Most Prestigious slam [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Most Prestigious slam

Pages : [1] 2

WyveN
03-20-2004, 12:05 AM
"Wimbledon is widely recognised as being the most prestigious tournament of
all."

- Source: official French Open web site

Chloe le Bopper
03-20-2004, 12:08 AM
[EDIT]

I'm not sure why you bothered making a poll.

Chloe le Bopper
03-20-2004, 12:14 AM
Those of you interested in context, feel free to read the entire article: http://www.fft.fr/rolandgarros/en/grandchelem.htm

There you will also find: Winning Roland-Garros is every player's dream

Amazing what you can do by taking things completely out of context and trying to prove a point with them.

Angelito
03-20-2004, 12:19 AM
I think all of them are prestigious, but for example the French Open is much more prestigious for Spaniards, Argentines, French, Southamerican in general, and Wimbledon could be considered more prestigious for the rest of the Europeans and maybe Americans.
So, I think all of them are more or less the same but of course Wimbledon and Roland Garros have more history and as a consequence they tend to be considered more prestigious than the others.

But If we look at the draws of each one of them we'll see the same number and level of players and they give the same amount of points, so they all are pretty much the same thing.

Chloe le Bopper
03-20-2004, 12:25 AM
Agreed, Angelito.

The complete disregard for the opinions of the PLAYERS who PLAY the events that I've seen shown by many a poster, is just embarassingly ignorant. The hilarity of the arguements that these blowhards come up with is unreal. Prepare yourself.

Angelito
03-20-2004, 12:38 AM
Believe me, I'm used to all the freaks that hang around this site, by the way I love your signature.

Hugs.

WyveN
03-20-2004, 12:56 AM
Those of you interested in context, feel free to read the entire article: http://www.fft.fr/rolandgarros/en/grandchelem.htm

There you will also find: Winning Roland-Garros is every player's dream

Amazing what you can do by taking things completely out of context and trying to prove a point with them.

Notice how they didn't say "Winning Roland-Garros is widely recognised as every player's biggest dream"

Yet their description of Wimbledon is "Widely recognised as most prestigious".

Your the one taking things out of context. Who is denying any slam is a player's dream?
And I made a poll because I can.

armaniman
03-20-2004, 03:44 AM
Prestige is what it means to each individual player.....a natural hardcourter born american will dream of flushing meadows while for brits.... being first guy since perry in the 20's and in front of your own country on surface british tennis breeds on is the fairytale.

Wimbleodn will get most peoples votes purely down to the history and where it all began....but roland garros is very very special in its own rights and got something about it to be up there.

Dont want to diss the australian open but its always goign to be seen as 4th slam in preference, maybe its because of macenroe getting himself defaulted or the surprise winners of it or what....

but for prestige and history wimbledon and roland garros have to be top 2.

CooCooCachoo
03-20-2004, 06:10 AM
Well, making a poll for this seems a bit rhetorical. We all know that Wimbledon will be the big winner in this poll (I voted for it too), because of the tradition and basically just because everybody is saying it's the most prestiguous to win. Of course it depends on your nationality or game which Grand Slam you find most prestiguous to win, in general, nothing can top Wimbledon. And I am not surprised the US Open has received no votes yet, because commercialism does not add to the prestige of a Grand Slam.

CooCooCachoo
03-20-2004, 06:12 AM
Dont want to diss the australian open but its always goign to be seen as 4th slam in preference, maybe its because of macenroe getting himself defaulted or the surprise winners of it or what....

I completely disagree with you. For me, the Australian Open has a great ambience, or at least it comes across like that on TV. In fact, I think it's more of a tournament for the real fans; it's more open, more welcoming (again, judging from the media). It would be third on my list, but with a huge lead on the US Open and a small distance from Roland Garros and Wimbledon. I like this tournament a lot.

Smankyou
03-20-2004, 06:26 AM
All slams are created equal...


Dont want to diss the australian open but its always goign to be seen as 4th slam in preference

I don't know many australians that feel this way. It's all a matter of different perceptions.

WyveN
03-20-2004, 07:35 AM
I think all of them are prestigious, but for example the French Open is much more prestigious for Spaniards, Argentines, French, Southamerican in general, and Wimbledon could be considered more prestigious for the rest of the Europeans and maybe Americans.
So, I think all of them are more or less the same but of course Wimbledon and Roland Garros have more history and as a consequence they tend to be considered more prestigious than the others.


umm US Open is older then the French Open

WyveN
03-20-2004, 07:39 AM
Dont want to diss the australian open but its always goign to be seen as 4th slam in preference, maybe its because of macenroe getting himself defaulted or the surprise winners of it or what....


Lots of players snubbing it until recently. Doesn't have much history, it has gained a lot in prestige but still behind the other 3.


but for prestige and history wimbledon and roland garros have to be top 2.

US Open is older then French Open

J. Corwin
03-20-2004, 08:23 AM
Wimbledon is overall most prestigious, but definitely not considered the biggest.

WyveN
03-20-2004, 08:32 AM
What do you mean by biggest?

J. Corwin
03-20-2004, 08:38 AM
As in..."biggest title of the year".

Action Jackson
03-20-2004, 08:42 AM
Since when has the biggest meant best or most prestigious?

Domino
03-20-2004, 08:51 AM
To the Americans, always. Why do you think they always call their Open, the biggest, the last and best slam of the year. I, however, think that it is a sham considering how people rush to watch it when two Americans are in the final, and then ratings plummet when two non-Americans are in the final (Rafter def Rusedski 97, Rafter def The Poo 98).

WyveN
03-20-2004, 08:52 AM
Doesn't that just mean the organiers/fans over there are pretty silly and obviously don't appreciate good tennis?

J. Corwin
03-20-2004, 09:00 AM
Since when has the biggest meant best or most prestigious?

I never said biggest = more prestigious

I think you read wrong.

J. Corwin
03-20-2004, 09:01 AM
To the Americans, always. Why do you think they always call their Open, the biggest, the last and best slam of the year. I, however, think that it is a sham considering how people rush to watch it when two Americans are in the final, and then ratings plummet when two non-Americans are in the final (Rafter def Rusedski 97, Rafter def The Poo 98).

I don't know if this was directed at me or not. I never said I thought the US Open to be the biggest or best.

Domino
03-20-2004, 09:19 AM
WyvN: Fans create the atmosphere for a tournament. If they are unable to appreciate good tennis, then they are unable to produce a good atmosphere for the slam. I mean, Nalbandian - Roddick last year made me feel ashamed that I was American. That idiot fan calling "Out" and screwing Nalbandian up ruined everything.
Jackson: That was not directed at you, I was just saying that the majority of Americans have the picture of, bigger = better, from what I have seen.

Action Jackson
03-20-2004, 09:31 AM
I never said biggest = more prestigious

I think you read wrong.

I was actually joking with you jackson. Though there are some genii you think if it's the biggest it's automatically the best or most prestigious, which is absolute rubbish.

Domino, you forgot organisation skills and not treating fans as braindead cattle in addition to your previous points.

~EMiLiTA~
03-20-2004, 09:35 AM
Dont want to diss the australian open but its always goign to be seen as 4th slam in preference, maybe its because of macenroe getting himself defaulted or the surprise winners of it or what....

Ok, I agee that, when it comes to history and tradition, RG and Wimby take the cake (and my personal choice would be RG), but I just want to say that the Australian Open is, in fact, an excellent tournament and all the players love to come and play there. It is very well organised and the facilities are well geared-up..at least they are sensible enough to have 2 courts with roofs unlike Wimby, who don't seem to want to break with any of their stuffy traditions, even if it benefits the tournament and players. I've also heard from various players and coaches that I know that Wimby doesn't treat the players as well as some other tournaments and, as we know, they have their own seeding system, which I find rather arrogant. I've also heard that they don't like the US Open because it's very far out and well, we don't need to comment further about that ghastly Arthur Ashe stadium, do we? Admittedly, I have only been to the Australian Open...for the others I am only going by what some players and coaches say, but I can say that the Aus Open is an extremely fan-oriented tournament and also the tickets are very reasonable and there is no hassle to get them at all. I'll be going to RG this year too, so maybe I can comment on that afterwards.

WyveN
03-20-2004, 09:45 AM
Ok, I agee that, when it comes to history and tradition, RG and Wimby take the cake

Fair enough if you or anyone else picks FO and Wimbledon but as I have mentioned before don't justify it with history/tradition as the US Open is actually older then the French.

~EMiLiTA~
03-20-2004, 10:49 AM
yes, but sadly, I wouldn't call it a tournament that associates itself with its "tradition" and "past" even if it does have a longer one that RG...it is just trying to be more brash and commercialised than ever, which supercedes the fact that it is older...I would say that RG and Wimby are more simple and traditional in that regard.

Domino
03-20-2004, 11:00 AM
I think the U.S. Open fails in tradition because the fifth set is decided in a tiebraker, when the other three at least stick with going on until someone wins by two games.

WyveN
03-20-2004, 11:08 AM
The advantage in tradition that FO/Wimbledon have over USO/AO is that they are played on original natural surfaces that tennis was originally played on.
Hardcourts are relatively modern and artificial

Action Jackson
03-20-2004, 11:15 AM
Both good points by Domino and Wyver.

It would be good if all the Slams could be run like the AO and the French. Then again that would be asking too much.

WyveN
03-20-2004, 11:18 AM
isn't getting tickets to the FO really nasty?

In Australia all you do is show up on the day

Action Jackson
03-20-2004, 11:21 AM
It can be a bit difficult with the initial ballot, but for the players it's very organised.

Though the AO ticket policy is easily the most logical, and I was very lucky that I had connections to get me FO tickets.

Chloe le Bopper
03-20-2004, 01:07 PM
isn't getting tickets to the FO really nasty?

In Australia all you do is show up on the day
I've never had any problems getting tickets for the US Open either. I bought ahead of time, but only like, two days ahead of time

Angelito
03-20-2004, 02:41 PM
umm US Open is older then the French Open

History is not only made of years but also of actions, events, culture, etc. So, if almost everyone here think that Roland Garros has actually more history than the US Open I guess it's because they share my conception about history.

That's why I said RG and Wimbledon have more history than the others, not because how old they are.

WyveN
03-20-2004, 09:15 PM
History is not only made of years but also of actions, events, culture, etc. So, if almost everyone here think that Roland Garros has actually more history than the US Open I guess it's because they share my conception about history.

That's why I said RG and Wimbledon have more history than the others, not because how old they are.

in what way does it have more history, just interested?

if all slams are equal in prestige, and FO is equal to Wimbledon, why is the FO website lying?

Angelito
03-20-2004, 09:58 PM
in what way does it have more history, just interested?

if all slams are equal in prestige, and FO is equal to Wimbledon, why is the FO website lying?

I guess you should ask that to FO website webmaster, not me.
And because the FO site is saying that doesn't mean is the absolute and only truth.

Anyway I'm not trying convince anyone I'm just giving my opinion, that's all.

I don't think the subject is that interesting to argue anymore I've said it all in my first post of this thread.

Billabong
03-20-2004, 10:15 PM
Wimbledon;)!

AgassiFan
03-20-2004, 10:15 PM
As a kid I used to love RG the most since it's what I firts watched, but now?

USO
Wimbly
FO
AO

Wimbly, objectively, has more history and prestige than USO, but I like the surface, the aesthetics, autumn in NYC, etc much more. They all count the same anyway, so who cares.

Chloe le Bopper
03-20-2004, 10:26 PM
in what way does it have more history, just interested?

if all slams are equal in prestige, and FO is equal to Wimbledon, why is the FO website lying?
The US media says that the USO is the biggest tourament of the year, and that everybody who is anybody wants it more than anything.

Just because something is "widey regarded" as something, does not mean that everybody feels that way, nor does it mean that it's entirely true.

You'll notice that this is what the FO site... it did not say "Wimbledon is the biggest slam in the world, the most prestigious." It said that it was widely considered to be. There is a distinction here, that most readers of the English language should be able to make.

That said, I'm sure there are tons of guys who want to win Wimbledon the most. Overall, if you did a poll, I will assume that those guys would win out. It's just not the case for everybody. That is, and always has been my arguement on this one.

Chloe le Bopper
03-20-2004, 10:28 PM
... that, and the fact that grass is a DEAD surface, takes away from the "prestige" that Wimbledon used to have. IMO, that tournament's "prestige" is all locked up in the days of yore. These days, it's much bigger to win RG, imo. Of course, it depends on who we're talking about. I highly doubt that Hewitt would turn in his Wimbledon for RG... much like I doubt Juan Caros would do the same. I'll never be convinced that one of those is worth more than the other.

Kiara
03-20-2004, 10:30 PM
Wimbledon to me because Im english it's an English tradition ..and in England *most* non-tennis fans will know who the Wimbledon champion is whereas they may not necessarily know won the USO.

Although did anyone catch the show where Graham Norton had Johnny Mac as a guest and he went to him "that guy who won wimbledon, he just fell out of the sky didnt he...?" I was so embaressed and JMac just smiled. :o

Kiara
03-20-2004, 10:57 PM
Just because grass an obsolete surface doesnt take away from the tradition and dignity and prestiege associated with Wimbledon.Im not sure if it's "the slam to win" but it's still a great tournament regardless of the surface,the fact that tennis is only played on grass for three weeks in a year is what makes grass court tennis so beautiful and special and in my eyes it hasnt lost it's status. However it will if do it ever switches to a synthetic surface and I sincerely hope it doesnt!

I have no idea which slam the players consider to be the most prestigious, it depends on the player, for someone like Roddick it's likely to be his home slam, for many european players it's Roland Garros but from a fan standpoint my pick is Wimbledon.

RoddickPride
03-20-2004, 11:03 PM
Wimbledon!!!!!!!!

WyveN
03-20-2004, 11:25 PM
The US media says that the USO is the biggest tourament of the year, and that everybody who is anybody wants it more than anything.


That is just ego/advertising. Obvious difference is that this was on the FO website, if it was on the Wimbledon official site I wouldn't take notice.


Just because something is "widey regarded" as something, does not mean that everybody feels that way, nor does it mean that it's entirely true.


The claim I am making, which is backed by the FO web site, is that W is "widely recognized" as most prestigious, not that every single person/fan/player in tennis concurs. (as this forum proves)

WyveN
03-20-2004, 11:26 PM
... that, and the fact that grass is a DEAD surface, takes away from the "prestige" that Wimbledon used to have. IMO, that tournament's "prestige" is all locked up in the days of yore. These days, it's much bigger to win RG, imo.

Surface doesn't affect prestige (certainly not if your deciding between grass and clay) and if anything, the fact that it is virtually the only tournament on grass makes it more special

PinkFeatherBoa
03-20-2004, 11:47 PM
I'd say
Wimbledon
FO
USO
AO

TennisLurker
03-20-2004, 11:48 PM
The claim I am making, which is backed by the FO web site, is that W is "widely recognized" as most prestigious, not that every single person/fan/player in tennis concurs. (as this forum proves)

You used to find it hard to believe that a clay courter would rather win the french open and not wimbledon, and insinuated that they said that because of their inability to win on grass.
According to you, secretly they crave Wimbledon, you know. :rolleyes:

Maybe you changed your opinion.

AgassiFan
03-20-2004, 11:49 PM
... that, and the fact that grass is a DEAD surface, takes away from the "prestige" that Wimbledon used to have.

Quite the opposite actually.

IMO, that tournament's "prestige" is all locked up in the days of yore. These days, it's much bigger to win RG,

To whom? To Ferrero? Yes. To Coria? Yes.

To Sampras, Agassi, Becker, Edberg, Federer, Safin, Roddick, Nabaldmandian, Hewitt, Courier thre is no contest. Sorry.

If I knew Agassi would win 2 of the remaining 3 slams this year, I would no doubt wish he win Wimbly and USO. If only 1, it would have to be USO.

Deboogle!.
03-20-2004, 11:52 PM
I picked Wimbledon... but I'm not really quite sure why.

Maybe because Wimbledon is just sort of associated with tennis. I know a lot of people who know nothing about tennis/aren't fans, but they know what Wimbledon is and stuff. You say "US Open" to them and they might think of golf or something else, but you say Wimbledon and they know what it is and often they even know it's played on grass and that it's in London, etc.

I mean maybe the USO is advertised in this country as being the biggest deal and sure, for a lot of the American players that is the one they'd want to win (for example, I think if Andy never wins another slam, he will be happy that the USO is the one he has, over Wimby or FO or AO), but on the other hand, everyone watches "Breakfast at Wimbledon" on NBC the morning of July 4th weekend. It's a tradition, and the TV Coverage for Wimbledon, especially considering the time difference, is really almost as good as that for the USO (at least from what I recall, it's entirely true that I'm 100% wrong lol).

SO... yeah. Wimby just has the "feel" of more prestige to me.

TennisLurker
03-20-2004, 11:55 PM
That is not true for Safin, the french open is the most important tournament for him.
I am not sure it is true for Nalbandian.You should learn to spell his surname BTW.

Chloe le Bopper
03-21-2004, 12:34 AM
Quite the opposite actually.



To whom? To Ferrero? Yes. To Coria? Yes.

To Sampras, Agassi, Becker, Edberg, Federer, Safin, Roddick, Nabaldmandian, Hewitt, Courier thre is no contest. Sorry.

You know, if you had continued reading the post and not taken a comment completely out of context, you might have noticed that I addressed this with my Hewitt-Ferrero example.

Becker, Edberg, Courier, and Sampras are retired by the way, so they don't have much relevance to what I was saying. Which was that I'm sure that the majority would say Wimbledon, but not all of them would.

Me hates repeating me self.

Chloe le Bopper
03-21-2004, 12:36 AM
Quite the opposite actually.

This of course, is just an opinion. And not one that I agree with. But I can sleep with us disagreeing.

Chloe le Bopper
03-21-2004, 12:39 AM
You used to find it hard to believe that a clay courter would rather win the french open and not wimbledon, and insinuated that they said that because of their inability to win on grass.
According to you, secretly they crave Wimbledon, you know. :rolleyes:

Maybe you changed your opinion.
This was exactly what he argued last time that this came up, and it was a frighteningly delusional arguement at best.

Perhaps he's changed his tune since then.

Of course Wimbledon is the most "widely recognized". Every chance that the old England clubs gets to say "we rule", they say it. Every media outlet pretends to write about tennis says it.

The media eez a powerful thing.

WyveN
03-21-2004, 12:45 AM
This was exactly what he argued last time that this came up, and it was a frighteningly delusional arguement at best.


I still say that the vast majority of the Spanish guys would pick Wimbledon over the French Open if they were equal contenders in both.

It will be interesting if Nadal becomes a good clay court/grass player to hear his comments.


Of course Wimbledon is the most "widely recognized". Every chance that the old England clubs gets to say "we rule", they say it. Every media outlet pretends to write about tennis says it.


Only in this case it is not the old England club saying it, it is the official French Open website.

