Tennis Forum banner

101 - 120 of 125 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
225 Posts
The sad thing for Novak is that at the end of the day, even if he leads the rivalry with both Roger and Rafa, nobody (except his fans) really cares. Everyone cares about the Fedal rivalry more.

That said, this bitch cannot touch Martina-Chris.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
982 Posts
The sad thing for Novak is that at the end of the day, even if he leads the rivalry with both Roger and Rafa, nobody (except his fans) really cares. Everyone cares about the Fedal rivalry more.

That said, this bitch cannot touch Martina-Chris.
Djoko dont care and I don’t think he is sad about it. At the end of this era he will be the 🐐 there is no way good old Roger will win a GS and Nadal can win RG a couple of times but Djoko have way more opportunities to reach 24 or 25. So yes Roger will be more popular but Djokovic will be the greatest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,271 Posts
At this level, who cares about popularity? CR7 for example has much more instagram followers than Messi and is more popular, but everyone who has 2 working brain cells and follows football knows that Lionel is immensely superior, to the point where it shouldn't even be a discussion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,451 Posts
How is WTA prize money being inflated a "fact"? That is your opinion that it is inflated, not a fact... That's the problem with male chauvisnism, they use biological differences between genders to justify their opinion that men are superior to women, and call it "facts" or "part of nature" or "Biology" or whatever....
Men are not superior, they are different. Come on. Women control the biggest markets in the world even before the feminist movement was a thing. "Globally, women consumers control $20 trillion in consumer spending. They make the final decision for buying 91 percent of home purchases, 65 percent of the new cars, 80 percent of health care choices, and 66 percent of computers". But men are superior in only one thing and that is physicality. So yes, they get paid more to play sports because people pay them more to watch them do it, women pay more too. How is this fact anything but a fact? Compare the ATP ratings to the WTA ratings and you will get your answer. That is were all he $$ comes from, ratings.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,106 Posts
Men are not superior, they are different. Come on. Women control the biggest markets in the world even before the feminist movement was a thing. "Globally, women consumers control $20 trillion in consumer spending. They make the final decision for buying 91 percent of home purchases, 65 percent of the new cars, 80 percent of health care choices, and 66 percent of computers". But men are superior in only one thing and that is physicality. So yes, they get paid more to play sports because people pay them more to watch them do it, women pay more too. How is this fact anything but a fact? Compare the ATP ratings to the WTA ratings and you will get your answer. That is were all he $$ comes from, ratings.
By your logic, shouldn't Federer, Nadal and Djokovic all get more prize money than anyone else, no matter where they come in the tournament? Should the prize money awarded to slam finalists depend on the ratings they draw in that year? I don't think so...

Prize money never has been based on ratings, so this tired argument is total bullshit. If you actually respect woman, I don't see how you can argue they don't deserve equal prize money.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
225 Posts
Djoko dont care and I don’t think he is sad about it. At the end of this era he will be the 🐐 there is no way good old Roger will win a GS and Nadal can win RG a couple of times but Djoko have way more opportunities to reach 24 or 25. So yes Roger will be more popular but Djokovic will be the greatest.
How about you wait till he surpasses Fedal in slam count before saying anything? 3 more to go, and it aint easy.
Djoko obvs cares, because he is making all these comments to stay relevant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
982 Posts
How about you wait till he surpasses Fedal in slam count before saying anything? 3 more to go, and it aint easy.
Djoko obvs cares, because he is making all these comments to stay relevant.
There is no way Fed will win a other GS he is nearly 40. Nadal will win RG a couple of times but Djoko is younger stronger and have more possibilities to win different GSs. He has the biggest change from the big 4 to became the next 🐐
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38,070 Posts
Discussion Starter #108 (Edited)
You mean like the sheer idiocy of refuting Djokovic being the best player of his generation because he "ate a bagel in a Grand Slam final" - that kind of sheer idiocy?
Or you mean the sheer idiocy of claiming a potential GOAT is "cashing in on male privilege" as if winning nearly $150m in prize money alone for your actual performances has nothing to do with what you're cashing, and comparing him to Siegemund - that kind of sheer idiocy?
Or you mean the sheer idiocy of mocking an athlete's "butterface looks" - that kind of sheer idiocy?
The only way this person is the best player of his generation is by ignoring the French Open altogether. Unless his being "the son of God" (as his mother seems to think) somehow gives him 4 additional Slams.

And I'm not mocking his butterface looks, I'm mocking the fact that if he was a woman athlete with a repellent narcissistic personality, dangerous anti-vaxxer views (Gwyneth Paltrow is way more disliked than he is for having similar hippie-dippie New Age views and she's not even an anti-vaxxer) and butterface looks it would affect her marketability and popularity a lot more than it has affected Djokovic (and it has affected him, as he is way less popular than Nadal and Federer, male privilege has its limits). Add that to the fact that a big reason for men's tennis and their generally ugly games (I'm not the only one who seems to think this, here a female player having an ATP-like game has been synonymous with having an ugly game since forever) being more popular is that most men would mock another man for preferring women's tennis or even being too into it. It's not a supposed higher quality of tennis, it's not that they hit the ball harder, it's certainly not star power, it's privilege derived from chauvinism, which he is cashing in on.

