World Tour Finals or the Tennis Singles Olympic Gold

Tennis_Hands · Jul 24, 2013

jackson vile said:
The surface that the WTF is held on is trash, slow and low bouncing? More of the homoginization, poor choices made by the ATP.

We don't need another slow hard court, period. Atmosphere does not make a tournament, the court and the players do. Now as far as entertainment value is concerned you could be correct, but we are not talking about having a good time and/or entertainment.

It is much of the same way that Wimbildon lost the majority of it's prestige after they started to change it with large heavy balls and different court set-ups starting in 2000.

Finally, to be honest your or my opinion mean zero, what matters is what the pros are saying, doing, and acting towards the tournaments. By actions alone we see that the Olympics is far more cherished, unique, special, different than the WTF.

The surface of the WTF is clearly with different characteristics than most (if not all) other medium surface (it is not slow by any means), that is used on Tour.

I don't know how you came up to the conclusion that it is a trash, but it provides for some very entertaining matches and by no means is it boring or has anything to do with the most common problem nowadays - slow and high bouncing surfaces, that lead to ultra long ralies and a lot less shotmaking.

About the atmosphere: read carefully the statements of the players, that have participated in the OG and you will see, that a lot of the value, that they attribute to the OG, comes exactly from the atmosphere, so, for them it clearly does mean something.

I don't know either how you come to the conclusion, that the OG are far more cherished from the pros than the WTF.

Out of the top pros, everybody participates at the WTF, if they are not injured, and even if they have some problems they tend to participate despite of the fact, that the tournament is being held at the end of the season (which makes that commitment a lot harder than the participation in the OG).

zagor · Jul 24, 2013

Tennis_Hands said:
I don't know how you came up to the conclusion that it is a trash...

Oh FFS, Nadal struggles on it (relative to his performances on other surface), it's one of Fed's best and the one on which he thoroughly dominated Nadal, it ain't rocket science.

You're engaging in a debate with a poster that is solely guided by the fact that Nadal hasn't won WTF (yet) while he did SOG and vice versa for Fed, if the situations were reversed so would his positions on the importance/prestige/whatever of these two events.

The Dark Knight · Jul 24, 2013

djokovic2008 said:
It begs the question, fed is the only one playing decent tennis ( oh and ferrer too) the rest have been awful I won't even mention how bad fish was yesterday. This tournament obviously comes NO WAY near a slam I just don't see the same commitment from players and this happens every year. The final sets have seen nadal 6-0 fish 6-1 and djoker 6-1 in a best of THREE match? That would not happen at grand slam level. The tournament looks glamourous but lacks real substance.

Agreed

...

MichaelNadal · Jul 24, 2013

I think Davydenko would rather have an Olympic gold than his WTF. Just sayin'.

Bobby Jr · Jul 24, 2013

jackson vile said:
Finally, to be honest your or my opinion mean zero, what matters is what the pros are saying, doing, and acting towards the tournaments. By actions alone we see that the Olympics is far more cherished, unique, special, different than the WTF.

What actions?

Bender · Jul 24, 2013

TMF said:
The WTF conditions is a breath of fresh air. There's too many slow, high bounce court throughout the year and fans are craving for fast condition. It's not to say that indoor is fast as in the 90s, but it's fast relative to the SLOW court we have to day. WTF is more exciting because of the aggressive tennis, players can applies all their skills, something that isn't available or at least lacking on slow courts.

WTF is not fast in any way at all. Low-bouncing perhaps, but not fast.

The Dark Knight · Jul 24, 2013

djokovic2008 said:
Murray pulled out after one match when did he last pull out of a slam, guys are chucking in the towel after losing the 1st set and losing 6-1 or worse in INDOOR conditions are you kidding me.

Or the Olympics ?

The Dark Knight · Jul 24, 2013

mistik said:
WTF is no way more important than Masters we are talking about an event you can even win by losing 2 matches.This is nothing more than a official exo event to create some publicity after Us Open.Gs and Masters you have no luxuary of losing a match.The players never take as seriously as it is GS for sure COME ON or even some kind of a Master win that can give you an edge in up coming major.

