John McEnroe v Serena Williams

I think he was being generous by saying Serena would be in the top 700 mens tennis players
I think Serena or any woman joining the men's tour would never get past the first round in any tournament
Not being sexist just a fact

I would agree with that 100%, Roma

Remember when John Lloyd (at best, scraping top 16 man player) was married to Chris Evert (top women's player), back in late 70s

They were asked who 'won' when they played each other, and just laughed. John. Every time.

Add in, equal prize money AND women are on court for way less time (best of 3 vs best of 5) . Lunacy.

Which would you rather watch, Grand Slam final?? Women's or men's??

Hmmmmm. Tough decision. Not!!!!

Originally posted by roma45
I think he was being generous by saying Serena would be in the top 700 mens tennis players
I think Serena or any woman joining the men's tour would never get past the first round in any tournament
Not being sexist just a fact

It's not a fact , it's an opinion. And I disagree, would NEVER get past the first round in ANY tournament is a ludicrous statement. The level on the tour below the main mens tour is pretty terrible, she'd pick up a few wins. Power and strength isn't everything in tennis, she has enough speed and skill to overcome male opponent. Obviously she would stand a chance against the top players who you see playing if you watch tennis.

Btw McEnroe said she wouldn't top 700. But the point is why did he have to say anything?

Originally posted by Trev33
It's not a fact , it's an opinion. And I disagree, would NEVER get past the first round in ANY tournament is a ludicrous statement. The level on the tour below the main mens tour is pretty terrible, she'd pick up a few wins. Power and strength isn't everything in tennis, she has enough speed and skill to overcome male opponent. Obviously she would stand a cha ...[text shortened]... nis.

Btw McEnroe said she wouldn't top 700. But the point is why did he have to say anything?

Maybe he shares my frustration that women tennis players, who clearly serve up (pun intended) a far inferior standard of tennis are rewarded for this with almost double the pay, pro rata.

As evidenced by equal prize money , and 3 set matches v 5

Originally posted by roma45
I think he was being generous by saying Serena would be in the top 700 mens tennis players
I think Serena or any woman joining the men's tour would never get past the first round in any tournament
Not being sexist just a fact

the Duchess will have to weigh in on this
I'm sure she will view this as both sexist and racist

Originally posted by lemondrop
the Duchess will have to weigh in on this
I'm sure she will view this as both sexist and racist

I think he/she will stay clear of sports

Got badly burned last time on here

Originally posted by Blood On The Tracks
Maybe he shares my frustration that women tennis players, who clearly serve up (pun intended) a far inferior standard of tennis are rewarded for this with almost double the pay, pro rata.

As evidenced by equal prize money , and 3 set matches v 5

I wouldn't say FAR inferior, it's not their fault we're living in probably the best era of mens tennis ever seen. Don't people pay to be entertained? Maybe some argue the womans game is more entertaining because it's less predictable and more competitive. Was their ever any doubt about Nadal winning his 10th French open this year? While no one had any idea who was going to win the womans event.

Regarding the pay, it's just in the slams when men play best of 5 sets, 4 tournaments a year, the rest are best of 3. It's not almost double but I get your point, do you think woman train less and have less costs in general to play on the tour though? But why care how much they get paid?

But the main point is, opinions shouldn't be based on grievances not related to the topic.

Originally posted by Trev33
I wouldn't say FAR inferior, it's not their fault we're living in probably the best era of mens tennis ever seen. Don't people pay to be entertained? Maybe some argue the womans game is more entertaining because it's less predictable and more competitive. Was their ever any doubt about Nadal winning his 10th French open this year? While no one had any idea wh ...[text shortened]... ?

But the main point is, opinions shouldn't be based on grievances not related to the topic.

Its not almost double?

How do you work that out? most a woman can play in a slam final is 3 sets, least a man can is 3

Ratio 3:5 is 0.6. Very close to 1/2

Is there any doubt which singles final a tennis fan would watch?? I stopped watching women's finals 20 years ago. Don't think I have missed much

Originally posted by Trev33
It's not a fact , it's an opinion. And I disagree, would NEVER get past the first round in ANY tournament is a ludicrous statement. The level on the tour below the main mens tour is pretty terrible, she'd pick up a few wins. Power and strength isn't everything in tennis, she has enough speed and skill to overcome male opponent. Obviously she would stand a cha ...[text shortened]... nis.

Btw McEnroe said she wouldn't top 700. But the point is why did he have to say anything?

An opinion based on facts
No woman could sustain playing five sets against a man that can serve faster and has much more power.
The point I was making was against the PC mob McEnroe made a statement the fallout was insane you think he was a wife beater.
Do you know how many qualifying rounds they are before it's round one in a tournament? When the big boys enter. No woman would make round one proper
Before the prize money got changed I did not see any woman wanting a open tournament everyone in they are equal right?
Obviously not They got the same prize money for doing less and a much lower quality and but fairness is never a two way street

Originally posted by Blood On The Tracks
Its not almost double?

How do you work that out? most a woman can play in a slam final is 3 sets, least a man can is 3

Ratio 3:5 is 0.6. Very close to 1/2

Is there any doubt which singles final a tennis fan would watch?? I stopped watching women's finals 20 years ago. Don't think I have missed much

Look how many sets the winners of mens and womans French open played and get back to me. Actually look at time on court as well. Then do for every other grand slam winners in the past 20 years, guarantee they don't play double the tennis.

Originally posted by Trev33
Look how many sets the winners of mens and womans French open played and get back to me. Actually look at time on court as well. Then do for every other grand slam winners in the past 20 years, guarantee they don't play double the tennis.

OK, will look at last years Wimbledon and get back to you

Want to bet if Murray spent more time on court than female winner?

Know where my money lies, will get back to you with times soon as.

Just had a look at last year's Wimbledon

Andy Murray played 218 games to win it, Serena played 137.

It isn't quite double, but who is getting the better pay per game?

And who is playing the better quality tennis?

Qed

(in fact that is v close to the 'sets' ratio of 3:5. Andy's games go to 131 when applying that ratio)

Originally posted by Blood On The Tracks
Just had a look at last year's Wimbledon

Andy Murray played 218 games to win it, Serena played 137.

It isn't quite double, but who is getting the better pay per game?

And who is playing the better quality tennis?

Qed

It would be interesting to see the top 500 men play the top 500 woman in a winner takes all prize money
I would bet it would end 500 to zero

Would just add, Roma

Been watching Wimbledon, and think your analysis is spot on.

Especially with no Serena. Women's tournament is v v weak