PDA

View Full Version : Juju express not good moneywise


Juju #1
Jun 6th, 2005, 01:56 PM
Nadal thriller re-ignites women's equal prize money battle

Press Trust of India
Posted online: Monday, June 06, 2005 at 1523 hours IST

Paris, June 6: Rafael Nadal's thrilling French Open triumph is set to re-ignite the explosive war of words over equal prize money for men and women at the grand slams.


Nadal earned 880,000 euros after beating Mariano Puerta 6-7 (6/8), 6-3, 6-1, 7-5 in a 3hr 24min final filled to the brim with drama, tension and scintillating exchanges.

Twenty-four hours earlier, Belgium's Justine Henin-Hardenne pocketed a cheque for 867,000 euros for a 6-1, 6-1 mismatch against a woeful Mary Pierce in a final which was all over in 62 minutes.

Last year, Gaston Gaudio recovered from two sets down and saved two match points to beat Argentine compatriot Guillermo Coria over five sets taking up 3hr 31 min.


In the women's final, Anastasia Myskina had brushed aside Russian team mate Elena Dementieva 6-1, 6-2 in 58 minutes.

At the moment, only the US Open, the Australian Open as well as the tour event in Dubai pay their men and women champions the same money.

Wimbledon and the French Open maintain the women's prize funds fractionally below that of the men's.

At Wimbledon this year, the men's champion will receive 933,500 euros; the women's winner will take home 890,000.

In the women's semi-finals here, Henin-Hardenne beat Nadia Petrova 6-2, 6-3 and Pierce brushed past Elena Likhovtseva 6-1, 6-1.

In the men's, Nadal was beating world number one Roger Federer in four sets while Puerta was coming from behind to Nikolay Davydenko in five sets, spending another three and a half hours on the court.

Mats Wilander, who won three French Opens including a 4hr 42min battle to subdue Guillermo Vilas in 1982, lashed out at the lack of quality in Saturday's women's final.

"I am sad for women's tennis. After the semi-finals I thought we could not go any lower," said the Swede.

"But the best thing about Mary Pierce in the final was her speech. She hit the ball for the pleasure of hitting the ball and didn't think about the means of hitting the ball to win the match.

"It is time to sound the alarm bell."

World number one Lindsay Davenport has long campaigned for equal prize money.

"People believe what they believe. You hear about women playing only three sets while men play five," said Davenport earlier this year.

"And the best women are never going to beat the best men. But it's a different game you go to watch with the women - it doesn't make it better or worse.

"Hopefully we will be able to change people's minds who are against it (equal prize money) we will try to persuade them. We still have to get women's tennis more popular and we have the players to do that."

After her capitulation here, the 30-year-old pierce refused to be drawn on the thorny subject."I think the best people to talk to are the people who are actually dealing

with that situation in the prize money area, men's side and women's side,

and the tournament's side," said the French woman.

Sam L
Jun 6th, 2005, 01:58 PM
It really shouldn't be about how long or short the tennis matches are but whether they sell tickets.

I mean Gaudio? Puerta? I really don't care for these players.

pigam
Jun 6th, 2005, 01:59 PM
Lindsay said it best.
besides, unequal prize money would be like turning back the clock!
there are great women's matches too (this final wasn't one, so? ), the discussion is IMHO stupid. Women attract as much crowds as men (if not more) thy work just as hard, they deserve to earn just as much. Too bad not more topplayers speak up like Linzi does.

tennisrox
Jun 6th, 2005, 02:00 PM
Yup

GoDominique
Jun 6th, 2005, 02:02 PM
It really shouldn't be about how long or short the tennis matches are but whether they sell tickets.

I mean Gaudio? Puerta? I really don't care for these players.
:rolleyes: If you missed the last two RG finals on the men's side just because you "don't care" then you can hardly call yourself a tennis fan.

Sam L
Jun 6th, 2005, 02:03 PM
:rolleyes: If you missed the last two RG finals on the men's side just because you "don't care" then you can hardly call yourself a tennis fan.
I'm a women's tennis fan. :rolleyes:

There are some male tennis players I find exciting like Safin and Federer but the claycourt specialists bore me to tears.

spudrsca
Jun 6th, 2005, 02:05 PM
The difference is that men's match can sell very easily even for the first rounds.

I doubt you can say the same with the women's game.

GoDominique
Jun 6th, 2005, 02:09 PM
I'm a women's tennis fan. :rolleyes::lol:
If you were a real tennis fan you would appreciate GOOD tennis, no matter who's playing it.

Sam L
Jun 6th, 2005, 02:12 PM
:lol:
If you were a real tennis fan you would appreciate GOOD tennis, no matter who's playing it.
Don't waste my time. :rolleyes: There's a reason for having wtaworld and mentennisforums. And I'm not arguing for women to be paid MORE than men. But for equality, which they obviously deserve.

kabuki
Jun 6th, 2005, 02:14 PM
I hate best 3 out of 5. My ADD kicks in. :lol: I'm all for 2 out of 3 for the guys at slams.

Juju #1
Jun 6th, 2005, 02:18 PM
Mats Wilander, who won three French Opens including a 4hr 42min battle to subdue Guillermo Vilas in 1982, lashed out at the lack of quality in Saturday's women's final.

"I am sad for women's tennis. After the semi-finals I thought we could not go any lower," said the Swede.




Mats...I remeber him playing McEnroe for over 6 hours. If he is going to set the standards for women's tennis than we are in trouble

GoDominique
Jun 6th, 2005, 02:20 PM
Lindsay is the last person who should open her mouth on this anyway. :tape:
Someone who tanks the 3rd set of a slam final in 20 minutes should get paid $0.

wendell
Jun 6th, 2005, 02:25 PM
just because the finals was not exciting, there were many matches before the finals that were good. Upsets galore!! Too bad a match like juju / kutz or mauresmo/ Ivanovic were not a final. They need to look at the tournament as a whole toward to quality of matches played. One final should not determine whether men or women should get equal prize money. The french open has been notorious for high profile players not making to the final. But past matches played at Wimbeldon, us and ausie opens prove that the women are just as entertaining as the men.

pigam
Jun 6th, 2005, 02:26 PM
Lindsay is the last person who should open her mouth on this anyway. :tape:
Someone who tanks the 3rd set of a slam final in 20 minutes should get paid $0.
Godom, i quite often can agree with you.
and noone is questioning that the men's final was more entertaing than the women's...
but come on: inequal prize money. that's sexism IMO.

mishar
Jun 6th, 2005, 02:27 PM
The men's tennis is a million times better quality wise than women. If they were distributing prize money based on that, the women would earn 1 dollar each. However, to maintain a distinction of 5% just seems like a pointless insult.

mishar
Jun 6th, 2005, 02:28 PM
Plus I don't remember the men's final at the U.S. Open last year being so competitive!

Fingon
Jun 6th, 2005, 02:45 PM
whatever,

a no long ago the permanent criticism was that two or three women dominated the game while any men could win. Federer (and Nadal on clay) proved that to be bullshit.

Yes, the women had some lop-sided finals, so did the men, it's not only RG.

Federer killed Hewitt at the US Open, he also killed Marat Safin at last years's Australian Open and Phillippoussis in Wimbledon in 2003.

Andy Roddick killer Ferrero at the 2003 US Open.

Look at the early rounds, the top male players just breeze through in straight sets. How many sets did the men's champion lose in his route to the finals? how many did the women's champion lose?

