People would rather watch the #1 and 2 women play than the 499th and 5000th male players square off. Does that seem unfair to you?
I'm a big fan of women's sports... I'm just saying that mcenroe was actually being generous with 700... I mean the top women's mile of all time is 412 and that's probably drug enhanced... I think 416 would be a more realistic natural version... Anyway I guarantee you there's 5 thousand men that can break 416..
NCAA has 483 guys running 10.62 or better... What percentage of the world would that be maybe 10% at most so easily 5,000 guys around the world could run sub 10.62... actually probably way more cuz I'm sure it is several hundred in high school and that's only the US and then professionals got to be $20,000 guys around the world that could do it maybe more maybe 50,000
I'm a big fan of women's sports... I'm just saying that mcenroe was actually being generous with 700... I mean the top women's mile of all time is 412 and that's probably drug enhanced... I think 416 would be a more realistic natural version... Anyway I guarantee you there's 5 thousand men that can break 416..
Exactly what’s the point of this thread?
Just accurate information about reality... And pointing out that mcenroe who is giving a hard time was being incredibly overly optimistic saying 700. This easily 5,000 guys and honestly probably 10,000 guys that can beat the top women in the world... It doesn't take anything away from women's sports you can still enjoy it... it's women competing against other women... but it's just the reality that the same way there's a lot of guys who can run faster than a woman... it doesn't mean that it's still not a great accomplishment for her in her respective sport... Also just kind of chewing the fat
Just accurate information about reality... And pointing out that mcenroe who is giving a hard time was being incredibly overly optimistic saying 700. This easily 5,000 guys and honestly probably 10,000 guys that can beat the top women in the world... It doesn't take anything away from women's sports you can still enjoy it... it's women competing against other women... but it's just the reality that the same way there's a lot of guys who can run faster than a woman... it doesn't mean that it's still not a great accomplishment for her in her respective sport... Also just kind of chewing the fat
Maybe OK for chewing the fat but nonsense otherwise.
There is roughly a billion men on the planet between the ages of 15 and 35... The ages where it's possible to run under 10.7 for 100 m... If 1% of the men could do it that would be 10 million men. If 0.1% of the men could do it that would be 1 million men. If .01% that would be one out of 10,000 that would still be 100,000 men...
I'm going to go with that number and say 100,000 men walking this planet can run under 10.7 for 100 m... Since tennis is a little bit more of a specialized sport that takes skill and is only played by a small fraction of the people in the world I would say 5,000 is a good estimate!
What it also suggests is that if a male player who is considerably better than a player ranked 5000 chose to compete as a woman he/she would be the best in the world in the female category. Renee Richards, who transitioned in her thirties, virtually said as much. She became a top female pro tennis player in the '70's but has recently said if she had transitioned in her early twenties no female player would have stood a chance against her. With the current debate about trans and DSD female participation in women's sport the situation she describes could well occur. The implications for women's tennis/sport are not merely academic.
What it also suggests is that if a male player who is considerably better than a player ranked 5000 chose to compete as a woman he/she would be the best in the world in the female category. Renee Richards, who transitioned in her thirties, virtually said as much. She became a top female pro tennis player in the '70's but has recently said if she had transitioned in her early twenties no female player would have stood a chance against her. With the current debate about trans and DSD female participation in women's sport the situation she describes could well occur. The implications for women's tennis/sport are not merely academic.
It’s been almost 50 years since Richards played but there has yet to be a second transgender player in the WTA.
Might be more like Serena would be a match up for a guy ranked closer to 1,000 than 5,000.
However, Serena obviously gets better coaching, and financial rewards to help her get the best coaching and physios and equipment etc, than does the number 1,000 man, let alone the number 5,000 man.
In other words, if we didn't segregate sports by gender, then Serena probably wouldn't be in the top 50,000, because she would be a no name amateur at her local club.
The same holds true for running, but to a lesser extent (given that tennis is more dependent on coaching, facilities, equipment etc).
Because a good understanding of reality is important
If you think that whether Serena would lose to 700, 7000 or 70,000 men is “important” then we have wildly different understandings of the definition of that word.
Because a good understanding of reality is important
If you think that whether Serena would lose to 700, 7000 or 70,000 men is “important” then we have wildly different understandings of the definition of that word.
I didn't say the question in itself was vitally important... But it reflects a general societal trend to value fantasy over reality... And to keep certain cultural stories as being more relevant than accurate information about reality...We have stories about how alcohol isn't that big of a deal or ....how junk food isn't that big of a deal ....or how selling poisonous artificially colored sugar water to kids isn't that big of a deal... And it all stems from the same basic vitally important ignorance about facts about reality...
And is any question about sports really vitally important?
So no the question itself isn't vitally important but it's like anything it's how we approach things it's how we have understanding of things... Serena's a good player and sure she could beat a man ranked 1,000 on any given day...
