Equal prize money

[Moxie]

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..

I'm honestly not sure how you see them in different "businesses." You say you don't claim they play different sports. OK. They play the same sport. And, as I see it, they are all in the tennis business, unless I'm missing something. They are contracted by mostly the same clothing/equipment/shoe companies, represented by the same agents, therefore their deals are made very similarly. (Top-rated players, men and women, get the big clothing and equipment deals. And this doesn't always mean because they are #1. Look at the deals people like Kei Nishikori and Li Na had, because they were big in the Asian market. Compare Sharapova's deals at her prime to most other men, as another example.) They trade coaches across gender lines. They train at many of the same academies, and practice at the same ones. Tennis surely is a business, and the broadcasting of their events tends to be contracted to the same companies. (Though not completely. But, let's face it, my Tennis Channel shows men's and women's, more or less equally, depending on the package you have.)

Tennis is certainly a business, and the men and women are both in the Nike business, the IMG business, the Tennis Channel business, the Team 8 business, and on and on.

The thing about tennis is that the men's and women's games have been played concurrently at important events for a hundred years +. Tennis has had female stars basically as long as it has male ones. So it's a bit hard to be a fan of tennis and ignore the other side of the gender line, just because the commentators are going to talk about it, and when you watch, you're going to watch the other gender play, sometimes, unless you turn off the TV or walk away. What other sport is like that? Leaving off the Olympics, which is a bit too esoteric for the purposes of this discussion. But you can watch "soccer," basketball, even golf and not really have to coincide with the other gender's version. But not in tennis. I really can't think of another sport where the men's and women's games are so intertwined.

Former women's players call men's matches, former men's players call women's matches...tell me how they are not in the same business.

 

[britbox]

Merge the tours into one and have them all in the same tournament to avoid any charges of sexism. See how long it takes for more rational thinking to prevail.

 

[Kieran]

I'm honestly not sure how you see them in different "businesses." You say you don't claim they play different sports. OK. They play the same sport. And, as I see it, they are all in the tennis business, unless I'm missing something. They are contracted by mostly the same clothing/equipment/shoe companies, represented by the same agents, therefore their deals are made very similarly. (Top-rated players, men and women, get the big clothing and equipment deals. And this doesn't always mean because they are #1. Look at the deals people like Kei Nishikori and Li Na had, because they were big in the Asian market. Compare Sharapova's deals at her prime to most other men, as another example.) They trade coaches across gender lines. They train at many of the same academies, and practice at the same ones. Tennis surely is a business, and the broadcasting of their events tends to be contracted to the same companies. (Though not completely. But, let's face it, my Tennis Channel shows men's and women's, more or less equally, depending on the package you have.)

Tennis is certainly a business, and the men and women are both in the Nike business, the IMG business, the Tennis Channel business, the Team 8 business, and on and on.

The thing about tennis is that the men's and women's games have been played concurrently at important events for a hundred years +. Tennis has had female stars basically as long as it has male ones. So it's a bit hard to be a fan of tennis and ignore the other side of the gender line, just because the commentators are going to talk about it, and when you watch, you're going to watch the other gender play, sometimes, unless you turn off the TV or walk away. What other sport is like that? Leaving off the Olympics, which is a bit too esoteric for the purposes of this discussion. But you can watch "soccer," basketball, even golf and not really have to coincide with the other gender's version. But not in tennis. I really can't think of another sport where the men's and women's games are so intertwined.

Former women's players call men's matches, former men's players call women's matches...tell me how they are not in the same business.

Maybe it’s a language difference at play here. In Ireland we’d say we own a trucking business. ‘I own my own business.’ Not the whole industry, just one company. So this is what I mean, and that’s why I put it like this, that they’re two independent businesses - the men run theirs, and the women run theirs, and occasionally they’re playing the same event at the same time, and this is beneficial to the women.

But yes, they’re within the same sports and broader industry. As such, they’re often competitors, and the public in tennis cities get to decide, ‘Do I pay to go watch the women next week, or the men next month? I can’t afford both, and have only a few holidays left.’ There’s a good reason why men get paid more. They generate more money than the other, to pay its members more money. So when we talk about equal pay the question should never be about sexism, it should always be, “If you believe in equal pay, then why aren’t you paying it?”

