Dueling genders

[Ricardo]

in this case you still don't get it.

Well, thank god that you were kind enough to explain it to me.

just 'context' remember? so, you thank god or thank me for explaining?

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

ricardo - i think you and I and everyone here have seen plenty of quite differing definitions of GOAT, so you can't claim that 'by definition', they don't qualify. there's a lot of meanings to Greatest. defining it on the base of who could beat whom is a good idea, but not necessarily the only definition.

regarding your opinion of Feminism and your industry examples? first off, i don't care if you reference Katy Perry or Justin Bieber: i truly don't give a rat's behind about either person's opinion. Maggie Thatcher? may she rest in peace, but there's very few issues on which I'd ever agree with her.
either way , I must say that I find it Horribly offensive and very telling that you think the (physical) sports issue have the same causes and are comparable, and that 1) male industry dominance is simply derived because men were clever enough to invent all those things and women weren't and 2) if it were the other way round, men would acknowledge and just accept it instead of fighting for equality. mind you, i'm not saying that this is due to male bias or evil plans - it's just matters of social dynamics. denying that is just plain ignorance to history. just imagine that we were to substitute... well, in fact, i'll do it for you, take a look at it and tell me what you see:
(warning, major racism alert)

to talk about black and latino numbers in top jobs, but if we go into that, there would be similar reasons. what industries do black and latinos occupy low numbers in top executive jobs? one would think most industries right? in broad sense, aren't almost all those industries all rooting from creations and inventions by white europeans? i don't know, car manufacturing, building, IT, electronics, hell even down to less vital industries like movie-making (with invention of cameras/image recorders), who invented and made those possible? let's reverse the situation, if black and latinos were the inventors and innovators of Mercedes Benz, Apple Iphone/Ipad, IBM/Dell computers, all the great architectures, whatever you name, i know these are crude examples, but i am sure in that case black and latino would dominate all these related field/industries, and justifiably so. I believe things happen for a reason, and they don't just happen because certain group of people are biased and conspire with evil plans..... but you are right i have bad taste for empowerment advocates in general, because they are the ones who just talk, and didn't/couldn't do anything, acting as if they deserve somethings when they didn't 'earn'.

now tell me if i'm doing your "men invent, so men deserve" argument injustice here. unless, of course, you agree with the racist version as well.

 

[jhar26]

just 'context' remember? so, you thank god or thank me for explaining?

I have already contributed too much on this thread - more than I had originally intended, that's for sure. And since I have a somewhat different way of looking at these things, which means that I don't get it, further participation from me would be pointless. Besides, I have already tried to express what I think in the best way that my no doubt limited abilities allow me. We don't even disagree about one of the central points of the debate - that men, even less than great men would beat great women. It's only about the conslusions that we draw from that that we disagree.

 

[Ricardo]

ricardo - i think you and I and everyone here have seen plenty of quite differing definitions of GOAT, so you can't claim that 'by definition', they don't qualify. there's a lot of meanings to Greatest. defining it on the base of who could beat whom is a good idea, but not necessarily the only definition.

regarding your opinion of Feminism and your industry examples? first off, i don't care if you reference Katy Perry or Justin Bieber: i truly don't give a rat's behind about either person's opinion. Maggie Thatcher? may she rest in peace, but there's very few issues on which I'd ever agree with her.
either way , I must say that I find it Horribly offensive and very telling that you think the (physical) sports issue have the same causes and are comparable, and that 1) male industry dominance is simply derived because men were clever enough to invent all those things and women weren't and 2) if it were the other way round, men would acknowledge and just accept it instead of fighting for equality. mind you, i'm not saying that this is due to male bias or evil plans - it's just matters of social dynamics. denying that is just plain ignorance to history. just imagine that we were to substitute... well, in fact, i'll do it for you, take a look at it and tell me what you see:
(warning, major racism alert)

to talk about black and latino numbers in top jobs, but if we go into that, there would be similar reasons. what industries do black and latinos occupy low numbers in top executive jobs? one would think most industries right? in broad sense, aren't almost all those industries all rooting from creations and inventions by white europeans? i don't know, car manufacturing, building, IT, electronics, hell even down to less vital industries like movie-making (with invention of cameras/image recorders), who invented and made those possible? let's reverse the situation, if black and latinos were the inventors and innovators of Mercedes Benz, Apple Iphone/Ipad, IBM/Dell computers, all the great architectures, whatever you name, i know these are crude examples, but i am sure in that case black and latino would dominate all these related field/industries, and justifiably so. I believe things happen for a reason, and they don't just happen because certain group of people are biased and conspire with evil plans..... but you are right i have bad taste for empowerment advocates in general, because they are the ones who just talk, and didn't/couldn't do anything, acting as if they deserve somethings when they didn't 'earn'.

now tell me if i'm doing your "men invent, so men deserve" argument injustice here. unless, of course, you agree with the racist version as well.

