Wimbledon argument...
Discussion
I vaguely remember a statistic from some years ago; the ladies' champion's (think it was Steffi Graf) entire time on court for the whole tournament was less than the time taken to play just the men's final. What that proves is...who knows. One thing about women playing five-set matches is that the timetable would become a nightmare.
Dr Murdoch said:
I'm with the OP i think
Football, both play 90mins?
Hockey, the same?
Rugby?
Marathons?
Rowing?
In fact is Tennis the only discipline that has different standards? I doubt it but there appears to be many that have the same set of rules for both sexes.
And, these are professional, uber fit ladies, there is no reason why they can't do five sets.
As I said, they can run marathons all right...
They should get the same wedge, they should play the same number of sets.
Yes. Most people seem to be arguing that there are biological differences etc. But the differences between the sexes are already covered by the fact that men and women compete separately. So why shouldn't everything else be equal, as it is in other sports?Football, both play 90mins?
Hockey, the same?
Rugby?
Marathons?
Rowing?
In fact is Tennis the only discipline that has different standards? I doubt it but there appears to be many that have the same set of rules for both sexes.
And, these are professional, uber fit ladies, there is no reason why they can't do five sets.
As I said, they can run marathons all right...
They should get the same wedge, they should play the same number of sets.
Edited by calibrax on Thursday 2nd July 09:13
JNW1 said:
Well, for tennis players prize money represents a reasonable proportion of their remuneration so in effect doesn't that make it part of their "salary"? The reality is that the men's game has far more of a draw and commercial appeal than the women's and if you don't believe that just look at the relative net worth of Roger Federer and Serena Williams - both have been at or near the top for a similar length of time but Federer's net worth is probably at least twice of that Serena despite equal prize money. Therefore, the inescapable conclusion is that commercially the women's game brings much less to the party so why should they have equal reward in terms of prize money? It's almost like a form of communism with everyone getting an equal reward irrespective of the value they bring!
I guess by your logic you'd also expect our women footballers to earn as much the men on the basis they got to a world cup semi-final (actually, perhaps they should get more as the men haven't got that far since 1990?). The reality of course is that they won't earn anywhere near as much because the interest in women's football is relatively low in comparison (and that's mainly cultural but also partly because the absolute standard is a lot lower). However, in tennis the women have somehow got away with getting paid the same for producing an inferior product and personally I can't see how that's justified; totally support equal pay for doing something equivalent but in this case it's not equivalent and therefore the rewards shouldn't be the same. All IMHO of course.....
No it doesn't make it a part of their salary but their income which salary, if they have one can be classed a part of. I guess by your logic you'd also expect our women footballers to earn as much the men on the basis they got to a world cup semi-final (actually, perhaps they should get more as the men haven't got that far since 1990?). The reality of course is that they won't earn anywhere near as much because the interest in women's football is relatively low in comparison (and that's mainly cultural but also partly because the absolute standard is a lot lower). However, in tennis the women have somehow got away with getting paid the same for producing an inferior product and personally I can't see how that's justified; totally support equal pay for doing something equivalent but in this case it's not equivalent and therefore the rewards shouldn't be the same. All IMHO of course.....
Prize money is remuneration for winning or achieving a stage of the tournament not for popularity. If Federer turned up to a challenger tournament and it brought in 10,000 spectators when the normal attendance is 100 do you think the prize money would reflect this? No because apparent worth of achieving a win of a challenger tournament is what it is - complete pittance but that's another issue. Likewise if no one attended Wimbledon apart from the players their prize money shouldn't change as the challenger for them is the same.
Why are you mixing commercial worth with prize money? No one is asking for men and women to have equal commercial remuneration, that would be stupid. The men are rewarded adequately for being bigger "stars" selling more watches/cars/tv deals with their commercial remuneration which I completely agree with but for tournament remuneration the winning man beats another very good man = prize money.
Winning woman beats another very good woman = prize money
It's no less of a challenge for Williams to go through the rounds and beat everyone as it is for Djokovic so again why should she get less of a prize for succeeding at the same challenge?
ikarl said:
Is there any competitive sport where women are equal to men? even the likes of Darts, Snooker, and stretching it to Poker etc...where physical attributes aren't the main key?
I think the only Olympic sport where men and women compete together is equestrian. Riding at that level is punishing and requires a lot of fitness but they are arguably equal.Someone mentioned rowing earlier and normally men and women row the same distance in competitions but not against each other. At recreational rowing we often have mixed boats and I am acutely aware that men are far far stronger than me.
I once rowed (sculled in a quad) with my extremely fit and proficient 17 year old son although he was 16 at the time. When full power was called for, my son put his oars in and pushed and I thought the boat was going to split in half. The power was incredible, I could not even keep up with him and he was only 16. The gulf is immense.