WyveN
03-21-2004, 12:48 AM
Besides some people don't agree most prestigious = title that players most want to win. I think Jackson made that point earlier on.

Chloe le Bopper
03-21-2004, 12:48 AM
I still say that the vast majority of the Spanish guys would pick Wimbledon over the French Open if they were equal contenders in both.

And I still think that this arguement is a burning pile of shit, and that you are being an old blowhard. You like WImbledon more, so clearly they HAVE to too.

It will be interesting if Nadal becomes a good clay court/grass player to hear his comments.

Those of us who pay attention, can read his comments NOW, and not have to wait. He wants to win Wimbledon because that is the one that everybody will tell him that he's "not supposed" to win.

Typical of you to pick an example like that



Only in this case it is not the old England club saying it, it is the official French Open website.

Context.

Anyways, you're a waste of time on this topic.

Chloe le Bopper
03-21-2004, 12:49 AM
Besides some people don't agree most prestigious = title that players most want to win. I think Jackson made that point earlier on.
"Some people" are entitled to different opinions.

WyveN
03-21-2004, 12:54 AM
And I still think that this arguement is a burning pile of shit, and that you are being an old blowhard. You like WImbledon more, so clearly they HAVE to too.


here comes the temper, nothing to do with me. I don't decide the prestige.



Those of us who pay attention, can read his comments NOW, and not have to wait. He wants to win Wimbledon because that is the one that everybody will tell him that he's "not supposed" to win.


What about Nalbandian? Being Argentine, and reading the comments in this thread, he should be drooling over the FO.


Context.

Anyways, you're a waste of time on this topic.

So are you but hopefully you will provide some entertaining outbursts

Chloe le Bopper
03-21-2004, 12:58 AM
That is just ego/advertising. Obvious difference is that this was on the FO website, if it was on the Wimbledon official site I wouldn't take notice.



The claim I am making, which is backed by the FO web site, is that W is "widely recognized" as most prestigious, not that every single person/fan/player in tennis concurs. (as this forum proves)
Okay, I'm sorry, but what the fuck is your problem?Has anybody in this thread disagreed that it is "the most widely recognized"? Even once? Have I said that?

Who are you arguing with, and what exactly are you arguing here? I know that you like to toot your own horn and all, but arguing with me over things I never said and pointing out things that I already know... is sort of embarassing to watch.

Chloe le Bopper
03-21-2004, 01:01 AM
here comes the temper, nothing to do with me. I don't decide the prestige.

Exactly. You don't decide shit. Which is why you claiming that these players are liars who are just ashamed of their lack of ability on grass (hyperbole alert) is ridiculous.


What about Nalbandian? Being Argentine, and reading the comments in this thread, he should be drooling over the FO.

Nalbandian is more likely to win Wimbledon than Roland Garros, if you we use your arguement :)

And in case you have been unable to read my many posts, this is what I have said: IT DEPENDS ON THE PLAYER. The PLAYER. Not the country. Get it? Ask that question to the people who said that it depends strictly on nationality. There are certain generalizations that can be made about different geographic regions, but that doesnt' mean that all players adhere to them. Duh.

So are you but hopefully you will provide some entertaining outbursts
Actually, I've been making a lot of sense. You've just been failing to correctly read MY arguements

TennisLurker
03-21-2004, 01:02 AM
But the evidence is against your opinion, Conchita Martinez (1994 wimbledon champion), a spanish player who grew up playing on clay said that her dream is and has always been to win roland Garros.

And Manolo Santona, the only spanish player who won wimbledon (and he failed to win the french open) has the same opinion as conchita.
He even disliked grass, he invented the saying "grass is for cows" , he ,a wimbledon champion.

So far they are the only spanish players who won Wimbledon, and I think we should believe them.

BTW
Nadal and Feliciano Lopez said that the tournament they want to win the most is Wimbledon, not Roland Garros.
But they didnt grow up playing on clay.

Shy
03-21-2004, 01:08 AM
I think that Wimbledon is better known outside of Tennis fans than the others. Wimbledon is the most prestigious and follow very closely by the FO. I don't think that players care wich one they win,they just want to win at least one slam.

WyveN
03-21-2004, 01:13 AM
And in case you have been unable to read my many posts, this is what I have said: IT DEPENDS ON THE PLAYER. The PLAYER. Not the country. Get it? Ask that question to the people who said that it depends strictly on nationality. There are certain generalizations that can be made about different geographic regions, but that doesnt' mean that all players adhere to them. Duh.


Angelito said:
think all of them are prestigious, but for example the French Open is much more prestigious for Spaniards, Argentines, French, Southamerican in general, and Wimbledon could be considered more prestigious for the rest of the Europeans and maybe Americans.

You responded with "Agreed Angelito".

For someone who has a habit of blaming me on not understanding the Queen, you certainly could make yourself clear.

toadstool
03-21-2004, 01:14 AM
I think wimbledon is best as people think of the hot weather, strawberries, tradition and when bjorn borg won it isnt it?

French open is good but pete sampras never won it so probably Australian open as they all won that and they want to say they won it as well and be remembered.

WyveN
03-21-2004, 01:21 AM
And Manolo Santona, the only spanish player who won wimbledon (and he failed to win the french open) has the same opinion as conchita.
He even disliked grass, he invented the saying "grass is for cows" , he ,a wimbledon champion.



Do you have a source for this? I am not saying it is not true but wasn't it a Lendl quote?

TennisLurker
03-21-2004, 01:24 AM
Wait a second.

TennisLurker
03-21-2004, 01:29 AM
http://rds.yahoo.com/S=2766679/K=santana+grass+is+for+cows/v=2/TID=E105_63/SID=w/l=WS1/R=2/H=0/*-http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/wimbledon2000/fans_guide/newsid_779000/779996.stm

Santana won wimbledon in 1966

"One of the most familiar refrains at Wimbledon comes when a European or South American player complains, usually after they have lost, about how they hate grass courts.
"Grass is for cows" was coined in the 1960s by Manuel Santana and it has been echoed down the years by the likes of Ivan Lendl and Marcelo Rios among many others bamboozled by the lush lawns of SW19".

Deboogle!.
03-21-2004, 01:39 AM
I don't think that players care wich one they win,they just want to win at least one slam.

I agree with this statement. It seems like TODAY, now that the AO is sort of up to par with the others and the top players all make the trip Down Under, a slam is a slam is a slam. Yes, some players prefer to win one over another for one of various reasons (home country, preferred surface, etc etc.) but ultimately someone who wins a slam is someone who wins a slam.

How are you defining prestige anyway? How about this for a perspective, hopefully people see what I mean:

Obviously, it's hard to think of two players where this would be the case. but if you have a player who won one Wimbledon and not a whole lot else and players who won each of the other three and not much else, would the player with one Wimbledon be remembered as or considered a better player than the players who won the other three, assuming a perfect world where all else is equal? Is it harder to win Wimbledon - more of a feat (actually most people say the USO tends to be the hardest in terms of scheduling, and of course the FO is the toughest on the body, and the AO is no slouch b/c of the bizarre quirks of Rebound Ace)?

------

My answer to these questions is no, so I suppose I should redefine my earlier statement picking Wimbledon. I'll agree it's the most recognized and paid attention to slam, to all people and not just tennis fans. But does winning Wimbledon really mean more than winning the others? I'm not so sure.

AgassiFan
03-21-2004, 01:42 AM
Which was that I'm sure that the majority would say Wimbledon, but not all of them would.


Well...yeah. It would be creepy if everyone agreed on that. I mean, it's not like we're comparing Kremlin Cup to Wimbledon -- it's Rollan Garros afterall.

IMO, there is little question that Wimbledon is more prestigious/desired, but I wouldn't be suprised if to Frenchmen, Spaniards, South Americans and a few guys like Mdvedev who grew up on clay and/or just loved past champions who won a bunch of FO's....to them, RG may indeed be more special.

I would say that it's 65-35 in favor of W...

armaniman
03-21-2004, 01:56 AM
I think wimbledon is best as people think of the hot weather, strawberries, tradition and when bjorn borg won it isnt it?

French open is good but pete sampras never won it so probably Australian open as they all won that and they want to say they won it as well and be remembered.


O.......................K .....thanks for that... LMFAO :lol::lol::lol:

AgassiFan
03-21-2004, 02:33 AM
<<<<Of course Wimbledon is the most "widely recognized". Every chance that the old England clubs gets to say "we rule", they say it. Every media outlet pretends to write about tennis says it. >>>>

As someone mentioned before, when you think of Wimbledon, the most covered and coveted tennis event, what comes to mind?

English country club is associated with the upper enclave of White race. Less so in the last decade, but still.

So, part of the make-up of Wimbledon's prestige/history is directly tied to Race and of "select" Class within that race.

Rolan Garros (and clay surface in general) is associated with Spaniards and Latin-Americans, and as such is seen as less "pure", less "classy"
-- literally.

And then there is the relic element -- grass afterall IS a dying surface...

WyveN
03-21-2004, 04:51 AM
Obviously, it's hard to think of two players where this would be the case. but if you have a player who won one Wimbledon and not a whole lot else and players who won each of the other three and not much else, would the player with one Wimbledon be remembered as or considered a better player than the players who won the other three, assuming a perfect world where all else is equal?

Bad example. But I think Krajicek will be regarded more highly then Costa & Johansson.

vene
03-21-2004, 05:38 AM
Bad example. But I think Krajicek will be regarded more highly then Costa & Johansson.
Yup!

Chloe le Bopper
03-21-2004, 05:39 AM
Which was that I'm sure that the majority would say Wimbledon, but not all of them would.