H-H was used as example, i wouldn't call it definition. However just in line with how we define the greatest male or female player, we look at results in the correct context. In this case, where GOAT is not restricted to a certain group then that player is assessed through his/her results against the best our world has/had to offer. It follows that the best the world has to offer would be the ATP, to my knowledge anyway, that results obtained from below ATP would not qualify.

Now if you are trying funny argument that some micky mouse has a different definition and claim it's just as valid, i don't care. You could have a definition of your own "whoever played the most matches in a year is the GOAT", whatever, you could have cute crap like that and i don't care. If common sense doesn't prevail, it's not my problem.

Next, you say you are offended after i stated a fact that men invented those things? i stated the fact to my knowledge and see it as the reason, but there is no discussion about who was clever and who wasn't enough to do it - put simply i stated a fact not opinion. The fact that you even tried to put word in my mouth? i hate to associate anyone as low-ballers, but this is low.

Then you got problem with my opinion about if the role was reversed? denying what would be ignorance to history? oh, social dynamics - they are also what they are for a reason. Society expects men to be hunters and women to be care-takers? men to be inventors and women to be secretaries? now you want my opinion and see if it can be used against me? (label alert ) go ahead, i see males with strengths to be better hunters and inventors than women who i think make better care takers and secretaries, as facts (that i know of) have shown. need i say more? i stated one fact and one opinion, paint it whichever way you want.

oh and i haven't forgotton the substitution game, where attempt to play race card against me is shown... smells like cheap liquer

now it states (summarised), whites invented those things and therefore dominated those fields/industries. If the role was reversed, then blacks/latinos would've dominated.

Actually i think it's logical, in fact nothing i see unreasonable here. In addition, when it comes to tennis it's men invented (tennis), men excelled (better players than WTA players), and men deserve (when we are talking GOAT tennis players). Still offended? word of advise, don't let feminism rub on you, it's obsessive and bad taste.

 

[Kieran]

I'm not too sure where this conversation is going, but I think a sensible solution is to acknowledge that men and women aren't the same, they're different, and therefore comparisons can't be sustained. The ATP tour is the gold value for me, and always has been. I remember in Gordon Forbes seminal classic, A Handful of Summers, he discusses two top male players describing a top women's tennis match.

"There's a lob. And there's another lob. And there's a dropshot that's also a lob. And there's a smash off the dropshot that's really a lob."

The quality has improved, as you'd expect, but when you watch some of the slam finals of recent years, you'd have to say they make for fairly gruesome viewing. Atrocious, really, some of them. The loss of nerve being so extreme in some matches that it seemed both players had thrown in the towel in favour of their opponent. I just don't see any case that can be made for the great women players to be compared to the greatest males, even if we make the allowances we've been asked to. It would take an act of political correctness - which I'd shoot down gladly in a hail of cyber-bombs - or we'd have to agree that the quality of the WTA is so savage and intense as to throw up a player who had gone to such extremes and still been great enough to compare.

I think there's great women players who should be compared to each other for fun - the way we do with the men's. But putting them in together and ignoring the differences is a recipe for unfairness and general hoodwinkiness, if hoodwink is a word that can be so abused. And it has nothing to do with straighteners - Martina in a ring with Pete, etc...

 

[tented]

A GOAT can be a woman for sure, in theory. It's just that there isn't really much of a case any of the great women players to be GOAT. Sure, you can technically make a case (based on numbers and whatnot), but it'd be pretty easy to shoot down.

That's how I was thinking about it: in terms of numbers, vs. something like, "Could Martina, in her prime, beat Roger?"

Obviously not. Nor was that kind of thinking involved in the Tennis Channel's decisions about where to put people on their list of the 100 greatest players of all time.

Graf has a remarkable record of 22 Majors (out of 31 finals), winning each tournament a minimum of 4 times. That's a level of diversity, consistency, and success which no one has demonstrated.

Does that elevate her above Rod Laver? (Their list put her at No. 3, and Laver at No. 2.) I would say yes. And Martina. I would have put both of them above Laver.

And then there's Margaret Court with 24 Majors (out of 29 finals). What about her? Her case is complicated by having won them in the Open and pre-Open Eras, but Laver won one of his two calender slams pre-Open Era, and those two accomplishments are the things people concentrate on when including him in the conversation at all.

Honestly, I've made it clear for years that I don't even believe in the idea of a GOAT, although I've always liked Nehmeth's concept of a GOTE - Greatest Of Their Era. The idea, then, of a debate over the GOAT which involves both men and women is something which I believe in even less (if that's possible).

