PDA

View Full Version : Grand Slams - Is there a 'pecking order'?


batz
02-19-2009, 10:23 AM
Are all slams viewed as equally desirable by players and fans or is there a pecking order?

I think Wimbledon is The Daddy but then again I am British so my opinion is hardly unbiased. I'd rank the US Open as a close second, with RG and the AO in joint third.

What do you guys think?

TennisandMusic
02-19-2009, 10:30 AM
Are all slams viewed as equally desirable by players and fans or is there a pecking order?

I think Wimbledon is The Daddy but then again I am British so my opinion is hardly unbiased. I'd rank the US Open as a close second, with RG and the AO in joint third.

What do you guys think?

I think anyone who knows a decent amount of tennis, or anything about tennis really, knows that Wimbledon is the most important. I don't think there is really an arguing this. Second should be the US Open, based on history and prestige. Third would be the French, and last by a country mile is the Australian. It has definitely increased it's importance a bit in recent years, but this one was just plain skipped by so many of the top players until only "recently."

Everyone certainly has their favorites, but it seems like ranking them in terms of "prestige" is pretty cut and dry, though I know many will argue this point for whatever reason.

THUNDERVOLLEY
02-19-2009, 10:47 AM
I think anyone who knows a decent amount of tennis, or anything about tennis really, knows that Wimbledon is the most important. I don't think there is really an arguing this. Second should be the US Open, based on history and prestige.

Agreed. In all of the decades watching tennis, it was clear to me that players just put greater energy, talent (that is, the players with talent) and determination when at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open. It is then no surprise or coincidence that many of the greatest, sport-defining matches of all time occured at the two slams in question.

gj011
02-19-2009, 10:50 AM
The USO is second only in minds of Americans.

Anyone in Europe would say that RG is more important and prestigious than USO.

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

federerdomination
02-19-2009, 10:51 AM
The USO is second only in minds of Americans.

Anyone in Europe would say that RG is more important and prestigious than USO.

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

I agree with you.

TennisandMusic
02-19-2009, 10:54 AM
The USO is second only in minds of Americans.

Anyone in Europe would say that RG is more important and prestigious than USO.

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

And any tennis historian will tell you the US Open is more prestigious. This goes to exactly what I said above. People will argue this for no good reason. You're simply not correct in this case and it has NOTHING to do with where people are from. I'm "American" and far and away Wimbledon is the most important major. If this were based on region wouldn't I be saying the US is the most important? Let's be serious here.

Leave personal preference and regional ego issues out of it. There is a clear "pecking order" to answer the question of the OP, and it is what I stated in my original post. It has nothing to do with any kind of nationalistic pride concerns. The French is below the US Open in terms of the caliber of player that has won it historically, and it's level of prestige. There is simply no REAL argument over this.

batz
02-19-2009, 10:57 AM
The USO is second only in minds of Americans.

Anyone in Europe would say that RG is more important and prestigious than USO.

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

Britain was in Europe the last time I checked and I disagree with you :)

Only kidding - you're perfectly entitled to your opinion.

bluetrain4
02-19-2009, 11:03 AM
I think Wimbledon stands above the rest in the popular imagination. Even casual sports fans know of Wimbledon's significance and prestige.

That said, in this day and age with stellar fields at all Slams and all the Slams fully developed, I personally don't think it is any more of an acheivement to win one Slam or the other. People may assign more prestige to Wimbledon, but I would never conclude that a player who won Wimbledon was any better based on that result than a player who one the USO or the AO, for example.

gj011
02-19-2009, 11:03 AM
And any tennis historian will tell you the US Open is more prestigious. This goes to exactly what I said above. People will argue this for no good reason. You're simply not correct in this case and it has NOTHING to do with where people are from. I'm "American" and far and away Wimbledon is the most important major. If this were based on region wouldn't I be saying the US is the most important? Let's be serious here.

Leave personal preference and regional ego issues out of it. There is a clear "pecking order" to answer the question of the OP, and it is what I stated in my original post. It has nothing to do with any kind of nationalistic pride concerns. The French is below the US Open in terms of the caliber of player that has won it historically, and it's level of prestige. There is simply no REAL argument over this.

That "any tennis historian" is simply not true.

I am just saying that "your pecking order" as you define it is not clear and determined. What is clear is that Wimbledon is first and AO is last. Who is second RG or USO is debatable and differs depending of who is making the list. It is far from clear like you or Thundervolley tried to make it. RG is not historically in any way less prestigious than USO as you are trying to make it. The fact that it is older has no bearing today or last say 50 years, whatsoever.

mikeler
02-19-2009, 11:05 AM
I'm from the USA so maybe I'm biased but my pecking order is:

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

I'm thinking most people are going to agree with 1 and 4 but I think the difference between 2 and 3 is a subject for debate, so I'd be interested in hearing more.

TennisandMusic
02-19-2009, 11:10 AM
I am just saying that "your pecking order" as you define it is not clear and determined. What is clear is that Wimbledon is first and AO is last. Who is second RG or USO is debatable and differs depending of who is making the list. It is far from clear like you or Thundervolley tried to make it. RG is not historically in any way less prestigious than USO as you are trying to make it. The fact that is is older has no bearing today whatsoever.

The fact that it is older, and had more of the tennis greats win it DOES have a bearing on the tournament.

I think you'll find that any person that has a decent knowledge of tennis will admit the US Open is simply more prestigious than the French. The only people who argue otherwise do so out of personal preference or a strange need to try and elevate that tournament. You are stating yourself you prefer it because you're European. That makes no sense to me. It's an international sport and where the tournaments are played has no bearing on their importance.

The US Open has a longer history, greater champions win there, it is more prestigious than the French. End of story.

TennisandMusic
02-19-2009, 11:12 AM
I think Wimbledon stands above the rest in the popular imagination. Even casual sports fans know of Wimbledon's significance and prestige.

That said, in this day and age with stellar fields at all Slams and all the Slams fully developed, I personally don't think it is any more of an acheivement to win one Slam or the other. People may assign more prestige to Wimbledon, but I would never conclude that a player who won Wimbledon was any better based on that result than a player who one the USO or the AO, for example.

Well you should, the best shotmakers and overall athletes win on grass. It is the toughest all around surface to win on, and that's why the true greats win there often. It requires the most all around tennis skills.

Geezer Guy
02-19-2009, 11:18 AM
Are all slams viewed as equally desirable by players and fans or is there a pecking order?

We may as well argue about which religion is the right one.

It's a personal preference. Many players want most to win the Slam hosted by their country. From what I've heard, if a player doesn't want to win their National slam the most, then they want to win Wimbledon.
Fans - the same thing.

Personally, as a fan, I've been to the US Open once, and it was great. My second choice is to go the the Aus open. French is probably my least favorite to attend (or to watch, for that matter).

roddickfan90
02-19-2009, 11:22 AM
everyone wants to win wimbledon, fact. US open is the second biggest slam and i aint american, i would say the australian open is better than the french, bcuz of the atmosphere and francce is just a boring place.

ESP#1
02-19-2009, 11:28 AM
RG is up there as far as prestige maybe not at the level of Wimbly but above Australian and USO. At the same time you cant say enough about the excitement of the AO and USO. Apples to Oranges to me all great tournaments

batz
02-19-2009, 11:29 AM
The fact that it is older, and had more of the tennis greats win it DOES have a bearing on the tournament.

