Discussion:
Transgender woman competing with real women?
Add Reply
https://get.uber.com/invite/y444q2t7ue
2017-08-12 05:42:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Political correctness gone mad!

There is no point with real women taking part in those sporting event anymore. They have messed up women's sports.

It's is cheating.
R. Mark Clayton
2017-08-12 11:25:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by https://get.uber.com/invite/y444q2t7ue
Political correctness gone mad!
There is no point with real women taking part in those sporting event anymore. They have messed up women's sports.
It's is cheating.
Not a new issue see: -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9e_Richards

A very few sports have competitors of both sexes (e.g. horse jumping / dressage).

Usually they don't. In tennis women want the same prize money, even though they don't play the men and play fewer sets in the majors.
Yellow
2017-08-13 23:12:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by https://get.uber.com/invite/y444q2t7ue
Political correctness gone mad!
There is no point with real women taking part in those sporting event anymore. They have messed up women's sports.
It's is cheating.
Not a new issue see: -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9e_Richards
A very few sports have competitors of both sexes (e.g. horse jumping / dressage).
Usually they don't. In tennis women want the same prize money, even though they don't play the men and play fewer sets in the majors.
Out of interest, where does the tennis prize money come from?
Vidcapper
2017-08-14 06:16:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by https://get.uber.com/invite/y444q2t7ue
Political correctness gone mad!
There is no point with real women taking part in those sporting
event anymore. They have messed up women's sports.
It's is cheating.
Not a new issue see: -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9e_Richards
A very few sports have competitors of both sexes (e.g. horse
jumping / dressage).
Usually they don't. In tennis women want the same prize money,
even though they don't play the men and play fewer sets in the
majors.
Out of interest, where does the tennis prize money come from?
The sponsors, surely?
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Norman Wells
2017-08-14 07:28:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Yellow
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by https://get.uber.com/invite/y444q2t7ue
Political correctness gone mad!
There is no point with real women taking part in those sporting
event anymore. They have messed up women's sports.
It's is cheating.
Not a new issue see: -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9e_Richards
A very few sports have competitors of both sexes (e.g. horse
jumping / dressage).
Usually they don't. In tennis women want the same prize money,
even though they don't play the men and play fewer sets in the
majors.
Out of interest, where does the tennis prize money come from?
The sponsors, surely?
Mostly actually from gate receipts and broadcasting rights.
Yellow
2017-08-14 17:16:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Yellow
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by https://get.uber.com/invite/y444q2t7ue
Political correctness gone mad!
There is no point with real women taking part in those sporting
event anymore. They have messed up women's sports.
It's is cheating.
Not a new issue see: -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9e_Richards
A very few sports have competitors of both sexes (e.g. horse jumping / dressage).
Usually they don't. In tennis women want the same prize money,
even though they don't play the men and play fewer sets in the
majors.
Out of interest, where does the tennis prize money come from?
The sponsors, surely?
Mostly actually from gate receipts and broadcasting rights.
It is not like any of them get paid by the hour - male or female - at
least I assume they don't, so surely what they all get paid should be a
function of how much money their individual participation draws.
Yellow
2017-08-14 17:07:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <dfbkB.568581$***@fx14.am4>, ***@yahoo.co.uk
says...
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Yellow
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by https://get.uber.com/invite/y444q2t7ue
Political correctness gone mad!
There is no point with real women taking part in those sporting
event anymore. They have messed up women's sports.
It's is cheating.
Not a new issue see: -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9e_Richards
A very few sports have competitors of both sexes (e.g. horse jumping / dressage).
Usually they don't. In tennis women want the same prize money,
even though they don't play the men and play fewer sets in the
majors.
Out of interest, where does the tennis prize money come from?
The sponsors, surely?
I guess so. And TV rights? And the price of tickets on the door?