Round robin is bs.

RF20Lennon · Jul 24, 2013

To simply break this down:
For a Federer Fan-WTF
For a Nadal fan- OG

The Dark Knight · Jul 24, 2013

RF20Lennon said:
To simply break this down:
For a Federer Fan-WTF
For a Nadal fan- OG

And for Federer hinself and every hall of famer and the entire free world = OG

The Dark Knight · Jul 24, 2013

Federer says Olympics tougher than grand slam
(Xinhua)
09:47, July 27, 2012

Swiss tennis player Roger Federer speaks during a press conference at the Main Press Center (MPC) in London, Britain, July 26, 2012. (Xinhua/Chen Jianli)
LONDON, July 26 (Xinhua) -- World No. 1 Roger Federer said here on Thursday that winning the Olympic Games could be even harder than winning a grand slam title.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90779/7889863.html

MichaelNadal · Jul 24, 2013

I think the WTF means more strictly from a tennis standpoint. It's the top 8 guys and is only won by the best of the best. Players themselves seem to think the OG is greater for sentimental value though. There's really no wrong answer to the question. If you ask most players which they're rather win, the answer is going to be the OG because of what it represents. That doesn't necessarily mean it's more important though. I'm not sure why people have such a problem with that.

The Dark Knight · Jul 24, 2013

MichaelNadal said:
I think the WTF means more strictly from a tennis standpoint. It's the top 8 guys and is only won by the best of the best. Players themselves seem to think the OG is greater for sentimental value though. There's really no wrong answer to the question. If you ask most players which they're rather win, the answer is going to be the OG because of what it represents. That doesn't necessarily mean it's more important though. I'm not sure why people have such a problem with that.

Then why is it called the fifth slam?

There are more viewers for the Olympics ....a record last year.

It's automatic induction into the hall of fame.

All talks of greatness always talk about the Olympics and the WTF is not even mentioned.....

Amd last years olympics was really special because it was played at Wimbledon.....it doesn't get any better than that!

How do you compare a tournament played at Wimbledon to an indoor round robin event ?

The Dark Knight · Jul 24, 2013

“When Wimbledon is going on, the country stops, but when the Olympics are going on, tennis is just part of it,” said Paul Annacone, Federer’s co-coach. “So it’s a different level of expectation, a different level of pressure in my opinion.”

Hops · Jul 24, 2013

The Dark Knight said:
Then why is it called the fifth slam?

It isn't.

The Dark Knight said:
It's automatic induction into the hall of fame.

Mecir, Rosset and Massu are in the HOF?

Tennis Fanatic 070 · Jul 24, 2013

The Dark Knight said:
Then why is it called the fifth slam?

There are more viewers for the Olympics ....a record last year.

It's automatic induction into the hall of fame.

All talks of greatness always talk about the Olympics and the WTF is not even mentioned.....

Amd last years olympics was really special because it was played at Wimbledon.....it doesn't get any better than that!

How do you compare a tournament played at Wimbledon to an indoor round robin event ?

1. It isn't the fifth slam, players win medals for their country, therefore it is important for the nation if their player wins the gold. Maybe some people call it the fifth slam, they are wrong.

2. Omg are u for real? In many country's they didn't even broadcast Olympic Tennis, people watch this event to see other sports. Tennis shouldn't even be an Olympic Sport IMO, Sampras didn't even play the Olympics after 1992. They eliminated it for 60 years as an Olympic sport and they probably ban it again some day, like they eliminated baseball as well.

