What year do you think all four Grand Slams were perceived to all be "worth the same?"

[McEnroeisanartist]

What year do you think all four Grand Slams were perceived to all be "worth the same?"

1968
1983
1987
1988
Other ______
They Still Aren't

 

[urban]

There were only 3 Grand Slams in male tennis since 1925.

 

[Fiero425]

What year do you think all four Grand Slams were perceived to all be "worth the same?"

1968
1983
1987
1988
Other ______
They Still Aren't

The FO was an afterthought early on in OPEN tennis with Borg making it worth a little more with his consistant winning of the event! It's been more important to clay specialist; esp. from Europe and South America! The AO has always been little more than an inconvenience; from it's location to fighting with bugs, esp. when at Kooyong on grass! They elevated the prize money, went to HC's, and upgraded the amenities! It's technically on par with the other slams, but if there's a choice, Wimbledon and USO will always be mentioned before an AO title!

 

[wangs78]

My understanding is that AO was kind of an afterthought as late as the early 90s. It gained prominence when the sport started focusing on the Slam total (due to Pete Sampras' record breaking haul) and, since then, it seems to have caught up with the other Slams as all of the top players treat it with equal respect. At this point, all four are the same with Wimbledon maybe having a bit more prestige given the history/tradition.

 

[ibbi]

It’d be later than any of those options. 90s sometime if we’re being generous, but I’d be more tempted to say only really in the 21st century has it really become so.

 

[Fiero425]

It’d be later than any of those options. 90s sometime if we’re being generous, but I’d be more tempted to say only really in the 21st century has it really become so.

Well IMO it helped that Lendl and Wilander started going "down under" on a regular basis; adding Edberg to the mix and the event was "on its way" to prominence!

 

[zvelf]

I'd say they were generally perceived as about equal sometime in the mid-90s.

 

[SamprasisGOAT]

2004

 

[DRII]

It’d be later than any of those options. 90s sometime if we’re being generous, but I’d be more tempted to say only really in the 21st century has it really become so.

Yea, I think Agassi brought a certain luster to the Aussie Open in the 90s. He took it so seriously, while other male players were not quite into their fitness regime yet.

 

[tudwell]

What year did they all start carrying the same point value? I believe even into the early 90s the Aussie was worth fewer points than the others, but I don't know exactly when that ended.

 

[ibbi]

Well IMO it helped that Lendl and Wilander started going "down under" on a regular basis; adding Edberg to the mix and the event was "on it's way" to prominence!

Well those guys were all going down there before it was cool I think there’s no way you can say it’s on the same level as the others before the move from Kooyong, but even after the move I don’t know it quite was on the same level even with everyone going there. Prize money, attendance, global TV coverage, I think you have to take all that into account. I know Aussie attendance has been shooting up since the turn of the century.

Also, I feel like Roland Garros felt slightly less of a big deal in the 90s as it was a little bit of an island unto itself in terms of major contenders. I also think the myth of Wimbledon sort of endured at least till the end of the Sampras era, and it’s only since then it’s come more into line with the others.

 

[R. Schweikart]

What year do you think all four Grand Slams were perceived to all be "worth the same?"

1968
1983
1987
1988
Other ______
They Still Aren't

If you were to ask all the pros of the ATP and the WTA which slam they would like to win more than 90 % would say Wimbledon.
And this is a conservative estimate.

 

[King No1e]

Around when Lendl won it.

 

[Spencer Gore]

Within the last twenty years.

 

[crimson87]

Since the late 80s/Early 90s all majors are worth the same. But I have noticed that anglo folk to this day try to dish on the French Open and clay court tennis in general for some reason. Maybe because its the only non anglo major?

My preference

1- WB (Although it would benefit a lot from a proper grass court season with 2 masters 1000 tournaments leading up to it)
2 - Roland Garros
3 - US Open
4 - Australian Open

 

[goldengate14]

What year do you think all four Grand Slams were perceived to all be "worth the same?"

