Why USO should be the most prestigious Slam and wimbledon the last.

[The_Mental_Giant]

60%+ of tournaments are played in HC
30%+ played on clay
less than 10% of tournaments played in grass.

The more widespread a court is the more competition and the higher the level gets, so the most traditional HC tournament should be regarded as the most prestigious, no?


In that case the US open should be the most prestigious slam.

Reasons against Wimbledon:

1) Grasscourts are hardly widespread, most people play futures, challengers and they didnt even step over a grasscourt, players grow up in HC and clay, grass is nowhere to be found unless you hail from the UK.

2) Tradition should correlate with times, just because some old all time greats used to play 3/4 slams in grass 45 years ago It doesnt mean we have to put it over a pedestal, because the tennis is evolving over different surfaces, and grasscourts clearly only have a small corner in the whole tour dominated by hardcourts and clay.

How can you admire and hold in a pedestal some surface that you didnt grow up with? some surface where the competition isnt the higher?

It remains to me as a mistery...

ok, bullets fired up

 

[Terenigma]

I would take this thread more seriously if:

- They actually had decent coverage of all the courts
- They actually had nice looking stadiums
- They actually had commentators who knew what tennis was
- They actually had a tolerable crowd
- They actually had court-covers instead of making people hand-towle the courts dry after rain

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

I would take this thread more seriously if:

- They actually had decent coverage of all the courts
- They actually had nice looking stadiums
- They actually had commentators who knew what tennis was
- They actually had a tolerable crowd
- They actually had court-covers instead of making people hand-towle the courts dry after rain

I'm not criticizing the Wimbledon magnitude or their organization which is excellent. I just brought up some basic points that debunk the logic of holding Wimbledon as the most prestigious tournament.

 

[DerekNoleFam1]

Wimbledon deserves its mantle as the most prestigious Major tournament, and always will . It is the holy grail and spiritual home of tennis.
That's why as a Novak fan winning it more than once, ie to have your name engraved on that wall on the same day, was so important. Rival fans would think very similarly.
USO would definitely be the 2nd most prestigious in North America, UK and Asia-Pacific, but in many parts of the world - such as continental Europe and Latin America - RG is more prestigious.
AO obviously least prestigious, many of the top players never even attended up until the mid-80s, but the gap between all the Slams has narrowed a lot anyway.
Grass as a surface is largely gone, I agree, but that does not discount just how important winning at the All England Club is. It is still the pinnacle of most players careers that do it.
Just ask Ivan Lendl and Andy Roddick what it would mean to have won it.

 

[Soul_Evisceration]

If anything, the USO should be the least prestigious Grand Slam because of the 5th set tiebreak. I also dislike how they glam and Americanized this event while Wimbledon will always remain the biggest prestigeous Grand Slam to win.

Unfortunately the Australian Open is the least prestigeous Grand Slam because of how past Pros skipped this tournament.

 

[Cup8489]

USO is the worst.

 

[LapsedNoob]

The prestige level should have nothing to do with hiw much the surface has in common with the rest of the tour.

If anything having divergent surfaces would seem to make Wimbledon and the FO more prestigious.

 

[Algo]

USO is not the worst only because RG exists.

 

[fed_rulz]

60%+ of tournaments are played in HC
30%+ played on clay
less than 10% of tournaments played in grass.

The more widespread a court is the more competition and the higher the level gets, so the most traditional HC tournament should be regarded as the most prestigious, no?
..

If you were to extend your logic to surface "homogenization", then a grandslam won in the "homogenized" era should surely be worth more than one won in the polarized surfaces eras? After all, surface homogenization leads to bigger competition pool, as there are no more surface specialists..

do you agree?

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

If you were to extend your logic to surface "homogenization", then a grandslam won in the "homogenized" era should surely be worth more than one won in the polarized surfaces eras? After all, surface homogenization leads to bigger competition pool, as there are no more surface specialists..

do you agree?

I do agree with you here. Thats why I consider USO the most prestigious slam in modern tennis because Its the most important HC tournament you can find. Anyways Its my personal opinion and I do think all 4 slams are quite close in prestige, they are all equally important to win, It was more a critic against those who hold wimbledon higher than anything else, just doent make a sense to me.

 

[Aretium]

I would rather win 2 wimbledons than a slam at 2 different events.

 

[Tshooter]

USO
W
Space
Space
RG
SPACE
SPACE
SPACE
SPACE
SPACE
AO

 

[spirit95]

1) Grasscourts are hardly widespread, most people play futures, challengers and they didnt even step over a grasscourt, players grow up in HC and clay, grass is nowhere to be found unless you hail from the UK.