Well...yeah. It would be creepy if everyone agreed on that. I mean, it's not like we're comparing Kremlin Cup to Wimbledon -- it's Rollan Garros afterall.

IMO, there is little question that Wimbledon is more prestigious/desired, but I wouldn't be suprised if to Frenchmen, Spaniards, South Americans and a few guys like Mdvedev who grew up on clay and/or just loved past champions who won a bunch of FO's....to them, RG may indeed be more special.

I would say that it's 65-35 in favor of W...
I agree with this post.

Chloe le Bopper
03-21-2004, 05:40 AM
Bad example. But I think Krajicek will be regarded more highly then Costa & Johansson.
At least you recognized this as a terrible example. Krajicek will likely be more highly regarded, but not *just* because he won Wimbledon. He won more titles, if I'm not mistaken, and had a better all round slam record. This is a guy who also made the semifinals at Roland Garros and Australia, afterall. If I'm not mistaken, the only place that he didn't do it was the USO

Domino
03-21-2004, 06:11 AM
And Manolo Santona, the only spanish player who won wimbledon (and he failed to win the french open) has the same opinion as conchita.
He even disliked grass, he invented the saying "grass is for cows" , he ,a wimbledon champion.

Manuel Santana's Grand Slam Record: He did win RG, twice in fact

French Singles 1961, 64
Doubles 1963

Wimbledon Singles 1966

U.S. Singles 1965

Chloe le Bopper
03-21-2004, 06:50 AM
Angelito said:
think all of them are prestigious, but for example the French Open is much more prestigious for Spaniards, Argentines, French, Southamerican in general, and Wimbledon could be considered more prestigious for the rest of the Europeans and maybe Americans.

You responded with "Agreed Angelito".

For someone who has a habit of blaming me on not understanding the Queen, you certainly could make yourself clear.
Seeing as the post that I quoted said "IN GENERAL" in it, I thought that I was being clear.

TennisLurker
03-21-2004, 01:27 PM
whoa sorry.

I confused myself.

Yes, he won rg.
I was thinking of another player who only won the us open and wimbledon.

But he indeed said that.

Deboogle!.
03-21-2004, 02:06 PM
Bad example. But I think Krajicek will be regarded more highly then Costa & Johansson.

But ONLY because he won Wimbledon? That's what I'm asking... if that's still your opinion, ok.

WyveN
03-21-2004, 08:46 PM
whoa sorry.

I confused myself.

Yes, he won rg.
I was thinking of another player who only won the us open and wimbledon.

But he indeed said that.

No problem......suspected something wasn't right

WyveN
03-21-2004, 08:47 PM
But ONLY because he won Wimbledon? That's what I'm asking... if that's still your opinion, ok.

Yes........in 5-10 years no one will remmember how many grand slam semi finals Krajicek, Costa & Johansson made.......only thing people will remmember is what slam they won.

I mean how many people can tell how many semi finals of slams Courier, Edberg & Becker made?

Deboogle!.
03-21-2004, 08:50 PM
OK you missed my point Wyver.

The reason I said my suggestion was hypothetical is because there's no way to find players who would satisfy it. Just think, for a moment, of 4 players. Each won one of the slams and never did anything else. Just pretend they only played each slam once and just really never did anything else, no other slam SFs, no TMS titles, nothing. Would the player who won Wimbledon be remembered any better than the others?

Yes, I know this is an impossible situation. That's why it's called hypothetical :)

TennisLurker
03-21-2004, 08:55 PM
I agree with Wyvern in this, Cash nowadays is more famous than Gomez.

Chloe le Bopper
03-21-2004, 09:45 PM
I agree with Wyvern in this, Cash nowadays is more famous than Gomez.

So is Yanick (sp?) Noah ;)

Chloe le Bopper
03-21-2004, 09:46 PM
Also, if Gomez kept himself in the media by telling us all about the sex life of Ferrero or whatever, I'm sure that his name would be thrown around more than it is. Not to mention the whole Spanish vs English speaking thing...

WyveN
03-21-2004, 10:43 PM
Stich is more well known then Gomez

Would be interesting to find out who is more known/respected/better career between Chang & Stich

Chloe le Bopper
03-21-2004, 11:32 PM
Stich is more well known then Gomez

Would be interesting to find out who is more known/respected/better career between Chang & Stich
I really think that depends on where you're from. I would imagine that most Americans would be more keen on Chang... and frankly, as somebody who didnt' follow tennis until after Stich was pretty much gone, I hadn't heard of him until I started looking up old slam records for myself, but I had certainly heard of Chang (I'm in Canada, btw).

I would think that Chang is fondly remembered in France as well.

Deboogle!.
03-21-2004, 11:35 PM
Would be interesting to find out who is more known/respected/better career between Chang & Stich

Not that I know a whole lot, but I'd consider them to be about equal.

Chloe le Bopper
03-21-2004, 11:41 PM
Not that I know a whole lot, but I'd consider them to be about equal.
They both won one slam.

But Chang had a much better career. 34 titles vs only 18 for Stich. Chang won more super 9's or whatever they were called back then. Chang made more slam finals. Stich did make the finals in both Wimbledon and RG, though, which is something that Chang did not do. But both made the finals in all of the slams except one.

Moral of the story is that Chang had a better career.

(if any of the above is mistaken, blame the ATP)

Deboogle!.
03-21-2004, 11:44 PM
They both won one slam.

But Chang had a much better career. 34 titles vs only 18 for Stich. Chang won more super 9's or whatever they were called back then. Chang made more slam finals. Stich did make the finals in both Wimbledon and RG, though, which is something that Chang did not do. But both made the finals in all of the slams except one.

Moral of the story is that Chang had a better career.

(if any of the above is mistaken, blame the ATP)

Right, I know... but following Wyver's argument, Stich should be regarded better because he won Wimbledon to Chang's French Open, right? So by his theory the other stuff should not matter? So for me, in terms of the fact that they both have one slam, I don't consider Chang to be any lesser a player than Stich because his slam was Roland Garros and not Wimbledon. Obviously Chang's successes in TMS titles and the like are superior.

Or, am I wrong about what Wyver is trying to argue?

Chloe le Bopper
03-21-2004, 11:47 PM
Right, I know... but following Wyver's argument, Stich should be regarded better because he won Wimbledon to Chang's French Open, right? So by his theory the other stuff should not matter? So for me, in terms of the fact that they both have one slam, I don't consider Chang to be any lesser a player than Stich because his slam was Roland Garros and not Wimbledon. Obviously Chang's successes in TMS titles and the like are superior.

Or, am I wrong about what Wyver is trying to argue?
Yes, that is what he's trying to argue. He just keeps coming up with really really bad examples. Even if there is some truth to his theory, his examples are hideous!

Chloe le Bopper
03-21-2004, 11:49 PM
Take Krajicek for example... of course he's going to be remembered more than Johansson and Costa! That is a horrible example! He had a much better career than either of them did, and no, not just because he won Wimbledon.

Furthermore, whether it is fair or not, both Costa and Johansson - especially the last - have been regarded as "flukes" by many. Krajicek was the only man to beat Sampras at Wimbledon between 1993 and 2000. I don't think that too many people see him as a fluke. He's the guy that stopped Sampras' run.

TennisLurker
03-21-2004, 11:52 PM
Stich made the finals of us open 94 and rg 97
Chang made the finals of rg 95 australia 96 and us open 96

Chang won more super 9, more titles, he had more top ten victories, he certainly had the best career.

I dont know what was Stichs highest ranking, but Chang was number two in the world and one match from number one in 1996.

----

BTW

I just wanted to say that in Argentina, Noah is by far more famous than Cash.
Gomez too even if he is not as famous as Noah.

Leo
03-22-2004, 12:18 AM
Oh wow, how lame a thread is this? Give it up Wyven, and stop being so damn close-minded/old-fashioned.

WyveN
03-22-2004, 07:06 AM
Oh wow, how lame a thread is this? Give it up Wyven, and stop being so damn close-minded/old-fashioned.

Considering the quality of threads around here I don't think this is lame at all.

But thanks for your opinion. Go make a few more predictions, extremely entertaining.

WyveN
03-22-2004, 07:16 AM
Take Krajicek for example... of course he's going to be remembered more than Johansson and Costa! That is a horrible example! He had a much better career than either of them did, and no, not just because he won Wimbledon.


First of all I think Stich and Chang is a perfect example. Extremely similar careers.

You miss my point regarding Costa, Krajicek and Johansson. In a while no one will care about the finer details of their careers and they will only be remmembered by the slams they have won.

For example many people know Chang won the French Open and Stich won Wimbledon but far less people know that Stich made the FO and US open final while Chang did the same in Australia and USO.

WyveN
03-22-2004, 07:18 AM
I dont know what was Stichs highest ranking, but Chang was number two in the world and one match from number one in 1996.


Stich's career high was #2 as well

WyveN
03-22-2004, 07:25 AM
Furthermore, whether it is fair or not, both Costa and Johansson - especially the last - have been regarded as "flukes" by many. Krajicek was the only man to beat Sampras at Wimbledon between 1993 and 2000. I don't think that too many people see him as a fluke. He's the guy that stopped Sampras' run.


So what? Costa thrashed probably a clay all time great in the final. Johansson beat one of the most talented players of his generation.

And Krajicek's record in London is not all that good. Apart from his win he only made one more semi and one more quarter final. The win seems very much a fluke to me.
He is not exactly a Goran who made the final on 3 other occasions.

Dirk
03-22-2004, 08:19 AM
All the injuries played a part in Richard's career. He would have won it again had he not gotten bad knees and such.

