Is Three equal to Five

[Soapy]

Why, in grand slam tournaments, in these days of equality of gender, do women still only play up to three sets in tennis yet receive the same prize money as the men who have to play up to five sets?

I have read answers already such as:

1. The tennis federation (or such) don’t want to change the format
2. The tv people say it is a matter of scheduling
3. There is no difference between men and women… (what does that mean?)

So I ask, for 1., Why? There have been dozens of changes throughout the history of tennis!

For 2., Each year change the order of play. One year men play three sets and women play five and then swap the next year… no trouble with schedule there!!

For 3., That was a non-answer which smacks of hiding the reality of whatever the problem is with EQUALITY of gender!

I’m suspecting that it’s got something to do with stamina AND audience attraction (aka: though there are a few really strong women, the majority are not attractive as revenue streams for the media… Revenue, not the person!)

Why do you think that the tennis federation AGREE, under pressure from female tennis players, to give equal prize money BUT not equal game play?

If you work the Math(s), you will find that, in fact, it’s NOT EQUAL at all because since the women more often finish in just over an hour and the men can take up to FIVE HOURS for the same prize, it is clear that the £/$ per hour GREATLY favours the women:
Prize money, say, 1 million
1 million / 1h:30m for women
1 million / 5h:00m for men

Equality? What equality?

 

[Ella S.]

Ironically, as far as I can tell, the reason that women only play 3 sets is due to misogyny. Getting equal pay, but not equal sets, was a compromise on their part, not something they intentionally wanted to do for the sake of getting paid more for less work.

Many female tennis players want to play more sets, but they aren't allowed to. They think it's condescending that they are getting paid for less work when they are just as capable of playing longer sets as men.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Females should be playing males too - soon sort the latter out!

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I might be better if men only played three sets. But I do not think the top players would agree to that.
as they can often wear down the lower ranked players. and come back in the final set.

Perhaps only play five sets in the final... both men and women.

Should men who win a matches in straight sets. be paid less than those who take five or four.
Men and women are paid for displaying their tennis skills not the time they spend on court. Generally speaking the better you are the less time you are on court.
You are paid by the number of wins not the sets.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why, in grand slam tournaments, in these days of equality of gender, do women still only play up to three sets in tennis yet receive the same prize money as the men who have to play up to five sets?

I have read answers already such as:

1. The tennis federation (or such) don’t want to change the format
2. The tv people say it is a matter of scheduling
3. There is no difference between men and women… (what does that mean?)

So I ask, for 1., Why? There have been dozens of changes throughout the history of tennis!

For 2., Each year change the order of play. One year men play three sets and women play five and then swap the next year… no trouble with schedule there!!

For 3., That was a non-answer which smacks of hiding the reality of whatever the problem is with EQUALITY of gender!

I’m suspecting that it’s got something to do with stamina AND audience attraction (aka: though there are a few really strong women, the majority are not attractive as revenue streams for the media… Revenue, not the person!)

Why do you think that the tennis federation AGREE, under pressure from female tennis players, to give equal prize money BUT not equal game play?

If you work the Math(s), you will find that, in fact, it’s NOT EQUAL at all because since the women more often finish in just over an hour and the men can take up to FIVE HOURS for the same prize, it is clear that the £/$ per hour GREATLY favours the women:
Prize money, say, 1 million
1 million / 1h:30m for women
1 million / 5h:00m for men

Equality? What equality?

It is not government and in some cases for these kinds of "work" equality doesn't apply, because it is the free market and entertainment.

 

[Viker]

Why, in grand slam tournaments, in these days of equality of gender, do women still only play up to three sets in tennis yet receive the same prize money as the men who have to play up to five sets?

Because that's all they're allowed. If you don't like it petition the tennis authorities and let them know.

 

[Soapy]

Females should be playing males too - soon sort the latter out!

Though no one in authority wants to say it, the reason why females and males do not play competitively against each other is absolutely a simple matter that the women would never win any trophies at all.

SECRETLY….(!!!) it was tried out and found to be so embarrassing that if was never published openly and will never be seen in the National broadcast media.

Many SPECULATIONS and calculations even put it that even the greatest female such as Serena Williams would only be qualified at around ranking level of 400 in the world … Ok, I get that part and think it is right that this should not occur! I’m also pondering whether male players would not play at their best due to chauvinism (intentionally lose - though that is against the rules - why is it in the rules of it ain’t been seen to happen!!?)

