Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by dmt, Mar 31, 2010.
which do u think is the most prestigious grandslam and the least?
how would u rank them in order?
The obvious choice would be AO.
french because it's in france.
Because recently it's been really one-sided.
French. Because Nadal is unstoppable.. (bar last year.. lol)
Depends on who you ask. Most Europeans will class the AO and the USO at the bottom, whereas folks from the US would place their Slam in the top 2.
This thread seems to come up once every two months.
Rorsach is right, it depends who you ask. 90% of people would say Wimbledon is the most prestigious so it's a battle between the other three depending on your country or your national court surface.
It used to be the Australian Open until 1988 when they unveiled their modernized tennis facilities (the facilities were horrible on grass prior to).
I would have to say now the least prestigious grand slam would have to be the French Open. People don't relate to clay court tennis like they do hardcourt and grass.
Times, they are a changing.
Mother Marjorie has spoken.
Try convincing anyone in South America, or any Spanish speaking nations of that.
I say USO, but in reality probably AO
Wimbledon, if your from the hood/ghetto.
wimbledon is my favourite, but they should all be of equal importance
In prestige terms the AO is lowest on the totem pole. In the '70s and '80s a lot of top players didn't even enter, and that's a tough thing to come back from.
The FO and W are respected by the players because in addition to the amazing tradition they've built up they're real banana skins for top players/GOAT contenders. W is a blot on Lendl's resume, and to a lesser degree Courier (to mention nothing of the legions of clay court specialists who have trouble making the second week). FO is a blot on Sampras's and McEnroe's CV, and until recently, Federer's.
Haha, what a silly question FO OFCOURSE!!! French crowd's always are full of idiots...best examples are roddick vs monfils and graf vs hingis...that's just sick.
I don't try to think about which slam is the worst.. I'm just tryin' to enjoy them but when I really start thinking of it, the least prestigious one would have to be either the French or the US open. Wimbledon and AO are my favorites, during the last few years the highest level of tennis has been seen in these tournaments. In my opinion. Wimbledon might also have been a bit too one-sided in terms of winning players as of late, but at least there are great matches to be seen.
Us Open Now.
Least to Most
French, because the crowd there sucks.
USO (though I hate it)
That would be very individual imo, too some players USO matters the most :twisted:
To others, maybe the FO.
In peoples minds, id say Wimbledon is the most prestigeous and AO the least.
Well US Open and Wimbledon are the most oldest historic tradition. The French comes next. But the AO is turning into the "best" major. The AO is fun!
It could not be the French (despite the fans) because natural surface tennis is the best tennis for everyone to be playing and is the most fun/beautiful to watch. Slight x-factors make a certain amount of spontanaiety, fitness and creativity necessary (in addition to consistency and power which are needed for all tournaments.) Next is Australia because it has the best facilities and the most competitive surface. Everyone stands a chance and has the most pure bounce. U. S Open last. Second worst fans. Favors a more one dimensional game than the other hardcourt slam. Ugly facilities. No roof. *******ed corporate influence dictating weird scheduling/facilities/ticketing/media coverage decisions. I love NY and it could be the best tournament but it has let itself go. They can't compete with Wimbledon on tradition. It is neither here no there.
i agree the part about the french open. I love watching the tournament but hate the crowd
2. French Open
3. US Open
4. Australian Open
Somewhat of a toss up between the Aussie and the US Opens, but the Aussies had that period where a lot of top guys didn't play, so in my mind USO comes before them for that reason...
I guess you like to watch grinding.
Explain the one dimensional US Open game? The US Open is probably one of the few surfaces that has been consistent since they switched to hardcourts and have had winners who played all sorts of different style of games, you had serve and volley guys like Mac and Sampras, power baseliners like Safin, Roddick, counterpunchers like Hewitt, defensive guys like Wilander and all court game guys like Federer. If anything the French Open promotes the most one dimensional game I mean do you watch tennis? Lets go through French Open winners over the past years, Lendl, Wilander, Muster, Brug, Moya, Nadal, Costa, Ferrero, Gaudio all played a heavy topspin defensive baseline game on clay the only real exceptions are Fed, Noah and Agassi and they combine for 3 which is as many titles as Lendl himself has. The only real offensive two time winner I can think of is Courier and he was as one dimensional as it gets as he was just hit his forehand. So please the other reasons are good but one dimensional game..just because a surface promotes a bit of office now a days doesn't mean it is one dimensional. Honestly all the slams are at a point where they are basically of equal value, but in terms of history anyone who has read up on tennis understands the order for historical reasons remains
Argue it all you want but if you read up on it you will see that this is how in terms of history it is ranked.
The US Open producing one dimensional tennis? This is ludicrous. Its produces the most multidimensional GS tennis. It still is semi-fast. When they slowed the courts down the tennis became more one dimensional! The slower surfaces produce one thing consistently: rallies/grinding. very little serve and volleying. Hmmmm I sense this has something to do with Nadal "fans".
The US Open produces rallies and also favors S&V.
Even more so than Wimbledon now.
This Nadal fan thing has become ludicrous. It transcends rational thinking and the sport. LOL!
Might have to do with hatred for America as well....
And the US Open is older than the French. The tradition is different. Its the big city bad boy tradition.
australian open for sure
Cincinatti, but that will change soon!
Versus the rest of the world? Not difficult.
Hope you'll change your mind if Rafa wins it.
Anyway, I think it can be said that Wimbledon is the most prestigious out there, I wouldn't name a least. Though I personally think it's nonsense to talk about the "importance" or "prestige" of slams anyway.
Most - Wimby, USO
Least - AO, RG
why would any grand slam be less prestigious than any other? that just stupid
theyre all grand slams,
i can understand wimby cause it was the first one and also has lots of beauty
but come on
i hope that by the time nadal wins the us open federer is a 25 times grand slam champ
"why would any grand slam be less prestigious than any other? that just stupid"
So if tomorrow the tennis powers that be get together and dub the tournament at my club a new part of the Grand Slam then it will be just a prestigious as the other four.
aussie tied with french, maybe slightly above
although aussie is my favorite slam to watch, i admit it's not quite as prestigious as wimbledon or the us
Separate names with a comma.