Dueling genders

[Ricardo]

There seems to be some blurriness here between equal rights and actually being equal. Totally different things. With regards to sporting prowess, the top males in the vast majority of sports are superior to their female counterparts. It might not be PC but it's a fact of life.

I don't understand why some refuse to admit that superior players SHOULD get better viewership and prize-money; it's only natural this way, but of course people can tweak in such a way to make it 'equal', which is inequality itself.

Of course the easiest way to achieve that fake equality is by putting better players and inferior players under one roof, forcing people to watch them all. If 8000 fans showed up, then they can claim that 8000 people watched BOTH male and female players - which means they should get equal pay.... and that's just for starters

Unfortunate a lot of people buy into this kind of manipulated equality and would go along with PC just fine.... thinking they are 'modern' people.

For me it depends on the consumer, and it's not always based on superior athleticism. For instance, some darts players might earn more than some heptathletes because the consumer dictates.

Also, I would rather watch a match between Graf & Seles (for instance) in their prime than Ferrer v Berdych, despite the level - largely based on the rivalry and everything that went with it. I reckon the first match would generate higher viewing figures and consumer demand than the second.

If you look at market forces, then Sharapova probably has higher endorsements than Djokovic (that was the case, it might be different now).

So, I don't think it's as black and white as a lot of people think, but also agree that women shouldn't receive the same as men for "equality" reasons - it should be market forces dictating 100%.

Well put. I don't know why some people keep trying to equate superior strength and athleticism with superior quality. I agree 100% on watching the Graf/Seles match over Ferrer/Berdych. It doesn't matter that the men are stronger. It's what's more interesting, and, as you point out, the pay should reflect that.

Serena Williams and Maria Sharapova are great examples. Lots of people would pay more -- significantly more, probably -- to see them play, than to see a large percentage of the men. But could either of them beat, say, Ferrer? No. But should Ferrer be paid more because he's stronger? No.

Now, where do I sign up for those darts lessons?

But, but superior strength and athleticism are SIGNIFICANT part of superior quality..... take the athleticism away from Federer, Nadal and Djoker and what are they left with? that's an important factor of what makes them better than the rest, along with their tennis talent.

Now Mac, Lendl, Connors still have a lot of skills, mental toughness; they are forced out of competition simply because they lost athleticism.... which is what makes some athletes superior to others. You just have no ideas do you?

Williams and Sharapova are great examples of manufactured stars who are the results of concessions given to them. If they were to play in open competition, they'd be nobodies - and who would watch nobodies? it's clear that the concessions given to them are what allowed them to be tennis stars in the first place. Make no mistake, they are incapable of world class level of tennis - they are merely champions of a protected group, a group that doesn't allow to best players to compete in.

Again, since when is superior strength/athleticism not superior quality? can't help to chuckle when someone resorts to twist the very definition of what makes an athlete superior, just for the sake of arguing in favor of female players. One really needs to throw conscience and knowledge into a bin to say such things.

 

[Moxie]

There seems to be some blurriness here between equal rights and actually being equal. Totally different things. With regards to sporting prowess, the top males in the vast majority of sports are superior to their female counterparts. It might not be PC but it's a fact of life.

I don't understand why some refuse to admit that superior players SHOULD get better viewership and prize-money; it's only natural this way, but of course people can tweak in such a way to make it 'equal', which is inequality itself.

Of course the easiest way to achieve that fake equality is by putting better players and inferior players under one roof, forcing people to watch them all. If 8000 fans showed up, then they can claim that 8000 people watched BOTH male and female players - which means they should get equal pay.... and that's just for starters

Unfortunate a lot of people buy into this kind of manipulated equality and would go along with PC just fine.... thinking they are 'modern' people.

For me it depends on the consumer, and it's not always based on superior athleticism. For instance, some darts players might earn more than some heptathletes because the consumer dictates.

Also, I would rather watch a match between Graf & Seles (for instance) in their prime than Ferrer v Berdych, despite the level - largely based on the rivalry and everything that went with it. I reckon the first match would generate higher viewing figures and consumer demand than the second.

If you look at market forces, then Sharapova probably has higher endorsements than Djokovic (that was the case, it might be different now).

So, I don't think it's as black and white as a lot of people think, but also agree that women shouldn't receive the same as men for "equality" reasons - it should be market forces dictating 100%.

Well put. I don't know why some people keep trying to equate superior strength and athleticism with superior quality. I agree 100% on watching the Graf/Seles match over Ferrer/Berdych. It doesn't matter that the men are stronger. It's what's more interesting, and, as you point out, the pay should reflect that.

Serena Williams and Maria Sharapova are great examples. Lots of people would pay more -- significantly more, probably -- to see them play, than to see a large percentage of the men. But could either of them beat, say, Ferrer? No. But should Ferrer be paid more because he's stronger? No.

Now, where do I sign up for those darts lessons?

