Author Topic: Slams: Should Women Get Equal Prize Money  (Read 2775 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline monstertruck

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 12315
Re: Slams: Should Women Get Equal Prize Money
« Reply #20 on: August 30, 2012, 06:12:13 AM »
Let the woman play five. They can do it.
 
But I don't know if I could stand a couple of screamers for 5 sets. Let it just be best of three and let sleeping dogs be.
Perhaps they could just play best of three TB's and spare us the torture? :rofl_2:
CONK da ball!!!

Offline Start da Game

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 6785
  • Gender: Male
Re: Slams: Should Women Get Equal Prize Money
« Reply #21 on: August 30, 2012, 01:06:31 PM »
i say let them play all or nothing 1 set with 12 games and no tie breaker........we can have some real drama in that format with player A sweeping the first 6 games, player B hitting back in the next 6 and then chaos.......i would love to see sharapova racing to an 8-0 lead and losing the next 10 games with 16 double faults........
Marian Vajda to Novak Djokovic, "I saw you beat that man like I never saw no man get beat before, and the man KEPT COMING AFTER YOU! Now we don't need no man like that in our lives."

i demand french open to be renamed RAFAEL GARROS

Offline Clay Death

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 16589
  • Gender: Male
  • Camelot Elite Tennis Society
    • Camelot Elite Tennis Society
Re: Slams: Should Women Get Equal Prize Money
« Reply #22 on: August 30, 2012, 01:40:49 PM »
great thread.
 
i am enjoying it.

Offline Imsda

  • Tennis Player
  • **
  • Posts: 72
Re: Slams: Should Women Get Equal Prize Money
« Reply #23 on: August 30, 2012, 07:00:52 PM »
I have to agree with you on this. They do less sets and like you said work less for a win

Online Babblelot

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 32686
  • Gender: Male
  • Chicago, IL
Re: Slams: Should Women Get Equal Prize Money
« Reply #24 on: August 30, 2012, 07:45:34 PM »
I can't even defend the women now. Kerber is my favorite player and I was excited to see her, but I could only stay for 6 games because it became painfully clear that I was watching, not tennis, but women's tennis. Pay them whatever, I don't care, just put their crap matches on smaller courts. It's a shame good men's matches are relegated to small, outer courts because women have rankings.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2012, 07:46:24 PM by Babblelot »
1995 USO, 1997 USO, 2004 USO, 2005 RG, 2005 USO, 2006 RG, 2006 USO, 2007 USO, 2008 RG, 2008 USO, 2009 USO, 2010 USO, 2011 USO, 2012 USOhttp://www.gifsoup.com/view4/1856936/2005safin-o.gif
http://www.gifsoup.com/view1/1857331/2004gaudio-o.gif

Offline retro

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 2927
  • Gender: Female
Re: Slams: Should Women Get Equal Prize Money
« Reply #25 on: August 30, 2012, 08:53:47 PM »
suppose men's tennis is reduced to best of 3 sets in slams, will they be able to generate just as much money as now?

This is why women tend to be more intelligent than men. Why play best of 5 when you can play best of 3 and earn the same amount? Besides best of 5 outside of this years US Open is needless since coming back from 2 sets down is a rarity to begin with.  Also, the winner of the first 3 sets of a best of 5 is also more likely to be the winner as well. Playing 5 sets is just dragging out the inevitable. I personally would like see the best of 5 in the final round of a major only.
I lost the will to live mid way through the first set!
 ~*Supernova*~   from wtaworld.com

Victoria Azarenka d. Kaia Kanepi 7-6(5) 6-3
May 7, 2009

Offline Dallas

  • Global Moderator
  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 30589
  • Gender: Female
  • Federer-Wawrinka-Serena-Venus-Victoria
    • http://tennisworld.typepad.com/tennisworld/2007/01/monday_net_post.html#comment-27147061
Re: Slams: Should Women Get Equal Prize Money
« Reply #26 on: August 30, 2012, 09:07:30 PM »
suppose men's tennis is reduced to best of 3 sets in slams, will they be able to generate just as much money as now?