I do wonder, also, if those in authority would declare the true reason why such disparities are there then the woke equality brigade would come out in arms to say it’s not fair… (Note the word, ‘Fair’… not ‘Equal’!!) but without putting any case for what they think WOULD be ‘fair’, or indeed ‘EQUAL’ (their definition of ‘Equal’ of course!)

When I watch female tennis, I see that most women are all but some out by the end of three sets that lasts more than 2 hours… 2 Hours!!!!

I am going to say also that many matches are very much, ‘To me - to you…’ base line to base line play. This leaves plenty of time to see where the ball is going to, what spin is put on the ball, and requires the yeast effort. Hold on - hold on… I’m not talking the greats of female tennis - I’m talking the ‘a little less than the greatest’ female players.

Being that the case, 2 hours, three hours would actually HARM the women… SIMPLE AS… a five set match, no matter the pace, would cause significant physical harm to them.

Tennis Federation, why not just say so? We ALL know that that is the reason!

Truly, if it were true that five sets doesn’t cause harm to women, then SWAP AROUND the schedule and show us that your claim is true (it isn’t!).

These days, even today, women are being told not to be embarrassed by their failings. An advert says, ‘I was brave enough to ask a question in a meeting … it was a strength to ask that question - no one can blame [someone] for not knowing something!!’
Another, a woman with cancer proudly showed off her bald head during her cancer treatment… something that was so embarrassing a few years ago that no woman would ever go out like that… in fact (yes, I’m rambling!) I saw a charity request in which a woman was being treated for cancer BUT IT WAS HER HUSBAND and husbands of friends (who had beards) who had their beards cut as the charity pull!!! Yes, the husbands - not the WIVES to support another woman - yet the woman was called ‘BRAVE’!

What am I saying? Women today are building STRENGTH in their ability to accept the truth about aspects of their being. It is OK to say that the reason women don’t play five sets IS BECAUSE THEY WOULD LIKELY GET HURT!

Tell me: Why would you not see a race between a one legged man (no prosthetics!) and Usain bolt?
Would it not be because there would be a huge disparity of equal or near equal ability - no shame in saying that, eh??? Where is the shame in saying that women do not have the stamina for five hours without hurting themselves!! Where is the shame in saying you would play Chelsea women’s football team against Liverpool men’s team (English football). By the way, Chelsea woman's team is by far the very best England have in woman's football - and the 90 minutes is irrelevant since it’s a fixed time played multiplayer at their own pace - tennis is played one on one to the finish however long that takes!)

And as for the strange aspect of equal prize money meaning that the women are actually paid (earn!) FAR more than the men for FAR less effort - and bring in far less revenue from sales of tickets and food and drinks and (er-hum, Gambling!! Shh!!!). Personal income from self advertising and photoshoots is up to the players (huge amounts for the best… and prettiest or more daring…. I seen some that are near pornographic - not what you expect from sporting stars!!!)

 

[Soapy]

Because that's all they're allowed. If you don't like it petition the tennis authorities and let them know.

High ranking male tennis players have tried - and were told to take a running jump! (Get lost….!!)

When the women claimed equality of prize money they were initially refused but they then swore to ‘down rackets’… the federation gave in on that count - AND OF COURSE because the modern woke era had just begun so they were frightened to not give women what they asked for - right or wrong!!

My question at the time was: Why couldn’t they see that there was a disparity in hours played versus money earned per hour… it’s such simple mathematics!!! Also: Revenue.. The men bring in far greater revenue than the women… so, in fact, the men are bringing in revenue that goes to pay for the women!!!

And women say this is ‘EQUALITY’!

My take on equality in this woke era is that if only applies to women - and only pertains to MORE MONEY… not about EQUALITY of EFFORT (work, time, input, output)

 

[exchemist]

Ironically, as far as I can tell, the reason that women only play 3 sets is due to misogyny. Getting equal pay, but not equal sets, was a compromise on their part, not something they intentionally wanted to do for the sake of getting paid more for less work.

Many female tennis players want to play more sets, but they aren't allowed to. They think it's condescending that they are getting paid for less work when they are just as capable of playing longer sets as men.

That's interesting and I'm not surprised. In rowing, and I think in most other athletic sports, it is recognised that women have just as good endurance as men - if not actually better.

