Are WTF and Olympic Gold in singles equallly relevant?

[Sport]

It was created another poll about this, but unfortunately it didn't include the option "both are equally relevant".

It's not a secret that the World Tour Finals have been historically more relevant than the Olympic Gold in singles. But times changes, and right now it is a legitimate question.

Let's compare these two pretigious tournaments:

1) Difficulty: World Tour Finals are played among the best 8 ATP players in the ranking. It makes the matches extremelly though. Every calendar year, there is an edition of this tournament. On the other hand, Olympic Games are played every four years. To stablish an analogy wiwth football: what is more difficult to achieve the Champions League or the World Cup? Real Madrid has won 12 Champions League titles, but no national team has ever won the World Cup more than 5 times. So, even though World Tour Finals are very difficult to win, because of the quality of the opponents, I would still put the OG in singles as more difficult to achieve, because of the limited number of editions.

2) Current prestige among players: Some players like Steffi Graf, Serena Williams, Agassi, Djokovic or Murray say the Olympic Gold Medal in singles is so prestigious or even more than a GS.
Source:
http://www.letsecondserve.com/2012/07/olympics-or-slams-whats-more-important.html
http://www.worldtennismagazine.com/archives/8213

I wouldn't put an Olympic Gold Medal as relevant as a GS, but in my opinion is at least equally relevant than the World Tour Finals, a tournament played every year, while the Olympics are disputed every four years. The Olympic Gold Medal doesn't give you any ATP points. Murray, the last winner, won 0 new ATP points. You play for your honour and your country. The Olympic Gold Medal in singles is like the World Cup of Football in terms of relevance. In fact, it's even more difficult to win a Gold Medal in singles than winning a Grand Slam. Grand Slams are more prestigious and more relevant but no more difficult to achieve. You can try to win a particular Grand Slam every year, which means you can try it like 15 or 16 times in your career. You only can try to win an Olympic Gold Medal in singles 3 or 4 times in your career. Federer lost to Haas in 2000, Berdych in 2004, Blake in 2008 and Murray in 2012. Even Federer found it impossible to win one, it shows how difficult it is to achieve. Before anyone starts with the argument that some unknown player has won the Gold Medal, I will reply than Gaston Gaudio won a Grand Slam in 2004 and only a few people remember him.

Sampras participated in the 1992 Olympics, and Agassi won the Gold Medal in 1996. In the 90s, the Olympic Gold Medal started to be more relevant, but in the XXI century the Olympic Gold in singles has acquired a new status as a relevant trophy in tennis. You only have to see how Djokovic cried of emotion and pain when Del Potro beated him in the 2016 Summer Olympics.

In sum, I think they can be considered equally relevant. The World Tour Finals have been historically very relevant. WTF are also disputed among the 8 players with higher ATP ranking. It makes pretty difficult draws. On the other hand, the Olympic Gold in singles is only played every four years, which make it an extremelly difficult trophy to achieve. And it is becoming more and more prestigious in the XXI century.

Discuss.

 

[KingKyrgios]

I'd say WTF is significantly more impressive.As you said,only the best of the best qualify and it has been regarded as a top tournament for much of tennis history.

Olympics have never been in the same tier historically and only started to gain traction among a certain fanbase in order to prop up their fav...

 

[TennisATP]

It was created another poll about this, but unfortunately it didn't include the option "both are equally relevant".

It's not a secret that the World Tour Finals have been historically more relevant than the Olympic Gold in singles. But times changes, and right now it is a legitimate question.

Let's compare these two pretigious tournaments:

1) Difficulty: World Tour Finals are played among the best 8 ATP players in the ranking. It makes the matches extremelly though. Every calendar year, there is an edition of this tournament. On the other hand, Olympic Games are played every four years. To stablish an analogy wiwth football: what is more difficult to achieve the Champions League or the World Cup? Real Madrid has won 12 Champions League titles, but no national team has ever won the World Cup more than 5 times. So, even though World Tour Finals are very difficult to win, because of the quality of the opponents, I would still put the OG in singles as more difficult to achieve, because of the limited number of editions.

2) Current prestige among players: Some players like Steffi Graf, Serena Williams, Agassi, Djokovic or Murray say the Olympic Gold Medal in singles is so prestigious or even more than a GS.
Source:
http://www.letsecondserve.com/2012/07/olympics-or-slams-whats-more-important.html
http://www.worldtennismagazine.com/archives/8213

I wouldn't put an Olympic Gold Medal as relevant as a GS, but in my opinion is at least equally relevant than the World Tour Finals, a tournament played every year, while the Olympics are disputed every four years. The Olympic Gold Medal doesn't give you any ATP points. Murray, the last winner, won 0 new ATP points. You play for your honour and your country. The Olympic Gold Medal in singles is like the World Cup of Football in terms of relevance. In fact, it's even more difficult to win a Gold Medal in singles than winning a Grand Slam. Grand Slams are more prestigious and more relevant but no more difficult to achieve. You can try to win a particular Grand Slam every year, which means you can try it like 15 or 16 times in your career. You only can try to win an Olympic Gold Medal in singles 3 or 4 times in your career. Federer lost to Haas in 2000, Berdych in 2004, Blake in 2008 and Murray in 2012. Even Federer found it impossible to win one, it shows how difficult it is to achieve. Before anyone starts with the argument that some unknown player has won the Gold Medal, I will reply than Gaston Gaudio won a Grand Slam in 2004 and only a few people remember him.

Sampras participated in the 1992 Olympics, and Agassi won the Gold Medal in 1996. In the 90s, the Olympic Gold Medal started to be more relevant, but in the XXI century the Olympic Gold in singles has acquired a new status as a relevant trophy in tennis. You only have to see how Djokovic cried of emotion and pain when Del Potro beated him in the 2016 Summer Olympics.

In sum, I think they can be considered equally relevant. The World Tour Finals have been historically very relevant. WTF are also disputed among the 8 players with higher ATP ranking. It makes pretty difficult draws. On the other hand, the Olympic Gold in singles is only played every four years, which make it an extremelly difficult trophy to achieve. And it is becoming more and more prestigious in the XXI century.

Discuss.

 

[Username_]

wtf = must play decent all year round to qualify against other top 7 players for the year then having to contend against them
olympics = free entry every 4 years

which seems harder to achieve

 

[TennisATP]

wtf = must play decent all year round to qualify against other top 7 players for the year then having to contend against them
olympics = free entry every 4 years

which seems harder to achieve

the Olympics.

 

[Sport]

wtf = must play decent all year round to qualify against other top 7 players for the year then having to contend against them
olympics = free entry every 4 years

which seems harder to achieve

A player can participate 15 or 16 times in the WTF during his career. But it is only possible to participate in the Olympic Games like 3 or 4 times in a career.

For example, Federer has participated 14 times (15 this season) in the WTF. He will end up his career with no less than 16 editions. Meanwhile, he "only" has participated 4 times in the Olympic Games.

Because of the limited number of editions, I still think the OG in singles is more difficult to achieve.

 

[KingKyrgios]

Nicolás Massú is somewhat of an authority on this topic.

I dont believe he could have ever put himself into position to win the WTF.
Yet he won the olympics...

 

[Sport]

Nicolás Massú is somewhat of an authority on this topic.

I dont believe he could have ever put himself into position to win the WTF.
Yet he won the olympics...

Álex Corretja is somewhat of an autorithy on this topic.

I don't believe he could have ever put himself into position to win the OG in singles.

Yet he won the WTF...

 

[Mainad]

wtf = must play decent all year round to qualify against other top 7 players for the year then having to contend against them
olympics = free entry every 4 years

which seems harder to achieve

There's no free entry into the Olympics. Each national Olympic association can nominate only a limited number of their players to take part, usually their best ones of course if available.

 

[papertank]

If you ask any actual pro players, all of them would say the Olympics are more important. Especially nowadays. Maybe back a couple decades ago it wasn't.

 

[Chadillac]

If you ask any actual pro players, all of them would say the Olympics are more important. Especially nowadays. Maybe back a couple decades ago it wasn't.

Ya, they love playing a week of tennis for no prize money and a $5 fake gold medal, LOL.

Incase you guys havent realized this, tennis plays the olympics at every tournament. Its not like we have to wait 4 years to see players from two different countries play each other.