1968
1983
1987
1988
Other ______
They Still Aren't

Global viewing figures and coverage suggests they are not at all equal stature wise.
It seems it is 1. Wimbledon 2. French open 3. Us Open 4. Australian open just by a cursory look at media coverage.
It perhaps explains why Federer and then Nadal amongst the wider public are considered the two greatest.
For the Us Open men's final to only get a max viewing figure of just over 2million for the mens final is shocking especially when history was on the line. I'm sure Wimbledon and French open finals best that in the Usa.

 

[Rosstour]

Rafa has raised the profile and importance of the French by a TON. Prior to that, RG winners weren't seen doing much else on the tour.

 

[crimson87]

Rafa has raised the profile and importance of the French by a TON. Prior to that, RG winners weren't seen doing much else on the tour.

I think it has to do more with court speeds being homogenized for the most part since the early 00s. Nowadays we barely have surface specialists. Fast court players would go missing in action during the clay court season as well.

 

[GabeT]

If you were to ask all the pros of the ATP and the WTA which slam they would like to win more than 90 % would say Wimbledon.
And this is a conservative estimate.

does anyone think that Murray‘s slam wins are superior to Wawrinka’s?


the answer is no

 

[GabeT]

Global viewing figures and coverage suggests they are not at all equal stature wise.
It seems it is 1. Wimbledon 2. French open 3. Us Open 4. Australian open just by a cursory look at media coverage.
It perhaps explains why Federer and then Nadal amongst the wider public are considered the two greatest.
For the Us Open men's final to only get a max viewing figure of just over 2million for the mens final is shocking especially when history was on the line. I'm sure Wimbledon and French open finals best that in the Usa.

You sure bud?

 

[80s New Wave]

I think Wimbledon still has priority for a lot of people. If you look at the winners there in the last 30 years it's basically all time greats with a few leftovers for really good players (especially on grass) like krajicek and goran. So right or wrong the perception is probably out there that if you win Wimbledon you have to be elite even among top pros.

 

[Rosstour]

I think it has to do more with court speeds being homogenized for the most part since the early 00s. Nowadays we barely have surface specialists. Fast court players would go missing in action during the clay court season as well.

Oh I get it trust me. But, Rafa winning it year over year made him (and the French) a household name. Before that, it was a fun little break mid-season to see which Spanish or Argentinian or Brazilian player would win this year.

Federer making all those Finals also helped--a far cry from the days where PETE would crash out in the early rounds and deprive the tournament of desperately needed star power.

 

[topher]

The year my favorite player won all four, of course.

 

[R. Schweikart]

does anyone think that Murray‘s slam wins are superior to Wawrinka’s?


the answer is no

The answer is a resounding yes.

 

[R. Schweikart]

Global viewing figures and coverage suggests they are not at all equal stature wise.
It seems it is 1. Wimbledon 2. French open 3. Us Open 4. Australian open just by a cursory look at media coverage.
It perhaps explains why Federer and then Nadal amongst the wider public are considered the two greatest.
For the Us Open men's final to only get a max viewing figure of just over 2million for the mens final is shocking especially when history was on the line. I'm sure Wimbledon and French open finals best that in the Usa.

I'm sure that far more than 100 million people watched the men's final, I don't know what you are talking about.

 

[R. Schweikart]

Rafa has raised the profile and importance of the French by a TON. Prior to that, RG winners weren't seen doing much else on the tour.

In the women's game at least the FO became the second most important slam in the late 80s and 90s because of the many spectacular finals.
Evert-Navratilova (85 & 86), Graf-Sanchez (89, 96), Graf-Navratilova (87), Seles-Graf (92), Graf-Hingis (99). Seven classics within 14 years!!

Spring in Paris, blue sky, orange courts, the esthetics of Roland Garros are unsurpassed.

But of course Wimbledon is the world championships of tennis which everybody wants to win.
Young players dream of being a Wimbledon champion and not one at the USO or the AO. Everybody who says otherwise doesn't know tennis (there are many of them here in TTW).