And we all know the answer to that.

Or the other important question: why do the public - including women - support men’s sport more? I know many women who follow soccer and none of them follow the women’s. Women’s football is generally atrocious. Sportswomen asking for equal pay to the men just because they’re women is farcical and actually creates inequality, if they’re not earning it themselves at the turnstile, and with the sponsors, television deals etc.

Now, Sharapova didn’t get the huge sponsor money for tennis, let’s be clear. She’s not a shining example of how equal pay would look. Nobody sponsored Sharapova because they thought she was a real deal champ as great as any man. She earned far more from her blonde blue eyed looks than Serena did, far as the sponsors are concerned. Probably Kournikova did too.

The fact that women have played at events concurrently with since Pontius was a pilot with Delta Airlines doesn’t mean they’ve been as popular, as interesting, or as great as the men. The men had a functioning and successful professional tour since before WW2. I think it’s great, by the way, that we have tournaments that share the venue, and there’s mixed doubles, but it genuinely rattles me when a big men’s match is delayed because the hens are still busy shanking.

 

[Jelenafan]

Maybe it’s a language difference at play here. In Ireland we’d say we own a trucking business. ‘I own my own business.’ Not the whole industry, just one company. So this is what I mean, and that’s why I put it like this, that they’re two independent businesses - the men run theirs, and the women run theirs, and occasionally they’re playing the same event at the same time, and this is beneficial to the women.

But yes, they’re within the same sports and broader industry. As such, they’re often competitors, and the public in tennis cities get to decide, ‘Do I pay to go watch the women next week, or the men next month? I can’t afford both, and have only a few holidays left.’ There’s a good reason why men get paid more. They generate more money than the other, to pay its members more money. So when we talk about equal pay the question should never be about sexism, it should always be, “If you believe in equal pay, then why aren’t you paying it?”

And we all know the answer to that.

Or the other important question: why do the public - including women - support men’s sport more? I know many women who follow soccer and none of them follow the women’s. Women’s football is generally atrocious. Sportswomen asking for equal pay to the men just because they’re women is farcical and actually creates inequality, if they’re not earning it themselves at the turnstile, and with the sponsors, television deals etc.

Now, Sharapova didn’t get the huge sponsor money for tennis, let’s be clear. She’s not a shining example of how equal pay would look. Nobody sponsored Sharapova because they thought she was a real deal champ as great as any man. She earned far more from her blonde blue eyed looks than Serena did, far as the sponsors are concerned. Probably Kournikova did too.

The fact that women have played at events concurrently with since Pontius was a pilot with Delta Airlines doesn’t mean they’ve been as popular, as interesting, or as great as the men. The men had a functioning and successful professional tour since before WW2. I think it’s great, by the way, that we have tournaments that share the venue, and there’s mixed doubles, but it genuinely rattles me when a big men’s match is delayed because the hens are still busy shanking.

I will grant you that per their respective independent tours, the ATP and the WTA can command their own prize money per their sponsorships, box office receipts, TV rights, etc. In that sense I would agree with Kieran they are separate businesses for those stand alone tournaments.

Having said that,

A few points for context; lets cut out the BS that only the mens game goes back 100 years ,

https://www.tennis.com/news/article...-for-tennis-democracy-then-christens-the-hous

Excerpt:
“Three years earlier, when Lenglen played her first Wimbledon final, the 8,500-seat Centre Court on Worple Road couldn’t handle the overcapacity crowd. That Centre Court really had been in the middle of the old facility. The new arena on Church Road wasn’t, but the name stuck. It wasn’t until 1980, and half a century of expansion at the club, that Centre Court would occupy the middle point of the grounds again.”

Tennis Historians pretty much are in agreement that one of the biggest reasons W changed their venue was to accommodate the overflow crowds for Suzanne Lenglen , The mens superstar Bill Tilden was driven crazy with jealousy that Suzanne was the biggest name in tennis at the time.

So for the mixed Masters but IMO especially for the Slams, the combined appeal of both tours stars is greater then the sum of their parts. NONE of these survive on just box office receipts.

