PDA

View Full Version : Most important Grand Slam nowadays.


Pete Semper
05-14-2007, 08:52 AM
In your opinion what is the most imporatant GS to win for a player nowadays ? and why ?

Roland Garros
Wimbledon
Flushing Medow
Australian Open

I think the french open is takin over the rest because the game on clay is more interesting to watch for a non tennis fan...The winner is more exposed by the medias.

LttlElvis
05-14-2007, 09:20 AM
Wimbledon is probably the most important solely because of tradition. The players seem to enjoy the French the most.

Being an American, the U.S. Open is the most important to me. The surface is great for any style. Also, there is nothing more exciting than watching prime time night matches.

CEvertFan
05-14-2007, 09:55 AM
I think these days they are ALL important, but Wimbledon has the most prestige and tradition. I would say the French and the US Open are 2nd and I would say that the AO is the Slam that the players and fans love the best: the players for the facilities and amenities (which many players say are better than at the other 3 Slams) and for the fans because it's much less expensive to go to than the other 3 Slams. (the AO has night matches as well).

Gillian
05-14-2007, 06:30 PM
I think this is pretty obvious, guys! Personal preferences aside, I would think most pros, commentators, and historians of the game view them in the following order of importance and prestige:

1. Wimbledon
2. US Open
3. French Open
4. Australian Open

andreh
05-15-2007, 12:27 AM
I think this is pretty obvious, guys! Personal preferences aside, I would think most pros, commentators, and historians of the game view them in the following order of importance and prestige:

1. Wimbledon
2. US Open
3. French Open
4. Australian Open

I agree with this one. It has been the concensus for long time, still is.

tintin
05-15-2007, 05:47 AM
Wimbledon
Roland Garros

than the others
if you win Wimbledon and Roland Garros,they will say you won the 2 most prestigious and oldest slams on the planet.

beernutz
05-15-2007, 09:14 AM
Wimbledon
Roland Garros

than the others
if you win Wimbledon and Roland Garros,they will say you won the 2 most prestigious and oldest slams on the planet.

No, "they" won't.

Like others have said:

Wimbledon
U.S. Open
French
Australian

zapvor
05-15-2007, 10:14 AM
uh...its Roland Garros. tennis began in France, and nowhere else do you have the terre bateau that so many greats have lived and died on.

tintin
05-15-2007, 10:17 AM
No, "they" won't.

Like others have said:

Wimbledon
U.S. Open
French
Australian

well I don't give a rat's arse what "others" have said but;)
Wimbledon
Roland Garros
USO and the Aussie rank in that order

noeledmonds
05-15-2007, 11:14 AM
Wimbledon
Roland Garros

than the others
if you win Wimbledon and Roland Garros,they will say you won the 2 most prestigious and oldest slams on the planet.

The US Open is 10 years older than the French Open. Even the Australian Open allowed foreign competitors before the French Open. In terms of history and prestige the US Open is defenitly above the French Open. Your opinion is of very little value in determining their prestige and can in no way affect their age.

NoBadMojo
05-15-2007, 11:53 AM
I think in order the most important are

US Open
W
Aussie Open
French Open

I now put the USOpen above W because it's really the only majour which doesnt necessarily favour the baseliner and supports a variety of play.
I put the French last because too many one trick ponies and anomolies win this event and it's turned into nothing but a fitness grind (kinda like cycling) as opposed to showcasing a variety of tennis skills

insiderman
05-15-2007, 12:03 PM
My being 'privy' to actually be around the players a great deal, their order is:
1) Wimby
2) French
3) US Open
4) Aussie Open

Those stats are not even close in the % - to win Wimby is by far, and no matter what nationality a player is, the #1 'Gem'.

The others (going for #2 & #3) are pretty close...and the Aussie Open only ranks last due to when it is played...no one wants to start the year that far away AND...doing so with a GS Event. When asked what event they like the BEST for non-playing activities...the list 'flip-flops' greatly.

#1) US Open
#2) Aussie Open
#3) French Open
#4) Wimby

Go figure...

tintin
05-15-2007, 12:07 PM
The US Open is 10 years older than the French Open. Even the Australian Open allowed foreign competitors before the French Open. In terms of history and prestige the US Open is defenitly above the French Open. Your opinion is of very little value in determining their prestige and can in no way affect their age.

well I'm glad you think that way but in a lot of people's eyes RG >>USO
and your opinion isn't important either;)
have a nice day Noe:D

Gizo
05-15-2007, 01:57 PM
I would actually put the US Open top of the list, as for me it has been the most competitive grand slam in the open era, and has the most impressive winners' list:
- Every genuinely great player in the open era has won the tournament apart from Borg, who reached the final 4 times.
- Since the introduction of the computer ranking system in 1973, every US Open champion has reached world no. 1 apart from Guillermo Vilas (denied by a flawed ranking system in 1977) and Manuel Orantes, who both reached world no. 2.
- In the open era, every US Open champion has won a different grand slam apart from Orantes, Rafter, Roddick, who have all reached the finals of different grand slams.

You don't get weak or bogus champions at the US Open.

Moose Malloy
05-15-2007, 03:17 PM
^ along those lines, the US Open is the only slam in the open era not to be affected by boycotts/bannings/etc(at least to a lesser degree)
Overall it has attracted better players than the other slams.

here were some notable problems the other slams encountered:

-wimbledon affected by boycotts in '72/73, not to mention many highly ranked claycourters that skipped it in the 90s

-the australian open was affected negatively by being played in december in the late 70s/early 80s, hardly any top players played it in that time

-the french was missing the best players '70-72 due to political disputes between the ITF & WCT. some top players were banned for playing WTT later in the decade(Connors in '74, Borg in '77)

The US Open was attracting so many great players that they expanded to a 148 player draw in 1972.

noeledmonds
05-16-2007, 05:54 AM
well I'm glad you think that way but in a lot of people's eyes RG >>USO
and your opinion isn't important either;)
have a nice day Noe:D

I have not even expressed my opinion. I merely stated that the USO is older than the FO and has more history and prestiage assosiated with it. This is not a subjective statement it is fact. Your argument for the FO being greater was incorrect on both these accounts.

andreh
05-16-2007, 06:33 AM
I now put the USOpen above W because it's really the only majour which doesnt necessarily favour the baseliner and supports a variety of play.


Wimbledon favors the baseliner???

Andres
05-16-2007, 06:34 AM
I have to agree with tintin
Is obvious that most americans would say the USO before FO, but that's not even a third of the total tennis players.