This is why women tend to be more intelligent than men. Why play best of 5 when you can play best of 3 and earn the same amount? Besides best of 5 outside of this years US Open is needless since coming back from 2 sets down is a rarity to begin with.  Also, the winner of the first 3 sets of a best of 5 is also more likely to be the winner as well. Playing 5 sets is just dragging out the inevitable. I personally would like see the best of 5 in the final round of a major only.

Retro...where have you been????

Offline monstertruck

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 12315
Re: Slams: Should Women Get Equal Prize Money
« Reply #27 on: August 31, 2012, 06:06:16 AM »
I can't even defend the women now. Kerber is my favorite player and I was excited to see her, but I could only stay for 6 games because it became painfully clear that I was watching, not tennis, but women's tennis. Pay them whatever, I don't care, just put their crap matches on smaller courts. It's a shame good men's matches are relegated to small, outer courts because women have rankings.
B O O M ! ! !
CONK da ball!!!

Offline monstertruck

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 12315
Re: Slams: Should Women Get Equal Prize Money
« Reply #28 on: August 31, 2012, 06:07:09 AM »
suppose men's tennis is reduced to best of 3 sets in slams, will they be able to generate just as much money as now?

This is why women tend to be more intelligent than men. Why play best of 5 when you can play best of 3 and earn the same amount? Besides best of 5 outside of this years US Open is needless since coming back from 2 sets down is a rarity to begin with.  Also, the winner of the first 3 sets of a best of 5 is also more likely to be the winner as well. Playing 5 sets is just dragging out the inevitable. I personally would like see the best of 5 in the final round of a major only.
This is hilarious because you are right!!! :rofl_2:
CONK da ball!!!

Offline euroka1

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 5910
  • Gender: Male
Re: Slams: Should Women Get Equal Prize Money
« Reply #29 on: August 31, 2012, 06:23:09 AM »
Equal pay for equal work.

Offline propstoart

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 635
  • Gender: Male
  • Fighting Fair
Re: Slams: Should Women Get Equal Prize Money
« Reply #30 on: August 31, 2012, 09:48:08 AM »
Don't know about this equality thing.. Are we men really equal to the fairer sex? The very fact that men are required to play 2 sets more to earn the same amount of money means the organisers believe the men's game is less financially profitable..I know women sell everything in today's world of advertising.. Look at the money Kournikova could made, even though she did not win a singles title on the tour..
Maybe, women's tennis is a better product, regardless of the generally poor quality of play, lack of depth in the women's game..

Offline Clay Death

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 16589
  • Gender: Male
  • Camelot Elite Tennis Society
    • Camelot Elite Tennis Society
Re: Slams: Should Women Get Equal Prize Money
« Reply #31 on: August 31, 2012, 11:19:18 AM »
but we are talking about the "product" here which is tennis.

Offline monstertruck

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 12315
Re: Slams: Should Women Get Equal Prize Money
« Reply #32 on: August 31, 2012, 11:38:16 AM »
but we are talking about the "product" here which is tennis.
Should be.
But if the WTA were comprised of unattractive women only, it would not, could not, be profitable.
CONK da ball!!!

Offline Start da Game

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 6785
  • Gender: Male
Re: Slams: Should Women Get Equal Prize Money
« Reply #33 on: August 31, 2012, 11:58:11 AM »
women argue that irrespective of the work done, they make almost the same profits that men make for ITF through slams.........

no other sport pays both the sexes equally as far as i know.........being a man i understand how much that hits the male ego of a tennis player........

lesser players like simon and tipsarevic straight out lashed at the current prize money system but fedoriva, faker, nadull and mugray being the pamper boys of ITF keep quiet and behave like they support equality.........they get their pay packets alright so there is no need for them to go out of the way.........

but still there would be people like fed with a little more than normal ego.........i am sure he is burning inside that an utter screamer like sharapova screams for 50 minutes in the french slam final and took away the same prize money as he did in the wimbledon final........for somebody as "open" and "honest" like his fans claim, i cannot believe he resisted himself for this long on this issue........i guess if the journalists have him drink a couple of shots of vodka and then take his interview, we might see his real take on this issue........

