No it's not. It's totally reasonable. It's the one most of us (and the players) grew up thinking was "the big one". It's the most famous and storied. All reasons that continue to make it the most prestigious of the slams. Maybe this will change over time, but not any time soon.
Are all Grand Slams really considered equal?
- Thread starter McEnroeisanartist
- Start date
No it's not. It's totally reasonable. It's the one most of us (and the players) grew up thinking was "the big one". It's the most famous and storied. All reasons that continue to make it the most prestigious of the slams. Maybe this will change over time, but not any time soon.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
I have provided enough sources to indicate that the dream of Pete, Novak, Rafa and Federer was to win Wimbledon and not some other major.
You are plain butt hurt because Novak only leads AO, which has historically been perceived as the least of all majors.
heftylefty
Hall of Fame
The word you should have highlighted from my post should have been "STILL". Wimbledon was the most prestigious of all slams; and wooden racquets and white tennis balls were state of art at one time too. Wimbledon is the oldest, that is where its prestige comes from. Oldest does not always equal greater.
Today the player that has won Roland Garriso or the Australian Open is no less a Slam winner than the player that won Wimbledon. There are no "lesser" Slam winners.
Last edited:
slice bh compliment
G.O.A.T.
Truth.
I know of some european and south american players who grew up feeling RG was on a par with Wimbledon....and the us and aus opens were a notch below. There is nothing wrong with a little subjectivity in the minds of the public.
The ranking points are the same. The prestige is the stuff of conversation.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
I hate to do this, but I feel like it needs mentioning here. In this day and age, what happens if Nadal beats Federer in the slam count? Say the most likely scenario, 18 and 17. What do you think most people are going to say? Will they say 17 beats 18 because Federer has 7 Wimbledons and Nadal has 2 assuming he doesn't win anymore? Or will they just say 18 > 17?
Be serious now. Most people will just take the second option, if only for simplicity. In this era with the top guys playing all the majors, they have all become equal. That is the simplest answer.
I still prefer Wimbledon over all the others, personally. I still think it's a tiny bit "extra" special, but I'm not sure it holds extra value given the era we're in. At least not to the point where it's worth 1.5 slams or something like that.
Be serious now. Most people will just take the second option, if only for simplicity. In this era with the top guys playing all the majors, they have all become equal. That is the simplest answer.
I still prefer Wimbledon over all the others, personally. I still think it's a tiny bit "extra" special, but I'm not sure it holds extra value given the era we're in. At least not to the point where it's worth 1.5 slams or something like that.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
Thats the thing no, it's hard to go against numbers. It will never say ''federer has 17 GS but his 7 Wimbledons makes him the GOAT cause it's the most precious tournament'', no it will say he has 17 while the other has 18.
At this stage all slams are equal, but people have personal favourites.
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
By "others rates FO..." do you mean players or fans? If it's players can you cite anyone who has ever said, clearly, that they think the FO is of more value than Wimbledon?
Sysyphus
Talk Tennis Guru
How much people value a slam victory isn't analogous the amount of money one is paid or the number of points. I doubt many players would value winning Madrid two times just as much as winning RG one time, even if it does award the same number of points.
And if you want to add money to the equation, then you should probably account for the financial gains from increased marketability: one could be tempted to think that winning the biggest tourney in tennis would give greater financial gains on that front ;-)
Bottom line, you didn't really refute my points about the perceived value of slams. It's not a given value, notwithstanding how many points are awarded or the like.
TheMusicLover
G.O.A.T.
The long and short of it:
In ranking points, all GS are equal.
In prestige, Wimbledon >> above all others.
In ranking points, all GS are equal.
In prestige, Wimbledon >> above all others.
DerekNoleFam1
Hall of Fame
Exactly, 1 Slam wonders at Wimbledon will always be remembered more than winning 1 Slam somewhere else.
Winning more than once at Wimbledon is absolute legendary status, can't say that about the other Majors.
(Eg Becker is remembered as a triple Wimby winner, Edberg a dual winner, before any other accomplishment).
Last edited:
SpicyCurry1990
Hall of Fame
Points should not be used to assess cumulative achievements. They were made to assign the value of each event to a single season. In a single season all slams are valued the same, what does that say?
