Even rarer than the eclipsing of the Sun is the forthcoming quarterfinal match between two bright stars of the ATP circuit: Marat Safin and Feliciano Lopez. Indeed, this stellar event has only occurred five times in the last six years.
Please heed this dire Public Servicing Announcement!
Such a collision of exquisiteness is hazardous to your health. The simultaneous impact of the imposing, rakish Russian and the suave Spaniard in the same orbit is unfortunately too much sensory stimuli for most #### sapiens to endure!!!
Particularly those that described Tuesday’s 25 degree Celsius (77F) temperature in London to be “boiling.” Hmmm... royalty unfamiliar with cauldron and oil? Surely, they jest!
Bah! They've yet to know HOT until Safin and FeLo grace the grass!
The athleticism of this masculine pair of celestial bodies has potential to render you sightless! Deafen your ears!! Outright SLAY you!!!
In the self-interest of philanthropy, I have agreed to take on the burden of your Court One tickets, whilst you instead fortify your vision with vitamin C & manganese-rich strawberries. Cream if you desire.
My bravery will afford you the opportunity to lay eyes on the green lawns of the All-England Club once again. Even as soon as the Arnaud Clement-Rainer Schuettler match, which is a more humanly sufferable amount of charm on one court.
Please bequeath all tickets to:
The Ever-Obsessed Ambassador MCLioness
Solo Inhabitant of the Safinfatuated Solar System
Allsaid paper tokens shall be duly recycled.
Those with Ground Admission tickets, please refrain from alms, though your intent is appreciated. I’ve no aspirations to be a jill on Henman Hill. (Lo, I cannot touch the lately christened Murray Mound... though begging for punnery, I favor the more Middle-Ages Brit to the Scot Brat!)
To further proffer my body in the names of both Science and Deity, I shall bear witness to this heavenly event at the risk of losing ALL my senses! I will do so without the projection of a camera obscura! Without shield for my orbs! No plugs for my ears or nose! I shall even deny myself garments as inspiration to the combatants!!!!
I have been training myself for ages, hardening myself with the virtual countenance of Safin more than any body has thus far or shall again.
The afterimage of his visage already engulfs my brain, an affliction I do not wish to share with my worst enemy, nor any other soul. What remains to be tested is my forbearance to withstand his entire physical, sweaty, screaming, ball-pounding presence. I even dare to measure his luminosity in foot candles!
Please, please, Peasants... You marvel at my generosity and sacrifice, but reassure yourselves that my personal gratification is well in hand.
The 187 cm (6’2”) Lopez has less of an influence on my involuntary and voluntary responses. However this lefty, whom flirts on the verge of pretty, moonlights as a model for a reason.
Women in history worked to build us a home. It's our job to own it.
Danica. Wie. Many debates in sports are currently revolving around a woman's place in athletics. A great topic as a whole, but not always with the best focus.
I plan to post on more than one aspect and sport, but my first fandom love takes priority. Now that I have come to terms with the fact that same man -- whose name I refuse to mention -- knocked Marat Safin out of the last two majors, I can return to discussing tennis without going on a rampage. (Perhaps I can shake Marat's sugar tree by hinting to my growing admiration for Russia's number three, Dmitry Tursunov, one hell o####ood blogger. Hilarious...
Wimbledon now singles itself out by being the only Grand Slam that does not offer equal prize money to men and women champions. The WTA and its female athletes have challenged this discrepancy for years. The debate became more heated this year and even the home country itself appears to be calling for an update.
In April, French Open organizers created additional pressure on the All England Club by raising the Roland Garros women's singles championship purse to match the men's winnings.*
To understate things, this business steamed me up a bit at first. I was ready to denounce the All England Club to the Dark Ages...
The focus and headlines on this topic in major media have been mostly financial. This fight for equal pay is important! According to the U.S. Census Bureau, women earned an average of 77 cents to each $1 men earned in 2004.
But this tennis debate is not just about the money! To make that the main or only issue is too simplistic. I want to see the women take on Wimbly's measure for equality.
Part of Wimbledon's stance -- which has its logic and at least a facade of fairness -- is that the men usually put more time on court per match. Men's matches are best of five, women play best of three.
Physiologically, women are different from men. (Call me mistress of the obvious.) And aren't we all appreciative of that! Still... despite an emphasis on isolated strength and speed in mainstream American sports, men do not have all the athletic advantages. In general, women have greater range of motion, muscle endurance, resilience to fatigue and pain tolerance. (Just ask your mama.)