And I agree with Sam L, I am ok with the women playing on clay, but the men? you see two guys hitting the ball crosscourt 55 times until one hits it into the net, and is that exciting? one of the beaties of grass is that the men can't bore us to death with 10 minutes rallies with the exact same stroke over and over.

It seems the sexist journalist change the argument as it suits them, it was depth before, now it's contested finals, if Federer kills someone else in the Wimbledon final it will be the quality play of the champion.

whatever.

a final note, the only reason why the men get better audiences is because the ATP at least have a clue on how to market their sports, unlike the WTA's marketters that are brain dead, and the networks are sexists as we all know, they would never show early round women's matches, even if they are exciting, but they will show us obscure male player.

Or they will bore us to death by showing "God" Agassi killing someone in the early rounds and have to hear the commentators peeing their pants in ectassy because the great Andre is playing, and they won't miss a second of it.

And yes, the networks can afford to be sexists, they don't have to follow the audience preferences since they have a legal monopoly to broadcast the event, they could show how the clay dries (after a rain) and it will still be our only alternative.

Greenout
Jun 6th, 2005, 02:48 PM
Justine played a 3 hour 15 minute 3 set match. She's spent alot of
hours on court for her check. It shouldn't be based on the final
because the draws are so thick now that upsets are really common.

spudrsca
Jun 6th, 2005, 02:51 PM
What I'm sure is that you can still see matches of good quality between someone ranked 50 and another one ranked 65 in the men's matches while it would be horrible in the woman's game.

GoDominique
Jun 6th, 2005, 02:58 PM
Federer killed Hewitt at the US Open, he also killed Marat Safin at last years's Australian Open and Phillippoussis in Wimbledon in 2003.:rolleyes: I see now that you are just another "women's tennis fan".

Federer killed his opponents because he played BRILLIANTLY and his opponents played "only" well.
Justine killed Mary because Justine played an average match and Mary was truly horrible.
Same for last year's final.

Justine struggles in early rounds because she's nowhere near her best level there.
Reason: She doesn't have to be near it. She wins anyway.
Men have to be much more focused from round 1.
Do you think a "male Lindsay" (= a top-player unprepared and sloppy) would survive a single round in the men's draw ??? No.

rottweily
Jun 6th, 2005, 03:02 PM
Solution: make a clone of Justine :D

random fan
Jun 6th, 2005, 03:03 PM
I think the ones who better sell tickets shoud be paid more.

DA FOREHAND
Jun 6th, 2005, 03:10 PM
just because the finals was not exciting, there were many matches before the finals that were good. Upsets galore!! Too bad a match like juju / kutz or mauresmo/ Ivanovic were not a final. They need to look at the tournament as a whole toward to quality of matches played. One final should not determine whether men or women should get equal prize money. The french open has been notorious for high profile players not making to the final. But past matches played at Wimbeldon, us and ausie opens prove that the women are just as entertaining as the men.
Juju -v- Kutz, was not a very good match...

Then men are outperforming the women, and bringing you more entertaining tennis, they have sound arguements for unequal pay at this time.

pigam
Jun 6th, 2005, 03:16 PM
this is not about the quality of the game this is about unequal prizemoney. Wow! am I the only emancipated man around here :eek:

ys
Jun 6th, 2005, 03:21 PM
:rolleyes: If you missed the last two RG finals on the men's side just because you "don't care" then you can hardly call yourself a tennis fan.

Last two RG finals can hardly be called "tennis".. Watching two guys outmoonballing each other for 4 hours? I got better things to do with my time..

GoDominique
Jun 6th, 2005, 03:23 PM
But like someone else said, the 5% difference is sort of absurd.

If we're going to pay each sport for the "entertaining tennis", womens tennis would get 100$, and the men 100 000 000$.

Really, the simple and reasonnable solution is to give equal pay.
Basically I agree.

On the other hand, giving women equal prize money NOW (after this disastrous tournament) would look weird though. :p
Let's wait until they show some good tennis. :)

croat123
Jun 6th, 2005, 03:25 PM
the quality of men's tennis is way better
the men have to play longer matches
a player outside the top50 can beat a player inside the top10 on any given day on the men's tour

the quality of women's tennis (especially in the last two weeks) is horrible
matches are either less than an hour if one player tanks, or more than 3 if both players play terrible matches
there aren't as many upsets in the women's game. sure, msl beat myskina, elena l. beat elena d. and mary beat lindsay, but the favorites all played like crap.

overall, men's tennis is just far superior in quality and entertainment value when compared to the women's game. so yes, men deserve more money than the women

GoDominique
Jun 6th, 2005, 03:25 PM
Last two RG finals can hardly be called "tennis".. Watching two guys outmoonballing each other for 4 hours? I got better things to do with my time..
Whatever, ys. At least try to be funny with your troll posts.

croat123
Jun 6th, 2005, 03:25 PM
and the saddest point: the quality of the boy's junior tournament was far greater than that of the women's event :o :help:

croat123
Jun 6th, 2005, 03:26 PM
Last two RG finals can hardly be called "tennis".. Watching two guys outmoonballing each other for 4 hours? I got better things to do with my time..
the men's final was entertaining. long rallies with puerta constantly attacking and nadal defending. lots of points with amazing winners and both players ending up at net

ys
Jun 6th, 2005, 03:28 PM
Basically I agree.

On the other hand, giving women equal prize money NOW (after this disastrous tournament) would look weird though. :p
Let's wait until they show some good tennis. :)

It's not about tennis good or bad.. When WTA as a business organization can guarantee the same prize money at regular tournaments as ATP then we can talk about equal money at Slams. Currently ATP pays averagely twice as much. If anything , women are hugely overpaid already at Slams. Their prizemoney should be cut.

Juju #1
Jun 6th, 2005, 03:33 PM
This is all european BS. There's no way that USO will pay less for women.

TonyP
Jun 6th, 2005, 03:34 PM
Saying the ones who sell the most tickets should ge the most money makes little sense. How do you determine that? When you buy a ticket months in advance for a final, you have no real idea who will get there. Nobody on earth picked Mariano Puerta to get to the Roland Garros final, not in a field filled with top clay court players.

And the stands were not less filled yesterday at Roland Garros than they were on Saturday. Finals are going to be sell outs. But for the rest of the tournament, buying a ticket might get you admission to several matches, some men's, some women's.

But in terms of quality, there is absolutely no question. The men's final was a barn burner. The women's final was a snooze.

The quality of tennis was just on another level for the men than for the women. Both men had about double the winners as unforced errors yesterday. YOu have to go back to Hingis vs. Seles at Madison Square Garden in 2000 to find those kind of figures.

This issue is just really a non starter. You can't ask men to play three and a half hours and women to play less than 90 minutes and demand equal pay.

And the old argument that the women have the more glamourous players no longer applies. The men have Roger, Rafael and other emerging stars.

Right now, the women have Maria and that's it. Women's tennis has made a huge miscalculation. Big girls standing on the baseline and slamming the ball at one another for a couple of strokes is not producing the end result desired.

And little Justine cannot save women's tennis by herself, because she is almost devoid of personality.

croat123
Jun 6th, 2005, 03:35 PM
This is all european BS. There's no way that USO will pay less for women.

no one is saying they will, we're just saying they should

Juju #1
Jun 6th, 2005, 03:38 PM
no one is saying they will, we're just saying they should


No...This discussion is old in the states. You cannot turn back the clock.

Deimos
Jun 6th, 2005, 03:39 PM
I have a revolutionary idea!

