Join Date: Jun 2004
Re: On the Concept of Irony w/ Continual Reference to Caro, the #1 Sunshine Queen
Originally Posted by bruce goose
Ummmm....You're missing the point just a bit, Gaston
. It's not that we can't understand why she's getting hyped, it's that it's rather EXCESSIVE for someone who has accomplished VERY little and, like Kournikova, could conceivably NEVER win a single tourney.('per se' should be separated, btw
)You're correct, though, in that she couldn't have reached the top 20 if she didn't have at least SOME potential for greatness.
The PROBLEM is that Allaster disgraces the sport by championing players who don't give a rat's ass--and are piss-poor role models for young girls and the supposed "empowering women" theme--merely because they're eye candy. You'd be pressed to name ANY other sport that does this; if Messi got so out of shape that he kept getting hopelessly exhausted 15 minutes into matches....and he made absolutely NO effort to improve his training....would he keep getting hyped according to his PAST glories, or would his stardom wane due to his embarrassing disinterest?? That's a rhetorical question, so you needn't reply
...but a WTA cover girl could do that and not suffer ANY loss of hype from the WTA media machine...as long as she smiled for her promos
With her outward physical appearance, it IS easy to see why Bouchard is pushed but, recently, she's gotten the same level of hype as Serena or Big Masha.....and that's just pathetic, Gaston
No, it's not. That's marketing. You go by what's selling and keeps people interested. Is that "the right thing to do"? No, probably not. On the other hand - who cares? If Kournikova types put asses on seats and make people tune in to the WTA while Kuznetsova types don't, you push Kournikova types, and in the end everyone will profit from the increased attention - including the Kuznetsova types. Besides, top 20 is great. If you're one of the 20 best in boxing you're the wbc, wbo, wba, ibf, fbi, cia, plo, ira or whatever else champion of the world in one of their countless weight divisions. If you're the 20th best sccer player in the world you're a superstar who plays for Real Madrid, Manchester United or Barcelona. If you're the 20th best swimmer you're an Olympic gold medalist in butterfly, crawl, backstroke or butterfly in the 100, 200, 400. 800 or 1500 meters. And I could say the same thing about most other sports. Top 20 doesn't sound like much, but since there is only the one event where you have to compete against everyone else it's on par with being a world champion in most other sports.
Has nothing to do with Bouchard persť
but you might find this bit from an interview with former Wimbledon finalist Chris Lewis food for thought. He's basically saying in a much more eloquent way what I have always believed to be the truth myself concerning the skill level of tennis players as compared to other athletes.
Which brings me to my next point. The skill thatís required to play at the level of Federer, Nadal, Murray, and Djokovic is beyond belief. Further, when you look closely at the skill level of any of the players in the top 100, while not at the level of the greats, it is still unbelievably high. As a general proposition, given the depth and strength of todayís game, I think that there is a marked imbalance between the demand for a rewarding career and the supply of such. Outside of the top few players, who are rewarded fairly, I think there should be more players who are able to make a really good living from the game.
Of all the thousands of talented young players who want to pursue a tennis career, the percentage who will be successful is less than minuscule. There are more players playing than ever before, and even though there are far more international junior tournaments and entry level pro events than there were in my day, I donít think there are any more players today making a good living compared to when I was playing.
Not for a second am I suggesting that the answer is an egalitarian approach whereby prize money is taken from those ranked higher and distributed to those ranked lower. The top players deserve every cent they make. My contention is that the number 100 ranked player, who has acquired an incredibly high level of skill, should be making much more.
At the end of the day, though, tennis, like any sport or business, is market driven. But I think the market gives tennis and tennis players a raw deal. When you compare the level of skill of those in team sports with the level of skill of tennis players, and then compare the average salaries of each, I think that it amounts to a triumph for mediocrity. I put it down to the fact that the average person just doesnít have the ability to evaluate properly the enormous achievement of a tennis player ranked 100 in the world.
To me, itís almost as much as an injustice as the latest rap star having far greater appeal than the musical virtuoso whose genius goes virtually unnoticed by the lumpen masses. If there was anything that was in my power to change, I would love to be able to provide more careers to more players by generating more spectator interest in the sport. Imagine if tennis had as much appeal to the average Joe as mindless video games do. But given the state of the culture today, thereís about as much chance of that as todayís equivalent of a Mozart having wider appeal than Justin Bieber. In other words, none.