Best of 5 at Majors - Women and Men

[Jelenafan]

The women had their WTA YE finals for about 15 years go best of five. I think they were done by 2000. It existed in a sort of vacuum because no other tourney implemented it for the women. Some good matches there , as mentioned I particularly remember the Seles/Sabatini match that went five.

Other than that, in my lifetime there was the Battle of the Sexes, BJK versus Bobby Riggs that was best of five in 1973.

I don’t seem to recall negative feedback to the womens longer format, just that it didn’t lead to anything else so I could see why it was discontinued.

I think the bigger issue is that the trend seems to be against best of five other than the Majors for men. TV scheduling doesn’t love potentially 4+ hour events for most tennis. Isn’t even the revised Davis Cup matches best of three in the group tournament? Which makes me sad because there was some mammoth Davis Cup Ties where the guys just let it all out there for country, Wilander, McEnroe, Becker, etc had epic battles. One time Sampras practically had to be carried off the court.

The men stopped doing best of five in Masters finals years ago. Like the women , their YE champs finals also used to be best of five ( still recall Nalbandian’s 2 set to love comeback to best Federer in 2005 finals) but that got dropped over 10 years ago. Again, there were memorable matches but that format has fallen out of favor even with the ATP.

So yes, I don’t see anyone wanting to add any more best of five, which means it’s difficult for the women to get that format without adjustments to the Majors.

What annoys me is that others, even now, including some of the male players, still trot out that BS that the women play less sets then the men so don’t deserve equal prize money. Well everyone knows the Majors do not want to expand to more best of five matches because of the logistics nightmare so it’s all empty sexist posturing.

 

[Hailz]

I think it should stay the same as it is for the Slams. Women play the best 2 out of 3 and the Men play best 3 out of 5. Play this way the entire tournament for the Men. As for the other tournaments(even the 1000's) the Men can play best 2 out of 3.

 

[Fiero425]

I remember a few matches that went 5 sets were pretty good (Seles vs Sabatini) and Graf vs Huber..I really don't remember that it was something that the fans demanded at the time..I could be wrong..just what I vaguely remember.. sorry

A women's match just going best of 3 can be painful to watch, 5 sets doesn't work for them due to how they play! In the old days, BO5 was brought back because Martina Navratilova was making short work of the other ladies and they wanted to keep her on the court for more than an hour! That's no longer a problem with women's matches going routinely for 2-3 hours w/ BO3! Martina Hingis suffered in her BO5 with Graf, hobbling in the 5th set! I still haven't watched Seles/Sabatini at the '91 Virginia Slims YE Chp.!

 

[Moxie]

I think it should stay the same as it is for the Slams. Women play the best 2 out of 3 and the Men play best 3 out of 5. Play this way the entire tournament for the Men. As for the other tournaments(even the 1000's) the Men can play best 2 out of 3.

As a young woman, it doesn't bother you at all that women are deprived of the kinds of epic matches that men play? The Best of 5 ones are career-defining and also always described as Best of All Time. Plus, they allow for less upset, creating more Greats in terms of the men. Why does the women's tour change hands so often at the top? It is in part due to the fact that Best of 5 favors the top player, in a tournament that gives lots of points, which is, in great part, what keeps the men's top 5-10-20 more stable.

 

[mrzz]

As a young woman, it doesn't bother you at all that women are deprived of the kinds of epic matches that men play? The Best of 5 ones are career-defining and also always described as Best of All Time. Plus, they allow for less upset, creating more Greats in terms of the men. Why does the women's tour change hands so often at the top? It is in part due to the fact that Best of 5 favors the top player, in a tournament that gives lots of points, which is, in great part, what keeps the men's top 5-10-20 more stable.

@Moxie, you have invited in a few other conversations, and, as you figured, I don't feel like joining them.This one irritates me a bit more than the others, so I will jump in.

First of all, the discussion itself is artificial, because it starts from an unnatural place: some people *just want* that women play bo5 for a reason that is *not* coming from a sports point of view.You will reply that you disagree that discussion is unnatural, well, because at the very least some part of you also *just wants* bo5. And, no, we cannot just say that the discussion itself can (or should) be judged from its own merit, because it happens in a context to begin with. Also, just listen to the arguments. They often are not sports related. Again, sports must be seen in context, fine. But again again, in the larger context people will debate and struggle forever, if you want to bring those discussions and confrontations *willingly* into sports, well... bye bye good ol' Olympic Spirit. Count me out of that.

