Originally Posted By barboy /// is a fairly arbitrary tradition that could easily be changed and bears no real relation to "value."/// If it is so very arbitrary then why don't some key women players/ex-players push for best of 5 at the slams? Answer: women don't want it because it is far more work. Winning 3 sets times 7 matches in a two week period(for the championship) is ***EXTREMELY*** grueling. Play 5 sets(equal work) and then complain. Until then shut up about equal pay. ///Hell, 25 years ago I remember the commentary on TV when men's tennis was in the doldrums (largely because the male #1 was the non-charismatic and non-American Ivan Lendl) and women's tennis was flying high and drawing greater numbers./// Careful with that Dabob for tennis is far more global than what you see on US TV(if that was how you viewed tennis back then---- from a USA standpoint). ///And even today I don't believe the numbers are radically different for TV, and I don't believe the slams charge lower ticket prices for women's matches./// The ATP is far more popular world wide than the WTA. People want to see the men play whether that sits well with you or not. ///King and Navratilova are right. Women are doing essentially the same job/// No, they are not right as proven by the 3 set vs 5 set work. Sorry Dabob but that is a fact.......3 is noticeably less work than 5 especially when it is multiplied out 7 times at a "slam". Matches may cause injury and/or fatigue so the more work(playing matches) one does it could mess with health and ultimately livelihood.
Originally Posted By barboy /// If I understand correctly, players are paid a salary based on the amount of money they bring in - either for the team, or in tickets sales, etc./// No, it doesn't work like that at all. Players, men and women alike, might get paid by just showing up at a tournament but mostly they get paid by how far they advance----there is no salary. Like golf, auto racing or horses tennis players get paid if they win or place in a certain top spots. ///It would be easier to make the comparison if we had a sport where men and women played together on the same team./// There is "mixed doubles" in tennis and the winning man and woman team share the spoils equally. Somewhat related, that lady race care driver won a race and she got the same spoils as a man driver would get.
Originally Posted By Mr X This is a rather bizarre angle you've chosen to hang your hat on here Barboy. And it doesn't really hold up based on a few things. First of all, if you want to argue "biggest draw" that's fine, but your other argument actually serves as a COUNTER argument if you think about it. Should an ace tennis player who regularly drops his opponents in straight sets earn LESS money than the lower ranked players who frequently have to slog through 5 rounds? If not, why not? They're consistently doing LESS WORK, aren't they? Or perhaps they should scale the pay based on how many sets a player plays in any given tournament. Besides, the notion of workload = better pay for sports is a silly one on the face of it. Ace pitchers certainly work LESS than most of their team members. First of all, they only play around half the game, if that. And then they only play at all only every 3rd or 4th game. A lowly outfielder certainly works "harder" and puts in more hours...they should get paid more. Right? I think you're off base on the sports analogy, even NOT taking gender into consideration.
Originally Posted By barboy ///My question #2 remains: where did that come from?./// I brought tennis up because whenever the equal pay for both genders topic pops up I think about Navratolova and King's(among others) unfair stance. ///Equal Pay Day is about all working people country-wide; professional tennis players make up about .00000001% of that/// Ya, I know. ///so it seems strange to even bring it up/// ----not strange but terribly relevant and on topic
Originally Posted By barboy ///Oh and women in the porn industry make much more than the men/// That is correct---- men might make $200 per "shoot" whereas the women are paid more usually.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Ace pitchers certainly work LESS than most of their team members. First of all, they only play around half the game, if that.>> The ace of your staff while he'll play less than your everyday position player he's going to give you 7-8 innings it's your 4 or 5 guy from your starters you have to worry about.
Originally Posted By barboy /// if you want to argue "biggest draw" that's fine/// I already did so it's not an "if". ///Should an ace tennis player who regularly drops his opponents in straight sets earn LESS money than the lower ranked players who frequently have to slog through 5 rounds?/// You are not making any sense there. I can't even answer your question. At the "Slams" women(WTA) play up to 3 sets per match while men(ATP) play up to 5 sets per match. Why is that so hard for you to understand. That is not equal work. And just to tell you tennis fans ****CRAVE**** for '5 setters' You must not watch much tennis or you would know that irrespective of who is playing against whom the moment that a 5th set begins the crowd gets riled up, claps and cheers. That is a fact! Fans appreciate when matches "go the distance".
