# Wimbledon -tennis court



## kate123

Hi, what would be the accurate expression for a tennis court that is of Wimbledone qualitiy? (as in 'an Olympic-size swimming pool')
Is there a specific expression that is appropriate or would it be all right
to use ' Wimbledone-scale tennis court?'

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Spira

As far as I know, tennis uses no such yardsticks. The dimensions of a court should always be exactly the same (unlike a football pitch, for example) and of course there are many types of surface: grass like Wimbledon, clay like Paris, and many hard surfaces which are the majority.
It might be more appropriate to compare the different stadia which house the tournaments, but you don't even really see much of that either.


----------



## Barque

Wimbledon courts are all grass but tennis courts can have other surfaces too. 

I think "world-class tennis court" would be more appropriate.


----------



## Packard

The size of tennis courts is uniform regardless of where the game is played.

The playing surface varies.

The French Open is played on clay.

Wimbledon is played on grass.

Most U.S.A. courts are "hard courts" (artificial surface).


----------



## Barque

I think kate123 was referring to the quality rather than the size (and the reference to an Olympic size pool was just an example). Or have I misunderstood the question?


----------



## panjandrum

Barque said:


> I think kate123 was referring to the quality rather than the size (and the reference to an Olympic size pool was just an example). Or have I misunderstood the question?


That makes sense to me.  I think she is referring to the quality of the court and the size and nature of the audience arrangements.

But I can't imagine anyone actually wanting to use this structure.  To make the comparison it would have to be explained in more words.


----------



## kate123

Barque said:


> I think kate123 was referring to the quality rather than the size (and the reference to an Olympic size pool was just an example). Or have I misunderstood the question?


 

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. I didn't expect there to be so much misunderstanding over this...but I see what you all mean. I'll settle for _world-class tennis court_ then. Thanks.


----------



## Packard

My problem with "world-class" is that it is used so often in so many differing situations that I fear it has become meaningless.

Other options become wordy, so I don't have much to suggest.

*WTA tournament worthy...*

*A court worth of John McEnroe, Martina Navratolova, or Ilie Nastase...*

But I think I would just describe what it is; for example:

*The eight regulation sized tennis courts feature the latest Har Tru playing surfaces and regulation netting; the center court has spectator bleachers protected from the sun by a large tent-like structure...*


----------



## kate123

Packard said:


> My problem with "world-class" is that it is used so often in so many differing situations that I fear it has become meaningless.
> 
> Other options become wordy, so I don't have much to suggest.
> 
> *WTA tournament worthy...*
> 
> *A court worth of John McEnroe, Martina Navratolova, or Ilie Nastase...*
> 
> But I think I would just describe what it is; for example:
> 
> *The eight regulation sized tennis courts feature the latest Har Tru playing surfaces and regulation netting; the center court has spectator bleachers protected from the sun by a large tent-like structure...*


 

I see what you mean but the text just calls for a very short expression, nothing too focused on the details of the court. But thank you anyway.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I think you need to be clear, Kate, whether you mean just the court, i.e. the surface, or what Panj. calls the _audience arrangements_. Most people playing tennis are primarily concerned with the playing surface, though people who have to arrange tournaments clearly have to consider many other things besides. 

Just three tiny points:

1. While the size of the actual markings on the court are the same for all courts, the size of the runbacks and the space at the sides of the court are not standard. Clearly for major tournaments the courts should have generous runbacks and room at the side, but this is not standard across different tournaments, or even across different courts in the same tournament. Equally, some show courts at tournaments have more technology available than their outside courts, even in major, Grand Slam, tournaments. Even in the same tournament, the difference in the court can make technical differences for the players - obviously if a court doesn't have hawkeye facilities, for instance, players cannot refer decisions.

2. It is inaccurate to say, as has been said here, that the All England Club, which is a private club, at Wimbledon, only has grass courts. At the moment they have 19 grass courts (including the Centre Court and No. 1 Court), five red shale courts, three Continental clay courts, one American clay court and five indoor courts, (two Greenset Velvelux and three Greenset Trophy).

3. You need to remember that although lawn tennis is often called just _tennis__,_ there is also a wonderful game called _tennis, _which is played indoors: some people call it _real tennis_. If you look up the _rules of tennis_ on the web, you will probably get the rules of _real tennis_.  This is not a frivolous point, though I know it may seem so to people who have never seen real tennis played.

All this means that for us to help you properly, you need to give us clear instructions about what you want, and the context in which you want to use the form of words you are looking for.


----------



## Spira

Kate, you don't work professionally in tennis, do you? 
I work in sport. The term "tennis court" is imprecise, as it refers to the playing surface area, which is unchangeable in tennis, and the "arena", as in Court no. 1 and Court no. 2 etc
Define your terms more clearly, and the replies will become more relevant.


