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

mistik

Hall of Fame
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.
Really why should some one has to take credit of retiring early and not wining all four. AO wasnt important but US Open was important even in his time. Let me be clear Borg wining 6 RG titles 5 Wimbledons still so special. I still put him above someone like Djokovic on great players list but thats where it ends.
 
Last edited:

edmondsm

Legend
I value higher FO and W than the hardcourt slams.I mean 1 on grass, 1 on clay but 2 on hardcourt?

W=FO>>>>UO>>>>>>>>AO
I bet Sampras would trade a Wimbledon for an FO. I know he really wanted to win that title once. You saying the USO is lower than the FO is ill-informed. Historically the big events were Wimbledon and the USO. The FO was on a lower tier and yes nobody cared about the AO except Australians. That's all changed now though. With the modern ranking system and prize money, the majors are all more or less equals.
 

edmondsm

Legend
Hmm, there are images with Federer crying also from before 2009. Why the hell Fed care so much about this tournament?!:eek:

His first coach, an Australian, died in a car accident while on a safari that Roger and his family recommended he go on.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
@TMF Which is the second? I hope you don't end up saying US open as Nat F said Wimbledon > others, and I agree with him. Difference is not big, it is just historic, points are given same.
Reason Ao and RG was less preferred and US more in 70 because of less prize money, the moment prize money and other facilities became same, all the remaining three became equal and AO has become players favorite because of better scheduling and facilities.
The other 3 slams are debatable today, and reasonably one can argue for either one. I personally believe the USO is the 2nd biggest slam. However unlike during Borg's heyday when the WCT was more important than AO, it's justify to say the AO wasn't as big as the other 3 slams.
 

Romismak

Rookie
1st i consider myselt RG more important than USO... because there are 2HC slams.

2nd - yes AO was seen for decades as the last less important slam, but this days when all4 matters and AO is 1st in calendar with everyone strong after off-season and healthy AO is alwas considered the best slam, happy slam and viewers and players enjoy it - draw is the same, top players are the same so winning AO in 2015 is not the same like winning AO in 1980 - because now it´s equal in term of competiton and everything - yes agree Wimbledon is still seen as something more - whichi get- grass season is short and it´s specific - even with surfaces being almost the same still it takes something to adapt to 1st week Wimby grass and i would say yes 5Wimbledons are more than 5 of other slams on paper and for historic achievements, but again winning AO now is equal to winning USO or RG, howewer AO from 1970 was not the same as USO 1970 - the comptiton in US was harder
 

Diehard

Semi-Pro
Yes, but the French had the highest number of both one time winners: 10 (vs 4 for USO and Wimbledon) and winners who never reached #1: 12 (vs 5 and 6 for USO and Wimbledon)


Why is this so hard to understand?!
The only interesting point in that table is the never reched no.1 column. Im happy to put USO over FO...i love USO, but the FO definitely carries more prestige these days. But i like the never reached no.1 column as i would like USO to be second personally. I dont like the french and their crowds are ignorant in my view.
 

Diehard

Semi-Pro
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.
Can you back up that comment about why clay was invented? Isnt clay and grass the two natural original surfaces? Im happy to be wrong but id love to see some evidence of what you sy as that would be interesting. Hard court tennis though is not as good as either clay or grass. Much easier to play on.
 

Phonco

Rookie
I think it it depends on the field and the player effort level. Having a tournament with a portion of the field missing doesn't feel as grand or as great. At the same time, if the players are not taking it seriously, then it's pointless. Even if the players back in the 70s attended the AO, I feel like they wouldn't have put in as much effort as they would have for the other 3. You kind of need both participation and player effort. Nowadays, it seems like players are attending and preparing for every slam, which makes the competition more uniform across each Grand Slam.

