PDA

View Full Version : Why is Wimbledon seen as the better slam?


*Karen*
Jul 10th, 2005, 01:32 PM
Why do some people think that winning wimbledon is a greater acheivement than winning other slams. A slams a slam isn't it?

Mattographer
Jul 10th, 2005, 01:34 PM
To Americans: Wimbledon = Superbowl or whatever it called :p

SJW
Jul 10th, 2005, 01:37 PM
a slam is a slam.
but Wimbledon is my home one
and i prefer it to all the rest
the history and prestige is unrivalled. Roland Garros tries but imo doesnt quite succeed :)

Craigy
Jul 10th, 2005, 01:48 PM
I love wimbledon.
But I would love to go to the US open.
I'm sure it would have a great atmosphere!

Sam L
Jul 10th, 2005, 01:55 PM
Historically, Wimbledon was THE ONE to win.

From the time the players started competing in foreign slams to around 1960's (pre-Open era), Wimbledon was that one every prominent player from around the world competed in. The French after it became open to foreigners in 1925 was second in prestige.

But Australian and US Championships lagged behind due to distance and lack of prestige.

In the 1920's they tried to call Wimbledon "The World Championships on Grass" but the Americans objected. They also tried to call French Open "The World Claycourt Championships".

But in when the Open-era started the US Open shot up in prestige, mostly due to prizemoney and by the time it was played in New York on hardcourts in 1978, it had probably taken over French Open as the more prestigious one. The Australian Open still lagged.

Around 1988, however, I believe all the slams had equalled now. And nowadays, really there's no difference between them all.

VRee_Willario
Jul 10th, 2005, 02:43 PM
Why do some people think that winning wimbledon is a greater acheivement than winning other slams. A slams a slam isn't it?
Don't even ask... It's The Ultimate and original Grand Slam! :worship: :worship:

lizchris
Jul 10th, 2005, 02:44 PM
Why do some people think that winning wimbledon is a greater acheivement than winning other slams. A slams a slam isn't it?

Because Wimbledon is the oldest of all the four Slams.

JennyS
Jul 10th, 2005, 03:02 PM
Wimbledon has the history behind it, but that doesn't actually mean that in the modern game it determines who the best players are. Richard Krajicek, Michael Stich, Goran Ivanisavic, Jana Novotna and Conchita Martinez won't be regarded as better players than Monica Seles, Ivan Lendl, Jim Courier, and Mats Wilander.

JennyS
Jul 10th, 2005, 03:20 PM
Here is a list of one time Slam winners that have been produced by each major since 1988 (when teh Aussie went to Rebound Ace and moved to the current facility)

Aussie Open: NONE

French Open: Iva Majoli and Anastasia Myskina

Wimbledon: Conchita Martinez, Jana Novotna and Maria Sharapova

US Open: Gabriela Sabatini, Svetlana Kuzentsova

Some of these players won their first Slam last year, but it's still interesting that of the four Slams, the Aussie Open is the ONLY slam not to produce a one-time Slam winner since 1988

TomTennis
Jul 10th, 2005, 03:32 PM
maybe the incentive of being a part of the "All Enlgand Lawn and Tennis Club" if you win...

..boy i would love to join that club!!! lmao.

But it is probably the tradition, and centre court being the most famous in the world.

ezekiel
Jul 10th, 2005, 03:32 PM
not the best slam, every other has its own thing.

It's just the most prize money, comes in the middle of summer and there is something quite pretty about green grass and tennis , on tv at least. Plus the british public is always so respectful unlike brit tabloids or crowds at RG.

Kart
Jul 10th, 2005, 03:59 PM
It's because people still buy into the arrogant tradition.

Wimbledon has nothing on the other slams IMHO apart from it's closer to home for me.

jimbo mack
Jul 10th, 2005, 04:11 PM
wimbledon just has that 'special' thing the other slams do not have

stenen
Jul 10th, 2005, 04:16 PM
It's a great slam but unfortunately also the greediest. For example, on the other slam websites you can listen and view the audio/video files for free, most of these cost on the Wimby site.

TF Chipmunk
Jul 10th, 2005, 04:43 PM
I think Wimbledon looks the nicest out of all the slams. But other than that, I wouldn't rank it a step higher than any others as they're all equal and can do wonders for anyone's career.

victory1
Jul 10th, 2005, 04:48 PM
I think Wimbledon looks the nicest out of all the slams. But other than that, I wouldn't rank it a step higher than any others as they're all equal and can do wonders for anyone's career.

That's true, winning any slam will put a player on the map. I love the US Open more then any other slam because MOST of the top players can play on hardcourt, while only a few can challenge on clay and grass.