But, but superior strength and athleticism are SIGNIFICANT part of superior quality..... take the athleticism away from Federer, Nadal and Djoker and what are they left with? that's an important factor of what makes them better than the rest, along with their tennis talent.

Now Mac, Lendl, Connors still have a lot of skills, mental toughness; they are forced out of competition simply because they lost athleticism.... which is what makes some athletes superior to others. You just have no ideas do you?

Williams and Sharapova are great examples of manufactured stars who are the results of concessions given to them. If they were to play in open competition, they'd be nobodies - and who would watch nobodies? it's clear that the concessions given to them are what allowed them to be tennis stars in the first place. Make no mistake, they are incapable of world class level of tennis - they are merely champions of a protected group, a group that doesn't allow to best players to compete in.

Again, since when is superior strength/athleticism not superior quality? can't help to chuckle when someone resorts to twist the very definition of what makes an athlete superior, just for the sake of arguing in favor of female players. One really needs to throw conscience and knowledge into a bin to say such things.

You miss the point, again, Ricardo. It's not superior strength, but superior marketability that rules the day. The women don't play against the men, they play against each other. And their star-power has nothing to do with how they might match up in a fantasy world vs. men. Women's tennis has the highest exposure of all of women's sports, worldwide, and it has long-created super-stars.

I don't know what you mean that Serena and Maria are "manufactured stars." They have real tennis chops, and sponsors have decided that they are bankable, because they have a huge fan-base. What part of that would you call "manufactured?"

 

[Ricardo]

I don't understand why some refuse to admit that superior players SHOULD get better viewership and prize-money; it's only natural this way, but of course people can tweak in such a way to make it 'equal', which is inequality itself.

Of course the easiest way to achieve that fake equality is by putting better players and inferior players under one roof, forcing people to watch them all. If 8000 fans showed up, then they can claim that 8000 people watched BOTH male and female players - which means they should get equal pay.... and that's just for starters

Unfortunate a lot of people buy into this kind of manipulated equality and would go along with PC just fine.... thinking they are 'modern' people.

For me it depends on the consumer, and it's not always based on superior athleticism. For instance, some darts players might earn more than some heptathletes because the consumer dictates.

Also, I would rather watch a match between Graf & Seles (for instance) in their prime than Ferrer v Berdych, despite the level - largely based on the rivalry and everything that went with it. I reckon the first match would generate higher viewing figures and consumer demand than the second.

If you look at market forces, then Sharapova probably has higher endorsements than Djokovic (that was the case, it might be different now).

So, I don't think it's as black and white as a lot of people think, but also agree that women shouldn't receive the same as men for "equality" reasons - it should be market forces dictating 100%.

Well put. I don't know why some people keep trying to equate superior strength and athleticism with superior quality. I agree 100% on watching the Graf/Seles match over Ferrer/Berdych. It doesn't matter that the men are stronger. It's what's more interesting, and, as you point out, the pay should reflect that.

Serena Williams and Maria Sharapova are great examples. Lots of people would pay more -- significantly more, probably -- to see them play, than to see a large percentage of the men. But could either of them beat, say, Ferrer? No. But should Ferrer be paid more because he's stronger? No.

Now, where do I sign up for those darts lessons?

But, but superior strength and athleticism are SIGNIFICANT part of superior quality..... take the athleticism away from Federer, Nadal and Djoker and what are they left with? that's an important factor of what makes them better than the rest, along with their tennis talent.

Now Mac, Lendl, Connors still have a lot of skills, mental toughness; they are forced out of competition simply because they lost athleticism.... which is what makes some athletes superior to others. You just have no ideas do you?

Williams and Sharapova are great examples of manufactured stars who are the results of concessions given to them. If they were to play in open competition, they'd be nobodies - and who would watch nobodies? it's clear that the concessions given to them are what allowed them to be tennis stars in the first place. Make no mistake, they are incapable of world class level of tennis - they are merely champions of a protected group, a group that doesn't allow to best players to compete in.

Again, since when is superior strength/athleticism not superior quality? can't help to chuckle when someone resorts to twist the very definition of what makes an athlete superior, just for the sake of arguing in favor of female players. One really needs to throw conscience and knowledge into a bin to say such things.

You miss the point, again, Ricardo. It's not superior strength, but superior marketability that rules the day. The women don't play against the men, they play against each other. And their star-power has nothing to do with how they might match up in a fantasy world vs. men. Women's tennis has the highest exposure of all of women's sports, worldwide, and it has long-created super-stars.

I don't know what you mean that Serena and Maria are "manufactured stars." They have real tennis chops, and sponsors have decided that they are bankable, because they have a huge fan-base. What part of that would you call "manufactured?"

