True order of slams revealed
TT
reflect prestige.
According to WCT in 1980:
1. French
2. Wimbledon
3. USO
4. AO
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=5070245
John Liang
That is 31 years ago and things change in 31 years.
Manco
clay court tennis @Roland Garros in May-June that's special!
TT
But Whisper's claim for "prestige" is history itself...
DavidW
Criteria used:
- Total men's prize money
- First place singles prize money
- Strength of overall field
- Average ranking top 5 players
It's not a prestige-based list.
TT
Yes it is. It's a way to measure prestige, other than saying "I think
that" It measures value of these events for WCT, aka prestige.
Manco
another?
TT
> What are the objective criteria to define prestige of one slam over
> another?
That's a tough question. But it certainly is not looking at Sampras'
career and defining criteria accordingly.
Manco
month trick surface that should not be highly valued!
DavidW
"Prestige" _means_ "I think that...". By definition, it is not objective. You
cannot measure it by objective means.
Someone claimed months ago that the AO is the richest of the slams. Let's
suppose it is. All the top players turn up for it too, barring injury. So is it
the most prestigious slam? Obviously not.
jdeluise
On 31-Jan-2011, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
> Someone claimed months ago that the AO is the richest of the slams. Let's
> suppose it is. All the top players turn up for it too, barring injury. So
> is it
> the most prestigious slam? Obviously not.
So I can just say "I think that it is" and it becomes so?
TT
> TT wrote:
>> 1.2.2011 1:55, DavidW kirjoitti:
>>> TT wrote:
>>>> Pay attention Whisper, very important when you make a new "formula"
>>>> to reflect prestige.
>>>>
>>>> According to WCT in 1980:
>>>>
>>>> 1. French
>>>> 2. Wimbledon
>>>> 3. USO
>>>> 4. AO
>>>>
>>>> http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=5070245
>>> Criteria used:
>>> - Total men's prize money
>>> - First place singles prize money
>>> - Strength of overall field
>>> - Average ranking top 5 players
>>>
>>> It's not a prestige-based list.
>>>
>>>
>> Yes it is. It's a way to measure prestige, other than saying "I think
>> that"
> "Prestige" _means_ "I think that...". By definition, it is not objective. You
> cannot measure it by objective means.
>
Then why do you assign values to it...In fact, why do you the word at
all if it's that much vague.
Whisper just today argued about prestige and his argument was historical
importance of USO...and then we find out that apparently FO has been
much more important. Dammit.
DavidW
If you really believe it, then it is in your mind. Though prestige tends to be
infectious. In a way, it doesn't make sense for a spectator to consider a
particular event to be the most prestigious if most of the players and other
spectators don't agree with him. Why would it be the pinnacle event to win in
your mind if you are against the tide?
DavidW
> 1.2.2011 2:14, DavidW kirjoitti:
>> TT wrote:
>>> 1.2.2011 1:55, DavidW kirjoitti:
>>>> TT wrote:
>>>>> Pay attention Whisper, very important when you make a new
>>>>> "formula" to reflect prestige.
>>>>>
>>>>> According to WCT in 1980:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. French
>>>>> 2. Wimbledon
>>>>> 3. USO
>>>>> 4. AO
>>>>>
>>>>> http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=5070245
>>>> Criteria used:
>>>> - Total men's prize money
>>>> - First place singles prize money
>>>> - Strength of overall field
>>>> - Average ranking top 5 players
>>>>
>>>> It's not a prestige-based list.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Yes it is. It's a way to measure prestige, other than saying "I
>>> think that"
>> "Prestige" _means_ "I think that...". By definition, it is not
>> objective. You cannot measure it by objective means.
>>
>
>
> Then why do you assign values to it...
The values are approximate (at least to me).
> In fact, why do you the word at
> all if it's that much vague.
Because in the end prestige is king. You can't pretend it's not there.
> Whisper just today argued about prestige and his argument was
> historical importance of USO...and then we find out that apparently
> FO has been much more important. Dammit.
But it's not more important. It just came out ahead on certain objective
criteria that don't measure prestige.
felangey
Let me just fast forward to the end of this recently discussed topic to save
oh about 160 posts. The most prestigous slams count more towards a players
legacy. The most prestigous slams are the ones that Whisper and DavidW
subjectively quantify to be so.
With regards to the AO, it matters not that it is the same slam format, with
the same top players, it can never count as much towards a players legacy
because Whiper and DavidW don't want it to.
Simples!
felangey
Never claimed, proved.
>Let's suppose it is<
It is.
>All the top players turn up for it too, barring injury. So is it the most
>prestigious slam? Obviously not<
Firstly, prestigous according to whom?
Secondly, prove that it is not.
Thanks.
TT
Or maybe the "objective criteria" was designed such a way that it would
come out on top, because it was most "prestigious" "in the minds of"
makers of the criteria aka wct...