That means Wimbledon SHOULD be the most prestigious... There are only 2-3 chances a year to win a title on grass - i.e. winning a title on grass is harder than winning a title on any other surface. Especially HC so I don't know why you think the USO should be more prestigious.

And there are not many grass courts in the UK, I would hazard a guess at grass courts being most common in either France or Australia.

 

[Mainad]

Gosh, how many threads are we going to have on the topic of which of the Slams is or should be the most prestigious? It's beginning to get as tedious as the endless 'Who is the GOAT' threads!

1. Wimbledon is the cradle of modern tennis (founded 1877). It is where it all started. It will always carry the prestige of its history and yet it continues to remain at the forefront of the sport. It's grass surface is the original one on which the game was played and is a vital link to the game's roots. Many great champions continue to thrive on the surface as much as they did in the past.

2. The US Open represents the country which has produced more tennis champions than any other plus what many people seem to forget is that it is almost as old as Wimbledon (founded 1881) and so has some claim to historical prestige itself.

3. The French Open carries the prestige of being the historic centre of claycourt tennis and is the 3rd oldest tennis tournament (founded in 1891).

4. The Australian open is the youngest of the 4 (founded in 1905) and has taken the longest to establish itself on an equal footing. However since the mid '80s it has come to the fore as an event fully equal to the others and has been a trendsetter in modernisation.

 

[wangs78]

60%+ of tournaments are played in HC
30%+ played on clay
less than 10% of tournaments played in grass.

The more widespread a court is the more competition and the higher the level gets, so the most traditional HC tournament should be regarded as the most prestigious, no?

I follow your logic but even if apply that logic, the USO still wouldn't be the most prestigious bc there are TWO HC Slams, so the prestige for HC would be spread over two Slams. The reality is that the champions of Wimby typically have been strong on HCs as well. Grass is a surface that rewards the aggressive player. However as they have slowed down the grass it also rewards defensive, baseline oriented players once you head into the latter stages of the tournament. Due to its combination of tradition (oldest slam), changing court characteristics (slick grass first week, dry grass/dirt second week) I do think it deserves the most prestige.

 

[triforce defender]

The OP contradicts himself. He states that tradition must correlate with the times so it shouldn't matter that pros used to skip the Australian Open all the time. Therefore the AO is the most prestigious slam because it has better facilities than the USO, better crowds, and a standard Sunday finish rather than an asinine Monday Final finish.

 

[Bartelby]

One reason Wimbledon retains its prestige because it still is grass. If it went to hardcourt it would lose immense prestige.

You win Wimbledon and you win an event almost as it was played at the beginning of Wimbledon, the USO and the AO.

 

[Bartelby]

Strangely enough, all these tournaments as slams were invented in a 1923 meeting of the ILTA, so they are probably all equally old.

 

[Dedans Penthouse]

60%+ of tournaments are played in HC
30%+ played on clay
less than 10% of tournaments played in grass.

The more widespread a court is the more competition and the higher the level gets, so the most traditional HC tournament should be regarded as the most prestigious, no?


In that case the US open should be the most prestigious slam.

Reasons against Wimbledon:

1) Grasscourts are hardly widespread, most people play futures, challengers and they didnt even step over a grasscourt, players grow up in HC and clay, grass is nowhere to be found unless you hail from the UK.

2) Tradition should correlate with times, just because some old all time greats used to play 3/4 slams in grass 45 years ago It doesnt mean we have to put it over a pedestal, because the tennis is evolving over different surfaces, and grasscourts clearly only have a small corner in the whole tour dominated by hardcourts and clay.

How can you admire and hold in a pedestal some surface that you didnt grow up with? some surface where the competition isnt the higher?

It remains to me as a mistery...

ok, bullets fired up

This thread's about as useless as tlts on a bull.

 

[reaper]

Becoming a hard court tournament would make Wimbledon more prestigious.

 

[Mustard]

Becoming a hard court tournament would make Wimbledon more prestigious.

There's way too many hardcourt tournaments as it is.

 

[reaper]

And too few grass court tournaments for a sport whose original name was lawn tennis.

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

And too few grass court tournaments for a sport whose original name was lawn tennis.

Well human originally lived in caves not homes... everything evolves and changes we have to acecpt it.

 

[reaper]

The problem is that this is an evolution from homes to caves not the other way around. Grass court tennis has all but disappeared because of the cost of maintaining grass courts for a mass participation sport. It's not because the sport is better when played on concrete.

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

Wimbledon is overrated.
AO FO and US open are of the same importance.

