i dunno, entry fees for hockey leagues and tournys are pretty hefty also. the difference is the people, not the cost.Uzique wrote:
the costs of equipment aren't why tennis is a costly and 'elitist' sport... the competition circuit, entry-fees etc. are way higher.
"pretty obvious tbh".
yupp.. Too reliant on his first serve, wasn't able to compete with Nadal in regular play.Uzique wrote:
jenspm's boy is sinking fast to the sport's top player...
And 11 Bravo: To play football, grab a round object and find a field of grass. Hockey: skates, a stick, a puck and find a slab of ice. Tennis isn't a sport that you can just pick up and play wherever, a permanent court has to be built, which is quite expensive and therefore exclusive.
you need a hockey rink for hockey......there are WAY more tennis courts here than hockey rinks. that makes no sense.Jenspm wrote:
yupp.. Too reliant on his first serve, wasn't able to compete with Nadal in regular play.Uzique wrote:
jenspm's boy is sinking fast to the sport's top player...
And 11 Bravo: To play football, grab a round object and find a field of grass. Hockey: skates, a stick, a puck and find a slab of ice. Tennis isn't a sport that you can just pick up and play wherever, a permanent court has to be built, which is quite expensive and therefore exclusive.
i dont really know how you can argue it, marine...
tennis is a more exclusive sport than hockey, and costs a lot more. whether those reasons are material, tangible or not... doesn't matter.
tennis is a more exclusive sport than hockey, and costs a lot more. whether those reasons are material, tangible or not... doesn't matter.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
its exclusive because the only ones who care about it are typically spoiled little wasps....or rich people in general. there is no way in hell tennis is more expensive than hockey.Uzique wrote:
i dont really know how you can argue it, marine...
tennis is a more exclusive sport than hockey, and costs a lot more. whether those reasons are material, tangible or not... doesn't matter.
rofl at tennis costing more than hockey
good luck getting into a tennis club or a tennis tournament for a lower cost than a hockey rink...
tennis is prohibitively expensive for most people. hockey isnt.
tennis is prohibitively expensive for most people. hockey isnt.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
It's also because more people from more countries play tennis, so the skill and competition is at a higher level. But in order to be able to really practice tennis to a professional level you pretty much need your own court, and access to a semi to full-time coach - something that costs a LOT of money. Other sports have similar costs, but it's easier to break them down between 15-20 players as opposed to one.
ig wrote:
rofl at tennis costing more than hockey
You can play hockey on, umm, you know, frozen water? Lakes? Otherwise, you can pay a small fee to enter an ice-rink, or even go to a free one - it's a much more open sport than tennis in every sense of the word. To play tennis, you'll have to rent a court on the hour, you have to find a single player to play against - it's all just more exclusive as a sport.11 Bravo wrote:
you need a hockey rink for hockey......there are WAY more tennis courts here than hockey rinks. that makes no sense.Jenspm wrote:
yupp.. Too reliant on his first serve, wasn't able to compete with Nadal in regular play.Uzique wrote:
jenspm's boy is sinking fast to the sport's top player...
And 11 Bravo: To play football, grab a round object and find a field of grass. Hockey: skates, a stick, a puck and find a slab of ice. Tennis isn't a sport that you can just pick up and play wherever, a permanent court has to be built, which is quite expensive and therefore exclusive.
As soon as you get to a decent level in tennis, you're going to have to hire a private coach, which means you'll have to rent several hours of court every week, and you'll be the only person paying an expensive coach by the hour.
Up until you get to the level where you start getting sponsors, tennis is amazingly expensive. Off the top of my head, I really can't think of anything that's more expensive for the player?
i guess different countries....Jenspm wrote:
You can play hockey on, umm, you know, frozen water? Lakes? Otherwise, you can pay a small fee to enter an ice-rink, or even go to a free one - it's a much more open sport than tennis in every sense of the word. To play tennis, you'll have to rent a court on the hour, you have to find a single player to play against - it's all just more exclusive as a sport.11 Bravo wrote:
you need a hockey rink for hockey......there are WAY more tennis courts here than hockey rinks. that makes no sense.Jenspm wrote:
yupp.. Too reliant on his first serve, wasn't able to compete with Nadal in regular play.
