TennisForum.com - View Single Post - How is the Australian Open viewed as a "grand slam"

View Single Post

Old Jan 27th, 2013, 01:00 PM   #22
country flag Sam L
Sunset, Moonrise, Winter
 
Sam L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 31,530
Sam L has a reputation beyond repute Sam L has a reputation beyond repute Sam L has a reputation beyond repute Sam L has a reputation beyond repute Sam L has a reputation beyond repute Sam L has a reputation beyond repute Sam L has a reputation beyond repute Sam L has a reputation beyond repute Sam L has a reputation beyond repute Sam L has a reputation beyond repute Sam L has a reputation beyond repute
Re: How is the Australian Open viewed as a "grand slam"

Quote:
Originally Posted by thegreendestiny View Post
Not the grounds, but the tournament itself. Since when was AO considered a slam? Wasn't it sometime in the 80's? Historical, because of the historical figures who took part in the event. I don't remember the likes of Lenglen, Borg, Perry et al. caring to win this tournament during their times.


In all seriousness, Australia and other slams only gained their "slam" status in 1933.

Since then, the competition level at this slam has been weak with the exception of the 1960s and early 70s and from 1988 to now.

60s and early 70s was strong because Margaret Court was the dominant player of that time. Plus, Australia also had a lot of top female players during that time aside from Margaret.

1988 was a turning point for this tournament because it moved to a different location and different (unique) surface. All the top female players played in that 1988 tournament and it has continued until now with rare exceptions like injuries or careers winding down.
__________________
Have I not my talent left? Can I not, like Monica, Serena, Marion, acquire for myself what you would never have given me? - Bel Grugnito Diva

Pas de Quatre: Swan Lake, Giselle, The Nutcracker, Coppélia
Sam L is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote