did get higher ratings in a final that he was involved in.
Last edited:
Spot - I go to the TMS events at Miami and Cincy just about every year, and occassionally to NY for the Open. My circle of friends are just interested in the Men's game predominantly. My buddy was actually worried that the addition of the women to the Cincy event would take away from the overall experience there. I will say that the plus side to adding the women to the Cincy event and putting some of the women's matches on the stadium court has meant that there are more quality men's matches on the Grandstand and outer courts where you can get better seats for viewing - so that is a win in my book!
dominikk1985
Legend
Of course a good junior (I'm not talking about a HS varsity boy but a world ranked junior player) will easily beat serena.
by the time a top junior is 17 he should already be in the top500 in the world (otherwise he is never going to make it). no way serena (or justine, Maria...) beats a top 500 player.
I guess kvitova would lose against her underaged boyfriend too
by the time a top junior is 17 he should already be in the top500 in the world (otherwise he is never going to make it). no way serena (or justine, Maria...) beats a top 500 player.
I guess kvitova would lose against her underaged boyfriend too
Thanks. I love a good debate.
TennisNinja
Hall of Fame
I agree that there is a draw to women's tennis. But, Serena/Sharapova are probably one of the few players on tour which rival the top men. I can guarantee that if you go down the ATP rankings list and the WTA list, most of the men will be more popular for their respective rankings.
You say that because the WTA boosts the ATP's popularity, the women should be paid the same as the men. What about doubles then? Doubles certainly helps boost tennis' overall popularity, but I don't see you advocating that doubles players receive equal pay as the singles players.
Sidenote: I do want to watch a 5.5 hour match to get to the QF's. There's been some classic early round matches at the grand slams that were only possible because of the 5 set format.
Fearsome Forehand
Professional
Yes, and he had a couple of beers and cigarettes at lunch prior to playing them.
IIRC, he was ranked 203 at the time.A big serving junior would destroy Serena.
Dedans Penthouse
Legend
Here's where Tipsarevic missed the boat: calling out 'Serena' by name when making his point. I'm not going to argue his junior-versus-WTA argument, but he could've simply said "a good junior would beat a top WTA" pro. Tipsarovic hasn't won a single Grand Slam title.
Serena's won 14, count 'em 14.
Make your 'WTA' point Janko .... but show some individual respect; you're talking about an all-time great. jmo
Similar threads
