Serena Williams should challenge men

[DR]

Ronda Rousey has very much the same attitude (loud & in your face) if not to a greater degree, yet all you guys seem to worship her. 

Actually, I'm not a big fan of Ronda's attitude either (sorry, Stewie  ). I love her looks (well, who doesn't?  ), love the way she destroys her rivals, but her attitude...not so much. I prefer them to be humble outside the ring, and then show their warrior's face, once the fight starts.

On the other hand, it is all about selling the show, and , without any doubt, Ronda is great at what she does.

[wrespet]

she is a very strong competitor and there are no women in wta to give her a match. She should play with men to see competitive matches. She is stronger than lot of men in tennis, but the problem is her mobility. Therefore she will not have any chance against top order men but she definitely would be in top 100.

[sammy_scuffles]

she is a very strong competitor and there are no women in wta to give her a match.

That's a ridiculous comment, Serena Williams loses matches in the womens tour. Her record is apparently 58-4 this year, but bear in mind that highly ranked players only tend to play each other late in tournaments when they've already won a bunch of matches. Sure, she's a dominant champion but to suggest that nobody can give her a match is ridiculous.

I don't think she would be anywhere near the top 100 in the mens tour. For reference, here's some of the players she's lost to in the last couple of years (losses due to injury withdrawal omitted):

Ekaterina Makarova
Caroline Wozniacki
Angelique Kerber
Vera Zvonareva
Marion Bartoli

I'd be willing to bet that nobody thinks that any of those players would be within the top 500 of mens tennis if they crossed over, right?

[jiminy]

Actually, I'm not a big fan of Ronda's attitude either (sorry, Stewie  ). I love her looks (well, who doesn't?  ), love the way she destroys her rivals, but her attitude...not so much. I prefer them to be humble outside the ring, and then show their warrior's face, once the fight starts.

On the other hand, it is all about selling the show, and , without any doubt, Ronda is great at what she does.

Fair play, I can respect that. I like Ronda and respect her skills enormously, but she's not my fave either. When it comes to MMA I tend to gravitate towards fighters that prefer to strike. 

she is a very strong competitor and there are no women in wta to give her a match. She should play with men to see competitive matches. She is stronger than lot of men in tennis, but the problem is her mobility. Therefore she will not have any chance against top order men but she definitely would be in top 100.

Good post, I agree with a lot of that. Not sure she could beat top 100 men as there is so much depth in the mens game. You can watch guys ranked around the 100 mark and the quality is still very good and on their day, they can make some top guys sweat. Around the 200 mark however, there is a considerable drop-off and I definitely think Serena could beat some of our lesser ranked British men such as Josh Goodall, Jamie Baker and Alex Bogdanovic aka 'Boggo'.

[Ronald_Frump]

Ronda Rousey has very much the same attitude (loud & in your face) if not to a greater degree, yet all you guys seem to worship her. 

Actually, I'm not a big fan of Ronda's attitude either (sorry, Stewie  ). I love her looks (well, who doesn't?  ), love the way she destroys her rivals, but her attitude...not so much. I prefer them to be humble outside the ring, and then show their warrior's face, once the fight starts.

On the other hand, it is all about selling the show, and , without any doubt, Ronda is great at what she does.

See......with all due respect, I hold the opposite view. To me, that bad attitude is what adds to Ronda's sex-appeal. Probably because it violates my own ethical code and personifies my ideal of the Fighting-Goddess, whom you would hate, fear and desire, at the same time. 

[jiminy]

she is a very strong competitor and there are no women in wta to give her a match.

That's a ridiculous comment, Serena Williams loses matches in the womens tour. Her record is apparently 58-4 this year, but bear in mind that highly ranked players only tend to play each other late in tournaments when they've already won a bunch of matches. Sure, she's a dominant champion but to suggest that nobody can give her a match is ridiculous.