The slams are animals onto themselves, they thrive because more than mere tournaments, they are national institutions. They transcend the sport, even nonfans are familiar with them.

FYI: When most of the top ATP men players boycotted W in 1973, (IIRC something like 45 of the top 50) the tournament still had its second highest attendance ever. So much for male stars being the only draw.

And yes, there are years that in the USO the women finals drew higher ratings than the men.

Maybe i was spoiled because for decades we had both ATP & WTA events within a reasonable driving distance of me so I attended both. I enjoy both, but seeing the Williams play at Stanford was always a special event.

Anyways there are factors for equal pay in these bigger events, the womens tour has operated independently for 50+ years and overall marketability/sponsor clout of appealing to both genders has weight and importance to the Slams. Provably the only big sport events outside the Olympics that feautres men and women with established marketing cred from 2 independent tours bringing their sets of fans. Equal prize money is such a small drop in the bucket for those events, who rely on TV, sponsorships , etc to give them their unique stature. Yet the jackass whiners like Tsitsipas and others complaining, seriously WTF. They reveal more about themselves.

People’s individual spectating preferences, well of course mileage varies.

 

[Kieran]

I will grant you that per their respective independent tours, the ATP and the WTA can command their own prize money per their sponsorships, box office receipts, TV rights, etc. In that sense I would agree with Kieran they are separate businesses for those stand alone tournaments.

Having said that,

A few points for context; lets cut out the BS that only the mens game goes back 100 years ,

https://www.tennis.com/news/article...-for-tennis-democracy-then-christens-the-hous

Excerpt:
“Three years earlier, when Lenglen played her first Wimbledon final, the 8,500-seat Centre Court on Worple Road couldn’t handle the overcapacity crowd. That Centre Court really had been in the middle of the old facility. The new arena on Church Road wasn’t, but the name stuck. It wasn’t until 1980, and half a century of expansion at the club, that Centre Court would occupy the middle point of the grounds again.”

Tennis Historians pretty much are in agreement that one of the biggest reasons W changed their venue was to accommodate the overflow crowds for Suzanne Lenglen , The mens superstar Bill Tilden was driven crazy with jealousy that Suzanne was the biggest name in tennis at the time.

So for the mixed Masters but IMO especially for the Slams, the combined appeal of both tours stars is greater then the sum of their parts. NONE of these survive on just box office receipts.

The slams are animals onto themselves, they thrive because more than mere tournaments, they are national institutions. They transcend the sport, even nonfans are familiar with them.

FYI: When most of the top ATP men players boycotted W in 1973, (IIRC something like 45 of the top 50) the tournament still had its second highest attendance ever. So much for male stars being the only draw.

And yes, there are years that in the USO the women finals drew higher ratings than the men.

Maybe i was spoiled because for decades we had both ATP & WTA events within a reasonable driving distance of me so I attended both. I enjoy both, but seeing the Williams play at Stanford was always a special event.

Anyways there are factors for equal pay in these bigger events, the womens tour has operated independently for 50+ years and overall marketability/sponsor clout of appealing to both genders has weight and importance to the Slams. Provably the only big sport events outside the Olympics that feautres men and women with established marketing cred from 2 independent tours bringing their sets of fans. Equal prize money is such a small drop in the bucket for those events, who rely on TV, sponsorships , etc to give them their unique stature. Yet the jackass whiners like Tsitsipas and others complaining, seriously WTF. They reveal more about themselves.

People’s individual spectating preferences, well of course mileage varies.

Absolutely, the women’s game has had popularity and great champions, popular heroes that are even more popular than the men at times - but this doesn’t make them “equal”, nor does it argue in favour of equal pay.

I know you’re not making that argument, by the way, and they get equal pay when they share the venue with the blokes but they’re not bringing in enough from their own tour to give themselves equal pay, and so that’s on them. It isn’t sexist, and nor is there any easily discovered solution other than that they improve or change their product somehow, and earn more, so they can give themselves equal pay.

Because there’s nobody else can give it to them, right? And they’re not owed it, just simply because they’re women.

