What is the second most prestiogious Grand Slam?

[Atennisone]

Although this thread probably has been made before, times can change, so what about voting for the most 2nd prestigious Grand Slam to win.

Wimbledon is obviously by many considered the most prestigious, so it's not a poll option.

 

[itrium84]

RG

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk

 

[weakera]

Cincinnati

 

[2nd Serve Ace]

Wimbledon

 

[Tennis_Hands]

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/whats-the-second-most-prestigious-slam.458224/
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...estigious-slam-and-wimbledon-the-last.520840/
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...-us-or-french-open.510651/page-4#post-8679788
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/prestige-of-ao-vs-rg.574015/page-2#post-10689667
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...wimbledon-the-last.520840/page-2#post-8951526
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...nd-most-prestigious-slam.458224/#post-7291820
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/french-is-the-least-respected-grand-slam.589707/

A simple search reveals another 100 results.

I hope that helps.

 

[Sport]

1. Wimbledon
2. Roland Garros
3. US Open
4. Australian Open

Always has been. Always will be.

 

[Red Rick]

Depends on who you are, and where you're from.

Wimbledon will probably always be first or 2nd for the French, Australians and perhaps a lesser extent Americans.

 

[Atennisone]

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/whats-the-second-most-prestigious-slam.458224/
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...estigious-slam-and-wimbledon-the-last.520840/
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...-us-or-french-open.510651/page-4#post-8679788
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/prestige-of-ao-vs-rg.574015/page-2#post-10689667
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...wimbledon-the-last.520840/page-2#post-8951526
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...nd-most-prestigious-slam.458224/#post-7291820
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/french-is-the-least-respected-grand-slam.589707/

A simple search reveals another 100 results.

I hope that helps.

That was long time ago, especially AO has been improved and UO has become worse since then.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

That was long time ago, especially AO has been improved and UO has become worse since then.

Djokovic GOAT.

 

[Rosstour]

I hate to say it, but RG.

 

[a12345]

I think if you want publicity, money, fame, endorsements, exposure etc.. winning the US Open puts it above Roland Garros.

 

[dropshotlikeitshot]

Basel

 

[r2473]

Most prestigious is obviously WTF.

I think it was smart to leave Wimbledon off the list. Nobody cares about it anymore except hungry cows.

 

[HipRotation]

US. Histroically and also in it's list of champions which has huge overlap with Wimbledon's. Only Borg is absent from ATGs winning there.

 

[MichaelNadal]

I hate to say it, but RG.

RG is epic, don't hate

 

[Rosstour]

RG is epic, don't hate

I hate it because it's so poorly run, they are 20 years behind the times for dealing with rain and darkness, and clay does not reward the Beautiful Game.

 

[ChrisRF]

1. Wimbledon
2. Roland Garros
3. US Open
4. Australian Open

Always has been. Always will be.

The Australian Open is easily the best Grand Slam tournament in terms of organisation these days. While Wimbledon stays on top as the classic and sentimental favourite, Australian Open comes right behind now IMO. It is also the start of the season and everyone is well rested and highly motivated to compete. It doesn’t matter what was in the 70s when travelling was too stressful for most top players. We must consider what matters now.

 

[MichaelNadal]

I hate it because it's so poorly run, they are 20 years behind the times for dealing with rain and darkness, and clay does not reward the Beautiful Game.

 

[Rosstour]

The Australian Open is easily the best Grand Slam tournament in terms of organisation these days. While Wimbledon stays on top as the classic and sentimental favourite, Australian Open comes right behind now IMO. It is also the start of the season and everyone is well rested and highly motivated to compete. It doesn’t matter what was in the 70s when travelling was too stressful for most top players. We must consider what matters now.

Yup. In terms of simply being the best-run, it is AO at the top and it isn't close.

 

[Day_Tripper]

Last Century
Wimbledon
US Open
Roland Garros
Aust

This Century
Wimbledon
US Open
Aust Open
Roland Garros

 

[Deon Sanders]

Its breaks down more by region

In countries that supported Nasi Germany
- Think Rolland Garros is a real slam and number 1
- Wimbledon
- Australian Open
- US Open

In countries that fought Nasi Germany
- Wimbledon
- US Open
- Australian Open

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Right now it's the Australian Open without question.