DavidW
>> Someone claimed months ago that the AO is the richest of the slams<
>
> Never claimed, proved.
>
>> Let's suppose it is<
>
> It is.
>
>> All the top players turn up for it too, barring injury. So is it the
>> most prestigious slam? Obviously not<
>
> Firstly, prestigous according to whom?
Most.
> Secondly, prove that it is not.
People on the losing end of an argument always resort to this. Can you prove
that most people would like to be free of pain, or fit and healthy, or not
paralyzed? Do you need to do a poll to "prove" these things? Similarly, do you
really need to ask players and spectators which title is more important: AO or
Wimbledon?
felangey
> prove that most people would like to be free of pain, or fit and healthy,
> or not paralyzed? Do you need to do a poll to "prove" these things?
> Similarly, do you really need to ask players and spectators which title is
> more important: AO or Wimbledon?<
What a lame and tenuous thing to say. That most people don't want to be in
pain is intrinsic to the human condition. On the other hand, your
presupposition that everyone thinks Wimbledon is the most important title
is, in the first instance, totally wrong.
ocean
Nole only wins the mickey mouse slam. LOL.
Vari L. Cinicke
What fraction of people on the planet know what tennis is? Let us start
there. :)
--
Cheers,
vc
Vari L. Cinicke
No, no, no, no, no. DavidW has to say so. That will cause DavidW to
believe that everyone worthy of notice thinks likewise. DavidW will
conclude that "most" agree with his opinion. Next DavidW will tout a "fact".
End of story. ;)
--
Cheers,
vc
DavidW
>> People on the losing end of an argument always resort to this. Can
>> you prove that most people would like to be free of pain, or fit and
>> healthy, or not paralyzed? Do you need to do a poll to "prove" these
>> things? Similarly, do you really need to ask players and spectators
>> which title is more important: AO or Wimbledon?<
>
> What a lame and tenuous thing to say. That most people don't want to
> be in pain is intrinsic to the human condition.
Well, I'm sure you can come up with plenty of better examples of things that we
are sure about but have not "proven".
> On the other hand,
> your presupposition that everyone thinks Wimbledon is the most
> important title is, in the first instance, totally wrong.
Show me where I said "everyone".
Superdave
does prestige matter? if you ask Li Na what is more important prestige or prize money what do you think she will say?
DavidW
She will joke again that it's prizemoney.
felangey
> that we are sure about but have not "proven".
People on the losing end of an argument always bluster through an argument
like this! :)
>> On the other hand,
>> your presupposition that everyone thinks Wimbledon is the most
>> important title is, in the first instance, totally wrong.
>
> Show me where I said "everyone".
Ok cool. Good start. Not everyone. So what kind of a percentage are we
talking? Please show your working....just for clarity. I am genuinely
interested at how you arrive at your conclusion.
DavidW
>> Well, I'm sure you can come up with plenty of better examples of
>> things that we are sure about but have not "proven".
>
> People on the losing end of an argument always bluster through an
> argument like this! :)
>
>>> On the other hand,
>>> your presupposition that everyone thinks Wimbledon is the most
>>> important title is, in the first instance, totally wrong.
>>
>> Show me where I said "everyone".
>
> Ok cool. Good start. Not everyone. So what kind of a percentage are we
> talking? Please show your working....just for clarity.
No idea.
Viper
Based on the first three criteria the AO is presently out in front. In
addition, the best atmospherics, the biggest crowds, the most
knowledgeable fans, it's multi cultural appeal, great weather, best
facilities etc etc.
The USO may have been prestigious in the day, but it's prestige these
days is limited IMO. Go and spend a few days walking around the FM in
September. Crowds are not brilliant, the mood is dull, fans generally
have little understanding of the game and US tennis is not exactly
riding the crest of a wave. New Yorkers who attend think they're at the
'ball game', arguments and confrontations being more common than you
would think. I think it ranks right up there with the 'shit hole' venues
of sport
It's current appeal sits in about 4th place I reckon
Viper
Pelle Svanslös
That is a valuation reflecting what people at the time though. Had there
been an prestige list with overwhelming prestige evidence, they would
have used that to determine the bonus pool. Otherwise, they would have
looked like buffoons to their contemporaries.
--
"Listen first! Hiss later!"
Superdave
that was NO joke sonny.
Whisper
> 1.2.2011 1:33, John Liang kirjoitti:
>> On Feb 1, 9:05 am, TT<d...@do.it> wrote:
>>> Pay attention Whisper, very important when you make a new "formula" to
>>> reflect prestige.
>>>
>>> According to WCT in 1980:
>>>
>>> 1. French
>>> 2. Wimbledon
>>> 3. USO
>>> 4. AO
>>>
>>> http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=5070245
>
> But Whisper's claim for "prestige" is history itself...
