An interesting piece today by Marcia Smith at the Orange County Register (reprinted here on the San Jose Mercury News Website) about women competing in men's competitions - "Sports world seems to only care about women when they face men" - and she touches on what I'm particulary interested in - why can't women's professional sports "make it?"
Back from a little vacation - didn't touch a computer for five days. The public library was closed for renovations, and after initial panic I realized it was a good thing. Now I'm gearing up for the fall semester, which kicks in right after Labor Day. Lots to catch up on here on the blog also. There's a lot going on the next few weeks in women's sports with the WNBA playoffs, the U.S. Open, etc.
WNBA - playoffs start tomorrow. It's Storm vs. Comets and Sun vs. Shock. If you need to bring yourself up to speed, like I did, ESPN's WNBA page has everthing you need. There are also a few individual articles to point out from the local newspapers of these four teams - "Swoopes gets game face on" in the Houston Chronicle, "She Sets The Screen :Sun Forward Finds Motivation" in the Hartford Courant, "Laimbeer says Shock will play tough vs. Sun" in the Detroit Free Press, "Storm finishes season in style with cozy win" in the Seattle Times. I'm going to follow the hometeam coverage in these four papers.
Tennis - Both men's and women's matches start today at the U.S. Open in New York. Here are some preview pieces: "Chase for women's title wide Open" in USA Today; and EPSN's U.S. Open page.
A few pieces on all the injuries to women players this summer - "Feel our pain" in the New York Times and "Women limping to U.S. Open" But even for healthy Clijsters, the rigors are taking their toll" an Assocatiated Press piece - posted here on the Rocky Mountain News. Which leads to a piece today in the Washington Post by Liz Clarke about how the top women players are playing in less tournaments, only showing up for the major ones. "In Women's Tennis, Less Is More: Top-Ranked Stars Playing in Fewer Events" The San Diego Union-Tribune rehashes the Sharapova marketing/glamour phenom in "Sharapova in spotlight at U.S. Open"
New York Times sports columnist Selena Roberts has just come out with a book “A Necessary Spectacle: Billie Jean King, Bobby Riggs, and the Tennis Match That Leveled the Game.” Yesterday's New York Times ran an excerpt of an interesting chapter of this famous match-up - the duel that preceded it - between tennis-great Margaret Court and Bobby Riggs - "Tennis's Other 'Battle of the Sexes,' Before King-Riggs" Court lost this match-up, King was in the audience and knew that the loss meant she would have to play Riggs herself to right the situation.
Here is the New York Times review of Roberts' book - the reviewer wasn't a big fan. But I would read the excerpt linked above and draw your own conclusions.
As this Miami Herald piece notes in the lead - "Peng a rising star for Chinese team", so many tennis headlines focus on the women stars - Sharapova, Williams', etc. But beyond the big names, there is a lot of talent out there, and obviously not just in tennis. You just don't read or hear about them much. It's nice to see an article that profiles one of these unknown rising athletes. Shuai Peng plays on China's national team, but she lives and trains in Florida and she's making her way up the rankings.
The Detroit News had a piece last week on women making inroads to male-dominated sports like auto racing - "In male-driven sports, women forge ahead" (7/28/05). On July 20, Frank Deford of Sports Illustrated wrote that this trend is not good in "Bad mix :Women's sports takes a hit when Wie faces the men" Deford argues that women playing in men's tournaments/matches/games takes attention away from the women's tournaments/matches/games. This is true, although I would argue it also brings attention to the women's game in a round-about way. Deford rehashes an old argument used by many sports columnists/editors for lack of women's sports coverage ...
"Women complain all the time that their sports don't get enough attention. It's true that many of those people in charge of providing attention to sports -- the editors and writers and producers -- just happen to be of the old male persuasion. But it really isn't true that they are anti-female sports. They just cover what sports people want to read about and see and hear about. Who, pray, would ever have guessed that sensible human beings in these post-millennium times would crave to watch other people playing poker? But that's what, with apologies to Mencken, the boobus televisionus Americanus wants today, and so that's what we give 'em.
Unfortunately, women don't support their sisters playing games nearly as much as men watch their brethren in athletic pursuits. Women don't boo very well at all. Understand, this is not another case of "frailty, thy name is woman." Instead, verily, it is tribute to the sensitivity of the daughters of Eve that they have their priorities so much straighter than us benighted guy sportaholics. Good grief, should we ever get women's sports radio, then it really will be time to hand this whole earthly kit and caboodle over to the Philistines." (7/20/05, Sports Illustrated.com)
I hope in my work over the next few years to find out if this is really true. Maybe it was true 20 or 30 years ago when women first starting breaking out into sports, but does this argument still hold today? When was the last time sports sections or TV sports shows polled or held focus groups with their viewers to see what they wanted? Just the recent example of letters to the Houston Chronicle and New York Times about lack of coverage of the WNBA shows that there is more interest out there than many sports editors realize. If it is true that women don't have an interest than why don't they? With so many women now growing up participating in sports, starting at a very young age, why aren't they turning into sports viewers?
P.S. In reference to the last sentence of Deford's quote - it appears he hasn't heard about the first all-women sports radio show that is now broadcasting on USA Radio Network.
Fifteen-year-old Michelle Wie's pursuit for PGA play has put the spotlight on super teen athletes, particularly female ones - raising questions such as: Is it too much too soon? Can they handle the pressure? Should they even be in the professional arena? How much will this hurt college teams -- an issue in recent years in men's basketball. Here's some recent opinion pieces by sports writers on the subject ...
"Teens buoyed by recent strong play" - on EPSN's Website, Golf World magazine's Ron Sirak looks at the teen women golfers - compares to women's tennis when the Williams sisters arrived on the scene.
"Wie doesn't need to be in a rush" - Jon Saraceno of USAToday focuses on Wie's accomplishments, noting that it's not a matter of "if" but "when" with her, but also questioning why the rush when she is so young?
"Phenoms or Not, Kids Should Be Kids -- Most of the Time" The Washington Post's Sally Jenkins says that the question is not whether someone like Wie should be in a men's tournament (she's proved she can), but whether kids should be in pro competitions.
The LATimes is running a five-part series on a 10-year-old girl, Seniesa, who dreams of being a professional boxer. Only Part I and Part II have run so far.
It is still amazing that in 2005, the winning prize money for women's tennis at Wimbledon is still less than the men's. The men's purse was £630,000 and the Ladies’ women's purse was £600,000. This year, the single womens' matches, particulary once the semi-finals got underway, were far more exciting and gripping than the single men's matches. Piers Newbury of the BBC wrote a column on Sunday saying there is absolutely no justification for the difference in prize money.
Tennis is one of my favorites. Rain has stopped and they are playing right now. I haven't been ignoring Wimbeldon, but couldn't tackle everything as I try to get this blog off the ground. I'm heading to Philly for the long weekend - probably won't post much. Here's some preview pieces on the women's semi-finals - it's Williams v. Sharapova and Davenport v. Mauresmo.
The Telegraph has a decent preview with some history of players and stats. Also, they resist jumping on the media bandwagon of always having to mentioning Sharapova's looks.
This morning the semi-finals preview story was the lead story on ESPN's Webpage. Unusual preview where the players are compared to characters in a plot of a Victorian novel. There is the must-have reference to Sharapova. Here she is the "18-year-old golden goddess"
Kevin Blackistone of the Dallas Morning News writes about Venus' comeback