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

to talk about black and latino numbers in top jobs, but if we go into that, there would be similar reasons. what industries do black and latinos occupy low numbers in top executive jobs? one would think most industries right? in broad sense, aren't almost all those industries all rooting from creations and inventions by white europeans? i don't know, car manufacturing, building, IT, electronics, hell even down to less vital industries like movie-making (with invention of cameras/image recorders), who invented and made those possible? let's reverse the situation, if black and latinos were the inventors and innovators of Mercedes Benz, Apple Iphone/Ipad, IBM/Dell computers, all the great architectures, whatever you name, i know these are crude examples, but i am sure in that case black and latino would dominate all these related field/industries, and justifiably so. I believe things happen for a reason, and they don't just happen because certain group of people are biased and conspire with evil plans..... but you are right i have bad taste for empowerment advocates in general, because they are the ones who just talk, and didn't/couldn't do anything, acting as if they deserve somethings when they didn't 'earn'.

now tell me if i'm doing your "men invent, so men deserve" argument injustice here. unless, of course, you agree with the racist version as well.

Then you got problem with my opinion about if the role was reversed? denying what would be ignorance to history? oh, social dynamics - they are also what they are for a reason. Society expects men to be hunters and women to be care-takers? men to be inventors and women to be secretaries? now you want my opinion and see if it can be used against me? (label alert ) go ahead, i see males with strengths to be better hunters and inventors than women who i think make better care takers and secretaries, as facts (that i know of) have shown. need i say more? i stated one fact and one opinion, paint it whichever way you want.

oh and i haven't forgotton the substitution game, where attempt to play race card against me is shown... smells like cheap liquer

now it states (summarised), whites invented those things and therefore dominated those fields/industries. If the role was reversed, then blacks/latinos would've dominated.

Actually i think it's logical, in fact nothing i see unreasonable here. In addition, when it comes to tennis it's men invented (tennis), men excelled (better players than WTA players), and men deserve (when we are talking GOAT tennis players). Still offended? word of advise, don't let feminism rub on you, it's obsessive and bad taste.

well, thanks - reading "care-taker and secretary", i see that there's probably no good grounds for further discussion anyway, and, while complaining about me playing cards or handing out bad liquor, you don't deny that it's the same idea at work even if we do the substitutions.
also, i find it funny how 'who invented it' is of any relevance in this.

---

A GOAT can be a woman for sure, in theory. It's just that there isn't really much of a case any of the great women players to be GOAT. Sure, you can technically make a case (based on numbers and whatnot), but it'd be pretty easy to shoot down.

That's how I was thinking about it: in terms of numbers, vs. something like, "Could Martina, in her prime, beat Roger?"

Obviously not. Nor was that kind of thinking involved in the Tennis Channel's decisions about where to put people on their list of the 100 greatest players of all time.

Graf has a remarkable record of 22 Majors (out of 31 finals), winning each tournament a minimum of 4 times. That's a level of diversity, consistency, and success which no one has demonstrated.

Does that elevate her above Rod Laver? (Their list put her at No. 3, and Laver at No. 2.) I would say yes. And Martina. I would have put both of them above Laver.

And then there's Margaret Court with 24 Majors (out of 29 finals). What about her? Her case is complicated by having won them in the Open and pre-Open Eras, but Laver won one of his two calender slams pre-Open Era, and those two accomplishments are the things people concentrate on when including him in the conversation at all.

Honestly, I've made it clear for years that I don't even believe in the idea of a GOAT, although I've always liked Nehmeth's concept of a GOTE - Greatest Of Their Era. The idea, then, of a debate over the GOAT which involves both men and women is something which I believe in even less (if that's possible).

agree on all accounts

 

[Ricardo]

to talk about black and latino numbers in top jobs, but if we go into that, there would be similar reasons. what industries do black and latinos occupy low numbers in top executive jobs? one would think most industries right? in broad sense, aren't almost all those industries all rooting from creations and inventions by white europeans? i don't know, car manufacturing, building, IT, electronics, hell even down to less vital industries like movie-making (with invention of cameras/image recorders), who invented and made those possible? let's reverse the situation, if black and latinos were the inventors and innovators of Mercedes Benz, Apple Iphone/Ipad, IBM/Dell computers, all the great architectures, whatever you name, i know these are crude examples, but i am sure in that case black and latino would dominate all these related field/industries, and justifiably so. I believe things happen for a reason, and they don't just happen because certain group of people are biased and conspire with evil plans..... but you are right i have bad taste for empowerment advocates in general, because they are the ones who just talk, and didn't/couldn't do anything, acting as if they deserve somethings when they didn't 'earn'.

now tell me if i'm doing your "men invent, so men deserve" argument injustice here. unless, of course, you agree with the racist version as well.