Does it cost less to see a women's tennis match then a men's?
Fredxxx
2017-08-14 17:18:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Yellow
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by https://get.uber.com/invite/y444q2t7ue
Political correctness gone mad!
There is no point with real women taking part in those sporting
event anymore. They have messed up women's sports.
It's is cheating.
Not a new issue see: -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9e_Richards
A very few sports have competitors of both sexes (e.g. horse jumping / dressage).
Usually they don't. In tennis women want the same prize money,
even though they don't play the men and play fewer sets in the
majors.
Out of interest, where does the tennis prize money come from?
The sponsors, surely?
I guess so. And TV rights? And the price of tickets on the door?
Does it cost less to see a women's tennis match then a men's?
Given it's fewer sets it can only represent poor value for money.

Of course it also allows the women to stay fresh and play in doubles later.
Yellow
2017-08-14 18:02:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Yellow
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by https://get.uber.com/invite/y444q2t7ue
Political correctness gone mad!
There is no point with real women taking part in those sporting
event anymore. They have messed up women's sports.
It's is cheating.
Not a new issue see: -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9e_Richards
A very few sports have competitors of both sexes (e.g. horse jumping / dressage).
Usually they don't. In tennis women want the same prize money,
even though they don't play the men and play fewer sets in the
majors.
Out of interest, where does the tennis prize money come from?
The sponsors, surely?
I guess so. And TV rights? And the price of tickets on the door?
Does it cost less to see a women's tennis match then a men's?
Given it's fewer sets it can only represent poor value for money.
Male or female, the prize money is I assume a fixed fee dependant on how
far they travel in the competition and is therefore unrelated to the
amount of hours they actually spend on the court?

So is it also poor value for money if a male player wins every game in a
match, in straight sets, all with aces for example?
Post by Fredxxx
Of course it also allows the women to stay fresh and play in doubles later.
Fredxxx
2017-08-14 18:09:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Yellow
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by https://get.uber.com/invite/y444q2t7ue
Political correctness gone mad!
There is no point with real women taking part in those sporting
event anymore. They have messed up women's sports.
It's is cheating.
Not a new issue see: -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9e_Richards
A very few sports have competitors of both sexes (e.g. horse jumping / dressage).
Usually they don't. In tennis women want the same prize money,
even though they don't play the men and play fewer sets in the
majors.
Out of interest, where does the tennis prize money come from?
The sponsors, surely?
I guess so. And TV rights? And the price of tickets on the door?
Does it cost less to see a women's tennis match then a men's?
Given it's fewer sets it can only represent poor value for money.
Male or female, the prize money is I assume a fixed fee dependant on how
far they travel in the competition and is therefore unrelated to the
amount of hours they actually spend on the court?
Wow, if I got paid for travel to work.......................

And when I got to work I only had to work 1/2 as hard as
men..................

Yes I can see where you're coming from.
Post by Yellow
So is it also poor value for money if a male player wins every game in a
match, in straight sets, all with aces for example?
On balance of probabilities, I would hope even you can see that a men's
game will be longer than a women's?
Post by Yellow
Post by Fredxxx
Of course it also allows the women to stay fresh and play in doubles later.
Yellow
2017-08-14 20:57:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Yellow
Out of interest, where does the tennis prize money come from?
The sponsors, surely?
I guess so. And TV rights? And the price of tickets on the door?
Does it cost less to see a women's tennis match then a men's?
Given it's fewer sets it can only represent poor value for money.
Male or female, the prize money is I assume a fixed fee dependant on how
far they travel in the competition and is therefore unrelated to the
amount of hours they actually spend on the court?
Wow, if I got paid for travel to work.......................
And when I got to work I only had to work 1/2 as hard as
men..................
Yes I can see where you're coming from.
Good. :-) Because many people work for a fix fee, tied to results.
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
So is it also poor value for money if a male player wins every game in a
match, in straight sets, all with aces for example?
On balance of probabilities, I would hope even you can see that a men's
game will be longer than a women's?
I honestly do not know as I do not follow sport myself, but so what when
you have still failed to explain your fixation that prize money should
be tied to the number of minutes women as a group spend on the court but
not to the amount of time an individual player, regardless of gender,
spends on the court.

