Tennis slams vs Golf slams

#1
When viewed in direct comparison with the slams in golf, I can appreciate even more how awesome the slams in tennis are. For 3 primary reasons:

1) Slams in tennis occur at the same venues each and every year. Unlike golf where only the Masters is played at the same course every year. Having the slams at the same venue each year I feel helps to build their prestige and history etc. I think this explains why the Masters is typically considered the most prestigious slam in golf.

2) Slams in (men's) tennis are played under different conditions than for all other tournaments i.e. best out of 5 instead of best out of 3. This makes the slams feel extra special and way more epic in my opinion. Whereas in golf, I don't really see for the most part what the difference is in winning a slam like the US Open vs the Tour Championship where the field is essentially the same and all the top guys are there.

3) Slams in tennis each have their own unique conditions i.e. surfaces (with arguably the exception of the US Open and Australian Open). I love how there's a "clay slam" and a "grass slam" and a "slow hardcourt slam" and a "fast hardcourt slam" making each slam distinctly unique from the other. In golf, only the British Open really stands out as being unique from the rest.

Anyone else agree on this? Or disagree?
 
#2
The surfaces could change in the future as they have in the past.

The new rubber surfaces for the U.S. and Australian seem to be hard on knees and legs, due to the concrete base, and the extra friction of rubber scraping on rubber.

As far as I am concerned, it has taken the U.S. and Australian down a peg or two, I would like to see a return to grass.

Traditionally, there was a distinct difference between Australian grass, Wimbledon grass, and Forest Hills grass.
 
Last edited:

JMR

Professional
#3
I think your points 1 and 2 have merit, although diehard golf fans might disagree. As to 3, I don't think it's entirely accurate about the golf majors. E.g., I believe the U.S. Open traditionally has its courses manicured in a way that makes the rough very difficult and demands accurate driving. A golf expert could perhaps expand on this point with respect to the PGA and the Masters. It's certainly true that when the British Open uses a links course, it's very different from a standard course.
 

Sparlingo

Professional
#4
This isn't quite on topic but close, I'm a recent convert from golf to tennis as my favorite sport to watch. Being Canadian the recent rise of young Canadian stars has generated a lot of interest for me and here in Canada generally. One thing about a major in tennis versus a major in golf is that the upcoming players generate a lot more interest in tennis than up and coming players in golf majors who become more forgotten. In general the fun of watching tennis over golf is the focus on the players style and personality, and a greater intensity of the battle, more interactive like a bunch of 1 on 1 boxing matches with some chess thrown in. Once you get into it tennis is just better to watch than golf, period.
 
#5
When viewed in direct comparison with the slams in golf, I can appreciate even more how awesome the slams in tennis are. For 3 primary reasons:

1) Slams in tennis occur at the same venues each and every year. Unlike golf where only the Masters is played at the same course every year. Having the slams at the same venue each year I feel helps to build their prestige and history etc. I think this explains why the Masters is typically considered the most prestigious slam in golf.

2) Slams in (men's) tennis are played under different conditions than for all other tournaments i.e. best out of 5 instead of best out of 3. This makes the slams feel extra special and way more epic in my opinion. Whereas in golf, I don't really see for the most part what the difference is in winning a slam like the US Open vs the Tour Championship where the field is essentially the same and all the top guys are there.

3) Slams in tennis each have their own unique conditions i.e. surfaces (with arguably the exception of the US Open and Australian Open). I love how there's a "clay slam" and a "grass slam" and a "slow hardcourt slam" and a "fast hardcourt slam" making each slam distinctly unique from the other. In golf, only the British Open really stands out as being unique from the rest.

Anyone else agree on this? Or disagree?

I have played thousands of dollars on draft king golf and could probably tell you about most of top 400 players in the world, their major history etc. What I will say about golf majors is it's so hard to predict. One or two bad holes could be the difference in 8th and 48th or something ridiculous like that. The fact you have guys like Tiger that won 14 slams and dominated like he did is really amazing IMO in that sport. You literally have guys lose their game. Look at Speith he's just now entering his prime and he's like 25th in the world on a steady decent but it wouldn't shock anyone if a switch flipped tommorow and he won the Players even with poor history there. That's how weird golf is. Literal nobody's can win week to week or the top player bomb to last in the field level.
 