Then you got problem with my opinion about if the role was reversed? denying what would be ignorance to history? oh, social dynamics - they are also what they are for a reason. Society expects men to be hunters and women to be care-takers? men to be inventors and women to be secretaries? now you want my opinion and see if it can be used against me? (label alert ) go ahead, i see males with strengths to be better hunters and inventors than women who i think make better care takers and secretaries, as facts (that i know of) have shown. need i say more? i stated one fact and one opinion, paint it whichever way you want.

oh and i haven't forgotton the substitution game, where attempt to play race card against me is shown... smells like cheap liquer

now it states (summarised), whites invented those things and therefore dominated those fields/industries. If the role was reversed, then blacks/latinos would've dominated.

Actually i think it's logical, in fact nothing i see unreasonable here. In addition, when it comes to tennis it's men invented (tennis), men excelled (better players than WTA players), and men deserve (when we are talking GOAT tennis players). Still offended? word of advise, don't let feminism rub on you, it's obsessive and bad taste.

well, thanks - reading "care-taker and secretary", i see that there's probably no good grounds for further discussion anyway, and, while complaining about me playing cards or handing out bad liquor, you don't deny that it's the same idea at work even if we do the substitutions.
also, i find it funny how 'who invented it' is of any relevance in this.

---

A GOAT can be a woman for sure, in theory. It's just that there isn't really much of a case any of the great women players to be GOAT. Sure, you can technically make a case (based on numbers and whatnot), but it'd be pretty easy to shoot down.

That's how I was thinking about it: in terms of numbers, vs. something like, "Could Martina, in her prime, beat Roger?"

Obviously not. Nor was that kind of thinking involved in the Tennis Channel's decisions about where to put people on their list of the 100 greatest players of all time.

Graf has a remarkable record of 22 Majors (out of 31 finals), winning each tournament a minimum of 4 times. That's a level of diversity, consistency, and success which no one has demonstrated.

Does that elevate her above Rod Laver? (Their list put her at No. 3, and Laver at No. 2.) I would say yes. And Martina. I would have put both of them above Laver.

And then there's Margaret Court with 24 Majors (out of 29 finals). What about her? Her case is complicated by having won them in the Open and pre-Open Eras, but Laver won one of his two calender slams pre-Open Era, and those two accomplishments are the things people concentrate on when including him in the conversation at all.

Honestly, I've made it clear for years that I don't even believe in the idea of a GOAT, although I've always liked Nehmeth's concept of a GOTE - Greatest Of Their Era. The idea, then, of a debate over the GOAT which involves both men and women is something which I believe in even less (if that's possible).

agree on all accounts

---

agree on what? basically there is nothing that can be agreed here with any kind of logic. GOTE? there's discussion all over the place about the female GOAT yet when it comes to overall GOAT there is no such idea? clearly it's an agenda-driven claim that is illogical.

Then there is the rubbish comparing Navratilova's Slams to Laver's? that's even worse. Do people equate juniors who also win slams to ATP player who win theirs? how can anyone with a brain compare players who play in different leagues? Laver played against the world's best, Sampras did, Federer still does, Martina didn't nor Steffi, that's the bottom line. Oh unless we are talking about concession, in which case you must be talking (but they are women...); why don't you apply to the juniors (but they are juniors)..... why is concession only given to one select group and not other groups? winning WTA title is too easy compared to winning ATP title, its a fact - no more excuse needed.

 

[huntingyou]

Then there is the rubbish comparing Navratilova's Slams to Laver's? that's even worse. Do people equate juniors who also win slams to ATP player who win theirs? how can anyone with a brain compare players who play in different leagues? Laver played against the world's best, Sampras did, Federer still does, Martina didn't nor Steffi, that's the bottom line. Oh unless we are talking about concession, in which case you must be talking (but they are women...); why don't you apply to the juniors (but they are juniors)..... why is concession only given to one select group and not other groups? winning WTA title is too easy compared to winning ATP title, its a fact - no more excuse needed.

Obviously you make too much sense and it's not surprising this blasphemous thread was created by moxie. What's surprising it's to see guys drinking the Kool-Aid as well.

As a matter of fact, why don't we take it a step forward and find a comparable basketball player in the female world to Michael Jordan?

Martina is the GOAT of her OWN league, and that's where the fanfare ends. I guarantee you that even the likes of Pablo Andujar would have wipe the floor with Steffi and company.

 

[Ricardo]

Then there is the rubbish comparing Navratilova's Slams to Laver's? that's even worse. Do people equate juniors who also win slams to ATP player who win theirs? how can anyone with a brain compare players who play in different leagues? Laver played against the world's best, Sampras did, Federer still does, Martina didn't nor Steffi, that's the bottom line. Oh unless we are talking about concession, in which case you must be talking (but they are women...); why don't you apply to the juniors (but they are juniors)..... why is concession only given to one select group and not other groups? winning WTA title is too easy compared to winning ATP title, its a fact - no more excuse needed.