Given all those introductory but nonetheless secondary points, your argument above has merit. In principle, the shorter the match, the larger the randomness of the result. However, at some point, the longer the match, the larger the advantages of the player with superior stamina. For men, bo5 does get into that territory, but not that deep. But that could well be the case for women. It is within the realm of possibilities that superior athletes with far lesser tennis skills would get a big advantage in bo5. It could create *even more* randomness.

And, no, the fact that this not the case for men is irrelevant, not only because men have (on average) more stamina than women, but also because the dynamics of their game is different.

In other words, beware what you wish for.


P.S. People should at least try to be a bit more creative in their quest for equality (or better, for what they think is equality). Why not look for alternatives that would provide not only the "uniqueness" of majors and less randomness as well, while not being just a carbon copy of the men's formula: for example, all sets could not have tie-breaks at 6-6 (only at 9-9, for example). 10-8, 7-9, 9-9 (10x7) sounds like an epic to you?

 

[Moxie]

First of all, the discussion itself is artificial, because it starts from an unnatural place: some people *just want* that women play bo5 for a reason that is *not* coming from a sports point of view.You will reply that you disagree that discussion is unnatural, well, because at the very least some part of you also *just wants* bo5. And, no, we cannot just say that the discussion itself can (or should) be judged from its own merit, because it happens in a context to begin with. Also, just listen to the arguments. They often are not sports related. Again, sports must be seen in context, fine. But again again, in the larger context people will debate and struggle forever, if you want to bring those discussions and confrontations *willingly* into sports, well... bye bye good ol' Olympic Spirit. Count me out of that.

I'm not sure what you're on about here. I don't think anyone claimed that people "just want" women to play Bo5. There is nothing "unnatural" about the conversation. You should read back.

Given all those introductory but nonetheless secondary points, your argument above has merit. In principle, the shorter the match, the larger the randomness of the result. However, at some point, the longer the match, the larger the advantages of the player with superior stamina. For men, bo5 does get into that territory, but not that deep. But that could well be the case for women. It is within the realm of possibilities that superior athletes with far lesser tennis skills would get a big advantage in bo5. It could create *even more* randomness.

If longer matches don't favor better athletes in men's matches, they won't in women's.

And, no, the fact that this not the case for men is irrelevant, not only because men have (on average) more stamina than women, but also because the dynamics of their game is different.

As to your bolded above, that is inaccurate. It is quantifiable via testing that women have greater stamina than men. You can google it yourself, but if you get testy, I'll supply links. I have mentioned over the years that, in endurance contests, women have beaten out men, like ultramarathons. My guess is that women are genetically programmed to withstand childbirth. (Whereas most men can barely stand a hangnail.) My other guess is that it is evolutionary, based on having to endure child-rearing, which women are also primarily responsible for.

In other words, beware what you wish for.

P.S. People should at least try to be a bit more creative in their quest for equality (or better, for what they think is equality). Why not look for alternatives that would provide not only the "uniqueness" of majors and less randomness as well, while not being just a carbon copy of the men's formula: for example, all sets could not have tie-breaks at 6-6 (only at 9-9, for example). 10-8, 7-9, 9-9 (10x7) sounds like an epic to you?

I don't think I have to beware what I would wish for. I'm asking for complete parity in the way they play the Majors. I don't think some rejiggered TB system would make anyone happy. Every time the conversation comes up that women get paid the same for Majors, some git says that they don't play Bo5. There is a solution for that. Let the women play Bo5 at Majors.

 

[Kieran]

I’ve always felt that people asking ‘why women get equal pay at the slams but don’t pay five sets’ is the wrong question. Women get equal pay at the slams “because politics.” They’ve had a fairly useful bunch of activists within their sport framing the pay discrepancy as outdated and sexist, and it seemed easier and more politic to just give them equal pay than to argue it.

As we’ve seen, where the women control the purse strings, they don’t give themselves equal pay, simply because they can’t. But when they share space with the men, it’s suddenly sexist to pay the men more. The men get paid more because the men’s game has more fans, and always has. This forum reflects the same, that we discuss the men’s game a lot more. Women in general prefer to watch the men. We see that in this forum, and lately when I hear women footballers whine about equal pay for their sports, well, I don’t know many women who are more interested in women's football than men’s football.

