Where would number one woman rank on ATP?

Jason Swerve

Professional
If you believe that UTR is accurate, the WTA #1 Ash Barty has an UTR of 13.36 which is similar to ATP players ranked around 1,000. Novak Djokovic who is #1 on the ATP has an UTR just below 16 currently.

Having seen many ATP and WTA tournaments at all levels in person, I think that the Challenger/Futures level ATP players ranked between 800-1,000 do seem to be on par with top WTA pros and many of them get jobs as hitting partners for WTA players after they give up their dreams of making it on the ATP tour. The most obvious difference you can see between the top men and women are related to movement and serves - the men move much faster to play better defense and their serves have much more topspin at 10-20mph higher pace on average with the difference being greatest for 2nd serves. On ground strokes, you don’t notice much difference in pace, but the men hit a heavier ball with much more topspin.

If they played points off baseline feeds without serves and returns, I suspect that the top women might be closer in level to ATP men ranked around 500.
More topspin shots doesn't mean better shots. Graf hit a heavier slice than all of today's men. The amount of spin you put on a ball has nothing to do with its pace. It only slows the ball down. Any woman could hit topspin groundstrokes like a man if they wanted to. Thing is, they don't want to. They hit error-prone, flat(ter) tennis because that's their choice and the result of their coaching.
 

Jason Swerve

Professional
1998 Australian Open, Venus and Serena played against Karsten Braasch (ranked 203).
Braasch def. Serena 6-1
Braasch def. Venus 6-2
https://www.theguardian.com/observer/osm/story/0,,543962,00.html
And he SMOKED CIGARETTES!!!!!
And the other two were just starting out and had just played Australian Open matches- I think Venus finished hers literally right before playing him. Just walked on the court to see what she could do, no break at all. Venus wasn't even in shape to take it seriously. Both girls wewre little kids who never even played juniors. Venus' biggest match experience was just barely beating Spirlea a few months ago and then Hingis swatting her, right after. You think that guy was taking them for 6-1 and 6-2 ride at their peaks? Let's be authentic.

Besides, the man was a former Top 50 who tanked by philosophy. Just another example of TTW posters parroting biased stories they heard online to further their agendas without actually knowing what actually happened behind those stories.
 

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
Osaka could beat Verdasco?

You are kidding, right?
6-1, 6-1. She would try to hit every ball to his BH, but he’s fast enough and strong enough to run around and hit FH’s. And Osaka couldn’t return a Verdasco FH if her life depended on it. The whole convo is insane.
 

FatHead250

Semi-Pro
At the level where her ballstriking talent and fighting ability overcome physical advantages men have. That happens at about Challenger level in my opinion. Players like Tsonga who played challenger tour on and off have less talent than world1 female and have declined physically. I say worldn1 female can beat an unmotivated declined Tsonga
 

Terenigma

G.O.A.T.
There was a Russian player who came to town and won a bunch of Open level tournaments. He had a massive serve clocked at 130 mph, and a huge forehand to go with it. His shots sounded like a cannon going off. But even with those weapons, his best ATP ranking was in the Top 1200 range.

With his serve and forehand, I can't think of how even top WTA players would handle him
Stories like this is why i so strongly stand by the fact no men inside the top 1000 would come even close to losing to a top 10 WTA player. There are a ton of players like this, players who don't have the speed or touch to make it far up the ATP rankings but would absolutely blow a WTA player off the court. The ironic thing is the further down the ATP rankings you go, the more likely you are to find players who are all muscle who try and hit their way to wins so it would be even harder for a player of Serena's calibre to win.
 

Jason Swerve

Professional
So a guy can hit a hard serve and a hard forehand and not be in the Top 1000. We aren't going to ask 'why'. We aren't going to ask 'when' (string technology, and serves were clocked different back in the day). We aren't going to ask if he were consistent or if that one clocked serve were an outlier.

We're just going to assume every man hits 130 MPH serves on the regular and consistent, 'cannon' forehands, an obvious hyperbole. We're just going to assume women can't hope to achieve 'a massive serve and a huge forehand to go with it' so they'd all lose. Every single one of them would lose. Even though a barely 15-year-old Hingis was return acing Goran Ivanisevic and taking him to trial at the net when her grown-up partner couldn't.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Hall of Fame
Judith Polgar though genuinely held a peak elo rating that was good enough for 8th in the world at the time. That's enough to suggest that a woman could one day be the best in the world in chess.
One day maybe. I agree in chess it “might” be possible. But Polgar was a complete outlier trained by her father as part of an “experiment” from the age of 3. Other than her no other woman over reached the top 50 (maybe Hou Yifan briefly did, I would need to look it up). Even Polgar however is 1-12 or so in classical games against Kasparov so there was still some way to go for her.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Hall of Fame
Well yeah, but that kind of thing happens when the number 1 is dominant. Hikaru was #2 in classical at his peak yet he is 1-14 against Carlsen in decisive classical games.
Also true, but same as Polgar, Hikaru therefore was never close to become world champion. Polgar was also 0-10 or so against Kramnik. Don’t get me wrong, she was great, but there was still some gap between her and the world champions.
 

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
(serves were clocked different back in the day).
Serves have been clocked the same way for at least the past 30 years

Even though a barely 15-year-old Hingis was return acing Goran Ivanisevic and taking him to trial at the net when her grown-up partner couldn't.
Unhealthy obsession with Hingis at it again. She could barely handle teenage Serena's serve when she herself was near the peak of her game.
But yeah of course she was making Ivanisevic work at 15! :laughing:

 

-NN-

G.O.A.T.
I'm sure this question has been asked before. I'm guessing maybe around 400?
400???!!!


Oh boy.

4000 as an answer might be less outrageous.


If women get the doubles alleys and men just one serve, what ranking might the best WTA players reach on the ATP tour? Any ideas?
 

-NN-

G.O.A.T.
I’m obviously in the minority, but some of these estimations are utterly ridiculous. I won’t argue that men have a physical advantage over women. However we’re talking about professional female tennis players. Comparing the world number 1 to a male player outside of the top 500 or 1000? I’d put money on Osaka, Sabalenka or Kvitova winning a match against an ATP player from 75-100. They’re all having success in WTA and I’m not saying they would do the same in the ATP, but I’d say they would rank at least 100 or so.

Absolutely insane.

Also, by saying they'd rank at least 100 or so is more or less saying they'd sometimes eke out wins against elite, top-ranked ATP players. That's the sort of thing that happens regularly enough.









Nope.
 

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
More topspin shots doesn't mean better shots. Graf hit a heavier slice than all of today's men. The amount of spin you put on a ball has nothing to do with its pace. It only slows the ball down. Any woman could hit topspin groundstrokes like a man if they wanted to. Thing is, they don't want to. They hit error-prone, flat(ter) tennis because that's their choice and the result of their coaching.
They hit the shots they hit because that's what gives them the best chance to win. You wouldn't expect a guy built like Isner to have the same gameplan as a guy built like Schwartzman. It's the same with men vs women. Women (in general) are not going to play the same way as men (in general)

Your stance here also shows how much you have actually been around in a coaching capacity. Anyone who's seen the development of junior players has seen how boys and girls are much more evenly matched at 10-12, but once puberty hits the gap starts to grow, and it never stops. By the time they are 18, the difference is enormous.
 
Last edited:

BGod

Legend
I am not so pessimistic having seen enough regional tennis matches between men and women, which while not being officially competitive in a tournament setting were absolutely competitive on a personal level.

For one thing, top female serve speed would match up with Top 20 male players. This comparison was done years ago. And yes, we're obviously looking at prime Serena Williams who in a lot of ways is a freak of nature. I know some of the stories of these lowly ranked male players scorching top female players but it's mostly conjecture and dealing with a slanted match-up.

For example, a massive serving players, who could easily be outside Top 100 on the men's side would almost automatically have a huge handicap over a female player, including Williams.

Plus we're clearly looking outside the Slams due to the Bo3 factor.

So in this hypothetical, a prime Serena likely loses early in all the Slams but probably makes at least some Quarterfinals at at least a few Masters. That very modest outline would put her well inside the Top 100.

I think people scoffing and saying 500+ are focusing on the wrong things. Many male players do not have much power in their game and are more angled and frankly weak stamina. I don't want to pick on specific guys but I'd take prime Serena over plenty right now sitting inside the Top 100.
 

