Wimbledon is the most classical Grand Slam, and winning it is the dream of every tennis player. It's the only slam that is a bit more relevant than the rest even if it awards the same points than the other three. The grass court, the white clothing and their own traditions create a very particular atmosphere that makes it really special. Grass tennis is a heritage that we should take care of. It's also a shame that there's not a single Masters 1000 on grass.
Roland Garros is also a very special tournament. Clay tennis is very relevant and has its own beauty. Traditionally opposite to grass tennis, the long points, the sliding on the courts, the point construction and strategy make it also very special.
But in my opinion, both the AO and the USO should try something to differentiate one from the another. They have both been trying to update their image, and that's great. But being both hard court slams, I think they should try to take opposite directions. If one goes for a slower, higher bouncing court, the other one should go for a fast, low bouncing one. If one uses a light coloured court, the other one should make it darker. They also need to differentiate themselves from the other hard-court tournaments. I like both of them (maybe I enjoy the USO a bit more than the AO), but I think they are a step below Wimbledon and RG, not because of true relevance, but because they need more identity. An uninformed spectator who watches an excerpt of an AO or USO match will probably doubt if that's a GS, a masters, an ATP/Davis cup or whatever. If he watches a Wimbledon match, he will have no doubt.
Like The first 4 Rocky movies 