 
Marian Vajda to Novak Djokovic, "I saw you beat that man like I never saw no man get beat before, and the man KEPT COMING AFTER YOU! Now we don't need no man like that in our lives."

i demand french open to be renamed RAFAEL GARROS

Online Babblelot

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 32686
  • Gender: Male
  • Chicago, IL
Re: Slams: Should Women Get Equal Prize Money
« Reply #34 on: August 31, 2012, 12:41:12 PM »
suppose men's tennis is reduced to best of 3 sets in slams, will they be able to generate just as much money as now?

This is why women tend to be more intelligent than men. Why play best of 5 when you can play best of 3 and earn the same amount? Besides best of 5 outside of this years US Open is needless since coming back from 2 sets down is a rarity to begin with.  Also, the winner of the first 3 sets of a best of 5 is also more likely to be the winner as well. Playing 5 sets is just dragging out the inevitable. I personally would like see the best of 5 in the final round of a major only.

:eek:

Boy, you are WEEEEAK in your return. You really don't watch men's tennis otherwise you'd know that men play 5 sets after trailing 2-1.   :;:-|   

I don't understand why women don't look at men and demand Best of 5. Some of the great champions on tour today :lmao!:  have fallen in 3 sets over the past few years. Best of 5 sets...you've got to believe that champions believe they could get it done in 5.
1995 USO, 1997 USO, 2004 USO, 2005 RG, 2005 USO, 2006 RG, 2006 USO, 2007 USO, 2008 RG, 2008 USO, 2009 USO, 2010 USO, 2011 USO, 2012 USOhttp://www.gifsoup.com/view4/1856936/2005safin-o.gif
http://www.gifsoup.com/view1/1857331/2004gaudio-o.gif

Offline propstoart

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 635
  • Gender: Male
  • Fighting Fair
Re: Slams: Should Women Get Equal Prize Money
« Reply #35 on: August 31, 2012, 12:44:55 PM »
Couple of cats snarling outta my house tonight.. Absolutely frightening... Sharapova and Serena in Azarenka form?? Maybe the visual stimulation (wardrobe dysfunction) & auditory titillation (shrieking) is the major part of contemporary women's tennis..

Offline retro

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 2927
  • Gender: Female
Re: Slams: Should Women Get Equal Prize Money
« Reply #36 on: August 31, 2012, 08:12:14 PM »
suppose men's tennis is reduced to best of 3 sets in slams, will they be able to generate just as much money as now?

This is why women tend to be more intelligent than men. Why play best of 5 when you can play best of 3 and earn the same amount? Besides best of 5 outside of this years US Open is needless since coming back from 2 sets down is a rarity to begin with.  Also, the winner of the first 3 sets of a best of 5 is also more likely to be the winner as well. Playing 5 sets is just dragging out the inevitable. I personally would like see the best of 5 in the final round of a major only.

:eek:

Boy, you are WEEEEAK in your return. You really don't watch men's tennis otherwise you'd know that men play 5 sets after trailing 2-1.   :;:-|   

I don't understand why women don't look at men and demand Best of 5. Some of the great champions on tour today :lmao!:  have fallen in 3 sets over the past few years. Best of 5 sets...you've got to believe that champions believe they could get it done in 5.

Numb nuts.. Statistics show that if you are trailing 2 sets to love or 2 sets to 1, the majority of the time you will lose the match even if the match is pushed to 5 sets. That's why there is so much print regarding guys coming back from 2 sets down at this open.

"Insults you again" If anything the ATP players should be questioning why do they have to play best 5 when they can play best of 3 and earn the same amount now.
I lost the will to live mid way through the first set!
 ~*Supernova*~   from wtaworld.com

Victoria Azarenka d. Kaia Kanepi 7-6(5) 6-3
May 7, 2009

Online Babblelot

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 32686
  • Gender: Male
  • Chicago, IL
Re: Slams: Should Women Get Equal Prize Money
« Reply #37 on: August 31, 2012, 08:27:49 PM »
suppose men's tennis is reduced to best of 3 sets in slams, will they be able to generate just as much money as now?

This is why women tend to be more intelligent than men. Why play best of 5 when you can play best of 3 and earn the same amount? Besides best of 5 outside of this years US Open is needless since coming back from 2 sets down is a rarity to begin with.  Also, the winner of the first 3 sets of a best of 5 is also more likely to be the winner as well. Playing 5 sets is just dragging out the inevitable. I personally would like see the best of 5 in the final round of a major only.