Tennis is a multi-dimensional sport, a combination of those various physical skills. But there should be no question of endurance; we already know the women are capable of playing the same duration as the men currently do.
Back in 1892, New Yorker Elisabeth Moore and Mabel Cahill of Ireland played the first women's five-set match ever. Moore lost that U.S. title match, but earned it in 1901 by winning two five-set matches in successive days: 4-6, 1-6, 9-7, 9-7, 6-3 and 6-4, 3-6, 7-5, 2-6, 6-2.
The 105 games alarmed the men who ran the USTA. They decreed best-of-three-set finals thereafter. Moore and the other women hadn't complained about five-set matches and said they felt "dissatisfied" by the decision and patronized by the male establishment.
The men were alarmed?! Ooooo.... What a bunch of cupcakes.
Moore played 105 games in two days, 105 years ago.
Where are we today?
From 1984-1998, the year-end WTA Tour Championships were best of five sets. And many of the elite women log time playing deep into singles and doubles draws in Slams.
The latter is actually part of Wimbledon's argument. The opportunity to stay fresh enough to compete in multiple draws, they say, gives women more of a chance for total tournament earnings.
"The issue is one of a judgment on fairness," All England Club chairman Tim Phillips said, according to the Associated Press. "We believe that what we do at the moment is actually fair to the men as well as to the women."
I am willing to fight for equality for both men and women. (A seeming redundancy, but I mean that I will get scrappy in favor of the men as well.) I can't pretend to know the true motivations of the people behind the financial decisions. But what they say makes sense. If the women offer to play best of five, we can see whether Wimbledon is giving lip service or not.
This is far from being just a Marat and Venus issue. Proponents for and against equal pay use player popularity and match revenue as their reasoning, each to their advantage. This emphasis saddens me; as I have stated before, it is not what I want sports to be about. Nor do I want those things to determine the direction of tennis.
But I am pragmatic enough to know it already has a role. However, the income of a tennis player is not a simple, clear-on-paper thing. Incentives and endorsements are affected by decisions made in tournaments. I don't understand it all myself, but I don't care for some of what I know. (Read as: In part, Maria Sharapova being the highest paid female athlete.)
And there is always luck of the draw...
Playing time is clearly something worth fighting for, but the solution there is not so easy.
Even those who focus this debate on equal playing expectations are divided over whether best of three sets or five is better for the sport. Some feel five is too drawn out. Three leaving too much to luck. A possible solution is best of three in the early rounds, best of five in the quarters and beyond. Equal for both men and women.
To actually put this idea into practice would be quite a challenge that goes beyond one tournament, or even the four Slams. Elite players struggle with injuries and tournament draws weaken because of the long season already and players have been calling for change.**
Women's tennis is somewhat of a model. The sport as a whole already does a lot of things right. People are watching the game alongside the men's. And I'd like to think it's not all about the cleavage. (The attire debate is another statement from Wimbledon that I feel was misrepresented in the media.)
But over a century ago, women felt patronized by the insistence that they play less of a match than a man would. I am flummoxed that this has not been consistently lobbied since then.
The joy and opportunity to play is a gift some hard-working women, such as Elisabeth Moore, have given us. Athletics offers opportunities for personal growth, and these days, possibly a chance to make a career with sport as the sole source of income. But personally, I would pursue the passion of doing something one loves over money.
I have mostly played co-ed or sports that have a male team counterpart. And for the most part, I was not asked to do less than a man would and I felt respected as an equal. Some differences in various sports can be understood. But time in the game is not one of them.
As more women participate in sports, the gender gap in athletic performance narrows. Some studies support theories that women will equal or surpass men in endurance sports. In some sports, there is already evidence of this.
Tennis has long been at the forefront of calling for gender equality in sport and raising awareness of women's issues. Kudos to those women who have made history and those those who continue to make their voices heard.
Currently, the women of tennis have quite a platform and influence on the media, as well as a strong showing of both female and male fans. This cannot be said for all women's sports.
And the tennis community is always on alert and debating possible changes to make tennis better -- more interesting and challenging. Some ideas revolve around emphasizing human performance and less technology.
Making the change in a sport that looks to adapt seems like a good match. (No pun intended.)