Not sure what you're smoking, but FO in 70's & 80's was considered a
very distant cousin to Wim/USO - Borg admitted it many times.
Whisper
> 1.2.2011 1:55, DavidW kirjoitti:
>> TT wrote:
>>> Pay attention Whisper, very important when you make a new "formula" to
>>> reflect prestige.
>>>
>>> According to WCT in 1980:
>>>
>>> 1. French
>>> 2. Wimbledon
>>> 3. USO
>>> 4. AO
>>>
>>> http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=5070245
>> - Total men's prize money
>> - First place singles prize money
>> - Strength of overall field
>> - Average ranking top 5 players
>>
>> It's not a prestige-based list.
>>
>>
>
> Yes it is. It's a way to measure prestige, other than saying "I think
What about Monte Carlo?
Whisper
French Open should be the least prestigious, given it was the last of
the 4 slams to be open to all comers in 1925. Even AO beats it by 20 years.
Whisper
Somehow I doubt I have that much influence.
Are you saying I could make AO most prestigious, so that even the
players & media believes it?
Whisper
Does everyone have to agree Wimbledon is most prestigious to make it so?
Why isn't > 90% good enough?
Whisper
I think he's saying if eg Nalbandian prefers FO, then that's it
Wimbledon can't be most prestigious...?
Whisper
The official FO site said Wimbledon was the most prestigious tournament.
Very strange for them to do that no?
Whisper
Of course it matters. Li Na's legacy would be infinitely greater if she
won Wimbledon instead of AO.
Whisper
So until you came to rst & read mine & Dave's posts you genuinely had no
idea Wimbledon was most prestigious?
I find these kind of posts fascinating. Deep down I can't believe they
are real, but oh what if they were! Just the mere prospect long time
tennis fans think this way is nirvana for me.
Manco
DavidW
Me too. It's just incredible that RST attracts people like felangey and Vari
who have no perceptive ability whatsoever (and not just in interpreting
people's posts in Vari's case). Apparently, they watch tennis year after year
and have no inkling that a Wimbledon title is more sought after than an AO
title. They believe that the Phil Knights of the world would give just as rich
an endorsement to an AO winner as a Wimbledon winner. And that an AO winner
gets invited onto just as many talk shows, has his photo appear in just as many
publications, has just as long a queue of autograph hunters, as a Wimbledon
winner. Do they really live in the current tennis world and believe those
things? Would they really make pronouncemenst in RST such as the following?
- I have no reason to believe that a company or brand considers a Wimbledon
winner more valuable than an AO winner
- I have no reason to believe that a Wimbledon winner attracts more fame and
fans and attention than an AO winner
- I believe that, in most cases, players and fans across the world consider an
AO title to be the equal of a Wimbledon title
That's the upshot of their position, but would they really sign their names to
those statements? felangey wants me to prove that chocolate tastes nice. He
can't tell for himself and needs to have a poll conducted to prove it. He can't
tell from the world around him that that's the prevailing view. Well, sorry,
not going to bother. It's obvious.
felangey
> Why isn't > 90% good enough?<
Great. Of course. Show me the 90% and we're good. Unless you are just
pulling a number out of yer ass. You have no history of that kind of
behaviour though, eh? :)
Of course you pair of halfwitts are missing the point yet again. It matters
not that you or Dave or Granny Maymay's son Tommy happen to think that 'x'
or 'y' is the most prestigous slam....or the fact that you are making
assumptions as to what a made up percentage of people think. What it comes
back to is where it sits in the grand scheme of things. You geezers can't
get your head around the fact that each of the four slams is of exactly
equal worth in the legacy stakes. They can't not be. Same field, same
format, same effort, by-and-large same reward.
Despite your best efforts to the contrary, you fail in demonstrating your
case. You want us to believe that in football, winning the world cup has
much more worth if it is done in England.....because of "all the history and
stuff". Where in actual fact you will find that winning the world cup is
winning the world cup. It might mean more to an English person if they do it
in England...in Germany, a German. Similarly, winning a slam is winning a
slam. Some may think that is best at the French.....some at Wimbledon. The
accomplishment, regardless of how it is perceived by anyone in 'prestige'
terms, is in winning 7 matches against the best players in the world. 7543
is debunked yet again.....you know it, I know it.....rst knows it....this
whole thing is dull.
felangey
> won Wimbledon instead of AO<
That would be a negatory.
Whisper
> Whisper wrote:
>> On 1/02/2011 12:18 PM, felangey wrote:
>>>> Well, I'm sure you can come up with plenty of better examples of
>>>> things that we are sure about but have not "proven".
>>>
>>> People on the losing end of an argument always bluster through an
>>> argument like this! :)
>>>
>>>>> On the other hand,
>>>>> your presupposition that everyone thinks Wimbledon is the most
>>>>> important title is, in the first instance, totally wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Show me where I said "everyone".
