Should Wimbledon still be considered the most important Slam? - MensTennisForums.com

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 65 (permalink) Old 06-09-2005, 12:57 AM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 291
                     
Should Wimbledon still be considered the most important Slam?

Wimbledon has always been seen as the most prestigeous Grand Slam, and some consider it a "must" for an all-time great player to win. Martina Navratilova said a couple years ago that if any player says Wimbledon isn't the major they want to win then they aren't capable of winning it. I would guess that Andre and Andy probably rank the US Open ahead of Wimbledon.

A lot of folks complain about all the fluke winners and finalists (Costa, Verkerk, Gaudio and Puerta) at the French Open, and blame it on the surface. However, you could argue the same about grass. Alexander Popp and Ivo Karlovic would probably be favored over Rafael Nadal, Guillermo Coria and Carlos Moya at Wimbledon, but would be underdogs at the other three majors.

A lot of folks are probably going to judge Roger's greatness on how many times he can win the big W. However, wouldn't it be more impressive if he could win the US Open 6 or 7 times?

The force will be with you, always.
JennyS is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 65 (permalink) Old 06-09-2005, 01:00 AM
Registered User
 
Chloe le Bopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Munchkin Land
Posts: 28,276
                     
Re: Should Wimbledon still be considered the most important Slam?

I would be more impressed if he won the USO 6 or 7 times since there are more contenders on that surface. Not to imply that doing it at Wimbledon isn't impressive.

Regardless, I'm in the minority. Most people want to dry hump Wimbledon and I will never understand it. At least not in the modern day I won't.

Nav and Sampras talking about Wimbledon as the only slam that matters means about as much to me as it would if Guga said that Roland Gaross is the only slam that ever interested him. It's easy to talk up the slam that you won the most.

I lack direction.

Chocking makes me sad.
Chloe le Bopper is offline  
post #3 of 65 (permalink) Old 06-09-2005, 01:03 AM
RAVE ON
 
buddyholly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: LUBBOCK TX
Posts: 15,502
                     
Re: Should Wimbledon still be considered the most important Slam?

Absolutely!

JOIN THE CHURCH OF THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER TODAY
buddyholly is offline  
post #4 of 65 (permalink) Old 06-09-2005, 01:03 AM
Registered User
 
Sjengster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Somewhere fairly shingly
Age: 31
Posts: 11,359
                     
Re: Should Wimbledon still be considered the most important Slam?

You're not in the minority on this board, that's for sure. As always, 'tis a case of different (ground)strokes for different folks. I prefer the natural Slams myself, so I would much rather Federer won some more Wimbledons and also managed a RG title along the way.

The bias of the English-speaking media and public towards Wimbledon is annoying, but also somewhat inevitable - over here it's our home Slam, the only tennis event that will receive any high-profile coverage, and there seems very little anyone can do to convince people that the tennis season lasts for more than just four weeks a year. I'm all in favour of Slam democracy myself.

The Wit and Wisdom of the Tennis Journalist, Indian Wells 2004

ROGER FEDERER: Yeah, I remember this one time when I went on a vacation on the Maldives. That was in the year 2001, I think. I went to this spa. I went to walk around with my girlfriend. I walk in, and we want to book a spa. This guy goes, "AHH, I remember you. You beat Sampras. I saw you on TV." That was like, really, how can you remember me? This guy has probably never been off his island and still knows me. I was a little bit shocked. Then I went to play tennis with him because he was actually the tennis teacher. It was nice.

Q. Were you naked at the time in the spa?

ROGER FEDERER: No. It was at the front desk. I didn't walk in naked.

Last edited by Sjengster; 06-09-2005 at 01:08 AM.
Sjengster is offline  
post #5 of 65 (permalink) Old 06-09-2005, 01:06 AM
RAVE ON
 
buddyholly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: LUBBOCK TX
Posts: 15,502
                     
Re: Should Wimbledon still be considered the most important Slam?

Just joking. They are all equal in ''Slam'' terminology. You might want to argue that Wimby is a more important tournament than RG or the Aussie Open, but it is exactly 25% of the road to a Grand Slam.

JOIN THE CHURCH OF THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER TODAY
buddyholly is offline  
post #6 of 65 (permalink) Old 06-09-2005, 01:12 AM
Fed Fo Mod
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: On vacation...
Age: 45
Posts: 11,233
                     
Re: Should Wimbledon still be considered the most important Slam?

It just is and probably always will be considered so. I don't think anything will change this.
NYCtennisfan is offline  
post #7 of 65 (permalink) Old 06-09-2005, 01:23 AM
Registered User
 
Sjengster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Somewhere fairly shingly
Age: 31
Posts: 11,359
                     
Re: Should Wimbledon still be considered the most important Slam?

Just to add: people are always fond of generalising in the big clay/grass debate, when they mention the least attractive characteristic of the surface and apply it universally to every match played on it, when it is not the case. There's no doubt that clay overall has more depth than grass, but that rings a little hollow when Nadal has just had a 24-match winning streak on clay snapped; equally, implying that grass is the best and most natural surface for tennis when it is played on for 4 weeks of the year doesn't really carry much weight. These two surfaces always polarise fan opinion, but if the surface balance on what is still fundamentally a hardcourt tour could be made more equal, tennis would be all the better for it. No more ridiculous calendar crowding, no more specialised seedings, no more player boycotts, and a new generation of players equipped with the skills to succeed at both RG and Wimbledon. In theory, at least.

The Wit and Wisdom of the Tennis Journalist, Indian Wells 2004

ROGER FEDERER: Yeah, I remember this one time when I went on a vacation on the Maldives. That was in the year 2001, I think. I went to this spa. I went to walk around with my girlfriend. I walk in, and we want to book a spa. This guy goes, "AHH, I remember you. You beat Sampras. I saw you on TV." That was like, really, how can you remember me? This guy has probably never been off his island and still knows me. I was a little bit shocked. Then I went to play tennis with him because he was actually the tennis teacher. It was nice.

Q. Were you naked at the time in the spa?

ROGER FEDERER: No. It was at the front desk. I didn't walk in naked.
Sjengster is offline  
post #8 of 65 (permalink) Old 06-09-2005, 01:50 AM
country flag ys
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,044
                     
Re: Should Wimbledon still be considered the most important Slam?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chloe
I would be more impressed if he won the USO 6 or 7 times since there are more contenders on that surface.
And whose problem is that? It is much more remarkable to be that good in something very few others are.. Wimbledon is pure tennis skills, tennis least influenced by what racquet technology brought into sports. Reaction, reflexes, soft hands. The times when the haters would say that Wimbledon is serve only has gone. 3 last Wimbledons were won by baseliners. Roddick can win US Open with big serve. He can't do the same at W.

Whose tennis is more enjoyable? One of Henman or one of Puerta?
ys is offline  
post #9 of 65 (permalink) Old 06-09-2005, 02:10 AM
Registered User
 
Scotso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Baltimore, MD
Age: 33
Posts: 70,027
                     
Re: Should Wimbledon still be considered the most important Slam?

Sorry, but it's not true. Wimbledon was never the most important... as they're all equal in the points reguard... and prestige is relative... most hispanic players (a good number of tennis players) hold Roland Garros more sacred.


Le Poussin! Faithfully ignoring the haters since 1995.

Le Poulailler de Poussin! (Simontarded.)

Ron Paul for President 2012!
Scotso is offline  
post #10 of 65 (permalink) Old 06-09-2005, 02:12 AM
Registered User
 
Scotso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Baltimore, MD
Age: 33
Posts: 70,027
                     
Re: Should Wimbledon still be considered the most important Slam?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ys
And whose problem is that? It is much more remarkable to be that good in something very few others are.. Wimbledon is pure tennis skills, tennis least influenced by what racquet technology brought into sports. Reaction, reflexes, soft hands. The times when the haters would say that Wimbledon is serve only has gone. 3 last Wimbledons were won by baseliners. Roddick can win US Open with big serve. He can't do the same at W.

Whose tennis is more enjoyable? One of Henman or one of Puerta?
Puerta's is.

And every tennis commentator (except the extremely biased) would say you are dead wrong. Roland Garros is the hardest slam to win, and requires the most skill. A big server can win Wimbledon, even with little other talents.


Le Poussin! Faithfully ignoring the haters since 1995.

Le Poulailler de Poussin! (Simontarded.)

Ron Paul for President 2012!
Scotso is offline  
post #11 of 65 (permalink) Old 06-09-2005, 02:12 AM
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
Aphex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Hässelby
Posts: 2,809
                     
Re: Should Wimbledon still be considered the most important Slam?

Puerta.
Aphex is offline  
post #12 of 65 (permalink) Old 06-09-2005, 02:15 AM
-LIFETIME MEMBER-
 
Aphex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Hässelby
Posts: 2,809
                     
Re: Should Wimbledon still be considered the most important Slam?

And I think the evil hardcourt slams are the most difficult to win, since more players figure they have a chance at them.
Aphex is offline  
post #13 of 65 (permalink) Old 06-09-2005, 02:22 AM
Registered User
 
lina_seta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Age: 28
Posts: 3,201
                     
Re: Should Wimbledon still be considered the most important Slam?

mmm nop.. Wimbledon is the most prestigious GS no doubt
cuz they make it like a royalty event something like that...

but if it werent the most prestigious and important GS why would they make a movie about it and not on HC or clay?

mm well i like it more than others...
hard court too common, clay too dirty
and grass season is the shortest, thus most special

lina_seta is offline  
post #14 of 65 (permalink) Old 06-09-2005, 02:25 AM
Registered User
 
robinhood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,271
                     
Re: Should Wimbledon still be considered the most important Slam?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lina_seta
hard court too common, clay too dirty
and grass season is the shortest, thus most special
My thought exactly!

FEDERER 17 & Counting (fingers crossed)
SAFIN 2 and Out (T.T)


THE SAN FRANCISCO GIANTS WS CHAMPS 2010 & 2012

GIANTS SHARKS NINERS WARRIORS A'S RAIDERS
robinhood is offline  
post #15 of 65 (permalink) Old 06-09-2005, 02:30 AM
Registered User
 
Lady Natalia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 637
                     
Re: Should Wimbledon still be considered the most important Slam?

I believe part of the answer to this question of Wimbledon is it's age. It's the oldest of the Slams. Tennis is big on history and tradition. For decades, the French would allow foreigners. The Aussie was considerably further and not considered that as important (up until the early 90s). And then there's the US which was widely popluar, but not as historical as Wimbledon. The other Slams, over the years moved locations, changed surfaces(expect RG), but Wimbledon stayed the same.

All that is changing. Of course, the French have opened their gates for decades now. In the last 10 years, the Aussie has been picking up speed, and attracting tennis to Asian countries. Wimbledon and the US are still the great events they always have been. Wimbledon or more so Centre Court has the adavantage because of age!

PROUD PASSENGER ON THE FEDERER EXPRESS - SEAT 126
LUXURY BOX

Last edited by Lady Natalia; 06-09-2005 at 02:33 AM.
Lady Natalia is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the MensTennisForums.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome