Why is the Australian Open considered the least important of the four grand slams?

[Amelie Mauresmo]

Honest opinions wanted, just inquiring why the Australian Open is considered the least important of the four grand slams? Is it due to location? Since the Australian Open is the only slam in the southern hemisphere? Is it because the Australian Open is close to Asia and not considered "western enough" is that why it is ranked fourth out of all four grand slams? Is it because the Australian Open is not considered to be in a "cool" or "important" city since it is in Melbourne?

Wimbledon is the jewel of tennis the most important grand slam because it is the first one and it has a lot of history and prestige. However, why is the French Open and the US OPEN considered more important than the Australian Open?

Now, some people say the US OPEN is second to Wimbledon, but I think that also relates to culture and location. I am sure a lot of North Americans will rate the US OPEN over the French Open, but I imagine Europeans and people from other parts of the world will say the French Open is more important than the US OPEN.

I think the French Open is tougher to win than the US OPEN because the clay surface you really have to have a lot of stamina, skill, and tennis ability to master it.

The Australian Open seems like the US OPEN in slow motion, the court is slower ect.

 

[Backspin1183]

News to me. I don't think the AO is considered less important than the other slams anymore. We are in 2013 now, not in the 80s or early 90s.

Also Melbourne's a cool city, considered one of the best in the world by most travelers. Of course my country NZ is much better, but still Oz is good.

Saying AO is less important slam is like saying Cincinnati masters is less important than Indian Wells or Mutua Madrid.

 

[Goosehead]

it wasn't teken seriously until 1983..before then sometimes it used to start on Christmas eve or new years day..so a lot of players didn't want to go there over a holiday period..also the prize money was rubbish.

when they finally saw sense and moved it to November then in 1983 suddenly McEnroe, lendi, wilander all played it.

in the 1960s 70s a lot of tourneys were seen as more important than the Australian..in 1976 borg said he wanted to win the uso as its the only 'big one' he hadn't won.. (Wimbledon, French, rome masters, davis cup.)..no mention of the Australian.

apparently kooyong was not a very good facility with bumpy courts. so the move in 1988 was a big help as well..ans then in the 1990s Sampras started saying stuff like.."its all about the slams"..and generally folk talked more about the majors.

 

[Fedinkum]

It might relates to the history of the stadium. The Melborne Park facility needs time to build its own history.

 

[*Sparkle*]

It's different these days, with international travel so much easier, but back in the early days, getting there was really tough, so a lot of players couldn't be bothered.

Even now there are a few journeymen who might skip the AO, because of the costs, or at least they did. This year they gave all players a bonus, specifically to help with travel costs.

 

[Bartelby]

It was a small country and a long way from the rest of the world.

It's now more medium sized, well connected and its slam is well positioned in the calendar.

Moreover, since the slam moved to Melbourne the state government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on stadia and the like.

But it's still not as central to tennis as the other three slams.

 

[MAXXply]

I think it's a combination of many factors to do with Australia's history, geography and timing. And about Australia's own perceptions of its place in the world.

The tournament had its roots as a colonial offshoot and at a time when it was one of the youngest and wealthiest countries in the world. Argentina was said to be of a similar economic standing at the turn of the century and look how they turned out.

Australia was well placed culturally and politically to establish a tournament at a time when the sport had relatively few countries playing. Garden party English-speaking colonials and all that. Right time, not necessarily right place as it turns out for the rest of the world.

 

[Bartelby]

I know Americans feel differently, but both Australia and America were culturally close enough to England to become converts to tennis and that must be the essetial clue.

The other two contenders would have been the German and Italian Opens, but the ITF or its predecessor was probably a very Anglo-Centric organization.

It's like the UN Security Council - if they weren't already there the big 5 might be very different.

And the big 4 of tennis are there and will stay unless the ATP wants to put them out of business, which they don't appear to want to do.

 

[ashitaka2010]

The gap between AO and the other three is narrowing with passing years. As you said W was, is and always will be on top and USO and RG importance is more or less split regarding where you live.

But AO is the 'Asian' slam and twenty years from now it'll be W and USO/RG/AO without that much distinction. RG has huge pressure to maintain its standard because of the current facilities and the growing influence and modern facilities of AO.

I also do think one of the North American or European Master 1000 is gonna move in this area in the future.

 

[firepanda]

News to me. I don't think the AO is considered less important than the other slams anymore. We are in 2013 now, not in the 80s or early 90s.

Also Melbourne's a cool city, considered one of the best in the world by most travelers. Of course my country NZ is much better, but still Oz is good.

Saying AO is less important slam is like saying Cincinnati masters is less important than Indian Wells or Mutua Madrid.

Oh yay, another kiwi!

Yeah, AO's great. It's the only grand slam that I can watch without turning into a narcoleptic. It also has the biggest prize purse. Never heard of it as being the weakest before.

 

[papertank]

It's simply because the other 3 have a bigger and more prestigious history. Hopefully in the years to come the AO can continue to build it's history to level it with the other 3 slams, because it really is one of the most exciting events to watch.

 

[terribleIVAN]

The reason is clear, although not very well known.

Every staff of the AO had a shady past of thievery and murder.

But they hide it well.

 

[Chico]

It is not. All slams are equal.

 

[adil1972]

because its the last leg of 4 grand slams, started in 1905. changed avenues many times and timing also

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Grand_Slam_men's_singles_champions

The timing of the Australian Open has changed several times. In 1977, the date of the final moved from January to December, which resulted in having two Australian Opens in 1977; there was a January edition and a December edition that year.[5] The originally planned December 1986 edition was moved forward to January 1987, resulting in no Australian Open in 1986.[6][7]


Christchurch and Hastings, New Zealand, and Perth, Brisbane, Adelaide, Sydney, and Melbourne, Australia have hosted the men's singles event. The event switched cities every year before it settled in 1972 in Melbourne. The event was held at the Kooyong Stadium before moving to Melbourne Park in 1988.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_Open_Men's_Singles_champions

 

[Bartelby]

I suppose initially the slam was to be one for Australasia, whcih included New Zealand, and the tournament rotated as a consequence.

Not an unheard of practice even today, but obviously being located in one city provides for greater identity and money.