3. Automatic induction to the Hall of Fame? ROFLMAO

4. Winning OG has nothing to do with measuring greatness of a player.

5. Because it was played at Wimbledon last year, it has more importance than the WTF? It has more importance to the players, due to the sentimentality of players to win gold for their country. To the majority of the 'audience' WTF's are more important and exciting to watch because the top 8 of the world plays against each other. Like I said, many country's didn't even broadcast (live) Olympic tennis, people prefer real Olympic sports.
So in answer to the OP's question: the Olympics are more important, valuable etc to the players.
The Olympics aren't a factor to measure overall greatness of a player.

smoledman · Jul 24, 2013

So if Murray only won OG and not the 2 slams everyone would be hailing him now?

Netspirit · Jul 24, 2013

If I was a tennis pro and my destiny was to win just 1 ATP tournament, I would choose the WTF over O.

In other words, I would rather be Nikolay Davydenko than Marc Rosset.

Candide · Jul 24, 2013

Tennis Fanatic 070 said:
So in answer to the OP's question: the Olympics are more important, valuable etc to the players.
The Olympics aren't a factor to measure overall greatness of a player.

That's it in a nutshell. People would take an Olympic medal even in competitive walking or synchronised swimming or any nufty sport as it'd be nice thing to have for posterity and sentimental value. Oh, and hang on, Federer's already got one so that box is ticked. Look on my works ye mighty and despair.

The Dark Knight · Jul 24, 2013

“This guy is to me, I think you can make an argument right here and now, the greatest player that ever lived,” McEnroe was quoted as saying on the Sport360° website.

“If you look at his record against (Andy) Murray, Federer, and (Novak) Djokovic, it’s way better than that.

"He won the Olympics. He’s got Davis Cups, which Roger doesn’t have. I have always said Roger Federer to me was the greatest player that ever lived, certainly the most beautiful player.

Doesn't even hint at WTF....not even a consideration

Tennis_Hands · Jul 24, 2013

Tennis Fanatic 070 said:
1. It isn't the fifth slam, players win medals for their country, therefore it is important for the nation if their player wins the gold. Maybe some people call it the fifth slam, they are wrong.

2. Omg are u for real? In many country's they didn't even broadcast Olympic Tennis, people watch this event to see other sports. Tennis shouldn't even be an Olympic Sport IMO, Sampras didn't even play the Olympics. They eliminated it for 60 years as an Olympic sport and they probably ban it again some day, like they eliminated baseball as well.

3. Automatic induction to the Hall of Fame? ROFLMAO

4. Winning OG has nothing to do with measuring greatness of a player.

5. Because it was played at Wimbledon last year, it has more importance than the WTF? It has more importance to the players, due to the sentimentality of players to win gold for their country. To the majority of the 'audience' WTF's are more important and exciting to watch because the top 8 of the world plays against each other. Like I said, many country's didn't even broadcast (live) Olympic tennis, people prefer real Olympic sports.
So in answer to the OP's question: the Olympics are more important, valuable etc to the players.
The Olympics aren't a factor to measure overall greatness of a player.

BWAHAAHAAA

Is this guy TDK for real?

Fifth Slam? Automatic induction in the HOF?

Quick, someone call Massu and tell him, that he is a legend and a Great of the game.

TDK, budy, stick to making usueless quotes, that you don't even understand.

Oh, and while you are at it.

Why don't you QUOTE those players, who call the OG a fifth Slam?

(expecting TDK to either disappear from the thread, until this post gets replaced by some 10-15 posts or an irrelevant quote with no proof of what he is saying. Do you hear that TDK? Direct quote.)

Crisstti · Jul 24, 2013

zagor said:
You do realize this argument goes two ways? If WTF is so easy to win (you can lose a match and still win, oh my), if Nadal is such an adaptable and amazing player, if he had 2 times more chances to win WTF (at the least) than Fed to win Olympics why has he failed to win it so far?

Well, the surface and conditions are the worst for him, which hasn't been the case in the OG Fed has played in.

I think Rafa has played in 5 WTF and Fed has played in 4 OG.

Eragon · Jul 24, 2013

Crisstti said:
Well, the surface and conditions are the worst for him, which hasn't been the case in the OG Fed has played in.

I think Rafa has played in 5 WTF and Fed has played in 4 OG.

Why does Federer even need a Singles Gold? He has nothing to prove on those surfaces (unlike Nadal on Indoor Hards). 2000, he was way pre-prime, but he was 4th that year at the Olympics. It was played on Rebound Ace, where he has 3 Slams. 2004, he should've won but it was played on DecoTurf, on which Federer won a Slam the same year at US Open. And USO>>>SOG. Same with 2008, which was also on DecoTurf. Why does Federer, who has 5 US Open titles on DecoTurf, need to win a 750-event on DecoTurf? What would it prove if he did? And coming to 2012, need I say anything? 7 Wimbledon Titles, enough said. He didn't need an SOG on any of the surfaces it was played on. It would prove nothing. Nadal, on the other hand, needs a WTF title to prove he is competent on Indoor Hards. He has everything to prove, unlike Federer.

Tennis_Hands · Jul 24, 2013

Crisstti said:
Well, the surface and conditions are the worst for him, which hasn't been the case in the OG Fed has played in.

I think Rafa has played in 5 WTF and Fed has played in 4 OG.

But his point still stands.

No matter what the differences, when someone says, that the WTF is easier to win and he is a Nadal fan, he should be aware, that it is Nadal's worst "surface" and either:

A: Shouldn't make this statement
B: If he does it, he has to live with the comparison, since he cannot have it both ways.

Your last sentence is facepalmworthy.

You do realize that the first time Federer participated in the OG he was 19, yes?

Out of the other 3 participations he medalled 2 times.

Couldn't say that for Ralph, who out of his 5 WTFs has a measly single final appearance (basically has to sit it out, until Fed is a non factor, to have a chance there).

Crisstti · Jul 24, 2013

Eragon said:
Why does Federer even need a Singles Gold? He has nothing to prove on those surfaces (unlike Nadal on Indoor Hards). 2000, he was way pre-prime, but he was 4th that year at the Olympics. It was played on Rebound Ace, where he has 3 Slams. 2004, he should've won but it was played on DecoTurf, on which Federer won a Slam the same year at US Open. And USO>>>SOG. Same with 2008, which was also on DecoTurf. Why does Federer, who has 5 US Open titles on DecoTurf, need to win a 750-event on DecoTurf? What would it prove if he did? And coming to 2012, need I say anything? 7 Wimbledon Titles, enough said. He didn't need an SOG on any of the surfaces it was played on. It would prove nothing. Nadal, on the other hand, needs a WTF title to prove he is competent on Indoor Hards. He has everything to prove, unlike Federer.

Well, I wasn't talking about whether either player NEEDS either tournament. What you say about it is true, but then many people seem to hold against Borg that he couldn't win the USO even though he played it on clay. And the indoors hc category seems a bit too specific to me for it to mean much not to have "proven" yourself in it... he has proven himself on hc.
I am too tired to discuss this at more length right now...

I was mainly talking about why Rafa hasn't won a WTF, and pointing out he hasn't had twice as many chances towin it as Fed has had in OGs.

Crisstti · Jul 24, 2013

Tennis_Hands said:
But his point still stands.

No matter what the differences, when someone says, that the WTF is easier to win and he is a Nadal fan, he should be aware, that it is Nadal's worst "surface" and either:

A: Shouldn't make this statement
B: If he does it, he has to live with the comparison, since he cannot have it both ways.

Your last sentence is facepalmworthy.

You do realize that the first time Federer participated in the OG he was 19, yes?

Out of the other 3 participations he medalled 2 times.

Couldn't say that for Ralph, who out of his 5 WTFs has a measly single final appearance (basically has to sit it out, until Fed is a non factor, to have a chance there).

What is facepalmworthy is that you don't realize that I was simply pointing out Rafa hasn't had twice as many chances to win the WTF.

And "medalling" if it's not the gold, it means you lost in the semis.