The response to this is usually that traditionally women were kept in the kitchen and so society evolved around mens sports, and there maybe some merit in this except the women's game has had a huge bump by sharing the slams with men for more than two generations, and still their sport isn’t as popular.

I’m in favour of the women trying best of five, but I agree with the argument, “be careful what you wish for.” I don’t want them blocking the traffic at slams with best of five women matches until it’s trialled and proven elsewhere. I think the WTA should announce a few tournaments next year where the whole thing will be best of five, and see how that goes for them…

 

[mrzz]

I'm not sure what you're on about here. I don't think anyone claimed that people "just want" women to play Bo5. There is nothing "unnatural" about the conversation. You should read back.

I claimed that people (at least some) just want women to play Bo5. I explained why it is unnatural. Your last paragraph quoted bellow basically illustrates my point. You should simply read carefully.

If longer matches don't favor better athletes in men's matches, they won't in women's.

They do favor better athletes in men's matches, I stated that, and my point is that they *might* favor better athletes even more for women (again, if you are going to reply me, read carefully what I wrote). It is not a commandment of nature that reality is completely symmetrical for men and women.

As to your bolded above, that is inaccurate. It is quantifiable via testing that women have greater stamina than men. You can google it yourself, but if you get testy, I'll supply links. I have mentioned over the years that, in endurance contests, women have beaten out men, like ultramarathons. My guess is that women are genetically programmed to withstand childbirth. (Whereas most men can barely stand a hangnail.) My other guess is that it is evolutionary, based on having to endure child-rearing, which women are also primarily responsible for.

Oh, really? Then tell me again why all the men's records are lower than the women's? Considerably lower, by the way. By the way again, this is almost completely irrelevant to me (and hopefully for all rational human beings). Gazelles are faster than men and women.

Anyway, your post is inaccurate. You are confusing indications of a few studies, results of a few competitions, with a far reaching conclusion. For instance, what would happen if we would get all known lengths of track races, street races and so on, sort them by distance, and compare the records, or even the average times? Let's even extrapolate the results. Let's see from which cut off value women would start to perform better (or faster), than men (if that is the case...). I am pretty sure that you would define "stamina", accordingly. In other words, the fact that the classic marathon is ran faster by men, obviously, is irrelevant for the discussion... Also, all other competitions, like cross-country skying or whatever, what we learn from there? Are they irrelevant, just that specific, maybe mythical, ultra-marathon you have in mind counts?

Stating something a thousand times does not make it a fact. It has been tried before, though.

I don't think I have to beware what I would wish for. I'm asking for complete parity in the way they play the Majors. I don't think some rejiggered TB system would make anyone happy. Every time the conversation comes up that women get paid the same for Majors, some git says that they don't play Bo5. There is a solution for that. Let the women play Bo5 at Majors.

And finally your point. The argument that men deserve a larger pay because they play Bo5 is a very stupid one, I agree with you on that. These people don´t charge by the hour (or by the set). But you do not need to bend reality to counter a stupid argument.

If you are for equal pay on principle, fine. It is a valid principle. My point in this discussion is that professional sports are business, and must be treated accordingly. Who generates more money should get more money. If, in tennis' case it is men, fine. If it is women, fine as well. But we had this discussion before, I won't repeat myself.


P.S. Regarding extrapolation of results, the percentage difference between men and women's records on long distance races seems to gets smaller with distance up to 100 KM. However, it becomes larger again for 100 miles, and the trend goes on for even longer distances. If I had the time or energy I could tabulate the results...

 

[Moxie]

I claimed that people (at least some) just want women to play Bo5. I explained why it is unnatural. Your last paragraph quoted bellow basically illustrates my point. You should simply read carefully.

"Unnatural" is a very bizarre word for it.

Oh, really? Then tell me again why all the men's records are lower than the women's? Considerably lower, by the way. By the way again, this is almost completely irrelevant to me (and hopefully for all rational human beings). Gazelles are faster than men and women.

