We al know what they are and we all understand the history that goes with them.But having sat and thought about this begs the question to what makes them that Grand?And I pose the same question to Golf.

Are these tournaments really just a overhype for tennis!I mean at the end of the day its just another tennis tournament like every other.Once its over on to the next event.

I just want to understand why the stigma stays with any tennis player once they have won a Grand Slam!Why are they so Grand?

Does it tie in with Grand Prix...as in rather than Grand, it means big...so, a bigger than usual tennis tournament?

In that context we could allocate time making it bigger than usual with the 2 week duration,but to counter that,Indian Wells and Miami both run for a week and a half spanning 6 matches like every other Masters Series Event.

Grand Slams Just space out 7 matches over a 2 week period.

I think what makes them "grand", is the "grand" dedication, "grand" effort and "grand" concentration the "grand" players puts for those "grand" events.

Which basically boils down to the hype surrounding the event which creates a need of urgency to compete at....Its an event that over the generations that have been hyped up by media and players to the level of "GRAND".You Tenez my friend have summed up overhyped events!

Do they give out the biggest prize money thereby making more people take part thereby making it the "biggest" tournaments?

Not too sure about that...They know reward equal prize money though.But there was the Grand Slam Cup that used to pay more than the Grand Slams so I dont know!

I think part of the confusion is that they shouldn't really be called grand slams.

Grand Slam was brought into use as a term in tennis to describe the 4 major tournaments (AO, RG, SW19, US) being won for the first time in a single year - I think it was 1933 when Crawford had all of them going into the US and they started talking about it being a grand slam if he won all of them - I think it's a bridge term & Crawford was a bridge player so that's why it was first used.

Then over the years it's been corrupted to describe the 4 major tournaments. It's just casualness in language more than anything. They shouldn't really be called grand slams (maybe grand slam titles) but that's how things have gone. Anyway they are clearly the most important titles to win.

They are the biggest tournaments with the biggest draws and, in the men's at least, the only tournaments where all matches are 5-sets. They pay big prize money - that would set them apart.

The reason for their name, the parallel with Bridge, is interesting, but what is really interesting is that even in the 1920's and 1930's it was recognised that those 4 tournaments stood apart.

This helps show that the real difference is history. If you win one of the 4 Slams your name goes on a cup/list which has the past greats of the game. You have done something that the likes of Tilden, Budge, Perry, Gonzalez, Kramer, Borg, Laver, Sampras &c &c have also done - your name is forever in their company and comparisons are possible. Only the Slams have that continuity in terms both of time and having been prestigious for so long - only the slams have not been interfered with and had their status up and down graded at different times according to the needs of tours etc.. Their prestiege even survived the Amateur/Professional split - when they went Open the pros wanted to compete in and win the slams again.

That is why, IMHO, they are truly grand and career defining.

Winning Miami is great, obviously, but it does not go back beyond 1986 or so and whilst you are in great company - you miss out so many past greats.

In relation to Golf - exactly the same point. The difference is history. The Open has been going since 1860 - of the real greats of the game past and present only two have not won it - Byron Nelson and Ray Floyd, of the current big players Singh and Mickelson have not won it. Otherwise all the greats have going back to the origins of professinal golf - the winner of the Open joins a v. illustrious list. The same goes to a lesser extent for the other, younger, Major Championships - US Open 1895, US PGA 1916, Masters 1934.

The origin of their more formal separation is apparently a conversation between Arnold Palmer and some journalist on a plane over to the Open i nabout 1960 - they discussed Golf's equivalent of the Tennis Grandslam, and decided that the US Open, US PGA, Open, and Masters were the 4 most prestigious tournaments. The Masters only started in 1934, and if a similar conversation had taken place in the 1920's like it did with tennis the fourth would most likely have been the Western Open, which the greats like Walter Hagen and Gene Sarazen regarded v. highly.

When Tiger Woods was asked if the Players Championship (sort of equivalent to Miami in tennis) would ever become the fifth major he said "No" very firmly. When asked why, he said one word, "history".

Perhaps you could add that once people started recognising the exclusive status of the big four tournaments in each sport that of itself became something of a self-fulfilling prophesy.