Obviously you make too much sense and it's not surprising this blasphemous thread was created by moxie. What's surprising it's to see guys drinking the Kool-Aid as well.

As a matter of fact, why don't we take it a step forward and find a comparable basketball player in the female world to Michael Jordan?

Martina is the GOAT of her OWN league, and that's where the fanfare ends. I guarantee you that even the likes of Pablo Andujar would have wipe the floor with Steffi and company.

well you know Moxie is a feminist, and feminists don't have conscience and sense of justice. They will all look for concessions where it suits them, in tennis they say Martina can't beat the guys because she is a woman bla bla bla, but when talking about achievements and rewards, they all happily apply it 'apple to oranges'.... equating a low-level title (won on WTA) to world class title (won on ATP).

But of course they will always ignore other groups..... its only an issue when it comes to female players... all concession should be given, they should have whatever advantage they can take such as binding female events to men's and hold the sponsors hostage and demand equal prize money; knowing majority of people want to see the men, who happen to be much better players

now if you speak the truth, just watch quickly how these shameless feminists running off their mouth with labels: mysogeny, male chauvinism, sexism... etc, but of course only feminism is perfectly ok in this world

which begs the question, what if men also unite like they do, and don't take such feminism crap anymore:

what if male players insist their own event and not bind with females..
what if tournaments and sponsors pay according to their judgement, and if the WTA players don't like it, they can go and find their sponsors...
what if the tour is open to everyone, no concession is given and everything is totally based on one's own ability..... fair and square

 

[Moxie]

Obviously you make too much sense and it's not surprising this blasphemous thread was created by moxie. What's surprising it's to see guys drinking the Kool-Aid as well.

As a matter of fact, why don't we take it a step forward and find a comparable basketball player in the female world to Michael Jordan?

Martina is the GOAT of her OWN league, and that's where the fanfare ends. I guarantee you that even the likes of Pablo Andujar would have wipe the floor with Steffi and company.

well you know Moxie is a feminist, and feminists don't have conscience and sense of justice. They will all look for concessions where it suits them, in tennis they say Martina can't beat the guys because she is a woman bla bla bla, but when talking about achievements and rewards, they all happily apply it 'apple to oranges'.... equating a low-level title (won on WTA) to world class title (won on ATP).

But of course they will always ignore other groups..... its only an issue when it comes to female players... all concession should be given, they should have whatever advantage they can take such as binding female events to men's and hold the sponsors hostage and demand equal prize money; knowing majority of people want to see the men, who happen to be much better players

now if you speak the truth, just watch quickly how these shameless feminists running off their mouth with labels: mysogeny, male chauvinism, sexism... etc, but of course only feminism is perfectly ok in this world

which begs the question, what if men also unite like they do, and don't take such feminism crap anymore:

what if male players insist their own event and not bind with females..
what if tournaments and sponsors pay according to their judgement, and if the WTA players don't like it, they can go and find their sponsors...
what if the tour is open to everyone, no concession is given and everything is totally based on one's own ability..... fair and square

Ricardo, you expose too much of your venom by calling this a "blasphemous thread." All questions are worth debating. It's just tennis, so I'm not sure where you get "blasphemy." (Extravagant word, really.)

Just because I'm a woman on this board doesn't mean you can infer that I'm a feminist, but I'll tell you that I am. But you say, "feminists don't have conscience and sense of justice." Where the hell do you get that from?

what if male players insist their own event and not bind with females..
what if tournaments and sponsors pay according to their judgement, and if the WTA players don't like it, they can go and find their sponsors...
what if the tour is open to everyone, no concession is given and everything is totally based on one's own ability..... fair and square

What you don't understand about "fair and square" is the marketability of the women's game. Tournaments and sponsors DO pay according to their judgement. If you think that the money people are combining these events out of the goodness of their hearts, and political correctness, you're smoking something. It's about money, and there is a clear feeling from marketers that women's tennis is worth money. That's not a feminist talking. That's dollars and cents.

 

[tented]

Then there is the rubbish comparing Navratilova's Slams to Laver's? that's even worse. Do people equate juniors who also win slams to ATP player who win theirs? how can anyone with a brain compare players who play in different leagues? Laver played against the world's best, Sampras did, Federer still does, Martina didn't nor Steffi, that's the bottom line. Oh unless we are talking about concession, in which case you must be talking (but they are women...); why don't you apply to the juniors (but they are juniors)..... why is concession only given to one select group and not other groups? winning WTA title is too easy compared to winning ATP title, its a fact - no more excuse needed.

Obviously you make too much sense and it's not surprising this blasphemous thread was created by moxie. What's surprising it's to see guys drinking the Kool-Aid as well.

As a matter of fact, why don't we take it a step forward and find a comparable basketball player in the female world to Michael Jordan?