It’s hard to know how they’ll do that. I happen to think they’re been fortunate that they’ve been tethered at times to the mens game. They’ve gotten a higher profile out of that, and I don’t begrudge them. Women golfers, footballers and almost every other sport never really got that opportunity. I think it’s right that they had it, and I think it adds something to tennis overall - at all levels.

But they’re different too. And we have to accept that. We can argue quality and argue purity in shot making, but I’d invite anyone here to look at how many posts there are here in the ATP and WTA forums. How many threads. The popularity and preference for men’s tennis is shown even here in this forum, and by women posters too, and that tells us something. It tells us what we’ve seen and known forever which is that regardless of which way we look at it, the highest level of tennis in the world is always the men, and that people will always want to see the very best.

But also it reminds us - they’re different, and attempts to get around that and compare them as being somehow equal are bound to come a cropper…

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Absolutely, the women’s game has had popularity and great champions, popular heroes that are even more popular than the men at times - but this doesn’t make them “equal”, nor does it argue in favour of equal pay.

I know you’re not making that argument, by the way, and they get equal pay when they share the venue with the blokes but they’re not bringing in enough from their own tour to give themselves equal pay, and so that’s on them. It isn’t sexist, and nor is there any easily discovered solution other than that they improve or change their product somehow, and earn more, so they can give themselves equal pay.

Because there’s nobody else can give it to them, right? And they’re not owed it, just simply because they’re women.

It’s hard to know how they’ll do that. I happen to think they’re been fortunate that they’ve been tethered at times to the mens game. They’ve gotten a higher profile out of that, and I don’t begrudge them. Women golfers, footballers and almost every other sport never really got that opportunity. I think it’s right that they had it, and I think it adds something to tennis overall - at all levels.

But they’re different too. And we have to accept that. We can argue quality and argue purity in shot making, but I’d invite anyone here to look at how many posts there are here in the ATP and WTA forums. How many threads. The popularity and preference for men’s tennis is shown even here in this forum, and by women posters too, and that tells us something. It tells us what we’ve seen and known forever which is that regardless of which way we look at it, the highest level of tennis in the world is always the men, and that people will always want to see the very best.

But also it reminds us - they’re different, and attempts to get around that and compare them as being somehow equal are bound to come a cropper…

Just to remind you there is still one women's record that at present stands the 'test of time', Graf's Calendar Golden Slam in 1988

 

[Kieran]

Just to remind you there is still one women's record that at present stands the 'test of time', Graf's Calendar Golden Slam in 1988

It stands the test of time for the women. It’s irrelevant to the men’s game..

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

It stands the test of time for the women. It’s irrelevant to the men’s game..

Well a man has not achieved that stat.......so there lol!

 

[Kieran]

Well a man has not achieved that stat.......so there lol!

Because it’s harder in the men’s - so there!

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Because it’s harder in the men’s - so there!

LOL! according to some I have to stand up for my Fellow Sisters!

 

[Kieran]

LOL! according to some I have to stand up for my Fellow Sisters!

Better late than never

I remember Graf winning that Olympic gold slam. It seemed that women’s tennis was in a post-Martina and -Chrissy dip and only Steffi was left, with a wide open field to run through. It was made accessible to her. It’s also one of those funny mirrors her and Agassi had, their careers taking similar shapes at times, he being the career slam bloke who also won the Olympics. They seemed an unlikely couple but they’re still going strong…

 

[Moxie]

Maybe it’s a language difference at play here. In Ireland we’d say we own a trucking business. ‘I own my own business.’ Not the whole industry, just one company. So this is what I mean, and that’s why I put it like this, that they’re two independent businesses - the men run theirs, and the women run theirs, and occasionally they’re playing the same event at the same time, and this is beneficial to the women.

But yes, they’re within the same sports and broader industry. As such, they’re often competitors, and the public in tennis cities get to decide, ‘Do I pay to go watch the women next week, or the men next month? I can’t afford both, and have only a few holidays left.’ There’s a good reason why men get paid more. They generate more money than the other, to pay its members more money. So when we talk about equal pay the question should never be about sexism, it should always be, “If you believe in equal pay, then why aren’t you paying it?”