I think i've explained clearly many times, if you keep 'not understanding' then there is nothing i can say. One more time i try... Serena and Maria play in a league (WTA) where they don't allow the best players to compete, you pit these players against each other and you will get some 'champions' out of them - thus 'stars of that group'. Now that's perfectly fine, but when you combine that protected environment with a lot of concessions - like combine their playing schedule into mens events, and spread that equally.... it creates a delusion that they are equal counter parts of the best league (ATP), so the less-than-bright people will buy into that and think they are watching another group of world class tennis players... but of course they are not. With such combination, they charge/share the same ticket prices and even though many people still know ATP still provides the best level tennis. This in fact results in ATP effectively subsidize the WTA players, and WTA players don't know/admit such concession and actually behave like they really 'made it' - forgetting that it's the protected environment and combining with the real best players that gave them all that benefit and fame. This is how their marketability is based on.

If the events are really open to all tennis players (without consideration to gender, age, nationality), you know these WTA players would stand no chance and would never become 'stars'...... who wants to watch them struggling to win games in qualifying rounds? it's the countless actions of concession that make their stardom possible, so they are 'manufactured'.

I know that for people like you (with your agenda), this would never be admitted as it's unfavorable from a feminist's perspective. In a screwed up society like the current one, one should promote anything female-related and facts ain't important anymore..... as long as it benefits you, you just take the cake and eat it too.

 

[Calvy]

I don't understand why some refuse to admit that superior players SHOULD get better viewership and prize-money; it's only natural this way, but of course people can tweak in such a way to make it 'equal', which is inequality itself.

Of course the easiest way to achieve that fake equality is by putting better players and inferior players under one roof, forcing people to watch them all. If 8000 fans showed up, then they can claim that 8000 people watched BOTH male and female players - which means they should get equal pay.... and that's just for starters

Unfortunate a lot of people buy into this kind of manipulated equality and would go along with PC just fine.... thinking they are 'modern' people.

For me it depends on the consumer, and it's not always based on superior athleticism. For instance, some darts players might earn more than some heptathletes because the consumer dictates.

Also, I would rather watch a match between Graf & Seles (for instance) in their prime than Ferrer v Berdych, despite the level - largely based on the rivalry and everything that went with it. I reckon the first match would generate higher viewing figures and consumer demand than the second.

If you look at market forces, then Sharapova probably has higher endorsements than Djokovic (that was the case, it might be different now).

So, I don't think it's as black and white as a lot of people think, but also agree that women shouldn't receive the same as men for "equality" reasons - it should be market forces dictating 100%.

Well put. I don't know why some people keep trying to equate superior strength and athleticism with superior quality. I agree 100% on watching the Graf/Seles match over Ferrer/Berdych. It doesn't matter that the men are stronger. It's what's more interesting, and, as you point out, the pay should reflect that.

Serena Williams and Maria Sharapova are great examples. Lots of people would pay more -- significantly more, probably -- to see them play, than to see a large percentage of the men. But could either of them beat, say, Ferrer? No. But should Ferrer be paid more because he's stronger? No.

Now, where do I sign up for those darts lessons?

But, but superior strength and athleticism are SIGNIFICANT part of superior quality..... take the athleticism away from Federer, Nadal and Djoker and what are they left with? that's an important factor of what makes them better than the rest, along with their tennis talent.

Now Mac, Lendl, Connors still have a lot of skills, mental toughness; they are forced out of competition simply because they lost athleticism.... which is what makes some athletes superior to others. You just have no ideas do you?

Williams and Sharapova are great examples of manufactured stars who are the results of concessions given to them. If they were to play in open competition, they'd be nobodies - and who would watch nobodies? it's clear that the concessions given to them are what allowed them to be tennis stars in the first place. Make no mistake, they are incapable of world class level of tennis - they are merely champions of a protected group, a group that doesn't allow to best players to compete in.

Again, since when is superior strength/athleticism not superior quality? can't help to chuckle when someone resorts to twist the very definition of what makes an athlete superior, just for the sake of arguing in favor of female players. One really needs to throw conscience and knowledge into a bin to say such things.

You miss the point, again, Ricardo. It's not superior strength, but superior marketability that rules the day. The women don't play against the men, they play against each other. And their star-power has nothing to do with how they might match up in a fantasy world vs. men. Women's tennis has the highest exposure of all of women's sports, worldwide, and it has long-created super-stars.

I don't know what you mean that Serena and Maria are "manufactured stars." They have real tennis chops, and sponsors have decided that they are bankable, because they have a huge fan-base. What part of that would you call "manufactured?"

Exactly! Pay is not based on "equality" it's based on MONEY. Serena for instance, in the United States generates on average higher ratings of television viewership than the men do, regardless what man plays. Example would be the US Open final ratings for the women and men's finals. The womens final generated a higher number of viewer, by a few million.

Well, sponsors pay more money to television networks and the respective tours based on higher viewership.

In women's figure skating during the Olympics, women's skating BLOWS the men's skating event away in viewership, heck, it's the most watched event in ANY Olympics. Because the men jump higher, faster, and attempt most difficult jumps, does that mean their gold medal should be bigger and grander and endorsement larger? No, because the women bring in the bucks.

