I was going to watch the U.S. Open Womens' Semifinals...
... but my neighbor just painted his fence and the drying process is so exciting.
Seriously, why are they getting the same prize money the men do? 3 shot rallies and screeching from the chunkiest "athletes" you'll ever see and its all over in 90 minutes tops.
Good decision on the paint drying.
And I wonder if Vika has had anybody in her team tell her that the outfit she's been wearing makes her look either fat or pregnant....or both.
The one thing I enjoyed about the broadcast today was seeing Max Mirnyi win another title. In interviews he comes across as such a nice guy that I'm happy for him when he does well.
But even though I like him and want him, I didn't have the patience to watch that entire match either.
Hlavackova is on a serious roll though - winning the mixed title and then taking out the Williams sisters in the women's semis today. I wonder if she can double up on titles and win the championship tomorrow. She's playing our out lesbian friend Casey Dellacqua.
Women get the same prize money because why the fuck shouldn't they, you sexist fuck.
In most tournaments (minus Grand Slams), everybody plays best out of 3.
Quality not quantity. Some men's 3/5 are worse than the women's 3/3.
Who are fans paying to see/watch on tv: Maria Sharapova or Gilles Simon?
Tournament officials, not the players, make the different rules about sets. Why punish women because of Victorian attitudes about their endurance? Why not reduce the men to 3 sets in the Slams instead of trying to cut women's winnings?
Last year 31/64 men's matches were won in straight sets. Why don't you ask why we aren't cutting men's prizes?
The inequality ship has already sailed, Op. This isn't the 50s. Get over it.
Go screw yourself, misogynistic OP. You act like every men's match is amazing. Nadal's only tough set was against Kohlschreiber. Other than that he hasn't faced anyone difficult at all. Djokovic has had an easy road too after Del Potro crashed out.
The popularity of mens vs womens tennis always goes in waves. The men have been up for the last 8-10 years with Federer and Nadal leading the way, but remember the early part of the 2000s? Hewitt, Kafelnikov, Nalbandian, Kuerten, Ferrero? They have their fans, but they weren't putting asses in the seats. But at the same time, the ladies had Venus, Serena, Capriati, Hingis, Kournikova, Davenport, Henin, Clijsters.
I think in a few years time, the women will be more popular again, as we watch Federer start to decline, and some up and coming women like Stephens, Keys, Robson, etc. meanwhile, the new generation of men's players seem like head cases (Dimitrov, Paire, Gulbis, Harrison, Tomic).
OP is just ridiculous. Women's tennis can be just as exciting and riviting as Men's. They don't work as hard??? You try hitting a ball that travels 125 miles per hour. .., I think your brain can only handle paint drying. Stick to that.
I agree with OP. Women's tennis is pathetic. I used to like it but it's just bad now. Two players that's pretty much it. What the hell happened to Li Na? These girls can't strategize.
So don't watch it.
Men's is much more exciting. Woman's should also be best of 5 in grand slams.
I remember in the 90s, the general talk was about how boring men's tennis was because it was just boom-boom from the baseline, with no finesse or excitement, whereas women's tennis was so much more exciting because it involved skill and passion and technique. Then Federer came along, followed by Nadal, who raised the men's game. At the same time, the women's game declined - maybe not so much declined but it changed and evolved and there aren't enough women players who can keep up with a more dynamic style that's demanded. This is why, beyond Serena, there are few women who can maintain a top level for a number of years. The women who do play a beautiful game tend to be overpowered by the boom-boom hitters, who themselves can't really keep that up for more than a couple of seasons.
At link, interesting analysis from 2010.
I'm all for equal pay for the same work done. In tennis however men play five sets in slams, while women only play three. So the women deserve less money. Gender equality has gone too far when women expect more money than men.. how exactly is that fair? The women can get equal prize money if/when they play five sets. But until that.. no.
Then there's the fact that women's tennis is go awful. The women can't serve for sh!t, they don't know what a rally is, and don't even get me started on the choking and shrieks during matches. How the hell can people watch that crap? Men's tennis is real tennis, women's tennis is not. There's a reason they needed a male players exhibition match in the Canadian women's tourney. The people in charge of the event even said that they had trouble selling tickets, because not enough people wanted to see the women play.
