Relative status of the slams

Henry Kaspar · Sep 22, 2010

The slams are of course heads and shoulders above any other tournament, but in a prestige ranking I would list them as follows:

1 Wimbledon
2 (tied) US Open, French Open
4 Australian Open

Small but clear margins. AO are the smallest but nicest slam (fan-wise)

Views?

TennisBatman · Sep 22, 2010

I think the internationalization of tennis culture and the media has made the status of the slams nearly equivalent.

Sure, each slam has a unique cultural flavor to it--Wimbledon especially--but this has more to do with giving the slam its own "color", rather than making it any greater than any other slam.

Just like the World Cup reached a stable format where it became the premier tournament of soccer, to be held once every 4 years, the Grand Slams reached a stable format for tennis, to be held 4 times every year.

shaysrebelII · Sep 22, 2010

That's a good way of looking at it, although as others pointed out, they're pretty much equal nowadays. Quality of tennis, however, varies, and imho, Australia has had the best matches for the past few years.

Raiden · Sep 22, 2010

Henry Kaspar said:
The slams are of course heads and shoulders above any other tournament, but in a prestige ranking I would list them as follows:

1 Wimbledon
2 (tied) US Open, French Open
4 Australian Open

Small but clear margins. AO are the smallest but nicest slam (fan-wise)

Views?

I think the AO had a chance to upgrade itself a short while a go (2008/9) when they decided to get rid of the old rebound-ace surface and looked for alternatives. They had a chance to install carpet and so more clearly distinguish themselves from the other three (thereby making themselves more relevant)

Instead they went the opposite direction and went to the EXACT company that's responsible for the US Open hardcourt surface - thereby relegating the Australian Open into a second-rate Fake Aussie (outsourced USO) slam

Gangsta · Sep 22, 2010

Good time for the thread, now that Nadal has won all 4. If not, we would be flip-flopping between those he hadn't won. :grin:

I personally like Wimbledon the most, and I am sure so does 90% of the forum. Next up, the French Open, though I had never been a big fan of clay courts until I actually started playing on them. I like Roland Garros and Wimbledon because of what they can offer to the game. Two radically different courts that test the overall skills of a player back-to-back. The US Open is also very nice because they bring something new to the table as well - the fastest courts of all slams. The OZ Open should rank last, easily. Its got nothing new, except for the fact that they are the only slam that can guarantee a Davis Cup feel to matches.

fedhingis515 · Sep 22, 2010

jerriy said:
I think the AO had a chance to upgrade itself a short while a go (2008/9) when they decided to get rid of the old rebound-ace surface and looked for alternatives. They had a chance to install carpet and so more clearly distinguish themselves from the other three (thereby making themselves more relevant)

Instead they went the opposite direction and went to the EXACT company that's responsible for the US Open hardcourt surface - thereby relegating the Australian Open into a second-rate Fake Aussie (outsourced USO) slam

Why did they ditch rebound ace anyway? And a carpet surface slam does sound quite intriguing.

DRII · Sep 22, 2010

Jerily,

I agree with you about the Australian...

they could have definitely distinquished themselves by going with carpet.

Anyway, i think people overlook that some top players, mainly the spainards and south-americans, have skipped Wimbledon during some time periods; like in the late 90's early 2000's. No such thing happened with the USO in recent times.

Henry Kaspar · Sep 22, 2010

DRII said:
Jerily,

I agree with you about the Australian...

they could have definitely distinquished themselves by going with carpet.

Anyway, i think people overlook that some top players, mainly the spainards and south-americans, have skipped Wimbledon during some time periods; like in the late 90's early 2000's. No such thing happened with the USO in recent times.

Even Agassi ditched Wimbledon 1988-90 because he thought he couldn't win--turned out to be a mistake.

Falloutjr · Sep 22, 2010

Around here, French Open is last because Nadal wins it almost every year. Slow red clay is slow.

cucio · Sep 22, 2010

TennisandMusic · Sep 22, 2010

At this point Id say Wimbledon at the top, and the other three just below it. It's such a different sport now...every major gets the same field (i.e. quality of competition), it's more globalized so people are viewing every tournament, and each one has their own character. I think the AO has come up pretty big this decade, whereas even in the 90's it wasn't quite as "respected." You won't see players skipping anything these days though.

veroniquem · Sep 22, 2010

I agree with cucio. Every month the same thread pops up. I'm tired of answering the same question 10,000 times!

Henry Kaspar · Sep 22, 2010

veroniquem said:
I agree with cucio. Every month the same thread pops up. I'm tired of answering the same question 10,000 times!

Then don't answer. And maybe you shouldn't spend so much time around here if it becomes repetitive.

For me it's the first time I'm discussing this.

single_handed_champion · Sep 22, 2010

AO = RG = Wimby = USO

Relative status of the slams

Henry Kaspar

Rookie

TennisBatman

Semi-Pro

shaysrebelII

Professional

Raiden

Hall of Fame

Gangsta

Rookie

fedhingis515

Semi-Pro

DRII

G.O.A.T.

Henry Kaspar

Rookie

Falloutjr

Banned

cucio

Legend

TennisandMusic

Guest

veroniquem

Bionic Poster

Henry Kaspar

Rookie

single_handed_champion

Professional

Similar threads