PDA

View Full Version : TV ratings in U.S. lower than in 90ies!


Calimero377
Jul 6th, 2005, 07:36 PM
It has been reported in GM that the All-American Wimbledon final Williams-Davenport got a 4.0 rating in the U.S.

But the 1995 women's US Open (Graf-Seles) final got a 5.2 overall rating in the US, WITHOUT the benefit of prime time. 5.3 in 1995 at Wimbledon (Graf-ASV), 4.6 in 1999 at Wimbledon (Graf-Davenport), 4.4 in 1993 at Wimbledon (Graf-Novotna) are some other signifanct ratings from the Golden Age Of Women's Tennis. [source: rec.sport.tennis]

Stefanie Graf is sorely missed .... :sad:


Those were the times! :worship:

!!!--Duiz™--!!!
Jul 6th, 2005, 07:37 PM
You are one annoying piece of Graf.... use demographic analisis to comprehend why so.. intead of being so wrongly biased...

Calimero377
Jul 6th, 2005, 07:40 PM
You are one annoying piece of Graf.... use demographic analisis to comprehend why so.. intead of being so wrongly biased...


"Analisis"?

You pervert! :mad:

kiwifan
Jul 6th, 2005, 07:56 PM
You're using bullshit stats to reach a bullshit conclusion. :yawn:

Oneofakind0490
Jul 6th, 2005, 07:57 PM
Since when has 9:00AM been primetime?

rightous
Jul 6th, 2005, 07:59 PM
also there were alot less tv stations and channels back then

GorgeousMe!
Jul 6th, 2005, 08:14 PM
also there were alot less tv stations and channels back then
Absolutely. Anyone can watch anything at anytime now. They can record on DVD while watching something else. So TV ratings mean nothing now compared to 10-15 years ago when the choice much more limited. Given all the choice now, 4.0 is not that bad. Millions more will have watched replays, highlights and will have recorded it.

The extra points in the 90s have NOTHING to do with Graf. There are a lot of popular players missing from the tour now, but very young viewers will not remember Graf, Seles, Evert et al. So it's not like a 13 year old is saying that it was so much better then than now. :p

RenaSlam.
Jul 6th, 2005, 08:15 PM
Snore.

G1Player2
Jul 6th, 2005, 08:16 PM
This means nothing...There are SEVERAL more TV stations, programs, Tivo, DVR, and several other programs available now that weren't around 10 years ago...

G1Player2
Jul 6th, 2005, 08:19 PM
Also the Serena-Maria AO semifinal match was the highest rated tennis event in their history...

Sir Stefwhit
Jul 6th, 2005, 08:29 PM
Can tennis get a second serving of popularity?
By KEITH NIEBUHR, Times Staff Writer
Published June 19, 2005
source: http://www.sptimes.com/2005/06/19/Sports/Can_tennis_get_a_seco.shtml

"Tennis was enormous in the 1970s and early '80s," said Courier, a Dade City native and tennis standout in the 1990s. "That was the heyday."
Who among us didn't witness a McEnroe tirade, a Borg celebration from his knees, a Connors fist pump or a battle between Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova?

The stars of that era were as recognizable in the United States as J.R. Ewing and Archie Bunker, and as likely to be seen at the famed Studio 54 as Mick Jagger and Andy Warhol. They were personalities, not just players, and helped launch the sport's boom by driving people to the tube and to the courts.

Now ask yourself this: What do you really know about Roger Federer, Andy Roddick, Justine Henin-Hardenne or Kim Clijsters, today's standouts? Would you recognize them on the street?

"It's kind of a second-tier sport here," said Tampa's Mardy Fish, a silver medalist at the 2004 Olympics. "When we leave the country, everywhere else (tennis) is so big and popular and every match is on TV. (In the United States) they have Wimbledon right now on ESPN2 and ESPN Classic. Wimbledon can't even get on normal ESPN. To me, that's kind of a joke because I know a lot of people who don't have those stations. Or a lot of hotels.