In a grand slam women's final, the leading player should tank the second set, and try to come back in the next - just so there are three sets!

And the money paid out should depend on how many games the loser wins. If it's a blowout, less money for the winner. A tight match, and the prize money rises accordingly.

:rolleyes:

Fingon
Jun 6th, 2005, 03:41 PM
Womens tennis would look exactly the same as mens tennis, but the only difference is that they make an unforced errors after 2 times instead of 55. And is that exciting?


it would make it less painful, I wouldn't need therapy after the rally.


Isn't it the point of tennis on clay, constructing points? If long points are "boring", then the sport of tennis is boring, period.


I didn't say long points are boring, I said long point with the same stroke are boring, and that's what you get with men's claycourters, despite all the fist pumping you want, there have been men's matches in RG that have been a torture.
That's not constructing point, how is it hitting the ball 25 times to the same spot is constructing points?

And really, Federer domination is interesting, because his domination is based on fabulous tennis. You can't compare that to the womens domination, which is often a case of a player having average or mediocre opponents.

whatfuckingever. Justine and other too play fabulous tennis and several male player have been pathetic against Federer, and for the record, Federer is my favourite male player by a mile, but don't change the arguments as it suits you, a talented male player crushing his opponents is entertaining because it's talent, a talented female player killing her opponents is boring because the other player is pathetic.
As pathetic as Hewitt at the US Open, as pathetic as Safin at the 2004 Australian Open, as pethetic as Phillippoussis at the 2003 Wimbledon.

Just look at the French final, it was awful. Sure Henin played a decent match, but Pierce level of play was embarassing.

yes, and Pierce is the entire tour isn't she?

you can't have it both ways, dominance is either good, or it is not, you can't say that a player dominating is fun when it applies to the men's game and it's boring when it applies to the women.

Sam L
Jun 6th, 2005, 03:42 PM
I see a lot of bitter people who are taking their anger out of women's tennis because their favorites are losing or retired. :haha:

GoDominique
Jun 6th, 2005, 03:47 PM
I see a lot of bitter people who are taking their anger out of women's tennis because their favorites are losing or retired. :haha:
Hardly surprising, considering that you must be blind. The only explanation for statements like "women's tennis is great on any surface." :lol:

TonyP
Jun 6th, 2005, 03:47 PM
Name the last great women's slam final. And by great, I mean a closely fought three setter that was NOT filled with unforced errors and one player or the other tanking at leasst one set.

We've had two slam finals so far this year, and both were terrible. Roland Garros also produced two snoozes in the women's semi-finals.

This is NOt the time to be demanding equal pay.

GoDominique
Jun 6th, 2005, 03:57 PM
On the men's side, we have players raising the bar.
Federer (duh!) and now Nadal, at least on clay. Yes, I do think Nadal is taking clay-court tennis to a new level.

On the women's side, most players are trying their best to lower the bar. :tape:

Rtael
Jun 6th, 2005, 04:03 PM
This whole thread is fucking stupid. You're all making pointlessly ABSURD arguments. Quality doesn't mean shit. Fucking Period. Get that into your stupid fucking pea-sized brain. What matters is who is selling tickets. Either make prize money equal, or make it proportional to ticket sales. Unfortunately we don't know whether the men or the women have higher ticket sales, because none of the Grand Slams have cared enough to look at it. USO and AO realized the women should have equal pay and went for it, while FO and Wimby are sexist and just randomly decide to give the men more money and don't bother trying to study the case to see who brings in more money, because they don't want to be proven wrong and forced to recapitulate.

TonyP
Jun 6th, 2005, 04:04 PM
For me, what this comes down to is Justine is swimming against the tide. She continues to try to construct points, although she is also a power player to some extent. But how many Justines are there left in women's tennis?

What has happened is that women's tennis has become the domaine of big girls who stand on the baseline and slam the ball as hard as they can, going for the winner as quickly as they can.

This quite often produces simply ugly tennis. And unless the sport starts recuiting some supermodels who can play this way, the future does NOT look bright.

Ask me if I want tickets to the next match up between Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal or tickets to the match up of any two women currently playing on the WTA tour and the answer is a real no brainer. And I think most of the public would feel the way I do. Most people would pick the men's match.

GoDominique
Jun 6th, 2005, 04:10 PM
This whole thread is fucking stupid. You're all making pointlessly ABSURD arguments. Quality doesn't mean shit. Fucking Period. Get that into your stupid fucking pea-sized brain. What matters is who is selling tickets. Either make prize money equal, or make it proportional to ticket sales. Unfortunately we don't know whether the men or the women have higher ticket sales, because none of the Grand Slams have cared enough to look at it. USO and AO realized the women should have equal pay and went for it, while FO and Wimby are sexist and just randomly decide to give the men more money and don't bother trying to study the case to see who brings in more money, because they don't want to be proven wrong and forced to recapitulate.
Uh I'm pretty sure Wimbledon would not be afraid to check who's bringing in more money. :lol:

harloo
Jun 6th, 2005, 04:13 PM
or someone who isn't even a fan could have watched that men's final and be pulled in and sit through the entire thing..


Sorry but this is not true. Men's tennis has continued to recieve low ratings even with top players playing great competitive big matches. Like I said before, the ATP has been trying to create a star that would transcend tennis and they have not conquered their goal so far. Nadal is someone they are hyping but the book is still out on him. Roddick in the US Open final could not even produce decent ratings.

I do think the men play great tennis, but IMO they should play the best out of 3 in slams. They are easily injured because of the strain on their bodies and that's not good for the game. After the women's low level play in this tournament all talks of equal prize money should cease for a while until the quality improves.

I can't stand LOSERS like Mats Wilander because he's always talking a bunch of trash about the women, but I really don't feel at this point equal prize money should be discussed. I was always in support before but now I will have to say that the play at the FO changed my mind somewhat.

ys
Jun 6th, 2005, 04:16 PM
the men's final was entertaining. long rallies with puerta constantly attacking and nadal defending. lots of points with amazing winners and both players ending up at net

For you it was entertaining.. For me it was boring.. I can't stand the I-will-get-everything-back-until-you-miss tennis. I prefer watching shotmaking rather than running. Entertaining claycourt tennis ended with Ferrero and Guga going off their fabulous form of before.. Last year final was pure circus. This one was just as pitiful to watch.. Spin, spin, spin.. And Nadal was ending up at net only wheh invited by dropshots..

turt
Jun 6th, 2005, 04:50 PM
This whole thread is fucking stupid. You're all making pointlessly ABSURD arguments. Quality doesn't mean shit. Fucking Period. Get that into your stupid fucking pea-sized brain. What matters is who is selling tickets. Either make prize money equal, or make it proportional to ticket sales. Unfortunately we don't know whether the men or the women have higher ticket sales, because none of the Grand Slams have cared enough to look at it. USO and AO realized the women should have equal pay and went for it, while FO and Wimby are sexist and just randomly decide to give the men more money and don't bother trying to study the case to see who brings in more money, because they don't want to be proven wrong and forced to recapitulate.
:worship:

CoryAnnAvants#1
Jun 6th, 2005, 05:50 PM
The Juju express isn't good for the women, but the Federer express just creates booming sales for the ATP tour?:rolleyes: Henin and Federer are both in the same dominating state IMO, the only difference is that Justine has a slam while Roger does not. What about the Nadal express? He hasn't lost a clay court match all year. Why is that sort of dominance not a hinderance for the men's game?

