Quote:
Originally posted by robustpuppy
The difference for Serena and other top female tennis players is that now, even though they are not competing against the men, they are competing in the same big tournaments. If the men's and women's tours didn't converge at the Grand Slams women's tennis would never be as visible as men's.
Serena doesn't have to prove she can play as well as the men because she gets to kick ass on Center Court and in Arthur Ashe stadium and do it in front of essentially the same audience that will watch the men's match the next day. It wouldn't be the same if Women's Wimbledon were an entirely separate competition that took place at another time. If the only way Serena could show her talent to a wider audience were to compete against men, she would probably want to do it however much it would suck.
As you suggest, that's the essential unfairness of Sorenstam's position. She can't be just like Serena because she cannot compete against women in the same arena as the men.
|
I think this is a good point. But your argument essentially is, people aren't as interested in women's sports as they are in men's and the only reason why Serena and women's tennis is so successful is because it is completely linked to men's sports. Therefore, Sorenstam needs to identify herself with men (or the best because in this case the two are interchangeable) in order to achieve similar success.
I think this is unhealthy. I think that she should continue to dominate against women and the LPGA and everyone else should look into why women's sports and women's golf (in specific) isn't as popular. Maybe the answer is as simple as, "people want to watch the best." But I don't think that's true because I would rather watch women's tennis than men's any day. So what is it?
TM