If time spent on court were to be decided upon as the rule to determine
prize money, then great, why not, but it seems you only what this to
apply to women.

Meanwhile, I assume that people pay to see these folks all play?

Is it cheaper to see the women play? Is it less popular? Is there less
sponsorship? Are there less TV subscriptions/viewerships for the women's
matches over then men's? Because surely these are the actual factors
that should determine the pay of entertainers.
Fredxxx
2017-08-14 21:50:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Yellow
Out of interest, where does the tennis prize money come from?
The sponsors, surely?
I guess so. And TV rights? And the price of tickets on the door?
Does it cost less to see a women's tennis match then a men's?
Given it's fewer sets it can only represent poor value for money.
Male or female, the prize money is I assume a fixed fee dependant on how
far they travel in the competition and is therefore unrelated to the
amount of hours they actually spend on the court?
Wow, if I got paid for travel to work.......................
And when I got to work I only had to work 1/2 as hard as
men..................
Yes I can see where you're coming from.
Good. :-) Because many people work for a fix fee, tied to results.
If it was an open market open to all without any gender bias I would
agree with you.
Post by Yellow
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
So is it also poor value for money if a male player wins every game in a
match, in straight sets, all with aces for example?
On balance of probabilities, I would hope even you can see that a men's
game will be longer than a women's?
I honestly do not know as I do not follow sport myself, but so what when
you have still failed to explain your fixation that prize money should
be tied to the number of minutes women as a group spend on the court but
not to the amount of time an individual player, regardless of gender,
spends on the court.
If time spent on court were to be decided upon as the rule to determine
prize money, then great, why not, but it seems you only what this to
apply to women.
No, I am saying the matches should have the same number of games. The
difference is there to be seen. Women rely upon power, just look at
Serena Williams' serve, men rely upon stamina and typically has a serve
slower that Williams.

If you want equality, it is there for the taking, but you seem to want
the advantage of both?
Post by Yellow
Meanwhile, I assume that people pay to see these folks all play?
Is it cheaper to see the women play? Is it less popular? Is there less
sponsorship? Are there less TV subscriptions/viewerships for the women's
matches over then men's? Because surely these are the actual factors
that should determine the pay of entertainers.
I believe womens' matches are less popular, BICBW. Personally, I rarely
watch sports so care even less.
Yellow
2017-08-14 22:39:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Yellow
Out of interest, where does the tennis prize money come from?
The sponsors, surely?
I guess so. And TV rights? And the price of tickets on the door?
Does it cost less to see a women's tennis match then a men's?
Given it's fewer sets it can only represent poor value for money.
Male or female, the prize money is I assume a fixed fee dependant on how
far they travel in the competition and is therefore unrelated to the
amount of hours they actually spend on the court?
Wow, if I got paid for travel to work.......................
And when I got to work I only had to work 1/2 as hard as
men..................
Yes I can see where you're coming from.
Good. :-) Because many people work for a fix fee, tied to results.
If it was an open market open to all without any gender bias I would
agree with you.
Post by Yellow
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
So is it also poor value for money if a male player wins every game in a
match, in straight sets, all with aces for example?
On balance of probabilities, I would hope even you can see that a men's
game will be longer than a women's?
I honestly do not know as I do not follow sport myself, but so what when
you have still failed to explain your fixation that prize money should
be tied to the number of minutes women as a group spend on the court but
not to the amount of time an individual player, regardless of gender,
spends on the court.
If time spent on court were to be decided upon as the rule to determine
prize money, then great, why not, but it seems you only what this to
apply to women.
No, I am saying the matches should have the same number of games. The
difference is there to be seen. Women rely upon power, just look at
Serena Williams' serve, men rely upon stamina and typically has a serve
slower that Williams.
If you want equality, it is there for the taking, but you seem to want
the advantage of both?
Do we say that the prize for running 100 metres should be less than the
prize for running 400 metres because that distance is shorter?