J. Corwin
03-22-2004, 10:07 AM
WyveN, try coming up with better examples.

Aurora
03-22-2004, 10:36 AM
Noah definitely better known than Cash for me, I wondered for a considerable amount of time what that guy always was doing at the BBC during Wimby. lol.
For this discussion you can set all kind of boundaries: general public, people who follow tennis, people who follow only slams, people who only follow the slam that's closest geographically or that has decent coverage... you get different results each time, choose your preferred. Before I got into into tennis, I always thought the French was the biggest tennis tournament, somekindof world championship...

CmonAussie
03-22-2004, 11:03 AM
(@_@)**Cash could easily have had 3-Slams next to his name as he was incredibly unlucky not to win AO in 87 & 88-->> both times he lost extremely tight 5-sets in the Final to Edberg & Wilander respectively after beating Lendl in the SF both years.
Also Cash made the SF of USO in 84 where he lost a tough 5-sets to Lendl & SF of Wimbledon 84, plus a few more QF at Wimbledon & AO... so his record was quite good in the big tournaments & his 87 Wimbledon trophy was no fluke!!
* Cash was ITF World Junior Champion winning Junior Wimbledon & USO in 81 or 82.
* 1983 & 1986 Davis Cup hero!!!

-->> Noah was charismatic but Cash was a better performer in big tournaments. Anyway both their respective Slam wins were well deserved.

WyveN
03-22-2004, 11:39 AM
WyveN, try coming up with better examples.

I have stated my examples and defended them. I could go further back in time but I don't see how it is relevant as we are discussing the last decade.

gorandevil
03-22-2004, 02:49 PM
I think a lot of it is down to tv coverage, if french open gave 8 hour a day coverage to people in uk without sattelite or cable like with wimbledon.....the British public for example would probably relate to it more in prestige than they do.

Just as an example....an English person will not think wimbledon is the biggie because its in their own country, they will have early memories of first tennis they saw like mcenroe and connors on grass court, centre court on BBC.

I really think if every nation got equal coverage of all 4 slams instead of crappy highlights for some then the poll results would be different to what they are now. I get to see the US open live on sky sports thesedays and relate to it more and hold it in higher regard.

Deboogle!.
03-22-2004, 02:51 PM
That's a very interesting point gorandevil, I think it makes a lot of sense.

Chloe le Bopper
03-22-2004, 03:09 PM
So what? Costa thrashed probably a clay all time great in the final. Johansson beat one of the most talented players of his generation.

And Krajicek's record in London is not all that good. Apart from his win he only made one more semi and one more quarter final. The win seems very much a fluke to me.
He is not exactly a Goran who made the final on 3 other occasions.

ahem

Me thinks it's time for some clarification!

There is no need to explain to ME why Costa and Johansson are not flukes. I don't believe that there is such a thing. If you win a slam, you win a slam. You might never win one again, but that doesn't mean you were "just lucky". Even the greats have had an element of luck in some of their slam wins.

I was pointing out that there are a good number of people who do feel that way. Krajicek is generally more respected than the other two. You can say that people won't remember he did this that or the other thing, but, he did have more than one decent year! Johansson hasn't. Costa has, but he's only had one top ten year. Staying at the top and having big wins for more than a few months has a lasting impression on people, whether they remember the specifics or not.

It was a very bad example.

Chloe le Bopper
03-22-2004, 03:11 PM
(actually, I suppose that TJ did have other years he was top 20. My bad. REgardless, my point remains)

Chloe le Bopper
03-22-2004, 03:12 PM
I think a lot of it is down to tv coverage, if french open gave 8 hour a day coverage to people in uk without sattelite or cable like with wimbledon.....the British public for example would probably relate to it more in prestige than they do.

Just as an example....an English person will not think wimbledon is the biggie because its in their own country, they will have early memories of first tennis they saw like mcenroe and connors on grass court, centre court on BBC.

I really think if every nation got equal coverage of all 4 slams instead of crappy highlights for some then the poll results would be different to what they are now. I get to see the US open live on sky sports thesedays and relate to it more and hold it in higher regard.
That's sort of what I was getting on earlier with my references to the media, but you provided a very good example. While I don't think that this is the only factor, I think that it certainly plays a role.

Chloe le Bopper
03-22-2004, 03:13 PM
I have stated my examples and defended them. I could go further back in time but I don't see how it is relevant as we are discussing the last decade.
What about Noah? I didn't see you acknowledge that. I heard of him before I heard of Cash or Stich. And I'm still convinced that the reason a lot of people have heard of Cash is that he refuses to stay away from the media these days. The only reason I've heard of Stich is that I read a lot of old slam records when I first got into tennis on the internet.

CmonAussie
03-22-2004, 03:21 PM
Rebecca your quite right about Cash making a dick of himself in the media these days but...
* As I mentioned earlier Cash's record in Slams was better than Noah so there's no need to diss the checker head-banded Aussie as a player!

Chloe le Bopper
03-22-2004, 04:35 PM
I"m not dissing Cash as a player, I'm just saying that he's not necessarily better known that certain players who won slams either than Wimbledon. Conveniently, Wyven has sort of ignored that point so far.

joske
03-22-2004, 04:39 PM
I think all of them are prestigious, but for example the French Open is much more prestigious for Spaniards, Argentines, French, Southamerican in general, and Wimbledon could be considered more prestigious for the rest of the Europeans and maybe Americans.
So, I think all of them are more or less the same but of course Wimbledon and Roland Garros have more history and as a consequence they tend to be considered more prestigious than the others.

I totally agree with the historical value and all that... Oh and I think Roland Garros is also the biggest one for Belgians (and maybe the Dutch?).. :D

Leo
03-22-2004, 05:45 PM
Considering the quality of threads around here I don't think this is lame at all.

But thanks for your opinion. Go make a few more predictions, extremely entertaining.

Almost as good as yours.

Actually I would call the "Who has the largest dick?" and "Who wears the best clothing?" threads to be more insightful than this one.

Chloe le Bopper
03-22-2004, 10:28 PM
Almost as good as yours.

Actually I would call the "Who has the largest dick?" and "Who wears the best clothing?" threads to be more insightful than this one.
Don't forget about the Butt thread! It's been updated today, by yours truly. There is nothing nore insightful that pictures of Robredo's ass!

Kiara
03-22-2004, 10:40 PM
Don't forget about the Butt thread! It's been updated today, by yours truly. There is nothing nore insightful that pictures of Robredo's ass!

lol@ becca erm plugging Robredo's ass at every opportunity ;) .....that sounds perverted :D

Chloe le Bopper
03-22-2004, 10:52 PM
It really does. But I deserve it!

hythger
03-22-2004, 11:34 PM
I know Wimbledon is the most prestigious but i just have a thing for the French Open! For me it's the best!

Billabong
03-22-2004, 11:36 PM
Roland Garros is certainly up there too:)!

WyveN
03-23-2004, 12:21 AM
Actually I would call the "Who has the largest dick?" and "Who wears the best clothing?" threads to be more insightful than this one.

And I consider AgassiFan most insightful then you.

Leo
03-23-2004, 12:23 AM
And I consider AgassiFan most insightful then you.

Bad grammar.

Oh, and I wouldn't. But hey, that's my opinion.

JeNn
03-23-2004, 02:35 AM
Prestige means Jack Shit.

These days, a slam is a slam is a slam.

Chloe le Bopper
03-23-2004, 02:38 AM
And I consider AgassiFan most insightful then you.
Agassifan actually is occassionaly insightful, if you take the time to read his posts.

SanTaureau Fan
03-23-2004, 02:39 AM
According to wtaworld, the fifth one, Miami, is very prestigious.

Action Jackson
03-23-2004, 02:44 AM
According to wtaworld, the fifth one, Miami, is very prestigious.

Well done genius and nice attempt at a troll. Since this is not wtaworld and no there is no 5th Slam, there is 4 and for the moment only be four.

Troll feeding what a wonderful activity.

Action Jackson
03-23-2004, 02:45 AM
Agassifan actually is occassionaly insightful, if you take the time to read his posts.

He has been, he has even asked me some intelligent questions and made the odd comment, it's just his tough love Dr Phil policy on Agassi that makes things interesting.

SanTaureau Fan
03-23-2004, 02:51 AM
Well done genius and nice attempt at a troll. Since this is not wtaworld and no there is no 5th Slam, there is 4 and for the moment only be four.

Troll feeding what a wonderful activity.

No troll, just making fun a bit of people blaming Henin for skipping Miami. If you don't read wtaworld you can just ignore my post.

Action Jackson
03-23-2004, 02:54 AM
No troll, just making fun a bit of people blaming Henin for skipping Miami. If you don't read wtaworld you can just ignore my post.

Cool, and no I won't start talking about womens tennis now or in the future. But the 5th Slam talk is a whole lot of crap.

WyveN
03-23-2004, 03:05 AM
Agassifan actually is occassionaly insightful, if you take the time to read his posts.

I agree,
especially insighful is his investigation about whether I am male or female

But it was serious comment which is why I used Agassifan instead of some 100% apparent troll ;)

It wasn't just a cheap shot at Leo.

Chloe le Bopper
03-23-2004, 03:27 AM
Gotcha.

I got nothing done today. Well, by nothing, I mean that I went through a quarter of the research that I need to, and came up with a very rough idea of what I'm actually writing about. Having a topic is swell and all, but it doesn't do me much good if I know squat about it.... ugh. Another day, another chance to do stuff :p

WyveN
03-23-2004, 03:51 AM
It was a very bad example.

Thanks for the clarification. I agree.

Maybe you can come up with better examples, who is a Wimbledon champion who is as poorly known as Gomez? I liked Gomez but I bet the majority of people on mtf never even heard of him and this place has a fairly worldwide demographic.

Now if Krajicek is a bad example then Noah is a horrible example.

Noah was charismatic, had a sense of humour and a unique striking personality. He would be well known and remmembered even if he was a horrible tennis player.

The person who talked about tv coverage had a point but why is it that Wimbledon gets so much coverage over the French Open?

And I am not talking about England, USA and Australia either (afterall South America/Spain etc get more coverage of the FO, I presume, and that is because the native players have a far more chance at success there).
But I have noticed in many European countries, where there is no apparent reason for bias, Wimbledon gets far more coverage then the other slams.

WyveN
03-23-2004, 03:56 AM
I got nothing done today. Well, by nothing, I mean that I went through a quarter of the research that I need to, and came up with a very rough idea of what I'm actually writing about. Having a topic is swell and all, but it doesn't do me much good if I know squat about it.... ugh. Another day, another chance to do stuff :p

I wonder if there is a hidden message in the above paragraph ;)

Fin090
03-23-2004, 10:11 AM
'Andy This Andy That' makes a harmless joke so Hitler completely overreacts and goes on a rant, what's that about.

J. Corwin
03-23-2004, 10:35 AM
Gotcha.

I got nothing done today. Well, by nothing, I mean that I went through a quarter of the research that I need to, and came up with a very rough idea of what I'm actually writing about. Having a topic is swell and all, but it doesn't do me much good if I know squat about it.... ugh. Another day, another chance to do stuff :p

I know the feeling all too well. Don't know about you, but without properly sufficient time pressure I can't force myself to work that much. But when push comes to shove I get all my work done on time, even with time left to spare. ;)

Leo
03-23-2004, 02:49 PM
I agree,
especially insighful is his investigation about whether I am male or female

But it was serious comment which is why I used Agassifan instead of some 100% apparent troll ;)

It wasn't just a cheap shot at Leo.

I was just playing along. ;)

But I still find him to be a dumb shit. Maybe he is capable of occassionally offering some insight, but I rarely take the time to read his posts anymore, so...

Leo
03-23-2004, 02:53 PM
I know the feeling all too well. Don't know about you, but without properly sufficient time pressure I can't force myself to work that much. But when push comes to shove I get all my work done on time, even with time left to spare. ;)

I'm usually the same. Although recently I've not been very successful with that tactic as I've had to hand some of the work in late. Oh well, I'm not losing sleep over it.

Deboogle!.
03-23-2004, 02:54 PM
'Andy This Andy That' makes a harmless joke so Hitler completely overreacts and goes on a rant, what's that about.

Hi, welcome to MensTennisForums :)

Fumus
03-23-2004, 03:33 PM
wimbly of course everyone knows that

Xavidbz
05-30-2004, 10:58 AM
I think in this order: Wimbledon, Roland Garros, US Open and Australian Open.

Roger-No.1
10-28-2004, 11:04 PM
Wimbledon and French Open

Young Boss
01-31-2008, 05:45 PM
Wimbledon takes this easily.

Cat123
01-31-2008, 05:54 PM
Wimbledon!! But I would say that, I live 15 minutes away...

Nadl
01-31-2008, 05:54 PM
wimbledon for god's sake

Aloimeh
01-31-2008, 06:14 PM
1.) W
2.) Fo
3.) Uso
4.) Ao

mashamaniac
01-31-2008, 06:49 PM
I dunno why there's such a hype over wimbledon,isn't it only because it's the most oldest GS?? in my list W takes the last place!
FO > AO > USO > W ...(though for some reasons i voted AO)

Puschkin
01-31-2008, 06:51 PM
Wimbledon. No doubt.

alelysafina
01-31-2008, 06:52 PM
Hello newbie, Welcome :wavey:

Boris Franz Ecker
01-31-2008, 07:20 PM
I dunno why there's such a hype over wimbledon,isn't it only because it's the most oldest GS?? in my list W takes the last place!
FO > AO > USO > W ...(though for some reasons i voted AO)

Your list wasn't the question.

The Freak
01-31-2008, 07:22 PM
Useless thread, it is far and away Wimbledon.

Xavidbz
01-31-2008, 07:29 PM
Wimbledon followed by Roland Garros, the other two are far away from both European Slams.

Beforehand
01-31-2008, 07:38 PM
I'm guessing the Australian Open loses this like always, Djokovic fans whine that other fans just want to minimize Novak like this wasn't the opinion beforehand, and the other fans use it to attempt to say that Djokovic is lower than their player anyway, because it's convenient.

Time to watch and see if it happens.

Dimonator133
01-31-2008, 08:43 PM
In your opinion, which Grand Slam would you consider to be the most prestigious tournament?

worthless question

1 is obvious - Wimbledon

4 is obvious - Aussie

2 and 3 are the only discussion (hell THAT would be a more interesting question than the one posed and THAT'S not even THAT interesting), and I'd say French 2, U.S. 3

rofe
01-31-2008, 08:47 PM
Although Wimbledon is widely considered to be the most prestigious Grand Slam, The Times reported that the French Open was the most enjoyable to watch amongst viewers because the points are longer and that Wimbledon is all serve and a few shots in between.

That is not true anymore.

tennizen
01-31-2008, 08:50 PM
I think people over at Wimbledon have largely been successful at giving the impression that it is something special. Even the players have bought the hype.I don't see why it is necessarily more prestigious than any other slam.

thrust
01-31-2008, 09:03 PM
I dunno why there's such a hype over wimbledon,isn't it only because it's the most oldest GS?? in my list W takes the last place!
FO > AO > USO > W ...(though for some reasons i voted AO)

I agree! Wimbledon has always been very good in promoting its importance over the years. More players are good clay or hard court players, therefore, the competition is more intense in the other Slams. Roger^s fans will obviously say Wimbledon, wheras, Nadal fans will say the FO.

myrt
01-31-2008, 09:11 PM
Love the FO best but for some reason Wimbledon gets the hype as most prestigious. It's so shrouded in formality...remember Roger and his blazer..guess you could call it the black tie event of the slams.

Boris Franz Ecker
01-31-2008, 09:21 PM
Roger^s fans will obviously say Wimbledon, wheras, Nadal fans will say the FO.
Nadal says Wimbledon.

And he's right.

Fan opinions don't count.

JediFed
01-31-2008, 09:27 PM
The person I would like to hear about is Bjorn. Which does he consider more prestigious?

StevoTG
01-31-2008, 09:39 PM
I think people over at Wimbledon have largely been successful at giving the impression that it is something special. Even the players have bought the hype.I don't see why it is necessarily more prestigious than any other slam.

You took the words out of my mouth:)

All slams are equal IMO.

Andi-M
01-31-2008, 09:56 PM
what is the most prestigious day of the week?

tripb19
01-31-2008, 09:59 PM
AO is least prestigous and consistently has the best tennis; much better than the other way around for a local like me.

Alex999
01-31-2008, 10:12 PM
AO is least prestigous and consistently has the best tennis; much better than the other way around for a local like me.
Agreed. I personally love USO but W has that tradition thing, so it is W.

Allure
01-31-2008, 10:18 PM
Wimbledon although my favorite is AO.

RagingLamb
01-31-2008, 10:25 PM
what is the most prestigious day of the week?

Tuesday?

StevoTG
01-31-2008, 10:45 PM
Tuesday?

WTF its Thursday!!:mad: :devil:

General Suburbia
01-31-2008, 11:03 PM
Wimbledon is the most prestigious. But I hate it anyway; boring, haven't seen any real good matches in years, very few grass specialists, etc.

CyBorg
01-31-2008, 11:09 PM
I think people over at Wimbledon have largely been successful at giving the impression that it is something special.

They've been doing a piss poor job of it lately. It's an expensive, poorly coordinated event.

I haven't been at the Aussie but I keep hearing about how well it is maintained. Roland Garros is just sheer perfection, of course.

RagingLamb
01-31-2008, 11:10 PM
WTF its Thursday!!:mad: :devil:

The only reason people care about Thursday is because it's the day before Friday. Whereas Tuesday is probably the most productive day of the week.:devil:

Federerhingis
01-31-2008, 11:15 PM
Name wise for sure Wimbledon, historically it's the most prestigious slam. Players that pay importance to the history of the game dream of winning wimbledon because of it's place in history.

Technically their all the same, Winning a slam is winning a slam whether on clay, grass or a hard court. It takes the same effort you have to beat 7 opponents and usually among those seven you have to beat the top players.

Money wise Wimbledon too has the advantage I mean the pound has been beating the dollar for years now, I believe the exchange rate is 1.90 dollars for a pound (which is just absurd) :lol:

However, for a period I think the US OPEN was the highest paying slam.

In summary they're all worth the same; players may have their favorites, in general Wimbledon is regarded very very highly because of the above.

StevoTG
01-31-2008, 11:16 PM
The only reason people care about Thursday is because it's the day before Friday. Whereas Tuesday is probably the most productive day of the week.:devil:
Yes I'm afraid you've got me there, checkmate I suppose :sad:

RagingLamb
01-31-2008, 11:26 PM
Yes I'm afraid you've got me there, checkmate I suppose :sad:

LOL, ah they're all the same.

<Blue>
01-31-2008, 11:44 PM
Double post. sorry

<Blue>
01-31-2008, 11:44 PM
For me Wimbledon represents tradition. And that is a lot.
But US Open is where most players can go in their peak of performance (except for claycourt players).
(keep in mind it's just an opinion)

Burrow
02-01-2008, 12:19 AM
My favourites to watch are Australian Open and the US Open, I prefer hardcourts. But Wimbledon is the most prestigious...

