...no RG or no Wimby? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

...no RG or no Wimby?

Breakdown
09-30-2006, 02:26 PM
:wavey:
Sorry, if it's been discussed before:o
Just want to know your opinion about this::cool:

If you were a tennis pro, would you rather win all GSs but Roland Garros(like Sampras:angel: , Federer, Hingis(unlikely), Davenport(never will)) or everything except Wimby(like Seles:) , Lendl, Wilander, Henin-Hardenne(not in foreseeable future))?

Andre♥
09-30-2006, 02:27 PM
Not winning Wimbledon is worse than not winning Roland Garros, imo.

ys
09-30-2006, 02:32 PM
:wavey:
Sorry, if it's been discussed before:o
Just want to know your opinion about this::cool:

If you were a tennis pro, would you rather win all GSs but Roland Garros(like Sampras:angel: , Federer, Hingis(unlikely), Davenport(never will)) or everything except Wimby(like Seles:) , Lendl, Wilander, Henin-Hardenne(not in foreseeable future))?

Add Edberg, Connors, Becker to the first list, and , conditionally, McEnroe.. Yes, the first group is amuch better list.

Hendu
09-30-2006, 02:33 PM
I would prefer to win RG, but the great players who didn't win Wimbledon tend to be unfairly uderrated.

Hendu
09-30-2006, 02:34 PM
Add Edberg, Connors, Becker to the first list, and , conditionally, McEnroe.. Yes, the first group is amuch better list.

And Vilas to the second list.

Eden
09-30-2006, 02:40 PM
As Wimbledon is for most people the tournament with the most tradition I would say Wimbledon, but just have a look to the list with players who haven't won Roland Garros. I think players like Edberg and Sampras still regret that they never won that tournament, whilst on the other hand Lendl probably still regrets not to have the Wimbledon trophy.

Breakdown
09-30-2006, 02:46 PM
Add Edberg, Connors, Becker to the first list, and , conditionally, McEnroe.. Yes, the first group is amuch better list.

Thanks, ys!:)
McEnroe was great but he hadn't won AO(?), so he doesn't belong to the 1st group.:sad:

And Vilas to the second list.

Had Vilas:angel: won all but Wimby?? Didn't know that...

Hendu
09-30-2006, 02:57 PM
Had Vilas:angel: won all but Wimby?? Didn't know that...

won

1977 Roland Garros (def. Brian Gottfried 6-0 6-3 6-0)
1977 US Open (def. Jimmy Connors 2-6 6-3 7-6 6-0)
1978 Australian Open (def. John Marks 6-4 6-4 3-6 6-3)
1979 Australian Open (def. John Sadri 7-6 6-3 6-2)

finalist

1975 Roland Garros (lost to Björn Borg 2-6 3-6 4-6)
1977 Australian Open (lost to Roscoe Tanner 3-6 3-6 3-6)
1978 Roland Garros (lost to Björn Borg 1-6 1-6 3-6)
1982 Roland Garros (lost to Mats Wilander 6-1 6-7 0-6 4-6)

DrJules
09-30-2006, 03:03 PM
Of the 5 most successful players by Grand Slam titles won, ALL have won Wimbledon (Sampras 14, Emerson 12, Laver 11, Borg 11 and Federer 9) and 2, Sampras and Federer, have failed to win the French Open.

There does seem to be a greater correlation between Wimbledon winners and greatness.

The only players I could identify who have won 5 or more grand slams without winning Wimbledon are Lendl and Wilander.

Players who have 5 or more without winning the French Open includes Sampras, Federer, Connors, McEnroe, Becker and Edberg. A very impressive list.

Overall winning Wimbledon is essential to being considered great and winning the French Open is necessary to differentiate yourself from the other greats. After winning a few Wimbledons, I feel that the French Open was/is more inportant for Sampras and Federer.