You misunderstood my point. I'm not talking about off court financial gains. Tennis is a sport with perfectly tiered events from slams all the way down to the futures, and the value of an event is directly tied to its points and prize money. All of the slams are worth the same # of points and there is a slam that is paying out an even higher prize money than Wimbledon.
What exactly does this perceived value mean?
Are you saying every player does not try his hardest at every slam? Because if not you are acknowledging every slam has the same rewards and every player gives them all the same effort. How does 1 have more merit than another in that case? Because in the 70s it was king?
Lol I'm butt hurt? I'm not the one going around making topics trying to diminish the quality of slams my favorite player doesn't lead at, that would be what Fed fans are doing and its hilarious you don't see that. Why does this topic come up posted by a Fed fan immediately after Fed no longer leads at the AO? :lol:
There was a time when Wimbledon was clearly THE title in the sport and the AO was barely relevant. That was in the mid-70s.
Today that is simply not the case and all slams have equal standing. You have provided anecdotes, to which I have done the same Wawrinka and Cilic both said they achieved lifelong dreams when winning slams, not that they achieved something ok and Wimbledon is the only dream. ADDITIONALLY I have cited actual tangible metrics that support my position unlike your pontifications....
Its interesting how when I'm talking to Fed fans like tennisaddict and firstservingman in posts that don't concern you, you feel the need to butt in and be unnecessarily condescending towards me, adding nothing of value to the convo. However, when I make an actual point that you agree with (which that same Fed fan happens to disagree with) you have nothing to say...
Last edited:
Sysyphus
Talk Tennis Guru
That makes no sense. If you use the number of points awarded for slams as proof of them being equal, then you should also grant that a two masters equals one slam by the same token.
The point is that with regards to the ranking, that is true. All slams are equal with regards to the ranking. But, obviously, how much something affects the ranking isn't automatically how much perceived value is assigned to the same feat.
No one is arguing about how many points are awarded to different slams; we are obviously arguing about how prestigious each slam is, and the only true answer here is that this is a subjective judgement. There is no universal law for how prestigious each slam should be regarded.
It's rather you who misunderstood my point. You try to equate the money and points given by the tourneys with how prestigious people should consider them. There is no automaticity in that these should be the only factor one considers. That the only way to judge the value or prestige of a slam is from prize money and points, that in itself would be a subjective judgement. One could just as easily weigh other factors.
I am talking about the perceived value that makes many/most players rank Wimbledon as the slam they would rather win and as the most prestigious one.
The perceived value that makes many fans rank it as the most prestigious and important tournament.
You're a Novak fan, no? Take it from his mouth then:
"This is the tournament I always dreamed of winning, the best tournament in the world, the most valuable one"
http://youtu.be/ruo4NJZRmoY?t=1m28s
Do I hence mean that Wimby is objectively the most valuable tournament in tennis? Nah, I'm saying that there is no universal rule for how much each player or person will value winning a particular tournament, or rank the different tournament, and hence saying that "from an objective standpoint all slams can only be valued as equal" is BS.
SpicyCurry1990
Hall of Fame
What I was saying is there is only one objective system in place to evaluate the value of tournaments and that is the points system.
If two tournaments are awarded a different number of points, they are not equal, but the value ratios between them are not accurately reflected in the point totals because the points have to balance prestige vs functionality of keeping a competitive tour. If winning a slam was worth 4X a masters, you could win AO and then be #1 in the world for 5-6 months without doing anything else and that would throw off the competitive balance of draws.
If two tournaments are awarded the same number of points, however, there is no balancing to consider. They are stated as exact equals. It makes more sense to use that to gauge them rather than to go on about some "prestige" value argument BS that has no tangible support.
Michael88
Banned
What makes an Oscar more "valuable", "important", or "prestigious" than a Golden Globe?
BGod
G.O.A.T.
They ARE equal now but of course when you have 2 of 4 Slams on "Hard" court, there's always going to be questions.
This is why the Aussie Open gets downgraded by so many because it's certainly not on par with the fanhood of the U.S. Open and it's the "other hard court Slam". Consequently, Wimbledon retains the least used surface today.
But with the height of professional tennis in general, if you think you can cruise on hard court Slams, then do it. Why is Djokovic 5-0 in Australia and 1-4 at Flushing Meadows?