I have to say, for what I've been hearing from pros, and broadcasting commentators, that FO is slightly more important than USO.

For me? I don't care. Nothing tops Wimbledon!!! :D

NoBadMojo
05-16-2007, 06:47 AM
Wimbledon favors the baseliner???

sure does......

Gillian
05-16-2007, 11:53 AM
I have to agree with tintin
Is obvious that most americans would say the USO before FO, but that's not even a third of the total tennis players.

I have to say, for what I've been hearing from pros, and broadcasting commentators, that FO is slightly more important than USO.


You guys are nutty!! It has nothing to do with one's nationality. It's very obviously as follows...

1. Wimbledon
2. USO
3. French
4. AO

Now, you all may have preferences for one or another, but personal opinions don't count here! I mean, if I were to say I think Monte Carlo is more important than any of them, does that mean I'm right just 'cause its my "opinion"?

teedub
05-16-2007, 12:13 PM
When we're talking prestige this is the order:
Wimbledon
US Open
Roland Garros
Australian Open
If we equate important with prestige, there are no other two ways about it, Wimbledon and US Open have been more important for a much longer time than the other two. Although the French is somewhat catching up, it still doesn't compare to the US Open in terms of prestige and will never touch Wimbledon. How important each of the slams are relative to the players is however different....

Wimbledon is the most important. Wimbledon is probably the most famous tournament in the world, winning it puts you on the map. Followed by the US Open.

Andres
05-16-2007, 12:20 PM
You guys are nutty!! It has nothing to do with one's nationality. It's very obviously as follows...

1. Wimbledon
2. USO
3. French
4. AO

Now, you all may have preferences for one or another, but personal opinions don't count here! I mean, if I were to say I think Monte Carlo is more important than any of them, does that mean I'm right just 'cause its my "opinion"?
I'm not giving a PERSONAL opinion. In fact, FO is my LEAST favourite slam. I'l talking about what i've heard from European players, and broadcasters (OUTSIDE the States, of course)

z-money
05-16-2007, 12:21 PM
Wimbledon #1
RG & US tied for #2
AO doesnt get hyped hear enough for me to care all that much.
Right now clay is rolling and the build up around here to people in the know is huge! But im in america so the us open is big stuff.
But the aura of wimbledon, the grass, the stadiums, the english pride to the place, the all white dress code. its like nothing else in the world. and i think its the most special sporting event in the world

NoBadMojo
05-16-2007, 12:59 PM
I'd like to expand on my earlier comments as a student of the game, taking the media hype out of it, the tradition, etc

1 - USOpen - a hard court grueling two weeks often in very unbearable heat and humidity at the end of a brutal hardcourt season where you have to adjust to facing all types of play from baseliners, to all courters, to serve volleyers. Most everyone plays

2 -W - Used to be my number 1 until they changed the courts from low bounding skidding slick to higher bounding true bouncing. Weather is not demanding and surface is much easier on your body. In the old days (anyone who has played much on grass will tell you) grass is really hard on your lower back, gluts, it bands, etc from all the constant bending and stretching and lunging...now the ball sits up perfectly thank you very much so that western gripping baseliners can comfortably work that steep angled abrupt swing

3 - Aussie Open - again, brutal playing conditions and difficult since it is the first majour of the year and so far away for many. I think it has a lot more momentum than several years ago when some players didnt even bother making the journey. I kinda equate this to the British Open in golf

4 - Dead last. often won by anomoly players and one trick ponies. Played on a very comfortable surface in benign weather. Show up for a match and know what you'll be presented with.....baseline ralleys...hardly any serve volley so no pressure on the service return either, etc and etc

Andres
05-16-2007, 01:19 PM
Weather is not demanding in Wimbledon? Rains once every two days!!!

thetruthshallsetyoufree
05-16-2007, 01:28 PM
Wimbledon favors the baseliner???

no it doesnt. grass is a fast surface. this favors the big serve and the player that can close in on the net first. like ummm, sampras perhaps. or navratilova, or federer? or ivanisevic? or edberg? or becker? ehhh? yeah??? ;)

tintin
05-16-2007, 02:25 PM
4 - Dead last. often won by anomoly players and one trick ponies. Played on a very comfortable surface in benign weather. Show up for a match and know what you'll be presented with.....baseline ralleys...hardly any serve volley so no pressure on the service return either, etc and etc

tell that to Nadal won has won it twice and made Wimbledon's final straight after
I suppose one can argue about Roddick winning the USO was one hell of a trick pony since he hasn't won ***** since and it's been years since he won it;) ;)

NoBadMojo
05-16-2007, 02:37 PM
Weather is not demanding in Wimbledon? Rains once every two days!!!

sorry..i didnt perfectly explain. i was speaking in terms of physically demanding and not the occassional inconveniences of having matches delayed or cancelled at W due to rain..that kind of stuff happens at the us open too, altho perhaps not as much

tell that to Nadal won has won it twice and made Wimbledon's final straight after
I suppose one can argue about Roddick winning the USO was one hell of a trick pony since he hasn't won ***** since and it's been years since he won it;) ;)

right..proves my earlier point that the courts at W now support the play of one dimensional extreme western grippers. a few years earlier the spaniards were threatening to boycott the event because they were terrible on it when the courts played traditionally, and as a result they were seeded lower based upon their lack of ability to play on grass...

AndrewD
05-16-2007, 03:30 PM
When asked what event they like the BEST for non-playing activities...the list 'flip-flops' greatly.

#1) US Open
#2) Aussie Open
#3) French Open
#4) Wimby


The only way the list can flip-flop to have the US Open at the top is if you only poll the American players. In reality, it is the least popular of the 4 events to play in due to the noise, the smell, the crowds, the traffic, the officiating and overall the stress.

The perennial list of most enjoyed event and the word most commonly associated with each event, by the players, is:
1. Aus Open (relaxed)
2. Roland Garros (stylish)
3. Wimbledon (tradition)
4. US Open (noise)

As to which is most prestigious, that isn't even close. Wimbledon is THE tournament to win, no-matter what nationality you are. Next cab off the rank would be Roland Garros, then the US Open and then the Aus Open.

Serve 'em hard
05-16-2007, 03:44 PM
My being 'privy' to actually be around the players a great deal, their order is:
1) Wimby
2) French
3) US Open
4) Aussie Open

Those stats are not even close in the % - to win Wimby is by far, and no matter what nationality a player is, the #1 'Gem'.

The others (going for #2 & #3) are pretty close...and the Aussie Open only ranks last due to when it is played...no one wants to start the year that far away AND...doing so with a GS Event. When asked what event they like the BEST for non-playing activities...the list 'flip-flops' greatly.

