B
Beerus
Guest
It is the US Open for me, but many posters seem to think that Roland Garros is more prestigious.
Vote and discuss.
Vote and discuss.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Idk, but those FO/Wimbledon back to back finals from Federer and Nadal from 06-08 felt bigger than anything at the US Open. The whole kings defending their turf thing made them the 2 most important slams to me.
alexio
G.O.A.T.
wheres competition higher, at uso probably so that means de facto it should be uso
TheNachoMan
Legend
RG was played on the same surface for it”s entire duration, USO has been played on like 3 surfaces.
When you think of clay, you think of RG.
When you think of clay, you think of RG.
optic yellow
Legend
Even. There is a glamour to the conditions of the USO the other two cannot match.
Razer
Legend
Tier 1 : Wimbledon
Tier 2 : US Open
Tier 3 : French Open & Australian Open
Previously AO was in Tier 4 but Agassi, Federer & more importantly Djokovic pumped up the importance of the Rod Laver Arena and pushed it into Tier 3.
US Open is a big event, lot of Celebrities visit it, it is held in the financial capital of the world, so the slam has its own importance in Tier 2
Wimbledon is Tier 1, it will forever remain the most important slam, Grass is a unique Surface, an elite surface, look so clean and neat, fast aggressive play, overall this is the only slam in a Tier of its own i.e Tier 1
Tier 2 : US Open
Tier 3 : French Open & Australian Open
Previously AO was in Tier 4 but Agassi, Federer & more importantly Djokovic pumped up the importance of the Rod Laver Arena and pushed it into Tier 3.
US Open is a big event, lot of Celebrities visit it, it is held in the financial capital of the world, so the slam has its own importance in Tier 2
Wimbledon is Tier 1, it will forever remain the most important slam, Grass is a unique Surface, an elite surface, look so clean and neat, fast aggressive play, overall this is the only slam in a Tier of its own i.e Tier 1
The tournaments’ respective places on the calendar is a factor IMO.
Even more so nowadays due to the seemingly decreased importance of the post-US Open tournaments including the YEC, it feels that the players who win that tournament effectively have the ‘last word’ for the season. Any grand slam winning season is automatically a successful one. If a player’s one grand slam title in a particular season comes at the US Open, it can feel like they’ve saved their best for last and have ended it on a high.
Historically RG, even after it moved more on a par with Wimbledon and the US Open, has still been kind of been overshadowed by Wimbledon due to the short turnaround time (until 2015 and again in 2021 just 2 weeks) between the 2 tournaments. The extra week between the tournaments, in addition to being incredibly logical and long overdue, does help there, but does it eradicate that factor completely? I’m not sure.
If players mess up at RG, at least Wimbledon is right around the corner. If players mess up at the US Open, it might feel like a long wait slam-wise until the Australian Open the following January.
Plus the US Open has greater prize money round by round, though I think that the difference has decreased in recent times.
Even more so nowadays due to the seemingly decreased importance of the post-US Open tournaments including the YEC, it feels that the players who win that tournament effectively have the ‘last word’ for the season. Any grand slam winning season is automatically a successful one. If a player’s one grand slam title in a particular season comes at the US Open, it can feel like they’ve saved their best for last and have ended it on a high.
Historically RG, even after it moved more on a par with Wimbledon and the US Open, has still been kind of been overshadowed by Wimbledon due to the short turnaround time (until 2015 and again in 2021 just 2 weeks) between the 2 tournaments. The extra week between the tournaments, in addition to being incredibly logical and long overdue, does help there, but does it eradicate that factor completely? I’m not sure.
If players mess up at RG, at least Wimbledon is right around the corner. If players mess up at the US Open, it might feel like a long wait slam-wise until the Australian Open the following January.
Plus the US Open has greater prize money round by round, though I think that the difference has decreased in recent times.
ibbi
G.O.A.T.
I'd say it depends who you are and where you're from. For europeans it's surely Roland Garros, for the people who like to refer to their tournament as THE OPEN and think they're the centre of the ****ing universe, it's probably the US Open.
