Is the jump from boys to mens bigger than the jump from girls to womens?

Helen40 · Grand Slam Champion

Is the jump from boys to mens bigger than the jump from girls to womens?

The Optimist · ATP qualifying

Generally the girls have an easier transition because of physicality. An 16yo boy is generally a bit of a weakling compared to a 22yo man. There are exceptions to every rule but in general they are unable to really put on serious muscle until 17yo and upwards. Girls on the other hand can be physically mature at 15 or 16 and so can physically develop at an earlier age, so the massive strength gap which exists between junior boys and men does not exist in anything like the same degree between girls and women.

Helen40 · Grand Slam Champion

Thanks TO, I asked round about the same question on another thread initially and I think Oaky came up with a similar theory which has a certain logic to it.

I guess that if they did ever make the women do as much work for the equal prize money, (ie five sets instead of three) then it would make the women's game peak later too.

christ · Futures qualifying

Not necessarily: nature has as much (if not more) to do with it. Ladies mature physically at an earlier age than gentlemen do. It is particularly obvious at any secondary school: boys generally immature and not fully grown, girls much further along.

-- Edited by christ on Monday 16th of July 2018 08:29:42 PM

Helen40 · Grand Slam Champion

I agree christ, but I was also basing my last comment on the fact that many years ago when the men's game wasn't as physical, the average age of GS winners was lower, and the were young winners, the best example being Mr Becker. I can only remember this happening in the women's game of late ie Ostapenko.

flamingowings · All-time great

Ostapenko was a very young slam winner, yes, but Garbine Muguruza was only 22 when she won the FO in 2016. Ana Ivanovic who won the FO in 2008 was 20, going back a bit further.

Need to take into account the total dominance of the "big 4" in the men as well.

the addict · Tennis legend

Helen40 wrote:
I agree christ, but I was also basing my last comment on the fact that many years ago when the men's game wasn't as physical, the average age of GS winners was lower, and the were young winners, the best example being Mr Becker. I can only remember this happening in the women's game of late ie Ostapenko.

Becker at 17 wasn't exactly a typical teenager. I can't think of any other young men making the grade so dramatically apart from McEnroe who reached the SF at 18.

flamingowings · All-time great

the addict wrote:
Helen40 wrote:
I agree christ, but I was also basing my last comment on the fact that many years ago when the men's game wasn't as physical, the average age of GS winners was lower, and the were young winners, the best example being Mr Becker. I can only remember this happening in the women's game of late ie Ostapenko.
Becker at 17 wasn't exactly a typical teenager. I can't think of any other young men making the grade so dramatically apart from McEnroe who reached the SF at 18.

Nadal won his first FO title at 19 (2005) and was the first teenage since Sampras (US Open, 1990) to do so, so it's pretty rare. It's not exactly common in the women's either to be honest, just that their teen slam winner is more recent than the men's.

christ · Futures qualifying

I dont know about slam winners, but (e.g.) Tracy Austin, Jennifer Capriati, Martina Hingis were serial winners at 15 or 16.

indiana · Tennis legend

Yes Chris, I was just going to say back in the 70s through to the 90s we had such as :

Tracey Austin: Won 79 US Open at 16yo and 81 US Open at 18yo.

Steffi Graf: Won 87 French Open at 17yo and 6 Slams in all while still a teenager including the Grand Slam of all 4 titles in 1988 as an 18/19 yo.

Monica Seles: Won 90 French Open at 16yo and 8 Slams in all while still a teenager.

Martina Hingis: Won 97 Aus Open and 97 Wimbledon at 16yo and 5 Slams in all while still a teenager.

Chris Evert too won her first 2 Slams in 74 as a 19yo.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

The average 'retirement' age for tennis players back in the 80s and 90s (as per most examples given) was about 25 or 26 (supposedly). And peak was about 22-23.

So, if the whole game was younger, then there would be younger winners too.

It's the prize money that has shot up that has shifted the whole stance of the game.

Both men and women have now the interest, and so invested the time and money, to keep going longer.