Melvins
09-30-2006, 05:45 PM
Maybe, I prefer win Wimbledon. Isn't my favourite Grand Slam (US Open is the TOURNAMENT), but Wimbledon is a classic.

Roland Garros is better than Wimbledon to watch tennis, so it's har to choice. However, a hardcort player has more dificult in clay than grass.

tennisgal_001
09-30-2006, 05:51 PM
If I was a pro, I'd love to hold all four. But if I had to choose, I'd take a Wimbledon crown over a French any day. IT doesn't mean I'd give up on RG (i.e. Sampras).
As Fed says, "Wimbledon will always be the ONE for me".

revolution
09-30-2006, 06:03 PM
I'd rather win Wimbledon.

But if there was one slam I could live without most it would be AO.

Merton
09-30-2006, 06:37 PM
Elementary economics, the value of the next grand slam is greater when you have zero than when you have a strictly positive number of titles already in the bank.

Macbrother
09-30-2006, 06:38 PM
Wimbledon is almost universally recognized as the most prestigious event in tennis; it's the oldest, and has the most history and tradition. Furthermore, the *truly* great ones (Borg, Sampras, etc) all dominated there. If you have to pick, you definitely want that one imo.

BlackSilver
09-30-2006, 06:41 PM
Wimbledon is almost universally recognized as the most prestigious event in tennis; it's the oldest, and has the most history and tradition. Furthermore, the *truly* great ones (Borg, Sampras, etc) all dominated there. If you have to pick, you definitely want that one imo.

Prove it

GlennMirnyi
09-30-2006, 06:51 PM
Prove it

He's right. Wimbledon shows who are men between the boys.

BlackSilver
09-30-2006, 06:57 PM
He's right. Wimbledon shows who are men between the boys.

1)Based on what?

GlennMirnyi
09-30-2006, 07:03 PM
1)Based on what?

You're late for the Arseclown Championship this year.

It used to separate moonballers from good players. Now it's not that selective, but it still counts for past years.

Hendu
09-30-2006, 08:28 PM
You're late for the Arseclown Championship this year.

It used to separate moonballers from good players. Now it's not that selective, but it still counts for past years.


What do you mean with moonballers?

Bremen
09-30-2006, 10:00 PM
Isn't moonballers a term for clay court specialists?

wcr
09-30-2006, 10:33 PM
Isn't moonballers a term for clay court specialists?


I thought it was a quote for the juniors circuit.:eek:

jenanun
09-30-2006, 10:40 PM
i would prefer to win both RG and Wimbledon, but no USO or AO....

but if i have to choose between RG and Wimbledon...

got to be Wimbledon......

i mean no RG....

*Viva Chile*
09-30-2006, 10:45 PM
What do you mean with moonballers?
GlennMirnyi hates clay and claycourters, that's all :rolleyes:

CooCooCachoo
09-30-2006, 10:57 PM
Not RG.

tangerine_dream
09-30-2006, 11:02 PM
Prove it

:lol: :cuckoo:

Tennis history "proves it". You will not find a tennis historian anywhere in the world who would consider RG more prestigious than Wimbledon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Championships,_Wimbledon

The Championships, Wimbledon, commonly referred to as simply "Wimbledon", is the oldest and arguably most prestigious event in the sport of tennis.

ys
09-30-2006, 11:07 PM
What do you mean with moonballers?

Players, generally with relatively little talent ,not skillful enough to be able of generating a fast ball, equally not capable of handling one, and therefore only a threat on slow surfaces.

alfonsojose
10-01-2006, 12:15 AM
RG has been won but too many one hit wonders :shrug:

Macbrother
10-01-2006, 01:20 AM
Prove it

An interesting statistic: As of 2006, the last six, 8 of the last 9, 11 of the last 13, and 13 of the last 17 French Open men's singles championships were won by men who did not win any other type of Grand Slam tournament. How many 1-slam or 1-surface wonders have won Wimbledon in the last 19 years? 3. The prize money for Wimbledon is higher than for any other event in men's tennis, including all 3 other slam tournaments. The age and the tradition of the tournament has already been mentioned. Roland Garros is certainly nothing to scoff at by any stretch, but again, if you have to pick, you've gotta go Wimbeldon.