>>>
>>> Ok cool. Good start. Not everyone. So what kind of a percentage are
>>> we talking? Please show your working....just for clarity. I am
>>> genuinely interested at how you arrive at your conclusion.
>>
>>
On the one hand you have to think they're trolling, on the other it
seems to be a lot of effort for not much gain.
There is a small part of me that thinks they actually believe it, & that
excites me.
Whisper
But all the evidence points to Wimbledon, & no evidence pointing to
other slams.
- FO site says Wimbledon is most prestigious - you haven't commented on
that yet?
- Edberg said if he could win 1 more slam it would be Wimbledon, & that
was after he already won it & before he won USO & hadn't won FO.
- Federer said he's rather win an 11th Wimbledon than a 1st FO. Why?
- Henin came out of retirement to win Wimbledon. Would she have done so
for AO?
- Nadal always said Wimbledon was tops, even before he won it & had 4
FOs. He also had a grass court in his backyard to practice.
- Lendl said he'd swap all 8 of his slams for 1 Wimbledon.
I've never heard anything remotely like this for the other 3 slams.
Sakari Lund
<jlia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 1, 9:05 am, TT <d...@do.it> wrote:
>> Pay attention Whisper, very important when you make a new "formula" to
>> reflect prestige.
>>
>> According to WCT in 1980:
>>
>> 1. French
>> 2. Wimbledon
>> 3. USO
>> 4. AO
>>
>> http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=5070245
>
>That is 31 years ago and things change in 31 years.
Which in itself makes 7543 stupid. 7543 assumes that things stay
always the same.
Whisper
Anyone who thinks FO > Wim/USO in 1981 has to be pretty stupid.
Iceberg
it'll take more than the FO itself saying that Wimbledon is the most
prestigious tournament for these nutters to accept that it is, lol
TT
No he didn't.
Btw, about the history which was discussed earlier...Before 1925 hardly
anyone from Europe visited US Champs, they didn't give a crap. The few
who did play at US Champs were players who had been there for Davis Cup.
Tilden and Johnston however did go to Europe, to play Wimbledon and
World Claycourt Championships in France(predecessor or FO), and won both.
Europe was the centre of tennis, France on clay and England on grass,
there were played "world championships" on clay and "lawn"...while at US
the name was "national championships" only.
The system, and names, changed in 1925 and after that players began
travelling to USA, then US champs were won 3 times in a row by
musketeers....and Tilden having a matchball at French in 1927.
There goes your claim about greater history for USO compared to FO...and
that French wasn't international. The predecessor was more international
than US Nationals were.
It's all about surfaces, Tilden had to go to Europe to win Wimbledon and
French clay to prove himself. Yet, I don't think someone like Anthony
Wilding, who lived mostly in Europe, ever played US Nationals...the
world championships were in England and France, for grass and clay.
Currently, the most important titles surface wise are:
Clay - French
Grass - Wimbledon
Hard court - USO or AO...who the hell knows, there is no "world champs"
on that surface.
Iceberg
I can only guess felangry and Vari live in total isolation, working in
some science lab in middle of nowhere and that's where they grew up
too or something, to consider the AO the same prestige as Wimbledon,
you'd have to have contact with absolutely nobody, even people who
know absolutely nothing about tennis know of Wimbledon.
Excellet post by the way, DavidW.
Sakari Lund
wrote:
Well it would be a lot greater if she won AO in the first place...
Iceberg
you seem to be trying to apply some of political correctness to the
slams in regards to prestige, it's quite funny and very stupidly wrong
and you know it too, Wimbledon is the most prestigious.
TT
Monte Carlo had relevant international competition from the very start,
since 1897 - while US Nationals managed to draw international attention
as late as 1926.
Therefore, according to YOU - Monte Carlo should be more prestigious
than USO!
Iceberg
plus it's where the best tennis gets played eg. Borg v Mac, Fed v
Nadal, Mahut Isner etc
TT
Read my other post on the subject. You'll find out that international
players were not interested about US until 1926 - when musketeers came
and conquered it 3 years in a row.
Sakari Lund
wrote:
But for example saying that AO was "3" in 1970愀, and is still "3", is
stupid.
Iceberg
> On 1/02/2011 12:04 PM, ocean wrote:
>
> > On 31 ene, 20:05, TT<d...@do.it> wrote:
> >> Pay attention Whisper, very important when you make a new "formula" to
> >> reflect prestige.
>
> >> According to WCT in 1980:
>
> >> 1. French
> >> 2. Wimbledon
> >> 3. USO
> >> 4. AO
>
> >>http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=5070245
>
>
> Based on the first three criteria the AO is presently out in front. In
> addition, the best atmospherics, the biggest crowds, the most
> knowledgeable fans, it's multi cultural appeal, great weather, best
> facilities etc etc.
