View Single Post
Old 11-10-2012, 09:50 PM   #51
Hall Of Fame
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Inside the service box - the business end
Posts: 3,594

Originally Posted by Federer20042006 View Post
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.
An OG medal have no place in the same sentence as a title from a Major.

Originally Posted by Federer20042006 View Post
I'll bet most of them would even take it over the Australian Open, in fact.
You are dead wrong about that one. I am sure, although I am not a Pro tennis player.

Originally Posted by Federer20042006 View Post
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.
You clearly do not understand the value of an OG medal.

The concept of the Olympic games is such, that EVERY gold medal is a sign of sporting excellence. It puts the country of the player on the map for the world to see. This is not in anyway influenced by the number of people, who get the job done. Phelps has won a lot of his OG medals as a result from a team effort, where he wasn't particularly strong. This doesn't mean, that they are less valuable.

Originally Posted by Federer20042006 View Post
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."
Career Golden Slam is some journalist invention. As is Serena Slam and whatnot.

The truth is, that before 2008 a lot of the tennis Pros just didn't care about the Olympics.

About the continuing debate about 18 vs. 19.

The people, who say it is not a bigger deal than an OG or a positive H2H are kidding themselves.

How many people have such numbers in the Open era?

It is enough to think about what it takes to win even one Major, to be able to appreciate the winning of another later in someone's career. Look at what happened, when Federer won his 7th Wimbledon, beating two of the top 4 players (the defending champion amongst them). Winning a Major in the later stages of someone's career maybe considered more difficult than the same thing happening at someone's peak.

Actually. People, who say, that 18 vs 19 is not a big deal are comitting the same sin, that they accuse the others of comitting - they are busy with excessive counting. Clearly, for them 18 or 19 is ammere number. Majors are Majors, and no amount of H2H or Olympic BS will change that fact. The bigger the boy the better his Major title collection.
Crisstti:It's not cheating (arguable at best), it's merely breaking the rules./ Vero:Armstrong lacks the arrogance.

Last edited by Tennis_Hands; 11-10-2012 at 09:53 PM.
Tennis_Hands is offline   Reply With Quote