#1) US Open
#2) Aussie Open
#3) French Open
#4) Wimby

Go figure...

The only way the list can flip-flop to have the US Open at the top is if you only poll the American players. In reality, it is the least popular of the 4 events to play in due to the noise, the smell, the crowds, the traffic, the officiating and overall the stress.

The perennial list of most enjoyed event and the word most commonly associated with each event, by the players, is:
1. Aus Open (relaxed)
2. Roland Garros (stylish)
3. Wimbledon (tradition)
4. US Open (noise)

As to which is most prestigious, that isn't even close. Wimbledon is THE tournament to win, no-matter what nationality you are. Next cab off the rank would be Roland Garros, then the US Open and then the Aus Open.

I'll leave you boys to argue about which GS the players enjoy the most or has the best food or whatever, but anyone who thinks Roland Garros is more important or prestigious than the US Open lacks understanding and insight into the game and its history. As others have stated, it's obviously Wimbledon, USO, FO, AO in that order.

Serve 'em hard
05-16-2007, 03:52 PM
I put the French last because too many one trick ponies and anomolies win this event and it's turned into nothing but a fitness grind (kinda like cycling)



4 - Dead last... Played on a very comfortable surface in benign weather. Show up for a match and know what you'll be presented with.....baseline ralleys...hardly any serve volley so no pressure on the service return either, etc and etc

So which is it, a fitness grind requiring great stamina like cycling, or a pleasant outing in nice weather on a comfy surface?

I also object to your biased analysis of the GS's and letting that affect your thinking about their prestige. Just because you don't like the way they cut the grass now at Wimbledon doesn't affect its importance, and just because you don't care for baseline rallies by "one trick ponies" at the FO doesn't mean it falls behind the AO in importance. The relative prestige and importance of these tournaments is fixed by history and is not influenced by your particular pet peeves about surface conditions.

NoBadMojo
05-16-2007, 04:04 PM
So which is it, a fitness grind requiring great stamina like cycling, or a pleasant outing in nice weather on a comfy surface?

I also object to your biased analysis of the GS's and letting that affect your thinking about their prestige. Just because you don't like the way they cut the grass now at Wimbledon doesn't affect its importance, and just because you don't care for baseline rallies by "one trick ponies" at the FO doesn't mean it falls behind the AO in importance. The relative prestige and importance of these tournaments is fixed by history and is not influenced by your particular pet peeves about surface conditions.

well its all of that..they dont have to be mutually exclusive dont'cha know. also history changes .... tennis changes.....everything changes

also i prefaced my opinion that i was taking stuff like tradition and media out of the equation and was strictly speaking in terms of the actual tennis being played, so i dont know where you are getting the prestige stuff from..if i was rating it strictly on 'prestige' my order would be different.
i think the way they happen to cut the grass does effect it's importance as less variety and adjustments are now required to play on the surface, and it has become less athletic and more machinelike <as has tennis in general IMO>. from a playing perspective i also think that the AO has more well rounded players winning it as opposed to the French Open which quite usually is about the winner of the war of attrition so i ratre that higher...whoever can keep getting it back ad infinitum until someone gets bored and misses wins at the FO

the very subject of this thread leaves itself to subjective opinions..you have yours and i have mine..they dont match..no big deal

edmondsm
05-16-2007, 05:05 PM
Even though the AO is the least prestigious, it's surface is the most neutral. It comes at the beginning of the year so a great result can make a player's season in the first month of the year.

So prestige aside, I would say the AO is the most important slam.

teedub
05-16-2007, 05:20 PM
Even though the AO is the least prestigious, it's surface is the most neutral. It comes at the beginning of the year so a great result can make a player's season in the first month of the year.

So prestige aside, I would say the AO is the most important slam.

I think it can be argued that the USO would be 'most important' for winning considering it's the last slam played, if there's some sort of tie in the rankings at that point in the year, the USO would be the tie breaker. Also, also have to consider the majority of the master series titles are played on surfaces most similar to the USO than any other slam.

Serve 'em hard
05-16-2007, 05:43 PM
Even though the AO is the least prestigious, it's surface is the most neutral. It comes at the beginning of the year so a great result can make a player's season in the first month of the year.

So prestige aside, I would say the AO is the most important slam.

I think it can be argued that the USO would be 'most important' for winning considering it's the last slam played, if there's some sort of tie in the rankings at that point in the year, the USO would be the tie breaker. Also, also have to consider the majority of the master series titles are played on surfaces most similar to the USO than any other slam.

None of this jazz matters, fellas. If we're talking about prestige and importance of the Grand Slams, there is no argument: Wimbledon > USO > FO > AO. End of story.

All this other stuff -- grass conditions, weather conditions, type of playing style a Slam might favor, current fashions, time of year it's played, etc, are just distractions and irrelevant to the issue at hand. (FYI, NBMJ: my gf would go nuts if she heard you describe the FO as boring and one dimensional and lacking variety -- she think it's the exact opposite in every regard! Plus, don't other people think clay fosters the most variety as well? THESE are the type of questions that are subjective, not the respective prestige and importance of the slams themselves.)

NoBadMojo
05-16-2007, 06:08 PM
None of this jazz matters, fellas. If we're talking about prestige and importance of the Grand Slams, there is no argument: Wimbledon > USO > FO > AO. End of story.

All this other stuff -- grass conditions, weather conditions, type of playing style a Slam might favor, current fashions, time of year it's played, etc, are just distractions and irrelevant to the issue at hand. (FYI, NBMJ: my gf would go nuts if she heard you describe the FO as boring and one dimensional and lacking variety -- she think it's the exact opposite in every regard! Plus, don't other people think clay fosters the most variety as well? THESE are the type of questions that are subjective, not the respective prestige and importance of the slams themselves.)

your gf likes the french open? well thats cool beans..tennis needs the viewership..for me, it is the only time i can actually doze off whilst watching a tennis match....nadal and daveydenko played 3 sets in Rome that seemed never ending......now we have the french on that red stuff and its best of five.....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz :)

in any case, i tend to think it is better tennis and more 'important' if players can hit ALL of the shots rather than just some of them.

Serve 'em hard
05-16-2007, 06:15 PM
your gf likes the french open? well thats cool beans..tennis needs the viewership..for me, it is the only time i can actually doze off whilst watching a tennis match....nadal and daveydenko played 3 sets in Rome that seemed never ending......now we have the french on that red stuff and its best of five.....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz :)

in any case, i tend to think it is better tennis and more 'important' if players can hit ALL of the shots rather than just some of them.