I pretty much like and agree with this from GS2...Whilst they are the most important tournaments to win they have been overhyped through the generation as described here by GS2...That is why they are NOW the biggest tournaments with the biggest draws...through hype.

Whilst I understand this,I dont accept it as a reasonable explanation.The history you describe and the prestige actually comes from the great explanation given by GS2...The events are overhyped.But they are the best attraction in the tennis world and as history clearly defines it,everyone wants to win them!

Hmmm i'm not sure I was actually saying they were overhyped.

After all the term grand slam was applied because those 4 tournaments were clearly the big 4 tournaments at the time so for it to be used they must have had a clear status advantage over the other national events such as the Italian Open (which was a much bigger tournament then than it is now)

After all Wimbledon already called itself The Championships.

Of course as the years have gone by this status has grown more and more.

Ok cool...But do you get where Im coming from with why Im questioning them?

I don't see why you are questioning them. Saying they are over-hyped strikes me as an easy, and rather lazy, thing to say unless you tell us what you mean. Tennis is a competitive sport. In part because of that all participants and fans are forever wondering who is the best - and many participants are striving to be the best. The historical structure of tennis has not lent itself to a World Championship - that in turn is in part because the different surfaces so dramatically favour different players and in part because the sport has just not developed in that way historically. The historical structure of tennis has resulted in four tournaments being prized above all others during the year for some time now. Yes, the 'legend' of the slams has in part fed itself, but it is there and its result is that all the players want to win them more than anything else. You cannot deny that they are the most prestigous tournaments, and also that they are the most difficult to win, not least because all the players want to win them.

Since the world ranking system has developed being World No. 1 is also very prestigous. In time that may be considered the equal of winning a slam tournament.

To return to your original question, don't really see the point of a statement to the effect that the Slams are over-hyped. Without more it's a pretty empty thing to say. What do you mean? As far as I can see from your posting you are, like the rest of us, more interested in who wins the slams than any other tournaments. There is a good reason for that - maybe they did get lucky in the 1920's, but they did, and the result is that they have their current status. That's all there is to say really.

Not really? do you think it's a problem - this over-hyping? Do you not think it's a good thing that the tennis players have 4 major tournaments on which they focus - kind of their World Championships I guess? Do you think that we should no longer "hype" them, maybe make them less important? I understand what you're saying entirely Dark, I just don't quite understand why?

Gotta agree with Jo. I don't understand why you are questioning them?

Grandslams are the highlights of my year :D More hype please :D

it's all about the hype and the GSs deliver like no other :clap: :clap: :clap:

Quite aloof arent we Barry!!! We all love the Grand Slams and thats a fact.Im not in any way putting them down by saying that they are over hyped events,after all history is important in everything and these 4 definetly bring a lot of it to the forefront.However at the end of the day it is another big tennis tournament which is at the culmination of a particular season.In that regard the "GRAND" status hold true but realistically speaking there are only 2 major seasons that being the hardcourt and clay seasons.Grass is a toss up because its so short but I suppose thats what makes it the 1 to want,but back in the day 3 of the Slams were on grass so go figure!

All Im questioning is apart from the 5 sets for the men and the over emphasis from the past they are really just another tennis event sparked by the media hype through the generations to create huge interest at 4 given parts of the year.Yes I love the Grand Slams particularly The French and Wimbledon being my Favourites but as GS2 so eloquently pointed out it started in the 1920's by word of mouth and filtered through the ages.I only know that they are Grand because of what I read growing up...looking at it now its just another tennis event!

Hype is a good thing I like the fact that there is a global focus on my sport at some time during the year.Im just trying to see beyond the norms of history and hype as to why they are grand thats all...

I know, I love Grand Slams best 8 weeks (non-consecutive ;) ) of my year :D

The reason I like them as well apart from the obvious, is that they are all so unique in their own way and have something different to offer. Plus if you actually go to the Grand Slams, they are set in arguably the four greatest cities of the world, Melbourne, London, New York and Paris.

Grand Slam time is such a fantastic time for tennis fans :)

Don't you think that there is something special about Grand Slams then?