Kateg28 said:
ikarl said:
Is there any competitive sport where women are equal to men? even the likes of Darts, Snooker, and stretching it to Poker etc...where physical attributes aren't the main key?
I think the only Olympic sport where men and women compete together is equestrian. Riding at that level is punishing and requires a lot of fitness but they are arguably equal.ikarl said:
Kateg28 said:
ikarl said:
Is there any competitive sport where women are equal to men? even the likes of Darts, Snooker, and stretching it to Poker etc...where physical attributes aren't the main key?
I think the only Olympic sport where men and women compete together is equestrian. Riding at that level is punishing and requires a lot of fitness but they are arguably equal.calibrax said:
The point is not that the prize money shouldn't be equal - it should be.
Why should it be? The prize money should be dictated by the revenue each raises. I don't know if that's equal for Wimbledon, if it is then equal prize money makes sense. Black market final tickets go for 4 times as much for the men's than the women's though, which is indicative of the level of demand for each. Kateg28 said:
Someone mentioned rowing earlier and normally men and women row the same distance in competitions but not against each other. At recreational rowing we often have mixed boats and I am acutely aware that men are far far stronger than me.
That was me. My point being that they do not race against each (men vs women) but their respective races are the same length. Therefore, couldn't women play 5 sets like them men, as there doesn't appear to be the male / female divide like there is in tennis.
That was the point I was / still am, clumsily making.
Dr Murdoch said:
My point being that they do not race against each (men vs women) but their respective races are the same length. Therefore, couldn't women play 5 sets like them men, as there doesn't appear to be the male / female divide like there is in tennis.
Yes they could, and when asked they have said they would. The problem is the tournaments don't want it....... it is a nightmare to schedule all the events as it is. It would be far more practical to bring the men down to best of 3. VolvoT5 said:
Dr Murdoch said:
My point being that they do not race against each (men vs women) but their respective races are the same length. Therefore, couldn't women play 5 sets like them men, as there doesn't appear to be the male / female divide like there is in tennis.
Yes they could, and when asked they have said they would. The problem is the tournaments don't want it....... it is a nightmare to schedule all the events as it is. It would be far more practical to bring the men down to best of 3. I've always found the best of three very short, especially when you watch it live.
Can't think of any Women's epic finals.
VolvoT5 said:
Yes they could, and when asked they have said they would. The problem is the tournaments don't want it....... it is a nightmare to schedule all the events as it is. It would be far more practical to bring the men down to best of 3.
And there is the answer, they could, they would, but they're not allowed.Obviously the organisers 'could' scrap a round, but choose not to.
The answer is to drastically slash prize money at the majors. Nobody plays the majors for the money - except the lowly ranked and qualifiers so that they can afford to tour.
I'd much rather see money allocated to players lower down the pecking order so they can afford to tour, afford better coaches etc.
I bet no single tennis player would trade money for a Wimbledon title.
I'd much rather see money allocated to players lower down the pecking order so they can afford to tour, afford better coaches etc.
I bet no single tennis player would trade money for a Wimbledon title.
Prize money shouldn't be proportional to talent of the winner. If two division 3 teams get to the FA cup final, the prize money should be the same as it were chelsea vs man u.
Women cant hit the ball as hard as men, this makes their points longer on average. If you make women play 5 sets, their matches will last longer than the mens matches.
I think, to get true equality, you'd have to work out average set time for both men and women then find a ratio of sets in a match that results in equal time for both sexes. We'd end up with women playing best of 7 and men playing best of 9 or something.
Women cant hit the ball as hard as men, this makes their points longer on average. If you make women play 5 sets, their matches will last longer than the mens matches.
I think, to get true equality, you'd have to work out average set time for both men and women then find a ratio of sets in a match that results in equal time for both sexes. We'd end up with women playing best of 7 and men playing best of 9 or something.
LocoCoco said:
Prize money shouldn't be proportional to talent of the winner. If two division 3 teams get to the FA cup final, the prize money should be the same as it were chelsea vs man u.
Women cant hit the ball as hard as men, this makes their points longer on average. If you make women play 5 sets, their matches will last longer than the mens matches.
I think, to get true equality, you'd have to work out average set time for both men and women then find a ratio of sets in a match that results in equal time for both sexes. We'd end up with women playing best of 7 and men playing best of 9 or something.
People aren't saying it should be proportional to the talent of the winner as far as i can see, they are saying it should be proportional to the talent (and public appeal) of the competition. If a small club wins the FA cup they've done it competing with the big clubs, your comparison is pretty weak, it would be more like the winner of League 1 getting the same as the winner of the Premier League Women cant hit the ball as hard as men, this makes their points longer on average. If you make women play 5 sets, their matches will last longer than the mens matches.
I think, to get true equality, you'd have to work out average set time for both men and women then find a ratio of sets in a match that results in equal time for both sexes. We'd end up with women playing best of 7 and men playing best of 9 or something.
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff