PDA

View Full Version : Matches with WTA players beating ATP players


Honey
Jul 27th, 2004, 06:38 AM
I've read a couple quotes from some ATP players that a great WTA player can't even beat a #1000-ranked man on the ATP circuit. Does anyone know of any matches where a woman player did beat a male player?

rrfnpump
Jul 27th, 2004, 07:13 AM
I know that Patty Schnyder once beat an ATP Player ranked ~900 in close sets (like 7-6 7-5)

rrfnpump
Jul 27th, 2004, 07:15 AM
but Kartsen Braasch (at that time ranked ~300) beat Serena and Venus Williams 6-1 and 6-2

Mattographer
Jul 27th, 2004, 08:18 AM
Billie Jean King beat Bobby Riggs :)

Slumpsova
Jul 27th, 2004, 08:43 AM
i hope Serena Williams to beat Paradorn Srichaphan somehow.

he should realize that his games suck now.

Matt Clarke
Jul 27th, 2004, 09:09 AM
I would think some of the TOP players in the WTA can beat some of the men in the top 100. I mean there are a few poor players in the ATP top 100.

Bristol
Jul 27th, 2004, 10:44 AM
No chance mate no women in the top ten could beat any bloke in the top 100 men there is no possibility. Back in the day when Jenifer Capriati had just reached 6 in the world and was at her peak then, she hit with an english player called Nick Gould who was ranked 400's and he beat her something like 6.2 6.2 there is no match theres no point even comparing

NotFrogBurger
Jul 27th, 2004, 10:46 AM
I think that some of the top club level mens players could defeat many of the top 100 women. Men are just so much stronger than the women.

Matt Clarke
Jul 27th, 2004, 10:47 AM
No chance mate no women in the top ten could beat any bloke in the top 100 men there is no possibility. Back in the day when Jenifer Capriati had just reached 6 in the world and was at her peak then, she hit with an english player called Nick Gould who was ranked 400's and he beat her something like 6.2 6.2 there is no match theres no point even comparing

Thats could be just a one off. I mean Sharapova and Davenport would be able to beat most of the men in the top 100. But they won't be able to beat the very top male players though.

Shenanigans
Jul 27th, 2004, 11:09 AM
I think if you look at any sport that involves power such as athletics, the men are way ahead of the women it is the same for tennis.

~RedRose~
Jul 27th, 2004, 11:25 AM
Thats could be just a one off. I mean Sharapova and Davenport would be able to beat most of the men in the top 100. no they wouldn't be able to .... they would lose like 6-1 6-1 to basically all of them.

Matt Clarke
Jul 27th, 2004, 11:34 AM
no they wouldn't be able to .... they would lose like 6-1 6-1 to basically all of them.

To federer, roddick, YES. To lots of other players in top 100, NO.

V.Melb
Jul 27th, 2004, 11:53 AM
For gods sake.... some of you are delusional.... ALL the women in the WTA top 100 would lose to ALL the men in the ATP top 800.

I have watched female players LIVE all day long, then gone back to play club tennis and seen UNRANKED top mens state players... and the women would not get more then few games!!!
Men have kick serves that are far too much for a women... also men are usually a couple of steps faster then a woman let alone the difference in power.
Topspin... men hit with a ton of it... easily enough so that a woman is hitting above shoulder height... way out of her comfort zone.

Not even looking at top state male players --- this is a lose-lose situation... i can honestly say that i have seen NUMEROUS unranked male club players that would have players like Castano, Sequera, Beygelzimer in a three set match!

I think one exception is the Williams sisters for power and movement... i think they could have some male players ranked under 200 sweating a little!

V.Melb
Jul 27th, 2004, 11:56 AM
Oh yeah... also...

My coach.. his sons freind (State grade) was a hitting partner for Henin Hardenne at aus open ... he played a set against her.... 6-2.

Matt Clarke
Jul 27th, 2004, 12:00 PM
I was talking about the BEST female players, not the 3 you mentioned in the previous post. Sharapova, Davenport, 2 Williams, are more powerful and skilful than quite a lot of the men in the top 200.

~RedRose~
Jul 27th, 2004, 12:01 PM
To federer, roddick, YES. To lots of other players in top 100, NO.
Maria Vs Top 100 player

Top 100 player Def. Maria 6-1 6-1

Lindsay Vs Top 100 player

Top 100 player Def. Lindsay 6-1 6-1

.... Dont be delusional ...... http://wtaworld.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif They would get thrashed

CooCooCachoo
Jul 27th, 2004, 12:03 PM
i hope Serena Williams to beat Paradorn Srichaphan somehow.

he should realize that his games suck now.

:cuckoo:

Matt Clarke, seriously, WTA players can't beat Top 100 players. There are no lousy players in the top 100. The only way they could win, is by playing against Fernando Gonzalez when he has one of his off-days..

Meteor Shower
Jul 27th, 2004, 12:05 PM
Santoro - Henin
i don't think this will end 6-1 6-1

Matt Clarke
Jul 27th, 2004, 12:05 PM
Maria Vs Top 100 player

Top 100 player Def. Maria 6-1 6-1

Lindsay Vs Top 100 player

Top 100 player Def. Lindsay 6-1 6-1

.... Dont be delusional ...... http://wtaworld.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif They would get thrashed

If the top 100 player was federer or roddick i will agree. Someone ranked 100 will not be able to break maria or lindsay very easily at all, and they will probably get broken first.

rrfnpump
Jul 27th, 2004, 12:07 PM
No WTA Top 5 Player could beat an ATP Player ranked at 700 IMO. Everything is said!

rwb196
Jul 27th, 2004, 12:13 PM
If the top 100 player was federer or roddick i will agree. Someone ranked 100 will not be able to break maria or lindsay very easily at all, and they will probably get broken first.

If you don't mind me asking, how old are you Matt?

I would like to put your opinions into some sort of perspective before I post a reply.

cheers

~RedRose~
Jul 27th, 2004, 12:21 PM
If the top 100 player was federer or roddick i will agree. Someone ranked 100 will not be able to break maria or lindsay very easily at all, and they will probably get broken first.
OMG please stop http://wtaworld.com/images/smilies/tape.gifhttp://wtaworld.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

xan
Jul 27th, 2004, 12:41 PM
Maria Vs Top 100 player

Top 100 player Def. Maria 6-1 6-1

Lindsay Vs Top 100 player

Top 100 player Def. Lindsay 6-1 6-1

.... Dont be delusional ...... http://wtaworld.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif They would get thrashed
I'm not so sure.

Patty Schnyder (who just got trounced by Harkleroad), after beating ATP 1000 ranked Patrick Mayr in Dec 2002, 7-6 7-5, played another exhibition match this year against Daniel Koellerer the ATP 167 and lost 6-2 6-4; which is a competitive scoreline.

Koellerer has beaten players like Karlovic and Sanguinetti this year.

Xian
Jul 27th, 2004, 01:47 PM
thats absolutely ridiculous, Im not a huge fan of mens tennis but no women in the top 10 can beat a ranked ATP player with some exception ( I saw the Mayr vs Schnyder match live and yes Patty played well on that day and Mayr who was ranked 1210 not 900 played pretty awful) the Schnyder vs Koellerer match was more for fun, Schnyder made 2 winners, while Koellerer about 40, I remember a game with 4 aces by Koellerer

I myself who now only plays local tournaments beat Julia Adlbrecht a player who was ranked about 400 three years ago 63 61

there is no chance, not for a Henin, not for a Williams and not for a Davenport to beat an ATP player because women play too inconsistent

CJ07
Jul 27th, 2004, 01:54 PM
I agree with John McEnroe when he said that Venus or Serena at their VERY best could beat a few top 200 players, but thats it.

Women just can't compete.

For example, my coach is a college all-american, and I'm a sucky high school player, and I can overpower her.

switz
Jul 27th, 2004, 02:23 PM
so stupid anyone thinking davenport or anyone at the top of the men's game would compete with any man in the top 200 let alone top 100. you just have to look at some of names like arthurs, corretja, johansson, koubek or rusedski who are all ranked in the 90s. it's laughable to think any female player could challenge any them under any circumstances. if you think so you have obviously never watched live pro tennis before because the difference is massive.

xan
Jul 27th, 2004, 02:33 PM
so stupid anyone thinking davenport or anyone at the top of the men's game would compete with any man in the top 200 let alone top 100. you just have to look at some of names like arthurs, corretja, johansson, koubek or rusedski who are all ranked in the 90s. it's laughable to think any female player could challenge any them under any circumstances. if you think so you have obviously never watched live pro tennis before because the difference is massive.
Do you read other people's posts, and take in the information they contain?

*hingis_forever*
Jul 27th, 2004, 02:37 PM
I was talking about the BEST female players, not the 3 you mentioned in the previous post. Sharapova, Davenport, 2 Williams, are more powerful and skilful than quite a lot of the men in the top 200.
But, you see, on any given day, any man in the top 100 theoretically could beat the likes of Federer or Roddick. The same can certainly not be said about Any woman, even Serena, Sharapova, and the rest you mentioned. I mean, most amle top 100 players have 2nd serves as good as or better than any woman! It's absurd and ignorant to think that any woman could beat any top 100 man! End of story!

watrat
Jul 27th, 2004, 02:40 PM
No WTA player could ever beat any of 100 ATP player at any time. The men's game is so much powefull that the points would have probably end after one or couple of stokes. It's stupid and ridiculous to compare men's nad women's tennis in that way.

LuckyStrike
Jul 27th, 2004, 03:45 PM
No Chance for the Ladies!!!

Matt Clarke
Jul 27th, 2004, 03:47 PM
where is olivier rochus ranked? I mean Maria would destroy him if they played for sure and most of the TOP female players.

The Crow
Jul 27th, 2004, 03:51 PM
where is olivier rochus ranked? I mean Maria would destroy him if they played for sure and most of the TOP female players.
:lol: :haha:

*hingis_forever*
Jul 27th, 2004, 03:52 PM
where is olivier rochus ranked? I mean Maria would destroy him if they played for sure and most of the TOP female players.
No she wouldn't! I mean, Rochus is an accomplished player and has beaten the like of Marat Safin! So basically you're saying that Sharapova could maybe beat Safin too? And also, Rochus may be weaker than most top ATP players but he would still probably overpower Sharapova! Sharapova only looks like a better to you because she plays people on her level and wins more so it "magnifies" how good she really is. I'm not saying she isn't good, but come on, we saw what it was like when the LPGA's best player (Annika Sorenstam sp?) played against the men! She wasn't even close!

Matt Clarke
Jul 27th, 2004, 04:01 PM
No she wouldn't! I mean, Rochus is an accomplished player and has beaten the like of Marat Safin! So basically you're saying that Sharapova could maybe beat Safin too? And also, Rochus may be weaker than most top ATP players but he would still probably overpower Sharapova! Sharapova only looks like a better to you because she plays people on her level and wins more so it "magnifies" how good she really is. I'm not saying she isn't good, but come on, we saw what it was like when the LPGA's best player (Annika Sorenstam sp?) played against the men! She wasn't even close!

Can rochus serve at 115mph? no
has he got more skill? no

How is he supposed to win? He's 5ft 4.

*hingis_forever*
Jul 27th, 2004, 04:06 PM
Can rochus serve at 115mph? no
has he got more skill? no

How is he supposed to win? He's 5ft 4.
You're so ignorant! I wish I could organize a match between the two just to show you that I'm right because I've already explained to you several times that he's a man and men are stronger than women and he's alot quicker around the court so even if Sharapova did start dictating (which wouldn't happen), he would just wear her down! And also, if Paola Suarez can beat her, than I'm pretty damn sure that Olivier Rochus can!

P.S. He can serve 115 mph! Obviously you've never seen him play?

Matt Clarke
Jul 27th, 2004, 04:11 PM
You're so ignorant! I wish I could organize a match between the two just to show you that I'm right because I've already explained to you several times that he's a man and men are stronger than women and he's alot quicker around the court so even if Sharapova did start dictating (which wouldn't happen), he would just wear her down! And also, if Paola Suarez can beat her, than I'm pretty damn sure that Olivier Rochus can!

P.S. He can serve 115 mph! Obviously you've never seen him play?

On clay he could beat her. On Grass? NO way
Maria would easily outpower him and outplay him.

*hingis_forever*
Jul 27th, 2004, 04:14 PM
On clay he could beat her. On Grass? NO way
Maria would easily outpower him and outplay him.
You act as though power is the only way you can win! And even if that is true, he would overpower her! He's one of the 100 best men in the world and on any given day could beat the likes of Federer and the same could most certainly not be said about Sharapova! Even though he is considered a counterpuncher in mens tennis, he would be a power player in women's tennis and would hit Sharapova off the court and into the lockerroom!

Spunky83
Jul 27th, 2004, 04:18 PM
On clay he could beat her. On Grass? NO way
Maria would easily outpower him and outplay him.

Ok, now itīs enough. I thought this was going to be a fun thread, but this is just totally ridicolous...no matter how good Maria is, she will NEVER be able to beat someone like Rochus. I wonīt sum up everything again, but OMG...I donīt know if you are joking about Sharapova beating Rochus on grass, but if you donīt, than you have serious issues, Matt!

But, hey, it was a good laugh! :lol:

rated_next
Jul 27th, 2004, 04:25 PM
but if women are so bad, how are they able to do well in mixed doubles? :confused:

*hingis_forever*
Jul 27th, 2004, 04:27 PM
but if women are so bad, how are they able to do well in mixed doubles? :confused:
Because it's MIXED DOUBLES so they have a man right by them.

pigam
Jul 27th, 2004, 04:28 PM
:lol: Rochus beated Marat Safin 2times (1 time on hard courts)
but of course, Masha is a far better and more powerfull player than Safin :haha: :tape:

rated_next
Jul 27th, 2004, 04:30 PM
but in mixed doubles, they are able to return serves, and rally with the men from the baseline

i'm not saying they will win, but they wouldn't get demolished

pigam
Jul 27th, 2004, 04:33 PM
but in mixed doubles, they are able to return serves, and rally with the men from the baseline

i'm not saying they will win, but they wouldn't get demolished
they would. Men rarely serve at full speed against women in mixed dubs.
Justine played a match against Noah (retired, nota bene!),
from time to time, she could outplay him, but when Noah raised his serve speed with 50km/h, she couldn't do a thing. That is normal. Would a women be able to win the Tour de France? no. Would she run/swim a faster 100 meters? no.
That's perfectly normal, Women have a totally different physique, that's the way it is.

azza
Jul 27th, 2004, 04:33 PM
No Wta Player Could Beat Any Atp Player Who Is In Top 1000

Matt Clarke
Jul 27th, 2004, 04:37 PM
Ok, now itīs enough. I thought this was going to be a fun thread, but this is just totally ridicolous...no matter how good Maria is, she will NEVER be able to beat someone like Rochus. I wonīt sum up everything again, but OMG...I donīt know if you are joking about Sharapova beating Rochus on grass, but if you donīt, than you have serious issues, Matt!

But, hey, it was a good laugh! :lol:

No mate, i'm not joking. Tell me what attributes rochus has that is better than maria's?

CJ07
Jul 27th, 2004, 04:37 PM
FYI Oliver Rochus played Justine Henin Hardenne...he won 6-0

pigam
Jul 27th, 2004, 04:38 PM
FYI Oliver Rochus played Justine Henin Hardenne...he won 6-0
yeah, but Masha is waaaaaaaay better than Justine, remember ;)

CJ07
Jul 27th, 2004, 04:38 PM
No mate, i'm not joking. Tell me what attributes rochus has that is better than maria's?
buddy, thats not the point.

Obviously Sharapova is a better player, but if the ball flies past you there's nothing you can do.

Go back and watch Rugrats kid ;)

pigam
Jul 27th, 2004, 04:41 PM
No mate, i'm not joking. Tell me what attributes rochus has that is better than maria's?
he beat Justine, Maria didn't
he beat the nr 1. player 2 times (Safin), Maria hasn't
he has a penis, Maria hasn't (I think :unsure: ) :p

The Crow
Jul 27th, 2004, 04:47 PM
Ollie is one of the most skilled players of the ATP circuit. Or how else would he be in the men's top 100 of the world being so small, you think? He can return/break serves of the likes of Safin and you think Masha is going to hit ace after ace against him? lol. And he has the most amazing groundies I've ever seen. So go and watch a match of his before you're telling BS in here.

Matt Clarke
Jul 27th, 2004, 04:52 PM
Ollie is one of the most skilled players of the ATP circuit. Or how else would he be in the men's top 100 of the world being so small, you think? He can return/break serves of the likes of Safin and you think Masha is going to hit ace after ace against him? lol. And he has the most amazing groundies I've ever seen. So go and watch a match of his before you're telling BS in here.

Yes i've seen a few of his games, including a 5 set classic at wimbledon when he beat safin a few years ago. I was impressed. We won't know who will win until they play each other, its just that in my opinion i think maria will be too strong for rochus, i could be wrong though.

Jericho
Jul 27th, 2004, 04:55 PM
Serena actually beat Roddick before ;) .... but that was when they were like 10 year olds :tape:

Bristol
Jul 27th, 2004, 04:59 PM
Mr Clarke I don't think your really listening to the facts which people are putting down on this thread. I have spoke about a match between Jenifer Capriati and an Unknown 500 ranking Atp player, in which Capriati got demolished. Quite a few others have also given examples, Williams sisters etc. I think there was even a scenario where Navaratilova played JImmy Connors and she was able to use the duobles court and he was only allowed 1 serve and she still lost. There is no comparison mate none at all!!!
Even Maria Sharapova against the number 900 would still lose! And to even think she would stand a chance against Olivier Rochus is a joke mate pretty much like this thread why do you think they have a chance when coaches and experts have spoke about it before and all agreed that they wouldn't!! You seen a match we havent?

justine&coria
Jul 27th, 2004, 05:10 PM
I really believe that Serena, Justine, Venus and Kim could compete with some top 200 players !!!
Some of you are imagining that those players can't handle power ! It's not really the case.
All those 4 players can hit hard, and can move really really well : they definitely can give some top 200 player (who doesn't serve very extremely well) some problems.

I don't think Sharapova or Davenport could handle the men's game : their games are based on power, and they lack movement ! Against the women, it might not be that important, but men are used to play against powerful players, and the lack of movement of Davenport and Sharapova would be "fatal" to them !

Of course, a woman will never be able to make the Tour de France (even the men need drugs ) ;) ), but in tennis, it's a bit different.

And guys, I'm not saying that the women's tennis is coming nearer to the men's ! I'm just saying that the very very best women players (playing near their best) could compete with some of the men that are inside the top 200. So calm down ! ;)

Meteor Shower
Jul 27th, 2004, 05:10 PM
FYI Oliver Rochus played Justine Henin Hardenne...he won 6-0

:eek: :eek: :eek:

justine&coria
Jul 27th, 2004, 05:12 PM
yeah, but fact is that Serena, Venus, Justine weren't at their peak when they got beaten by the men players !!!!!!
It's like when Serena beat Roddick when he was younger !

*hingis_forever*
Jul 27th, 2004, 05:13 PM
yeah, but fact is that Serena, Venus, Justine weren't at their peak when they got beaten by the men players !!!!!!
It's like when Serena beat Roddick when he was younger !
Yeah, but neither was Rochus at his peak!

vogus
Jul 27th, 2004, 05:18 PM
So much ignorance in this thread. If you people really knew anything about tennis then you wouldn't be doing all this generalizing. Generalizing is for people who don't have any specific information to back up their arguments. Men vs women is just like any other tennis match - it's about the matchup. Men should win most of the time but there is no law of nature preventing a woman from having a good day and the man from having a bad one, and the woman beats the man. Matt Clarke has a point, bcuz Masha vs. Ollie on grass could be a problem for Ollie. If i were a betting man i'd bet on Rochus but i wouldn't bet my life on it, that's for sure.

Sure, Braasch beat Serena and Venus in a practice set, with no money on the line. Do male players sometimes beat other male players 6-2 in practice sets? Do female players sometimes lose to other female players 6-1 in practice sets? Obviously, yes and yes. The often-cited Braasch vs Williams example proves little or nothing.

The other point is that if you go far enough down in the rankings, women in the Top 20, let's say, are definitely going to start to beat SOME of the men SOME of the time. Patty proved that by taking out Patrick Mayr (who by the way Xian was the CHAMPION of Innsbruck or something, are you going to tell me that all the male tennis players in the Innsbruck region of Austria suck?)

And my guess if you go down to the male club level, the male club players would lose to WTA touring pros almost all of the time.

Xian
Jul 27th, 2004, 05:25 PM
So much ignorance in this thread. If you people really knew anything about tennis then you wouldn't be doing all this generalizing. Generalizing is for people who don't have any specific information to back up their arguments. Men vs women is just like any other tennis match - it's about the matchup. Men should win most of the time but there is no law of nature preventing a woman from having a good day and the man from having a bad one, and the woman beats the man. Matt Clarke has a point, bcuz Masha vs. Ollie on grass could be a problem for Ollie. If i were a betting man i'd bet on Rochus but i wouldn't bet my life on it, that's for sure.

Sure, Braasch beat Serena and Venus in a practice set, with no money on the line. Do male players sometimes beat other male players 6-2 in practice sets? Do female players sometimes lose to other female players 6-1 in practice sets? Obviously, yes and yes. The often-cited Braasch vs Williams example proves little or nothing.

The other point is that if you go far enough down in the rankings, women in the Top 20, let's say, are definitely going to start to beat SOME of the men SOME of the time. Patty proved that by taking out Patrick Mayr (who by the way Xian was the CHAMPION of Innsbruck or something, are you going to tell me that all the male tennis players in the Innsbruck region of Austria suck?)

And my guess if you go down to the male club level, the male club players would lose to WTA touring pros almost all of the time.
Mayr isnt even winning national tournaments in Austria. Two more sets Babsi Schett played 2 years ago, it wasnt her peak but 26 vs Sander Groen NED and 16 vs Henrik Dreekmann GER

vogus
Jul 27th, 2004, 05:31 PM
with all due respect, Schett is not one of the female pros who you'd expect to do well against men. She's quite submissive, and second of all she's far from being a top-level female pro. And Mayr may not win the national Austrian tournies but i'm sure he is way above the level of a club player. I mean, he's a male professional player who had an ATP ranking.

CJ07
Jul 27th, 2004, 05:39 PM
Some other Mixed Singels Scores

Guillermo Canas def. Venus Williams 6-4 6-3 (1998)*
Serena def. Roddick 6-2 6-1 (1994)*
Kournikova def. Safin 14 straight times
Seles def. Agassi*
Seles def. Courier*
Seles def. Conners**
Capriati def. J. McEnroe 7-5 (2002)

*Not 100% on year/
Serena/Roddick not sure on score
Seles won those as kids...Conners may or not be true

Jericho
Jul 27th, 2004, 05:52 PM
Serena def. Roddick 6-2 6-1 (1994)*
i was right...go Serena! :o

Calimero377
Jul 27th, 2004, 06:15 PM
Thats could be just a one off. I mean Sharapova and Davenport would be able to beat most of the men in the top 100. But they won't be able to beat the very top male players though.


Complete nonsense. Obviously you don't watch tennis.
Graf herself once said that she couldn't beat a male #1000 player ....

:p

!<blocparty>!
Jul 27th, 2004, 06:29 PM
OK, NO women would have a hope in hell of beating any male player ranked inside the top 800.

I have heard players say "It's a totally different game"

Meaning the men just use so much more spin on serves, and shots, they move so much quciker, are stronger, can last longer, and react faster.

It's no good comparing men and women in tennis wise, its not fair.

justine&coria
Jul 27th, 2004, 07:25 PM
Yeah, but neither was Rochus at his peak!
and then ??
We can assume that Justine has improved a lot lot more than Rochus did !

Brian Stewart
Jul 28th, 2004, 09:38 AM
Unless I'm mistaken, the thread asked HAS any WTA player ever beaten an ATP player. The answer is yes. Here are some of the known instances:

Straight-up tennis (no handicaps)

Patty Schnyder d. Patrik Mayr (who was 1080 at the time)

Judith Wiesner d. Lars Rehman (more than 2 years after she retired)

Barbara Paulus d. Karsten Braasch

Martina Navratilova d. Eric Taino, who was in the top 200

Amelie Mauresmo d. her coach (not sure when he retired before coaching) Loic Courteau (sp?) 6-0

Barbara Schett lost by a respectable 6-3 6-3 score to then 79th ranked Nikolai Davydenko

with handicaps:

Petra Mandula d. the former top Hungarian male player (unranked, but making a comeback) Sandor... ? after being spotted a 15-0 lead in every game.

Martina Navratilova d. Roscoe Tanner in straight sets right after Tanner reached the Wimbledon final. Tanner got only 1 serve, and Martina got to use the doubles alleys. (Way too big a handicap.) Connors wised up and only gave Martina a couple of extra feet on each side (while keeping the 1 serve rule). He still almost lost (and would have, had Martina not had an abysmal serving day. Even so, she served for the first set.)

Thus the debate isn't whether the top women could beat anyone in the men's top 1000, because non-elite women have done so. Likewise, women have beaten men in the top 500. So we know it can be done because it has been done. The only speculation is over how high up the ATP list can the top women go?

As far as power goes, I don't think the difference is what some think. This applies not only to groundstroke differences, but serve differences, and not only between genders, but also within gender.

In the last decade, there have been new radar devices that measure the speed of the ball on court. Some, like the serve gun, measure initial racquet speed. Others measured the "terminal" speed of the shot. Others like hawkeye or shot spot can measure speed at various points.

The first such major use of one of these occured at the US Open in the mid-90's. We were told that Agassi was averaging 70 MPH on his groundstrokes. If that doesn't sound like much, keep in mind that under that particular system, the average ATP groundstroke was 45-50 MPH. Agassi was still largely a banger in those days. When Graf and Seles squared off in the final, we got one stat on their GS speed... they were hitting at 68 MPH. We never saw another stat after that. (Hmmm.)

A study which was done at the time focused almost exclusively on the men, with only a handful of women's shots analyzed. The study confirmed what casual observation told you, that men do hit with more spin on average. However, things were a lot closer when peak spin (RPMs) were analyzed. When the women chose to hit with heavy spin, they hit with similar RPMs. And the most heavily-spun shot was a Novotna slice backhand, at something like 3500 RPMs. The men were able to strike a better balance between spin and speed. But then, the women's sample was woefully small. And while the men's sample included the best players (Sampras, Agassi, Courier, etc.), the women's did not (no Graf, Seles, Sabatini).

There have been disappointingly few mentions of GS speed with the current technology. It would be interesting to see a list of top GS speed leaders, as well as average speeds. Announcers would have you believe that all of the men hit harder than all of the women, yet offer no statistical evidence to back it up. We're supposed to accept their opinion. Given how much they screw up simple facts, I find this rather difficult to do.

Moving to the serve, since the radar gun measures initial racquet head speed, it favors whomever can create the longest "lever". This means it favors taller players over shorter ones, and men over women, as men have longer torsos than women of the same height, and on average, broader shoulders. But are the people with the higher radar gun readings really serving faster, or just swinging faster? Are the 2nd serves of shorter players really that much slower and easier to return?

The answer to the second question, it turns out, is no. Some sample data bears this out. During a match between Lindsay Davenport and Emilie Loit, you would expect that Davenport had the "bigger" serve. Especially if it came down to a second serve. You'd expect wrong. The Shot Spot showed a graphic of their respective 2nd serves,and what I'll call the "terminal velocity" (speed when it reached the opposing baseline). For those who aren't familiar with the basic physics behind it, every serve loses the majority of it's initial radar gun speed by the time it reaches the opposing baseline. A typical 130 MPH serve is often traveling 60 MPH or less by the time it gets to the other baseline. Interstingly, ShotSpot has shown us that the taller players actually lose more speed, undoubtedly due to the greater downward angle. (More of an up-and-down bounce as opposed to more of a skid effect for the shorter players.)

In the match cited above, the "terminal velocity" of Davenport's 2nd serve was 41 MPH. Loit's T.V. was 42 MPH. This was just a small sample. A similar graphic in another match looked at Roddick's average 2nd serve speed on clay vs grass. The T.V. on grass was 43 MPH, while on clay it was 41 MPH. A quick glimpse during a Safin match showed his 2nd serve with a T.V. of 37 MPH. What does this mean? Only that the actual speeds at which serves are traveling when the returner attempts to strike them can be a lot different than what the radar guns lead you to believe. Thus, if you see a player struggling against a shorter player's "weak" 2nd serve, it may not be all that weak. And a tall player's "powerful" serve may not be any harder to handle.

Sure, there are other variables to consider, such as height and spin of ball, etc. But the basic constraints of time apply. The faster a shot's true velocity, the less time you have to repond to it. So even if it's basically a flat shot, which is "easier" to handle, you can't handle it if you can't reach it, or if you can't react in time. And it's relevance to the whole men vs women thing is this: the actual difference between the (tour level) men and women is very slim. And at this level, the very slimmest margins can determine even lopsided scores. As little as 5% difference could determine which end of a 6-2 score you're on.

And, speaking as a statistics junkie, I like to see more widespread use of the available technology. Let's see average speeds and peak speeds and terminal speeds of shots. Compile a list of the men's and women's results. Let us analyze, debate, discuss, etc. Of course, it may make their announcers look (even more) foolish when they claim one man hits harder than another, and one woman hits harder than another, and the stats show just the opposite.

SerenaVenusNo1
Jul 28th, 2004, 09:47 AM
Go back and watch Rugrats kid ;)

Moved on to Power Rangers?

SerenaVenusNo1
Jul 28th, 2004, 09:54 AM
Unless I'm mistaken, the thread asked HAS any WTA player ever beaten an ATP player. The answer is yes. Here are some of the known instances:

Straight-up tennis (no handicaps)

Patty Schnyder d. Patrik Mayr (who was 1080 at the time)

Judith Wiesner d. Lars Rehman (more than 2 years after she retired)

Barbara Paulus d. Karsten Braasch

Martina Navratilova d. Eric Taino, who was in the top 200

Amelie Mauresmo d. her coach (not sure when he retired before coaching) Loic Courteau (sp?) 6-0

Barbara Schett lost by a respectable 6-3 6-3 score to then 79th ranked Nikolai Davydenko

with handicaps:

Petra Mandula d. the former top Hungarian male player (unranked, but making a comeback) Sandor... ? after being spotted a 15-0 lead in every game.

Martina Navratilova d. Roscoe Tanner in straight sets right after Tanner reached the Wimbledon final. Tanner got only 1 serve, and Martina got to use the doubles alleys. (Way too big a handicap.) Connors wised up and only gave Martina a couple of extra feet on each side (while keeping the 1 serve rule). He still almost lost (and would have, had Martina not had an abysmal serving day. Even so, she served for the first set.)

Thus the debate isn't whether the top women could beat anyone in the men's top 1000, because non-elite women have done so. Likewise, women have beaten men in the top 500. So we know it can be done because it has been done. The only speculation is over how high up the ATP list can the top women go?

As far as power goes, I don't think the difference is what some think. This applies not only to groundstroke differences, but serve differences, and not only between genders, but also within gender.

In the last decade, there have been new radar devices that measure the speed of the ball on court. Some, like the serve gun, measure initial racquet speed. Others measured the "terminal" speed of the shot. Others like hawkeye or shot spot can measure speed at various points.

The first such major use of one of these occured at the US Open in the mid-90's. We were told that Agassi was averaging 70 MPH on his groundstrokes. If that doesn't sound like much, keep in mind that under that particular system, the average ATP groundstroke was 45-50 MPH. Agassi was still largely a banger in those days. When Graf and Seles squared off in the final, we got one stat on their GS speed... they were hitting at 68 MPH. We never saw another stat after that. (Hmmm.)

A study which was done at the time focused almost exclusively on the men, with only a handful of women's shots analyzed. The study confirmed what casual observation told you, that men do hit with more spin on average. However, things were a lot closer when peak spin (RPMs) were analyzed. When the women chose to hit with heavy spin, they hit with similar RPMs. And the most heavily-spun shot was a Novotna slice backhand, at something like 3500 RPMs. The men were able to strike a better balance between spin and speed. But then, the women's sample was woefully small. And while the men's sample included the best players (Sampras, Agassi, Courier, etc.), the women's did not (no Graf, Seles, Sabatini).

There have been disappointingly few mentions of GS speed with the current technology. It would be interesting to see a list of top GS speed leaders, as well as average speeds. Announcers would have you believe that all of the men hit harder than all of the women, yet offer no statistical evidence to back it up. We're supposed to accept their opinion. Given how much they screw up simple facts, I find this rather difficult to do.

Moving to the serve, since the radar gun measures initial racquet head speed, it favors whomever can create the longest "lever". This means it favors taller players over shorter ones, and men over women, as men have longer torsos than women of the same height, and on average, broader shoulders. But are the people with the higher radar gun readings really serving faster, or just swinging faster? Are the 2nd serves of shorter players really that much slower and easier to return?

The answer to the second question, it turns out, is no. Some sample data bears this out. During a match between Lindsay Davenport and Emilie Loit, you would expect that Davenport had the "bigger" serve. Especially if it came down to a second serve. You'd expect wrong. The Shot Spot showed a graphic of their respective 2nd serves,and what I'll call the "terminal velocity" (speed when it reached the opposing baseline). For those who aren't familiar with the basic physics behind it, every serve loses the majority of it's initial radar gun speed by the time it reaches the opposing baseline. A typical 130 MPH serve is often traveling 60 MPH or less by the time it gets to the other baseline. Interstingly, ShotSpot has shown us that the taller players actually lose more speed, undoubtedly due to the greater downward angle. (More of an up-and-down bounce as opposed to more of a skid effect for the shorter players.)

In the match cited above, the "terminal velocity" of Davenport's 2nd serve was 41 MPH. Loit's T.V. was 42 MPH. This was just a small sample. A similar graphic in another match looked at Roddick's average 2nd serve speed on clay vs grass. The T.V. on grass was 43 MPH, while on clay it was 41 MPH. A quick glimpse during a Safin match showed his 2nd serve with a T.V. of 37 MPH. What does this mean? Only that the actual speeds at which serves are traveling when the returner attempts to strike them can be a lot different than what the radar guns lead you to believe. Thus, if you see a player struggling against a shorter player's "weak" 2nd serve, it may not be all that weak. And a tall player's "powerful" serve may not be any harder to handle.

Sure, there are other variables to consider, such as height and spin of ball, etc. But the basic constraints of time apply. The faster a shot's true velocity, the less time you have to repond to it. So even if it's basically a flat shot, which is "easier" to handle, you can't handle it if you can't reach it, or if you can't react in time. And it's relevance to the whole men vs women thing is this: the actual difference between the (tour level) men and women is very slim. And at this level, the very slimmest margins can determine even lopsided scores. As little as 5% difference could determine which end of a 6-2 score you're on.

And, speaking as a statistics junkie, I like to see more widespread use of the available technology. Let's see average speeds and peak speeds and terminal speeds of shots. Compile a list of the men's and women's results. Let us analyze, debate, discuss, etc. Of course, it may make their announcers look (even more) foolish when they claim one man hits harder than another, and one woman hits harder than another, and the stats show just the opposite.

Ok, Brian, if the "TV" between Davenport and Loit ranked Loit higher, then why doesn't she produce more aces than Lindsay who the radar gun favours?

Brian Stewart
Jul 28th, 2004, 09:58 AM
Getting back to the general debate, two major factors would determine a woman player's chances against a tour male player. One, as mentioned before, is style matchups. Certain ones are more or less favorable. Thus, even within a tour, just because a player consistently loses to someone ranked X, doesn't mean they couldn't beat, and even consistently beat, someone ranked many spots higher.
Number two is the mental factor. A lot depends on the woman's belief in her ability to win, and in her background. A player from a poorer background may have been consistently reinforced with the notion that she can achieve anything. Someone from an upper income background may have had it drummed into their head from an early age that women are "inferior" and wouldn't have the belief to pull off such a win, even if they had the talent. Thus, one could envision a Martina Navratilova or a Serena Williams winning against respectably ranked man, while one could also envision a Chris Evert or a Mary Joe Fernandez losing to their brother or even father.