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

Ricardo - do you happen to like Boxing? if so, how do you feel about all but the heavy weight classes? weight classes are clearly concessions that allow athletes to compete for world championship titles even though there are a lot of others in their sport against whom they would not stand a chance. yet people do enjoy watching those athletes and praise their accomplishments too, right?

how about Sugar Ray Robinson? a "manufactured star"? noone in their right mind would ever even think about calling him GOAT, right?

oh wait, no. Ali himself called Sugar Ray the GOAT. people call Sugar Ray one of the greatest of ALL sports, not even just his - in which at any point in time, there was probably a whole bunch of people who could've knocked him out rather easily.

 

[Ricardo]

For me it depends on the consumer, and it's not always based on superior athleticism. For instance, some darts players might earn more than some heptathletes because the consumer dictates.

Also, I would rather watch a match between Graf & Seles (for instance) in their prime than Ferrer v Berdych, despite the level - largely based on the rivalry and everything that went with it. I reckon the first match would generate higher viewing figures and consumer demand than the second.

If you look at market forces, then Sharapova probably has higher endorsements than Djokovic (that was the case, it might be different now).

So, I don't think it's as black and white as a lot of people think, but also agree that women shouldn't receive the same as men for "equality" reasons - it should be market forces dictating 100%.

Well put. I don't know why some people keep trying to equate superior strength and athleticism with superior quality. I agree 100% on watching the Graf/Seles match over Ferrer/Berdych. It doesn't matter that the men are stronger. It's what's more interesting, and, as you point out, the pay should reflect that.

Serena Williams and Maria Sharapova are great examples. Lots of people would pay more -- significantly more, probably -- to see them play, than to see a large percentage of the men. But could either of them beat, say, Ferrer? No. But should Ferrer be paid more because he's stronger? No.

Now, where do I sign up for those darts lessons?

But, but superior strength and athleticism are SIGNIFICANT part of superior quality..... take the athleticism away from Federer, Nadal and Djoker and what are they left with? that's an important factor of what makes them better than the rest, along with their tennis talent.

Now Mac, Lendl, Connors still have a lot of skills, mental toughness; they are forced out of competition simply because they lost athleticism.... which is what makes some athletes superior to others. You just have no ideas do you?

Williams and Sharapova are great examples of manufactured stars who are the results of concessions given to them. If they were to play in open competition, they'd be nobodies - and who would watch nobodies? it's clear that the concessions given to them are what allowed them to be tennis stars in the first place. Make no mistake, they are incapable of world class level of tennis - they are merely champions of a protected group, a group that doesn't allow to best players to compete in.

Again, since when is superior strength/athleticism not superior quality? can't help to chuckle when someone resorts to twist the very definition of what makes an athlete superior, just for the sake of arguing in favor of female players. One really needs to throw conscience and knowledge into a bin to say such things.

You miss the point, again, Ricardo. It's not superior strength, but superior marketability that rules the day. The women don't play against the men, they play against each other. And their star-power has nothing to do with how they might match up in a fantasy world vs. men. Women's tennis has the highest exposure of all of women's sports, worldwide, and it has long-created super-stars.

I don't know what you mean that Serena and Maria are "manufactured stars." They have real tennis chops, and sponsors have decided that they are bankable, because they have a huge fan-base. What part of that would you call "manufactured?"

Exactly! Pay is not based on "equality" it's based on MONEY. Serena for instance, in the United States generates on average higher ratings of television viewership than the men do, regardless what man plays. Example would be the US Open final ratings for the women and men's finals. The womens final generated a higher number of viewer, by a few million.

Well, sponsors pay more money to television networks and the respective tours based on higher viewership.

In women's figure skating during the Olympics, women's skating BLOWS the men's skating event away in viewership, heck, it's the most watched event in ANY Olympics. Because the men jump higher, faster, and attempt most difficult jumps, does that mean their gold medal should be bigger and grander and endorsement larger? No, because the women bring in the bucks.

Sure if i was American i'd also watch the donkeys race if they are American, rather than watching the European thoroughbreds. This is beside the point though, given the target audience you chose. However i don't for a second believe that women's tennis have more viewership than mens, where did you dig that from?

Now, i am not a fan of skating and would rather stick to tennis. Yet the fact that men are practically better skaters yet get much worse ratings than women? you know as well as i do, the beauty of women's curves ALWAYS brings the bucks, just a fact of life - it has nothing to do with skating itself, people just love the visual sensation of watching female curves at work. The most obvious illustration is modelling, people want to see females than males, who cares who does better catwalk?

---

Ricardo - do you happen to like Boxing? if so, how do you feel about all but the heavy weight classes? weight classes are clearly concessions that allow athletes to compete for world championship titles even though there are a lot of others in their sport against whom they would not stand a chance. yet people do enjoy watching those athletes and praise their accomplishments too, right?

how about Sugar Ray Robinson? a "manufactured star"? noone in their right mind would ever even think about calling him GOAT, right?

oh wait, no. Ali himself called Sugar Ray the GOAT. people call Sugar Ray one of the greatest of ALL sports, not even just his - in which at any point in time, there was probably a whole bunch of people who could've knocked him out rather easily.

You know tennis is very different to boxing, there is no weight division. It's a different type of concession altogether, however for the sake of argument, i believe people actually have such high opinion of Sugar Ray because they see his skills at display and believe his skills are superior to others regardless of weight divisions - pretty sure that's what Ali based his statement on.

If you use that example to argue how i rate female players, think again. Female players are simply not as good tennis players, it doesn't even need one-on-one match against men to prove - they not only lack in strength (the only thing Sugar Ray would've needed compared to heavyweights), they lack in so many other athletic aspects that they don't even come close, period. Have you played competitive matches against women? like USTA or college level? don't you notice their natural limitations compared to men in general?

 

[Calvy]

It's easy to find the ratings of the men and women viewership. Check Nielsen rating for Wimbledon and US Open, as well as the Olympics finals.

As far as skating, I didn't ask if you like skating, that was not the issue. I was using it for comparison sake....shessh!

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

Ricardo - do you happen to like Boxing? if so, how do you feel about all but the heavy weight classes? weight classes are clearly concessions that allow athletes to compete for world championship titles even though there are a lot of others in their sport against whom they would not stand a chance. yet people do enjoy watching those athletes and praise their accomplishments too, right?

how about Sugar Ray Robinson? a "manufactured star"? noone in their right mind would ever even think about calling him GOAT, right?

oh wait, no. Ali himself called Sugar Ray the GOAT. people call Sugar Ray one of the greatest of ALL sports, not even just his - in which at any point in time, there was probably a whole bunch of people who could've knocked him out rather easily.

You know tennis is very different to boxing, there is no weight division. It's a different type of concession altogether, however for the sake of argument, i believe people actually have such high opinion of Sugar Ray because they see his skills at display and believe his skills are superior to others regardless of weight divisions - pretty sure that's what Ali based his statement on.

If you use that example to argue how i rate female players, think again. Female players are simply not as good tennis players, it doesn't even need one-on-one match against men to prove - they not only lack in strength (the only thing Sugar Ray would've needed compared to heavyweights), they lack in so many other athletic aspects that they don't even come close, period. Have you played competitive matches against women? like USTA or college level? don't you notice their natural limitations compared to men in general?

yeah, i recall last time i played Serena and had her on the ropes after five minutes even though i was playing with my left hand.


...


alright, i'm out.

 

[Ricardo]

It's easy to find the ratings of the men and women viewership. Check Nielsen rating for Wimbledon and US Open, as well as the Olympics finals.

As far as skating, I didn't ask if you like skating, that was not the issue. I was using it for comparison sake....shessh!

It's nothing to do what i like, it's all to do with how things turn out in other sports - better skaters don't get paid according, the ones who get the money and glory are the curvy ones want to deny that too? in tennis, the curvy ones don't even get that but they get subsidized from the men, simple. BTW, i don't get from Nelson website how women have better rating at Wimbledon, US and Olympics, as you claimed. Wanna show how you get that?

---

Ricardo - do you happen to like Boxing? if so, how do you feel about all but the heavy weight classes? weight classes are clearly concessions that allow athletes to compete for world championship titles even though there are a lot of others in their sport against whom they would not stand a chance. yet people do enjoy watching those athletes and praise their accomplishments too, right?

how about Sugar Ray Robinson? a "manufactured star"? noone in their right mind would ever even think about calling him GOAT, right?

oh wait, no. Ali himself called Sugar Ray the GOAT. people call Sugar Ray one of the greatest of ALL sports, not even just his - in which at any point in time, there was probably a whole bunch of people who could've knocked him out rather easily.

You know tennis is very different to boxing, there is no weight division. It's a different type of concession altogether, however for the sake of argument, i believe people actually have such high opinion of Sugar Ray because they see his skills at display and believe his skills are superior to others regardless of weight divisions - pretty sure that's what Ali based his statement on.

If you use that example to argue how i rate female players, think again. Female players are simply not as good tennis players, it doesn't even need one-on-one match against men to prove - they not only lack in strength (the only thing Sugar Ray would've needed compared to heavyweights), they lack in so many other athletic aspects that they don't even come close, period. Have you played competitive matches against women? like USTA or college level? don't you notice their natural limitations compared to men in general?

yeah, i recall last time i played Serena and had her on the ropes after five minutes even though i was playing with my left hand.


...


alright, i'm out.

alright, compare apple to apple female players are simply no good. Club-level male vs female? male wins. Satellite male vs female, male wins. Professional level male vs female? males wins. In that case how did the females come to get the same money and glory? in a sport which men invented, popularised and excelled in (compare to women)?

btw do you not agree with my view about how Sugar Ray is so highly regarded? and that's got nothing to do with how a WTA would be regarded?

 

[huntingyou]

Everybody taking turns at Ricardo; I see ricky it's saying something that stings a little.