Bullshit argument of men's tennis being more popular than women's tennis because it is intrinsically better exposed.

 

·
Banned
Joined
·
487 Posts
The only way this person is the best player of his generation is by ignoring the French Open altogether. Unless his being "the son of God" (as his mother seems to think) somehow gives him 4 additional Slams.

And I'm not mocking his butterface looks, I'm mocking the fact that if he was a woman athlete with a repellent narcissistic personality, dangerous anti-vaxxer views (Gwyneth Paltrow is way more disliked than he is for having similar hippie-dippie New Age views and she's not even an anti-vaxxer) and butterface looks it would affect her marketability and popularity a lot more than it has affected Djokovic (and it has affected him, as he is way less popular than Nadal and Federer, male privilege has its limits). Add that to the fact that a big reason for men's tennis and their generally ugly games (I'm not the only one who seems to think this, here a female player having an ATP-like game has been synonymous with having an ugly game since forever) being more popular is that most men would mock another man for preferring women's tennis or even being too into it. It's not a supposed higher quality of tennis, it's not that they hit the ball harder, it's certainly not star power, it's privilege derived from chauvinism, which he is cashing in on.

Bullshit argument of men's tennis being more popular than women's tennis because it is intrinsically better exposed.

Men's tennis is faster, livelier, more entertaining, more popular, more respected than women's tennis. Give up. I say this as someone who primarily watches women's tennis.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,271 Posts
(Gwyneth Paltrow is way more disliked than he is for having similar hippie-dippie New Age views and she's not even an anti-vaxxer)
Ok, now this was too much. Paltrow is literally a con artist who profits with it. Novak just said something stupid on vaccines, but it's not as if he's a scammer.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
368 Posts
By your logic, shouldn't Federer, Nadal and Djokovic all get more prize money than anyone else, no matter where they come in the tournament? Should the prize money awarded to slam finalists depend on the ratings they draw in that year? I don't think so...

Prize money never has been based on ratings, so this tired argument is total bullshit. If you actually respect woman, I don't see how you can argue they don't deserve equal prize money.
Prize money is based on the amount of proceeds the tournament makes. Some of those proceeds are TV contracts and some are from ticket sales. Either way the popularity of men’s tennis is largely responsible for the overall increase of prize money. The top men’s players do make way more money through sponsorships, but the infrastructure of earnings in tennis is directly related to results in individual tournaments.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,737 Posts
The only way this person is the best player of his generation is by ignoring the French Open altogether. Unless his being "the son of God" (as his mother seems to think) somehow gives him 4 additional Slams.
Again, this is just dumb. Extremely dumb, and I can't believe you're doubling down on something this dumb. Djokovic's French Open record does not define his career. It is one of several elements that define his career, but there is much, much, much more to his legacy that his record in one tournament. Again, I can't believe you're doubling down over something this patently absurd.

And I'm not mocking his butterface looks, I'm mocking the fact that if he was a woman athlete with a repellent narcissistic personality, dangerous anti-vaxxer views (Gwyneth Paltrow is way more disliked than he is for having similar hippie-dippie New Age views and she's not even an anti-vaxxer) and butterface looks it would affect her marketability and popularity a lot more than it has affected Djokovic (and it has affected him, as he is way less popular than Nadal and Federer, male privilege has its limits).
1) Plenty of celebrities are vaccine skeptics and it hasn't affected their fame or fortune. Robert De Niro, Jim Carrey, Jessica Biel, Selma Blair, Lisa Bonet, Toni Braxton, Bill Maher and many more. Even a very smart, very grounded person like Mayim Bialik. It says nothing about a person's character to be skeptical about vaccinations. At worst, they may have access to skewed information and concerned about their children's health and safety.
2) Considering Djokovic is a very amiable person who is fairly popular in the locker room and gets along even with an ice queen like Sharapova and ignores players who bad-mouth him without ever responding, and never seen ridiculing or trading barbs with his peers, your constant ramblings about his repellent personality and narcissism just seems like your own personal derangement.
3) There is no evidence that if he was a "woman athlete", he'd be less popular or marketable. There are no dominant women with 17 slams to test that theory.

Add that to the fact that a big reason for men's tennis and their generally ugly games (I'm not the only one who seems to think this, here a female player having an ATP-like game has been synonymous with having an ugly game since forever) being more popular is that most men would mock another man for preferring women's tennis or even being too into it. It's not a supposed higher quality of tennis, it's not that they hit the ball harder, it's certainly not star power, it's privilege derived from chauvinism, which he is cashing in on.

Bullshit argument of men's tennis being more popular than women's tennis because it is intrinsically better exposed.