Tennis_Hands · Jul 24, 2013

Crisstti said:
Well, I wasn't talking about whether either player NEEDS either tournament. What you say about it is true, but then many people seem to hold against Borg that he couldn't win the USO even though he played it on clay. And the indoors hc category seems a bit too specific to me for it to mean much not to have "proven" yourself in it... he has proven himself on hc

So, in the same sentence you say, that basically indoor HC is a separate surface and that he has proven himself on HC. See the contradiction?

Whether you consider it important has no relevance whatsoever (at least not for the knowledgeable people).

Unlike Federer, who has proven himself on EVERY surface, the OG were held on during his time as a participant in them, Nadal hasn't and basically had something to prove. "Had" because we know, that he couldn't do it even when Federer was in a terrible slump and Nadal was holding 3 of the four Majors.

Crisstti said:
I was mainly talking about why Rafa hasn't won a WTF, and pointing out he hasn't had twice as many chances towin it as Fed has had in OGs.

Why would Nadal need twice as many chances to win a tournament, which, in your and the other members of the ************* opinion is easier to win?

Not to mention the problem, that I pointed out with your "counting" in my other post.

Crisstti said:
What is facepalmworthy is that you don't realize that I was simply pointing out Rafa hasn't had twice as many chances to win the WTF.

And "medalling" if it's not the gold, it means you lost in the semis.

BWAHAHAHA

Really?

Medalling means, that you lost in the semis?

And again, where did you get that from, that Nadal have to have twice as many chances to win the WTF? Is that some special rule that applies only to Nadal? I thought, that WTF is easier to win and such other crap.

Eragon · Jul 24, 2013

Crisstti said:
Well, I wasn't talking about whether either player NEEDS either tournament. What you say about it is true, but then many people seem to hold against Borg that he couldn't win the USO even though he played it on clay. And the indoors hc category seems a bit too specific to me for it to mean much not to have "proven" yourself in it... he has proven himself on hc.
I am too tired to discuss this at more length right now...

I was mainly talking about why Rafa hasn't won a WTF, and pointing out he hasn't had twice as many chances towin it as Fed has had in OGs.

Borg doesn't have a Hardcourt Slam. That's what's held against him. I see your point about Nadal not having 4 times the chances Federer has had but 5 tries is plenty in a tournament that has 8 participants. But he's not done yet, we'll see how it goes.

Tennis_Hands · Jul 24, 2013

Eragon said:
Borg doesn't have a Hardcourt Slam. That's what's held against him. I see your point about Nadal not having 4 times the chances Federer has had but 5 tries is plenty in a tournament that has 8 participants. But he's not done yet, we'll see how it goes.

I don't.

Why would he need 4 times (or even two times) as many chances to win it at least once?

Eragon · Jul 24, 2013

Tennis_Hands said:
I don't.

Why would he need 4 times (or even two times) as many chances to win it at least once?

I'm not making excuses for him. He needs a WTF Title to be considered a complete, all-surface, all-conditions player. That's the long and short of it.

Tennis_Hands · Jul 24, 2013

Eragon said:
I'm not making excuses for him. He needs a WTF Title to be considered a complete, all-surface, all-conditions player. That's the long and short of it.

I don't take what you are saying as an excuse.

Just curiuos if I am missing something and what that might be.

That is what a reasonable man does. Looks at the problem form as many points of view as possible.

So, my question still stands.

Eragon · Jul 24, 2013

Tennis_Hands said:
I don't take what you are saying as an excuse.

Just curiuos if I am missing something and what that might be.

That is what a reasonable man does. Looks at the problem form as many points of view as possible.

So, my question still stands.

I see your point about Nadal not having 4 times the chances Federer has had but 5 tries is plenty in a tournament that has 8 participants

I didn't say he needed any more chances. I was only saying Nadal needs a WTF Title before he retires.

Tennis_Hands · Jul 24, 2013

Eragon said:
I didn't say he needed any more chances. I was only saying Nadal needs a WTF Title before he retires.

You wrote, that you see her point at Federer not having twice as many chances to win it.

I simply asked what you think her point is.