I don't think she would be anywhere near the top 100 in the mens tour. For reference, here's some of the players she's lost to in the last couple of years (losses due to injury withdrawal omitted):

Ekaterina Makarova
Caroline Wozniacki
Angelique Kerber
Vera Zvonareva
Marion Bartoli

I'd be willing to bet that nobody thinks that any of those players would be within the top 500 of mens tennis if they crossed over, right?

I think he meant purely when Serena is on her 'A' game. Over that many matches in the space of 12 months, it's natural/typical to lose a few when you factor in injuries, fatigue, etc...

Zvonereva, when she was in form a couple of years ago, probably could've cracked into the top 500 men. I remember watching a doubles match with her and she put a few winners past the guy on the opposing team and the commentators remarked how she was clearly the best player on the court.

Once you get past the top 200 or so, there is a noticeable decline in quality amongst the men who are at their limit and have never/will never go any higher than that. Certainly the top 400-500 as Sara Errani says. She should know, she practises with these guys.

[wrespet]

she is a very strong competitor and there are no women in wta to give her a match.

That's a ridiculous comment, Serena Williams loses matches in the womens tour. Her record is apparently 58-4 this year, but bear in mind that highly ranked players only tend to play each other late in tournaments when they've already won a bunch of matches. Sure, she's a dominant champion but to suggest that nobody can give her a match is ridiculous.

I don't think she would be anywhere near the top 100 in the mens tour. For reference, here's some of the players she's lost to in the last couple of years (losses due to injury withdrawal omitted):

Ekaterina Makarova
Caroline Wozniacki
Angelique Kerber
Vera Zvonareva
Marion Bartoli

I'd be willing to bet that nobody thinks that any of those players would be within the top 500 of mens tennis if they crossed over, right?

Serena Williams Tournament Results
Year:
2012 STATS
PRIZE MONEY   SINGLES TITLES   DOUBLES TITLES   SINGLES W-L
$7,045,975   7   2   58-4
2012 TOURNAMENTS

TEB BNP PARIBAS WTA Championships - Istanbul, Turkey

1) Victoria Azarenka   W   6-4, 6-4
--   (5) Angelique Kerber   W   6-4, 6-1
--   ( Li Na   W   7-6 (7-2), 6-3
Semifinals   (4) Agnieszka Radwanska   W   6-2, 6-1
Final   (2) Maria Sharapova   W   6-4, 6-3

US OPEN - Flushing Meadows, New York, USA

1st   Coco Vandeweghe   W   6-1, 6-1
2nd   Maria Jose Martinez   W   6-2, 6-4
3rd   Ekaterina Makarova   W   6-4, 6-0
4th   Andrea Hlavackova   W   6-0, 6-0
Quarterfinals   (12) Ana Ivanovic   W   6-1, 6-3
Semifinals   (10) Sara Errani   W   6-1, 6-2
Final   (1) Victoria Azarenka   W   6-2, 2-6, 7-5

London 2012 - All England Lawn Tennis Club, Wimbledon

1st   Jelena Jankovic   W   6-3, 6-1
2nd   Urszula Radwanska   W   6-2, 6-3
3rd   (13) Vera Zvonareva   W   6-1, 6-0
Quarterfinals   ( Caroline Wozniacki   W   6-0, 6-3
Semifinals   (1) Victoria Azarenka   W   6-1, 6-2
Final   (3) Maria Sharapova   W   6-0, 6-1

*WIMBLEDON - Wimbledon, England 2012

1st   Barbora Zahlavova-Strycova   W   6-2, 6-4
2nd   Melinda Czink   W   6-1, 6-4
3rd   (25) Jie Zheng   W   6-7 (5-7), 6-2, 9-7
4th   Yaroslava Shvedova   W   6-1, 2-6, 7-5
Quarterfinals   (4) Petra Kvitova   W   6-3, 7-5
Semifinals   (2) Victoria Azarenka   W   6-3, 7-6 (8-6)
Final   (3) Agnieszka Radwanska   W   6-1, 5-7, 6-2