TennisGrandSlam
10-01-2006, 03:08 AM
RG has been won but too many one hit wonders :shrug:


Many RG winners (males) is One Slam Wonder. :)

TennisGrandSlam
10-01-2006, 03:17 AM
NO RG - Newcombe, Connors*, Edberg, Becker, Sampras, Federer* (Active Player)

NO Wimbly - Vilas, Wilander*, Lendl


* - Small Slam

1974 - Connors (Australian Open, Wimbledon, US Open)
1988 - Wilander (Australian Open, Roland Garros, US Open)
2004 - Federer (Australian Open, Wimbldeon, US Open)
2006 - Federer (Australian Open, Wimbldeon, US Open)

silverarrows
10-01-2006, 03:40 AM
Wimbledom is the most prestigious Grand Slam Tournament on the planet. I'd pick Wimby! ;)

ys
10-01-2006, 04:03 AM
Incredibe! Common sense prevails here. I must be dreaming.

Breakdown
10-01-2006, 07:16 AM
Many RG winners (males) is One Slam Wonder.


I think it's strange. I'm not good at statistics, but over the last, say 20 years, why it happens at RG and not at AO?

DrJules
10-01-2006, 07:32 AM
An interesting statistic: As of 2006, the last six, 8 of the last 9, 11 of the last 13, and 13 of the last 17 French Open men's singles championships were won by men who did not win any other type of Grand Slam tournament. How many 1-slam or 1-surface wonders have won Wimbledon in the last 19 years? 3.

I think it is easier to adapt from grass to other surfaces than from clay to other surfaces.

On grass, you learn to adapt to variabilities in speed and bounce which happen faster than on other surfaces. It is probably easier to adapt to having more time on other surfaces.

On clay, players have more time to play shots. It is necessary to adapt to having more time.


Most would agree it is easier to adapt to doing things when you have more time whereas the reverse is far more difficult.

TennisGrandSlam
10-01-2006, 09:17 AM
I think it's strange. I'm not good at statistics, but over the last, say 20 years, why it happens at RG and not at AO?

One Slam wonder


Roland Garros

Chang (1989) - actually, he is not a clay court expert)

Andres Gimeno (1972), Panatta (1976), Andres Gomez (1990), Muster (1995), Moya(1998), Costa (2002), Ferrero (2003) - all are clay court experts

Noah (1983) - Home player




Australian Open

Johansson, Korda, Teacher, Roscoe Tanner, Vitas Gerulaitis, Edmondson, Bowrey

Eden
10-01-2006, 09:21 AM
One Slam wonder
Roland Garros


Add Andres Gomez to it, who won the tournament in 1990 ;)

Boris Franz Ecker
10-01-2006, 09:37 AM
What a stupid question, Wimbledon is the most important tennis tournament, French Open is nothing in comparison.
Federer knows that and even Nadal knows that.

In the 70ies the French Open were dead.
Who knows that Borg won it 6 times? Detail knowledge.
Borg is usually known for his Wimbledon performance, same with other greats.

TennisGrandSlam
10-01-2006, 10:37 AM
Add Andres Gomez to it, who won the tournament in 1990 ;)

Add Andres Gomez to it, who won the tournament in 1990 ;)

OK, he won Agassi in the final.

User id 7816
10-01-2006, 11:40 AM
I guess I'd prefer to win the one to which my game would be less suited, which would surely be Wimby. more fun to do this and leaves people :eek: :scratch: :confused: but not any other reason.

tennisgal_001
10-01-2006, 05:07 PM
One Slam wonder


Roland Garros

Chang (1989) - actually, he is not a clay court expert)

Andres Gimeno (1972), Panatta (1976), Andres Gomez (1990), Muster (1995), Moya(1998), Costa (2002), Ferrero (2003) - all are clay court experts

Noah (1983) - Home player


Gaudio (2004), another one-Slam wonder hit at the French.