People just pull this stuff out of their ass. When Lindsay went on a tear last summer and won everything in sight, people said "How wonderful, she's back, what a nice story, blah blah blah." Justine does the same thing, only with winning a Slam on top of it and suddenly it's negative.

If anything, I think women's tennis is more exciting than before. While the same 5 or 6 women usually win the big events, you see more upsets in the early rounds and more lesser known women make the 2nd week in slams (Asagoe in the US Open, Dechy at the AO, Likhovtseva at RG). To base the prize money argument off of the rare times tennis gets major network coverage is insane. Yes, the men have had the better product during the last two slams. However, over the course of the whole year so far, I think the women have had the better product. THAT is what the prize money debate should be based off of.

The
Jun 6th, 2005, 06:10 PM
The Juju express isn't good for the women, but the Federer express just creates booming sales for the ATP tour?:rolleyes: Henin and Federer are both in the same dominating state IMO, the only difference is that Justine has a slam while Roger does not. What about the Nadal express? He hasn't lost a clay court match all year. Why is that sort of dominance not a hinderance for the men's game?

People just pull this stuff out of their ass. When Lindsay went on a tear last summer and won everything in sight, people said "How wonderful, she's back, what a nice story, blah blah blah." Justine does the same thing, only with winning a Slam on top of it and suddenly it's negative.

If anything, I think women's tennis is more exciting than before. While the same 5 or 6 women usually win the big events, you see more upsets in the early rounds and more lesser known women make the 2nd week in slams (Asagoe in the US Open, Dechy at the AO, Likhovtseva at RG). To base the prize money argument off of the rare times tennis gets major network coverage is insane. Yes, the men have had the better product during the last two slams. However, over the course of the whole year so far, I think the women have had the better product. THAT is what the prize money debate should be based off of.


Nadal lost to Gaudio earlier this year.

And not like I am arguing either way but please clarify for us how the women have produced a better product of tennis inbetween the AO and Roland Garros.

CoryAnnAvants#1
Jun 6th, 2005, 06:21 PM
Nadal lost to Gaudio earlier this year.

And not like I am arguing either way but please clarify for us how the women have produced a better product of tennis inbetween the AO and Roland Garros.

Yes, in February Nadal lost to Gaudio, but that's not "officially" the clay court season. That's just during a string of South American clay court events. And Nadal won 2 out of 3 of those events.

Every single big tournament in between this time frame has been won by either Federer or Nadal. Every single one! Dubai, Indian Wells, Miami, Monte Carlo, Rome etc etc. And now Federer is going to win all the grass court tune-ups and then Wimbledon. Not much variety.

On the women's side, it's been more or less the same, but there has been some variety. Clijsters won Indian Wells and Miami, Henin won the major clay court events, and then Mauresmo won Antwerp during the indoor hard court season in February, and Lindsay Davenport won Dubai.

On top of that, all of the major womens final were competitive. There wasn't a single blowout save for the French Open final, but people look at that one final and say "Women's tennis is on the decline, it sucks, they don't deserve equal money, blah blah." What about the months leading up to that moment? I can guarantee you if Nadal beat the shit out of Puerta, nobody would be saying the same thing about the men's game.

DA FOREHAND
Jun 6th, 2005, 06:22 PM
Saying the ones who sell the most tickets should ge the most money makes little sense. How do you determine that? When you buy a ticket months in advance for a final, you have no real idea who will get there. Nobody on earth picked Mariano Puerta to get to the Roland Garros final, not in a field filled with top clay court players.

And the stands were not less filled yesterday at Roland Garros than they were on Saturday. Finals are going to be sell outs. But for the rest of the tournament, buying a ticket might get you admission to several matches, some men's, some women's.

But in terms of quality, there is absolutely no question. The men's final was a barn burner. The women's final was a snooze.

The quality of tennis was just on another level for the men than for the women. Both men had about double the winners as unforced errors yesterday. YOu have to go back to Hingis vs. Seles at Madison Square Garden in 2000 to find those kind of figures.

This issue is just really a non starter. You can't ask men to play three and a half hours and women to play less than 90 minutes and demand equal pay.

And the old argument that the women have the more glamourous players no longer applies. The men have Roger, Rafael and other emerging stars.

Right now, the women have Maria and that's it. Women's tennis has made a huge miscalculation. Big girls standing on the baseline and slamming the ball at one another for a couple of strokes is not producing the end result desired.

And little Justine cannot save women's tennis by herself, because she is almost devoid of personality.

Exactly, how many of you would want a co-worker who comes to work two hrs later than you doing the same job , gets off at the same time and make more money?

CoryAnnAvants#1
Jun 6th, 2005, 06:28 PM
Exactly, how many of you would want a co-worker who comes to work two hrs later than you doing the same job , gets off at the same time and make more money?

Fair enough, but this doesn't explain the disparity in prize money between the various tiers in mens and womens tournaments. Almost all of these tournaments play 2 out of 3 sets, in a few cases the finals are 3 out of 5...yet the men make considerably more money than the women in tennis tournaments throughout.

Same thing applies for doubles, all the matches are two out of 3 sets, yet the men make more money. You can even go down to the challenger level. The men have 150K and 125K and 100K challengers that include hospitality, while the women only go up to 75K challengers, and almost all of them do not include hospitality. Men get 15K tournaments as well, while the women are stuck with 10K's.

Fingon
Jun 6th, 2005, 06:28 PM
For you it was entertaining.. For me it was boring.. I can't stand the I-will-get-everything-back-until-you-miss tennis. I prefer watching shotmaking rather than running. Entertaining claycourt tennis ended with Ferrero and Guga going off their fabulous form of before.. Last year final was pure circus. This one was just as pitiful to watch.. Spin, spin, spin.. And Nadal was ending up at net only wheh invited by dropshots..

spot on

Alfie
Jun 6th, 2005, 06:30 PM
Last year Federer demolished Hewitt 6-0, 7-6, 6-0 at the US Open. I didn't hear complaints about the dire state of men's tennis then. There's a double standard going on here. Detractors of equal pay are taking an isolated situation (Justine's win over Mary) and arguing that women don't deserve equal pay based on this. But there are other GS matches that deserve mention. At the 2005 Australian Open, Sharapova v. Serena was electrifying and Lindsay v. Serena in the final garnered the highest tennis ratings of ESPN (or was it ESPN2) ever.

Admittedly, in general the quality of play is better on the men's side than it is on the women's, but this is professional sports and prize money is about entertainment value and popularity which does not necessarily include quality of play.
The people who buy tickets include diehard tennis fans as well as the casual fan; the casual fan who may buy those tickets just to see their fave player/celeb or to support their countrywoman. Obviously, it's preferable for the sport to have higher quality matches, but the lower quality of matches on the women's side is not a sufficient reason to pay the women less.
Detractors of equal pay contend that quality of play is important, but as long as there are people who would prefer to watch Kirilenko v. Zvonareva instead of Davydenko v. Robredo even though the men's match might be a better quality match then there's still a good argument for equal prize money.

Women's tennis is a different game from men's tennis. The criteria for equal prize money should not be based on the length of matches. As Bud Collins said, you don't choose to watch a particular opera based on the length of the opera. It all comes down to entertainment value.

goldenlox
Jun 6th, 2005, 06:30 PM
Exactly, how many of you would want a co-worker who comes to work two hrs later than you doing the same job , gets off at the same time and make more money?That's exactly how show business works.
The laborer doesn't get rich. Paris Hilton does.

