12/21/24
September 24, 2010
Women's Pro Tennis Turns 40: Women's professional tennis was launched by World Tennis magazine publisher Gladys Heldman 40 years ago on September 23, 1970, with a tournament that had nine entrants and $7,500 in prizes. The original nine were Billy Jean King and Rosemary Casals along with the lesser known Peaches Bartkowicz, Judy Dalton, Julie Heldman, Kerry Melville, Kristy Pigeon, Nancy Richey and Valerie Ziegenfuss. A year later, King became the first female athlete to earn six figures in her sport. In the '80s, Martina Navratilova became the first to earn $1 million. Today the WTA Tour is an $85 million-a-year sport. "We wanted to make sure that any young girl, if she was good enough and if she wanted to, would have the opportunity to make a living playing tennis," King said.
Women's pro tennis was truly revolutionary. God bless the pioneers.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 12:35 PM on September 24, 2010
What a shame. To honor the 40th anniversary of the most successful woman's sport, this clown writes about how it lacks the intrigue of the men's tour? There are millions of fans that would disagree and would more like to hear about the evolution of the sport since Billy Jean and others signed their $1 contracts. The great personalities, great matches and how much it has been a part of all of our sports history through the years. Why always compring to the men? Why not compare it to other women's sports and why it remained so good through the years? Just sayin.
posted by smithnyiu at 03:21 PM on September 24, 2010
When women's pro tennis first started, the men's game was characterized by the serve and volley game, having much play at the net and fewer long rallies. The women's game was quite the opposite, with very little net play and frequent long rallies. Both games appeal to tennis fans. Over the past 40 years the men's game has begun to feature more of the long rallies, while the women's game now features more net play. Does their game lack intrigue? I would bet that few, if any of the women players would say that. If anything, early round upsets of highly ranked players seem more common among the women than the men. To me, seeing a relative underdog come through the brackets to quarters or semis provides an element of intrigue to any tournament.
My only problem with the women is that they play 3-set matches rather than the 5 required of men (at least in the major tournaments). If the women are to claim true equality in the sport, then let them play 5, or let the men play 3. Right now you can't call the field equal.
Disclaimer: I usually watch only the so-called grand-slam tournaments, but I do follow the game a bit. Any time I attempted to play tennis, I usually wound up with an injury. Not my game, thank you.
posted by Howard_T at 03:37 PM on September 24, 2010
I think there can be equality in performance and play in 3 sets as opposed to 5, but I think the point stands. Are we not yet okay with the women playing 5 sets? They certainly seem like they can handle it. The quality of the athletes at the pro level is higher now than ever.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 06:16 PM on September 24, 2010
I also remember reading somewhere that woman did play 5-setters at some of the major tournaments back in the 90s? I didn't watch tennis back then so have no idea how well that went.
posted by jmd82 at 06:50 PM on September 24, 2010
The men's game has gone through some boring-as-dirt years in the past decade -- years in which the women's game was a whole lot more interesting. Five sets of boring vs. three sets of interesting...your choice.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:22 PM on September 25, 2010
I cross-posted this on MetaFilter.