Re: The expert opinion on banning porn... : Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:52 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Why?

Dunno. Probably have something to do with the differing nature of men's and women's tennis. Men's tennis is based on power and stamina. Women generally have less power and stamina so there game has far more rallies.

If men don't like playing 5 sets then they could campaign for parity with women.

I think there will be some women who would prefer 5 set matches.

Oh, yes, because that has really ever happened, or is really likely ever to happen.

I'm not saying it is. But you want a pay system based upon how hard a tennis player works. But if there's a standout male tennis player who's far better than his opponents he won't have to work as hard as a group of the top 5 women who all had similar ability.

That's a pretty ludicrous argument. Maybe Messi should be on minimum wage since he finds it so easy to score goals?

Messi earns whatever he and his club negotiate. Tennis players compete for prize money. You're arguing there is no reason for women to earn the same as men. There are reasons, you just don't want to accept them.

Anway, you are looking from the wrong end, presumably because you can't construct an argument from the right end. Which is, that whilst there will obviously be variations in the length of every match, nevertheless the starting point is that the men have to play best of 5 (so cannot ever play less than 3 sets even in a whitewash) - whereas the women don't, they play best of 3. I said there is no justification, in those circumstances, to be paid the same, and I note you don't suggest one.

I have suggested some reasons. The money that comes into Wimbledon is not differentiated between men and women. So it is far easier to just split the prize money equally, rather than weighting the pay based upon how many sets are played.

If a hypothetical thing happened, and then on the back of that, another hypothetical thing happened, whom would that help? I'm sorry, there's not enough "question" there to make any sensible reply, and I don't see that we had the initial aim of "helping" anyone.

The tennis authorities have come to the decision that the men's game should be best of 5 sets and the women's game 3 sets. You want men to be paid more than the women because of that. A likely response to that would be that women would go to 5 sets, or men brought down to 3. A decision on the game based directly upon financial considerations.

But are you suggesting that the women's game would suffer? Or might? If so, then you need to explain why it would suffer as a result, what form might this suffering take, and why? What scenario do you predict?

I could care less about tennis anyway. But would I support RL adding on 10 minutes if the players were going to get more money because of it? No, because it would be a decision based on the player's finances, not on what was best for the game.

I agree entirely with Martina Navratilova that ALL games should be best of 3 sets, not 5 (as they often are) but I do not see any logic at all, if a tournament chooses to have best-of-5 matches for men, why the men should not be paid significantly more for that inequality.

The tennis authorities don't seem to agree with MN.

Re: The expert opinion on banning porn... : Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:55 pm  

Rather more on topic, Won't somebody think of the children!. Or how adults see sex where there is none.

Rather more on topic, Won't somebody think of the children!. Or how adults see sex where there is none.

Re: The expert opinion on banning porn... : Wed Jul 31, 2013 2:09 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

Dunno. Probably have something to do with the differing nature of men's and women's tennis. Men's tennis is based on power and stamina. Women generally have less power and stamina so there game has far more rallies.

Leaving aside that your view is rooted in the sexist attitudes that caused the male establishment to have shorter women's games in the first place( because it 'would be far too strenuous for the pretty little delicate things') it's obvious that the physically much bigger top men have more power, but I entirely disagree about "stamina". In the 2011 Australian Open, the Schiavone -v- Kuznetsova game lasted 4 hours 44 minutes (47 games in total), finishing 6–4, 1–6, 16–14. Nobody died, collapsed, or ground to a halt through lack of stamina, and I doubt either would claim to be some sort of freak stamina-wise in the women's game.

IMHO maybe in the 90s women's tennis perhaps had more rallies, but that would be due to being a bit of a golden era. I am certain that's not true currently. Mens games can go on for 4 or more hours. As a rule, women's games are over in an hour or less. Do the maths.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

I think there will be some women who would prefer 5 set matches.

I suppose the physically fittest ones would, as that would give them a big advantage in longer games against any less fit opponents. Why though should women not be expected to attain a similar level of physical fitness as the men?