Anyway, your post is inaccurate. You are confusing indications of a few studies, results of a few competitions, with a far reaching conclusion. For instance, what would happen if we would get all known lengths of track races, street races and so on, sort them by distance, and compare the records, or even the average times? Let's even extrapolate the results. Let's see from which cut off value women would start to perform better (or faster), than men (if that is the case...). I am pretty sure that you would define "stamina", accordingly. In other words, the fact that the classic marathon is ran faster by men, obviously, is irrelevant for the discussion... Also, all other competitions, like cross-country skying or whatever, what we learn from there? Are they irrelevant, just that specific, maybe mythical, ultra-marathon you have in mind counts?

Stating something a thousand times does not make it a fact. It has been tried before, though.

YOU should read more carefully, including your own post. You said that men have more STAMINA than women. No one is talking about speed or records. Since you can't google for yourself:

Women have more stamina than men, says new study

Women are considerably less exhausted after natural, dynamic muscle exercises than men of similar age and athletic ability.

economictimes.indiatimes.com

Do women have more stamina/endurance than men?

In endurance races, such as ultramarathons, it can happen that a woman finishes first, ahead of her male competitors. Scientists are investigating this phenomenon.

uperform.be

The Relevance of Sex Differences in Performance Fatigability

Performance fatigability differs between men and women for a range of fatiguing tasks. Women are usually less fatigable than men and this is most widely described for isometric fatiguing contractions, and some dynamic tasks. The sex difference in fatigability ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

And finally your point. The argument that men deserve a larger pay because they play Bo5 is a very stupid one, I agree with you on that. These people don´t charge by the hour (or by the set). But you do not need to bend reality to counter a stupid argument.

If you are for equal pay on principle, fine. It is a valid principle. My point in this discussion is that professional sports are business, and must be treated accordingly. Who generates more money should get more money. If, in tennis' case it is men, fine. If it is women, fine as well. But we had this discussion before, I won't repeat myself.


P.S. Regarding extrapolation of results, the percentage difference between men and women's records on long distance races seems to gets smaller with distance up to 100 KM. However, it becomes larger again for 100 miles, and the trend goes on for even longer distances. If I had the time or energy I could tabulate the results...

It wasn't my point of responding to you. It was really about stamina, because you're wrong.

 

[Kieran]

. My guess is that women are genetically programmed to withstand childbirth. (Whereas most men can barely stand a hangnail.)

Men can get pregnant too, bigot!

 

[Moxie]

Men can get pregnant too, bigot!

This is hilarious. However, in a mere 2 pages, we go from reasonable conversation, to this. I blame @mrzz. Why is it that we can't have a reasonable conversation about women playing best of 5 that some guy doesn't get his hair on fire? A lot of men have been in on this conversation, and it was actually started by @Jelenafan. It all goes well until some guy explodes about women playing best of 5. I don't agree with your notion, Kieran, that they should have to prove it in otherwise tournaments before Majors. Men only play best of 5 at Majors. And they don't always acquit themselves well. They sometimes retire due to lack of fitness. Or lose, because of it. Women will have to come up with the same fitness, and just at the Majors, which would be fair. Other solutions have been offered, like having them play Bo5 from QF on, as a trial. I'd think that was more fair, than make them run some gauntlet of proof at another tournament. By the second week, there aren't that many matches, anyway, so the schedule could accommodate it.

 

[Kieran]

This is hilarious. However, in a mere 2 pages, we go from reasonable conversation, to this. I blame @mrzz. Why is it that we can't have a reasonable conversation about women playing best of 5 that some guy doesn't get his hair on fire? A lot of men have been in on this conversation, and it was actually started by @Jelenafan. It all goes well until some guy explodes about women playing best of 5. I don't agree with your notion, Kieran, that they should have to prove it in otherwise tournaments before Majors. Men only play best of 5 at Majors. And they don't always acquit themselves well. They sometimes retire due to lack of fitness. Or lose, because of it. Women will have to come up with the same fitness, and just at the Majors, which would be fair. Other solutions have been offered, like having them play Bo5 from QF on, as a trial. I'd think that was more fair, than make them run some gauntlet of proof at another tournament. By the second week, there aren't that many matches, anyway, so the schedule could accommodate it.

It’s not the fitness of the women I’m worried about, it’s the quality of their tennis. It’s hard enough at times to watch even the best women shank their way through a best of 3, but a best of 5 for the whole lot of them, for a whole Slam? That’s why I say they should road test that in their own time first.

