Quote (howtodisappearcompletely @ Jun 13 2016 06:08am)
In a way, yes. In any sports where stamina plays a role (which is the case in tennis), you'll push yourself harder if a game is shorter. In the end, however, it doesn't make a difference. Sports aren't about who works hardest; they're about who wins. A tennis player with superior technique will probably win quite some games where he/she worked significantly less than his/her opponent.
You can compare this to cycling, by the way. A 190 km mountains stage in the Tour de France is quite usual. The first 150-ish km are raced patiently without too many attacks, and most GC contenders wait until the last 1 or 2 cols to attack, while most non-climbers have a relatively calm day. A 100 km mountains stage is a nightmare for everyone; often there's attacks by prominent riders right from the start, and people who aren't good climbers typically struggle terribly to try and arrive within the time limit.
QFT.
and the best women can't beat the best men so why should inferior players be paid more?
men generate more revenue
they play more sets
they're better tennis players
in what world do female players deserve equal or better pay for generating less revenue, playing less sets and being worse at tennis then the men?
Quote (Thor123422 @ Jun 13 2016 08:24am)
Because it's not about how hard you work, otherwise the smartest and most talented would get paid the least.
the reason the word works come up is because of the rallying cry of "equal pay for equal work", the meaning of the word is an irrelevant point to dwell upon
This post was edited by duffman316 on Jun 13 2016 07:58am