Alex999
02-01-2008, 12:20 AM
My favourites to watch are Australian Open and the US Open, I prefer hardcourts. But Wimbledon is the most prestigious...
Burrow, the question is Will Novak win W this year? :wavey:

laure xxx
02-01-2008, 12:27 AM
Although Wimbledon is widely considered to be the most prestigious Grand Slam, The Times reported that the French Open was the most enjoyable to watch amongst viewers because the points are longer and that Wimbledon is all serve and a few shots in between.

Roland Garros is also the best grand slam for spectators. Wimbledon is just awful, Melbourne is okay because the stadium is small so all the seats are good; Flushing Meadows is a fucking joke.

But this thread is talking about the most "prestigious" slam, which is stupid because it's obviously Wimbledon, due to the history of the event, the whites, and how pompous it all is. In terms of what slams the players want to win the most, Wimbledon would still top the list, followed by RG, USO and then the AO. But all this discussion is pointless, because a slam is a slam whether it's in Melbourne or London, and any player would gladly take any of them. Except for Roger who just wants Paris.

Alex999
02-01-2008, 12:39 AM
http://www.thejc.com/home.aspx?ParentId=m16&SecId=16&AId=57777&ATypeId=1

Allure
02-01-2008, 12:42 AM
Fed haters hate Wimbledon. :lol:

StevoTG
02-01-2008, 12:54 AM
Wimbledon would still top the list, followed by RG, USO and then the AO.


I believe that when Rog was asked about Lleyton he said that Lleyton had won the most important slams, so I'm guessing that Fed believes that it goes Wimby > US > RG > AO:confused:. I did'nt hear it from Rog's mouth, it was a commentator that mentioned it.

Anyway if you offered me a slam and I had to pick one, I don't know which I'd go for, it's like you said `` a slam is a slam whether it's in Melbourne or London, and any player would gladly take any of them``.

Blondie1985
02-01-2008, 01:08 AM
wimbledon OBVIOUSLY... What kind of *abomination* would want FO as much as Wimbledon....?


Roger: "Most people know how highly I revere Wimbledon and I feel that the
Centre Court is the most magical place for a player. If I could choose
between winning Wimbledon or Roland Garros, I would always pick
Wimbledon. And, looking a long time into the future, if I was to win
Wimbledon 10 times but never managed to win the French Open and was
then given the choice, I would pick an 11th Wimbledon title rather
than a first French."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/article525148.ece

Borg: "Wimbledon is the greatest tournament in the world, and I feel that in
my mind and in my heart. It's almost like a holy place for me."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml;jsessionid=I5RW1IKLM0S45QFIQMFSFFWAVCBQ 0IV0?xml=/sport/2007/06/12/stborg12.xml

Nadal:"Nadal siempre ha reconocido que Wimbledon es su TORNEO PREFERIDO y
el
que le gustaría ganar algún día, aunque hasta la fecha nunca ha
logrado superar la tercera ronda."
http://www.larioja.com/pg060623/deportes/200606/23/nadal-wmbledon-bogdanovic.html

Blondie1985
02-01-2008, 01:10 AM
Rafa wants Wimbledon more than anything... POOR GUY!

lazyman
02-01-2008, 01:22 AM
wimbledon is easily the most prestigious but what makes everyone say aus open is the least i think the other 3 are close enough to call it even

Action Jackson
02-01-2008, 01:27 AM
Madrid or Houston

ReturnWinner
02-01-2008, 01:31 AM
Wimbledon although its far from being the best

Johnny Groove
02-01-2008, 01:31 AM
Who gives a fuck?

They're all equal

helgagonzalez
02-01-2008, 01:32 AM
Wimbledon followed by French Open

Merton
02-01-2008, 02:06 AM
It is totally subjective, personally I prefer tennis in the natural surfaces.

vidanhv
02-01-2008, 03:08 AM
I'm guessing the Australian Open loses this like always, Djokovic fans whine that other fans just want to minimize Novak like this wasn't the opinion beforehand, and the other fans use it to attempt to say that Djokovic is lower than their player anyway, because it's convenient.

Time to watch and see if it happens.
What are u talking about??? What this has to do with Djokovic or any other player.

BTW, Wimbledon, and not just cause of proximity :).

RogerFan82
02-01-2008, 03:43 AM
Wimby > AO=USO >>>>>>>>>> FO. Frankly I don't like the french open. Right from the late 80's when I started watching tennis on TV.

Billabong
02-01-2008, 04:00 AM
Wimbledon for sure, it is seen as the most prestigious by most, but I prefer AO:D

To me, they're all equal though. A Grand Slam title is a Grand slam title, everybody wants to win them and has to fight their heart out in order to be the champion. No Grand Slam is easier to win than another one to me.

leng jai
02-01-2008, 04:32 AM
Kooyong.

Never in doubt.

LeChuck
02-01-2008, 07:02 AM
The Odlum Brown Open in Vancouver is the holy grail of tennis.

Corey Feldman
02-01-2008, 07:33 AM
Wimbledon by a mile

they didnt make a movie about the other 3.

Adler
02-01-2008, 07:40 AM
Wimbledon followed by French Open
Agree

Exodus
02-01-2008, 07:54 AM
wimby, uso, aso and fo

MrExcel
02-01-2008, 11:33 AM
W, RG, US, AO for me

Sean.J.S.
02-01-2008, 11:37 AM
Is this a trick question or something? :confused: :scratch: The anwer is Wimbledon, of course. :shrug:

Wimbledon!! But I would say that, I live 15 minutes away...

Lucky you. :p **Jealous**

tennis2tennis
02-01-2008, 11:56 AM
Wimbledon by a mile

they didnt make a movie about the other 3.


kirsten dunst mmmmmmmmm the greatest actress ever to grace the screen

tennis2tennis
02-01-2008, 11:58 AM
AO is starting to get a hooligan feel to it

tripb19
02-01-2008, 11:58 AM
kirsten dunst mmmmmmmmm the greatest actress ever to grace the screen

That's what Hollywood want you to think.

'Kirsten Dunst' is actually Billy Corgan from Smashing Pumpkins wearing a wig. 100% true.

tennis2tennis
02-01-2008, 12:01 PM
That's what Hollywood want you to think.

'Kirsten Dunst' is actually Billy Corgan from Smashing Pumpkins wearing a wig. 100% true.


tripb19 meet sarcasm,
sarcasm meet tripb19 :)

platinum
02-01-2008, 05:04 PM
Wimbledon followed by French Open.

platinum
02-01-2008, 05:13 PM
BTW, Bjorn Borg has to be the most prestigious tennis player ever, he won W(5 times) and the FO(6 times)... Wow!!!!!

siddy
02-01-2008, 05:21 PM
In order of preference,

01. Wimbledon
02. US Open
03. Australian Open
04. French Open

But I LOVE all four.

platinum
02-01-2008, 05:23 PM
I'd rate them like this:

1. Wimbledon

2. French Open

3. US Open

4. Australian Open

Commander Data
02-01-2008, 05:42 PM
I'd rate them like this:

1. French Open

2. Wimbledon

3. Australian Open

4. US Open

Cause I'm a Fedtard :rolleyes:

safinalium
02-01-2008, 05:49 PM
Wimbledon - history, traditions... :) Then, I think it's RG; USO and AO share the third place.

Corey Feldman
02-01-2008, 07:18 PM
AO is starting to get a hooligan feel to itAnd thats just a certain players box!

jonny84
02-01-2008, 07:25 PM
I think Wimbledon.

Everyone associates tennis with this tournament. Even non-fans will say they want to win it and are probably unaware of the other three slams

The_Beast
02-01-2008, 08:34 PM
In my opinion there is no doubt that Wimbledon is the most prestigious Grand Slam

BodyServe
02-01-2008, 08:45 PM
Although Wimbledon is widely considered to be the most prestigious Grand Slam,The Times reported that the French Open was the most enjoyable to watch amongst viewers because the points are longer and that Wimbledon is all serve and a few shots in between.

I hope this statement is from an anterior year to 2001.
The grass has been changed in 2002.It now plays medium/slow,i think it's slightly slower than this year AO.

Sunset of Age
02-01-2008, 11:09 PM
Can't believe I didn't vote on this poll yet!

Wimbledon, by far. Followed by Roland Garros. Thereafter, USO and AO.

JimmyV
02-01-2008, 11:57 PM
Madrid.

keroni
02-02-2008, 12:08 AM
Wimbledon has the worst matches.

But its prestige.. is definitely there.

yomike
02-02-2008, 10:12 AM
Since you are asking for my opinion that'd be the French Open.

tennisvideos
02-02-2008, 11:00 AM
Well it's really a no brainer that Wimbledon is the most prestigious tournament still to this day - what with the history and tradition etc. BUT, IMO it is not a genuine championship anymore - it is played on a surface that is virtually obsolete (unfortunately) so it it doesn't reflect an authentic championship.


Since the late 70s, when grass court tournaments were virtually extinct, Wimbledon has become an easy tournament for the one or two few all court players to pick off. Up until that time there were always heaps of good grass court players so it was always tougher to win. But since then you will see that the one or two true all court players tend to dominate ... Navratilova, Sampras, and now Federer. There has been no truly great all court female player since Navratilova and hence it has been more of a lottery. But as soon as one comes along they will find it easier to dominate Wimbledon than any other, as 99% of the tour are all now baseliners. Anyway, they are just my thoughts. But I still love Wimbledon and it does have a tremendous history. It's just a shame there aren't more grass court events to help promote the all court game again like it was in the pre-hardcourt dominated era.

afrOmig
02-02-2008, 02:30 PM
That is not true anymore.



i think it will always be true!! u gotta understand that wimbeldon is a fast service with low bounce quality (which makes the points more shorter)
and clay is slow surfice with a medium bounce and the rally are longer!!

ive always loved the french open , the colour the atmosphere its amazing!!