Paneru
Jul 10th, 2005, 04:53 PM
To Americans: Wimbledon = Superbowl or whatever it called :p

Didn't Martina win Wimbledon once or twice
before she defected?

Anyways, she said all tennis players growing up want to win Wimbledon and if anyone says that they dream of winning RG over Wimbledon it's because they can't win at Wimbledon.

Navy sure does speak her mind. :lol:

samn
Jul 10th, 2005, 04:59 PM
Didn't Martina win Wimbledon once or twice
before she defected?



No. Navratilova defected to the United States during the 1975 US Open. She did win Wimbledon twice (1978 and 1979) as a stateless person before she became an American citizen in 1981.


Anyways, she said all tennis players growing up want to win Wimbledon and if anyone says that they dream of winning RG over Wimbledon it's because they can't win at Wimbledon.

Navy sure does speak her mind. :lol:

When did Navratilova say this? If she did, I think it's a load of baloney.

Knizzle
Jul 10th, 2005, 05:06 PM
It's the most prestigious slam in terms of notoriety. It's the oldest one and the one that is thought of as having the most tradition. Also there's just an aura about Wimbledon. But in this day and age it doesn't mean anymore in my eyes than any other slam as far as slam total and significance.

DA FOREHAND
Jul 10th, 2005, 05:11 PM
Like it or not Wimbledon Title is the crown Jewel of the slams...

Those who don't see it that way probably never had a fav. player who had a game that could win the biggest title in tennis.


Take a poll of all the tennis experts and Wimbledon would be tops....but of course they aren't experts when they say something you disagree with.

TheBoiledEgg
Jul 10th, 2005, 05:53 PM
to non-tennis folk
say the words
Aus Open, French Open and US Open and they will look at you like a dodo

say to them Wimbledon ...... they will know what you mean even though they got no idea about tennis, rules, scoring.

and for the players, Wimbledon is still the ONE Slam they would like to win more than the others.

JennyS
Jul 10th, 2005, 06:08 PM
Like it or not Wimbledon Title is the crown Jewel of the slams...

Those who don't see it that way probably never had a fav. player who had a game that could win the biggest title in tennis.


Take a poll of all the tennis experts and Wimbledon would be tops....but of course they aren't experts when they say something you disagree with.

IMO, the way Wimbledon is hailed as superior, more prestigeous, and cathedral-like is a great reflection of the sport of tennis is general. It's quite snotty and "exclusive" and pretty much a wealthy person's sport. Who the heck would want to spent $100-300 per racquet, $30+ for every string job, $2-3 per can of balls, and a zillion bucks for a year of lesson. Plus, if you want to be able to play regularly when the weather sucks, you've got to pay to play.

middy
Jul 10th, 2005, 07:06 PM
Tennis has always been about tradition, history and pride in the sport. Wimbledon encompasses all that unless you are a clay courter. It started in Wimby so for most players it carries a very special place in their hearts for them.

The weather and all the things that make winning Wimby even more special for players is also a testament to their mental strength.

manu32
Jul 10th, 2005, 07:49 PM
because better crowd,respect???

Paneru
Jul 10th, 2005, 08:53 PM
No. Navratilova defected to the United States during the 1975 US Open. She did win Wimbledon twice (1978 and 1979) as a stateless person before she became an American citizen in 1981.



When did Navratilova say this? If she did, I think it's a load of baloney.

Thanks.

She said it on ESPN Classic.
When they gear up for Wimbledon and do profiles on players
on Martina's story I believe that's when she says it.

saki
Jul 10th, 2005, 09:22 PM
It is the most prestigious GS for most players and it's the oldest and best known. But I don't think that winning Wimbledon is any more of an achievement than winning any other slam. These days, all four slams have the top players all trying to win the title. Getting through any GS draw is a phenomenal acheivement, no matter what the surface, and I don't think any more or less highly of players because of Wimbledon titles specifically. I do of players who can win GS titles on all four surfaces, though.

chris whiteside
Jul 10th, 2005, 09:56 PM
if anyone says that they dream of winning RG over Wimbledon it's because they can't win at Wimbledon.

Brilliantly put!

bobcat
Jul 10th, 2005, 10:17 PM
I think to the casual fan there may not seem like a big difference between the slams. But to players I would think it is. The traditions and history really do make it seem more special when you are a part of it. I doubt someone like Conchita would ever want to trade her Wimbledon title for another slam.

Declan
Jul 10th, 2005, 10:25 PM
They are all of equal value nowadays, but Wimbledon stands in front in terms of history and prestige.