----------



## pickarooney

The difference between the lush green Centre Court on the first day of the All England Lawn Tennis Championship and the threadbare brown mess that's left for the final is great enough to render the whole comparison moot, by my reckoning.


----------



## kate123

pickarooney said:


> The difference between the lush green Centre Court on the first day of the All England Lawn Tennis Championship and the threadbare brown mess that's left for the final is great enough to render the whole comparison moot, by my reckoning.


 

That's exactly what I mean. Thank you


----------



## kate123

Spira said:


> Kate, you don't work professionally in tennis, do you?
> I work in sport. The term "tennis court" is imprecise, as it refers to the playing surface area, which is unchangeable in tennis, and the "arena", as in Court no. 1 and Court no. 2 etc
> Define your terms more clearly, and the replies will become more relevant.


 
Well, no offense but as a matter of fact, this text I'm working on has absolutely no relevance to my level of expertise in tennis and I don't think that the term 'tennis court' is imprecise to 99% of people who don't really give much thought whatsoever about the surface area of tennis courts and etc.


----------



## kate123

Thomas Tompion said:


> I think you need to be clear, Kate, whether you mean just the court, i.e. the surface, or what Panj. calls the _audience arrangements_. Most people playing tennis are primarily concerned with the playing surface, though people who have to arrange tournaments clearly have to consider many other things besides.
> 
> Just three tiny points:
> 
> 1. While the size of the actual markings on the court are the same for all courts, the size of the runbacks and the space at the sides of the court are not standard. Clearly for major tournaments the courts should have generous runbacks and room at the side, but this is not standard across different tournaments, or even across different courts in the same tournament. Equally, some show courts at tournaments have more technology available than their outside courts, even in major, Grand Slam, tournaments. Even in the same tournament, the difference in the court can make technical differences for the players - obviously if a court doesn't have hawkeye facilities, for instance, players cannot refer decisions.
> 
> 2. It is inaccurate to say, as has been said here, that the All England Club, which is a private club, at Wimbledon, only has grass courts. At the moment they have 19 grass courts (including the Centre Court and No. 1 Court), five red shale courts, three Continental clay courts, one American clay court and five indoor courts, (two Greenset Velvelux and three Greenset Trophy).
> 
> 3. You need to remember that although lawn tennis is often called just _tennis__,_ there is also a wonderful game called _tennis, _which is played indoors: some people call it _real tennis_. If you look up the _rules of tennis_ on the web, you will probably get the rules of _real tennis_. This is not a frivolous point, though I know it may seem so to people who have never seen real tennis played.
> 
> All this means that for us to help you properly, you need to give us clear instructions about what you want, and the context in which you want to use the form of words you are looking for.


 

Thanks but I don't think so.
I think I have been perfectly clear about the context: once and for all, this is not about the specific terminology of tennis courts.
Please keep in mind that to many people, a tennis court is just a tennis court and nothing more. There's nothing grammatically incorrect about that.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

kate123 said:


> Thanks but I don't think so.
> I think I have been perfectly clear about the context: once and for all, this is not about the specific terminology of tennis courts.
> Please keep in mind that to many people, a tennis court is just a tennis court and nothing more. There's nothing grammatically incorrect about that.


I'm very sorry.  I thought you might want an accurate answer.


----------



## kate123

Thomas Tompion said:


> I'm very sorry. I thought you might want an accurate answer.


 
oh, no no no, I didn't mean to sound peeved. I was just trying to be EXTRA CLEAR, especially with so many people misunderstanding me. Please don't take offense : )


----------



## Uncle Bob

Hello,
Probably too late but how about "of Wimbledon standards"?


----------



## Packard

Uncle Bob said:


> Hello,
> Probably too late but how about "of Wimbledon standards"?


 
In the unlikely event that the courts were made with grass playing surfaces, yes.

Clay and grass require extraordinary amounts of maintenance and are rarely built anymore.  

Wimbledon (grass) and the French Open (clay) are rare exceptions to the hard-surface-only that is seen almost everywhere else.


----------



## Uncle Bob

I really shouldn't help dragging this topic out but...
Given the original question it seems that all that is needed is an expression for a high quality/posh tennis court. If the readers are not going to be tennis fanatics then the equivalence of the playing surface will not mean anything to them anyway.
The question that does remain is where most of the readers are likely to be. 'Wimbledon' would be OK for UK readers and, perhaps, Europeans in general but I would imagine it might well not mean much to an 'average' American and the US equivalent ('Flushing Meadows', or is that golf?) would be preferable.