This is why the Aussie Open gets downgraded by so many because it's certainly not on par with the fanhood of the U.S. Open and it's the "other hard court Slam". Consequently, Wimbledon retains the least used surface today.
But with the height of professional tennis in general, if you think you can cruise on hard court Slams, then do it. Why is Djokovic 5-0 in Australia and 1-4 at Flushing Meadows?
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Of course they'er all equal these days. Tennis has evolved and the 4 majors are all of equal importance.
AO has really grown in stature and now the format is the same for each major, all the top players enter and they each provide a different challenge with the different surfaces.
AO has really grown in stature and now the format is the same for each major, all the top players enter and they each provide a different challenge with the different surfaces.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
"Only leads AO"? Are you kidding me?! :shock: You'll forgive me but I can't help thinking that it's YOU who is butthurt that your favourite player no longer has the joint record there. We Nole fans are anything but butthurt right now, you'd better believe it.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
@Everyone - Wimbledon is the holy grail of tennis.
All the slams are equal on paper, but some are more equal than others.
All the slams are equal on paper, but some are more equal than others.
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
No doubt Wimbledon is the most prestigious because of tradition, but I'm going to move slightly off track here and say that it is also the most boring. And part of that has to do with tradition.
The AO spanks Wimbledon pretty much in everything except tradition. Love the colour of the AO compared to W's all white policy, the night sessions and the different national backgrounds that come out to support the different nationalities. The AO is far more multicultural than W. The AO also has the best tennis complex in the world and it's only going to get better as it is still a work in progress. It's the only tennis centre in the world with 3 retractable roofs. I note W copied the AO in building one itself. The third roofed stadium is open to patrons with a ground pass so the atmosphere in that stadium is electric and very very loud. When the sun goes down the tennis keeps going. Nothing better than sitting on the grounds watching a match on the big screen under the stars. W just does not give you that. I remember a few years ago sitting outside watching Hewitt v Baghdatis and there were Greeks wearing Greek dancing costumes to show their support for Baghdatis.
I stand corrected but I think the AO now offers the most prize money of all the slams and the attendances over the 2 weeks just get bigger every year.
The AO also offers the most variety of all the slams. Which slam other than the AO can offer:
Day and night matches, plus
Outdoor and indoor matches, plus
Tiebreak sets and sets to advantage.
None. The AO has got it all.
Someone might say that I'm talking from a spectator's point of view and not a professional tennis player's point of view. Well that's exactly right. Because I am a tennis spectator. We all are on this site. Who cares what the players think I just worry what I think. As long as the players give a damn about playing the AO to make it real, and I've seen enough drama and tears shed at the AO in the past 15 years to confidently say they do, then I'm happy.
Give me the AO over Wimby every single day of the week.
The AO spanks Wimbledon pretty much in everything except tradition. Love the colour of the AO compared to W's all white policy, the night sessions and the different national backgrounds that come out to support the different nationalities. The AO is far more multicultural than W. The AO also has the best tennis complex in the world and it's only going to get better as it is still a work in progress. It's the only tennis centre in the world with 3 retractable roofs. I note W copied the AO in building one itself. The third roofed stadium is open to patrons with a ground pass so the atmosphere in that stadium is electric and very very loud. When the sun goes down the tennis keeps going. Nothing better than sitting on the grounds watching a match on the big screen under the stars. W just does not give you that. I remember a few years ago sitting outside watching Hewitt v Baghdatis and there were Greeks wearing Greek dancing costumes to show their support for Baghdatis.
I stand corrected but I think the AO now offers the most prize money of all the slams and the attendances over the 2 weeks just get bigger every year.
The AO also offers the most variety of all the slams. Which slam other than the AO can offer:
Day and night matches, plus
Outdoor and indoor matches, plus
Tiebreak sets and sets to advantage.
None. The AO has got it all.
Someone might say that I'm talking from a spectator's point of view and not a professional tennis player's point of view. Well that's exactly right. Because I am a tennis spectator. We all are on this site. Who cares what the players think I just worry what I think. As long as the players give a damn about playing the AO to make it real, and I've seen enough drama and tears shed at the AO in the past 15 years to confidently say they do, then I'm happy.
Give me the AO over Wimby every single day of the week.
Similar threads