And 11 Bravo: To play football, grab a round object and find a field of grass. Hockey: skates, a stick, a puck and find a slab of ice. Tennis isn't a sport that you can just pick up and play wherever, a permanent court has to be built, which is quite expensive and therefore exclusive.
As soon as you get to a decent level in tennis, you're going to have to hire a private coach, which means you'll have to rent several hours of court every week, and you'll be the only person paying an expensive coach by the hour.
Up until you get to the level where you start getting sponsors, tennis is amazingly expensive. Off the top of my head, I really can't think of anything that's more expensive for the player?
we are not all arctic like you buddy. there are tennis courts everywhere. here you can get a scholarship and play in college. hence why hockey is more expensive since the equip and facilities cost more. quite simple really. you can argue all you want, but i dont think anyone in america would disagree with me.
Last edited by 11 Bravo (2010-07-04 14:37:51)
i got to county level with tennis and then quit because at the end of the day i wasnt good enough to warrant £100/hour coaches and private courts. so yah i don't know many other sports that rule out 'decent' players from the amateur->semi-pro circuits because of money exclusively.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
private coaches are hired waaaaaaay before college. I think I played my first tournament at age 12, and got a personal trainer a half year later, and I was definately not early compared to others..
Yeah, they just hand those out to anyone who wants one11 Bravo wrote:
here you can get a scholarship and play in college.
and lols at usm's logic... people can get tennis scholarships, so it's a cheaper sport than hockey? the fact that mid-high level tennis requires either massive wealth or a scholarship kinda makes it... an expensive sport, no? it's a silly discussion anyway, who actually cares. usm shouldn't rant at 'elitists'... tennis is enjoyed as a populist spectator-sport: that's good enough for this discussion topic, no?
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
well no but if you are good enough....you cant teach talent.Jaekus wrote:
Yeah, they just hand those out to anyone who wants one11 Bravo wrote:
here you can get a scholarship and play in college.
in tennis talent has to be sculpted and coached... it's an individual sport so it's not as 'easy' in a sense as hockey or football. in those sports you play one role and you can often win or lose because of your wider-team effort. in tennis you have to be coached to be a versatile player... talented 'naturals' will have a good few swings, yes, but the coaches come in to harness that natural, 'raw' talent and make it a disciplined, fit and versatile player. coaching is pretty necessary in tennis. and everything is footed by one person, not a team or organisation.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
you dont get it. you can get a scholarship in either sport. therefore it comes down to cost. and hockey cost more. plain and simple. geddit?Uzique wrote:
and lols at usm's logic... people can get tennis scholarships, so it's a cheaper sport than hockey? the fact that mid-high level tennis requires either massive wealth or a scholarship kinda makes it... an expensive sport, no? it's a silly discussion anyway, who actually cares. usm shouldn't rant at 'elitists'... tennis is enjoyed as a populist spectator-sport: that's good enough for this discussion topic, no?
you just proved its exclusiveness.11 Bravo wrote:
well no but if you are good enough....you cant teach talent.Jaekus wrote:
Yeah, they just hand those out to anyone who wants one11 Bravo wrote:
here you can get a scholarship and play in college.
But anyways, back to the tournament. Loved the fact that Berdych finally got his Grand Slam final - what a tournament he's had. Massively disapointed by Hewitt. Fuck sake he's supposed to be good on grass, and he chokes against a struggling Djokovic when he finally had momentum in the match.