Fingon
Jun 6th, 2005, 06:30 PM
Exactly, how many of you would want a co-worker who comes to work two hrs later than you doing the same job , gets off at the same time and make more money?

that depends, if my co-worker is a highly skilled individual that brings more value to the company, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

If that was the case, would you just put Nancy Loeffer Caro on court for 10 hours and pay her more than Federer? after all it's time based isn't it?

Fingon
Jun 6th, 2005, 06:33 PM
That's exactly how show business works.
The laborer doesn't get rich. Paris Hilton does.

I see your point but that's a bad example, Paris Hilton was born rich,

but it's not how much time you spend, it's what value you bring in, that's why worker's hour are not worth the same (even if they get paid the same).

Fingon
Jun 6th, 2005, 06:41 PM
Last year Federer demolished Hewitt 6-0, 7-6, 6-0 at the US Open. I didn't hear complaints about the dire state of men's tennis then. There's a double standard going on here. Detractors of equal pay are taking an isolated situation (Justine's win over Mary) and arguing that women don't deserve equal pay based on this. But there are other GS matches that deserve mention. At the 2005 Australian Open, Sharapova v. Serena was electrifying and Lindsay v. Serena in the final garnered the highest tennis ratings of ESPN (or was it ESPN2) ever.

exactly, I would add that what is Justine supposed to do? according to the discussions on this forum and the media, the women should play more competitive matches in order to get paid more, in other words, if Justine was to get more money then she should lower her level and make her finals more competitive. That surely makes a lot of sense.


Admittedly, in general the quality of play is better on the men's side than it is on the women's, but this is professional sports and prize money is about entertainment value and popularity which does not necessarily include quality of play.

not really, they are comparing Federer and Nadal with certain women in certain matches, talk about selective memory. In most recent GSs, Federer, Agassi, Nadal (in ther FO) have had just training sessions with early round opponents, and argument that used to be used against the women, now they change the tone because it doesn't longer apply.
as per quality, I would say only Federer can offer a difference in quality, so pay HIM more if quality is the criteria.

The people who buy tickets include diehard tennis fans as well as the casual fan; the casual fan who may buy those tickets just to see their fave player/celeb or to support their countrywoman. Obviously, it's preferable for the sport to have higher quality matches, but the lower quality of matches on the women's side is not a sufficient reason to pay the women less.

I would say that most people that buy tickets for a GS are casual fans.

Detractors of equal pay contend that quality of play is important, but as long as there are people who would prefer to watch Kirilenko v. Zvonareva instead of Davydenko v. Robredo even though the men's match might be a better quality match then there's still a good argument for equal prize money.

as long as Vera doesn't start to cry, give me Kirilenko Zvonareva any day.


Women's tennis is a different game from men's tennis. The criteria for equal prize money should not be based on the length of matches. As Bud Collins said, you don't choose to watch a particular opera based on the length of the opera. It all comes down to entertainment value.
right again, they are trying to use a criteria from a normal job to apply to a multimillion dollars entertainment business.
Try to get Tom Cruise to appear in a movie for just 5 minutes and get 20% of the pay of other stars, let's see how the time on set argument is settled.

goldenlox
Jun 6th, 2005, 06:42 PM
But if some people prefer to watch Pierce missing smashes and Likhotseva missing forehand all over the place... Good for them, I'm out of here. :wavey:What people want is a rivalry, with players they've heard of.
Like Agassi-Sampras.
If the Wimbledon semis have Justine, Serena, and Maria, people will watch.

TonyP
Jun 6th, 2005, 06:42 PM
Ok, it all depends upon entertainment value. There's some merit to that argument.

For my money, the men's final at Roland Garros was ten times more entertaining than Justine's demolition of Mary, because it was not based on great play, although she did hit some excellent shots. But it was much more about Mary folding than anything else and that wasn't entertaining. It was almost painful to watch Mary twitch and fidget and look more and more embarrassed out there.

But Nadal, jumping around and the great fighing spirit of Puerta, diving for balls, etc., now that had entertainment value.

Sorry, but women's tennis is NOT about shotmaking anymore, unless you consider firing for the sideline from back court and missing at least half the time entertaining. Trouble is, the usually miss much more than half the time.

And, fyi, Nadal's victory yesterday has suddenly opened up a really big story line. Everyone has assumed that Roger Federer is untouchable. But what's happened this year? He's lost in the semis in the last two slams, Australia and the FO.

It now looks like Roger may have some viable rivals, including Safin (when the mood strikes him), bvut certainly, he now has a major rival in Nadal and he is only one. How about Gasquet?

What do we have in women's tennis right now. Justine. Maria, maybe. We'll see where she stands after Wimbledon. Kim? Not looking too good any more. Mauresmo? A joke. She simply can't win the big ones. Maybe Kim can't either. Dementieva?

Serena? A threat, if she is playing and not hurt and not out of shape.

Venus. Apparently history.

GoDominique
Jun 6th, 2005, 06:45 PM
IMO people who didn't even watch men's matches at RG (and there are plenty of them in this thread) should keep their traps shut. :)

croat123
Jun 6th, 2005, 06:49 PM
there is tons of proof that men's tennis is more popular than women's tennis. at the nasdaq, the men's matches on the outter courts drew big crowds and all the seats were filled. at the same time, there were less than 30 people watching golovin vs. dementieva and ivanovic vs. kuznetsova. even the clijsters vs. myskina match (which had a lot of hype surrounding it on the tournament grounds) was played in front of a half full court 1 (and the quality of that match was terrible btw). at the same time, kevin kim vs. luis horna was played in front of a packed granstand court, same as stepanek vs. morrison and ancic vs. haas. moya vs. blake on center court almost filled the entire arena on day two while henin vs. molik was played with only maybe 100 people watching (which is a sad sight in such a big arena). there were more people watching men's doubles than there were watching women's singles. there's a point where you simply have to admit that the men's game has far surpassed the women's game. this has nothing to do with sexism. having unequal prize money wouldn't turn the clock back. the men are just a million times better at what they do and they consistently play high quality, entertaining matches. when you have a grand slam in which the losers win a total of 9 games in the last three matches, it's time for something to change...

goldenlox
Jun 6th, 2005, 06:59 PM
there is tons of proof that men's tennis is more popular than women's tennis. at the nasdaq, the men's matches on the outter courts drew big crowds and all the seats were filled. at the same time, there were less than 30 people watching golovin vs. dementieva and ivanovic vs. kuznetsova. even the clijsters vs. myskina match (which had a lot of hype surrounding it on the tournament grounds) was played in front of a half full court 1 (and the quality of that match was terrible btw). at the same time, kevin kim vs. luis horna was played in front of a packed granstand court, same as stepanek vs. morrison and ancic vs. haas. moya vs. blake on center court almost filled the entire arena on day two while henin vs. molik was played with only maybe 100 people watching (which is a sad sight in such a big arena). there were more people watching men's doubles than there were watching women's singles. there's a point where you simply have to admit that the men's game has far surpassed the women's game. this has nothing to do with sexism. having unequal prize money wouldn't turn the clock back. the men are just a million times better at what they do and they consistently play high quality, entertaining matches. when you have a grand slam in which the losers win a total of 9 games in the last three matches, it's time for something to change...This isn't "proof". If the tv ratings for the men were higher, that's proof.
A few hundred fans mean nothing.

