Wimbledon; no more prestigious than the other majors?

[George Turner]

Back in the good old days Wimbledon was the most prestigious major. Every bum in the street has heard of Borg, McEnroe and Becker, not quite every bum has heard of Lendl, Wilander or Courier. Winning Wimbledon gave you the greatest fame, at the oldest tennis tournament in the world, all that tradition etc. In the pre internet days Wimbledon would be the tournament everyone would watch on tele.

Now times have changed, It's very professional. For a young player their priority is to earn ranking points and money. Wherever that may be. If they can do it at Wimbledon that's nice, if not then every other tournament is not grass so they can afford to forget Wimbledon. Prestige does not give bonus rewards for them.

The media has changed too, we can watch them anytime, anywhere, replay their matches 100 times over. It doesn't just have to be at Wimbledon on a 1980's tele. Schwartzman can make a fool out of Isner with a behind-the-back shot and the whole world can see it, whatever tournament it's at.

While the social media has developed we've had Homogenization of Wimbledon so that it's more similar to other surfaces, enabling a non volleyer like Djokovic to win three times. Why would a player bother to learn a different style for grass, if it's possible to win by playing the same way as on hardcourt? This takes away a unique factor of Wimbledon.

Ofc players will still say Wimbledon is the most prestigious, because that's the PR thing to say. But if Thiem won the French next year his reputation would skyrocket, as much as Dimitrovs would if he won Wimbledon. In that sense the majors are equal.

Wimbledon does have the most history and tradition, but does anyone actually care about that today? Is it relevant?

 

[ForumMember]

Horse carts have much more history than Lamborghini, but do I have to tell you which one is more prestigious ?

This overselling of an obsolete tournament on an obsolete surface should stop. It's not long before this surface will be discontinued and records achieved on surface would be looked the way look at pre-open era records.

 

[fedtennisphan]

Horse carts have much more history than Lamborghini, but do I have to tell you which one is more prestigious ?

This overselling of an obsolete tournament on an obsolete surface should stop. It's not long before this surface will be discontinued and records achieved on surface would be looked the way look at pre-open era records.

You wish. Roger Federer 8x Wimbledon Champion.

 

[thrust]

Horse carts have much more history than Lamborghini, but do I have to tell you which one is more prestigious ?

This overselling of an obsolete tournament on an obsolete surface should stop. It's not long before this surface will be discontinued and records achieved on surface would be looked the way look at pre-open era records.

I AGREE! Wimbledon has been overrated for a very long time. The English have been very clever in promoting Wimbledon as the premier tournament and the USA, especially 50 or more years ago, being extremely pro English went along with the pro Wimbledon propaganda.

 

[DerekNoleFam1]

Yep, a Wimbledon winner was easily the most prestigious back in the day.
Back in the 80s and even 90s, there was no PayTV readily available, and Wimbledon was easily the most well known Slam, and most desirable.
The likes of Edberg and Becker had higher profiles than Wilander.
Lendl is almost as well known for not winning it, as he was for all his time at Number 1 etc.
Single Wimbledon winners too are more remembered than single winners at other Slams.
However, the Majors are now all pretty well promoted, and winning any Slam is a massive increase in player profile.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Wimbledon remains the pinnacle of the sport and always shall.

The fact that hardly any other tournaments (and no other big ones) are played on grass only add to its lustre.

 

[ollinger]

with a second-rate American actress sitting in the royal box, it might as well be Flushing Meadow

 

[ollinger]

The fact that hardly any other tournaments (and no other big ones) are played on grass only add to its

.......idiosyncratic irrelevancy

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

Its not as prestigious as it was before.

 

[NatF]

Most players still call it the biggest title in the sport but it's pretty much unquantifiable. Definitely the most prestigious though.