The only argument I can see, based on physiology, is that due to the lower power of the shots, women's matches tend to have longer rallies, which both expend more energy and lengthen the time between points on the scoreboard and hence the length of matches. So a 5 set women's match would in fact take longer and be significantly more tiring than a 5 set men's match.

But I don't know to what extent this is a factor, or what women players have to say about it. Do you know?

 

[Soapy]

It is not government and in some cases for these kinds of "work" equality doesn't apply, because it is the free market and entertainment.

That is true - yet I didn’t say anything about government (political government).

The prize is awarded by the governing BODY: the TENNIS federation (of equivalent). What I stated was that (underlying the purpose) was the women campaigned for EQUAL PAY despite not doing EQUAL WORK (Effort … Time) simply because of claims of sexual INEQUALITY…. Which actually did not exist: All women were allowed to play to their fullest extent - but that fullest extent did not reach the head limits of the men’s play.

And, if was not ‘Pay what they like’ - it was ‘arm up the back’ intimidation: Pay us the same as men or we will down rackets! The federation SHOULD have said, ‘Ok, if you want equality YOU GOT IT!!!’

…. Umm, well that was easy! Too easy!!!! What’s the catch??

No catch… Equality it is! Same max Five sets like the men… Same Prize money…!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is true - yet I didn’t say anything about government (political government).

The prize is awarded by the governing BODY: the TENNIS federation (of equivalent). What I stated was that (underlying the purpose) was the women campaigned for EQUAL PAY despite not doing EQUAL WORK (Effort … Time) simply because of claims of sexual INEQUALITY…. Which actually did not exist: All women were allowed to play to their fullest extent - but that fullest extent did not reach the head limits of the men’s play.

And, if was not ‘Pay what they like’ - it was ‘arm up the back’ intimidation: Pay us the same as men or we will down rackets! The federation SHOULD have said, ‘Ok, if you want equality YOU GOT IT!!!’

…. Umm, well that was easy! Too easy!!!! What’s the catch??

No catch… Equality it is! Same max Five sets like the men… Same Prize money…!

No, not in the end for the private market. You use any legal means and get a higher pay. You and I have no say in that.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

A handicap open , for all sexes would be interesting. with the handicap se on previous results in mixed competition. the handicap could be set at points per game and games per set advantage.

 

[Soapy]

That's interesting and I'm not surprised. In rowing, and I think in most other athletic sports, it is recognised that women have just as good endurance as men - if not actually better.

The only argument I can see, based on physiology, is that due to the lower power of the shots, women's matches tend to have longer rallies, which both expend more energy and lengthen the time between points on the scoreboard and hence the length of matches. So a 5 set match women's match would in fact take longer and be significantly more tiring than a 5 set men's match.

But I don't know to what extent this is a factor, or what women players have to say about it. Do you know?

Rubbish!!! Absolute rubbish!

Most women matches are over in an hour and a half for the three sets.

I sat watching on match and predicted 1h 10min for a top seed - I was SPOT ON. Then the mens: I predicted F I V E hours ….. Spot on again!!!
True true true…….!!!

Dredge up some stats and see for yourself.

As for weaker play… Yep! Base line to base line until one misses (through sheer boredom!?!) The women look absolutely burnt out after the two sets - after three they can hardly stand. Sheer ‘fumes’ and the uproar of the crowd keeps them standing.

And where on earth do you get the idea that women have more stamina than men? Because they finish their match in an hour but the men go on for three to five? I think you got that off some pro-female woke website cos it sure ain’t true!

I guess you gonna say the women run the London marathon faster than the men … or the Thames boat are better for female oarers (? Rowers??)!

You know, these days, it’s ok to say the truth!! False claims are so much easier to be found out!

 

[Soapy]

No, not in the end for the private market. You use any legal means and get a higher pay. You and I have no say in that.

Oh dear - so what happened when the men complained about the inequality of the prize money against the hours of play and effort they put in…?

Inequality is ‘ok’ when it’s not transparent… when you go to your boss and ask for more pay in an open market that’s one thing. But the prize money and the effort is in the open… transparent! And the maths is simple: components are:

1. Revenue accrued
2. Time in play
3. Sets played per match
4. £$ per match (or per set)

Revenue is greater for more attractive (quality of play… and, yes, that too!) players but that is taken into account for the limit of the total prize for the whole match (not absolutely the player!)

