View Single Post
Old 11-11-2012, 03:43 AM   #53
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,175

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands View Post

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.
It's not about the importance of the Olympics themselves - it's how tennis views them. And they're considered by many players to be as valuable as a Grand Slam these days. That's what the players themselves say, and that's what matters.

Career Golden Slam is some journalist invention. As is Serena Slam and whatnot.
What it represents isn't some journalist invention. Steffi Graf's 1988 season is the standard in women's tennis for a reason.

The truth is, that before 2008 a lot of the tennis Pros just didn't care about the Olympics.
Yeah, and before 2004, a lot of tennis pros didn't care about the Australian Open.

They care now. A lot. And the Olympics aren't going anywhere. With each passing Olympics games, tennis will have a larger pool of winners and a richer Olympic history.

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.
Then the media claims that said player is a better player than he was when he was younger, the competition just got stronger, and they use the slam win/wins to argue their case.

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.
I think Federer would rather have 18 and Olympic gold in singles than 19 and only the medals he has. That's my belief, and I'm sticking to it.
Federer20042006 is offline   Reply With Quote