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.

  • mvd612351OPB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    You are just spewing opinions. At least have a logical train of thought beyond “players like playing on clay”. It is an absolute fact that the highest level of tennis will occur on the court that you play the most—that’s how practicing a skill works. At the same time, most youth players can’t access clay or grass courts unless they are members of exclusive clubs that have them. The greatest female player ever couldn’t even access these courts regularly until she turned pro. That’s a problem.

    • TinyBreak2501B
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Tell me you’ve never seen Wimbledon 2008 final without telling me