You could possibly even make the argument that the AO or the USO are worth more than Wimbledon/RG when history is ignored. Hard courts seem like a median point between grass and clay since it doesn't really favor any particular style. A clay courter might possible prefer HC to grass and a grass player might prefer HC to clay. So you could argue that the AO has the most worth as it is played on a neutral surface and starts at the beginning of the year where most players are rested and healthy.
 

duaneeo

Hall of Fame
Had Sharapova won AO at age 17 rather than Wimbledon at age 17, she would not be as popular as she is now.
Have you forgotten tall, leggy, attractive blonde Anna Kournikova, the player who during her active days made more money in endorsements than any other female athlete, though she never won a singles title? Tall, leggy, attractive blonde Sharapova would be as popular regardless of which slam title she won at age 17. Icing on the cake for her was not that she won Wimbledon, but that she beat Serena Williams in the final.
 

newpball

Legend
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.
What a bunch of baloney!

Learn you tennis history please!

:rolleyes:
 

Match_Point

Rookie
Id have to say no imo. Wimbledon is the most prestigious slam because of its history, court surface and tradition. Dont most players dream of winning Wimby than any other slams?

I tend to think that Wimby comes first then the French Open followed by the USopen. The Australian Open on the other hand imo the least prestigious only because of its short history. Many great players of the past skipped this tournament and only after 00s has it really picked up. In 20 or so years time, I do think it will be regarded higher because right now history is being written by the likes of Roger and Novak at the AO along with rivalries like Stan-Novak etc. The greats are not skipping this tourney and now its distinguishing itself as THE slow HC tourney.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
This has been discussed endlessly. Basically, these days all 4 slams are of equal value, although something like Wimbledon might have more prestige. I think overall slam count matters most though, and I don't think more Wimbledon's is worth more than the same amount of AO's or whatever.

I do think that if one NEVER wins a certain slam, if it happens to be Wimbledon that is a bigger knock then if it were say AO, so that's where it could come into play a bit.
If anything, the Australian Open is worth more than Wimbledon considering how much tougher the competition is on hard courts compared to grass and that all the players are fresh and raring to go at the beginning of the year. If Novak wins 7 AO titles they'll definitely be worth more than Federer's 7 Wimbledons IMO.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
Right now sure. No difference at all. There were a few years in the past when AO was ignored by some top players (mostly between 1976 and 1982)
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
If anything, the Australian Open is worth more than Wimbledon considering how much tougher the competition is on hard courts compared to grass and that all the players are fresh and raring to go at the beginning of the year. If Novak wins 7 AO titles they'll definitely be worth more than Federer's 7 Wimbledons IMO.
If he ever wins 7 AO I will be glad create a public poll.
 

Navdeep Srivastava

Hall of Fame
If anything, the Australian Open is worth more than Wimbledon considering how much tougher the competition is on hard courts compared to grass and that all the players are fresh and raring to go at the beginning of the year. If Novak wins 7 AO titles they'll definitely be worth more than Federer's 7 Wimbledons IMO.
No counts are same because in even strong grass field he would dominated everbody apart from Sampras. Fed movement is magical and can defeat 90s Becker, Edberg Goran etc.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
I don't think the OP meant to say the AO is not a value tournament because of course it is. Every player values the 4 slams, but the AO isn't as prestigious as the other two slams, especially Wimbledon, the Holy Grail in tennis.
A pretty hollow holy grail when they guy who won it only played 7 matches on grass all year....
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
1. Wimbledon
2. French Open
3. US Open
4 AO

USO used to be bigger than FO but with the decline of american tennis its prestige sems diminished and i think if it cotinues to stagnate it wont be long until AO overtakes it.
As an American I would say that the AO has already won the battle. Something really stupid goes wrong at the USO each year. Rain delays in QFs and Fs really ruin the result by delaying matches horribly. That also makes RG the worst for me, because the France is are even more backwards than the US. No surprise we won't have a roof until next year. Everything in this country is falling apart - airports, railroads, bridges.
 

