Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands
No, it is not.
A Title from a Major is times more valuable than an OG medal. Besides, Federer is highly decorated Olympian as it is, so.
This leaves us with the other accomplishments:
DC win. Although a nice thing to have in your resume it still is a team effort. It is not a personal achievement.
Another YE#1. Nice, but Federer will be sharing this record.
H2H with Nadal. While having a positive H2H with your main rival is nice, it is nowhere as significant as all the other things, that constitute a successfull singles career. What counts are the titles and the overall dominance.
So, basically one, who is choosing option numer one is trading an OG and a shared record (the things that would really matter in someone's singles career) against
1 Major Title and a record number of titles at two of the four Majors (Wimbledon 8, US Open 6 or AO 5) in the Open era.
I think, that that is a pretty good tradeoff.
And, even if Federer ticks all the boxes from option 2, there will still be morons, to claim more and more things, that he hasn't done, in an effort to bring him down.
You're kidding yourself if you think a gold in singles at the Olympics isn't huge. You seem to be going off ATP point value...just ask the players what its value is. Many of them consider it as important as winning a slam.
I'll bet most of them would even take it over the Australian Open, in fact.
Federer's gold in doubles doesn't carry anywhere near the same weight, and a silver medal in singles for someone of his caliber isn't a particularly big accomplishment.
Winning 19 slams instead of 18...meh. Even if he got the most in the open era of two different slams, it wouldn't be nearly as salient a fact about him as saying that he has the "Career Golden Slam."