Originally Posted by Goosehead
I don't see its lucky to win a gold medal..he had to win 6 matches in 9 days..its no luckier than any other tourney.
and so what if marc rosset won a gold as well, petr korda, and andreas gomez won majors ??...if you don't agree that's fine, but the Olympics are becoming as important as majors to top players and that trend will continue.
Completely irrelevant. This has nothing to do with the prestige of it as a tennis event. A gold medal means you represented your country and won the highest honor for them. Doesn't matter if it's tennis or any other sport. Unlike a lot of sports, tennis has a ton of big name tournaments. Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon, US Open, the WTF, the masters 1000s, etc. This isn't true for a lot of sports. Getting the gold medal is part of the "Grand Slam" for table tennis because they only have two other large tournaments, the world championships (which occur every two years), and the world cup (held once a year), so they had no other major tournaments until 1988 when table tennis was added to the olympic sports, and only four people have won all three.
I mean if OG means that much, are we willing to say Nadal as surpassed Sampras? I mean he has OG and FO so he has the career slam. Two "major" things Sampras doesn't have. Is anyone willing to make this argument yet?