My view is that it should be about entertainment value, what the punter
is prepared to pay to watch and how many punters there are, which is
also a function of how much sponsorship is raised.
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
Meanwhile, I assume that people pay to see these folks all play?
Is it cheaper to see the women play? Is it less popular? Is there less
sponsorship? Are there less TV subscriptions/viewerships for the women's
matches over then men's? Because surely these are the actual factors
that should determine the pay of entertainers.
I believe womens' matches are less popular, BICBW.
Then the women generally are unlikely to get as money pay as the men as
there is less money available.
Post by Fredxxx
Personally, I rarely
watch sports so care even less.
Me neither but for some reason that I fail to understand beyond
attributing to sexism, "women's tennis" is repeatedly being held up as
justification for why women, in general, should earn less than men.
Fredxxx
2017-08-14 22:57:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Yellow
Out of interest, where does the tennis prize money come from?
The sponsors, surely?
I guess so. And TV rights? And the price of tickets on the door?
Does it cost less to see a women's tennis match then a men's?
Given it's fewer sets it can only represent poor value for money.
Male or female, the prize money is I assume a fixed fee dependant on how
far they travel in the competition and is therefore unrelated to the
amount of hours they actually spend on the court?
Wow, if I got paid for travel to work.......................
And when I got to work I only had to work 1/2 as hard as
men..................
Yes I can see where you're coming from.
Good. :-) Because many people work for a fix fee, tied to results.
If it was an open market open to all without any gender bias I would
agree with you.
Post by Yellow
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
So is it also poor value for money if a male player wins every game in a
match, in straight sets, all with aces for example?
On balance of probabilities, I would hope even you can see that a men's
game will be longer than a women's?
I honestly do not know as I do not follow sport myself, but so what when
you have still failed to explain your fixation that prize money should
be tied to the number of minutes women as a group spend on the court but
not to the amount of time an individual player, regardless of gender,
spends on the court.
If time spent on court were to be decided upon as the rule to determine
prize money, then great, why not, but it seems you only what this to
apply to women.
No, I am saying the matches should have the same number of games. The
difference is there to be seen. Women rely upon power, just look at
Serena Williams' serve, men rely upon stamina and typically has a serve
slower that Williams.
If you want equality, it is there for the taking, but you seem to want
the advantage of both?
Do we say that the prize for running 100 metres should be less than the
prize for running 400 metres because that distance is shorter?
I think you're missing the point.

If men can only compete at 400m and not have the stamina to run any
other distance, but women can run 100m, and still have enough puff to
run 200m, then we have a one sided sexist situation.

As it is Williams will play in singles and then in doubles. That is not
practical for men.
Post by Yellow
My view is that it should be about entertainment value, what the punter
is prepared to pay to watch and how many punters there are, which is
also a function of how much sponsorship is raised.
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
Meanwhile, I assume that people pay to see these folks all play?
Is it cheaper to see the women play? Is it less popular? Is there less
sponsorship? Are there less TV subscriptions/viewerships for the women's
matches over then men's? Because surely these are the actual factors
that should determine the pay of entertainers.
I believe womens' matches are less popular, BICBW.
Then the women generally are unlikely to get as money pay as the men as
there is less money available.
But they do, that is the point. They have even been threats of boycotts
in the past.
Post by Yellow
Post by Fredxxx
Personally, I rarely
watch sports so care even less.
Me neither but for some reason that I fail to understand beyond
attributing to sexism, "women's tennis" is repeatedly being held up as
justification for why women, in general, should earn less than men.
Only when they compete on equal terms will sexism will have no place in
the sport.
Yellow
2017-08-15 00:41:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
Do we say that the prize for running 100 metres should be less than the
prize for running 400 metres because that distance is shorter?
I think you're missing the point.
I understand your argument completely, I simply reject it.
Post by Fredxxx
If men can only compete at 400m and not have the stamina to run any
other distance, but women can run 100m, and still have enough puff to
run 200m, then we have a one sided sexist situation.
If women could only run 100 metres then we would not be paying to watch
them run 400 metres, but they can so we do - so there is no analogy.