WTA Mutua Madrilena Madrid Open - Madrid, Spain

1st   Elena Vesnina   W   6-3, 6-1
2nd   Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova   W   6-2, 6-1
3rd   (6) Caroline Wozniacki   W   1-6, 6-3, 6-2
Quarterfinals   (2) Maria Sharapova   W   6-1, 6-3
Semifinals   Lucie Hradecka   W   7-6 (7-5), 6-0
Final   (1) Victoria Azarenka   W   6-1, 6-3

WTA Tour Family Circle Cup - Charleston, South Carolina, USA

2nd   Elena Vesnina   W   6-3, 6-4
3rd   (17) Marina Erakovic   W   6-2, 6-2
Quarterfinals   (6) Sabine Lisicki   W   4-1, Retired
Semifinals   (2) Samantha Stosur   W   6-1, 6-1
Final   (9) Lucie Safarova   W   6-0, 6-1

WTA Sony Ericsson Open - Miami, Florida, USA

2nd   Zhang Shuai   W   6-2, 6-3
3rd   (21) Roberta Vinci   W   6-2, 6-1
4th   (6) Samantha Stosur   W   7-5, 6-3
Quarterfinals   (4) Caroline Wozniacki   L   4-6, 4-6

*AUSTRALIAN OPEN - Melbourne, Australia

1st   Tamira Paszek   W   6-3, 6-2
2nd   Barbora Zahlavova-Strycova   W   6-0, 5-4
3rd   Greta Arn   W   6-1, 6-1
4th   Ekaterina Makarova   L   2-6, 3-6

Just see how those high ranked players like sharapova, azarenka, Radwanska, kvitova, wozniacki got hammered by her. Do you see competitive matches in here? Like djokovic vs nadal or murray?

Any player or team can have bad days and those 4 matches she lost are in those days. She has beaten those top ranked players 18 times including major finals and semi finals. Those were very big matches and she didn't have to make much effort to do so. Those were like grown woman vs 13 years old girl in a fight.

[sammy_scuffles]

The problem is that swapping Maria Sharapova for random guy ranked 200 is not like-for-like.

Serena Williams beats Sharapova because she overpowers her, I think that would be a reasonable description right? I suspect that most people consider Sharapova a better "mover" around the court than Williams and they both have good skills in terms of their ability to play tennis shots, so the decisive factor is that Williams hits the ball harder.

If you move her into mens tournaments her biggest weapon (power) becomes commonplace. Everybody in mens tennis hits the ball hard. Some less than others perhaps, but even if Serena hits harder than some what that means is that anyone she plays will be used to the pace she can put on the ball and used to having to retrieve shots that are hit hard. That means she has likely has to hit better shots to hit winners against guys in the 200s than she would against Sharapova for example.

So if Serena Williams is no longer able to brutally overpower opponents then what is she? She has good skills, sure. But compared to even mid to low ranked guys her mobility is probably a pretty significant weakness.

A quote from Serena in the article I linked above is pretty telling:

"I didn't know it would be that hard. I hit shots that would have been winners on the women's tour and he got to them easily."

Note how she said "easily". When that happens it makes her take more risks because she has to hit better shots to hit winners, and it makes her hit more shots. People who could do that also happen to be the people who put up the best records against Serena. Justine Henin. Something like 5'5 and under 60kgs. She's retired now obviously, but even in her prime I'm willing to bet that nobody would have thought she'd be in the top 500 of the mens tour right? Too small to catch the imagination the way Serena does.

As far as I can tell they played each other 14 times, with Serena taking the honours 8-6. So a small, scrappy, not hugely powerful player whose best attribute was fantastic court coverage was perfectly capable of running Serena close. The reason she could is because she made her play longer rallies than most girls could (or can now). On the mens tour she'd have to face that from just about everyone and they'd be hitting just as hard as she can too.