I think you'll find that any person that has a decent knowledge of tennis will admit the US Open is simply more prestigious than the French. The only people who argue otherwise do so out of personal preference or a strange need to try and elevate that tournament. You are stating yourself you prefer it because you're European. That makes no sense to me. It's an international sport and where the tournaments are played has no bearing on their importance.

The US Open has a longer history, greater champions win there, it is more prestigious than the French. End of story.


Have to agree with this. The USO has been going for nearly half a century longer. That has to mean something in the overall scheme of things.

ESP#1
02-19-2009, 11:29 AM
everyone wants to win wimbledon, fact. US open is the second biggest slam and i aint american, i would say the australian open is better than the french, bcuz of the atmosphere and francce is just a boring place.

spoken like a true american if you ask me

rubberduckies
02-19-2009, 11:32 AM
spoken like a true american if you ask me

Spoken like an idiot, if you ask me.

ESP#1
02-19-2009, 11:34 AM
Spoken like an idiot, if you ask me.

ill tell ya what you can do with your rubberduckies buddy

sp00q
02-19-2009, 11:34 AM
The USO is second only in minds of Americans.

Anyone in Europe would say that RG is more important and prestigious than USO.

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

Absolutely agree. And I would change it into 1.RG and 2.Wimbledon because I like the RG atmosphere a whole lot more! But that's only my personal prefference - I'm from Nastase's country and RG is the only slam he won - it's seen with different eyes here.

VivalaVida
02-19-2009, 11:37 AM
The fact that it is older, and had more of the tennis greats win it DOES have a bearing on the tournament.

I think you'll find that any person that has a decent knowledge of tennis will admit the US Open is simply more prestigious than the French. The only people who argue otherwise do so out of personal preference or a strange need to try and elevate that tournament. You are stating yourself you prefer it because you're European. That makes no sense to me. It's an international sport and where the tournaments are played has no bearing on their importance.

The US Open has a longer history, greater champions win there, it is more prestigious than the French. End of story.
I completely agree with you T&M. The US open has an incredibly illustrious past.

ESP#1
02-19-2009, 11:39 AM
USO maybe older but i think it lost some of its prestige when they moved to hard courts, if they wouldve stayed at forest hills and remained a grass court tourney than yes i would agree

matchmaker
02-19-2009, 11:42 AM
Well, you can look at it from a historical point of view, or a more technical point of view.

My list would be:
1. Wimbledon
2. Roland Garros
3. U.S. Open
4. Australian Open

Wimbledon is first because of many historical reasons, it is also played on grass, which is still the most different surface in comparison with all the others.

For me RG comes in second because I think that it is the most desirable title for any tennis player after Wimbledon. How many people have been able to do the double? Ask McEnroe, Sampras, Edberg, Becker, and now Federer, how much they would have wanted to win it. Or ask someone like Lendl, who won RG, how much he would have liked to win Wimbledon.

I know historically the U.S.O. should be ranked high, but the absence of a full fifth set, degrades the tournament for me almost to an event outside the Grand Slam.
Moreover the fact that semis are played on Saturday and the final is on Sunday afternoon, is completely absurd and very unfair towards the participants of the last semifinal. If they play for 5 hours, then that is difference almost impossible to recover.

The Australian Open is slightly better considering that particular aspect, but it is still unfair that one semifinal is played a day later than the other.

I basically think Wimbledon and RG are the two extremes and that is why they are the most desirable titles.

P_Agony
02-19-2009, 11:43 AM
The USO is second only in minds of Americans.

Anyone in Europe would say that RG is more important and prestigious than USO.

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

Wrong.

1. Wimbeldom
2. USO
3. RG
4. AO

And I'm not an american

dirtballer
02-19-2009, 11:44 AM
Nastasi also won the US Open in 1972. He beat Arthur Ashe in the final.

DarthFed
02-19-2009, 11:47 AM
I thought it was common Knowledge that it was :

Wimby
USO
RG
AO

TennisandMusic
02-19-2009, 11:48 AM
Again, people injecting a lot of personal opinion into their rankings. Saying that because the US uses a fifth set tiebreaker so it's almost not a major, is kinda silly.

I never said that order was my favorite. That's a stupid way to try and rank these things as everyone will like something different for their own reasons, which is cool obviously. I don't know if the US is even my second favorite really. The australian has definitely improved their status, and the French is cool. The US is ok, but has some really dumb schedule that influences the results too greatly. But the fact of the matter is that the US Open is still the second highest major in terms of it's "importance" to a players legacy. Roddick will always be a bigger name than Moya, for example, and there is a reason why...

TennisandMusic
02-19-2009, 11:51 AM
I thought it was common Knowledge that it was :

Wimby
USO
RG
AO

It is to anyone that cares to look at it objectively, and know a bit about the history of all the tournaments. I think that order is pretty obvious unless you throw in personal preference such as "but I like clay," and "The US is on American soil unfortunately." :roll:

rubberduckies
02-19-2009, 11:52 AM
It's something like this:
Wimbledon - 10
USO - 9
RG - 8.5
AO - 6

DarthFed
02-19-2009, 11:53 AM
It is to anyone that cares to look at it objectively, and know a bit about the history of all the tournaments. I think that order is pretty obvious unless you throw in personal preference such as "but I like clay," and "The US is on American soil unfortunately." :roll:

Thats just Silly...before i even got into Tennis i knew about the importance of Wimbledon and The USO

in terms of personal preference Wimby is miles ahead of the others imo, then it's the USO, the AO, and then the French

alonsin
02-19-2009, 11:53 AM
If you ask most people in Spain they'll say RG is more prestigious than USO, but that's probably because we kind of "own" the tournament :)

I also think RG is above the USO. Being the only GS tournament that is held on clay makes it more prestigious IMHO, while USO and AO are kind of interchangeable and both have changed surfaces too many times.

Anyway, nowadays I don't think it makes much of a difference which one you win

DarthFed
02-19-2009, 11:54 AM
If you ask most people in Spain they'll say RG is more prestigious than USO, but that's probably because we kind of "own" the tournament :)

I also think RG is above the USO. Being the only GS tournament that is held on clay makes it more prestigious IMHO, while USO and AO are kind of interchangeable and both have changed surfaces too many times.

Anyway, nowadays I don't think it makes much of a difference which one you win

That's irrelevant....the surface isn't a factor it's the prestige and History, if Wimbledon was a hard court it would still be the most prestigious Slam

zagor
02-19-2009, 11:55 AM
I think in terms of prestige it's:

1)Wimbledon
2)USO
3)FO
4)AO

My personal preference:

1)AO
2)USO
3)Wimbledon
4)FO

stormholloway
02-19-2009, 11:58 AM
everyone wants to win wimbledon, fact. US open is the second biggest slam and i aint american, i would say the australian open is better than the french, bcuz of the atmosphere and francce is just a boring place.

Have you been to France by any chance? Remember, Paris is not in Texas.

stormholloway
02-19-2009, 11:59 AM
If you ask most people in Spain they'll say RG is more prestigious than USO, but that's probably because we kind of "own" the tournament :)

I also think RG is above the USO. Being the only GS tournament that is held on clay makes it more prestigious IMHO, while USO and AO are kind of interchangeable and both have changed surfaces too many times.

Anyway, nowadays I don't think it makes much of a difference which one you win

And if the Australian was played on ice, would that make it more prestigious than the French?

icedevil0289
02-19-2009, 12:02 PM
I haven't been watching tennis for a long time but in terms of prestige I always thought it was

Wimbledon
US open
French Open
AO

In terms of Personal:

Wimbledon by far, then USO, then the french, and AO. I never really cared too much for the AO, although its a great tournament.

icedevil0289
02-19-2009, 12:03 PM
Spoken like an idiot, if you ask me.

lol, what's the difference? btw I'm american myself, atleast nationality wise anyway, born and raised.

ESP#1
02-19-2009, 12:04 PM
And if the Australian was played on ice, would that make it more prestigious than the French?

I think the fact that they have changed the USO so much takes away from its prestige, the FO just seems more traditional.

I have nothing against the USO, i like em the same, i wouldnt say that FO is better or anything just a more traditional tennis major.

gj011
02-19-2009, 12:18 PM
It is to anyone that cares to look at it objectively, and know a bit about the history of all the tournaments. I think that order is pretty obvious unless you throw in personal preference such as "but I like clay," and "The US is on American soil unfortunately." :roll:

No this is your subjective opinion. Many people rate RG over USO. All I am saying is that is is debatable and it is not unanimous and commonly known like you claim, I am honestly not sure based on what.

From the time I was kid and learned first things about tennis it was always commonly known where I am from, that Wimbledon and RG are the two biggest tournaments in the world. USO and AO were just two other big tournaments.

And I am not personally biased here or I don't prefer or like clay over other surfaces. My personal preference list would be different than one I gave above.

ksbh
02-19-2009, 12:43 PM
1. Wimbledon
2. RG
3. USO
4. AO

RG is more prestigious than the U.S. Open. There is no question about it.

tintin
02-19-2009, 12:56 PM
the surface in Paris has not changed just like Wimbledon and the USO and the Aussie have changed and has changed

so that's why


Wimbledon
Roland Garros

USO(grass/clay/hard court)

Aussie Open(grass/clay/rebound ace/plexicushion.Make your damn minds Aussies about the surface and its speed already:roll: :lol:)


these days Pete Sampras I bet would give his right nut just to have 1 Coupe des Mousquetaires and I bet would trade any of his Aussie or US Open trophies for just 1 win in Paris:lol:

leonidas1982
02-19-2009, 01:27 PM
the surface in Paris has not changed just like Wimbledon and the USO and the Aussie have changed and has changed

so that's why


Wimbledon
Roland Garros

USO(grass/clay/hard court)

Aussie Open(grass/clay/rebound ace/plexicushion.Make your damn minds Aussies about the surface and its speed already:roll: :lol:)


these days Pete Sampras I bet would give his right nut just to have 1 Coupe des Mousquetaires and I bet would trade any of his Aussie or US Open trophies for just 1 win in Paris:lol:

Correction, Roland Garros has changed its surface:
Roland Garros (grass then clay). Also for a good part of its history it was eligible only for French citizens.

Oz never played on clay. rebound ace and plexicushion are both hardcourts. This is similar to old Wimbledon grass and new Wimbledon grass -- they're both still grass, right?

helloworld
02-19-2009, 01:35 PM
1. Wimbledon

2. US Open
3. Roland Garros



4. Australian Open

It's been this way for quite a long time now.

alonsin
02-19-2009, 01:39 PM
And if the Australian was played on ice, would that make it more prestigious than the French?

Probably not, but if it were played on gold or diamonds I'd have no doubt

rubberduckies
02-19-2009, 02:15 PM
I think the USO used to be more prestigious than RG, but a lot of low quality players have been winning the USO in recent years. The quality of RG champions, on the other hand, has skyrocketed as of late. Wimby and AO have had this problem in recent years but seem to have turned the corner. :)

Gorecki
02-19-2009, 02:20 PM
I think the USO used to be more prestigious than RG, but a lot of low quality players have been winning the USO in recent years. The quality of RG champions, on the other hand, has skyrocketed as of late. Wimby and AO have had this problem in recent years but seem to have turned the corner. :)

Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. (Luke 23:34)

soyizgood
02-19-2009, 02:36 PM
Wimbledon
USO
FO
AO

Since the Open Era, USO has produced better champions than Wimbledon. Every USO winner has attained a career high ranking of #1 or #2 (two guys).

The-Champ
02-19-2009, 02:53 PM
The USO is second only in minds of Americans.

Anyone in Europe would say that RG is more important and prestigious than USO.

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


I agree with this!

USO is like a circus to me.

DMan
02-19-2009, 04:55 PM
I think Wimbledon stands above the rest in the popular imagination. Even casual sports fans know of Wimbledon's significance and prestige.

That said, in this day and age with stellar fields at all Slams and all the Slams fully developed, I personally don't think it is any more of an acheivement to win one Slam or the other. People may assign more prestige to Wimbledon, but I would never conclude that a player who won Wimbledon was any better based on that result than a player who one the USO or the AO, for example.

I agree. In the current era, I think a Slam win is a Slam win. Yes, everyone knows Wimbledon is the most prestigious, because it is the oldest. But they are all special, unique events. Plus since everyone is so fixated on Roger Federer's total # of Slams, and will he break the record, it shows you that all the majors are considered equal. You don't get more "Slam points" for winning Wimbledon than the Australian Open.

Lindsay
02-19-2009, 05:21 PM
With very few exceptions(Sampras, Federer, Nadal), most pros would pick the US Open over Roland Garros if they got to pick a slam to win. Those exceptions are due to the fact that Sampras and Federer haven't won it, and its the only slam that eludes them. And Nadal has never lost there, so its very special to him. This doesn't mean that Roland Garros is not prestigious. It is more prestigious in my mind that US Open. The US Open is loud, busy, used as a stomping ground for tabloid personalities. But the fact that its a larger than life event is so appealing to players. I'm American, so I might see it differently. But I remember seeing a quote by Murray who said he would love to win Wimbledon because he would be a favorite, but his personal dream slam would be the US Open. I think its for the reason I listed. Its not the oldest like Wimbledon, or the hardest to win like Roland Garros. But its the biggest stage in tennis.

Lindsay
02-19-2009, 05:29 PM
Roland Garros also loses a bit of credibility when you consider who some of the past champions and finalists have been. Never have I seen so many names of players who didn't do much else. Gaston Gaudio, Martin Verkerk, Mariano Puerta, Guillermo Coria, Alberto Berasategui, Albert Costa, Medvedev. All are great players in their own right, but most had very few results outside of the FO or clay court events.