In fact by your logic, we should probably pay women more than men for
them to run the same distances as it takes them longer to complete the
course.
Post by Fredxxx
As it is Williams will play in singles and then in doubles. That is not
practical for men.
Post by Yellow
My view is that it should be about entertainment value, what the punter
is prepared to pay to watch and how many punters there are, which is
also a function of how much sponsorship is raised.
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
Meanwhile, I assume that people pay to see these folks all play?
Is it cheaper to see the women play? Is it less popular? Is there less
sponsorship? Are there less TV subscriptions/viewerships for the women's
matches over then men's? Because surely these are the actual factors
that should determine the pay of entertainers.
I believe womens' matches are less popular, BICBW.
Then the women generally are unlikely to get as money pay as the men as
there is less money available.
But they do, that is the point. They have even been threats of boycotts
in the past.
I looked this up when it was discussed in the TV group, when the female
Dr Who was announced and we had the BBC pay sexism debate and, as per,
the topic of women's tennis came up, and there are only a small handful
of competitions where women get similar prizes to the men.

So - you are wrong.
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
Post by Fredxxx
Personally, I rarely
watch sports so care even less.
Me neither but for some reason that I fail to understand beyond
attributing to sexism, "women's tennis" is repeatedly being held up as
justification for why women, in general, should earn less than men.
Only when they compete on equal terms will sexism will have no place in
the sport.
Sexism has no place in sport, or any where else.
Fredxxx
2017-08-15 21:34:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
Do we say that the prize for running 100 metres should be less than the
prize for running 400 metres because that distance is shorter?
I think you're missing the point.
I understand your argument completely, I simply reject it.
Post by Fredxxx
If men can only compete at 400m and not have the stamina to run any
other distance, but women can run 100m, and still have enough puff to
run 200m, then we have a one sided sexist situation.
If women could only run 100 metres then we would not be paying to watch
them run 400 metres, but they can so we do - so there is no analogy.
In fact by your logic, we should probably pay women more than men for
them to run the same distances as it takes them longer to complete the
course.
Post by Fredxxx
As it is Williams will play in singles and then in doubles. That is not
practical for men.
Post by Yellow
My view is that it should be about entertainment value, what the punter
is prepared to pay to watch and how many punters there are, which is
also a function of how much sponsorship is raised.
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
Meanwhile, I assume that people pay to see these folks all play?
Is it cheaper to see the women play? Is it less popular? Is there less
sponsorship? Are there less TV subscriptions/viewerships for the women's
matches over then men's? Because surely these are the actual factors
that should determine the pay of entertainers.
I believe womens' matches are less popular, BICBW.
Then the women generally are unlikely to get as money pay as the men as
there is less money available.
But they do, that is the point. They have even been threats of boycotts
in the past.
I looked this up when it was discussed in the TV group, when the female
Dr Who was announced and we had the BBC pay sexism debate and, as per,
the topic of women's tennis came up, and there are only a small handful
of competitions where women get similar prizes to the men.
So - you are wrong.
The following get equal prize money
Australian Open
French Open
Wimbledon
US Open
Post by Yellow
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
Post by Fredxxx
Personally, I rarely
watch sports so care even less.
Me neither but for some reason that I fail to understand beyond
attributing to sexism, "women's tennis" is repeatedly being held up as
justification for why women, in general, should earn less than men.
Only when they compete on equal terms will sexism will have no place in
the sport.
Sexism has no place in sport, or any where else.
When the sexes compete together on a 'level playing field' then and only
then will sexism have no part in sport.