RG and the US Open are falling behind, and even Wimbledon is relying on its historic position to stay ahead at the moment.

 

[mightyjeditribble]

Yup. In terms of simply being the best-run, it is AO at the top and it isn't close.

That's not the same things as prestigious though.

 

[mightyjeditribble]

I think the variety of opinions shows that there is no clear second-prestigious slam.

However, if I had to pin it down, then I think I agree with:

1. Wimbledon
2. Roland Garros
3. US Open
4. Australian Open

Just in terms of history, which has a lot to do with prestige, this feels like the most likely order.

 

[Rosstour]

That's not the same things as prestigious though.

Exactly, which is why I said it was RG even though I hate to admit it.

 

[Purplemonster]

I hate it because it's so poorly run, they are 20 years behind the times for dealing with rain and darkness, and clay does not reward the Beautiful Game.

Maybe the “greatest” exponent of the “Beautiful Game” wasn’t good enough to win more than 1 RG title.

 

[Rosstour]

Maybe the “greatest” exponent of the “Beautiful Game” wasn’t good enough to win more than 1 RG title.

He is the second-winningest clay-court player in history. Rafa is better on that surface and there's no reason to deny that.

 

[Mainad]

Most prestigious is obviously WTF.

I think it was smart to leave Wimbledon off the list. Nobody cares about it anymore except hungry cows.

And hungry players:

 

[Shaolin]

W
C
USO

AO




RG

 

[RaulRamirez]

RG.

 

[Meles]

Wimbledon

 

[Milehigh5280]

RG, but it's the worst run out of the slams these days. AO and Wim have been the best slams this century.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

RG is an absolutely mediocre tournament now that some top players just blatantly withdraw from. I mean if the biggest name in the sport doesn’t even bother to play it kinda reflects the level. No roof, poor scheduling, just so mediocre.

Australian Open is by far the number 2. Has 3 roofed arenas, all the top players due to the time of the year, I feel like it’s had some of the biggest battles in the last few years. 2017 comes to mind.
USO is third but RG is definitely #4.

If we’re discussing what it was last century and the history of it then yes it’s RG second then USO then AO but not anymore. Everyone loves the AO tournament now. The French tournament is so poorly run however.

 

[Username_]

If the GOAT doesn't care much about RG doesn't that tell you everything

 

[Sport]

The Australian Open is easily the best Grand Slam tournament in terms of organisation these days. While Wimbledon stays on top as the classic and sentimental favourite, Australian Open comes right behind now IMO. It is also the start of the season and everyone is well rested and highly motivated to compete. It doesn’t matter what was in the 70s when travelling was too stressful for most top players. We must consider what matters now.

Incorrect. There are 2 Grand Slams on hard courts (Australian Open and US Open). Thus, Grand Slams with surface exclusivity (Wimbledon with grass and Roland Garros with clay) are the most relevant. The Australian Open is not better organized than the US Open by any means, thus not special in that sense. One Australian Open finalist typically has one more day to rest than the other, which has been criticized by many tennis fans. Roland Garros, like Wimbledon, is special by the fact of being the only one on its surface.

 

[Day_Tripper]

This is why many people (I am not among them) still rate Sampras above Nadal. Sampras dominated the greatest of the grand slams whereas the Nadal has dominated a far less prestigious slam and is not considered an all time great at Wimbledon.

 

[Sport]

If the GOAT doesn't care much about RG doesn't that tell you everything

It tells us he is not that dominant as a GOAT. Federer does not care about RG because he cannot compete with Nadal's supremacy at RG.

 

[Day_Tripper]

Incorrect. There are 2 Grand Slams on hard courts (Australian Open and US Open). Thus, Grand Slams with surface exclusivity (Wimbledon with grass and Roland Garros with clay) are the most relevant. The Australian Open is not better organized than the US Open by any means, thus not special in that sense. One Australian Open finalist typically has one more day to rest than the other, which has been criticized by many tennis fans. Roland Garros, like Wimbledon, is special by the fact of being the only one on its surface.

