Is women's tennis an illegitimate sport?

[spidermike007]

I have often wondered why the women's tennis players will not even consider playing five set matches, even if they are limited to the grand slam events. There does not even seem to be any dialogue about this issue. The prize money is the same as in the men's game, but the men are subject to grueling five set matches like the one played today between Murray and Wawrinka, that went 4:34. Many women's matches barely go 70-90 minutes. Does it seem fair? If someone even brings up the subject, like Djokovic did some time ago, they are labeled misogynist, and a woman hater. Just hold on. Why such a defensive reaction? Fair is fair. That is all I am saying. One can argue all day long about whether or not the women are as fit as the men. In my opinion, definitely not. I have seen Serena Williams at 80 minutes into a match huffing and puffing like she is on the fourth set. What gives? What do you think?

[GuiseppeD]

What do I think? This forum seems to have attracted some the most inane posts known to man tonight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[richard_smith237]

I think you put forward a valid argument...  If the level of play can be maintained, why not?

 

Mens Singles and Doubles are all best of 5 sets in GS tournaments and Women's Singles, Women's Doubles and Mixed Doubles are all best of 3. 

 

In many sports at this level it is generally the men who draw the crowd and attention, audience, sponsorship and thus the financial rewards. However, Tennis is one of those sports whereby women demand a significant portion of the 'attention pie'... 

 

Perhaps they have it right already... [devils advocate]...

Edited June 9, 2017 by richard_smith237

[richard_smith237]

5 minutes ago, GuiseppeD said:

What do I think? This forum seems to have attracted some the most inane posts known to man tonight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And some extremely inane responses.... why even bother to reply if you are not interested in a topic?

 

Note: You have no need to reply to this either - just put it down as one of the inane posts you have no interest in addressing - I'm simply writing this response in support of the OP who is intelligent enough to be aware that his isn't the only opinion. 

[Bang Bang]

Prize money isn't a function of the length of time the player is on-court. It's a function of viewer interest, in other words, ratings. So, now you have to turn the equation around and ask where the biggest tennis viewership is? The answer is men, young to middle-aged.

 

Immediately, then, you have the answer to your question. Sure a young guy will watch Djokovic vs. Federer for a bit, two hopelessly gifted athletes whose practice of the craft he can only wryly admire with no hope of emulating.

 

On the other hand, it's a lot more gratifying for the same male, though he may not care to admit to his fancy, to gaze upon the likes of Dominika Cibulkova, Garbine Muguruza and Laura Robson playing barely passable tennis as they prance about the court, breasts jiggling, sinewy legs spinning and a passion to dominate transforming their beautiful faces.

 

Three sets? It doesn't even take one for a female tennis player to look as drenched as a James Bond goddess emerging from the sea. To keep it simple, if somewhat crude, who would you rather see naked of the two Serbian tennis players below? I rest my case for equal prize money.

 

[simon43]

So what's the link to Thailand?

[Bang Bang]

37 minutes ago, simon43 said:

So what's the link to Thailand?

It's the weekend. The mods are away and the inmates will play.

[Flustered]

They do play tennis in Thailand so I suppose there is a link.

 

But the real reason is that women's tennis is played at a much slower pace. It would add over a week to the normal tournaments so it is not practical. You can blame the LibFems for the increase in prize money to the men's rate.

 

The best answer is for men to play just three sets. That would be more exciting and speed up what can otherwise be a boring game.

Edited June 10, 2017 by Flustered

[NanLaew]

You want 2 more sets of the ladies grunting and squealing every time they hit the ball?

 

Really?

[Crossy]

42 minutes ago, Bang Bang said:

It's the weekend. The mods are away and the inmates will play.

 

This one just spotted the thread, but let's try it in The Pub.

 

[bbi1]

17 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

I think you put forward a valid argument...  If the level of play can be maintained, why not?

 

 

Haven't seen any tennis matches in Thailand, but curious to know & also to make this thread more interesting lol

 

If gays are playing tennis against each other, do they play the shorter women's matches? On the other hand do Toms and Ladyboys play the full longer men's matches?