The only sport I can think of where true sexism doesn't exist is
Equestrian. Until then you seem to want your cake and eat it.
Yellow
2017-08-15 23:21:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
Do we say that the prize for running 100 metres should be less than the
prize for running 400 metres because that distance is shorter?
I think you're missing the point.
I understand your argument completely, I simply reject it.
Post by Fredxxx
If men can only compete at 400m and not have the stamina to run any
other distance, but women can run 100m, and still have enough puff to
run 200m, then we have a one sided sexist situation.
If women could only run 100 metres then we would not be paying to watch
them run 400 metres, but they can so we do - so there is no analogy.
In fact by your logic, we should probably pay women more than men for
them to run the same distances as it takes them longer to complete the
course.
Post by Fredxxx
As it is Williams will play in singles and then in doubles. That is not
practical for men.
Post by Yellow
My view is that it should be about entertainment value, what the punter
is prepared to pay to watch and how many punters there are, which is
also a function of how much sponsorship is raised.
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
Meanwhile, I assume that people pay to see these folks all play?
Is it cheaper to see the women play? Is it less popular? Is there less
sponsorship? Are there less TV subscriptions/viewerships for the women's
matches over then men's? Because surely these are the actual factors
that should determine the pay of entertainers.
I believe womens' matches are less popular, BICBW.
Then the women generally are unlikely to get as money pay as the men as
there is less money available.
But they do, that is the point. They have even been threats of boycotts
in the past.
I looked this up when it was discussed in the TV group, when the female
Dr Who was announced and we had the BBC pay sexism debate and, as per,
the topic of women's tennis came up, and there are only a small handful
of competitions where women get similar prizes to the men.
So - you are wrong.
The following get equal prize money
Australian Open
French Open
Wimbledon
US Open
Glad to hear it.
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
Post by Fredxxx
Personally, I rarely
watch sports so care even less.
Me neither but for some reason that I fail to understand beyond
attributing to sexism, "women's tennis" is repeatedly being held up as
justification for why women, in general, should earn less than men.
Only when they compete on equal terms will sexism will have no place in
the sport.
Sexism has no place in sport, or any where else.
When the sexes compete together on a 'level playing field' then and only
then will sexism have no part in sport.
The only sport I can think of where true sexism doesn't exist is
Equestrian. Until then you seem to want your cake and eat it.
Sexism - chauvinism, discrimination, prejudice, bias - has no place in
sport.

kat
2017-08-14 22:37:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Yellow
Out of interest, where does the tennis prize money come from?
The sponsors, surely?
I guess so. And TV rights? And the price of tickets on the door?
Does it cost less to see a women's tennis match then a men's?
Given it's fewer sets it can only represent poor value for money.
Male or female, the prize money is I assume a fixed fee dependant on how
far they travel in the competition and is therefore unrelated to the
amount of hours they actually spend on the court?
Wow, if I got paid for travel to work.......................
And when I got to work I only had to work 1/2 as hard as
men..................
Yes I can see where you're coming from.
Good. :-) Because many people work for a fix fee, tied to results.
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
So is it also poor value for money if a male player wins every game in a
match, in straight sets, all with aces for example?
On balance of probabilities, I would hope even you can see that a men's
game will be longer than a women's?
I honestly do not know as I do not follow sport myself, but so what when
you have still failed to explain your fixation that prize money should
be tied to the number of minutes women as a group spend on the court but
not to the amount of time an individual player, regardless of gender,
spends on the court.
If time spent on court were to be decided upon as the rule to determine
prize money, then great, why not, but it seems you only what this to
apply to women.
Meanwhile, I assume that people pay to see these folks all play?
Is it cheaper to see the women play? Is it less popular? Is there less
sponsorship? Are there less TV subscriptions/viewerships for the women's
matches over then men's? Because surely these are the actual factors
that should determine the pay of entertainers.
I can only comment on Wimbledon. You pay to go in and can wander around
the outside courts watching whatever you like. Or you pay for a ticket
for a seat in the Centre court, for example, and you have it for the day
for whatever is scheduled.

