Do you really consider the Grand Slams to be of equal value?

[Deleted member 743561]

Ok, so you agree that if by chance tennis had moved towards the clay spectrum and Wimbledon was the odd one out, then Wimbledon would be of lesser value despite its history? I'm just trying to assess if you have something against Roland-Garros as it is or if extends to the hypothetical realm.

Lesser value? If anything, its value would probably rise. Fast surfaces in pro tennis are quickly becoming an endangered species. I don't even see this as discussing anything hypothetical. The facts are there for your perusal. Have you reviewed this whole thread?

 

[Deleted member 743561]

Do you seriously belive there are grass court specialist in the game for the last 20 years or something.

No, and that is part of it. Grass doesn't require specialists! Clay does!

 

[mistik]

No, and that is part of it. Grass doesn't require specialists! Clay does!

do you seriously believe there are still clay court specialists ?? Who are they ?? I see none.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

Tennis has moved to the clay spectrum. It's endless baseline wars regardless of the surface

But it didn't use to be that way; tennis was originally played on grass with grass court tactics. Clay was invented specifically to slow down play, which is why it's the odd one out.

Sorry, I don't but into conspiracy theories that pit slow courts and fast courts against each other, as if they were two different ideologies or something. You're overreacting. And it was general slowing down that allowed for both the Nadals and Djokovics of this world to accumulate so many titles, so you should probably be grateful. I'm more of a 90's fan, I enjoy the contrast. Even though my favorite style is S&V, I enjoy clay specialists like Bruguera and Kuerten.

 

[mistik]

Tennis has moved to the clay spectrum. It's endless baseline wars regardless of surface

But wasn't always that way; tennis was originally played on grass with grass court tactics. Clay was invented specifically to slow down play, which is why it's the odd one out and why a lot of tennis purists have a problem with it, which negatively impacted its prestige.

Clay invented slow down the game when 100 years ago where the game it self even on grass was super slow. Thanks for the laugh.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

Lesser value? If anything, its value would probably rise. Fast surfaces in pro tennis are quickly becoming an endangered species. I don't even see this as discussing anything hypothetical. The facts are there for your perusal. Have you reviewed this whole thread?

Oh, I agree. I wish they'd bring back a DECENT indoor season with carpet, etc. And in terms of speed, I think the Australian Open should be closer to RG and the US Open closer to Wimbledon, as it was in the 90's. There was a reason players like Kafelnikov had a chance in Australia but not at the US Open.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

Servebots were "so awful" in the 90's but now they'll probably need monstrous servers to hit through these courts and end this era of mindless ping-pong that is bound to bore the next generations out o their minds. They shoot themselves in the foot and don't even notice it.

 

[Deleted member 743561]

Oh, I agree. I wish they'd bring back a DECENT indoor season with carpet, etc. And in terms of speed, I think the Australian Open should be closer to RG and the US Open closer to Wimbledon, as it was in the 90's. There was a reason players like Kafelnikov had a chance in Australia but not at the US Open.

Do you happen to know what exactly the problem was with Rebound Ace? Heat was causing problems? They used it for 20 years... was a switch really necessary?

 

[Deleted member 743561]

Servebots were "so awful" in the 90's but now they'll probably need monstrous servers to hit through these courts and end this era of mindless ping-pong that is bound to bore the next generations out o their minds. They shoot themselves in the foot and don't even notice it.

There is a lot of irony there.

Seems pretty obvious that the slow-down is for advertising dollars. Nothing more than that. Do you agree?

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

Do you happen to know what exactly the problem was with Rebound Ace? Heat was causing problems? They used it for 20 years... was a switch really necessary?

I have no idea, to be honest. I'm still not used to the blue courts. When I'm watching the hardcourt Slams I don't even feel it's Melbourne or New York. It could be either/or.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

There is a lot of irony there.

Seems pretty obvious that the slow-down is for advertising dollars. Nothing more than that. Do you agree?

I agree. But as usual, advertising dollars are not synched with a long-term vision. They only think about today. If they hadn't tampered with the game to such an extent, perhaps today we'd have a more mature audience that doesn't expect records to fall every time they watch a tennis match.

 

[Deleted member 743561]

I agree. But as usual, advertising dollars are not synched with a long-term vision. They only think about today. If they hadn't tampered with the game to such an extent, perhaps today we'd have a more mature audience that doesn't expect records to fall every time they watch a tennis match.

Yeah... at some point the doors did get blown off on that... this whole "best EVER" ideology. It's very clearly all over pro tennis, but it's a thing in pop culture, generally. I'm not sure what made record-breaking so omnipresent.