I've been lucky enough to have attended all 4 slams, you don't know
what you're talking about, it's hilarious that you're saying the AO
atmosphere comes even close to Wimbledon, it simply does not, nowhere
does.
PS also Melbourne multi-culutural appeal > than NY / London, lol
Whisper
USO was open to & attracted all comers from 1881. FO specifically
barred non-French players until 1925. I have no fucking idea what
you're babbling on about. Read some history books idiotas.
Whisper
100% bullshit. How do you come up with this nonsense?
Manuel aka Xax
> 1.2.2011 2:04, Manco kirjoitti:
>
> > What are the objective criteria to define prestige of one slam over
> > another?
>
> That's a tough question. But it certainly is not looking at Sampras'
> career and defining criteria accordingly.
Ouch.
I doubt you have more chance than any (me including) rster who tried
to explain such things to whisper, good luck anyway.
I am really wondering if you'll be able to change his biased mind; or
if (like me) will simply get bored of endless & pointless replies from
him.
One sure is certain about whisper: he's consistent, Sampras & 7543
wise!
TT
Some Brit/Federer/Sampras fan must have been doing the site.
> - Edberg said if he could win 1 more slam it would be Wimbledon, &
> that was after he already won it & before he won USO & hadn't won FO.
>
No idea if true.
> - Federer said he's rather win an 11th Wimbledon than a 1st FO. Why?
>
He lied. Even Sampras laughed at him.
> - Henin came out of retirement to win Wimbledon. Would she have done
> so for AO?
>
Rather to complete career slam. You can say same about Hingis and RG.
> - Nadal always said Wimbledon was tops, even before he won it & had 4
> FOs. He also had a grass court in his backyard to practice.
>
No, Nadal said it's important for him, there's a big difference. Many
South American/European players think FO is most important.
Nadal btw does not say it any more. Also I believe grass court on
backyard is an urban legend. Never seen a pic or read an interview where
he practised or was going to do so on his own grass court.
> - Lendl said he'd swap all 8 of his slams for 1 Wimbledon.
>
Lol.
>
> I've never heard anything remotely like this for the other 3 slams.
>
>
>
>
Of course, since you made up or misinterpreted nearly all above.
Whisper
Why?
The prestige of the slam is not related to prize-money or field quality.
If it were the Grand Slam Cup would have quickly risen to top slam
status. Sadly it sunk without a trace after barely a decade.
Whisper
I have most of it on video so you can't refute anything I say.
I'll send you the clips of Edberg & Lendl if you send me $500.
TT
Which amounts to what exactly? It gives same price money and same
ranking points. I'm sure many feel that winning FO 7 times is greater
achievement than doing so at Wimbledon, it's harder and requires more
complete game. Grass is extinct, nobody can play well on it any more.
But yeah, it is where tennis originated and I bet those strawberries are
very good.
TT
Sure it's not a scam?
Whisper
So why can't you provide a link to any player/analyst saying Wimbledon
is not most prestigious? The internet is pretty big so shouldn't be too
difficult if what you say is true?
Links to Henin or Potro saying FO or USO is their fave slam aren't
relevant. Henin/Potro have to say Wimbledon is not most prestigious, &
in fact it is one of the other 3 in their opinion.
Why can't you find 1 solitary link?
So far you're the dumbest poster I've come across in 10 yrs in rst.
Haze/Raj & co are innocently immature, but you seem genuinely clueless
when it comes to tennis related issues. Your stupidity is quite
breathtaking at times.
Whisper
> 1.2.2011 12:44, Iceberg kirjoitti:
>>> whole thing is dull.
>> you seem to be trying to apply some of political correctness to the
>> slams in regards to prestige, it's quite funny and very stupidly wrong
>> and you know it too, Wimbledon is the most prestigious.
>
> Which amounts to what exactly? It gives same price money and same
> ranking points.
GS cup gave much bigger prizemoney than any slam. Where is it today?
> I'm sure many feel that winning FO 7 times is greater
> achievement than doing so at Wimbledon,
Lendl said he would swap all 8 slams for 1 Wimbledon. He wasn't joking.
> it's harder and requires more
> complete game. Grass is extinct, nobody can play well on it any more.
Clay requires only stamina & topspin. It's the most 1-dimensional
surface by far.
>
> But yeah, it is where tennis originated and I bet those strawberries are
> very good.
The strawberries/vines etc are part of Wimbledon. You just have to
accept Wimbledon has always been no.1, & will be as long as this game is
played. There is nothing you can do about it.
Whisper
I have many VHS tapes of old matches & have won quite a few bucks over
the years with 'friendly' bets ; )
TT
The thing is - I did read about tennis early history.
"US National Championships" was international but didn't attract hardly
any international players before 1926. Only few bothered to cross the
Atlantic, in that direction, and they did it mostly because they
attended Davis Cup on same visit.