Federerhingis
02-02-2008, 04:31 PM
Well it's really a no brainer that Wimbledon is the most prestigious tournament still to this day - what with the history and tradition etc. BUT, IMO it is not a genuine championship anymore - it is played on a surface that is virtually obsolete (unfortunately) so it it doesn't reflect an authentic championship.


Since the late 70s, when grass court tournaments were virtually extinct, Wimbledon has become an easy tournament for the one or two few all court players to pick off. Up until that time there were always heaps of good grass court players so it was always tougher to win. But since then you will see that the one or two true all court players tend to dominate ... Navratilova, Sampras, and now Federer. There has been no truly great all court female player since Navratilova and hence it has been more of a lottery. But as soon as one comes along they will find it easier to dominate Wimbledon than any other, as 99% of the tour are all now baseliners. Anyway, they are just my thoughts. But I still love Wimbledon and it does have a tremendous history. It's just a shame there aren't more grass court events to help promote the all court game again like it was in the pre-hardcourt dominated era.

You completely forgot Graf, she pretty much took over where Navra left and just about won everything at will, with her amazing athletic ability. Graf was actually even more dominant on grass than on hardcourts, it was the case that she usually was a sure bet to win, the faster the court speed the tougher it was to even take a set off her. :worship:

BodyServe
02-02-2008, 05:39 PM
i think it will always be true!! u gotta understand that wimbeldon is a fast service with low bounce quality (which makes the points more shorter)
and clay is slow surfice with a medium bounce and the rally are longer!!

ive always loved the french open , the colour the atmosphere its amazing!!

It's right,it's not true anymore,they changed the grass in 2002.

tennis2tennis
02-02-2008, 06:54 PM
don't you just love how wimbledon is giving everyone the one finger salute...no seriously check out the thread's poll!

tennisvideos
02-02-2008, 10:35 PM
You completely forgot Graf, she pretty much took over where Navra left and just about won everything at will, with her amazing athletic ability. Graf was actually even more dominant on grass than on hardcourts, it was the case that she usually was a sure bet to win, the faster the court speed the tougher it was to even take a set off her. :worship:

But Graf wasn't a genuine all court player, she was an incredibly athletic baseliner. So I didn't mention her. I only mentioned the great S&V types who have utterly dominated Wimbledon since the so called end of the grasscourt era in tennis (late 70s). They had far less good S&V players to contend with so Wimbledon became a romp for them.

I do agree with you that Graf was a great fast court player, and so yes this did help her cause on grass. And had Seles not been stabbed, I believe Graf would have still dominated Wimbledon, but the other titles at the French, US & Aussie Open would have been much more interesting. Ah, the what ifs. ;)

MatchFederer
02-03-2008, 12:49 AM
The US Open is losing this poll? Interesting... and funny.

HKz
02-03-2008, 04:43 AM
Wimbledon is definately most prestigious. It is the oldest, it is rich in history and it is closest to the original form of lawn tennis.

i think it will always be true!! u gotta understand that wimbeldon is a fast service with low bounce quality (which makes the points more shorter)
and clay is slow surfice with a medium bounce and the rally are longer!!

ive always loved the french open , the colour the atmosphere its amazing!!

....If that was true then Rafa Nadal would not have made Wimbledon final once, let alone making it twice in a row because he does not have big flat strokes nor a big serve to be as effective as other players are on fast surfaces. Just having Nadal reach the final of Wimbledon is enough proof that it is too slow already.

supertommyhaas
02-03-2008, 09:02 AM
ao kicks ass on evey one. ilove every slam tho

VolandriFan
02-03-2008, 09:07 AM
From the player's standpoint- 65% Wimbledon, 35% RG.

Modetopia
02-03-2008, 11:40 AM
Nadal says Wimbledon.

And he's right.

Fan opinions don't count.

case closed.

Tennis-Engineer
02-03-2008, 06:15 PM
Who cares. All 4 GS have equal points and equal prize money.Winning 10 AO = winning 10 Wimbledon in the view of history and statistics.

safinaferrero
02-03-2008, 07:43 PM
Clay courts all the way!
For me undoubtly the French Open :cool:

dan_the_man1983
02-04-2008, 03:44 AM
Id say Wimbledon.

It's the oldest of the 4 and every player dreams of winning Wimbledon more then they do the other slams.

Matchu
02-04-2008, 04:48 AM
Id say Wimbledon.

It's the oldest of the 4 and every player dreams of winning Wimbledon more then they do the other slams.

I'd take an Australian Open title over a Wimbledon title anyday. It all depends on where your from mostly I believe. Wimbledon is the oldest and has the most prestige but I'd rather be a home town hero. I feel sorry for Pat Cash and Lleyton Hewitt.

dan_the_man1983
02-05-2008, 06:15 PM
I feel sorry for many Australian players.

When was the last time an Australian won the Open down there? Was it Rod Laver?

Bit like feeling sorry for a Brit for not winning Wimbledon for years.

didadida
02-05-2008, 10:31 PM
Wimbledon then the french open

AnitaOlea
02-06-2008, 12:32 AM
french open for me 'cause I enjoy it the most =), wimbledon is nice but... grass?? I don't know I just don't like it that much. though the question is "prestigious" and as wimbledon is the oldest it wins points for that... but still grass? though I like how they all looke in white (like it has something to do with the prestige...)
whatever I voted for FO. =P

LEGENDOFTENNIS
04-29-2009, 10:02 PM
Hi, im new here.

Which are the most prestigious GS's in order?

1)Wimbledon right? ;p

Also What is your fave GS to watch?

Mine would be Wimbledon

FlameOn
04-29-2009, 10:06 PM
I like watching the US Open most. I like the strong bounce on that court.

LinkMage
04-29-2009, 10:16 PM
It has to be the US Open these days.

Pfloyd
04-29-2009, 10:19 PM
Well the most fun one to watch lately has been the AO.

Prestige has always been on Wimbeldon's side historically.

ORGASMATRON
04-29-2009, 10:19 PM
It used to be Wimby by far, but now that they changed the surface its probably nr 4.

Mint Chip
04-29-2009, 11:19 PM
It was Wimbledon but after Nadal won it its now The U.S. Open :p

ORGASMATRON
04-29-2009, 11:23 PM
It was Wimbledon but after Nadal won it its now The U.S. Open :p

:haha:

iSzavay.
04-29-2009, 11:29 PM
Not much of a question IMO, of course it's Wimbledon. Not "best to win", but certainly "most prestigious".

Pistolero
04-30-2009, 12:10 AM
For me, it's the French Open.

FlameOn
04-30-2009, 12:24 AM
Well, Wimbledon probably is, 'cause it has the whole air of royalty and the most tradition. That's probably why Federer loves it so much. French Open comes second 'cause it takes a specified set of skills to do well at (not everyone plays well on clay, same with Wimbledon and grass). The US and Australian Opens aren't as prestigious 'cause they're just hard-court events and anyone and everyone can play well on hard courts.

Har-Tru
04-30-2009, 02:41 AM
Most prestigious? Wimbledon, no doubt. Wimbledon is synonymous with prestige.

However, if you go to my local club and ask the kids which Grand Slam they want to win the most, the vast majority of them will say Roland Garros. It's a matter of where you're from. As someone said in one of the early posts, TV and coverage play a big role. The FO has been shown live and free on national TV in Spain since I can recall, which can't be said of the other three (cable or pay-per-view).

Thing is, the power of English-speaking media is enormous...

CmonAussie
04-30-2009, 04:51 AM
...
~~~
Prestige::
1. Wimby
2. AO, FO, USO

Best tennis::
1. AO, FO
2. USO, Wimby

Fun::
1. AO
...
2. FO
...
3. Wimby
...
4. USO

RUDE crowd/fans::
1. FO
2. USO
3. Wimby
4. AO

Andy1402
07-26-2012, 10:32 AM
Is it still Wimbledon or has one of the other 3 overtaken it in terms of player's desire to win it?
I think most players still dream of being Wimbledon champions more than anything else.
Also how would the 4 slams rank?

TigerTim
07-26-2012, 10:34 AM
Wimbledon is GOAT slam easily.

Chirag
07-26-2012, 10:35 AM
players still want to win wimbledon over the others

Looner
07-26-2012, 10:37 AM
Jesus, is this your 5th thread in as many hours? Try participating in some others before you open a new one every other hour.

Andy1402
07-26-2012, 10:39 AM
Jesus, is this your 5th thread in as many hours? Try participating in some others before you open a new one every other hour.

Yeah i do actually. Just had a lot of free time today.
But i have posted in other threads that i like. Thanks for the advice.

Looner
07-26-2012, 10:41 AM
Yeah i do actually. Just had a lot of free time today.
But i have posted in other threads that i like. Thanks for the advice.

Nothing personal, dude, it's just that most of your topics have already been discussed (hence why this thread was merged). Use the search function, etc. but otherwise enjoy the forum :p.

Rafa is the GOAT
07-26-2012, 10:57 AM
Wimbledon is the nicest
RG the toughest to win
And AO and USO are quit special as they are the first and last slams of the year
For me they are equal
But if I only could have obe I'd go with RG or WIM
It is also a matter of where you come from
It's just like golf
US Open is the best known but any major is special and has it"s own uni