I realize with the US Open starting in a few days, this is somewhat off topic, but everytime a major starts, I always find myself questioning the best of 5 sets format.

Why the hell do the men still play best of 5 sets in the majors?

I think that if the men have to play best of 5, then the women should have to play best of 5 also. Especially if the prize money is the same for both genders.

Right on. I do not agree with this inequality. Those chubsters might take fitness a little more seriously.
I am not a fan of the 5 set format either. It takes too much out of the players, and I would rather see them healthy and fresh and not have to take so much time off for injuries...or retire early.

Do tell, Ms. Krajicek tealsea, who are said "chubsters?"

Every sport has it's standards of excellence. And every athlete suffers injury, no matter what that standard is. Best of Five Sets is a terrific standard to have. And it's not that Five Sets must be played. All it means is that for the greatest prizes, The Major Championships, you have to win that 3rd Set from your opponent. That's exactly how it should be. Having to do that is what separates Pretenders from Contenders. The idea of having a higher standard is to celebrate Contenders. Changing it to something less would be a move, in effect, to try to elevate Pretenders. Anything worth having costs more to earn it. That's what Best of Five Sets is.

If a player is going to dedicate his life to the pursuit of tennis as a living, then there are demands that Tennis makes on those who want to do that. One is fitness. You have to make absolutely sure you're ready physically for the challenge. Injuries most often are the result of fatigue - which in the case of many means less than ideal preparation. Agassi talked about this in his later career. He spoke of the media complaining about the heat in Australia making it "too difficult" for players to play. The media asked for his thoughts, expecting to get his empathy to bolster their press-like lobbying to make changes. His reply stunned them: "..this is what we train for as athletes - to deal with all kinds of conditions. If you're not properly prepared you probably won't do well. It's as simple as that". And Andre trained in the summers of the Las Vegas sun for hours a day - small wonder then why 4 Australian Open Trophies adorn his mantle, and why overall he was able to resurrect his career. Like Federer training in the summertime Dubai desert; Nadal & Murray in the stifling summer humidity of Majorca and Miami, respectively - they put in the work, and thats why they get the results they get as consistently as they do. Lendl, Sampras, Agassi, Courier, Hewitt..all of these guys got themselves into peak condition physically when they were at their best. And that's why they got the results they did. They worked for them.

So the idea of Best of Five of clear: it makes you demand more of yourself to reach the standard, which is what excellence is all about. "Dumbing Down" the standard to something less like Best of Three at The Majors won't make better players, just lazier ones who won't work as hard. The problem isn't the standard - the problem is there are those who might not want to put in the time required to live up to that standard. Don't change the standard to in effect punish the efforts those who see it as worth it for the sake of those who don't want to put in the time to live up to it. Martina Navratilova summed all of this up better than anyone when one idiotic press hack asked her whether it was "fair" for her to be as dominant as she was. She quoted Joe Paterno who said "Everybody has the desire to win, but very few have the desire to prepare". She pointed out she had that desire to prepare. The vast majority of her rivals didn't.

Things are fine just the way they are. Without best of five there would be no Borg-McEnroe epic Wimbledon finals, no 1984 Super Saturday, no 1989 Connors US Open run, no Federer-Nadal Wimbledon final or Wilander-McEnroe Davis Cup marathon from 1982. Sure there are straight set pastings. But there are also two set pastings in all the non-Slam tournaments.

The majors in golf are played in generally tougher conditions than the regular tournaments...deeper roughs, longer courses, tighter fairways. The US Open, Wimbledon, French and Aussie Opens are the ultimate tests (along with Davis Cup and the year end championships) as are the Masters, PGA, US and British Opens in golf.

As for the women, the debate about equal prize money is a moot point because like it or not, it's here to stay. For a while the women were a bigger draw then the men bringing in more fans. Not really sure if that's the case right now but they certainly bring in alot of fans because even now with all the power in the women's game, the regular weekend hacker can still more easily identify with the women's game than the men's. And remember they tried the five set format with the season-ending championships back when it was at Madison Square Garden and for the most part, it wasn't pretty.

All of the women who are mentioned on this board and in the news for being overweight, or seeming to be overweight. Serena Williams is the one who most often comes to mind. I am not going to get in an argument about whether or not they are. I'm just saying it has been said.
Also Kuznetsova has recently really trimmed up. She used to be criticized. Navratilova for awhile was the most famous.

(Sorry if the wording was offensive. I have seen fatty used on here. That's an OUCH for sure. I thought it might have been safe to try to inject humor here, since this topic has been discussed before).

Wow what a treat to see Amelie and Kuznetsova play this morning. It's not live, but who cares? Great to see 2 veteran women players. Especially Amelie. Grace, athleticism, variety... beautiful.

AND vintage Venus and Lindsay 2001. This is great.

I might be imagining this, and my google fu is failing me at the moment, but at some point (early 70s?) only the later rounds from the quarterfinals onwards were played best-of-five. This is probably the best compromise. There is no unfair and unnecessary (perhaps!) draining of the men's field, but the Slams retain that something special, as well as epic clashes between the top players. A five-set semi or final, great. Five sets of watching Safin fall to some unknown French player at his last RG in the opening round? Or Federer needlessly taking a third set to embarrass opponents for the first several rounds? Well, maybe we could take a pass on that, even if there is some nice shotmaking along the way.