For me to just rant about Wimbledon and cry, "Pay them what they deserve already!" feels like a platitude. I'd rather see this issue stay on the table, because of all the intricacies that are tied to it. Many good things can come from hashing this out. In tennis, in the larger arena of women's athletics and even in gender relations. Finding a solution that balances all these things to the good would take quite a think tank. But it would be worth it.
My always ready answer on how to fix tennis? More Marat.
But that's just my flippant response. I am a fan of both the men's and women's game. Would I give up some early round Safin to see Petrova punish Sharapova in four? Or Kimmie slug it out with Amelie in a five-set final?
You bet!
And my response had nothing to do with the fact that best two out of three would have put Safin into the third round of Wimbly this year, or that I would be just as happy watching his off-court antics.
Things missing in much of women's sports overall are consistency, carrying momentum, a passing of the torch and knowledge of our history. (A theme I intend to return to.) It seems the our "breakthroughs" are often repeat breakthroughs. That the groundwork was laid but not enhanced, and in some cases not even maintained. How many pioneers do we need to accomplish the same thing?
Tennis has had a consistent and fascinating female presence. But I wonder where things would be today if women had been playing five sets all along. Would things already be financially equal? Would there have been other breakthroughs? The financial aspect should be pursued, but my voice would also echo Elisabeth Moore's. To have the women play less than the men is disrespectful.
Own that court, ladies, and your time there. I can take it... My mom didn't raise a cupcake.
* This update in French Open policy only affects the women's champion. Justine Henin-Hardenne's check matched Rafael Nadal's. The other female players still received less than their male counterparts.
** To have the women play more, without give somewhere else, would only exacerbate the problem of overuse injuries. If the sacrifice was withdrawal from doubles and mixed doubles that would possibly be a mistake. Doubles has its own appeal and rightful place. And players who include those matches gain skills for their singles games. Again, a multi-layered issue.
On the other hand, to have the men play less may benefit. Some of the top players met recently with the ATP to discuss scheduling and lessening their required commitments set for the season. Changes are expected in 2008.
The changes may include the reduction of status or even elimination of some tournaments. Again, because of money, somebody is not going to be happy and negotiating this will be difficult. But it is probably the best solution in the interest of the players and their health.
The women already moved the Fed Cup final to give themselves a longer time off to recover as recommended between seasons.
The sport is not stagnant. The continued debate is healthy.
The Sharapova Shift: Less Love for Clijsters& Co.(Part one in a series)
Maria Sharapova undeniably draws attention to women's tennis, and tennis as a whole.
But the kind of coverage she gets in mainstream American media shifts attention away from other deserving athletes on the WTA Tour, and possibly female athletes in other sports.
Back in December, the LPGA's Annika Sorenstam deservedly won the 2005 AP Female Athlete of the Year. Though she won in a landslide, seven other women received votes.
Tennis was the most represented sport, with three athletes garnering votes: Sharapova had 5 votes, Venus Williams -- 4, and Belgium's Kim Clijsters -- two. Two. Nine other U.S. sports editors of the AP, whose mission is to be "the global news network," looked to the sport of tennis and still overlooked Clijsters -- the woman the International Tennis Writer's Association voted 2005 Player of the Year.
Tennis is a glamorous sport and when it comes time for formal appearances and runway struts, Clijsters can doll it up with the best of them. But in evaluating who was the best player of the year, it's all about how a woman rocks a racquet, not a dress.
At the beginning of 2005, Clijsters' future in tennis was questionable. She didn't even enter the Australian Open. At the end of the year, Clijsters ranked higher than Sharapova and Williams. She also had a more compelling story.
KIM POSSIBLE:While splits are a common tactic on clay, Clijsters is unique in her ability to use this to her advantage on all surfaces.
THE GLORY
Sharapova reached world number one on the WTA Tour and was the first Russian woman ever to gain that honor. But her reign only lasted seven weeks. While Sharapova showed consistency in the year's four Grand Slams, American Lindsay Davenport was better. Davenport owned the top ranking the rest of the year; Clijsters came two matches away from taking it away from her.
At year-end, Clijsters ranked second, Sharapova -- fourth, and Venus -- tenth.
Though lower ranked, Venus did something Sharapova did not do in 2005, she played a Grand Slam final. Venus hadn't won a Slam since 2001 and many thought she'd never resurface. In recent times, she'd been slowed by niggling injury and many surmised that her off-court pursuits had taken away from her game. But she displayed her competitive fire at Wimbledon, knocking Sharapova out in the semifinals and winning the longest ladies' singles final ever played at the All-England Club. She saved matchpoint to beat Davenport in the third set and became the lowest ranked seed (at 14) to ever win the title. Venus' joy when she won was infectious; an adored champion's return.
