Are Nadal and Federer's 7 Wimbledon Titles Valid?

[Bud]

Since each of Federer's 6 Wimbledon titles (03, 04, 05, 06, 07 and 09) and Nadal's 1 title (2008 ) were won on this mysterious mythical Green Clay... are they truly valid grass court titles?

We all agree that the Wimbledon surface was comprised of the new grass mixture (100% rye vs. 70/30 Rye-red fescue) during the 2003 tournament (it was first used during either the 2001 or 2002 tournament)... and every tournament since.

Are the new grass characteristics (bounce height, court speed) closer to traditional grass or clay?

Feel free to post any scientific/empirical evidence references to validate/support your argument.

Discuss

 

[The Baseline]

it doesnt matter--you have to beat everyone those two weeks regardless of the surface

 

[Tennis_Monk]

Their titles are not at all valid because
a) surface is different
b) Equipment is different (they should use wooden racquets)
c) They are playing in 2000's-- should have played during the 80's and 90's.

In fact if Federer and Nadal have any value for TW forum posts, they should immediately return their titles and prize money and join our forum.

 

[pvaudio]

The Baseline, I'm sorry for insulting you earlier. This thread makes yours look like the work of Michael Faraday. What kind of question is that? The All England Club courts play nothing like clay; the grass is slower, yes, but it still favors grass court specialists. If it didn't, then why exactly does Federer have six of the titles, Roddick with two finals, and numerous grass court players having their best slam showings there, while clay court specialists still struggle?

 

[KingOfTennis]

Their titles are not at all valid because
a) surface is different
b) Equipment is different (they should use wooden racquets)
c) They are playing in 2000's-- should have played during the 80's and 90's.

In fact if Federer and Nadal have any value for TW forum posts, they should immediately return their titles and prize money and join our forum.

hmmm lemme guess the person u go for gets spanked by nadal or federer? Im guessing you go for andy murray or roddick?

 

[sunny_cali]

Since each of Federer's 6 Wimbledon titles (03, 04, 05, 06, 07 and 09) and Nadal's 1 title (2008 ) were won on this mysterious mythical Green Clay... are they truly valid grass court titles?

We all agree that the Wimbledon surface was comprised of the new grass mixture (70/30) during the 2003 tournament (it was first used during either the 2001 or 2002 tournament)... and every tournament since.

Are the new grass characteristics (bounce height, court speed) closer to traditional grass or clay?

Feel free to post any scientific/empirical evidence references to validate/support your argument.

Discuss

17K+ posts and you still have enough troll in the tank to come up with this drivel :evil: Stupid troll

 

[Polaris]

Are Nadal and Federer's 7 Wimbledon Titles Valid?

No.........

 

[JoshDragon]

Since each of Federer's 6 Wimbledon titles (03, 04, 05, 06, 07 and 09) and Nadal's 1 title (2008 ) were won on this mysterious mythical Green Clay... are they truly valid grass court titles?

We all agree that the Wimbledon surface was comprised of the new grass mixture (70/30) during the 2003 tournament (it was first used during either the 2001 or 2002 tournament)... and every tournament since.

Are the new grass characteristics (bounce height, court speed) closer to traditional grass or clay?

Feel free to post any scientific/empirical evidence references to validate/support your argument.

Discuss

Pete and Andre's Wimbledon titles aren't valid, because they won them on fast grass (which is the fake kind.) The stuff they play on today, is for real champions.

 

[Bud]

No.........

Explain yourself, wonderful person

 

[The-Champ]

Federer is the clay GOAT with 7 FO and O wimbledons.

Clay GOAT Ranking

1. Federer 7 titles

Borg-Rafa tied for the second spot. If rafa wins green clay this year. He will surpass Federer because he will have 7 slams on clay and more than 10 masters on the surface.

 

[Bud]

Federer is the clay GOAT with 7 FO and O wimbledons.

Clay GOAT Ranking

1. Federer 7 titles

Borg-Rafa tied for the second spot. If rafa wins green clay this year. He will surpass Federer because he will have 7 slams on clay and more than 10 masters on the surface.

:lol::lol::lol:

 

[piece]

Their titles are not at all valid because
a) surface is different
b) Equipment is different (they should use wooden racquets)
c) They are playing in 2000's-- should have played during the 80's and 90's.

In fact if Federer and Nadal have any value for TW forum posts, they should immediately return their titles and prize money and join our forum.

haha

10 nostalgiatears

 

[Sentinel]

No, it ain't grass if you can't smoke it.

