Tennis Forum banner
1 - 20 of 56 Posts

·
Chionophile
Joined
·
40,190 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Please participate.

Rank them and then give them a weight out of 1 preferably. For example, I would put mine as:

Wimbledon: 1.00
US Open: 0.75
French Open: 0.70
Australian Open: 0.50

What do you think? Criterias for prestige include history, prizemoney, strength of competition. And I'll have 1.00 as the most prestigious or the standard and the lesser the number the less prestigious the grand slam is against that 1.00. Also this is for entire history. Keep in mind, the Australian Open only got to the level it is today around about 1988.
 

·
Adrenaline junkie
Joined
·
24,878 Posts
I am not clear what is "ALL-TIME prestige"..
Besides, I would think that prestige-wise it could be different for men and women..
 

·
Adrenaline junkie
Joined
·
24,878 Posts
Sam L said:
Just general, for both men and women. I don't see what's different between men and women anyway aside from the fact that women got less money mostly except the US Open.

So yeah that's why I have US open slightly ahead of French.
OK, if we are talking about "money", then what has "ALL-TIME" got to do with that..

AO is a Slam, when few players are in agood form, plus, it was historically unimportant up to some point. So I agree, it is 0.5

FO is a good championship on good surface, but because that surface is not popular in two major tennis areas - North America and Australia, it is 0.8

Wilmbledon is a tournament on completely obsolete surface, that is mostly unavailable for playing public in most of the world. The tournament is considered as much less important that, say, RG, by players from Southern Europe, Eastern Europe and South America. But due to the traditions - 0.85.

US Open provides the most democratic surface, on which almost all players feel more or less comfortable, provides the biggest prize money, generates the biggest, by far, income, and recently gives the best possible matchups in later stages of the tournament ( last three USO finals - Sampras-Agassi, Sampras-Hewitt, Sampras-Safin, while the only match of similar caliber at last three of other three Slams could be Ivanisevic-Rafter). - 1.0
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,939 Posts
It depends on competition and history:

Wimbledon- this is like the combo of OZ and Usopen in terms of surface and draw...


USopen- It is the best overall but because it is still younger than wimbly makes it second best and also take into consideration the fact that most of the top players are american, makes it more visible in its home turf and therefore attracts more attention than the other slams.


Roland Garros- History only makes this more prestige than Australian.

Australian- Too damn early in the year and no time to build a good tourney........no time to pre-hype any good drama.......the fact that Serena was gonna shoot for the serena slam, started a year before and would conclude at OZ, made it more interesting this year. Plus Martina N and Agassi only made it interesting but that came in the end......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,079 Posts
Wimbledon - 1
US Open - .9
Roland Garros - .85
Australian Open - .35

Sorry, but many skipped the Australian early on, so, less prestige.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,472 Posts
How novel, one could rate past champions by adding up the points earned at all the slams using weighted tournament points. Hmm does not bode well for Hingis. :eek:
 

·
Chionophile
Joined
·
40,190 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
TSequoia01 said:
How novel, one could rate past champions by adding up the points earned at all the slams using weighted tournament points. Hmm does not bode well for Hingis. :eek:
Yep, that's the idea. ;)

And I wanted to get a general concensus going but it seems we can't even agree that Wimbledon is the most prestigious Grand Slam by far. :confused:

Yes you're right about Hingis, unfortunately if somebody wins the majority of their slams in Australia, it doesn't look too good for a prestigious career.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,459 Posts
Wimbledon: 1.00
French: 0.75
US Open: 0.75
AO: 0.6

Wimbledon is the most prestigious slam. Like Navratilova said, if you ask a player which slam they would like to win most, and they don't say Wimbledon, it's because they know they can't win it.

Each of the four slams has their own uniqueness definitely. The AO is at the beginning of the year and is played on a very slow hardcourt with a high bounce. It produces unlikely winners, and also alot of repeat champions. Hingis won thrice, Capriati twice, Seles three times. It may be the toughest slam to win. The French is a clay courter's dream, and on the men's side especially, the clay court specialists are always the favorites. For the women, it's the most wide open slam. Good for the return of serve specialist. Wimbledon used to be were the serve and volleyers got off, but now they are almost non-existent. Wimbledon is now reserved for big serves, and strong baseline strokes. Wimbledon has always seemed to be reserved for a certain few. Tons of repeat champions at Wimbledon. In the last 20 years, only 8 people have won Wimbledon, and 4 of them won multiple times. The US Open is like the wildcard of the bunch. By the time the US Open comes around, everyone in the field should be adjusted to American hardcourts. Baseliners rule here. Big serves are a good tool, but can be caught up to at this slam. I really don't know how to describe the US Open. Someone can help me out on this one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,730 Posts
Wimbledon 1.0
Roland Garros .75
US Open .50
Australian Open .25


Wimbledon hands down has the history and is supposedly every player's dream Slam. The Australian Open is the wild child Slam, always scheduled at the worst time and for a long time considered the least important and most likely to be skipped. Roland Garros won out over the US Open for me because 1) more prestigeous history and 2) never changed its surface.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,144 Posts
Personally I find this notion of "prestige" a little antiquated, it simply does not exist anymore, and if it does it is an intangible quality. Can some please define it for me. What do these point systems really mean? That you have to win 2 or 4 Australian Opens just to equal the worth of one wimbledon? :rolleyes: The slams are all equal to eachother. Wimbledon may have the history but it is played on a surface that it made to suit very few modern day players. The Australian Open may be early in the year, and once upon a time didn't attract that greatest fields but now it loses nothing compared with the other slams in favour of competition. Infact, along with the US Open it is the fairest for all types of players. What was happening 30 years ago hardly has an impact on how important each of the slams are now. A slam is a slam.
 
1 - 20 of 56 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top