That turned out longer than I thought it would. Short summary, on the mens tour her best weapon (power) would be merely normal and everybody would be more athletic than anyone she's ever played. Not a good combination.

I doubt that's going to convince you, so here's a bonus question just out of interest: Roughly where do you think that Maria Sharapova would rank on the mens tour?

[sheehan333]

I think people here are emphasising more on power here. Well tennis is not my game but I do watch the occasional tournament when nothings interesting is on the other sports channel. So here is my observation.

The geometry in shot making displayed by the men is totally absent in the women's game. The girls seem content on hanging at the baseline and trying to create angles or overpowering each other. In this scenario the top women will not become competitive till they play amateur club guys and Serena probably will be able to win club level matches and even be able to slug it out with School/college male players who have not turned pro yet. My point is that the male game is just played at a different level, even if we consider that Serena has the same strength, stamina and power of a low ranked male pro the sheer shot making ability and athleticism of the male will win the day.

To answer Sammy's question Sharapova would not be able to handle anyone in ATP not even top amateurs or collegiate players she would have to go down at the Jr or club ranks to be competitive.

Here is a link to a forum where I posted about Indian u16 boys team defeating the US Sr. Team (World no.1 and Olympic champions) 4-0

http://www.network54.com/Forum/377797/thread/1337418688/last-1342285557/Worlds+Best+female+Soccer+team+looses+to+under+16+boys

My point is that even at 16 years the players of a country which is not known for Football easily handled the No. 1 women's national team in the world. So to be even competitive even exceptional female athletes like Serena would have to go down the ranks to Jr. level even to be competitive.

[jiminy]

sheehan,

If you look at sports where data (time, weight, distance, etc.) can be recorded, there's always a point where elite women will beat not-so-elite men.

The ATP rankings go down as far as 2000. It is simply ludicrous IMO to suggest the best women would not be able to beat the majority of these non-elite players, given the data we have from other sports.

In 100M sprinting for example, the fastest woman at this year's Olympics was Shelley-Ann Fraser with a time of 10.75. That time would have seen her qualify 10th amongst the men, through into round 1 where her time would've seen her place 51st over all amongst the men. Only 51st you might say, but that's against the fastest men on the planet, good enough to represent their nation - and she was faster than some of them.

In Weightlifting, Maiya Maneza. Who won gold in the women's 63kg event (but weighs 62kg herself) would have finished 12th in the men's 62kg event. So only 11 men, in her weight class stronger than her. Impressive.

See for yourself and draw your own comparisons:
http://www.london2012.com/athletics

Granted you can perhaps double these numbers when taking into account the number of men from strong sprinting/weightlifting nations that didn't get selected for the Olympics, but the numbers clearly paint a more accurate picture when discussing elite women than the one where people like to stroke the ego of men thinking they are all "naturally" superior. That is simply not the case.

Given these statistics, it is not at all surprising to see a growing number of accounts where women beat men in wrestling. It is, after all, just another sport.

The problem with Tennis and some other (ie Combat) sports is that there is no way to make a direct comparison between two people unless they compete against each other. Thinking that the best woman, playing her best Tennis, would lose to a guy outside the top 250 or much lower is IMO, highly unlikely.

[sheehan333]

Jiminy
I accept your points but I urge you to take it sports by sports.

If we talk about weightlifting yes women competitors are very close to men. But keep some points in mind. One is that in Olympics there is a quota system so that more nations not necessarily the stronger nations should participate. Maximum number of participation per nation is 10 with not more then two in each weightclass, plus there are wild cards given to weaker nation to promote the sports and spread a spirit of inclusiveness (e.g. UK where you may not find any world class weightlifters got 5 quota's for being the hos, which I think is right to promote the sports ). So may be Iran has the top 5 lifters in the world in a particular weightclass but they can field only two at max and considering the quota may field less if they feel they have better chance in another weight class. Thats why the comparison may be unfair. Also being a amateur sports unlike tennis these sports totally depend on govt funding a nation spending more with better facilities will have better lifter of either sex. For eg I bet the Chinese female team can easily win every category in mens division in a country say like Haiti.