"During the Davis Cup in March, I went to Indian Wells (Calif.) and I couldn't even watch the last match. It was on ESPN Classic and we didn't get that one."

What happened to tennis, where does it stand today and will it ever recapture the American attention? None of these questions is easily answered, though many within the sport have theories.

The boom, by most accounts, began not long after the creation of the Open era in 1968, which allowed professionals to play in the majors (Wimbledon, the Australian, French and U.S. championships, as they were previously known). For years top players such as Jack Kramer and Pancho Gonzalez were paid handsomely to play in events around the world, but they were barred from the majors, which greatly weakened the fields.
The Open era changed that.

"It really got tennis going," said Tony Trabert, a star in the 1950s and later a CBS analyst.

Television, which had just a handful of channels at that time, introduced much of the American public to tennis, and the game's distinct personalities kept people glued. The men's game produced popular players Rod Laver and Arthur Ashe, along with a few players who fans loved to hate, namely Connors and Ilie Nastase. The hard-nosed Billie Jean King and everybody's girl next door, Evert, were among the featured players on the women's side.
"The sport was flourishing, getting good publicity and a lot of TV," Trabert said.

According to Nielsen, which monitors TV ratings, more than 6-million Americans watched the finals at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open in the late 1970s. In 1981, when McEnroe and Tracy Austin won Open titles, CBS had an average rating for six telecasts of 5.8. A year ago the event drew a 1.8 average over nine telecasts.

"The only individual sports at that time on TV were golf, bowling and tennis," Kurt Kamperman, United States Tennis Association chief executive for community tennis, said. "Tennis appealed to those who were active. The TV coverage helped drive them to (the sport)."
At the height of tennis' popularity, ESPN launched the first all-sports cable network in 1979. Within a week the station had broadcast its first tennis match. The next year Wimbledon drew a 6.4 average rating on NBC, an all-time best.

The sport was hot, but it wouldn't last.

New participants made one quick discovery.

"You'd go out to the courts and you hadn't played, so you were paying to hit it into the hedges," Trabert said. " ... The game is hard to get to the point where you can rally back and forth and have fun with it. A lot of people got discouraged."

The wait time for a court didn't help, Trabert said. And neither did the fact there were few systems in place to keep newcomers there.
"After the Bobby Riggs-Billie Jean King match, people were like, "Let's go play,' " Kamperman said. "But a lot of tennis facilities didn't have teaching pros and programs."

Cable TV gave viewers more options, and they began watching other things. In 1983 Wimbledon and French Open ratings began to slide, though that year the U.S. Open drew a 5.0 average for CBS. Four years later, though, it dipped to 3.6.

On the pro circuits there also was change. Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Evert and Navratilova were replaced first by Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg and Steffi Graf, and later by Andre Agassi, Courier and Pete Sampras. Despite their enormous skills, most of the top players - Agassi being the notable exception - had less pizazz than their predecessors.

The sport's depth increased, but that made for fewer rivalries, something fans had enjoyed during the boom. Tennis blossomed globally, and when other countries placed more emphasis on tennis after its reintroduction as an Olympic sport (in 1988), the American stranglehold began to weaken.
Pop went the boom.

"The whole industry felt it," said Linda Glassel, vice president of marketing and communications for equipmentmaker Prince Sports. "From ball sales to racket sales, everybody's piece of the pie shrank, because there were less people playing."

As ratings dropped and public courts became less crowded, many speculated as to what went wrong. Some pointed the finger at players such as Sampras, who, for lack of a better word, came across as dull. How, many wondered, could the game become popular here again? There seemed to be no clear answer.

When Americans play, more Americans watch. Problem is, Americans no longer dominate the sport. Roddick is the only U.S. man seeded in the top 16 at Wimbledon, marking the first time in the Open era there aren't at least two Americans seeded that high. And though the women's game has strong representation from Serena and Venus Williams, Lindsay Davenport and Jennifer Capriati, they are old by tennis standards.