 

[MatsPhilander]

Probably depends where you are in the world. The Crucible Theatre will always be greater than other far larger venues in Snooker. MSG has always been the mecca for Northeastern wrestling & boxing. If you lived down South it was the Kiel or the Omni. If you lived in Texas it was The Sportatorium. If you were in New Orleans then it was the Superdome. For me Wimbledon will always be the best-probably because I live in England, the grass is just so aesthetically pleasing, the crowd are the best for appreciating both players & excitement & there is a vibe surrounding it that none of the other three can match.

 

[thrust]

with a second-rate American actress sitting in the royal box, it might as well be Flushing Meadow

Utter snobbish garbage! Is the problem with the "second rate American's Actress" that she is half Black or American?

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Most players still call it the biggest title in the sport but it's pretty much unquantifiable. Definitely the most prestigious though.

Pretty much this. I go with what the top pros say, and the majority still put Wimbledon above all others.

 

[NatF]

Pretty much this. I go with what the top pros say, and the majority still put Wimbledon above all others.

Yeah, it's totally subjective what that means but it's still the most widely sought after slam. I've seen someone in the forum pro section who still decides his #1 for the year based on who wins Wimbledon - I wouldn't go that far though myself

 

[George Turner]

Yeah, it's totally subjective what that means but it's still the most widely sought after slam. I've seen someone in the forum pro section who still decides his #1 for the year based on who wins Wimbledon - I wouldn't go that far though myself

You should do, Federer would then be eight time year end no.1 morally speaking.

Probably depends where you are in the world. The Crucible Theatre will always be greater than other far larger venues in Snooker. MSG has always been the mecca for Northeastern wrestling & boxing. If you lived down South it was the Kiel or the Omni. If you lived in Texas it was The Sportatorium. If you were in New Orleans then it was the Superdome. For me Wimbledon will always be the best-probably because I live in England, the grass is just so aesthetically pleasing, the crowd are the best for appreciating both players & excitement & there is a vibe surrounding it that none of the other three can match.

It does depend where you are, as a Brit Wimbledon is certainly my favourite. It's Murray's favourite too.

Where Argentinians or Spaniards rate it is a different matter.

 

[NatF]

You should do, Federer would then be eight time year end no.1 morally speaking.

But Murray would be a two time YE #1

 

[George Turner]

But Murray would be a two time YE #1

Zara would be pleased about that.

 

[swordtennis]

It still is i believe. However the ao has a strange emotional prestige to the players. Lots of massive emotion there not seen in the other majors. Dont they say the ao is the major of the players and fans?

 

[NatF]

Zara would be pleased about that.

All the more reason to dislike it

It still is i believe. However the ao has a strange emotional prestige to the players. Lots of massive emotion there not seen in the other majors. Dont they say the ao is the major of the players and fans?

The AO benefits from being the first on the calendar, there's an extra bit of excitement with the year just starting - plus the organisation is second to non. Maybe it's just #18 talking but the AO might be my favourite of the four these days

 

[Backspin1183]

with a second-rate American actress sitting in the royal box, it might as well be Flushing Meadow

Lol

 

[merlinpinpin]

Basically, for players coming from a country that hosts a slam, it's either their own slam first (for sentimental/nationalistic reasons) and Wimbledon second, or the opposite, depending on their play style, personal preferences, etc. And for those who don't, it Wimbledon first and anything else second (back in the day when there were claycourters, South-American players also put a special emphasis on RG, but it's hard to say now, as there haven't been any for quite some time--Del Potro isn't a claycourter by any stretch of the imagination).

But then, what do professional tennis players know compared to the world-famous tennis pundits of this forum? Everyone who is seriously into tennis knows that Wimbledon only comes in second place after The Real Slam. Rest of the calendar is just scraps for the also-rans to fight for, anyway...

 

[swordtennis]

All the more reason to dislike it



The AO benefits from being the first on the calendar, there's an extra bit of excitement with the year just starting - plus the organisation is second to non. Maybe it's just #18 talking but the AO might be my favourite of the four these days

It just seems there is crazy contrasts of emotion there. Nadal even cries there. Murray with his seething hatred towrds djokovic etc etc. Its prob my fav but i love wimbledon and uso. Ao is pure lust.