The olmypics dont even reward atp points, yet people think it matters, lmao

 

[Slightly D1]

The olympics only happen every 4 years and for every player it is significant because it is such a rare tournament to play in with maybe 3 or 4 opportunities to compete in it during a career. It is also meaningful in the sense that they are representing their nation. Of course the Olympics are going to get downplayed when Federer has been unable to win one which is a shame but that is what makes the Olympics so valuable. You don't see a similar level of emotion in the WTF as you see in the olympics.

 

[Slightly D1]

Ya, they love playing a week of tennis for no prize money and a $5 fake gold medal, LOL.

Incase you guys havent realized this, tennis plays the olympics at every tournament. Its not like we have to wait 4 years to see players from two different countries play each other.

The olmypics dont even reward atp points, yet people think it matters, lmao

It previously had awarded points in 2008 and 2012, the ITF chose not to award point in Rio 2016 because of the surface that was used among some of the reasons. The players also receive a lot of money for the olympics from their home countries. But you act like since the tournament itself isn't going to be giving out a massive paycheck to the winner that it doesn't count, why don't you ask the players themselves about the value of an Olympic gold and representing their country?

 

[titoelcolombiano]

I guess this is just a Rafa v Fed thread but WTF is obviously more relevant to the tour as it is actually part of the tour and is the 5th most prestigious event based on points awarded.

The Olympic singles gold medal is more of a career prestige title outside of the ATP tour as is a Davis Cup title.

None of the above have much to do with GOAT as they are tie breaker stats. When we look back on the great players throughout history the only things that matter are (in this order):

- Slam titles
- World # 1 achievements (YE # 1 and weeks at # 1)
- How the player in question faired against their main rivals

When we look back on previous issues there are very few times we look at guys like Becker, Connors, Borg, McEnroe outside of the context of the above criteria. The only one that creeps in other than that is Laver's CYGS.

 

[Chadillac]

But you act like since the tournament itself isn't going to be giving out a massive paycheck to the winner that it doesn't count

Money is what makes a sport professional. These so called pro's are only playing for a $5 trophy like we used to do in the juniors

 

[KINGROGER]

WTF superior.

Olympics is every 4 years so pot luck which year it falls on. 0 ranking points last year and only 750 in 2012 so it's closer to a 500 than a slam. Even Fed who could've played it injured decided against it, and a whole bunch of others dropped out. Fed prioritised Wimbledon both 2012, 2016 and USO in 2004.

 

[Slightly D1]

Money is what makes a sport professional. These so called pro's are only playing for a $5 trophy like we used to do in the juniors

Your logic would make sense if the best players in the world weren't going to the olympics and weren't competing to their best and weren't getting upset when they lost... but you know, they do. You can try to make it as irrelevant as you want due to your personal support of a player but there is a reason so many players who actually have the opportunity to do it, do it and want to win it. Unlike you who turns down the opportunity to play in the olympics because you wouldn't be paid enough apparently. The payout or lack of major payout for winning is absolutely not an issue with guys who want to play for their country and do something that not many people get to do, even other pros.

 

[TMF]

I guess this is just a Rafa v Fed thread but WTF is obviously more relevant to the tour as it is actually part of the tour and is the 5th most prestigious event based on points awarded.

The Olympic singles gold medal is more of a career presige title outside of the ATP tour as is a Davis Cup title.

None of the above have much to do with GOAT as they are tie breaker stats. When we look back on the great players throughout history the only things that matter are (in this order):

- Slam titles
- World # 1 achievements (YE # 1 and weeks at # 1)
- How the player in question faired against their main rivals

When we look back on previous issues there are very few times we look at guys like Becker, Connors, Borg, McEnroe outside of the context of the above criteria. The only one that creeps in other than that is Laver's CYGS.

According to an international panel of journalists, coaches, historians and industry representatives from 6 different continents, these are the following criteria being use to evaluate the player's ranking in ATG. Olympics results was never a criteria.

* Number of Major Titles won
* Overall performance at Grand Slam Events
* Player Ranking
* Performance at ATP/WTA events
* Performance(Win/loss record) at Davis & Fed Cup events
* Records held or broken(i.e. Consecutive winning streaks)
* Intangibles(Overall contribution to tennis)

 

[Deleted member 3771]

Standards change. The Olympics has left the wtf in the dust in recent times.