In the maria/grigor thread; I took to task the topic at hand..........but normally when I take time to do that the counter argument banishes with no reply whatsoever; unless it's a concession.

Maybe, ricardo's words are getting a little bit lost in translation so to speak; but make no mistake about it....he is 100% right. The title of this thread enticed his response, and he responded accordingly.

I mean, if you want to be real about.......college level male players display higher levels of tennis skills than your average WTA.

Why people watch NBA but care less about WNBA? Take the WTA apart from the ATP umbrella.......you will see those salaries collapse QUICKLY.

 

[Moxie]

Everybody taking turns at Ricardo; I see ricky it's saying something that stings a little.

In the maria/grigor thread; I took to task the topic at hand..........but normally when I take time to do that the counter argument banishes with no reply whatsoever; unless it's a concession.

Maybe, ricardo's words are getting a little bit lost in translation so to speak; but make no mistake about it....he is 100% right. The title of this thread enticed his response, and he responded accordingly.

I mean, if you want to be real about.......college level male players display higher levels of tennis skills than your average WTA.

Why people watch NBA but care less about WNBA? Take the WTA apart from the ATP umbrella.......you will see those salaries collapse QUICKLY.

Probably because you say it nicer, HY.

We keep going around in circles about a couple of things on this issue:

1) Are men better than women at most sports? The answer is yes, but the fine point is that most sports are designed to play to men's strengths. (Power, upper-body strength, jumping ability, etc.) In the sports and activities where women's strengths feature, they can even shine. Where women excel is in flexibility, and endurance. Therefore, they are the stars in figure skating, gymnastics, and (I know it's an art, not a sport, but it IS physical,) ballet, and dance in general. And women have beaten men, overall, in ultra-marathoning.

2) The other question is do they deserve the same money. I know a lot of you guys keep saying that if you separated the women's game from the men's, the money would go down. However, I don't believe the money-men, (and I believe they are mostly men,) are feminists, and just giving it out from a spirit of political correctness. These are business decisions, and they find the women are a money-draw. They're putting their money where they believe their money-return is. Who are you lot to say they're wrong? Tennis is the first sport to have female super-stars, and this goes back to the 50s. Golf is probably the other.

And not to mention that women's soccer in the US is so much better than the men's. I think you guys get all twisted up that some women might be good athletes. Men and women don't generally play each other, so that's not the issue. But women's athletics deserves a bit of respect, wouldn't you say? I think some of you guys should not be so macho that you can't recognize that there are legitimate sports stars who are women.

 

[Kieran]

Good post, Moxie, but I disagree on one thing. While the money men are usually men, they're also wise to the politics of the market. Women agitated for equal prize money and I believe they get it more because it's bad business to be considered a chauvinistic dinosaur. If the market alone decided, I'm not sure the figures stack up for women.

Also, some people are missing the point. Men play men's tennis. Women play women's tennis. They're two different events. Nobody is confused about this. Women are far better at being women than men. Appreciate the difference!

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

You know tennis is very different to boxing, there is no weight division. It's a different type of concession altogether, however for the sake of argument, i believe people actually have such high opinion of Sugar Ray because they see his skills at display and believe his skills are superior to others regardless of weight divisions - pretty sure that's what Ali based his statement on.

btw do you not agree with my view about how Sugar Ray is so highly regarded? and that's got nothing to do with how a WTA would be regarded?

i do agree that the high opinion of Sugar Ray is due to the skills on display, and i do thing that has a lot to do with how a WTA player can/should be regarded. the 'lesser' weight class that Ray fought in put so many other aspects of his talent and skill on display, things that would be lost in the high-octane world of heavyweights; which explains why some people in general would prefer the lower weight classes.

and i do think it's got something to do with WTA efforts and achievements as well. for a number of reasons, the required and showcased skill sets aren't quite the same - making for a different set of conditions, and thereby showcasing different aspects of the game of tennis. for example, i love watching A. Radwanska's style of tennis; it's something that would be pretty much impossible to see on the men's side.


one thing regarding the holy "market" issue: i think Kieran is right in pointin out that part of equal money is because it's bad, marketing-wise, to be a chauvinist - which shows, though, that it IS a market decision after all. market value is not only decided by shot-by-shot entertainment, but by so many other factors (which is why Fed is still top earner, eg). on top of that, as i've said before, the ominous "if the tours split" argument - yes, that might hurt the women, but i'd bet you it hurt the men almost equally; again, just think of the freaking US market after Sampras/Agassi. or Russia. or China, for pete's sake! women's tennis in the last 5-10 years has probably done more in each of those markets than the men's side.

 

[tented]

Good post, Moxie, but I disagree on one thing. While the money men are usually men, they're also wise to the politics of the market. Women agitated for equal prize money and I believe they get it more because it's bad business to be considered a chauvinistic dinosaur. If the market alone decided, I'm not sure the figures stack up for women.