It’s also why I said, be careful what you wish for.

By the way, I’m glad you realise the ridiculousness of my comment about men becoming pregnant. There’s a good few of us have heard activists mention this in US Senate hearings, and other places, and think, this is beyond ridiculous - it’s dangerous…

 

[mrzz]

You said that men have more STAMINA than women.

Yes, I did. And then you mentioned endurance competitions. Normally, endurance competitions are won by the ones with more stamina. That's basic common sense.

By the way, did you read *carefully* the links you posted? From one of them:

“Let’s be clear, the main reason for their success is almost certainly the reduced number of participants. It is statistically more frequent that in this type of race there are only men with an average performance level who participate. A very high performing woman can therefore win the race,"

This illustrates well the point their are trying to explain, that in ultra-marathons it is possible that a high performing woman beats average performance men (their words). In NO WAY they are stating that this is the rule. They state that the opposite is the rule, even in the endurance case.

From another one:

"If ever an ultra-ultra-marathon is developed, women may well dominate in that arena,"

So, authors are speculating (and extrapolating). But I do not think they cared to check the actual races that exist, there are ones that go for weeks. Anyway, all fine, and valid. But, again, those articles ARE NOT STATING that women actually and presently beat men in extreme endurance sports. The only objective results in this direction is obtained with specific exercises with random subjects. As far as sports are concerned, the links yourself provided do not prove that women have more stamina than men. They actually indicate the opposite. So my point is proven by your links.

You claimed that I cannot google it myself. But I did, and stopped when I got the ultra-marathon records. You can try to split hairs and say that this means that men are faster over extremely long distances, and not that they have more stamina. You can find support on a few selected (by you) studies, but you are far too smart to believe yourself that this means that science have established that women have more stamina than men, specially in high level sports. There is absolutely zero actual sporting data supporting this. And you are far too smart not to have noticed that yourself. Since you are a very good, and a very combative, debater, your are fighting with all tools you have -- in this case, split hairs and occasionally twist my words, given that I am not a native speaker. Again, you are far too smart to have missed my point.

"Unnatural" is a very bizarre word for it.

Yes, it is. I was making an effort to avoid words like "dishonest". As I tried to explain, this is a sporting discussion that exits for reasons coming from outside sports. That is what I called "unnatural". Again, I am pretty sure you got that, but only wanted to find something to disagree with.

If players, fans and people within the sport want women to play Bo5, they should. Period. But false narratives will always get my hair on fire. Even more if men have to play Bo3 in majors because of them (because players, fans and people within the sport want them to play Bo5).

For some reason, you are assuming that I am desperately against women playing Bo5 in majors. It is almost irrelevant to me. You are failing to acknowledge that I agree with you regarding some arguments against women playing Bo5, and that I agree that you can support that, based on principles.

But the narrative? C'mon....

 

[Moxie]

Yes, I did. And then you mentioned endurance competitions. Normally, endurance competitions are won by the ones with more stamina. That's basic common sense.

Stamina, endurance...forgive me for mentioning. Sometimes they are won by women. You're being petulant, I think.

By the way, did you read *carefully* the links you posted? From one of them:

I did, I knew you'd get to some of the fine points. I would have pointed them out, but you didn't seem to be willing to read. Good for you.

“Let’s be clear, the main reason for their success is almost certainly the reduced number of participants. It is statistically more frequent that in this type of race there are only men with an average performance level who participate. A very high performing woman can therefore win the race,"

This illustrates well the point their are trying to explain, that in ultra-marathons it is possible that a high performing woman beats average performance men (their words). In NO WAY they are stating that this is the rule. They state that the opposite is the rule, even in the endurance case.

What they are actually saying is that there has been too infrequently the inclusion of women in these studies.

From another one:

"If ever an ultra-ultra-marathon is developed, women may well dominate in that arena,"

So, authors are speculating (and extrapolating). But I do not think they cared to check the actual races that exist, there are ones that go for weeks. Anyway, all fine, and valid. But, again, those articles ARE NOT STATING that women actually and presently beat men in extreme endurance sports. The only objective results in this direction is obtained with specific exercises with random subjects. As far as sports are concerned, the links yourself provided do not prove that women have more stamina than men. They actually indicate the opposite. So my point is proven by your links.