:eek:

Boy, you are WEEEEAK in your return. You really don't watch men's tennis otherwise you'd know that men play 5 sets after trailing 2-1.   :;:-|   

I don't understand why women don't look at men and demand Best of 5. Some of the great champions on tour today :lmao!:  have fallen in 3 sets over the past few years. Best of 5 sets...you've got to believe that champions believe they could get it done in 5.

Numb nuts.. Statistics show that if you are trailing 2 sets to love or 2 sets to 1, the majority of the time you will lose the match even if the match is pushed to 5 sets. That's why there is so much print regarding guys coming back from 2 sets down at this open.

"Insults you again" If anything the ATP players should be questioning why do they have to play best 5 when they can play best of 3 and earn the same amount now.

Show me the stats, clown.

55-45%?
60-40%?

If you knew anything about statistics you'd know how to interpret them...which you don't.

But don't let me discourage you. You're posts are ridiculous!
1995 USO, 1997 USO, 2004 USO, 2005 RG, 2005 USO, 2006 RG, 2006 USO, 2007 USO, 2008 RG, 2008 USO, 2009 USO, 2010 USO, 2011 USO, 2012 USOhttp://www.gifsoup.com/view4/1856936/2005safin-o.gif
http://www.gifsoup.com/view1/1857331/2004gaudio-o.gif

Offline Rafa816

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 702
Re: Slams: Should Women Get Equal Prize Money
« Reply #38 on: September 01, 2012, 01:45:55 AM »
i believe whoever performs better must get better bucks. & i think most will agree that mens tennis is miles ahead of womens tennis..
However, at times it feels sexist when womens get paid less than men inspite of performing better..


rafa816 :  this is a great topic for debate..thanks for opening this up !!!
I have to disagree on one of ur points..where u said :
ook to the record books. The longest women's match ever in a slam took 4 hours and 44 minutes. There have been 11 matches in men's slam history that have taken over 5 hours. As compared to 0 in women's slam history. The longest match in women's slam history, as in longest ever, completely ridiculous, was equivalent to a tiring marathon for a guy's match. But not anywhere near the longest in history.

You completely ignored the fact that the longest match for womens was on a best of 3 sets GS match..while those of men were of best of 5 sets..if u look at longest match for best of 3 sets for mens, there will be only a handful of matches ...


My take : if womens feel they should get equal prize money, they should change their match setup to best of 5 sets..( or at least the semis or finals should be best of 5 sets..)

But i wonder whether anyone would like to watch womens tennis in a best of 5 sets match /???


That was my point, though. Men put in so much more time on average, and yet get the same amount of prize money as women. Basically, they're getting paid less per hour than women. If it was the other way around, and men were getting paid more per hour in this day and age, there would literally be riots.

suppose men's tennis is reduced to best of 3 sets in slams, will they be able to generate just as much money as now?


This is why women tend to be more intelligent than men. Why play best of 5 when you can play best of 3 and earn the same amount? Besides best of 5 outside of this years US Open is needless since coming back from 2 sets down is a rarity to begin with.  Also, the winner of the first 3 sets of a best of 5 is also more likely to be the winner as well. Playing 5 sets is just dragging out the inevitable. I personally would like see the best of 5 in the final round of a major only.


I'd like to see specific stats on that. As in percentages. Plus, even if the guy wins after going up 2 sets to love, it takes out thrill. Look at the 2008 Wimbledon final. Widely considered one of the best matches of all time, but if it was just best 2 of 3, it would've just been a standard straight sets win.

women argue that irrespective of the work done, they make almost the same profits that men make for ITF through slams.........

no other sport pays both the sexes equally as far as i know.........being a man i understand how much that hits the male ego of a tennis player........

lesser players like simon and tipsarevic straight out lashed at the current prize money system but fedoriva, faker, nadull and mugray being the pamper boys of ITF keep quiet and behave like they support equality.........they get their pay packets alright so there is no need for them to go out of the way.........

but still there would be people like fed with a little more than normal ego.........i am sure he is burning inside that an utter screamer like sharapova screams for 50 minutes in the french slam final and took away the same prize money as he did in the wimbledon final........for somebody as "open" and "honest" like his fans claim, i cannot believe he resisted himself for this long on this issue........i guess if the journalists have him drink a couple of shots of vodka and then take his interview, we might see his real take on this issue........