But the fact is if they actually ranked people and had everyone compete together she would probably be somewhere around $5,000... It's not a knock on her it's still great to watch women compete and that's nice for people to enjoy but it doesn't mean that we can't also have a good understanding
I think this sort of debate over estimates the depth of men's professional tennis. When you get outside of the top 200 men's players, the quality of play starts to drop off. Unforced errors go up pretty significantly when you get further down into challenger players. I think you would hit a balance between the power differential between men and women and the accuracy and shot making of top women players somewhere in the 500-750 range for men's rankings.
Serena and Venus played a 200 ranked German player in 2002 for fun. He won both matches and noted that the main difference was that the men play a lot more spin than women on the tour. I think that has changed a lot since 2002 as the women have gained some power and play more spin today. Women are able to return men's serves and do so in mixed doubles all the time. So, if you take a human backboard like Iga Swiatek and put her up against a male player in the 500-750 range, Iga would have a good shot just due to her accuracy and ability to return anything.
I'm a big fan of women's sports... I'm just saying that mcenroe was actually being generous with 700... I mean the top women's mile of all time is 412 and that's probably drug enhanced... I think 416 would be a more realistic natural version... Anyway I guarantee you there's 5 thousand men that can break 416..
Let's say McEnroe was being very generous when he said that Serena Williams was equal to the 700th best man. What's the difference? Why do you care? They aren't actually ever going to play each other, so why does it matter to you?
I was surprised at his assessment (700th) also. I would think that it’s way lower than that. Either he did not want to push the point too much or she is really that good.
Reality is if a guy could become a multi millionaire if he beat the #1 woman, there would be a lot more guys that would stick with the sport or start with the sport. I would have to assume that the number would be closer to 25000 to 50000 (or more?)
A lot of people play tennis and a lot of people are really good... The sport is basically athleticism... Yes you have to learn the technique and there is a lot of skill involved but at the end of the day it comes down to your physical ability... She might occasionally be able to beat someone who's 500 or 700 or 1,000... But like I said there's just too many guys that are really good and that are super competitive... If they ranked everyone she wouldn't be higher than 3 or 4,000... After all it's an international sport... Lots of dudes play and lots of dudes are really good
Tennis is actually a good sport to draw a distinction between the genders and how those impact performance, as we have an accurate case study in Renee Richard. Renee was a lower level tour player as a male for a few years before fading away and getting a day job. After transitioning to female (including surgery and hormones) Renee came back and played on the women's tour losing the US Open doubles final to Martina Navratilova and her partner. Renee eventually retired from professional tennis at the ripe age of 47 (far older than most individuals are able to play. Renee eventually acknowledged the advantage held over female competitors stating:
"Having lived for the past 30 years, I know if I'd had surgery at the age of 22, and then at 24 went on the tour, no genetic woman in the world would have been able to come close to me. And so I've reconsidered my opinion."
To me, this should end the conversation on trans athletes in competitive sports, as the first high profile trans athlete has acknowledged their unfair advantage.
I think this sort of debate over estimates the depth of men's professional tennis. When you get outside of the top 200 men's players, the quality of play starts to drop off. Unforced errors go up pretty significantly when you get further down into challenger players. I think you would hit a balance between the power differential between men and women and the accuracy and shot making of top women players somewhere in the 500-750 range for men's rankings.
Serena and Venus played a 200 ranked German player in 2002 for fun. He won both matches and noted that the main difference was that the men play a lot more spin than women on the tour. I think that has changed a lot since 2002 as the women have gained some power and play more spin today. Women are able to return men's serves and do so in mixed doubles all the time. So, if you take a human backboard like Iga Swiatek and put her up against a male player in the 500-750 range, Iga would have a good shot just due to her accuracy and ability to return anything.
Sorry, but as a tennis player and long time follower of the game I would say you are way off the mark. Small differences in level become a chasm in the score-line. I will give you an example. Stefanos Tsitsipas is currently one of the best players in the world. In his recent final in the Rome Open he lost the first set to Djokovic 6-0 (and the match). The differences between a male player in the 700's and Swiatek are still so wide that that she would be unlikely to get a game. For the male player, the difference in strength, speed and agility - which translates into more effective shot making - is such that it would be little different from playing a very good teenage boy of about 14. No contest. Mixed doubles is not an apt comparison as each player only has to cover half the court, so to speak, and the woman is supported by a much stronger male player. As Tsitsipas match against Djokovic showed, a singles match between the best women and even a lowly ranked male would be a massacre. Sure - the women's game has improved; but so has the men's game - at every level. I see good local players today hitting the ball harder than the top pro's did twenty or so years ago.
What it also suggests is that if a male player who is considerably better than a player ranked 5000 chose to compete as a woman he/she would be the best in the world in the female category. Renee Richards, who transitioned in her thirties, virtually said as much. She became a top female pro tennis player in the '70's but has recently said if she had transitioned in her early twenties no female player would have stood a chance against her. With the current debate about trans and DSD female participation in women's sport the situation she describes could well occur. The implications for women's tennis/sport are not merely academic.
It’s been almost 50 years since Richards played but there has yet to be a second transgender player in the WTA.
True - but we are seeing an increase in trans gender participation in women's sports generally. It will happen again in tennis. As I said, a reasonably good male player who identifies as female would beat the best cis women.