For the slams men's matches will probably last longer as they have to
play a minimum of 3 sets as opposed to women's 2, but any particular
match could indeed be over 6-0 6-0 6-0 with short games, while a women's
match could be fought to several deuces, 7-6 7-6 15-13 or something.
--
kat
Post by Yellow
^..^<
Yellow
2017-08-15 00:17:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@hotmail.com
says...
Post by kat
Post by Yellow
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Yellow
Out of interest, where does the tennis prize money come from?
The sponsors, surely?
I guess so. And TV rights? And the price of tickets on the door?
Does it cost less to see a women's tennis match then a men's?
Given it's fewer sets it can only represent poor value for money.
Male or female, the prize money is I assume a fixed fee dependant on how
far they travel in the competition and is therefore unrelated to the
amount of hours they actually spend on the court?
Wow, if I got paid for travel to work.......................
And when I got to work I only had to work 1/2 as hard as
men..................
Yes I can see where you're coming from.
Good. :-) Because many people work for a fix fee, tied to results.
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
So is it also poor value for money if a male player wins every game in a
match, in straight sets, all with aces for example?
On balance of probabilities, I would hope even you can see that a men's
game will be longer than a women's?
I honestly do not know as I do not follow sport myself, but so what when
you have still failed to explain your fixation that prize money should
be tied to the number of minutes women as a group spend on the court but
not to the amount of time an individual player, regardless of gender,
spends on the court.
If time spent on court were to be decided upon as the rule to determine
prize money, then great, why not, but it seems you only what this to
apply to women.
Meanwhile, I assume that people pay to see these folks all play?
Is it cheaper to see the women play? Is it less popular? Is there less
sponsorship? Are there less TV subscriptions/viewerships for the women's
matches over then men's? Because surely these are the actual factors
that should determine the pay of entertainers.
I can only comment on Wimbledon. You pay to go in and can wander around
the outside courts watching whatever you like. Or you pay for a ticket
for a seat in the Centre court, for example, and you have it for the day
for whatever is scheduled.
Oh OK - so you do not buy a ticket for a particular game. Interesting,
thanks.
Post by kat
For the slams men's matches will probably last longer as they have to
play a minimum of 3 sets as opposed to women's 2, but any particular
match could indeed be over 6-0 6-0 6-0 with short games, while a women's
match could be fought to several deuces, 7-6 7-6 15-13 or something.
That is what I was trying to say to Fredxx. While I appreciate that
women's tennis has a lower limit on the maximum number of games that
does not mean that, on average, women spend less time on the court than
men.

Of course they might, I have no idea, but in any case it is clearly not
the point as we do not pay any sports folk based on how many minutes
they spend engaged in their match-day activities.

We do not pay footballers, rugby players, cricketers or F1 drivers for
the minutes they are on the pitch/track but for their worth as part of a
spectacle that viewers are prepared to pay for and their ability to
attract sponsors.

So why do some folk keep arguing that it should be the key to
calculating how much women tennis players, but only women tennis
players, are compensated?
kat
2017-08-15 08:23:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
says...
Post by kat
Post by Yellow
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
Post by Vidcapper
Post by Yellow
Out of interest, where does the tennis prize money come from?
The sponsors, surely?
I guess so. And TV rights? And the price of tickets on the door?
Does it cost less to see a women's tennis match then a men's?
Given it's fewer sets it can only represent poor value for money.
Male or female, the prize money is I assume a fixed fee dependant on how
far they travel in the competition and is therefore unrelated to the
amount of hours they actually spend on the court?
Wow, if I got paid for travel to work.......................
And when I got to work I only had to work 1/2 as hard as
men..................
Yes I can see where you're coming from.
Good. :-) Because many people work for a fix fee, tied to results.
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Yellow
So is it also poor value for money if a male player wins every game in a
match, in straight sets, all with aces for example?
On balance of probabilities, I would hope even you can see that a men's
game will be longer than a women's?
I honestly do not know as I do not follow sport myself, but so what when
you have still failed to explain your fixation that prize money should
be tied to the number of minutes women as a group spend on the court but
not to the amount of time an individual player, regardless of gender,
spends on the court.
If time spent on court were to be decided upon as the rule to determine
prize money, then great, why not, but it seems you only what this to
apply to women.
Meanwhile, I assume that people pay to see these folks all play?
Is it cheaper to see the women play? Is it less popular? Is there less
sponsorship? Are there less TV subscriptions/viewerships for the women's
matches over then men's? Because surely these are the actual factors
that should determine the pay of entertainers.
I can only comment on Wimbledon. You pay to go in and can wander around
the outside courts watching whatever you like. Or you pay for a ticket
for a seat in the Centre court, for example, and you have it for the day
for whatever is scheduled.
Oh OK - so you do not buy a ticket for a particular game. Interesting,
thanks.
No, you get several games if you buy a Centre Court ticket. There is a
general sort of schedule - 1st day, 1st match, last year's male winner
against some unseeded player, running through the rounds and days to the
final. Centre Court will always have the top players' matches, things
might run late and you expect a quarter final but it's still the
previous round, the top seeds might get knocked out early.. So you don't
know exactly what you will see until you get there.