Also Barry made the very good point that Grand Slams were already the most prestigous and sought after titles in tennis before they were even called Grand Slams.

Do you not think that the reason that there is all the hype is that the players contribute to it themselves? The grand slams are the ones they all want to win, and put a lot of their focus on. Look at how much Fed obviously wants the French, and how he talks about Wimbledon being so important. And there's a lot of talk about how Federer is always very aware of history at the slams. I would think that if you're trying to look beyond history for a reason why the slams are so important, then you're probably not going to find anything.

Dark - I might have come over a bit heavy and pompous (moi? roflmao ), and I did not really mean to do so. I think Dinky Jo has put the point a bit more elegantly (and less ponderously) than I have. If you are looking outside sporting history for the differences between GS tournaments and the rest you are probably wasting your time - and whilst the 'slam' label may have contributed to their prestige, it was originally applied to already prestigious tournaments.

That is not over-hyping for me because a huge element of top sport is mental and the fact that for historical reasons these tournaments stand out so much in the eyes of fans, journalists, and the players makes them more difficult to win than the rest in a way that simply looking at the nature of the physical challenge does not identify.

You only need to look at the careers of Henin and Clijsters to see the point. Clijsters has been No. 1 and won a lot of tournaments and money and their H2H is well balanced. Their careers are nonetheless poles apart because of the clearly identified ability of Henin to thrive in the atmposhere of a slam tournament which has so often crushed Clijsters.

I definetly do SerenaW19...But like I said it just got big because someone said so...But I appreciate the fact they make our sport extra special 4 times a year especially Wimbledon!

Right, these events completely drive tennis, I mean, what do we look for at Monte Carlo, Rome, Berlin, etc.?, Who's going to be a threat for RG, same for the summer events at the US Open, and the grass events at Wimbledon, everything revolves around the Slams, even when they're not on...

The exception being Indian Wells-Miami, hence why they've become important events in their own right, I love the majors, I love how they're all so different, each one has a unique identity, different surface, a lot of history, which is why it's such a massive achievement to win all 4...

The hype is justified ;)

Grand slams are just soaked in history and tennis heritage, i mean Wimbledon is the oldest tennis event ever. I just love each of their traditions and what each different country brings to the game of tennis and the surfaces and venues.

I want hype, hype and more hype!!! :party: :party: :yahoo: :party:

I can see why Dark might have started off wondering about the history or reason behind the idea of certain events becoming 'slams', but I echo everyones sentiments here that whatever the reason, they are now steeped in history, tradition and contribute to making the tennis year what it is.

The hype for each one is justified, and is clearly something the players themselves look foward to and strive to win beyond all others. No need, therefore, to question them further, just sit back and enjoy :)

This is a dare i say it , a philosophical question, although it may not seem it.
The slams are venerated and have the kudos and are considered great , because people veneratet hem, think they're great and thus they have the kudos...clear?
Ok imagine everyone agreed diamonds were worthless-they have little intrinsic value, but if everyone suddenly believed they were worthless... they would be worthless. There status is derived from a widely shared view that they are desirable then it's just a question of demand outstripping supply and the price rockets.
Three main criteria are cited as giving the slams they're high status in the game, but are they well founded?
MONEY i don't think that's the key, there's no money involved in an olympic medal, but most players would want one-in fact the money follows the kudos (i'ts a simple as chicken and egg)
HISTORY in a way, but they have the history because they have the reputation, the history can't logically proceed the reputation, if they were considered crap no one would go to the events and they would not develop a history.
FIELD they draw the top players-but they draw the top players because they are the top venues, not the other way around.
If we all wake up tomorrow and decide one of the slams is crap-lets say the French, it will spiral into oblivion and anyone who won there will be forgotten in a few generations
it's because we all think of them as the acme of the sport, they can attract the players, money and develop the history. They're great because we think they're great!

This being the angle I was coming from...BT interesting criteria you have discussed and I agree with you once again.Particularly with the last part because the Aussie Open at 1 stage was not that big and look at Borg who just didnt want to play there and now its big!

as for the point about hype, of course the Grand slams are hyped, but everything is hyped these days, in fact the idea of hype itself is hyped!

roflmao