 

[BreakPoint]

Since each of Federer's 6 Wimbledon titles (03, 04, 05, 06, 07 and 09) and Nadal's 1 title (2008 ) were won on this mysterious mythical Green Clay... are they truly valid grass court titles?

We all agree that the Wimbledon surface was comprised of the new grass mixture (70/30) during the 2003 tournament (it was first used during either the 2001 or 2002 tournament)... and every tournament since.

Are the new grass characteristics (bounce height, court speed) closer to traditional grass or clay?

Feel free to post any scientific/empirical evidence references to validate/support your argument.

Discuss

The new grass is 100% rye. The old grass was 70% rye/30% red fescue.

 

[Berundi]

Nadal's wasn't really valid since he barely beat a mono recovering Fed.

 

[pvaudio]

Nadal's wasn't really valid since he barely beat a mono recovering Fed.

I'm not even a Nadal fan and not even I will argue that Nadal deserves every single bit of respect that he's gotten for his Wimbledon win. Federer has never beaten Nadal at the French, even though Nadal was showing signs of knee weakness that year already. They were even worse by the end of Wimbledon, and Nadal still won. When you're at the level of playing the GOAT on his best surface, there is no such thing anymore as "almost winning" and "almost losing". You either win, or you lose.

 

[pvaudio]

hmmm lemme guess the person u go for gets spanked by nadal or federer? Im guessing you go for andy murray or roddick?

Oh my goodness, a little sarcasm wouldn't be to hard to read, would it?

 

[Polaris]

In my mind, they are not valid as fast court Slams. The USO is the only genuine fast court Slam at present. Hence, the answer "No".

Are they valid as Slams? Of course. Only a fool would think otherwise.

Explain yourself, troll

I'll let that pass for now. Sigh.

 

[Jchurch]

As breakpoint pointed out 70/30 was the old grass mixture. The 100% rye was introduced in 2001. Does this invalidate both Hewitt's 2002 title and Goran's 2001 title? Not at all. A win is a win. Do we say that Villas didn't win the US Open since it was played on hard tru?

 

[Bud]

In my mind, they are not valid as fast court Slams. The USO is the only genuine fast court Slam at present. Hence, the answer "No".

Are they valid as Slams? Of course. Only a fool would think otherwise.


I'll let that pass for now. Sigh.

That's what I was looking for... some sort of explanation or evidence of your opinion.

However, grass is not a fast HC and plays nothing like one.

 

[Bud]

As breakpoint pointed out 70/30 was the old grass mixture. The 100% rye was introduced in 2001. Does this invalidate both Hewitt's 2002 title and Goran's 2001 title? Not at all. A win is a win. Do we say that Villas didn't win the US Open since it was played on hard tru?

Typed the thread quickly and mixed up the grass types (pardon the pun). Fixed in the OP.

BTW, I agree with you. Grass is grass and will never play anything even close to clay.

Also, according to BP... the 2001 tournament was played on the 70/30 mixture... not the current 100% rye... so Goran's title is valid :lol:

 

[Polaris]

However, grass is not a fast HC and plays nothing like one.

I _never_ implied that grass should play like a fast HC. I know it doesn't.

The reason for voting "No" is that grass today is not as fast as the grass pre-2001. In fact, it is slower than the hard court at the USO. Earlier than 2001, it used to be as fast or faster than the USO. The hard court speed was used as a nearly constant benchmark.

Comparing speeds does _not_ equate to saying that HC and grass are equivalent. You're just putting words into my mouth.

 

[Bud]

I _never_ implied that grass should play like a fast HC. I know it doesn't.

The reason for voting "No" is that grass today is not as fast as the grass pre-2001. In fact, it is slower than the hard court at the USO. Earlier than 2001, it used to be as fast or faster than the USO. The hard court speed was used as a nearly constant benchmark.

Comparing speeds does _not_ equate to saying that HC and grass are equivalent.

So.. their Wimbledon titles are invalid because of a slight change in the grass mixture?

You've played on both surfaces... The USO HC's and Wimbledon?

BTW, changed my original offending post :grin:

 

[NamRanger]

So.. their Wimbledon titles are invalid because of a slight change in the grass mixture?

You've played on both surfaces... The USO HC's and Wimbledon?

BTW, changed my original offending post :grin:

They are considered "invalid" because they were not played on what is generally considered the "normal" grass which is incredibly quick, fast, slick, bad bouncing, and favors offensive tennis. That's what I'm getting from Polaris anyways.



Wimbledon still is a legitimate slam, but it's gameplay identity has changed dramatically in a matter of 1 year (2001 was a serve and volley final, 2002 it became a haven for baseliners).