BGod

Legend
But at the very top level, there is probably no interest. What is there to gain in winning a man ranked like ATP 300? But definitely potential for losing face or respectability of the WTA, is lost badly.

Maybe something like WTA #40 against some ATP #400 would be feasible. But who'd pay to watch?!
Kerber (26) former #1 against Nishikori (39) one time Slam finalist.

How bad could it be?
 

PrinceMoron

Legend
More topspin shots doesn't mean better shots. Graf hit a heavier slice than all of today's men. The amount of spin you put on a ball has nothing to do with its pace. It only slows the ball down. Any woman could hit topspin groundstrokes like a man if they wanted to. Thing is, they don't want to. They hit error-prone, flat(ter) tennis because that's their choice and the result of their coaching.
Competitive ladies I have played have hit with a lot of spin, so you need to take an extra step or two to volley before it bounces. Serves shoot through strangely, like the ball has been slapped.
Lots take the ball very early so it comes back quickly and you need to be alert. But the ball does not have the sound it has when the guys hit it.
 

Graf1stClass

Semi-Pro
Even though a barely 15-year-old Hingis was return acing Goran Ivanisevic and taking him to trial at the net when her grown-up partner couldn't.
Since it sounds like doubles, are you talking about this?

PERTH, Australia (AP) _ A fit of anger likely cost Switzerland the title in the Hopman Cup team tennis championship Saturday night.

Swiss star Marc Rosset suffered a possible fracture in his right hand punching an advertising board at the back of the court and had to forfeit in the final set of the decisive mixed doubles, giving Croatia the championship.

Goran Ivanisevic and Iva Majoli trailed Rosset and 15-year-old Martina Hingis 3-6, 7-6 (7-4), 5-5, 0-30 when Olympic champion Rosset signalled that he could not continue.

He had slammed his hand into the sign in the previous game after the Swiss pair failed to convert four championship points at 4-5 on Ivanisevic’s serve. He had been angered by a controversial line call on the second championship point.
 

Graf1stClass

Semi-Pro
Serves have been clocked the same way for at least the past 30 years


Unhealthy obsession with Hingis at it again. She could barely handle teenage Serena's serve when she herself was near the peak of her game.
But yeah of course she was making Ivanisevic work at 15! :laughing:

It would have been interesting to witness as she brought her A game for that match, although I believe she performed worse in the following year.
 

jm1980

G.O.A.T.
Why are you talking to me?
It's a free country. I am here to call you on your BS.

You flopped with Osaka. You failed. I've nothing more to prove to you, and you don't deserve my time.
That is a weak way of admitting you've run out of arguments

And yeah, keep telling yourself you "won" the Osaka argument. Frankly I've rarely seen someone embarrass themselves on these boards as much as you did there. Once you ran out of arguments you then proceeded to throw personal insults at other posters, with a self-own to boot :cool:
 
Last edited:
Agree with 1000 not sure about 5,000. Thing is Patty Schnyder lost 6-2, 6-4 against Köllerer when he was in the top 200. Since those exhibition matches are typically more circus than anything it could be that he gifted her some games to make it look more fun to the audience, however, few years prior Patty actually beat a guy called Patrik Mayr who was 1,183. As Patty isn’t even Serena, there can only be two possible reasons for this:

Either Mayr lost on purpose (which I do not believe), or the difference between men and women in tennis is not as big as in other sports (going by this result it is fair to say that saying the number 1,000 would double bagel Serena is complete crap).

This being said, I also think in these regions (1000+), the ranking number is not reliable anymore. There are a lot of players with same number of single digit ranking points and some of them won those in obscure futures somewhere in Africa while others who cannot afford to travel are way more talented but need to fight through tougher draws. So who knows what Patrik Mayrs actual level was. Could also be that he got nervous playing in front of a big audience with the risk of loosing to a girl.
I agree with this. I think the cutoff is about 800-1000.

Physically the 5000th man probably could beat the number 1 woman too but chances are the number 5000 can't afford to train and play enough to reach or hold that level, I. E likely he plays and trains only 10-12 hours a week which is not enough to beat a female pro who plays/trains 30+ hours.

But if he would do pro style training he would beat her.