What a weird digression. What game is ugly is a matter of taste. Justine Henin's stroke production was ATP-like and considered the most beautiful game on tour by many. As is someone like Barty today. So it's irrelevant if you consider men's tennis ugly. You're welcome to your opinion. Women's sports, tennis included, are less popular than men's cos they're seen as 2nd tier - physically and even technically. To say that that is a function of "chauvinism" is as silly as saying anyone who enjoys wheelchair tennis less than their able-bodies peers is some kind of ableist chauvinist.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
56 Posts
TBH, Nadal belongs to the same generation as Djokovic, so it's difficult for me to consider either as "the best player of his generation". Especially before their career has ended. Both have their case, currently with Nadal having an edge (20... with Olympic Gold as icing on the cake) but Djokovic also has some elements on his side (non-calendar GS, weeks and year end #1, won all major titles excepted Olympics...).


As for men vs women sports popularity, there are a few exceptions where women would be more popular than men. Such as soccer in the USA (not elsewhere however!). Also some worldwide cases such as gymnastics, or ice figure skating.

For some other sports popularity seems pretty even on both sides. For example swimming... where it looks like popularity will depend more on dominance, achievements and personality rather than men vs women.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,737 Posts
TBH, Nadal belongs to the same generation as Djokovic, so it's difficult for me to consider either as "the best player of his generation". Especially before their career has ended. Both have their case, currently with Nadal having an edge (20... with Olympic Gold as icing on the cake) but Djokovic also has some elements on his side (non-calendar GS, weeks and year end #1, won all major titles excepted Olympics...).


As for men vs women sports popularity, there are a few exceptions where women would be more popular than men. Such as soccer in the USA (not elsewhere however!). Also some worldwide cases such as gymnastics, or ice figure skating.

For some other sports popularity seems pretty even on both sides. For example swimming... where it looks like popularity will depend more on dominance, achievements and personality rather than men vs women.
Djokovic is certainly a more dominant player than Nadal ever was (and Nadal is my favorite player). Nadal just hit slam-winning level much earlier. I mean, Nadal was already on 9 slam titles before Djokovic won his 2nd slam in 2011. For sure, over the last decade, Djokovic has comfortably been the best player. The thing though is if the argument was that Nadal is better than Djokovic (he isn't), that's even a different argument which I'd respect. But to refute Djokovic being the best player of his generation by saying "he ate a bagel" in a slam final is astoundingly silly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
56 Posts
I fully agree that eating a bagel isn't an argument for dismissing the greatness of a player (and let's not forget Federer also ate a bagel on the same stage...).

Still, the question was not who's the best of the last decade, but who's the best of that generation. Precocity and longevity can both be seen as pros and cons - yes, it's a bit less arch-dominance on a certain timeframe, but on the other hand it's still impressive to have kept such a level for such a long time. Besides, the precocious Nadal had to defeat a not-that-old Federer to win these titles, so I wouldn't say it was a vulturing cakewalk.

All things considered, the two are very, very close - and to already include Djokovic despite his 3 slams deficit (that's Murray's career total!) actually shows how great a player he is.

By the way, I (slightly) prefer Djokovic over Nadal... so that's not a pro-Nadal bias.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,048 Posts
At this level, who cares about popularity? CR7 for example has much more instagram followers than Messi and is more popular, but everyone who has 2 working brain cells and follows football knows that Lionel is immensely superior, to the point where it shouldn't even be a discussion.
The absolute state of messitards.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,106 Posts
Prize money is based on the amount of proceeds the tournament makes. Some of those proceeds are TV contracts and some are from ticket sales. Either way the popularity of men’s tennis is largely responsible for the overall increase of prize money. The top men’s players do make way more money through sponsorships, but the infrastructure of earnings in tennis is directly related to results in individual tournaments.
But it's not as simple as men's tennis overall is more popular so draws in more prize money.. At Wimbledon for example, British players attract bigger crowds and audiences than the average player.. So should British players at Wimbledon be given larger amounts of prize money? That's just not how it works. Prize money is awarded based on where you finish in the tournament, not how much revenue you personally generated...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
368 Posts
But it's not as simple as men's tennis overall is more popular so draws in more prize money.. At Wimbledon for example, British players attract bigger crowds and audiences than the average player.. So should British players at Wimbledon be given larger amounts of prize money? That's just not how it works. Prize money is awarded based on where you finish in the tournament, not how much revenue you personally generated...
It really is that simple. Doesn’t matter what country the players come from, the men still being in more revenue overall. Also all that really affects is attendance. TV ratings won’t really be affected by the country the player comes from.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,106 Posts
It really is that simple. Doesn’t matter what country the players come from, the men still being in more revenue overall. Also all that really affects is attendance. TV ratings won’t really be affected by the country the player comes from.
So only gender counts... Lets seperate them out by that demographic but other demographics are meaningless... :unsure:

I dunno, but for me, I like to see it as a joint effort of all players bringing revenue to the tournament, particularly as the Slams. Some female players will attract much more crowds and TV coverage than male players. On average males will bring more..But society predisposes us to value male sport over female sport..and TBH female tennis players do a incredibly job of generating fan/media interest considering everything set against them. If you can't see that then this is where the disrespect towards women comes into play, which is sad to see on this forum.
 
101 - 120 of 125 Posts
Top