Navdeep Srivastava

Hall of Fame
As an American I would say that the AO has already won the battle. Something really stupid goes wrong at the USO each year. Rain delays in QFs and Fs really ruin the result by delaying matches horribly. That also makes RG the worst for me, because the France is are even more backwards than the US. No surprise we won't have a roof until next year. Everything in this country is falling apart - airports, railroads, bridges.
What make AO better is that there court speed is medium making every player and their style countable. Players are fresh also.
For me Wimbledon is little bit better than all three because of its history but putting US open over AO is stretch seeing how well AO is organized.
For me others three are equal in value.
 

Netspirit

Hall of Fame
Slams represent tradition and are best ranked by age. Not the current court surface, roof, scheduling, or final set tie-break - nope, the age, the number of legendary matches that have occurred.

So, Wimbledon > USO > RG > AO > WTF, but with each year passing, the relative difference is becoming smaller and smaller. All these big events are breathing tradition now.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
What make AO better is that there court speed is medium making every player and their style countable. Players are fresh also.
For me Wimbledon is little bit better than all three because of its history but putting US open over AO is stretch seeing how well AO is organized.
For me others three are equal in value.
I'd put Wimbledon above all others if there were more grass tournaments. But I think grass is almost a joke now because there is not enough practice on it, and this has been going on for some time. At least there are a lot of tournaments each year on clay, so it is the second most used surface even if it only has one slam..

I would love to see play on all the surfaces more equalized but it just won't happen.
 

Navdeep Srivastava

Hall of Fame
I'd put Wimbledon above all others if there were more grass tournaments. But I think grass is almost a joke now because there is not enough practice on it, and this has been going on for some time. At least there are a lot of tournaments each year on clay, so it is the second most used surface even if it only has one slam..

I would love to see play on all the surfaces more equalized but it just won't happen.
I think they should turn 1 clay master and 1 hard court master as a grass one
 

Midaso240

Hall of Fame
As an American I would say that the AO has already won the battle. Something really stupid goes wrong at the USO each year. Rain delays in QFs and Fs really ruin the result by delaying matches horribly. That also makes RG the worst for me, because the France is are even more backwards than the US. No surprise we won't have a roof until next year. Everything in this country is falling apart - airports, railroads, bridges.
The AO is the best organized slam and it's not even close,it's no wonder all the players love it so much. Look at the rain they had this year (rare for Melbourne this time of year) and look how little it derailed the tournament. The French Open and Wimbledon often end up in trouble because they don't have night sessions,and Wimbledon no middle Sunday. The US Open has had problems with it's lack of roof,sometimes having to play the final on the 3rd Monday which is absurd
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
If anything, the Australian Open is worth more than Wimbledon considering how much tougher the competition is on hard courts compared to grass and that all the players are fresh and raring to go at the beginning of the year. If Novak wins 7 AO titles they'll definitely be worth more than Federer's 7 Wimbledons IMO.
No. Just no.

You are a reasonable guy, and I like reading your posts, but there are a lot of reason why Wimbledon remains special.

1) The history.
2) The difficulty in winning it, coming directly from a long clay season.
3) Amazing past champions who are still remembered for their grass court play: Laver, Borg, McEnroe, Becker, Edberg, Sampras, Federer, and others before the Open era.

I would wager that any of the great champions will put wins at Wimbledon right at the top, and that includes your man, who by the way has done quite well there!

But what is the most important slam?

The one that is MISSING!

For JMac and Novak, RG.

For Lendl, Wimbledon.

For Borg, the USO. (If he had won it, he was going to go to the AO in three years, for a Borg slam.) But he crashed three times, much as Novak has at RG. And if he had made it to the AO, JMac had planned to go there too, to stop him!

By the way, I think winning the AO is as difficult as any other slam and Novak should get total credit for winning there.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
What make AO better is that there court speed is medium making every player and their style countable. Players are fresh also.
For me Wimbledon is little bit better than all three because of its history but putting US open over AO is stretch seeing how well AO is organized.
For me others three are equal in value.
I would value all four equally because the best players in the world all show up for each of them and try like hell to win them.

I think Wimbledon still has a bit of an edge on a resume, but that may change as time goes on. The AO used to be the weak slam because it was so hard to travel there. There were years when Australians dominated it. Think of the two wins by Rosewall late in his 30s. There were great players missing.