Also Weightlifting though look like a sports of raw strength is actually more a sports of technique. The sports is dominated by Nations such as China, Iran and Central Asian republics splintered from Russia which has best coaches hence better technique. If pure strength comparisons has to be made may be powerlifting is a better comparison which has more to do with strength. But here also I believe women would not be much behind men. It may be interesting for you to know that famous strongwomen Katie Brumbach took the title Sandwina after defeating the orginal muscleman and bodybuilder Eugen Sandow in a weightlifting contest most probably in 1908. She was 6ft over 90 kg and he was 5,9 also around 90 kg. (But to be fare she was in her prime in twenties and he was past his in his mid forties still it is a remarkable feat)

The point I am making here is that in a similar weight class women have defeated top men. But in case of tennis there is no weight class a 5ft something 70 kg Serena may well face a 6ft something male where the strength disparity will be much. Look at how the disparity is between top weights lifted by men and women in open weight classes.

Wrestling is also a weight class based sports and here also the success (which again is a remarkable achievement) is mostly in School level and majorly in lower weight class. (Wrestling does not have a open weight class but if it had what do you think would be the success rate) Even a female olympic wrestler regardless of weight class would struggle in national tournaments in most if not all countries. 

In athletics also there is a similiar system and may be a nation like Jamaica which may have top athletes in 100m is forced to choose so that athletes from say Malaysia can participate. Also in the heat people generally do not run their fastest and a time of 10.76 places her 51st in a very good to average field. In a head to head contest she will probably be beaten by every one of this olympic guys and top male athletes from almost all nations. Again the funding and training part is true here too.

But tennis being a professional sports only the best are able to go pro and it is also mostly a matter of private expense rather then state funding (except I think China where govt sponsors players upto a level after which the top players migrate to USa to be better e.g. Li Na). It is a matter of huge expense if you want to go pro and travelling world wide which many talented players cannot do. So at the collegiate level and amateur level also there are plenty of very good players who would be good to be pro but are not pros hence I say she may have to go down to these tournaments to be competitive. Actually I had read an article which interviewed top tennis player at that time when Serena and Venus had that match and most women had said that they wont be able to compete with ATP players and had to go to collegiate level even to be competitive (they said competitive not win matches which is important)

Now I know Serena is head and shoulder above any player in the womens game she is the greatest female player in my judgement. I actually believe that she is the next generation female player and 20-30 years hence to be in WTA you will have to have her abilities (Like Navratilova was a standout in her  generation but now every female player worth her salt is as strong if not stronger then her) but the male pros play players like her day in and day out cause these are the elite two thousand males in the planet unlike weightlifting or running where standardisation is difficult and a super elite female like Florence Griffith Joyner would probably beat even top males in some less developed country e.g. Afghanistan.

Actually that is why I gave the example of India U-16 blanking out top female team in the world whose player even play in Pro league. there still remains a huge difference between the sexes despite the women covering a lot of ground physical equality is still a pipe dream.

I am not a Chauvinist I am not saying that any male and can beat any female in any sports. A top female depending on the sports can compete and beat male competitors of a certain level, which will go up or down depending on the sports. In professional and amateur sports thee level will differ. I will tell you of a sports where the top female has actually beaten the top males : Ultramarathon (search for Pam Reed) and I do not have any problem accepting these.

This was too long but I hope I have answered all your questions 

[jiminy]

Damn, really I meant to post a reply to this thread weeks ago but totally forgot all about it.

Firstly, thanks for taking the time to write out your reply, sheehan. You obviously invested some time into it and I enjoyed reading it.

However, I really do think the point where elite women can beat not-so-elite men arrives much sooner than you think, especially in Tennis, which is probably the #1 sport for women, at least in terms of exposure / fame / earnings for top athletes.

