Roland Garros also loses a bit of credibility when you consider who some of the past champions and finalists have been. Never have I seen so many names of players who didn't do much else. Gaston Gaudio, Martin Verkerk, Mariano Puerta, Guillermo Coria, Alberto Berasategui, Albert Costa, Medvedev. All are great players in their own right, but most had very few results outside of the FO or clay court events.
Grand Slams - Is there a 'pecking order'?
- Thread starter batz
- Start date
Tempest344
Professional
and yet there are so many greats (Edberg,Sampras, Federer) have never won it too
skip1969
G.O.A.T.
it's silly to argue about it but the importance of each (important) slam is relative. a lot of it has to due with where you are from . . . if anyone from your country has ever won that particular slam . . . how much coverage does the slam get in your country, etc. the players themselves have sentimental reasons why they value one slam more than another, so naturally the fans do too.
something as basic as your age can have a great impact on how you rate the slams. how many people like the ao these days, when it had virtually fallen off the map for decades when i was younger. roland garros had a little drop off, too. but just on the basis of consistency you would have to say that wimby and roland garros are pretty special. even though rg started out on grass (well, what wasn't on grass back then) they've been that unique red clay since the 20's or something. that's a long time. and they were the first slam to go "open".
both those tourneys have a ton of history. which is why they might be many people's sentimental choices for #1 and #2.
something as basic as your age can have a great impact on how you rate the slams. how many people like the ao these days, when it had virtually fallen off the map for decades when i was younger. roland garros had a little drop off, too. but just on the basis of consistency you would have to say that wimby and roland garros are pretty special. even though rg started out on grass (well, what wasn't on grass back then) they've been that unique red clay since the 20's or something. that's a long time. and they were the first slam to go "open".
both those tourneys have a ton of history. which is why they might be many people's sentimental choices for #1 and #2.
Tennis_Monk
Hall of Fame
My preference...
Wim\RG
RG
USO
Sorry..USO doesnt rank too high in my opinion. Been to all grand slams. Worst experience was at USO (best at AO)
Wim\RG
RG
USO
Sorry..USO doesnt rank too high in my opinion. Been to all grand slams. Worst experience was at USO (best at AO)
skip1969
G.O.A.T.
well, you could pull up a few names from every slam where there are finalists and winners who are kind of "one slam wonders" or who didn't do all that much at the other slams. it happens in every sport.
There are fewer at the US Open. The only one that caught my eye as being a one slam wonder was Phillipoussis. Maybe Cedric Pioline but he also made the Wimbledon final. Everyone else has won other slams or been ranked #1 or had some significant contribution.
Roland Garros is a very special event. Its why Federer can't win it and why Mariano Puerto can reach the final. Because of this, its not high on many players lists.
SchreckTennis
Rookie
I second that statement on my personal opinion of which is most entertaining. I feel wimbledon is by far the best because it's faster and seems more exciting (with exception of the dress code...). Next is the USO- I like the speed of it as well, but it's a 'lil slower than Wimbledon in my opinion. Third is the AO because while it's hard court- it seems slow and boring...maybe it's because the players are more fresh and able to sprint and rally more points, who knows? And the last would be RG because the slow clay makes most of the games just feel like a baseline grind...
Although, the services I would most like to experience playing on would be clay, then hard (only i've played on), then grass and finally carpet.
Tennis_Monk
Hall of Fame
You mean pro players or just normal recreational tennis players?
Professional. I've heard a lot of interviews with players about their favorite tournaments, and very few have said RG.
chrisdaniel
Semi-Pro
...
Doesn't it seem like in the last few years, all the slams have become pretty equal? I mean look at Feds reaction, he really wanted that Australian Open.
Everyone's dream used to be to win Wimbledon, now it seems everyone just want's a slam title. With Nadal and Federer dominating, Djokovic broke through and grabbed the Australian Open. That's a Slam regardless, and I really believe that the slams are starting to become equal. The only thing I see is that since Australia is so early in the year and the conditions are so rough, many players probably tap out quicker than they would later in the year.