Yeah, she loves that stuff. (And Nadal. And can't stop talking about that stupid Davydenko match which she saw but I missed.) She would argue that the French Open, and clay in general, requires the most variety of skills. More importantly, I've heard that from other, more knowledeable people as well -- clay requires more than just power, and rewards spins, drops, different pace, and variety in general, and is thus more interesting and challenging. It's about more than just smacking a 140 mph serve. I guess you disagree?

NoBadMojo
05-16-2007, 06:26 PM
Yeah, she loves that stuff. (And Nadal. And can't stop talking about that stupid Davydenko match which she saw but I missed.) She would argue that the French Open, and clay in general, requires the most variety of skills. More importantly, I've heard that from other, more knowledeable people as well -- clay requires more than just power, and rewards spins, drops, different pace, and variety in general, and is thus more interesting and challenging. It's about more than just smacking a 140 mph serve. I guess you disagree?

sure..i disagree..i think there's stuff in between endless baseline grinding and having nothing but a serve.

edmondsm
05-16-2007, 06:27 PM
None of this jazz matters, fellas. If we're talking about prestige and importance of the Grand Slams, there is no argument: Wimbledon > USO > FO > AO. End of story.

All this other stuff -- grass conditions, weather conditions, type of playing style a Slam might favor, current fashions, time of year it's played, etc, are just distractions and irrelevant to the issue at hand. (FYI, NBMJ: my gf would go nuts if she heard you describe the FO as boring and one dimensional and lacking variety -- she think it's the exact opposite in every regard! Plus, don't other people think clay fosters the most variety as well? THESE are the type of questions that are subjective, not the respective prestige and importance of the slams themselves.)

Well the question was about the importance of these events and I don't think that is solely about prestige. With the ATP demoting events like MC and creating them in Shanghai I think prestige is a little outdated to tell you the truth.

Serve 'em hard
05-16-2007, 07:53 PM
Well the question was about the importance of these events and I don't think that is solely about prestige. With the ATP demoting events like MC and creating them in Shanghai I think prestige is a little outdated to tell you the truth.

Nah, outdated, smout-dated. Who gives a damn about the ATP or other matters of temporal concern to mortal beings? Wimbledon is timeless...

Serve 'em hard
05-16-2007, 07:54 PM
sure..i disagree..i think there's stuff in between endless baseline grinding and having nothing but a serve.

You really think clay court tennis is all about baseline grinding?

Anyone disagree?

Q&M son
04-19-2008, 03:13 PM
Winbledon, by far.

Q&M son
04-19-2008, 03:14 PM
Ha, I must said Wimbledon before!!! I suck!

chaognosis
04-23-2008, 02:02 PM
I agree with the consensus that seems to be forming here. Wimbledon is the clear number one, both historically and at the present. After that the US Open and Roland Garros are truly neck and neck--historically there's little question that the US maintained a higher level of prestige, though the French really started to ascend in the 1970s and '80s, and there is evidence from 1989 that it had surpassed the US as the second most desirable title. All in all I would say there has been a very gradual movement toward parity among the majors in terms of prestige, though we are by no means there yet.

ClubHoUno
04-23-2008, 03:49 PM
1. Wimby
2. French Open
3. US Open
4. Aussi Open

hoodjem
04-23-2008, 07:00 PM
Wimby.

I do wish they had not slowed it down. Maybe we see some good S & V tennis if it was faster.

CyBorg
04-23-2008, 11:07 PM
They're all worth the exact same amount of points.

!Tym
04-24-2008, 12:04 AM
I don't think Wimbledon is worth that much anymore personally, certainly not at least like it was in the 90s. To me the tournament lost prestige once it started going slow, this made the tournament feel less "traditional" and "elitist" to me. In so doing, the tournament lost its snob appeal as now even those who didn't play traditional strokes and tactics felt like they had a modicum of a chance.

I'd say that the French, US, and Wimbledon are all about the same these days and the individual importance will vary from player to player. I truly think you'll find players in the camp of each of these tournaments, saying it's the best.

The Australian on the other hand is still and always will be fourth. The difference is that whereas before people considered it the last place slam, now they tend to think of it as the second place slam, meaning not quite the same as the French/Wimbledon/US but still a slam in its OWN right nonetheless. That's a marked difference and a huge improvement in my opinion. The Aussie may never be as desirable as the other slams, but I'd say these days it holds just as much importance, if you can understand what I mean.

CyBorg
04-24-2008, 01:53 PM
The Australian on the other hand is still and always will be fourth. The difference is that whereas before people considered it the last place slam, now they tend to think of it as the second place slam, meaning not quite the same as the French/Wimbledon/US but still a slam in its OWN right nonetheless. That's a marked difference and a huge improvement in my opinion. The Aussie may never be as desirable as the other slams, but I'd say these days it holds just as much importance, if you can understand what I mean.

I am beginning to doubt this is true anymore. Roger Federer was about 9 years old when Boris Becker beat Ivan Lendl at the Aussie in 1991 and we all remember Becker's elation. I've read that he screamed at the top of his lungs in the parking lot. The emotion was real. This was a big deal. This is what today's guys grew up watching.

The Aussie is right there with the others. Maybe there is some snob appeal concerning the other majors, but for several years now the prevailing sentiment is that a major is a major and that's that.

Serpententacle
04-24-2008, 01:57 PM
1.) French Open
2.) Wimbledon
3.) US Open
4.) Australian Open

Casey10s
04-24-2008, 02:17 PM
1. Wimbledon
2. U.S. Open
3. Australian
4. French Open

!Tym
04-24-2008, 05:42 PM
I am beginning to doubt this is true anymore. Roger Federer was about 9 years old when Boris Becker beat Ivan Lendl at the Aussie in 1991 and we all remember Becker's elation. I've read that he screamed at the top of his lungs in the parking lot. The emotion was real. This was a big deal. This is what today's guys grew up watching.

The Aussie is right there with the others. Maybe there is some snob appeal concerning the other majors, but for several years now the prevailing sentiment is that a major is a major and that's that.

Yeah, actually what you're saying IS what I mean. The sentiment these days IS more or less that hey, a slam is a slam is a slam, and that includes the Aussie. With this said, given a choice I think you'd find that while there are those who say the French, Wimbledon, and US Open are the ones they want to win the most, you won't find too many who'll say that the Australian is the one they'd pick if told they could only have one slam trohpy in their cabinet when all is said and done.