Tempest344
02-19-2009, 05:37 PM
Roland Garros also loses a bit of credibility when you consider who some of the past champions and finalists have been. Never have I seen so many names of players who didn't do much else. Gaston Gaudio, Martin Verkerk, Mariano Puerta, Guillermo Coria, Alberto Berasategui, Albert Costa, Medvedev. All are great players in their own right, but most had very few results outside of the FO or clay court events.

and yet there are so many greats (Edberg,Sampras, Federer) have never won it too

skip1969
02-19-2009, 05:43 PM
it's silly to argue about it but the importance of each (important) slam is relative. a lot of it has to due with where you are from . . . if anyone from your country has ever won that particular slam . . . how much coverage does the slam get in your country, etc. the players themselves have sentimental reasons why they value one slam more than another, so naturally the fans do too.

something as basic as your age can have a great impact on how you rate the slams. how many people like the ao these days, when it had virtually fallen off the map for decades when i was younger. roland garros had a little drop off, too. but just on the basis of consistency you would have to say that wimby and roland garros are pretty special. even though rg started out on grass (well, what wasn't on grass back then) they've been that unique red clay since the 20's or something. that's a long time. and they were the first slam to go "open".

both those tourneys have a ton of history. which is why they might be many people's sentimental choices for #1 and #2.

Tennis_Monk
02-19-2009, 05:45 PM
My preference...


Wim\RG
RG
USO

Sorry..USO doesnt rank too high in my opinion. Been to all grand slams. Worst experience was at USO (best at AO)

skip1969
02-19-2009, 05:54 PM
Roland Garros also loses a bit of credibility when you consider who some of the past champions and finalists have been. Never have I seen so many names of players who didn't do much else. Gaston Gaudio, Martin Verkerk, Mariano Puerta, Guillermo Coria, Alberto Berasategui, Albert Costa, Medvedev. All are great players in their own right, but most had very few results outside of the FO or clay court events.
well, you could pull up a few names from every slam where there are finalists and winners who are kind of "one slam wonders" or who didn't do all that much at the other slams. it happens in every sport.

Lindsay
02-19-2009, 06:03 PM
well, you could pull up a few names from every slam where there are finalists and winners who are kind of "one slam wonders" or who didn't do all that much at the other slams. it happens in every sport.

There are fewer at the US Open. The only one that caught my eye as being a one slam wonder was Phillipoussis. Maybe Cedric Pioline but he also made the Wimbledon final. Everyone else has won other slams or been ranked #1 or had some significant contribution.

Roland Garros is a very special event. Its why Federer can't win it and why Mariano Puerto can reach the final. Because of this, its not high on many players lists.

SchreckTennis
02-19-2009, 06:08 PM
Thats just Silly...before i even got into Tennis i knew about the importance of Wimbledon and The USO

in terms of personal preference Wimby is miles ahead of the others imo, then it's the USO, the AO, and then the French

I second that statement on my personal opinion of which is most entertaining. I feel wimbledon is by far the best because it's faster and seems more exciting (with exception of the dress code...). Next is the USO- I like the speed of it as well, but it's a 'lil slower than Wimbledon in my opinion. Third is the AO because while it's hard court- it seems slow and boring...maybe it's because the players are more fresh and able to sprint and rally more points, who knows? And the last would be RG because the slow clay makes most of the games just feel like a baseline grind...

Although, the services I would most like to experience playing on would be clay, then hard (only i've played on), then grass and finally carpet.

Tennis_Monk
02-19-2009, 06:08 PM
There are fewer at the US Open. The only one that caught my eye as being a one slam wonder was Phillipoussis. Maybe Cedric Pioline but he also made the Wimbledon final. Everyone else has won other slams or been ranked #1 or had some significant contribution.

Roland Garros is a very special event. Its why Federer can't win it and why Mariano Puerto can reach the final. Because of this, its not high on many players lists.

You mean pro players or just normal recreational tennis players?

Lindsay
02-19-2009, 06:13 PM
You mean pro players or just normal recreational tennis players?

Professional. I've heard a lot of interviews with players about their favorite tournaments, and very few have said RG.

chrisdaniel
02-19-2009, 08:21 PM
Doesn't it seem like in the last few years, all the slams have become pretty equal? I mean look at Feds reaction, he really wanted that Australian Open.

Everyone's dream used to be to win Wimbledon, now it seems everyone just want's a slam title. With Nadal and Federer dominating, Djokovic broke through and grabbed the Australian Open. That's a Slam regardless, and I really believe that the slams are starting to become equal. The only thing I see is that since Australia is so early in the year and the conditions are so rough, many players probably tap out quicker than they would later in the year.

Anyways, in my opinion as of 2009. The order is 1. Wimbledon 2. French Open 3. U.S. Open 4. Australian Open

egn
02-19-2009, 09:34 PM
The USO is second only in minds of Americans.

Anyone in Europe would say that RG is more important and prestigious than USO.

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

Cool yay for Europeans and I guarantee you are wrong, because I could make some bold statement as the British rank the USO above it because the British have an undying hatred towards French due to history. Presitge why it probably goes

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

Reasoning Wimbledon and US Open both started around the same time wimby 1877 and US Open 1881 the French Open started a decade after the US Open and back in the day the more popular tennis players where guys like Renshaw and Tilden who played US and Wimbledon and those were the names, Tilden played a few French but the dominant French Open players were rare and I don't recall gaining too much popularity outside of Lacoste but he also played the other two a lot. Just my opinion though. I think the French really became big because of Borg and guys like Laver.

Besides the French today promotes grinding >.> and I just hate grinding.

Tshooter
02-19-2009, 10:46 PM
"I think anyone who knows a decent amount of tennis, or anything about tennis really, knows that Wimbledon is the most important. I don't think there is really an arguing this. Second should be the US Open, based on history and prestige. Third would be the French, and last by a country mile is the Australian."

Ditto. But the French is a distant third. And the Australian last by at least a country mile.

Tshooter
02-19-2009, 10:56 PM
"but a lot of low quality players have been winning the USO in recent years"

Absolutely. Lots of them. Let's check the men.

Since 1990:
Sampras, Edberg, Agassi, Rafter, Safin, Hewitt, Roddick and Federer.


All the weak players. Federer the last 5 years. Sampras and Agassi -- super weak. Edbeg, never heard of him.

As oppossed to the French since 1990 : Gomez, Courier, Brugeura, Muster, Kefalnikov, Kuerten, Moya, Agassi, Costa, Ferrer, Guadio and Nadal.

Excluding Nadal and Agassi it's pretty much a list of the all time greats.

Tsonga nDance
02-19-2009, 11:14 PM
Depends on where you're from. US, CHAMPS, RG, AO.

Bhagi Katbamna
02-19-2009, 11:15 PM
1. Wimbledon
2. Wimbledon
3. Wimbledon
4. The rest.

dandaman
02-20-2009, 12:08 AM
From a European standpoint, RG is definately ranked above the USO.

Nearly all of the ITF Juniors here, would actually rather win the RG than Wimby just because the clay competition is by far the hardest(if you take a look at the entry rankings and qualy cut off point and so on).
And i also wouldn't say that USO is more well know than RG. Mayber in the US it is. But here in Europe there are more people who know the French Open than the US Open.And as we know, Europeans dominate the ATP circuit

Obviously Wimbledon is the most prestigious. It has by far the most history and is the most well known.

But i wouldn't say that USO is more prestigious than RG. Have you guys ever been to RG live(and to Paris). Saying that france is boring is just one of the most stupid things i've heard in a long time. Paris is one of the most amazing city's in the World.
I would give USO and RG at least a tie.And at a Personal preferance put RG above US.
I personally find the Australian Open one of the most interesting tournaments because all of the players are fresh and usually fit and have huge battles in the blazing heat.