"It is worrisome to me," U.S. Davis Cup captain Patrick McEnroe said. "I think it reflects two things: How tennis has grown around the rest of the world, and how the rest of the world has caught up to us. It's something we need for the success of tennis, particularly in this country."

The USTA thinks it can help. It has introduced welcome centers, which offer free or inexpensive lessons, created a $10-million fund for new programs to increase participation and committed $1.5-million to support enhancements at public parks. It also initiated the U.S. Open Series, a group of pro tournaments before the Open aimed at building up the USTA's signature event.

"The USTA is doing what it can," Trabert said. "A lot of people are doing their best, but in America there are just so many other things for kids to do."
The USTA alone can't make tennis grow. Kamperman said TV exposure is crucial because it drives people to the courts, and the USTA now has programs to keep them involved.

The Tennis Channel, launched in 2003, will surpass 2,500 hours of tournament coverage this year. ESPN, which cut coverage when tennis' popularity fell, is making a greater commitment and will air more than 600 hours in 2005. ESPN is satisfied with its numbers and sees potential.

"One thing you have to realize about ratings is that everything is down," Dave Nagle, ESPN manager of media relations, said. "Seinfeld didn't get the numbers the Beverly Hillbillies used to get. So much of the TV pie has been sliced into many smaller pieces. We bottomed out about three or four years ago, but we've seen some growth since then."

ESPN has produced more in-depth player features in hopes of drawing in the casual fan, and the network thinks this has worked. Ratings for the Australian Open and French Open rose by 12 and 14 percent, respectively, from 2004. At Wimbledon, ESPN will be the largest broadcaster after the BBC.

A study by the USTA and Tennis Industry Association produced encouraging results: Equipment sales and the number of new participants have increased in recent years. "We're spending millions on an annual basis (on research and development)," Prince's Glassel said. "We're seeing significant growth in people purchasing rackets, and we're very excited about the outlook of the game."

Still, one question remains.
Will tennis ever boom again?

Sir Stefwhit
Jul 6th, 2005, 08:31 PM
Serena Williams' upset win over Martina Hingis in the women's championship Saturday had a 7.2 overnight mark and a 17 share. That was double last year's title match between Lindsay Davenport and Martina Hingis.

The rating is the percentage of television households tuned to a broadcast while the share is the percentage watching a program among those televisions in use at the time.

source:http://espn.go.com/tennis/news/1999/0913/56205.html

bobcat
Jul 6th, 2005, 08:35 PM
Also, back then the Wimbledon women's final was shown tape delayed in the West Coast, so more people in that area watched. Now, the final is on so early for them that only diehard fans watch.

ezekiel
Jul 6th, 2005, 08:37 PM
There are 100 channels out there and pvr's so audience is indeed divided much more. However the ratings are pretty good in relation to everything else. I mean nba finals got the ratings of 8 and that was in primetime and very competitive.

Geisha
Jul 6th, 2005, 08:41 PM
1995 US Open was Monica's first Slam back. It would be like Sharapova getting stabbed, then coming back in two years. What human wouldn't want to watch that?

Helen Lawson
Jul 6th, 2005, 08:45 PM
Steffi was the all-time great and had a lot of fans because of that, so the decrease in ratings is no surprise to me.

Calimero377
Jul 6th, 2005, 08:58 PM
Steffi was the all-time great and had a lot of fans because of that, so the decrease in ratings is no surprise to me.


:yeah:
That MUST be the explanation!

raquel
Jul 6th, 2005, 09:05 PM
Steffi got her highest rating against ASV? Not a surprise.....:angel: :p

G1Player2
Jul 6th, 2005, 09:18 PM
Also, back then the Wimbledon women's final was shown tape delayed in the West Coast, so more people in that area watched. Now, the final is on so early for them that only diehard fans watch.