When Kournikova was playing round 1 of the US Open on Armstrong in 2002, the building was packed hours before the match, and they weren't there for the men.

croat123
Jun 6th, 2005, 07:09 PM
This isn't "proof". If the tv ratings for the men were higher, that's proof.
A few hundred fans mean nothing.

When Kournikova was playing round 1 of the US Open on Armstrong in 2002, the building was packed hours before the match, and they weren't there for the men.
kournikova was hot, that's why the stands were packed. right now, there isn't a single player that is nearly as hot as her

croat123
Jun 6th, 2005, 07:10 PM
and yes, it is proof when a men's match against two players outside the top50 has a crowd five times larger than molik vs. henin

goldenlox
Jun 6th, 2005, 07:10 PM
With women's sports - it about looks&celebrity - that's what matters.
Look at Danica Patrick. The Indy 500 tv ratings went up 40% for one reason.

Martian Willow
Jun 6th, 2005, 07:13 PM
Even if the women played five sets, entertained more and sold more tickets, they would still never get more prizemoney. It only works one way.

croat123
Jun 6th, 2005, 07:15 PM
maybe because racing is a sport that is dominated by men. she was the only woman ever that had a change to win the indy500. there was hype and people wanted to see if she could compete (and she did amazing). but you can't compare her in racing to the women in tennis. if a women wanted to play on the men's tour, she wouldn't be inside the top800 (and there's only a handfull of women that would be inside the top1500)

TonyP
Jun 6th, 2005, 07:21 PM
Women play on the same size court as men,. Unlike golf, they don't get to take their first shot from the ladies' tee, which is a few feet forward of the men's tee.

For playing on an equal size court, women deserve credit. But the time spent playing is also relevant and you can't look at the length of these matches and complain about equal pay for equal work.

And even if we had Kournikova and Hingis back and the Willies playing good tennis full time, you still can't say women's tennis is "more glamourous" than men's and then complain about equality. Besides, a lot of women are drooling over Nadal now. I had women who never watched a match in their lives asking me about him yesterday.

But glamour and fairness don't necessarily mix. And either you want equality and fairness or you don't.

If you don't, it gives people the impression you never wanted equality in the first place --just a better deal for yourself and your kind.

goldenlox
Jun 6th, 2005, 07:21 PM
Yeah well, Kournikova is the past now. So is Hingis. The Williams sisters aren't totally into tennis for different reasons. Good thing "we" still have Henin and Sharapova because otherwise womens tennis would be in serious trouble.

In 1998, 1999, womens tennis was definitely a better product than mens tennis.

Right now, it's not.It was never a "better product", as far as tennis goes..
There were rivalries - like Borg, McEnroe, and Connors.
The big stars were trash talking.

The last 5 majors had 5 different winners. If the Wimbledon final involves 2 of them, it will start the rivalry scenario again.

DA FOREHAND
Jun 6th, 2005, 07:25 PM
maybe because racing is a sport that is dominated by men. she was the only woman ever that had a change to win the indy500. there was hype and people wanted to see if she could compete (and she did amazing). but you can't compare her in racing to the women in tennis. if a women wanted to play on the men's tour, she wouldn't be inside the top800 (and there's only a handfull of women that would be inside the top1500)
Driving a car is a sport? Sorry gotta chuckle at that :drool:

DA FOREHAND
Jun 6th, 2005, 07:28 PM
Women play on the same size court as men,. Unlike golf, they don't get to take their first shot from the ladies' tee, which is a few feet forward of the men's tee.

For playing on an equal size court, women deserve credit. But the time spent playing is also relevant and you can't look at the length of these matches and complain about equal pay for equal work.

And even if we had Kournikova and Hingis back and the Willies playing good tennis full time, you still can't say women's tennis is "more glamourous" than men's and then complain about equality. Besides, a lot of women are drooling over Nadal now. I had women who never watched a match in their lives asking me about him yesterday.

But glamour and fairness don't necessarily mix. And either you want equality and fairness or you don't.

If you don't, it gives people the impression you never wanted equality in the first place --just a better deal for yourself and your kind.


ding ding ding...we have a winning post....two in one day....what you been smokin, or is it what i've been smoking?

TonyP
Jun 6th, 2005, 07:29 PM
Do you chuckle at Michael Schmacher? The guy may become the first athlete in history to earn a billion dollars.

Pureracket
Jun 6th, 2005, 07:31 PM
whatever,

a no long ago the permanent criticism was that two or three women dominated the game while any men could win. Federer (and Nadal on clay) proved that to be bullshit.

Yes, the women had some lop-sided finals, so did the men, it's not only RG.

Federer killed Hewitt at the US Open, he also killed Marat Safin at last years's Australian Open and Phillippoussis in Wimbledon in 2003.

Andy Roddick killer Ferrero at the 2003 US Open.

Look at the early rounds, the top male players just breeze through in straight sets. How many sets did the men's champion lose in his route to the finals? how many did the women's champion lose?

And I agree with Sam L, I am ok with the women playing on clay, but the men? you see two guys hitting the ball crosscourt 55 times until one hits it into the net, and is that exciting? one of the beaties of grass is that the men can't bore us to death with 10 minutes rallies with the exact same stroke over and over.

It seems the sexist journalist change the argument as it suits them, it was depth before, now it's contested finals, if Federer kills someone else in the Wimbledon final it will be the quality play of the champion.

whatever.

a final note, the only reason why the men get better audiences is because the ATP at least have a clue on how to market their sports, unlike the WTA's marketters that are brain dead, and the networks are sexists as we all know, they would never show early round women's matches, even if they are exciting, but they will show us obscure male player.

Or they will bore us to death by showing "God" Agassi killing someone in the early rounds and have to hear the commentators peeing their pants in ectassy because the great Andre is playing, and they won't miss a second of it.

And yes, the networks can afford to be sexists, they don't have to follow the audience preferences since they have a legal monopoly to broadcast the event, they could show how the clay dries (after a rain) and it will still be our only alternative.:worship::worship::worship::worship::w orship:

Alfie
Jun 6th, 2005, 07:44 PM
there is tons of proof that men's tennis is more popular than women's tennis. at the nasdaq, the men's matches on the outter courts drew big crowds and all the seats were filled. at the same time, there were less than 30 people watching golovin vs. dementieva and ivanovic vs. kuznetsova.

Equal prize money is not about men's matches surpassing women in the quality of matches. Equal prize money depends on the monetary value women's tennis adds to these tournaments.

I understand your point, but using one tournament--the Nasdaq Open--as an indicator is not a good example. The people who attend the Nasdaq tend to be knowledgeable tennis fans. Miami/Key Biscayne and Florida in general is a hotbed of tennis and these knowledgeable tennis fans know good quality tennis. In these tournaments it's not surprising that these fans gravitate towards those higher quality men's matches.

However we're talking about women's tennis as a viable commodity in the global marketplace. In countries where tennis isn't necessarily yet a major sport, but gaining in popularity, the celebrity drawing power of women's tennis is more important than quality of matches.
Countries like China, India and places like the Middle East do not have an extensive tennis history/tradition compared to countries like France and Australia where tennis fans tend to be more knowledgeable. In order to grow the sport, it needs to attract new casual tennis fans. Women's tennis has the capacity and star power to tap into these new emerging markets. Sponsorship deals abound in these countries. Sony Ericsson recognizes the global appeal of women's tennis. It's not about the quality of matches, but brand and name recognition.
The success of these sponsorships depend on how much exposure women's tennis will get for these companies which includes TV ratings. Tournaments themselves make major money from exclusive deals with TV stations all over the world. All of this is driven by the ratings. As long as the WTA can keep their TV ratings high, put bums in the seats of stadiums and increase their exposure even outside of tennis, that will drive
sponsorship deals and advertisements pumping more money into the sport. And at that point, it would be an economic injustice to pay women less. This is a business and as long as women's tennis can generate equal or more money for the sport then it would be robbery to pay them less.