I'm sure I've posted this before, but I agree that the 'equal pay' non-controversy is a bit of a dead letter these days. In fact Wimby and RG were the only foot-draggers ... the USO and AO were on board literally decades ago. Players are awarded prize money on the basis of achievement; it's not an hourly wage. Otherwise I'd love to see someone try to give Fed or Rafa a smaller cheque the next time they breeze through a Slam without dropping a set (as each has done once apiece in the last couple of years), or give Djoko a bigger payday because he typically laboured excessively in the early rounds by dropping several sets unexpectedly.

Quote from Two hander>>
"Love it when a John Waters-ready chubby non-starlet girl like Alisa fights to the top of the ranks. What an outrage. Surely it's an embarrassment to the WTA, yadda yadda. <<

I think chubster is much kinder than chubby non-starlet, but whatever. You gotta be able to be expressive here. Sheesh.

Can you please list them for me? Because I don't know which ones you're talking about. If there are so many mentioned on this board and in the news, naming them shouldn't be a problem. And obviously because someone else said it. Not you, of course.




Serena's a "chubster?" Wow. Not just a big girl, but an all out porker? I remember her heavier years a few years ago, where she weighed more, and yet she still won an AO while during that time. Tell me, is she still fat? Enlighten us.



Navritilova was a "chubster?" Guess I missed that back in the 70s. Maybe because I was just a kid, and didn't know what fat really was. I remember her being heavier than she was in the early 80's and later, but Martina, the most famous "chubster?"

See, if you had said Magui Serna, you might have had almost an ounce of credibility. But saying there are fat women on the tour by just casually dropping a phrase like "Those chubsters might take fitness a little more seriously", only to not be able to back it up, makes you look even more ridiculous, as well as being an ill-informed name-caller. And for you, that's saying something.


And while I could mention maybe one name, say, of a relatively new Russian young lady, I'm not sure I could bring myself to refer to the WTA as "those chubsters."

Sad.

It's true - Martina was one of the most out of shape tennis players. I was a teenager by the time she'd won Wimbledon in 1978 and she looked better then than she did when she first joined the tour - oy vay!

I remember mid 70's Navratilova. She was heavier than lean and mean 80's Martina, and she was out of shape, but she wasn't nearly a Kleybenova-esque "chubster."

I think the issue of Serena's weight is cultural. Serena has her mother's genes. She is a thick sista, but for many people if you have no shape and are straight up and down and have a long back with a crack like Maria Sharapova and Daniela Hantuchova then you are overweight or fat. Thats western standards of beauty for you.



^^^^ Thats not overweight. Even if she's wearing a body shaper (cuz I'm sure thats what would be the response to this) that can only do but so much!!

I personally think that almost all women are beautiful. We are talking about the level of body fat here, I think.
The issue of what our body shapes are ..well ... is what it is. We are all differently built. Serena has some large features. When she is in condition (which isn't necessarily an outwardly visual factor), she is as fast as any woman. She has grown into a woman's body before our eyes. Younger women are slimmer because of the faster metobolism. Look at Venus as a gangly teenager and now a very "cut" woman.
BYW, that is a beautiful photo!
On the other hand, if a woman works out assiduously, (see Samantha Stosur) her muscles will change shape. Cutting down on excess body fat, can help your game. The best example I can think of is Lindsay Davenport--not blessed with a sleek body. But she worked so hard to get slimmer, and it helped her mobility a lot.

Now, on with the OPEN. I'm excited for the start!

Loved Arthur Ashe Day yesterday. I think that is one of the coolest things NY and the USTA does for kids and tennis.

Sophia Loren was one of the sexy woman (still is)...and she had lots of curves. Marilyn Monroe too. So it's not even western standards, I'd say, but one view of beauty. And there are slim black women who are gorgeous and sexy....Iman has a perfect face, Venus Williams is just regal, Diana Ross was known as "skinny minnie with the money"...

The ideal as presented in the media does seem to be a coat hanger model look (nice face, emaciated body). Women who are naturally bigger, even athletes like Serena, Kim Cljisters, Kuznestsova, among the tennis players....can be fit and fabulous in their bodies, but disparaged.

For me healthy is sexy. So skinny, when natural, looks fine. Food deprived does not. Big, when fit and healthy, looks fine.

Navratilova was quite the chunk-asaurus in the early days.

5 sets works best on the faster surfaces, obviously. I think the men should play best of 3 until the quarters, maybe the 4th round. I don't see the women having that many see-saw 5-set battles.

It's probably worth noting that those three women are the only are the only elite players under 5'10" these days, unless you count Vera Zvonareva as elite. I think that unless you have supernatural technique and timing (thinking of Justine, of course), you need some mass to generate the power needed to compete at the top level women's tennis these days. Oh, wait--just checked and Jelena Jankovic is not quite 5'10 either--but she does get overpowered at times and has never won a major, so...