 

[Polaris]

So.. their Wimbledon titles are invalid because of a slight change in the grass mixture?

Not invalid as Slams. Just invalid as fast-court Slams in my mind. People's mileage may vary.

You've played on both surfaces... The USO HC's and Wimbledon?

No. But, I have been to Wimbledon (off-tournament) and spoken with the guides there about the change in composition of the grass and its effects. There are players and some commentators that I trust more than the contrarians here. The evidence that Wimbledon slowed down is overwhelming.

BTW, changed my original offending post :grin:

Wasn't offended. Just tired of seeing how ready people are to call each other trolls.

 

[Polaris]

They are considered "invalid" because they were not played on what is generally considered the "normal" grass which is incredibly quick, fast, slick, bad bouncing, and favors offensive tennis. That's what I'm getting from Polaris anyways.



Wimbledon still is a legitimate slam, but it's gameplay identity has changed dramatically in a matter of 1 year (2001 was a serve and volley final, 2002 it became a haven for baseliners).

Yes. Exactly. Not questioning their legitimacy as Slams, just their status as fast court Slams.

 

[Jchurch]

Typed the thread quickly and mixed up the grass types (pardon the pun). Fixed in the OP.

BTW, I agree with you. Grass is grass and will never play anything even close to clay.

Also, according to BP... the 2001 tournament was played on the 70/30 mixture... not the current 100% rye... so Goran's title is valid :lol:

I am pretty sure that it was changed in 2001. Supposedly the reason the courts were still fast was due to a lot of rainfall that year.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1815724,00.html

http://www.gemtennis.com/2010/06/19/wimbledon-special-why-rye-the-grass-courts-of-wimbledon/

 

[Bud]

I am pretty sure that it was changed in 2001. Supposedly the reason the courts were still fast was due to a lot of rainfall that year.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1815724,00.html

http://www.gemtennis.com/2010/06/19/wimbledon-special-why-rye-the-grass-courts-of-wimbledon/

Yes... 99% of us try explaining this to Breakpoint... but he refuses to believe it.

According to every valid/credible source... the grass that was played on at Wimbledon in 2001 was the current mixture (100% rye).

 

[Justdoit10]

Federer is the clay GOAT with 7 FO and O wimbledons.

Clay GOAT Ranking

1. Federer 7 titles

Borg-Rafa tied for the second spot. If rafa wins green clay this year. He will surpass Federer because he will have 7 slams on clay and more than 10 masters on the surface.

Quoted for the truth. This my new sig!

 

[Solomnstr]

hmmm lemme guess the person u go for gets spanked by nadal or federer? Im guessing you go for andy murray or roddick?

You truly didn't catch any of that sarcasm?
And you've been using the internet for how long?

 

[BreakPoint]

I am pretty sure that it was changed in 2001. Supposedly the reason the courts were still fast was due to a lot of rainfall that year.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1815724,00.html

http://www.gemtennis.com/2010/06/19/wimbledon-special-why-rye-the-grass-courts-of-wimbledon/

Yes... 99% of us try explaining this to Breakpoint... but he refuses to believe it.

According to every valid/credible source... the grass that was played on at Wimbledon in 2001 was the current mixture (100% rye).

The courts are covered when it rains at Wimbledon so I don't see how the rain could have made the grass play faster.

They ripped out the old grass courts after the 2001 Wimbledon ended in August/September of 2001 and planted the new grass. It takes until the spring for the new grass courts to take shape so the first time the new grass courts were played on was the 2002 Wimbledon.

Tim Henman played 6 matches (lost in the semis) in 2001 and not once complained about the speed of the courts. As soon as he played his first match in 2002, he was screaming bloody murder and that the new grass was playing even slower than the red clay of the French Open.

 

[Bud]

The courts are covered when it rains at Wimbledon so I don't see how the rain could have made the grass play faster.

They ripped out the old grass courts after the 2001 Wimbledon ended in August/September of 2001 and planted the new grass. It takes until the spring for the new grass courts to take shape so the first time the new grass courts were played on was the 2002 Wimbledon.

Tim Henman played 6 matches (lost in the semis) in 2001 and not once complained about the speed of the courts. As soon as he played his first match in 2002, he was screaming bloody murder and that the new grass was playing even slower than the red clay of the French Open.

The Wimby groundskeeper who worked at Wimby from 2000-2003 stated the courts were redone in late 2000 and the new grass was in use during the 2001 tournament.

Every credible source states this.

 

[BreakPoint]

The Wimby groundskeeper who worked at Wimby from 2000-2003 stated the courts were redone in late 2000 and the new grass was in use during the 2001 tournament.

