Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by ClubHoUno, Oct 31, 2009.
Please vote........ :twisted:
Antarctica Open - Ice court
Well actually I'd rank USO slightly ahead of RG in terms of prestige, but I like watching both equally.
Keep the votes coming, I've started to really enjoy the loudness of the US open, a thing I hated 10 years ago.
It's good fun to listen to big volume pop music during the breaks and you see a lot of other tournaments around the world trying to copy the US open atmosphere these days.
Aussi open is also a great event and I love to see the green court flooded in the sunlight, while I sit at home in the middle of the winter longing for outdoor tennis - 3-4 months away
USO > FO.
USO has only been won by folks that attained #1 (except for Orantes that made #2 and currently Del Potro at #5). FO (Gomez, Costa) and Wimbledon (Krajicek) both have their share of scrubs winning in the Open Era.
USO > FO. Fact
The FO-Wimby circuit winners are considered to have accomplished one of the toughest feats of any sport due to the opposite nature of the two slams. Therefore, the prestige associated with these two cannot be questioned.
I rank AO third as "GREATEST." I think prestige-wise, USO is a correct choice. However, AO winners have to face the brutal day heat in Melbourne to progress through to the finals. Plus, the matches going on late into the night always create buzz. USO hasn't seen as many of those as AO.
How is it a fact?
He's probably an American biased that all things American are great. USO draws bigger crowds, livelier atmosphere, etc. Can't look at the big picture probably.
USO > FO. I'm not an American.
US Open is definitely the lamest slam of all four.
US > FO
im not american also.
Roland Garros number 3 after Wimbledon and US Open
That's my opinion (again, I am not American either). HOWEVER, I do acknowledge that some Europeans may rate the French Open over the US Open because most of tennis on the continent is played on Clay - and the French Open is the biggest clay court tournament.
Historically though the US Open has been regarded as second only to Wimbledon.
You guys are always saying the same thing : Historically blablabla ...
It's not about what WAS better, but what IS better.
I think that (as of now) RG > US. Even the AO is (now) better than the US.
Can't stand the noise, the music, the planes and the "super" saturday which basically screw the semi-finalist who plays the second semi-final.
This logical fallacy is known as the complex question. Commonly known as a loaded question. The mechanics are simple. Just assume something is true even if it is disputable or false, and then base your question off of this presupposition. Here are some examples for you:
"ClubHoUno, have you stopped trolling?"
"ClubHoUno, do your friends know that you are a troll?"
You get the idea.
That's a lame argument. I could turn it around and say that many #1's have never won the FO (Pete, McEnroe, Connors, Edberg, until recently Fed...). So perhaps that's the toughest tournament to win for #1's, which makes it unique, and more prestigious?
To me, FO > USO because:
- it's the only clay court slam of the year, while there are two hard court slams, which IMO dilutes the uniqueness of the USO
- USO is heavily driven by commercial (TV/rating) interests, that sometimes it appears that tennis takes a back seat (case in point: super-saturday, CBS' embarrassing championship ceremony with JMDP, men's championship match start-time,....)
now, revenue-wise, the USO may be the biggest, but that's a different story altogether
To the OP: USO
AO > Wimbledon, because I like Kangaroos.
I agree... uhmmm... tasty meat :twisted:
Same thought on the topic.
Yes and definetly good for the knees for Rafa.
That's too bad that we can't have a discussion instead of people claiming intangible measures of greatness and prestige as fact. Goes for the OP as well...although I think he was just making fun of the other Grand Slam ranking thread.
True about the FO-Wimby double, it is one of the most impressive feats in the sport of tennis. However, I think the whole is greater than the sum of its parts; while it's almost universally accepted that Wimbledon is the most prestigious, I think the USO is generally considered second.
I can also argue FO champions often tended to be non-existent at the other slams. Muster was a beast on clay, won a FO, but never got past the 1st round at Wimbledon and only won 3 non-clay titles for his career (iirc he won 43 titles overall). Kuerten never made it past the QF at any of the other slams. Gomez was pretty much a journeyman until he won the French somehow. Gaudio? Costa? Bruguera? FO has been arguably affirmative action for grinders and was the true mark of being one-dimensional. Lendl, Borg, Wilander, Nadal, Federer are pretty much exceptions to the rule. Nadal is lucky the slam surfaces are slower and bouncier now than they were in the '90s.
yep, that and aussie-girls in hotpants
and so what? FO is the only slam where the surface doesnt favour the big servers and power players. you always see the best matches at FO and it doesnt matter if its world #1 against #100, theres no easy matches at FO.
its the toughest one to win, you see longer and better rallies than any other slam. FO should be above wimby followed by AO with the big tv-stunt popkoncert at flushing as #4..