Clijsters also had her doubters. Having been runner-up in four Grand Slam singles finals prior to 2005, she was seen as a great player who couldn't finish on the big stage. Lacking venom sometimes found in competitors, she was labeled "too nice." Indeed, in the U.S. Open Series marketing campaign, "Summer's Hottest Reality Series," Kim's nickname was Miss Congeniality.
The U.S. Open Series, inagurated in 2004, is six weeks of hardcourt tournaments leading up to the U.S. Open, in which players are awarded points based on performance. The 2005 men's race was tightly contested; Andy Roddick cleared a 15-point lead over fellow American Andre Agassi. On the woman's side, Clijsters won three of the four events she entered and finished with 125 points over second place Mary Pierce.
Points aren' t the only thing the Series offers. A Bonus Challenge is set up for the top three finishers. Each earns a percentage bonus; the final dollar total is determined on their winnings in the Slam itself, the U.S. Open. As Series titlists, Clijsters and Roddick would double their winnings from the upcoming Open. Both had a shot at $2.2 million. Neither of the 2004 series winners, Davenport and Australian Lleyton Hewitt, were able to carry their momentum through the two-week championship to win it.
When the U.S. Open draw was revealed, Clijsters was in a difficult half, along with top seed Sharapova, defending champion Svetlana Kuznetsova, and both Williams sisters. Clijsters beat Venus in the quarterfinals and Sharapova in the semis, both three-set matches.
Mary Pierce was cruising, having only dropped one set in the tournament to earn the way to her second Slam final of the year. The former champion, finding renewed happiness in her game, was imbued with confidence.
But on the day, Pierce offered little challenge for Miss Congeniality. The match ended in 65 minutes, with Kim the victor, 6-3, 6-1.
Fans in Flushing Meadows knew how much Kim had gone through to get to that moment. Audience members offered their hands in support as the woman, known for her gymnastics on court, climbed into the stands and balanced on stadium rails to reach her friends, family and coach in the player's box.
Clijsters made history -- Sept. 11 in Queens, NY -- winning $2.2 million for the tournament, the largest purse ever in women's sports.
No! Not that kind of purse... but Kim does collect bags.
THE MONEY
That in itself should be a significant mark. While women athletes (including tennis players)are still fighting to match incomes with the men, the standard U.S. Open Champions check is the same for men and women, $1.1 million. Roddick, who doubled his sum as well, lost in the first round. The men's Champion, Roger Federer, just missed third place in the preceding Series. Had he been able to take that slot, his winner's check would have increased by 25 percent. Clijsters was clearly the dominant player, woman or man, in the nearly two-month long North American swing.
Sharapova is acknowledged as the highest paid female athlete in the world. It should be noted that estimates of $18-23 million include endorsements. As far as strictly tournament winnings for 2005, Clijsters ranks top on the women's earnings list. (Not just because of the bonus; she won a tour-high nine titles.) Sharapova ranks fifth. Compare Kim to the men's ATP field and her $3.9 million edges out Rafael Nadal for second. The only player to top her tournament winnings is Federer.
The $3.9 million is the second highest total in WTA Tour history; Kim set the top mark in 2003 when she became the first woman to break the $4million mark with $4.4 million.
What makes her year an even more tantalizing story is that the money was the least significant achievement.
NOTE: The 2006 Australian Open is on! As of this first posting on Jan. 19, Clijsters and Sharapova have made it through the second round. Both women are playing injured: Sharapova with a recurring shoulder problem and Clijsters with a new, more serious, hip injury that is only allowing her to train 10 minutes per day. Players have long been voicing their opinions about the season being too long; injury is one of the biggest stories in Melbourne this year. Most notably, the electrifying Marat Safin, defending men's champion, is unable to return due to injury. Venus was, unfortunately, already eliminated in the first round.
I'd say I'm more athlete than fan. I hope I can say that all my life.
After Marat Safin, is there anyone else?
Some of my other favorite athletes include: Dmitry Tursunov, Kim Clijsters, Roger Federer, Tedy Bruschi, Cory Schlesinger, Brian McBride, Lynn Hill & Dean Potter.
I truly appreciate any advice or criticism. Thank you.