Bored of Federer/Nadal winning everything of importance, men's tennis needs a new starlet, imo, a male Wozniacki.
since when were hockey lessons $100 an hour and since when did you single-handedly have to rent an ice-rink to practice
why the fuck are you arguing in a tennis thread about 'elitism' anyway... what fucking point are you trying to make about hockey and football? that they're better sports because working-class, blue-collar people can play them too? wow who gives a fuck. tennis is more expensive no matter which way you look at it, period. i really don't know what your motivation is to 'disprove' it. either you have the money and the opportunity to go semi/pro in tennis or you don't. crying about elitism and traditionalism in a sport is stupid... tennis has a fantastic history and a great social backdrop.
why the fuck are you arguing in a tennis thread about 'elitism' anyway... what fucking point are you trying to make about hockey and football? that they're better sports because working-class, blue-collar people can play them too? wow who gives a fuck. tennis is more expensive no matter which way you look at it, period. i really don't know what your motivation is to 'disprove' it. either you have the money and the opportunity to go semi/pro in tennis or you don't. crying about elitism and traditionalism in a sport is stupid... tennis has a fantastic history and a great social backdrop.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
i took hockey lessons at $70 bucks an hour...and that was in 1992. too bad it cost that much to find out i sucked but still.Uzique wrote:
since when were hockey lessons $100 an hour and since when did you single-handedly have to rent an ice-rink to practice
why the fuck are you arguing in a tennis thread about 'elitism' anyway... what fucking point are you trying to make about hockey and football? that they're better sports because working-class, blue-collar people can play them too? wow who gives a fuck. tennis is more expensive no matter which way you look at it, period. i really don't know what your motivation is to 'disprove' it. either you have the money and the opportunity to go semi/pro in tennis or you don't. crying about elitism and traditionalism in a sport is stupid... tennis has a fantastic history and a great social backdrop.
Just ignore him Uzi, he's only after attention.
Hewitt beats Federer in a previous tournament then is knocked out of Wimbledon. What the fuck happened there?Jenspm wrote:
you just proved its exclusiveness.11 Bravo wrote:
well no but if you are good enough....you cant teach talent.Jaekus wrote:
Yeah, they just hand those out to anyone who wants one
But anyways, back to the tournament. Loved the fact that Berdych finally got his Grand Slam final - what a tournament he's had. Massively disapointed by Hewitt. Fuck sake he's supposed to be good on grass, and he chokes against a struggling Djokovic when he finally had momentum in the match.
Bored of Federer/Nadal winning everything of importance, men's tennis needs a new starlet, imo, a male Wozniacki.
Last edited by Jaekus (2010-07-04 15:00:49)
then you need a court at $75/bucks an hour... depending on the reputation and quality of the club...11 Bravo wrote:
i took hockey lessons at $70 bucks an hour...and that was in 1992. too bad it cost that much to find out i sucked but still.Uzique wrote:
since when were hockey lessons $100 an hour and since when did you single-handedly have to rent an ice-rink to practice
why the fuck are you arguing in a tennis thread about 'elitism' anyway... what fucking point are you trying to make about hockey and football? that they're better sports because working-class, blue-collar people can play them too? wow who gives a fuck. tennis is more expensive no matter which way you look at it, period. i really don't know what your motivation is to 'disprove' it. either you have the money and the opportunity to go semi/pro in tennis or you don't. crying about elitism and traditionalism in a sport is stupid... tennis has a fantastic history and a great social backdrop.
and you need a LOT more coaching in tennis than hockey... because, again, it's individual. maybe 4-5x as many coaching-hours.
that and the development of a tennis player goes from anything like age 10 to age 21 before they even start making money.
now do you see how it costs a fuckload more? such a silly argument.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
personally im happy to see nadal and federer dominate.
charismatic and egotistic sporting personalities bring a lot more media/public attention to a sport. general awareness, enthusiasm, young-players etc. a constantly shifting top-ranking table is way more interesting and dynamic for those already-interested... but tennis is already suffering from a niche-exclusive appeal.
charismatic and egotistic sporting personalities bring a lot more media/public attention to a sport. general awareness, enthusiasm, young-players etc. a constantly shifting top-ranking table is way more interesting and dynamic for those already-interested... but tennis is already suffering from a niche-exclusive appeal.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
i see so we will clean this thread but close the 4th of july one. how sad. you guys do really fail.