 

[mistik]

I agree. But as usual, advertising dollars are not synched with a long-term vision. They only think about today. If they hadn't tampered with the game to such an extent, perhaps today we'd have a more mature audience that doesn't expect records to fall every time they watch a tennis match.

Hard courts in my book is worst thing ever happened to tennis.It should have been more grass and then clay like it used to be in the history of the sport.Hard cours is a surface which only allows ball bashing.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

Also, that whole "the sport has become boring with the huge serves and no rallying" was obviously agenda-driven. You could hear the commentators pushing it in the mid-90's (not all of them, to be fair, but many) but if you asked viewers they probably wouldn't change a thing. There will always be people that enjoy slow courts and fast courts, there's no reason to make one a general rule for the whole tour. And the servebot theory is pathetic because Stich, Krajicek and Ivanisevic were definitely not players whose only skill was the serve. It's the Isners and the Karlovics who can't play all-court tennis, not the Ivanisevics, the Stichs or the Krajiceks. Rusedski never made it past the first few rounds at Wimbledon. It was all rhetoric and not a shred of evidence.

 

[Deleted member 743561]

Hard courts in my book is worst thing ever happened to tennis.It should have been more grass and then clay like it used to be in the history of the sport.Hard cours is a surface which only allows ball bashing.

The right HC surface allows for some excellent quick strike tennis though, and there is deft touch on display as well. Can be seen on some of the great indoor matches. "Ball bashing," depending on how you define it, probably originated on clay! And then when most of the hardcourts become a synthetic version of clay, it just grew.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

Yeah... at some point the doors did get blown off on that... this whole "best EVER" ideology. It's very clearly all over pro tennis, but it's a thing in pop culture, generally. I'm not sure what made record-breaking so omnipresent.

It's actually a very interesting question and one I've been trying to give partial answers to over the past few years. I don't want to get into it now (I'm a bit tired) but I suspect it's very much related to the development of consumer society.

 

[Deleted member 743561]

Also, that whole "the sport has become boring with the huge serves and no rallying" was obviously agenda-driven. You could hear the commentators pushing it in the mid-90's (not all of them, to be fair, but many) but if you asked viewers they probably wouldn't change a thing. There will always be people that enjoy slow courts and fast courts, there's no reason to make one a general rule for the whole tour. And the servebot theory is pathetic because Stich, Krajicek and Ivanisevic were definitely not players whose only skill was the serve. It's the Isners and the Karlovics who can't play all-court tennis, not the Ivanisevics, the Stichs or the Krajiceks. Rusedski never made it past the first few rounds at Wimbledon. It was all rhetoric and not a shred of evidence.

In a conversation on here, somebody dropped a clip of highlights from a Becker-Sampras match ('96 Masters Cup or something?)... my jaw fell on the floor. Loved that tennis.

 

[jm1980]

Clay invented slow down the game when 100 years ago where the game it self even on grass was super slow. Thanks for the laugh.

There was a time when tennis wasn't played with modern racquets and strings which allow you to bash the ball as hard as you can with as much topspin as you can... Imagine that...

But thanks for showing you don't know tennis history... Again

 

[jm1980]

Sorry, I don't but into conspiracy theories that pit slow courts and fast courts against each other, as if they were two different ideologies or something. You're overreacting. And it was general slowing down that allowed for both the Nadals and Djokovics of this world to accumulate so many titles, so you should probably be grateful. I'm more of a 90's fan, I enjoy the contrast. Even though my favorite style is S&V, I enjoy clay specialists like Bruguera and Kuerten.

And Federers too even though his fans act like he won all his titles in spite of surface homogenisation and not because of it.

And no, I am not a tennis purist. I am just pointing out the history

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

Hard courts in my book is worst thing ever happened to tennis.It should have been more grass and then clay like it used to be in the history of the sport.Hard cours is a surface which only allows ball bashing.

Well, there's always an element of nostalgia in what your preferences are. And because I grew up and fell in love with tennis in the 90's, hard courts and indoors tennis are very much part of my frame of reference. But not the hard courts they're playing on these days.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

And Federers too even though his fans act like he won all his titles in spite of surface homogenisation and not because of it.

And no, I am not a tennis purist. I am just pointing out the history

I'd say partly in spite and partly because.

Fair enough.

 

[6august]

Yes I do, why not? All are Slam, winning any of them brings 2000 pts and ~ 2 million USD, what's the difference?

Tradition? Stop living in the past. Something used to be better doesn't mean it will be better forever. The world keeps spinning. Things keep changing.