Calimero377
Jun 6th, 2005, 07:49 PM
It really shouldn't be about how long or short the tennis matches are but whether they sell tickets.

I mean Gaudio? Puerta? I really don't care for these players.


Definitely more interesting than the whole -ova brigade.

Pureracket
Jun 6th, 2005, 07:52 PM
Hardly surprising, considering that you must be blind. The only explanation for statements like "women's tennis is great on any surface." :lol:Are you and BreeVanDeKamp the same person?:confused: I'm looking @ your posts, and you all seem to be the same. Your views and reps are also alike too.

Calimero377
Jun 6th, 2005, 08:00 PM
Name the last great women's slam final. And by great, I mean a closely fought three setter that was NOT filled with unforced errors and one player or the other tanking at leasst one set.
...

There were a lot in the 80ies and 90ies.

Graf-Navratilova, Wimbledon 88, comes to mind:

Graf: 79 winners, 34 UEs
Navi: 44 winners, 18 UEs.


When quality was queen ...
:worship: :worship: :worship:

Calimero377
Jun 6th, 2005, 08:05 PM
...
In 1998, 1999, womens tennis was definitely a better product than mens tennis.
...



And who was voted "most exciting WTA player" in both years by the fans?

:angel:

croat123
Jun 6th, 2005, 08:13 PM
There were a lot in the 80ies and 90ies.

Graf-Navratilova, Wimbledon 88, comes to mind:

Graf: 79 winners, 34 UEs
Navi: 44 winners, 18 UEs.


When quality was queen ...
:worship: :worship: :worship:
the last great final was steffi vs. monica at rg (1992?)

so the next one is due in what? 2015 :o

there have been so many amazing men's finals and semifinals in the last couple of years

SJW
Jun 6th, 2005, 11:04 PM
after that show of whatever it was, the women were lucky they got paid at all :lol:

but seriously...i used to think..yes....now i think...no way.

abayen
Jun 7th, 2005, 12:27 AM
It's not about tennis good or bad.. When WTA as a business organization can guarantee the same prize money at regular tournaments as ATP then we can talk about equal money at Slams. Currently ATP pays averagely twice as much. If anything , women are hugely overpaid already at Slams. Their prizemoney should be cut.

IMO, this is the correct argument. Women should get paid based on how many people and sponsors they draw. The average top tier women's tennis tournament does not attract the same level of sponsors or audiences as a top tier men's tournament. Extrapolating this to a Grand Slam, the men then are bringing in more money.

THis is not about sexism. This is about market power and if any of you understands business, you wouldn't be arguing about this.

Btw, someone mentioned women's tennis being more popular in non-traditional nations like India, China, etc. That's BS. Men are as good a selling proposition if not better.

So let the WTA market its players better. Let the average top tier WTA tournament pay as much as a top tier ATP tournament and then this argument holds water.

Till then, lets ALSO rest the debate over quality, length of match, etc.. Men and women are playing two different games and those parameters don't matter.

Mr_Molik
Jun 7th, 2005, 02:02 AM
This year final was a combinaison of BOTH shotmaking and running. It's ridiculous to dismiss the final as simply I-will-get-everything-back-until-you-miss tennis (that sounds like a description of a club match), because it's a LIE.

Ok, you think Nadal is overrated. Now that he won, you try to find something to put him down, and you pick on his game. But the troof is, he's pushing mens tennis on clay to a new level, and it's very entertaining.

But if some people prefer to watch Pierce missing smashes and Likhotseva missing forehand all over the place... Good for them, I'm out of here. :wavey:
:lol: :worship:

franny
Jun 7th, 2005, 02:24 AM
Unfortunately, the quality of this year's French Open was waaay down, but consider who we had playing. I mean, only Justine Henin-Hardenne, the best clay court player, was at the top of her game. I'm sure that the U.S Open and Wimbledon will get a lot better. Give it till the U.S Open, I can gaurantee you a great tournament. I mean, think about it, Maria, Lindsay, Serena, Venus, Kim, Justine, all these players will be at the top of their game and injury free. What we've got to do now is just hope that these players stay injury free and develop their game. The U.S Open is usually the best slam because 1) the players have had great preparation for it (unlike Wimbledon and Aussie Open) and 2) the surface is much more suiting for most players instead of being the achilles heal for some and heaven for others(like the French Open). Just wait and see all you women tennis haters. Just wait and see.

Greenout
Jun 7th, 2005, 02:46 AM
The biggest irony about women's tennis is that it's totally dominated
by men in charge. The CEO's, the WTA, the fathers,
the coaches, the agents, and the sponsors.

Don't blame the players- they can only really do what their
capable of. Very few players have a Carlos on their side, like Justine
and willing to risk changing their tennis game to get more trophies.


Dislike 1-dimensional women's tennis? Tell that too all the male
coaches and academies around the world to teach a more varied
game!

pigam
Jun 7th, 2005, 07:10 AM
The biggest irony about women's tennis is that it's totally dominated
by men in charge. The CEO's, the WTA, the fathers,
the coaches, the agents, and the sponsors.

Don't blame the players- they can only really do what their
capable of. Very few players like Justine have a Carlos on their side,
and willing to risk changing their tennis game to get more trophies.


Dislike 1-dimensional women's tennis? Tell that too all the male
coaches and academies around the world to teach a more varied
game!
great post! and finally someone adding a different perspective to this thread :)

spudrsca
Jun 7th, 2005, 07:11 AM
This year final was a combinaison of BOTH shotmaking and running. It's ridiculous to dismiss the final as simply I-will-get-everything-back-until-you-miss tennis (that sounds like a description of a club match), because it's a LIE.

Ok, you think Nadal is overrated. Now that he won, you try to find something to put him down, and you pick on his game. But the troof is, he's pushing mens tennis on clay to a new level, and it's very entertaining.

But if some people prefer to watch Pierce missing smashes and Likhotseva missing forehand all over the place... Good for them, I'm out of here. :wavey:

I completely agree, I don't like Nadal but how can someone say there were not shotmaking in this final.
Puerta has done many shotmaking in this final, if he hadn't he would have lost in 3 easily sets against Nadal.
Look at the first tie-break, that awesome tennis from Puerta.

abayen
Jun 7th, 2005, 07:38 AM
The biggest irony about women's tennis is that it's totally dominated
by men in charge. The CEO's, the WTA, the fathers,
the coaches, the agents, and the sponsors.

Don't blame the players- they can only really do what their
capable of. Very few players like Justine have a Carlos on their side,
and willing to risk changing their tennis game to get more trophies.


Dislike 1-dimensional women's tennis? Tell that too all the male
coaches and academies around the world to teach a more varied
game!

who is blaming the players? one is just saying they cant just demand equal prize money in the grand slams without proving their worth elsewhere.

and if indeed they feel the tour is dominated by men who are shortchanging them, then take charge(remember the ATP assumed control only in 1988 when top players realized that they weren't being marketed well) Prove through actions than words.