Exactly, the women's final began at 6AM here on the west coast...Nobody is going to get up that early unless you are SERIOUSLY into tennis and have a major fave...

The women's final use to be on tape delay and by noon everyone is up already...

Calimero377
Jul 6th, 2005, 09:20 PM
Steffi got her highest rating against ASV? Not a surprise.....:angel: :p

Yes, AO 94, FO 95, Wim 95, FO 96 and Wim 96 were great slam finals!!!
:worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

Pengwin
Jul 6th, 2005, 09:24 PM
Yes, AO 94, FO 95, Wim 95, FO 96 and Wim 96 were great slam finals!!!
:worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

No offence ASV/Graf fans but we all know the reason it was those two in the final instead of someone else...

daffodil
Jul 6th, 2005, 09:26 PM
Yes, AO 94, FO 95, Wim 95, FO 96 and Wim 96 were great slam finals!!!
:worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

Other great Grand Slam finals:

1987 Wimbledon
1987 US Open
1989 French Open
1990 French Open
1990 US Open
1992 French Open
1993 Australian Open
1994 US Open
1999 Wimbledon

Bolded Slams: When Seles SMACKED Graf upside the head!!

:worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

daffodil
Jul 6th, 2005, 09:29 PM
No offence ASV/Graf fans but we all know the reason it was those two in the final instead of someone else...

Well Cali had to do SOMETHING to bring Graf back up to #1. It would have never happened if Monica didn't get ripped apart at 19 years old.

Calimero377
Jul 6th, 2005, 09:32 PM
No offence ASV/Graf fans but we all know the reason it was those two in the final instead of someone else...



Hmmm ...

Novotna at FO 96 and Studenikova at Wimbledon 96.

At Wimbledon 95 Seles chose not to compete, prefered to return to the game at an exhibition 4 weeks later. No wonder, considering her abysmal Wimby record (only ONCE in semis or better).

FO 95?
We must not forget that Seles lost all 3 slam finals against Graf/ASV post-93 (USO 95, USO 96, FO 98). Win chance about 10 % perhaps ....

AO 94?
Seles most probably would have led a better fight against transcendent Graf in the final. Considering that Seles struggled against a weaker Graf in 93 (tough 3-setter) I'd say 6-4, 6-4 in Graf's favour.

faboozadoo15
Jul 6th, 2005, 09:35 PM
1995 US Open was Monica's first Slam back. It would be like Sharapova getting stabbed, then coming back in two years. What human wouldn't want to watch that?
that, and it was a damn good match.

Angel_Mars
Jul 6th, 2005, 09:36 PM
Also the Serena-Maria AO semifinal match was the highest rated tennis event in their history...


Maria certainly gets draws attention to the game.....

raquel
Jul 6th, 2005, 09:36 PM
No offence ASV/Graf fans but we all know the reason it was those two in the final instead of someone else...
In fairness to ASV, Seles was at RG 96 and Wimbledon 1996. I am sorry for what happened to Monica, I really am, but Graf and Arantxa fans can still enjoy the finals that were around when Seles was off the tour.

You could go through a whole lot of Slams and say X won because Y wasn't there. Henin Hardenne won 2 of her Slams when Serena wasn't there when Serena was number 1. Seles won the 1996 Australian when Graf wasn't there. Hingis won Wimbledon 1997 and US Open 1997 when Graf wasn't there but those wins are never questioned too much. The way Monica was taken out of the game was awful but when the top player is out injured other people have to carry on.

Calimero377
Jul 6th, 2005, 09:37 PM
Other great Grand Slam finals:

1987 Wimbledon
1987 US Open
1989 French Open
1990 French Open
1990 US Open
1992 French Open
1993 Australian Open
1994 US Open
1999 Wimbledon

Bolded Slams: When Seles SMACKED Graf upside the head!!

:worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:


"Smacking upside the head?"
Those words remind us of the Wimbledon 92 final.
Or perhaps "beating like a drum" hits the nail on the head?

"Playing yo-yo with" ..... ?

Calimero377
Jul 6th, 2005, 09:39 PM
Well Cali had to do SOMETHING to bring Graf back up to #1. It would have never happened if Monica didn't get ripped apart at 19 years old.


"Ripped apart" ....... ? :eek:

Cybelle Darkholme
Jul 6th, 2005, 09:39 PM
It has been reported in GM that the All-American Wimbledon final Williams-Davenport got a 4.0 rating in the U.S.

But the 1995 women's US Open (Graf-Seles) final got a 5.2 overall rating in the US, WITHOUT the benefit of prime time. 5.3 in 1995 at Wimbledon (Graf-ASV), 4.6 in 1999 at Wimbledon (Graf-Davenport), 4.4 in 1993 at Wimbledon (Graf-Novotna) are some other signifanct ratings from the Golden Age Of Women's Tennis. [source: rec.sport.tennis]

Stefanie Graf is sorely missed .... :sad:


Those were the times! :worship:

It must be sad to live in the past and salivate over someone elses accomplishments.

Venus just won wimbledon and I am over it already. It was great but that was so last weekend. Im looking forward to the US Open and here you are stuck in 1995, how sad and pathetic for you.

Why are you even on this board? Maybe you should find a graf specific site and watch old avi's of her "glory days".

Cybelle Darkholme
Jul 6th, 2005, 09:40 PM
"Ripped apart" ....... ? :eek:Yes you know the german graf fantatic, kinda like you, who stabbed monica so monica wouldn't make graf look like a second rate player compared to monica.

Calimero377
Jul 6th, 2005, 09:42 PM
In fairness to ASV, Seles was at RG 96 and Wimbledon 1996. I am sorry for what happened to Monica, I really am, but Graf and Arantxa fans can still enjoy the finals that were around when Seles was off the tour.

You could go through a whole lot of Slams and say X won because Y wasn't there. Henin Hardenne won 2 of her Slams when Serena wasn't there when Serena was number 1. Seles won the 1996 Australian when Graf wasn't there. Hingis won Wimbledon 1997 and US Open 1997 when Graf wasn't there but those wins are never questioned too much. The way Monica was taken out of the game was awful but when the top player is out injured other people have to carry on.


We must not forget that Seles won 2 of her 9 slams when Graf was out due to injury.
And what did Seles do when Graf was out again in 97/98? Or when she retired in 99 (Seles being 25-years-old = peak prime tennis age)? She failed ...


That's the difference ...

Calimero377
Jul 6th, 2005, 09:51 PM
It must be sad to live in the past and salivate over someone elses accomplishments.

Venus just won wimbledon and I am over it already. It was great but that was so last weekend. Im looking forward to the US Open and here you are stuck in 1995, how sad and pathetic for you.

Why are you even on this board? Maybe you should find a graf specific site and watch old avi's of her "glory days".


I'm just now listening to Brahms' 4th Symphony and sipping on a glass of a 14-year-old Scapa single malt.
And yes, when today's women's tennis gets too painful I just put a video tape into my VCR and watch a Graf match (I usually combine that with a Beethoven piano sonata and a Cuban cigar .... ). :drool:

Why I am on this board?
Well, I have an educational mission. Just think of all those youngsters her who think women's tennis was invented by the Willy sisters in 2000 (Were still maturing in 1999 and therefor overtaken in the rankings by grandma Graf). Or those occasional lurkers who might think that all that drivel here in GM about Graf etc. could contain some grains of truth. So I am here to explain tennis history to them and to put today's tennis events into perspecitve.
:) :angel:

harloo
Jul 6th, 2005, 09:52 PM
Thanks Sir Stefwit for the informative articles, eat crow Cali.:lol:

