They play five sets in four events all year. Those are the biggest four events, of course, but in every other tournament, the men and women both play best of three.
I won’t say I watch only women’s basketball, but I do watch more women’s basketball. I prefer a slightly slower, below-the-rim game.
I don’t agree with the OP at all. I do think there should be more male/female direct competition, and there are some sports where having seperate sexes is just stupid. Women’s pool? Women’s chess? Women’s bridge? C’mon! It’s demeaning to women. But I also like the idea of a females in UFC and we can’t get that without a seperate division. I like women’s basketball and tennis. They are a bit different games than the men’s versions, but awesome in their own way.
And again, I would love to see more male/female direct competition in non-contact sports. I’d like to see one tennis event a year that’s mixed competition. Sure, maybe no woman will get past the top 32, but what a story if one does! That’s what we live for in sports, the Cinderella story, this time with a real Cinderella! And I think that the difference in ability between males and females is often overrated. Sure, Venus Williams can’t beat the 160th ranked man. That’s because she never plays top male talent! I bet if the 15th ranked female tennis player played in the men’s division of every grand slam event for a year she’d be a MUCH better player because of the increased competition and would wipe the floor with female competition the following year when she rejoined the women’s circuit. Same with female basketball players. The few that have played in men’s leagues noticed immediately that the game is very different and they had to adjust and even if they still couldn’t run with the men as well as they’d like, it made them much better players because they played with men.
But the women never play five sets…why not? can the audience not take the tedium for that long?
maybe? No woman would come even close to qualifying. The best woman would be lucky to win a game off any of the top 200 men, let alone a set, let alone two sets. They wouldn’t gain any experience other than leaping aimlessly as another forehand return whizzes past them.
All she needs is the practice to hit those back when they are in her area. They whiz by male players just the same as female players if the dude’s out of position. The problem for a woman isn’t that she can’t return a 180 mph forehand, it’s that she can’t respond in kind.
Karsten Braasch
I still want to see it. And in Braasch’s case, he may have been 203rd at the time, but he had peaked at #38. They weren’t taking on some has been or never will be. Also, Serena at the time wasn’t a top 10 player yet. She’s a better player now than she was then.
So maybe this time she loses 6-3 to a 200th ranked player. I still want to see it.
Or maybe if Agassi and Graf ever divorce, they can play for the house.
If you read Chris Evert’s biography she admits that even when she was at her very best her brother who was on his college team beat her regularly.
The difference in upper body strength is just too great a factor
I’m going to slide this over to the Game Room…just seems like it fits more there.
Fine. Now explain to me why there’s women’s bridge, women’s chess, and women’s billiards. Oh, and women’s bowling too.
I’m with you on that. Some of the best pool players I ever met were women. Watching Jeanette Lee is like watching an artist.
I honestly think women at the top of their game could compete in the PGA some day. Sure they have a disadvantage on the drives but I’m betting they could easily reach the greens, even on a monster par 5, in 3 to two putt. I’d be very interested in seeing it.
In ski jumping, I’ve read that the men can’t compete with the women. That should be just mixed competition as well.
Racing fortunately already is. Some men predictably whined, “She’s lighter than the rest of us!”
They play mixed doubles (one man and one woman) at every major and at the Hopman Cup.
It won’t happen.
She probably plays against a male practice partner all the time - and loses all the time. I believe all of the top ranked women do that, and the guys they’re playing are not especially great.
Because they never have in the past and there’s no particular movement or reason for them to do so now. (The final match of the year-end tournament used to be best-of-five, but that didn’t last.) They don’t really want to and nobody wants them to - the odd guy who says “THAT’S NO FAIR” doesn’t count for much. If it were up to the sponsors and advertisers, men wouldn’t play best-of-five either. It makes for longer matches and the times are less predictable, which TV doesn’t appreciate.
6-1 2-6 6-1 is a fairly common score in a women’s match. Such lopsided scores while not unheard off are much rarer in the men’s game. Matches are much closer usually in the men’s tour.
If the men, on average, hit 2 club lengths longer than you, on a par 4, they’re hitting 4 clubs shorter on their second shot, and a par 5, 6 clubs shorter on the 3rd.
Can you get there in 3? Sure, you’re hoping to land on the green with your 3-iron. The men are seeing how close to the pin they can get with their 9-iron.
Evidence for this would be nice. This might even be true, but I don’t think anyone is analyzing these statistics, which makes the generalization worthless.
You know, I hear this kind of thing a lot, especially from old-timers like the late John Wooden.
“Purists” often say things like, “I prefer the women’s game, because they have better fundamentals and play real defense.”
Well, to each his own. If anyone finds the women’s game more fun to watch, it doesn’t bother me a bit. Your friend is free to watch whatever sports he enjoys.
But the notion that the women’s game has better skills, sounder fundamentals and tougher defenses is not only false, it’s ludicrous! Defenses are far tighter and more varied in the NBA than in the WNBA. The NBA’s point guards are far better passers and ball handlers than the WNBA’s. The men are also much better shooters. The men of the NBA aren’t just bigger, stronger and faster than the ladies of the WNBA, they’re infinitely more skilled as well.
I haven’t seen a statistics-mining of the evidence, but I’d agree that mens scores appear more even when looked at from a raw game / set distribution. However, I think this is again a reflection of the different play styles that are dominant in the men’s game vs the women’s game.
The men’s game is one of very strong serves, short rallies, and minimal net game. Breaking the opponent’s serve is much harder in the men’s game. As a result, the men tend to trade game wins, evening out the scores over time. It’s also undesirable to ever ease off in a set because service-break comeback opportunities are so hard-earned.
The women’s service game is much easier to build a net volley strategy around, and more likely to develop into longer rallies. Also, in a best of 3 set scenario, it can definitely be a valid strategy to ease up in the second set if you’ve dominated the first set, instead of struggling for a 2nd set comeback that may unnecessarily tire you out for the 3rd, where you would again want to dominate. This gets legitimately coached in this manner. There are a few booming-serve women that are outliers, but in general the purpose of the women’s serve is to force your advantage in follow-up volleys and rallies when it is returned, not if it is returned.
The point being made was, the crowd was there just as much (if not more, in the days when Venus vs. Serena was almost expected to be the women’s singles final at the U.S. Open) for the women as for the men. For a very long time, the women’s singles winner at Wimbledon got 80% of what the men’s singles winner got.
Note that the lowest paid player in the NBA is guaranteed to make more money per season than the three highest-paid WNBA players combined. So much for privilege!
This is more “opportunity” than it is “privilege.”
Also, although this isn’t professional sports, in California high schools, girls can’t play on boys’ teams if there are girls teams in the same sport at that school. This wasn’t always the case; in the mid-late 1970s, they didn’t even have “boys teams” - for example, they had a varsity “basketball” team, open to boys and girls, and a varsity “girls basketball” team, open only to girls, but no “boys basketball” team. Eventually, somebody figured out that if a boy and a girl are up for the final spot on an “open” team, the girl can still play the sport if the spot goes to the boy, but the boy can’t if the spot goes to the girl, thus denying the opportunity for the boy to play merely because he is male. Note that there are still some sports (for example, field hockey and softball) that have only girls teams, and in the sports that have one team (for example, football and baseball), girls can play.
I wonder if this applies to the NCAA as well - they have “men’s basketball”, and as far as I know, no women have ever played on any NCAA men’s basketball team. Baseball, yes, but it’s not “men’s baseball”. I cannot find any reference in either the NCAA Constitution & Bylaws or the NCAA Men’s & Women’s Basketball Rules that restricts the players of a team to a particular gender.