Anyways, in my opinion as of 2009. The order is 1. Wimbledon 2. French Open 3. U.S. Open 4. Australian Open
Doesn't it seem like in the last few years, all the slams have become pretty equal? I mean look at Feds reaction, he really wanted that Australian Open.
Everyone's dream used to be to win Wimbledon, now it seems everyone just want's a slam title. With Nadal and Federer dominating, Djokovic broke through and grabbed the Australian Open. That's a Slam regardless, and I really believe that the slams are starting to become equal. The only thing I see is that since Australia is so early in the year and the conditions are so rough, many players probably tap out quicker than they would later in the year.
Anyways, in my opinion as of 2009. The order is 1. Wimbledon 2. French Open 3. U.S. Open 4. Australian Open
egn
Hall of Fame
Cool yay for Europeans and I guarantee you are wrong, because I could make some bold statement as the British rank the USO above it because the British have an undying hatred towards French due to history. Presitge why it probably goes
1.Wimbledon
2.US Open
3.French
4.Australian
Reasoning Wimbledon and US Open both started around the same time wimby 1877 and US Open 1881 the French Open started a decade after the US Open and back in the day the more popular tennis players where guys like Renshaw and Tilden who played US and Wimbledon and those were the names, Tilden played a few French but the dominant French Open players were rare and I don't recall gaining too much popularity outside of Lacoste but he also played the other two a lot. Just my opinion though. I think the French really became big because of Borg and guys like Laver.
Besides the French today promotes grinding >.> and I just hate grinding.
Tshooter
G.O.A.T.
"I think anyone who knows a decent amount of tennis, or anything about tennis really, knows that Wimbledon is the most important. I don't think there is really an arguing this. Second should be the US Open, based on history and prestige. Third would be the French, and last by a country mile is the Australian."
Ditto. But the French is a distant third. And the Australian last by at least a country mile.
Ditto. But the French is a distant third. And the Australian last by at least a country mile.
Tshooter
G.O.A.T.
"but a lot of low quality players have been winning the USO in recent years"
Absolutely. Lots of them. Let's check the men.
Since 1990:
Sampras, Edberg, Agassi, Rafter, Safin, Hewitt, Roddick and Federer.
All the weak players. Federer the last 5 years. Sampras and Agassi -- super weak. Edbeg, never heard of him.
As oppossed to the French since 1990 : Gomez, Courier, Brugeura, Muster, Kefalnikov, Kuerten, Moya, Agassi, Costa, Ferrer, Guadio and Nadal.
Excluding Nadal and Agassi it's pretty much a list of the all time greats.
Absolutely. Lots of them. Let's check the men.
Since 1990:
Sampras, Edberg, Agassi, Rafter, Safin, Hewitt, Roddick and Federer.
All the weak players. Federer the last 5 years. Sampras and Agassi -- super weak. Edbeg, never heard of him.
As oppossed to the French since 1990 : Gomez, Courier, Brugeura, Muster, Kefalnikov, Kuerten, Moya, Agassi, Costa, Ferrer, Guadio and Nadal.
Excluding Nadal and Agassi it's pretty much a list of the all time greats.
Tsonga nDance
Rookie
Depends on where you're from. US, CHAMPS, RG, AO.
Bhagi Katbamna
Legend
1. Wimbledon
2. Wimbledon
3. Wimbledon
4. The rest.
2. Wimbledon
3. Wimbledon
4. The rest.
From a European standpoint, RG is definately ranked above the USO.
Nearly all of the ITF Juniors here, would actually rather win the RG than Wimby just because the clay competition is by far the hardest(if you take a look at the entry rankings and qualy cut off point and so on).
And i also wouldn't say that USO is more well know than RG. Mayber in the US it is. But here in Europe there are more people who know the French Open than the US Open.And as we know, Europeans dominate the ATP circuit
Obviously Wimbledon is the most prestigious. It has by far the most history and is the most well known.
But i wouldn't say that USO is more prestigious than RG. Have you guys ever been to RG live(and to Paris). Saying that france is boring is just one of the most stupid things i've heard in a long time. Paris is one of the most amazing city's in the World.
I would give USO and RG at least a tie.And at a Personal preferance put RG above US.
