Why, in competition tennis, do men play 5 sets and women play only 3?
Is this some macho holdover that assumes the fairer sex can’t tough it out for 5 sets?
Certainly today (and probably forever) female athletes are just as capable as their male counterparts in terms of stamina or so close as to make no odds. IIRC women (generally) are actually biologically better equipped for stamina then men are anyway. Even if that is wrong tennis is hardly so strenuous that men can keep playing where a woman would collapse from exhaustion (which isn’t to say tennis isn’t physically demanding but just that it’s not that physically demanding).
All of that said I personally prefer 3 set tennis…5 sets gets to be a bit long to sit watching but that’s just my personal preference.
The 3 set - 5 set difference is a historic artifact.
At the risk of a slight hijack, I would rather know why we still have women’s tennis and men’s tennis at all. Why not just tennis? Quite a while back there was a lot of clamoring for parity in prize money. I say combine the prize money into one jackpot and let the best man, er, player win.
And at a lot of men’s tournaments, they only play 3 sets. But the grand slams always use 5.
But 3 sets fits a lot better into today’s limited attention spans. Like today’s baseball players, today’s tennis players take a long time between points. Five set matches can take forever, especially ones on clay. If you want to watch five hours of tennis, be my guest, but you can watch one pairing of golfers finish 18 holes in less time than that.
Note that there are numerous apple/orange comparisons in all of this.
I think men have an advantage over women in this sport. It’s not so much stamina as it is physical strength. I don’t have a cite but I seem to remember seeing a stat somewhere that showed men’s serves were consistently faster than the women’s serves which presumably is an advantage for the men.
And yes, before anyone mentions it, I am quite aware of the spanking Billie Jean King gave Bobby Briggs. Quite frankly he had it coming to him but all that goes to show is the mental aspect of the game (which is definitely important). For that particular match Ms. King wanted blood while Mr. Briggs thought he was in for a cake-walk. I think things would be different if their was a championship trophy on the line and both players were serious about annihilating the other.
Of course, looking at Venus Williams she sure looks like she’d have the upper body strength of a man. Personally I’d love to see mixed matches as well but either it’d be unfair for the women or the men’s egos couldn’t take the shock of losing to a woman so the men wouldn’t take the chance (remembering Briggs humiliation).
Jebert, if this gender integration were to occur there would soon be no women in tennis. The genders are separated for fairness. Men hit with more power than women, and therefore a “unisex” tennis association would eventually be just men playing, as women would hardly ever win. (This is true despite the King-Riggs fiasco of several decades ago. Riggs was 20 years past his serious playing days. A couple of years ago, they tried a top man vs. top woman exhibition and it was such a romp that most news sources didn’t even report it. Sorry, but I have no cite for this. :()
I personally prefer watching women’s tennis (if I watch at all, which isn’t often) since it’s more skill-oriented and less (as noted above) pure power. Watching ace after ace gets boring after a while. This is true for basketball as well for many people (though I don’t enjoy watching basketball as much as I used to, but that’s another story). Many folks prefer to watch women’s basketball because they feel it is more fundamentally sound, as opposed to watching nothing but power dunks on the men’s side.
As pointed out, Riggs was in his 50s when he played King.
The top man’s serves have been clocked at over 140mph. 149 is the record. What’s the top women’s serves? The Williams sisters serve the fastest and they have yet to exceed 120. Men’s serves routinely exceed 120, except for a few, such as John McEnroe and Rafter, who serve and volly. (McEnroe is still playing in the Senior’s Circuit, and he’s serving faster than ever.) They rely on spin to allow them to get closer to the net for the first volley. So did Egbert.
John McEnroe, in a statement that surely endeared him to all women, said that the 100th place man can beat the top woman.
You bring up Riggs and King but how about Navratilova vs. Connors. Jimmy gave Martina the advantage to return the ball between the lines used for doubles matches.
Jimmy kicked her but anyway. Was that what you were referring to Nineiron?
This matched had two past their prime players, not just one loud mouthed showman.
Well, when I think about this, it does make a certain amount of sense. One feature of men’s tennis, after all, is that upsets tend to be more common because there’s more parity (I’m sure you could find stats to prove this, but I won’t bother because I think it’s fairly evident that there’s more depth on the men’s tour). That is, a lower ranked man has a chance against Kuerten or Agassi, and if (as I’m guessing is true), these guys could crush Hingis or Davenport or the Williams sisters, it stands to reason that a lower ranked man has at least a pretty good shot at them. Whether this depth extends all the way down to the guy ranked 100th may be another story…
McEnroe has been adamant in defending his statement. Commentators do not hesitate to bring it up, and he is 100% sure that the 100th guy would defeat the No. 1 gal. McEnroe is an expert in judging these matters.
I’ve heard it said that the main difference between the No. 1 guy and somebody ranked 50 or so is fitness.
With the graphites nowadays, power is more a premium, in which men in the top of pro tennis have a slight but significant enough advantage. Also, with their longer reach in height and reach, they can dig for more volleys and make up for slight errors. For women, the margin of error is slighter.
That said, there is no really good reason for the women not to go at each other for five sets. There are some tournaments in which women do play 5 sets a match. Besides, like in ice skating, there is more drama on the women’s side than the men.
Alternately, both can go 3 sets, although fans might feel a little robbed.
It certainly seems women should be able to play 5 sets instead of 3, at least in Grand Slam events. I believe when the WTA was pushing for larger prize purses for the women, the key argument against was that the women only play 3 sets. I’m not certin that argument’s accurate since many of the men’s matches are also best of 3 format too.
IIRC, McEnroe’s comment was in reply to a remark one of the Williams sisters had made. As I see it, Johnny Mac should be the “man” to play Venus or Serena.
Well, I remember a few years ago the Williams sisters made a challenge to some players in the top 500. IIRC, Galo Blanco, who was ranked 450 at the time, took the challenge, played a set against each sister, and won handily.
In one of Jon Wertheim’s mailbags at CNNSI.com, someone asked him if Venus Williams could handle the diminutive Oliver Rochus, since Rochus isn’t known for having a big serve or being very powerful. Wertheim’s response:
“The Brussels Sprout* takes her in straight sets. While I agree that Venus would hardly be overpowered, Rochus is infinitely more consistent, he plays much closer to the lines, he returns better, and he can do things with the ball that Venus has never even considered. This is not meant as a slight against Venus or women’s tennis – we appreciate both here at the 'Bag. But the notion that a woman could beat a top-100 male is, simply, preposterous.”
I know I’m in the minority (apparently) when I say that I enjoy the men’s game more than the women’s. I’ll take Sampras-Agassi over the same matchups we see at every Grand Slam from the women. The depth of women’s tennis still isn’t there yet to satisfy this tennis fan. Evidence for that statement is provided in the fact that the same women are always in contention at the Grand Slams regardless of surface.
At any rate, if the women are bringing in the same or more money for the event, the women deserve to be paid equally.
One more thing: I’d be wary to ever use Frank Deford’s statements in an argument. Time after time, he proves himself to be a worthless idiot. But that’s just my opinion.