Now that the wtf is entirely a bo3 format, entry into the wtf should be based exclusively on best of 3 results(or best of 3 indoor results) throughout the year. It makes little sense for the entry to be based largely on outdoor slam results, and then not even have a best of 5 final - That is like having a top 8 100m sprinting championship at the end of the year with entry based largely on the best 200 or 400m results of runners throughout the year.

 

[Tommy Haas]

There's no free entry into the Olympics. Each national Olympic association can nominate only a limited number of their players to take part, usually their best ones of course if available.

I believe in the US and many other countries, you need to participate in Davis Cup to be considered for Olympic entry.

Federer also lucked out he started playing professionally when he did and the timing worked out for him where he played 4 times. Most players get 2 to 3 chances max, even 3 is rare since that's 12 years of playing good enough to be selected.

Times change and the Olympic Gold is important to players today while it wasn't during the Sampras years. Same with the AO; it's important now where no one skips while Sampras and Agassi skipped a few.

 

[QuadCam]

General sports fans remember the Olympics. No one other than hard core tennis fans even know the WTF exists ! That's the truth.

 

[KINGROGER]

General sports fans remember the Olympics. No one other than hard core tennis fans even know the WTF exists ! That's the truth.

If you want to go by the "casual sports fan" opinion, then Federer will be the defacto tennis GOAT even if Nadal wins 20 slams.

Ask any random person who the best tennis player is, your most popular answer will be Federer.

 

[metsman]

Álex Corretja is somewhat of an autorithy on this topic.

I don't believe he could have ever put himself into position to win the OG in singles.

Yet he won the WTF...

Correjta reached multiple slam finals and couldn't sniff OG, OG>slams.

 

[metsman]

WTF superior.

Olympics is every 4 years so pot luck which year it falls on. 0 ranking points last year and only 750 in 2012 so it's closer to a 500 than a slam. Even Fed who could've played it injured decided against it, and a whole bunch of others dropped out. Fed prioritised Wimbledon both 2012, 2016 and USO in 2004.

I'd say OG is on par with masters, maybe slightly above, but masters are utterly irrelevant compared to slams and WTF in terms of historical standing. In general, OG falls into Masters, in that they can be used to determine playing level or ranking (not anymore) but comparing olympics or masters counts to determine greatness is irrelevant.

Winning an undefeated WTF is almost as impressive as winning a slam, and if the slam draw is a joke and the WTF is good, then it's more impressive.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

The olympics only happen every 4 years and for every player it is significant because it is such a rare tournament to play in with maybe 3 or 4 opportunities to compete in it during a career. It is also meaningful in the sense that they are representing their nation. Of course the Olympics are going to get downplayed when Federer has been unable to win one which is a shame but that is what makes the Olympics so valuable. You don't see a similar level of emotion in the WTF as you see in the olympics.

So now we are judging the tournaments based on the emotions involved?

 

[User123]

So now we are judging the tournaments based on the emotions involved?

It tells about what the players think about this tournaments. I can't imagine Djokovic crying about a loss at the WTF. But he did cry after losing in Olympics in both 2008 and 2016.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

It tells about what the players think about this tournaments. I can't imagine Djokovic crying about a loss at the WTF. But he did cry after losing in Olympics in both 2008 and 2016.

I am sure that those emotions directly influence the draws, the format and the points earned (oh, forget that).

 

[smash hit]

In the world of sports an Olympic Gold is far more prestigious than a WTF trophy. Outside of tennis, who has even heard of the WTF's.

The WTF's is the only tennis tournament where a player can lose a match, but still win the tournament. It certainly doesn't merit 1500 ranking points. I assume it is supposed to be representative of the World Tour and yet it doesn't represent it in any way.

 

[Mazz Retic]

Pretty easy to see that historically the WTF has been a very important tournament. In saying that, the olympics has gained a stature that it didn't have before. I'd argue that the WTF is still ahead in prestige but the olympics is very special and I can understand someone arguing it as being equal and perhaps even superior to the WTF.

 

[killerboi2]

Neither are relevant at all when it comes to GOAT discussion. Otherwise, WTF slightly above Olympics but I would put Olympics ahead of m1000s.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

In the world of sports an Olympic Gold is far more prestigious than a WTF trophy. Outside of tennis, who has even heard of the WTF's.

The WTF's is the only tennis tournament where a player can lose a match, but still win the tournament. It certainly doesn't merit 1500 ranking points. I assume it is supposed to be representative of the World Tour and yet it doesn't represent it in any way.