I personally find the Australian Open one of the most interesting tournaments because all of the players are fresh and usually fit and have huge battles in the blazing heat.
At the USO there are a lot of weaker matches because of worn out players and injuries and so on.Of course there are still great long 5 set matches at an amazing quality, but just not as many.
So i would say:
Wimbledon
RG
USO
AO
But my personal preference is(mostly because of the match quality):
RG
AO
Wimbledon
US
Nearly all of the ITF Juniors here, would actually rather win the RG than Wimby just because the clay competition is by far the hardest(if you take a look at the entry rankings and qualy cut off point and so on).
And i also wouldn't say that USO is more well know than RG. Mayber in the US it is. But here in Europe there are more people who know the French Open than the US Open.And as we know, Europeans dominate the ATP circuit
Obviously Wimbledon is the most prestigious. It has by far the most history and is the most well known.
But i wouldn't say that USO is more prestigious than RG. Have you guys ever been to RG live(and to Paris). Saying that france is boring is just one of the most stupid things i've heard in a long time. Paris is one of the most amazing city's in the World.
I would give USO and RG at least a tie.And at a Personal preferance put RG above US.
I personally find the Australian Open one of the most interesting tournaments because all of the players are fresh and usually fit and have huge battles in the blazing heat.
At the USO there are a lot of weaker matches because of worn out players and injuries and so on.Of course there are still great long 5 set matches at an amazing quality, but just not as many.
So i would say:
Wimbledon
RG
USO
AO
But my personal preference is(mostly because of the match quality):
RG
AO
Wimbledon
US
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
He wanted it not because it is particularly valuable, but due to the record race.
Historically, I recall many non-Americans wanting to win the U.S. Open, and talked about it in ways never matched by comments about the FO; from Becker, Lendl, Edberg, Rafter, and others, if Wimbledon being the top slam was not in the conversation, it was always the USO--never the FO.
To suggest otherwise is quite funny.
Last edited:
I think, the thing is, that this has changed in the last couple of years. Yes the older players rather wanted to win the USO. But the FO has gained in popularity with all the younger players. A lot of younger players or even players who are in their early 20 have never actually seen a match from, Becker, Lendl, Edberg.
Nowadays i don't hear a lot of non-Americans making those same comments about the USO that those older players used to make
cucio
Legend
What do we mortals know, but I think nowadays any player with a shot at winning will do his utmost best to get any of them, within his possibilities, so in that sense they are equal, none of the big guys on tour is going to take any single slam lightly. Perhaps local boys want to shine brighter at home, or those whose game is favoured by the surface, put a little extra, but slam count is the first measure of greatness these days.
As far as fans go, it is objectively clear from this thread and others like it (there is at least one of them after every slam) that the prestige you associate to a tournament depends on where do you live and/or what kind of tennis you like the best.
It is my opinion as a fan that during the last four years, when I started to follow tennis in the earnest, the best tennis and the most exciting competition has happened at AO, followed at a fair distance by Wimby. Perhaps because the players are well rested and the surface is rather neutral. RG is not much of a thrill in Nadal's Era (although it was an awe inspiring sight to watch at which heights Rafa brought clay court tennis during FO'08 ) and the players arrive at USO too battered from the rest of the season to offer their best tennis.
nalbyvsfed
Rookie
well i really dont like watching grass tournaments, so wimbledon goes 4th with me. my picks:
1. Roland garros
2. australian open
3. us open
4. wimbledon
i know it sounds crazy, and a lot of people will disagree with with me. btw im from europe, and i dont live in france. ( so dont think i like RG the most because im french or somethin)
1. Roland garros
2. australian open
3. us open
4. wimbledon
i know it sounds crazy, and a lot of people will disagree with with me. btw im from europe, and i dont live in france. ( so dont think i like RG the most because im french or somethin)
Totally agree what your saying. Every person will have a different order. Depending from where you are and what kind of tennis you like to watch.
As did Phillipoussis
mikeler
Moderator
It is interesting that the FO seems to allow dark horses the best shot at winning a Grand Slam title.
matchmaker
Hall of Fame
This is again an ethnocentric point of view.
One could easily argue that Rafter, Safin, Hewitt and Roddick are not all that great.
And the list of RG only contains a few weak players: Gaudio, Gomez and Costa. All the others were pretty much top of the bill on clay in their time.
What Americans do not understand is that for many Europeans RG is more important than the USO. I bet that if one were to ask a European top junior which slam he would like to win if he could only pick one, many would say RG, many also Wimbledon, hardly any would say the USO.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
Gaudio alone pretty much sums it up. :lol:
Tshooter
G.O.A.T.
"One could easily argue that Rafter, Safin, Hewitt and Roddick are not all that great."
I agree. None of those are all that great. Now look at the list of not all that great recent champs at the FO.
In any event, I was only responding to what I thought was an inaccurate statement.
I think what places the FO a solid third behind the USO rests on other factors.
I agree. None of those are all that great. Now look at the list of not all that great recent champs at the FO.
In any event, I was only responding to what I thought was an inaccurate statement.
I think what places the FO a solid third behind the USO rests on other factors.
bluetrain4
G.O.A.T.
I think we can all agree to disagree.
Most would put Wimbledon first.
Then USO or Roland Garros
Then AO.
Again, I think that now with all 4 Slams fully developed and the fields for all Slams basically top-flight, I don't think it is really any more of an accomplishment on paper to win one or the other. A player will have to beat the same top players over the same period no matter the Slam. Yet, in the popular imagination winning Wimbledon is still more of an accomplishment based on "prestige."
Most would put Wimbledon first.
Then USO or Roland Garros
Then AO.
Again, I think that now with all 4 Slams fully developed and the fields for all Slams basically top-flight, I don't think it is really any more of an accomplishment on paper to win one or the other. A player will have to beat the same top players over the same period no matter the Slam. Yet, in the popular imagination winning Wimbledon is still more of an accomplishment based on "prestige."
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
There used to be differences, AO was skipped by many for instance but nowadays I think all 4 carry equal weight and prestige. People have personal preferences of course depending on their nationality and their favorite surface but objectively the 4 slams are equally important, player attendance and media coverage are high for all.
Well you definately don't seem to be a fan of clay
Maybe back in the day AO was considered of less importance, but lets be realistic here, its 2009 and all the events seem to show equal coverage, and all produce the same amount of high level play.
You can't look at the semi's and finals for the past few AO's and say they weren't damn good matches.
Not to mention AO seems to be the most diverse in winners, and isn't just dominated by 1 or 2 people (as seen with RG and Wimby lol)
You can't look at the semi's and finals for the past few AO's and say they weren't damn good matches.
Not to mention AO seems to be the most diverse in winners, and isn't just dominated by 1 or 2 people (as seen with RG and Wimby lol)
DunlopDood
Semi-Pro
I think most people nowadays tend to regard them as equal. From a tennis perspective though, for whatever reason, the best matches have consistently been played at the Australian Open, I really don't know why this is. The USO Has also had some great matches over the years, Blake- Agassi in 05 was great. I really don't get too excited about Wimbledon, honestly the tennis there isn't as good as at the USO or the AUS. Few select claycourt specialists make RG boring most years.
With an objectivity, they are all equal regardless of its history, place, or reputation or whatever. They all award the same points and are at the level.
Each of them are unique and create unique environment.
Other factors like history, personal accompllishment, place, and so on can make one tournament more special than the other, hence players will have their own personal pecking order of grand slams.
There were players who did not care to show up in Wimbledon or do well in that tournament. To them, Wimbledon is at the bottom of their pecking order regardless of its history and prestiage.
A lot of American players do mention that they really want to do well at US Open because its their national tournament. The same goes for Austrailians, I think Llyeton Hewitt and Patrick Rafter really wanted to do well at their national tournament. And British always complain about how no English man has won their own national tournament for some decades. Just take a look at how much pressure they created for Tim Henman.
Each of them are unique and create unique environment.
Other factors like history, personal accompllishment, place, and so on can make one tournament more special than the other, hence players will have their own personal pecking order of grand slams.
There were players who did not care to show up in Wimbledon or do well in that tournament. To them, Wimbledon is at the bottom of their pecking order regardless of its history and prestiage.
A lot of American players do mention that they really want to do well at US Open because its their national tournament. The same goes for Austrailians, I think Llyeton Hewitt and Patrick Rafter really wanted to do well at their national tournament. And British always complain about how no English man has won their own national tournament for some decades. Just take a look at how much pressure they created for Tim Henman.
thejoe
Hall of Fame
For Gods Sake. Your comments are so mind-numbingly moronic sometimes that I can feel myself getting stupider as I read them.
1. Wimbledon
2. Roland Garros
3. US Open
4. AO
How on God's green earth is the AO above the US in terms of prestige, and the same with Roland Garros and Wimbledon? And the Olympics is not a GS, no matter how much you want it to be. Judging by your post, I would say you are a Rafa fan (already knew this) and a pretty deluded one at that.
boredone3456
G.O.A.T.
Based on history and prestige the list is Definitely Wimbledon, RG, US Open, AO.
Depending on what you value in a slam some people might argue that the US Open is over RG because up until the 1920's the French had limited entry only to french nationals and therefore was a little less than the US Open, which would be the only reason I could even logically see for putting the US Open at #2. Reasons like clay court tennis is better are purely opinion and not general knowledge, as for the whole no full 5th set, again, thats preference, I personally think a 5th set tie break adds to the drama, but I still put the US Open 3rd. In terms of Tennis History, Australia is steeped with it in terms of players, but since until recently players didn't feel like going way out of their way to go there it looses something, even when the tournament paid there way down there, I think that shows something. But overall in terms of tradition, history and prestige, the list is as I put it.
Depending on what you value in a slam some people might argue that the US Open is over RG because up until the 1920's the French had limited entry only to french nationals and therefore was a little less than the US Open, which would be the only reason I could even logically see for putting the US Open at #2. Reasons like clay court tennis is better are purely opinion and not general knowledge, as for the whole no full 5th set, again, thats preference, I personally think a 5th set tie break adds to the drama, but I still put the US Open 3rd. In terms of Tennis History, Australia is steeped with it in terms of players, but since until recently players didn't feel like going way out of their way to go there it looses something, even when the tournament paid there way down there, I think that shows something. But overall in terms of tradition, history and prestige, the list is as I put it.
Oui c'est moi.
Hall of Fame
For me it's....
1. Wimbledon
2. The other 3
1. Wimbledon
2. The other 3
How can you say that he's comments are stupid only because he is saying he's own preference.
There are a lot of people who are not completely obsessed with the USO.
There are also a lot of people who don't like watching wimbledon due to it's grass courts and often not so great matches. There are even a lot of pro players who don't even want to enter for Wimby because they think grass courts are just plain silly(adapting to a court were you are only gonna play 2 weeks a year on is quite annoying for tennis players).
And i think it's quite interesting for him to add the Olympic Games. I'm sure that he knows that it's not a Grand Slam. But a lot of players desire it just as much. Or their dream would be to complete a Golden Slam
Wimbledon = first
Daylight = second
There's such a huge gap between Wimbledon and the rest that being #2 is only a matter of taste and not a particularly big compliment.
thejoe
Hall of Fame
Yes, but it isn't order of preference. The OP is asking which is viewed as the most prestigious. No matter which one you prefer, there is an obvious pecking order. I prefer the Aus Open to the US Open, but the US Open is still a more prestigious event.
ckthegreek
Rookie
1. Wimbledon
2. RG
3. USO
4. AO
You cannot be a GOAT contender until you win Wimbledon at least twice.
2. RG
3. USO
4. AO
You cannot be a GOAT contender until you win Wimbledon at least twice.
egn
Hall of Fame
Okay and I think the same can go the other way around...your point simply proves that based on where people live is what they will want to win? So your view proves to be quite ethnocentric also you fought one ethnocentric argument with another. Besides the question is on prestige which means history and regard not whether people today like one more.
Similar threads
- Deleted member 77403
- General Pro Player Discussion
- Poll
- Serendipitous
- General Pro Player Discussion
- Poll
