Women's tennis as the mainstream sports exception

[alexrgct]

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id...is-title-ix-pride-emotional-wimbledon-weekend

The above-referenced link is a fascinating exercise in contradiction...and one that is common, though rarely articulated so beautifully.

Louisa Thomas speaks here to the futility and ludicrousness of comparing Serena's serve to men's. But at the same time, she expresses an inability to enjoy women's BB...because the level of play is below that of men.

Like I said, this is common. Tennis has always been and continues to be the most popular women's sport by a long way. And I'd posit that a large percentage of the sport's audience isn't just tuning in to ogle leggy Russian chicks...or at least not exclusively. Louisa Thomas certainly isn't. I'm not either- well, not exclusively.

So we live in a world where people do embrace women's tennis for what it is without having to harp on what it isn't. Why don't other women's sports get the same treatment?

With basketball, it may be that the NBA has pushed dunking so much since the 1970s that a large portion of its audience doesn't appreciate a version of the sport without it. It doesn't help that WBB makes way too big a deal any time a woman does dunk, thereby validating this bias. What I appreciate about the women's game is more subtle. And that subtlety can be easily buried when you're promoting dunking. Perhaps it's the lack of parity at the college level. Maybe selling a team sport has a unique set of challenges.

In any case, I think it's worth talking about. Why does tennis get the pass it gets. Why, as the article suggests, do we not care whether or not Serena's serve is as effective as Fernando Verdasco's, but immediately make analogous comparisons with WBB? And why does Louisa Thomas in particular articulate this fundamental contradiction? I'm asking because if WBB can't win Louisa, how can it win a broader audience?

 

[UcMiami]

An interesting discussion certainly. I believe part of the issue is as you say, the marketing of a specific aspects of a sport. But I also think there are other issues involved. I haven't researched numbers, but I am sure the two recreational sports with the highest female participation after college are: tennis and golf. And the two highest paying professional women's sports are tennis and golf. It helps that they are both individual sports that require more hand/eye coordination than pure physical strength to excel at, so no one questions that while the best male would consistently beat the best female, the best female would beat a mediocre male.
With tennis specifically - I think the big rise in the money in the women's game also cooresponded to a period of men's tennis where the average male 'rally' probably consisted of around 3 strikes of the ball - service winner, serve and return winner, or serve return and volly winner. That became somewhat boring, and watching the women was actually more exciting.
With tennis and golf, the women pros are so obviously better than the male audience members (who mostly play recreationally), that respect for them is easy. Not many men or women actually play pick-up basketball after their school years.
If you look at other sports - the more popular women's ones are all individual sports where it is the athete against the clock or against an ideal of perfection. And some of those the women's athletes are probably more popular than the male (gymnastics.)
And I agree - I find pro men's basketball generally pretty boring (and a lot of the college games as well.) Team play is seldom on display and the individual skills/athletic ability have outdistanced the difficult in the game. I do remember the days when seeing a guard dunk was a shock and really wouldn't mind seeing the basket raised 12-18".

 

[wire chief]

For the tennis majors, as well as several other tournament, the men and women are packaged together with the same
audience, giving fans the opportunity at appreciating the women's game. Also the women have been (eventually) successful at getting similar pay, increasing the reality that the women's game is a "big deal" too.

 

[alexrgct]

For the tennis majors, as well as several other tournament, the men and women are packaged together with the same
audience, giving fans the opportunity at appreciating the women's game. Also the women have been (eventually) successful at getting similar pay, increasing the reality that the women's game is a "big deal" too.

You raise an interesting point because, paradoxically, I agree that being able to package the men's and women's tours together at the majors (and a couple of other events throughout the year) has been beneficial to both tours, and yet conversely, trying to package the NBA and WNBA (which has been attempted in limited ways like during All-Star weekend) has been met largely with derision and resentment from the NBA's core audience.

Is there something to the notion that individual sports are easier to sell, where the sole focus allow the player's personality, style of play, and yes, physical beauty, to be more appreciated by the observer? Maybe the business model is easier to support. There are individual events with prize money and such, but no one entity is responsible for the salaries of everyone associated with supporting the sport (players, coaches, arena personnel, front office, marketing, etc.).

 

[easttexastrash]

Almost everyone has played some tennis and can appreciate the talent level. Many have never played basketball so it is not as relatable.

 

[EricLA]

if i had to guess, i'd say because the women's game in tennis looks very similar to the mens' game in tennis. of course if you held them up side by side, you'd be able to see the faster pace of the men's game, but the women's game is very similar LOOKING (ie. in appearance). Women serve in the 90-110 MPH range for the better servers. Roger and Andy were in the 120-130 range when they uncorked. And players like Serena, K. Clijsters, V. Azarenka, and M. Sharapova can crack the ground strokes at a very high pace.

Golf and Bowling are very similar. Sure you can tell that Wie drives the ball less yards than Tiger, but unless they are on the course together, it's not as dramatic as women playing below the rim in hoops and men playing above it.

one other thing that stands out to me is the general fan base. Football, especially, seems to attract fans who appreciate the physical punishment of the game and if you go to any football game (hockey is similar), the amount of testosterone is much higher than at a tennis match.

I know baseball is supposed to be "america's pastime", but go to any Padres/Yankees or Padres/Red Sox game and you will actually see fights break out between the fans, and those teams aren't even natural rivals.

i've never been to a NBA game, but i have to imagine the testosterone levels are also much higher than at a tennis match...