 


Actually, as far as 'faker' as you call him (Djokovic) is concerned, he's been asked about it and says that they don't deserve equal prize money because they aren't working as hard with just best 2 of 3 sets:


Q. You've got the same amount of prize money as the women's event here, but it's configured in different ways. If you were to win, you're actually going to earn less than the women because the distribution is different. Are you happy with the way that the men's prize money is being distributed?
NOVAK DJOKOVIC: I don't want to go too deep about that. There's been a lot of talks about that. Look, I'm not paying attention on the women's tennis. This is something that's not in our hands.
What is in our hands you have to be concerned about, and that is to increase the prize money and really work on some things that we really deserve. I don't think it's fair to have equal prize money, that's for sure.

Tried to find the whole interview, but couldn't.


Anyways, let's look at it from the profit is the same. Is it? I'd like to see a comparison between Men's Final Attendance vs. Women's Final Attendance, since those are the only days where a men's match and women's match are completely separate. Plus, from what I understand, Wimbledon charges more for men's tickets, and always has at least the same attendance, so the profit is higher in men's tennis.

And we can look at men's tennis and women's tennis in a level of competitiveness. Federer has 17 slams, and that is considered RIDICULOUS!!! While on women's tennis, you have Margaret Court with 24, Graff with 22, and Navratilova and Evert with 18 each. And what about the race for number 1? How many men have held the World Number 1 ranking without having a slam title? None. How many women? Let's see, Dinara Safina, Caroline Wozniacki, Jelena Jankovic, etc. Quite a few? As competitive? Certainly not.

So, the only argument left is quality. Is women's tennis a better quality of tennis? The fastest serve in women's tennis ever is 129 mph. There are men that average that much. Forehands in men's tennis are decently often seen 100+ mph. A 70-something mph forehand in women's tennis is considered impressive. What about 1-on-1, woman vs man? There have been 3 'Battle of the Sexes' matches in tennis.

1) Bobby Riggs vs. Margaret Court: Riggs cleaned this up EXTREMELY easily, 6-2 6-1. Despite the fact that Riggs had retired 14 years earlier and was 55 at the time, while Margaret Court was in her prime and was just 31. Fair? Not at all. And yet the man still easily dominated. And even if they were of the same age, Riggs was by far one of the best male tennis players, having only won 3 slam titles (though it's hard to judge at the time by slams with the whole pro vs. amateur stuff going on). While Margaret Court, as shown above, had tons of titles and is widely considered the best women's tennis player of all time.

2) Jimmy Connors vs. Martina Navratilova: Eh, both were washed up at the time and long retired, but still worth pointing out that Connors won 7-5 6-2.

3) Bobby Riggs vs. Billie Jean King: BJK actually won this one 6-4 6-3 6-3. But again, IT IS NECESSARY TO POINT OUT that Riggs was 55 at the time and had been retired for 14 years. BJK was in her prime, though, and was just 30 at the time. So how is this fair?

So, as shown, men's tennis is more profitable, more competitive, and better quality. So, IF ANYTHING, men should be paid the same, IF NOT MORE, for their efforts. Yet, they're paid less for their work? It's ridiculous. Here's an article:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/210746-women-dont-deserve-equal-prize-money-at-wimbledon

Now, remember, this is 2009, so the author is right in questioning who people like Azarenka and Radwanska are. They were still unknowns at the time.

Rafa is the FIRST to qualify for WTF this year! :D

Offline Bazcovic

  • Tennis God
  • ******
  • Posts: 802
  • Gender: Male
Re: Slams: Should Women Get Equal Prize Money
« Reply #39 on: September 01, 2012, 05:43:59 AM »
Let the woman play five. They can do it.
 
But I don't know if I could stand a couple of screamers for 5 sets. Let it just be best of three and let sleeping dogs be.
Perhaps they could just play best of three TB's and spare us the torture? :rofl_2:

Haha  :))

Imagine Sharapova playing a fifth set. Then she isn't just screaming anymore.