Comments on: Women Should Prove Lleyton Hewitt Wrong

By: TPain

TPain — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:23:51 +0000

Seth, Want to test this whole debate out with a rickmatch at Farley? I will bring my racket and the boombox if you bring yours and the sweatbands. See you there!

By: chris

chris — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 02:56:19 +0000

what can i say, im passionate about my sport.

oh and if the sponsors want to do it, let’s do it then. that’s what should govern our sport: let’s do what the sponsors want to do.

By: Steve Fales

Steve Fales — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 02:04:58 +0000

i continually find it odd when people take these sports discussions so personally.

By: chris

chris — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:40:14 +0000

i mean i could say a lot here (seth, i seem to recall you saying “I’m no tennis expert, and my knowledge mostly consists of what my grandmother fills me in on when I visit her from time to time.” so don’t “actually chris” me when you know I know a lot about tennis) but i guess it ultimately comes down to preference. if you guys want to watch 5 sets of women’s tennis than you are more than welcome and will be in the minority.

By: Adam

Adam — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 14:31:16 +0000

Winning two sets does not mean you automatically win the third. Men’s matches frequently go beyond three sets after one players wins the first two. A five set match is completely different from a three set match. In three sets, you don’t have to pace yourself. Anyone can run around for an hour. Maybe the women don’t want to play five sets but I’m sure tennis organizations and sponsors around the world would be more than happy to have more exciting matches that create more revenue.

By: Seth Walder

Seth Walder — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:31:10 +0000

Actually Chris, Adam is right. Think about all of the men’s matches where someone goes up 2-0 and then the opponent wins at least a set or two to make a match of it, that’s what would happen.

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 06:18:15 +0000

uhhhhh if they were all won in straight sets, they wouldn’t go to five…

if they were all won in straight sets, why make them play another? surely by that point, the opposition would more often than not, offer little if any resistance in that third set.

maybe if they had all gone to 3 sets you would have a foundation for an argument.

do you hear any of the women on the tour calling for 5-sets? i didn’t think so.. they’re pretty happy to be paid equally without doing as much work.

By: Adam

Adam — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:55:05 +0000

How many times do we see a women’s final in a major tounrmanet only last two sets and less than one hour? ALL THE TIME. It’s boring. Fun fact: every U.S. Open women’s singles final since 1996 has been won in straight sets. I would love to see the matches lengthened to five sets and if they can’t handle it then you change it back. It would make the games way more interesting and more strategic.

By: chris

chris — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:57:59 +0000

‘deserved to be recognized as the incredible athletes they are?’ seriously?

hewitts right at this moment there’s no way the majority of women on the tour could uphold a decent standard of tennis for 5 sets and/or 3,4, even 5 hours. hewitts seen his fair share of 5-setters and he’s as tough as they come – he knows what it takes.

also 5 set matches don’t ‘often’ stretch into the 6 hour range…in fact they rarely do.

i wrote an article a while ago debating the equal pay dilemma – complete with poll question (the women do play less…don’t bring in as high numbers…even the trophy is smaller…)
vote here:

http://thebleacherbums.wordpress.com/2009/06/06/equal-pay-in-tennis/

By: Steve Fales

Steve Fales — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 23:41:17 +0000

I’m not sure equal prize money is a must, to be honest. Believe me I’m not being misogynistic, but lets face it, women don’t bring as big of an audience to the sport. Furthermore, the quality of play is lower. BELIEVE ME, I am very well aware that these are intensely trained, highly talented athletes. They could destroy me or anyone I know in tennis. It’s just simple business. Once there is an equal market for both Men’s and Women’s tournaments, then equal compensation should be doled out.

For example, there were 13.1 million British viewers for last years Nadal – Federer Men’s final. Meanwhile, the same year, there were 4.5 million British viewers for the Women’s final. All I’m saying is it’s business and it is quite clear that mens tennis is far more financially valuable to the sport.

Where do we stop this equality train? What about equal prize money for male and female golfers too? NBA vs. WNBA?