The rest is just : Prize money / Sets played. Hours is discarded since it’s a feature of circumstances. Better players will take longer since they will be matched better.

So, for women to earn the same prize money as men means they are actually earning FAR MORE money for lesser sets played … and calling it EQUAL!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Oh dear - so what happened when the men complained about the inequality of the prize money against the hours of play and effort they put in…?

Inequality is ‘ok’ when it’s not transparent… when you go to your boss and ask for more pay in an open market that’s one thing. But the prize money and the effort is in the open… transparent! And the maths is simple: components are:

1. Revenue accrued
2. Time in play
3. Sets played per match
4. £$ per match (or per set)

Revenue is greater for more attractive (quality of play… and, yes, that too!) players but that is taken into account for the limit of the total prize for the whole match (not absolutely the player!)

The rest is just : Prize money / Sets played. Hours is discarded since it’s a feature of circumstances. Better players will take longer since they will be matched better.

So, for women to earn the same prize money as men means they are actually earning FAR MORE money for lesser sets played … and calling it EQUAL!

There are no objective definitions of equal in this case. We are playing emotions and reason.

 

[Soapy]

A handicap open , for all sexes would be interesting. with the handicap se on previous results in mixed competition. the handicap could be set at points per game and games per set advantage.

That would really put the fox among the chickens!

How come they don’t do that already for Golf??? They already have handicaps so should be easy to step one step further? Mixed gender golf… bring it on!

I asked the same with Snooker (on a different forum) and got some truly weird responses as to why no mixed sex snooker - especially as Stamina, endurance, speed, size, bulk, muscle, … have little to no impact.., it’s purely SKILL….

No one gave a straight answer!!!

 

[Soapy]

There are no objective definitions of equal in this case. We are playing emotions and reason.

Ha ha ha…. yeah, I figured…!

‘There is no clear definition of what EQUALITY is’…

Ha ha ha.,..,

It’s like I said, equality for women is just about getting the same MONEY as men but without putting in the same effort.

We have had quite a few cases that back this up. In one, women working in a store claimed the same wages as their colleague men working in the supplying warehouse attached to the business.

Can you see where this is going?

They got the equal pay…. Because of the woke brigade. The company should have said: ‘Ok, what we will do is put the women in the warehouse and the men in the store…. Then, after three month we will revisit whether there should be equal pay - Ok!!?’

Women: Oow, those huge boxes, greasy machinery, the noise, tea breaks only at Six hours, cold in winter, can’t chat with my mates…. Wish I was back in the store!!!

Men: Wow! I’ll gladly take the £1 per hour less pay for working in here! Nice and clean, no more heavy boxes, take a break when I like, chat when I like as much as I like, warm… mmmmmm! Yeah, sign me up for another 3 months!

 

[Ella S.]

Rubbish!!! Absolute rubbish!

Most women matches are over in an hour and a half for the three sets.

I sat watching on match and predicted 1h 10min for a top seed - I was SPOT ON. Then the mens: I predicted F I V E hours ….. Spot on again!!!
True true true…….!!!

Dredge up some stats and see for yourself.

As for weaker play… Yep! Base line to base line until one misses (through sheer boredom!?!) The women look absolutely burnt out after the two sets - after three they can hardly stand. Sheer ‘fumes’ and the uproar of the crowd keeps them standing.

And where on earth do you get the idea that women have more stamina than men? Because they finish their match in an hour but the men go on for three to five? I think you got that off some pro-female woke website cos it sure ain’t true!

I guess you gonna say the women run the London marathon faster than the men … or the Thames boat are better for female oarers (? Rowers??)!

You know, these days, it’s ok to say the truth!! False claims are so much easier to be found out!

If it is your belief that women are getting exhausted this quickly into the game, then are they not putting in just as much effort as the men, if not more?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ha ha ha…. yeah, I figured…!

‘There is no clear definition of what EQUALITY is’…

Ha ha ha.,..,

No, there isn't. It is a cultural construct. If there was a clear definition you would have an objective definition, that could be turned into calibration of an instrument.

 

[Soapy]

If it is your belief that women are getting exhausted this quickly into the game, then are they not putting in just as much effort as the men, if not more?

No no!!! THEY ARE putting in their fullest effort - I know that! And that’s just what I said… at the end of an hour and a bit they are exhausted - let alone thinking they might have two more sets to play… two more sets means upwards of at least 50 or more points to play!!!!