But now I think it is a lot like the USO used to be. It was sort of the "upstart" and got more and more prestige when Americans started to dominate. When guys like Connors were battling to win the USO every year, and later JMac, it was hard to argue against the USO when #1 players in the world were American. This goes back to people like Kramer, Gonzales, so many others.

At that time many Australians were the greatest in the world, so the only reason the AO was not the best slam was that it was so hard to travel there.

The rep of a slam depends on who is dominant. When a guy like Vilas wins RG, people tend to say, "Well, why not? The guy is a dirt-bagger. He can't win much except on that surface."

But when Borg came along and won 5 Wimbledons in a row, people started to pay attention when he won at RG. The same thing was true of Evert. She won RG 7 times. People would have said, "So what? She was useless off clay."

But with 7 wins at the USO, 3 at Wimbledon, and even 2 at the AO (in a time when most people did not even go there), her wins at RG stick out like Borg's. Same thing with Nadal. He single-handedly made RG almost made that the most important slam for awhile. Fed tried to win it for years, and Novak hasn't done it yet.

By the way, what is the biggest prize in 2017?

The AO.

Why?

Because now people are wondering if an wen someone else besides Novak will win it!
 

70後

Hall of Fame
a lot of reason why Wimbledon remains special.

1) The history.
2) The difficulty in winning it, coming directly from a long clay season.
3) Amazing past champions who are still remembered for their grass court play: Laver, Borg, McEnroe, Becker, Edberg, Sampras, Federer, and others before the Open era.
That didn't stop the clay courters from skipping it or more or less boycotting it or generally not taking it seriously during the 90's. To them French Open was their holy grail, not Wimbledon which they didn't care about at all.

Muster for example is 0-4 at W. All other years he skipped it. Alberto Berasategui is 0 -1 at W. Again skipped it every year. Bruguera has 1 4R there. Skipped nearly every year. You get the idea.

90's didn't really have so called "variety", more accurate perhaps to say it was in danger of being polarised into, in effect, two tours by today if changes hadn't been made.
 

Navdeep Srivastava

Hall of Fame
I would value all four equally because the best players in the world all show up for each of them and try like hell to win them.

I think Wimbledon still has a bit of an edge on a resume, but that may change as time goes on. The AO used to be the weak slam because it was so hard to travel there. There were years when Australians dominated it. Think of the two wins by Rosewall late in his 30s. There were great players missing.

But now I think it is a lot like the USO used to be. It was sort of the "upstart" and got more and more prestige when Americans started to dominate. When guys like Connors were battling to win the USO every year, and later JMac, it was hard to argue against the USO when #1 players in the world were American. This goes back to people like Kramer, Gonzales, so many others.

At that time many Australians were the greatest in the world, so the only reason the AO was not the best slam was that it was so hard to travel there.

The rep of a slam depends on who is dominant. When a guy like Vilas wins RG, people tend to say, "Well, why not? The guy is a dirt-bagger. He can't win much except on that surface."

But when Borg came along and won 5 Wimbledons in a row, people started to pay attention when he won at RG. The same thing was true of Evert. She won RG 7 times. People would have said, "So what? She was useless off clay."

But with 7 wins at the USO, 3 at Wimbledon, and even 2 at the AO (in a time when most people did not even go there), her wins at RG stick out like Borg's. Same thing with Nadal. He single-handedly made RG almost made that the most important slam for awhile. Fed tried to win it for years, and Novak hasn't done it yet.

By the way, what is the biggest prize in 2017?

The AO.

Why?

Because now people are wondering if an wen someone else besides Novak will win it!
Great post and absolutely correct as usual.
 

70後

Hall of Fame
^^^ Lets just say it is obvious which player one supports depending on where you rank the slams, assuming you think one slam is more significant than another.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
That didn't stop the clay courters from skipping it or more or less boycotting it or generally not taking it seriously during the 90's. To them French Open was their holy grail, not Wimbledon which they didn't care about at all.
I see what you are saying, but there are also fast court specialists who either skip Wimbledon or don't try very hard there.