Any tour or regular futures/satellites player will beat the female number 1 but I wouldn't rule out there is a guy with an atp point won at some obscure tournament under obscure circumstances who would lose.
 

Maverick13

Rookie
I mean if we’re being honest... at that level they’d never win a match to even obtain a ranking in the first place so I’ll say N/A
 

Jason Swerve

Professional
That is a weak way of admitting you've run out of arguments
Nothing to argue about. You and Osaka flopped, Jimbo. Go on, flop together.

Competitive ladies I have played have hit with a lot of spin, so you need to take an extra step or two to volley before it bounces. Serves shoot through strangely, like the ball has been slapped.
Lots take the ball very early so it comes back quickly and you need to be alert. But the ball does not have the sound it has when the guys hit it.
For sure, but that's another issue. Do most of these women have the skills to apply high topspin on a true half-volley? Likely not. The men probably don't either.

Now for sounds, anything can affect how you hear a sound. The only sound I go by is who's got squeaky feet. 99% of players move too much, and it's worse with the women.

Since it sounds like doubles, are you talking about this?
Yes. Hingis rarely cost her team in doubles, even if she was drunk. The young Hingis ruled everyone on the doubles courts, men and women, and that match wasn't an exception. I remember it clearly. The egregious part is she wasn't anything near a force at that point.

Marc Rosset was the man's name. He and Hingis were partners for a while. Whenever it came to these types of plays, she won her singles with ease, he almost always lost his, and she'd dejectedly look on because they'd be forced to play a doubles match against their opponents to hang in the tournament. They didn't click together. They could hardly communicate, and he held her up a good amount, but she still pulled him through Hopman rounds. With this one in '96, the same pattern happened. Hingis crushed Majoli. Rosset struggled against Ivanisevic. Then they went to doubles tiebreak for the championship. Hingis and Rosset were winning somehow in spite his errors, till he punched through a sign for again shanking an Ivanisevic serve. That cost them the whole thing.

Hingis was too polished for Majoli in the battle of the teenage doubles partners, winning 6-3, 6-0 in their first clash in a tournament. Ivanisevic and Rosset are the best of friends, but you would never know it as they fiercely fought out a 7-6, 7-5 thriller, with Croatia levelling the match.

So it came down to a live mixed doubles to decide the winners of HCVIII, with the Swiss taking the first 6-3, the Croatians the second 7-6 and the diminutive Hingis showing a touch of genius to return big Goran’s service, one of the fastest in the world. With the score at 4-5, the Swiss held four match points on Ivanisevic’s booming serve, but they lost their chances (one on a disputed line call) and Rosset thumped the backboard in frustration.

That act of anger at his inability to snare the prize was to prove disastrous, as he had to forfeit after a couple more shots, dropping his racquet in agony trying to put a volley away.

It was drama on both sides of the net; Rosset was shattered by his act of foolishness; Hingis didn’t know where to look; Majoli was stunned and Ivanisevic was concerned for his friend’s injury which turned out to be a broken bone.

It was a sad ending to almost five hours of tense tennis and it was a humble Rosset who apologised to the fans and his partner – for his disappointing finale.


Found a pic of them all smiling for the camera. You can almost see the excitement in the air.



This is why it's foolish to write off women in tennis like this. Yes, the current WTA is weak- and so is the ATP.

But anyone who knows Rosset knows he wasn't a joke. Ivanisevic was too nervous to serve anywhere near Hingis' backhand because she was using his power with ease. So, what happened. He tried for too much against her, and he faulted and got the Swiss team to 0-40 to win the Hopman. Then Goran's team broke all the way back with the help of the naturally bad line calls like in every Hingis match...........plus some generous return issues from Rosset on that same Ivanisevic serve. Goran wasn't scared of Rosset. He kept everything from Hingis so he could convert multiple championship points against him and Majoli while Majoli watched. Meanwhile, Hingis had him slamming his racket, and he had Rosset slamming his racket. This isn't some fictionary tale. You see it yourself- this was real life.

Unless people're trying to tell me Goran was taking it easy on Hingis just to screw over Majoli and his nation, but then you had him complimenting her return game. But it's not like TTW's experts would care what he had to say.

And here’s another thing I didn’t know about Hingis: Goran Ivanisevic used to go nuts wondering why this grinning little pudge Hingis (they squared off a few times in Hopman Cup, McNamee’s event) was so good at returning his serve—acknowledged as one of the deadliest ever.