You reject the extrapolation by the authors. You are looking at races, (which actually DOES say something about women and stamina and competing against men,) but that is not my point: you are ignoring the studies of pure stamina. They tell something. Forget about sports.

You claimed that I cannot google it myself. But I did, and stopped when I got the ultra-marathon records. You can try to split hairs and say that this means that men are faster over extremely long distances, and not that they have more stamina. You can find support on a few selected (by you) studies,

Find your own studies, then.

but you are far too smart to believe yourself that this means that science have established that women have more stamina than men, specially in high level sports. There is absolutely zero actual sporting data supporting this. And you are far too smart not to have noticed that yourself. Since you are a very good, and a very combative, debater, your are fighting with all tools you have -- in this case, split hairs and occasionally twist my words, given that I am not a native speaker. Again, you are far too smart to have missed my point.

I'm not trying to split hairs, or take advantage of your (not very limited at all) English skills. I think we're understanding each other perfectly here. What you are doing, however, is trying to keep things to the conversation of "high-level sports." You misunderstand my intent. I'm only saying that women, one on one, have been proven by some studies to have more stamina than men. You said that women, in tennis, shouldn't play best of 5 because they don't have the stamina. I'm disproving that. Effectively, I think. You keep trying to bring in men in sports over the years. Of COURSE men will prove better in sports over the years. They invented sports, and they invented the ones they would be good at. And, as you and Kieran say, women have been relegated to the kitchen and the babies for centuries, so there is some catching up to do. AND that the statistics, for years, didn't include women, so it's hard to say, in some ways. Though it DOES point to the notion that women have better stamina then men, so don't tell me that is an argument for why they ought not to play best of 5 in tennis. Makes sense?

Yes, it is. I was making an effort to avoid words like "dishonest". As I tried to explain, this is a sporting discussion that exits for reasons coming from outside sports. That is what I called "unnatural". Again, I am pretty sure you got that, but only wanted to find something to disagree with.

No, I didn't realize that you were substituting "unnatural" for "dishonest." I think both are unfair. Either way, you just keep hammering that women playing best of 5 is not an interesting proposal. As I said, read back to the first page of this thread. There are many that find interest in the idea.

If players, fans and people within the sport want women to play Bo5, they should.

Good. A lot do.

Period. But false narratives will always get my hair on fire. Even more if men have to play Bo3 in majors because of them (because players, fans and people within the sport want them to play Bo5).

I don't see the false narrative. It's a conversation. You're the only person on this thread that's having a meltdown over it.

For some reason, you are assuming that I am desperately against women playing Bo5 in majors. It is almost irrelevant to me. You are failing to acknowledge that I agree with you regarding some arguments against women playing Bo5, and that I agree that you can support that, based on principles.

But the narrative? C'mon....

I've acknowledged everything about our conversation. I'm not assuming anything about you and Bo5 for women. You make your own argument. You completely lost the plot when all I was arguing with you was on "stamina." I think you expose your own prejudice.

Everyone was having a perfectly fine conversation about it. Only you were freaking out.

 

[Kieran]

And, as you and Kieran say, women have been relegated to the kitchen and the babies for centuries, so there is some catching up to do.

And I also answered this, with regards to tennis. The women have been joined at the hip with the men at the slams since forever, but their game still isn’t as popular. Even before 1968, the men had a successful and workable professional tour, but the women didn’t. After 1968, and it’s a long time, the women have shared the biggest stages but their own tour isn’t as successful as the men’s. People in general aren’t so interested in women’s tennis. I believed they’ve been lucky that traditionally they played the slams alongside the men, and that this continued after 1968. They’ve benefited from this.

I’m not saying this to put the women down, I’m trying to respectfully mull over the question of women playing best of five at the majors. I don’t believe it would be popular, and it might backfire on them. But as I say, they could trial it at their own events, see what the response is…

 

[Moxie]

And I also answered this, with regards to tennis. The women have been joined at the hip with the men at the slams since forever, but their game still isn’t as popular. Even before 1968, the men had a successful and workable professional tour, but the women didn’t. After 1968, and it’s a long time, the women have shared the biggest stages but their own tour isn’t as successful as the men’s. People in general aren’t so interested in women’s tennis. I believed they’ve been lucky that traditionally they played the slams alongside the men, and that this continued after 1968. They’ve benefited from this.