I agree with ChrisRF. The Australian Open is definitely on the ascendancy whereas Roland Garros has been on a downward slide for years. Give it a few more years and the Australian Open will be considered number 2 after Wimbledon.

 

[Third Serve]

RG. The question was "most prestigious", no?

As a viewer, though, I would put AO ahead due to its far superior organization

 

[NoleFam]

From 1968-1974, Rosewall skipped AO 2 times, RG 5 times, Wimbledon 2 times and USO 1 time.
From 1969-1976, Newcombe skipped AO 0 times, RG 5 times, Wimbledon 3 times and USO 2 times.
From 1974-1981, Borg skipped AO 7 times, RG 1 time, Wimbledon 0 times, and USO 0 times.
From 1974-1989, Connors skipped AO 13 times, RG 7 times, Wimbledon 0 times, and USO 0 times.
From 1977-1992, McEnroe skipped AO 10 times, RG 6 times, Wimbledon 2 times, and USO 0 times.
From 1980-1991, Lendl skipped AO 2 times, RG 2 times, Wimbledon 1 time and USO 0 times.
From 1985-1996, Becker skipped AO 2 times, RG 3 times, Wimbledon 0 times, and USO 1 time.

So from these 7 ATGs, AO was skipped 36 times, RG 29 times, Wimbledon 8 times, and USO 4 times. So historically, it should be clear where the Slams stood in how prestigious they were. Now today, I would say Wimbledon is still the cream of the crop because of its history but all the others are about equal. RG is lagging behind the other 3 though and needs to catch up.

 

[Shaolin]

It tells us he is not that dominant as a GOAT. Federer does not care about RG because he cannot compete with Nadal's supremacy at RG.

He took a couple of years off since he's old. Give him a break.

Nadal has found a way to weasel out of playing WTF what a dozen times now? Every year some excuse yet he's always miraculously healed for the clay. Just like he will be this year after running from Fed at IW.

 

[Sport]

This is why many people (I am not among them) still rate Sampras above Nadal. Sampras dominated the greatest of the grand slams whereas the Nadal has dominated a far less prestigious slam and is not considered an all time great at Wimbledon.

First statement is false. Not "many" people rate Sampras over Nadal. Create a poll in TTW and you will see how about 95% of users vote for Nadal over Sampras. Only because some Sampras fanatics rate Sampras over Nadal (or even over Federer sometimes) it does not mean they are right.

Second statement is also false. Only 6 players have won more Wimbledon titles than Nadal in the Open Era:

1. Federer 8
2. Sampras 7
3. Borg 5
4. Djokovic 4
5. Becker 3
6. McEnroe 3
7. Nadal 2

Given the competence he had (Federer and Djokovic) and the amount of Wimbledon finals he made (5), Nadal is easily the 7th greatest Wimbledon player of the Open Era. Since he is top 10 in the Open Era, he is an all-time great at Wimbledon.

 

[Sport]

I agree with ChrisRF. The Australian Open is definitely on the ascendancy whereas Roland Garros has been on a downward slide for years. Give it a few more years and the Australian Open will be considered number 2 after Wimbledon.

The Australian Open will never have surface exclusivity, thus it can never be as relevant as Roland Garros. There are 2 Grand Slams on hard courts (Australian Open and US Open). There is no objective reason to put the Australian Open as more special than the US Open. Only subjective arguments. But there is an objective reason which makes both Wimbledon and Roland Garros special in comparison with the Australian Open and the US Open. Surface exclusivity. Only Wimbledon is played on grass and only Roland Garros is played on clay.

 

[NoleFam]

First statement is false. Not "many" people rate Sampras over Nadal. Create a poll in TTW and you will see how about 95% of users vote for Nadal over Sampras. Only because some Sampras fanatics rate Sampras over Nadal (or even over Federer sometimes) it does not mean they are right.