Every credible source states this.

Excuse me, but that groundskeeper wasn't even working at Wimbledon in late 2000.

The CEO of the All England Club even stated that the first time the new grass was used was for the 2002 tournament.

 

[Tina]

Grass is grass!, Bud. That's all.

 

[aceX]

Cool thread bro.

 

[Bud]

Excuse me, but that groundskeeper wasn't even working at Wimbledon in late 2000.

The CEO of the All England Club even stated that the first time the new grass was used was for the 2002 tournament.

He was hired in mid 2000 to work as groundskeeper, starting before the Wimby championships in 2001. The grass was already installed and grown when he started working... and he clearly stated that it was sown in late 2000.

 

[Tina]

Cool thread bro.

They are debating-Breakpoint and Bud

 

[egn]

Here is a funny thing....

so now that wimbledon is 100 percent one type of grass it is invalid compared to when it was like a mutt..

So the pure thing is no longer real. Go figs?

 

[aceX]

They are debating-Breakpoint and Bud

Yes indeed.

 

[Jchurch]

The courts are covered when it rains at Wimbledon so I don't see how the rain could have made the grass play faster.

They ripped out the old grass courts after the 2001 Wimbledon ended in August/September of 2001 and planted the new grass. It takes until the spring for the new grass courts to take shape so the first time the new grass courts were played on was the 2002 Wimbledon.

Tim Henman played 6 matches (lost in the semis) in 2001 and not once complained about the speed of the courts. As soon as he played his first match in 2002, he was screaming bloody murder and that the new grass was playing even slower than the red clay of the French Open.

It says through numerous sources that the grass was changed for 2001. They can't have the ground covered for two weeks strait that would kill the grass. I believe that it was rather rainy leading up to the tournament

Also, the head groundskeeper indicated that he thought it was greater compacting of the dirt which lead to the higher bounces. If the ground was softer(per the rain), then this could have been the reason that no one noticed a slowing of the courts in 2001.

Do you have links to the CEO claiming that the grass was changed after wimbledon 2001?

 

[Tina]

Yes indeed.

I guess there is no winner for this topic though, ace. Are you in England?

 

[BreakPoint]

He was hired in mid 2000 to work as groundskeeper, starting before the Wimby championships in 2001. The grass was already installed and grown when he started working... and he clearly stated that it was sown in late 2000.

He started working at Wimbledon in April 2001. He said the new grass was already introduced. That could mean that the decision to change to the new grass mixture was introduced to the AELTC before he got there to be planted later that year (2001). I'm sure the decision to change the grass was made way ahead of time (before he got there). It doesn't mean they changed it right away as soon as they made the decision. He was not there to witnesses what mixture of grass they sowed in the fall of 2000.

 

[BreakPoint]

It says through numerous sources that the grass was changed for 2001. They can't have the ground covered for two weeks strait that would kill the grass. I believe that it was rather rainy leading up to the tournament

Also, the head groundskeeper indicated that he thought it was greater compacting of the dirt which lead to the higher bounces. If the ground was softer(per the rain), then this could have been the reason that no one noticed a slowing of the courts in 2001.

Do you have links to the CEO claiming that the grass was changed after wimbledon 2001?

Most articles state that is was changed IN 2001, not FOR 2001 Wimbledon. It takes almost a year for the grass to grow into the shape they need for the tournament. The grass is re-sown every September for use the next spring. So when they say they sown the new grass in 2001, they are likely saying it was sown in the fall of 2001.

The CEO stated that the grass was changed for 2002 in a UK Tennis magazine article. I have not been able to find it online. However, people in the UK that have read it have referred to it.

 

[Bud]

He started working at Wimbledon in April 2001. He said the new grass was already introduced. That could mean that the decision to change to the new grass mixture was introduced to the AELTC before he got there to be planted later that year (2001). I'm sure the decision to change the grass was made way ahead of time (before he got there). It doesn't mean they changed it right away as soon as they made the decision. He was not there to witnesses what mixture of grass they sowed in the fall of 2000.

I'll provide the link to the document and the quote that once again shows your incorrect :roll:

 

[BreakPoint]

I'll provide the link to the document and the quote that once again shows your incorrect :roll:

Please do. You'll see that you were wrong and I was right.

 

[Tina]

I'll provide the link to the document and the quote that once again shows your incorrect :roll:

Please do. You'll see that you were wrong and I was right.

Hey guys, It's just about tennis right?

 

[Bud]

Hey guys, It's just about tennis right?