 

[captainbryce]

If anything, the USO should be the least prestigious Grand Slam because of the 5th set tiebreak. I also dislike how they glam and Americanized this event

"Americanize" the United States Open -- how ridiculous? :roll:

 

[borg number one]

Gosh, how many threads are we going to have on the topic of which of the Slams is or should be the most prestigious? It's beginning to get as tedious as the endless 'Who is the GOAT' threads!

1. Wimbledon is the cradle of modern tennis (founded 1877). It is where it all started. It will always carry the prestige of its history and yet it continues to remain at the forefront of the sport. It's grass surface is the original one on which the game was played and is a vital link to the game's roots. Many great champions continue to thrive on the surface as much as they did in the past.

2. The US Open represents the country which has produced more tennis champions than any other plus what many people seem to forget is that it is almost as old as Wimbledon (founded 1881) and so has some claim to historical prestige itself.

3. The French Open carries the prestige of being the historic centre of claycourt tennis and is the 3rd oldest tennis tournament (founded in 1891).

4. The Australian open is the youngest of the 4 (founded in 1905) and has taken the longest to establish itself on an equal footing. However since the mid '80s it has come to the fore as an event fully equal to the others and has been a trendsetter in modernisation.

Yes, great post!

 

[captainbryce]

Gosh, how many threads are we going to have on the topic of which of the Slams is or should be the most prestigious? It's beginning to get as tedious as the endless 'Who is the GOAT' threads!

1. Wimbledon is the cradle of modern tennis (founded 1877). It is where it all started. It will always carry the prestige of its history and yet it continues to remain at the forefront of the sport. It's grass surface is the original one on which the game was played and is a vital link to the game's roots. Many great champions continue to thrive on the surface as much as they did in the past.

2. The US Open represents the country which has produced more tennis champions than any other plus what many people seem to forget is that it is almost as old as Wimbledon (founded 1881) and so has some claim to historical prestige itself.

3. The French Open carries the prestige of being the historic centre of claycourt tennis and is the 3rd oldest tennis tournament (founded in 1891).

4. The Australian open is the youngest of the 4 (founded in 1905) and has taken the longest to establish itself on an equal footing. However since the mid '80s it has come to the fore as an event fully equal to the others and has been a trendsetter in modernisation.

Only insomuch as it was the first to put a roof on an otherwise "outdoor" event. I would agree with everything else you mentioned except this. I would say that the US Open has been the biggest "innovator" in the sport of tennis. The US Open was the first slam to be played on hardcourt (now the most popular surface), the first (and only as of yet) to include a final set tiebreaker, the first (and only as of yet) to employ music on the changeovers, the first (and only as of yet) to require the ball kids to throw and catch the balls to each other, the first (and only as of yet) to allow the crowd to keep the balls that fly into the stadiums, the first to have the players sign balls and launch them to the fans, the first to award equal prize money to women, and the first to utilize the Hawk-eye challenge system.

 

[Sysyphus]

/ OP and ban thread.

Wimbledon is the most prestigious because it is held in the highest regard by the players and fans. This is what matters for prestige: it's about what people find prestigious. What single persons themselves think should be weighed is rather irrelevant in that regard.

 

[syc23]

You ask every pro which slam they would want to win most if they had to choose 1 and most would probably say Wimbledon. That tells you all you need to know which is the most prestigious.

 

[Sysyphus]

You ask every pro which slam they would want to win most if they had to choose 1 and most would probably say Wimbledon. That tells you all you need to know which is the most prestigious.

This right here. I think it is evident that this fact outweighs what any single poster on TTW feels should be the case.

 

[cc0509]

You ask every pro which slam they would want to win most if they had to choose 1 and most would probably say Wimbledon. That tells you all you need to know which is the most prestigious.

Exactly. End thread. I mean it is not even close. Wimbledon rules the tennis world.

 

[TMF]

Wimbledon is the holy grail of tennis. This isn't even worth a debate.



http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=486009

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

Wimbledon is the holy grail of tennis. This isn't even worth a debate.



http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=486009

Why ? because some 80 years old played it often and it became legendary? Ask the new players, they havent seen grass in their lifetime...

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

This right here. I think it is evident that this fact outweighs what any single poster on TTW feels should be the case.

1) political correctness.. people answer what people wants to hear..

A lot of players regard clay slams higher.. many other do prefer USO... maybe a diehard aussie player would prefer the AO (because Its home).

Do you think muster, Coria, Gaudio , Moya, Ferrero, Ferrer or even NAdal would rather choose a single Wimbledon over a single RG win?

IF we are honest nearly half of the tour would rather win an US open.

 

[TMF]

Why ? because some 80 years old played it often and it became legendary? Ask the new players, they havent seen grass in their lifetime...

The general public believe Wimbledon was and still is today the most prestigious slam. And even if you have evidence that youngsters pick USO over Wimbledon, it's still the minority? There's no argument here...Wimbledon is the preferred slam by players and fans.