“He would always try to hit that big slice by me,” Hingis recalled, “and it just played very naturally to a shot I liked to hit, the inside-out backhand. And I didn’t have to worry about the net player, because his partner always was Iva {Majoli}. It wasn’t like she was going to poach.” (Majoli, a stereotypical clay-courter, still thinks a volley is the bottomland between two mountains.)
>>Before anyone asks, I'm not saying this Hingis would beat Ivanisevic in a match. It was a comment on the equal shot potency of women's tennis compared to men's tennis. This barely 15-year-old girl avoided the other lady and challenged the top serving male directly with her return game. And she succeeded. And if you still don't get what I mean by that, it's not worth elaborating.
 
Last edited:

Graf1stClass

Semi-Pro
Goran wasn't scared of Rosset. He kept everything from Hingis so he could convert multiple championship points against him and Majoli while Majoli watched.
I give Hingis full credit for this, and it is remarkable to accomplish such a feat at her young age. Notwithstanding, I have to say that this point of yours highlights the inherent flaws with doubles. If you can do everything right and still lose because of your partner, the format is questionable at best.

Unfortunate that both had to default as punishment for one's mistake. You wouldn't see this in singles, but I digress. I understand the point you're making.
 

Jason Swerve

Professional
I give Hingis full credit for this, and it is remarkable to accomplish such a feat at her young age. Notwithstanding, I have to say that this point of yours highlights the inherent flaws with doubles. If you can do everything right and still lose because of your partner, the format is questionable at best.
That's because doubles isn't the gladiator duel that singles is. A lot more thinking. Many more intangibles. You can have an easy day with an easy opponent in a singles match, and that's a slam just for you. Ask Osaka. Much harder to have an easy day against two opponents, while having to worry about your own teammate. Ask Osaka.

The micromanaging in doubles means you can make a case for its being harder to win than singles. But like you said, you can make an argument the other way around. I don't get into that- that's why I count everything. If we're gonna put slams as the highest bar, let's do that and stop nitpicking the types of slams. Tennis isn't in a position compared to soccer, basketball, etcetera, to be nitpicking their achievements and promotional exposure. That's why doubles is currently dead and singles is rapidly losing attention spans.

Unfortunate that both had to default as punishment for one's mistake. You wouldn't see this in singles, but I digress. I understand the point you're making.
Sort of. Defaulting is having a ruling against you. He backhanded the sign and broke his hand. Simply put, the umpire screwed up the Cyclops priming, and Ivanisevic's fault against Hingis wasn't registered even though everyone knew it was out. Rosset got upset, started choking, and that led to Ivanisevic's abusing him and tying the third set at 5-5. After Rosset broke his hand for being pigeoned and then took his MTO, he and Hingis immediately got a couple points on her serve (which'd somehow gone better than his), but he went back to the chair, throwing his hands up in defeat because the last volley winner hurt him so much, he dropped the racket. I don't remember the point-by-point without watching the footage, of course, but Hingis stood there looking like somebody'd slapped her when Rosset gave up. It was wonderful sports entertainment. She was on her quest to win her first tournament, because people were denouncing her for jumping to #20 in only a year, and still having 0 titles. The Queen of Bad Luck defended the guy in her post-interview. Then, very obviously, she cried in Molitor's arms before it was over.

What's really unfortunate is that didn't happen a year later. Martinka could've beat them both at the same time. On the other hand (no pun intended), Rosset had to withdraw from the '96 Australian because of that. And the very next Hopman in '97, Martinka had blown out whoever her competition was and waited for Rosset on the sidelines, only to watch Rosset injure himself again by tripping over one of the linespersons for a drop shot. I thus want to say it was a ballgirl or a ballboy. Anyhow, sloppy footwork. She just stared in horror as he ended up having to withdraw. Doubles, yet again. Then he withdraws in their doubles due to the injury. Doesn't even try to tough it out or let her manage for them. The Swiss team dies, yet again. After this, both her and Molitor were livid about him.


>> Found the image again.



The distress in her face is golden. Nothing like having your doubles GS-winning doubles partner keep hurting himself and pulling you out of your matches. To that point, I agree with you @Graf1stClass. Can't help but feel sorry for Martinka here, but she'd start cleaning up the whole tour in a couple more weeks.
 
Last edited:

zagor

Bionic Poster
We’re all entitled to our opinions. I still believe that matching some of the best players that the WTA has to offer against a lower ranked male player they would win. A lot of people here are comparing the pure physical strength and yes that’s an advantage. Also why do people keep using examples of other sports? Tennis and (insert sport here are not the same) However tennis isn’t about how physically strong you are. The players I mentioned ALL have big serves and play very smart tennis. The women in current the WTA are not the same as when BJK played her match. This age old arguement in today’s times is simply dated.
Nah, this isn't one of those - you have your opinion, I have my opinion - type of situations. No way any of those girls would beat a top 100 ranked ATP guy, they wouldn't get a set.

Also, physicality is a big part of tennis. How fast you run, change direction, how much action you can put on the ball etc. etc.
 

TagUrIt

Hall of Fame
Everyone here is speculating and giving their opinions about what they think would happen (including myself). The fact remains no current WTA player in the top 10 has played a lower ranked ATP player in the last few years.

Is it factual because it's a man versus a woman and there just no way a female player could ever contend with a male player? Or because the male vs female exhibition matches have been done sparingly years ago? I don't need to provide statistics or bring about some compelling argument that will change someone's mind. (which would be a waste of time anyways, because almost everyone here believes it's absolutely impossible) I'm not naïve to think that men aren't stronger than women, or that ATP players have bigger serves and more powerful shots. But these statements regard WTA players as if they've never held a racquet and would be blown off the court. Sorry not sorry, I strongly disagree.
 

Erlang

Rookie
So a guy can hit a hard serve and a hard forehand and not be in the Top 1000. We aren't going to ask 'why'. We aren't going to ask 'when' (string technology, and serves were clocked different back in the day). We aren't going to ask if he were consistent or if that one clocked serve were an outlier.

We're just going to assume every man hits 130 MPH serves on the regular and consistent, 'cannon' forehands, an obvious hyperbole. We're just going to assume women can't hope to achieve 'a massive serve and a huge forehand to go with it' so they'd all lose. Every single one of them would lose. Even though a barely 15-year-old Hingis was return acing Goran Ivanisevic and taking him to trial at the net when her grown-up partner couldn't.
I never even suggested this guy is representative of men outside the Top 1000. It was just to show how good the guys ranked near him are. I get the feeling people have this mental picture that Top 1000 players are like your run of the mill 5.0. This guy toyed with the best 5.0 players in the area. It's a completely different level.

I also never said no woman could ever beat him. But he played Open mixed and none of the women, who were very good players in their own right, could return his serve in play enough times to threaten his serve. And he was being nice and only hitting kick serves at them. So I'd think he would at the very least be competitive against any woman based on the serve and forehand alone, even if it means he's relegated to being a John Isner equivalent in the WTA.
 
Last edited:

-snake-

Hall of Fame
Sports are all about being stronk and athletic so thinking a pro male player is gonna struggle or get beaten by a female peer is ridiculous. They'd win at most 1 game or 2.
 

BorgTheGOAT

Hall of Fame
I'm not naïve to think that men aren't stronger than women, or that ATP players have bigger serves and more powerful shots. But these statements regard WTA players as if they've never held a racquet and would be blown off the court. Sorry not sorry, I strongly disagree.
You are right that some people here are underestimating the WTA players. Things like a good college player would double bagel Serena are far from the truth, and people believing that 5.0 players could be competitive are completely delusional. However, your statement regarding Serena could be in the top 100 is equally wrong. In no major sports the best woman is anywhere the level of the 100th best man (the examples of World Cup winning female football teams loosing against 15 year old boys were already brought up here, also in 100m and other track and field disciplines there are approximately 5000 men in the world who have beaten the women world record).
I agree and have already stated in another post that due to the fact that tennis is a sport which requires technic way more than athleticism, the difference might be smaller here, but still not anywhere close to “Serena or Osaka being able to be in the top 100”. It is not only that men are stronger, they are faster, more explosive, better movement etc. there are tons of track and fields disciplines where it is not about physical strength, but nevertheless the men records are way better than the women records.