"Through contacts an opportunity arose to work at the AELTC and in July 2000, I was offered a position starting in April 2001. My role would be to assist maintaining all grass, red shale, clay and hard courts as well as assist in the day-to-day running of the facility."

"By the time I arrived, the AELTC had introduced 100 per cent perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) across the courts compared with the 70 per cent ryegrass and 30 per cent fescue mix of years gone by."

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3A0rtOBmijqVgJ%3Awww.agcsa.com.au%2Fstatic%2Fatm_articles%2Fhtml%2F5_6e.html+wimbledon+new+grass+2001&hl=en&gl=us

www.agcsa.com.au/static/atm_articles/html/5_6e.html

BP just refuses to ever admit he's incorrect regardless of the amount of irrefutable evidence placed before him.

 

[Blinkism]

A BBC article from July 3 2002

Paraphrased (for relevant points), with my commentary in brackets.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Wimbledon deny 'slow courts' claim

Greg Rusedski's claim that the grass at Wimbledon has been specially prepared to slow down the courts has been denied by tournament officials.

Following his defeat [:lol:] to Xavier Malisse on Tuesday, the Briton suggested that the preparation of the grass was a leading factor in the perceived reduced speed of the courts.

But Championships spokesman Johnny Perkins [A man who actually works at Wimbledon, unlike all of us] told BBC Sport Online that there had been no change in court preparation this year.

"Absolutely not," said Perkins. "The grass is the same, and it's the same seed mix at the same height.

"It was dry for longer beforehand so that makes the balls bounce more and gives the players longer to play their shots, so there are more rallies."

Wimbledon has made a concerted move to slow the courts over the last decade [Remember, this article is from 2002, so this means that, from 1992 at the earliest, Wimbledon has been "slowing" the grass down], but Perkins insisted the change would not be discernible from one year to another.

"Over the last 10 years the courts have gradually been firmed up in line with the movement of the game," said Perkins.

"As the number of serve-volleyers decreased it was just felt that the ball was going through a bit too quickly. [This is a comment from 2002! The decline of serve-volleyers from a decade before 2002 was a reason for slowing down the grass!]

"But it has been a gradual change and not enough that you would notice in one particular year."

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

^^^^^ That's why I call BS on people suddenly "noticing" any change of pace from 2001 to 2002

I think it has more to do with people's stereotypes of the kind of players who should be doing well at Wimbledon and their quickfire reactions to the fact that, a year after Ivanisevic/Rafter, we saw a Hewitt/Nalbandian final.

Anyways, here's the link

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tenn...on/2088800.stm

Feel free to discredit it and troll it away to oblivion :lol:

 

[Deleted member 77403]

If the surface can still do photosynthesis, then it is still grass.

Is it the fastest slam though. No. Not anymore. That goes to the US Open.

 

[Bud]

A BBC article from July 3 2002

Paraphrased (for relevant points), with my commentary in brackets.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Wimbledon deny 'slow courts' claim

Greg Rusedski's claim that the grass at Wimbledon has been specially prepared to slow down the courts has been denied by tournament officials.

Following his defeat [:lol:] to Xavier Malisse on Tuesday, the Briton suggested that the preparation of the grass was a leading factor in the perceived reduced speed of the courts.

But Championships spokesman Johnny Perkins [A man who actually works at Wimbledon, unlike all of us] told BBC Sport Online that there had been no change in court preparation this year.

"Absolutely not," said Perkins. "The grass is the same, and it's the same seed mix at the same height.

"It was dry for longer beforehand so that makes the balls bounce more and gives the players longer to play their shots, so there are more rallies."

Wimbledon has made a concerted move to slow the courts over the last decade [Remember, this article is from 2002, so this means that, from 1992 at the earliest, Wimbledon has been "slowing" the grass down], but Perkins insisted the change would not be discernible from one year to another.

"Over the last 10 years the courts have gradually been firmed up in line with the movement of the game," said Perkins.

"As the number of serve-volleyers decreased it was just felt that the ball was going through a bit too quickly. [This is a comment from 2002! The decline of serve-volleyers from a decade before 2002 was a reason for slowing down the grass!]

"But it has been a gradual change and not enough that you would notice in one particular year."

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

^^^^^ That's why I call BS on people suddenly "noticing" any change of pace from 2001 to 2002

I think it has more to do with people's stereotypes of the kind of players who should be doing well at Wimbledon and their quickfire reactions to the fact that, a year after Ivanisevic/Rafter, we saw a Hewitt/Nalbandian final.

Anyways, here's the link

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tenn...on/2088800.stm

Feel free to discredit it and troll it away to oblivion :lol:

Some won't believe it... although it's written in black and white (again).