Juju #1
Jun 7th, 2005, 07:51 AM
Blame it on Kournikova. This is when tennis turned to 'cinema' and turned away from good backhands and forehands. That's what they wanted and that's what they got. If Mary Pierce was a young Russian blonde, nobody would even notice the score.

Crazy Canuck
Jun 7th, 2005, 08:06 AM
or someone who isn't even a fan could have watched that men's final and be pulled in and sit through the entire thing..


Sorry but this is not true. Men's tennis has continued to recieve low ratings even with top players playing great competitive big matches. Like I said before, the ATP has been trying to create a star that would transcend tennis and they have not conquered their goal so far. Nadal is someone they are hyping but the book is still out on him. Roddick in the US Open final could not even produce decent ratings.

Actually, the book is not still out. Whether or not he makes it in the USA doesn't change the fact that he's going to be fucking huge just about everywhere else ;) If he were American he'd be bigger than Roddick is in the US.

I can't stand LOSERS like Mats Wilander because he's always talking a bunch of trash about the women, but I really don't feel at this point equal prize money should be discussed. I was always in support before but now I will have to say that the play at the FO changed my mind somewhat.

You can call Mats a sexist for his comments but I will NOT accept anybody calling him a loser :p The man is a legend :yeah:

Crazy Canuck
Jun 7th, 2005, 08:08 AM
...What about the Nadal express? He hasn't lost a clay court match all year...

Untrue. Might I suggest that you pulled this stat from your ass? ;)

He's lost two claycourt matches this year. Gaudio beat him in Buenos Aires and Andreev beat him in Valencia.

This doesn't really change your point, but get your facts straight ;)

Crazy Canuck
Jun 7th, 2005, 08:10 AM
Yes, in February Nadal lost to Gaudio, but that's not "officially" the clay court season. That's just during a string of South American clay court events. And Nadal won 2 out of 3 of those events.

...

My bad, somebody had already corrected you. lol at your response. Not the "official" clay season. It was still a loss which you claimed he didn't have :p

The SA swing is getting bigger each year - don't knock it.

Valencia would be part of the "official" clay season, and he lost there. To Igor Andreev. Who you may have heard of? In straight sets. This was his last loss :yeah: Until this week ;)

Crazy Canuck
Jun 7th, 2005, 08:15 AM
IMO people who didn't even watch men's matches at RG (and there are plenty of them in this thread) should keep their traps shut. :)

;)

Jakeev
Jun 7th, 2005, 08:57 AM
Lindsay is the last person who should open her mouth on this anyway. :tape:
Someone who tanks the 3rd set of a slam final in 20 minutes should get paid $0.

At least Lindsay is still out there fighting the fight. Can't say that about Dominique Monami who has played some stinkers in her tennis career now can we?:tape:

Crazy Canuck
Jun 7th, 2005, 09:30 AM
At least Lindsay is still out there fighting the fight. Can't say that about Dominique Monami who has played some stinkers in her tennis career now can we?:tape:
Seeing as Dominique is 32, I think she can be forgiven for retiring.

Weak, Jakeev.

SJW
Jun 7th, 2005, 10:13 AM
Are you and BreeVanDeKamp the same person?:confused: I'm looking @ your posts, and you all seem to be the same. Your views and reps are also alike too.

one is on my ignore list, the other isn't. i guess there are a few differences ;)

GoDominique
Jun 7th, 2005, 01:26 PM
one is on my ignore list, the other isn't. i guess there are a few differences ;)
Bree's posts are worth reading though. :)

Sam L
Jun 7th, 2005, 01:56 PM
Doom & Gloom. :lol:

Get back to me when men's tennis can produce stars that are on magazines, TV and attends awards shows and movie premieres. Not to mention the countless ads out there.

GoDominique
Jun 7th, 2005, 02:06 PM
Or maybe you're the one in her shit list. :p
Oh my, you might be RIGHT. That thought never crossed my mind. :eek:

Andy_
Jun 7th, 2005, 02:28 PM
Nadal earned 880,000 euros after beating Mariano Puerta 6-7 (6/8), 6-3, 6-1, 7-5 in a 3hr 24min final filled to the brim with drama, tension and scintillating exchanges.

Twenty-four hours earlier, Belgium's Justine Henin-Hardenne pocketed a cheque for 867,000 euros for a 6-1, 6-1 mismatch against a woeful Mary Pierce in a final which was all over in 62 minutes.


As a matter of fact, there's a little misconception here... coz Rafa has earned his 880,000 for winning 7 matches in a row, and so has JHH with 7 matches for her 867,000 , it's not just about the finals. It goes without saying that Rafa's spent more time on court, if nothing for the ATP tournament being played 3 sets out of 5... and yes, there's been more drama in the men's final, as well as there's been a big awaited clash with Rafa and Federer in the semi. Yet also JHH has had her drama-filled match with Sveta... I can see a difference in terms of time and energy consumption for the two different tours, but it also mirrors the still existing difference between the top competitors on the WTA side and the ATP players (we all remember Serena and Venus being defeated easily by Karsten Brasch a few years ago). I think that, from the point of view of the tournament organization - they're the ones seeking sponsors to provide the funds, which include the prize money - it hardly makes a difference as long as both tournaments sell as well. The Philippe Chatrier court was packed on Saturday as it was on Sunday... honestly, I'd have felt disappointed after the WTA final, having paid probably as much money as those who wet to see the ATP final... but for Roland Garros it hasn't made much of a difference, economically.

Fingon
Jun 7th, 2005, 02:35 PM
what I really would like to see is one of the "clever" people in this thread to be a GS tournament director and decide how to allocate the prize money based on how exciting the final was.

People complain that Justine got nearly as much money as Nadal for a less exciting final, now, do these people think? the prize money was established before the tournament even started. It could have turned out to be the opposite and then would we be saying that the men's champion got more money for his boring final while the women's final was exciting?

or are they proposing to base the next year's cheques on this year's performance? or maybe a 5 years average?

Better, why don't they just add both prize moneys and then assign a ratio to share it base on how they liked each final?

For sure, seeing the attempts to define exciting when money is involved would be more entertaining than any tennis match.

I really want to see them doing that, be RG tournament director, one thing, if you don't do it right you are fired.

funny how people discuss topics and never think of a practical solution, a solution that isn't pracical is not a solution.

Sam L
Jun 7th, 2005, 02:37 PM
what I really would like to see is one of the "clever" people in this thread to be a GS tournament director and decide how to allocate the prize money based on how exciting the final was.

People complain that Justine got nearly as much money as Nadal for a less exciting final, now, do these people think? the prize money was established before the tournament even started. It could have turned out to be the opposite and then would we be saying that the men's champion got more money for his boring final while the women's final was exciting?

or are they proposing to base the next year's cheques on this year's performance? or maybe a 5 years average?

Better, why don't they just add both prize moneys and then assign a ratio to share it base on how they liked each final?

For sure, seeing the attempts to define exciting when money is involved would be more entertaining than any tennis match.

I really want to see them doing that, be RG tournament director, one thing, if you don't do it right you are fired.

funny how people discuss topics and never think of a practical solution, a solution that isn't pracical is not a solution.
They're just good at whining and complaining.

Good response. :)

Fingon
Jun 7th, 2005, 03:19 PM
There's no need for a "solution", 95% of people in this thread think there should be equal pay.

maybe it's directed to the other 5%

SJW
Jun 7th, 2005, 04:35 PM
Or maybe you're the one in her shit list. :p
maybe ;)