 

[Zebrev]

Wimbledon is the one every player wants to win.

 

[Dilexson]

shouldn't even be a question really.

 

[clayqueen]

Back in the good old days Wimbledon was the most prestigious major. Every bum in the street has heard of Borg, McEnroe and Becker, not quite every bum has heard of Lendl, Wilander or Courier. Winning Wimbledon gave you the greatest fame, at the oldest tennis tournament in the world, all that tradition etc. In the pre internet days Wimbledon would be the tournament everyone would watch on tele.

Now times have changed, It's very professional. For a young player their priority is to earn ranking points and money. Wherever that may be. If they can do it at Wimbledon that's nice, if not then every other tournament is not grass so they can afford to forget Wimbledon. Prestige does not give bonus rewards for them.

The media has changed too, we can watch them anytime, anywhere, replay their matches 100 times over. It doesn't just have to be at Wimbledon on a 1980's tele. Schwartzman can make a fool out of Isner with a behind-the-back shot and the whole world can see it, whatever tournament it's at.

While the social media has developed we've had Homogenization of Wimbledon so that it's more similar to other surfaces, enabling a non volleyer like Djokovic to win three times. Why would a player bother to learn a different style for grass, if it's possible to win by playing the same way as on hardcourt? This takes away a unique factor of Wimbledon.

Ofc players will still say Wimbledon is the most prestigious, because that's the PR thing to say. But if Thiem won the French next year his reputation would skyrocket, as much as Dimitrovs would if he won Wimbledon. In that sense the majors are equal.

Wimbledon does have the most history and tradition, but does anyone actually care about that today? Is it relevant?

It is still the case that for most British people, tennis is all about Wimbledon. I get really frustrated when discussing tennis with fellow Brits, that they are ignorant about who's won the AO, USO or the FO because they only watch tennis during the Wimbledon fortnight during which we are bombarded with hyperbole about Andy Murray, morning, noon and night. I get really fed up with the British players hugging the show courts irrespective of their ranking which doesn't give any exposure to many good players from overseas if they are not called Nadal or Djokovic. Of course, no need to mention Federer, because he is a sitting tenant on CC.

As I haven't been to any other slams abroad, I don't know if they are as partisan as Wimbledon, but as a Brit I am embarrassed at how unwelcome foreign players must feel when they are, by and large, ignored at Wimbledon. This applies to the men and women. For the entire 2 weeks, ALL the media talk about are Murray, Edmund, Watson and Konta..........non stop. Consequently, a lot of great players are unknown in the UK.

 

[jaggy]

It rivals Cincy for sure

 

[Phoenix1983]

Wimbledon is the one every player wants to win.

Of course it is.

And to be the GOAT of the game, you must dominate Wimbledon.

 

[Steve0904]

Back in the good old days Wimbledon was the most prestigious major. Every bum in the street has heard of Borg, McEnroe and Becker, not quite every bum has heard of Lendl, Wilander or Courier. Winning Wimbledon gave you the greatest fame, at the oldest tennis tournament in the world, all that tradition etc. In the pre internet days Wimbledon would be the tournament everyone would watch on tele.

Now times have changed, It's very professional. For a young player their priority is to earn ranking points and money. Wherever that may be. If they can do it at Wimbledon that's nice, if not then every other tournament is not grass so they can afford to forget Wimbledon. Prestige does not give bonus rewards for them.

The media has changed too, we can watch them anytime, anywhere, replay their matches 100 times over. It doesn't just have to be at Wimbledon on a 1980's tele. Schwartzman can make a fool out of Isner with a behind-the-back shot and the whole world can see it, whatever tournament it's at.

While the social media has developed we've had Homogenization of Wimbledon so that it's more similar to other surfaces, enabling a non volleyer like Djokovic to win three times. Why would a player bother to learn a different style for grass, if it's possible to win by playing the same way as on hardcourt? This takes away a unique factor of Wimbledon.

Ofc players will still say Wimbledon is the most prestigious, because that's the PR thing to say. But if Thiem won the French next year his reputation would skyrocket, as much as Dimitrovs would if he won Wimbledon. In that sense the majors are equal.

Wimbledon does have the most history and tradition, but does anyone actually care about that today? Is it relevant?

Think this last bit is pretty accurate. As you say, players will always say they want to win Wimbledon above all other tournaments and they're probably being truthful, but I think the prestige "difference" between the 4 majors is so insignificant or negligible at this point that it really isn't relevant.

I also think it's ingrained in the minds of many (but not all) that Wimbledon is still the most prestigious, but it doesn't really take form in any noticeable way in everyday life/the media like it used to, and I'm ok with that.

I say the above as someone whose favourite tournament is Wimbledon.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Think this last bit is pretty accurate. As you say, players will always say they want to win Wimbledon above all other tournaments and they're probably being truthful, but I think the prestige "difference" between the 4 majors is so insignificant or negligible at this point that it really isn't relevant.

I also think it's ingrained in the minds of many (but not all) that Wimbledon is still the most prestigious, but it doesn't really take form in any noticeable way in everyday life/the media like it used to, and I'm ok with that.

I say the above as someone whose favourite tournament is Wimbledon.

I have been fortuante to travel the world, from Japan, to Bali, to Brazil, to Peru to Russia, and have spoken to many many non tennis fans and I always ask them one question. Do you know of any tennis tournament? 8 out of 10 have said Wimbledon.

 

[ojo rojo]

Three of the slams could've been mine if it wasn't for those pesky colonials.
They'll never take my Wimbledon though. And the French can keep their dirty red stuff

 

[Steve0904]

I have been fortuante to travel the world, from Japan, to Bali, to Brazil, to Peru to Russia, and have spoken to many many non tennis fans and I always ask them one question. Do you know of any tennis tournament? 8 out of 10 have said Wimbledon.

That's cool! You would probably get a similar answer if you asked non tennis fans here in Canada truthfully, but from a tennis fan's perspective I see the point of the OP in that a win at any major today is a massive increase in popularity for the player in question, whereas in years past Wimbledon was undisputed #1 as far as the correlation between winning it and player popularity went.

Also, today you don't see major counts devalued because player X has too many AO's for example.

 

[aditya123]

It's not every players dream to win Wimbledon .Agassi dint really put much focus on grass courts, Lendl's priorities were clearly Hardcourts and clay, Safin dint really think much about Wimbledon, Jim Courier, Kuerten, Wawrinka and there are many quality players whose aim is/was to win other slams

 

[meltphace 6]

For the relative lack of on court ads alone: Wimby > rest

~ Slazenger ~

 

[zep]

It's still the most prestigious as 9 out of 10 players would prefer to win Wimbledon if they are to win just one but in terms of quantifiable achievements it ranks alongside the other three majors. A win at Wimbledon is not more valuable as an achievement than at any other majors. For example both Kvitova and Azarenka would be ranked similarly as far as major titles go.

 

[NatF]

It's not every players dream to win Wimbledon .Agassi dint really put much focus on grass courts, Lendl's priorities were clearly Hardcourts and clay, Safin dint really think much about Wimbledon, Jim Courier, Kuerten, Wawrinka and there are many quality players whose aim is/was to win other slams

Lendl had a grass court constructed at his house and skipped the FO in the early 90's because he was so focused on Wimbledon.

 

[Mainad]

Wimbledon does have the most history and tradition, but does anyone actually care about that today? Is it relevant?

Yes, they do and so yes, it is.

 

[aditya123]

Lendl had a grass court constructed at his house and skipped the FO in the early 90's because he was so focused on Wimbledon.