[spidermike007]

9 hours ago, Bang Bang said:

Prize money isn't a function of the length of time the player is on-court. It's a function of viewer interest, in other words, ratings. So, now you have to turn the equation around and ask where the biggest tennis viewership is? The answer is men, young to middle-aged.

 

Immediately, then, you have the answer to your question. Sure a young guy will watch Djokovic vs. Federer for a bit, two hopelessly gifted athletes whose practice of the craft he can only wryly admire with no hope of emulating.

 

On the other hand, it's a lot more gratifying for the same male, though he may not care to admit to his fancy, to gaze upon the likes of Dominika Cibulkova, Garbine Muguruza and Laura Robson playing barely passable tennis as they prance about the court, breasts jiggling, sinewy legs spinning and a passion to dominate transforming their beautiful faces.

 

Three sets? It doesn't even take one for a female tennis player to look as drenched as a James Bond goddess emerging from the sea. To keep it simple, if somewhat crude, who would you rather see naked of the two Serbian tennis players below? I rest my case for equal prize money.

 

 

Which was the one in the photo? I do not find many attractive women on the tour these days. Sorry. Guess I am picky. And does it say anything about the Women's tour, that Ostapenko, a woman who has never won a singles event on the WTA, just won the French Open? She has won on the ITF, but can that really be compared to the WTA, in terms of consistent quality players? When was the last time that happened in men's tennis? Micheal Chang, prior to winning the French Open in 1989, at the age of 17, had at least won one previous title in San Francisco, on the ATP, prior to that amazing result. He was showing real potential. 

[Bang Bang]

1 hour ago, spidermike007 said:

Which was the one in the photo? I do not find many attractive women on the tour these days.

Ana Ivanovic.

 

You need to get out more spidey. There are some seriously bangable women in tennis. Google hot tennis babes.

 

Now, the men's world no. 100 could probably beat any one of these lovelies with one arm tied behind his back. But that's beside the point. That's like ruing the quality of writing in Hustler magazine. Who cares?

 

Consider Maria Sharapova for instance. She's like world no. 500 now, grunts like a pig, injures herself doing things like tying her laces and to top it all is a convicted drug cheat. Yet British tourneys are falling over themselves to give her a wild card. Why? Exactly.

[Flustered]

2 hours ago, Bang Bang said:

 

Now, the men's world no. 100 could probably beat any one of these lovelies with one arm tied behind his back. But that's beside the point. That's like ruing the quality of writing in Hustler magazine. Who cares?

 

 

John Lloyd was once asked if his wife (Chris Evert Lloyd) ever beat him when practising. His answer was quiet emphatic and Chris Evert agreed. Even a good class club male tennis player could beat the top women players.

 

Absolutely no contest.

[bbi1]

3 hours ago, Bang Bang said:

Ana Ivanovic.

 

You need to get out more spidey. There are some seriously bangable women in tennis. Google hot tennis babes.

 

Now, the men's world no. 100 could probably beat any one of these lovelies with one arm tied behind his back. But that's beside the point. That's like ruing the quality of writing in Hustler magazine. Who cares?

 

Consider Maria Sharapova for instance. She's like world no. 500 now, grunts like a pig, injures herself doing things like tying her laces and to top it all is a convicted drug cheat. Yet British tourneys are falling over themselves to give her a wild card. Why? Exactly.

I just Googled "hot tennis babae" on is behalf. Saw absolutely nothing, nana, zip, zilch.

[spidermike007]

10 hours ago, Bang Bang said:

Ana Ivanovic.

 

You need to get out more spidey. There are some seriously bangable women in tennis. Google hot tennis babes.

 

Now, the men's world no. 100 could probably beat any one of these lovelies with one arm tied behind his back. But that's beside the point. That's like ruing the quality of writing in Hustler magazine. Who cares?