But I am interested on how you came up with this estimate of top 100? The few exhibition matches we had also do not suggest anything like this.
 
Last edited:

Zoid

Professional
I've had this discussion a lot. The answer I provide doesn't sit well with people in today's political climate, but the reality is that the best women would not be close to cracking the top 1000 of men's tennis.

Some top state juniors I know play top atp women in practice sets and "wreck' them - I mean 6-1's. These guys are top juniors, 16/17 yrs old, but they don't have atp points even.

in my college days one of our guys on our team playing 6 played venus and it was 6-0. I've heard so many instances of this and these are guys who don't even bother to go pro because they know they are only hovering around 1000 ish.

The players in the computer are far less than the players capable of being at that level - another thing people don't understand.

between recent retired players, college players who don't bother going pro, coaches who still hit and are young, junior boys at 15/16/17 etc, there are thousands and thousands of guys who would beat the top women.

The reality is that tennis, as much as it is a technical game, is now more than ever a physical game as well. This is not to say that women players are inferior, they are different and that is why there are different tours.

i personally loved watching henin-harden, I liked hingis, serena is incredible etc. I like watching barty's game. But it's a different game.

Serena would beat the occasional player around 3000 I think, but she would not get consistent enough results to be close to top 1000.
 

puppybutts

Rookie
This thread is certainly not destined for deletion. Modern thinking teaches us that biology is a conspiracy of lies, and therefore the top woman would obviously also be in the ATP top 10, if not #1. But there's a great way to test this. Just incorporate both tours into one.
i always see more comments acting like "modern thinking" is undermining biology, than i do actual comments undermining biology. i'll be enjoy a mixed tennis match, or a mixed relay race, and there will be someone in the comments over-eager to say, "men are biologically stronger and faster than women, it's not sexism it's just facts", to shut down exactly no one saying anything contrary to that on the video. it's a lot easier to ignore the occasional crazies who say men and women are equal biologically, than to act like there is a huge majority of people making that claim.
 
Last edited:

puppybutts

Rookie
If you believe that UTR is accurate, the WTA #1 Ash Barty has an UTR of 13.36 which is similar to ATP players ranked around 1,000. Novak Djokovic who is #1 on the ATP has an UTR just below 16 currently.

Having seen many ATP and WTA tournaments at all levels in person, I think that the Challenger/Futures level ATP players ranked between 800-1,000 do seem to be on par with top WTA pros and many of them get jobs as hitting partners for WTA players after they give up their dreams of making it on the ATP tour. The most obvious difference you can see between the top men and women are related to movement and serves - the men move much faster to play better defense and their serves have much more topspin at 10-20mph higher pace on average with the difference being greatest for 2nd serves. On ground strokes, you don’t notice much difference in pace, but the men hit a heavier ball with much more topspin.

If they played points off baseline feeds without serves and returns, I suspect that the top women might be closer in level to ATP men ranked around 500.
it's more than just rating too. barty's slice trips up a lot of female players and allows her to construct points to the top, but i doubt her slice would be as effective against as many males, who could more reliably hit winners off it or move into position faster. does a WTA #1 in Barty rank the same on ATP as a #1 in serena would? probably not.

regarding topspin, there are some outliers. sloane stephens in her peak 2017-2018 years was probably the best forehand on the women's tour. she was quite capable of hitting forehand winners in the low 3,000 RPM whenever they showed the stat on screen (compare that to Nadal's average RPM of 3290 or Federer's average RPM of 2840, taken from the US Open 2018). does that mean her forehand was equal to an ATP forehand? no. serena hit many serves over her career in the 110s and 120s (mph), but she wouldn't be able to execute that speed as reliably as a man in a single match.

i don't really have a point, other than mentioning stuff i find interesting/fun to think about. which is what threads like this should be...don't know why they always devolve into some vapid assessment of biology = X rank. the difference between #1 WTA and #100 WTA is huge, just like it is between #1 and #100 for ATP. players have good and bad days. someone like Tiafoe can be ranked in the top 30 or the top 100. to argue that a WTA #1 could definitively be/not be in top whatever # in ATP with absolute certainty is stupid.