----------



## Myridon

Wimbledon is quite familiar to Americans. List of Wimbledon Champions See all the US flags? 
Wimbledon is the name of the Grand Slam of Tennis (aka Majors) tournament and the place, but the one played in Flushing Meadows is called the US Open. I think more people here would associate Wimbledon than Flushing Meadows with tennis.
But, as has been said, there's nothing specific about Wimbledon that is actually being compared to the courts in question (no strawberries and cream are being served). They're just high-quality in general - world-class.


----------



## Spira

I didn't mean to sound peeved. I was just trying to be EXTRA CLEAR, especially with so many people misunderstanding me. 

If so many people misunderstand, shouldn't you call yourself into question?
"Tennis court" itself is of course not grammatical incorrect, just too loose a term to receive a single correct answer.

As a parallel, it might be like asking if a golfer was "offside".


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Uncle Bob said:


> I really shouldn't help dragging this topic out but...
> Given the original question it seems that all that is needed is an expression for a high quality/posh tennis court. If the readers are not going to be tennis fanatics then the equivalence of the playing surface will not mean anything to them anyway.
> The question that does remain is where most of the readers are likely to be. 'Wimbledon' would be OK for UK readers and, perhaps, Europeans in general but I would imagine it might well not mean much to an 'average' American and the US equivalent ('Flushing Meadows', or is that golf?) would be preferable.


Exactly.  And there's the other matter of what is their educational level and experience of tennis.  We can't make accurate recommendations until we know who is going to read the form of words we choose.  

If a person is going to play on this court, he will want to know what the surface is, how well it is kept, and how generous the run-backs are.  These are the things which immediately affect the pleasure one gets from the game.


----------



## kate123

Uncle Bob said:


> I really shouldn't help dragging this topic out but...
> Given the original question it seems that all that is needed is an expression for a high quality/posh tennis court. If the readers are not going to be tennis fanatics then the equivalence of the playing surface will not mean anything to them anyway.


 
Well, I consulted my professor about this and professor says
'world-class tennis court' is just fine, for whatever it's worth. Like Bob says, playing surface means nothing to most people who aren't tennis fanatics.


----------



## Spira

Ok, so if the playing surface counts for nothing, what does _'world-class tennis court'_ actually refer to? Size of crowd capacity? Good public transport? Clean toilets?
The whole terminology is too vague to mean anything.
As I said in my first answer, you would not hear this question in a tennis context.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I agree with Spira.  I can't imagine any careful speaker who knew much about tennis using this form of words.


----------



## Uncle Bob

Spira said:


> Ok, so if the playing surface counts for nothing, what does _'world-class tennis court'_ actually refer to? Size of crowd capacity? Good public transport? Clean toilets?


Sorry for harping but I suggest the fact that a tennis court has a grass playing surface does not, in itself, establish its reputation. Things like its history, the fame of the players who appear there, the size of the crowd (and therefore, indirectly, capacity), media coverage and possibly the prize money contribute a lot.
Still, I'm no expert and I must admit that despite having lived in Wimbledon for a number of years I have never been to a tennis match there.


----------



## Spira

Uncle Bob said:


> Sorry for harping but I suggest the fact that a tennis court has a grass playing surface does not, in itself, establish its reputation. Things like its history, the fame of the players who appear there, the size of the crowd (and therefore, indirectly, capacity), media coverage and possibly the prize money contribute a lot.
> Still, I'm no expert and I must admit that despite having lived in Wimbledon for a number of years I have never been to a tennis match there.


 
To be more precise, all the criteria you quote above are good yardsticks to determine whether a certain tournament is of world class quality.
No-one ever really asks those questions about the court itself;


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Uncle Bob said:


> Sorry for harping but I suggest the fact that a tennis court has a grass playing surface does not, in itself, establish its reputation. [...]


 I agree entirely.  I'm puzzled, however, because I hadn't noticed anyone suggesting that it did.  Maybe I missed something.


----------



## kate123

world-class car, world-class restaurant, world-class hotel, world-class university, world-class tennis court, world-class swimming pool : HIGH QUALITY


The whole point is that the term should be perfectly understandable by ANYONE who speaks English, irrelevant of his/her knowledge of tennis; even if the reader is someone who literally doesn't know anything about tennis except that it's a sport played in a court with rackets and a ball, he/she should be able to read 'world-class tennis court' (or any other, possibly better, expression that conveys the intended meaning) and understand what's being said. It should be universal and not exclusive to people who are more knowledgeable about the sport.


----------



## kate123

Spira said:


> To be more precise, all the criteria you quote above are good yardsticks to determine whether a certain tournament is of world class quality.
> No-one ever really asks those questions about the court itself;


 
a world-class tournament would obviously require a world-class tennis court


----------



## Thomas Tompion

kate123 said:


> [...] It should be universal and not exclusive to people who are more knowledgeable about the sport.