franny
Jul 6th, 2005, 09:52 PM
Actually, there is a very simple explanation for this. Once again, the ratings is simply the percentage of households watching any television at that time who are watching tennis. Ten years ago, we didn't have cable networks and we didn't have about 200 channels to choose from. The big channels of NBC, CBS, FOX, and ABC dominated television at all time slots because they were the only options. Why do you think we don't see huge massive numbers for NBC primetime anymore? Seinfeld scored over 30 million viewers each night, but with the emergence of cable networks such as the WB, HBO, FX, and channels like that, primetime ratings for all networks went down. There is simply too much competition now. Back in 90's, there were no golf channel, no fox sports west, fox sports east, fox sports every single region. There were no espn direct tv, espn classic, etc. Now, with so many sporting channels, people do not simply have to watch what is on the big networks, they have alternatives. That is why ratings have dropped. Why do you think the superbowl ratings have dropped comparatively in the past decade? It's not because Americans don't like the teams playing, they are the same teams with just as intriguing players. It's simply because of risen alternatives.

And plus, those Graf matches pale in comparison to Evert-Navratilova matches and Connors/McEneroe matches where the ratings were between 5-6. Does that mean that tennis misses those players more than it misses Graf?

Veenut
Jul 7th, 2005, 12:21 AM
Serena Williams' upset win over Martina Hingis in the women's championship Saturday had a 7.2 overnight mark and a 17 share. That was double last year's title match between Lindsay Davenport and Martina Hingis.

The rating is the percentage of television households tuned to a broadcast while the share is the percentage watching a program among those televisions in use at the time.

source:http://espn.go.com/tennis/news/1999/0913/56205.html

Thanks for providing the evidence for those who love the facts instead of the fairytails that some like to create around here. He will just ignore it of course but those who have eyes to read let them read. :worship:

franny
Jul 7th, 2005, 03:08 AM
I'm just now listening to Brahms' 4th Symphony and sipping on a glass of a 14-year-old Scapa single malt.
And yes, when today's women's tennis gets too painful I just put a video tape into my VCR and watch a Graf match (I usually combine that with a Beethoven piano sonata and a Cuban cigar .... ). :drool:

Why I am on this board?
Well, I have an educational mission. Just think of all those youngsters her who think women's tennis was invented by the Willy sisters in 2000 (Were still maturing in 1999 and therefor overtaken in the rankings by grandma Graf). Or those occasional lurkers who might think that all that drivel here in GM about Graf etc. could contain some grains of truth. So I am here to explain tennis history to them and to put today's tennis events into perspecitve.
:) :angel:

Have you actually succeeded in educating anyone? I'd like to see one of these youngsters you speak of or lurkers come out and say that thanks to Calimero, he or she has learned some valuable lessons about tennis history.

VeeReeDavJCap81
Jul 7th, 2005, 03:28 AM
Cali, you do know that ratings as a WHOLE for all types of television progamming is lower in the US than in the 90's right?

Cris Senior
Jul 7th, 2005, 03:49 AM
It must be sad to live in the past and salivate over someone elses accomplishments.

Venus just won wimbledon and I am over it already. It was great but that was so last weekend. Im looking forward to the US Open and here you are stuck in 1995, how sad and pathetic for you.

Why are you even on this board? Maybe you should find a graf specific site and watch old avi's of her "glory days".
Comment:
Have mercy on Calimero. The poor guy is over 70, suffers from Down Syndrome and is stuck to a wheelchair. No other kind of wanking is available to him except that stubborn nostalgia for an ex-player called Steffi.
CS

ezekiel
Jul 7th, 2005, 03:53 AM
We must not forget that Seles won 2 of her 9 slams when Graf was out due to injury.
And what did Seles do when Graf was out again in 97/98? Or when she retired in 99 (Seles being 25-years-old = peak prime tennis age)? She failed ...


That's the difference ...