Becker's jubilation in winning the Australian I thought had more to do with him finally achieving the #1 ranking didn't it? At least, that's what I thought was the story. I didn't really follow tennis in the EARLY 90s.

CyBorg
04-24-2008, 05:52 PM
Yeah, actually what you're saying IS what I mean. The sentiment these days IS more or less that hey, a slam is a slam is a slam, and that includes the Aussie. With this said, given a choice I think you'd find that while there are those who say the French, Wimbledon, and US Open are the ones they want to win the most, you won't find too many who'll say that the Australian is the one they'd pick if told they could only have one slam trohpy in their cabinet when all is said and done.

Just in terms of psychology, I don't think that players go out there and think to themselves "well, whatever happens happens - if I don't win here then I'll just win Wimbledon". No, I think that the general desire is at its maximum at the moment of competition because at this precise time span the event is the one and only. I just don't think that guys actively discriminate, maybe only in retrospect - kind of like what Lendl says in regards to giving up his Frenches for a Wimbledon title. Although I think a lot of this is just Lendl jerking around.

However Nationality is a factor. We don't have a lot of Aussies amongst the best right now. This means that we have American players who desire to win the US Open. We have Europeans and most latin players who want to win the French. And Wimbledon generally attracts both, although there is also some distaste from both sides that dislike the surface or the culture. So I think that perhaps the problem with the Aussie is less its history and more its location (not Europe, not US). This means that few players really go and feel at home there.

Becker's jubilation in winning the Australian I thought had more to do with him finally achieving the #1 ranking didn't it? At least, that's what I thought was the story. I didn't really follow tennis in the EARLY 90s.

Yes, I think that this was part of it, but my points is more in regards to the spectator. The guys who are playing now were young spectators at the time that this happened and this is what they saw. They saw Becker win the Austrialian and later Sampras and later Agassi.

boredone3456
04-24-2008, 06:53 PM
I think this argument can be taken from different points. A major factor is player importance...for instance for Henin, Wimbledon is probably her number one focus so she can achieve her grand slam...its probably the french for federer, same reason. players value different slam for different reasons, be it the surface, home court, prize money, or what have you.

I think based on history...Wimbledon is probably the one that is the most prestigous, with the french being second. I say this because the traditions of these events havent changed much. the courts haven't changes multiple times like the others, they just have tradition...Wimbledon maybe a little more so then the others.

The way a lot of people talk, Wimbledon is still hyped as the most important...but since Grass is such a small part of the overall season anymore...I really dont think so anymore...I'd say overall the us open...its the last one of the year and players generally want to end the year strong...and it has about a month and half leading up to it and depending on how you do, the prize money as much as doubles. it has a huge media blitz, including kids day, before it even starts. today the us open is built up so much...and given the huge buildup design...it could definitely be consideered most important now-a-days

tennis_guy
04-25-2008, 11:48 AM
French open
wimbledon
Us open

Australian open

peluzon
04-25-2008, 12:08 PM
Roland Garros
Wimbledon
USOPEN
Abierto de Australia

soyizgood
04-25-2008, 12:37 PM
well I'm glad you think that way but in a lot of people's eyes RG >>USO
and your opinion isn't important either;)
have a nice day Noe:D

I did a poll here on USO vs FO. USO OWNED that poll.
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=135711

soyizgood
04-25-2008, 01:17 PM
Wimbledon has its tradition, but US Open is a better barometer of greatness. French Open has had way too many one trick ponies and the AO better be fun since it's inconvenient as heck to get there as well as deal with the heat.

AndrewD
04-25-2008, 01:21 PM
If the USO really was a more important tournament than all of the others, even if it just ranked second to Wimbledon, there wouldn't be any need for these threads. Truth is, the USO owes its position solely to the financial rewards it offers - has done since the game went Open. Take the dollars away and you see it for what it is - a noisy, addled and charmless monstrosity that has little significance to anyone but Americans.

chaognosis
04-25-2008, 01:50 PM
If the USO really was a more important tournament than all of the others, even if it just ranked second to Wimbledon, there wouldn't be any need for these threads. Truth is, the USO owes its position solely to the financial rewards it offers - has done since the game went Open. Take the dollars away and you see it for what it is - a noisy, addled and charmless monstrosity that has little significance to anyone but Americans.

Andrew, don't you think this is going a bit too far? The US Championships were the second oldest major tournament; they were open to foreigners long before the French Nationals (H.L. Doherty won the US singles in 1903, a feat that was considered the greatest achievement in tennis history prior to WWI). Not only Americans, but also writers from Australia, Italy, etc., have written over the past century that Wimbledon and the US Championships were the two preeminent events in tennis (aside from Davis Cup, of course). There is no question that the US Championships were of tremendous importance internationally in the 1920s, '30s, and '40s--behind only Davis Cup and Wimbledon--and it has been well documented that not only, e.g., McEnroe, but even somebody like Lendl, regarded Wimbledon and the US Open as being more important than the other majors in the 1980s. I know that this is a somewhat emotional topic for you, and I agree that there has long been a high degree of parochialism in the US media, but I think this may be clouding your judgment, such that your counterattack has become equally extreme, if not downright inflammatory.

As I posted before, there has been a perceptible, but gradual, movement toward parity among the majors... it seems to me hard not to admit that the US Open and Roland Garros are now very much regarded at the same level, with the Australian certainly in the mix as well. But this has not ALWAYS been the case, by any means.

soyizgood
04-25-2008, 02:50 PM
I wonder if the USO was held in Connecticut, Virginia, or upstate NY rather than Flushing Meadows it would rival Wimbledon in terms of scenery. The USO is almost as old as Wimbledon and in the Modern era the USO's list of Men's champions is by far the most impressive of the slams. I don't really see much that Wimbledon has on the USO other than tradition, the neutered-down grass, and the royal family in the stands once in a while. I like all the slams, but I'm a proud fan of the USO. :)

chaognosis
04-25-2008, 03:16 PM
Well, it seems to really just boil down to tradition. I don't think that an event's being "scenic" or "enjoyable" has much to do with its prestige, for example...

Moose Malloy
04-25-2008, 04:38 PM
Truth is, the USO owes its position solely to the financial rewards it offers - has done since the game went Open. Take the dollars away and you see it for what it is - a noisy, addled and charmless monstrosity that has little significance to anyone but Americans.