The opinions that would be the most interesting to hear would be the South Americans who have clay in their veins but closer proximity and probably ability to watch New York.
Anyway, there is definitely no definitive answer. It's the other two that exist on higher and lower levels of 'prestige' as the one with the most and least history.
The opinions that would be the most interesting to hear would be the South Americans who have clay in their veins but closer proximity and probably ability to watch New York.
Anyway, there is definitely no definitive answer. It's the other two that exist on higher and lower levels of 'prestige' as the one with the most and least history.
Copying part of my comment from the thread about how would you like to distribute winning 20 slams if you could choose. I talk about slam prestige there:
For me the order of Grand Slam prestige is pretty clear:
1) Wimbledon
2) US Open
3) Roland Garros
4) Australian Open
Wimbledon is Wimbledon, the original tennis tournament, the first one and the one everyone dreams to win on the most iconic tennis court in the world(Wimbledon's Centre Court). Full of celebrities, Royal Box, English royalty, tradition, grass which encourages quick, attacking tennis...
US Open is the clear second most prestigious in my mind because it's held in the greatest, most important city in the world - New York City. Unofficial center of the world - finance(Wall Street), media, fashion(modeling), politics(center of United Nations)...USA is the most culturally influential, powerful country in the world and it's Grand Slam holds a bit of a special significance.
Arthur Ashe is also full of celebrities(mostly American), even more so than Wimbledon. You can see half of Hollywood basically in the stands on the men's final day(for example, Matthew McConaughey with his wife in Novak's box in the recent final): Leo Di Caprio, Nicole Kidman, Keith Urban, Emily Ratajkowski, Jerry Seinfeld, Justin Timberlake, Kylie Jenner, Timothee Chalamet, Charlize Theron, Lil Wayne, Sting...During the rest of the tournament you could've seen many more. I've also seen Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, Kevin Durant, Jimmy Butler, Barack Obama, Ben Stiller, Alec Baldwin, Spike Lee, Amanda Seyfried, Alexandra Daddario, Diane Keaton. I've seen before this year Brad Pitt, Sean Connery, Gerard Butler(iconic "This is Sparta!!!" celebration with Novak in 2015), Bradley Cooper, Tiger Woods and even god of basketball and the greatest athlete of all times(maybe Novak can challenge him in that regard) - Michael Jordan.
Winning US Open gives you more exposure, fame, recognition, more buzz in the media than any other tournament, with the exception of legendary Wimbledon, of course.
RG and AO are similar in prestige, I don't really care who would I like to win more, but I give advantage to RG because it has longer tradition. Australian Open used to be skipped as last mayor of the season up until 40-50 years ago because of the long distance/travelling.
For me the order of Grand Slam prestige is pretty clear:
1) Wimbledon
2) US Open
3) Roland Garros
4) Australian Open
Wimbledon is Wimbledon, the original tennis tournament, the first one and the one everyone dreams to win on the most iconic tennis court in the world(Wimbledon's Centre Court). Full of celebrities, Royal Box, English royalty, tradition, grass which encourages quick, attacking tennis...
US Open is the clear second most prestigious in my mind because it's held in the greatest, most important city in the world - New York City. Unofficial center of the world - finance(Wall Street), media, fashion(modeling), politics(center of United Nations)...USA is the most culturally influential, powerful country in the world and it's Grand Slam holds a bit of a special significance.
Arthur Ashe is also full of celebrities(mostly American), even more so than Wimbledon. You can see half of Hollywood basically in the stands on the men's final day(for example, Matthew McConaughey with his wife in Novak's box in the recent final): Leo Di Caprio, Nicole Kidman, Keith Urban, Emily Ratajkowski, Jerry Seinfeld, Justin Timberlake, Kylie Jenner, Timothee Chalamet, Charlize Theron, Lil Wayne, Sting...During the rest of the tournament you could've seen many more. I've also seen Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, Kevin Durant, Jimmy Butler, Barack Obama, Ben Stiller, Alec Baldwin, Spike Lee, Amanda Seyfried, Alexandra Daddario, Diane Keaton. I've seen before this year Brad Pitt, Sean Connery, Gerard Butler(iconic "This is Sparta!!!" celebration with Novak in 2015), Bradley Cooper, Tiger Woods and even god of basketball and the greatest athlete of all times(maybe Novak can challenge him in that regard) - Michael Jordan.
