What's the most competitive surface?

What's the most competitive surface?

  • Australian Hardcourt

    Votes: 28 30.1%

  • USOpen Hardcourt

    Votes: 31 33.3%

  • French Open Clay

    Votes: 18 19.4%

  • Wimbledon Grass

    Votes: 16 17.2%
  • Total voters
    93
B

BallzofSkill

Semi-Pro
This isn't about what your favorite surface is, but rather what you think is the hardest surface to win at simply for the fact that so many are good on the same surface? Some will say that French Open clay is the most competitive surface because no one can beat Nadal, and therefore is the hardest slam to attain. Others will say it's hardcourts because that's what most players play on, whether it's their preference or not. If most players play on hardcourt, that would mean that hardcourts provide the best competition because no one has an advantage on it. Grass could be considered a cross between Hardcourts and Clay, so maybe it appeals to a greater range of players by being more forgiving to both hardcourt specialists and clay specialists.

As a North American that plays on hardcourts, I have to say it's hardcourts. Any title won on hardcourt is more prestigious than on the other surfaces. Even more than Wimbledon with it's traditions and history. On the other hand, I think Wimbledon is a good medium between the two extremes so a good argument can be made for grass as well. I still think hardcourt edges out wimbledon ever so slightly.

What do you think?
 
Easy question here--Indoor carpet--Just because nobody is really a specialist on it--that you get everyone trying to prove what they can do on it..Anyone can win
 
I voted Wimbledon. I've played on hard courts, clay, and grass. Grass is by far the hardest surface to play on in my opinion. I could offer further insight but I'm tired so this answer will have to do.
 
Conquistador said:
Easy question here--Indoor carpet--Just because nobody is really a specialist on it--that you get everyone trying to prove what they can do on it..Anyone can win
Click to expand...

that wasn't really an option, but perhaps I should have included it? I guess I was mostly talking about slams because that's the end goal for most if not all tennis players.
 
dima said:
I voted Wimbledon. I've played on hard courts, clay, and grass. Grass is by far the hardest surface to play on in my opinion. I could offer further insight but I'm tired so this answer will have to do.
Click to expand...

Just because it is harder doesn't mean it is more competitive. But I agree that grass is the most competitive because both hard court players and clay court players can do well there. Clay court players do miserably on most hard courts and hard court players do miserably on most clay courts.
 
depends on which era we are talking about
right now could be any:
clay - theres nadal so its tough to do much there because nadal is arguably the best claycourter ever, but if not best then in top 3 for sure
could be grass because its very difficult to play on it
could be hard because many players are quite leveled there
could be carpet because no one is really good there

depends what you find most competetive
 
Carpet is the most competitive as you don't have true carpet specialists, and the speed of the surface HELPS the players to hold their serve.

You get as many TB as you can get on carpet since it's damn hard to break the other guy :p
 
for the people who chose clay, i wonder what your definition of 'competitive' is? Because if it's just one guy clearly dominating all other guys, it doesn't make it competitive. A monopoly doesn't mean that it's competitive. Competition just means that there are other guys who can also possibly win, but no one is guaranteed a win.
 
I agree with slow hardcourt ie AO. The number of surprising finalists in the past few years proves the surface is versatile for all kinds of players.
 
deme08 said:
I agree with slow hardcourt ie AO. The number of surprising finalists in the past few years proves the surface is versatile for all kinds of players.
Click to expand...

that's what i was thinking as well. we've seen the same person win the french and wimbledon year in and year out, but the AO has the most diverse faces the last several years. I think AO is very competitive.
 
For me its clay. It is physically taxing with all the long points. But the clay is easier on the body than hardcourts. Say at the US Open. Especially after the summer hardcourt series. So there is a very good argument for the US Open as well. Bit of a toss up.
 
BallzofSkill said:
Any title won on hardcourt is more prestigious than on the other surfaces. Even more than Wimbledon with it's traditions and history. On the other hand, I think Wimbledon is a good medium between the two extremes so a good argument can be made for grass as well. I still think hardcourt edges out wimbledon ever so slightly.

What do you think?
Click to expand...

The USO more prestigious than Wimby? Are you kidding?
In terms of prestige, the USO comes third, right after Wimbledon and Roland Garros. I believe that, if you ask the top players which GS they dream to win, 90% would pick Wimbledon.
 
Alejandro D said:
The USO more prestigious than Wimby? Are you kidding?
In terms of prestige, the USO comes third, right after Wimbledon and Roland Garros. I believe that, if you ask the top players which GS they dream to win, 90% would pick Wimbledon.
Click to expand...

Yes, and the other 10% would say USO.
 
Conquistador said:
Why is it not carpet? Just wondering
Click to expand...