At the USO there are a lot of weaker matches because of worn out players and injuries and so on.Of course there are still great long 5 set matches at an amazing quality, but just not as many.

So i would say:

Wimbledon
RG
USO
AO

But my personal preference is(mostly because of the match quality):

RG
AO
Wimbledon
US

aphex
02-20-2009, 02:21 AM
1. wimbledon
2. roland garros
3. us open, australian open

THUNDERVOLLEY
02-20-2009, 02:36 AM
Doesn't it seem like in the last few years, all the slams have become pretty equal? I mean look at Feds reaction, he really wanted that Australian Open.

He wanted it not because it is particularly valuable, but due to the record race.

Historically, I recall many non-Americans wanting to win the U.S. Open, and talked about it in ways never matched by comments about the FO; from Becker, Lendl, Edberg, Rafter, and others, if Wimbledon being the top slam was not in the conversation, it was always the USO--never the FO.

To suggest otherwise is quite funny.

Thor
02-20-2009, 02:45 AM
There seems to be a general consensus about wimbledon being first and AO last.

FO and USO are debatable.

dandaman
02-20-2009, 02:47 AM
He wanted it not because it is particularly valuable, but due to the record race.

Historically, I recall many non-Americans wanting to win the U.S. Open, and talked about it in ways never matched by comments about the FO; from Becker, Lendl, Edberg, Rafter, and others, if Wimbledon being the top slam was not in the conversation, it was always the USO--never the FO.

To suggest otherwise is quite funny.

I think, the thing is, that this has changed in the last couple of years. Yes the older players rather wanted to win the USO. But the FO has gained in popularity with all the younger players. A lot of younger players or even players who are in their early 20 have never actually seen a match from, Becker, Lendl, Edberg.

Nowadays i don't hear a lot of non-Americans making those same comments about the USO that those older players used to make

caulcano
02-20-2009, 03:46 AM
The USO is second only in minds of Americans.

Anyone in Europe would say that RG is more important and prestigious than USO.

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

I'm from Europe and I disagree.

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

Lotto
02-20-2009, 03:52 AM
I think Wimbledon is no.1 by far.

Then mmmm, I'm stuck between RG and USO. I just don't know. I'm not american and I don't particularly like the french open but I don't know.

I'd probably go:

1.Wimbledon
2. US Open and French Open
3. Aussie Open

caulcano
02-20-2009, 04:01 AM
edit: repost.

cucio
02-20-2009, 04:21 AM
Are all slams viewed as equally desirable by players and fans or is there a pecking order?

What do we mortals know, but I think nowadays any player with a shot at winning will do his utmost best to get any of them, within his possibilities, so in that sense they are equal, none of the big guys on tour is going to take any single slam lightly. Perhaps local boys want to shine brighter at home, or those whose game is favoured by the surface, put a little extra, but slam count is the first measure of greatness these days.

As far as fans go, it is objectively clear from this thread and others like it (there is at least one of them after every slam) that the prestige you associate to a tournament depends on where do you live and/or what kind of tennis you like the best.

It is my opinion as a fan that during the last four years, when I started to follow tennis in the earnest, the best tennis and the most exciting competition has happened at AO, followed at a fair distance by Wimby. Perhaps because the players are well rested and the surface is rather neutral. RG is not much of a thrill in Nadal's Era (although it was an awe inspiring sight to watch at which heights Rafa brought clay court tennis during FO'08 ) and the players arrive at USO too battered from the rest of the season to offer their best tennis.

nalbyvsfed
02-20-2009, 04:34 AM
well i really dont like watching grass tournaments, so wimbledon goes 4th with me. my picks:

1. Roland garros
2. australian open
3. us open
4. wimbledon

i know it sounds crazy, and a lot of people will disagree with with me. btw im from europe, and i dont live in france. ( so dont think i like RG the most because im french or somethin)

dandaman
02-20-2009, 04:45 AM
What do we mortals know, but I think nowadays any player with a shot at winning will do his utmost best to get any of them, within his possibilities, so in that sense they are equal, none of the big guys on tour is going to take any single slam lightly. Perhaps local boys want to shine brighter at home, or those whose game is favoured by the surface, put a little extra, but slam count is the first measure of greatness these days.

As far as fans go, it is objectively clear from this thread and others like it (there is at least one of them after every slam) that the prestige you associate to a tournament depends on where do you live and/or what kind of tennis you like the best.

It is my opinion as a fan that during the last four years, when I started to follow tennis in the earnest, the best tennis and the most exciting competition has happened at AO, followed at a fair distance by Wimby. Perhaps because the players are well rested and the surface is rather neutral. RG is not much of a thrill in Nadal's Era (although it was an awe inspiring sight to watch at which heights Rafa brought clay court tennis during FO'08 ) and the players arrive at USO too battered from the rest of the season to offer their best tennis.

Totally agree what your saying. Every person will have a different order. Depending from where you are and what kind of tennis you like to watch.

rolandg
02-20-2009, 05:07 AM
There are fewer at the US Open. The only one that caught my eye as being a one slam wonder was Phillipoussis. Maybe Cedric Pioline but he also made the Wimbledon final. Everyone else has won other slams or been ranked #1 or had some significant contribution.

Roland Garros is a very special event. Its why Federer can't win it and why Mariano Puerto can reach the final. Because of this, its not high on many players lists.

As did Phillipoussis

mikeler
02-20-2009, 10:16 AM
"but a lot of low quality players have been winning the USO in recent years"

Absolutely. Lots of them. Let's check the men.

Since 1990:
Sampras, Edberg, Agassi, Rafter, Safin, Hewitt, Roddick and Federer.


All the weak players. Federer the last 5 years. Sampras and Agassi -- super weak. Edbeg, never heard of him.

As oppossed to the French since 1990 : Gomez, Courier, Brugeura, Muster, Kefalnikov, Kuerten, Moya, Agassi, Costa, Ferrer, Guadio and Nadal.

Excluding Nadal and Agassi it's pretty much a list of the all time greats.


It is interesting that the FO seems to allow dark horses the best shot at winning a Grand Slam title.

matchmaker
02-20-2009, 10:32 AM
"but a lot of low quality players have been winning the USO in recent years"

Absolutely. Lots of them. Let's check the men.

Since 1990:
Sampras, Edberg, Agassi, Rafter, Safin, Hewitt, Roddick and Federer.


All the weak players. Federer the last 5 years. Sampras and Agassi -- super weak. Edbeg, never heard of him.

As oppossed to the French since 1990 : Gomez, Courier, Brugeura, Muster, Kefalnikov, Kuerten, Moya, Agassi, Costa, Ferrer, Guadio and Nadal.

Excluding Nadal and Agassi it's pretty much a list of the all time greats.

This is again an ethnocentric point of view.

One could easily argue that Rafter, Safin, Hewitt and Roddick are not all that great.

And the list of RG only contains a few weak players: Gaudio, Gomez and Costa. All the others were pretty much top of the bill on clay in their time.

What Americans do not understand is that for many Europeans RG is more important than the USO. I bet that if one were to ask a European top junior which slam he would like to win if he could only pick one, many would say RG, many also Wimbledon, hardly any would say the USO.

helloworld
02-20-2009, 10:35 AM
"but a lot of low quality players have been winning the USO in recent years"

Absolutely. Lots of them. Let's check the men.