I’m not saying this to put the women down, I’m trying to respectfully mull over the question of women playing best of five at the majors. I don’t believe it would be popular, and it might backfire on them. But as I say, they could trial it at their own events, see what the response is…

I'm not interested in getting in a big fight about this, despite what some folks think. I think we can agree generally that, especially now, there is a lot more attention on the men's game, but that women have been involved and brought attention/fans to it since Suzanne Lenglen (also style icon) and Althea Gibson. Navratilova and Evert as a great rivalry, and I promise not to go on, but players like Venus and Serena, Li Na and Osaka have brought more people to tennis then any hundreds of top men you might name.

But here is a very interesting article, which puts a lie to some of our truisms around here. It's from a market research firm in London, which does a study of where women's sports rank in polls, and why. There motivation is commercial, which is something I trust, in these discussions, because we're always talking about marketability. Their agenda isn't political, but monetarily driven.

A few interesting points:

* Men watch women's sports more than women do. Maybe not surprising, since men watch more sports, overalll.

Look at this graph and see how low down the notion that the physicality or quality of the sport is, compared to the lack of availability:

Another thing that gets mentioned is "not knowing the story lines." I have long said that sports is soap opera for men. If women's sports isn't seen, then they can't develop storylines. When they do, people tune in, including women. Serena retiring at the USO? But what has been the best storyline in tennis for the past 17 years? Fedal, the GOAT race, then Fedalovic. That's not really about men's tennis, it's about the 3-headed-GOAT.

Anyway, it's not up to us to decide what they do about women and Bo5 at Majors. But the market has some interesting things to say about growth potential for marketing.

 

[Kieran]

I'm not interested in getting in a big fight about this, despite what some folks think. I think we can agree generally that, especially now, there is a lot more attention on the men's game, but that women have been involved and brought attention/fans to it since Suzanne Lenglen (also style icon) and Althea Gibson. Navratilova and Evert as a great rivalry, and I promise not to go on, but players like Venus and Serena, Li Na and Osaka have brought more people to tennis then any hundreds of top men you might name.

But here is a very interesting article, which puts a lie to some of our truisms around here. It's from a market research firm in London, which does a study of where women's sports rank in polls, and why. There motivation is commercial, which is something I trust, in these discussions, because we're always talking about marketability. Their agenda isn't political, but monetarily driven.

A few interesting points:

* Men watch women's sports more than women do. Maybe not surprising, since men watch more sports, overalll.

Look at this graph and see how low down the notion that the physicality or quality of the sport is, compared to the lack of availability:




View attachment 7248


Another thing that gets mentioned is "not knowing the story lines." I have long said that sports is soap opera for men. If women's sports isn't seen, then they can't develop storylines. When they do, people tune in, including women. Serena retiring at the USO? But what has been the best storyline in tennis for the past 17 years? Fedal, the GOAT race, then Fedalovic. That's not really about men's tennis, it's about the 3-headed-GOAT.

Anyway, it's not up to us to decide what they do about women and Bo5 at Majors. But the market has some interesting things to say about growth potential for marketing.

That’s interesting, thanks. One thing it shows is what we’re saying, that even women prefer men’s sports to women’s sports, which we see here on the forum with regard to tennis, and our female posters. There are differences in the way men and women approach things. I disagree that “sport is soap operas for men.” I get what you’re saying about developing storylines, growing awareness and viewing habits, but it’s different for men. Men are competitive in ways that women mostly can’t believe. And men are far more invested in sport than that.

The great Bill Shankly once said that “some people think that football is a matter of life and death. I can assure them, it’s more important than that.” The sports fan - as you know from personal experience - suffers irrationally for their sport. They die a death every time there’s a defeat. It’s irrational, because no victory ever matches in height the depth of agony a defeat causes. It’s tribal, primal, visceral. It cuts deep. Sports is nationalism that’s supposed to feel safer, less prejudicial, war without the violence. Though of course, typical of men, sports often degrades into violence.