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

I'm not saying it is. But you want a pay system based upon how hard a tennis player works.

Bollox. When did I ever say any such thing? Stop making stuff up. All I have ever argued is that for equal pay, there should be equal conditions, whether that is all 3-set matches or all 5-set matches. How much "work" goes in would be an entirely subjective thing, different in every match, regardless of length or sex.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

You're arguing there is no reason for women to earn the same as men.

Again, no I am not! I am arguing that they should play the same length matches. And that if they do not, then it is unfair for one set of players to have to play 5 set matches for the same money as another set of players who only have to play 3 set matches. Like pay for like work.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

There are reasons, you just don't want to accept them.

If there are reasons, you don't seem able to articulate them

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

.. The money that comes into Wimbledon is not differentiated between men and women.

Of course as a simple observation that's true, but don't make me laugh. Are you seriously suggesting that if they split it into a men's week, and a women's week, ticket revenues would be broadly equal?

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

.So it is far easier to just split the prize money equally, rather than weighting the pay based upon how many sets are played.

It isn't at all. First, anyone with a calculator and a working battery (or even a piece of paper and something to write with) could split the prize money 25/75, 60/40 or whatever in seconds! Surely you wouldn't argue that splitting prize money (say) 40% - 60% (say) is intellectually harder than 50/50?

Second I have not advocated "weighting the pay based upon how many sets are played". I advocate them all playing matches of the same max length. That's it. All I want is same rules for any tennis player. Regardless of gender. It doesn't matter how many games/points/sets they then actually play in any given game. They would be working under the identical laid-down match conditions, and that seems the only fair way to me. Isner and the other fella never got paid an extra penny for playing that 11 hour match, and I never suggested for a second that they should. (But incidentally, had the game been best of 3, Isner would have lost 6–4, 3–6, 6–7).

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

But would I support RL adding on 10 minutes if the players were going to get more money because of it? No, because it would be a decision based on the player's finances, not on what was best for the game.

Pointless straw man. A better comparison would women's rugby league. Do they play shorter matches than men, due to perhaps fragility and lack of stamina? Er, no.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

The tennis authorities don't seem to agree with MN.

I presume you mean the Wimbledon authorities? It is pointless to say they "don't seem to agree"; if they agreed, then there'd be no set disparity, and we wouldn't be having this conversation!

Re: The expert opinion on banning porn... : Wed Jul 31, 2013 2:15 pm  

PS I just looked at the thread title - thread drift that would make Pangea blush

Re: The expert opinion on banning porn... : Wed Jul 31, 2013 3:41 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Of course as a simple observation that's true, but don't make me laugh. Are you seriously suggesting that if they split it into a men's week, and a women's week, ticket revenues would be broadly equal?

I have no idea whether there is a disparity between the popularity of men's and women's tennis matches.

If men are the ones who bring in the most money then they should be paid more. Revenue brought in is far more important than match length IMO.

Just had a quick check, and part of the reason that Wimbledon changed to pay parity was that they were bringing them in line with all the other open tournaments. So it's not only Wimbledon that came to the decision, but the rest of the world had already decided that.

It isn't at all. First, anyone with a calculator and a working battery (or even a piece of paper and something to write with) could split the prize money 25/75, 60/40 or whatever in seconds! Surely you wouldn't argue that splitting prize money (say) 40% - 60% (say) is intellectually harder than 50/50?

But how do you decide whether the prize money should be split 75/25 or 60/40?

Second I have not advocated "weighting the pay based upon how many sets are played". I advocate them all playing matches of the same max length. That's it. All I want is same rules for any tennis player.

And if the men are happy with 5, the women happy with 3, what difference does it make to you?

Pointless straw man. A better comparison would women's rugby league. Do they play shorter matches than men, due to perhaps fragility and lack of stamina? Er, no.

I'd argue that women's RL would be better served to start their game off from scratch and change the rules to benefit WRL, rather than trying to copy the men's game and fail badly.

I'd suggest that women's RL that played 4 quarters of 10 minutes, with limits over the aggression involved, would far better serve to promote RL to women than sticking with the game that is set up for professional male RL.