 

Consider Maria Sharapova for instance. She's like world no. 500 now, grunts like a pig, injures herself doing things like tying her laces and to top it all is a convicted drug cheat. Yet British tourneys are falling over themselves to give her a wild card. Why? Exactly.

 

It is all relative. Bouchard and Wozniacki are hot. Hantuchova was hot. I once saw Gabriela Sabatini live at a book signing event. I always thought she was super hot. Live, she was big, broad shoulders, and had a very butch, masculine appearance. Not hot at all. Many can be dolled up and made to look nice. But, I still insist very few are genuinely hot, as in the Anna Kournakova mold. She was very hot. Sharapova is attractive. But, I have also seen her live, and unless you like your women 6'2", she is hotter on camera, than in person.

[spidermike007]

Just now, spidermike007 said:

 

It is all relative. Bouchard and Wozniacki are hot. Hantuchova was hot. I once saw Gabriela Sabatini live at a book signing event. I always thought she was super hot. Live, she was big, broad shoulders, and had a very butch, masculine appearance. Not hot at all. Many can be dolled up and made to look nice. But, I still insist very few are genuinely hot, as in the Anna Kournakova mold. She was very hot. Sharapova is attractive. But, I have also seen her live, and unless you like your women 6'2", she is hotter on camera, than in person. And I agree they are a big draw. But, unless they are willing to step up, and play five sets in the slams, they should be willing to give up half of their prize winnings, for playing less than half the time of the men's players. Fair is fair. Uber feminism has it's drawbacks.

 

[Sailor42]

May all the Gods forbid!!

Sent from my SM-T815Y using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Bang Bang]

3 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

 

It is all relative. Bouchard and Wozniacki are hot. Hantuchova was hot. I once saw Gabriela Sabatini live at a book signing event. I always thought she was super hot. Live, she was big, broad shoulders, and had a very butch, masculine appearance. Not hot at all. Many can be dolled up and made to look nice. But, I still insist very few are genuinely hot, as in the Anna Kournakova mold. She was very hot. Sharapova is attractive. But, I have also seen her live, and unless you like your women 6'2", she is hotter on camera, than in person.

Agree, also there's there's the problem that the years on the tour take such a toll on the body they become horse-like. See what I mean.

 

It's like a pact with the devil: a couple of grand slams, 10 million dollars and 5  years at the top of the world in return for the next 50 as a horse with joint pain. So, honestly, I don't begrudge them what they make.

 

Sharapova was an absolute babe when she first crashed the scene, winning Wimbledon just 17. But she's growing horsier by the day. And from what I've read from guys who've banged her she totally belies expectations in bed. One said she was so passive it was like doing a hole in a wall. Must be the drugs.

Edited June 11, 2017 by Bang Bang

[champers]

On 6/10/2017 at 1:28 PM, Bang Bang said:

Prize money isn't a function of the length of time the player is on-court. It's a function of viewer interest, in other words, ratings. So, now you have to turn the equation around and ask where the biggest tennis viewership is? The answer is men, young to middle-aged.

 

Immediately, then, you have the answer to your question. Sure a young guy will watch Djokovic vs. Federer for a bit, two hopelessly gifted athletes whose practice of the craft he can only wryly admire with no hope of emulating.

 

On the other hand, it's a lot more gratifying for the same male, though he may not care to admit to his fancy, to gaze upon the likes of Dominika Cibulkova, Garbine Muguruza and Laura Robson playing barely passable tennis as they prance about the court, breasts jiggling, sinewy legs spinning and a passion to dominate transforming their beautiful faces.

 

Three sets? It doesn't even take one for a female tennis player to look as drenched as a James Bond goddess emerging from the sea. To keep it simple, if somewhat crude, who would you rather see naked of the two Serbian tennis players below? I rest my case for equal prize money.

 

Women's tennis is barely worth watching now that the delectable Ana Ivanovic has retired. I'd have watched her for 5 sets, no problem. Despite her glorious body, she must have a screw loose to marry that ugly German Schweinsteiger.

New balls, please.