In the world of tennis WTF is far more prestigious than the OG.

Who have heard of Massu or Rosset?

WTF rewards 1500 ranking points only when the winner goes undefeated.

The top 8 players represent the sport better than anyone else.

 

[KINGROGER]

I'd say OG is on par with masters, maybe slightly above, but masters are utterly irrelevant compared to slams and WTF in terms of historical standing. In general, OG falls into Masters, in that they can be used to determine playing level or ranking (not anymore) but comparing olympics or masters counts to determine greatness is irrelevant.

Winning an undefeated WTF is almost as impressive as winning a slam, and if the slam draw is a joke and the WTF is good, then it's more impressive.

Good points. The BO5 for me elevates Olympics to Masters level. What brings it down is the randomness of it (every 4 years) and the lack of ATP points awarded. Feels like an Exho that's nice to have but not a proper tennis tournament.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Good points. The BO5 for me elevates Olympics to Masters level. What brings it down is the randomness of it (every 4 years) and the lack of ATP points awarded. Feels like an Exho that's nice to have but not a proper tennis tournament.

Nadal got lucky to get to play the Olympics in his absolute peak of the peak form which only confirms what you say here.

 

[KINGROGER]

Nadal got lucky to get to play the Olympics in his absolute peak of the peak form which only confirms what you say here.

Fed should've won 04, but it says something too that back then it clearly wasn't important. He saved his best form for Canada and USO.

08 he sucked all year round apart from Wimbledon/USO. Losing to former pigeons everywhere, including Blake at Olympics.

12 he was clearly gassed after marathon SF. Wimbledon took priority.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Standards change. The Olympics has left the wtf in the dust in recent times.

Now that the wtf is entirely a bo3 format, entry into the wtf should be based exclusively on best of 3 results(or best of 3 indoor results) throughout the year. It makes little sense for the entry to be based largely on outdoor slam results, and then not even have a best of 5 final - That is like having a top 8 100m sprinting championship at the end of the year with entry based largely on the best 200 or 400m results of runners throughout the year.

Can you specify what "in recent times" means according to you?

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Fed should've won 04, but it says something too that back then it clearly wasn't important. He saved his best form for Canada and USO.

08 he sucked all year round apart from Wimbledon/USO. Losing to former pigeons everywhere, including Blake at Olympics.

12 he was clearly gassed after marathon SF. Wimbledon took priority.

The truth, that is why I am asking the other poster about his definition of "in recent times"

 

[TennisSprout]

Well, Olympic tennis Gold winners includes Massu who never even reached a Grand Slam QF. When we talk about prestige of a tournament, we have to consider its history and its past champions. Olympic Gold will always be special, as it carries some patriotic sentiment for the players, but in no way it will be as important as WTF Champions in tennis world.

 

[Tommy Haas]

For someone like Federer and Nadal having an Olympic gold is important on their resume because they transcend tennis. For lesser players who've won gold like Massu or Rosset, it's not so much because no known ones who the hell they are. Whether it means more than a WTF, that depends and has to be taken in context. Fed has plenty of WTF titles and I think would trade a few for an Olympic gold in singles. Nadal doesn't have any WTF, but I highly doubt would trade it and since he still has a couple good years left, it's too soon to pose that question. Whereas Federer's 2020 chances are pretty much nill with him being 39 by then and all the other top players striving for it and national glory.

 

[Slightly D1]

So now we are judging the tournaments based on the emotions involved?

Are you a slow person? It isn't something to be objectively judged on but it is clearly a lot more important to the players themselves.

 

[SinjinCooper]

They share an equal level of importance.

That level is zero.

 

[timnz]

As a tennis achievement there is no comparison - to win the wtf you have to beat 4 or 5 top 8 players. Massau 2004 Olympics, Nadal 2008 Olympics, murray 2016 olympics for example only each beat 1 top 8 player to win the Olympic title

 

[timnz]

It tells about what the players think about this tournaments. I can't imagine Djokovic crying about a loss at the WTF. But he did cry after losing in Olympics in both 2008 and 2016.

