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

I would like to see a bit of a grass court season leading up to Wimbledon and to get rid of a few HC tournaments. I think that would make the event better, as the surface has really become obscure.
 
The_Mental_Giant said:
ok, bullets fired up
Click to expand...
Classic troll thread.

giphy.gif


:grin:
 
Terenigma said:
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
Click to expand...

The lack of a covered roof will always put it in last place
 
So much hate for the AO.
It is probably the best organised and most entertaining of the slams.

The USO looks like another HC MS1000.
 
There is one definite reason why US open can't be the most prestigious slam...and it is the best of 5 tie breaks rule...
Wimbledon looks to be the most prestigious due to tradition but I think all Slams are equally big for different reasons.
 
Here are my reasons Wimbledon should be the least prestigious slam today:

1. The unimportance of grass in todays game is evidenced by the mere 1 month grass season which has existed for a good 20+ years now. It seems silly for a surface currently far less important than both hard courts and clay, to host a slam tournament bigger than those others.

2. Wimbledon has made their grass into a joke these last 12 years. Which in itself devalues the event IMO.

3. Everyone plays a hard court or clay court style baseline game today anyway. Even on grass. Federer in winning 7 Wimbledons did for the most part as well.
 
Firstservingman said:
So much hate for the AO.
It is probably the best organised and most entertaining of the slams.

The USO looks like another HC MS1000.
Click to expand...

The U.S Open is the only slam that in the whole history of the event was hugely regarded. The Australian especialy, and to a lesser degree the French, were not until the 80s atleast. Wimbledon today has a puny short grass season, played on joke rye grass, like I said, and in the 90s many clay courters even skipped Wimbledon altogether.

As I am sure you know the Australian Open has the largest list of joke winners in the events history. Johan Kriek twice, Chris O neill (world #111, a losing career record in pros, no other slams past the 2nd round), Barbara Jordan, Guillermo Vilas on GRASS (would be like Roddick winning the French), and too many others to list. Until the 80s it was regarded as a nothing slam, that was probably about the 20th most important tournament on tour or something. Players only began to take it seriously 30 years ago. The U.S Open was always super important.
 
mccarthy said:
The U.S Open is the only slam that in the whole history of the event was hugely regarded. The Australian especialy, and to a lesser degree the French, were not until the 80s atleast. Wimbledon today has a puny short grass season, played on joke rye grass, like I said, and in the 90s many clay courters even skipped Wimbledon altogether.

As I am sure you know the Australian Open has the largest list of joke winners in the events history. Johan Kriek twice, Chris O neill (world #111, a losing career record in pros, no other slams past the 2nd round), Barbara Jordan, Guillermo Vilas on GRASS (would be like Roddick winning the French), and too many others to list. Until the 80s it was regarded as a nothing slam, that was probably about the 20th most important tournament on tour or something. Players only began to take it seriously 30 years ago. The U.S Open was always super important.
Click to expand...

Great but we're talking about now.

The USO is popular and prestigious because America.
 
mccarthy said:
Here are my reasons Wimbledon should be the least prestigious slam today:

1. The unimportance of grass in todays game is evidenced by the mere 1 month grass season which has existed for a good 20+ years now. It seems silly for a surface currently far less important than both hard courts and clay, to host a slam tournament bigger than those others.

2. Wimbledon has made their grass into a joke these last 12 years. Which in itself devalues the event IMO.

3. Everyone plays a hard court or clay court style baseline game today anyway. Even on grass. Federer in winning 7 Wimbledons did for the most part as well.
Click to expand...

Wimbledon can never move away from grass because it is the link to the game's origin. If that disappeared, the entire link to the history of the game would be gone. All great tennis players must prove themselves on grass, the game's original and, some of us would argue, the true surface, and all truly great tennis players have been able to master the surface (those that didn't, can never be called true tennis greats).

Roland Garros has always been a clay tournament but why the US and Australian Opens moved away from grass is a fascinating puzzle (the US Open even chopped and changed between all 3 surfaces. What was that all about?) The answer is not to shut down the last remaining link to the game's origins but to encourage more tournaments to revert to or become grasscourts and the ATP has made at least a belated start with Stuttgart's change to grass in the coming season and the upgrading to 500 status of Queens and Halle, the 2 principal lead-ups to Wimbledon, and increasing the time gap between the French Open and Wimbledon in order to give players more time to practice their grasscourt game.
 
Mainad said:
Wimbledon can never move away from grass because it is the link to the game's origin. If that disappeared, the entire link to the history of the game would be gone. All great tennis players must prove themselves on grass, the game's original and, some of us would argue, the true surface, and all truly great tennis players have been able to master the surface (those that didn't, can never be called true tennis greats).

Roland Garros has always been a clay tournament but why the US and Australian Opens moved away from grass is a fascinating puzzle (the US Open even chopped and changed between all 3 surfaces. What was that all about?) The answer is not to shut down the last remaining link to the game's origins but to encourage more tournaments to revert to or become grasscourts and the ATP has made at least a belated start with Stuttgart's change to grass in the coming season and the upgrading to 500 status of Queens and Halle, the 2 principal lead-ups to Wimbledon, and increasing the time gap between the French Open and Wimbledon in order to give players more time to practice their grasscourt game.
Click to expand...