'Noisy montrosity' or not it seems to influence the other slams a bit.
The other slams started making their prize money competitive with the USO in the 70s/80s & started getting better fields.
The AO changed its surface to hardcourt, started having night matches, night finals, etc after the USO did all that first. And they were the first slam to have instant replay as well. The AO & Wimbledon soon followed.
Now all the slams are noisy(& profitable) montrosities as well. Guess that's what professional sport is all about ultimately, making a lot of money.

my_forehand
04-25-2008, 07:32 PM
Wimbledon favors the baseliner???

no it doesnt. grass is a fast surface. this favors the big serve and the player that can close in on the net first. like ummm, sampras perhaps. or navratilova, or federer? or ivanisevic? or edberg? or becker? ehhh? yeah??? ;)

So Nadal S&V's with his fast serve. Okay.

They're all worth the exact same amount of points.

:lol:

msunderland71
04-25-2008, 08:21 PM
Cyborg is dead right. They are all slams. Whatever happened in the past is irrelevant as the thread says "most important grand slam nowadays". Winning a slam is a career highlight for any player no matter which location.
Polls on this site are not really valid as there would be many more people from the US here than from Europe or Australia. I'm from none of these places, but someone from my city won 4 Wimbledons yet I wouldn't vote for Wimbledon.

They're all worth the exact same amount of points.

AndrewD
04-25-2008, 08:26 PM
Andrew, don't you think this is going a bit too far?

Somewhat, but appreciate how frustrating it is to read comment after comment being made without the slightest understanding of the game's history. America and the USO is not now, nor has it ever been, the alpha and omega of tennis or life on this planet. People need to get that through their thick skulls before trying to rank anything.

Regardless, to answer your question with a question:
Bjorn Borg wouldn't play the AO because the prize money and guarantees weren't 'signicant' enough for him. Do you honestly think he would have played the US Open if the financial incentives hadn't been so rich? Answer that honestly and you'll see exactly how significant the USO is.

chaognosis
04-25-2008, 08:58 PM
Somewhat, but appreciate how frustrating it is to read comment after comment being made without the slightest understanding of the game's history.

I couldn't agree more about this.


Bjorn Borg wouldn't play the AO because the prize money and guarantees weren't 'signicant' enough for him. Do you honestly think he would have played the US Open if the financial incentives hadn't been so rich? Answer that honestly and you'll see exactly how significant the USO is.

Difficult to say. I'm quite sure that Borg would have competed in Australia if the Grand Slam were on the line, regardless of the prize money--I do think that there has traditionally been an element of "prestige" associated with various achievements in the game that is irrespective of money (one only need look back to the amateur days to verify this), but it is true that the financial incentives were a huge piece of the puzzle, especially in the 1970s and '80s. Still, when Lendl states, in retrospect, that he would trade all his French Opens for one Wimbledon, but that he wouldn't trade his US Opens, I think that there is an implied hierarchy there (at least in one player's mind) that can't be boiled down simply to the size of the purse. That was many years ago, however, and it seems evident that the differential among the majors has more or less disappeared, with the sole, lingering exception of Wimbledon (e.g., Federer's repeatedly stating that his big goals each year are securing the No. 1 ranking and winning Wimbledon, Nadal's statement that winning Wimbledon is his ultimate dream, etc.). So we are basically in agreement when it comes to today's game.

hoodjem
04-26-2008, 07:33 AM
Still, when Lendl states, in retrospect, that he would trade all his French Opens for one Wimbledon, but that he wouldn't trade his US Opens, I think that there is an implied hierarchy there (at least in one player's mind) that can't be boiled down simply to the size of the purse.

I do agree with you Chaog, but I also think we do need to take Lendl's statement with a grain of salt.

Lendl has always been a bit of an Americanophile. After all, he didn't settle in Provence, and he doesn't have French citizenship today. I think Lendl (for his own reasons) was always drawn to the bigness, hype, money, glamor, or glitz of the USO and the US versus the FO and France.

AndrewD
04-30-2008, 08:32 AM
Difficult to say.


No, it really isn't difficult to say as the question is quite easy. Would Borg have played the US Open if the money (including his other contracts) wasn't sufficient? No, of course he wouldn't. If he played it just to win the Grand Slam then all that tells you is that the Grand Slam had enough prestige for him to overlook the poor financial return. Regardless, when money is the incentive you can't argue for prestige.

That's exactly the same attitude players took when they missed the French Open to compete in WTT. No-one would suggest WTT ranks with the French in terms of prestige but the players didn't enter because they were being paid more to play in the States. Unfortunately for the French, as with the Australian, it wasn't played in a country with as much financial strength as America. Doesn't mean either was less prestigious, just that they weren't financially able to meet the demands of professional tennis.

Interestingly, once dominance on the tour shifted from America to Europe the French and Australian returned to prominence. I think there's something to be learned from that.


Still, when Lendl states, in retrospect, that he would trade all his French Opens for one Wimbledon, but that he wouldn't trade his US Opens, I think that there is an implied hierarchy there (at least in one player's mind) that can't be boiled down simply to the size of the purse.

That's where you have to be a more critical reader and, before taking that statement at face value, ask yourself
1) who was he talking to (which publication) and
2) in what country did Lendl always want to be accepted?

Regardless, what one player thinks is hardly worth basing an argument on. I'm sure Agassi, an American, would be happy to swap one of his Australian titles for another US Open. I'm certain, if you told Pat Rafter he could swap his two US Opens for 1 Wimbledon and 1 Australian I'll bet he'd take it in a shot. Wouldn't be surprised if he was willing to swap them for two Aus Opens. Would also expect Hewitt to happily swap his US for an Aus.

You also have to remember, when discussing the prestige of these events, that our (Australia's) connection to England is far stronger than yours and, for the immediately post-war generations, their ambivalence towards the USA was particularly strong. Those two things do add up to one of the leading tennis nations from 1920 and the leading tennis nation from 1950-1970, not rating the US Open highly at all.

vive le beau jeu !
04-30-2008, 10:09 AM
still the US open for me ! ;)
(then probably wimbledon because of all the tradition stuff)
us open for me.
i prefer the tennis played there (neutral surface + night sessions).
the list of former winners is really impressive : only players that have been #1 since 1978 (year when they turned to hard court).
it's the last slam of the year since 1986, which makes it a bit more crucial in my opinion.

and as a modest TV spectator : so many great memories of cool matches watched during the night (with the time lag) when i was younger... until the morning lights. :)

bluetrain4
04-30-2008, 10:45 AM
I would imagine that a lot of people will say Wimbledon due to the prestige and tradition. Fact is, a non-tennis fan will be impressed that a player won Wimbledon because even non-fans are aware of it and the prestige associated with it. So for cache value, Wimbledon wins. The issue is how much value you place on on the iconic nature of Wimbledon in determining what Slam is most "important" (an amorphous concept at best).