I don't think it's so much a matter of what it should be but of what it is, or, in the case of the phrase proposed, isn't.


----------



## kate123

Thomas Tompion said:


> I don't think it's so much a matter of what it should be but what it is, or, in the case of the phrase proposed, isn't.


 

Why *shouldn't* it be understable by anyone who speaks and reads English? Are you saying that the term high-quality tennis court is something that is invalid in terms of what it *is*? A high-quality tennis court should not be called that because it goes against...what, exactly? What about a plane then? Since most people don't know the first thing about how to build one, they should refrain from calling a good one a high-quality plane or a world-class plane?


----------



## Packard

kate123 said:


> world-class car, world-class restaurant, world-class hotel, world-class university, world-class tennis court, world-class swimming pool : HIGH QUALITY ...


 
I'm not certain that you can always equate "quality" with "world-class".

*"Jeffrey Dahmer was a world-class murderer of the worst kind; he not only murdered young victims, he served them up for dinner..."*


----------



## kate123

Packard said:


> I'm not certain that you can always equate "quality" with "world-class".
> 
> *"Jeffrey Dahmer was a world-class murderer of the worst kind; he not only murdered young victims, he served them up for dinner..."*


 

hmm you're right but in the context of my text, which was about a luxury resort, world-class tennis court seemed appropriate enough. and also, even in your sentence about the murderer, it does imply that he was the most prominent, even though not at all in a positive way. like for instance, a world-class liar would mean that the liar is very good at what he's doing, so he would be of the highest quality, whether or not lying is a desirable talent.


----------



## Packard

kate123 said:


> hmm you're right but in the context of my text, which was about a luxury resort, world-class tennis court seemed appropriate enough. and also, even in your sentence about the murderer, it does imply that he was the most prominent, even though not at all in a positive way. like for instance, a world-class liar would mean that the liar is very good at what he's doing, so he would be of the highest quality, whether or not lying is a desirable talent.


 

My real beef with "world-class" is that it is so over-used that it has gone beyond cliche and into the realm of meaningless.  I avoid the phrase in all my writing and speech.  I would strive for some phrasing that still has some clout.


----------



## kate123

Packard said:


> My real beef with "world-class" is that it is so over-used that it has gone beyond cliche and into the realm of meaningless. I avoid the phrase in all my writing and speech. I would strive for some phrasing that still has some clout.


 

hmm..ok, can you suggest a few good expressions to replace it with?
(for 'world-class restaurant', or the problematic 'world-class tennis court', for instance)


----------



## Thomas Tompion

kate123 said:


> hmm you're right but in the context of my text, which was about a luxury resort, [...]


 I think this is part of the context some of us have been asking for from the start.  Isn't this the first we've heard of this luxury resort?  Are these words needed for some sort of publicity?  It makes a difference.  Who was the mysterious professor?  Was he employed by the resort?


----------



## Packard

kate123 said:


> hmm..ok, can you suggest a few good expressions to replace it with?
> (for 'world-class restaurant', or the problematic 'world-class tennis court', for instance)


 

Responding quickly and on the fly--I'm sure you can do better with some more thought: 


*Amongst the best I've played on... (or eaten at...)*

*A peer to the finest courts in the world...*

*In a world of high quality tennis courts, these are amongst the best...*

*None better in the world of tennis courts...*

*Superior to most and the equal to the very best...*

(Wordier to be sure; but less hackneyed too.  The final effort seems better than the earlier ones.)


----------



## Spira

Kate123, I know you are desperate to describe a tennis court as world class, and I know you don't accept that you shouldn't, but describing a tennis court as world class just sounds incongruous.
A world class holiday resort might have a complex of superb tennis courts, but world class would just be a strange and perplexing way of describing them. 
And by the way, if you invited the right players you could have a world class tournament on a really shitty tennis court. In fact, if I had enough money, I could probably organise a world class tournament in my back garden.


----------



## Spira

kate123 said:


> Why *shouldn't* it be understable by anyone who speaks and reads English? Are you saying that the term high-quality tennis court is something that is invalid in terms of what it *is*? A high-quality tennis court should not be called that because it goes against...what, exactly? What about a plane then? Since most people don't know the first thing about how to build one, they should refrain from calling a good one a high-quality plane or a world-class plane?


 
And sorry to go on a bit, but who has ever heard of a "world class plane"?


----------



## panjandrum

This discussion is going nowhere and has been closed.
There is no point whatever in continuing conversation when the original poster appears to have her own ideas about what is correct, chooses to ignore the advice she is given, and refuses to disclose essential information about the context and background.


----------