The question was which would be most difficult to win? If you are a carpet specialist, you could win the easiest since most struggle there due to lack of familiarity. Davydenko had a field day at Paris Masters when it was carpet due to this. McEnroe also went on a huge win streak in the 80's on carpet.
 
superstition said:
The question is specious.
Click to expand...

not sure how it's 'specious'.

nadal fans often complain about how this is a weak era because federer is winning everything. well, applying the same logic per surface, that would make the competition on clay very weak as well as it's the same 2 guys making the finals. Not only that, but it's the same guy winning most clay events.

compare that to hardcourts, where there is more diversity. Look at all the people who've made finals at the AO for example.

and look at what the poll has yielded, both clay and wimbledon have the lowest votes. Twice as many votes for the hardcourts.
 
Each surface is equally competitive. The players are the question, not the surface. I suppose, though, one might argue that hard court is the least competitive because it shortens careers due to the physical toll it takes. Clay also takes more of a toll than grass.

So, I suppose, when looking at it from the point of view of player longevity/health, grass is the most competitive surface. But, really, the question is much too broad as it is.

The biggest problem with the question, though, is that it really becomes a "which surface are you familiar with" poll.
 
Last edited:
It seems like a lot of people are confused over the difference between the most competitive surface and the most difficult surface to play on or the most exciting surface to watch. I don't want to argue over semantics so I'm gonna define competitiveness as how well different playing styles can be accommodated on the same surface, thus giving all styles a fighting chance of winning the match. So in this case, I guess competitiveness does not necessarily mean high quality tennis, just relatively close quality between the two players.
Having said that, I would have to agree with the majority that the slow hard courts are generally the ones where the surface least prefers one playing style over another.
 
akv89 said:
It seems like a lot of people are confused over the difference between the most competitive surface and the most difficult surface to play on or the most exciting surface to watch. I don't want to argue over semantics so I'm gonna define competitiveness as how well different playing styles can be accommodated on the same surface, thus giving all styles a fighting chance of winning the match. So in this case, I guess competitiveness does not necessarily mean high quality tennis, just relatively close quality between the two players.
Having said that, I would have to agree with the majority that the slow hard courts are generally the ones where the surface least prefers one playing style over another.
Click to expand...

PERFECT. I think hardcourt titles, more than any other types, best define what a player goes through to get that title.
 
BallzofSkill said:
for the people who chose clay, i wonder what your definition of 'competitive' is? Because if it's just one guy clearly dominating all other guys, it doesn't make it competitive. A monopoly doesn't mean that it's competitive. Competition just means that there are other guys who can also possibly win, but no one is guaranteed a win.
Click to expand...
yeh, thats how i perceive the definition of competitive to be.
i chose the aussie open because as of late, there isnt really a clear cut favorite.
there are so many people with the playing style to go deep within the australian open,
therefore, its the most competitive in my opinion.
 
The surface isn't the point. Tennis can be competitive on any surface. In the long run, though, hard courts can shorten careers, especially in the WTA. Even in the 1980s when there were more grass tournaments Navratilova curtailed her hard court play to help her back and knees.
 
paulorenzo said:
yeh, thats how i perceive the definition of competitive to be.
i chose the aussie open because as of late, there isnt really a clear cut favorite.
there are so many people with the playing style to go deep within the australian open,
therefore, its the most competitive in my opinion.
Click to expand...

i think that's what most sane people would believe. and that is why a usopen title or an australian title means more in terms of how tough it really was to win that slam. Winning any slam is good, no doubt, even RG and Wimbledon, but to get a sense of how good one competitor really is against another competitor minus any advantages that on might have the aussieopen and the usopen is better for that.
 
A medium hard court, or maybe even green clay (not wimbledon green clay lol)

It'd have to be a mix of green clay and aussie open hardcourt.

Hard soft court.


Really though, the serve isn't as dominant, yet it's not slow as clay.
 
australian open!! as far as i know no one won the tourney on hard courts 3 consecutive times. meaning every year the title is up for grabs, and no one is hailed as favorite as much as FO, Wimby and USO has their favorites.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Flint
Multi surface tournament
Replies
16
Views
2K
The_Order
The_Order
G
Strange choice of surface - Melzer and Mirnyi in Stuttgart
Replies
9
Views
796
J-man
J-man
Clay lover
Has Nadal got the game to win a hardcourt slam?
Replies
14
Views
2K
Holly
H
Murrayfan31
Does Nadal move better on Slicker Hard Courts?
Replies
0
Views
539
Murrayfan31
Murrayfan31
Z
Masters Cup played on a different surface every year would be fair
Replies
28
Views
3K
Deleted member 12045
D
Back
Top