Wimbledon should not move away from grass, if anything there should be more grass events on the tour.
 
This is a ridiculous statement. It was at the tail end of the season and somewhat in need of re-location, but the AO was never a joke.

Tennis has really only been a truly global sport for a few decades. After the mid seventies Australian tennis stopped producing champions.

So when the US Open was being won by a great American generation there were no Australians even competitive.


mccarthy said:
As I am sure you know the Australian Open has the largest list of joke winners in the events history. Johan Kriek twice, Chris O neill (world #111, a losing career record in pros, no other slams past the 2nd round), Barbara Jordan, Guillermo Vilas on GRASS (would be like Roddick winning the French), and too many others to list. Until the 80s it was regarded as a nothing slam, that was probably about the 20th most important tournament on tour or something. Players only began to take it seriously 30 years ago. The U.S Open was always super important.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
captainbryce said:
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.
Click to expand...

The USO ball "kids" throw the balls around because they're too old to bend their backs. They are the slowest and least agile on the tour.

I assume NY labor laws prevent the USO from firing anyone, so they're still using the same ball "kids" from the 90s.

ballboy1_54b7571f06bfcf22581916c1d280e08a.jpg
 
Bendex said:
The USO ball "kids" throw the balls around because they're too old to bend their backs. They are the slowest and least agile on the tour.

I assume NY labor laws prevent the USO from firing anyone, so they're still using the same ball "kids" from the 90s.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, or are genuinely ignorant. Consequently, I'll proceed under the assumption that you are ignorant (for the benefit of others here). The US Open allows anyone to compete for a ballperson position, and intentionally hires older ball persons than other tournaments in the US Open series (or other Grand Slam tournaments). The requirement to throw/catch the balls is an exercise in skill meant to reflect the US pastime sport of baseball (Citifield is literally across the street from the BJK National Tennis Center).

Digest this while you make jokes about the quality of ball persons at the US Open.
http://espn.go.com/espnw/news-commentary/article/8344885/2012-us-open-ball-person-goal-inspire-other-amputees

How do you feel now? :neutral:
 
BringBackSV said:
Wimbledon should not move away from grass, if anything there should be more grass events on the tour.
Click to expand...

Agree, but won't happen.
Grass used to be big down here as well, obviously with the AO, but also the old NSW Open (now Sydney International), as well as Davis Cup matches etc.
Hard court play skills are readily transferrable to grass, so don't see what the big issue is keeping Wimbledon as grass that others have a probelm with.
The main problem is the lack of grass courts at the grass roots level (excuse the pun) - for social, junior and lower level competition etc.
Strangely, artificial grass is now the most common surface down here, even hard courts are becoming increasingly rarer to find.
 
As an American, if I had made pro tennis I would desire to win the US OPEN, as that is the top tourney in my home country. The only players who should care about Wimbledon should be British players. We give England way more importance cause of history than they deserve. The British empire is not the GOAT empire in history. They are a meek footnote in history. US empire is tops.
 
radtennisfan said:
As an American, if I had made pro tennis I would desire to win the US OPEN, as that is the top tourney in my home country. The only players who should care about Wimbledon should be British players. We give England way more importance cause of history than they deserve. The British empire is not the GOAT empire in history. They are a meek footnote in history. US empire is tops.
Click to expand...

What on earth has the long-dead British Empire got to do with how important Wimbledon is in today's tennis world? :confused:
 
Last edited:
radtennisfan said:
As an American, if I had made pro tennis I would desire to win the US OPEN, as that is the top tourney in my home country. The only players who should care about Wimbledon should be British players. We give England way more importance cause of history than they deserve. The British empire is not the GOAT empire in history. They are a meek footnote in history. US empire is tops.
Click to expand...

Great bait mate. You know world history has nothing to do with tennis.
 
Mainad said:
What on earth has the long-dead British Empire got to do with how important Wimbledon is in today's tennis world? :confused:
Click to expand...

This is partly correct. If the only grass major were held in Prague, or Calcutta, or Lima...do you think it would matter as much? Wimbledon established its rep when the UK was more important (for want of better terminology) in global affairs than it is now. That reputation as the prime tournament hasn't diminished much, if at all.
 
radtennisfan said:
As an American, if I had made pro tennis I would desire to win the US OPEN, as that is the top tourney in my home country. The only players who should care about Wimbledon should be British players. We give England way more importance cause of history than they deserve. The British empire is not the GOAT empire in history. They are a meek footnote in history. US empire is tops.
Click to expand...

Lol, love American perceptions of paramountcy mixed with a lacking recognition of history.
 
Sysyphus said:
Walt Disney is a good suggestion. Preeminent power of propaganda. Asa Griggs Candler is also a canidate.
Click to expand...

Zuckenberg, Gates and Mc Donald also qualify for soft power.