Second statement is also false. Only 6 players have won more Wimbledon titles than Nadal in the Open Era:

1. Federer 8
2. Sampras 7
3. Borg 5
4. Djokovic 4
5. Becker 3
6. McEnroe 3
7. Nadal 2

Given the competence he had (Federer and Djokovic) and the amount of Wimbledon finals he made (5), Nadal is easily the 7th greatest Wimbledon player of the Open Era. Since he is top 10 in the Open Era, he is an all-time great at Wimbledon.

Nadal has competition for that 7th slot. Connors made 6 finals and won 2 titles, and 4 other SFs. I would rate him over Nadal. Then you have others who won two titles like Newcombe, Laver, Edberg and Murray although I would give Nadal the edge because of his run from 2006-2011. However, he's not better than Connors there.

 

[triplefault]

In the old days it was the USO. Nowadays AO has perhaps even surpassed USO.

 

[Dan Lobb]

The USO has to get a softer type surface, that hard rubber is not nice.

The Aussies have better cushioning for their rubber surface.

Bring back grass.

 

[Sport]

Nadal has competition for that 7th slot. Connors made 6 finals and won 2 titles, and 4 other SFs. I would rate him over Nadal. Then you have others who won two titles like Newcombe, Laver, Edberg and Murray although I would give Nadal the edge because of his run from 2006-2011. However, he's not better than Connors there.

I agree that Connors was also extremelly good. But he did not face the grass GOAT in his prime (Federer) as Nadal did in 3 Wimbledon finals, as well as the ultimate robot Djokovic in another final and semifinal. I would give Nadal the edge given the level of competence. But OK, even if we put Connors as the 7th, Nadal is still a solid top 10 in the Open Era at Wimbledon. I don't know how can it be compared with Sampras, who is not even top 100 in the Open Era at Roland Garros.

 

[DerekNoleFam1]

USO imo.
Too many ATGs could not win at RG due to not playing or preparing, or clay court specialists who won little else outside of clay.
This may have changed with Agassi giving rise to the new term "career grand slam".
The best players in their best seasons nearly all won the USO. Borg being an obvious outlier.

 

[NoleFam]

I agree that Connors was also extremelly good. But he did not face the grass GOAT in his prime (Federer) as Nadal did in 3 Wimbledon finals, as well as the ultimate robot Djokovic in another final and semifinal. I would give Nadal the edge given the level of competence. But OK, even if we put Connors as the 7th, Nadal is still a solid top 10 in the Open Era at Wimbledon. I don't know how can it be compared with Sampras, who is not even top 100 in the Open Era at Roland Garros.

I wouldn't give him the edge over Connors for that reason because Connors still had to face prime Borg and McEnroe which was just as difficult if you ask me. Also, from 1974-1987 he only lost before the SF 3 times. Nadal had a 6 year run from 2012-2017 where he didn't even make a QF so he doesn't compare to Connors' record there. I do think he is a solid top 10 in the Open Era though and would rate him after Connors. I don't think Sampras is greater than Nadal and wasn't responding to that part.

 

[Sport]

I wouldn't give him the edge over Connors for that reason because Connors still had to face prime Borg and McEnroe which is just as difficult if you ask me. Also, from 1974-1987 he only lost before SF 3 times. Nadal had a 6 year run from 2012-2017 where he didn't even make a QF so he doesn't compare to Connors' record there. I do think he is a solid top 10 in the Open Era though and would rate him after Connors. I don't think Sampras is greater than Nadal and wasn't responding to that part.

Interesting point. I still think Nadal had a tougher competition than Connors though.

Murray vs Rosewall on grass: difficult to judge, because Rosewall was 10 years banned from participating at Wimbledon, yet he still was able to make 4 Wimbledon finals. Let us say it is a tie.

Federer vs Borg on grass: Federer is the grass GOAT, so he wins this comparison.

Djokovic vs McEnroe on grass: Djokovic (4 Wimbledon titles) is a better grass player than McEnroe (3 Wimbledon titles).

The only argument I could accept to put Connors as greater than Nadal on grass is the extra final and semifinals at Wimbledon. But Nadal had a significantly tougher competence.