And we all know the answer to that.

Or the other important question: why do the public - including women - support men’s sport more? I know many women who follow soccer and none of them follow the women’s. Women’s football is generally atrocious. Sportswomen asking for equal pay to the men just because they’re women is farcical and actually creates inequality, if they’re not earning it themselves at the turnstile, and with the sponsors, television deals etc.

Now, Sharapova didn’t get the huge sponsor money for tennis, let’s be clear. She’s not a shining example of how equal pay would look. Nobody sponsored Sharapova because they thought she was a real deal champ as great as any man. She earned far more from her blonde blue eyed looks than Serena did, far as the sponsors are concerned. Probably Kournikova did too.

The fact that women have played at events concurrently with since Pontius was a pilot with Delta Airlines doesn’t mean they’ve been as popular, as interesting, or as great as the men. The men had a functioning and successful professional tour since before WW2. I think it’s great, by the way, that we have tournaments that share the venue, and there’s mixed doubles, but it genuinely rattles me when a big men’s match is delayed because the hens are still busy shanking.

There is no language difference in the usage of the word "business." We all use it to mean "industry," or more colloquially a smaller business, for which we also can substitute the word "game." (As in, "I'm in the finance game.") This is why I initially thought you meant that men and women aren't in the same "game." (Especially with El Dude's immediate follow-up.) I took it as a rhetorical choice, as you do write quite colorfully. Which I mean as a compliment, of course. You are the Bard of Tennis Frontier.

But now I see that we are discussing across purposes. I was never intending this to be about the equal pay issue, or even equivalencies in their tennis. I simply don't mind if you note a few top records. It doesn't even mean to me that it matters, I just think its inevitable.

@Jelenafan did a very good job of addressing what you seem to want to talk about, which is the popularity of the men's/women's games, historically, and also makes great points about what the Slams are to general tennis watchers, etc. But I'll address a couple of things in your post to me: You point out that Sharapova didn't so much earn money or draw crowds for her tennis as for her blonde looks and long legs. (Ask Serena about this, and you'll get an earful!) I have made this point many times over the years, and many similar ones. I made the point just about about Li Na and Kei Nishikori. There was a time when Kei was, I think, the 2nd or 3rd highest earner in men's tennis, and he was never the 2nd or 3rd highest ranked player. The money is about the market, not just about the tennis, I'm sorry to inform you. The reason why Kournikova was ever even a "thing." But popularity sells tickets, at least as much as tennis skills does. I haven't looked at Berrettini's endorsements lately, but you don't think he does well because he's camera-ready?

I copy this line from your above, firstly, because I think it's hysterically funny: "The fact that women have played at events concurrently with since Pontius was a pilot with Delta Airlines doesn’t mean they’ve been as popular, as interesting, or as great as the men." Secondly, though, because you contradict yourself, or expose your own prejudice. If the men's and women's games aren't comparable, then how can you say that the women haven't been as great at their own game? And even if you are comparing them, you run into the very subjective to say they haven't been as "popular" or as "interesting."

It may irritate you to wait for a men's match while "the hens are busy shanking," but let's not pretend that the women of much more importance and talent have waited while the lesser men are battling it out for 5 sets, when neither one is really going anywhere.

 

[El Dude]

We can compare across the ATP and WTA in a similar way that we can compare across eras within men's (or women's) tennis. For example, we can compare how dominant Evert was to the context she played in to how dominant Serena was to hers, just as we can compare Connors and Federer in a similar way.

But where it becomes tricky is that the contexts change. Slams are different in value and difficulty, depending upon era. Elo helps us there, as to the rankings. Meaning, we can get an approximation.

But comparing the WTA and ATP adds a different layer of difficulty, beyond that of comparing across eras within one: the dynamics of the tour itself, the way talent pools, and whether or not those factors and others impact dominance. Meaning, I think it is one thing to compare Connors 268 weeks at #1 to Roger's 310, quite another to compare Graf's 377 to Novak's 380+. I'm not saying we "can't" do it, just that it shouldn't be taken as a one-for-one -- and even less so than Connors/Federer.