It is a pitty that the man who would have suited better for talent and preparation was excluded from history by a couple of incompetents who didn´t know how to hide a microphone at a hotel¡¡¡
 
Indio said:
This is partly correct. If the only grass major were held in Prague, or Calcutta, or Lima...do you think it would matter as much?
Click to expand...

If the first tennis tournament in the world was established on grass in any of those cities and continued to be played on grass to this day, then yes, I do!

Indio said:
Wimbledon established its rep when the UK was more important (for want of better terminology) in global affairs than it is now.
Click to expand...

True.

Indio said:
That reputation as the prime tournament hasn't diminished much, if at all.
Click to expand...

For exactly the reasons I pointed out earlier. It is a vital link to the game's very origins not because of the present or past status of Britain in world affairs!
 
kiki said:
Zuckenberg, Gates and Mc Donald also qualify for soft power.

It is a pitty that the man who would have suited better for talent and preparation was excluded from history by a couple of incompetents who didn´t know how to hide a microphone at a hotel¡¡¡
Click to expand...

Haha, Mitt? Yes, dreadful shame:twisted:

Mainad said:
If the first tennis tournament in the world was established on grass in any of those cities and continued to be played on grass to this day, then yes, I do!
Click to expand...

Seriously? I think you underestimate the status of Britain in the world. Imo the fact that Wimbledon is so arch-British certainly contributes to it's esteem, and I can't see at all that it would be the same if it sprung out of Slovenia or Peru or whatever. In fact, I don't tennis would be the same it is today if the brits hadn't spread it so much.
 
mccarthy said:
Here are my reasons Wimbledon should be the least prestigious slam today:

1. The unimportance of grass in todays game is evidenced by the mere 1 month grass season which has existed for a good 20+ years now. It seems silly for a surface currently far less important than both hard courts and clay, to host a slam tournament bigger than those others.

2. Wimbledon has made their grass into a joke these last 12 years. Which in itself devalues the event IMO.

3. Everyone plays a hard court or clay court style baseline game today anyway. Even on grass. Federer in winning 7 Wimbledons did for the most part as well.
Click to expand...


There is actually some grass on the court in week two, which is not a bad thing for a grass court tournament.
Of course you could ban poly, grass court shoes, leave the balls unopened in the fridge and we would be straight back to Steve Denton and Kevin Curren boring themselves and everyone else stupid. So, yes you are right, WO is not a patch on what it was before, because it is played on grass, not patches of mud.

Remember watching Sampras Becker at WO and I was almost as comatose as Becker, who was shuffling around barely moving at times. That was boring, with zero chance of anything unexpected.

Federer and Nadal losing early means at least there is some excitement, some chance of the unexpected. How exactly is WO worse than it was?
 
Last edited:
The way Wimbledon has played the last few years, it might as well be on clay. Between the 4 slams, the most important difference is the colour of the surface.
 
I agree. I meant playing-wise, there's not much difference. So the short grass court season doesn't matter much. Pretty much the same guys are succeeding at Wimbledon as at all the other majors.
 
Players nowadays play a lot more on other surfaces than they used to and a lot less on grass. Which probably means we're witnessing the least experienced generation of grass court players of all time. They don't practice on it all that much, they just play a couple of tournaments on it per year. It's almost as if football was played on grass all year round and its greatest event was held on wood or glass.
 
Attila_the_gorilla said:
I agree. I meant playing-wise, there's not much difference. So the short grass court season doesn't matter much. Pretty much the same guys are succeeding at Wimbledon as at all the other majors.
Click to expand...

Oh, my bad. Sorry, it was like 5 AM when I wrote that, and I'm alternating between TTW and my independent work for school :cry:
 
ScentOfDefeat said:
Players nowadays play a lot more on other surfaces than they used to and a lot less on grass. Which probably means we're witnessing the least experienced generation of grass court players of all time. They don't practice on it all that much, they just play a couple of tournaments on it per year. It's almost as if football was played on grass all year round and its greatest event was held on wood or glass.
Click to expand...

That should make it easier for one-hit wonders to emerge in Wimbledon, or serve-and-volleyers, or big servers or something different. But none of that has been happening for a long time. Just the same guys winning on every surface, cos all the surfaces play the same. Even Nadal has won a couple. With his game, he shouldn't get anywhere near a Wimbledon title.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The_Mental_Giant
Djokovic 5 out 8 slams from the least prestigious slam venue
Replies
7
Views
748
terribleIVAN
terribleIVAN
F
Interesting that the USA has the most prestigious set of ATP Tournaments for any country
Replies
18
Views
895
FrontHeadlock
F
Babblelot
Most prestigious slam least cometitive?
Replies
15
Views
1K
kbg
K
S
Most Prestigious 250, 500, and Masters 1000 Tournament?
Replies
24
Views
1K
MissileBackHand99
M
M
İs that make any sense Wimbledon still considered as the most prestigious in todays game ??
Replies
32
Views
2K
Steve0904
Steve0904
Back
Top