If we are talking currently depending on your taste you could argue the US Open being behind the Australian but if you want to talk overall prestige historically putting the US Open behind the Australian is, sorry if this offends anyone, laughable. In terms of the open era I would rank the slams as
Both Wimby and the US Open have pretty much always been big and never went through periods where they were diminished. The FO was cast aside for a time for WTT and the Australian was not considered important globally by most until the 1980's.
As for what is the most difficult to win, to even try to argue that in any kind of universal way is practically impossible. For Power players its the French, for players with more spin and slice it could be the US Open (case in point Nadal). You can say well the French requires a different style so its harder, well for players raised on clay the US Open is maybe just as tough to win and in the 90's and earlier Wimbledon was probably extremely difficult for some of them as the grass was so much faster. Some players exceed on faster surfaces and some on slower ones so to try and make this decision by saying such and such is harder to win is purely speculation and is completely dependent on a players game and the relative competition at the slam during the time in question. The French cuts back on power shots, in Australia you have to deal with ungodly at times heat, at Wimbledon you get the possibility of mother nature going insane, getting your match delayed multiple times, and having to deal with all those implications, and at the US Open your near the end of a long hard year, have likely already played 3 slams and a but load of tournaments otherwise and you have the mental exhaustion and physical stress factor as a result of all that. Universally there is not a formula to say slam X is harder to win than Slam Y, its all relative.
you guys are dumb. Wimbledon should be considered the LEAST prestigious. Wimbledon sucks. Australian open is the best, then US Open, and then French, and then the Tourny in Indian Wells.
Wimbledon should not be considered Major. Replace that crap with Indian Wells.
Haven't the flight patterns of planes in NY been diverted during the USO for several years now?
Real men play on clay.
Wimbledon is greatest but I like AO more.
French Open is third on the list.
My list reads as follows"
My list is as follows:
All 4 GS
Why? Because I'm someone who can simply enjoy great tennis when it is shown, and the 4 2-week spans that each of these tournaments bring are the few times each year tennis is broadcast where I live. I don't have a preference for surface; I'll take what I can get. If I had to pick one, I guess I would have to say I have most enjoyed watching the AO because it is the only slam in an otherwise 7ish month dry spell for watching tennis, and because it has had the most unique winners in recent years (4 different winners in the past 5 tournaments, as opposed to the 2 different winners for FO, 2 different for Wimby, and 2 different for US Open.)
All the slams are important--far above all else in the sport, however, some slams have more going for them than others.
I think now all 4 slams are equally important, I don't think players seem to care more or less about any in particular as they all fight as hard as they can at all of them. Having said that, they're definitely not all the same in terms of prestige. So does it make a difference in today's game? Probably not.
Nadal certainly thought that Wimbledon has higher prestige than Roland Garros, even though he is the clay Master.
Option D: Cincinnati. It's what all true warriors strive for.
There should be 3 GS.
FO on clay, Wimbledon on faster grass, and USO on slower hard. There is no need for tennis to be hardcourt-biased, having twice as many GS on that surface.
The world championship should consist of top 4 playing on all the 3 surfaces.
That would be the ultimate coolness. It will never happen, of course.
Uso >>>> Fo !!!!!!!!!!!
So which Grand Slam is the greatest after the two GREATEST - Wimby and FO ?
Well, of course, it would have to be the Australian Open because that's the only other Grand Slam left.
(The US Open, of course comes BEFORE Wimbledon and the French Open. )
The only reason people are saying the US open is the worst slam is because JMDP beat Federer. If Federer would have won 6 in a row everyone would be marvelling how Federer won the 2nd best slam 6 times in a row.
US Open has rain delays, noisy audience, a stadium that is too big for tennis and Super Saturday, so it's the worst.
I think the point of this thread was to move away from the argument between French and U.S. Opens that is currently going on in a few other threads.
Anyway, in terms of prestige, importance and value of winning I'd have to say the U.S. but from a spectators point of view I much prefer the Australian Open. Mainly for atmosphere.
I'm going to have to go with Cincinnati.
Let's mention what specific criterion we are using when defining greatness. If you rank Wimbledon at #1 and the French at #2, I think in terms of prestige/notoriety/career impact, I think the US Open is #3, with the Australian Open at #4. In terms of watchability, due to conditions, etc., I think the Australian now has an edge, but there is something to be said for the largest tennis venue, and having a grand slam in the arguably the most famous city in the world, New York. If you asked the players what major they want the most now, I think it would be Wimbledon #1, the US Open #2, the French Open #3 (barely), and the Australian Open #4.
"The US Open's total attendance is bigger than that of ANY other annual sporting event across the globe."
Australian Open is the answer!
Separate names with a comma.