1994 Virginia Slims of Chicago
The 1994 Virginia Slims of Chicago was a women's tennis tournament played on indoor carpet courts at the UIC Pavilion in Chicago, Illinois in the United States that was part of Tier II of the 1994 WTA Tour. It was the 23rd edition of the tournament and was held from February 7 through February 13, 1994. Second-seeded Natasha Zvereva won the singles title and earned $80,000 first-prize money.
| 1994 Virginia Slims of Chicago | |
|---|---|
| Date | February 7–13 |
| Edition | 23rd |
| Category | Tier II |
| Draw | 28S / 16D |
| Prize money | $400,000 |
| Surface | Carpet (Supreme) / indoor |
| Location | Chicago, Illinois, U.S. |
| Venue | UIC Pavilion |
| Champions | |
| Singles | |
.svg.png){kind=small} | |
| Doubles | |
 | |
Finals
Singles
- It was Zvereva's 2nd title of the year and the 45th of her career.
Doubles
- It was Fernández's 2nd title of the year and the 46th of her career. It was Zvereva's 3rd title of the year and the 46th of her career.
Prize money
| Event | W | F | SF | QF | Round of 16 | Round of 32 |
| Singles | $80,000 | $36,000 | $18,000 | $9,600 | $5,050 | $2,650 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Doubles * | $24,000 | $12,000 | $8,000 | $4,000 | $2,000 | – |
* per team
gollark: It's easy to say that if you are just vaguely considering that, running it through the relatively unhurried processes of philosophizing™, that sort of thing. But probably less so if it's actually being turned over to emotion and such, because broadly speaking people reaaaallly don't want to die.
gollark: Am I better at resisting peer pressure than other people: well, I'd *like* to think so, but so would probably everyone else ever.
gollark: Anyway, I have, I think, reasonably strong "no genocide" ethics. But I don't know if, in a situation where everyone seemed implicitly/explicitly okay with helping with genocides, and where I feared that I would be punished if I either didn't help in some way or didn't appear supportive of helping, I would actually stick to this, since I don't think I've ever been in an environment with those sorts of pressures.
gollark: Maybe I should try arbitrarily increasing the confusion via recursion.
gollark: If people are randomly assigned (after initial mental development and such) to an environment where they're much more likely to do bad things, and one where they aren't, then it seems unreasonable to call people who are otherwise the same worse from being in the likely-to-do-bad-things environment.I suppose you could argue that how "good" you are is more about the change in probability between environments/the probability of a given real world environment being one which causes you to do bad things. But we can't check those with current technology.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.