Ok so apart from the lendl's part , remaining of my post is true , isn't it??? And coming to lendl wanting to winning a Wimbledon, am 100% sure that he just wanted to Wimbledon just once to complete the hole in his CV, whereas he wanted , he aimed at winning multiple Australian open's, Us opens and French opens.

 

[Mainad]

Ok so apart from the lendl's part , remaining of my post is true , isn't it??? And coming to lendl wanting to winning a Wimbledon, am 100% sure that he just wanted to Wimbledon just once to complete the hole in his CV, whereas he wanted as many other slams as much.

Rafa Nadal says in his biography that his uncle Toni told him from a very early age to focuss on winning Wimbledon because that was the one to win.

 

[True Fanerer]

Rafa Nadal says in his biography that his uncle Toni told him from a very early age to focuss on winning Wimbledon because that was the one to win.

From the uncle and coach of a ten- time RG winner. Really all one needs to know.

 

[aditya123]

Rafa Nadal says in his biography that his uncle Toni told him from a very early age to focuss on winning Wimbledon because that was the one to win.

It's not every players dream!! And why are you bringing Nadal into the discussion

 

[NatF]

Ok so apart from the lendl's part , remaining of my post is true , isn't it??? And coming to lendl wanting to winning a Wimbledon, am 100% sure that he just wanted to Wimbledon just once to complete the hole in his CV, whereas he wanted , he aimed at winning multiple Australian open's, Us opens and French opens.

I don't know what those other players aims were. Some of them were more interested in other slams for sure but I think for the majority Wimbledon is the one.

 

[Mainad]

It's not every players dream!!

Didn't say it was but it clearly is for many players.

And why are you bringing Nadal into the discussion

Isn't Nadal's views on Wimbledon as relevant as any other player's??

 

[Shaolin]

Still the most prestigious by far.

Wimbledon is the oldest and most renowned tournament. Centre court is tennis' most hallowed ground.

 

[aditya123]

Isn't Nadal's views on Wimbledon as relevant as any other player's??

His views on Roland garros are the most important than any others player's views on any other slams

 

[Mainad]

His views on Roland garros are the most important than any others player's views on any other slams

Can't think of anyone more qualified to air them!

 

[mike danny]

It still is i believe. However the ao has a strange emotional prestige to the players. Lots of massive emotion there not seen in the other majors. Dont they say the ao is the major of the players and fans?

The AO has certainly been the best major for a while in terms of quality of matches.

 

[mike danny]

Wimbledon is the one every player wants to win.

Unless your name is Nick Kyrgios.

 

[mike danny]

It's not every players dream to win Wimbledon .Agassi dint really put much focus on grass courts, Lendl's priorities were clearly Hardcourts and clay, Safin dint really think much about Wimbledon, Jim Courier, Kuerten, Wawrinka and there are many quality players whose aim is/was to win other slams

Lendl was obsessed with Wimb, what are you talking about?

 

[existential dread]

Maybe there should be a poll.
If you could win only one slam (or maybe only dominate at one slam), which would it be?

 

[canta_Brian]

It is still the case that for most British people, tennis is all about Wimbledon. I get really frustrated when discussing tennis with fellow Brits, that they are ignorant about who's won the AO, USO or the FO because they only watch tennis during the Wimbledon fortnight during which we are bombarded with hyperbole about Andy Murray, morning, noon and night. I get really fed up with the British players hugging the show courts irrespective of their ranking which doesn't give any exposure to many good players from overseas if they are not called Nadal or Djokovic. Of course, no need to mention Federer, because he is a sitting tenant on CC.

As I haven't been to any other slams abroad, I don't know if they are as partisan as Wimbledon, but as a Brit I am embarrassed at how unwelcome foreign players must feel when they are, by and large, ignored at Wimbledon. This applies to the men and women. For the entire 2 weeks, ALL the media talk about are Murray, Edmund, Watson and Konta..........non stop. Consequently, a lot of great players are unknown in the UK.

You do realise other countries have their own commentary teams and pick up the matches they choose?