There's a reason people call AO the Happy Slam. All players are happy there. They always listen - always understand. The tournament deserves all the credit.

Meanwhile, RG still can't arrange the roof and lights for their central court! So prestigious! So classic! So vintage!

 

[Deleted member 743561]

Was Fed the "Glue Daddy"? Bridging the eras, and siring a generation hellbent on closing him out?

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

In a conversation on here, somebody dropped a clip of highlights from a Becker-Sampras match ('96 Masters Cup or something?)... my jaw fell on the floor. Loved that tennis.

One of my favorite matches of all time. I watched that from beginning to end. I even remember skipping swimming class to watch it. Those serves and volleys and aggressive groundstrokes. My kind of tennis. <3

Aggressive but still elegant. And always moving forward to finish the point. Great stuff. But you see, I also liked the contrast then. I was a fan of Bruguera, Muster, etc.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

I even liked Agassi, although I'm aware his fans probably like the evolutionary path the sport has taken since then. I still think he's the most impressive winner of all the 4 Slams.

 

[Deleted member 743561]

I even liked Agassi, although I'm aware his fans probably like the evolutionary path the sport has taken since then. I still think he's the most impressive winner of all the 4 Slams.

Interesting viewpoint. He maybe did the most with the least. He didn't have the athleticism of some. That hand-eye coordination was among the best of all time though. He easily could have won double-digit majors. I used to like all the American guys, and I looked at tennis so much differently back then.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

Interesting viewpoint. He maybe did the most with the least. He didn't have the athleticism of some. That hand-eye coordination was among the best of all time though. He easily could have won double-digit majors. I used to like all the American guys, and I looked at tennis so much differently back then.

He had a lot going for him. One of the sweetest - if not the sweetest - ball strikers the game has ever seen. Incredible coordination, as you say, and the athleticism wasn't too bad for his body type, especially in the late 90's, early 2000's, when Gil Reyes really started working on him. I'm still bummed that Edberg didn't make the career Slam (he was so close, and if he had achieved that he'd be a tennis deity today - imagine winning all four Slams in the 80's/90's playing S&V, it's the stuff of legend, you can't do that without being massively talented) but Agassi was the obvious pick to do it in the 90's.

 

[Deleted member 743561]

.

 

[HewittAlwaysDisappoints]

RG requires a more niche skill set. No slow major will ever be valued the most, because it rewards a kind of tennis that is not at the heart of the game. I think RG has had the fewest winners, because it's a surface for specialists. Players who excel at Wimbledon also excel elsewhere. The great champs at Wimbledon have won numerous other majors... but it doesn't go the other way.

Fk that, it rewards fitness, endurance, stamina, and immense heart, grit and determination.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

do you seriously believe there are still clay court specialists ?? Who are they ?? I see none.

Yeah, it does appear that the golden age of clay court specialists has faded. They are still out there but just not flourishing in the later rounds at RG these days. It seems that Nadal has reverted back to being a cc specialist somewhat since RG 2012. (Yes, he did well at USO 2013 & AO 2014 but not much else).

Ferrer typically goes deeper on clay than other surfaces. Ditto for Almagro, Fognini, Rebredo and others. But none of these guys seem to be getting further than the QF at RG lately. There are probably still a fair number of CC specialists as lesser venues tho'.

Edit: The WTA has some CC specialists as well. Errani and Schiavone come to mind (but the latter does not seem to be playing very much lately).

 

[duaneeo]

I don't think any slam is of more value than another, but diversity definitely adds value. Federer not only has the most slam wins, but the most diverse portfolio: 4-1-7-5.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

I don't think any slam is of more value than another, but diversity definitely adds value. Federer not only has the most slam wins, but the most diverse portfolio: 4-1-7-5.

Agreed. But historically, this was not the case. In the 80s and earlier, it could be said that the AO was a lesser value since so many of the top players skipped it. Even up to '94, Agassi and some other top players were sitting it out. After skipping it for the first 8 years of his career, Andre plays it for the 1st time in '95 and ends up winning it that year. Since those times the slams have been pretty much of equal value.