Hendu
10-02-2006, 02:20 AM
Players, generally with relatively little talent ,not skillful enough to be able of generating a fast ball, equally not capable of handling one, and therefore only a threat on slow surfaces.

"to be able of generating a fast ball, and being capable of handling one"

is that your definition for Tennis talent?

:tape:

Hendu
10-02-2006, 02:25 AM
In the 70ies the French Open were dead.
Who knows that Borg won it 6 times? Detail knowledge.
Borg is usually known for his Wimbledon performance, same with other greats.

MTF gets funnier every day... :rolls:

:o

Chrisie
10-02-2006, 06:48 AM
I'm a Francophile, so RG of course.

Boris Franz Ecker
10-02-2006, 07:39 AM
MTF gets funnier every day... :rolls:

:o

What was wrong?
Look at the poor Vilas with all his slam success in 77 and no-one thought he was no 1 of the year. He won the French Open.
Who knows pictures of Borg as a French Open winner? nobody.
So, what was wrong?
Ok, nothing of course.

But please..., such answers...

Action Jackson
10-02-2006, 07:48 AM
What was wrong?
Look at the poor Vilas with all his slam success in 77 and no-one thought he was no 1 of the year. He won the French Open.
Who knows pictures of Borg as a French Open winner? nobody.
So, what was wrong?
Ok, nothing of course.

But please..., such answers...

What are you on about?

Breakdown
10-02-2006, 11:00 AM
Who knows pictures of Borg as a French Open winner? nobody.

Maybe those pictures just don't exist anymore?:eek:

Boris Franz Ecker
10-02-2006, 11:35 AM
Maybe those pictures just don't exist anymore?:eek:

Of course, they exist, but they are never shown.
It's simply not the thing for which Borg is famous.

Castafiore
10-02-2006, 11:55 AM
It's simply not the thing for which Borg is famous.
Are you trying to be silly on purpose or does that come natural to you?;)

http://www.kskssports.com/ksks_sports/sports_illustrated/1980s/images/si8188.jpeg
:worship:


What Borg is most known for - as far as I am concerned, is being able to win the double: Roland Garros + Wimbledon in the same year.

Dancing Hero
10-02-2006, 12:19 PM
I'd rather win Wimbledon than Roland Garros definitely. Wimbledon is THE no.1 tournament in the sport. With a greater amount of prestige than RG world-wide, with all respect to RG. You almost have to win Wimbledon to be considered a true great whereas the same is not true if you don't win the French. If you have Wimbledon, you don't really need RG.

Jogy
10-02-2006, 01:08 PM
If you achieve so much that you win three different Slams, but not four then you can be sorry about not to win RG or Wimbledon. But Wimbledon is rated higher and brings you more fame and money and mentions for advertisment and so.

What are you on about?
I think many people wondering the same when they read some things from you :lol: :p

With serious now, I understand all but last two lines: The poster want to say that Vilas was #1 with a very great year, but he still was very unnoticed in 1977 because he not won Wimbledon. And he wants to say that if a player won Wimbledon and French Open, not many people remember picture of RG Trophy, but that Wimbledon success is in memory the most.

mongo
10-02-2006, 03:05 PM
Players who win at Wimbledon tend to stockpile those wins and thus are included in the GOAT debate. IMO, winning W is overvalued, especially since (1) there is no legitimate grass court season, and (2) it definitely consists of the weakest draw because many players are happy to win a round or two, if they bother to show up. Historically, Wimbledon has been the easiest slam to repeat.

By contrast, RG is the most difficult to repeat. Winning RG 3 times is a rarified feat, but also undervalued.

That's just the way it is.