Martina is the GOAT of her OWN league, and that's where the fanfare ends. I guarantee you that even the likes of Pablo Andujar would have wipe the floor with Steffi and company.

Re-read what I posted above. This is about numbers, not muscles. I don't think anyone is arguing that Martina or Graf, for example, are stronger than the men, hence peoples' reason for putting them at, or near the top of a list of all-time greats. That was never the point.

It's about accomplishments: Graf accomplished more than Sampras, IMO, therefore I would rank her higher on a list of all-time greats. I'm not saying Graf or Martina could win a wrestling match against Sampras.

 

[jhar26]

To be honest, I'll never understand why some have such negative feelings about womens tennis. Perhaps it's because tennis is one of the (very) few sports where women can also become 'stars' and make millions of dollars. But what difference does that make to the the ATP which will always be (even) more popular no matter what? If there were no womens tennis mens tennis would be about as popular as it is now. The fact that there's an audience for womens tennis as well doesn't make the least bit of difference to the men. If anything, it reflects positively on the sport as a whole.

 

[Ricardo]

Obviously you make too much sense and it's not surprising this blasphemous thread was created by moxie. What's surprising it's to see guys drinking the Kool-Aid as well.

As a matter of fact, why don't we take it a step forward and find a comparable basketball player in the female world to Michael Jordan?

Martina is the GOAT of her OWN league, and that's where the fanfare ends. I guarantee you that even the likes of Pablo Andujar would have wipe the floor with Steffi and company.

well you know Moxie is a feminist, and feminists don't have conscience and sense of justice. They will all look for concessions where it suits them, in tennis they say Martina can't beat the guys because she is a woman bla bla bla, but when talking about achievements and rewards, they all happily apply it 'apple to oranges'.... equating a low-level title (won on WTA) to world class title (won on ATP).

But of course they will always ignore other groups..... its only an issue when it comes to female players... all concession should be given, they should have whatever advantage they can take such as binding female events to men's and hold the sponsors hostage and demand equal prize money; knowing majority of people want to see the men, who happen to be much better players

now if you speak the truth, just watch quickly how these shameless feminists running off their mouth with labels: mysogeny, male chauvinism, sexism... etc, but of course only feminism is perfectly ok in this world

which begs the question, what if men also unite like they do, and don't take such feminism crap anymore:

what if male players insist their own event and not bind with females..
what if tournaments and sponsors pay according to their judgement, and if the WTA players don't like it, they can go and find their sponsors...
what if the tour is open to everyone, no concession is given and everything is totally based on one's own ability..... fair and square

Ricardo, you expose too much of your venom by calling this a "blasphemous thread." All questions are worth debating. It's just tennis, so I'm not sure where you get "blasphemy." (Extravagant word, really.)

Just because I'm a woman on this board doesn't mean you can infer that I'm a feminist, but I'll tell you that I am. But you say, "feminists don't have conscience and sense of justice." Where the hell do you get that from?

what if male players insist their own event and not bind with females..
what if tournaments and sponsors pay according to their judgement, and if the WTA players don't like it, they can go and find their sponsors...
what if the tour is open to everyone, no concession is given and everything is totally based on one's own ability..... fair and square

What you don't understand about "fair and square" is the marketability of the women's game. Tournaments and sponsors DO pay according to their judgement. If you think that the money people are combining these events out of the goodness of their hearts, and political correctness, you're smoking something. It's about money, and there is a clear feeling from marketers that women's tennis is worth money. That's not a feminist talking. That's dollars and cents.

like i said i know you are a feminist with all those one-sided crap argument, which are based on nothing but bias. You easily resort to calling someone 'sexist' as soon as they claim some WTA player is unattractive - look i don't necessarily agree with Huntingyou that Sharapova is average looking, in fact i think she is pretty but when you make a big deal out of someone's personal opinion about 'attractiveness' it shows your colors. I don't see you do that when people made fun of Murray or Nalbandian's looks - the fact that you show such double-standard is typical of what feminists do.

now if feminists keep getting confrontational like this and men decide to not take it any longer, you wanna guess what will happen? when there is no more tolerance for feminists, i think you know what happens; in fact that would apply to ALL walks of life not just tennis.

So a feminist like you also claimed 'fair and square' is the marketability of women's game - why am i not surprised that all feminists got is nonsense? when those female players talked about boycotting Wimbledon for paying less money to them, it's clearly against the tournament's judgement (which you claimed otherwise). Wimbledon decides that female players get less money, that's their judgement - and i think they were right because it actually holds true for all major events. Do you ever look at the sales of all the majors? i bet you don't or turn blind to it, because truth hurts a feminist like you. I go to Aussie open every year (for 20+ years now) and sometimes tournaments overseas as well when i travel and have time, and mens' finals are ALWAYS SOLD OUT earlier than women's. In fact i can usually buy women's finals just a day or two before, while mens' finals are usually sold out just days after sales start. Now i can back up my statement unlike you, who would claim total nonsense based on NOTHING - check all the websites of the sales and that is all concrete evidence.