For slam wins, Federer (4-1-7-5) does, indeed, have the most diverse portfolio for modern players. Nadal is 2nd in diversity (1-9-2-2). If we look further and consider all slam finals then the totals and diversity of Federer's portfolio is even more impressive:

05-05-10-07 for Roger (27)
03-09-05-03 for Rafa . (20)
06-03-04-06 for Nole . (19)
03-00-07-08 for Pete . (18)

Taking it 1 step further and considering all slam SFs or better:

12-07-10-10 for Roger (39)
04-09-05-05 for Rafa . (23)
06-07-07-09 for Nole . (29)
05-01-08-09 for Pete . (24)

 

[dgold44]

YES

Wimbledon will always be the most prestigious and historical, through. So its the grand prize

US open is probably the second most honorable event and the French is slightly above the Aussie. Aussie was a nothing event 20 years ago and only a few top players ever played it

 

[Russeljones]

Djokovic has 6 Australian Opens, 3 Wimbledons, and 2 US Opens.

When Federer won his 11th Grand Slam, he had won 3 Australian Opens, 5 Wimbledons, and 3 US Opens.

When Nadal won his 11th Grand Slam, he had won 1 Australian Open, 7 French Opens, 2 Wimbledons, and 1 US Open.

When Sampras won his 11th Grand Slam, he had won 2 Australian Opens, 5 Wimbledons, and 4 US Opens.

Would Sampras trade one of his Wimbledons or US Opens for another Australian Open to have greater diversity? No way. Because we all know that Wimbledon and the U.S. Open are the two most prestigious and valued Grand Slams.

This has probably been said by others here, but the intellectual dishonesty in this post is just one of the reasons posters here don't take you seriously and pour scorn on you even when you offer valuable contributions.

 

[joekapa]

Of course some slams/majors are more prestigious than others. No doubt.

And first and foremost is Wimbledon.

But there WORTH are the same post 1990. That's when ALL players started taking the AO seriously, and actually playing the tournament. In the 70's and early 80's the AO, was considered second tier. It was considered lower than most majors as well. Borg, Connors, even Mcenroe ignored the AO altogether.

In the late 1980's (once the Rod Laver arena was built), it started to be taken seriously, and be considered a world class tournament, by the actual players.

 

[joekapa]

This is all good information, but I feel like you're making my point for me. You're saying things that are confirming that Wimbledon produces higher quality tennis, and higher quality players. "The fact is Wimbledon is tougher to win." Therefore, higher value, yes? "You don't have to have big weapons to win the French." Agreed. So a defensive, grinding style does the job there.

No it doesn't mean that buddy. It simply means that top players did not compete in the AO, until the late 80's. Winning an AO post 1990, was equally as hard as winning a Wimbledon. Just ask Sampras.

 

[joekapa]

This forum was obvioulsy startedby a Fed fanboy. Yes he has 7 Wimbledon titles. We know that. So does Sampras, and he won them against better players.

Funny that even on Wimbledon's official facebook page etc, Every second post is about Federer. Sampras NEVER get's a mention. I wonder why.

 

[Another Tourist]

Most of fuss here is about AO, right? OK, prior to 1976, I would consider AO as relevant as today's 500 or 1000, depending on each concrete AO. Some had stronger draw some had weaker. From 1976-1982 I consider it as 500 tournament and that period is for sure the weakest era of AO. Not only that Borg, Connors and McEnroe avoid it, but also other strong players (even Villas did not play all AOs in that period). During 1983-1987 I value AO as 1000. Starting with 1988 it should be valued equally as FO and USO. Melburn Park probably has the best tenis facilities in the world (three retractable roof stadiums among the other things). Players consider it as the best venue in the world. For last 5-6 years it constantly has the second highest attendance (after USO).

Now, Wimbledon. Wimbledon is Wimbledon and it is more appreciated then any other GS. It was always considered as the most important tournament and it will stay that way. Its position become additionally strong after it remained the only GS played on grass. How much should be Wimbledon valued more the other GS?
I personally value it 25% more than other GS (3 Wimbledon are equal to 4 AO, or 4 FO, or 4 USO). But, I do not consider 3 Wimbledon stronger then 1 AO + 1 FO + 1 USO. On contrary, variety should have its value.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

Flinders Park was a pretty good name.

From Wikipedia:

Melbourne Park was built in 1988 beside the Jolimont Yard as a new venue to host the Australian Open, as Kooyong, the previous venue, had become too small. It was originally known as Flinders Park until 1996, when then-Premier, Jeff Kennett decided to rename it Melbourne Park, mainly to advertise the name "Melbourne" to a wide international audience. The decision was met with strong opposition, and was compared by some to renaming Stade Roland Garros (home to the French Open in Paris) "Paris Park". However, over the years, it has become accepted by the Melbourne community.

 

[Flint]

For me,

1)Wimbledon
joint 2nd) all the other 3.

Over the last decade the French open probably got a bit higher than AO and USO because of Nadal but only while Nadal was dominating it.