But it will always be easier for girls to make the transition more seamlessly than the men because, as christ says, physically, they finish growing that 12-18 months younger, and when they've finished growing their body shape far more closely resembles their 'adult' body shape than a boy's does.

The BMA (and other national medical sites) site says that girls have their growth from 10-14 and by 15 are nearly all at their final height. Boys grow from 11-16 but even then there is a significant minority who keep on growing (not uncommon up till 18 or so). AND after they stop there is 2 year (or more) natural 'filling-out' period. (Obviously, lots of gym work will carry on making a big difference for both men and women but we're talking about the physiological bit).

Sim · County player

Coup Droit wrote:
The average 'retirement' age for tennis players back in the 80s and 90s (as per most examples given) was about 25 or 26 (supposedly). And peak was about 22-23.

So, if the whole game was younger, then there would be younger winners too.

It's the prize money that has shot up that has shifted the whole stance of the game.

I don't think it is just the prize money CD, although I am sure that is significant, look at other sports such as football, athletics and the retirement age has gone up since the 70s. Nutrition, better training and advancement in medicine and operations have all helped pro-long careers. Would Murray, Nadal and Djokovic still be playing now if it wasn't for the medical care they have had (of course being millionaires helps get the best surgeons!)

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Yes, Sim. But several of the players have said that the very reason that more time, research and effort has gone into nutrition and training etc. is because of the increased prize money (i can try and find the interviews but am not sure where they are, will look).

The same applies to other sports too. Athletes were amateurs. Now they're not. By a big margin. Hence, again, now there's the money to put into all the other aspects needed to prolong playing time.

It's not at all a criticism of the players (or the system/ATP/WTA).

Oakland2002 · All-time great

The money has also given increased drastically in both football and athletics. Teenage girls are also generally more mature from a mental perspective and potentially ready to learn at 15.

Boys have to further refine and develop technically much more to control the increased power that comes on with that influx of testosterone that women just don't get. The better 15 year old boys I think would do very well in the women's game if suspended in time endocrinologically. I often look at women's football and see similarities between it and elite under 15 youth football where the technical skill level is high but the aggression and physicality in contact yet to dominate.

Now the game is so much more advanced technically, Becker would have to return many more balls than he did in the 80's and realistically (like Zevrev today and everyone else for a decade) he would have had to wait a bit longer for a slam the depth in the game at the top is very different the likes of Del Potro, Nishikori, Wawrinka to name a few even Ferrer would get the ball back. What is also interesting is there is nobody hanging on at 40 in the way Conners did, Federers economy of motion may take him close if the will is still there but he is already on a curtailed schedule with extensive rest in the clay court season.

christ · Futures qualifying

the addict wrote:
Helen40 wrote:
I agree christ, but I was also basing my last comment on the fact that many years ago when the men's game wasn't as physical, the average age of GS winners was lower, and the were young winners, the best example being Mr Becker. I can only remember this happening in the women's game of late ie Ostapenko.
Becker at 17 wasn't exactly a typical teenager. I can't think of any other young men making the grade so dramatically apart from McEnroe who reached the SF at 18.

Oddly I think Mr Becker mentioned this during his Wimbledon commentary - I think that he said that the Junior winner in 1985 was older than he was. (A quick Google proves him right: Leonardo Lavalle is four months older than Mr Becker)

Coup Droit wrote:
So, if the whole game was younger, then there would be younger winners too.

It's the prize money that has shot up that has shifted the whole stance of the game.

Both men and women have now the interest, and so invested the time and money, to keep going longer.

I'm not convinced that the whole game was younger - we have a few old folk lying around today, but that is character driven rather than money driven: I don't think that Murray, Djokovic, Nadal, Federer or the Wiliiams are in it for the money any more: maybe (ironically) the money was a factor when they were younger.

... and the game was't really younger - there were Navratilovas and Everts around playing well into their thirties even back in the eighties and nineties (Has Ms Navratilova retired yet?): Laver retired at 41.

-- Edited by christ on Tuesday 17th of July 2018 12:39:02 PM