Anyone who is a serious tennis fan knows how equalized the Slams have become, both in terms of prize money, facilities, and the quality of the fields. Almost all the top players show up for all the Slams now. It is no more difficult to win Wimbledon than it is to win any of the other Slams. To me, they are equally important, but I'm not ignorant of historical biases. If someone won 5 Wimbledon titles in this day and age and someone else won 5 Australian Opens, I wouldn't, for a second, think that the Wimbledon winner was the better player. But, I know a lot of people would.

Moose Malloy
04-30-2008, 10:52 AM
would imagine that a lot of people will say Wimbledon due to the prestige and tradition. Fact is, a non-tennis fan will be impressed that a player won Wimbledon because even non-fans are aware of it and the prestige associated with it. So for cache value, Wimbledon wins. The issue is how much value you place on on the iconic nature of Wimbledon in determining what Slam is most "important" (an amorphous concept at best).

after Davenport won Wimbledon she said she received far more media requests than she did after she won the USO.

bluetrain4
04-30-2008, 10:55 AM
Think of how we, in the past, have perceived players who have one or more of the Slams missing from their resume. I don't necessarily agree with this.

Lendl's career, as great as it was, always brings mention of the fact that he was "unable to win Wimbledon." It is always part of the conversation, and people reference that fact with a combination of sadness and disdain.

We rarely hear such talk when speaking of Sampras' career and his missing French Open.

Borg's inability to win the USO is often mentioned, but then the talk turns right back to his ability to win back to back FOs and Wimbledons on multiple occasions. His missing USO is considered somewhat more of deficiency than Sampras' missing French, but nowhere near as much as Lendl's missing Wimbledon.

The AO isn't even an issue. No one ever points out a missing AO title. This is most likley due to the fact that the "modern" AO hasn't been around that long and back when it was at Kooyong, it had inconistent fields, and was a much smaller tournament than it is today.

Moose Malloy
04-30-2008, 11:12 AM
His missing USO is considered somewhat more of deficiency than Sampras' missing French, but nowhere near as much as Lendl's missing Wimbledon.


I think part of this is because Lendl made it so well-known how badly he wanted to win W. Both Sampras & Borg were low-key about their desires to win the FO & USO, if they wanted to win them as badly as Lendl wanted to win W, they certainly weren't obvious about it.

Lendl said in 1987 that if he could win W that year & lose every other match he played that year he would take that deal.

In 1990 he skipped the FO(when he clearly was still the best claycourter in the world) to prepare more on grass. He even had a grasscourt put down at his home at CT!

In 1992 he said that he would trade all his FO's for one W(I think)

That's partly why so many make a big deal about Lendl's lack of a W title, his quest for that title became very public. Even today when all we have are old memories of that decade, its hard to forget all this, it was a big deal. Lendl became as famous for his quest for W as he did for his other wins at the other majors. I admire him a lot for putting himself out there like that, most players try to take pressure off themselves by downplaying their true goals(like Fed constantly saying he wouldn't trade any of his W's for a FO, or when being asked this for the last 2 years or so - if he had to choose between winning Wimbledon or the FO that year, which one would he take? He always replies Wimbledon)

chaognosis
04-30-2008, 03:06 PM
Andrew, I do have a problem with your "critical" reading. There is of course great value in any hermeneutic of suspicion, and I appreciate where you're coming from, but where is the evidence for your counterproposal? You can't completely dismiss the prestige issue on the basis of money; simply saying that money was a factor does not prove that prestige was NOT a factor. That's a logical fallacy; money only clouds the issue, but it is no trump card. (At the very least you need to admit that this is all speculation, and so there are no easy, simple, or objective answers. Besides, money and prestige are closely interrelated, especially today.) And the Lendl quote is far from the sole basis of my argument. I could cite Bud Collins, who called Wimbledon and the US Open the "two most important titles" in tennis (2003), but I know that you will dismiss that or anything else I put forward on any number of grounds: either the source is American, or it wants to be American, or it is pandering to an American audience, or it is tainted by American influence, etc., etc. What I'm still waiting for is even a shred of genuine evidence to back up your own claims, e.g., that the US Championships were not highly valued in the 1950s, '60s, and into the '70s. One can easily look at the records and see that the great Australian players competed at the US with some frequency, whereas the top American players of that period did not make the trip to Australia nearly as often (Budge Patty, for example, never even competed there once). Likewise, European players such as Drobny and Pietrangeli went to America more often than to Australia during the same period. If you could give me even a single citation to support your case, I would be more than willing to believe you... I respect your knowledge of and passion for the game, but I think you sometimes take your patriotic agenda to heights of absurdity. From my own readings, it seems clear that Wimbledon has generally been seen as the most prestigious event, followed by the US and French Championships (I would put them on about equal footing these days, though they seem to have gone back and forth over time), with the Australian a clear #4. If you are going to argue against the prevailing view, I need more than just "because Andrew says so" and "America is evil." I don't view this as an "us" versus "them" issue, and I hope you don't either; I am just trying to honestly represent the history here.

Mikael
05-02-2008, 02:45 AM
Who cares what the armchair tennis players on these boards think, all that matters is the opinion of the pros that are actually playing out there! It is the effort and motivation they bring to each slam that determines the importance of the slam, not some obscure trivia that is being debated here by tennis history geeks...

There was a poll of the top 100 done a few years ago by a tennis magazine and the result was: 1. Wimbledon 2. FO 3. USO 4.AO.

It's pretty simple in fact: Wimbledon is usually at the top for anyone, even claycourters and non-Europeans, because of the prestige and tradition. The big battle is for spot #2, and here you usually have both Europeans and dirtballers siding with the FO while US players, some non-Europeans and a few fastcourt players go with the USO. The FO ends up winning the battle because there are many more Europeans and dirtballers in the ATP than US players. Notice that on these boards it is the opposite.

The AO comes last except for Australian players and a few others because it is too recent - not much prestige yet - even though most agree it is the most pleasant slam to compete in.

origmarm
05-02-2008, 02:54 AM
For me it is different if I am there vs. if I watch it on TV.

If I am there:
Wimbledon, French, Australian, US

If I watch it on TV:
Wimbledon, US, Australian, French

The French has an amazing atmosphere when you are there. The Aussie is just a great facility and the night matches have great atmosphere. Still nothing compares to the drama and steeped tradition of Wimbledon. In terms of the tennis though I prefer to watch the US over the French and the Aussie. I don't like the US stadium or facilities much and the noise...

I think the players widely rate it as:
Wimbledon, French, US, Aussie in terms of their enjoyment. If you asked them what SLAMs they would have in what order they would say Wimbledon, US, French, Aussie I think.

tom_asdelonge182
05-10-2008, 01:39 AM
I think this differs with people of different nationality. Wimbledon is number one for sure but for me the Australian Open as my local grand slam. Then French and last US. Well just my opinion anyway.

Legend of Borg
05-10-2008, 07:21 PM
Usually, for a player, the greatest achievement would be winning Wimbledon. It is a tournament based around tradition, not to mention prestige and class. That's just my opinion.

caulcano
05-13-2008, 04:08 AM
Someone should ask the pros.

I think it would end up something like this:

1) Wimbledon
2) US open
3) FO
4) AO

0d1n
05-13-2008, 06:41 AM
You guys are nutty!! It has nothing to do with one's nationality. It's very obviously as follows...

1. Wimbledon
2. USO
3. French
4. AO

Now, you all may have preferences for one or another, but personal opinions don't count here! I mean, if I were to say I think Monte Carlo is more important than any of them, does that mean I'm right just 'cause its my "opinion"?

Yeah ... right...you just stated your opinion!

I did a poll here on USO vs FO. USO OWNED that poll.
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=135711

We ARE posting in a forum dominated by US posters ... is that result much of a surprise for you ???
It's not a surprise for me...

0d1n
05-13-2008, 07:08 AM
Someone should ask the pros.

I think it would end up something like this:

1) Wimbledon
2) US open
3) FO
4) AO

Someone apparently DID ask the pros and your ranking is flawed according to them.
This is highly subjective though.....see bellow...

Who cares what the armchair tennis players on these boards think, all that matters is the opinion of the pros that are actually playing out there! It is the effort and motivation they bring to each slam that determines the importance of the slam, not some obscure trivia that is being debated here by tennis history geeks...

There was a poll of the top 100 done a few years ago by a tennis magazine and the result was: 1. Wimbledon 2. FO 3. USO 4.AO.

It's pretty simple in fact: Wimbledon is usually at the top for anyone, even claycourters and non-Europeans, because of the prestige and tradition. The big battle is for spot #2, and here you usually have both Europeans and dirtballers siding with the FO while US players, some non-Europeans and a few fastcourt players go with the USO. The FO ends up winning the battle because there are many more Europeans and dirtballers in the ATP than US players. Notice that on these boards it is the opposite.

The AO comes last except for Australian players and a few others because it is too recent - not much prestige yet - even though most agree it is the most pleasant slam to compete in.


I think the most important Grand Slam ... is the "true" grand slam (i.e winning all 4 majors).
I think the debate is endless with regards to which one is second/third. Pretty much everybody agrees that Wimbledon was/is the most "glamorous" and the Australian was the least "glamorous" (which is a load of cr4p ... in the year 2008 ).
I think AndrewD posted some VERY valid reasons for why the debate stands the way it stands on this forum, and I fully agree that MONEY has a lot to do with it.
For me the US open turned too much into "cheap entertainment" (all of the slams and tournaments are heading in the same direction sadly...) and it's less entertaining for me as a "hardcore" tennis fan for this reason. I do agree that the surface is good for many styles and I like the kind of match up it can create but this is NOT unique to the US open type of hard court ... it's also true for the Aussie Open hard court.
I strongly believe that in the last years all the 4 majors are for all intents and purposes "equal", and the only thing standing between many of us and that simple fact (or opinion) is our own bias.
This bias will still be around for a long time and because of it Wimbledon may still be considered "more equal" than the others ... but I'm in the camp that thinks ANY of the 4 Grand Slams is a huge achievement and should be regarded as such.
Anybody who uses the argument that "player X" won 2 US opens and hence is a "greater" player than "player Y" who won 2 French Opens or 1 French and 1 Australian is a freaking moron in my book. In fact ... anybody who won 2 different slams instead of just winning one twice, is the better player in my book (regardless of those 2 ... but preferably not the Aussie and US...since they are both hard court) because it demonstrates more variety or the ability to play on different surfaces.
There ... I said it :mad:.

chaognosis
05-13-2008, 07:16 AM
The last significant poll of top players that I know was taken in 1989, by the French Tennis magazine, and concluded that Wimbledon was the most prestigious, followed by Roland Garros, then the US Open, and finally the Australian. I've forgotten the exact details of the poll, but many stars were asked, including J. McEnroe, Edberg, etc. I can look it up later if anyone is interested.

hoodjem
05-13-2008, 07:30 AM
^^^Chaog,
Please do.

Wimbledon favors the baseliner???

Is the new grass at Wimbledon really that slow? Geez!

Tennis old man
05-13-2008, 08:13 AM
The last significant poll of top players that I know was taken in 1989, by TennisWeek, and concluded that Wimbledon was the most prestigious, followed by Roland Garros, then the US Open, and finally the Australian. I've forgotten the exact details of the poll, but many stars were asked, including J. McEnroe, Edberg, etc. I can look it up later if anyone is interested.

Me, interested, chaognosis.
A poll in this thread would be better.

chaognosis
05-14-2008, 01:06 AM
I was partially mistaken. The 1989 poll was originally conducted by the French Tennis magazine, and then reprinted in the July 6, 1989, issue of Tennis Week. (It is also available in E. Digby Baltzell's book Sporting Gentlemen, which is where I first encountered it.) Eighty-nine male and female players participated, including Edberg, Lendl, McEnroe, Noah, and Wilander, and Sanchez, Shriver, and Sukova. There were sixteen players from the United States involved; eleven from Sweden; ten from France; six each from Italy and Czechoslovakia; five from Spain; four each from Argentina and Australia; three each from Austria, Belgium, and Switzerland; two each from West Germany, Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Yugoslavia; and one each from South Africa, Denmark, India, Iran, Haiti, Hungary, Mexico, Peru, the Soviet Union, and Uruguay. These players ranked the major championships as I reported earlier, according to "prestige": (1) Wimbledon, (2) French Open, (3) U.S. Open, and (4) Australian Open.

Gorecki
05-15-2008, 08:11 AM
[QUOTE]So which is it, a fitness grind requiring great stamina like cycling, or a pleasant outing in nice weather on a comfy surface?
[QUOTE]

might as well award him a Certificate of Pwnage.. . haha

as far as the thread title, i dont give a nickel for the US Open... it is a reflection of the all american kitsch culture (not criticism, just diferent way of life wich i dislike)