Equal prize money

[El Dude]

Yeah, I think women's and men's tennis are essentially different sports, or at least should be considered separately in terms of accomplishments.

I mean, it isn't quite the same thing, but as far as I know no one ever does a combined list of greatest sprinters or greatest weightlifters. Tennis involves a lot more skills than pure athletics, which tend to single out one or two capacities (e.g. how fast you can run over a certain distance). But saying, for instance, that Martina Navratilova was a greater tennis player than Rafael Nadal--which is implied by ranking them on the same list, as Jeff Sackmann did--does an injustice to both Rafa and Martina, imo.

 

[the AntiPusher]

If you include her doubles titles , its a hard case not to put Martina Navratilova on the mount Rushmore of tennis GOATs. Graf and Seles game were constructed to dismantle Martina. When Seles was in her early prime..she probably was the best pure ball striker Ever. I saw her in Miami in the 90s and NEVER seen a tennis player paint the lines as accurately as she did during that tournament. Da GOATs have provided us all with priceless memories.

 

[El Dude]

If you include her doubles titles , its a hard case not to put Martina Navratilova on the mount Rushmore of tennis GOATs. Graf and Seles game were constructed to dismantle Martina. When Seles was in her early prime..she probably was the best pure ball striker Ever. I saw her in Miami in the 90s and NEVER seen a tennis player paint the lines as accurately as she did during that tournament. Da GOATs have provided us all with priceless memories.

Of course she belongs. But why just one "mount?" Why not two?

 

[Kieran]

If you include her doubles titles , its a hard case not to put Martina Navratilova on the mount Rushmore of tennis GOATs. Graf and Seles game were constructed to dismantle Martina. When Seles was in her early prime..she probably was the best pure ball striker Ever. I saw her in Miami in the 90s and NEVER seen a tennis player paint the lines as accurately as she did during that tournament. Da GOATs have provided us all with priceless memories.

Different game, bro. To say a woman player is “the best pure ball striker ever” requires a couple of caveats: one, she’s hitting off a weaker ball that’s coming to her, and two, her pure struck ball would be handily chased down and bashed back at her by a bloke. Could even be a 15 year old bloke. To defend her against this, we have to admit that any claims for her greatness are conditional, same as for Martina, who’s the best woman player I’ve seen…

 

[the AntiPusher]

Different game, bro. To say a woman player is “the best pure ball striker ever” requires a couple of caveats: one, she’s hitting off a weaker ball that’s coming to her, and two, her pure struck ball would be handily chased down and bashed back at her by a bloke. Could even be a 15 year old bloke. To defend her against, we have to admit that claims in her behalf are conditional, same as for Martina, who’s the best woman player I’ve seen…

Brotha.. I'm serious.. I have seen Connors (later in life ), Agassi in his prime but Seles really was the best I seen putting foot to ball and striking the ball without dropping it short as our beloved Rafa or Roger... plus she didnt have exceptional feet movement like Graf or Serena.. Just my two cents worth

 

[Kieran]

Brotha.. I'm serious.. I have seen Connors (later in life ), Agassi in his prime but Seles really was the best I seen putting foot to ball and striking the ball without dropping it short as our beloved Rafa or Roger... plus she didnt have exceptional feet movement like Graf or Serena.. Just my two cents worth

She’s doing it against slower moving, patty-cake ballers in the women’s game. It’s a relative thing…

 

[the AntiPusher]

She’s doing it against slower moving, patty-cake ballers in the women’s game. It’s a relative thing…

All I can say Kieran is if you get an opportunity to view a pro or advanced collegian level player very close to the court.. the speed and the power these ladies can generate may astonish you.

 

[Kieran]

All I can say Kieran is if you get an opportunity to view a pro or advanced collegian level player very close to the court.. the speed and the power these ladies can generate may astonish you.

I’m sure it would, bro - and it’s still not comparable to the men. That’s not a diss on the dames, it’s just to point out the obvious, these are different categories, but the higher level is the men…

 

[Moxie]

Yeah, I think women's and men's tennis are essentially different sports, or at least should be considered separately in terms of accomplishments.