Since 1990:
Sampras, Edberg, Agassi, Rafter, Safin, Hewitt, Roddick and Federer.


All the weak players. Federer the last 5 years. Sampras and Agassi -- super weak. Edbeg, never heard of him.

As oppossed to the French since 1990 : Gomez, Courier, Brugeura, Muster, Kefalnikov, Kuerten, Moya, Agassi, Costa, Ferrer, Guadio and Nadal.

Excluding Nadal and Agassi it's pretty much a list of the all time greats.

Gaudio alone pretty much sums it up. :lol:

Tshooter
02-20-2009, 11:05 AM
"One could easily argue that Rafter, Safin, Hewitt and Roddick are not all that great."

I agree. None of those are all that great. Now look at the list of not all that great recent champs at the FO.

In any event, I was only responding to what I thought was an inaccurate statement.

I think what places the FO a solid third behind the USO rests on other factors.

bluetrain4
02-20-2009, 11:14 AM
I think we can all agree to disagree.

Most would put Wimbledon first.

Then USO or Roland Garros

Then AO.

Again, I think that now with all 4 Slams fully developed and the fields for all Slams basically top-flight, I don't think it is really any more of an accomplishment on paper to win one or the other. A player will have to beat the same top players over the same period no matter the Slam. Yet, in the popular imagination winning Wimbledon is still more of an accomplishment based on "prestige."

TommyGNR
02-20-2009, 11:46 AM
The FO is boring. The ball and the players move slower - like their playing in mud. Oh wait a second - I guess they are!

veroniquem
02-20-2009, 12:25 PM
There used to be differences, AO was skipped by many for instance but nowadays I think all 4 carry equal weight and prestige. People have personal preferences of course depending on their nationality and their favorite surface but objectively the 4 slams are equally important, player attendance and media coverage are high for all.

dandaman
02-20-2009, 12:45 PM
The FO is boring. The ball and the players move slower - like their playing in mud. Oh wait a second - I guess they are!

Well you definately don't seem to be a fan of clay

lawrence
02-20-2009, 01:08 PM
Maybe back in the day AO was considered of less importance, but lets be realistic here, its 2009 and all the events seem to show equal coverage, and all produce the same amount of high level play.
You can't look at the semi's and finals for the past few AO's and say they weren't damn good matches.

Not to mention AO seems to be the most diverse in winners, and isn't just dominated by 1 or 2 people (as seen with RG and Wimby lol)

Mungo73
02-20-2009, 01:25 PM
Easy:

1. Roland Garros
2. Wimbledon
3. AO
4. USO
5. Olympic Games

DunlopDood
02-20-2009, 01:35 PM
I think most people nowadays tend to regard them as equal. From a tennis perspective though, for whatever reason, the best matches have consistently been played at the Australian Open, I really don't know why this is. The USO Has also had some great matches over the years, Blake- Agassi in 05 was great. I really don't get too excited about Wimbledon, honestly the tennis there isn't as good as at the USO or the AUS. Few select claycourt specialists make RG boring most years.

junbumkim
02-20-2009, 01:47 PM
With an objectivity, they are all equal regardless of its history, place, or reputation or whatever. They all award the same points and are at the level.
Each of them are unique and create unique environment.

Other factors like history, personal accompllishment, place, and so on can make one tournament more special than the other, hence players will have their own personal pecking order of grand slams.

There were players who did not care to show up in Wimbledon or do well in that tournament. To them, Wimbledon is at the bottom of their pecking order regardless of its history and prestiage.

A lot of American players do mention that they really want to do well at US Open because its their national tournament. The same goes for Austrailians, I think Llyeton Hewitt and Patrick Rafter really wanted to do well at their national tournament. And British always complain about how no English man has won their own national tournament for some decades. Just take a look at how much pressure they created for Tim Henman.

danb
02-20-2009, 02:11 PM
My vote:

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

thejoe
02-20-2009, 02:15 PM
Easy:

1. Roland Garros
2. Wimbledon
3. AO
4. USO
5. Olympic Games

For Gods Sake. Your comments are so mind-numbingly moronic sometimes that I can feel myself getting stupider as I read them.

1. Wimbledon
2. Roland Garros
3. US Open
4. AO

How on God's green earth is the AO above the US in terms of prestige, and the same with Roland Garros and Wimbledon? And the Olympics is not a GS, no matter how much you want it to be. Judging by your post, I would say you are a Rafa fan (already knew this) and a pretty deluded one at that.

boredone3456
02-20-2009, 02:46 PM
Based on history and prestige the list is Definitely Wimbledon, RG, US Open, AO.

Depending on what you value in a slam some people might argue that the US Open is over RG because up until the 1920's the French had limited entry only to french nationals and therefore was a little less than the US Open, which would be the only reason I could even logically see for putting the US Open at #2. Reasons like clay court tennis is better are purely opinion and not general knowledge, as for the whole no full 5th set, again, thats preference, I personally think a 5th set tie break adds to the drama, but I still put the US Open 3rd. In terms of Tennis History, Australia is steeped with it in terms of players, but since until recently players didn't feel like going way out of their way to go there it looses something, even when the tournament paid there way down there, I think that shows something. But overall in terms of tradition, history and prestige, the list is as I put it.

Oui, c'est moi.
02-20-2009, 02:59 PM
For me it's....

1. Wimbledon
2. The other 3

jimbo333
02-20-2009, 06:05 PM
For me it's....

1. Wimbledon
2. The other 3

Absolutely, I agree completely. How did this thread get to a 5th page?!!

dandaman
02-21-2009, 12:02 AM
For Gods Sake. Your comments are so mind-numbingly moronic sometimes that I can feel myself getting stupider as I read them.

1. Wimbledon
2. Roland Garros
3. US Open
4. AO

How on God's green earth is the AO above the US in terms of prestige, and the same with Roland Garros and Wimbledon? And the Olympics is not a GS, no matter how much you want it to be. Judging by your post, I would say you are a Rafa fan (already knew this) and a pretty deluded one at that.

How can you say that he's comments are stupid only because he is saying he's own preference.

There are a lot of people who are not completely obsessed with the USO.

There are also a lot of people who don't like watching wimbledon due to it's grass courts and often not so great matches. There are even a lot of pro players who don't even want to enter for Wimby because they think grass courts are just plain silly(adapting to a court were you are only gonna play 2 weeks a year on is quite annoying for tennis players).

And i think it's quite interesting for him to add the Olympic Games. I'm sure that he knows that it's not a Grand Slam. But a lot of players desire it just as much. Or their dream would be to complete a Golden Slam

AndrewD
02-21-2009, 01:19 AM
I think Wimbledon is The Daddy but then again I am British so my opinion is hardly unbiased. I'd rank the US Open as a close second, with RG and the AO in joint third.

Wimbledon = first
Daylight = second


There's such a huge gap between Wimbledon and the rest that being #2 is only a matter of taste and not a particularly big compliment.

thejoe
02-21-2009, 02:04 AM
How can you say that he's comments are stupid only because he is saying he's own preference.

There are a lot of people who are not completely obsessed with the USO.

