Originally Posted by Federer20042006
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.
What it represents isn't some journalist invention. Steffi Graf's 1988 season is the standard in women's tennis for a reason.
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.
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.
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.
I won't respond point for point, but the bolded part better be a joke. Unless you're saying people didn't start caring about the Australian until Federer won it the first time and trying to relate it to Nadal winning the OG. The AO is a legit GS now, and has been since the mid to late 80's. Remember the Olympics is only once every 4 years. Completely different from a slam even though both the AO and the Olympics have only been "legitimate" for about 25 years.
The Olympics will grow, you are correct about that, but it should never be put on the same level as the slams regardless what the players tell you IMO. I think its importance to the players lies more in the fact that they're playing for their country than anything else. Of course it is also nice as an individual accomplishment, but I'm inclined to agree Tennis_Hands in that the whole "Career Golden Slam" thing is a bit of a media driven term. The reason Steffi's 1988 season is the standard in womens tennis is not because she won OG (that was its first year since 1924 that it was a medal sport if I'm not mistaken), it's mostly because she won the CYGS. I think Olympic medals are more important in sports that don't get a lot of coverage and don't have a regular tour so to speak, like swimming or track and field, among numerous other things.
I think for example that if option 2 was simply 18 majors (may or may not be the FO and may or may not beat Nadal in Paris to get it) and an OG in singles, versus 19 majors, Federer would take the 19 majors option especially if you consider he would have a silver from this year, but because option 2 is pretty stacked in comparison to option 1 it's tough to pick against it.