I mean, it isn't quite the same thing, but as far as I know no one ever does a combined list of greatest sprinters or greatest weightlifters. Tennis involves a lot more skills than pure athletics, which tend to single out one or two capacities (e.g. how fast you can run over a certain distance). But saying, for instance, that Martina Navratilova was a greater tennis player than Rafael Nadal--which is implied by ranking them on the same list, as Jeff Sackmann did--does an injustice to both Rafa and Martina, imo.

I was going to leave off Kieran's post, where he always seems to lose his sense of humor when it comes to women and men and equal pay, or whatever. I actually said that my post had nothing to do with that, and I meant it. I made a fairly off-hand comment that if tennis writers want to compare some high-level tennis records across gender lines, I don't care. I find it rather harmless. It's sports writers spilling ink.

But I do have an axe to grind with you, now proclaiming that men's and women's tennis are essentially different sports. And should be considered separately. So then, what was that whole thread you posted with the ELO ratings of the top 100, which mixed men and women? I'm sure you're about to say that it was for the "sake of conversation." (And I DID point out that you were not in favor of men's/women's records being mixed.) However, you did post it, on the ATP thread, so I guess all you really wanted out of it was the ATP players' rankings. (Note: there is a forum for both men's and women's tennis.)

But still, you backed that 100 list, enough to post it, in its own thread. And now you come on here and say that men's and women's tennis are essentially different sports and can't be compared. I would like to hear you elucidate on that. I don't buy Kieran's argument. I still think they play the same sport. I don't mind if people think that men are better at it, generally. It still bugs me they don't like "equal pay," but that's another argument. But you have absolutely put up men and women for comparison across the eras, and now you say they can't be compared. Please explain.

 

[Kieran]

I was going to leave off Kieran's post, where he always seems to lose his sense of humor when it comes to women and men and equal pay, or whatever. I actually said that my post had nothing to do with that, and I meant it. I made a fairly off-hand comment that if tennis writers want to compare some high-level tennis records across gender lines, I don't care. I find it rather harmless. It's sports writers spilling ink.

But I do have an axe to grind with you, now proclaiming that men's and women's tennis are essentially different sports. And should be considered separately. So then, what was that whole thread you posted with the ELO ratings of the top 100, which mixed men and women? I'm sure you're about to say that it was for the "sake of conversation." (And I DID point out that you were not in favor of men's/women's records being mixed.) However, you did post it, on the ATP thread, so I guess all you really wanted out of it was the ATP players' rankings. (Note: there is a forum for both men's and women's tennis.)

But still, you backed that 100 list, enough to post it, in its own thread. And now you come on here and say that men's and women's tennis are essentially different sports and can't be compared. I would like to hear you elucidate on that. I don't buy Kieran's argument. I still think they play the same sport. I don't mind if people think that men are better at it, generally. It still bugs me they don't like "equal pay," but that's another argument. But you have absolutely put up men and women for comparison across the eras, and now you say they can't be compared. Please explain.

Kieran didn’t say they’re different sports. And I do have a sense of humour about women’s tennis. I’ve seen enough of it. But in terms of equal pay, I’ve always said that if they believe in equal pay, then they should pay themselves equal pay.

It’s up to the WTA, nobody else…

 

[El Dude]

I was going to leave off Kieran's post, where he always seems to lose his sense of humor when it comes to women and men and equal pay, or whatever. I actually said that my post had nothing to do with that, and I meant it. I made a fairly off-hand comment that if tennis writers want to compare some high-level tennis records across gender lines, I don't care. I find it rather harmless. It's sports writers spilling ink.

But I do have an axe to grind with you, now proclaiming that men's and women's tennis are essentially different sports. And should be considered separately. So then, what was that whole thread you posted with the ELO ratings of the top 100, which mixed men and women? I'm sure you're about to say that it was for the "sake of conversation." (And I DID point out that you were not in favor of men's/women's records being mixed.) However, you did post it, on the ATP thread, so I guess all you really wanted out of it was the ATP players' rankings. (Note: there is a forum for both men's and women's tennis.)

I'm saying that they should be considered separately as far as records are concerned. I realize they play the same sport, but so do both women and men play basketball and other sports and no one lumps them all together. Also, I didn't write that top 100, Jeff Sackmann did. I don't agree with him lumping men and women together, which is partially why I separated out the men and posted that list here. So yes, I posted it here to talk about the men's rankings.

