Tipsarevic: " Junior Boy will crush Serena Williams"

[djarvik]

Tipsarevic: Good junior could crush Serena
Ticker - Wednesday, July 18, 2012

"Men's tennis is currently in the top four in terms of quality and popularity, it’s at its peak, just like golf when Tiger Woods dominated. In the women's tennis it’s very different," he said. "I do not underestimate the achievements of Victoria Azarenka and the others, but their best time is over. That was when the Williams sisters, Kim Clijsters, Justine Henin and Amelie Mauresmo were at the top. I don't even want to talk about (the fact) that a good junior could beat Serena 6-1, 6-2. But I think it's simply ridiculous that women earn on the same at the Grand Slam events."

http://www.tennis.com/articles/templ...8843&zoneid=25


I agree.

[Kono]

"Bad request" Censorial?

[Vieira151]

I agree with the Tipsy on both points. On the topic of equal pay - I don't feel they should get equal pay. Not unless they do the same amount. Sure, any television bonuses should be equal, but actual prize money should not be. I mean, at a Grand Slam, the minimum number of sets a male pro has to win the tournament is equal to the highest number of sets a female can possibly play.

I'll also point out my mum agrees and gets really annoyed about the equal pay thing.

[SlicerITST]

I have to agree as well. I really liked the WTA tour during the time Tipsarevic mentioned. What we see now is no where near that. I really think that if Serena and Sharapova would put in the same level of play as they did before the overall level would increase as well. WTA needs a new superstar to emerge.

[Coolhand Texas]

A men's player would move Serena's big slow butt all over the court. Her power would be nothing the men aren't used to.

Tipsy is right.

[Corbon]

Too bad for him that he won't win anything big in his career.

Of course women's pay won't be lowered, he's just asking for more money.

[JohnCurveo]

I think people is confusing "popularity" and "character" with "quality". I'm following wta since long time. I think the quality now is pretty good. It's true there is a lot of bad quality matches, but it is always ike that on WTA. Mauresmo was a great player, but come on, he choke like every wta girl does. The same with Henin, Serena, or even Graff. I think WTA has evolved like ATP, but there is no enough personalities, that's why seems the quality is bad.

No need to pay more just because ATP is more famous, you need to protect WTA. I think actual system of payment is good. Tipsarevic men, you're reading Nietzche too much, "Will of Power" is brainwashing you.

[VillaJ100]

I remember when Chris evert was married to John Lloyd and she was one of the best players the world had seen, and he wasn't to be polite. But a interviewer asked if they ever played together and she said no as he would completely destroy her.

A lot of people think the king-riggs match was legit. I don't. Someone like pat cash or mcenroe could probably beat anyone in the wta these days.

[BrushedBigJJ]

The problem is at the grand slams (and some of the masters) the men and women are one event. As long as this is the case you basically have pay them the same.

I did the math once and found the wnba players make 1 cent for every dollar an NBA player makes. And it gets way more ridiculous when you only count the superstars. The reason NBA players are payed more is because they fill the seats and people are willing to pay big bucks. This is not the case for the wnba.

The "women should be paid less because they play fewer sets" argument misses the point. Professional tennis is entertainment. People pay to see it. People pay for the quality of the entertainment not the duration. I would pay more to see 3 good sets than 5 boring ones.

As long as they play the grand slams together we can't tell who's carrying more weight.

[Vieira151]

The "women should be paid less because they play fewer sets" argument misses the point. Professional tennis is entertainment. People pay to see it. People pay for the quality of the entertainment not the duration. I would pay more to see 3 good sets than 5 boring ones.

But the athletes aren't paid to entertain. The people who run the Grand Slams and the TV people are the ones we pay money to for the entertainment of watching tennis. The Grand Slams themselves get income for the entertainment they show. But the athletes are paid for doing their job and doing their job well and providing the entertainment which we pay all these companies for. Would it be right for a male bartender who works 5 hours earn the same as a female bartender who only worked for 3 hours?

We pay money to the bar for a drink, and the bar pays the wages to the person who provided us with the drink depending on how long they worked. We pay money to watch tennis at a Grand Slam and on TV, and the Grand Slam committees pay the players their reward (which is essentially based on the amount of matches they play).

Also, I feel that outside of Grand Slams females should earn as much as males for playing matches. It is only in Grand Slams that there should be a difference.

[Coolhand Texas]

I think people is confusing "popularity" and "character" with "quality". I'm following wta since long time. I think the quality now is pretty good. It's true there is a lot of bad quality matches, but it is always ike that on WTA. Mauresmo was a great player, but come on, he choke like every wta girl does. The same with Henin, Serena, or even Graff. I think WTA has evolved like ATP, but there is no enough personalities, that's why seems the quality is bad.

No need to pay more just because ATP is more famous, you need to protect WTA. I think actual system of payment is good. Tipsarevic men, you're reading Nietzche too much, "Will of Power" is brainwashing you.

But thats not the reason. The reason is the men do more work. If women play best of 5, Im ok with them having equal prize money. But they dont play best of 5.

[Rob ITST]

You can't base it on the current popularity. What if, in 5 years, the WTA is more popular? Are you going to go back and start paying the women more?

Anyway, it's up to the Grand Slams. If they want to pay them equally, then they have the right to do so. Also, you have to keep in mind that we're only taking about prize money. Everyone knows that the endorsements are where they really make their money, and the men get paid more in that regard.

If you want to see a real discrepancy in pay, take a look at what the top wheelchair players get payed. I know, no one watches wheelchair tennis, but the difference is HUGE. I don't remember the exact figures for each round, but last I looked it was something like $10,000, compared to $1,000,000 for the men's and women's main draw.

[BrushedBigJJ]

I agree it's wrong to pay bartenders the same when they worked different hours. But that's not comparable to grand slam tennis or sporting events in general because it's about what people are willing to pay to get a seat to watch.

Let's say Serena and sharapova are willing to put on an exhibition best of 3 set match. It's advertised and they bring in 3 million dollars based on ticket sales. Around the same time the 300th and 400th ranked men say they will do a best of 5 set exhibition. It's advertised and they bring in $250,000 based on ticket sales. Should the men get paid more because they played best of 5?

[JohnCurveo]

But thats not the reason. The reason is the men do more work. If women play best of 5, Im ok with them having equal prize money. But they dont play best of 5.

Tipsarevic is not saying that. Is talking about quality and popularity of WTA and ATP. Comparing both.

Also, "men do more work" is not valid for me.

If u follow the WTA enough you will know that a female can't play 5 setter matches usually. Have u ever seen US Open final when it was 5 setter on WTA? the final sets? Imagine all tournament. Come on. And now tennis it's more physical than before, so 5 setter its not an option.

U can't base this because they "do more work". It's dangerous for a female play 5 setters and also could be boring. I've seen a lot of faints on WTA lately.

[Coolhand Texas]

please explain how it is more dangerous for a female to play 5 sets than a man to play 5 sets??? If they arent willing to put in the off hours work on the track like the men to be in shape then why the hell should they get paid the same?!

and please explain why more work is not a valid answer? women play best of 3 and men play best of 5 at slams but yet equal prize money, that too me is a valid reason and way more so than popularity.

if they want equal prize money then let them be equals.