Sampras trade a Wimbledon for a AO? Crazy.

 

[Roddick85]

Debating about the value of each slam is pretty pointless debate IMO. They are all worth 2000 ranking points, so what is there to discuss? Sure a particular slam might have more sentimental value to you for XYZ reason(s), but at the end of the day, it doesn't change anything. I love Wimbledon because it's played on grass and epitomizes tennis with the traditions and all. Yet Wimbledon is worth the same as the FO which is the one I enjoy the least.

 

[SystemicAnomaly]

No it doesn't mean that buddy. It simply means that top players did not compete in the AO, until the late 80's. Winning an AO post 1990, was equally as hard as winning a Wimbledon. Just ask Sampras.

Even in the 90s, some of the top players were MIA at the AO. Sampras skipped the AO in 91 and 92. Agassi did not play the AO at all prior to '95 (and then prevailed over Sampras at AO 95).

Sampras won his 2nd AO in '97. I noticed that top players Agassi, Kafelnikov, and Kajicek did not play that year. But then some (or all) of those players may have been injured.

 

[Wendigo]

Kyrgios also said his buddy banged Wawrinka's girlfriend. He said a lot of things.

well, thats true tho...

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Wimbledon still has a bit of a first-among-equals status among the slams. Part of it is the history. Part of it also is the quality of the winners. Wimbledon champions have also had success at other slams but the reverse hasn't always been true. Esp in the 90s, winners in the 'first half' of the season were all over the map whereas Sampras dominated Wimbledon and, to a lesser extent, US Open. With homogenisation of conditions along with Nadal's complete domination of RG, this has become harder to observe. But it's no coincidence that the Big Four have completely dominated Wimbledon while the other slams have thrown up other winners. Can you really imagine Wawrinka or Cilic winning Wimbledon? Only Del Potro has (or should I say had? ) an outside chance. I don't buy that AO has a second class status anymore. I think shifting it to hard court at Melbourne dramatically raised its profile for whatever reason and since then it has been as much a slam as the others.

 

[Phoenix1983]

For me Wimbledon was even more prestigious in the past compare to today. The main reason for that is GRASS used to be the most important surface and 3 out 4 slams played on grass and whole the tour used to be mostly grass and clay.Grass court tennis is only becomes important for 2 weaks now it looks more and more like TRADİTİON,players arent even truly know how to play on grass anymore,all of them are hardcourt specialists.

Arguably, this makes Wimbledon even more special today - because it is the only major remaining on the hallowed grass turf. The AO and USO can just be said to be generic HC tournaments in comparison.

 

[pirateofthecarribean]

they have the same points, but Wimbledon is for sure the most well respected throughout the world

 

[Express]

A more interesting question.

If all the slams are of equal value, as several people have posited in this thread, why is a single Grand Slam (CYGS) more coveted than, say two 3-slam years? The slams in the CYGS are suddenly worth more, or have more "value," no?

 

[BGod]

Two Slams on Hard Court has always been the issue since the 90s. Although when Laver won them all 3/4 were on grass (one of the reasons I don't consider his CYS too impressive).

1. Carpet should come back.
2. Grass should go back to 90s fast.

And when we judge players historically, guys like Borg should absolutely be given more credit for winning higher percentage of Slams generally contested than guys like Nadal.

 

[pirateofthecarribean]

A more interesting question.

If all the slams are of equal value, as several people have posited in this thread, why is a single Grand Slam (CYGS) more coveted than, say two 3-slam years? The slams in the CYGS are suddenly worth more, or have more "value," no?

Officially, there is no such thing as CYGS. Sometimes the media like to use this term for money. ITF only recognizes different tiers, with grand slam being the top tier.

http://www.itftennis.com/about/grand-slam®/overview.aspx

Had Sharapova won AO at age 17 rather than Wimbledon at age 17, she would not be as popular as she is now.

 

[Express]

Officially, there is no such thing as CYGS. Sometimes the media like to use this term for money. ITF only recognizes different tiers, with grand slam being the top tier.

http://www.itftennis.com/about/grand-slam®/overview.aspx

Had Sharapova won AO at age 17 rather than Wimbledon at age 17, she would not be as popular as she is now.

Exactly; the value of the CYGS is a completely fabricated concept.

For example, let's say Djokovic wins the French Open. That's basically the "CYGS". In such an event, he would have won Wimbledon, the US Open, the Australian Open, and the French Open consecutively. However, I guarantee that there would be people who would discredit this achievement, despite it being, in essence, the same thing. The only thing the the vast majority of the public would recognize would be the Career Grand Slam.