Tennis Forum banner

1 - 20 of 59 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
394 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Just because there aren't enough Masha threads here.... :p

This is from Jon Wertheim's column this week at SI. Do you all agree or disagree that Maria is the best thing to happen to women's tennis in a long time?

I don't think she's THE best thing but her win over Serena at Wimby was very encouraging for women's tennis; I just hope she doesn't turn out to be a one-hit wonder.

And also, the fact that Maria was "made in the USA" might have something to do with the fact that she's on Sports Illustrated. ;)

Re: Myskina; the women's FO this year is something we should all just strike from our memory banks. :ras:

Martina Navratilova stated last week that Sharapova's Wimbledon victory was the best thing that could*have*happened to women's tennis. Why? Where was all the hoopla when Anastasia Myskina became the first Russian woman to win a Grand Slam title?*Why weren't*Justine Henin-Hardenne's victories in the previous three Grand Slams considered great for women's tennis?
-- Nikki, Cincinnati

We got several questions making the same point, and it's one worth discussing. Playing devil's advocate, one could point out that Sharapova is young (17), completely bilingual and doesn't mind the spotlight. Playing in her first Grand Slam final, she stared down Serena, the dominant force in women's tennis. That is grounds not just for "hoopla" but for justified "hoopla." But yes, you're right. There's a faintly icky feeling that a lot of the attention is*owed to the fact she looks like (and is) a model. If she achieves the identical feat but stands 5-foot-3 and has braces, is she "the best thing that could have happened to women's tennis?" Is the WTA turning cartwheels? For that matter, is she on the cover of Sports Illustrated? Some of this -- perhaps sadly -- is the "reality of the marketplace." Women's sports have yet to get to the point where athletes are judged solely on their merits. That's been made clear time and again. For Navratilova to be among those perpetuating the cycle is, at the very least, ironic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
167 Posts
A year from now, someone else will be the "Best Thing that Could Have Happened To Women's Tennis."

Then there will be someone else the year after that. And so on and so forth...

This is just another spoke on the big wheel of marketing.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
89 Posts
Aye, its very good for the game. About time a good looking girl won wimbledon.(raises the profile of the womens game more) I can't seem to recall the last one before Maria.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
167 Posts
ProudGeordie said:
Aye, its very good for the game. About time a good looking girl won wimbledon.(raises the profile of the womens game more) I can't seem to recall the last one before Maria.
Serena.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,731 Posts
Well the fact there has been so much hype about her and the fact she lived up to it, is smething positive, I think thats what caused this serge in interest back into womens tennis. Shes been in the public eye (not just the tennis fans eyes) since she made the junior finals back in 2002.

But I do feel sorry for Myskina, cos really she did something historic and its being overlooked. She beat Venus Williams and Jennifer Capriati, both players who showed strong promise in the lead up to the French open.
 
  • Like
Reactions: newbee2004

·
Registered
Joined
·
47,518 Posts
Greatly overblown.....
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
89 Posts
Hiko said:
What about Serena, yes she is talented and is a winner BUT I was talking about good looks! :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,215 Posts
ProudGeordie said:
About time a good looking girl won wimbledon.(raises the profile of the womens game more) I can't seem to recall the last one before Maria.
I can think of three other in the last eight years.

1997 - Martina Hingis
2000 - Venus Williams
2002 - Serena Williams

All raised the profile of women's tennis in the process too. Serena was the only one of the three who wound up in the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue, both they all three got their share of photo shoots and magazine covers.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
89 Posts
Volcana said:
I can think of three other in the last eight years.

1997 - Martina Hingis
2000 - Venus Williams
2002 - Serena Williams

All raised the profile of women's tennis in the process too. Serena was the only one of the three who wound up in the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue, both they all three got their share of photo shoots and magazine covers.
Raised profile YES Talented YES good looking NO

ps hingis is ok
 
  • Like
Reactions: WorldWar24

·
Registered
Joined
·
167 Posts
ProudGeordie said:
What about Serena, yes she is talented and is a winner BUT I was talking about good looks! :)
To each their own, I guess, but I find Serena quite attractive.

I also think Sharapova is attractive. They're attractive in different ways, but they're both damn hot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47,518 Posts
I mean.....you can´t say that Maria´s the BEST looking girl on earth and there is no way that you can say that Serena is an ugly ass either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,215 Posts
"Best Thing to Happen to Women's Tennis in a long time" is a phrase that benefits greatly from definition.

Is the 'best thing' the thing that increases the level of skill required to succeed?

Is the 'best thing' the thing that increases the level of athleticism required to succeed?

Is the 'best thing' the thing that sells more tickets?

Is the 'best thing' the thing increases television ratings?

Is the 'best thing' the thing that brings in more corporate sponsorships?

I think, in Sharapova's case, people are definitely talking about the last.

After all, Venus and Serena Williams take care of increased skill, increased athleticism, increased TV ratings and increased ticket sales. What they really DIDN'T do was increase the number of sponsors. If anything, that's dropped. And I'd have to say losing Anna Kournikova did considerable damage inthe sponsorship department.

It's the 'Jan Stephenson' effect. There's nothing like a young white girl, beautiful in a European sense, to make middle-aged, overweight white guys fork up the dough. And THAT is good for tennis, AS A BUSINESS.

Another star is never a bad thing, but, if you count Capriati, we've had a new one every other year since 1997. And that NOT counting Davenport, Henin-Hardenne, Clisjsters or Mauresmo.

We haven't had the girl that fat, rich, old white guys want as their mistress winning a slam since .... Christ since Chris Evert practically. I love Venus and Serena, but only a fool would deny that race enters into marketing and sponsorships. Venus and Serena had to win multiple GS titles to become stars. Anna Kournikova just had to stand there.

Just realize that when people say 'tennis' in this context,they aren't talking about the game, they're talking about money.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
89 Posts
Maria is not best looking girl on earth, but most probably best looking tennis player. I did NOT say Serena's an ugly ass.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,215 Posts
ProudGeordie said:
Raised profile YES Talented YES good looking NO

ps hingis is ok
Venus and Serena both made their millions off being good looking. Jenn and Lindsay both can play, both won multiple GS titles, both have been around far longer, and neither have made near the money. The fact that Venus and Serena have made so much in endorsements CONFIRMS its all about looks.

your opinon is just one person's. Seven figure earnings in off court money votes the other way.
Money talks, bullshit walks, m'man.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
89 Posts
Volcana said:
"Best Thing to Happen to Women's Tennis in a long time" is a phrase that benefits greatly from definition.

Is the 'best thing' the thing that increases the level of skill required to succeed?

Is the 'best thing' the thing that increases the level of athleticism required to succeed?

Is the 'best thing' the thing that sells more tickets?

Is the 'best thing' the thing increases television ratings?

Is the 'best thing' the thing that brings in more corporate sponsorships?

I think, in Sharapova's case, people are definitely talking about the last.

After all, Venus and Serena Williams take care of increased skill, increased athleticism, increased TV ratings and increased ticket sales. What they really DIDN'T do was increase the number of sponsors. If anything, that's dropped. And I'd have to say losing Anna Kournikova did considerable damage inthe sponsorship department.

It's the 'Jan Stephenson' effect. There's nothing like a young white girl, beautiful in a European sense, to make middle-aged, overweight white guys fork up the dough. And THAT is good for tennis, AS A BUSINESS.

Another star is never a bad thing, but, if you count Capriati, we've had a new one every other year since 1997. And that NOT counting Davenport, Henin-Hardenne, Clisjsters or Mauresmo.

We haven't had the girl that fat, rich, old white guys want as their mistress winning a slam since .... Christ since Chris Evert practically. I love Venus and Serena, but only a fool would deny that race enters into marketing and sponsorships. Venus and Serena had to win multiple GS titles to become stars. Anna Kournikova just had to stand there.

Just realize that when people say 'tennis' in this context,they aren't talking about the game, they're talking about money.
Best thing is EVERYTHING u said above put together. Just overall.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
89 Posts
Volcana said:
Venus and Serena both made their millions off being good looking. Jenn and Lindsay both can play, both won multiple GS titles, both have been around far longer, and neither have made near the money. The fact that Venus and Serena have made so much in endorsements CONFIRMS its all about looks.

your opinon is just one person's. Seven figure earnings in off court money votes the other way.
Kournikova made just about all her money from her looks. The Williams made thier maney because they r talented tennis players and were dominant for 3-4 years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,215 Posts
ProudGeordie said:
Kournikova made just about all her money from her looks. The Williams made thier maney because they r talented tennis players and were dominant for 3-4 years.
Venus had that 40 million dollar Nike contract before she ever won a tournament.

Jenn's won multiple GS titles. Where's her money?

Lindsay's won multiple GS titles. Where's her money?

Justine's won multiple GS titles. Where's her money?

The money flows to looks. Martina Hingis is the more accomplished player. Venus millions has made more in off court dollars. Why? It's not being American. Anna K, as you pointed out, made a mint.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
89 Posts
Volcana said:
Venus had that 40 million dollar Nike contract before she ever won a tournament.
Cos nike saw the potential in her and thought she would be a big star and they were right.
Lebron James got a £100m sponsor by nike b4 he even played in the nba because of his enormous potential.
 
1 - 20 of 59 Posts
Top