It’s religious ritual too, for a secular world. I remember sitting in the car near Dalymount Park, waiting for the missus, and hearing the crowd chant and sing their football songs. I thought, this sounds ridiculous when you’re not involved, but how I wished I was in there! They’ve observed the rubrics and now the ceremony begins. And of course, the rubrics might take place for days beforehand. The strange superstitions and the glorious silly habits.

For men, sports is tribal, it’s an impossible forward surge, driven by irrational fears and furious anger, and the company of other likeminded men, who’ve grown to hate other likeminded men because - to misquote Jerry Seinfeld - they wear a different coloured T-shirt. Sport cuts very deep in in society for men. I know families of men who are into their fourth generation of following Arsenal, some of them spit on the floor when the word “Spurs” is said, and they’d never be friends with a Spurs fan. This isn’t normal behaviour, but it is something that’s normal for men. It’s more like love and lust and marriage, except that when it comes to team sports, men are monogamous as an unyielding point of principle, whereas in real marriage their monogamy is largely theoretical. A man may joke about being unfaithful to his wife, and even if he isn’t unfaithful to her, he may laugh at jokes that suggest he is, but don’t joke to an Arsenal fan that their allegiance might have switched to Spurs, even briefly - or it better be a very good joke.

Men go very deeply into their things, and sports is just one of the things we go deeply into. It serves a purpose that used to be served in less “social” ways, and it’s popularity has grown out of an urge that’s innate to men.

Women's tennis has produced many great champions and inspiring people and certainly they’ve drawn youngsters to play, this is a good thing. But it isn’t as interesting to me (and most men, I imagine) because of the quality. And this is the crux. You can answer for yourself why as a woman you’re far more invested in the men’s game. The men’s game in general is factually the highest level in the sport, the best men are the best players in the world, and this has its own attraction that can’t be denied. When women argue for equality based solely on gender, they misunderstand the way the market works when it comes to sports. There are junior males who would easily defeat the best females. We have no clamour to watch junior boys go to best of five sets.

But against this, I would say that a problem nowadays is that we try to pretend that men and women aren’t different, in fact some lunatic radicals think that there are no genders and we can switch between males and females as easy as if we’re exchanging trousers for a dress - and yet, of course, we’re very different. And so against my argument about junior males being able to handle the best women, this is part of the reason why mens tennis is more popular, but it shows a lack of appreciation for the differences between men and women - and the differences between the men’s game and the women’s game from a spectator point of view. We can also appreciate that the way the top women play is generally different to the way the top men play, since it’s not too heavy on traditional male physical advantages. But this gets lost in false modern ideas of equality, too, where we’re supposed to value them as being the same.

As for best of 5 in women’s, I think we all agree they should try it out, but we probably don’t agree on when or where they should try it out. Or even, we don’t agree on why we all agree that they should try it out. I think they should try it out NOT because I think it’s something we’d all enjoy, but because it gets thrown at them so often that we might as well see what it would look like. There are probably others who think that we should try it because it might be as good as the men…

 

[AnonymousFan]

Ladies BO5 for 4R and beyond at the slams, that shouldn't clog up the schedule

At slams, BO3 is too short and forgettable.

 

[Moxie]

Ladies BO5 for 4R and beyond at the slams, that shouldn't clog up the schedule

At slams, BO3 is too short and forgettable.

Very fair. I've supported that before. Make it at the slams, which is where the men play b05, exclusively now, I think. Which is rather too bad. Based on our very small sample, others would have the men play Bo5 again, at, say, MS1000 finals. What if men and women both did? One thing it might do is eventually give us a more consistent #1 in the WTA.

Totally agree that Bo3 is "too short and forgettable." Also favors the upset. The Slams are supposed to be special.

 

[BTURNER]

Not that big of fan of 'bo5' as a spectator, mostly because we see fewer shot patterns these days. We see fewer volleys, lobs, passing shots, half volleys, fewer spins than in the heyday of 5 setters. Without that all that variety, tennis can become too repetitive for bo5 to remain interesting for 3-4 hours. I see no point in extending the length, if we are not extending the enjoyment of viewers. Remember its not just the players that are hanging around all that time match after mathc, so are the ballboys and girls, each of the linesmen, and the referee. And they will be doing it in inclimate weather, and with climate change, temperatures are getting higher both in the stands and on the courts, we are actually taking increased risks with heat exhaustion and dehydration.