It we step back, and approach this situation objectively, then without a doubt if the ATP & WTA were separated, and never played at the same tournaments, the WTA would sink pretty quickly.

Part of this is based simply on more men watching sports in general than women, and the men watch those which involve men. If increased viewership equates to higher ratings, and higher ratings equates to higher revenue generated through ad sales, etc., then the ATP would survive the separation from the WTA, but not vice versa.

That there is a drought of top players in the WTA these days makes it even worse. They have Serena, who's quickly becoming one of the all-time greats, accumulating titles, especially GS's at quite a clip, and then there's ... who? Maria and Azarenka, but they're in a whole different category, even though they're both multiple GS winners. And now with Venus on her way out, Clijsters and Henin retired, the top-tier talent has basically come down to one player. At that point it's hard even for tennis fan to generate much enthusiasm for them.

Also, some people are missing the point. Men play men's tennis. Women play women's tennis. They're two different events. Nobody is confused about this. Women are far better at being women than men. Appreciate the difference!

Exactly, yet some are still obsessed with this notion that women in sport in any capacity is preposterous, because if they went mano a mano with men, they would lose. But that has never been what this argument is about; it's just something a few seem determined to try to make it about.

Even among men, if we're going to go with this notion that superior strength equates to superior everything, then why ever bring guys like Laver, Kramer, and even the '70s superstars like Borg and McEnroe in a GOAT discussion? The current top guys (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray) could easily beat Laver et al. if they were to play today.

So do they immediately get pushed to the top of all-time greats lists because current fitness levels are so much higher than they used to be? If we go with this notion, then Laver (always a candidate for one of the top 2-3 spots in GOAT discussions) wouldn't even make the top 10.

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

Good post, Moxie, but I disagree on one thing. While the money men are usually men, they're also wise to the politics of the market. Women agitated for equal prize money and I believe they get it more because it's bad business to be considered a chauvinistic dinosaur. If the market alone decided, I'm not sure the figures stack up for women.

It we step back, and approach this situation objectively, then without a doubt if the ATP & WTA were separated, and never played at the same tournaments, the WTA would sink pretty quickly.

Part of this is based simply on more men watching sports in general than women, and the men watch those which involve men. If increased viewership equates to higher ratings, and higher ratings equates to higher revenue generated through ad sales, etc., then the ATP would survive the separation from the WTA, but not vice versa.

That there is a drought of top players in the WTA these days makes it even worse. They have Serena, who's quickly becoming one of the all-time greats, accumulating titles, especially GS's at quite a clip, and then there's ... who? Maria and Azarenka, but they're in a whole different category, even though they're both multiple GS winners. And now with Venus on her way out, Clijsters and Henin retired, the top-tier talent has basically come down to one player. At that point it's hard even for tennis fan to generate much enthusiasm for them.

don't you agree though, while 'survival' wouldn't be an issue for the men's side, a seperation nonetheless would have mostly negative results for the ATP as well?

 

[tented]

Good post, Moxie, but I disagree on one thing. While the money men are usually men, they're also wise to the politics of the market. Women agitated for equal prize money and I believe they get it more because it's bad business to be considered a chauvinistic dinosaur. If the market alone decided, I'm not sure the figures stack up for women.

It we step back, and approach this situation objectively, then without a doubt if the ATP & WTA were separated, and never played at the same tournaments, the WTA would sink pretty quickly.

Part of this is based simply on more men watching sports in general than women, and the men watch those which involve men. If increased viewership equates to higher ratings, and higher ratings equates to higher revenue generated through ad sales, etc., then the ATP would survive the separation from the WTA, but not vice versa.

That there is a drought of top players in the WTA these days makes it even worse. They have Serena, who's quickly becoming one of the all-time greats, accumulating titles, especially GS's at quite a clip, and then there's ... who? Maria and Azarenka, but they're in a whole different category, even though they're both multiple GS winners. And now with Venus on her way out, Clijsters and Henin retired, the top-tier talent has basically come down to one player. At that point it's hard even for tennis fan to generate much enthusiasm for them.

don't you agree though, while 'survival' wouldn't be an issue for the men's side, a seperation nonetheless would have mostly negative results for the ATP as well?

I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at here. Could you please elaborate? Thanks!

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

^ i'd tried to elaborate on that part before: i do think that the ATP in part benefits from being joint at the hip with the WTA. for one, a bigger and more diverse field never hurt anyone. there's a lot of star potential in the WTA players, with the likes of Serena and Maria S being real a-list celebrities, that draw attention to the sport in generally. more specifically, in the past decade, female players have been the more prominent and succesful representatives of a number of countries that are very important markets: the US, Russia and, more recently, China. if millions of chinese tune in to see Li Na in action, i reckon that won't hurt the global marketability of Rafa and Novak either.

that is my main point: the joint tours are a win-win, and a separation would be lose-lose (even if the WTA might take the bigger hit).