The fact that those women resort to political means to get equal money (boycotting and other kind of political push) shows exactly the lack of 'fair and square' in women's game. Bottom line, they are not as good tennis players - and that's what is totally relevant. People have and will always watch the highest level of any sport - it has nothing to do with gender, age and nationality - unless someone has an agenda. Now if you insist on the same baseless argument based on a feminist perspective, you can expect that i will shoot it down.... easily. Nobody should let bloody agenda get in the way of truth and facts.

 

[britbox]

I've always believed the women should be paid what they can get commercially. It shouldn't be related in any way to what the men receive. They get the same pay awards as the men at the majors because they threatened to go on strike. It's a form of commercial negotiation... the paymasters either call them on it or capitulate. So, in that respect they are worth it because that's what they successfully negotiated.

Comparing the ATP to the WTA is apples and oranges, but we compare stars from different sports all the time - i.e. Who's the athlete of the century etc....

 

[Kieran]

I wonder if they uncoupled the women from the men (pun intended) at the slams, would the women's game be as successful? I've never seen evidence that it's as popular as the guys. Even on forums, there's usually a heavy outweigh in traffic chatting about the men's game compared to the women...

 

[Moxie]

I wonder if they uncoupled the women from the men (pun intended) at the slams, would the women's game be as successful? I've never seen evidence that it's as popular as the guys. Even on forums, there's usually a heavy outweigh in traffic chatting about the men's game compared to the women...

It's a fair question, and could be a fair experiment, if it happened. I also recently heard the argument that if women want more attention paid to women's sports, they have to watch and support them. Bottom-line is that men care more about sports, overall, then women do, and so they watch and support them, and they like to see themselves reflected in the players, i.e., men.

However, tennis was the first sport to create super-stars amongst the women, and that actually goes back a long time. (Suzanne Langlen, Althea Gibson, Margaret Court, to name a few.) And some of the female super-stars in the current game are head-and-shoulders above even most of the top 10 guys, in terms of draw. (Crowd, tv-audience and sponsorship.)

I wouldn't put too much weight on forum traffic. Most people who post to sports boards are men. (Same problem I stated above, I guess. And, while most of you blokes are reasonable, just look at the slagging-off I got from some for simply posing the question that was posed by Tignor in his blog. OK, in fairness, I said it would be controversial, and I was expecting heat.)

Anyway, Kieran, what would it serve if women's tennis were totally separated from men's? To prove that men are better tennis players than women? Is that what you want? Or should we allow those organizers and sponsors to combine the star-benefit of the best players of both genders, in the way they seem to see fit? (Which they're going to do, anyway.) And if x-number of women are as great/or greater a draw to the event then y-number of men, then how do you shake out the money, but to pay them all, equally?

The structure as it is isn't going to change anytime soon, and specifically because there are female players who are big draws. I say keep your eye on the WTA, where it IS about how much the women draw viewership and sponsorship.

 

[jhar26]

I wonder if they uncoupled the women from the men (pun intended) at the slams, would the women's game be as successful? I've never seen evidence that it's as popular as the guys. Even on forums, there's usually a heavy outweigh in traffic chatting about the men's game compared to the women...

I doubt it, although I think it would do better than expected if both would continue to get the same amount of television coverage and attention from the media as they do now. But let's face it, the only sports where the womens side of it can be more popular than the mens side are the mostly artistic ones like Gymnastics and Figure Skating. But for me it's a non-issue really. Mens tennis is doing great. So what difference does it make to fans of mens tennis that womens tennis is doing great as well? To me it always sounds so petty when they start whining with their "the women this, the women that." What's the problem? Those that don't like womens tennis shouldn't watch it. Simple. Just like they don't have to watch cricket if they don't like it. But instead they always sound as though Bob Dylan has just pissed on their tongues.

Good point about the forums, although it's all relative. There's much more traffic on TF than MTF. True, those forums are all about bitching and trolling. But if they wouldn't like it they would find something else to bitch about.

 

[Ricardo]

I wonder if they uncoupled the women from the men (pun intended) at the slams, would the women's game be as successful? I've never seen evidence that it's as popular as the guys. Even on forums, there's usually a heavy outweigh in traffic chatting about the men's game compared to the women...

It's a fair question, and could be a fair experiment, if it happened. I also recently heard the argument that if women want more attention paid to women's sports, they have to watch and support them. Bottom-line is that men care more about sports, overall, then women do, and so they watch and support them, and they like to see themselves reflected in the players, i.e., men.