[quote]Women get the same prize money because why the fuck shouldn't they, you sexist fuck.
So we're sexist for pointing out the unfairness in (not) equal prize money? Fact is that the women play LESS than the men for the SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY. How is that fair? You're the sexist idiot here, demanding the same money for less work.
[quote]In most tournaments (minus Grand Slams), everybody plays best out of 3.
We're not talking about other tournaments, we're talking about grand slams.
[quote]Quality not quantity. Some men's 3/5 are worse than the women's 3/3.
Thanks to you I nearly ruined my keyboard. I spit out my drink. I laughed so much I couldn't breathe. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?! You think women's tennis is better than men's tennis? So that's why they have trouble selling tickets to women's matches, huh? Because people just rush to watch it! OH WAIT. Need I remind you that Serena once played a guy ranked.. what was it.. like 400 in the world or something? SHE WAS BREADSTICKED. And you're arguing that women's tennis is better than men's tennis? HAHAHA. Thanks for the laugh. No, really.
The women can't serve, they don't know what rallies are, they choke, double fault, they're inconsistent as hell too. Complete and utter mugs the lot of them. The ONLY women's player I can tolerate is Serena. The rest of them.. you wouldn't even be able to pay me watching that crap. It's torture. I'd rather scratch my own eyes out than watch that shit. The only reason people even watch women's tennis is because they are hot. My straight brother loves Maria Sharapova. If the women's tennis only had ugly players, they wouldn't be able to get any viewers at all.
So what, R4? I'd still watch a beatdown in men's tennis than an "exciting" WTA match (like that even exists).. hell, I'd pick an ATP servebot match over the crappy WTA shit. At least the men know how to serve.
[quote]OP is just ridiculous. Women's tennis can be just as exciting and riviting as Men's.
Yes, the OP is just completely ridiculous for pointing out the unfairness in women getting equal prize money when they in reality play LESS than the men. OH WAIT. You're the idiot here. I'm all for equal prize money when/if they can play five sets.
[quote]They don't work as hard??? You try hitting a ball that travels 125 miles per hour. .., I think your brain can only handle paint drying. Stick to that.
No, they don't work as hard. The women don't know what a serve is, and they don't have the stamina and fitness to endure five sets. The quality of women's tennis is MUCH, MUCH lower than men's tennis, despite what your brainwashed PC correct brain wants to think. Would be fun seeing a match between Serena and Djokovic, who do you think would win that one? LOL. Again.. go back into your bubble, because you have no idea what you're talking about.
Then again.. I must say that I'm not religious, but I thank fucking God that the women don't play five sets. I'd feel bad for the sorry sods having to sit through two more sets of that shit! LOL. Three sets is more than enough for them. I don't want five sets. Just lower the prize money for the women, and let it actually represent their time and effort on court (hence it should be lower than for the men), and I'll be happy.
"Fact is that the women play LESS than the men for the SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY. How is that fair? You're the sexist idiot here, demanding the same money for less work."
ROFLMAO. You sound like a dumb Republican, whining about "gender equality" being "taken too far." Your freeper pals say the same thing abotu gay rights.
You're the one who doesn't know what you're talking about. You're a freeper sexist dummy who attacks female athletes for being "chunky" (taking women down for not being pretty enough is what sexist dirtbags usually do) - never mind that plenty of male baseball and football players have beer bellies.
[quote] So we're sexist for pointing out the unfairness in (not) equal prize money? Fact is that the women play LESS than the men for the SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY. How is that fair? You're the sexist idiot here, demanding the same money for less work.
I never understand people who say this. So where you work, the people who put in he most hours get paid more? Do MLB starting pitchers (who play approx every fifth day) get paid 20% of what infielders and outfielders get paid? I've never known athletes hours performed to factor into their salary.
Why are you dumb boys so threatened by this? It's not like YOU are paying them or YOU were playing pro tennis.
What the fuck does "gender equality has gone too far" mean? Something is either equal or it's not, there's no "too much equality". If you think that, then you don't believe in equality at all.
R11 is demented, as is demonstrated (aside from the stupid views) by the meltdown over an issue that plays no real role in his life or finances at all. It's not like it's taxpayers' money, idiot, it's market price. If you don't like it, don't fucking watch.
Same goes for OP (who may in fact be r11 etc., anyway). Go and watch your neighbour's fence dry, that fits right in with your intellectual level.
R5 is right. For much of the 90s and early 2000s in particular men's tennis was boring baseline thudding, whereas there was a bunch of great women players at that time.
OP you're really going to send the feminists and lesbians into a tailspin with this one.
The thing is both tours are cyclical...and not on the same cycle at that....whoever posted mens tennis was boring before federer and Nadal is right....while in early 2000s womens had more rivalries with Hingis Davenport Williams the Belgians etc. It will cycle back soon as some more genius women players come up the way Graf and Seles did.....they were quite literally the federer and Nadal of the wta changing it's much in the same way.
r14 NAILED it. Thread closed.
Actually, Op, you don't go far enough. Why quibble over men versus women?
The prize money should be given based on value to the sport, gate receipts, and ratings. Since your all about the money after all.
And by that measure, ALL the money should go to Federer, Nadal, Sharapova, Djokovic, Li Na, Serena, Wozniacki, Andy Murray, Victoria Azarenka, and Andy Roddick.
Notice of the top 10 earners, 5 are men and 5 are women.
You should be arguing Why we should pay anybody who isn't in the top ten.
Why should prize winnings be shared with J. Huta Galung (98th man) or Alejandro Falla (93rd)?
I knew this was coming after some of the play and 6-0 scorelines in the women's semis yesterday.
It's the men that are so damn boring. Serve Serve Serve. THAT'S IT.
Boring as HELL. I never watch the men.
John McEnroe makes me puke
[quote]Since your all about the money after all.
I haven't watched the men since the days of Lendl, Becker, and Agassi.
What kind of fence was it?
R15, I'm NOT a Republican. I'm not even American. I'm a social democrat, and further to the left than the Democrats in USA.
IF you read what I posted you'd know that I actually do support equality. I totally support equal pay for equal work, but the female tennis player do NOT work a much as the men. That's the whole point. The prize money should reflect the time and effort spent on court. IF they play five sets in the future.. by all means, give them equal prize money. I'm totally for it. But NOT as long as they play fewer sets than the guys. Is this so hard to understand?
There have been more rallies in a few of these Djokovic/Wawrinka games than in the whole of the women's tournament.
Other than Serena the women are all pigs who probably couldn't run a mile without getting winded.
Look at that Italian slob who won Wimbledon.
Thanks for the support, R20. We obviously have a lot of angry lesbians on the thread here.
Fact is that women do deserve equal pay. I'm not against that at all. I support gender equality. But the thing is.. it's not fair that they get payed the same when they work less than the men. If you worked two hours more EVERY day for a year, would you be happy if someone else (whether it's a man or woman) earned the same as you, despite the fact that they worked regular days? Is that really fair? Because I don't think it is.
She was a French slob.
I would love to see Serena run a mile. That would be comedy Gold.
[quote]If you worked two hours more EVERY day for a year, would you be happy if someone else (whether it's a man or woman) earned the same as you, despite the fact that they worked regular days?
You may not know it if you work for an hourly wage, but among salaried employees, this happens all the time in real life.
Question: If a men's match only goes to 3 or 4 sets before someone wins, should those players earn a smaller prize than players whose match lasted all 5 sets? By your logic, I would think so.
[quote]It's the men that are so damn boring. Serve Serve Serve. THAT'S IT.
If you only think men's tennis is serve.. who do you watch? Karlovic, Isner and Raonic?
I agree, the servebots are not that fun to watch. But here's the thing.. real tennis fans call them out on it all the time. The servebots are thankfully, in the minority. Very few people like watching tennis matches with the guys mentioned above, that's why they're not popular at all. The popular players are those with variety in their game. The top players have serve, but they're also good at returning serve. They have more weapons than just serve. The women are at the complete opposite side of the spectrum, because they lack serve. I was watching a match with Ivanovic, and my god.. that woman can't serve at all! I was in complete and utter shock. She wouldn't even be top 500 on the ATP tour with a serve like that.
Half of the female tennis players aren't even that "chunky." They just wear the most godawful clothing that makes them look bloated, especially Azarenka.
To the idiot who brought up Serena being breadsticked by a male player, she was only 16 then. I think she's a little better now?
[quote] I support gender equality. But the thing is.. it's not fair that they get payed the same when they work less than the men. If you worked two hours more EVERY day for a year, would you be happy if someone else (whether it's a man or woman) earned the same as you, despite the fact that they worked regular days?
Dear Honorable Datalounger:
This happens ALL the time. Nurses work 12 hour days, and an doctor shows up for the last 20 minutes of a birth and makes 10X what a nurse does. This is just one example.
Pay is rarely based on minutes worked. Otherwise the flunky at Sav-a-lot would be the highest paid person in the company.
You claim to support equality but you keep looking for reasons to support inequality. Just admit you hate women, are too lazy to earn a decent living, and have mommy issues.
Still waiting to hear why hours performed should factor into pay.
Does it work this way in other sports?
Do you pay more to watch a movie that's 2 and a half hous than you pay to watch a movie that's 2 hours?
Are you guaranteed that paying $100 for a concert ticket gets you a longer show than a $75 concert ticket?
When do you apply this "hours worked" factor into other forms of entertainment?
Oh, poor baby, R31. It's not fair! Let's call the waaambulance.
Didn't your parents teach you life isn't fair?
Great question, R16.
Op isn't going to answer you because he/she is only interested in spouting sexist, discriminatory bs.
[quote] We obviously have a lot of angry lesbians on the thread here.
Damn straight. We're not afraid of bigoted, back door bandits who love to discriminate against everyone who isn't white and male.
[quote]There have been more rallies in a few of these Djokovic/Wawrinka games than in the whole of the women's tournament.
Perhaps. But in the end the mental breakdown of the challenger about to pull off the upset was the same. The men just take longer to choke, that's all.
Yeah, dismiss any challenge to your opinion. Must be "angry lesbians." Mean, even gays, are not always dumb assholes.
That's mean, R44
Not sure where the equal prize money push even came from. Franchise sports have always given men many times more money than their female counterparts, why would it be any different for tennis? Women's tennis is simply not drawing the same number of fans and is not generating the same revenue or the same ratings. It's a matter of math not politics.
A fairly large number of women tennis players - Monica, Lindsey Davenport, Jennifer Capriati - were able to compete at high levels despite carrying a good deal of extra fat.
[quote]Not sure where the equal prize money push even came from. Franchise sports have always given men many times more money than their female counterparts, why would it be any different for tennis? Women's tennis is simply not drawing the same number of fans and is not generating the same revenue or the same ratings. It's a matter of math not politics.
Thanks, R46. Nice to see some other posters here agreeing with me. I just see it as PC BS. It's dumb. I'm all for equal prize money if/when the women can play five sets, but until then.. yes, I do believe the prize money should reflect ticket sales, popularity of the sport, and times and effort spent on court. In other words, it's only fair that the men earn more than the women, especially when it's a three sets vs five sets format.
If the women played best of 5 the grand slams would be like a month long.
[quote] Women's tennis is simply not drawing the same number of fans and is not generating the same revenue or the same ratings.
True today. Was it true 10-12 years ago?
Grand Slam Finals in 2000-2003 featured players like Costa, Ferrero, Schuttler, Nalbandian, Hewitt, Kuerten, Johansson, Kafelnikov, Magnus Norman. Did people prefer watching them to Venus, Serena, Hingis Capriati, Davenport, Clijsters, Henin?
That's how you got equal prize money.
Who will be playing grand Slam inhales in 5 years? I for one wouldn't be surprised to see more interesting matches on he women's side. Unless Raonic vs. Janowicz really melts your butter.
And I still don't understand why the number of sets played has anything to do with prize money. In what world do you live in where entertainers and athletes are paid based on the amount of time they spend performing?
It makes absolutely no sense.