Should RG central court be renamed again?

#1
It's name was "court central" until 2001, when it was renamed to "Philippe Chatrier" after important french tennis official, so there's no long history of this name.

I believe Rafael Nadal made most significant mark on this court, of any player at any tennis court in history. I believe that the court should be named "Rafael Nadal" as a reminder for future players and generations, right after Rafa finishes his active singles career.

Would you agree?

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
 
#16
Yeah, he is. Otoh, Rafa is "importantest" figure in RG history.
Well, Djokovic has the most AO titles, yet I'd doubt there will ever be a Novak Djokovic Court there. Nor will there ever be a Roger Federer Court at Wimbledon, if they ever choose to name them...
 

Red Rick

Talk Tennis Guru
#19
I'm honestly no fan of stadiums being named after recent players. Big 4 can have their shrines on TTW. They don't even need to be named after players, just after people who did something special, important imo. MGA can be renamed after her repeated homophobia.

Wimbledon Centre Court is made better because it's the only one.
 

Red Rick

Talk Tennis Guru
#20
No reason why. It's still, by far, the most prestigious clay event, and clay is one of the most historic tennis surfaces - also still widely used in many places around the world.
Also remains the last Slam without TB in the fifth set.
So the dream of Philippe Chatrier, to make RG the greatest Slam, is finally complete.
 
#22
Only French nationals would be suitable names anyway...
There's no reason to remove the hommage to Philippe Chatrier, and it would also be hugely disrespectful.
There is no rule saying only Frenchs can be suitable names. Can you please provide me any link to a RG rule stipulating that only Frenchs have suitable names for the RG court?

By the way, I don't get your point. Why would it be supposedly "disrespectful" to call the court Rafa Nadal? What has Phillippe Chatrier done for RG compared to Nadal? Nadal is the best RG player ever, so naming the centre court Rafa Nadal would be far from "disrespectful", unless you are a Nadal hater. I will say more, it can be considered even disrespectful to Nadal not to name the centre court Rafa Nadal, since Phillipe Chatrier has 0 RG titles and Nadal 11.
 
Last edited:
#23
There is no rule saying only Frenchs can be suitable names. Can you please provide me any link to a RG rule stipulating that only Frenchs have suitable names for the RG court?

By the way, I don't get your point. Why would it be supposedly "disrespectful" to call the court Rafa Nadal? What has Phillippe Chatrier done for RG compared to Nadal? Nadal is the best RG player ever, so naming the centre court Rafa Nadal would be far from "disrespectful", unless you are a Nadal hater. I will say more, it can be considered even disrespectful to Nadal not to name the centre court Rafa Nadal, since Phillipe Chatrier is definetely a far less relevant RG figure than Nadal.
I think he means it will be disrespectful to name a court after Chatrier and then give the court name to someone else. I highly doubt anyone who is not French will get a court named after them at RG. That would be the same for non-Aussies at AO or non-Americans at the USO.
 
#24
I think he means it will be disrespectful to name a court after Chatrier and then give the court name to someone else. I highly doubt anyone who is not French will get a court named after them at RG. That would be the same for non-Aussies at AO or non-Americans at the USO.
I know.

But he is saying that it is disrespectful to rename the centre court Rafa Nadal rather than Phillipe Chatrier, when Nadal has 11 RG titles and Chatrier 0 RG titles. Nothing disrespectful there unless you are a blind Nadal hater.
 

Firstservingman

Talk Tennis Guru
#26
It's not about it being Nadal or about how good at tennis they are by comparison. It's the act of changing the dedication at all that would be disrespectful.
"Oh Nadal's better so now it's named after him, sorry Philippe, should have been a better player gg sry"

Chatrier is honoured for his contribution to the development of French tennis and tennis history outside of merely winning the tournament. Sampras has won 5 US Opens and is American, so we should rename Arthur Ashe stadium right?
 
#27
It's not about it being Nadal or about how good at tennis they are by comparison. It's the act of changing the dedication at all that would be disrespectful.
"Oh Nadal's better so now it's named after him, sorry Philippe, should have been a better player gg sry"

Chatrier is honoured for his contribution to the development of French tennis and tennis history outside of merely winning the tournament. Sampras has won 5 US Opens and is American, so we should rename Arthur Ashe stadium right?
Sampras is tied with Federer and Connors in US Open titles. Nadal stands alone with 11 RG titles. Nothing disrespecftul in changing the name if the RG comitte decided it. If they don't change the name it's OK as well.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
#28
Sampras is tied with Federer and Connors in US Open titles. Nadal stands alone with 11 RG titles. Nothing disrespecftul in changing the name if the RG comitte decided it. If they don't change the name it's OK as well.
I think that you missed his point and continued to talk about what you wanted to talk about.

:cool:
 

Firstservingman

Talk Tennis Guru
#29
Sampras is tied with Federer and Connors in US Open titles. Nadal stands alone with 11 RG titles. Nothing disrespecftul in changing the name if the RG comitte decided it. If they don't change the name it's OK as well.
I don't think it would be appropriate to rename the court at all, however many times Nadal or anyone else wins the event. Nothing against Nadal.
I actually think it kind of cheapens the event to award it like that, it's like making winning more important than the sport. Winning itself and getting your name on the trophy is the achievement you get for winning in a given year, while other things like the name of the stadiums and the grounds and trophy are a special honour for those who made the biggest contributions outside of just winning, and those crucial to the history of the tournament and the sport. Sports have an important place in the human psyche and in our history and victory is only one component of that.

Philippe Chatrier, Arthur Ashe, and Rod Laver all grew tennis and sport for their countries and helped make possible the modern spectacle and victories we see today. They made contributions outside of mere victory. Obviously they're not the only people responsible for this, but they certainly deserve better than to be knocked off a few decades later when someone comes along and wins the tournament a few times. Centre Court at Wimbledon, the most important venue in tennis, is named as such to remind us that no one player is greater than the sport.
 

Firstservingman

Talk Tennis Guru
#30
I'm also against renaming Margaret Court Arena for the same reason. Nobody against renaming it is suggesting that her outdated and intolerant political views should be shared by Tennis Australia or anyone else, but she is honoured like that for her contribution to Australian tennis and especially to women's tennis. Billie Jean King is similarly honoured in her home country, and rightly so.
 
#31
If you'd really "know", then why do you keep arguing?


So, it wouldn't be disrespectful to un-name something that honored someone? The act of un-naming is ****ting on the face of the former honored person. You don't do that, unless this person did a pretty nasty stuff that made it deserved...

But I'd guess some "blind Nadal lovers" just wouldn't be able to understand that...
Not disrespectul at all, when another person has made greater contributions (11 RG vs 0 RG is a ridiculous comparison). Many tournaments have been renamed (not un-named since the prefix "un" indicates "not", and no tournament has ever been without name or "not-named"). For instance, in football the main European competition was called European Cup and now it was renamed to Uefa Champions League.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
#32
Not disrespectul at all, when another person has made greater contributions (11 RG vs 0 RG is a ridiculous comparison). Many tournaments have been renamed (not un-named since the prefix "un" indicates "not", and no tournament has ever been without name or "not-named"). For instance, in football the main European competition was called European Cup and now it was renamed to Uefa Champions League.
When is Real Madrid renaming "Santiago Bernabeu" to "Cristiano Ronaldo" or "Zinedine Zidane"?

:cool:
 
#33
Not disrespectul at all, when another person has made greater contributions (11 RG vs 0 RG is a ridiculous comparison). Many tournaments have been renamed (not un-named since the prefix "un" indicates "not", and no tournament has ever been without name or "not-named"). For instance, in football the main European competition was called European Cup and now it was renamed to Uefa Champions League.
In this example, the renaming did not involve the name of actual persons. Therefore there was no disrespect to the person who was honored previously.

But, yeah, I'd suppose blindness and stubbornness can't be cured...
 
#34
Not disrespectul at all, when another person has made greater contributions (11 RG vs 0 RG is a ridiculous comparison). Many tournaments have been renamed (not un-named since the prefix "un" indicates "not", and no tournament has ever been without name or "not-named"). For instance, in football the main European competition was called European Cup and now it was renamed to Uefa Champions League.
Greater contributions? Philippe Chatrier was president of the French Tennis Federation for 20 years and president of the ITF for 14 years. Under his direction, tennis was reintroduced into the Olympics as a demonstration sport in 1981 and as a full Olympic sport in 1988. In this case I think the tournament directors were giving a nod to his contributions for the sport and not his achievements in the sport. Just like with Arthur Ashe at the USO.

If anything, I think a statue of Nadal would fit much better, like they’re doing for Murray (and I hope Federer). Besides, Nadal isn’t French so it would be odd if the French Open were to announce something like this: “Please welcome to Court Rafael Nadal...”. At least it would be odd for casual fans.
 
#35
Greater contributions? Philippe Chatrier was president of the French Tennis Federation for 20 years and president of the ITF for 14 years. Under his direction, tennis was reintroduced into the Olympics as a demonstration sport in 1981 and as a full Olympic sport in 1988. In this case I think the tournament directors were giving a nod to his contributions for the sport and not his achievements in the sport. Just like with Arthur Ashe at the USO.

If anything, I think a statue of Nadal would fit much better, like they’re doing for Murray (and I hope Federer). Besides, Nadal isn’t French so it would be odd if the French Open were to announce something like this: “Please welcome to Court Rafael Nadal...”. At least it would be odd for casual fans.
I would not find it odd. No rule indicating only French players can give name to French courts.

Yes, I would say 11 RG are a greater contribution than 0 RG and being president of the French Tennis Federation. Who will be more remembered? Nadal or Phillipie Chatrier? Almost no one knows who is Phillipe Chatrier (even if you ask French people, most will know who is Nadal and virtually no one will know who is Phillipe Chatrier).

Even Max Decugis (a French citizen) made more contributions to RG than Phillipe Chatrier. Max Decugis won 8 RG titles!!!
 
#36
In this example, the renaming did not involve the name of actual persons. Therefore there was no disrespect to the person who was honored previously.

But, yeah, I'd suppose blindness and stubbornness can't be cured...
No disrespectful at all since the former tennis player Phillipe Chatrier has made far less contributions to RG than Nadal. 11 RG > 0 RG. It is not disrespect. It is justice and objectivity.

Even other Frenchmen like Max Decugis have made far bigger contributions to RG than Chatrier. Max Decugis won 8 RG.

But yeah, I suppose unobjectivity and hate can't be cured.
 
#38
I would not find it odd. No rule indicating only French players can give name to French courts.

Yes, I would say 11 RG are a greater contribution than 0 RG and being president of the French Tennis Federation. Who will be more remembered? Nadal or Phillipie Chatrier? Almost no one knows who is Phillipe Chatrier (even if you ask French people, most will know who is Nadal and virtually no one will know who is Phillipe Chatrier).

Even Max Decugis (a French citizen) made more contributions to RG than Phillipe Chatrier. Max Decugis won 8 RG titles!!!
I think bringing tennis back to the Olympics did more for the sport than any of Nadal's RG titles. We're talking for the sport, not in the sport. As I said, it's the same with the US Open. Why is the center court not named "Pete Sampras Arena"? Because Arthur Ashe did more for the sport. It's clear that the RG tournament organizers are leaning more toward this way of thinking and not with the AO, in which they seem to be measuring greatness as a tennis player (Rod Laver Arena, Margaret Court Arena).

As for my personal take, I'm on the fence. There are two ways of thinking about it which I've just mentioned.
 
#39
I think bringing tennis back to the Olympics did more for the sport than any of Nadal's RG titles. We're talking for the sport, not in the sport. As I said, it's the same with the US Open. Why is the center court not named "Pete Sampras Arena"? Because Arthur Ashe did more for the sport. It's clear that the RG tournament organizers are leaning more toward this way of thinking and not with the AO, in which they seem to be measuring greatness as a tennis player (Rod Laver Arena, Margaret Court Arena).

As for my personal take, I'm on the fence. There are two ways of thinking about it which I've just mentioned.
Tennis would have come back to the Olympics with or without Chatrier.

No man would have won 11+ RG without Nadal.

Nuff said.
 
#40
Tennis would have come back to the Olympics with or without Chatrier.

No man would have won 11+ RG without Nadal.

Nuff said.
What if someone does in the far future? Then would that technically have happened without Nadal? Anything is possible cuz tennis simply evolves year after year
 

mtommer

Hall of Fame
#41
No rule indicating only French players can give name to French courts.
Sure, there's no official rule. I still wouldn't want to be the RG leadership that changed the name of a highly prestigious french event to someone that wasn't french. I seriously doubt the french public would stand for such a thing. And that, I promise you, would amount for more than the commentary and opinions of any "tennis supporters" in favor of the name change. In other words, it is an unofficial rule and it WILL be adhered to.
 
#43
What if someone does in the far future? Then would that technically have happened without Nadal? Anything is possible cuz tennis simply evolves year after year
Your claim is untestable/unfalsifiable, thus not valid. It is untestable because it appeals to the distant future. No matter how many years pass, you can always say "someone in the future will surpass Nadal", making that claim irrefutable/untestable.
 
#44
Sure, there's no official rule. I still wouldn't want to be the RG leadership that changed the name of a highly prestigious french event to someone that wasn't french. I seriously doubt the french public would stand for such a thing. And that, I promise you, would amount for more than the commentary and opinions of any "tennis supporters" in favor of the name change. In other words, it is an unofficial rule and it WILL be adhered to.
No unoffical rule either. Can you provide any link to support your claim that "most French people wouldn't like the centre court to be renamed Rafa Nadal"? Do you have any poll with that question asked to the French population? No link, no credibility.
 
#45
Your claim is untestable/unfalsifiable, thus not valid. It is untestable because it appeals to the distant future. No matter how many years pass, you can always say "someone in the future will surpass Nadal", making that claim irrefutable/untestable.
But yours is incorrect because nobody “needs” Nadal to show them 11 RG is possible. It was always possible; it was just Nadal who proved it.
 
#47
It's name was "court central" until 2001, when it was renamed to "Philippe Chatrier" after important french tennis official, so there's no long history of this name.

I believe Rafael Nadal made most significant mark on this court, of any player at any tennis court in history. I believe that the court should be named "Rafael Nadal" as a reminder for future players and generations, right after Rafa finishes his active singles career.

Would you agree?

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
No, I would not. Philippe Chatrier was instrumental in developing both RG and ITF, and is a historical figure of tennis. It is right to honor his memory.
 
#48
Not disrespectul at all, when another person has made greater contributions (11 RG vs 0 RG is a ridiculous comparison). Many tournaments have been renamed (not un-named since the prefix "un" indicates "not", and no tournament has ever been without name or "not-named"). For instance, in football the main European competition was called European Cup and now it was renamed to Uefa Champions League.
Can't you comprehend that contribution to a sport is not only commensurate to the numbers of titles won? What he did, as an administrator of the sport, in France as well as internationally while President of the ITF, was truly remarkable. He also brought tennis back to the Olympics. In any case, the choice of name for the courts are down to a decision from the FFT, and the likelihood that they chose Nadal, who isn't French, vs. such a revered and respected personality in French tennis as Philippe Chatrier is zero and none. They would chuckle at the suggestion, even if Nadal won 11 more finals.
 
Top