[VeeReeDavJCap81]

The whole equal prize money debate would cease if they did.

 

[NYKiriFan]

No it wouldn't.

 

[derp]

The scientific basis of it is that in the past, women were like children and making them do shit that the real adults (i.e. men) do was considered barbaric. Ironically, todays "feminists" are still defending that scheme, when they could just man up and demand equal treatment.

 

[njnetswill]

The scientific basis of it is that in the past, women were like children and making them do shit that the real adults (i.e. men) do was considered barbaric. Ironically, todays "feminists" are still defending that scheme, when they could just man up and demand equal treatment.

That past of treating women as children only existed in the minds of the privileged elite who used to dominate sports like tennis. In the real world, women have toiled in the fields and worked in the mines since the dawn of man. Feminists want equal treatment and pay for the work that women have always done, not for women to imitate the role of children. Take your distorted history of gender relations somewhere else, kthnxbai.

 

[hdfb]

It would jeopardise schedule of plays for starters....

 

[derp]

That past of treating women as children only existed in the minds of the privileged elite who used to dominate sports like tennis. In the real world, women have toiled in the fields and worked in the mines since the dawn of man. Feminists want equal treatment and pay for the work that women have always done, not for women to imitate the role of children. Take your distorted history of gender relations somewhere else, kthnxbai.

When did I say that they weren't hypocrites you asshole? They let children work, too. I guess that means that my comparison "women were like children back then" is still correct, AMIRITE? :lol:

Filthbag.

 

[ptkten]

Yeah, I don't think the tournaments want them to because of scheduling issues. Plus, I'm not sure it would help the quality of play at all to have five sets. I think it's fine the way it is. Regardless, the equal prize money debate won't go away until the tickets for men's only rounds are equal to the women. As long as the slams charge more for the men, the ATP players are going to think they deserve more.

 

[AcesHigh]

This thread got to a great start

 

[derp]

Yeah, I don't think the tournaments want them to because of scheduling issues. Plus, I'm not sure it would help the quality of play at all to have five sets. I think it's fine the way it is. Regardless, the equal prize money debate won't go away until the tickets for men's only rounds are equal to the women. As long as the slams charge more for the men, the ATP players are going to think they deserve more.

Thats because they do. Supply and demand. Why do you think curling pays worse than basketball does? Why do you think female models earns more usually than the guys?

They should make everyone play 5 setters in the second week IMO. 3 setters in the first week.

 

[Maddox]

There isn't a scientific reason , things are just fine the way they are

 

[manojob]

I think definitely women plays 5 sets in coming days.

 

[Perseust]

They have boobs...
The longer they run around the court, the saggier they get.

 

[Expat]

You want to see five hours long WTA matches in a GS? 3 set WTA matches are bad enough. Improve the quality not the quantity of WTA matches. Then they deserve equal pay.

 

[tenisamulo]

The whole equal prize money debate would cease if they did.

No it wouldn't. Some men are just upset that women might make as much, or more, than they do and it pisses them off, everything after that is an excuse. Tennis players are performers, entertainers, not carpenters paid by the hour. Are asses put in stadium seats? Are TVs switched on when the glam girls of tennis are on? Do people know who the female tennis players are? That's a bigger issue than match length (the guys would be concerned with length ). Besides, If time on court was the issue, then isner-mahut deserved much bigger pay checks then they got :lol:

 

[denny5576]

There is no need to play 5 sets. There is need men to play 3 sets. Then men's tennis will become attractive, not like now when one of the 4 or 5 sets is always without meaning

 

[kris719]

beating a dead horse once again here in gm...

 

[Navratil]

Yeah, I don't think the tournaments want them to because of scheduling issues. Plus, I'm not sure it would help the quality of play at all to have five sets. I think it's fine the way it is. Regardless, the equal prize money debate won't go away until the tickets for men's only rounds are equal to the women. As long as the slams charge more for the men, the ATP players are going to think they deserve more.

Agree. I doubt that it would be good for tennis. It's hard to watch a whole best-of-five match...

But I don't see any difference between men and women. If the men do - why not the women? Only at slams!?

 

[Andy_]

I'm not sure how many of you can remember, but there was a time when the final of the end-of-year Masters was played as a best-of-5 match. It was quite an event per se, the one and only time when two girls would play a match like that, and a few times fans were treated to impressive fights...

In 1990, Seles defeated Sabatini in 5 sets, in 1995 and 1996 Graf beat Huber and Hingis also in 5 sets... and it was pretty entertaining, but it was a different game, back then (less physically demanding, possibly), and it happened once a year. I'm really not sure whether a whole tournament of best-of-5 matches would suit the girls. There's still quite a few early rounds that end up with bagels and breadsticks, it's not like having three in a row would be all that exciting to watch

 

[duhcity]

Seriously hate when people say that the quality of a 5 setter would be terrible.
If men only played 3 set matches during the year, they would only bring their fitness level to a point to handle seven 3 setters, not seven 5 setters.

If women were forced to play 5 setters, a select group of players would do extremely well - those already at that level with their bodies. Then would be the champions who raise their game, their commitment to fitness, and have the mental ability to stay in long matches - and they would dominate the slams. And that fitness level will eventually improve the quality of three set tour matches.

The top men have their records bolstered BECAUSE they play five sets. They are far more upset prone in shorter matches, where lower ranked players maintain their forms for those shorter matches. Longer matches, with their experience, gives them an edge right at the start. That same situation would happen with the women as well.

 

[debby]

Well, for starters, men and women are differently built.
Different tours - why? Because women don't physically compete with men, of course... If even men are tired by best of 5 in slams, I can't imagine women especially their lack of mental toughness combined with their already weak serves... there are chokers in ATP too but with a better serve ?
Plus scheduling...

I was paid the same as men, yet I was not doing the same tasks, theirs were too heavy for me, no matter how hard I tried.

But I agree, they should just reduce ATP slam matchs to best of 3 sets and basta... but it might be too quick so shorter Slams...