Why isn't there a World Tennis Title?

EGarrett

Silver Belt
@Silver
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
10,798
Reaction score
1
I figured out why I don't watch tennis.

Tyson vs. Holyfield. Ken vs. Tito. Hulk Hogan vs. the Ultimate Warrior. Fischer vs. Spassky.

All of these memories have something in common...the World Title. They're the "climax" of the sport. They let you know who the best is...which gives you an entree to following the rest of it.

Tennis doesn't have it. There's a World Tennis Championship Tournament, but there's no belt (or trophy, wreath whatever)...a single person who holds the title and defends. FIDE (who organizes world professional chess) has tried to do away with the singular World Chess Champion concept several times, and everyone backlashes so much that they've given up on removing it. It's clearly a good thing for marketing a sport.

I wonder why they don't do it in tennis.
 
I don't like your idea at all Egarrett. I like tennis the way it is now with the 4 majors Wimbledon, French Open, US Open, and Australian Open, and tennis is an Olympic Sport as well.
 
Because they already have 4 of them, they call them majors or grand slams. Golf is the same way.
 
They literally play 100s if not 1000s of matches over a career.

There's be about 30 title changes a year. Not comparable at all to combat sports.
 
Probably because Tennis is a waste of time and an abject failure of a "sport".
 
They literally play 100s if not 1000s of matches over a career.

There's be about 30 title changes a year. Not comparable at all to combat sports.

This.

Also there are different type of courts and usually players suck at one of them (clay, grass, hard).
 
I don't like your idea at all Egarrett. I like tennis the way it is now with the 4 majors Wimbledon, French Open, US Open, and Australian Open, and tennis is an Olympic Sport as well.
I didn't ask if you liked tennis.
 
Because they already have 4 of them, they call them majors or grand slams. Golf is the same way.
They literally play 100s if not 1000s of matches over a career.

There's be about 30 title changes a year. Not comparable at all to combat sports.
Chess has major tournaments each year, and chess players play 100's of games. They still have a world championship contested in matches consisting of multiple games between the same players over a certain time period. As I said, FIDE, who organizes this, has tried to phase it out and do away with it repeatedly, since the World Champion holds leverage over them...and the fans, media, and players all say no. The drama and lineage of it add too much to the game.

The issue of clay vs grass vs hard court is interesting, but I don't think it really would be an obstacle, especially if playing more than one match.
 
All of these memories have something in common...the World Title. They're the "climax" of the sport. They let you know who the best is...which gives you an entree to following the rest of it

What do you consider the World Title in boxing?

WBA? WBO? WBC? IBF? The Ring?

Talk about confusing
 
Who is the current World Title holder in boxings Cruiserweight Divison? Or Junior Heavyweight?
 
What do you consider the World Title in boxing?

WBA? WBO? WBC? IBF? The Ring?

Talk about confusing
Boxing has had its greatest successes when the titles become unified, which demonstrates the principle.
 
Also the big problem with Tennis and Golf trying to add a world championship is it would never have the history or prestige of any of the 4 majors. You already see that with Tennis in the Olympics, pretty much all Tennis fans consider an Olympic gold to be a tier below all 4 of the majors. Golf kind of tried to make a season championship with the Fed Ex Cup and it's failed miserably, no golf fans even see it as remotely close to the prestige of a major, it's pretty much just a big pay day for the winner.
 
Back
Top