But still, you backed that 100 list, enough to post it, in its own thread. And now you come on here and say that men's and women's tennis are essentially different sports and can't be compared. I would like to hear you elucidate on that. I don't buy Kieran's argument. I still think they play the same sport. I don't mind if people think that men are better at it, generally. It still bugs me they don't like "equal pay," but that's another argument. But you have absolutely put up men and women for comparison across the eras, and now you say they can't be compared. Please explain.

Again, context. They are the same sport, but different enough that they shouldn't be compared as far as records and stats go. It does a disservice to both men and women. And again, I said as much in that thread, probably more than once.

I haven't commented on pay. I suppose that, like all businesses, it should be based on what is earned, but I don't understand the complexities of tennis money to say anything more.

 

[El Dude]

Here's an example. Let's ask the question, who has the best serve in Open Era history? What happens when we compare, say, the Williams sisters to Sampras or Karlovic or Isner or Kyrgios or Federer? Is that fair to either the men or the women?

And if we agree that we can't really do that, why compare titles and other records? And what's wrong with simply considering them separately and asking: Who are the top 10 women in tennis history? And other such questions?

To put it another way, what value does it offer to compare them together? What is gained and, if anything, is it worth it relative to the inherent problems of such a comparison?

That said, I do find it interesting to compare the records to see how the patterns - how they are similar and different. i find that sort of thing interesting. For example, how Slam titles are distributed, weeks at #1, etc.

p.s. While we're at it, where does Karsten Braasch rank on the all time WTA rankings? ;-)

 

[Moxie]

Kieran didn’t say they’re different sports. And I do have a sense of humour about women’s tennis. I’ve seen enough of it. But in terms of equal pay, I’ve always said that if they believe in equal pay, then they should pay themselves equal pay.

It’s up to the WTA, nobody else…

You did say the men and women are in "different businesses," and El Dude followed it up by saying yeah, they're "essentially different sports." At the end of that same post, when you mention soccer, you imply "different sports." Anyway, look, the women do get equal pay at essentially all the mixed events. I'm all good. And I'm not really interested in serious comparisons across the gender divide in tennis. All I've ever said is that the casual mention of something like Novak having passed even Graf's weeks at #1 just doesn't bother me.

 

[Kieran]

You did say the men and women are in "different businesses," and El Dude followed it up by saying yeah, they're "essentially different sports." At the end of that same post, when you mention soccer, you imply "different sports." Anyway, look, the women do get equal pay at essentially all the mixed events. I'm all good. And I'm not really interested in serious comparisons across the gender divide in tennis. All I've ever said is that the casual mention of something like Novak having passed even Graf's weeks at #1 just doesn't bother me.

They are in different businesses. Men’s tennis is an independent and different business to women’s. They occasionally come together at events, which is financially beneficial to the women.

When I mentioned soccer, I didn’t imply different sports, I was referring to false ideas regarding “equality” which we see across different sports. Women’s tennis and men’s are both the same sport but different categories, which I said at the start of the post. By the way, I’m not opposed to equal pay, but they have to earn it, and so far, the women aren’t earning it..

 

[Fiero425]

Here's an example. Let's ask the question, who has the best serve in Open Era history? What happens when we compare, say, the Williams sisters to Sampras or Karlovic or Isner or Kyrgios or Federer? Is that fair to either the men or the women?

And if we agree that we can't really do that, why compare titles and other records? And what's wrong with simply considering them separately and asking: Who are the top 10 women in tennis history? And other such questions?

To put it another way, what value does it offer to compare them together? What is gained and, if anything, is it worth it relative to the inherent problems of such a comparison?

That said, I do find it interesting to compare the records to see how the patterns - how they are similar and different. i find that sort of thing interesting. For example, how Slam titles are distributed, weeks at #1, etc.

p.s. While we're at it, where does Karsten Braasch rank on the all time WTA rankings? ;-)

Good one! Karsten schooled the Williams Sis. over 20 yrs ago! IIRC, he came out & destroyed them ranked 200+, hungover, & smoking a cigarette!

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Here's an example. Let's ask the question, who has the best serve in Open Era history? What happens when we compare, say, the Williams sisters to Sampras or Karlovic or Isner or Kyrgios or Federer? Is that fair to either the men or the women?

