F
Federer302
Guest
Of the four grand slams, Wimbledon is clearly the biggest while Australia ranks fourth.
But which is second, or are they equal?
But which is second, or are they equal?
Which is the bigger/more prestigious tournament, US or French Open?
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
Equal in my view, perhaps you could argue the French is slightly more prestigious in Europe and the US obviously in America.
Supertegwyn
Hall of Fame
All four grand slams are equal.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
I've always thought the USO was slightly more prestigious and this was reinforced recently when I read that clay court legends like Borg and Evert used to skip RG back in the '70s but all the top players still competed in NYC. So I'd say USO> RG but not by much.
This notion of prestige is largely irrelevant in today's game. The top players take all of them seriously. Winning the AO is as great a feat as winning WO.
You get old people clinging on for dear life to this notion that WO is still the center of tennis. And then you get kiddies imagining they lived through this time, speaking as if they were old codgers themselves who remember the glory days of tennis. These people need to let go and accept the new reality of things. Seeking refuge in the past, this comforting notion that the world doesn't change, is not good for anyone.
But, if I'm going to play along and answer your question then the USO is the least prestigious slam. Gulbis said it best in that article, if you want to eat chips and drink beer while being surrounded by loud noises then waddle yourself over to the nearest hillbilly bar.
I love this quote from Fed:
Q. Imagine it's 2009 and this little fairy comes to you and says, You're going to win one tournament, but you have to choose: Wimbledon or Roland Garros. Which one?
ROGER FEDERER: I don't want to answer these stupid questions anymore. They're too stupid.
Q. But why?
ROGER FEDERER: Because I want to win at everything. I have no preference.
You get old people clinging on for dear life to this notion that WO is still the center of tennis. And then you get kiddies imagining they lived through this time, speaking as if they were old codgers themselves who remember the glory days of tennis. These people need to let go and accept the new reality of things. Seeking refuge in the past, this comforting notion that the world doesn't change, is not good for anyone.
But, if I'm going to play along and answer your question then the USO is the least prestigious slam. Gulbis said it best in that article, if you want to eat chips and drink beer while being surrounded by loud noises then waddle yourself over to the nearest hillbilly bar.
I love this quote from Fed:
Q. Imagine it's 2009 and this little fairy comes to you and says, You're going to win one tournament, but you have to choose: Wimbledon or Roland Garros. Which one?
ROGER FEDERER: I don't want to answer these stupid questions anymore. They're too stupid.
Q. But why?
ROGER FEDERER: Because I want to win at everything. I have no preference.
Last edited:
definetly wimbledon the most prestigious ( but the least fun to watch)
roland garros the 2nd most prestigious, followed by us open and australian
everyone in the world has already hear somewhere the name roland garros ( even people that dont follow tennis, while usopen you will not know it unless you follow tennis, same with australian)
roland garros the 2nd most prestigious, followed by us open and australian
everyone in the world has already hear somewhere the name roland garros ( even people that dont follow tennis, while usopen you will not know it unless you follow tennis, same with australian)
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
US Open by a lot.
Back in the 60's and early 70's, many of the top players wouldn't even show up to the French and Australian. At the French, Tickets were actually given away for free to fill up the stands to make TV audiences think the tournament was an important event.
Although today, I would say they are all prestigious, but Wimbledon is still on top, followed by USO.
Back in the 60's and early 70's, many of the top players wouldn't even show up to the French and Australian. At the French, Tickets were actually given away for free to fill up the stands to make TV audiences think the tournament was an important event.
Although today, I would say they are all prestigious, but Wimbledon is still on top, followed by USO.
Hollywood401k
Semi-Pro
Nadal's dominance has boosted the value of RG beyond what it traditionally has had.
imo USO > RG
imo USO > RG
By investment, I'd say USO.
At least, players get more money and the USO has lights for night matches
USO
Winners (1) $3,000,000
Runners-Up (1) $1,450,000
Semifinalists (2) $730,000
Quarterfinalists (4) $370,250
Round of 16 (8) $187,300
Third Round (16) $105,090
Second Round (32) $60,420
First Round (64) $35,754
RG
Winners (1) $2,176,614
Runners-Up (1) $1,088,307
Semifinalists (2) $544,153.5
Quarterfinalists (4) $290,215.2
Round of 16 (8) $164,895
Third Round (16) $94,979.52
Second Round (32) $55,404.72
First Round (64) $31,659.84
At least, players get more money and the USO has lights for night matches
USO
Winners (1) $3,000,000
Runners-Up (1) $1,450,000
Semifinalists (2) $730,000
Quarterfinalists (4) $370,250
Round of 16 (8) $187,300
Third Round (16) $105,090
Second Round (32) $60,420
First Round (64) $35,754
RG
Winners (1) $2,176,614
Runners-Up (1) $1,088,307
Semifinalists (2) $544,153.5
Quarterfinalists (4) $290,215.2
Round of 16 (8) $164,895
Third Round (16) $94,979.52
Second Round (32) $55,404.72
First Round (64) $31,659.84
Last edited:
Historically grand slams were less or more prestigious, but in this day and age with the prize-money on offer and professionalism of top players they all take them seriously, so they are all pretty equal in terms of their value in winning them today. Wimbledon has the tradition and history so a slight edge to them in that regard, but the other 3 are all equally weighted when weighing on how prestigious they are to win IMO
chjtennis
G.O.A.T.