XaDavK_Kapri
Jul 10th, 2005, 10:28 PM
I think to the casual fan there may not seem like a big difference between the slams. But to players I would think it is. The traditions and history really do make it seem more special when you are a part of it. I doubt someone like Conchita would ever want to trade her Wimbledon title for another slam.
I'm not sure, really, because in the books, Conchita Martinez winning Wimbledon as her only slam looks a lot more flukish than Conchita Martinez winning one French Open... Whenever I remind myself that she won Wimbledon, I always get this weird feeling. :lol: Not taking anything away from her, because she played brilliantly and still does at times, but as a fan, I would prefer to see her name on the Suzanne Lenglen Cup. But to her, I'm pretty sure she's very happy with her Wimbledon title :p cuz it was totally deserved.

ezekiel
Jul 10th, 2005, 10:52 PM
Anyways, she said all tennis players growing up want to win Wimbledon and if anyone says that they dream of winning RG over Wimbledon it's because they can't win at Wimbledon.



and all the players who say they'd rather win 10 wimbies instead of 1 RG are the ones who can't win RG and I am not looking at you Maria or Rog :tape:

SJW
Jul 10th, 2005, 11:08 PM
and all the players who say they'd rather win 10 wimbies instead of 1 RG are the ones who can't win RG and I am not looking at you Maria or Rog :tape:

im sure Rogi will win it one day. but he just has this thing for Wimbledon. and 3 in a row? he'll be owning Wimbledon for a long time to come.
Maria...she'll do good to win RG once methinks. she'll win the other slams, possibly more than once, but i think she'll have a hard time winning the clay major.
but you dont really make any point. im sure every player would prefer to win 10 slams than one :lol::cuckoo:

kosmikgroove
Jul 10th, 2005, 11:14 PM
Didn't Martina win Wimbledon once or twice
before she defected?

Anyways, she said all tennis players growing up want to win Wimbledon and if anyone says that they dream of winning RG over Wimbledon it's because they can't win at Wimbledon.

Navy sure does speak her mind. :lol:

im sure she'd be saying the same about Roland Garros if she was a claycourt specialist ;)

moon
Jul 11th, 2005, 12:56 AM
When I was a kid, and I didn't even know how to play tennis, I had heard of Wimbledon. Wimby is the most popular tourney across the world. US Open is not as popular in Europe. Roland Garros is not as popular in the US. Oz is not popular anywhere except Oz. But Wimbledon is popular EVERYWHERE.

mboyle
Jul 11th, 2005, 01:11 AM
To me, it is the hardest one to win. The very best players grow up on hardcourts. No one grows up on grass. Unlike clay, on which players can train and compete year round, grass is used just four weeks per year, and the differences it demands are stark. Grass also rewards quick reflexes, fast thinking, and complete players.

So, you will ask me, why do I not value hard court players who can play on clay? On clay, Gaston Gaudio and Albert Costa are grand slam winners over vastly superior players because clay rewards everything that tennis is not: unconventional, technically messed up shots, the ability to run around for about ten minutes in a single point, etc. Also, clay does not force people to make quick decisions. Clay rewards track stars, not tennis players.

The Australian Open is, to me, like Miami. There is not a history behind it, yet. Until it has that history, it will not have prestige. It is actually the slam most accurate about who the best players are, because the surface is so fair, but that does not really matter. I am a Red Sox fan, and let me tell you: Fenway park is a nightmare. Parking sucks, the location sucks, the layout is cramped, tickets are too expensive because there are not enough seats to sell, and everything feels dirty, oh and the food selection is sub-par. A couple years ago, there was this guy, something McCourt, who wanted to build a sleek, 50,000 seat stadium that would solve all the above problems. I wanted none of it. Prestige is not logical. It is just something you feel.

ezekiel
Jul 11th, 2005, 01:19 AM
im sure Rogi will win it one day. but he just has this thing for Wimbledon. and 3 in a row? he'll be owning Wimbledon for a long time to come.
Maria...she'll do good to win RG once methinks. she'll win the other slams, possibly more than once, but i think she'll have a hard time winning the clay major.
but you dont really make any point. im sure every player would prefer to win 10 slams than one :lol::cuckoo:

I wouldn't be sure that Rog can win RG simply this kid Rafa is simply too good for it and that was his first time there if I remember correctly . If you watched their match last month and I am sure you did, you'd agree too and Rafa is just starting at 19. It would take extraordinary circumstances for it to change

As far as Sharapova, we can believe anything we want but there is precious little to base our opinion on.