And if we agree that we can't really do that, why compare titles and other records? And what's wrong with simply considering them separately and asking: Who are the top 10 women in tennis history? And other such questions?

To put it another way, what value does it offer to compare them together? What is gained and, if anything, is it worth it relative to the inherent problems of such a comparison?

That said, I do find it interesting to compare the records to see how the patterns - how they are similar and different. i find that sort of thing interesting. For example, how Slam titles are distributed, weeks at #1, etc.

p.s. While we're at it, where does Karsten Braasch rank on the all time WTA rankings? ;-)

I am in favor of having womens and mens records being separate,cant compare mens tennis to womens tennis for starters
Graf's record of 377 weeks was outstanding and Novak has just surpassed that record.
Jimmy Connors who still holds the most mens record singles titles at 109, which is a separate category to women, Navratilova has 167 and Evert has 157 titles? so are we going to recognize that stat, that women are superior to men in that area? I think I know the answer to that question.

 

[El Dude]

I am in favor of having womens and mens records being separate,cant compare mens tennis to womens tennis for starters
Graf's record of 377 weeks was outstanding and Novak has just surpassed that record.
Jimmy Connors who still holds the most mens record singles titles at 109, which is a separate category to women, Navratilova has 167 and Evert has 157 titles? so are we going to recognize that stat, that women are superior to men in that area? I think I know the answer to that question.

Haha...well, then we can come back with Rod Laver winning 200 titles across Amateur, Pro, and Open Eras.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Haha...well, then we can come back with Rod Laver winning 200 titles across Amateur, Pro, and Open Eras.

Touche!

 

[Fiero425]

I am in favor of having womens and men's records being separate. Can't compare men's tennis to women's tennis for starters.
Graf's record of 377 weeks was outstanding and Novak has just surpassed that record.

Jimmy Connors who still holds the most mens record singles titles at 109, which is a separate category to women. Navratilova has 167 and Evert has 157 titles? So are we going to recognize that stat, that women are superior to men in that area? I think I know the answer to that question.

As good as Navratilova & Evert were, the women's game still made people pause "back in the day;" esp. in Europe! The WTA matches were more likely to be taped and seen later; even a major final like the FO & Wimbledon! They just weren't that deep in talent as in the 60's & 70's w/ Court, BJK, Goolagong, Wade, Evert, Austin, & Mandlikova! To make sure they got the most coverage, the WTA only had one event being contested at any given time until much later w/ the likes of Graf, Sabatini, Seles, & Navratilova still going strong to stretch out & grow the new WTA!

I never really thought much of trying to blend the records of men vs ladies, esp. since the ladies tended to have players who easily blew away the men's records in # of majors as Borg had only 11, leading in the Open Era! Same w/ tournaments won as Graf is just a couple tournaments from overtaking Connors who had 109 under his belt! As you noted, Navratilova and Evert blows up that # w/ 167 & 157 respectively! The Tennis Intelligentsia is going to mold the history, future, & consciousness of the sport no matter what we think! Fedal is still leading the way holding fewer & fewer records as time goes on! Seems as if Novak will eventually own all the important records out there; man or women!

 

[Moxie]

Here's an example. Let's ask the question, who has the best serve in Open Era history? What happens when we compare, say, the Williams sisters to Sampras or Karlovic or Isner or Kyrgios or Federer? Is that fair to either the men or the women?

And if we agree that we can't really do that, why compare titles and other records? And what's wrong with simply considering them separately and asking: Who are the top 10 women in tennis history? And other such questions?

To put it another way, what value does it offer to compare them together? What is gained and, if anything, is it worth it relative to the inherent problems of such a comparison?

That said, I do find it interesting to compare the records to see how the patterns - how they are similar and different. i find that sort of thing interesting. For example, how Slam titles are distributed, weeks at #1, etc.

I have never been that interested in the kinds of examples you put up above, or certainly not in terms of this discussion. That is not what I said, to anyone. (Speaking to other people here.) However, as to your bolded above, see? You're not unwilling to compare records to find patterns, etc. You agree that there could be something interesting. I'm saying I'm not advocating for comparisons, but, like you, I'm not against the odd comparison of records. Seems harmless to me.