 

[tented]

^ i'd tried to elaborate on that part before: i do think that the ATP in part benefits from being joint at the hip with the WTA. for one, a bigger and more diverse field never hurt anyone. there's a lot of star potential in the WTA players, with the likes of Serena and Maria S being real a-list celebrities, that draw attention to the sport in generally. more specifically, in the past decade, female players have been the more prominent and succesful representatives of a number of countries that are very important markets: the US, Russia and, more recently, China. if millions of chinese tune in to see Li Na in action, i reckon that won't hurt the global marketability of Rafa and Novak either.

that is my main point: the joint tours are a win-win, and a separation would be lose-lose (even if the WTA might take the bigger hit).

That's an excellent point in terms of some of the women being "the face of tennis" in certain countries. Li Na is probably the best possible example, considering the number of people in China who are probably paying attention to tennis for the first time ever.

Even in the US, with Andy Roddick retired, and the other big champions long gone from active play (Sampras, Agassi, McEnroe, Connor, Evert, etc.), easily the biggest name in tennis is Williams.

When speaking with a friend recently, I came up with a hypothetical situation: You have a line/queue of 100 people at the entrance to the US Open. In order to get in you have to decide whether you want to see one of two matches which will take place simultaneously: Williams/Sharapova or Ferrer/Gasquet. How many of those 100 people would chose the latter? My guess is maybe 15-20, with the rest going to see Williams/Sharapova.

 

[Moxie]

I appreciate all the considered (and non-inflammatory, non-insulting) posts above, in response to my most recent. Here is a link to the 9 Top Earning Female Athletes of last year:

http://www.totalprosports.com/2012/08/15/highest-paid-female-athletes-of-2012/#1

Note that 7 of them are tennis players. And it's not just because of pay-parity in the purses...these money totals include endorsement pay-out. Li Na, whom JS wisely pointed out, is #2. Some 115 million people watched her win the FO, and there are now 15 million tennis players in China, a recent and huge swell attributed basically to her. So, the tournaments might offer equal pay out of a need to appear PC, or at least partially. But there is nothing to force products to endorse players in such large amounts, unless they think they are worth it.

I understand that women's sports has a long way to go to compare to men's, in terms of overall quality and viewership, but our sport has long had superstars, starting with Suzanne Lenglen, one of the overall first stars of the sport. And, as was mentioned, while it's not a fabulous time for the WTA, it is a complete golden age in the men's game. But this situation has not been, and will not always be so.

 

[Ricardo]

Everybody taking turns at Ricardo; I see ricky it's saying something that stings a little.

In the maria/grigor thread; I took to task the topic at hand..........but normally when I take time to do that the counter argument banishes with no reply whatsoever; unless it's a concession.

Maybe, ricardo's words are getting a little bit lost in translation so to speak; but make no mistake about it....he is 100% right. The title of this thread enticed his response, and he responded accordingly.

I mean, if you want to be real about.......college level male players display higher levels of tennis skills than your average WTA.

Why people watch NBA but care less about WNBA? Take the WTA apart from the ATP umbrella.......you will see those salaries collapse QUICKLY.

Probably because you say it nicer, HY.

We keep going around in circles about a couple of things on this issue:

1) Are men better than women at most sports? The answer is yes, but the fine point is that most sports are designed to play to men's strengths. (Power, upper-body strength, jumping ability, etc.) In the sports and activities where women's strengths feature, they can even shine. Where women excel is in flexibility, and endurance. Therefore, they are the stars in figure skating, gymnastics, and (I know it's an art, not a sport, but it IS physical,) ballet, and dance in general. And women have beaten men, overall, in ultra-marathoning.

2) The other question is do they deserve the same money. I know a lot of you guys keep saying that if you separated the women's game from the men's, the money would go down. However, I don't believe the money-men, (and I believe they are mostly men,) are feminists, and just giving it out from a spirit of political correctness. These are business decisions, and they find the women are a money-draw. They're putting their money where they believe their money-return is. Who are you lot to say they're wrong? Tennis is the first sport to have female super-stars, and this goes back to the 50s. Golf is probably the other.

And not to mention that women's soccer in the US is so much better than the men's. I think you guys get all twisted up that some women might be good athletes. Men and women don't generally play each other, so that's not the issue. But women's athletics deserves a bit of respect, wouldn't you say? I think some of you guys should not be so macho that you can't recognize that there are legitimate sports stars who are women.

or maybe women are really not as good athletes in general? why are most sports designed to suit men not women? i think it really simply comes down to, mens' body is designed to have better athletic ability in general, not this and that. The general traits of sports, be it speed, power, agility all favor men by nature, even stamina - i think you really stretched that, because if that was the case women would not play shorter matches in majors. The fact you use ultra marathon as example, is a straw-man's argument. Why would anyone look at a super-minor sport where only dozens of people are even interested to participate? with that sample size you simply have no case in such argument, when we are talking global sports - all major sports have shown otherwise regarding stamina between the two genders. You might as well say Susy next door is taller than your brother, so women are taller than men....