:? I presume you mean the Wimbledon authorities? It is pointless to say they "don't seem to agree"; if they agreed, then there'd be no set disparity, and we wouldn't be having this conversation!

All the tennis tournaments offer equal prize money. All the tennis tournaments have best of 3 sets for women and best of 5 for men. So none of them agree with MN. And when did MN come to the conclusion that men and women should play the same length matches?

I'm not a tennis fan. I couldn't care less about the sport. But tennis is pretty much unique in that it has great success and great exposure at male and female level. Just thinking about it, but apart from athletics there's pretty much nothing else in the world that can compare. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that women get offered the same prize money as men get if there isn't a huge disparity in the amount the games bring in.

Re: The expert opinion on banning porn... : Wed Jul 31, 2013 4:27 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

...I'm not a tennis fan. I couldn't care less about the sport...

Me neither.
I don't care who plays longest or even who plays at all.
Ditto football.
Both are girl's games despite being played by men.

Re: The expert opinion on banning porn... : Wed Jul 31, 2013 4:42 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

I have no idea whether there is a disparity between the popularity of men's and women's tennis matches.

If men are the ones who bring in the most money then they should be paid more. Revenue brought in is far more important than match length IMO.

fair enough, but a different question, though. And not applicable to Wimbledon, which pretty much sells out, without knowing who you might be watching.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

Just had a quick check, and part of the reason that Wimbledon changed to pay parity was that they were bringing them in line with all the other open tournaments. So it's not only Wimbledon that came to the decision, but the rest of the world had already decided that.

I know Wimbledon's reasons, it's just i fundamentally disagree with them, as the disparity is unfair on the men.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

But how do you decide whether the prize money should be split 75/25 or 60/40?

I don't I split it 50/50, but on the basis men and women play same length mathces.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

And if the men are happy with 5, the women happy with 3, what difference does it make to you?

Silly. As in anything else in life, there is a rainbow of varying viewpoints. Second, why does it need to personally make a difference to me? As, obviously, it makes absolutely no personal difference to me, then I can offer my opinion on a completely unbiased basis. What I am in favour of is the sexes being treated equally, and here they are not. Are you saying I'm not entitled to a view, because I don't play on the tour?

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

All the tennis tournaments offer equal prize money.

No, they actually don't.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

All the tennis tournaments have best of 3 sets for women and best of 5 for men.

Er, or not. The truth is it is ONLY the grand slam tournaments where the men play best of 5. ALL the rest play best of 3, and so they comply with my logic, men and women all play best of 3, men and women play for equal prize money. You need to know your subject better.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

I'm not a tennis fan. I couldn't care less about the sport. But tennis is pretty much unique in that it has great success and great exposure at male and female level. Just thinking about it, but apart from athletics there's pretty much nothing else in the world that can compare. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that women get offered the same prize money as men get if there isn't a huge disparity in the amount the games bring in.

But if it's fair (as it plainly is) that in all the ATP Tour games they all play best of 3 and the prize money is equal, how do you justify the men playing best of 5 in Grand Slam events yet the prize money still being equal? It's simply unfair. The simple analysis is the men are obliged to play extra sets for the same money, based solely on gender, and I just do not think that is right. Anyway, I reckon anything else said would just be repetitive so maybe we should just leave it at that?

Re: The expert opinion on banning porn... : Wed Jul 31, 2013 5:07 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

Me neither.
I don't care who plays longest or even who plays at all.
Ditto football.
Both are girl's games despite being played by men.

Eff off, ya sexist so and so!

Re: The expert opinion on banning porn... : Wed Jul 31, 2013 5:57 pm  

Tennis players recieve prize money rather than wages. Their other income will be decided by the sponsors. They are walking adverts rather than employees. Pay is probably decided by how much exposure can be potentially made for their brand.

Re: The expert opinion on banning porn... : Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:47 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Don't see that is relevant, if they did the same work then they should get the same pay. They don't.

I agree. It was in response to LGJM's post regarding ticket prices.