 

[DerekNoleFam1]

The general public believe Wimbledon was and still is today the most prestigious slam. And even if you have evidence that youngsters pick USO over Wimbledon, it's still the minority? There's no argument here...Wimbledon is the preferred slam by players and fans.

If you remember a 1 Slam wonder, then it is most likely a Wimbledon winner!
Many other winners are forgotten, but not at SW19.
Eg Pat Cash (1 Wimby winner) would still arguably be more famous here than Pat Rafter (dual USO winner).

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

If you remember a 1 Slam wonder, then it is most likely a Wimbledon winner!
Many other winners are forgotten, but not at SW19.
Eg Pat Cash (1 Wimby winner) would still arguably be more famous here than Pat Rafter (dual USO winner).

nobody cares about pat cash... What about Roddick's Uso?

 

[Gary Duane]

nobody cares about pat cash... What about Roddick's Uso?

I don't care much about Pat Cash. But I have certainly heard his name more often then players who have only 1 slam and the FO. And more than players have only won 1 AO. I Pete and Roddick were about the same to me when they both won their first USO. I knew who they were. I saw both of them win.

But I think that the slams are now more equal. To me Nadal has made the FO something different, just as Borg did so many years ago.

 

[Tennisknowledge99]

If you remember a 1 Slam wonder, then it is most likely a Wimbledon winner!
Many other winners are forgotten, but not at SW19.
Eg Pat Cash (1 Wimby winner) would still arguably be more famous here than Pat Rafter (dual USO winner).

That's very true. Great post!

 

[Bartelby]

Nadal has made the FO less interesting except for the fact of his record itself.

I don't care much about Pat Cash. But I have certainly heard his name more often then players who have only 1 slam and the FO. And more than players have only won 1 AO. I Pete and Roddick were about the same to me when they both won their first USO. I knew who they were. I saw both of them win.

But I think that the slams are now more equal. To me Nadal has made the FO something different, just as Borg did so many years ago.

 

[TMF]

If you remember a 1 Slam wonder, then it is most likely a Wimbledon winner!
Many other winners are forgotten, but not at SW19.
Eg Pat Cash (1 Wimby winner) would still arguably be more famous here than Pat Rafter (dual USO winner).

And Krajicek too.

 

[ThomasGB]

Wimbledon is the best, and most prestigious because of its history, and status as the first Grand Slam, and it's still played on grass courts, and has the all white rule. A Slam that appreciates its heritage!

AO is second best, because its the important test to see how the year can start out.

USO comes in third, because because of its ridiculous fifth set tiebreak, which prevents the match from being legendary.

FO is last, mainly because there's no surprises at all; 99% of the time Nadal wins the trophy, with Novak coming in a close second.

 

[Magnetite]

It's too windy. There are a lot of poor matches played due to the wind. They can be epic and long, and there can be some real gems, but the wind is horrible.

 

[Soul_Evisceration]

"Americanize" the United States Open -- how ridiculous? :roll:

What I meant was they do those pretentious spotlights profile players, play obnoxious music and hype the event to ridiculous levels.

 

[Netspirit]

The USO is not the most prestigious - it is the second-oldest, and therefore the second in terms of prestige.

However, its surface is the most representative of the tour conditions, making it the "WTF of Grand Slams".

 

[Bartelby]

This seems about right, for the moment, I'd also add that the USO seems to suffer from the fact that some players are already suffering by mid year whereas they are all fresh for the AO.

Wimbledon is the best, and most prestigious because of its history, and status as the first Grand Slam, and it's still played on grass courts, and has the all white rule. A Slam that appreciates its heritage!

AO is second best, because its the important test to see how the year can start out.

USO comes in third, because because of its ridiculous fifth set tiebreak, which prevents the match from being legendary.

FO is last, mainly because there's no surprises at all; 99% of the time Nadal wins the trophy, with Novak coming in a close second.

 

[PrinceMoron]

No roof on show courts?

No idea when the final is actually going to get played, even which day?
No proper court covers?
Courts play completely differently when it is cold and damp?
So stupidly hot half the crowd melts?

Well, that just leaves WO.

 

[cigrmaster]

I am American and still think Wimbledon is the most prestigous follwed by the US Open, followed by the French then the Aussie.

One thing about the US Open is that it is one of the most difficult finals to play as the wind is always whipping in that abortion of a stadium. It can produce some pretty ugly tennis at times because of the swirling high winds.

 

[The Green Mile]

Wimbledon will always be the pinnacle of Tennis for most people. The US Open, while I like how the courts play, is probably my third favourite (after the AO) because of the many terrible crowds there.