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.

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

    Well, it just doesn’t work that way. Tennis was invented in the UK, first played on grass, and Wimbledon is the oldest tennis tournament in the world, major or not, and gets attended by the royals, lots of celebrities etc and maintains the most traditions, for better or for worse, so it just has a certain air of prestige that the others don’t.

    Doesn’t mean the best quality of tennis gets played there, but most kids grow up wanting to win Wimbledon, even Nadal wanted to win it more than the French as a kid.

    • EmergencyAccording94B
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Technically tennis was invented in France, but UK has a lot to do with popularising it.

  • Easymoney_67B
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wimbledon sucks. They think their sh** doesn’t stink.

  • Psychological_Bug676B
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    the highest levels of tennis are achieved on hard courts

    Said no one ever. Clay is the superior surface as said by most players and the some of the greatest matches of all time were played on grass. Natural surfaces>>> hard courts

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

      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?

      • Psychological_Bug676B
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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

    • 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