In the run-up to this year's Australian Open, Maria Sharapova had a couple of practice matches against Australian boys (Thanasi Kokkinakis, age 16 & Luke Saville, age 18) and by all accounts, got the better of them.

Sharapova roughs up local boys

Melbourne: Short of tournament sharpness in the build-up to the Australian Open because of injury, Maria Sharapova has found a novel way of playing herself into form - roughing up the local boys.

The Russian world number two has been getting into the groove by beating up on Australia's top young players, having pulled out of Brisbane with a neck injury last week.

Sharapova has found some willing opponents in a couple of Australians, including Luke Saville, last year's junior champion at Melbourne Park.

"I played a couple of the junior boys here - actually a good couple of Australian kids," Sharapova told reporters on Saturday.

"I think one of them got a wild card in the main draw."

---

The other hitting partner was 16-year-old Thanasi Kokkinakis, a player tipped as having a bright future and who impressed when stepping in for the injured John Isner at the Hopman Cup last week.

Unfortunately for Kokkinakis, Sharapova's fiercely competitive streak ensured that she would not allow him the pleasure of a victory.

"One of them was really on top of me and then I got really mad," said the 25-year-old, who tried to protect his identity. "I think he had eight set points and I ended up winning the set.

"I'm not going to tell who it is," she laughed. "Too embarrassed. I don't think he slept well after that one!"

http://sports.in.msn.com/tennis/sharapova-roughs-up-local-boys

Luke Saville is ranked 421 on the main tour, and will turn 19 in a couple of weeks, so not exactly a "kid".

Kokkinakis is ranked somewhere in the 700s AFAIK, but rising.

Both handled by a "rusty" Sharapova.

[sammy_scuffles]

That was Saville, who gave French Open champion Sharapova a real run for her money as she looked to blow away the cobwebs in time for her run at a second Australian Open title.

"We didn't actually finish," the four-time grand slam champion said. "The set took too long."

I think that's rather different to "handled".

So she beat a 16 year old kid who's ranked in the 700s and he had 8 set points? What exactly does that prove anyway?

Besides, they're both Australians, everybody knows Australians can't play tennis since Rafter retired and Hewitt got old and Sam Stosur.. er.. well.. forgot how to win. 

[jiminy]

So she beat a 16 year old kid who's ranked in the 700s and he had 8 set points? What exactly does that prove anyway?

On paper it might not sound that impressive but Thanasi Kokkinakis is a player in rapid ascendancy. A few weeks ago, he gave world #24 Fernando Verdasco a real run for his money in a Hopman Cup match, losing 6-7 3-6, but taking it to a tie-breaker in the first set. I didn't see that match, but perhaps he had set points against Verdasco too? At the very least he would have come very close.
Now I'm not saying Sharapova would be competitive against Verdasco, I'm just saying Kokkinakis is obviously better than his current ranking suggests. He's probably playing like a top 250 player at the moment, if not higher.

Same with Saville, until you're 18, you're limited on how many ATP events you can play so that affects your ranking. Saville finished 2011 ranked 1,176 in the world. Turning 18 last February, he was ranked 375 (and still rising) by the end of 2012. So rankings don't always reflect ability, especially for younger players transitioning from juniors to seniors.

You have people saying top women would get wiped off the court by juniors, or indeed any ATP ranked man...

To answer Sammy's question Sharapova would not be able to handle anyone in ATP not even top amateurs or collegiate players

This is clearly not the case.

[jiminy]

Sam Stosur.. er.. well.. forgot how to win. 

Ah yes, I always enjoy watching Sam Stosur play.

When she's in the mood, when she's firing on all cylinders, when the stars are aligned and when the wind is behind her... She can beat just about any other girl out there.

But the thought of playing in her home country seems to give her the mental frailties that used to plague poor old Tim Henman.