While Monte Carlo had international players from the very beginning,
since 1897...from Europe and Wilding from New Zealand(actually lived
mostly in Britain).
So you read some history books, ignoramus.
TT
Youtube them.
TT
How many slams did Roddick win again?
Whisper
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, since you made up or misinterpreted nearly all above.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have most of it on video so you can't refute anything I say.
>>>>
>>>> I'll send you the clips of Edberg & Lendl if you send me $500.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sure it's not a scam?
>>
>>
>> I have many VHS tapes of old matches & have won quite a few bucks over
>> the years with 'friendly' bets ; )
>>
>>
>
> Youtube them.
So you doubt it?
If I post them will you apologize publicly?
TT
*"The repetitive nature in which the Americans were winning in Europe
had by now seriously started to irritate the managers of the American
Lawn Tennis Association (USLTA). Whilst they were winning the two
�World� Championships with relative ease in Europe, their players had to
fight hard to win their own domestic championship and for the lesser
title of Champion of America. To make matters worse, other than those
players representing their country in the Davis Cup, very few Europeans
were coming to Forest Hills.*"
http://bmarcore.perso.neuf.fr/tennis/apres14/E-apres02.html
TT
Yes.
kaennorsing
> agree, the French Open is my favorite. There's just something about
> clay court tennis @Roland Garros in May-June that's special!
It's called spring.
TT
> On 1 f�v, 01:08, TT<d...@do.it> wrote:
>> 1.2.2011 2:04, Manco kirjoitti:
>>
>>> What are the objective criteria to define prestige of one slam over
>>> another?
>> That's a tough question. But it certainly is not looking at Sampras'
>> career and defining criteria accordingly.
> Ouch.
> I doubt you have more chance than any (me including) rster who tried
> to explain such things to whisper, good luck anyway.
> I am really wondering if you'll be able to change his biased mind; or
> him.
> One sure is certain about whisper: he's consistent, Sampras& 7543
> wise!
It's pretty much like talking with a bot...No matter how good arguments
you make, you'll always get the same answers.
Iceberg
Also in the off season, many many tourists visiting London
specifically go out of their way to see Wimbledon, "where the tennis
is played", I've often been quite surprised by this, but it shows how
prestigious the place is. I went to the US Open ground off-season once
and lived down the road from Melbourne Park for a while, guess how
many other tourists I saw at these places off-season.
Iceberg
Monte Carlo IS in Europe, Britain to Monte-Carlo is one of the most
pleasant drives going hahhahhaha
Vari L. Cinicke
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:33:08 -0800 (PST), John Liang
> <jlia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Pay attention Whisper, very important when you make a new "formula" to
>>> reflect prestige.
>>>
>>> According to WCT in 1980:
>>>
>>> 1. French
>>> 2. Wimbledon
>>> 3. USO
>>> 4. AO
>>>
>>> http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=5070245
>>
>
> Which in itself makes 7543 stupid. 7543 assumes that things stay
> always the same.
Can't believe that another thread to debunk the useless nonstarter is
really necessary.
But what does 'necessary' have to do with rst, you ask? Good point, I
concede. :)
--
Cheers,
vc
felangey
And therefore, the prestige - imagined or real - is not relevant in legacy
discussions. You are nearly there.
felangey
Except for the fact that it has been dour the past few years! :)
stephenj
> 1.2.2011 9:52, Whisper kirjoitti:
>> On 1/02/2011 10:36 AM, TT wrote:
>>> 1.2.2011 1:33, John Liang kirjoitti:
>>>> On Feb 1, 9:05 am, TT<d...@do.it> wrote:
>>>>> Pay attention Whisper, very important when you make a new "formula" to
>>>>> reflect prestige.
>>>>>
>>>>> According to WCT in 1980:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. French
>>>>> 2. Wimbledon
>>>>> 3. USO
>>>>> 4. AO
>>>>>
>>>>> http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=5070245
>>>> That is 31 years ago and things change in 31 years.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Not sure what you're smoking, but FO in 70's & 80's was considered a
>> very distant cousin to Wim/USO - Borg admitted it many times.
>>
>
> No he didn't.
There's no question that circa 1980, Wimbledon was heads-shoulders above
the USO, which was heads-shoulders above the FO.
--
In South Africa there is such an ill
distribution of wealth that any form of
political freedom that doesn't touch on the
proper distribution of wealth will be meaningless.
- Steve Biko
stephenj
>> Anyone who thinks FO> Wim/USO in 1981 has to be pretty stupid.
>
> But for example saying that AO was "3" in 1970愀, and is still "3", is
> stupid.
Yes, a 7543 scale for circa 1977 would be 10/5/3/1
--
"No people in history have preserved their
freedom who thought that by not being strong enough
to protect themselves they might prove inoffensive to
their enemies".
- NSC-68-1950
stephenj
>
> Why?
>
> The prestige of the slam is not related to prize-money or field quality.
True, but it can change nonetheless. E.g., in 1975 an accurate scale
would be something like 10/5/3/1, as Wimbledon was the world
championship and worth more than the other three put together.
Anyone in 1975 would rather have won W than the other three slams.
--
9 times out of 10, when a girl gets raped, it's partly her fault.
- gillian boardman
Vari L. Cinicke
> > On 2/1/2011 5:33 AM, Whisper wrote:
>
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> The prestige of the slam is not related to prize-money or field quality.
>
> True, but it can change nonetheless. E.g., in 1975 an accurate scale
> would be something like 10/5/3/1, as Wimbledon was the world
> championship and worth more than the other three put together.
>
> Anyone in 1975 would rather have won W than the other three slams.
>
>
>
I see that dumbness hasn't gone out of style where you hail from. There
is no better way to put it, I am sorry to say.
--
Cheers,
vc
stephenj
> On 2/1/2011 1:42 PM, stephenj wrote:
>> > On 2/1/2011 5:33 AM, Whisper wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Why?
>>>
>>> The prestige of the slam is not related to prize-money or field quality.
>>
>> True, but it can change nonetheless. E.g., in 1975 an accurate scale
>> would be something like 10/5/3/1, as Wimbledon was the world
>> championship and worth more than the other three put together.
>>
>> Anyone in 1975 would rather have won W than the other three slams.
>>
>>
>>
>
> I see that dumbness hasn't gone out of style where you hail from.
Vari, if you seriously think i'm wrong about W being worth more than all
the other slams combined c. 1975, then you're woefully ignorant about
tennis history.
Were you even alive in 1975?
--
Marx's mission was to identify fault, place blame, urge change,
and above all, to enlist disciplined belief. In the latter,
his success exceeded any man since Mohammed.
- JK Galbraith
Vari L. Cinicke
> On 2/1/2011 12:47 PM, Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
>> On 2/1/2011 1:42 PM, stephenj wrote:
>>> > On 2/1/2011 5:33 AM, Whisper wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why?
>>>>
>>>> The prestige of the slam is not related to prize-money or field
>>>> quality.
>>>
>>> True, but it can change nonetheless. E.g., in 1975 an accurate scale
>>> would be something like 10/5/3/1, as Wimbledon was the world
>>> championship and worth more than the other three put together.
>>>
>>> Anyone in 1975 would rather have won W than the other three slams.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I see that dumbness hasn't gone out of style where you hail from.
>
> Vari, if you seriously think i'm wrong about W being worth more than all
> the other slams combined c. 1975, then you're woefully ignorant about
> tennis history.
>
> Were you even alive in 1975?
>
Yeah, right. How soon you forget the 1973 boycott! It showed Wimbledon
for what it was. Just another important tournament, but one with a
vastly swollen head that was cut down to size decisively.
Some of you seem to have bought into that grandiose notion for good.
Maybe you did not have the capacity for critical evaluation or judgment
back then. What is your excuse now?
--
Cheers,
vc
stephenj
>> Were you even alive in 1975?
> Yeah, right. How soon you forget the 1973 boycott! It showed Wimbledon
> for what it was. Just another important tournament, but one with a
> vastly swollen head that was cut down to size decisively.
LOL .. Wimbledon was chosen by the ATP for a protest over the ILTF Pilic
suspension because it was the biggest stage in the world by far. That's
the event where it could attract the most media attention, and put the
most pressure on the ILTF.
Beyond that, there's no question that the player's first commitment is
to make money. It is "professional tennis", and that's why many players
skipped all the slams, W included, in the pre-open era, and Wimbledon
indeed had to change its rules, go open, to attract the very best
players. If one could ever say Wimlbedon was "cut down", the
capitulation to professionalism would be that situation.
But of course, that has nothing to do with Wimbledon's prestige and
stature compared to other slam events at the time, and again, if you
doubt Wimbledon's huge pre-eminence during the 1970s, you are woefully
ignorant about tennis history.
10/5/3/1 about captures it.
--
the Roosevelt administration .. has used the war to justify
restrictions of Congressional power, and the assumption of
dictatorial procedures on the part of the President and his
appointees.
- Charles A. Lindbergh, 9/11/41
Vari L. Cinicke
> >> On 2/1/2011 12:59 PM, Vari L. Cinicke wrote:
>
>>> Were you even alive in 1975?
>
>> Yeah, right. How soon you forget the 1973 boycott! It showed Wimbledon
>> for what it was. Just another important tournament, but one with a
>> vastly swollen head that was cut down to size decisively.
>
> LOL .. Wimbledon was chosen by the ATP for a protest over the ILTF Pilic
> suspension because it was the biggest stage in the world by far. That's
> the event where it could attract the most media attention, and put the
> most pressure on the ILTF.