What is interesting to note is that the WTA and ATP share a similar quality: they have a small group of ATGs that have dominated the Open Era. The WTA is a bit different, though, in that they're more spread out. We have Court/King, followed by Evert, overlapping with Navratilova, who in turned gave way to Graf and Seles. Then there's a short gap and we have Serena, with no one comparable since (yet).

Ignoring Court and King for a moment, the "Big Five" of the WTA--Evert, Navratilova, Graf, Seles*, Serena--won a whopping total of 90 Grand Slams over a span of 44 years (1974-2017), meaning almost exactly half of all Slams.

(*I include Seles because even though she won half as many Slams as the next player, was of comparable talent and probably would have been right there if not for her tragic attack).

Those five also amassed 1456 weeks at #1, with only Martina Hingis (209) in similar territory. After Seles at 178, there's a bit drop to Barty at 121, Henin at 117, etc.

The ATP is similar on paper, but they're clustered over the last two decades, with the Big Three being similarly dominant over the rest of Open Era history. Borg was similar in terms of peak dominance, and in a way is the "Seles" that makes it a Big Four. And there's a smaller drop-off to guys like Sampras, McEnroe, and Connors (I don't think we can put Henin and Venus etc in a similar category as those guys...they're more comparable to Edberg, Becker, etc, imo). And of course Laver has to be considered in the mix.

Actually, this sounds like a study. I'll create some formula to compile "premier" stats - Weeks at #1 and GS titles, maybe Tour Finals - and then see how both the ATP and WTA are distributed. I'm curious how that will look.

 

[Moxie]

Absolutely, the women’s game has had popularity and great champions, popular heroes that are even more popular than the men at times - but this doesn’t make them “equal”, nor does it argue in favour of equal pay.

I don't know why it bothers you so much the notion of "equal." And the ship has basically sailed on equal pay at coed events.

I know you’re not making that argument, by the way, and they get equal pay when they share the venue with the blokes but they’re not bringing in enough from their own tour to give themselves equal pay, and so that’s on them. It isn’t sexist, and nor is there any easily discovered solution other than that they improve or change their product somehow, and earn more, so they can give themselves equal pay.

I think the only argument has been equal pay at coed events, which they mostly have, except Rome, so I'm not sure why you go on about it.

Because there’s nobody else can give it to them, right? And they’re not owed it, just simply because they’re women.

They've only been owed it in coed events, which is fair. Certainly those events have deemed it fair.

I’d invite anyone here to look at how many posts there are here in the ATP and WTA forums. How many threads. The popularity and preference for men’s tennis is shown even here in this forum, and by women posters too, and that tells us something. It tells us what we’ve seen and known forever which is that regardless of which way we look at it, the highest level of tennis in the world is always the men, and that people will always want to see the very best.

But you're talking about these forums existing in the time of a great Renaissance in men's tennis. The era of the Big 3 and Big 4. If we had forums going back to the 70s, there would definitely be times when the women's got more traffic, including even than the men. That's not really a great barometer.

 

[Moxie]

We can compare across the ATP and WTA in a similar way that we can compare across eras within men's (or women's) tennis. For example, we can compare how dominant Evert was to the context she played in to how dominant Serena was to hers, just as we can compare Connors and Federer in a similar way.

But where it becomes tricky is that the contexts change. Slams are different in value and difficulty, depending upon era. Elo helps us there, as to the rankings. Meaning, we can get an approximation.

But comparing the WTA and ATP adds a different layer of difficulty, beyond that of comparing across eras within one: the dynamics of the tour itself, the way talent pools, and whether or not those factors and others impact dominance. Meaning, I think it is one thing to compare Connors 268 weeks at #1 to Roger's 310, quite another to compare Graf's 377 to Novak's 380+. I'm not saying we "can't" do it, just that it shouldn't be taken as a one-for-one -- and even less so than Connors/Federer.

What is interesting to note is that the WTA and ATP share a similar quality: they have a small group of ATGs that have dominated the Open Era. The WTA is a bit different, though, in that they're more spread out. We have Court/King, followed by Evert, overlapping with Navratilova, who in turned gave way to Graf and Seles. Then there's a short gap and we have Serena, with no one comparable since (yet).