Originally Posted By DAR Barboy I'll admit I don't quite get the tennis comparison but then again it is 4/20 so maybe I do.
Originally Posted By barboy In baseball by far the hardest working player is the catcher. 1. gear, gear and more gear.....on/off, on/off, on/off for 9 or more innings 2. is directly involved(touches the baseball) with most pitches 3. unless 'platooned', disciplined or 'DLed' plays every game 4. squats(hard on the knees) and deals with more dust than other players 5. has the highest chance of getting leveled and knocked out by a base runner.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***You must not watch much tennis or you would know that irrespective of who is playing against whom the moment that a 5th set begins the crowd gets riled up, claps and cheers. That is a fact! Fans appreciate when matches "go the distance".*** Of course they do. That's a close and exciting match. But it doesn't change the fact that the top dudes can regularly dispose of their opponents in strait sets. How you can't understand that point is beyond me. I think DAR is right, 4:20 is the key.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***In baseball by far the hardest working player is the catcher*** And yet that fact has surprisingly little to do with their earnings relative to other players in other positions. Congratulations Barboy, you just defeated your own argument.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 </// is a fairly arbitrary tradition that could easily be changed and bears no real relation to "value."///>> <If it is so very arbitrary then why don't some key women players/ex-players push for best of 5 at the slams? Answer: women don't want it because it is far more work. Winning 3 sets times 7 matches in a two week period(for the championship) is ***EXTREMELY*** grueling. Play 5 sets(equal work) and then complain. Until then shut up about equal pay.> No kidding, Sherlock. But why should women push to put in more work than has become the accepted norm? If anything, men should be pushing for a shorter "work day." <<///Hell, 25 years ago I remember the commentary on TV when men's tennis was in the doldrums (largely because the male #1 was the non-charismatic and non-American Ivan Lendl) and women's tennis was flying high and drawing greater numbers.///>> <Careful with that Dabob for tennis is far more global than what you see on US TV(if that was how you viewed tennis back then---- from a USA standpoint).> I'm a big tennis fan, so this doesn't fly with me. Outside of the then-Czechoslovakia, Lendl wasn't particularly popular anywhere. He had the charisma of a doorknob. An 80's match of Navratilova/Evert could easily outdraw, let's say, Lendl/Wilander. <<///And even today I don't believe the numbers are radically different for TV, and I don't believe the slams charge lower ticket prices for women's matches.///>> <The ATP is far more popular world wide than the WTA. People want to see the men play whether that sits well with you or not.> But you mentioned the slams specifically. Just as many people pack Flushing Meadow for the women's final as for the men's, trust me - it's not far from me. <<///King and Navratilova are right. Women are doing essentially the same job///>> <No, they are not right as proven by the 3 set vs 5 set work. Sorry Dabob but that is a fact.......3 is noticeably less work than 5 especially when it is multiplied out 7 times at a "slam". Matches may cause injury and/or fatigue so the more work(playing matches) one does it could mess with health and ultimately livelihood.> Then, again, the men should argue for less work if it's so freaking unfair. <<///so it seems strange to even bring it up///>> <----not strange but terribly relevant and on topic> No, it really isn't. It's a miniscule fraction of the working population, a very rarified world. And even if your arguments were correct for that rarified world, they wouldn't hold for the rest. King and Navratilova may be complaining about grand slam pay because that's THEIR world. But the women talking about this day are talking about the other 99.999999% of working women who all too often DO earn less for doing the EXACT same job as a man. That's what this day is about; professional tennis is a red herring at best.
Originally Posted By barboy ///congratulations Barboy, you just defeated your own argument. /// Not so fast there.......... I never said I agreed with catchers getting about the same money as others. They should get MORE. Yes X, I feel catchers should get more just as I feel men at the Slams should get more that women because they do more work and attract more viewers. I am consistent.
Originally Posted By Mr X And yet, they DON'T get more. Not generally speaking, anyway. So much for your workload theory.