If you've been a tennis fan for at least 10 years, you wouldn't even ask this question. I value all slams, but it is a common knowledge that Wimbledon is the most prestigious of the 4 slams followed by USO, then there are FO and AO. Anyone who doesn't know this hierarchy must be relatively new to tennis.
captainbryce
Hall of Fame
I would have to say the US Open based on:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/montebu...ost-prestigious-grand-slam-tennis-tournament/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/montebu...ost-prestigious-grand-slam-tennis-tournament/
Last edited:
SpicyCurry1990
Hall of Fame
Came in to post this exact comment
What he said.
Just to make the point of that. You would never see such a crowd at the french for a first round match that Sharapova and Kirilenko were playing. The night matches are electric at the US open. These players are on a huge stage. The french open is like a desert early on. And not just cause they play on dirt.
That's part of it, but the winner of the US Open has historically been the Number One ranked player for that year, way more than any tournament. For anybody who thinks the French is the more prestigious tournament, check out the names of the winners of the US Open for the last 30-40 years(I'm talking the men's side here), then compare the winners of the French Open, and get back to me.
so you say us open is more prestigious because 30 or 40 years ago, players forfeit RG but attended the usopen...or because it has more crowds.. thats just nonsense
ask any player which grand slam they would want to win, and i would be surprised if usopen was asnwered more often then roland garros.
ask any player which grand slam they would want to win, and i would be surprised if usopen was asnwered more often then roland garros.
Charlemagne
Hall of Fame
I'd say French Open is second... I think it's elusive nature, and special skill set needed to win it makes it really prestigious- much like Wimbledon in my eyes. USO is my favorite major however.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
According to the poll, the obvious choice is the US Open.
I would agree that Wimbledon is the most prestigious but disagree on the ranking of the other 3. Historically the Australian Open was less prestigious because the top players didn't show up. Now that everyone's there, winning a 128 player Grand Slam on a hard court is of precisely equal value whether that victory comes in Melbourne or New York. It's the same achievement. When the losing finalists burst into tears as they have on several occasions at the Australian Open, I don't gain the impression that the tournament lacks prestige in the minds of the players at the very upper echelons of the sport. As for which is more prestigious of the US Open or the French it's an entirely subjective thing related to the value you place on hard court vs clay court. A huge percentage of the world's top players learnt the game playing on clay....so to many it would be the French.
Yeah, I'm sure you WOULD be surprised, lol, and, re: your first sentence, I said no such thing. Obviously, in judging the prestige of a tournament, you have to have a good sample size, some would say one should include the tournaments from the Open era, which would be 46 years, but I didn't even do that. And, again, the tournament which most often "picks out" the world's best player for that year seems like a pretty reasonable barometer to me; what's the French's big criteria-players who can "construct points?"
tacou
G.O.A.T.
I don't agree with the premise. Wimbledon has the whole "prestige" factor because it is so old, and AO gets knocked because not everyone played it for awhile.
But times have changed. They are all equal. In fact, AO generally supports the strongest field because everyone is in shape.
But times have changed. They are all equal. In fact, AO generally supports the strongest field because everyone is in shape.
Actually, more prestigious tournaments are harder to win.
Because everyone will focus more and play tougher there.
So, unless players start to believe that all majors are equal, USO and W will always be tougher and more important to win.
But we aren't there yet. There is a bias towards W and USO. So, that subconsciously and also consciously makes players try harder there and creates tougher field there.
Because everyone will focus more and play tougher there.
So, unless players start to believe that all majors are equal, USO and W will always be tougher and more important to win.
But we aren't there yet. There is a bias towards W and USO. So, that subconsciously and also consciously makes players try harder there and creates tougher field there.
Chico
Banned
This. 10equalslams
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
In points, but not prestige.
hahahahhahhahhaha - yea they don't try as hard at the aussie or RG, they sorta go thru the motions and see if they get lucky. Funniest post i've read yet i swear!
I know it's funny, but it's true. It's how our mind works. We try more at something we believe is more important.
I didn't say the difference is huge. They obviously try hard at every major. But they put in this tiny extra at W and USO. Which is normal. Obviously, that doesn't apply for all players, but for majority.
I remember Federer saying when he wasn't having slams, that he wants to win W or US open once.
I don't know why USO or W have more value in player's minds. It certainly isn't fair, but it's sadly true. I guess it's historical bias. But it still exists and that is what makes those tournaments a bit tougher and more special to win.
There was an article that Fed's 5 consecutive USO titles is probably one of the greatest tennis records. That winning USO is so damn hard. Because everyone is good there, everyone has motivation there and it's fast, so a lot of upsets happen. I would say USO is even harder to win as W. Because grass is still a specialists surface, so the field is usually not as deep there, since all non specialists aren't competitive there.
Supertegwyn
Hall of Fame
There's only a hierarchy to slams if you were born in 1880.
F
Federer302
Guest
Have to agree with this post. The body is able to give more effort. That is why a motivated team can outplay a non motivated team.
Also yes regarding the difficulty of the US. It is no coincidence that we have seen two guys win 7 Wimbledons and one guy win 9 French Opens in the past 20 years. That would be much more unlikely to happen at the US Open. Much harder to dominate Hard courts than grass or clay.
I'm sorry but that's just flat out wrong - you mustn't be a very competitive person perhaps? The guys who make it in the GS's try 100% at AO, 100% at RG, 100% at W, and 100% at US. I'm not sure where you got the idea that guys can 'try harder' at W and US. The fact that Fed said that doesn't help your point at all, he mentioned those two slams because they are the obvious two he had a good chance at later in his career being the quickest two.
Is your point that it is harder to win at US, or has more prestige? Do you think Rafa tries harder at US than RG? Not sure how much harder you can try than 6 hours plus at the Aussie a few years ago. Silly post mate.
Again, the points you raise don't help you at all. Clay and Grass are specialist surfaces, so the field is smaller in terms of possible winners and upsets. Maybe not so much clay anymore as a lot of guys play on clay. But that doesn't mean guys don't try just as hard. Guys try hard everywhere, i'm not sure if you can quantify their efforts and get some numbers to me? where did you get this idea?
In regards to the US being the hardest to win - again that is subjective and depends how you look at it. For every player out there bar rafa, RG is the hardest to win surely? Federer's win percentage at the US would be very, very close to his win percentage on grass. 04-8 winner, finalist in 09, semis in 10,11.
I'm happy to throw around the idea that a slam might be harder to win, but i just can't believe people think that guys give less effort at a GRAND SLAM, just because it wasn't as prestigious YEARS AGO.
Narcissist
Semi-Pro
The circus-like atmosphere for the USO doesn’t really fit tennis or a prestigious tournament and is more akin to the WTF.
Other things that really weaken the USO in this argument:
Has been played on three different surfaces with the last surface change being recent (in relative terms)
Moved venue relatively recently (1978 vs 1928 )
5th set TB
Not an exclusive slam surface, one of two hard court slams
The years of Monday mens finals
Other things that really weaken the USO in this argument:
Has been played on three different surfaces with the last surface change being recent (in relative terms)
Moved venue relatively recently (1978 vs 1928 )
5th set TB
Not an exclusive slam surface, one of two hard court slams
The years of Monday mens finals
Wow, better than a third of the members of this website are Frenchies? Or maybe it's that a third of the people answering this poll are Nadal fanbois/fangurrls.
The only reason we're not having a discussion about whether the French Open and the Australian Open should be tied for least important of the Slams is because of Nadal and his dominance at that tournament. Once the guy retires or is finally caught using PEDs in a year or two, no one on earth who does not live in or near France will think that it is anywhere near as important of a tournament as the US Open.
That is the truth.
The only reason we're not having a discussion about whether the French Open and the Australian Open should be tied for least important of the Slams is because of Nadal and his dominance at that tournament. Once the guy retires or is finally caught using PEDs in a year or two, no one on earth who does not live in or near France will think that it is anywhere near as important of a tournament as the US Open.
That is the truth.
No they are not.
heftylefty
Hall of Fame
Yeah, but we owed France for help US against the British back in the day.
Those are stupid arguments. The U.S. changed surfaces in 75 because clay was becoming more popular at the time, but switched venues in 78 because the tournament had grown so popular and attracted such huge crowds that its previous venue couldn't accommodate it anymore. The fifth set tiebreak I think is a wash. It's certainly produced some very exciting matches in my memory, such as Connors-McEnroe 1980, Navratilova-Austin 1981, and Navratilova-Mandlikova 1985. I actually like the drama it creates. Men's Monday finals has been a recent thing, but is certainly not common, and you can't blame the tournament for the freaking weather.
Regarding the atmosphere, that's your opinion, but having come of age watching Connors whip the crowds into a frenzy in the early 80s, and having been a ball girl at the Open for three years (85-87), I think the electric atmosphere is what sets the Open apart. I'd rather play for a U.S. crowd going bananas during a night time match than a French crowd that is somnambulant.
By investment, I'd say USO.
At least, players get more money and the USO has lights for night matches
USO
Winners (1) $3,000,000
Runners-Up (1) $1,450,000
Semifinalists (2) $730,000
Quarterfinalists (4) $370,250
Round of 16 (8) $187,300
Third Round (16) $105,090
Second Round (32) $60,420
First Round (64) $35,754
RG
Winners (1) $2,176,614
Runners-Up (1) $1,088,307
Semifinalists (2) $544,153.5
Quarterfinalists (4) $290,215.2
Round of 16 (8) $164,895
Third Round (16) $94,979.52
Second Round (32) $55,404.72
First Round (64) $31,659.84
It's no secret that the USO gets higher prize/money because it generate more revenue due to more sponsors and greater number of attendance.
Oh I'm sure you like the result because Sampras has 5 USO but zero FO. Haha!
octobrina10
Talk Tennis Guru
All the GS tournaments are equal in the professional tennis ranking system.
octobrina10
Talk Tennis Guru