However, tennis was the first sport to create super-stars amongst the women, and that actually goes back a long time. (Suzanne Langlen, Althea Gibson, Margaret Court, to name a few.) And some of the female super-stars in the current game are head-and-shoulders above even most of the top 10 guys, in terms of draw. (Crowd, tv-audience and sponsorship.)

I wouldn't put too much weight on forum traffic. Most people who post to sports boards are men. (Same problem I stated above, I guess. And, while most of you blokes are reasonable, just look at the slagging-off I got from some for simply posing the question that was posed by Tignor in his blog. OK, in fairness, I said it would be controversial, and I was expecting heat.)

Anyway, Kieran, what would it serve if women's tennis were totally separated from men's? To prove that men are better tennis players than women? Is that what you want? Or should we allow those organizers and sponsors to combine the star-benefit of the best players of both genders, in the way they seem to see fit? (Which they're going to do, anyway.) And if x-number of women are as great/or greater a draw to the event then y-number of men, then how do you shake out the money, but to pay them all, equally?

The structure as it is isn't going to change anytime soon, and specifically because there are female players who are big draws. I say keep your eye on the WTA, where it IS about how much the women draw viewership and sponsorship.

what a shameless thing to say, you want women to go against human nature and watch women play just because they are women? guess what, if women play the highest level then people all over would watch them.... no concession needed. Can't believe that even in sports, where things should be fair and square, someone would resort to political ideals and distort what happens naturally.

what would it serve if women's tennis is separated from mens'? i don't actually care if it proves men are better tennis players, it is what it is. But it would give tennis fans the choice that they can choose to watch the best level tennis, instead having to accept the compromise that they wait for women's matches in between. Don't even try and tell us that fans get the best of both worlds with such scheduling, people can decide what's best for them..... not the nonsense pushed onto them.

now cut the crap that men are more into sports so they follow more ATP. the bottom line is and has always been that, people want to see the highest level in any sport - it's simply human nature. What feminists is denying and distorting with human nature, and want to 'encourage' us to watch lower level tennis... totally agenda driven and nothing else.

fact is if women are the best tennis players instead of men, they'd be the ones winning ATP titles, take the prize money, and get viewership. There would be no need to artificically promote a certain group and make up such artificial female 'super stars'. Fact is, these female super stars given their natural ability would only be competing in satellite tours and even there they'd struggle to win sets. They are only 'super stars' because people artificially build them that way, making concessions for them (separating tour from men, yet combine their events with mens, request equal prize money, using 'women help women' agenda'... etc etc). If nothing is distorted and we allow natural competition to take its course, none of that fake 'super stars' would even exist. I would not be upset one bit if some girl would come up to beat the Federer's, Djoker's, Nadal's and take their titles away, in fact it would only earn respect from fans..... but as is, they haven't earned anything and have relied on concessions from the very start. Of course feminist would never admit the facts, they have no conscience and sense of justice as shown.

 

[Kieran]

It's a fair question, and could be a fair experiment, if it happened. I also recently heard the argument that if women want more attention paid to women's sports, they have to watch and support them. Bottom-line is that men care more about sports, overall, then women do, and so they watch and support them, and they like to see themselves reflected in the players, i.e., men.

I think it's actually because we prefer the product: more competitive and higher level of skill and drama. Otherwise, I'd much rather watch girls in short skirts.

However, tennis was the first sport to create super-stars amongst the women, and that actually goes back a long time. (Suzanne Langlen, Althea Gibson, Margaret Court, to name a few.) And some of the female super-stars in the current game are head-and-shoulders above even most of the top 10 guys, in terms of draw. (Crowd, tv-audience and sponsorship.)

Well this is true: Serena is more popular than Ferrer. But do people prefer to watch the women? Uncouple them and give it five years. I'd still want to watch Ferrer v Tsonga sooner than I'd watch the mismatches women's tennis has traditionally been.

I wouldn't put too much weight on forum traffic. Most people who post to sports boards are men.

Men get more involved, this is why. They treat sports with passion.

Anyway, Kieran, what would it serve if women's tennis were totally separated from men's? To prove that men are better tennis players than women?

No, because I know that men are better players. That's not an issue. I also know that men's tennis is far more competitive and interesting. The point I'm making is, would women's tennis be as popular in ten years if they didn't get to play majors alongside the men? How would their tour evolve? We know the viewing figures for men's tennis are already bigger, but what effect would totally separate tours have?

Take away the PC stuff that requires equal pay (or unequal, since the women's game is so easy, they get paid for doubles too) and let the tours go it alone.

By the way, I wouldn't want this myself, but I'm saying that in the argument for equal pay, the women don't generate equal numbers of viewers, supporters or even forum posts - that trickle-down indicator of what fans like and talk about. If equal pay was based upon bums on seats, then the women would need to hand in a refund...