I didn't miss the second part of the sentence.

If it was said out of courtesy I would understand that. If it was really meant I am curious what you think her point is about Nadal having twice as many chances.

Eragon · Jul 24, 2013

Tennis_Hands said:
You wrote, that you see her point at Federer not having twice as many chances to win it.

I simply asked what you think her point is.

I didn't miss the second part of the sentence.

If it was said out of courtesy I would understand that. If it was really meant I am curious what you think her point is about Nadal having twice as many chances.

People normally say, "There are 4 WTF tournaments for every Olympics, so Nadal has 4 times as many shots to win it." I was just ackowledging that Nadal didn't have 4 times as many shots as Federer has had at the Olympic Singles Gold.

Tennis_Hands · Jul 24, 2013

Eragon said:
People normally say, "There are 4 WTF tournaments for every Olympics, so Nadal has 4 times as many shots to win it." I was just ackowledging that Nadal didn't have 4 times as many shots as Federer has had at the Olympic Singles Gold.

But why use a false argument to create another false argument?

Nadal didn't have 4 times as many chances because

A: he entered his prime later than Federer entered his (2005 vs. 2003), so, that are two lost years

B: He missed a couple of WTF because of injuries (which, in fact, is due to his playing style, if we are to believe what the nature of the injuries was)

Both those points have nothing to do with him not winning in his other attempts, which are in fact, more, that Federer had at the OG and almost twice as many, if we consider Federer's first participation at the OG as a formality (since it was waaaay before he was a factor in the game), chances to win it. If anything, the fact, that the WTF is held more regularly, should be held AGAINST Nadal's achievements, since it is less susceptible to accidental peaks in form (a glaring example of that is the form Nadal was in at the OG 2008 (one of the two of his best years on Tour))

Eragon · Jul 24, 2013

Tennis_Hands said:
But why use a false argument to create another false argument?

Nadal didn't have 4 times as many chances because

A: he entered his prime later than Federer entered his (2005 vs. 2003), so, that are two lost years

B: He missed a couple of WTF because of injuries (which, in fact, is due to his playing style, if we are to believe what the nature of the injuries was)

Both those points have nothing to do with him not winning in his other attempts, which are in fact, more, that Federer had at the OG and almost twice as many, if we consider Federer's first participation at the OG as a formality (since it was waaaay before he was a factor in the game), chances to win it. If anything, the fact, that the WTF is held more regularly, should be held AGAINST Nadal's achievements, since it is less susceptible to accidental peaks in form (a glaring example of that is the form Nadal was in at the OG 2008 (one of the two of his best years on Tour))

I never said otherwise. My point is that, just like Federer at Roland Garros, all Nadal needs is one title at the WTF. It doesn't matter if he plays there once or twenty times.

ricki · Jul 24, 2013

olympic champion = real champion.

Americans cant understand this. We Europeans pay 1000x more attention to Olympic games, world and euro championships in any sport than any "league matches". And WTF is just an league match for us...

Eragon · Jul 24, 2013

ricki said:
olympic champion = real champion.

Americans cant understand this. We Europeans pay 1000x more attention to Olympic games, world and euro championships in any sport than any "league matches". And WTF is just an league match for us...

WTF is not a "match". It's a tournament. Back to school, now, kid.

ricki · Jul 24, 2013

Eragon said:
WTF is not a "match". It's a tournament. Back to school, now, kid.

no one cares here. At olympics you represent your country and ppl are proud for having you. WTF is just commercial joke - few matches for big money - meh...

Tennis_Hands · Jul 25, 2013

Eragon said:
I never said otherwise. My point is that, just like Federer at Roland Garros, all Nadal needs is one title at the WTF. It doesn't matter if he plays there once or twenty times.

Well, I was talking about a specific words in your statement and didn't even go as to say, what Nadal needs to do.

Besides, Federer and RG have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, which is a comparison between the WTF and the OG (you should know as you are the OP).

The argument about the number of participations, that a player could have is limited in the case of the OG and less limited in the case of the WTF.

If going strictly by the number of attempts, that both Federer and Nadal had, Nadal's chances to win WTF should have been considered over (in this direct comparison with Federer at the OG as Federer will have at best one more chance, thus equalling the 5 attempts that Nadal already had at the WTF). And this is not even considering, that in the case with the WTF a lot of attempts come while the player is at his peak/best prime (about four) while at the OG a player could have at best two attempts with the same conditions, thus making it susceptible to peaks of form.

Could you imagine the OG being held, for example in 2005 and 2009. Nadal probably wouldn't have been able to even reach the finals, let alone win them. Then he would have been forced to wait until 2013 and we know how that would have ended as well. Or the 2003-2007-2011 trio?

zagor · Jul 25, 2013

Crisstti said:
Well, the surface and conditions are the worst for him, which hasn't been the case in the OG Fed has played in.

Well you do realize I was answering to a known troll? Neither Olympics nor WTF are easy to win for a variety of reasons, I was merely using his argument against him.

No player, no matter how great has to date won every single big tourney.

Crisstti said:
I think Rafa has played in 5 WTF and Fed has played in 4 OG.

Yeah but Fed was barely a top 30 player in 2000 so I can hardly count that as a legit opportunity while every WTF Nadal participated in he had te a top player (by default).

That said, I forgot Nadal missed 2008 WTF so my mistake.

Eragon · Jul 25, 2013

Tennis_Hands said:
Well, I was talking about a specific words in your statement and didn't even go as to say, what Nadal needs to do.

Besides, Federer and RG have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, which is a comparison between the WTF and the OG (you should know as you are the OP).

The argument about the number of participations, that a player could have is limited in the case of the OG and less limited in the case of the WTF.

If going strictly by the number of attempts, that both Federer and Nadal had, Nadal's chances to win WTF should have been considered over (in this direct comparison with Federer at the OG as Federer will have at best one more chance, thus equalling the 5 attempts that Nadal already had at the WTF). And this is not even considering, that in the case with the WTF a lot of attempts come while the player is at his peak/best prime (about four) while at the OG a player could have at best two attempts with the same conditions, thus making it susceptible to peaks of form.

Could you imagine the OG being held, for example in 2005 and 2009. Nadal probably wouldn't have been able to even reach the finals, let alone win them. Then he would have been forced to wait until 2013 and we know how that would have ended as well. Or the 2003-2007-2011 trio?

You're reading too much into my post. I don't even know what to say anymore. I just meant Nadal has to win the WTF atleast once, like Federer at RG. I'm not comparing the achievements themselves.

Tennis_Hands · Jul 25, 2013

ricki said:
olympic champion = real champion.

Americans cant understand this. We Europeans pay 1000x more attention to Olympic games, world and euro championships in any sport than any "league matches". And WTF is just an league match for us...

I am an european and I beg to differ.

First, the knowledgeable part of the europeans know, that the OG are not the pinnacle of some sports, that are part of the OG. Football, tennis and road cycling are such sports.

Second, Americans are, and have been especially during the Cold War, conditioned to appreciate the OG as some kind of special honour. It was part of elevating their political ideology via their sporting achievements. Not to mention that they have a very strong sense of competitiveness. To say that they cannot appreciate the OG is like saying that a frenchman cannot appreciate a beautiful woman.

Tennis_Hands · Jul 25, 2013

Eragon said:
You're reading too much into my post. I don't even know what to say anymore. I just meant Nadal has to win the WTF atleast once, like Federer at RG. I'm not comparing the achievements themselves.

I think that I got my answer, so no biggie.

Yes, Nadal winning WTF would be good for his resume, no doubt about it.

However, as I don't want to abandon the topic (and a parallel between Federer winning RG and Nadal winning WTF would be that), I wouldn't go into details about it.

Eragon · Jul 25, 2013

Tennis_Hands said:
I think that I got my answer, so no biggie.

Yes, Nadal winning WTF would be good for his resume, no doubt about it.