Let's find out from Djokovic directly what he thinks about the wtf (masters cup):-

Q. Many great champions got the Masters title, Sampras, Agassi, Federer. What does this Masters title mean to you?
NOVAK DJOKOVIC: Well, it means a lot. As I said on the court, I would put it in the same league as a Grand Slam because the best eight players in the world are participating here.
Certainly it says a lot about the quality, about the players who are playing here. It attracts attention from the tennis lovers and media worldwide. Everybody has a lot of motivation to end up the season in the best possible way.

http://www.tennis-x.com/story/2008-11-17/h.php

 

[Sport]

WTF superior.

Olympics is every 4 years so pot luck which year it falls on. 0 ranking points last year and only 750 in 2012 so it's closer to a 500 than a slam. Even Fed who could've played it injured decided against it, and a whole bunch of others dropped out. Fed prioritised Wimbledon both 2012, 2016 and USO in 2004.

Yes, because Federer hasn't won it, it is an achievement based on luck. Fanatic logic. Brazil, Italy, Germany or Spain have won Football World Cups because of "luck", just because it's played every four years... nonsense.

It is played every 4 years so it is more difficult to achieve than the WTF.

And the fact that it gives 0 ATP points only indicates that it is an event independent from the ATP. ATP rankings to the tournaments are not everything. Are you suggesting an ATP 250 is more relevant than the OG in singles because the OG gives no ATP points?

 

[KINGROGER]

Yes, because Federer hasn't won it, it is an achievement based on luck. Fanatic logic. Brazil, Italy, Germany or Spain have won Football World Cups because of "luck", just because it's played every four years... nonsense.

It is played every 4 years so it is more difficult to achieve than the WTF.

And the fact that it gives 0 ATP points only indicates that it is an event independent from the ATP. ATP rankings to the tournaments are not everything. Are you suggesting an ATP 250 is more relevant than the OG in singles because the OG gives no ATP points?

Football World Cup isn't comparable as teams change.

WTF >>>> OSG.

 

[Sport]

Football World Cup isn't comparable as teams change.

WTF >>>> OSG.

As I read from another user: "Olympic Singles Gold is the most important tournament for legacy outside of slams (they call 4 slams + Olympic Gold the Golden Slam. No such label for 4 slams and WTF, the end of year round robin exhibition tournament)."

 

[KINGROGER]

As I read from another user: "Olympic Singles Gold is the most important tournament for legacy outside of slams (they call 4 slams + Olympic Gold the Golden Slam. No such label for 4 slams and WTF, the end of year round robin exhibition tournament)."

Golden slam is a meaningless title.

WTF is superior to Olympics. You beat the best of the best.

Fed's YEC titles are worth more than Nadal's 08 gold.

 

[Jaitock1991]

Standards change. The Olympics has left the wtf in the dust in recent times.

Now that the wtf is entirely a bo3 format, entry into the wtf should be based exclusively on best of 3 results(or best of 3 indoor results) throughout the year. It makes little sense for the entry to be based largely on outdoor slam results, and then not even have a best of 5 final - That is like having a top 8 100m sprinting championship at the end of the year with entry based largely on the best 200 or 400m results of runners throughout the year.

I hope you're purposely exaggerating to make your point, if so I get it. But if not that's a poor comparison. Surfaces(especially in today's homogenized fairyland) and conditions are mostly overrated variables created by fanboys to justify the losses of their heroes, and tennis will always be tennis. 100m sprint and 400m dash are different sports.

 

[sbengte]

A player can participate 15 or 16 times in the WTF during his career. But it is only possible to participate in the Olympic Games like 3 or 4 times in a career.

For example, Federer has participated 14 times (15 this season) in the WTF. He will end up his career with no less than 16 editions. Meanwhile, he "only" has participated 4 times in the Olympic Games.

Because of the limited number of editions, I still think the OG in singles is more difficult to achieve.

Are you saying that not winning the WTF after 15 opportunities or so is a bigger blot on your resume than not winning at the Olympics where you only have about 2-3 opportunities in your prime ?

 

[Dilexson]

OG = 4 slem >>>WTF.
/thread.

 

[Mainad]

Are you saying that not winning the WTF after 15 opportunities or so is a bigger blot on your resume than not winning at the Olympics where you only have about 2-3 opportunities in your prime ?

Sounds as if Sport is saying that, while not in any way diminishing the importance of the WTF, winning an Olympic title is maybe a bit more special because the opportunity to do so is much rarer than the opportunity to win a WTF title.