Ignoring Court and King for a moment, the "Big Five" of the WTA--Evert, Navratilova, Graf, Seles*, Serena--won a whopping total of 90 Grand Slams over a span of 44 years (1974-2017), meaning almost exactly half of all Slams.

(*I include Seles because even though she won half as many Slams as the next player, was of comparable talent and probably would have been right there if not for her tragic attack).

Those five also amassed 1456 weeks at #1, with only Martina Hingis (209) in similar territory. After Seles at 178, there's a bit drop to Barty at 121, Henin at 117, etc.

The ATP is similar on paper, but they're clustered over the last two decades, with the Big Three being similarly dominant over the rest of Open Era history. Borg was similar in terms of peak dominance, and in a way is the "Seles" that makes it a Big Four. And there's a smaller drop-off to guys like Sampras, McEnroe, and Connors (I don't think we can put Henin and Venus etc in a similar category as those guys...they're more comparable to Edberg, Becker, etc, imo). And of course Laver has to be considered in the mix.

Actually, this sounds like a study. I'll create some formula to compile "premier" stats - Weeks at #1 and GS titles, maybe Tour Finals - and then see how both the ATP and WTA are distributed. I'm curious how that will look.

I'd be curious for your study. But I will say again: you're willing to compare them. Why? Because women's and men's tennis has set itself up for comparison since the beginning. Or nearly. They've played more side-by-side than any sport I can think of, year-in/year-out, and the only thing I can think of that compares to mixed doubles in tennis is pairs skating. it's worth remembering that mixed-doubles in professional tennis was a real thing for a long time. Tennis has really never denied that it was a mixed event. The ATP did, when it excluded the women, and then the women formed the WTA. But tennis itself has been a mixed sport long before the separate tours existed.

 

[El Dude]

I'd be curious for your study. But I will say again: you're willing to compare them. Why? Because women's and men's tennis has set itself up for comparison since the beginning. Or nearly. They've played more side-by-side than any sport I can think of, year-in/year-out, and the only thing I can think of that compares to mixed doubles in tennis is pairs skating. it's worth remembering that mixed-doubles in professional tennis was a real thing for a long time. Tennis has really never denied that it was a mixed event. The ATP did, when it excluded the women, and then the women formed the WTA. But tennis itself has been a mixed sport long before the separate tours existed.

Again, let me clarify: I'm totally willing to compare them in ways such as that study, which isn't at all about comparing their greatness to each other, but rather looking at patterns of relative dominance (e.g. Slam distribution, weeks at #1, etc).

But remember the source of this discussion: someone pointing out that Novak passed Steffi's 377 weeks at #1. And then we got into the Sackmann list. I just don't think we can or should compare Navratilova and Nadal, to use the example I shared earlier. And I'm not sure that 377 weeks at #1 in the WTA and ATP equate, and certainly that we can somehow compare Novak and Steffi based on it - except in terms of comparing their relative dominance. But when you add in the basic fact that the men play at a very different level than the women, any attempt to make lists like Sackmann did just border on parody.

 

[the AntiPusher]

I still find it hard to believe that there's EVER a conversation about who had the greatest serve of all time..if someone EVER questions Sampras weapon it's really shows a lack of tennis IQ

 

[Fiero425]

I still find it hard to believe that there's EVER a conversation about who had the greatest serve of all time..if someone EVER questions Sampras weapon it's really shows a lack of tennis IQ

Situational Serving is what puts Sampras at the top; same w/ best ROS to Novak & Agassi; Volleying to Edberg & McEnroe!

 

[Fiero425]

We can compare across the ATP and WTA in a similar way that we can compare across eras within men's (or women's) tennis. For example, we can compare how dominant Evert was to the context she played in to how dominant Serena was to hers, just as we can compare Connors and Federer in a similar way.

But where it becomes tricky is that the contexts change. Slams are different in value and difficulty, depending upon era. Elo helps us there, as to the rankings. Meaning, we can get an approximation.

