Wimbledon should not be considered the most prestigious major—so long as you tie prestige to competition. Grass courts are inaccessible to the majority of youth tennis players. This means that grass surfaces are the least practiced along with clay. At the same time, the fact that a select few youth players do have access to clay courts breeds inequality of opportunity and affords them a leg up over their peers.
On the other hand, the vast majority of players have access to a hard court. It is likely that any given player’s earliest exposure to tennis occurred on a hard court. And for players like Serena and Venus, a hard court was all they knew until the day they turned pro.
As a result, hard courts are the most practiced courts for these players and where they are able to play their highest level of tennis. I would even bet that in absolute terms, Nadal is a better player on hard courts than clay, even if in relative terms the gap between him and his peers is larger on clay.
With that said, the highest levels of tennis are achieved on hard courts—which should therefore be considered the most prestigious majors.
Just casually saying clay is the best surface like that because of player opinion is wild lol
Out of the current top 10 I think only 3/10 have said clay is the best surface(Rublev, Tsitsipas, and Ruud) and none of them are the true top dogs(Djokovic said HC, Alcaraz said grass, Medvedev said HC, Sinner said indoors)
What makes clay inherently better other than the rallies taking a million years?
Rublev, Tsitsipas, Rune, Ruud, Zverev and Alcaraz (although he says anything depending on the day) have said clay is the best surface. That’s 6 out of the top 10