>
> Beyond that, there's no question that the player's first commitment is
> to make money. It is "professional tennis", and that's why many players
> skipped all the slams, W included, in the pre-open era, and Wimbledon
> indeed had to change its rules, go open, to attract the very best
> players. If one could ever say Wimlbedon was "cut down", the
> capitulation to professionalism would be that situation.
>
> But of course, that has nothing to do with Wimbledon's prestige and
> stature compared to other slam events at the time, and again, if you
> doubt Wimbledon's huge pre-eminence during the 1970s, you are woefully
> ignorant about tennis history.
>
> 10/5/3/1 about captures it.
>
>
You of the 10,000 points for a slam win have spoken. LOL!
I know you will repeat your silliness and won't back down. Been there,
seen that.
--
Cheers,
vc
Joe Ramirez
>
> But of course, that has nothing to do with Wimbledon's prestige and
> stature compared to other slam events at the time, and again, if you
> doubt Wimbledon's huge pre-eminence during the 1970s, you are woefully
> ignorant about tennis history.
>
> 10/5/3/1 about captures it.
Even assuming the accuracy of this metric for the 1970s, it still
cannot be used for comparisons between eras, and thus shares one of
7543's fatal flaws (though not, thankfully, 7543's universalist
dogmatism). For example, Borg wins five Wimbledons in a row, and gets
50 points; Federer wins five Wimbledons in a row, and gets 35 points?!
Federer faces a huge deficit despite winning the top slam just as
often, and against more globally representative fields to boot.
DavidW
10/5/3/1 and 7543 are proportions. You can re-scale either one.
Manco
Vari L. Cinicke
Wrong proportions but scalable, yessirreebob!
--
Cheers,
vc
DavidW
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 12:12:34 +1100, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>
>> Superdave wrote:
>>> On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 11:14:20 +1100, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> TT wrote:
>>>>> 1.2.2011 1:55, DavidW kirjoitti:
>>>>>>> Pay attention Whisper, very important when you make a new
>>>>>>> "formula" to reflect prestige.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> According to WCT in 1980:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. French
>>>>>>> 2. Wimbledon
>>>>>>> 3. USO
>>>>>>> 4. AO
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=5070245
>>>>>> - Total men's prize money
>>>>>> - First place singles prize money
>>>>>> - Strength of overall field
>>>>>> - Average ranking top 5 players
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not a prestige-based list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes it is. It's a way to measure prestige, other than saying "I
>>>>> think that"
>>>>
>>>> objective. You cannot measure it by objective means.
>>>>
>>>> Let's suppose it is. All the top players turn up for it too,
>>>> barring injury. So is it the most prestigious slam? Obviously not.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> does prestige matter? if you ask Li Na what is more important
>>> prestige or prize money what do you think she will say?
>>
>> She will joke again that it's prizemoney.
>>
>
>
> that was NO joke sonny.
The whole interview was nothing but jokes.
DavidW
> Excellet post by the way, DavidW.
Thanks. That was the shiraz speaking.
DavidW
> On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 19:08:43 +1100, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/02/2011 12:09 PM, Superdave wrote:
>>>
>>> does prestige matter? if you ask Li Na what is more important
>>> prestige or prize money what do you think she will say?
>>
>>
>> she won Wimbledon instead of AO.
>
> Well it would be a lot greater if she won AO in the first place...
She did. She really did. That was only a dream that Kim won.
Joe Ramirez
That doesn't fix the problem at all. (Actually, Jaros has already done
the scaling; clearly, he was careful to allocate only 19 points to all
the slams.) The proportions *are* the problem when attempting to
compare between eras. If one player gets 53% of a year's slam points
for winning Wimbledon, and a Wimbledon champ from 30 years later gets
only 37%, the systems are not compatible, even if one might argue that
each is a reasonable approximation of the slam values for an
individual era.
DavidW
> DavidW wrote:
>> TT wrote:
>>> Pay attention Whisper, very important when you make a new "formula"
>>> to reflect prestige.
>>>
>>> According to WCT in 1980:
>>>
>>> 1. French
>>> 2. Wimbledon
>>> 3. USO
>>> 4. AO
>>>
>>> http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=5070245
>>
>> Criteria used:
>> - Total men's prize money
>> - First place singles prize money
>> - Strength of overall field
>> - Average ranking top 5 players
>>
>> It's not a prestige-based list.
>
No, it's a valuation by one organization using carefully considered objective
criteria. Nothing to do with what people thought.
Patrick Kehoe
>
> - Show quoted text -
That's why despite all the RST blah, blah, blah... the slams are in
fact 1-1-1-1... Fed as 16, Pete 14, RE 12, Laver/Borg 11 etc. ...
straightforward accounting in the Open Era...
P
Vari L. Cinicke
Some people even dream that their idols won a Golden Slam, using a made
up meaningless term to fluff up their fantasies.
Go figure!
--
Cheers,
vc