However, as I don't want to abandon the topic (and a parallel between Federer winning RG and Nadal winning WTF would be that), I wouldn't go into details about it.

There's no question that players like Federer or Nadal, who have been in the top 8 for years, have a more quality opportunity to play and win the WTF than the Olympics. That Nadal hasn't won the WTF is about twice as glaring as that Federer hasn't won the Olympic Singles. Not to mention, how much more significance it would hold to Nadal, compared to the relative insignificance of Federer having the Singles Gold. If that's what you're getting at, I completely agree with you. But I still feel 1 WTF title for Nadal will go a long way towards bolstering his resume, considering Indoor Hards are his worst conditions; and that 1 is enough precisely because it's his worst surface, just like Clay is for Federer. Then again, he only has 1 Slam apiece at the US Open and the Australian Open, so his resume is very skewed toward Clay right now.

*Sparkle* · Jul 25, 2013

It's the same arguments by the same people each time this thread resurfaces.

Isn't it time to accept that different people have different views. IMO, the Olympics is more prestigious, but obviously there are a lot of tennis fans who favour WTF. Inevitably, some people are influenced by the fact their favourite has one and not the other.

To me, it seems as if the current players are much more eager to win a gold than WTF, although any quotes will have to be taken with a pinch of salt, as players are obliged to promote the ATP's own WTFs, while they will be influenced by family/friends/PR people to admire achievements for their country at the Olympics.

Points are a red herring. We all know why the Olympics get less points than WTFs and even Masters, and it has nothing to do with the prestige of the event, or quality of the field. There are 250s like Halle and Queens with far more prestige than 500s like Hamburg, and anyone who claimed otherwise would be jumped on people who understand the tennis schedule.

Both events are valuable and prestigious, and it's inevitable that regardless of favourite players, some fans will favour one over the other, just as fans don't all like the same slams or Masters events. However, if you are going to argue prestige, you need to think about what would make your granny most proud.

Grandmothers around the world can dine out for years on their offspring winning a gold medal. Most of their friends would think WTF? (the other meaning) when told about the WTFs.

Eragon · Jul 25, 2013

*Sparkle* said:
However, if you are going to argue prestige, you need to think about what would make your granny most proud.

Grandmothers around the world can dine out for years on their offspring winning a gold medal. Most of their friends would think WTF? (the other meaning) when told about the WTFs.

The same old argument. The TSOG is worth more than the WTF because Grannies, who don't know the first thing about Tennis and its history, think so? Can't you see how silly that argument sounds?

Nathaniel_Near · Jul 25, 2013

Especially over recent years with the YEC being held at the O2 arena, the WTF is starting to reach absolutely epic proportions. The Olympics is on the rise and by about 2020/2024 or so will probably be considered an official once in every 4 years Major and those with a Gold will be retroactively awarded an extra Major title victory.

moonballs · Jul 25, 2013

Eragon said:
The same old argument. The TSOG is worth more than the WTF because Grannies, who don't know the first thing about Tennis and its history, think so? Can't you see how silly that argument sounds?

If they grannies don't know tennis, they are not going to care about a gold is from the singles or the doubles events.

moonballs · Jul 25, 2013

ricki said:
no one cares here. At olympics you represent your country and ppl are proud for having you. WTF is just commercial joke - few matches for big money - meh...

Your country doesn't care you win a gold in singles or doubles. In fact your country thanks you more for winning a gold and a silver than just a gold.

World Tour Finals or the Tennis Singles Olympic Gold

WTF singles or the Singles Olympic Gold

World Tour Finals - Singles

Olympic Tennis Gold - Singles

Banned

Bionic Poster

Legend

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Bionic Poster

Legend

Legend

Rookie

Banned

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Legend

Banned

Legend

Banned

Banned

Legend

Legend

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Hall of Fame

Banned

Hall of Fame

Banned

Bionic Poster

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Professional

Banned

Nathaniel_Near

Guest

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Similar threads