SerenaVenusNo1
Jul 28th, 2004, 10:09 AM
Ok, Brian, if the "TV" between Davenport and Loit ranked Loit higher, then why doesn't she produce more aces than Lindsay who the radar gun favours?

rjd1111
Jul 28th, 2004, 11:46 AM
but Kartsen Braasch (at that time ranked ~300) beat Serena and Venus Williams 6-1 and 6-2


That was many years ago and would be different now. Serena often
practices with men she says she is starting to beat them. I don't
know who they are and where they are ranked.

Aphex
Jul 28th, 2004, 12:01 PM
Technically if you're ranked outside the top 150, you're not an ATP player unless you've been there before, so I guess the answer is no, even with Brian Stewart's examples.

Beat
Jul 28th, 2004, 12:52 PM
On clay he could beat her. On Grass? NO way
Maria would easily outpower him and outplay him.

:haha: you are taking the piss, aren't you?

anyway, there's been about 2,5 million threads about this already.

iloveazza
Jul 28th, 2004, 12:54 PM
Cara Black beat Brian at Wimbledon.
She also managed to kill Woodbridge at the same tournament.

And when Vince Spadea was struggling winning even a single match, pre much every WTA player could have sent him to hell.

GoDominique
Jul 28th, 2004, 01:11 PM
Judith Wiesner d. Lars Rehman (more than 2 years after she retired)

Barbara Paulus d. Karsten Braasch

Martina Navratilova d. Eric Taino, who was in the top 200

Barbara Schett lost by a respectable 6-3 6-3 score to then 79th ranked Nikolai Davydenko

:haha:

No way these are 'real' results. :retard: I can't believe you are taking these scores serious.

Julian
Jul 28th, 2004, 01:41 PM
It's obvious that no WTA tour player can beat an ATP player (although I have yet to see how an ATP player from the #200-800 ranks play)..but I could imagine it would be the same..but a local club male player beating a top WTA player like Serena?..uhh I dunno..either its just where I live or not but the guys at my club SUCK! lol

BTW I agree, its the fitness, reaction and also the MENTALITY..I dont think any ATP player will say that they would lose to someone from the WTA and the same goes for the female players..they know they have no chance to beat someone in the ATP

vogus
Jul 28th, 2004, 02:41 PM
thanx Brian for going into a little bit of depth on that. The people who are on the other side of this argument continue to prove over and over again that they have nothing to back up their claims that there's such a big difference between the mens and womens games (i do think there IS a difference, but it's a much smaller one than these shouters try to get us to believe). The tennis establishment, especially including the leading female announcers Carillo and Fernandez, are always timidly running away from questions about how a top woman might stack up against men players with various ATP rankings. Ironically i think it's Johnny Mac who has been the most forthright on the issue. It's as though a lot of the women would actually be ashamed if they beat a man, bcuz they don't want to be seen as a BJK-style dyke - and considering BJK's image among the mainstream tennis public, who could really blame them for trying to avoid any paralells with her.

casanovalover
Jul 28th, 2004, 02:57 PM
how stupid. BJK is a dyke and therefore she is labelled as one. nobody with any brains would draw negative paralells between the 2.

of course there is always some possibility that a man could lose to a women, but if if you actually watch a tennis tournament at the site and watch a guy in the top 200 you will see a significant difference in what they do on court and how they handle pace. i just don't accept it and i don't need to go into great length as to why i am right because i now in my heart that i am.

xan
Jul 28th, 2004, 03:05 PM
Quite right. All we see from a lot of the male superiority brigade is not facts, but boasting and insults against anyone who dares to disagree with them. I've watched a lot of mixed doubles matches, and I've not seen the enormous gulf between male and female players that some are claiming.

The days when males delivered powder puff serves in mixed doubles is long gone, as can be told by the speed gun. And although male serves are generally harder, a lot of the women can hold their serve better than their partners (Alicia Molik for example). In addition women tend to be better at returning.

I think the examples we've already been given show that on a certain day some women can compete with some ATP 100 and below ranked men. Of course the average male player is a lot stronger than the average woman player, but there is overlap in skill and strength.

In other sports such as swimming and even weightlifting, we see considerable overlap between male and female performance. Women now would have beaten the mens swimming records in the 1960s. Western women could beat most 3rd world male swimmers.

What we do see is a lot of vested interests. Male pride is involved, and being beaten by a woman is still seen as the ultimate shame to some. Pride and other factors are what prevent many male v female battles taking place. The man has nothing to gain and everything to lose. In her turn, the individual woman may be more troubled by nerves and by the force of expectation, and so produce a poor performance. Similarly in most of these hearsay tales of top women being "beaten" by their brothers or dads, does it not occur to you that these women often ease up themselves to save male pride?

Until we get a greater number of trans-gender contests, we simply will not know where the line is drawn where top women start beating the lower-ranked men.

Beat
Jul 28th, 2004, 03:16 PM
:haha:

No way these are 'real' results. :retard: I can't believe you are taking these scores serious.

brian just answered the question. the results happened, for statistics it doesn't really matter how seriously the men took these matches.

SerenaVenusNo1
Jul 28th, 2004, 11:07 PM
Technically if you're ranked outside the top 150, you're not an ATP player unless you've been there before, so I guess the answer is no, even with Brian Stewart's examples.

You are an ATP player whether or not you've played an ATP event as you are included on the ATP's rankings.

SerenaVenusNo1
Jul 28th, 2004, 11:08 PM
Brian, you've dodged my question thrice.

Ok, Brian, if the "TV" between Davenport and Loit ranked Loit higher, then why doesn't she produce more aces than Lindsay who the radar gun favours?

Doc
Jul 28th, 2004, 11:19 PM
Brian, you've dodged my question thrice.

Ok, Brian, if the "TV" between Davenport and Loit ranked Loit higher, then why doesn't she produce more aces than Lindsay who the radar gun favours?

Two factors could be serve placement and disguise. Both factors contribute strongly to ace count.

CJ07
Jul 28th, 2004, 11:54 PM
Just to add what Brian was saying, at the Australian Open, Venus averaged 82 MPH on groundstrokes (:worship: ) in the first round.

In the final, Roger Federer averaged I believe 78 or 80.