We will never forget that Monica had 8 slams as a teenager and that she was struck down by a jealous Graf fanatic. We should also not forget that half of Graf slams came after Monica was stabbed. As I said in another thread Graf carreer will be filled asterisks **********************************************
and that will be her legacy. Not to mention having certifiably crazy followers comparable only to Michael Jackson

Cris Senior
Jul 7th, 2005, 03:55 AM
I'm just now listening to Brahms' 4th Symphony and sipping on a glass of a 14-year-old Scapa single malt.
And yes, when today's women's tennis gets too painful I just put a video tape into my VCR and watch a Graf match (I usually combine that with a Beethoven piano sonata and a Cuban cigar .... ). :drool:

Why I am on this board?
Well, I have an educational mission. Just think of all those youngsters her who think women's tennis was invented by the Willy sisters in 2000 (Were still maturing in 1999 and therefor overtaken in the rankings by grandma Graf). Or those occasional lurkers who might think that all that drivel here in GM about Graf etc. could contain some grains of truth. So I am here to explain tennis history to them and to put today's tennis events into perspecitve.
:) :angel:
Comment:
"..all those youngsters her who think..". Wow, this is a beauty of syntactic coherence, Calimero. Surprising for an old professional prissy, business office typist like you.
I already advised you to crack those Prozac tablets in half, you are becoming a maniacal messs.Look I don't know how to spell "mess". Take advantage , make fun of it!
CS

dansnewbeg
Jul 7th, 2005, 04:03 AM
Does a ratings point now mean the same as it did back then?

VeeReeDavJCap81
Jul 7th, 2005, 04:06 AM
Less people as a WHOLE in the US watch less television than in the 90's. It's a proven fact.

ezekiel
Jul 7th, 2005, 04:07 AM
Does a ratings point now mean the same as it did back then?

percent wise yes but I assume there are more homes now to measure. What this means is that 4% of all tv sets watched it but the actual number of homes has grown steadily over the years. Right now , it's about a million per percentage point, which means 4 millions homes watched it.

i heart backhand
Jul 7th, 2005, 04:10 AM
Okay, let's put the Graf/Seles bitching aside. Isn't this a pretty damn good rating? I seem to remember the all Belgian and Russian finals getting ratings between 2 and 3!

Cybelle Darkholme
Jul 7th, 2005, 04:21 AM
I'm just now listening to Brahms' 4th Symphony and sipping on a glass of a 14-year-old Scapa single malt.
And yes, when today's women's tennis gets too painful I just put a video tape into my VCR and watch a Graf match (I usually combine that with a Beethoven piano sonata and a Cuban cigar .... ). :drool:

Why I am on this board?
Well, I have an educational mission. Just think of all those youngsters her who think women's tennis was invented by the Willy sisters in 2000 (Were still maturing in 1999 and therefor overtaken in the rankings by grandma Graf). Or those occasional lurkers who might think that all that drivel here in GM about Graf etc. could contain some grains of truth. So I am here to explain tennis history to them and to put today's tennis events into perspecitve.
:) :angel:Yes, ancient history should be appreciated. Its good for the youth of the world to look back on primitive times and so they can be even more amazed by the way things have changed today for the better. Progress, you have to love it.

Cris Senior
Jul 7th, 2005, 10:25 AM
Cali, you do know that ratings as a WHOLE for all types of television progamming is lower in the US than in the 90's right?
Comment:
You mean ratings ACROSS all programs. Because , by definition ratings are never " a whole", but a percentage, a ratio.
Still the statement, is not quite true "as a whole", because for some sports' such as Nascar races, they are actually up .Others, like Basketball's, have zigzagged a bit but overall have held their ground around the 10% mark.
Given the expansion of available choice of programs, shares rather than ratings are a more relevant measure and, even if ratings ARE lower for all, still the rate of decline for some sports have to higher than for the others , and this gauge is even of more interest in judging comparative changes.
Finally, we say that ratings ARE lower, not that ratings IS lower