Winning US Open gives you more exposure, fame, recognition, more buzz in the media than any other tournament, with the exception of legendary Wimbledon, of course.
RG and AO are similar in prestige, I don't really care who would I like to win more, but I give advantage to RG because it has longer tradition. Australian Open used to be skipped as last mayor of the season up until 40-50 years ago because of the long distance/travelling.
I saw that you liked my comment on 20 slam distribution thread where I wrote a very similar comment to yours here and I completely agree with you.
Razer
Legend
Yes Globally as well this has been the perception worldwide in neutral countries.
joshuayuan
Professional
WTF is the most prestigious. A wild card can win a Slam -- Wimbledon (Goran). A qualifier can win a Slam --- US Open (Raducanu). There is no wild card or "qualifier" in WTF. Top 8 players going head to head on fast indoor court. You don't grind your way to win the title, you have to have aggressive strategy and tactics. Grinders and pushers with weak serve are less likely to win WTF. Guess who, a supposedly member of ATG that hasn't won a WTF title?
Phoenix*
Professional
If it was bo5, it would be above the slams easily.
TheNachoMan
Legend
No, because it spares you from most of the competition. At the WTF you only have to beat the Top 8, while at a Slam the whole Top 128 (of course including the same Top 8). It doesn't matter whom you beat directly or indirectly, you beat full draws in tennis. That a wildcard can win a Slam means at the same time that all top players AND unseeded floaters who ran hot for one tournament (like Gonzalez AO 2007 for example) AND wildcards like Goran 2001 have to be beaten.
At the WTF you can for example avoid Nalbandian in 2007 who dominated on the same surface before by winning Madrid and Paris. Instead you may have players inside the Top 8 who are clay specialists and are no competition at the WTF (like it often happened in the 90s).
It's obviously hard to win the WTF for someone who struggles to qualify and has to fight for his life to just once become #8 in the world. For those who easily qualify anyway it's much easier than a Slam, obviously. That Nadal never won it is only because the surface is a nightmare for him. Just like he never won the Paris Masters.
Backspin1183
Talk Tennis Guru
It's up there with Barcelona for sure.
Sudacafan
Bionic Poster
Just voted with the contents of my veins.
Backspin1183
Talk Tennis Guru
Neither is more prestigious than the other. But RG looks so much better with a clay court. HC is very generic especially in this day and age. I'd also prefer the AO atmosphere over the US too. But maybe that's me talking as a Kiwi. We watch the AO a lot more than the US Open.
I am similar Hitman but that is because of my age i think , When i started watching tennis in about 1977 at that time Wimbledon was biggest by long way, then US open as the Aussie open field was very weak between 76-82 and RG also didn't start becoming really strong till bout 1978/79.
Nowadays i still think Wimbledon is seen as most prestigious but others are all equal in my eyes
CoolCoolCool
Hall of Fame
RG was always more prestigious.
optic yellow
Legend
The USO courts look noticeably better than the AO courts.
AO is still behind. It would elevate itself with better court aesthetic and better logo design from its primary sponsor.
Sudacafan
Bionic Poster
So the ones who defend Wimbledon above all Slams, have grass in their veins?
That is illegal in most jurisdictions.
Seems about right. RG and AO really took a big hit the 70's when players were either boycotted (RG) or walked away (BOTH) and the fields suffered greatly. Today, I think they are both terrific events, but 2 tiers feels about right. And, yes, here in the states, it's the OPEN.
ryushen21
Legend
Rattie
Legend
I would disagree. WB is awash with celebrities.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(749x0:751x2)/idris-elba-2-wimbledon-89e9dbfabc7142fa841a0a233915b10c.jpg)
Game On! See All the Stars in the Stands at Wimbledon 2023
From Katy Perry and Orlando Bloom to Roger Federer and Kate Middleton, see all the stars in the stands at Wimbledon 2023
ibbi
G.O.A.T.
