Mar 28th, 2005, 02:53 AM
You know, I was just wondering, what makes a tournament prestigious? Is it longevity? Is it the amount of prize money? Is it the quality of players who enter the tournament? If so, how does a tournament get the very best players to enter? Does that go back to how much money is given out? Or is it the venue and accommodations? How do we separate the "popular" tournaments from "the prestigious" tournaments. The Australian Open is known as the most popular grand slam yet it is considered the least prestigious. Why? Is it because the other grand slams hold more tradition and history? How did the Nasdaq-100 tournament become known as the fifth major then? It's only been around for 20 years. Is it simply because of the amazing environment and hefty purse? I guess that what I'm trying to gather at here is which tournaments are considered "prestigious" and which tournaments are merely "popular." Just something aside from Serena and Maria for people to think and talk about. Oh, and one last note, in the 20 year history of the Nasdaq-100 Open, there has only been 9 winners. I find that astonishing. Everyone that has won the tournament can be considered greats of the game(well except maybe Sabatini). Look at these winners: Navratilova(1), Evert(1), Graf(5), Sabatini(1), Seles(2), Sanchez-Vicario(2), Hingis(2), V. Williams(3), and Serena Williams(3). I find it amazing that the list of winners bolds only hall of fame and hall of fame certained to be players. Is there any other tournament that bodes a more impressive winners list? Does this alone make the Nasdaq-100 a "prestigious" tournament, arguably the most pretigious non-slam tournament?