#7
When viewed in direct comparison with the slams in golf, I can appreciate even more how awesome the slams in tennis are. For 3 primary reasons:
I have played thousands of dollars on draft king golf and could probably tell you about most of top 400 players in the world, their major history etc. What I will say about golf majors is it's so hard to predict. One or two bad holes could be the difference in 8th and 48th or something ridiculous like that. The fact you have guys like Tiger that won 14 slams and dominated like he did is really amazing IMO in that sport. You literally have guys lose their game. Look at Speith he's just now entering his prime and he's like 25th in the world on a steady decent but it wouldn't shock anyone if a switch flipped tommorow and he won the Players even with poor history there. That's how weird golf is. Literal nobody's can win week to week or the top player bomb to last in the field level.
Like still Jonesing says, in golf, in some sense anybody in the field can win. Certainly any of the top 25+ players can win. And the best player in the world is only slightly favored to win over the next 25 guys realistically (Tiger in "God mode" excluded).

In tennis, there are 3 guys that can win a major. Period. And on clay, that number drops to 2. And it's been this way for over a decade. And on clay it's been 1 guy for over a decade, with nobody else having any chance at all.

In tennis, you play against 1 other player. And if you are better (like the top 3), you'll win. In golf, you play against the course. You might be the best player, but it doesn't mean you'll win.

In golf, one bad hole or several sorta bad holes and you're done. In tennis if you're losing, you can just tank the set. The score starts over. In golf, no such luck. Nothing starts over. You can't recover from mistakes. You basically can't make mistakes. If you do, somebody else won't and you'll lose by a stroke or something.

In tennis, we know who will win every tournament before it starts (at least for the past 15 years). Not so in golf.
 
Last edited:
#8
Do people still watch golf?!!!.
:whistle:.
I watched it hard the last 4 years, every week I'd watch even who won the crappy Euro tours I didn't but I've lost so much money that it's really futile and I figure I just as well throw crap against the wall. Now that I have no money on it I don't care as much. I've switched my focus over to tennis trying to enjoy the last few years of the big 3 we got left so I follow all the small tournys and have been watching on the Tennis channel more. I'm an NBA guy beyond that which I do make pretty good bets on. Far more predictable.
 

Sparlingo

Professional
#9
Like still Jonesing says, in golf, in some sense anybody in the field can win. Certainly any of the top 25+ players can win. And the best player in the world is only slightly favored to win over the next 25 guys realistically (Tiger in "God mode" excluded).

In tennis, there are 3 guys that can win a major. Period. And on clay, that number drops to 2. And it's been this way for over a decade. And on clay it's been 1 guy for over a decade, with nobody else having any chance at all.

In tennis, you play against 1 other player. And if you are better (like the top 3), you'll win. In golf, you play against the course. You might be the best player, but it doesn't mean you'll win.

In golf, one bad hole or several sorta bad holes and you're done. In tennis if you're losing, you can just tank the set. The score starts over. In golf, no such luck. Nothing starts over. You can't recover from mistakes. You basically can't make mistakes. If you do, somebody else won't and you'll lose by a stroke or something.

In tennis, we know who will win every tournament before it starts (at least for the past 15 years). Not so in golf.
I agree but I wonder if that is just because of the nature of tennis or is it more because of the unusual talent of the big three all at the same time? Was it always that way? I don't think so.
 

DSH

Professional
#10
I watched it hard the last 4 years, every week I'd watch even who won the crappy Euro tours I didn't but I've lost so much money that it's really futile and I figure I just as well throw crap against the wall. Now that I have no money on it I don't care as much. I've switched my focus over to tennis trying to enjoy the last few years of the big 3 we got left so I follow all the small tournys and have been watching on the Tennis channel more. I'm an NBA guy beyond that which I do make pretty good bets on. Far more predictable.
Warriors Rockets WCF?.
 
#13
Like still Jonesing says, in golf, in some sense anybody in the field can win. Certainly any of the top 25+ players can win. And the best player in the world is only slightly favored to win over the next 25 guys realistically (Tiger in "God mode" excluded).

In tennis, there are 3 guys that can win a major. Period. And on clay, that number drops to 2. And it's been this way for over a decade. And on clay it's been 1 guy for over a decade, with nobody else having any chance at all.

In tennis, you play against 1 other player. And if you are better (like the top 3), you'll win. In golf, you play against the course. You might be the best player, but it doesn't mean you'll win.

In golf, one bad hole or several sorta bad holes and you're done. In tennis if you're losing, you can just tank the set. The score starts over. In golf, no such luck. Nothing starts over. You can't recover from mistakes. You basically can't make mistakes. If you do, somebody else won't and you'll lose by a stroke or something.

In tennis, we know who will win every tournament before it starts (at least for the past 15 years). Not so in golf.