 

[GabeT]

The answer is a resounding yes.

Lol, no

 

[Aabye5]

When was the AO first dubbed 'The Happy Slam'? I feel like it was quite recently, although I could be wrong.

I think that did a lot for players' already changing perceptions.

 

[bluetrain4]

Sometimes I think according to TW, they still aren't. I understand historical prestige, but if hardcore tennis fans won't recognize that they're of equal worth, no one will.

 

[UnforcedTerror]

90s.

 

[GabeT]

Anyone who says they are not all equal today is simply trolling. There isn’t a single top tennis player list anywhere that gives more weight to one slam over another. No one says that Nivak is ahead of Nadal simply because he has 3x more Wimbledons

 

[ForehandCross]

does anyone think that Murray‘s slam wins are superior to Wawrinka’s?


the answer is no

I spend a lot of time on YouTube. Watched a lot of interviews of Players as teens.

I think NONE of them mentioned winning any other slam as their biggest dream to win. Every single one of them mentioned WB.

Even Rafael said that, Djokovic said that. I am unsure and will have to check but a young Thiem said the one tournament he wants to win is the Wimbledon.

All slams are equal no doubt. But in media and even in the minds of pros, WB is greater. The one that pros dream of winning.

However I think that is quickly fading.

 

[ForehandCross]

I spend a lot of time on YouTube. Watched a lot of interviews of Players as teens.

I think NONE of them mentioned winning any other slam as their biggest dream to win. Every single one of them mentioned WB.

Even Rafael said that, Djokovic said that. I am unsure and will have to check but a young Thiem said the one tournament he wants to win is the Wimbledon.

All slams are equal no doubt. But in media and even in the minds of pros, WB is greater. The one that pros dream of winning.

However I think that is quickly fading.

WB being more prestigious however has nothing to do with evaluation of GOAThood.

It's just that WB is seen by the pros as the one event that they dream of winning.

 

[GabeT]

I spend a lot of time on YouTube. Watched a lot of interviews of Players as teens.

I think NONE of them mentioned winning any other slam as their biggest dream to win. Every single one of them mentioned WB.

Even Rafael said that, Djokovic said that. I am unsure and will have to check but a young Thiem said the one tournament he wants to win is the Wimbledon.

All slams are equal no doubt. But in media and even in the minds of pros, WB is greater. The one that pros dream of winning.

However I think that is quickly fading.

That means that Wimbledon is more prestigious. But it doesn’t add anything to the slam count. Lendl is seen as better than Jmac and Connors in many top 10 lists yet never won Wimbledon

 

[ForehandCross]

That means that Wimbledon is more prestigious. But it doesn’t add anything to the slam count. Lendl is seen as better than Jmac and Connors in many top 10 lists yet never won Wimbledon

I said that too:

WB being more prestigious however has nothing to do with evaluation of GOAThood.

It's just that WB is seen by the pros as the one event that they dream of winning.

 

[goldengate14]

I spend a lot of time on YouTube. Watched a lot of interviews of Players as teens.

I think NONE of them mentioned winning any other slam as their biggest dream to win. Every single one of them mentioned WB.

Even Rafael said that, Djokovic said that. I am unsure and will have to check but a young Thiem said the one tournament he wants to win is the Wimbledon.

All slams are equal no doubt. But in media and even in the minds of pros, WB is greater. The one that pros dream of winning.

However I think that is quickly fading.

Nadals book spends a lot of time about Wimbledon. A fair bit about French open . Not much about Us Open and virtually nothing about Australia . However that was ten years ago so maybe things are different now

 

[NAS]

I can give you hint, nobody rate Lendl( 2 AO, 3 RG) behind Mac( 4uso, 3 Wimbledon)
So more or less from mid 80s

 

[BlueB]

What year do you think all four Grand Slams were perceived to all be "worth the same?"

There is only one Grand Slam.