If you are trying to make a living playing tennis you will go where you can win. There are guys who just can't win on grass, and guys who just can't win on clay. Clay and grass are extremes. They guys who can win on both are amazing and always have been. This is what separates someone like Borg from almost everyone else. And because Nadal won Wimbledon twice, his worst surface, with so many injuries in his career, he will be respected for many years as a man who could win on all surfaces.
Muster for example is 0-4 at W. All other years he skipped it. Alberto Berasategui is 0 -1 at W. Again skipped it every year. Bruguera has 1 4R there. Skipped nearly every year. You get the idea.
For the most part I do not have much respect for these players, and perhaps you also get the idea.

The fact that Sampras was so weak on clay to me is a huge argument against him as an all time great. I would say the same thing about JMac. And Lendl, who could never win on grass.

I'm sure you see where I am going. Novak HAS to win RG to cement his legacy.
90's didn't really have so called "variety", more accurate perhaps to say it was in danger of being polarised into, in effect, two tours by today if changes hadn't been made.
It did not have more variety for those who could not win on clay and grass, but Agassi should get far more credit. His best surface was HC, but somehow he managed to win both W and RG.

We should look at champions who could win on both grass and clay, and we should give them extra credit for being versatile!
 

Fiero425

Hall of Fame
Wimbledon >>> US Open >>>> French Open >>>> Australian open no
That used to be the order! AO was having an identity crisis moving from Jan. to Dec back in the 70's to encourage Borg to come "down under" since he won FO & Wimbledon back to back 3 years in a row! If he had perchance acquired a USO, he might not have had a choice but to go there at the end of the season! They straightened themselves out, moved back to Jan. and has surpassed our crummy USO by a long ways! I'm embarrassed by the whole thing; one catastrophe after another! The venue changed surfaces and locations multiple times within 4 years; from grass to clay to HC and of course moving from Forest Hills to Flushing Meadows! No major has been as psychotic as ours here in the States! I vote Wimbledon #1 because of it's history, the FO #2 for about the same reason, the AO, with the USO trailing the rear! ;-)
 
Last edited:

70後

Hall of Fame
If Wimbledon hadn't made a big change, it might be almost irrelevant now. Press and players will still pay lip service to it about it's history and significance, in reality it will be just a serve bot contest that most will skip or give it a miss after the French depending on whether they felt like it while the real important events are played elsewhere. Into that importance vacuum other events will fill it on players calendars. So no tournament is bigger than the sport. Can't stand apart from or on top of the world.
 

Ciaron

Semi-Pro
They obviously are all equal . A GS = GS = GS = GS. It couldn't be anything but. It's totally objective .
However there are other factors that may make a subjective difference in ranking ... For e.g. and as an earlier poster indicated .. The prestige and spectacle of what Wimbledon is .. Strawberries / cream and champagne. The USO with its gladiator type appeal .. Hectic crowds. The FO.. Grinding play with players tapping their shoes to get rid of the clay. The AO .. Blue courts and heat under the harsh Ozzie sun.
 

WYK

Hall of Fame
no good to stay stuck in the past. The era of some Slams being worth more than others is long gone.
Exactly. The surfaces have been as homologated as possible. What used to be an interesting game that tested different players with different skill sets had become nearly one game, one style, one surface. I sort of feel sorry for modern fans. They are missing out on a lot of great rivalries and playing styles we got to witness in previous years.
 
I've not read every comment, and just skimmed a bit but I think that if you asked every player about to turn pro at 16, that they could win any 1 slam during their career, that the majority would pick Wimbledon. There may be a few Spaniards or South Americans that would choose RG but I suspect they would be in the minority. In my mind the prestige probably would be with Wimbledon topping the bill, with the AO at the bottom. With the USO and RG interchangeable depending on the player.

Totally subjective though
 

Navdeep Srivastava

Hall of Fame
I've not read every comment, and just skimmed a bit but I think that if you asked every player about to turn pro at 16, that they could win any 1 slam during their career, that the majority would pick Wimbledon. There may be a few Spaniards or South Americans that would choose RG but I suspect they would be in the minority. In my mind the prestige probably would be with Wimbledon topping the bill, with the AO at the bottom. With the USO and RG interchangeable depending on the player.

Totally subjective though
Was asked to Nole in 2006 he Said AO and Wimbledon.
 

SystemicAnomaly

Talk Tennis Guru
If anything, the Australian Open is worth more than Wimbledon considering how much tougher the competition is on hard courts compared to grass and that all the players are fresh and raring to go at the beginning of the year. If Novak wins 7 AO titles they'll definitely be worth more than Federer's 7 Wimbledons IMO.
I don't believe that you'll get much agreement with this argument. If anything, Wimbledon is a greater challenge for players. The ball bounces lower than other surfaces and it is a surface that players don't get much practice on. On top of that, players much switch gears in a short time. After playing the slower, higher bouncing courts for the clay court season and RG, players need to readjust to grass in just 2-3 weeks. The grass courts at W also play differently in the early rounds than it does in the later rounds. This make it a greater challenge.

I don't think that the "fresh factor" applies to ALL players. Some have laid off tennis for a while and are not back up to their top fighting form for the AO.

The AO has a shorter history as a top tier tournament -- not much more than 20 years. Prior to that top players would often skip it. It is conceivable that Agassi would have much more than 4 AO wins if he hadnt skipped it for the first 8 years of his career (he missed it 11x total during his career).

Even if Novak wins a 7th AO, Roger has displayed a greater dominance at Wimbledon. Roger has made 10 finals at W, winning 7 of them. OTOH, Sampras' dominance was somewhat less -- he made it to 7 finals at W, winning all 7 of them. So far, Novak has only made it to 6 AO finals.
 

GabeT

Legend
Exactly. The surfaces have been as homologated as possible. What used to be an interesting game that tested different players with different skill sets had become nearly one game, one style, one surface. I sort of feel sorry for modern fans. They are missing out on a lot of great rivalries and playing styles we got to witness in previous years.
Actually, real homogeneity was when three of the four slams had the same surface.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
A pretty hollow holy grail when they guy who won it only played 7 matches on grass all year....
Your logic say Wimbledon must be the least important since not just Federer, but all players on the tour played LESS on grass than on clay and hard court.
 

Diehard

Semi-Pro
As an American I would say that the AO has already won the battle. Something really stupid goes wrong at the USO each year. Rain delays in QFs and Fs really ruin the result by delaying matches horribly. That also makes RG the worst for me, because the France is are even more backwards than the US. No surprise we won't have a roof until next year. Everything in this country is falling apart - airports, railroads, bridges.
Djokovic alluded to this i think afer the match saying how the AO is progressing and i thought he was making a subtle dig at the other 3 Majors. You think USA is bad..try living in UK!! It is basically the Middle East on tour!
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
Djokovic alluded to this i think afer the match saying how the AO is progressing and i thought he was making a subtle dig at the other 3 Majors. You think USA is bad..try living in UK!! It is basically the Middle East on tour!
Are you talking about infrastructure? That's what is so bad now in the US.

But I do think the AO has done a beautiful job in making the tennis as interesting as possible.
 

Diehard

Semi-Pro
Are you talking about infrastructure? That's what is so bad now in the US.

But I do think the AO has done a beautiful job in making the tennis as interesting as possible.
I still think it below USO but it is rapidly catching up. America needs to produce some players. America is the key market for tennis, its where the money is.
 

Gary Duane

G.O.A.T.
Your logic say Wimbledon must be the least important since not just Federer, but all players on the tour played LESS on grass than on clay and hard court.
No. My logic says that we would see better tennis on grass if players played on grass more often. Last year Novak played 7 matches, only at Wimbledon. He would not get away with that if there were more players around who were really good on grass and who played more often on grass.

That's my only point.

Other than that I think Wimbledon is great.
 
Top