I was just talking about the many dirtballing tennis players your continent has produced over the years, that’s all! I don’t think anyone actually cares about grass anymore other than maybe Kyrgios, but even he complains about the state of it once he actually starts playing on it.
DSH
Talk Tennis Guru
The Blond Blur
G.O.A.T.
DSH
Talk Tennis Guru
No, I would like you to justify the stupidity you just said, of course, if you have any "argument" or if it is just one of the many opinions that appear here.
Open Stance
Professional
Americans never change yet then you criticize Americans for changing the surface of the USO? Good post.
Open Stance
Professional
Roland Garros became more interesting when Nadal starting dominating. It was always a bit of a niche slam before that.
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
I think this is unintentionally a bit unfair. As an American tennis fan, I grew up where everyone, including the commentators, referred to the USO as "the Open." I don't think I even knew the full name until I was 7 or 8. We don't refer to it as The Open because we think we're the center of the universe, it's just what everyone calls it in America.
If Brits refer to Wimbledon as "The Championship," does it reflect poorly on them? No, not at all. Same premise.
ibbi
G.O.A.T.
I was only poking fun
but it does beg the question... WHY is that just what everyone calls it in America? (British people do the same thing with their golfing equivalent, no biggie).
King_olaf_the_hairy
Semi-Pro
I'd argue they're sort of fairly equal.
Pro-Roland Garros — Vive la France!
Pro-Flushing Meadows — USA! USA! USA!
The US Open has the overall longevity, and throughout history has been seen as the one with the stronger draws and therefore tougher to win. But Roland Garros is less overtly commercialized, slightly more respectful of its history and traditions, and has a better backstory, being a custom-built venue for the 1928 Davis Cup so Les Mousequetaires had somewhere posh to defend their trophy.
Ultimately though, the correct answer is "it doesn't matter". One is a frightful glorified car park full of drunken colonials, the other is a ghastly dust bowl full of smelly Frenchmen. You can't get a decent cup of tea in either of them, never mind a proper game of croquet.
Pro-Roland Garros — Vive la France!
- Has been held in the same venue since 1928, so gets the thumbs up over the BJK Centre, which only dates back to 1978.
- Has been held on the same surface since "the beginning" (1928, when RG was built, 1925, when the French Open began, or 1891 if you want to go back to the first of the old closed French Championships). Again, far ahead of the US Open which has been played on hard stuff of some description since 1978.
- Is played on one of the three "classic" surfaces (grass, clay aka "hard", and indoor wood) which were represented by the three major tournaments created by the ITF in 1913.
Pro-Flushing Meadows — USA! USA! USA!
- The venue has moved, but the tournament itself can be traced away back to 1881, and it's never been closed to outsiders. Its status as a major tournament precedes the French by over 40 years.
- Has never been ignored or boycotted the way the French was.
- Is a pioneering surface; having seen the Americans adopt hard courts, Australia followed suit in in 1988. Then Wimbledon changed to green-coloured hard courts in 2001.
The US Open has the overall longevity, and throughout history has been seen as the one with the stronger draws and therefore tougher to win. But Roland Garros is less overtly commercialized, slightly more respectful of its history and traditions, and has a better backstory, being a custom-built venue for the 1928 Davis Cup so Les Mousequetaires had somewhere posh to defend their trophy.
Ultimately though, the correct answer is "it doesn't matter". One is a frightful glorified car park full of drunken colonials, the other is a ghastly dust bowl full of smelly Frenchmen. You can't get a decent cup of tea in either of them, never mind a proper game of croquet.
Last edited:
junior74
Talk Tennis Guru
I actually think it became less interesting with such a heavy dominance from one player. Just like tennis was a little boring with Federer being so dominant - and now with Djokovic. It's boring to be able to predict slam winners this easily.
I've always loved clay tennis, and RG is really big in Europe. I guess location in formative years is important in these matters.
messiahrobins
Hall of Fame
Fo for me purely as its only slam on clay. Also seems to get more coverage globally than uso.
Surely if there is a distinction with slam prestige then the goat debate is affected?