But comparing the WTA and ATP adds a different layer of difficulty, beyond that of comparing across eras within one: the dynamics of the tour itself, the way talent pools, and whether or not those factors and others impact dominance. Meaning, I think it is one thing to compare Connors 268 weeks at #1 to Roger's 310, quite another to compare Graf's 377 to Novak's 380+. I'm not saying we "can't" do it, just that it shouldn't be taken as a one-for-one -- and even less so than Connors/Federer.

What is interesting to note is that the WTA and ATP share a similar quality: they have a small group of ATGs that have dominated the Open Era. The WTA is a bit different, though, in that they're more spread out. We have Court/King, followed by Evert, overlapping with Navratilova, who in turned gave way to Graf and Seles. Then there's a short gap and we have Serena, with no one comparable since (yet).

Ignoring Court and King for a moment, the "Big Five" of the WTA--Evert, Navratilova, Graf, Seles*, Serena--won a whopping total of 90 Grand Slams over a span of 44 years (1974-2017), meaning almost exactly half of all Slams.

(*I include Seles because even though she won half as many Slams as the next player, was of comparable talent and probably would have been right there if not for her tragic attack).

Those five also amassed 1456 weeks at #1, with only Martina Hingis (209) in similar territory. After Seles at 178, there's a bit drop to Barty at 121, Henin at 117, etc.

The ATP is similar on paper, but they're clustered over the last two decades, with the Big Three being similarly dominant over the rest of Open Era history. Borg was similar in terms of peak dominance, and in a way is the "Seles" that makes it a Big Four. And there's a smaller drop-off to guys like Sampras, McEnroe, and Connors (I don't think we can put Henin and Venus etc in a similar category as those guys...they're more comparable to Edberg, Becker, etc, imo). And of course Laver has to be considered in the mix.

Actually, this sounds like a study. I'll create some formula to compile "premier" stats - Weeks at #1 and GS titles, maybe Tour Finals - and then see how both the ATP and WTA are distributed. I'm curious how that will look.

I'm glad an honorable mention went to Hingis w/ all those Weeks @ #1... Too bad Henin didn't have more staying power! She was good!

 

[Moxie]

Again, let me clarify: I'm totally willing to compare them in ways such as that study, which isn't at all about comparing their greatness to each other, but rather looking at patterns of relative dominance (e.g. Slam distribution, weeks at #1, etc).

But remember the source of this discussion: someone pointing out that Novak passed Steffi's 377 weeks at #1. And then we got into the Sackmann list. I just don't think we can or should compare Navratilova and Nadal, to use the example I shared earlier. And I'm not sure that 377 weeks at #1 in the WTA and ATP equate, and certainly that we can somehow compare Novak and Steffi based on it - except in terms of comparing their relative dominance. But when you add in the basic fact that the men play at a very different level than the women, any attempt to make lists like Sackmann did just border on parody.

It does make me sad that anyone needs to clarify that any question of comparison is surely not about level of play, because comparing levels between men and women "borders on parody." The women don't really ask to be compared to the men. It's astonishing how aggressive the men get, though, when even a whiff of it comes up, and by that I also mean male tennis players. This all started just from saying that Novak passed Steffi's record. I get BJK started it when she said that he hadn't passed the ultimate record in tennis until he'd passed hers. But can't we give women some real space in sports that's deserved? We women know we're not bigger or stronger. We know that our fast-twitch muscles are not as great, though our slow-twitch ones are greater, for endurance. (Hear me on Bo5.) We don't jump as high, and we don't have the same muscle mass for power. (We do tend to be much more flexible, although Djokovic has proven himself to be as flexible as some female gymnasts. Which should also mean that some women have the strength of some men, and it probably does. That for another day.)

Sports have been designed around men's strengths since the Greeks. Maybe if women had created games, they could be also have been created around ours. But, even still, men are stronger. We get it. But we want to play sports. Men could be generous about it, and encouraging, or they could act like we're intruding on their territory, which they often do. Always reminding us that women are lesser in sports. Complaining about the pay women get. Why not be generous? As I say to people around here, the tennis money isn't yours, so why should you even care how it gets distributed?

This Nike ad is from 1995, but it has never left my mind: