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.
Going by that logic, he doesn't need any more slam titles, because he's already highly decorated in that respect. He's right up at the top when it comes to slam winners.
Olympic doubles is even more of a poor cousin to the singles title than the equivalent in slams. A silver medal is lauded more than a runners-up plate, but it's still second place and Roger wanted gold.
Slams are impressive, but they are not immune from the law of diminishing returns. Achieving the career grand slam is always going to be more impressive than winning 3 x AO and 2 x US Open. Both are great, but there is extra special about winning each trophy at least once.
A car is "better" than a bike, but if a man already has 10 cars, he doesn't much need an 11th. On the other hand, he might find a bike handy.