Edited June 11, 2017 by champers
Spellink errur

[Bang Bang]

2 hours ago, champers said:

Women's tennis is barely worth watching now that the delectable Ana Ivanovic has retired. I'd have watched her for 5 sets, no problem. Despite her glorious body, she must have a screw loose to marry that ugly German Schweinsteiger.

Ivanovic was smart. She bailed before her body did. And going by recent pics she's still got it all.

Re Schweinsteiger, well, multimillionaire ex-German football captain - wealth and prestige. Not a looker but maybe a keeper. Go with the likes of CR7 and you last till he gets a come hither from the next supermodel.

[Chou Anou]

[swissie]

The Thread reads "Is woman's tennis an illegitimate sport"?

It probably is in Saudi-Arabia. Imagine half naked women abusing a perfectly innocent little ball, while uttering noises usually brought into connection with the act of reproduction.

The Mullhas would hit the ceiling!
Cheers.

[spidermike007]

13 hours ago, swissie said:

The Thread reads "Is woman's tennis an illegitimate sport"?

It probably is in Saudi-Arabia. Imagine half naked women abusing a perfectly innocent little ball, while uttering noises usually brought into connection with the act of reproduction.

The Mullhas would hit the ceiling!
Cheers.

 

Well, since the Mullahs know about nothing about anything, who cares? They are mostly a group of bigoted, dogmatic, hate filled nonsense spewers, who know nothing about spirituality, or faith. My heart goes out to the people who are subject to their inane edicts. And to all Saudi people. Thankfully, most of us are able to watch women play tennis. And drive cars. And vote. Imagine that? What a concept. 

[Berkshire]

On 6/11/2017 at 11:55 AM, spidermike007 said:

 

It is all relative. Bouchard and Wozniacki are hot. Hantuchova was hot. I once saw Gabriela Sabatini live at a book signing event. I always thought she was super hot. Live, she was big, broad shoulders, and had a very butch, masculine appearance. Not hot at all. Many can be dolled up and made to look nice. But, I still insist very few are genuinely hot, as in the Anna Kournakova mold. She was very hot. Sharapova is attractive. But, I have also seen her live, and unless you like your women 6'2", she is hotter on camera, than in person.

Regarding the thread title, yes, women's tennis is a legitimate sport.  But you do have a point regarding the purses and whether they should be on par with men.  While these rich dudes on tour certainly don't need the money, I've always wondered what it would be like if tennis was like golf.  Meaning, the men and women play on different tours at different locations.  The purses are vastly different (men much higher), as are the attendance, ratings, coverage, etc.  If they did the same for tennis, then we'd see exactly who was deserving and who was not.  Will never happen, of course. 

[spidermike007]

7 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Regarding the thread title, yes, women's tennis is a legitimate sport.  But you do have a point regarding the purses and whether they should be on par with men.  While these rich dudes on tour certainly don't need the money, I've always wondered what it would be like if tennis was like golf.  Meaning, the men and women play on different tours at different locations.  The purses are vastly different (men much higher), as are the attendance, ratings, coverage, etc.  If they did the same for tennis, then we'd see exactly who was deserving and who was not.  Will never happen, of course. 

 

 

And why won't it ever happen? Extreme uber feminism prevents a dialogue, and protects alot of women, with relatively modest talent, and little endurance.

[Berkshire]

On 6/11/2017 at 11:55 AM, spidermike007 said:

 

It is all relative. Bouchard and Wozniacki are hot. Hantuchova was hot. I once saw Gabriela Sabatini live at a book signing event. I always thought she was super hot. Live, she was big, broad shoulders, and had a very butch, masculine appearance. Not hot at all. Many can be dolled up and made to look nice. But, I still insist very few are genuinely hot, as in the Anna Kournakova mold. She was very hot. Sharapova is attractive. But, I have also seen her live, and unless you like your women 6'2", she is hotter on camera, than in person.

Some of the most attractive females I've seen in tennis are actually....the ballgirls.  Even Rafa thinks so....