Of course Roger was hitting 45 MPH slices, so that explains that, but his fastest groundstroke was 96. Venus's fastest, 94.

At Wimbledon 2003, Venus averaged more speed on her groundstrokes than Stefan Koubek. Venus, whose fastest groundstroke was 88 MPH against Srebotnik, while Koubek's fastest grounstroke was 90 against Federer.

However, with that said, numbers can be deceiving.

SerenaVenusNo1
Jul 29th, 2004, 12:29 AM
Two factors could be serve placement and disguise. Both factors contribute strongly to ace count.

I agree. Davenport is indeed reknowned for her placement. However, somehow I don't think that's it. I don't believe that makes up for the discrepancy.

I'd really like to hear Brian's answer before I go into a big thing about it.

bobcat
Jul 29th, 2004, 01:58 AM
I agree that none of the top women could beat a top 100 or even 200 player and would struggle against a top 1000.

HOWEVER, I believe that when Graf was coming up and women's tennis wasn't as powerful yet that she might have given some of the top 200-300 men some trouble. Her coach was Pavel Slozel who was a decent player and she was beating him in practice and he had just retired. Also, I remember Chris Evert saying that she couldn't believe how hard Steffi was hitting the ball and that Steffi was hitting harder than a lot of men.

mboyle
Jul 29th, 2004, 03:32 AM
I agree with John McEnroe when he said that Venus or Serena at their VERY best could beat a few top 200 players, but thats it.
Add Sharapova to the list. Especially in a year when she becomes a bit more consistent.

Brian Stewart
Jul 29th, 2004, 09:50 AM
Brian, you've dodged my question thrice.

Ok, Brian, if the "TV" between Davenport and Loit ranked Loit higher, then why doesn't she produce more aces than Lindsay who the radar gun favours?

Actually, I did not dodge your question at all. I was typing up a continuation of my message in a second post (the first was plenty long) and didn't see your question the first time. I just now got back to the board, and hadn't seen the subsequent queries.

The answer was contained in my initial post. The T.V. of Loit's SECOND serve was higher than that of Davenport's SECOND serve. Davenport, like everyone else, scores about 99% of her aces on the first serve. There were no stats given for those. (Hence my call for more stats during and after matches.) It's highly probable that there is a greater difference in first serves; this one in Davenport's favor. And Davenport is a much better returner than Loit, so she's going to take away a lot of potential aces.

I would like to make a correction on one set of numbers, which were Roddick's (the only ones I wasn't 100% about). There seemed too small a difference for the point they were trying to make. I think the actual numbers were 63 and 51 MPH, on his first serve, not second. It basically explained why he is so vulnerable on red clay, as his biggest weapon loses a full 20% of its sting.

The rest of the numbers are guaranteed correct. As for the results, and the information I and others have posted, it is what it is. People can choose not to believe it, just as they can choose not to believe the sun rises in the East and that the Earth is round. That doesn't make it any less true. It's just the tennis equivalent of being a member of the "Flat Earth Society".
And for the record, I'm not saying I would pick Sharapova to beat Rochus in the example given earlier in the thread (and to say she would "thrash" him seems silly). But we do have some starting benchmarks. Some second-line women have beaten men in the top 1000, and the top 500. These are women who would normally beaten by the very top women. (Except Patty, who can play at that level herself sometimes.) So the crossover point is somewhere between Federer and these benchmarks. And remember, saying a woman player "can" beat a man player of a certain rank isn't the same as saying she is better than him. Just that, under the right circumstances, she can win that one match out of 5/10/20/50/100/whatever.

Oh, and one interesting note about that Novotna slice backhand I cited: it jumped out in the study because of it's uniqueness. The people analyzing the shots mentioned how, on that surface (Decoturf; the study took place at the US Open), whenever someone would hit a slice shot, the friction of the surface would grab the ball and actually reverse the spin. This was true of everyone's slice shots except the Novotna backhand. It was so heavily spun, it still had backspin/underspin on it after the bounce. This astounded the researchers. (Makes one wish they had done studies on the slice backhands of Graf, Navratilova, McEnroe, and Rosewall, to name a few.)

SerenaVenusNo1
Jul 29th, 2004, 10:01 AM
Thanks, Brian. Now I saw that you said it was their second serves ... but since you said that, I cannot see how that makes any sort of point for you. You go on about Davenport's height, what the ball does after it hits the ground once, etc. You seem to be saying that just because the radar gun says one thing, the real velocity of the serves might actually be the same, despite the strength advantage of a player. Now ... what? In that last post, you say that Davenport gets almost all her aces on her first serve, and that is undoubtedly true. Her first serve is faster than Loit's, just as Federer's would be faster than Davenport's. So how do those statistics show us how the playing field between men and women is leveller than we think?

One more thing. It's not that I disbelieve the information you provided, it's just that I don't know the conclusions I'm supposed to draw from it.

Doc
Jul 29th, 2004, 10:34 AM
But serve velocity isn't everything. We've seen that the top women are often closer in groundstroke power to the men. Women are also better at returning. Brenda Schultz had an awesome serve for the 1990s, harder than a lot of the men, but women like Hingis and even Sabine Appelmans beat her quite comfortably. This is because although they couldn't break her serve most of the time, as long as they could hold their own serve through better all-court play, they would eventually get a game where the big serve broke down.

And going back to the serve itself, Davenport gets more Aces and serve winners than a lot of women who serve 10 mph faster than her on average. IMO This is because of her placing and the disguise of her serves, so that the receiver doesn't know where it's going and has a trickier shot to get back if she guesses it right. Variety of serve (a la Sharapova), is also important.

From mixed doubles we know
a) That many women don't just roll over and die when guys start serving big. They get a fair number of the serves back, and the guys do get broken on a regular basis. (I know the breaks of serve are not strictly comparable because of interceptions etc., but t doesn't suggest overwhelming unbeatable power either.)

b) That women's serves can trouble the guys. Watch people like Alicia, Lindsay, Elena B and L, playing mixed doubles. Helena Sukova used to regularly be the only unbroken server in a match.

This is not to say that the Top ten women will regularly beat a 200 ranked man, but on the right day, it's certainly possible. And as Brian says, we know that top women can beat men at some level. What we are arguing about is where the boundary is that male players become "invincible".