I have only been once and only with a ticket to wander around the
outside courts. Much cheaper and still see some good stuff. :-)
Post by Yellow
Post by kat
For the slams men's matches will probably last longer as they have to
play a minimum of 3 sets as opposed to women's 2, but any particular
match could indeed be over 6-0 6-0 6-0 with short games, while a women's
match could be fought to several deuces, 7-6 7-6 15-13 or something.
That is what I was trying to say to Fredxx. While I appreciate that
women's tennis has a lower limit on the maximum number of games that
does not mean that, on average, women spend less time on the court than
men.
On average, in the majors, they will. A lot of men's matches do go to 4
or 5 sets. But men's tennis got boring for a few years, all aces and
serve and volley, very rare to see a good back and forth that lasted. I
think they did something with the balls, was supposed to slow them down.
Still seems fast but somehow we see more strategy and less brute strength.
Post by Yellow
Of course they might, I have no idea, but in any case it is clearly not
the point as we do not pay any sports folk based on how many minutes
they spend engaged in their match-day activities.
We do not pay footballers, rugby players, cricketers or F1 drivers for
the minutes they are on the pitch/track but for their worth as part of a
spectacle that viewers are prepared to pay for and their ability to
attract sponsors.
So why do some folk keep arguing that it should be the key to
calculating how much women tennis players, but only women tennis
players, are compensated?
I can vaguely see where they are coming from, you pay for a day ticket
and see a number of matches, which on average will be fewer ( while
taking the same time ) if it is all male than if it is all female.
Thus more women need to be paid from the same ticket money.

But as far as I can see the one and only thing that really matters is -
who is it that people want to watch playing? If men are a bigger draw
then sure, pay them a bit more. Or, make the women more interesting -
make their matches 5 sets too. I am sure they could do it.
--
kat
Post by Yellow
^..^<
Yellow
2017-08-15 11:34:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@hotmail.com
says...
Post by kat
Post by Yellow
Of course they might, I have no idea, but in any case it is clearly not
the point as we do not pay any sports folk based on how many minutes
they spend engaged in their match-day activities.
We do not pay footballers, rugby players, cricketers or F1 drivers for
the minutes they are on the pitch/track but for their worth as part of a
spectacle that viewers are prepared to pay for and their ability to
attract sponsors.
So why do some folk keep arguing that it should be the key to
calculating how much women tennis players, but only women tennis
players, are compensated?
I can vaguely see where they are coming from, you pay for a day ticket
and see a number of matches, which on average will be fewer ( while
taking the same time ) if it is all male than if it is all female.
Thus more women need to be paid from the same ticket money.
I was not trying to create an argument to promote the paying of tennis
players by the hour, quite the opposite, I was trying to give reasons
for why I think there should be more too it than an argument based on
women being weak and inferior to justify them being paid less.

They all have to train for the same number of hours and they all have
the same expenses and they all have to draw an interest from sponsors
and the public.
Post by kat
But as far as I can see the one and only thing that really matters is -
who is it that people want to watch playing?
Yes - that is my view too.
Post by kat
If men are a bigger draw
then sure, pay them a bit more. Or, make the women more interesting -
make their matches 5 sets too. I am sure they could do it.
Loading...