There are also a lot of people who don't like watching wimbledon due to it's grass courts and often not so great matches. There are even a lot of pro players who don't even want to enter for Wimby because they think grass courts are just plain silly(adapting to a court were you are only gonna play 2 weeks a year on is quite annoying for tennis players).

And i think it's quite interesting for him to add the Olympic Games. I'm sure that he knows that it's not a Grand Slam. But a lot of players desire it just as much. Or their dream would be to complete a Golden Slam

Yes, but it isn't order of preference. The OP is asking which is viewed as the most prestigious. No matter which one you prefer, there is an obvious pecking order. I prefer the Aus Open to the US Open, but the US Open is still a more prestigious event.

ckthegreek
02-21-2009, 05:57 AM
1. Wimbledon
2. RG
3. USO
4. AO

You cannot be a GOAT contender until you win Wimbledon at least twice.

egn
02-21-2009, 08:05 AM
This is again an ethnocentric point of view.

One could easily argue that Rafter, Safin, Hewitt and Roddick are not all that great.

And the list of RG only contains a few weak players: Gaudio, Gomez and Costa. All the others were pretty much top of the bill on clay in their time.

What Americans do not understand is that for many Europeans RG is more important than the USO. I bet that if one were to ask a European top junior which slam he would like to win if he could only pick one, many would say RG, many also Wimbledon, hardly any would say the USO.

Okay and I think the same can go the other way around...your point simply proves that based on where people live is what they will want to win? So your view proves to be quite ethnocentric also you fought one ethnocentric argument with another. Besides the question is on prestige which means history and regard not whether people today like one more.

Cyan
02-21-2009, 08:23 AM
Wimbledon
Roland Garros
USO
AO

JeMar
02-21-2009, 10:08 AM
Wimbledon, U.S. Open, Roland Garros, Australian Open.

My rationale for placing Roland Garros behind the U.S. Open is that in the open era, we have only had two "one-slam wonders" win this event, with these being Manuel Orantes (Spain) and Andy Roddick. Over the years, the U.S. Open has consistently proven to be a harder challenge than Roland Garros, as any serious tennis historian will tell you.

JeMar
02-21-2009, 10:10 AM
Meanwhile the French Open has had... Andres Gimeno, Adriano Panatta, Yannick Noah, Michael Chang, Thomas Muster, Carlos Moya, Albert Costa, J.C. Ferrero, and the king of all one-slam wonders, the one and only Gaston Gaudio.

Nadal_Freak
02-21-2009, 10:14 AM
1. Wimbledon
2. RG
3. US Open
4. Australian Open

veroniquem
02-21-2009, 10:15 AM
Meanwhile the French Open has had... Andres Gimeno, Adriano Panatta, Yannick Noah, Michael Chang, Thomas Muster, Carlos Moya, Albert Costa, J.C. Ferrero, and the king of all one-slam wonders, the one and only Gaston Gaudio.
That just proves that different players win on clay than other surfaces, different qualities are required. It's not the players' fault if the tour (managed by Americans to accommodate American interests) is heavily biassed toward hard courts. It doesn't mean in any way that hard courts are superior to clay. (It does prove that Nadal is one of a kind though :))

Cyan
02-21-2009, 10:18 AM
Roland Garros is the toughest slam to win.

icedevil0289
02-21-2009, 10:19 AM
Roland Garros is the toughest slam to win.

what does toughest have to do with prestige? Are you just saying that because rafa has won it 4 times? Something tells me he doesn't think its the toughest slam to win.

tahiti
02-21-2009, 10:29 AM
Wimbie is unique coz it's the green green grass of home and white clothes. Because it's just before players' summer vacation, could be why so much effort goes into it.

But it's geography & time zones I think. Oz is far. Those without recording facilities don't get to see the whole tournament in Oz and US.

As far as media coverage goes in EU, ads for Wimbie and RG are common, not down under or NY. Hell I don't know though I love them all in any order :)

RoddickAce
02-21-2009, 10:38 AM
I think it's hard to choose between the USO and FO, the USO has such a nice atmosphere there cuz of the night matches and the crowd. But the FO offers the classic contrasting surface to Wimbledon, so it's hard to choose.

Since the OP's question was how the players THEMSELVES and viewers, rank the slams, I think it is based on what region they are from. Like right now, if you asked Hewitt whether he would want to win the FO or AO, he would probably choose the AO. Or if you asked Roddick whether he wanted to win the USO or the FO (if possible) he would probably choose the USO.

Nadal_Freak
02-21-2009, 10:48 AM
Roland Garros is the toughest slam to win.
Toughest physically for sure. If you got the game, it is the easiest though. Much easier to break then anywhere else. Less chance for upset.

JeMar
02-21-2009, 11:28 AM
That just proves that different players win on clay than other surfaces, different qualities are required. It's not the players' fault if the tour (managed by Americans to accommodate American interests) is heavily biassed toward hard courts. It doesn't mean in any way that hard courts are superior to clay. (It does prove that Nadal is one of a kind though :))

The ATP is an international organization that has a board composed of players and businessmen from different nationalities, so I don't really see what America has to do with anything in this case. Nationality aside, the reason most tournaments are held on a hard court is disappointingly simple: hard courts are cheapest to build, easiest to maintain, and the most durable courts you can build. It has nothing to do with some great paranoia-stricken conspiracy in the part of the Americans to dominate the world game. Remember that tennis is one of the most global sports in existence.

egn
02-21-2009, 11:38 AM
That just proves that different players win on clay than other surfaces, different qualities are required. It's not the players' fault if the tour (managed by Americans to accommodate American interests) is heavily biassed toward hard courts. It doesn't mean in any way that hard courts are superior to clay. (It does prove that Nadal is one of a kind though :))

Really cause if so the 90s tour would have been dominated by grass to cater to Pete Sampras. Yes I think clay court requires different qualities than grass and hardcourts. However its not americans favoring hardcourts it is tournament directors favoring it because it is cheap.

Roland Garros is the toughest slam to win.
Borg found it to be a cakewalk he won it 6 times. What makes it the toughest? Nadal would probably beg to differ, because Rolland Garros requires grinding it is harder..I would like to know your justification..maybe it is the easiest to win as it has provided so many one slam wonders.

JeMar
02-21-2009, 11:45 AM
Requiring the most physical fitness does not the "toughest" major make.:)

TheNatural
02-21-2009, 11:49 AM
Wimbledon
FO
AO
USO (5th set breakers and no rest days b/w semi and final has to go)

icedevil0289
02-21-2009, 11:50 AM
Wimbledon
FO
AO
USO (5th set breakers and no rest days b/w semi and final has to go)

is that your personal preference or what you think is the most prestigious?

DoubleDeuce
02-21-2009, 11:56 AM
Certainly not equal. Here is my order:

1- Wimbledon
2- USO
3- FO
4- AO

Andres
02-21-2009, 11:58 AM
I'm from south america, I absolutely HATE red clay, but I still rate Roland Garros over USO.

For me:

1. Wimbledon
15. French Open
16. U.S.O
17. A.O.

NamRanger
02-21-2009, 12:00 PM
Toughest physically for sure. If you got the game, it is the easiest though. Much easier to break then anywhere else. Less chance for upset.