If you look down this list you can see the rank of champion golfers since the rankings system were started.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_World_Golf_Ranking

There have been some 150 to 369 ranked duds to win majors in there that did basically nothing else the rest of their career. I think anyone is a threat even 59 year old Tom Watson had a 2nd place finish. Golf is like that.

I will say I like the golf rankings system better IMO. They weight the regular tourny's by Strenght of Field, have it over 2 years, and use a divisor of 40-52 tournys over the 2 years so it encourages players to not under or over play. Majors and big tournys have preset points as well.
 
#14
I have no idea why they even have a "majors" distinction in golf

There is absolutely no difference between a major and every other run of the mill event

Some of those run of the mill events are even played on courses much harder than the PGA for example

Its the dumbest thing in sports
 
#15
I agree but I wonder if that is just because of the nature of tennis or is it more because of the unusual talent of the big three all at the same time? Was it always that way? I don't think so.
It is because we have an unusual situation the past 15 years, total dominance by only 3 or 4 players over 15 years.....never had anything like that in the history of

tennis, this is unique, not normal.

The only question is "WHY"?

Either 1) those top three guys are supermen, or

2) this is a limited and weak field by historical standards.

I buy number 2). This is a weak field, not just the old guys, but the guys who should be in their prime now and should have already taken over the tennis majors.

The fact that it did not happen shows the weakness of the field.
 
#16
When viewed in direct comparison with the slams in golf, I can appreciate even more how awesome the slams in tennis are. For 3 primary reasons:

1) Slams in tennis occur at the same venues each and every year. Unlike golf where only the Masters is played at the same course every year. Having the slams at the same venue each year I feel helps to build their prestige and history etc. I think this explains why the Masters is typically considered the most prestigious slam in golf.

2) Slams in (men's) tennis are played under different conditions than for all other tournaments i.e. best out of 5 instead of best out of 3. This makes the slams feel extra special and way more epic in my opinion. Whereas in golf, I don't really see for the most part what the difference is in winning a slam like the US Open vs the Tour Championship where the field is essentially the same and all the top guys are there.

3) Slams in tennis each have their own unique conditions i.e. surfaces (with arguably the exception of the US Open and Australian Open). I love how there's a "clay slam" and a "grass slam" and a "slow hardcourt slam" and a "fast hardcourt slam" making each slam distinctly unique from the other. In golf, only the British Open really stands out as being unique from the rest.

Anyone else agree on this? Or disagree?
No fast court hardcourt slam anymore :-( (AO was only medium fast in 2017, 2018)
 
#17
I agree but I wonder if that is just because of the nature of tennis or is it more because of the unusual talent of the big three all at the same time? Was it always that way? I don't think so.
I think it has more to do with the nature of h2h competition vs field competition in general. In tennis you don't need to constantly be the best player in the tournament to win it, just better than 1 opponent each day. I think if every Golf tournament was set up in a match play format, there would be more uniformity in the top players winning.
 
#18
I have no idea why they even have a "majors" distinction in golf

There is absolutely no difference between a major and every other run of the mill event

Some of those run of the mill events are even played on courses much harder than the PGA for example

Its the dumbest thing in sports
The same can be said about majors for the WTA.

Someone actually asked Chris Evert on the Indian Wells broadcast a night or two ago about what makes the slams different for woman, since all events are played the same (and mentioned mens being bo5). She said it's just a mental thing, more pressure, bigger prize money, etc. Pretty much admitting nothing is different lol.
 
#20
The same can be said about majors for the WTA.

Someone actually asked Chris Evert on the Indian Wells broadcast a night or two ago about what makes the slams different for woman, since all events are played the same (and mentioned mens being bo5). She said it's just a mental thing, more pressure, bigger prize money, etc. Pretty much admitting nothing is different lol.
I generally agree with your sentiment, but one thing I will point out is that the days off between matches at the slams should theoretically help with optimal recovery and ensure everyone has a chance to play their best at the majors, while WTA events (while still Bo3) do still have quite a few b2b match days.
 
#21
I have no idea why they even have a "majors" distinction in golf

There is absolutely no difference between a major and every other run of the mill event

Some of those run of the mill events are even played on courses much harder than the PGA for example
It's the field. In golf majors; the entire elite shows up and you have to beat all of them over 4 days. Yes, there are other tournaments where most of the field shows up but in the majors everything goes up a notch.

Agree on the PGA; it's like they want to be a more leisurely counterpoint to the ultra-tough US Open.
 
#22
Warriors Rockets WCF?.
That's a good question dude, I really don't know who will have the privilege to get thumbed by the Warriors. The Nuggets have such a great net rating even with major injruies this year, that's normally the thing I look at the most as predictive but damn how do you trust a bunch of guys that have never even been to the playoffs. I guess Houston would be my pick too but CP3 has fallen off and Harden probably gets called differently in the playoffs. The Thunder intrigue me some too. I wouldn't bet on any of them though.
 
#23
That's a good question dude, I really don't know who will have the privilege to get thumbed by the Warriors. The Nuggets have such a great net rating even with major injruies this year, that's normally the thing I look at the most as predictive but damn how do you trust a bunch of guys that have never even been to the playoffs. I guess Houston would be my pick too but CP3 has fallen off and Harden probably gets called differently in the playoffs. The Thunder intrigue me some too. I wouldn't bet on any of them though.
A lot will depend on seeding too. Whoever ends up #4 between the thunder and rockets will have to face the warriors in R2 so they can't make the WCF. I would trust either of those teams to beat Denver in a potential R2 series though as its hard to win a playoff series vs a team with a wing superstar as a team without a wing superstar in this NBA.
 
#24
A lot will depend on seeding too. Whoever ends up #4 between the thunder and rockets will have to face the warriors in R2 so they can't make the WCF. I would trust either of those teams to beat Denver in a potential R2 series though as its hard to win a playoff series vs a team with a wing superstar as a team without a wing superstar in this NBA.
Those are all great points it's hard to disagree with. I will say that all the Denver metrics just really a hard to dismiss to for me at least but maybe they're just our regular season team.

I think Jokic is an underrated Defender and underrated Star. I'm less sure he can get played off the court then some. Like I said that theyve never been in playoffs is hard to really feel confident in them and their funky collection.
 
#25
Those are all great points it's hard to disagree with. I will say that all the Denver metrics just really a hard to dismiss to for me at least but maybe they're just our regular season team.

I think Jokic is an underrated Defender and underrated Star. I'm less sure he can get played off the court then some. Like I said that theyve never been in playoffs is hard to really feel confident in them and their funky collection.
Denver is a really solid team and they probably have the best team defense of anyone in the West which is why they have such a good +/- metric. They are able to limit a lot of transition and fastbreak opportunities. In the playoffs though, when the game slows down and everyone is going to be in half court sets near the end of games, its going to be hard for them to stop harden/paul/westbrook/george in isolation situations and on the other side find someone to consistently create shots for their own isolation situations.

I just don't feel they match-up well for the playoffs with hou/okc's style of play. Their best bet is if somehow Portland winds up the 3 seed and then OKC/Hous end up playing in R1 and all 3 of GS/OKC/Hou are in the other half of the bracket. Portland is a good match-up for Denver because Lillard is a smaller player who is susceptible to being beaten in isolation situations by a bigger defender unlike the okc/hou wings (like what New Orleans did to him with Jrue Holiday last year).

Ultimately though its all a moot point as no one has any chance vs GS. :mad: Hopefully Durant leaves this off season and restores some competitive balance to the league again.
 
#26
I play golf, but only really watch the PGA tour highlights, I dont have pay TV either. So I cant really comment on tennis v golf majors.

However, I am well qualified to compare the two sports. In golf, the course is your main opponent. You do have to tailor the way you play depending on the leaderboard situation, but by and large you just play to shoot as low as possible. Like tennis opponents, certain courses will match up well with your strengths and weaknesses and others will not, making it a lot more difficult for you to win.

As mentioned, you can fall out of contention in a very short period of time in golf. Just ask Sergio Garcia who shot a 15 I think it was, on a par 3 at the US Masters.

Nothing beats the tension and drama in tennis, when one of the great players is on the verge of being knocked out of a major. The closest golf can come is the playoff for a major.

Tennis has the "luck of the draw" play a part in the outcome of the major. As mentioned earlier its one on one and way more combative in nature. I think theres more pressure as a general rule in tennis due to the h2h nature. You cant just throw caution to the wind and come from 4 shots back on the last day to win, when noone was really talking about you. In golf if you choke, it can happen very quickly and its accepted that it happens to the best of them. In tennis choking can be a slow and painful experience, involving missed opportunities in multiple sets. In tennis a big hitter can have a good day, knock a tournament favourite out and lose in the next round to an also ran. In golf Dustin Johnson can hit the ball as far as he likes, it doesn't knock anyone else out of the tournament per se.

Oh yeah, theyre the two best sports on the planet!
 
#27
I forgot to mention that in golf, the conditions can vary markedly depending on when you tee off. Thats where the element of luck is greater, in that in tennis both players are subject to the same conditions. In tennis you both hit the same ball. In golf if you do that its a 1 stroke penalty haha
 
Top