(p.s. this isn't all directed at the comment i am quoting...just trailing off)
 

Jason Swerve

Professional
I never even suggested this guy is representative of men outside the Top 1000. It was just to show how good the guys ranked near him are. I get the feeling people have this mental picture that Top 1000 players are like your run of the mill 5.0. This guy toyed with the best 5.0 players in the area. It's a completely different level.

I also never said no woman could ever beat him. But he played Open mixed and none of the women, who were very good players in their own right, could return his serve in play enough times to threaten his serve. And he was being nice and only hitting kick serves at them. So I'd think he would at the very least be competitive against any woman based on the serve and forehand alone, even if it means he's relegated to being a John Isner equivalent in the WTA.
No, that's what people think about the top women. There was even a video on it a couple days ago.

I still don't know who this player is. That's half the issue.
 

Jason Swerve

Professional
it's more than just rating too. barty's slice trips up a lot of female players and allows her to construct points to the top, but i doubt her slice would be as effective against as many males, who could more reliably hit winners off it or move into position faster. does a WTA #1 in Barty rank the same on ATP as a #1 in serena would? probably not.

regarding topspin, there are some outliers. sloane stephens in her peak 2017-2018 years was probably the best forehand on the women's tour. she was quite capable of hitting forehand winners in the low 3,000 RPM whenever they showed the stat on screen (compare that to Nadal's average RPM of 3290 or Federer's average RPM of 2840, taken from the US Open 2018). does that mean her forehand was equal to an ATP forehand? no. serena hit many serves over her career in the 110s and 120s (mph), but she wouldn't be able to execute that speed as reliably as a man in a single match.

i don't really have a point, other than mentioning stuff i find interesting/fun to think about. which is what threads like this should be...don't know why they always devolve into some vapid assessment of biology = X rank. the difference between #1 WTA and #100 WTA is huge, just like it is between #1 and #100 for ATP. players have good and bad days. someone like Tiafoe can be ranked in the top 30 or the top 100. to argue that a WTA #1 could definitively be/not be in top whatever # in ATP with absolute certainty is stupid.

(p.s. this isn't all directed at the comment i am quoting...just trailing off)
Why are we still conflating 'topspin' with 'speed' when topspin literally slows the ball down.

Besides that, Sloane's 2018 was pretty terrible compared to her 2017 ending. She slumped to a major degree up until Miami, and she's been poorer and poorer ever since.
 

zvelf

Professional
Just out of curiosity, how low do rankings go? Do they really rank players below 1000? or even 3000?
Rankings do go below 1000:


On the whole, I think people are underrating the WTA's best, but who the best is at any given time can vary drastically. There's a big difference between a #1 like Ana Ivanovic and an ATG like Graf, Navratilova, or Serena. Ivanovic probably couldn't beat an average ATP #1000 player more often than not, but I'd wager a peak ATG WTA player could.

Mixed doubles is obviously very different than singles, but insofar as there is data, there is no huge gender gap there, especially when it comes to returning serve:


And when Connors played Navratilova in 1992, Connors at age 40 and Martina a few weeks from age 36, Martina made it semi-close losing 5-7, 2-6 without playing her best (8 double faults). Granted Connors only got 1 serve, which is huge, and Martina got smaller-than-usual double lanes, but she didn't really use those that much. Connors had placed a $1 million bet on himself that he would not lose more than 8 games so he was definitely trying hard. At the time of this match, Connors was ranked #62 and Navratilova was around #5. But this showed that an ATG woman clearly past her peak could do decently against a top 100 men's player who could only feed her second serves.

 

zvelf

Professional
I think one possible way to view the ATP vs the WTA is by weight class in boxing or mixed martial arts. The ATP are the heavyweights (those who weigh over 200 lbs.) The WTA are welterweights (140-147 lbs.). In a fight between the two, a welterweight is going to have a hell of a time overcoming a 55 lbs. weight disadvantage (at the time of the fight, the difference may be less than at the weigh-in), but is it possible for the very best welterweights ever to beat very mediocre heavyweights? Sure. In MMA, one-time welterweight Dan Henderson beat heavyweight Fedor Emelianenko (Henderson bulked up to 207 to qualify as heavyweight for this fight and weighed 16 lbs. less than Fedor). As to enjoyment, heavyweight and welterweight fights can be just as enjoyable as the other.
 
Top