Oh and my initial point was that there was a comparison drawn by both Maria and Rog where they said they'd rather win 10 wimbies instead of say 9 wimbies and one RG but it also seems they left plenty to open speculation.:tape: But hey who wouldn't want 10 slams anyway ? :lol:

Paneru
Jul 11th, 2005, 03:05 AM
No. Navratilova defected to the United States during the 1975 US Open. She did win Wimbledon twice (1978 and 1979) as a stateless person before she became an American citizen in 1981.

According to NBC she was still
technically a Czech citizen when
she won those two Wimbledons.

matthieu_tennis
Jul 11th, 2005, 03:27 AM
i think us open has the best atmosphere out there :P

matthieu_tennis
Jul 11th, 2005, 03:28 AM
wimbledon, everybody wear white clothing omg its boring to see

cabowabo77
Jul 11th, 2005, 03:39 AM
Here is a list of one time Slam winners that have been produced by each major since 1988 (when teh Aussie went to Rebound Ace and moved to the current facility)

Aussie Open: NONE

French Open: Iva Majoli and Anastasia Myskina

Wimbledon: Conchita Martinez, Jana Novotna and Maria Sharapova

US Open: Gabriela Sabatini, Svetlana Kuzentsova

Some of these players won their first Slam last year, but it's still interesting that of the four Slams, the Aussie Open is the ONLY slam not to produce a one-time Slam winner since 1988
Granted, he is a man, and this is the women's tennis forum, but doesn't it only take one exception to disprove a theory? So with that being said, Thomas Johansson?

Alize's#1fan
Jul 11th, 2005, 03:58 AM
Wimbledon is just that Special Tournament...its the all time accomplishment.

Prizeidiot
Jul 11th, 2005, 07:27 AM
It's all the tradition

The first major tennis tournament was held there (World Amateur Championships 1877) And Wimbledon and the U.S Open have been around longer than the other two slams. And it was Wimbledon that was the driving force behind the "Open Era" announcing it would be open in 1968 regardless of the ILTF's rejection of Open Tennis.

And also the fact that it's the only slam, and one of few tournaments still held on grass, makes it a pretty special tournament.

margaret_gn
Jul 11th, 2005, 10:21 AM
put it this way... is Maria Sharapova as famous as she is now because of her looks and glamour (as has been pointed out by the other Russians and the media), or because her one grand slam title is WIMBLEDON, as opposed to Myskina's French Open or Kuznetsova's US Open? I do think it's a combination of both, if she had won the french (the only slam on clay) and Myskina won Wimbledon, I don't think Maria would've been as famous as she is now. Wimbledon's all about prestige and tradition, and every player feels special to win there no matter how many other slams they've won before :) (regardless of whether or not these were in Wimbledon - *think Roger and how much he wanted to achieve the Hat Trick; seemingly more than wanting a second Aus Open or his first French Open title :worship: )

Oizo
Jul 11th, 2005, 10:55 AM
Nowadays I think all slams have the same value. But: Wimbledon has this special aura, not only because it kept the tradition in demanding the players to compete in white clothes (Tennis was being called "the white sport" in the past) but also kept the one surface, that was in the past at almost every touney: GRASS. It's fast, it's wicked and it's challengeing. In the end: it's SPECIAL! So the journalists, the media and the tennisplayers who recognize this regard Wimbledon as THE BIGGEST one to win. If you win Wimbledon, you are immortal in the tennis-history. You have made it, like they would say.

I honestly prefer the French Open over Wimbledon. I think it's the taughest Grand-Slam to win. But that's just my opinion. I just love clay-courts and the sliding on the surface. It's not only SLAM-BANG!, you have to work your point out and not just serve good. But that's another story. Still I recon that Wimbly it THE ONE slam to win. It's like the whip-cream on the cake, or the jewel on the crown. It's on TOP, it's on the highest level.

Andy T
Jul 11th, 2005, 11:18 AM
I think there are several elements:

It's the oldest.

It also has the longest tradition of attracting all the top players. Lenglen, Wills, Connolly, Tilden, Perry et al MADE their names and reputations at Wimbledon. It thus became accepted that you couldn't be a true great without sustained success at the AELTC.

It was, until the mid 70s, (ie for 100 years) played on the surface used by three of the traditionally dominant tennis nations - Australia, the US and the UK.

The intimacy of centre court, the reverence of the crowd, the royal connection, etc, have combined to create the atmosphere of awe and respect which many liken to that in a cathedral. The players have often remarked on this themselves, too.

Since top-flight grass court tennis has largely disappeared from the US and Australia, Wimbledon is unique in a way it wasn't before.