[RocketMan70]

Simple question.

 

[Sapeod]

Yes. Simple answer.

 

[sdon]

CYGS should be

 

[Zagor]

Yup, some of the other slams have far greater value than they did in some previous eras but Wimbledon is still #1.

 

[Sapeod]

Wimbledon > US Open > Australian Open > Roland Garros.

 

[zzzyyy]

Wimbledon > US Open > Australian Open > Roland Garros.

:facepalm:

 

[duarte_a]

Yup, some of the other slams have far greater value than they did in some previous eras but Wimbledon is still #1.

This.

 

[Djoker]

It was the first big tournament which became later a slam, grass was tennis' first relevant surface, and nothing can change that.
Even if 2nd week grass has somewhat more resembled to an oat field in the last 6-7 years...

 

[atennisfan]

Yes.

 

[manadrainer]

Yes.

/thread

 

[MasterPredictor]

Marat Safin hacked my account and voted the last option.

 

[alter ego]

Never was.

 

[Wi$$ard]

It feels like some exho :shrug:

 

[Hellraiser]

Yes

 

[Whom]

No. I love Wimbledon but unfortunately grass-tennis is pretty much dead. Nowadays except for a few players - most of them being old, far in the rankings, or both - the only difference between grass tennis and tennis the rest of the year is more aces and winning serves. The big players don't suddenly go to the net more or practice serve and volley when they arrive at Wimbledon, a la Borg. The #1 in the world arriving at Wimbledon without any previous preparation really says it all. Would you imagine that happening for RG or the USO ? Of course not.

Basically, I think it still has the most prestige, but grass being so irrelevant is really hurting it. Fortunately Federer has helped Wimbledon in the past decade, but I think RG and the USO could end up topping it in the upcoming decades.

 

[phase3]

Simple question.

No!!!!!! (That is British establishment pomp and ceremony at work here)

It has the greatest HISTORY YES! But in the context of merit and value to a players legacy absolutely not. For example. Both Sampras and Nadal are tied on 14 slams a piece. You can't say Sampras is better because he has 7 WC to Nadals 2.

All that matters is how many total slams they have. And Nadals 9 FOs are every bit as important as Sampras and Federerers 7 WIMBLEDONS.

Ivan Lendl for another example is tied with CONNORS, AGASSI and DJOKOVIC in the open era all with 8 slams a piece. So a SLAM IS A SLAM. Wimbledon just has a bigger history and more pomp and ceremony. In a similar way THE OPEN in golf is held up because of its history.

 

[Basher]

A slam is a slam for the record books, but Wimbledon still holds some kind of mystical value and is the most desired by most players.

I think it would be Wimbledon>RG>US/AUS these days.

 

[InfoKenway]

No. All slams are equal.

 

[Floki]

All slam are equal now.

 

[Sunflowerseed]

Basically, I think it still has the most prestige, but grass being so irrelevant is really hurting it. Fortunately Federer has helped Wimbledon in the past decade, but I think RG and the USO could end up topping it in the upcoming decades.

I agree that the fact it's Roger's favourite and he's the prestige player helps its status, but you could also argue that the prestige of Wimbledon is great for Federer's image too.

Grass was risking becoming less relevant, but with the upgrade to Queens and Halle this year, and a couple of new 250s, I think it's on the ascendency. I think we could see a grass masters within a few years.