How come women have more Grand Slams than men?
I was looking at the leaders for grandslams in WTA and ATP
# of Slams
16 Roger Federer
14 Pete Sampras
12 Roy Emerson
11 Rod Laver, Björn Borg
10 Bill Tilden
24 Margaret Court
22 Steffi Graf
19 Helen Wills Moody
18 Chris Evert
18 Martina Navratilova
12 Billie Jean King
12 Serena Williams
So how come women generally have more GSs even up to 24!!??
- Ʈєŋ¡ςʄαηLv 610 years agoBest Answer
It is harder for men to win Grand Slams than it is for women. First off, the men play best-of-five sets. That is one simple reason. It takes less effort to win a best-of-three set match than it is a best-of-five match. So winning a Grand Slam for the men requires seven best-of-five set matches in a row...which makes Fed and Rafa accomplishments this decade all the more impressive. Federer competes at for the title at EVERY Grand Slam and Rafa had that run at Roland Garros.
Second, there is more depth in the men's game. You can't say that a top 30 player in the WTA is as strong comparatively as a top 30 player in the ATP. I'll give you an example. Maria Jose Martinez Sanchez is #28. On the other hand, you have Lleyton Hewitt, a multiple Grand Slam winner at #27 (and an Australian Open finalist at #30, Baghdatis). I don't mean to degrade the female professional tennis players on the WTA, but I truly believe that male tennis players are just...plain better at every level.
- MargaretLv 44 years ago
While your points are not entirely non-valid, I would answer that, first, as we have seen time and time again, best-of-five in major events has proven to be a more effective and entertaining test of the men's games. Presumably most women on tour could play best-of-five, but it would not likely be worthwhile, as the number of comebacks would presumably be much smaller. Second, regarding playing doubles, in the first place, many fewer of the top women play doubles in majors recently - Helena Sukova at the 1993 US Open may well prove to be the last player ever to reach the finals in singles, doubles and mixed. In the second place, the argument that a few women would have the chance to earn more than the top men only tries to perpetuate a lack of depth in the women's game. If all the top women played doubles as well as singles, the disparity in earnings would widen for the women's field, which would presumably have a negative effect in the long run. As for less competitive, the game scores might be, but, especially on grass, one might contend that it's very likely that women play as many shots as men do. It would not surprise me at all if statistics were to reveal that, say, Justine Henin hits the ball as many times or more in two sets as Ivo Karlovic does in five. The relatively small difference at the top being insignificant cuts both ways. One might just as well ask why Roger Federer neads forty thousand pounds more. If the draws were played at different times and in different venues, as golf tournaments are, then one might be able to make a case that the men are much more popular and generate vastly more revenue, etc. But with all the players playing together for two weeks, the same number of matches available to everyone, and with one event requiring equal participation from representatives of both sexes, to pay the men a pittance more comes off as spiteful and gives the message that men are more valued than women. The symbolism of equality is worth more. I would also add that disparity can breed more of the same, not because of the top payment amounts, but because of the bottom. Making the main draw at a major and winning a round or two extends a lot of unheralded careers. The women's tour may not entirely catch up to the men's tour (even though most events on both tours are best-of-three), but in a sport where the majors are all men and women playing together, and where the list of all-time greats is much more equally impressive than most (except for sports such as gymnastics and figure skating, where the female side is generally well ahead in popularity), it seems better for the sport as a whole that the total amount of prize money paid to both sexes is equal.
- 10 years ago
Here is my opinion on this. It is NOT because the men had more competition, it is because most men are usually dominant on one/two surface/s. For example Sampras and Federer are amazing talents, but Sampras never won a Slam on clay, and Federer has only won one. If you look at French Open champions of the nineties, you scratch your head..They are mostly Latinos that aren't very famous..Graf won slams on all surface many times, but it doesn't mean Vicario, Seles, Novotna, Martinez, etc, weren't competition to her..
Edit: Just because the ATP has more "has-beens" doesn't mean there field is more deep. Hewitt and Baghdatis were good, back in the day, but won't ever win another slam. It was the same for Mauresmo and Davenport before they retired. And look at recent results, Ivan Ljubicic won Indian Wells!? Does that mean the quote-un-quote "most solid top 8" in the history of the ATP isn't as amazing as we once thought?
- 10 years ago
I'm not sure if I can agree with the above answer, but I think part of it is that men have 5 set matches in the Slams and it's a lot harder to play out those sets as you get older. As male players get older, they start getting weeded out by younger players because they simply do not have the stamina to withstand such long matches.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Sp!ffy.Lv 510 years ago
I think because it took longer for the women's field to get competitive. Only recently has it become somewhat of a struggle to win a gs. Because obviously if serena was born 50 years ago, she would have a billion grand slams.
- 10 years ago
a lot of the women have combined singles and doubles titles, so that may be one reason. Also women can play for longer periods (age wise) than men can
- fedfanforeverLv 510 years ago
The men's field is more deep.