GlennMirnyi
10-02-2006, 05:11 PM
GlennMirnyi hates clay and claycourters, that's all :rolleyes:

Wrong. I hate moonballers. A kind of claycourter that ys defined really well.

BlackSilver
10-02-2006, 11:34 PM
Players, generally with relatively little talent ,not skillful enough to be able of generating a fast ball, equally not capable of handling one, and therefore only a threat on slow surfaces.

God....


Incredibe! Common sense prevails here. I must be dreaming.

It's not, and will desapair even more if you keep "helping" with you common sense




What a stupid question, Wimbledon is the most important tennis tournament, French Open is nothing in comparison.
Federer knows that and even Nadal knows that.

In the 70ies the French Open were dead.
Who knows that Borg won it 6 times? Detail knowledge.
Borg is usually known for his Wimbledon performance, same with other greats.

......



Wimbledom is the most prestigious Grand Slam Tournament on the planet.

Prove it.




I'd rather win Wimbledon than Roland Garros definitely. Wimbledon is THE no.1 tournament in the sport. With a greater amount of prestige than RG world-wide, with all respect to RG. You almost have to win Wimbledon to be considered a true great whereas the same is not true if you don't win the French. If you have Wimbledon, you don't really need RG.


Wonderful little history. Prove it

BlackSilver
10-02-2006, 11:34 PM
You're late for the Arseclown Championship this year.

It used to separate moonballers from good players. Now it's not that selective, but it still counts for past years.

So? That's not proving anything.

Are you lying to me GlennMirnyi? Are you trying to convince me that Wimbledon is more prestigious because you like it or dislike RG for some idiotic reason? That's ugly. You shouldn't do that.




Good to see that you understand about tennis tangerine-dream. Let's start


Tennis history "proves it".

And HOW exactly it proves this?

You will not find a tennis historian anywhere in the world who would consider RG more prestigious than Wimbledon.

Really?
Prove it


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Championships,_Wimbledon

The Championships, Wimbledon, commonly referred to as simply "Wimbledon", is the oldest and arguably most prestigious event in the sport of tennis.

It's my impression or there is the word "arguably" before the word prestigious over there?

BlackSilver
10-02-2006, 11:35 PM
An interesting statistic: As of 2006, the last six, 8 of the last 9, 11 of the last 13, and 13 of the last 17 French Open men's singles championships were won by men who did not win any other type of Grand Slam tournament.

Interesting indeed.

But anyway, I don't see a relation between this and the "prestigious" argument.


How many 1-slam or 1-surface wonders have won Wimbledon in the last 19 years? 3.

How many "one slam wonders" won UsOpen in the last 19 years?


The prize money for Wimbledon is higher than for any other event in men's tennis, including all 3 other slam tournaments.

That's a tricky argument. I would like to see the numbers. From where you get them?

Anyway, it has been ALWAYS this way? If not, then this number doesn't have relevance. If yes, then it has a small importance. For some players only, since the difference isn't big


The age and the tradition of the tournament has already been mentioned.

Age and tradition doesn't comprove that is the most prestigious. By any stretch of imagination.

BlackSilver
10-02-2006, 11:37 PM
But Wimbledon is rated higher

By who?


and brings you more fame

Based on what?


and money and mentions for advertisment and so

Maybe but that's not a synonymous of Wimbledon being the most prestigious


And he wants to say that if a player won Wimbledon and French Open, not many people remember picture of RG Trophy, but that Wimbledon success is in memory the most.

Again, based on what?

ys
10-03-2006, 01:13 AM
By who?


By majority of tennis players. By majority of 6 billion human beings who would know what Wimbledon stands for and who would not know what Roland Garros is.. Sure, I would not rule out Roland Garros winning it in MTF freakos poll..

GlennMirnyi
10-03-2006, 02:01 AM
By majority of tennis players. By majority of 6 billion human beings who would know what Wimbledon stands for and who would not know what Roland Garros is.. Sure, I would not rule out Roland Garros winning it in MTF freakos poll..

He's the new player of Brazil in the AAC. I'm glad to know that Renato and myself are not alone anymore!!!

Hey big boy, you "something-silver"... tell me then why does everybody want to win Wimbledon? Why there are movies with Wimbledon in its background and not the FO? Something to wonder...
Some RG player can barely make a decent volley (like Nadal, but not only). You simply can't respect someone that has no ability like that.

And if you disagree about what ys posted about moonballers, you know absolutely NOTHING about tennis. Most claycourters are moonballers, with very few exceptions.

Rafa = Fed Killa
10-03-2006, 02:04 AM
Clay = athletecism
Grass = ballet

GlennMirnyi
10-03-2006, 02:10 AM
Clay = athletecism
Grass = ballet

Tennis was born on grass man, stop trying so hard to get some attention.

Rafa = Fed Killa
10-03-2006, 02:12 AM
Tennis was born on grass man, stop trying so hard to get some attention.

Sports like people evolve.

I will enlighten you Glenn. Your mind is diseased.

ys
10-03-2006, 02:26 AM
Clay = athletecism
Grass = ballet

Clay tennis is to grass tenins, what marathon is to decathlon.

cmurray
10-03-2006, 02:27 AM
Sports like people evolve.

I will enlighten you Glenn. Your mind is diseased.

Good God. Do you two fight in every thread???? :lol:

oz_boz
10-03-2006, 08:34 AM
Wimbly is the most prestigious one, RG or USO comes after - depends on if you ask a European or an American - and AO last.

BlackSilver
10-10-2006, 05:48 AM
By majority of tennis players.

Maybe, maybe not. It would be need to do a survey with all the players to be sure. I wouldn't be surprised if Wimbledon has some advantage between most of the players. Anyway, good to see you making a reasonable post for a change, and probably one of the few, if not the only one, of this thread.


By majority of 6 billion human beings who would know what Wimbledon stands for and who would not know what Roland Garros is

Of course that after this, something like that had to come.





tell me then why does everybody want to win Wimbledon?


And what makes you think that everyone wants to win Wimbledon my son?


Why there are movies with Wimbledon in its background and not the FO?

Maybe because Holllywood is located in USA, an english speaking country, just like the one where Wimbledon is hosted, where their biggest champions happened to won it?


Some RG player can barely make a decent volley (like Nadal, but not only). You simply can't respect someone that has no ability like that

I don't see how this affect RG's global prestige or its prestige between the players. And some, actually a LOT of fast-court players can also barely make a decent volley


And if you disagree about what ys posted about moonballers, you know absolutely NOTHING about tennis. Most claycourters are moonballers, with very few exceptions

Yes, I discorded about his exaggerated comment about the limitations of clay players. But I made that quote mainly due to his lack of common sense into thinking that the average hardcourter being the opposite of that.

Macbrother
10-10-2006, 06:07 AM
Interesting indeed.

But anyway, I don't see a relation between this and the "prestigious" argument.


Go look up the definition of prestige.


How many "one slam wonders" won UsOpen in the last 19 years?


Relevance? But to answer your question: Far less than Roland Garros.

That's a tricky argument. I would like to see the numbers. From where you get them?


Atptennis.com. Wimbledon, at 8.8 million is the largest purse. Not a huge issue, but just another little thing that points towards Wimbledon.


Age and tradition doesn't comprove that is the most prestigious. By any stretch of imagination.

Once again, go look up the definition of prestige before spouting such nonsense as the above quote.

Edit: Oh, and get out of here with this "prove it" crap. The very nature of this question is subjective and therefore no one here's going to prove anything except pointing out examples and evidence as to why Wimbledon is usually hailed as the greatest of the four.

Boris Franz Ecker
10-10-2006, 08:47 AM
Are you trying to be silly on purpose or does that come natural to you?;)


What Borg is most known for - as far as I am concerned, is being able to win the double: Roland Garros + Wimbledon in the same year.

Borg? ah, the guy with the double...
Do you really, I mean really - apart from your stupid answer above - think that?
I don't believe so.

Borg is at first known for his Wimbledon performance and the picture that stays in people's mind shows Borg down on his knees at Centre Court, Wimbledon.
Nobody can seriously dispute that.

Boris Franz Ecker
10-10-2006, 09:02 AM
The prize money for Wimbledon is higher than for any other event in men's tennis, including all 3 other slam tournaments.

That's wrong and changes
At the moment: Masters Cup>US Open>Wimbledon.

Apart from that, of course, Wimbledon has the highest prestige. Nobody can dispute that.

Macbrother
10-10-2006, 04:33 PM
I was referring to the overall purse, which U.S. Open is ~8million, Wimbledon is ~8.8 million (USD) and the Masters cup is of course far less with a smaller draw. (This is according to atptennis.com) The winners may be different but I thought all were around ~1.2 million for the championship. Anyways like I said it's a small issue and we agree in principle.

jacobhiggins
10-12-2006, 12:48 AM
Wimby without question!

BlackSilver
10-15-2006, 07:08 PM
Go look up the definition of prestige.

"standing or estimation in the eyes of people : weight or credit in general opinion
2 : commanding position in people's minds"

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Prestige


Being so, Wimbledon clearly isn't the absurd thing that you said Wimbledon is almost universally recognized as the most prestigious event in tennis"







Relevance? But to answer your question: Far less than Roland Garros.

Relevance? Think about what you said. Here are your words
How many 1-slam or 1-surface wonders have won Wimbledon in the last 19 years? 3
If one of the criterions used by people to decide which one is the most prestigious is: the less the number of one slam or one surface wonders that won the tournament, the better it is, then the USOpen is more prestigious than Wimbledon, contradicting what you said here: Wimbledon is almost universally recognized as the most prestigious event in tennis"
And far less than Wimbledon too to be more precise



Atptennis.com. Wimbledon, at 8.8 million is the largest purse. Not a huge issue, but just another little thing that points towards Wimbledon.

Good point. But look here: http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/vault/archive.asp?year=1999&caltype=gs
or here http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/vault/archive.asp?year=2001&caltype=gs
Wimbledon is only being the biggest payer in the last three years, while USOpen has been since at least 1997, with the exception of 1997 when was RG and 2003 when was AOpen. So Wimbledon isn't going to get the preference of the players only because it paid more in a short time span of three years.



Once again, go look up the definition of prestige before spouting such nonsense as the above quote.

Age and "tradition" (what the hell is "Wimbledon tradition" anyway?) have little if any importance here. Wimbledon is barely older than the USopen and not significantly older than RG to make any difference. Besides these are secondary factors.



Edit: Oh, and get out of here with this "prove it" crap. The very nature of this question is subjective and therefore no one here's going to prove anything except pointing out examples and evidence as to why Wimbledon is usually hailed as the greatest of the four.

Stop using crap argument as you did originally with
[/QUOTE]Wimbledon is almost universally recognized as the most prestigious event in tennis; it's the oldest, and has the most history and tradition. Furthermore, the *truly* great ones (Borg, Sampras, etc) all dominated there. If you have to pick, you definitely want that one imo.

All_Slam_Andre
10-15-2006, 08:13 PM
In the open era, great players who haven't won the French Open are Becker, Connors, Edberg, Federer, Newcombe and Sampras. Great players who haven't won Wimbledon are Lendl, Rosewall and Wilander (before anyone mentions Vilas he isn't a great player as he only won 4 grand slams).
It seems that in general players find it harder to adapt to the clay at Roland Garros than the grass at Wimbledon.
I personally would rather have no RG on my CV, than no Wimby. It seems to me that single grand slam champions who have won Wimby (i.e. Stich, Ivanesevic, Krajicek) get more recognition and fame than those whose solitary title is the French (Costa, Gomez, Gaudio etc)