It's the reverse actually. The FO is the easiest slam to see upsets, along with the AO. The USO and Wimbledon rarely have upsets.

Andres
02-21-2009, 12:04 PM
It's the reverse actually. The FO is the easiest slam to see upsets, along with the AO. The USO and Wimbledon rarely have upsets.
Agreed. If there's a bigger chance to break serve, there's a bigger chance to pull the upset.

Flawed logic there, my dear Freak ;)

cucio
02-21-2009, 12:42 PM
Agreed. If there's a bigger chance to break serve, there's a bigger chance to pull the upset.

Flawed logic there, my dear Freak ;)

Mmm, I don't think it is flawed. To cite an extreme case, it is easy for Karlovic to pull an upset on hard, not so much on clay. Fast surfaces that favour easy holds and close sets are more susceptible to chance, I think.

Gorecki
02-21-2009, 02:48 PM
For Gods Sake. Your comments are so mind-numbingly moronic sometimes that I can feel myself getting stupider as I read them.
1. Wimbledon
2. Roland Garros
3. US Open
4. AO

How on God's green earth is the AO above the US in terms of prestige, and the same with Roland Garros and Wimbledon? And the Olympics is not a GS, no matter how much you want it to be. Judging by your post, I would say you are a Rafa fan (already knew this) and a pretty deluded one at that.


its proven by independent labs that the long term exposure to Mungo73 posts lead to some sort of brain damage!

Gorecki
02-21-2009, 02:50 PM
Toughest physically for sure. If you got the game, it is the easiest though. Much easier to break then anywhere else. Less chance for upset.

so if it's easier to break, and according to your theory of break percentage, then we have Garros red clay faster than Wimbledon Grass..

wow.. you theories are so consistent it amazes me!

Nadal_Freak
02-21-2009, 04:32 PM
so if it's easier to break, and according to your theory of break percentage, then we have Garros red clay faster than Wimbledon Grass..

wow.. you theories are so consistent it amazes me!
Wow. You couldn't even understand. Easier to break means higher break percentage. Wimbledon is tough to break and probably the toughest to win.

Leublu tennis
02-21-2009, 04:57 PM
everyone wants to win wimbledon, fact. US open is the second biggest slam and i aint american, i would say the australian open is better than the french, bcuz of the atmosphere and francce is just a boring place.Boy, I sure agree with you there. I don't like the French because of the French, I don't like the USO becase its in New York and I don't like New York. Yes, I am an American and have been to New Yawk too many times to suit me. I don't like Wimby because it seems phony. All that pomp and stuff. Bow to the Queens valet and all. But I really like the AO. Great people. Great setting. Great experience. The whole of Melbourne just loves tennis. They broadcast all the matches from morning til night on free tv because people flood the stadium anyway. Ever sit on a lawn with 5000 other fans watching matches on a giant screen? With an Aussie beer in hand? Nothing like it.

Nadal_Freak
02-21-2009, 05:18 PM
Boy, I sure agree with you there. I don't like the French because of the French, I don't like the USO becase its in New York and I don't like New York. Yes, I am an American and have been to New Yawk too many times to suit me. I don't like Wimby because it seems phony. All that pomp and stuff. Bow to the Queens valet and all. But I really like the AO. Great people. Great setting. Great experience. The whole of Melbourne just loves tennis. They broadcast all the matches from morning til night on free tv because people flood the stadium anyway. Ever sit on a lawn with 5000 other fans watching matches on a giant screen? With an Aussie beer in hand? Nothing like it.
I agree here except I like Wimbledon people.

Melissa
02-21-2009, 05:58 PM
Which ever one is next?

TheNatural
02-21-2009, 07:41 PM
Its what I personally see as the most prestigious. If I was supporting a player and their career I'd want a player to win slams in that order...If a player could only win 1 slam I'd want them to win Wimbledon, then the FO, AO, and lastly the USO. If a player had to go without just 1 slam I'd prefer it to be the USO.


is that your personal preference or what you think is the most prestigious?

batz
02-22-2009, 01:37 AM
Boy, I sure agree with you there. I don't like the French because of the French, I don't like the USO becase its in New York and I don't like New York. Yes, I am an American and have been to New Yawk too many times to suit me. I don't like Wimby because it seems phony. All that pomp and stuff. Bow to the Queens valet and all. But I really like the AO. Great people. Great setting. Great experience. The whole of Melbourne just loves tennis. They broadcast all the matches from morning til night on free tv because people flood the stadium anyway. Ever sit on a lawn with 5000 other fans watching matches on a giant screen? With an Aussie beer in hand? Nothing like it.


It could be argued that everything you like about Melbourne is the same at Wimbeldon. Have you been to Wimbledon?

dandaman
02-22-2009, 01:56 AM
so if it's easier to break, and according to your theory of break percentage, then we have Garros red clay faster than Wimbledon Grass..

wow.. you theories are so consistent it amazes me!

I think he meant, because it's easier to break, that there is a higher chance for upset

miyagi
02-22-2009, 02:46 AM
As a player I dont think people really care which one they win as long as they win one....

1.Wimbledon

2.F.O
3.USO



4.A.O

I think F.O is very prestigious, it is unique like wimbledon and Paris is a great place which a enormous atmosphere. Plus the play is completely different to the other 3 slams

I've been to Wimbledon and that is a great place too, Henman hill as it was when I went has a GREAT prescence...

Andres
02-22-2009, 07:30 AM
Yes, but it isn't order of preference. The OP is asking which is viewed as the most prestigious. No matter which one you prefer, there is an obvious pecking order. I prefer the Aus Open to the US Open, but the US Open is still a more prestigious event.
Comprehension skills FAIL?

The OP DID NOT ask which one is viewed as the most prestigious. The OP asked which one the players prefer winning, which has nothing to do with PRESTIGE.

All southamericans and most european players prefer to win Roland Garros over the USO. Maybe it's a clay thing. Wimbledon is untouchable, tho.

Nadal_Freak
02-22-2009, 12:30 PM
I think he meant, because it's easier to break, that there is a higher chance for upset
Uh no. I mean that the better baseliner usually wins on a slower court. They don't get unlucky as much because there is more time to establish the better player that day. Take a Roddick/Federer match for instance. We know Federer is the better player but if the surface is fast enough, Roddick could win in tiebreaks. More chance for upsets.

JeMar
02-22-2009, 04:30 PM
As a side note, Sampras always said he didn't mind playing on a slower hard court because he didn't need any help holding. The slower court, however, would help him return serve better. Roddick might feel the same way.

dandaman
02-23-2009, 12:14 AM
Uh no. I mean that the better baseliner usually wins on a slower court. They don't get unlucky as much because there is more time to establish the better player that day. Take a Roddick/Federer match for instance. We know Federer is the better player but if the surface is fast enough, Roddick could win in tiebreaks. More chance for upsets.

Ah ok, i know what you mean. ya is totally correct

Rhino
02-23-2009, 01:10 AM
It could be argued that everything you like about Melbourne is the same at Wimbeldon. Have you been to Wimbledon?

I have been to all the slams multiple times including the most recent Australian Open and Wimbledon, and I can tell you that "Leublu tennis"'s comments about the AO are spot on, and no it's not the same at Wimbledon.

People put the AO further down the list but in terms of actually being there, it is probably the best experience.